Almaz-Antey S-400 Triumph / SA-21 Growler TABM/SAM

[SOC]

If they're firing at that range they're probably doing it using cueing from the acquisition radars before the engagement radar takes over during endgame. The E-2's ESM would have to be smart enough to tell that it is within 400 kilometers of a BIG BIRD E in order to remain outside the engagement zone. Not sure what it's range resolution capability would be at that distance.

 

[sferrin]

If they're firing at that range they're probably doing it using cueing from the acquisition radars before the engagement radar takes over during endgame. The E-2's ESM would have to be smart enough to tell that it is within 400 kilometers of a BIG BIRD E in order to remain outside the engagement zone. Not sure what it's range resolution capability would be at that distance.

Not sure but typically an E-2 won't be working alone.

 

[AeroFranz]

ummm....regardless of whether an E-2 or an E-3 can or cannot see the missile coming, i still can't see what a lumbering target flying at M0.4-0.6 can do to evade an incoming missile if it has < 3 minutes to do anything. It's not going to get out of range, it's not going to start maneuvering to avoid getting hit. Maybe ECM? Ten years from now I can see it using AESA to mess with the missile seeker, but right now, I just don't know. My guess for now is that an AEW platform would be advised to operate outside the threat bubble.

 

[sferrin]

ummm....regardless of whether an E-2 or an E-3 can or cannot see the missile coming, i still can't see what a lumbering target flying at M0.4-0.6 can do to evade an incoming missile if it has < 3 minutes to do anything.

There is nothing magical about a SAM. As long as you don't put yourself in it's no-escape zone and you can see what's going on then you just move.

 

[SOC]

The problem is that when you are a slow, non-maneuvering target like an AEW&C platform, the no-escape zone for a given SAM system is a lot closer to the maximum range than it would be otherwise.

 

[sferrin]

The problem is that when you are a slow, non-maneuvering target like an AEW&C platform, the no-escape zone for a given SAM system is a lot closer to the maximum range than it would be otherwise.

No arguements there. One of the things they want to do with the F-22 is have it in closer soaking up all the electronic emissions and building up an enemy order of battle. Of course they still have to get that data offboard but they're working on that IIRC.

 

[flateric]

what can you find walking along Tverskaya street in Moscow today at 9.00 PM...half a dozen of Growler's TELs...etc

 

[SpudmanWP]

How about an Air launched ATACMS?

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-140.html

 

[Sheriff]

The problem AWACS poses to a radar guided SAM, especially one with active guidance or TVM is what does the SAM do when the AWACS crew decide to illuminate the missile with all the radar energy they can send?

 

[F-14D]

The problem AWACS poses to a radar guided SAM, especially one with active guidance or TVM is what does the SAM do when the AWACS crew decide to illuminate the missile with all the radar energy they can send?

Home on it.

In addition, if they stop the antenna's rotation so as to concentrate on the SAM (assuming they can do that), you've effectively rendered the AWACS blind in all other directions, essentially accomplishing your mission anyway (plus keeping it from seeing that second SAM coming from 45 degrees over).

 

[Lampshade111]

I have no doubt that like our latest Patriot missiles the S-400 is a very capable SAM. However I think it has been extremely overhyped by the Russian press who would have you believe it would shoot down the entire USAF at 400km away.

For conventional aircraft a powered variant of the AGM-154 JSOW might be very useful for killing these. You could use the AGM-158 JASSAM too I suppose. Otherwise your best bet would probably be to fly low, fast, with heavy ECM support and a few HARMs. Stealth aircraft would certainly allow you to get closer, into SBD or unpowered JSOW range at least.

Regarding protecting AWACs from these things couldn't a dedicated jammer aircraft fly with the AWACs? A few "soft kill" active defense systems have been developed for civilian airliners, and I am sure they are being examined for military purposes.

 

[SOC]

I have no doubt that like our latest Patriot missiles the S-400 is a very capable SAM. However I think it has been extremely overhyped by the Russian press who would have you believe it would shoot down the entire USAF at 400km away.

And the overhype may not even be accurate, nobody can prove that the 40N6 exists. The 48N6 has been tested to 400km, so it is possible that even the S-300PM series can hit something at 400km!

For conventional aircraft a powered variant of the AGM-154 JSOW might be very useful for killing these. You could use the AGM-158 JASSAM too I suppose. Otherwise your best bet would probably be to fly low, fast, with heavy ECM support and a few HARMs. Stealth aircraft would certainly allow you to get closer, into SBD or unpowered JSOW range at least.

JSOW/JASSM aren't guarantees. The S-300P was intended from the get-go to hit low RCS targets. HARMs? The thing can kill ARMs. Jammers? HOJ capability. Your best bet is to try and saturate the damn thing. One GRAVE STONE radar can only engage so many targets at once, after all.

Regarding protecting AWACs from these things couldn't a dedicated jammer aircraft fly with the AWACs? A few "soft kill" active defense systems have been developed for civilian airliners, and I am sure they are being examined for military purposes.

Again, HOJ. And the soft-kill systems (like LAIRCM, used by the USAF on large aircraft like the C-17) aren't going to do a single thing against a radar-guided SAM. The airliner defenses are meant to defeat shoulder-fired SAMs by screwing with the IR seekers.

 

[flateric]

[And the overhype may not even be accurate, nobody can prove that the 40N6 exists.

Here http://www.almaz-antey.ru/news.php?id=201 they say of 400 km missile tests for Growler, and I don't know what else can fit the description other way than mysterious 40N6.

 

[SOC]

From my S-300P article:

"Fakel MKB engineers began work on dealing with the issue of a 400 kilometer ranged missile immediately upon the initiation of S-400 development. Boris Bunkin and Petr Grushin analyzed the characteristics of the 48N6 series missiles and realized that there was still potential in the missile for increased range. The missiles of the S-300P series weapons initially fly a near-ballistic profile towards their target. Increasing the altitude at apogee of the trajectory results in an increase in range. In-service weapons had their apogee restricted to 38 kilometers. This was due to the fact that at a higher altitude the aerodynamic control surfaces would no longer function effectively. Thrust vectoring control used during the boost stage was no longer viable either as the motor had already burnt out prior to reaching apogee. It was discovered that operating the control surfaces at higher altitudes resulted in an instability in the flight path, potentially impacting the accuracy of the weapon. Bunkin and Grushin's solution to increase the range of the missile system was to modify the control surfaces to allow them to lock during the near-ballistic portion of the trajectory. This would eliminate any unwanted movement, with the control surfaces unlocking upon reaching lower altitude to provide maneuverability during endgame. The new missile was tested in 1985 and reached an apogee of 70 kilometers. The significant increase in altitude enabled the missile to fly out to a range of 400 kilometers. Upon descending to 20 kilometers, the missile's guidance system was recaptured by an experimental engagement radar complex and guided normally, validating the concept of a 400 kilometer missile for the S-400.

After the 400 kilometer test firing, Almaz MKB set about redesigning the experimental engagement radar components to allow the system to be employed on a mobile chassis. The S-400 design was approved in 1988. Events surrounding the breakup of the Soviet Union would affect production of system components, so testing of the S-400 did not commence until 1993. By this time testing of strategic-level SAM systems had been relocated to Kapustin Yar in southwestern Russia as Sary Shagan now resided in the independent nation of Kazakhstan. System testing initially commenced with the existing 48N6D missile, with testing of the new 48N6DM designed for the S-400 being reported in 2004. The first S-400 battallion entered operational service near the town of Elektrostal in the Moscow region on 6 August 2007.

...skip down a bit...

The long-range weapon designed to give the S-400 its 400 kilometer engagement range is believed to be designated 40N6. As mentioned previously, the 48N6 has proved capable of operating effectively at this range, so 40N6 may in fact be a cover designation for an appropriately modified 400 kilometer ranged 48N6 series weapon destined for the S-400. Alternatively, it may be a wholly different missile designed for a different weapon system, such as the forthcoming S-500 strategic defense system. Ergo, despite rumors persisting of the continued development of what is referred to as the 40N6, it may well be that the S-400 is already capable of engaging targets at maximum range using the existing 48N6DM. This is reinforced by the fact that some sources claim that a 400 kilometer range missile has been in service with air defense units around Moscow since 2001. Were this to be the case, the 400 kilometer missile would almost certainly have to be a variant of the 48N6, as the only air defense units capable of operating such a system around Moscow would have been the various S-300PM batteries. This would also likely imply that off-board targeting of the missile for extreme-range engagements is possible, perhaps using the 64N6 battle management radar system. Endgame intercept without the standard SAGG guidance mode provided by the engagement radar would likely be performed using active radar homing were this to be the case. Active radar homing is another feature commonly attributed to the 40N6 missile, further reinforcing the fact that the missile may be the 48N6DM or another unknown variant. With active radar homing missiles could theoretically be fired using off-board targeting data, allowing them to engage targets outside the range of the engagement radar as SAGG guidance commands would not be required. It may even be possible that new-build 48N6 series weapons came with Bunkin and Grushin's locking control surfaces, allowing them to be operated at extreme range. Until Russia releases information regarding the 400 kilometer missile system employed by the S-400, the missile providing this capability will have to remain an enigma."

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/07/s-300p-detailed-analysis.html The reference for the testing bit from Sary Shagan was Pervov's SAMs of the PVO, a thoroughly awesome Russian-language publication.

So as you can see, I am still skeptical of the "40N6", but not the 400km range.

 

[sferrin]

Kinda reminds me of the ranges Terrier targets can reach on similar profiles (albeit not hitting aircraft at the other end )

 

[Lampshade111]

And the overhype may not even be accurate, nobody can prove that the 40N6 exists. The 48N6 has been tested to 400km, so it is possible that even the S-300PM series can hit something at 400km!

I find the 400km range claim rather extreme, possibly a big aircraft like a C-17 at medium altitude that has decided not to turn away from the SAM site. I believe it is certainly the maximum range and not the "effective" range.

JSOW/JASSM aren't guarantees. The S-300P was intended from the get-go to hit low RCS targets. HARMs? The thing can kill ARMs. Jammers? HOJ capability. Your best bet is to try and saturate the damn thing. One GRAVE STONE radar can only engage so many targets at once, after all.

Yep, neither are guarantees, but you might as well try since it is better than doing it the old fashioned way. I know the Russians want everybody to believe the S-400 and even later S-300s would be downing Raptors at long ranges, but personally I believe a modern stealth aircraft can get much closer than they would like to admit. Yeah those SAMs can kill ARMs, but a number of AGM-88E moving at Mach 4 are still going to be tough to hit, and we are talking about a flight of aircraft loaded with them and other munitions, not one poor aircraft. As far as home-on-jam capability goes, it really depends on the type of ECM systems your up against. It hasn't rendered ECM obsolete overnight. Plus AESA radars will eventually bring a new capability to that area.

There is no denying the S-400 is a dangerous SAM systems, but it just isn't a super weapon, nor is any other SAM.

Again, HOJ. And the soft-kill systems (like LAIRCM, used by the USAF on large aircraft like the C-17) aren't going to do a single thing against a radar-guided SAM. The airliner defenses are meant to defeat shoulder-fired SAMs by screwing with the IR seekers.

Home-on-jam isn't the final say in the constant battle between ECM systems and missiles/radar. As far as using a electronic warfare aircraft to escort an AWACs, even if the missile doesn't get confused and switches to home on jam, I suppose something like a EA-18G would have a far better chance of evading the missile and luring it away from the AWACs.

I believe some more advanced soft-kill systems are in development, but none may be able to confuse a radar-guided missile. Eventually I imagine we will get to laser-based hard-kill systems. Of course by then, air warfare could radically change.

sferrin which version of the Terrier missile could reach such a distance?

 

[Austin]

High Technology Air Defense Weapons vs Planned US Force Structure

Why 187 F-22s Are Not Sufficient

The Proliferation of Counter-Stealth Systems

The Global Impact of Anti-Access Weapons

 

[JFC Fuller]

Austin,

Be very careful with those articles, they are extremely bias and intended as one side of a doctrinal/force direction debate rather than as rational informed analysis. They are best thought of as political pieces.

 

[Avimimus]

I find the 400km range claim rather extreme, possibly a big aircraft like a C-17 at medium altitude that has decided not to turn away from the SAM site. I believe it is certainly the maximum range and not the "effective" range.

Calm:
- A ballistic range of 400km is plausible (an R-37 has reportedly been tracked by radar at over 300km. Of course, its effective range would be much less and the missile in question couldn't target anything under these conditions.)
- The mystery missile was brought back under control at 400km, so the maximum range would likely be slightly more. "No escape zone" would obviously be considerably less.
- Given that the missile has an active radar seeker, there is no reason to believe that it couldn't target fighter sized aircraft at these ranges.

There are two limits to effectiveness though:
- Time from launch to terminal phase (if the target moves to much and the missile's course isn't corrected by another platform the target will have passed outside of the missile's terminal seeker's range when the missile reaches its destination)
- The missile's basic attribute (a large missile, with a larger warhead and no thrust vectoring - as the engine would have burnt out much earlier at the beginning of the ballistic phase).

In the future missiles will rain from the upper sky as small sensor platform UAVs (perhaps ballistically deployed themselves) drift around providing sensor information. A world of big missiles and little targets.

 

[Lampshade111]

Well nobody can know for sure, it is just my personal opinion that 400km is the maximum range, and that it is unlikely anything would be hit near such a distance.

Either way, as capable as the S-400 may be, I think that radar is going to attract a lot of attention when it lights up.

Regarding UAVs, personally I imagine the future to be a bit more conventional. I picture somewhat reduced numbers of advanced manned aircraft (but including some legacy designs like the A-10C) backed up by a larger fleet of relatively cheap, stealthy UCAVs. These would be subsonic but have a long range and loiter time, would be fitted with advanced sensors, and carry an impressive payload of ground attack weapons. Plus some short ranged missiles like the AIM-9X for self defense.

 

[Austin]

Austin,

Be very careful with those articles, they are extremely bias and intended as one side of a doctrinal/force direction debate rather than as rational informed analysis. They are best thought of as political pieces.

sealordlawrence , Yes I am aware of Carl Kopp biased opinion specially when it comes to F-22 purchase etc etc , but technically what is wrong with the article ?

 

[voidmage]

The mystery missile was brought back under control at 400km, so the maximum range would likely be slightly more. "No escape zone" would obviously be considerably less

I find very strange so many people cite so often NEZ for a long range Air Defence System ,(like S-400).
The same notion of NEZ is linked strictly to uncapacity of long range AIR DELIVERED BVR missile to reach the "suppression range" from its intended target for the classical kinematic energy depleting,(with of course,a decrease in capacity to carry out high G manoeuvres),due,above all, to the consuption of its propellant.
Note: Is for that which ram jet engines AA missiles have a greater max engagement range.

Now,even a kid can realize who use the same argument with a Long range SAM missile's like 40N6 (a monster 8 m. long,capaple of MACH 10 speed ,and following in the first phase of its launch an almost ballistic flight profiles...at sideral altitudes...for converts potential energy into kinetic energy during interception)is no pointless ,but ABSURD.
At that we must add who a manoevring target (example a fighter aircraft) capitalizing the previously cited "energy depletion" of the typical AA BVR missile in its terminal phase, generally manage at most to outdistance the missile's warhead of few meters over its maxiumum suppressing range (generally 3 or 4 m)....good,the suppressing range of a missile in the category of 40N6 is about 45 meters !!!(that is necessary absolutely for ballistic missiles interception).

 

[voidmage]

Now the second question i often hear similar sentences:

For conventional aircraft a powered variant of the AGM-154 JSOW might be very useful for killing these.

or

I know the Russians want everybody to believe the S-400 and even later S-300s would be downing Raptors at long ranges, but personally I believe a modern stealth aircraft can get much closer than they would like to admit. Yeah those SAMs can kill ARMs, but a number of AGM-88E moving at Mach 4 are still going to be tough to hit

The reasonement (in truth somewhat childish...)behind similar statements are more or less so: "This SAM is a very capable one? ok i search the first air-delivered cruise missile or PGM in western arsenal with the word "stand off" writed in its description, and claim it is possible to suppress that SAM with it.
With a similar reasonment a Navy fired, 2500 Km capable BGM-109 "Tomahak"would be even more efficient...but the important is which an aircraft can in some way engage it.
Someone should explain to those people that similar weapons are conceived to attack FIXED targets,like building,hangars,command posts or FIXED SAM batteries (like the few '50 years high altitude Iraqi SA-2/5 attacked with litterally a mountain of BGM 109 in Gulf Wars) ;at maximum them could achieve a kill,using the new IR terminal guidance on a mouving target placed in the programmed space position attacked" .
In reality even weapons immensely more efficient for DEAD missions (like low and slow mouving dedicated aircraft armed with a great numbers of higly precise guided missiles) have always failed to destroy high mobile SAMs(like the '60 SA-6) and ,rather, the only thing which prevented a very high,crippling attrition rate was the altitude limits of these systems:100m minimum 11000m maximum ( the aircraft could capitalize them in the event of "illumination"),

 

[voidmage]

absence of TELAR (in case of a missile fired an HARM was fired at the single engagement radar forcing it to turn off and break the guidance..naturally with TELAR that become pointless ,because if a radar is turned off the missile can use that of another CV to reach its intended target and a typical battery instead of one can engage SIX different targets contemporaneously),and the high time of reaction (self explaining). In URSS in the same year in which we have attempted in vain to suppress SA-6, was massively operative,since 1983 ,BUK M1 (the successor of SA-6) with : TELAR instead of TEL (then no HARM option), 30 / 22000m altitude limits (no out fly option or escape possible),6 target engageable instead of one,21 sec instead of 44 sec as time of reaction,maximum target speed 4,2 instead of 1,8 (no F-15 which can escape "afterburning"),35 km instead of 23 Km of engagement range,an optronic/IR passive track/engagement channel with 19 Km of range(for "ambush" 6 target with the first attack or guide the missiles at the target even with the radar jammed or turned off),a resistance to jamming(in spectrum density) of 2450 W/MHz instead of......96 !! ,4 missiles for CV instead of 3 and the capacity to enegage PGM and cruise missiles (absent in SA-6).
The other pieces of IAD operative in URSS in thesame years was S-300 and S-300V (over 90 and 50 battallions of 12 TEL/TELAR and 6 transloader operative in 1990 !) instead of SA-2 / SA-5, TOR M1(capable like BUK and Tunguska of intercept PGM and cruise missiles) instead of SA-8 , SA-19 "Tunguska-M" instead of ZSU-23-4,Igla-1 instead of Strela-3,and a wole category of systems completely absent in the arsenal of any NATO pasted opponent: ground based ECM (with power output of the signal in media 7 times greater than the most powerful

 

[voidmage]

airborne one,not having any problem or limit of:energy,weigh or space like those mounted on an aircraft).We talk of systems like:SPN-2/4 (capable to suppress side-looking radars,low-altitude flight control,terrain following radars and weapons control radars),SPN-30 (fundamental for its capacity to deceive "home on jam" weapons and cruise missile's in fly guidance and correction uplink )Pelena-1(designed specifically to jam AWACS radar,in particular E-3,it render undetectable or twist the position of protected assets in a range of 70-86 km !!). All those ECM,in Soviet doctrine,would start in passive stance(working,effectively,like Emitter Locating Systems)moving very often;in this way them would function like a deadly trap; when a sufficient number of hostile aircraft would be penetrated in theirs area,all these system would go active from unknow positions,blinding them all(probably,considering the power output of the jamming signals,aircraft would have problems even at find the route for a retreat). At those systems you would add anti IR/Laser Aerosols,IR-Radar reflection attenuating camouflage nets and decoy (the efficiency of downgraded export version of which, NATO has tested in Kosovo Warnly 13 serbian tanks effectively destoyed,from an initial stime of 487 !! 2 SA-6 radars instead of 26 and 18 APCs and 20 artillery pieces instead of 86 and 520 respectively).
I am sorry for the length,but i sincerely hope to contribute,with this examination of 1980 URSS Air Defence systems to eliminate one time for all,from discussion on modern unbelievably more powerful russian SAMs,this ridicle "mindset" on air defense suppression deriving from the deceiving events of Gulf War. Best Regards

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Voidmage, as best I can understand you appear to have a quasi-religious belief in the wonderfulness of Soviet and Russian technologies.

Its not that helpful or conducive to enlightening discussions.

 

[Austin]

Almaz-Antey 2008 financial report has information on future AD system under development.

http://www.pvo.su/book/cast/k_pvo_annual2008_en.htm

Few interesting points

1 ) BUK-M3 will go active , with updated 9S18M1-3 mentioned plans to complete the development of three new versions of missiles for the Buk SAM systems - 9M317A, 9M317M, and 9M317ME ,company had begun developing the 9M317MAE missile for export markets
2 ) Modernized S-300V system, as part of the Modern-2 R&D project , official mention of export of Antey 2500(S-300VM)
3 ) 40N6 ultra-long range (up to 400 km) of S-400 Triumf under state trials
4 ) Tor-M2 in a combination with the new 9M338K missile successfully completed comprehensive preliminary trials
5 ) Almaz-Antey has also produced schematic designs for the Triumfator-M project (which is apparently an improved version of the S-400)

 

[bobbymike]

Russian Long-Range Air Defense Efforts Bloom

Mar 9, 2011 By Maxim Pyadushkin Moscow

Russia is ramping up fielding of its newest long-range air defense system and has put the follow-on missile defense capability on a firm development path. The future of Russia’s air defense is based on the S-500 missile system, which, according to the head of the Space Defense Strategic Command, Lt. Gen. Valery Ivanov, is being developed to have exo-atmospheric intercept capability. It is now on contract with Moscow-based air defense design house Almaz-Antey. “The testing of this system should start in 2015,” says Vladimir Popovkin, first deputy defense minister. The new interceptors will initially be tested on the S-400, Popovkin notes; the S-400 improvements were similarly first tested on the S-300. The government plans to buy the initial 10 S-500 systems before 2020.

The S-500 will likely operate alongside the S-400 now reaching troops. Last month, Russia’s Space Defense Strategic Command received the second regiment of the long-range S-400 Triumf (designated by NATO the SA-21 Growler) surface-to-air missile system. The handover ceremony occurred at the Kapustin Yar missile test range in southern Russia, where the S-400 was undergoing acceptance trials. According to the Russian military, the regiment includes two battalions that each have eight missile launchers, which in turn carry four missiles each. Once trials have been completed, the new regiment is due to be moved to Dmitrov north of Moscow for its permanent installation, says Ivanov. The first regiment equipped with the S-400 is already deployed in Elektrostal, east of Russia’s capital; it received two battalions in 2007-08. “We need not less than three to four S-400 regiments for effective air defense of Moscow. This [will be completed] in 2016-20,” Ivanov told Russian news agency RIA Novosti. The military has ambitious fielding plans for the system. The previous defense procurement program called for acquisition of 23 Triumf battalions through 2015. But late last month Popovkin announced that the military now plans to buy 56 battalions of S-400s under the new defense procurement program through 2020. The purchase is part of a wider modernization program estimated at 19 trillion rubles ($674 billion) and expected to be approved by the Russian president by mid-year, though the military can place initial orders now. The S-400 is intended to replace both the S-300V (SA-12 Gladiator) in the army and S-300PMU (SA-10 Grumble) in the air defense forces.

The Russian military claims the S-400 can engage aircraft, ballistic and cruise missiles as well as hypersonic aerial vehicles at ranges up to 400 km (250 mi.) and an altitude of 40-50 km. But the Almaz design bureau says the system can hit airborne targets at a range of more than 200 km, while ballistic missile targets can be engaged at a maximum range of 60 km. The S-400 is designed to engage targets flying at 4,800 meters per sec. (15,750 fps.)at altitudes of 10 meters to 30 km. The system’s multirole capabilities are provided by use of a new radar and various solid-propellant missiles. It can simultaneously engage 12 targets, twice as many as the S-300. Triumf can use the 48N6E missile inherited from the S-300, as well as the new 9M96 missile. Both feature active radar seekers. The performance of the smaller 9M96 was initially demonstrated as the latest modification of the S-300PMU-2 Favorite, on which it was installed in separate launching tubes. But the S-400 will reportedly use unified tubes that will be able to house either one 48N6E or four 9M96 missiles. The 400-km engagement range mentioned by the military is believed to refer to a new long-range missile designed specially for the S-400. But for now there is no official confirmation of the status of that interceptor.

Russia’s ground forces also plan to enhance their air defense capabilities with modernized S-300V long-range missiles. The defense ministry recently reported that this year the service will start receiving improved S-300V4 air defense systems. Details of that version are still closely guarded.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe this is a dumb question but why is Moscow still so heavily defended? What adversary is planning on bombing Moscow?

 

[SOC]

Why is Moscow defended so heavily? Stems from the Cold War. First it was the dual S-25 rings around Moscow, then they were replaced (often at the same sites) by S-300P variants.

The S-500 is going to be a mobile ABM/ASAT system, hence the exo-atmospheric intercept capability. I doubt it will serve alongside the S-400 except in the Moscow region, where it may replace the ABM-4 GAZELLE.

"The S-400 is intended to replace both the S-300V (SA-12 Gladiator) in the army and S-300PMU (SA-10 Grumble) in the air defense forces."

Fail. The S-400 is not meant to replace the S-300V. It can handle a lot of the same roles but is not the replacement. There's little chance the Russian Army would take a SAM system that doesn't have a tracked chassis anyway.

"The Russian military claims the S-400 can engage aircraft, ballistic and cruise missiles as well as hypersonic aerial vehicles at ranges up to 400 km (250 mi.) and an altitude of 40-50 km. But the Almaz design bureau says the system can hit airborne targets at a range of more than 200 km, while ballistic missile targets can be engaged at a maximum range of 60 km. The S-400 is designed to engage targets flying at 4,800 meters per sec. (15,750 fps.)at altitudes of 10 meters to 30 km."

The range difference is because the Russian military is implying the 40N6, while Almaz-Antey is implying the 48N6DM (48N6E3), which has a 250km range.

"Both feature active radar seekers."

Fail. No 48N6 variant uses an active radar seeker.

"But the S-400 will reportedly use unified tubes that will be able to house either one 48N6E or four 9M96 missiles. "

That might explain why we keep hearing about the 9M96 but haven't seen the Favorit-style launch tubes around.

 

[Triton]

Source:
http://www.rusembassy.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5052%3A-400-&catid=3%3A2009-08-04-06-45-14&directory=1&lang=en

 

[sferrin]

I've included soem data regarding the S-400's 400 kilometer engagement zone in here:

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/07/s-300p-detailed-analysis.html

"REMOVED PENDING PDF CONVERSION"

Did you ever generate the PDF? Didn't see it anywhere. Also wondering if you have any details (that you can share) of any 40N6 tests. I get the impression it's an SM-6 analog.

 

[Triton]

"US to Turkey: Russian S-400s Aren’t Compatible with NATO Tech"

Posted By: Oriana Pawlyk July 17, 2017

Source:
https://www.defensetech.org/2017/07/17/us-to-turkey-russian-s-400s-arent-compatible-with-nato-tech/?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

 

[sferrin]

There's a shocker. Turkey should buy a set and send it to the US to see if it can be integrated.

 

[totoro]

Didn't see a S300 topic so I'll ask this here:

Is there any mention of anti-shipping secondary mode for S300F/FM?

If there are no sources mentioning it, how realistic is it to expect that said systems do have such ability, up to the radar horizon from the ship?

 

[stealthflanker]

hmm im curious on what's the changes in 92N6 radar compared to the 30N6. From the looks of it. the 92N6 still use the array of the 30N6.

 

[jsport]

It is true Turkey made a decision to buy S400 as reported on BBC.

 

[bring_it_on]

hmm im curious on what's the changes in 92N6 radar compared to the 30N6. From the looks of it. the 92N6 still use the array of the 30N6.

From what I have read, the processing power saw a significant improvement. You are correct the array largely remained the same.

 

[sferrin]

"MOSCOW --- Russia has completed the state trials of the 40N6E long-range missile for the S-400 air defense system, a source in the domestic defense industry told TASS on Tuesday.

"The state trials of the 40N6E long-range missile for the S-400 system have been completed at the Kapustin Yar practice range. The inter-departmental commission has recognized them as successful and the corresponding certificate has been signed," the source said.

The new missile "may be accepted for service before the end of summer," the source noted. "

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/194439/russia-wraps-up-state-trials-of-long_range-missile-for-s_400-system.html


One wonders how this compares to the SM-6.

 

[FighterJock]

What is the maximum rocket burn out speed and range of this new missile? And how dose it compare with the old missile that it is replacing.

 

[SOC]

It's not replacing anything, but rather complementing the 250 km range 48N6DM. Most S-400 batteries seem to be deployed with eight TELs out of twelve possible, one theory is that the new missile is larger and requires a new TEL, which will be deployed in each battery to make up the difference.