Russia - Egypt military contracts

My guess on what equipment their negotiating would be:

Mi-28NE

Mig-35

Iskander-E

S-350 Vityaz

S-400 Triumph

Nice   

Another twist in the fate of "Syrian" S-300PMU-2

If only! One can expect the israelis and yankees will work overtime to try and sabotage any such deal, just like with Iran and Syria... we shall see.

And its official ....

Russia, Egypt Initial Arms Contracts Worth 3.5 Billion

Rianovosti: Rusia exportará a Egipto sistemas antiaéreos S-300VM

iraqidabab wrote:Rianovosti: Rusia exportará a Egipto sistemas antiaéreos S-300VM

My vote for you - you made my day !

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Antej-2500

This picture was my second option when thinking about my avatar picture

This thing is damn brutal and has lots of potential for further upgrades.

Viktor wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Antej-2500

This picture was my second option when thinking about my avatar picture

This thing is damn brutal and has lots of potential for further upgrades.

If Zircon becomes successful, it would be interesting if they could apply some of the same technology to future SAM missiles.

Hi all, an Arab defense forum over here, posted a link to a source from KZ Group that mentions that the 22 vehicles that are being produced currently for a "foreign country" belong to the V4 family! I tried to check it but then I suddenly got struck by the fact that I don't know any Russian lol although I did see a lot of b4 in that article (don't know if the "b" stands for "v" in Russian)!

I'll try to post that link if I come across it again.

Anyway there are a lot of high hopes here for this late arms deal so I wouldn't be surprised if its just a rumor!

G Bob wrote:Hi all, an Arab defense forum over here, posted a link to a source from KZ Group that mentions that the 22 vehicles that are being produced currently for a "foreign country" belong to the V4 family! I tried to check it but then I suddenly got struck by the fact that I don't know any Russian lol although I did see a lot of b4 in that article (don't know if the "b" stands for "v" in Russian)!

I'll try to post that link if I come across it again.

Anyway there are a lot of high hopes here for this late arms deal so I wouldn't be surprised if its just a rumor!

The same number of vehicles are being produced for Russia and for export. Those vehicles intended for export are being painted in desert cammo and thats the reason

for your confusion. Russia started building those 22 export vehicles for Antej-2500 from the begining of this year so I suspect that this may not be a part of this mayor defense deal

but some separate deal struck earlier. Russia is building somewhere from 3 to 5 S-300V4 brigades up to 2020 and during this year first regiment will be delivered.

try this link

Antej-2500 from 2011 is currently the most lethal SAM avaible to export.

That's what I thought of Viktor, I know that the V4's are being produced for the the Russian army and that type is not for export as far as I know, but after (google) translating the link they reffered to from Kz group which said "that the first patch of 10 vehicles belong to the V4 are for a foreign customer" things got messy!

I do have another confusion of my owm though and I would be glad if someone could clear it out for me and that is why most if not all countries (except for Venezuela) prefer the pmu types while when I looked into the differences (mainly official sources) between pmu's and v's, I became in favor of the later one! It seems as if I've overlooked or missing some critical data since the v's aren't really that popular acording to contracts & compared to the P's (forgein wise of course)!!

From what I understand and apart from the major differences between the P's & V's, the Pmu's (up to 2) have a clear advantage over the VM when it comes to the # of engaged targets or is there something else that I've missed?
One unreliable article stated that vm's target RCS starting from 0.04 while as I recall most sources stated 0.02 I think!
I see the VM being a very capable system yet I don't see many ordering it which is something weird, why could that be?!

VM is more of an Anti-Ballistic missile system meant to protect against things like SCUDS, Tochka's, Frogs, etc. It also has the ability to shoot down aircrafts as well, but not nearly as well from what I heard. S-300P series is good at taking down aircrafts and cruise missiles but not entirely that good against ballistic missiles. This is what I have read/heard, not necessarily the truth maybe.

VM is also army and all terrain (hence its tracks) vs P series which is used by airforce.

True, I meant apart from the mobility criteria, the main differences I found as far as I read so far between the s300 PMU2 and the Antey for instance are: 

Target engagement altitude/ jets ( PMU2 begins at 0.01-27 km where the Antey from 0.025-30 km)

Target engagement altitude/ BMs ( PMU2 = 2-27, Antey = 1-30

Target engagement speed ( 2.5 km/s for PMU2 while 4.5 km/s for Antey)

Max tangets to be engaged at once ( 36 for PMU2 and 24 for Antey) when it comes to jets of course!

Engagement range ( PMU2 = 200 km , Antey = 250 km)

And both have the same target RCS engagement (radio cross section) of 0.02

(From what I read the V's in general are very effective against cruise missiles even better than the p's version that's why the PMU1 was upgraded to the later PMU2 to counter the VM and other foreign systems, plz correct me if I'm wrong whether in this matter or the above info)

I'd personaly vote for the Antey for its mobility and adv's over the PMU2 yet somehow when it comes to sales it's clearly the oppsite, which somehow makes me think that I've must of missed some major criteria somewhere in the middle!!
Could it be the future upgrades?! I personaly don't know, all I can see in my head is the word DILEMMA here!

G Bob wrote:That's what I thought of Viktor, I know that the V4's are being produced for the the Russian army and that type is not for export as far as I know, but after (google) translating the link they reffered to from Kz group which said "that the first patch of 10 vehicles belong to the V4 are for a foreign customer" things got messy!

I often use logic where translation fails no matter I miss the point sometimes

G Bob wrote:I do have another confusion of my owm though and I would be glad if someone could clear it out for me and that is why most if not all countries (except for Venezuela) prefer the pmu types while when I looked into the differences (mainly official sources) between pmu's and v's, I became in favor of the later one! It seems as if I've overlooked or missing some critical data since the v's aren't really that popular acording to contracts & compared to the P's (forgein wise of course)!!

From what I understand and apart from the major differences between the P's & V's, the Pmu's (up to 2) have a clear advantage over the VM when it comes to the # of engaged targets or is there something else that I've missed?
One unreliable article stated that vm's target RCS starting from 0.04 while as I recall most sources stated 0.02 I think!
I see the VM being a very capable system yet I don't see many ordering it which is something weird, why could that be?!

Well the this is not the easiest question for anybody.

Thing is that when talking about the the difference between the two a timeframe must be defined but Il do my best and corrections are welcomed.
At first both of them where envisaged to use same parts as more as possible but quickly that turned out to be impossible.

- S-300V where concived around the Army needs and because of that got tracks to go throw rough terrain. S-300 as part of territorial PVO was intended to defend
  cities, industrial centers and because that undestood roads S-300Ps got wheels which is a cheaper solution.

- As S-300V needed to protect Army formation against the massive ballistic and aero-ballistic targets (unlike S-300Ps at first) it turned out to be more complex and expensier system    
  than S-300P. S-300V has one radar more than S-300P system (for anti-ballistic purposes)

- S-300V was from the start able to guide more missiles on more targets than S-300P. (S-300V was true 6 channel system vs S-300 4 channel)

- S-300P is more immune to ECM than S-300V system

- Both systems where designed with an idea to fight aerodynamic targets/cruise missiles/PGM just as same

- S-300V needed more protection than S-300P due to the much higher minimun distance at which he could shoot at targets than S-300P

- S-300V and all other things that accompanied it like (radar troops equipments, radar systems, command posts etc) where of much rudimentaly designed than those of territorial PVO
 as it needed to endure much harsher conditions with minimum maintenance

- S-300P was always from the start more independant system because smallest operational unit is battery unlike regiment with S-300V

- S-300P from the start got better command post (Senezh vs Poljana)
 
Now that was at first. Now the situation is different in a way that S-300VM from 2011 is the most powerfull SAM system now avaible for export at the World.

- S-300VM ECM resistance is greatly increased

- S-300VM range increased by the factor of 3.5 and is by far SAM with the longest reach

-  http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/sites/default/files/missile/c300v/s-300vm-envel.jpg (you asked and by Rosoboronexport targetable RCS is 0.02 now possibly even smaller)

- S-300VM price is decreased because of improvements one specialized anti-ballistic radar is now not needed (Imbir)

- S-300P got excellent Baikal-1ME command post but that very same command post is also under the hood of S-300VM command post still using the name Poljana

- S-300P with further upgrades got ability to engage 6 targets per battery, ability to engage ballistic missiles, increased engagement envelope, new missiles

Simply awesome man. Detailed yet simple and to the point!! All issues resolved XD thanks Viktor.

Btw here is the link they were referring to: -/kzgroup.ru/rus/m/1880/izgotowlena_perwaya_partiya_shassi_dlya_zenitno-raketnyh_.html

I'm sure u'd do better than google

S-300VM and MiG-35 confirmed so far - Id say a good choice

Russia’s MiG to hold talks with Egypt in October on MiG-35 supplies

G Bob wrote:True, I meant apart from the mobility criteria, the main differences I found as far as I read so far between the s300 PMU2 and the Antey for instance are: 

Target engagement altitude/ jets ( PMU2 begins at 0.01-27 km where the Antey from 0.025-30 km)

Target engagement altitude/ BMs ( PMU2 = 2-27, Antey = 1-30

Target engagement speed ( 2.5 km/s for PMU2 while 4.5 km/s for Antey)

Max tangets to be engaged at once ( 36 for PMU2 and 24 for Antey) when it comes to jets of course!

Engagement range ( PMU2 = 200 km , Antey = 250 km)

And both have the same target RCS engagement (radio cross section) of 0.02

(From what I read the V's in general are very effective against cruise missiles even better than the p's version that's why the PMU1 was upgraded to the later PMU2 to counter the VM and other foreign systems, plz correct me if I'm wrong whether in this matter or the above info)

I'd personaly vote for the Antey for its mobility and adv's over the PMU2 yet somehow when it comes to sales it's clearly the oppsite, which somehow makes me think that I've must of missed some major criteria somewhere in the middle!!
Could it be the future upgrades?! I personaly don't know, all I can see in my head is the word DILEMMA here!

Few things that are also worth mentioning.

- 250km engagement range of S-300VM refers to S-300VM produced in mid-90ies but S-300VM that completed testing in 2011 has 350km range (400km range for Russian A-PVO).

- Antey-3500 will start to roll out of Russian factories in 2016 (and this information may explain relatively speaking low S-300V4 production for Russian Army )

- Up until S-300PM S-300V had much higher upper hand in regard to number of guided missiles on areal targets in comparison with Almaz counterparts.

  Your mistake while claiming "36 for PMU2 and 24 for Antey" is made because you are not familiar with the organizational structure. While one regiment of S-300PM can have up to

  6 S-300P batteries, S-300V regiment are made of only 4 S-300V batteries so while counting you have
 
  1 S-300PM regiment = 6 batteries = 6 batteries x 6 targets (each) = 36 targets

  1 S-300V regiment = 4 batteries = 4 batteries x 6 targets (each) = 24 targets

Do you understand the whole mess. While both of them are able to guide 12 missiles on 6 targets Almaz regiments are consitent of 6 batteries while Antey of 4. That why you get the

different numbers.

- Keep in mind also that while full S-300V regiment is (consisting of four batteries (each of which is not envisaged to work alone thus making regiment the smallest operational unit

  (although S-300V batteries are able to work in independant mode)) able to guide 48 missiles on 24 targets that is only for aerodynamic targets. As for ballistic ones

   that number is 16 meaning each battery is able to guide  2 or more missiles in a row for each of 4 ballistic targets it is able to engage. Still it is a higher number than equivalent S-300P

   modernizations in numbers and types of ballistic threats with S-300V missiles reaching higher speed

- Take note that while one S-300P brigade is made of 2 regiments (each consisting up to 6 batteries), S-300V brigade is made of 3 regiments making both types of

 S-300 brigades in export versions and full conposition made of up to 12 batteries


Now I will try to attack one of your strongest question. Why S-300V and why now?  The thing is that because of all the differences between S-300V and S-300P, S-300V

remained the Worlds single mobile anti-ballistic system - which no one needed.

- It was more expensive than S-300P

- It was more complex and required more protection than S-300P

- Its upgrades, modernization dragged on unlike S-300P which rolled in with excellent PMU/PMU1/PMU2 upgrades

- S-300Ps command posts where better (one of the major reasons why S-300P was more ECM resistant)

- and of course Yeltsin sales of S-300V to American regime

- yet it remained one of the strongest assets in Russian arsenal

So what changed.

- Basically all the things mentioned in my previous post as 3.5 times more range, less price, much higher ECM resistance, excellent new command post etc but also

- ballistic missile becoming a major threat with no solution in sight

- high altitude fighter penetrations again becoming major threat

- with its massive 350km range, huge warhead and massive speed it is able to repulse and keep on distance Rivet Joint/Compass Call/ E-3 Sentry

- high altitude cruise missile penetrations

- also as a frontal army system S-300V will always be more exposed to HARM and other anti-SAM weapons which is why S-300V got solution that has more toughness in regard to HARM

 and other anti-SAM weapons in comparison with S-300P line and thats why S-300V has TELAR (Transporter Erector Launcher And Radar) relieving its shooting radar

 some of the pressure and increasing their chances of survival.

- Imagine cooperation of S-300VM and MiG-35 where MiG-35 is able to launch 200km range air-to-air missiles from a zone protected by S-300VM and that is very far all commanded by

 Poljana-D4M who also commands ECM/ECCM covering up attack of the MiG-35s to the enemy AWACS

Viktor wrote:
- Imagine cooperation of S-300VM and MiG-35 where MiG-35 is able to launch 200km range air-to-air missiles from a zone protected by S-300VM and that is very far all commanded by

 Poljana-D4M who also commands ECM/ECCM covering up attack of the MiG-35s to the enemy AWACS

This would certainly be a very sweet site to see  although I'd wait for talks to end because the word "clear" at the end of the article of the link you provided could mean a lot of things!
The Mig 35 has an enormous array of missiles that would be very useful to EAF ( Egyptian Air Force) and something to die for right now!

Dude, I really appreciate all the new updates on the s300VM you have mentioned, I was actually struck, it's all new to my ears! To be honest I was a bit overwhelmed since most of my data came from official websites. Could you please provide us with links concerning the modernization/updates on the s300vm because I hardly found any when I looked into it. I did find this one article on "Russia & India Report" but it wasn't a very detailed one, it mentioned the the new 350km updates thought

Would be really great and a big relief if there were more sources to be found esp. on the new s300 ECM updates.

Egyptian experience with KUB showed that an army could operate against an enemy with a strong air force as long as they had mobile effective SAMs.

S-300V costs more to buy and operate because of its tracked platforms, but when operating with your army you want a SAM that can go anywhere your tanks can go.

Shortcoming regarding higher lower ceiling than other systems can be countered with Pantsir-S1 and late model TOR, and of course late model BUK...

In the Russian military in addition to these three SAMs there would also be Strela-10M... likely soon to be replaced with the cheap laser beam riding SOSNA-R.

Add Manpads able to hit cruise missiles like Igla-S and Verba and you have a real shield for your Army.

I totally agree, Garry. That last "Mig35 talks" article (that was provided thanks to Victor) was very pleasing to hear, came as
music to my ears merely because it shows that the jets contract haven't been finalized yet and it's going to be on a separate deal (also shows that the earlier reports were true and that this is an initial deal with more yet to come )  so I'm personally concluding that's the last 3.5 B$ deal was mainly for the air defence sector (probably with a few anti tanks/Kornet ) and so I beleive there's a high probability of a Pantsir-s1 coming along with the modernization of past deals and maybe a handful of extra Tor and Buks or at least that's what I'm hoping for

I am unclear on whether Egypt is likely ordering only MiG-35, or will ordering Mig-29(M2?) AND likely MiG-35 as well...???

Egypt bought Buk-M2 and Tor-M2! Image courtesy Frogman@ PDF. Any pics of Tor-M2?



PS: missed this topic

https://www.russiadefence.net/t3451-bu-m2-and-tor-m2-in-egypt