Soviet S-200 SAM (SA-5 GAMMON)

CostasTT said:
NATO designation is SA-5 GAMMON, not GUILD.
Click to expand...


Correct, GUILD was the S-25 (SA-1).
 
Interesting feed horn arrangement on that radar. I assume Azimuth on the left and height finder on the right (looking at the array)?
 
Forest Green said:
Okay, strange crap now being reported. I appreciate this is speculation at this point, but damn interesting. Silhouette profile certainly matches an S-200 missile.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1678096856428032000
View: https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1678096856428032000?s=20
Click to expand...
Why not use a totally obsolete and virtually useless SAM as a nuisance weapon with the intention of forcing the Russians to expend precisious missiles used by the S-300V (possibly in anticipation of the arrival of ATACMS or Sapsan) especially after having experienced a year of continuous bombardment by Russian S-300s? I do not find this development strange in any way.
 
SA-5 isn’t a mobile system, so it probably has limited usefulness. Plus the individual rockets must be almost as old as I am. Firing them as inaccurate surface to surface weapons, ideally as a distraction to some more accurate strike, seems perfectly worthwhile if any of thier left over rockets were serviceable (withdrawn from service decades ago).
 
Given its range and big warhead, the S-200 makes for a decent SSM, too. Virtually the same explosive payload as an ATACMS, but substantially longer reach (300km - which is comparable to the longest-ranged ATACMS versions - as a SAM equates to a lot more on a ballistic trajectory). Basically trades accuracy for expediency.
 
Wasn't an SA-5 used to strike the Kirch strait bridge last year?
 
Trident said:
Given its range and big warhead, the S-200 makes for a decent SSM, too. Virtually the same explosive payload as an ATACMS, but substantially longer reach (300km - which is comparable to the longest-ranged ATACMS versions - as a SAM equates to a lot more on a ballistic trajectory). Basically trades accuracy for expediency.
Click to expand...
Questions remain as to how well guided it is. One missile actually got through Russian defences on Kerch bridge yesterday, but it missed and landed in the water on the far side of the bridge anyway. But from a trolling point of view it was successful, because Russia used several million $s of S-400 missiles to intercept defunct SAMs.
 
sferrin said:
You'd think they'd just ignore missiles that weren't going to hit anything important.
Click to expand...
Probably don't have the means to calculate the trajectory, but then, how would you play it, since the missile has the ability to steer. A GPS module for this old sky warmers would be interesting.

Confirmed now anyway.

1689004944838.png
 
I wonder how it's being guided or if it's just fired ballistically. (Nike Hercules had a similar role in SK back in the day.)
 
My assumption is that ballistic trajectory is controlled by fire control radar that send engine cut-off when needed - at correct speed, height and angle.
 
Josh_TN said:
SA-5 isn’t a mobile system, so it probably has limited usefulness. Plus the individual rockets must be almost as old as I am. Firing them as inaccurate surface to surface weapons, ideally as a distraction to some more accurate strike, seems perfectly worthwhile if any of thier left over rockets were serviceable (withdrawn from service decades ago).
Click to expand...
Hey now. Decade singular
 
Forest Green said:
Questions remain as to how well guided it is.
Click to expand...

IIRC the SA-5 used radio-command midcourse guidance so if they're targeting a fixed target such as bridge and assuming they're within range (The SA-5 has a range of up to 250 miles IIRC) then it's just a matter of working out the correct steering commands to be transmitted to the missile. It is also possible that they may've modified the missiles autopilot by adding a GPS receiver to it (Shades of the JDAM).

Forest Green said:
But from a trolling point of view it was successful, because Russia used several million $s of S-400 missiles to intercept defunct SAMs
Click to expand...

Yeah, SA-21s that the Russians can only replace at great expense and time due to the Western sanctions blocking the import of electronic components needed for the missile's G&C units.

sferrin said:
I wonder how it's being guided or if it's just fired ballistically. (Nike Hercules had a similar role in SK back in the day.)
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking and no doubt the Soviets had a variation where they used an SA-5 carrying a nuclear-warhead.

Forest Green said:
Does it have any kind of INS as standard?
Click to expand...

It has an autopilot so, yes, it does have an inertial-platform.

Hanz2k said:
My assumption is that ballistic trajectory is controlled by fire control radar that send engine cut-off when needed - at correct speed, height and angle.
Click to expand...

Given that the missile has control fins I doubt they shutdown the missile's sustainer-motor (Can they even do that as it was designed as a SAM not an SRBM?).

Edit: I just went onto YouTube and these three videos popped up.



 
Last edited:
"Hercules also offered the ability to attack pre-located ground targets, after feeding in the coordinates in an operation that took about five minutes. For these missions the computer used the MTR to guide the missile to a point above the target, then commanded it to dive vertically while measuring any changes in trajectory as it fell. The missile would eventually pass out of line-of-sight with the MTR, so final arming information was provided during the dive, and the warhead was triggered by a barometric fuse."

SK Nike Hercules SSM - Hyunmoo - 1

NHK-2.jpg
 
sferrin said:
SK Nike Hercules SSM - Hyunmoo - 1

NHK-2.jpg
Click to expand...

Are they still in service? I noticed that the South Koreans had replaced the original booster assembly consisting of four Nike rocket-motors strapped together with a single rocket-motor (Something the US should've done with the MIM-14 when it was in service).
 
NMaude said:
Are they still in service? I noticed that the South Koreans had replaced the original booster assembly consisting of four Nike rocket-motors strapped together with a single rocket-motor (Something the US should've done with the MIM-14 when it was in service).
Click to expand...
I don't think they're still in service in SK. The next development of Hercules in the US was Nike Zeus A.

Nike_Zeus_A_test_launch.jpg
 
sferrin said:
The next development of Hercules in the US was Nike Zeus A.
Click to expand...

Imagine if the US Army had replaced the MIM-14's existing booster-stage with the Nike Zeus A's booster? It had a thrust of 450,000Lbs which was more than twice that of Hercules' booster (220,000Lb thrust).
 
NMaude said:
Imagine if the US Army had replaced the MIM-14's existing booster-stage with the Nike Zeus A's booster? It had a thrust of 450,000Lbs which was more than twice that of Hercules' booster (220,000Lb thrust).
Click to expand...
Replace the nuke warhead with a conventional one and it might have made a hell of a SAM. But nothing to shoot it at until the 80s for the most part.
 
sferrin said:
Replace the nuke warhead with a conventional one and it might have made a hell of a SAM. But nothing to shoot it at until the 80s for the most part.
Click to expand...
That's the big problem. The US wasn't under bomber threat from about 1960-1985. And even in the 1980s, mobile, tactical SAMs should have been a higher priority.
 
sferrin said:
Replace the nuke warhead with a conventional one and it might have made a hell of a SAM.
Click to expand...

Especially if a terminal homing-seeker was added, either an active radar-seeker similar to that carried in the BOMARC or a first-generation SARH seeker using TVM.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That's the big problem. The US wasn't under bomber threat from about 1960-1985. And even in the 1980s, mobile, tactical SAMs should have been a higher priority.
Click to expand...
And by the 80s the Patriot system was coming online anyways.

If the bomber threat became REAL we likely would have just seen the old Nike bases get rearmed with those. Or with a longer range version of the Patriot.

The Bomber threat would have likely needed to happen mid 70s for the Nikes to be upgrade.

As for the Grammon?

I will bet good money that they figure out how to rig up a GPS receiver to the Autopilot. You can buy a decent one for 50 bucks at hobby shop for RC planes that has Desert Storm Tomahawk accuracy. There enough Youtube videos of people msking GPS guided planes and drones for that.

Be a cheap upgrade to a large missile with a big boom.
 
Firefinder said:
As for the Grammon?

I will bet good money that they figure out how to rig up a GPS receiver to the Autopilot. You can buy a decent one for 50 bucks at hobby shop for RC planes that has Desert Storm Tomahawk accuracy. There enough Youtube videos of people msking GPS guided planes and drones for that.

Be a cheap upgrade to a large missile with a big boom.
Click to expand...
No bet.
 
Firefinder said:
I will bet good money that they figure out how to rig up a GPS receiver to the Autopilot. You can buy a decent one for 50 bucks at hobby shop for RC planes that has Desert Storm Tomahawk accuracy. There enough Youtube videos of people msking GPS guided planes and drones for that
Click to expand...

Will that GPS works for a legit Mach 4-5 missiles ?
 
stealthflanker said:
Will that GPS works for a legit Mach 4-5 missiles ?
Click to expand...

It should do and it doesn't need to work continuously through the missile's flight just long enough to lock onto the GPS signals and get a fix, at high altitudes at peak velocity the GPS's receiver aerial(s) shouldn't have to worry about a plasma-sheath interfering.
 
NMaude said:
It should do and it doesn't need to work continuously through the missile's flight just long enough to lock onto the GPS signals and get a fix, at high altitudes at peak velocity the GPS's receiver aerial(s) shouldn't have to worry about a plasma-sheath interfering.
Click to expand...

Commercial GPS receiver have speed and apparently altitude limit tho

GAGA-1: CoCom limit for GPS

One problem for high-altitude balloon projects is the CoCom limit on how high and how fast a GPS will operate. To prevent GPS modules from...
blog.jgc.org blog.jgc.org
 
stealthflanker said:
Commercial GPS receiver have speed and apparently altitude limit tho
Click to expand...

In that case I won't be surprised if the US, UK or another NATO member has been covertly suppling mil-spec GPS receiver kits then along with any needed technical help in fitting them into the SA-5's GCU electronics.
 
Is there any indication of how effective the modified SA-5s Ukraine has been using SSMs?
 
Accuracy has been the main issue from what I've seen. They seem to get through, just off target.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom