S-300

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2066
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post19 May 2015, 07:21

wil59 wrote:f-35 will be well for job but not before 2025, is now off the conflict that broke out in Syria in Iraq and to view the rafale is the best choice now! I do not say that the f- 16 or F-15 can not do it but they are generation 4 and the Rafale 4 ++ has a rcs 10 to 20 times smaller; in any case each aircraft will make its job.


Out of all current operational fighter aircraft, F-22 has by far the best sensor fusion system and likely also sensors although it lacks IRST which is standard in Rafale and EF Typhoon. F-35 will build on top of that and will have even better fusion system (along with most advanced sensor fit). Besides F-35B will reach IOC this year and F-35A next year. From descriptions, its sensor fusion system is already extremely good, although naturally it will mature (likely until the aircraft is retired).

Compared to F-22, Rafale is much better multi-role aircraft due to availability of many different weapons and also targeting pod. But going against S-300 operating system, I think F-22 is by far the best even when using only SDBs and JDAMs due to far superior stealth and sensor fusion system. Going against some other targets (like S-300 on the move or other mobile targets), Rafale seems like one of the best (if not the best) current fighter aircraft.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2066
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post19 May 2015, 07:34

I think these exercises are excellent way to develop the proficiency of both aircraft crews and also AD crews. There have been several ELITE (Electronic Warfare Live Training Exercise) exercises where host of different fighter types have been training against host of different AD systems.

For example ELITE 2008 has a good description here: http://www.dutchaviationsupport.com/Articles/ELITE-2008.pdf

Elite 2010 video:
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post19 May 2015, 09:44

popcorn wrote:
wil59 wrote:f-35 will be well for job but not before 2025, is now off the conflict that broke out in Syria in Iraq and to view the rafale is the best choice now! I do not say that the f- 16 or F-15 can not do it but they are generation 4 and the Rafale 4 ++ has a rcs 10 to 20 times smaller; in any case each aircraft will make its job.

Why does the F-35 have to wait for 2025?
I proposed in 2025 because of that: http://www.45enord.ca/2014/05/le-logiciel-du-f-35/ then yes the f-35 should be operational in 2016-2017 for usa but will not have all the capabilities it needs to be equipped with 100% of their so limited means
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6764
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post19 May 2015, 12:11

wil59 wrote:
popcorn wrote:
wil59 wrote:f-35 will be well for job but not before 2025, is now off the conflict that broke out in Syria in Iraq and to view the rafale is the best choice now! I do not say that the f- 16 or F-15 can not do it but they are generation 4 and the Rafale 4 ++ has a rcs 10 to 20 times smaller; in any case each aircraft will make its job.

Why does the F-35 have to wait for 2025?
I proposed in 2025 because of that: http://www.45enord.ca/2014/05/le-logiciel-du-f-35/ then yes the f-35 should be operational in 2016-2017 for usa but will not have all the capabilities it needs to be equipped with 100% of their so limited means


So you're relying on the analysis of this guy:
Richard Rutily
Retired, Richard Rutily worked his entire career in private companies for military contracts of high technology and require clearance at Secret defense. He has worked at Dassault, Matra, EADS Astrium and Aerospatiale


... and his view from the sidelines of a classified program and relying on an outdated 2013 DOT&E report?

No thanks, I prefer to rely on the current assessments of the software released by JPO. At IOC, the F-35 will have superior SA and LO that should make it more lethal and survivable compared to Rafale.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

tritonprime

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 513
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2015, 22:29

Unread post09 Nov 2015, 21:41

"Russia to provide Iran with S-300 air defence missiles"
Nov 09, 2015

Source:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34767012

Russia has signed a contract to supply Iran with sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missiles.

The contract got the go-ahead after international sanctions on Iran were lifted earlier this year, following a deal over its nuclear programme.

Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia are all opposed to the missile contract.

Russian officials say the first batch could be delivered 18 months after Iran has specified the S-300 type that it wants. Technical talks are continuing.

"The deal to supply the S-300 to Iran has not only been signed between the parties but it has already come into force," said Sergei Chemezov, head of Russia's Rostec arms firm, speaking at the Dubai Airshow-2015.

The $800m (£545m) contract, signed in 2007, was frozen by Russia in 2010 because of the international sanctions. President Vladimir Putin unfroze it in April.

Israel and the US fear the missiles could be used to protect Iranian nuclear sites from air strikes.

The S-300 can be used against multiple targets including jets, or to shoot down other missiles.

The S-300B4 variant - delivered to the Russian armed forces last year - can shoot down any medium-range missile in the world today, flies at five times the speed of sound and has a range of 400km (248 miles), Tass reports.

When the Russian deal was suspended Iran filed a lawsuit seeking billions of dollars in damages.

Mr Chemezov said Saudi Arabia had asked Rostec repeatedly not to supply the S-300 to Iran.

But he insisted that it was a defensive weapon. "So if the Gulf countries are not going to attack Iran... why should they be threatened? Because this is defence equipment," Reuters news agency quoted him as saying.
Offline

borg

Banned

  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:11

Unread post09 Nov 2015, 21:55

They got the missile wrong though.. its more like a 260km missile.
The 400km missile entered Russian service only recently, and is only embeded into their S-400 regiments..

Personly i doubt Iran will get these missile now at this point.
Offline

tritonprime

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 513
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2015, 22:29

Unread post09 Nov 2015, 22:03

"Russia breaks deadlock over sale of S-300 missile system to Iran"

Source:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7f701684 ... f9896.html

Russia is expecting to start deliveries of the S-300 surface-to-air missile systems to Iran by the end of 2016, ending a long legal dispute that threatened to undermine Moscow’s ambitions to deepen ties with Tehran.

“The contract has been signed,” said Sergey Chemesov, chief executive of Rostec, Russia’s largest defence contractor and chairman of the country’s export agency Rosoborn. “I think that by the end of next year we will start deliveries of the S-300,” he said.

The decision by Moscow to sign the contract will be unwelcome news for Israel, which has long worried about enhancements of Iran’s anti-air capabilities and criticised Russian president Vladimir Putin’s decision in April to revive plans for the sale.

Israel considers Iran its foremost regional enemy and a sponsor of proxy wars in the Middle East. In 2013, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu travelled to Moscow to urge President Putin to stop the sale. Gulf countries are also worried about the growing military capabilities of Iran in the wake of its nuclear and sanctions-lifting agreement sealed with six foreign powers in July.

Israel worries that Iran’s acquisition of the S-300 system, which is similar in its capability to the US-made Patriot missiles, would hamper its air force’s ability to operate over Iran or its ally Syria.

Mr Netanyahu was on an official visit to Washington on Monday, and his office had no immediate reaction to news of the sale.

But Mr Chemezov said that the deal reached earlier this year between world powers and Tehran to suspend sanctions in return for limits on Iran’s nuclear programme had opened opportunities for doing business with the country.

“Due to the changed situation today we are developing contacts and co-operation with Iran,” he said. However, he insisted that the company would not breach the sanctions still in place after signing the contract with Iran.

“We sell only to countries that are allowed by the UN Security Council. Those countries against whom the UN has issued sanctions, we do not sell to those countries,” he said in an interview with the Financial Times.

Moscow and Tehran initially agreed on S-300 systems deal in 2007, during Mr Putin’s second presidential term. Moscow’s decision to block any deliveries of that system to Tehran came in 2010 as part of efforts to “reset” its troubled relationship with the US when Dmitry Medvedev, now prime minister, switched with Mr Putin in the presidential job for one term. Iran reacted with a $4bn legal complaint against Rosoboronexport in the International Court of Arbitration in Geneva.

Mr Chemezov said the legal challenge would be withdrawn. “We have agreed as soon as we start delivery they will withdraw the court case,” he said.

Since Mr Putin decided in April to lift Mr Medvedev’s blocking decree, Moscow has insisted that its suspension of the deal had never been mandatory under UN sanctions against Iran — which are now being lifted anyway following the Iran nuclear deal. The Russian government opposes additional, unilateral sanctions imposed on Iran by the US and other countries.

Although the west has come to view Russia and Iran as close allies, Russian foreign policy officials have said that the Geneva law suit is a constant irritant in bilateral relations.

“The nature of the employment of S-300 in Iran would be defensive, and trying to prevent the capability of our air force to operate there as it may be capable today,” Arieh Herzog, a former head of missile defence at Israel’s ministry of defence, said on Monday on a conference call organised by the Israel Project, a pro-Israeli advocacy group.

Mr Herzog said that deployment of the system in Syria “will be a dramatic change in their capability”. He added: “It does not create a reasonable environment to any operation of our air force.”
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4218
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 Nov 2015, 02:18

Probably the coolest S-300 video I've ever seen:



The pair there zipping across the screen at 0:30 are certainly interesting. Strange they don't make sonic booms. :wtf:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

borg

Banned

  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:11

Unread post10 Nov 2015, 02:58

Nice vid.

The S-400 uses three different missiles to cover its entire performance envelope.
These are the extremely long range 40N6(400km), long range 48N6 and medium range 9M96 missile. Each one has different capabilities.

The first S-400 regiment was activated back in 2008, but without the 40N6 missiles.
The 40N6(400km) missile was delayed for a long time and started production in 2012.
As late as 2014 a S-400 regiment was delivered with the 40N6 missile.

Note that every S-400 regiment field all three type of missiles, since they all have different capabilities.
Further more, there are battalions of Pantsir system attached to each S-300/400 regiment, to make a more complete anti air defence sphere

There are plans for a total of 28 S-400 regiments towards 2020.

Regarding Iran, there is simply no production capacity in the near future to export 40N6 anti-missiles.
The Russian re-armament program has first priority.

A lenghty S-400 vid with mass launch in the end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUif7IYVOeY
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 957
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post19 Jul 2016, 12:54

None of the other planes at the MACE XIII exercise had a digital EW system. So it's no surprise the Rafale faired better than most there. From what I've heard there is no single S-300 system either. There are several variants, which are worlds apart.

http://www.routesonline.com/airports/73 ... mace-xiii/
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 906
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post20 Jul 2016, 16:20

It depends what is linked to what and what the end goal is. The defensive suite on the Rafale works in the G-J band and is therefore optimized for self-protection as it should be. It will be equally ineffective against long range surveillance as any other platform. The F-15 DEWS, and the F-16 Falcon edge all cover a similar band and provide a similar role but the F-15 lacks the processors to make full use - and that has changed with the latest processor being flown and EPAWSS further builds on capability with its GaN elements. With each 4 and 4+ generation figther currently on an upgrade path as far as self protection suites are concerned they should all have adequate survivability as one could hope for against these systems. Tactics for non-stealthy aircraft would still be overwhelming stand off attack and passive geolocation to enable that.

Image
Offline

str

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2015, 07:54

Unread post29 Jul 2016, 18:22

hornetfinn wrote:This is why F-22 and F-35 have IEEE 1394 Firewire databus.


F-35 does not use a 1394-based bus, at least not for any of the cool sensor-fusion stuff. F-22 doesn't really use 1394 for internal HSB either(see link below). 1394 simply lacks the bandwidth to handle that much data. It has a new fiber optic interconnect (known as FC-AE-1553, HS-1760, or Fibre Channel, or AS5653) with something like 20 times the bandwidth of copper. HS-1760 is also found on the F/A-18E/F, B-2, E-2D and some models of F-16.

Although, I can't say it doesn't use 1394 for *something*.

There's actually another thread on here that went into a lot of this already.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25345&start=75
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6772
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post30 Jul 2016, 03:25

The F-35 program has also talked about the ability to dramatically increase teh bandwidth without the need to replace the fiber optic cables. It only involved changing the transceivers at each end.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1562
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post31 Jul 2016, 23:06

Iran isn't dumb. They're not buying new Flankers, etc. They're upgrading their SAM''s and other missile systems. I think they know what would happen should they get into it with the Israeli's, Americans etc...
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2066
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post01 Aug 2016, 13:41

str wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:This is why F-22 and F-35 have IEEE 1394 Firewire databus.


F-35 does not use a 1394-based bus, at least not for any of the cool sensor-fusion stuff. F-22 doesn't really use 1394 for internal HSB either(see link below). 1394 simply lacks the bandwidth to handle that much data. It has a new fiber optic interconnect (known as FC-AE-1553, HS-1760, or Fibre Channel, or AS5653) with something like 20 times the bandwidth of copper. HS-1760 is also found on the F/A-18E/F, B-2, E-2D and some models of F-16.

Although, I can't say it doesn't use 1394 for *something*.

There's actually another thread on here that went into a lot of this already.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25345&start=75


F-35 does definitely use IEEE 1394b based databus for a lot of things. Of course to be precise it uses SAE AS5643 standard which is IEEE 1394b-2008 with some additions and also restrictions. See these presentations and articles by LM, NASA and DapTechnology (company responsible for test and simulation platform for IEEE 1394b databus in F-35) representatives:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 009084.pdf
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... twork.aspx
http://www.1394ta.org/documents/press/1 ... 130916.pdf
http://1394ta.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... achine.pdf
http://www.ttcdas.com/products/rec_mux/ ... t_test.pdf
http://www.t24defence.com/resources/pdf ... dition.pdf (page 20 onwards)
http://www.1394ta.org/documents/press/mourn2013_01.pdf

Another thing is that IEEE 1394b is not tied to copper at all, but has wireless, fiber optical and even coaxial versions. SAE AS5643 specs 1394b over copper but there AFAIK, IEEE 1394b also supports speeds of 400 Mb/s to 3200 Mb/s, although most applications use 400 or 800 Mb/s solutions as these are plenty fast. Even that 400 Mb/s is 400 times faster than MIL-STD 1553 and 20 times faster than STANAG 3910 fiber optic channel in Rafale or Eurofighter. Sure, Fibre Channels can be even faster than 1394b, but not necessarily so. AS5653 (or any of the synonyms) offers actually only very slightly higher theoretical speed than S800 1394b. Besides, 4 GB/s over IEEE 1394b has already been demonstrated 5 years ago. HS-1760 is slightly over 1 GB/s. Besides, HS-1760/AS5653 does not use fiber optic but uses coaxial cable which is copper despite being called Fibre Channel.

http://www.cotsjournalonline.com/articles/view/100962

AFAIK, F-35 does use Fibre Channel for transmitting sensor data to mission computers, but other communication is done using AS5643 standard (S400 IEEE 1394b). It seems like they have used (and might still do) copper as transmission media, but are moving towards using fiber optics to save weight and possibly power requirements. They could still use IEEE 1394b architecture and protocols with very limited changes otherwise. It might be that they will move away from AS5643 also, but
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests