Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 03, 2010 12:36 pm

    The Best use for old Russian ICBMs is to launch foreign and domestic satellites.
    I remember reading somewhere that the SS-18 is so successful as a satellite launcher that the heavy weight replacement for it will be specifically designed for satellite launches after it is time expired as a weapon.

    BTW if you wanted to use an old ICBM as a booster for an interceptor I don't see what the problem would be.
    It is the final stage of the system that is used for the interceptor, the earlier stages are just boosters to get it up and moving fast.

    As long as the payload stage could be controlled with accuracy there is no reason why it couldn't be used as an interceptor missile exactly like the GBI.

    They don't have the CEP to make it effective.

    Some form of terminal homing could easily correct that.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue May 04, 2010 1:20 am

    Interview with Director-General GSKB "Almaz-Antey" -- Igor Ashurbeyli



    Director-General GSKB "Almaz-Antey" Igor Ashurbeyli missile business

    In recent views on the Russian defense industry in Russia itself - in the country's leadership, officials, military and economists strongly diverged. After a time it is called a principal engine of development of advanced technologies, the main drag of the development itself. For information on how the locomotive and the brake hand in hand in one of its most high-tech industries - establishing air and missile defense systems, from someone who is really behind, and how it should end, the correspondent of Kommersant said General Director of "Leading System Design Bureau" Almaz-Antey "them. Academician AA Raspletin Igor Ashurbeyli.

    - What is the main task and the main ideology of Concern Almaz-Antey "now?

    - Well, I for the group to speak in general can not. I will say for the main developer - GSKB "Almaz-Antey". We have grown out of "pants" defense, and our main path - a path to the air and space defense. We have outgrown the height of 30 km, which was our upper threshold (ceiling of the impact zone of existing anti-aircraft missiles .- "b"). Therefore, our strategy - from anti-aircraft missile defense over to the defense aerospace.

    This problem is formulated for the first time in the new military doctrine, approved by the president (Dmitry Medvedev made it in February of this year .- "b"). Prior to that, even the term "aerospace defense" (EBA) has sparked controversy, rejection. Everyone understood that this will change the entire picture of species and types of troops. It will happen at some point in time. And in the new military doctrine for the first time explicitly spelled out the need to create a system of aerospace defense of the Russian Federation.

    - There is much talk at different levels that the military-industrial complex, its management must change. What is your assessment of the management GSKB "Almaz-Antey"? What it needs new approaches?

    - Of course, new approaches are needed because the level itself evolving technology - and he dictates a new level of management. And, accordingly, requires a different level managers, where the brain must be different sharpened - both technically and economically, and, most importantly, information. Because such severe amounts of information that require processing to make management decisions - they may no longer be developed without the use of IT-technologies. The first thing you want to improve the quality of governance - is the introduction of modern information systems. Therefore, the "Diamond" established an office of information technologies and relevant research department in the "trunk", as we say, general designer, who designed and in a short period of time to introduce computerization of design, that is, from a private developer to the global level decision-making.

    This is especially important in view of the fact that our co-operatives located in 19 cities of Russia and there is the issue of security of communication channels for exchange of information between accomplices and developers. And one more problem - before everything had a subsistence economy, ie, each developer had with him actually experienced autonomous plant. But today, we can not compete on the world market with such mastodons, it is obsolete forms.

    Necessary to solve the problem instantly communicate design solutions to manufacturing - and not necessarily experienced, and not necessarily for myself, but perhaps in another city altogether. Check the documentation was transmitted directly to the machine that we have with more extraterritorial. To clear that the Iron Curtain, who was not only about the Soviet Union, but also within the military-industrial complex of the USSR and then Russia, where each company was specific principality. This is a time of greater openness in transactions not only at the level of managerial decisions, but also technical, technological and design.

    - And when all this can be done in full?

    - Never. Life is the same - it is always evolving. We will take another step, and it will develop further ... We are now catching up, unfortunately, yes ... Admittedly, the idea of a Russian engineer works faster than the thought of the Russian bureaucracy, including, I mean myself, and all managers of Almaz. Therefore, we only catch up geek, so there are some shortcomings in the fact, as today has time management for new technologies in development.

    - Management does not manage, and you join the "Diamond" More and more large enterprises. Why?

    - Join the four companies: JSC "Research Institute of Electromechanical (NIEMI), OJSC" Moscow Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Automation ", JSC" Research Institute of Radio Instrument "and OAO" Moscow Scientific Research Institute of Radio "Altair". All groups, all subjects - they are just going consolidation of the major creator of a solution of long-term problems EBA. Anti-aircraft missile system S-400 - it is already standard and we have little interest. We shall go there a couple of missiles, and all. But EBA requires a new powerful team. These four companies excellent scientists, but to my great regret, there is no promising developments - they are engaged in the modernization of existing ones, and that scientific and technological dead end. Our goal - to ensure their objectives for the development of advanced systems EBA.

    And keep in Moscow for five developers with five accounts, the five services by regime, the five financial services, the five security services, etc. - is simply silly. Therefore, it is a purely pragmatic things, including the construction of a new building in Moscow, a Leningrad House 80, which will be placed unified scientific and technical staff. Achieved a synergistic effect, because we will reduce to 30% of administrative staff ... Well, imagine again: five services chief engineer and five sewer services for the operation, roughly speaking, and all-everything else ... However, we do not reducing any of the developer, but within a few months will change organizational structure, so that she was confined to the final result.

    Because the old system made it possible to enjoy the process itself - that the endless development of something within the individual design offices, which each by itself, does not focus on the final product. Today we want to build a portfolio of final products that are sold, it does not matter - for the Russian Defense Ministry, or for a foreign customer, but they are a measure of the effectiveness of development. After all, the criteria for perfection technology should be not only scientific, technical, and financial.

    Anti-aircraft missile complexes "Morpheus", "Knight", "Favorite", C-400, C-500, the automated control system aircraft and air defense, missile defense system upgrade A-135, "Thor" or its symbiosis with the same "shell". .. It's all pretty scientific and technical challenge for future teams. Because with all due respect to the older generation, all this (stalemate in the category, the lack of new orders and development .- "b") is a brake on development. If we have a GSKB average age of 46 years, then we are going to take, for example, the collective NIEMI, where the average age of 59 years. And what to do?

    But discontent ... People are always afraid of change, they always anxiety: what will happen tomorrow, but suddenly we dispersed? And the structure of management who understand that they would lose their jobs, and perhaps will reveal what they are doing there - obviously, they make a destructive element, playing on people's feelings, their patriotism to the names of their firms. Even in the changing locations of: a train to another station Underground will need to go! It is simply the use of such technology now to proceed with the situation - to prevent adherence. Last excluded, since the decision taken by the government and the accession still held.

    - You said that the system S-400 - this is a series which, perhaps not so interesting for you. But this is the main your order from the state. When C-400 received the promised long-range missiles?

    - Well, first of all, I always said publicly that never any problems with this missile was not. We simply can not just tell everyone what time are put before us the state defense order, what stages of testing in one time or another place. You understand that the system should be tested missiles work on various points, heights, types of targets and so on ... What needs money in order to produce rockets for the work on each such point. That is, there were no failures or difficulties of scientific and technical nature related to long-distance missile. She passed her test in a planned manner in accordance with the documents of the Ministry of Defence, on the assumption of funding that we could ensure that the Ministry for the manufacture of these missiles. Therefore, this missile test came about three years - was a military operation for about a half dozen targets.

    This work is now finished - December 26, 2009 completed preliminary testing. And the rocket presenting at the state tests. In the third quarter of 2010, we must finish them with the fighting, of course, launches and put it into series production in the fourth quarter.

    We are puzzled look at the orgy of rumors and slander about this, when just attending workflow. And no "sinusoids" it does not, as, unfortunately, with "Bulava" ... No defeat in startups that have cast doubt on any design decisions. Launch live, she shoots. Moreover, it has developed since the 1990's, and long periods of time money at all on it have not been allocated, but we still managed and on the way changed the whole element base (rakety. - Kommersant), constructive change without extra money from the Ministry of Defense. Otherwise it at all now, would not exist. I hope with God's help, that by the end of this year, long-range missile will be in the series.

    In Soviet times, the developer is developing a system, prepared documentation on the state allocated money for technical re-equipment of production, money to prepare for mass production. And then just to pass the documentation on the plants and makes the setup party, and the first one or two samples were in the training center, the following examples - for experienced combat operation. In our case, with C-400 were not allocated any money for technical upgrading, preparation for production. Not a single school model was not done at all, but previously were not even mock-ups, and full-fledged anti-aircraft divisions. So, fire brigade is not trained in training centers, and immediately got the troops and equipment on it is studied - these are the two divisions, which today stand on the arms. Those soldiers who work for them, we must give the order, and the cooperative factories, which in my knees, no money for training, with an interval of 18 years after the last produced their divisions of S-300, on the same hardware and with the same men have managed to produce for the Russian army are several divisions and put them on combat duty.

    - And what will be the pace of further deliveries of S-400? Two battalions already have ...

    - Yes, the third will be days. In general, it depends on how we will order. This year, we supply two battalions in the next year - four, but more is still incomprehensible to us - in 2012 we have no signed contract. So today we can say that three months of 2012 we have already lost, because the technological cycle of the system is 24 months. Accordingly, if we are on April 1 did not receive an advance, then after 24 months, we will not give division. Divisions now have to be laid on the plants to get them in the first quarter of 2012. And today I have confidence that there will be signed contracts this year, no. Although it is written in the State's weapons program before 2015, which is the law.

    - Contracts for C-400 there, and since you already need a new product - C-500. What would it be for a set? Is it true that he will have the full anti-missile capabilities?

    - And about all that can be said has been said the military, because the first information about the complex C-500 went not from industry. Beyond the unveiled, we do not go. This is a mobile set of missile defense with good range and heights, which should like to "clone" the possibility of a missile defense system in the mobile version. To date, the only available defense system in Russia is, in essence, the defense system in Moscow and the Moscow industrial region. Her state of readiness is essential questions - say so. Including the age factor, and factor elements, and survivability, and the factor of time of delivery of fire (ie missiles themselves on launchers .- "b"). Therefore, the challenge now facing us put under the state program of armament - a system Triumpher-M. This theme C-500 - Theme creation of mobile anti-missile defense to be established by 2015, the system will solve these problems is in the form not stationary and not in a single performance, but will have the opportunity to nominate any threatened area - at the theater which will be alive at any given time.

    - Chief of the Air Force of Russia, Colonel General Alexander Zelin said late last year, openly expressed dissatisfaction with the program is moving C-500. You can comment on that? What it did not suit?

    - After that, Commander held an expanded meeting of the Air Force, where presentations were made by the developers of "Diamond" and I spoke, which was attended by representatives of military institutions, all the generals and the entire leadership of the Air Force, which are relevant to the topic. As a result, the parties came to an agreement: the work on C-500 are strictly in accordance with the order of the Ministry of Defense, and no claims to date the Ministry of Defense on this system does not. It was, rather, a misunderstanding.

    - What is the state program of the new anti-aircraft missile complex "Vityaz"?

    - History is very simple. We could not reach in time - under the previous leadership of the country until 2000 - that needed a new modern complex of medium-range missiles in Russia, since more than 50 S-300PS simply cease to exist by 2015 because achievement of deadlines operation and must be disposed of. Looking for a replacement. Not broken through. Then we won the international tender for the Americans and French in South Korea. And concluded with considerable difficulty export contract to develop for it such a complex medium-range - KM-SAM. They learned to work with imported element base - there were no restrictions. They put there successfully for two radar and now supply a third. In Korea, already under fire from their missiles at their targets.

    Prior to inviting the Defense Ministry leadership (Rossii. - "b") and shown in the shop operating a South Korean model, after which R & D work has been opened for the Russian army - with a different character and different and improved tactical and technical characteristics. This work is from 2007 in record time. We were tasked with: five years from scratch to produce a new technique. These problems were solved for five years only in times of Lavrenty Beria, when "Diamond" (the CB-1 .- "b") for five years has made the first air defense system S-25 to Moscow. Now we are working phase of the design documentation. Next year - a prototype, and in 2013 we must finish the State tests.

    - And an army air defense complexes S-300VM have at least some perspective?

    - They are not sold for export. There was a purchase of the S-300V Americans for intelligence purposes. We prefer to say so: the world voted for the dollar P-300P. At $ 4 billion were sold to dozens of systems S-300P, S-300PM, "Favorite". The priority of these systems is obvious, because changes in the nature of war. C-300B was designed, including armored vehicles to escort convoys, which would be to break up the Channel. The world has changed a long time, and we have not for a long time do not want to attack. And the need in such a technique no longer, because it is unable to fully perform their combat mission to protect the objects. And now it is developing air defense. S-300VM last made, in my opinion, in the early 1990's, since the production of this system was not.

    - But there were conversations about what they can sell Venezuela?

    - Well, how would you say here ... You can sign a contract, but it must still perform. Why is simpler in this respect with the system S-300P? Because when you are already abroad, tens of divisions, is money - and their modernization, and from their after-sales service, and their repair and servicing ... And the whole cooperative factories receives additional funding, it lives on. And this same cooperative produces C-400. Since 1991, she broke off their movement, it all the time - even in the absence of the state defense order - at the expense of exports lived. And will continue to live, because technology had already been set. And in this situation, even if you put one or two divisions of S-300B? A cooperative something on them has not worked for the past 20 years. And then it only contain in order to fulfill international obligations for maintenance of these one or two divisions?

    - A Buk "and" Thor ", which sold abroad too far not one or two divisions?

    - The answer is very short and a little bit rather tartly. I'm working with new techniques, I am doing advanced development, and I think the sale of promising developments. "Thor" and "Book" - a well-established systems that are in mass production. Therefore, it is a question of "Rosoboronexport", if there are buyers - they will be sold, and they will sell production plants. But this is outside my sphere of competence, as the head developer, I'm only thinking about the future, not about the past.

    - And for your new C-400 Peace dollar has already voted?

    - Speaking of C-400, the amount already registered applications, the number of countries and the number of divisions, which they beg them to sell at today exceed production capacity of our co-operation of industrial enterprises. Say honestly, we can not do even what they want, and what really is there to think about the prospects. But the export of C-400 - is a question primarily political. For us the priority is the Russian Army, and if these priorities will be supported by our Ministry of Defence orders, we will implement them in the first place, but no - we are ready to fulfill foreign contracts.

    Ivan Konovalov

    http://vpk.name/news/39049_myisl_rossiiskogo_inzhenera_rabotaet_byistree_chem_myisl_rossiiskogo_byurokrata.html

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  sepheronx on Wed May 05, 2010 2:21 am

    ^^

    Vlad, could you please provide a summery of what this is talking about? I have read over it a couple of times, and it seems the translation is a little poor, as it is a tad bit harder to understand everything.

    After the first few questions, things got a little bit hazzy to read.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 05, 2010 4:37 am

    One thing I saw was that there is no government follow on order for S-400 and because it takes 24 months from order to production that means there will be a 3 month gap in 2012 when they wont be doing anything.

    That is not good.

    Another thing is clear that now that Antei has been absorbed into the company that makes the S-300P etc and joined in development of the S-400 that the S-300V and S-300VM are a dead end.

    I read on another site that the S-500 is going to be a sort of mobile Moscow defence system equivelent.

    Sounds impressive.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Viktor on Wed May 05, 2010 11:59 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I read on another site that the S-500 is going to be a sort of mobile Moscow defence system equivelent.

    Sounds impressive.

    With 600km range and 250km atitude S-500 will be able to knock down IRBM. But hooked up to EW radars its capable of knocking down ICBM/SLBM.

    Basicly what Russia is doing is creating solid fundation for its own national missile defence shield.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed May 05, 2010 2:46 pm

    sepheronx wrote:^^

    Vlad, could you please provide a summery of what this is talking about? I have read over it a couple of times, and it seems the translation is a little poor, as it is a tad bit harder to understand everything.

    After the first few questions, things got a little bit hazzy to read.

    1) The merging of four enterprises for missile development does not go well. Excellent scientists but develop nothing new. All they do is rework Soviet technology. It is a dead end while our goal is development of advanced ABM.

    2) Average age of workers is 59 years.

    3) Long range S-400 missile will conduct state acceptance trials and hopefully will be certified for production by the end of the year.

    4) S-400 production runs 2 battery per year. Expected 4 per year. The state has not submitted orders after 2012. It takes 24 months to produce.

    5) S-500 in 2015. Covering his ass over General Zelin's comments about lack of progress on S-500.

    6) Vityaz still has no prototype made. It is supposed to be ready by 2013... yawn

    7) S-300V never sold for export

    8} Latest versions of Buk and Tor have yet to be sold.

    9) Export orders of S-400 greatly exceed production capability. Cannot even meet state orders so it is not. Priority is the Russian Army.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:12 pm

    Anti-aircraft system C -500 will form the basis of the Russian missile

    New anti-aircraft missile system S - 500, developed by Concern PVO Almaz- Antey " , will be the main component of the planned establishment of missile defense in Russia. This , as reported by Interfax , said Russian Air Force Commander Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin said. He noted that Russia's defense will have little in common with a similar system, created in the U.S.. "They have different technical parameters , "- added Zelin .

    Currently, the core of the Russian air defense system of the compound and part of the Defense Army and Air Force . They are armed with anti-aircraft S-300 , C - 400 , Buk- M1, Tor- M1 , Osa AKM and Tunguska -M1 . Until the end of 2010 to the Far East will be delivered two S- 400 . According to First Deputy Defense Minister of Russia Vladimir Popovkin , a total of 2010 troops will go five sets of P - 400 .

    It is expected that production of C - 500 on the arms will begin after 2015 , when it is completed the complex. According to the former Commander of Russian Air Force , Army General Anatoly Kornukov, C- 500 will be based on the S- 400.

    Meanwhile Zelin also said that Russia is ready to supply Belarus S- 400 Triumph . This will happen in the event that Belarus will post a request to purchase systems for their air defense forces . According to the commander of the Air Force and Air Defense of Belarus major-general Igor Azarenka , Belarus is exploring several options for air defense equipment , including systems S -400. When exactly Belarus intends to begin buying Russian systems, Azarenok not specified . He also did not name the approximate number of systems planned to purchase.

    Delivery systems will be produced as part of a regional air defense system of CIS , which would cover the Eastern European area of collective security. Earlier, the Russian Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Vladimir Drick announced that the project of the CIS unified air defense system began the creation of similar regional structures in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asian regions of collective security . According to him, the most active work is under way to create a unified air defense system of Russia and Belarus.

    It is also planned to upgrade the radar and air defense systems of Armenia , Tajikistan , Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan . According to preliminary data, in the works will involve Russian companies " Nitel " and " Almaz - Antey " . They will take deliveries of spare parts and technical equipment. It is possible that specialists " Almaz - Antey " will repair and S- 300PS , standing on the arms of Belarus .

    The formation of regional zones of the CIS anti-aircraft began in 2007 , the project to create a unified air defense agreement which was concluded in 1995. The first phase will be formed three air defense zone : Eastern European, Caucasian and Central Asian . After their creation will coordinate all the regional systems, and will be worked out rules of combat duty , and information exchange .

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:15 pm

    S-500 better not be based on the S-400, as that would make it based on the S-300. These upgrades are turning more into blocks than actual new systems.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:42 am

    I know what you mean... I was initially a little disappointed when I read that the S-500 would be based on the S-400 system.
    What I am hoping is that the S-500 system will have its own much larger perhaps multi stage missile and a few extra vehicles that can be attached to an S-400 battery. This would be a very useful way to impliment the system as it could simply be added to the existing S-400 batteries that will be operational that need it, like those around Moscow.
    By having a new missile its performance will not be restricted by the system it is based on, but then again it could simply be one of the smaller S-400 missiles (one is 40km range and the other is 120km range) mounted on top of a large missile (a 400km range missile) with a few modifications.
    I would of course prefer a designed from scratch to do the job the best that it can rather than be based on existing missiles.
    Have read in an interview that production of the S-400 will be stepped up with two new production plants being built to increase supply.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:07 am

    The S-400 as it stands today is nothing but an S-300PMU2 with more processing power without its long range missiles. I was really looking forward for us to create something not based on a CCP design.

    Robert.V
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 44
    Points : 47
    Join date : 2010-07-15

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Robert.V on Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:58 pm

    Some of you may know Sean O'Connor ..here's he's say on this.

    Admin edit... read the rules, no links to outside forums.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:32 am

    Defense Arming Army with Mythical Weapons

    " Pakfayer " flies with the "other " engine, and a complex of S-400 missiles are no

    Over the past three days, senior officials of the Ministry of Defense made several vigorous applications of supplies to the army and the fleet of new weapons. It was mostly about the long-awaited fifth generation fighter with a rough engineering called PAK FA and long-suffering anti-aircraft missile system S- 400 Triumph . However, for some reason, military officials, modestly omitting the present course of rearmament of the army , lulling journalists futuristic dreams . First Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin promised that the serial purchase of fifth generation fighter for the Russian Air Force will begin in 2016. Russian Air Force Commander Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin year to knock off period, saying that the supply of the PAK FA will begin from 2015 , that all will not soon . With regard to S-400 , the 23 battalions of the complex is also planned to deploy by 2015 , although recently Zelin " correcting "and that date , told Interfax that " the end of 2010 in the Far East will be installed system S-400, of high performance . "

    Why should Defence Ministry officials , interrupting each other in a hurry to show off in front of philistine future success, in general, it is clear : reform of the walk, eat a lot of money , but the result only from the net . According to the very first Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin , " with regard to the Navy , Air Force , Army, the share of modern weapons there ... catastrophically low. " We must somehow appease public opinion , and that's going to move futuristic fiction . However, not all citizens can embolden statements about the " bright future ".

    - It's not even that, in the fifth generation fighter , we were far behind the U.S. and continue to lose pace - the expert information center "Weapons of XXI Century " captain second rank Alexander Surpin . - recall the work of fifth-generation fighter in the Soviet Union and the United States began approximately at the same time , but we do because of lack of funding PAK FA only tested , and in the U.S. still December 15, 2005 came into operation the first squadron of the fifth generation F-22A " Reptor . The Americans later constructed a second type of fifth generation fighter F- 35. And even in its creation , they are ahead of us. To date, collected more than 20 planes F-35 .

    SP : - And what have we?

    - Sam Deputy Vladimir Popovkin recognizes that being tested one flight hardware , which at the end of the year to add another machine. In 2011-2012 should be completed trials airframe PAK FA , and in 2013 the Defense Ministry intends to conclude with the "dry " contract to supply 10 aircraft to test weapons.

    "SP ": - Suppose we are lagging behind in the pace, but our " Pakfayer " for tactical and technical characteristics of the best, but on a recent statement by Vladimir Putin, and three times cheaper than the U.S. samples , right?

    - According to the stories , no doubt . In fact, things are somewhat different . Imagine a fighter jet , which has already promised to some dates to put in troops, so far no engine and is difficult to say when it will be .

    " SP " : - How is it? He's already flying ?

    - For "foreign " engine. That statement Air Force Zelina : " Currently we are raising the fifth generation aircraft in nonnative engine , that is not on , which will be on the serial sample . It is possible that by the beginning of mass-produced supply of aircraft will be equipped with the new engine: " In any case, if the first batch will be with this non-native engine, then the rest of the series - with the new . According to the Commander in Chief , problems with the development of the engine was due to the institutional turmoil that is now being overcome .

    No better case with the C -400. "SP " has already written that this project has not yet been brought to its logical conclusion. We were led to the General Director GSKB " Almaz -Antey "Igor Ashurbeyli that have not even started serial production of anti-aircraft guided long-range missiles ( SAM DD ) for S- 400 Triumph . According Ashurbeyli , after preliminary tests on Dec. 26, 2009 a new missile was handed over to the state tests . Martial verification launches missiles should be completed in the third quarter of 2010. Delivery of SAM for the first two battalions of S- 400 will begin after that , but in 2011 they planned to complement the four divisions of S - 400 . But the Ministry of Defence that it had lost interest in the S-400 , or sprayed a means to parade and fireworks, in any case it unexpectedly terminated the business relationship with the Almaz- Antey " on deliveries of S-400 . Ashurbeyli complained to reporters: " There is still incomprehensible to us - in 2012 we have no signed contract. So, today we can say that three months of 2012 , we have already lost , because the technological cycle of the system is 24 months .

    Of the allegations Air Force could be concluded that the Defense Ministry has taken as a basis for " a mythical complex of P -500 . But according to the same Igor Ashurbeyli , work to create a C-500 all ran into a number of serious problems , including personnel and technology . In his statement to the press, to GSKB " Almaz-Antey " joined by four companies , specializing in the creation of air and missile defense technology , as well as automated control systems. But unfortunate for them Ashurbeyli called the lack of development work on new development : " All they continue to modernize long ago developed technology .

    In recent statements by Defense C -500 is not a word , but sounds solid promises to put a set of C- 400 by the end of this year ( without missiles ? ) .

    In general, the story of the C- 400 , as well as with Pakfayerom " , not only futuristic , but also intriguingly convoluted plot. It is possible that some military officials wasted talent of writers - fiction . Not surprising, because the Defense Ministry who is now just no! But these professionals seem to be enough.

    Sergei Turchenko

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:59 am

    The S-400 as it stands today is nothing but an S-300PMU2 with more processing power without its long range missiles. I was really looking forward for us to create something not based on a CCP design.

    The extra cost of the S-400 system is mostly in the vehicles that don't carry missiles. The command and radar carrying vehicles are very important to a SAM system, as is the missiles themselves.
    The vehicles will be built in much smaller numbers than the missiles...

    What I am trying to say is that the system can handle and control the long range missiles, it is just the missiles that are lacking.
    If I can use the analogy of the ADS rifle, its design goal is to be useable in air as effectively as another assault rifle while also being as effective underwater as a specially designed underwater rifle like the APS, and it is... as long as it is used with the correct ammo. Now if there were problems developing the ammo but the rifle was ready it makes sense to deploy the rifle and accept that it wont be fully capable until the new ammo is ready and in full production. You might want to keep the APS in use, but buying the ADS means you have the rifles in service and the troops get used to the different design. They can learn to strip and clean and maintain the new rifle even if they can't fire it effectively underwater till it has the new ammo.

    BTW I have read that they are building two new production plants for the S-400 system to enable production to increase. This does not solve the problem of delay between orders and deliveries of course.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Austin on Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:52 am

    What is the characteristics of the new missile that is under state testing now for S-400 , any details ?

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:09 pm

    Austin wrote:What is the characteristics of the new missile that is under state testing now for S-400 , any details ?

    Same statistics that are reported for the current C-400. They went ahead and deployed it before it was ready, and included the stats as well.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Austin on Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:28 am

    Why did they cancel the new missile with a max altitude of interception of 175 Km and range of 400 km ?

    Rather they just kept S-400 BIG Missile ceiling to 40 Km Rolling Eyes

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Austin on Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:10 am

    S-500 - http://nvo.ng.ru/news/2010-07-09/2_c500.html

    A nice english brief translation is welcome ( Google sucks )

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:46 am

    Why did they cancel the new missile with a max altitude of interception of 175 Km and range of 400 km ?
    Haven't we discussed this Austin?
    A missile flying within the atmosphere can use fins and strakes to manouver and stabilise itself. At 175km up in the atmosphere fins and strakes do nothing at all.
    If you take an R-27 AAM and release it at 70km above the earths surface in a horizontal position with its rocket motor running the missiles nose will drop and point down vertically and the missile will be accelerated by gravity and its rocket motor in a vertical dive. Why? They bits that hold it up, that allow it to fly require airflow to work against to steer the missile. At 70km the air is so thin the strakes and control surfaces have nothing to work against so the aircraft stalls and plunges to the ground.
    With limited thrust control as used in the R-73 AAM the missile will be able to use thrust vectoring to keep its nose horizontal but its ability to manouver will be seriously limited.
    The S-400 was designed to operate within the atmosphere and does not have the correct design to operate outside the atmosphere.
    The complication of adding such a capability would be a waste of money because they are already developing the S-500 to perform that role.
    The problem has been created by Janes in my opinion. They have confused the S-400 as being a THAAD equivelent when in actual fact it is a replacement for the S-300 system. The S-500 will be a THAAD equivelent and will reach out and up to touch so to speak.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Austin on Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:04 pm

    GarryB what you say is true , but there is lot of assumption the new big missile may not have any larger control surfaces for that matter I have not seen any control surfaces on S-300PMU2/S400 barring the 9M96E and 9M96E2.

    There is nothing in the missile that makes me believe they cant use thrust vectoring and 2 stage missile for high altitude interception. the S-300 do use control surface and thrust vectoring to achieve maneuverability so does the 9M96E/E2.

    I am still keen to see the photograph for the new BIG Missile for S-400 , I am sure it will be a twin stage missile.

    THAAD and S-400 (BIG Missile ) are designed for the same task which is to intercept IRBM corresponding to a range of 3,500 km.

    It is my opinion and I am sure most will agree the higher the interception the better.I hope they do develop the missile which has a max altitude of interception of 175 Km for S-400 as originally planned. Considering they have a new and very capable radar to compliment it.

    The S-500 is a mobile ,anti-ICBM Wide Area defence system

    Here is an interesting read on S-400 ( Part 1 and 2 )

    http://warfare.ru/?lang=&linkid=1699&catid=264&topics=true&id=161



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:12 am

    GarryB what you say is true , but there is lot of assumption the new big missile may not have any larger control surfaces for that matter I have not seen any control surfaces on S-300PMU2/S400 barring the 9M96E and 9M96E2.
    It is not a question of control surface size, at 175km up the shape and size of "wings" and control surfaces is irrelevant because the air is so thin that any turning force they generate is tiny or non existant.
    When you were a kid and your dad was driving somewhere on a nice sunny summer day and you opened the window and stuck your hand out in the airstream when you held it flat horizontal you could feel the air rushing over and under your hand. If you angled your hand upwards you could feel the wind lifting your hand... the faster the car was going the larger the force.
    In a near vaccuum there is no wind you could hold a bedsheet up and it wouldn't slow you down or get ripped out of your hand because there is no air flowing over it.
    Speed brakes and wings and control surfaces only work inside the atmosphere.
    The S-300 series missiles have tail fins for flight control.
    If you have a missile design based on an older missile design and both are designed to work within the atmosphere then it is cheaper and simpler to use conventional control surfaces in addition to directional warheads and side thruster rocket motors to ensure maximum terminal manouver capability.
    An IR seeker is generally no good for terminal guideance because at 175km up the incoming target has not reentered the atmosphere and has not been heated yet and it will be cold like other things that have been in space.
    An active radar sensor will be limited by the apature of the sensor... AMRAAM can see aircraft size targets at about 30km. THAAD is rather bigger as will the big missile of S-400, but they wont see targets much beyond 40-50km either, now if the target is coming in at up to 4.8km/s and the missile is going up at probably about 2.4km/s then we are talking about a closing speed of approximately 7km/s, so 45 km range detection gives you just over 6 seconds time to detect the target, and then sample at least two positional ranging pulses to determine its flight path and then calculate an interception point and then manouver the interceptor missile to get to that interception point. The calculations will be done in micro seconds, but the manouvering of the intercepting missile so that it is in the correct point in space at exactly the right time might be a problem.
    Get to the interception point 0.1 second too late means your interceptor at no time gets within 700m of the target, now even with a directional warhead the explosives will blow the intercepting material at the target at 6km/s (exploding speed of RDX) at a target moving away at a relative speed of 7km/s... can you see the problem?
    The result is that you will probably need side thruster rockets and directional warheads for the intercept and you will be relying on the data from ground based radar rather than any sensor in the missiles.
    I am still keen to see the photograph for the new BIG Missile for S-400 , I am sure it will be a twin stage missile.
    Unlikely. The whole point of using two stages is to be able to dump the second stage and use a much smaller first stage for low drag and better manouver capability for the terminal phase. Look at the SA-19 with short fat booster rockets and long slim missile terminal missile.
    I would expect the long range missile will look the same as the S-300 missiles but made of lighter materials with probably an active homing radar seeker, newer lighter electronics and more powerful rocket motor that flys on a ballistic path to get to the target area and performs a very high speed diving attack on the target.
    Look at the two missiles for the S-300V system, both were the same missile, but the larger missile had a solid rocket booster as well.
    THAAD and S-400 (BIG Missile ) are designed for the same task which is to intercept IRBM corresponding to a range of 3,500 km.
    No they are not. The THAAD is a definitive SCUD and theatre range BM killer. It was never intended as a SAM system. Otherwise you would also have to say that SA-12 and late model SA-10s are also THAAD competitors. They are not.
    The THAAD was designed from the outset as an ABM system only to be used instead of the PAC-3 Patriot where the threat was from ballistic missiles only. For example Iraqi aircraft could be dealt with using coalition aircraft and Patriot batteries, but Scuds and longer range variants of Scuds were a problem. PAC-3 was a band aide solution with the final solution being THAAD.
    If you had swapped Soviet forces with allied forces their S-300 and S-300V systems probably would have dealt with Scud like missiles easily enough simply because unlike Patriot they were designed to engage Scud like ballistic missiles and they have been successfully tested against such targets since their introduction.
    The purpose of S-500 is, like the THAAD, to focus solely on ballistic targets and in that respect they are directly comparable.
    The real problem stems from design differences. The Soviets developed SAMs for forces that simply don't exist in the west. There is no western equivelent of the PVO. In the Soviet Union there were tracked mobile SAMs and there were fixed and wheeled SAMs with different mobility characteristics.
    Why have SA-4s when you had SA-6s? Both are medium range SAMS. Indeed why have SA-2s, SA-3s, SA-4s, SA-5s, SA-6s, SA-8s, SA-9s, SA-10s, SA-11s, SA-12s, SA-13s, Sa-15s, SA-17s, and SA-19s.
    I'll give you a hint, the PVO was interested in shooting down bombers and large aircraft like AWACS, while the other users of SAMs in the Soviet Union were interested in defending their assets from fighters and fighterbombers. An SA-4 or SA-5 had long range and a huge warhead to deal with B-52s, while the SA-6, SA-8, SA-9, SA-13s were designed to take on fighters and helos. The SA-2 was designed for high altitude targets like U-2s and the SA-3 was for medium altitude bombers and cruise missiles. (Most long range cruise missiles fly at medium to high altitude on their way to the target area to maximise range so an SA-3 battery on the Soviet border might get a medium altitude shot at a cruise missile that is flying at a target deep within the Soviet border.)
    Some were designed to operate with forward armoured units and some were designed to defend largely fixed targets like airfields etc.
    The S-300 is the standard long range SAM and it had Anti Ballistic Missile capability from the outset.
    The soviets used lots of BMs and so also created defences against their use. Similarly Soviet Navy defences against anti ship missiles were always much heavier than western equivelents simply because of SN experience with Anti Ship missiles.
    The S-300V which unlike the S-300 has all tracked vehicles and it was to be the standard long range SAM that covered Soviet forces as they pushed towards the English Channel.
    Both are being replaced by the S-400 in service which like the PAC-3 Patriot has anti ballistic capability.
    The dedicated ABM missile however is the S-500, which like the THAAD is custom designed for the purpose of hitting BMs.
    The fact that the S-500 will replicate the performance of the Moscow ABM system in a mobile system suggests the expected performance levels, but THAAD is also supposed to be mobile too.
    The simple fact is that if a NATO country had Patriot and THAAD in service and suddenly decided to buy S-400 and S-500 they would likely replace the Patriots with S-400 and THAAD with S-500.
    They would not likely replace them both with the S-400 simply because the things that are targetted with BMs will likely be targeted by other types of weapons like cruise missiles.
    This means that S-500 will be needed against ballistic targets, but S-400s will be needed against other attack forms like aircraft or cruise missiles. Having an S-400 battery half loaded with dedicated missiles to defend against BMs might lead to the defence being overwhelmed by cruise missile attack. Having seperate S-400 and S-500 systems means when you pick your type of S-400 missiles you can optimise for aerodynamic targets of all types with one less missile.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Austin on Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:16 pm

    GarryB wrote:It is not a question of control surface size, at 175km up the shape and size of "wings" and control surfaces is irrelevant because the air is so thin that any turning force they generate is tiny or non existant.

    Agreed but S-400 uses a combination of rear control surface and gas-dynamic control system which gives super agility , so you see its not just wings but unique mechanism much like thrust vectoring that gives it the ability to control missile and manouver it. Please check the link below

    http://milparade.udm.ru/security/32/008x.htm

    The S-300 series missiles have tail fins for flight control.

    Not true , it uses tail fins and thrust vectoring for extreme agility , just rear wings wont give it that agility

    From the beginning, the system included the most “cutting-edge” Soviet missile defense technology. Its phased-array fire control radar was capable of tracking up to six targets simultaneously, while its single-state, solid-fuel propelled missile sported aerodynamic control surfaces and thrust vectoring.

    http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.50/system_detail.asp


    If you have a missile design based on an older missile design and both are designed to work within the atmosphere then it is cheaper and simpler to use conventional control surfaces in addition to directional warheads and side thruster rocket motors to ensure maximum terminal manouver capability.

    We have yet to see the BIG Missile of S-400 and I am certain it will use control surfaces and thrust vectoring for agility and manouveribility and that can work at very high altitude.


    An IR seeker is generally no good for terminal guideance because at 175km up the incoming target has not reentered the atmosphere and has not been heated yet and it will be cold like other things that have been in space.

    Not True , the US KKV uses IIR seeker to known down the RV.



    An active radar sensor will be limited by the apature of the sensor... AMRAAM can see aircraft size targets at about 30km. THAAD is rather bigger as will the big missile of S-400, but they wont see targets much beyond 40-50km either, now if the target is coming in at up to 4.8km/s and the missile is going up at probably about 2.4km/s then we are talking about a closing speed of approximately 7km/s, so 45 km range detection gives you just over 6 seconds time to detect the target, and then sample at least two positional ranging pulses to determine its flight path and then calculate an interception point and then manouver the interceptor missile to get to that interception point. The calculations will be done in micro seconds, but the manouvering of the intercepting missile so that it is in the correct point in space at exactly the right time might be a problem.

    For most part the interceptor is guided by the ground based Fire Control Radar , till its in the kill box range where the onboard sensor IIR or ARH takes over and does the final interception and much better discrimination of RV and try to hit the RV head on.

    So really the interceptor does not need a long range seeker but a seeker with high resolution capability mostly Ku band MMW seeker which are short on range but are much better in resolution and discrimination.

    These days IIR seems to be preffered choice as they have matured enough to discriminate a target with decoys and can work in cold region of space much better then RF.


    I would expect the long range missile will look the same as the S-300 missiles but made of lighter materials with probably an active homing radar seeker, newer lighter electronics and more powerful rocket motor that flys on a ballistic path to get to the target area and performs a very high speed diving attack on the target.

    Yes hopefully lighter electronic , high energetic solid fuel and combination of choice of seeker either IIR or ARH with a 175 Km peak interception altitude


    Look at the two missiles for the S-300V system, both were the same missile, but the larger missile had a solid rocket booster as well.

    S-300V was designed 2 decades back so its unfair to compare something that being designed two decades later

    No they are not. The THAAD is a definitive SCUD and theatre range BM killer. It was never intended as a SAM system. Otherwise you would also have to say that SA-12 and late model SA-10s are also THAAD competitors. They are not.
    The THAAD was designed from the outset as an ABM system only to be used instead of the PAC-3 Patriot where the threat was from ballistic missiles only. For example Iraqi aircraft could be dealt with using coalition aircraft and Patriot batteries, but Scuds and longer range variants of Scuds were a problem. PAC-3 was a band aide solution with the final solution being THAAD.

    The THAAD and S-400 BIG Missile are designed for IRBM type targets with a range of ~ 3000 Km

    The PAC-3 , S-300V and S-300PMU2 can intercept Scud type 1000 km range missile

    http://www.enemyforces.net/missiles/s300pmu2.htm


    If you had swapped Soviet forces with allied forces their S-300 and S-300V systems probably would have dealt with Scud like missiles easily enough simply because unlike Patriot they were designed to engage Scud like ballistic missiles and they have been successfully tested against such targets since their introduction.

    True , the original PAC-1 used in GW1 was more of anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile capability , their scud kill was a smart PR exercise . PAC-2 added longer range and better cruise missile capability , while PAC-3 had real ATBM capability from scratch with HTK.

    S-300V was a through breed from design mobile tactical ATBM.

    The purpose of S-500 is, like the THAAD, to focus solely on ballistic targets and in that respect they are directly comparable.

    Yes the S-500 is a designed from scratch mobile anti-ICBM system


    This means that S-500 will be needed against ballistic targets, but S-400s will be needed against other attack forms like aircraft or cruise missiles. Having an S-400 battery half loaded with dedicated missiles to defend against BMs might lead to the defence being overwhelmed by cruise missile attack. Having seperate S-400 and S-500 systems means when you pick your type of S-400 missiles you can optimise for aerodynamic targets of all types with one less missile.

    Look in simple terms you have a capability to hit a 3,500 km range IRBM with both THAAD and S-400 , its just that the former does that with better efficiency IMO , the latter has more multi-role capability with long range of 400 km against aerodynamic target.

    It much like have a dedicated interceptor or having a multirole fighter , for airdefence role the interceptor will do the job more effectively but a multirole fighter gives you more flexibility , opinions will differ on THAAD and S-400 BIG Missile.

    Lets says if the BIG Missile does achieve the 175 km interception altitude then i will say the S-400 is a more capable multirole system

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:27 am

    Agreed but S-400 uses a combination of rear control surface and gas-dynamic control system which gives super agility , so you see its not just wings but unique mechanism much like thrust vectoring that gives it the ability to control missile and manouver it. Please check the link below.

    The R-73 has a form of thrust vectoring and also fin control surfaces, it doesn't mean it can work outside the atmosphere either.

    Outside the atmosphere the fins become decorations and all you have to manouver are the moving engines in the tail. Once you leave the atmosphere it is all down to fuel burn to manouver so you need a large reserve of fuel and throttle control and the ability to start up and shut down the propulsion several times if necessary.

    In other words it means liquid fuel rockets with manouver jets front and rear to be able to speed up and slow down and perform significant manouvers... in other words a major redesign of the original missile... and why?
    The S-400 is replacing the S-300 so 90% of its work will be targets that are air breathers.
    Of the remaining 10% the S-500 can deal with.

    Not true , it uses tail fins and thrust vectoring for extreme agility , just rear wings wont give it that agility

    The S-300 and S-400 for that matter fly very fast so the air flowing over the rear fins exerts great force. The side thrusters are for last second course corrections to jump the missile into the path of the target, whether that target be a subsonic fighter or a hypersonic missile.

    We have yet to see the BIG Missile of S-400 and I am certain it will use control surfaces and thrust vectoring for agility and manouveribility and that can work at very high altitude.

    The R-73 also known as the AA-11 Archer is already a high performance AAM that can intercept targets performing 12 g manouvers and it uses thrust vectoring and control surfaces and it wont work outside of the atmosphere either.

    Not True , the US KKV uses IIR seeker to known down the RV.

    The IIR seeker it uses is not an IR seeker, it is an IIR seeker, which is like a EO seeker that sees heat rather than light and is used only for terminal guidance.
    If you think of a TV picture at 25 frames a second and working backwards with the last frame a hit, the distances the target will be in those previous frames it is no good for mid course or initial guidance and is only useful for terminal guidance with side thrusting rockets that can shove the missile into the correct position at the last milisecond.

    S-300V was designed 2 decades back so its unfair to compare something that being designed two decades later

    But you think it is fair to compare a SAM system with ABM capabilities with an ABM system with no SAM capabilities at all?

    Look in simple terms you have a capability to hit a 3,500 km range IRBM with both THAAD and S-400 , its just that the former does that with better efficiency IMO , the latter has more multi-role capability with long range of 400 km against aerodynamic target.

    The better efficiency you claim is completely unproven. Even the potential to control about 500,000 km square up to 30 kms or so in height is to me more important that being able to control a much smaller area to a greater height.
    The 30kms from the ground up is much more important to an armed force than the 200km above that.

    Lets says if the BIG Missile does achieve the 175 km interception altitude then i will say the S-400 is a more capable multirole system

    But as you already stated only one of these systems is actually multirole so what is the problem in working out which is the best or more capable multirole system?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Austin on Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:02 am

    GarryB wrote:The R-73 has a form of thrust vectoring and also fin control surfaces, it doesn't mean it can work outside the atmosphere either.

    It doesnt have to it does not have the fuel and sensors to go that far up to defeat BM and its designed to defeat air breathing targets.

    Outside the atmosphere the fins become decorations and all you have to manouver are the moving engines in the tail. Once you leave the atmosphere it is all down to fuel burn to manouver so you need a large reserve of fuel and throttle control and the ability to start up and shut down the propulsion several times if necessary.

    Yes the control surfaces on missile become ineffective while in space , so the missile have to rely on thrust vectoring to manouver and lateral thrust for high G terminal manouvering.

    They do not necessarily need to shutdown and start as THAAD is a single stage solid fuel missile with Kill Vehical and as you know you cant shut down solid fuel and start

    They do not necessarily need loads of fuel because once in space ( > 100 altitude ) the imparted KE is sufficient to propel it , what it needs is small fuel for divert thrust and manouvering.

    In other words it means liquid fuel rockets with manouver jets front and rear to be able to speed up and slow down and perform significant manouvers... in other words a major redesign of the original missile... and why?
    The S-400 is replacing the S-300 so 90% of its work will be targets that are air breathers.
    Of the remaining 10% the S-500 can deal with.

    No need for liquid fuel rocket a solid fuel with small divert thrust is what it needs as THAAD proves it

    The S-300 uses both rear control surfaces and thrust vectoring for extreme manouvering , check the cut out of missile



    48N6E3 SAM Cutaway. Note the TVC vanes in the exhaust nozzle. The seeker is labelled as 'semi-active radar' (Almaz-Antey

    The S-300 and S-400 for that matter fly very fast so the air flowing over the rear fins exerts great force. The side thrusters are for last second course corrections to jump the missile into the path of the target, whether that target be a subsonic fighter or a hypersonic missile.

    Compared to a a fighter aircraft which will be manouvering hard , a ballistic missile follows a pure Ballistic Path and does not manouver much what it does is it flies fast and is a small target , hence hard and constant maneuvering is not needed all the time , once the active seeker or IIR of missile locks on the target it needs to align and manouver on path of missile for an intercept so hard manouvering is very limited but more these are extereme ( High G ) and time sensitive for a interceptor.


    Granted most of the S-300 and 400 missile could be optimised for air breathing target but that might not be true for the new BIG Missile 40N6 , most likely this is a two stage missile with very high intercept altitude likely 185 km its original goal.

    I am fairly certain the 40N6 or its upgrade Triumf-M will meet this goal.

    The R-73 also known as the AA-11 Archer is already a high performance AAM that can intercept targets performing 12 g manouvers and it uses thrust vectoring and control surfaces and it wont work outside of the atmosphere either.

    And why should it when its job is to intercept airbreathing targets like fighter aircraft and low flying cruise missile

    The IIR seeker it uses is not an IR seeker, it is an IIR seeker, which is like a EO seeker that sees heat rather than light and is used only for terminal guidance.
    If you think of a TV picture at 25 frames a second and working backwards with the last frame a hit, the distances the target will be in those previous frames it is no good for mid course or initial guidance and is only useful for terminal guidance with side thrusting rockets that can shove the missile into the correct position at the last milisecond.

    What did I say i did say its an IIR seaker

    But you think it is fair to compare a SAM system with ABM capabilities with an ABM system with no SAM capabilities at all?

    We are comparing S-400 and THAAD ability to intercept 3,500 km range IRBM missile here and we are looking into efficient way to do it , both S-400 and THAAD can intercept a 3,500 km IRBM missile.

    My point is THAAD does that more efficiently at high altitude and S-400 is more of multirole missile.

    But the 40N6 missile and its capabilities are still classified and we do not know much beyond its 400 km range capability.


    The better efficiency you claim is completely unproven. Even the potential to control about 500,000 km square up to 30 kms or so in height is to me more important that being able to control a much smaller area to a greater height.The 30kms from the ground up is much more important to an armed force than the 200km above that.

    No one ever doubts the efficiency and the critical need to intercept a BM as high as possible US , Israel and India ABM does exactly that.

    Infact India rejected the Atney-2500 missile for its ABM for the same reason it could not intercept at more than 40 km in altitude and even a sucessful interception could have the adverse effect of NCB debris falling on land mass with adverse effect , compared to 150 km above intercept where they would mostly burn during reentry.

    Yes a low altitude but larger area cover is some thing S-300 and S-400 does efficiently providing greatest standoff capability , not ideal for BM interception good for intercepting air breathing targets


    But as you already stated only one of these systems is actually multirole so what is the problem in working out which is the best or more capable multirole system?

    For BM interception certainly THAAD is gold plated premium interceptor , certainly S-400 is multirole but I have my own doubts at 40 Km interception against NCW BM targets.

    I would say that it is fool hardy to have such low interception altitude against a 3,500 km range missile for a 1000 km slower BM it is quite fine.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:44 am

    It doesnt have to it does not have the fuel and sensors to go that far up to defeat BM and its designed to defeat air breathing targets.

    My point was that thrust vector engine control alone is not enough to operate outside the atmosphere.

    Yes the control surfaces on missile become ineffective while in space , so the missile have to rely on thrust vectoring to manouver and lateral thrust for high G terminal manouvering.

    The problem there is that most rockets have a single propellent type that burns up rather quickly getting the rocket up to speed and then burning out with the missile coasting to the target and using its low drag design to maintain energy. That is why there is a difference between the no escape zone and the max range of missiles like Archer and AMRAAM etc. While their motors are still burning they can perform hard manouvers without losing much speed. Once the motors have burnt out their ability to turn hard is greatly reduced... or translate that to space they can still vector the nozzles but with no thrust coming out they can no longer manouver.

    They do not necessarily need to shutdown and start as THAAD is a single stage solid fuel missile with Kill Vehical and as you know you cant shut down solid fuel and start

    No, you can't, but what you can to is bake the fuel like a layer cake with the inner fuel that is burnt first being high calorie high thrust fuel, while the remaining fuel is lower energy longer burning fuel to extend the time the fuel burns and is therefore able to effect the flight direction of the missile via thrust vector control.

    They do not necessarily need loads of fuel because once in space ( > 100 altitude ) the imparted KE is sufficient to propel it , what it needs is small fuel for divert thrust and manouvering.

    No. What they need is for the rocket motor to be still burning above 100km and because they can't stop it and re start it, then they need to throttle back as described above.

    The S-300 uses both rear control surfaces and thrust vectoring for extreme manouvering , check the cut out of missile

    Thrust vectoring only works while the rocket motor is still burning.

    {snip} a a fighter aircraft which will be manouvering hard , a ballistic missile follows a pure Ballistic Path and does not manouver much what it does is it flies fast and is a small target , hence hard and constant maneuvering is not needed all the time {/snip}

    A ballistic missile like Scud that just falls might follow a purely ballistic path, but an incoming LANCE II or ISKANDER missile will be correcting its own flight path to ensure an accurate hit on the target. It has all the energy in the world because it is falling and is getting a gravity assist... there is no chance of a stall.

    An up flying interceptor compounds its own problems with its own speeds.

    Granted most of the S-300 and 400 missile could be optimised for air breathing target but that might not be true for the new BIG Missile 40N6 , most likely this is a two stage missile with very high intercept altitude likely 185 km its original goal.

    It was its original goal when there was no funding and no prospects for S-500 to enter service. It was going to be Patriot AND THAAD.
    Now things have changed and it is only going to be Patriot and S-500 is going to be THAAD, so why bother spending extra money on making a component of S-400 like S-500?

    That doesn't make sense... and will also make S-400 exports even more heavily criticised by Israel and the US etc etc.

    And why should it when its job is to intercept airbreathing targets like fighter aircraft and low flying cruise missile

    What I am saying is thrust vector control and lots of control surfaces is not enough to make it an exoatmospheric missile. It takes rather more.
    The S-300 and existing S-400 missiles are designed to operate within the atmosphere too... why do you think it is so simple for them to be modified to work in space?
    If it is so easy to do with S-400 why didn't the west simply make PAC-4 Patriot instead of THAAD?

    We are comparing S-400 and THAAD ability to intercept 3,500 km range IRBM missile here and we are looking into efficient way to do it , both S-400 and THAAD can intercept a 3,500 km IRBM missile.

    My point is THAAD does that more efficiently at high altitude and S-400 is more of multirole missile.

    First of all you say it is more efficient simply by comparing missile operational envelopes. The reality is that a THAAD will not defend a target alone, it will need Patriot to protect it and Patriot will probably need another SAM system to defend it from saturation attacks. S-400 could operate with Pantsir and defend the same target much more EFFICIENTLY.

    Second you are picking out one capability of a system and comparing that to a one trick pony system that does the same thing.
    Equivalent to saying a Stechkin machine pistol can fire on full auto... like an AK-74... but the AK-74 is more efficient at killing people because it can kill over a wider range envelope.

    It just sounds stupid to me. S-400 is a SAM system that has some ATBM capability, just like PAC-2 and PAC-3 which are together call Patriot. THAAD is a custom designed ATBM system and the only equivalent would be the S-500.

    Infact India rejected the Atney-2500 missile for its ABM for the same reason it could not intercept at more than 40 km in altitude and even a sucessful interception could have the adverse effect of NCB debris falling on land mass with adverse effect , compared to 150 km above intercept where they would mostly burn during reentry.

    There is no wind at 150km. Anything like a fine powder released at that altitude will rapidly slow down due to its low mass (like a balloon slows down quickly) and descend straight down till it hits the weather.

    Yes a low altitude but larger area cover is some thing S-300 and S-400 does efficiently providing greatest standoff capability , not ideal for BM interception good for intercepting air breathing targets

    Name one target that is worth hitting with a ballistic missile that you can guarantee will not be attacked with any other sort of weapon (ie cruise missile or aircraft).
    Only the US and Israel has their populations so scared that they can justify Patriot AND THAAD. The huge irony is that low flying anti ship missiles fired by Iraq got through to their targets just like the Scuds got through in the previous conflict. Sounds like the US is a war behind in SAM development.
    Desert Storm they had Patriot which clearly wasn't ready for Scuds. The Soviets had S-300 which would have dealt with the Scuds just fine. The next conflict the PAC-3 is ready to intercept Scuds but the Iraqis don't have any left and fire anti ship missiles instead. S-300 would have been able to deal with those too.

    I would say that it is fool hardy to have such low interception altitude against a 3,500 km range missile for a 1000 km slower BM it is quite fine.

    Why do you think 175km is adequate? The Soviet/Russian systems have been proven in lots of tests from 300mm SMERCH rockets to SCUDs and other targets as well.
    The reality is that if they are stopping nuclear or chemical or bio armed warheads you aren't just going to be sitting and watching them come in, you will be directly attacking the country of origin. For India that would mean Pakistan or China... now in either case do you really think it is important whether you intercept the incoming weapons at 175km or 35km?
    Which ever system you have the first incoming weapon will likely be set to detonate 10km above its max interception altitude and that blast will render all your radars useless for the next half an hour due to atmospheric ionisation...

    If you want the best ABM system then wait for S-500. Razz

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Austin on Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:24 pm

    S-300VM


    Sponsored content

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:15 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 3:15 am