P.V.O. (Russian Air Defence) General Thread:

etaepsilonk wrote:
I meant numerically.
Heck, I'm sure that the best 4th gen fighter is Su-35

But keep in mind that NATO's F-15s are nearly as good and much more numerous.
And those are just the fighters, there're also AWACSs, tankers, recon, comm planes, all of which contribute to battle effectiveness as much as fighting systems themselves.

Hahaha, Su-35 need not fear any F-15- the only F-15s that can actually cause trouble are murican and we all know if it comes to that its nuketime, other operators are not worth mentioning since against them lower aircraft would suffice.
Also, F-15 cant be better than F-35 and we all know Su-35 is more than a match for the F-35.

I meant numerically.
Heck, I'm sure that the best 4th gen fighter is Su-35

But keep in mind that NATO's F-15s are nearly as good and much more numerous.
And those are just the fighters, there're also AWACSs, tankers, recon, comm planes, all of which contribute to battle effectiveness as much as fighting systems themselves.

Actually in comparison with all US 4generatin fighters ,Not only the Su-35 is superior but also all thousands of SU-27s and MIg-29 with upgraded avionics that Russia have.. because they can see first and attack first.. and in the case of the Sukhois they have thrust vectoring engines.. means that no F-15-f-16-f18 stance a chance in visual combat against any Sukhoi.. this was even confirmed by an American pilot of an F-22 ,who saw how India wiped
all their 4gen planes in RED FLAG exercises in 2008.. So he told that is was scary how Russia technology dominate their 4th generation planes. in a dogfight you cannot win a sukhoi super maneuverable using linear thrust engines.. pilot skills being the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNRMO70Hw0s&index=134&list=FLwGYjBaQ5y2UY3gKVsOTACw

When it comes to F-22 raptor and F-35.. Their numbers are not good enough to make a difference , major problem the raptor will face is that it will be detected as soon launch a missile and the the SU-35 can jam the raptor missiles with its very advanced ECM capabilities. SO the raptor will see first ,first first but will not score a hit ,and once the SU-35 short the distance is game over for the raptor.. since lose a lot of energy when doing tight turns ,major weakness confirmed by Rafale and Eurofighters pilots who already defeated it. SU-35 in the other hand is a True vector engine fighter , not only 1 Y axis dimension but in X dimension too. With its infrared passive sensors (that the raptor dont have) the Su-35 can see the raptor easily at up to ~50km-80km according to Sukhoi claims. That is very decent medium ranges of interception.

US strong point vs Russia is in the navy vs navy in open sea when using their aircraft carriers + combat jets(away of Russian territory).. and also strong in intercepting ICBM with their navy ,also geographics/political advantage in first strike capability,can use any territory in Europe to attack Russia.. Russia cannot use Mexico or canada to attack US.The US navy can overwhelm any navy in the world including Russia for sure albeit not without suffering massive losses.. But its army is mediocre at best ,specially its missiles forces.

In a conventional only war ,Lets say US choose to invade Ukraine with its army and tanks with Russia threatening to fight them if they do it. And US deploy all their impressive number of massive Airforces Poland and Romania..
The major problem they will face is that Russia Kaliber missiles have 3,600km range and can hit any part of Europe ,and any airforce military base. So Russia can do direct hits on their military bases anyplace in europe and just using their land missiles forces the most powerful in the world...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drlreb9-fXQ


NATO will need to move their airfoces not only away of Russia combat range but away of their combat range too. It means that in a war between USA and RUssia their airforces will play no role at all. because will be at range of Russian cruise missiles or at range of S-400s. It means the NATO will no longer be able to count with air support in a war against Russia. And then when NATO armies gets closer ,Russia will start firing iskanders with 500km range and 5m precision. This means Russia can do Direct hits on the supply lines of NATO in their operation bases..

Russia also have a huge advantage on Sam Defenses and mobile sam defenses ,not a single American slow tomawahk missile will bypass a zone protected with highly mobile Pantsirs ,Tors and Buks. In the other hand US and Allies will have a pain dealing with Supersonic mach 3 missiles hugging terrain and coming from all directions *at the same time*.

Russia army is very dynamic can move every thing with their foot soldiers to any place ,that is sams ,electronic jammers and offensive weapons to any part the army move, NATO army is very static and purely offensive.they depend on airforces for their defenses 100%.


Simply NATO is not prepared to fight Russia in a conventional war (specifically in the case they fight near Russia) main land. All western tanks will be useless if Russia can knockdown them from 90km away with Smerch drone+lazer guided rockets. This is why NATO tactics is 100% based in weakening RUssian economy. To give them another Afganistan. That is a proxy war.. NATO instigate revolutions and arm radicals with weapons in nations important for Russian interest. Weapons clients like Syria ,Iran or major trade partners like Ukraine,this way they can avoid a direct war with Russia that they can't win. US can be more effective with sabotages to Russian economy and Sanctions. This is the Reason Syria but also Ukraine is attacked.. they want to use Syria discovered Gas fields to supply Europe and cripple Russia economy. They also after Ukraine because Russia pipelines pass through Ukraine and large part of Russia economy depends of their business with them.

here is a comparison of US vs Russia airforces.. and why in a fight vs Russia or China they will NOT have air superiority..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNRMO70Hw0s&index=134&list=FLwGYjBaQ5y2UY3gKVsOTACw

Russia does not have thousands of MiG-29s and Su-27s.

And far from all of them are upgraded.

TR1 wrote:Russia does not have thousands of MiG-29s and Su-27s.

And far from all of them are upgraded.

Your correct.. still doesn't matter.. NATO will not have air supremacy in a conflict with Russia. The
several hundreds strong war planes they can get combined with S-400s,S-300s and mobile buks and tors can pull back any NATO airforce. Russia have airforce range advantage and Sam advantage and counter measure advantage. Just days ago the US airforce lost 2 drones in crimea ,against Russian electronic counter measures.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-intercepted-us-drone-over-crimea-arms-180430584.html;_ylt=At_B0i8Ttqvgrn8ZH8ESDpzQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBsdmNodWplBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHNlYwNzcg--

US deny the claims they lost drones,just like they did when lost drones in IRAN ,and later it was proved IRAN downed a stealth drone capture and obama change their version asking for a return.  A real Combat simulation done by Pentagon between NATO and Russia+China airforces combined shows the problem of air supremacy even in the case they use F-22 and F-35.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITbGBmaqQkk

Simply NATO will never send an army with tanks to any place ,that they do not have air supremacy first.
Their armies not prepared to fight Russia in a conventional war ,specially when Russia have the option to get assistance of China . But even without any China help , Russia can counter NATO numbers with superior weapon advantage ,that can allow any combat plane , to snipe all NATO forces from a safe distance and also bomb their military bases in any part of europe from where their airforce take off day and night.

To be quite frank until I see photos of the drones I am skeptical the event ever happened.

Vann7 wrote:NATO army is very static and purely offensive

  You made my day!

NATO had serious trouble with the mobility and skill of the Serbian air defence forces... I would suggest that the Russian air defence forces would be equally as challenging, but also far better equipped with systems and weapons that can reach out and touch.

And then they have the Russian Air Force to deal with which includes its own SAMs and radars, and the Russian Army which again has its own SAMs and radars and of course the Russian Navy which also has its own SAMs and radars...

I don't see any Rush to send NATO forces to deal with the evil Russians invading and annexing Crimea...

GarryB wrote:NATO had serious trouble with the mobility and skill of the Serbian air defence forces... I would suggest that the Russian air defence forces would be equally as challenging, but also far better equipped with systems and weapons that can reach out and touch.

And then they have the Russian Air Force to deal with which includes its own SAMs and radars, and the Russian Army which again has its own SAMs and radars and of course the Russian Navy which also has its own SAMs and radars...

I don't see any Rush to send NATO forces to deal with the evil Russians invading and annexing Crimea...

Not only that Russian forces would be equally if not better trained than Serbian forces,but they unlike Serbia would have thousands of latest sam's like s-300,s-400,buk's,tor's,pancirs.....We in Serbia used sam's that were from Vietnam war era.Not to mention the difference in the size of the territory and the number and quality of the air force.Serbia had 10 mig 29s out of which majority didn't have spare parts or working radars.And dodnt forget the upcoming s-350,s-500....

GarryB wrote:NATO had serious trouble with the mobility and skill of the Serbian air defence forces... I would suggest that the Russian air defence forces would be equally as challenging, but also far better equipped with systems and weapons that can reach out and touch.

And then they have the Russian Air Force to deal with which includes its own SAMs and radars, and the Russian Army which again has its own SAMs and radars and of course the Russian Navy which also has its own SAMs and radars...

I don't see any Rush to send NATO forces to deal with the evil Russians invading and annexing Crimea...

Don't forget, that NATO need to have troops in Africa, ME and US have to have large capabilities around Iran, China, Pakistan, Latin America, etc. They could not just take all forces from all around the World to challenge Russia, because China will fill this vacuum with their forces and many places around the World will become free of Westerners and trade with others without western influence. On the other hand, unfortunately, stupidity and greed don't have limits.

TR1 wrote:To be quite frank until I see photos of the drones I am skeptical the event ever happened.

Alleged video of American drone over Crimea:

Not sure where to put image , so opted here



New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

This is something new. On launcher are not missiles, but mass gabarites. Considering position of launcher, missiles will be most probably vertically launched. Maybe it have something to do with Morphei (for testing components).

zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

The missile tubes look rather small, Morfey perhaps?

Edit: Medo came to the same conclusion as me.

zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

I would say we have four mass replicas of S-300/S-400 standard-size missiles on a launcher that is behind the vehicle in the foreground, with the front vehicle (the one in the foreground) obscuring most of the launcher.

New pics

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

I would say we have four mass replicas of S-300/S-400 standard-size missiles on a launcher that is behind the vehicle in the foreground, with the front vehicle (the one in the foreground) obscuring most of the launcher.

If there is a vehicle behind, we should see at least wheels and shadow of it, which should be between front vehicle and the group of people. This one is interesting, because it is not standard S-300 launcher and also not an engagement radar vehicle, but have different elements covered by cover. Specially operators container covered behind is mysterious. Maybe it is photoshoped, but still, those components on one vehicles are not usual for S-300 or S-400 and they are covered. This is something new for tests.

medo wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

I would say we have four mass replicas of S-300/S-400 standard-size missiles on a launcher that is behind the vehicle in the foreground, with the front vehicle (the one in the foreground) obscuring most of the launcher.

If there is a vehicle behind, we should see at least wheels and shadow of it, which should be between front vehicle and the group of people. This one is interesting, because it is not standard S-300 launcher and also not an engagement radar vehicle, but have different elements covered by cover. Specially operators container covered behind is mysterious. Maybe it is photoshoped, but still, those components on one vehicles are not usual for S-300 or S-400 and they are covered. This is something new for tests.

May'be a hybrid SAM, a prototype that both fulfills duties of long-to medium range, and SHORAD something like a S-300/S-400 variant with a extended trailer for a Morfey or a Tor missile launcher, a possible evolutionary path of advanced IAD. The philosophy of Russian IAD tactics is to have advanced, reliable, cost-effective, and ever evolving/progressing SAM and IAD tactics. Russian MOD doesn't like to stay complacent when it comes to future aerial threats and aerospace defense, and I honestly think hybrid SAM's will pave the way for the future allowing more flexibility for future advanced Russian SAM's.

medo wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

I would say we have four mass replicas of S-300/S-400 standard-size missiles on a launcher that is behind the vehicle in the foreground, with the front vehicle (the one in the foreground) obscuring most of the launcher.

If there is a vehicle behind, we should see at least wheels and shadow of it, which should be between front vehicle and the group of people. This one is interesting, because it is not standard S-300 launcher and also not an engagement radar vehicle, but have different elements covered by cover. Specially operators container covered behind is mysterious. Maybe it is photoshoped, but still, those components on one vehicles are not usual for S-300 or S-400 and they are covered. This is something new for tests.

Vide supra.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

medo wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

I would say we have four mass replicas of S-300/S-400 standard-size missiles on a launcher that is behind the vehicle in the foreground, with the front vehicle (the one in the foreground) obscuring most of the launcher.

If there is a vehicle behind, we should see at least wheels and shadow of it, which should be between front vehicle and the group of people. This one is interesting, because it is not standard S-300 launcher and also not an engagement radar vehicle, but have different elements covered by cover. Specially operators container covered behind is mysterious. Maybe it is photoshoped, but still, those components on one vehicles are not usual for S-300 or S-400 and they are covered. This is something new for tests.

May'be a hybrid SAM, a prototype that both fulfills duties of long-to medium range, and SHORAD something like a S-300/S-400 variant with a extended trailer for a Morfey or a Tor missile launcher, a possible evolutionary path of advanced IAD. The philosophy of Russian IAD tactics is to have advanced, reliable, cost-effective, and ever evolving/progressing SAM and IAD tactics. Russian MOD doesn't like to stay complacent when it comes to future aerial threats and aerospace defense, and I honestly think hybrid SAM's will pave the way for the future allowing more flexibility for future advanced Russian SAM's.

Which one of the two vehicles in the picture are you referring to?

zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

Video footage:

Hello there

I have a question to ask about S-300 missile defense system. Among S-300 missile family (S-300V, S-300P, and S300F), which one is more powerful. Previously, Russian government scraped the deal to sell S-300PMU-1 missile system. Recently, Russian government agreed to sell S-300VM "Antey-2500." I would like to know what is the difference between these two systems in terms of capability, such that they want to sell S-300VM in stead of S-300PMU-1 missile system.

The S-300F is the naval version of S-300P which is the air force model. S-300F is used by the navy.

S-300V is the armies version of the S-300 SAM and is primarily designed as the upper self defence SAM to protect large units in the field. Because of this is it able to deal with cruise and ballistic missiles and air targets but is largely based on tracked vehicles that can pretty much go most places a tank can go.

In terms of performance the S-300PMU-1 and S-300VM are pretty similar...


The PMU battery can engage up to 6 targets at once with up to 12 missiles with aerodynamic targets from 5km to 150km in range and 10m to 27km altitude. Crossing range engagement capability is 149km.

Against ballistic targets range is 5-40km and altitude is 2-25km with a target speed up to 2,800m/s or 2.8km/s which equates to a sea level flight speed of mach 8.75.

For the VM system performance for aerodynamic targets is up to 200km and ballistic targets up to 40km, while altitudes are 25m to 30km in altitude for aerodynamic targets and up to 30km for ballistic targets.

the max speed of a ballistic missile target is 4.5km/s which equates to about mach 14.

The VM system is also harder to overwhelm with numbers as it is able to handle 24 aircraft or 16 ballistic threats at one time.

Personally I think it would be a much better system for Iran... especially if Iran buys the licence production rights for the missiles and makes some serious numbers of missiles.

A purchase of Pantsir-S1 and or TOR to support them would be important too.... but licence production of missiles would mean attempts to overwhelm them would fail and also that any enemy building up numbers for an attack would need much greater force sizes which would be easier to spot before the attack... which would make Iran safer.

Any update on anti-aircraft missile complex short-range "Morpheus". It is expected that the new system will go to the Russian Air Force in 2015 ?

I have been told almost 2 years ago now (Militarov will know) that there are certain problems with Morfei and that delays are expected because of it.no word about it for some time now but that is expected from top noch system that will have great impact on the modern battlefield and is first in its class.

Viktor wrote:I have been told almost 2 years ago now (Militarov will know) that there are certain problems with Morfei and that delays are expected because of it.no word about it for some time now but that is expected from top noch system that will have great impact on the modern battlefield and is first in its class.

Yeah problems where reported with it, i belive i saw somewhere its pushed for 2018. now, but i guess it will come around.