SA-N-6 (S-300F) Minimum Altitude

[GM Custom Sauces]

While I was messing around with the mission editor, I realized the Kirov-Class is really good at defending against large Harpoon missile salvos.

After close inspection, it turns out the SA-N-6 (S-300F) actually has a pretty decent chance of intercepting the RGM-84. Although the unit reference states that the SA-N-6 has a minimum attack altitude of 82 ft, it is still capable of hitting the RGM-84, which flies sea-skimming at below 30 ft.

I don't know much about missile defense, but is this how it's supposed to work?

Below are the screenshots from two occasions where the SA-N-6 intercepted the RGM-84.

Occasion 1:
https://imgur.com/a/fIvgCaD

Occasion 2:
https://imgur.com/a/7oU6I5D

[[dub] Liderigo]

The S-300 was designed to defeat low-flying cruise missiles. It is possible to solve the mystery in a large explosion radius of the s-300. It is written in the game files that it explodes 30 meters from the target, so the rocket does not have to get down to the height of the harpoon flight.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Minimum altitude stated is the minimum altitude for the system to work with reliability as designed.

Targets below that altitude aren't immune from being shot at, the deviation just dramatically increases. It isn't a binary switch, and as stated above, the kill distance is quite high to begin with.

Also, if you take into account ammunition expenditure, it isn't really all that good at defending, it just can churn out missiles pretty fast on account of its VLS.

Same with the Udaloy, it is a pretty good defender. For two attacks, after that it usually has expended all its missiles and can't do anything.

[Thewood]

I thought the min altitude was because of the proximity sensor needed to have the large kill area couldn't discern the missile/aircraft target from ground/sea clutter.

[Thewood]

Originally posted by Thewood:

I thought the min altitude was because of the proximity sensor needed to have the large kill area couldn't discern the missile/aircraft target from ground/sea clutter.

edit: Checked Defending Putin's War (a decent reference from Russian sources) and Osprey's S-300 and S-300 New Vanguard books...

A combination of the proximity fuse and the time needed at weapon endgame to rotate the missile to position the directional warhead properly was a severe very low-level limitation of the early S-300s and that includes the S-300F/SA-N-6a. The S-300 was not really developed for very low level cruise missile defense, but low level terrain-following aircraft at around 150m.

It was the Tomahawk flying at 30-50 ft. that drove development of the S-400 and later missile versions of the S-300. Russian sources admitted that early versions of the S-300 could not effectively counter low flying cruise missiles. This has supposedly validated in some of the engagements in Syria.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by Thewood:

It was the Tomahawk flying at 30-50 ft. that drove development of the S-400 and later missile versions of the S-300. Russian sources admitted that early versions of the S-300 could not effectively counter low flying cruise missiles. This has supposedly validated in some of the engagements in Syria.

It isn't effective in game either, but the Kirov does compensate for that with a good RoF, and quickly depleted stores.

I guess the misconception here is that people believe this should afford the Harpoon or Tomahawk invulnerability, but that isn't the case.

The SM-1 is pretty ineffective at stopping the SS-N-12, but it still does despite lacking RoF and SS-N-12 is a whole lot faster to begin with.

The only real effective SAM against sea skimmers is the SA-N-9, and that hinges on RoF as well to a good amount as it has fairly limited range.

---

Edit: To put 'effective' in numbers, two quick runs, 4x Ticos launching 3 Harpoons each at Kirov. Harpoons detected and positively identified at ~7nm out both times.

First run, 12 SA-N-6 expended for zero intercepts, after losses to countermeasures and CIWS a total of 3 hits.

Second run, 14 SA-N-6 expended for two intercepts, after losses to countermeasures and CIWS a total of 2 hits.

Now I realize everyone has different opinion as to what constitutes 'effective', but a best-of-two ratio of 1:7 isn't all that great in my personal opinion.

Just for comparison, replacing the target Kirov with Ticonderoga, two runs seeing 5/12 and 6/12 intercepts by SM2-MR with positive ID roughly the same at ~7nm out, after losses to countermeasures and CIWS a total of 1 hit both runs.

[Lord of the Exiled Winks]

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

Originally posted by Thewood:

It was the Tomahawk flying at 30-50 ft. that drove development of the S-400 and later missile versions of the S-300. Russian sources admitted that early versions of the S-300 could not effectively counter low flying cruise missiles. This has supposedly validated in some of the engagements in Syria.

It isn't effective in game either, but the Kirov does compensate for that with a good RoF, and quickly depleted stores.

I guess the misconception here is that people believe this should afford the Harpoon or Tomahawk invulnerability, but that isn't the case.

The SM-1 is pretty ineffective at stopping the SS-N-12, but it still does despite lacking RoF and SS-N-12 is a whole lot faster to begin with.

The only real effective SAM against sea skimmers is the SA-N-9, and that hinges on RoF as well to a good amount as it has fairly limited range.

---

Edit: To put 'effective' in numbers, two quick runs, 4x Ticos launching 3 Harpoons each at Kirov. Harpoons detected and positively identified at ~7nm out both times.

First run, 12 SA-N-6 expended for zero intercepts, after losses to countermeasures and CIWS a total of 3 hits.

Second run, 14 SA-N-6 expended for two intercepts, after losses to countermeasures and CIWS a total of 2 hits.

Now I realize everyone has different opinion as to what constitutes 'effective', but a best-of-two ratio of 1:7 isn't all that great in my personal opinion.

Just for comparison, replacing the target Kirov with Ticonderoga, two runs seeing 5/12 and 6/12 intercepts by SM2-MR with positive ID roughly the same at ~7nm out, after losses to countermeasures and CIWS a total of 1 hit both runs.

IIRC USN calculated atleast 7 missiles to score 1 hit on 1 vessel.

[GM Custom Sauces]

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

Edit: To put 'effective' in numbers, two quick runs, 4x Ticos launching 3 Harpoons each at Kirov. Harpoons detected and positively identified at ~7nm out both times.

First run, 12 SA-N-6 expended for zero intercepts, after losses to countermeasures and CIWS a total of 3 hits.

Second run, 14 SA-N-6 expended for two intercepts, after losses to countermeasures and CIWS a total of 2 hits.

Now I realize everyone has different opinion as to what constitutes 'effective', but a best-of-two ratio of 1:7 isn't all that great in my personal opinion.

Just for comparison, replacing the target Kirov with Ticonderoga, two runs seeing 5/12 and 6/12 intercepts by SM2-MR with positive ID roughly the same at ~7nm out, after losses to countermeasures and CIWS a total of 1 hit both runs.

It is quite interesting to conduct this type of testing in the game. My test results are a bit different from yours. I am wondering if the game difficulty (I am playing on realistic difficulty) affects the intercept rate.

I placed 1 Ticonderoga against 1 Kirov. The Ticonderoga launched a salvo of 8 Harpoons at a range of approximately 60–55 nautical miles.

In the first run, the red side had an AEW&C in the air, and, amazingly, the Kirov started engaging the Harpoons with S-300 missiles at a range of around 15–16 nautical miles. A total of 5 Harpoons were shot down by S-300 missiles, 1 by CIWS, 1 missed, and only 1 Harpoon hit the target.
https://imgur.com/a/sI3OpcJ

In the second run, I removed the AEW&C from the red side, which decreased the Kirov's intercept range. Similar to your test, the Kirov engaged the Harpoons with S-300 missiles at a range of around 7–8 nautical miles. A total of 3 Harpoons were shot down by S-300 missiles, 3 by CIWS, 1 missed, and still, only 1 Harpoon hit the target.
https://imgur.com/a/RxfiCam

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit:

One more test, the red side had an AEW&C in the air. The Kirov shot down four Harpoons using 21 S-300 missiles.
https://imgur.com/a/4PK2Dg1

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by GM Custom Sauces:

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

Edit: To put 'effective' in numbers, two quick runs, 4x Ticos launching 3 Harpoons each at Kirov. Harpoons detected and positively identified at ~7nm out both times.

First run, 12 SA-N-6 expended for zero intercepts, after losses to countermeasures and CIWS a total of 3 hits.

Second run, 14 SA-N-6 expended for two intercepts, after losses to countermeasures and CIWS a total of 2 hits.

Now I realize everyone has different opinion as to what constitutes 'effective', but a best-of-two ratio of 1:7 isn't all that great in my personal opinion.

Just for comparison, replacing the target Kirov with Ticonderoga, two runs seeing 5/12 and 6/12 intercepts by SM2-MR with positive ID roughly the same at ~7nm out, after losses to countermeasures and CIWS a total of 1 hit both runs.

It is quite interesting to conduct this type of testing in the game. My test results are a bit different from yours. I am wondering if the game difficulty (I am playing on realistic difficulty) affects the intercept rate.

I placed 1 Ticonderoga against 1 Kirov. The Ticonderoga launched a salvo of 8 Harpoons at a range of approximately 60–55 nautical miles.

In the first run, the red side had an AEW&C in the air, and, amazingly, the Kirov started engaging the Harpoons with S-300 missiles at a range of around 15–16 nautical miles. A total of 5 Harpoons were shot down by S-300 missiles, 1 by CIWS, 1 missed, and only 1 Harpoon hit the target.
https://imgur.com/a/sI3OpcJ

In the second run, I removed the AEW&C from the red side, which decreased the Kirov's intercept range. Similar to your test, the Kirov engaged the Harpoons with S-300 missiles at a range of around 7–8 nautical miles. A total of 3 Harpoons were shot down by S-300 missiles, 3 by CIWS, 1 missed, and still, only 1 Harpoon hit the target.
https://imgur.com/a/RxfiCam

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit:

One more test, the red side had an AEW&C in the air. The Kirov shot down four Harpoons using 21 S-300 missiles.
https://imgur.com/a/4PK2Dg1

Not difficulty, as I'm on realistic too.

The difference appears to be the staggered launch, which isn't present in your test as there appears to be only one attacking Tico.

That is a massive difference in intercept difficulty, as my test scenario essentially leaves just a quarter of adjusted intercept time per missile compared to yours, and affords much less impact to RoF of the defending vessel. Attack vectors on the other hand shouldn't be a factor, as I've used a simple line formation broadside for the Ticos.

I'm honestly surprised that you actually get a reliable hit on the Kirov that way, that appears to be the Harpoon overperforming a bit.

There will always be some fluctuations of course, running the scenario a couple more times I see the Kirov anywhere between 0-3 Harpoons intercepted, and the Ticonderoga against the same attack anywhere between 4-6 intercepts.

[GM Custom Sauces]

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

The difference appears to be the staggered launch, which isn't present in your test as there appears to be only one attacking Tico.

What you have proven is that you can overwhelm the defense as long as you have enough missiles fired within a tight enough timeframe.

However, my argument is that the S-300F isn't supposed to intercept the RGM-84.

At least according to the real-world Wikipedia page: It was originally intended to use a track-via-missile (TVM) guidance system. However, the TVM system had problems tracking targets below 500 metres (1,600 ft), allowing incoming SEAD aircraft to effectively utilize terrain masking to avoid tracking. To improve tracking of low-altitude targets, a command-guidance system was added to guide the missile for the initial part of the flight. This allowed the minimum engagement altitude to be set to 25 metres (82 ft).

So the S-300F isn't supposed to track targets flying at sea-skimming altitudes below 30 feet.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by GM Custom Sauces:

However, my argument is that the S-300F isn't supposed to intercept the RGM-84.

At least according to the real-world Wikipedia page: It was originally intended to use a track-via-missile (TVM) guidance system. However, the TVM system had problems tracking targets below 500 metres (1,600 ft), allowing incoming SEAD aircraft to effectively utilize terrain masking to avoid tracking. To improve tracking of low-altitude targets, a command-guidance system was added to guide the missile for the initial part of the flight. This allowed the minimum engagement altitude to be set to 25 metres (82 ft).

So the S-300F isn't supposed to track targets flying at sea-skimming altitudes below 30 feet.

You've picked the wrong information from real world wikipedia, what you copied above is the S-300FM (NATO name SA-N-20), which was only introduced in 1990, uses a new and different missile, and was only ever installed on one Kirov launched in 1996.

The S-300F (NATO name SA-N-6, the system we are talking about here) never utilitzed a TVM system.

So the whole argument is invalid on that account alone.

And your concept of "shouldn't intercept" is flawed as well, the SM-1 and SM-2 we have in game shouldn't intercept sea skimmers either if we were to follow that line of thinking, as they aren't Block III.

They still do, since "not being good at" is something entirely different than "can't do".

[GM Custom Sauces]

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

You've picked the wrong information from real world wikipedia, what you copied above is the S-300FM (NATO name SA-N-20), which was only introduced in 1990, uses a new and different missile, and was only ever installed on one Kirov launched in 1996.

The S-300F (NATO name SA-N-6, the system we are talking about here) never utilitzed a TVM system.

So the whole argument is invalid on that account alone.

And your concept of "shouldn't intercept" is flawed as well, the SM-1 and SM-2 we have in game shouldn't intercept sea skimmers either if we were to follow that line of thinking, as they aren't Block III.

They still do, since "not being good at" is something entirely different than "can't do".

What I copied is from the S-300P/S-300PT section, not the S-300FM.

And yes, since we have a unit reference in the game, we should follow what the unit reference states. SM-1, SM-2, and S-300 shouldn’t intercept sea-skimming targets that frequently. While they might slightly outperform their advertised capabilities in real life, in the game, we should make that chance very low.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by GM Custom Sauces:

Originally posted by whatdoesthisbuttondo?:

You've picked the wrong information from real world wikipedia, what you copied above is the S-300FM (NATO name SA-N-20), which was only introduced in 1990, uses a new and different missile, and was only ever installed on one Kirov launched in 1996.

The S-300F (NATO name SA-N-6, the system we are talking about here) never utilitzed a TVM system.

So the whole argument is invalid on that account alone.

And your concept of "shouldn't intercept" is flawed as well, the SM-1 and SM-2 we have in game shouldn't intercept sea skimmers either if we were to follow that line of thinking, as they aren't Block III.

They still do, since "not being good at" is something entirely different than "can't do".

What I copied is from the S-300P/S-300PT section, not the S-300FM.

And yes, since we have a unit reference in the game, we should follow what the unit reference states. SM-1, SM-2, and S-300 shouldn’t intercept sea-skimming targets that frequently. While they might slightly outperform their advertised capabilities in real life, in the game, we should make that chance very low.

That isn't a naval version at all, the S-300F is the naval version we have in game.

That version never had a TVM system, it used the very same command guidance to begin with that was used to resolve the issue with the TVM mentioned in your quote.

And again, the term 'frequently' is a stretch. The SA-N-6 has horrible intercept performance against sea skimmers in the game, and while the SM-1 and SM-2 are slightly better, they still have poor performance.