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

max steel wrote:Russia sold S-300 to usa ? Ah!  Having another Yeltsin like leader in Russia  the liberals and murican leaders ultimate wet dream . They might have reverse engineered it ? US never sells its best weapons to others let alone enemies .

I'm not sure it came from Russia. But it was back in the 90ties - probably from Belo-Russia or Ukraine.
They got S-300PS and S-300V. They don't intend to rebuild but you can find them on Nellis Range.
Here are some examples

Oh looks like they have the S-300PS and S-300V , Hope the Russians have fixed the leak with new systems

Austin wrote:Oh looks like they have the S-300PS and S-300V , Hope the Russians have fixed the leak with new systems

definitely!

Werewolf wrote:The US got their hands on S-300 also over countries like Greece which do have S-300 systems along with other technologies, but it is a grave mistake to sell such strategic crucial assets especially to enemies.

Greece had modern s-300 or outdated one like one the yeltsin sold .

GarryB wrote:Fixed = vulnerable.

Only the biggest most heavy systems are fixed... things like airfields, and strategic over the horizon radars for early warning of nuclear strikes.

everything else is safer being mobile.

Just because they are mobile does not mean they can't patch them in to the local power grid... in fact setting up near a powerstation means the defending units defending the EW site can also defend the local power station too. They will of course also have their own power generation capacity so they wont rely on nearby energy sources.

Agreed, but that said fixed systems do have one advantage over there mobile counterparts and that is there response time.

Basically, having a number of launchers on standby ready to launch 24/7 to repel even temporally any  surprise "First Strikes" initiative from Nato.

What do you think?

Well fixed systems have the advantage that the defence needs can be met properly... perimeters can be set and be rather more secure... if there is a hill nearby you can put assets on top of the hill so you don't have a blind spot there that could be exploited in an aerial attack... you can scope the area and look for dead ground... hidden approaches where the enemy could sneak up to you and you can put sensors and weapons there to deal with any threat... you can also use decoys and other support equipment to make it safer and you can make sure there are enough defensive systems and missiles to deal with a decent and sustained attack where as a mobile system might not be so robust.

Some things just have to be fixed like communications hubs and major airfields etc etc.

Some fixed systems are like this version of Bastion; they have completely underground launchers; the missile breaks the ground surface when it gets launched.

AlfaT8 wrote:Agreed, but that said fixed systems do have one advantage over there mobile counterparts and that is there response time.

Basically, having a number of launchers on standby ready to launch 24/7 to repel even temporally any  surprise "First Strikes" initiative from Nato.

What do you think?

You always have a situation where SAM systems are ready to fire SAM (but with their shooting radar turned off) with the satellites/AWACS/radar troops watching the skys.

In case threat emerges the command post will based on its calculations wake up specific batteries, their numbers, select the missiles and give them orded to fire.

Afterwards SAM systems will change their positions while being guarded by other ones in "sleeping" mode.

Enemy will have huuuge problems locating SAM systems and guiding their fighters and CM to its targets because MIG-31 with Su-35 and PAK-FA will roam the skys keeping on distance

enemy ELINT/AWACS fighters and shooting down enemy satellities with its ASAT weapons at the same time enemy airfields will suffer constant bombardment of 3M-14 and Iskander

missiles. Sending few hundered planes without not knowing where are the targets, where are the SAMs, their numbers, composition, etc will assure their destruction.

GarryB wrote:Well fixed systems have the advantage that the defence needs can be met properly... perimeters can be set and be rather more secure... if there is a hill nearby you can put assets on top of the hill so you don't have a blind spot there that could be exploited in an aerial attack... you can scope the area and look for dead ground... hidden approaches where the enemy could sneak up to you and you can put sensors and weapons there to deal with any threat... you can also use decoys and other support equipment to make it safer and you can make sure there are enough defensive systems and missiles to deal with a decent and sustained attack where as a mobile system might not be so robust.

Some things just have to be fixed like communications hubs and major airfields etc etc.

Thought so, i tried picturing S-300s constantly changing shifts to defending certain positions, but it just seems so tedious, it would make more sense to have fixed S-300s ready to launch 24/7 while the mobile systems back them up and take over when the fixed ones get taken out or out of ammo, basically the fixed launcher give the mobile ones time to deploy.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Some fixed systems are like this version of Bastion; they have completely underground launchers; the missile breaks the ground surface when it gets launched.

Great find morpheus, i wasn't even aware Bastion had fixed launchers, much less that they launch from underground.

Russia should send some of these to Iran and Syria, even with there 300km limit, the fact they're nearly impossible to detect makes them quite deadly the same must be said for the Club-K.

Another advantage of stationary sites is that defences can be more elaborate... they don't have to be able to move at short notice... equally as shown with the fixed launchers for Uran, you could disguise a few buildings to house further SAMs so when the enemy watches the area and counts up the SAMs and does their planning they will come unprepared.
You can really go to town in terms of decoys and camouflage and you can ensure plenty of extra missiles are available for use rather than ensuring everything is mobile enough to keep up with a mobile force.

Remember the main reason Colonel Custer didn't take his units Gatling guns on his last battle was because he thought they would slow him down... had he taken them their firepower could have proved critical in his survival... or he might have been killed anyway...

BTW nice find Morpheus... my vote...

GarryB wrote:Another advantage of stationary sites is that defences can be more elaborate... they don't have to be able to move at short notice... equally as shown with the fixed launchers for Uran, you could disguise a few buildings to house further SAMs so when the enemy watches the area and counts up the SAMs and does their planning they will come unprepared.
You can really go to town in terms of decoys and camouflage and you can ensure plenty of extra missiles are available for use rather than ensuring everything is mobile enough to keep up with a mobile force.

I was thinking less about elaborate and more about leaving no gap for a sneaky "First Strike" even temporary, but your right if Russia were serious they could go all out, no just closing any gap in there defense, but also have hidden kill-zones prepped and ready, truly terrifying, i can only imagine Nato's dismay if Russia were to do this, to say nothing of a possible Rail Based Air Defense Train (S-3/4/500, Pantsir, Buk, Tor an all-in-one package), perhaps i am getting ahead of myself.

Remember the main reason Colonel Custer didn't take his units Gatling guns on his last battle was because he thought they would slow him down... had he taken them their firepower could have proved critical in his survival... or he might have been killed anyway...

I don't think i am getting the moral of this story, Colonel Custer dropped the heavy weaponry in order to increase his units mobility, which sorta makes sense at the time considering who Custer was fighting, he probably believed he was gonna do the chasing, unfortunately for him it went the other way, but what does this have to do with the S-300?

BTW nice find Morpheus... my vote...

Here here, upon looking at this i start to wonder if it's possible to place these in shallow waters, then i start thinking about the artificial islands China's making, and things start getting very interesting.

AlfaT8 wrote:Here here, upon looking at this i start to wonder if it's possible to place these in shallow waters, then i start thinking about the artificial islands China's making, and things start getting very interesting.

One of the functions of the fixture at the tip of an Oniks and its TLC is for underwater launch.


I also think that one of the roles of the fixture at the tip of the Russian R-39 SLBM/ICBM is for launch from under ice. I have actually seen pictures allegedly of Russian under-ice missile launchs ("source": one of the issues of US Naval Institute Proceedings magazine from more than three decades ago).


A few more images of the underground version of Bastion:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:I have actually seen pictures allegedly of Russian under-ice missile launchs ("source": one of the issues of US Naval Institute Proceedings magazine from more than three decades ago).

Morpheus, pictures of under water/under ice launch of SLBMs have been provided to the US on several occasions by the Kremlin under the obligation of START II.

What you said is true. For example, the Project 667BDRM/Dela IV class of the Northern Fleet has conducted several successful launch of the R-29RM Sineva/SS-N-23 missile  from under the  ice caps of the North Pole.

The Soviet Union had established way back in the 60s, protective operating areas(bastions) under the Arctic ice pack. Also, the first submarine of the Typhoon class(laid down in 1975) was designed from the very onset for Arctic operations.

wEREWOLF In past 2 weeks we've seen DARPA's project to take down S-300 and now this S-400 too . Gosh!! Russia must come up with S-500

max steel wrote:wEREWOLF In past 2 weeks we've seen DARPA's project to take down S-300 and now this S-400 too . Gosh!! Russia must come up with S-500

More like Hollywood fiction...

Except there is no evidence that the HARM... that was fairly useless in the conflict in Kosovo would be any more use against more modern systems.

I thought it was funny they stated that HARM is 4 times more capable against more modern systems because four times nothing is still nothing...

The very interesting thing about that video... where is the enemys' air force? They seem to be allowed a navy and ground forces but no air force...

I don't think i am getting the moral of this story, Colonel Custer dropped the heavy weaponry in order to increase his units mobility, which sorta makes sense at the time considering who Custer was fighting, he probably believed he was gonna do the chasing, unfortunately for him it went the other way, but what does this have to do with the S-300?

Forget the famous name and the famous weapon and the famous battle where that famous name and others lost their lives.

When planning for a mission if you make the wrong choice it can cost you.

the weapon needed was available to him but he chose to leave it behind because he didn't think he would find it useful and if it wasn't useful then it would just slow him down and make his forces more vulnerable rather than less vulnerable to attack.

A small to medium sized mobile force might decide to leave the cumbersome S-300 trucks behind and just rely on the Pantsir-SM as it can fire on the move and in its later iterations can engage targets to 40km or so.... which should be plenty.

Against Apache helos and A-10s it would be plenty... against a force with fixed wing fighters it might not.

A fixed site doesn't need to care about mobility or weight... in fact imagine a huge flat plain with an airfield located on it. Just to the south of the airfield 25km away there is a small single hill... the only raised ground of 1,000km in each direction. Now if you locate all your radar and SAMs at the airfield there is going to be a hole in your radar coverage caused by that hill and a blind spot behind it.

The obvious solution for both the mobile and fixed force is to use that raised ground to put sensors and defences so there is no gap... no weak link... but in the fixed units case that means having the air defence for the airfield located 25km from the target...

AlfaT8 wrote:

GarryB wrote:Fixed = vulnerable.

Only the biggest most heavy systems are fixed... things like airfields, and strategic over the horizon radars for early warning of nuclear strikes.

everything else is safer being mobile.

Just because they are mobile does not mean they can't patch them in to the local power grid... in fact setting up near a powerstation means the defending units defending the EW site can also defend the local power station too. They will of course also have their own power generation capacity so they wont rely on nearby energy sources.

Agreed, but that said fixed systems do have one advantage over there mobile counterparts and that is there response time.

Basically, having a number of launchers on standby ready to launch 24/7 to repel even temporally any  surprise "First Strikes" initiative from Nato.

What do you think?

Well that for defence. But for attack? Ofcourse some fixed sistems have far away capabilities and can hit neighbours but when you attack very far away? One solution would be to push the borders and install fixed sistems like defence being attack.

Viktor wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Agreed, but that said fixed systems do have one advantage over there mobile counterparts and that is there response time.

Basically, having a number of launchers on standby ready to launch 24/7 to repel even temporally any  surprise "First Strikes" initiative from Nato.

What do you think?

You always have a situation where SAM systems are ready to fire SAM (but with their shooting radar turned off) with the satellites/AWACS/radar troops watching the skys.

In case threat emerges the command post will based on its calculations wake up specific batteries, their numbers, select the missiles and give them orded to fire.

Afterwards SAM systems will change their positions while being guarded by other ones in "sleeping" mode.

Enemy will have huuuge problems locating SAM systems and guiding their fighters and CM to its targets because MIG-31 with Su-35 and PAK-FA will roam the skys keeping on distance

enemy ELINT/AWACS fighters and shooting down enemy satellities with its ASAT weapons at the same time enemy airfields will suffer constant bombardment of 3M-14 and Iskander

missiles. Sending few hundered planes without not knowing where are the targets, where are the SAMs, their numbers, composition, etc will assure their destruction.

But when you have your troops in air even if they transmit to back radars data the missile sistem is too far away from aircrafts. So there is distance so they cant be defended well. Till your missiles reach enemy aircrafts they will start shooting your aircrafts. Being place around base will mean fast defence by surface sistems. Ofcourse unless fixe sistems have very fast rockets that cover aerian place fast and can cover the aircrafts. Here some supersonic and hypersonic missiles come to place. Another idea would be to fill space whit cheap drones that just emit radar. They are alot cheap and provide cover of space so no stealth plane could escape.

GarryB wrote:

I don't think i am getting the moral of this story, Colonel Custer dropped the heavy weaponry in order to increase his units mobility, which sorta makes sense at the time considering who Custer was fighting, he probably believed he was gonna do the chasing, unfortunately for him it went the other way, but what does this have to do with the S-300?

Forget the famous name and the famous weapon and the famous battle where that famous name and others lost their lives.

When planning for a mission if you make the wrong choice it can cost you.

the weapon needed was available to him but he chose to leave it behind because he didn't think he would find it useful and if it wasn't useful then it would just slow him down and make his forces more vulnerable rather than less vulnerable to attack.

A small to medium sized mobile force might decide to leave the cumbersome S-300 trucks behind and just rely on the Pantsir-SM as it can fire on the move and in its later iterations can engage targets to 40km or so.... which should be plenty.

Against Apache helos and A-10s it would be plenty... against a force with fixed wing fighters it might not.

I disagree, even against fixed wing fighters they would still be enough depending on the number of fighters to Pantsir of course, and whether the enemy brings out the heavy bomber or not.

That said it would still be foolish to leave the S-300s if they are available to you, of course this depends on the mission there are times you must leave the S-300 behind, take the VDV for instance.

A fixed site doesn't need to care about mobility or weight... in fact imagine a huge flat plain with an airfield located on it. Just to the south of the airfield 25km away there is a small single hill... the only raised ground of 1,000km in each direction. Now if you locate all your radar and SAMs at the airfield there is going to be a hole in your radar coverage caused by that hill and a blind spot behind it.

The obvious solution for both the mobile and fixed force is to use that raised ground to put sensors and defences so there is no gap... no weak link... but in the fixed units case that means having the air defence for the airfield located 25km from the target...

Thats what i mean, why not also deploy fixed unit around such a hill as well, you'll have no gaps (of course they wont replace the mobile units) and they'll help prevent any nasty surprise gifts from Uncle Sam 24/7.

Viktor wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Agreed, but that said fixed systems do have one advantage over there mobile counterparts and that is there response time.

Basically, having a number of launchers on standby ready to launch 24/7 to repel even temporally any  surprise "First Strikes" initiative from Nato.

What do you think?

You always have a situation where SAM systems are ready to fire SAM (but with their shooting radar turned off) with the satellites/AWACS/radar troops watching the skys.

In case threat emerges the command post will based on its calculations wake up specific batteries, their numbers, select the missiles and give them orded to fire.

Afterwards SAM systems will change their positions while being guarded by other ones in "sleeping" mode.

Enemy will have huuuge problems locating SAM systems and guiding their fighters and CM to its targets because MIG-31 with Su-35 and PAK-FA will roam the skys keeping on distance

enemy ELINT/AWACS fighters and shooting down enemy satellities with its ASAT weapons at the same time enemy airfields will suffer constant bombardment of 3M-14 and Iskander

missiles. Sending few hundered planes without not knowing where are the targets, where are the SAMs, their numbers, composition, etc will assure their destruction.

Hey Viktor what's your thoughts about this development?

Or, for example, a ground radar station. Today, this radar is a multi-storey building, but if you start to believe that radio Photonics work, then the station can be installed on a conventional truck. The efficiency and range will be exactly the same – thousands of kilometers. Several mobile and small complexes can be combined into a network, which will increase characteristics of these radars.

KRET creates a laboratory for research in the field of photonics