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

Not disagreeing, but can you make a detailed S-400 vs S-300V4 comparison Mindstorm (or SOC, anyone else, etc) ?

It is certainly a much more mobile system, even if the S-400 is absurdly mobile for such a large wheeled complex.

The whole thing used to be under the S-300 concept for a new medium-range SAM system. Initially you had the S-300 and S-500U (not the same as the current S-500) concepts competing. The S-500U was rejected, as it had little ability to perform the army's goal of blasting TBMs. A bit later, design and concept differences led to the S-300P/S-300V split. The S-300V initially had more ATBM capability, being conceived in part to be able to deal with Pershing, but any advantage it had largely went away with the S-300PM. The S-300F was derived from the S-300P as the navy and air force had similar ideas in mind.

Now you've got the S-300V4 and the S-400 as the latest iterations. Both are mobile, with mobility usually referred in terms of system empalcement time. Both can erect or displace in around 5 minutes, which if you aren't aware is ridiculously fast, provided you aren't using 40V6 masts with the S-400. The V has better cross country mobility as it is tracked, while the P/400's are pretty much road-bound, which is perfectly fine for their given role.

The S-300V uses what is basically two midifications of the same missile, with the ATBM round using a much bigger booster stage to give higher acceleration and greater footprint.

Apart from differences that came about in regard to differing design considerations such as off-road mobility for the army, there isn't really that much these days that separates the two systems in terms of capability. They're both ridiculously capable against a wide range of targets and you wouldn't be at any real disadvantage picking one or the other. At this point it probably simply comes down to whether or not you want the added cross-country mobility that the S-300V offers.

SOC wrote:being conceived in part to be able to deal with Pershing, but any advantage it had largely went away with the S-300PM.

I think S-300V/VM and perhaps by its extension S-300V4 will still retain its edge over any S-300P system by its sheer amount of energy specially the Big Missile , iirc the Big Missile has a top speed of Mach 7 and Average Speed of Mach 3.5 which is quite high for any SAM ......the S-300P series has some what lower top speed and average speed, The small missile of S-300V matches the PM in energy.

I think even the top 3 missile in S-400 series do not have those kind of energy as the big missile of V series has , that might change with 40N6 about which we know so little.

What is most important here, is the fact, that both domestic S-400 and S-300V4 will be more capable than any export S-300 type or S-400.

Austin wrote:I think S-300V/VM and perhaps by its extension S-300V4 will still retain its edge over any S-300P system by its sheer amount of energy specially the Big Missile , iirc the Big Missile has a top speed of Mach 7 and Average Speed of Mach 3.5 which is quite high for any SAM ......the S-300P series has some what lower top speed and average speed, The small missile of S-300V matches the PM in energy.

I think even the top 3 missile in S-400 series do not have those kind of energy as the big missile of V series has , that might change with 40N6 about which we know so little.

It does have a few advantages, namely the dedicated sector-search ATBM radar, but the velocity isn't as big a deal as you might think it is. What the higher velocity does is primarily enable the 9M82 to have a larger ATBM footprint than a 48N6 as it can convert speed to range. Plus, the average speed figures look a bit low for how they actually work. The whole point of the huge booster for the 9M82 is to get it up to velocity as fast as possible. Velocity will fall off at the tail end of the trajectory, and once it falls below a certain point you've lost controllability. But for most of its flight profile within the engagement envelope it isn't going to be slowing down too much, thanks to the fact that it's got a sustainer motor in the second stage. One reason they keep screwing with the S-300V series is because it's got a lot of untapped kinematic potential in the missile, hence the continued range increases with successive variants. In this case the engagement limits, particularly those of early models, had a lot to do with radar and guidance system limitations.

The 48N6DM in the S-400 can engage a target at 4800 m/s, while the original 9M82 could hit targets moving at 3200 m/s. That's with no increase in missile velocity for the 48N6DM over the earlier 48N6 or 48N6D; an increase wasn't required given the more advanced guidance system compared to the S-300PM. Now, what improvements have gone into the 9M82 variant for the S-300V4, I don't know. It likely engages higher-velocity targets, given that the Antey-2500 had an expanded envelope to targets at 4500 m/s. Much beyond those figures though, and you're moving into actual ABM territory, which requires different things. So the S-400 and S-300V4 likely share the capability to engage the same class of TBM targets. The only real advantage in performance terms at this point is the 9M82's bigger ATBM footprint.

With an accurate guidance system and a directional warhead in the 48N6, it's perfectly capable of hitting a TBM. Both Fakel (the 48N6) and Almaz (the system) did a lot of research in ATBM capability after watching the Patriot fall all over itself during 1991. Although in its defense Patriot was only operating with minimal ATBM changes at that point, so it's actually impressive that it managed to track and hit TBMs at all.

medo wrote:What is most important here, is the fact, that both domestic S-400 and S-300V4 will be more capable than any export S-300 type or S-400.

Yes, but not to the degree that is often implied. You've got the same motor and same propellant, so you'll get the same kinematic performance. The differences lie in the radar operating modes and frequencies, ECCM systems, etc. Also, you can impose a range-limit on a customer by only offering certain missile types. Don't give them access to the 40N6 and you've basically sold them an upgraded S-300PM instead of an S-400.

Arrow wrote:

he 48N6DM in the S-400 can engage a target at 4800 m/s,

Mayby the 40N6 can engage a target faster then 4800m/s.

Entirely possible. Not really all that likely that it has a much higher target speed limit, though. Get too much higher and you're now an ABM, and that means you're also encroaching on the S-500's territory. I doubt they'd jack up the 40N6 to ABM levels with the S-500 coming in the near term. Plus the S-400 lacks the system infrastructure to support an actual ABM role anyway.

SOC wrote:
It does have a few advantages, namely the dedicated sector-search ATBM radar, but the velocity isn't as big a deal as you might think it is. What the higher velocity does is primarily enable the 9M82 to have a larger ATBM footprint than a 48N6 as it can convert speed to range.

Agreed you can trade off energy into range or you can also use the same energy to reach an intercept point faster then you would say with less energy , which translates to intercepting at higher altitude or getting a chance to have one more go at the target if the first one misses.

Do you have figures for Hit Probability by a Single 9M82 and 48N6 missile against a typical BM target ?

Also do you know of the size of target it can track with its long range radar ?


I have came across figures from Indian scientist of AAD/PAD ABM when used in tandem ensures a hit probability of 99.8 % and the modified Green Pine can track a target of 0.1 m2 out to a range of 1000 km link

Plus, the average speed figures look a bit low for how they actually work. The whole point of the huge booster for the 9M82 is to get it up to velocity as fast as possible. Velocity will fall off at the tail end of the trajectory, and once it falls below a certain point you've lost controllability.

I got those average figures and top speed for the Big Missile of S-300VM from Carlo Kopp website.

I think the average speed of M 3.5 refers to the maximum effective intercept range of the SAM , the top Speed would most likely be when the booster kicks in and cuts off that would be the time when the missile is at its top speed , the sustainer when kicks in eventually slow it down over a period of time and would give it a constant Mach 3.5 speed till eventually the sustainer cuts off then the 2nd stage is essentially coasting with no power of its own ..eventually it will reach a point where it will loose controllability as you have described

Hello SOC have a question here.

S-500 was described as a ABM system capable of dealing with ICBM and LEO satellite targets by V Popvokin in an interview.

Now ICBM has a reentry speed of 7.2 Km/sec iirc and orbital velocity is 7.8 km/sec

LEO orbit is decribed any where between 200 to 2,000 km.

So does that mean S-500 Missile or its kill vehical will need an orbital velocity of ~ 7.8 km/sec or greater to kill a satellite in orbit ?

How would intercepting of LEO satellite work , lets say if one satellite is at 200 km and the other at 1800 km ?

So, any news on Russia actually using the smaller 9m96 tubes on existing/future S-300/S-400 batteries, or are they simply going to leave self defense role to Pantsir, and medium range to Vityaz?

I think I would be in favor of the masses of army/AF air defense complexes being slightly reduced for more aircraft for the RuAF. If planned numbers are any indicator, there is going to be an utter mass of tiered AD complexes by 2020, while the AF will shrink considerably...

TR1 wrote:So, any news on Russia actually using the smaller 9m96 tubes on existing/future S-300/S-400 batteries, or are they simply going to leave self defense role to Pantsir, and medium range to Vityaz?

I think I would be in favor of the masses of army/AF air defense complexes being slightly reduced for more aircraft for the RuAF. If planned numbers are any indicator, there is going to be an utter mass of tiered AD complexes by 2020, while the AF will shrink considerably...

I know 9M96 missiles were tested on S-400, but I don't know if they are used on duty on S-300/400. Maybe they regularly use only standard 48N6 missiles, while others are in magazines to be used, when needed. Maybe they are on duty in Soobrazatelny corvette.

Second question is maybe more enigmatic. Maybe Russian MoD consider the fall of generation born after 1991, which now become in years to be military active and maybe they fear to not have enough pilots to fly large numbers of planes and to have reserve pilots for them. In that case it is easier to get enough crews for ground based AD than to train enough pilots. On the other hand I think with modernizing existing planes and buying new ones, the number of planes in AF will not shrink so dramatically as it was in nineties, but will remain somehow stable. Maybe the answer is also in industry, which still could not build larger number of planes per year and is still in process of retooling. In any case decision to have stronger ground based AD is quite wise if you are not in a position to create larger AF in short term, but in long term.

Arrow wrote:S-500 will be capable to destroy RV from ICBM I think that S-500 will be compare to THAAD parameters.

THAAD is comparable to the new 40N6 missile from S-400 series both of them are capable of intercepting targets corresponding to a range of 3500 km class IRBM.

S-500 is more comparable to SM-3 class missile as both are capable of taking out ICBM and LEO type target and are mobile systems.

What will be interesting to see if S-500 will opt for a Kinetic Kill Vehical ( KKV ) or opt for Warhead

Nice interview with General Designer of JSC "SPC NIIDAR" Chief Designer radar

New technology and missile defense architecture

Can some one answer my question just keen to know how things work

S-500 was described as a ABM system capable of dealing with ICBM and LEO satellite targets by V Popvokin in an interview.

Now ICBM has a reentry speed of 7.2 Km/sec iirc and orbital velocity is 7.8 km/sec

LEO orbit is decribed any where between 200 to 2,000 km.

So does that mean S-500 Missile or its kill vehical will need an orbital velocity of ~ 7.8 km/sec or greater to kill a satellite in orbit , As it would need to get into orbit over coming earth gravational attraction.

How would intercepting of LEO satellite work , lets say if one satellite is at 200 km and the other at 1800 km ?

Austin wrote:So does that mean S-500 Missile or its kill vehical will need an orbital velocity of ~ 7.8 km/sec or greater to kill a satellite in orbit , As it would need to get into orbit over coming earth gravational attraction.

There are two primary methods to kill a satellite using non-DEWs. There's the direct-ascent method, and the co-orbital method. Direct-ascent is what China and the USA did a few years ago during one of their standard manhood-measuring contests, where the ASAT basically flies upwards to a predicted intercept point. You do not necessarily need to reach orbital velocity to kill something in very low LEO (say in the 200-300 km range or so). What you need to do is have a powerful enough booster/sustainer to give you enough impulse to reach the target altitude before gravity wakes up and pulls your ASAT back to Earth. The SM-3 missile that killed the US satellite, for example, hit a target at an altitude of 240 km with a missile burnout velocity around 3.5 km/sec. The trick is to be able to reach burnout velocity high enough to hit your target. Co-orbital ASATs involve actually orbiting a kill vehicle, which can then maneuver to attack a satellite. This is more useful if you want to basically set up an in-space, on-demand ASAT system. In this case you do need orbital velocity, as you are actually orbiting the kill vehicle.

Austin wrote:How would intercepting of LEO satellite work , lets say if one satellite is at 200 km and the other at 1800 km ?

All you need to hit something throughout the LEO range is a burnout velocity of about 5.5-6 km/sec.

Arrow wrote:Now 48N6DM are catable of intercepting targets corresponding to a range of 3500km or 4,8km/s warhead.

4.8 Km/sec corresponds more like IRBM with a range of 2,700-2800 km

To intercept a 3,500 km range missile the interceptor should be capable of intercepting 5.1-5.2 km/sec target

SOC wrote:There are two primary methods to kill a satellite using non-DEWs. There's the direct-ascent method, and the co-orbital method. Direct-ascent is what China and the USA did a few years ago during one of their standard manhood-measuring contests, where the ASAT basically flies upwards to a predicted intercept point. You do not necessarily need to reach orbital velocity to kill something in very low LEO (say in the 200-300 km range or so). What you need to do is have a powerful enough booster/sustainer to give you enough impulse to reach the target altitude before gravity wakes up and pulls your ASAT back to Earth. The SM-3 missile that killed the US satellite, for example, hit a target at an altitude of 240 km with a missile burnout velocity around 3.5 km/sec. The trick is to be able to reach burnout velocity high enough to hit your target. Co-orbital ASATs involve actually orbiting a kill vehicle, which can then maneuver to attack a satellite. This is more useful if you want to basically set up an in-space, on-demand ASAT system. In this case you do need orbital velocity, as you are actually orbiting the kill vehicle.

Thanks SOC for clarifying the issue , Great post as usual my vote for it

All you need to hit something throughout the LEO range is a burnout velocity of about 5.5-6 km/sec.

Thats the burn out velocity of US NMD big missile that are fixed in silos , so effectively besides ICBM they can easily take out any LEO satellites i suppose.

USN is working on Arc Light program that will replace or compliment Tomahawk and it can be launched from Mk 41 launchers.

This is a boot glide hypersonic missile with a speed of Mach 12 and has a range of 2000 plus miles.

Is there any SAM under development of Russian Navy that would be capable of dealing with such hypersonic threats and similar program under development ?

Arclight http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/22/boost_glide_arclight/