S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

kvs wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Contextless crap.  So the clown doing the filming and spreading to youtube is not a saboteur right?
NATzO saboteurs don't exist because NATzO is populated with golden angels.  

Context: what is the failure rate of NATzO SAM rockets in this class and compared to failure rate to those
made in Russia.   Without this information this video just demonstrates you are a NATzO fanboi trying to
"prove" Russians are untermenschen.  

Meanwhile Mighty Technological Power (TM) America can't even get its astronauts into space.   Maybe
you should do a comparative statistical analysis on US manned launcher failure rates relative to the
inferior Russian junk.

kvs wrote:

Contextless crap. So the clown doing the filming and spreading to youtube is not a saboteur right?
NATzO saboteurs don't exist because NATzO is populated with golden angels.

Context: what is the failure rate of NATzO SAM rockets in this class and compared to failure rate to those
made in Russia. Without this information this video just demonstrates you are a NATzO fanboi trying to
"prove" Russians are untermenschen.

Meanwhile Mighty Technological Power (TM) America can't even get its astronauts into space. Maybe
you should do a comparative statistical analysis on US manned launcher failure rates relative to the
inferior Russian junk.

kvs wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

kvs wrote:

Contextless crap.  So the clown doing the filming and spreading to youtube is not a saboteur right?
NATzO saboteurs don't exist because NATzO is populated with golden angels.  

Context: what is the failure rate of NATzO SAM rockets in this class and compared to failure rate to those
made in Russia.   Without this information this video just demonstrates you are a NATzO fanboi trying to
"prove" Russians are untermenschen.  

Meanwhile Mighty Technological Power (TM) America can't even get its astronauts into space.   Maybe
you should do a comparative statistical analysis on US manned launcher failure rates relative to the
inferior Russian junk.

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm
Of those 307, 19 experienced prelaunch problems. Ten of the 19 problems were only temporary, thus these missile were either launched at a later time or returned to inventory. Of the 288 actual launches, 6 suffered boost failures and did not transition to cruise.


Overall failure rate of tomahawk: (19+6)/307=8.14%

One tomahawk from 12 will fail to launch, and it is not considering the number of rockets that fail during the cruise or final part of the flight.

Just for clarification: the tomahawk not lanced by "cold " system like the s-300 , means that a rocket failure means the rocket not leaving the canister.


Due to the deigns of the s-300 the rocket will leave the canister unless the cold ejector goes wrong ,regardless if the rocket itself is not working.

OK, so what is the failure rate for the S-300 complex missiles.   According to the Cruise Princess it should be over 50%.

BTW, the Tomahawk missile is a subsonic, jet engine powered cruise missile and not in the class of the S-300 missiles (e.g. 9M83).
You should be comparing to Patriot missiles (e.g. MIM-104D/E).

franco wrote:Just for the record, the missile for the S.300PS is past it's best before date. So all have to be given factory life extensions (5 years), so many have to be tested to ensure still operational. Perhaps this testing is one of what the video was showing.  

miketheterrible wrote:Question for you nerds who served in air defense systems (Militarov), what are some life extension modifications that can be done to such missiles?  Since you operated in the Serbian air defense forces, and you guys used quite the dated systems successfully, how did you maintain them?  Or where they simply used as is and hoped for the best?

miketheterrible wrote:Thanks! very detailed and quick response.  I would give you a hug and kiss, but I assume you are a dude and so am I, so unfortunately I hate to break your heart but I cant.

Militarov wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Question for you nerds who served in air defense systems (Militarov), what are some life extension modifications that can be done to such missiles?  Since you operated in the Serbian air defense forces, and you guys used quite the dated systems successfully, how did you maintain them?  Or where they simply used as is and hoped for the best?

When current shelf life is about to be over, you hand over the missiles to company that deals with their maintenance and life extension. They open sealed containers, missiles get disassembled, all electronic, radar and other components get checked, "spoiled" electronic components get replaced or restored, sometimes electronics get completely replaced if missile is getting "modernisation", paint is being removed and all types of chemical threatments too (aganist moisture, oil etc). Fuel gets checked, replaced...

Warhead gets sometimes replaced, at least the chemical components aka the explosive. Missiles then get assembled again, protected by chemicals, repainted... sealed and sent back to storages.

Here is video from the company in Serbia that performs that job:

Militarov wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Thanks! very detailed and quick response.  I would give you a hug and kiss, but I assume you are a dude and so am I, so unfortunately I hate to break your heart but I cant.

I am, tall dude with beard, you totally do not want to hug me...

KiloGolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Question for you nerds who served in air defense systems (Militarov), what are some life extension modifications that can be done to such missiles?  Since you operated in the Serbian air defense forces, and you guys used quite the dated systems successfully, how did you maintain them?  Or where they simply used as is and hoped for the best?

When current shelf life is about to be over, you hand over the missiles to company that deals with their maintenance and life extension. They open sealed containers, missiles get disassembled, all electronic, radar and other components get checked, "spoiled" electronic components get replaced or restored, sometimes electronics get completely replaced if missile is getting "modernisation", paint is being removed and all types of chemical threatments too (aganist moisture, oil etc). Fuel gets checked, replaced...

Warhead gets sometimes replaced, at least the chemical components aka the explosive. Missiles then get assembled again, protected by chemicals, repainted... sealed and sent back to storages.

Here is video from the company in Serbia that performs that job:

Do they seal these components in a dry room/dry environment or just vaccum?

Militarov wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Thanks! very detailed and quick response.  I would give you a hug and kiss, but I assume you are a dude and so am I, so unfortunately I hate to break your heart but I cant.

I am, tall dude with beard, you totally do not want to hug me...

Austin wrote:There was news few weeks back that they have upgrade all the S-300V/V2 to S-300V3 standards as part of modernisation of S-300V system , Plus the new V4 are coming.

S-300V3 is same as new export variant of Antey-2500

Singular_Transform wrote:I tried to found data around the net, but it seems like the S-300 / s-400 using Erbus - 2000 CPUs, and the data mast of the radars seems like small bandwidth one.

The full deployment of the glonass was way after the deployment of the S-400.
Elbrus-200: 2001
S-400:2007
Glonass:2010 -
Elbrus 4S : 2014
S-500 : 2016(planed)

Seems like the S-500 radar using a double cylinder antenna on the top of the communication mast.

Seems like it is upgraded compared to the previous generation.


So, the s-500 ( compared to s-400) has one magnitude (at least) higher processing capability, can utilise high precision timing and localisation data, and the radards has high bandwith interconnection.

So, maybe ans-500 battalion can be used in multi-static radar mode?

Isos wrote:Can the quad pack 120 km missiles used by S-400 fit in the big tubes that are seen on the luncher above or do they use smaller tubes ? Because on all the pictures of deployed S-400 luncher I've seen we can see just the big tubes. So are they operating a big amount of the 250+km missiles or less of them and more 120km missiles?

Isos wrote:Can the quad pack 120 km missiles used by S-400 fit in the big tubes that are seen on the luncher above or do they use smaller tubes ? Because on all the pictures of deployed S-400 luncher I've seen we can see just the big tubes. So are they operating a big amount of the 250+km missiles or less of them and more 120km missiles?