Shelling from the S-300: fact or fiction?
Some Russian media recently burst out with "accusatory" articles on the topic of the destruction of infrastructure facilities by Russian S-300s. Say, everything that was said by Ukrainian media is the true truth and the Russian army is really shelling targets on the territory of Ukraine with the help of anti-aircraft missiles of the S-300 complex.
It is worth sorting out this issue simply because this shying from side to side will not lead to good. Either Ukrainians are firing at themselves in our country, their rockets are falling on houses with civilians, now a general accusation of everyone and everything in the army will begin on the topic that, yes, they are firing S-300 rockets at houses with civilians.
The most unpleasant thing about this is that the civilians, to whom the S-300s fly, are either kicked by an owl or an owl is hitting a stump. Whose rocket - no difference, flew in, bang - there is not much difference. But from a political point of view, it is worth dotting the i, especially since the letter is not Russian, but very Ukrainian.
In general, it is worth remembering how it all began. And it began with repeated statements by the Ukrainian side that the Russian side was shelling cities with S-300 missiles. It seems to be how cruise missiles fly, and with them missiles from the S-300.
I deliberately use the very vague term "missile from the S-300 air defense system", because there are many modifications of the S-300 systems, and they differ very much from each other in missiles. And to paint the differences between the same 5V55K from 9M96 to our audience, more than savvy, is not worth it.
And it’s worth talking in as much detail as possible, discussing two positions: the Ukrainian one, which has long been explaining to the whole world why and how Russia uses air defense missiles in cities, and the Russian one, which says that all this is nonsense.
The Ukrainian version is very original. There was such a herald of all Ukraine, Arestovich. At one time, with the stubbornness of a woodpecker, he pecked that Russia would soon run out of missiles. This swotting became the foundation for the Ukrainian version, according to which Russia has so few missiles, because if they don’t run out, they will run out soon, and then the Russian military genius came up with the idea of using an air defense system to shell the front-line cities.
The Ukrainians said that there is a technical possibility of such firing, however, for this, it is still necessary to modify either the installations or the missiles themselves. Yes, Kim had that in order to shoot at ground targets, they began to install GPS or GLONASS on air defense missiles.
And they made up fairy tales about the rockets themselves. And it is difficult to detect the launch, and the rocket flies quickly, and it is almost impossible to bring it down, and the damage from it is hoo. However, the capabilities of warheads are slightly lower, although yes, the explosive charge of the 5V55 is not the smallest.
The main argument of the Ukrainian side was that so many missiles of the 5V55 family had been made that they could compensate for the lack of Caliber and Iskanders.
In short, this is to put together everything that was erupted by the Ukrainian side.
The Russian version is easier. Since the Ukrainian air defense is located mainly in large cities, the centers, and its backbone are the same S-300PS and PT, that is, the air defense systems of the first wave. Naturally, armed with very old missiles. Given the age and safety of the missiles, it is not surprising that they both work abnormally and fly God knows where.
Actually, everything. In general, the Ukrainian military beautifully came up with the problem of uninterceptable S-300s, and by this they explain to the citizens of the country why air defense cannot bring down anything, and alarms are turned on after the explosions have thundered.
These are the two theories, and each has the right to life.
In general, the logic is simply fantastic and it is simply unrealistic to understand it. Why replace less expensive but more effective cruise missiles with more expensive and less effective anti-aircraft missiles?
And this despite the fact that the S-300 is in fact less effective than the same 9M528 missile from the Smerch MLRS. The warhead of an air defense missile system is always fragmentation or fragmentation rod. High-explosive action, even for hitting air targets, is minimal, the main damage comes from striking elements. If we take the warhead of the 9M55F Smerch missiles - 258 kg, of which 95 kg of explosives and 1100 submunitions weighing 50 grams each. And a rocket of the 5V55 family - there the warhead has a weight of 133 kg, of which 47 kg of explosives. The number of fragments is also many times less.
That is, in terms of the impact force of the warhead, the Smerch missile is much more effective than the S-300 air defense missile.
If you look at the firing range, then anti-aircraft missiles are not the best thing for firing at ground targets.
The range of destruction of ground targets during regular firing of such an air defense system as the S-300 cannot be more than 30-40 km. Yes, despite the fact that the S-300 seems to be able to work on ground targets, missiles require certain conditions.
Air defense missiles, except for the most recent generations, operate somewhat differently than tactical missiles in terms of guidance. Let me remind you that we are talking about missiles of the 5V55 type. So, every rocket that flies somewhere must “understand” what it must do. Therefore, there are two data packets: the coordinates of the ground target and the height of the detonation of the warhead. With the first one, it is clear that the missile must know where the target is, and the second - when to detonate the warhead, because the air defense missile is detonated remotely and it does not have an impact fuse. That is, the parameters of the height of the undermining.
XNUMXD picture
That's just the data is not entered into the rocket itself, but transmitted to the guidance station, which controls the flight of the rocket. This is typical for both the S-300 and S-400. That is, the illumination and aiming radar leads the missile to the target and transmits certain commands to the missile control unit for the final aiming at the target. The target can maneuver and dodge. And at the command of the guidance station, the warhead is undermined.
What follows from this? An unpleasant moment: until the warhead is detonated, the missile must be in the visibility zone of its guidance radar. There are no problems with this in the air, but with ground objects everything is more difficult. There is such a thing as a radio horizon.
The radio horizon is simple. Since our planet is not flat (although there are those who believe that it is the other way around), and radio waves propagate in a straight line, then at a certain distance from the antenna, the curvature of the Earth will not allow you to “see” the target or transmit a signal from one antenna to another. In the same way as when looking with the help of sight, the horizon hides what is beyond it.
But the radio horizon does not coincide with the optical one, since the planet's magnetic field somewhat deflects the waves of the same radar from the ideal straight line, therefore the radio horizon is a little further than the optical one.
The corresponding formulas make it possible to calculate that a radar located at a height of 20 meters above the Earth's surface will "see" at 18-20 km. So the whole question is how much it will be possible to raise the radar antenna above the ground. By the way, that is why the radar antenna of ships is above all.
So, it turns out that the 5V55 missile must be in the zone of contact with the guidance station until the moment the target is hit. This means that the maximum firing range of the S-300 at a ground target is somewhere in the region of 30 km, no more. Despite the fact that in the sky the rocket flies a greater distance. If the rocket is not undermined at ground level, but at a height, then the range may increase. But there is no particular point in undermining warheads at a height above 50 meters; fragmentation-rod submunitions will lose their destructive ability.
Of course, it is easier to shoot at ground-based stationary radio-contrast targets than at the same ships. When firing at a target such as a ship, the guidance station must see both the target and the missile. Track changes in coordinates and develop corrections. And for a ground target, it is enough for the guidance station calculator to compare the initial coordinates with the coordinates of the tracked missile and develop commands to correct the course.
That is, I boldly emphasize this: this is not homing, it's like classic radio command guidance! With the observation of the rocket throughout the entire flight segment in the radio range.
I mean, it's not the smartest idea.
We just take it and think, what is the chance of defeat for the S-300, which, frankly, is not small and is noticeable both visually and in the radio range? What can prevent the enemy from sending a specialized missile on the radar or simply covering the complex with artillery? 30-40 km is a very ugly range. This means that in order to hit a target 300 km from the front line with a S-25 air defense missile, the complex must be placed almost back to back. That gives a great opportunity to detect the complex and strike at it.
Is a very expensive anti-aircraft missile system worth cosplaying like this with its weak Iskander or Smerch warhead? Don't think.
The Ukrainians, however, corrected themselves. Bloggers and "experts" unanimously began to talk about the fact that we have finalized old missiles of the 5V55 type, installing GLONASS system modules in them, thus turning them almost into ballistic missiles.
Are these old, actually analog 5V55? Wrapping a smartphone with electrical tape? And then? Well, you can plug in a GPS or GLONASS module. But the module needs brains that will receive information from the module about the location of the rocket and issue control commands.
In general, Iskander has already been invented. And it flies further, and most importantly - more precisely, because it was originally designed for this - for ballistic flight. What is the point of perverting over old anti-aircraft missiles with their weak high-explosive warheads - probably, unless everything is really bad and there is nothing more to shoot with.
As a result, modernized old Russian missiles fly across Kyiv, Dnieper and Poltava?
Doubtful. Too far from the front line or the border. 5V55 in the best of times could fly up to 75 km. 5V55U could fly 150 km. That is, there is no way to fly from Kursk and Belgorod, with all the desire.
Why am I focusing so much on 5V55? Yes, here they are, in the pictures taken "from the other side." Here they are, folks. And there is a lot of substance in these pictures.
To begin with, the question is: is it possible to take and shoot 5V55, which, according to the Ukrainian side, we have in bulk, from S-300PMU1 or S-300VM? More precisely, it will be possible to charge and possibly launch, but alas, to direct. Different generations of missiles, different equipment responsible for guidance.
In general, the army S-300V / VM have their own missiles, the air defense systems from air defense have their own. And in order to fire old 5V55 missiles, you need the same old S-300P / S-300PT launchers. With the question of the compatibility of the 5V55 and the S-300PMU1 launcher, I very much puzzled the representative of the air defense regiment covering our facilities in my area. Comrade captain honestly admitted that he had not seen such a miracle as 5V55, because he had only served for the 13th year. And he did not find these rarities, he came to the S-300PF, and there were already quite modern 48N6E.
But the captain from the air defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine not only sees such missiles, he also uses them. Because the very same S-300PT / S-300PS / S-300V1 are in service with the air defense of Ukraine. Just the same ones, under 5V55.
Oh yes, I forgot. More good neighbors from Slovakia brought one S-300PMU. But this, you know, is nothing. All the same 5V55KD and 5V55RM, which start from the launch complexes listed above, have fallen, are falling and will fall on Ukrainian cities. And which Ukrainians diligently attribute to Russian missiles falling on houses.
We have a number of such missiles. True, they were slightly converted into the Favorit-M aerial target complex. It is clear that the missiles are there without warheads, and they are not trained to hit ground targets either. It's probably not worth telling how the target works.
So, with all the more than critical attitude towards our army today, I think that the order to launch anti-aircraft missiles as ballistic missiles is too much. Simply because the rework of these missiles will take so much time and resources that the game will not be worth the candle. Someone may object, like, this is Russia - but not to the same extent?
Re-mothball and prepare the old launchers of the S-300PT type, equip the missiles with new control units (there is still a question - where to get them) specifically for these missiles, navigation modules ... No, it doesn’t look normal. Of course, such a missile could fly 150-180 kilometers, but here is the very possibility of converting old missiles into ballistic missiles - sorry, we buy copters and walkie-talkies in China and give them out for our own, and here control units for missiles ...
That is why the Ukrainian media are firing rockets from S-300s at cities that are not far from the front line: Kramatorsk, Nikolaev, Zaporozhye, Kherson, settlements of the Donetsk region. Sometimes, of course, they are brought there and there are stories about the arrival of S-300 missiles from the territory of the Belgorod Region. Perhaps, of course, but by no means in a shock performance. The air defense near Belgorod is working, therefore, of course, parts of the rocket could easily fall to the ground on the territory of Ukraine.
But in general, the Ukrainian media almost cope with the task of the prosecution, talking about the arrival of the S-300 from Tokmak, Zaporozhye region, to the Dnieper. That is, 150 km.
Photo evidence is more than enough. The Internet is littered with photos of boosters, warheads, submunitions. The only question here is whose missiles they really were. And to whom they flew initially.
By the way, about the flight. I unintentionally forgot about the principle of operation of anti-aircraft missiles. They hit the target not with high-explosive impact, but with fragments or arrows. And if the rocket did not explode on command near the target, as it should, then it has a self-liquidator that will destroy it in the air. This, by the way, is the answer to an unasked question about the submunitions scattered around the crash site.
The mass of the warhead of any missile of the 5V55 family is 133 kg. This is a shell, explosives, damaging elements. Weight of explosives 80 kg. This, of course, is enough to cause some damage, but the same 9M55F from Smerch has a warhead weight of 250 kg, and there are 95 kg of explosives and 55 kg of submunitions. Comparable? Yes, but 9M55F flies MINIMUM 25 km, but 5V55 MAXIMUM 25-30 km. And at the maximum, the Smerch projectile, you know, flies for 70 km. Yes, not exactly. But the accuracy of an air defense missile flying somewhere along the coordinates is also not ideal.
MLRS is a tool for working on areas. Air defense - in terms of space. Is it really advisable to send 5V55 to the house and undermine it in the hope that the damaging elements will hit something? But here is such a nuance: in many places I met a mention that MLRS shells (some) have a high-explosive fragmentation effect, but they write about air defense only about fragmentation. What is the point of picking static objects (read - buildings) with arrows and shrapnel, if there is the same "Caliber", the warhead of 450 kg of which is guaranteed to smash, if not any structure, then it will shake it so much that it will not seem a little?
Isn't it easier to send 2-3 Shaheda, which has a warhead of 50 kg, but which does not need an expensive guidance radar. The effect will be about the same, but much cheaper. And - effectively.
In the Ukrainian media, one can often see approximately the following lines: "The enemy fired from the S-300, damaged houses, schools, hospitals, no one was injured." So it was in the same Nikolaev. 9 rockets were reported fired, one of which hit the house. Where do the rest go? Shot down? And their debris fell on the city?
That's the beauty of the 5V55, that booster blocks don't weigh that much when they run out of fuel. And because of this, they are not very deformed, it is convenient to photograph them by dragging them to the nearest funnel. Here, they say, is a funnel from the S-300. And there is such a hole that "Smerch" will envy. Or a photo of a destroyed building, and not a single fragment of the S-300 nearby.
But this is propaganda, and it must work with the greatest effect. Otherwise, it's not propaganda, is it?
Total
It seems to me that the very idea of \u5b\u55busing XNUMXVXNUMX instead of the same "Point U" is not very correct. Why "Point U"? Well, there is simply no worse rocket. And even more so for us. Until recently, the Ukrainians had “Point”, but, apparently, it ended there too.
The whole problem is worth nothing. The Russian army has more than a decent range of missiles at its disposal. weapons, from Smerch and Tornado-S to Iskander and Caliber. Flaw? Then it would definitely be possible to reactivate the “Points U” in storage, and this would not be the worst option. They at least fly twice or even three times as far as 5V55. Accuracy? Yes, the QUO at Tochka U is disgusting, but who said that 5V55 is more accurate? Who froze?
Most likely, the accuracy of a ballistic missile will be no worse than that of an air defense missile used in, to put it mildly, emergency mode. And who is more difficult to intercept is also a question.
The Ukrainians boast that they intercept. And they show in the pictures from Kharkov the "remains" of missiles from the S-300, which arrived from Belgorod. And then there is the label. 5Zh93. Look at what the Russians are doing.
And what about the Russians? But nothing. 5Zh93 is a high-explosive fragmentation part of the 5V55K missile. Yes, first-generation missiles with a maximum range of 47 km. Even from Oktyabrsky or Yasnye Zor you can’t get to Kharkov, no matter how hard you try. Well, I couldn’t get 5V55K to Kharkov in any way.
And so, most likely, in 90% of cases, which are spoken of as Russian shelling of Ukrainian facilities with S-300 missiles.
Still, as some forces would not like to imagine that the Russian army uses the S-300 as ballistic missiles out of hopelessness, alas, it’s more likely that Ukrainian old missiles of the first releases fall wherever they hit, since 10 years ago they expired all their expiration dates , and warranty, and guaranteed.
Well, they just don't live that long.
Yes, if there really was absolutely nothing to shoot with, then yes. But given the constant use by the Russian army of both Smerchs and Tornados (which are definitely better than 5V55), it is most likely that Ukrainian air defense is working on them.
And here, in fact, the situation is like "Well settled down." Shot down - glory to the Ukrainian air defense! They didn’t shoot down, the missiles fell in all sorts of places - but look, Russian S-300s are destroying Ukrainian houses.
And a separate moment with the fall of boosters or rocket fragments. Here, the very principle of operation of air defense is such that anti-aircraft gunners simply cannot predict how a downed missile will behave after a defeat. And it’s completely normal that no one will nawang, the Caliber hit by shrapnel will explode in the air or shy away on the ground. As practice shows - not even 50/50, but 30/70. They fall and explode.
Remember last fall there were reports from Zaporozhye? Best illustration in my opinion. When, at first, the local authorities reported that the shelling was carried out only by air-launched cruise missiles, and then suddenly there was information that it was just a massive attack with S-300 missiles?
Do you understand? Upper stages from S-300 missiles are much easier to find than the remnants of what destroyed objects on the ground. Blocks are always away from the places of the explosion.
It turns out that at first they found a bunch of parts from S-300 missiles, and then, as the rubble was cleared, fragments of cruise missiles were found. And 12 originally announced cruise missiles suddenly transformed into 6 cruise missiles and as many as 16 S-300 missiles.
Of course, all of them could not fly into that destroyed entrance of the house, but where did all these two-odd dozen rockets go - that's the question.
In general, I support those who believe that shelling with S-300 missiles is an invention of the Ukrainian side. Too many "for" this theory.
Regarding missiles:
- missiles of the 5V55 type, which the Ukrainian side is demonstrating, have long been decommissioned in the Russian army;
- the use of these missiles, even if they are stored somewhere, is impractical for security reasons;
- missiles of the 48N6E, 48N6E2, 9M96 types, which are in service with the air defense forces of the Russian army and the Aerospace Forces, have never been shown as a weapon to destroy Ukrainian targets.
For the S-300 complex itself:
- the firing range of the air defense system is limited by the range of radio visibility;
- undermining the warhead also occurs on command from the guidance station with the help of a radar for illumination and guidance. Therefore, the firing range is limited to approximately a range of 25-30 km;
- the illumination and guidance radar should be located at a distance of 25-30 km from a ground target fired by air defense systems, within the limits of enemy artillery;
- a missile can be effective against stationary ground targets or against accumulations of manpower.
Thus, the discussion on the topic that “the Russian army still uses S-300 missiles against Ukraine” can be closed here.
Information