[HN Gopher] A detailed look at the S-300P anti-aircraft missile ...
___________________________________________________________________
A detailed look at the S-300P anti-aircraft missile system
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 79 points
Date : 2022-04-07 16:53 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ausairpower.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (ausairpower.net)
| pseudo0 wrote:
| This should probably have a (2012) added to the title, it's
| interesting but a bit dated. For example the criticism of
| Australia not buying F-22s, when the discussion the last few
| years has been all about F-35s.
| sbierwagen wrote:
| The Australians might _want_ to buy F-22s, but Congress banned
| exports. Much like the F-15, the previous air superiority
| fighter, for which external sales were very limited.
| wolf550e wrote:
| https://archive.is/0Iy1
| zby wrote:
| The link as it is currently leads me to a page containing garbled
| characters: "SPQUuaO=iu{h$?,oe??
| \y0-Uq=sso(tm)iyythlVuto++ix,,EYC/<<<<"(Yr>>Er(c)". When I add
| www. to the front of it I get the page about S300:
| http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html
| ruined wrote:
| not the case for me, via a couple different browsers, dns, and
| client locations. didn't try chrome.
| MisterTea wrote:
| Works out of the box on FF and netsurf on linux. Though netsurf
| on plan 9 needed the www prefix.
| Ourgon wrote:
| Same here, both with Firefox as well as when using _wget_. The
| downloaded data is not recognised by the _file_ command as
| anything other that _data_.
| zer0w1re wrote:
| Works fine for me on Firefox 99.0
| [deleted]
| PaulHoule wrote:
| It works fine w/ Firefox for me.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Seems like the battlefield has moved entirely into EWF whith
| these sorts of things around. Everything comes down to fast RFDSP
| in jammer pods to screw with their radar.
| boarnoah wrote:
| There is just something about large multi axle transport trucks,
| they look so cool.
| newsclues wrote:
| Those trucks are incredibly expensive
| PaulHoule wrote:
| When they shoot the missile they point those canisters up in
| the air. There is a cold gas system that ejects the missile up
| into the air, it then ignites, then it takes off in some
| direction like
|
| https://www.flickr.com/photos/ministryofdefenceua/3189460316...
|
| if the engine doesn't ignite then the missile falls back down
| on the launcher, resulting in this genre of Youtube video
|
| https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=S-300+FAIL
|
| Sometimes the fuse goes off when the missile hits the launcher
| and usually blows up the other missiles in the launcher. Other
| times the fuse doesn't go off but then you've got an awful
| unexploded ordinance problem. (Who knows when it will go off?)
| reneherse wrote:
| Great videos! But the launches all seem "normal" to me.
| snypher wrote:
| https://youtu.be/dKG9HGPjMrg https://youtu.be/cikuNhTjCe8
|
| The missile should continue up not fall back down.
| krisoft wrote:
| I would love to understand the circumstances of the
| second video (the one on the Commandos455 channel).
|
| Not the technical failure, that is clear enough but the
| role and reaction of the crowd the camera is in. They
| seem to be wearing green fatigues so one would think they
| are soldiers... but they are all so unorganised? I
| understand that when a missile falls back one would swear
| or shout as an involuntary reaction, but they seem more
| like a partying higschool group than professionals at
| work.
|
| The cherry on top is the redheaded girl who seems to have
| started to leave without her coat and someone brings it
| after her. Sadly I don't speak the language.
|
| I'm wondering is this maybe a high school group on a
| military themed day trip? Or I'm just massively
| overestimating the professionalism of soldiers? I would
| be curious if anyone has any insight into that video.
| jrumbut wrote:
| Is there a particularly high failure rate with these missiles
| or is this a widespread problem in systems where the engine
| ignites after launch?
|
| What do they do after? Is the site repaired? Scrapped?
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Most accounts are that those failures are "rare"; the
| missile is sealed in a canister so it's likely to be a
| defective missile from the factory, not some mistake on the
| part of the operators.
|
| It happens enough that there are a handful of videos on
| Youtube. Similar failures happen with vertically launched
| missiles from ships
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydsm1uzkNu4
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| In Soviet Russia, S-300 launches you!
| cwillu wrote:
| In America, microwave oven cook food. In Russia, it only a
| little different: microwave radar cook YOU!
| boarnoah wrote:
| Heard (anecdotally on reddit) that its one of the advantages
| of having hot launch VLS as opposed to cold launch like the
| Russian style.
|
| That way if there is a failure to launch its contained inside
| the VLS cell instead of potentially covering the decks in
| missile components.
|
| Although I suppose a cold launch has a good chance of
| throwing a failed missile off the deck and into the sea if
| its at any angle.
| p_l wrote:
| Soviet cold-launch approach was to increase the chances
| that a failed missile would fall to the side instead of
| exploding the launcher, which is why _naval_ soviet-style
| launchers are angled - a failure to launch will drop into
| water.
| aftbit wrote:
| >For instance the JSF's forward sector stealth is likely to be
| adequate, but its aft and beam sector stealth performance will
| not be, especially considering the wavelengths of many of the
| radars in question
|
| I was under the impression that the JSF was overall stealthier
| than the Raptor. Searching for more details on Google has led me
| down quite the delicious rabbit hole of Quora posts filled with
| wild speculation and half-sourced rumors. Here[1] is one of the
| better ones.
|
| 1: https://www.quora.com/Does-the-F-35-have-a-lower-RCS-than-
| th...
| lnsru wrote:
| As an electrical engineer I am curious how russians get their
| hands on the mil spec Western electronic components. I mean even
| in Western Europe I must fill few forms to obtain potentially
| dual use components. Mil spec Xilinx FPGAs or SiGe transistors
| aren't available in every grocery store.
| jleahy wrote:
| These are reflectarray radars, not AESA. No crazy specialist
| components are really required, just a lot of PIN diodes. I'm
| sure those can be made in Russia.
| nimbius wrote:
| not sure where the proclivity to underestimate Russian
| military technology comes from. it certainly was a sterling
| hallmark of US leadership at the time of the cold war.
|
| Russia has been making in-house AESA for a decade. they
| started with APAR radar in 1963, just a few years off from
| the US.
|
| http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Zhuk-AE-Analysis.html
|
| they also sell the only radar capable of (on the open market)
| detecting hypersonics, the 59N6-TE mobile radar.
| swamp40 wrote:
| > not sure where the proclivity to underestimate Russian
| military technology comes from
|
| They've been turned into bumbling idiots on Twitter and
| Reddit. It's a shame, but in my mind it is quite dangerous
| because sooner or later some president/general is going to
| make a _very_ bad decision based on that meme. "How could
| their nukes possibly work?"
| jacquesm wrote:
| How useful is it to be able to detect a hypersonic missile?
| frogger8 wrote:
| Russia has a network to get around this. Sort of like the show
| the Americans but not as sexy and less photogenic players.
| newsclues wrote:
| China?
|
| I think China makes Russian AD built under license, so from the
| local Chinese suppliers.
| notch656a wrote:
| Take a look how easily highly illegal drugs are smuggled in
| large quantity, and then ponder how easy it is for civilians to
| acquire Xilinx FPGAs in the West regardless of forms. Then
| ponder that .ru may be using industrial spec instead of mil
| spec : life-critical isn't so important to russia.
| rasz wrote:
| You can buy it over the counter at the SEG.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbrus_(computer)
| PeterisP wrote:
| Elbrus chips were manufactured in Taiwan TSMC before the war
| and it has been stopped now due to the war, Russia has no
| domestic capability to manufacture them.
| lnsru wrote:
| Probably possible to order one of these using automotive
| process in some foundry in Asia. Nobody will ask too much and
| it would be enough power for defense applications.
| wikidani wrote:
| They did have some degree of connection with France up until
| 2014 so maybe they might have gotten some from there. Also,
| sanction busting is a thing and the FSB probably has some way
| to get some components in a shady manner
| throwaway4good wrote:
| Do they use mil spec Western electronic components? I thought
| they made their own.
| verisimi wrote:
| Is this the weaponry that the US are giving to the Ukraine?
| T-A wrote:
| Not exactly. Ukraine already has S-300s, and Slovakia is
| supposedly sending (or already sent) more:
|
| https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2022/03/30/will-slovaki...
|
| The US does not have any, as far as I know.
| ls612 wrote:
| The CIA actually did "acquire" some in the late Cold War
| which were recently revealed to have been shipped over to
| Poland for 'unspecified' purposes.
| verisimi wrote:
| Yes - part of the $300 lethal aid package.
|
| "Lethal Aid".. hmmm
|
| https://anti-empire.com/us-is-transferring-large-suicide-dro...
| Animats wrote:
| It's interesting that there's a ground-mobile Russian successor
| to the AEGIS SPY-1 radar, the 64N6E. The SPY-1 is a very good
| radar, but it first came out in 1973. It requires a huge amount
| of support electronics, restricting its use to larger ships.
| There have been successor US systems, but none good enough to
| replace it. Squeezing that down to truck size is real progress.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| How do I square this supposed prowess with the Ukrainian Air
| Force still operating? Even worse, drone footage (so flying
| things) of S-300 being destroyed? Or indeed NATO or Israel
| regularly making mincemeat out of Soviet-equipped opponents?
|
| I'm not denying Russians can achieve technological brilliance,
| often bypassing budgetary constraints in novel ways, equally
| their military technology seems to regularly come up top trumps
| on paper and not in the battlefield.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Logistics, training, discipline, and morale/motivation are
| factors that often get treated as secondary to technology, but
| in most battlefield scenarios they are a big deal, and Russia
| has big problems with all of them.
| 323 wrote:
| Maybe they are just not running them?
|
| There are a lot of military experts saying that they see
| baffling examples of incompetence from the Russian army in this
| war, failing at really basic stuff.
|
| I'm no military expert, but I've seen Russian infantry videos
| where they are basically running around like headless chickens
| as the saying goes, like they received no training at all.
| stochtastic wrote:
| I'll refrain from picking a side, but Air Power Australia and
| the credibility of its proprietor Carlo Kopp are...
| controversial [1,2]. He has extensive knowledge of many of the
| relevant topics, but is viewed as having an axe to grind about
| particular systems as they pertain to Australian procurement
| decisions. Russian SAMs have always been shrouded in a huge
| amount of marketing mystery. While they are obviously capable
| and advanced systems, evidence continues to accumulate that
| some of the magic is smoke and mirrors.
|
| I read this article with great interest over technical details,
| but stop short of accepting conclusions along the lines of
| "Flap Lid is comparable to SPY-1". Only the folks who train and
| operate against those systems in the real world really know if
| that's true, and it's one of the things we are least likely to
| have accurate information about in the public domain.
|
| [1]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/1vj7r6/is_...
|
| [2] https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27190&
| nl wrote:
| I thought this was a good piece about the success of Turkish
| drones vs the Russian Pantsir AA system in Libya was pretty
| good. It goes pretty deep into the tactics used.
|
| https://www.mideastcenter.org/post/how-did-turkish-uavs-outm...
| recuter wrote:
| Israel has a deconflicting mechanism with Russia in Syria as
| does the US and Turkey but it is very true that it could more
| or less do whatever it wants. Because it is the IAF.
|
| The Ukrainian Air Force is still operating mostly because the
| Russian one is somewhat MIA. Possible/Partial explanation for
| their bad performance is corruption. Another one is much more
| alarming and that is that the Russian strategy does not require
| air superiority.
|
| Either way it is not relevant to the S-300 which is deployed
| within the borders of Russia as it is a defensive system.
|
| What you want to read about instead is the Krasukha:
|
| https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44879/ukraine-just-cap...
| trhway wrote:
| >the Russian one is somewhat MIA
|
| it is a bit unclear why, yet Russia has been using much more
| expensive Su-30/35 fighters and Su-34 bombers for close air
| support instead of more traditional/suitable/cheap Su-25. As
| close air support naturally loses a lot of planes to MANPADS
| and air-defense guns, especially considering that Su-30/35/34
| aren't armored like Su-25, Russia has lost a lot of those
| Su-30/35/34. As a result of those losses Russia has
| significantly scaled back the close air support and decreased
| air superiority missions.
| albertopv wrote:
| AFAIK Russia didn't get air supremacy in Ukraine, not easily at
| least, which is strange given all S-300 and S-400 and now S-500
| Russia has.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Ukraine has S-300, Buk, Tor and other Soviet-era anti aircraft
| missile systems, those are dangerous to Russian air assets.
| (Many of the USSR's most famous weapon systems were built in
| Ukraine, the Ukraine has pretty much the same tanks, missiles,
| etc. as Russia -- that is why Russia has to paint a Z on their
| vehicles otherwise they couldn't tell them apart.)
|
| The S-400 is an improved version of the S-300, they upgraded
| all the parts (radar, missile, launcher) but it is the same
| architecture (which is basically the same as the US Patriot but
| in most respects better)
|
| The S-500 has insane range, can hit low earth orbit satellites
| and more relevant it can hit this kind of aircraft hundreds of
| miles away
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-3_Sentry
|
| An aircraft like that can light up the battlefield with radar
| from far away and let stealth aircraft operate close to the
| enemy without switching their own radar.
|
| Anyhow, Russians don't believe in "air superiority" (control
| the airspace with their own plane) but instead they have anti-
| aircraft missiles to defend the anti-aircraft missiles that
| defend their anti-aircraft missiles. They might not control the
| battlespace completely but it will be a dangerous place to fly.
| redisman wrote:
| They even shot a Su-35 with apparently a stinger. I guess it
| was flying very low
| littlestymaar wrote:
| "Big" air defense system are good to destroy targets at
| middle or high altitude. Since both sides have such
| systems, the only "safe" place to fly is very low altitude
| (below 500 feet, or 150m) where you're practically hidden
| from air defenses' radar, but you end up being in the range
| of MANPADS (though shooting at a fighter jet with a MANPADS
| is way harder than doing the same on an helicopter)
| troyvit wrote:
| This article confirms what you say (at least from this source):
| https://coffeeordie.com/ukrainian-mig-29-pilot-interview/
|
| It's a good read about how Ukrainian pilots worked to foil
| Russian anti-aircraft measures.
| rhino369 wrote:
| That's because Ukraine operates s300 too. Neither side can
| operate high altitude flights.
| pintxo wrote:
| A SAM system is quite vulnerable while being transported or
| setup. I guess they did not properly stage their SAM units? Set
| up the first on on your site of the border, then one within the
| shield of the first, then the third within the shield of the
| second?
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| SAMs also require ground support or they get overrun,
| captured, and potentially used against your own aircraft. I'm
| guessing this was a consideration for Ukraine's placement of
| air defenses.
|
| Many things in the military are rock-paper-scissors
| considerations:
|
| - SAMs beat planes.
|
| - Planes beat ground forces.
|
| - Ground forces beat SAMs.
|
| Within the ground forces themselves:
|
| - Infantry beats tanks.
|
| - Tanks beat artillery.
|
| - Artillery beats infantry.
|
| Examples of this kind abound.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > Many things in the military are rock-paper-scissors
| considerations
|
| Hence the importance of combined arms operations. Sending a
| column of tanks on its own is just a case of
| scissors...scissors...scissors. Pre-operational training is
| also essential. It's too late, in contact, for infantry to
| figure out how to fight alongside tanks.
|
| Lots of armies seem to discover this the hard way in a war,
| adapt their tactics accordingly, only to forget it in time
| for the next war. Incidentally, this also explains the
| western Battlegroup concept. It's the smallest integrated
| unit with a sensible mix of different arms, usually
| structured around an infantry or armour battalion depending
| on the circumstances.
| JamesBarney wrote:
| They don't have air supremacy, and even air superiority is iffy
| and region dependent.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| No amount of SAM system can gain air supremacy alone: such
| systems are pretty much useless against planes flying very low
| (below 500 feet, or 150m) just because the plane is hidden by
| the terrain.
|
| To get air supremacy, you need to have planes flying in the
| enemy's sky, but to do so you need to destroy the enemy's own
| air defence, with what is called a SEAD campaign (which stands
| for "Supression of Ennemy Air Defense") and from what is
| happening in Ukraine it's pretty clear that the VKS doesn't
| know how to do SEAD (pretty much like the US in the Vietnam
| war, where they've learned the hard way).
| wikidani wrote:
| The ukrainians have rather skillfully denied their airspace to
| the russians using their own AD assets and as a consequence of
| russian doctrine, they aren't too prepared to deal with SEAD
| missions so we get this weird situation where both sides deny
| airspace to each other
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-07 23:01 UTC)