Military Review

ZRS-300P in the XXI century

60



By the mid-70s of the XX century, our military during the local conflicts in the Middle East and Southeast Asia had accumulated rich combat experience in the use of anti-aircraft missile systems. This primarily refers to the S-75 air defense system. This complex, originally created to combat high-altitude reconnaissance and long-range bombers, was quite effective against tactical and carrier-based attack aircraft aviation. Improvement of complexes of the S-75 family continued until the second half of the 70s. At the same time, the zones of fire were significantly expanded, the minimum height of destruction was reduced to 100 meters, the possibilities of combating high-speed and actively maneuvering targets were increased, the noise immunity was increased, and the mode of firing at ground targets was introduced. The most advanced serial version of the "seventy-five" - ​​SAM S-75M4 "Volkhov", was adopted in 1978. The S-75 anti-aircraft missile systems of all modifications, being the most numerous in the anti-aircraft missile forces, were the backbone of the country's air defense forces until the mid-80s of the last century.

The experience of local wars has shown that, for all its merits, the C-75 air defense systems have a number of significant drawbacks. First of all, the military was not satisfied with the characteristics of the mobility of the complex. In the context of modern warfare, the survival rate of the air defense system directly depended on this. The use of anti-aircraft missiles with liquid toxic fuel and a caustic oxidizer also imposed a lot of restrictions and required the presence of a special technical position, where refueling and maintenance of missiles were carried out. In addition, the C-75 air defense system was initially single-channel in purpose, which significantly reduced the capabilities of a single complex when repelling a massive raid by enemy aircraft.

Proceeding from all this, the military demanded a multi-channel anti-aircraft complex with high fire performance and the possibility of firing a target from any direction, regardless of the position of the launcher, with all the elements on the self-propelled chassis. Work on the creation of a new C-75 replacement complex began at the end of 60-x, while another version of the seventy-fifth, C-75X5, was being developed as a safety net.

In 1978, the mobile, multichannel anti-aircraft missile system C-300PT with radio command solid-propellant 5В55К was adopted (more detailed here: Anti-aircraft missile system C-300P). Thanks to the introduction of a multi-purpose radar with a phased antenna array with digital control of the beam position, the possibility of quickly viewing the airspace with simultaneous tracking of several air targets appeared. In the C-300PT ZRS, launchers with four anti-aircraft missiles in transport-launch containers (TPK) were placed on trailers towed by tractors. The affected area of ​​the first C-300PT variant was 5 - 47 km, which was even smaller than the C-75М3 SAMs with the 5Я23 SAMs.

ZRS-300P in the XXI century

PU ZRS S-300PT


To remedy this situation, the 5ВХNUMXКД rocket was soon adopted, in which, due to the optimization of the rocket’s trajectory, the launch range increased to 55 km. Apparently, the use of radio-command missiles was a temporary forced decision, due to the unavailability of the rocket with semi-active homing. In the majority of anti-aircraft complexes created in the USSR, a fairly simple and well-developed radio command guidance system was used. However, the use of radio command guidance in long-range anti-aircraft systems was undesirable due to the deterioration of accuracy as the missile moved away from the guidance station. Therefore, the next step was the adoption in 75 of the 1981B5P SAM with a semi-active seeker. The launch range of the first modifications of this rocket was within 55 - 5 km, after the appearance of the 75В1984ПМ ЗР 5В55РМ in 90, it increased to XNUMX km.

The new version of the complex with the modified guidance equipment received the designation C-300PT-1. In the second half of the 80-x, the previously built C-300PT were repaired and upgraded in order to improve the combat performance to the level of C-300PT-1А.
In 1983, a new version of the anti-aircraft system - C-300PS. Its main difference was the placement of launchers on MAZ-543 self-propelled chassis. Due to this, it was possible to achieve a record short deployment time - 5 minutes.


C-300PS


The S-300PS missiles have become the most widespread in the C-300P family, their production in the 80s has been carried out at an accelerated pace. C-300PS and even more advanced C-300PM with high noise immunity and improved combat performance were supposed to replace the first-generation C-75 complexes in the ratio 1: 1. This would allow the USSR’s most powerful air defense system in the world to reach a qualitatively new level. Unfortunately, these plans were not destined to be realized. C-300PM tests ended in 1989, and the collapse of the USSR had a negative impact on the production of this anti-aircraft system. Thanks to the introduction of the 48H6 rocket and the increase in power of the multi-function radar, the target destruction range increased to 150 km. Officially, the C-300PM was adopted in 1993, the supply of this complex to the Russian armed forces continued until the middle of the 90-s. After 1996, the air defense systems of the C-300P family were built only for export.

According to the American data, as of 1991, the USSR Air Defense Forces had about 1700 PU-300P of all modifications. The largest number of "three hundred" remained in Russia and Ukraine. C-300P also went to Armenia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

Unlike the first-generation air defense systems: С-75, С-125, С-200, most of which were already removed from combat duty in Russia by mid-90-s, the more modern C-300П continued to serve. This is due not only to the greater effectiveness of the C-300P air defense system, but also to the fact that solid-fuel missiles are much safer in operation and do not require frequent expensive maintenance and refueling.

Shortly before the liquidation of the “Eastern bloc”, C-300P “lost its innocence” in terms of export deliveries. At the end of 80-x, a plan to strengthen the air defense system of the Warsaw Pact countries was adopted. Bulgaria and the Czech Republic managed to get the export version of C-300PS - C-300PMU. The scheduled delivery of the C-300PMU in the GDR was canceled at the last moment.

C-300P of various modifications are still the main anti-aircraft systems in the Russian Aerospace Force. Prior to this, in the course of incessant: “reforming”, “optimizing” and “giving a new look”, the anti-aircraft missile systems of the C-300P family were in service with anti-aircraft and missile forces in the united air forces and air defense and aerospace defense forces. In fact, the main tasks of the aerospace defense were to protect Moscow from air attack weapons and intercept single warheads of ballistic missiles. And in the EKO, as a rule, the most modern versions of anti-aircraft systems came in - this primarily relates to the C-300PM / PM2 and C-400.

Despite loud statements about “rising from the knees” and “rebirth”, our air defense forces for more than 10 years before 2007 have not received a single new long-range anti-aircraft system. Moreover, in view of the limiting wear and lack of standardized missiles, they were written off or transferred to the C-300PT and C-300PS storage bases built at the beginning-middle of 80-x.

The operation of the C-300PT air defense system continued in the European north of our country until the 2014 year. In 2015, they were replaced in positions C-300PM2, which had previously carried combat duty in the Moscow region. As new C-400 AAMS was launched, the upgraded C-300PM2, which previously covered the sky of the capital, relocated to the north.


Satellite image of Google earth: ZRS C-300PT in the vicinity of Severodvinsk in 2011


The situation with the anti-aircraft cover of the territory of our country has ceased to deteriorate somewhere by 2012 year. Prior to this, the “natural decline” of anti-aircraft systems written off by old age exceeded the receipts of new troops. According to data published in open sources, in 2010, as part of the combined Air Force and Air Defense, there was an 32 air defense regiment of the C-300P and C-400 regiments. Most regiments 2-3 divisional composition. At the moment, according to freely available information, we have anti-aircraft missile 38 regiments, including the 105 divisions. The increase in the number of anti-aircraft units in the structure of the VKS occurred due to the transfer of several brigades armed with the C-300В and the Buk-М1 air defense system to the Land Forces and to unite with the EKO. Part of the anti-aircraft missile units of the Russian Aerospace Forces are currently in the process of re-equipment and re-formation.

About half of the troops in the air defense system are C-300PS whose age is approaching a critical one. Many of them can be considered effective only conditionally. It is common practice to carry combat duty in an abbreviated composition of military equipment. Immediate remedial action is required. But the pace of admission to the C-400 troops does not yet allow replacing all the old equipment to be written off. It is predicted that deliveries of the new C-350 air defense system, which was created to replace the C-300PS, will begin in the 2016 year.

The most recent C-300PS and almost all C-300PM to 2014, underwent a refurbishment and modernization. At the same time, the main part of the C-300PM was brought to the level of the C-300PM2. As a result, the anti-missile capabilities were expanded, and the range of destruction of the C-300PM2 ground strike system increased to 200-250 km. According to its combat characteristics, the upgraded C-300PM2 ZRS is close to the current C-400. Unfortunately, in the C-400 ammunition, already in service, 25 sdn still use the 48H6M and 48H6DM SAMs, originally created for the C-300PM. The massive supply of medium-range missiles 9М96 and long-range 40H6E, which allow C-400 to reach their full potential to the troops, is not yet underway.

Some of our high-ranking officials and the military are surprised at the statements that the C-400 anti-aircraft system is three times more efficient than the C-300PM, therefore, it needs three times less. However, at the same time they forget that the means of air attack of the likely "partners" also do not stand still. In addition, it is physically impossible to destroy a single anti-aircraft missile with a conventional warhead of more than one air target. Shooting at the landfills under the conditions of complicated jamming conditions has repeatedly demonstrated that the real probability of hitting a single missile with the C-300P ground-to-ground missile system is 0,7-0,8. To guarantee the defeat of a “difficult” target, you need to launch 2-3 SAM on it. Of course, the C-400 with the new missile surpasses any C-300P modification in range, altitude and noise immunity, but it is guaranteed to knock down one modern combat aircraft with one missile even with its own strength. In addition, no quality cancels the quantity, it is impossible to hit more air targets than there are anti-aircraft missiles ready for launch. In other words, if the ready-to-use ammunition is used up, then any, even the most modern and effective anti-aircraft system becomes nothing more than a pile of expensive metal and it is absolutely not important how many times it is more effective.



Among Russian citizens, there is an opinion, fueled by the media, that our C-300 and C-400 are a super-weapon capable of dealing equally effectively with aviation and cruise missiles, as well as with ballistic targets. And the existing number of anti-aircraft systems is abundant enough to “in case of anything,” whip up all enemy airplanes and missiles. It has also been heard that they do not cause anything but a smirk of the statement that there are a huge number of “sleeping” or “hidden” anti-aircraft complexes hidden under the ground or in the wilds of the Siberian taiga. And despite the fact that for the issuance of target designation to any anti-aircraft complexes, surveillance radars and communications centers are needed, as well as residential campuses with appropriate infrastructure for the accommodation of servicemen and their families. Well, by themselves, anti-aircraft systems among deaf taiga are not needed by anyone, only in the Soviet Union could they afford to build positions of the air defense missile system on the path of the intended flight of enemy aircraft, although even then most of the anti-aircraft complexes protected specific objects.



Many S-300P and C-400 SAM systems are associated only with launchers, from which effective missiles are launched at the range. In fact, the anti-aircraft divisions include about two dozen multi-ton machines for various purposes: command and control stations, radar detection and guidance, launchers, antenna posts, transport-loading machines and mobile diesel generators.



Like any weapon Our anti-aircraft missile systems have both advantages and limitations. So the main 5P85С ZRS C-300PS launcher on the MAZ-543М chassis with four missiles, separate missile training and control cabins and autonomous or external power systems weighs more than 42 tons with a 13 length and 3,8 meter width. It is clear that with such weight and dimensions, despite the four-axle base, the machine’s permeability on weak soils and various irregularities will be far from ideal. Currently, much of the C-300PM launchers and most of the C-400 are built in a trailed version, which, of course, is a step backwards in terms of mobility.



With high fire performance, the C-300P and C-400 ZRS have an extremely low PU reload rate. In a real combat situation, a situation may arise when all the ammunition for the launchers will be spent. Even if there are spare missiles and transport-charging vehicles on the starting position, a lot of time is required to replenish the ammunition. Therefore, it is very important that the anti-aircraft systems mutually cover and complement each other.


PU C-300PM


During the simulation, based on the results of real range firing, the specialists came to the conclusion that our long-range anti-aircraft systems, while protecting the covered objects, are capable of intercepting 70-80% of air attack weapons. It should be borne in mind that beyond the Urals we have significant gaps in the air defense system, especially from the north.

Currently, among the former Soviet republics of the USSR, the largest number of C-300Ps are formally available in Ukraine. In 2010, the “Square” sky was guarded by 27 srdn C-300PT and C-300PS. Due to critical wear, all C-300PTs are currently not operational. Part of the C-300PS SAM system has undergone a refurbishment and a “minor modernization” at the Ukroboronservice enterprise. According to expert estimates, the 6-8 anti-aircraft divisions of the C-300PS are now relatively effective in Ukraine’s air defense. But their decommissioning is the business of the next few years. The fact is that all the 5B55P SAM systems available in Ukraine have a long overdue shelf life. Several years ago, due to the provision of Georgian anti-aircraft complexes on the eve of the 2008 events of the year, Ukrainian representatives were denied access to the Russian C-300PMU-2. Considering the recent events, it seems an absolutely unbelievable option to deliver new missiles from Russia.

In 2015, there were reports of donations of used C-300PS to Belarus. It is obvious that Russia is trying in this way to push the anti-air frontiers as far as possible to the West.


Satellite image Google Earth: ZRS-300PS in the Brest region


Most likely, the anti-aircraft systems transmitted by the Belarusian military and anti-aircraft systems will be repaired and maintained in order to extend the resource. At the moment, the air borders of Belarus are guarded by 11 divisions of C-300PS, but most of them are serving in a truncated composition. Due to the shortage of serviceable equipment and standard missiles, the number of launchers in the majority of Belarusian missions is much less than the state.

Similar problems in maintaining the combat duty of anti-aircraft complexes in operational condition are experienced by the Kazakhstani military. This state has a huge territory uncovered by anti-aircraft means.


Satellite image of Google earth: ZRS-300PS on the position of the west of Astana


As of 2015, the year in the air defense forces of Kazakhstan four C-300PS antiaircraft battalions carried in a truncated combat duty. Obviously, the lack of modern anti-aircraft weapons explains the continued operation in Kazakhstan of the C-75 and C-200 SAM systems. At the end of December 2015, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced the completion of the delivery of five C-300PS to Kazakhstan. The agreement on gratuitous provision of anti-aircraft systems to Kazakhstan was reached in 2013 year, within the framework of the agreement on the creation of a joint Russian-Kazakhstan single regional air defense zone. One can also note the important role of Kazakhstan in conducting joint exercises of the CSTO air defense forces at the Sary-Shagan training ground.

An important Russian ally in the South Caucasus is Armenia. In this republic, the sky is protected by four S-125 and four towed C-300PTs. Most of the anti-aircraft systems are located around Yerevan.


Satellite image of Google earth: C-300PT ground position in the vicinity of Yerevan


In 2015, information appeared about the planned gratuitous transfer of five more C-300PT divisions to the Armenian armed forces. It is envisaged that the C-300PT data, previously operated in Russia, will be restored and modernized.


PU-ZRS-300PT during military exercises in Armenia in October 2013


The supply of anti-aircraft systems should occur within the framework of the agreement on the creation of a unified regional air defense system in the Caucasus region of the CSTO. In this case, the Armenian air defense system will become the most powerful in the region.

In 2011, three divisions of C-300PMU-2 and 12 PU in each ZRDN and 200 48Н6Е2 missiles were delivered to Azerbaijan. Before that, Azerbaijani calculations were trained in Russia. After the C-300PMU-2 in 2013 year began to carry out a permanent combat duty, in Azerbaijan began the write-off of the first-generation anti-aircraft systems C-75 and C-200.

Outside the CIS, the largest number of C-300P of various modifications is available in the PRC. The first batch of four C-XNUMPPMU and 300 SAM was delivered to China in the 120 year. Prior to deliveries, several dozen Chinese military and civilian specialists were trained in Russia. In 1993, 1994 missiles were additionally sent to the PRC.



The C-XNUMPPMU ZRS was an export version of the C-300PS, in which the combat elements are located on trailers towed by KrAZ three-axle truck tractors.

Multichannel anti-aircraft systems with solid-propellant rockets developed in the USSR were superior in all respects to the Chinese air defense systems HQ-2, created on the basis of C-75. In 2001, a new contract was signed for the supply of another 8 divisions C-300PMU-1 and 198 48H6Е missiles. Soon after the fulfillment of this contract, China wanted to get more advanced C-300PMU-2 air defense systems, which had anti-missile capabilities. The order included 12 divisions C-300PMU-2 and 256 ZUR 48H6Е2 - these most modern anti-aircraft systems at that time could hit targets at a distance of up to 200 km. Deliveries of the first C-300PMU-2 to the PRC began in 2007.

China received a total of 4 Division C-300PMU, 8 Divisions C-300PMU-1 and 12 Divisions C-300PMU-2. In addition, each set of anti-aircraft division has 6 PU. In total, the C-24 divisions of all modifications delivered to the PRC of all modifications have 300 launchers of anti-aircraft missiles.


Satellite image of Google earth: ZRS-300PMU-2 position on the Taiwan Strait


The main part of the existing in the PRC C-300P is deployed around important industrial and administrative centers along the east coast. When analyzing satellite images, the fact that Chinese C-300П systems, as a rule, do not linger long in one place, actively moving through previously prepared positions, attracts attention. Including for this purpose, launching pads of decommissioned HQ-2 SAM systems are used.

Active military-technical cooperation between Russia and the PRC has led to China's unlicensed copying of modern Russian weapons. The C-300P anti-aircraft system was no exception, on its basis in the PRC a HQ-9 was created. The export version of the Chinese air defense system, known as the FD-2000, is currently a competitor to the Russian long-range anti-aircraft systems in the global arms market. At the moment, a modernized version is being built in China - HQ-9A. Thanks to the improvement of electronic equipment and software, HQ-9A is distinguished by increased combat effectiveness, especially in the area of ​​anti-missile capabilities.

Due to these circumstances, it seems strange to have a contract for the supply of four C-400 SAM systems to the PRC. This transaction was concluded, despite the statements made in the past, made from the highest tribunes, that C-400 under no circumstances should not be sold abroad until all the old complexes were replaced by the Russian Air Defense Forces. . It is quite obvious that China’s purchase of such a small number of anti-aircraft systems is made primarily for the purpose of familiarization, development of countermeasures and possible copying. In the future, the possible damage to our country from such a “partnership” can repeatedly block the immediate benefit.

Greece became the other owner of C-XNUMPPMU-300 in 1 after China. Initially, it was stated that Cyprus is the buyer of Russian ZRS. Subsequently, the C-1999PMU-300 were relocated to the Greek island of Crete, where in 1, during the exercise of Lefkos Aetos 2013, training shots were conducted. In 2013, the Russian and Greek representatives discussed the conditions for the allocation by the Russian side of a long-term loan for the purchase of new missiles and spare parts for anti-aircraft systems.


ZRS-300PMU-1 on Crete during the exercise of Lefkos Aetos 2013


Currently, two C-XNUMPPMU-300 Greek divisions are located in the vicinity of the Kazantzakis airfield on the island of Crete. In April, joint exercises with the Israeli Air Force took place here in 1, during which Israeli combat aircraft learned to fight C-2015P.

At the “MAKS” held in August 2003, representatives of the Russian air defense concern “Almaz-Antey” announced that they had signed a contract for the supply of C-300PMU-1 air defense systems to Vietnam. In 2005, two divisional kits were sent to the customer through the state intermediary Rosoboronexport. According to Russian experts, Vietnam is strengthening its air defense system in connection with the aggravated territorial disputes with the PRC. C-300PMU-1 should replace the outdated C-75М3 SAMs in the vicinity of Hanoi and Haiphong.

In Bulgaria, in May 2013, during a joint exercise of the Collector`s Item, Israeli and American combat aircraft based at the Graf Ignatievo airbase worked out methods of fighting the existing C-300PMU in Bulgaria.


Satellite image of Google earth: the position of the ZRS-300PMU in the vicinity of Sofia


For one anti-aircraft division C-XNUMPPMU there is in the armed forces of Bulgaria and Slovakia. Despite the fact that these countries are switching to NATO weapons standards, they are still not in a hurry to abandon Soviet-made anti-aircraft systems. In June 300, during the visit of Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico to Moscow, the parties discussed the details of the contract for the repair and modernization of the Slovak C-2015PMU.


PU Slovak C-300PMU


Undoubtedly, American specialists had the opportunity to get acquainted in detail with the Greek, Bulgarian and Slovak anti-aircraft systems. All of these countries that are armed with the C-300P are members of the NATO bloc. But the most blatant fact was the delivery of elements of the Russian C-1995PS to the 300, through Belarus to the USA. Later, the missing parts of the system were acquired by the Americans in Ukraine. When buying C-300 elements, the Americans were primarily interested in the command post 5Н63С with multifunctional radar of illumination and guidance (RPN) 30Н6 and mobile 3-X coordinate radar 36Д6. Of course, they did not set themselves the goal of copying the Soviet anti-aircraft system, it was hardly possible, and it probably didn’t make sense. The purpose of the special operation was to study the performance in terms of detection capabilities, capture and tracking of targets with different EPR values, as well as the development of countermeasures in the fight against air defense, based on C-300P. Available in the US RPN and 36D6 radar are currently on the proving ground in the Nevada desert. They regularly take part in US Air Force exercises in the area.

In 2007, a contract was signed for the supply to Iran of five C-300PMU-1 divisional ZRS sets. However, in 2010, the then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in connection with the introduction of international sanctions against the initiative of the United States at the initiative of the United States, canceled this agreement and ordered to return the advance. This caused serious damage to Russian-Iranian relations and Russia's reputation as a reliable supplier of weapons. The dispute over this between Tehran and Moscow lasted for about 5 years. Finally, in April 2015, President Vladimir Putin lifted the ban on the supply of C-300 to Iran. It is expected that the first batch of anti-aircraft missile systems will be shipped in the first half of 2016. However, it is not quite clear what modification C-300 will be and where they will come from. As is well known, the construction of the C-300P of all modifications in our country was discontinued several years ago. At the production facilities, where the construction of the C-300P was carried out, the assembly of the next-generation air defense systems, C-400, is currently underway. It is possible that the capitally repaired and modernized C-300PM from those that are in our armed forces will be used to fulfill the Iranian contract.

Based on the ZRS family of the C-300P family, Iran is developing its own long-range anti-aircraft system, Bavar -373. Separate elements of the Iranian anti-aircraft system were demonstrated on 18 on April 2015 of the year during the military parade in Tehran.



According to the statements of high-ranking Iranian military, the development of Bavar-373 began after Russia refused to supply C-300PMU-1. Allegedly, for several years, Iranian specialists managed to create an anti-aircraft system, which in its characteristics surpasses the C-300P. It is expected that the Bavar -373 air defense system will be put into service in 2017 after the tests are completed.

The anti-aircraft system, in many respects reminiscent of the C-300P, was also created in the DPRK. It was first demonstrated at a military parade in Pyongyang in 2012. In the west, the new North Korean anti-aircraft complex is known as KN-06.



The ability of Iranian and North Korean science and industry to create modern long-range anti-aircraft systems with missiles that have semi-active or active homing causes great doubts. But even if the Iranians or the North Koreans managed to create a vertically launched TPC missile with radio command guidance, according to their data, comparable to the first C-300PT missiles - this is certainly a great achievement for them.

Currently, the C-300P long-range anti-aircraft missile systems and the C-400 based on them form the basis of the Russian anti-aircraft defense forces. Being one of the most effective means of dealing with the air threat, over the next decades they will protect the sky of our homeland. The unique technical solutions implemented in them serve as a role model for creating a number of foreign analogues.

Based on:
http://pvo.guns.ru/s75/s75.htm
http://geimint.blogspot.ru/2008/06/worldwide-sam-site-overview.html
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2010-02-19/1_diagnoz.html
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/257111.html
http://www.china-defense.com
Articles from this series:
LAW C-75 in the XXI century
LAW C-125 in the XXI century
LAW C-200 in the XXI century
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 1 March 2016 07: 03 New
    +12
    A plus. Any weapon has both advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, you can never rest on our laurels with the words "here we have a superweapon", and constantly improve weapons models. The author correctly said that sometimes it can happen that any qualitative superiority can be moderated quantitatively. Do not underestimate our partners - they like to fight with the wrong hands and will find a lot of ways to get around the positions of our ZK. Therefore, it is necessary not only to increase the output, but also to further improve the technical nuances of maintenance, mobility, recharge, etc., seemingly not significant, to further improve the use of methods hi
    1. Bongo
      1 March 2016 07: 36 New
      +11
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Any weapon has both advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, you can never rest on our laurels with the words "here we have a superweapon", and constantly improve weapons models.


      This is true yes Moreover, our potential "partners", both in the west and in the east, had the opportunity to thoroughly familiarize themselves with C-300P and develop countermeasures. In terms of air defense, we still have a lot of work to do to restore the mindlessly destroyed in the 90-2000 years.
      1. Raven1972
        Raven1972 1 March 2016 10: 35 New
        +5
        Sergei hi Thank you very much for the interesting articles, but there is a small request - could you tell us about the S-25, the dad of the S-75go, the system that was already designing multi-channel was already very interesting.
        Best regards hi
        1. Bongo
          1 March 2016 12: 44 New
          +6
          Quote: Raven1972
          Sergey Thank you very much for the interesting articles, but there is a small request - could you tell us about S-25, the dad of S-75, the system that was already designing multi-channel was already very interesting.
          Best regards

          Boris, I am glad that you and many other readers liked it! hi About the air defense systems of Moscow, I already wrote briefly, you can look here (active link):The first domestic C-25
          Sincerely, Linnik Sergey.
          1. Raven1972
            Raven1972 1 March 2016 13: 11 New
            +4
            Thank you very much Sergey hi I am pleased to read good
    2. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 1 March 2016 22: 44 New
      +4
      Quote: Rurikovich
      The author correctly said that sometimes it can happen that any qualitative superiority can be moderated quantitatively. Do not underestimate our partners - they like to fight with the wrong hands and will find a lot of ways to get around the positions of our ZK.

      Knowing the positions of our air defense systems, attack planes with anti-radar missiles will go at low altitude, and then something more expensive.
      And without me it is known that the air defense positions should be multi-tiered, and not just the S-300 and S-400.
      Which, judging by the articles, is now being done. And this article is certainly "+"
  2. sergeyzzz
    sergeyzzz 1 March 2016 07: 47 New
    +2
    Again the moaning that everything is lost. A new missile factory was launched a week ago, the production of C-400 is continuously increasing, so not everything is so bad.
    1. Bongo
      1 March 2016 07: 53 New
      +7
      Quote: sergeyzzz
      Again the moaning that everything is lost. A new missile factory was launched a week ago, the production of C-400 is continuously increasing, so not everything is so bad.

      stop Please quote where the publication says
      Quote: sergeyzzz
      that everything was gone

      It was necessary to write that everything is fine in terms of air defense? Do you know how long and medium range anti-aircraft systems are distributed throughout our country? And what is the share in the ZSR forces built in the last 10 years?
      1. andj61
        andj61 1 March 2016 08: 43 New
        +12
        Quote: Bongo
        It was necessary to write that everything is fine in terms of air defense? Do you know how long and medium range anti-aircraft systems are distributed throughout our country? And what is the share in the ZSR forces built in the last 10 years?

        good hi And how many percent of the country's air defense of the late 80's is the country's current air defense? We will not be very soon going to the degree of protection against an air attack that was in the late 80s.
        According to data published in open sources, in 2010, the combined Air Force and Air Defense had 32 S-300P and S-400 air defense regiments. Most of the regiments have 2-3 divisions. At the moment, according to information that is freely available, we have 38 anti-aircraft missile regiments, including 105 divisions.

        In 1983, they were at a training camp from the institute in a regular anti-aircraft missile brigade, in which there were 17 different air defense divisions, including a group of S-200 divisions (3 air defense systems, 6 shooting channels). And such brigades across the country were full! And in the regiments there were not 2-3 divisions, but a dozen.
        And now, where there was an air defense corps - there is a regiment, where there was a regiment - often there is no longer a division.
        And the country's air defense system stopped degrading just a few years ago.
        To the author +! I especially support the idea that modern complexes of the S-400 type cannot replace several complexes of the previous generation at once. Yes, and how not to increase efficiency, at least 0,98 missiles are needed to hit a target with a probability of 2 (if this is a fighter, or a fighter-bomber). There are 4 of them on one launcher. How many targets can be hit with one launcher? Only 2! Multiply by the amount of PU - and it will immediately become clear what plaque can be reflected!
        And reloading takes a decent amount of time ...
        So you need to change all types of S-300 air defense systems to S-350 and S-400 in a ratio of 1: 1, while not forgetting to increase the total number of divisions.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 1 March 2016 14: 01 New
          +3
          Quote: andj61
          And how many percent of the country's air defense of the late 80's is the country's current air defense? We will not be very soon going to the degree of protection against an air attack that was in the late 80s.

          Yesterday, in the comments on an article about the S-200, I wrote about what Komsomolsk air defense was like in 1969 and what it became in 1971. But everything was built except for the housing stock, and they themselves were on combat duty and went to the training grounds.
        2. Lt. Air Force stock
          Lt. Air Force stock 2 March 2016 17: 35 New
          +2
          Quote: andj61
          And how many percent of the country's air defense of the late 80's is the country's current air defense? We will not be very soon going to the degree of protection against an air attack that was in the late 80s.

          Air Defense Forces in 1990:

          1400 S-25 "Golden Eagle", in the process of replacing the S-300P
          2400 S-75 Dvina
          1000 S-125 Neva / Pechora
          1950 S-200 Angara / Vega / Dubna
          1700 S-300
    2. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 1 March 2016 09: 35 New
      +5
      Quote: sergeyzzz
      Again the moaning that everything is lost. A new missile factory was launched a week ago, the production of C-400 is continuously increasing, so not everything is so bad.

      Yes, of course a week with new missiles plugged all the holes. If you do not agree with the above, you have a unique chance, relying on figures and facts, to refute everything that the author wrote. In this publication, Sergey was quite restrained in describing the state of our current air defense system so as not to cause unhealthy boiling up among all patriots.
      Quote: Bongo

      It was necessary to write that everything is fine in terms of air defense? Do you know how long and medium range anti-aircraft systems are distributed throughout our country? And what is the share in the ZSR forces built in the last 10 years?

      Seryozha, whence they can be aware of this, is not told about this in the first channel.
      1. Bongo
        1 March 2016 12: 51 New
        +8
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        Seryozha, whence they can be aware of this, is not told about this in the first channel.

        Of course they don’t say that you won’t raise the rating for such information. Olya, the funniest thing is that they shout the loudest: “Urya” and “we’ll tear everyone” are often people who not only were not on the firing position of the anti-aircraft missile battalion, but also did not serve in the army. But they are well versed in air defense problems. fool .
        1. Falcon
          Falcon 1 March 2016 14: 10 New
          +3
          Quote: Bongo
          Of course they don’t say that you won’t raise the rating for such information. Olya, the funniest thing is that they shout the loudest: “Urya” and “we’ll tear everyone” are often people who not only were not on the firing position of the anti-aircraft missile battalion, but also did not serve in the army. But then they are well versed in air defense problems.


          Hi Seryoga! drinks
          Nothing, they knocked me over the formula from the textbook good Not patriotic turned out to be. As if I brought her out laughing True, there were no arguments against it.

          Quote: Bongo
          I also heard statements that did not cause anything but a grin that “in the bins of the motherland” there was a huge amount of “sleeping” or “hidden” anti-aircraft systems hidden underground or in the wilds of the Siberian taiga.


          The spirit of "Kassandra" haunts us laughing

          Quote: Bongo
          It is expected that the first batch of anti-aircraft missile systems will be shipped in the first half of the 2016 year. However, it is not clear what modifications C-300 will be and where they will come from.


          I may have missed something, but it was announced that it would be "Antei 2500". They are still doing it.

          Quote: Bongo
          Cheaper, yes yes But not easier and not faster no The main advantage of the C-300ПС, before the towed С-300ПТ was a multiple reduction in deployment and folding time due to the transition to a self-propelled chassis,


          Well, in the case of "heat" you can not unhook the trailer with the tractor. I think there is no problem shooting back in the hooked state?
          The only thing, from my point of view, is cross-country ability. In a loner, she is definitely higher!
          1. Bongo
            1 March 2016 14: 21 New
            +5
            Quote: Falcon
            Hi Seryoga!
            Nothing, they blamed me for the formula from the textbook. Not Patriotic turned out to be. As if I deduced it. True, there were no arguments against it.

            Hi! drinks And I had it lol
            Quote: Falcon
            I may have missed something, but it was announced that it would be "Antei 2500". They are still doing it.

            They do. yes But IRI wants to get exactly C-300P. C-300В4 is an army system designed to intercept OTR. Its ability to combat aerodynamic targets is worse.
            Quote: Falcon
            Well, in the case of "heat" you can not unhook the trailer with the tractor. I think there is no problem shooting back in the hooked state?
            The only thing, from my point of view, is cross-country ability. In a loner, she is definitely higher!

            So it is, especially on soft soils.
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 1 March 2016 14: 39 New
              +3
              Quote: Bongo
              They do. But IRI wants to get exactly C-300P. C-300В4 is an army system designed to intercept OTR. Its ability to combat aerodynamic targets is worse.


              Well, I think all the same on her and conspire. Almaz-Antey said that they would not resume production of C-300P, they would not deliver C-400 for sure, if only our second-hand - but I don’t think it would come to that.

              Why is it worse? Channel 9с15, it seems even higher. The maximum height is only less, but for aerodynamic purposes it is not so important. Yes, and Almazovites have long maintained that they brought the range of the C-300В4 to 400km.
              1. Bongo
                1 March 2016 14: 48 New
                +6
                Quote: Falcon
                Well, I think all the same on her and conspire. Almaz-Antey said that they would not resume production of C-300P, they would not deliver C-400 for sure, if only our second-hand - but I don’t think it would come to that.

                This has already happened.
                Quote: Falcon
                Why is it worse? Channel 9с15, it seems even higher. The maximum height is only less, but for aerodynamic purposes it is not so important. Yes, and Almazovites have long maintained that they brought the range of the C-300В4 to 400km.

                The number of PU missiles to combat aerodynamic targets in the C-300V is less. And for carrying a long DB S-300P is more suitable. The replenishment of the BC at C-300B is still that smut. wassat

                However, from the air defense of the Ground Forces, some of the armed C-300В brigades were recently transferred to the Air Force-Air Defense, where they were converted into regiments of a two-division composition. But this is certainly not from a good life.
    3. Lekov L
      Lekov L 1 March 2016 14: 02 New
      +8
      Dear colleague, sergeyzzz!
      I ask you to pay attention to another problem.
      The radar support of the country's air defense system is called.
      The rocket factory is great.
      But the number of radar with full coverage, and in the right places with double triple overlapping detection zones is quite different. Under the Union, all this was done. And the air defense PTV complex could carry out and carried out tracking, target designation and targeting the necessary forces and means to airborne targets. ZR or aviation it was decided by operational duty officers.
      Even unscheduled flights "kukurnikov" happened to end in trouble for the relevant services of agricultural aviation.
      What I do not know now. I have not served for a long time, but I think not everything is "chocolate".
      Over-the-horizon radar is all very necessary and cool, but not sure for all the tasks to be solved.
      Respectfully..
      Former commander of the RVK TsU VPVO.
      1. Bongo
        1 March 2016 14: 05 New
        +4
        Quote: Lekov L
        Dear Colleague
        I ask you to pay attention to another problem.
        The radar support of the country's air defense system is called.
        The rocket factory is great.
        But the number of radar with full coverage, and in the right places with double triple overlapping detection zones is quite different. Under the Union, all this was done. And the air defense PTV complex could carry out and carried out tracking, target designation and targeting the necessary forces and means to airborne targets. ZR or aviation it was decided by operational duty officers.
        Even unscheduled flights "kukurnikov" happened to end in trouble for the relevant services of agricultural aviation.
        What I do not know now. I have not served for a long time, but I think not everything is "chocolate".
        Over-the-horizon radar is all very necessary and cool, but not sure for all the tasks to be solved.
        Respectfully..
        Former commander of the RVK TsU VPVO.

        You are right on 1000%. The radar field that was in the days of the USSR has long been gone crying
        1. andj61
          andj61 1 March 2016 14: 29 New
          +4
          Quote: Bongo
          The radar field that was in the days of the USSR has long been gone

          So in those days it was not just coverage of the territory, but multiple overlapping ... Yes, the principle of building an air defense system was territorial-object. Now - only the object, and even that number of "objects" has significantly decreased. Somehow I found information on the country's air defense forces for the 1990 year:
          1400 S-25 "Golden Eagle", in the process of replacing the S-300P
          2400 S-75 Dvina
          1000 S-125 Neva / Pechora
          1950 S-200 "Angara" / "Vega" / "Dubna".
          1700 S-300
          These are not the current 105 divisions at all ...
          1. Bongo
            1 March 2016 14: 36 New
            +5
            Quote: andj61
            So in those days it was not just coverage of the territory, but multiple overlapping ... Yes, the principle of building an air defense system was territorial-object. Now - only the object, and even that number of "objects" has significantly decreased. Somehow I found information on the country's air defense forces for the 1990 year:

            These data are not entirely reliable, apparently this is the total number of built PU. Yes, and judging by the number of PUs without taking into account CHP, ROC and RPN, it seems to me not quite correct. hi
            1. andj61
              andj61 1 March 2016 15: 00 New
              +3
              Quote: Bongo
              These data are not entirely reliable, apparently this is the total number of built PU. Yes, and judging by the number of PUs without taking into account CHP, ROC and RPN, it seems to me not quite correct.

              I agree. hi Yes, and something S-25 is a bit much for 1990. But anyway, this is not at times, but almost an order of magnitude more than now. And after all, all this worked and performed combat missions - albeit in smaller numbers.
  3. Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 1 March 2016 08: 14 New
    +2
    Regarding the S-300 air defense system in Kazakhstan. This is how our media write about it:
    In 2016, Kazakhstan will receive about 150 missiles from S-300PS anti-aircraft missile systems from Russia free of charge, MIA Kazinform reports.
    “In general, the Russian Federation provides support to us. Last year, we bought the latest SU-30 SM aircraft. We are still buying the latest BTR-82, and last year we received 300 anti-aircraft missile systems (S-5PS). This year it is planned to additionally receive about 150 missiles free of charge from the Russian Federation, ”O. Saparov said during a plenary meeting of the Senate of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
    Recall that the C-300PS anti-aircraft missile systems are considered one of the best air defense systems in the world.
    The complexes, the cost of each of which reaches 150 million dollars, went to Kazakhstan in the 2015 year from Russia free of charge.
    S-300PS is designed to destroy small low-flying targets. With the receipt of anti-aircraft missile systems, the air borders of Kazakhstan will be reliably protected from attack from any direction.
    Similar complexes are already protecting Astana, Almaty and Chimkent.

    In December last year, Russia completed the transfer to Kazakhstan of the S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) free of charge as part of the development of the Unified Regional Air Defense System of Kazakhstan and Russia.
    Below is a photo of S-300:
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 1 March 2016 09: 40 New
      +4
      Quote: Aleksandr72
      Recall that the C-300PS anti-aircraft missile systems are considered one of the best air defense systems in the world.
      The complexes, the cost of each of which reaches 150 million dollars, went to Kazakhstan in the 2015 year from Russia free of charge.

      Most likely, the C-300PS transferred to Kazakhstan have undergone a refurbishment, in any case, their age has already exceeded 25 years. But as you know - “they don’t look a gift horse in the mouth”.
  4. Yutas
    Yutas 1 March 2016 10: 11 New
    +6
    I always, as a missile in stock, was puzzled by the question of reload time. Not so long ago, an article here was about a global non-nuclear strike by the United States, and some speakers referred to the power of our S-300 and S-400. But, as already noted above, one launcher is guaranteed to destroy a maximum of 2 targets. And there can be hundreds and thousands. There is no time to recharge. So the assumption is not true in the crust that one S-400 can replace a certain amount of S-300. It is necessary to build up and build up, not only missiles, but also launchers. And solve the problem of reducing the recharge time.
    A trailed modification of the complex - I do not think is a minus, on the contrary. The tractor was knocked out, broke - another picked up. Cheaper. Easier. More quickly.
    1. padded jacket
      padded jacket 1 March 2016 11: 29 New
      +6
      Quote: article
      Based on the ZRS family of the C-300P family, Iran is developing its own long-range anti-aircraft system, Bavar -373. Separate elements of the Iranian anti-aircraft system were demonstrated on 18 on April 2015 of the year during the military parade in Tehran.

      Iran began developing its Bavar 373 air defense system after our country imposed an embargo on deliveries to Tehran of the S-300 air defense system already partially paid for by it. And although the complex has already been shown at the next parade and was used during the exercises, it is still being finalized and has clearly not taken its final form, which is just the torment of the Iranians with its chassis, the first of which was too "short" for the missiles of this air defense system.
      The initial appearance of the Bavar 373 air defense system

      The second prototype chassis under the Bavar 373 air defense system called Zoljanah

      The third prototype chassis of the Bavar 373 air defense system and apparently the final Zafar

      According to many sources, in connection with the order of Vladimir Putin, complexes of the S-300PMU-2 type will be delivered to Iran and Iran will have no rush in creating its Bavar 373 air defense system, but work on it will definitely continue as Tehran seeks self-sufficiency of its armed forces by all types of equipment.
      The cost of two regimental sets of S-300PMU-2 will be more than $ 1 billion
      "The delivery process for the first S-300PMU-2 regiment is planned to begin in January and be completed in February next year. Iran should receive the second regiment of these systems in August-September 2016," the agency’s source said.
      Each kit includes a regiment command post and two divisions with four launchers in each. The cost of two regimental sets of S-300PMU-2 will be more than $ 1 billion.
      In addition, the source noted, about 80 Iranian specialists will be trained to operate the systems in training centers in Russia. "About 80 Iranian military experts will begin training in January 2016 on the operation of the S-300PMU-2 at the training centers of the Mozhaisky Academy. The duration of the training will be about four months. Its cost is included in the contract. Upon completion of training, Iranians, presumably in in May, they’ll return to their homeland, "the source said.
      http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2556623
      1. padded jacket
        padded jacket 1 March 2016 11: 45 New
        +4
        About the KN-06 air defense system from the DPRK, even less is known; there is only his photo from the parades.
        PU SAM KN-06

        Radar SAM KN-06

        Fuzzy photo of the KN-06 air defense radar from a video of one of the exercises of the DPRK army

        Kim Jong-un presumably at PU SAM KN-06

        One of the assumptions about this air defense system - KN-06 - is a local copy of the Russian two-digit air defense system S-300. Its firing range is estimated at 150 km, a system mounted on the chassis of a KAMAZ truck.
        1. Falcon
          Falcon 1 March 2016 14: 48 New
          +5
          Quote: quilted jacket
          About the KN-06 air defense system from the DPRK, even less is known; there is only his photo from the parades.
          PU SAM KN-06


          I’m interested in KAMAZ supplying the chassis there, or is it also a copy? It is strange that not on the Chinese chassis.

          By the way, an important point is compactness. The KAMAZ chassis is much more mobile than the Baz or MAZ. The width does not go beyond acceptable aisles for public roads.
          1. padded jacket
            padded jacket 1 March 2016 18: 11 New
            +5
            Quote: Falcon
            I’m interested in KAMAZ supplying the chassis there, or is it also a copy? It is strange that not on the Chinese chassis.

            It is interesting to me too smile in any case, Russia delivered trucks and fire fighting equipment based on KAMAZ to the DPRK.
            By the way, the Koreans also released their "copy" OTR A point called KN-02, not on any Chinese, but on the MAZ-63171 chassis. Apparently, those who helped develop the DPRK used their chassis.

            Quote: Falcon
            By the way, an important point is compactness. The KAMAZ chassis is much more mobile than the Baz or MAZ. The width does not go beyond acceptable aisles for public roads.

            Yes, most likely this was done due to narrow roads, especially in rural areas. Apparently, therefore, there are only three missiles on the launcher and not four as on the S-300.
    2. Bongo
      1 March 2016 12: 57 New
      +4
      Quote: Yutas
      A trailed modification of the complex - I do not think is a minus, on the contrary. The tractor was knocked out, broke - another picked up. Cheaper. Easier. More quickly.

      Cheaper yes yes But neither easier nor faster no The main advantage of the C-300PS before the towed C-300ПТ was a multiple reduction in the deployment and folding time due to the transition to a self-propelled chassis, as well as the reduction of technical units in the composition of the main ship. Of course, when carrying out a database at prepared positions in peacetime, there is no special difference between cheaper towed and self-propelled launchers. But if it is necessary to escape from a retaliatory strike by aviation, the difference between these options in mobility and patency is very significant, which in the end can cause loss of equipment and death of personnel.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 1 March 2016 14: 13 New
        +2
        Quote: Bongo
        Cheaper, yes yes But neither easier nor faster

        I completely agree with your opinion. I remember, to change the position of the S-75 air defense system, the entire autorot of the regiment rose. I'm not talking about the S-200. When the S-200 arrived, cars were taken from the divisions during the transportation of the air defense system.
    3. user
      user 2 March 2016 09: 52 New
      0
      But, as already noted above, one launcher is guaranteed to destroy a maximum of 2 targets. And there can be hundreds and thousands.


      Only one country, and even then as part of the NATO bloc will be able to carry out such an attack. But in this case, the air defense will not play a fundamental role, missiles will be launched directly from the pier from the submarine, Topol and Yars will be shot from the place where they receive the signal of the attack, Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 will be lifted into the air, Yes, and the Perimeter system will have to be activated, because there will no longer be time to find out a nuclear strike.

      I think somewhere this will look like a reaction to such a development of events.
      1. Bongo
        2 March 2016 10: 03 New
        +4
        Quote: user
        Only one country, and even then as part of the NATO bloc will be able to carry out such an attack. But in this case, the air defense will not play a role, rockets will be launched right from the pier, Poplar and Yars will be fired from where the start signal hits them, Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22М3 will be lifted into the air, and the Perimeter system will have to to use, because there will no longer be time to find out a nuclear strike.

        I think somewhere this will look like a reaction to such a development of events.


        There may be many options for the development of events. And I’m not at all sure that our leadership will order a preventive nuclear strike against the United States. In addition, arguing this way, it is possible to agree to the point that in the presence of strategic missile forces, air defense forces are not needed at all. Moreover, then it seems strange that about half of all long-range anti-aircraft systems available in the European part of the country are deployed around Moscow.


        Layout of air defense systems around Moscow. Colored triangles and squares - positions and basing areas of existing air defense systems, blue rhombuses and circles - surveillance radars, white - currently eliminated air defense systems and radars
  5. tchoni
    tchoni 1 March 2016 11: 04 New
    +6
    With high fire performance, the C-300P and C-400 ZRS have an extremely low PU reload rate. In a real combat situation, a situation may arise when all the ammunition for the launchers will be spent. Even if there are spare missiles and transport-charging vehicles on the starting position, a lot of time is required to replenish the ammunition. Therefore, it is very important that the anti-aircraft systems mutually cover and complement each other.
    extremely important! Any serious air defense system should be integrated. It should include an aviation component in the form of fighter interceptors and DLRO aircraft. Low-altitude complexes of the same “shell” type, which should cover blind spots and provide cover for long-range complexes themselves at the time of their incapacity or in blind spots.
  6. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 1 March 2016 12: 05 New
    +6
    Adequate article.
    S-300 - an effective system designed to intercept high-altitude
    bombers and scouts.
    Perhaps the first time it is written that the S-300 is thoroughly studied.
    in the West.
    1. shans2
      shans2 1 March 2016 21: 14 New
      -3
      Yeah, the old modifications were not older than 1998, Israel did not have access to later ones .... for almost 20 years a lot of water has flowed, not to mention the fact that export modifications are very different, more strongly than many people think.
  7. engineer
    engineer 1 March 2016 12: 21 New
    +3
    Now they are striving to make complex air defense systems: the long-range air defense system enters. medium and short range. An example is the system in Syria as part of the S-400. beech and shell. although recharge time is a problem. and a serious raid will be massed using suppressants. false goals etc.
  8. Modest
    Modest 1 March 2016 13: 50 New
    -1
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: zyablik.olga
    Seryozha, whence they can be aware of this, is not told about this in the first channel.

    Of course they don’t say that you won’t raise the rating for such information. Olya, the funniest thing is that they shout the loudest: “Urya” and “we’ll tear everyone” are often people who not only were not on the firing position of the anti-aircraft missile battalion, but also did not serve in the army. But they are well versed in air defense problems. fool .

    so you, too, have no data given, how much is needed, the more the better, otherwise the boss has disappeared? "Mass deliveries of medium-range missiles 9M96 and long-range 40N6E" how many are the numbers in numbers?
    you even if every city like Moscow will be surrounded by air defense, all alone will not be enough for a fortuneteller))
    1. Bongo
      1 March 2016 13: 56 New
      +4
      Quote: Modest
      “Mass deliveries of medium-range missiles 9M96 and long-range 40Н6Е” how many are in numbers?

      You carefully read the publication, or just looked at the pictures:
      Mass deliveries of medium-range missiles 9M96 and long-range 40Н6Е, which allow the C-400 to reach its full potential in the troops, not yet.
      Those. in zrdn bearing their DB no In numbers, it’s 0 (zero).
  9. Modest
    Modest 1 March 2016 14: 07 New
    -1
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Modest
    “Mass deliveries of medium-range missiles 9M96 and long-range 40Н6Е” how many are in numbers?

    You carefully read the publication, or just looked at the pictures:
    Mass deliveries of medium-range missiles 9M96 and long-range 40Н6Е, which allow the C-400 to reach its full potential in the troops, not yet.
    Those. in zrdn bearing their DB no In numbers, it’s 0 (zero).

    where do you get such infa obs? and how many divisions do you need for you to sleep peacefully in the country "1700 PU"?
    some strange turns of speech, why is there a massive word in this sentence, since they are not being conducted at all?))
    1. Bongo
      1 March 2016 14: 13 New
      +4
      Quote: Modest
      where do you get such infa obs? and how many divisions do you need for you to sleep peacefully in the country "1700 PU"?
      some strange turns of speech, why is there a massive word in this sentence, since they are not being conducted at all?))

      This is open information posted on the website of the manufacturer of missiles. Amount of PU taken from Wikipedia (this is the total number of built) of ammunition is judged by amateurs.
      Quote: Modest
      some strange turns of speech, why is there a massive word in this sentence, since they are not being conducted at all?))

      Do you understand what a database and front-end systems are? This is exactly where these missiles are not delivered. A small-scale assembly for testing is currently underway.
  10. Modest
    Modest 1 March 2016 14: 31 New
    -3
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Modest
    where do you get such infa obs? and how many divisions do you need for you to sleep peacefully in the country "1700 PU"?
    some strange turns of speech, why is there a massive word in this sentence, since they are not being conducted at all?))

    This is open information posted on the website of the manufacturer of missiles. Amount of PU taken from Wikipedia (this is the total number of built) of ammunition is judged by amateurs.
    Quote: Modest
    some strange turns of speech, why is there a massive word in this sentence, since they are not being conducted at all?))

    Do you understand what a database and front-end systems are? This is exactly where these missiles are not delivered. A small-scale assembly for testing is currently underway.

    open information on the latest missiles, what, how much and where are they sent, en masse?)) and the wiki, but I believe the first channel more)
    they themselves write that in the event of even a global strike, the enemy will lose 70-80%, they will lose planes in essence, but we still have weak air defense))
    1. Bongo
      1 March 2016 14: 42 New
      +4
      Quote: Modest
      open information on the latest missiles, what, how much and where are they sent, en masse?)) and the wiki, but I believe the first channel more)

      And you are "not aware" that we now have all the defense enterprises joint-stock companies, which are legally obligated to publish data on the results of their activities. How do you forgive 48H6 in this respect from other missiles? And our officials, including those from the military, will never miss an opportunity to miss. And to whom to trust more, Channel One or Vika - this is your purely personal matter. hi
      1. shans2
        shans2 1 March 2016 21: 20 New
        -1
        the data is secret, only what is possible is published ... you don’t need to write nonsense, there is open data, and there is classified information, even budget items are classified, not like the number and name of specific missiles.
        1. Bongo
          2 March 2016 06: 23 New
          +5
          Quote: shans2
          the data is secret, only what is possible is published ... you don’t need to write nonsense, there is open data, and there is classified information, even budget items are classified, not like the number and name of specific missiles.

          Only R&D is secreted. It’s simply impossible differently now. I don’t know how this year, but in 2015 there were definitely no new missiles in significant volumes. We have more than 20 ZRD S-400 air defense missile systems on combat duty, all of them were built around 25. Please calculate how much is the total PU. We are talking about many hundreds of missiles. Do you really seriously believe that such volumes of missile construction and their supply to the troops can be hidden for a long time? Despite the fact that thousands of people participate in the production of rockets and carrying out a database, our officials never miss the opportunity to publicize on the positive news regarding the military-industrial complex.
  11. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 1 March 2016 16: 14 New
    +5
    Thank you for a detailed and meaningful analysis of the current situation in air defense. And how you don’t look / read, so everything is super-duper and the enemy will not pass. In the USSR there was a layered centralized system of air defense forces of the country, which in the 90 was completely destroyed, through the abolition of this type of troops and the transfer of their functions to army air defense, which have completely different tasks. I really hope that everything will return to normal and we will again have a layered system of "civilian" air defense.
  12. opus
    opus 1 March 2016 16: 55 New
    +4
    Quote: Author
    ZRS-300P in the XXI century

    A good air defense system will last a long time.







    potential for modernization, there is still
  13. Modest
    Modest 1 March 2016 17: 16 New
    -2
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Modest
    open information on the latest missiles, what, how much and where are they sent, en masse?)) and the wiki, but I believe the first channel more)

    And you are "not aware" that we now have all the defense enterprises joint-stock companies, which are legally obligated to publish data on the results of their activities. How do you forgive 48H6 in this respect from other missiles? And our officials, including those from the military, will never miss an opportunity to miss. And to whom to trust more, Channel One or Vika - this is your purely personal matter. hi

    this is serious by what kind of law should they disclose military secrets?))
    and ignore uncomfortable questions, so how much and what kind of country do you need to sleep peacefully? Well, except that as much as possible and as new as possible))
    and as an expert tell me how many axes, well, or planes with their likely losses, do you need to destroy, guaranteed, the S300 division?
  14. jonht
    jonht 2 March 2016 00: 05 New
    +2
    The article is good, but in places the author jumps from one to another, the impression is that I wanted to say a lot about it at once ... Good luck to the author, and less hurry with the processing of materials. ;-)
  15. Rielt
    Rielt 2 March 2016 00: 34 New
    0
    The article is good, but the author’s knowledge of the air defense systems was surprised. Referring S-75, C-125, S-200 and their various modifications to the first generation (absurdity). What can the S-300 not be included there as well? As for the transfer of advanced weapons, this is really a difficult choice for defense industry and the leadership .. it's a pity to sell, but old models are not needed by anyone and will not create competition in the market. It’s another matter that China only knows what to copy (that’s why no one sells to them or doesn’t like to sell anything), but apparently they decided to do this for political reasons. Hope is only necessary that on a contractual basis they will somehow regulate from copying technologies to impudent, so that it does not work out like with the S-300.
    1. Bongo
      2 March 2016 06: 33 New
      +5
      Quote: Rielt
      The article is good, but the author’s knowledge of the air defense systems was surprised. Referring C-75, C-125, C-200 and their various modifications to the first generation (absurdity). Why should not C-300 be attributed there too ..

      From Dmitry, that in C-300P fundamentally different methods were used for pointing missiles, the transition to a mobile chassis, solid fuel rockets, solid-state element base was made. Unlike C-200, C-125 and C-75, multichannel targeting and the possibility of all-round target firing are introduced.
  16. Modest
    Modest 2 March 2016 12: 14 New
    -4
    Quote: jonht
    The article is good, but in places the author jumps from one to another, the impression is that I wanted to say a lot about it at once ... Good luck to the author, and less hurry with the processing of materials. ;-)

    because I collected all Murzilki on the Internet))
    and yes http://geimint.blogspot.ru/2008/06/worldwide-sam-site-overview.html the link doesn’t lead anywhere and the rest of the materials are erased from it "The S-300P: A Detailed Analysis
    REMOVED PENDING PDF CONVERSION "based on the article was written?))
    even though I remember this “analyst” he painted all the circles of our air defense there, so he kind of admired
    1. Bongo
      2 March 2016 12: 20 New
      +4
      Quote: Modest
      because I collected all Murzilki on the Internet))

      Really? stop
      Quote: Modest
      yes http://geimint.blogspot.ru/2008/06/worldwide-sam-site-overview.html the link doesn’t lead anywhere and the rest of his materials are erased "The S-300P: A Detailed Analysis
      REMOVED PENDING PDF CONVERSION "based on the article was written?))

      Wipe your eyes or does your Google translator not work? What is common in my publication with the blog of Sean O. Conor besides the mentioned SAMs? fool
  17. Modest
    Modest 2 March 2016 13: 21 New
    -2
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Modest
    because I collected all Murzilki on the Internet))

    Really? stop
    Quote: Modest
    yes http://geimint.blogspot.ru/2008/06/worldwide-sam-site-overview.html the link doesn’t lead anywhere and the rest of his materials are erased "The S-300P: A Detailed Analysis
    REMOVED PENDING PDF CONVERSION "based on the article was written?))

    Wipe your eyes or does your Google translator not work? What is common in my publication with the blog of Sean O. Conor besides the mentioned SAMs? fool

    I wrote this?))
    Based on:
    http://pvo.guns.ru/s75/s75.htm
    http://geimint.blogspot.ru/2008/06/worldwide-sam-site-overview.html
    http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2010-02-19/1_diagnoz.html
    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/257111.html
    http://www.china-defense.com
    1. Bongo
      2 March 2016 13: 51 New
      +3
      Quote: Modest
      I wrote this?))
      Based on:
      http://pvo.guns.ru/s75/s75.htm
      http://geimint.blogspot.ru/2008/06/worldwide-sam-site-overview.html
      http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2010-02-19/1_diagnoz.html
      http://bmpd.livejournal.com/257111.html
      http://www.china-defense.com

      What's the problem? I repeat, you do not know how to use a Google translator?
      How to translate Home do not know?
  18. Modest
    Modest 2 March 2016 13: 59 New
    -2
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Modest
    I wrote this?))
    Based on:
    http://pvo.guns.ru/s75/s75.htm
    http://geimint.blogspot.ru/2008/06/worldwide-sam-site-overview.html
    http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2010-02-19/1_diagnoz.html
    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/257111.html
    http://www.china-defense.com

    What's the problem? I repeat, you do not know how to use a Google translator?

    I’ll repeat the link is not working, and those materials that you could use from him have been deleted, anestend?
    and, as far as I remember, he had more fun, with pictures of where he was standing, with approximate composition and armament, range
    so how much and what and where do we lack iron for air defense then?)) and what forces should NATO gather along the territory to break through at least the existing one?
    1. Bongo
      2 March 2016 14: 09 New
      +5
      Quote: Modest
      I’ll repeat the link is not working, and those materials that you could use from him have been deleted, anestend?

      Everything works for me, click Home (pictured)
      Quote: Modest
      and, as far as I remember, he had more fun, with pictures of where he was standing, with approximate composition and armament, range

      I don’t dare argue with you about this, I really like the blog of Sean O. Connor, but only KMZ files are used from there.
      Quote: Modest
      so how much and what and where do we lack iron for air defense then?)) and what forces should NATO gather along the territory to break through at least the existing one?


      And you look beyond the Urals, and in the European part, away from Moscow and St. Petersburg.
  19. The comment was deleted.
    1. Bongo
      3 March 2016 05: 20 New
      +5
      Quote: Modest
      The S-300P: A Detailed Analysis which has not been there for a long time, you didn’t write this article for the campaign, but re-post that analysis only without pictures)) it was interesting though, but its reliability was doubtful

      Well, of course, I didn’t write about C-75, C-125 and C-200 in the 21 century either fool This is your purely personal and unconfirmed opinion. negative
  20. The comment was deleted.
    1. Bongo
      3 March 2016 13: 44 New
      +5
      With great pleasure I would read your publication on the subject of air defense, and just talked, if you were more adequate. request But fate is not visible ... as they say in the East - "the dog barks, but the caravan goes" ... fortunately, most of the visitors to the site are quite sane. This series of publications starting with "C-75 in the 21 century" was read by a total of about 35000 people. Do you sincerely consider yourself smarter than all of them combined? All the best, I don’t see any sense in further communication. hi
  21. The comment was deleted.
    1. Bongo
      4 March 2016 01: 22 New
      +5

      You should at least for the sake of decency read the rules of the site. However, why do people like you have any rules? With complete inability to write something yourself, arrange a srach and do the pouring of mud around others, until the next ban ... negative