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

Does this layout etc look like a S-400 site?

Samir‏ @obretix 2h2 hours ago
Replying to @obretix

new satellite image of suspected Russian air defense missile installation near Masyaf (2017-08-28) http://wikimapia.org/#lat=35.165240&lon=36.262740&z=17&m=b …

JohninMK wrote:Does this layout etc look like a S-400 site?

Samir‏ @obretix 2h2 hours ago
Replying to @obretix

new satellite image of suspected Russian air defense missile installation near Masyaf (2017-08-28) http://wikimapia.org/#lat=35.165240&lon=36.262740&z=17&m=b …

Yes! This is the second Russian battery (each 4 5P85S2). Right at the site where they have some Bastion-P TELs since last October.
Ironically just 13km from the facility which was attacked by IAF on Sept 7th 2017!
Regarding the US cruise missile attack this is the second time that S-400 did not show force...

Air Defense of Russia - Prospects and Challenges

http://arsenal-otechestva.ru/article/903-pvo-rossii-perspektivy-i-vyzovy

@Rambo

We already explained why. Due to system limitations, and politics, little the s-400 can do. The Israeli jet fired its AGM from around ~400km in Lebanese airspace. 48N6DM has roughly ~250KM range. Plus Russia and Syria doesn't have any agreements with Lebanon to protect its airspace. And well, there are mountains too, that Israel used to fly low. Hence why Lebanese complaint about damaged Windows.

If you expect it to shoot down a AGM, good luck. It would have to be flying towards the site in order to shoot it down, much like last explanation for US cruise missiles which a graphic was even shown.

But I imagine you don't care about technical details. You only care about fallacies and imaginations on capabilities of a system.

The Russian base has its uses, but you need proper layered defense. And the AD systems are meant to protect key points. Pantsir systems would have worked, if it was at the site itself.

I mean, if you want to see the system in action, ask Israel to attack the Russian base.

"But I imagine you don't care about technical details. You only care about fallacies and imaginations on capabilities of a system."

No need to get rude.
I know all the arguments and I follow this thread.
Cheers

rambo54 wrote:"But I imagine you don't care about technical details. You only care about fallacies and imaginations on capabilities of a system."

No need to get rude.
I know all the arguments and I follow this thread.
Cheers

Thats actually important for mike.

Which part? The rude part?

Sometimes its better to be blunt than tip toe around the issue.

Sometimes, the simple answer is the correct one. The limitations were obvious and Israel used it to its advantage, anyone would. The jet would have been viewed from far, and that was already the case, as they saw were the launch came from. But, what can they do? Its an AGM. Such weapons would be defeated by something like Pantsir or Tor, maybe Buk. Issue is, due to relative size of target and such, there is great limitations for systems to strike it, and usually SHORADS are the only thing. Iron dome, Pantsir, etc. The only system that will be defined by such a roll for air force will be the S-350, whenever that comes out.

I mean, S-400 maybe could have shot down the missile, but I think against cruise missiles, its as best around 24km range. A PGM? Probably less.

Sorry if I'm rude, this is how I am when I feel it to be irritated to either repeats myself or having to provide the answers mentioned by someone else elsewhere. But Syria itself really really really needs more shorads and locations to place them at strategic locations.

Regarding the US cruise missile attack this is the second time that S-400 did not show force...

the S-400 battery is there to defend Russian air and naval bases in Syria and also their aircraft. If they detect a threat to any of those then they would get permission to fire but an Israeli aircraft operating outside Syrian airspace without warning launches a missile, if that missile was heading for a Russian base or Russian ship then it might be used to stop the weapon.

The other problem is identification..... things don't have big labels on them stating what they are... a subsonic target flying low over the desert could be a UAV or a civilian aircraft or pretty much anything... if it is not headed for a Russian base then track it... perhaps send up a fighter, but don't just open up on everything.

I know all these aspects, Garry. I just wanted to say that it is remarkable - the Russian-Israeli common understanding is one thing (especially if Popeyes fired from North Lebanon) but on the other hand Assad truly hoped that the myth of S-400 would do more - e.g. prevent / defend a cruise missile attack or an IAF assault just 13km from the 2nd battery and to save this vital (Iranian) missile factory.
But in a complicated war scenario this didn't count necessarily and determined (and technical skilled) attackers will find a certain way to acchieve their goals.

But I think this topic is not worthwhile to stress it even longer :-)

The original question of someone was whether this is a S-400 site - and yes it is.
Cheers

Some figures I read was the israli's fired it within central Lebanon and not northern. And they flew low enough to cause damage to infrastructure. So in this case, the F-15's can easily avoid long range radar as it requires high altitude to spot. As for the missile, popeye would possibly have to intercepted by a SHORAD. The large systems like S-200 and S-400 ha e a rather low probablility to intercept small missiles even at decent ranges, so in practice, that's why they use pantsir.

Also of course, the site built was indeed Iran's project, so the Russians probably gave no guarantee to protect. We know the systems work, as the US has tested PMU1 for years/decade and found it a massive threat (NATO allies have it) and s-400 is a whole new beast. But the major issue that Russia faces besides the political one, is the other probability of these nations trying to get Russia to use its assets against them so they can collect data. The biggest mistake Russia would do is attempt to shoot down an F-15 that is roughly ~300km away with the 48N6DM as its max listed range is 250km and in some cases, gone farther, but biggest issue is after 200km, it has lost majority of its fuel and its kinetic energy, so a fighter jet can easily outmanouver it at the long ranges, all the while collecting data on it. It would have been in Syria's best interest to at least provide some kind of protection at that facility itself with shorads (they have pantsir) or other Sam's. Israel denies the strike, but Syria mentioned were it happened from and how. Lebanon complained about damaged to their infrastructure. So most triangulate the location of were the jets would have fired their missiles.

The US cruise missile strike was obvious of Russia inability to intercept at those locations. Most of them either went south or north around the S-400 making them over 100km away while against cruise missiles, S-400 has a range of 24km against. And not all tomohawks reached their target either.

This is reasons why Russia is pumping lots of money into Shorad tech. Pantsir, Tor system, S-350, etc. Its all because PGM's are a major threat to long range air bases. That's why most AD sites are usually not far away from some air force base either, in most cases

Mistake you all make is to assume that if Russia or Syria did not make declarations about shooting those Israeli missiles those missiles were not shoot at. Reality is Russia has traditional policy of keeping quiet abut activities of its SAM systems, whom they target and how effective they are. Actual data only becomes available only years after the fact in professional literature related to that specific field of service.

Most recent example is activity of Pantsir-s1 system. For something like 2 year of its deployment in Syria you could happily assume it did nothing at all. Then in obscure material published only in Russian it turns out that in only short span of few mounts those systems engaged and destroyed something like a dozen targets ranging from missiles, drones to aerostats. Non of this was reported by Russian aerospace forces, Russian government, Russian journalist or Russian media.

Older example would be deployment of Russian S-125 SAM batteries against Israel during 70s shooting down something like half a dozen Israel fighters. Non of those were reported at that time, information abut was published decade after the fact, and even after that it remained rather obscure know only to enthusiast for anti aircraft warfare or Israeli-Arab wars.

This secrecy extends to other branches of Russian military. For example 2 decades ago I was reading old Yugoslavian anti tank manual. On the subject of setting anti tank ambush they used a "textbook" example of Egyptian ambush assisted by USSR advisers that wiped out almost entire Izraeli tank brigade in matter of hours. However if you read outside of obscure professional military literature you would never find out this actually transpired because USSR did not publicise such activities to wider public. And i would argue this tradition of not publicising abuot such successes to general public remains today.

So all we know Israel could have lunched dozens of such missiles that were intercepted by Russian forces in Syria, but that information was not publicised by Russian side. What you will hear is when they fail and some of the missiles penetrate Russian and Syrian  defences. Then Syria or Hesbolah will report abut their casualties. or Israel itself will brag abut it. In another words you will only hear abut failures, successes will remain hidden.

Last example to keep in mind is US 60 cruise missile attack against Syrian air base. Russians made some snide comments abut only ~ 40% of missiles lunched reaching the targeted base with minimal effectiveness, insinuating it was because poor quality of US weapons. However from previous wars we know tomahawk under normal circumstances has around 80% probability of hitting the target (i think i read somewhere this was effective performance during NATO aggression against Yugoslavia). Clearly Tomahawks did not suddenly turn in to ineffective junk, but this was work of Syrian and Russian defences. However both Syrian and Russians are kipping quiet as to what they did to disable so many US missiles, completely in keeping with USSR old tradition of hiding its success from general public.

So don't assume Russians are not shooting at Israeli or US missiles just because they are not reporting abut it. Wait a few years or decades and we might find out truth in some obscure military publication, otherwise they will refuse to say anything abut it.

ZoA wrote:Mistake you all make is to assume that if Russia or Syria did not make declarations about shooting those Israeli missiles those missiles were not shoot at. Reality is Russia has traditional policy of keeping quiet abut activities of its SAM systems, whom they target and how effective they are. Actual data only becomes available only years after the fact in professional literature related to that specific field of service.

Most recent example is activity of Pantsir-s1 system. For something like 2 year of its deployment in Syria you could happily assume it did nothing at all. Then in obscure material published only in Russian it turns out that in only short span of few mounts those systems engaged and destroyed something like a dozen targets ranging from missiles, drones to aerostats. Non of this was reported by Russian aerospace forces, Russian government, Russian journalist or Russian media.

Older example would be deployment of Russian S-125 SAM batteries against Israel during 70s shooting down something like half a dozen Israel fighters. Non of those were reported at that time, information abut was published decade after the fact, and even after that it remained rather obscure know only to enthusiast for anti aircraft warfare or Israeli-Arab wars.

This secrecy extends to other branches of Russian military. For example 2 decades ago I was reading old Yugoslavian anti tank manual. On the subject of setting anti tank ambush they used a "textbook" example of Egyptian ambush assisted by USSR advisers that wiped out almost entire Izraeli tank brigade in matter of hours. However if you read outside of obscure professional military literature you would never find out this actually transpired because USSR did not publicise such activities to wider public. And i would argue this tradition of not publicising abuot such successes to general public remains today.

So all we know Israel could have lunched dozens of such missiles that were intercepted by Russian forces in Syria, but that information was not publicised by Russian side. What you will hear is when they fail and some of the missiles penetrate Russian and Syrian  defences. Then Syria or Hesbolah will report abut their casualties. or Israel itself will brag abut it. In another words you will only hear abut failures, successes will remain hidden.

Last example to keep in mind is US 60 cruise missile attack against Syrian air base. Russians made some snide comments abut only ~ 40% of missiles lunched reaching the targeted base with minimal effectiveness, insinuating it was because poor quality of US weapons. However from previous wars we know tomahawk under normal circumstances has around 80% probability of hitting the target (i think i read somewhere this was effective performance during NATO aggression against Yugoslavia). Clearly Tomahawks did not suddenly turn in to ineffective junk, but this was work of Syrian and Russian defences. However both Syrian and Russians are kipping quiet as to what they did to disable so many US missiles, completely in keeping with USSR old tradition of hiding its success from general public.

So don't assume Russians are not shooting at Israeli or US missiles just because they are not reporting abut it. Wait a few years or decades and we might find out truth in some obscure military publication, otherwise they will refuse to say anything abut it.

Good examples and it is highly unlikely that both Russian and Syrian SAMs in Syria are there for show. They are used as needed.
It is quite clear from the US attack on the Syrian air base that about half the missiles were intercepted. That is not too shoddy
considering the limited SAM deployment by both Russia and the SAA.

kvs wrote:It is quite clear from the US attack on the Syrian air base that about half the missiles were intercepted.

Well that is not correct  

Not necessity to shot down any missile was present for the entire salvo ,following the northern route toward the Al-Shayrat air base, delivered by the USS Ross -36 BGM-109 Block IV-

This entire salvo experienced a rare case of collective malfunction of missile's radar altimeters pointing to a progressive gain of altitude that was necessary to stabilize and counteract;  unfornutately this produced the effect of an early what disastrous early close encounter with sea's wakes......a true misfortune.

Conversely the entire salvo following the southern route, very far from Federation's assets in that theatre of operation, delivered by the USS Port - 23 BGM-109 Block IV, initially 24 with one exepriencing an initialization failure - reached Al-Shayrat air base of which 22 hit the intended target.

Long story short : a true embarassing failure, forcing lately over-ocean keen brains to accelerate R&D works on the new long range cruise missile.


About the few and skirmish level scale IAF strikes of the last five years; it is always the same story : israely information operatives invent literally from nothing in each of those strike the presence of the most advanced air defences supposedly availaable to the other side (sometime ever hinting that batteries of S-300 or Buk was targeted and destroyed ), anyone can recall the ridiculous phantasy soap on the presence of Pantsyr-S1 in the operation Orchard

That is done  to maintain in the public opinion an image of strenght and capability of its air force very different from what the reality of those operations would suggest if revealed.

Reality of those operations is much more simpler and far less exciting : Israely HUMINT - incluing obviously "collaborative" syrian armed forces operatives - continously monitorize, for what possible, activities in proximity of potential targets in Syria with particular attention to possible presence of advanced mobile air defences and their pattern of coverage of the area.
If even only a remote possibility exist that some of the few batteries of the most advanced SAM systems would be present in the potential area of attack the operation do not receive the let-go from Israely command, because the repercussion for the failure of such an operation would be simply devastating for the image of IAF.

Only when those chances are next to zero the "placet" for the attack is conceded ,with the operation usually executed ,delivering from outside Syrian airspace, by part very few aircraft -often not more than two- capable to hide themselves among those daily present in "friendly" nation's airspace.

In substance IAF do (rightfully i can add) what it and, more in general, western Air Forces have done 99% of times in the latest 50 years : attack enemy assets defended by AD systems 25-30 years ,on average, older than the aircraft employed in those operations.
The unique time when IAF was forced to confront very few batteries of an export version of a relatively up-to-date ,for the time, SAM system , nominally 2К12Е Квадрат in the Yom Kippur war, IAF was massacrated and Israely command retain a precise memory of that.

Mindstorm wrote:...

This entire salvo experienced a rare case of collective malfunction of missile's radar altimeters pointing to a progressive gain of altitude that was necessary to stabilize and counteract

...

...that sounds plausible...

As for Israeli activities being concerned with reputation of their military excellence I very much doubt about that because any Israeli military activity will always be reported as fantastic success by Israeli, N. America and W. European media regardless of actual reality. And any losses will be denied, and those denials will be accepted as god given truth regardless of any evidence to the opposite. Case in point fiasco of Israeli 2006 invasion of Lebanon. Ask anyone in MSM in the Europe or N. America how was IDF performing and what their casualties were and you will hear some of most retarded and ridiculous crap imaginable.

Reality is Israel can lose dozens of planes, hundreds of AFV, and thousands of soldiers and IDF will deny it all. And their denials will be accepted as unquestionable truth. Under such circumstances Israel does not give a shits ass about their casualties as those will have no negative effect on their military reputation either domestically or internationally.

Same goes of US military, UK military. In fact US is still maintaining it lost only 5 to 6k dead during entire Iraq invasion and occupation, and majority of people still believe such obvious and ridiculous lies.

ZoA wrote:...that sounds plausible... Rolling Eyes

I only hope you have understood to what i was refering........

ZoA wrote:Same goes of US military, UK military. In fact US is still maintaining it lost only 5 to 6k dead during entire Iraq invasion and occupation, and majority of people still believe such obvious and ridiculous lies.

So what's the real number then?

KiloGolf wrote:

ZoA wrote:Same goes of US military, UK military. In fact US is still maintaining it lost only 5 to 6k dead during entire Iraq invasion and occupation, and majority of people still believe such obvious and ridiculous lies.

So what's the real number then?

depends on who you go by. Groups like Mother of soldiers or whatever they are called state a lot more. Making convoluted claims makes a mess of the real numbers.

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

ZoA wrote:Same goes of US military, UK military. In fact US is still maintaining it lost only 5 to 6k dead during entire Iraq invasion and occupation, and majority of people still believe such obvious and ridiculous lies.

So what's the real number then?

depends on who you go by. Groups like Mother of soldiers or whatever they are called state a lot more. Making convoluted claims makes a mess of the real numbers.

Even if that number was double or triple the official figures, it'd still mean very little. It's still politically-speaking very low, for a professional military force like the US possesses. Doesn't matter at all.

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

ZoA wrote:Same goes of US military, UK military. In fact US is still maintaining it lost only 5 to 6k dead during entire Iraq invasion and occupation, and majority of people still believe such obvious and ridiculous lies.

So what's the real number then?

depends on who you go by. Groups like Mother of soldiers or whatever they are called state a lot more. Making convoluted claims makes a mess of the real numbers.

Even if that number was double or triple the official figures, it'd still mean very little. It's still politically-speaking very low, for a professional military force like the US possesses. Doesn't matter at all.

well, the force they ended up fighting was roughly around 30,000 of what Iraq had. Most fled, abandons position or joined the allied forces. Many equipment was simply buried. I would say that US fought at best a very small fraction of Iraq forces as it folded real quick. Which then became insurgency afterwards. Which is were I guess most of the fighting happened.

miketheterrible wrote:well, the force they ended up fighting was roughly around 30,000 of what Iraq had. Most fled, abandons position or joined the allied forces. Many equipment was simply buried.  I would say that US fought at best a very small fraction of Iraq forces as it folded real quick. Which then became insurgency afterwards.  Which is were I guess most of the fighting happened.

A lot of bribing and PsyOps also took place. Lots of Iraqi units were simply not offering any resistance. I'd say the Coalition had an easy way into Baghdad and that was partially due to Iraqis not defending at all. Why was that? Well I think partially the rampant corruption in Saddam's Iraq is responsible. Partially nobody could bother defending Saddam's country.

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:well, the force they ended up fighting was roughly around 30,000 of what Iraq had. Most fled, abandons position or joined the allied forces. Many equipment was simply buried.  I would say that US fought at best a very small fraction of Iraq forces as it folded real quick. Which then became insurgency afterwards.  Which is were I guess most of the fighting happened.

A lot of bribing and PsyOps also took place. Lots of Iraqi units were simply not offering any resistance. I'd say the Coalition had an easy way into Baghdad and that was partially due to Iraqis not defending at all. Why was that? Well I think partially the rampant corruption in Saddam's Iraq is responsible. Partially nobody could bother defending Saddam's country.

well, he was hated for various reasons. Ruled by fear, was installed by CIA before hand, had done horrific things to minority groups, etc. So yeah, I know I wouldn't be keen on fighting for him. BUT, he did keep it stable.

Oh well. All history now. No one learned a thing though.

Iraq is a random circle on the map encircling random nations / tribes.


There is no cohesion, like in an European country.

See the performance of the Saudis.

Mindstorm wrote:

ZoA wrote:...that sounds plausible... Rolling Eyes

I only hope you have understood to what i was refering........  

I suspected that was some kind of electronic warfare innuendo, but was not entirely sure.

Edit:
P.S. Syrians or Russians using EW countermeasures is quite plausible explanation for attack's poor effectiveness. But it will take a long time before any of them comes clear as to what they actually did. Military secrets and all. They'll rather leave US navy to wonder about it then too as we do.