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

RTN wrote:

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

Bad Idea

If hostilities break out S-400 or S-500 units will be taken out by stealth aircraft like the F-22 & F-35 because they have the ability to locate & characterise the search radars of S400, S-500 at ranges far exceeding the LOD of the search radars against them. The LOD of the S-400 search radars vs the F-22 is ~ 17 nm & ~ 30 nm for the F-35 in all aspect performance, but is ~ 20 nm frontally for the F-35. SDBs, anti radiation missiles can be launched at as much as 45 nm depending on launch height, speed, wind force/direction etc.

Therefore, you will be left with the A-135

to intercept any incoming Ballistic Missile.

Yeah , Russia should stop making SAM's and buy F-22 & F-35 instead

RTN wrote:

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

Bad Idea

If hostilities break out S-400 or S-500 units will be taken out by stealth aircraft like the F-22 & F-35 because they have the ability to locate & characterise the search radars of S400, S-500 at ranges far exceeding the LOD of the search radars against them. The LOD of the S-400 search radars vs the F-22 is ~ 17 nm & ~ 30 nm for the F-35 in all aspect performance, but is ~ 20 nm frontally for the F-35. SDBs, anti radiation missiles can be launched at as much as 45 nm depending on launch height, speed, wind force/direction etc.

Therefore, you will be left with the A-135 to intercept any incoming Ballistic Missile.

Oh boy...

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.

Like I said above it is all about evolution... the systems Nudol and A-235 evolved from were ABM missiles from the cold war that clearly were not allowed to be mobile under the 1972 ABM treaty. All their infrastructure and systems were fixed and designed to defend Moscow. the rules of the ABM treaty meant the US and Soviets could have one ABM system each with no more than 100 interceptors and they could defend either their capital city or an ICBM field... the Soviets chose to protect Moscow and so the silos for the interceptor missiles were in Moscow and were fixed.

These missiles are enormous with eye bulging acceleration and are silo launched.

Now that the ABM treaty is no more it would make sense for them to perhaps build other ABM systems in other fixed locations like Leningrad or Murmansk to protect other cities or ports or major industrial areas, but these systems are not designed to be mobile and there would be little value in making them more mobile as they are intended to protect large fixed locations.

Why spend money to make it more like S-500 which will be fully mobile.

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.

They can't.

And there is nothing to stop any country from doing so.

I could take a Cessna single engine trainer aircraft... put an autopilot in it and fill it up with fuel and put a 200kg HE bomb in the front seats. With the back seats full of a fuel bladder and the fuel tanks full it might have a flight range of more than 500km... a cheap cruise missile.

Obviously any country could do the same with a 747 and have a weapon able to deliver a 100 ton payload of explosive for several thousands of kms... it is not hard.

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.

Terrorists in Saudi Arabia managed to develop fairly deadly cruise missiles that hit the US despite the international agreement... your average cruise missile is a cheap motor that you could probably buy on the internet... wont be as efficient as the ones in Kalibr or Tomahawk, but just add more fuel and thicker heavier wings developing more lift... a ground launched missile with its own underwing drop tanks that climbs to medium to high altitude and fly for 3,000km and then drop its empty tanks and then drop down and fly low to the target is not that hard... most countries could do it if they wanted... the genie is out of the bottle.

In fact most UAVs could be the basis for a cruise missile... most HALEs can operate for days and can have enormous ranges... add a 500kg payload and tadaa... you can violate all sorts of treaties like the INF treaty (have a range between 500km and 5,500km and it becomes and IRBM or IR cruise missile) and export treaties of all kinds...

Obviously the key is the warhead and accuracy... the murderers from Saudi Arabia solved the latter with human guidance and the former was simply fuel and gravity.

The better accuracy the less of a warhead is needed.

1980s Soviet cruise missiles needed Nuke warheads because their 250-300m CEP meant conventional explosives were not effective... add precision guidance however and get that CEP below 10m and 500kgs of HE becomes effective.

1) Their missile are very big not like S-XXX series. Any truck firing this would have damages. Plus they can just have ABM around Moscow. A mobile luncher allows to cover much spaces. Russia signed a deal with US. It's the same for US, can cover just one particular area not all the country.

Another good point... the enormous acceleration of these ABM missiles would melt a truck on launch...

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?

Buk is an Army weapon... you can tell because it has tracked vehicles to operate with armoured formations. The S-300V4 also has tracked vehicles, as does Tunguska and TOR... they are all Army systems. Pantsir is an Air force system but the Tunguska and Pantsir are merging.

Pretty much at Division level a division has air defence regiments that include gun and missile (ie Tunguska or Pantsir at the moment or in the past Shilka and Osa), and also missile (TOR at the moment or SA-13 or SA-9 in the past) as local defence.

For area defence there is BUK which used to be SA-6 (KUB).

At higher levels is S-300V (used to be SA-1/SA-2 long range fixed missiles).

Basically the Army has Igla and Verba for MANPADs, then TOR and Panstir/Tunguska for SHORADS, then BUK for medium range, then S-300V4 for long range air defence and will likely get a few S-500 for very long range and BM defence.

The Air Force equivalent would be Igla and Verba MANPADS, then Pantsir and some TOR, then S-350 (but previously old model S-300) then S-400, and then S-500 at the top tier.

Note the Air force systems are wheeled vehicle based for road mobility but would generally be defending fixed targets like airfields and HQs and comms centres etc.
The SHORADs generally defend larger SAM systems from saturation attacks.

Army systems are tracked and fully land mobile to move with the forces they protect.
The Shorads protect units to a lower level as well as larger area SAMs from saturation attack.

If hostilities break out S-400 or S-500 units will be taken out by stealth aircraft like the F-22 & F-35 because they have the ability to locate & characterise the search radars of S400, S-500 at ranges far exceeding the LOD of the search radars against them. The LOD of the S-400 search radars vs the F-22 is ~ 17 nm & ~ 30 nm for the F-35 in all aspect performance, but is ~ 20 nm frontally for the F-35. SDBs, anti radiation missiles can be launched at as much as 45 nm depending on launch height, speed, wind force/direction etc.

Therefore, you will be left with the A-135 to intercept any incoming Ballistic Missile.

Hahahahaha... first of all what are those F-35s and F-22s going to destroy all those S-400 and S-500 batteries with?

Even a BUK and shoot down an ARM... Pantsir can shoot down 4 ARMs per TELAR at one time with one missile guided to each target independently... a battery of 6 Pantsirs protecting one S-400 battery could therefore take on 24 ARMs at one time... where are all these ARMs coming from? any platform within 400km of the S-400 will be shot down and any platform within 800km will be shot down by S-500... so where are these ARMs coming from?

Those detection ranges only apply to X band radars... S-400 and S-500 will have radars powerful enough to track paint chips in space... and will be connected to an air defence network with long wave radar and EO systems that can detect stealth targets at extended ranges... those F-22s wont even get close to an S-400... Area SAMs are not deployed on the front edge of the front line... there will be layers of all sorts of SAM types those aircraft will have to get past... all of which have thermal optics and optical guidance channels that don't care how many trillions of dollars you spend on stealth. In the 1980s the operators of a rapier SAM at Farnborough used their thermal tracker to track a B-2 that visited... it would be no more difficult now... and the stealth of the B-2 is rather better than the stealth of either F-22 or F-35 no matter what the brochures say.

The most modern tree for Army AD would look like this:
S-400V4/VM
Buk-M3/M2
Pantsir-SM
Tor-M2
Sosna-R
Verba/Igla-S

Oops, yes, I forgot they were adding SOSNA-R. It is a 10km range laser beam riding missile with very high speed and excellent accuracy. It gets to its 10km range in about 8 seconds so the target wont know what hit them... nice cheap missiles too.

isos and Skandalwitwe, thanks.
what i was trying to understand is: are the buk systems smaller and more mobile than the S300 family? (because they all are mounted on tracks if i am not wrong).

and is there a naval version also of the BUK?

Yes.

Think of BUK as the system it basically replaced KUB... SA-6 and sort of SA-4.

The Army version of S-300 is the S-300V which is tracked as well.

In NATO terms S-300V and BUK are SA-12/SA-24 and SA-11/SA-17.

The S-300V has basically replaced the SA-2, SA-3, and SA-5.

The naval version of BUK is SA-N-7 on Sovremmeny class Destroyers and now the vertical launched version Shtil-1 on the new talwar frigates.

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?

The Air Force equivalent would be Igla and Verba MANPADS, then Pantsir and some TOR, then S-350 (but previously old model S-300) then S-400, and then S-500 at the top tier.

Don't forget the highly specialized Morfei...little news about it recently but it will be a huge vehicle with tons of (9M100 or 9M338-like correct me if wrong) ultra short-range missiles well-suited for fighting-off saturation attacks. ManPADS as lowest-tier level for the Air Defense is clearly not enough.

And what about a comeback of new-gen AD guns with guided ammo? Don't know much about it but if true I'm excited...would be an elegant and cheap solution against massive cruise missile attacks or LOCUST.

Isos wrote:
There is an article in the web that discribe how Buk M1 of the syrian forces destroyed two Israeli missiles while being jammed.

Although I haven't come across this article it is quite possible.

Maybe the Israelis were able to jam the acquisition radar of the BUK but not the command component thereby enabling the operator to fire the missiles.
Also, the BUK can be linked with various higher level command posts (HLCPs) like the Polyana-D4.

If both the acquisition radar & command component are jammed then the BUK can't fire any missile.

Don't forget the highly specialized Morfei...little news about it recently but it will be a huge vehicle with tons of (9M100 or 9M338-like correct me if wrong) ultra short-range missiles well-suited for fighting-off saturation attacks. ManPADS as lowest-tier level for the Air Defense is clearly not enough.

Morfei does look interesting... especially as it will be used by all branches of the military, as a short range defence weapon for the Army, as a CIWS for the Navy and a short range AAM for the Air Force.

Its lock on after launch capabilities should make it effective as an anti munition weapon to beat off saturation attacks, but also serve as a weapon deployable from internal weapon bays on stealth fighters and potentially even bombers as a self defence missile.

It will fit in the SA-9/SA-13 niche but also likely provide anti munition protection like the TOR.

It will be more expensive per missile initially with its IIR seeker, but QWIP technology should reduce the costs dramatically over time to the point where they only cost a few dollars per sensor chip.

The SOSNA-R, will also operate in that range band with a very low cost very high speed missile for self defence.

And what about a comeback of new-gen AD guns with guided ammo? Don't know much about it but if true I'm excited...would be an elegant and cheap solution against massive cruise missile attacks or LOCUST.

The effect of a 57mm cannon with guided shells will have a serious impact on US designs for saturation attacks with small attack UAVs being launched from Flare and Chaff dispensors on aircraft... an EMP round able to disable electronics over an area of 30-50m radius's would also be an effective tool... obviously such a round would be easier to develop in a larger calibre... so perhaps a 152mm air defence system firing EMP shells in the midst of enemy drones to disable them enmass is an option I would like to put forward right now...

There is an article in the web that discribe how Buk M1 of the syrian forces destroyed two Israeli missiles while being jammed.

In a sense it was Israeli tactics that created the BUK.

Israeli tactics against KUB where they targeted the central radar vehicle of the KUB unit rendered the whole KUB unit defenceless.

Very simply they sent up a drone, the radar vehicle in the KUB unit detected and tracked it so an Israeli jet fires a HARM and destroys the radar vehicle.

This leaves all the transporter erector vehicles vulnerable because they can't target aircraft on their own so F-16 jets with bombs go in and destroy the vehicles with the missiles.

BUK was designed to have the guidance radars on each vehicle carrying missiles, so there is no central radar you can take out to defeat the whole unit. Also optical channels are available for high jamming environments too.

The latter would allow any BUK missile armed vehicle to engage enemy aircraft even under heavy jamming or SEAD attack.

GarryB wrote: Also optical channels are available for high jamming environments too.

The latter would allow any BUK missile armed vehicle to engage enemy aircraft even under heavy jamming or SEAD attack.

Garry, how does optical channels help in a high jamming environment ?

The F-22 has been used in Syria to carry out airstrikes, escorts and interdiction missions in Syria, most recent being the interception of Syrian SU-24 that were bombing close to SF assets embedded on the ground in Hasakah, Syria. Have Syrian and Russian Early warning and long range search radars, or even the radars on the jets detected these "stealth " aircraft signatures including radar, and electronic signatures? This conflict is ideal to gather technical intelligence on certain equipment being employed.

Garry, how does optical channels help in a high jamming environment ?

Because jamming jams search and tracking radars but not guidance datalinks... they are too directional.

To successfully jam a datalink you would need to position the jammer between the outgoing SAM missile and the launcher.

Most such missiles have home on jam capability too so any aircraft jamming could become a target for a passive homing missile.

Very simply a BUK is guided by a radar beam directed at the target aircraft with the seeker in the BUK homing in on the reflected radar energy.

A heavy jamming environment would mean the radar beam would have trouble finding and locking on to the target and tracking it for the purposes of illuminating it with a radar beam.

With optical guidance the optical system works like TOR or Pantsir where it tracks optically the missile and the target and sends commands directly to the missile to move it onto the targets position... the optical system would autotrack the target and detect the missile... calculate the deviation of the missile from the crosshairs located on the target and manouver the missile to position it where the target is... as long as the missile is moving towards the target and the target is within range if they are both in that crosshair they will eventually meet... or get close enough for the proximity fuse to make the kill.

Optical guidance does not need search or tracking radar so is effectively largely emissionless.

RTN wrote:

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

Bad Idea

If hostilities break out S-400 or S-500 units will be taken out by stealth aircraft like the F-22 & F-35 because they have the ability to locate & characterise the search radars of S400, S-500 at ranges far exceeding the LOD of the search radars against them. The LOD of the S-400 search radars vs the F-22 is ~ 17 nm & ~ 30 nm for the F-35 in all aspect performance, but is ~ 20 nm frontally for the F-35. SDBs, anti radiation missiles can be launched at as much as 45 nm depending on launch height, speed, wind force/direction etc.

Therefore, you will be left with the A-135 to intercept any incoming Ballistic Missile.

If US is so foolish as you look ,to send an F-22 and F-35 to Russian territory , then the S-300s and S-400 or S-500 will not be even needed at all ,since Buks,and Tors missiles will shot down those planes ,this is if the Russian airforce have not intercepted them first.
Invisible planes only exist in Holywood and western propaganda media in the west.
You cannot defeat the laws of physics with a plane , they all produce Heat and you can't hide that. All planes produce an electromagnetic field in the air and you neither can hide that. Even clouds and birds can be detected by radars. So the idea ,that an F-22 or F-35 can pass undetected and Russia military will not send combat planes to intercept them is laughable at best. Before American "Stealth planes" get in combat range to try an attack an S-400 or S-300 ,it will pass through "mine fields" like defenses.. that is like Tors that can operate with their radars turned off ,and detect their heat signature of any NATO plane or any other radio signature and shut it down. The Radar lower signature is only over Long Distances and only using conventional radars . Reason why F-117 was shot down ,that was supposed to be stealth and IRAN could humiliate American airforce by not only detecting their most stealthy plane a Drone made by Boeing ,but also hack it and land it on its military base. So good luck trying to "Defeat" an S-400 ,it will not have a chance in a place like Russia ,that is a big land and Russia can deploy them far from borders but withing distance of enemy planes. The other major challenge F-22 or F-35 will face is Russian airforce will be there to kick them in the ass ,you cannot effectively fight another plane ,while flying over enemy air defenses . Then those Missiles in the F-22 will be easily fooled with counter electronics and even if Russia did not had powerful counter electronics, it will have to deal with Decoys ,that will be 100% identical to the original target ,that US airforce is looking to bomb. So those NATO missiles will not have a chance to differentiate between a fake S-300 and S-400 versus a decoy. that missiles will not be able
to differentiate.



Serbia managed to put into test such tactics with NATO , using home made decoys ,they made
NATO fail 90% of their bombs. Decoys works both ways.. not only for the planes that use it to defend itself ,but also the targets it attacks can also use decoys. So Good luck with that.

Even if somehow NATO managed to get every information of how S-300 and S-400s works ,
and the frequencies used by Russia , and if somehow Russia had no airforce to intercept those place , you will still have to deal with Energy weapons ,that Russia is now testing. it will simply
fry the electronics of your plane and kill the pilot without using a missile or a bullet. So good luck evading that. Those americans pilots will be cooked alive in their planes. and no time to eject when attacked by energy Gun. Russia have so many ways to defeat NATO F-35 or F-22 that is not even funny a fight like that , it will be Russia steam rolling over NATO forces if they as fool as you ,to believe it can fly over Russia with impunity. Russia is not Lybia or IRAQ ,and neither US or NATO have never been tested with a true super military power like Russia. And it better they don't try because it will be embarrassing.

Serbia managed to put into test such tactics with NATO , using home made decoys ,they made
NATO fail 90% of their bombs. Decoys works both ways.. not only for the planes that use it to defend itself ,but also the targets it attacks can also use decoys. So Good luck with that.

More importantly against Serbia there was very little actual risk because their SAMs were largely obsolete and therefore not very effective.

Russian SAMs on the other hand will be rather effective so every mission a lot of NATO aircraft wont make it back to base and attrition will eat into the NATO forces in terms of aircraft and weapons and systems... not to mention the possiblity that when they return home their airfield might have been attacked and the runway damaged so they can't land either... Russia is not a passive enemy.

Almost 10 years are gone since the 1st deployment of a S-400 bataillon near Elektrostal. What improvements were done since then? How much have the newest batches rolling out in common with those in 2007?

Skandalwitwe wrote:Almost 10 years are gone since the 1st deployment of a S-400 bataillon near Elektrostal. What improvements were done since then? How much have the newest batches rolling out in common with those in 2007?

So far, at least 14-16 regiment sets have been delivered.

Isos wrote:Do you know their price ? I remember India paid like 1 billion for 4 systems or Something like that. It's pretty expensive.

According to wikipedia, around 400 million USD per fire unit (division/battalion). One battalion consists of 8-12 TELs, 1-2 radars and a command post.

Isos wrote:Not a good source but it doesn't seem to be far from reality. Patriot is 3-4 millions $ according to wikipedia. When you know that cheaper russian equipement are equivalent to their expensive US counterpart, the difference between these two systems must be huge.

That's right, what Uncle S(c)am can do, Russia can do it cheaper (and also better) . To be honest, I don't know its price, but I'm sure that we are talking about 10 millions of dollars.

Vann7 wrote:Invisible planes only exist in Holywood and western propaganda media in the west.

Likewise, I can argue that the lethality and efficacy of the Soviet/Russian weapons exists only Soviet/Russian propaganda.

When I was active duty and stationed at RAF Upper Heyford, we routinely have access to Soviet news, or what passed as news, custom edited and targeted specifically at Western sympathizers. It told of the terrible might of Soviet weaponry, of how NATO aircrafts would be swatted from the sky even before any of ours could enter Soviet airspace. All the while we, in our F-111s, rehearsed our penetration tactics, and thanks to Adolf Tolkachev, confident we will be able enter Soviet airspace all the way to Moscow if necessary. At every arms reduction negotiations, Soviet insistence that the US removed the F-111s from England were answered with: STFU.

We in the West have a saying: Perception is Reality.

If perception is reality, then Soviet/Russian arms have far to go before being perceived as on a par with their Western counterparts. In 1987, I transferred from the F-111 to the F-16, then I became a Desert Storm veteran. This is before the Internet so quite pre-historic to you kids on this forum. Desert Storm was the greatest black eye, at least at the perception front, to Soviet arms. Everyone was predicting dire consequences to allied forces, even though they admitted that the Iraqis will lose. The most confident of the lethality and efficacy of Soviet arms was, naturally, the Soviet military. Even before deployment, we read of the official Soviet government statements that even though the Iraqi troopers were not as well trained as Soviet troopers, Soviet arms will make up much, if not most, of the deficiency, therefore, just on the air warfare arena alone, there will be many American losses. Once in theater, we were too busy to pay attention to what the Soviets and the Chinese 'predicted' about the upcoming conflict. We flew and trained constantly.

Then came the order...Then came Perception is Reality.

Most countries have to import their defense and in this market, every customer is a 'captive customer'. You cannot be an ally of one side but buy your defense from the other. If perception is reality, what you bought will inevitably be tied to what will happen and at Desert Storm, perceptions and reputations are at stake. Countries were watching and even the politicians focused on what could be the definitive statement on whose guns, tanks, missiles, ships, and aircrafts were the superior. Then when Desert Storm turned out to the be the catastrophe that it was for the Iraqi military, equipped with Soviet arms and trained with Soviet tactics, the full propaganda measures of the Soviet government turned against the Iraqis.

When you are a captive customer, 'Perception if Reality' is the kind of abstract discussion you cannot afford to have. Your national security is at stake. There is no third party you can turn to. Remember, you were assured via an official Soviet government memo that Soviet arms will compensate for much, if not most, deficiencies the Iraqi military have. Then when it turned out the Americans and allies were more threatened by fratricide than from the Iraqi military, you have no choice but to cast at least one suspicious eye at your military and wonder if it can handle the job of national defense using the equipment it has.

Perception is Reality is what sold the MIG-25. Sold physically to Soviet allies and sold virtually to the Americans. Our perception, and planned reality, of the MIG-25 was that it was superior to everything we had. I had the chance the examine the technical analysis of the MIG-25 when I was on the F-16. I put on my engineer hat and yes, the MIG-25 was a POS. Then when the Soviet Union collapsed and we went shopping because the former Soviet satellites were selling everything from tanks to jet fighters to even missile consoles, not just US but many countries found out more and more on the many technical inferiority of Soviet arms. Speaking as an Air Force guy, that is not to say I would have no worries if our pilots have to face current Russian arms, but if our experience from the Cold War to Desert Storm is any indicator, it is that Russia have not progressed that far from her old Soviet days while we have jumped from one technology to the next.

Russia has progressed quite far and the reality was the Piss poor Russian equipment still taken down stealth during Yugoslavia conflict as well as made a mockery of your forces in Vietnam.  MiG-25 for being a piece of shit as you put it, flew faster, higher and was a problem as an interceptor to your aircrafts.

And even India has a nice showing you guys off in various exercises with Russian junk.

Other indication is that lovely NATO has access to s-300 yet manages to keep pissing itself over the deployment of these systems.

So I'm just going to go strait to the point: prove your credentials and your claims to having seen the MiG-25 interior when you placed your "engineering" cap on.