Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


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

    Share

    rambo54
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 107
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2014-04-01

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

    Post  rambo54 on Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:15 am

    mack8 wrote:S-500 official model? From Djoker:
    http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2801467&postcount=44


    Well that goes along with the graph which its all over the net since nearly two years


    Obviously S-500 is a derivate of the S-300V System (more Antey than Almaz :-) )

    I have learned that the other graph published in a Almaz calender a couple of month ago is obviously the ASAT System Nudol

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2533
    Points : 2666
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:34 pm

    The S-500 will not have just a two tube configuration. It will have the four tube configuration as well for anti-aircraft task. The two
    tubes must be for the ABM variant. Seems like the missile will be a downsized (but not reduced performance) A-135. An updated A-135
    could easily have half the mass of the original (as indicated by the payload to weight ratio for recent Russian ICBMs which imply a doubling
    of solid rocket fuel performance). This would fit in these launch tubes.

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

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

    Post  Singular_trafo on Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:46 pm

    kvs wrote:The S-500 will not have just a two tube configuration. It will have the four tube configuration as well for anti-aircraft task. The two
    tubes must be for the ABM variant. Seems like the missile will be a downsized (but not reduced performance) A-135. An updated A-135
    could easily have half the mass of the original (as indicated by the payload to weight ratio for recent Russian ICBMs which imply a doubling
    of solid rocket fuel performance). This would fit in these launch tubes.

    by the drawings ttha canister of the dual tube s-500 not longer than 10.4 meter, by wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/53T6 the interceptor of the A-35 is 12 meters, so no chance to see the same speed liht the 53T6 with the reocket hiding in that canister.

    Maybe they cut back the speed of the interceptor to 2-2,5 km/sec, and compensating it with higher nuclear yield and/or with higher computer capacity.

    rambo54
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 107
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2014-04-01

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

    Post  rambo54 on Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:52 am

    51T6 (of A-135) is about 19m !
    I don't think that they will fit in this canister - even in a downsized version. Moreover 51T6 could be the basis for the long range variant of A-235.
    My guess is that S-500 is very similiar to 9M82/9M83 which was always the more capable system than 48N6

    Project Canada
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 531
    Points : 540
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

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

    Post  Project Canada on Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:05 am


    I hope they will use Russian made Transporter erector launcher for both S-500 and Nudol

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

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

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:23 am

    Project Canada wrote:
    I hope they will use Russian made Transporter erector launcher for both S-500 and Nudol

    Me too, I hope they do not bother with appeasing Lukashenko.

    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 Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:35 pm

    sepheronx wrote:
    Project Canada wrote:
    I hope they will use Russian made Transporter erector launcher for both S-500 and Nudol

    Me too, I hope they do not bother with appeasing Lukashenko.

    Kamaz Platform-O:













    http://twower.livejournal.com/1802827.html

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:31 pm

    Are there only three ways to intercept an incoming missile ?

    : head on, T-bone, or Y-bone.

    1. Head-on headaches are: MIRV, manoeuvrable targets, relative velocity between KV and target are sum velocities of two.

    2. T-bone headache is somewhat less: relative velocity are orthogonal to each other hence less, but still high.

    3. Y-bone is the best of all three: relative velocity is minimized. If interception occurs right after booster burnout, the target might still be in one piece and not manoeuvring.

    rambo54
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 107
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2014-04-01

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

    Post  rambo54 on Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:39 pm

    short question: is it really confirmed that there is a S-400 deployment in the St.Petersburg area?
    Thanks

    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 Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:02 pm

    Singular_trafo wrote:
    Viktor wrote:That leaves 12 regimental S-400 to be delivered up to 2021 or 12 systems in 4 years. Thats why deliveries to buyers around the globe will commence in 2018.

    It would be interesting to see the next contract for some S-400M still we are long way off.

    What is the composition of the regiments ?

    The wiki is not so clear about it.
    The S-400 should has more than one radar type , and more than one launcher type.

    Any info about the comosition of these?

    At first all delivered S-400 regiment consisted of two S-400 batteries. Last year S-400 regiment consisted of 3 S-400 batteries (8 S-400 batteries per regiment is max)

    Each battery has up to 12 TEL + shooting radar (92N6) (at first delivered S-400 batteries had 4 TEL per battery and now 8 as is the most usual number found).



    also you have different streinghtening of the batteries according to estimated threats

    Regiment has also regimental search radar (91N6)+ command post 55K6




    But also S-400 regimental command post can be used to guide different command post of radar trops of ECM/ECCM and as of lately even aviation component. (still several

    order of magnitude less than for instance brigade level command post like Baikal-1M)

    Brigade level S-400 integrates radar command post as well as ECM/ECCM command post which also consists of air component command posts and looks something like this.

    (2 S-400 regiments per S-400 brigade is max)





    And thats all from operational level. From the higher organizational level you have Area defense (few brigades) and Zone defense (few Area defense).

    And put all togeather it looks something like this Very Happy



    while the radar troops integrated within AD command post of (in S-400 case in already regimental level from S-300 brigade level) for instance Fundament-1/2/3 command post with

    ECM/ECCM command posts AKUP-1/APUR-1



    while the radar troops on its own can have quite complex composition too



    while retaining the automatic mode of re-desing of the AD structure in case some of its parts are destroyed.

    and in case you are interested I can send you (or anyone else for that matter ) "Air Defense Weapons and Electronics Systems of Russia" by Almaz-Antey (2011) where you will find

    plentiful of information about the systems you have not even heard of Very Happy


    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2533
    Points : 2666
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:55 pm

    rambo54 wrote:51T6 (of A-135) is about 19m !
    I don't think that they will fit in this canister - even in a downsized version. Moreover 51T6 could be the basis for the long range variant of A-235.
    My guess is that S-500 is very similiar to 9M82/9M83 which was always the more capable system than 48N6

    Why do you "critics" assume that the dimensions of a 50% lighter A-135 update would be the same as the old one?
    That is not any sort of logical inference but some sort of knee jerk nonsense. The volume and dimensions of the
    new variant do not have to even conform to the 50% fuel weight scaling. The new solid rocket fuel does not have to
    have the same density as the old one and likely does not. Given the performance gain the new fuel is likely higher
    density.

    The A-235 is an update that is meant for silos. It has higher performance but is still a large missile. The "obsolete"
    A-135 could be updated for mobile deployment.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:59 am

    How to counter Smart Decoys like MALD-J, which create a bomber-like signature to confuse radar systems ?

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

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

    Post  Zivo on Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:53 am

    max steel wrote:How to counter Smart Decoys like MALD-J, which create a bomber-like signature to confuse radar systems ?

    Part of the reason S-350 exists is to counter saturation. But we need to remember that a decoy is just a decoy, while the USAF can launch a handful of decoys, the S-300/400/500 can also be protected by decoys, and a ground-based decoy is always going to be cheaper and easier to deploy en masse than air-based decoys.

    ROFAR/Photonics will pretty much make systems like MALD, and conventional "stealth" designs obsolete anyways. KRET is aiming to introduce their new optical radars over the next two years.

    rambo54
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 107
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2014-04-01

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

    Post  rambo54 on Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:43 am

    kvs wrote:
    rambo54 wrote:51T6 (of A-135) is about 19m !
    I don't think that they will fit in this canister - even in a downsized version. Moreover 51T6 could be the basis for the long range variant of A-235.
    My guess is that S-500 is very similiar to 9M82/9M83 which was always the more capable system than 48N6

    Why do you "critics" assume that the dimensions of a 50% lighter A-135 update would be the same as the old one?
    That is not any sort of logical inference but some sort of knee jerk nonsense.    The volume and dimensions of the
    new variant do not have to even conform to the 50% fuel weight scaling.   The new solid rocket fuel does not have to
    have the same density as the old one and likely does not.  Given the performance gain the new fuel is likely higher
    density.  

    The A-235 is an update that is meant for silos.  It has higher performance but is still a large missile.    The "obsolete"
    A-135 could be updated for mobile deployment.

    ok let's talk about nonsense:

    A-235: since more than a decade there is twaddling about a new long range interceptor on basis of the 51T6. Up to now there is no evidence that this missile have been ever tested (Sary Shagan site 52 is closed since 2002).
    There is no evidence that the two long range silo sites around Moscow are reactivated or currently under reconstruction some 11 years after their shoot down.
    A-135: Apart from the modernization of 53T6 and DON-2N there is no evidence that there will be a new long range component of that system ( I guess your indication of A-35 was not serious). Although there might be ambitions to do so but as far as I know there is no firm project which would come to a deployment within the next three years. And the disputed drawing from the Almaz Calender seems to be a different project, namely the ASAT Project "Nudol" recently tested at Plesetsk.

    So where is your source/evidence to come up with a speculation that the vehicle in this drawing is housing a new long range ABM?

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

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

    Post  Singular_trafo on Thu Jun 09, 2016 5:57 pm

    max steel wrote:How to counter Smart Decoys like MALD-J, which create a bomber-like signature to confuse radar systems ?

    As I read the description of this decoy it is capable to foul an old type, rotating VHF radar, a phased array radar can't be fulled by this.It is too small for that.

    That can be the reason why they try to use the modified version of it as a mini tomahawk against TELs.

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

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

    Post  Singular_trafo on Thu Jun 09, 2016 6:03 pm

    Viktor wrote:


    Thanks , it is quite nice.: )

    It contain a few interesting information, so there is a special relay truck ,to increase the range of the comm link to 30 km, without that the 92N6E must be within the 15km range of the main radar, with that it can be in 3*30 km range.

    The main radard is decimetric, and what about the targeting radards?
    those are deci or centimetric ones?

    And as I can see the TLE must be within the 120 m of the main radar.




    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:18 pm

    Singular_trafo wrote:
    max steel wrote:How to counter Smart Decoys like MALD-J, which create a bomber-like signature to confuse radar systems ?

    As I read the description of this decoy it is capable to foul an old type, rotating VHF radar, a phased array radar can't be fulled by this.It is too small for that.

    That can be the reason why they try to use the modified version of it as a mini tomahawk against TELs.

    Which modified version ? MALD-J ?

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

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

    Post  Singular_trafo on Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:34 am

    max steel wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:
    max steel wrote:How to counter Smart Decoys like MALD-J, which create a bomber-like signature to confuse radar systems ?

    As I read the description of this decoy it is capable to foul an old type, rotating VHF radar, a phased array radar can't be fulled by this.It is too small for that.

    That can be the reason why they try to use the modified version of it as a mini tomahawk against TELs.

    Which modified version ? MALD-J ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD


    I'm talking about the experiment variants.


    That showing where they wantto go.

    They mention somewhere that the original motivation was the loss of an f-115.

    It is easy to jamm a mechaicaly steered radar.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

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

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:36 am

    Singular_trafo wrote:
    max steel wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:
    max steel wrote:How to counter Smart Decoys like MALD-J, which create a bomber-like signature to confuse radar systems ?

    As I read the description of this decoy it is capable to foul an old type, rotating VHF radar, a phased array radar can't be fulled by this.It is too small for that.

    That can be the reason why they try to use the modified version of it as a mini tomahawk against TELs.

    Which modified version ? MALD-J ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD


    I'm talking about the experiment variants.


    That showing where they wantto go.

    They mention somewhere that the original motivation was the loss of an f-115.

    It is easy to jamm a mechaicaly steered radar.


    I though we already went through this, so ones more, simply put a Jammers effectiveness relies on 3 basic factors: Power, Size, type of jamming/ability, in the case of MALD (experimental and/or otherwise) no matter how good it's Jamming capabilities are it will be crippled by it's small power and form factor, so at long ranges the best you could hope for is it being a decoy, so don't expect AD radars of greater size and power to go blind anytime soon.

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

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

    Post  Singular_trafo on Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:56 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:


    I though we already went through this, so ones more, simply put a Jammers effectiveness relies on 3 basic factors: Power, Size, type of jamming/ability, in the case of MALD (experimental and/or otherwise) no matter how good it's Jamming capabilities are it will be crippled by it's small power and form factor, so at long ranges the best you could hope for is it being a decoy, so don't expect AD radars of greater size and power to go blind anytime soon.

    It is a bit more complicated than that.


    The strenght of electromagnetic field and the distance has quadratic relationship, means if you decrease the distance to the third then you need one magnitude less power to has the same signal strenght.

    So, if you have a cheap (million dollar range) jammer, then you can affor do send it next to the radar,and there the operator either shoot down the cheap drone, or they can't see part of the sky.


    Other side, if a B-2 going into russia then it can carry twnety of these jammers, dispersing them on the way like candy , blinding out the radars.

    The only protection against this kind of jamming (or as matter of face agains any kind of jamming) is if you use multiple radar,overlapping each others.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

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

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:08 pm

    You need real high energy output in order to jam newer radars. Take a look how Russia tried to jam the S-300 radar systems of old. They were supposedly only ones successful in it and they used an Il-76 modified in EW mode. According to Militarov, they managed to jam themselves (aircraft) so it isn't an effective system. Ground systems have easier access to high amounts of energy over flying objects. All in all, having little missiles to jam a radar is rather stupid and expensive system over just simply sustain fire on a position with anti-radiation missiles or other guided munitions.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:10 pm

    Well Russian AD systems are difficult to jam a miniature decoy jammer doing what you mentioned is improbable. But again B-2 has stealth and stealth is all about distance if you track B-2 at 90 km then it's all over for your AD systems. Same is the case with raptors F-22 how far you can detect them that matters. A russian radar can track f-117a at 300 km. I will tell you the name of radar later.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

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

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:27 pm

    Basic X band radar or VHF and UHF?  Because those would see F-117 at significantly longer ranges as they operate in L band as example

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:48 pm

    detection is one thing, locking & targeting is another. This is where low frequency (LF) lacks, they've comparatively very poor resolution and low accuracy than normal (HF) radars. Thus, they're unable to provide sufficient guidance to the missiles - precision targeting can't be done like in X-band. In order to fix their resolution, the LF radar needs to be built as large as possible - i.e. only ground based. Ground based large LF radars are 'better' in detecting stealth aircrafts but their effective range of targeting stealth aircrafts (like F-22/B-2) is still "very low"(if at all), such that they can be easily targeted by F-22/35 by the time the Ground radar station could detect-lock the aircraft.

    The size and high power emissions of these (LF) radars, with limited mobility, makes them much easier to detect and destroy.

    Detecting the stealth aircraft isn't the problem, it's how far you can detect them & then how much time you have to get a successful shot before you're blown up by a ASM
    .



    KBR Vostok E wins the mobility game with an 8 minute deploy and stow time, using a hydraulically folded and elevated antenna. This new VHF radar is also fully digital, solid state, and employs an innovative "Kharchenko" square ring antenna element design. Defeat of US stealth is a primary claim by its designers, who state the ability to track an F-117A at 190 nautical mile range(300 km).

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

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

    Post  Singular_trafo on Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:00 pm

    sepheronx wrote:You need real high energy output in order to jam newer radars. Take a look how Russia tried to jam the S-300 radar systems of old. They were supposedly only ones successful in it and they used an Il-76 modified in EW mode. According to Militarov, they managed to jam themselves (aircraft) so it isn't an effective system. Ground systems have easier access to high amounts of energy over flying objects. All in all, having little missiles to jam a radar is rather stupid and expensive system over just simply sustain fire on a position with anti-radiation missiles or other guided munitions.

    US bought 1500 of these missiles for half billion $, so they has to know what they want to do with them .


    You don't need to disable the radar.All that you want to do it hide part of the sky from it.

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:46 am


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:46 am