S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

The S-400 as it stands today is nothing but an S-300PMU2 with more processing power without its long range missiles. I was really looking forward for us to create something not based on a CCP design.

Some of you may know Sean O'Connor ..here's he's say on this.

Admin edit... read the rules, no links to outside forums.

Defense Arming Army with Mythical Weapons

" Pakfayer " flies with the "other " engine, and a complex of S-400 missiles are no

Over the past three days, senior officials of the Ministry of Defense made several vigorous applications of supplies to the army and the fleet of new weapons. It was mostly about the long-awaited fifth generation fighter with a rough engineering called PAK FA and long-suffering anti-aircraft missile system S- 400 Triumph . However, for some reason, military officials, modestly omitting the present course of rearmament of the army , lulling journalists futuristic dreams . First Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin promised that the serial purchase of fifth generation fighter for the Russian Air Force will begin in 2016. Russian Air Force Commander Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin year to knock off period, saying that the supply of the PAK FA will begin from 2015 , that all will not soon . With regard to S-400 , the 23 battalions of the complex is also planned to deploy by 2015 , although recently Zelin " correcting "and that date , told Interfax that " the end of 2010 in the Far East will be installed system S-400, of high performance . "

Why should Defence Ministry officials , interrupting each other in a hurry to show off in front of philistine future success, in general, it is clear : reform of the walk, eat a lot of money , but the result only from the net . According to the very first Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin , " with regard to the Navy , Air Force , Army, the share of modern weapons there ... catastrophically low. " We must somehow appease public opinion , and that's going to move futuristic fiction . However, not all citizens can embolden statements about the " bright future ".

- It's not even that, in the fifth generation fighter , we were far behind the U.S. and continue to lose pace - the expert information center "Weapons of XXI Century " captain second rank Alexander Surpin . - recall the work of fifth-generation fighter in the Soviet Union and the United States began approximately at the same time , but we do because of lack of funding PAK FA only tested , and in the U.S. still December 15, 2005 came into operation the first squadron of the fifth generation F-22A " Reptor . The Americans later constructed a second type of fifth generation fighter F- 35. And even in its creation , they are ahead of us. To date, collected more than 20 planes F-35 .

SP : - And what have we?

- Sam Deputy Vladimir Popovkin recognizes that being tested one flight hardware , which at the end of the year to add another machine. In 2011-2012 should be completed trials airframe PAK FA , and in 2013 the Defense Ministry intends to conclude with the "dry " contract to supply 10 aircraft to test weapons.

"SP ": - Suppose we are lagging behind in the pace, but our " Pakfayer " for tactical and technical characteristics of the best, but on a recent statement by Vladimir Putin, and three times cheaper than the U.S. samples , right?

- According to the stories , no doubt . In fact, things are somewhat different . Imagine a fighter jet , which has already promised to some dates to put in troops, so far no engine and is difficult to say when it will be .

" SP " : - How is it? He's already flying ?

- For "foreign " engine. That statement Air Force Zelina : " Currently we are raising the fifth generation aircraft in nonnative engine , that is not on , which will be on the serial sample . It is possible that by the beginning of mass-produced supply of aircraft will be equipped with the new engine: " In any case, if the first batch will be with this non-native engine, then the rest of the series - with the new . According to the Commander in Chief , problems with the development of the engine was due to the institutional turmoil that is now being overcome .

No better case with the C -400. "SP " has already written that this project has not yet been brought to its logical conclusion. We were led to the General Director GSKB " Almaz -Antey "Igor Ashurbeyli that have not even started serial production of anti-aircraft guided long-range missiles ( SAM DD ) for S- 400 Triumph . According Ashurbeyli , after preliminary tests on Dec. 26, 2009 a new missile was handed over to the state tests . Martial verification launches missiles should be completed in the third quarter of 2010. Delivery of SAM for the first two battalions of S- 400 will begin after that , but in 2011 they planned to complement the four divisions of S - 400 . But the Ministry of Defence that it had lost interest in the S-400 , or sprayed a means to parade and fireworks, in any case it unexpectedly terminated the business relationship with the Almaz- Antey " on deliveries of S-400 . Ashurbeyli complained to reporters: " There is still incomprehensible to us - in 2012 we have no signed contract. So, today we can say that three months of 2012 , we have already lost , because the technological cycle of the system is 24 months .

Of the allegations Air Force could be concluded that the Defense Ministry has taken as a basis for " a mythical complex of P -500 . But according to the same Igor Ashurbeyli , work to create a C-500 all ran into a number of serious problems , including personnel and technology . In his statement to the press, to GSKB " Almaz-Antey " joined by four companies , specializing in the creation of air and missile defense technology , as well as automated control systems. But unfortunate for them Ashurbeyli called the lack of development work on new development : " All they continue to modernize long ago developed technology .

In recent statements by Defense C -500 is not a word , but sounds solid promises to put a set of C- 400 by the end of this year ( without missiles ? ) .

In general, the story of the C- 400 , as well as with Pakfayerom " , not only futuristic , but also intriguingly convoluted plot. It is possible that some military officials wasted talent of writers - fiction . Not surprising, because the Defense Ministry who is now just no! But these professionals seem to be enough.

Sergei Turchenko

The S-400 as it stands today is nothing but an S-300PMU2 with more processing power without its long range missiles. I was really looking forward for us to create something not based on a CCP design.

The extra cost of the S-400 system is mostly in the vehicles that don't carry missiles. The command and radar carrying vehicles are very important to a SAM system, as is the missiles themselves.
The vehicles will be built in much smaller numbers than the missiles...

What I am trying to say is that the system can handle and control the long range missiles, it is just the missiles that are lacking.
If I can use the analogy of the ADS rifle, its design goal is to be useable in air as effectively as another assault rifle while also being as effective underwater as a specially designed underwater rifle like the APS, and it is... as long as it is used with the correct ammo. Now if there were problems developing the ammo but the rifle was ready it makes sense to deploy the rifle and accept that it wont be fully capable until the new ammo is ready and in full production. You might want to keep the APS in use, but buying the ADS means you have the rifles in service and the troops get used to the different design. They can learn to strip and clean and maintain the new rifle even if they can't fire it effectively underwater till it has the new ammo.

BTW I have read that they are building two new production plants for the S-400 system to enable production to increase. This does not solve the problem of delay between orders and deliveries of course.

What is the characteristics of the new missile that is under state testing now for S-400 , any details ?

Austin wrote:What is the characteristics of the new missile that is under state testing now for S-400 , any details ?

Same statistics that are reported for the current C-400. They went ahead and deployed it before it was ready, and included the stats as well.

Why did they cancel the new missile with a max altitude of interception of 175 Km and range of 400 km ?

Rather they just kept S-400 BIG Missile ceiling to 40 Km

S-500 - http://nvo.ng.ru/news/2010-07-09/2_c500.html

A nice english brief translation is welcome ( Google sucks )

Why did they cancel the new missile with a max altitude of interception of 175 Km and range of 400 km ?

Haven't we discussed this Austin?
A missile flying within the atmosphere can use fins and strakes to manouver and stabilise itself. At 175km up in the atmosphere fins and strakes do nothing at all.
If you take an R-27 AAM and release it at 70km above the earths surface in a horizontal position with its rocket motor running the missiles nose will drop and point down vertically and the missile will be accelerated by gravity and its rocket motor in a vertical dive. Why? They bits that hold it up, that allow it to fly require airflow to work against to steer the missile. At 70km the air is so thin the strakes and control surfaces have nothing to work against so the aircraft stalls and plunges to the ground.
With limited thrust control as used in the R-73 AAM the missile will be able to use thrust vectoring to keep its nose horizontal but its ability to manouver will be seriously limited.
The S-400 was designed to operate within the atmosphere and does not have the correct design to operate outside the atmosphere.
The complication of adding such a capability would be a waste of money because they are already developing the S-500 to perform that role.
The problem has been created by Janes in my opinion. They have confused the S-400 as being a THAAD equivelent when in actual fact it is a replacement for the S-300 system. The S-500 will be a THAAD equivelent and will reach out and up to touch so to speak.

GarryB what you say is true , but there is lot of assumption the new big missile may not have any larger control surfaces for that matter I have not seen any control surfaces on S-300PMU2/S400 barring the 9M96E and 9M96E2.

There is nothing in the missile that makes me believe they cant use thrust vectoring and 2 stage missile for high altitude interception. the S-300 do use control surface and thrust vectoring to achieve maneuverability so does the 9M96E/E2.

I am still keen to see the photograph for the new BIG Missile for S-400 , I am sure it will be a twin stage missile.

THAAD and S-400 (BIG Missile ) are designed for the same task which is to intercept IRBM corresponding to a range of 3,500 km.

It is my opinion and I am sure most will agree the higher the interception the better.I hope they do develop the missile which has a max altitude of interception of 175 Km for S-400 as originally planned. Considering they have a new and very capable radar to compliment it.

The S-500 is a mobile ,anti-ICBM Wide Area defence system

Here is an interesting read on S-400 ( Part 1 and 2 )

http://warfare.ru/?lang=&linkid=1699&catid=264&topics=true&id=161

GarryB what you say is true , but there is lot of assumption the new big missile may not have any larger control surfaces for that matter I have not seen any control surfaces on S-300PMU2/S400 barring the 9M96E and 9M96E2.

It is not a question of control surface size, at 175km up the shape and size of "wings" and control surfaces is irrelevant because the air is so thin that any turning force they generate is tiny or non existant.
When you were a kid and your dad was driving somewhere on a nice sunny summer day and you opened the window and stuck your hand out in the airstream when you held it flat horizontal you could feel the air rushing over and under your hand. If you angled your hand upwards you could feel the wind lifting your hand... the faster the car was going the larger the force.
In a near vaccuum there is no wind you could hold a bedsheet up and it wouldn't slow you down or get ripped out of your hand because there is no air flowing over it.
Speed brakes and wings and control surfaces only work inside the atmosphere.
The S-300 series missiles have tail fins for flight control.
If you have a missile design based on an older missile design and both are designed to work within the atmosphere then it is cheaper and simpler to use conventional control surfaces in addition to directional warheads and side thruster rocket motors to ensure maximum terminal manouver capability.
An IR seeker is generally no good for terminal guideance because at 175km up the incoming target has not reentered the atmosphere and has not been heated yet and it will be cold like other things that have been in space.
An active radar sensor will be limited by the apature of the sensor... AMRAAM can see aircraft size targets at about 30km. THAAD is rather bigger as will the big missile of S-400, but they wont see targets much beyond 40-50km either, now if the target is coming in at up to 4.8km/s and the missile is going up at probably about 2.4km/s then we are talking about a closing speed of approximately 7km/s, so 45 km range detection gives you just over 6 seconds time to detect the target, and then sample at least two positional ranging pulses to determine its flight path and then calculate an interception point and then manouver the interceptor missile to get to that interception point. The calculations will be done in micro seconds, but the manouvering of the intercepting missile so that it is in the correct point in space at exactly the right time might be a problem.
Get to the interception point 0.1 second too late means your interceptor at no time gets within 700m of the target, now even with a directional warhead the explosives will blow the intercepting material at the target at 6km/s (exploding speed of RDX) at a target moving away at a relative speed of 7km/s... can you see the problem?
The result is that you will probably need side thruster rockets and directional warheads for the intercept and you will be relying on the data from ground based radar rather than any sensor in the missiles.

I am still keen to see the photograph for the new BIG Missile for S-400 , I am sure it will be a twin stage missile.

Unlikely. The whole point of using two stages is to be able to dump the second stage and use a much smaller first stage for low drag and better manouver capability for the terminal phase. Look at the SA-19 with short fat booster rockets and long slim missile terminal missile.
I would expect the long range missile will look the same as the S-300 missiles but made of lighter materials with probably an active homing radar seeker, newer lighter electronics and more powerful rocket motor that flys on a ballistic path to get to the target area and performs a very high speed diving attack on the target.
Look at the two missiles for the S-300V system, both were the same missile, but the larger missile had a solid rocket booster as well.

THAAD and S-400 (BIG Missile ) are designed for the same task which is to intercept IRBM corresponding to a range of 3,500 km.

No they are not. The THAAD is a definitive SCUD and theatre range BM killer. It was never intended as a SAM system. Otherwise you would also have to say that SA-12 and late model SA-10s are also THAAD competitors. They are not.
The THAAD was designed from the outset as an ABM system only to be used instead of the PAC-3 Patriot where the threat was from ballistic missiles only. For example Iraqi aircraft could be dealt with using coalition aircraft and Patriot batteries, but Scuds and longer range variants of Scuds were a problem. PAC-3 was a band aide solution with the final solution being THAAD.
If you had swapped Soviet forces with allied forces their S-300 and S-300V systems probably would have dealt with Scud like missiles easily enough simply because unlike Patriot they were designed to engage Scud like ballistic missiles and they have been successfully tested against such targets since their introduction.
The purpose of S-500 is, like the THAAD, to focus solely on ballistic targets and in that respect they are directly comparable.
The real problem stems from design differences. The Soviets developed SAMs for forces that simply don't exist in the west. There is no western equivelent of the PVO. In the Soviet Union there were tracked mobile SAMs and there were fixed and wheeled SAMs with different mobility characteristics.
Why have SA-4s when you had SA-6s? Both are medium range SAMS. Indeed why have SA-2s, SA-3s, SA-4s, SA-5s, SA-6s, SA-8s, SA-9s, SA-10s, SA-11s, SA-12s, SA-13s, Sa-15s, SA-17s, and SA-19s.
I'll give you a hint, the PVO was interested in shooting down bombers and large aircraft like AWACS, while the other users of SAMs in the Soviet Union were interested in defending their assets from fighters and fighterbombers. An SA-4 or SA-5 had long range and a huge warhead to deal with B-52s, while the SA-6, SA-8, SA-9, SA-13s were designed to take on fighters and helos. The SA-2 was designed for high altitude targets like U-2s and the SA-3 was for medium altitude bombers and cruise missiles. (Most long range cruise missiles fly at medium to high altitude on their way to the target area to maximise range so an SA-3 battery on the Soviet border might get a medium altitude shot at a cruise missile that is flying at a target deep within the Soviet border.)
Some were designed to operate with forward armoured units and some were designed to defend largely fixed targets like airfields etc.
The S-300 is the standard long range SAM and it had Anti Ballistic Missile capability from the outset.
The soviets used lots of BMs and so also created defences against their use. Similarly Soviet Navy defences against anti ship missiles were always much heavier than western equivelents simply because of SN experience with Anti Ship missiles.
The S-300V which unlike the S-300 has all tracked vehicles and it was to be the standard long range SAM that covered Soviet forces as they pushed towards the English Channel.
Both are being replaced by the S-400 in service which like the PAC-3 Patriot has anti ballistic capability.
The dedicated ABM missile however is the S-500, which like the THAAD is custom designed for the purpose of hitting BMs.
The fact that the S-500 will replicate the performance of the Moscow ABM system in a mobile system suggests the expected performance levels, but THAAD is also supposed to be mobile too.
The simple fact is that if a NATO country had Patriot and THAAD in service and suddenly decided to buy S-400 and S-500 they would likely replace the Patriots with S-400 and THAAD with S-500.
They would not likely replace them both with the S-400 simply because the things that are targetted with BMs will likely be targeted by other types of weapons like cruise missiles.
This means that S-500 will be needed against ballistic targets, but S-400s will be needed against other attack forms like aircraft or cruise missiles. Having an S-400 battery half loaded with dedicated missiles to defend against BMs might lead to the defence being overwhelmed by cruise missile attack. Having seperate S-400 and S-500 systems means when you pick your type of S-400 missiles you can optimise for aerodynamic targets of all types with one less missile.

GarryB wrote:It is not a question of control surface size, at 175km up the shape and size of "wings" and control surfaces is irrelevant because the air is so thin that any turning force they generate is tiny or non existant.

Agreed but S-400 uses a combination of rear control surface and gas-dynamic control system which gives super agility , so you see its not just wings but unique mechanism much like thrust vectoring that gives it the ability to control missile and manouver it. Please check the link below

http://milparade.udm.ru/security/32/008x.htm

The S-300 series missiles have tail fins for flight control.

Not true , it uses tail fins and thrust vectoring for extreme agility , just rear wings wont give it that agility

From the beginning, the system included the most “cutting-edge” Soviet missile defense technology. Its phased-array fire control radar was capable of tracking up to six targets simultaneously, while its single-state, solid-fuel propelled missile sported aerodynamic control surfaces and thrust vectoring.

http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.50/system_detail.asp

If you have a missile design based on an older missile design and both are designed to work within the atmosphere then it is cheaper and simpler to use conventional control surfaces in addition to directional warheads and side thruster rocket motors to ensure maximum terminal manouver capability.

We have yet to see the BIG Missile of S-400 and I am certain it will use control surfaces and thrust vectoring for agility and manouveribility and that can work at very high altitude.

An IR seeker is generally no good for terminal guideance because at 175km up the incoming target has not reentered the atmosphere and has not been heated yet and it will be cold like other things that have been in space.

Not True , the US KKV uses IIR seeker to known down the RV.

An active radar sensor will be limited by the apature of the sensor... AMRAAM can see aircraft size targets at about 30km. THAAD is rather bigger as will the big missile of S-400, but they wont see targets much beyond 40-50km either, now if the target is coming in at up to 4.8km/s and the missile is going up at probably about 2.4km/s then we are talking about a closing speed of approximately 7km/s, so 45 km range detection gives you just over 6 seconds time to detect the target, and then sample at least two positional ranging pulses to determine its flight path and then calculate an interception point and then manouver the interceptor missile to get to that interception point. The calculations will be done in micro seconds, but the manouvering of the intercepting missile so that it is in the correct point in space at exactly the right time might be a problem.

For most part the interceptor is guided by the ground based Fire Control Radar , till its in the kill box range where the onboard sensor IIR or ARH takes over and does the final interception and much better discrimination of RV and try to hit the RV head on.

So really the interceptor does not need a long range seeker but a seeker with high resolution capability mostly Ku band MMW seeker which are short on range but are much better in resolution and discrimination.

These days IIR seems to be preffered choice as they have matured enough to discriminate a target with decoys and can work in cold region of space much better then RF.

I would expect the long range missile will look the same as the S-300 missiles but made of lighter materials with probably an active homing radar seeker, newer lighter electronics and more powerful rocket motor that flys on a ballistic path to get to the target area and performs a very high speed diving attack on the target.

Yes hopefully lighter electronic , high energetic solid fuel and combination of choice of seeker either IIR or ARH with a 175 Km peak interception altitude

Look at the two missiles for the S-300V system, both were the same missile, but the larger missile had a solid rocket booster as well.

S-300V was designed 2 decades back so its unfair to compare something that being designed two decades later

No they are not. The THAAD is a definitive SCUD and theatre range BM killer. It was never intended as a SAM system. Otherwise you would also have to say that SA-12 and late model SA-10s are also THAAD competitors. They are not.
The THAAD was designed from the outset as an ABM system only to be used instead of the PAC-3 Patriot where the threat was from ballistic missiles only. For example Iraqi aircraft could be dealt with using coalition aircraft and Patriot batteries, but Scuds and longer range variants of Scuds were a problem. PAC-3 was a band aide solution with the final solution being THAAD.

The THAAD and S-400 BIG Missile are designed for IRBM type targets with a range of ~ 3000 Km

The PAC-3 , S-300V and S-300PMU2 can intercept Scud type 1000 km range missile

http://www.enemyforces.net/missiles/s300pmu2.htm

If you had swapped Soviet forces with allied forces their S-300 and S-300V systems probably would have dealt with Scud like missiles easily enough simply because unlike Patriot they were designed to engage Scud like ballistic missiles and they have been successfully tested against such targets since their introduction.

True , the original PAC-1 used in GW1 was more of anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile capability , their scud kill was a smart PR exercise . PAC-2 added longer range and better cruise missile capability , while PAC-3 had real ATBM capability from scratch with HTK.

S-300V was a through breed from design mobile tactical ATBM.

The purpose of S-500 is, like the THAAD, to focus solely on ballistic targets and in that respect they are directly comparable.

Yes the S-500 is a designed from scratch mobile anti-ICBM system

This means that S-500 will be needed against ballistic targets, but S-400s will be needed against other attack forms like aircraft or cruise missiles. Having an S-400 battery half loaded with dedicated missiles to defend against BMs might lead to the defence being overwhelmed by cruise missile attack. Having seperate S-400 and S-500 systems means when you pick your type of S-400 missiles you can optimise for aerodynamic targets of all types with one less missile.

Look in simple terms you have a capability to hit a 3,500 km range IRBM with both THAAD and S-400 , its just that the former does that with better efficiency IMO , the latter has more multi-role capability with long range of 400 km against aerodynamic target.

It much like have a dedicated interceptor or having a multirole fighter , for airdefence role the interceptor will do the job more effectively but a multirole fighter gives you more flexibility , opinions will differ on THAAD and S-400 BIG Missile.

Lets says if the BIG Missile does achieve the 175 km interception altitude then i will say the S-400 is a more capable multirole system

Agreed but S-400 uses a combination of rear control surface and gas-dynamic control system which gives super agility , so you see its not just wings but unique mechanism much like thrust vectoring that gives it the ability to control missile and manouver it. Please check the link below.

The R-73 has a form of thrust vectoring and also fin control surfaces, it doesn't mean it can work outside the atmosphere either.

Outside the atmosphere the fins become decorations and all you have to manouver are the moving engines in the tail. Once you leave the atmosphere it is all down to fuel burn to manouver so you need a large reserve of fuel and throttle control and the ability to start up and shut down the propulsion several times if necessary.

In other words it means liquid fuel rockets with manouver jets front and rear to be able to speed up and slow down and perform significant manouvers... in other words a major redesign of the original missile... and why?
The S-400 is replacing the S-300 so 90% of its work will be targets that are air breathers.
Of the remaining 10% the S-500 can deal with.

Not true , it uses tail fins and thrust vectoring for extreme agility , just rear wings wont give it that agility

The S-300 and S-400 for that matter fly very fast so the air flowing over the rear fins exerts great force. The side thrusters are for last second course corrections to jump the missile into the path of the target, whether that target be a subsonic fighter or a hypersonic missile.

We have yet to see the BIG Missile of S-400 and I am certain it will use control surfaces and thrust vectoring for agility and manouveribility and that can work at very high altitude.

The R-73 also known as the AA-11 Archer is already a high performance AAM that can intercept targets performing 12 g manouvers and it uses thrust vectoring and control surfaces and it wont work outside of the atmosphere either.

Not True , the US KKV uses IIR seeker to known down the RV.

The IIR seeker it uses is not an IR seeker, it is an IIR seeker, which is like a EO seeker that sees heat rather than light and is used only for terminal guidance.
If you think of a TV picture at 25 frames a second and working backwards with the last frame a hit, the distances the target will be in those previous frames it is no good for mid course or initial guidance and is only useful for terminal guidance with side thrusting rockets that can shove the missile into the correct position at the last milisecond.

S-300V was designed 2 decades back so its unfair to compare something that being designed two decades later

But you think it is fair to compare a SAM system with ABM capabilities with an ABM system with no SAM capabilities at all?

Look in simple terms you have a capability to hit a 3,500 km range IRBM with both THAAD and S-400 , its just that the former does that with better efficiency IMO , the latter has more multi-role capability with long range of 400 km against aerodynamic target.

The better efficiency you claim is completely unproven. Even the potential to control about 500,000 km square up to 30 kms or so in height is to me more important that being able to control a much smaller area to a greater height.
The 30kms from the ground up is much more important to an armed force than the 200km above that.

Lets says if the BIG Missile does achieve the 175 km interception altitude then i will say the S-400 is a more capable multirole system

But as you already stated only one of these systems is actually multirole so what is the problem in working out which is the best or more capable multirole system?

GarryB wrote:The R-73 has a form of thrust vectoring and also fin control surfaces, it doesn't mean it can work outside the atmosphere either.

It doesnt have to it does not have the fuel and sensors to go that far up to defeat BM and its designed to defeat air breathing targets.

Outside the atmosphere the fins become decorations and all you have to manouver are the moving engines in the tail. Once you leave the atmosphere it is all down to fuel burn to manouver so you need a large reserve of fuel and throttle control and the ability to start up and shut down the propulsion several times if necessary.

Yes the control surfaces on missile become ineffective while in space , so the missile have to rely on thrust vectoring to manouver and lateral thrust for high G terminal manouvering.

They do not necessarily need to shutdown and start as THAAD is a single stage solid fuel missile with Kill Vehical and as you know you cant shut down solid fuel and start

They do not necessarily need loads of fuel because once in space ( > 100 altitude ) the imparted KE is sufficient to propel it , what it needs is small fuel for divert thrust and manouvering.

In other words it means liquid fuel rockets with manouver jets front and rear to be able to speed up and slow down and perform significant manouvers... in other words a major redesign of the original missile... and why?
The S-400 is replacing the S-300 so 90% of its work will be targets that are air breathers.
Of the remaining 10% the S-500 can deal with.

No need for liquid fuel rocket a solid fuel with small divert thrust is what it needs as THAAD proves it

The S-300 uses both rear control surfaces and thrust vectoring for extreme manouvering , check the cut out of missile



48N6E3 SAM Cutaway. Note the TVC vanes in the exhaust nozzle. The seeker is labelled as 'semi-active radar' (Almaz-Antey

The S-300 and S-400 for that matter fly very fast so the air flowing over the rear fins exerts great force. The side thrusters are for last second course corrections to jump the missile into the path of the target, whether that target be a subsonic fighter or a hypersonic missile.

Compared to a a fighter aircraft which will be manouvering hard , a ballistic missile follows a pure Ballistic Path and does not manouver much what it does is it flies fast and is a small target , hence hard and constant maneuvering is not needed all the time , once the active seeker or IIR of missile locks on the target it needs to align and manouver on path of missile for an intercept so hard manouvering is very limited but more these are extereme ( High G ) and time sensitive for a interceptor.


Granted most of the S-300 and 400 missile could be optimised for air breathing target but that might not be true for the new BIG Missile 40N6 , most likely this is a two stage missile with very high intercept altitude likely 185 km its original goal.

I am fairly certain the 40N6 or its upgrade Triumf-M will meet this goal.

The R-73 also known as the AA-11 Archer is already a high performance AAM that can intercept targets performing 12 g manouvers and it uses thrust vectoring and control surfaces and it wont work outside of the atmosphere either.

And why should it when its job is to intercept airbreathing targets like fighter aircraft and low flying cruise missile

The IIR seeker it uses is not an IR seeker, it is an IIR seeker, which is like a EO seeker that sees heat rather than light and is used only for terminal guidance.
If you think of a TV picture at 25 frames a second and working backwards with the last frame a hit, the distances the target will be in those previous frames it is no good for mid course or initial guidance and is only useful for terminal guidance with side thrusting rockets that can shove the missile into the correct position at the last milisecond.

What did I say i did say its an IIR seaker

But you think it is fair to compare a SAM system with ABM capabilities with an ABM system with no SAM capabilities at all?

We are comparing S-400 and THAAD ability to intercept 3,500 km range IRBM missile here and we are looking into efficient way to do it , both S-400 and THAAD can intercept a 3,500 km IRBM missile.

My point is THAAD does that more efficiently at high altitude and S-400 is more of multirole missile.

But the 40N6 missile and its capabilities are still classified and we do not know much beyond its 400 km range capability.

The better efficiency you claim is completely unproven. Even the potential to control about 500,000 km square up to 30 kms or so in height is to me more important that being able to control a much smaller area to a greater height.The 30kms from the ground up is much more important to an armed force than the 200km above that.

No one ever doubts the efficiency and the critical need to intercept a BM as high as possible US , Israel and India ABM does exactly that.

Infact India rejected the Atney-2500 missile for its ABM for the same reason it could not intercept at more than 40 km in altitude and even a sucessful interception could have the adverse effect of NCB debris falling on land mass with adverse effect , compared to 150 km above intercept where they would mostly burn during reentry.

Yes a low altitude but larger area cover is some thing S-300 and S-400 does efficiently providing greatest standoff capability , not ideal for BM interception good for intercepting air breathing targets

But as you already stated only one of these systems is actually multirole so what is the problem in working out which is the best or more capable multirole system?

For BM interception certainly THAAD is gold plated premium interceptor , certainly S-400 is multirole but I have my own doubts at 40 Km interception against NCW BM targets.

I would say that it is fool hardy to have such low interception altitude against a 3,500 km range missile for a 1000 km slower BM it is quite fine.

It doesnt have to it does not have the fuel and sensors to go that far up to defeat BM and its designed to defeat air breathing targets.

My point was that thrust vector engine control alone is not enough to operate outside the atmosphere.

Yes the control surfaces on missile become ineffective while in space , so the missile have to rely on thrust vectoring to manouver and lateral thrust for high G terminal manouvering.

The problem there is that most rockets have a single propellent type that burns up rather quickly getting the rocket up to speed and then burning out with the missile coasting to the target and using its low drag design to maintain energy. That is why there is a difference between the no escape zone and the max range of missiles like Archer and AMRAAM etc. While their motors are still burning they can perform hard manouvers without losing much speed. Once the motors have burnt out their ability to turn hard is greatly reduced... or translate that to space they can still vector the nozzles but with no thrust coming out they can no longer manouver.

They do not necessarily need to shutdown and start as THAAD is a single stage solid fuel missile with Kill Vehical and as you know you cant shut down solid fuel and start

No, you can't, but what you can to is bake the fuel like a layer cake with the inner fuel that is burnt first being high calorie high thrust fuel, while the remaining fuel is lower energy longer burning fuel to extend the time the fuel burns and is therefore able to effect the flight direction of the missile via thrust vector control.

They do not necessarily need loads of fuel because once in space ( > 100 altitude ) the imparted KE is sufficient to propel it , what it needs is small fuel for divert thrust and manouvering.

No. What they need is for the rocket motor to be still burning above 100km and because they can't stop it and re start it, then they need to throttle back as described above.

The S-300 uses both rear control surfaces and thrust vectoring for extreme manouvering , check the cut out of missile

Thrust vectoring only works while the rocket motor is still burning.

{snip} a a fighter aircraft which will be manouvering hard , a ballistic missile follows a pure Ballistic Path and does not manouver much what it does is it flies fast and is a small target , hence hard and constant maneuvering is not needed all the time {/snip}

A ballistic missile like Scud that just falls might follow a purely ballistic path, but an incoming LANCE II or ISKANDER missile will be correcting its own flight path to ensure an accurate hit on the target. It has all the energy in the world because it is falling and is getting a gravity assist... there is no chance of a stall.

An up flying interceptor compounds its own problems with its own speeds.

Granted most of the S-300 and 400 missile could be optimised for air breathing target but that might not be true for the new BIG Missile 40N6 , most likely this is a two stage missile with very high intercept altitude likely 185 km its original goal.

It was its original goal when there was no funding and no prospects for S-500 to enter service. It was going to be Patriot AND THAAD.
Now things have changed and it is only going to be Patriot and S-500 is going to be THAAD, so why bother spending extra money on making a component of S-400 like S-500?

That doesn't make sense... and will also make S-400 exports even more heavily criticised by Israel and the US etc etc.

And why should it when its job is to intercept airbreathing targets like fighter aircraft and low flying cruise missile

What I am saying is thrust vector control and lots of control surfaces is not enough to make it an exoatmospheric missile. It takes rather more.
The S-300 and existing S-400 missiles are designed to operate within the atmosphere too... why do you think it is so simple for them to be modified to work in space?
If it is so easy to do with S-400 why didn't the west simply make PAC-4 Patriot instead of THAAD?

We are comparing S-400 and THAAD ability to intercept 3,500 km range IRBM missile here and we are looking into efficient way to do it , both S-400 and THAAD can intercept a 3,500 km IRBM missile.

My point is THAAD does that more efficiently at high altitude and S-400 is more of multirole missile.

First of all you say it is more efficient simply by comparing missile operational envelopes. The reality is that a THAAD will not defend a target alone, it will need Patriot to protect it and Patriot will probably need another SAM system to defend it from saturation attacks. S-400 could operate with Pantsir and defend the same target much more EFFICIENTLY.

Second you are picking out one capability of a system and comparing that to a one trick pony system that does the same thing.
Equivalent to saying a Stechkin machine pistol can fire on full auto... like an AK-74... but the AK-74 is more efficient at killing people because it can kill over a wider range envelope.

It just sounds stupid to me. S-400 is a SAM system that has some ATBM capability, just like PAC-2 and PAC-3 which are together call Patriot. THAAD is a custom designed ATBM system and the only equivalent would be the S-500.

Infact India rejected the Atney-2500 missile for its ABM for the same reason it could not intercept at more than 40 km in altitude and even a sucessful interception could have the adverse effect of NCB debris falling on land mass with adverse effect , compared to 150 km above intercept where they would mostly burn during reentry.

There is no wind at 150km. Anything like a fine powder released at that altitude will rapidly slow down due to its low mass (like a balloon slows down quickly) and descend straight down till it hits the weather.

Yes a low altitude but larger area cover is some thing S-300 and S-400 does efficiently providing greatest standoff capability , not ideal for BM interception good for intercepting air breathing targets

Name one target that is worth hitting with a ballistic missile that you can guarantee will not be attacked with any other sort of weapon (ie cruise missile or aircraft).
Only the US and Israel has their populations so scared that they can justify Patriot AND THAAD. The huge irony is that low flying anti ship missiles fired by Iraq got through to their targets just like the Scuds got through in the previous conflict. Sounds like the US is a war behind in SAM development.
Desert Storm they had Patriot which clearly wasn't ready for Scuds. The Soviets had S-300 which would have dealt with the Scuds just fine. The next conflict the PAC-3 is ready to intercept Scuds but the Iraqis don't have any left and fire anti ship missiles instead. S-300 would have been able to deal with those too.

I would say that it is fool hardy to have such low interception altitude against a 3,500 km range missile for a 1000 km slower BM it is quite fine.

Why do you think 175km is adequate? The Soviet/Russian systems have been proven in lots of tests from 300mm SMERCH rockets to SCUDs and other targets as well.
The reality is that if they are stopping nuclear or chemical or bio armed warheads you aren't just going to be sitting and watching them come in, you will be directly attacking the country of origin. For India that would mean Pakistan or China... now in either case do you really think it is important whether you intercept the incoming weapons at 175km or 35km?
Which ever system you have the first incoming weapon will likely be set to detonate 10km above its max interception altitude and that blast will render all your radars useless for the next half an hour due to atmospheric ionisation...

If you want the best ABM system then wait for S-500.

Moscow, Central Economic region Air Defense to receive S-400, S-500 systems

RIA Novosti

11:51 14/08/2010

MOSCOW, August 14 (RIA Novosti) - The Air Defense System of Moscow and the Russian Central Economic region will receive new weapons, including prestigious S-400 and S-500 air defense systems, Air Force Commander Colonel General Alexander Zelin said on Saturday.

"We have Air Defense System which protects Moscow and the Central Economic region; this system operates, accomplishes tasks and, of course, undergoes changes," Zelin said.

Central economic region is located in the European part of Russia; it is the country's major industrial region. Besides Moscow, major cities include Nizhny Novgorod, Smolensk, Yaroslavl, Vladimir, Tula, Dzerzhinsk, and Rybinsk.

"We will buy a significant number of S-400s before 2020. They will not just go to the five anti-aircraft missile regiments equipped with this system, but also to a much larger number [of regiments.] We are also discussing the [purchase of] S-500 anti-aircraft missile systems," Zelin said.

The S-400 Triumf (SA-21 Growler) is designed to intercept and destroy airborne targets at distances of up to 400 kilometers (250 miles), twice the range of the U.S. MIM-104 Patriot, and two-and-a-half times that of Russia's S-300PMU-2.

The system is also believed to be able to destroy stealth aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, and is effective at ranges of up to 3,500 kilometers (2,200 miles) and speeds of up to 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) per second.

Regular S-400 battalion comprises at least eight launchers with 32 missiles and a mobile command post, according to various sources.

In 2009, Russia deployed S-400 air defense systems in the Far East to counter the potential threat posed by N. Korea's missile tests.

So far, Russia has three S-400 battalions.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100814-rianovosti06.htm

Well batter see results of such talk.

Zelin comments on new SAM systems — says nothing new

Russia is developing radically new air defense systems Vityaz and S-500 and aircraft capable of operating in outer space, Russian Air Force Commander Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin said on Saturday.

“In fact a new system with new weapons is being developed – this is a system called Vityaz,” Zelin said on Echo Moskvy radio.

Compared to the S-300 system, Vityaz has a significantly larger combat ammunition load and requires a shorter time to get it operational, Zelin said.

S-400 air defense missile systems will be supplied to air defense forces protecting the central industrial region of Russia and Moscow, he said.

Russia is also developing the S-500 system, which will serve not only as an air defense but also a missile defense system. “This weapon will enter the Air Force’s inventory by 2020,” he said.

Asked whether Russia is working on constructing planes capable of operating in outer space, Zelin replied, “Naturally, it is.”

Such projects are being pursued in other countries as well, Zelin said. “We are also doing this. We cannot trail along at the back. There are projects, there is understanding as to how to do this, and there are technical solutions,” he said.

@GarryB

Thx
Mods why you dont have a thanks button

Surface to Air Missile Effectiveness in Past Conflicts

So S-400 using AESA??

nightcrawler wrote:So S-400 using AESA??

No... S-500 might be.

AESA does have some advantages over PESA, but those advantages are not huge.
Both can change pulse signal frequency and are electronically scanned.
The primary problem with AESA is that it needs the production capacity to make millions and millions of transmit receive modules, and make them accurately.
Just one giant radar for an S-300 system would be 1,000 by 1,000 elements so that is 1 million TR modules just for one radar.
And for what?
A slight improvement in performance. A lot more heat generated.
A huge increase in power requirements.

Right now it is not worth it because of the current state of the Russian MIC.
In 10 years time however as AESAs are more widespread and the technology has improved most in service Russian radars will likely be AESA.
The step from a conventional dish radar to a PESA is almost as big as to AESA so in many ways the Russian military is enjoying many of the advantages of electronically scanned radar but without the cost and problems of AESA.
Not ideal, but that is the situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Electronically_Scanned_Array#Advantages




So, on the S-400/500, does Russia have a ground-based ASAT weapon comparable to the SM-3 yet?

nightcrawler wrote:So S-400 using AESA??

No it uses modern PESA , S-400 has been criticized for its high power consumption.

The would move to AESA with S-500