The SC
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 32,233
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
Here is the difference between the two systems:
First of all, when talking about the the difference between the two there is a time-frame to be taken into account.. At first both of them where envisaged to maximise the use of the same parts, but then it turned out to be impossible.
- S-300V where conceived around the Army's needs and because of that got tracks to go through rough terrain. S-300 as part of territorial PVO was intended to defend cities, industrial centres and because of the linking roads S-300Ps got wheels which was a cheaper solution.
- As S-300V needed to protect Army formations against the massive ballistic and aero-ballistic targets (unlike S-300Ps at first) it turned out to be a more complex and expensive system than the S-300P..S-300V has one more radar than S-300P system (for anti-ballistic purposes)
- S-300V was from the start able to guide more missiles on more targets than S-300P. (S-300V was true 6 channel system vs S-300 4 channel)
- S-300P was at first more immune to ECM than S-300V system
- Both systems where designed with an idea to fight aerodynamic targets/cruise missiles/PGM just the same..
- S-300V needed more protection than S-300P due to the much higher minimum distance than S-300P at which he could shoot at targets..
- S-300V and all other things that accompanied it like (troops equipments, radar systems, command posts etc...) where of a much rudimentary design than those of territorial PVO
as it needed to endure much harsher conditions with minimum maintenance..
- S-300P was always, and from the start, a more independent system, because its smallest operational unit is a battery unlike a regiment for the S-300V..
- S-300P got a better command post (Senezh vs Poljana) from the start..
That was the situation then, but after the 2011 upgrades the situation is different in such a way that S-300VM became the most powerful SAM system available for export, and here is why:
- S-300VM ECM resistance was greatly increased..
- S-300VM range increased by a factor of 3.5 and is by far the SAM with the longest reach..
- S-300VM (from Rosoboronexport) targetable RCS is 0.02 now possibly even smaller..
- S-300VM price has decreased because of the improvements in the upgrades where one specialized anti-ballistic radar (Imbir) is now not needed..
- S-300P got excellent Baikal-1ME command post but that very same command post is also under the hood of S-300VM command post, but still using the name Poljana..
- S-300P with further upgrades got the ability to engage 6 targets per battery, the ability to engage ballistic missiles, an increased engagement envelope and new missiles..
Here are some more clarifications about the two systems:
- 250km engagement range of S-300VM refers to S-300VM produced in mid-90s but S-300VM that completed testing in 2011 has 350km range (400km range for Russian A-PVO)..
- Up till the S-300PM, the S-300V had a much higher upper hand regarding to number of guided missiles on aerial targets in comparison with Almaz counterparts.. The mistake while claiming "36 for PMU2 and 24 for Antey" is made because of the organizational structure, While one regiment of S-300PM can have up to 6 S-300P batteries, S-300V regiment are made of only 4 S-300V batteries so when counting you get:
1 S-300PM regiment = 6 batteries = 6 batteries x 6 targets (each) = 36 targets
1 S-300V regiment = 4 batteries = 4 batteries x 6 targets (each) = 24 targets
So, while both of them are able to guide 12 missiles on 6 targets, Almaz regiments consist of 6 batteries where Antey's of 4. That why you get the different numbers.
- Keep in mind also that while full S-300V regiment consists of four batteries, none of which is envisaged to work alone, thus making a regiment the smallest operational unit.. (although the S-300V batteries are able to work in independent mode), So a regiment is able to guide 48 missiles on 24 targets, that is only for aerodynamic targets, for ballistic ones that number is 16, meaning each battery is able to guide 2 or more missiles in a row for each of 4 ballistic targets it is able to engage. Still it is a higher number than the equivalent S-300P ..
- Take note that while one S-300P brigade is made of 2 regiments (each consisting of up to 6 batteries), S-300V brigade is made of 3 regiments making both types of S-300 brigades in export versions and full composition, made of up to 12 batteries..
So Why S-300V and why now?
It is because of all the differences between S-300V and S-300P, S-300V remained the Worlds single mobile anti-ballistic system.. Also:
- It was more expensive than S-300P
- It was more complex and required more protection than S-300P
- Its upgrades, modernization dragged on unlike S-300P which rolled in with excellent PMU/PMU1/PMU2 upgrades
- S-300Ps command posts where better (one of the major reasons why S-300P was more ECM resistant)
- yet it remained one of the strongest assets in Russian arsenal
So what has really changed in the S-300VM capabilities?
- Basically all the things mentioned previously above in the first section, such as 3.5 times more range, lower price, much higher ECM resistance, excellent new command post, etc... but also handling of :
- Ballistic missiles that are becoming a major threat with no solution in sight
- High altitude fighter penetrations again becoming major threats
- with its massive 350km range, huge warhead and massive speed it is able to repulse and keep on distance Rivet Joint/Compass Call/ E-3 Sentry
- high altitude cruise missile penetrations
- also as a frontal army system S-300V will always be more exposed to HARM and other anti-SAM weapons which is why S-300V got solutions with more toughness in regard to HARM
and other anti-SAM weapons in comparison with S-300P line, and that is why S-300V has TELAR (Transporter Erector Launcher and Radar) relieving its shooting radar from some of the pressure and increasing their chances of survival.
- One can imagine a cooperation between the S-300VM and the MiG-35 where MiG-35 is able to launch its 200km range air-to-air missiles from a zone protected by S-300VM and that is very far (350 km), all commanded by Poljana-D4M who also commands ECM/ECCM covering up attack of the MiG-35s to the enemy AWACS..
First of all, when talking about the the difference between the two there is a time-frame to be taken into account.. At first both of them where envisaged to maximise the use of the same parts, but then it turned out to be impossible.
- S-300V where conceived around the Army's needs and because of that got tracks to go through rough terrain. S-300 as part of territorial PVO was intended to defend cities, industrial centres and because of the linking roads S-300Ps got wheels which was a cheaper solution.
- As S-300V needed to protect Army formations against the massive ballistic and aero-ballistic targets (unlike S-300Ps at first) it turned out to be a more complex and expensive system than the S-300P..S-300V has one more radar than S-300P system (for anti-ballistic purposes)
- S-300V was from the start able to guide more missiles on more targets than S-300P. (S-300V was true 6 channel system vs S-300 4 channel)
- S-300P was at first more immune to ECM than S-300V system
- Both systems where designed with an idea to fight aerodynamic targets/cruise missiles/PGM just the same..
- S-300V needed more protection than S-300P due to the much higher minimum distance than S-300P at which he could shoot at targets..
- S-300V and all other things that accompanied it like (troops equipments, radar systems, command posts etc...) where of a much rudimentary design than those of territorial PVO
as it needed to endure much harsher conditions with minimum maintenance..
- S-300P was always, and from the start, a more independent system, because its smallest operational unit is a battery unlike a regiment for the S-300V..
- S-300P got a better command post (Senezh vs Poljana) from the start..
That was the situation then, but after the 2011 upgrades the situation is different in such a way that S-300VM became the most powerful SAM system available for export, and here is why:
- S-300VM ECM resistance was greatly increased..
- S-300VM range increased by a factor of 3.5 and is by far the SAM with the longest reach..
- S-300VM (from Rosoboronexport) targetable RCS is 0.02 now possibly even smaller..
- S-300VM price has decreased because of the improvements in the upgrades where one specialized anti-ballistic radar (Imbir) is now not needed..
- S-300P got excellent Baikal-1ME command post but that very same command post is also under the hood of S-300VM command post, but still using the name Poljana..
- S-300P with further upgrades got the ability to engage 6 targets per battery, the ability to engage ballistic missiles, an increased engagement envelope and new missiles..
Here are some more clarifications about the two systems:
- 250km engagement range of S-300VM refers to S-300VM produced in mid-90s but S-300VM that completed testing in 2011 has 350km range (400km range for Russian A-PVO)..
- Up till the S-300PM, the S-300V had a much higher upper hand regarding to number of guided missiles on aerial targets in comparison with Almaz counterparts.. The mistake while claiming "36 for PMU2 and 24 for Antey" is made because of the organizational structure, While one regiment of S-300PM can have up to 6 S-300P batteries, S-300V regiment are made of only 4 S-300V batteries so when counting you get:
1 S-300PM regiment = 6 batteries = 6 batteries x 6 targets (each) = 36 targets
1 S-300V regiment = 4 batteries = 4 batteries x 6 targets (each) = 24 targets
So, while both of them are able to guide 12 missiles on 6 targets, Almaz regiments consist of 6 batteries where Antey's of 4. That why you get the different numbers.
- Keep in mind also that while full S-300V regiment consists of four batteries, none of which is envisaged to work alone, thus making a regiment the smallest operational unit.. (although the S-300V batteries are able to work in independent mode), So a regiment is able to guide 48 missiles on 24 targets, that is only for aerodynamic targets, for ballistic ones that number is 16, meaning each battery is able to guide 2 or more missiles in a row for each of 4 ballistic targets it is able to engage. Still it is a higher number than the equivalent S-300P ..
- Take note that while one S-300P brigade is made of 2 regiments (each consisting of up to 6 batteries), S-300V brigade is made of 3 regiments making both types of S-300 brigades in export versions and full composition, made of up to 12 batteries..
So Why S-300V and why now?
It is because of all the differences between S-300V and S-300P, S-300V remained the Worlds single mobile anti-ballistic system.. Also:
- It was more expensive than S-300P
- It was more complex and required more protection than S-300P
- Its upgrades, modernization dragged on unlike S-300P which rolled in with excellent PMU/PMU1/PMU2 upgrades
- S-300Ps command posts where better (one of the major reasons why S-300P was more ECM resistant)
- yet it remained one of the strongest assets in Russian arsenal
So what has really changed in the S-300VM capabilities?
- Basically all the things mentioned previously above in the first section, such as 3.5 times more range, lower price, much higher ECM resistance, excellent new command post, etc... but also handling of :
- Ballistic missiles that are becoming a major threat with no solution in sight
- High altitude fighter penetrations again becoming major threats
- with its massive 350km range, huge warhead and massive speed it is able to repulse and keep on distance Rivet Joint/Compass Call/ E-3 Sentry
- high altitude cruise missile penetrations
- also as a frontal army system S-300V will always be more exposed to HARM and other anti-SAM weapons which is why S-300V got solutions with more toughness in regard to HARM
and other anti-SAM weapons in comparison with S-300P line, and that is why S-300V has TELAR (Transporter Erector Launcher and Radar) relieving its shooting radar from some of the pressure and increasing their chances of survival.
- One can imagine a cooperation between the S-300VM and the MiG-35 where MiG-35 is able to launch its 200km range air-to-air missiles from a zone protected by S-300VM and that is very far (350 km), all commanded by Poljana-D4M who also commands ECM/ECCM covering up attack of the MiG-35s to the enemy AWACS..
