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

Stating the obvious

'Taking It Apart Won't Help': Why S-400's Secrets Safe Despite Sale to Turkey

https://sputniknews.com/military/201709181057496814-s400-turkey-secrets-safe/

...However, speaking to Stanavov, Viktor Murakshovsky, a retired army colonel and editor in chief of 'Arsenal of the Fatherland' magazine, allayed such fears, calling them "incompetent gossip."

In fact, Murakshovsky said, the combat characteristics of the S-400's export models are significantly inferior to those found in Russia's arsenal, and lack the latest technologies protected as state secrets by the Defense Ministry.

"The drafting of the passport of the export profile is controlled by a structure subordinated to the Defense Ministry – the Federal Service for Military Technical Cooperation. Without a visa from the Defense Ministry, no item can go abroad in a configuration that poses a threat to Russia's national security. The same applies to the S-400," the retired officer explained.....

Does that mean that if a first strike of B-52s launch around 60 nuclear tipped cruise missiles to Irkutsk instead of Vladivostok, the S-400 wont be able to intercept said cruise missiles because they're not flying directly at the battery?

Also, what's the progress on the S-500?

S-500 was shown in private exhibition. So we don't known much like how S-350 is being silently released. Add to that, depends how the cruise missile is launched. In this case, MiG-31's from afar would be launched as radar would have picked up the launches of the CM from far far away. In this case, they can be shot down by multitude of methods. If it flies too low, then it becomes a problem. Cruise missiles are a really good system that really trumps most other missile types while not being too complex or expensive. They just don't do the same damage as a BM.

So that means that SAMs are situational garbage and that the only viable long range air defence is a large amount of interceptors?

The air defense systems with long range are ideal against ballistic missiles and high altitude, fast and big targets. Bombers, AWACS, etc. It also works great against jets and act as a force multiplyer without actually being jets themselves so they can provide great service in assisting fighter jets in vicinity of the combat engament. At point defense, they can work great against low flying objects. But, and big but to this too, is that they won't be able to engage at those long ranges. They can engage the targets, but they are not ideal. That is where SHORADS come into effect - protecting the places or things from such attacks. They are meant to be cheaper and be able to effectively protect their position.

Basic breakdown, but that is the point.

The SAM rockets are cost close as much as each tomahawk, means it can be saturated easily.


The main advantage is the S-400 will force the B-52 to release its missile from 500 km, means that the interceptors will have 30 minutes more to reach the tomahawks , and the range of them decreased as well.

It is fairly easy for the early warning radar system to spot the small cruise missiles, easier than to spot a big plane , due to the rayleigh scattering.

Singular_Transform wrote:The SAM rockets are cost close as much as each tomahawk, means it can be saturated easily.


The main advantage is the S-400 will force the B-52 to release its missile from 500 km, means that the interceptors will have 30 minutes more to reach the tomahawks , and the range of them decreased as  well.

It is fairly easy for the early warning radar system to spot the small cruise missiles, easier than to spot a big plane , due to the rayleigh scattering.

The only thing capable of such thing is a MIG 31 with plenty of back-up.

The heavy long range SAM protects your airspace so you can have MiG-31s and Su-35s and PAK FAs flying around and also AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft to keep those aircraft airborne to defend from cruise missile attack.

The R-77 is cleared to hit cruise missile targets from fairly long range and the R-33 and R-37 are both optimised to shoot down the launch platforms before they release missiles but they can also hit cruise missiles too.

The new A-100 can direct missiles so an A-100 flying above an S-400 battery can provide that battery with long range low level target information.... and Su-35 with a dozen R-77s could fly 200km closer to where the cruise missiles are coming from and operate radar silent with target data from the A-100 and its own passive sensors.

MiG-31s with R-60MKs and now perhaps R-73s could chase down cruise missiles fairly easily.... in fact a MiG-29/35 or Su-27/35 with IR guided R-27ETs could engage cruise missiles at long range over the cold tundra...

The cheapest option would actually be the Igla-S MANPAD as it has a proximity fuse and a sensitive seeker for dealing with UAVs and UCAVs.

Develop a long range UCAV and load it with quad packs of Igla-S for max kill probability with lowest cost.

What they could do is develop a large rocket pod for Igla class MANPADs, with perhaps 10-16 tubes per pod.

Slide missile tubes directly in to the pod and mount one under each wing of a UAV or perhaps have them in the fuselage so the can be lowered and fired and then retracted back up. Another option would be a wing tip 4-5 tube launcher with IR sensors front and back for looking for targets and acting as DIRCMs

I think Russia's current plans is to actually field a set of Blimp UAV's that would be able to fly for extreme periods of time with airborne radar in order to scan the skies constantly and without much supervision. The best system to detect cruise missiles at extreme ranges are AWAC's and airborne radar, so it makes it ideal to be able to detect them and send a jet to go intercept it/them. As GarryB said, the missiles available are enough. But I should mention that MiG-31 was actually designed, as an interceptor, to deal with engaging Cruise missiles, other kind of missiles and long range aircraft. It really isn't ideal to be used as a fighter jet. It is ideal in what it does.

Blimp air defence radars would be the best IMO.

Long endurance, enough space & payload for supplies and comforts for the crew (if manned at all) as well as a decent-sized powerplant, no radar horizon limits.

It's disadvantage is that it will be easy to detect and shoot-down. However if ground-launch vehicles are covering it (particularly SHORADS) and friendly fighters are patrolling the airspace, etc.. then such blimps should be pretty survivable.

AWACS is something you take along with you when you want to invade an enemy's airspace or otherwise need radar cover in a hurry somewhere in the world and promptly.
For defending your own airspace, blimps, or even just tethered aerostats (the later definately not needing any crew onboard and immune to anti-UAV measures) - would seem to be more preferable.

Actually build a modern bllmp out of carbon fibre and modern materials that don't burn and fill it full of a mix of helium and hydrogen with side arrays of those new AESA radars and send it up to above 30,000m altitude and it would actually be bloody hard to shoot down.

Carbon fibre does not burn and various materials can be used like nomex that are fire retardant. Inside the structure you have bags of hydrogen but the "air" around the bags in the structure can be purged of oxygen and filled with nitrogen which is intert.

A large airship penetrated by an AAM or large SAM might lose quite a few bags of helium or hydrogen but there can be no fire at 30km altitude... not enough air.

That means a few bags deflated with their lifting gas escaping the airship would start to descend.... dropping ballast could arrest and even reverse that descent, but even if not then it wont be plummeting in flames like the hindenberg.

More importantly the airship could be covered in radar and IR sensors so any incoming threats could be engaged with small light anti missile missiles like Morfei (9M100) whether it is ARH or IIR guided.

the onboard jammers could have enormous power and of course thermal decoys and chaff are still options too. A powerful jamming beam could be reflected off the ocean so any home on jam missile would hit the water chasing the source of the jamming beam...

the size of the airship means it could see threats hundreds or thousands of kms away... a tethered version could draw power from a destroyer or cruiser sized vessel it was tethered to....

They already have blimps developed for mountains as a cruise missile detector and even just radio signal relay platform.

Nice idea garry but then it allows the opponent to develop space arms.

30km up is not in space.

A lightened MiG-25 has the world altitude record for an air breathing aircraft to 30,000m so it is not anywhere near space.

Imagine you build something like that and US build a satelite with missiles in it and send it next russian borders.

If you put it near an enemy border the simplest response would be an airborne laser system like the A-60 to simply cut it to bits... it still would not instantly go down in flames but it would not remain on station and active either.

You won t know if it carries nuclear weapons and it will be at 500 km from moscow.

Any US tactical strike aircraft could be 500km from Moscow with nuclear weapons, they could simply fly around Roshcha in the Ukraine which is less than 500km from Moscow by flight... Of course if it actually launched anything towards Moscow I would imagine the S-400 and S-300 batteries nearby would end its existence fairly quickly.

Radars are often static so easy targets. Its better to have lot of them working in a network than having just few very capable but extremly expensive.

Who said anything about expensive.

We are not talking enormous blimp like the Hindenberg... it might be only slightly bigger than a bus... it does not need to carry people... just a very large radar antenna array of AESA elements and a very long tether back down to the ship it is operating with.

Some interesting stuff. But slightly off current chat.

Is anyone concerned about China getting the S-400 system considering that they will just copy it.

Also which other countries do you think will end up purchasing s-400 apart from Belarus and Kazakhstan ?

An Airship with radar arrays mounted on it of all types from high down to low frequency would be a very valuable asset for the Air Force and their heavy SAM batteries.

The biggest threat to a SAM site is low flying missiles and an airship would be ideally placed to spot them at max distance allowing reactions including shutting down or even moving, or deploying aircraft to intercept.

d_taddei2 wrote:Some interesting stuff. But slightly off current chat.

Is anyone concerned about China getting the S-400 system considering that they will just copy it.

Also which other countries do you think will end up purchasing s-400 apart from Belarus and Kazakhstan ?

Well is Russia concerned ? That's the first question.

The one that couuld be concerned is other country that buys S-400...But well Vietnam operates S-300PMU-2 like China yet they doesn't seem to show any concern about it.

Is anyone concerned about China getting the S-400 system considering that they will just copy it.

They will learn from the technology, if they do copy it then Russia can demand royalties for the production of those copies.

The fact is that if Russia does not sell S-400 to China and China gets the same technology some other way then China could copy that and produce as many as they like because there would be no paper work with Russia.

By selling them the product they are then bound by the agreement not to make copies... or should I say unlicensed copies.

There is talk of Turkey buying S-400... if they do then pretty much anyone could buy some.... India, China, perhaps even Iran and Syria...

Note the Target Speed of 9M96E and 9M96E2 missile

Apparently read that Morocco is interested in purchasing s-400 as well now.