Hybridisation of Surface to Air Missile Systems

A problem which has received little attention in the West over recent years is the ongoing evolution of Cold War era legacy Surface to Air Missile systems. We are not only observing some sophisticated upgrades being applied, but evidence is now emerging that hybridisation may be occuring on a larger scale than previously appreciated.

In terms of direct upgrades to legacy systems, the most prominent have been the various packages developed for the semi-mobile S-125 Pechora/Neva / SA-3 Goa and its SNR-125 Low Blow engagement radar. Upgrades are also available for the S-200 Angara/Vega/Dubna / SA-5 Gammon and its 5N62 Square Pair engagement radar, as well as the 2K12 Kub/Kvadrat / SA-6  Gainful, and the 9K33  Romb/Osa  / SA-8 Gecko.

These upgrades parallel a very similar trend observed in widely deployed legacy Soviet era early warning, search and acquisition radars. Upgrade packages are on offer for the P-14 Tall King,  P-15 Flat Face, P-18 Spoon Rest, and P-35/37 Big Bar / Big Mesh / Bar Lock series.

The motives for existing users of such equipment are simple: retaining and extending the service life of often large inventories of equipment, and large warstocks of missile rounds. In addition, the more sophisticated upgrades increase the capability of these systems, with many examples increasing radar performance, jam resistance and track capabilities, and some examples improving either mobility of the system, or the kinematic range of the missiles. It is worth considering that many thousands of such systems and radars were built and exported by the Soviets before the end of the Cold War, with recipients ranging from former Soviet republics, former Warsaw Pact nations, former Soviet allies, and Third World nations being courted or influenced by the Soviets. In parallel, China has developed and maintained its own market for indigenous and cloned Soviet missiles and radars.

Players in the upgrade market vary from the OEMs who either designed or manufactured portions of these systems, or whole systems, as well as organisations performing depot level overhauls. There has been no shortage of such players, nor has there been any shortage of proposed, prototyped or sold upgrades. Prominent in this market are OEMs based in ByeloRussia and the Ukraine, both former Soviet republics with large military industrial infrastructure which previously manufactured or overhauled many of these systems.

Given the absence of an established nomenclature for upgrades of legacy Cold War era systems, APA will define one for convenience:

Class 1 Upgrades will involve the replacement of Soviet era electronic, electrical, electro-explosive and mechanical components which are obsoleted and no longer supportable, with current production equivalents. Such upgrades retain the capabilities and limitations of the original design, but extend its service life over the effective service life of the new components.

Class 2 Upgrades will involve the replacement of Soviet era electronic, electrical, electro-explosive and mechanical components which are obsoleted and no longer supportable, with current production equivalents, plus the replacement of key functional components such as radar receivers, transmitters, signal processors and data processors with modern digital equivalents. Such upgrades expand the capabilities and performance of the system, and more than often impact key EW parameters such as jam resistance, and radar detection range. As the original antennas and scan formats are retained, the design may still retain many of the electronic vulnerabilities of the original.

Class 3 Upgrades are mobility enhancements of Class 1 or 2 upgrades, where the launchers and often engagement radars are rehosted on new trailers, or rebuilt as fully self propelled units on new built chassis. Such upgrades alter the fundamental regime of deployment and vastly enhance survivability, especially where the mobility upgrade replaces cables with digital radio datalinks, and digital automation shortens deployment and stow times for the system, or the missile battery as a whole.

Class 4 Upgrades involved hybridisation, where an entirely new engagement radar, and often new acquisition radar, is introduced to fully supplant the legacy Soviet era radars characteristic of the weapon system. A Class 4 upgrade may be performed in parallel with a Class 1, 2 or 3 upgrade on the remaining system components.

Table 1 shows some examples of legacy systems and available upgrades:

The large 160 nautical mile range S-200 / SA-5 Gammon SAM system has been widely exported, with users including North Korea, Syria and most recently, Iran. The semimobile 5P72 launchers each carry a single 5V21 or 5V28 FMCW SARH missile round.

S-200 battery deployment illustration from Soviet technical manual. Note each launcher has a pair of transloaders with ready 5V28 rounds (RuMoD).

MIM-23B Hawk / Mersad
	Iran's Mersad SAM system appears to be a reverse engineered derivative of the MIM-23B Hawk which was the principal SAM operated by Iran before the fall of the Shah, Reza Pahlavi. The system appears to use a largely new package of radar equipment, although the TV tracker equipped CW illuminator resembles the original  X-band AN/MPQ-46 HPIR design (left). The acquisition radar also closely resembles the AN/MPQ-50 PAR design (below). Details of other system components have not been disclosed to date. It is not clear whether Mersad systems incorporate legacy Hawk components or are newly build hardware.

Cuban SA-3 TELs on display (via Vestnik-PVO).



Cuban SA-2 TELs on parade in Havana, 2006 (via Vestnik-PVO).