SA-25 vs SA-29

[MINENAZ16]

Hello,
What is the difference between russian missiles SA-25 (nato code) and SA-29.
On the web both are called 9K333 Verba (russian code).

 

[Eggburt1969]

Unless you have access to classified material, both the US DoD/DIA designations and their NATO reporting names cannot generally be verified.

Due to the above reason, and some mentioned later below, I pretty much ignore both of them and use their domestic designation (GRAU or other Index Code) and their codename if known.

As far as I'm aware, the SA-xx bit is the US DoD/DIA (Department of Defense/Defense Intelligence Agency) designation, whilst the reporting name (codename) is in reality the NATO bit.

The designation/reporting name combinations are often so poor in their accuracy that they don't even represent a (Russian) domestic system!

Those for the S-300 family of systems are a prime example. Example problems are system families are left out, are combined, or the designation/reporting name combination is in reality assigned to an export model?

Most people are not aware of the inaccuracies and problems with verification, and boldly state this or that combination as they have seen on this or that website.

 

[Stargazer5]

Totally agree with Eggburt. NATO reporting names can frequently cause confusion. Two examples I can think of were SS-N-10 and SS_N-14 and AS-10 and AS-12. The first was confusion over what was inside the Krivak I missile launcher. It was through that the missiles for attacking ships were very different to those that would drop torpedoes or depth charges on submarines. In reality they were variations of the same missile so SS-N-10 designation got dropped. The second gives impression that missiles are two separate families when both are of the X-25 family.

Suspect issue was caused by system in which first agency to report on what they think is a new weapon get credit. DoD/DIA other agency only hold the book in effect allowing the next designation in the sequence to be used. Some think they also assign the NATO reporting names, but I am aware of at least one case where an analyst was given honour of attributing a new NATO reporting name to something they had identified. They could have used next name of a list, or skip names to find something they thought more appropriate. Hence SS-N-19 became Shipwreck and SS-N-27A Sizzler. In the case I am aware of they used something else entirely. The intention I suspect is that names should not be so close that they get confused.

Trouble is that NATO reporting names can then mimic the countries own designations you get the submarine with a NATO name of Akula which is the name the Russians give to a completely different submarine, (which has the NATO reporting name of Typhoon). To avoid ambiguity you either have to pad your writing with long explanations or you adopt the producers own designation.