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

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))

Garry, can the S 400 be upgraded to S 500?

jhelb wrote:Garry, can the S 400 be upgraded to S 500?

No it can not but it could be that two could share some of the missiles but that remains to be seen. Anyway two will work together.

Viktor wrote:No it can not but it could be that two could share some of the missiles but that remains to be seen. Anyway two will work together.

Thanks Viktor. My vote. So basically the missiles for the S 500 can be integrated on the S 400 but the problem/s will be with the radars, right?

can this system be deployed on naval destroyers too ?

The poliment redut vertical launch system is designed for the S-400 family of missiles and should be OK for Frigates and larger vessels with no problem.

Garry, can the S 400 be upgraded to S 500?

Don't know enough about the S-500 yet, but it will likely be designed to be compatible with S-400 naval launch tubes I suspect.

S-500 and S-400 is like comparing PAC-2 Patriot with THAAD... though of course the Russian missiles are rather more capable.

they compliment each other... you might need S-500 for very high speed targets, but to protect the S-500 battery from conventional air attack you would use S-400 and S-350 and likely Pantsir-SM and Morfei and Verba.

Thanks Viktor. My vote. So basically the missiles for the S 500 can be integrated on the S 400 but the problem/s will be with the radars, right?

Think of the S-500 as being a mobile ABM system like the system around Moscow... whereas the S-400 is an improved longer range upgrade of S-300.

the S-500 will be interested in space objects and will have very powerful very long range radar support with higher elevation capabilities than that used for S-400 as standard.

QUESTION : In the event of an attack on the S 400 that completely cripples the 91N6E , 30K6E , 92N6 and all other supporting structures will the 98ZH6E still be able to fire the missiles towards various targets based on information provided by AWACS, JSTAR and space based assets?

jhelb wrote:QUESTION : In the event of an attack on the S 400 that completely cripples the 91N6E , 30K6E , 92N6 and all other supporting structures will the 98ZH6E still be able to fire the missiles towards various targets based on information provided by AWACS, JSTAR and space based assets?

LOL, basicaly what interest you is what happens with S-400 TELs after all other parts of that S-400 regiment are destroyed - and yes, they can be immediately put under nearby S-400 command structure.

Viktor wrote:yes, they can be immediately put under nearby S-400 command structure.

Thanks Viktor, my vote. If time permits can you please elaborate how this is done?

Also when you say "nearby S-400 command structure" are you also including AWACS & JSTARS? Thanks again.

To take out all the supporting radars for S-400 you would have to use ground forces...

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.

That is just wrong.

A-135 and A-235 are ABM missiles and are or have been in service for more than 40 years.

No the S-400 is not an ABM system... it is called an ATBM system or anti theatre range ballistic missile system.

In Service.... As far as the A-235, no one really knows what's it is capable of, however there is talk about making the A-235 in to a truck mobile system, and if that's the case then we'll get a better understanding what it is capable of.

Ummm.... its job is pretty much to stop nuclear warheads from ICBMs and SLBMs from hitting Moscow and its does this by shooting down their warheads before they get close enough to detonate.

It was completely replaced by A-235, and the A-135 was hardly a true deterrent against ICBM's (unlike the S-500), it was a point-blank defense to buy enough time to fire nukes back at NATO as well allowing the Soviet Politburo to hide in bunkers.

As you can tell by the designation... the A-135 and A-235 are related... the latter being an upgraded missile to replace the former. that is not to say the former didn't do the job required.

My whole life was a lie :/ . Many said on this forum that it can intercept icbms. Anyhow SLBMs Trident can be intercepted that someone mentioned it.

Depends upon what you believed. If you believed a missile defence system made Moscow invincible to nuclear missile attack then you are wrong.

Equally anyone who thought a few ABMs in Alaska was going to protect the US from nuclear attack is also dreaming... the US system might stop an attack by one or two missiles but would be useless against China or Russia.

I look forward to the US squealing about Russian production of the S-500 mobile systems on land an in naval vessels.... when the US has the capability the world is a safer place... when Russia gets that same capability there needs to be binding international agreements and accords to prevent the misuse of the technology... same with "murder drones" (UCAVs).

GarryB wrote:
Equally anyone who thought a few ABMs in Alaska was going to protect the US from nuclear attack is also dreaming... the US system might stop an attack by one or two missiles but would be useless against China or Russia.

I look forward to the US squealing about Russian production of the S-500 mobile systems on land an in naval vessels.... when the US has the capability the world is a safer place... when Russia gets that same capability there needs to be binding international agreements and accords to prevent the misuse of the technology... same with "murder drones" (UCAVs).

The only difference is Russia gets it first.

Rest on US GMD ( CHECK MY POSTS IN THE THREAD :https://www.russiadefence.net/t4166-us-abm-systems)

jhelb wrote:

Viktor wrote:yes, they can be immediately put under nearby S-400 command structure.

Thanks Viktor, my vote. If time permits can you please elaborate how this is done?

Also when you say "nearby S-400 command structure" are you also including AWACS & JSTARS? Thanks again.

Yes ... the who structure has been integrated since it first apeared from its humble origins in the WW2 (listening devices) and later on during the Vietnam war when Russians realized

that the efficiency of the one and the same system is multiplied several times in case of integration which has only grown stronger.

Now on the operational level biggest unit is called brigade and looks partly like this (much still not shown)







and on the area and zonal operational level integration continues throughout use of more powerful command posts but as GarryB said it is extremely difficult to destroy

all the parts of the single S-400 regiment without the use of ground troops.

Viktor wrote:

jhelb wrote:

Viktor wrote:yes, they can be immediately put under nearby S-400 command structure.

Thanks Viktor, my vote. If time permits can you please elaborate how this is done?

Also when you say "nearby S-400 command structure" are you also including AWACS & JSTARS? Thanks again.

Yes ... the who structure has been integrated since it first apeared from its humble origins in the WW2 (listening devices) and later on during the Vietnam war when Russians realized

that the efficiency of the one and the same system is multiplied several times in case of integration which has only grown stronger.

Now on the operational level biggest unit is called brigade and looks partly like this (much still not shown)







and on the area and zonal operational level integration continues throughout use of more powerful command posts but as GarryB said it is extremely difficult to destroy

all the parts of the single S-400 regiment without the use of ground troops.

This also helps explain things:

Viktor wrote:
Now on the operational level biggest unit is called brigade and looks partly like this (much still not shown)

Viktor,

Do you have these images in English? For the benefit of guys like me who can't read Russian.

Cyberspec wrote:Probably can be done but would be complicating things....more expensive as well

S-400 has been designed keeping Russian requirements in mind. So, integrating Israeli radars into Russian radar/software network is not going to be possible.

Furthermore the whole idea behind S-400 is mobility. How can the S-400 be mobile if it is attached to a massive ELTA designed UHF radar that weighs a few tons?

http://www.iai.co.il/2013/32981-46466-en/MediaRoom_News.aspx

Some questions for the posters that follow the PVO closely;

How many 300/400 SAM regiments are there presently... I see 36-38?
What is the number of the Regiment in Abkhazia? Is it Russian? Abkhazian? or joint?
How many firing battalions... I see 73-76?

Does any one have an official confirmation of S-400 40N6 SAM having altitude of interception of 185 Km , Can you share the link ?

I remember reading it somewhere from offical but could not find any link as it was in Russian

Austin wrote:Does any one have an official confirmation of S-400 40N6 SAM having altitude of interception of 185 Km , Can you share the link ?

I remember reading it somewhere from offical but could not find any link as it was in Russian

The new 40N6 missile guarantees a direct hit on a target at a range of 400 kilometers and at heights of up to 185 kilometers – effectively near space.

https://www.rt.com/news/239961-near-space-missile-defense/

That said, that 185 kms altitude is probably of the domestic version. Export version maybe less.

Found This

http://tass.ru/en/russia/788221


I wonder why 40N6 export model altitude of interception is no better than other missile of S-400 series if they could do exo intercept


http://nevskii-bastion.ru/s-400-tm-2014/

It says 25 km for ballistic target and 30 for aerodynamic

Looking at the SAM for S-400 ( Ammunition for AAMS (SAM 40N6E, 9M96E2, 48N6EZ, 48N6E2) )

http://nevskii-bastion.ru/s-400-tm-2014/

It seems 9M96E/E2 and 40N6 series using Active Radar Homing
48N6EZ and 48N6E2 uses Seeker Aided Ground Guidance (SAGG)

Any one has any specific difference between 48N6EZ and 48N6E2 ?

Austin wrote:Looking at the SAM for S-400 ( Ammunition for AAMS (SAM 40N6E, 9M96E2, 48N6EZ, 48N6E2) )

http://nevskii-bastion.ru/s-400-tm-2014/

It seems 9M96E/E2 and 40N6 series using Active Radar Homing
48N6EZ and 48N6E2 uses Seeker Aided Ground Guidance (SAGG)

Any one has any specific difference between 48N6EZ and 48N6E2 ?

It's E3, not EZ.

The only difference is range. 200 km for E2, 250 km for E3

artjomh wrote:

Austin wrote:Looking at the SAM for S-400 ( Ammunition for AAMS (SAM 40N6E, 9M96E2, 48N6EZ, 48N6E2) )

http://nevskii-bastion.ru/s-400-tm-2014/

It seems 9M96E/E2 and 40N6 series using Active Radar Homing
48N6EZ and 48N6E2 uses Seeker Aided Ground Guidance (SAGG)

Any one has any specific difference between 48N6EZ and 48N6E2 ?

It's E3, not EZ.

The only difference is range. 200 km for E2, 250 km for E3

Thanks but the guidance remains SAGG for 48N6E3 and E2 ?

sepheronx wrote:No. Altitude is more than that, as Buk 9M317 has roughly 25KM altitude.

Edit: so far, no actual news. Probably 180km altitude but low range, or high range but lower altitude for 40N6.  I noticed that after reading yours, mindstorms and GarryB's old posts in 2012 in the first one of this thread, that your mention of 25 - 30km was all the old missiles.  There seems to be a lot of secrecy around 40N6.

And that can be understood..
Why would Russia release for public the real limitations of the S-400 air defenses with 40N6
missiles? physical wise the missile size seems to have enough size /fuel to travel beyond 50km of iskanders already can achieve. but at 100km altitude you need a different kind of engines
to operate with no oxygen and a missile that can operate in gravity zero. So probably the 180km altitude is using the S-500 missile that rumors say will also apparently operate in the S-400 launcher.

At very least 40N6 should have no problem to achieve the same altitude of Iskander that is rated
at 50km and with a 400km range. I think the altitude thing is more about the capability to intercept midcourse or not.. because in the final phase all ballistic missiles needs to go down and can be intercepted if the operator and conditions are right. IF the ballistic missile have good
counter measures and decoys and multiple warheads then no so easy.

all said.. i think the only chance to really defeat an Intercontinental missile with multiple warheads and decoys ,it is in mid course..before its warheads splits, because in final course ,it could be nasty and complicate for any system of defense. Something like EMP detonations ,Counter electronics that fry sensors and instruments ,lazer weapons or anti ballistic missiles
with nuclear warheads.Could help however.

Any one who can read russian what does the 2000 m/s in the 2nd last column says Top Speed of Missile or average speed ?

Top speed.