Talk:S-75 Dvina

message: *I moved this article from NATO reporting name to Russian name Radomil talk 20:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving

message: From the article:
:Over the next year the US delivered a number of solutions to the S-75 problem. The Navy had the Shrike missile in service by mid-August, and mounted their first offensive strike on a site in October.
Um, what years are we talking about here? '65? '66? It says in Gradual Failure: the air war over North Vietnam 1965-1966 that:
:"In April 1966 Wild Weasel aircraft were equipped for the first time with the Shrike AGM-45 air-to-surface missile. The Navy had tested the weapon in the north in 1965, and in the spring of 1966 improved models arrived in the war theatre. On the 18th, an F-100F Wild Weasel launched the first Shrike against a SAM site with undetermined results."
This only confuses me about the dates referred to more, though. - Eric (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: *I suspect this page is the victim of a hasty C&P move. It shouldnt have been moved in the first place anyway. (The article is about the S-75, which is what it refers to constantly, rather than SA-2, which is NATO's codename for the same thing.) --Oceanhahn 02:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. All Russian equipment with NATO reporting names should be located at the original Russian name and have a redirect from the NATO reporting name to it; it should also have the NATO name as a bolded alternate title in the first line per WP:MILHIST. That way we respect the Russians' titles for their gear, but Westerners can still find and ID the page easily, since for most of the Cold War those were the only terms published in Western sources, even Jane's. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name?

message: Apparently this could be fired against ground targets (just like the 9m311):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeoDAIeMkxY&feature=player_embedded
I don't have any other references, but it would make an interesting addition to the article if someone knows of an equally convincing and more appropriate (ie. written) citation.--Hrimpurstala (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ground-to-ground mode?

message: In the map of current operators, Indonesia is highlighted. However, in the subsequent list, Indonesia is listed under "former operators". Does anyone know what the actual status of Indonesia's military is regarding this missile?
-hmvkmv  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.196.33 (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesia 

message: "In addition to the Soviet Union, several S-75 batteries were deployed during the 1960s in East Germany to protect Soviet forces stationed in that country. Later the system was sold to most Warsaw Pact countries and was provided to China, North Korea and eventually, North Vietnam."
This seems to imply that the missile was provided to China later then the 1960's when it was responsible for shooting down an aircraft in 1957, the same year major deployments began.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange order 

message: Libya has been added to the current operators of the S-75 Dvina - it is now missing from the map --Jean-Marc Liotier (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustations 

message: Zaloga gives 68,000 by 1967. Perhaps 4,600 is the number of systems? There were 800 sites in USSR by 1969. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of missiles produced 

message: RE: The missiles are guided using radio control signals (sent on one of three channels) from the guidance computers at the site. (!) A Radar Homing and Warning (RHAW) system on a target aircraft picked up the signal and gave a LAUNCH warning. (2) The missile sent back a tracking signal on a focused beam that could not be detected by RHAW, but a fighter could go into a steep drive in an attempt to make the missile while trying to track it "break lock" and self-destruct. One B-52 pilot did the same — and survived.  (3) Once the Israelis captured one from Egypt and the return signal frequency was determined, that frequency could be jammed causing the missile to "break lock" and self-destruct. “If we thought the SA-2 was homing in on us, we would try to keep our speed up until the missile was several seconds away and then barrel roll on our backs and pull vertically down,”. Knutson Developed tactics to evade the Russian SA-2 missiles in Vietnam, based on a John Hopkins research project. (4) For updated info on how effective the SAMs were, see Suppression of air defense and Surface to Air Missile Effectiveness in Past Conflicts. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, really inaccurate information you've put here. The SA-2 is a command guided missile. It is stupid. It has no brain. It only flies by remote control. The SA-2 receives three signals, and only three signals. They're called K1, K2 and K3. K1 and K2 control the rudders, they are what allow the launch site's guidance systems to fly the missile. The K3 signal does a couple of different things, but basically  it's related to arming the proximity fuse or commanding the missile to detonate. Diving steeply will not cause the missile to break lock, because the missile never had lock. The missile is stupid. It has no radar and no sensors beyond a proximity fuse. It only receives K1, K2 and K3 commands. Only the launch site's tracking radar has lock, and diving steeply will not break the Fan Song tracking radar's lock. What diving steeply might do however is cause the missile to fly into the earth. The SA-2 has a few different trajectories it can fly the missile along. The first is lead guidance, where the missile is guided to fly an intercept point. If the aircraft is flying towards the ground fast enough, then this imaginary intercept point can be below the ground, and the launch site will try to fly the missile in that direction, causing the missile to hit the ground. The second guidance trajectory is called Three Point Guidance or Line of Site guidance. It's where the missile is guided down imaginary straight line between the launch site and the target at all times. And there's K guidance, where the missile flies lead guidance only in the horizontal plane, and flies a modified three point trajectory in the vertical plane. Under Three Point Guidance or K guidance, the missile cannot be flown into the ground by a steep dive. In fact K guidance was developed specifically to counter the steep dive tactic. So I hope you can see that these manoeuvres do not break lock and don't make a missile explode. Hammerfrog (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting analysis, Hammerfrog. I have read an account of an AC-130 escaping a Guideline by flipping and going into a powered dive. I understood that the technique was not designed to break lock or force the missile to hit the ground. Rather, the idea was that the aircraft would then be flying very fast, orthogonally to the missile's line of flight. The idea was that if this was done late enough, the missile would not have time to steer onto the target before it overflew it. Basically, the plane had to fly out of the missile's basket. Oscar Bravo (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio control and self-destruct 

message: The S-75 Dvina is just a specific branch of the S-75 tree. Basically there's the 10cm Dvina branch which is the SA-2A/B/F, and the 6cm S-75 Desna/Volhov branch which has the SA-2C/E. So wouldn't it be better if the article was just named "S-75"? Hammerfrog (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The whole article is under the wrong title.