Russkie S-400 in Syria have less-uber missiles than suspected?

[Shroom Man 777]

It's from War is Boring (and National Interest) so it might mean anything?

I summon Sea Skimmers!

When Moscow deployed one of its advanced S-400 surface-to-air missile system to Syria following the shoot down of a Russian Su-24 strike aircraft by a Turkish F-16 in late November 2015, both Russian and Western media sources were quick to note that the system is capable of engaging targets at ranges of up to 400 kilometers thanks to a new long-range missile known as the 40N6.

Similar assertions were made following subsequent deployments of S-400 systems to Kaliningrad and Crimea. Yet, more than a year after the deployment to Syria, there is little evidence to suggest that the 40N6 is in fact operational.

Much of the confusion on whether the 40N6 has been fielded with the S-400 system has to do with another advanced Russian SAM system — known as the S-300V4 — which Russian troops began receiving in late 2014.

In March 2015, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that a new unspecified 400 kilometer-range missile intended for use with the S-300V4 had entered service with Russia’s military, leading a number of Russian media sources to assume that the missile in question is the 40N6.

These assumptions, however, proved wrong.

The following month, a Russian defense source told Russia’s TASS news agency that a new long-range missile for the S-400 system was scheduled to complete state trials in May-June of the same year. The source further noted that “the range of the new missile is the same as that of the recently adopted missile for the S-300V4 army air defense system,” but possess superior characteristics.

Although the Defense Ministry source did not name the S-400 system’s new missile, the above statement was a clear reference to the 40N6. In fact, hints that the S-300V4 and the S-400 would utilize different missiles with similar ranges emerged following a February 2015 article in the authoritative Russian-language aerospace journal Vozdushno-Kosmicheskaya Oborona in which its authors mentioned a new long-range missile for the S-300V4 known as the 9M82MV.

According to the article, the 9M82MV was successfully tested in 2004 and 2006, and is capable of intercepting targets at up to 350 kilometers away.
Final confirmation that the 40N6 is different from the missile utilized in the S-300V4 system came in September 2016 when a representative of the Almaz-Antey Concern — the primary manufacturer of the S-300V4 — told reporters that the S-300V4 will utilize a new 400 kilometer-range missile known as the 9M82MD.

Unlike the 40N6 which is developed by the Fakel Machine-building Design Bureau, the 9M82MD is developed by the Novator Design Bureau, meaning that this missile is clearly not the 40N6.

Further evidence for the absence of the 40N6 in Russian SAM units can be found in images of S-400 systems deployed in Syria and elsewhere.
A quick online search of the S-400 system’s transporter-erector-launchers reveals images in which they are visible only in its “typical” configuration — that is with four paired missile container-launchers.

Given that the S-400’s 48N6DM/48N6E3 missiles, which have a claimed maximum operational range of 250 kilometers, occupy the entire length of the container-launcher, it is quite possible that the longer-ranged — and presumably bigger — 40N6 requires a larger container-launcher.

This means a single TEL may only be able to carry two such missiles.

Indeed, the S-300V4 system’s TELs that transport the large 200 kilometer-range 9M82M and 400 kilometer-range 9M82MD missiles are fitted with just two large container-launchers per vehicle. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that the new missile is not yet operational.

[Adam Reynolds]

While I don't know much about the specifics of the S-400 series of missiles, based on the Standard missile series used by the US Navy, a longer ranged missile doesn't necessarily have to be that much bigger. The SM-6 has a much greater range than the SM-2, but uses largely the same casing as it has to fit inside the same launch slot.

[Patroklos]

While I don't know much about the specifics of the S-400 series of missiles, based on the Standard missile series used by the US Navy, a longer ranged missile doesn't necessarily have to be that much bigger. The SM-6 has a much greater range than the SM-2, but uses largely the same casing as it has to fit inside the same launch slot.

None of the SM sereies are sized the same. SM-2MR is 15ft long, SM-2ER is 26ft, SM-6is 21ft. The two latter get most of their increased length from the added booster stage. The reason the SM-6 outranfes the SM-2ER so much is that it is using the booster stage from the SM-3 which is just a much more advanced booster (benefitting from three more decades of tech advancement and ABM research dollars). It should be noted the diameter of these missiles is sugnificantlt different too. SM-6 just looks like the other because they basically copied the proven arodynamics of the older ones, it's a new design from the ground up.

The VLS cells of US mk41 launchers are strike length to accommodate tomahawks, I don't think they are a limiting factor.

[Beowulf]

While I don't know much about the specifics of the S-400 series of missiles, based on the Standard missile series used by the US Navy, a longer ranged missile doesn't necessarily have to be that much bigger. The SM-6 has a much greater range than the SM-2, but uses largely the same casing as it has to fit inside the same launch slot.

None of the SM sereies are sized the same. SM-2MR is 15ft long, SM-2ER is 26ft, SM-6is 21ft. The two latter get most of their increased length from the added booster stage. The reason the SM-6 outranfes the SM-2ER so much is that it is using the booster stage from the SM-3 which is just a much more advanced booster (benefitting from three more decades of tech advancement and ABM research dollars). It should be noted the diameter of these missiles is sugnificantlt different too. SM-6 just looks like the other because they basically copied the proven arodynamics of the older ones, it's a new design from the ground up.

The VLS cells of US mk41 launchers are strike length to accommodate tomahawks, I don't think they are a limiting factor.

SM-2ER/3/6 are all the same length: 21ft 6in. This is set by the length of tactical length VLS. Even though all US mk41 are strike length, I believe the Standard Missiles are designed for tactical length, in case of foreign sales. Ex: Kongo-class destroyers don't carry Tomahawks, so they might have tactical length cells (Wild speculation there though). And so, even though SM-3 probably would have benefited from the extra length, JSDF requirements put a kibosh on making it longer. I think SM-2ER BlkIV and SM-6 have the same listed range, but because SM-2 is SARH, while SM-6 is ARH, the effective range of SM-6 could be longer, because it can hit targets over the radar horizon, and/or with remote cueing. Careful: SM-2ER BlkIII and earlier are longer, because they have different form factor boosters. BlkIV is designed for VLS ships, and BlkIII and earlier are designed for the old swing arm launchers.

[Sea Skimmer]

SM-3 Block 1 is a modified SM-2ER. What they did is same detaching booster, same main motor, but the large high explosive warhead section of the SM-2 is now a third stage booster. The guidance section meanwhile transitions from being 1980s semi active radar to a complete self contained HTK vehicle with its own reaction jet propulsion system, functionally a forth kamakazi stage. Guidance is by thermal imaging camera and SM-3 is incapable of operating in a significant atmosphere, at all.

The incoming SM-3 Block 2A meanwhile is an entirely new missile using the full caliber of the silo like Tomahawk. But it is not functionally better then a SM-3 Block 1 against short range ballistic missiles, say 600km, because the booster stack will take too long to burn out. So both missiles will be produced and fielded together for some time.


SM-3 Block 2B meanwhile was another all new missile, requiring a larger 27in super version of Mk41 with only six silos, and its the only SM-3 ever mooted that could defend a large area against ICBM attacks from a single site. It got cancelled/suspended in 2013 ago because nobody was really convinced it could work, even if the USN accepted liquid fuel onboard ship. The original plan was only to field it in AEGIS ashore in Europe. Relatively basic work has existed on a 27in AEGIS missile since the early 1990s when all of these ideas spawned after the Gulf War.

The 27in six pack could potentially also involved some launcher extension out of the deck. That can't get far though before on say an DDG-51 hull you would have to loose the 5in gun and even that will not get far since the Mk45 mount was so lightweight to begin with. Velocity at least 5.5km/s with a high divert warhead. My bet is development hell will engage again because suddenly the US military remembered enemy PLANES exist too and that's going to pull a lot of money and interest.

Now this program is back from the dead in late 2016, and that decision had nothing to do with Trump. It would among other things become a basis to phase out the giant GBI missiles in Alaska. But who knows where this will go since no amount of Trump money can necessarily make it work, and the US may instead do a rush job on the THAAD-ER concept, finally, primarily to be a counter to hypersonic gliding vehicles.

***

A 1990s proposal for a full sized Tomahawk scale Standard anti aircraft weapon did exist, but such a weapon is so expensive its really just open to question if it makes any sense to buy it? Air breathing propulsion becomes attractive if you want a range of hundreds of miles. The missile would also seriously cost 10 million dollars, but compare that to the price of a Tu-160 you just shot down 700nm away right after it took off thanks to swarming drone spam detecting that.

***


As far as SM-6 goes, it's literally just a guidance section change to SM-2ER Block IV. Even the radar nosecone is still the same, its just the SARH guidance is replaced by An AMRAAM-C model guidance section given a larger antenna and a secondary SARH capability. For win most SM-6 test failures were caused by the off the shelf combat proven AMRAAM guidance section failing. But works now, and also against ships which I said it would work on 10 years ago.

SM-6 range is longer because SM-2ER could always fly much further, it just that against a missile threat your odds of locking on your damn SARH guidance at ranges much past 100-125nm start to get pretty slim. Meanwhile an enemy manned bomber can just fly under the radar horizon at that kind of range. My hand quick guide to estimating useful radar horizon says an enemy bomber at 16,000 feet is probably not detectable by a shipboard radar.

So why bother building a longer ranged missile with 1980s technology? Russia felt a bit differently with the S-200 series, but that uses HUGE illuminators and took a long time to field its extreme range variants. And they did have an awful lot of airliners and RC-135s they needed dead or scared off, though for the most part S-200 was used to wallpaper inner Russia, border deployments only came later because its absurdly vulnerable if attacked by tactical fighters. They are probably not going to miss bombing the SAM site the size and approximate mobility of a town.

The point of SM-2ER though was that while effective SARH range was tactically limited, making the missile more kinematic would mean it would reach maximum effective range faster and with much more energy thus increasing the kill probability considerably. Trajectory shaping was also very important to achieving this range and all forms of SAMs have steadily improved upon that since the earliest types like Nike.

The USN mooted extending SARH range by placing an illuminator on an aircraft, this was tested as SM-5 Mountain Top, successfully, but not proceeded with because it was actually going to cost more then SM-6 and just sort of silly at that point.

Since SM-6 has active homing an E-2D can now direct it against targets anywhere within its possible high altitude lob range, which some people estimate at about 200nm. Its probably going to have a hard time killing a fighter at that kind of distance but its nad it's going to arrive with no smoke trail.

BTW...that's ANOTHER reason with the F-35 is awesome and everything else is crap. DAS can spot that kind of zenith attack missile automatically, barring out of the sun. In fact it works way better detecting overhead threats then class 'rising up' SAM threats at short ranges. No thermal interference from the ground, cars ect.

As far as SM-6 goes the next major improvement is a new warhead, originally just to improve ABM performance int he terminal defense role but now that the SM-6 anti ship capability is canon they may also improve on that. In general both roles demand fewer larger fragments then is optimal for anti aircraft, so its not a bad pair of requirements. Reactive metal material might be used too, depending on penetration requirements. A Block II SM-6 for post 2020 is to have some new motor and guidance stuff but it seems like the requirements are still begin refined in large part while most attention is on ESSM Block 2.

[Sea Skimmer]

As far as 40N6 goes, I see no signs it's operational and S-400 should be S-300PMU3 for a reason. S-500 is a much more ambitious complex. The claim it was on S-300VM4 seems to have either been propaganda laced confusion, or some kind of false assumption. S-500 is using elements and evolutions of both PMU and VM technology, plus several new missiles. But for S-300V its just further evolutions of the existing missiles, hoenstly most of the extended range is probably just from improved fire control. Those missiles are fast as shit, they aren't falling out of the sky quickly. Mach 9.8 at sealevel I believe is how fast the big missile goes. Mach 5 is normally extremely fast for a SAM.

S-300V always had the better radars and missiles, and those missiles are two stage so they have a much easier time reaching extreme ranges. But again, it becomes a question of what your even going to be able to try to hit past the 300km range it could already do. Russia has not shown much signs of being able to implement anything like CEC for this system nor advertises it that I can recall. An S-400 complex can use several radars and feed tracks from other assets but it cannot remotely engage on them. It took the US a long time to work, and really the whole SM-6/E-2D complex to finally make CEC work the way the USN wanted is only a few years old.

40N6 is an evolution of what supposedly was a very early idea in the history of the S-300P series. While all long range SAMs flight at high altitude to gain range normally that's capped off at about 30,000m height, and aerodynamic control fins wont usefully function above about 40,000m. For S-300P series Russia does not wish to use two stage boosters because they'd be falling on houses and such, and with missiles this size that isn't crush your car kinds of impacts. Its actually going to smash houses to ruin. Two or more stages will also always just cost more. S-300V was to be in the first wave of victory so it could claim a higher consumption of resources. For the ABM role though staged missiles are nearly unavoidable unless they have very short ranges like PAC-3.

So getting the altitude higher for 40N6 instead requires making the SAM fly ballistic, an 80km ceiling having been mooted in the 1980s, but actual 40N6 performance goals might vary from that. Russia is trying to match programs the US spent 10 extra years perfecting while Russia had no money and it's not surprising that it's going slow. All their work from the early 1990s is meaningless now for the same reason you all bought new computers many times over since then.

The whole ballistic idea is something of a non starter against a tactical jet that had any kind of warning at all, but its not a bad way to take out an E-3 that strays within that 250nm perimeter. But worth remembering that the maximum E-3 radar range is 350nm, and JASSM-ER goes 500nm. Air weapon ranges are extremely long now, even glide weapons can do enough range to negate the SA-11 system.

So going back to that SARH issue, the reality would be that ranges much past say 150nm become less and less useful fairly rapidly unless you have some kind of airborne fire control network. This is why Russia designed those 9M96 series missiles in the first place, they aren't super huge but they make a lot more sense then a 40N6 does against a mass tactical air raid. The USN is making a bigger version of active ESSM that would be rather similar, so is Aster 30. These SAM systems are very expensive and will face very high cost attacks.

The firing signature of the S-300V is silly but you might not live long looking at it.
https://youtu.be/AOz7f182Pc4?t=176
https://youtu.be/AOz7f182Pc4?t=276

[Shroom Man 777]

What is the 9M96 series missile?

[Sea Skimmer]

http://obiekt.up.seesaa.net/image/9M96E_9M96E2.jpg[/img]

Background canister is the normal sized S-300P missiles, in this case a 48H6E2 missile with a range of about 200km introduced with the S-300PMU2 ground equipment in the late 1990s.

9M96 and 9M96E2 are the foreground missiles, smaller quad packed interceptors with active homing, also used by S-400 batteries alongside the bigger missiles, as well as the new smaller scaled S-350 system that only uses 9M96 series and will replace Buk SAM systems and the oldest versions of S-300 over time.

9M96 and 9M96E2 have the same guidance section but the latter missile simply has a bigger motor, going 120km instead of 40km. They greatly increase the ability of the systems to deal with large numbers of simultaneous threats, and physically transport the missiles ready to fire, since you can go in principle from 4 to 16 missiles on the same launcher, though its more typical for a launcher to have 3 big and 4 small missiles.

But while this missile project claimed to be operational by some sources in the early 2000s, rather strong indications are they actually only worked relatively recently. Russias attempts to restart abandon 1990s era programs have never gone that well, they've tended to get better results throwing out the old work and starting over because too much time passed and too many workers are gone.

Aster 15/30 is really similar overall.

In functional terms what these added smaller missiles really do is remove/reduce the need to also have the Buk series SAMs rolling around alongside the S-300 batteries to help handle saturation raids and low level attacks, though Russia is still fielding those systems because it wants as much gear as possible in the field and fielding any new system will take a long time because of their funding limitations. The reality is an environment in which a single F-16 can release 500nm range cruise missiles or a dozen anti tank glide bombs now systems like this aren't some super awesome air war winner, its more like what you bloody need badly! The ability of aircraft to locate and destroy ground target and SAM sites is way higher now then it was in the cold war, and the F-35 is another huge leap forward on that.

Fighters are better. The west would rather just build better fighters as much as it can get away with.

An active homing version of Buk family was offered BTW and it appears developed fairly extensive, but not fielded because it was kind of silly at that point, and the clean sheet 9M96 was just better. 9M96 is also going onto some Russian frigates. S-300V, Buk and Tor are all really expensive systems at a fundamental level, you just can't have that much radar and tracks and moving parts and armor plate and not end up expensive as shit. That's why S-300PMU series systems and Panstir get so much attention, and the bulk of the export sales.

Because active homing Buk wouldn't need illuminator radar on the launchers anymore it could carry more missiles too. But semi active guidance works better against capitalist jamming, so Russia also has some incentive not to field purely active homing radar missiles for its long-medium range air defenses. SM-6 for example retains the semi active option for this reason.

S-500 meanwhile....will also use 9M96, and like five other missiles, and sounds like its going to be more akin to a disassembled cruiser on land then any conventionally lame standard of aerospace defense complex. All it's missing is an Anti Terrorism Missile with a nuclear warhead for self defense against car bombs. While its never been claimed I would not be surprised if all S-300 series SAMs have ground attack modes; they all use command guidance for mid course at which point its not a big leap to do that, and the warheads are rather large at 150kg.