Stealth Ability Neutralized!

From your same source:
"The rockets 9G82G are intended for an erasure tactical, operative - tactical and average distance of ballistic missiles, and also aerodynamic purposes on removals(distances) up to 200 kms."

And your source also states the same as those provided:
"Target engagement range, km"
Aerodynamic (planes, etc)--- S-300V: 100km and Antey 2500: 200km
Ballistic (ICBM's, etc)---- S-300V: up to 40km and Antey 2500: up to 40km


The MilParade states:
"The 9M82M missile is intended to engage battlefield, theater and medium-range ballistic missiles, as well as aerodynamic targets at a distance of up to 200 km. The missile is under control throught the flight."

"The Russian Antey-2500 air defense system is a unique weapon capable of countering effectively nonstrategic battlefield and theater ballistic missiles with a launch range of up to 2,500 km."




regards
seekerof

I do now admit that i didnt read the stats as accurately as i should have been reading..

As it had -40 as in from 200 to 40..

But i see now that you are right about this..
(About that diagram..)



But there still is a long-burn version of the s-300 that has range of over 400km.

Originally posted by FULCRUM
I do now admit that i didnt read the stats as accurately as i should have been reading..

As it had -40 as in from 200 to 40..

But i see now that you are right about this..
(About that diagram..)

But there still is a long-burn version of the s-300 that has range of over 400km.

yup the s-400

Originally posted by SectorGaza

yup the s-400

Thanks..



S-400 Triumph!

And from what i understand..

This can be shot from even 'standard' S-300 launchers..



*Edit*

Here is a better..

Link



[Edited on 5-12-2003 by FULCRUM]

S-400 is not built into this system and the point is that your are mis-quoting the sources and then acting like you know what you are saying when it is apparent that the source information is saying to the contrary...thats the point!


regards
seekerof

Read from my lips:

Antey-2500 system can fire S-400 missiles.



Thats the fact, thats the point.

Fulcrum......Come again?
I will not "read your lips" because your "lips" have no clue to what they are talking about!

First off, they are two totally different systems.......
Secondly,
All source information on the internet states this on your Antey-2500:
"Type and quantity of missles used on the Antey-2500:
9S32M ---4
9A83M ---24
9A84M ---24
9M82M ---48
9M83M ---96"

Here's the POINT:
Do you see the nominclature for the S-400 anywhere in that above stated facts? There are multiples of sources saying the very same thing, and all of them do not show the S-400 being utilized by the Antey-2500 system.
BTW: the nomincalture for the S-400 is: "9M96 medium-range missile (9M96E and 9M96E2)."
Link:
www.milparade.com...

The above link then states:
"The two versions of the 9M96 medium-range missile (9M96E and 9M96E2) were discussed in detail in the March/Apr '99 issue of Military Parade. As for long-range missiles capable of engaging various targets at ranges of up to 400 km, It is premature to describe them, let us only note here that they are available and ready for trials.

The Triumph air defense system can also use 48N6E missiles of the S-300PMU-1 system and 48N6E2 missiles of the S-300PMU-2 Favorit system. Incidentally, the 48N6E missile was successfully test-fired on February 12, 1999."

Your source: www.aeronautics.ru... states this:
"The effective range of 9M96 missile is up to 120km."

Also to note there Fulcrum, is that in none of the sources talking about the S-400 is there mention of their use with the Antey-2500 system. They are two different systems...period.

You see, the point is that the S-400 is not used on the Antey-2500 system........



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 6-12-2003 by Seekerof]

These missile pods are same.

These basic systems are same.

all S-300/S-400s.

S-400 is only upgraded S-300 design.

S-300s will be upgraded to use S-400 missiles.



*edit*

Real name of the Antey 2500 is S-300VM.



[Edited on 6-12-2003 by FULCRUM]

Fulcrum:
"S-300s will be upgraded to use S-400 missiles."
Key word is "will be"....but as the current information stands, it has not been upgraded.

As to the real name or nominclature for the Antey-2500 as being the S-300VM......
I am also aware of this and have been aware of this.
www.globalsecurity.org...

And according to this information, among multitudes of others, the S-400 and its nominclature is not part of the Antey-2500 system.


regards
seekerof

You will see that the Antey 2500 is export only..

S-400 will be the system for Russians..



So i just wonder why this whole S-300VM thing was posted as we could have been talking about of S-400s from the start.

And India is only one that uses S-300VMs (Antey 2500 or A 2500 as it is also know as..)

Originally posted by Seekerof
The MilParade states:
"The 9M82M missile is intended to engage battlefield, theater and medium-range ballistic missiles, as well as aerodynamic targets at a distance of up to 200 km. The missile is under control throught the flight."

Good post, but this brings up another point.

In order for the missile to be "under control" during the flight, it has to receive info via some sort of RF signal. It looks like it uses the 9S32 GRILL PAN Guideance Radar to achieve this.
www.globalsecurity.org...

This means that the system operates as a "beam rider" (the fired missile rides a beam of RF to the target). When the target (especially an aircraft) is being "painted", the position of the missile system is given away and I'm sure a HARM launch will result along with some jamming for platform self-protection. Chances are it won't even get to that point because the HARM would might be launched once the search radar (9S15 BILL BOARD) was detected and for sure when the targeting radar (9S19 HIGH SCREEN) is deteceted because being painted by an unfriendly targeting radar is considered an act of war.

I see this system being somewhat effective against ballistic missiles, but not against much else.
This system could be rendered hugely ineffective via EA (electronic attack) in the form of jamming of HIGH SCREEN or BILL BOARD. The missile would be launched and then be no better than a Scud.

SeaBass, I was waiting for someone to bring that point up since 'some' have failed to recognize this....

I realized it myself but because of the direction of the 'current' discussion and me trying disprove what others where steadily trying to counter and convince and otherwise put forth as 'fact', I never got to mention what you did.....
Personally, I am glad that someone, other than myself, recognized this and questioned and/or presented the information that you did. My appreciation to you for doing such.

.......And your are correct on your information......


regards
seekerof

The guidance radar is frequency agile..

So that much for the jamming..

Actually 1-10% of them only actually damage their targets at all..

They are very easy to fool..

Like this: Turn of the radar.. OLD HARMs FAIL 100%,

NEWER HARMs MISS THEIR TARGETS 90% of the time if this is done..



[Edited on 6-12-2003 by FULCRUM]

Seeker - thanks for the praise. Glad there is someone else here who has some knowlege and reason.

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Actually 1-10% of them only actually damage their targets at all..

They are very easy to fool..

Like this: Turn of the radar.. OLD HARMs FAIL 100%,

NEWER HARMs MISS THEIR TARGETS 90% of the time if this is done..

[Edited on 6-12-2003 by FULCRUM]

How would you detect a HARM, especially if you turn off the radar?

If the radar is turned off, the missile continues via inertial guideance.

Do you honestly think that once a HARM is fired, the troops running the system will:
1) Even know that a HARM has been fired?
2) If they detect it, will they be able to shut down the targeted radar and move quickly enough to aviod a hit by a supersonic missile.

Probably not in both cases. BTW, it looks like you're making stuff up again. What's your source for the hit/miss percentages for the HARMs?

Originally posted by FULCRUM
The guidance radar is frequency agile..

So that much for the jamming..

Frequency agility does not render jamming useless. Do your homework

[Edited on 6-12-2003 by SeaBass]

[Edited on 6-12-2003 by SeaBass]

Originally posted by SectorGaza
I CAN SEE YOU F22!



radar detection has been always developing faster

Antey-2500


The Antey-2500 is designed to combat aircraft and tactical missiles, including ballistic missiles with a launch range of up to 2,500 kilometers. The Antey-2500 mobile complex, developed on the basis of the well-known S-300V [SA-12] air defense complex, is a new-generation system, capable of autonomous combat action. It can simultaneously engage 24 aerodynamic targets, including stealth targets, or 16 ballistic targets with a RCS of up to 0.02 meters, flying at speeds of up to 4,500 m/s. Improved characteristics of the radar information facilities and optimization of radar signal processing technics make it possible to combat high-speed ballistic targets with a small radar cross section. Antey-2500 can effectively protect an area of up to 2,500 sq. km and engage targets at altitudes of 25 to 40,000 m.

Read your bolded section again! Be military definition the difference between a Low Observability aircraft and a stealth aircraft are the signature values of the plane (RCS, IR, Acustic, ect.). To be a stealth the RCS needs to be less than 0.001 sq. meters (B.T.W. All RCS measurements are Area measurements, so they need to be written in Square Meters). So this system is Not a theat to stealth aircraft like the F-117 or B-2 (Yet.) However, your find does show that Low Observability Technology(of which stealth is a branch) isn't foolproof, so it's only a matter of time before current stealth aircraft become vunernerable to new countermeasures.

Tim

Originally posted by SeaBass

Originally posted by FULCRUM
The guidance radar is frequency agile..

So that much for the jamming..

Frequency agility does not render jamming useless. Do your homework

[Edited on 6-12-2003 by SeaBass]

[Edited on 6-12-2003 by SeaBass]

Actually some radars are quite immune to anykinds of jamming,

And frequency agility surely makes jamming much harder and less effective..

Btw,

Please dont try to educate me on AD matters..

As i did my military service in AD coprs..

I know the facts and effects of jamming.
(Had plenty of training on these matters and jamming played big part on our 'war games'..)

Originally posted by SeaBass
How would you detect a HARM, especially if you turn off the radar?

There are also another means also to detect HARM lauch.

Passive means..

Originally posted by SeaBass
If the radar is turned off, the missile continues via inertial guideance.

But this is much more inaccurate than the 'beam-riding' mode, and also even the first mode even in ideal conditions doesnt not achieve hit % of even 80.

Originally posted by SeaBass
Do you honestly think that once a HARM is fired, the troops running the system will:
1) Even know that a HARM has been fired?
2) If they detect it, will they be able to shut down the targeted radar and move quickly enough to aviod a hit by a supersonic missile.

1) They will know that harm is lauched.
(Study op Southern watch and op allied forces so you will know.. but even during desert storm Iraqis were able to avoid large numbers of HARMs.)

2) In some cases you if the system is mobile like SA-6 or BUK-series.. But i do admit that this SA-10/12/20 series systems looks like little too slow..
(As it isnt shoot on the move system like SA-6 or SA-11..)

Originally posted by SeaBass
Probably not in both cases. BTW, it looks like you're making stuff up again. What's your source for the hit/miss percentages for the HARMs?

Seriously,
HARM is no wonder weapon.
And many times these are fired as preventitive measure..
Into the general direction of the enemy sam sites when strike formation are in the 'move'..
That forces the sam sites to shut down and lets stike aircraft proceed to strike more important target..



Btw,

ALARM in my oppinion is better than HARM (that is somewhat also IR so, as ALARM have this 'mode' in which they rocket them selfs to 21km.. deploy parachute and slowly start to decent toward the ground praying for the radars that were shut down and that will try their luck and power up again..)

Just because a radar emitter ceases transmitting does not make it invisible.

Radars, even moblie SAMs, are usually stationary some some period of time. This allows them to calibrate their systems against the surrounding area (terrain, other local emitters), set up logistic and support (reload, command and fuel vehicles) and also deploy camouflage.

While these systems are being set up and deployed, they are first targeted and isolated by "national assets", such as overhead recce satellites (including photorecce, IR, radar imaging, and ELINT birds). Also included in this category are other airborne assets flying outside of the defensive perimeter, such as COMPASS CALL and RIVET JOINT aircraft, which will help identify and localize the target AAW system. Identifying parameters such as voice comms, visual and IR profiles, and latent RF emissions are very valuable in identifying these systems.

Futhermore, systems such as JSTARS can help pinpoint the locations of fixed or mobile AAW systems. Also, the US operate a bevy of classified and unclassified RPV systems that specialize in seeking out (and destroying) forward perimeter SAMs.

Medium and large size SAMs are generally not the concern to the average F-22 pilot. The concern is that a "Gomer" equipped with a modern shoulder-fired weapon will get a clean shot at close range, where there is practically no defense..............