ракета В-В Р-60

[PPV]

Как это не принимали, они же первые вроде в Липецк попали, потом в Белорусию, а оттуда в ЧВВАУЛ.
Или я не прав?

Nazar, принятие на вооружение - это чисто организационный момент, который означает, что некий объект военной техники по результатам проведенных госиспытаний, их выдержал, и специальным правительственным документом признается годным для постановки на вооружение. На основании этого правительственного документа МО выпускает свой собственный ведомственный приказ о принятии на вооружение. Однако, эксплуатация техники в войсках вполне возможна и без принятия ее на вооружение, таких фактов тоже было "вагон и маленькая тележка". Пример - истребитель Су-7 (не путать с ИБ Су-7Б), или целая куча модификаций ФБ Як-28. Ни тот, ни другой на вооружение приняты так и не были, и пребывали в этом состоянии до самого конца своей летной карьеры...
Так было в данном случае и с МиГ-23С. Согласно указанию ГК ВВС, эксплуатация этой машины в строю началась еще до завершения ГСИ. Это была нормальная практика, расчет шел на ускорение освоения и последующее устранение выявленных недостатков. Однако ГСИ шли, недостатки множились и не устранялись без существенной переделки машины. Результатом стало прекращение серии 23С и переход к новой модификации - 23М, которая, наконец-то, смогла благополучно пройти ГСИ, и ее приняли на вооружение.

[AndyK]

Я бы еще как самый известный пример привел Су-25 :-) Эксплуатируется в войсках с 81 года, а официально на вооружение принят только в 87 году.

[Igor_k]

Это с сайта Тома Купера,но,в основном,я думаю,верить можно
: Sun Jul 20, 2003 8:35 am Post subject: R-60/AA-8 APHID (All versions)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sammie
Commodore

Joined: Mar 01, 2002
Posts: 395
From: The Netherlands
Posted: 2002-03-22 07:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was reading latest air internationa, in it was a article about the Finnish AF. It showed an BAe Hawk with an R-60 missiles.

Now I was wondering why they still used such an missiles, it is old, soviet era, and not very effective.

While searching in this forum I couldn't find an topic about the R-60, or is it hidden somewhere?

So why not start a discussion about it. And I have a question, the Indonesian Af has got R-60's to I geuss and Hawks, do they also use them in this combination...

************************************************** ***********

Keshel
Charter Member

Joined: Mar 01, 2002
Posts: 1063
From: Poland
Posted: 2002-03-23 08:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say it's crap. It isn't up to current standards (R-73, Python 4, or even AIM-9M) but it's usefull for strike and CAS aircraft cause it doesn't weigth much and can be carried without limiting payload.

This is an interesting missile and I'm suprised that there wasn't any threads about it.

************************************************** ***********

RistoJ
Charter Member

Joined: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 10
From: Finland
Posted: 2002-03-26 04:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the Finnish AF is slowly phasing this missile out while not planning serious use for the Hawks in the war-time anymore. Hawks were to be used for point-defence, light recon and other such duties in the time of war while Drakens and MiG-21s were the main fighters. Now that we have F-18C/Ds, Hawks are only used for training. Not that they would've been much use anyway, but they might have been useful for helo-hunting and maybe in some rare situations against attack aircraft. For this the R-60 was a suitable missile especially for those Hawk Mk.51s we have. It probably was very cheap compared to even AIM-9Js we had for our Drakens and better for this role than Atolls and Advanced Atolls we had for our MiGs before R-60s.

It's definitely not a bad missile, but being quite old and very small leads to lesser capability than say R-73 or AIM-9L. It was useful for small fighters like MiG-21 and it has been used succesfully in combat. Of course it hasn't been any world-beater ever though.

************************************************** ***********

Tom
ACIG Team

Joined: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 4348
From: Vienna, Austria
Posted: 2002-03-26 05:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lajes will certainly be able to tell us much more about the R-60, but if I'm to ask, this is one of not so many exSoviet weapon of confirmed quality.

Last year, Hungarian AF trained firing almost ten-years old R-60s (not maintained since their delivery; some 25 or so rounds were fired during the training in Poland), and over 90% functioned flawlessly.

Hawk with R-60?
I'd say an excellent combination for training pilots, or even for point-defence.

Are there any details about the work needed to make the R-60 compatible with the Hawk?

************************************************** ***********

anaconda
Contributor

Joined: Mar 05, 2002
Posts: 991 Posted: 2002-03-26 12:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this missile very effective? It has a small war head that would make difficult to knock out a large aircraft. I think its a good choice for helo hunting though. Was it ever mounted on the mi-24 hind?

Back to top


ACIG Data-Base
Site Admin


Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 2483

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2003 8:38 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keshel
Charter Member

Joined: Mar 01, 2002
Posts: 1063
From: Poland
Posted: 2002-03-26 14:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All kind of modifications were tried out on the mi-24. It's a good chance that some included R-60s for self defence

************************************************** ***********

Tom
ACIG Team

Joined: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 4348
From: Vienna, Austria
Posted: 2002-03-27 09:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact, Anaconda, exactly the point with the Mi-24s being modified with the R-60 for air-to-air role, and not with AT-6 is one of the strongest arguments against the claim by the Iraqis and exSoviets, that one of the Iraqi Mi-24s (which were never delivered, BTW; Iraqis only used the Mi-25s) shot down an Iranian F-4D.

In fact, after the Mathias Rust affair, many Mi-24s stationed in Russia were equipped for the carriage of the R-60.

In total, the R-60 was an excellent helo-killer: almost all the exSoviet kills against Iranian helicopters were obviously scored with it, and also many Iraqi kills against the same opponents.

Newest rumours say that even the Pakistani Atlantique, intercepted and shot down by two IAF MiG-21s, two years agao, was also shot down by R-60s - and not R.550s as believed so far.

************************************************** ***********

Juan Sosa
Contributor

Joined: Mar 01, 2002
Posts: 165
From: Venezuela( Now in Daytona Beach, FL)
Posted: 2002-03-27 11:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-60 also gave the SAAF a quite nasty intruduction to all-aspect WVR when two Mirage F.1CZ tried to intercept two MiG-23s. The Angolan fighters turned into the Mirages and fired one R-60. This missile hit and damaged one of the CZs.

************************************************** ***********

PhantomII
Charter Member

Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: 548
From: United States
Posted: 2002-03-27 18:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the R-60 was later updated to a standard more comparable to the AIM-9L/M. This version is known as R-60M. The R-60 can be carried on the MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27, MiG-29, Su-27, Mi-24, and I believe the Ka-50.
_________________
ACIG Team

Back to top


ACIG Data-Base
Site Admin


Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 2483

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2003 8:42 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RistoJ
Charter Member

Joined: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 10
From: Finland
Posted: 2002-03-28 02:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found a picture of FAF Hawk Mk 51 with CATM R-60.



It's from the excellent Fighter Tactics Academy web-site, whose web-master is FAF Hornet pilot. The main page is at http://www.sci.fi/~fta/ and it has huge amount of pictures and info of different things. Of course the main focus is on FAF and it's history and aircraft, but it's all in English.

Oh, with some more search I found these pictures of FAF Hawks with different IR AAMs. From what I have heard, Hawks didn't require any serious mods to accept R-60s. Actually there was some talk few years back of equipping Hawks with R-73s! Nothing came of it and I don't think it would've been very cost efficient.







These pictures are from FAF web-page.



************************************************** ***********

Slick
Contributor

Joined: Mar 03, 2002
Posts: 310 Posted: 2002-03-28 21:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually "aircraft knocker" is piece of depleted uranium in it.

************************************************** ***********

Tom
ACIG Team

Joined: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 4348
From: Vienna, Austria
Posted: 2002-03-29 03:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly that is the reason why do I believe more and more, that in the case of the SAAF Mirage F.1AZ hit by Angolan MiG-23MLs in late summer 1987, the R-23 was used, and not the R-60:

- the missile, launched from the forward hemisphere, exploded while passing by the plane which was almost as supersonic speed.

The R-60 would not explode...

What I mean is that the R-60 has a DU "warhead". I'm not sure it is to destroy the target by the mean of explosion - but that it might rather need a direct hit in order to deliver the decisive blow.

I'm not sure about this, however, but if this is indeed the case, then it was not a R-60 that was used against SAAF Mirages on that occassion.

************************************************** ***********

Tom
ACIG Team

Joined: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 4348
From: Vienna, Austria
Posted: 2002-04-16 18:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aha,
I apparently managed to find out that about the warhead of the R-60 finally.

It should have a 3.5kg warhead which probably contains around 1kg of high explosive, plus the depleted uranium fragmenation casing. Now the casing is pretty heavy for its size, but this kind of a warhead makes its explosive weight to mass ratio very small.

So, it does explode, but I think I'm still right that it has to hit the target into the cockpit or the intake for a kill.

Of course, one could say that the warhead of the FIM-92A Stinger is certainly five or six times smaller, yet it downed many large and multi-engined aircraft too, but that warhead is of a completely different construction...

Last edited by ACIG Data-Base on Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:23 pm; edited 1 time in total

Back to top


troung
*Air Staff* ACIG


Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 10879
Location: Somewhere in CE-VA
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 6:54 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How efftitcve were the R-60/M/MK in combat with Iran?

To me the missile looks pretty small so I wonder how lethal it could be on a F-4D/E/RF or F-14A.

Back to top


Lajes
Honourable Member


Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 354
Location: Hungary
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2003 2:56 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the R-60MK (not the R-60 or R-60M versions!!!!!) DU warhead:

The high impact energy of the DU fragments are important, in the same way as DU projectiles.

However, the Soviet process of uranium enrichment (of which DU is a byproduct, containing mostly U 238) was not so good, so a lot of isotophes of uranium 235 remained in the DU, resulting intense radiation. The storage area therefore was restricted for 15 minutes staying.

The Hungarian AF got a few dozen of them (R-60MK) in 1993 with the MiG-29s, but because of the storage restrictions used up all during the first shooting in Poland. Later firings involved the older R-60M versions of which quite number were available purchased during the WP years in the 80s.

Beside the DU warhead, R-60MK used electrothermic (Peltier-principle) cooling of it's Komar seeker, increasing acquisition ranges, and improving FQ capabilities.


Lajes

Back to top


Tom
*Editor* ACIG Journal


Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 12357
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2003 10:52 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

troung wrote:
How efftitcve were the R-60/M/MK in combat with Iran?

To me the missile looks pretty small so I wonder how lethal it could be on a F-4D/E/RF or F-14A.


This remains unclear: the Iraqis begged for R-60s for most of the war, indicating that they haven't got any, or only very late, or only very few (probably for use on MiG-25s initially, then more with the first six MiG-29s, which started arriving in 1987).

But, in general, most of the available SRAMs proved insufficient to shot down a plane like F-4 or F-14: cases are known where a Phantom survived three or four R-13s and/or R.550s exploding nearby, or an F-14 going down only after five or six direct and indirect hits by Super 530s and R.550s. MiG-25s proved also survivable: at least two survived the blast of AIM-54s detonating nearby for sufficient time to fly over the Iraqi border and crash there, and one even survived one of the fins being clipped away by the Phoenix that failed to detonate (that Foxbat then crashed during the attempted emergency landing): this happened pretty often, but the usual result of such hit against any other MiG or Sukhoi in Iraqi arsenal was disintegration of the aircraft.

Considering this, I'd say the R-60 would have not much chance against specific targets, except hitting the pilot into the heart (or the target in the central fuel tank).
_________________
Tom Cooper
Editor, ACIG.org

Back to top


Jussi Saari
Airman


Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 14
Location: Lappeenranta, Finland
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2003 8:53 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds rather strange, IMHO.

Tom, how trustworthy do you rate your sources and for the most part, do you have more evidence than their word for it that aircraft frequently survived 3 or more hits? This seems to be quite strange especially considering the totally different results from Vietnam where any K-13 hits usually destroyed whatever targets they hit (including F-4s), either immediately or going down shortly after the hit. The number of aircraft that took a K-13 and survived even long enough for the crew to eject over friendly territory were quite a small fraction indeed... also comparing the results to Desert Storm, IR-homing SAMs destroyed even A-10s about 30-50% of the time they were hit...

Only two explanations I could think of for totally different results: one is more proximity detonations due to different tools and nature of the air war (expanded engagement envelope of R-13M/M1 resulting in less favourable intercept geometries and possibly more hits as a result of dogfights rather than surprise rear-aspect GCI attacks). But even then one would expect aircraft often not going down from a single hit and maybe surviving a second AAM/SAM every now and then but not 4, 5 or 6 hits.

The other possibility that comes to mind is that some people are simply telling war stories and exaggerating...

Back to top


Leszek
Correspondent


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 367
Location: Poland
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:37 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if an aircraft survives a missile hit, it will be more often than not disabled from combat. I prefer to hit and wound my target with an R-60 than to miss it with an R-3/13.
_________________
Your friendly moderator

Back to top


Tom
*Editor* ACIG Journal


Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 12357
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2003 6:02 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jussi Saari wrote:
Sounds rather strange, IMHO.

Tom, how trustworthy do you rate your sources and for the most part, do you have more evidence than their word for it that aircraft frequently survived 3 or more hits?

The leading Iranian "ace", (then) Maj. Jalal Zandi's F-14 was hit or damaged by at least three - but probably four or five - R.550s and Super 530F-1s during his last combat (in which he shot down two Mirages) before he managed to disengage: the plane crashed only while Zandi was flying it back to Bushehr, several minutes - and well over 100km - after the battle.

Given that he was known as a brazen, but excellent officer, open and direct in communication with his superiors, and top pilot, that he never had even a slightest chance for getting promoted during the war but was instead imprisoned by the regime at least three times between 1980 and 1988, that most of his nine confirmed and three probable kills were never officially credited to him (actually, they were discredited by the regime, removed from his log-books, and instead credited to different IRGC units, which were never even near the area) etc., etc., Zandi really had many reasons to lie and exaggerate about his feats....

Quote:
This seems to be quite strange especially considering the totally different results from Vietnam where any K-13 hits usually destroyed whatever targets they hit (including F-4s), either immediately or going down shortly after the hit. The number of aircraft that took a K-13 and survived even long enough for the crew to eject over friendly territory were quite a small fraction indeed... also comparing the results to Desert Storm, IR-homing SAMs destroyed even A-10s about 30-50% of the time they were hit...

That's all very nice. I can foremost talk about what was going on during the IPGW, however. Here the excerpt from the book "Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988", p.220, Chapter 10, sub-chapter "Tomcat to the Rescue", based on narrative by an IRIAF pilot that preferred to remain anonymous:

Hardly two days later, on 15 July (1987), the IrAF reportedly started a very large strike against Khark/Bushehr area. Tehran later reported a "major aerial battle" over the Persian Gulf, but with no aircraft reported shot down by either side. Supposedly, the Iraqi strike was driven away, forcing Iraqi pilots to abort their original mission. As it seems, that was indeed a major air combat, but only in the sense of the number of Iraqi aircraft involved.
On that morning, Iranian GCI detected an Iraqi strike package, including seven Su-22s and four Mirage F.1EQs, closing from the north. Only one F-4E was on alert at Bushehr, but the crew scrambled and flew at high speed to the north. Closing on the first section of enemy formation, the Iranian pilot noticed his radar was unable to achieve a lock-on due to enemy electronic countermeasures, thus he was forced to get closer and engage with Sidewinders, firing his missiles when approaching close enough. There was no time to follow the path and see if any scored a hit, as the WSO warned the pilot of several enemy fighters closing from another side. The pilot turned the Phantom around towards the closest bandit, passed above it and made a rollaway from the direction of turn, reacquiring the enemy and opening fire with his 20mm Vulcan cannon. At the same time, the WSO warned the pilot of two other Mirages overhead, at a range of around 1.000m/3,000ft and distancing. Seeing bullets hitting the fuselage of Iraqi fighter in front of him - which apparently caused it to crash - the Iranian pilot maneuvered to engage the Mirage. The Phantom's fuel and gun ammunition were alarmingly low, while the enemy was disengaging. Thus the decision was brought to turn back to the base. But while the F-4 was making a final turn before heading home, it was simultaneously hit by several missiles: the crew had disastrously forgotten to check their six! Both wings and most of control surfaces were badly damaged and hydraulics partially down, but the pilot kept the plane under control and landed it back safely in Bushehr several minutes later.

Quote:
Only two explanations I could think of for totally different results: one is more proximity detonations due to different tools and nature of the air war (expanded engagement envelope of R-13M/M1 resulting in less favourable intercept geometries and possibly more hits as a result of dogfights rather than surprise rear-aspect GCI attacks). But even then one would expect aircraft often not going down from a single hit and maybe surviving a second AAM/SAM every now and then but not 4, 5 or 6 hits.
I'm also not saying this "always" happened, nor every single F-4 and F-14 survived every single hit: the two F-14As shot down on 19 July 1988, for example, were both brought down by a single Super 530D. The fact is, however, that there is also photographic evidence for amount of damage suffered by different F-4s and F-14s: there were holes in the wings that a man could stand in the middle of them etc.

Quote:
The other possibility that comes to mind is that some people are simply telling war stories and exaggerating...
Of course: especially when pictures confirm their words...
_________________
Tom Cooper
Editor, ACIG.org

Back to top


Sammie
Contributor


Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 482
Location: The Netherlands
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 6:52 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*bump*

I've been reading some articles in the ACIG Journal lately and in the story Airwar over Nagorniy - Kharabakh is said that the R-60 was used in the anti-tank role.

I was wondering how that worked. The R-60 has a rather small warhead and is IR guided. How can such a missile, usually deployed from a fast platform, take out a tank. Doesn't a tank have a way to low heat signature for that? And has the R-60 in anti-tank role been used in other wars with good results? And does this mean that other IR guided AAMs can be used for this role?

thanks in advance!
_________________
there is no devil, thats just god when he's drunk

Back to top


RonC
Charter Member


Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 110

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 7:04 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sammy, IR AAMs, such as the Sidewinder and, believe it or not, the old AIM-4D Falcon were used on rare occasions in SEA/Viet Nam to engage armor and other ground heat sources....successfully! In one instance (I spoke directly with the pilot involved), an F-4E fired an AIM-9J at an offending VPA/NVA T-54's engine deck...needless to say, the tank was disabled. In another instance, an F-102A used an AIM-4D Falcon missile to engage a rather large cooking fire at an VPA/NVA base camp, with disastrous results for those individuals around said campfire! So I see no reason why an R-60 could not be used in the same fashion.

[Оскар]

Фотка Ми-24 с Р-60

[Оскар]

Незнаю сколько слышал от летчиков вроде бы они Р-60 сильно не ругали.
МиГ-27М с Р-60М в Талдыке.

[beat2]

какой красавиц!!!

да ещё и 4 сразу несёт!!!

спасибо за фотку

[Observer69]

Незнаю сколько слышал от летчиков вроде бы они Р-60 сильно не ругали.
МиГ-27М с Р-60М в Талдыке.

Да, спасибо за эту фотку. Эти машины я видел с этими же ракетами в этом же Талдыке в 70-х годах... Больше тридцати лет назад!!

[Оскар]

Да, спасибо за эту фотку. Эти машины я видел с этими же ракетами в этом же Талдыке в 70-х годах... Больше тридцати лет назад!!

Ну да в талдыке до сих пор летают, причем интенсивно. В СНГ единственная авиабаза летающая на МиГ-27. Летают и Миг-23УБ в качестве спарок для 27-х. Самлеты прошли капремонт.

[Chizh]

Фотка Ми-24 с Р-60

Это музейная самодеятельность.
Ракеты Р-60 пускаются АПУ-60-1 или АПУ-60-II, а не с направляющих ПТУР.

[Оскар]

Это музейная самодеятельность.
Ракеты Р-60 пускаются АПУ-60-1 или АПУ-60-II, а не с направляющих ПТУР.

Это и ежу понятно

[Igor_k]

Во-первых,извиняюсь за слишком длинную нарезку,но форум закрытый,так что просто ссылку не поставить.
А здесь ответ,хоть и неполный топикстартеру по поводу использования Р-60 на И-Б
http://forums.airbase.ru/2010/05/t62...m-11.2801.html

[МиГ-23]

Фотка Ми-24 с Р-60

Первое изображение я вижу Ми-24 на R-60 ракет Теперь, если я думаю, я мог бы сбит иракским F-4

[Igor_k]

недавно наткнулся на такую статистику:
Подавляющее большинство пусков Р-3С осуществлялось сзади с малых дальностей (1200 — 2500м), лишь 5% атак выполнялось с дистанций более 2500м
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/r3c/r3c.shtml
Тут речь шла о Вьетнаме.А есть ли какая-то статистика по ближневосточным войнам -какую дальность пуска можно считать типовой на тот период?

[Кацперский]

Пуск УР осуществляется после входа в зону разрешённых пусков вырабатываемую (по дальности) вычислителем (или глазомерно при неработающем РП). Причём в телефонах должен прослушиваться чёткий (устойчивый) сигнал захвата цели головками самонаведения. На малых высотах пуск рекомендуется на удалениях ближе минимальной разрешённой дальности пуска с внешней стороны манёвра цели (таких большинство). На Ближнем Востоке всё так же должно и быть.

[Fighter]

недавно наткнулся на такую статистику:
Подавляющее большинство пусков Р-3С осуществлялось сзади с малых дальностей (1200 — 2500м), лишь 5% атак выполнялось с дистанций более 2500м
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/r3c/r3c.shtml
Тут речь шла о Вьетнаме.А есть ли какая-то статистика по ближневосточным войнам -какую дальность пуска можно считать типовой на тот период?

Речь идет об успешных пусках. Первое время во Вьетнаме "пуляли" с 5-7 км, и конечно не попадали. Вероятность поражания зависит от мноих факторов, основные из которых ракурс пуска, дальность, перегрузки цели и истребителя. Влияние дальности происходит(если не брать фактор наличия захвата), в основном, через скорость, которую ракета имеет у цели. Во первых, для реализации наведения ракета должна иметь сответствующую располагаемую перегрузку. По неманерирующей цели она должна быть не мее 3 в ЗПС и 5 в ППС. Чем меньше скорость (приборная), тем меньше располагаемая перегрузка, тем больший промах. Второе - вероятность срабатывания и радиус срабатывания неконтактного взрывателя. Они с ростом скорости сближения ракеты с целью (до определенного значения) увеличиваются. Поэтому для ракет типа Р-3С. максимальная вероятность поражения достигалась вблизи минимальной дальности пуска по взведению взрывателя (900 -1000м). Что касается Р-60, пустил я их штук 5, - для своего времени отличная ракета ближнего боя, особенно по сравнению с Р-3С, у которой при перегрузке цели более 3 области стрельбы не существовало, в при перегрузке пуска более 2 (1,6 на высоте) ГСН при сходе теряла цель (нужна была разаритация ГСН на АПУ, которой не было).