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

Austin wrote:So finally India signed the deal to buy 5 S-400 system for USD $5 billion.

I am assuming 5 systems here means 5 regiment of S-400 and its damn expensive.

Can some one tell me what consitutes a regiment of S-400 , How many Radar , Missile , Reload and Transport/Telar ?

Thank You

Austin wrote:So finally India signed the deal to buy 5 S-400 system for USD $5 billion.

I am assuming 5 systems here means 5 regiment of S-400 and its damn expensive.

Can some one tell me what consitutes a regiment of S-400 , How many Radar , Missile , Reload and Transport/Telar ?

Thank You

Austin wrote:Thanks , Still in Russian typical deployment what makes a Regiment ? How many missile launchers reload radars command post etc ?

Any diagram that can explain a typical regiment

Austin wrote:So finally India signed the deal to buy 5 S-400 system for USD $5 billion.

I am assuming 5 systems here means 5 regiment of S-400 and its damn expensive.

Can some one tell me what consitutes a regiment of S-400 , How many Radar , Missile , Reload and Transport/Telar ?

Thank You

GarryB wrote:yes, that was my position... the warhead would not be armed until it was within a kilometre of the target and if it missed it would be disarmed again when it was more than a kilometre away...

jhelb wrote:

GarryB wrote:yes, that was my position... the warhead would not be armed until it was within a kilometre of the target and if it missed it would be disarmed again when it was more than a kilometre away...

Given the fact that the S-500 will be very effective against ICBMs/SLBMs, what purpose will the A-135 or the upcoming A-235 serve?

Austin wrote:S-500 will serve for Terminal Defence against ICBM ~ 200 km altitude and below ,   A-235 will be Mid and Upper Tier 600 - 1000 plus km altitude , A-135 is limited to Moscow lower tier defence

jhelb wrote:

Austin wrote:S-500 will serve for Terminal Defence against ICBM ~ 200 km altitude and below ,   A-235 will be Mid and Upper Tier 600 - 1000 plus km altitude , A-135 is limited to Moscow lower tier defence

So basically you are saying that S-500 and A-235 will be used in tandem? If A-235 fails to destroy the incoming warheads then the S-500 will be pressed into action. Is that what you are saying? Thanks.

GarryB wrote:They are simply the result of different evolutionary streams with different customers.

The S-300 has three branches... the S-300P of the Air Force, the S-300F of the Navy and the rather different looking S-300V for the Army.

The S-300V has track based vehicles for army use and it has two very different missiles... one with a quad launcher and one larger one with a twin launcher with two stage missiles.

Basically the S-300P and S-300F have evolved into the S-400 and then S-350, while the S-300V has evolved into the S-300V4 or Antei-2500/-3000 for export.

The A-235 is not for the army or air force or navy... it is for the Strategic rocket forces and aerospace defence forces to defend ICBM fields and cities and ports and areas of strategic value.

GarryB wrote:For instance they might decide to put A-235 in Moscow and Leningrad and also Murmansk and other large cities and ports and industrial regions that the US might target with ICBMs or SLBMs.

The S-500 being fully mobile will likely also be used to protect Coms centres and HQs, and major ports and airfields.

GarryB wrote:BTW that video is interesting but reality was rather worse.

GarryB wrote:
The A-135 and A-235 are strategic ABM systems that might move to position in trucks but will operate from fixed hardened silos with fixed infrastructure.

GarryB wrote:Redesigning the Scud to allow more fuel to be carried so the rocket motor burns longer will also increase range.

RTN wrote:

GarryB wrote:
The A-135 and A-235 are strategic ABM systems that might move to position in trucks but will operate from fixed hardened silos with fixed infrastructure.

I understand that in the case of ICBMs you need silos because no truck will be able to carry a 100 ton ICBM for example Sarmat but what's the need for silo based ABMs? Makes far more sense to make them mobile.

GarryB wrote:Redesigning the Scud to allow more fuel to be carried so the rocket motor burns longer will also increase range.

I am not questioning the technicalities. All that I'm saying is if it is that easy to modify a missile to increase its range how do countries that are signatories to MTCR like US, Russia etc ensure that the buyer is not tampering the missile to increase the range.

Top of my head the program that runs these missiles will ensure that the max range is not breached, which is why I found Prof.Theodore Postol's explanation that Iraqis were able to increase the range of the Scud from 300kms to 600kms somewhat amusing.

GarryB wrote:They are simply the result of different evolutionary streams with different customers.

The S-300 has three branches... the S-300P of the Air Force, the S-300F of the Navy and the rather different looking S-300V for the Army.

The S-300V has track based vehicles for army use and it has two very different missiles... one with a quad launcher and one larger one with a twin launcher with two stage missiles.

Basically the S-300P and S-300F have evolved into the S-400 and then S-350, while the S-300V has evolved into the S-300V4 or Antei-2500/-3000 for export.

The A-235 is not for the army or air force or navy... it is for the Strategic rocket forces and aerospace defence forces to defend ICBM fields and cities and ports and areas of strategic value.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

GarryB wrote:They are simply the result of different evolutionary streams with different customers.

The S-300 has three branches... the S-300P of the Air Force, the S-300F of the Navy and the rather different looking S-300V for the Army.

The S-300V has track based vehicles for army use and it has two very different missiles... one with a quad launcher and one larger one with a twin launcher with two stage missiles.

Basically the S-300P and S-300F have evolved into the S-400 and then S-350, while the S-300V has evolved into the S-300V4 or Antei-2500/-3000 for export.

The A-235 is not for the army or air force or navy... it is for the Strategic rocket forces and aerospace defence forces to defend ICBM fields and cities and ports and areas of strategic value.

Hello, I do not know if this is the proper topic, but I would like to understand the difference between the S-300 family and the BUK family (recently upgraded with the BUK M3).
Are they supposed to work together?
from what I understood usually medium/long range SAMs like the s-300 or S400 wotk together with system like  Pantsir for short range pbrotection.

Where does the BUK system fits in all of this? is it an alternative, or what?

Austin wrote:That would be the idea , And S-500 is not just a ABM system but a follow in to S-400 system with ABM capability built in like S-400

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

GarryB wrote:............

Hello, I do not know if this is the proper topic, but I would like to understand the difference between the S-300 family and the BUK family (recently upgraded with the BUK M3).
Are they supposed to work together?
from what I understood usually medium/long range SAMs like the s-300 or S400 wotk together with system like  Pantsir for short range pbrotection.

Where does the BUK system fits in all of this? is it an alternative, or what?