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

Cyrus the great wrote:The United States has apparently developed a range of weapons that can overwhelm and neutralise advanced IADS such as those deployed by Russia and China. Is this true or is it just commercial propaganda? It just doesn't seem realistic that this would work against Russia. The title of the video is stupid -I know- but let's discuss the content.

We've discussed about it in S-300/400 Thread already.

It's been discussed already? My bad, I guess I'll just have to refer to the S-300/S400 thread. Thanks for that, Max.

Cyrus the great wrote:The United States has apparently developed a range of weapons that can overwhelm and neutralise advanced IADS such as those deployed by Russia and China. Is this true or is it just commercial propaganda? It just doesn't seem realistic that this would work against Russia. The title of the video is stupid -I know- but let's discuss the content.

Not this again.

BS propaganda my friend, this entire scenario wreaks.

This entire stratagem relies on two factors the survivability of MALD and the ability of JSOW and HARM to actually hit there targets.

What i mean by this, is that when advanced long range SAMs are deployed they are always backed up by both Short and Mid range AA systems as well, and these systems will have there own radar as well as thermal/TV backups, even the ships will have these.

And then we have the passive decoys that will be deployed as well.

So the possibility of HARM or JSOW actually hitting there targets is pretty low, and if MALDs jamming were to prove insufficient or were it to fly within the range of the short/mid range AAs it would also be destroyed.  

And this is to say nothing of what would happen if the opponents airforce were to also appear.  

So yea, nothing to worry about, just another stupid Raytheon commercial.

Very simply any air defence can be overwhelmed with raw numbers... the problem for the US and NATO however is that Russia is both enormous and very heavily defended and also able to fight back.

This means that unlike say Libya with major SAM sites with 2 guidance channels able to engage up to one target at a time with up to two missiles... so launch four missiles at them and while the system is engaging the other three missiles the fourth one almost always gets through and takes down the system opening it to attack by other weapons... the S-400 system is a layered defence with TOR or Pantsir-SM close in defences and hundreds of kms of airspace patrolled by armed aircraft and of course sensors and other SAMs of all types all looking for threats.

Not only are there jammers and decoys, but the SAMs of the current and most recent generations are all able to engage high speed anti radiation missiles (ie the missiles used to defeat an air defence can be directly targeted and defeated).

Of course given enough attack assets any defence can be defeated, but with Russia if NATO sends thousands of missiles from hundreds of aircraft and Naval platforms then Russia is not like Iraq or Libya... it could mount attacks on the platforms that launched the weapons and it can send cruise missiles to attack the bases the aircraft were launched from and attack the ships carrying the missiles and more missiles too.

Very simply the US is no more able to defeat Russia than Russia would be able to defeat the US using just ICBMs.

Actually GarryB, Russia aswell US can defeat the opposite with just ICBM's... along with the rest of the world, but i guess that is cherrypicking.

Alfa T8 wrote:

Not this again.

BS propaganda my friend, this entire scenario wreaks.

This entire stratagem relies on two factors the survivability of MALD and the ability of JSOW and HARM to actually hit there targets.

What i mean by this, is that when advanced long range SAMs are deployed they are always backed up by both Short and Mid range AA systems as well, and these systems will have there own radar as well as thermal/TV backups, even the ships will have these.

And then we have the passive decoys that will be deployed as well.

So the possibility of HARM or JSOW actually hitting there targets is pretty low, and if MALDs jamming were to prove insufficient or were it to fly within the range of the short/mid range AAs it would also be destroyed.  

And this is to say nothing of what would happen if the opponents airforce were to also appear.  

So yea, nothing to worry about, just another stupid Raytheon commercial.

It's funny how some American trolls disregard the fact that an integrated air defence system [worthy of the name] would use an over the horizon radar to detect aircraft and ships from thousands of kilometers away -- rendering their 900 km MALD decoy worthless. Russia is the premier power in electronic warfare and so they could create thousands of their own decoys and also deploy other means of electronic warfare to mess with these American toys.

GarryB wrote:Very simply any air defence can be overwhelmed with raw numbers... the problem for the US and NATO however  is that Russia is both enormous and very heavily defended and also able to fight back.

This means that unlike say Libya with major SAM sites with 2 guidance channels able to engage up to one target at a time with up to two missiles... so launch four missiles at them and while the system is engaging the other three missiles the fourth one almost always gets through and takes down the system opening it to attack by other weapons... the S-400 system is a layered defence with TOR or Pantsir-SM close in defences and hundreds of kms of airspace patrolled by armed aircraft and of course sensors and other SAMs of all types all looking for threats.

Not only are there jammers and decoys, but the SAMs of the current and most recent generations are all able to engage high speed anti radiation missiles (ie the missiles used to defeat an air defence can be directly targeted and defeated).

Of course given enough attack assets any defence can be defeated, but with Russia if NATO sends thousands of missiles from hundreds of aircraft and Naval platforms then Russia is not like Iraq or Libya... it could mount attacks on the platforms that launched the weapons and it can send cruise missiles to attack the bases the aircraft were launched from and attack the ships carrying the missiles and more missiles too.

Very simply the US is no more able to defeat Russia than Russia would be able to defeat the US using just ICBMs.

Based on what you've presented on top, in a scenario like such, NATO would lose thousands of aircraft and hundreds of ships while exposing their own airfields and even cities to conventional and nuclear retaliation. Nobody in Europe or the United States would want that. Some NATO members that deployed soldiers in Afghanistan purposely decided to keep their soldiers away from more volatile and dangerous provinces like Helmand province, and so I doubt anyone would entertain the idea of launching an attack against a nuclear armed behemoth capable of not only killing them on the front-lines but also capable of eliminating all life as they know it. That's scary.

I don't think the guys at Raytheon were thinking of the inconceivable, God-awful prospect of using this weapons package against a power like Russia when they presented this nifty little video on the net. Some American trolls just decided to create their own inane heading while also creating the impression that this could be used on Russia with success. It was refreshing to see that a lot of American posters saw this as unrealistic when applied to Russia and China; some enlightened Americans saw this as merely a ploy by their defence contractors to line their own pockets.

US "defence" contractors have the job of selling products to the US military... while the US military sees Russia as a threat then they will look for and pay big money for solutions to dealing with that threat... no matter how survivable such a thing might be... of course in their minds it will be Russia that starts it so not only are they only defending themselves, they wont be given a choice in the matter so they are not to blame...

For them it is all a video game because Russia has nukes and so does China, so these systems might appear to be directed at Russia, but in reality they wouldn't be effective against Russia or for that matter even China. The countries these systems will likely be used against are countries like Iran which will have parts of the system Russia has but not the complete set and not in the numbers Russia has.

Nice  

So this is a 9th regimental set delivered and two more will be delivered by the end of this year meaning 11 S-400 sets with the start of 2016.

Manufacturer eports early delivery of S-400 Triumph regimental set to Russian army

"Before the end of 2015, the concern will deliver to the Russian Defense Ministry two more regimental sets of the S-400 Triumph air defence missile weapon systems. Thus, the state customer will receive three regimental sets of this system this year," [b]the Almaz-Antei CEO said[/b]. wrote:

George1 wrote:Head of anti-aircraft missile forces Air Force Major-General Sergey Babakov said that the S-300PS today already "physically and morally" outdated.

Wish he knew how much people here were dreaming of S300 some 15 years ago. It was like some kind of Myth for us kids...."S300". Ppl watching into sky observing bombers, and you hear older men saying: "If just Russians gave us S300 on time, eh"...

Militarov wrote:

George1 wrote:Head of anti-aircraft missile forces Air Force Major-General Sergey Babakov said that the S-300PS today already "physically and morally" outdated.

Wish he knew how much people here were dreaming of S300 some 15 years ago. It was like some kind of Myth for us kids...."S300". Ppl watching into sky observing bombers, and you hear older men saying: "If just Russians gave us S300 on time, eh"...

Well S-300PMU-2 are still around

Stealthflanker wrote:

Militarov wrote:

George1 wrote:Head of anti-aircraft missile forces Air Force Major-General Sergey Babakov said that the S-300PS today already "physically and morally" outdated.

Wish he knew how much people here were dreaming of S300 some 15 years ago. It was like some kind of Myth for us kids...."S300". Ppl watching into sky observing bombers, and you hear older men saying: "If just Russians gave us S300 on time, eh"...

Well S-300PMU-2 are still around

Well aware, actually some imbeciles from our Ministry of Defence were negotiating S300PMU2 couple years ago but idk what happened with it, probably same what happened with MiG29M negotiations, no moneyz. But this part "Physically and morally" outdated reminded me of those times. On other hand S400 is same family, we wouldnt mind that here either. Kubs are getting old, very, very old.

let's suppose a invisible aircraft like f22 will aproach to a s300. as long as i know the rcs (wich i learned yesterday that stand for "radar cross section") is low on f22 and has the shape that reflect the waves in other directions than back to radar. i dont see how the s300 or even something newer like s400 will catch that f22. dont tell me its all based on that small signal that f22 will return back to radar for sure. but there is the problem that the signal is weak and you cannot make difference from him to noise around.

victor1985 wrote:let's suppose a invisible aircraft like f22 will aproach to a s300. as long as i know the rcs (wich i learned yesterday that stand for "radar cross section") is low on f22 and has the shape that reflect the waves in other directions than back to radar. i dont see how the s300 or even something newer like s400 will catch that f22. dont tell me its all based on that small signal that f22 will return back to radar for sure. but there is the problem that the signal is weak and you cannot make difference from him to noise around.

Invisible is strong word, stealth/stealthy/discrete are lets say "lvls" of how hidden one jet can be to radar. Basically its not invisible to radar, its just harder for radar to be detected so you need to output more power to detect it, make better software to reduce noise detection, changing radar bands etc etc.

GarryB wrote:Very simply any air defence can be overwhelmed with raw numbers... the problem for the US and NATO however  is that Russia is both enormous and very heavily defended and also able to fight back.

GarryB wrote: the S-400 system is a layered defence with TOR or Pantsir-SM close in defences and hundreds of kms of airspace patrolled by armed aircraft and of course sensors and other SAMs of all types all looking for threats.

GarryB, what about all the decoys or Penetration aid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_aid) that the US will put in its ICBMs/SLBMs?

How will S 400 intercept such warheads that are accompanied with many decoys?

jhelb wrote:

GarryB wrote:Very simply any air defence can be overwhelmed with raw numbers... the problem for the US and NATO however  is that Russia is both enormous and very heavily defended and also able to fight back.

GarryB wrote: the S-400 system is a layered defence with TOR or Pantsir-SM close in defences and hundreds of kms of airspace patrolled by armed aircraft and of course sensors and other SAMs of all types all looking for threats.

GarryB, what about all the decoys or Penetration aid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_aid) that the US will put in its ICBMs/SLBMs?

How will S 400 intercept such warheads that are accompanied with many decoys?

S-400 isn't designed to tackle ICBM's, at least for now. Russian MIC has their fair share of decoys for SAM's, neither the East nor the West has anti-ICBM ABM systems in service.

The S-400 is a TABM (Tactical Anti Balistic Missile Complex) mobile you have to remember that is already the scenario that Russia has to push into the highest priority, because not even the sick US will use ICBM's trying to conquer russia only Tactical based nukes which are already deployed in Europe for around two decades and are pushing more on our land. If there will be nuclear exchange it will be Tactical nukes and to sustain against such attacks is a much higher priority because Strategic ICBM detterance is still existing the same for M.A.D. therefore only theatre based tactical nuke exchange with European meatshield as the main battleground is the only option for US, russia is fully aware of this and in 2011 warned already if NATO countries will attack Russia, Russia will attack the US, of course that will be not the case for Strategic based weaponary, but a few shkvals would be very desirable.

But SLBMs are interceptable , let me find earlier post on it. Thats why actually Russia went for a whole new slbm Bulava replacing previous ones to go past/evade american missile defenses.


Now I guess US Ground Based Interceptors aka Ground Missile Defense are useless too many articles already proved it.
 


Ohk so when Russia will launch S-500 only then they can intercept all american icbms as well as hypersonic gliders.

max steel wrote:But SLBMs are interceptable , let me find earlier post on it. Thats why actually Russia went for a whole new slbm Bulava replacing previous ones to go past/evade american missile defenses.


Now I guess US Ground Based Interceptors aka Ground Missile Defense are useless too many articles already proved it.
 


Ohk so when Russia will launch S-500 only then they can intercept all american icbms as well as hypersonic gliders.

No, they won't be capable to intercept "all" and they will have just the necessary means to further assure MAD, while US is pushing for offensive capability to undermine russias means of protection and to destroy the current equilibrium of the MAD that holds this world clean of nuclear civilized philantropic means to get rid of all "evil".

There is no shield strong or big enough to withstand the sword of the other, nor is their a sword strong enough to decapitate the other without losing your own head.

Strategic MAD is assured, what is not assured is the Tactical MAD or better to say Assured Repelance of Tactical Nukes ARTN, not a real terminology but a factual concern for Russia and China.

Tests of Extended Range Missilesfor S-400 Almost Finished



MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Official tests of extended range missiles for advanced S-400 Triumf air defense systems are in the final stage, the head of the Russian Air Force's anti-aircraft missile troops said Saturday.

"The official tests of this missile are in the final stage. I think that in the near future they will be successfully completed," Maj. Gen. Sergey Babakov told the Russian News Service radio.

The S-400 Triumf (SA-21 Growler) is a Russia's next-generation anti-aircraft weapon system, carrying three different types of missiles capable of destroying aerial targets at short-to-extremely long range.

Russia is currently undergoing a $325-billion rearmament program for a 70-percent modernization in its military's weaponry by 2020.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/2015...#ixzz3f59aozlq

can s-400 shoot down BM's?

max steel wrote:can s-400 shoot down BM's?

Yes, up to the target speed of 4,8 km/s.

Yes, it can shoot down Ballistic Missiles... but it is limited to targets travelling at 4.8km/s or slower so it is a limited capability...

(ie 4.8km/s is 15 times the speed of sound at sea level... (about 320m/s))

GarryB wrote:Yes, it can shoot down Ballistic Missiles... but it is limited to targets travelling at 4.8km/s or slower so it is a limited capability...  

(ie 4.8km/s is 15 times the speed of sound at sea level... (about 320m/s))

can this system be deployed on naval destroyers too ?