Showing posts with label SAM Site Overview. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SAM Site Overview. Show all posts

Sunday, June 3, 2012

SAM Site Overview Improvements

I'm thinking of ways to upgrade the SAM Site Overview file.  There are a few things that need to be done:

1.  Re-analyzing Chinese EW sites to accurately reflect deployed radar systems

2.  Going over everything and moving some locations to the historical section, such as sites no longer in existance due to razing and reuse of the location for something else

Beyond that, there are some things I'd like to do if and when I get the time:

1.  Locating the damn Azeri S-300PMU-2 components

2.  Incorporating more of the active and inactive EW sites in the US and Canada

3.  Changing the SA-2 range rings to a width of 2.0 rather than the current 3.0 (this brings them in line with everything else and will shrink the size of the Range Rings file)

4.  Trying to indicate the actual SA-2, SA-3, etc. variant used by each nation

5.  Putting some more detail into the site placemark windows

6.  Expanding the SHORAD section

Beyond that, are there any ideas out there for ways to further improve the file?  If you've got suggestions, throw 'em into the comments.  I'll try and reply to each suggestion and tell you if I like the idea and will do it, or why I might not like the idea and won't. 

Either way, the current system has now been in use for a while now, so it's time for a facelift and some general tweaking. 

Monday, August 2, 2010

SAM Site Overview info

I'll get around to uploading all of the new files a bit later, but here are some changes to the SAM Site Overview that you might notice:

-S-200 (SA-5 GAMMON) ranges: ranges for non-FSU users have been reduced to 250 km to correspond with the S-200VE export variant. FSU users remain at 300 km, as they could in theory have the S-200D lying around.

-55Zh6 (TALL RACK) EW radars: these now have light blue range rings. Also, site icons are also light blue. The actual icons are the same as before, either diamonds (EW sites) or circles (36D6 EW sites). Now if you see one that's light blue instead of "normal" blue, you know a 55Zh6 radar is present.

-Bunch of new historical BOMARC, Nike and HAWK sites have been added to the USA. I was working out of a book titled Rings of Supersonic Steel (really great read if you can find it), and only marked the launch positions.

Other than that, the rest of the updates are normal stuff and will be listed in the corresponding post when I've uploaded the new files.

Now, since I know you all followed instructions and went to see Predators, you may henceforth commence waiting for the return of the Vault Dweller in October. Preferably while listening to City of Fire.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

SAM Site Overview Alteration

I've been exploiting Terra Server, Bing Maps, and a few other amusing online imagery sources to examine some areas of Google Earth that are either 1) not covered in high resolution, or 2) have not been updated with newer imagery for quite some time. I've discovered a number of things that will be included in the SAM Site Overview, beginning with the next update. This might be a little confusing at first glance. For example, I've found imagery from 2009 showing that the 64N6E site in China near Dalian is now active. I will be changing the placemarks in the file to reflect this, as Google Earth's imagery of that region is still a bit dated. So, you'll see an empty 64N6E location, but have a placemark telling you that it is active. No, I haven't lost my mind, I'm just beginning to incorporate other sources into the database on a larger scale. Anything potentially weird like that example will always be explained in the Notes section of the placemark. Just thought I'd give everyone a heads-up before I start doing something potentially confusing.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Upgrading the SAM Site Overview File

Want to see what the SAM Site Overview will eventually look like?

Download this: Right-click, Save As.

Notice that you can click on every single icon and the relevant info, such as I have been able to determine it, will pop up.

Eventually every single icon will work this way. Eventually. There are a buttload of them to process through.

Starting with the next update, you'll now be able to click in the Places screen where it says "SAMS by country" and get a menu titled "Fully interactive nations". There you'll see a list of all nations that are completed.

A few caveats:

-Any puffball radar sites will likely remain labeled, simply, EW site. Unless I have info definitively proving what's inside, I won't speculate.

-Some icons will eventually have another listing for Notes. This is where anything amusing or interesting that doesn't fit within the framework of the basic stuff you see in Algeria will go, such as extra components lying around, or whatnot.

-Some icons will be headed with a line called Site layout. This will be where an S-300P battery residing on a prepared S-75 site will be labeled.

-As seen in a lot of Algeria's EW sites, if I can't determine or have no information stating what specific variant of a radar or other piece of equipment is used, I'll list a generic descriptor, like P-35/37 BAR LOCK. That tells you that the radar is either a P-35 or a P-37, and the Western name for the family is BAR LOCK.

Feel free to leave any feedback here, or in the SAM Site Overview thread on the IMINT & Analysis Forums.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Just a quick note...

I went back tonight and recounted (yes, seriously) all of the sites in the SAM Site Overview file. Some of the numbers in the folders for the various inventories were a little off, but they are all now 100% accurate insofar as the number of placemarks are concerned. I reuploaded the new file (nothing new added yet as far as content is concerned), so if you download it you should notice the changes in some places. I also edited the SAM Site Overview post, the total figure is now well over 4,000 as I also account for low-resolution sites in that number. I figured why not, I already included the historical sites in the total, and this would push it over 4,000!

Basically, I wanted to clean up the SAM Site Overview file before I went through adding all of the SHORAD data, that'll be done and uploaded within the next week. I'll also be editing a few more inventory figures for accuracy; the Baltic states, for example, show active S-200 (SA-5 GAMMON) batteries, when we know they are not used anymore. They show as active because they aren't yet visible in high-resolution coverage, and that's the way I was handling S-200 batteries when I started this a while back, but there's no sense to leaving them wrong. So, that'll be repaired by the time the next update is posted. I'm also contemplating shifting a lot more data into the Historical Sites folder, but that may or may not happen to any significant degree. Basically I'm trying to decide what nation's out-of-service types should potentially have their sites relocated inside the file. The problem is that a lot of FSU states re-use SAM sites for newer systems, so they might actually become active in the future. I'll figure it out.

If anybody has any comments, or wants to throw an idea out there to make the SAM Site Overview file easier or more interesting, drop on by the forum and let me know here.

Monday, April 6, 2009

SAM Site Overview Mailing List

I've figured out how to solve the amusing problem of the SAM Site Overview constantly not being available for download. From this point forward, the file will not be available for download. Instead, anyone interested in receiving the updated file when changes are made should send an e-mail to imintandanalysisATgmail.com, with SAM SITE UPDATE in the subject line. I will create a mailing list and send everyone the file when it is altered. I will still post the update information here in the normal fashion, but you'll get the file in your inbox instead of from a download link. All you need to do is make sure you can receive a file that is around 6 megabytes in size. This will solve the problems we've been having, and it'll give me an idea of how many people are using the file as well. Those of you who have been sending me updates or questions and whatnot at my other e-mail address, continue using that address for those purposes. All I want to use the above address for is managing the SAM site file mailing list. When the file is updated next, I'll also include these instructions in the main post as well, but go ahead and send me your information now so I can start building the mailing list. This should take care of our problem, and save the download bandwidth for the (considerably smaller) placemark files which are provided with some of my articles. Those of you interested in receiving the current SAM Site Overview file now should send me an e-mail at the above address with SAM SITE FILE in the subject line. I'll then send you the current file, and I'll still add you to the mailing list for updates.

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Google Earth Placemarks

A new site is now available for IMINT & Analysis Google Earth placemark files. It can be accessed by clicking on the link on the right side of the page labeled "IMINT & Analysis Placemarks", or by clicking here. This site will serve as a location to store placemark files which will accompany articles in the future, as well as to host other interesting placemark files I generate. When any new files are uploaded that do not relate to articles here, I'll post an update on this site. You'll then be able to go to the other site and read a description of what is contained inside of the file and download it if you choose. If a file is hosted that pertains to an article written here, then the file's download link will be found at the end of the article, along with a brief description of what is contained inside. Hopefully this will be of use to the readers of this blog.

The first file is already available at the new site, it's my worldwide SAM site collection. Yes, that means you'll have to check there for updates from now on, as it'll no longer be hosted at the Google Earth Community.

Later on this week I will post some more placemark files dealing with older articles on this site so that they are available to everyone. Once I get a few files hosted, I'll probably give each one of them their own page so that you don't have to scroll through tons of file descriptions to find what you're interested in.

All for now!

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

The KS-1A SAM System: A Site Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Southwest of Kunming, one can find the latest evidence of the ongoing modernization of the Chinese air defense network. With the large amount of effort underway to modernize the Chinese air defense network through the inclusion of long-range strategic SAM systems like the S-300PMU-1 and HQ-9, the appearance of a cheaper, short-range complement designed to replace the HQ-2 and supplement the long-range assets is a logical development. The KS-1A can serve as a close-in point defense system to complement the more advanced systems, as well as performing as a gap filler to preclude the need for additional, expensive strategic SAM systems.

THE KS-1A SAM SYSTEM

The KS-1A represents the current configuration of the KS-1 SAM system. The KS-1 was developed in the 1980's as a replacement for the HQ-2 GUIDELINE strategic SAM system. Due to reasons which have not been publicly disclosed at this time, the KS-1 did not enter Chinese military service when development was completed in 1994. A likely reason was the poor maneuvering capability of the missile. Open source reporting indicates that the weapon could only engage targets with a 5g maneuvering capability, making the KS-1 largely ineffective for defending against modern fighter aircraft. The improved KS-1A variant, which was publicly revealed at the Zhuhai Airshow in 2002, is the current variant of the system which has now been adopted for service.

The KS-1A is a command guided weapon with a range of 50 kilometers, capable of intercepting targets at altitudes of up to 27,000 meters. The command guided weapon is controlled by an SJ-202 phased-array radar, which appears to be generally similar to the HT-233 radar used to guide the HQ-9 SAM system. The TEL vehicle can mount either a single or a dual launcher, and the design of the components (including the towed SJ-202 radar set) would seem to imply that the system is at least semi-mobile and capable of rapid relocation to improve system survivability.

The single identified KS-1A site is found southwest of Kunming in southern China at the following coordinates:

24 54' 51.79" N 102 33' 47.22" E

KS-1A SITE LAYOUT

The KS-1A SAM system is deployed at a prepared site similar in layout to those constructed for the S-300P and HQ-9 SAM systems. A raised berm in the center of the site is present to mount the SJ-202 engagement radar. Surrounding that berm are six square pads, each containing a single TEL. There are various structures present, ostensibly to house support equipment, power generation vehicles, and command and control facilities. The visible components appear to be connected via cables, potentially providing the system with a measure of communications security.

The following image depicts the sole Chinese KS-1A site:


SYSTEM COVERAGE

The KS-1A enjoys a 15 kilometer increase in effective range over the HQ-2, and as such represents an relatively significant improvement in air defense capability.

The following image depicts the engagement zone of the Kunming KS-1A SAM site:


CONCLUSION

The first operational KS-1A battery to be identified in open-source imagery indicates that the system has moved from development to deployment and is prepared to take its place among the other land-based air defense assets protecting the Chinese mainland. Coupled with the HQ-9, the KS-1A provides China with the ability to construct and deploy an entirely indigenous modern SAM network.

SOURCES

-Jane's Land Based Air Defence 2006-07
-The KS-1A SAM system
-All satellite imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth

Saturday, October 27, 2007

The HQ-9 SAM System: A Site Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The Chinese military is currently undergoing a major renovation with the development and introduction of new weapon systems such as the Type 094 SSBN and the J-10 fighter aircraft. Part of this major facelift, aimed at making the Chinese military a more streamlined, modern, and capable force, is directed at the ground-based air defense network. Until advanced Russian-made S-300P family SAM systems were introduced in the 1990s, the primary strategic SAM system was the aging HQ-2 (CSA-1 GUIDELINE), a copy of the technologically ancient Soviet-era S-75 (SA-2 GUIDELINE). The introduction of the S-300P has provided China with a modern, robust SAM system capable of dealing with 21st century airborne threat systems, but the desire to produce a native system was still present. That system was the HQ-9.

THE HQ-9

The HQ-9 is a modern mobile strategic SAM system roughly analogous to the Russian-made S-300PMU (SA-10B GRUMBLE). The HQ-9 has a range of 100 kilometers, an increase over the S-300PMU's 90 kilometer maximum range but less than that of the S-300PMU-1's 150 kilometers. The containerized missiles are carried in groups of four on the back of wheeled TELs very similar in design to that of the S-300P's 5P85. Target prosecution is handled by the HT-233 phased-array radar system, mounted on a wheeled chassis in a configuration very similar to that employed by the S-300PMU, which mounts the 30N6 (FLAP LID) engagement radar on a MAZ-7910 chassis. The HT-233 radar is likely capable of engaging multiple targets thanks to its phased-array construction.

The similarities between the S-300PMU components and the HQ-9 components may be the result of a limited reverse-engineering effort. China had no prior experience in developing a modern, high-performance strategic SAM system, and it is likely that the S-300P was examined as either a possible starting point or at the very least a general roadmap for component design. Espionage efforts may have aided the development effort as well, as the HT-233's radar array bears some similarities to the MIM-104 PATRIOT's AN/MPQ-53 phased-array radar. Were the HQ-9 to be an amalgamation of S-300PMU and PATRIOT technology, it would have to be regarded as a very formidable weapon system, although there is no reason to doubt the system's effectiveness were this not to be the case.

Trials of the HQ-9 were conducted at the Shuangchengzi SAM test range located in north-central China.

The following image depicts the HQ-9 test facility at Shuangchengzi:


HQ-9 production appears to take place at a facility located southwest of Beijing at 39 47' 22.62" N 116 09' 28.40" E. What would appear to be a complete HQ-9 battery is located on a pad at this facility, probably undergoing system checkout and calibration before the battery is deployed to an operational site.

The following image depicts an HQ-9 battery undergoing probable system checkout:


HT-233 radar development may have also taken place at the Beijing facility. The facility appears to house an RCS range. The presence of an RCS range and HT-233 radar vehicles indicates that this facility may be used for radar development as well as HQ-9 production.

The following image depicts three HT-233 TERs at the Beijing facility:


A TYPICAL HQ-9 SITE

A typical HQ-9 site will consist of a raised central berm for the HT-233 engagement radar, surrounded by four prepared pads upon which the TELs will be deployed. A pad is located next to the HT-233 berm, likely housing generators or command and control facilities. A circular path surrounds the main complex, containing the TEL pads and the engagement radar position. A second raised berm is situated outside this circular path, likely intended to mount an early warning radar of some sort. The one inconsistency in identified active HQ-9 sites is the presence or lack of additional structures housing various pieces of support equipment. This includes a vehicle situated between the TELs, which probably serves as a control vehicle for two TELs in much the same way that the "Master" 5P85S TEL is used to control 5P85D "Slave" TELs in an S-300P battery. System components of an HQ-9 battery are linked via cable connections.

The following image depicts an occupied HQ-9 site outside Beijing:


HQ-9 SITE LAYOUT VS S-300P SITE LAYOUT

Identifying HQ-9 sites in imagery can be a confusing task. The system components share similarities with those of the S-300P family, and the site layout is very similar to that of the S-300P systems based in China and other nations across the globe. In order to avoid misidentification of a given site, it is important to be mindful of the identifiable differences in the layouts of HQ-9 and S-300P sites.

The first obvious difference is the presence of the control vehicle between the HQ-9 TELs. This feature is absent in an S-300P battery. It is not important, however, to go to this level of detail to differentiate between HQ-9 and S-300P facilities.

The second identifiable difference between an S-300P and an HQ-9 site is the shape of the TEL pads. The following two images depict unoccupied HQ-9 and S-300P sites located in China. Note the rectangular shaped pads provided for the HQ-9 TELs, compared to the pie-shaped pads provided for the S-300P TELs.

The following image depicts an unoccupied HQ-9 site:


The following image depicts an unoccupied S-300P site:


Given proper attention to detail and a working knowledge of the characteristics of each SAM site, it can be seen that it is possible to differentiate between HQ-9 and S-300P facilities without having to discern differences between individual system components. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that it is possible to effectively identify unoccupied facilities with a high degree of precision.

SYSTEM COVERAGE

The HQ-9's 100 kilometer range and multiple target engagement capability means that fewer SAM sites are now required to defend a given portion of airspace.

The following image depicts the coverage provided by an HQ-9 site situated north of Beijing. Note the much smaller coverage areas provided by the four HQ-2 sites in the same region.


CURRENT USERS

The only current user of the HQ-9 strategic SAM system is China. There are currently three HQ-9 sites located at the following coordinates:

34 37' 14.21" N 108 42' 23.62" E (Active)
40 21' 20.79" N 116 41' 01.81" E (Active)
36 32' 14.19" N 104 08' 34.30" E (Unoccupied)

SOURCES

-Jane's Land Based Air Defense 2002-03
-All satellite imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

The S-300P SAM System: A Site Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The S-300P SAM family is one of the most advanced and capable operational SAM systems in the world today. The S-300P SAM system was conceived to replace the S-25 (SA-1 GUILD) and the S-200 (SA-5 GAMMON) as the primary long-range air defense system in the USSR. With the advent of lower-RCS targets like cruise missiles, legacy systems did not provide adequate capability to defend against attacks by such weapons. The S-300P began life as a overarching SAM system intended for use by both the Army and the air defense network. At an early stage, the project was split into two systems, the Army's S-300V (SA-12) and the S-300P.

THE S-300P

The S-300P is a long-range, mobile strategic SAM system. The system has been produced in numerous variants, and an in-depth look at the various system components and missiles employed by the system can be found here: LINK

Western designators for the S-300P variants will be provided here for clarity:

S-300PT (SA-10A GRUMBLE)
S-300PS/PM (SA-10B GRUMBLE)
S-300PM-1 (SA-20A GARGOYLE)
S-300PM-2 (SA-20B GARGOYLE)

It should be noted that the S-300PM-1 was at one point designated the SA-10C GRUMBLE, before being redesignated due to the fact that a new engagement radar, the 30N6-1 (TOMB STONE) and a new missile, the 48N6, was employed. It should also be noted that the difference between the S-300PS and the S-300PM, apart from minor hardware differences and the introduction of a new missile for the S-300PM, was that the S-300PM introduced digital datalinks for connecting the TELs, radars, and command post in an effort to reduce system setup time. The S-300PT and S-300PS relied on physical cable connections between system components. The S-300PM and subsequent variants can still rely on cable connections, most often at prepared sites, to ensure a higher level of communications security.

Export variants are as follows:

S-300PMU (SA-10B GRUMBLE)
S-300PMU-1 (SA-20A GARGOYLE)
S-300PMU-2 (SA-20B GARGOYLE)

A TYPICAL S-300P SITE

There are two common battery configurations employed by the S-300P SAM system. The first relies on a typically prepared site with a tower-mounted engagement radar. The second relies on either a prepared or unprepared site with a mobile engagement radar vehicle. The number of TELs present varies from user to user, location to location, and variant to variant, and these differences will be discussed in the Deployment Strategies sections of this article.

The following annotated image of an S-300PT site near Severodvinsk depicts a battery employing tower-mounted engagement and 76N6 radars:


The following annotated image of an S-300PMU site near Sevastopol depicts a standard site layout employing a mobile engagement radar and a tower-mounted 76N6:


Some sites employing a mobile engagement radar still retain the tower assembly for mounting the radar should the need arise. The following site south of Voronezh depicts a mobile engagement radar being employed, with the 40V6 mast assembly positioned nearby in a lowered position:


EXAMPLES OF COMMON SITE CONFIGURATIONS

There are many different iterations of S-300P site configurations. Most of them differ in the number, shape, and positioning of prepared revetments used to protect the components. However, it should be stressed that the S-300P is a mobile SAM system, and as such can be deployed almost anywhere. That being said, there are a few common site layouts that have been identified, and these layouts will be detailed here.

One of the more common S-300P site configurations is a central tower-mounted engagement radar surrounded on two sides by parralel "slanted-E" shaped divided revetments for TELs or missile reload canisters. A tower-mounted 76N6 is positioned nearby. This site layout is often featured around Moscow on the grounds of former S-25 (SA-1 GUILD) SAM sites, but is also featured elsewhere as well, such as in Belarus.

The following annotated image depicts an S-300PM-1 site near Bortnevo, north of Moscow, employing the "slanted-E" revetment style:


Another common site configuration features four launch positions arranged around a central raised berm for a mobile engagement radar. The size and shape of the launch positions, as well as the presence of protective revetments for the TELs, varies from site to site and nation to nation, but the overall layout remains relatively uniform. The site near Sevastopol depicted above is an example of such a configuration. All identifiable Chinese S-300P sites employ a variation on this layout.

Given that the S-300P SAM system is a mobile system, it is also quite common to find batteries deployed on former legacy SAM sites. As seen previously, many S-25 sites around Moscow are now home to S-300P batteries. Slovakia's S-300PMU battery resides on the grounds of a former S-125 site, and there is a Ukrainian S-300PMU battery and garrison positioned on a former S-200 complex near Sevastopol, to cite a few examples.

The following image depicts an S-300PM battery deployed on the grounds of a former S-75 site near Roschino, north of St. Petersburg. The Roschino site is slightly unusual insofar as there are S-300P-style revetments to the southwest that are apparently unused.


Despite the presence of common site configurations, there are numerous random layouts. The numerous site configurations probably stem from the fact that the S-300P is a mobile system able to be located nearly anywhere. Some sites feature numerous revetments designed for two TELs apiece, some feature larger revetments for four or more TELs, and some feature no revetments at all.

The lack of consistency on a large scale in the configuration of S-300P sites belies the importance of being able to identify the system based on the visible components. The S-300PT is relatively easy to identify given the unique appearance of the 5P85-1 launchers. Differentiating between an S-300PM and an S-300PM-1 seems more difficult from the outset, but is in fact not all that hard. The 5P85S/D TELs measure around 43 feet in length, while the 5P85T TELs measure around 47 feet in length, based on visible imagery. As the S-300PS had a service life of 20 years and was introduced in 1982, and many of them were modified to S-300PM standard, any sites with 43 meter TELs can be identified relatively accurately as S-300PM sites. Of course, export systems would be the S-300PMU, and export sites featuring the 47-foot semi trailer TELs would be S-300PMU-1s.

RUSSIAN DEPLOYMENT STRATEGIES

Russian S-300P sites display a number of identifiable deployment strategies. S-300P SAM systems are employed in defense of key industrial and military areas, as well as large population centers.

S-300PM and S-300PM-1 sites around Moscow typically employ the "slanted-E" site configuration, and most of them are based on the grounds of former S-25 SAM sites. Moscow defense sites all employ tower mounted engagement radars in conjunction with tower-mounted 76N6 radars. This provides a robust low-altitude target detection envelope around the capital city. Eight to twelve TELs are typically present at each site, with at least six TELs at each site being loaded with missiles and positioned in a launch revetment.

S-300P sites located along the periphery of Russia's Far East Military District, particularly near Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk, tend to feature mobile engagement radars and tower-mounted 76N6 radars. This is likely due to the fact that sites located along the periphery are typically positioned very near the water and therefore do not have substantial terrain for the engagement radar to contend with along potential threat ingress routes. A raised berm for the engagement radar is often more than sufficient to ensure the radar has a sufficient field of view with respect to any vegetation in the area. The single exception is the S-300PM site positioned to defend the Rybachiy SSBN base, featuring a tower-mounted engagement radar, likely due to the terrain constraints potentially interfering with the engagement radar being able to see out over the open ocean from where it is positioned. The Yelizovo and Petropavlovsk sites are positioned at a higher elevation than the Rybachiy site, providing them with a better field of view than the Rybachiy site.

S-300P sites on the Kola peninsula and around St. Petersburg feature tower-mounted engagement radars, likely due to the varied terrain in the areas where the SAM sites are positioned. Kola sites feature eight active TELs, with St. Petersburg sites featuring four active TELs, likely due to the greater strategic importance of the Kola peninsula and associated military facilities.

Interestingly, the Kaliningrad S-300P sites feature tower-mounted engagement radars at four sites and a mobile engagement radar at the fifth site. There are no major terrain constraints requiring use of the towers for the engagement radars. However, the Kaliningrad region is geographically separated from the rest of Russia, and is is possible that tower-mounted engagement radars are employed to provide an increased probability of low-altitude detection. Kaliningrad is also home to a Russian naval contingent, so perhaps the engagement radars are tower mounted at four of the sites to remove the potential of low-altitude clutter generated by the incoming and outgoing naval vessels. This doesn't seem to make complete sense, however, as the Baltiysk site nearest the harbor entrance features the mobile engagement radar.

The lack of S-300PM-1 batteries in areas identified as being of strategic importance, such as Petropavlovsk, Vladivostok and Kaliningrad, is likely due to the fact that the more sensitive systems are kept in areas where the presence of foreign ELINT assets is far less likely. There is, however, an S-300PM-1 battery deployed near Novorossiysk, The presence of an S-300PM-1 site in this area is likely due to the fact that it represents the sole identifiable active strategic SAM site in the area. It should also be noted that the S-300PM-1 systems are at most nearly a decade newer than the S-300PM systems. Ergo, it is likely that the areas considered to be the most strategically important were the first to receive the S-300PM-1. This would explain the high concentration around Moscow, and the presence on the Kola Peninsula. S-300PM-1s not being present on the Kamchatka Peninsula can be explained away by the fact that the Northern Fleet is the main combat arm of the Russian Navy. Petropavlovsk and Rybachiy also enjoy protection by a MiG-31 regiment, so the area is not necessarily at a loss.

CHINESE DEPLOYMENT STRATEGIES

There are five visible active S-300P sites inside of China at this moment. China apaprently has chosen to employ the S-300P systems to defend key population centers, relying on older HQ-2 SAM systems to defend smaller population centers and military facilities. Four of China's S-300P locations are S-300PMU-1 sites, with the fifth being home to an S-300PMU battery. China employs a relatively standard deployment strategy throughout its S-300P batteries. Four TELs are deployed around a central, mobile engagement radar vehicle positioned on a raised berm. There are four separate pads for the TELs, with two TELs positioned on each of two launch pads. Tower-mounted engagement radars are not employed, allowing the core system components to be rapidly repositioned. A 36D6 or 64N6 EW radar is colocated with each SAM battery, with at least one 64N6 being present in each deployment area either in a colocated or nearby position to provide long-range target detection.

The one major inconsistency in Chinese S-300P deployments is the presence of a tower-mounted 76N6 radar. The 76N6 is present at the Yutian S-300PMU site, along with both Shanghai S-300PMU-1 sites. The reasoning behind this strategy likely relates to potential threat ingress routes. The Shanghai S-300PMU-1 sites are positioned near the coastline and as such would be able to monitor the airspace offshore, potentially detecting inbound strike aircraft and missiles from Kadena AB, Okinawa, and southern Japan. Given the low-altitude detection function of the 76N6, it is plausible that the Shanghai sites are positioned to detect inbound, low-altitude missiles launched from naval vessels or submarines.

Why, then, would there be a disparity in the 76N6 deployment to the north? Beijing is much farther inland, and is also protected by the defenses of the Bo Hai gulf. Any potential threat ingressing from the east or south would have to penetrate a dense air defense network which also included interceptor aircraft and other SAM systems. Beijing is also borered to the north and west by mountainous terrain, making low-altitude detection less important as any inbound target from those directions would pop up into the coverage of the 64N6 EW radar sites positioned in the area.

The inconsistency, therefore, is the presence of the 76N6 at the Yutian S-300PMU site. The 120 kilometer range of the 76N6 does not give it enough range to reach offshore from the Yutian site. It is possible that the 76N6 was only purchased for use with the S-300PMU and therefore would not be found at any of the S-300PMU-1 sites, whose 30N6E1 radar does offer improved performance over the 30N6E employed by the S-300PMU. The answer may also lie in the condition of the Yutian 76N6. It is visible in a lowered position, potentially being prepared for transport.

However, the Yutian 76N6 may simply be lowered for maintenance, or may be a new arrival. In the latter case, it may be indicative of future 76N6 deployments at the northern S-300P sites to augment the already robust radar coverage of the systems. The Yutian site may also be a training unit, allowing crews to train on all of the system components. Lastly, the Yutian 76N6 may be positioned to aid in the detection of cruise missiles fired towards Beijing-area targets from submerged submarines that manage to penetrate the Bo Hai gulf's waters.

DEPLOYMENT STRATEGIES OF OTHER NATIONS

S-300P sites in the Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan are primarily deployed to defend population centers, capitals, and in the case of the Ukraine military facilities. Most S-300PT facilities feature a standard twelve TEL complement, although there are some minor variations, as there are with the S-300PMU deployments.

Slovakia was not analyzed due to the presence of only a single identifiable S-300P battery. Likewise, Greece was not analyzed as S-300PMU-1 components are visible at two locations on Crete but they are not deployed.

S-300P SYSTEM COVERAGE

The S-300P is a very capable strategic SAM system, and as such can provide very robust air defense over a large region of airspace. By employing a number of batteries positioned to provide overlapping areas of coverage, a nation can effectively create what amounts to an area of denied airspace. While the S-300P does feature multiple-target engagement capability, it is also wise to overlap coverage areas in order to reduce the effect of saturation by actual or false targets.

The following image depicts S-300P coverage provided by identified, active sites positioned around Moscow. The blue rings represent the associated 64N6 EW radars. Large red rings represent S-300PM-1 batteries, with small red rings representing S-300PM batteries. The S-300PM-1 has a 150 kilometer range, the S-300PM a 90 kilometer range, and the 64N6 a 300 kilometer range. The overlapping coverage areas and the number of batteries in place have effectively transformed the skies over Moscow into the most heavily defended airspace in the world.


CURRENT USERS

Information regarding user nations and the types and numbers of identified sites can be found here: LINK

SOURCES

-Jane's Land Based Air Defense 2002-03
-Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces, a definitive text edited by Pavel Podvig
-All satellite imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth

Sunday, July 22, 2007

The S-200 SAM System: A Site Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The S-200 (SA-5 GAMMON) SAM system is a long-range air defense system designed to defend large areas against all manner of airborne targets, including high-speed and high-altitude aircraft. The S-200 was originally conceived in part to defend against the expected overflights by Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance aircraft, although no such overflights ever took place due to a political restriction of manned overflights of the USSR in the wake of the Francis Gary Powers shootdown. The S-200 entered operational service in 1967 and has remained on combat duty in various nations worldwide ever since.

In a little known role, the S-200 was also employed as a national-level ABM system for a time. More information on this concept can be found here: LINK The same article also contains information regarding a prior use of the Western SA-5 designator.

THE SA-5

The S-200 SAM system is a long-range strategic SAM system. The SARH-guided two-stage 5V21 and 5V28 missiles have a 220 kg HE fragmentation warhead. The 5V21 ad 5V28 differ from previous Fakel-designed air defense missiles insofar as their first stage is not a jetissonable booster stage, but rather four strap-on rocket motors. The missiles themselves are very large, with lengths of 10.5 meters for the 5V21 and 10.8 meters for the 5V28. Ranges vary from variant to variant, with a maximum of between 150 and 300 kilometers. Minimum ranges are between 7 and 17 kilometers, depending on the variant. Minimum altitude for all variants is 300 meters, with a maximum altitude of between 20,000 and 40,000 meters, depending on the variant. Target engagement functions are handled by the 5N62 (SQUARE PAIR) radar set, an H band system with a range of 270 kilometers, and a cpaability to engage a single target at a time.

A TYPICAL SA-5 SITE

CIA Intelligence Memorandum 69-15, The Soviet SA-5 Deployment Program, provides us with the following descriptions of active S-200 site configurations:


A typical S-200 site will contain between two and five launch areas, each containing launch pads for six 5P72 launch rails. The radar area will contain a single 5N62 radar for each launch area present in the site. This permits each site to engage multiple targets, reducing the negative impact of the 5N62's single target engagement capability. The image below depicts a typical active S-200 site located in Libya. Relevant areas are annotated.


The following image depicts the Libyan site's radar area. Note the placement of the two 5N62 radars, and the location of the control bunker housing the site's command and control section.


The launch area is detailed below. Launch areas vary in arrangement from nation to nation, but for the most part display a spade shape as seen here. It is common for S-200 sites to feature revetments for the launch rails, and individual environmental shelters to store the 5P72 launch rails during periods of maintenance or inactivity. Each launch area is controlled by crews in a centrally located bunker. Note the cable connections visible between the control bunker and the launch rails.


As witnessed in the imagery provided above, S-200 sites are rather large and expansive. Due to the large footprint of an S-200 site and the plethora of associated structures, inactive S-200 sites are relatively easy to identify.

The following image depicts an inactive S-200 site in Belarus:


EXAMPLES OF COMMON SITE CONFIGURATIONS

The following images depict the most common S-200 site layouts. Most S-200 sites feature either two or three launch areas.

The following image depicts an active S-200 site in Kazakhstan displaying the two launch site configuration. While there are only two missiles visible on launch rails in the eastern launch position, there are two 5N62 radars visible, implying that the entire site is still active.


The following image depicts an active S-200 site in the Ukraine displaying the three launch site configuration. Only the southernmost launch area appears to be active, as the launch rails appear to have been removed from the other two sites.


Due to the expansive nature of an S-200 complex, S-200 sites can be identified in low-resolution imagery. While this does not provide any indication as to the site's operational status, it does provide the analyst with a location to file away for future observation should coverages be updated.

The following image depicts a Russian S-200 site captured in low-resolution imagery. This is one of two identified S-200 sites containing five launch areas.


NON-STANDARD SA-5 SITES

North Korea and Iran have adopted unusual deployment strategies for their S-200 batteries for various reasons.

North Korean S-200 batteries are deployed in a fashion designed to increase their survivability. As seen previously in examining a North Korean S-125 site, the DPRK chooses to use a series of bunkers to protect the system components. There are individual hardened shelters visible for each 5P72 launch rail, as well as subsurface housings to protect the 5N62 radars when not in use. Two other subsurface bunkers are also visible, implying that the site may contain a total of four 5N62 radars.

The following annotated image depicts North Korea's western S-200 site:


Iranian S-200 batteries, in comparison to other users, are very unusual in their deployment. Iran deploys a single 5N62 radar with two 5P72 launch rails at each location. This is highly irregular, perhaps implying that Iran did not purchase a full complement of missiles or launch rails. It is also possible that, given the capability of the S-200 system, Iran views them as probable targets in any sort of military conflict and as such does not see the need to deploy a significant number of components at each site, choosing instead to hold them in reserve. As the 5N62 can only engage a single target at a time anyway, this would seem to be a sensible strategy.

The following annotated image depicts an Iranian S-200 site located on the grounds of Hamadan AB:


SYSTEM COVERAGE

The S-200 SAM system possesses a very long range, which will only be surpassed once the 400-kilometer S-400 enters full operational service. To that end, the S-200 is capable of providing air defense over large amounts of territory. It should be noted that the long-range S-200 is commonly featured as part of an integrated network which incorporates shorter-range systems such as the S-75, which also helps to cover close-in targets who close within the rather long minimum range of the system. As the S-200 is not intended to counter close-in targets, this should not be considered a design flaw of the system.

The following image depicts the coverage provided by identified active S-200 sites in Iran:


CIA IM 69-15 provides the following conceptual look at theorized S-200 deployment in the former USSR, based on identified active and in-construction S-200 sites as of 15 June 1969:


CURRENT USERS

The nations listed below have been identified through analysis of Google Earth imagery as being current users of the S-200 SAM system. The number in parentheses following the nation's name is the number of occupied sites currently visible in Google Earth, followed by the number of currently unoccupied sites in that nation.

Iran (6/0), Kazakhstan (2/2), Libya (4/2), North Korea (1/0), Syria (2/1), Turkmenistan (1/0), Ukraine (1/2)

FORMER USERS

The nations listed below have been identified through analysis of Google Earth imagery as having been former users of the S-200 SAM system. The number in parentheses following the nation's name is the number of unoccupied sites currently visible in Google Earth, not including those currently occupied by other SAM systems.

Belarus (1), Czech Republic (2), Estonia (1), Germany (4), Hungary (1), Latvia (1), Lithuania (1), Russia (19)

POSSIBLE USERS

The nations listed below possess identified S-200 site locations in low-resolution imagery. As the resolution precludes identification of the sites as active or inactive, they are listed here as possible users. Some of the nations are already mentioned above, indicating that they possess active or inactive S-200 sites in various resolutions. The number in parentheses following the nation's name is the number of low-resolution sites currently visible in Google Earth.

Azerbaijan (2), Belarus (3), Bulgaria (1), Estonia (3), Latvia (4), Libya (2), Lithuania (1), Moldova (1), North Korea (1), Poland (1), Russia (48), Syria (3), Ukraine (10)

SOURCES

-Jane's Land Based Air Defense 2002-03
-All satellite imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth
-The CIA FOIA website at http://foia.cia.gov provided the documents shown and referenced above

Saturday, July 21, 2007

The S-125 SAM System: A Site Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The S-125 (SA-3 GOA) SAM system was developed to provide additional low-altitude coverage in areas already defended by S-25 and S-75 SAM systems. S-125 SAM systems were also deployed in areas identified by the Soviet Military as potential enemy low-altitude ingress routes en route to high-priority targets. Interestingly, the S-125 began life as the M-1 (SA-N-1 GOA) naval SAM system, and was chosen for land-based use early in development. Many S-125 SAM systems remain in operation to this day, and there are numerous odifications available. The most current modification is the Pechora-2M mobile variant.

THE SA-3

The S-125 SAM system is a two-stage strategic SAM system. Two missiles are employed, the 5V24 and the 5V27. Both weapons are command guided. The 5V24 missiles possess a 60 kilogram HE fragmentation warhead, and have a range envelope of between 4 and 15 kilometers, with a reach of between 100 and 10,000 meters in altitude. The 5V27 missiles possess an 70 kilogram HE fragmentation warhead, and have ranges between 4 and 25 kilometers with a reach of between 20 and 18,000 meters, depending on the specific variant. The 5V27 can be identified by the addition of two braking fins on the booster section. Upgraded missiles used in Pechora-2 and Pechora-2M systems have a maximum range of 38 kilometers. The I-band RSN-125 (LOW BLOW) radar handles target engagement functions, with a range of 110 kilometers. The RSN-125 has the capability to track 6 targets simultaneously, with the ability to engage a single target at a time.

A TYPICAL SA-3 SITE

A typical S-125 SAM site consists of three or four launch positions arranged in various patterns around a central radar area. Two rail 5P71 or four rail 5P73 launchers are employed. 5V24 missiles are 5.89 meters in length, and 5V27 missiles are 6.09 meters in length, although the difference may not be discernable in overhead imagery. Missile length is sometimes not an effective indicator to use when identifying an S-125 SAM site as the missile rails are often elevated. The launch rails measure approximately 8 meters in length. There is a visible counterbalance and hinge assembly that extends approximately 3.7 meters behind the missiles when they are fitted to the launch rails. This is a convenient feature for identifying an actual launch position as opposed to a missile reload vehicle, which mounts two missiles. The following image depicts a typical three-launcher S-125 site in Syria. Major components and features are labeled.


CIA NIE 11-3-62 provides us with the following description of a typical S-125 site:


EXAMPLES OF COMMON SITE CONFIGURATIONS

The following images depict the four most common S-125 site layouts. The first S-125 site configuration to be examined consists of three launch positions arrayed in a triangular fashion around the RSN-125 radar. The following site in Syria is an example of such a configuration, as is the annotated example shown above:


Some S-125 sites feature three launchers but four prepared launch positions. The following S-125 site in Libya is an example:


Some S-125 sites feature four launch positions arranged in a parallelogram-shaped configuration around the RSN-125 radar. The S-125 site detailed in the CIA document shown above is an example of such a configuration, as is the following site in the Ukraine:


The final common S-125 site configuration features four launch rails positioned in a square pattern around the central RSN-125 radar. The following site in the Ukraine is an example of such a configuration:


NON-STANDARD SA-3 SITES

Some users have placed S-125 systems in sites formerly constructed for and occupied by S-75 SAM systems. This illustrates the need to not only identify a site's configuration, but also the components present as well. The following S-125 battery is located in a former S-75 SAM site in Egypt:


Some S-125-occupied S-75 sites found in Serbia and India are distinctive insofar as they lack revetments for the radar and launch rails. The following S-75 battery is located on a former S-75 site in Serbia:


Some Belarussian S-125 sites are located on prepared sites intended to house S-300P SAM systems. It is likely that these sites were constructed on the locations of former S-125 sites, and that the S-125 systems were retained pending availability of the S-300P systems. The following site is an example of such a Belarussian S-125 deployment:


Many North Korean SAM sites use unorthodox layouts to increase their survivability. The S-125 is no exception. The site depicted below illustrates North Korean survivability efforts, including placing the launchers and the RSN-125 radar inside of bunkers to protect them when they are not in use.


Finally, some S-125 users deploy their systems in seemingly random manner dictated by either terrain constraints or potential threat ingress routes. There are numerous other iterations of the S-125 site; the important factor in identifying the site is to identify the system components. Fortunately, the launch rails themselves, either loaded or unloaded, are readily identifiable in high-resolution imagery.

The following S-125 site in Algeria is an example of a "random" site configuration, in this case dictated by the limited space available for the site as it is located in an urban area:


SYSTEM COVERAGE

Given the relatively short range of the S-125 SAM system, most nations commonly employ them as short-range systems complementing longer-range systems such as the S-75 that the system was originally designed to complement.

The following image depicts the coverage provided by identified active S-125 sites (blue) and S-75 sites (red) around the metropolitan areas of northeastern Egypt:


Other nations, such as Eritrea, Peru, and Zambia, employ the S-125 as their primary air defense system, positioning their launchers around key areas. In these cases it is likely that interceptor aircraft would serve as the primary means of air defense, as the SAM network is too short-ranged and widespread to provide accurate coverage.

The following image depicts S-125 coverage in Eritrea:



CURRENT USERS

The nations listed below have been identified through analysis of Google Earth imagery as being current users of the S-125 SAM system. The number in parentheses following the nation's name is the number of occupied sites currently visible in Google Earth, followed by the number of currently unoccupied sites in that nation.

Algeria (4/0), Angola (7/0), Armenia (2/1), Azerbaijan (4/0), Belarus (4/0), Bulgaria (4/0), Cuba (4/0), Egypt (43/11), Eritrea (3/1), Ethiopia (4/1), Georgia (1/1), India (23/9), Kazakhstan (1/0), Kyrgyzstan (2/0), Libya (10/2), Mozambique (3/0), North Korea (1/0), Peru (7/8), Poland (4/6), Serbia and Montenegro (3/2), Syria (26/4), Tajikistan (2/0), Turkmenistan (3/0), Ukraine (2/2), Uzbekistan (3/0), Vietnam (7/3), Yemen (1/0), Zambia (2/0)

FORMER USERS

The nations listed below have been identified through analysis of Google Earth imagery as having been former users of the S-125 SAM system. The number in parentheses following the nation's name is the number of unoccupied sites currently visible in Google Earth, not including those currently occupied by other SAM systems.

Czech Republic (8), Hungary (8), Iraq (14), Romania (1), Slovakia (4)

SOURCES

-Jane's Land Based Air Defense 2002-03
-Fakel's Missiles, by Vladimir Korovin
-All satellite imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth
-The CIA FOIA website at http://foia.cia.gov provided the documents shown and referenced above

-Site measurements were acquired using Google Earth and as such may not be 100% accurate

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

The S-75 SAM System: A Site Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The S-75 (SA-2 GUIDLEINE) SAM system was developed in the USSR to provide a semi-mobile, widely deployable SAM system to complement the S-25 system in place around Moscow. Deploying the S-25 nationwide would have proved to be cost-prohibitive, so a smaller, more compact, and therefore cheaper SAM system was needed for air defense across the USSR and the Warsaw Pact member states. The S-75 remains in widespread use to this day, a testament to the robust design and capability of this Cold-War era SAM system. Chinese-produced derivatives share the same deployment layouts, a testament to their S-75 heritage, and are designated HQ-2.

THE SA-2

The S-75 SAM system is a two-stage strategic SAM system. The command-guided V-750 missiles have a 195 kg HE fragmentation warhead. Ranges vary from variant to variant, with a maximum of between 30 and 67 kilometers. Minimum ranges are as little as 6 kilometers. Altitudes range from a minimum of as little as 100 meters to a maximum of 30,000 meters, depending on the variant. Target engagement functions are handled by the RSN-75 (FAN SONG) radar set, an E or G band system with a range of up to 145 kilometers, depending on the specific model, and a cpaability to engage a single target at a time.

In an interesting footnote, the initial designator for the RSN-75 radar in the West was FRUIT SET, as evidenced by declassified CIA documentation from 1961 (NIE 11-5-6, available online at the CIA's FOIA website). No reason has yet been discerned for the change to FAN SONG.

A TYPICAL SA-2 SITE

S-75 SAM sites are relatively easy to identify on high-resolution imagery. S-75 components are typically arranged in a circular pattern. The RSN-75 engagement radar is positioned in the center of the site, typically atop a large service and command bunker, and there are six launch rails for the V-750 missiles positioned in a circular pattern facing outward around the radar position. The V-750 missiles are between 10.6 and 11.2 meters in length, depending on the variant. The launch rails measure between 10 and 10.5 meters in length in overhead imagery, depending on the resolution. S-75 sites tend to have a diameter of approximately 0.2 kilometers, although diameters of 0.16 and 0.23 kilometers have also been noted. Deployment in crowded urban areas or in some terrain can necessitate a closer or wider spacing of the site components. The V-750 launch rails are housed in circular revetments between 20 and 25 meters across, with HQ-2 sites having revetments up to 30 meters across.

The following image depicts a typical S-75 site in Yemen. Major components are labeled, including a TET used to transport missile reloads from the storage area to the launch rails.


The common practice of placing the launch rails in sturdy revetments enables inactive S-75 sites to still be identifiable, even though they may have been unused for quite some time.

The following image depicts an inactive, overgrown S-75 site in Germany:


EXAMPLES OF COMMON SITE CONFIGURATIONS

The following images depict the most common S-75/HQ-2 site layouts.

The S-75 site depicted below is a Bulgarian site displaying the classic circular layout:


Some S-75 sites use a compressed layout, positioning the launch revetments far closer to the RSN-75 radar position than is normal. This is commonly seen in Egyptian S-75 sites, such as the one seen below:


Some S-75 or HQ-2 sites use a semi-circle layout, as depicted by the HQ-2 site near Shanghai seen below:


Not all S-75 or HQ-2 sites feature a radar bunker or even revetments. In this case the site must be identified by the number of launchers, the size of the missiles, and any identifiable support equipment. The site depicted below is such an example, found in Libya. Note that sand berms have been constructed around some of the components, but these are a far cry from the sturdy revetments found at prepared site locations.


NON-STANDARD SA-2 SITES

S-75 and HQ-2 users have developed some unorthodox site layouts for a variety of reasons. Regardless of the layout, two elements will always be present at an S-75 or HQ-2 launch site: the engagement radar, and the missile launch rails themselves. The most common unorthodox site layouts will be discussed here.

Vietnam has created an unorthodox site layout for its S-75 batteries. The revised layout consists of a single RSN-75 engagement radar surrounded by four, rather than six, launch rails, arranged in various patterns. The reasoning behind the revised layout is unclear, but there are a few logical reasons which may be behind the unusual deployment. First, Vietnam may simply be taking launchers and missiles out of service to save maintenance and upkeep costs. Given that the RSN-75 can only prosecute one engagement at a time, reducing the number of launchers at a given site may be strategically acceptable. Secondly, Vietnam may be limiting the number of in-service missiles to reduce the wear and tear on important defensive assets, enabling more missiles to be kept in reserve storage for wartime use. Thirdly, as the revised sites do not maintain the 360-degree layout with respect to the launch rails, reducing the number of rails at certain sites may be indicative of Vietnam's strategic thinking insofar as potential threat ingress routes are concerned. All of Vietnam's S-75 sites feature this layout save one, but even that site is only configured with four launch rails.

The following image depicts a Vietnamese S-75 site near Nha Trang AB using the aforementioned unorthodox equipment configuration:


The Chinese military has been forced to employ an unorthodox HQ-2 site layout due to force modernization issues. A number of HQ-2 sites are apparently being converted to S-300P or HQ-9 sites. In order to mitigate the potential loss of capability while a site is being modernized, the HQ-2 battery is simply relocated off-site to a nearby area.

The following image depicts a Chinese HQ-2 site being modernized to field the S-300P or HQ-9 strategic SAM system. Note the HQ-2 battery which has been repositioned to the northwest of the site being refurbished. In this case, the battery is kept at half-strength.


Once site modernization is complete, some Chinese S-300P or HQ-9 sites appear to retain the HQ-2 battery, which has been relocated back onto the "new" site. This ensures that local air defenses will not be degraded while S-300P or HQ-9 components are procured or produced in sufficient numbers to take up residence at the relevant site or sites.

The following image depicts a recently modernized SAM site configured for the S-300P or HQ-9 system, clearly illustrating the presence of an HQ-2 battery:


SYSTEM COVERAGE

While the S-75 does not possess the sheer range of more modern strategic SAM systems such as the S-200 or the S-300P series, it is still capable of fulfilling a prominent role in the air defense network of a given nation.

The following image depicts the coverage provided by identified active S-75 sites in Syria:


CURRENT USERS

The nations listed below have been identified through analysis of Google Earth imagery as being current users of the S-75 or HQ-2 SAM system. The number in parentheses following the nation's name is the number of occupied sites currently visible in Google Earth, followed by the number of currently unoccupied sites in that nation.

Albania (2/0), Angola (2/1), Azerbaijan (1/1), Bulgaria (3/0), China (35/7, HQ-2), Cuba (2/0), Egypt (37/100), Ethiopia (6/1), Iran (3/9, HQ-2), Kazakhstan (3/6), Kyrgyzstan (3/0), Libya (8/4), North Korea (15/5), Pakistan (1/0, HQ-2), Syria (24/18), Turkmenistan (2/15), Uzbekistan (1/0), Vietnam (9/1), Yemen (11/1)

FORMER USERS

The nations listed below have been identified through analysis of Google Earth imagery as having been former users of the S-75 or HQ-2 SAM system. The number in parentheses following the nation's name is the number of unoccupied sites currently visible in Google Earth, not including those currently occupied by other SAM systems.

Belarus (1), Czech Republic (1), Estonia (1), Germany (6), Hungary (4), India (2), Iraq (17), Latvia (1), Lithuania (2), Mozambique (1), Poland (9), Romania (3), Russia (9), Slovakia (2), Somalia (2), Ukraine (6)

SOURCES

-Jane's Land Based Air Defense 2002-03
-All satellite imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth

-Site measurements were acquired using Google Earth and as such may not be 100% accurate
-For more information on Pakistan's air defense situation, reference the following article at this site: Modernizing Pakistani Air Defenses