Talk:9K33 Osa

It looks like this article has been copied from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/s/sa/sa-8_gecko1.htm

oops, my bad. The article actually has copied its contents from wikipedia. no need to write a new article.

it was a while ago, I don't write Wikipedia articles any more, but I'm pretty sure I wrote this one from scratch. Some of the Russian air defence systems already had articles when I started writing these - such as SA-1, SA-2, SA-7, SA-14, SA-16 and SA-18.. and I think a stub for SA-10.. but I believe I started pretty much all the rest. So yeah, if this article is elsewhere I think they copied it from here. 220.233.81.49 11:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, I had a look at the history. Check out the first few revisions. I did write this one from scratch. 220.233.81.49 12:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, the article says that Gecko uses radar SACLOS guidance as it primary means of targeting. This is not the case: SA-8 targetcing system uses radar and the missile is beam riding, thus being a Semi-active_radar_homing beam-riding missile. For a missile to have SACLOS guidange, it has to be 1) beam riding (be it radar, laser or just an imaginary line) and 2) manually controlled.

I read the description of the guidance mechanism and decided that SACLOS was the correct name for it, but I didn't realize that SACLOS implied manual control. Thanks for fixing it. 220.233.81.49 11:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why should Russian weapons be known primarily by NATO designation? They have official designations. Manufacturer's designation for this weapon is 9K33 Osa, hence the article should be moved to official name. Cmapm 15:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The soviet/russian inventory system is extremely confusing, has multiple alternative names for design bureau, factory, procurement bureau and military registers. This was done to make imperialist espionage more difficult. Sometimes even experts have trouble following the cryptic relation of russian codes. The NATO naming system is a handy simplification for an encyclopaedia mostly read by layman. 82.131.210.162 12:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

> The SA-8 fulfils the same role as the SA-6 `Gainful', but does not replace it, as they were procured almost simultaneously. <

This is not true. The SA-6 has much larger and heavier missiles, up to 35 km erange and are mounted on tracked chassis. The SA-8 is not much ahead of small infrared missiles like the french Mistral. 82.131.210.162 12:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can't remember if this claim is something I wrote as part of the original article. (Sorry, too lazy to check the history). It may well be. If so, then the reason I said this is that I remember there being a site which explained that the Soviet air defence system tended to have three layers, each of which had a higher level of control and defended a larger air space. I believe that SA-6 and SA-8 were both part of the inner-most (battalion-level or similar?) ring of air defence. Thus the statement that they have the same role. This does not mean that they are functionally identical. So, perhaps the statement was confusing and should be clarified, but hopefully you see where I was coming from. 220.233.81.49 11:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, looking back at the history, I didn't write that line, as far as I can tell, so I don't know where it came from. 220.233.81.49 12:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article writes:"The SA-8 was the first mobile air defence missile system incorporating its own engagement radars on a single vehicle." Well, it was the first in the world with this capacity?Agre22 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)agre22Reply

The US MIM-46 Mauler, which did not reach production, included both acquisition/tracking and guidance radars on a modified M113 chassis, was being developed prior to 1965. Perhaps it would be best to say that it was the first such system to reach production?

There are two exaggerations: "...SA-8 units in southern Angola ending South African air superiority" and "...effectively tipping the strategic balance of power between NATO and the Warsaw Pact once again." The SA-8 was only one factor in the SAAF losing apparent air superiority. Other longer-range systems were arguably more significant--the MiG-23, SA-6, SA-3, and advanced air-surveillance radars. The West's acquisition of the SA-8, though useful, was cannot be proven to be a paramount factor in East-West power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.29.1 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

SA-N-4 is associated with the Pop Group radars, not Eye Bowl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.207.109.109 (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Might it be worthwhile including this use of the SA-8 (in this case, in the hands of Syrian Rebels against what appears to be a Syrian Air Force Mi-8 Helicopter) in the article? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b75_1377043093 86.141.114.199 (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

How is an a missile that is effective to 12,000 metres (39,000 ft) considered low altitude? ~Technophant (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

It says that Russia has upgraded the system against spoofing. Can someone clarify what "spoofing" means in this case and maybe link the word to an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hythlodaeus (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Data on systems operated by Poland is woefully out of date. Currently, ALL 64 systems have been upgraded - the last order for a batch of "17 remaining unaltered" systems was placed in 2013 with deliveries in 2014-15. The upgrades include a passive detection channel with daylight and thermal cameras, a laser rangefinder and a Mark XII Mod. 4 IFF. The vehicle receives a new APU and a new AC system. Nothing is known about electronics upgrades beyond completely new, digital consoles for the crew. The last contract for 17 systems cost 76,3 million zloty. In 2013, US dollar hovered just above 3 zloty. Source: http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/aktualnosci/news,1,5843,aktualnosci-z-polski,wzu-sa-zmodernizuje-osy Wa-totem (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

A TEL, transporter-erector-launcher is a truck designed to transport large vertically launched missiles and automatically erect them into launching position, on their base pointing straight upwards. Often the transport then pulls away from the prepared missile, which is ready to launch. This is as opposed to earlier straight transporters which required a crane or second unit to lower and erect the missile, and which was only a transport with a cradle designed to carry the missile. This is not a TEL, and therefore not a TELAR either. It's a missile launcher. It's not a TEL any more than TOW missiles mounted on a Humvee are, or a Chaparral ADV. There is no "erecting" involved, the missiles luch from their tubes when pointed at the target. One could call it a MLRS, but that usually implies unguided rocket artillery. I'd say it's a transporter-launcher and rader, TLAR.

70.16.214.90 (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Confirmed use in 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine. 71.86.87.60 (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply