Russia is now offering Antei-2500 to Iran as a replacement for S-300PMU1

[vostok]

That's why Russia is aligning with China to fight against the western imperialist.

And i do appreciate Putin's determination to fight against the western imperialist, but does he still believe that the western capitalist is superior to communist's state-capitalist? He must realize it was the de-communization that has greatly weakened Russia.

Imagine if USSR has followed the same reform road as China did, then USA would be the one who collapsed.

The word freedom is just bogus, 100% freedom means an anarchist state, humans are evolved from animals, communism is necessary to suppress those harmful human animal instincts and brings more regulations to our society. It was the beaucratic corruption that every communist states need to fight against, but because of the existed beaucratic corruption to abandon the communist idea and to switch to the capitalist idea is completely wrong.

Putin is man of honor and he is an officer of KGB. I am sure, he still believe in communist ideals. Once i saw video - Putin flyes in helicopter in 2000 year and visit many ruined mighty soviet military plants and civil fabricks - he cryed. But he does not want to start enother socialistic revolution which take millions of lifes. He will do it carefully and gently - first he will return military power and then he will implant socialistic and patriotic elements in society and collect former Soviet republic into Eurasian Union. He is very, very smart and patriotic man. He can resist West and he will be.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Putin is man of honor and he is an officer of KGB. I am sure, he still believe in communist ideals. Once i saw video - Putin flyes in helicopter in 2000 year and visit many ruined mighty soviet military plants and civil fabricks - he cryed. But he does not want to start enother socialistic revolution which take millions of lifes. He will do it carefully and gently - first he will return military power and then he will implant socialistic and patriotic elements in society and collect former Soviet republic into Eurasian Union. He is very, very smart and patriotic man. He can resist West and he will be.

Keep the capitalist model at the civilian level, this can create more jobs and make the economy more competitive.

But as for the national defense and the strategic assets, it must remain nationalized, the capitalist privatization will ruin everything and turn the government into their puppet, USA is just a prime example.

Putin must bring down all Russian oligarchs and nationalize their illegal properties, meanwhile make the capitalist economy model for the civilian sector.

A strong communist party must rule as a single dominant party and control over the military, this will bring the stability, while the so-called 'democratic parties' are all puppets to the oligarchs.

 

[Penguin]

That's why Russia is aligning with China to fight against the western imperialist.

And i do appreciate Putin's determination to fight against the western imperialist, but does he still believe that the western capitalist is superior to communist's state-capitalist? He must realize it was the de-communization that has greatly weakened Russia.

Imagine if USSR has followed the same reform road as China did, then USA would be the one who collapsed.

The word freedom is just bogus, 100% freedom means an anarchist state, humans are evolved from animals, communism is necessary to suppress those harmful human animal instincts and brings more regulations to our society. It was the beaucratic corruption that every communist states need to fight against, but because of the existed beaucratic corruption to abandon the communist idea and to switch to the capitalist idea is completely wrong.

Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism is often considered a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics...

Anarchism and Marxism are similar political philosophies which emerged in the nineteenth century. While Anarchism and Marxism are both complex movements driven by internal conflict, as ideological movements their primary attention has been on human liberation achieved through political action.

Liberty is the value of individuals to have agency (control over their own actions). Different conceptions of liberty articulate the relationship of individuals to society in different ways— these conceptions relate to life under a social contract, existence in an imagined state of nature, and related to the active exercise of freedom and rights as essential to liberty. Understanding liberty involves how we imagine the individual's roles and responsibilities in society in relation to concepts of free will and determinism, which involves the larger domain of metaphysics.

Individualist and classical liberal conceptions of liberty typically consist of the freedom of individuals from outside compulsion or coercion, also known as negative liberty. This conception of liberty, which coincides with the libertarian point-of-view, suggests that people should, must, and ought to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions, while in contrast, Social liberal conceptions of (positive liberty) liberty place an emphasis upon social structure and agency and is therefore directed toward ensuring egalitarianism.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism is often considered a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics...

Anarchism and Marxism are similar political philosophies which emerged in the nineteenth century. While Anarchism and Marxism are both complex movements driven by internal conflict, as ideological movements their primary attention has been on human liberation achieved through political action.

Liberty is the value of individuals to have agency (control over their own actions). Different conceptions of liberty articulate the relationship of individuals to society in different ways— these conceptions relate to life under a social contract, existence in an imagined state of nature, and related to the active exercise of freedom and rights as essential to liberty. Understanding liberty involves how we imagine the individual's roles and responsibilities in society in relation to concepts of free will and determinism, which involves the larger domain of metaphysics.

Individualist and classical liberal conceptions of liberty typically consist of the freedom of individuals from outside compulsion or coercion, also known as negative liberty. This conception of liberty, which coincides with the libertarian point-of-view, suggests that people should, must, and ought to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions, while in contrast, Social liberal conceptions of (positive liberty) liberty place an emphasis upon social structure and agency and is therefore directed toward ensuring egalitarianism.

Well, we have completely different perspective, so it is useless trying to convince each other.

 

[mohsen]

back to topic.

Now I understand why back in 2007 our defense crew chose S-300PMU instead of S-300MV.
http://defensetechs.com/wp-content/uploads/catalogos/EN/Armament%20and%20Defense/air_def%201%20defensetechs.pdf

S-300VM (ANTEY-2500): ADMS continuous operation time, up to 48 hrs

and no wonder Russians decided to offer this sh!t after their previous shameful Tor-M1 offer.
because simply we can't use it as a constant AD system, unless we want to face heavy maintenance costs. so It's completely useless for our purpose cause we don't know when our enemy will attack us.
also can't engage cruise missiles, or any aircraft flying below 25m, so again useless against Americans.

this system is what this article calls it, Gladiator: Russian Don Quixote attacking Iranian Bavar.
گلادیاتور؛ دن کیشوت روسی برای حمله به «باور» ایرانی | mashreghnews.ir

 

[Penguin]

Well, we have completely different perspective, so it is useless trying to convince each other.

Those are not MY perspectives but how the terms you use are used by scholars in political science and philosophy.... not by propaganda officers.

 

[Penguin]

Just look at the map of Russian Federation - Yakut Repiblic, Chechen Republic and so on. And look at the map of USA. What? Where are Cherokee republic? Where are Mohegan republic? I do not see them. That is the difference - when some tribe or nation become a part of ancient Rus or Russian Impire or USSR - it had it's land. Nobiles and gentles of tribe or kingdom become nobiles and gentles of Russian. And people of tribes become patrials of Russian Tsar. 1150 years past and non-Russsian peoples lives now at thier land. Where are American Indians now? They have nothing. Anglosaxonians did castrate them till middle of 20 century. In Australia Ministry of Flora and Fauna took care of native people till 1940-years. Anglosaxonians thought they are animals.
BTH - dozens of tribes and kingdomes ask Wight Tsar (that was a medieval name of Russian tsars) to include their state to Russia.

Actually, the USA is a former colony. On July 4, 1776, the colonies declared independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain and became the United States of America.With large-scale military and financial support from France and military leadership by General George Washington, the Patriots won the Revolutionary War and peace came in 1783.When Thomas Jefferson became president he purchased the Louisiana Territory from France, doubling the size of American territorial holdings. A second and last war with Britain was fought in 1812. The main result of that war was the end of European support for Native American (Indian) attacks on western settlers.

New France was the area colonized by France from 1534 to 1763. There were few permanent settlers outside Quebec and Acadia, but the Wabanaki Confederacy became military allies of New France through the four French and Indian Wars with the British colonies who were allied with the Iroquois Confederacy. During the French and Indian War, New England fought successfully against Acadia and the British removed Acadians from Acadia (Nova Scotia) and replaced them with New England Planters. Eventually, some Acadians resettled in Louisiana, where they developed a distinctive rural Cajun culture that still exists. They became American citizens in 1803 with the Louisiana Purchase. Other French villages along the Mississippi and Illinois rivers were absorbed when the Americans started arriving after 1770.

The French and Indian War (1754–1763) was a watershed event in the political development of the colonies. The influence of the main rivals of the British Crown in the colonies and Canada, the French and North American Indians, was significantly reduced. Moreover, the war effort resulted in greater political integration of the colonies, as reflected in the Albany Congress and symbolized by Benjamin Franklin's call for the colonies to "Join or Die". Franklin was a man of many inventions—and his greatest invention was the concept of a United States of America, which emerged after 1765 and was realized in July 1776.
Following Britain's acquisition of French territory in North America, King George III issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763 with the goal of organizing the new North American empire and protecting the native Indians from colonial expansion into western lands. In ensuing years, strains developed in the relations between the colonists and the Crown. The British Parliament passed the Stamp Act of 1765, imposing a tax on the colonies without going through the colonial legislatures. The issue was drawn: did Parliament have this right to tax Americans who were not represented in it? Crying "No taxation without representation," the colonists refused to pay the taxes as tensions escalated in the late 1760s and early 1770s

War of 1812: Americans were increasingly angry at the British violation of American ships' neutral rights in order to hurt France, the impressment (seizure) of 10,000 American sailors needed by the Royal Navy to fight Napoleon, and British support for hostile Indians attacking American settlers in the Midwest. They may also have desired to annex all or part of British North America.[46][47][48][49][50]. Despite strong opposition from the Northeast, especially from Federalists who did not want to disrupt trade with Britain, Congress declared war in June 1812. The Americans under General William Henry Harrison finally gained naval control of Lake Erie and defeated the Indians under Tecumseh in Canada,[52] while Andrew Jackson ended the Indian threat in the Southeast. The Indian threat to expansion into the Midwest was permanently ended. The British invaded and occupied much of Maine.With Napoleon (apparently) gone, the causes of the war had evaporated and both sides agreed to a peace that left the prewar boundaries intact. Americans claimed victory in early 1815 as news came almost simultaneously of Jackson's victory of New Orleans and the peace treaty that left the prewar boundaries in place. Americans swelled with pride at success in the "second war of independence"; the naysayers of the antiwar Federalist Party were put to shame and it never recovered. The Indians were the big losers; they never gained the independent nationhood Britain had promised and no longer posed a serious threat as settlers poured into the Midwest.

So, you can blame the Brits and the French as much....

The latter half of the nineteenth century was marked by the United States' development and settlement of the West, first by wagon trains and then aided by the completion of the transcontinental railroad and frequent wars with Native Americans as settlers encroached on their traditional lands. Gradually the US purchased their lands and extinguished their claims, forcing most tribes onto restricted reservations. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1894),
The Indian wars under the government of the United States have been more than 40 in number. They have cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians

So, the comparison with Russia is lacking in sheer numbers...

 

[vostok]

Actually, the USA is a former colony. On July 4, 1776, the colonies declared independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain and became the United States of America.With large-scale military and financial support from France and military leadership by General George Washington, the Patriots won the Revolutionary War and peace came in 1783.When Thomas Jefferson became president he purchased the Louisiana Territory from France, doubling the size of American territorial holdings. A second and last war with Britain was fought in 1812. The main result of that war was the end of European support for Native American (Indian) attacks on western settlers.

New France was the area colonized by France from 1534 to 1763. There were few permanent settlers outside Quebec and Acadia, but the Wabanaki Confederacy became military allies of New France through the four French and Indian Wars with the British colonies who were allied with the Iroquois Confederacy. During the French and Indian War, New England fought successfully against Acadia and the British removed Acadians from Acadia (Nova Scotia) and replaced them with New England Planters. Eventually, some Acadians resettled in Louisiana, where they developed a distinctive rural Cajun culture that still exists. They became American citizens in 1803 with the Louisiana Purchase. Other French villages along the Mississippi and Illinois rivers were absorbed when the Americans started arriving after 1770.

The French and Indian War (1754–1763) was a watershed event in the political development of the colonies. The influence of the main rivals of the British Crown in the colonies and Canada, the French and North American Indians, was significantly reduced. Moreover, the war effort resulted in greater political integration of the colonies, as reflected in the Albany Congress and symbolized by Benjamin Franklin's call for the colonies to "Join or Die". Franklin was a man of many inventions—and his greatest invention was the concept of a United States of America, which emerged after 1765 and was realized in July 1776.
Following Britain's acquisition of French territory in North America, King George III issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763 with the goal of organizing the new North American empire and protecting the native Indians from colonial expansion into western lands. In ensuing years, strains developed in the relations between the colonists and the Crown. The British Parliament passed the Stamp Act of 1765, imposing a tax on the colonies without going through the colonial legislatures. The issue was drawn: did Parliament have this right to tax Americans who were not represented in it? Crying "No taxation without representation," the colonists refused to pay the taxes as tensions escalated in the late 1760s and early 1770s

War of 1812: Americans were increasingly angry at the British violation of American ships' neutral rights in order to hurt France, the impressment (seizure) of 10,000 American sailors needed by the Royal Navy to fight Napoleon, and British support for hostile Indians attacking American settlers in the Midwest. They may also have desired to annex all or part of British North America.[46][47][48][49][50]. Despite strong opposition from the Northeast, especially from Federalists who did not want to disrupt trade with Britain, Congress declared war in June 1812. The Americans under General William Henry Harrison finally gained naval control of Lake Erie and defeated the Indians under Tecumseh in Canada,[52] while Andrew Jackson ended the Indian threat in the Southeast. The Indian threat to expansion into the Midwest was permanently ended. The British invaded and occupied much of Maine.With Napoleon (apparently) gone, the causes of the war had evaporated and both sides agreed to a peace that left the prewar boundaries intact. Americans claimed victory in early 1815 as news came almost simultaneously of Jackson's victory of New Orleans and the peace treaty that left the prewar boundaries in place. Americans swelled with pride at success in the "second war of independence"; the naysayers of the antiwar Federalist Party were put to shame and it never recovered. The Indians were the big losers; they never gained the independent nationhood Britain had promised and no longer posed a serious threat as settlers poured into the Midwest.

So, you can blame the Brits and the French as much....

The latter half of the nineteenth century was marked by the United States' development and settlement of the West, first by wagon trains and then aided by the completion of the transcontinental railroad and frequent wars with Native Americans as settlers encroached on their traditional lands. Gradually the US purchased their lands and extinguished their claims, forcing most tribes onto restricted reservations. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1894),
The Indian wars under the government of the United States have been more than 40 in number. They have cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians

So, the comparison with Russia is lacking in sheer numbers...

I know history of Anglosaxonian colonization of America, India, Australia. May be you don't know that theu destroy near 12 mln American Indians? About 20-30 mln in India? May be you forget about humilatoin of 75% of Irishmen by Cromvell? More then 90% natives in Australia? 100% natives in Tasmania? About 15 mln negrs were murdered while slave trade? May be you do not know than about 100 mln Chinese dead fron opium after Opium Wars? Anglosaxonians are the most bloody nation on this planet. No one can compete wiht them. And I count only big criminals - there were hondreds wars in Asia and Arfica.

 

[PRC2025]

back to topic.

Now I understand why back in 2007 our defense crew chose S-300PMU instead of S-300MV.

no wonder Russians decided to offer this sh!t after their previous shameful Tor-M1 offer.
because simply we can't use it as a constant AD system, unless we want to face heavy maintenance costs. so It's completely useless for our purpose cause we don't know when our enemy will attack us.
also can't engage cruise missiles, or any aircraft flying below 25m, so again useless against Americans.

I find it hard to believe that PMU-1 version is better. PMU-2 version is better though, but PMU-1 is starting to get old. It will defnitely be old within a few years time. Therefore when you look at the medium-long prospects, PMU-1 is only good until Israel gets their F-35. From what I could read this week, Israel will be ironically, the first user of F-35 even though several European countries have funded F-35.

Furthermore, Greece/Cypros had couple of PMU-1 versions already since the 1990s, which by the rumors, Israeli Air Force has "tested" out. So most likely, Israel might know to a great extent how to defeat a few S-300 PMU-1 anyway, since Iran would only receive 5 systems according to the deal that was signed several years ago. If Israel attacks with 100 + fighters, then those 5 systems are to be destroyed anyway.

So I wouldn't trust PMU-1 too much to protect Iranian air space. Because of several years of waiting, Iran should demand S-300PMU-2, but unfortunately, that was not included in the deal.

S-300VM that Russia has offered Iran is only used by Venezuela so far. They received this system in March/April 2013. So Iran need to see what kind of use they can get out of S-300VM, and if it can help serve as a bridge while waiting for Bavar-373. So far, Iran is still considering this offer compared to Tor-M1 which was rejected rather very quickly.

 

[mohsen]

I find it hard to believe that PMU-1 version is better. PMU-2 version is better though, but PMU-1 is starting to get old. It will defnitely be old within a few years time. Therefore when you look at the medium-long prospects, PMU-1 is only good until Israel gets their F-35. From what I could read this week, Israel will be ironically, the first user of F-35 even though several European countries have funded F-35.

Furthermore, Greece/Cypros had couple of PMU-1 versions already since the 1990s, which by the rumors, Israeli Air Force has "tested" out. So most likely, Israel might know to a great extent how to defeat a few S-300 PMU-1 anyway, since Iran would only receive 5 systems according to the deal that was signed several years ago. If Israel attacks with 100 + fighters, then those 5 systems are to be destroyed anyway.

So I wouldn't trust PMU-1 too much to protect Iranian air space. Because of several years of waiting, Iran should demand S-300PMU-2, but unfortunately, that was not included in the deal.

S-300VM that Russia has offered Iran is only used by Venezuela so far. They received this system in March/April 2013. So Iran need to see what kind of use they can get out of S-300VM, and if it can help serve as a bridge while waiting for Bavar-373. So far, Iran is still considering this offer compared to Tor-M1 which was rejected rather very quickly.

well, request for S-300PMU returns back to the time that we didn't have any efficient long range AD system, but back in 2008 we completed the upgrading of S-200 system, highly increased accuracy and detection, becoming mobile, and compatible in our integrated AD network are part of this upgrade, and during past years, our commanders have several times claims for detecting stealth targets, both in war games and real world, capturing RQ-170 was the result of such a capability, in fact our current AD network with S-200 system is much more efficient than an independent S-300.

also Russia is offering the S-300VM to Turkey and Saudi Arabia too, and if that happens, be sure that Americans (Israelis) will get access to it too, and even before we master this system, Americans will finish their analysis.
I really hope that we don't accept this new Russian offer.

 

[Penguin]

I know history of Anglosaxonian colonization of America, India, Australia. May be you don't know that theu destroy near 12 mln American Indians? About 20-30 mln in India? May be you forget about humilatoin of 75% of Irishmen by Cromvell? More then 90% natives in Australia? 100% natives in Tasmania? About 15 mln negrs were murdered while slave trade? May be you do not know than about 100 mln Chinese dead fron opium after Opium Wars? Anglosaxonians are the most bloody nation on this planet. No one can compete wiht them. And I count only big criminals - there were hondreds wars in Asia and Arfica.

And how do they compare, with Russians and Mongolians and Chinese? Or ANY empire builders in history, for that matter?

In 1800, estimated Native American population of what would become the continental United States: 600,000
Native American History Statistics

The population figure for Indigenous peoples in the Americas before the 1492 voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records from settlers from the Old World. Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated the pre-Columbian population at about 10 million; by the end of the 20th century the scholarly consensus had shifted to about 50 million, with some arguing for 100 million or more.
The population of African and Eurasian peoples in the Americas grew steadily, while the number of the indigenous people plummeted. Eurasian diseases such as smallpox, influenza, bubonic plague and pneumonic plagues devastated the Native Americans who did not have immunity.
Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a difference between (unintended) death from disease and (intended) killing. But, yeah, bad things happened. How is that ANY different from RUssia expansion, Mongol Expansion, ANY empire?

Hypothetically speaking, if you were entire right on the numbers, does that mean that Stalin's small number of millions is any better than someone else's larger number of millions dead?

 

[vostok]

And how do they compare, with Russians and Mongolians and Chinese? Or ANY empire builders in history, for that matter?

In 1800, estimated Native American population of what would become the continental United States: 600,000
Native American History Statistics

The population figure for Indigenous peoples in the Americas before the 1492 voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records from settlers from the Old World. Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated the pre-Columbian population at about 10 million; by the end of the 20th century the scholarly consensus had shifted to about 50 million, with some arguing for 100 million or more.
The population of African and Eurasian peoples in the Americas grew steadily, while the number of the indigenous people plummeted. Eurasian diseases such as smallpox, influenza, bubonic plague and pneumonic plagues devastated the Native Americans who did not have immunity.
Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a difference between (unintended) death from disease and (intended) killing. But, yeah, bad things happened. How is that ANY different from RUssia expansion, Mongol Expansion, ANY empire?

Hypothetically speaking, if you were entire right on the numbers, does that mean that Stalin's small number of millions is any better than someone else's larger number of millions dead?

When some tribe or kingdom become a part of Russian Impire - they become patrial of Russian Tsar. Our troops do not run wiht crists and kill everybody around and call themselvs crusaders and preachers. Many nations in Russian Impire lived far better and richer then Russians. And in USSR too. It is VERY BIG difference from robing and killing how Westerners did. There were no racism and ethnic discrimination in Russian Impire.

 

[The SC]

Genesis of the Antey S-300V/SA-12A/B Gladiator/Giant

Unlike first generation PVO-SV 3M8/SA-4 Ganef the S-300V would have a much broader role, encompassing both long range / high altitude air defence but also defence against US tactical ballistic missiles, specifically the Lance and high performance Pershing I/II, the FB-111A's supersonic AGM-69A SRAM standoff missile, and the new US Air Force MGM-109 Ground Launched Cruise Missile - a trailer launched nuclear armed Tomahawk variant based in the UK and Western Europe. As a result the S-300V would have to provide exceptionally good detection and tracking performance against low radar cross section targets, at very high and very low altitudes, while retaining the very high offroad mobility so typical of established PVO-SV tracked area defence SAM systems, and possessing exceptional resistance to the much feared USAF EF-111A Raven tactical jammer force.

The S-300V was the result of these pressures - an expensive, complex but highly capable dual role SAM/ABM system which remains without equivalent to this day. It was to be an “Army level” or “Corp level” asset, protecting the centre of gravity of the Red Army's mechanised land forces against attack by nuclear and conventionally armed systems.

The S-300V was supplanted by the enhanced S-300VM during the 1990s, using the 9S15M2/MT2E/MV2E, 9S19ME, 9S32ME and 9S457ME components, and improved 9M82M and 9M83M missiles. This system has been marketed as the “Antey 2500”, intended to highlight its capability to engage 2,500 km range IRBMs with re-entry velocities around 4.5 km/sec. The 9M82M has double the range of the 9M82 against aerial targets, at 108 nautical miles, and increased terminal phase agility - a single shot kill probability of 98% is claimed against ballistic targets. The S-300VMK is a proposed wheeled configuration of the design, using a BAZ 69096 10 x 10 all terrain truck chassis.


The S-300V/S-300VM/Antey-2500 is the world's only truly mobile Anti Ballistic Missile system, and later variants are claimed to be capable of intercepting 4.5 km/sec reentry speed targets. The large size of the Grill Pan phased array and TELAR command link and illuminator antennas is evident. The system provides the capability to engage very low RCS aircraft at ranges in excess of 100 nautical miles.

9M82 Giant round


S-300VM Kinematic Envelopes

S-300V Battery components, 9A83 TELAR, 9A84 TEL/TL with crane elevated, 9A82 TELAR, below left to right, 9S15 Bill Board acquisition radar, 9S457 CP and 9S32 Grill Pan engagement radar.


All principal components of the S-300V system are carried on the MT-TM Item 830 series tracked vehicle, with gross weights between 44 and 47 tonnes per vehicle - the S-300V is not a lightweight system - and has similar offroad mobility to a medium tank.

The S-300V system comprises no less than eight unique system vehicles, the 9S457 mobile command post, the 9S15 Bill Board acquisition radar, the 9S19 High Screen ABM early warning radar, the 9S32 Grill Pan engagement radar, the 9A82 and 9A83 TELARs (Transporter Erector Launcher and Radar), and the 9A84 and 9A85 TEL/Transloader vehicles.

The paired acquisition radars are each optimised for their specific roles, with a limited overlap in capabilities, as the 9S15 Bill Board has some ABM early warning capability, and the 9S19 High Screen can acquire and track airborne targets. The 9S32 Grill Pan is more narrowly optimised as an engagement radar for missile guidance.

The 9A82 and 9A83 TELARs each include high power CW illuminators for missile guidance and command uplinks, and also provide these guidance functions for the 9A84 and 9A85 TEL/Transloaders, which operate as slave TELs in the battery.

Typical battery integration involves datalink tie-ins with the divisional level 9S52/9S52M Polyana DM series command posts, and the use of the Pori P1 series radar data fusion centre. Often S-300V / SA-12 batteries are supplemented with a 1L13 Nebo SV VHF band 2D early warning and acquisition radar.

The S-300VM / SA-23 retains the basic battery structure of the earlier variant, replacing individual components with revised designs.


9K81/9K81-1/9K81M / /SA-12/SA-23 Giant/Gladiator / C????????? ???????? ???????? ???????? 9?81/9?81-1/9?81? / ????? 2500

 

[Anubis]

Get the money back and try China.I think they have developed a version of PMU-2.

 

[Sam1980]

Get the money back and try China.I think they have developed a version of PMU-2.

No need to give them money! China could take the money from Iran's assets already frozen in China! The problem is no one is willing to sell weapons to Iran!