Military Review

"Triumph" everywhere

33
"Triumph" everywhere



The newest missile system enters the Russian troops and protects the sky over Syria

In the first decade of December, several C-400 Triumph anti-aircraft missile systems immediately took up combat duty. The Ministry of Defense reported the appearance of the newest air defense system on the Novaya Zemlya archipelago in the Yakut village of Tiksi and in the north-western regions of Russia. At the end of November, on the orders of President Vladimir Putin, the C-400 was transferred to Hmeymim airbase to cover our videoconferencing system.

In previous years, the Triumph divisions were located in the Moscow region (Elektrostal, Dmitrov, Zvenigorod, Kurilovo), in the Primorsky Territory (Nakhodka), the Murmansk and Leningrad Regions, Kaliningrad, Novorossiysk, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and Vladivostok.

Anti-aircraft missile system "Triumph" was adopted in the 2007 year. As of December 2015, the 11 C-400 regiments (25 divisions, or 200 launchers) stand guard over Russia's air lines. By 2016, the number of regiments will be increased to 16, and by 2020, it is planned to acquire 56 divisions (+ 28 regiments).

"Russian Planet" tried to figure out what is unique about Triumph. S-400 tests showed that the system can perfectly perform the functions of air defense and missile defense. Anti-aircraft missile system is able to close the sky from distant aircraft aviation B-52, B-1, F-111, F-15 and F-16, F-35 and F-22 fighters, E-3A and E-2C radar aircraft.

Also, Triumph is capable of striking aircraft manufactured using Stealth technology, the Raytheon cruise missiles (in particular, Tomahawk), Boeing AGM-69 aeroballistic cruise missiles, medium-range ballistic missiles and tactical ballistic missiles. According to available data, "Triumph" is capable of firing to 80 targets. The readiness of the system for combat is 5 minutes.

"Triumph" vs Patriot


Founder of the Military Russia portal, military expert Dmitry Kornev, in a conversation with the observer of the Russian Planet, noted that the key characteristics of the anti-aircraft missile system are the detection range, the number of accompanied targets, the speed of work on the targets, the range and height of the defeat: “If you don’t go into details, then according to these characteristics, we are comparable with the Americans, but there are a number of points that make the C-400 cooler. "

“If you believe the C-400 transfer personnel to Syria, this is a very mobile system. "Triumph" is able to stand on combat duty just a few hours after the landing of transport aircraft. At Patriot, the deployment process takes longer, ”explained Kornev.

A military analyst, based on data from the US media, told the RP that the Russian military 18 November could conduct tests of ultra-long-range missiles, which may be able to shoot down satellites. Presumably, these missiles will be included in the arsenal of C-400.

According to Kornev, the vulnerability of the Patriot and Triumph is that they can only work on tactical missiles, that is, on medium and short-range missiles. The invulnerability of intercontinental missiles due to higher speed and more acute angle of entry into the atmosphere. The radar data of the air defense missile system is difficult to accompany such targets.

Said Aminov, the editor-in-chief of the Vestnik of Air Defense, continuing the topic of comparison of the Russian and American air defense missile systems, stressed that the latest version of the Patriot Pac-3 is, unlike the standard models, highly effective weapon. Destruction systems include four containers with ERINT reduced-caliber missiles, which are more effective due to the principle of heat to kill, that is, providing a direct hit.

“Also in Pac-3, rockets of the same type are no longer used. But our C-400 uses five types of missiles (48H6Е, 48Н6Х2, 48Н6ЕЗ, 9М96Е2, 40Н6Е). The complex provides for the firing of missiles from the C-300 "Favorite" and long-range missiles 40H6. For the Patriot, the range is 150 – 200 km. Now the range of "Triumph" is estimated at 250 km, "said Aminov.

Fire all around


The only indisputable plus of the Patriot is combat use. But the experience of the Iraqi campaign showed that the US air defense missile system was capable of working only on airplanes and was powerless even before the outdated Soviet Skat, which had an non-detachable warhead. The American designers made the appropriate conclusions, and in the future the system evolved precisely in the direction of tactical missile defense.

However, the ability to hit ballistic targets remains a weak point of the past baptism of the newest Pac III. Pentagon does not disclose the range of missiles. According to Aminov, presumably, it is no more than 20 km, while the C-400 - from 40 to 60 km.

The Triumph’s advantage over the Patriot is ensured by the mortar launch of rockets adopted in Russia, which allows firing at all radii. At the same time in the Patriot used launcher oblique type, which can fire only a certain sector.

“The American system does not rotate the target illumination locator. We have a circular review. Thus, threats are recorded from all sides. In addition, C-300 and C-400 have an ejection vertical launch, due to which the rocket leans in the direction that the locator points to, ”Aminov explained.

As the “Russian Planet” wrote, an even more advanced system, especially in the area of ​​anti-missile defense, is the Prometheus C-500 anti-aircraft missile systems. The system will be able to shoot down missiles not only of medium and short range, but also, which is very important, intercontinental ballistic missiles at the final stage of flight.

The Russian designers of the Almaz-Antey concern, taking as a basis the legendary C-300, were able to create defensive systems that, for a number of parameters, have no analogues in the world. The Syrian campaign once again demonstrates the invaluable ability to control your own sky and airspace hundreds of kilometers away.
Author:
Originator:
http://rusplt.ru/sdelano-russkimi/triumf-povsyudu-20230.html
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ruslan
    Ruslan 19 December 2015 07: 31 New
    +1
    if for Syria the s-400 was rearranged on the MAZ chassis, is it not an admission that putting the s-400 on a trailer is a mistake tying it to the asphalt?
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 19 December 2015 08: 07 New
      +7
      Chassis replacement is justified by the principle of import substitution. Although Belarus is an ally (whatever they say, it’s almost one of the last), but still in modern realities such as a sovereign state and beautiful MAZ centipedes fall into the category of unreliable. That's why they put it on semi-trailers with Bryansk tractors request . You know better...
      1. agent rossii
        agent rossii 19 December 2015 09: 10 New
        +1
        I apologize I wanted to put a plus laughing hi
      2. Ruslan
        Ruslan 19 December 2015 09: 22 New
        +3
        let's say import substitution, but why on trailers, if the base has trailerless chassis? that's what bothers me.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 19 December 2015 09: 37 New
          +9
          Quote: ruslan
          let's say import substitution, but why on trailers, if the base has trailerless chassis? that's what bothers me.


          The fact of the matter is that until recently there were no own chassis request After the modernization, part of the C-300ПМ2 was also set up with the towed KrAZ-6446 trailers.

          The picture was taken at the military parade in Murmansk in the 2014 year.
          1. Ruslan
            Ruslan 19 December 2015 11: 27 New
            +1
            uh, what's that? BAZ-6910 and BAZ-690901, really for so many years of the creation of the s-400, did not bring these chassis models to mind? but they did bring the towed chassis.
          2. Ruslan
            Ruslan 19 December 2015 11: 29 New
            0
            and I think these options are just an attempt to reduce the cost of such expensive complexes.
          3. Lex.
            Lex. 19 December 2015 13: 39 New
            +3
            And what kind of import substitution does the same MZKT 90% from Russian motor metal components also give work to Russian subcontractors and the base belongs to the oligarch
            1. Lenivets
              Lenivets 19 December 2015 16: 00 New
              +2
              BAZ is now owned by Almaz-Antey.
              But the Mazov chassis on the Syrian complexes because they threw the old complexes from the Moscow region, and there they were on the Maz chassis (the first 2-3 regiments). hi
              1. Lex.
                Lex. 19 December 2015 16: 28 New
                +1
                Here you did not guess
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHFI0Ea3dI
                Here is a new chassis for Russian missile systems
                1. Lenivets
                  Lenivets 19 December 2015 17: 38 New
                  +1
                  Here I (unlike you) did not guess, but said how it really is.
                  For fortune-telling, contact another address. bully

                  ps remind me where I said something about the “new chassis for Russian missile systems”?
                  (I talked about the first versions and about those that have been up to now).
                  1. Lex.
                    Lex. 19 December 2015 18: 19 New
                    +2
                    (I talked about the first versions and about those that have been up to the present moment, you can put minuses to me, well, I’ll tell you military secrets
                    1. Lenivets
                      Lenivets 19 December 2015 18: 45 New
                      0
                      Keep your cons. laughing
                      And recall where in our discussion the topic of a more reliable chassis was raised? what
                      I said that Almaz-Antey bought a BAZ and this is so. hi
      3. Lex.
        Lex. 19 December 2015 15: 44 New
        +2
        Chassis replacement is justified by the principle of import substitution. Although Belarus is an ally (whatever they say, it’s almost one of the last), but still in modern realities such as a sovereign state and beautiful MAZ centipedes fall into the category of unreliable. That's why they put on request semi-trailers with Bryansk tractors. You know better
        But you live there. How can you say that? F-35 is collected by all US allies. So what?
        all the same, you won’t do it any better
  2. Lex.
    Lex. 19 December 2015 07: 33 New
    +2
    Well, in the photo c-300, c-400 it seems on the BAZ chassis and not the MZKT
    1. Ruslan
      Ruslan 19 December 2015 07: 41 New
      +1
      yes, but the Syrian version of the MZKT and absolutely everyone claims that this is the S-400, the first versions. hence the question.
    2. Bongo
      Bongo 19 December 2015 09: 17 New
      +4
      Quote: Lex.
      Well, in the photo c-300, c-400 it seems on the BAZ chassis and not the MZKT

      It is possible that indeed part of the SP-400 SPU was based on MAZ-543M.

      Although most of it is built on the BAZ chassis, a new 5P90C launcher has been created (pictured), which has reduced dimensions and increased throughput.
      1. Lex.
        Lex. 19 December 2015 16: 43 New
        +1
        It is possible that indeed part of the SP-400 SPU was based on MAZ-543M.
        yes no and if these chassis from the BAZ in Syria break down like a parade in Minsk
        1. remy
          remy 7 January 2016 15: 41 New
          +1
          a niche on a tracked chassis is occupied by the S-300V4 air defense air defense system
          by the way, the missile range is 385 km and the interception height is 185 km
      2. remy
        remy 7 January 2016 15: 38 New
        0
        here is a one-piece PU S-500, the layout is true.
  3. Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 19 December 2015 08: 14 New
    +8
    The fact that these air defense systems are increasingly being supplied to Russian air defense is of course good. But ... for reliable cover from the enemy’s air attack the territory of such a huge country, even such excellent complexes require an order of magnitude more.
    Here is a link to a good article about the S-400 complex: http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/s400/s400.shtml. This article provides the following performance characteristics of S-400 air defense systems:
    Target detection range, km 600
    The number of simultaneously tracked targets up to 300
    Radar field of view (azimuth x elevation, degrees:
    - aerodynamic targets 360 x 14
    - ballistic targets 60 x 75
    Range of damage, km:
    - aerodynamic targets 2-240
    - ballistic targets 7-60
    The height of the target, km:
    - minimum 0.01
    - maximum 30
    The maximum speed of the target, m / s 4800
    The number of simultaneously fired targets (the full composition of the SAM) 36
    The number of simultaneously guided missiles (full complement of air defense systems) 72
    SAM deployment time from march, min 5-10
    The time to bring the system to combat readiness from a deployed state, min. 3
    The operating time of the system before overhaul, h 10000
    Service life, years:
    - ground facilities ... at least 20
    - anti-aircraft guided missiles ... 15
    Infographics are clickable.
    I have the honor.
  4. 31rus
    31rus 19 December 2015 11: 39 New
    +2
    Dear, excuse me, I didn’t understand what is new in this article? I’ll repeat the S-400 not a panacea, only a set of countermeasures can effectively cover and defend important areas and objects. Good articles on this topic were on the site where the S-300 was considered and the possibilities of counteracting this complex, all this can be attributed to the S-400, as well as the Israel-Greece exercises to overcome air defense armed with the S-300, the enemy also does not sit idly by improving both the weapon itself and the tactics of its application
  5. Pete mitchell
    Pete mitchell 19 December 2015 14: 28 New
    +9
    Any air defense system is not a panacea for enemies, any system can be destroyed. The question is what it will cost. And here Russian systems are ahead of the rest. Perhaps only the products of the Russian military-industrial complex can create a diverse and deeply layered air defense structure. Add a common control system and the fee for destroying a target inside this system will be very high. When Trumph begins to use the full range of his missiles, he will become quite a “one war in the field”, well, even the Carapace is on hand and is even greater than now, a headache for the attackers.
  6. pilot bin-bom
    pilot bin-bom 19 December 2015 14: 52 New
    +2
    Thanks to Belarusians for reliable chassis for Russian missiles!
  7. spech
    spech 19 December 2015 17: 48 New
    +3
    the best air defense is tanks on takeoff!
  8. Pimply
    Pimply 19 December 2015 19: 25 New
    +1
    The advantage of the "Triumph" over the Patriot is provided by the mortar launch of missiles adopted in Russia, which allows firing along the entire radius. At the same time, the Patriot uses an inclined-type launcher that can fire only a specific sect

    I did not understand this at all. What is a missile bullet that is not capable of maneuvering?
    1. opus
      opus 20 December 2015 01: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: Pimply
      I did not understand this at all. What is a missile bullet that is not capable of maneuvering?

      1. The multi-functional AN / MPQ-53 radar detects (and importantly: accompanies) targets when viewing in elevation from 0 to 90o and in azimuth in the 90o sector(range 35-50 km (with a target flight altitude of 50-100 m) and up to 170 km (1000-10000 m))
      2. Guidance missiles MIM-104A, program control at the initial, on average - radio command, at the end - according to the TVM method (Track-via-missile - missile escort)
      3. From 1 + 2 start and defeat are possible only in the sector of 90 gr.
      Therefore, do not maneuver maneuver -90gr and all.
      ===========================
      On the other hand, since it’s launching an inclined missile, less energy is required (vertical and turn) + the lifting force immediately works
  9. Lex.
    Lex. 19 December 2015 20: 11 New
    +1
    I did not understand this at all. What is a missile bullet that is not capable of maneuvering?
    Why does hets have a mortar start?
    1. opus
      opus 20 December 2015 01: 48 New
      +3
      Quote: Lex.
      Why does hets have a mortar start?

      Because
      1. SAM Arrow-2 = Homing system - combined, includes infrared and radar channels (proportional method) ARIKGSN, and not TVM (Track-via-missile - tracking via missile)
      2. Radar review and guidance EL / M-2080 Green Pine-AFAR circular rotation= 60t not muhra muhra

      (and there will be a Super Green Pine radar + switching with AN / TPY-2 radar)
      3.Arrow was originally designed as a vertical-hot start.
      Your (Jewish) there are not many:
      Boeing "took on the production of about 35% of the components of the rocket at its plant in Huntsville (Alabama),
      Lockheed Martin - produces an active radar homing head;
      Alliant Techsystems nozzles and first stage;
      Raytheon - infrared seeker;
      Ceradyne - ceramic fairing.

      and your brains aren’t yours = US veto for the sale of India, Jordan and Yu. Koerai- based on the MTCR
  10. podgornovea
    podgornovea 19 December 2015 21: 01 New
    -2
    C-400 is certainly cool, but you need to focus not on Patriot Pac-3, but on a missile defense system based on the Standart SM-3 missiles.

    In terms of mobility, in my opinion, everything is clear if using systems on ships like our C-300F (Fort, Fort-M) is not a problem to transfer to a wheeled or tracked platform (certainly for the USA).

    Defeat the target with a direct hit is an absolute advantage - with an extremely complex target, you can make a warhead with a directional fragmentation field, but much smaller and weaker due to higher accuracy, just like on the C-400.

    What is intended to intercept ballistic targets, and supposedly fairy tales for the poor (wisely) can not cope with aerodynamic goals, speeds not comparable with aerodynamic goals for ballistic goals require incomparably greater accuracy in determining the parameters of the target’s movement and the lead point. "Teach" to intercept not only "ballistic lamborghini", but also leisurely but "O-very maneuverable Cossacks" just rewrite the software. Surely all the tests have been carried out for a long time, the models are worked out.

    WELL DON'T FOOLS THEY CREATE SUCH A PRECISE, EFFICIENT, LONG MILITARY (AND EXPENSIVE) SYSTEM ONLY FOR PRO WITHOUT OPPORTUNITIES OF AIR DEFENSE!

    I am afraid that according to the air defense capabilities, a system that knocks down targets with a direct hit at a speed of 3-4 km / s (if we know its characteristics by aerodynamic targets) will be a very big shock for us.
    1. NIKNN
      NIKNN 19 December 2015 21: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: podgornovea
      C-400 is certainly cool, but you need to focus not on Patriot Pac-3, but on a missile defense system based on the Standart SM-3 missiles.

      In terms of mobility, in my opinion, everything is clear if using systems on ships like our C-300F (Fort, Fort-M) is not a problem to transfer to a wheeled or tracked platform (certainly for the USA).

      Defeat the target with a direct hit is an absolute advantage - with an extremely complex target, you can make a warhead with a directional fragmentation field, but much smaller and weaker due to higher accuracy, just like on the C-400.

      What is intended to intercept ballistic targets, and supposedly fairy tales for the poor (wisely) can not cope with aerodynamic goals, speeds not comparable with aerodynamic goals for ballistic goals require incomparably greater accuracy in determining the parameters of the target’s movement and the lead point. "Teach" to intercept not only "ballistic lamborghini", but also leisurely but "O-very maneuverable Cossacks" just rewrite the software. Surely all the tests have been carried out for a long time, the models are worked out.

      WELL DON'T FOOLS THEY CREATE SUCH A PRECISE, EFFICIENT, LONG MILITARY (AND EXPENSIVE) SYSTEM ONLY FOR PRO WITHOUT OPPORTUNITIES OF AIR DEFENSE!

      I am afraid that according to the air defense capabilities, a system that knocks down targets with a direct hit at a speed of 3-4 km / s (if we know its characteristics by aerodynamic targets) will be a very big shock for us.


      More than agree! But, to shoot down a target with a direct hit (especially a ballistic maneuvering one), it’s what radar resolution you need to have (computers are not a problem, sega2 has more speed than F22 radar). Probably behind, the specialists will correct. hi
      1. opus
        opus 20 December 2015 02: 27 New
        +4
        Quote: NIKNN
        Sega2 speed is greater than F22 radar

        What nonsense fool
        1.Compare a game console and an airborne radar

        Avionics F-22 (only BC), in radar own processor (three in my opinion)

        2. The Sega 32X (Sega Mega Drive) has a 1/6-bit Motorola 32+ additional processor in the console - an 68000-bit Zilog Z8
        Motorola 68000+: 16-bit data bus / 24-bit address bus; frequency 8-16 MHz;


        3. ON old F – 22 Raptor until recently (until upgrade Block 30/35 from 2013, if you have not forgotten) Avionics on the Intel 960mx processor, developed in 1984, the production in the USA was then at the standards of 1000-1500nm (nobody really buzzed that the Americans were putting backward electronics on planes)

        Max CPU clock rate 10 MHz to 100 MHz (for F-22 33 MHz, cache (4 KB instead of 1 KB) and added 1 KB of data cach, 32-bit multiplexed address / data bus)

        This (photo) is not a military option
        (almost on such a F-22, ceramic cover only)
        =================================================

    2. opus
      opus 20 December 2015 02: 01 New
      +5
      Quote: podgornovea
      C-400 is certainly cool, but you need to focus not on Patriot Pac-3, but on a missile defense system based on the Standart SM-3 missiles.

      Standart SM-3 land and sea.
      And not when the chassis will not be transplanted:
      1.AN/SPY-1 stationary, heavy not intended for all-round visibility (there are 4 of them)
      2. The radar peak power = 4-6 MW(you need to carry a GM turbine with you)
      3.MK.41 is very heavy

      (and she has water cooling - irrigation)
      Quote: podgornovea
      That is intended to intercept ballistic targets, and supposedly fairy tales for the poor (wisely) cannot cope with aerodynamic ones,

      it looks like you are poor in mind.
      The SM-3 variant for intercepting BRs (like GBI) has a lower lesion zone of 70 km.
      And why not?
      Yes, because KV (EKV, Leap KKV, MKV) this 70 kg rugged design unable to maneuver in dense layers



      as well as at a low density of the atmosphere and in a vacuum, the fragmentation compression warhead is not very effective (minus the compression effect), and the weight is not 70 kg, but 200-400 kg and this mondule must be delivered to the NOO, with V from 4,8 km / s
    3. Do not care
      Do not care 20 December 2015 07: 27 New
      0
      If we take a direct analogue of the C 400 with its latest missile 40H6, then this will be the Agies system with the SM6 missile
      Both missiles were created at about the same time and have similar characteristics. Both have the main task - aerodynamic targets at ranges of up to 400 km and 33 km in height. Both missiles work well against the Kyrgyz Republic and have limited ability to hit ballistics at an altitude of up to 40 km. However, Agies also has an SM3 missile for ballistic purposes, while the C400 does not. In the latest modification, block II A / B - range 2000 km, altitude 1500 km.

      Patriot, in the latest PAC3 modification it is an object air defense / missile defense similar to a BUK, but this is a separate issue. A comparison of the C400 and Patriot is simply illiterate.
      1. CSI
        CSI 12 February 2016 17: 14 New
        0
        40H6E, did not forget by accident ?? ... soldier
  11. pilot bin-bom
    pilot bin-bom 19 December 2015 21: 58 New
    +1
    Type in the search engine "MZKT-79291 in trials." A new chassis for the new rocket is ready.
  12. RuslanNN
    RuslanNN 20 December 2015 14: 17 New
    -1
    The Israelis put on the S-400, as they attacked Syria, and so do. They are violet that S-400, that S-300. advertising and real wrestling are two different things. Having no analogue in the world, the S-400 did not somehow stop the Jewish Air Force from launching a missile strike on Damascus.
  13. kirgudu
    kirgudu 21 December 2015 10: 44 New
    +1
    Quote: RuslanNN
    The Israelis put on the S-400, as they attacked Syria, and so do. They are violet that S-400, that S-300. advertising and real wrestling are two different things. Having no analogue in the world, the S-400 did not somehow stop the Jewish Air Force from launching a missile strike on Damascus.


    Israel and the S-400 are two different things. It is believed that Israel is the main owner of ISIS, and the Turks are arrowheads and no more. But this is only an opinion. At the same time, our people are silent ...