Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:48 am

    Are Russian SAMs equipped with thermobaric warheads and if no would such a thing work?

    Not generally.

    Let me explain.

    A standard block of HE has by weight about 1/4th fuel, and 3/4ths of the HE by weight is material that rapidly generates oxygen.

    This means that a 150kg warhead of an S-300 might have 40kgs of HE, with the rest of the weight as metal fragments and fuses. Of that 40kg HE charge 10kgs will be the material that actually explodes, while 30kgs will generate oxygen for the 10kg to "burn".

    Because it provides its own oxygen it will explode underwater and also in space and if you detonate it at high altitude or low altitude it will explode.

    Thermobaric explosive is all fuel... think of a thermobaric warhead as being petrol. 40kgs of petrol is all fuel, but it needs to be distributed around as an aerosol before it can explode in a detonation, but if it did then it would explode more powerfully than the equivalent of HE... the main problem is that because a Thermobaric warhead relies on taking oxygen from the environment where it is set off it is not as effective in thin air at high altitudes and it wont work at all in space or in water.

    It also does not tend to detonate as fast as HE, though it often tends to burn longer and hotter, which is good for destroying chem and bio agents for instance.

    In SAMs it makes much more sense to use the less powerful HE warheads because they are more consistent in power and rate of detonation.

    Keep in mind when a SAM is intercepting a very fast target it may not hit the target directly so when the proximity fuse sets off the warhead the active fusing will set off the warhead to deliver the majority of fragments in the direction of where the target will be so knowing how fast the warhead explodes is critical in ensuring a good kill. If the target is a Scud for instance then the fuse will direct the fragments at the nose of the target because hitting the body of a falling object is largely useless, the only effective way to defeat an incoming Scud is to hit the warhead and detonate it... smashing up the engines is pointless as they are not operating when the missile is falling onto the target area.

    Speaking of the morphei , are there any pictures of how exactly the missiles should look or is it top secret like the S-500?

    Just models of vehicles so far.

    The Vityaz will have Active guidance system. In other words, the battery can engage as many targets as it has missiles ready for launch.

    Even ARH missiles require guidance to the target area... there are limits to how many R-77s a fighter plane can guide at once to different targets... for the Mig-29S it was 2 I believe. The targets need to be tracked and the outgoing missiles directed to intercept points where they can turn on their own radars and self guide. For targets 100km away that means significant periods where the missile is not using its ARH seeker and relies on the launch platforms radar to direct it. As the article above mentions 12 guidance channels it will certainly be able to engage a lot of targets and once the missiles get to ARH range and they get locks the battery can launch another missile, plus I suspect with an IADS and net centricity it is rather likely that other platforms could take over guidance like Su-35s or A-100s.

    The system is probably bulky or complex (spherical radar, superfast computing power, large number of vertically stowed rounds).

    Spherical radar is unlikely, the information I have is that it uses an IR spherical sensor array to find targets, much like the spherical IR sensor array used on RHAWs to detect incoming missiles by their thermal signature (ie speed heated noses and control surfaces and operating rocket motors).

    I would expect the time taken for its development suggests it likely has a FPA or QWIP seeker with a one or two way datalink and full thrust vectoring rocket motor. This means that a missile can be launched without seeing the target (so it can be launched vertically and turn based on data provided by the launch platform towards the target and then look for a signature of the target. It will have a signature library database and should be able to select its own target. A two way datalink should allow it to transmit target data back to the launch platform. Its wide angle array seeker might detect a range of targets of which it might select the highest threat target to engage itself.

    In terms of range it will be inferior to Igla-S, but in terms of performance and sophistication it will be a generation ahead of Igla-S.

    It will likely be used on its own for some roles but also likely used in a "standard" launcher (ie Vityaz) as a standard self defence missile.

    For aircraft it will likely perform the role of the little anti missile missiles as depicted in the movie Firefox. Certainly a ARH radar seeker model would be a useful weapon for light aircraft like Yak-130 and helos along with the IIR guided model... with air launched models the range is likely 15-20km.

    but not as mobile as an army SAM (like the SA-13. Potentially, I see the replacement of the SA-13 in a system based on the Sosna missile mounted on a tracked chassis.

    I don't disagree with your logic, but the purpose of SA-13 and SA-9 was a light mobile air defence missile that operates in the IR spectrum to compliment the SA-19 and now SA-22 that are radio command directed. A laser guided model like SOSNA-R is rather a lot like SA-19 and a platform that carried SOSNA-Rs would not be that different from one that carried SA-19/-22s.

    The Morfei on the other hand will be a small compact missile which in vertical launch tubes would likely fit into the MTLB chassis of the SA-13. I don't see it as being a huge system.
    avatar
    mack8

    Posts : 953
    Points : 1009
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Just a general question to the more knowledgeable folks here.

    Post  mack8 on Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:01 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?

    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 : 5642
    Points : 6275
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Viktor on Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:39 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 : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:33 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?
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3317
    Points : 3401
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  medo on Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:07 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 : 3317
    Points : 3401
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  medo on Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:17 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 : 1009
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  mack8 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:45 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 : 5642
    Points : 6275
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Viktor on Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:22 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 : 1009
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  mack8 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:01 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 : 5642
    Points : 6275
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Viktor on Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:10 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 : 17753
    Points : 18315
    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 12:41 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...
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5569
    Points : 5581
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  TR1 on Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:18 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 : 579
    Points : 626
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 40
    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 1:26 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.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5642
    Points : 6275
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Zhukov Military Command Academy of Air Defense

    Post  Viktor on Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:18 pm

    For the past several years much has been said about closing of The Zhukov Military Command Academy of Air Defense in Tver that was in charge of training of PVO troops (and foreign)

    and research centre for studying problems of operational art and tactics as well as command, communications and control (C3) on air defense matters. 

    Well now that problem has beeen settled. Sergej Soigu decaded that Academy will remaine open and its funds greatly increased. 



    Academy troops EKR Tver receive dopfinansirovanie


    Last edited by Viktor on Sun Dec 08, 2013 12:09 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    zg18

    Posts : 883
    Points : 955
    Join date : 2013-09-26
    Location : Zagreb , Croatia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  zg18 on Tue May 27, 2014 9:42 pm

    Not sure where to put image , so opted here



    New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3317
    Points : 3401
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  medo on Tue May 27, 2014 9:49 pm

    zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



    New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

    This is something new. On launcher are not missiles, but mass gabarites. Considering position of launcher, missiles will be most probably vertically launched. Maybe it have something to do with Morphei (for testing components).
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4469
    Points : 4628
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue May 27, 2014 9:49 pm

    zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



    New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

    The missile tubes look rather small, Morfey perhaps?

    Edit: Medo came to the same conclusion as me.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Wed May 28, 2014 5:52 am

    zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



    New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

    I would say we have four mass replicas of S-300/S-400 standard-size missiles on a launcher that is behind the vehicle in the foreground, with the front vehicle (the one in the foreground) obscuring most of the launcher.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5642
    Points : 6275
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Viktor on Wed May 28, 2014 2:24 pm

    New pics

    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3317
    Points : 3401
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  medo on Wed May 28, 2014 5:42 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



    New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

    I would say we have four mass replicas of S-300/S-400 standard-size missiles on a launcher that is behind the vehicle in the foreground, with the front vehicle (the one in the foreground) obscuring most of the launcher.

    If there is a vehicle behind, we should see at least wheels and shadow of it, which should be between front vehicle and the group of people. This one is interesting, because it is not standard S-300 launcher and also not an engagement radar vehicle, but have different elements covered by cover. Specially operators container covered behind is mysterious. Maybe it is photoshoped, but still, those components on one vehicles are not usual for S-300 or S-400 and they are covered. This is something new for tests.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4469
    Points : 4628
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed May 28, 2014 6:28 pm

    medo wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



    New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

    I would say we have four mass replicas of S-300/S-400 standard-size missiles on a launcher that is behind the vehicle in the foreground, with the front vehicle (the one in the foreground) obscuring most of the launcher.

    If there is a vehicle behind, we should see at least wheels and shadow of it, which should be between front vehicle and the group of people. This one is interesting, because it is not standard S-300 launcher and also not an engagement radar vehicle, but have different elements covered by cover. Specially operators container covered behind is mysterious. Maybe it is photoshoped, but still, those components on one vehicles are not usual for S-300 or S-400 and they are covered. This is something new for tests.

    May'be a hybrid SAM, a prototype that both fulfills duties of long-to medium range, and SHORAD something like a S-300/S-400 variant with a extended trailer for a Morfey or a Tor missile launcher, a possible evolutionary path of advanced IAD. The philosophy of Russian IAD tactics is to have advanced, reliable, cost-effective, and ever evolving/progressing SAM and IAD tactics. Russian MOD doesn't like to stay complacent when it comes to future aerial threats and aerospace defense, and I honestly think hybrid SAM's will pave the way for the future allowing more flexibility for future advanced Russian SAM's.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Wed May 28, 2014 10:27 pm

    medo wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



    New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

    I would say we have four mass replicas of S-300/S-400 standard-size missiles on a launcher that is behind the vehicle in the foreground, with the front vehicle (the one in the foreground) obscuring most of the launcher.

    If there is a vehicle behind, we should see at least wheels and shadow of it, which should be between front vehicle and the group of people. This one is interesting, because it is not standard S-300 launcher and also not an engagement radar vehicle, but have different elements covered by cover. Specially operators container covered behind is mysterious. Maybe it is photoshoped, but still, those components on one vehicles are not usual for S-300 or S-400 and they are covered. This is something new for tests.

    Vide supra.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Wed May 28, 2014 10:28 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    medo wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



    New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

    I would say we have four mass replicas of S-300/S-400 standard-size missiles on a launcher that is behind the vehicle in the foreground, with the front vehicle (the one in the foreground) obscuring most of the launcher.

    If there is a vehicle behind, we should see at least wheels and shadow of it, which should be between front vehicle and the group of people. This one is interesting, because it is not standard S-300 launcher and also not an engagement radar vehicle, but have different elements covered by cover. Specially operators container covered behind is mysterious. Maybe it is photoshoped, but still, those components on one vehicles are not usual for S-300 or S-400 and they are covered. This is something new for tests.

    May'be a hybrid SAM, a prototype that both fulfills duties of long-to medium range, and SHORAD something like a S-300/S-400 variant with a extended trailer for a Morfey or a Tor missile launcher, a possible evolutionary path of advanced IAD. The philosophy of Russian IAD tactics is to have advanced, reliable, cost-effective, and ever evolving/progressing SAM and IAD tactics. Russian MOD doesn't like to stay complacent when it comes to future aerial threats and aerospace defense, and I honestly think hybrid SAM's will pave the way for the future allowing more flexibility for future advanced Russian SAM's.

    Which one of the two vehicles in the picture are you referring to?
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4469
    Points : 4628
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Not sure where to put image , so opted here

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:56 pm

    zg18 wrote:Not sure where to put image , so opted here



    New Air defense system at Obukhovsky plant , St. Petersburg

    Video footage:


    ahate2

    Posts : 1
    Points : 1
    Join date : 2015-02-23

    Difference between S-300VM and S-300PMU-1

    Post  ahate2 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:41 pm

    Hello there

    I have a question to ask about S-300 missile defense system. Among S-300 missile family (S-300V, S-300P, and S300F), which one is more powerful. Previously, Russian government scraped the deal to sell S-300PMU-1 missile system. Recently, Russian government agreed to sell S-300VM "Antey-2500." I would like to know what is the difference between these two systems in terms of capability, such that they want to sell S-300VM in stead of S-300PMU-1 missile system.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:15 pm