Iran studies Russian offer of new missiles instead of S-300: TASS

[Syrian Lion]

S-400 or no deal... I'm not sure what Russia is trying to do with such offers...

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

The S-300V/S-300VM/VMK/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. Below: 9M82 Giant round (images © Miroslav Gyűrösi).

9S32 Grill Pan S-300V engagement radar deployed on an Article 830 series tracked vehicle (NIEMI image).

Background
The highly mobile Antey S-300V and S-300VM remain one of the most lethal area defence SAM systems ever developed, firing hypersonic missiles designed to engage aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.

Designed from the outset for high mobility and effectiveness against targets at all altitudes, the S-300V would have been a key player in any late Cold War conflict. This weapon was developed to provide not only long range area defence, but also to engage and destroy ISR assets like the E-3 AWACS, E-8 JSTARS and U-2, and tactical jammers like the EF-111A Raven and EA-6B Prowler.

There have been repeated reports since the beginning of the decade in the Indian media that a buy of this system was imminent, but to date none has materialised. Numerous reports have also surfaced that the PLA is operating either an S-300V or S-300VM variant under the designation of HQ-18, although no hard evidence to support this claim has emerged as yet.

From an Australian perspective the possible deployment of S-300V family of missiles in Asia is of major concern. Rapidly deployable, high survivable, and highly lethal, these weapons are especially difficult to counter and require significant capabilities to robustly defeat. The US Air Force currently envisages the F-22A Raptor as the primary weapon used to defeat these capable systems.

It is important to note that no F/A-18 variant, nor the Joint Strike Fighter, were designed to penetrate the coverage of the S-300V/VM systems. The survivability of these aircraft will not be significantly better than that of legacy combat aircraft.
[paste:font size="4"]

S-300V/VM/SA-12/23 System Design and Integration
All principal components of the S-300V system are carried on the “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 1L13-3 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.

S-300VM / SA-23 battery composition and integration (Antey).

Engagement and Fire Control Radars, with a detailed technical analysis of the design under David Barton's 9S32/32M Grill Pan Fire Control Radar.

While the S-300VM sees incremental improvements in most components, the 9M32M/ME engagement radar underwent a significant redesign, especially in the antenna. Brochure material produced by the manufacturer shows a design which can be best described as a hybrid of components from the Grill Pan and the High Screen. The larger aperture High Screen array is employed, combined with revised IFF array and interferometer / sidelobe blanker antenna array below the primary aperture. The high and low angle circular polarised monopulse space feeds are retained but repositioned for the different array geometry. The new enlarged aperture will exhibit almost twice the gain of the Grill Pan, much better angular resolution especially for targets near the zenith, and improved heightfinding performance.

The 9S32M/ME will have a much higher peak power rating compared to the 9S32 Grill Pan since the additional range of the 9M82M cannot be accommodated by the ~3 dB power-aperture improvement produced by the larger antenna alone. A more detailed analysis will not be possible until good quality imagery of prototypes or production systems becomes available.
[paste:font size="4"]9A82 Giant and 9A83 Gladiator TELARs.
[paste:font size="4"]Search and Acquisition Radars, with a detailed technical analysis of the design under David Barton's 9S15/9S15M/MT Obzor 3 / Bill Board Three-Dimensional Surveillance Radar.
[paste:font size="4"]Search and Acquisition Radars.

All 9M82 and 9M83 images © Miroslav Gyűrösi.

[paste:font size="4"]Novator 9M82 / SA-12B Giant and 9M83 / SA-12A Gladiator Missiles
The two stage 9M83 “Type I Missile” / SA-12A Gladiator and 9M82 “Type II Missile” / SA-12B Giant are the guided missiles used by the S-300V / SA-12 system. The missiles are largely common in design, the principal distinctions being different first stage boosters, different control surface arrangements, and numerous detail differences.

The conical aerodynamic design and general configuration of both S-300V missiles is modelled on the earlier US Martin Marietta Sprint ABM which was similar in size to the 9M83 / SA-12A Gladiator but had performance closer to the 9M82 / SA-12B Giant. Both Soviet missiles, intended to kill both aerial and ballistic targets, outrange the more specialised Sprint ABM.
The smaller 9M83 Gladiator SAM/ATBM is intended to engage aerial targets at all altitudes, including cruise missiles, and smaller TBMs. The much larger 9M82 Giant has higher kinematic performance and is intended to kill IRBMs, SRAM class supersonic missiles, but also standoff jamming aircraft at long ranges.

Both weapons employ two solid propellant stages, with thrust vector control of the first stage (10,225 lb / 4,636 kg mass in the Giant and ~5,000 lb / 2275 kg in the Gladiator) and aerodynamic control of the 2,800 lb (1,200 kg) second stage, using four servo driven fins, and four fixed stabilisers. The guidance and control packages, and much of the weapon airframes are almost identical, the principal distinction being the bigger booster stage of the Giant and its larger stabilisers8,9.

A cold start ejector is used to vertically expel the missile from the 9Ya238/9Ya240 (9M82/9M83) launch tube, using a spherical gas generator in the base of the tube, the 9D128 first stage burns until exhausted, upon which the missile jettisons the spent first stage and transitions to its 9D126 midcourse sustainer powerplant.

Immediately post-launch, once the missile has cleared the launch tube, the 9D124 “declination powerplant” is engaged. This is a short burn duration thruster system, which employs several exhaust ports on the lower rim of the first stage nozzle. The purpose of this system is to effect a post-launch pitching manoeuvre to the intended target heading, and optimal elevation (pitch/yaw) angle for initiating the first stage motor burn. Once the missile has been pointed in the desired direction, the first stage motor is started and burns for 3.5 to 6.2 seconds in the 9M82, or 4.11 to 6.4 seconds in the 9M83.

Flight control during the first stage burn is effected by four internal nozzle ports for gas injection Thrust Vector Control (TVC), in a manner similar to the Martin-Marietta Sprint ABM and ARPA HIBEX demonstrator. While the US designs injected liquid freon into the exhaust flow, the Novator design draws high pressure exhaust gas upstream of the nozzle and injects it into the exhaust stream at the point where the flow is described as supercritical.

The first stage has a truncated conical shape, with most of the upper portion occupied by the annular conically shaped bonded solid propellant motor, which exhausts into a conventional bell nozzle, with TVC ports located close to the combustion chamber exist aperture. An external cable duct is used to carry electrical power and control signals to the two TVC control systems in the first stage.

Once the first stage it expended it is jettisoned by pyrotechnic charge, and the kill vehicle 9D126 bonded solid propellant sustainer is ignited. The sustainer occupies the portion of the fuselage which can be identified by the four symmetrical external cable ducts, which connect the guidance systems in the nose section with the aft section containing control surface actuators and the electrical powerplant. The bell shaped sustainer nozzle in the tail is fed by a central cylindrical exhaust duct which passes through the aft fuselage section. Burn duration is cited at 11.2 - 17.2 seconds for both the 9M82 and 9M83.

Observation of 9M82 Giant launch footage confirms the stated stage burn durations, and also indicates the use of an energy management profile, where the missile boosts to an apogee, and post apogee flies a pulldown/pullup manoeuvre before transitioning into a shallow dive as it closes with the the intended target.

Both missile types employ four actuator driven cruciform tail control surfaces, and four fixed stabilising fins, smaller than the control surfaces in the 9M83, and equally sized in the 9M82.

Power for the actuators and guidance avionics is produced by the 9B153 gas turbine electrical powerplant, which drives two AC busses at 1,000 Hz, and two DC busses. High pressure gas is produced by an starting gas generator cartridge and a sustainer gas generator cartridge.

During midcourse flight the missile employs inertial navigation. This is performed using the onboard 9B619 digital computer, and a 9B627 inertial unit.

Two midcourse guidance modes are employed:

1. Inertial Guidance: in this mode target position and velocities are continuously updated by a datalink channel and the autopilot flies the missile using a P-nav algorithm, with vehicle position and velocities derived from the onboard inertial system. ;
2. Command Inertial Method (KIM): in this mode missile and target position and velocities are uploaded via a datalink channel.

In the former mode it transitions to its semi-active homing seeker during the final 10 seconds of flight, in the latter 3 seconds before impact - a technique preferred for heavy jamming environments. The midcourse guidance system attempts to fly the most energy efficient trajectory to maximise range.

The datalink channel antennas are embedded in the cruciform tail surfaces.

The endgame homing algorithm has not been disclosed. The 9E49/DB-100N semi-active homing seeker will generate target angles and angle rates. It is likely that a P-nav algorithm with lead bias is employed. The antenna is cued to the target pitch/yaw angles during endgame closure by the onboard computer.

Russian sources claim the dual plane monopulse two-channel X-band semi-active seeker can lock on to a 0.05 m2 RCS target from 16.2 nautical miles. A two channel radio proximity fuse is used to initiate the 9N127 330 lb (150 kg) class “smart” warhead which has a controllable fragmentation pattern to maximise effect. The missile is also equipped with a self destruct system.

As the missile approaches the target, it will perform a rolling manoeuvre to align the directional warhead with the plane of the target. The proximity fused warhead produces a high velocity stream of fragments in a narrow cone normal to the axis of the missile. 9M82 Giant missile velocity entering the endgame is ~3.5 M.


The engagement envelope of the baseline Gladiator is between 80 ft AGL to 80 kft, and ranges of 3.2 to 40 nautical miles, the Giant between 3,200 ft AGL to 100 kft, and ranges of 7 to 54 nautical miles. The system can launch the missiles at 1.5 second intervals, and a battalion with four batteries can engage 24 targets concurrently, with 2 missiles per target, and has a complement of between 96 and 192 missiles available for launch on TELAR/TELs. A TELAR can arm a missile for launch in 15 seconds, with a 40 second time to prepare a TELAR for an engagement, and 5 minute deploy and stow times - a genuine “hide, shoot and scoot” capability.


The cited single shot kill probabilities for the Gladiator are 50% to 65% against TBMs and 70% to 90% against aircraft, for the Giant 40% to 60% against IRBMs and 50% to 70% against the AGM-69 SRAM - ballistic missiles with re-entry velocities of up to 3 km/s can be engaged. Russian sources credit the missiles with endgame capability against 7-8G manoeuvring targets. The later 9M82M and 9M83M are credited with a 30G endgame capability.

The Soviets were terrified of the EF-111A fleet operated by Tactical Air Command and equipped the S-300V system with a facility for passive targeting of support jammers. The 9S15, 9S19 and 9S32 have receiver channels for sidelobe jamming cancellation and these are used to produce very accurate bearings to the airborne jammer, this bearing information is then used to develop angular tracks. The angular tracks are then processed by the 9S457 command post to estimate range, and the 9S32 then develops an estimated track for the target jammer. A Giant missile is then launched and steered by command link until it acquires the target.

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

9M82 Giant round and 9Ya238 transport container.

9M83 Gladiator round and 9Ya240 transport container.

9M82 Giant round nozzle detail.

9M83 Gladiator round nozzle detail.
[paste:font size="3"]9M82 / SA-12B Giant and 9M83 / SA-12A Gladiator Missile Layouts [Click to enlarge].
9M82 / SA-12B Giant 9Ya238 Missile Launch Tube / Transport Container. The spherical container (7) in the base of the launch tube is the high pressure gas generator pressure vessel for the cold launch system. The forward and centre missile fuselage is held in position in the tube by supporting braces (8) [Click to enlarge].

9M83 / SA-12A Gladiator 9Ya240 Missile Launch Tube / Transport Container. The control surfaces are folded before the missile clears the tube, the short span stabilisers are fixed in position [Click to enlarge].

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

9M82 / SA-12B Giant Missile Cutaway. 1 - Proximity Fuse Antenna; 2 - Seeker Antenna; 3 - DB-100N Seeker; 4 - Proximity Fuse RF Module; 5 - Proximity Fuse Antenna; 6 Computer; 7 - Inertial Guidance and Navigation Unit; 8 - Safety Device; 9 - Warhead; 10 - Cable Duct; 11 - Gas Turbine Module; 12 - Connector; 13 - Connector; 14 - Cable Duct; 15 - Hydraulic Power System; 16 - Switch; 17 - Gas Generator; 18 - Declination Thruster; 19 - Control Actuator; 20 - Compensator; 21 - Stabiliser; 22 - Aerodynamic Control Surface; 23 - Selector Switch; 24 - Stage Separation Mechansim; 25 - Electrical Initiator; 26 - Explosive Charge; 27 - Kill Vehicle Gas Generator; 28 - Control Surface Actuators [Click to enlarge].

9M83 / SA-12A Gladiator Missile Cutaway [Click to enlarge].

9M82 / SA-12B Giant Missile Booster Motor [Click to enlarge].



9M82 / SA-12B Giant Missile Booster Nozzle. I denotes the TVC port [Click to enlarge].

9M83 / SA-12A Gladiator Missile Booster Motor [Click to enlarge].

9M82 / SA-12B Giant Missile Sustainer Motor [Click to enlarge].
9M82 / SA-12B Giant Missile Warhead [Click to enlarge].

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

Planned Design Evolution and Variants
The S-300V was intended to evolve over its life cycle, like other Soviet SAM systems. The result of this process was the enhanced S-300VM system which saw incremental improvements to most components, extended range missiles, and a re-engineering of the 9S32 Grill Pan to employ a variant of the 9S19 High Screen space fed phased array, with almost twice the aperture size. The variant was marketed for export as the Antey-2500.

The failure to secure export orders since 1991, in constrast to its technologically simpler and cheaper to build sibling, the S-300P series, has impacted funding for the S-300V program. While a wheeled variant of the S-300VM, the S-300VMK, has been proposed, there is no evidence to date that this design has been prototyped.
The long term future of the S-300V series is not clear, as Russia's long term planning for PVO and PVO-SV units is focussed on the S-400 and S-500 systems, evolved primarily from the S-300P series. The S-300V/VM system remains on offer for export clientele and should an export client be eventually found, others might follow.

In the longer term the in-service inventory S-300V is acquiring similar evolutionary enhancements to the S-300P series. It is also likely that GPS/Glonass aided navigation hardware will be added at some stage to both the S-300V/VM to increase the accuracy of the inertial/compass navigation systems on the radars and TELAR/TELs.

Known variants and subtypes include the:

1. S-300V1: early production configuration;
2. S-300V2: block upgrade with improved ABM acquisition capability using paired optical cable networked 9S19M2 High Screen radars instead of the 9S15M Bill Board;
3. S-300V3: block upgrade with extended engagement range missiles, with a claimed doubling of range performance against aerial targets;
4. S-300V4: “deep modernisation” with improvements over the S-300V3, providing “1.5 - 2.3 times the capability of earlier variants”, and intended for deployment with Russian Army units in 2011.

At this time virtually nothing of substance has been disclosed on the configuration of the S-300V4 block upgrade, with many sources simply claiming it to be “classified”.

The cited doubling of aerodynamic target engagement range would suggest the use of the kinematically improved 9M82M and 9M83M missiles, developed for the S-300VM, and possibly the much improved 9S32M Grill Screen engagement radar, also developed for the S-300VM. It remains to be seen what other portions of the S-300VM/VMK designs will migrate into the S-300V4. The term “deep modernisation” in Russian literature can often mean almost complete replacement of most of a legacy design. It is likely that the S-300V4 upgrade will be designated by NATO as an SA-23 system.

3K81M/S-300VM/VME/Antey-2500/SA-23
The improved 3K81M/S-300VM/VM1/VM2/VMD/VME/Antey-2500 or SA-X-23/SA-23 is most easily differentiated from the 3K81/S-300V by the redesigned 9S32M/ME Grill Screen engagement radar, but no less importantly it employs kinematically superior 9M82M/ME missile rounds. The acquisition radars are the improved 9S15M/MV / Bill Board B and 9S19M2 Imbir / High Screen B. Cited range performance for the 9M82M missile was initially 200 km against aerial targets, but more recently this is cited by the manufacturer at 250 km.

Cited range improvements for the 9S15M2 Bill Board B are 320+ km versus the Bill Board A, and for the 9S18M2 High Screen B 250 km versus 175 km for the High Screen A.

The most prominent change in the radar suite is the 9S32M Grill Screen, which employs the much larger space fed antenna design of the 9S32 High Screen, and a higher peak power. The cited range performance for a fighter sized target is in excess of 200 km, and likely better than 250 km given the more recently revised kinematic range for the 9M82M missile.

While the range performance of the 9M82M/ME and 9M83M/ME missiles against aerial targets is not as good as the contemporary S-400 / SA-21 40N6 missile, the 9M82M/ME matches the kinematic range of the S-400 / SA-21 48N6E3, and outperforms the S-300PMU2 Favorit / SA-20B 48N6E2 missile, and all earlier 48N6 series missiles. In terms of performance against ballistic targets, the 9M82M/ME outperforms the 48N6E2 missile and provides almost identical performance to the much newer 48N6E3 missile.

Importantly, the two stage S-300V/VM missiles are built for much higher acceleration than the S-300P missiles, also reflected in launch footage. The result is that for engagements against aerial targets, the S-300V/VM missiles have a shorter time of flight, and at similar ranges will have considerably higher kinetic energy for endgame manoeuvres compared to their single stage 48N6 series cousins. The cited average speed for the 9M82 missile across the whole trajectory is around 85-90% of the maximum speed cited for the 48N6E2/E3 missiles.

The shorter flight time and higher endgame energy of the S-300V/VM missiles reduces available reaction time for the aircraft under attack, which will be reflected in higher missile lethality.

3K81MK/S-300VMK/SA-23
A proposal which emerged over the last decade is the S-300VMK (K - Колесные), a variant of the S-300VM in which the Article 830 series tracked chassis is replaced by the BAZ 69096 10 x 10 all terrain truck chassis, a vehicle design more frequently associated with heavy cranes and drilling rigs. This vehicle family is also used for the new S-400 Triumf 5P85TE2 TEL.

The S-300VMK was to be hosted on a variant of the 10 x 10 BAZ-69096 (image © 2011 Michael Jerdev).

The intent behind a wheeled chassis is likely to be compliance with the post 2005 Russian MoD policy change to wheeled SAM system chassis rather than tracked. A wheeled variant is less costly to procure and operate, and provides much higher road speed at the expense of cross country performance.

Very little material has emerged to date on the S-300VMK and the design may have been shelved with the failure to secure export orders for the S-300V/VM product family. However, this does not preclude a future transplant of the extant S-300V radar/TELAR inventory to the BAZ 69096 chassis on operating cost and supportability grounds, as is occurring now with legacy ZRK Romb/SA-8B Gecko systems, which are being transplanted to new MZKT-6922vehicles.

S-300VMK in stowed configuration. The 9A82MK TELAR and 9A84MK, 9A85MK TELs are not depicted. Note the large elevating mast on the 9S457MK CP (Russian Internet - unknown author).

Production and Exports
The baseline S-300V / SA-12 entered production during the very early 1980s, and was accepted into service by the PVO-SV in 1983 under the designation S-300V-1, but was limited in capabilities. Difficulties with the complex technology delayed service entry of the fully developed package with ABM capability until 1988, under the designation S-300V. The only serious export prospect until recently has been India who have since acquired a pair of Israeli Green Pine ABM early warning radars, as a counter to Pakistan's nuclear armed ballistic missile force. The cited order for six S-300VM systems remained in negotiation, while the Israeli Arrow and S-300PMU2/S-400 are evaluated. There is no evidence this has since progressed. A marketing drive in the Persian Gulf some years ago fell foul of US influence in the region - Patriots being bought instead, amid Russian allegations of dishonest marketing tactics by the US contractors.
The Soviet Union unravelled in 1991, leaving the service inventory of S-300V / SA-12 systems scattered across a number of former Soviet Republics. Russian sources cite current operators to be Russia and the Ukraine, with some claims that Belarus operates some units.
Commercially the S-300V/VM has been much less successful than the PVO optimised S-300P series, in part due to its higher cost and capability - the often discussed Indian sale has yet to materialise, compared to the large number of S-300PMU/PMU1/PMU2 systems sold to the PRC. In 2003 the Russian government authorised a merger between Almaz, Altair and Antey to produce what is likely to be world's largest SAM system manufacturer.

Reports emerged in late 2010 that Venezuela had ordered at least one battery of the S-300V system, presumably refurbished Russian inventory equipment. The claim was reiterated in a Russian Interfax agency report of the 15th April, 2011. Other claims for the Venezuelan order include twelve regiments of the missile, the S-300VM/Antey-2500 missile, the S-300PMU1 and S-300PMU2 missiles.

Like the S-300P series systems, the S-300V uses the cold launch technique, originally developed for rapid reload ICBM silos, ejecting the missile before its motor is fired. These 9M83 SAMs are being launched from a 9A83 TELAR, which uses its elevated directional antenna to provide the 9M83 with both midcourse command updates and terminal phase high power continuous wave illumination of the target. Antey claim the semi-active seeker will acquire a 0.05 square metre RCS target at 16 nautical miles (Rosvooruzheniye).

9K81 Launch Footage
[paste:font size="5"]Miroslav Gyűrösi).

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

9K81 Technical Data
Основные характеристики ЗРС С-300В
Principal Characteristics of the S-300V SAM System
Зона поражения аэродинамических целей, км
Engagement Envelope for Aircraft Targets [km]
- по дальности
- in range
до 100

- по высоте
- in altitude 0,025...30

Зона поражения баллистических целей по высоте, км
Engagement envelope for ballistic missile targets in altitude [km] 1...25

Максимальная скорость поражаемых целей, м/с
Maximum velocity of defeated targets [m/s] 3000

Число целей, одновременно обстреливаемых дивизионом
Number of targets concurrently engaged by a single battery
24

Число ЗУР, одновременно наводимых дивизионом
Number of SAMs, concurrently guided by battery 24

Темп стрельбы, с
Rate of fire [sec-1] 1,5

Время подготовки ЗУР к пуску, с
Time to prepare SAM for launch [sec]
15

Время перевода системы из дежурного режима в боевой, с
Time to transition system from standby mode to operational mode [sec] 40

Боекомплект ЗУР дивизиона (на ПУ и пускозаряжающих установках)
Single battery missile count (on TELARs and TEL/Transloaders) 96-192

Вероятность поражения ракеты "Ланс" одной ЗУР 9М83
9M83 Gladiator Single Shot Pk [-] vs Lance TBM 0,5...0,65

Вероятность поражения самолета одной ЗУР 9М839M83 Gladiator Single Shot Pk [-] vs aircraft target 0,7...0,9

Вероятность поражения головной части ракеты "Першинг" одной ЗУР 9М829M82 Giant Single Shot Pk [-] vs Pershing RV 0,4...0,6

Вероятность поражения ракеты СРЭМ одной ЗУР 9М829M82 Giant Single Shot Pk [-] vs AGM-69A SRAM 0,5...0,7

Основные характеристики ЗУР системы С-300В
Principal Characteristics of the S-300V SAMs
Наименование
Designation 9М83 / SA-12A Gladiator 9М82 / SA-12B Giant

Длина, мм
Length [mm] 7898 (8570) / 9913 (10525)

Максимальный диаметр, мм
Maximum diameter [mm] 915 (930) / 1215 (1460)

Масса, кг:
Mass [kg]: 3500 (3600) / 5800 (6000)

- первой ступени
- first stage 2275 / 4635

- второй ступени
- second stage 1213 / 1271

Масса боевой части, кг
Warhead Mass [kg] 150 / н/д N/A

Средняя скорость полета, м/с
Average flight velocity [m/s] 1200 / 1800

Максимальная перегрузка, ед.
Maximum load factor [G] 20 / 20

Границы зоны эффективного действия, км
Engagement Envelope [km] - дальняя - maximum range 75 / 100

- верхняя
- maximum altitude 25 / 30

- ближняя
- minimum range 6 / 13

- нижняя
- minimum altitude 0,025 / 1

Потенциальная дальность захвата ГСН цели с ЭПР 0,05 кв.м
Seeker acquisition range for target with 0.05 m2RCS [km] 30 / 30

9K81 Launch Footage

A pair of 9A82 TELARs deployed. The illuminator does not elevate in this design (Image © 2009, Sergey Kuznetsov). Additional image [Click for more ...]
[paste:font size="4"]Miroslav Gyűrösi).

9A83 TELAR stowed (Image © Miroslav Gyűrösi).

9A83 TELAR Stowed.

9A83 TELAR in deployed configuration. This image shows the elevating a telescoping illuminator mast to effect. The design is intended to improve low altitude coverage, which is not a requirement for the longer ranging 9M82 missile (Author unknown). 9A83 TELAR Deployed

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

9A83 TELAR Deployment.


9A84 Transporter Erector Launcher/Transloader

9A84 TEL/Transloader loading a 9A82 TELAR (Russian Internet).

9A84 TEL/TL in operation (NIEMI images).

9A85 Transporter Erector Launcher/Transloader

9A85 TEL/TL in operation (NIEMI image).
9S32 Grill Pan Engagement Radar

Above, below: 9S32 Grill Pan S-300V engagement radar deployed on an Article 830 series tracked vehicle (NIEMI images).

9S32 Grill Pan deployed (Image © 2009, Sergey Kuznetsov).

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

9S32M/ME Grill Screen Engagement Radar

9S32M/ME Engagement Radar. This design is hybrid of components from the 9S19 High Screen and 9S32 Grill Pan. It has improved range performance, cited at 200 km but likely better (Antey).

Miroslav Gyűrösi). Additional Images [1], [2].

9S19 Imbir / High Screen acquisition radar (NIEMI image).
[paste:font size="4"]9S457/457M Self Propelled Command Post

The 9S457 series is a dedicated and fully integrated self propelled command post for the S-300V/SA-12 battery (NIEMI image).

9T31M1 Self Propelled Crane

The 9T32M1 self-propelled crane is a late model of the standard loading crane used with 2K12 / SA-6 Gainful and 9K37M1 / SA-11 Gadfly batteries. The URAL-375 chassis is used. (Russian internet).

Annex A - Comparative Analysis Sprint ABM vs S-300V

Above: Sprint ABM prototype (US DoD); below: 9M82 Giant (© Miroslav Gyűrösi).

The nearest Western equivalent to the S-300V/VM missiles was the Martin-Marietta Sprint Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM), an endo-atmospheric interceptor developed for endgame terminal defence of high value strategic targets under attack by Soviet ICBMs and SLBMs. While the Sprint was successfully tested from mid-1960s, the program was cancelled very shortly after the first Safeguard ABM site equipped with Sprint missiles attained IOC in 19756.

The Sprint was designed for unprecedented boost phase acceleration, using a two stage solid propellant design, and a unique conical airframe shape. The best summary of the control system design of the Sprint, later used in the HIBEX demonstrator, is by Baucom7:

“In spite of its nuclear warhead, Sprint’s mission of picking up leakers in the lower atmosphere meant that its control system had to be capable of producing extremely high g maneuvers. Its mission profile called for it to intercept incoming warheads at altitudes of between 5,000 and 100,000 feet within seconds of launch. A typical intercept might occur at an altitude of 40,000 feet and a range of 10 miles after only 10 seconds of flight.”

“Sprint was cold-launched, with the interceptor ejected from its silo by a gas-powered piston. Once out of the silo, its powerful rocket motors rammed the missile through the dense lower atmosphere causing its skin to glow incandescently due to atmospheric heating. During first-stage burn, control forces were generated by a thrust vector control (TVC) system that injected Freon into the motor’s nozzle from four different points. (Freon was selected because of the experience gained with its use in the TVC systems of Minuteman and Polaris.) After booster separation, the second stage was guided by means of aerodynamic forces acting on small control vanes at the base of this stage.”
“As in the case of the Sprint first stage, the principal means of control in HIBEX was the injection of Freon gas into the exhaust of the booster. However, in later flights, experiments with other control techniques were performed. The TVC system of HIBEX consisted of four valves spaced at 90 degrees around the nozzle of the motor; each valve was capable of injecting a total of 194 pounds of Freon per second at 1,400 psi. Each valve fed three nozzles. HIBEX carried a maximum of 98 pounds of Freon, but only 78 pounds were usable. The Freon was fed by means of a blow-down system that used compressed nitrogen as its source of pressure. This system was designed to provide 2.5 degrees maximum thrust vector deflection which amounted to 2.5 percent of motor impulse with a maximum response time of 20 milliseconds. This thrust was the equivalent to a “side force” of 15,000 pounds in less than
0.05 second.”

The basic design of the S-300V missile airframe, propulsion system and control system closely reflects the Sprint design. Unlike the Sprint which was a dedicated ABM interceptor armed with a low yield nuclear warhead and guided by command uplink, the S-300V missiles are dual role designs intended to kill ballistic missiles and aircraft, and employ a semi-active radar homing terminal seeker, and a directional conventional warhead.

The common second stage design of the Russian missiles, with a dual plane monopulse semi-active radar seeker under an ogival radome and 150 kg warhead, is much larger and heavier than the simple command link guided Sprint second stage. As a result, the 9M83 Gladiator missile falls short of the performance of the Sprint, despite almost identical launch weight and dimensions for both missiles. The 9M83/9M83M Giant missile delivers similar performance to the Sprint, but using a missile which is 66% heavier at launch, and considerably larger.

The S-300V missiles therefore represent yet another example of US technology and concepts being adapted and improved upon by the Soviets.

Sprint ABM test launch (US DoD).

Sprint ABM cutaway (US DoD).

 

[haman10]

@Major Shaitan Singh

Tnx for the informing articles bro

 

[The enlightened]

if russians were afraid iran will get the tech , they should have never made a deal in the first place .

By international regulations , you don't get to sign a deal and scrap it later when it suites you .

got it ?

You also don't get to violate the Intellectual Property rights. If what you stated is indeed true and if there is a history of such violations, then Russia would be well within its right to deny such sales. Of course its not very good for diplomatic relations but that's different. If they can prove that Iran is a serial offender then no international court or arbitrator can help you.