S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Mike E wrote:

Viktor wrote:Another confirmation that S-500 will enter mass production in 2016   

S-500 will enter the army in 2016

That is great news! Hopefully nothing slows that down!

You asked once and from the link above

Prospective AAMS is capable of hitting not only ballistic missiles, but also aerodynamic targets (aircraft, helicopters and other air targets), as well as cruise missiles.

I have no idea in what way should this system be able to shoot down aerodynamic and ballistic targets at the same time considering that the altitude of interception of ballistic missiles should

be well in the space. US/Israel strictly separated the two while Russia within the atmosphere uses the same missiles for the different roles. Now it seems that the same story is being

written in space.  

is it possible that s-500 is in fact s-300v replacement? A long range sam system for the Army?

Because if it is more of a thaad equivalent for interception of large ballistic missiles then i don't see how that meshes with intercepting cruise missiles which are usually flying very low.

eridan wrote:is it possible that s-500 is in fact s-300v replacement?

I think not. Its missiles might be based on S-300V missiles but until 2020 Russia intends to have 9 brigades of S-300V4 half of which will be newly produced so I dont think its a replacement from that and many others points of view.

eridan wrote:i A long range sam system for the Army?

Army has 350km range S-300V4 along with many others wonderful things and that makes them happy. It has been already said that S-500 will have anti ICBM capability and I dont think

that anyone intends to fire ICBM on tanks   

It has been said that S-500 will serve as a mobile anti-ABM (satellite, high flying hypersonic weapons) system within Russian forces and that inclines system towards territorial PVO.

eridan wrote:Because if it is more of a thaad equivalent for interception of large ballistic missiles then i don't see how that meshes with intercepting cruise missiles which are usually flying very low.

The thing that Russian generals keep repeating those words, puzzles me because I dont have a slightest clue about what it may look like or how they intend to solve problems associated

with it. It will be interesting but as time passes it seems that Russia is in the process of constructing jet another anti-EVERYTHING system (more "everything" than the one before) but this

one if proven to be true really surpasses all boundaries.

It's not that, just that delays CAN happen. While I doubt they will, it is possible.

But what if s500 is a designation for the next version of s300v? or, hell, maybe it's designation for next version of s400? I mean, it makes little sense, granted, since s400 is itself new. But also claims for s500 are just too wild. i mean, one system against both icbm and cruise missiles? that's just silly.

if it is a magical system against everything, it'd render s400, s350, s400v4, bukm3 and morfei obsolete. No need for all of them, why not have just one standardized system?

Or what if s500 is a designation for a detection/command/control/guidance unitary system and not a SAM with its own missiles? So a system which then uses whichever missile subsystem is at hand?

Or what if s500 is simply a next gen anti-irbm/icbm system like most normal sources indicate and all the additional claims of its additional capability are just uninformed hogwash?

Of course, if true that vehicles planned for the battery are similar to s400 and if true there will be a modified big bird radar among them, then i guess it's also possible to somehow just merge bits and pieces of s500 and s400 into one system. Several different radars and several different missiles would certainly be able to cover both ballistic missile and cruise missile defence. But then one would really talk about s500 as expanded s400.

I highly doubt S-500 will be a multipurpose one like S-300 or 400 is. S-500 was specifically for dealing with Anti-ICBM style systems and other major high flying targets (sats as example). S-400 is to compliment S-500 in dealing with jets, cruise missiles, IRBM's and the like. S-300V(4) is the Army equivelent meant to deal against IRBM's and MRBM's. Cruise missiles can be dealt with by various systems from Tor, Buk, Pantsir, S-300 and S-400, Osa, etc. The thing is, I doubt any of these systems can do a real good job besides Tor and Pantsir, as they are designed to deal more with short range aircrafts or PGM's to be specific.

This is just my guess/observation though.

sepheronx wrote:I highly doubt S-500 will be a multipurpose one like S-300 or 400 is.  S-500 was specifically for dealing with Anti-ICBM style systems and other major high flying targets (sats as example).  S-400 is to compliment S-500 in dealing with jets, cruise missiles, IRBM's and the like. S-300V(4) is the Army equivelent meant to deal against IRBM's and MRBM's.  Cruise missiles can be dealt with by various systems from Tor, Buk, Pantsir, S-300 and S-400, Osa, etc.  The thing is, I doubt any of these systems can do a real good job besides Tor and Pantsir, as they are designed to deal more with short range aircrafts or PGM's to be specific.

This is just my guess/observation though.

 - I have similar thoughts.... That being said, I believe that the S-500 can perform most of those tasks even though it will most likely stick to the ASAT/ICBM ABM role. Obviously, the S-500 won't be performing the tasks of the      Tor and pantsir etc. Though it should be able to compliment the S-300, S-350, and S-400 perfectly. 

 - Tor, Buk, Pantsir, Tunguska, Osa, Kub etc can focus on the low altitude and shorter ranged threats. Both the Pantsir and Tunguska will "focus" on the cruise missiles and smaller targets (as you know).

 - S-300 and S-350 will be used for the medium to long range targets that are beyond the range of the Tor etc.

 - S-400 will go for targets beyond the S-300 and S-350.

 - S-300V4 will focus on the smaller ballistic missiles up to the IRBM's.

 - S-500 will most likely be used for ballistic missiles all the way up to ICBM's, but can also supplement the S-400.

I know you know all of this information, but I wanted to put it out there for others.

sepheronx wrote:I highly doubt S-500 will be a multipurpose one like S-300 or 400 is.  S-500 was specifically for dealing with Anti-ICBM style systems and other major high flying targets (sats as example).  S-400 is to compliment S-500 in dealing with jets, cruise missiles, IRBM's and the like. S-300V(4) is the Army equivelent meant to deal against IRBM's and MRBM's.  Cruise missiles can be dealt with by various systems from Tor, Buk, Pantsir, S-300 and S-400, Osa, etc.  The thing is, I doubt any of these systems can do a real good job besides Tor and Pantsir, as they are designed to deal more with short range aircrafts or PGM's to be specific.

This is just my guess/observation though.

I mostly agree, but in all likeliness S-500 will have several different types of missiles. The main S-500 missile will likely be a 2 stage missile, but another missile could be designed with 3 or perhaps 4 stages mostly to be a ASAT weapon that's capable of destroying any satellite LEO or above, the same missile could be programmed to do the opposite and launch new generations of compact satellites in to LEO. We could quite possibly see another S-500 missile with (which could be made compatible with S-400 system) that's designed not to defeat ICBM's, but strategic bombers and cruise missile saturation attacks from 4000-6000 km's (guided by radar from naval assets such as Russia's next generation of destroyers) away from Russia's borders. The missile could be tipped with tactical nuclear warheads, and as a 4 stage missile it might be capable of getting a range of 4000 -6000 km's but it might be capable of increasing the range and speed by being able to fly high enough in initial stages to make it to the upper atmosphere so it could utilize orbital speed to rapidly and greatly increase speed and range.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

sepheronx wrote:I highly doubt S-500 will be a multipurpose one like S-300 or 400 is.  S-500 was specifically for dealing with Anti-ICBM style systems and other major high flying targets (sats as example).  S-400 is to compliment S-500 in dealing with jets, cruise missiles, IRBM's and the like. S-300V(4) is the Army equivelent meant to deal against IRBM's and MRBM's.  Cruise missiles can be dealt with by various systems from Tor, Buk, Pantsir, S-300 and S-400, Osa, etc.  The thing is, I doubt any of these systems can do a real good job besides Tor and Pantsir, as they are designed to deal more with short range aircrafts or PGM's to be specific.

This is just my guess/observation though.

I mostly agree, but in all likeliness S-500 will have several different types of missiles. The main S-500 missile will likely be a 2 stage missile, but another missile could be designed with 3 or perhaps 4 stages mostly to be a ASAT weapon that's capable of destroying any satellite LEO or above, the same missile could be programmed to do the opposite and launch new generations of compact satellites in to LEO. We could quite possibly see another S-500 missile with (which could be made compatible with S-400 system) that's designed not to defeat ICBM's, but strategic bombers and cruise missile saturation attacks from 4000-6000 km's (guided by radar from naval assets such as Russia's next generation of destroyers) away from Russia's borders. The missile could be tipped with tactical nuclear warheads, and as a 4 stage missile it might be capable of getting a range of 4000 -6000 km's but it might be capable of increasing the range and speed by being able to fly high enough in initial stages to make it to the upper atmosphere so it could utilize orbital speed to rapidly and greatly increase speed and range.

That too... Russia will probably turn the S-500 "into a S-300" (as in have a whole family of missiles and variants).

Mike E wrote: - I have similar thoughts.... That being said, I believe that the S-500 can perform most of those tasks even though it will most likely stick to the ASAT/ICBM ABM role. Obviously, the S-500 won't be performing the tasks of the      Tor and pantsir etc. Though it should be able to compliment the S-300, S-350, and S-400 perfectly. 

 - Tor, Buk, Pantsir, Tunguska, Osa, Kub etc can focus on the low altitude and shorter ranged threats. Both the Pantsir and Tunguska will "focus" on the cruise missiles and smaller targets (as you know).

 - S-300 and S-350 will be used for the medium to long range targets that are beyond the range of the Tor etc.

 - S-400 will go for targets beyond the S-300 and S-350.

 - S-300V4 will focus on the smaller ballistic missiles up to the IRBM's.

 - S-500 will most likely be used for ballistic missiles all the way up to ICBM's, but can also supplement the S-400.

I know you know all of this information, but I wanted to put it out there for others.

Keep in mind several things.

1. All those systems are devided in the territorial PVO (S-500, S-400, S-350, S-300, Pancir-S1) and Army PVO (S-300V4, BUK-M2, Tor-M2) in general

2. All those things can shoot at just about anything meaning S-300 can effectively deal with low flying cruise missiles, ballistic missile, fighters, AWACS and guided weapons

   meaning layers are established but there is overlapping too involved (Pancir-S1 can shoot at planes, cruise missiles, guided weapons but soon at small range ballistic missiles too)

3. Until 40N6 enters S-400, S-300V4 is the longest range Russian SAM system and just as same as S-400 and S-300Favorit is able to shoot down ICBM (with some difference more or less)

4. The wording "focus" of BUK/TOR/Pancir on this or that etc is wrong here as all of them are controled by automated command post which calculate firing solutions and distribute

  targets for each firing unit. Those things are optimized according to algorithms calculated by Russian scientist.

5. About the layers

territorial PVO                                

- S-500                                      
- S-400                                      
- S-300 Favorit                            
- S-350                                      
- Pancir-SM/S1                            
- Morfei                                      
- Verba/Igla/ZSU-23    


Army PVO

- S-300V4
- BUK-M3/M2/M1  
- Pancir-SM/S1 (likely)
- Tor-M1/M2/M2U
- Morfei (could be - Im counting on it )
- Pine (replacement for Strela-10M3)
- Tunguska/Igla/ZSU-23

so you see you have 5-6 layers, target will have to pass to successfully struck the goal. Territorial and Army PVO have they own AND separate radar/elint/ecm/eccm units which

accompany them. Each of them was designed sparately taking into account their unique problems and conditions. Lately, work is underway to unite the two but each of the subsystems

and them in general have their own command posts which have strict hierarchy, redudancy and ability to replace each other in case of destruction at the same time. In case of destruction

of any of its part the whole structure automatically adjust itself according to optimal next solution.


To ilustrate organizational structure of Russian Radio Troops    (and take not that this picture shows only 10 % of what should be in here to be complete)

This picture ilustrates organizational structure of Russian Radio Troops for territorial PVO  (its a whole different story with Radio Troops of Army PVO)

I meant that as an "in general" kind of thing. Of course it can be broken down further, but that is the basic "idea".

 - Thanks for that info!

Anyone who use an S-500 to shoot down a $500k tomahack cruise missile should be fired from his job. Because
the S-500 missile ,is like a space rocket and its cost should not be cheap. My estimate compared with how much brahmos cost 1.5 millions is from $10 -$20 millions per missile.

That said Expensive missiles are for expensive targets.. not for drones drones or regular combat planes. or helicopters or cheap targets that any other weapon can do.. So the ideal target for an S-500 should be ICBM..like minutemans 2. Or perhaps B-2 bombers or F-22 or F-35 , if there is a war and you cannot wait for airforce and do not have an S-400/s-300 around. Or a Satellite.

And no the S-500 is not like THAAD or SM-3.. Those systems are limited in their capabilities can only target ballistic missiles that its flight path is near the position of them. S-500 is like and any air or space altitude interceptor ,probably a hit to kill S-400 with significant larger range and more advanced detection and sensors in the warhead.
is not limited like THAAD or SM-3 to be positioned in the right line of flight of the enemy targets . THAAD is ideal for defenses of bases when a missile is going directly to it. Because the S-500 is a real Sam it can operate anywhere at any direction and chase targets that its flight path is far away of the missile location.

IF for example an SM-3 +THAAD is placed in Crimea .it will fail to hit any ballistic missile targeting Sochi that avoid Crimea airspace. The US anti ballistic Missiles defenses do not chase far from its zone ,they simply fly upwards and step in the middle of a ballistic missile flight path, while S-500 can chase targets any low or high altitude over long ranges up 600km . So S-500 is a complete defense System ,while SM-3 and Thaad are limited its operation of where they are positioned. That said in case of a nuclear war.. lets say that SM-3 and Thaad works 100% of the time and never fails and the same for S-500. Then US will be doomed because will not be able to defend all its territory.. with a defense that do not chase ballistic missiles away of its zone.

That is what we've been talking about. Russia has so many missiles that the S-500 won't have to attack "regular" targets.

Viktor wrote:territorial PVO                                

- S-500                                      
- S-400                                      
- S-300 Favorit                            
- S-350                                      
- Pancir-SM/S1                            
- Morfei                                      
- Verba/Igla/ZSU-23    


Army PVO

- S-300V4
- BUK-M3/M2/M1  
- Pancir-SM/S1 (likely)
- Tor-M1/M2/M2U
- Morfei (could be - Im counting on it )
- Pine (replacement for Strela-10M3)
- Tunguska/Igla/ZSU-23

so you see you have 5-6 layers, target will have to pass to successfully struck the goal. Territorial and Army PVO have they own AND separate radar/elint/ecm/eccm units which

Viktor, you forgot that PVO also has a number of interceptors (Mig-31's) under their control and that's the most outer layer of air defense, so theirs at least 8 layers of in PVO.

The more the merrier! - We were talking about ground defenses, but I guess we can add a little on air defenses.

Vann7 wrote:

Anyone who use an S-500 to shoot down a $500k tomahack cruise missile should be fired from his job. Because
the S-500 missile ,is like a space rocket and its cost should not be cheap. My estimate compared with how much brahmos cost 1.5 millions is from $10 -$20 millions per missile.

You missed the point entirely, saturation attacks with nuclear tipped cruise missiles and clusters of strategic bombers can easily be just as much a problem as ICBM's, and unlike ICBM's America's B-1 lancer is not restricted by the START treaty, which can easily hold 20+ cruise missiles with over 2,400 km range, add that there's over 100 B-1 lancers and you can come to the conclusion that strategic cruise missiles easily become a national security risk on par with ICBM's. If you have 1000 nuclear cruise missiles fired towards Russia's borders in a surprise saturation attack than it would be smart to have S-500 missiles with tactical nuclear warheads capable of destroying saturated clusters of strategic cruise missiles (especially early enough when their still in proximity of their strategic bombers) 4,000-6,000 km's away from Russia's borders, because it's not enough to destroy the cruise missile you have to figure in radioactive fallout and pervasive winds, and how that might effect the Russian population.

The farther away you can defeat nuclear cruise missiles, the better, and you can't rule out strategic missiles being fitted with MAWS suite, and programmed to detonate to take out strategic interceptors like Mig-31's, and instead of measuring the cost of one 1 S-500 missile to 1 cruise missile, you should measure the cost of human life and the cost of a major population center being irradiated and inhospitable for several decades and the lost income resulting from it.

I have noticed the push to removing old S-300 systems. My guess is because they are already long compromised. Possibly in future Syria will get an export S-400 or S-300VM as an alternative.

sepheronx wrote:I have noticed the push to removing old S-300 systems. My guess is because they are already long compromised. Possibly in future Syria will get an export S-400 or S-300VM as an alternative.

1.) Compromised? Actual exercises involving Slovakian S-300's (likely they've been taken apart and sorted with a fine-tooth comb) with NATO forces proven without a shadow of a doubt the S-300 family's extreme resistance to jamming and other forms of ECM, and the S-300's that were contracted to go to Syria were most likely better all around than Slovakian S-300's including jamming resistance.

2.) If the Israeli's and the Turks want to host American strategic radars to spy on Russian airspace, then why should Russia capitulate and not deliver the S-300's? If Israel and Turkey want to become strategic assets for America's nuclear triad, then delivering the S-300's make's a lot of sense because you can't rule out strategic bombers being stationed in those 2 countries, and having long range air defense assets capable of swatting strategic bombers out the air could be a vital asset in undermining a saturated cruise missile attack from Russia's south-west, especially if Russia and Syria are working closely together in an integrated IAD fashion.

3.) The S-300's were already ready to be delivered, and the S-400's and S-300VM's will take time to assemble...and the famous saying  goes "A bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush".

magnumcromagnon wrote:

sepheronx wrote:I have noticed the push to removing old S-300 systems. My guess is because they are already long compromised. Possibly in future Syria will get an export S-400 or S-300VM as an alternative.

1.) Compromised? Actual exercises involving Slovakian S-300's (likely they've been taken apart and sorted with a fine-tooth comb) with NATO forces proven without a shadow of a doubt the S-300 family's extreme resistance to jamming and other forms of ECM, and the S-300's that were contracted to go to Syria were most likely better all around than Slovakian S-300's including jamming resistance.

If I'm not wrong, Slovakian version was s-300ps.
So, PMU2 should be two generations ahead of that, S-400- three.

However, keep in mind that "resistance to jamming" is not a plain single value, but many factors, each affecting performance in a various ways.

etaepsilonk wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

sepheronx wrote:I have noticed the push to removing old S-300 systems. My guess is because they are already long compromised. Possibly in future Syria will get an export S-400 or S-300VM as an alternative.

1.) Compromised? Actual exercises involving Slovakian S-300's (likely they've been taken apart and sorted with a fine-tooth comb) with NATO forces proven without a shadow of a doubt the S-300 family's extreme resistance to jamming and other forms of ECM, and the S-300's that were contracted to go to Syria were most likely better all around than Slovakian S-300's including jamming resistance.

If I'm not wrong, Slovakian version was s-300ps.
So, PMU2 should be two generations ahead of that, S-400- three.

However, keep in mind that "resistance to jamming" is not a plain single value.

Exactly, and the version of S-300 that was under close NATO scrutiny and examination was proven to be extremely capable and resilient against NATO forces and their jamming tactics in NATO exercises, so despite getting to know the in's-and-out's of the system they were still helpless to stop it.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

sepheronx wrote:I have noticed the push to removing old S-300 systems. My guess is because they are already long compromised. Possibly in future Syria will get an export S-400 or S-300VM as an alternative.

1.) Compromised? Actual exercises involving Slovakian S-300's (likely they've been taken apart and sorted with a fine-tooth comb) with NATO forces proven without a shadow of a doubt the S-300 family's extreme resistance to jamming and other forms of ECM, and the S-300's that were contracted to go to Syria were most likely better all around than Slovakian S-300's including jamming resistance.

If I'm not wrong, Slovakian version was s-300ps.
So, PMU2 should be two generations ahead of that, S-400- three.

However, keep in mind that "resistance to jamming" is not a plain single value.

Exactly, and the version of S-300 that was under close NATO scrutiny and examination was proven to be extremely capable and resilient against NATO forces and their jamming tactics in NATO exercises, so despite getting to know the in's-and-out's of the system they were still helpless to stop it.  

Under what conditions they were helpless?
Standoff mainlobe jamming should be very difficult to deal with, even with advanced radars.

Vann7 wrote:Anyone who use an S-500 to shoot down a $500k tomahack cruise missile should be fired from his job. Because
the S-500 missile ,is like a space rocket and its cost should not be cheap. My estimate compared with how much brahmos cost 1.5 millions is from $10 -$20 millions per missile.

I don't agree here. If Tomahawk cruise missile fly to Russia, than it most probably have nuclear warhead. So if no other SAM in IADS is in better position, than firing an S-500 missile against it is still OK as S-500 missile is still far cheaper than destroyed town.

sepheronx wrote:I have noticed the push to removing old S-300 systems. My guess is because they are already long compromised. Possibly in future Syria will get an export S-400 or S-300VM as an alternative.

Even if NATO had acquired some older versions of the S-300 (from Slovakia and Greece) and had them properly analyzed, the S-300 development is not static, it also has deferent flavors of Surveillance radars and Target tracking/missile guidance systems not to mention missiles (yes, i am still talking about the PMU1), so it still makes no sense to scrap them, especially now, when the West is attacking Russia economically.   

medo wrote:

Vann7 wrote:Anyone who use an S-500 to shoot down a $500k tomahack cruise missile should be fired from his job. Because
the S-500 missile ,is like a space rocket and its cost should not be cheap. My estimate compared with how much brahmos cost 1.5 millions is from $10 -$20 millions per missile.

I don't agree here. If Tomahawk cruise missile fly to Russia, than it most probably have nuclear warhead. So if no other SAM in IADS is in better position, than firing an S-500 missile against it is still OK as S-500 missile is still far cheaper than destroyed town.

At that point smaller missiles could easily finish job, although I have to agree with what magnum (P.I.) said.