Great Russian antiair photos

Another UK Based Osa, at IWM Duxford, don’t know where they got it from, though the colour scheme may be a clue.

When did the Soviets begin the wide spread use of transistors in their military/non-military technology?

First soviet transistors (super)computers entered service in mid 60x. In 60x it was already a standard tech. In 70x any military electronic without transistors was aimed to post-nuclear use. You should remember what not only EMP dungerous for transistor tech, but also radiation damages transistors much faster than tubes.

RAF Operated Russian Air Defence Systems

Bigvern are they any pics of UK operated Osa?…or from where they came?

Three shots from the RAF Yearbook (2003)

SA-8 SPA-N on the range. 😀 😀 😀
SA-6 (Straight Flush Radar) on the range. (Note the external power modification to avoid using that Gas Turbine Generator which is an environmental hazard).
Straight Flush Radar in GAFE Section (German Air Force Equipment) being maintained.

Bigvern are they any pics of UK operated Osa?…or from where they came?

AFM did an piece about the range at Spadeadam a few years back, with a photo inside one of their operational SA-8’s, I think an RAF Yearbook also has an piece about the range. The other place to look is on the Spadeadam Web site (the two operational kits were coded SPA-R and SPA-N). They and the other real russian kits at Spadeadam were ex-NVA (East German), However all of the writing on the equipment is Russian (except panels nicked from ex Iraqi equipments which were written in Engilsh)

Another Soviet weapons systems which entered service in the early 1970s was the MiG-25, whose AI radar, as is well known, also relied upon vacuum tube tech. Now people defended this alleged technological backwardness by saying that the Soviets were only trying to make the AI radar proof against the electromagnetic pulse from nuclear explosions (without the documented evidence that that this was indeed included in the radar’s design specification). But this kind of implies that the Soviets could have used transistor tech in the radar’s design if they had wanted to,

The explaination I remember reading most was that development started in the late 50s and early 60s when valves and vacuum tubes were not obsolete, but tried and trusted technology. The other issue was with solder having too low a melting point to be used in the Mig-25 because of the temperatures generated in various compartments of the aircraft in flight. EMP was considered an unlikely reason as in the 50s and early 60s EMP was not well understood anyway.

Even the ZSU-23-4 built in the early 80s (the late cold war models) used tubes as well as IC. It is a bit like liquid fuelled rockets… the Soviets developed the technology a little bit further than the west and clung on to it a bit longer too while they mastered the newer technologies. It was cheap and available and it worked so they used it. Current digital upgrades do improve performance quite a bit in current upgrades but is isn’t really like the difference between a Sinclair ZX81 Spectrum and a Pentium 4.

Interesting to hear that early versions of the Osa/SA-8 SAM system relied a lot on vacuum tube technology.

Another Soviet weapons systems which entered service in the early 1970s was the MiG-25, whose AI radar, as is well known, also relied upon vacuum tube tech. Now people defended this alleged technological backwardness by saying that the Soviets were only trying to make the AI radar proof against the electromagnetic pulse from nuclear explosions (without the documented evidence that that this was indeed included in the radar’s design specification). But this kind of implies that the Soviets could have used transistor tech in the radar’s design if they had wanted to, which then raises the question as to what other equipment/systems did they actually apply their transistor technology to – if they did indeed have this technology in this time frame?

Certainly not in their latest (at that time) SAM systems.

When did the Soviets begin the wide spread use of transistors in their military/non-military technology?

I always enjoyed those books when they came out. Kind of like a coloring book that was already colored. Some pretty wild stuff in there too. And yeah, there was a lot of stuff in there not mentioned.

Of course they wont admit to everything they know… that is part of the game and makes them even less reliable as a source.

You’re making the assumption that western intelligence services were just throwing everything they knew out there for the general public.

And if I thought they were doing that why on earth would I suggest they might be trying to mislead the public to get funds from the government for more toys.

The SA-8 is very late 1950’s technology, lots of valves, a few early transistors and electo-mechanical computers. Not an integrated circuit in sight. The SA-8 even has a gas turbine generator on top of the main diesel engine, just to power the electronics.

So it was so backward it has a gas turbine generator… hahahaha. Couldn’t possibly be that the gas generator reduced fuel consumption by powering the electronics without having the engine running… something the Americans learned in Desert Storm… a large engine uses a lot of fuel but if you want all your electronic gadgets to continue working you either run it and waste a lot of fuel or you have an external gas generator to power the internal systems. The Soviets tended to build generators into their armoured vehicles to reduce fuel consumption and to allow unit to sit with main engines off but powered up and ready to fire.

I always enjoyed those books when they came out. Kind of like a coloring book that was already colored. Some pretty wild stuff in there too. And yeah, there was a lot of stuff in there not mentioned. :p

Oh Military Power wasn’t the half of it. There was a publication put out in the late 80’s by the DOE of all people called “Beam Weapons”. In it one of the wilder Russian weapon experiments they talk about is a particle beam powered by nuclear explosions. No, not X-ray lasers. They describe the power source as 2 70 foot diameter hollow steel spheres with 4ft thick walls buried in the ground. They are connected by a tube containing a massive solonoid. They set off a nuke in one sphere which pushes the core from one side of the tube to the other and electrical power is generated by the motion of the massive iron core. BOOM, BOOM, BOOM back and forth the thing goes.

Bigvern are they any pics of UK operated Osa?…or from where they came?

You’re making the assumption that western intelligence services were just throwing everything they knew out there for the general public.

I always enjoyed those books when they came out. Kind of like a coloring book that was already colored. Some pretty wild stuff in there too. And yeah, there was a lot of stuff in there not mentioned. :p

None claimed that a russian/soviet made weapons are “copies”.
Every system has to function under the special enviroment and doctrine at first. So a system showed different results under different conditions.
But none could deny that there are some “mirror” developments/procurements were made between bigger military powers to deny an opponent a possible advantage from that. It is clever always to copy the best “ideas” from your opponent to save related time and money. Please first sentence about that.
When in the West something is learned about a new system, it is from the start in the media. In the East the people learned from that, when it was presented in the public.
Before the Osa from FRG were handed to Greece, it was thoroughly tested and found capable, the yardstick was the Roland-3. The price-tag of the Roland 3 in mind, the present Osa is still a very good buy for most users.
Thank you for your dates, but my sources claim, that it was a naval-system at first and that the requirement for an army system have been issued around 1967. That the system was first spotted by Western intelligence in 1973, what does fit very well with the service entry in 1974.

If the FRG Osa’s in Greece are the same as the five that the RAF got then they are valve driven electronics (there are a lot of sub miniature tubes fitted in various modular units that plug into the equipment racks, if the valve breaks, replace the module. decent technicians required however as the is little in the way of built in test equipment (saying that the western systems at the time were the same, however the ECCM systems on the western were better (like they had some)) . I do happen to know a bit about the Osa having been an Operator Maintainer on it for six months at Spadeadam. I cannot be too specific on the capabilities of the system as it is classified in the UK/US on request of the Russians, however it is a well designed and very capable system for its era, only let down operationally by its lack of electronics capability (Its ECCM systems are not that hot (Sky Shadow will jam the sh*t out of it and it loves tracking Chaff), not a problem in daylight as the camera system is very good and it does has an Assisted (semi manual) Track facility, however it’s a different story at night as the camera is not a TI/Starlight device. If modified to interface with a modern computer signal processing system then I would still rate the system as it does have some good points over Roland and Rapier (its UK equivalent). It’s a fun piece of kit to drive as well, however at 60 KPH it does rock a bit and suffers from bad oversteer (caused by its four wheel steering).

What makes you think that western intelligence is so wonderful as to spot and identify Soviet equipment before it enters service? We had plenty of artists impressions released of the T-80 for years after it entered service that seemed to show Abrams type vehicles.

You’re making the assumption that western intelligence services were just throwing everything they knew out there for the general public.

When you have better intelligence data at hand, please offer it, otherwise it is a senseless remark. Please bolster your claim about T-80 with examples from the late 70s.

It is not a senseless remark. Western intelligence has often been wrong, whether they were fooled into thinking the wrong thing or simply didn’t know anything about something before it was revealed publicly.
If you want to see the Abrams vs T-80 simply look in Reagans Soviet Military Power documents. For most of the early 80s they depicted Abrams type armoured vehicles. Equally Tunguska was depicted as a Gepard on a T-72 Chassis before properly revealed. Now you might suggest that this was no intelligence but disinformation to increase defence budgets, but then that just proves that no only can the western intelligence be wrong, it can be fooled and sometimes it can spread misinformation of its own to meet its own agenda.
Hardly a reliable source of hard data.

What makes you think that western intelligence is so wonderful as to spot and identify Soviet equipment before it enters service? We had plenty of artists impressions released of the T-80 for years after it entered service that seemed to show Abrams type vehicles.

When you have better intelligence data at hand, please offer it, otherwise it is a senseless remark. Please bolster your claim about T-80 with examples from the late 70s.

That the system was first spotted by Western intelligence in 1973, what does fit very well with the service entry in 1974.

What makes you think that western intelligence is so wonderful as to spot and identify Soviet equipment before it enters service? We had plenty of artists impressions released of the T-80 for years after it entered service that seemed to show Abrams type vehicles.

Sens that is close to my point of view.No need to discover the wheel when….you know the story.
As for dates,they are from 2 russian books and one site(i try to check everything before i post),so i’m not sure who is wrong.In one of the books there is the text of the order for Osa development from 27 Octomber 1960.If i’m not lazy and have the time,i will try to translate the text.Still the goverment tests ended in 1970.

Thank you for that offer. A different view and source is welcome always.
You date about 1960 may be correct some way, because that fitted with the naval-variant, what was first in development. Something smaller was in need for the ‘Grisha to Krivak’ and other ones to come soon. Maybe that some sources do not differ between naval- and land-systems.

Sens that is close to my point of view.No need to discover the wheel when….you know the story.
As for dates,they are from 2 russian books and one site(i try to check everything before i post),so i’m not sure who is wrong.In one of the books there is the text of the order for Osa development from 27 Octomber 1960.If i’m not lazy and have the time,i will try to translate the text.Still the goverment tests ended in 1970.

“For the soldiers it is important only, if their weapons did fullfill the related task.
So far all customers seemed to be satisfied with their system bought.”
Same for Osa……
“Osa entered service in 1974”
No.4 Octomber 1971 along with Osa-M.The development begin in 27 Octomber 1960.
“There is nothing to get “sick” about, except wrong pride.”
I’m mean is just stupid when all russian/soviet made weapons are “copies” from western ones,or they have -ski to look more sexy 😉
To be fair the development of Osa was forced by USA MIM-46 Mauler.

None claimed that a russian/soviet made weapons are “copies”.
Every system has to function under the special enviroment and doctrine at first. So a system showed different results under different conditions.
But none could deny that there are some “mirror” developments/procurements were made between bigger military powers to deny an opponent a possible advantage from that. It is clever always to copy the best “ideas” from your opponent to save related time and money. Please first sentence about that.
When in the West something is learned about a new system, it is from the start in the media. In the East the people learned from that, when it was presented in the public.
Before the Osa from FRG were handed to Greece, it was thoroughly tested and found capable, the yardstick was the Roland-3. The price-tag of the Roland 3 in mind, the present Osa is still a very good buy for most users.
Thank you for your dates, but my sources claim, that it was a naval-system at first and that the requirement for an army system have been issued around 1967. That the system was first spotted by Western intelligence in 1973, what does fit very well with the service entry in 1974.

“The SA-8 even has a gas turbine generator on top of the main diesel engine, just to power the electronics.”
You are wrong here.Many russian systems use auxilary electricity generator,in case of shut down main engine,to save fuel.
The electronics in Osa is truly “ancient” but this was take care of in Osa-AK modification.I was in Osa launcer many years ago and i may forget something but i don’t remember any valves.I have a short movie from inside one Osa-AK system and the look is not so “barbarian” as many other russian weapons.
Osa has other advantages as ability to cross water obstacles,search targets on the move,air lift by Il-76 and even ability to move on railroad.

“For the soldiers it is important only, if their weapons did fullfill the related task.
So far all customers seemed to be satisfied with their system bought.”
Same for Osa……
“Osa entered service in 1974”
No.4 Octomber 1971 along with Osa-M.The development begin in 27 Octomber 1960.
“There is nothing to get “sick” about, except wrong pride.”
I’m mean is just stupid when all russian/soviet made weapons are “copies” from western ones,or they have -ski to look more sexy 😉
To be fair the development of Osa was forced by USA MIM-46 Mauler.