DCS Soviet Strategic SAM Site discussion

And the PVO said unto the Trans caucus: “Let there be STRATSAMs”

And there were STRATSAMs
And the PVO saw that there were STRATSAMs, and it was good.


beep. boop. beep. boop. beep beep beep. boop.

And then when they finally get around to it, a whole lot of flying telephone poles lol.

I find it funny how most missile hits will damage, often fatally, a hornet, but a hit from the SA-2 will just disintegrate it. BLAP.


Is that West Falklands?


First off I LIKE IT!
Second - Wow, This was something that took ours to do. You are to be commended. That takes dedication.

Third: In the spirit of making the DCS sim as realistic as possible…If I may offer a couple of minor suggestions, based on my experience of looking at IADS for years.

I suggest dropping the SA-2s completely. They are way-old. I do’t think even Abkhazia would want them.

In Abkhazia I suggest going with with SA-6 deployed in strategic locations…except Gudauta (see below). True, the SA-6 is considered a tactical SAM that moves with he ground forces. However, as the Israeli AF discovered in the Yom Kipper War (1973) the Egyptians had not deployed their SA-6’s with their army units, but used them to protect airfields and other strategic targets. They are more capable than the SA-2 and have about the same range as an SA-3 so…cal it a “Poorman’s” strategic SAM.

In Russia, I respectfully suggest you take a look at your SA-10 placement. If that is real world replacement, then OK. However, if not, given their range they probably would not be that near to the coast, a couple…maybe as much as 10 Nm from the coat line in a nice defendable position so that Tomahawks or HARM Shooters aircraft run into AAA and shorter range SAMs before they can get to an SA-10 site.

Also because of the SA-10’s range and very strong capabilities, you may want to spread them out a bit more. Just a bit of overlap is fine plus it helps deconflict which site is shooting at which targets.

Question: Using the Random feature in the ME, is it possible to make maybe 6 to 8 SA-10 “pre-registered sites”, and then at the start of the Mission only make 3 three of the random sites active? (i.e. No equipment at the others) This would simulate the Russians periodically moving to different sites to complicate our targeting.

SA-10 vs High Altitude Recce. In a pre-shooting phase, an SA-10 deployed somewhere near (but not in) the Caucus mountains, so that it cover south across the Georgia may be an idea. It discourages high-altitude recce that can see across the border into Russia while staying inside Georgian airspace…at least by manned aircraft.

UAVs? That’s the big question. Will the Russian’s take the gamble that shooting down a US high altitude UAV will not cross a red line in US ROE? Are it’s a US platform, but they didn’t kill a US pilot, so…. Will the US react/retaliate? What form will that retaliation take?. Hmmmmm…as Dale said on “King of the Hill”, “That’s a thinker.” :thinking:

Plus an SA-10 placement in that area protects the “Mozdok” triangle of airbases.

For a Georgian high-alt recce UAV, the Russians will just pop it…they have before.:astonished:

On the Russian side, SA-11s and ZSU-23-4s can be pressed into service as point defense around airfields, which it looks like you have done. Abkhazia will probably have to do with the fixed non-radar AAA, sites.

The Gudauta problem: According to Wkkipedia:

After the Russo-Georgian War, Russia recognized Abkhazia and signed with its government the treaty allowing Russia to keep its military base in Gudauta and reinforce it with T-62 tanks, light armored vehicles, S-300 air defense systems and several aircraft.

Link to article

That throws a bit of a monkey into any planning against Abkhazia.

Scenario: The US (or NATO), for some reason, will help the Georgians retake Abkhazia, BUT, they want to try to keep the Russians out of it as much as possible (Fat Chance they know). So much like in the Korean war when we couldn’t enter PRC airspace, no strikes on Russian soil/no fighter penetration of Russian airspace, even in hot pursuit.

So to paraphrase “The Sound of Music”, “:notes: What do we do with a problem like Gunauta :notes:” This guidance normally comes down from national level but hey, @near_blind, your the JTF commander…so what do you do? Take out the SA-10 (S-300) and possibly bring the Russians fully into the conflict? Or try to plan around it? I have a coin if you would like to flip it.

Well now that have stretched my repertoire form “King of the Hill” to “The Sound of Music”, I shall finish by again saying, Wow! Awesome Work! :slightly_smiling_face:


Disclaimer: 99.99% of the work was done by @Mbot some years back. He went through and did research on the OOB of the PVO in the region circa 1989. This template was the outcome, which he kindly shared with the community a few years ago. I just went in last night and did a very rough update to swap in all the SA-2s we now have. All we need now are SA-5s.

As for the placement suggestions… This is apparently how the PVO had arranged their strategic sites during the cold war. I usually use this as a rough template and then fill in with around them with fighters and TACSAMs as appropriate for what’s going on in my scenario.


OK - When they were all still a “Happy” USSR family (group hug). That makes more sense…other than I still think the SA-10 sites are a bit too close to the coast.

So since the the Caucuses Military District (MD) ends at the border with Georgia and Abkhazia. So Strat and Tac SAMs are pulled back behind that border - or if the Wikipedia article is correct, one SA-10 at Gudauta.

If/when Russia invades Georgia, the Tac SAMs will deploy forward with the ground forces. There is a hierarchy on what SAMs cover what sized units. I always had to look it up (Navy guy)…but something like SA-8 (or now maybe S26) and ZSU-23-4 at the Battalion level; SA-6 / SA-11 at the Brigade level…or something like that…

…and then there are the SA-9s and SA-13s…think battalion level and more anti-helicopter…

…and of course SA-18s probably at the company level…so if you load up a bunch of HIPs or BMPs, you should probably add an SA-18 shooter or two in the mix.

The SA-8 is a nice weapon because it is ver mobile …TELAR…Transporter, Elevator , Launcher and Radar on on one vehicle that can move pretty fast over roads. SA-6 and SA-11 are more capable, longer range but are at least two vehicles and have a bit of set up time. The general idea is that the SA-8s and ZSU-23-4s move long with the troops moving forward. The SA-6/11 move (maybe even leap frog) then stop to set up and to cover a Brigade size battle front.

With this in mind it adds many possibilities for DCS missions…catch the SA-6 in travel mode and you degrade a section of the battle fronts air defenses…but don’t forget those pesky SA-8s…didn’t get there in time and the SA-6/11 is active?

1 Like

It originally started life as an SA-2 unit. You can still find the old site on Google.

The northern one isn’t actually an SA-10, it’s actually an SA-5, we’re just working with what we got.

Still, considering that the harbor is the best natural harbor in the area, and important export location for POL products, and an import site for the ever important grain, I can see why the Soviets invested heavily in its defense.

Split this into it’s own topic just so it doesn’t get lost or side-tracked.

If anyone has diagrams showing the site layout, that would be cool too :slight_smile:

1 Like

Might want to change the title, we’re not really talking about Georgian SAMs, this has been more a discussion of placement of Soviet Strategic SAM Sites under the jurisdiction of PVO Strany, the Soviet Strategic Air Defense Force.

1 Like

When we flying it?


Yeah! When can we deploy Harriers and Sidearms?!

I don’t know what this is but it looks clever and pretty and people that understand this far better then me applaud you, so hooraaah!

1 Like

I don’t know what this is but it looks clever and pretty and people that understand this far better then me applaud you, so hooraaah!

Its like when Gandalf stands before the Balrog and says " You shall not pass ." :rofl:

It’s like when the USAF looks at the soft underbelly of the Evil Empire and says “Challenge accepted” :us:


Some how this got stuck in Screen Shots:

True! Definitely worth an SA-10 in the area. Placement is the question. The old SA-5 was meant for large–aircraft bombers, takers, AWACs, etc. that were not that maneuverable–at long range. putting that guy as close to the coast as possible makes some sense since you want that far reach…as much as you can get. That said, if a Tactical aircraft got in low and close, The SA-5 was toast…and of course really can’t defend anything behind it, like the harbor.

The SA-10 is a much more capable system and can easily engage tactical, highly maneuverable aircraft. EDIT: and CMs

A quick “back of the envelope” possibility…I’d deploy a site here:

Fairly level ground, road access, plenty of surrounding cover.

A few Kilometers NW of Novorossiysk. Elevation about 650 ft so a good vantage over the port.

Looking at the range rings…Good High-Medium-Low coverage over the port and surrounding areas from SE to NNW.

The ridge line behind the port and city, provides some terrain masking for Extremely Low attacks on Krymsk, however if they are above 500 AGL, they can probably be tracked/s shot. Good/clear coverage over Anapa-Vityazevo. Curvature of the earth will limit Low coverage over Krasnodar.

Other possibilities: There is a switch-back road coming from the SE arm of Novorossiysk that leads up through a pass/saddle in the ridge to a clear area that is about 1100 ft elevation. It provide better coverage to the north, however, nearby terrain goes up to 1650 ft in the direction of the port, which would provide too much terrain masking…but for a second or alternate site???


To be fair I simply copied the data from here, with some Google Earth cross checking here and there. That site is a fantastic resource.

Ah, one of my favorite topics :slight_smile: According to the US Army OPFOR manuals the Soviet doctrinal tactical air defense is as follows:

  • Two SA-4 or SA-12 brigades per front (army group) (SA-12 replacing SA-4)
  • One SA-4 brigade (9 firing batteries) or one SA-11 brigade (12 firing batteries) per army (SA-11 replacing SA-4)
  • One SA-6 regiment (5 firing batteries) or one SA-8 regiment (5 batteries with 20 TELAR) or one SA-15 regiment (4 batteries with 16 TELAR) per division (SA-6 more likely with tank divisions, SA-8 more likely with motor-rifle divisions, SA-15 replacing both)
  • One Air Defense Battalion (6 2S6 Tunguska and 6 SA-13 and 18 MANPADS) or 1 Air Defense Battery (4 ZSU-23-4 Shilka and 4 SA-9/13) per motor-rifle/tank regiment
  • One SAM Platoon (9 MANPADS) per motor-rifle battalion

Additional MANPADS were organic to units on many levels for self protection. For example:

  • 3 MANPADS for most HQs
  • 3 MANPDAS in the technical batteries in SAM units
  • 3 MANPADS per firing battery in all SAM units
  • 6 MANPDAS per artillery/MRL battery (so on average one MANPADS for every artillery piece!)

There’s nothing like bringing a fighter jet down by throwing a Palm into the engine intake. :slight_smile:

Do continue.


As we say in the Navy, that’s the gouge! Need to print that to and keep it wit me when developing missions!

1 Like