Viktor wrote: are declared by producer of the system in question and its specifications are tested / confirmed by Russian Army on Ahuluk.
You are referring to the S 300, right ? Can you provide me with the results so that I can answer your question ? Especially
1) The number of kills produced per round fired, per engagement .
2) Basic LPI capability of the SAM's engagement radar.
3) Deployment of emitting decoys / other countermeasures to defeat geolocation receivers and guided munition seekers
4) Type of aircrafts engaged . This is important because it is essential to figure out if the aircraft was optimized for SEAD operations . If yes, to what extent .
As you would imagine there are other factors as well but the above factors will be at the cornerstone of any study .
Viktor wrote: Also I dont know on what do you refer when you say "high altitude SAM" since S-300/400 are high and low altitude SAM
Am referring to their primary role . In their secondary role they can target low flying aircrafts & cruise missiles with the 9M82 , 9M83 or 9M96E1 but low flying aircrafts & cruise missiles are generally targeted with AAA. I suspect Vityaz will now be used to intercept cruise missiles & low flying aircrafts.
The Pantsir's 57E6 has an operational range of 12 miles . Beyond that altitude how do you engage a target ? With S 300 & S 400 right
That's what I meant my high altitude SAM .
With no SAMs deployed in a theatre, the effectiveness of visually aimed and radar directed AAA is poor, as aircraft can attack unhindered from medium and high altitudes, out of the useful envelope of barrelled weapons. The corollary to this is , in a SAM rich environment where AAA would be absent, aircraft can attack unhindered from low altitudes, exploiting terrain masking and performance limitations in SAMs and their supporting radar systems. AAA's are also more difficult to kill due to smart use of mobility, camouflage and emission control.