Talk:S-300

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Max engagement altitude?

So, what is the max engagement altitude for the S-300 SAM? For a SAM this information is very important. Somebody who knows about this SAM, please add this information here. It would be helpful if the max alitutude is mentioned for each S-300 version. I am assuming that when the designers improved the max range they also improved the max engagement altitude. Thanks.. Raza0007 05:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the Rosoboronexport catalog it's 27 km for the PMU-1 and PMU-2 and 30 km for the V and VM variants. They didn't specify for which missiles though. - Dammit 22:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the missile really the SA-10 or the SA-14 (or somehow both)? If it's the SA-10, the reference to "SA-14" should be changed. If it's the SA-14, the info on it should be moved there and SA-10 made a redirect to Systems Concepts. If the missile is both, SA-14 should be created, perhaps as a redirect. --SHeumann 05:37, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The SA-14 is a handheld missile, the SA-10 is a massive ballistic missile. Someone apparantly fixed this a while ago, someone had SA-7 and SA-10 mixed up (somehow).

Nvinen 03:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I still need to do some work on the radar section. Nvinen 16:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Max. Speed" in the table was changed to "Speed". I changed it to "Top Speed" because "Speed" is too ambiguous. It could refer to average speed, which is a different figure. These figures are approximate but they're approximate maximums; at such high speeds, friction will be incredible and missile speed will drop rapidly, so average speed will most likely be lower for all but the shorter engagements. Nvinen 01:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I changed "Top Speed" to "Maximum Velocity" because, to be perfectly honest, I think it sounds better.Oceanhahn 02:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that all the articles here are listed by their NATO nicknames instead of their proper production names, anyway? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, if you ask me, but whatever. Oceanhahn 02:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just on ocaasion, i believe. If an article was originated by a western men, it gets a name from "NATO reporting codename" list. If, say, me is the originator, i'll use "native" name. Nevertheless, there are redirects which do the proper things. --jno 11:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Big' missile

I'd like to see some sources for the 'Big' missile as part of the S-300 system. As far as I could find the missile is at most compatible with the S-300 system, but was developed as a part of the S-400 program. FAS.org - "S-400 SA-20 Triumf" supports that, as do the the websites mentioned in this article under External links by stating the maximum range at 200km. - Dammit 23:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Rosoboronexport Ext. Link

It's a little hard to think of it as an ad since anyone finding themselves in the position to purchase such a system would probably not be doing their shopping on Wikipedia. Thank you, Kazuaki Shimazaki, for restoring the link. --Oceanhahn 02:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to S-300

I'd like to see this article moved to its proper, native name from its NATO codename. I've already started moving the other missile launchers in this series to their appropriate pages; some were already there. t seems to make more sense to call them by their names, rather than nicknames given to them by some other agency. This article, however, is written more to the tune of "SA-10", though it still consistently refers to it as "S-300". I'll move it soon, unless there's a compelling argument to the contrary. --Oceanhahn 02:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree, in fact, in my opinion we need a naming convention for this since there are a few exceptions. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) could be a good starting point for a first draft. By the way, note that S-300 wouldn't be a very good name for the article, because of the ambiguaty with the S-300V (SA-12). S-300P won't have that problem so my preference goes to that. - Dammit 13:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Note (rarely used) name S-300F for naval version. This one differs from both P and V. --jno 08:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Just fuse the two. That way, you can talk about how the two systems diverged, and there is almost nothing in the SA-12 page compared to the SA-10 page. Kazuaki Shimazaki 02:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I agree with what Kazuaki Shimazaki suggested in the move to S-300 thread above. The S-300V is just a subversion of this one. - Dammit 11:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've started writing on the merger in the weekend since noone opposed, it's progressing nicely at the moment (I'm using the occasion to rewrite all the NATO reporting names to actual designations). Just dropping a message here so you all know that the merger isn't inactive. - Dammit 21:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pro

  1. --jno 07:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] contra

[edit] Good work

This is a very well laid out article, I think. It only wish all the others like it would not only come together so well, but also so completely. Good stuff here! --Oceanhahn 19:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croatian S-300s ?!

The article Croatian ground army states that Croatia operates 12x S-300, is that true, because it is not mentioned in this article? Dragoljub Kojadinovic 00:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheese Board

I have some sources which indicate that the NATO CodeName of the 96L6 radar is the "CHEESE BOARD" Dougsnow 18:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S-300P series and S-300V series

...are entirely different systems, confused a lot with eachother due to similar designation. They should definitely be separated to own pages, containing all the subversions of each system (aka: S-300P would discuss P,PMU (-2,-3) and similarly for S-300V family).

As for croatian systems, I believe they only managed to obtain missile launchers, but not the radar vehicles. Sources on this deal are poor...

TouchTold (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll disagree. The reason they had been brought together is that the two complexes actually originated from the same program, which effectively split due to Soviet bureaucracy b/w the Army and the PVO --Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the two should probably be seperated since they are both entirely seperate systems in terms of design, designation and purpose. Its ok to group all the S-300 derivatives together and if the S-300V were a modification like PMU or a adaptation like Fort of the S-300 then it would be justified but it really is a very different system and should be treated as such with its own page, theres enougth info out there to do it.Typhoon9410 (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)