Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Share
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-26
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Viktor on Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:17 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:This is the answer we have been needing.  S-300/400 is good at high altitude long range targets, but worthless against low flying cruise missiles or tree hugging aircraft.  

    Well no SAM is great against low flying targets because Earth itself hides it. Thats why you have 20m and 40m mast that carry specialized search radar system and

    as well as shooting radar system along with S-300 batteries and regiments.

    Around fixed sites you have things like this:


     
       
    and MIG-31 with R-33/37 above Very Happy . Still S-300 proved itself to be perfectly capably of shooting low flying ground hugging targets while defending area.

    Even Vityaz with active radar guidance will need to have 40m mast integrated within its batteries and regiments to know where to look, calculate and shoot but
    because of it, it will be able to shoot down cruise missiles more effectively.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:49 am

    Hope you don't mind, I have moved this thread to a more appropriate location.

    Vityaz is an Air Force/Air Defence system first and foremost and in the Morfei/Pantsir-S1/Vityaz/S-400/S-500 structure is likely to be shared with the Air Force and the Navy and the Aerospace Defence Forces.

    The Army will likely go with a slightly different mix that is all on tracked or armoured wheeled vehicles and will likely include but not be limited to Igla-S+Verba (MANPADS)/Morfei+Baikanuk(SOSNA-R)+Pantsir-S1 & TOR-M3 in a tracked Tunguska+TOR form and also perhaps wheeled forms for use with wheeled brigades(Short range)/BUK-M3 (Medium range)/S-300V4 and later models(Long range)/S-500 (ABM).

    Bit of a mess but when used together very capable.

    SOSNA-R is like naval Palma and is the light cheap option for gun/missile defence and will likely replace SA-13/SA-9.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-07

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:33 am

    Vladimir:

    http://www.ausairpower.net/PVO-S/S-300PM-30N6-76N6-Radars-1S.jpg

    There are masts for all sorts of S-300 family radars, from EW to guidance.

    EDIT: What the hell, my response to Vladimir's post turned up earlier than the post . O.o


    Last edited by TR1 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:38 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:37 am

    Viktor wrote:

    Well no SAM is great against low flying targets because Earth itself hides it. Thats why you have 20m and 40m mast that carry specialized search radar system and

    as well as shooting radar system along with S-300 batteries and regiments.

    Around fixed sites you have things like this:
       
    and MIG-31 with R-33/37 above Very Happy . Still S-300 proved itself to be perfectly capably of shooting low flying ground hugging targets while defending area.

    Even Vityaz with active radar guidance will need to have 40m mast integrated within its batteries and regiments to know where to look, calculate and shoot but
    because of it, it will be able to shoot down cruise missiles more effectively.

    Yeah, but acquisition radars do not guide the missile to the target. Engagement radars do that and they are not mounted on a 40m mast.

    S-300 proved itself incapable of shooting tree hugging targets because the engagement radar doesn't have the declination, that is why Panstyr was ordered.


    _________________
    The true value of life knows only the paratrooper. For he is more likely to look death in the eye.  -- Vasily Margelov
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-26
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Viktor on Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:09 am

    TR1 is right. Russians raise everything to the masts from the acquisition to engagement radar.


     
       
    Besides one of the project requirements specially for Almaz S-300 was shooting down cruise missiles besides fighters on all altitudes and I dont see Russian army being unhappy with it.

    Even with the standard Crocodile radar up and running, missile battery will have enough time to prepare to the incoming threat loosing no time in the process.
    Data from any radar that sees the threat will be send to command post from which information/calculations will be passed on the the battery selected to its destruction.

    Than there are A-50 and whole lot a PVO fighters and interceptors that will deal with the threats of low flying objects.

    In the future with the introduction of ZOND-1 AWACS UAV, information about the the low flying missiles or fighters will be transmitted to the nearest command post and nearest SAM from with missiles with active guidance will be fired achieving greater ranges in comparison with todays. But yea, I would agree with you that low flying winged missiles are the most trickiest targets to intercept.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:46 am

    Viktor wrote:TR1 is right. Russians raise everything to the masts from the acquisition to engagement radar.

    That is incorrect, the 30N6 mast pictured there is not for mobile TEL but city defence.  This is what exists...



    _________________
    The true value of life knows only the paratrooper. For he is more likely to look death in the eye.  -- Vasily Margelov
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-07

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:52 am

    Vladimir, this is very much mobile:

    http://www.ausairpower.net/PVO-S/S-300PM-30N6-76N6-Radars-1S.jpg
    http://www.ausairpower.net/PVO-S/5N63-Flap-Lid-A-Aminov-2009-4S.jpg

    These are not city masts, but mobile platforms.


    Last edited by TR1 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:53 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 1938
    Points : 2103
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Cyberspec on Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:53 am

    The engagement of low flying cruise missiles has been proven on *many* exercises. The difference is they can't be engaged at long ranges but much closer (15-30km).
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 583
    Points : 632
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  SOC on Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:05 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    Viktor wrote:TR1 is right. Russians raise everything to the masts from the acquisition to engagement radar.

    That is incorrect, the 30N6 mast pictured there is not for mobile TEL but city defence.  This is what exists...


    The 40V6 mast series is used to enhance low-altitude coverage by lifting the battery-level radar systems above the terrain coverage. The much larger elevating platforms are used primarily for the 64N6 radars. They've also lifted 96L6 radars up on the 40V6MR masts with the Moscow S-400 sites. The mobile 5N63S/30N6 radars are still elevated, just like the 96L6: they remove the radar container from the chassis and sit it atop the mast. The disadvantage is that it takes 60-90 minutes to erect the masts depending on the height used, but it's worth the tradeoff around Moscow as it gets the radars a clear field of view. This whole concept came about as an alternative to taking a bunch of time to clear the forests enough to give the required field of view.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-07

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jul 04, 2013 12:24 am

    SOC wrote:
    Vladimir79 wrote:
    Viktor wrote:TR1 is right. Russians raise everything to the masts from the acquisition to engagement radar.

    That is incorrect, the 30N6 mast pictured there is not for mobile TEL but city defence.  This is what exists...


    The 40V6 mast series is used to enhance low-altitude coverage by lifting the battery-level radar systems above the terrain coverage.  The much larger elevating platforms are used primarily for the 64N6 radars.  They've also lifted 96L6 radars up on the 40V6MR masts with the Moscow S-400 sites.  The mobile 5N63S/30N6 radars are still elevated, just like the 96L6:  they remove the radar container from the chassis and sit it atop the mast.  The disadvantage is that it takes 60-90 minutes to erect the masts depending on the height used, but it's worth the tradeoff around Moscow as it gets the radars a clear field of view.  This whole concept came about as an alternative to taking a bunch of time to clear the forests enough to give the required field of view.

    The Greens strike again.



    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 583
    Points : 632
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  SOC on Thu Jul 04, 2013 12:58 am

    TR1 wrote:
    The Greens strike again.

    Nah, it was about the time and money they'd have to spend clearing everything out. Coming up with the mast system meant that they could avoid all of that, and also get things in place a lot quicker. There was a concern that the roadways were going to be crushed by the heavy as hell 40V6 being towed around, but it ended up not being a problem. I think there might have been some reinforcing work done but it was still a whole lot cheaper and less time consuming than clearing out the trees.
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 1938
    Points : 2103
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Cyberspec on Thu Jul 04, 2013 6:52 am

    Cyberspec wrote:The engagement of low flying cruise missiles has been proven on *many* exercises. The difference is they can't be engaged at long ranges but much closer (15-30km).

    I found the following regarding low altitude targets in some old notes I saved. It's from a test of the S-300PMU-2 before acceptance by the PLA in 2008

    Experiment number 3


    Target type: Low flying target

    Objective: to test effectiveness of system in conditions of strong surface clutter against a low flying target.

    The target was detected at a distance of 14.6 km and hit at a distance of 4.6km (2 missiles were fired)

    Pics and charts included
    Source: http://www.vko.ru/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?tabID=320&ItemID=280&mid=2891&wversion=Staging
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian SAMs against low flying objects

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 04, 2013 7:35 am

    Which means that probably a Pantsir-S1 or TOR operating with the S-300 is probably more effective at hitting low flying targets than the S-300 itself... which is pretty much what Vlad is saying.

    The best solution in my opinion is better low level radar coverage and mast mounted radar are a good step but I think airship and aircraft mounted radar as well as space based radar is a better solution.

    Certainly if the Kuznetsov gets EM cats then a Yak-44 equivalent would certainly be on the cards and such a cheaper and lighter AWACS type along with UAV Zond like aircraft and of course aerostats they have been developing should allow performance to improve greatly... of course along with new Mig-31s and Vityaz and S-400 missiles.

    In the second US invasion of Iraq low flying anti ship missiles fired by Iraq seemed to be very effective in terms of evading Patriot.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    mack8

    Posts : 953
    Points : 1013
    Join date : 2013-08-03

    Just a general question to the more knowledgeable folks here.

    Post  mack8 on Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:01 am

    Just a general question to the more knowledgeable folks here. Where exactly Pantsir fits into the new generation/ upgraded SAM defences for the russian military?

    Correct me if i'm wrong, the envisaged PVO layered defense looks like S-500/S-400/Vityaz/Morfey, with Morfey being apparently a short range missile system (maybe shorter range than Pantsir's missiles ) with near instantaneous reaction times in any direction. Would Morfey replace Pantsir or they will serve together complementary?

    The Army SAM situation is a bit more complicated to me, we have S-300V/V4 then BukM1-2/2 (to be replace by BuK-M3?), then Tor-M1/2 (replaced by/upgraded to Tor-M2U?) then Tunguska and finally MANPADS, is that right ? (i know there are things like Osa/ Strela-10 still around). Is Tunguska slated to be replaced anytime soon for instance by that tracked Pantsir, as it seems PVO SAMs are almost exclusively on wheeled chassis, while the Army's are on tracked chassis for better cross country mobility. Also where is Sosna/ Bagulnik fitting into all this, i'm reading it will replace Strela-10?

    Would this PVO - Army separation continue for the foreseeable future ? For instance it seems to be Buk-M3 and Vityaz might be similar systems in the same class and with probably similar performance.

    Thanks!
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-26
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Viktor on Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:39 am

    mack8 wrote:Correct me if i'm wrong, the envisaged PVO layered defense looks like S-500/S-400/Vityaz/Morfey, with Morfey being apparently a short range missile system (maybe shorter range than Pantsir's missiles ) with near instantaneous reaction times in any direction. Would Morfey replace Pantsir or they will serve together complementary?
    There will be S-500 -> S-400 -> S-300Favorit (modernized S-300PM) - > Vityaz - > Pancir-S1 - > Tunguska -> Osa-AKM -> Strela-10 -> Morfei - > Igla-S/Verba

    They are complemntary air defense systems. Pancir-S1 with 25 km range in domestic version and Morfei with 5 km range.


    mack8 wrote:a short range missile system (maybe shorter range than Pantsir's missiles ) with near instantaneous reaction times in any direction.
    Because of integration with its radar forces all Russian air defense systems are able to react instantaneous.


    mack8 wrote:The Army SAM situation is a bit more complicated to me, we have S-300V/V4 then BukM1-2/2 (to be replace by BuK-M3?), then Tor-M1/2 (replaced by/upgraded to Tor-M2U?) then Tunguska and finally MANPADS, is that right ? (i know there are things like Osa/ Strela-10 still around). Is Tunguska slated to be replaced anytime soon for instance by that tracked Pantsir, as it seems PVO SAMs are almost exclusively on wheeled chassis, while the Army's are on tracked chassis for better cross country mobility. Also where is Sosna/ Bagulnik fitting into all this, i'm reading it will replace Strela-10?
    S-300V4 -> BUK-M3 / BUK-M2 / BUK-M1 - > TOR-M3 / TOR-M2 / TOR-M1U -> Pancir-S1 ->  Tunguska -> Osa-AKM -> Strela-10 -> Morfei - > Igla-S/Verba


    mack8 wrote:then BukM1-2/2 (to be replace by BuK-M3?)
    There is no need to replace BUK-M1 with BUK-M3 as upgrade raises its potential significantly for the money and BUK-M1-2 (with 300 of them in service) suddenly becomes significant

    threat.  BUK-M2 and latter BUK-M3 will supplement BUK-M1-2 up to a point when Russian V-PVO gets enough of them and only than will most modern versions of BUK-M3 start to

    replace the most oldest versions of BUK-M1.


    mack8 wrote:Is Tunguska slated to be replaced anytime soon for instance by that tracked Pantsir, as it seems PVO SAMs are almost exclusively on wheeled chassis, while the Army's are on tracked chassis for better cross country mobility.
    There are many Tunguskas around. Time will pass until Pancir-S1 manages to replace them. They where upgraded during mid 2000.


    mack8 wrote:Would this PVO - Army separation continue for the foreseeable future ?
    Being discussed.


    mack8 wrote: For instance it seems to be Buk-M3 and Vityaz might be similar systems in the same class and with probably similar performance
    V-PVO will NEVER trade unrivaled (in the world) cross crountry mobility of BUK-M1/2/3 with any other system. BUK-M1 can littarly appear anywhere, shoot its missiles and again disappear

    eventually tracked Vityaz might supplement it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:33 am

    Where exactly Pantsir fits into the new generation/ upgraded SAM defences for the russian military?
    Pantsir-S1 is the gun/missile component of the air defence network and will serve that role for all branches of the military, so for defending airfields and S-400 batteries and S-500 batteries and HQs etc etc the Pantsir-S1 will be the system of choice. The Vityaz will have Morfei to protect it and likely wont require Pantsir-S1s.

    Correct me if i'm wrong, the envisaged PVO layered defense looks like S-500/S-400/Vityaz/Morfey, with Morfey being apparently a short range missile system (maybe shorter range than Pantsir's missiles ) with near instantaneous reaction times in any direction. Would Morfey replace Pantsir or they will serve together complementary?
    It will actually be S-500/S-400/S-350/Morfei/Pantsir-S1(domestic model), where the S-500 will defend strategic targets and Pantsir-S1 and S-350/Morfei might operate in support to protect it from air attack. The S-400 will be the standard long range SAM but will also likely have Pantsir and S-350/Morfei units supporting it so it can concentrate on long range targets and leave threats like incoming cruise missiles and JDAMs to the shorter lighter systems. Smaller mobile bases and HQs might rely on S-350 and Morfei alone but also use Pantsir-S1 to support it with its unique ground fire capacity too.

    The Army SAM situation is a bit more complicated to me, we have S-300V/V4 then BukM1-2/2 (to be replace by BuK-M3?), then Tor-M1/2 (replaced by/upgraded to Tor-M2U?) then Tunguska and finally MANPADS, is that right ? (i know there are things like Osa/ Strela-10 still around). Is Tunguska slated to be replaced anytime soon for instance by that tracked Pantsir, as it seems PVO SAMs are almost exclusively on wheeled chassis, while the Army's are on tracked chassis for better cross country mobility. Also where is Sosna/ Bagulnik fitting into all this, i'm reading it will replace Strela-10?
    I would say the Army SAM structure is very similar... S-500 to defend fixed strategic structures, S-300V4 to stop everything else at long range, with BUKM3 for medium range, TOR-M3 for short range CIWS type defence, and Pantsir-S1 at all levels to protect S-300V4 and S-500 batteries and also vehicle units on the ground.

    Sosna/Bagulnik is a cheap simple mobile system that will replace Strela-10 in lighter formations where TOR is too heavy.

    And lastly for the Army SAMs Verba should replace Igla-S as a MANPADs. The question is how will Morfei fit into the Army forces... if it is compatible with the Redut naval SAM system then it can be used as a CIWS missile much like Sea Ram.

    For the Navy it boils down to three known SAM systems really... Redut with S-400, S-350, and Morfei missiles and also probably the S-500, plus the Shtil-1 vertical launch system for the naval Buk-M3, and the naval Pantsir-S1... perhaps the latter will only be used as an upgrade for older ships as a replacement for Kashtan-M.
    The question remains about TOR-M3 or Klintok as the naval system is called... integrated into Redut or Shtil?

    The huge advantage of Klintok and Pantsir-S1 which keeps them in service is the very low cost of the radio command missiles.

    Morfei on the other hand with its sophisticated IIR seeker will begin life as a fairly expensive system till the seekers are in mass production and the price comes down to something more affordable.

    There are many Tunguskas around. Time will pass until Pancir-S1 manages to replace them. They where upgraded during mid 2000.
    Tunguska-M1 entered service in 2004 and is still an extremely capable system... rather more capable than any single foreign system available even today. There is no enormous reason to get them out of service any time soon.

    Would this PVO - Army separation continue for the foreseeable future ? For instance it seems to be Buk-M3 and Vityaz might be similar systems in the same class and with probably similar performance.
    Both systems will be very effective so why replace one with the other?

    They are different enough to offer different capabilities that the different military branches seem to appreciate... in many ways the Vityaz is an offshoot of the S-400 system that is lighter and more mobile and carries more ready to launch missiles though they are shorter range weapons than the larger weapons the S-400 can use.

    It was said, that F-22 and F-35 have smaller RCS than 0,1 m2, so the range will be shorter, but still enough to deliver targets.
    In what state do they have smaller RCS than 0.1m2? They will need lots of hours of support and maintainence to keep them in the air and in a conflict to maintain operational tempos they might not get the attention they need... and lets face it radar is not like radar on computer games these aircraft are not perfect spheres so the radar return will change depending on their orientation to the emitter, but also in a net centric environment all the batteries not using radar that are just listening could also be used to plot locations... not to mention long wave systems all round the place...

    Jamming and electronic noise will also effect range, but then in a real conflict with Russia how long will those jamming sources survive?


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  medo on Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:07 pm

    Just a general question to the more knowledgeable folks here. Where exactly Pantsir fits into the new generation/ upgraded SAM defences for the russian military?
    In VKO units Pantsir have very specific role to defend S-300, S-400, S-500, S-350, etc. It's main advantage is, that it could fire on the move with guns and missiles, so it is supposed to defend other complexes, when they are most vulnerable, on the move from one position to another. Even on battle positions it could still work against targets, like missiles, bombs, planes, etc, which come close enough to defend its unit.


    The Army SAM situation is a bit more complicated to me, we have S-300V/V4 then BukM1-2/2 (to be replace by BuK-M3?), then Tor-M1/2 (replaced by/upgraded to Tor-M2U?) then Tunguska and finally MANPADS, is that right ? (i know there are things like Osa/ Strela-10 still around). Is Tunguska slated to be replaced anytime soon for instance by that tracked Pantsir, as it seems PVO SAMs are almost exclusively on wheeled chassis, while the Army's are on tracked chassis for better cross country mobility. Also where is Sosna/ Bagulnik fitting into all this, i'm reading it will replace Strela-10?
    In my opinion tracked version of Pantsir will sooner or later come in ground forces units to replace older Tunguska and Shilka. Tor is meant to replace Osa.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  medo on Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:17 pm

    Tunguska-M1 entered service in 2004 and is still an extremely capable system... rather more capable than any single foreign system available even today. There is no enormous reason to get them out of service any time soon.
    There are still many Shilkas to be replaced and as Tunguska is no more in production, tracked Pantsir should replace them.


    In what state do they have smaller RCS than 0.1m2? They will need lots of hours of support and maintainence to keep them in the air and in a conflict to maintain operational tempos they might not get the attention they need... and lets face it radar is not like radar on computer games these aircraft are not perfect spheres so the radar return will change depending on their orientation to the emitter, but also in a net centric environment all the batteries not using radar that are just listening could also be used to plot locations... not to mention long wave systems all round the place...

    Jamming and electronic noise will also effect range, but then in a real conflict with Russia how long will those jamming sources survive?
    True, but when you design and create a SAM complex, you have to design it for the worst scenario, like a battery have to work alone in the middle of nowhere against most advanced enemy. In that case battery is dependent on their battery radar and CP to deliver targets and lead the battle.
    avatar
    mack8

    Posts : 953
    Points : 1013
    Join date : 2013-08-03

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  mack8 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:45 am

    Thanks for your comprehensive replies, that's a lot  to digest! Any idea when the tracked Pantsir will be inducted in V-PVO (i know there were prototypes built)?

    Also, what about export of the new systems? At the moment, there is available for export S-300VM (wheeled chassis  based S-300PMU-2 is out of production if i'm not mistaken, correct), Buk-M2E/EK, Tor-M2E/KM, Pantsir-S1E, and Igla-S. When should we expect new and/or improved systems to take over? I know of S-400 being apparently made available for export in the second half of this decade (btw, will it have it's missile maximum range reduce to under 300km because of  MTCR?).
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-26
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Viktor on Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:22 am

    mack8 wrote:(wheeled chassis based S-300PMU-2 is out of production if i'm not mistaken, correct)
    S-300PMU2 is out of production only for Russian Army which is getting S-400 anyway with S-300 upgrades to Favorit standard.

    For export S-300PMU2 is produced along with S-300VM.



    mack8 wrote:When should we expect new and/or improved systems to take over?
    2020 Very Happy 

    - 10 S-500 batteries
    - 56 S-400 batteries
    - 30 Vityaz batteries
    - 100 Pancir-S1 units
    - 5 new S-300V4 brigades
    - BUK-M2 and BUK-M3 =???
    - TOR-M2 and TOR-M3



    - 30 or so modernized S-300Favorit batteries
    - 4 brigades of S-300V modernized to V4 standard
    - BUK-M1-2

    etc etc


    mack8 wrote:I know of S-400 being apparently made available for export in the second half of this decade (btw, will it have it's missile maximum range reduce to under 300km because of MTCR?)
    250km range missiles most likely combined with 9M96 series


    mack8 wrote: Any idea when the tracked Pantsir will be inducted in V-PVO (i know there were prototypes built)?
    IF is perhaps a better question. Army has yet to decide does it want TOR-M2 / TOR-M3 or Pancir-S1 (or its version that will come) or perhaps its combination.

    You have two different producers aiming for the same market.
    avatar
    mack8

    Posts : 953
    Points : 1013
    Join date : 2013-08-03

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  mack8 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 6:01 am

    S-300PMU2 is out of production only for Russian Army which is getting S-400 anyway with S-300 upgrades to Favorit standard.

    For export S-300PMU2 is produced along with S-300VM.
    Are you sure Viktor? I could swear that the news on the matter suggest that the system is not in production anymore to make room for S-400, and the recent yearly report from the manufacturer seems to indicate that the missile production for the system is dwindling down. It also, to my mind, explains why Venezuela got S-300VM, presumably S-300PMU2 would have been cheaper.

    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-26
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Viktor on Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:10 am

    mack8 wrote:Are you sure Viktor? I could swear that the news on the matter suggest that the system is not in production anymore to make room for S-400
    Thats true Very Happy but that referes only to domestic orders. For export you have

    - S-300PMU2 (Syria, Iran (cancelled), Azerbaijan, Algeria, Serbia, Lybia(before the war))
    - S-300VM (Venezuela and offered to Iran, India, Turkey)

    S-300PMU2 and S-300VM are in production for export.


    mack8 wrote:and the recent yearly report from the manufacturer seems to indicate that the missile production for the system is dwindling down
    Just the opposite. Its increasing at rapid pace

    LINK

    At this pace (if we assume it will not go up even though its going up rapidly:D  ) Russia will in the next 15 years have 8000 new S-400 missiles not counting on the export part.

    Now add to that missiles 9M82M and 9M83M of the S-300V4 and all the others and you have massive SAM number buildup + export Very Happy 

    mack8 wrote:It also, to my mind, explains why Venezuela got S-300VM, presumably S-300PMU2 would have been cheaper.
    S-300VM is more expensive and more dangerous than the S-300PMU2.

    I guess Venecuealan Army also wanted high mobility and combined with BUK-M2 and TOR-M2 (mentioned as part of purchase) makes a damn good air defense.

    Venezuela also accuired China 3D YLC-2 EW mobile radar systems (5 of them I think) and Belarus will do the integration as I read with Poljana-S command posts.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Just a general question to the more knowledgeable folks here. Where exactly Pantsir fits into the new generation/ upgraded SAM defences for the russian military?

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:41 pm

    There are still many Shilkas to be replaced and as Tunguska is no more in production, tracked Pantsir should replace them.
    But Pantsir will replace the Shilkas first no doubt...


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-07

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  TR1 on Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:18 am

    Since this is in some ways the "general PVO questions" thread, I am goign to ask here:

    Prior to S-300/S-300V, what was realistic chance to intercept something like AGM-69 (assuming the bomber does not get hit and the missiles accuracy is not an issue) ? Or alternatively Kh-15 or its predecessors?

    There were of course longer ranged (non cruise missile) weapons on both sides, but generally these were either slower/had a higher RCS.
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 583
    Points : 632
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Since this is in some ways the "general PVO questions" thread, I am goign to ask here:

    Post  SOC on Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:26 am

    TR1 wrote:Prior to S-300/S-300V, what was realistic chance to intercept something like AGM-69 (assuming the bomber does not get hit and the missiles accuracy is not an issue) ? Or alternatively Kh-15 or its predecessors?
    Not very high. The problem wasn't so much the weapons, as most of the major strategic SAMs had nuclear variants easily capable of obliterating anything they got close to back then, but the performance of the radar systems. Lower RCS coupled with high speed was a problem for the older systems to deal with.

    From the US side, chances of killing a Kh-15 were only slightly better, and that's only because a naval ship with Phalanx might've had a small chance of killing one provided it was not yet ready to detonate. Phalanx wouldn't open up until very close in anyway, where any low RCS is largely irrelevant.

    Sponsored content

    Re: PVO SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:41 pm