The development and modernization of the armed forces imply the creation of new types of weapons and equipment of different classes. In recent years, special attention has been paid to the development of air defense, due to which several new models have been developed and put into service. One of the latest innovations is the Bagulnik anti-aircraft missile system. Its adoption into service was announced in early October.
On October 7, Deputy Minister of Defense General of the Army Dmitry Bulgakov told the press about the latest achievements in the field of rearmament of the army. According to him, over the past five years, 137 new types of weapons and equipment have been adopted. Among the latest developments there are also air defense systems. One of the main innovations in this area were the Strela-10MN and Bagulnik anti-aircraft missile systems. At the same time, the representative of the military department did not specify the number of ordered and delivered equipment of these types. ...


Russian anti-aircraft missile systems are distinguished by high performance and, as a result, are very popular on the international arms market. As it became known a few days ago, the list of export complexes has been supplemented with one more item. The Rosoboronexport organization has officially announced the start of promotion on the world market of the promising export air defense system Tor-E2, developed by the Almaz-Antey aerospace defense concern.
On August 9, Rosoboronexport published a new press release describing the organization’s plans for the future. According to this document, the organization is launching a program to promote new developments by domestic designers in the field of air defense. It is planned to offer the promising Tor-E2 anti-aircraft complex to foreign clients. It represents a further development of the already well-known Thor line, but at the same time has certain differences from its predecessors. ...


For various reasons, the Australian armed forces do not have developed air defense, which leads to known risks. The command is aware of this problem and is taking the necessary measures. As part of a major army modernization program, it is planned to purchase a sufficient number of new anti-aircraft missile systems that can provide an acceptable level of protection for facilities and troops. The foreign-developed NASAMS 2 anti-aircraft complex was chosen as the basis for the air defense of the future. At the same time, it must undergo significant changes.
According to known data, on this moment Air defense in the Australian ground forces is represented only by Swedish-made RBS-70 man-portable anti-aircraft missile systems. Taking advantage of the country's geographic location, the Australian armed forces assign the task of airspace defense to fighter aircraft, which reduces the priority of ground-based systems. ...


During the Second World War, the basis of the air defense of all countries were machine guns and gun systems various models. Attempts were made to create missile systems for a similar purpose, but the lack of a number of important technologies at that time did not allow such weapons to compete with artillery. However, all the armies of the warring countries tried to find ways to increase the effectiveness of missile weapons. One of the most interesting attempts to solve such a problem remains in history under the name Unrotated Projectile.
The British project with the symbol UP or Unrotated Projectile (“Non-rotating projectile”) started shortly after the outbreak of World War II. Seeing the threat in the face Nazi Germany, the military and political leadership of Great Britain was looking for new ways to protect the country from a possible attack. For objective reasons, promising air defense systems were of greatest interest to the British military. ...

The 3M-47 "Gibka" turret installation is designed to provide guidance, remote automated launch of "Igla" missiles and/or anti-tank guided missiles (UR) of the 9M120-1 type to protect surface ships with a displacement of 200 tons and above in the area above short range from attacks anti-ship missiles, airplanes and helicopters in conditions of natural (background) and artificial interference. In modifications with the complex guided weapons(KUV) for the 9M120-1 type missile defense turret solves the problem of hitting low-flying air targets at speeds up to 400 m/s, low-tonnage surface targets, ground (coastal) moving and stationary targets, modern and future tanks, other armored personnel carriers (armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles) and small-sized targets (such as bunkers, bunkers), fortifications, manpower in shelters and open areas. ...

The 9M331MKM Tor-M2KM anti-aircraft missile system is designed for air defense of the most important military, government and industrial facilities against attacks by precision weapons (anti-radar and cruise missiles, guided and glide bombs, etc.), aircraft attack aircraft, fire support helicopters and remotely piloted vehicles within the affected area, at any time of the day, in difficult meteorological and interference conditions, incl. when located within the city limits. The Tor-2MKM air defense missile system is a modification of the Tor-M2E and is distinguished by its modular construction principle and the ability to place combat and technical equipment on any customer platform with the appropriate payload capacity. The complex was developed by the Almaz-Antey air defense concern and the Izhevsk Electromechanical Plant Kupol, which is part of it. ...

The short-range anti-aircraft missile system HHQ-10 (Hai HongQi-10, Naval Red Flag-10) is designed to organize the defense of surface ships of various classes in the near zone from massive attacks by low-flying cruise missiles, as well as airplanes, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles. The HHQ-10 complex was developed by the Chinese corporation CASIC (China Aerospace and Science Industry Corporation) and is similar in design to the American-German RAM air defense system for a similar purpose. The HHQ-10 air defense system, which received the export designation FL-3000N (Flying Leopard 3000 Naval), was first demonstrated in 2008 at the Zhuhai Airshow-2008 exhibition. In November 2014, at the international exhibition Airshow China 2014, CASIC Corporation presented three versions of the FL-3000 air defense missile launchers for 8 (see photo), 15 (see photo) and 24 (see photo) missiles. The first ship equipped with this air defense system in 2008 was the type 056 corvette (see photo), the same complex is installed on type 052D destroyers and 054B frigates. ...

The promising mobile anti-aircraft missile system MEADS (Medium Extended Air Defense System) is designed for the defense of troop groups and important facilities from operational-tactical ballistic missiles with a flight range of up to 1000 km, cruise missiles, enemy aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles. The development of the system is carried out by the Orlando (USA) joint venture MEADS International, which includes the Italian division of MBDA, the German LFK and the American company Lockheed Martin. The development, production and support of the air defense system is managed by the NATO organization NAMEADSMO (NATO Medium Extended Air Defense System Design and Development, Production and Logistics Management Organization). The US funds 58% of the program's costs. Germany and Italy provide 25% and 17%, respectively. According to initial plans, the United States intended to purchase 48 MEADS air defense systems, Germany - 24 and Italy - 9. ...


It has always been and will be like this: if someone somewhere has something new, then others immediately strive to get the same thing. Here's ours anti-aircraft missile system“Tunguska” did not leave anyone indifferent abroad, and it immediately became clear that our potential opponents had nothing similar, and if so, then they also needed a similar machine. Two people spoke loudest about this: Lawrence D. Bacon, director of the small American weapons design firm WDH in Irvine, and the chief of the engineering group, Asher N. Sharoni, a former colonel in the Israeli army. Again, why this is so is clear. There are always people who run “ahead of the locomotive,” hoping to attract attention precisely because they are “ahead.” While large firms are still shaking up there, we will be able to do something and attract attention and... money! The correct approach, of course, is the most venture-like approach, if only... If only we abstract from the difficulties of technical implementation. ...

The Sosna anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) is designed to protect military units and units in any form of combat operations, including on the march, from air attack and reconnaissance of a potential enemy. The complex ensures the destruction of helicopters, airplanes, high-tech weapons, cruise missiles, remotely controlled vehicles and lightly armored ground vehicles at any time of the day in conditions of limited visibility in the presence of natural and artificial interference at a range of up to 10 km. The lead developer of the complex is JSC Design Bureau of Precision Engineering named after A.E. Nudelman". The development of the complex has been carried out since 1987. The main areas of work were increasing the combat stability of the complex and reducing the cost of the combat vehicle. Increasing the combat stability of the air defense system was achieved by abandoning the use of radar detection systems in order to reduce vulnerability from enemy anti-radar weapons. ...

Standard-3 (SM-3/RIM-161) is an American anti-aircraft guided missile of the Standard family, part of the ship-based missile defense system and designed to intercept medium- and shorter-range ballistic missiles in the upper layers of the atmosphere and in the extra-atmospheric region. The basis of the ship-based missile defense system is the modernized Aegis multifunctional combat control system. This system is equipped with destroyers of the Arleigh Burke and Zumwalt class, and part of the Ticonderoga class cruisers of the US Navy. SM-3 missiles controlled by Aegis are also deployed on similar ships of the Japanese Navy (Kongo class destroyers), Spain (F100 class frigates), South Korea (KDX-3 class destroyers), Australia and Norway (F-314 class frigates). The SM-3 rocket is a development of the one created in the early 1990s. Raytheon long-range anti-aircraft missile SM-2 Block IV (RIM-156). The first test launch of SM-3 took place on September 24, 1999...

The T38 Stiletto autonomous mobile short-range anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) is designed for the defense of ground forces, industrial and military facilities from attacks of all types of modern and promising air attack weapons with an effective dispersion surface of 0.03 m² or more, flying at extremely low , low and medium altitudes. The complex was developed by the Belarusian research and production enterprise Tetrahedr and is a logical continuation of the work of this enterprise under the Osa-T program, aimed at modernizing the outdated Soviet Osa complexes. Unlike the prototype, the T-38 air defense system is placed on a MZKT-69222T all-terrain wheeled chassis and uses a new weapon as a weapon. anti-aircraft missile, developed by the State Clinical Clinical Hospital "Luch" (Kiev, Ukraine). The control systems of the complex are made on a new element base, the combat vehicle is equipped with an electro-optical detection system. ...

Self-propelled anti-aircraft missile system "CIRCLE"

The formation of requirements for the first air defense system of the Ground Forces "Krug" was characterized by those trends that determined the totality of the main characteristics of the first missile systems of the country's Air Defense Forces - S-25 and S-75 and the necessary requirements of the Ground Forces for cross-country capability, time of readiness for combat work from the march and absence of wired communication lines and electrical connection cables between the complex facilities. The main ones considered were high-speed and high-altitude targets, practically invulnerable to the barrel anti-aircraft artillery and not always available for interception by front-line fighters.

Of course, the mobile version of the Krug air defense system did not make it possible to provide such a large destruction zone as that of the S-200 system of the Air Defense Forces, which began development in the summer of 1958. Nevertheless, in terms of the given maximum range, the Krug complex had to exceed not only the accepted time to arm the SA-75 "Dvina" air defense system, which ensures the destruction of targets flying at altitudes of up to 22 km at a range of up to 29 km, but also its modernized version, the S-75M "Volkhov" with a range of up to 40 km, is just scheduled for design.

Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated February 13, 1958 No. 2188-88 “On the creation prototype of the Krug anti-aircraft missile system, the main characteristics of the air defense system, the cooperation of the lead contractors using the complex's means and the timing of the work were determined, which determine the exit to joint (state) tests in the third quarter. 1961

The anti-aircraft missile system was intended to intercept targets flying at speeds up to 600 m/s at altitudes from 3000 m to 25000 m, at a distance of up to 45 km. The probability of hitting a target such as an Il-28 front-line bomber at altitudes up to 20 km with one missile was supposed to be 0 ,8, while providing for the possibility of maneuvering the target with an overload of up to 4 units. A target with an effective scattering surface (ESR) corresponding to the MiG-15 fighter was supposed to be detected at a distance of 1 15 km, ensuring deployment time from the march and collapse time of no more than 5 minutes.

The lead organization for the development of the Krug anti-aircraft missile system (2K11) was determined to be NII-20 GKOT (director P.M. Chudakov), the chief designer was V.P. Efremov. The 1S32 missile guidance station of the Krug complex was developed at the same NII-20 by chief designer I.M. Drize, then K.I. Popov.

The development of the missile defense system on a competitive basis was entrusted to two artillery design bureaus, which had quite a lot of experience in creating anti-aircraft guns. The KS-40 (3M8) rocket weighing 1.8 tons with a ramjet engine was to be created by the team of OKB-8 of the Sverdlovsk SNK headed by L.V. Lyulev. The famous V.T. was appointed as the developer of the 2-ton missile defense system with a solid propellant engine. Grabin, chief designer of the Central Research Institute-58 GKOT located in Kaliningrad near Moscow.

Grabin's work lasted relatively short. The S-134 rocket he designed was also equipped with a ramjet engine. Unlike the Sverdlovsk model, air access to the combustion chamber was carried out through four sector air intakes. The Grabinsk company independently developed a launcher under the symbol S-135. In general, all this work was carried out a little more than a year- July 4, 1959. By Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers No. 739–338, TsNII-58 was attached to the nearby OKB-1 S.P. Queen. Grabin himself turned out to be unlucky, that is, in a teaching job at the Moscow Higher Technical School. Most of his former employees, under the leadership of Korolev, began designing solid-fuel strategic ballistic missiles.

However, the competitive nature of the development remained. By the same Decree of July 4, 1959, OKB-2 of the State Committee for Aviation Technology (GKAT), chief designer P. D. Grushin, was involved in the creation of missiles for the Krug, who proposed the V-757Kr missile for the Krug complex - a version of its B missile defense system -757 (“product 17D”) with a ramjet solid fuel engine, developed in the same years for the country’s Air Defense Forces. The Krug complex with the V-757Kr (ZM10) missile was designated 2K11Mi and was to be submitted for joint testing at the end of 1960.

In addition to the “safety net” of the Sverdlovsk Design Bureau, the connection of OKB-2 also pursued another goal - the implementation of the ever-living, but not always fruitful idea of ​​unifying missile weapons. A number of complaints about the Grushin version of the rocket were made when considering its preliminary design in the summer of 1960. It was necessary to reduce the length and weight of the rocket. Ground Forces specialists were not satisfied with the temperature range of operation and the permissible transportation range of the starting engine, the operational characteristics of the radio fuse and the autopilot. It was necessary to abandon the heating of the ampoule battery and gas generator of the main engine.

As already noted, the main developer of the 3M8 missile defense system, OKB-8, was clearly tasked with using a ramjet engine (ramjet engine) on an anti-aircraft guided missile. The choice of this type of engine using non-aggressive liquid fuel seemed quite justified. Air oxygen was used as an oxidizer in the ramjet engine, so the rocket carried only fuel - kerosene. Ramjet was superior rocket engines in terms of specific thrust by five or more times. For rocket flight speeds VZ-5 times higher than sound, the ramjet was characterized by the lowest fuel consumption per unit of thrust, even in comparison with turbo jet engine. In comparison, the design of a ramjet engine seemed amazingly simple, and it was also much cheaper. Almost the only drawback of ramjet engines was considered to be the inability to create significant thrust at subsonic speeds in the absence of the necessary speed pressure at the entrance to the air intake, which did not allow limiting oneself to the use of only ramjet engines on rockets launched from the Earth.

In the mid-1950s. Many attempts have been made to introduce ramjet engines not only into rocketry, but even into manned aircraft. The French were “ahead of the rest” here. In addition to the clearly experimental aircraft of the Leduc company with a more than extravagant placement in the central body of the air intake of the pilot’s cockpit, piloting the aircraft in a piquant prone position, a real Griffon fighter was also developed with a combined turbo-ramjet engine .

In rocket science, in addition to many unrealized projects of ramjet-powered products, there were the actual flying Novaho projectile and serial anti-aircraft missiles Bomarck, Super Bomarck, Bloodhound, and Teilos.

In our country, the greatest experience in designing and testing ramjet engines was accumulated at SKB-670 GKAT by the team led by chief designer M.M. Bondaryuk, back in the early 1950s. who developed such an engine for the Shtor coastal complex rocket. Their most significant work was the creation of a supersonic ramjet for the S.A. intercontinental cruise missile. Lavochkin "Storm", successfully tested both on test benches and in flight tests. Engines were being worked on for a similar rocket by V.M. Myasishchev "Buran", as well as for other aircraft. True, the existing experience was somewhat one-sided - the engines were developed for low-maneuverable vehicles flying at a constant speed at almost the same altitude.

Taking into account the impossibility of ramjet operation at low speeds, the 3M8 rocket was designed using a two-stage design with four launch engines arranged in a “package” design. To ensure the conditions for launching a ramjet engine, solid fuel boosters accelerated the rocket to a speed 1.5–2 times higher than sound.

By the end of the 1950s. There was already information about the unstable nature of the operation of ramjet engines at high angles of attack. On the other hand, for an anti-aircraft missile designed to destroy highly maneuverable front-line aircraft, the implementation of lateral overloads of about 8 units was required. This largely determined the choice of the overall design of the rocket. For the second (propulsion) stage, a design with a rotating wing was adopted, which provided the ability to create large lifting forces at low angles of attack of the rocket body.

On the 3M8 rocket, the use of combined control was initially envisaged - a radio command system during the main flight phase and homing at the final part of the missile defense trajectory. The semi-active radar homing head was supposed to operate on the pulsed radiation signal of the target tracking channel of the missile guidance station reflected from the target.

The missiles were launched from the self-propelled launcher 2P24 (factory designation KS-40), created in the same OKB-8, placed on the “object 123” tracked chassis developed by the Sverdlovsk Transport Engineering Plant on the basis of the “object 105” chassis of the SU-100P self-propelled artillery mount. The artillery part of the launcher included a support beam with a boom hinged in its tail section, raised by two hydraulic cylinders. On the sides of the boom, brackets with supports were attached - “zero length” guides - to accommodate two missiles. When the rocket was launched, the front support sharply folded down, clearing the way for the lower console of the rocket stabilizer to pass through. The missiles were launched at an angle from 10° to 55° to the horizon. Before that, during the march, the missiles were supported by additional underwater supports, also attached to the boom. One support of the truss structure was brought in from the front and ensured the fixation of both missiles at once. Another support was moved from the sides opposite to the arrow.

The height of the launcher with assembled missiles during the march exceeded 4 m, so if it was necessary to pass under overpasses, the upper stabilizer console was removed.

The technical appearance of the rocket and launcher did not take shape immediately. At an early stage of design, a variant of a rocket with a “+”-shaped wing arrangement and an “x”-shaped tail unit was considered, while the missiles were launched from the launcher’s beam guides. Even after the start of flight tests, the possibility of switching from the frontal annular air intake to the side sector ones was explored. During the development process, the span of the wing and tail surfaces decreased somewhat.

The experimental model of the SNR was placed on a self-propelled prototype of the Baikal anti-aircraft self-propelled gun, which was not adopted for service, on which the turret with anti-aircraft guns was replaced with an antenna post with a so-called “basket”, in which consoles and workplaces for three operators were placed. The “basket” was rotated in the azimuthal plane by ±90°. The antenna post, in turn, could rotate relative to the “basket” by another ±45° in azimuth and rise up to the vertical in elevation. However, this layout option turned out to be extremely cramped and inconvenient to use - some of the instruments were even located under the operator’s chairs. Counting and solving instruments and power supply facilities were placed outside the “basket”, in the housing. The test results did not allow us to accept this layout scheme, which was more suitable for a tank than for a radar, for further development - it was not possible to ensure normal working conditions for operators.

In its standard version, the missile guidance station was located on the “object 124” self-propelled vehicle, basically similar to the launcher chassis. At the same time, the personnel and almost all instruments and assemblies were located in a fixed wheelhouse in the middle of the hull, and the rotating antenna post was located in its stern.

Initially, all tests of the complex's anti-aircraft missiles were supposed to be carried out at the Donguz test site in the Orenburg region, but it turned out to be too small taking into account the required missile launch ranges. Therefore, in 1960, the construction of a new testing ground near the Emba railway station began in Kazakhstan. The most necessary facilities of this test site were prepared in 1963, which made it possible to conduct joint tests there. The new facility was named the 11th State Test Site.

Initial plans included the delivery of telemetry missiles to the test site in the first quarter. 1959, missile guidance stations - by June, and target detection stations - in the third quarter. the same year.

In fact, only on November 26, 1959, the first of 10 throw tests of a mock-up rocket with full-scale launch engines took place, during which the first troubles were revealed - flutter, destruction of the rocket when the launchers were separated... Flight testing of the main engine with four launches of rockets without control equipment began in June 1960 Since August, having failed to achieve stable engine operation, they began to carry out program launches of rockets equipped with an autopilot, but without radio control equipment. Until June next year, 32 such launches were completed. Of these, the first 16 missiles were equipped with a simplified autopilot that did not provide roll control and a turbopump unit without a fuel consumption control device. Of the 26 launches carried out before the end of 1960, in six the rocket was destroyed in flight, in seven the propulsion engine did not turn on, and only 12 were relatively successful.

By the summer of 1960, the first tests of simplified versions of the Grushinsky B-757 for the S-75 complex were carried out. Since January 23, three launches of prototypes have been carried out, with a partially equipped gas generator, without rudders and destabilizers. During these tests, the operation and separation of the accelerator, the operation of the main engine with achievement of speeds from 560 to 690 m/s were checked. On April 22, autonomous tests of the rocket began, during which the B-757 developers encountered a number of difficulties.

Taking into account the delays in testing missiles, the decision of the Military-Industrial Commission (MIC) under the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated February 2, 1961 No. 17 proposed to launch the B-750VN missiles of the S-75 complex with on-board equipment similar to adopted for the Krug air defense missile system. Based on the 1SB7 on-board radio control and radio imaging unit from the 3M8 missile, 20 sets of KRB-9 equipment were manufactured, suitable for placement on B-750 family missiles.

However, in August it was not possible to proceed to joint testing of the complex with the standard 3M8 missile - by this time the first missile guidance station was still in the debugging stage, and the second model was in the state of delivery of individual units. Nevertheless, on September 24, the first launch of the modified B-750VN missile took place in the fixed beam SNR 1S32. Disappointing results showed the need to refine the SNR.

During the first flight tests, surging of the ramjet engine also appeared, which worked satisfactorily only at low angles of attack. Due to the insufficient vibration resistance of the equipment, the surge led to a disruption in the passage of commands and, as a result, to a loss of controllability of the missile defense system. At the 31st second, the transponder signal systematically disappeared. This mysterious phenomenon was overcome by moving the antenna from the rocket body to the stabilizer. Difficulties with launching a missile into the SNR beam were eliminated by staggering the installation of the range strobe from the moment the boosters were released. On the recommendation of the commission, the open-loop control gain was reduced from 0.9 to 0.5, while the closed-loop gain was quadrupled. In 1961, the first 10 samples of 1SB7 were manufactured by the Tula Arsenal plant.

Taking into account the large number of failures in testing of 3M8 missiles, by decision of the State Committee on Aviation Technology dated August 25, 1961, a special expert commission was created to develop measures to refine the missile. Most of the accidents were associated with burnouts of the combustion chamber, failures in the operation of the on-board equipment of the control unit, and insufficient strength of a number of structural elements. A month later, based on the recommendations of the commission, it was decided to change the design of combustion stabilizers, eliminate flow separation zones and increase the heat resistance of the combustion chamber of the main engine. By the end of the year, it was planned to carry out additional fire tests of the engine at CIAM stands, as well as vibration tests of the KRB equipment and the PT-10 on-board current converter - first autonomously, and then as part of a rocket.

In addition to the inoperability of the equipment when exposed to vibrations and undeveloped engines, the flight tests also revealed a discrepancy between the flight performance characteristics of the rocket and the specified ones. None of those performed in 1960–1961. 55 launches failed to reach maximum range. According to calculated estimates, the specified level of maneuverability at high altitudes was not ensured. NII-648 delayed the development of a prototype homing head (GOS) for the missile. Testing of the on-board power supply was not completed.

By the end of 1961, the attitude of the military-industrial leadership towards the Grushin B-757Kr missile had changed significantly. The deadline for completing work on the B-757 for the country's Air Defense Forces has been repeatedly postponed. Accordingly, the planned start date for flight testing of the B-757Kr for the Ground Forces was moved to September 1962.

Before that, in the conditions of failures with the tests of the 3M8 missile defense system, Grushin’s much greater experience in creating anti-aircraft missiles, compared to Lyulev, contributed to the fact that the V-757Kr missile was already considered as the main version of the missile defense system for the Krug complex. The somewhat worse overall dimensions of this missile were to some extent compensated for by interspecific unification with the B-757 missile ("product 17D"), developed for the S-75M air defense system of the country's Air Defense Forces. However, the ramjet engine turned out to be a “tough nut to crack” for the OKB-2 team. The development of the ramjet rocket was delayed, and already in 1960, the conventional V-755 liquid-propellant rocket entered service as part of the S-75M air defense system - in fact, a thoroughly modified V-750VN rocket. Having not completed the development of the V-757 missile, the Grushin team began working on a new missile defense system with a ramjet - the V-758 ("product 22D"). Under these conditions, despite the failures with the 3M8, the version of the 2K11M complex with the Grushin V-757Kr missile began to be considered as secondary. In particular, by the decision of the military-industrial complex of December 28, 1961, it was instructed to consider the possibility of placing the V-757Kr missile on a standard 2P24 launcher instead of the previously manufactured 2P28 in one prototype, also designed on a chassis of the SU-100P type specifically for the Grushinsky missile. After the actual termination of testing of the B-757 missile, the decision of the military-industrial complex of October 17, 1962 raised the question of the advisability of further continuing work on the B-757Kr missile. Work on the B-757 and B-757Kr was finally closed by the Decree of the Party and the Government of June 15, 1963.

In the fall of 1961, an experimental missile guidance station was installed instead of the experimental one. For it, as for the 2P24 launcher, provision was made for hermetic sealing to protect against weapons of mass destruction.

However, the state of work on the Lyulev rocket was also unfavorable, although in May 1962 factory tests of rockets with radio control equipment began. By the end of 1962, they had not achieved reliable operation of the on-board equipment of the missile launcher, had not determined the ballistic capabilities of the missile, and did not have time to commission the second missile guidance station. On the other hand, there was an encouraging result - an analysis of the capabilities of the missile guidance station and the dynamic characteristics of the missile defense system showed the possibility of ensuring acceptable accuracy when using only a radio command control system.

In 1962, the 3M8 rocket with a radio command system began to fly largely without problems. The decision of the military-industrial complex of January 12, 1963 approved the proposal of the GRAU and industry to conduct joint flight tests (FLI) in two stages - first only with the radio command system, then with the seeker. Thus, the process of abandoning the use of a combined guidance system on a missile, including a semi-active seeker, actually began in favor of purely radio command systems already mastered in the S-25, S-75 and S-125 air defense systems.

During factory tests until April 1963, 26 launches were carried out. Most of them were carried out against so-called electronic targets, two - against parachute targets, four - against IL-28 converted into targets. During joint testing from the beginning of 1963 to May, eight launches were carried out, three of which ended in failure. There was not a single successful launch of missiles at an elevation angle of the guides of more than 46°, while it was required to ensure the ability to launch at angles up to 60°.

Of the 25 launches carried out from February to August 1963, only seven managed to shoot down targets - Il-28. “Organizational conclusions” were being prepared, but the main shortcomings had already been revealed, and before the end of the year it was possible to successfully carry out a couple more launches. And this despite the fact that the missiles arrived at the test site untimely - out of the required 40 missiles, only 21 were delivered, and the test results were processed slowly - within three weeks. The ground equipment of the complex was not brought to its full complement - the vehicles were not equipped with navigation, orientation and topographical equipment, or telecode communication systems. Gas turbine installations of the machines' power supply systems often failed. Only on the second launcher was the sound insulation system brought to a state that ensured the possibility of a safe launch while personnel were inside 2P24. During the tests, there was an incident, fortunately, which did not lead to tragic consequences, when the fighters accompanying the target fired instead at the target in order to eliminate it in the event of a miss by the missile defense system.

Launcher 2P24 with 3M8 missiles SAM "Krug"

By the beginning of next year, two more launches were carried out, both successful. However, none of the firing has yet been carried out against relatively small targets such as the MiG-17 and against targets flying at altitudes of less than 3000 m. The SAM sustainer engine still operated unstable at low altitudes. Self-oscillations arose in the control loop, leading to unacceptable misses when flying near the target. The effectiveness of the radio fuse and warhead against real targets was questionable.

The difficulties associated with the creation of missiles of the Krug complex are characterized by the testimony of Igor Fedorovich Golubeev, deputy chief designer of Lyulev.

“We took on the 3M8 missile defense system without fully realizing the complexity and difficulty of this work. In a word, we were young and stupid. For comparison, I’ll say that with the current team of many thousands, we would have thought twice before taking on such work .

In 3M8, as is known, due to the lack of suitable solid fuel with a good unit impulse in the country, it was decided to use a ramjet engine using liquid fuel - kerosene. The ramjet engine was invented in 1903 by the Frenchman Legendre and since then has been one of the most energy-efficient rocket engines, making it possible not to carry oxidizer reserves on board.

But everything works well if the proportional flow rate of air to fuel is maintained - approximately 15:1. If this ratio changes, the engine begins to act up and may stall or surge. Therefore, one of the complex elements is the inlet diffuser and the fuel pump with injectors. Suffice it to say that about ten thousand injectors had to be “annealed” before the optimal shape was found. And this is only for this type of engine, and if its geometric dimensions were changed, everything would have to be repeated again. This is one of the reasons why ramjet engines are not widely used now - they are unique in their specific design. Each step during the development was difficult and was solved literally from scratch.

Since the beginning of controlled flights, the struggle against the attenuation of the on-board radio transponder signal in the engine exhaust plume began. It turned out that the combustion products of ordinary kerosene shield the transponder antenna very well. I had to take it out to the tail console. We had just dealt with this when the rocket began to sway approximately in the middle of the flight path and, with a frequency of 50:50, either passed through this section or lost control. The solution was simple - the phases of the power supply to the gyros of the SAM autopilot were mixed up. The gyroscopes, after pre-launch spin-up in the wrong direction, with the transition to on-board power, first began to slow down, stopped approximately in the middle of the trajectory, and then spun again in the opposite direction. If everything went well, then the further flight continued steadily."

In general, during joint tests from February 1963 to June 1964, 41 missile launches were carried out, including 24 missiles in combat configuration. Four cases of wing flutter required the introduction of anti-flutter balancers, three “poor” failures of the combustion process required modifications to the fuel supply regulator, six isopropyl nitrate explosions required improvements to the fuel system, two failures of the radio fuse required modifications to its circuitry.

But since the launches were mostly successful at the final stage of testing, the State Commission chaired by A.G. Burykina recommended the complex for adoption.

The corresponding Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated October 26, 1964 - “On the adoption of the Krug mobile anti-aircraft guided missile system with 3M8 missiles” determined the main characteristics of the complex. Most of the essential performance requirements set by the 1958 Decree have been met. The exception was the range of flight altitudes of targets hit - 3-23.5 km - it did not reach 1.5 km along the required maximum altitude reach. The engagement range range was 11–45 km, the maximum heading parameter (distance of the target path from the air defense missile system position in the lateral direction) was 18 km. In terms of the permissible maximum target speed - up to 800 m/s - the initial requirements were exceeded by 200 m/s. The detection range of an object with an EPR corresponding to the MiG-15 was 115 km. A typical target - an F-4C or F-105D fighter-bomber - was hit with a probability of 0.7. The reaction time of the complex was 60 s.

Layout of the 3M8 missile defense system "Krug"

1 - fairing: 2 - warhead: 3 - radio fuse: 4 - air pressure accumulator: 5 - fuel tanks: 6 - rotary wing; 7 - steering gear; 8 - radio control equipment: 9 - autopilot/ 10 - isopropyl nitrate tank: 11 - starting accelerator: 12 - turbopump unit; 13 - nozzle block: 14 - combustion stabilizer: 15 - stabilizer

Starting engines ZTs5 on the 3M8 missile of the Krug air defense system

The 3M8 rocket was made according to a two-stage design. The body of the rocket's sustainer stage was a supersonic ramjet engine ZTs4 - a tube with a pointed central body, sharp inlet edges of the frontal air intake, ring nozzles and combustion stabilizers. On previous missiles of similar designs, most of the systems and assemblies were placed in a ring pattern in the outer ramjet housing. However, for a number of elements, for example, the warhead, such a location was clearly contraindicated. In the central body of the air intake with a cylindrical part diameter of 450 mm, in addition to the ZN11 high-explosive fragmentation warhead weighing about 150 kg, there was a ZE26 radio fuse and a ball cylinder of an air pressure accumulator. A homing head was supposed to be installed in the front part of the central body. The central body was slightly recessed into the internal volume of the rocket body. Next were openwork structures made of annular and radial elements - straightening grilles, nozzle blocks, combustion stabilizers. In the annular engine housing with an outer diameter of 850 mm, starting from its leading edge, there were tanks with kerosene, approximately in the middle of the length - steering gears, wing fastenings, and closer to the trailing edge - blocks of control system equipment (CS).

Rotary wings with a span of 2206 mm were placed in an “X”-shape and could be deflected by a hydropneumatic steering drive in the range of ±28°. The wing chord was 840 mm at the base, 500 mm at the tip. The sweep along the leading edge was 19°38; the trailing edge was 8°26’ (negative), the total area in one plane of the rotating parts of both consoles was 0.904 m².

Stabilizers with a span of 2702 mm were installed in a “+”-shaped pattern. Chord 860 mm at the base, 490 mm at the tip. The leading edge is swept 20°, the trailing edge is straight, the total area of ​​the two consoles in one plane is 1.22 m?. The length of the rocket was 8436 mm, diameter - 850 mm.

With a starting weight of 2455 kg, the initial weight of the second (flight) stage was about 1400 kg, of which approximately 270 kg was fuel - T-1 kerosene (or TS) and 27 kg was isopropyl nitrate.

The fuel supply was provided by a turbopump unit C5.15 (on the first samples - C2.727), running on monofuel - isopropyl nitrate. This unitary fuel, in comparison with hydrogen peroxide, which was previously widely used in rocket technology, had a slightly lower density (by about a quarter) and had greater energy and, more importantly, was more stable and safer in operation.

Each of the four ZTs5 starting engines was equipped with a charge of 11 RSI-12K solid baplite fuel weighing 173 kg in the form of a single-channel block 2635 mm long with an outer diameter of 248 mm and a channel diameter of 85 mm. To ensure separation of the starting engines from the sustainer stage, a pair of small aerodynamic surfaces were attached to each of them in the aft bow.

For radio command flight control of missile defense systems under the leadership of R.S. Tolmachev developed a missile guidance station (SNR) 1S32, which was a coherent-pulse radar in the centimeter range. The station's antenna post was a rather complex rotating structure with several dish antennas, the largest element of which was the target channel antenna. To the left of it was the antenna of the narrow beam of the missile channel, above which were located the antennas of the wide beam of the missile channel and, closer to the periphery, the transmitter of commands to the missile. Subsequently, a television-optical sighting camera was placed in the upper part of the antenna post. The station automatically processed target designation information received via telecode from the target detection station (SOTs) 1S12, and carried out a quick search for the target. The search had to be carried out only by elevation, since the resolution of the target detection station in the vertical plane was much worse than in the horizontal. After detecting the target, it was captured for automatic tracking using angular coordinates and range.

Next, the calculating device at the missile guidance station determined the boundaries of the launch and engagement zones, the installation angles of the acquisition and tracking antennas of the missile defense system (with wide and narrow scanning beams), as well as the data entered into the target and missile auto-rangefinder. Based on telecode commands from the missile guidance station, the launcher was turned in the launch direction. After the target entered the launch zone and the command transmitter was turned on, the launch was carried out by pressing a button on the missile guidance station. Based on signals from the onboard transponder, the missile launcher was captured for tracking by the angular (with a wide beam) and rangefinder channels of the missile guidance station and was first introduced into the narrow beam of the missile channel antenna, which was then aligned parallel to the target channel antenna. Flight control commands generated by the missile guidance station's computer, as well as a one-time command to disarm the radio fuse were transmitted to the missile.

SAM guidance was carried out using the “half straightening” method or the “three points” method. The radio fuse was triggered when the missile flew at a distance of less than 50 m from the target. Otherwise, the rocket would self-destruct.

The 1S32 station implemented the method of hidden monoconical scanning along angular coordinates and used an electronic target range finder. Resistance from passive, range-deflecting, reciprocal and non-synchronous interference was ensured by frequency tuning and channel lettering, high energy potential of the transmitter, signal amplitude selection, the ability to simultaneously operate one missile defense system at two frequencies, as well as coding of control commands.

Missile guidance radar 1S32 of the Krug air defense system and its diagram

1S32 missile guidance radar at a combat position

Target detection radar 1S12 SAM "Krug"

In accordance with the calculated characteristics, the pulse power of the missile guidance station was 750 kW, the sensitivity of the receiver was 10 -13 W, and the beam width was 1°. Target acquisition for auto tracking in a noise-free environment could be carried out at a range of up to 105 km. At a given level of interference (1.5–2 packs of dipoles per 100 m of target path), the auto-tracking range was reduced to 70 km.

Errors in target tracking in angular coordinates did not exceed 0.3 d.u., in range - 15 m. Subsequently, for protection against Shrike-type missiles, intermittent operating modes and auto-tracking using a television-optical sight were introduced.

It is known that in the S-75 air defense system the main combat unit - the anti-aircraft missile division - had the ability to independently conduct fighting, containing, along with missile guidance stations, also target reconnaissance means - usually radars of the P-12 family, often in combination with altimeters.

The anti-aircraft missile division, armed with the Krug air defense system, also included a target reconnaissance device, the role of which was performed by the 1S12 target detection station - a centimeter-range rangefinder radar. In combination with one or two PRV-9A radio altimeters, the same radar under the name P-40 (“Armor”) was also used in radar companies military air defense. The radar was developed by NII-208 (later NII IP of the Ministry of Radio Industry) under the leadership of chief designer V.V. Reisberg.

The 1S12 target detection station provided detection of a fighter at ranges of up to 180 km (at a flight altitude of 12000 m) and 70 km for a target flying at an altitude of 500 m. The pulsed radiation power of the station was 1.7–1.8 MW, the receiver sensitivity was 4. 3–7.7x10 -14 W. During a circular view, four beams were sequentially formed in the elevation plane: two lower ones with a width of 2° and 4°, as well as two upper ones with a width of 10° and 14°. The beam direction was switched electromechanically.

The “object 426” chassis, developed at the design bureau of the Kharkov Transport Engineering Plant named after. V.A. Malyshev on the basis of the AT-T heavy artillery tractor created there. In a number of indicators, including security, it was inferior to the chassis based on the SU-100P. The diversity of tracked vehicles in the anti-aircraft missile division did not bode well either. In this case, the choice of chassis was determined by the weight of the equipment and antenna post of the 1S12 station, twice as large as the missile guidance station.

The most important advantage of the combat assets of the anti-aircraft missile division was the autonomy of their power supply, provided by built-in gas turbine units with a power of 40 to 120 hp. Information exchange between the division's assets was ensured by radio telecode communication. For the first time, gyroscopic navigation aids and topo-tethering were installed in air defense systems. The presence of these means and the exclusion of cable connections made it possible to sharply reduce the time spent on their deployment and collapse at a combat position.

Target detection radar 1S123RK "Krug" (in stowed position) and its diagram

As already noted, the main unit of the Krug complex was an anti-aircraft missile division, which included a control platoon, three anti-aircraft missile batteries, each of which included one 1S32 missile guidance station and three 2P24 launchers with twin guides, as well as a technical battery. Thus, the division included three missile guidance stations and nine launchers with 18 combat-ready missiles.

The control platoon contained a 1S12 target detection station, as well as a target designation receiving cabin for the Krab (K-1) combat control complex.

The technical battery included 2V9 control and testing stations, 2T6 transport-loading vehicles, 9T25 transport vehicles, refueling vehicles, as well as technological equipment for assembling and refueling rockets.

In essence, the anti-aircraft missile division formed the anti-aircraft missile system as a minimum set of forces and means ensuring the detection and destruction of an air target.

Despite the ability to conduct independent combat operations, the anti-aircraft missile division's own means did not ensure the most effective use of its combat potential. This was determined, first of all, by the limited search capabilities of the 1S12 station, taking into account its location on the real terrain with shading zones, as well as the extremely short flight time during enemy aircraft operations at extremely low altitudes.

To ensure more effective use of anti-aircraft missile divisions, they were included in anti-aircraft missile brigades with a unified control system.

The brigade, designed to solve the air defense tasks of the front (army), along with three anti-aircraft missile divisions, included a control battery. The brigade's control battery contained the combat control cabin of the "Crab" complex, as well as its own means of detecting air targets - detection radar P-40D, P-18, P-19, radio altimeter PRV-9A (or PRV-11).

The joint work of the command posts of the brigade and divisions was ensured by the K-1 (“Crab”) control complex. It was created in 1957–1960. by the OKB-563 GKRE team under the leadership of chief designer B.S. Semenikhin. Initially, the "Crab" complex, which later received the index 9С44, was intended for automated control fire from an anti-aircraft artillery regiment armed with S-60 automatic cannons, but was then brought to support the combat operation of the S-75 anti-aircraft missile regiment.

Besides command post brigade - combat control cabin located on the Ural-375 chassis, and division command posts - target designation receiving cabins (on ZIL-157) the complex included a narrow-band radar image transmission line "Setka-2K", a GAZ-69T topographic surveyor and equipment power supply in the form of separate diesel power plants.

The complex made it possible to visually display the air situation on the brigade commander’s console on the spot and on the move based on information from the P-10, P-12 (P-18), P-15 (P-19) and P-40 radars. When targets were found at a distance of 15 to 160 km, up to 10 targets were simultaneously processed, target designations were issued with forced pointing of the antennas of the battery missile guidance station in given directions, and the acceptance of these target designations was checked. The coordinates of 10 targets selected by the brigade commander were entered into the computer by two data acquisition operators, after which the information was transmitted directly to the battery missile guidance stations.

The operating time of the K-1 complex from detecting an enemy aircraft to issuing target designation to the division, taking into account the distribution of targets and the possible need to transfer fire, was 32 seconds. The reliability of target designation training reached more than 90% with an average target search time of the missile guidance station of 15–45 s.

In addition, the complex made it possible to receive at the brigade command post and relay information about two targets coming from the front (army) air defense command post.

Resolution No. 966–379 of October 26, 1964 also determined the cooperation of the main manufacturing enterprises of the complex elements. Serial production of detection stations 1S12 was carried out at the Lianozovsky Electromechanical Plant MRP, missile guidance stations 1S32 - at the Mari Machine-Building Plant MRP. 2P24 launchers and missiles were produced at the Sverdlovsk Machine-Building Plant named after. M.I. Kalinina MAP. Nearby, at the Sverdlovsk Electrical Automation Plant, serial production of the K-1 “Crab” control complex was underway.

As usual in government decrees, along with the adoption of the complex into industry, work was assigned to further improve it, which was carried out in several stages.

First of all, improvements were made to reduce the lower limit of reach and reduce the “dead zone”.

To hit low-flying targets, they switched to overshooting, which eliminated the premature firing of the fuse. The SNR equipment was improved - two launch zones were displayed on the screen, corresponding to firing at maneuvering or low-maneuverable targets. To increase the probability of hitting maneuvering targets, a nonlinear corrector was added to the control loop, and the open-loop control loop gain was returned to the previous value of 0.9. To use air defense systems in conditions of the threat of the use of anti-radar missiles, a television-optical sight was used.

In 1967, the Krug-A air defense system was adopted, for which the lower limit of the affected area was reduced from 3 to 0.25 km, and the near limit was brought closer from 11 to 9 km.

After modifications were made to the missile as an aircraft in 1971, the Krug-M air defense system was adopted. The far border of the complex's affected area was removed from 45 to 50 km, the upper border was raised from 23.5 to 24.5 km.

In 1974, the Krug-M1 was put into service, for which the lower limit was reduced from 0.25 to 0.15 km, the near limit was reduced from 11 to 6–7 km. It became possible to hit targets on catch-up courses at a range of up to 20 km.

Further expansion of the capabilities of the Krug complex was associated with the improvement of its combat control means.

The "Crab" complex was originally developed mainly for the purpose of ensuring combat control of anti-aircraft artillery units and, when used as part of brigades of the "Krug" complex, had a number of disadvantages:

Mixed control mode (the most effective in a real combat situation) was not provided;

There were significant limitations on target designation capabilities (one target was given instead of the required 3–4);

Information from divisions about independently selected targets could not be transmitted to the brigade command post;

The brigade command post was technically interfaced with higher air defense units (air defense command posts of the front and army) only through radiotelephone channels and a tablet data exchange scheme, which led to a delay of an average of 40 s and the loss of up to 70% of targets;

The division command post, when receiving information from its own target detection station 1S12, delayed the passage of target designation to the batteries and lost up to 30% of targets;

The range of the radio links was insufficient, amounting to 15–20 km instead of the required 30–35 km;

The complex used only a telecode communication line between the command posts of the brigade and divisions with insufficient noise immunity.

As a result, the fire capabilities of the Krug brigade were used only by 60%, and the degree of participation of the brigade command post in organizing the repulsion of the raid was less than half of the targets fired at.

Scheme of the 2P24 launcher for the Krug air defense system

Transport vehicle 9T25 of the Krug complex

Transport-loading vehicle 2T6 of the Krug complex

In accordance with the Decree of April 14, 1975, a automated system control (ACS) of combat operations of the anti-aircraft missile brigade "Krug" - "Polyana D-1" (9S468M1). The development was carried out by the Scientific Research Institute of Automatic Equipment (NII AA) of the Ministry of Radio Industry, the chief designer was S.M. Chudinov.

The brigade combat control point (PBU-B) 9S478 included a 9S486 combat control cabin, a 9S487 interface cabin and two diesel power plants.

The division's combat control point (PBU-D) 9S479 consisted of a 9S489 combat control cabin and a diesel power station.

In addition, the automated control system included a 9С488 maintenance cabin.

All cabins and power stations PBU-B and PBU-D were placed on the chassis of Urap-375 vehicles with a unified K1-375 van body. The exception was the UAZ-452T-2 topographic surveyor as part of a brigade PBU (PBU-D topographic reference was provided by the appropriate means of the division). Communication between the front (army) air defense command post and PBU-B, and between PBU-B and PBU-D, was carried out via telecode and radiotelephone channels.

PBU-B was equipped with radars (P-40D, P-18, P-19, PRV-16, PRV-9A), operating in different frequency ranges and having cable connections with PBU-B.

PBU-B automatically ensured the distribution of targets between divisions, setting fire missions for them and coordinating their shelling of targets, as well as receiving commands and target designations from higher command posts and transmitting reports to them.

PBU-B technical means provided:

Reception of information from the radar and its display on scales of 150 km and 300 km, remote control equipment for determining the nationality of targets, as well as automated reception of information about the height of targets from radio altimeters PRV-16 (PRV-9A) with the issuance of target designations (TD) to these altimeters;

Semi-automatic acquisition of coordinates and processing of up to 10 target traces;

Reception from higher command posts and display of information on 20 targets, processing of target designations issued by them for 2 targets, as well as generation and transmission of information about the brigade’s combat operations to higher command posts;

Reception and display of information from PBU-D about the targets selected for shelling and for subsequent firing cycles (4 targets per division), as well as about the position, condition, combat readiness and results of combat operations of the division and its batteries;

Interface and communications cabin 9S487 (KSS-B) of the combat control point 9S478 (PBU-B) of the Krug anti-aircraft missile brigade - ACS 9S468M1

Combat control cabin 9S486 (KBU-B) of the combat control point 9S478 (PBU-B) of the anti-aircraft missile brigade "Krug" - ASU9S468M1 ("Polyana-D1")

Combat control cabin (right) 9S489 (KBU-D) and power station (left) combat control point 9S479 (PBU-D) of the anti-aircraft missile division "Krug" - ACS 9S468M1 ("Polyana-D 1")

author

DIVISIONAL SELF-PROPELLED ANTI-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM "KUB" Development of a self-propelled anti-aircraft missile system "Kub" (2K12), designed to protect troops, mainly - tank divisions, from air attack weapons flying at medium and low altitudes, was assigned

From the book Equipment and Weapons 2003 07 author Magazine "Equipment and Weapons"

From the book Equipment and Weapons 2014 01 author

DIVISIONAL AUTONOMOUS SELF-PROPELLED ANTI-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM "OSA" The development of the autonomous self-propelled military anti-aircraft missile system "Osa" (9K33) 1* began in accordance with the Resolution of the USSR Council of Ministers of October 27, 1960. The complex was intended to destroy targets

From the author's book

Self-propelled anti-aircraft missile system "KUB" Unlike the "Krug" air defense system, the "Kub" complex was initially created specifically to destroy mainly low-flying targets, that is, to solve problems most typical when countering front-line aviation. Wherein

From the author's book

From the author's book

The divisional autonomous self-propelled anti-aircraft missile system "OSA Anti-aircraft missile system "Cube" was intended to provide cover from air strikes primarily for tank divisions of the Ground Forces. To solve a similar problem in relation to more

From the author's book

From the author's book

Regimental self-propelled anti-aircraft missile system "Strela-1" With the advent of the late 1950s. information on the development in the United States of a man-portable air defense system with a missile equipped with a passive thermal homing head, which later received the name "Red Eye", Soviet military

From the author's book

Regimental self-propelled anti-aircraft missile system "Strela-10" With the creation of the "Strela-1" air defense system, the possibility of forming missile and artillery batteries in regimental anti-aircraft divisions, consisting of a platoon with four missile systems and a platoon of four "Shiloks", opened up, which

From the author's book

Anti-aircraft missile system M-22 "Hurricane" Rostislav Angelsky, Vladimir Korovin In the late 1960s. The basis of the air defense of the domestic fleet was two ship-based air defense systems - the M-1 "Volna" and the M-11 "Storm" that replaced it (for the M-1 and M-11 complexes, see "TiV" No. 11,12/2013. ). Both

Anti-aircraft missile weapons refer to surface-to-air missile weapons and are designed to destroy enemy air attack weapons using anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAMs). It is represented by various systems.

An anti-aircraft missile system (anti-aircraft missile system) is a combination of an anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) and the means that ensure its use.

An anti-aircraft missile system is a set of functionally related combat and technical means designed to destroy air targets with anti-aircraft guided missiles.

The air defense system includes means of detection, identification and target designation, flight control means for missile defense systems, one or more launchers (PU) with missile defense systems, technical means and electrical power supplies.

The technical basis of the air defense system is the missile defense control system. Depending on the adopted control system, there are complexes for telecontrol of missiles, homing missiles, and combined control of missiles. Each air defense system has certain combat properties, features, the combination of which can serve as classification criteria that allow it to be classified as a specific type.

The combat properties of air defense systems include all-weather capability, noise immunity, mobility, versatility, reliability, degree of automation of combat work processes, etc.

All-weather capability - the ability of an air defense system to destroy air targets in any weather conditions. There are all-weather and non-all-weather air defense systems. The latter ensure the destruction of targets under certain weather conditions and time of day.

Noise immunity is a property that allows an air defense system to destroy air targets in conditions of interference created by the enemy to suppress electronic (optical) means.

Mobility is a property that manifests itself in transportability and the time of transition from a traveling position to a combat position and from a combat position to a traveling position. A relative indicator of mobility can be the total time required to change the starting position under given conditions. Part of mobility is maneuverability. The most mobile complex is considered to be one that is more transportable and requires less time to maneuver. Mobile systems can be self-propelled, towed and portable. Non-mobile air defense systems are called stationary.

Versatility is a property that characterizes the technical capabilities of an air defense system to destroy air targets over a wide range of ranges and altitudes.

Reliability is the ability to function normally under given operating conditions.

Based on the degree of automation, anti-aircraft missile systems are classified into automatic, semi-automatic and non-automatic. In automatic air defense systems, all operations to detect, track targets and guide missiles are performed automatically without human intervention. In semi-automatic and non-automatic air defense systems, a person takes part in solving a number of tasks.

Anti-aircraft missile systems are distinguished by the number of target and missile channels. Complexes that provide simultaneous tracking and firing of one target are called single-channel, and those of several targets are called multi-channel.

Anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) - a set of functionally related combat and technical means that provide solutions to problems in combating enemy aerospace attack means.

In general, the air defense system includes:

  • means of transporting anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAM) and loading the launcher with them;
  • missile launcher;
  • anti-aircraft guided missiles;
  • enemy air reconnaissance equipment;
  • ground interrogator of the system for determining the state ownership of an air target;
  • missile control means (may be on the missile - during homing);
  • means of automatic tracking of an air target (can be located on a missile);
  • means of automatic missile tracking (homing missiles are not required);
  • means of functional control of equipment;

Classification

By theater of war:

  • ship
  • land

Land air defense systems by mobility:

  • stationary
  • sedentary
  • mobile

By way of movement:

  • portable
  • towed
  • self-propelled

By range

  • short range
  • short range
  • medium range
  • long range
  • ultra-long range (represented by a single sample CIM-10 Bomarc)

By the method of guidance (see methods and methods of guidance)

  • with radio command control of a missile of the 1st or 2nd type
  • with radio-guided missiles
  • homing missile

By automation method

  • automatic
  • semi-automatic
  • non-automatic

By subordination:

  • regimental
  • divisional
  • army
  • district

Ways and methods of targeting missiles

Pointing methods

  1. Telecontrol of the first kind
  2. Telecontrol of the second kind
    • The target tracking station is located on board the missile defense system and the coordinates of the target relative to the missile are transmitted to the ground
    • A flying missile is accompanied by a missile sighting station
    • The required maneuver is calculated by a ground-based computing device
    • Control commands are transmitted to the rocket, which are converted by the autopilot into control signals to the rudders
  3. Tele-beam guidance
    • The target tracking station is on the ground
    • A ground-based missile guidance station creates an electromagnetic field in space with an equal-signal direction corresponding to the direction towards the target.
    • The counting and solving device is located on board the missile defense system and generates commands to the autopilot, ensuring the missile flies along the same-signal direction.
  4. Homing
    • The target tracking station is located on board the missile defense system
    • The counting and solving device is located on board the missile defense system and generates commands to the autopilot, ensuring the proximity of the missile defense system to the target

Types of homing:

  • active - the missile defense system uses an active target location method: it emits probing pulses;
  • semi-active - the target is illuminated by a ground-based illumination radar, and the missile defense system receives an echo signal;
  • passive - the missile defense system locates the target by its own radiation (thermal trace, operating on-board radar, etc.) or contrast against the sky (optical, thermal, etc.).

Guidance methods

1. Two-point methods - guidance is carried out based on information about the target (coordinates, speed and acceleration) in a related coordinate system (missile coordinate system). They are used for type 2 telecontrol and homing.

  • Proportional approach method - the angular velocity of rotation of the rocket's velocity vector is proportional to the angular velocity of rotation

lines of sight (missile-target lines): d ψ d t = k d χ d t (\displaystyle (\frac (d\psi )(dt))=k(\frac (d\chi )(dt))),

Where dψ/dt is the angular velocity of the rocket velocity vector; ψ - rocket path angle; dχ/dt - angular velocity of rotation of the line of sight; χ - azimuth of the line of sight; k - proportionality coefficient.

The proportional approach method is a general homing method, the rest are its special cases, which are determined by the value of the proportionality coefficient k:

K = 1 - chase method; k = ∞ - parallel approach method;

  • Chase method ru en - the rocket velocity vector is always directed towards the target;
  • Direct guidance method - the axis of the missile is directed towards the target (close to the pursuit method with an accuracy of the attack angle α and the slip angle β, by which the missile velocity vector is rotated relative to its axis).
  • Parallel rendezvous method - the line of sight on the guidance trajectory remains parallel to itself, and when the target flies in a straight line, the missile also flies in a straight line.

2. Three-point methods - guidance is carried out on the basis of information about the target (coordinates, velocities and accelerations) and about the missile being aimed at the target (coordinates, velocities and accelerations) in the launch coordinate system, most often associated with a ground control point. They are used for telecontrol of the 1st type and tele-guidance.

  • Three-point method (alignment method, target covering method) - the missile is on the target’s line of sight;
  • The three-point method with the parameter - the missile is on a line that advances the line of sight by an angle depending on the difference in the ranges of the missile and the target.

Story

First experiments

The first attempt to create a controlled remote projectile for hitting air targets was made in Great Britain by Archibald Lowe. Its “Aerial Target,” so named to mislead German intelligence, was a radio-controlled propeller with an ABC Gnat piston engine. The projectile was intended to destroy Zeppelins and heavy German bombers. After two unsuccessful launches in 1917, the program was closed due to little interest in it from the Air Force command.

The world's first anti-aircraft guided missiles, brought to the stage of pilot production, were the Reintochter, Hs-117 Schmetterling and Wasserfall missiles created in the Third Reich since 1943 (the latter was tested by the beginning of 1945 and was ready for launch into production production, which never began).

In 1944, faced with the threat of Japanese kamikazes, the US Navy initiated the development of anti-aircraft guided missiles designed to protect ships. Two projects were launched - the Lark long-range anti-aircraft missile and the simpler KAN. None of them managed to take part in the hostilities. Development of the Lark continued until 1950, but although the missile was successfully tested, it was considered too obsolete and was never installed on ships.

First missiles in service

Initially, significant attention was paid to German technical experience in post-war developments.

In the United States immediately after the war, there were de facto three independent anti-aircraft missile development programs: the Army Nike program, the US Air Force SAM-A-1 GAPA program, and the Navy Bumblebee program. American engineers also attempted to create an anti-aircraft missile based on the German Wasserfall as part of the Hermes program, but abandoned this idea at an early stage of development.

The first anti-aircraft missile developed in the United States was the MIM-3 Nike Ajax, developed by the US Army. The missile had a certain technical similarity to the S-25, but the Nike-Ajax complex was much simpler than its Soviet counterpart. At the same time, the MIM-3 Nike Ajax was much cheaper than the C-25, and, adopted for service in 1953, was deployed in huge quantities to cover cities and military bases in the United States. In total, more than 200 MIM-3 Nike Ajax batteries were deployed by 1958.

The third country to deploy its own air defense systems in the 1950s was Great Britain. In 1958, the Royal Air Force adopted the Bristol Bloodhound air defense system, equipped with a ramjet engine and designed to protect air bases. It turned out to be so successful that its improved versions were in service until 1999. The British Army created the English Electric Thunderbird complex, similar in layout, but differing in a number of elements, to cover its bases.

In addition to the USA, USSR and Great Britain, Switzerland created its own air defense system in the early 1950s. The Oerlikon RSC-51 complex developed by her entered service in 1951 and became the first commercially available air defense system in the world (although its purchases were mainly undertaken with research purposes) . The complex never saw combat, but served as the basis for the development of rocketry in Italy and Japan, which purchased it in the 1950s.

At the same time, the first sea-based air defense systems were created. In 1956, the US Navy adopted the RIM-2 Terrier medium-range air defense system, designed to protect ships from cruise missiles and torpedo bombers.

Second generation missile defense system

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the development of jet military aircraft and cruise missiles led to widespread development of air defense systems. The advent of aircraft moving faster than the speed of sound finally pushed heavy anti-aircraft artillery into the background. In turn, the miniaturization of nuclear warheads made it possible to equip anti-aircraft missiles with them. The radius of destruction of a nuclear charge effectively compensated for any conceivable error in missile guidance, allowing it to hit and destroy an enemy aircraft even if it missed badly.

In 1958, the United States adopted the world's first long-range air defense system, MIM-14 Nike-Hercules. A development of the MIM-3 Nike Ajax, the complex had a much longer range (up to 140 km) and could be equipped with a nuclear charge W31 power 2-40 kt. Massively deployed on the basis of the infrastructure created for the previous Ajax complex, the MIM-14 Nike-Hercules complex remained the most effective air defense system in the world until 1967 [ ] .

At the same time, the US Air Force developed its own, the only ultra-long-range anti-aircraft missile system, CIM-10 Bomarc. The missile was a de facto unmanned interceptor fighter with a ramjet engine and active homing. It was guided to the target using signals from a system of ground-based radars and radio beacons. The effective radius of the Bomark was, depending on the modification, 450-800 km, which made it the longest-range anti-aircraft system ever created. "Bomark" was intended to effectively cover the territories of Canada and the United States from manned bombers and cruise missiles, but due to the rapid development of ballistic missiles, it quickly lost its importance.

The Soviet Union fielded its first mass-produced S-75 anti-aircraft missile system in 1957, roughly similar in performance to the MIM-3 Nike Ajax, but more mobile and adapted for forward deployment. The S-75 system was produced in large quantities, becoming the basis of the air defense of both the country and the USSR troops. The complex was most widely exported in the entire history of air defense systems, becoming the basis of air defense systems in more than 40 countries, and was successfully used in military operations in Vietnam.

The large dimensions of Soviet nuclear warheads prevented them from arming anti-aircraft missiles. The first Soviet long-range air defense system, the S-200, which had a range of up to 240 km and was capable of carrying a nuclear charge, appeared only in 1967. Throughout the 1970s, the S-200 air defense system was the most long-range and effective air defense system in the world [ ] .

By the early 1960s, it became clear that existing air defense systems had a number of tactical shortcomings: low mobility and inability to hit targets at low altitudes. The advent of supersonic battlefield aircraft like the Su-7 and Republic F-105 Thunderchief made conventional anti-aircraft artillery an ineffective means of defense.

In 1959-1962, the first anti-aircraft missile systems were created, intended for forward cover of troops and combating low-flying targets: the American MIM-23 Hawk of 1959, and the Soviet S-125 of 1961.

The air defense systems of the navy were also actively developing. In 1958, the US Navy first adopted the RIM-8 Talos long-range naval air defense system. The missile, with a range of 90 to 150 km, was intended to withstand massive raids by naval missile-carrying aircraft and could carry a nuclear charge. Due to the extreme cost and huge dimensions of the complex, it was deployed in a relatively limited manner, mainly on rebuilt cruisers from the Second World War (the only carrier specifically built for Talos was the nuclear-powered missile cruiser USS Long Beach).

The main air defense system of the US Navy remained the actively modernized RIM-2 Terrier, the capabilities and range of which were greatly increased, including the creation of modifications of the missile defense system with nuclear warheads. In 1958, the RIM-24 Tartar short-range air defense system was also developed, intended for arming small ships.

The development program for air defense systems to protect Soviet ships from aviation was started in 1955; short-, medium-, long-range air defense systems and direct ship defense air defense systems were proposed for development. The first Soviet Navy anti-aircraft missile system created within the framework of this program was the M-1 Volna short-range air defense system, which appeared in 1962. The complex was a naval version of the S-125 air defense system, using the same missiles.

The USSR's attempt to develop a longer-range marine complex The M-2 "Volkhov" based on the S-75 turned out to be unsuccessful - despite the effectiveness of the B-753 missile itself, limitations caused by the significant dimensions of the original missile, the use of a liquid engine at the cruise stage of the missile defense system and the low fire performance of the complex led to a halt in the development of this project .

In the early 1960s, Great Britain also created its own naval air defense systems. The Sea Slug, which was put into service in 1961, turned out to be insufficiently effective and by the end of the 1960s, the British Navy developed a much more advanced Sea Dart air defense system to replace it, capable of hitting aircraft at a distance of up to 75-150 km. At the same time, the world’s first short-range self-defense air defense system, Sea Cat, was created in Great Britain, which was actively exported due to its highest reliability and relatively small dimensions [ ] .

The era of solid fuel

The development of high-energy mixed solid rocket fuel technologies in the late 1960s made it possible to abandon the use of difficult-to-use liquid fuel on anti-aircraft missiles and to create efficient solid-fuel anti-aircraft missiles with a long flight range. Given the absence of the need for pre-launch refueling, such missiles could be stored completely ready for launch and effectively used against the enemy, providing the necessary fire performance. The development of electronics has made it possible to improve missile guidance systems and use new homing heads and proximity fuses to significantly improve the accuracy of missiles.

The development of new generation anti-aircraft missile systems began almost simultaneously in the USA and the USSR. A large number of technical problems that had to be solved led to the development programs being significantly delayed, and only in the late 1970s did new air defense systems enter service.

The first ground-based air defense system adopted for service that fully meets the requirements of the third generation was the Soviet S-300 anti-aircraft missile system, developed and put into service in 1978. Developing a line of Soviet anti-aircraft missiles, the complex, for the first time in the USSR, used solid fuel for long-range missiles and a mortar launch from a transport and launch container, in which the missile was constantly stored in a sealed inert environment (nitrogen), completely ready for launch. The absence of the need for lengthy pre-launch preparation significantly reduced the complex's reaction time to an air threat. Also, due to this, the mobility of the complex has significantly increased and its vulnerability to enemy influence has decreased.

A similar complex in the USA - MIM-104 Patriot, began to be developed back in the 1960s, but due to the lack of clear requirements for the complex and their regular changes, its development was extremely delayed and the complex was put into service only in 1981. It was assumed that the new air defense system would replace the outdated MIM-14 Nike-Hercules and MIM-23 Hawk systems as an effective means of hitting targets at both high and low altitudes. When developing the complex, from the very beginning it was intended to be used against both aerodynamic and ballistic targets, that is, it was intended to be used not only for air defense, but also for theater missile defense.

SAM systems for direct defense of troops received significant development (especially in the USSR). Wide development attack helicopters and guided tactical weapons led to the need to saturate troops anti-aircraft systems at the regimental and battalion level. In the period 1960s - 1980s, a variety of mobile military air defense systems were adopted, such as Soviet, 2K11 Krug, 2K12 Kub, 9K33 “Wasp”, American MIM-72 Chaparral, British Rapier.

At the same time, the first man-portable anti-aircraft missile systems (MANPADS) appeared.

Naval air defense systems also developed. Technically, the world's first new-generation air defense system was the modernization of American naval air defense systems in terms of the use of Standard-1 type missile defense systems, developed in the 1960s and put into service in 1967. The family of missiles was intended to replace the entire previous line of US naval air defense missiles, the so-called “three Ts”: Talos, Terrier and Tartar - with new, highly versatile missiles using existing launchers, storage facilities and combat control systems. However, the development of systems for storing and launching missiles from the TPK for the Standard family of missiles was delayed for a number of reasons and was completed only in the late 1980s with the advent of the Mk 41 launcher. The development of universal vertical launch systems has made it possible to significantly increase the rate of fire and capabilities of the system.

In the USSR, in the early 1980s, the S-300F Fort anti-aircraft missile system was adopted by the Navy - the world's first long-range naval complex with missiles based in TPK, and not on beam installations. The complex was a naval version of the S-300 land-based complex, and was very different high efficiency, good noise immunity and the presence of multi-channel guidance, allowing one radar to direct several missiles at several targets at once. However, due to a number of design solutions: rotating revolving launchers, heavy multi-channel target designation radar, the complex turned out to be very heavy and large-sized and was suitable for placement only on large ships.

In general, in the 1970-1980s, the development of air defense systems followed the path of improving the logistics characteristics of missiles by switching to solid fuel, storage in TPK and the use of vertical launch systems, as well as increasing the reliability and noise immunity of equipment through the use of advances in microelectronics and unification.

Modern air defense systems

Modern development of air defense systems, starting from the 1990s, is mainly aimed at increasing the capabilities of hitting highly maneuverable, low-flying and unobtrusive targets (made using stealth technology). Most modern air defense systems are also designed with at least limited opportunities to destroy short-range missiles.

Thus, the development of the American Patriot air defense system in new modifications, starting with PAC-1 (Patriot Advanced Capabilites), was mainly refocused on hitting ballistic rather than aerodynamic targets. Assuming as an axiom of a military campaign the possibility of achieving air superiority at fairly early stages of the conflict, the United States and a number of other countries consider the enemy’s cruise and ballistic missiles as the main opponent for air defense systems, not manned aircraft.

In the USSR and later in Russia, the development of the S-300 line of anti-aircraft missiles continued. A number of new systems were developed, including the S-400 air defense system, which was put into service in 2007. The main attention during their creation was paid to increasing the number of simultaneously tracked and fired targets, improving the ability to hit low-flying and stealthy targets. The military doctrine of the Russian Federation and a number of other states is distinguished by a more comprehensive approach to long-range air defense systems, considering them not as a development of anti-aircraft artillery, but as an independent part of the military machine, together with aviation, ensuring the conquest and maintenance of air supremacy. Ballistic missile defense has received somewhat less attention, but that has recently changed. The S-500 is currently being developed.

Naval systems have received particular development, among which one of the first places is the Aegis weapon system with the Standard missile defense system. The emergence of the Mk 41 UVP with a very high missile launch rate and a high degree of versatility due to the possibility of placing a wide range of UVP in each cell guided weapons(including all types of Standard missiles adapted for vertical launch, the Sea Sparrow short-range missile defense system and its further development - ESSM, the RUR-5 ASROC anti-submarine missile and Tomahawk cruise missiles) contributed to the wide distribution of the complex. At the moment, Standard missiles are in service with the navies of seventeen countries. The high dynamic characteristics and versatility of the complex contributed to the development of SM-3 anti-missile and anti-satellite weapons based on it.

see also

  • List of anti-aircraft missile systems and anti-aircraft missiles

Notes

Literature

  • Lenov N., Viktorov V. Anti-aircraft missile systems of the air forces of NATO countries (Russian) // Foreign military review. - M.: “Red Star”, 1975. - No. 2. - pp. 61-66. - ISSN 0134-921X.
  • Demidov V., Kutyev N. Improving missile defense systems in capitalist countries (Russian) // Foreign Military Review. - M.: “Red Star”, 1975. - No. 5. - pp. 52-57. - ISSN 0134-921X.
  • Dubinkin E., Pryadilov S. Development and production of anti-aircraft weapons for the US Army (Russian) // Foreign Military Review. - M.: “Red Star”, 1983. - No. 3. - pp. 30-34. -

Classification and combat properties anti-aircraft missile systems

Anti-aircraft missile weapons refer to surface-to-air missile weapons and are designed to destroy enemy air attack weapons using anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAMs). It is represented by various systems.

An anti-aircraft missile system (anti-aircraft missile system) is a combination of an anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) and the means that ensure its use.

An anti-aircraft missile system is a set of functionally related combat and technical means designed to destroy air targets with anti-aircraft guided missiles.

The air defense system includes means of detection, identification and target designation, flight control means for missile defense systems, one or more launchers (PU) with missile defense systems, technical means and electrical power supplies.

The technical basis of the air defense system is the missile defense control system. Depending on the adopted control system, there are complexes for telecontrol of missiles, homing missiles, and combined control of missiles. Each air defense system has certain combat properties, features, the combination of which can serve as classification criteria that allow it to be classified as a specific type.

The combat properties of air defense systems include all-weather capability, noise immunity, mobility, versatility, reliability, degree of automation of combat work processes, etc.

All-weather capability - the ability of an air defense system to destroy air targets in any weather conditions. There are all-weather and non-all-weather air defense systems. The latter ensure the destruction of targets under certain weather conditions and time of day.

Noise immunity is a property that allows an air defense system to destroy air targets in conditions of interference created by the enemy to suppress electronic (optical) means.

Mobility is a property that manifests itself in transportability and the time of transition from a traveling position to a combat position and from a combat position to a traveling position. A relative indicator of mobility can be the total time required to change the starting position under given conditions. Part of mobility is maneuverability. The most mobile complex is considered to be one that is more transportable and requires less time to maneuver. Mobile systems can be self-propelled, towed and portable. Non-mobile air defense systems are called stationary.

Versatility is a property that characterizes the technical capabilities of an air defense system to destroy air targets over a wide range of ranges and altitudes.

Reliability is the ability to function normally under given operating conditions.

Based on the degree of automation, anti-aircraft missile systems are classified into automatic, semi-automatic and non-automatic. In automatic air defense systems, all operations to detect, track targets and guide missiles are performed automatically without human intervention. In semi-automatic and non-automatic air defense systems, a person takes part in solving a number of tasks.

Anti-aircraft missile systems are distinguished by the number of target and missile channels. Complexes that provide simultaneous tracking and firing of one target are called single-channel, and those of several targets are called multi-channel.

Based on their firing range, the complexes are divided into long-range (LR) air defense systems with a firing range of more than 100 km, medium-range (SD) with a firing range from 20 to 100 km, short-range (MD) with a firing range from 10 to 20 km and short-range ( BD) with a firing range of up to 10 km.


Tactical and technical characteristics of the anti-aircraft missile system

Tactical and technical characteristics (TTX) determine the combat capabilities of the air defense system. These include: the purpose of the air defense system; range and altitude of destruction of air targets; the ability to destroy targets flying at different speeds; the probability of hitting air targets in the absence and presence of interference, when firing at maneuvering targets; number of target and missile channels; noise immunity of air defense systems; working hours of the air defense system (reaction time); time for transferring the air defense system from the traveling position to the combat position and vice versa (time of deployment and collapse of the air defense system at the starting position); movement speed; missile ammunition; power reserve; mass and dimensional characteristics, etc.

Performance characteristics are specified in the tactical and technical specifications for the creation of a new type of air defense system and are refined during field testing. The values ​​of the performance characteristics are determined by the design features of the air defense missile system elements and the principles of their operation.

Purpose of the air defense system- a generalized characteristic indicating combat missions solved by means of this type of air defense system.

Damage range(firing) - the range at which targets are hit with a probability not lower than the specified one. There are minimum and maximum ranges.

Damage height(firing) - the height at which targets are hit with a probability not lower than the specified one. There are minimum and maximum heights.

The ability to destroy targets flying at different speeds is a characteristic indicating the maximum permissible value of the flight speeds of targets destroyed in given ranges and altitudes of their flight. The magnitude of the target's flight speed determines the values ​​of the required missile overloads, dynamic guidance errors and the probability of hitting the target with one missile. At high speeds targets, the necessary missile overloads and dynamic guidance errors increase, and the probability of destruction decreases. As a result, the values ​​of the maximum range and height of destruction of targets are reduced.

Probability of target hit- a numerical value characterizing the possibility of hitting a target under given shooting conditions. Expressed as a number from 0 to 1.

The target can be hit when firing one or more missiles, so the corresponding probability of hitting P is considered ; and P P .

Target channel- a set of elements of an air defense system that provides simultaneous tracking and firing of one target. There are single- and multi-channel air defense systems based on the target. The N-channel target complex allows you to simultaneously fire at N targets. The target channel includes a sighting device and a device for determining target coordinates.

Rocket channel- a set of elements of an air defense system that simultaneously provides preparation for launch, launch and guidance of one missile defense system at a target. The missile channel includes: a launch device (launcher), a device for preparation for launch and launch of the missile defense system, a sighting device and a device for determining the coordinates of the missile, elements of the device for generating and transmitting missile control commands. An integral part of the missile channel is the missile defense system. The air defense systems in service are single- and multi-channel. Portable complexes are single-channel. They allow only one missile to be aimed at a target at a time. Multi-channel missile-based air defense systems ensure simultaneous firing of several missiles at one or several targets. Such air defense systems have great capabilities for consistently firing at targets. To obtain a given value of the probability of destroying a target, the air defense system has 2-3 missile channels per target channel.

The following indicators of noise immunity are used: noise immunity coefficient, permissible interference power density at the far (near) border of the affected area in the area of ​​the jammer, which ensures timely detection (opening) and destruction (defeat) of the target, range of the open zone, range from which the target is detected (revealed) against the background of interference when the jammer sets it.

Working hours of the air defense system(reaction time) - the time interval between the moment of detection of an air target by air defense systems and the launch of the first missile. It is determined by the time spent searching and capturing the target and preparing the initial data for shooting. The operating time of the air defense system depends on the design features and characteristics of the air defense system and the level of training of the combat crew. For modern air defense systems, its value ranges from units to tens of seconds.

Time to transfer the air defense system from traveling to combat position- time from the moment the command is given to transfer the complex to a combat position until the complex is ready to open fire. For MANPADS this time is minimal and amounts to several seconds. The time it takes to transfer the air defense system to a combat position is determined by the initial state of its elements, the transfer mode and the type of power source.

Time to transfer the air defense system from combat to traveling position- time from the moment the command is given to transfer the air defense system to the traveling position until the completion of the formation of elements of the air defense system into a traveling column.

Combat Kit(bq) - the number of missiles installed on one air defense system.

Power reserve- the maximum distance that an air defense vehicle can travel after consuming a full load of fuel.

Mass characteristics- maximum mass characteristics of elements (cabins) of air defense systems and missile defense systems.

Dimensions- the maximum external outlines of the elements (cabins) of air defense systems and missile defense systems, determined by the greatest width, length and height.

SAM affected area

The kill zone of the complex is the area of ​​space within which the destruction of an air target by an anti-aircraft guided missile is ensured under the calculated firing conditions with a given probability. Taking into account the firing efficiency, it determines the reach of the complex in terms of height, range and heading parameters.

Design shooting conditions- conditions under which the closing angles of the SAM position are equal to zero, the characteristics and parameters of the target’s movement (its effective reflective surface, speed, etc.) do not exceed specified limits, and atmospheric conditions do not interfere with observation of the target.

Realized affected area- part of the affected area in which a target of a certain type is hit under specific shooting conditions with a given probability.

Firing zone- the space around the air defense system, in which the missile is aimed at the target.


Rice. 1. SAM affected area: vertical (a) and horizontal (b) section


The affected area is depicted in a parametric coordinate system and is characterized by the position of the far, near, upper and lower boundaries. Its main characteristics: horizontal (inclined) range to the far and near boundaries d d (D d) and d(D), minimum and maximum heights H mn and H max, maximum heading angle q max and maximum elevation angle s max. The horizontal distance to the far border of the affected area and the maximum heading angle determine the limiting parameter of the affected area P before, i.e., the maximum parameter of the target, which ensures its defeat with a probability not lower than the specified one. For multi-channel air defense systems on a target, a characteristic value is also the parameter of the affected area Rstr, up to which the number of firings carried out at the target is not less than with a zero parameter of its movement. A typical cross-section of the affected area with vertical bisector and horizontal planes is shown in the figure.

The position of the boundaries of the affected area is determined by a large number of factors related to the technical characteristics of individual elements of the air defense system and the control loop as a whole, firing conditions, characteristics and parameters of the movement of the air target. The position of the far border of the affected area determines the required range of action of the SNR.

The position of the realized far and lower boundaries of the air defense missile system destruction zone may also depend on the terrain.

SAM launch area

In order for the missile to meet the target in the affected area, the missile must be launched in advance, taking into account the flight time of the missile and the target to the meeting point.

Missile launch zone is an area of ​​space in which, if the target is located at the moment of missile launch, their meeting in the air defense missile zone is ensured. To determine the boundaries of the launch zone, it is necessary to set off from each point of the affected zone to the side opposite to the target course a segment equal to the product of the target speed V ii for the flight time of the rocket to a given point. In the figure, the most characteristic points of the launch zone are respectively indicated by the letters a, 6, c, d, e.


Rice. 2. SAM launch area (vertical section)


When tracking a SNR target, the current coordinates of the meeting point are, as a rule, calculated automatically and displayed on indicator screens. The missile is launched when the meeting point is located within the boundaries of the affected area.

Guaranteed launch area- an area of ​​space in which, when the target is located at the moment of missile launch, its meeting with the target in the affected area is ensured, regardless of the type of anti-missile maneuver of the target.


Composition and characteristics of elements of anti-aircraft missile systems

In accordance with the tasks being solved, the functionally necessary elements of the air defense system are: means of detection, identification of aircraft and target designation; SAM flight controls; launchers and launching devices; anti-aircraft guided missiles.

Man-portable anti-aircraft missile systems (MANPADS) can be used to combat low-flying targets.

When multifunctional radars are used as part of air defense systems (Patriot, S-300), they serve as means of detection, identification, tracking devices for aircraft and missiles aimed at them, devices for transmitting control commands, as well as target illumination stations to ensure the operation of on-board radio direction finders.


Detection Tools

In anti-aircraft missile systems, radar stations, optical and passive direction finders can be used as means of detecting aircraft.

Optical detection devices (ODF). Depending on the location of the source of radiant energy, optical detection means are divided into passive and semi-active. Passive OSOs, as a rule, use radiant energy caused by heating of the aircraft skin and operating engines, or light energy from the Sun reflected from the aircraft. In semi-active OSOs, an optical quantum generator (laser) is located at the ground control point, the energy of which is used to probe space.

Passive OSO is a television-optical sight, which includes a transmitting television camera (PTC), a synchronizer, communication channels, and a video monitoring device (VCU).

The television-optical viewer converts the flow of light (radiant) energy coming from the aircraft into electrical signals, which are transmitted via a cable communication line and are used in the VKU to reproduce the transmitted image of the aircraft located in the field of view of the PTC lens.

In the transmitting television tube, the optical image is converted into an electrical one, and a potential relief appears on the photomosaic (target) of the tube, displaying in electrical form the distribution of brightness of all points of the aircraft.

The potential relief is read by the electron beam of the transmitting tube, which, under the influence of the field of deflection coils, moves synchronously with the electron beam of the VCU. A video image signal appears at the load resistance of the transmitting tube, which is amplified by a preamplifier and sent to the VCU via a communication channel. The video signal, after amplification in the amplifier, is fed to the control electrode of the receiving tube (kinescope).

Synchronization of the movement of the electron beams of the PTC and VKU is carried out by horizontal and vertical scanning pulses, which are not mixed with the image signal, but are transmitted through a separate channel.

The operator observes on the kinescope screen images of aircraft located in the field of view of the viewfinder lens, as well as sighting marks corresponding to the position of the TOV optical axis in azimuth (b) and elevation (e), as a result of which the azimuth and elevation angle of the aircraft can be determined.

Semi-active SOS (laser sights) are almost completely similar to radar sights in their structure, construction principles and functions. They allow you to determine the angular coordinates, range and speed of the target.

A laser transmitter is used as a signal source, which is triggered by a synchronizer pulse. The laser light signal is emitted into space, reflected from the aircraft and received by the telescope.


Radar detection equipment

A narrow-band filter placed in the path of the reflected pulse reduces the impact of extraneous light sources on the operation of the viewfinder. Light pulses reflected from the aircraft enter a photosensitive receiver, are converted into video frequency signals and are used in units for measuring angular coordinates and range, as well as for display on the indicator screen.

Drive control signals are generated in the angular coordinate measurement unit optical system, which provide both an overview of the space and automatic tracking of the aircraft along angular coordinates (continuous alignment of the axis of the optical system with the direction to the aircraft).


Aircraft identification means

Identification tools make it possible to determine the nationality of a detected aircraft and classify it as “friend or foe.” They can be combined or autonomous. In co-located devices, the interrogation and response signals are emitted and received by the radar devices.



Detection radar antenna “Top-M1” Optical detection means


Radar-optical detection means


A request signal receiver is installed on “your” aircraft, which receives encoded request signals sent by the detection (identification) radar. The receiver decodes the request signal and, if this signal corresponds to the established code, sends it to the response signal transmitter installed on board “its” aircraft. The transmitter produces an encoded signal and sends it in the direction of the radar, where it is received, decoded and, after conversion, displayed on the indicator in the form of a conventional mark, which is displayed next to the mark from the “own” aircraft. The enemy aircraft does not respond to the radar request signal.


Target designation means

Target designation means are designed to receive, process and analyze information about the air situation and determine the sequence of fire on detected targets, as well as transmitting data about them to other combat assets.

Information about detected and identified aircraft, as a rule, comes from the radar. Depending on the type of target designation means terminal device, the analysis of information about the aircraft is carried out automatically (when using a computer) or manually (by an operator when using cathode ray tube screens). The results of the decision of the computer (computing and solving device) can be displayed on special consoles, indicators or in the form of signals for the operator to make a decision on their further use, or transmitted to other combat air defense systems automatically.

If a screen is used as a terminal device, then marks from detected aircraft are displayed as light signs.

Target designation data (decisions to fire at targets) can be transmitted both via cable lines and radio communication lines.

Target designation and detection means can serve both one and several air defense units.


SAM flight controls

When an aircraft is detected and identified, an analysis of the air situation, as well as the order of firing at targets, is carried out by the operator. At the same time, devices for measuring range, angular coordinates, speed, generation of control commands and transmission of commands (command radio control line), autopilot and missile steering tract are involved in the operation of the missile defense flight control systems.

The range measuring device is designed to measure the slant range to aircraft and missile defense systems. Range determination is based on the straightness of propagation of electromagnetic waves and the constancy of their speed. The range can be measured by location and optical means. For this purpose, the signal travel time from the radiation source to the aircraft and back is used. Time can be measured by the delay of the pulse reflected from the aircraft, the magnitude of the change in the frequency of the transmitter, and the magnitude of the change in the phase of the radar signal. Information about the range to the target is used to determine the moment of launch of the missile defense system, as well as to generate control commands (for systems with remote control).

The angular coordinates measuring device is designed to measure the elevation angle (e) and azimuth (b) of an aircraft and missile defense system. The measurement is based on the property of rectilinear propagation of electromagnetic waves.

The speed measuring device is designed to measure the radial speed of the aircraft. The measurement is based on the Doppler effect, which consists in changing the frequency of the reflected signal from moving objects.

The control command generation device (UFC) is designed to generate electrical signals, the magnitude and sign of which correspond to the magnitude and sign of the missile’s deviation from the kinematic trajectory. The magnitude and direction of deviation of the missile defense system from the kinematic trajectory are manifested in the disruption of connections determined by the nature of the target’s movement and the method of aiming the missile defense system at it. The measure of violation of this connection is called the mismatch parameter A(t).

The magnitude of the mismatch parameter is measured by the SAM tracking means, which, based on A(t), generate a corresponding electrical signal in the form of voltage or current, called the mismatch signal. The mismatch signal is the main component when generating a control command. To increase the accuracy of missile guidance to the target, some correction signals are introduced into the control command. In telecontrol systems, when implementing the three-point method, to reduce the time of launching the missile to the meeting point with the target, as well as to reduce errors in pointing the missile at the target, a damping signal and a signal for compensating for dynamic errors caused by the movement of the target and the mass (weight) of the missile can be introduced into the control command .

Device for transmitting control commands (radio command lines). In telecontrol systems, the transmission of control commands from the guidance point to the on-board missile defense device is carried out through equipment that forms a command radio control line. This line ensures the transmission of rocket flight control commands, one-time commands that change the operating mode of the onboard equipment. The command radio line is a multi-channel communication line, the number of channels of which corresponds to the number of transmitted commands when simultaneously controlling several missiles.

The autopilot is designed to stabilize the angular movements of the rocket relative to the center of mass. In addition, the autopilot is an integral part of the rocket flight control system and controls the position of the center of mass itself in space in accordance with control commands.


Launchers, starting devices

Launchers (PU) and launching devices are special devices designed for placement, aiming, pre-launch preparation and launch of a rocket. The launcher consists of a launch table or guides, aiming mechanisms, leveling means, test and launch equipment, and power supplies.

Launchers are distinguished by the type of missile launch - with vertical and inclined launch, by mobility - stationary, semi-stationary (collapsible), mobile.


Stationary launcher C-25 with vertical launch


Man-portable anti-aircraft missile system "Igla"


Launcher of the Blowpipe man-portable anti-aircraft missile system with three guides


Stationary launchers in the form of launch pads are mounted on special concrete platforms and cannot be moved.

Semi-stationary launchers can be disassembled if necessary and installed in another position after transportation.

Mobile launchers are placed on special vehicles. They are used in mobile air defense systems and are made in self-propelled, towed, portable (portable) versions. Self-propelled launchers are placed on tracked or wheeled chassis, providing a quick transition from the traveling position to the combat position and back. Towed launchers are installed on tracked or wheeled non-self-propelled chassis and transported by tractors.

Portable launchers are made in the form of launch tubes into which the rocket is installed before launch. The launch tube may have an aiming device for pre-targeting and a trigger mechanism.

Based on the number of missiles on the launcher, a distinction is made between single launchers, twin launchers, etc.


Anti-aircraft guided missiles

Anti-aircraft guided missiles are classified by the number of stages, aerodynamic design, guidance method, and type of warhead.

Most missiles can be one- or two-stage.

According to the aerodynamic design, they distinguish between missiles made according to the normal design, the “swivel wing” design, and also the “canard” design.

Based on the guidance method, a distinction is made between homing and remote-controlled missiles. A homing rocket is a missile that has flight control equipment installed on board. Remote-controlled missiles are called missiles controlled (guided) by ground-based control (guidance) means.

Based on the type of warhead, missiles with conventional and nuclear warheads are distinguished.


Self-propelled PU air defense missile system "Buk" with inclined launch


Semi-stationary S-75 air defense missile launcher with inclined launch


Self-propelled PU SAM S-300PMU with vertical launch


Man-portable anti-aircraft missile systems

MANPADS are designed to combat low-flying targets. The construction of MANPADS can be based on a passive homing system (Stinger, Strela-2, 3, Igla), a radio command system (Blowpipe), or a laser beam guidance system (RBS-70).

MANPADS with a passive homing system include a launcher (launch container), a trigger mechanism, identification equipment, and an anti-aircraft guided missile.

The launcher is a sealed fiberglass tube in which the missile defense system is stored. The pipe is sealed. Outside the pipe there are sighting devices for preparing a missile launch and a trigger mechanism.

The launching mechanism (“Stinger”) includes an electric battery powering the equipment of both the mechanism itself and the homing head (before launching the rocket), a coolant cylinder for cooling the receiver of the thermal radiation of the seeker during the preparation of the rocket for launch, a switching device that provides the necessary sequence passage of commands and signals, indicator device.

Identification equipment includes an identification antenna and the electronic unit, which includes a transceiver device, logic circuits, a computing device, and a power source.

The missile (FIM-92A) is single-stage, solid propellant. The homing head can operate in the IR and ultraviolet ranges, the radiation receiver is cooled. The alignment of the axis of the optical seeker system with the direction towards the target during its tracking is carried out using a gyroscopic drive.

A rocket is launched from a container using a launch accelerator. The main engine is turned on when the missile moves to a distance at which the anti-aircraft gunner cannot be hit by the jet from the operating engine.

Radio command MANPADS include a transport and launch container, a guidance unit with identification equipment, and an anti-aircraft guided missile. The container is paired with the missile and guidance unit located in it during the process of preparing the MANPADS for combat use.

There are two antennas on the container: one is a command transmission device, the other is identification equipment. Inside the container is the rocket itself.

The targeting unit includes a monocular optical sight, providing target acquisition and tracking, an IR device for measuring the deviation of a missile from the target line of sight, a device for generating and transmitting guidance commands, a software device for launch preparation and production, a requester for friend-or-foe identification equipment. There is a controller on the block body that is used when pointing the missile at a target.

After launching the missile, the operator follows it along the tail IR tracer using an optical sight. The launch of the missile to the line of sight is carried out manually or automatically.

In automatic mode, the deviation of the missile from the line of sight, measured by the IR device, is converted into guidance commands transmitted to the missile defense system. The IR device is turned off after 1-2 seconds of flight, after which the missile is aimed at the meeting point manually, provided that the operator achieves alignment of the image of the target and the missile in the field of view of the sight by changing the position of the control switch. Control commands are transmitted to the missile defense system, ensuring its flight along the required trajectory.

In complexes that provide guidance of missiles using a laser beam (RBS-70), laser radiation receivers are placed in the tail compartment of the missile to guide the missile to the target, which generate signals that control the flight of the missile. The guidance unit includes an optical sight and a device for generating a laser beam with focusing that varies depending on the distance of the missile defense system.


Anti-aircraft missile control systems Telecontrol systems

Telecontrol systems are those in which the movement of the missile is determined by a ground-based guidance point that continuously monitors the trajectory parameters of the target and the missile. Depending on the location of the formation of commands (signals) for controlling the rocket's rudders, these systems are divided into beam guidance systems and telecontrol command systems.

In beam guidance systems, the direction of the missile's movement is set using directed radiation of electromagnetic waves (radio waves, laser radiation, etc.). The beam is modulated in such a way that when the rocket deviates from a given direction, its on-board devices automatically detect mismatch signals and generate appropriate rocket control commands.

An example of the use of such a control system with tele-orientation of a rocket in a laser beam (after its launch into this beam) is the ADATS multi-purpose missile system, developed by the Swiss company Oerlikon together with the American Martin Marietta. It is believed that this control method, compared to the command telecontrol system of the first type, provides higher accuracy of missile guidance at long ranges.

In command telecontrol systems, missile flight control commands are generated at the guidance point and transmitted via a communication line (telecontrol line) to the missile. Depending on the method of measuring the coordinates of the target and determining its position relative to the missile, command telecontrol systems are divided into telecontrol systems of the first type and telecontrol systems of the second type. In systems of the first type, the measurement of the current coordinates of the target is carried out directly by the ground guidance point, and in systems of the second type - by the on-board missile coordinator with their subsequent transmission to the guidance point. The generation of missile control commands in both the first and second cases is carried out by a ground-based guidance point.


Rice. 3. Command telecontrol system


Determination of the current coordinates of the target and the missile (for example, range, azimuth and elevation) is carried out by a tracking radar station. In some complexes, this problem is solved by two radars, one of which accompanies the target (target sighting radar 7), and the other - the missile (missile sighting radar 2).

Target sighting is based on the use of the principle of active radar with a passive response, i.e., on obtaining information about the current coordinates of the target from radio signals reflected from it. Target tracking can be automatic (AS), manual (PC) or mixed. Most often, target sighting devices have devices that provide various types of target tracking. Automatic tracking is carried out without the participation of an operator, manual and mixed - with the participation of an operator.

To sight a missile in such systems, as a rule, radar lines with an active response are used. A transceiver is installed on board the rocket, emitting response pulses to the request pulses sent by the guidance point. This method of sighting a missile ensures its stable automatic tracking, including when firing at significant distances.

The measured values ​​of the coordinates of the target and the missile are fed into the command generation device (CDD), which can be implemented on the basis of a computer or in the form of an analog computing device. Commands are generated in accordance with the selected guidance method and the accepted mismatch parameter. The control commands generated for each guidance plane are encrypted and issued by a radio command transmitter (RPK) on board the rocket. These commands are received by the on-board receiver, amplified, deciphered and, through the autopilot, in the form of certain signals that determine the magnitude and sign of the rudder deflection, issued to the rocket's rudders. As a result of the rotation of the rudders and the appearance of angles of attack and sliding, lateral aerodynamic forces arise that change the direction of the rocket's flight.

The missile control process is carried out continuously until it meets the target.

After the missile is launched into the target area, as a rule, using a proximity fuse, the problem of choosing the moment to detonate the warhead of an anti-aircraft guided missile is solved.

The command telecontrol system of the first type does not require an increase in the composition and weight of on-board equipment, and has greater flexibility in the number and geometry of possible rocket trajectories. The main drawback of the system is the dependence of the magnitude of the linear error in pointing the missile at the target on the firing range. If, for example, the magnitude of the angular guidance error is taken to be constant and equal to 1/1000 of the range, then the miss of the missile at firing ranges of 20 and 100 km will be 20 and 100 m, respectively. In the latter case, to hit the target, an increase in the mass of the warhead will be required, and therefore rocket launch mass. Therefore, the first type of telecontrol system is used to destroy missile defense targets at short and medium ranges.

In the first type of telecontrol system, the target and missile tracking channels and the radio control line are subject to interference. Foreign experts associate the solution to the problem of increasing the noise immunity of this system with the use, including in a comprehensive manner, of target and missile sighting channels of different frequency ranges and operating principles (radar, infrared, visual, etc.), as well as radar stations with a phased array antenna ( PAR).


Rice. 4. Command telecontrol system of the second type


The target coordinator (direction finder) is installed on board the missile. It tracks the target and determines its current coordinates in a moving coordinate system associated with the missile. The coordinates of the target are transmitted via the communication channel to the guidance point. Therefore, an on-board radio direction finder generally includes an antenna for receiving target signals (7), a receiver (2), a device for determining target coordinates (3), an encoder (4), a signal transmitter (5) containing information about the target coordinates, and a transmitting antenna ( 6).

The target coordinates are received by the ground guidance point and fed into the device for generating control commands. From the missile tracking station (radio sighter), the UVK also receives the current coordinates of the anti-aircraft guided missile. The command generation device determines the mismatch parameter and generates control commands, which, after appropriate transformations by the command transmission station, are issued on board the rocket. To receive these commands, convert them and practice them on the rocket, the same equipment is installed on board as in the first type of telecontrol systems (7 - command receiver, 8 - autopilot). The advantages of the second type of telecontrol system are that the accuracy of missile guidance is independent of the firing range, the resolution increases as the missile approaches the target, and the ability to aim the required number of missiles at the target.

The disadvantages of the system include the increasing cost of an anti-aircraft guided missile and the impossibility of manual target tracking modes.

In its structural diagram and characteristics, the second type of telecontrol system is close to homing systems.


Homing systems

Homing is the automatic guidance of a missile to a target, based on the use of energy flowing from the target to the missile.

The missile homing head autonomously tracks the target, determines the mismatch parameter and generates missile control commands.

Based on the type of energy that the target emits or reflects, homing systems are divided into radar and optical (infrared or thermal, light, laser, etc.).

Depending on the location of the primary energy source, homing systems can be passive, active or semi-active.

With passive homing, the energy emitted or reflected by the target is created by the sources of the target itself or the target's natural irradiator (Sun, Moon). Consequently, information about the coordinates and parameters of the target’s movement can be obtained without special irradiation of the target with any type of energy.

The active homing system is characterized by the fact that the energy source that irradiates the target is installed on the missile and the energy of this source reflected from the target is used for homing the missiles.

With semi-active homing, the target is irradiated by a primary energy source located outside the target and the missile (Hawk air defense system).

Radar homing systems have become widespread in air defense systems due to their practical independence of action from meteorological conditions and the ability to point a missile at a target of any type and at various ranges. They can be used throughout or only on the final part of the trajectory of an anti-aircraft guided missile, i.e. in combination with other control systems (telecontrol system, program control).

In radar systems, the use of passive homing is very limited. This method is possible only in special cases, for example, when homing a missile defense system at an aircraft that has a continuously operating radio jammer on board. Therefore, in radar homing systems, special irradiation (“illumination”) of the target is used. When homing a missile throughout the entire section of its flight path to the target, as a rule, semi-active homing systems are used in terms of energy and cost ratios. The primary energy source (target illumination radar) is usually located at the guidance point. Combined systems use both semi-active and active homing systems. The range limitation of the active homing system occurs due to the maximum power that can be obtained on the rocket, taking into account the possible dimensions and weight of the on-board equipment, including the homing head antenna.

If homing does not begin from the moment the missile is launched, then as the missile’s firing range increases, the energy advantages of active homing compared to semi-active homing increase.

To calculate the mismatch parameter and generate control commands, the tracking systems of the homing head must continuously track the target. In this case, the formation of a control command is possible when tracking a target only by angular coordinates. However, such tracking does not provide target selection by range and speed, as well as protection of the homing head receiver from side information and interference.

To automatically track a target along angular coordinates, equal-signal direction finding methods are used. The angle of arrival of the wave reflected from the target is determined by comparing signals received from two or more divergent radiation patterns. The comparison can be carried out simultaneously or sequentially.

The most widely used are direction finders with instantaneous equal-signal direction, which use the sum-difference method for determining the angle of target deflection. The appearance of such direction-finding devices is primarily due to the need to improve the accuracy of automatic target tracking systems in direction. Such direction finders are theoretically insensitive to amplitude fluctuations of the signal reflected from the target.

In direction finders with an equal-signal direction, created by periodically changing the antenna pattern, and, in particular, with a scanning beam, a random change in the amplitudes of the signal reflected from the target is perceived as a random change in the angular position of the target.

The principle of target selection by range and speed depends on the nature of the radiation, which can be pulsed or continuous.

With pulsed radiation, target selection is carried out, as a rule, by range using gating pulses that open the homing head receiver at the moment signals arrive from the target.


Rice. 5. Radar semi-active homing system


With continuous radiation, it is relatively simple to select a target based on speed. The Doppler effect is used to track the target by speed. The magnitude of the Doppler frequency shift of the signal reflected from the target is proportional with active homing to the relative speed of approach of the missile to the target, and with semi-active homing - to the radial component of the target's speed relative to the ground-based irradiation radar and the relative speed of approach of the missile to the target. To isolate the Doppler shift during semi-active homing on a missile after target acquisition, it is necessary to compare the signals received by the irradiation radar and the homing head. The tuned filters of the homing head receiver transmit into the angle change channel only those signals that were reflected from a target moving at a certain speed relative to the missile.

In relation to the Hawk type anti-aircraft missile system, it includes a target irradiation (illumination) radar, a semi-active homing head, an anti-aircraft guided missile, etc.

The task of the target irradiation (illumination) radar is to continuously irradiate the target with electromagnetic energy. The radar station uses directed radiation of electromagnetic energy, which requires continuous tracking of the target along angular coordinates. To solve other problems, target tracking in range and speed is also provided. Thus, the ground part of the semi-active homing system is a radar station with continuous automatic target tracking.

The semi-active homing head is installed on the rocket and includes a coordinator and a computing device. It provides target acquisition and tracking by angular coordinates, range or speed (or all four coordinates), determination of the mismatch parameter and generation of control commands.

An autopilot is installed on board the anti-aircraft guided missile, solving the same problems as in command and control systems.

An anti-aircraft missile system that uses a homing system or a combined control system also includes equipment and equipment that ensures the preparation and launch of missiles, pointing the radiation radar at a target, etc.

Infrared (thermal) homing systems for anti-aircraft missiles use a wavelength range typically from 1 to 5 microns. This range contains the maximum thermal radiation of most airborne targets. The ability to use a passive homing method is the main advantage of infrared systems. The system is made simpler, and its action is hidden from the enemy. Before launching a missile defense system, it is more difficult for an air enemy to detect such a system, and after launching a missile, it is more difficult to actively interfere with it. The design of an infrared system receiver can be much simpler than that of a radar seeker receiver.

The disadvantage of the system is the dependence of the range on meteorological conditions. Heat rays are greatly attenuated in rain, fog, and clouds. The range of such a system also depends on the orientation of the target relative to the energy receiver (direction of reception). The radiant flux from the nozzle of an aircraft jet engine significantly exceeds the radiant flux from its fuselage.

Thermal homing heads are widely used in close-range and short-range anti-aircraft missiles.

Light homing systems are based on the fact that most aerial targets reflect sunlight or moonlight much more strongly than the background surrounding them. This allows you to select a target against a given background and aim an anti-aircraft missile at it using a seeker that receives a signal in the visible part of the electromagnetic wave spectrum.

The advantages of this system are determined by the possibility of using a passive homing method. Its significant drawback is the strong dependence of the range on meteorological conditions. Under good meteorological conditions, light homing is also impossible in directions where the light of the Sun and Moon falls into the field of view of the system's protractor.


Combined control

Combined control refers to the combination of various control systems when pointing a missile at a target. In anti-aircraft missile systems it is used when firing at long ranges to obtain the required accuracy of missile guidance at the target with permissible mass values ​​of the missile defense system. The following sequential combinations of control systems are possible: telecontrol of the first type and homing, telecontrol of the first and second types, autonomous system and homing.

The use of combined control makes it necessary to solve such problems as pairing trajectories when switching from one control method to another, ensuring target acquisition by a missile homing head in flight, using the same on-board equipment at different stages of control, etc.

At the moment of transition to homing (telecontrol of the second type), the target must be within the radiation pattern of the receiving antenna of the seeker, the width of which usually does not exceed 5-10°. In addition, tracking systems must be guided: the seeker by range, by speed, or by range and speed, if target selection according to these coordinates is provided to increase the resolution and noise immunity of the control system.

Guiding the seeker at the target can be done in the following ways: by commands transmitted on board the missile from the guidance point; enabling autonomous automatic search for the seeker target by angular coordinates, range and frequency; a combination of preliminary command guidance of the seeker at the target with subsequent search for the target.

Each of the first two methods has its advantages and significant disadvantages. The task of ensuring reliable guidance of the seeker to the target during the missile's flight to the target is quite complex and may require the use of a third method. Preliminary guidance of the seeker allows you to narrow the target search range.

When combining telecontrol systems of the first and second types, after the onboard radio direction finder begins to operate, the command generation device of the ground guidance point can receive information simultaneously from two sources: the target and missile tracking station and the onboard radio direction finder. Based on a comparison of generated commands based on data from each source, it seems possible to solve the problem of matching trajectories, as well as increase the accuracy of missile pointing to the target (reduce random error components by selecting a source, weighing the variances of the generated commands). This method of combining control systems is called binary control.

Combined control is used in cases where the required characteristics of an air defense system cannot be achieved using only one control system.


Autonomous control systems

Autonomous control systems are those in which flight control signals are generated on board the rocket in accordance with a pre-set program (before launch). When a missile is in flight, the autonomous control system does not receive any information from the target and the control point. In a number of cases, such a system is used at the initial stage of a rocket’s flight path to launch it into a given region of space.

Elements of missile control systems

A guided missile is an unmanned aircraft with a jet engine designed to destroy air targets. All onboard devices are located on the rocket airframe.

A glider is the supporting structure of a rocket, which consists of a body, fixed and movable aerodynamic surfaces. The glider body is usually cylindrical in shape with a conical (spherical, ogive) head part.

The airframe's aerodynamic surfaces are used to create lift and control forces. These include wings, stabilizers (fixed surfaces), and rudders. Based on the relative position of the rudders and fixed aerodynamic surfaces, the following aerodynamic designs of rockets are distinguished: normal, “tailless”, “canard”, “rotary wing”.


Rice. b. Layout diagram of a hypothetical guided missile:


1 - rocket body; 2 - non-contact fuse; 3 - rudders; 4 - warhead; 5 - tanks for fuel components; b - autopilot; 7 - control equipment; 8 - wings; 9 - sources of on-board power supply; 10 - sustainer stage rocket engine; 11 - launch stage rocket engine; 12 - stabilizers.


Rice. 7. Aerodynamic designs of guided missiles:

1 - normal; 2 - “tailless”; 3 - “duck”; 4 - “swivel wing”.


Guided missile engines are divided into two groups: rocket and air-breathing engines.

A rocket engine is an engine that uses fuel that is entirely on board the rocket. Its operation does not require oxygen intake from the environment. Based on the type of fuel, rocket engines are divided into solid rocket engines (solid propellant rocket engines) and liquid rocket engines (LPRE). Solid propellant rocket engines use rocket powder and mixed solid fuel as fuel, which are poured and pressed directly into the engine combustion chamber.

Air-breathing engines (ARE) are engines in which the oxidizing agent is oxygen taken from the surrounding air. As a result, only fuel is contained on board the rocket, which makes it possible to increase the fuel supply. The disadvantage of WFDs is the impossibility of their operation in rarefied layers of the atmosphere. They can be used on aircraft at flight altitudes of up to 35-40 km.

The autopilot (AP) is designed to stabilize the angular movements of the rocket relative to the center of mass. In addition, the AP is an integral part of the rocket flight control system and controls the position of the center of mass itself in space in accordance with control commands. In the first case, the autopilot plays the role of a rocket stabilization system, in the second - the role of an element of the control system.

To stabilize the rocket in the longitudinal, azimuthal planes and when moving relative to the longitudinal axis of the rocket (along the roll), three independent stabilization channels are used: pitch, heading and roll.

Onboard missile flight control equipment is an integral part of the control system. Its structure is determined by the adopted control system, implemented in the control complex for anti-aircraft and aviation missiles.

In command telecontrol systems, devices are installed on board the rocket that make up the receiving path of the command radio control line (CRU). They include an antenna and a receiver of radio signals for control commands, a command selector, and a demodulator.

The combat equipment of anti-aircraft and aircraft missiles is a combination of a warhead and a fuse.

Warhead has a combat charge, a detonator and a body. According to the principle of operation, warheads can be fragmentation and high-explosive fragmentation. Some types of missile defense systems can also be equipped with nuclear warheads (for example, in the Nike-Hercules air defense system).

The damaging elements of the warhead are both fragments and finished elements placed on the surface of the hull. High explosives (crushing) explosives (TNT, mixtures of TNT with hexogen, etc.) are used as warheads.

Missile fuses can be non-contact or contact. Non-contact fuses, depending on the location of the energy source used to trigger the fuse, are divided into active, semi-active and passive. In addition, non-contact fuses are divided into electrostatic, optical, acoustic, and radio fuses. In foreign missile models, radio and optical fuses are more often used. IN in some cases The optical and radio fuse operate simultaneously, which increases the reliability of detonation of the warhead in conditions of electronic suppression.

The operation of a radio fuse is based on the principles of radar. Therefore, such a fuse is a miniature radar that generates a detonation signal at a certain position of the target in the beam of the fuse antenna.

According to the design and principles of operation, radio fuses can be pulse, Doppler and frequency.


Rice. 8. Block diagram of a pulse radio fuse


In a pulse fuse, the transmitter produces short-duration high-frequency pulses emitted by an antenna in the direction of the target. The antenna beam is coordinated in space with the area of ​​dispersion of warhead fragments. When the target is in the beam, the reflected signals are received by the antenna, pass through the receiving device and enter the coincidence cascade, where a strobe pulse is applied. If they coincide, a signal is issued to detonate the warhead detonator. The duration of the strobe pulses determines the range of possible firing ranges of the fuse.

Doppler fuses often operate in continuous radiation mode. The signals reflected from the target and received by the antenna are sent to a mixer, where the Doppler frequency is separated.

At given speeds, Doppler frequency signals pass through a filter and are fed to an amplifier. At a certain amplitude of current oscillations of this frequency, a detonation signal is issued.

Contact fuses can be electric or impact. They are used in short-range missiles with high firing accuracy, which ensures detonation of the warhead in the event of a direct missile hit.

To increase the likelihood of hitting a target with warhead fragments, measures are taken to coordinate the areas of fuse activation and the dispersion of fragments. With good agreement, the area of ​​scattering of fragments, as a rule, coincides in space with the area where the target is located.