Russia to Deploy S-400 Missile Defenses

Russian news agencies have widely reported that Russia will begun to upgrade its missile defenses in 2005, as expected, replacing older systems with the newer and widely touted S-400 interceptors. Interfax and Itar-Tass quoted deputy defense minister Belousov as saying that the military would purchase six S-400 systems this year, but did not specify the price, or where they would be deployed. Russia has previously indicated that the S-400 may be offered for export.

RIA Novosti notes that, in addition, Russia’s navy will add two new strategic nuclear submarines, the Yury Dolgoruky and the Dmitry Donskoy, each armed with Russia’s most advanced submarine launched ballistic missile, the Bulava SS-N-30. Belousov added that, “Allegations that all our technology is outdated do not hold water. The performance of our technology is not inferior to that in any other industrialized country.” Other systems to be added in 2005 include a battalion of new T-90 tanks, two TU-160 strategic bombers, and a host of other systems.

full article

some details of the system :
S-400 (SA-20 Triumf)


Country: Russia
Alternate Name: SA-20 Triumf
Basing: Land
Status: Operational, Exported


Details

The S-400, also known by its NATO designation, SA-20 Triumf, is an advanced Russian surface-to-air missile system. Once operational, it will be able to destroy aircraft, cruise missiles, and short- and medium-range ballistic missiles at ranges of up to 400 kilometers. The Russians eventually plan to phase out their existing S-200 (NATO: SA-5 Gammon) and S-300P (NATO: SA-10 Grumble) systems and replace them with S-400 complexes.

By the late 1990s, it was widely acknowledged that Russia had fallen behind the U.S. in missile defense. Not wanting to let its technology and expertise go to waste, Moscow decided to build a new air-defense missile system, one that would surpass even the U.S. Patriot. According to Vladimir Simonov, General Director of the Russian Agency for Control Systems, the main focus was on getting Russia’s lagging programs “back on their feet. "From the beginning, the project was shrouded in secrecy: neither its purpose, nor its parameters, nor even its name were disclosed to the public, although speculation was rampant.

In January 1999, the Russian Air Force formally announced that it had developed a new air defense system known as the S-400. Designed by the Russian Almaz Central Design Bureau, the S-400 was a thoroughly modernized version of the older S-300P system, versions of which dated back to the late 1960s.The S-400 was reportedly capable of destroying a wide range of targets, including tactical and strategic aircraft, radar observation and targeting planes, cruise missiles, and short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.According to Aleksandr Lemanskiy, Director-General of Almaz, the new system had “no parallels.”

Most of the excitement surrounding the S-400 announcement centered on its new long-range missile, which the Fakel Machine Building Design Bureau was still in the final stages of developing. According to the Russians, the new missile featured an advanced seeker head capable of tracking targets well beyond the horizon line. It had a range of up to 400 kilometers, giving it approximately 2.5 times the range of the S-300P and twice the range of the U.S. Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) system, thus making it the superior missile. Once operational, the Russians claimed, the new S-400 missile would be able to home in on short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, as well as reconnaissance aircraft, stealth bombers, and other high-flying, fast-moving targets.

In addition to the new long-range missile, the Russians revealed that the S-400 would be armed with lightweight 9M96 missiles to counter low-flying targets. Each 9M96 interceptor would have a range of approximately 120 kilometers and feature a gas-dynamic control system that would allow it to perform intricate low-altitude maneuvers. The Russians claimed that, in order to hasten the S-400’s deployment, the 9M96 interceptors would be made compatible with the existing S-300P launchers. Thus, a standard S-300P launcher originally designed to carry four 5V55 or 48N6 missiles would now be used to transport up to 16 9M96 missiles. In addition, the S-400 would use the S-300P control complex and multifunctional radar, thus allowing for a smooth, cost-efficient transition between the two systems.

In February 1999, initial tests of the S-400 began at the Kapustin Yar site in Astrakhan. Reports indicate that these tests were largely successful. In early 2001, Moscow announced that the S-400 would be deployed that year by the Russian military, and would also be made available for export on the world arms market. Shortly thereafter, however, the S-400 program began to encounter a series of financial difficulties and technical problems that caused it to fall behind schedule, a trend that continued over the next two years.

In mid-2003, after numerous delays and considerable bureaucratic infighting, it began to look as if the S-400 was nearing completion. That August, however, two high-ranking Russian military officials, Colonel General Alexei Moskovsky, Chief of the Armament Department of the Armed Forces, and General Anatoly Kvashnin, Chief of the General Staff, expressed their concerns that the S-400 was being tested using “obsolete” interceptors from the S-300P (such as the 48N6 missile). They concluded that the system was still not yet ready for production.Moscow once again decided to delay the S-400’s scheduled deployment, this time until 2005 or 2006.

In February 2004, the Russian Air Force announced that state tests of the S-400 had been completed and that the system was finally ready for production.Two months later, Interfax-Military News Agency reported that an upgraded 48N6DM long-range interceptor had successfully destroyed a test ballistic missile. An Almaz-Antey official stated that “the system launched the upgraded 48N6DM long-range missile. The missile was guided to the target with precision, while the tasks set have been fulfilled.”Despite these recent successes, it remains unclear when the S-400 will begin mass production.

Nevertheless, Moscow has been aggressively marketing the S-400 throughout Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Many believe that China will be Russia’s main customer. Between 2003 and 2004, China spent approximately $500 million on future S-400 systems, which accounts for the 7 percent increase in China’s foreign weapons acquisitions during that period.In addition to China, Russia has offered the S-400 to the United Arab Emirates, once in 2002 and again in 2004. There is also speculation that Iran, a potential nuclear power, is currently seeking to acquire its own batch of S-400 missiles.

It is evident that, once the S-400 completes its final tests and enters production, it will quickly become one of the most sought after missile defense systems in the world.

MOSCOW [MENL] -- Syria has been negotiating the purchase of an advanced anti-missile system from Russia.

Russian industry sources President Bashar Assad sought to procure the S-400 anti-missile defense system during his visit to Russia in January. The sources said Assad was briefed on the S-400 but did not sign any agreement.

"Assad is very interested in the S-400 and apparently Syria has the money to buy this," an industry source said.

The sources said Russia has sought to sell the S-400 to Iran, Syria and the United Arab Emirates. Russia has touted the S-400 as providing a more effective defense than the U.S. PAC-3 anti-missile system.

source

:O awesome Anti aircraft system. Russia is back for sure.

Russia's back????

"tomkat ha"? what does tomcat mean?

Huh what? you made me confused.

Russia is back? What are you talking about, the S-400 is advanced, but not up to the standards to shoot down drones which are made to kill them by the USA.

And how did you find that out?

Originally posted by tomcat ha
And how did you find that out?

Simple, searching.

Link

The UAV also lacks the endurance of the Predator or Global Hawk UAVs. Nonetheless, the aircraft's ability to "dwell" over a target area for several hours is highly valued. Its surveillance package options include an LPI synthetic aperture radar salvaged from the Navy's A-12 program as well as infrared and electro-optical sensors (AW&ST June 4, 2001, p. 30). The Air Force has had a long-standing requirement for a very-low-observable, high-altitude UAV that can fly 1,000 naut. mi. to a target, penetrate modern air defenses such as the SA-10, SA-12 and SA-20 anti-aircraft missile systems, loiter for at least 8 hr. and return to base

The SA-X-20, was not intended to engage UAV, instead it is designed to destroy cruise missiles, it has proved sucessful in many tests in the Moscow region. For engagments of LFV's, there is the 9K33 Strela-1, which has succesfully intercepted countless drones in test fires.

-----

Link

The S-400 system is intended to engage current and future air threats such as tactical and strategic aircraft, Tomahawk cruise missiles and other type missiles, including precision-guided ones, as well as AWACS aircraft, at ranges of up to 400 km. It can also detect stealth aircraft and other targets at all altitudes of their combat employment and at maximum ranges.

The Pechora and Hen House radar radar systems around russia increase these missile systems effectiveness against incoming targets, so one must keep in mind that the effectiveness of these missiles in Russia and in other nations are two completely different things..

here's some information of the history of the russian radar network, quite an interesting article : www.missilethreat.com...

[edit on 11-2-2005 by drfunk]

I do not see evidence that it isnt capable to shoot them down. Just that it is developed to be able to kill them doesnt mean that they succeed at that.

After looking at sources, I stumbled upon this article on the raptors website, it does make since.


Myth of Costly F-22


Now back to the topic, tomcat ha, I do not see evidence that says the S-400 can shoot down the raptor or stealth UCAVS? Maby 1st generation stealth like the F-117, but not new generations.

The first words on the page say this:

Radar signature approximately the size of a bumblebee, thereby avoiding detection by the most sophisticated enemy air defense systems.

The Russian S-400 is one of the most advanced I would say.

Link1

However, the combination of F-22s and B-2s produces the added dimension of "24-hr. stealth for the first time," Jumper said. The phrase refers to the ability of F-22s to sweep any defending aircraft from the air that could endanger the B-2 during daylight hours when the bomber is vulnerable to visually directed weapons. With enemy aircraft eliminated, the F-22s and B-2s could both turn to destroying the most dangerous surface-to-air missiles--the SA-10, SA-12 and SA-20 (S-300 family) systems referred to as "double-digit SAMs"--and the even newer, Russian-made S-400 with a projected range of 250 mi. Other targets would be the communications terminals that integrate air defenses and allow enemy commanders to control their forces in the field.

Link2




[edit on 11-2-2005 by Laxpla]

How can you be sure that the S400 cant dectect a plane the size of a bumblebee?

Originally posted by tomcat ha
How can you be sure that the S400 cant dectect a plane the size of a bumblebee?

Well, how can you be sure that the S400 can engage a raptor or modern UCAV? Where are the sources stating that it can engage the F-22 or the UCAV? I showed you sources concerning the murder of the S-400 if the Raptor engaged it. If you want, I can give you over 20 sources concerning this, but for me it would be a waste of time proving you wrong.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Laxpla]

F-117 WAS SHOT DOWN WITH SA-6 (not AAA fire as U.S. Military wants everyone to think) , if SA-6 can do that to the 117, then most definatly SA-400 can shoot down F-22 Dark star.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

The article has no real Proof.

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
F-117 WAS SHOT DOWN WITH SA-6 (not AAA fire as U.S. Military wants everyone to think) , if SA-6 can do that to the 117, then most definatly SA-400 can shoot down F-22 Dark star.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

Out of 1300 sorties with 1600 targets destroyed, only one has been lost. To me, thats pretty dam good. The reason why the F-117 Nighhawk was shot down was because of a pilot error, not a stealth problem. The pilot flew the same route 3 times in a row.

In Desert Storm, more than 3,000 antiaircraft guns and 60 surface-to-air missile batteries protected the city, but despite this seemingly impenetrable shield, the Nighthawks owned the skies over the city and, for that matter, the country.

tomcat ha, if the article has no proof, then why does your opinion have better credibility then scholars dedicating there life towards aviation, and reporting it?

If you were a lawyer and told the judge that PersonA didnt Kill PersonB just because I believe so, hes going to laugh. However, PersonB has hair samples on them from PersonA, who is he going to believe?


I showed you sources, Where are your sources showing that the S-400 can detect and engage the Raptor?

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Laxpla]

NATO lost 388 planes, 444 cruise missiles, 60= UAV's desert storm Coalltion lost 73 planes U.S. alone lost 37 www.rjlee.org... including the "so called never been shot down F-15" hehehe

[edit on 11-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
NATO lost 388 planes, 444 cruise missiles, 60= UAV's desert storm Coalltion lost 73 planes U.S. alone lost 37 www.rjlee.org... including the "so called never been shot down F-15" hehehe

[edit on 11-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

You posting shows your ignorance.

During Desert Storm, no Nighthawks have been destroyed in the most highly guarded areas. Out of all its missions throughout many conflicts, only one has been lost due to pilot error which the pilot ejected safely.


The so called F-15 has NEVER been shot down. It has never been shot down by a Air to Air engagment you failed to know. Searching for F-15 records could make you not look stupid like you look right now.

Coalition Aircraft Losses: 75 (63 U.S., 12 Allied)


Fixed wing, 37 combat, 15 noncombat

U.S. losses, 28 combat, 12 noncombat

No U.S. losses in air-to-air engagements

Helicopters, 23 (all U.S.): 5 combat, 18 noncombat

That is the least aircraft ever lost in any war. If you want me to show the stats about the tanks, etc., I could upon request.