Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


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

    Share

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3055
    Points : 3153
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

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

    Post  medo on Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:39 am

    Russian air defense have AESA acquisition radars Nebo-SVU, Gamma-DE and in development Nebo-M. They could work together with S-300/400.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

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

    Post  nightcrawler on Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:29 pm

    The parallel importance and dependency between the transmitting mechanism (antenna) and the data processing capability (computer) cannot be understated. Currently, the technology bias is in favor of the computer, meaning there is -- and has been for decades -- an excess of data processing capability for every design, be it for air traffic control or airborne detection. The initial perception is that for airborne platform, resource limitations, from internal space to electrical, are the reasons why there is a great capability discrepancy between the AWACS class and the 'fighter' class. That said...In reality and in details, and the devil lives in details, the 'single-beam' limitation in the classical antenna, be it concave dish or planar array, is the primary determinant on how much data processing capability is installed into the entire design. If the need is great even the small F-16 has enough internal space to house a more capable computer and its electrical system is more than sufficient to power that computer.

    The single-beam feature is a known structural limitation that rendered most 'multi-functions' radars sequential in those functions. Some designers even gone as far as categorizing them as 'pseudo' multi-functions systems. The more capable systems can alter beam characteristics, such as pulse repetition freq (PRF) or pulse widths, to adapt to new environments and to improve target resolutions. But the radar computer must still adapt in sequence in both beam characteristics and in the data processing that came from those diverse beam characteristics. Then the system must prioritize between functions and this mean making compromises between functions. For example, an air defense radar may have to ignore 'friendly' identifications in favor of the immediate high altitude threats but then leaves itself vulnerable to low altitude 'pop-up' inbound threats. The result is that an air defense radar system must have multiple transmitters at different freqs and all data processing must be centralized, creating an unwielding, clumsy, and not very mobile system.

    An 'active electronic scanning array' (AESA) system is in principle the same as that multi-beams and multi-freqs air defense radar system. The array partitioning software create multiple beams and for the first time in these decades, there is a balance, or at least a near balance, between transmitting mechanism (antenna) and data processing (computer). It is now that the aircraft resource limitations argument is valid. However, because the main issue is still data processing, an ineptly designed and built AESA system, particularly its softwares, can be outclassed and defeated by a superior designed and built traditional single-beam system.

    Enter 'God'...

    Session 3B.1 Ubiquitous radar: an implementation concept


    A 'single-beam' system can only 'look' in the direction of its antenna. With an AESA system, the theoretical beam quantity it can produce is of its total transmit-receive (TR) modules quantity installed, meaning if the array has 1000 TR modules, there can be 1000 beams. Realistically, because of other factors like interference between TR neighbors, beam widening over distance, and many others, the total effective beams that can be produced are far less than theoretical. Nevertheless, the accummulated engineering and operational skills from the traditional single-beam systems so far have been transferred to the current generation of AESA systems.

    Active Electronically Scanned Array - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Ground stations or AWACS type radar platforms do not have the same physical limitations as the smaller fighter-type aircrafts. Advances in computing power moved the 'ubiquitous radar' out of the conceptual stage and into the financial stage. This level of observance and awareness, or 'omnipotence' in a manner of speaking, is possible only with an ESA system.

    Session 3B.1 Ubiquitous radar: an implementation concept

    To date, the greatest threats to US 'stealth' class aircrafts are bi-static radars and this 'track-before-detect' feature made possible with an ESA system. Bi-static radars are proven concepts and systems but they are structurally demanding, requirements are multiple stations that should remain stationary for long periods of time, thereby making them vulnerable to attacks, and precise synchronization between stations down to the pico-seconds level, in order to be effective. This requirement renders most militaries out of the race in 'stealth' detection, ground or airborne. This leaves the 'track-before-detect' feature.

    SkylondaWorks Scrapbook Coherent vs. Non-Coherent Integration


    Just about %99.999 of single-beam radar systems deployed, ground or airborne, are 'detect-before-track' systems. This means a body's radar reflectivity must rise above a certain signal strength -- clutter rejection threshold -- before the radar system will associate a data set identifier and assign a priority level to this body. This is a declaration that a target warrant focus of attention.

    Track-before-detect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    What 'track-before-detect' does is invert the conventional radar operations wisdom in that the clutter rejection threshold is lowered to either zero or near zero, then all objects that produces spatial-temporal dislocations, fancy words for movements, will be monitored without declarations until any of those dislocations crossed a threshold. Variations of track-before-detect schemes have been installed with some traditional single-beam radar systems but operational effectiveness remains limited precisely because of the single-beam versus search volume relationship. Other issues are that the lowered clutter rejection threshold produced false positives. Software based compensators alleviated some but not eliminated these false positives. The antenna's mechanical sweeping or rotating movements produces time delays in tracking these spatial-temporal dislocations. Because of these issues, track-before-detect detection schemes proved useful in meteorological observations where there is no need to focus on any individual body like a rain drop, other than the main body of the meteorological phenomenon under observation, and not widely deployed in military applications. Because track-before-detect is data processing related, other companion software based compensation methods were also created to deal with the limitations of the traditional single-beam radar system, such as order statistic constant false alarm rate processing (OS-CFAR)...

    Performance analysis of order-statistic CFAR detectors in time diversity systems for partially correlated chi-square targets and multiple target situations


    The list of these software based compensators is considerable and a testament to the creative genius of working radar engineers but the flexibility of an AESA system is driving them towards these newer ESA-based radar designs. It is only because of manufacturing difficulties and therefore costs that the AESA type is not widely deployed.

    Bottom line is this...Against US 'stealth' class bodies, the traditional single-beam mechanically motivated radar system known today will have statistically insignificant odds at effective detection, let alone track, of those 'stealth' aircrafts. A 'non-stealth' fighter equipped with an AESA radar system, assuming all the commensurate softwares are also installed, will have a grossly unfair advantage over its adversary in detection range and target resolutions. An AESA system is not magic, but with the right software engineering talents to support the hardware, to a defeated adversary it might as well be magic.

    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 Nov 01, 2010 4:24 am

    Well just because S-400 has 400 km range does not mean any aircraft cant go beyond that bubble , there are tactics ,low level flight ,DRFM jamming, stealth aircraft to get close and that just applies to any SAM out there.

    S-400 and S-300 are mobile forces. You can set up one S-400 system with radars going and also set up other S-x00 systems around that with their radars on listen mode ready to receive target data and share data on emitting targets. 400km away from an emitting S-400 base you could be flying over a radar silent S-300 base.

    I was also thinking in terms of jammers, which to be effective against such powerful radars would need to be based in large aircraft, which would be in serious danger at less than 400km distance from an S-400 battery.

    There are also all sorts of jammers and decoys that come with S-400 batteries that can be used to emit the same signals as the main radars to attract attention so the threat launch platform is kept interested while the battery lofts a few shots at it.

    No doubt they would try hard to not get beaten by HARM , its a game of tactics , innovation ,motivation and capability on both sides.

    Not to mention technology. A TOR battery or Pantsir battery is not going to be co-located with an S-x00 battery for fun.

    Low Side Lobes makes HARM job that much harder but not impossible , HARM like KH-31P too have wide band sensors to attack a range of target , have pre-set target data stored in them about target information obtained from even a low scan exposure , so even if the target radar shuts off due to attack , its position is already noted in HARM/RWR memory and they travel at that preset location to attack.

    You are confusing two things here. The wide band seekers on ARMs let them attack a wider array of radars from artillery spotting radars to aircraft and ground based radars. The older model Kh-25 based missiles had separate homing heads for the ARM mission, with one seeker head optimised for the continuous wave radar of the Nike-Hercules and the HAWK, and another seeker option for the Patriot type radars. The seekers were interchangeable but obviously not in flight. The new broadband seekers fitted to the new Kh-25, Kh-31, and Kh-38 missiles mean that they can engage all sorts of radars on the ground and sea and air if some sources are to be believed.
    Sidelobes are like with a torch where you have a bulb and around the inside of where the torch bulb is it is shiny and shaped to focus the light into a strong narrow beam. In the dark however you see two lots of light coming from the torch... a concentrated beam in the centre but around that the area is lit directly from the light coming off the bulb.
    The concentrated beam is the pencil beam to track the target or scan for targets while the dimmer wide cone of weaker light is the sidelobes.
    The difference is that in a radar the emitting element is covered up so it doesn't shine out like a light bulb does because that will effect the results by adding noise.
    Most of the sidelobe energy in a radar goes out sideways.

    Most ARMs climb after launch so they don't impact trees or buildings near the target or on the way to the target and dive at the target radar at a shallow angle of 30 degrees or so.

    Such a target would be an ideal target for the SAMs co-located with the S-x00 site... it is what they are there for.

    I have also read of israel HARM system that just loiters over an area for long time and in case SAM lits up it glides to the target and attack it

    That would be the British ALARM... a very impressive missile that can be used in many modes including being fired into a danger area where it climbs to altitude and then deploys a parachute so it can stay in the air for a long period protecting the launch aircraft.

    Obviously it has the same problem HARM has... that it can be decoyed by alternative emitters and it can of course be shot down.

    Of course nothing is perfect.

    It was attacked in self defence in friendly airspace and direct painting made the HARM job easier , like I said low side lobes makes the job harder for HARM , AESA has lower sidelobe then PESA.

    I would say direct painting made it possible not easier.
    With an array of emitters I don't see how AESA can have lower sidelobes than a PESA with one emitter.


    AESA can manage their energy much better and smarter then a PESA.

    I don't see how that is possible... the emitter is what is using the energy, so having 1,000,000 emitters in an AESA compared to 1 transmit receive modules in a PESA should mean the AESA uses more power... it is just basic physics.

    AESAs are notorious for generating a lot of heat, now the primary function of the modules is not to generate heat... heat is just a byproduct. If it generates more heat then it must generate more powerful signals and if it does that then it must also use more power.

    An AESA SAM battery with LPI will just mange its energy well and with a lowest side lobe will make a smart HARM attack that more difficult

    A HARM attack is already dealt with as a threat by the colocation of TOR or PANTSIR. Both can engage HARM like targets and their missiles are very simple and very cheap. The sensors and electronics on the vehicles are expensive but the missiles are dirt cheap because they contain no sensors... which means you can use them in enormous numbers without breaking the bank.

    Even a single scan is good for modern ESM to know it was scanned and know the bearing , modern ESM has 100 % probability of intercept capability , unless its an LPI , milisec scan that would be difficult but not impossible.

    The first model Kh-58 (AS-11) used similar location technology to determine the location of the target site before launch so that even if it turned off it would still detonate its 150kg HE payload somewhere near the vulnerable radar antenna. Even with its 200km range from a Mig-25 launch it would still not be a huge threat to an S-x00 battery...

    Like I said S-300 and 400 will be a difficult customer and its also about tactics , training , motivation and innovation by field SAM operators.

    At least the ALARM is trying something sort of new... the HARM is old school for old threats.

    During Kosovo NATO was given a bloody nose by Serbia SAM operators even though they operated 70's SAM but had better tactics , training , motivation and were innovative , inspite of airspace filled with modern HARM , jammers,fighters and UAV they could stay alive and fight till the end

    NATO fired hundreds of HARMs to little effect. The ALARMs were more effective because they were relatively unknown by the operators. Neither would be new to an S-x00 battery.

    Yeah, that's why I'm asking, ABM-135 Galoshs with Nuclear warheads aren't exactly comparable

    The S-500 will have similar performance to ABM-135 but with a hit to kill warhead.
    I am surprised the US was dumb enough to start a weapon race with ABM systems because the US has a huge lead in satellite resources and ABM systems would make ideal anti satellite weapons that will undermine their dominance in space.

    Still I guess the ABM drive is motivated by politics rather than common sense. The irony is that MAD or mutually assured destruction actually worked whether you trusted the other guy or not. It seems they want to undermine MAD so you are going to have to learn to trust or you are going to create a situation where no one is safe... what a nightmare!

    The enemy's capabilities and frequencies used for each radar or missile site were then recorded and documented revealing the enemy's battle plan.

    What we do is provoke the Soviets into transmitting their air defense radars. The longer we record their transmissions, the better we understand Soviet tactics and technology.

    Except that the Soviets knew you did that and operated at different frequencies and tactics during peacetime than they would use in war.

    The upgrade enabled the SR-71 to ignore the rest of the spectrum. Then the information was analyzed and correlated against what the larger -135 recorded. The result was that we had the SA-5's entire radar operation, from acquisition (volume search), to individual target track, and finally to fire control.

    Yet they still refused to fly into Soviet air space?

    SIGINT is not confined to airborne methods...
    Have no doubt we can replicate the S-300's radar signals to %99.999 fidelity and apply it against any aircraft we want...

    So they know everything about the S-300 yet Israel still objects to Russia selling S-300 to Iran?
    Then it claims it will develop countermeasures and spread those countermeasures around to render the S-300 ineffective... if Russia sells to Iran... or Syria.

    The reality is that the measure/countermeasure game is ongoing and it really depends when they are used as to how effective they turn out to be. Everything is being updated all the time and most of the updates are intended to close gaps in the armour so to speak.

    For instance an SR-71 might have captured all the radar information about the SA-5 but had it tried to penetrate an SA-5 screen in the Soviet Union it might have found the Soviet model had a back up IR guidance especially for hot high flying targets like the SR-71... or that the placement of the SA-5 batteries was especially designed to make them fly closer to Mig-31 bases that carry R-40TD... the largest AAM in the world but with a modern IR seeker and a long range at high speed that can deal with high fast targets head on.

    However, because the main issue is still data processing, an ineptly designed and built AESA system, particularly its softwares, can be outclassed and defeated by a superior designed and built traditional single-beam system.

    Hurray!!! the point I am making.

    The Russians have lots of experience with the cheaper PESA radar technology. AESA might have a lot of promise but until the elements needed for it (the transmit/receive modules) are in mass production to make them both smaller and cheaper then it makes no sense making a half a$$ed early model AESA radar for something as important as your standard air defence SAM system that you are going to rely on for the next 20-30 years.

    By 2020 it will likely have all AESA radars as will Vityaz and Morfei and all the other new front line SAM systems in Russian service.

    Against US 'stealth' class bodies, the traditional single-beam mechanically motivated radar system known today will have statistically insignificant odds at effective detection, let alone track, of those 'stealth' aircrafts.

    Most current Russian ground based AESA radars are long wave radars.
    These are easier to make because their antenna modules are larger and easier to make than smaller higher frequency AESAs, but they also operate in frequency ranges that are more useful for detecting targets that use shaping to deflect rather than reflect radar waves. (ie stealth targets).

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:56 am

    So, really not sure why you were discussing the Moscow ABM system when I was asking about ASAT weaponry, but anywho, on the subject of ABM systems, we Americans really leaped into such a venture after it was clear that there were nations out there with ballistic missiles who wouldn't mind undermining MAD. In my opinion, until Lockheed Martin complete development of their Multiple Kill Vehicles, Russia has nothing to worry about in regards to U.S. ABM systems. In fact, I doubt Russia actually minds developments of ABM technologies (just ask the Commissar that decided to send S-400's to their border with Korea).

    Another quarrel I have to pick with is even if Israel has advantageous information regarding the S-300s in Iran, that does not mean they still won't object to Russia selling it to them. It would be quite obvious Garry that Israel would probably rather just not have to deal with S-300s at all, so that's why they're contacting Russia about it. Besides, if Israel does get around attacking Iran, maybe their version of Suter will pop up again and just make the S-300s shoot at birds.

    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 Tue Nov 02, 2010 3:54 am

    So, really not sure why you were discussing the Moscow ABM system when I was asking about ASAT weaponry,

    Because an ABM missile is designed to hit targets flying at near orbital speed well outside the Earths atmosphere.
    An ASAT weapon is a missile designed to hit targets flying at orbital speed well outside the Earths atmosphere.

    The ASATs job is easier because a satellite is a much larger and more fragile target. It is often harder because the satellite operates at higher altitudes than a BM.

    In my opinion, until Lockheed Martin complete development of their Multiple Kill Vehicles, Russia has nothing to worry about in regards to U.S. ABM systems.

    And the fact that they are developing such a thing... why shouldn't the Russians be worried?

    I am sure it will kill any future agreement on reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles... in fact I think the Russians will likely want to increase warhead numbers because I think when the US has further developed their ABM missiles that China will want to increase its nuclear retaliation capability.

    In fact, I doubt Russia actually minds developments of ABM technologies (just ask the Commissar that decided to send S-400's to their border with Korea).

    I am sure the military will be very happy when it introduces S-500s into service and that they will not stop at just defending Moscow... most of the 4 new military regions will get ABM protection probably for any major cities and where ever the command structures are based.

    All these extra missiles however wont make anyone safer... not to mention they will cost a small fortune.

    Another quarrel I have to pick with is even if Israel has advantageous information regarding the S-300s in Iran, that does not mean they still won't object to Russia selling it to them.

    But if they can defeat them already... as they claim, then surely they are no threat to Israel... unless Israel has plans to send aircraft into Iranian airspace.

    It is like a Burglar complaining that someone is buying new locks for his doors and saying... you needn't bother because I will learn to pick them too.

    Besides, if Israel does get around attacking Iran, maybe their version of Suter will pop up again and just make the S-300s shoot at birds.

    The Iranians are not idiots... I rather doubt what worked against the primitive network in Syria would work in Iran.
    Syria didn't even have any decent SAMs at the time anyway.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:32 pm

    Because an ABM missile is designed to hit targets flying at near orbital speed well outside the Earths atmosphere.
    An ASAT weapon is a missile designed to hit targets flying at orbital speed well outside the Earths atmosphere.

    The ASATs job is easier because a satellite is a much larger and more fragile target. It is often harder because the satellite operates at higher altitudes than a BM.

    Oh sure, but again, a Nuclear Warhead that can kill anything within a kilometer at space is not comparable to the SM-3, which is a hit to kill weapon and won't have the same fall out effects.


    And the fact that they are developing such a thing... why shouldn't the Russians be worried?

    I am sure it will kill any future agreement on reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles... in fact I think the Russians will likely want to increase warhead numbers because I think when the US has further developed their ABM missiles that China will want to increase its nuclear retaliation capability.

    Oh, so you'd much rather leave us defenseless against those who would attack us? No, if Russia wants to be secure, we do too. Russia can upgrade all their S-500s to S-1000s, but for all I care is what we upgrade ours to because we won't use our Nukes and I'm sure as hell Putin won't use his, even with the most advance ABM systems imaginable, nobody except a crazed mastermind would really run the risk of glowing green.


    I am sure the military will be very happy when it introduces S-500s into service and that they will not stop at just defending Moscow... most of the 4 new military regions will get ABM protection probably for any major cities and where ever the command structures are based.

    All these extra missiles however wont make anyone safer... not to mention they will cost a small fortune.

    MAD is the only thing you keep pulling up on. Problem is, Obama nor Putin will try to nuke each other. Not to even mention anyone in China/India/Pakistan. ABMs only make us safer from the likes of Iran or North Korea, Russia agrees with me on this as I said before, and I'd much rather waste our money on ABMs then Nukes, and again, Russia concurs.

    But if they can defeat them already... as they claim, then surely they are no threat to Israel... unless Israel has plans to send aircraft into Iranian airspace.

    It is like a Burglar complaining that someone is buying new locks for his doors and saying... you needn't bother because I will learn to pick them too.

    What are you? Trapped in a time vortex? Israel does have plans to attack Iran, otherwise they wouldn't be spouting their crap on the media. That being said, I'd complain too if that lock wasn't a lock but was a gun because Iran doesn't have locks they have guns and that's what's scaring those IAF pilots.

    The Iranians are not idiots... I rather doubt what worked against the primitive network in Syria would work in Iran.
    Syria didn't even have any decent SAMs at the time anyway.

    Neither are the Israelis. Suter can only evolve, and that first strike on Syria showed how effective Suter can be. Despite Pantsyrs lurking around, those F-16s passed through like a hot knife through butter. Russia could only comfort the injured souls.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3055
    Points : 3153
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

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

    Post  medo on Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:16 pm

    Today modern Russian SAMs use PESA radars like S-300/400, Buk-M2, Tor-M2, Pantsir-S1. AESA will be on Vityaz and S-500. But those systems will not work alone. They will work integrated in whole air defense system. Russian air defense have all components as opponent air force. They have passive ELINT systems Kolchuga, Orion, Valeria,..., jammers like SPN-2,3,4,30,..., various decoys and Gazetchik chaff and flare system for defense against HARMs. Air defense also have network of visual observation posts equipped with day and night equipment (be it II or TI). In that IADS S-300/400 could get enough small cell for target from outside sources, that it doesn't need to turn on its radars, but just launch missiles with ARH to this cell, where it find target with its own radar. Other systems could also work passively on targets delivered from outside sources.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh32xqKd2dM&feature=related

    On those two videos is clearly seen, that even stealth F-22 is very clearly seen optically and on FLIR. If F-22 use radar or data link, than it is seen on quite big distance with ELINT equipment. It is also seen for visual observation posts and to meter wave lenght radars like Nebo-SVU. Stealth planes doesn't represent that big danger for competent air defense.

    Talking about how Israel planes jamm modern Russian air defense systems in Syria in 2007 attack is BS. What modern SAM systems Syria have in that time? Igla MANPAD. Does it have radar? No, so they could not jamm it. Other SAM systems and radars are technology from fifties, sixties and seventies (SAM-8 Osa). Nothing modern and all already known. Pantsir in that time was not even in production jet, so Syria didn't have them. On the other hand attack occur in peace time. How many SAMs have in peace time missiles on launchers and crews inside systems ready to fire? If there is an intruder in air space in peace time, will you sent fighter to intercept intruder or launch a SAM on it? What if this was civil plane and Syria launch SAM on it and shot down a passenger plane?

    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 Dec 13, 2010 12:32 am

    Oh sure, but again, a Nuclear Warhead that can kill anything within a kilometer at space is not comparable to the SM-3, which is a hit to kill weapon and won't have the same fall out effects.

    First of all nuclear weapons are terribly indiscriminate weapons, but their effect in the vacuum of space is severely limited to intense heat. Blast waves don't propagate in a vacuum.
    The existing radiation in space from our sun and cosmic rays make fallout a non issue.

    Oh, so you'd much rather leave us defenseless against those who would attack us?

    13 carrier groups, thousands of aircraft including stealth fighters and stealth bombers, hundreds of missiles with nuclear warheads and a trillion dollars a year "defence" budget... how do you manage you poor defenceless waif? Twisted Evil

    MAD works because anyone that attacks you knows the retaliation will be enough to end their existence. That is how MAD has worked and continues to work.

    No, if Russia wants to be secure, we do too.

    You think big expensive ABM systems make you safe?
    Just because your politicians tell you they will work and make you safe doesn't mean it is true. They only say that because their campaign funds largely come from the big companies that will get the mouth watering contracts to build these white elephants.
    They are top secret so they can use that to hide multi billion dollar fuckups, and 6 hour power lunches all paid for by the US taxpayer. It will all be top secret not because they don't want the information to leak to the Ruskies or the chinese... they don't want the US taxpayers to know otherwise they might ask themselves why do we need this crap anyway?

    Russia can upgrade all their S-500s to S-1000s, but for all I care is what we upgrade ours to because we won't use our Nukes and I'm sure as hell Putin won't use his, even with the most advance ABM systems imaginable, nobody except a crazed mastermind would really run the risk of glowing green.

    Impressed by your confidence. Probably why you think MAD is a bad idea. Problem is that it wasn't that long ago that a US administration was looking at a nuclear weapon for the purpose of bunker busting. Nah, merica wont use nukes... Again.

    They will invade two countries and kill hundreds of thousands of people... hey why not use nukes... it would be cheaper. You might have even had less blood on your hands.

    ABMs only make us safer from the likes of Iran or North Korea, Russia agrees with me on this as I said before, and I'd much rather waste our money on ABMs then Nukes, and again, Russia concurs.

    Wrong. Russia doesn't want to pi$$ its money away on an integrated ABM system that is something the US wants.

    The new Start treaty includes provisions that if an ABM system is set up in Europe that Russia can make changes to its force structure to match including the redeployment of missiles and warhead numbers increases. Doesn't sound like they are choosing ABM over nukes at all.

    That being said, I'd complain too if that lock wasn't a lock but was a gun because Iran doesn't have locks they have guns and that's what's scaring those IAF pilots.

    I love the arrogance... I am supposed to care about the fears of an Israeli Defence Force pilot operating in Iranian airspace illegally on presumably a mission to kill some Iranians. Fuckem.

    Neither are the Israelis. Suter can only evolve, and that first strike on Syria showed how effective Suter can be. Despite Pantsyrs lurking around, those F-16s passed through like a hot knife through butter.

    What are you dribbling about? The Pantsirs were not even delivered when the attack took place.

    Russia could only comfort the injured souls.

    Actually Russia can fill order books from the neighbours of Israel who don't want similar visits.




    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

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

    Post  nightcrawler on Sat Jan 08, 2011 7:43 am

    Will S-500 system be good against Minotaur IV?

    Russian military experts gathered for a round table discussion organized by RIA Novosti news agency. The experts came to conclusion that one of the major tasks for the future missile defense system would be the struggle against hypersonic weapons of potential enemies.

    Igor Korotchenko, an official with the Russian Defense Ministry, said during the conference that NATO countries, particularly the USA, had been developing a new generation of hypersonic strike weapons and hypersonic missile weapons (Prompt Global Strike).

    It will be highly complicated to intercept the new missiles with the use of contemporary anti-missile systems. The flight-in time of the new weapon in comparison with air-based cruise missiles is reduced to mere minutes, which makes it impossible for the attacked side to take defense measures.

    The Americans say that the hypersonic arms will be built to destroy terrorists, first and foremost. However, according to the documents of NATO's AGARD group, the hypersonic missiles will be developed to strike enemy's reinforced objects, ABM and AD systems, to obtain supremacy in the air, to effectively intercept ballistic missiles and destroy hypersonic assault weapons.

    The appearance of such weapons in the United States will minimize the advantages of Russia's missile and nuclear shield. Military experts said during the discussion that Russia would not be able to defend its missile complexes - the basis of the national nuclear containment forces - in case of such an attack.

    The threat of the appearance of hypersonic weapons in the Armed Forces of the United States requires adequate measures from Russia, which will include the development of space defense system and the fifth generation air defense system, experts believe.

    The USA already has development prototypes of such weapons. It particularly goes about the ARRMD program - Affordable Rapid Response Missile Demonstrator - by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). The program stipulates the development of hypersonic guided air-to-ground and ship-to-shore long range missiles.

    In May 2010, the United States tested two pilot items of the hypersonic cruise missile. Minotaur IV was one of them. According to experts' estimates, the missile is capable of striking targets in any part of the globe within just one hour.

    The USA is also testing Х-51А Waverider hypersonic missile. The takeoff mass of this missile makes up 1.1 tons. The weight of the warhead is 110 kilos; its range is 1,200 kilometers. The flight speed of the missile is over 2,400 meters per second. The missile is to enter service in the US Army after 2015.

    On May 13th, the next day after the USA tested Minotaur IV, former commander of the Russian Air Force Anatoly Korkunov and former head of procurement Anatoly Sitnov stated that the Russian air and space defense forces were incapable of guaranteeing security to the country.

    What can Russia oppose to the new challenge from the United States?

    Alexander Mordovin, an expert at the council for external and defense politics stated that the creation of new missiles would pose a serious problem for Russia.

    "Conventional cruise missiles could be destroyed by fighter jets, but in this case it would be very problematic. Fourth and fifth-generation fighter jets can fly at low altitudes not faster than 1,300 km/h. The hypersonic weapons will be made to fly at low altitudes, which makes it very hard to destroy them in the air. Russia wrapped up its space defense program during Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's times, including the combat lasers project. However, those lasers would be very helpful in fighting Minotaur-type missiles.

    One can hope for the development of the new S-500 complex. For the time being, one may say that Russia will remain vulnerable to possible attacks with the use of hypersonic weapons for a long time in the future," the expert said.

    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 Jan 09, 2011 2:32 am

    One can hope for the development of the new S-500 complex. For the time being, one may say that Russia will remain vulnerable to possible attacks with the use of hypersonic weapons for a long time in the future," the expert said.

    Unusual statement...

    Russia will remain? vulnerable to Possible with the use of hypersonic weapons for a long time in the future.

    The amusing thing is that most of their large SAMs are currently the most widely deployed non strategic hypersonic weapons currently in service.

    Another amusing point is that most new weapons deployed are usually developed to defeat an opponents defences so to suggest Russia of today is vulnerable to US weapons of 2015 should not really fill us with dread and foreboding.
    Sounds like Pantsir-S2 and TOR-M4 will need to be pretty good.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

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

    Post  Russian Patriot on Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:04 pm

    More great news:

    Russia's second S-400 missile unit enters service

    RIA Novosti

    18:07 16/02/2011 KAPUSTIN YAR, February 16 (RIA Novosti) - The strategic command of Russia's space defense forces took delivery of its second unit of S-400 Triumf missile systems on Wednesday, which will be based in the Moscow Region, Defense Ministry spokesman Col. Vladimir Drik said.

    Until now, the Russian forces have had only one unit of S-400s, based at Electrostal, near Moscow.

    "The handover ceremony for the second S-400 will take place at the state firing range in Kapustin Yar from February 16-19," Drik said.

    The unit will consist of two regiments, each consisting of eight launch points, each with four missiles.

    The S-400 has a maximum range of up to 400 km at an altitude of 40,000-50,000 meters. The system uses a range of missiles, optimized for engaging ballistic and cruise missiles and hypersonic vehicles, Drik said.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2011/russia-110216-rianovosti03.htm

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3055
    Points : 3153
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

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

    Post  medo on Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:24 pm

    The unit will consist of two regiments, each consisting of eight launch points, each with four missiles.
    [quote]

    Earlier it was said that division (battalion) have 8 launchers, CP and complete of radars, now it is regiment. I know polk is between batalion and brigade, like 2 polks is 1 brigade. Is regiment the same in size as battalion? It was said, that in 2010 russian army will receive 5 divisions (battalions) of S-400. Different names make a confusion here.

    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 Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:10 pm

    [quote="medo"]
    The unit will consist of two regiments, each consisting of eight launch points, each with four missiles.


    Earlier it was said that division (battalion) have 8 launchers, CP and complete of radars, now it is regiment. I know polk is between batalion and brigade, like 2 polks is 1 brigade. Is regiment the same in size as battalion? It was said, that in 2010 russian army will receive 5 divisions (battalions) of S-400. Different names make a confusion here.

    Two batteries form one regiment in recent Russia S-400 deliveries. One battery consists of 8 lounchers.

    Every regiment has its own 91N6 EW radar and 55K6 mobile command post and every battery has its own 92E6 shooting radar and 96L6

    radar mounted on tower elevator for low lvl targets.

    Now what I find frustrating is that there has being no talk about 40N6 missile that supposed to finished its testings by the

    2010 and that there has being no word about 9M96 missile family.

    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 Feb 18, 2011 12:55 am

    This is the S-400/-500 news thread so this fits here:

    Russia to start building new S-500 air defence missiles by 2014

    Russia will start serial production of its next-generation S-500
    missile system in 2014, an aerospace defense chief said on Thursday.
    The S-500 air defense system will be able to track and destroy ballistic missiles with ranges of up to 3,500 kilometers.
    "[The S-500] is currently in development. By 2014, it should enter
    into serial production," aerospace defense strategic commander Lt. Gen.
    Valery Ivanov said.
    "This system will be able to defend territories at heights of up to 50 kilometers," he added.
    Russia's aerospace defense troops currently use S-300 and S-400 systems.
    New S-400 air defense missiles will be deployed at Dmitrov just outside Moscow in March, Ivanov said.

    KAPUSTIN YAR, February 17 (RIA Novosti)

    50km heights is not that special really... at one time they were talking about a mobile Moscow ABM system performance missile.

    Actually the 3,500km range BM engagement capability seemed familiar so I looked it up and they claim the same 4.8km/s speed of the incoming target as for the S-400.

    Perhaps they are confusing the two systems?

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:47 am

    IIRC, S-400 only does 40 km altitude as of now.

    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 Feb 18, 2011 2:26 am

    Well that is the figure for the previously released info about the system.

    The S-400 has a maximum range of up to 400 km at an altitude of
    40,000-50,000 meters. The system uses a range of missiles, optimized for
    engaging ballistic and cruise missiles and hypersonic vehicles, Drik
    said.

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110216/162635663.html

    The missile with the 400km range might be capable of engaging targets at 40-50km altitude as its flight path should take it through that region of airspace.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:18 am

    Well considering the fact that the 400 km range missile for the S-400 hasn't even been deployed yet, it wouldn't be too far fetched to say that the S-500 would be armed with those missiles, at least for initial production.

    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 Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:47 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:IIRC, S-400 only does 40 km altitude as of now.

    I think that matters only for S-400 meant for export.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:44 am

    Viktor wrote:
    IronsightSniper wrote:IIRC, S-400 only does 40 km altitude as of now.

    I think that matters only for S-400 meant for export.

    They're already exporting them?

    dunno

    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 Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:30 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:
    Viktor wrote:
    IronsightSniper wrote:IIRC, S-400 only does 40 km altitude as of now.

    I think that matters only for S-400 meant for export.

    They're already exporting them?

    dunno

    Well you have S-400 competing for Turkish tender with Patriot and Arrow system so I think all available data about S-400 system

    publicly are about export variant only. About Russian version has being speculated much higher properties.

    I dont know how does it fit with S-500 system but versions of S-400 should have up to 185km attitude range according to one of

    chief engineer (Interwiev with him was published in arms-tass.su few years ago).

    Lately news indicate that 185+km attitude range missile will be integrated with S-500 system but S-400 got 70-80 km attitude

    range missiles. Thats the way I understand all those confusing news about S-400 in recent years. ( Russian version only)

    Export one will of course come in downgraded and its attitude range will be 40-50km witch is still by 10-20 km higher than

    best S-300 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 Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:11 am

    The problem I see is that each system is compatible with the other so an S-400 system equipped with S-300 level missiles will be limited by the performance of those missiles.

    Equally if they brought out the new S-400 missile with a range of 400km this would mean that flies a lofted trajectory which could be of say 50-60km. It doesn't mean all the S-400 missiles can reach 400km targets, AFAIK the standard missiles can reach 240km targets.

    It is the same with the S-500... the first missiles might have a range of 400km but as they are intended for ABM use it is not horizontal range that is important here, it is target speed and to a much lesser extent altitude of interception.

    The ability to shoot down ICBM like targets is one thing. Being an endoatmospheric (inside the atmosphere) exoatmospheric (outside the atmosphere) interceptor is something else.

    Considering the altitude limitations I would suspect the S-400 and S-500 models they are talking about are endoatmospheric, which would be a logical result of the S-500 being based on the S-400 design.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:39 am

    Wasn't there a thread somewhere here discussing Russia's future 5 tier Air Defense system?

    If I recall, one of those tiers included Space.

    I assumed then they were referring to a S-500 Surface-to-Space interceptor?

    But these recent developments may mean that a S-500 with mod 2 or 3 missiles would be the case.



    Unless of course this Space defense system is entirely something else.

    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 Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:46 am

    Good point, I think I remember reading about the forming of a new branch of the Russian military that combined the former PVO which had its own planes designed for it like the Su-9, Su-11, Su-15, and Tu-128 Fiddler and of course the Mig-25 and Mig-31, as well as SAMs like the SA-1, SA-2, SA-3, etc etc through to S-300 and S-400, with the Strategic Rocket forces branch that deals with early warning and monitoring space debris and looking for incoming enemy threats.

    It was all very confusing as they didn't have an air force as such, they had Frontal Aviation (FA) whose focus was strike and CAS type missions plus air control over the Russian Army, Long Range Aviation(DA) which was strategic bombers plus tanker aircraft, Military Transport Aviaion (MTA) which was all the transport aircraft, Air defence Forces (PVO) which were interceptors and SAM networks and Radar installations that basically managed Soviet/Russian Airspace, and the fifth component of the Soviet Air Force was Naval Aviation which included Su-24 and Su-17 strike aircraft and Tu-22M3 heavy strike aircraft.

    I remember in the 1990s they combined the PVO with "the air force", and Army Aviation which I believe included Hinds and Su-25s came under AF control too.

    I guess this means that the PVO and its assets are now going to be combined with the strategic early warning component of the Strategic missile forces as an air and space control.

    I was under the impression that the S-500 would have similar performance to the Moscow ABM system and numbers given were something like 200km altitude and 600km range... which would make it endoatmospheric and exoatmospheric.
    ... a very potent system if it is mobile.

    Perhaps because they decided to base the S-500 on the S-400 we may have to wait for the S-600 before we get a missile that can intercept targets outside the atmosphere.

    Regarding target speed... the S-400 is already credited with a target intercept speed of 4.8km/s so I would expect better for S-500. According to Wiki an ICBM speed is between 6-7km/s so to be an effective ABM system it would need to be able to intercept targets travelling at 7km/s.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:27 am

    GarryB wrote:"This system will be able to defend territories at heights of up to 50 kilometers," he added.

    Actually Ivan did not put a number to the altitude , he or some senior defence official just mentioned near space , the reporter thought that near space is 50 Km and in russian version of news they added near space with a bracket 50 km and the english version just removed the bracked and added 50 Km ,its rian and some journalistic figure, expect that figure hence forth to be faithfully printed by all magazine Laughing

    Let get the fact right

    S-500 range and all figures have not been officially put up , I tried to ask S-500 at AeroIndia in Antey-Almaz stall they simply denied it exist Smile

    S-500 is a mobile ABM system which can defeat target travelling at 7 km per sec , its a new missile and new system from scratch has nothing to do with S-400. Actual performance figures are unknown.

    S-400/Triumf is an anti-IRBM system which can defeat target travelling at 4.5 m/sec or missile corresponding to range of 3,500 km , range is 250 Km and height is 40 Km

    There is a Trumftor-M project with the new long range 40N6 missile with a range of 400 Km and a height of 165Km , but the actual figure of 40N6 performance is not officially reveled , they were under state testing till late last year is what is known.

    Here is what i collected from Almaz-Antey stall at aeroindia




    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 Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:59 am

    Thanks for the clarification Austin... unfortunately we hear lots of different things from different places, and what you have said in the above post conforms to what I was thinking/hoping.

    Various snippets are reported that skew this information like it was said that S-500 is a brand new from scratch weapon (note a smart impact warhead that is a fraction of the 150kgs of the S-400 makes a much smaller missile possible... especially if you design it from scratch and make it a two stage weapon which makes things much easier)... and then there was a report that to speed things up it was now going to be based on the S-400 and based with S-400 units... which I thought made a bit of sense in that it would mean better radars for the S-400/S-500 units and it would offer integrate protection for the S-400 from ballistic missiles of very long range while at the same time offering cruise missile and aircraft protection for the S-500 too. (note not all S-400 batteries need S-500 but all S-500 would need some sort of additional protection like S-400 and Pantsir...).

    All in all I prefer S-500 developed from scratch but able to operate with S-400 rather than based on S-400 and being like just another new missile for it that can reach higher and further.

    Note at the bottom of the poster there are the four missiles of the Club series... the first two from left to right is the round nosed subsonic all the way 300km range cruise missile and then the pointed nose 280km subsonic most of the way and mach 3 for the last 20-30km anti ship missile, and the remaining two weapons are ship and sub launched supersonic ballistic rockets with ranges of 40-50km that deliver torpedoes very quickly to a threat area a bit like SUBROC and ASROC.
    The surface ship launched torpedo equipped missile and the two cruise missiles can be fitted to the USUK vertical launch systems for new Russian ships... in addition to Kh-102 and Kh-101 cruise missiles and the Brahmos, Yakhont, Oniks missiles.

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:40 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:40 pm