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?

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.

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.”

Russian-language article gives pathetic excuse

If you go to

http://nvo.ng.ru/wars/2005-08-19/1_new.html, the reporter lamely writes

К сожалению, на аэрошоу так и не появился новейший российский зенитно-ракетный комплекс для ВВС “Триумф”. По непроверенным данным, это из-за того, чтобы не мешать продавать за рубеж С-300 ПМУ2.

“The Triumph did not appear at the air show, unfortunately. According to unverified accounts, this was done in order not to disrupt sales abroad of the S-300 PMU2.”

Jesus gadzooks! How many excuses are the Russians going to come up with? 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?!

Seriously mate get over it. The reason people have faith in the S-400 is that it exists.
It was proved in the last thread.
An article was posted proving that the long range missile was tested to a range of 327km.
An article was posted saying that limited operational testing had been carried out.
Nato has given the designation SA-X-21 to the S-400.
A picture was posted showing an S-400 configure launch vehicle.
Only idiots argue with facts and it is facts that have been presented to you.
I realy dont care about having a counterweight to the USA, im quite satisfied with the world as it is.

nope, it was the MID-RANGE missile that unexpectedly hit a target at 327 km, according to the russian press account. there is still no report of the long-range missile’s performance. X in nato designation stands for still-unconfirmed missiles.
the last thread proved nothing except that there are an awful lot of s-300 components’ photos being thrown about the web.