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

I believe I read somewhere that a number of E models had been provided at this point. But perhaps not. Not sure where the integration level would be at with F-16; did the previous owners use HARM?
 
Josh_TN said:
I believe I read somewhere that a number of E models had been provided at this point. But perhaps not. Not sure where the integration level would be at with F-16; did the previous owners use HARM?
Click to expand...
I've been following the war quite closely on twitter and I've never seen the slightest mention of even thinking about providing the E variant, let alone receipt or use.
 
-The more land taken the more effective air defenses become because adversary missiles have to fly in higher trajectories favoring radar horizon for radars with more time to track targets.
-The more land taken the more strike options become limited because satellites and drone intel will focus searching on less land than more land to find adversary missile launchers.

We do know a harsh critic before named India shit talked one of Russia's aircrafts, but they did praise the S-400 in the little scuffle they had that they decided to purchase additional S-400s.
 
Forest Green said:
I've been following the war quite closely on twitter and I've never seen the slightest mention of even thinking about providing the E variant, let alone receipt or use.
Click to expand...

IMO it's just a matter of time before Ukraine gets the E variant as it will eventually run out of Bs and Cs (Both are long out of production).

Null said:
We do know a harsh critic before named India shit talked one of Russia's aircrafts, but they did praise the S-400 in the little scuffle they had that they decided to purchase additional S-400s.
Click to expand...

While the SA-21 has appeared to have performed well in Indian service with India's recent border tiff with Pakistan in Ukraine the Ukrainian army has been actively hunting and destroying SA-21 batteries with drones.
 
NMaude said:
has been actively hunting and destroying SA-21 batteries with drones.
Click to expand...
yes, as I explained earlier the radar horizon and territory Ukraine controls makes it easier to destroy some launchers, however, strike options become more limited if Russian forces were to enter all along the dniepr river while drones and satellites start focusing on whatever territory Ukraine has left which would further limit their strikes.

Despite Ukraine having like 80% of territory controlled to favor radar horizon, the constant nagging to the west for more air defenses all the time pretty much explains how efficient those air defenses are as well.
 
Null said:
Despite Ukraine having like 80% of territory controlled to favor radar horizon, the constant nagging to the west for more air defenses all the time pretty much explains how efficient those air defenses are as well.
Click to expand...

That nagging is largely due to due to the massive swarms of Shaheed type drones that Russia has been launching, Ukraine has been fairly efficient in its use of their SAMs but numbers do make a difference.
 
Null said:
Despite Ukraine having like 80% of territory controlled to favor radar horizon, the constant nagging to the west for more air defenses all the time pretty much explains how efficient those air defenses are as well.
Click to expand...
Seems to me like they're just unable to deploy appropriate levels of airpower.
 
Null said:
Despite Ukraine having like 80% of territory controlled to favor radar horizon, the constant nagging to the west for more air defenses all the time pretty much explains how efficient those air defenses are as well.
Click to expand...
Ukraine is >600,000 square kilometres. That's a lot of air space to cover, and Ukraine didn't have the best versions of Patriot or SAMP/T hardware and missiles yet.
 
Forest Green said:
Ukraine is >600,000 square kilometres. That's a lot of air space to cover, and Ukraine didn't have the best versions of Patriot or SAMP/T hardware and missiles yet.
Click to expand...
Alright here is a super basic explanation.

There is a frontline....... East of that Russia has like 20% west of that Ukraine has like 80% Cities like Kyiv and west of that are less likely to have artillery or long-range drone strikes from being further away from the frontline and their air defenses get more coverage because Russia's long range drones and missiles have to fly at a higher trajectory. Russian air defenses that are in the 20% will more than likely face more artillery and drone strikes, and Ukrainian long-range missiles and drones can fly at lower trajectories giving Russian radars a less response time to reach their targets.

Lets say all of a sudden the frontline collapses because Russia kept ignoring the EU and Ukraine's 30-day ceasefire to train and re-group their forces and all of a sudden the entire frontline moved to the Dniepr river. Kyiv would be facing more drone and artillery strikes, russian long range weapons can fly at lower trajectories to reach their targets because their distances has shortened to more major Ukrainian cities to the west. Russian air defenses will have more time to respond to targets because the frontline has moved further west meaning any Ukrainian long range weapons left like missiles have to fly in higher trajectories because their targets are further away.

Reason Ukraine does not have the best Patriot or SAM is the same reason why they are not being given 100 F-35s in any of their airfields or the same reason why Russia is not using T-14s, its expenses.
 
NMaude said:
IIRC they got the AGM-88B and AGM-88C models (I don't know if there were still any AGM-88As left but if they were still around no doubt Ukraine got them too).
Click to expand...

The question is whether the E variant is going to make a difference, if the Russians are doing hard-kill intercepts against them. As far as I know, the newer models have upgraded seekers to counter spoofing and shoot & scoot, but why would the SAM care about its guidance capabilities when it comes to shooting it down? Maybe if they also received RCS reduction measures or terminal maneuvers, but I'm not aware of that.
 
Trajectory might be more optimized on the E for difficult interception, at least in a guidance mode that utilizes an exact target coordinate. But yeah, AFAIK the same SRM and launch weight, more or less.
 
Null said:
Alright here is a super basic explanation.

There is a frontline....... East of that Russia has like 20% west of that Ukraine has like 80% Cities like Kyiv and west of that are less likely to have artillery or long-range drone strikes from being further away from the frontline and their air defenses get more coverage because Russia's long range drones and missiles have to fly at a higher trajectory. Russian air defenses that are in the 20% will more than likely face more artillery and drone strikes, and Ukrainian long-range missiles and drones can fly at lower trajectories giving Russian radars a less response time to reach their targets.

Lets say all of a sudden the frontline collapses because Russia kept ignoring the EU and Ukraine's 30-day ceasefire to train and re-group their forces and all of a sudden the entire frontline moved to the Dniepr river. Kyiv would be facing more drone and artillery strikes, russian long range weapons can fly at lower trajectories to reach their targets because their distances has shortened to more major Ukrainian cities to the west. Russian air defenses will have more time to respond to targets because the frontline has moved further west meaning any Ukrainian long range weapons left like missiles have to fly in higher trajectories because their targets are further away.

Reason Ukraine does not have the best Patriot or SAM is the same reason why they are not being given 100 F-35s in any of their airfields or the same reason why Russia is not using T-14s, its expenses.
Click to expand...
Give me a break, the T-14 is no more ready than the RS-28 (see recent explosion). Larger area to defend, more cities in that zone, more missiles to defend against. If Moscow starts getting 60 BMs in a single attack you'll see what I'm talking about. Russia has largely been a BM free zone and RU-occupied Ukraine has had only ATACMS to defend against. How many televised RU SAM destructions have we seen? So many that we're not allowed to post them anymore to prevent the forum servers being flooded with tears,
 
Null said:
Alright here is a super basic explanation.

There is a frontline....... East of that Russia has like 20% west of that Ukraine has like 80% Cities like Kyiv and west of that are less likely to have artillery or long-range drone strikes from being further away from the frontline and their air defenses get more coverage because Russia's long range drones and missiles have to fly at a higher trajectory. Russian air defenses that are in the 20% will more than likely face more artillery and drone strikes, and Ukrainian long-range missiles and drones can fly at lower trajectories giving Russian radars a less response time to reach their targets.

Lets say all of a sudden the frontline collapses because Russia kept ignoring the EU and Ukraine's 30-day ceasefire to train and re-group their forces and all of a sudden the entire frontline moved to the Dniepr river. Kyiv would be facing more drone and artillery strikes, russian long range weapons can fly at lower trajectories to reach their targets because their distances has shortened to more major Ukrainian cities to the west. Russian air defenses will have more time to respond to targets because the frontline has moved further west meaning any Ukrainian long range weapons left like missiles have to fly in higher trajectories because their targets are further away.
Click to expand...
Smaller areas are easier to defend because you can concentrate defenses.
Also the notion that the farther in you go the more likely your munition is to be shot down - isn't really true. Because both Russia and Ukraine have to concentrate most of their air defense assets closer to the front, a munition that manages to bypass these defenses is more or less free to proceed to target. What doesn't help is that these usually utilize less sophisticated guidance or less reliable components so a lot just go down or miss on their own.

Null said:
Reason Ukraine does not have the best Patriot or SAM is the same reason why they are not being given 100 F-35s in any of their airfields or the same reason why Russia is not using T-14s, its expenses.
Click to expand...
That's not the reason.
The western aid mechanism for Ukraine actually costs more than it should - by design. Cost is not a factor here, at least none's really looking at how to save money.
If they wanted to achieve the same effect on the battlefield at only 20% of the cost - that was easily achievable. And there are ways to immediately increase cost efficiency.

The biggest reason is trust. Ukraine is increasingly trusted with more things, but it started out with low trust.
Building the necessary trust to get top of the line equipment like F-35s takes a long list of reforms for new allies, particularly those with former alliances with adversaries. And it then takes many years and decades for that trust to gradually grow, partially because it shows the arms supplier that you're not some vaporware.
Shirley, you must see that giving Ukraine F-35s in 2021 was less thinkable when the possibility of Ukraine just collapsing and Russia gaining a fleet of 5th gen fighters was considered realistic.
It also doesn't help that Ukraine really entered a shopping spree when the war renewed, and neglected to modernize its armed forces before 2022.

The gradual increase in quality of weapons Ukraine receives seems to coincide with reasonable timelines for reforms and natural growth of trust. Technically the US could push a stupid amount of Tomahawks into Ukraine even before Russia could feasibly adapt to the new threat.
Instead they gave them to CENTCOM which is the equivalent of throwing equipment in the garbage.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Smaller areas are easier to defend because you can concentrate defenses.
Also the notion that the farther in you go the more likely your munition is to be shot down - isn't really true. Because both Russia and Ukraine have to concentrate most of their air defense assets closer to the front, a munition that manages to bypass these defenses is more or less free to proceed to target. What doesn't help is that these usually utilize less sophisticated guidance or less reliable components so a lot just go down or miss on their own.
Click to expand...
this does not really nullify the drone and artillery strikes or the radar horizon limit compared to Ukraine having more radar horizon which is more radar coverage for aerial targets and facing less artillery and drones strikes from the frontlines covering cities or strategic locations.

Big_Zukini said:
That's not the reason.
The western aid mechanism for Ukraine actually costs more than it should - by design. Cost is not a factor here, at least none's really looking at how to save money.
If they wanted to achieve the same effect on the battlefield at only 20% of the cost - that was easily achievable. And there are ways to immediately increase cost efficiency.

The biggest reason is trust. Ukraine is increasingly trusted with more things, but it started out with low trust.
Building the necessary trust to get top of the line equipment like F-35s takes a long list of reforms for new allies, particularly those with former alliances with adversaries. And it then takes many years and decades for that trust to gradually grow, partially because it shows the arms supplier that you're not some vaporware.
Shirley, you must see that giving Ukraine F-35s in 2021 was less thinkable when the possibility of Ukraine just collapsing and Russia gaining a fleet of 5th gen fighters was considered realistic.
It also doesn't help that Ukraine really entered a shopping spree when the war renewed, and neglected to modernize its armed forces before 2022.

The gradual increase in quality of weapons Ukraine receives seems to coincide with reasonable timelines for reforms and natural growth of trust. Technically the US could push a stupid amount of Tomahawks into Ukraine even before Russia could feasibly adapt to the new threat.
Instead they gave them to CENTCOM which is the equivalent of throwing equipment in the garbage.
Click to expand...
technically the west was supplying Ukraine since 2014 and F-35s are limited to their own airfields in ukraine that would get blown up, thats why you here talk about F-16s, Rafales and Gripens for years but no deliveries.

Forest Green said:
Give me a break, the T-14 is no more ready than the RS-28 (see recent explosion).
Click to expand...
Its crazy who would have known that ongoing projects still do tests with failures and successful launches, I am sure something like that has never happened before for any country.
Forest Green said:
Larger area to defend, more cities in that zone, more missiles to defend against. If Moscow starts getting 60 BMs in a single attack you'll see what I'm talking about. Russia has largely been a BM free zone and RU-occupied Ukraine has had only ATACMS to defend against. How many televised RU SAM destructions have we seen? So many that we're not allowed to post them anymore to prevent the forum servers being flooded with tears,
Click to expand...
you don't post RU SAM destructions because there is barely much anymore and those launchers always get mislabeled as something else that people got tired of correcting you lol. It's also because people here would more than likely call you derogatory words that would define low intelligence like that one time you believed an S-500 was destroyed because Ukraine said they destroyed it and but that air defense is all the way in Russia still conducting tests and not even operational or in use in Ukraine. I am not even going to ask out of fear what the answer might be from you if you believe some Ukrainian babushka shot down a Sukhoi with a jar of pickles.

The reason ukraine keeps asking and asking for SAMS is that they are either destroyed or they can't produce enough SAMs, its laughable that some here think the issue is more related to, "trust" that they are not getting the best aircrafts or SAMs when the actual answer is they can't defend against current missile strikes or getting saturated with long range drone strikes. Ukraine receives more radar coverage and time for interception, and the frontline is currently further away from their SAMs, yet their SAMs keep getting destroyed or hit buildings and blame the Russian missiles for doing that. There is a reason why a neutral country like India still insists on buying S-400 when NATO air defenses are still on the table for them to purchase and we can't really pull the bullshit excuse of "trust" When F-35s were being offered to them.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Trajectory might be more optimized on the E for difficult interception, at least in a guidance mode that utilizes an exact target coordinate. But yeah, AFAIK the same SRM and launch weight, more or less.
Click to expand...
Unlikely, AHRM is lightweight missile with not that long lasting engine, and uses ballistic trajectory to achieve max range. To use AA maneuvers you ought to have surplus of kinetic energy, and to have it, you have to launch closer to SAM, risking your plane.

Actually, I'm not sure how latest AGM-88s would be effective there, with significant proliferation of SATNAV jamming equipment and lightweight warhead of HARM.

I'd say the most effective SEAD system Ukraine had is unironically a HIMARS battery.
 
Anduriel said:
Unlikely, AHRM is lightweight missile
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call an 800lb, 10" and 13' 8" long missile lightweight.

Anduriel said:
Actually, I'm not sure how latest AGM-88s would be effective there, with significant proliferation of SATNAV jamming equipment and lightweight warhead of HARM.
Click to expand...

The AGM-88G AARGM-ER has far better kinematic performance than its' AGM-88E AARGM predecessor as far as I know.
 
Null said:
Reason Ukraine does not have the best Patriot or SAM is the same reason why they are not being given 100 F-35s in any of their airfields or the same reason why Russia is not using T-14s, its expenses.
Click to expand...
Iirc they have more or less best Patriots available, and they had them from the get go (famous first use was already PAC 3 MSE iirc). No LTAMDS - sure, but no one really have them yet.
Same is true for NASAMS and fighter weapons (AIM-120C-8, AIM-9x), and so on. EU sams outright roll to Ukraine right off production lines.
 
Most of the NATO donations have been obsolescent or time expired, but the Patriot missiles have been very modern in production from the get go. We definitely have seen PAC3 from early on and I think MSE as well. US production is such that it could never meet Ukrainian needs without depleting itself.

That said, I suspect the radar and control elements of the donated equipment quite out of date, relatively speaking, with a major consideration being not only production but concealment of full capability.
 
Null said:
you don't post RU SAM destructions because there is barely much anymore and those launchers always get mislabeled as something else that people got tired of correcting you lol. It's also because people here would more than likely call you derogatory words that would define low intelligence like that one time you believed an S-500 was destroyed because Ukraine said they destroyed it and but that air defense is all the way in Russia still conducting tests and not even operational or in use in Ukraine. I am not even going to ask out of fear what the answer might be from you if you believe some Ukrainian babushka shot down a Sukhoi with a jar of pickles.

The reason ukraine keeps asking and asking for SAMS is that they are either destroyed or they can't produce enough SAMs, its laughable that some here think the issue is more related to, "trust" that they are not getting the best aircrafts or SAMs when the actual answer is they can't defend against current missile strikes or getting saturated with long range drone strikes. Ukraine receives more radar coverage and time for interception, and the frontline is currently further away from their SAMs, yet their SAMs keep getting destroyed or hit buildings and blame the Russian missiles for doing that. There is a reason why a neutral country like India still insists on buying S-400 when NATO air defenses are still on the table for them to purchase and we can't really pull the bullshit excuse of "trust" When F-35s were being offered to them.
Click to expand...
Dude, there are Russian SAMs destroyed daily, but I was warned for posting them.

Saying something has been destroyed doesn't make it so, footage or didn't happen. I have only seen 1 or 2 videos of destroyed Patriot launchers all war.

How many Iskander-Ms and Kinzhals has Russia fired at Kyiv in the last 4 years exactly? How many military targets are there in one city assuming they are all making their target and not either being shot down or hitting apartment blocks (which I'm going to assume wasn't the target, unless war crime)?
 
Null said:
technically the west was supplying Ukraine since 2014 and F-35s are limited to their own airfields in ukraine that would get blown up, thats why you here talk about F-16s, Rafales and Gripens for years but no deliveries.
Click to expand...
You can definitely operate F-35s in austere environment.
Similarly you will be severely limited operating any type of aircraft in austere environment.
That is not why Ukraine doesn't have F-35s. Ukraine started a very long process very late.
 
https://tass.com/defense/2052739

India wants to buy more S-400 air defense systems, Russia considering this​

Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation Director Dmitry Shugayev recalled that the Indian military praised the use of S-400 missile systems during Operation Sindoor

NEW DELHI, December 3. /TASS/. India, after the effective use of the S-400 Triumf missile system, wants to purchase more such weapons and Moscow is considering this possibility, Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation (FSMTC) Director Dmitry Shugayev told TASS ahead of the Russian-Indian summit.
"Indian military experts are showing a keen interest in the latest Russian air defense systems, which have proven very effective, and, naturally, the Indian side wants to have more such systems," he said.
"Such prospects are being considered. We are working together with our Indian colleagues in this direction," he emphasized.
The FSMTC chief recalled that the Indian military praised the use of S-400 Triumf missile systems during Operation Sindoor, while Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated the Indian servicemen on their success in using them soon after the operation was completed.

According to Shugayev, leading Western think-tanks, too, acknowledged how efficient the S-400 Triumf missile system, assessing it to be 90% effective compared to the 50% effectiveness of the US-made Patriot missile system.
Russian President Vladimir Putin will pay a state visit to India on December 4-5 as New Delhi will host the 23rd Russian-Indian summit.
Click to expand...
 
Forest Green said:
shot down or hitting apartment blocks (which I'm going to assume wasn't the target, unless war crime)?
Click to expand...
You realize, that when missile got shot down over city, its warhead is gonna fell down on something (unless it was detonated by interception, which is not always happening)? Ukrainean drones hitting Russian towns behave the same way, by the way; unless the drone was completely destroyed in air, it usually glide & hit residental buildings. Of course, Western media prefer to ignore that.
 
Dilandu said:
You realize, that when missile got shot down over city, its warhead is gonna fell down on something (unless it was detonated by interception, which is not always happening)? Ukrainean drones hitting Russian towns behave the same way, by the way; unless the drone was completely destroyed in air, it usually glide & hit residental buildings. Of course, Western media prefer to ignore that.
Click to expand...
I was giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it was either EW or SAM damage. But the question remains, how many BMs have been fired in the last (nearly) 4 years and how many military targets are there in Kyiv, if either all or most are getting through as implied by the post I responded to?
 
Ronny said:
Pretty unnecessary in this case, this video actually have high clarity for most people, and beside, zoom is also affected by distance.
Click to expand...
The issues is anyone can make things up without offering resolution to see the results of what is claimed to be true or false. I have high confidence that you are not that mentally slow to think a babushka shot down a Sukhoi with a jar of pickles.
 
Null said:
The issues is anyone can make things up without offering resolution to see the results of what is claimed to be true or false.
Click to expand...
in some case, sure the resolution is too low to understand what going on, and this go for both side. Take for example: if you look at some of the claimed destruction of Patriot by Kinzhal or Iskander, the distance is too far to even make out the kind of SAM being used. That said, it’s important to remember that this is a real war, not a video game. The top priority is not BDA of equipment, it is a bonus but not the top priority. It’s entirely understandable that soldiers often choose to keep their drones at a safer distance; greater distance inevitably means lower resolution

Null said:
I have high confidence that you are not that mentally slow to think a babushka shot down a Sukhoi with a jar of pickles.
Click to expand...
of course not, but that case is simply propaganda without even a shred of evidence. Quite different from case where you have the whole video
 
With the hit on the second one, does anyone want to speculate on the little trail that appears just before it hits? A carried RPG round firing perhaps?
 
Austin said:
5 > The modules are elevated to a height of 15-20 meters on special folding towers and enable detection and precise positioning of stealth enemy cruise missiles ( e.g. SCALP-EG, Taurus, or Storm Shadow ) or active airborne radars of enemy aircraft
Click to expand...
Actually the S-300P family got the 40V6M (25 m tall) and 40V6MD (39 m tall) fold-able tower for the radar.
That build in Ukraine originally, and after 2014 they refuse to sell them anymore.
We are await to see such Russian folding tower, but AFAIK they do not have any.
The S-400 systems heritaged them from the S-300PM/PMU series when their units rearmed (read: the S-300PM units keep it's 40V6M(D) towers and put the S-400 system radars on top of that).

Austin said:
A small LO target with an RCS of 0.05 square meters can be detected by the new Russian radar at a distance of up to 200 kilometers, The Yenisei detects even the most inconspicuous objects, with an RCS of approximately 0.01 square meters, at a distance of up to 150 kilometers which is approximately twice the detection range of the standard S-400 SAM radar
Click to expand...

We calculate around 62 km for the 0,0156 m^2 RCS. Hardly believe the 75 km @ 0,01 m^2 are reality for the 92N2.

1768224242719.png

The problem is the "stealth" means below 0,01 m^2. The F-117A got around 0,0012m^2.
The S-400 92N2 radars actually capable to get that around realistically 35 km, if we count back of the 250 km @ 4 m^2 reference range.

Source (I'm one of the lector of the video, so roast me... :p)

Anduriel said:
Wonder how many target/missile channels new radars have.
Click to expand...
For the S-350 I hardly believe there is any kind of missile channel exits as the missiles are self-guided and the MCG are "light load".
Deagle list 200 target for the 96L6-TsP.
For the 98L6 Yenisei we have scarce information's only...
 
Cifu said:
Actually the S-300P family got the 40V6M (25 m tall) and 40V6MD (39 m tall) fold-able tower for the radar.
That build in Ukraine originally, and after 2014 they refuse to sell them anymore.
We are await to see such Russian folding tower, but AFAIK they do not have any.
The S-400 systems heritaged them from the S-300PM/PMU series when their units rearmed (read: the S-300PM units keep it's 40V6M(D) towers and put the S-400 system radars on top of that).



We calculate around 62 km for the 0,0156 m^2 RCS. Hardly believe the 75 km @ 0,01 m^2 are reality for the 92N2.

View attachment 798259

The problem is the "stealth" means below 0,01 m^2. The F-117A got around 0,0012m^2.
The S-400 92N2 radars actually capable to get that around realistically 35 km, if we count back of the 250 km @ 4 m^2 reference range.

Source (I'm one of the lector of the video, so roast me... :p)


For the S-350 I hardly believe there is any kind of missile channel exits as the missiles are self-guided and the MCG are "light load".
Deagle list 200 target for the 96L6-TsP.
For the 98L6 Yenisei we have scarce information's only...
Click to expand...
the question remains how RCS is measured, is it from the front or they count the underbelly as well. We all know how the F-22 was measured.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom