Page 2 of 2

RE: S400 batteries....?

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:06 pm
by Aivlis
The thing is, if you pit systems 1v1, you're back to the infinite plane of uniform density, ie: an unrealistic, oversimplified scenario.
Would you consider an aircraft carrier all by itself? Or an Oscar-class sub without supporting SSNs to locate targets ahead of it?

There is no right or wrong solution to this problem, but if you're going for realism, remember that no weapon systems are deployed on their own.

RE: S400 batteries....?

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:52 pm
by Gunner98
Some further thoughts, S-400 is a strategic air defense system, not a tactical air defense. In that case, it'll only be deployed to defend strategic targets and only in limited capabilities. Anything more than a single S-400 in a scenario is unrealistic

Dr Ransom, I'm not sure that this statement is totally accurate. Although this is according to Wiki, the data is fairly well referenced:

 Russia – 27 battalions in 13 regiments (at least 200 launchers)[88][115][116][117][118]
Moscow region:
2 battalions of the 210th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment, Dmitrov;[119]
2 battalions of the 606th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment, Elektrostal;[120][121]
2 battalions of the 93rd Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment, Zvenigorod;[122]
2 battalions of the 549th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment, Podolsk;[123]
2 battalions of the 183rd Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Western Military District, Kaliningrad;[124]
2 battalions of the 500th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Western Military District, Saint-Petersburg;[125]
2 battalions of the 589th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Eastern Military District, Nakhodka;[126][127]
3 battalions of the 1532nd Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Eastern Military District, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky;[128][129][130]
2 battalions of the 1537th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Southern Military District, Novorossiysk;[131]
2 battalions of the 531st Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Western Military District, Murmansk;[132][133]
2 battalions of the 590th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Central Military District, Novosibirsk;[134]
2 battalions of the 1533th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Eastern Military District, Vladivostok.[135]
2 battalions of the 18th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment in the Southern Military District, Feodossia, Crimea.[136]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system

So some are certainly looking after Strategic assets, many of the Regts belong to Military Districts which sub allocates them to Armies, so I would say an Operational level system in that case. Also they don't come in 1's normally, generally in Regts of 2 Bns plus reinforcing lower level SAM systems. Considering the range envelope they cover, 27 Bns is a lot.

B

RE: S400 batteries....?

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:04 pm
by kevinkins
Actually the S400 is hard enough now with the current level of abstraction. So I guess the comment to me:

" don't forget to add the accompanying assets to a S-400 battalion: Pantsir-S1 for point defense, decoys for radar and launchers, and self defense jammers and chaff / flare launchers to defeat terminal homing missiles."

was tongue-n-cheek advice given the number of unknowns and affect those items would have on play balance. I took it too seriously. Glad we cleared that up. It would be interesting to compare a drop-in S400 with one on steroids. I fear the demo would not have wide appeal however. A pet project. Drop-ins augmented by scripting are the way to go for scenarios.

RE: S400 batteries....?

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:58 pm
by DrRansom
Gunner98 - I am under the impression that the S-400 would be deployed to defend strategic sites, e.g. nuclear bases, production facilities, and airfields. It wouldn't be deployed to cover maneuver forces. That role would be given to Army Air Defense. Here, the separation is S-400 is given to PVO branch, not to the army.

That being said, a mobile SAM is a mobile SAM and can be used for any role.

kevinkin - my response was barely tongue-in-cheek. I was responding to your suggestion to make a scenario which would be NATO forces against S-400. I think that such a scenario really has to include other aspects of the S-400 system, namely the point defense weapons, the system's inherent maneuverability, and the low-radar emission tactics by the firing units.

Now, I do think a S-400 on steroids would be an interesting demo, as it represents the state-of-the-art for air defenses.

When we compare the scenario to reality, however, that's where all the other unknowns come into play. Cyber, for example, is probably a digital effect. Either the attack code works, or it doesn't. Either the NSA / USAF has a zero-day on the S-400, or it doesn't. There's no way of representing that in CMANO given public information. That's just a problem of limited information.

RE: S400 batteries....?

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:12 pm
by thewood1
Don't forget cyber goes both ways...as well as the hardening for cyber.

RE: S400 batteries....?

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:23 pm
by kevinkins
"has to include" is a pretty strong recommendation. Current scenarios use drop-in S400 battalions, including the very popular LIVE collections.
I don't think you believe these scenarios are invalid which is why I thought you were pulling our chain a bit. The technical details are fascinating. But I am wrapping up 2 weeks of design so I wanted to make sure my treatment of SAMs is rational. I think it is based on how the S400 is currently used in Command. I have thoughts on a demo; look to your PMs in a bit.

RE: S400 batteries....?

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:32 pm
by DrRansom
ORIGINAL: kevinkin
"has to include" is a pretty strong recommendation. Current scenarios use drop-in S400 battalions, including the very popular LIVE collections.

We've talked about this offline, I guess the question for the designer is the level of detail desired for SAM batteries. If they have a massive scenario already running, the drop in battalion is fine. If they're trying a more detailed one-on-one scenario, then the added capabilities would be more appropriate.