Read the forum code of contact
By: - 31st August 2004 at 12:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Building up an an impressive airdefence suite aint they.
By: - 31st August 2004 at 13:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wasn't Iran the 1st S-300PMU-2 customer? I think at ACIG I read that they built a special (unique..??) version of the S-300PMU-2 and small number was bought. Any comments/corrections?
By: - 31st August 2004 at 13:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ouch that is so expensive.
By: - 31st August 2004 at 16:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The 54K6E2 battle management post can control the S-300PMU and S-300PMU1 in operation around Beijing, making it more effective in uniting the air-defense networks.
History of Chinese S-300 ADS purchases;
1) First, in 1993 with S-300PMU comprising 2 missile battalions. A total of 32 launching units/trucks, with a double ammunition reserve of 5V55R (with radar homing warhead), and a software mod to allow the Favorit to control the 5V55R. Cost was $220 million, 65% through barter goods, and the rest in hard currency. So that's 32x(4 missiles per truck), + 2x(32x4) = 384 missiles total + unknown local production?
2) Second contract in 1994, for 4 missile battalions of S-300PMU1s with 32 launch units, plus a reserve of 196 48N6E missiles. Hard currency paid for half, the other half through barter. Hmm, the Russians really like to barter. No info on extra ammunition reserves? Contract was about $400 million
3) Third contract, which just finished, cost about $440 million. 4 missile battalions of the S-300PMU1A third contract, with 32 launch units and a reserve of 198 48N6E missiles.
So that's 384 5V55R missiles, and (256+196+198) = 650 48N6E missiles.
By: - 31st August 2004 at 16:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ouch that is so expensive.
Not really, it's about the same when compared to the other contracts.
They're getting twice as many batteries as in the previous orders; they're getting 64 8x8 MAZ launchers with 4 missiles each, plus an additional reserve of 41 48N6E2 missiles. Plus there's a bit of a price premium since it is a better system.
By: - 31st August 2004 at 17:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How do the 9M96E and 9M96E2 missiles fit into all of this?
By: - 31st August 2004 at 17:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How do the 9M96E and 9M96E2 missiles fit into all of this?
I'd say they don't- the "Favorit" doesnt' use them, to my knowledge. An upgrade can be performed so they can, however. They're S-400 system missiles.
By: - 31st August 2004 at 17:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Heyy umm, were there any mentioned costs for the S-400 system?
By: - 31st August 2004 at 17:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just getting to beijing will be hard enough, now they have to contend with these, more need for the Pentagon to use the "evil China" card and get those stealthy F-22s.
By: - 31st August 2004 at 18:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good, this should press India into getting the S-400 or other Russian systems or the Arrow.
By: - 31st August 2004 at 19:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It takes years to operationalize S-300 type system effectively. China has spent a decade on it so they have found the operational value.
By: - 1st September 2004 at 00:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When can we exspect the first Chinese copies of it? To afford a suffient number of such expensive system, you have to built it yourself.
By: - 1st September 2004 at 00:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd say they don't- the "Favorit" doesnt' use them, to my knowledge. An upgrade can be performed so they can, however. They're S-400 system missiles.
The S-300PMU-2 is compatible with the 9M96 missiles as an option. Whenever the S-300PMU-2 has been exhibited (see pictures below) the 9M96 launch tubes are always present.
By: - 1st September 2004 at 01:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When can we exspect the first Chinese copies of it? To afford a suffient number of such expensive system, you have to built it yourself.
They probably already did. I don't think they would copy exactly, but they could learn from it. I suspect their HQ-9 systems, which performs roughly in the same level as the 48N6 misslies with a pseudo MPQ-53 style unit from the PAC, can operate in conjunction or cooperation with S-300 units, meaning both systems could pass information with each other or even control each other's missiles. The Russians are actually surprised that the Chinese did not order as many S-300s as the Russians thought they would.
As for the 9M96 missiles, that's used against less valued targets, or even used to defend the complex itself.
google, on the third contract, Pinkov is saying that that the order of this S300PMU1A consists of 96L6E phase array radar units from the PMU2, but using the 48N6E missiles from the PMU1, sort of like a hybrid.
By: - 1st September 2004 at 05:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am not sure if it's expensive or not, compare it to other long range SAMs in the World, ohh wait there are none.(PAC-3 does not really count).
By: - 1st September 2004 at 22:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Isn't the FT2000 SAM a chinese "copy" of the S-300PMU systems?
By: - 2nd September 2004 at 03:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well apparently the copies dont work as much as the original coz there's no reason to be spending a billion $$ today if cheaper 'clones' are available. I
think I know what the problem is -- at the high end its not just the missile thats important, but the entire Combat System of C3I node(s), attack radars and surveillance radars tied together into a effective system. This is not a easy thing to do, unlike relatively simpler standalone SAMs or other types of missiles like manpads and atgms. Only the US, israel and Russia have so far produced these big distributed systems. Even if one leg is weak, the system is weak.
Secondly, I have a question on the S-400. They claim some sort of ATBM capability and even some capability in the S-300PMU. What kind of tests have been done against simulated or real IRBM targets to prove this claim ?
The Arrow has known tests against the Sparrow drone and now the Scud tests, so we know it works upto a point. The patriots by hook or crook did score hits or near misses against Scuds.
By: - 2nd September 2004 at 04:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Isn't the FT2000 SAM a chinese "copy" of the S-300PMU systems?
No. Only the container is copied, and even that is not exact. Note the spacing of the ribs are not the same and so are the container ends.
The FT-2000 missile has long body fins, with short fins on the end. It looks more like a bigger brother of the KS-1A or the Russian Buk, than the 5V55 or 48N6E missiles both of whom don't have fins at all. The radar system of the FT-2000/HQ-9 is more like the MPQ-53 in format. Also the FT-2000 has a passive radar seeker, which means it will engage targets passively by the enemy's radar alone.
There is two kinds of FT-2000. The FT-2000A is based on the upgraded HQ-2 and has a range of 100km. Which makes you wonder what is the real range of the FT-2000 without the "-A".
By: - 2nd September 2004 at 04:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well apparently the copies dont work as much as the original coz there's no reason to be spending a billion $$ today if cheaper 'clones' are available. I
It is probable that the "copies" have reached the PMU1 level but not the PMU2 level.
Still, China has only acquired a measly 12 battalions in all, plus another eight for this new purchase, distributed them all over the coast. Compared to like nearly 40 batteries around the Moscow area alone.
So yeah, it seems like there are major gaps (more like canyon like chasms) in the AD shield, which had to be filed by something else. Purportedly, this HQ-9 system---how do you think China could have developed a naval version for 052C if they don't have a land based system first?
By: - 2nd September 2004 at 04:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Purportedly, this HQ-9 system---how do you think China could have developed a naval version for 052C if they don't have a land based system first?
Having a land-based system ready isn't a pre-requisitie to having a naval equivalent, it can work both ways.
Posts: 91
By: Shkval1 - 31st August 2004 at 11:26
China has finalised a $980- million contract with Russia's Rosoboronexport to acquire the Favorit [S-300PMU2] air-defence missile system (ADMS): the first export sale for the system since it became available on the international market in 2001.
The contract includes an 83M6E2 vehicle-mounted command post, eight 90Zh6E2 batteries, one set of 48N6E2 missiles, hardware support tech.
CP include: combat control system 54К6Е2; 64N6E2 detection radar (300km, s-band).
Each of 90Zh6E2 batterie include: multifunctional 30N6E2 illumination and guidance radar (x-band), 96L6E all-altitude detection and target designation multiphased array radar; and 8 launchers 5P85SE in Transport-Launch Containers (TLC) with four missiles in each, mounted on MAZ platform (8x8).
Combat control system 54K6E2 also enable control of S-300PMU and S-300PMU-1, which were bought by China earlier. Favorit also could engage targets with 48N6E missiles, used in S-300PMU systems
ADMS Favorit provides:
engagement of aerodynamic targets at ranges of up to 200 km;
engagement of ballistic tagets at ranges of up to 40 km;
engagement of low-flying targets at ranges of up to 28-38 km;
Min/max target altitude, km 0.01/27
Number of simultaneously engaged targets 36
Number of simultaneously guided missiles 72