Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


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

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15948
    Points : 16649
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:54 pm

    I rather suspect that to assist in terminal performance that both missiles will likely use side thruster rockets as the high closing speed will make fast manouvering vital.

    Both missiles are pretty much designed to be able to intercept anything, and likely both are very capable.

    Each has a different level of mobility, with the S-300V system designed to operate with tracked units across rough country.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5943
    Points : 6355
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:12 pm

    At the altitude that they intercept , only Lateral Thrusters or Thrust Vectoring Control or Flex Nozzle will only work , I doubt those small conventional control surface is any good at altitude above 20 km.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15948
    Points : 16649
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:08 pm

    At the speed they fly a large control surface would probably rip off, I agree that side thruster rockets make a lot of sense... especially considering even much slower Russian SAMs use them too like the Igla MANPAD.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5943
    Points : 6355
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:18 pm

    A question to any one who can answer. From the link

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Giant-Gladiator.html

    1 ) SA-12B is credited with the ability to intercept BM target corresponding to a range of 2,500 km which is denoted as maximum target interception speed of 4500 m/sec

    Can some one tell me what will be the reentry velocity or target speed of a missile with a range of 3,500 km ?

    2) Another interesting piece of information is the average velocity of both the missile , SA-12A Gladiator is credited with a average velocity of 1200 m/sec or Mach 3.5 and SA-12B Giant is credited with a average velocity of 1800 m/sec or Mach 5.3 What a Face , Is that True ? Paging SOC

    If these are its average velocity then its too damn fast to have those kind of average velocity.
    avatar
    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5666
    Points : 6315
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

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

    Post  Viktor on Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:42 pm

    Austin wrote:

    Can some one tell me what will be the reentry velocity or target speed of a missile with a range of 3,500 km ?

    Because of air-friction re-entry speed of any falling object no matter what its range should be the same.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15948
    Points : 16649
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:44 pm

    Because of air-friction re-entry speed of any falling object no matter what its range should be the same.

    Not true... otherwise parachutes would be pointless.

    Gravity effects all objects at the same rate, so on the moon with no atmosphere if you drop a helium filled balloon and a lead brick from the same height at the same time both will hit the ground at the same time.

    On earth however we have an atmosphere which introduces the element of drag. If you think of the air as being very very thin water then it is fairly easy to understand that because a helium filled balloon has less mass than the air it is immersed in it will go up instead of down... just like in water an air filled balloon will go up and not down in the much heavier water.

    It is all about density. A very small dense object like a coin will fall in the air and the water. It will always have the same force pulling it down ie gravity, which pulls at about 9.8m/s/s, but the shape of the coin and its mass will determine how it moves through the air or water.

    Parachutes actually make you heavier, but they work by greatly expanding the surface area of the person using it so the density of the whole falling object suddenly drops and its max falling speed drops to safe levels.

    The max falling rate of an object is its terminal velocity... or the point at which the drag from the air equals the pull of gravity and the falling object stops accelerating downwards.

    Everything is pulled downwards at the same rate but an aerodynamically shaped warhead will fall faster through the air than a nice light fluffy pillow.

    BTW in answer to the original questions, AFAIK the 4.8km/s interception capability for the S-400 I have read as being represented by 3,500km range missiles.

    And
    If these are its average velocity then its too damn fast to have those kind of average velocity.

    These are very large heavy missiles I would assume the solid rocket boosters are for acceleration, while the main missile itself will have lower energy long burn rocket motors to maintain a high average speed... which is important in interception obviously.
    avatar
    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

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

    Post  SOC on Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:00 am

    GarryB wrote:Oops, quite right. Both are two stage missiles.

    This would make them much easier to adapt to the S-500 role as the obvious solution would simply be to either add another booster to make it a three stage missile, or to greatly enlarge the existing boosters to further improve performance.

    Depends. The 9M82 might've had a crapload of unused kinematic performance based on its weight, motor ISP, etc. A lot of times the limiting factor in Soviet SAM performance wasn't the missile, it was the radar. Plus you could also incorporate more trajectory shaping to achieve longer ranges. Remember that Fakel got a 48N6 round to 400 km range with minor modifications.

    Austin wrote:At the altitude that they intercept , only Lateral Thrusters or Thrust Vectoring Control or Flex Nozzle will only work , I doubt those small conventional control surface is any good at altitude above 20 km.

    9M82/3 use aerodynamic controls on the second stage, the 5V55 and 48N6 use TVC and aerodynamic control.

    Austin wrote:2) Another interesting piece of information is the average velocity of both the missile , SA-12A Gladiator is credited with a average velocity of 1200 m/sec or Mach 3.5 and SA-12B Giant is credited with a average velocity of 1800 m/sec or Mach 5.3 , Is that True ? Paging SOC

    Dunno about the average velocity, but the peak velocity of the 9M82 is 2400 m/sec.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 755
    Points : 938
    Join date : 2011-07-20

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

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:05 am

    One more time is important ...very important....to always remember that 99% of the figures circulating on the Net or present on public accessible brochures refer to export models of those weapon systems(very often sharing also the same system designation), therefore arguments founded around those parametrical figures represent almost always pointless rational exercices .

    The technical figures disclosed and cited in common and specialized publications refer always to the export versions of those systems for internetional market (the uniques for which russian firms has the MoD's "placet" to provide precise technical figures), specialized press ,naturally,limit itself at specify that a domestic version of that system exist too....

    For example the domestic versions of S-300V (S-300V1/V2) operative in Russian Ground Forces are not the same S-300V offered for export, the same point could be made for the export Antey-2500 and domestic S-300VM.

    That can aid at clarify a bit the S-300V's "familiar tree" Very Happy Very Happy

    http://vnfawing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=272


    SA-12A Gladiator is credited with a average velocity of 1200 m/sec or Mach 3.5 and SA-12B Giant is credited with a average velocity of 1800 m/sec or Mach 5.3 , Is that True ?


    Yes Austin, export versions of 9M83 and 9M82 should have average speed figures close to those you cited (even if likely those figures appear a bit conservative), naturally if we consider domestic version of those missiles (even only those in work or operatives in the half of '80 years !!) the thing begin to change quickly ; for that is sufficient to read the NATO technical assessments of those years on the capabilities of S-300V1/2 and theirs strategical implications for the coalition on the European theatre

    At example read pag 40-44 (it is visible also in the Google book preview ) from "Soviet Ballistic Missile Defense and the Western Alliance" by David Scott Yost ,a book that i suggest to anyone to read to get a western point of view on the strategical situation in those years,in particular on the subject of BM/ABM equilibrium.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5943
    Points : 6355
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:11 am

    SOC wrote:Dunno about the average velocity, but the peak velocity of the 9M82 is 2400 m/sec.

    Actually i found the Mean or Average Velocity figures here
    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Giant-Gladiator.html

    If you scroll below and see
    A parametric comparison of all three missiles is worthwhile, and summarised in Table A.1:

    The Mean Speed of Gladiator 9M83 is described at Mach 3.6+ and 9M82 Giant 5.4+ , I assume here mean means average , the peak speed of 9M82M is defined as M 7.8+ and US Sprint M 10

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5943
    Points : 6355
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:21 am

    Mindstorm wrote:Yes Austin, export versions of 9M83 and 9M82 should have average speed figures close to those you cited (even if likely those figures appear a bit conservative), naturally if we consider domestic version of those missiles (even only those in work or operatives in the half of '80 years !!) the thing begin to change quickly ; for that is sufficient to read the NATO technical assessments of those years on the capabilities of S-300V1/2 and theirs strategical implications for the coalition on the European theatre

    Actually Mindstorm for a dissussion perspective we can only discuss what we know or is disclosed , its quite possible the US PAC-3 figures of range of 20 km and 15 km altitude might be the export model figure and internal use PAC-3 figures might be higher or likely superior in most performance figures , cant say for sure.

    At example read pag 40-44 (it is visible also in the Google book preview ) from "Soviet Ballistic Missile Defense and the Western Alliance" by David Scott Yost ,a book that i suggest to anyone to read to get a western point of view on the strategical situation in those years,in particular on the subject of BM/ABM equilibrium.

    Thanks will check that.

    Compared with the mean speed of S-300V missile , the average velocity of 9M96E of 750 m/sec or Mach 2.2 and 9M96E1 of 1000 m/sec of Mach 2.9 makes it look like a "Sick and Frail" missile in S-400 series or for that matter in the entire S-300/400 series.

    Is it perhaps because the 9M96 is more optimised to deal with Air breathing targets be it supersonic or subsonic type ?

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

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

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

    Post  SOC on Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:37 am

    Mindstorm wrote:One more time is important ...very important....to always remember that 99% of the figures circulating on the Net or present on public accessible brochures refer to export models of those weapon systems(very often sharing also the same system designation), therefore arguments founded around those parametrical figures represent almost always pointless rational exercices .

    Carlo Kopp's S-300V description (at least the missile part of it) is based in large part on actual Russian Army technical manuals for the 9M82 and 9M83 missiles. They're fascinating manuals, I've got both of them. Rarely do Russian systems share the same designators as exported components anyway. Pull something from the Russian Arms Catalog or the Rusarm/Rosoboronexport website or brochures, and yes, you're looking at export systems. Which have different designators or use the export suffix to denote the different variant. The best places to look for actual information on Russian-operated systems is in the wealth of publications that appeared out of Russia in the 1990s, after the USSR fractured. A lot of places held piles of documents and went a bit far with the whole "we're not Communist anymore" thing and allowed unprecedented access to archival materials. Access that has in many cases been shut down in the 21st Century. One standout book is SAMs of the PVO (loose translation) by Mikhail Pervov. That one is basically a description of the development of every SAM system for the PVO from the S-25 to the S-400 (what they knew of it at the time), populated with interviews from the key figures who actually designed, built, and tested the systems. The level of detail they go into on the creation of the S-300P series, for example, is stunning, and was a major source for when I wrote my S-300P feature earlier this year. The problem you have now is that you can't rely on that level of access anymore to learn about new systems, so you have to go with press releases from the MoD or the designer for the most part. But for older systems? Oh, you can certainly find what you want. If you know where to look.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5943
    Points : 6355
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:08 am

    Guess this is the one in Russian version

    http://www.eastview.com/russian/books/product.asp?sku=A2011294&f_locale=&Pervov/MA/Moskva/Russia/Russian/

    Did some one translated this book into English language ?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5943
    Points : 6355
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:58 am

    Is the source of leakage that happened in mid 90 and the extensive technical document that West had access to including S-300 missile and radar , does the US says that F-18 Growler could effectively jam any S-300 and S-400 series radar ?

    Much of the leakage of classified information specially on radars that happened in 90 would allow them to defeat S-300 system and other SAM of that era.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3113
    Points : 3211
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

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

    Post  medo on Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:18 am

    I more think, the documents, which leak in the nineties are more for older soviet SAMs and older versions of S-300 than of the newer S-300PMU-1/2 which also have different radars than older ones and different missiles.

    I don't think those documents give West more capabilities to defeat Soviet SAMs, what was shown in 1999 war in Serbia, where they know everything about those SAMs, but were still not able to defeat Serbian air defense.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 755
    Points : 938
    Join date : 2011-07-20

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

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:31 am

    Carlo Kopp's S-300V description (at least the missile part of it) is based in large part on actual Russian Army technical manuals for the 9M82 and 9M83 missiles

    SOC, not only it don't seem to be absolutely the case for this weapon system ,but also the figures...and the pictures...it employ in its analysis for dozen other systems ( see the numbers it cite for Klub missile's family or Ovod-M or SA-6 or Scud etc...etc...and any eventual remaining doubt will disappear istantly) say to us that it employ surely ,at 100%, technical figures linked to export models of those systems present in open sources such as articles, brochures and interviews produced by staff of major Russian makers firms just for connunication with foreign community ... Cool Cool.



    A lot of places held piles of documents and went a bit far with the whole "we're not Communist anymore" thing and allowed unprecedented access to archival materials.


    The name of Mikhail Pervov ,and with it any publication by Столичная энциклопедия in the same phrase of : disclosure of any type of military sensible information ?
    Well no surprise, therefore, that majority of western supposedly "specialized" publications produced in Cold War and the technical analysis and projections was so horribly wronged on Soviet miltary systems (some of them like "Moscow's Lesson from the 1982 Lebanon Air War " by B.S. Lambeth are considered true comical pieces still today in Russia).

    When western technical staff get really the chance to analyze original Soviet domestic ,not downgraded ,versions of its armaments (almost exclusively from East Germany after reunification with events like : M. Held analysis of original soviet T-72A/B's armour and K-5 ERA or tests on original domestic version of Fulcrum,anyhow of the older type, in particular original N019 radar's capabilities , and performances of its IRTS, HMS , R-27 and R-73 or Clemper's analysis on samples of Krasnopol guided artillery round ) systematically very ,very bad surprises, disowning years of completely wronged analysis, surfaced.


    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15948
    Points : 16649
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:20 pm

    Much of the leakage of classified information specially on radars that happened in 90 would allow them to defeat S-300 system and other SAM of that era.

    Much of that was intentionally leaked like the sale of certain components of the S-300V system to the US to help pay for the S-300VM upgrade.

    I would expect the Russians used that money and the time they have had to minimise the damage such disclosures have caused.

    Remember there would be lots of Soviet stuff forward deployed in the Baltic states and the Ukraine and Belarus that suddenly became the property of the countries it was then located in that could have disappeared for cash to the west for examination and the Russians knew that.

    Of course the different branches in the Soviet Union were different... a PVO Su-27 would have different AAMs and different radar operating frequencies that were all different in peace time and in war time to Su-27s operated by DA or long range aviation, or the VMF (naval aviation).

    Once any item is compromised everything is changed like when the Mig-31 was compromised by Donald, or the Mig-25 before it by defection.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5943
    Points : 6355
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:32 pm

    Found it here on S-300PMU2 , Thought it was interesting to post
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMSMC/message/4604

    The S-300PMU2 'Favorit' Air Defense Missile Complex
    Moscow Tekhnika i Vooruzheniye in Russian 06 Dec 04

    [Commentary by Sergey Ganin, Aleksandr Karpenko, and Rostislav Angelskiy: "The S-300P System: The S-300PMU2 'Favorit' Air Defense Missile Complex"]

    THE S-300P SYSTEM

    The authors express their profound gratitude to Vladimir Korovin for the information support rendered.

    THE S-300PMU2 "FAVORIT" AIR DEFENSE MISSILE COMPLEX

    The S-300PMU2 Universal Mobile Multichannel Air Defense Missile System -- is the further development of the S-300PMU1 and the 83M6Ye Command And Control Facility.

    The S-300PMU2 "Favorit" System is designed for the highly-effective defense of very important state facilities and its armed forces from massive strikes of contemporary and advanced aircraft, strategic cruise missiles, tactical and operational-tactical ballistic missiles and other airborne offensive weapons, in the entire range of altitudes and speeds of their combat employment, including under the impact of intensive active and passive jamming. The system was widely displayed for the first time in 1997 at the MAKS-97 [International Aerospace Show] Exhibition at Zhukhovskiy. It has been reported that the S-300PMU2 System was declassified just several days prior to the opening of that exhibition and just prior to the initiation of its delivery into the Russian Army inventory.

    Range testing of the new variant of the S-300P System began in 1992-1993 at the 72nd Test Range at Sary-Shagan, and was later transferred to Russian territory, to the Kapustin Yar Test Range.

    On August 31, 1995, the S-300PMU2 "Favorit" was tested for the first time at Kapustin Yar Test Range during firings against tactical ballistic missiles that were similar to the Scud. During the tests, two tactical ballistic missiles were intercepted by four 48N6Ye2 missiles while assuring the detonation of the targets' warheads on the trajectory.

    The S-300PMU2 air defense system consists of the following:

    - The 83M6Ye2 Command And Control Facility (the 54K6Ye2 Combat Control Post and the 64N6Ye2 Detection Radar);

    - Up to six 90Zh6Ye2 air defense missile complexes -- the ZON6Ye2 Illumination and Guidance Radar, up to 12 5P85TYe2 launchers (in the system's transportable variant) or 5P85SYe2 (in the mobile variant) with 48N6Ye2 air defense guided missiles;

    - Radars (the 96L6Ye All-Altitude Detector, the 76N6 Low-Altitude Detector, and 40V6M towers to raise the detectors' antenna posts; and,

    - Ground support equipment.

    In the opinion of the experts, today the "Favorit" is the most universal air defense system in the world, which is capable of defending, with high effectiveness, facilities and troops from any offensive weapons from the air, including aircraft, helicopters, operational-tactical ballistic and cruise missiles that are flying at high and extremely low altitudes with terrain following under conditions of forested and difficult terrain. With the development of the "Favorit" Air Defense Missile System, we can talk about the actual appearance in Russia of a system, which is capable of fully confronting non-strategic missile strikes.

    During the development of the new system, they resolved the issues of enhancing the self-sufficiency of the conduct of combat operations through the use of the 96L6Ye All-Altitude Detector, and they expanded the search characteristics of the 83M6Ye2 Command And Control Facility for the detection and tracking of ballistic targets with the preservation of the aerodynamic target detection sector.

    The system's effectiveness when operating against aerodynamic targets (including low-flying targets) in a complex tactical and jamming situation was also increased and the electronic countermeasures of all of the system's radars have been enhanced. With the simultaneous surveillance of the airspace by several radars, the admission into a defended zone of airborne targets, including cruise missiles that are flying at low altitudes from any directions, has been totally excluded.

    The equipment, which is in the composition of the S-300PMU2 System, supports the capability of the use of earlier variants of the S-300PMU1 System along with the 48N6Ye2 air defense missiles. While taking into account the possibility of the system's export deliveries, the capabilities for its integration into various air defense systems have also been expanded.

    The 48N6Ye2 Missile is an improved variant of the 48N6Ye missile with an increased maximum target destruction range of up to 200 kilometers.

    "Fakel" MKB [Mechanical-Engineering Design Bureau] Chief Designer Vladimir Grigoryevich Svetlov said:

    - "One of the primary distinctions of the missile that is part of the 'Favorit' Complex -- is its enhanced combat capabilities to combat ballistic targets. That mission became a priority in the development of the latest air defense systems after 'Desert Storm'. As we all know, the American 'Patriot' didn't have a good showing there. Several air defense missiles were fired at the Scuds, which were flying toward Israel or Saudi Arabia. However, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the warheads of the destroyed Iraqi missiles reached the ground and exploded. When firing was conducted against housing areas, the warhead still fell on the heads of peaceful residents -- if not on that street, then on another. And the publicized 'Patriot' in fact turned out to be not at all a panacea for these misfortunes. The missile, which we have developed for the 'Favorit', destroys Scuds in such a manner that their warheads already do not reach the ground -- they are detonated in the air...

    "'Fakel' Mechanical-Engineering Design Bureau launched the work on the development of the 48N6Ye2 missile at the beginning of the 1990s and that work required the conduct of numerous calculations, engineering studies and research, in the process of which the missile's capability to achieve a launch range of 200 kilometers and the required destruction effectiveness of various types of aerodynamic and ballistic targets were demonstrated. In the process, they preserved total continuity in the new missile's use of all of the S-300PMU1 System's components, including the transport-launch canisters, the launcher and the entire ground support equipment complex.

    "All of the most advanced technical solutions, which are used by the air defense missiles of the S-300P Systems' family - 'cold' vertical launch using a catapult and the progressive technologies that are employed during the production of the missile's elements - were preserved in the 48N6Ye2 air defense missile.

    "Among the innovations that have been realized in the new missile, we can include the introduction of fundamentally new mathematical algorithms of its guidance to the target, the use of the most favorable flight trajectories and the employment of a more effective warhead. The search for its best variant was carried out in parallel with the development of the new missile and continued over the course of several years. During that time, the most diverse variants of its execution were studied. The variant, on which 'Fakel' Mechanical-Engineering Design Bureau decided, demonstrated its overwhelming superiority both in ground tests and also in the air during intercepts of Scud type tactical ballistic missiles at the range".

    The S-300PMU2 Complex, like the S-300PMU1, can be supplied in two variants: with the use of a mobile launcher based upon a MAZ-543M type motor vehicle or of a 5P85TYe2 launcher based upon a semi-trailer, which is towed by a KrAZ truck-tractor.

    During the performance of alert duty and during combat work, a responsible surveillance sector is assigned to each of the S-300P System's air defense missile battalions. The search for targets and their allocation among the air defense missile battalions, as a rule, is conducted centrally by RTV [Radio-Technical Troops] units and the system's reconnaissance and command and control system. Using the automated command and control system ("Vektor" -- for the S-300PT; "Senezh", "Baykal", and "Baykal-1" -- for the S-300PS and S-300PMU) information is issued to each battalion through the command post. The information, which is obtained by the battalions from their own low-altitude detectors and the radars that are attached to them, in its turn, is transmitted to the system's command post for processing by the automated command and control system and allocation to available firing channels.

    A new modification of the 83M6Ye2 Command and Control Facility was displayed at the MAKS-97 International Aerospace Show as part of the 54K6Ye2 Combat Command and Control Post and the 64N6Ye2 Detection Radar, through the use of which command and control of up to six S-300PMU2 air defense missile complexes is carried out with the capability for the simultaneous firing of 72 missiles at 36 targets.

    At the same time, they carry out the detection of up to 300 and the tracking of up to 100 airborne targets.
    While tracking aerodynamic targets, the detection radar operates in the circular scanning surveillance mode with the surveillance of space in a sector of 14 degrees based upon elevation. When repelling an attack with the use of ballistic missiles, the detection radar carries out surveillance of the space in a sector that is 60 degrees along the azimuth and 75 degrees along the elevation on the axis that poses a missile threat. The maximum flight speed of the targets that are being destroyed -- is 1,000 kilometers per hour.

    The complex supports the simultaneous tracking, firing and destruction of six aerodynamic targets by 12 missiles in an area with a near border of three kilometers and a far border of 200 kilometers at altitudes of from 10 to 27,000 meters. The destruction of ballistic missiles with a launch range of up to 1,000 kilometers through the physical destruction of the warheads is possible at a range of up to 40 kilometers at altitudes of up to 25 kilometers.

    Based upon the customer's desire, it is possible to supply the 96L6Ye All-Altitude Detector, the 76N6 Low-Altitude Detector, and 40V6M towers for raising the antenna posts of all of the radars.

    The S-300PMU2 "Favorit" System was displayed abroad for the first time at the LIMA-97 Exhibition in Malaysia and at IDEX-99 at Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.

    THE S-300P SYSTEM IN THE AIR DEFENSE OF RUSSIA AND OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES

    After its entry into the inventory, the S-300P System was deployed in various areas of the USSR. Based upon foreign assessments, by the beginning of 1984, there were 350 launchers at 40 combat missile deployment areas and 20 new position areas in the construction stage in the PVO [Air Defense] System of the USSR. By 1985, the number of prepared combat missile deployment areas had increased to 60, and up to 30 were under construction. By 1987, 80 combat missile deployment areas had been put into operation and another 20 were being built. By 1988, 150 combat units, which were armed with various variants of the S-300P System, were deployed in the USSR's PVO System. Based upon these same foreign assessments, the USSR manufactured 900 5V55 missiles annually in 1983-1984 and the scale of production increased to 1,600 missiles per year in 1985.

    The S-300P's first combat deployment abroad was carried out in 1989 when three battalions were allegedly introduced into the composition of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany. However, as a result of the collapse of the GDR [German Democratic Republic], their further deployment was halted (Jane's Intelligence Review, No. 3, 1997).

    After the disintegration of the USSR, S-300P type systems remained in the inventory of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. At the beginning of the 1990s, they repeatedly confirmed their high capabilities during the course of training and demonstration firings. Based upon the testimony of Academician B. Bunkin, after the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War, a series of firings against ballistic missiles like the American Lance was conducted at the range. All of the targets were destroyed.

    But the S-300P's first trip abroad, which took place in February 1993, at the first IDEX weapons exhibition in Abu Dhabi, where Chief Designers B.V. Bunkin and V.G. Svetlov, were present, became the main test for the S-300P at the beginning of the 1990s.

    - "On the day that the S-300 conducted demonstration firings at the range, Boris Vasilyevich Bunkin and I found ourselves on the VIP platform among the Sheikhs of the Emirates' ruling elite," -- recalled V.G. Svetlov. -- "We were looking, our vehicles appeared and the radars were turned on... And then they announced that the targets were flying. One was low, and the other was a bit higher. And suddenly there was a firing, and everything was in smoke... That was a sight! It was no accident that the next day the main exhibition daily newspaper published a photograph of our launching missile on its cover with the large headline: 'The Russians Stole the Show'".

    Major-General Bronislav Porozinskiy, an IDEX-93 participant, who directly led the missile personnel's operations, talked about how the preparation for the exhibition and participation in it proceeded (from Vestnik PVO Magazine, No. 12, 1993):

    - "We originally planned to display the S-300PMU1 Air Defense Missile System only at the pavilion, in the form of a mockup. But at the beginning of January, 1993, it was decided that the system would be displayed at Abu Dhabi in the original, which placed the missile personnel in extremely complex conditions.

    - "By that time, we had mastered the redeployment of the S-300 using motor vehicle transportation and via rail. But the distance to Abu Dhabi is more than 3,500 kilometers, there is no railway there. Two other types of transportation remained - sea and air. Sea seemed to be simpler, but was not suited based upon time and therefore only air transport remained... A dress rehearsal of the loading of the weapon into an An-124 aircraft was conducted at an airport in the Moscow suburbs already on January 21 and 22.

    "The next phase of preparation -- was the selection of the personnel. The distinctive feature consisted of selecting officers, who had mastered several specialties, because we were restricted in a quantitative sense.

    "As a result, the crews of the command post, of two battalions, and crews for the delivery, loading and unloading of the missiles, survey control, energy supply and the resolution of other life support issues were formed from 38 officers and warrant officers.

    "Colonel M. Zubov led the command post.

    "After the completion of crew team building at the range, they completed the march to the airfield and conducted the loading of the equipment on two An-124 aircraft on February 3 and completed the flight to a military air base at Abu Dhabi on February 4.

    "They were loaded with an air temperature of -5 degrees Centigrade and they were unloaded already with a temperature of +29 degrees Centigrade. As a result, the equipment was literally covered with water from condensation...

    "...The first aircraft was unloaded in 32 minutes and the second -- in 20 minutes (no more than two hours -- that is the standard that has been developed at home).

    "...What did we encounter in the Arabian Desert? What we did not know and could not imagine -- there were heavy rains. It turns out that in the desert, where in general it rarely rains, there are very heavy downpours approximately once every 15-20 years. That also took place on February 5-7, 1993. During that time, so much precipitation fell that the desert was transformed into solid streams of water, which destroyed roads and embankments.

    "When we reached the test range, I saw roads, which had been washed out for 25-30 meters and to a depth of up to 1-1.5 meters, and there were streams of water and thick mud on the roads. And the locations, which had been proposed for our position -- were a solid sea of water. But the rains had already stopped by February 9 and the water rapidly disappeared. By February 11, the roads had dried and UAE engineering units had filled them...

    "...On February 13 at 1210 hours, the launch of a "Reys" target was conducted for the conduct of the alignment and flight calibration of the S-300 Air Defense Missile Complex. The RPN [illumination and guidance radar] crew locked on to the target and tracked it. It conducted the launch of one missile.

    "The calibration flight demonstrated that on the whole we could accomplish the combat mission here. The fact that there were very many reflections from the terrain was a distinctive feature of the desert...

    "...On February 15 at 1930 hours, based upon coordination with the exhibition's promoters, we abandoned the demonstration area and redeployed all of our equipment to the test range.

    "On February 17 at 1603 hours, we launched two "Reys" targets at an altitude of less than one kilometer at a range of 50 kilometers with a turn onto the attack course. Both battalions detected both targets and tracked them in a stable manner. The equipment operated without failures. The crews calmly and confidently accomplished their functional duties. When the targets approached the launch position, they made the decision to destroy them at a range of 33 kilometers and to launch missiles against the lead target.

    "Both targets were destroyed at a range of 28 and 18 kilometers from the launch position. One battalion conducted the firing and two missiles were launched against each target. The targets were physically destroyed and their further flight was terminated after the encounter with the first missiles.

    "After the assessment of the firing results, at my command the command post and both battalions tore down the equipment and formed up into a travel column in 6.5 minutes and left their launch positions. They completed a march of approximately three kilometers. Then they returned, occupied the position and prepared for battle in six minutes..."

    Actually, the two missile salvos that were conducted by the S-300PMU1 before the eyes of the entire world imparted an entirely different idea to the exhibition. There was nothing left for the Americans, who had publicized their Patriot only in the form of mockups, but to smile dutifully...

    We advanced the idea on the conduct of demonstration competitions between the S-300PMU1 and the Patriot, which was totally implausible for the arms market, on the wave of euphoria that emerged after the S-300PMU1's successful demonstration at Abu Dhabi. However, the Americans did not accept the challenge. According to their statements, the Patriot had proven itself in combat with Iraqi Scuds in the sky over the Persian Gulf, which insured its acquisition by several states under extremely favorable conditions for the United States. We still had to gain a market for the S-300.

    But the first attempts to emerge on that market have shown the presence of unflinching interest in this weapon among very strange purchasers from the United States, who were much more interested in the system's technical capabilities than in its acquisition. In the case with the S-300, they had no opportunity whatsoever to act using the methods, which had been previously proven for providing a detailed acquaintance with the S-75, S-125, and S-200. By the beginning of the 1990s, we could literally count the number of countries -- owners of the S-300 -- on our fingers and they couldn't even think about this system's participation in any combat operations whatsoever where they could "familiarize themselves" with it from a captured model. Only one, but correct variant remained -- the acquisition of an S-300 using devious methods.

    However, even after repeated requests for a sales contract for the S-300 from various parties in the United States, they didn't manage to conclude a contract. Precisely at that time, several S-300PMU1 complexes were acquired under very favorable commercial terms by China. And therefore, the Americans had to change their tactics -- to set out on the path of the acquisition of the S-300 piecemeal.

    In December 1994, Belarus' "Beltekheksport" Company turned out to be among those who were not able to reject the favorable proposals. A canister with the equipment of one of the first variants of the S-300PT-1 System, which was previously located at the Minsk Higher Engineering Air Defense Missile School training facility, was sold through it for $6 million. Soon 18 missiles -- eight 5V55R, eight 5V55K and two 5V55RUD -- were acquired in Ukraine.

    At the same time, one more nearly detective story, which was associated with the delivery of the S-300 abroad, was developing. During the course of the summer-fall of 1994, some components of the S-300 were delivered to Croatia on a cargo aircraft. At that time, an international embargo was in effect on deliveries of weapons to that country, which was striving to gain its independence from Yugoslavia. Therefore, the source of the deliveries was not reported at that time, although there were not that many places from which an S-300 could be supplied across several borders to the Croatians...

    Based upon the assessments of Western experts, two S-300 launchers with missiles, several missiles in canisters and various pieces of equipment were supplied to Croatia using several scheduled aircraft flights. At the same time, none of the military experts noted the arrival of the S-300 system's radars in Croatia.

    Croatia did not begin to keep the secret of its precious acquisitions from its neighboring enemies. The S-300 launchers were soon displayed at a military parade. However, after the parade, the launchers were once again stored at the dumps, where military experts from a number of countries visited them, including from Israel, which seriously feared the S-300 deliveries from Russia to the countries of the Middle East that were planned at that time.

    But then again, in the next 10 years, the S-300 found itself only in two countries of the states of the Far Abroad -- in China and Greece.

    After several years, the S-300's odd appearance in Croatia became a topic for an official investigation in this country. As a result, information appeared that Croatia's purchase of elements of the S-300 System was carried out through the Israeli Firm "Nevada Trade" from the selling firm, which was named in the documents as "Winsley Finance".

    During the course of the investigation, assumptions were expressed that the Israelis acquired a complete S-300 Complex -- with radars, missiles, and needed equipment - in the process of this deal. However, in the future the missiles and the launchers were sold to Croatia "for parades", and the Israelis retained the radars for the development of possible countermeasures to that system. Apparently, that work turned out to be successful: in the summer of 2001, representatives of the Israeli Air Force reported about the successes, which had been achieved by the firm IMI [Israeli Military Industries] in the development of the ITALD [Improved Tactical Air-Launched Decoy] decoy, the flight of which is capable of deceiving the S-300's equipment.

    At the same time, the S-300's parade displays continued. In August 1995, demonstration live firings of the S-300PMU1 Air Defense Missile System were conducted at Kapustin Yar Test Range and a display of air defense military equipment was conducted for representatives of military delegations.

    The 83M6Ye System's intelligence and target designation hub and air defense missile complex in the composition of the 30N6Ye Illumination and Guidance Radar and three 5P85T launchers with 48N6Ye air defense missiles were deployed for the conduct of these firings.

    The live firings were conducted against an La-17M radio-controlled target, with simulates an unmanned combat aerial vehicle, an 8K14 operational-tactical ballistic missile, which was launched from a distance of 70 kilometers from the air defense missile complex, and a "Kaban" small ballistic missile target, which was developed based upon the MR-10 meteorological missile. All of the targets were detected in a timely manner. They were tracked in a stable manner using the S-300PMU1 System and were destroyed by its missile with 100 percent effectiveness.

    An air defense missile brigade's "Senezh-M1" and "Baykal-1" automated combat command and control systems were also deployed near the launch position for a demonstration of air defense weapons and military equipment.

    During the course of the "Boyevoye Sodruzhestvo-99" coalition exercises that were conducted in Astrakhan Oblast at the end of August 1999, the issues of the mobility of the PVO Troops' complexes were resolved for the first time. A change of air defense systems' positions and their accomplishment of combat missions under jamming conditions were refined. According to the statement of Russian Air Force Commander-in-Chief A. Kornukov, the leader of the exercises, strike aviation "was employed" against them to support the morale-psychological training of the air defense crews "so that the servicemen would know that, if they didn't accomplish the mission, an air strike would destroy their position". Besides the destruction of airborne targets, the S-300PM air defense missile complexes conducted strikes against the breakthrough location of the aggressors' presumed saboteur team (ITAR-TASS, Izvestiya, August 27, 1999).

    During the course of the firings against the ground targets, they demonstrated that missile warheads with 36,000 "prepared" fragments are capable of covering an area of more than 120,000 square meters each.

    After their acceptance into the country's PVO Troops inventory, the S-300P family's complexes gradually replaced the obsolete S-75 "Volkhov" air defense missile complexes of all modifications that were removed from the inventory, while surpassing the latter many times over based upon firing capabilities and mobility with a smaller number of servicing personnel. When the number of S-300P Systems in the PVO Troops was increased, it became possible to begin the transition to a single complex (in various modifications and versions) and to gradually remove the S-75, S-125 and S-200 complexes from alert duty and the inventory.
    avatar
    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

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

    Post  SOC on Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:48 am

    Austin wrote:Guess this is the one in Russian version

    http://www.eastview.com/russian/books/product.asp?sku=A2011294&f_locale=&Pervov/MA/Moskva/Russia/Russian/

    Did some one translated this book into English language ?

    That's the book. And it's awesome. I've never seen it translated into another language, no.

    Mindstorm wrote:The name of Mikhail Pervov ,and with it any publication by Столичная энциклопедия in the same phrase of : disclosure of any type of military sensible information ?


    I don't understand?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5943
    Points : 6355
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:41 am

    A very interesting fact about Patriot PAC-3 is its performance capability is broadly identical to Aster 30 and 9M96E2 and this is from Russian designers themself

    http://pvo.guns.ru/book/fakel/new_gen.htm

    PAC-3

    Aerodynamic targets:
    range km 100 , altitude km 25
    Ballistic Targets : range km 22 - 40 , altitude km 15 - 20

    Generally in Marketing and Brochure PAC-3 capability is understated at altitude of 15 km and Range at 20 km , giving it an impression its limited range/altitude performance.

    if you look at Aster-30 and 9M96E2 performance figures they are all broadly comparable.

    Thats an American way of winking and blinking Twisted Evil

    Couple of interesting PAC-3 Videos

    PAC-3 Missile Test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT6DzaG_658
    PAC-3 Upgrade Potential http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hrZ4d1KxGY
    Patriot System http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfLxOvaLZho
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15948
    Points : 16649
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:57 pm

    Thats an American way of winking and blinking

    Not really.

    Giving the performance figures for ballistic targets only is them just being honest for a change.

    Every weapon has a performance envelop and that envelope is generally arrived at by setting limits and expectations.

    For instance the accuracy of an assault rifle is generally given as the distance you are more likely than not to hit a human standing target.

    If the US gave the performance figures for aerodynamic targets, it would be like giving the effective range of the SVD sniper rifle as 1,300m. That is the effective range against large objects like trucks and soft skinned vehicles that are rather larger than human sized targets.

    PAC-3 is about as good as early model S-300Vs, but not as widely deployed.

    S-300V has no combat experience, but the whole Patriot family has no effective positive combat experience either. When first used in Desert Storm, it failed against the modified Scuds. After an upgrade when it next went to war it failed against low flying modified anti ship missiles.

    Each time the US came up against an enemy that recognised its weakness and exploited it... modified Scuds vs PAC-2s = small win for Iraq, then antiship missiles vs PAC-3s = small win for Iraq again... not enough to make any difference, though the scuds almost got the result of getting a reaction from Israel and therefore removing arab states from the coalition of the willing.

    Perhaps the problem is that the Russian designers are expecting rather more from the missile than the US engineers actually managed to get out of it... or they want more money to design newer stuff.

    Looking at hardware including weights and thrust etc etc they might be expecting rather more performance than the US has managed to achieve based on their own achievements.

    Also keep in mind that the 9M96E2, the larger of the small missiles, if you take the lower figures (more accurate) given for PAC-3, which are closer to the official figures the US gives out, the 9M96E2 beats it in every regard... even more so because it is a proper medium range SAM where as PAC-3 is an optimised ATBM missile.

    It is rather likely Vityaz will be based on the 9M96E2 so lets wait to see its specs.

    BTW it would be interesting to see what the 9M96Es performance is against ballistic targets, and I would also be interested in a cost comparison for the missiles too.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5943
    Points : 6355
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:03 pm

    Actually the Patriot 1 used in Gulf War had no ATBM capability so its no surprise it performed badly in Gulf War , it was more of political tool and a PR that Patriot gained the reputation of ATBM or Scud Killer which it was not , Not the missile fault at all , it was just good at anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile role.

    PAC-2 extended its range and was more optimised for anti-cruise missile role at long ranged , it too did not have any significant ATBM capability.

    PAC-3 was designed from ground up at ATBM , with the ability to intercept missile corresponding to a range of 1000- 1200 km.

    The early model S-300V ( A model ) still retains higher energy with an average speed of Mach 3.5 compared to mean speed of Mach 2.9 for Patriot although with some what similar range , the Giant beats the PAC-3 in all cardinal parameters.

    The performance figures of 100 km at alt of 25 km is against aerodynamic target , for the same the 9M96E2 has corresponding figure of 120 km and 30 km alt , some what better but roughly comparable , both missile have same mean speed of ~ Mach 3 ,so PAC-3 ERINT is roughly comparable to 9M96E2.

    As far as 9M96E goes its average speed is M 2.5 and range for aerodynamic target is 40 km and altitude of 20 km , I can bet it is capable of intercepting BM corresponding to a range of atleast 300 km or TBM class.

    Patriot specially PAC-3 did quite well in that it did intercepted AL-Samoud and Abdali missile , considering Iraq was banned by UN having missile of range greater than 250 km. So its really not Patriot PAC-3 fault that it did not encounter a 1000 km range missile , the reason why it could not intercept cruise missile is because the patriot batteries radar was looking up as it was not expecting a cruise missile attack , it was a surprise attack and there is nothing any one could do if your radar was not expecting it and told to look else where.

    Over all PAC-3 did quite well against the challanges thrown against it in real combat , something no other American ABM or Russian ABM can claim till date.

    avatar
    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5666
    Points : 6315
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

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

    Post  Viktor on Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm

    Austin wrote:Actually the Patriot 1 used in Gulf War had no ATBM capability so its no surprise it performed badly in Gulf War , it was more of political tool and a PR that Patriot gained the reputation of ATBM or Scud Killer which it was not , Not the missile fault at all , it was just good at anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile role.

    PAC-2 extended its range and was more optimised for anti-cruise missile role at long ranged , it too did not have any significant ATBM capability.

    PAC-3 was designed from ground up at ATBM , with the ability to intercept missile corresponding to a range of 1000- 1200 km.

    The early model S-300V ( A model ) still retains higher energy with an average speed of Mach 3.5 compared to mean speed of Mach 2.9 for Patriot although with some what similar range , the Giant beats the PAC-3 in all cardinal parameters.

    The performance figures of 100 km at alt of 25 km is against aerodynamic target , for the same the 9M96E2 has corresponding figure of 120 km and 30 km alt , some what better but roughly comparable , both missile have same mean speed of ~ Mach 3 ,so PAC-3 ERINT is roughly comparable to 9M96E2.

    As far as 9M96E goes its average speed is M 2.5 and range for aerodynamic target is 40 km and altitude of 20 km , I can bet it is capable of intercepting BM corresponding to a range of atleast 300 km or TBM class.

    Patriot specially PAC-3 did quite well in that it did intercepted AL-Samoud and Abdali missile , considering Iraq was banned by UN having missile of range greater than 250 km. So its really not Patriot PAC-3 fault that it did not encounter a 1000 km range missile , the reason why it could not intercept cruise missile is because the patriot batteries radar was looking up as it was not expecting a cruise missile attack , it was a surprise attack and there is nothing any one could do if your radar was not expecting it and told to look else where.

    Over all PAC-3 did quite well against the challanges thrown against it in real combat , something no other American ABM or Russian ABM can claim till date.


    Its up to radar not that much the missile. If you have radar that can track missile from 2000km away you wont need missile flying Mach 4+ you can have Mach 2 missile and still have plenty of time to calculate interception point and time for your missile to get there. Thats why for instance India is buying India Green Pine radar. But at the same time Green Pine is no good for aircraft much less cruise missiles.

    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15948
    Points : 16649
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:01 am

    Actually the Patriot 1 used in Gulf War had no ATBM capability so its no surprise it performed badly in Gulf War , it was more of political tool and a PR that Patriot gained the reputation of ATBM or Scud Killer which it was not , Not the missile fault at all , it was just good at anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile role.

    Did it intercept any cruise missiles?

    It is quite true that it was badly misrepresented as being a wonder weapon that fully countered the modified Scuds, when in actual fact it likely added to the damage.

    Before the Gulf War the B-2 was promoted as the ideal response to Soviet truck mounted ICBMs... it was supposed to cruise around over the Soviet Union finding and destroying truck mounted strategic missiles.
    After Desert Storm where they had complete air control, over a tiny strip of land (the range of the modified scuds greatly limited the number of places they could be launched from and still hit targets in Israel and Saudi Arabia), where they had no external interference with satellites and could even put special forces on the ground and they still didn't kill a single Scud launcher before it launched its missile, and all through the conflict they launch a dozen missiles a week or more.

    I rather suspect that if Desert Storm had not happened that the Patriot would be "capable of hitting ballistic targets like Scud".

    BTW the Russian missiles of the S-300 family had capability against ballistic weapons in the early 1980s, so clearly the Soviets recognised the threat that the west clearly ignored.

    PAC-2 extended its range and was more optimised for anti-cruise missile role at long ranged , it too did not have any significant ATBM capability.

    A feature of cruise missiles is that their flight route is usually planned to take advantage of natural land features like hills, and will generally attack a target from a completely unexpected direction... which sort of makes the PAC-2s and PAC-3s angled launcher bins very very stupid.

    PAC-3 was designed from ground up at ATBM , with the ability to intercept missile corresponding to a range of 1000- 1200 km.

    Yes, a missile optimised for ATBM, based on a missile optimised for general use... how to spend money US style.

    Funny how the PAC-2 was so successful on State Department press releases, yet an entirely new missile had to be developed to counter a weapon that Saddam was forced to get rid of... which he did.

    Adapting the fuse on the PAC-2 to hit the payload of the incoming threat would be too simple and cheap and suddenly having all your standard long range SAMs able to hit aerodynamic targets and ballistic targets... NO... they must spend lots of money and completely redesign the missile to make a separate type of missile that is optimised for ballistic targets!!!

    The early model S-300V ( A model ) still retains higher energy with an average speed of Mach 3.5 compared to mean speed of Mach 2.9 for Patriot although with some what similar range , the Giant beats the PAC-3 in all cardinal parameters.

    And was in service in 1988.

    The performance figures of 100 km at alt of 25 km is against aerodynamic target , for the same the 9M96E2 has corresponding figure of 120 km and 30 km alt , some what better but roughly comparable , both missile have same mean speed of ~ Mach 3 ,so PAC-3 ERINT is roughly comparable to 9M96E2.

    Except when you increase the radius of a circle by 1/3rd you increase its volume by 300%...

    PAC-3 is not comparable as it is an optimised ATBM system, while the 9M96E2 is a medium range SAM with ATBM capabilities.

    Patriot specially PAC-3 did quite well in that it did intercepted AL-Samoud and Abdali missile , considering Iraq was banned by UN having missile of range greater than 250 km.

    That is like saying the 125mm main gun of the T-90AM did quite well in tests because it penetrated the equivalent armour of a Bradley IFV.
    In the real world the PAC-3 was designed to intercept modified scuds and it has yet to be tested in that role.

    It has been tested in battle and it failed, because it failed to stop low flying cruise missile like threats.

    It failed because it is a one trick pony and the US underestimated the situation.

    the reason why it could not intercept cruise missile is because the patriot batteries radar was looking up as it was not expecting a cruise missile attack , it was a surprise attack and there is nothing any one could do if your radar was not expecting it and told to look else where.

    And if those cruise missiles had instead been Su-24s with 8 tons of bombs and an attitude what then?

    A bit like the German invasion of Russia... I mean who thought it got cold in Russia in winter... dunno

    Over all PAC-3 did quite well against the challanges thrown against it in real combat , something no other American ABM or Russian ABM can claim till date.

    Sorry that is a rubbish statement. Are you saying the Mig-21 is a better aircraft than an F-22 or F-35 because it has seen combat and the two 5th gen fighters have not?

    Equally the Patriot has shot down more friendly aircraft than enemy aircraft, and failed to stop modified scuds and cruise missiles... not combat experience I would want to write home about.

    Its up to radar not that much the missile.

    The radar is very important, and good accurate tracking data is vital, but at the end of the day you need your missile to fly to the right place and blow up the correct way. Against a subsonic fighter then hitting it in the tail or centre of mass is a kill... the expanding field of fragments from your warhead will be moving at about 4-5 times the speed of sound and will likely break the structure of the target so it can no longer fly.
    Against a modified scud that is likely falling as fast as the fragments of your warhead are moving is a completely different problem... it is like shooting at a bird with a shotgun... if you aim at the bird then you will miss... you have to aim for the position the bird will be when your pellets reach it.

    In the case of shooting down a missile you also have to aim to hit the nose and not the body, so that means aiming well ahead of the missile with your warhead fragments, which means fusing and precise manouvers in the terminal phase.

    Not easy, but didn't really require a whole new missile design.
    avatar
    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

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

    Post  SOC on Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:29 am

    GarryB wrote:Yes, a missile optimised for ATBM, based on a missile optimised for general use... how to spend money US style.

    Huh? PAC-3's ERINT is a wholly new missile, much smaller than a PAC-1 or PAC-2 round.

    GarryB wrote:Adapting the fuse on the PAC-2 to hit the payload of the incoming threat would be too simple and cheap and suddenly having all your standard long range SAMs able to hit aerodynamic targets and ballistic targets... NO... they must spend lots of money and completely redesign the missile to make a separate type of missile that is optimised for ballistic targets!!!

    The GEM and GEM+ modifications do improve the fuze to aid in intercepting ballistic targets. The ERINT missile takes this a bit further by being designed as a hit-to-kill weapon with a supplementary warhead.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5943
    Points : 6355
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:34 am

    Viktor wrote:Its up to radar not that much the missile. If you have radar that can track missile from 2000km away you wont need missile flying Mach 4+ you can have Mach 2 missile and still have plenty of time to calculate interception point and time for your missile to get there. Thats why for instance India is buying India Green Pine radar. But at the same time Green Pine is no good for aircraft much less cruise missiles.


    Viktor agreed radar plays a key role but interceptor too plays its part , if it was only the question of radar detecting and tracking a ballistic missile object at long ranges , then we could easily have SA-3 doing ABM role , Energy ,HTK capability and manouveribility are key aspect for any missile doing the ATBM interception role.

    Green Pine is a L band AESA radar , it can pretty much track aircraft and cruise missile as much as Ballistic Missile but if the Radar is deployed in such a way that it looks up and scans for BM target while it is blind to say 0-5 km altitude becuase of the way it has been deployed then ofcourse any cruise missile can utilise the blind spot to its advantage.

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:18 pm