S-350 "Vityaz" SAM System

GarryB wrote:

No, we are talking about two completely different things.
What you are describing here is a is an ESM system i.e. something that sense ENEMY own emissions and extract data from it.

I think we can agree that this new system is optimised for shooting down low flying cruise missiles and standoff munitions normally used to take out air defence systems.

I didn't bother with the translate function on that video but it is pretty clear the S-350 is basically a combination of the S-300 and the TOR missile... ie a medium to long range TOR system effectively but over distances where command guided is not good enough so ARH is needed for the missiles.

An ESM system would be something like Orion system offered a while back...

The S-350 shown in the video above has a large slow radar spinning around and a smaller but much faster antenna spinning... with two AESA radars looking for targets it would make sense to also have three passive systems listening in for signals... actively generated by the target, or reflected from the target from other active sources...

I would say that the S-350 though being a s the S-400 a derivative of S-300 line and utilizing some common components is specialized to counter specific menaces that showed up during he S-300 service life as a tentative to counteract it.
So while the S-400 is focused about the increase of the range and efficacy of the existing AD defence in order to create "bubbles" in which enemy air forces cannot operate with impunity, Vytiaz concentrate itself into defence of smaller but strategically important areas from systems and tactics used to slip under or overload with the sheer numbers of stand-off weapons the previously used systems.

They could be summarised in three different categories: waves of large cruise missiles arriving in the same moment on a 350° horizon, stealth planes using gliding bombs, and swarm of droses and loitering ammuitions.
Differently from S-300 the Vytiaz uses 360° search and targeting radar in two different bands and active radar homing missiles so it can engage a great number of incoming long range cruise missiles all around the radar horizon at the same time, (S-300 with its TVM targeting radar can engage only the ones coming from a limited angle).
Passive radar locator allow them to sense the stealth planes at a safe distance and begin the engagement sequence without even turning on the search radar.
Swarms of small drones and loitering ammunition would be engaged by a corrispondent pack of 9M100 missiles.

So all the three different missiles that would be used will each own have their ration d'etre.
9m96 will be used to engage the first menace so to cover whole cities,airports and military bases.
Longer ranged 9M96E2 would be used to engage stealth planes before they would launch their glide bombs, if someone would however reach launching point it will possible however to engage them also (an overkill but better than nothing), 9M100 would be ideal for self protection.

For the rest Garry, I didn't see the practical convenience to offering free of charge targets to Growlers (and Tornado ECR) turning on active radars in order to give tp passive radar locators those radio emissions that they could eagerly get from normal civilians broadcasting stations, someone located even in neutral or even hostile nations.
Actual passive multistatic radars could eagerly use FM radio stations located at a distance of 120-150 km and DVB ones at a distance of 300km with the adversary being not able to notice anything.
Even more, it seems that the high definition DVB standard that most nation would introduce in the next few years would be absolutely ideal for the role.

franco wrote:
S-400

Not sure why they don't take some of the old 300PS TEL's and put 4x4 of these missiles on them and attach to the 400 regiments for close in defense.

IMO S-400 has a limit in numbers of missiles/TEL connected to 1 system. They would need to replace one of TEL by this one to use it or directly put the 4 tubes instead of 1 48N6 missile on one of the s400's TEL.

If it was that easy they would have used all the older TEL and connected them to s-400 because they still have a huge amount of older missiles.

Not sure why they don't take some of the old 300PS TEL's and put 4x4 of these missiles on them and attach to the 400 regiments for close in defense.

They probably want to retire the old trucks... some of which probably entered service in the early 1980s.

Looking at the other vehicles I suspect the S-350 system is probably vastly more capable than the S-300 and it probably rather more use in supporting other units (S-400, S-500 etc) as well as being used on its own.

Using the quad tubes per S-300 tube probably complicates usage... I suspect the entire four tubes need to be reloaded together, whereas with the S-350 they can probably reload one tube at a time as needs be...

I would say that the S-350 though being a s the S-400 a derivative of S-300 line and utilizing some common components is specialized to counter specific menaces that showed up during he S-300 service life as a tentative to counteract it.
So while the S-400 is focused about the increase of the range and efficacy of the existing AD defence in order to create "bubbles" in which enemy air forces cannot operate with impunity, Vytiaz concentrate itself into defence of smaller but strategically important areas from systems and tactics used to slip under or overload with the sheer numbers of stand-off weapons the previously used systems.

I agree, the S-400 basically evolved from the S-300 and improves its performance against aerial targets like bombers and fighters and ballistic targets, but targets like stealthy weapons and stand off munitions and cruise missiles flying very low can't really be engaged efficiently at long range and do not require enormous 400km range expensive missiles to deal with them.

In a sense they have taken the cruise missile ARM weapon component out of the S-400s target group and created a reduced size and cost model specifically to deal with the threat in numbers that can deal with swarm attacks.

An S-400 could still engage cruise missiles and anti radiation missiles, but is not an efficient choice for that job if you can help it in terms of numbers available and cost per shot.

Differently from S-300 the Vytiaz uses 360° search and targeting radar in two different bands and active radar homing missiles so it can engage a great number of incoming long range cruise missiles all around the radar horizon at the same time, (S-300 with its TVM targeting radar can engage only the ones coming from a limited angle).

S-300 and S-400 are both able to engage targets from any direction, both are vertical launch, and both have radar sets that can turn 360 degrees.

9m96 will be used to engage the first menace so to cover whole cities,airports and military bases.
Longer ranged 9M96E2 would be used to engage stealth planes before they would launch their glide bombs, if someone would however reach launching point it will possible however to engage them also (an overkill but better than nothing), 9M100 would be ideal for self protection.

Would agree, but would say the longer ranged missiles are more likely to engage conventional aircraft launching stand off weapons... long range engagement of stealth aircraft I would leave to S-400 missiles out to much greater distances... even the cheapest stealth aircraft platform would be the 120 million dollar F-35 so it would still be cost effective.

I would also add that the Soviets and Russians rarely use their systems on their own... the S-350 is a layered system but still might operate with a TOR or BUK or Pantsir or Tunguska nearby... perhaps even a Pine or Verba...

For the rest Garry, I didn't see the practical convenience to offering free of charge targets to Growlers (and Tornado ECR) turning on active radars in order to give tp passive radar locators those radio emissions that they could eagerly get from normal civilians broadcasting stations, someone located even in neutral or even hostile nations.
Actual passive multistatic radars could eagerly use FM radio stations located at a distance of 120-150 km and DVB ones at a distance of 300km with the adversary being not able to notice anything.
Even more, it seems that the high definition DVB standard that most nation would introduce in the next few years would be absolutely ideal for the role.

It is all a game of cat and mouse... turning on a radar might reveal your position but it also gives you information and for every radar you turn on you could have a dozen radars just listening for returns or communications. Decoy stations could emit radar signals to attract an attack that is essentially an ambush... it is going to be a very complex dance... the Russians have a lot of neat toys and tools...

If it was that easy they would have used all the older TEL and connected them to s-400 because they still have a huge amount of older missiles.

A few TELs will be kept for use as launching older missiles with their warheads replaced with telemetry and other equipment for use as targets for their air defence units... hell they probably have so many SA-1 missiles on hand they could use them as ballistic rockets in place of FROG-7s if they wanted to.

Isos wrote:

franco wrote:
S-400

Not sure why they don't take some of the old 300PS TEL's and put 4x4 of these missiles on them and attach to the 400 regiments for close in defense.

IMO S-400 has a limit in numbers of missiles/TEL connected to 1 system. They would need to replace one of TEL by this one to use it or directly put the 4 tubes instead of 1 48N6 missile on one of the s400's TEL.

If it was that easy they would have used all the older TEL and connected them to s-400 because they still have a huge amount of older missiles.

Let say that to have the capacity of the S-400 or the S-350 you have to acquire their very same radars and command center: at this point much better to put the whole of older system in the reserve ready to be mobilized than to spare a negligible amount of money using older launcher vehicles instead of newly produced ones.

Hole wrote:

There's something about the candy-red missile tube caps contrast to the matte dark olive green TEL color that makes this thing look like a stone-cold fox.

They will paint them in green too oncevin service. That's too flashy and can be spotted on reco images (drones, satelittes ...).

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Hole wrote:

There's something about the candy-red missile tube caps contrast to the matte dark olive green TEL color that makes this thing look like a stone-cold fox.

More like:

Red cover = MAKET
Inert ordinance for display purposes.

http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons/9M96_a000991001.aspx

Specs for 9m96 :

Diameter: 240 millimeter (9.45 inch)
Length: 4.75 meter (187 inch)
Wingspan: 480 millimeter (18.9 inch)
Warhead: 24 kilogram (53 pound)
Weight: 333 kilogram (734 pound)

9m96E2 is a little bit longer as it has more range.

dino00 wrote:Isos thanks for your help, but it doesn't answer my question, we don't know what type of 9M96E2 missile he uses in the export version...
There are different versions of 9m96E2 missiles with different types of diameter, the only way is if someone knows how to measure the length and width of the missiles in the launched...if someone can help...

You mean what missile the s-350 uses ?

Well there was no info about that. I think in one article they said it has a range of 40km so it uses 9m96 but it's very unlikely.

1) s-350 is the land version of redut which uses both 9M96 and 9M96E2.

2) That would make it a less capabke system than buk-M3 and old S-300 that it is replacing and had more than 90km range.

3) 9m96E2 was designed because 9m96 range was too short.

So IMO they can use both missiles. Being a ground based system it is affected by radar horizon so they don't need 9m96E2 for intercepting cruise missile that will be detected at less than 40km.

But there is nothing official about that.

9M96D(M) would be close to 150km range.  9M96E2 is the 120km range one.  I believe Redut when tested was tested at 150km range missile.

https://tass.com/defense/1032659

@dino00

This is a "quick&dirty" attempt, hope it is better than nothing.

I tried to measure the canister in the S-350 and it should be close to 5.5 m, considering I did not correct the perspective in a precise way. The canister of the 9M96E2 is 5.6 m , the missile inside is 5.35. The 9M96E is 4.5 m long. So it seems way too big for the 9M96E and the system seems indeed capable for the longer missile, which in export version has a 120 km range but in the domestic (not sure whether this is 9M96D, 9M96M2 or 9M96-2, I have seen the three of them) reaches 150 km, from what we saw from the Redut missile system. Apart from this, there should be a 9M96M missile with improved characteristics compared to 9M96.

That being said, the catalogue for the S-350E mentions 60 km range, which is indeed more than the standard 9M96E could do, but much less than the 96E2. I cannot explain the reason for this discrepancy, and Rosobornexport still has no official data for the S-350E online. The latest info was from Army 2019 and there the given range was provided, but maybe this was just preliminary information.

In conclusion I think this is a commercial issue rather than a technical one. If I am wrong and the canister is for the 9M96E, then the range is wrong. If it is indeed a container capable for the E2, then the range also doesn't make sense. I have seen no other missile types mentioned for this system that could make sense.

New Defence Order says the following:

9M96 and 9M96D missiles differ only in the size of the power system. The range capability for the export version of 9M96 (9M96E) missile is estimated at 30 kilo-meters. The range of the export version of 9M96D (9M96E2) missile is estimated at 120 kilometers, but according to open sources, the range of 9M96D performed by the Russian armed forces can reach 150 kilometers.

https://dfnc.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/NOZ_154_2019_Eng_blockcover_END_120dpi.pdf

@dino00:

many thanks mate

dino00 wrote: but didn't said in width, how fat is this missile, if you can say appreciate.

The missile's diameter is 273 mm, the canister is roughly 400 mm in diameter. Considering the whole assembly itself has square ends with slightly different dimensions of 420x489 mm. This is what your first image shows, and not the size of the missile.

And you put the same questions I have to myself.

Indeed! Because the information they are publishing makes no sense, in light of the information we have about the missiles  

One thing is clear at least one of the missiles in the Russian version is the 9M96D( because we can read on the missiles caps)

Well noticed, this seems to confirm the info in New Defence Order.

This is precisely what didn't make sense to me.

Or the canister are very far from being full which doesn't make sense, and the missile is just an improvement from 9M96E from the 90's and God knows why they call it 9M96E2.

I can only think they are using preliminary info, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

As you can see 2 different versions the same range, one of them precisely what you said in length, if it has the same width I think we have our Russian version.

I very much doubt they would bother doing different diameters of missile, it would demand to completely redesign everything. As said above, those two different catalogue sheets refer to two different presentations of the product at MAKS 2017: one was the bare missile, the other was inside the canister. It was completely filled and apparently identical to the other example. It only had a 9M96E2-1 index.

Why would the Russians sell a missile with only 60km range? It could be a sells flop

Yeah, I can only imagine that they don't want to "cannibalize" other products in their catalogue. But IMO we should first of all wait for ROE to publish the product on their site, maybe they were just probing their customers until now.