SOCBased on the type of target, a long-range system like the S-300PMU-1 should be effective around 80% of the maximum engagement range. Get to the 80% line and you won’t have enough time to turn around and exit the engagement zone before you get whacked.
SOCGot ’em saved. Feel relatively retarded for not spotting the last one as it’s right next to one I already have 😀
SOCSorry, practical SAM coverage from mainland doesn’t extend to Taiwan’s shores. And shipborne SAM coverage is still pathetic with only 2 052Cs capable of providing area air defense.
Are you kidding me? There are numerous S-300PMU-1/2 sites along the strait!
Their capability to provide SAM coverage over land will also be degraded unless they have a system like the E-2D & SM-6 combination.
It’s called the 64N6 battle management radar used to control S-300P batteries.
SOCWhen u go to S-400 specification page.
Where?
One missile is 1800KG with 200KM range and other is 250KM but with 2600KG weight. why whould u develop 50% heavy missile just to get 25% more range.
The first one is the 48N6D also used by the S-300PM-2 Favorit. The second is likely the enhanced-range 48N6DM developed for the S-400, it has also been credited with a 300 km range. Russian designers claimed that by refining the motor in the 48N6, they were able to increase the range over the earlier 5V55 without making a larger weapon. That let them use the same launch tubes and vehicles from the S-300PT/PS for the S-300PM. They likely had to come up with a bigger weapon, probably by increasing the diameter of the boost motor, to get out to 300 km. Maneuverability probably isn’t a big concern, as the weapon had TVC control to begin with.
SOCThe Volga radar in Baranovichi is gone? I thought it was still online. They certainly “dismantled” (read: blew up) the LPARs in the Baltic countries which was the reason for the gap now being closed by the Lekhtusi site.
I think it may still be around actually. I was confusing it with the LPAR in the Ukraine.
SOC1. Those reports are from U.S. sources I think they know more than YOU, and your site.
You’re missing the point. Those are all OLD reports from the 1980’s speculating on future Soviet capabilities. My information was taken from Russian source material, are you saying that the US is a more accurate source on Soviet and Russian programs than Russia is?
2. What those reports let us know is that , the U.S. NEVER wanted the world to know that Russia has had ABM/Lasers longer and more advanced than the U.S.
I’m not disagreeing with that at all.
3. When the SDI (Starwars) system was being talked about the official LIE was to defeat in coming ICMB’s from USSR, but what we know now is it was to shoot down Russuia’s ANTI-sat lasers, put 2 and 2 together.
Developing STAR WARS to counter the Polius laser platform would seem logical, but only one of them was built and it failed to achieve orbital insertion. Recategorizing STAR WARS as an ABM type system is logical.
4. There are 2 “Official” reports the U.S. gives:
The 1. What they tell the public( threw the media ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN)
The 2. What they discuss amoung themselves and sometimes latter on “de-classify” those reports clearly show Russia has more weapons up there sleeves than what U.S.A. has and they had/have an advantage over U.S.
Again, I’m not disputing the USSR’s weapons development. My point is that all of those reports are basically ancient and no longer necessarily viable sources of information based on how world events unfolded after they were written.
Now the “Plethora” of U.S. ABM being “developed” is just that (being developed) not developed and operational, like 10,000 missiles, so what your saying is wrong because it isn’t ready, all we know is Russia has 6400 SAM’s that in the past has been dual-purpose ABM
There are a few (20-40?) ABMs at Fort Greeley in Alaska, but that’s beside the point. Russian SAMs were believed to be dual-purpose with the addition of nuclear warheads. They had an ATBM capability with conventional warheads, but needed a nuke to deal with much faster ICBM targets. Since the SA-5s are no longer in service, they’re irrelevant. And there is no evidence to show that the S-300Ps have nuclear warheads fitted. More to the point, it would seem logical to assume that they didn’t, as it has been reported in the Russian press that the MoD removed the nuclear warheads from the GAZELLE ABMs recently.
U.S.’s ICBM’s will be knocked out on a 90% basis scince the S-300PMU-2 has a 90% kill ratio, but the U.S. doesn’t have 10,000 ABM’s right now so the strike from Russia will be devestating.
Where is it reported that the S-300PMU-2 has a 90% kill ratio against ICBMs?
What those reports also let us know is Russia has more ABM/ other weapons developed and operational that the west doesn’t know about, that what we know from these reports, U.S. has always overexagerated it’s so called advatage over Russia, so please show reports like mine showing Russia’s lasers and ABM systems are no more, just don’t post responses as if it’s a fact.;)
I never said their ABMs were all gone. But it is a fact that the SA-5 is out of service, and the Russiap press reported the inactivation of the GORGON sites and the removal of nukes from the GAZELLEs. Laser weapons are another story and are likely still being tested or perhaps even fielded, but there is no recent information on these programs apart from your 1980-era Western speculation.
SOCThey’ll use thier lasers which is been active for a long time:
First off, a lot of those reports you link to deal with the 1980s. Which of those programs survived the fall of Communism to become active weapon systems?
1. The Soviets have now progressed beyond technology research, in some cases to the development of prototype laser weapons.
Which were trialled at Sary Shagan and perhaps the western Krona site.
They already have ground-based lasers that could be used to interfere with US satellites. In the late 1980s, they could have prototype space based laser weapons for use against satellites. In addition, ongoing Soviet programs have progressed to the point where they could include construction of ground-based laser antisatellite(ASAT) facilities at operational sites. These could be available by the end of the 1980s and would greatly increase the Soviets’ laser ASAT capability beyond that currently at their test site at Sary Shagan. They may deploy operational systems of space-based lasers for antisatellite purposes in the l990s, if their technology developments prove successful, and they can be expected to pursue development of space-based laser systems for ballistic missile defense for possible deployment after the year 2000.
“may deploy operational systems of space-based lasers for antisatellite purposes in the l990s”…that is of course supposing that the USSR didn’t fall apart like it did.
http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/product/smp_85_ch3.htm
One potential method might be a powerfull ground-based laser
Might be, not is.
3. ASATs The Soviets may have a new “direct-ascent” antisatellite
capability, according to the Pentagon’s annual report
to the Congress.
Wouldn’t be suprising, but hardly an ABM system. And another “may have” based on decades old reporting.
4. Mr. Lee’s analysis is complex. To vastly simplify, he says he has evidence that Russia’s surface-to-air interceptor missiles carry nuclear warheads and therefore are capable of bringing down long-range ballistic missiles, not just aircraft and shorter-range missiles, which is their stated purpose. Russia has 8,000 of these missiles scattered around the country, and Mr. Lee says he has found numerous Russian sources that describe how successive generations of SAMs were in fact designed with the express intention of shooting down ballistic missiles, which is illegal under the treaty.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=85000693
I’m actually in the process of researching Russian texts and Lee’s book to discuss the feasibility of such a system for my website. The theory is certainly sound, but there are no nuclear S-300Ps in service and the S-200s are gone, so the nationwide ABM, if it existed, no longer does. Leaving the 64 GAZELLE interceptors around Moscow.
5. By the time the Empire collapsed, more than 10,000 dual purpose SAM/ABM interceptor missiles were deployed at SA-5/10 complexes. Yet the U.S. officially counts only the l00 interceptors of the “ABM X-3” system at Moscow, which are permitted by the ABM Treaty. ABM X-3 is a scaled up model of the NIKE-X system, vintage late
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1996_h/h960927l.htm
Nitpick mode: that’s the ABM-4 system. ABM-X-3 was the S-225.
6. Russia inherited most of the Soviet empire’s illegal national ABM defenses. Although the Hen Houses and LPARs located in the successor states created significant gaps in coverage, Russia still controls 12 or 13 of those radars. Consequently, SAM/ABMs still defend most of the Russian Federation from U.S. ICBMs, much of the SLBM threat, and Chinese missiles. Scheduled completion of the LPAR in Belorus will restore complete threat coverage, except for the gap left by the dismantled Krasnoyarsk LPAR. Granted, the Hen Houses are old, but the United States has been operating similar radars for 40 years.
The LPAR in Belarus is dismantled. They are filling coverage gaps with the Voronezh-DM sites at Lekhtusi and Armavir. This will also allow Russia to stop leasing the Sevastopol HEN HOUSE. Come on, find something current!
Despite its economic difficulties, Russia continued development and production of the SA-10, adding (in 1992-1993 and 1997) two models with new missiles and electronics and replacing more than 1000 SA-5 missiles with late model SA-10s having greatly improved performance against ballistic missiles of all ranges. Russia is protected by as at least as many (about 8500) SAM/ABMs as in 1991, and they are more effective. No wonder Russia shows little concern for its proliferation of missile and nuclear technology.
The S-300PM was trialled against a slew of ballistic targets. The reports on SAM testing at Sary Shagan indicate that an anti-missile role wasn’t seriously looked at for the S-300P until the S-300PM (SA-20).
Even more impressively, Russia has begun flight-testing the fourth generation “S-400” (“Triumph”) SAM/ABM designed not only to end the “absolute superiority” of air assault demonstrated by the United States in the 1992 Gulf War and the 1999 Kosovo operation, but also to improve Russia’s illegal ABM defenses against strategic ballistic missiles.
Where did that come from? The S-300P systems are enough by themselves to end the Western “absolute superiority”.
Now, feel free to try again at proving my assertions wrong. But you’d probably do a lot better with current information instead of stuff from the 1980s.
fifth generation and high altitude interception are two separate develoopments. S-400 is mostly against stealth.
S-400 is a dedicated SAM system with an ATBM capability, the S-500 will be the new high-altitude exoatmospheric ABM/ASAT system.
I’d think that an imaging IR sensor would be harder to spoof than radar. Remember, both THAAD and SM-3 (and likely GBI as well) have aimpoint selection (and have shown they can do that) so I’d think it likely that any decoys are going to have to be fairly sophisticated compared to what you’d need to spoof radar.
A target with the same shape and IR signature as a warhead will be very hard to classify as a decoy.
But apparently that’s rational while the US wanting to prevent an attack on it’s soil is not? I don’t get it.
That has nothing to do with the argument. Russia can spend money on SAM systems for as long as it likes. It still has no bearing on the fact that against any credible threat the current plethora of American ABM systems being developed represent overkill.
It could be argued the US is not a threat to Russia or China so why do they persist in deploying and improving their air defense units?
Is America the only potential aggressor on either of their radar screens?
by the time they get done the S-400/S-500 will have half a dozen types of missiles associated with it and several types of radars
Four missiles (three for the S-400, all tailored to different tasks and ranges). Two engagement radars. They’ll use the same national-level EW assets.
SOCI’d have to go home to get the details but the S-300V was specifically designed in part to take down the Pershing-II as the hard target kill capability was something the Russians were not too pleased about. I want to say I remember seeing information about anti-MaRV testing but I’m not totally sure. I do remember that the ATBM trials for the S-300P and S-300V were different in a lot of areas.
Is that system active? I was under the impression that it was more along the lines of the ALL rather than a full blown ABL.
As far as I know it still operates, and is researching a laser weapon system. That does make it more like the ALL than ABL, but it is intended to produce something like the ABL. Again, AFAIK.
If discriminating decoys is really the magnitude of problem some say it is
Of course it’s a problem, because the designers incorporated an IR terminal sensor.
suddenly you’ve pretty effectively cut off China’s ability to strike the US with an ICBM in a period of tension
There’s part of my point right there. Anyone who thinks we need that capability is either delusional or a member of Congress. We are wasting too much money in preparation to fight wars that we know good and well will never come to pass. Russia is no threat. China is no threat. Iran and North Korea? OK, were they to both field ICBMs next week that didn’t blow up a few seconds after launch (meaning the TD-II is clearly out :diablo: ), carefully positioned SM-III/IV or GBI units are enough to counter the threat. Why do we need the rest of it? What’s the point? Either the systems work or they don’t. If they all work, then we don’t need them all. If they don’t work, then those that are not performing as desired need to be either redesigned or cancelled outright. It’s as simple as that.
Would they even be able to afford that many?
That’s debatable, but it wasn’t my point. The point is that you can get by just fine with one system that is properly designed.
SOCFirst off, they’ve had research efforts into a lot of ABM and ASAT systems for some time now. They put a lot more effort into a laser-based weapon system than we did, for example. And the S-300V would have been a big shock to Army Pershing-II battery commanders.
You are right in saying that they have no exoatmospheric capability, it has been that way ever since the GORGON missiles were removed from their silos. What nobody knows with dead certainty is the actual status of the 32 missiles that were pulled from the silos. In theory they are held at the Bobruysk ABM support facility, along with the GAZELLE nuclear warheads and may therefore be able to be returned to service (although one of the two GORGON sites has been deactivated).
So they aren’t working on a bunch of ABM systems. So what? They have an ABL program based on an IL-76 currently, they have an active COIL program, an active BMD program, and a very robust air defense program. Truth be told all we really need is a naval and land-mobile developed, refined variant of the SM-III/IV. Everything else is pointless overkill. It’s like we realized that the Russians had been messing with ABM systems for almost 50 years and decided we had to catch up. On their end they’re developing the S-500 to be the national-level ASAT and ABM system, complementing the S-400. Let’s say they put six batteries of S-500s around every major industrial center. What more do they really need, regardless of what it’s tipped with?
SOCWhat about the EF-111A that got a kill by outmaneuvering the Iraqi pilot in DESERT STORM?
SOCBecause the GAZELLEs no longer rely on nuclear warheads. That means that they’ve developed a more accurate, probably directional, HE warhead. As far as matching up with those US systems, well, the Russians have been so far ahead in the SAM game for so long and have researched and trialled numerous ABM systems that it’s almost unintelligent to think that they cannot match a Western SAM or ABM system.
SOCThose calculations were wrong, scince Russia has an ABM sysytem like no other and the U.S.’s is virtually nothing (outside of 100/150 missiles) most of U.S.’s ICBM’s will be shot down while 95% of Russia’s will hit thier target.
Russia has an ABM system around Moscow. Explain to us how that protects the rest of the country, since the S-200 is no longer in service and nuclear warheads for the S-300s are not currently deployed? Russia has around 64 GAZELLE ABM silos, that’s it. The S-500 will make this a whole new ball game, but that won’t appear until 2015.
SOCI believe the guys at Creech AFB have deployed all the UAVs and personnel they have.
Exactly, blaming their firings in part on not deploying more ISR platforms in theater smells like an excuse to cover up something else. Same thing with the Taiwan incident, or did I miss it when the CNO resigned over the China debacle? Units also can blow an ORI, UCI, or NSI at any time and it does happen, but that doesn’t result in the top of the food chain getting expunged either. Something else is going on here, mark my words.
I bet he was fired because they found he was an alien …and wasnt documented…
Come on, this discussion is stupid…
Yet you still felt compelled to participate…hmm…
SOCKeep going here, you’ve still got 6 pages or so before the limit is reached!
SOCWhich video are you looking at? I don’t think the ones I viewed had sufficient resolution at that range to make out if there was a stinger or not.
Sign In
