homepage Forums Air Combat & Civil Aviation SAM Simulator

Zoltan Dani uses regular radars (both P-18 and SNR)!

Piston79 is right. There were no modifications to any equipment during the war by Dani, or anyone else. It was just an attempt by Dani at information war, not very good one as it turns out.

Using P-18 (Spoon Rest) is not standard with the Low altitude S-125M Neva (SA-3B) system, as those were originally envisioned utilizing the P-15 (Flat Face) low altitude sets...

SA-75M Dvina (SA-2F) was planned to be used with the P-12 (Spoon Rest-A)
S-75M Volhov (SA-2E) was planned to be used with the P-18 (Spoon Rest-D)
S-125M Neva (SA-3B) was planned to be used with the P-15 (Flat Face)

... after the Dayton Peace agreement, the Serbians had some surplus P-18 sets, and those were utilized in an unorthodox way.



Please do not think in the binary digital world we used to live in currently...
... old Soviet analogue Radar systems should be fine tuned continuously, to perform its peak capability.

Modifying equipment is not the same as to fine tune it on an unorthodox way.

There are some officially recommended fine tuning options in the operating manuals of these systems...
...and there are some ways that are usually forbidden, because these tweaks limits the equipment lifetime, or could cause harmful interference to the public...

You're right, his profficiency at lying should not be underestimated. Any time there is a Russian system to toot, he does so, using some rather 'interesting' figures. I don't think I've seen a single russian AAM represented by his research for example that had a realistic range for the intended purpose as an example.

He has also demonstrated an ability to assign technological superiority to the wrong side, failed to understand western datalinks either unintentionally or on purpose while assigning such capability to the Russian aircraft, etc etc etc.

Sorry to say but Kopp is not a trustworthy source for the simple reason that he has an agenda which he continues to feed. Further, he has no access to classified information at all, and according to a certain RAAF pilot, his picture allegedly decorates several RAAF squadron dart-boards. I can buy him doing the range equation on a bunch of radars, but I don't expect him to necessarily use realistic figures for modern systems, or at the least, a realistic context.

Do you have true range figures for Russian AAM's? Wow! Would you be so kind to share this information with all of us? And don't you really think that his idea of getting those F-22's for Australia was really not that bad at all?
While Dr. Kopp is indeed overly optimistic about the newest Russian weaponry, making even Russian industry insiders laugh bitterly at times, his analysis of things unrelated to his agenda (F-22) is well-balanced and realistic. In his articles he often uses an information that is not available to ordinary people and normally distributed at arms exhibitions and in limited-run literature, that is only available at very high price tag.

Regarding the datalinks, by the way: Soviet fighters used "command guidance" mode since the 1960es (when fighters were automatically directed from the ground to their targets, allowing them to fire up their radars very late, avoiding early detection), and true datalinks since 1979 (MiG-31), when USAF could only dream about Link-16. So I wouldn't assign the west with technological superiority in this field.

P. S.: And let's not forget that F-35 wasn't been criticized by Kopp alone. Its actual performance actually raises questions from a lot of people, and strange tendency of some governments (Canada and Australia in particular) to stood firmly behind that program strongly reminds me of situation with F-104 Starfighter back in the 1960es.

I can confirm as a eyewitness that P-18 was used tigether with "Low Blow" in other armies, at least a year before OAF...



In an interview Zoltan Dani with it's own words denied any changes:
Interview-28minute10seconds
Also a guy wich I met in another forum and which was involved in those events in a different way confirm that nothing special was set over Dani's equipment... If changing frequency is a fine tuning, we could do it easy with Volkhov and Neva in the SIM (peacetime - war time frequency). In reality the Chief ingeneer of the brigade is the only one (besides ELINT ) who new the exact frequencies of the equipment. It is usual coded and measured in digits (say 1 digit is 10.75 MHz) which are invented from him.

guys what is this launcher???? it's not looks like sm-106 5p73 launcher

No, I wouldn't be, but that's due to circumstances beyond my control. I'll just say this: Kopp could have at least made use of the use range diagrams that are floating around whose source is Russian combat employment manuals. There are other very creadible sources that provide propellant weight, ISP and burn time, and if I could get those, so could he.



Actually it's a pretty crappy idea. It is a single-role aircraft which is also very expensive. This sort of luxury is for air forces with truly huge budgets. It should be superior to a multi-role set up, but not if you can't afford it. The F-35 will work just fine.



You mean like the stuff Hpasp gets his information from?



US fighters used data-links for ever as well. The Delta Dart, the F-104, and other interceptors used some version of the TADIL. The USN had its own protocols which in some cases included fighter-to-fighter datalinks. On the other hand, Russians always claimed that in a real fight, the datalinks would be 'the first things to go', so I wonder just how resistant to ECM those were back then. Perhaps this is why the F-15's and 16's were not equipped with such to begin with?
Not that this matters, since we're talking about here/now where the west does have superiority, and Kopp's lack of understanding.



It's actual performance as an airframe is slightly superior to the F-16 in maneuverability, while providing the sort of SA that even an F-22 doesn't get. It is nothing /like/ the F-104, or the F-104's situation.

To be honest, I never saw any manuals that would mention the RVV-AE and its performance figures (although they are available from advertisement by its manufacturer, and I guess that's what Kopp uses). Only for R-27 and R-73 some data is actually available due to their obsolescence and worldwide availability.


Well, Australians already had the F-111, which is a single-role aircraft, and was highly expensive at the time they bought it. Worked just great for them. Although I must admit that F-35 will be more than adequate for their needs.


There is a lot of unclassified materials about Russian weaponry, including the newest one. However, it is normally reserved for potential customers or published in very thick books that cost some $200-300 apiece. Due to these reasons, it is of very limited availability to anyone beyond governments and businesses. The operation manuals, on the other side, are often available on the net, although only for the older, unclassified equipment. You couldn't get anything for S-300PM, for example. In fact, the times of unrivalled openness of Russian military industry, when detailed information even about such things as ESM and ECM systems was published in hopes to sell it, are over. Russians are no longer in desperate need for hard cash, and tend to release as little info as possible.


OK, I agree with that.


It is yet to be seen how well will F-35 perform, since it never even performed simple aerobatics at airshow (unlike Russian PAK-FA), and actual performance figures are yet to be revealed. I would disagree that it is nothing like F-104 situation, in fact I found these situations to be remarkably similar, with some governments demonstrating very faithful dedication to the project and strong unwillingness to consider any alternatives. However, the F-35 actually demonstrates superiority over other designs, something that F-104 could never enjoy, so their position could be viable.

Not that I want to prolong the OT a lot ... the latter part is the big difference. In addition, I don't think there was quite as much direct 2nd/3rd party involvement in the F-104 design and requirements as there is in the F-35.

Yes, our discussion is a blatant OT here. I hope we ain't gonna be punished for that, although I must admit that the discussion is quite interesting and i would like to continue. Shall we continue by using private messages or go to some other thread?

I'm sure the peeps found it entertaining

PM's are fine

Pick some War of Atrition scenario with NEVA and check the launchers...

It is the original (SM-78 5P71) 2 missile launcher of the S-125 Neva (SA-3A) system.
It was exported until 1973, into Poland, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Syria, Vietnam and Iraq.





In June 1961, Dmitriy Fedorovich Ustinov proposed that Grushin place not two, but four missiles on a launcher.
Petr Dmitriyevich thought a moment and said: �The launcher won�t stand that.�
Ustinov: �Well, humor me. Do it.�
Thus began and later ended successfully the development of the four-missile launcher.

The S-125M Neva (SA-3B) system born (depicted in the sim), with the SM-106 5P73 4 missile launcher.

(Thanks to Ustinov)





PS: As you are all considered as independent SAM experts, I would really be interested in your opinion on the topic of the "Deputy Premier of the Soviet Union" overruling the "Chief SAM Engineer" view.

Was Ustinov right requesting 16 missiles for the Neva (SA-3) system, or 8 V-601 missiles is enough?

Dear Grayghost & Lonewolf

I'm really happy that you continue your off-topic discussion in private.

As I'm not an AA expert just a poor SAM guy, I add these pictures to your discussion without any comment...

Hi, guys...

Recently i've started to using SA-4 (still on training only), and just today use it in Linebacker-II scenario (against my favorite "duck" - SR-71). Something that I can't understand happens, hope somebody (perhaps Hpasp or Vintorez) could help....:
When pick up the target on aquisition radar, my "Path hand" goes toward the targetin 20 km mode. I changed to a 110 km mode, but the target was behind 110 km, so nothing on my screen... I was waiting peacefully target to appears, but sudently "Path Hand" starts spinning around like mad! ... Why this happens??? What I am not doing or doing wrong?

I think, that we are a bit over comfortable with the Raspeltin designs (SA-2/3/5) having a 360 degree azimuth track capability.
Several SAM systems has limited azimuth. (SA-4, SA-12, Patriot, etc ...)

When you lock on to your target, the system tries to solve the antenna lock situation by counter rotating.
Please always monitor this instrument during target tracking...



... Soviet MiG-29's used to do upward spiral flight above the Hungarian 1S32M2 SNR (Pat Hand) Mobile Fire Control Radar, during exercises to achieve antenna break.
You could actually ruin your SNR by over-rotating it in azimuth, and tearing its connection cables.

Thank you Hpasp; these diagrams as you know show absolute max performance envelope for the weapons listed, unfortunately there is no context (launcher and target speed, maneuver, etc) but it does correspond to some of what we do know

What is the source?

Problem solved! Thank you!

These kind of Soviet generic charts used depict the most ideal situation...
... straight flying, non jamming, incoming target with maximum expected speed.
(h0=Mach1, h9km=Mach2, h18km=Mach3)