S-300V anti-aircraft missile system: against aircraft, cruise and ballistic missiles


Do we have many air defense systems? In the late 1950s, after the adoption of the armament of the USSR Air Defense Forces, the transported S-75 air defense system was also supposed to be used in the air defense units of the Ground Forces. However, a sufficiently long deployment and folding time, low mobility of the complex, for the transportation of numerous elements of which wheeled tractors were used, the use of rockets fueled with liquid fuel and a caustic oxidizer, made it impossible to accompany troops on the march. As a result, the main means of air defense of the front and army units became the Krug air defense missile system, which was adopted in 1965. All elements of the anti-aircraft missile battery of this complex were located on a caterpillar chassis and were able to move in the same traveling order with tanks. The range and height of the destruction of air targets of the Krug air defense system is comparable with the latest modifications of the S-75 air defense system. But, unlike the S-75, the Krug family of air defense systems used radio command missiles with a ramjet engine running on kerosene. The most recent Krug-M1 air defense systems were mass-produced until 1983 and operated by our armed forces until 2006. Complexes of this type were armed with anti-aircraft missile brigades of army and front submission. But already in the early 1980s, the Krug air defense system did not fully comply with the requirements of noise immunity. In addition, the military wanted to have a universal multi-channel military complex, which, in addition to combating air targets, could protect the concentration of troops, headquarters and other important objects from tactical and operational-tactical ballistic missile attacks. It was decided to assign these tasks to the S-300V anti-aircraft missile system, the development of which began in the late 1960s.


When creating the S-300 air defense system, it was assumed that in the new multi-channel medium-range anti-aircraft missile system developed for the Ground Forces, the Air Defense Forces of the country and the Navy, a unified missile and general radar facilities will be used. In the second half of the 1960s, the developers considered it realistic to use the same SAM and radar to destroy aerodynamic and ballistic targets, placing them on a wheeled and tracked base, as well as on ships. However, it soon became clear that the specifics of the use of complexes under various conditions requires an individual approach. USSR anti-aircraft missile units relied on a developed radar network and automated control systems. Traditionally, anti-aircraft battalions defended strategically important facilities, carrying combat duty on stationary, well-trained engineering positions. The air defense systems of the Ground Forces often worked in isolation from the radio engineering units, and therefore their own means of detection, target designation and control were introduced into their composition. During the design of the marine complex, special conditions had to be taken into account: pitching, salt spray and the need to combine with other ship systems. As a result, the development of S-300P, S-300V and S-300F air defense systems was entrusted to various organizations. Only the S-300P and S-300V systems detection radars, as well as the SAMs used in the S-300P and S-300F air defense systems, were partially unified.

ZRS C-300B


The S-300V military anti-aircraft missile system was conceived as a universal means of missile and air defense. It was supposed to provide protection against MGM-52 Lance, MGM-31A Pershing IA ballistic missiles, SRAM air-ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, long-range bombers, tactical and carrier-based aircraft aviation, combat helicopters - with their massive use in the conditions of active fire and electronic countermeasures of the enemy. Due to the need to defeat aerodynamic and ballistic targets for the S-300V air defense system, two new types of anti-aircraft missiles had to be created and, to ensure the required level of mobility, in front-line off-road conditions, all the main system elements were placed on a tracked chassis. All S-300V air defense systems use a unified tracked base, borrowed from the 203-mm self-propelled gun 2S7 “Peony”. At the same time, taking into account the specifics of the placement of elements of the air defense system, the engine and transmission compartment was moved to the rear of the machine. One refueling was enough for a march of up to 250 km at a speed of up to 50 km / h and combat operations for two hours. All S-300V combat vehicles were equipped with their own power supply sources and telecode communication facilities.


SAM S-300V1

Due to the high complexity, the work was carried out in two stages. In 1983, the S-300B1 air defense system was adopted, designed to destroy aerodynamic targets and tactical ballistic missiles of the MGM-52 Lance type. Initially, the system included: 9C15 Obzor-3 all-round radar station, 9C457 mobile command post, 9C32 multi-channel missile guidance station, 9A83 self-propelled launcher, and 9A85 self-propelled launcher.

The three-coordinate 9C15 Obzor-3 radar operating in the centimeter frequency range provided detection of aircraft at ranges up to 240 km. Lance ballistic missiles could be detected at a range of 115 km.

S-300V anti-aircraft missile system: against aircraft, cruise and ballistic missiles

Radar 9S15 Obzor-3

The antenna post and all the station's hardware are located on the Object 832 tracked chassis. A 47-horsepower diesel engine was installed on a 840-ton tracked vehicle. Crew 4 people.

The control of anti-aircraft missile battalions was carried out from command post 9S457. At the same time, radar information from airborne and ballistic target detection stations and missile guidance stations was sent to the mobile control unit via communication lines. Due to the high degree of automation of combat work, operators could process up to 200 air targets, escort up to 70 targets, receive information from a higher command post and 9C32 missile guidance station, determine the type of target, and also select the most dangerous ones. Every 3 seconds, target designation for 24 targets could be issued. The time from receiving target marks to issuing instructions while working with 9C15 radar is 17 seconds. In the missile defense mode, the average information processing time is 3 seconds, and the target designation line is from 80 to 90 km.


Command Point 9C457

All means of the 9C457 command post are mounted on the Object 834 crawler chassis. The mass of the 9C457 mobile command post in combat position is 39 tons. The crew is 7 people.

The 9C32 multi-channel missile guidance station was built using a three-coordinate coherent-pulse radar operating in the centimeter frequency range. The use of a phased array antenna allows electronic scanning of the beam. Beam control is performed by a special computer. The station can search for targets in a given sector both autonomously and in target designation mode and at the same time control launchers and launchers. Based on the received target designation, the guidance station searches, detects and captures targets assigned for shelling for auto tracking. Capture can be done automatically or manually. Simultaneous firing of 6 targets is provided, when pointing 2 missiles at each.


9C32 multi-channel missile guidance station

All means of the 9C32 multi-channel missile guidance station are installed on the special Object 833 tracked chassis. The mass in combat position is 44 tons. The crew is 6 people.

The 9A83 self-propelled launcher has four 9M83 anti-aircraft guided missiles in transport and launch containers and preparations for launch, a target illumination station, telecode communications equipment, topographic and navigation equipment, and a gas turbine engine for autonomous power supply.


9A83 self-propelled launcher in transport position

The preparation of missiles for launch is carried out after receiving a command from the 9C32 multichannel guidance station. The installation is capable of launching two of the four missiles with an interval of 1,5-2 seconds. During the operation of 9A83, there is a constant exchange of information with 9C32, target designation is analyzed and the target position is displayed in the affected area. After launching anti-aircraft missiles, the launcher issues information to the 9S32 guidance station about the number of SAMs launched from it or with a launcher associated with it. The antenna and transmitting systems of the target illumination station are switched on for radiation in the transmission mode of the radio correction command for missiles, as well as its switching to radiation in the target illumination mode.


Self-propelled launcher 9A83 in combat position

All elements of the 9A83 launcher are mounted on the special Object 830 tracked chassis. The mass in combat position is 47,5 tons, the crew is 3 people.

The launcher is charged using the 9A85 launcher. With preliminary cable pairing, the time for switching the PU equipment from its own missile launcher to the ammunition of the launcher does not exceed 15 seconds.


Launcher 9A85 in transport position

On the tracked chassis "Object 835" PZU 9A85 placed not only transport launch containers with anti-aircraft missiles and hydraulic drives translating them into a vertical position, but also a crane with a lifting capacity of 6350 kg. This allows you to charge SPU 9A83 or self-loading from the ground and from vehicles. Full 9A83 loading cycle - at least 50 minutes.


Unlike other elements of the S-300V air defense system, a diesel unit is used instead of a gas turbine to provide power to the 9A85 ROM. The mass in combat position is 47 tons, the crew is 3 people.

Initially, only the 300M1 SAM was used as part of the S-9V83 air defense system, which was designed to destroy aircraft in conditions of intense radio resistance, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles of the MGM-52 Lance type.


9M83 missile launcher next to the launch vehicle

9M83 is a solid fuel two-stage rocket made according to the aerodynamic scheme "bearing cone" with gas-dynamic controls of the first stage. Four aerodynamic steering wheels and four stabilizers are located on the tail compartment of the marching stage. The defeat of the target is provided by a fragmentation warhead of directional action, weighing 150 kg. Missiles have been in transport and launch containers for at least 10 years without inspections and maintenance.

The rocket is launched in the vertical position of the TPK using a powder pressure accumulator. After the rocket leaves the transport and launch container, pulse engines are turned on, orienting the missile launcher toward the target, after which the first accelerating stage is launched. The operating time of the first stage is from 4,2 to 6,4 seconds. When launching into the far zone on aerodynamic targets, the engine of the marching stage is started with a delay of up to 20 seconds with respect to the moment the engine starts the starting stage. Marching engine runs from 11,1 to 17,2 seconds. Missile control is carried out by deflecting four aerodynamic rudders. SAM is aimed at the target by a command-inertial control system according to the method of proportional navigation with the transition to homing about 10 seconds before approaching the target. Targeting can be carried out in two modes. The first is inertial control followed by homing. In this mode, on-board equipment of the rocket receives information on the position of the target via a radio channel. When approaching a target, it is captured using homing equipment. The second mode is a command-inertial control method with subsequent guidance. In this mode, the rocket is followed by a guidance station. When the required distance to the target is reached, the missile captures the target with homing equipment and is deployed in the immediate vicinity for the maximum effect of the directed warhead. Undermining the warhead is carried out at the command of a radio fuse when a reflected signal from a target appears in the receiver. With a miss, self-destruction is carried out.

The length of the rocket is 7898 mm, the maximum diameter is 915 mm, and the mass is 2290 kg. Weight SAM with TPK - 2980 kg. Flight speed - 1200 m / s. The maximum overload is 20 G. The far border of the affected area is 72 km, the nearest - 6 km. Reach in height - 25 km, minimum height - 25 m. The capture range of the target seeker with an ESR of 0,1 m² is 30 km. The probability of defeating a type of MGM-52 Lance BR was 0,5-0,65, and the targets of the fighter type were 0,7-0,9.

For the mid-1980s, the S-300V1 air defense system had outstanding characteristics. The 9M83 missile was comparable to the 5V55R missile used in the S-300PT-1 / PS anti-aircraft missile in terms of range of aerodynamic targets. At the same time, the S-300V1 army air defense system had the ability to combat tactical missiles. However, an acceptable probability of combating ballistic missiles with a launch range of more than 150 km and a reliable defeat of SRAM aviation aeroballistic missiles were not provided. To destroy such complex goals, the 9M82 missile system was created, the refinement of which lasted until 1986. The 9M82 missile looks similar to the 9M83 missiles and has the same layout and guidance methods, but at the same time it was larger and heavier. The 9M82 missile was intended primarily to deal with the detached warheads of MGM-31A Pershing IA ballistic missiles, SRAM air-launched ballistic missiles and jamming aircraft.


Comparative dimensions and layout of 9M82 and 9M83 missiles

The curb weight of the 9M82 missile is 4685 kg. Diameter - 1215 mm, length - 9918 mm. The flight speed of the rocket is 1800 m / s. Range affected area - up to 100 km. The minimum firing range is 13 km. Reach in height - 30 km. The minimum height is 1 km. The probability of damage to the warhead of the MGM-31A Pershing IA missile of one 9M82 SAM is 0,4-0,6, and the SRAM missile is 0,5-0,7.

For the use of 9M82 missiles, proprietary radar systems, self-propelled launchers and launchers were created. Thus, the developers actually created two maximally unified complexes designed to destroy TRs with a short firing range (15–80 km) and aerodynamic targets at ranges up to 72 km, as well as OTR with a long firing range (50–700 km), small-sized supersonic KR and large high-altitude jammers at ranges up to 100 km.

In full force, the S-300V air defense system was put into service in 1988. The anti-aircraft missile division, in addition to the tools already mentioned, included: 9C19M2 "Ginger" radar, 9A82 launcher and 9A84 launcher.


Self-propelled launcher 9A82 in combat position

The main difference between the self-propelled launcher 9A82 and the launcher 9A84 from the SPU 9A83 and 9A85 is the use of larger and heavier missiles. This required the use of more powerful means of loading and loading and led to a reduction in the number of missiles on one machine to two units.


The main difference between the SPU of “heavy” missiles is the design of the device that takes the containers to the starting position, and in the mechanical part of the target illumination station. The mass, dimensions and mobility characteristics of machines with two 9M82 missiles correspond to machines with four missiles.


Starting installation 9A84 on the march

Radar program review 9S19M2 "Ginger" operates in the centimeter frequency range, has great energy potential and high bandwidth. Electronic scanning of the beam in two planes allows quickly providing an analysis of target designation sectors from the KP 9C457 system with a high rate (1-2 s) of accessing the detected marks for tracking high-speed targets. The scheme of automatic compensation of wind speed (drift of dipole reflectors) in combination with high-speed electronic scanning allows us to ensure invulnerability from exposure to passive interference. High energy potential and digital processing of received signals provides good protection from active noise interference.


Radar software review 9C19M2 "Ginger"

In the Pershing ballistic missile detection mode, the viewing area is ± 45 ° in azimuth and 26 ° - 75 ° in elevation. In this case, the angle of inclination of the normal to the PAR surface relative to the horizon is 35 °. The survey time for the specified search sector, taking into account the tracking of two target paths, is 13-14 seconds. The maximum number of trails followed is 16. Provides visibility at a distance of 75-175 km. Every second, the coordinates and parameters of the target’s movement are transmitted to the CP of the system. To detect high-speed cruise missiles in the range of 20-175 km, the mode of viewing the space is ± 30 ° in azimuth, 9-50 ° in elevation. The parameters of the movement of targets are transmitted to the CP via a telecode communication line twice a second. When working with high-altitude aerial targets and jammers, the direction of view is set via the telecode line of communication with the system’s CP or the station operator and is ± 30 ° in azimuth, 0-50 ° in elevation, with the angle of inclination of the PAA normal to the horizon of 15 °. The 9S19M2 radar is capable of detecting high-speed targets with a small reflective surface in the presence of strong interference, when the operation of other radars is impossible. The station equipment is located on the tracked chassis "Object 832". The mass of the radar in combat position is 44 tons. Calculation - 4 people.


After it was adopted in 1988, the S-300V air defense missile division in its final form consisted of KP 9S457, 9S15M radar, 9S19M2 radar and three or four anti-aircraft missile batteries, each of which included one 9S32 multi-channel missile guidance station, two launchers 9A82, one launcher 9A84, four launchers 9A83 and two launchers 9A85. In addition to the main combat vehicles, guidance stations and radars, the division also has means of energy supply, technical support and maintenance on the chassis of trucks.

The division can simultaneously fire at 24 targets, with two missiles pointing at each, and provides all-round defense against aerodynamic targets. It is possible to concentrate the efforts of all anti-aircraft batteries while repulsing a massive air strike from an enemy. In the missile defense + air defense mode, the division is able to repel the blow of 2-3 ballistic missiles, of which 1-2 at the same time, subsequent ones with an interval of 1-2 minutes. Each S-300V anti-aircraft missile system is capable of covering up to 500 km² from ballistic missile attacks.


Two or three divisions were organizationally reduced to an anti-aircraft missile brigade, which was also given additional radar means for detecting air targets (radar 1L13 "Sky-SV"), and a radar information processing center. Management of the divisions was carried out with the KP ZRBR with the help of ACS "Polyana-D4".

During the conduct of hostilities, the air defense missile system is deployed in combat order in the position area. The battle formation is built taking into account the specifics of the operational location of the troops and the likely directions of air strikes. As a rule, divisions are located in two lines. In some cases, for example, with the expected actions of an air enemy on a wide front - in one line.


The S-300V anti-aircraft missile brigade in defense should provide cover for the main forces of the army and the front, in the alleged or identified direction of the enemy’s main strike. In an offensive, anti-aircraft missile divisions must follow tank and motorized rifle divisions and provide air defense and missile defense for headquarters and troop concentrations. In peacetime, the S-300V anti-aircraft missile system alternately carried out combat duty near permanent deployment points, providing air defense and missile defense of strategically important facilities.

As already mentioned, the S-300V air defense system in its final form was put into service in 1988, that is, much later than the S-300PT / PS air defense system. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the onset of “economic reforms”, which led to a reduction in the defense budget, had the most negative impact on the number of S-300Vs built, the number of airborne troops delivered to the troops was about 10 times less than the S-300PS. The production of S-300V and 9M82 and 9M83 SAM systems was completed in the early 1990s. For this reason, it was not possible to replace the obsolete Krug air defense systems in a 1: 1 ratio at the front and army level. At the time of the collapse of the USSR, brigades armed with S-300V1 / V air defense systems were not available in all military districts, and the Buk-M1 air defense system, which had limited missile defense capabilities, became the complex of army subordination.


Google Earth satellite image: S-300V air defense system elements at a permanent deployment point in Naro-Fominsk

So, after the withdrawal from the Western Group of Forces near Moscow Naro-Fominsk, one 202nd anti-aircraft missile brigade was redeployed, it is currently part of the Western Military District.

Perhaps it will be interesting for readers to compare the S-300V anti-aircraft missile system, which was created for military air defense, and the S-300PS, which became the basis of the country's air defense missile forces in the 1990s. S-300V air defense missile systems began to enter the army 5 years later than the S-300PS air defense system. By that time, the S-300PS ammunition already had a 5V55RM missile system with a firing range of 90 km. At the same time, the 9M82 heavy missile could hit low-maneuverable jammers at ranges of up to 100 km, and the 9M83 main missile from the S-300V arsenal, designed to combat air targets, had a 72 km destruction zone. 5V55R and 5V55RM missiles were cheaper, but they did not have anti-missile capabilities. Due to the use of a caterpillar chassis and much more complex radar systems, the S-300V air defense system was much more expensive than the S-300PS. The S-300V anti-aircraft missile division could simultaneously fire at 24 targets and direct two missiles at each. The S-300PS division simultaneously fired at 12 targets with two missiles pointing at each. However, the S-300V advantage was largely formal, in the S-300PS missile launcher there were usually 32 ready-to-use SAMs, and in the S-300V launcher there were 24 9M83 missiles designed to counter aerodynamic targets and 6 9M82 heavy missiles to intercept ballistic missiles and aeroballistic cruise missiles. Thus, the S-300PS anti-aircraft missile system, at a significantly lower cost for the new complex, was better suited for fighting an air enemy. The S-300P anti-aircraft missile system was better adapted to carry out long combat duty on prepared positions in the engineering field.


In addition, the S-300V launcher, having good fire performance, required more funds for operation and maintenance. The reloading of self-propelled launchers and launchers using 9M82 missiles is quite complicated.


The lack of sufficient funding, the cessation of the production of anti-aircraft missiles and the exhaustion of the reserve of spare parts led to a decrease in the level of combat readiness of the S-300V air defense forces available in the troops. It has become commonplace to carry out combat duty with a reduced number of SAMs on self-propelled launchers.


During the period of "Serdyukovschina", the air defense system of the Ground Forces was further weakened. In connection with the degradation of the country's air defense system, a “wise” decision was made - to transfer part of the anti-aircraft missile brigades equipped with S-300V and Buk-M1 to the Russian Air Force, where anti-aircraft missile regiments were formed on their basis. In addition, one 1545th anti-aircraft missile regiment of the 44th Air Defense Division until 2016 was subordinate to the command of the Baltic fleet.

To eliminate the gaps formed in our air defense system, the S-300V air defense systems, along with the S-300PS / PM and S-400, until recently were on constant combat duty, providing air defense of strategically important facilities, administrative and defense industrial centers. So, in the Far East, the city of Birobidzhan until the spring of 2018 covered the 1724th zrp, in which there were two S-300V anti-aircraft missiles.

S-300V anti-aircraft missile systems are available at Russian military bases abroad. The protection of the 102nd Russian military base in Armenia from air attack and tactical missile attacks is provided by the 988th anti-aircraft missile regiment, which includes two divisions. According to the latest information, before the rearmament of the modernized S-300V4 air defense system, the divisions in the vicinity of Gyumri were on alert with a truncated squad.


In 2016, it became known that the S-300V division, delivered to Syria, was deployed in the vicinity of the port of Tartus, where Russian transport ships delivering defense goods are unloaded. It was reported that anti-aircraft complex detection stations were repeatedly detected and escorted by American combat aircraft.


Google Earth satellite image: S-300V air defense missile position on Sakhalin

Sometimes the S-300V air defense system acted as a temporary solution in providing air defense of stationary objects. So, at the end of 2013, the S-5V division was deployed 300 km southeast of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. However, in August 2018, at this position he was replaced by the S-300PS division with additional radar facilities attached. Currently, S-300V complexes, built about 30 years ago, have already exhausted their resources and are being decommissioned.

SAM S-300VM and S-300V4


Despite the cessation of serial construction of the S-300V, the head developer Antei continued to improve the universal anti-aircraft missile system. In the early 2000s, foreign buyers were offered an export version of the S-300VM "Antei-2500" - the result of a deep modernization of the S-300V air defense system. This system was able to effectively counteract both ballistic missiles with a launch range of up to 2500 km, and all kinds of aerodynamic and aeroballistic targets. The S-300VM used new 9M83M missiles with a range of destruction of aerodynamic targets up to 200 km, capable of maneuvering with overloads of up to 30 G and 9M82M - to intercept ballistic targets flying at speeds of up to 4500 m / s in opposite directions. The maximum range for firing at BR is 40 km. In this case, up to 4 missiles can be aimed at one target.


The modernization of radar stations allowed to significantly increase the energy potential. The introduction of more advanced computing tools and software has significantly reduced the response time of the complex and increased the speed of information processing. New means of topographic location and navigation have increased the accuracy of determining the coordinates of elements of air defense systems, which together with the use of digital communication equipment has improved the controllability of combat work. These and other improvements made it possible to double the maximum range of the system when intercepting ballistic missiles twice as compared with the S-300V, and the effectiveness of the fight against aerodynamic targets increased by more than 1,5 times.

In 2013, the delivery of two S-300VM divisions to Venezuela was completed. In 2016, Egypt acquired three divisions. However, a number of sources note that the S-300VM air defense system has less ammunition than the basic S-300V modification.


The S-300VM Antey-2500 anti-aircraft missile system, unlike the S-300V, for financial reasons, did not receive a separate heavy launcher and light launcher. As a result, light launchers are placed in launchers in the S-300VM system, and heavy missiles only on launchers.

In addition to the S-300VM Antey-2500 export version, over the years since the cessation of production of the S-300V air defense systems were completed, the following modifications were created: S-300VM1, S-300VM2, S-300VMD, characterized by radar equipment, control, communication and anti-aircraft missiles. However, none of these options has become serial. The developments obtained in the process of creating these modifications were implemented in the S-300B4 serial system, the field tests of which began in 2011, and the adoption of the Ground Defense was adopted in 2014.


There is little reliable information about this system. With a fairly high degree of certainty, it can be argued that due to the use of more powerful radars and the introduction of new missiles with an increased launch weight, the launch range for high-altitude aerodynamic targets exceeded 350 km. The interception height has been brought up to 40 km.

The updated version has become fully digital. It is capable of simultaneously firing and guaranteed to hit 24 aerodynamic targets, including inconspicuous objects, including invisible planes, or 16 ballistic missiles flying at a speed of up to 4500 m / s. According to information published in the media, the combat effectiveness of S-300V4 air defense systems increased by 2–2,3 times. Improved intelligence and fire capabilities, noise immunity were achieved through the introduction of new technologies and hardware, increasing the level of automation of combat process control, introducing advanced technologies and algorithms in the processing of radar and command information.

The S-300V4 anti-aircraft missile battery includes: MSNR 9S32M1, up to six PU 9A83M2 with four 9M83M light launchers each, up to six 9A84–2 ROMs with two 9M82MD heavy launchers each. In the S-300V4 system, “light” 9M83M missiles are located only on the 9A83M2 launchers, and “heavy” 9M82MD missiles are located only on the 9A84–2 launchers. The 9A83M2 launcher is universal, capable of generating flight missions and controlling both “light” and “heavy” missiles in flight.

In 2014, the modernization of the S-300V air defense systems available in the troops began to the S-300V4 level. In order not to completely expose the air defense of the troops and strategically important facilities, the divisions were sent alternately from the anti-aircraft missile brigades and regiments to the enterprises of the Almaz-Antey air defense concern. In the course of work, in addition to replacing electronic components, the repair repair of tracked vehicles is carried out, the production of which has long been discontinued.

According to information published in open sources, as of the end of 2018, the Ground Forces had three brigades of district subordination, two divisions in each: ZVO - 202 zrbr (Moscow Region, Naro-Fominsk), YuVO - 77 zrbr (Krasnodar Territory, the city of Korenovsk), the Central Military District - the 28th zrbr (Chelyabinsk Region, Chebarkul). According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, in 2019, another brigade armed with the S-300B4 was planned to be formed in the Eastern Military District, but it is not known whether this was put into practice. In 2014, it was planned that after bringing all S-300V air defense systems available in the Ground Forces to the S-300V4 level, the next step will be the modernization of the S-300V anti-aircraft missile systems, which are armed with the anti-aircraft missile regiments of the Russian Aerospace Forces. Given that the Russian armed forces currently have a maximum of 12 anti-aircraft missiles equipped with S-300B4, plans were announced for the construction of new anti-aircraft missile systems of this type. However, it is not clear on which caterpillar chassis in this case command posts, radars, launchers and launchers will be placed.

At the end of the publication devoted to the S-300V air defense system, I would like to dwell on a question that is often asked by readers interested in air defense issues. Taking into account the fact that our armed forces have a significant number of S-300P and S-400 air defense systems, it is not clear to everyone why the modernized S-300B4 system is needed. Moreover, as part of the S-400 air defense system, from the very beginning it was declared the use of long-range SAM 40N6E with a firing range of up to 380 km.

Many people forget that the S-300V air defense system was originally created as a universal system designed to provide air defense and missile defense of large military groups in the theater of operations. In this regard, all the main elements of the S-300V were located on tracked vehicles, and in the ammunition there were missiles capable of destroying aerodynamic and ballistic targets. In fairness, it is worth saying that the creators of the latest modification of the S-300B4 managed to introduce a long-range missile earlier, while Russian officials since 2007 promised that the new S-400 missile system is close to completing the tests and is about to enter service. According to available information, the mass production of 40N6E missiles, which should become the "long arm" of the S-400 air defense system, has already begun, but so far there are very few of them in the troops. If you do not take into account the specific requirements for an anti-aircraft system intended for use in the Ground Forces, the main disadvantage of the S-300B4 is its very high cost, which, in fact, makes this air defense system uncompetitive compared to the S-400 in object air defense. Thus, the S-300B4 anti-aircraft missile system occupies its own unique niche in the air defense of the Ground Forces.

The ending should ...
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. mark1 15 March 2020 06: 24 New
    • 12
    • 6
    +6
    Recharge within an hour ... A good example of the possible suppression of quality by quantity
    1. bayard 15 March 2020 19: 10 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      When building a layered air defense with the participation of Buk-M2, Buk-M3, Tor, there will be time to reload. In addition, it is not necessary at all to wait for the exhaustion of the entire ammunition and then start reloading, as the ammunition is consumed, each successive machine that is shot will go to reload and return to battle before the exhaustion of the last vehicle.
      In addition, do not forget that the objectives of the S-300V4 will be the most priority targets at a great distance, altitude, or ballistic, other work horses will be defended by air defense - "Buki" and "Torah".
      1. Bongo 16 March 2020 02: 01 New
        • 11
        • 1
        +10
        Quote: bayard
        as the ammunition is consumed, each successive fired vehicle will go to reload, and will return to battle before the last vehicle is exhausted.

        This is ideal, unfortunately realities do not always correspond to this.
        Quote: bayard
        In addition, do not forget that the objectives of the S-300V4 will be the most priority targets at a great distance, altitude, or ballistic, other work horses will be defended by air defense - "Buki" and "Torah".

        Taking into account the holes in our air defense, it is not a fact that stable interaction will be established with complexes of the army and division units.
        1. YOUR 16 March 2020 03: 14 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          I did not quite understand about the interaction. Your article is about military air defense. S-300V brigades of army submission, the rest goes to the level of the division, there are still regiments but they already have air defense systems like Strela of various types and Tunguska. Everyone has their own area of ​​responsibility, everyone has automated control systems, in addition, all available information goes to the Army Air Defense CP (army - this means a military unit, not a generalization of the entire Russian army). The head of the air defense army has the ability to carry out target designation directly to the air defense units. I am at a loss to say whether he has a connection with air defense divisions in motorized rifle, tank ... regiments, but he definitely has contacts with air defense chiefs.
          What is written about the consumption of missiles. If there is additional ammunition on the TZM (transport-loading vehicles) directly in the unit, then as soon as all the missiles have left the launcher, it will go on reloading. As soon as the missiles are transferred from the TZM to the launcher, their delivery is organized, the TZM can go after them to the technical division, or rather, this is called the technical base, they can be brought from there by their machines. And so on until the rockets are fully used up in conjunction and delivered from storage sites or from the factory. But for some reason it seems that by this time or our air defense systems will run out or that the attacking side will sooner run out of steam. Their planes and ammunition are not infinite either.
          1. Bongo 16 March 2020 03: 19 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Hello! Vladimir, in what year did you retire?
            1. YOUR 16 March 2020 03: 23 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Long. Glory to Taburetkin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Uraaaa comrades.
              1. Bongo 16 March 2020 03: 39 New
                • 10
                • 0
                +10
                Quote: YOUR
                Long. Glory to Taburetkin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Uraaaa comrades.

                Well, if the "stools", then not so long ago. Not that I would blame you, but you probably forgot some things (including about the ZU-23 wink ) Most of the S-300V we are currently not in the Air Defense Forces of the Air Force, but carry a database in the Russian Air Force — provides object-based air defense.
                As for the “potential partners,” you should not consider them idiots. I am sure that in the event of a full-scale conflict without the use of nuclear weapons, they will try to remotely knock out the few S-300Vs with long-range AFS in the front-line zone.
                The Americans have at their disposal about 200 KR AGM-158 with a launch range of up to 980 km, about 300 KR AGM-86C / D with a launch range of more than 1000 km and a large number of AGM-84 with a launch range of up to 270 km. Do not forget that all tactical and carrier-based aircraft are carriers of the AGM-88 HARM PRR with a launch range of up to 150 km. They are quite able to oversaturate our medium and long range systems with targets, especially since there are not so many of them.
                1. YOUR 16 March 2020 04: 01 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  S-300V was originally created for the Ground Forces. The letter B means Troop.
                  The S-300P was created for the air defense forces and now all its modifications were inherited by the air forces.
                  To be precise, the S-300P and S-300V are not exactly the same thing. There is unification, but there are many differences. The main unification is rockets. And so they even have factory codes and names different. The S-300 missile tracking and targeting station 30N6, the S-300V multi-channel missile guidance station 9C32.
                  But if you are still talking about air defense as part of the aerospace forces, then the TORs, beechs and they were never part of the aerospace forces. The air defense forces are armed with the main S-300 air defense system of all modifications, the S-400 and the Pantsir air defense missile systems, and there are also air defense systems for self-defense. Now it’s not air defense, but PRO-air defense. From armament, a missile defense system was added. We have one A-135.
                  About ZU-23 something did not quite understand. Apparently something once wrote wrong that they are already in service. So if and somewhere left then the air defense functions can perform with efficiency. 0.00001%. You look another time how they are presented as excellent weapons, all firing at ground targets, and they still come to the Russian Guard. In any case, they are the only ones who became interested and purchased the Samum installation.
                  1. Bongo 16 March 2020 04: 06 New
                    • 6
                    • 0
                    +6
                    Quote: YOUR
                    S-300V was originally created for the Ground Forces. The letter B means Troop.

                    Vladimir, do you think I don’t know? You apparently inattentively read this publication, quote:
                    During the period of “Serdyukovism,” the Ground Forces air defense system was further weakened. In connection with the degradation of the country's air defense system, a “wise” decision was made - to transfer part of the anti-aircraft missile brigades equipped with S-300V and Buk-M1 to the Russian Air Force, where anti-aircraft missile regiments were formed on their basis.
                    In the VKS S-300V now almost more than in the air defense of the NE.
                    Quote: YOUR
                    But if you are still talking about air defense as part of the aerospace forces, then the TORs, beechs and they were never part of the aerospace forces.
                    Are you sure you give a tooth?
                    Quote: YOUR
                    About ZU-23 something did not quite understand. Apparently something once wrote wrong that they are already in service.

                    Some time ago, you categorically claimed that they were not in the troops.
                    1. YOUR 16 March 2020 04: 16 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      I will not argue. But let me remind you that VKS were created after Serdyukov .in 2015.
                      1. Bongo 16 March 2020 04: 20 New
                        • 7
                        • 0
                        +7
                        Quote: YOUR
                        But let me remind you that VKS were created after Serdyukov .in 2015.

                        This is so. yes When the "stools" ZRV entered the Air Force. In 2015, the Air Force combined with the Aerospace Defense Forces.
                      2. YOUR 16 March 2020 04: 26 New
                        • 6
                        • 1
                        +5
                        For my service, the air defense was shaken up so many times, which is surprising that such troops were still preserved.
                        There was a period in the life of our country when foreign airlines refused to fly over our territory due to the lack of radar control. It seems that something was restored there, but just that something. Not long ago I heard the speech of the Commander in Chief of the RTV troops. I killed him on the spot. Over the territory of Russia, the radar field is only 40% and then only at medium and high altitudes. This is how to get up from your knees so that everything break apart.
      2. bayard 16 March 2020 14: 26 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: Bongo
        as the ammunition is consumed, each successive fired vehicle will go to reload, and will return to battle before the last vehicle is exhausted.

        This is ideal, unfortunately realities do not always correspond to this.

        With a sufficient concentration of forces and means of air suppression, any air defense system can be overloaded and suppressed. But what about real war, and not about horses in a vacuum?
        The article is about military air defense, that is, about air defense systems covering military formations (columns on the march, front line, places of deployment of troops). Therefore, it will be necessary to counteract precisely the blows to concealed objects and (in the case of attempts to suppress air defense) to fight back against attacks on oneself by relatives. The protection of cities, administrative centers, industrial, energy and infrastructure facilities is all a task for air defense as part of the air forces (formerly called Air Defense of the Country). With a properly established interspecific interaction, it is possible to cross-cover / secure against air defense and aviation of the aerospace forces.
        But you need to understand that in a real war, immediately after the start of the strike, the mass take-off of the enemy’s military aircraft and the launch of the Kyrgyz Republic (and they still need to fly after the launch, at their speed), a strike will be struck (you can also call it by analogy with strategists) by their airdromes, deployment sites, starting positions, command posts and headquarters. Aviation will also take part in repelling the blows, and, as you know, it is much easier to fight with the Kyrgyz Republic as handy.
        After adopting the Container ZGRLS, the mass takeoff of enemy aircraft and the launch of the KR from ships and submarines will not go unnoticed and there will be enough time for a decision (putting the air defense system in full readiness, raising airborne interceptors and AWACS into the air). Aviation and will close those very holes and gaps in the zones of defeat of the air defense forces.
        But most importantly, after a retaliatory / retaliatory strike, the enemy may not have enough funds for repeated exploits. And if the strike is preemptive (which is desirable), then the first strike will be weakened.
        Still, the rearmament of active air defense systems is going on ... better than the rearmament of the fleet. So the first Buk-M3 brigade arrived in time (for military air defense), and the S-350 for the air defense forces of the airborne forces, the S-400 continue to arrive ... There remains a question of training personnel for all this wealth, the quality of training of young lieutenants raises questions, their number (of graduates), density, quality and volume of the radar field ... quality and sometimes, just the quantity and the very presence of the engineering staff ...
        There are still many problems.
        1. Tamer 17 March 2020 12: 24 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          If strikes are carried out at industrial centers, and these are primarily large settlements, then the war is initially nuclear. If the aggressor does not use nuclear weapons, then it will be the troops that are usually destroyed, for the subsequent seizure of territory with the subsequent loss of sovereignty, as it seems to me.

          "Any air defense system can be overloaded and suppressed," well, we're not talking about horses in a vacuum)) Namely, they will overload and suppress, and the "partners" have enough forces.

          How long will it take to repulse a strike after a decision is made? )) "retaliatory strike" from the realm of fiction, it was after him that we "may not have enough funds for repeated exploits."
          We saw a massive start and take-off - from the territory of neighbors of the Kyrgyz Republic, flying to the north-, south-west and western territories of Russia with their speed would take no more time than “raising airborne interceptors and AWACS aircraft”)) By the way, how much can we raise interceptors and, especially, AWACS aircraft? )) Again hatred? Or will the opponents again remind about the presence of nuclear weapons in Russia?)) It's not about my "pan-prophetic" mood. I didn’t cut air defense for the most.
          1. Bongo 17 March 2020 12: 50 New
            • 6
            • 1
            +5
            Quote: Tamer
            If strikes are carried out at industrial centers, and these are primarily large settlements, then the war is initially nuclear. If the aggressor does not use nuclear weapons, then it will be the troops that are usually destroyed, for the subsequent seizure of territory with the subsequent loss of sovereignty, as it seems to me.

            Let's take Vladivostok or Komsomolsk-on-Amur as an example. If a hypothetical adversary begins to strike at objects located within the city and in the suburbs with conventional ASP, will our leadership certainly respond with a nuclear strike against Washington or Beijing? I doubt it ... no
            1. Tamer 17 March 2020 12: 59 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              "Limited frontier" conflict with bombardment - bombardment 2 cities? Yes, he will not answer. What is the meaning of the aggressor?
              Khabarovsk is also a big city))
              1. Bongo 17 March 2020 13: 02 New
                • 5
                • 1
                +4
                Quote: Tamer
                "Limited frontier" conflict with shelling - bombing of 2 cities?

                A major regional conflict without the use of nuclear weapons by the adversary. Do you think this is impossible?
                Quote: Tamer
                Khabarovsk is also a big city))
                Khabarovsk has no such defense value. Moreover, the center of the city can now be fired by Chinese artillery.
                1. Tamer 17 March 2020 13: 17 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: Bongo
                  Khabarovsk has no such defense value. Moreover, the center of the city can now be fired by Chinese artillery.

                  This is what he meant. And not only the center.

                  Quote: Bongo
                  A major regional conflict without the use of nuclear weapons by the adversary. Do you think this is impossible?

                  I consider it possible. But the enemy’s goal?
                  1. Bongo 17 March 2020 13: 21 New
                    • 6
                    • 1
                    +5
                    Quote: Tamer
                    But the enemy’s goal?

                    The goals may be different. Possible as the "Yugoslav" option (without occupation), and the rejection of the territory. I will not tell you a big secret by saying that at all the major exercises held in the Far Eastern Federal District, the scenario of the use of nuclear weapons is definitely considered. Moreover, on its territory.
                    1. Tamer 17 March 2020 13: 48 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      And what else to hold back in the East? And the use of tactical nuclear weapons is due to the unwillingness to spur the start of a general nuclear war. In the context of the TNW application scenario, it is precisely the danger of loss of sovereignty over part of the territory that is considered. The enemy wants to gain territory and does not use nuclear weapons, but destroys troops for the subsequent occupation of the territory. Destruction of industry is not included in the plan - and so will be theirs. But will conflict not erupt before a full-scale war? Russia is not Yugoslavia (occupation in the form of a change of government), Panama, and other Eritrea with Ethiopia. Indo-Pakistani conflicts do not flare up until there are attacks on cities and invasions on the territory.
            2. bk0010 17 March 2020 21: 14 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Bongo
              If a hypothetical adversary begins to strike at objects located within the city and in the suburbs with conventional ASP, will our leadership certainly respond with a nuclear strike against Washington or Beijing? I doubt it ...
              Sure! Why wait? Until they knock out the media?
              1. zyablik.olga 17 March 2020 23: 57 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: bk0010
                Sure! Why wait?

                Not a fact, especially when you consider that our leadership in the West has real estate and children.
            3. Cyril G ... 13 June 2020 18: 09 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              In Washington, it’s not worth it right away, but it’s an ideal solution to inflict a missile launcher on an American OBK / AUG into the sea or the enemy’s naval base. Escalation in the name of de-escalation ...
          2. bayard 17 March 2020 19: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Tamer
            If strikes are carried out at industrial centers, and these are primarily large settlements, then the war is initially nuclear.

            If early warning means (ZGRLS for example) record the mass launch of the Kyrgyz Republic (for example, from naval carriers) and the mass take-off of enemy aircraft with formation in battle formations and movement in our direction, will be unambiguously qualified as an attack on the Russian Federation. And no one will wait when these CDs begin to break in our territory. Fighter aircraft and existing AWACS aircraft will be raised to intercept them, and the Iskander and Dagger complexes will receive target designations (if they have not already received at that time during the threatened period) and begin to launch strikes. Including nuclear.
            The military doctrine of the Russian Federation provides for just such a reaction. As well as the possibility of a preemptive strike, if it is justified by preparing to strike at us.
            KR for fighter aircraft are not difficult goals - their speed is subsonic, they do not maneuver and are unlikely to interfere. Therefore, each of the fighters is capable of hitting up to a dozen or more of these missiles in a single flight (taking into account the work on them and the cannon).
            Quote: Tamer

            "Any air defense system can be overloaded and suppressed," well, we're not talking about horses in a vacuum)) Namely, they will overload and suppress, and the "partners" have enough forces.

            Do not forget about the presence of a developed electronic warfare system in our battle formations. It may happen that most of the Kyrgyz Republic simply does not reach our territory, being disoriented and “down to earth,” as it was in Syria.
            Quote: Tamer
            If the aggressor does not use nuclear weapons, then it will be the troops that are usually destroyed, for the subsequent seizure of territory with the subsequent loss of sovereignty, as it seems to me.

            You should not take the RF Armed Forces as a meek sheep, and that the rules of the game imposed by the aggressor will be adopted. It will be quite the opposite.
            In addition, if the means of VKN (aerospace attack) of a potential enemy can be considered "conditionally effective," then the means of our response (Iskander, Dagger - in the first place) should be considered "unconditionally effective", because effective means of intercepting them the enemy does not and will not appear soon.
            Quote: Tamer
            How long will it take to repulse a strike after a decision is made? )) "retaliatory strike" from the realm of fiction, it was after him that we "may not have enough funds for repeated exploits."

            If we are talking about tactical nuclear weapons and their means of delivery, then we have enough of them now, but the probable adversary ... has problems ... both with the means of effective delivery and with the warheads themselves - loss of competencies and lack of readiness for age.
            Quote: Tamer
            By the way, how much can we raise interceptors and, especially, AWACS aircraft?

            Aircraft AWACS are few, and this is a problem. But the adopted radar is a container-type radar that can be carried by any two-seat fighter (Su-30, Su-34) and direct the combat work of its squadron / unit. In addition, the “Target” will give the initial target designation, although it is not very accurate, the fighters have their own radar systems — they will rummage around — they will find it.
            Quote: Tamer
            Or will opponents again remind about the presence of nuclear weapons in Russia?)

            If we are talking about the mass launch of the Kyrgyz Republic in our direction, this is ALREADY WAR. And no one will play politics.
            And you can see the number of military fighters in the Russian Aerospace Forces yourself, since the information is not secret. I can only say that absolutely all available fighters (MiG-29, Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, Su-33 (even a few of them, but all serviceable ones will cover their home base) are suitable for work on the Kyrgyz Republic, 35, MiG-31), and even Su-34 bombers are also capable of such non-core work and practice such training.
            Quote: Tamer
            It's not about my "pan-propaganda" mood. I didn’t cut air defense for the most.

            The country’s air defense began to be cut immediately since 1992, but in recent years, air defense as part of the aerospace forces is regaining its capabilities. The leaky radar field is quite effectively compensated by the Container ZGRLS, and when all four such ZRLS are deployed, not a single moving of the enemy’s air will escape the all-seeing eye of the RTV ... starting from the runway acceleration.
            There are still many problems, and the main one is personnel. There was a break in the succession of generations, the Serdyukov reforms cleared the Army of well trained personnel in the Union ... my friends went through this, so I understand those who pour out their grudge on the forums of our site. But everything I wrote above comes from personal experience of combat work and service as an officer of the air defense combat command back in glorious Soviet times. And what algorithms will be worked out in the event of a massive raid of the enemy’s ACSN, ​​I know from personal practice of exercises and combat work.
            1. zyablik.olga 18 March 2020 00: 02 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              How much pathos you have in the text, and how much it is divorced from reality. wassat Due to their extremely low combat stability, the Container stations will never become the basis of RTV. Do you even know how many fighters we have in the Far East?
              1. bayard 18 March 2020 00: 50 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: zyablik.olga
                How much text and pathos you have, and how much it is divorced from reality.

                Although most of my friends are already retired, but the connection with the troops is not lost ... we communicate, complain.
                Quote: zyablik.olga
                Due to their extremely low combat stability, the Container stations will never become the basis of RTV.

                Container stations can become a very important component of RTV ... but no more than 4 are expected on the territory of the Russian Federation. And about their military stability ... being deep in the rear, they are unlikely to be the victim of the first strike of the Kyrgyz Republic and aviation - it is necessary to fly, and a nuclear strike from ICBMs or SLBMs on antenna fields ... is very likely, but only in the case of global conflict.
                If you are talking about disturbances in the ionosphere from high-altitude nuclear explosions, then this is also only in the case of a full-fledged nuclear conflict. But before exploding in the ionosphere, rockets with nuclear warheads must launch, and this, in turn, will be opened by a satellite constellation, SPRN stations and the very same Container ZGRLS, which, being the daughter of Dougie, fixes a very good start ballistic missiles on the plasma plume of their torch. At a range of up to 6 km.
                This is not a panacea, and in no case do I throw my hats, but mindful of what the USSR cost to create a continuous radar field, including a radar radar at low altitude in the border zone ... I understand perfectly well that to repeat the labor and military feats of the USSR we won’t be able to, but ZGRLS can pretty much mitigate the problem and close this niche. I have in mind not only the “Container”, which in its capabilities draws on a means of radar control of a strategic scale, but also its smaller relatives.
                In any case, to knock out the radar monitoring equipment on duty in the border zone, it will be much easier for the enemy than to get the “Container” in the rear.
                I served at the RIC KP of the Air Defense Division even under the Union, and believe me, I understand the value of information about low-altitude targets very well. As well as the capabilities of the fighter regiment with timely target designation for the flock of the Kyrgyz Republic from the moment of ... practically their launch.
                Quote: zyablik.olga
                Do you even know how many fighters we have in the Far East?

                The Far East is a problem problem. We have few aviation there, and regiments ... and in regiments, especially after the transfer of regiments to two-squadron staff.
                He said - we communicate, complain. In Primorye, my friends served half my life.
                For the Russian Air Force, the trouble is not from the lack of fighters (like military vehicles), but from the extreme shortage of pilots to them. A pilot to prepare for a long time. Just the first lieutenants went into the army (thanks to Serdyukov for the reforms), and the lieutenant is not a pilot yet, and there are a lot of re-serving pilots in the regiments ... So first, a change for retired pilots, and only then, gradually, the number of fighter aircraft can be increased regiments. In the meantime, they began to build fighters and us two times smaller than before.
                This is analysis, not propaganda. And there is a lot of text, because there is nothing more to do - it's boring here in Donetsk.
                1. Bongo 18 March 2020 07: 35 New
                  • 6
                  • 1
                  +5
                  Quote: bayard
                  Quote: zyablik.olga
                  How much text and pathos you have, and how much it is divorced from reality.

                  Although most of my friends are already retired, but the connection with the troops is not lost ... we communicate, complain.
                  Quote: zyablik.olga
                  Due to their extremely low combat stability, the Container stations will never become the basis of RTV.

                  Container stations can become a very important component of RTV ... but no more than 4 are expected on the territory of the Russian Federation. And about their military stability ... being deep in the rear, they are unlikely to be the victim of the first strike of the Kyrgyz Republic and aviation - it is necessary to fly, and a nuclear strike from ICBMs or SLBMs on antenna fields ... is very likely, but only in the case of global conflict.
                  If you are talking about disturbances in the ionosphere from high-altitude nuclear explosions, then this is also only in the case of a full-fledged nuclear conflict. But before exploding in the ionosphere, rockets with nuclear warheads must launch, and this, in turn, will be opened by a satellite constellation, SPRN stations and the very same Container ZGRLS, which, being the daughter of Dougie, fixes a very good start ballistic missiles on the plasma plume of their torch. At a range of up to 6 km.
                  This is not a panacea, and in no case do I throw my hats, but mindful of what the USSR cost to create a continuous radar field, including a radar radar at low altitude in the border zone ... I understand perfectly well that to repeat the labor and military feats of the USSR we won’t be able to, but ZGRLS can pretty much mitigate the problem and close this niche. I have in mind not only the “Container”, which in its capabilities draws on a means of radar control of a strategic scale, but also its smaller relatives.
                  In any case, to knock out the radar monitoring equipment on duty in the border zone, it will be much easier for the enemy than to get the “Container” in the rear.
                  I served at the RIC KP of the Air Defense Division even under the Union, and believe me, I understand the value of information about low-altitude targets very well. As well as the capabilities of the fighter regiment with timely target designation for the flock of the Kyrgyz Republic from the moment of ... practically their launch.
                  Quote: zyablik.olga
                  Do you even know how many fighters we have in the Far East?

                  The Far East is a problem problem. We have few aviation there, and regiments ... and in regiments, especially after the transfer of regiments to two-squadron staff.
                  He said - we communicate, complain. In Primorye, my friends served half my life.
                  For the Russian Air Force, the trouble is not from the lack of fighters (like military vehicles), but from the extreme shortage of pilots to them. A pilot to prepare for a long time. Just the first lieutenants went into the army (thanks to Serdyukov for the reforms), and the lieutenant is not a pilot yet, and there are a lot of re-serving pilots in the regiments ... So first, a change for retired pilots, and only then, gradually, the number of fighter aircraft can be increased regiments. In the meantime, they began to build fighters and us two times smaller than before.
                  This is analysis, not propaganda. And there is a lot of text, because there is nothing more to do - it's boring here in Donetsk.

                  Reading your lengthy comments, I was nostalgic, and with difficulty restrained myself from tears. Painfully, they resemble excerpts from campaigns from the "Red Star" of the times of the USSR. I don’t know how long ago you left the ranks of the armed forces, but that iridescent picture that you paint in air defense is not close. What you describe should be ideally, and it would be possible if the Union had not collapsed.
                  Two years ago, I reviewed the current status of the 11th Air Defense OA. Since then, something that has certainly changed, but in the brow the situation is the same. I’m interested in your opinion as a professional, if you really are. And “rattle” about “labor exploits”, “Iskanders” and “Daggers” - unrelated to the topic under discussion, let’s leave the regular propaganda from Channel 1.

                  https://topwar.ru/138460-proshloe-i-nastoyaschee-11-y-krasnoznamennoy-armii-vozdushno-kosmicheskih-sil-smogut-li-vks-rossii-zaschitit-nash-dalniy-vostok-chast-1.html

                  https://topwar.ru/138464-proshloe-i-nastoyaschee-11-y-krasnoznamennoy-armii-vozdushno-kosmicheskih-sil-smogut-li-vks-rossii-zaschitit-nash-dalniy-vostok-chast-2.html

                  hi
                  1. bayard 18 March 2020 22: 26 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Sergei, I apologize for answering with some delay, I re-read your article on the 11th army ... also nastalgied about the former power ... My friends served in Primorye, therefore I heard a little about the situation in those Palestinians. But about the lost past and the sad “today” all possible idiomatic expressions have long been used up, so why pick past wounds.
                    We will no longer have such an air defense, as in the Union, in terms of saturation and density of deployed forces. For objective reasons - economics / finance. USSR air defense cost the country simply monstrous money - both deployment and maintenance. But the State was spending those funds, because the experience of the Second World War showed that saving on defense is fraught.
                    But as soon as the compradors liquidated the Union, it immediately became clear that such a military budget of Russia could not be pulled. And immediately began to reduce and optimize. It probably affected the air defense more strongly than anybody else. It simply went to curtail the country's air defense, under the slogan "We are building an air defense system," and it was precisely the elimination of air defense forces and equipment when the equipment removed from service did not go to storage and conservation, did not even go to replenish spare parts and to strengthen the remaining parts and formations ... often there was a banal disposal with the looting of everything and everything.
                    But this is a long time ago.
                    There were attempts to return combat readiness in the “zero years” ... there were interesting experiments and exercises ... on interspecies interaction ... but the time has come for Medvedev and Serdyukov ... and all the most high-quality officer personnel from the Soviet professional school and training .. . were "optimized" under the slogan "Cleanse the Army from the" scoop "!" . And cleaned. ...
                    The power in modern Russia is so intricately arranged that it is impossible to figure it out with a simple pattern ... you can inadvertently choke on bile, fall into despondency (which is a sin), or euphoria ("Russian Spring", "Our Crimea", " Our missiles are the most hyper ") after which breaking and ... bile. What is observed on our site is especially bright.
                    I understand the structure of power, including in Russia (and I know), so I never rush to extremes in my assessments. There is Yin in it, there is Yang in it (both destructive and protective-constructive forces). Otherwise, everything would have ended for us in the late 90s / early zero.
                    Otherwise, there would be no revival of combat readiness (even combat readiness), the emergence of new models in service, the restoration of previously abandoned and plundered military bases, airfields, etc. ... we would not be observing now ... But an incompetent and often anticipating “PR” event interferes with cleanliness of perception. .

                    For modern air defense, perhaps the biggest problem is precisely personnel shortage. When officers (often graduates of military departments of civilian universities) come to RTV air defense from ... coastal artillery, motorists and God knows where ... that is, people are extremely far from the specifics of both air defense in general and RTV in particular. .. what kind of combat readiness can we talk about ...
                    In the Union, officers were trained for RTV in Vilnius (VVKURE), Kiev (KVIRTU) and Krasnoyarsk ... where now are these illustrious universities?
                    There is none of them .
                    The Vilnius School was once transferred to Gorelovo (near St. Petersburg), but it existed ... years until 2010 - 2011 ...
                    Who is cooking now? In what quantity and quality ...
                    “Cadres decide everything,” said Comrade Stalin. And he was certainly right.
                    And a similar situation with personnel is now in everything ... and in the Army ... and in the economy ... and in power ....

                    But ... our opponents in the West are even worse off ... But in the East ... You need to look at both.
                    And I finished the service a long time ago ... and many more where and by whom I visited ...
                2. Tamer 18 March 2020 10: 29 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: bayard
                  Container stations can become a very important component of RTV ... but no more than 4 are expected on the territory of the Russian Federation. And about their military stability ... being deep in the rear, they are unlikely to be the victim of the first strike of the Kyrgyz Republic and aviation - it is necessary to fly, and a nuclear strike from ICBMs or SLBMs on antenna fields ... is very likely, but only in the case of global conflict.
                  .
                  In any case, to knock out the radar monitoring equipment on duty in the border zone, it will be much easier for the enemy than to get the “Container” in the rear.

                  Of course, if we consider air strikes)) But the CP, the material part and personnel of the aviation and RTV units, etc. in the rear it’s more efficient to withdraw not to the “forehead”, but to the “back” - for example, by sabotage wink And what can the enemy do in the East in such ways? Nobody considers guests there))
                  1. bayard 18 March 2020 22: 45 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Saboteurs can do a lot of things, but this is the competence of counterintelligence and competent services. But we were talking about the effectiveness of air defense in countering the means of an aerospace attack by the enemy. In addition to the “Container”, less grandiose, but no less useful ZGRLS come into service, which reveal a raid of low-altitude targets much more effective (at a much greater distance) than their over-horizon counterparts.
                    But we will never block our potential opponents in the East with our defensive potential, and therefore we are counting on the unconditional use of nuclear weapons. And relevant exercises are being held.
                    Containing a threat is much more effective and cheaper than immense buildup of defensive assets.
            2. Cyril G ... 13 June 2020 18: 11 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              But the adopted radar container type, which is capable of carrying any two-seat fighter (Su-30, Su-34) and direct the combat work of its squadron \ unit.

              What are you talking about specifically ?!
              1. bayard 13 June 2020 20: 34 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Eagle owl system, if memory has not changed. Reconnaissance containers of 3 types - radar, radio engineering and optical-location reconnaissance.
                It will be a staffing item on the Su-34.
                It seems to be tested in the same way on the Su-30 naval aviation in the Crimea.
                1. Cyril G ... 13 June 2020 21: 07 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Thank you look
                2. Cyril G ... 13 June 2020 22: 40 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  But not Owl? There radar BO for work on the ground as far as I remember
                  1. bayard 13 June 2020 22: 45 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    It was “Owl”, I wanted to get better, but it hurts too much today today ...
                    1. Cyril G ... 13 June 2020 22: 46 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      I myself only realized in the evening
  • Kote Pan Kokhanka 15 March 2020 06: 30 New
    • 10
    • 2
    +8
    Thank you, Sergey!
    We look forward to the latest articles in the series!
    Regards, Vlad!
    1. Bongo 15 March 2020 07: 37 New
      • 17
      • 1
      +16
      Vladislav, hello!
      In the final part I will try to consider the S-400 air defense system and the S-350 air defense system. I will also briefly touch upon the state of the ground component of the air defense of the Russian Federation and the prospects for its development. hi
      1. asv363 15 March 2020 07: 46 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        Sergey, thank you for your work! The story about the installation / SAM S-200 was not planned or did I miss it?
        1. Bongo 15 March 2020 07: 55 New
          • 15
          • 2
          +13
          Quote: asv363
          Sergey, thank you for your work! The story about the installation / SAM S-200 was not planned or did I miss it?

          Sergey Vyacheslavovich, the fact is that this cycle was conceived as an answer to the article: Why do we need so many air defense systems? https://topwar.ru/167222-zachem-nam-stolko-sistem-pvo.html . То есть, речь изначально шла только о противовоздушных комплексах имеющихся у нас сейчас на вооружении. Последний ЗРК С-200 в нашей стране снят с боевого дежурства в 2008 году. Впрочем, возможно вам будет интересно это:LAW C-200 in the XXI century https://topwar.ru/91372-zrk-s-200-v-xxi-veke.html. hi
      2. g1v2 15 March 2020 16: 47 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Thank you, Sergey. An interesting cycle. But then I would like to hear in the article an opinion on the possibilities of unification and reduction of the number of types of air defense systems in the future. Both on the chassis, and on the PU and missiles. Because to have so many different equipment, with completely different missiles and a base - this is in any case extremely disadvantageous from the point of view of the military economy, logistics and supply. Moreover, as the Syrian experience shows, all the systems of the air defense systems available there are working on the same objectives in fact. Again, training cadets for each system separately is too difficult and disadvantageous. We need a unification of education and training. request
        If everything is tolerable in principle in the air defense system, it is possible to reduce everything in the future to the long-range s400, which is imprisoned on the s500 and the short-range armor complexes to cover them, then the air defense forces of the ground forces are very diverse and incompatible.
        That is why, for example, it is impossible to replace all short-range and short-range air defense systems with Tor-M2? Why is it necessary to have arrows, pines, wasps? And why can not you do without the same beeches, increasing the number of more long-range s300v4? Or vice versa are s300v4 so necessary? Maybe their tasks can solve the object s400? And why then are you still needed with 350? Maybe the c350 can become a system that can replace both the Buk and the c300 v4?
        In general, I would like to hear an opinion on the possibilities of unification and reduction of the number of systems. And also, by necessity and need, it is precisely in the presence of such a breakdown by divisional and other links up to the front. hi
        1. Bongo 16 March 2020 02: 22 New
          • 7
          • 1
          +6
          Vitaly, hello! I'll start in order.
          Quote: g1v2
          That is why, for example, it is impossible to replace all short-range and short-range air defense systems with Tor-M2? Why is it necessary to have arrows, pines, wasps?
          SAM "Strela-10" - this is, together with "Shilka" and "Tunguska" regimental unit. Currently, part of the Strela-10M3 air defense system is planned to be upgraded to Strela-10MN. In the future, this niche should be occupied by Bagulnik air defense systems supplemented by Derivation-Air Defense ZAK. Most likely, all OSA-AKM air defense systems will be written off in the near future. In the division link they should ideally be replaced by Tor-M2. But here questions of a budget nature arise, is there enough money for us to ensure that all anti-aircraft missile regiments attached to tank and motorized rifle divisions are re-equipped with modern complexes? request
          Quote: g1v2
          And why can not you do without the same beeches, increasing the number of more long-range s300v4?
          SAM S-300V4 is extremely expensive. In addition, the production of the chassis for the elements of the complex has long been discontinued and, apparently, they do not plan to resume it. The main feature of the S-300B4 is its missile defense capabilities.
          Quote: g1v2
          Maybe their tasks can solve the object s400?

          If there is a “long-range” missile system in the ammunition kit, it can, but not all the S-400 elements on a wheeled chassis, infantry fighting vehicles and S-400 SAM systems on the march.
          Quote: g1v2
          And why then are you still needed with 350? Maybe the c350 can become a system that can replace both the Buk and the c300 v4?

          The S-350 air defense system is a budget replacement for the S-300PS in the air defense system. In addition, the introduction of the S-350 due to the larger number of SAMs ready for use partially solves the problem of increasing fire performance. But the capabilities of the fight against OTR at the S-350, apparently, are not great.
          1. g1v2 19 March 2020 00: 55 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Thanks for the reply.
            Well, about the modernization of arrows - this is understandable. As long as there is a modernization potential, the available ones are worth upgrading. But are new purchases needed?
            About Ledum, Pine and Derivation is not very clear. Well, suppose Derivation was probably created primarily under the Airborne Forces and the transfer of il76. Airborne need their own air defense systems. But is Bagulnik and Pine needed, if there is a perfectly suitable tor m2? Yes, it is more expensive, but mass production always reduces the cost of individual products. Again, the development, creation, production and supply of spare parts and ammunition for competing air defense systems is hardly much cheaper than increasing the production of tori? Big savings on the production of only one type of missile, on the supply of spare parts, etc.
            In the presence of a long-range missile can s400 and do not have to accompany troops? Maybe she, having taken a position, cover the territory of their concentration?
            Again, is it really necessary with 350 and is it possible to solve its problems with existing systems? Beeches, s400, s300v4? Especially if the c350 has weak missile defense capabilities? I just know well from my work that having as many of the same type of systems as possible makes it easy to operate, repair, and cheapen them. The larger the variety is, the more problems there are with all this, plus different training and lack of interchangeability. request
          2. srelock 19 March 2020 21: 40 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Bongo
            SAM S-300V4 is extremely expensive. In addition, the production of the chassis for the elements of the complex has long been discontinued and, apparently, they do not plan to resume it. The main feature of the S-300B4 is its missile defense capabilities.
            I think they can do it for export, but we don’t really need a new one. Five hundredth series to come. There was one more, no less basic feature. The 9M82 ballistic range of more than 700 kilometers, and with a lightweight fairing and a simplified GOS and up to 1000 maybe, though now this is not so relevant, the INF Treaty has passed away.
  • honest people 15 March 2020 07: 26 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    Respect to the author!
  • rudolff 15 March 2020 08: 41 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    Thanks to Sergey for this series of articles! At least some sort of harmonious idea of ​​the modern air defense system appeared, otherwise the confusion was unimaginable. I would be doubly grateful if a series of articles on marine air defense systems appeared.
    By the way, a question for the author on the current. Looking at a large number of heavy vehicles occupying one position, was the issue of placing the complex on railway platforms considered? A kind of "armored train" air defense to cover large facilities, cities, enterprises.
    1. Bongo 15 March 2020 09: 15 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +9
      Rudolph, hello!
      Quote: rudolff
      I would be doubly grateful if a series of articles on marine air defense systems appeared.
      You can try, but I will say right away, it's not mine ... request You may have noticed that I am trying to confirm the contents of the publication with satellite images. If in the part of the object air defense I have an idea where the described object is and how it looks, then in the part of the domestic sea air defense systems my knowledge is not too different from yours.
      Quote: rudolff
      Looking at a large number of heavy vehicles occupying one position, was the issue of placing the complex on railway platforms considered? A kind of "armored train" air defense to cover large facilities, cities, enterprises.

      Such developments were in the 60s. But this is hindered by a number of significant points. There are certain restrictions on the placement of air defense systems. That is, for security and electronic compatibility reasons, you can’t put near launch, command posts, guidance stations and detection stations. Thus, at least two railways are required. composition. Given that most of our railways are electrified, the traction network wires will inevitably interfere with the operation of the radar and the launch of missiles. In the event of the failure of one element of an air defense system, its replacement will require shunting routes that are not everywhere or may be occupied. In addition, to disable such an "armored train" is easier than to suppress a mobile ground air defense system. Damage to the railway tracks will inevitably lead to a loss of mobility of the railway air defense system. Although the idea of ​​placing air defense systems on the train. The composition in peacetime is not without a certain logic; in combat conditions, more minuses than pluses are obtained.
      1. rudolff 15 March 2020 09: 42 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Hello Sergey! Speaking about the air defense air defense complexes, I took off from marine air defense systems, the individual elements of which cannot be separated by any sufficient distance. The complexes are extremely compact. I am not an expert, this is just a thought out loud.
        request
        1. Bongo 15 March 2020 10: 26 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          Quote: rudolff
          Speaking about the air defense air defense complexes, I took off from marine air defense systems, the individual elements of which cannot be separated by any sufficient distance. The complexes are extremely compact.

          Rudolph, you are mistaken about the compactness of medium- and long-range marine air defense systems. But large ships have the opportunity to place missiles vertically in drums or in launch mines using the height of the hull. On railway carriage in transport position only horizontal arrangement of missiles is possible.
          1. rudolff 15 March 2020 10: 44 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            No, I did not mean the position of the launchers themselves, everything is clear here, but the placement of the individual elements of the air defense system from each other, i.e. surveillance stations or radar guidance from launchers, for example.
            1. Bongo 15 March 2020 11: 11 New
              • 8
              • 0
              +8
              Quote: rudolff
              No, I did not mean the position of the launchers themselves, everything is clear here, but the placement of the individual elements of the air defense system from each other, i.e. surveillance stations or radar guidance from launchers, for example.

              On cruisers equipped with S-300F air defense systems, the antenna of the guidance station and the surveillance radars are quite far apart from each other and launchers, both in the vertical and horizontal planes.

              The size of the ships allows it. But how to do it in a train?

              You imagine such towers with low-altitude detectors and antennas of the backlight and guidance station on the railway. platforms? what
              1. alstr 16 March 2020 17: 44 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Towers are not standard equipment. Only to the dowry.
                And this mode of operation is not combat, because deployment and coagulation time 2+ hours.

                You can work just with the car.
                But there is an ambush. The height of the cab with the raised antenna is 6 meters (if not more).
                the same with 7,5 m missiles. Accordingly, under the standard banner on the railway, it will not pass in a fighting position.

                If you really need it, then everything is made easier. Drive a standard division onto platforms and work directly from platforms at stops.
                1. bk0010 16 March 2020 20: 22 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: alstr
                  Drive a standard division onto platforms and work directly from platforms at stops.
                  Standard is bad: it would be good to provide power and communication from railway workers, adaptation of equipment for platforms and some loading and unloading machines on platforms. Plus household (with accommodation), warehouse and headquarters on rails. And a motor car for the delivery of expendable funds. And you get a "quick response air defense", which can be surpassed in a crisis region of our country in a week.
                  1. alstr 16 March 2020 22: 43 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Namely, that standard (but only full, where there is a moving guard and rest machines), because then you can unload almost anywhere.
                    Adaptation is not necessary, because they normally fit on platforms. And for loading - unloading for a long time there are special ways. Although they still try to unload at normal stations.
                    Well, nutrition - this is implied (unless of course it is).

                    PS By the way, if I remember correctly, then a complete set of equipment (that is, with a full set of launch and various auxiliary vehicles) of the S-300 of one division is about 100 pieces of equipment. Those. 1 division is about 40-50 only platforms.
  • Ingenegr 15 March 2020 09: 48 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Very interesting article. Technically verified, understandable and honest. No advertising - just a statement of facts.
    The author is very grateful for this and other articles in the series.
    In the warrior - VUS 041103, directly related to air defense. From this doubly interesting.
  • Operator 15 March 2020 10: 08 New
    • 2
    • 7
    -5
    “Bearing cone” - only the “bearing cylinder” is steeper than it laughing
  • sivuch 15 March 2020 11: 22 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The most recent Krug-M1 air defense system was mass-produced until 1983 and was operated by our armed forces until 2006.
    ---------------------------
    A number of sources are also mentioned by Krug-M2. Apparently, it was a semi-official designation for Krug-M1 with the latest version of the SNR -1S32M2 and 3M8M3 missile. But there were only 2 or 3 of such brigades in the Union
    This is from me, my love.
    1. Bongo 15 March 2020 11: 26 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: sivuch
      A number of sources are also mentioned by Krug-M2. Apparently, it was a semi-official designation for Krug-M1 with the latest version of the SNR -1S32M2 and 3M8M3 missile. But there were only 2 or 3 of such brigades in the Union
      This is from me, my love.

      Hi!
      Igor, it would be great if you published an article on the Krug air defense system on VO. Besides, didn’t you seem to have finished work on the air defense of the Ground Forces?
      1. sivuch 15 March 2020 12: 03 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        I already wrote on a similar occasion - the author's computer illiteracy is hindering.
        Not finished and in the short term is unlikely. I'm more interested in the Thirty Years War
        1. Bongo 15 March 2020 12: 23 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Quote: sivuch
          I already wrote on a similar occasion - the author's computer illiteracy is hindering.

          If you want, take off. In the presence of free time I "comb" your scribble.
          Quote: sivuch
          Not finished and in the short term is unlikely.

          It is a pity that what I saw pulls on serious work. You can’t throw such a thing.
          1. sivuch 15 March 2020 18: 13 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Sergey, got it?
            1. Bongo 16 March 2020 02: 24 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: sivuch
              Sergey, got it?

              Got it, I'll try to look in the near future.
  • Fishery 15 March 2020 11: 28 New
    • 3
    • 7
    -4
    how many planes shot down the s-300?
    1. sivuch 15 March 2020 11: 45 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      2 aircraft more than Patriot, since the latter shot down 2 of its own.
      1. Bongo 15 March 2020 11: 50 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        Quote: sivuch
        2 aircraft more than Patriot, since the latter shot down 2 of its own.

        In fairness, on the account of the Patriot air defense system there are downed enemy aircraft and armored personnel carriers.
        1. sivuch 15 March 2020 11: 55 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Of course there is . I later remembered that they had blocked the Syrian MiG-21 over the Golan (and rightly so, there’s nothing to flee from the country). Just what is the question, is the answer.
          1. Bongo 15 March 2020 11: 57 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Quote: sivuch
            Of course there is . I later remembered that they had blocked the Syrian MiG-21 over the Golan (and rightly so, there’s nothing to flee from the country). Just what is the question, is the answer

            ENIP Israeli systems also shot down several drones and the Syrian Su-24.
        2. Fishery 15 March 2020 19: 55 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          fighting? and whose?
      2. Fishery 15 March 2020 20: 42 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        so far only Israeli 1 has been found, and passenger St. Petersburg seems to be.
    2. Sergey_G_M 15 March 2020 17: 22 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      To evaluate air defense systems, there is a universal table that can be used with confidence.
      I advise you to look.
  • Artemy Morozov 15 March 2020 11: 40 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    Great air defense system! Moreover, the interception of the S300VM rocket is practically excluded. But, in modern realities, multiple-charge systems with more advanced electronics are needed to counter false missiles and targets. C300 release is in full swing, plants are fully loaded with the possibility of instant transition in 2, 3 shifts. Therefore, there is no need to worry.
    1. Bongo 15 March 2020 11: 47 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      Quote: Artemy Morozov
      Great air defense system! Moreover, the interception of the S300VM rocket is practically excluded. But, in modern realities, multiple-charge systems with more advanced electronics are needed to counter false missiles and targets. C300 release is in full swing, plants are fully loaded with the possibility of instant transition in 2, 3 shifts. Therefore, there is no need to worry.

      Urya comrades! fellow Do not share information on how many new S-300V4 air defense systems were built last year?
      1. sivuch 15 March 2020 12: 08 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        And by the way, how much? So far I have found only this -
        Anti-aircraft gunners of the Eastern Military District received a new set of S-300V4 air defense systems
        TSAMTO, December 6th. A new set of anti-aircraft missile system S-300B4 received anti-aircraft gunners of the military air defense unit of the Eastern Military District, stationed in the Jewish Autonomy.
        1. Bongo 15 March 2020 12: 20 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Quote: sivuch
          And by the way, how much?
          I don’t know, but I believe that new ones zero.
          Quote: sivuch
          So far I have found only this -
          Anti-aircraft gunners of the Eastern Military District received a new set of S-300V4 air defense systems
          TSAMTO, December 6th. A new set of anti-aircraft missile system S-300B4 received anti-aircraft gunners of the military air defense unit of the Eastern Military District, stationed in the Jewish Autonomy.

          This is the 1724th SRP mentioned in the publication of the 11th Air Defense OA, deployed near Birobidzhan. But it is not built from scratch, it is the S-300V upgraded to the level of S-300V4.
  • Nikolaevich I 15 March 2020 16: 42 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    In fairness, it is worth saying that the creators of the latest modification of the S-300B4 managed to introduce a long-range missile earlier, while Russian officials since 2007 promised that the new S-400 missile system is close to completing the tests and is about to enter service. According to available information, the mass production of 40N6E missiles, which should become the "long arm" of the S-400 air defense system, has already begun, but so far there are very few of them in the troops. 1. Yes, I also heard this version ... That when they decided to completely replace the S-300 with the S-400 complexes, the S-300B4, nevertheless, was left in production! And the whole reason was that the 40N6 zur for the S-400 could not be "brought to mind", but the 9M82MV zur with a range of up to 350 km and with an active seeker for the S-300V4 was already ready! True, I also heard the following ...: due to the fact that the 40N6 zur, nevertheless, went "into series", this 40N6 zur can be replaced by the 9M82MV zur in the S-300V4 complex ... As things are now, I can’t say due to the fact that the MO is "seven Fridays in a week"!
    2. The S-300V / VM / V4 also has such an advantage over the S-300P ....; as the presence of “own” radars on the control panel, which increases the survivability of air defense systems compared to S-300P air defense systems ....
    3. The ability of the PU SAM S-300V / VM / V4 to "work" in conjunction with the Buk-M3 ...
  • Alien From 15 March 2020 17: 53 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Great article loop! Thank you very much to the author for the work!)
  • sivuch 15 March 2020 18: 30 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Arrived from Valor
    article of the rules, there are few errors and inaccuracies of minor nature.
    in the states of the S300V, sturgeon must be cut down to 2 PUSHKI + 1 ROM small and 2 PUSHK + 1PZU large. Have pity on the elders, with your number of PUs they will never become captains.
    For VM and B4, I trust the author of the article.
  • Saxahorse 15 March 2020 22: 43 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Good cycle. The article on C300 is completely successful. Many thanks to the author!
  • A1845 16 March 2020 17: 31 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Thank you, Sergey!
    just a holiday!
  • marat2016 16 March 2020 19: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The USA became the 1st importer of S-300B. The author has missed this interesting fact.
    1. zyablik.olga 17 March 2020 02: 10 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: marat2016
      The USA became the 1st importer of S-300B. The author has missed this interesting fact.

      The author previously wrote about this. The Americans received individual elements of the S-300V.
      https://topwar.ru/147639-sovetskaja-i-rossijskaja-voennaja-tehnika-v-vooruzhennyh-silah-i-ispytatelnyh-centrah-ssha.html

      https://topwar.ru/107206-poligony-nevady-chast-2.html
      1. agond 18 March 2020 18: 23 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        A launcher with 4 missiles, besides being lifted vertically, is too big a target and is very poorly protected, and if a bullet from an SVD gets into a launch tube with a missile, oh if there is a small fragment, while at least one missile will deteriorate, as the maximum will deteriorate missiles along with the launch machine and others.
  • Maxim BY 21 March 2020 12: 51 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Cool system, a real masterpiece. Too bad her time has passed. Two completely different systems with similar characteristics are a huge load for the country