THE SOVIET SA-3 MISSILE SYSTEM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78T05439A000500210055-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: T
• Document Page Count: 37
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 9, 2003
• Sequence Number: 55
• Publication Date: July 8, 1965
• Content Type: IR

ILLEGIB Approved For Release 2003/08/19 : CIA-RDP78TO5439A000500210055-7
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2003/08/19 : CIA-RDP78TO5439A000500210055-7
 25X1 C
Scientific
Intelligence
Report
No. Pages 37
.Copy No.
THE SOVIET SA-3 MISSILE SYSTEM
Office of Scientific Intelligence
 25X1 C - ,
Scientific Intelligence Report
THE SOVIET SA-3 M;SSILE SYSTEM
25X1A
OSI-SR/TCS/65-10
8 July 1965
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Directorate of Science and Technology
Office of Scientific intelligence
25X1 C
 REFERENCES
The I source references supporting this paper are
identified in a list published separately. Copies of the
list are available to authorized personnel and may be
obtained from the originating office through regular
channels. Requests for the list of references should
include the publication number and date of this report.
 25X1 C
The Soviets have deployed a surface-to-air missile system
(designated the SA-3 by the US Intelligence Community) at more
than 100 sites throughout the :Soviet Union. This report summa-
rizes significant recent information on the SA-3 and presents a
preliminary analysis of the system. The assessments herein agree
with current National Intelligence Estimates. The cutoff date of
the latest source material is 1 May 1965.
25X1 C
 25X1 C
CONTENTS.
PREFACE
. . . . . . .
.
.
PROBLEM . . .
... . . . . . .
.
.
CONCLUSIONS. . . .
SUMMARY . . .
DISCUSSION. . . . .
. .
. . .
Radars . . . . .
. .
LOW BLOW radar
FLAT FACE radar
. . .
. . . .
Missile and launcher
.-'9
Goa naval association .
. .
Missile transporter
Guidance and control vans . .
. . . .
. .
Communications
Site configuration . . .
.
. . . . . . . .
.
Area A . . . .
. .
. . . . . . .
.
Area B . . . .
.
.
Area C . .
.
Elevated electronic equipment
Mission . .
. .
. . . . . .
.
. .
25X1 C
H
Page
. . iii
5
. . 6
.. 9
 25X1 C
FIGURES
1. SA-3 launch area at Kapustin Yar/Vladimirovka
Missile Test Center . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. LOW BLO\V radar at Mys Set Navolock . . . . . . . . . 4
3. LOW BLOW radar, Gryznaya Guba . . . . . 4
4. Probable LOW BLOW radar, Fili Airfield, Moscow 4
5. LOW BLOW radar . .
6. Possible LOW BLOW radar in transit 4
7. Possible LO\V BLOW radar, Fili Airfield, Moscow . . . 4?
8. FLAT FACE radar, Mys Set Navolock . . . . . 6
9. SA-3 site, Mys Set Navolock, with Goa missiles on launchers 6
10. Goa missile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
12. SA-3 missile transporter. . . . . . . . . .
13. SA-3 site A-19-3, Odessa, USSR
14. SA-3 site, Palanga, USSR
25X1 C
H
 25X1 C
15. SA-3 site, Panrupp
e, USSR .
.
8
16. SA-2/SA-3 suppor
17. Leningrad SA=3 SA
t facility, Palanga
M site, B-29 . .
, USSR
. . . . . . . . .
18. Leningrad SA-13 SA
M site, C-31 . .
. . . . . . . . . .
8
19. Concept, SA-3' SA
M site with towers
. . . . . . . . . .
8
20. LOW BLOW tower
21. LOW BLOW tower
, Leningrad
, Leningrad . .
. . . .. . . . . . .
10
22. Pruzhany SA-3.SA
M site, B-16 A, w
ith mound . . . .
10
25X1 C
 25X1 C
THE SOVIET SA-3 MISSILE SYSTEM
To make a! current assessment of the characteristics and perfor-
mance capability of the Soviet SA-3 surface-to-air missile system.
CONCLUSIONS
1.' The Soviet SA-3 missile system
probably is a short r a n g e,, low- to
medium-altitude antiaircraft defensive
weapon system. Its range limitation is
believed to be about 10 to 15 nautical
miles at. altitudes of from about 1,000
to 40,000 feet. While the system may have
a capability below 1;000 feet, the evidence
is insufficient to define the lower limit,
which is, in any case, terrain dependent.
2. The SA-3 missile, designated Goa
by the West, is about 19.2 feet long, with
three sets of four fins. It is a' two-stage
missile' and is mounted in pairs on a
trainable launcher. The warhead is cab-
culated to weigh about 200 pounds and is
probably a fragmentation type.
33. The solid propellant booster vehicle
has a thrust of about 26,500 pounds. The
sustainer is probably solid-propelled
with about a 4,400-pound thrust.
4. The radar systems associated with
the SA-3 are FLAT FACE (the acquisition
radar) and LOW BLOW (the missile=and-
target- tracking and guidance radar.) Tar-
get handling capability, accuracy, and
guidance mode of the LOW BLOW cannot
be estimated since its characteristics
are Yiot' known.
5. The Goa missile is alsous(~d in the
surface-to-air, missile system desig-
nated? SA-N-1 by the West. This system
has been found on Soviet destroyers and
is associated with a multiantenna radar
(designated PEEL GROUP).
6. Although the SA-3 missile system
has been deployed at over 100 sites in
the USSR sin.ce,1961, deployment has been
relatively slow and less extensive than
low-altitude defense requirements would
suggest. -Probably the increa-sed low-
altitude capability of the SA-2 has influ-
enced the SA-3 deployment program. In
any case, the SA-3 is not expected to be
deployed as extensively as the SA-2, the
system which the SA-3 apparently was
intended to complement.
'j C1 P "S E C R F T
25X1 C I
 TOP SECRET
25X1 C
In December 1959, the USSR had under
development a surface-to-air missile
system at the Kapustin Yar Missile Test
Range. This system!, designated SA-3 by
the Intelligence Community, uses the Goa
missile and was first deployed in 1961.
The SA-N-1 surface-to-air missile sys-
tem, which has been observed aboard the
Kotlin, Kynda, and Kashin classes of de-
stroyers since -1961:'', also uses the Goa
judging from a recent Soviet TV film
presentation. Dual launchers are used for
both systems, but in the SA-N-1 system,
the launcher is mounted on a barbette
housing the, spare missiles.
Two radars have been identified in the
SA-3 system. One, thewell-known FLAT
FACE, is used as the acquisition radar.
The other, designated LOW BLOW, is the
guidance radar and consists of at least
four antennas on a single mount. LOW
BLOW appears to have a highly complex
scanning system similiar in many re-
25X1 D
spects to the SA-2 guidance radar, FAN
SONG. 7- 7
Each SA-3 site consists of four launch
positions, each with a dual launcher, the
LO\V BLOW guidance radar, the FLAT
FACE acquisition radar, four vans, and
associated missile transport vehicles.
The launch positions are usually ar-
ranged in a trapezoidal configuration
around the LOW BLOW radar.
The low altitude assessment of the
S\-:3 system is based on technical
analysis of the missile's performance,
the use of FLAT. FACE as the acquisi-
tion radar, and the mounting of the LOW
BLOW and" FLAT FACE radars on 70-
foot towers or lower mounds at the SA-3
sites in order to avoid radar masking by
nearby terrain or trees.
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND
As of December 1959 the USSR had a
new surface-to-air missile (SAM) sys-
tem under development at the Kapustin
Yar Missile Test Range.1 Subsequent
information has revealed that this system
differed in size, configuration, elec-
tronics-, missile, and launch equipment
from the prokiously developed SA-1 and
SA-2 SAM systems; The two develop-
mental SAM launch 'Isites, A and B, con-
sisted of four road i served launch posi-
tions arranged around a centrally located
guidance control area. (See figure 1.)
Launch Site A had' four launch revet-
ments positioned around a large circular
guidance revetment. Each launch revet-
ment and its access road form a "T" with
the launch revetment at one end of the
"T" bar and the other half probably used
to position the missile delivery vehicle
prior to backing into the launch revet-
ment. Site A was unoccupied and in-
complete at that time.
TOP SECRI
25X1 C
25X
 TOP SECRET
I igurc I SA-3 LAUNCH AREA AT KAPUSTIN YAR/VLAUIMIROKVA
MISSILE TEST CENTER.
 25X1 D
25X1 C
TOP SECRET
Launch Site B had four nonrevetted
launch pads positioned like "saw teeth"
along a semicircular Iaccessroad. All the
pad-s were occupied by some equipment
and one pad had what appeared to be two
missile-like objects approximately 25
feet long. Two other' pads had what ap-
peared to be covered missile launchers.
The fourth pad had an unidentified object
parked on it. Located to the rear of the
complex was a Square, hipped-roof
building which had a possible radar and
three vans parked in front of it. The
radar, not a FAN SONG, seemed to be
offset on a pedestal with at least one large
antenna and what appeared to be a large
feed mechanism. At that time, Launch
Site B was probably there search and de-
velopment test site and appareu.ly served
for the development of the ne\)v missile
system: Launch Site A was probably the
prototype site. The SA-3 SAM system,
which employs a modified version of the
Launch Site A configuration, has been de-
ployed to. more than 100 sites throughout.
the USSR.
Even though almost all of the major SA-
3 components have' been identified, a
complete analysis of the SA-3 system ca
pability is not possible at this time. This
RAD.R:S
Two radars have been associated with
the SA-3 system. One of these, nicknamed:
LO\V BLOW, is a n e w radar that is
believed to be the missile-tracking.tar-
get-tracking, and guidance radar. It pro-
bably utilizes the track-while-scan
principle also used in the SA-1 and SA--2
systems. (See figures 2 and 3.) The other
is the well-known FLAT FACE: it pro-.
bably performs the acquisition function
when used with an SA-3 site.
LO\V BLOW is' the guidance radar
associated with the SA-3 system and has
been- seen and photographed at several of
the SA-3 sites in the USSR. 2-8- A radar
photographed at Fili Airfield near Mos-
cow w a s probably the .LO\V BLOW
radar. (See figure 4.). Unfortunately
man3, details of the radar are notvisible.
in the available photographs, but enough'
features are distinguishable to determine
the general configuration of the various
antennas. (See figure 5.)
The overall height of LO\V BLO\\'
appears to be 25 feet. The antenna array
appears to consist of at least four radiat-
ing elements. T w 0 F:\N SONG-like
"troughs" are mutually perpendicular
and at a 45? angle to the horizontal in
an inverted-V configuration. Of the two
dish antennas, one is located above the
apex of the "troughs," and the other is
located in the angle of the inverted-V'
formed by the "troughs." The upper dish
appears to be a paraboloid that has been
trimmed into a square shape approxi-
mately 5 feet on a side. This dish is
mounted with the sides of the square at
an angle of 45' to the horizontal. This
enables the dish to sit in the angle formed
by the upper edges of the troughs. The
feed arm apparently is erected from one
of the upper edges of the dish.
The lower dish probably is a square
TOP SI?CRLT
25X1 C
 25X1 C
reflector measuring somewhat over 5
feet in each dimension and appears to be
mounted with its edges parallel to the
ground. A feed arm extends from the
bottom of the dis1i supporting a feed
device measuring aout 2 by 2 by 2 feet.
The basic antenna structure apparently
contains a cab to house various radio-
frequency element. The cab and the
antennas are mounted on a column or
tubular support structure. In addition, a
horizontal crossarm is positioned on the
column directly below the cab and the
antennas. This crossarm appears to be
carrying a tank-like objector cab on each
end. The function and purpose of these are
unknown.
The antenna assembly and the cab are
capable of rotation through 360?; and the
antenna's assembly is capable of move-
ment in e 1 -e v a t i on from 0? to 90?
(zenith). 1"? Although the movement of the
square dish cannot be determitled, the
upper dish may be Capable of some
limited independent movement, but-the
lower dish is fixed to the movement of
the."trough" antennas. The horizontal
bar probably is capable of indelendent
movement in azimuth, and the attached
tanks or cabs are Ipparently capable of
motion above and )elow the level of the
horizontal- support arm. The whole an-
tenna installation seems to be mounted
on a platform which, in some views, re-
sembles a' wheeled trailer. (See figure 6.)
The function of the LOW BLOW antenna
system is obviously to track targets 'and
to control the associated missile. The
"trough" antennas are adaptations of the
track-while-scan antenna system used in
T4", ?? ~: r
25X1 C
the FAN SONG radar. Their orientation
at -45? introduces some interesting pos-
sibilities as to ground reflection effects.
The geometry of the situation shows that
the image beam is removed to a plane at
90? to the plane of the incident beam and
that interference patterns are confined
to a small elevation-angle region. The
upper limit of this region does not vary
with the extent to which the direct beam
penetrates the ground, as is the case with
a vertical fan beam. There is a further
consideration that if the target is in a
clutter region, LO\V BLO\V would have
an equal clutter power on each beam.
Compared with FAN SONG,, the increase
of clutter in one beam would be well com-
pensated by the, decrease *in the other.
If the two antennas of the Fili Airfield
radar', which superficially resemble the
FAN -SONG but are smaller, were. canted
45? to the right,'. they would then very
nearly be identical to the. LOW BLOW
antennas at the SA-3 sites. l' (See figure
7.) It is possible, but unlikely, that the
45? canted position of the LOW BLOW
antenna "troughs" is the stowed or non-
operating ?
position and that the vertical-
horizontal position is, the operating
position.
The two parabolic dishes, in any case,
probably are concerned with the trans-
mission of guidance data to the missiles
and possibly' with some form of early
tracking. There. have been no signals
intercepted which can be definitely
ascribed to the LOW BLOW radar. There
are, cu'Frently, signals in S -, C -, and
N-lands' which have been intercepted
under circumstances that lead to a possi-
ble LO\V BLOW association, but position
data are lacking. 1 '
 Fi;urc 3 LOW BLOW RADAR, GRYZNAYA GUBA
SECRET
 SECRET
Tgurc (~ POSSIBLE LOW BLOW RADAR IN TRANSIT
Figure 7 . POSSIBLE LOW BLOW RADAR
FILL AIRFIELD, MOSCOW;
SECRET
 TOP SECRET
25X1 C
FLAT FACE Radar
At several SA-3'sites, a FLAT FACE-
type radar is identifiable. 2-7 11 (See
figure 8.) FLAT -FACE is a mobile radar
mounted on a ZIS-151 box-bodied vehicle.
The antenna system consists of two ellip-
tical paraboloids, each approximately 18
feet by 6 feet '7 inches) high, mounted one
above the other on a t rntable on the front
of the vehicle body In the traveling
'position, the antenna arrays are folded
down across the roof of the vehicle. The
FLAT FACE radar is known to have been
designed and used primarily for detecting
low-flying aircraft targets, and its asso-
ciation with,SA-3 sites strongly suggests
that the SA-3 is a low- to medium-altitude
antiaircraft missile defense system. 1-1-if,
Thus far, the FLAT FACE radar has been
observed operationally in' two different
variants. Which variant is used with the
SA-3 system is not presently known.
The technical parameters of both
FLAT FACE variants are:
(1)
(2)
RF (mc/s):
815-845
.880-900
PRF (pps):
240-290,
560-570,
495-505
598-602,
665-690
PW (micro-
seconds):
1.4
2.4
Scan (seconds
per revolution)
8.5
9.5
Polariza-
tion:
Horizontal
Horizontal
f
.2.5X1 C
TOP SECIIETI
Because of :the nature of radio wave
propagation, pulsed radars which operate
with their beams .on or near the horizon
have a severe problem with ground
clutter obscuring the targets of interest.
Moving target indicators (MTI) can re=
duce this clutter; but in so doing, they
also reduce the sensitivity of the radar,
as well as the range.
MISSILE AND LAUNCHER
Although two missile-like objects were
observed at the SA-3 test site at Kapustin
YaY , no details could be discerned. The
SA-3 site at nlys Set Navolock in the
Murmansk region and the 1964 November
Parade in Moscow have provided configu-
ration details of the missile. 2-6 (See
figures 9, 10, and 11.)
Analysis of the Goa.missile indicates
that it is a two-stage missile utilizing a
solid propellant in both stages. The
missile is about 19.2 feet .long as deter-
mined by photographs and mensuration,
with three .sets of four fins each. The
forward fins are canard surfaces located
about 3 feet from the nose; the wings,
located near the booster-sustainer sep-
aration joint, provide lift and give roll
stabilization through t h e i r pair of
opposed ailerons. The length of the sus-
tainer stage is about 13.6 feet, with a
maximum diameter of 1.2 feet. The
booster is 5.6 feet long, with a diameter
of 1.7 feet. The use of a canard configu-
ration possibly provides the missile with
a more rapid response than the tail-con-
trolled SA-2 missile. The choice of the
canard control may possibly have been
chosen because the use of a solid-
propellant. engine reduced the space
 25X1 C,
TO SECRET
available for a tail control system.
The booster section of the missile
incorporates a flip-back fin feature not
previously observed on Soviet missiles.
The booster fins are mounted with the
leading edge toward the body and are
hinged at the rear to allow for flip-back
_
as the missile lea)1'es the launcher. A
locking device on the trailing edges of
the booster fins secures - them to the
boost body in flight position. The booster
engine, andpossibly the sustainer engine,
utilize an adjustable nozzle throat prob-
ably- similar to that observed on the SA-2
booster. The adjustable nozzle' on the
SA-2 is used to keep propellant burning
time and thrust within required limits
regardless of the ambient air tempera-
ture. They probably have the same use on
the Goa missile.
The warhead fuzing antenna(s) are
possibly located ii a raised rib on the
forward section of the missile. Four
additional antennas are possibly located
on the wing tips. The latter are probably
for the command guidance link. Because
.the warhead section of the missile does
not appear to be laige enough to accom-
modate a nuclear warhead, it is probably
a high-explosive fragmentation type of
about 200 pounds.
The missiles are mounted on a dual-
rail launcher that is trainable in both
azimuth and elevation. Although the evi-
dence is not conclusive, the flame de-
flectors appear to be fixed. The launcher
rail is about 13 feet long, and its apparent
height above the ground is 6 feet. The
launcher is- believed to be road mobile
since objects that appear to be bogies
are visible in an area adjacent to the
site.
25X1 C
GOA NAVAL. ASSOCIATION
The Soviet TV presented a film clip on
9 May 1965 pertaining to weapons devel-
opment, which included an SA-N-1 sur-
face-to-air missile installation on a
Soviet destroyer. This film revealed that
the Goa missile was used as the weapon
in. this system. The SA-N-1, which con-
sists of a multiantenna radar, nicknamed -
PEEL GROUP, and a stabilized dual
launcher, has been observed on the
Kotlin, the Kynda, and the Kashin class
destroyers since 1963. The dual launcher
sits over a magazine which could hold
approximately 20 Goa missiles. -
MISSILE TRANSPORTER
A loaded missile transporter _ was
photographed at the Moscow November
1964 parade, at Mys Set Navolock in
March 1964, and earlier (in a covered
state) at; G r y z n a y a G u b a and
Odessa. 5-7 The missiles are mounted
at a small angle (approximately 5?)with
the missile nose protruding over the
truck.cab. The transporter is of the ZIL-
157 family; it transports two missiles at
?a time. (See figure 12.) Vehicle chocks
are probably used to align the transporter
for off-loading the missiles onto the
launchers.
GUIDANCE AND CONTROL
VANS
'In' the central guidance and control
revetment, three and possibly four vans
(in addition to the LO\V BLO\V radar) are
located, probably to :house the guidance
and control center and power source for
These vans are fairly
the site.
I'OI' SE'CIUll, '
 Figur~ S FLATFACE RADAR, MYS SET NAVOLOK
Figure 9 SA-3 SITE, MYS SE -1 NAVOLOK, WITH GOA MISSILES
ON LAUNCHERS
 Figure 11 GOA MISSILE
SECRET
SECRET
25X1 C
 25X1 C I
la -ge and appear to be towed vehicles.
(See figure 5.) Because of their central
location, their proximity to the LOW
BLOW radar, and their cable connections
to the launch area, they could function as
the site weapons control center and house
the computer and other electronic equip-
ment.
COMMUNICATIONS
At two of the SA-3 sites studied,
Mercury Grass communications anten-.
nas have been observed, 4 6 The Mercury
Grass communication system, desig-
nated R401/M by the Soviets, is alsd used
at all of the SA-2 sites; hence, its iden-
tification at some of the SA-3 sites
indicates that it is probably used at all
of the SA-3 sites.
The VHF multichannel communica-
tions (Mercury Grass) of 20 September
1963, servicing Soviet SAM elements in
the Crimean area of the Southwestern Air
Defense District, provided the identifica-
tion of the Sevastopol SA-3 SAM site. '7-
25X1 C
SITE CONFIGURATION
Thus far, three different basic site
configurations with" several, variations
have been identified fo the SA-3 missile
system. Two of the site configurations
25X1 C.
are basically modifications of Launch
Site A observed at Kapustin Yar in 1959.
(See figures 13, 14, and 15.) These sites,
or launch complexes, consist of.. four
launch pads arranged in a trapezoidal
pattern or in a circular "buzz saw"
pattern around a central guidance and
control revetment. 13 Generally, each
launch pad is revetted and occupied by a
dual launcher. The central guidance and
control revetment is occupied by a LOW
BLOW radar and four vans. Another large
revetted area, which is located at the
approach to the -trapezoidal launch zone,
is used as the missile hold area and has
been seen with the probable missile
transporter vehicles in it. All launch
positions are road served, and it ispos-
sible that the long road also serves as a
missile hold area. .
The other configuration observed is
circular with the four launch positions
spaced equally around the circular road.
Inside the circle is the guidance and con-
trol equipment. A 'site of this type has.
been observed near Mosco,,v and may
serve as the training site for the Moscow
area. The number of on-site support
facilities is small in comparison with
SA-2 sites and these facilities consist
generally of at .least one large building
and several smaller buildings. Thus far,
a specific support facility on the order of
an SA-2 support facility has not been
identified for the SA-3 system. It is
possible that some of the SA-2 support
facilities may serve the SA-3 sites as,
for example, the support facility adjacent
to the SA-2 site at Palanga.13
The Palanga SA-2 SAM Site, A03, is
located immediately east - of Palanga
Airfield . at 55?58' 48 " N /21'06'25 ". E.
The Palanga SA-3 SAM Site, _103, . is
TOP SECRET
 TOP SECRE
25X1 C ~`-
located immediately north-northeast of
Palanga Airfield at 55?59 - 30 " N/
21?05'50" E. Is Their support facilities
are grouped in three areas: Area A,
which includes facilities associated with
the SA=3 site; and Areas B and C, which
include facilities associated with the
SA-2 site. All three of the areas are
connected by roads to each other and to
the surrounding country. (See figure 16.)
This area, or complex,' contains six
buildings, an earthen mound probably
used for acquisition radar, and the SA-3
site. The six buildings range in size from
20 by 20 to 100 by 30 feet. The largest
of the buildings (100 by 30 feet) is prob-
ably a vehicle shed. It is located :on the
site access road and is connected to the
road by a service apron. The exact
function of the remaining five buildings,
located about 200 feet south of the SA-3
site, cannot be determined at this time.
There are no indications of security
measures at either the SA-3 site or at
any of the buildgs.
Area B,
This area, or. complex, is located to
the east of Palanga Airfield, immediately
north-northeast of the SA-2 site, and 0.5
nautical mile south-southeast of the SA-,3
site. It contains a secured section with
three buildings serviced by a generally
circular service road, six other buildings
outside the security fence, and a POL
storage area. -
The nine buildings in the area range in
size from 30 by 20 feet to 240 by 75 feet.
TOP SECRET
Within the secured section of this area,
the largest_of the three buildings (240 by
75 feet) is adjacent to the generally cir-
cular road and connected to it'by a service
apron: The next largest building (70 by
60 feet) is located on the road and is
probably a drive-through type. The
smallest building feet) is located
adjacent to the road, but the exact manner
in which 'it is served cannot be deter-
mined. An overhead probable, pipeline
connects a 60 by 30 foot.. building located
outside the fences with an undetermined
point inside the secured area. -
This- area, or complex, is located
immediately east of Palanga Airfield and
contains the Palanga SA-2 site together
with 14 associated buildings.
ELEVATED ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
Of the 100 or- so deployed SA-3 sites,
several have a serious radar masking
problem caused by terrain features or
high trees-which would interfere with low-
altitude intercepts. Several of these sites
were modified in 1963 and 1964 by the
construction of a tower 55 to 70 feet tall
in the guidance area."' 20 The towers
appeared to have dark objects on top.
(See figures 17 and 18.) At all of these
sites, a second tower was constructed
of -the same apparent height. and at a
-distance of from 500 to 800 feet to the
rear of the first tower, and these too
appeared to have an object on top. (See
figure 19.)
Recent photography of the S_A-3 site
25X
25X1 C
 SECRET
TRAIL PROBABBLE RADAR
MOUND WITH
RE V ETTED LAUNCHER
LAUNCH
POSITION
SA-3
SAM
SITE
POL
~ %WORAGE
AREA
FENCE
LINE
4F F-RO XII.IA TE
OVERHEAD
FR O BABL E ----/~I
PIPELINE /=I
11 VEHICLES -~
75'
165'
J 30' X 20
15 240c ? 75' r5V ENIr C
- --- - --7
rA R E A -C q5, -.35
ZO0 0 200 400 600 Poo
FEET I A F D R O X I M A T E I
PALANG)I SA-3 SITE
Figure 16
SA-3/SA-3 SUPPORT. FACILITY
PALANGA, USSR
A T H L E T I C
FIE LO
25X1?)
IIIC'
T R A I L
F-110 X
THROUGH
BUILDING,
70? . cc'
25X1
25X1
SECRET :
 25X1 C
on Kildin Island at Leningrad reveals
that the LO\V BLO\V' guidance radar and
the FLAT FACE acquisition radar are
mounted on the two towers constructed
at this site. 2 1 (See figures 20 and 21.)
Large earthen mounds about 25 feet high
with long ramps leading to the top have
been constructed at six other SA-3 sites
in the USSR.`' ; (See figure 22.) Atone
of these sites, Palanga A03-3, aprobable
FLAT FACE r a d,a r has bden iden-
tified. 13 (See figure 14.)
In In tower sriiilar to
those observed at Leningrad was seen
at the SA-3 developmental complex at the
Kapustin Yar Surface-to-Air Missile
Test Range. 19 Subsequently
a probable radar was mounte on top o
this tower. 24 A tentative negation date
for this development is This
tower is ixi the guidance area of Launch
Complex B, which has been assessed as.
the SA-3 research sand development site
at the range, indicating that the radar
masking and/or ground clutter problem
was serious enough to require additional
developmental activity at the range.
TOP SECRE
as low as 300 to 500 feet at 15 to 20
nautical mile ranges. That the Soviets
intend to 'utilize the full low-altitude
capability of the FLAT FACE is
suggested by the emplacement of FLAT
FACE radar at Palanga and elsewhere
on an earthen mound. At the Mys Set
Navolock and Gryznaya Guba sites, the
FLAT FACE radars are on a hill over-
looking the sea, and their low-altitude
detection capability is thereby enhanced
at those locations. In addition, at those
sites where the LOW BLOW radars are
on towers, the FLAT FACE is also tower
mounted.
A further indication that the SA-3 was
probably designed to have a very-good
low-altitude capability is the effort
expended to overcome radar masking
caused by trees and terrain features.
Towers were constructed at the Kapustih
Yar SAM Test Range and at several de-
ployed sites, especially in the Leningrad
area. Analysis of a few of these sites
indicates that prior to the construction
of towers, target aircraft below. 1,000
feet were affected by the mask. After the
construction of the towers, the radar
mask essentially disappeared, and tar-
gets below 1,000 feet would be capable
of being detected by the SA-3 radars.
The emplacement of the LO\V BLOW
radar on the towers is another indication
that the SA-3 was intended for low-alti-
tude defense; if it were an acquisition
problem alone, then only the FLAT FACE
radar would have been raised. The
modified sites strongly suggest that the
..USSR was concerned about coverage
below 1,000 feet and that radar coverage
by the guidance radars extends down to
200 or 300 feet at all sites and down to
ground or to sea level at a few of the
sites.
MISSION
There are'several indications that the
SA-3 missile system was probably de-
signed to engage aircraft targets at low
to medium altitudes out to ranges of 10
to 15 nautical miles. The acquisition
radar deployed with the SA-3 missile
system is the FLAT FACE, an ultra-high
frequency set that is the most effective
Soviet acquisition ! set at low altitudes.
Although the FLAT FACE has been em-
ployed in a variety of 'roles, it was
designed primarily for the detection and
tracking of low-;flying aircraft. Re-
portedly, it is capable of tracking-targets.
25X1 C
 25X1 C
Assuming that the choice of the FLAT
FACE as the SA-3 acquisition radar is
by design rather than by accident, then
the SA-3 has a low altitude (300 to 500
feet) role to perform. Similarly, the
high-altitude performance of the FLAT
FACE suggests an upper limit for the
SA-3 system, in this case, medium
altitude. The Goa missile, based on
photography and reasonable assump-
tions regarding the control and pro-
pulsion system, probably has a level of
performance adequate to intercept within
the altitude capabilities of the FLAT
FACE. The intercept capabilities of the
SA-3 system will, in the final analysis,
be directly dependent on the design of
the LOW BLOW and the missile control
system. There is presently insufficient
evidence to assess'ithe very low altitude
capability (50 feet) of either the LOW
BLOW or the FLAT FACE radars.
indicates that the SA-3 has an air defense
role different from either the SA-1 or
SA-2 systems, for in no case is the SA-3
the sole SAM system defending a target.
Although a few of the SA-3's are col-
located (within 1 . nautical mile) with SA-1
or SA-2 sites, all SA-3 sites are well
within the medium-to high-altitude area
coverage of'both the S ~-1 and SA-2 sites.
The SA-3 missile, system has. been
deployed in limited numbers in a few
selected peripheral aieas,to cover, I air-
craft penetration routes and at Leningrad
and Moscow. The reason for the slow
deployment rate is not known, It could
have been caused by the increased . low-
-altitude performance recently noted in
the SA-2 system. In any case, the number
of SA-3's to. be deployed has been
estimated to be not so extensive as the
SA-2 system, probably on the order of
200 at the most.
25X1 C
 SECRET
1OF4
r POSSIBLE SUPPORTS
10.2
32.3
TREE LINE
LOW BLOW RADAR
WHEEL BASE 131
POSSIBLE
STRUCTORE
OR SHEETING
I I \ i~ I \~`\ I
110.2
vi~ I\~ \ I I 39.4 ESTIMATED
.~/.; I \~\:\ f HEIGHT
110.2
rT/~ r~=_~~yc-
71
10.2
II