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

Mike E wrote: It has an air-launched range of over 320 km, and weighs only ~400 lb. (For comparison, the RVV-SD weighs about the same, but can only travel 110 km, albeit at a slightly higher speed.)

And at what point someone have managed to magically "increase" Meteor AAM's maximum engagement range of about three times ?     

I cannot even only dare to image the "source" for that  ......... 


Even more interesting would be to open a little debate on the real scientifical "root" of the technology and the layout's concepts at the basis of this little toy and where it came from in the first place.

I can bet that ,exactly as in the past for the almost entire scientifical foundations of the diffraction field's computational models (at the basis of practically all pasted and today "stealth" products designs worldwide ), the outcome will not perfectly meet the good taste of western fans    

Holy Crap!!! My bad!!! I must of been confused when I write that.

EDIT; I think that figure is in "optimal conditions" as in going minimum speed (Mach 1?) at high altitude. Its Ramjet lets it throttle down, so that makes sense.

Great news guys! Almaz-Antey has now started the design stage of Russia's unified aerospace defense network, greatly enhancing aerospace defense forces capability to defend Russian airspace:

Unified system of aerospace defense began to design in Russia

The complex will include a unified aerospace defense system early warning system and air attack, detection means and means to engage targets. To equip troops ASD provided about 3.4 trillion rubles.



MOSCOW, July 15 - RIA Novosti. Concern PVO "Almaz-Antey" started to design the system of aerospace defense (VKO) Russia, told reporters on Tuesday, Deputy Director General for Scientific and Technological Development Group Sergei Druzin. The plans to create a unified aerospace defense system in June 2013 announced by President Vladimir Putin. In this complex, first of all, will include early-warning system and air attack, detection means and means to engage targets. Today had once been united air defense system of Russia consists of five separate parts - four air defense systems and military districts Forces aerospace defense. "One of the most significant results of scientific and technological activities of the concern in 2013 is the conclusion of the Russian Defense Ministry with government contracts for research and development work on the design of ASD" - said Druzin. According to the plan of the General Staff, the new system will guarantee to detect ASD launches of ballistic and cruise missiles. Along the perimeter of the country will be deployed radars high prefabrication system of missile warning. In accordance with the state armaments program until 2020 to equip troops ASD provided about 3.4 trillion rubles. This is about 20% of all funds allocated for upgrading the army and navy. By 2015, the troops ASD must have at least 50% of modern weapons, and in 2020 - at least 70%.

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20140715/1016037950.html

...I have some questions for our elder statesman GarryB, with a massive modern and sophisticated aerospace network in place and integrated with all domestic SAMS, is it possible that Russian SAMS would be capable of having significantly enhanced range and performance in domestic aerospace? For example we have the S-400 with 400km range, and the S-500 with 600km range...assuming the range is not downplayed, is it possible within this aerospace defense network within domestic Russian aerospace, that the S-400 can have an enhanced range of 600km, and the S-500 could have an enhanced range of 800km? For my understanding the range of missiles (for those very SAMS) most limiting factor is not the propellant or the rocket motor, but how powerful the radar is, and that there's a limit due to maintaining mobility on how powerful a radar complex could be (massive quantities of power would be needed to power it, needing larger and heavier power plants). Also isn't it true that S-400's 400km range is the maximum range of having a 95% interception probability after firing 2 missiles, but could the S-400 theoretically intercept targets at significantly greater ranges but at the cost of significantly lower interception percentage (for a theoretical example 95% at 400km, 85% at 600km, 75% at 800km)?

@magnumcromagnon

Not Gary but in your question of expanding S-400s and S-500 range capabilities..  using the missiles in different
ways..  Something that i think you need to remember is this..  



And you could guess ,after some long Range ,the radar of any system of defense no matter how good
it is ,will not see anything that is flying under the radar Horizon . In the picture the radio tower signals will not reach the House ,because is under their horizon. So 400km is more than enough.
Trying to detect a military plane of an enemy beyond 500km will be next to impossible if the planes are flying
at ~100-500 meters altitude to cover from the radar waves using the earth curvature as cover.   system like S-500
with 600 km range in practice will be more need for high altitude bombers or against ICBM or to shut down satelites. for the reason of them being very expensive missiles , could cost US $10 -$20 millions each missile. the Brahmos missile cost near $3 million for example. And for enemy planes do not have missiles with longer than 200km usually. Norway is working in a cruise anti ship missile with 300km range. in the case of Low flying tomahawks they can be intercepted with regulan Gatlin guns pantsirs like defenses. Crimea for example have like 200km range from coast to coast. So is a long long distance a missile with more than 400km.  You could achieve your extra range by just using mobile radars that comes in navy warships or from helicopters illuminating the target and to expose any enemy plane flying low. or in the case of territory by deploying a network of S-400 Sam defense every 300km distance or a network of small range defense Systems like Buks ,Pantsir or Tors.  

If Russia get S-500s , any enemy combat plane trying to attack ussia will seek to fly below the radar ,making pointless the extra range over the S-400s. So S-500s with 600km range  in real practice will rarely could be used against Air Space defenses and instead will be used for Space Defenses. against ICBMs.. or HIgh Altitude Bombers like SR-72 that US defense industry already said is working or scram jets flying in space. In my opinion What Russia needs to expand its air defense is have navy with S-400s defenses. Since each warship will share information and cover a different zone.

If the kinematic performance and the amount of propellant of the S-400/S-500 missiles are the limiting factors, than developing miniature LFTR reactors might be the solution in greatly increasing missile range. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) are vastly superior to uranium reactors, because they're vastly safer and they need far less housing (no worry over Fukushima like hydrogen explosions), it makes 1/100th the nuclear waste because it needs 1/100th amount of nuclear fuel (uranium reactors use small percentages of the isotopes they use, while thorium reactors use almost all the fuel in a isotope), the thorium fuel is every where and it's dirt cheap, and the technology is totally scalable that they can be made large enough to generate 100 Megawatts of power, or made small enough to fit in the confines of a missile. I'm not saying it should replace rocket propellant entirely because molten-salt liquid fluoride thorium is hazardous nuclear material, I'm saying strategic and tactical nuclear tipped missiles (offensive and defensive) should have mini-LFTR reactors to greatly enhance range!

LFTR FTW! Finally, someone who loves LFTR's like myself! That actually sounds like a decent idea... 

magnumcromagnon wrote:Great news guys! Almaz-Antey has now started the design stage of Russia's unified aerospace defense network, greatly enhancing aerospace defense forces capability to defend Russian airspace:

Excellent. That means that Russia has finally defined concepts under which the unified aerospace defense will function and can now get to work to build the damn thing
We as forum members probably wont notice much of it as it will probably refer to the new stationary and mobile command posts with the new algorithms which will unite already existing unified networks of PVO and space defense in the single unified network - aerospace defense forces.

That will result in much more time for defenders to prepare and organize defenses as they will have information from satellities, EW radar stations, and all that exists.

magnumcromagnon wrote:.I have some questions for our elder statesman GarryB, with a massive modern and sophisticated aerospace network in place and integrated with all domestic SAMS, is it possible that Russian SAMS would be capable of having significantly enhanced range and performance in domestic aerospace? For example we have the S-400 with 400km range, and the S-500 with 600km range...assuming the range is not downplayed, is it possible within this aerospace defense network within domestic Russian aerospace, that the S-400 can have an enhanced range of 600km, and the S-500 could have an enhanced range of 800km? For my understanding the range of missiles (for those very SAMS) most limiting factor is not the propellant or the rocket motor, but how powerful the radar is, and that there's a limit due to maintaining mobility on how powerful a radar complex could be (massive quantities of power would be needed to power it, needing larger and heavier power plants). Also isn't it true that S-400's 400km range is the maximum range of having a 95% interception probability after firing 2 missiles, but could the S-400 theoretically intercept targets at significantly greater ranges but at the cost of significantly lower interception percentage (for a theoretical example 95% at 400km, 85% at 600km, 75% at 800km)?

You are right on all points but we simply dont have any info about it so we can not analyse anything and I will try to explain further your ideas point by point. Thing is that in circles of PVO theory, academies, institutes etc functions of kill probability for each different missile in regard to type of target, range and other factors exists. Thats is certainly the most important thing there is and because of it, it should come as no surprise that hundereds of thousands of highly educated specialists work in Almaz-Antey providing calculations which at its end present a curve a function a starting conditions for PVO theorists to work with. It should also come as no surprise that ordinary people and general public are not familiar with it and never will be for the obvious reasons. Its a state secret and such data for export versions of such complexes are provided only to buyers - other states perhaps.

Now about the range. We had an argument back than about the difference of data presented about 9M96 missile. Its "operational range" was at first given as 120km with notice that that is only for export version meaning domestic one will have even bigger range. Than later on during the last MAKS we saw that its "area of defeat" for aerodynamic targets mearly 60km and all the confusion broke loose while at the same time exactly nothing changed. Only difference is that one and the same thing is defined in two different ways. "Operational range" and are "defeat area" for aerodynamic targets. So what does it mean? Im not really sure as no info is given to general public but following some logic and info I have I would argue that 9M96 missile is capable of hiting targets at 120km range as well but with less probability than on ranges defined as "defeat area" for aredynamic targets.
Same thing can be defined for ballistic targets, aeroballistic targets, cruise missiles, drones etc in reference to range and many other things. Look following examples:

1."Operational range" of Aster 30 is given as 120km but its "defeat area" is 60km for aerodynamic targets meaning just as same as in 9M96 case. That means that Aster 30 of  
   the SAMP-T complex for instance
  can shoot at targets flying at even greater range than those defined by its "defeat area" and may even shoot them down but will do it with less probability than inside "defeat area" and  command posts when calculating firing solutions take economy of the shootings in the consideration as well. You dont want to find yourself in a situation where you have fired half of your missiles and shoot nothing or much less than you would normally do if you had followed the procedure.

2. "Operational range" of HQ-9 is 125km which is similar to Aster-30 and 9M96M2 missile but its "area of defeat" is 50km for aerodynamic targets a slightly less than in Aster-
   30 and 9M96M case which means that China engineers is not up to the level of Europeans and Russians but the point is similar as in first case.

See the striking pattern. Function of kill probability exists for every range, target, missile, system etc its just that we dont know it and probably never will.


On the other hand your second point is also correct. The point of missile potential in regard to radar technology and electronics. Its a well known fact that for instance range of the
9M82/9M83 missiles where limitied by radar technology and electronic of the time. "Simple" modernization of radar and electronics led its range being increased 3.5 TIMES!!!!
to the horror of all western analysts and now 350km in range makes the S-300V4 a missile system with the longest range in the entire Russian arsenal. As I was informed all the algorithms where copy-pasted and are therefore as same as they where back than. Also advancement in radar and electronics technology made it possible to reduce and expel two of its previous radar sets making the system cheaper altogether and its operations simplified and cheaper but its combat efficiency much higher.

So given those two of your ideas but taking in the consideration complete lack of any kind of information what can we conclude about 40N6? That its range potential, its killing zone can be increased once 92N6 sets are further modernized or that its kill probability after 400km long mach is extremely high only for those targets that can not maneuvere i.e. high probability of kill for highly maneuvere targets is less than 400km. Who knows but you are right on track with your thoughts   

Vann7 wrote:And you could guess ,after some long Range ,the radar of any system of defense no matter how good
it is ,will not see anything that is flying under the radar Horizon . In the picture the radio tower signals will not reach the House ,because is under their horizon

Missiles with such range that greatly overlaps radar horizont are not meant to fight targets flying under the radar horizont as they cant obviously
40N6 of the S-400 missile system is meant, designed, incorporated in S-400 with an idea to keep the ELINT/AWACS/TANKER/ECM planes out of the battlefield which will in that case severely degrade the combat ability for attacking force making it easier for orther missiles and systems to shoot them down. Targets flying under the radar horizont will be detected by
satellites, EW radar systems, AWACS and MiG-31 interceptors and other fighters of the VKO will be sent to deal with those kind of threat. That is why every capable air defense is consisted of three major elements.

- radar systems
- SAM systems
- aviation component

and all three components must function in order for whole system to function. If you take even one (no matter what) element out of that equation and the whole system is severely degraded.

Vann7 wrote: So 400km is more than enoughc

So its not enough. Its huuuuge improvement and terrified threat in mind of all western analyst but the more is better.

Vann7 wrote:Trying to detect a military plane of an enemy beyond 500km will be next to impossible if the planes are flying
at ~100-500 meters altitude to cover from the radar waves using the earth curvature as cover.   system like S-500
with 600 km range in practice will be more need for high altitude bombers or against ICBM or to shut down satelites. for the reason of them being very expensive missiles , could cost US $10 -$20 millions each missile. the Brahmos missile cost near $3 million for example.

Threats flying under the radar horizont will be dealth in ways described above. S-500 is meant to fight future threats. S-500 is meant to fight all kinds of ballistic targets including ICBMs but also hypersonic cruise missiles flying at 30-100km altitude at Mach 20-30 and satellites in LEO besides ELINT/AWACS/TANKER/ECM like targets inside earths atmosphere.
Togeather with S-400/S-300V4/S-300Favorit/S-350/BUK-M3/Pancir-SM/Pancir-S1/Tor-M2U/Morfei/Verba/Pine etc are meant to fight off all kind of existing and future threats. Each of them is designed with an idea on mind, idea of concept of operations inside the huge structure that makes the Russian AD design so formidable and all of them altogether with all their "accesories" are designed to work as a one unified body - almost living as its capable to work in full automation mode given the level of automation elements of artifitial intelligence inside. All of them together and by its pieces has its strictly defined purpose within whole concept of operations.

Vann7 wrote:And for enemy planes do not have missiles with longer than 200km usually. Norway is working in a cruise anti ship missile with 300km range. in the case of Low flying tomahawks they can be intercepted with regulan Gatlin guns pantsirs like defenses. Crimea for example have like 200km range from coast to coast. So is a long long distance a missile with more than 400km.  You could achieve your extra range by just using mobile radars that comes in navy warships or from helicopters illuminating the target and to expose any enemy plane flying low. or in the case of territory by deploying a network of S-400 Sam defense every 300km distance or a network of small range defense Systems like Buks ,Pantsir or Tors

Thats not how it goes. You dont place SAM systems based on their range but in regard to forces representing a threat your enemy can muster in some specific zone we are talking about.
Number and type of airfield, planes, missiles, distance etc etc all and all of your allies as well as geographical location and bla bla are taken in the consideration and calculated based on which decision about the type and number of radar sets, SAMs etc is made.

Vann7 wrote:If Russia get S-500s , any enemy combat plane trying to attack ussia will seek to fly below the radar ,making pointless the extra range over the S-400s. So S-500s with 600km range  in real practice will rarely could be used against Air Space defenses and instead will be used for Space Defenses. against ICBMs.. or HIgh Altitude Bombers like SR-72 that US defense industry already said is working or scram jets flying in space. In my opinion What Russia needs to expand its air defense is have navy with S-400s defenses. Since each warship will share information and cover a different zone.

You dont need to worry about combat application of S-400 and S-500 as there are hundered of thousands of people with infinite times more knowledge than you and me worring about that very same thing

Only difference is that one and the same thing is defined in two different ways. "Operational range" and are "defeat area" for aerodynamic targets.

Operational range and defeat area for a specific type of target would be the same if they meant the same thing.

They therefore clearly don't.

I would suggest operational range is the range at which they can kill an aerodynamic target, while defeat area is likely no escape zone.

In other words operational range is max range where the target has to be closing and of low manouver performance or unaware it is being targeted. No escape zone is where the motor burns out and it starts coasting... so at 60km it is powered and has plenty of energy to turn and burn with the target meaning it would have to do something extraordinary to escape.

Regarding nuclear propulsion on a SAM to be used over your own territory... do I have to say anything at all?   

Construction of Almaz-Antey factories - progress

Construction of the North-West Regional Center of Concern PVO "Almaz - Antey"


new capabilities in few years time

Russian troops ASD can recognize a new generation of space objects

"In the next 4 years Troops aerospace defense deployed on the territory of the Russian network of laser-optical and radio systems of recognition of a new generation of space objects", - he said.

GarryB wrote:

Only difference is that one and the same thing is defined in two different ways. "Operational range" and are "defeat area" for aerodynamic targets.

Operational range and defeat area for a specific type of target would be the same if they meant the same thing.

In this case that same thing is the missile itself. A single missile can be defined in uncomplete way by any given carateristic. In this case if you define 9M96 missile not by name but by

its "operational range" which is 120km in export variant most of us will know what missile are you talking about. Just as same if we define its "defeat area" of 60km you have basicaly said

the same thing in different way. That was my point.

GarryB, you are correct. S-500 should not only be useful, but invaluable for ABM and ASAT operations. That being said, I've heard that it won't be focusing on typical anti-aircraft roles, much like the SM-3, is this true? If it can cover the hypersonic and high-altitude threats, and the S-400 can stick to doing its job at medium to low altitudes, then Russia will have a "sealed shut" airspace.  

I hate to change the subject, but I do a question. 

Does anyone know how the 9M96 family of missiles will perform vs. 48N6-like-missiles? {I know the speed and range differences etc. However, in my head I just "feel" like the 48N6 is a superior missile (When it comes to kill-probability and such.)}

That being said, I've heard that it won't be focusing on typical anti-aircraft roles, much like the SM-3, is this true?

Unlike SM-3 S-500 will be fully land mobile and there will be a naval model likely fitted to vessels of Destroyer Size and up.

The land based systems will likely be based at strategic targets including cities, major airfields, ports, etc etc.

When operating they will be tied in to the IADS, but when operating on its own away from S-400 or S-350 systems it will no doubt have to deal with all sorts of threats itself.

If it can cover the hypersonic and high-altitude threats, and the S-400 can stick to doing its job at medium to low altitudes, then Russia will have a "sealed shut" airspace.

Indeed... with the Air Force and the VKKO Aerospace Defence Forces buying them too there should be quite a few around the place.

In fact put them on an Antonov and fly them where you want...

Does anyone know how the 9M96 family of missiles will perform vs. 48N6-like-missiles? {I know the speed and range differences etc. However, in my head I just "feel" like the 48N6 is a superior missile (When it comes to kill-probability and such.)}

The larger missiles will be much faster and of course also longer ranged and with a rather heavier warhead, however the smaller missiles will be rather more compact and rather cheaper and carry warheads powerful enough for the targets they are designed for... and likely more effective as they will manouver closer to their targets before detonation.

GarryB wrote:

That being said, I've heard that it won't be focusing on typical anti-aircraft roles, much like the SM-3, is this true?

Unlike SM-3 S-500 will be fully land mobile and there will be a naval model likely fitted to vessels of Destroyer Size and up.

The land based systems will likely be based at strategic targets including cities, major airfields, ports, etc etc.

When operating they will be tied in to the IADS, but when operating on its own away from S-400 or S-350 systems it will no doubt have to deal with all sorts of threats itself.

If it can cover the hypersonic and high-altitude threats, and the S-400 can stick to doing its job at medium to low altitudes, then Russia will have a "sealed shut" airspace.

Indeed... with the Air Force and the VKKO Aerospace Defence Forces buying them too there should be quite a few around the place.

In fact put them on an Antonov and fly them where you want...

Does anyone know how the 9M96 family of missiles will perform vs. 48N6-like-missiles? {I know the speed and range differences etc. However, in my head I just "feel" like the 48N6 is a superior missile (When it comes to kill-probability and such.)}

The larger missiles will be much faster and of course also longer ranged and with a rather heavier warhead, however the smaller missiles will be rather more compact and rather cheaper and carry warheads powerful enough for the targets they are designed for... and likely more effective as they will manouver close

True, but that isn't relevant for obvious reasons.

Also true, but I asked "That being said, I've heard that it won't be focusing on typical anti-aircraft roles, much like the SM-3, is this true?". My question was if the S-500 is really going to be used in AA situations, or is it going to be left to both the S-350 and S-400 among other systems. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear...


That is great to hear, now enemies aircraft will be flying into a iron curtain....


That's what I figured. The 9M96 family will maneuver superior to the 48N6 family. However, the shear speed of the 48N6 and larger "kill radius" (warhead) means that the plane won't have enough time to react.

Also true, but I asked "That being said, I've heard that it won't be focusing on typical anti-aircraft roles, much like the SM-3, is this true?". My question was if the S-500 is really going to be used in AA situations, or is it going to be left to both the S-350 and S-400 among other systems. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear...

Rather depends on how it is deployed... it is fully land mobile and will also be naval based too.

It will primarily be used to stop ballistic targets because that was what it was designed for and will likely be sent to capital cities and airfields... ports will likely have a few destroyers with naval S-500 missiles to protect them including foreign ports potentially.

As a land based system I would suspect it might operate with either S-400 or S-350 depending on the situation, with a self defence unit of Pantsir or Pantsir like SAMs defending it from swarm attack. As such it likely wont be used against air breathing targets.

Having said that its extreme range and the approach of NATO means an S-500 system in Leningrad could potentially be used against NATO AWACS aircraft operating over Latvia 600km away. If it was detected would they take a shot at such a valuable target? Of course they would...

That's what I figured. The 9M96 family will maneuver superior to the 48N6 family. However, the shear speed of the 48N6 and larger "kill radius" (warhead) means that the plane won't have enough time to react.

Both would be effective... the larger missiles are know to use their large warheads to direct a stream of fragments and material at the target on detonation. The smaller missiles probably use better manouverability and more accurate guidance to get much closer to the target.

From memory the large missiles have warheads of 150kg, while the smaller missiles have similar warheads to medium sized AAMs like R-27 and R-77, so about 40kgs.

GarryB wrote:

Also true, but I asked "That being said, I've heard that it won't be focusing on typical anti-aircraft roles, much like the SM-3, is this true?". My question was if the S-500 is really going to be used in AA situations, or is it going to be left to both the S-350 and S-400 among other systems. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear...

Rather depends on how it is deployed... it is fully land mobile and will also be naval based too.

It will primarily be used to stop ballistic targets because that was what it was designed for and will likely be sent to capital cities and airfields... ports will likely have a few destroyers with naval S-500 missiles to protect them including foreign ports potentially.

As a land based system I would suspect it might operate with either S-400 or S-350 depending on the situation, with a self defence unit of Pantsir or Pantsir like SAMs defending it from swarm attack. As such it likely wont be used against air breathing targets.

Having said that its extreme range and the approach of NATO means an S-500 system in Leningrad could potentially be used against NATO AWACS aircraft operating over Latvia 600km away. If it was detected would they take a shot at such a valuable target?  Of course they would...

That's what I figured. The 9M96 family will maneuver superior to the 48N6 family. However, the shear speed of the 48N6 and larger "kill radius" (warhead) means that the plane won't have enough time to react.

Both would be effective... the larger missiles are know to use their large warheads to direct a stream of fragments and material at the target on detonation. The smaller missiles probably use better manouverability and more accurate guidance to get much closer to the target.

From memory the large missiles have warheads of 150kg, while the smaller missiles have similar warheads to medium sized AAMs like R-27 and R-77, so about 40kgs.

Thank you for clearing that up for me!

My guess is that RU would try and use the 48N6 missile of the S-400 as much as they can (I'm talking about long range targets) for cost reasons. That would leave the S-500 doing the dirty work, while still "covering the skies" (of course they will still use the S-500 for AA, just that it might be overkill in some situations.).

Mike E wrote:My guess is that RU would try and use the 48N6 missile of the S-400 as much as they can (I'm talking about long range targets) for cost reasons. That would leave the S-500 doing the dirty work, while still "covering the skies" (of course they will still use the S-500 for AA, just that it might be overkill in some situations.).

Powerfull mobile command post run the calculations and provide firing solutions/target distribution etc to each and every brigade/regiment/battery/tel/telar in regard to

target type/prioritization/numbers/economy EVERYTHING. Its a 100% automated system that in the end requires no troops.

And here is a LINK where you can observe Russian AD design

So what you're saying is that air-defense software systems decide what missiles targets what aircraft? If so, that sounds like a great idea.

Mike E wrote:So what you're saying is that air-defense software systems decide what missiles targets what aircraft? If so, that sounds like a great idea.

Thats the way it should be..
In my mind Larger missiles means Larger booster = Faster but also = less maneuverable and more expensive.
And smaller missiles means = less faster than the larger ones ,but more maneuverable and less expensive.
This should be generally speaking a rule for all modern anti Air missiles..  Larger = heavier and more expensive..
and smaller = more lighter and more cheaper.


In a major war scenario..that you will be fired hundreds if not thousands of missiles by the enemies to your land, is not very practical that you waste lets say a $US $10 millions to $50 million dollar missile like S-500 should cost..
against a $1,000 dollar spy drone or even a $20 million combat jet if you can do it with a much cheaper S-400. It will also far ..far more cheaper if you deploy a Pantsir-S1 defense  400km away of the S-400.. and shot the targets with just cannon fire.  This is one of the reasons Artillery is still important today..  Because even though a ballistic missile can do the same.. if you use expensive missiles all the time.. you will lose the war for going bankrupt the first day. Economy of scale  is an important part also in planning wars. Same like avoid using a Kornet missile to kill aa lonely enemy soldier, if your sniper rifle can do it.

S-500s will be ideal for space targets.. for its price ,range and speed.  But contrary to the Sm-3.. the S-500 will also be capable of operating at any altitude.. S-500 is a real surface to air missile. (for what i can understand).. and Sm-3 is more like a space carrier of mines ,that its warhead can only operate in zero gravity environment .. with some  auto propulsion capabilities integrated in the mines that is dropped ahead of the flight path of any ICBM.  Sm-3 for is lack of Rockets propulsion in the last phase.. don't think have a chance to change targets and chase ICBM or not much opportunity to chase an ICBM.. that change its flight path dramatically to avoid the Sm-3 mine.

So i think the smaller Pantsirs and Tor missiles are more ideal to target small maneuverable missiles ,because can do turns more faster. and because of the larger air resistance , larger missiles will be less maneuverable in doing tight turns than smaller ones.

Sm-3 and S-500 , i dont think can be compared directly since they appear to be different things but that the goal is the same. S-500 appears to be much more ideal interceptor against Intercontinental missiles that can change flight path dramatically to avoid an interception.. And SM-3 seems to be and elegant cheaper solution against traditional Intercontinental missiles who maintain a predictable flight path on its mid course.  So they just park in space ahead of its course and explode when the missile is near.

I don't know prices but an SM-3 should be significantly more cheaper than an S-500. since the first one is a space mine with an advanced IR warhead transported to space by a 3 stage Booster . And the S-400 on steroids ,with significant larger range and more advanced warhead seekers.

.

Vann7 wrote:

Mike E wrote:So what you're saying is that air-defense software systems decide what missiles targets what aircraft? If so, that sounds like a great idea.

Thats the way it should be..
In my mind Larger missiles means Larger booster = Faster but also = less maneuverable and more expensive.
And smaller missiles means = less faster than the larger ones ,but more maneuverable and less expensive.
This should be generally speaking a rule for all modern anti Air missiles..  Larger = heavier and more expensive..
and smaller = more lighter and more cheaper.


In a major war scenario..that you will be fired hundreds if not thousands of missiles by the enemies to your land, is not very practical that you waste lets say a $US $10 millions to $50 million dollar missile like S-500 should cost..
against a $1,000 dollar spy drone or even a $20 million combat jet if you can do it with a much cheaper S-400. It will also far ..far more cheaper if you deploy a Pantsir-S1 defense  400km away of the S-400.. and shot the targets with just cannon fire.  This is one of the reasons Artillery is still important today..  Because even though a ballistic missile can do the same.. if you use expensive missiles all the time.. you will lose the war for going bankrupt the first day. Economy of scale  is an important part also in planning wars. Same like avoid using a Kornet missile to kill aa lonely enemy soldier, if your sniper rifle can do it.

S-500s will be ideal for space targets.. for its price ,range and speed.  But contrary to the Sm-3.. the S-500 will also be capable of operating at any altitude.. S-500 is a real surface to air missile. (for what i can understand).. and Sm-3 is more like a space carrier of mines ,that its warhead can only operate in zero gravity environment .. with some  auto propulsion capabilities integrated in the mines that is dropped ahead of the flight path of any ICBM.  Sm-3 for is lack of Rockets propulsion in the last phase.. don't think have a chance to change targets and chase ICBM or not much opportunity to chase an ICBM.. that change its flight path dramatically to avoid the Sm-3 mine.

So i think the smaller Pantsirs and Tor missiles are more ideal to target small maneuverable missiles ,because can do turns more faster. and because of the larger air resistance , larger missiles will be less maneuverable in doing tight turns than smaller ones.

Sm-3 and S-500 , i dont think can be compared directly since they appear to be different things but that the goal is the same. S-500 appears to be much more ideal interceptor against Intercontinental missiles that can change flight path dramatically to avoid an interception.. And SM-3 seems to be and elegant cheaper solution against traditional Intercontinental missiles who maintain a predictable flight path on its mid course.  So they just park in space ahead of its course and explode when the missile is near.

I don't know prices but an SM-3 should be significantly more cheaper than an S-500. since the first one is a space mine with an advanced IR warhead transported to space by a 3 stage Booster . And the S-400 on steroids ,with significant larger range and more advanced warhead seekers.

.

I completely agree.

That is also true, and I expect that Russia will make sure and be "penny smart" when it comes to that.

While you are right when it comes to the SM-3 being ABM and ASAT capable only, you are slightly off when it comes to the "mine" thing. SM-3 uses four stages in total. The fourth stage is the "mine stage", and while it doesn't have a real "rocket engine", it can change trajectory and altitude etc. That being said, the Topol among other Russian ICBM's could avoid it with ease. (SM-3 is only effective within the atmosphere.) As you said, the S-500 is a "real" SAM because it can destroy targets within the atmosphere (and outside of it, of course). Just to let you know, the SM-3 is based off the idea that it "meet" the target in space, and then change course directly towards it. As such, it can't "chase" an ICBM, and it is much easier to avoid.

While both those are good missiles, I feel like the 9M96 missile family is the best of both worlds. It is relatively fast, has good range, somewhat large warhead, and it can maneuver well. Tor is still a great piece of equipment, though I feel like the Pantsir's missiles need to be upgraded.

Well, you have sort of already covered the Sm-3... I'd like to fix something you said, the SM-3 sure as heck isn't cheap! The new variants of the SM-3 are expected to cost over 20 million dollars!!! That is the cost of just a single missile, older variants still cost over 10 million dollars a piece. The S-500 should not only be more capable, but be cheaper as well.

Mike E wrote:So what you're saying is that air-defense software systems decide what missiles targets what aircraft? If so, that sounds like a great idea.

Yes and has been doing so since Vietnam war when Soviets introduced ASURK-1 as a command post to S-75 missile systems.


Here I started to describe the situation around Russian command post but it takes a lot of time so its going slowly.

LINK

The idea behind the integrated air defence network is to share data and have a layered missile defence arrangement that also includes interceptor aircraft too.
If you have an object detected on radar entering your airspace most of the time you will send aircraft to investigate.

If you detect a target with a RCS of a small fly at 10,000m altitude at 800km/h in X band radar, but appears the size of a small fighter on VHF band radars then having a missile that can reach the target is just part of the puzzle... you also need a missile that can be guided to hit a target with a small RCS like the S-300V series or conversely a missile that is optically guided for the terminal phase.

200 air defense units of equipment and 800 PVO troopers are going to do some shootings at Ashuluk training ground with S-300Favorite, S-400 and Pancir-S1

EKR Russia in August 2014 will be air defense exercises

medo wrote:Integration of first SAMs like S-75, S-125 and S-200 in IADS with higher level command posts were quite soon possible as those systems were stationary and  their coordinates were fixed for longer time and positions were connected by cables.They could put another working console with a scope in battery command post or in additional van to coordinate work with higher level command and to give radar picture to them and to receive radar picture from other sources and target delivery from higher command

Yup, first version able to integrate S-200/125/75 was ASURK-1MA from 1967 able to command 8 mix batteries. ASURK-1MA was able to integrate also with Desna,Neva,P-80, and altimeter radar PVR-11, P-12,P-14, P-15 etc. Such composition lasted somewhere until the end of 70ies when new more modern sets begin to emerge.

medo wrote: I don't know, if such export old SAMs have such capabilities to integrate in higher level of command chain. Iran made their own modifications in their S-200 complexes with additional working consoles to integrate their S-200 batteries in their IADS.

From what I have read and see you are right. Iran has made lots of modification on existing S-200 systems and integrated  ELINT/ECM as well as modernized command and control of those batteries but the problem with Iran is that in regard to the size of their country SAM and fighter numbers are too low.

This thing is fricking huge .....   

More than five thousand servicemen and around two thousand units of military hardware will be involved in military exercises

Air Defense Troops in the Central Military District will hold large-scale fire drills by air defense missile systems S-300, Buk, Tor, Osa at firing range Kapustin Yar in Russia’s southern Astrakhan region from August 18 to 23

Air defence troops to hold S-300 fire drills in southern Russia

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

S-500 will enter the army in 2016

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!