Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Share

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Mike E on Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:20 am

    I think you accidentally put "slim chance" instead of "no chance".  russia

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 20, 2014 9:38 am

    Notice how I said " It may not work against higher-tech missiles (?), but it sure does against Qassams".

    Qassams are unguided, so anything is higher tech than they are.

    The important point is that there is a huge range of higher tech missiles from Smerch rockets... most of which are not guided but do use a course correction system... think of it as a stabiliser to keep all the rockets closer together rather than actual terminal guidance... and a missile like Iskander that actively manouvers and tries to evade intercepting missiles.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    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] #3

    Post  Viktor on Sun Jul 20, 2014 3:20 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:Great news guys! Almaz-Antey has now started the design stage of Russia's unified aerospace defense network, greatly enhancing aerospace defense forces capability to defend Russian airspace:

    Excellent. That means that Russia has finally defined concepts under which the unified aerospace defense will function and can now get to work to build the damn thing Very Happy
    We as forum members probably wont notice much of it as it will probably refer to the new stationary and mobile command posts with the new algorithms which will unite already existing unified networks of PVO and space defense in the single unified network - aerospace defense forces.

    That will result in much more time for defenders to prepare and organize defenses as they will have information from satellities, EW radar stations, and all that exists.

    magnumcromagnon wrote:.I have some questions for our elder statesman GarryB, with a massive modern and sophisticated aerospace network in place and integrated with all domestic SAMS, is it possible that Russian SAMS would be capable of having significantly enhanced range and performance in domestic aerospace? For example we have the S-400 with 400km range, and the S-500 with 600km range...assuming the range is not downplayed, is it possible within this aerospace defense network within domestic Russian aerospace, that the S-400 can have an enhanced range of 600km, and the S-500 could have an enhanced range of 800km? For my understanding the range of missiles (for those very SAMS) most limiting factor is not the propellant or the rocket motor, but how powerful the radar is, and that there's a limit due to maintaining mobility on how powerful a radar complex could be (massive quantities of power would be needed to power it, needing larger and heavier power plants). Also isn't it true that S-400's 400km range is the maximum range of having a 95% interception probability after firing 2 missiles, but could the S-400 theoretically intercept targets at significantly greater ranges but at the cost of significantly lower interception percentage (for a theoretical example 95% at 400km, 85% at 600km, 75% at 800km)?


    You are right on all points but we simply dont have any info about it so we can not analyse anything and I will try to explain further your ideas point by point. Thing is that in circles of PVO theory, academies, institutes etc functions of kill probability for each different missile in regard to type of target, range and other factors exists. Thats is certainly the most important thing there is and because of it, it should come as no surprise that hundereds of thousands of highly educated specialists work in Almaz-Antey providing calculations which at its end present a curve a function a starting conditions for PVO theorists to work with. It should also come as no surprise that ordinary people and general public are not familiar with it and never will be for the obvious reasons. Its a state secret and such data for export versions of such complexes are provided only to buyers - other states perhaps.

    Now about the range. We had an argument back than about the difference of data presented about 9M96 missile. Its "operational range" was at first given as 120km with notice that that is only for export version meaning domestic one will have even bigger range. Than later on during the last MAKS we saw that its "area of defeat" for aerodynamic targets mearly 60km and all the confusion broke loose Very Happy while at the same time exactly nothing changed. Only difference is that one and the same thing is defined in two different ways. "Operational range" and are "defeat area" for aerodynamic targets. So what does it mean? Im not really sure as no info is given to general public but following some logic and info I have I would argue that 9M96 missile is capable of hiting targets at 120km range as well but with less probability than on ranges defined as "defeat area" for aredynamic targets.
    Same thing can be defined for ballistic targets, aeroballistic targets, cruise missiles, drones etc in reference to range and many other things. Look following examples:

    1."Operational range" of Aster 30 is given as 120km but its "defeat area" is 60km for aerodynamic targets meaning just as same as in 9M96 case. That means that Aster 30 of  
       the SAMP-T complex for instance
      can shoot at targets flying at even greater range than those defined by its "defeat area" and may even shoot them down but will do it with less probability than inside "defeat area" and  command posts when calculating firing solutions take economy of the shootings in the consideration as well. You dont want to find yourself in a situation where you have fired half of your missiles and shoot nothing or much less than you would normally do if you had followed the procedure.

    2. "Operational range" of HQ-9 is 125km which is similar to Aster-30 and 9M96M2 missile but its "area of defeat" is 50km for aerodynamic targets a slightly less than in Aster-
       30 and 9M96M case which means that China engineers is not up to the level of Europeans and Russians but the point is similar as in first case.

    See the striking pattern. Function of kill probability exists for every range, target, missile, system etc its just that we dont know it and probably never will.


    On the other hand your second point is also correct. The point of missile potential in regard to radar technology and electronics. Its a well known fact that for instance range of the
    9M82/9M83 missiles where limitied by radar technology and electronic of the time. "Simple" modernization of radar and electronics led its range being increased 3.5 TIMES!!!!
    to the horror of all western analysts and now 350km in range makes the S-300V4 a missile system with the longest range in the entire Russian arsenal. As I was informed all the algorithms where copy-pasted and are therefore as same as they where back than. Also advancement in radar and electronics technology made it possible to reduce and expel two of its previous radar sets making the system cheaper altogether and its operations simplified and cheaper but its combat efficiency much higher.

    So given those two of your ideas but taking in the consideration complete lack of any kind of information what can we conclude about 40N6? That its range potential, its killing zone can be increased once 92N6 sets are further modernized or that its kill probability after 400km long mach is extremely high only for those targets that can not maneuvere i.e. high probability of kill for highly maneuvere targets is less than 400km. Who knows but you are right on track with your thoughts  Very Happy 



    Vann7 wrote:And you could guess ,after some long Range ,the radar of any system of defense no matter how good
    it is ,will not see anything that is flying under the radar Horizon . In the picture the radio tower signals will not reach the House ,because is under their horizon

    Missiles with such range that greatly overlaps radar horizont are not meant to fight targets flying under the radar horizont as they cant obviously Very Happy
    40N6 of the S-400 missile system is meant, designed, incorporated in S-400 with an idea to keep the ELINT/AWACS/TANKER/ECM planes out of the battlefield which will in that case severely degrade the combat ability for attacking force making it easier for orther missiles and systems to shoot them down. Targets flying under the radar horizont will be detected by
    satellites, EW radar systems, AWACS and MiG-31 interceptors and other fighters of the VKO will be sent to deal with those kind of threat. That is why every capable air defense is consisted of three major elements.

    - radar systems
    - SAM systems
    - aviation component

    and all three components must function in order for whole system to function. If you take even one (no matter what) element out of that equation and the whole system is severely degraded.


    Vann7 wrote: So 400km is more than enoughc

    So its not enough. Its huuuuge improvement and terrified threat in mind of all western analyst but the more is better.


    Vann7 wrote:Trying to detect a military plane of an enemy beyond 500km will be next to impossible if the planes are flying
    at ~100-500 meters altitude to cover from the radar waves using the earth curvature as cover.   system like S-500
    with 600 km range in practice will be more need for high altitude bombers or against ICBM or to shut down satelites. for the reason of them being very expensive missiles , could cost US $10 -$20 millions each missile. the Brahmos missile cost near $3 million for example.

    Threats flying under the radar horizont will be dealth in ways described above. S-500 is meant to fight future threats. S-500 is meant to fight all kinds of ballistic targets including ICBMs but also hypersonic cruise missiles flying at 30-100km altitude at Mach 20-30 and satellites in LEO besides ELINT/AWACS/TANKER/ECM like targets inside earths atmosphere.
    Togeather with S-400/S-300V4/S-300Favorit/S-350/BUK-M3/Pancir-SM/Pancir-S1/Tor-M2U/Morfei/Verba/Pine etc are meant to fight off all kind of existing and future threats. Each of them is designed with an idea on mind, idea of concept of operations inside the huge structure that makes the Russian AD design so formidable and all of them altogether with all their "accesories" are designed to work as a one unified body - almost living Very Happy as its capable to work in full automation mode given the level of automation elements of artifitial intelligence inside. All of them together and by its pieces has its strictly defined purpose within whole concept of operations.



    Vann7 wrote:And for enemy planes do not have missiles with longer than 200km usually. Norway is working in a cruise anti ship missile with 300km range. in the case of Low flying tomahawks they can be intercepted with regulan Gatlin guns pantsirs like defenses. Crimea for example have like 200km range from coast to coast. So is a long long distance a missile with more than 400km.  You could achieve your extra range by just using mobile radars that comes in navy warships or from helicopters illuminating the target and to expose any enemy plane flying low. or in the case of territory by deploying a network of S-400 Sam defense every 300km distance or a network of small range defense Systems like Buks ,Pantsir or Tors

    Thats not how it goes. You dont place SAM systems based on their range but in regard to forces representing a threat your enemy can muster in some specific zone we are talking about.
    Number and type of airfield, planes, missiles, distance etc etc all and all of your allies as well as geographical location and bla bla are taken in the consideration and calculated based on which decision about the type and number of radar sets, SAMs etc is made.





    Vann7 wrote:If Russia get S-500s , any enemy combat plane trying to attack ussia will seek to fly below the radar ,making pointless the extra range over the S-400s. So S-500s with 600km range  in real practice will rarely could be used against Air Space defenses and instead will be used for Space Defenses. against ICBMs.. or HIgh Altitude Bombers like SR-72 that US defense industry already said is working or scram jets flying in space. In my opinion What Russia needs to expand its air defense is have navy with S-400s defenses. Since each warship will share information and cover a different zone.


    You dont need to worry about combat application of S-400 and S-500 as there are hundered of thousands of people with infinite times more knowledge than you and me worring about that very same thing Very Happy

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:15 am

    Only difference is that one and the same thing is defined in two different ways. "Operational range" and are "defeat area" for aerodynamic targets.

    Operational range and defeat area for a specific type of target would be the same if they meant the same thing.

    They therefore clearly don't.

    I would suggest operational range is the range at which they can kill an aerodynamic target, while defeat area is likely no escape zone.

    In other words operational range is max range where the target has to be closing and of low manouver performance or unaware it is being targeted. No escape zone is where the motor burns out and it starts coasting... so at 60km it is powered and has plenty of energy to turn and burn with the target meaning it would have to do something extraordinary to escape.

    Regarding nuclear propulsion on a SAM to be used over your own territory... do I have to say anything at all?  What a Face 


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    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] #3

    Post  Viktor on Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:19 pm

    Construction of Almaz-Antey factories - progress

    Construction of the North-West Regional Center of Concern PVO "Almaz - Antey"


    new capabilities in few years time

    Russian troops ASD can recognize a new generation of space objects

    "In the next 4 years Troops aerospace defense deployed on the territory of the Russian network of laser-optical and radio systems of recognition of a new generation of space objects", - he said.


    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] #3

    Post  Viktor on Sun Jul 27, 2014 2:16 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Only difference is that one and the same thing is defined in two different ways. "Operational range" and are "defeat area" for aerodynamic targets.

    Operational range and defeat area for a specific type of target would be the same if they meant the same thing.

    In this case that same thing is the missile itself. A single missile can be defined in uncomplete way by any given carateristic. In this case if you define 9M96 missile not by name but by

    its "operational range" which is 120km in export variant most of us will know what missile are you talking about. Just as same if we define its "defeat area" of 60km you have basicaly said

    the same thing in different way. That was my point.




    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Mike E on Sun Jul 27, 2014 6:21 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Notice how I said " It may not work against higher-tech missiles (?), but it sure does against Qassams".

    Qassams are unguided, so anything is higher tech than they are.

    The important point is that there is a huge range of higher tech missiles from Smerch rockets... most of which are not guided but do use a course correction system... think of it as a stabiliser to keep all the rockets closer together rather than actual terminal guidance... and a missile like Iskander that actively manouvers and tries to evade intercepting missiles.

    That is what I've been saying.... Sorry it took me so long to reply, I went on a "tech-free" vacation.

    I sincerely believe that Iron Dome stands almost no chance against Iskander (like missiles).

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  TR1 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 6:22 pm

    And Pantsir-S1 stands no chance against Iskander either..so what?

    Apples and oranges.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:51 am

    And Patriot was ineffective against Scuds... all for the very same reason.. Iron Dome is not designed to defeat THBM or Theatre ballistic Missiles... just like early model Patriots were not designed to engage THBMs.

    S-300 could but it was part of the design parameters.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    RTN
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 185
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield , CT

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  RTN on Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:09 pm

    Mike E wrote:I sincerely believe that Iron Dome stands almost no chance against Iskander (like missiles).

    Iron Dome can only intercept Un-Guided rockets and maybe Artillery shells to some extent .

    It is not designed to be used against guided rockets .

    For that matter the Iron Dome cannot even intercept a Mortar because of the latter's very Flat trajectory .

    TR1 wrote:And Pantsir-S1 stands no chance against Iskander either

    Of course it does . A combination of two 57E6 or 57E6-E will more than suffice . And in case it misses the dual 2A38M 30 mm autocannon guns can shoot down the Iskander .

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:31 pm

    RTN wrote:

    TR1 wrote:And Pantsir-S1 stands no chance against Iskander either

    Of course it does . A combination of two 57E6 or 57E6-E will more than suffice . And in case it misses the  dual 2A38M 30 mm autocannon guns can shoot down the Iskander .

    I doubt that. Iskander is very fast and very big compared with usual targets which are in parameters of Pantsir-S, but the problem here would be that iskander is mainly as nuclear IRBM used and the problem is with nukes that they are mostly detonated at a specific altitude to unleash the maximum destructive power, that narrows down the time window for Pantsir-S1 to reacto to Iskander, but the biggest problem is still it is pretty fast and unless Iskander is flying straight onto Pantsir-S1 where a trajectory is not really difficult to calculate and it does not waste much time for Pantsir-S1 to determine a fire solution based on its reaction time, then it would be effective, but in any other trajectory i really doubt Pantsir-S1 would be considered Effective against Iskander.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  TR1 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:10 pm

    Good news everyone, we can scrap the S-300V4, since Pantsir can hit targets as tough as the Iskander Very Happy !

    dionis
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 64
    Points : 65
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  dionis on Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:03 am

    GarryB wrote:


    Repeating something does not make it true. If Russia had promised not to use nukes first then I would agree, but they have not made any such promise.

    In a situation where NATO forces are concentrated and attacking Russia why would Russia not use nuclear weapons? It is called defending yourself.


    This would only apply if they are about to get invaded with a massive ground force or have a huge concentration of enemy ships bombing critical infrastructure on Russian soil. Every other scenario the use of nukes is simply overkill and will lead to getting nuked back.. "tactically."


    GarryB wrote:

    They don't rely on them by choice, but by their current situation.

    An improved conventional force will not make tactical nukes obsolete either...


    Relying on them ever if going to be an act of desperation - a situation that NATO or anyone else would not bring Russia too, knowing what would come.


    GarryB wrote:

    Ukraine has never been and will never be a serious threat to Russia that warrants nuclear weapons. NATO forces moving into the Ukraine on the other hand is something completely different. The American coup in Kiev just shows Putin that the US is not interested in cooperation and working together and will always be an enemy. There are other directions to look for allies and friends and trading partners... eventually when Europe grows a spine and cuts the umbillical cord from the US (which seems to operate in the reverse direction to human umbillical cords BTW) they might be able to work out closer ties there too... but certainly not worth it any time soon.

    If NATO aircraft are attacking Russian air defences do you really think the Russians would refuse to attack massed NATO forces on NATO borders with Russia?

    A NATO attack by ground forces on russia is very unlikely too, but in the event do you really think they would wait for those NATO forces to reach Russian territory before they start using nukes?

    Do you think NATO air power would wait till the ground forces got stuck before providing air support and trying to deal with Russian air defences?

    If NATO aircraft are attacking Russian air defences do you really think the Russians would refuse to attack massed NATO forces on NATO borders with Russia?

    If there's NATO forces already massed (by this I mean NATO inc. USA throwing just about every tank, APC, etc.) at the Russian border, then it's obviously green-light for nuclear strike on them. Given this, as mentioned above as well, it's not something NATO will ever entertain.


    GarryB wrote:

    Of course... Russia would much rather be invaded by NATO for its resources than defend itself and its territory. My question would be... why would NATO think a ground invasion would work any better now than it did 60-70 years ago... the Soviet Army was in a terrible state then too, but if Stalin had tactical and strategic nukes do you really think he would not use them?


    Well obviously NATO can't "invade" Russia for its resources - given that this, for the third time mentioned here, will actually be a situation where nukes are fair game.

    The whole point I'm making here it pretty straightforward.. all realistic engagements will be done near Russian borders, but not on Russian soil or even directly next to it for fear of nuclear escalation.

    That does not mean that NATO or China will not push their luck in areas such as the oceans surrounding Russia, where there could be valuable resources.

    A potential fight over the control of Arctic or Pacific waters for something like oil reserves is quite possible. Going nuclear over this will lead to no winners, and might provoke further conflict. Dealing with a situation like this will require calculated use of conventional warfare to control territory.




    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:09 am

    dionis wrote:

    That does not mean that NATO or China will not push their luck in areas such as the oceans surrounding Russia, where there could be valuable resources.

    A potential fight over the control of Arctic or Pacific waters for something like oil reserves is quite possible. Going nuclear over this will lead to no winners, and might provoke further conflict. Dealing with a situation like this will require calculated use of conventional warfare to control territory.




    The whole "China invading Siberia" gambit is black-propaganda being peddled by the Pentagon not by the Russian leadership, nor the Chinese leadership...a divide and conquer strategy:

    http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/International_security_affairs/china/09-F-0759theGreatSiberianWarOf2030.pdf

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:11 am

    For that matter the Iron Dome cannot even intercept a Mortar because of the latter's very Flat trajectory .

    A mortar has a low muzzle velocity, relatively heavy projectile, and a steep firing angle leading to a very very curved trajectory.

    Of course it does . A combination of two 57E6 or 57E6-E will more than suffice . And in case it misses the dual 2A38M 30 mm autocannon guns can shoot down the Iskander .

    Pantsir-S1 was never designed to hit Theatre Ballistic Missiles of any type and considering the fairly steep trajectory... nearly vertical, and the very high speed I would suspect interception is unlikely. Cannon would be fairly ineffective unless the Pantsir-S1 vehicle itself was the target in which the guns would just become more and more effective.

    This would only apply if they are about to get invaded with a massive ground force or have a huge concentration of enemy ships bombing critical infrastructure on Russian soil. Every other scenario the use of nukes is simply overkill and will lead to getting nuked back.. "tactically."

    The Russians aren't morons... there would be two types of invaders.... NATO and China, with nukes, and rabble from Afghanistan or other small separate countries without nukes.

    An attack by a country armed with nukes leads to the threat that at any time they could use their nukes to take out your nukes... so obviously you use then while you have them because to use them later might not be an option.

    An attack by a country without nukes would likely not require nukes as conventional responses should suffice.

    Relying on them ever if going to be an act of desperation - a situation that NATO or anyone else would not bring Russia too, knowing what would come.

    When the only tool you have is a hammer then you must treat every problem like it is a nail.

    NATO wont provoke the Russians to use nukes because they know they don't really have a conventional alternative and without a choice would use nukes in their defence.

    Given this, as mentioned above as well, it's not something NATO will ever entertain.

    So you do get it... By not saying they wont use nukes first they likely wont need to, while at the same time reduce the pressure on the country regarding conventional defence.

    That does not mean that NATO or China will not push their luck in areas such as the oceans surrounding Russia, where there could be valuable resources.

    Except as Russia grows in conventional military power the issue there is that if a western country tries to look for oil in Russian waters they might find a few destroyers and Russian oil rigs in their waters even if there is no oil there... with the offer... we will take down ours if you take down yours.

    A potential fight over the control of Arctic or Pacific waters for something like oil reserves is quite possible. Going nuclear over this will lead to no winners, and might provoke further conflict. Dealing with a situation like this will require calculated use of conventional warfare to control territory.

    Territorial areas are being negotiated, there would be little point in trying to use force.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    RTN
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 185
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield , CT

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  RTN on Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:26 pm

    TR1 wrote:Good news everyone, we can scrap the S-300V4, since Pantsir can hit targets as tough as the Iskander Very Happy !

    And while you are at it please also scrap S-400 and S-500 since they cannot intercept Topol M .

    The Pantsir-S1 was designed to neutralize everything from fighters and guided bombs to cruise missiles . The Pantsir-S1 may not be able to intercept an ICBM but the Iskander is a quasi ballistic missile so there is no reason why such a missile cannot be intercepted by the Pantsir's  57E6 missile or the dual 2A38M 30 mm autocannon guns .

    http://rt.com/news/prime-time/russian-pantsir-s1-best-air-defence-money-can-buy/

    GarryB wrote:Cannon would be fairly ineffective unless the Pantsir-S1 vehicle itself was the target in which the guns would just become more and more effective.

    What ??? Then why is the Pantsir used to defend MBTs against cruise missiles ?

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Mike E on Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:27 pm

    RTN wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Good news everyone, we can scrap the S-300V4, since Pantsir can hit targets as tough as the Iskander Very Happy !

    And while you are at it please also scrap S-400 and S-500 since they cannot intercept Topol M .

    The Pantsir-S1 was designed to neutralize everything from fighters and guided bombs to cruise missiles . The Pantsir-S1 may not be able to intercept an ICBM but the Iskander is a quasi ballistic missile so there is no reason why such a missile cannot be intercepted by the Pantsir's  57E6 missile or the dual 2A38M 30 mm autocannon guns .

    http://rt.com/news/prime-time/russian-pantsir-s1-best-air-defence-money-can-buy/

    GarryB wrote:Cannon would be fairly ineffective unless the Pantsir-S1 vehicle itself was the target in which the guns would just become more and more effective.

    What ??? Then why is the Pantsir used to defend MBTs against cruise missiles ?

    Keep in mind that most cruise missiles are subsonic, and that the Iskander missile travels at over Mach 6... I'd give the interception rate at under 5%, and that would be on a GREAT day (The Iskander would have to be aiming for the Pantsir or within a couple hundred meters for the Pantsir to even stand a small chance.) There is a reason the Russian forces don't use Pantsir for ABM operations...

    Cruise missiles on the other hand, are like sitting ducks to a Pantsir... There ballistic path (or lack thereof) makes them extremely easy to shot down compared to an Iskander-like-missile.

    Russia has A-135 and (in the near future) the A-235 for missiles that are like the Topol-M (Which don't even exist, the U.S. is still using the Minuteman series for crying out loud!) The S-400 isn't built to shoot down ICBM's... S-500 could, but we will have to wait and see.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:35 pm

    The interception chance is zero.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Mike E on Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:50 pm

    TR1 wrote:The interception chance is zero.
    That is why I said "on a great day".

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:08 pm

    Even on the greatest day of KBP Tula's life, those tiny missiles won't do squat to an Iskander.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:30 pm

    Pantsir is a great system but it has it's limitations and wouldn't be able to stop Iskander-M, considering it's size, it's speed, it's hard-g maneuvers, it's decoys and counter measures...I mean Iskander could just as easily fly around and outside a Pantsir's target engagement envelope without even using any decoys/countermeasures or any maneuvers, and to top it all off the size of the Iskander-M's warhead would require Pantsir to fire all it's missiles to effectively destroy it's warhead, which would be terribly inefficient.

    dionis
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 64
    Points : 65
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  dionis on Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:09 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:

    The whole "China invading Siberia" gambit is black-propaganda being peddled by the Pentagon not by the Russian leadership, nor the Chinese leadership...a divide and conquer strategy:

    http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/International_security_affairs/china/09-F-0759theGreatSiberianWarOf2030.pdf

    Well yeah - as I said to Garry, a land invasion won't happen regardless since it's be carte blanche for the only situation when tactical nukes (or even strategic) will be used right from the start.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:48 pm

    What ??? Then why is the Pantsir used to defend MBTs against cruise missiles ?

    Pantsir would never protect MBTs from cruise missiles.

    It would certainly be used to defend large SAMs from low flying subsonic cruise missiles... and even supersonic cruise missiles, but an Iskander will be coming down at enormous speeds in a near vertical flight path that the Pantsir radar system will only be able to detect and track the target in the last few seconds of flight. Supplied by data from other sources giving it warning and assuming the impact point is not 20km away... more like 3-5km away then there is a chance it might be able to intercept the target... interception is merely putting the missile in front of the target as the target arrives... but against a deployed cluster warhead it would be useless and against a high air burst nuke it would also be useless.

    the fact of the matter is that the SAM the Panstir is defending like an S-350 or S-400 or S-500 would have a rather better chance of intercepting Iskander than Pantsir would.

    The Iskander would have to be aiming for the Pantsir or within a couple hundred meters for the Pantsir to even stand a small chance.)

    Actually it would be better if the Booster rocket had burned out and fallen clear, so from 2.5 to about 5km from the Pantsir would be rather better.

    S-500 could, but we will have to wait and see.

    S-500 would be useful against ICBMs and satellites and these new hypersonic bombers and hypersonic cruise missiles.

    Even on the greatest day of KBP Tula's life, those tiny missiles won't do squat to an Iskander.

    the combination of a decent 30 odd KG warhead and the very high closing speed should be effective in either shattering a cluster payload, or prematurely setting off a conventional payload or damaging a nuke so that at the very least it did not detonate at full yield... if at all.

    As I said above the other SAMs located with the Pantsir would have a much better chance but even Patriots managed to get hits on extended range Scuds... which they were never designed for.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Mike E on Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:05 am

    I think we can all agree that Russia won't be using Pantsir's for ABM purposes any time soon!  Very Happy 

    GarryB, you are correct. S-500 should not only be useful, but invaluable for ABM and ASAT operations. That being said, I've heard that it won't be focusing on typical anti-aircraft roles, much like the SM-3, is this true? If it can cover the hypersonic and high-altitude threats, and the S-400 can stick to doing its job at medium to low altitudes, then Russia will have a "sealed shut" airspace. cheers 

    I hate to change the subject, but I do a question. 

    Does anyone know how the 9M96 family of missiles will perform vs. 48N6-like-missiles? {I know the speed and range differences etc. However, in my head I just "feel" like the 48N6 is a superior missile (When it comes to kill-probability and such.)}

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:07 am

    I think we can all agree that Russia won't be using Pantsir's for ABM purposes any time soon!

    No, but the S-350, S-400, or S-500 fired upon might have Pantsir supporting them.


    That being said, I've heard that it won't be focusing on typical anti-aircraft roles, much like the SM-3, is this true?

    Unlike SM-3 S-500 will be fully land mobile and there will be a naval model likely fitted to vessels of Destroyer Size and up.

    The land based systems will likely be based at strategic targets including cities, major airfields, ports, etc etc.

    When operating they will be tied in to the IADS, but when operating on its own away from S-400 or S-350 systems it will no doubt have to deal with all sorts of threats itself.

    If it can cover the hypersonic and high-altitude threats, and the S-400 can stick to doing its job at medium to low altitudes, then Russia will have a "sealed shut" airspace.

    Indeed... with the Air Force and the VKKO Aerospace Defence Forces buying them too there should be quite a few around the place.

    In fact put them on an Antonov and fly them where you want...

    Does anyone know how the 9M96 family of missiles will perform vs. 48N6-like-missiles? {I know the speed and range differences etc. However, in my head I just "feel" like the 48N6 is a superior missile (When it comes to kill-probability and such.)}

    The larger missiles will be much faster and of course also longer ranged and with a rather heavier warhead, however the smaller missiles will be rather more compact and rather cheaper and carry warheads powerful enough for the targets they are designed for... and likely more effective as they will manouver closer to their targets before detonation.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:22 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:22 pm