S-500 'Prometheus' and S-550 missile systems

ALAMO wrote:But - which one could consider as a joke if not that it is a reality - France is producing fewer missiles than four operational subs can carry, because of ... one being in maintenance anyway. So they are making a 48 missiles series for every missile they have, let it be M45, or M51.1, 51.2 or next step 51.3 ...

M51 is a pretty successful program.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/11/france-successfully-test-fires-new-m51-3-slbm/

It only had a single failed launch and that was over a decade ago.

The program went fairly smoothly because a) they have land based testing facilities not just submarine ones b) the missile program is fairly incremental. they reused existing warheads and the last stage initially and only replaced it later.

The M51.3 is basically the originally planned M51 missile with every weapon component being modernized.

How often do launchers need to be changed? In other words after firing how many missiles does it become necessary to change the launcher?

The missiles are produced and stored in their launch tubes.... those launch tubes are not reloadable, so when the missile is fired the empty tube is removed and a loaded tube is attached to the launch vehicle.

Maybe S-500's interceptors can also carry decoys and countermeasures just like Russian TBMs do. This will fool the navigation system of the incoming ICBM warhead.

The S-500s will be climbing at high speed and their targets will be coming down at high speed... for the very short period their paths cross is too short a time for jamming or decoys to be effective.

Jamming systems and decoys make sense for a missile attacking a target to distract or defeat intercepting platforms... even half a second distraction would let the missile get through. For air defence missiles the only alternative to HE or kinetic payloads would be EMP payloads that blind or damage the nuclear warhead of the incoming missiles so they don't work properly or are blinded.

BTW Nice vid PhSt, but the S-500 is not to replace the S-300, the S-350 will replace some of the S-300s and the S-400s will likely replace the rest in the more important areas. The S-500 are not really replacing anything, they add capabilities and extend capabilities of existing systems.

Sujoy wrote:But with the S-500 around where is the need for the S-400?

The S-500 adds anti-ballistic long range air defense. But you will want to use the S-400 to protect against aircraft.

Russian air defense systems operate in layers. You have the Pantsir for short range air defense, then the S-350, then the S-400, and then the S-500.

But with the S-500 around where is the need for the S-400?

If they have Tu-160 bombers, why do they need Tu-22M3s or Su-34s.

Why do they need Grads when they have Smerch?

Why have R-77s when there are R-37s?

S-500 is big and more expensive than S-400 and there are only two missiles per TEL compared with four for S-400.

Not every air target will be detected and engaged at 600km and if it is detected at 200km then the 250km range S-400 could do the job instead of the 400km range S-400 or 600km range S-500.

When you play golf professionally each club offers the ability to hit a limited range of distances, part of the game is choosing the best club for the job.

Plus of course the S-400 is in serial production and they have a lot of them and they are very capable missiles which are no where near needing to be replaced.

The very early model S-300s with 90km range are being replaced by the 120km and 60km S-350 missiles as well as by S-400s where the extra range would be useful.

Don't think of S-500 as being an S-400 replacement, it is more of a higher tier system like Patriot and THAAD... except they are both affordable and are rather more effective.