People still have perverse faith in the S-400's existence

Here’s Two Info’s on the S-400 “Triumph” WHITE CLOWD
Rank 3 Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 59

S-400 IZ Operational :
1. S-400 air-defence system operational

The Russian Federation Air Force (RFAF) has confirmed that two S-400 (Triumph) low- to high-altitude air-defence systems are in service with line units but that an extension of the re-arming effort depends on funding.

This information confirms a statement by Lieutenant General Aytech Bizhev, Deputy Commander-in-Chief (CinC) for the Commonwealth of Independent States Unified Air-Defence, that two S-400 systems are deployed with the air force for field testing and that these will be deployed fully in 2005.

The RFAF CinC General Vladimir Mikhaylov said on December 11, 2004 that the air-defence priority is to upgrade existing equipment and further develop the new S-400 for air defence and non-strategic missile defence.

Plans to re-arm the air force surface-to-air missile (SAM) units with the S-400 remain highly dependent on the availability of funds, and the manufacturing capacities of the industry, according to RFAF officials,.

Colonel General Boris Cheltsov, RFAF chief of staff, said the S-400 would achieve full operational readiness in 2005 after receiving a number of upgrades. Gen Bizhev also confirmed that the upgrades would allow the S-400 and the A-135M to share target data information.

Together with upgraded variants of the in-service SAM systems, the S-400 is part of an effort to “solve the issues of non-strategic missile defence”. Gen Cheltsov, who headed the air force commission that supervised S-400 fire trials, said the commission has recommended to the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) that it accepts the S-400 in service “in a variant with a standard missile”. Earlier it had been recommended that the S-400 enter trial service with missiles already used by the S-300 series.

Gen Bizhev said the S-400 would initially be located to protect Moscow, St Petersburg and the Urals industrial region, as well as border stretches “where missile attacks can be expected”. He also said the S-400 could destroy cruise missiles and aircraft at a range of 250 km and at a range of heights from several dozen metres to the stratosphere.

The S-400, when operational with the new long-range missile (40N6), is claimed to have a range of 400 km and it is believed to have passed firing tests with all missile types.

The existing S-400s are currently undergoing capability enhancements for interoperability with the space forces assets.

The Russian armed forces say that the S-400 can potentially be used against strategic ballistic missiles after separation of warheads. In that role the S-400s will be co-operating with the A-135 anti-missile system in service with the Russian Space Forces. Provision is made for the S-400s to receive targeting information on approaching space threats from the Russian Space Forces in an automatic mode.

The S-400/A-135 will be the first block of the Air and Space Defence (ASD) system, a future structure concept recently formulated by the Russian defence ministry. The latter said that the MoD has recently approved the ASD concept and it is currently being improved for final validation by the Russian president.

Among other things, the ASD calls for a unitary radar field over Russia, similar to that which the Soviet Union had, but “on a new quality level”. To achieve this, a united air traffic control/air-defence radar field will be created, combining the means of civil and military structures. Almaz-Antei (Air Defence Concern or Kontsern PVO) has been selected to lead the effort. Almaz-Antei will act as systems integrator and also supplier of major elements such as phased-array radar systems and ‘identification friend or foe’ interrogators. S-400 WILL Track Stealth Targets az well: S-400 surveillance radar will track stealth targets

Miroslav Gyürösi

Russia displayed the 96L6 surveillance radar for the S-400 missile system at the MAKS 2001 defence exhibition at Zhukovsky near Moscow, writes Miroslav Gyürösi. It operates in C-band, and the manufacturers say it can detect and track aircraft and cruise missiles which use stealth technology.

Work on the 96L6 began in the second half of the 1980s, when Boris Vasilyevics Bunkin, the general designer of CKB Almaz defined the requirements for a surveillance radar to form part of the new S-400 missile system. The design of the new radar was assigned to the Lira design bureau, which is a part of LEMZ – the Lianozovskiz Elektromekhanicseskij Zavod (Lianozovo Elektromechanical Factory). Lira and LEMZ are part of the financial-industrial group Oboronitelniye Sistemi (Defence Systems).

During the development and trials stage OKR (Opitno-Konstruktorskaya Rabota) of the programme, the new radar was designated VVO (Vsevisotniy Obnaruzhitel = detector for all altitudes).

The requirements for the VVO were very rigorous. The team headed by the late main designer Yuriy Fyodorovics Lisin based its design on research by Professor VI Vinokurov into the detection of difficult signals.

Another organisation involved with the development programme was the scientific research experimental establishment (Naucsno-Issledovatelskaya Eksperimentalnaya Rabota) Slozhnost (Complexity), whose general designers are BV Bunkin and Yuriy Aleksandrovics Kuznecov.

An experimental radar was built and tested in a series of trials against Yak-52 training aircraft. Specialists from other Russian radar establishments such as LETI, NII-2 MO, NII-3 MO, UPI, CNIIRES and VNIIRT participated in the trials, and the resulting data influenced the future development of radar technology in what was then the Soviet Union.

In 1988, representatives of the main developing organisation and the customer signed agreement giving the go-ahead for wideband radar technology, based on this earlier research to be used in the VVO programme. As a result of theoretical and experimental research, a database of difficult signals was developed, along with signal processing hardware with a speed of 10 billion operations per second, plus other components.

In 1991, the Lira design bureau built a prototype of the VVO radar. This started operation in early 1992, and in April of that year was demonstrated against low-altitude targets. Later that year systems were delivered for trials at the training centre of NII-2, the scientific research institute of the Russian air-defence forces. The system was displayed in model form at the MAKS 97 defence exhibition.

When the system enters service it will replace the 5N66M and 76N6 (NVO/NVO-M) radars currently used for the detection of low-flying targets. (The 76N6 is known to NATO as ‘Clam Shell’.) Both had been developed in the early 1970s by the design bureau of the LEMZ factory. Later the 96L6 will replace the 19Zh6/35D6/36D6 family (ST-68U/-68UM) of all-round surveillance radars, which were developed and produced in Ukraine by NPO Iskra.

The role of the 96L6 is the detection of air targets and measuring of their azimuth, elevation and range. It can be used with the S-300PMU surface-to-air (SAM) system, can autonomously assign targets for the 90Zh6E, 90Zh6E1 and 90Zh6E2 (S-300PMU-1 and later) air-defence missile complexes, and can be connected with the Baykal-1E and Senezh-M1E automated command and control systems or the radiotechnical forces’ Osnova-1E and Polye-E command posts.

It can pass information about a wide spectrum of the aerial targets, including aircraft, helicopters, UAVs and missiles, to the 30N6E, 30N6E1, 30N6E2 (‘Flap Lid’) series of tracking and missile guidance radars.

The 96L6 is very effective against low flying targets and against targets in the medium and high altitudes. It maintains its performance in the presence of heavy jamming, and has a very low false-alarm rate.

Targets can be tracked at elevations from 60º down to 0º, but a minimum of -3º is available as an option. The antenna uses several beams when scanning in elevation. For detection of very low flying targets, or if the radar is deployed in a wooded area, the antenna can be mounted on a 966AA14 elevated tower. The latter consists of a 40V6M tower mounted on a MAZ-537G (74106) truck.

There are two versions of the 96L6 – one which is installed on a single vehicle, and another which uses two vehicles.

The single-vehicle variant consists of:

• a 966AA01 antenna array;

• a 966FF03 shelter which houses the receiving, transmitting and information-processing subsystems, an operator console, communication and IFF systems and a ZIP-O repair set;

• a TM966 vehicle based on a Type 7930 Astrolog wheeled chassis with a SEP-2L generator and power-distribution system; and

• a set of cables.

The two-vehicle version consists of:

• a truck and trailer-mounted 966AA00 antenna set incorporating the 966AA01 antenna, an SES-75, SES-75M or equivalent model of electrical generator and power-distribution system, plus cables; and

• a truck and trailer-mounted 966FF00 installation incorporating the 966FF03 shelter and SES-75/-75M electrical system.

The two vehicles can be deployed up to 100m apart.

Operating frequency C-band (4-6GHz)
Range 5-300km
Maximum target elevation up to 60º
Maximum number of tracks up to 100 targets
Time from target detection to availability of target data:
– For elevations under 1.5º 12s
– For elevations over 1.5º 21s
Maximum number of the false target co-ordinates in 30min no more than 3-5
Crew 3
All-round search performance
Azimuth 360º
Elevation 0-20º (-3º if required)
Doppler speed range ±30 to ±1,200m/s
Information update rate:
– in the low zone (0-1.5º) 6s
– in the upper zone (1.5-20º) 12s
Sector search
Azimuth up to 120º
Elevation 0-60º (-3º if required)
Doppler speed range ±50 to ±2,800m/s
Time taken: sector search up to 8s
Time taken: lower sector search 5.5s
Time taken: full search cycle 13.5s
Low-altitude target search
Azimuth 360º
Elevation 0-1.5º
Doppler speed range ±30 to ±1,200m/s
Search time 6s
Deployment time from the move 5min (single-vehicle) 30min (two-vehicle)
Time needed to install antenna on the tower 120min
Activation time when in combat position no more than 3 min
Activation time when alerted no more than 40s
Continuous operating time no limits
Operating environment
Temperature ±50ºC
Dust up to 2.5g/m_
Wind up to 30m/s
Resistance to being over-turned by wind up to 50m/s
Operating altitude up to 3,000m
Service life before overhaul 10 years
Operating hours before overhaul 12,000h
Total service life 20+ years
Total operating hours 25,000-30,000h
2. http://warfare.ru/?catid=264&linkid=1699

Yes, it should be SA-X-21, not SA-20. The SA-20 is in-service, so it dropped the “-X-“. Developmental systems have the “-X-“. And these aren’t unconfirmed or fictional systems either; for a system to be assigned a designator it most assuredly exists in hardware form. Actually, since the 40N6 missile might not be ready yet, the system might retain the “-X-” when it first enters service, as it is still technically developmental and not complete. Ergo, the system might very well be in service in limited numbers without the 40N6 missile (the masively long-ranged one), even if the codename assigned is still SA-X-21.

That’s an easy one. It took people a while to figure out that the SA-20 was the S-300PM-1/PM-2, which had previously been called SA-10C and SA-10D. The new TOMB STONE radar and 48N6 missiles led to the SA-20 GARGOYLE designator being assigned, with SA-X-21 going to the S-400. The problem is that not too many current sources, like Jane’s Land-Based Air Defence, have caught on to this yet. Ergo, you still have people calling the S-300PM-1/PM-2 SA-10 variants, and the S-400 the SA-X-20.

OK, thanks for the recap. But do you mean that the yellow tag calling it SA-20 is in error? — it does not say SA-X-20; it says SA-20. Should the yellow tag be saying SA-X-21?

That’s an easy one. It took people a while to figure out that the SA-20 was the S-300PM-1/PM-2, which had previously been called SA-10C and SA-10D. The new TOMB STONE radar and 48N6 missiles led to the SA-20 GARGOYLE designator being assigned, with SA-X-21 going to the S-400. The problem is that not too many current sources, like Jane’s Land-Based Air Defence, have caught on to this yet. Ergo, you still have people calling the S-300PM-1/PM-2 SA-10 variants, and the S-400 the SA-X-20.

SOC, we have a problem (that’s NOT an s-400)

if you look at page
http://legion.wplus.net/guide/army/pv/_rkt.shtml

you will see photos captioned in Cyrillic

S-300P
S-300V
S-400 “Triumph”

That seems all well and good, and the “Triumph” photo is identical to the one you reproduced above in this thread. HOWEVER, if you leave your mouse over the thumbnail photos until the yellow tag emerges, you see that

“S-300P” is SA-10 Grumble
“S-300V” is SA-12a Gladiator and SA-12b Giant
“S-400 Triumph” is SA-20, which you have shown before is NATO designation for the S-300PMU. If it were the S-400, the tag would correctly say SA-X-21, the NATO provisional designation for the incomplete missile that the S-400 is.

Do you have an explanation for this? Thanks.

Nice pictures of engagement radars there.

Btw, a Russian web page at http://legion.wplus.net/guide/army/pv/_rkt.shtml shows some of these photos. It identifies the same photo that SOC does as an S-400 and shows Sealord’s photo as an S-300.

Remember how long it’s been, though:

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news001/news043.htm says:

“…due to enter service in 2001-2002,” they said back then.

Component differences

Right, here’s how you can tell between SA-10 (S-300PT/PS/PM), SA-20 (S-300PM-1/PM-2/PMU-1/PMU-2) and SA-X-21 (S-400) components. Look at the following three images. The first one is an SA-10 FLAP LID. The second is an SA-20 TOMB STONE. The third is an S-400 TEL. Notice how the antenna masts (used for datalinking or something) are different on all three variants. THAT is how to spot the primary difference between the three systems. Well, it’s the easiest way, at least. There are also differences in the FLAP LID and TOMB STONE arrays that can be seen, for starters.

So how many are supporting your position? :rolleyes:
Noerper I have not been “shown up” as you put it (most certainly not by you) SOC has corrected a piece of information I had, something for which I am gratefull, afterall is part of this forum not about sharing information?
Evidence has been provided for you by several posters about the existance of the S-400 system but you have failed to disprove it. your childish anti-russian rants do not count as evidence. :p

That picture right there is an S-300PMU-2 FAVORIT TEL, that variant can incorporate the 9M96 missile.

Thanks for the corroboration. I see that Sealord has gone silent now that two different posters have shown him up. Still waiting, still waiting for something other than a recycled picture that can be found on Russian websites dating back to 2001.

That picture right there is an S-300PMU-2 FAVORIT TEL, that variant can incorporate the 9M96 missile.

so which S-300 variant is it? :rolleyes:
do you actually have any idea what it is that you are talking about?

If post #19 represents the link in #11, which I can’t open either, that’s an S-300 picture that goes back to 1999. The page I get in clicking #11 is “you are not authorized to view this page.”

If you mean the link in the post by styx (#11), it doesn’t open.
Leads to a “link cannot be displayed” warning.

Nobody can judge a link or photo that he can’t view. Sealord, in all respect, how did YOU open this link?

I just opened NP, I don’t know why you can’t open it?

Bunga, in all respect I clicked on it and it opened, the picture is shown in a link that was posted in thr previous thread, the one that got closed. So maybe if you had bothered to look first time round or comment on it (considering the number of times I have mentioned it) you would have a better idea of what is going on, in all respect.

Would even Sealord believe that the Russians pulled back the S-400 after years of boasting in order to protect sales of the S-300?!

So if the organisation that markets your equipment overseas tells you not to do something you just go ahead and do it anyway… because you told some reporters you would? Yeah right.

BTW if the thing works as advertising why shouldn’t they boast?

If you mean the link in the post by styx (#11), it doesn’t open.
Leads to a “link cannot be displayed” warning.

Nobody can judge a link or photo that he can’t view. Sealord, in all respect, how did YOU open this link?

And Noerper still refuses to comment on the picture of the S-400 TEL.

How many times has MiG-MAPO planned to display the 1.44 aircraft? How many times has it actually appeared?

Sealord, if the Russians had been capable of showing something, they would have at MAKS, their most prominent stage for their aviation goodies. that they didn’t means they CAN’T. “Vremya novostei” had another pathetic excuse — “almaz didn’t plan to display it anyway at MAKS.” that line asks us all to forget the 2 years of buildup since MAKS-2003 promising the rollout of S-400 triumph at MAKS-2005.

NVO used the cover-your-ass phrase “according to unverified accounts” b/c it did not want to lend its name to an obvious lie and excuse for why there was no Triumf at the MAKS-2005.

That is indeed an S-400 TEL, I and SOC have reffered to it frequently during these discussions but each time Noerper has ignored it becouse it does not fit with his ignorant view point. He has equally ignored reports of the trials of the S-400 system.

“According to unverified accounts” not exactly official is it.