Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 13:28, 16 November 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Russian & Soviet This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Russia: Technology & engineering / Military Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Miniapolis, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on 27 November 2016. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining! Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: Translation too rough to copyedit

Range again

In russian version of the page max range is given as 200km

again, this is a system not just a single unit thing like a single SAM. it has several types of missiles specialized in several things, which ones are you referring to? or are you referring to the tracking radar? or target acquisition radar? which radars? the system can have many types of radars depending on the configuration.

with that said, the 40N6 missile that the S-400 can use as a range of 400km. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.17.71 (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Range as a measure is stupid you are better off posting the max output power, and the receivers sensitivity, seriously the lack of understanding shown on this page is stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.79.158 (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Stealth

I am disputing this thing's capability to detect and engage stealth aircraft and am removing the statement until verifiable information on the subject is found. Jtrainor 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The missilethreat.com link mentions it, but that's the best you're gonna get unless there will be a big war anytime soon. -Dammit 11:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am disputing the ability of stealth aircraft to be effective against new radars until proven otherwise. Please provide evidence that stealth works. So far, with S-125 being able to intercept F-117, it is very possible that S-400 with newest radar with 600 km range detection can detect and intercept stealth aircraft. Why should we believe that americans are always saying truth and russians are saying lie ??? Clearly biased thinking. did americans aquire any russian radars to tests Stealth aircraft against them? No. did russians aquire stealth aircraft to test their radars against it? Yes. Pavel.

I have found many sources about anti stealth here are some, http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/1999/FTS19990821000218.htm , http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/1999/FTS19990505000617.htm , http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/s-400.html (RabbitHead 18:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

I am adding it again since there are sources that say that it can detect stealth. (RabbitHead 10:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

All those links say that Russia CLAIMS that they can detect stealth. They don't prove that it can.

The Russians do not have a very good record on technical claims. Jtrainor 14:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So anything and everything said by a russian must be a lie?, The last link http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/s-400.html is very creditabel, also I dont know if you know but a Stealth bomber was shoot down in kosovo in 1999 with old Soviet equipment if old Soviet eq can shot down a stealth bomber then the newest russian should also be able to http://en.wikipedia.org/F-117_Nighthawk (RabbitHead 15:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

Well, stealth is a pretty vague term, and any stealth aircraft can be detected (just at a lower range), so how about we drop the stealth part of that sentence but leave the rest of the sentence in there? That would hopefully keep everyone content. - Dammit 16:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

But it can shoot down stealth aircraft and there are sources that say so. I could give even more sources if so needed. (RabbitHead 16:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

It definitely should be mentioned, perhaps it could be worded differently. It could say "The S-400 is claimed to possess advanced capabilities for detecting and engaging low RCS aircraft.", or something similar. "Stealth" aircraft are nothing magical, they simply have a much lower radar cross section than conventional aircraft, it was only a matter of time before extremely powerful radar systems came out that could detect them, or other methods to detect them were developed and integrated with SAM systems. And considering the S-400 is a continuation of the S-300 series, which although like most modern military equipment isn't combat proven, is very widely regarded to be the most advanced in the world, I don't doubt that the S-400 has at least some ability to detect and destroy "stealth" aircraft. I think that the sentence I suggested is objective and appropriate, so I am going to include it in the article. --Skyler Streng 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. Glad we can resolve this without having an NPOV argument over some Russian missile all of 3 people here will care about :) Jtrainor 17:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic. :] --Skyler Streng 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so you guys know the SAM that hit that F-117 back in 1999 was not guided in by radar. The F-117 ended up flying over a rather intact battery of SAMs and it was spotted visually, probably with the aid of night vision and infra-red systems. They then fired a salvo of manually guided SAMs and one exploded close enough to force the pilot to eject. The long wavelength of the radar used with the SA-3 could occasionally detect the F-117 for short times at certain angles but not nearly enough to track it or launch a missile. The Russians will have said other radars can track stealth aircraft but do they have any stealth aircraft to test it on? Interested Reader

"The Russians" have fully low RCS drones to test this on, as well as the Berkut which has a lowered RCS signature from the front. I don't think the S400 will be fielded fully against a stealth capable country until it's capablilty is tested on one of these drones. The Neva missile was manually fired and radio guided close enough to the visually spotted F117, if it got close enough, the Neva radar itself could pick up the F117 easily. Stealth is not absolute, if you get close enough even the most stealthy aircraft is as obvious as he palm of your hand Zalgo 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.169.232 (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I prove which part? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone changed the "claims to be able to" into "highly capable of". This is POV as there has NOT been a case of an S-400 shooting down a "stealth" aircraft. I'm changing it back. CAS 117 00:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC) CAS_117

This thing can take out re-entering ICBM MIRVS in the right circumstances, and we all know how this was made impossible early on due to the ionization developed along the re-entering craft. The fact that this can be done suggest that the S400 system has a large, on ground sensor systems mounted of six to eight trucks which relies on multi band radar and sends the info to the S400 missile in flight (data link). After the S400 got close enough, it could detect any "stealth" craft. Poor radars from 15 years ago can detect an F22 if they get close enough, and depending on what type of radar (AESA, PEAS, huge longwave dish, ship based AESA) the "close enough" can be pretty damn far away, like the ground. Erasing this part of the systems performance is a pretty low and transparent attempt at demeaning Russian technology, and I don't see the sentence "the F22 claims to be low RCS" in the articles of such American aircraft. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with such buffoonery as it leaves the capabilities of the S400 system underestimated, and underestimation is as important to battlefield strategy as the element of surprise. It seems kind of useless to fight on this point, my reasoning is if it can detect ionized reentry vehicles and has a vast network of longwave sensors on the ground, it can shoot down a low RCS craft any day of the week Zalgo 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.thehowlandcompany.com/pdf/AW&ST8JAN07.pdf

It's funny that F-22s are considered stealth, depite not being proven in real combat. And yet S-400 HAS to prove it self capable of countering stealth craft. Obviously US military claims are 'absolutely true' while Russian/European claims are lies. What kind of biase is that? 211.207.66.19 (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This article, as well as many other ones,manly military articles, are full of usa bs. Despite that there are a few considerations to be made. you CAN'T dispute anything if you don't have any proof whatsoever. There are also some FACTS that must be taken in consideration. I mean facts, not lies or arguments without any proof. 1- F-22 is NOT a stealth aircraft. USA government and F-22 manufacturers always stated that F-22 is a semi-stealth aircraft. That is VERY different from a stealth one. 2- F-22, like any other stealth or semi stealth aircraft CAN BE TRACKED BY RADAR if they are close enough. how close enough that depends on the radar system. 3- SOME Russian radars can track stealth aircraft in some circumstances. Some radars of some Australian frigates can also track stealth aircraft. This is not a argument, this is a fact confirmed by usa. 4- the Pentagon as said that S-400 is capable of intercepting stealth aircraft.

DOES ANYONE, I MEAN, ANYONE HAS ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT S-400 IS NOT CAPABLE TO TRACK AND DESTROY A STEALTH AIRCRAFT? ANYONE?

this is wikipedia. arguments or disputes without any proof are not welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.69.209 (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wooo... USA fanboys are so angry about their expensive toys are not as "invincible" as they claim. People, the ability to be "invisible" to radar is usually optimized for a frequency range (currently X-band), and also depends on the output power of the "enemy" radar. Is very difficult to hide an aircraft from a radar that is close enough (more closer, more return signal), and if it is a radar with a greater output power, the "close enough" becomes lots and lots of miles. And if the radar operates outside the expected range and can circumvent the drawbacks of doing so, he will "see" the aircraft that is optimized to "fool" radar in the expected band. 200.189.118.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

to stop this nonsense: http://www.drtomorrow.com/lessons/lessons6/26.html http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-vulnerabilities.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/Stealth_aircraft#Detection http://www.geekosystem.com/reports-of-stealths-death-are-greatly-exaggerated/ http://www.enemyforces.net/missiles/s400.htm

I could continue all day long.

Please prove that the system is NOT capable or stfu.

Truth of the matter is that stealth technology is not a perfect defense. Stealth simply means that the aircraft returns less signal than would be expected for a target that size; ideally such a small return that the radar won't consider the signal that comes back to it to be worth noticing. No matter how advanced there will always be a return. Since stealth is a relatively mature technology now engineers the world over have had a significant amount of time to try and develop counter measures based off the known weaknesses of stealth - using more power to increase returns, using multiple radars to attempt to obtain reflections from directions that the aircraft has a larger radar cross section, using different frequencies of radar that the aircraft are less transparent to, and using vastly improved computer systems to better differentiate between background 'noise' and actual aircraft. Since these weaknesses have always existed it's not hard to believe that a modern, well developed system would be able to use them with some degree of success to track and kill and stealthy aircraft. However that isn't the whole story. Ground based radar has a lot of limitations that prevents it ever being a perfect defense, even against non-stealth aircraft.

First, radars make a lot of 'noise' and can easily be detected. The detection systems are essentially half of a radar set, treating the signals they hear the same was as a traditional radar treats the return from a target. In fact radars can be detected at up to double their operational range because they only need the pulse to reach from the antenna to the target, not to get back again. Ground based radars are almost always kept turned off for exactly this reason, being able to locate them so easily by something so far away (even by satellite) makes them extremely vulnerable to attack by munitions like cruise missiles that can safely be launched from beyond the systems range, and in enough numbers to saturate the systems defenses - shooting more missiles at the system than it could ever possibly shoot down. Only a very few missiles need to leak through before the attack is successful, and disabling the system even for a short period provides a window to either attack it in greater force or closer range, or to attack whatever the system is defending.

Secondly, the range of a radar is limited by the horizon much more than it is by the technical range. Radar simply cannot see through the ground. That might seem minor, since obviously the curve of the earth seems gradual to most of us, but since we're talking about planes that can fly extremely fast and over very long ranges it is a much bigger deal that you might imagine. At high altitude the radar can see for hundreds of kilometers, but at low altitude the radars range is massively shorter, reduced to perhaps 20km at treetop height. All attacks against air defenses are done at low altitude because the the air forces of the world aren't stupid. Even the stealthiest of aircraft go in low to keep the time during which they can potentially be targeted to an absolute minimum.

This in combination with the first point causes some problems. You need to have the radar turned off 90% of the time, to stop it getting blown up, but stealth aircraft are hard to detect with by other sources (generally that would be air based radars that are much more limited - they can't have as much power, can't as effectively use multiple angles and have less signal processing power) to initially warn of the potential targets and tell the S-400 to switch on. Even is the system is genuinely advanced enough to totally remove stealth as a factor in the fight, other radars in the battlespace are not that advanced. The extremely long range part of the system is more targeted against ballistic missiles, which by their nature have to fly relatively high. No combat aircraft has any business being in the S-400's sights 400km away.

In addition to that weapons like the HARM and ALARM anti-radiation missiles are a major headache to defend against. The long range and ability to target radars that are turned off presents a massive challenge. With ~100km range it's easily possible for SEAD aircraft to come in low, pop up to get a lock, launch missiles then and dive back under the horizon before they can be tracked. If the radar turns off the avoid the missiles, maybe they still get hit due to INS and ALARMS loiter capability. If the system tries to shoot down the missiles it probably won't do well - it wasn't really designed to hit targets that small (anti radiation missiles are perhaps a fifth the volume of traditional cruise missiles, much more maneuverable and are generally much faster) so some of the missiles do likely get through anyway. In either case the system is greatly reduced in effectiveness. It either has to go completely dark (totally removing it from the battle for a short while, and it may still be damaged or destroyed) or to waste missiles on targets that would otherwise be the lowest priority, and again still will likely be damaged.

The point here is that the S-400 is clearly a good missile system. While it's ability against stealth is unlikely ever to be directly proven, I suspect it is the best in the world against that kind of target, and even if it's not it is still a real achievement to have the system that they do. However, no matter how good it is as a system it is still 'just' a SAM system with the same vulnerabilities as any other. In the modern age there is no such thing as a 'perfect' defense, either against aircraft or on the aircraft. Both SAM systems and stealth aircraft are components in a much bigger machine. F-22s and F-35s are not invincible, not even close. They are just aircraft. If you hit them with missiles they do indeed explode. At the same time the S-400 isn't magic, either against stealth aircraft or against conventional planes. The S-400 cannot be seen as a perfect counter to any kind of aircraft, because existing tactics will still be effective against it. It is advanced, and is still a fine system, but, like the stealth aircraft, shooting it still makes it explode.

I know many people want to see everything like it's a game of Starcraft, where some things are just 'the best' and there's no way anything beats it. My favorite country totally beats your favorite country at a war because your prized stealth doesn't work on me, or because your SAM isn't a good as they make out. But that's just not how things work in the real world. Strategy determines everything, as does the wider situation. SAM sites have always been at a massive disadvantage and that will continue to be the case. If the worst comes to the worst, the attack aircraft can simply choose not to attack when S-400's are operating - Even as a mobile system you can't keep that kind of system with it's logistics chain and support vehicles around the FEBA along with the tanks and APCs you are attacking with. It's just impossible. While they are in motion the system is at it's most vulnerable, and bringing them within ATGM range of the enemy is a recipe for disaster. The biggest asset for stealth aircraft is being able to attack with much less warning than other planes, and that counts double in those areas that the S-400 couldn't realistically operate - on and around the battlefront where planes are coming in very low.

Again - the S-400 is almost certainly a very effective SAM, but it is still just a SAM. The F-35 is going to be very effective at what it does - close air support. Those two things don't really cross over all that much.

Finally - It's worth pointing out that most if not all recent Russian military developments claim to totally defeat the latest defense technologies. Nowadays Russia badly needs the exports and has to market it's products. If you go and look at Trophy, the Israeli Active Defense System, the Russians were claiming in 2009 (before the system was deployed or even really tested all that well) that they had already completely defeated it and any similar system, as well as every possible tank armor. The weapon in question (the RPG-30) has also claimed to be able to help old ladies across the road, find your keys and, after destroying a tank, go and get you a cold beer . That not to say that the developers are lying, but like any system designed to counter top secret technologies and especially those still under development, they can't be certain until it really happen.

86.181.37.146 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

the ESR for the 10 cm square = 10 1) If you use a range of 1 cm and 10 is a flat 10 but if a ball is the ESR = 0, 2) If you are using radar 10 (wavelength) is square centimeter is 1 the ESR and if that is flat or the ball is equal to 1. 3) 2) If you tilt it 10 the ESR = 0 !!! but for the wavelength 1 is still (1 EPR flat 10 = 10). 4) you know that there are other details 5) but it is impossible make smooth and flat and round and ball (circle flat but not the ball) bad news radars use + 2 and not 3 different frequencies (centimeter and decimeter meter + many meters) of course you can not do such a universal form. The problem is that stealth against the centimeter wave length, because that is the exact definition of coordinates. However, you can not be a stealth for any frequency even with one sides.

Stealth only reduces the ESR and only to accurately determine the radar. How much is a lot? For the C-400 to 250 km and 125 km 0.4 to 0.04. If you use the centimeter wavelength. For the C-125 in Yugoslavia is 50 km to 1 meter and 25 km for the 0.1. For S-300B in 1988 is 0.01 meter to 70 km if centimeter wavelengths.

You remember, the F-14 had a range of optical radar more than 70 km. ;)

Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it tactically feasible - but the current nevertheless made locators

• Stealth. Quote - However, U.S. Air Force officials were dismissive of the technique. “Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it tactically feasible,” one Air Force official with extensive stealth aircraft experience explained. In fact, the US Air Force recognized that a number of frequency bands and the radar can not only see really make effective stealth. But at the same time deny that these radars (any version) can be real creatures. However, the huge amount of suschestvet antistels radars in fact, such as Gamma-DE UHF range. The effective range of 240 kms (149 miles) to the target with radar cross-section of 0,1 m2 and covering a 360 gradsuov due to rotation (height from minus 2 to plus 60). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.64 (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the original Russian diviziya or divizion here?

18 divisions of S-400 are planned for purchaise to 2015

It is probably divizion (battalion), but please check, because in English "division" implies a very big unit.

divizion (дивизион), of course! But I aint sure that battalion is a proper translation for divizion (couple of batteries). --jno 09:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO battalion is the correct translation in western context. 88.192.88.80 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Right! There we have some misunderstandings with it becouse historicaly battalion in artylery (and later in anti-aircraft defence) was named divizion. So in western classification it must be battalion. 195.218.231.67 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Big missile

Is it known if the "big missile" is deployed or not? Profhobby 20:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's too early to talk about actual deployment (see above). --jno 09:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have seen news reports that the S-400 systems are being deployed. But, with what missiles? My impression is that the big missile is not yet ready and is not being deployed. Profhobby 02:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Errr... Which one? 5V55* and 48N6E* missiles bigger than newer 9M96E*, but smaller than the latest one (no GRAU index known so far). The biggest missile for S-300/400 family will be available by the end of 2006

Note, most equipment is identical (or upgraded) to those of S-300PMU series: 5P85S and 5P85T launchers (8..12), 36N6, 64N6 and 76N6 radars, 83M6 control post. Single launcher can carry 4 the newest SARH/ARH missiles or 4 9M96E*

Planned re-arming rate is 2 regiments (of total 35) in a year --jno 12:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the claim that S-400 has twice the range of Patriot and 2 and a half range of S-300 PMU-2, that implies S-300 has lower range than Patriot, while in fact it has much longer range.

I agree, there is a mistype in many sources, the range of S-300 is more than that of Patriot, it is rather otherwise, S-400 has twice the range of S-300 and 2 and a half times that of Patriot.

JFYI: Name origin

Just like many other names of soviet/russian weapon systems, this one was taken from the special list of codenames, but initially it was "Triumfator", which was shortened to "Triumf". This explanation was picked up from a private talks with development team member. --jno 09:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC) No Triumfator was the name for the R&D effort while Triumf was the name for the ready system (Just like ATF/F-22 Raptor for example) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scepticbear (talk • contribs) 07:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

S-400M Samodyerzhets

This is supposedly part of the S-400 family after Almaz and Antey merged, but I must wonder what's the rationale. For antimissile purposes, the new 40N6 ("big" missile) is superior (at least as opined by Russian unclassified sources) to the 9M82M in range, max engagement speed (and thus the range of the IRBM it could counter). Similarly, any of the 48N6 series is superior in range to the 9M82. Even the little dinky 9M96M/E2 has a longer range! So there is no apparent need to 'combine the far range of the S-300VM missile and the advanced electronics of the S-400 missile'. Is there a good explanation for this (or even an official explanation? Kazuaki Shimazaki 13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

Any cules on what this thing looks like. Obviously it will be hard to get a picture of it as it is reletivly new. And secondly any clues on the future operators of the system, other then China. Thanks, Bogdan 18:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

RANGE

The range is not 3,500km, it is only 400km see http://www.fas.org/news/russia/1999/FTS19990505000617.htm

For the Nth time, people that edit the sentence are showing an ignorance of the factors involved. The missile's range is 400km. It can engage a ballistic missile out to 60km (IIRC). But the measure in the sentence is the range of the ballistic missile the S-400 can effectively target. The range of a ballistic missile roughly correlates to its speed. For example, short range Scud missiles (~100-200km) have a speed of 1.6-1.8km/s. Modified Scud missiles used by Saddam are in the 2km/s range and have ranges of about 500km. 3km/s corresponds to about 1000km range, 4.5km/s to 2500km and 4.8km/s to 3500km. In short. Reverting. Again. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 01:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The russian version of this page clearly states that S-400 has a range of up to 200km. Why in english version it is 400 km ??

Because the S400 is a system with many versions and variants. Also it has at least 3 kinds of missiles. And what distance are you talking about? Detection range? Tracking? Fire solution? Missile range? which missile?

• within a few years, information came out in parts, and with the adoption of missiles into service, and enhance the capacity of the radar to the finish level, there was a change the range. For example the very first regiment of S-400 used missiles on combat duty on C-300.--Rqasd (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

F-117 shot down

"Youtube movie shows the shrapnel holes on pieces of aircraft. This proves the fact that aircraft was shoot down. Not fall by incident like NATO generals told before."

I get your point, but why should it be on an article about S-400???? To ensure your fact does not bring sensationalism (as per WP:NEU) to the article. Germ 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the whole phrase "Sources claim that the S-400 is capable of detecting and destroying aircraft made with low observable materials such as "stealth" aircraft (although the types of detectable aircraft, extent to which detection is possible, and methods of detection and tracking have not been verified)" sounds like there are strong doubts about S-400 ability to detect and destroy such kind of aircraft. And it’s actually more POV than opinion based on facts. The fact is “stealth” aircraft could be destroyed even by an obsolete S-125. So there is no doubt that the latest generation of Soviet/Russian air defense systems can do that even better. I’ve change this phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necator (talk • contribs) 09:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The F-117 that got shot down in Eastern Europe was shot down because it used the same speed and altitude and route every day-- had orders to. It's path was predicted and it got taken down with a manually guided missile. Jtrainor 17:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove that somehow? Reliable sources? "got taken down with a manually guided missile" aha... at night ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necator (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to this article either way and I will continue to revert your attempted POV-pushing. Jtrainor 02:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put an wikiquette alert about that Necator 19:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's just boil this down to the basics.

Has the S-400 ever shot down a stealth aircraft? No. Has it ever been tested against a stealth aircraft? No.

Therefore, any statements with regard to it's effectiveness against stealth aircraft are claims and not fact. Jtrainor 00:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jtrainor - this statement has a reliable source. Not all reliably sourced statements are rigorously scientifically tested. In fact, your assertions are often completely unsourced - meaning your additions are the one that are not facts. To state that something is impossible requires a source too. --Cheeser1 14:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bulava has no relevance to this article.

Necator, I noticed you've violated the 3RR rule. How far will you go to push your POV? Jtrainor 22:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It has already been explained that to say "this missile is intended to _____" or "this missile does ____" does not require a thorough scientific test. Stop making absurd demands for proof of things that are sourced in information regarding the missile. No Wikipedian is going to go out and do missile tests in their back yard for you. And it looks to me like you've both broken the 3RR. Stop fighting, bickering, and revering each other. He's not the only one guilty of making this a discussion involving personal comments, incivility, and edit-warring. --Cheeser1 23:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain me, why am i guilty of this?Necator 00:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The current version of this text is misleading: "The S-400 is designed to be capable of detecting and destroying targets out to a range of 400km (250 miles), such as aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, including those with a range of 3,500 km and a speed of 3 miles per second and stealth aircraft." These claims have not been corroborated by any tests made known to reputable sources, nor are the provided references reliable for making such claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources - until these can be provided, the least POV wording is as it was presented when I cleaned up the article's sourcing via the text "According to Russian sources". This is factual and can be easily cited - the current version cannot. MalikCarr 01:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Furthermore, the supposition that "According to Russian sources" makes the statement less relevant or in any way inferior further implies the obvious POV conflicts presented by certain editors. It is a perfectly legitimate method to make these claims without resorting to original research or making unsourced statements (all of which are against policy). MalikCarr 01:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dont you think that russians know better than anyone else how did they design their things, simply because they are designers of this things? And prase like "According to designers, they are designed that as A" sounds like there are doubts in the fact that they are actually designed that as A not as B or C. So, if you want to put this phrase, can you please provide a reference to reliable source, which claims that russians probably designed that S-400 in some other way rather than this? Necator 12:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

From list of your contributions and your behaviuor it seems to me that you are sock-puppet of Jtrainor Necator 18:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to bring that up, try WP:SSP - this does not appear to be a single purpose account, or even a new account. You're going to have to do a little more than a happenstance sockpuppet accusation whenever two people agree with an opinion that you do not share. --Cheeser1 22:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what to do in case if i want to bring it up. And furthermore i said "it seems to me that you are", not "you are". Feel the difference. What about their opinion, its against wikipedia official policy. Both this users were told about Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, but keep putting absurd phrases in the article, trying to push Jtrainor's POV, asking for some "tests" here and so one...Necator 09:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Now noting that Necator has violated WP:3RR for the second time. Jtrainor 03:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I'm rather offended by such accusations. User:Jtrainor is a good friend of mine, and we have collaborated on projects before. However, even a casual observation between our prose and use of grammar/sentence structure should reveal innumerable differences and variations. In any case, aside from violating the three revert rule, I've also reported a blatant occurrence of violation of WP:AGF by User:Necator. Why don't you take a moment to calm down before an admin takes a particularly hostile view of your contributions? MalikCarr 04:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you with your friend calm down? Necator 13:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Because we aren't making blatant policy accusations and violating WPs to push forward with a POV-riddled and improperly sourced article. MalikCarr 01:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you answer my question from 12:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC) ?

For what it is worth, this system appears in most ways to be another Russian vaporware system. They have a tendency to exaggerate the claims of their weapons systems to help foreign sales (and have been for 50 years now). This "edit war" is one over a bunch of nonsense claims from Russian salesmen. Duckhunter6424 02:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read this?Necator 05:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wording surrounding capability of missile against stealth aircraft

User:Necator requested my thoughts on this current content dispute (). I don't know much about missiles, so my thoughts come from checking the sources provided and measuring the disputed wordings against the sources and against WP:NPOV. My thoughts are as follows:

• There has been no reliable source provided that states that the S-400 is effective against stealth sources.
• It is clear that the Russians designed the S-400 to be effective against stealth aircraft, and equally clear that they claim that it has that effectiveness.
• Both of the wordings in dispute ("The S-400 is designed to be..." and "According to Russian officials, the S-400 is capable...") are generally acceptable, since neither portrays the effectiveness in question as being factual. I think either wording would clear WP:NPOV, and I'd encourage involved editors to try to refrain from edit-warring on the question.
• Of the two wordings, I find the second ("According to Russian officials...") to be slightly more NPOV, since it is clearer about the origins of the claims. The alternative wording would be more likely, in my opinion, to mislead readers into believing that the missile has been proven effective against stealth aircraft (although, again, I don't have any significant problems with that wording, either - I just find including the source to be slightly preferable).
• I have the impression from reading the discussion on this page and at Bulava (missile) that many experts in the field of missile technology doubt Russian claims as to their missiles' capabilities. I think it would be very helpful to include a sentence about experts' views on the capabilities that the Russians are claiming, if such a sentence could be properly sourced.

Again, I don't pretend to be an authority on missiles; I'm only providing my opinion on WP:NPOV as requested by User:Necator. I hope that this is helpful. Sarcasticidealist 06:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment!

Neither me, nor Jtrainor or MalikCarr is experts in this area, as you can see from our contributions list. This discussion is more about wording and proper sourcing of article, rather than missile itself.

Another consideration i have about this wording, is absolutely everything in this article is "according to russian officials". But only this sentence is explicitly marked as such. And because of that, it sounds like there are doubts in what this sentence says. So, as i told before to MalikCarr, "if you want to put this phrase, can you please provide a reference to reliable source, where experts stated that they are doubting in that for some reasons?" Necator 07:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to have some specific source from some expert doubtful of the Russian officials' claims. Even without that, though, I think it makes sense to include "according to Russian officials". Not everything in the article seems to be according to Russian officials - for example, this source states some items as fact ("it will be able to destroy aircraft, cruise missiles, and short- and medium-range ballistic missiles at ranges of up to 400 kilometers"), but still adds "the Russians claimed" to the bits about stealth aircraft. Also, the source itself seems to use a variety of sources, not all of which come from the Russian government. In light of that, I think it's quite defensible to selectively add "According to Russian officials" to the parts that might be in doubt. Sarcasticidealist 07:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually full citation would be "Once operational, it will be able..." Because article was written before S-400 passed the test and became operational. Later articles from the same website says "capable of destroying stealth aircraft", "is designed to intercept and destroy airborne targets, including stealth aircraft" and so one. And in fact, Jtrainor didn't support his doubts (and claims in discussion) with even one source (see above), where this doubts are explicitly mentioned. And so, all his doubts are pure original research, and wikipedia is not a decent place for that, according to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Regarding "stealth aircraft" as i saw, there is nothing really special, and was defeated even by an outdated missile systems. So a lot of verifiable information is against Jtrainor's POV

BTW, MalikCarr have deleted this statement in a rush. Necator 09:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line, just about any air defense system, from a machine gun up to Patriot, is technically capable of shooting down a stealth aircraft. As has been mentioned before, "stealth" just refers to the RCS of a given target, and nothing more.

The thing that Necator (and the article being cited) seems to be missing here is that there is a critical difference between a technical capability and an operational capability (eg, ability to defeat a stealth aircraft). In order to defeat a plane like the F-22 or F-35, your radar will need to be able to acquire, track, and illuminate the target outside of the standoff range of the target's weapon system, and that is something that is very difficult to do. In other words, being "capable of destroying stealth aircraft" is not only far too vague a claim to be legitimate, but it is also pretty meaningless since it fails to give an operational context to such a capability.

Also, it does not bode particularly well for such claims when a global title of "stealth aircraft" is used, as there is a substantial difference in relative RCS between a first generation stealth aircraft like the F-117 and third generation stealth aircraft like the F-22. Lumping them all into a single group and then claiming that this system can destroy them all is pretty ridiculous. Duckhunter6424 14:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Now you're starting to see where I'm coming from. It's well known that the Russians have a long history of ludicrous claims for their tech (Sunburn missile, plasma stealth, and now this) and it's silly to just take them at face value. 18:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrainor (talk • contribs)

I am not "is experts" in this area, no, but I do subscribe to a number of defense industry publications and have a small library of books on the topic of air defense, missiles and modern guidance systems. I also keep in touch with new developments that occur on the web.

Giving the current state of their defense industries, Russian claims as to the capability of their technology must be taken with somewhat more scrutiny - their primary goal is to sell products, even if the capabilities are somewhat exaggerated. Nevertheless, we must take the Russian source at face value; until more reliable sources can confirm (or deny) the capabilities of this missile system, we can't pass our own judgment. That's original research.

What we *can* do is simply make note of the source of these claims. If the reader knows that Russian sources, as opposed to more reputable defense sector publications (such as Jane's), are the origins of these rather extraordinary reported features, then they can make their own judgments as to how believable they are. We cannot simply report them as fact, and nor can we ignore them as publicity - this middle path presents the best option available to us until we have more information from reliable sources. MalikCarr 19:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the above remarks by User:MalikCarr (except for those remarks that would require familiarity with missiles systems to agree with). Are there objections to using the "According to Russian sources" wording? Sarcasticidealist 19:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't think that anyone would object to noting that these claims are coming from the Russians. It is a particularly relevant fact considering their long history of exaggerating the performance of their military gear (like the MiG-25, or the Sunburn example given above), and the claims made about this system in particular flies in the face of some basic physical limitations that we know to be true from the development of Patriot. SIPR tells me the real answer of course (or at least what DIA says is the real answer), but as far as open source publications go, simple critical reading should indicate that at least a few of these claims are a bit far-fetched. Simply noting that they are coming from their respective source should give adequate framing of such claims to the casual reader. Duckhunter6424 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "history of exaggerating" you are talking about. As i've got from wikipedia article about Mig-25 "the MiG-25 worried Western observers and Western military analysts responded with the F-15 Eagle. The aircraft's true capabilities were not discovered until 1976 when Viktor Belenko, a Soviet MiG-25 pilot, defected to Japan." And mig-25 wasn't sold to any country until 1976 ( considered to be secret ). So overestimation of mig-25 capabilities definitely did not come from soviet advertisement. What i've got about Sunburn "SS-N-22 Sunburn is the NATO reporting name for two unrelated Soviet anti-ship missiles. Although the missiles were very different, distinguishing is difficult ... It was therefore not confirmed that the "SS-N-22" actually identified two different missiles until after the fall of the Soviet Union." Again, there was a mistake made by NATO intelligence service, not came from russian officials. So leave please you anti-russian bias for some propagandistic TV show. Misplaced Pages is not a good place for that. I would be wonder if russians are well known to be always lying about ther weapons and somebody still buying it. What about physical limitations, don't forget that russians have very advanced radar technology. They launched first over the horizon radar and OHT-SW as well. If some1 would tell you in 1944 that americans can build a bomb, which able to evaporate big city, would you believe? So even if there something sounds unbelievable, it does not mean its impossible. Regarding "operational capability", how do you think, is outdated S-125 capable do destroy F-117? As for stealth generations, do you know what frontal RCS have F-117 and F-35? Maybe there is no big difference in RCS between this generations. And again. All sad above is our POV. Can you bring up even one source, where this capabilities of S-400 are explicitly criticized? Necator 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I want here. Jtrainor 23:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If by "quote a source", you mean go to Google and look for some open source nonsense, no, I'm not going to do that. I'll just cite a classic example: the Soviets publicized as early as 1970 that the MiG-25 was a Mach 3 capable aircraft (in large part to try and deter the XB-70 program). It wasn't until the defection that it was realized that the Mach 3 number was operationally unattainable; that it could only go that fast if the engines were destroyed in the process. This sort of misinformation has been propagated by the USSR/Russia since they first attempted to sell WWII vintage tanks to the Chinese just after the Revolution, and it continues today most notably in the form of their claims of the Su-37 and yes, the S-400.

The reason why nations prefer Russian equipment is simple - it is a far cheaper and in many cases a better diplomatic alternative to American equipment. Why pay $30 million for an F-15 when you can have a MiG-29 for a third of that? On paper, they are very similar in performance, but the poor operational characteristics of the MiG-29 aren't really apparent in a sales brochure.

It is pretty obvious that you're arguing from a position of ignorance (otherwise you would not have attempted to explain away physical limitations of modern radars by explaining "russians have very advanced radar technology", and then proceeding to accuse us of having an "anti-russian bias").

Now, since you're the one claiming these Russian sales pitches as truth, I'll ask YOU to show us some data that shows the true operational capability of this system. Can it engage and destroy the warhead of a MRBM, or can it simply hit it? Two very different things. Can it achieve a warhead kill on a ballistic missile with a submunition warhead? You'd need a point to point interception for that...I hope this thing isn't proximity fuzed. Can it engage semiballistic and maneuvering ballistic missiles? If not, it is next to useless versus most current opponents.

I can go on for a while on this stuff. And no, it isn't my "point of view", it is what I do for a living. Duckhunter6424 01:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindented)
Why do you ignoring my questions? For easy reading i'll group them now.

• Is outdated S-125 operationally capable to destroy F-117?
• About Mig-25. I am doubting that soviets publicized something about Mig-25 before 1976. It was top secret. Can you please provide source for such an publications?
• What do you think about "exaggerating the performance of the Sunburn" by soviets?
• Last, but not least. For the n'th time "Can you bring up even one source, where this capabilities of S-400 are explicitly criticized?"

What about your questions.
Q: "Can it engage and destroy the warhead of a MRBM, or can it simply hit it? Two very different things. Can it achieve a warhead kill on a ballistic missile with a submunition warhead? You'd need a point to point interception for that..."
A: "The 9M96 missiles are hittiles designed for direct impact, and use canards and thrust vectoring to achieve extremely high G and angular rate capability " from here (yes i do provide sources. haven't seen even one from you yet) Everything about fuses and so one is explained in that source Necator 08:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I cant help to notice when looking at discussion of advanced US weapon systems on wikipeida that there seems to be a number of very well informed, well educated people out there that do "this thing for a living" as just recently claimed by one of the latest posts. Or just read up on the raptor vs. eurofighter discussion, this one here is another one. The strategy is always the same, hype up US Technology with claims that are equally less founded (sure you got a source attributed to some marketing comments of a general or pilot), however it's not established fact. On the other hand foreign technology that is either competing against US interests, or could go to US opponents are constantly edited, claims are canceled. They throw out some technical jargon and some name dropping before simply just shutting down the discussion or topic or claim. Most people here are not stupid.. but go ahead and digg in a little bit, read the discussions you see the same pattern over and over again... I know there are huge economic interests and others in play so it only makes sense to hire or employ some people that keep an eye on the information that pulls up on the top spots in the internet when googling these weapon systems...

SO IS IT JUST ME WHO IS NOTICING THIS...

Well, this is getting a little bit silly now that we've arrived at the land of spit and anger and tinfoil, so I'll leave you to your Google-based argument. I will say though that it is certainly to the advantage of "US interests" for nations to opt for the S-400 versus Patriot or MEADS. Pretty strange to argue otherwise. Also, if the 9M96 interceptor is hit-to-kill, why does it have a proximity-fuzed warhead? :) Duckhunter6424 19:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually source said it have "A smart radio fuse is used to control the warhead timing and pattern." and just 53 lb (24 kg) warhead. And this source is Dr. Carlo Kopp. Seems to be pretty good educated guy. But sources is nothing for you, right? You just shouldn't forget that russians are always exaggerating. Take care! =) Necator 19:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The US Patriot PAC-3 is also supposed to be HTK, yet it has an even larger warhead (it is used against aircraft AFAIK)! As for US interests, it depends on whether the US thinks it is gonna go to war with said nation. If it isn't, then the sales is commercial and not buying Patriot hurts US interests. Even if the US is going to go to war, your assumption is only as true as the US assumption that Russian equipment is inferior + the additional penalty that the US will know its Patriots a lot better than it would know the S-400 anytime in the near future... --Kazuaki Shimazaki 01:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is actually about S-400 ability against stealth. Necator 18:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that, but I was replying to Duckhunter. Personally, I have no objection to ascribing the anti-stealth stuff to Russian sources. And neither should you IMO. After all, they are the guys that should know best about their systems, and it is not like the basics of stealth are not known to all. Until they manage to steal some of the actual system, the "West" can only guess the plausibility of Russian claims based on their own achievements. (As an example, Americans didn't believe for a long time that Project 705 (Alfas) were made of titanium, partially because to them it was so difficult.) If you believe the Russians shouldn't have credibility problems, then ascribing statements to them is no problem. In fact, constantly insisting on "confirmation" from Western sources or trying to hide the Russian origin only perpetuates this perception of poor credibility. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

PAC-3 does not have a proximity fuzed warhead, as this source indicates the S-400 does. This is one of many issues with this system (most are classified) that make experts in the field highly skeptical of Russian claims. It absolutely blows my mind that anyone would take this sort of data as truth, moreso that anyone would have any issue with ascribing it to the source from which it came. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckhunter6424 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's so, this will be completely inconsistent with open source information, though in ABM mode the PAC-3 is apparently HTK (but apparently so is the 9M96). Further, the United States itself used proximity fuzing in ABM for PAC-2. The fact that the US could not get what they felt to be a theoretically workable idea to work is their problem. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You're entirely incorrect; the PAC-3 is not a proximity fuzed weapon (I would like to see the fine "open source" that you're citing here). It has a warhead that is used in aircraft engagements, but it is categorically not a proximity fuzed device. PAC-2 family interceptors are of course, as they are a much older technology. Duckhunter6424 15:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Try for example FAS.org. Further, the only real alternative is that the thing has no proximity fuze, and so if it misses an aircraft by an inch for any reason, the thing's harmless --Kazuaki Shimazaki 01:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guy, the PAC-3 does not have a proximity fuze. FAS.org (although it is not a "source") does not even support your claim, so I am not sure why you cited it. Also, the PAC-3 does in fact have a warhead, just not a proximity fuzed device. You really appear to have no idea what you're talking about here...highlighted by the fact that you think the PAC-3 would miss its target by more than an inch. :) Duckhunter6424 11:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/patriot.htm would seem to disagree with you. It is one thing to assert from your unreferenciable, ostensibly top-secret / personal experience sources within the US Army that in truth the Open Source information is wrong and that the PAC-3 doesn't use proximity fuzing. It is another to fight what is actually printed on a source's page, even if you think it is wrong. BTW, you can't refute "sources" on the basis that they don't agree with you. And while the PAC-3 is supposedly very maneuverable, the arrogance of thinking that the PAC-3 (or any weapon) will never miss its target, THAT is beyond words. I find it STUNNING that you find this blanket claim of 100% hit rates to be more plausible than any claims from the Russians. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that your "source" is a document that is dated over 7 years ago is amusing to me. Google defense experts are great. Also, I was being sarcastic in my comment about PAC-3's accuracy (I thought that was obvious), although you should bear in mind that a PAC-3 interceptor will never be used against a fixed wing aircraft anyway.Duckhunter6424 17:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Move along

The stealth claim is generally attributed to Colonel-general Yury Solovyov, add that and stop edit-warring and discussing about stuff that isn't even relevant to the article. You can do that on a forum. - Dammit 09:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is everything in wikipedia should be verifiable. If you can provide source for that ( that this "claim" have only one origin, and this origin is Colonel-general Yury Solovyov ). Go ahead and put it. I dont have a problem with that.

As for now, one more source for you "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. ... The system provides the capability to engage very low RCS aircraft at ranges in excess of 100 nautical miles" (c) by Dr Carlo Kopp Necator 19:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your interpretation of WP:V, here. We have found reliable sources saying that Russian officials claim that the S-400 would be effective against stealth aircraft, so we can put in the article that Russian sources claim that. We don't need to find a source saying that Russian officials are the only ones who claim that unless we want to say as much in the article. "Russian officials claim that the S-400 would be effective against stealth aircraft, but they have a history of exaggerating the capabilities of Russian weaponry." would need sources beyond what we have now. "Russian officials claim that the S-400 would be effective against stealth aircraft, but this claim has not been corroborated by any independent experts." would need sources beyond what we have now. "Russian officials claim that the S-400 would be effective against stealth aircraft." is already well-sourced. Sarcasticidealist 20:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. What do you think about citation provided above by me? Seems to be not russian, pretty reliable source, which says that this kind of systems are pretty effective against stealth. I'll repeat this citation for convenience: "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. ... The system provides the capability to engage very low RCS aircraft at ranges in excess of 100 nautical miles" (c) by Dr Carlo Kopp Necator 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Now we get to the part where my not knowing anything about military hardware is kind of a problem. Can I infer that "F/A-18/Joint Strike Fighter" means "stealth aircraft" and that "S-300V/VM systems" includes the S-400? Also, what does "RCS" mean? In ignorance, Sarcasticidealist 20:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know better than you before this dispute started ;) Now i've got a lot of useful new knowledge. S-400 Triumf or SA-20 system is the subsequent evolution of the S-300 system, as this source says. And what about RCS what do you need wikipedia for? ;) To have a nice time in discussions? You can read about that as a part of stealth technology page as well.Necator 20:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgot about JSF. In wikipedia this JSF have been put to Stealth aircraft category. Necator 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One possible source is already in the article: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070612/67093682.html, but various other newspapers and werbsites have the same story. Note how all sources stating Russion officials (less specific) have copied the wording used by colonel-general Solovyov. - Dammit 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind attributing it to Solyov myself, but to be fair, how many ways are there to say that a system is highly capable against stealth aircraft? --Kazuaki Shimazaki 01:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys lets face it, there are plety of sources, reliable sources. The fact that they are mostly russian shouldnt make a difference, since US sources to base claims of US capabilities seem to be ok.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.190.6 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad analogy. "US sources" don't tend to make claims as the Russians do, as such capabilities are usually classified. Duckhunter6424 15:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty bold claim. The US military may seem more honest to you (where are you from, exactly?), but they've been dishonest plenty of times, and exaggerate/brag just like any other military. It's part of the job description. --Cheeser1 15:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Duckhunter6424, I thought you have leave the discussion and freed us from your rubbish, aren't you? And please, don't try to push your POV by brute force. Not only russian sources "claims" this system capability against stealth, and this sources have been provided. Try to be more civil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necator (talk • contribs) 16:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no reputable source that supports your claim, classified or not (the Russian military is not reputable). Also, interesting that you are the only one slinging insults and are demanding that we be "civil".

Your inexplicable desire to conceal the source of this claim invalidates your position.Duckhunter6424 15:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it less reputable than, oh, the US military making stabs at guessing about enemy weapons? The US military that quietly downgraded its estimates of Patriot ABM efficiency after the Gulf War (with the revised ones still looking too high)? --Kazuaki Shimazaki 01:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, more or less reputable, it doesn't have any matter any more. Because among this 3 references provided, at least 1 is not russian. BTW such claims about patriot are totally unreferenced Necator 08:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of the bad sources about Patriot performance coming out of the Gulf war were the same open source nonsense organizations that you guys keep referencing - the military's classified assessements were highly dubious as early as 1986, which is what spurred the PAC-3 development in the first place (being as a proximity fuzed weapon is largely ineffective versus a ballistic missile target, period). Curious why you've concluded the "revised ones" are still "looking too high". I'd love to see that analysis. As for the Patriot article, I'd have no problem with modifying in the same way this article should be modified - that is, to cite who is making each claim. I'm game if you are. Duckhunter6424 11:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If the military's "classified assessment" were "highly dubious" as early as 1986, then aren't you agreeing with me that the US military is not awfully Trustworthy? Whatever the case, the truth, even as admitted by the Army, is far from the enthusiasm they showed at the beginning. BTW, see the repeated arguments between Postol and Zimmerman, which actually lasted for years after what was mentioned in the current Patriot article, including an independent review that found that Postol's methodology is valid and all. BTW, regarding the ability of proximity fuzed warheads - the 2005 report (already linked in Patriot article) suggests they are efficacious, at least for shorter range BMs. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not agreeing with you. I'm telling you that the military realized there were significant issues with the early PAC-2 interceptors and radars long before Ted Postol published his piece of groundbreaking nonsense, and simply because that information was not (and continues not) to be available to the average Google user does not mean that the military was unaware of the system issues.Duckhunter6424 17:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say so, but all your talking doesn´t seems to be relevant. All your are telling or discussing is about the reputation of the sources, not the real question in fact that is the S-400 System. I am very sorry if all what you could say are speculations, it´s not possible to know if the S-400 is going to be capable to shootdown sthealt aircraft until it do. So I recommend you to analyze the facts using science. Do you know what is needed to detect a sthealt aircraft? or what is needed to track it and guide a missil toward him? Glad to wait for your discussion.--OverG (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Aren't ALL the talks about the reliability of Russian sources on S-400 a bit ... pointless? So far, there are no sources on it, apart from Russian military. Alternative sources will not appear until a) S-400 participates in a war, or b) S-400 is exported. The latter will happen not sooner than the next generation anti-missile system is designed by Russians - such is their tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.242.12 (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We should just write that the Russians claim the S-400 is able to track and engage stealth aircraft as we cannot verify that the S-400 has any special capability against such aircraft like the Russians claim. Yeah one F-117A was shot down by a SA-3, but that was mostly the result of poor planning. The Serbs figured out it's flight path and spotted it one day, probably with the help of night vision devices. So they fired a salvo of SA-3s and one got lucky. The F-117A does not have much of a heat signature, so it probably would not have shown up too well on thermal imagers, and low-light TV systems don't work too well at night. --24.177.251.86 (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said later, we must use science if we want to get serious. The serbians actually found that the nighthawk do not absorb or reflect in dif. directions all of the radar energy, in fact it absorbs only a dtermined range of wavelenght, the energy pass that wavelenght is reflected like any other aircraft towards the radar, that was in this case an older P-18 station. Then it was possible to use that information to shoot down the F-117 with one or two missile shoots. --OverG (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Guys this arguments against the Sa3 are ridiculous, it's a radar guided missile that's all if you see the plane it won't have any effect on the radar guidance of the missile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiga12 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Anti - stealth (locator's): Protivnik-GE, Gamma-DE. + 30К6Е control system or Baikal-E senior command posts and other similar types = Anti - stealth (all rocet+all sistem's) option - 1L13, + http://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vsk/rls_nebo-svu.html --Rqasd (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

+ Caste-2-2 http://www.vniirt.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=19 Rqasd (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Renaming of the Page

Hadn't we decided to stick with the Russian designations now that they are available? Why change it now to the NATO designation. For older Soviet missiles, this makes some sense because everyone in the West remembers the NATO designation, but this is not true for the newer weapons. I doubt anybody is any more familiar with SA-20 or SA-21 than the S-300 or S-400. Please explain the reason for the change. Kazuaki Shimazaki 01:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please continue to list all known aliases. Many systems have multiple names, as you have noted, and it can be difficult to determine which is which. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.250.2.10 (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Kazuaki. This issue was discussed many times now (on other weapon systems). I think we should rename it S-400_(missile). Just like the SA-10... ŦħęGɛя㎥ 04:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

4,8km/s

The sources states that it can intercept targets with a speed of 17280km/h but only ballistic missiles with a limited range to 3500km ? Why not ICBMs were is the difference ? --Saiga 21:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiga12 (talk • contribs)

I think the speed is the actual limit. Not being an expert, I suppose that in a missile flying a "purely" ballistic trajectory, the final speed is determined by the distance travelled. I remember that ICBM's reentry speed is as much as 7 km/s. --Kubanczyk 14:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Interceptor can be easily slower than incoming warhead, but calculating warhead trajectory and then adjusting interceptor speed and trajectory is possible, so even slow missile (patriot in any version is much slower than S-300 or S-400) can hit warhead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.105.40 (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Range, Yet Again

The Jane's article quoted for the range of the 40N6 missile says 400km yet in on the page its repeatedly stated as 200km. Either change the citation or the range but get it right people. Until a new citation turns up I'm sticking the range back up to 400km. 81.158.11.190 (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

aim to bring it closer to capabilities of MIM-104E Patriot?

"It overshadows the capabilities of the other systems from the S-300 series, with the aim of bring it closer to the capabilities of the MIM-104E Patriot." This should be rewritten, MIM-104E version (I think it's designation for PAC2 export version of system) is not comparable to S-400 (nor in terms of range, speed, warhead weigt, operation mode etc), so why should S-400 be developed with aim to come closer to capabilities of system that is in another class (don't wanna say inferior because S-400 nor S-300 was combat tested, simply because nobody have attacked countries possesing those systems). Plus 104E version is not even listed in wiki page about patriot. I think this should be rewritten... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.105.40 (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"I completely agree with the previous poster. Vast majority of Internet sources claim that at least on paper S-300 is comparable or better than Patriot (depending on the versions of both the former and the latter systems), and that S-400 is definitely superior (again, on paper). Therefore, the questioned statement in the beginning of this article seems a bit strange. Besides, it is unsourced. P.S. Sorry for my formatting, complete newbie :)" - Stan

Saudi Arabia Deal

Whoever is claiming that the Saudi deal has stalled due to U.S./Isreali pressure needs to get a citation which actually supports said claim or stop adding it. The article only states about Iran being rejected from buying S-300s due to foreign pressure, not Saudi Arabia. As such I'm deleting the claim and will continue to do so until someone finds evidence to support it. 217.43.185.227 (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference you keep removing says "Katz noted that some Russian sources "also see pressure from Washington as a reason why Riyadh hasn't signed a major arms agreement with Moscow." read it all the way though. Jeff Song (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What English language word is used to describe a system consisting of command and control, search and fire control radars, and 8-12 launchers

launcher? Or maybe even in the wheels? The minimum unit-division. what battalion? be read carefully?

1 division include:1 panoramic radar,1 sector radar,1 guidance radar,8-12 launchers, 8-12 recharge vehicle, Rocket passive and does not work without the complex. measured in the divisions.

Launcher does not work alone--188.255.41.104 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

In the English language in the 21st Century a division is about 12,000 to 20,000 men. Most sources call the unit you describe above as a "battalion", though Jane's year books call it a "battery".--Toddy1 (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the sources you quote in today's edits is a Defense Threat Informations Group (www.dtig.org) document in German, entitled . Like Jane's publications it uses the word "battery" to mean what some other sources call a battalion. The current version is Version 3.8, February 2012. Clearly the updating process at DTIG is a bit like Misplaced Pages, because some sentences contradicts other sentences in the same paragraphs, for example:

• Ein SA-21 Regiment besteht aus einem 30K6 C2 System und bis zu sechs SA-21 Batterien. Eine SA-21 Batterie besteht aus einem GRAVESTONE Feuerleitradar und bis zu zwölf 5P85T2 Startfahrzeugen.
• In den russischen Streitkräften Besteht ein Regiment üblicherweise aus zwei Batterien mit je acht Startfahrzeugen.

--Toddy1 (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• you're so smart, do not try to read Russian source? Division is a 1 complex of SAM, the regiment consists of 2-6 SAM. other value do not use in Russia--188.255.41.104 (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Go http://www.rospres.com/corruption/5769/ http://www.webtelek.com/news/story/2012/02/21/s400/ http://www.zakonvremeni.ru/news/16-6-/511--5-400.html --188.255.41.104 (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is English language wikipedia. You have to write in English. Also what you write is not supported by the sources you quote.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

are you blind?--188.255.41.104 (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20091126/195628071.html Zelin know more than you--188.255.41.104 (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have requested third party opinions by placing a notice on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Request_for_other_opinions.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

правильно **ть дивизион (-ов) в составе полка. кто в армии служил тот в цирке *** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.19 (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion - Battalion ?

Have we settled on battalion ? The battery (of launchers) with one command centre and multiple radar units is deployed by a battalion of personnel ? One regiment may have 2 or 3 battalions ? - Rod57 (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

help fix links

--Rqasd (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC) I've corrected the article according to authoritative sources, and put links to the sources, but some of them, though links work on the Internet did not work in wiki markup. please help fix.

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-598.html

it just looks like a blog, it's - the information system. contains only articles, and does not contain personal the views. BLOG is only visual form of the title sections (chapters). --Rqasd (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Misplaced Pages. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsrussia-to-induct-three-s-400-battalions-in-2012/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II _Online 12:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The new complex passive sensor 400 km radius

http://rostec.ru/news/3744

На вооружение российской армии поступили системы пассивной радиолокации «Москва-1» (10 штук), способные видеть в 2,5 раза дальше, чем аналоги предыдущего поколения. Время развертывания занимает 45 минут. Система сканирует воздушное пространство и, обнаружив оснащенную радиоэлементами технику противника, передает полученные данные средствам радиоэлектронной борьбы (РЭБ), ПВО и ВВС для нейтрализации целей.

Летит крылатая ракета, она излучает 5–6 сигналов одновременно: поддерживает радиосвязь со своим пунктом управления, сканирует рельеф местности радиовысотомером, связывается со спутниковыми навигационными системами, например GPS, на конечном участке включает определение цели — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.21 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

S-400 in Algeria

Before anybody decides to add Algeria as a current operator of the S-400, please bear in mind that the original source that claims this is this website. Just by reading the website, it's an obvious speculation and is therefore not confirmed. Khazar (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah and it's not even a trusted site anyway, they just showed photos of S-300 PMU 2 in Algeria and claimed it's S-400!! this site is the original source that spread this lie!! how could the S-400 be in Algeria already while China (the first country that ordered it) didn't even receive it yet!! don't take any news from Algerian sources like secretdifa3 it's an Algerian site, they claim a lot of bullshit and are not reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.36.13.212 (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The Algerian military blog published the first photos of the new air defense system of the armed forces of the country, identified as the Russian S-400 SAM

https://rg.ru/2015/07/22/s400-site-anons.html То, что на фотографиях именно "Триумфы", подтверждают брянские тягачи БАЗ-64022. Системы С-300ПМУ2, стоящие на вооружении Алжира с 2003 года, передвигаются при помощи КрАЗов ) http://nashi-avto.ru/ru/bzkt/%D0%92%D0%9E%D0%A9%D0%98%D0%9D%D0%90-1/6402/%D0%B1%D0%B7%D0%BA%D1%82-64022.jpg БАЗ-64022 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/S-300PMU2%26KrAZ-260-MAKS-2007.jpg КрАЗ )))

Horrible grammar

This article is full of horrible sentence structure and grammar. One example is under the Missile category:

"The 40N6 very long range missile is capable of destroying airborne targets at ranges up to 400 km (250 mi). Active radar homing head. (expected in 2012) To engage targets out of sight from the ground (for homing missile can) is designed to find the target."

What the heck does this even mean? Someone really needs to clean up this article, or at least flag it

CheesusChrist117 (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, this page lacks structure, contains syntactical and grammatical errors and contains redundant information.

Deployment to Syria

There are many substantial reports on the S-400 deployment to Syria after the Turkish downing of the Russian aircraft . Spechtia (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

is much more important does the speed which s300v4 rockets higher by 50% than the C400, as well as the fact that the B4 has more radars, and designed specifically for the fight at the sharp edge. C400 is just a cover rear areas. B4 also has a long-range missile by 50-100% more than the current S400. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.146 (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Intentional damage. War edits 2017

External links modified - 2017 - can remove per sourcecheck

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on S-400 missile system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150427014847/http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1273929.html to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1273929.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Fire units or divisions

The top right template states that fire unit = division yet isn't consistant about it. Is it true ? Should we use fire units or divisions ? cc: ScrapIronIV. Note: I have no preference but as a reader I'am confuse by the current use of one then the other while equality is suggested yet unclear. --Yug (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia has agreed to buy Russian S-400

Saudi Arabia has agreed to purchase S-400 from Russia, according to Saudi television station al-Arabiya and saudi press agency. The deal was reportedly reached on the sidelines of the visit by Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud to Moscow. Saudi Arabia agrees to buy Russian S-400 air defense system: Arabiya TV Saudi Arabia agrees to buy Russian S-400 air defense system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrmoo3 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

India approves S-400 buy from Russia

Someone should update the current article as there has been developments in the India section.

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/09/28/india-approves-s-400-buy-from-russia-amid-expectations-for-more-bilateral-deals/

Let's wait for the deal to be signed per WP:NOTNEWS. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

India has made advance payment to Russia for S-400 missile defense system. Now India will get the first delivery of this system next year. In the next 6 years (by 2025) Russia will hand over all the defense systems to India.2 September 2019

Source: https://www.newsdefence.in/indian-airforce/advance-payment-done-by-india-to-russia-for-s-400-missile/ 2 September 2019

"ground objectives"?

The article reads:

"it can also be used against ground objectives"

How about "ground targets"? 85.193.247.94 (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Sputnik is not generally considered a reliable source

BlackFlanker Shouldn't Russian state news report claims about the popularity of a Russian weapon system, at the very least, be explicitly attributed in text to Russian state sources? We're an encyclopedia, not a marketing brochure. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson I do understand Sputnik may be considered an unreliable source when it comes to foreign policy, however, I don't think it should be considered the same way when reporting about the Russian military or Russian internal affairs, especially not when Russian defence sources are clearly cited in its articles. The sources down below (used in the S-400 article) are good examples of it.

Russia to Get New Short-Range Air Defense System in 2015 – according to then-Deputy Defense Minister Col. Gen. Oleg Ostapenko

Russia to Deploy Anti-Ship Bastion Missile Complexes in Arctic in 2015 – according to Northern Fleet Commander Adm. Vladimir Korolev

Game Changer: China Will Soon Have S-400 Air Defense Systems Defending Its Skies – according to Rostec Director for International Cooperation Victor Kladov

BlackFlanker (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Why would Russian state sources such as Russian military commanders be considered reliable sources? States exaggerate defense capabilities all the time, especially when unchecked by independent media. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The world of mass-media relies heavily on official government sources - without them there would be virtually no press and, basically, an information vacuum in terms of government-public communitcation. Whether they exggerate or not, is pure speculation and shouldn't be of our concern as Wikipeida editors. They are official. Moreover, following this logic, 70-80% of military-related content on Wikipeida must be removed: take a closer look at what the "reliable media" sources usually point to in the military articles - it is either an official statement (or documentation), or some "anonymous source whithin the government", or something else from this category. Though, statements and documentation (like yearly reports on procurement, manufacturer' datasheets etc.) are the most common examples. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If you have specific examples of other content that doesn't pass Misplaced Pages's "reliable sources" standards, let me know and I'll be happy to delete them as well. The New York Times citing an unnamed government source is fine to include per WP:DUE. Sputnik is not the New York Times. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Name of the S-400: Triumph or Triumf

The names of military equipment from non-English speaking countries must be transliterations of the name in the native language, not translations. To prove my point: Alfa-class submarine The submarine is called Alfa, not Alpha. Therefore, the S-400 must be called the Triumf. NATO Codenames are available for English speakers. Alternatively, a translation can be included in brackets, e.g. The S-400 Triumf (Russian: C-400 Триумф, Triumf; Translation: Triumph; NATO reporting name: SA-21 Growler)

removed from article - discuss

" Despite this, further uses and analyzes on battlefields in later years have questioned the efficiency of the missile system. -- https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/unanswered-israeli-air-strikes-against-syria-raise-s-400-questions " which was added in Feb 2020 into the lede. The story is mostly a hearsay article without any specifics - more investigation needs to be done before putting this material in the BODY of the article with references, and a mention in the lede ... if these units are manned by Russian operators who are not firing on Israeli strikes, then this is some sort of political attack against Syria's Russian Federation ally and nothing to do with actual battlefield results 50.111.51.247 (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

THEHINDU13April21 ref

@N Jeevan: you've added this ref name, but forgot to fill in the definition. Could you please add the intended source? Thanks! -- Fyrael (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Modificications

In an effort at clearing some ot the issues elucidated in the introductory template, I have been working on punctuation, NPOV of the article, and clarity of expression. I have left a couple of the issues open, as I have no Russian, nor do I obtain to the strict technology of offensive or defensive missile systems particularly. Also, I am relatively new to editing and have no knowledge of "gallery" modification, though I find some redundancy there. Please review and help....cordially...thx.Makermark (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unreliable sources

An unregistered user, operating under multiple IPs, keeps adding a claim not backed up by any reliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=S-400_missile_system&diff=1100014552&oldid=1100013434

Analysis of six sources:

1. https://mailbd.net/news/russian-s-400s-multiplyed-by-zero-invincible-himars-49483/
The source of this article is the blogger/youtuber Yuriy Podolyaka. Not wikipedia reliable.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVk-cbyJb0MSwxdEP7WsAxw/videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMXDT7usMCDOUGB8Bd7UU4w/videos

2. https://lyricsfreak.com.ru/2022/07/kherson-caa-accused-kyiv-of-trying-to-hit-himars-on-the-bridge-across-the-dnieper/
No mention of an S-400 being used. Also seems to be a blog.

3. https://vg-news.ru/n/160117?ysclid=l5yapmu5ig218169373
The article relies on a youtube video made by the aforementioned blogger/youtuber Yuriy Podolyaka as a source. Not wikipedia reliable.

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hugMGhu2rK4
This is simply a youtube link. Not wikipedia reliable.

5. https://srbin.info/en/svet/ruski-pvo-s-400-u-hersonu-dobio-vazan-duel-protiv-americkih-bacaca-himars/
The article provides no source and simply states it as "Source: Facts". Not wikipedia reliable.

6. The original claim was made on TASS (https://tass.com/defense/1482931), however there is again no mention of S-400 being used.

This S-400 claim cannot be verified on known, prominent news outlets. Eddmanx (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Structure and Components

If you don't already know what units an S-400 battalion consists of, it's very hard to understand the Structure and Components sections in this article. And then, how does an S-400 battalion communicate with sister units and HQ ? Of the 3+ radar types which are in the typical or basic S-400 deployment ? - Rod57 (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no confirmation of any S-400 systems destroyed by Ukraine

Any declaration from one party involved in a conflict must be signalled as such: a claim, an assumption, something alleged etc. Klehus (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This. There are so many fantastical claim from Ukrainian side immediately reported as true despite lacking real evidence (photo, video etc). Dauzlee (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• C-Class weaponry articles
• Weaponry task force articles
• C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• Start-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
• Start-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance Start-Class Russia articles
• Start-Class Russia (technology and engineering) articles
• Technology and engineering in Russia task force articles
• Start-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Articles reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors