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

Mindstorm wrote:For those interested, some informations that clarify what i was refering to in the posts n. 14 of this thread, a post that several people, at the time, found excessively cryptic    

kvs wrote:It is quite clear from the US attack on the Syrian air base that about half the missiles were intercepted.

Mindstorm wrote:Well that is not correct Wink  

Not necessity to shot down any missile was present for the entire salvo ,following the northern route toward the Al-Shayrat air base, delivered by the USS Ross -36 BGM-109 Block IV-

This entire salvo experienced a rare case of collective malfunction of missile's radar altimeters pointing to a progressive gain of altitude that was necessary to stabilize and counteract;  unfornutately this produced the effect of an early what disastrous early close encounter with sea's wakes......a true misfortune.

History of the unique scientific achievements at the basis of the event of April 2017 in Syria, with suppression of the entire salvo delivered by the USS Ross, causing only the 23 (24 with one malfunction) BGM-109 missile delivered by the USS Porter ,following the southern route, to effectively reach Al Shayrath AB.

https://vpk.name/news/224299_elektronnoe_lasso_dlya_tomagavkov.html

Does all this mean that Russian cruise missiles are useless as well?

Actually there is very little evidence that any of the Tomahawk missiles were intercepted during the attack on Shayrat airfield.

BlackArrow wrote:Does all this mean that Russian cruise missiles are useless as well?

Several Russian missiles ,such as the 3M14 family, (but not the X-101/102 where an innovative navigation systems was purposely developed) could be equally vulnerable to a similar foreign-built sophisticated EW system.

While in facts is true that at today domestic EW developers have gained a sizeable lead in EW related technology over foreign developers ,it cannot be excluded that a similar systems has been developed (or is in development just in those years with parts of 3M14s going over-ocean from the Syrian theatre of operation), difference is only that domestic EW solutions - not only this one but also those aimed to NATO's air/space communication and data sharing networks and airbased ISR and nav/guid systems - proved to be fully efficient directly in the operations against the actual systems, instead of export versions, employed by our dear over-ocean partners.

Do that is sufficient to render cruise missiles ,theirs or ours, operatively useless ? Obviously not.

Even discounting the normal dynamic between measure and countermeasure and therefore compressing the time window taken into account up to a specific operational situation where a similar counter-countermeasure would still not be available to one or both sides in conflict, cruise missiles will be have important roles capitalizing at example its range, therefore the capability to circumvent entirely sides too heavily defended to attack from direction less defended or bypass them to attack undefended area, or capability to selectrively change its flight-approach program , at example changing the pact to high altitude in the area where it is expected that enemy EW will operate that will render surely it detectable and engageable at much greater range by part of enemy AD, but will also assure its survival against the enemy EW and ,at worst, wasting some enemy interceptors.

BlackArrow wrote: Actually there is very little evidence that any of the Tomahawk missiles were intercepted during the attack on Shayrat airfield.

Actually, in facts, there is 0% evidence that any BGM-109 has been intercepted ,while contemporaneously there is 100% evidence that only 23 missiles cominng from the Southern sector  (the salvo delivered by USS Porter) arrived to the Al-Shayrath AB.
I can assure you that not anti-matter AD is responsible for the annihilation of the entire other salvo of the USS Porter  

Also in the western military  insider community the numbers circulating on the amount of missiles coming to the Al Shayrath Ab are always the same : 36 and 23 ; never 19-40, 26-33, 35-24, 41-18, 47-22, or any other number but Always 36 and 23 (for those claiming the 36 figure probably it represent a simple mistake in the reporting about what salvo, that of the USS Ross or that of the USS Porter has been entirely neutralized taking into account that total number of 23 hits is easily accountable for in the UAV video shown Russian DoD just after the attack).

Mindstorm wrote:

BlackArrow wrote:

BlackArrow wrote: Actually there is very little evidence that any of the Tomahawk missiles were intercepted during the attack on Shayrat airfield.

Actually, in facts, there is 0% evidence that any BGM-109 has been intercepted ,while contemporaneously there is 100% evidence that only 23 missiles cominng from the Southern sector  (the salvo delivered by USS Porter) arrived to the Al-Shayrath AB.
I can assure you that not anti-matter AD is responsible for the annihilation of the entire other salvo of the USS Porter  

Also in the western military  insider community the numbers circulating on the amount of missiles coming to the Al Shayrath Ab are always the same : 36 and 23 ; never 19-40, 26-33, 35-24, 41-18, 47-22, or any other number but Always 36 and 23 (for those claiming the 36 figure probably it represent a simple mistake in the reporting about what salvo, that of the USS Ross or that of the USS Porter has been entirely neutralized taking into account that total number of 23 hits is easily accountable for in the UAV video shown Russian DoD just after the attack).

At least 44 of the missiles certainly hit their targets, if not more.

Here is a picture. 44 strikes counted at least - as you can see the Americans never actually bothered to target the runways.

BlackArrow wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:

BlackArrow wrote:

BlackArrow wrote: Actually there is very little evidence that any of the Tomahawk missiles were intercepted during the attack on Shayrat airfield.

Actually, in facts, there is 0% evidence that any BGM-109 has been intercepted ,while contemporaneously there is 100% evidence that only 23 missiles cominng from the Southern sector  (the salvo delivered by USS Porter) arrived to the Al-Shayrath AB.
I can assure you that not anti-matter AD is responsible for the annihilation of the entire other salvo of the USS Porter  

Also in the western military  insider community the numbers circulating on the amount of missiles coming to the Al Shayrath Ab are always the same : 36 and 23 ; never 19-40, 26-33, 35-24, 41-18, 47-22, or any other number but Always 36 and 23 (for those claiming the 36 figure probably it represent a simple mistake in the reporting about what salvo, that of the USS Ross or that of the USS Porter has been entirely neutralized taking into account that total number of 23 hits is easily accountable for in the UAV video shown Russian DoD just after the attack).

At least 44 of the missiles certainly hit their targets, if not more.

Here is a picture. 44 strikes counted at least - as you can see the Americans never actually bothered to target the runways.

Always hilarious to see this image, nothing but yellow circles around....nothing.

The thermal imaging footage taking from a Russian drone that flew over the airfield shortly after the assault is far more revealing in terms of actual hit counts.

BlackArrow wrote:At least 44 of the missiles certainly hit their targets, if not more.

Here is a picture. 44 strikes counted at least - as you can see the Americans never actually bothered to target the runways.

Oh my......we are still at that ?

If any, this represent the umpteenth example of why is so easy for western PR operative to sell totally absurd, self-embarrassing bollocks to theirs public opinion providing as basis thin air with a logo beyond

That photo has been long examined here and elsewhere and is usually used to show how guillible are the typical western people when critical thinking examination of western-perceived source is concerned.

At post n 455 of "Syrian War: News#17" is the last time i responded to the appearance of this childish-made PR product.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7251p450-syrian-war-news-17#222889

I reproduce here for ease  



 
Yes, this "better known" image is the perfect example of the immense amount of b........t  that western PR machine is capable to sell to theirs public opinion ,in spite of the fact that any factual and rational element would point to the exact opposite.
Practically for western operatives is sufficient to trace some yellow circles around elements of old satellite images ,taken even before the attack even happened, and magically a "proof" has been created from thin air ! All of that against the self-evident primary detonations of only 23 missiles (22 on military installations) visible in the live video shown by Federation's MoD and for not different reason that, in spite of the total absurdity of those PR works, the typical western viewer would not even pass the thing under the minimum scrap of critical thinking lens !

By now naturally anyone execpt the most ignorant people is perfectly aware that the problem is not only of the 10 weapon depots that has been never hit in the US attack to Al Shayrat AB





but also that ,only to provide some examples, that number of hits at the support complex was 4 (as easily visible in the video of Federation's MoD) not 5  






that those two burn trace are obviously NOT the result of two TLAM hits but ZERO







or that for several of the two-bay hardened aircraft shelters, counted as two TLAM hits, in reality only one was hit while the other remained relatively undamaged




Naturally all of that will change nothing for mindless plants that ,for the last event, come to the point to even believe to the absurdity that the pics shown under theirs eyes of three medium size ,not hardened civil builings, "strangely" just those without any SAM battery purposely placed at theirs defence (to the contrary of the military installations targeted) is the result of 76 TLAM hit !!!   Laughing Laughing Laughing

Enough said.

can any one translate in English ?

[quote="George1"]Characteristics of long-range anti-aircraft guided missile 40N6

40N6E the export version...good to finally see something official

Only 15 km as max range against medium range ballistic missiles. I think s-300VM does better than that against BM.

5km as min range. So the gap will be covered by Buk or tor or pantsir or smaller s-400 missiles.

Others poster with information on 40N6 the domestic version, This image was with the other 3 That George1 posted



Can somente translate?

The person who posted This and the others 3 on internet talked about 40N6M for S500

Arrow wrote:40N6 top speed only about 1km / s? It even 48N6DM has top speed about  2.5 km / s.

It is written if I'm not wrong 4800m/s for 40N6 on the picture posted by dinoo.

If we can trust the drawing (and we did believe in the A235/Nudol/S-500 drawing made in the Almaz calender too :-) ) it looks more like 48N6 than it is a 9M82 derivate....
That will ease the use of standard equipment and complicate my task to find them :-(
Do someone knows whether the deployment already started to some Regiments?

Interesting Open later from Alexander Luzan ,
retired lieutenant general, doctor of technical sciences, laureate of the State Prize, chairman of the State Commission for Joint Tests of the S-300VM SAM (1989-1990)

Comparations tests between pac3 and s300v and more

Surpass in shooting, yield to the sale
Open letter to the Chairman of the State Commission for Joint Tests of the S-300V4 SAM

https://vpk-news.ru/articles/44764

https://iz.ru/782293/2018-08-27/v-arktike-nachalos-stroitelstvo-rossiiskoi-bazy-pvo

The construction of the Russian Air Defense base began in the Arctic
In the Yakut port of Tiksi, the construction of a military town began for employees of the PVO unit of the Northern Fleet.
In November last year, the admiral said that in 2018 in the fleet will form a new PVO División
The military town will be built in six months. It will consist of 11 facilities, the press service of the fleet informs

The unit referred to in the article is a new regiment ZPR, probably with S-300 leftovers from other regiments that have received S-400

In 2016, a ZPR regiment with S-300 was established in Rogachevo, a unit that, together with this new one in Tiksi, will probably constitute a new PVO division in the Russian Arctic area

This is a post I have put in the Russia/Syria thread that I thought might have a relevance here especially as it might be the first opportunity to show that it works for real. Given the RuAF increased traffic into Syria over the past few days the system might already be there.

A little commented on point on this new and developing situation is that there will now be another Russian defence system in Syria under testing in a war situation. The existing directly RuAF controlled S-300/400 systems not really being in that category.

As it is a member of the S-300/400 family this is a massive opportunity for a system with tremendous export potential to potentially become a proven under duress product with a new page in the sales brochure and an increased price!

As shown by the Israeli and US pressure to date not to deploy, this is something that the MIC in Washington and especially manufacturers of US SAMs, really, really did not want to happen. If a S-300 missile knocks a F-16 to the latest spec operated by probably the most highly trained AF in the World it will be a sales disaster as well as a massive hit against the confidence of Western militaries. Confirming in the worst possible way the fears already expressed by USAF Generals. I can't see any pilot volunteering to become the first to beat a S-300/400 missile! Plus I can't see the Syrians worrying about where in the range of their S-300 that they actually hit an IAF plane that has attacked them with a standoff device.

This situation I suspect will add to Israel's own reluctance to lose an aircraft the probable huge pressure from the US not to allow the S-300 to become proven in battle. But this in itself will add to it's reputation just by increasing it's deterrence factor. Almost win, win for Russia.

George1 wrote:Characteristics of long-range anti-aircraft guided missile 40N6

40N6 do 7,8 to 8.75 m rather 8.75 ofc a monster for 400 km range !
48N6 7.5 m x 0.6 m

S-500 surely do easy 10 m x possible 1 m ! almost a S-200 the TEL have only 2 missiles.

I have a very good graphic but in 7 days...

Austin wrote:can any one translate in English ?

You mean Mindstorms's post above?

Fat chance...

Not many snapshots of a live S-400 screen around. Note the individual ID of each F-16, wonder what that is based on?

General Konashenkov said the numbers are generated automatically by the radar system.

The number of the Il-20M. 007. Fitting for a spy plane.