Jump to content

Talk:S-200 missile system

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:S-200 (missile))

Tallinn missile

[edit]

There's nothing in the linked source that suggests the missile was ever designated "Tallinn". It only implies that the west probably first discovered it at the ABM sites *near* Tallinn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.127.209.197 (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA frequently referred to it as the "Tallinn" system early on, maybe someone can pull a better source from them. Either way, it was definitely called the Tallinn by the American government at some point. 40.138.149.217 (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved

[edit]

I moved this page to its native name from a codename it's listed under. If there are any objections, please discuss them before moving it back. --Oceanhahn 02:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is English Wikipædia? As such, the article would be easiest to find under the name used in the English Speaking World (i.e. SA-5 GAMMON) rather than the 'native name' (surely the true native name would be in cyrillic)? 92.48.99.38 (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SR-71

[edit]

How would this system compare operationally to a high-altitude Mach 3+ target like the SR-71 or XB-70? I saw a recent edit in this article's history where the author claimed that "S-200 Couldn't TOUCH an SR-71...". Personally I feel this is false, since the S-200 tops out at Mach 7-8 with 400km range (top speed on the SR-71 is slightly above Mach 3).

Thoughts? Fedallah (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that the missile has to outrun the SR-71. If it was a straight race, it'd be fine, but there is the question of having to climb to altitude as well. The missile has to climb straight up as well as match the SR-71's speed over the ground. That maximum speed you quote is only achievable at high altitude, I'm sure, so until it gets out of the thick air, it'll be slower (and I have to wonder if that speed is reached while it's climbing almost vertically, or if that's what it can do while chasing a target; since some of the engine thrust is used to climb, it stands to reason that it's top speed would be somewhat less while climbing vertically, unless it's merely drag-limited). By the time the missile has climbed to SR-71's operating altitude and reached maximum speed, the SR-71 will have traveled a long way, and the missile may not have enough endurance to catch it.AnnaGoFast (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The SR-71 flew several times over countries equipped with this weapon system, such as Warsaw Pact countries and some arab states. It was never shot down. I have no source now but I think in these cases it was never even shot. In the War in Georgia, on 2008, the SA-5 fail to protect Georgian airspace. I really doubt that the S-200 could kill the SR-71. Miguel.A.Lopez.Regalado (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fedallah's assessment appears to be based on a presumption that the only countermeasure the SR-71 could employ would have been attempting to outrun the missile: I'm sure the aircraft would have used a combination of manœuvre, early stealth technology, electronic countermeasures, chaff, flares, etc, in addition to speed and altitude. 92.48.99.38 (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As well as F-117 ???
Range early C-200 180 km height and 29 to 35, within a height of 40 (to 41) and range 240 (260) later than 300 and even 400 km. speed rkety as here gvoril 4-5 max that is clearly more than 3 (which he can not fly for a long time) but at an altitude of about 30 km missile easily overcomes 6.2 Mach. moreover it has a homing (yes even then it was done) and shooting is 2 for 1 radar missile guidance (Who told you that that they will not be 2 (radar)). In the Soviet Army there have always been staff points for missile guidance systems to the target according to several radars located in different places, in the c-300 is implemented within the complex (without external headquarters).::89.105.158.243 (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is original research/speculation. It is outside the scope of Wikipedia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound unfounded.
modification of Iran
http://dokwar.ru/publ/voenny_vestnik/armii_mira/pvo_irana/3-1-0-739
Iran's air defense
http://dokwar.ru/publ/voenny_vestnik/armii_mira/iran_optimiziroval_zenitnye_kompleksy_s_200/3-1-0-818
the same object a couple of years ago, the media actively bomb Israel (bad joke), he has a guard, 15 Torr, are in circles around him (there is a link, but a long search .... (no joke)). certainly no bomb or 10, can not break through, although planes can sfotat from a height of 15 km at this place. and firing from the ground, hundreds of anti-aircraft guns can reach 18 km (large caliber KS-19).
Technical details (C-200) Angara / Vega / Dubna (This link contains blacklisted + actual figures are correct and confirmed all other references)
dogswar.ru artilleriia/raketnoe-oryjie/839-zenitnyi-raketnyi-ko.html
89.105.158.243 (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editors' inferences about the ability of the C200 to engage different targets are considered unsuitable for Wikipedia. If a reliable source says that the C200 could engage (for example) a Boeing 777 at 33,000 ft successfully, then the statement can go in the article. If you calculate from performance characteristics that it could do this, that is considered original research and cannot go in the article.
By the way www.dogswar.ru is on a Wikipedia SPAM blacklist, so cannot be used in citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
pliz
You can add this card to to the list of systems on this article (S-500_ (missile))?
89.105.158.243 (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://mvizru84.my1.ru/index/0-11 a slightly better source of the probability of shoot down target + minimum ESR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


If the SR-71 flew "dumb" (straight line, constant speed, constant altitude) it would definitely be brought down, no question about it. If it maneuvered and deployed countermeasures, the intercept envelope shrunk enough that any shootdown could be described as either a lucky or a skillful shot. If I had to guess I would say single salvo (2 missiles) p =~ 0.2 against an alerted and maneuvering SR-71. However, "the peak of 130 sites and 2030 launchers was reached in 1980-1990" so evasion opportunities for the SR-71 could be severely restricted and the alerted S-200 sites on the ground could also try some dirty tricks. To summarize, "dangerous" would be a good description. You'd want to keep your distance. A good english source: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-200VE-Vega.html 89.120.104.138 (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operators

[edit]

Hey guys, please take out Latvia from the list of operators of S-200, our country does not have these missiles. They could be deployed in the territory of Latvia during age of USSR (1945-1991), but certainly not after collapse of USSR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.72.90 (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

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 Wikipedia. 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/newsiran-upgrades-s-200-long-range-air-defence-system
    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 NotifyOnline 13:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of gammon

[edit]

The definition of the word "gammon" is, of course, irrelevant to a surface-to-air missile. However, many of the NATO reporting names used words that are rarely used in English. Often, even words that sound familiar don't mean what they seem to mean, or the correct pronunciation may not be obvious. Gammon, for example, is familiar from "backgammon," but it is also a term for a type of bacon. I placed links to definitions of these words so that readers could look up the definition and pronunciation more easily.

Speaking from my personal experience as someone who grew up on the NATO side during the end of the Cold War, I knew these terms from books and computer games, and many of them were strange and mysterious words. Some weren't in the unabridged dictionary. So I think there are others who might be interested in the meaning of the reporting names.

A list of articles I changed is at Talk:NATO reporting name if you'd prefer to discuss the changes I made in a place that links to all the affected articles. Roches (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section Removed

[edit]

Removed the following section from Description:Missile, as it contradicts information given immediately prior and is unreferenced.

"The system utilises radio semi active guidance with mid-course correction and has, for the first time in a Russian system, terminal active radar homing, which is far more accurate at long range than the command guidance method used by the S-75 Dvina and other missiles. The existence of an optional terminal passive radar homing mode for use against AEW aircraft remains unconfirmed. Peak missile speed is around Mach 8 and the single-shot kill probability is quoted as 0.85, presumably against a high altitude bomber-type target."

94.175.244.252 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way do you think it contradicts information given in the previous paragraph?-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text as it stands says that it uses SARH throughout the flight, doesn't say anything about active radar homing (although I have to wonder if the person who wrote that isn't correct). It says 

 "Maximum range is between 150 km (81 nmi) and 300 km (160 nmi), depending on the model.[6] The missile uses radio illumination mid-course correction to fly towards the target with a terminal semi-active radar homing phase. Maximum target speed is Mach 4. Effective altitude is 300 m (980 ft) to 20,000 m (66,000 ft) for early models and up to 35,000 m (115,000 ft) for later models. The warhead is either 217 kg (478 lb) high-explosive fragmentation (16,000 × 2 g fragmentation pellets and 21,000 × 3.5 g pellets) triggered by radar proximity fuse or command signal, or a 25 kt nuclear warhead triggered by command signal only. Each missile weighs around 7,108 kg (15,670 lb) at takeoff.

 The system utilises radio semi active guidance throughout the missile's flight, which is far more accurate at long range than the command guidance method used by the earlier S-75 Dvina and other missiles. The existence of an optional terminal passive radar homing mode for use against AEW aircraft remains unconfirmed. Peak missile speed is around Mach 8 and the single-shot kill probability is quoted as 0.85, presumably against a high altitude bomber-type target."

That contradicts the use of a active homing phase, if it's accurate. I'm questioning where is says its minimum effective altitude is "980ft"...that seem extremely low for such a large missile. It says it's a "medium-to-high altitude" missile; I'd expect it's minimum range to be around 10-15,000ft. 980ft is like MANPAD range, the boosters haven't even come off yet. And you'd be well within the blast range of the warhead, even if it wasn't a nuke. I suppose you could engage a target flying at 980ft several miles away, but I doubt the radar can even see that close to the ground. AnnaGoFast (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AnnaGoFast: I'm not sure I see any contradiction here, I think this may be a terminology issue. The first section mentions "radio illumination mid-course correction". A literal translation would be semi-active homing. Then it speaks of a "terminal semi-active radar homing phase". I don't see any mention of an active phase, was this in another part of the text ? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect route to finding reliable sources

[edit]

The article appears to be quite inconsistent about the means of guidance of the missile. From what I know, it is semi-active radar homing throughout its flight. However, I cannot find any reliable sources myself to verify this. It is hoped that the forum linked below may serve as a starting point for a search for sources.

[1]

Obviously, it is not itself usable as a reliable source. I am not suggesting that we do so. It is hoped that my suggestion would not violate policy or guidelines.

Thanks, a CLoG? | unCLoG 22:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on S-200 (missile). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian propaganda displayed as facts

[edit]

The claims about a Syrian S-200 hitting an Israeli F-35 are completely fictitious and are backed by an unreliable website. Wikipedia should not be a government mouthpiece for the Syrian regime. In literally all past failed attempts of Syrian air defence forces to target Israeli airplanes they issued press releases describing the fictional damage they have caused to the Zionist enemy. The facts are systems like S-200, as opposed to S-400, do not pose a threat for Israeli military airplanes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.3.17 (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S-200 (Current operators)

[edit]

in S-200 (Current operators) section, is found that Current Operator is Romania?

Which is Incorrect and should be changed ! Reson why is because Romania never introduced this missile system.


On web page "S-200 SAM sites"[1] , everyone can see the places around the world where S-200 missile sites were, also which one are active and which one are Not.

There you will also not found any site in Romania.


Also i read a tons of articles about S-200 and Not a single one stated that Romania ever become a Operator of this Missile system.


Romanian military currently operate several Air Defense systems: S-75 Dvina, MIM-23 Hawk and 2K12 Kub.


Article should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRUTH, JUSTICE & RIGHT WAY (talk • contribs) 16:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://rammstein.dfmk.hu/~s200/

Incidents involving the S-200 - Cyprus, 1 July 2019

[edit]

According to the officials from the illegally self-proclaimed(1983)[1] fake[2][3]state of "Northen Cyprus" ,an S-200 missile hit at the illegally occupied region of Cyprus .

This is the first incident involving Cyprus during the Israeli-Syrian conflict and the air military operations in the Middle East Asia (reuters.com).

This notice can be integrated in the section titled "Incidents involving the S-200", if people will be made sure of the nature of the explosion.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the incident needs to be made more neutral - continual stressing of the status of Northern Cyprus is inappropriate for an article on this missile.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not used to edit nor overwrite other user's contributions. I quoted uniquely Deutsche Welle and Reuters.com: both of them are certainly WP:reliable sources, but I wasn't sure that their notices were enough neutral to get them going into the WP article.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://translate.google.com/translate?u=https%3A//www.pronews.gr/kypros/785115_pos-i-agkyra-hrisimopoiei-hthesino-pyrayliko-atyhima-stin-kypro-gia-na-paroysiasei&langpair=auto%7Cen&hl=en
  2. ^ https://www.mfa.gr/en/the-cyprus-issue/
  3. ^ https://translate.google.com/translate?u=https%3A//www.pronews.gr/kypros/785115_pos-i-agkyra-hrisimopoiei-hthesino-pyrayliko-atyhima-stin-kypro-gia-na-paroysiasei&langpair=auto%7Cen&hl=en

Requested move 25 July 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

S-200 (missile) → S-200 missile system – "S-200" does not refer to the actual missile itself (which would be the 5V21, 5V25, and 5V28 etc.), but to the whole system, including the launchers, radars, command post etc. Thus, the page name "S-200 (missile)" is factually incorrect. Other pages that use this naming scheme already are the S-300 missile system and the S-400 missile system. – Recoil16 (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:S-200_missile_system&oldid=1200055132"