SS-23 Spider 9K714 OKA Missile

In the early 1970s, the Soviet Army sought a replacement for the 9K72 Elbrus (SS-1C `Scud B') system, which had a very slow reaction time [around 90 minutes to prepare and fire] and its poor accuracy when using conventional warheads. The replacement system, codename 9K714 Oka, was developed by KB Mashinostroyenia (Machine Industry Design Bureau) in Kolomna. The new 9K714 system featured a reaction time of under 30 minutes and used the low-maintenance solid-fuel 9M714 missile. The 300 km range of the R-300 (`Scud') was surpassed by the 400 km range of the 9M714/R-400.

In the early 1970s the Warsaw Pact had only a limited ability to strike North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) air bases in Europe. However, by the mid-1980s Soviet forces could strike NATO airfields in all types of weather using tactical ballistic missiles (TBMS) such as the SS-21 and the SS-23. NATO had only limited defense against these weapons, some of which were accurate to within 100 meters. The SS-23 has a range of 310 miles, with speeds of 6,800 miles per hour or Mach 9 that can access most locations in a given theater of war.

The Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Nuclear Forces [INF] Treaty was signed on 08 December 1987 and entered into force on 01 June 1988. The fundamental purpose of the INF Treaty was to eliminate and ban US and former USSR (FSU) ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as associated support equipment, with ranges between 500 and 5500 kilometers. SS-12 and SS-23 transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) vehicles were eliminated at Stan'kovo.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• MAZ
• Russian
• Russia
• army
• military
• rocket
• missile
• nuclear
• truck
• Theater
• Tactical
• OKA
• SS-23

[StiviGun1]

@BitnikGr I believe the weapon was presented simply as a future weapon, not future technology. And from what I remember, they did mention the weapon was in development from the '80s. It just didn't get enough funds to be completed earlier. It could've been ready from the early '90s, but the Congress said anti-tank weapons are no longer needed. The fact that the Russians had it only shows even more that political will for weapons procurement was always much higher in Russia than in US.

[BitnikGr]

@StiviGun1 Yes. Sensor-Fusion combat elements. It was field tested in Iraq in 2003.

What is interesting that this weapon was presented as future weapon technology in "Future Weapons". Meanwhile Soviets had such self-guiding anti-tank elements already in service since 1985.

That's one of the clearest examples of the US mass media propaganda.

[StiviGun1]

@BitnikGr Well, the Americans tested such a bomb. It was also featured in one of the Future Episodes. It was designed as an anti-tank weapon. But I don't know if the weapon was ever adopted by the USAF.

[BitnikGr]

@StiviGun1 Difference is in detection and engagement ranges. Altitudes are same in both cases.

No. Those 54 combat elements are non-guided and designed for anti-personnel purpose. For anti-tank purpose it could be fitted with 17 self-guiding combat elements, but such warhead wasn't ever mentioned for Iskander. Self-guiding combat elements remain in cluster munitions for MLRS and Helicopters... maybe in aviation too, but I can't recall any aviation cluster bomb with such elements.

[BitnikGr]

@StiviGun1 If it would be made of same materials and using RAM then yes. OKA hadn't RAM. Its stealth was based pure on small size of its warhead.

Manufacturer claims that Iskander is even stealthier than OKA. But there are no any specific numbers provided. And there are some skeptics about Iskander's stealthiness because of its "lattice-tails". Theoretically they would work as angular deflectors increasing RCS. That's in theory. Reality is unknown.

[StiviGun1]

@BitnikGr 1-20km. Are we talking here about detection altitude or engagement altitude. Because if it can detect it from 20 km and it can intercept it at 5-10 km, it's still more than enough.

54 combat elements. And how are these elements? Do they have independent targeting capability?

[StiviGun1]

@BitnikGr Aha, so this means that Oka was actually more difficult than Iskander.

[BitnikGr]

@StiviGun1 3-13km range... not altitude. Altitude can vary from 1 to 20km. Depends on location of PAC-3 battery regarding target and flight path of TBM.

Cluster munition for Iskander has 54 combat elements.

Multiple warheads variant is possible only in nuclear version of Iskander. Tactical nuclear charge is very small and Iskander can fit up to 3 such charges in dimensions of its regular warhead.

Of course, Iskander is subject to limitations agreed by signed treaties.

[BitnikGr]

@StiviGun1 OKA stealthiness is achieved by small size of its warhead and special radiotransparent cover of warhead's sensors. Engine brakes off after fuel burns out and only warhead flies to the target. Iskander hasn't detachable warhead (in single warhead variants) and it needs its engine in final phase too.

Evasive maneuvers are done only on launch and during last phase. Meanwhile it simply flies changing altitudes, but not with such overloadings.

[StiviGun1]

@BitnikGr BTW, the MSE upgrade will give the system a very good capability against small RCS targets. But even if it could intercept the Iskander at an altitude of 3-13 km, it would still be very good. If the missile explodes at that altitude it will have no impact on the troops beneath it.

But how could Iskander carry multiple warheads? It's too small to have this capability.