Why not? 9M96 missiles are cheaper lighter and more agile. In such a case, the Triumph already deployed is no more than an “improved Favorit”.

True, Triumph is at this point little more than the latest design iteration of the S-300P family. Not that that’s a bad thing, though, but still. As for why no 9M96s fitted, we’ve seen images of one TEL at one battery. So there may be some out there we haven’t seen. And for air defense of the capital, you could argue that the longer-ranged 48N6DM is a better solution.

I thought China’s military is vastly inferior automatically to everyone’s especially those that are allied to the US. That’s what you read on boards like these.

Frankly, they were inferior in a technological sense, hence the reason for the widespread modernization. What is wrong with stating that? Other than nothing, of course, but I’m curious to see what your reasoning is for thinking that a pre-modernization Chinese military had over anyone else with the exception of numbers.

Present-day China, however, is a wholly different story.

Nationalistic concepts can cloud the thought processes of minds on both sides of the equation.

Isnt the Yak-41 project dead?;)

Yup, it is. But Yakovlev is responsible, apparently, for designing what was described as the STOVL systems for the PAK-FA, implying a potential naval variant. Whether or not it’s true STOVL, or merely STOL, might be irrelevant, it might well be able to land on such a short deck.

At any rate Russia has apparently looked into small carriers at one point, so a suitably equipped PAK-FA may very well be able to operate off of such a vessel.

Garry 1, Sealord 0 😀

Yeah, by saying 9M96/2 I meant “rightly or wrongly”

Gotcha.

Jane’s called it that, I believe (fat lot of good they are).

Jane’s is a valuable resource, but they could do with a lot better quality control. If you look at Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems and Jane’s Land Based Air Defence, the articles for the S-300P give different designators in some places, for example.

Their main problem is a failure to correct glaring extant errors, IMO. They often refer to the 64N6 as TOMB STONE, when TOMB STONE is actually the engagement radar for the SA-20. 64N6 is the BIG BIRD EW radar. Then they keep referring to the S-300PM-1/2 as SA-10 variants, when they’re SA-20s and have been for some time. They keep calling the SA-20’s engagement radar a FLAP LID. They think the 052C DDG in China has the S-300F when they even reported the S-300FM purchase as well (it can’t be the S-300F, BTW, as it has the FM’s TOMB STONE radar!).

Interestingly, most of their most glaring and oft-repeated errors have to do with the S-300P SAM system!

The D stands for Dal’naya, apparently.

That’s what it was!

What’s the range of 48N6DM, anyway?

250 km, compared to 150 km for the 48N6 and 200 km for the 48N6D.

Are they going to use 9M96 & 9M96D on the S-400? I thought they’d deploy S-400 TELs with a mix.

The missiles are part of the system and have also completed testing (the 40N6 is the one we’re waiting for), but there’s probably no need at this time to actually fit the 9M96s to the Moscow TELs.

I like the new truck they’re using as a basis, they look snazzy. Anyway, the TEL we can see is clearly not equipped with the 9M96 or the 9M96D (the latter of which has alternately been called 9M96/2 or 9M96M) – those would be the missiles small enough to put in a four-pack (so that a single TEL fully armed with them would carry 16 rather than 4 missiles).

The 40N6 (400km) missile is still being worked on, so it’s likely they’re entering combat duty with the improved 48N6DM.

It’s not 9M96/2. The export designators are 9M96E and 9M96E2, just like 48N6E and 48N6E2. The native designators are 9M96 and 9M96D, the D standing for something (I forget what) basically meaning longer range. Same for the 48N6-series, you have 48N6 and 48N6D, with the new S-400 missile being 48N6DM (probably the 48N6ME or 48N6E3 in export terms, but I haven’t seen those yet so they might not be right).

Not an aesthetic fan of the new TEL myself, I always liked the self-propelled unit introduced with the S-300PS.

[color=red]Otaku, you might wish to review rule 5 of the forum’s Code of Conduct. Calling someone a “cross-burner” is not acceptable.[/color]

There’s an 051C visible in Google Earth:

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/08/chinese-military-modernization.html

Coulda been worse. The press release could’ve read something like:

“President Putin, the trials of our Farts have been successful”

😀