S-300V Army SAM System

GarryB wrote:So the D model is the S-300V4?

I'm not sure, but I don't think so. The Antey-2500D is an improved export model, and it looks like it pre-dates the S-300V4.

GarryB wrote:So because there are two missile types, each needing a different designation to distinguish them, the original system could be called S-300VA and S-300VB, while the Antei-2500 upgrade of the system would have the export designation of Antei-2500A/B, but likely the domestic designation of S-300VMA and S-300VMB, and this new further upgraded of the system (S-300V4) the missiles would be designated S-300VMC and S-300VMD...

The V1 appeared first, followed by the V2 battery with the HIGH SCREEN sector-scanning ATBM radar. Beyond that, I haven't quite figured everything out. Which is irritating, because other than the designators I have enough info to write the same kind of history for the S-300V that I did for the S-300P. I think that the S-300VM (S-300V3?), which is the native Antey-2500, is now treated as an all-in-one system, hence the VM designator rather than simply V3.

GarryB wrote:The trend these days seems to be unification of systems where practical... I wonder if they will adopt a policy of sharing radars and sensors across the S-300VM, S-400, and S-500 batteries... no point in having 3 different unrelated radars and support vehicle designs if they could be made the same in larger numbers.

EW sensors, probably. Engagement radars, probably not. It does look like the components for various new systems will exploit the chassis designs from the S-400 system.

I'm not sure, but I don't think so. The Antey-2500D is an improved export model, and it looks like it pre-dates the S-300V4.

Is Antei-2500D a system designation or a missile designation?

If it is a missile designation then surely it is Antei-2500C/D, with Antei-2500A/B being the original.

Plus doesn't this make me right in the first place... the original two missile system could be called S-300V1, and the Antei-2500 is S-300V2, and this D model upgrade of the Antei-2500 becomes the S-300V3 and the new model for Russian service is S-300V3.

The Antei-2500 was always an export designation to avoid confusion with the S-300 system... the fact that the US indirectly paid for it is not important as it was a domestic and export product. The further development (D) and the current model (V4) are simply further incremental improvements of what is basically the same system.

I think that the S-300VM (S-300V3?), which is the native Antey-2500, is now treated as an all-in-one system, hence the VM designator rather than simply V3.

I think the problem is distinguishing the major upgrades from the minor upgrades.

GarryB wrote:Is Antei-2500D a system designation or a missile designation?

System designation. The D likely indicates increased range, like the D in 48N6D. But that's just an educated guess.

GarryB wrote:If it is a missile designation then surely it is Antei-2500C/D, with Antei-2500A/B being the original.

Antey-2500 is the export variant of the S-300VM.

GarryB wrote:Plus doesn't this make me right in the first place... the original two missile system could be called S-300V1, and the Antei-2500 is S-300V2, and this D model upgrade of the Antei-2500 becomes the S-300V3 and the new model for Russian service is S-300V3.

It would, but S-300V1 and S-300V2 are known and verified designators corresponding to what the West refers to as the SA-12A and SA-12B.

GarryB wrote:The Antei-2500 was always an export designation to avoid confusion with the S-300 system... the fact that the US indirectly paid for it is not important as it was a domestic and export product. The further development (D) and the current model (V4) are simply further incremental improvements of what is basically the same system.

I think the problem is distinguishing the major upgrades from the minor upgrades. [/quote]

The major upgrade at this point appears to be the S-300VM/Antey-2500. That introduced a new engagement radar array and a much larger engagement range across the board.

SOC wrote:Antey-2500 is the export variant of the S-300VM.

SOC , exactly how the export Antey-2500 model differ from local S-300VM are they downgraded or something ?

I remember Antey-2500 was demonstrated to India for its ABM program but the Indians were not impressed with the low altitude of BM interception i.e. 30 km , the DRDO chief said that even if the interception occured at that altitude the debris would fall on Indian land mass.

Regarding Antey-2500 export ,it was not Venezuela my mistake , according to Almay-Antey 2009 report the Anetey-2500 along with S-400 is being proposed/advertised to be exported to Saudi , though i doubt Saudi will ever buy either.

Austin wrote:SOC , exactly how the export Antey-2500 model differ from local S-300VM are they downgraded or something ?

Not that I know of. The Antey-2500 appears to have the same specifications and systems as the S-300VM.

Austin wrote:I remember Antey-2500 was demonstrated to India for its ABM program but the Indians were not impressed with the low altitude of BM interception i.e. 30 km , the DRDO chief said that even if the interception occured at that altitude the debris would fall on Indian land mass.

That's because it's still a relatively short-ranged ATBM system. To reduce the debris falling on you you're going to either 1) need to kill the target exoatmospherically, and hope the bits burn up on reentry, or 2) use either a very long-range or forward-deployed system to kill Pakistani missiles shortly after launch.

Austin wrote:Regarding Antey-2500 export ,it was not Venezuela my mistake , according to Almay-Antey 2009 report the Anetey-2500 along with S-400 is being proposed/advertised to be exported to Saudi , though i doubt Saudi will ever buy either.

I've heard Venezuela before, it's not a mistake. Although it's less capable Saudi makes more sense as a PAC-3 buyer, given that they've already got all of the Patriot infrastructure in place.

Mindstorm wrote:BVR missiles have failed to reach theirs targets almost systematically

It's not actually all that difficult to move outside of an active-radar seeker's field of view. At any rate AAMs have never and will never be 100% effective.

GarryB wrote:Known and verified Russian designators?
Perhaps the problem therefore is that export models are not included in their designation system?
They have stated they are introducing S-300V4 into service, now I doubt they mean they are just introducing one missile type.

Equally if they were then it doesn't make sense to introduce the V4 as because there are two it would be logical for a new system to either be V3(and 4) or V5 (and 6).

Those are the native designators for the system, yes. Export models have often been completely retarded with regard to their designations. Look at the S-300PMU: it's an export model S-300PS (SA-10B), but the designator makes you think that it's an S-300PM (SA-20A) variant. The S-300V4 could very well just be one missile type, if they've modified one or the other (9M82/3) to perform all of the required roles. That'd eliminate the need for a separate TELAR as well. In fact, even introducing just an ATBM S-300V4 would make sense as a stopgap until the ABM S-500 appears. Treat the S-300VM as the upgraded S-300V1/2, and then the S-300V4 as a separate dedicated system. Who knows. Maybe there is a V3/V4 combination, and just the ATBM V4 (following from the ATBM V2) is getting the silent treatment and therefore all of the attention. Although now that I dig a bit more, it seems that I do have an S-300VM1 and S-300VM2 designator listed; they're both referred to as the Antey-2500 for export, though. This, of course, still makes the S-300V4 a weird abberation. The V4 is likely one of the S-300VMD subvariants, the S-300VMD being the domestic equivalent to the further improved Antey-2500D. The S-300VM uses the 9M82M/9M83M, while the S-300VMD uses the 9M82M1/9M83M1.

Now that I think about it, this is what makes sense: the S-300VM, or Antey-2500, dropped the dual designators. Make that the in-service S-300V3. Then you've got the S-300VMD/Antey-2500D, becoming the in-service S-300V4. At least that seems logical at the moment.

SOC wrote:That's because it's still a relatively short-ranged ATBM system. To reduce the debris falling on you you're going to either 1) need to kill the target exoatmospherically, and hope the bits burn up on reentry, or 2) use either a very long-range or forward-deployed system to kill Pakistani missiles shortly after launch.

You are right , even the current missile that has been tested which is PAD achived a kill at maximum 80 km altitude better then 30 km but to hit in orbit you need more than 100 km isnt it ?

Just wanted to know your views on Indian ABM development , although there is so many media reports hyping it , I have a very different views on it.

Typically India and Pakistan is a border state and the distance between them is not too great , most of the times once pakistan fires a IRBM/MRBM against india within minutes it will be travelling on the indian land mass so any sucessful interception will most likely happen on Indian land mass and debris would fall there.

Considering there is so little early warning system in place and short distance I have my own doubt if even 10 % missile would ever get intercepted , the test done so far i think are staged managed , much like American ABM test which i too believe are stage managed but with more complexity involved.

Obviously DRDO is some how selling that ABM would do something great and nullify pakistan advantage etc etc .

What do you think ? we can take this in another thread if so required.

I've heard Venezuela before, it's not a mistake. Although it's less capable Saudi makes more sense as a PAC-3 buyer, given that they've already got all of the Patriot infrastructure in place.

Saudi is a strong US buyer , I really do not know what hopes Rosoboronexport is keeping that saudi will buy S-400/S-300V , I think US would simply offer them THAAD if they never did till yet.

Ok we have some information on S-300V4 and other development from this interesting interview.

http://redstar.ru/2011/12/24_12/1_01.html

What are examples of military equipment and weapons are now in the army air defense? What are the prospects for the modernization of existing and adopting new models?

The basis of the army air defense weapons systems are anti-aircraft missile systems and complexes "C-300V3", "Buk-M2", "Tor-M1", "Osa-AKM", "Tunguska-M1" MANPADS "Igla". { my comment , current missile in use }

The main means of automatic control are complex automation (CSA) "Glade-D4M1" designed to equip command posts of the military districts, armies, air defense missile brigades in the mobile and stationary versions, KSA "Tangent", and since 2009 - a single KSA " Barnaul-T ", designed to equip air defense units separate motorized rifle and tank brigades.

The means of exploration include mobile radars standby "Sky-NE", "Sky-IED" and combat mode "Ginger", "Overview", "Dome", as well as portable radar series "Harmony".

What has been done in this direction and that is expected in the next year or two?

Now being conducted R & D of next-generation air defense systems. The basic directions of the technological basis for such work are microelectronics, computer science and robotics.

Complete the Air Defense Forces military districts are currently held antiaircraft missile brigade, armed with the S-300V (entered service in 1988). The main objectives of the targeted type for the SAM are ballistic and tactical missiles, and airborne early warning aircraft and strategic aviation. The defeat of these objectives is achieved through the use of hypersonic anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAMs) with a powerful high-explosive fragmentation warhead aimed to undermine.

After modernization, the S-300B provided: increase in the range of aerodynamic destruction of aerial targets up to 400 km, increasing the area covered up to strokes operational-tactical and tactical missiles - in 3-4 times, and defeat short-range missiles and medium range ballistic missiles - with range of start-up to 3,500 km.

SAM "Buk-M1" is in service (since 1983) air defense missile brigade combined arms formations. Feature of the building complex is the placement of intelligence, guidance and launch missiles on a single chassis.. Such a construction of the complex in the class of medium-range air defense has no analogues in the world and provides the ability to fire a single self-propelled installation to perform combat missions fully autonomously.

Currently, the troops received another modification of the complex with the letter "Buk-M2" (adopted in 1991). While maintaining the same number of military facilities it provides an increase in the number of simultaneously engaged targets for the division of air from 6 to 24, increasing the area covered up the objects and forces of 2.5 times and the ability to defeat short-range missile with a range of start-up to 150-200 km.

In the near future on the basis of technical solutions SAM "Book" to be completed work on a new medium-range air defense missile systems for military defense, which in its combat characteristics (range of lesion, the amount of time the targeted goals and their rate of destruction) at times surpass its predecessor SAM "Book -M2. "
{ my comment , this is reference to the new BUK-M3 }

SAM "Tor-M1" (put into service in 1991) is in service with air defense combined arms formations.Feature of the construction of the system is the ability to conduct reconnaissance of enemy air movement in and opened fire with a short stop, and the complete automation of combat operation and the simultaneous firing of two goals in a given sector.

This year, the troops received a new version of "Tor-M2" which has now been on the characteristics of the simultaneous bombardment of a combat vehicle air four goals - only one in the world.In addition, compared with the previous modification, it is 1.5 times increase in the parameter affected area for height, speed and course.

This subsystem is a unified system of air defense command and control, reconnaissance and tactical weapons adopted by the provision in 2009. In the same year began a comprehensive equipping the troops, first of all units equipped air defense missile systems, "Tor-M1" and "Tor-M2." By background characteristics (number of processed air targets, the number and types superiors and subordinates interacting objects, radio communication, a complex solvable tactical and theoretical problems) KSA "Barnaul-T" corresponds to foreign analogues.

And the characteristics of mobility, security, interoperability management tools, time formulation of the problem fighting agents (from the head of Air Defense separate motorized rifle brigade to combat vehicle SAM (SAM), the delay is not more than 1 second) is superior to foreign models.

Besides the fact that the machine control at all levels from the chief defense motorized infantry brigade commander to the anti-aircraft missile batteries were built on a single armored vehicle-terrain mobility, as well as common software and hardware, communications and data transfer at all levels of government have their own built-in reconnaissance of air targets, as radar ("Harmony") and radio (L-150).

So S-300V4 is capable to dealing with Air Targets up to a range of 400 km and can defeat IRBM class ballistic missile with a range of 3500 km , So it will give the ground forces the same capability as PVO with S-400 SAM.

And Just to freshen ones mind , this is what was said about S-300V3 and S-300V4 in Milparade Article

Upgrading the SAM system to the S-300V3 configuration:

• doubles the engagement range for aerodynamic air targets (up to 150 km for the 9M83 SAM and up to 200 km for 9M82 SAM;

• halves the of SAM launch preparation time;

• increases the area covered against attacks by theater and tactical missiles 2 to 3 times;

• provides engagement of theater missiles and IRBM with a launch range of up to 1100 km;

• offers higher reliability (2.5-fold longer MTBF).

This year will see the completion of the next upgrade phase, which will further improve these parameters 1.5 to 2.3 times.

The S-300V has always had the primary role of ATBM system, so it does not surprise me they have managed to improve its performance figures.
The larger of the two missiles is rather big and is a two stage weapon, so getting 400km range would be much easier than with the single stage S-400... the main issue would be targeting and control at that range... we like to talk about range numbers but it is not until you actually look at a map and realise what this means... with a 400km range you could probably provide air cover for all of New Zealand with 4 or 5 batteries.

For smaller countries surrounded by other countries such a range might be a political problem...

In all cardinal principle the S-300V4 just doubles up performance figures over S-300V3 , and in some cases triples.

So its not just a performance inprovement , you can say its rather new system with fundamental characteristics.

Performance improvements would come if you get a 20 to max 50 % improvement , here its almost 2x to 3x times or 200-300 % improvement which is very radical.

Matching the S-400 is itself speaks how deep improvement the S-300V systems have gone through , plus getting getting a THAAD like performance figures for anti-IRBM and S-400 like performance for S-400 40N6 is really an amazing improvement they got.

May be SOC can now update his database on S-300V4 after this disclosure.

Well you could look at the early 90km range S-300 missiles and say the full sized S-400 missiles with a normal range of 250km and the long range missile with a range of 400km is a significant increase too.

They have all greatly improved in performance when money was available, and it would be improvements in hardware and software too no doubt.

I rather suspect both the S-400 and S-300V4 will lack THAADs performance in terms of altitude, but in area terms they will be very competitive.

Well S-300 series missile have their own improvements , some are just too drastic to be even kept under S-300 series if original performance is kept as benchmark.

Most countries would have labled these latter models sams as new class of missile , look at South Korea KM-SAM ( 40 km ) and the new higher range sam with 130 km Range , the latter is classified as new missile.

As far as altitude goes , recent performance figures that i have seen gives 40N6 an altitude of interception at 165 km , but we need some official confirmation , so lets see.

GarryB wrote:The S-300V has always had the primary role of ATBM system

I wonder whats the Venecuela idea of buying S-300V and not S-300PMU2.

Austin wrote:
As far as altitude goes , recent performance figures that i have seen gives 40N6 an altitude of interception at 165 km , but we need some official confirmation , so lets see.

I remember reading on arms-tass.su interview with S-400 designer serval years back saying Russian 40N6 ( addressed "long range" missile) will have 185 attitude range. Export version will have 40-60 km attitude range.

As I know 91N6 radar have 600 km range, which support 400 km range of S-400 missiles. I only wonder if they manage to increase radar range for S-300V4 or they have to build new radar, which could support similar range of 400 km for missiles.

medo wrote:As I know 91N6 radar have 600 km range, which support 400 km range of S-400 missiles. I only wonder if they manage to increase radar range for S-300V4 or they have to build new radar, which could support similar range of 400 km for missiles.

Good Point , Intercepting a target at 400 km or a target of 3500 km is as much a function of radar as of interceptor , infact more of radar is critical part.

Since we know so less of S-300V4 , we can just hazard a guess ..i would think its a deeply modified existing radar with totally new backend electronics.

i also wonder if for the new long range interceptor they still go on with SAAG guidance or go for ARH

GarryB wrote:The S-300V has always had the primary role of ATBM system, so it does not surprise me they have managed to improve its performance figures.
The larger of the two missiles is rather big and is a two stage weapon, so getting 400km range would be much easier than with the single stage S-400...

BOTH missiles are two-stage weapons, the 9M82 (GIANT) just has a bigger booster stage.

So from a prespective of comparision ,the S-300V3 with a range of 200 km and S-300PMU2 with a range of 200 km is exactly identical in all parameter.

So the only advantage of V3 over PMU2 will be higher energy for the former and much lighter missile at the end game since it jetission its first stage which means more manouverable then 300PMU2 ?

I rather suspect that to assist in terminal performance that both missiles will likely use side thruster rockets as the high closing speed will make fast manouvering vital.

Both missiles are pretty much designed to be able to intercept anything, and likely both are very capable.

Each has a different level of mobility, with the S-300V system designed to operate with tracked units across rough country.

At the altitude that they intercept , only Lateral Thrusters or Thrust Vectoring Control or Flex Nozzle will only work , I doubt those small conventional control surface is any good at altitude above 20 km.

At the speed they fly a large control surface would probably rip off, I agree that side thruster rockets make a lot of sense... especially considering even much slower Russian SAMs use them too like the Igla MANPAD.

One more time is important ...very important....to always remember that 99% of the figures circulating on the Net or present on public accessible brochures refer to export models of those weapon systems(very often sharing also the same system designation), therefore arguments founded around those parametrical figures represent almost always pointless rational exercices .

The technical figures disclosed and cited in common and specialized publications refer always to the export versions of those systems for internetional market (the uniques for which russian firms has the MoD's "placet" to provide precise technical figures), specialized press ,naturally,limit itself at specify that a domestic version of that system exist too....

For example the domestic versions of S-300V (S-300V1/V2) operative in Russian Ground Forces are not the same S-300V offered for export, the same point could be made for the export Antey-2500 and domestic S-300VM.

That can aid at clarify a bit the S-300V's "familiar tree"

http://vnfawing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=272

SA-12A Gladiator is credited with a average velocity of 1200 m/sec or Mach 3.5 and SA-12B Giant is credited with a average velocity of 1800 m/sec or Mach 5.3 , Is that True ?

Yes Austin, export versions of 9M83 and 9M82 should have average speed figures close to those you cited (even if likely those figures appear a bit conservative), naturally if we consider domestic version of those missiles (even only those in work or operatives in the half of '80 years !!) the thing begin to change quickly ; for that is sufficient to read the NATO technical assessments of those years on the capabilities of S-300V1/2 and theirs strategical implications for the coalition on the European theatre

At example read pag 40-44 (it is visible also in the Google book preview ) from "Soviet Ballistic Missile Defense and the Western Alliance" by David Scott Yost ,a book that i suggest to anyone to read to get a western point of view on the strategical situation in those years,in particular on the subject of BM/ABM equilibrium.