I have figures telling me exactly the range 9M317 has against anti-ship missiles. But not with Rif, they are selling both systems aren’t they?

ur figures are irrelevant as far as domestic russian stuff is concerned. Export customers might not be interested in version of Rif for engaging antiship missiles which can done with cheaper shorter range antiship missiles.
they already have Tor M 1.5 which will be released this year for export. S-300PM2 was cleared for export in 1997. It is more than a decade old technology.

.

Just interpreting from English alone (without preconceived one way or another), it seems that 9M96 or an upgraded version of 48N6 missile + upgraded software is needed for this capability. It doesn’t say anything about rif on those Russian ships from the 70s and 80s have it.

first S-300 went into service around 1978 for land use. In sea use it is mostly mid to late 80s and by that time it was already perfected. and ur incorrect in describing it again as we dont know real capability about domestic version of S-300s

how many times do I need to tell you? Don’t keep on posting random links. Should i start quoting random sources too now? The business people can boast as much as they want, but I can tell you S-300 had a hell of time trying to intercept ballistic missiles in China.

thats why China bought 28 systems of S-300 and Korean consider it the only system that is effective against both against aerodynamic and billistic targets.

Russians hiding their stuff? They constantly boast about their systems to try to get sales. Now they are telling China that a newer version can intercept missiles. Again as mentionned above, they advertise the anti-missile capability of their other naval SAMs all the time.
We are not asking for exact number but just missions that it can do or not do.

Russians only boast stuff which is allowed for export. S-400 is allowed for export thats why u hear boasts about it openly but u will not hear about S-500.

So now you are moving onto Scud vs Patriot from the 90s? You mind sticking with rif? I have already shown you that an early version of rif-m doesn’t have anti-missile capability, you have yet to show that other than the later version of rif-m, other rif systems also have anti-missile capability.

u have only shown that system exported to China does not have anti missile capability which has practically nothing to do with Russian domestic stuff which will use completely different capability radar, electronics, algorithms, ECCM, Speed etc. practically nothing in common.

I never called anyone a ‘knuckledragger’.

The truth is that the Vietnamese, being on the receiving end of a massive terror/carpet-bombing campaign, courtesy of the Americans, had a right to protect themselves, and if the Soviets are willing to supply the Communist Vietnamese with enough hardware, including S-75 Dvina missiles, to create the World’s most effective and lethal AD system so be it, it’s just another detail of the ‘Cold war’, it’s history.

But let me remind you that the Soviet air campaign in Afghanistan in the 1980s was also nothing more than a glorified terror/carpet-bombing campaign, much of it carried out by Soviet Long-range Aviation using T-16s and Tu22Ms, aircraft not renowned for their precision attack abilities. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of explosives were dropped in rural areas of Afghanistan, there was no distinction made between civilians and combatants. It’s estimated that between a million and a million and a half Afghans may have died in the war, along with a few million refugees as well.

Under such circumstances the Afghan people have a right to defend themselves as you know, and if the Americans, or Saudis or Pakistanis are willing to help the Afghans defend themselves so be it. It was the Cold War, history you know. To call those Afghans who took up arms against the Soviets and Afghan communist government ‘terrorists’ is just another example of double standards.

You don’t call the ‘Viet Cong’ terrorists do you, or the Iraqi insurgents who are now fighting the Americans?

all these cases are different. study a little bit deeper.

The Soviet Union was, I believe, the first or second country in the world to recognise the State of Israel in 1948. As to why the Soviet Union then proceeded to supply thousands of missiles and tanks to Israel’s Arab neighbours to help these Arab countries destroy Israel defies explanation…

Israel turns out to be democratic/capitlist country. Soviet Union mostly supported countries based on what it believes like socialist countries of Arab world. which is unlike West who supported terrorist loving Kingdoms. which is contridictory to western values. colossal policy failure.

S-300PMU-1 essentially has same ability in terms of speed like Mach 10 intercept. and note every one is giving approximate capability including General Designer and that is more for media.

The first shelfs of antiaircraft rocket systems S-400 will take up fighting watch in the middle of this year in Moscow suburbs, general designer НПО “Diamond” Alexander Lemansky has informed on Tuesday to journalists.

” In a shelf if to speak about its(his) fighting potential, will be more battalions, than in the shelfs equipped ЗРС С-300 “, – it(he) has specified.

According to Леманского, systems S-400 essentially differ from the previous systems both on a zone of defeat, and on огневой productivity, and on other parameters.

” On a zone of defeat range of these(it) ЗРС is twice more, than previous С-300, and on огневой – even it is much more than productivity, than twice “, – it(he) has specified.

Леманский also has added, that the future – for creation высокопотенциальных radar-tracking ground means, and also rockets of the big range of action and heights of interception.

” Among it is antiaircraft the-rocket systems serially made in the industry, analogues in the world are not present “, – it(he) has noted.

Mobile multichannel antiaircraft rocket system S-300 PMU-1 is intended for defense of militarians and industrial targets against the massed impacts of means of an air attack, and also for creation of boundaries of antiaircraft defense of the country. The system provides defeat of modern and perspective planes, cruise missiles, the ballistic purposes and other means of an air attack.

In it is antiaircraft-rocket complex С-300 ПМУ-1 the rocket 48Н6Е, developing the maximal speed over 2000 meters a second is applied one-stage твердотопливная. It(she) is capable to hit the target, flying with a speed up to 10 kilometers/s at an o’clock, on removal(distance) up to 150 kilometers at height up to 30 kilometers.

Launcher С-300 settles down on the special car and can be developed(unwrapped) and prepared for shooting for five minutes.

Rocket complex С-400 “Triumph” possesses as a whole the same characteristics as С-300, however can amaze the purposes on distance in 400 kilometers. Some other characteristics, in particular, rate of fire, range of shooting, quantity(amount) of simultaneously fired purposes are improved also.

It is planned, that in it(this) to year the new complex will act(arrive) on arms a shelf of air defence in situated near Moscow Electrostal.
ng.ru

http://www.answers.com/topic/s-300
The S-300FM Fort-M (Russian C-300ФМ, DoD designation SA-N-20) is another naval version of the system, installed only on the Kirov class cruiser RFS Pyotr Velikiy, and introduced the new 48N6 missile in the form of the 48N6Ye. It was introduced in 1990 and increased missile speed to approximately Mach 6 for a maximum target engagement speed of up to Mach 8.5
This system makes use of the Tomb Stone rather than Top Dome radar, which was subsequently developed in a land-based form. The export version is called the Rif-M

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/s300.htm
The 48N6Ye was interchangeable with the earlier 5V55, having the same mass and dimensions, but was a completely different missile internally, with greatly improved characteristics. It had double the range, greater warhead effectiveness, and was capable of shooting down the re-entry vehicles of tactical and tactical-operative ballistic missiles.

In the beginning of the 1990’s the 48N6 missile developed by Fakel was accepted in naval service in the Rif-M system. This had a maximum range of 150 km. All of these missile were launched vertically from sealed container-launchers. In comparison to the S-300F, the system used the Tomb Stone Mod target tracking radar.

what does that have to do with anything? Show me something that actually says rif on kirov or slava have anti-missile capability.

do u think Russians are that stupid to disclose the operational capabilities of there systems?. u will not find exact capabilities of there ground S-300 systems let alone Naval systems. and that isnt hard for them to upgrade with time
i just gave a link to general guidelines for S-300 where both aerodynamic and billistic targets are mentioned. there sytems are multipurpose but some are strong in one areas compared to others.

what it’s saying is that the earlier versions of rif did not have anti-missile capability. That you would only get anti-missile capability with 9M96 or with upgrade to rif-m. And at this moment, I don’t pretend to know if Kirov or Slava have upgraded to that level.

Again what has export model missiles have anything to do with russian versions in service?

http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=264&linkid=1695

Star49 , As I told you IAF is not interested in another Flanker variant , and its requirement is different from RuAF needs and wants , If IAF really needs more flanker it would just build or buy more MKI that would be more cost effective option than Su-35

MKI, Su-35, Su-34 cannot do the role of each other properly. they are separate thats why they exists.

It needs an aircraft in Medium weight category , we never know which gets selected although Mig-35 looks like a strong contender .

there is 7 ton weight difference between Gripen and F-18E. so it means it is very wide criteria interms of weight.

Matter of time is fine , Still its like saying since we have different type of sam that can bring down aircraft , so we need no more aircraft , WVR combat is here to stay , But ideally any AF will prefer a kill in BVR mode as much as possible.But then we stay in less than ideal world
If WVR was getting that obsolete why would countries and defence companies and Air Forces invest in new type of WVR missile.

Asraam/Irist/Aim-9X are more than decade old projects. hardly a new trend. and if u cannot destroy the enemy with expensive, high velocity, more burn time, dual seeker BVR missile. there is less confidence that ur WVR weopon will work on the same target except using a gun where again aircraft with greater internal fuel capacity will come handy.

I have my doubts on any Su-3x going on a sustained supercruise with any new engine purely because of aerodynamic limitation , But then I would wait to see if that really happens

we have to wait for next few months. just from looking cockpit simulator of Su-35 it looks pretty advance. MIGs look like poor man toy.

they signifcantly reduced the RCS of super hornet, used a more power engine and really increased the payload. At the same time, it still has an extremely strong airframe due to its role as a naval fighter. It’s not at the same level as NATF or ST-21, but still the premier naval fighter out there until F-35 becomes available.

that RCS reduction is meaningless in front of external stores. and that Mach 1.6 topspeed will further reduce with actual weopons. hardly high speed BVR lauch platform which can dictate battle. it is better to consider F-15 with AESA.

The IAF is suppose to decide on the MMRCA by next year and the induction schedule starts from 2009 ~ 2010.

i havent read anything for such schedule from any source.

The IAF clearly stated that they dont want another Su-3x variant for the MMRCA , IMO with 3D TVC the Mig-35 should be more manouverable in Close Combat than any Su-35 , And being a smaller aircraft has its advantage too.

I am not sure about IAF requirement for MMRC as they have put Gripen and F-18E in same competition which according Russian is same weight class as Su-35.

IMO with 3D TVC the Mig-35 should be more manouverable in Close Combat than any Su-35 , And being a smaller aircraft has its advantage too

the days of close combat are over. u can see 100% range increase in R-73 future variant to make it medium range. and powerful active and passive sensors make surprizes in combat less.
3D TVC is more for quick change in direction of aircraft from head on to tail chase to aviod BVR shot. and Su-35 is suppose to get Supercruise capability and massive enhancement in acceleration from Mach 0.4 to M1.1. u can basically flip the aircraft in any direction with superior speeds and massive internal fuel/weopons for second BVR shot. and it is most advance fighter in construction and manufacturing also.

http://www.royfc.com/news/nov/3006nov03.html
New Su-35 Fighter Version Will not Have Any Equals in Combat and Flying Characteristics – Sukhoy Company General Director

Hi star49 , what is the basis for your argument in saying that export Rif-M and the one used by Russian Navy has some kind of generational gap . Do you have any info on it which you can share with us on this ?

AFAIK the the only system fielded by Russian Navy on one of its Principle Ship think Peter The Great has a advanced 200 Km range version of Rif the rest are all similar in service RuN

I am only referring to land versions. Russians take airdefence very very seriously. so they ensure nothing is exported that compromises there own security. and it is in one of there channel report. i will post when i find that report again. i presume similar will be the case with Naval versions. this is from August 2004 interfax. 56km height for S-400 system at that time. they give 38KM for S-300PS. which is more than the export version just based on raw figures.
i cannot find the other report for now but they were clearly referring that they will never put there kind of airdefence system in some other country at that time they were referring to some other countries former states like Georgia.

[Col-Gen Yuriy Solovyev, commander of the Special Command Troops, captioned, shown at Interfax briefing] In principle the system is already ready, it is undergoing state tests and in the near future, next year, I think, we will get one of these complexes.

[Correspondent, over video of more missiles being fired, radar screens, missile firing at sea] The S-400 is the only air defence system in the world which is capable of firing different types of missiles depending on the target. Anti-missile defence has recently been a subject of the special concern for the Russian military. Now, for example, development of a new missile capable of hitting a target in near-Earth space is under way. Marine-based systems were used successfully to fire on cruise missiles during exercises in the Barents Sea this last spring. And a little later, modernized anti-missile systems fired on ballistic targets travelling at a speed of 800 metres per second at a test range near Astrakhan.

[Solovyev] All targets along the lines of an air enemy were destroyed, and ballistic targets and cruise missiles operating at altitudes between 50 metres and 56 kilometres were also fired at