Military Review

SAM "Circle": the one and only

77
SAM "Circle": the one and only

Soviet generals and marshals who managed to survive the initial period of the war forever remembered how defenseless our troops were before dominating the German sky aviation. In this regard, the Soviet Union spared no resources for the creation of object and military air defense systems. In this regard, it so happened that our country occupies a leading position in the world in the number of types adopted for service and the number of built copies of ground anti-aircraft missile systems.


Reasons and features for the creation of a medium-range military air defense system


In the USSR, unlike other countries, different types of air defense systems were launched in parallel, having similar characteristics in the affected area and reach in height, intended for use in the country's air defense forces and in army air defense units. For example, until the mid-1990s, low-altitude air defense systems of the S-125 family were operated in the USSR Air Defense Forces, with a firing range of up to 25 km and a ceiling of 18 km. Mass deliveries of S-125 air defense systems to the troops began in the second half of the 1960s. In 1967, the Air Defense Forces of the Land Forces entered the Kub SAM, which had practically the same destruction range and could fight air targets flying at an altitude of up to 8 km. With similar capabilities in terms of combating an air opponent, the S-125 and the Cube had different operational characteristics: deployment and folding time, transportation speed, off-road movement capabilities, the principle of anti-aircraft missile guidance and the ability to carry out long combat duty.

The same can be said about the medium-range military mobile complex "Circle", which in the air defense system in terms of firing range corresponded to the S-75 air defense system. But, unlike the well-known “seventy-five”, exported and participating in many regional conflicts, the Krug air defense system, as they say, remained in the shadows. Many readers, even those interested in military equipment, are very poorly informed about the characteristics and stories Circle services.

Some Soviet high-ranking military leaders from the very beginning objected to the development of another medium-range air defense system, which could become a competitor to the S-75. So, the commander of the USSR Air Defense Marshal V.A. Sudets in 1963, while showing new equipment to the leadership of the country, proposed N.S. Khrushchev to curtail the Krug air defense program, promising to provide cover for ground forces with S-75 complexes. Since the unsuitability of the “seventy-five” for maneuvering war was understandable to a layman as well, the impulsive Nikita Sergeevich responded with a counter-proposal to the marshal - to put the S-75 to himself deeper.

In fairness, it should be said that in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a number of anti-aircraft artillery regiments of the ground forces were rearmament at the SA-75 air defense system (with a guidance station operating in the 10-cm frequency range). At the same time, anti-aircraft artillery regiments were renamed anti-aircraft missile (SRP). However, the use of the semi-stationary complexes SA-75 in the air defense of the SV was a strictly necessary measure, and the land investigators themselves considered such a solution to be temporary. To ensure air defense at the army and front levels, a medium-range mobile anti-aircraft missile system was required with high mobility (hence the requirement to deploy the main elements on a tracked base), short deployment and coagulation time, and the ability to conduct independent combat operations in the front line.

The first work on the creation of a medium-range military complex on a mobile chassis began in 1956. By mid-1958, technical assignments had been issued, and on the basis of the draft tactical and technical requirements, a resolution was adopted by the USSR Council of Ministers on the implementation of the Krug development and development project. On November 26, 1964, a decree of SM No. 966-377 was signed on the acceptance of the 2K11 air defense system into service. The decision also fixed its main characteristics: single-channel for the target (although it would be more correct for the division to write that it is three-channel for both the target and the missile channel); radio command guidance system for missiles using the "three points" and "half straightening" methods. Damage zone: 3-23,5 km in height, 11-45 km in range, up to 18 km in the course parameter of targets. The maximum speed of fired typical targets (F-4C and F-105D) is up to 800 m / s. The average probability of hitting a non-maneuvering target over the entire affected area is not lower than 0,7. The deployment time (coagulation) SAM - up to 5 minutes. To this we can add that the probability of defeat turned out to be less than that required by the TTZ, and the deployment time of 5 minutes was far from being carried out for all means of the complex.


The self-propelled launchers of the Krug air defense system were first publicly demonstrated during the military parade on November 7, 1966 and immediately attracted the attention of foreign military experts.

The composition of the air defense system "Circle"


The actions of the missile division (ZRN) were led by a control platoon, consisting of: target detection stations - SOTs 1C12, target designation reception booths - KPTs K-1 "Krab" (since 1981 - the combat control point from the Polyana-D1 ACS). In the air defense system there were 3 anti-aircraft missile batteries as part of the missile guidance station - SNR 1C32 and three self-propelled launchers - SPU 2P24 with two SAMs on each. Repair, maintenance of fixed assets of the division and replenishment of the ammunition were assigned to the personnel of the technical battery, which had at their disposal: control and test stations - KIPS 2V9, transport vehicles - TM 2T5, transport and loading machines - TZM 2T6, tankers for transporting fuel, technological equipment for assembling and refueling missiles.

All combat assets of the complex, except for TZM, were placed on tracked self-propelled lightly armored high-cross-country chassis and were protected from weapons mass destruction. The fuel reserve of the complex ensured the march at a speed of up to 45-50 km / h for removal of up to 300 km of course and the ability to conduct combat work on the spot for 2 hours. Three anti-aircraft missiles were part of the anti-aircraft missile brigade (air defense missile system), the full composition of which, depending on the location, could be different. The number of main combat assets (SOC, CHP and SPU) was always the same, but the composition of auxiliary units could vary. In teams equipped with various modifications of air defense systems, communication companies differed in types of medium-sized radio stations. An even more important difference was that in some cases one technical battery accounted for the entire zrb.

The following air defense systems are known: 2K11 Krug-Krug (produced since 1965), 2K11A Krug-A (1967), 2K11M Krug-M (1971) and 2K11M1 Krug-M1 (1974).



Radio-technical means of the Krug Circle


The eyes of the complex were: 1C12 target detection station and PRV-9B “Tilt-2” radio altimeter (P-40 “Bronya” radar). SOTS 1C12 was a radar circular view of the centimeter wave range. It provided for the detection of air targets, their identification and the issuance of target designation to missile guidance stations 1C32. All 1C12 radar equipment was located on the self-propelled tracked chassis of the AT-T heavy artillery tractor (“Object 426”). The mass of SOTS 1C12 prepared for work was about 36 tons. The average technical speed of the station was 20 km / h. The maximum speed on highways is up to 35 km / h. Cruising on dry roads, taking into account the operation of the station for 8 hours with full fueling of at least 200 km. Station deployment / folding time - 5 min. Calculation - 6 people.


1C12 Target Detection Station

The station equipment made it possible to analyze the characteristics of the movement of targets by crudely determining their course and speed using an indicator with long-term memorization of at least 100 seconds of marks from targets. Detection was made of a fighter aircraft at a distance of 70 km - at a target altitude of 500 m, 150 km - at an altitude of 6 km and 180 km - at an altitude of 12 km. In station 1C12 there was a topographic reference equipment, with the help of which a conclusion to a given area without using landmarks, station orientation, and accounting for parallax errors when transmitting data to 1C32 products was carried out. In the late 1960s, a modernized version of the radar appeared. Tests of the upgraded sample showed that the detection ranges of the station increased at the above heights to 85, 220 and 230 km, respectively. The station received protection from the Shrike-type PRR, and its reliability increased.

To accurately determine the range and altitude of flight of air targets in the control company, the use of the PRV-9B radio altimeter ("Tilt-2B", 1RL 19), which was towed by a KrAZ-214 car, was initially envisaged. PRV-9B, operating in the centimeter range, provided detection of a fighter aircraft at ranges of 115-160 km and at altitudes of 1-12 km, respectively.


Radio Altitude PRV-9

PRV-9B had a common power source (gas-turbine range finder power supply unit) with a 1C12 radar. In general, the PRV-9B radio altimeter was in full compliance with the requirements and was quite reliable. However, it was significantly inferior to the 1C12 rangefinder in terms of patency over soft soils and had a deployment time of 45 minutes.


Radio Altitude PRV-16

Subsequently, in brigades armed with later modifications of the Krug air defense system, the PRV-9B radio altimeters were replaced by the PRV-16B (Reliability-B, 1RL132B). The equipment and mechanisms of the PRV-16B altimeter are located in the K-375B body on the KrAZ-255B car. The PRV-16B altimeter does not have a power station; power is supplied from a rangefinder power source. The noise immunity and operational characteristics of PRV-16B have been improved compared to PRV-9B. The deployment time of PRV-16B is 15 minutes. A fighter target flying at an altitude of 100 m can be detected at a distance of 35 km, at an altitude of 500 m - 75 km, at an altitude of 1000 m - 110 km, at an altitude of more than 3000 - 170 km.

It is worth saying that radio altimeters were actually a pleasant option, greatly facilitating the process of issuing target designation CHP 1C32. It should be noted that for the transportation of PRV-9B and PRV-16B, a wheeled chassis was used, which was significantly inferior in patency to other elements of the complex on a caterpillar base, and the deployment and folding time of radio altimeters was several times longer than that of the main elements of the Krug Circle air defense system. In this regard, the main burden of detecting, identifying targets and issuing target designation in the division rested with SOC 1C12. Some sources mention that the radio altimeters were originally planned to be included in the platoon of the control unit, but, apparently, they were available only in the company management brigade.

Automated control systems


In the literature describing Soviet and Russian air defense systems, automated control systems (ACS) are either not mentioned at all, or are considered very superficially. Talking about the anti-aircraft complex "Circle", it would be wrong not to consider the ACS used in its composition.

ACS 9S44, aka K-1 "Crab", was created in the late 1950s and was originally intended for automated fire control of anti-aircraft artillery regiments armed with 57-mm S-60 assault rifles. Subsequently, this system was used at the regimental and brigade level to guide the actions of a number of first-generation Soviet air defense systems. The K-1 structure included a 9C416 combat control cabin (KBU on the Ural-375 chassis) with two AB-16 power supply units, 9С417 target designation booths (KPTs on the ZiL-157 or ZiL-131 chassis) divisions, a radar information transmission line "Grid-2K", GAZ-69T top loader, 9S441 spare parts and power equipment.

The system’s information display tools made it possible to visually demonstrate the air situation on the brigade’s commander’s console based on information from the P-40 or P-12/18 and P-15/19 radars that were available in the brigade’s radar company. When finding targets at a distance of 15 to 160 km, up to 10 targets were simultaneously processed, target designations with a forced turn of the antenna of the missile guidance station in given directions were issued, and acceptance of these target designations was checked. The coordinates of 10 targets selected by the brigade commander were transmitted directly to missile guidance stations. In addition, it was possible to receive brigades at the command post and relay information on two targets coming from the army air defense command post (front).

From the detection of an enemy aircraft to the issuance of target designation for the division, taking into account the distribution of targets and the possible need for transferring fire, an average of 30-35 seconds passed. The reliability of target designation reached more than 90% with an average time of searching for a target by a missile guidance station of 15–45 s. The calculation of the KBU was 8 people, not counting the chief of staff, the calculation of the KPC is 3 people. The deployment time was 18 minutes for the KBU and 9 for the KPTs, coagulation - 5 minutes 30 seconds and 5 minutes, respectively.

Already in the mid-1970s, the K-1 ACS “Crab” was considered primitive and outdated. The number of processed and followed targets at the "Crab" was clearly insufficient, and there was virtually no automated communication with higher management bodies. The main drawback of the ACS was that the commander through it could not inform the brigade commander and other divisors of their own chosen goals, which could lead to the shelling of one target by several anti-aircraft missiles. The division commander could inform the decision to carry out independent shelling of the target by radio station or by telephone, unless of course they managed to extend the field cable. Meanwhile, the use of the radio station in voice mode immediately deprived the ACS of an important quality - stealth. At the same time, it was very difficult, if at all possible, for the enemy’s radio reconnaissance to reveal the ownership of the telecode radio networks.

Due to the shortcomings of the ACS 9S44 in 1975, the development of a more advanced ACS 9S468M1 Polyana-D1 was started and in 1981 the latter was put into service. The combat control point of the brigade (PBU-B) 9C478 included the combat control cabin 9C486, the interface cabin 9C487 and two diesel power plants. The combat control center of the division (PBU-D) 9C479 consisted of a combat control cabin 9C489 and a diesel power station. In addition, the automated control system included a 9C488 maintenance cabin. All cabs and power plants PBU-B and PBU-D were located on the chassis of Ural-375 vehicles with a unified K1-375 van body. The exception was the UAZ-452T-2 top loader as part of the PBU-B. Topographic location PBU-D was provided by the appropriate means of the division. The communication between the front air defense (army) CP and the PBUB, between the PBU-B and the PBU-D, was carried out via telecode and radiotelephone channels.

The publication format does not allow to describe in detail the characteristics and operating modes of the Polyana-D1 system. But it can be noted that in comparison with the “Crab” equipment, the number of simultaneously processed targets at the brigade control point increased from 10 to 62, simultaneously controlled target channels - from 8 to 16. The corresponding indicators increased at the control point division from 1 to 16 and from 1 to 4 respectively. For the first time in Polyana-D1 automated control system, the tasks of coordinating the actions of subordinate units according to their own goals, issuing information about targets from subordinate units, identifying goals and preparing the commander’s decision were automated. Estimated effectiveness estimates have shown that the implementation of the Polyana-D1 automated control system increases the mathematical expectation of targets destroyed by the brigade by 21%, and the average missile consumption decreases by 19%.

Unfortunately, in the public domain there is no complete information on how many teams managed to master the new ACS. According to fragmentary information published on the air defense forums, it was possible to establish that the 133rd air defense brigade (Uterbog, GSVG) received the Polyana-D1 in 1983, the 202nd air defense brigade (Magdeburg, GSVG) - until 1986 and 180th air defense missile system (Anastasevka settlement, Khabarovsk Territory, Far Eastern Federal District) - until 1987. There is a high probability that many brigades armed with the Krug air defense system used the ancient “Crab” to disband or rearm the next generation systems.

1C32 missile guidance station


The most important element in the composition of the Krug missile launcher was the 1C32 missile guidance station. SNR 1C32 was intended to search for a target according to the control center of the SOC, its further auto-tracking along angular coordinates, issuing guidance data to SPU 2P24 and radio command control of an anti-aircraft missile in flight after its launch. SNR was located on a caterpillar self-propelled chassis, created on the basis of the self-propelled artillery mount SU-100P, and was unified with the chassis of the launcher of the complex. With a mass of 28,5 tons, a 400 hp diesel engine It ensured the movement of CHR along the highway with a maximum speed of 65 km / h. Cruising range - up to 400 km. Crew - 5 people.


1C32 missile guidance station

There is an opinion that CHP 1C32 was a "sore spot", in general, a very good complex. First of all, because the production of air defense systems was limited by the capabilities of the plant in Yoshkar-Ola, which handed over no more than 2 CHP per month. In addition, it is widely known that SNR is decrypted as a continuous repair station. Of course, reliability improved during the production process, and there were no particular complaints about the latest 1C32M2 modification. In addition, it was the SNR that determined the deployment time of the division — if 5 minutes were enough for SOC and SPU, then it took up to 15 minutes for the SSR. About 10 minutes more were occupied by warming up the lamp blocks and monitoring the functioning and tuning of the equipment.

The station was equipped with an electronic auto-range finder and operated according to the method of hidden monoconic scanning by angular coordinates. The capture of targets occurred at a distance of up to 105 km in the absence of interference, impulse power of 750 kW, and a beam width of 1 °. With interference and other negative factors, the range could be reduced to 70 km. To combat anti-radar missiles 1C32 had an intermittent mode of operation.


1C32 missile guidance station in the stowed position

An antenna post was located on the back of the hull, on which a coherent-pulse radar was installed. The antenna post had the possibility of circular rotation around its axis. Above the antenna of the narrow beam of the rocket channel, the antenna of the wide beam of the rocket channel was attached. Above the antennas of the narrow and wide missile channels, there was an antenna for transmitting instructions of the 3M8 SAM; On later modifications of the SIS, a television optical sight camera (TOV) was installed in the upper part of the radar.

Upon receipt of information from the SOC 1C32 on 1C12, the missile guidance station began processing the information and searched for targets in a vertical plane in automatic mode. At the moment of detecting the target, its tracking along the range and angular coordinates began. According to the current coordinates of the target, the calculating and resolving device worked out the necessary data to launch the SAM. Then, through the communication line, commands were sent to the 2P24 launcher to turn the launcher into the launch zone. After the 2P24 launcher was deployed in the right direction, the missile launcher was launched and the capture was conducted for escort. Through the antenna of the transmitter of the commands, the missile was controlled and undermined. Control commands and a one-time command for cocking a radio fuse came on board the rocket through the antenna of the command transmitter. Interference immunity SNR 1C32 was provided due to the separation of the working frequencies of the channels, the high energy potential of the transmitter and coding of control signals, as well as the work on two carrier frequencies for transmitting commands simultaneously. The fuse was fired with a miss less than 50 meters.

It is believed that the search capabilities of the 1C32 guidance station were insufficient for self-detection of targets. Of course, everything is relative. Of course, they were much higher at SOC. CHP scanned the space in the sector 1 ° in azimuth and +/- 9 ° in elevation. The mechanical rotation of the antenna system was possible in a sector of 340 degrees (the cables connecting the antenna unit with the housing prevented circular rotation) at a speed of about 6 rpm. Typically, the search engine conducted a search in a fairly narrow sector (according to some reports, about 10-20 °), especially since even with the presence of a control center an additional search was required from the SOC. Many sources write that the average time to search for a target was 15-45 seconds.

The self-propelled gun had a reservation of 14-17 mm, which was supposed to protect the crew from fragments. But with a close explosion of a bomb or warhead of an anti-radar missile (PRR), the antenna post was inevitably damaged.

It was possible to reduce the likelihood of damage to the PRR through the use of a television optical sight. According to declassified TOV test reports on SNR-125, it had two field of view angles: 2 ° and 6 °. The first - when using a lens with a focal length F = 500 mm, the second - with a focal length F = 150 mm.

When using a radar channel for preliminary target designation, the detection range of targets at altitudes of 0,2-5 km was:
- Mig-17 aircraft: 10-26 km;
- Mig-19 aircraft: 9-32 km;
- Mig-21 aircraft: 10-27 km;
- Tu-16 aircraft: 44-70 km (70 km at H = 10 km).

With a flight altitude of 0,2-5 km, the range of target detection was practically independent of altitude. At an altitude of more than 5 km, the range increases by 20-40%.

These data were obtained for a lens F = 500 mm, when using a 150 mm lens, the detection ranges are reduced by 17% for Mig-50 type targets, and by 16% for Tu-30 type targets. In addition to greater range, a narrow angle of view provided approximately twice as high accuracy. Wide, it corresponded to similar accuracy when using manual tracking of the radar channel. However, the 150 mm lens did not require high accuracy of target designation and worked better for low-altitude and group targets.

On SNR there was the possibility of both manual and automatic target tracking. There was also a PA mode - semi-automatic tracking, when the operator periodically drove the target with the handwheels into the "gate". At the same time, TV tracking was easier and more convenient than radar. Of course, the effectiveness of using TOV directly depended on the transparency of the atmosphere and time of day. In addition, when shooting with television accompaniment, it was necessary to take into account the location of the launcher relative to the SSR and the position of the Sun (in the sector +/- 16 ° in the direction of the sun, shooting was impossible).

Self-propelled launcher and transport and loading machine SAM "Circle"


SPU 10P60 was intended to deploy two combat-ready anti-aircraft missiles, transport and launch them at the command of the SNR at an angle from 2 to 24 ° to the horizon. Chassis launcher ("Product 123") based on the chassis SAU SU-100P unified with SNR 1C32. With a mass of 28,5 tons, a 400 hp diesel engine provided highway traffic at a maximum speed of 65 km / h. Cruising range PU on the highway was 400 km. Calculation - 3 people.


2P24 self-propelled launcher in combat position

The artillery part of SPU 2P24 is made in the form of a support beam with an arrow pivotally mounted in its rear part, lifted by two hydraulic cylinders and side brackets with supports for accommodating two missiles. When the rocket starts, the front support clears the way for the passage of the lower rocket stabilizer. On the march, the rockets were held by additional supports mounted on the arrow.


According to the combat charter, SPU at the firing position were to be placed at a distance of 150-400 meters from the SNR along an arc of a circle, in a line or at the corners of a triangle. But sometimes, depending on the terrain, the distance did not exceed 40-50 meters. The main concern of the calculation was that there were no walls, large stones, trees, etc., behind the launcher.


Transport and loading machine 2T6

With good training, a team of 5 people (3 people — SPU calculation and 2 people — TZM) loaded one rocket with an entrance from 20 meters in 3 minutes 40-50 seconds. If necessary, for example, if the rocket failed, it could be loaded back onto the TZM, and loading itself in this case took even less time.


The use of the Ural-375 wheeled chassis for a transport-loading machine was not generally critical. If necessary, 2P24 caterpillar self-propelled guns could tow TZM when driving on soft soils.

3M8 anti-aircraft guided missile


It is known that in the USSR until the beginning of the 1970s there were serious problems with the possibility of creating effective solid rocket fuel recipes, and the choice of a ramjet for an anti-aircraft missile during the design of the Krug air defense system was predetermined from the very beginning. A medium-range solid-propellant missile system created in the late 1950s would be too cumbersome, and the developers refused to use liquid-propellant rocket engines on the basis of safety requirements and operational reliability.

PRVD had high efficiency and simple design. Moreover, it was much cheaper than a turbojet engine and atmospheric oxygen was used to burn fuel (kerosene). The specific thrust of the air propulsion system was superior to other types of engines and at a rocket flight speed 3-5 times higher than the sonic one, it was characterized by the lowest fuel consumption per thrust unit even in comparison with a turbojet engine. The disadvantage of ramjet engines was insufficient thrust at subsonic speeds due to the lack of the necessary high-pressure head at the inlet of the air intake, which led to the need to use launch boosters that accelerated the rocket to a speed of 1,5-2 times the speed of sound. However, the accelerators had almost all anti-aircraft missiles created at that time. There were at the front-end engine and disadvantages peculiar only to this type of engine. Firstly, the complexity of the development - each ramjet is unique and requires lengthy refinement and testing. This was one of the reasons that postponed the adoption of the “Circle” by almost 3 years. Secondly, the rocket had a large frontal resistance, and quickly lost speed in the passive section. Therefore, it was impossible to increase the range of shelling of subsonic targets due to inertia flight, as was done on the S-75. Finally, the ramjet unstable worked at large angles of attack, which limited the maneuverability of the SAM.

The first modification of the 3M8 anti-aircraft missile appeared in 1964. It was followed by: 3M8M1 (1967), 3M8M2 (1971) and 3M8M3 (1974). There were no fundamental differences between them, basically the height of the target’s defeat decreased, the minimum range and maneuverability increased.

A high explosive fragmentation warhead 3N11 / 3N11M weighing 150 kg was located directly behind the fairing of the central body of the main engine air intake. The weight of the explosive - a mixture of RDX and TNT was 90 kg, a notch on a steel shirt formed 15000 finished fragments of 4 grams each. Judging by the recollections of veterans - Krugovtsev, there was also a variant of a missile with a "special" warhead, similar to the V-760 (15D) S-75 missile. The missile was equipped with a non-contact radio fuse, a command receiver and an on-board impulse transponder.


The layout of the missile 3M8

The rotary wings (2206 mm span) on the SAM shell were placed according to the X-shaped pattern and could deviate in the range of 28 °, the stationary stabilizers (2702 mm span) - according to the cross-shaped pattern. The length of the rocket is 8436 mm, the diameter is 850 mm, the starting weight is 2455 kg. 270 kg of kerosene and 27 kg of isopropyl nitrate were refueled in the internal fuel tanks. On the marching section, the rocket accelerated to 1000 m / s.


In different sources, conflicting data is published on the maximum possible overload of an anti-aircraft missile, but even at the design stage, the maximum overload of a missile was set at 8g.

Another obscure point - all sources say that the fuse is triggered by a miss up to 50 meters, otherwise there is a team to self-destruct. But there is information that the warhead was directed, and when detonated, it formed a cone of fragments up to 300 meters long. There is also a mention that in addition to the K9 command for cocking the radio fuse, there was also the K6 team, which establishes the dispersion form of the warhead fragments and this form depended on the speed of the target.

As for the minimum height of the targets being hit, it should be remembered that it is determined both by the capabilities of the fuse of the warhead and the control system of the SAM. For example, with radar tracking of a target, restrictions on the height of the target are greater than with television, which, incidentally, was characteristic of all radar equipment of that time.

Former operators repeatedly wrote that they were able to shoot down targets at 70-100 meters at control and training firing. Moreover, in the early to mid-1980s, attempts were made to use the Krug air defense systems of later versions to practice the destruction of low-flying cruise missiles. However, to combat low-altitude targets anti-aircraft missiles with anti-aircraft guns had insufficient maneuverability, and the likelihood of intercepting missiles was small. On the basis of 3M8 missiles, a universal missile was developed to combat not only aircraft, but also ballistic missiles at ranges up to 150 km. Universal missiles had a new guidance system and warhead directional action. But in connection with the beginning of the development of the S-300V complex, work in this direction was curtailed.

Comparison of the Krug air defense system with foreign and domestic systems


Briefly consider anti-aircraft missiles with ramjet engines created abroad. As you know, the United States and its closest NATO allies during the Cold War did not have medium-range mobile air defense systems. The task of covering the troops from air strikes in Western countries was mainly assigned to fighters, and towed anti-aircraft missile systems were considered as an auxiliary means of air defense. In the 1950-1980s, in addition to the United States, work to create their own air defense systems was carried out in the UK, France, Italy and Norway. Despite the advantages of SAM with ramjet, from the above countries, except the USA and Great Britain, anti-aircraft missiles with such an engine were brought to mass production, but all of them were intended for ship systems, or were placed in stationary positions.

About 5 years before the start of mass production of the Krug air defense system, the RIM-8 Talos air defense launchers appeared on the decks of heavy American cruisers.


RIM-8A anti-aircraft missile launcher on the deck of the USS Little Rock (CG-4) missile cruiser

At the initial and middle stages of the trajectory, the rocket flew in the radar beam (this guidance method is also known as the “saddled beam”), and at the final it switched to homing by the signal reflected from the target. SAM RIM-8A weighed 3180 kg, had a length of 9,8 m and a diameter of 71 cm. The maximum firing range was 120 km, reach in height - 27 km. Thus, a much heavier and larger American missile surpassed the Soviet SAM 3 M8 in range by more than two times. At the same time, the very significant dimensions and high cost of Talos air defense systems prevented its wide distribution. This complex was available on heavy cruisers of the Albany type, converted from Baltimore-type cruisers, on three Galveston-class cruisers, and on the Long Beach nuclear-powered missile cruiser. Due to the excessive weight and dimensions, the RIM-8 Talos launchers were removed from the decks of American cruisers in 1980.

In 1958, the UK adopted the Bloodhound Mk.I. The “Bloodhound” anti-aircraft missile had a very unusual layout; two direct-flow “Tor” air-propelled engines that operated on liquid fuel were used as a marching propulsion system. Marching engines were mounted in parallel on the upper and lower parts of the hull. To accelerate the rocket to the speed at which ramjets could operate, four solid fuel boosters were used. Accelerators and part of the plumage were reset after the rocket was accelerated and the marching engines began to operate. Direct-flow marching engines dispersed the rocket in the active section to a speed of 750 m / s. Finishing missiles went with great difficulties. This was mainly due to the unstable and unreliable operation of ramjet engines. Satisfactory results of the air traffic control were achieved only after about 500 fire tests of engines and missile launches, which were carried out at the Australian Woomera training ground.


Bloodhound anti-aircraft missiles on launchers

The missile was very large and heavy, in connection with which its placement on a mobile chassis was impossible. The length of the SAM was 7700 mm, diameter 546 mm, and the weight of the rocket exceeded 2050 kg. To aim at the target, a semi-active radar seeker was used. The firing range of the Bloodhound Mk.I air defense system was a little over 35 km, which is comparable to the range of the much more compact low-altitude American solid-fuel air defense system MIM-23B HAWK. Characteristics SAM Bloodhound Mk. II were significantly higher. Due to the increase in the amount of kerosene on board and the use of more powerful engines, the flight speed increased to 920 m / s, and range - up to 85 km. The upgraded rocket became longer by 760 mm, its starting weight increased by 250 kg.

SAM "Bloodhound", in addition to the UK, were in service in Australia, Singapore and Sweden. In Singapore, they were in service until 1990. In the British Isles, they covered large airbases until 1991. The Bloodhounds lasted the longest in Sweden - until 1999.

In the armament of the British destroyers in the years 1970-2000 there was a Sea Dart SAM. The official adoption of the complex into service was issued in 1973. The anti-aircraft missile of the Sea Dart complex had an original and rarely used scheme. Two stages were used in it - accelerating and marching. The booster engine was powered by solid fuel, its task is to give the rocket the speed necessary for the stable operation of the ramjet engine.


Sea Dart anti-aircraft missile on a ship launcher

The mid-flight engine was integrated into the rocket body; in the bow there was an air intake with a central body. The missile turned out to be quite “clean” in aerodynamic terms, it is made according to the normal aerodynamic design. The diameter of the rocket is 420 mm, the length is 4400 mm, the wingspan is 910 mm. Starting weight - 545 kg.

Comparing the Soviet 3M8 SAM and the British Sea Dart, it can be noted that the British missile was lighter and more compact, and also had a more advanced semi-active radar guidance system. The most advanced modification, Sea Dart Mod 2, appeared in the early 1990s. At this complex, the firing range was increased to 140 km and the ability to combat low-altitude targets was improved. Having rather good characteristics, the long-range Sea Dart SAM was not widely used and was used only on the British Type 82 and Type 42 destroyers (Sheffield type destroyers), as well as on Invincible aircraft carriers.

If desired, on the basis of the Sea Dart, it was possible to create a good mobile air defense system, with a very good firing range by the standards of the 1970-1980s. The design of the land complex known as the Guardian was carried out in the 1980s. In addition to the fight against aerodynamic targets, it was also planned to use it to intercept OTR. However, due to financial constraints, the creation of this SAM did not advance beyond the paper stage.

A comparison will be made of the 3M8 missile with the V-759 (5Y23) missile used in the S-75M2 / M3 air defense system. The masses of the rockets are approximately equal, the speeds too. Due to the use of the passive section, the firing range on subsonic targets at the B-759 is greater (up to 55 km). Due to the lack of information on the maneuverability of missiles, it is difficult to speak. We can assume that the 3M8 maneuverability at low altitudes left much to be desired, but it was no coincidence that the S-75 missiles were called "flying telegraph poles." At the same time, the Krug missiles were more compact, which facilitated their transportation, loading and position selection. But the most important thing is that the use of toxic fuels and an oxidizing agent not only made life extremely difficult for the personnel of the technical division, which had to equip missiles in gas masks and OZK, but also reduced the combat survivability of the complex as a whole. When a rocket was damaged on the ground during air raids (there were dozens of such cases in Vietnam), then these liquids, in contact, self-ignite, which inevitably led to a fire and explosion. In the event of a missile being blown up in the air until the fuel and oxidizer are completely exhausted, tens of liters of toxic fog settled to the ground.

In the next part, we will focus on the service and combat use of the Krug air defense system. The authors would be very grateful to readers who have experience in operating this complex, who are able to point out possible shortcomings and inaccuracies, possibly available in this publication.

To be continued ...
Author:
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 18 May 2020 18: 43 New
    24
    In Yekaterinburg at Uralmash there is such a monument to the designer of anti-aircraft missiles KB "Novator" Lev Veniaminovich Lyuliev
    1. bouncyhunter
      bouncyhunter 18 May 2020 19: 01 New
      +5
      Seryoga, haven! hi drinks
      I want to say thank you with all my heart for the material to your namesake Bongo and his colleague! good
      1. svp67
        svp67 18 May 2020 19: 12 New
        +2
        hello Pasha hi
        How is sowing and fishing? Or rather fishing and sowing?
        1. bouncyhunter
          bouncyhunter 18 May 2020 19: 15 New
          +2
          The whiskers are fine, chef! hi
          The sowing is in normal mode. Fishing - in full compliance! wink
  2. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 18 May 2020 19: 09 New
    +8
    Thank you, a lot of nuances are revealed, but most of all I liked the comparison with analogs from "sworn friends". Well, we are waiting for the continuation.
  3. businessv
    businessv 18 May 2020 19: 35 New
    11
    The authors would be very grateful to readers who have experience in operating this complex, who are able to point out possible shortcomings and inaccuracies, possibly available in this publication.
    Thanks to the authors for the interesting article! Unfortunately, I never saw the launch of this rocket during the entire service period! Apparently, it cost a lot, and they were strictly asked for a negative result. But the techies of these complexes, on field exercises, were always in a mess! It was not easy for them to meet the standards for deploying the complex, so the crews trained literally "until they dropped," and this was always a reason for jokes from all branches of the military, during the beginning of the district consolidated exercises! The detection and tracking of targets took place in a regular mode, it was interesting to observe the synchronous movement of all launchers, but that was usually the end of it. smile
    1. seacap
      seacap 19 May 2020 00: 12 New
      +2
      On average, 1 launch is 1 million Soviet rubles.
  4. Mihail80
    Mihail80 18 May 2020 19: 56 New
    24
    I did military service in 1986-1988 in the Amur region, near Blagoveshchensk, in an anti-aircraft missile brigade at this Krug complex.
    I served in a technical battery, as a driver in KIPS on a Zil 157 chassis, then I was given a Zil 131 with a huge tent in the back. This tent department of 10 people deployed in 45 minutes. Two Zil 2 transport vehicles with missiles easily drove into it to test their combat readiness, after which they drove to the installation of missiles at the launcher, for firing at targets. My responsibilities included connecting hoses with kyrosin from missiles to KIPS, where officers checked them on the equipment, how the steering wheels worked. So I had to hug the rockets like a wife.
    Once every two years, part of the brigade went to firing in Kazakhstan, Emba, to the firing range. I was not lucky enough to attend the shooting.
    Now that we have become friendly relations with China, part of it has moved to another place and the SAM system has been changed to BUK.
    At that time, the service was international, served from all republics, and of course there was hazing ...
    I still remember many officers from the good side. And the words of the chief of staff "a soldier without a job is a criminal" deeply engraved the memory.
    1. arnulla
      arnulla 18 May 2020 22: 26 New
      +8
      On Emba-5 served an urgent 85-87 years
      1. A1845
        A1845 25 May 2020 12: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: arnulla
        On Emba-5 served an urgent 85-87 years

        (to the motive "uchkuduk") emba-five, saiga running ...
        "circles" did not seem to shoot in these years
        have you been to 101st?
  5. Alien From
    Alien From 18 May 2020 20: 31 New
    +3
    Thanks to the author, it is always interesting to read !!)
  6. dgonni
    dgonni 18 May 2020 20: 32 New
    +7
    The probability index of 0.7 for the destruction of a fighter, of course, is very high for this complex. Even for those times. Our practitioners believed that in the region of 0.4 a maximum of 0.6. In general, as they say, if you release a couple of missiles for a typical fighter type target. That 100% probability of defeat was not. It is necessary 3. A pair of bombers and attack aircraft lost a hundred percent probability.
    1. seacap
      seacap 19 May 2020 00: 57 New
      +2
      Actually, according to the performance characteristics of 0,9, 0,7- for the maneuvering target and low-flying target, 0,4- in the conditions of interference, 0,2-0,3- in the conditions of using medium-intensity electronic warfare, something like this, the far border of the affected area, in depth, the parameters are better.
  7. RoTTor
    RoTTor 18 May 2020 21: 53 New
    +2
    Specialists for air defense in the USSR were trained by the Kiev Higher Anti-Aircraft Missile Engineering Order-bearing School named after S.M. Kirova and the Air Defense Academy formed on its own base
    1. seacap
      seacap 19 May 2020 00: 48 New
      +6
      The Orenburg Higher Anti-Aircraft Missile Command School named after V.I. GK Ordzhonikidze, like the first officers on the S300B, one of the oldest military educational institutions, successfully destroyed by reformers, the Kiev Academy of Engineering., Leningradskoe - "Cube", "Buk", Smolensk - "Wasp", Poltava - "trunks "Shilka", "Tunguska", S-60, MANPADS and so on, all "trifle"
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 19 May 2020 09: 41 New
        +5
        The Orenburg Higher Anti-Aircraft Missile Command School named after V.I. G.K. Ordzhonikidze, like the first officers on the S300B, is one of the oldest military educational institutions, successfully destroyed by the reformers,

        The result of the activities of Marshal Taburetkin. Now there is the so-called "Presidential Suvorov School". It is not clear only who it releases - presidents, or what?
  8. Tochilka
    Tochilka 18 May 2020 23: 06 New
    +4
    In 95-96, while studying at the institute, he went to the military department. We were just studying the ACS "Polyana D1" and the whole complex in general. We were even launched into the control room. True, we did not manage to "work" on it. Always something was broken (faulty).
    There were some separate blocks in the classroom. I remember that I managed to run the "running fire" test. But what was tested - I have already forgotten.
    I look forward to continuing the article. Interesting.
  9. Pavel57
    Pavel57 18 May 2020 23: 40 New
    -5
    The rocket is not outstanding. Overloading the target is up to 5. The range in comparison with foreign counterparts is not large.
    And why take it into service when there was a more compact marine missile M-11 of the Storm complex.
    1. Bongo
      19 May 2020 04: 34 New
      +8
      Quote: Pavel57
      And why take it into service when there was a more compact marine missile M-11 of the Storm complex.

      Best the enemy of the good. It seems to me that the publication describes in sufficient detail the prerequisites and reasons for the creation of a military air defense system in which the rocket launcher was used.
      The M-11 Shtorm maritime air defense system was put into service in 1969 - that is, later than the Circle.
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 19 May 2020 09: 17 New
        +1
        Well, this is purely formal. And so the Cub-M4 with missiles from Buk is at least the mid-70s.
        By the way, I'm sorry. I really didn’t have time to read then and now errors are surfacing.
      2. Pavel57
        Pavel57 19 May 2020 10: 27 New
        0
        Nevertheless, there was a project to install instead of 3M8 missiles with M11.
        1. Bongo
          19 May 2020 11: 38 New
          +3
          Quote: Pavel57
          Nevertheless, there was a project to install instead of 3M8 missiles with M11.

          From my side, it would be foolish to argue that with equal mass and firing range, a solid-propellant missile defense system would be preferable. But it should be remembered that simultaneously with the adoption of the M-11 naval air defense system, work began on the S-300 interspecific air defense system. Which, among other things, it was planned to replace the "Circle" in the airborne brigade of front-line and army subordination.
          However, on the basis of the V-611 SAM system of the M-11 "Storm" complex in the early 1970s, the 9M79M "Tochka" was created.
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 19 May 2020 09: 08 New
      +3
      5G goal overload? In principle, this is not so little. An IS with a normal BN will not spin with greater overload. Yes, and for a fighter, overload of more than 5 is far from achievable in the entire range of altitudes and speeds.
      By the way, does this figure apply to all 3M8 modifications up to M2?
      1. Pavel57
        Pavel57 19 May 2020 10: 29 New
        0
        5G is very optimistic. Rather, 4 for parallel rapprochement and 3 for three-point.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 19 May 2020 10: 37 New
          +2
          Does that mean half straightening?
          1. Pavel57
            Pavel57 19 May 2020 10: 46 New
            0
            Optimum guidance - parallel approach. Three-point is the most energy-intensive guidance method. Half straightening, somewhere in between. With a parallel approach, the rocket overload should be several times greater than the target overload. If the limitation on the overload of the rocket is 8 G, then the limitations on the overload of the target can be estimated.
            1. seacap
              seacap 19 May 2020 16: 59 New
              +3
              Sorry, but I don't understand the term optimal targeting. The method depends on the design of the complex, control loop algorithms and the missile guidance method. In the "Circle", like the "Wasp", the radio command guidance method was used, when the target is held on the AU by a narrow beam of the target sighting station, and the missile sighting station from the firing point brings the missile to the calculated meeting point of the missile with the target, combining 2 beams, roughly speaking, when method 1/2, to put it simply, the corners are "cut off", shooting is carried out at a maneuvering target making a turn type maneuver. At a missile speed of 3-4M and a target of 1000m / s, the whole process takes place from start to detonation, b / h less than 15-20 seconds , what kind of optimality can there be. But what it is good for, so exceptional accuracy, small error, almost guaranteed hitting the target.
              1. Pavel57
                Pavel57 19 May 2020 23: 00 New
                0
                On the Internet there are many articles on the topic - the method of parallel convergence. There will be time, look. This method for spent overloads is optimal.
  10. seacap
    seacap 19 May 2020 00: 43 New
    +9
    To clarify, some incorrect data, the SNR never limited the deployment time of zrbatrs, with averagely prepared calculations from the march, the battery could launch in 4 minutes, with a standard of 5,5, from the command "Take SP" to the report on target tracking. During deployment, it increased to 10 minutes, if the battery was deployed in a predetermined positional area with full control of the operation of the equipment and the complex, no separate time was required to "warm up" the lamps, the glow was applied immediately when power was applied to the units. The technical battery was not involved in the maintenance of the complex, its task was to assemble, check, refuel, prepare and maintain the rocket exclusively, the elements of the complex were serviced by the power of the l / s battery, with the involvement of ORNR and Remrota. The SNR, although it was an extremely complex machine in operation, but with competent operation and maintenance, was a very reliable and durable machine that allowed it to perform tasks even with significant malfunctions, although it required the constant attention of the station manager. And it was called a "station of continuous repair" because with those technologies, our brilliant designers managed to "shove" practically all the inventions and technologies of that time of mankind into one relatively small machine, of course, it was always necessary to keep all this in a single complex and parameters under all changing external and internal conditions. There were no analogues; it should be separately noted that the conditions of habitability and comparative comfort were excellent for that time.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 19 May 2020 09: 23 New
      +6
      Hello . Can you write in more detail - where and when did you serve? And in particular - were there Glades in your team?
      And, elm, it took 2 minutes to uncover the SNR, and 10 minutes to control the functioning of the equipment.
      1. seacap
        seacap 19 May 2020 16: 21 New
        +5
        KF full 10 minutes (more precisely 9.15), in the presence of time and conditions, shortened - 7, without control (the experimental calculation already instinctively by sounds and delays, the reaction of the instruments determined the degree of serviceability of the station during launch), from the command to the battle - until the display lights rocket readiness for launch, with medium prepared l / s, 3,5-4 minutes, the uncovering was not limited, the main time was the start of the turbine and the pneumatic system with heating the microwave equipment (although on the latest modifications it could be kept on "heat" in advance), each calculation had its own nuances and techniques, developments in the reduction of standards. "Olympic" edition of Ovzaku, TsGV and PribVO.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 19 May 2020 16: 28 New
          +3
          Thank . It is a pity that many details are clarified not before writing, but after.
          1. seacap
            seacap 19 May 2020 16: 38 New
            +4
            It's okay, you asked, the people answered, and just, all the nuances, if you didn't touch it with your hands, it is impossible to know why the designer, the "breeders" constantly lived in the troops, directly at the positions and training grounds. Every year we were obliged to draw up reports and maintain forms for each product with all MOTs and note all faults and shortcomings, as well as submit rationalizations, and asked for this very seriously.
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 19 May 2020 17: 16 New
              +5
              Then, if you don't mind, more questions. As I understand it, you were not connected directly with Crab or Polyana? But, m. explain -
              As I understand it, for the first, the problem was not only the antiquity of the product, but also the fact that it was created for the S-60, respectively, for shorter ranges. For the Circle, the errors increased (if I understood the explanations correctly)
               And the second - for the S-75, the norm was a 2-rocket launch for one target. Was this possible for the Circle (I mean 1 CHP)? NSA - no, but I would like to clarify
              1. seacap
                seacap 19 May 2020 17: 48 New
                +5
                First, all elements of the complex were studied at the school, incl. and KBU, as well as an automobile crane or a fuel tank. Secondly, the officers of the launch batteries held the positions of chiefs of the division's intelligence, this is the SOC with the KBU, i.e. The command post of the battalion commander, as well as received positions in the control battery of the headquarters, where there was a complete "set" of a radio engineering company. To have a substantive conversation about the ACS (as I understand you are more interested in this question), you need to understand and know very well the entire structure and organization of air defense of the ground forces, the principles of organizing air defense of troops and rear objects during the conduct of all types of combat. But in general, KBU were necessary (and only so far as) up to the brigade-division level. In zrbatras they were only in the regimental level, for the most part were used as housing for battery officers, a field office of the battalion commander. SNR, SOU, etc. possessed radio relay communications, as well as wired to receive the control center directly from the SOC operator or the operational duty officer, in modern terms, online. Moreover, the standard from the moment the target was detected by the SOC operator and the "Accept CU" board lit up to the report on the capture and tracking of the target (I don't remember exactly) but somewhere around 5 seconds. The KBU was already used at the brigade level, to organize the command and control and distribution of the forces of the army and the front, together with all the air defense and missile defense, electronic warfare, aviation and RTR forces. Something like this, in general terms, 1 zrbatr-1 SNR-1 target channel-1 missile sighting channel, 3 zrbatr-3 target channel-3 missile channel.
                1. sivuch
                  sivuch 20 May 2020 08: 48 New
                  +4
                  Yes, everything interests me. I am Igor Kopeetsky, etc., one of the authors of the article
  11. bbss
    bbss 20 May 2020 01: 09 New
    +2
    Thank you for the article! Although I served on the S-75 ... everything is so dear to me!
  12. Usher
    Usher 20 May 2020 12: 51 New
    0
    But, unlike the well-known "seventy-five", exported and participating in many regional conflicts, the Krug air defense system, as they say, remained in the shadows

    I'm not special, but I learned about the Circle earlier than 75ke)))
  13. Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 20 May 2020 14: 58 New
    -2
    An archaic rocket with ramjet and accelerating accelerators.

    Rocket - minus minus ...
    Large dimensions, enormous drag, with a small usable volume, hence a small fuel reserve, small ammunition load, low warhead power, is very vulnerable to transportation, and difficult to maintain and operate. It is difficult to manufacture (toroidal tanks), low reliability (first series).
    1. Bongo
      20 May 2020 15: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
      An archaic rocket with ramjet and accelerating accelerators.

      The main advantage of the "circular" SAM 3M8 was that there was no need to refuel with an oxidizer, and compared to the missiles used in the S-75 air defense missile system, it was possible to move over the terrain at high speed.
      1. Dmitry V.
        Dmitry V. 20 May 2020 15: 13 New
        0
        Quote: Bongo
        The main advantage of the "circular" missile defense system 3M8 was that there was no need to refuel with an oxidizer,


        Not bad that one-component, bad that overall.
        In our laboratory, sawn for display to students - future designers.
        The ramjet engine is now used in long-range missiles.
        For a near-range missile, this was a bad decision.

        With 4 starting boosters - these are 4 potential possible failures, from non-launch to cut-off.
        Duct channel in the center - they carried an empty space, despite the fact that the rocket is quite tightly arranged - a design misunderstanding.
        In general, they demonstrate how not to build rockets ...

        Barrel with kerosene ...
        1. Bongo
          20 May 2020 15: 18 New
          +2
          Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
          Quote: Bongo
          The main advantage of the "circular" missile defense system 3M8 was that there was no need to refuel with an oxidizer,


          Not bad that one-component, bad that overall.
          In our laboratory, sawn for display to students - future designers.
          The ramjet engine is now used in long-range missiles.
          For a near-range missile, this was a bad decision.

          With 4 starting boosters - these are 4 potential possible failures, from non-launch to cut-off.
          Duct channel in the center - they carried an empty space, despite the fact that the rocket is quite tightly arranged - a design misunderstanding.
          In general, they demonstrate how not to build rockets ...

          Don't forget when this rocket was created. SAM for the "Wasp" I would not call a masterpiece either, nevertheless it is still used. By the standards of the 50-70s, the 3M8 missile defense system was medium-range. Whatever it was, the Krug air defense system was in service in our country until 2006. And all positions of the S-75 air defense system were eliminated in the mid-90s.
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 21 May 2020 08: 44 New
            +1
            Sergey, I got the second part, but have not watched yet
          2. Dmitry V.
            Dmitry V. 21 May 2020 10: 48 New
            0
            Quote: Bongo
            Whatever it was, the Krug air defense system was in service in our country until 2006.

            Good afternoon, dear Sergey.
            This is by no means an achievement.
            It’s the slowness of the system to put a gigantic rocket into mass production and then not be able to switch to more advanced ones and continue to rivet improved samples, limited by the dimensions of the original design, because mass production of a missile inferior to the air defense systems of potential adversaries was established even at the time of adoption.
            We'll see: starting weight - 2455 kg, the initial weight of the second (marching) stage was about 1400 kg, of which approximately 270 kg was fuel - kerosene T-1 (or TS) and 27 kg per isopropyl nitrate. That is, accelerating accelerators - almost a ton. 40% of the starting mass is one of the worst weight ratios of starting boosters due to the ramjet selected.

            Compare the same SAM X Hawk XMIM-23A 1959 Starting weight - 584 kg. with solid propellant rocket motor Aerojet M112.
            These missiles are not separated by years, roughly the same timing of development - but between them, a technological abyss.
            The objection that the warhead is larger is solely because the large mass of warheads compensates for the accuracy of the guidance (the average probable distance of the discrepancy with the target).

            The fuel supply was provided by a C5.15 turbopump unit (on the first samples - C2.727) - the rocket is very difficult to maintain. Charging pressure accumulators, fuel, steering cars - yes this is a mixture of all kinds of failures.


            To compare the dimensions of 3M8 with 3M9.
            The creation of the 3M9 missile for the 2K12 Cube air defense system was conducted in parallel, it took more time - but this missile is still relevant.
            I recall:
            In the second stage, the 9D16K mid-flight jet engine is located. The maximum engine operating time is no more than 20 s with a total fuel mass of 67 kg and a length of 760 mm. During combustion, the fuel charge products enter the afterburner with four air intakes, where unburned residues burn out. During operation of the first stage in the chamber is the fuel charge of the starting engine consisting of ballistic solid fuel VIK-2, weighing 172 kg. At the first stage is a solid rocket starting engine, to accelerate to Mach 1,5. After completion of the start-up stage, the inside of the nozzle apparatus is shot to change the geometry of the nozzle of the afterburner for the operation of the main engine.


            Here is the 3M9 SAM - a masterpiece of the time, unlike 3M8!
            The 3M9 range can be increased by changing the composition of the fuel and the components of the heat-resistant parts, without changing the layout. And in 3M8 everything is much more complicated.

            By the way, dear Sergey, in your wonderful article "British anti-aircraft missile systems"... Part 1 of November 16, 2015, there is an answer to whom our developers were "looking back" (in 1957 information about the air defense system was published in the British press) and why they so persistently rested on the ramjet - this is the development in the UK of the Bloodhound air defense system (Bristol Bloodhound with two external ramjet engines) and the Thunderbird air defense system (it was planned to be a two-component rocket engine, as a result, the military insisted on a turbojet engine).
            By the way, the British military rejected the Bloodhound air defense system because of the complexity of operation, but politicians literally sniffed it "
            this order came “from the very top”
            . Despite the fact that it was a stationary unit.

            Our headless ones often watched what was in the west and ordered them to repeat and do better!
            Therefore, this misunderstanding 3M8 went into the army, and even in the mobile version, so I had to carry all the service systems with the complex - not to mention the cumbersomeness and vulnerability of such a solution.

            The next moment: due to the modernization of external ramjet (Bloodhound MkII), the British achieved an almost twofold increase in range.
            In 3M8 missiles, modernization was limited by the dimensions of the hull and a tight layout.

            In general, we studied them in terms of design techniques at the department of aircraft and the professors had a very low opinion of 3M8, with which I completely agree.
            Here is 3M9 - a completely brilliant development, a masterpiece of rocket science!
            Multi-mode engine, compact accelerator - a very successful SAM.
            1. Bongo
              22 May 2020 02: 21 New
              +4
              Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
              Good afternoon, dear Sergey.

              Hello, Dmitry Vladimirovich! hi
              Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
              Let's see: starting weight - 2455 kg,

              Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
              Compare the same SAM X Hawk XMIM-23A 1959 Starting weight - 584 kg.

              Dmitry Vladimirovich, I'm sorry, but I won't believe that you were not informed when effective solid fuel formulations appeared in the USSR. During the years when the "Circle" was being designed, our designers had two alternatives: a ramjet engine and a liquid-propellant engine, there was no talk of solid fuel for missiles with a range of 45 km. No.
              Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
              Charging pressure accumulators, fuel, steering cars - yes this is a mixture of all kinds of failures.
              In operation, the 3M8 was quite reliable.
              Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
              Here is the 3M9 SAM - a masterpiece of the time, unlike 3M8!
              Range 3M9 can be increased by changing the composition of the fuel and components of heat-resistant parts, without changing the layout.

              SAM 3M9 really had outstanding characteristics for its time, but the creation of this missile was repeatedly threatened with failure, and the "Cube" entered service later than the "Circle".
              Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
              By the way, dear Sergey, in your wonderful article "British Anti-Aircraft Missile Systems". Part 1 of November 16, 2015, there is an answer to whom our developers "looked back"
              Thank you for the appreciation of the cycle about the British air defense systems, which unfortunately did not attract the attention of readers, but it seems to me that our developers did not look back at anyone. In the late 50s, there were simply no other options. No.
              Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
              This is by no means an achievement.
              Of course, this was a purely compulsory measure, and by that time the “Cube”, which had been removed from service, had nothing to do with it. The fact is that the S-300V air defense missile system, which was planned to re-equip the front-line and army air defense missile systems, was released very little, and the outdated Krug was corny plugged holes.
              1. Dmitry V.
                Dmitry V. 22 May 2020 10: 08 New
                +1
                Quote: Bongo
                During the years when the Circle was being designed, our designers had two alternatives: a ramjet engine and a rocket engine


                I do not completely agree with this observation - even if the 3M9 missile launcher left the mining stage later - but it refutes the opinion that our solid fuels were not sufficiently spent.
                Yes, I had to tinker with this engine, by this time the monstrous 3M8 was in production. If the 3M9 concept were to make a medium-range missile, it would be an order of magnitude better than the 3M8. Her derogatory name was "a barrel of kerosene." And what was the cost of practicing remote blasting because of the chosen scheme - how many dances with a tambourine were around the antenna of the proximity fuse, drawing lines to the central body, where the guidance equipment was located - a lot of nuances arose there. In general, among the designers, 3M8 did not have any reverence.

                Quote: Bongo
                but it seems to me that our developers did not look back at anyone

                We always took into account - flight magazine and space flight magazines - our desktop magazines were delivered to libraries in the first place, we always closely watched Western publications.
                In addition, the military through their channels received more or less accurate data and formed requirements for products.
                The draft design always began with what they saw and what they had, as it was done in theirs - this saved a lot of time and money for preliminary research, because we were always forced to catch up. Therefore, the preliminary design appeared very quickly, when there was no preliminary groundwork for technology or research.

                That's why the 3M8 designers went the British way.
                And the designers of 3M9 showed creative "stubbornness" and without looking back at the "Hawk" missile defense system, gave birth to a masterpiece of exceptional novelty, based on their own ideas.
                The development of missiles for the KUB complex was entrusted to our team, which had not solved such complex tasks before. In those years, the Design Bureau was headed by the original chief designer I.I. Toropov, the main ideologist of the ZM9 rocket and its propulsion system. Realizing that the Americans are ahead of us and have certain advantages in the scales and dimensions of the on-board equipment, he made the only decision that was right in those conditions - to use an unconventional layout, fundamentally new propulsion system, which can give a gain in size and weight. At the same time, it was clear that our path to the goal, which no one had yet walked on, would be strewn with as many roses as thorns. And we will have to solve problems with many unknowns. But Ivan Ivanovich Toropov was not from a timid dozen.


                Therefore, in the practice of teaching the departments of aircraft, they first give the construction of 3M8 - quite ordinary and simple, and in contrast it follows - 3M9


                Layout - shine! The engine is a masterpiece!
                The starting stage of this installation is a propellant rocket engine, and the march stage is a solid-propellant solid-propellant rocket engine. Both steps are aligned and have a single combustion chamber. For the first time in the world rocket engine, a similar engine was created. PThe prospect of using such an engine was determined by the possibility of obtaining a high specific impulse of the march stage (2-2,5 times more than that of a purely rocket engine). The use of this propulsion system made it possible to create a rocket that meets the requirements for performance characteristics in a given weight and size.


                It is the creation of 3M9 that causes pride - nothing of the kind in the west was built by then:
                It is legitimate pride that a similar design is in the domestic ZM9 rocket for the first time in the world it was brought to the stage of serial production and adoption. After the capture of several ZM9 missiles specially organized by the Israelis during the 1973 war in the Middle East, the Soviet SAM served as a prototype for the creation of a number of foreign anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles.


                The use of ramjet ramps ensured the maintenance of high speed and, accordingly, high maneuverability of the ZM9 missile over the entire trajectory. During training and control-serial missile launches, a direct hit on target was systematically achieved, which was extremely rare when using other, relatively large anti-aircraft missiles (read 3M8)
                https://sovetarmy.forum2x2.ru/t272-topic
        2. sivuch
          sivuch 21 May 2020 08: 43 New
          +4
          I talked a bit with drugs when writing. At the same time, no one remembered the accelerator failures (unlike, for example, the cases when the 40th zurka fell directly on the PU) - so such cases, if any, were very rare. And what, 50-XNUMX km is the near radius? (especially for those old times)
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 21 May 2020 08: 38 New
      +3
      Let me disagree - pluses were also enough. The missile is much more compact - with almost the same mass 2 meters shorter than the B-750, which is a huge plus when driving on field roads, try to imagine a SPU with 2 Zur B-750s and how such a monster will fit into turns somewhere on a mountain road.
      Small usable volume - ??? there was enough fuel for the required range, and it was not the muck that the S-75 had.
      Small warheads - 50 kg less than the B-750 - have almost no effect on the radius of damage.
      It is difficult to operate - in this world everything is relatively, at least, it was not required to wear the OZK when refueling.
    3. Parsec
      Parsec 24 May 2020 23: 34 New
      +4
      Now it’s free to criticize the design decisions of that time at that level of technology from the point of view of the afterthought and the current level of technology.
    4. seacap
      seacap 26 May 2020 10: 39 New
      0
      Rocket - minus the minus ... (Dmitry Vladimirovich (Dmitry Vladimirovich) May 20, 2020 14:58)

      The 3M8 rocket, using the technologies of that time, was very simple and effective, and many constructive solutions were brilliantly simple and effective, very reliable. The rocket itself is very simple, technologically advanced and relatively cheap to manufacture. 3M9 is a completely different missile and their comparison is pointless, amateurish, taking into account the equipment and the GOS, the materials used, it is very expensive, requiring specific handling and operation, in aggregate the price, efficiency and a number of other characteristics were significantly inferior to many similar products. It should also be taken into account that by the time the short-range complex was created, this product and many design solutions had already been created for the Navy. Those. talking about anything and discussing this issue is pointless, extremely unprofessional.
      1. Dmitry V.
        Dmitry V. 26 May 2020 12: 09 New
        +1
        Quote: seacap
        The 3M8 rocket, using the technologies of that time, was very simple and effective, and many constructive solutions were brilliantly simple and effective, very reliable.


        I’m translating it into design - the 3M8 rocket was created on the well-known aviation technologies of ramjets - the existing technologies at that time. This technology existed and at the time of commissioning of the complex - 1965 was outdated. And it was not simpler and more reliable - 4 solid fuel boosters - if one of them did not work, the launch was emergency.

        Designers 3M9, have created a new technology, direct-flow solid-fuel engines with variable nozzle geometry. Nothing of the kind on the decisions, on the layout, was in the west. The same Hawk - RBTT.
        3M9 for a propulsion system - more than 2 times more efficient. If the technology is not revolutionary - then I don’t know what to consider revolutionary - and our enemies copied this technology after the 70s - I hope the uniqueness of 3M9 was explained in such a more accessible way.
        I know both SAM and 3M8 and 3M9 constructively with technological nuances with pluses and minuses.
        For students, both missiles were prepared, sections of the fuel compartments, remote control, welded joints, joints of frames, etc. - All design features are disassembled and taught in the respective educational institutions.

        The fact that for 3M8 had to create a field arsenal (!) For assembly and maintenance makes it DIFFICULT in operation.
        This would have been shell shells fed to the artillery battery, and the batteries would have to be flooded :) - this is what the 3M8 is in operation.

        And 3M9 is actually a ready-made shell - a minimum of pre-launch operations, immediately from the warehouses to the battery.
        1. Bongo
          26 May 2020 15: 35 New
          +2
          Dmitry Vladimirovich, you are thinking exclusively from the point of view of a designer. And judge by modern standards. For its time, the 3M8 SAM was a very good product from the point of view of the cost-effectiveness criterion. Not a masterpiece, of course, but the rocket fully justified its purpose.
          Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
          4 solid fuel boosters - if one of them didn’t work, the launch was an emergency.

          Do you know of such cases? And it seems to me that the probability of this event is minimal.
          Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
          The fact that for 3M8 had to create a field arsenal (!) For assembly and maintenance makes it DIFFICULT in operation.
          This would have been shell shells fed to the artillery battery, and the batteries would have to be flooded :) - this is what the 3M8 is in operation.

          Here you exaggerate very much. No. Forgive me, but I do not believe that you do not know how you prepared for the use of missiles for the S-25, S-75 and S-200 complexes. Even the solid-fuel missiles for the S-125 required regular maintenance in the technical division. It was normal for that time. In operation, the 3M8 was not more difficult than these missiles and, in comparison with the 3M9, was more maintainable. Moreover, even for modern SAM "Buk" air defense systems, control testing machines are used and there are arsenals. At the same time, the 3M9 rocket that you admire so much had its own characteristics and was very expensive.
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 26 May 2020 17: 03 New
            +3
            Sergey, I have such a scent that if you think of the designers scaling 3M9 to the requirements for 3M8, then the monster would turn out to be not much smaller and lighter than the last, but much later and more expensive. And later not only the Circle, but also the real Cuba. And then, it is still unknown whether such a creation would have been possible - problems would have been greatly enhanced. And until that happy day, all the long-suffering S-75s would have to be used as a cover. An example at hand - Osu was eventually finished off, but due to shifts to the right, many divisions remained with the S-60
            1. Bongo
              26 May 2020 17: 05 New
              +2
              Quote: sivuch
              Sergey, I have such a scent that if you think of the designers scaling 3M9 to the requirements for 3M8, then the monster would turn out to be not much smaller and lighter than the last, but much later and more expensive. And later not only the Circle, but also the real Cuba. And then, it is still unknown whether such a creation would have been possible - problems would have been greatly enhanced. And until that happy day, all the long-suffering S-75s would have to be used as a cover. An example at hand - Osu was eventually finished off, but due to shifts to the right, many divisions remained with the S-60

              Igor, in this case, I absolutely agree with you! yes
        2. Aleksandr123
          Aleksandr123 14 July 2020 18: 03 New
          0
          "4 solid fuel boosters - if one of them did not fire, the launch was emergency." I'm writing a little late. For the whole CIRCLE I will not say, but, so that the accelerators do not work, I don’t remember something during the shooting. But the march - it happened. Served on it.
  14. tag17
    tag17 22 May 2020 17: 27 New
    0
    3M9 missiles fired at Telemb. Handsomely!
  15. Evil Booth
    Evil Booth 24 May 2020 18: 02 New
    -3
    it's 60s! the mobile complex, which until now surpasses the mobility of the MLRS patriot)))) it’s stupid to compare it with the marine versions, they weighed several times as much as the places they occupied and, in general, the marine ones are closer to stationary than to land-based ones, they will be shocked. range? hih. for low-altitude, it worked normally and got all 5 ranges of the then free-falling aviation bombs))) the author forgot the most important thing is efficiency, having rested on sucking in the flaws which are the technological reality of that time and it was full space. NATO, and now does not do such a level of mobility, and all of their energy is either the PZRK or the RSO paetriot and literally a few units of some kind of typical development there. true rockets there but less ... GY. and BULL is also smaller)))) the square had solid fuel, but the range is less so that throwing it at 2 of its ranges is not enough to make a rocket * 2, again denying reality in order to trample on achievements.
    1. Bongo
      25 May 2020 05: 10 New
      +4
      Quote: Evil Booth
      Until now superior mobility MLRS patriot))))

      You can not read further ... wassat
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Bongo
          25 May 2020 14: 08 New
          +2
          Cry you it is necessary, You SAM from the MLRS do not distinguish ... wassat fool
          1. Evil Booth
            Evil Booth 25 May 2020 14: 09 New
            -3
            it’s you who are suffering from the fact that all normal people of about 30 years old are called the Patriot MLRS, because it exists)) the multiple launch rocket system of anti-aircraft missiles to nowhere))) the Patriot MLRS didn’t shoot more than its own planes and couldn’t intercept the harm released into it)))) its missile defense capabilities, with low-flying targets and what is it ??? the circle on the HBO takes about the same heights if what is on the lamps the rockets that were between liquid and solid ...
            1. Bongo
              25 May 2020 14: 11 New
              +2
              Quote: Evil Booth
              it’s you who suffer from the fact that all normal people are about 30 years old, as the Patriot MLRS is called, that it is)) the multiple launch rocket system of anti-aircraft missiles to nowhere)))

              You should not ascribe your fantasies to me, especially since you have big problems setting out your own thoughts.
              1. Evil Booth
                Evil Booth 25 May 2020 14: 15 New
                -3
                first admit the facts)) rszo patriot in mobility and HBO is still worse than a circle))))))))))))))))) By the way, the circle has a signal of 750 kW I can already see how it is suppressed by Avax interference with a power of less than 10 kW WPC on a narrow frequency.
                1. Bongo
                  25 May 2020 14: 16 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Evil Booth
                  admit the facts first))

                  First, please learn to call a spade a spade and write without errors.
                  1. Evil Booth
                    Evil Booth 25 May 2020 15: 11 New
                    -4
                    am facts)) RSZO Patriot in mobility and HBO operation is still worse than the circle))))))))))))))))) by the way the circle has a signal of 750 kW - I can already see how it will be suppressed by interference from less than 10 kW peak on a narrow frequency. tongue
                    1. Crimean partisan 1974
                      Crimean partisan 1974 31 May 2020 22: 30 New
                      +2
                      rszo patriot ..... shaw for such a beast?
                      1. Evil Booth
                        Evil Booth 2 June 2020 17: 54 New
                        -2
                        The MLRS patriot also does not know how to turn the PU in terms of the rocket he has all its fixed start. and MLRS potmuchto)) you are banned in YouTube. MLRS because it burns dozens of rockets. if you haven’t heard such a thing, you may not have heard the Russian spring literally today the United States was offended that in China there were beautiful pogroms and terrible police, and in the USA, on the contrary, the police are good.
                      2. Crimean partisan 1974
                        Crimean partisan 1974 2 June 2020 18: 10 New
                        +2
                        MLRS Patriot ..... you can clearly decipher the abbreviation MLRS ???? I, too, after the opening of fishing ...... well, that's normal. but you sculpt the barbed wire along the way. that is, a mixture of boa constrictor with a hedgehog. put your thoughts in order. what do you think MLRS?
                      3. Evil Booth
                        Evil Booth 3 June 2020 16: 55 New
                        -2
                        wassat to be badly forgotten in google and still not to read the abbreviation that I have more than once deciphered as it took Odyda. such are usually asked whose Crimea. By the way, whose Alaska?
                      4. Crimean partisan 1974
                        Crimean partisan 1974 3 June 2020 17: 12 New
                        +2
                        and even unread the abbreviation .... well, so decipher. I asked you that in your understanding of the MLRS. in my understanding, (well, in all military catalogs) MLRS is a multiple launch rocket system. I asked what MLRS means to you !!!!! the ampatriot is driven by a missile defense system, mind you. diametrically different concepts when some work on the ground and others try to prevent this, sort out yourself
                      5. Evil Booth
                        Evil Booth 19 June 2020 17: 20 New
                        0
                        lol rszo patriot term the table is as true as the merkava tank)))
                      6. Crimean partisan 1974
                        Crimean partisan 1974 19 June 2020 17: 28 New
                        -1
                        rszo patriot so faithful ...... then tell us ignoramuses. when the air defense missile defense patriot worked on the earth ???? and merkava, if you don’t call at least a tank, at least a huge BMP, at least self-propelled guns, you can even call it a mobile zucchini (there is enough space in it), but a patriot like a MLRS, ....... the question is, how do you determine the colors of the visible spectrum of electromagnetic waves ????
        2. Crimean partisan 1974
          Crimean partisan 1974 31 May 2020 22: 54 New
          +2
          First, please learn to call a spade a spade ... Vladimirovich hi, what did the dude decide to troll? wonderful, it remains only to find out from him what kind of beast such a MLRS Patriot, .. maybe a couple of pipes RS 122 mm Partizan. based on UAZ Patriot? Tomorrow is the opening of fishing, congratulations and so laugh
          1. zyablik.olga
            zyablik.olga 2 June 2020 00: 19 New
            +1
            Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
            Hi Vladimirovich, what did the dude decide to troll?

            Volodya, and hello to you from the banks of the Amur! Seryozha is now left for the head of the department, he does not have much free time, and he rarely visits VO. As for the "trolling", then this eccentric, not only began to smack outright nonsense, but also made mistakes.
            1. Crimean partisan 1974
              Crimean partisan 1974 2 June 2020 15: 52 New
              +2
              that he started flogging frank nonsense, also with mistakes .... Sergeyevna hi from the other side of our ball, ... well, mistakes like that. there are. but you can’t fix the confidence in thematic stupidity, just troll and yell,
              Ol tell me how to find Seryogin article about Chinese grenade launchers. I didn’t read it and then I didn’t find it
            2. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga 3 June 2020 00: 47 New
              +1
              Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
              that he started flogging frank nonsense, also with mistakes .... Sergeyevna hi from the other side of our ball, ... well, mistakes like that. there are. but you can’t fix the confidence in thematic stupidity, just troll and yell,
              Ol tell me how to find Seryogin article about Chinese grenade launchers. I didn’t read it and then I didn’t find it

              Go to Seryozha's profile, everything is there.
              https://topwar.ru/user/Bongo/
  • Parsec
    Parsec 24 May 2020 23: 17 New
    0
    Quote: seacap
    In the "Circle", like the "Wasp", the radio command guidance method was used, when the target is held on the AC by a narrow beam of the target sighting station, and the missile sighting station from the firing point brings the missile to the calculated meeting point of the missile with the target, combining 2 beams, roughly speaking, method 1/2, to put it simply "cut off" the corners,


    Ooh ...
  • seacap
    seacap 26 May 2020 14: 38 New
    +1
    Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
    The fact that for 3M8 had to create a field arsenal (!) For assembly and maintenance makes it DIFFICULT in operation.

    This statement, speaks of your complete amateurism in this matter, I consider the further discussion pointless. It is useless to discuss something with a person who does not perceive any arguments and does not possess at least some logic, but only ambitions and confidence in his infallibility, even in matters of which he has a very, to put it mildly, mediocre concept. I believe that this can stop the continuation of the discussion as having no meaning, good luck.