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

George1 wrote:

Viktor wrote:Nice  

Russia's Northern Fleet air defense effort "triumph"

can anyone informs us about the total number of S-400 in service by now?

As far as I know we had at the end of 2014:
9 Regiments with 19 Battalions

George1 wrote:

Viktor wrote:Nice  

Russia's Northern Fleet air defense effort "triumph"

can anyone informs us about the total number of S-400 in service by now?

As I know, there is 10 regiments now. At the end of 2013, there were 7 regiments and in 2014 they receive 3 regiments, 1 in Moscow, 1 in Kamchatka and 1 in Murmansk.

George1 wrote:1 regiment is 12 units if i am right

S-300 regiment have 12 launchers (2 x 6 launchers). S-400 regiment have 16 launchers (2 x 8 launchers), but regiment in Kamchatka have 24 launchers (3 x 8 launchers), what was whole S-300 brigade (4 x 6 launchers). Russian military now have 168 S-400 launchers with 21 radar completes.

This news says 9 S-400 regiments deployed as of December 2014.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150109/1016715857.html

Kyo wrote:This news says 9 S-400 regiments deployed as of December 2014.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150109/1016715857.html

Yeah, it should be 9 regiments.

Does anybody know where we have the fourth site / regiment around Moscow? Any news in the Russian Media about it?

Isn't it strange that Saint Petersburg would not be a higher priority for S-400 deployment ? Moscow has four regiments equipped and Saint Petersburg zero. Saint Petersburg is naval headquarters, contains important shipbuilding and technology base, and is by far the second largest city in Russia. Not to mention it is the most proximate to NATO.

rambo54 wrote:

Kyo wrote:This news says 9 S-400 regiments deployed as of December 2014.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150109/1016715857.html

Yeah, it should be 9 regiments.

Does anybody know where we have the fourth site / regiment around Moscow? Any news in the Russian Media about it?

Im not sure how much sense it has to follow locations of those regiments as for sure they are prone to frequent changes, etc

but here is something you might find useful

Four anti-aircraft regiment will complement the C-400 for the defense of Moscow

Viktor wrote:

rambo54 wrote:

Kyo wrote:This news says 9 S-400 regiments deployed as of December 2014.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150109/1016715857.html

Yeah, it should be 9 regiments.

Does anybody know where we have the fourth site / regiment around Moscow? Any news in the Russian Media about it?

Im not sure how much sense it has to follow locations of those regiments as for sure they are prone to frequent changes, etc

but here is something you might find useful

Four anti-aircraft regiment will complement the C-400 for the defense of Moscow

Up to now no regiment has ever changed its position!

Unfortunately they didn't mention a nearby location / town in the link

calripson wrote:Isn't it strange that Saint Petersburg would not be a higher priority for S-400 deployment ? Moscow has four regiments equipped and Saint Petersburg zero. Saint Petersburg is naval headquarters, contains important shipbuilding and technology base, and is by far the second largest city in Russia. Not to mention it is the most proximate to NATO.

NATO would have to pass Kaliningrad to reach out for St.Peterburg. And to protect the SSBN fleet has priority.

rambo54 wrote:
Unfortunately they didn't mention a nearby location / town in the link

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150110/1016747099.html

Kyo wrote:

rambo54 wrote:
Unfortunately they didn't mention a nearby location / town in the link

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150110/1016747099.html

Thanks!

But for example it is said in this article
"This regimental set will be the fourth as three S-400 regiments are deployed near Moscow in the cities of Dmitrov, Zvenigorod and Elektrostal."

This is what I mean: we know Elektrostal, Dimitrov and Zvenigorod but we don't know near which location we have the fourth regiment right now

Cheers

Hehe ... now this is just great ....

Russian Defense Ministry: AAMS S300V4 confirmed the ability to hit targets up to 400 km

"The system is armed S300V4 two types of missiles: Heavy rocket range destroy air targets up to 400 kilometers, having a hypersonic speed (about 7.5 Mach number), and easy to defeat missiles with a range of 150 kilometers," - said Lieutenant General Alexander Leonov.

The system is able to destroy air targets at ranges of up to 400 kilometers and at an altitude of 37 kilometers, destroy tactical, operational-tactical and medium range ballistic missiles.

now Russia has two systems capable of engaging targets out to 400km range .... and next year S-500 is coming

a new S-400 is announced already - this time in Novosibirsk - it could be the 590 RGT...still with S-300PT...here 55.072799° 83.278202° and here 54.863642° 82.826052° (Big Bird site is here 55.095878° 82.858290° )
http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20141223/1039766883.html

Image of s-500 launcher? Allegedly Almaz decided to put images of their products on a calendar they publish.

Someone at paralay.com said it could actually be 40N6. Either way, big sucker!
From mycity-military:

possibly, but i would expect them to go for launcher vehicle commonality, thus making the 40n6 missiles fit on the regular vehicle, not this heavy duty vehicle we see here. That's six axles there meaning the missiles are probably over twice the weight of 48n6 family.

I would also mean s400 has two launchers shown on the calendar, where all the other systems have just one launcher shown. That's no proof of anything, i know, but it just sounds a bit more logical to show off one of each...

thank you! i guess it is possible it is part of a235. though, now i am wondering, just what role is s500 for? againsdt atacms there is s300/400 family. against icbm warheads reentering atmosphere there is a235. but what is s500 for then? the west has no missiles in the intermediate range.

does russia really look at china as such a threat, with all the economic ties? without china there is no one left with irbm arsenal s500 could be used against.

so what roles are left? super long ranged aircraft interceptor for maximum coverage of airspace with as few units as possible? probably working only against unsuspecting non agile planes.

or is to be the main means of shooting down satellites at 500ish km altitude or lower?

but, to get back to a235 idea. Missiles inside the launcher should be replacing the gazelle missiles, no? 10 meters long, 1 meter wide, 10 tons - more or less. Does the image support such dimensions? Have the requirements grown, compared to gazelle? Or have the technological advances made possible to keep the same requirement in a slightly smaller package?

I've been wondering... How effective long-range SAM systems (S-400 in particular) are as "offensive" weapons? How does it work? S-400 has an extremely long-range. Against neighbouring countries for instance. You don't necessarily need fighters, just move S-400s close to the border (atleast if the country or its central regions are close enough ofc) and clear the skies... Does it work like that? Let's say that there's a conflict between Russia and Finland (100% theoretical, ofc). Could Russia just move S-400s a few miles away from the border and shoot down all the F-18s? Mission accomplished?

Kimppis wrote:I've been wondering... How effective long-range SAM systems (S-400 in particular) are as "offensive" weapons? How does it work? S-400 has an extremely long-range. Against neighbouring countries for instance. You don't necessarily need fighters, just move S-400s close to the border (atleast if the country or its central regions are close enough ofc) and clear the skies... Does it work like that? Let's say that there's a conflict between Russia and Finland (100% theoretical, ofc). Could Russia just move S-400s a few miles away from the border and shoot down all the F-18s? Mission accomplished?

In theory they could move them away from Moscow, in reality they won't even in war time. It also does not really work other than a suprise attack on one or few aircrafts since then the opponent would react and try to do something about the boardering SAM maybe with artillery if it is very close to the boarder, maybe with SEAD/DEAD missions, in your case Finnland would be even more stupid than politics show right now if they would lose all jets to one SAM and just wait for every single jet to get shot down instead of grounding them.

Practically it is not a good idea but if rightly applied you could create a no fly zone and the safest ever.

Werewolf wrote:

Kimppis wrote:I've been wondering... How effective long-range SAM systems (S-400 in particular) are as "offensive" weapons? How does it work? S-400 has an extremely long-range. Against neighbouring countries for instance. You don't necessarily need fighters, just move S-400s close to the border (atleast if the country or its central regions are close enough ofc) and clear the skies... Does it work like that? Let's say that there's a conflict between Russia and Finland (100% theoretical, ofc). Could Russia just move S-400s a few miles away from the border and shoot down all the F-18s? Mission accomplished?

In theory they could move them away from Moscow, in reality they won't even in war time. It also does not really work other than a suprise attack on one or few aircrafts since then the opponent would react and try to do something about the boardering SAM maybe with artillery if it is very close to the boarder, maybe with SEAD/DEAD missions, in your case Finnland would be even more stupid than politics show right now if they would lose all jets to one SAM and just wait for every single jet to get shot down instead of grounding them.

Practically it is not a good idea but if rightly applied you could create a no fly zone and the safest ever.

Thanks for the reply. (I was talking about S-400, btw. But anyway...) What if they use multiple SAM units (enough but still cheaper than over 100+ fighters flying over enemy territory), guarded by shorter range SAM systems, etc.? What if the opponent has a very limited air-to-ground and SEAD capability, no artillery in range (or SAMs not close enough), not to mention limited number of aircraft overall? Sound very cost-effective, or in any case atleast plausible, way to create a no fly zone to me! And aircraft grounded -> mission accomplished.

Kimppis wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Kimppis wrote:I've been wondering... How effective long-range SAM systems (S-400 in particular) are as "offensive" weapons? How does it work? S-400 has an extremely long-range. Against neighbouring countries for instance. You don't necessarily need fighters, just move S-400s close to the border (atleast if the country or its central regions are close enough ofc) and clear the skies... Does it work like that? Let's say that there's a conflict between Russia and Finland (100% theoretical, ofc). Could Russia just move S-400s a few miles away from the border and shoot down all the F-18s? Mission accomplished?

In theory they could move them away from Moscow, in reality they won't even in war time. It also does not really work other than a suprise attack on one or few aircrafts since then the opponent would react and try to do something about the boardering SAM maybe with artillery if it is very close to the boarder, maybe with SEAD/DEAD missions, in your case Finnland would be even more stupid than politics show right now if they would lose all jets to one SAM and just wait for every single jet to get shot down instead of grounding them.

Practically it is not a good idea but if rightly applied you could create a no fly zone and the safest ever.

Thanks for the reply. (I was talking about S-400, btw. But anyway...) What if they use multiple SAM units (enough but still cheaper than over 100+ fighters flying over enemy territory), guarded by shorter range SAM systems, etc.? What if the opponent has a very limited air-to-ground and SEAD capability, no artillery in range (or SAMs not close enough), not to mention limited number of aircraft overall? Sound very cost-effective, or in any case atleast plausible, way to create a no fly zone to me! And aircraft grounded -> mission accomplished.  

Well that sounds like an enemy that is an enemy only if it chooses to, because such enemy without any military capability to speak of no country would even react or act upon, it posses no threat.

Werewolf wrote:

Kimppis wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Kimppis wrote:I've been wondering... How effective long-range SAM systems (S-400 in particular) are as "offensive" weapons? How does it work? S-400 has an extremely long-range. Against neighbouring countries for instance. You don't necessarily need fighters, just move S-400s close to the border (atleast if the country or its central regions are close enough ofc) and clear the skies... Does it work like that? Let's say that there's a conflict between Russia and Finland (100% theoretical, ofc). Could Russia just move S-400s a few miles away from the border and shoot down all the F-18s? Mission accomplished?

In theory they could move them away from Moscow, in reality they won't even in war time. It also does not really work other than a suprise attack on one or few aircrafts since then the opponent would react and try to do something about the boardering SAM maybe with artillery if it is very close to the boarder, maybe with SEAD/DEAD missions, in your case Finnland would be even more stupid than politics show right now if they would lose all jets to one SAM and just wait for every single jet to get shot down instead of grounding them.

Practically it is not a good idea but if rightly applied you could create a no fly zone and the safest ever.

Thanks for the reply. (I was talking about S-400, btw. But anyway...) What if they use multiple SAM units (enough but still cheaper than over 100+ fighters flying over enemy territory), guarded by shorter range SAM systems, etc.? What if the opponent has a very limited air-to-ground and SEAD capability, no artillery in range (or SAMs not close enough), not to mention limited number of aircraft overall? Sound very cost-effective, or in any case atleast plausible, way to create a no fly zone to me! And aircraft grounded -> mission accomplished.  

Well that sounds like an enemy that is an enemy only if it chooses to, because such enemy without any military capability to speak of no country would even react or act upon, it posses no threat.

So the conclusion is that S-400 (and Russian IADS as a whole) can realistically be used to create a no fly zone in Russia's neighbours - no aircraft needed? Against Finland, Baltic Countries, (and parts of) Poland and so on.

Kimppis wrote:
So the conclusion is that S-400 (and Russian IADS as a whole) can realistically be used to create a no fly zone in Russia's neighbours - no aircraft needed? Against Finland, Baltic Countries, (and parts of) Poland and so on.

Correct...

Russia can create no fly zones not only in baltic states and Poland using Kaliningrad , but also a no fly zone in all Ukraine airspace too..  This is why NATO will never dare to use force against Russia ,aside of their nuclear weapons.

But those capabilities already existed with the S-200V4 that had 400km range too..  S-400 increase the resistance
to jamming and have an auto targeting warhead..  so called active homing. are also much faster.  So Russia can ground any NATO offensive against Russia..literary shot down planes withing 5 minutes they take off from their military airports.

However there is something call Geography limitations.. the earth is not flat as you know.. is round.. so every 50km
the earth curve . So in essense it could be possible beyond lets say 50km to 100km to hug terrain for special planes with the right technology to fly very low and hide from any radar under the earth curvature.  This is why airforce is also needed to patrol borders to scan low flying objects or planes  . Also why big Radars need to be elevated high from terrain.. to try to cover beyond 100km  anything flying as low as 50meters from floor.. For planes flying at normal altitudes 1,000m to up.. planes can be shot down at 400km away. There is also Mountains that planes can use to hide from radars.. so geography is important.. fortunately for Russia , they are a very flat terrain at least in northern Russia..


This is the limitation of any system of defense..


This is why radars needs to be elevated and Airforce is needed too.. to improve the visibility of any radar by scanning things that hide under the curvature of earth or beyond mountains but also to scan advancing armies with tanks and their positions... Cruise missiles lethality is that ,that they can fly low..and usually not detected until they are 50km near the target. with the help of satellites it is possible
to detect when a cruise missile was launched however.. but that depends on positioning of the satellite too .
Awacs and helicopters can expand the view beyond the horizon about low flying objects..and improve the view of your airspace from low to high altitude.

The biggest challenge of any defense system S-400s or patriots will be always Decoys . you can launch hundreds of decoys to saturate the defenses of any country.. Why earth defenses alone is not enough. but humans in planes are also need to diferentiate real targets vs fake ones.

So yes Russia can create no fly zones in all border nations in Europe.. Baltics ,finland ,ukraine and 1/3 of germany airspace too i think.. or half.. by moving S-400s to kaliningrad. but they need help from planes or awacs to fully scan all altitudes.. beyond horizon..This is why Israel opposed Syria S-300s.. because it can shoot down any plane in half of Israel aispace. Including targeting Netanyahu plane.

One potentially interesting tactic would be if Putin decides to create a no fly zone over the Ukraine... say the US starts supplying old F-16s and providing blackwater pilots to attack targets in the Ukraine, Putin might decide to deploy S-400 to Kaliningrad, Belarus, the Crimea, and the Russian border to provide coverage of Ukrainian airspace...

not likely.... but would be amusing and much cheaper than flying patrols of fighters all day and night.