The USSR and Russia have developed a couple different ABM systems.
“System A” used the V-1000 interceptor.
System A-35 used the GALOSH interceptor.
System A-135, the current Moscow ABM system, uses the GALOSH and GORGON interceptors.
A final system, the S-225, was also developed in the 1960s/1970s and was basically a mobile system employing a short and long range missile, one or both of which was possibly based on the GAZELLE.
So, does anyone have any good photos of Soviet/Russian ABM components? Missiles, transloaders, radars? I’m looking for images of the missiles themselves in particular.
By: TEEJ - 12th March 2006 at 13:11
That’s not true. ASCC did provide pretty much all of the codenames. The US DoD provided the numerical systems. For example:
AA-1 ALKALI
AA-1 was the DoD designation, ALKALI was the ASCC codename.
It should be noted that when you talk about SAMs, the DoD designator denotes the system, the ASCC codename denotes the actual interceptor. So, if you’re talking about a GRUMBLE, you’re actually talking about a 5V55-series missile.
The ASCC is assigned the following and nothing else:
FSU Fighters
FSU Bombers
FSU Cargo/Transports
FSU Helicopters
FSU Miscellaneous
PRC Fighters
PRC Bombers
PRC Cargo/Transports
PRC Helicopters
PRC Miscellaneous
What you are hinting at are the early years before the ASCC was assigned solely the above list. All the rest of the ‘NATO codenames’ are evolved from a number of different committees and working groups. These are not controlled by ASIC (ex ASCC) and there is no cross over. For example it is not ASCC that issued GARGOYLE. Neither does ASCC issue any class designations for ships etc and they also do not designate for radar codenames. There is a clear designation system and ASCC (now ASIC) were assigned the list above and absolutely nothing else. SOC you serve and should know this situation. Although you’ll find nothing on the web officially of this designation system you can get a hint of the various working groups and committees that exist from this website:
By: SOC - 12th March 2006 at 05:55
ASCC is now ASIC as of 2005. ASCC did not designate missiles, radars etc. Different working groups designate those. ASCC, now ASIC, designate aircraft/helos only.
That’s not true. ASCC did provide pretty much all of the codenames. The US DoD provided the numerical systems. For example:
AA-1 ALKALI
AA-1 was the DoD designation, ALKALI was the ASCC codename.
It should be noted that when you talk about SAMs, the DoD designator denotes the system, the ASCC codename denotes the actual interceptor. So, if you’re talking about a GRUMBLE, you’re actually talking about a 5V55-series missile.
By: SOC - 12th March 2006 at 05:44
The Spartan and Sprint system worked fine but they decided it was a waste of money.
Yeah, but come on, the timing was just awful. if it’s too expensive, cancel it at the design or testing phase, not after you’ve already built the entire system and turned it on!
By: TEEJ - 11th March 2006 at 22:37
GORGON. And the first picture shows the GAZELLE transloader.
Sorry, but I don’t know the location of the display missile. IIRC, I got the pic from a Russian website.Yes, but what did it look like? 😀
Oh, and does the V-1000 have an ASCC designation? 😮
Plus one more picture for sferrin.
ASCC is now ASIC as of 2005. ASCC did not designate missiles, radars etc. Different working groups designate those. ASCC, now ASIC, designate aircraft/helos only.
By: sferrin - 11th March 2006 at 20:28
Compare the Soviet ABM system around Moscow with the US ABM system, that was operational for what… a day? The US probably cost more but they saved so much on operational costs by closing it down so quickly… money well spent.
The only thing more powerful than a nuke is a stupid bureaucrat. The Spartan and Sprint system worked fine but they decided it was a waste of money. Had nothing to do with it’s performance. The thing is with the computers of the day (and this applies to the Moscow ABM system too) they’d have been easily overwhelmed. Couple those missiles with today’s computers and you could pretty much forget going after the targets defended by them with an ICBM unless you were very stealthy.
By: Arabella-Cox - 11th March 2006 at 08:26
That looks expensive. I swear if I’ve noticed one thing about Russian stuff it’s that they look like they’d cost some bucks. A mobile ICBM on an all-terrain launcher? Cold-launched everything? Ten thousand pound SAMs on tanks? A land mobile Aegis radar.
Compare the Soviet ABM system around Moscow with the US ABM system, that was operational for what… a day? The US probably cost more but they saved so much on operational costs by closing it down so quickly… money well spent.
By: sferrin - 8th March 2006 at 18:39
That looks expensive. I swear if I’ve noticed one thing about Russian stuff it’s that they look like they’d cost some bucks. A mobile ICBM on an all-terrain launcher? Cold-launched everything? Ten thousand pound SAMs on tanks? A land mobile Aegis radar.
By: SOC - 8th March 2006 at 18:06
GORGON. And the first picture shows the GAZELLE transloader.
Sorry, but I don’t know the location of the display missile.
The display missile should be GALOSH, it’s believed that it was very similar to GORGON in appearance (or vice versa, actually). Notice the differences in the first stage of the two missiles.
Yes, but what did it look like?
Duh, a horse leg 😀
Oh, and does the V-1000 have an ASCC designation?
The V-1000 ABM was assigned the codename GAFFER. It never got an ABM- designator as far as I can remember since it never entered service. Had it been inducted, it probably would have been the ABM-1. HEN ROOST was the EW radar, HEN EGG was the engagement radar.
The similar looking Dal SAM deployed around Leningrad for a short period was the SA-5 GRIFFON. The SA-5 designator was reused with the GAMMON codename for the S-200, probably because it replaced the Dal around Leningrad and was far more successful with regards to entering service!
By: Meteorit - 8th March 2006 at 17:10
Cool, I haven’t seen a few of those. The white missile in the upper row, is that the GALOSH, or the GORGON? And where is the display missile located?
GORGON. And the first picture shows the GAZELLE transloader.
Sorry, but I don’t know the location of the display missile. IIRC, I got the pic from a Russian website.
Yes, it was a PILL BOX prototype array.
Yes, but what did it look like? 😀
Oh, and does the V-1000 have an ASCC designation? 😮
Plus one more picture for sferrin.
By: SOC - 8th March 2006 at 14:43
Some interceptor and radar photos
I think the missile with the guy standing on top of it is actually the Dal (SA-5 GRIFFON), not the V-1000 (GAFFER). I’ll check later.
Are you sure that the Green TEL on the right isnt some version of Topol ICBM?
It’s the exact same thing you see in the upper center, just with the missile inside the canister.
Here you go.
Cool, I haven’t seen a few of those. The white missile in the upper row, is that the GALOSH, or the GORGON? And where is the display missile located?
This might be a good opportunity for me to ask if anyone has any info about the HORSE LEG radar at Sary Shagan? Supposedly it was a Don-2N (PILL BOX) prototype.
Yes, it was a PILL BOX prototype array.
By: sferrin - 8th March 2006 at 14:27
Here you go.
This might be a good opportunity for me to ask if anyone has any info about the HORSE LEG radar at Sary Shagan? Supposedly it was a Don-2N (PILL BOX) prototype.
That middle one looks like this one from back in the 80’s
http://www.unige.ch/cyberdocuments/theses2001/GaspariniP/images/image035.jpg
By: djnik - 8th March 2006 at 11:10
Some interceptor and radar photos
By: djnik - 8th March 2006 at 11:02
Here are some photos of Moscow ABM systems by using Google Earth
By: djnik - 8th March 2006 at 10:48
Are you sure that the Green TEL on the right isnt some version of Topol ICBM?
By: Meteorit - 8th March 2006 at 10:27
Here you go.
This might be a good opportunity for me to ask if anyone has any info about the HORSE LEG radar at Sary Shagan? Supposedly it was a Don-2N (PILL BOX) prototype.
Sign In
March 8, 2006 at 3:31 am