Austin wrote:SOC , exactly how the export Antey-2500 model differ from local S-300VM are they downgraded or something ?
Not that I know of. The Antey-2500 appears to have the same specifications and systems as the S-300VM.
Austin wrote:I remember Antey-2500 was demonstrated to India for its ABM program but the Indians were not impressed with the low altitude of BM interception i.e. 30 km , the DRDO chief said that even if the interception occured at that altitude the debris would fall on Indian land mass.
That's because it's still a relatively short-ranged ATBM system. To reduce the debris falling on you you're going to either 1) need to kill the target exoatmospherically, and hope the bits burn up on reentry, or 2) use either a very long-range or forward-deployed system to kill Pakistani missiles shortly after launch.
Austin wrote:Regarding Antey-2500 export ,it was not Venezuela my mistake , according to Almay-Antey 2009 report the Anetey-2500 along with S-400 is being proposed/advertised to be exported to Saudi , though i doubt Saudi will ever buy either.
I've heard Venezuela before, it's not a mistake. Although it's less capable Saudi makes more sense as a PAC-3 buyer, given that they've already got all of the Patriot infrastructure in place.
Mindstorm wrote:BVR missiles have failed to reach theirs targets almost systematically
It's not actually all that difficult to move outside of an active-radar seeker's field of view. At any rate AAMs have never and will never be 100% effective.
GarryB wrote:Known and verified Russian designators?
Perhaps the problem therefore is that export models are not included in their designation system?
They have stated they are introducing S-300V4 into service, now I doubt they mean they are just introducing one missile type.
Equally if they were then it doesn't make sense to introduce the V4 as because there are two it would be logical for a new system to either be V3(and 4) or V5 (and 6).
Those are the native designators for the system, yes. Export models have often been completely retarded with regard to their designations. Look at the S-300PMU: it's an export model S-300PS (SA-10B), but the designator makes you think that it's an S-300PM (SA-20A) variant. The S-300V4 could very well just be one missile type, if they've modified one or the other (9M82/3) to perform all of the required roles. That'd eliminate the need for a separate TELAR as well. In fact, even introducing just an ATBM S-300V4 would make sense as a stopgap until the ABM S-500 appears. Treat the S-300VM as the upgraded S-300V1/2, and then the S-300V4 as a separate dedicated system. Who knows. Maybe there is a V3/V4 combination, and just the ATBM V4 (following from the ATBM V2) is getting the silent treatment and therefore all of the attention. Although now that I dig a bit more, it seems that I do have an S-300VM1 and S-300VM2 designator listed; they're both referred to as the Antey-2500 for export, though. This, of course, still makes the S-300V4 a weird abberation. The V4 is likely one of the S-300VMD subvariants, the S-300VMD being the domestic equivalent to the further improved Antey-2500D. The S-300VM uses the 9M82M/9M83M, while the S-300VMD uses the 9M82M1/9M83M1.
Now that I think about it, this is what makes sense: the S-300VM, or Antey-2500, dropped the dual designators. Make that the in-service S-300V3. Then you've got the S-300VMD/Antey-2500D, becoming the in-service S-300V4. At least that seems logical at the moment.