Talk:S-400 missile system

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/wiki/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

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

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)

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 [1]

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* [2] [3]

Planned re-arming rate is 2 regiments (of total 35) in a year [4] --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.

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)

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)

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[s] 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)

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 Wikipedia: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 ([5]). 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 Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia 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)

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)