magnumcromagnon wrote:Great news guys! Almaz-Antey has now started the design stage of Russia's unified aerospace defense network, greatly enhancing aerospace defense forces capability to defend Russian airspace:
Excellent. That means that Russia has finally defined concepts under which the unified aerospace defense will function and can now get to work to build the damn thing
We as forum members probably wont notice much of it as it will probably refer to the new stationary and mobile command posts with the new algorithms which will unite already existing unified networks of PVO and space defense in the single unified network - aerospace defense forces.
That will result in much more time for defenders to prepare and organize defenses as they will have information from satellities, EW radar stations, and all that exists.
magnumcromagnon wrote:.I have some questions for our elder statesman GarryB, with a massive modern and sophisticated aerospace network in place and integrated with all domestic SAMS, is it possible that Russian SAMS would be capable of having significantly enhanced range and performance in domestic aerospace? For example we have the S-400 with 400km range, and the S-500 with 600km range...assuming the range is not downplayed, is it possible within this aerospace defense network within domestic Russian aerospace, that the S-400 can have an enhanced range of 600km, and the S-500 could have an enhanced range of 800km? For my understanding the range of missiles (for those very SAMS) most limiting factor is not the propellant or the rocket motor, but how powerful the radar is, and that there's a limit due to maintaining mobility on how powerful a radar complex could be (massive quantities of power would be needed to power it, needing larger and heavier power plants). Also isn't it true that S-400's 400km range is the maximum range of having a 95% interception probability after firing 2 missiles, but could the S-400 theoretically intercept targets at significantly greater ranges but at the cost of significantly lower interception percentage (for a theoretical example 95% at 400km, 85% at 600km, 75% at 800km)?
You are right on all points but we simply dont have any info about it so we can not analyse anything and I will try to explain further your ideas point by point. Thing is that in circles of PVO theory, academies, institutes etc functions of kill probability for each different missile in regard to type of target, range and other factors exists. Thats is certainly the most important thing there is and because of it, it should come as no surprise that hundereds of thousands of highly educated specialists work in Almaz-Antey providing calculations which at its end present a curve a function a starting conditions for PVO theorists to work with. It should also come as no surprise that ordinary people and general public are not familiar with it and never will be for the obvious reasons. Its a state secret and such data for export versions of such complexes are provided only to buyers - other states perhaps.
Now about the range. We had an argument back than about the difference of data presented about 9M96 missile. Its "operational range"
was at first given as 120km with notice that that is only for export version meaning domestic one will have even bigger range. Than later on during the last MAKS we saw that its "area of defeat
" for aerodynamic targets mearly 60km and all the confusion broke loose
while at the same time exactly nothing changed. Only difference is that one and the same thing is defined in two different ways. "Operational range" and are "defeat area"
for aerodynamic targets. So what does it mean? Im not really sure as no info is given to general public but following some logic and info I have I would argue that 9M96 missile is capable of hiting targets at 120km range as well but with less probability than on ranges defined as "defeat area"
for aredynamic targets.
Same thing can be defined for ballistic targets, aeroballistic targets, cruise missiles, drones etc in reference to range and many other things. Look following examples:
of Aster 30 is given as 120km but its "defeat area"
is 60km for aerodynamic targets meaning just as same as in 9M96 case. That means that Aster 30 of
the SAMP-T complex for instance
can shoot at targets flying at even greater range than those defined by its "defeat area"
and may even shoot them down but will do it with less probability than inside "defeat area" and command posts when calculating firing solutions take economy of the shootings in the consideration as well. You dont want to find yourself in a situation where you have fired half of your missiles and shoot nothing or much less than you would normally do if you had followed the procedure.
2. "Operational range"
of HQ-9 is 125km which is similar to Aster-30 and 9M96M2 missile but its "area of defeat"
is 50km for aerodynamic targets a slightly less than in Aster-
30 and 9M96M case which means that China engineers is not up to the level of Europeans and Russians but the point is similar as in first case.
See the striking pattern. Function of kill probability exists for every range, target, missile, system etc its just that we dont know it and probably never will.
On the other hand your second point is also correct. The point of missile potential in regard to radar technology and electronics. Its a well known fact that for instance range of the
9M82/9M83 missiles where limitied by radar technology and electronic of the time. "Simple" modernization of radar and electronics led its range being increased 3.5 TIMES!!!!
to the horror of all western analysts and now 350km in range makes the S-300V4 a missile system with the longest range in the entire Russian arsenal. As I was informed all the algorithms where copy-pasted and are therefore as same as they where back than. Also advancement in radar and electronics technology made it possible to reduce and expel two of its previous radar sets making the system cheaper altogether and its operations simplified and cheaper but its combat efficiency much higher.
So given those two of your ideas but taking in the consideration complete lack of any kind of information what can we conclude about 40N6? That its range potential, its killing zone can be increased once 92N6 sets are further modernized or that its kill probability after 400km long mach is extremely high only for those targets that can not maneuvere i.e. high probability of kill for highly maneuvere targets is less than 400km. Who knows but you are right on track with your thoughts
Vann7 wrote:And you could guess ,after some long Range ,the radar of any system of defense no matter how good
it is ,will not see anything that is flying under the radar Horizon . In the picture the radio tower signals will not reach the House ,because is under their horizon
Missiles with such range that greatly overlaps radar horizont are not meant to fight targets flying under the radar horizont as they cant obviously
40N6 of the S-400 missile system is meant, designed, incorporated in S-400 with an idea to keep the ELINT/AWACS/TANKER/ECM planes out of the battlefield which will in that case severely degrade the combat ability for attacking force making it easier for orther missiles and systems to shoot them down. Targets flying under the radar horizont will be detected by
satellites, EW radar systems, AWACS and MiG-31 interceptors and other fighters of the VKO will be sent to deal with those kind of threat. That is why every capable air defense is consisted of three major elements.
- radar systems
- SAM systems
- aviation component
and all three components must function in order for whole system to function. If you take even one (no matter what) element out of that equation and the whole system is severely degraded.
Vann7 wrote: So 400km is more than enoughc
So its not enough. Its huuuuge improvement and terrified threat in mind of all western analyst but the more is better.
Vann7 wrote:Trying to detect a military plane of an enemy beyond 500km will be next to impossible if the planes are flying
at ~100-500 meters altitude to cover from the radar waves using the earth curvature as cover. system like S-500
with 600 km range in practice will be more need for high altitude bombers or against ICBM or to shut down satelites. for the reason of them being very expensive missiles , could cost US $10 -$20 millions each missile. the Brahmos missile cost near $3 million for example.
Threats flying under the radar horizont will be dealth in ways described above. S-500 is meant to fight future threats. S-500 is meant to fight all kinds of ballistic targets including ICBMs but also hypersonic cruise missiles flying at 30-100km altitude at Mach 20-30 and satellites in LEO besides ELINT/AWACS/TANKER/ECM like targets inside earths atmosphere.
Togeather with S-400/S-300V4/S-300Favorit/S-350/BUK-M3/Pancir-SM/Pancir-S1/Tor-M2U/Morfei/Verba/Pine etc are meant to fight off all kind of existing and future threats. Each of them is designed with an idea on mind, idea of concept of operations inside the huge structure that makes the Russian AD design so formidable and all of them altogether with all their "accesories" are designed to work as a one unified body - almost living
as its capable to work in full automation mode given the level of automation elements of artifitial intelligence inside. All of them together and by its pieces has its strictly defined purpose within whole concept of operations.
Vann7 wrote:And for enemy planes do not have missiles with longer than 200km usually. Norway is working in a cruise anti ship missile with 300km range. in the case of Low flying tomahawks they can be intercepted with regulan Gatlin guns pantsirs like defenses. Crimea for example have like 200km range from coast to coast. So is a long long distance a missile with more than 400km. You could achieve your extra range by just using mobile radars that comes in navy warships or from helicopters illuminating the target and to expose any enemy plane flying low. or in the case of territory by deploying a network of S-400 Sam defense every 300km distance or a network of small range defense Systems like Buks ,Pantsir or Tors
Thats not how it goes. You dont place SAM systems based on their range but in regard to forces representing a threat your enemy can muster in some specific zone we are talking about.
Number and type of airfield, planes, missiles, distance etc etc all and all of your allies as well as geographical location and bla bla are taken in the consideration and calculated based on which decision about the type and number of radar sets, SAMs etc is made.
Vann7 wrote:If Russia get S-500s , any enemy combat plane trying to attack ussia will seek to fly below the radar ,making pointless the extra range over the S-400s. So S-500s with 600km range in real practice will rarely could be used against Air Space defenses and instead will be used for Space Defenses. against ICBMs.. or HIgh Altitude Bombers like SR-72 that US defense industry already said is working or scram jets flying in space. In my opinion What Russia needs to expand its air defense is have navy with S-400s defenses. Since each warship will share information and cover a different zone.
You dont need to worry about combat application of S-400 and S-500 as there are hundered of thousands of people with infinite times more knowledge than you and me worring about that very same thing