SAM Systems

Basicaly yes, aulthough each custumer could select deferent “modes” of the system.
here some links:

http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=91
http://www.singaporerapier.com/meminfo.html

and a MBDA’s brochure:
http://www.mbda.net/site/doc_imp/rapier_b1x.pdf

JERNAS is the export name for the Rapier FSC (Field Standard C) air defence system, it is based on the Rapier Mk 2 missile and launcher which is in service with the British Army and RAF, the Blindfiretracking radar and the Dagger surveillance radar

So they’re both identical in terms of capabilities?

What’s the difference between Rapier C and JERNAS?

JERNAS is the export name for the Rapier FSC (Field Standard C) air defence system, it is based on the Rapier Mk 2 missile and launcher which is in service with the British Army and RAF, the Blindfire tracking radar and the Dagger surveillance radar

What’s the difference between Rapier C and JERNAS?

Pytheas from WCF found this news article from TA NEA (Greek Paper).

His translation follows:

The problem was NATO objections, because they did not want their (IFF?) codes to be passed on to the Russians. The solution found was that the integration would be done by a Greek company called SSA as a trusted go between, who would have the codes of both NATO and Russian systems.

Two successful tests were carried out before Christmas. Although tests will officially carry on till April, the results so far are better than those of the Crotale systems. Link up between Tor and S-300 has not been done yet but it is considered much easier.

http://ta-nea.dolnet.gr/print_article.php?…8430&m=N12&aa=2
(Link is in Greek only sorry)

Some say that the work on the link between the Tor-M1 and the S-300 is well underway and already at testing stage. Maybe a missile shot isn’t too far down the track at the NATO Guided Missile Range NAMFI on Crete near Souda.

Cheers,
Alepou 340MB

Having had the pleasure of working on two types of SAM system, One British (Bloodhound Mk2) and one Russian (SA-8), I can say that the Russians do build good SAM Systems (the Gecko’s capibilties are impressive for a system that has not one silicon chip in it). If the Russians can make a system with valves, a limited number of transistors and electro mech computers as good as the SA-8, I’d hate to think what a system with modern electronics would be like. As for Rapier, Never worked on it, however know a lot of blokes would have and they say that the Old Field Standard B would go U/S just by pulling it out of the hanger. Saying that the stuff I’ve heard about the Field Standard C is that it hardly breaks and when it does the Build In Test Equipment is first rate, hence it does not stay broke for very long (as long as you have the spares).

I think the best and -as far as I know the only – suitable for comparing in depth the S-300PMU-1 and Patriot PAC-3 is the HAF whitch operates both Systems for some years now!
Until recent there were some difficulties in integration of S-300 with the Hellenic Air defence network because of compatibility isues between the russian system and the (western NATO-like) greek Air defence network. This has prevented for some time a fair comparison of the efficiency of the 2 SAMs.
Maybe fantasma337 or Alepou 340MB could provide us with more information

I stand corrected about the SA-12. Hey the Russians just cranked out two more SAM systems since my last post, so we’re up to SA-85 now!

I think we’re up to SA-24 now, actually! That’s the Igla-S. And the SA-12 is a tactical SAM system designed to provide umbrella air defence against a plethora of threat systems. It has an ATBM capability, but no ABM capability to speak of, that takes a wholly different breed of system.

The Russians have produced the largest selection of SAM systems. I think NATO is up to SA-20 or 21 for coding them. You could equip a country’s entire air defence grid with Russian systems. Hand held SA7/14/16/18 systems all the way up to the strategic SA-12 with ABM capabilitiy. I have said on another thread that I would use Russian systems for my entire air defense network.

Moving this to the Missiles subforum.

for point defence two other options are VL_Mica and israeli Spyder (derby + python). A land version of Aster15 could presumably be used with VL_mica to permit medium range defence.

For comparison: surface-to-air assets, Japan vs ROK.

RE: SAM Systems

http://www.mod.uk/index.php3?page=659

“The RAF Police carry out covert surveys of military low flying activity, frequently assisted by a mobile Skyguard air defence radar. This is used to monitor accurately the heights and speeds of military aircraft. The RAF Police and the Skyguard radar are tasked, jointly or separately, by MOD Head Office to areas of the country or specific locations judged to be causing public concern.

Generally, Skyguard deploys to a different location monthly and monitors activity over a four-day period. Flying stations are not given advance notice of Skyguard deployments or the locations chosen.”

Link to photograph of Hunter during Skyguard trials:

http://www.mod.uk/index.php3?page=867

Captured Argentine equipment from the Falklands War is still actively being used to this present day. The RAF has this year put into service an ex-Argentine Puma and mated part of a Chinook airframe to a crashed RAF example and returned this helo to service. My unit, here in the Falklands, back in 1993, had an ex-Argentine vehicle for a number of years still in its camo. This year RAF Germany donated an ex-Argentine utility vehicle to a UK Museum for display. This vehicle had been strafed by a Harrier’s 30mms during the war, later captured and put into service as a squadron utility vehicle in RAF Germany. The ex-Argentine Skyguard/35mm cannon combination was used as part of the air-defence system at RAF Waddington for a number of years until retirement. The Skyguard was then found a new use with the RAF Police and the low-level flying monitoring team. A lot of the captured kit is on display in various units here in the Falklands. They even have a SAM-7 launcher mounted on one of the unit walls! Some of the units have 20mm anti-aircraft guns as “gate-guards”.

TJ

RE: SAM Systems

Take it easy Jonesy. You´re right though. The later field standard was/is miles better. On a similar note, have you heard that the SA-80 is finally working. Troop trials are being conducted now, and they reckon at this rate the SA-80 could be in line to be the most reliable assault rifle world-wide. Looks like the Germans have fixed that piece of sh*t for you guys.

CROTALE rules, OK
🙂

RE: SAM Systems

Eclipse,

Thanks very much. I’d quite forgotten where I’d read that!.

I think that I must have skimmed over that article (the JDW one) far too quickly because it was far less sketchy and, in fact, quite a degree more thorough than I recalled.
My apologies to Janes!

Steve

RE: SAM Systems

This is the report that Jonesy mentioned:

*****************************************************************

IAF claims to be able to deceive Russian S-300

ZORAN KUSOVAC JDW Correspondent
Zagreb
And STEVE RODAN JDW Correspondent
Tel Aviv

The Israel Air Force (IAF) has announced that it has developed a countermeasures system to the Almaz S-300 (NATO reporting name: ‘Grumble’) surface-to-air missile system in an effort to confront the prospect that its neighbours will obtain the advanced Russian air-defence system.

A senior Israeli defence source said state-owned companies such as Israel Military Industries (IMI) and the Rafael Armament Development Authority have developed ways to disrupt or deceive the S-300 system. IMI has developed the Improved Tactical Air-Launched Decoy (ITALD), which is designed to deceive the S-300’s radar.

Israeli defence sources said Israel acquired subsystems of the S-300 in 1998 from Croatia, which included the radar, missiles and other components. The IAF would not disclose the exact variant of the S-300, nor would it confirm details of the S-300 transfer. However, senior IAF officials said that the air force has been preparing for the prospect that such countries as Egypt, Syria or Iran would obtain the system.

“The Israel Air Force began to prepare for the S-300 in the mid-1990s,” a senior air force source told Jane’s Defence Weekly. “Delegates visited S-300 sites in Russia and other countries to learn about the system.”

However, the origins of the IAF’s acquisition of the S-300 system remain unclear. JDW sources believe claims that Croatia might have exported parts of the S-300 missile system to Israel, or at least allowed Israeli experts to familiarise themselves with it on-site in Croatia, may be unfounded.

The Croatian Army (HV) acquired an incomplete S-300 system in the final stages of the 1991-95 war for independence from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, during which time it was subject to an international arms import embargo.

On 10 August 1994 a cargo aircraft brought eight containers of equipment from an undisclosed country, followed by three further shipments in August, September and December of that year, although the HV never had a fully-operational system.

Croatia appears to have received the following components of the system: two launchers with missiles and reload missiles – a total of 24 missiles – and various auxiliary equipment such as the testing and maintenance station, compressors, cranes and a complete set of technical documentation. However, the crucial components of the system, such as the NVO-76N6 low-altitude radar, ST-68UM surveillance radar and the 30N6 command and control station were never delivered.

The components in the possession of the HV were stored in military warehouses at Pula and Kanjiza.

Croatian sources confirm that Israeli experts toured the warehouses, but the Ministry of Defence (MoD) denied that any missiles were ever transported out of Croatia.

However, some sources in Croatia familiar with arms acquisition deals during the UN embargo suggest that Israel may have been involved in the original purchase of the system in 1994.

An official inquiry investigating the alleged misappropriations by Gen Vladimir Zagorac, former HV Head of Procurement, indicated that the S-300 components were purchased through an Israeli company Nevada Trade from an owner listed as Winsley Finance.

A source suggests that an S-300 system was delivered to Israel, but that key components such as observation and guidance radars and the control unit were retained by Israel, while Croatia received the missiles, which on their own, have no military value.

*****************************************************************

BBC – June 8, 2001

Croatia reportedly purchased Russian missiles for Israel in 1995

The inspection process being conducted by the tax police in the departments of the Croatian Defence Ministry to uncover the thefts that took place in the days of the late President Franjo Tudjman has uncovered an arms deal involving Russian S-300 missiles which was concluded in 1995.

The investigations being conducted by Croatian officials indicate that these missiles were purchased for Israel, which had not been able to acquire them directly from Russia, in order to study the capabilities and effectiveness of this type of missile, which some Arab states have, and determine their weaknesses. Since Croatia was trying to move closer to and establish diplomatic relations with Israel, Zagreb purchased the missiles for Israel; and in return it was given the go-ahead from Washington to launch an attack on the Krajina area, which was under Serb control.

Croatia also obtained the ammunition required for its weapons. The procurement, which totalled 19m dollars in value, was conducted by then Croatian Deputy Defence Minister Gen Vladimir Zagorec through an Israel-based Croatian company called “Nevada Trading Ltd”, whose office is in the Negev area.

RE: SAM Systems

“Some years ago the Russians actually demonstrated their system in UAE in front of a fairly distinguished international audience. Apparently many were left open-mouthed. The S300 can kick @rse”

You sure that was the S-300 that was demonstrated? I know they did a fairly tremendous demonstration of the Pantsyr SHORADS system that led to a UAE purchase of 50 units a year or so back.

I have read recently that the Israeli airforce was very bothered about the possibility of the S-300 being deployed by some of its neighbours and aquired at least a part system. The story they released is that theyve been able to conjure up a defensive system (presumably some form of active expendable decoy) to specifically defeat it? The article was remarkable in its sketchiness though!

“Years ago AFM ran an article about the RAF Police and their use of captured Argentinian AA systems to “trap” low flying RAF pilots. They mentioned that the Rapier system is so unreliable that a joke did the rounds that RAPIER is actually an anagram for REPAIR”

I’ve not heard about the RAF Police using what I’d assume to be the Skyguard AAA guidance radars to monitor aircraft flight parameters (a lad I know in RAFP doesnt even think that is within his job description!) as airfield defence, and as such those systems and the 35mm AAA pieces appropriated at the same time, fall under the control of the RAF Regiment?

One thing that is definitely right on was the unreliability and “modest” effectiveness of the original Rapier system. In 1982 things were so bad that the Royal Artillery units stationed around San Carlos found that the alloy retaining pins holding the missiles on the rails would shear and dump the missiles onto the ground with a very uncomfortable frequency.

Like many systems though, most notably Patriot in 91, it is putting a system in an operational environment that can bring these deficiencies into sharp relief so that they can be resolved. The current version of the system Rapier2000 or Field Standard C has evolved from that into, allegedly, a very capable system.

Not that I expect you, with your delusional French sympathies, to give any Brit gear a fair break though Puffadder!!! }>:D

Regards,
Steve

RE: SAM Systems

Some years ago the Russians actually demonstrated their system in UAE in front of a fairly distinguished international audience. Apparently many were left open-mouthed. The S300 can kick @rse.
Years ago AFM ran an article about the RAF Police and their use of captured Argentinian AA systems to “trap” low flying RAF pilots. They mentioned that the Rapier system is so unreliable that a joke did the rounds that RAPIER is actually an anagram for REPAIR

RE: SAM Systems

LAST EDITED ON 12-08-01 AT 12:45 PM (GMT)[p]Actually, I’d probably add the British Manpads as well as Igla.
Starstreak would add a weapon with a different guidance method and this would add to the enemies defence problems. As a MANPAD it is at the cheaper end of the SAM spectrum.
Part of the high weight for Igla is an IFF system. When the IFF system is included with stinger they both weigh about the same, but there is a large difference in cost so I’d stick with Igla and spend the money saved on a few Starstreaks.

Tor is designed to move with armour, not defend fixed targets. It also has the emmision advantage of using a phased array tracking radar. And zero slew time as the missiles are launched vertically. The use of large and fast missiles meant high performance aircraft could be engaged as well as weapons and low radar cross section targets like maverick, cruise missiles, guided bombs etc down to very low altitudes. The standard system is based on a tracked chassis, but there are shelterised (truck based) and towed versions for low mobility infantry positions like HQs and stationary positions like bridges respectively. It basically replaces SA-8.(both on land and at sea). Tunguska on the other hand is more of an anti helicopter weapon and replaces the ZSU-23-4 and SA-9/-13. The latest versions of Tunguska have missiles with dual AA and AT warheads and 15km range, so the difference is blurred. Both seem to be very capable systems but Tor is quite expensive (due to sophisticated phased array radar), whereas although Tunguska is much more expensive than ZSU-23-4, it is still cheaper than ZSU-23-4 + SA-13, simply because the FCS is combined on one vehicle and not duplicated. The missiles are also much cheaper and make use against RPVs cost effective.
Pansir is the shelterised version of Tunguska with lower performance guns (single barrel 2A72s instead of twin barrel 2A38 cannon) but more missiles (2S6 has 4 missiles, 2S6M and later variants have 8 missiles while Pantsir has 12 missiles).

“…system. Its recently come to light that I am a big fan of this system, BUT, I dont think that the same guidance limitations exist in the land based application that warrant the extra expenditure on an active missile.”
From what I have read the new missiles (48N6E, and 48N6E2) use active seekers.

Regarding your whinges… please never appologise for not agreeing with me. It is far more common than you think. 😉
(Tom could make a career of it… ;-))
But seriously the reason I come here is to see the opinions of others and I certainly enjoy the information both you and Tom and Arthur, etc etc have and share with us.