• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

S-400 targeting limits

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
338
Reaction score
57
Website
www.youtube.com
When S-400 was first marketed, over a decade ago now, it was usually cited that the entire system, with all options, can guide up to 72 missiles to up to 36 targets. That whole system referred to the option of using six 98ZH6E fire units, each with own targeting radar (92N2). Indeed, even today the rosoboronexport catalogue offers only those figures - up to 36 targets, for the 6 fire units package of the export variant.

But since then, over the years, there have been claims that actual number of targets attacked is higher. Sadly, I can't find a single good source on any of them.
If there's anyone who can provide a half-decent source for a higher number, i'd be very grateful.
Hell, even if someone doesn't have a source but can mount a good argument on why a specific number he lists is the likely number - I will listen to that too.

Finally, If someone can explain how the sometimes cited figure of 160 missiles guided to 80 targets came to be - I'd like to hear that too. Because that figure doesn't make any sense, as long as we're still talking about 6 fire units limit. 80 divided by 6 radars is 13.3333, so that doesn't add up. If there's been an increase in the number of fire units to 8 or 10 - then sure. But if so, is there's a decent source stating that change occurred? Again, one can read on the internet that some change did occur in 2012, leading to both more units and more guidance channels per radar, but is there a decent source to confirm any of that?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,270
Reaction score
1,295
SOC is your man for that question.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
59
Website
www.quora.com
Last edited:

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
338
Reaction score
57
Website
www.youtube.com
I dont understand. Nothing in those two texts seems pertinent to the question i posed.

Also, not so related, how does one test radar range against f16 out to 600 km away? Rarad would either have to be a kilometer higher than the plane or a very light f16 would have to be performing a zooming maneuver going vertical for a very short stay up at 20 km altitude.

Anyway, its very hard to get proper sources on s400. Those two articles are again far from being a proper source.

Its weird that both eads and cpmiec (for sampt and fd2000) did publish bRochures where their targeting limits were stated.
 
Last edited:

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
425
Reaction score
144
Also, not so related, how does one test radar range against f16 out to 600 km away? Rarad would either have to be a kilometer higher than the plane or a very light f16 would have to be performing a zooming maneuver going vertical for a very short stay up at 20 km altitude.
S-400 has 96L6 radar which is installed on 25 meters mast. Helps with radiohorizont quite well. Problem is - official range for that one is 400km.
But anyways, those articles are indeed very pesky and sources on S-400 (just as on many other tech pieces from Russia) are very shady.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
59
Website
www.quora.com
I dont understand. Nothing in those two texts seems pertinent to the question i posed.

Also, not so related, how does one test radar range against f16 out to 600 km away? Rarad would either have to be a kilometer higher than the plane or a very light f16 would have to be performing a zooming maneuver going vertical for a very short stay up at 20 km altitude.

Anyway, its very hard to get proper sources on s400. Those two articles are again far from being a proper source.

Its weird that both eads and cpmiec (for sampt and fd2000) did publish bRochures where their targeting limits were stated.
I posted that just for laughs. However there is another problem if you want to understand for the radar targeting information of the s-400 that stealth fans might view as a forbidden taboo to discuss is this.

1577127509582.png

1577127632946.png

At times it is nice to believe that a ground radar would see nothing but the frontal aspect of the aircraft the entire time, but I am sure that the underbelly of an aircraft would get reflected as well. Sadly I cant find a calculator that would determine the altitudes and distances the radar would point to reflect on the bottom or front side of an aircraft
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
338
Reaction score
57
Website
www.youtube.com
Another question, different from the last. Though still has relevance to limits...

Does anyone have a publication/sales brochure/quote from an official (or something to that extent) which discloses the maximum distance (or a least a typical operating distance) the TELs can be placed from the engagement radar in any given battery? I found some pretty official data on Patriot, distance being 30 km, so I'm surprised that the S-400, which has much more data on its export variant out there, seems to have that piece of data hidden and not mentioned anywhere...
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
524
Reaction score
218
Another question, different from the last. Though still has relevance to limits...

Does anyone have a publication/sales brochure/quote from an official (or something to that extent) which discloses the maximum distance (or a least a typical operating distance) the TELs can be placed from the engagement radar in any given battery? I found some pretty official data on Patriot, distance being 30 km, so I'm surprised that the S-400, which has much more data on its export variant out there, seems to have that piece of data hidden and not mentioned anywhere...

It's probably not available. Or in follows of old Soviet practices like in Krug (SA-4 Ganef) Where it would be about 5 Km at most the distance between ISR component to battery and 220m distance between engagement radar and the launcher. Soviet practice however involve tight emmission security where connection between SAM components are made by cable.

Should long range connection to be made it would be made via separate system like Troposcatter. As seen in Chinese S-300PMU-2's.
Only Vityaz so far appears to have a dedicated datalink mast as Patriot.

--------
Finally, If someone can explain how the sometimes cited figure of 160 missiles guided to 80 targets came to be - I'd like to hear that too. Because that figure doesn't make any sense, as long as we're still talking about 6 fire units limit. 80 divided by 6 radars is 13.3333, so that doesn't add up. If there's been an increase in the number of fire units to 8 or 10 - then sure. But if so, is there's a decent source stating that change occurred? Again, one can read on the internet that some change did occur in 2012, leading to both more units and more guidance channels per radar, but is there a decent source to confirm any of that?

Have you got this brochure ? This is where the numbers came from.
 

Attachments

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
338
Reaction score
57
Website
www.youtube.com
I don't know if that was a reply to my questions, but if it was, I've only got more questions. The link leads to a blog of some sort, which has the usual text on s400. With link to russian edition of wikipedia as source. And then when one does check out the wiki page, 4 more sources are listed. One of those links doesn't work and the three other ones don't seem like official sources at all. And not one of them actually says anything about target limits.

also, no part of that text says anything about datalink distance.


Have you got this brochure ? This is where the numbers came from.
Thanks for that link. I do wish that was rosoboronexport or almaz brochure, because that would've settled it. This way, being produced by Trishul, without stating further sources they used, I can't be sure of its authenticity.

Which also a shame because it does seem to also have some opinion on the datalink range issue as well. There's this page:

And it seems as if there's the answer there somewhere, but with all those different designations of subsystems, i am not sure i'm looking at the right thing. Is it the TCS 31Yu6ME the subsystem i should be looking at? Though that has 6/8 connections. There's 93 Ya6 05 with 12 connections but i'm not sure what that is either. Anyway, it does seem plausible that the 12 launcher option is not necessarily the option that can operate all 12 launchers at great remote distances?

Anyway, all the above would still kind of be a moot point if the data in those brochures can't be linked to something more credible than a Trishul produced document. Sometimes he/they retain the whole document with the margins, so the original source is visible, but in this case there's no margins visible on those scanned papers.
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
524
Reaction score
218
Thanks for that link. I do wish that was rosoboronexport or almaz brochure, because that would've settled it. This way, being produced by Trishul, without stating further sources they used, I can't be sure of its authenticity.

Which also a shame because it does seem to also have some opinion on the datalink range issue as well. There's this page:

And it seems as if there's the answer there somewhere, but with all those different designations of subsystems, i am not sure i'm looking at the right thing. Is it the TCS 31Yu6ME the subsystem i should be looking at? Though that has 6/8 connections. There's 93 Ya6 05 with 12 connections but i'm not sure what that is either. Anyway, it does seem plausible that the 12 launcher option is not necessarily the option that can operate all 12 launchers at great remote distances?

Anyway, all the above would still kind of be a moot point if the data in those brochures can't be linked to something more credible than a Trishul produced document. Sometimes he/they retain the whole document with the margins, so the original source is visible, but in this case there's no margins visible on those scanned papers.
Well those looks authentic enough for me. I assume it was a real S-400 brochure and from an exhibition event, it is more recent than what was available. It is not by any means "produced". They may put watermark in the brochure just for sake of pointing readers to their blog. The technical informations there looks pretty real and way too detailed for anyone there to "fudge" it.

So it is now a either you take it or you have actually need to work on the detail yourself. Calculating the performance of the system. The dimension of the radar can be easily found by looking at the chassis. After estimating the array size, you can later work on gain, then assume the amount of power emitted then other parameters. You can then work on tracking capacity with method you could find in book like "Multifunction Array Radar, System Design and Analysis" by S.Sabatini and M. Tarantino. Work on the number then present the result here for us to discuss.

There is unfortunately no other alternative.
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
23
The Almaz-Antey catalog gives the 80/160 figure - 8 batteries per complex, ten targets per battery, two missiles per target.

I've seen a figure of 100 m for the distance a 5P85S from an S-300PS can reside from the engagement radar.
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
338
Reaction score
57
Website
www.youtube.com
I really tried to find a pdf document or a photo of such a catalogue but to no avail. Could you provide a link to a such resource?

I find it frustrating that there's a possibility two proper sources would have conflicting info about such a thing. Rosoboronexport catalogue on S400 claims 6 targets attacked and if Almaz catalogue indeed claims 10 then one of those is obviously wrong.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,281
Reaction score
2,988
"Up to 10" and "6" are not necessarily conflicting information. If we imagine that the multitarget capability varies from a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 10 (dependent on mode/sector coverage for example) then both figures could be correct at once, with one brochure emphasising the minimum and the other the maximum. In any case, we are talking theoretical limits here.

In fact, use of "up to 10" practically guarantees some modes or situations do not support 10 target engagement, or why bother with the "up to" qualifier?
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
338
Reaction score
57
Website
www.youtube.com
"Up to 10" and "6" are not necessarily conflicting information. If we imagine that the multitarget capability varies from a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 10 (dependent on mode/sector coverage for example) then both figures could be correct at once, with one brochure emphasising the minimum and the other the maximum. In any case, we are talking theoretical limits here.

In fact, use of "up to 10" practically guarantees some modes or situations do not support 10 target engagement, or why bother with the "up to" qualifier?
Do you too have access to a pdf/photo of that Almaz catalogue, which you could share?

SOC didn't mention it was stated "up to 10" in the catalogue but even if it was, that wouldn't have to mean much. If there's one target flying - momentary capacity of the system used would be 1. Even if it could in theory go up to 6 or up to 10, depending on sources.

I'd just like to get my hands on such a resource to settle that issue once and for all.

If the limit has indeed gone up to 10, I would imagine one of the possibilities why that limit has increased is the new missiles. If the new missiles have satellite navigation for determining own location and active radars for autonomous terminal guidance - then the engagement radar would have to "waste" less resources guiding its missiles to the targets. Meaning more resources free for engaging additional targets.
 
Top