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

TR1 wrote:Sean, you are the man.
Thanks for posting that again.

Question- what in your opinion is the next desirable step in S-400 development?
Any fundamentally new engagement techniques, or missile technologies, as far as long-range anti-air is concerned?
I guess Nebo-M and 40N6 are the things to look out for now.
One direction they are heading in is ABM, but I am more interested in non-ballistic targets.

Thoughts on Buk-M3? It is the forgotten brother of Russian AD, all the focus is on S-300/400, or all the way down to Pantsir.

So Moscow air defence system will have only a few battalions S-400 ? Now is only fou.
Production of the S-400 is going very slowly, and this is expensive system

Austin wrote:SOC , I am under the impression that S-400 is already integrated with Nebo-M like system and the recent disclosure Nebo-M , L band and X band radar integrated to give a single picture on mobile platform are integrated with S-400.

Integrating Nebo-M with the actual guidance system would change that.

SOC wrote:You can use any radar you want within reason. As long as they can interface with the command post, they can give track data to the battery. What they haven't yet disclosed is if the system can work the way I described, using VHF-band radars to provide actual guidance commands to the missile. Right now all we know is that a VHF-band radar like Nebo-M can interface with the system, probably telling BIG BRID and GRAVE STONE where to look for the targets. But, if BIG BIRD and GRAVE STONE are not able to see the target at the range that Nebo-M can, they can't do anything. Integrating Nebo-M with the actual guidance system would change that.

Austin wrote:Why do you need Guidance/FC command from Nebo-M when say a BIG BIRD or Grave Stone can guide it to the target.

Austin wrote:Even if the target does not have returns from these two radar on L & X band but Nebo-M in VHF band can still see them you can always launch a S-400 in the general area of the target using data inputs from Nebo-M and using that data by GRAVE STONE to guide the missile even though it does not see the target based on high probability that Nebo-M sees something that looks like a LO aircraft.

Austin wrote:Lets call that target a simulated target that GRAVE STONE guides 40N6 to and the data from simulated target comes from Nebo-M that is fed to Grave Stone to get as close to the target as possible till say ARH from 40N6 can see it.

Austin wrote:It may not be a tightly integrated Sensor Fused way to guide missile to the target but even a raw format it is doable, Whats your thought on this ?

Although i certainly do not see Nebo-M or Any Radar in Russian inventory as long its worth to guide towards the target as a big challenge , the SAM does not really see the target unless its very close to it say few km but all it needs is some parameter that its onboard INS system can make sense to guide the SAM at a specific point where its ARH can become active and useful. Atleast that is what my understand of SAM guidance is.

Austin wrote:Ofcourse if you have a SAGG type guidance then you have to depends on GRAVE STONE or BIG BIRD for total guidance and end game engagement , and if grave stone does not see the target and does not have an autonomous way to guide it in final engagement then its practically useless.

The fact that 3,000 combat aircraft, among them some of the most advanced, have no operational, financial, administrative or any other connection with the Air Forces, has not been grasped by ordinary individuals in the West, nor even by Western military specialists. It is therefore necessary to repeat , that the ADF rate as a separate and independent Armed Service, with 3,000 supersonic interceptor aircraft, 12,000 anti-aircraft missile launchers and 6,000 radar installations.

Its needless to say that of 12000 SAM deployed 3000 launchers where S-300.

The National Air Defence Forces

1. The National Air Defence Forces (ADF) are the third most important of the five Services which make up the Soviet Armed Forces, after the Strategic Rocket Forces and the Land Forces. However, we will examine them at this point, directly after the SRF, since like the latter they represent not simply an administrative structure but a unified, controlled combat organisation, subordinated directly to the Supreme Commander. Because they form a unified combat organisation, the ADF are always commanded by a Marshal of the Soviet Union. The Land Forces, which are five times the size of the ADF, and which represent the striking force of the Soviet Union in Europe, are headed only by a General of the Army.



2. In the armed forces of any other country, responsibility for air defence is laid upon its air forces. In the Soviet Union, the air defence system was so highly developed that it would be quite impossible to confine it within the organisational structure of the Air Forces. Moreover, the ADF are the third most important Service while the Air Forces occupy fourth place.
The independence of the ADF from the Air Forces is due not only to their size and to their technical development, but also to the overall Soviet philosophy concerning the allocation of wartime roles. In any country in which Soviet specialists are given the task of setting up or restructuring the armed forces, they establish several parallel systems of air defence. One is a static system, designed to defend the territory of the country and the most important administrative, political, economic and transport installations which it contains. This is a copy of the ADF. In addition, separate systems for self-defence and protection against air attack are set up in the land forces, the navy and the air force.

While the national defence system is static, those of the different armed services are mobile, designed to move alongside the forces which they exist to protect. If several systems find themselves operating in the same area, they work with one another and in such a case their collaboration is always organised by the national system.


3. The division of the ADF into a national system and another system for the protection of the armed services, took place long before the Second World War. All anti-aircraft artillery and all searchlight and sound-ranging units were divided between those under the command of army and naval commanders and those covering the most important civil installations, which are not subordinated to army commanders but had their own control apparatus. The fighter aircraft available were divided in the same way. In 1939, for instance, forty air regiments (1,640 combat aircraft) were transferred from the strength of the Air Forces to that of the ADF, for both administrative and combat purposes. Mixed ADF units were formed from the anti-aircraft artillery, searchlight and air sub-units, which succeeded in cooperating very closely with one another.

During the war the ADF completed their development into a separate, independent constituent of the Armed Forces, on an equal footing with the Land Forces, the Air Forces and the Navy. During the war, too, the development of fighter aircraft designed specifically for either the Air Forces or the ADF was begun. Flying training schools were set up to train ADF pilots, using different teaching programmes from those of the Air Forces. Subsequently, anti-aircraft gunnery schools were established, some of which trained officers for anti-aircraft units of the Land Forces and Navy while others prepared officers for the anti-aircraft units of the ADF. After the war, the teams designing anti-aircraft guns for the Armed Forces were directed to develop especially powerful anti-aircraft guns for the ADF.
At the end of the war the total strength of the ADF was more than one million, divided into four ADF fronts (each with two or three armies) and three independent ADF Armies.
After the war the ADF was given official status as an independent Armed Service.


4. Today the ADF has more than 600,000 men. For administrative purposes they are divided into three arms of service:
ADF Fighter Aviation
ADF Surface-to-air Missile Forces
ADF Radar Forces
For greater efficiency and closer cooperation, the sub-units of these three arms of service are brought together to form mixed units-ADF Divisions, Corps, Armies and Fronts (in peacetime Fronts are known as ADF Districts).

The fact that 3,000 combat aircraft, among them some of the most advanced, have no operational, financial, administrative or any other connection with the Air Forces, has not been grasped by ordinary individuals in the West, nor even by Western military specialists. It is therefore necessary to repeat, that the ADF rate as a separate and independent Armed Service, with 3,000 supersonic interceptor aircraft, 12,000 anti-aircraft missile launchers and 6,000 radar installations.

It is because the ADF are responsible both for the protection of Soviet territory and of the most important installations in the USSR that they function independently. Since they are concerned mainly with the defence of stationary targets, the fighter aircraft developed for them differ from those with which the Air Forces are equipped. The ADF are also equipped with surface-to-air missiles and radar installations which differ from those used by the Land Forces and by the Navy.

The Air Forces have their own fighter aircraft, totalling several thousand. The Land Forces have thousands of their own anti-aircraft missile launchers, anti-aircraft guns and radar installations. The Navy, too, has its own fighters, anti-aircraft missiles and guns and radar, and all of these belong to the individual Armed Service rather than to the ADF, and are used to meet the requirements of the operational commanders of the Land Forces, Air Forces and Navy. We will discuss these independent air defence systems later; for the moment we will confine ourselves to the national defence system.



5. The fighter aircraft of the ADF are organised as regiments. In all, the ADF has more than seventy regiments, each with forty aircraft.

The ADF cannot, of course, use fighter aircraft built for the Air Forces, any more than the latter can use aircraft built to the designs of the ADF. The Air Forces and the ADF operate under entirely different conditions and have different operational tasks and each Service therefore has its particular requirements from its own aircraft.

The ADF operates from permanent airfields and can therefore use heavy fighter aircraft. The fighter aircraft of the Air Forces are constantly on the move behind the Land Forces and must therefore operate from very poor airfields, sometimes with grass runways or even from sections of road. They are therefore much lighter than the aircraft used by the ADF.

ADF fighters are assisted in their operations by extremely powerful radar and guidance systems, which direct the aircraft to their targets from the ground. These aircraft do not therefore need to be highly manoeuvrable but every effort is made to increase their speed, their operational ceiling and range. The Air Forces require different qualities from their fighter aircraft, which are lighter, since they have to operate in constantly changing situations, and from their pilots, who have to work unassisted, locating and attacking their targets for themselves. The Air Force fighters therefore need to be both light and highly manoeuvrable but they are considerably inferior to those of the ADF in speed, range, payload and ceiling.

Let us look at an example of these two different approaches to the design of fighter aircraft. The MIG-23 is extremely light and manoeuvrable and is able to operate from any airfield, including those with grass runways. Clearly, it is an aircraft for the Air Forces. By contrast, the MIG-25, although designed by the same group, at the same time, is extremely heavy and unmanoeuvrable and can operate only from long and very stable concrete runways, but it has gained twelve world records for range, speed, rate of climb and altitude reached. For two decades this was the fastest operational aircraft in the world. It is easy to see that this is an ADF fighter.
Besides the MIG-25, which is a high-altitude interceptor, the ADF have a low-level interceptor, the SU 15, and a long-range interceptor, the TU 128, which is designed to attack enemy aircraft attempting to penetrate Soviet air space across the endless wastes of the Arctic or the deserts of Central Asia.

The Surface-to-air Missile (SAM) Forces of the ADF consist, organisationally, of rocket brigades (each with 10 to 12 launch battalions), regiments (3 to 5 launch battalions) and independent launch battalions. Each battalion has 6 to 8 launchers, according to the type of rocket with which it is equipped. Each battalion has between 80 and 120 men. First, all battalions were equipped with S 75 rockets. Then, to replace these, two rockets, the S 125 (low-altitude and short-range) and the S 200 (high-altitude and long-range), were developed. The S 200 can be fitted with a nuclear warhead to destroy enemy rockets or aircraft. Also introduced, to destroy the enemy's inter-continental ballistic missiles, was the UR 100, which has a particularly powerful warhead, but the deployment of this type has been limited by the US-Soviet ABM Treaty.

Each SAM battalion is equipped with several anti-aircraft guns of small (23mm) and large (57mm) calibre. These are used to repel either low-flying enemy aircraft or attacks by enemy land forces. In peacetime, these anti-aircraft guns are not classified as a separate arm of service of the ADF. However, in wartime, when the strength of the ADF would be increased three or four times, they would form an arm of service, deployed as anti-aircraft artillery regiments and divisions, equipped with 23, 57, 85, 100 and 130mm guns, which are mothballed in peacetime.
The Radar Forces of the ADF consist of brigades and regiments, together with a number of independent battalions and companies. They are equipped with several thousand radar installations, for the detection of enemy aircraft and space weapons and for the guidance towards these targets of ADF robot and interceptor aircraft.

In addition to these three main arms of service, the complement of the ADF includes many supporting sub-units (providing transport, communications, guard duties and administration), two military academies and eleven higher officers' schools, together with a considerable number of test-ranges, institutes for scientific research and training centres.




6. Operationally the ADF consists of a Central Command Post, two ADF Districts, which would become ADF Fronts in wartime, eight independent ADF Armies and several independent ADF Corps.

Up to regimental and brigade level ADF formations are drawn from a single arm of service-for example from SAM brigades, fighter regiments, independent radar battalions, etc. From division level upwards, each arm of service is represented in each formation and these are therefore called ADF Divisions, Corps, etc.

The organisation of each division, corps or other higher formation is decided in accordance with the importance of the installation which it is protecting. However, there is one guiding principle: each commander is responsible for the defence of one key point only. This principle is uniformly applied at all levels.

The commander of an ADF division is responsible for the protection of a single, highly important installation, for instance, of a large power-supply centre. He is also required to prevent incursions by enemy aircraft over his sector. The division therefore deploys one SAM brigade to cover the main installation, and moves two or three SAM regiments into the-areas most likely to be threatened, ahead of the brigades, and a number of independent SAM battalions into areas which are in less danger. In addition, the divisional commander has one air regiment which may be used to make contact with the enemy at a considerable distance, for operations at boundaries or junctions not covered by SAM fire, or in the area in which the enemy delivers his main thrust. The operations of the SAM sub-units and of the interceptor aircraft are supported by radar battalions and companies which are subordinated both to the divisional commander himself and to the commanding officers of the division's SAM units.

An ADF corps commander organises coverage of the target he is protecting in precisely the same way. To protect the main installation itself he has one ADF division. Both he and his divisional commander are involved in the defence of the same installation. Two or three SAM brigades are moved forward to cover the sectors which are under greatest threat, while SAM regiments are deployed in less endangered areas. One air regiment is under the direct command of the corps commander, for long-range use or for operations in the area in which the enemy delivers his main attack. If the SAM sub-units are put out of action, the corps commander can at any time make use of his fighter regiment to cover an area in which a breakthrough is threatened. Thus there are two air regiments with each ADF Corps, one at the disposal of the ADF divisional commander, the other for use by the corps commander. A corps contains three or four SAM brigades, one with the ADF division, the others at the disposal of the corps commander, covering the approaches to the divisional position. In a corps there are five or six SAM regiments, two or three of which are used in the division's main sector, the remainder in the secondary sectors of the corps area. Lastly, the corps commander himself has a radar regiment, in addition to the radar forces of his subordinates.

An ADF Army commander, too, is responsible for the protection of a single key objective and has an ADF corps to cover it. In addition, an Army has two or three independent ADF divisions, each of which provides cover for its own key installation and also defends the main approaches to the key objective guarded by the Army. Independent SAM brigades are deployed in the secondary sectors of the Army's area. An Army commander also has two air regiments (one with aircraft for high-altitude operations, the other with long-range interceptors) and his own radar installations (including over-the-horizon radars).

An ADF District is similar in structure. The key objective is covered by an Army. Two or three independent ADF corps are deployed in the sectors under greatest threat while the less endangered areas are covered by ADF divisions, each of which, of course, has a key objective of its own. The District Commander also has two interceptor air regiments under his command and radar detection facilities, including very large aircraft equipped with powerful radars.
The nerve centre-Moscow-is, of course, covered by an ADF District; the main approaches to this District by ADF Armies and the secondary sectors by ADF corps. Each District and Army has, of course, the task of covering a key installation of its own.

The ADF contains two ADF Districts. Something must be said about the reasons for the existence of the second of these-the Baku District. Unlike the Moscow District, the Baku ADF District does not have a key target to protect. The fact that Baku produces oil is irrelevant: twenty-four times as much oil is produced in the Tatarstan area as in Baku. The Baku ADF District looks southwards, covering a huge area along the frontiers, which is unlikely to be attacked. Several of the armies of the ADF (the 9th, for instance), have considerably greater combat resources than the whole Baku District. It is, however, because of the need to watch such a huge area, a task for which an ADF Army has insufficient capacity, that a District was established there.

All in all, the ADF is the most powerful system of its sort in the world. It has at its disposal not only the largest quantity of equipment but in some respects the best equipment in the world. At the beginning of the 1980s the MIG-25 interceptor was the fastest in the world and the S-200 had the largest yield and the greatest range of any surface-to-air missile. In the period since the war the Soviet Air Defence Forces have shown their strength on many occasions. They did this most strikingly on 1 May, 1960, by shooting down an American U-2 reconnaissance aircraft, a type regarded until then as invulnerable, because of the incredible height at which it could operate. There is no doubt that the Soviet Air Defence Forces are the most experienced in the world. What other system can boast of having spent as many years fighting the most modern air force in the world as the Soviet ADF system in Vietnam?

In the mid-1970s some doubt arose as to its reliability when a South Korean aircraft lost its way and flew over Soviet Arctic territory for some considerable time before being forced down by a Soviet SU-15 interceptor. However, the reasons for this delay can be fully explained; we have noted that interceptor aircraft do not represent the main strength of the ADF, which lies in its surface-to-air missiles. The territory across which the lost aircraft flew was quite unusually well-equipped with SAMs, but there is simply no reason to use them against a civil aircraft. At the same time, because of the deep snow which lay in the area, hardly any interceptors were stationed there. Their absence was compensated for by an abnormally large number of SAMs, ready to shoot down any military aircraft. In this unusual situation, once the invader had been found to be a civil aircraft, it became necessary to use an interceptor brought from a great distance. This aircraft took off from Lodeynoye Polye and flew more than 1,000 kilometres, in darkness, to meet the intruder. In an operational situation it would not have been necessary to do this. It would be simpler to use a rocket.

Nevertheless, despite everything, the ADF has its Achilles heel. The fastest aircraft are flown by men who detest socialism with all their hearts. The pilot Byelenko is by no means unique in the ADF.

LINK

SOC wrote:

Austin wrote:Why do you need Guidance/FC command from Nebo-M when say a BIG BIRD or Grave Stone can guide it to the target.

Because they will not be able to see LO or VLO targets at the same range that Nebo-M will. If the stealthy target is packing a weapon with standoff range, it might be able to fire at the SAM site or some other target before the SAM can engage it.

Austin wrote:Even if the target does not have returns from these two radar on L & X band but Nebo-M in VHF band can still see them you can always launch a S-400 in the general area of the target using data inputs from Nebo-M and using that data by GRAVE STONE to guide the missile even though it does not see the target based on high probability that Nebo-M sees something that looks like a LO aircraft.

The issue isn't midcourse guidance, it's terminal homing.

Austin wrote:Lets call that target a simulated target that GRAVE STONE guides 40N6 to and the data from simulated target comes from Nebo-M that is fed to Grave Stone to get as close to the target as possible till say ARH from 40N6 can see it.

That would work for an ARH weapon, provided GRAVE STONE is configured to accept such an input and enable launch without onboard target acquisition.

Austin wrote:It may not be a tightly integrated Sensor Fused way to guide missile to the target but even a raw format it is doable, Whats your thought on this ?

Although i certainly do not see Nebo-M or Any Radar in Russian inventory as long its worth to guide towards the target as a big challenge , the SAM does not really see the target unless its very close to it say few km but all it needs is some parameter that its onboard INS system can make sense to guide the SAM at a specific point where its ARH can become active and useful. Atleast that is what my understand of SAM guidance is.

That is correct, you're describing midcourse guidance. SAGG, for example, is only used during terminal homing.

Austin wrote:Ofcourse if you have a SAGG type guidance then you have to depends on GRAVE STONE or BIG BIRD for total guidance and end game engagement , and if grave stone does not see the target and does not have an autonomous way to guide it in final engagement then its practically useless.

This is why Nebo-M matters. If you're using any sort of guidance mode that relies on a signal return at the engagement radar (command, SARH, SAGG, etc.), you could be in trouble vs. a LO/VLO target. SAGG, for example, needs two inputs: missile seeker return, and engagement radar return. If you stick the Nebo-M signal in there instead of the engagement radar return, then you can still use the same guidance concept. For midcourse guidance all you have to do is feed the missile positional data from Nebo-M. All of the "we can find stealth aircraft" stuff...it doesn't necessarily apply to a great degree to any of the shorter-wavelength fire control radars. That capability has come about thanks to the development and refinement of digital VHF-band AESA radars.

Austin wrote:Using Dual Mode Guidance compromising IIR Seeker and Ku/J band seeker.

Austin wrote:Can SAGG employ a Ku band on board seeker operating in CW mode and also let GRAVE STONE/BIG BIRD track the target ?

Under the state arms programme, the government will provide about 3.4 trillion roubles (about 20 percent of all funding to be earmarked for Army and Navy rearmament) to the Aerospace Defence Troops.

The Aerospace Defence Troops should have no less than 50 percent of modern weapons by 2015 and no less than 70 percent by 2020.
To this end, the Aerospace Defence Troops have been provided with new Voronezh-M and Voronezh-DM radar stations, Pantsyr-S missile defence systems, and S-400 systems.

sepheronx wrote:GarryB, you could very well be right (I do miss you over at the other forums. You have not been back since the suspension/ban) and the airliner forums could very well be wrong. Last I heard, it was a rumor and just that. And you are right, for all we know, 40N6 could have been tested but nothing mentioned (things are still kept in heavy secrecy). If Almaz Antey is indeed facing management issues, then I guess it would be in the MoD's best interest to have management re-shuffled and have the innefective people either out of a job or re-located to someplace that they can be effective. This Vityaz system looks indeed really impressive. And if the AESA radar tech being true and having ARH, then this system would be deadly. I now look forward to Morphi.

sepheronx wrote: Would the S-300V4 be cheaper as well?  

sepheronx wrote:That was my other guess: The S-300V4 taking up the development of the S-400 and its 40N6 missile. The S-300V4 share similar capabilities to S-400 with 40N6 so I do not see the reason for both systems tbh as the capabilities overlap each other.

sepheronx wrote:How many were ordered anyway?

sepheronx wrote:and when should they start receiving them?

sepheronx wrote:When is the new facility to open? Has construction started?

undefined wrote:First. ASD system - is the most complex, multi-functional, tiered complex. It includes a system of missile warning and air attack, detection means and means of defeats the purpose. Creating such a system requires a detailed study, the effective construction, careful analysis of the threats and the development plans of attack tools and, of course, coordination problems with other species and genera of the Armed Forces. Ministry of Defense and the organization of the defense-industrial complex must take this into account when carrying out development work to create a system of air and space defense.
Next. Reiterates the absolute deadlines of creating and commissioning of advanced weapons systems designs ASD.Today, our production samples of weapons - aerospace defense - one of the best in the world. This is evidenced, in particular, their popularity (especially anti-aircraft missile complexes) on the world arms market. Some of them - we are now talking about it - we show for the first time at the MAKS this year. They are able to be sure that the tasks ASD Russia for the period up to 2020. But, I repeat, and mass production, and future development should go according to schedule, without disruption, without any delays. Responsibility must be personalized.

TR1 wrote:Don't know specifics about AA managment, but it is a very well known phenomenon in USSR and Russia.
Greedy, incompetent and corrupt management is all over the place.

If the fault is with them or an equally flawed MOD procurement process, IDK.

sepheronx wrote:Well, by the sounds of it from Viktor and that link from the Kremlin.ru website, then it sounds like that Almaz-Antey isn't as inefficient as other forums and forumers like to state.  The money exists, so I cant imagine it is money issues, or they could be late in providing the funding.  But Almaz-Antey is quite profitable so I don't see how it is problematic.  What I gathered is that production is slow of the S-400 and there hasn't been any word of the 40N6 testings so I guess a lot of people just took it as it was never tested last year which is an assumption, I know.
 
Maybe with the new buildings, it is getting hard to do startup?  That is possible.  Having bad management is not just a USSR/Russian thing, but what some people are saying, makes it sound like that there is nothing happening at Almaz Antey (as in the factories are not running).

New S-400 Long-Range Missile Ready For Service – Official wrote:A new long-range missile for Russia’s formidableS-400 air defense system will soon enter service, chief-of-staff of Russia’s Air and Missile Defense Command Maj. Gen. Andrei Demin said on Thursday.
“A long-range missile for S-400 has passed all trials and will soon be delivered to air defense units,” Demin told RIA Novosti without specifying the model.
According to experts, it could be the 40N6 variant, which has an active radar homing head and is capable of destroying airborne targets at ranges of up to 400 kilometers (250 miles).
Russia currently has four S-400 regiments - two in the Moscow region, one in the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad, and one in the Eastern Military District.
By 2020, Russia is to have 28 S-400 regiments, each comprised of two battalions, mainly in maritime and border areas.
The S-400 Triumf long- to medium-range surface-to-air missile system can effectively engage any aerial target, including aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cruise and ballistic missiles at up to 400 kilometers and an altitude of up to 30 kilometers

LINK

TR1 wrote:Wow nice!

:35...are those project 885 launch tubes? I think so.