Talk:S-300 missile system

Users - Azerbaijan & Armenia
Last update has been deleted! The Azerbaijan bought the PMU2 version last year (2010) and it's been confirmed by many media companies that this is true. Azerbaijan will buy 2 batteries S-300PMU2 missiles, where as a standard S-12 battery comprises of 2 Giant missile launchers and 2 Gladiator launchers.

Recent announcements about Armenian armed forces bought the S-300 missiles are not confirmed and only a political move against Azerbaijan and Russian side did not confirm the Armenian purchase. As the Armenian defense ministry announced that some of the units where operated by Armenian servicemen, this does not mean that the missiles are in Armenian service. The Russians still owns the entire S-300 missile complexes where the Armenian personel only operates them under Russian command, not more not less. The Azerbaijani armed forces bought them and will be trained and put operational under Azeri command.Sonertje80 (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Armenian forces operate S-300 PM and PT versions around Yerevan, the russian S-300 V is in the russian military base in Gyumri and is operated by russian soldiers but commanded by russian and armenian staff. There are photos and videos too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.253.11.152 (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Users - Czechoslovakia and Slovakia
Czechoslovakia got S-300PMU with 5V55R missiles in 1990 (to equip one SAM battalion) and Slovakia inherited this system in 1993. There was wrong info that CS got it in 1985 - this is evidently mistaken with S-200 system and in the same line was another mistake that Slovakia got it in 1992 which is nonsense as Slovakia did not exist as independent state in that year (independence since 1993). Regards Pavel Novak —Preceding unsigned comment added by PN79 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Has this been updated? I understand that an s300 system from one of these countries was sent to Ukraine and a Patriot Missle system was backfilled. Stephen Knapp (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * for some substantiation check You-tube A First in the Russia-Ukraine War! contributor Sinyor Stephen Knapp (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

'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)

Wot ?!
wot ?! lol 9M82\83M VM\VM2\VMD 300km\V4 400km und pmu2\pm2\favorit\S400 48N6 i 40N6 are not f* enough for u ?! xD lookat miltomsk about s300\400\500, 7N6 (77N6 ?) is another like previous S500 can carry different things also paraly hypothized also 3M22 Tsirkon --Zafer14ur8 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC) rub&sap

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)

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. 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)

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)

pro

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

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)

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)
 * --Rqasd (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)there is no AI for Croatian s-300 but there are AI that was never Croatian s-300 and only sometimes only parts, broken because these little parts to work

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) lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.2 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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)


 * knowing the sites of producers and developers of s-300 + works of historians of the s-300 I tell you that with 300V is completely different from the s-300P even more than from naval respect to P s300--Rqasd (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Venezuela
This link could be considered for the reflist (Footnotes) denoting Venezuela's purchase of an air defense system from Belarus and its interest in the S-300 system

http://www.neurope.eu/articles/84804.php

QueueNut (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Venezuela got its missiles in March 2012, but does somebody have a better ref than this please?

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/186218.html

Hcobb (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Iran's S-300
"Iran (not delivered yet)[2]"

I am not sure but this point could be in dispute.



"According to defense intelligence officials, joint Russian/Iranian crews currently man two S-300 units just outside of Tehran and Iranian Army soldiers are now undergoing operational training on the advanced missile system in Moscow." But I concede that the BBC report is more recent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medfreak (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A new Report by the Jpost claiming Iran to recieve S-300 by the end of the year through Belarous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medfreak (talk • contribs) 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

S-300/Patriot user image
Could someone update the picture to include Taiwan as a Patriot user? Thanks. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In Yugoslavia?
Someone tolds SA-10 being in service in Yugoslavia, and even one battery was shot by a F-16. This seems very unlikely,but i am wondering if nobody knows or confirm this fact?--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Rqasd (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)to NATO's attack on Yugoslavia were pictures that s-300V Yugoslavia, they came and then with the specification that it was a hoax for NATO invented Yugoslavia

that http://politikus.politikus.politikus.ru/events/8613-podvodnyy-s-300-v-stepyah-serbii.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.2 (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible future operators
Why the fnord does this section exist? And if we must have it, can we at least get a ref for each and every entry please? Hcobb (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the claim made in this section that "Since Syrian Air Defense Force teams have already trained in the Russian Federation on the handling of the S-300 interceptor batteries, they can go into service as soon as they are landed by one of Russia's daily airlifts to Syria. Russian air defence officials will supervise their deployment and prepare them for operation." I'm interested by this claim but I cannot find it substantiated anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.61.184 (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Does it destroy ballistic missiles or the targets of ballistic missiles?
There's a sentence in the article that says "The S-300 is also capable of destroying ballistic missile targets", which would imply that it would be used to destroy cities, factories, military bases, etc. -- i.e., the targets of ballistic missiles. Is it really supposed to mean "The S-300 is also capable of targeting and destroying ballistic missiles"?
 * not very old versions of s-300 initially can be ballistic missiles )))) 100%--Rqasd (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)an authoritative source in the media?? it was a military secret) but many systems claim shooting at the planes and aerodrome too--Rqasd (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Assumption made that its target is missiles (and hence the statement is redundant given previous paragraphs). Removed presumed ambiguity.--Jhfrontz (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC) + yes http://naviny.by/rubrics/politic/2011/10/17/ic_articles_112_175478/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.182.126 (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The Machine Itself
Knowing all about the vehicles combat capabilities is all well and good, but ¿what about the machine itself? For example, the engines, drivetrain (8X8, 8X4, 8X2; ¿How does it run?), etc.174.25.7.35 (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)A REDDSON

Vehicles are standard Soviet/Russian and can be found through links Tapalmer99 (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Iran SA300
Asked when Russia would deliver the systems to Iran, Ivanov said: "There have been no such deliveries to date."

This excerpt replaced the former 'Russia will not supply Iran with SA300' because no where in the source does it imply that this transaction will not take place. So by writing "there have have been no such deliveries to date (in the source's [Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov] own words were not ruling out the possibility of it in the future. In short, the Russians have never come out and said, we will never sell it to the Iranians, they have only made it clear that it has not happened up to this date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * reported talks about the delivery of S-300ВМ instead С300pmu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talk • contribs) 13:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"TEL"?
The article mentions "TEL" a number of times. I'll guess that the "L" is "Launcher"; what's the rest? In any case, it should be defined before it is used. --66.30.251.99 (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this means 'Tracked Erector Launcher' it is used in all launcher vehicles where the missile would be erected to launching position like the SCUD.Sonertje80 (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's Transporter-Erector-Launcher; the transporter needn't be tracked.--172.190.41.82 (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent - Iran
From nine minutes ago, claiming to have four. Two from Belarus and two from an unconfirmed. But, it's just a claim for now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_missiles

Brody Kennen (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * More recent info on Iran; major diplomatic work revealed by WL's leaked cables cover the subject of delays of the S-300 and the pressure US diplomats put on Russian officials to delay deliveries. They also outline that part of the concern is that these air defence weapons are capable of hitting aircraft well outside Iran's borders should they be deployed there.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Map of users
I have removed the map because it shows Iran as a user. Officially it has not received any, and the assertion that it has is not apparently based on confirmed reports. I would therefore suggest that it should be removed. We need a new map that shows official users, also showing countries that have ordered but not yet inducted such weapons in a different colour.

The map does show other countries that do use the missile, but we shouldn't use images that show incorrect data. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Produced by Samsung
The paragraph about the misile ever produced by Samsung is incorrect, and including it in the introduction paragraph sounds as if South Korea had a part in development.

The reference listed there points to the following information, listing that only a letter of intent was signed:

"The Russian arms manufacturer, Almaz, signs a letter of intent with South Korean firm Samsung for the joint production of the S-300 anti-missile system. Russia will probably sell a complete S-300 anti-missile system to South Korea."

The sentence should be removed 69.196.155.171 (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Combat history - Comparison with other systems
These sections are written in barely comprehensible English. I strongly suspect use of automatic translators. Citations are links to magazines in Russian, so I cannot correct mistakes nor control their veridicity. Editing is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peldrigal (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I deleted a huge chunk which was added in a single edit diff in 2013. If someone wants to work with the old citations, be my guess. Mangoe (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

S - 200 and S-300
Command post S - 300 can manage in any combination the elements of S - 200 and S-300  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

40 km and a full automatic and other
it is well done? or there is a mistake for the correct wiki + * text *

The S-300 system was first deployed by the Soviet Union in 1979, designed for the air defence of large industrial and administrative facilities, military bases, and control of airspace against enemy strike aircraft. For the first time in the world received the technical functions. The system is fully automated, people observe and confirm Manual operation possible too. Components may be near the central command post, or relegated to 40 km. Each radar gives target designation for the central command post. CP compares all the data received from the radar targeting remote with each other up to 80 km and filters a false target, very difficult to score interference such greater distances. Possible active and passive target detection for the transfer target indication for central command post.

Poor English
The article contains very poor English. The Specifications section is especially bad. I understand Russians want to show off its capabilities but the atrocious translation needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.53.0 (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Bad translation / Omission?
The 5th sentence is either a poor translation or missing some words: "For the first time in the world received the technical functions."

Can someone fix this?

--Sceasary (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC) first - yes, in the world - yes, and the translation is not good.14:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)212.119.233.45 (talk)

"The system can destroy ground targets at a range of 120 km (19,000 fragments or 36,000 according to various missiles). And if the S-300 missiles will be specially nearly ballistic missile launched while the range reaches up to 400 km"

?What? 118.101.189.187 (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)bankrobber70

Seems like a lot of this is translated poorly from russian, especially the specifications part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.17.9.69 (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Correct translation needed
>>> Correct translation is needed within this article. Many aspects are done through automatic translation and lack any clarity. Tapalmer99 (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)  68.198.101.174 (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on S-300 (missile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071229150341/http://edition.cnn.com:80/2007/WORLD/europe/12/28/iran.russia.ap/index.html to http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/28/iran.russia.ap/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

North Korean S300
NKor KNDR (DPRK) have it also local made KN06 SAM with flap lid (other radar ? idk) and range atleast 150 Km (or 300?). --Zafer14ur8 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC) rub&sap it can not be checked very accurately188.162.80.2 (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I've did it :D
I learned damn hard the family box and added S300V4 in the diagram :D yee. --Zafer14ur8 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC) rub&sap like188.162.80.2 (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on S-300 (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/20130522172519/http://www.armyrecognition.com/s-300_variants_sol_air_missile_system_russia_uk/s-300pmu2_s-300_pmu2_sa-20b_gargoyle_b_surface_to_air_defense_missile_system_technical_data_sheet_uk.html to http://www.armyrecognition.com/s-300_variants_sol_air_missile_system_russia_uk/s-300pmu2_s-300_pmu2_sa-20b_gargoyle_b_surface_to_air_defense_missile_system_technical_data_sheet_uk.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.raspletin.ru/zenitnye-raketnye-sistemy-ryada-s-300p
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://pvo.guns.ru/other/slovakia/s300_nato.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022154209/http://www15.rian.ru/ruharakter/20060920/54082336.html to http://www15.rian.ru/ruharakter/20060920/54082336.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Very long note

 * I have cut this from the article as it is a gross abuse of footnotes. It may be useful somewhere else, so I have placed it here for a while:

In return over S-300 (2007 version PMU-1 family of air defense) are offered in 2015 version of Antey-2500 (family army air defense) in the amount of 5 sets. In case of refusal will be delivered by S-400 but some years later. Officially, the US expressed their protest. Prohibition on the supply of S-300 system to Iran has been removed on 13 April 2015. History of negotiations. Iran's status regarding the S-300 system remains controversial. Iran claimed to have signed a contract with Russia on 25 December 2007 on the sales of the S-300PMU-1 missile system. Russian officials have denied this. It has also been claimed that Croatia sold their S-300s to Iran. Later, On 21 December, according to a senior Iranian lawmaker, Russia has started the supply of components for S-300 air defence systems to Iran. Esmaeil Kosari, deputy chairman of the parliamentary commission on national security and foreign policy, told the Iranian news agency IRNA that Iran and Russia had held negotiations for several years on the purchase of S-300 air defence systems and had finalized a deal. Kosari said the Islamic Republic would deploy S-300 surface-to-air missile systems to strengthen national defence on border areas. On 28 October 2009, if asked when Russia would deliver the systems to Iran, Ivanov said: "There have been no such deliveries to date." Yet on 23 December 2009, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexei Borodavkin said Russia sees no reason to cancel a deal to provide S-300s to Iran. He said ""Exports of such weapons is subject to no UN treaty or other bilateral agreements, This is why we see no essential reason to make any change in the deal," indicating that there is a deal. On 8 February 2010, Iran announced that it had a "domestically-made" system called Bavar 373 with the same capabilities as the S-300. In September 2012 Iran successfully tested Raad Air Defense System a partner for Bavar 373. Alexander Fumin has said that the delay in the delivery is due to a technical problem with the radiowave system. On 19 April 2010, Asr Iran (Iran's Era) website said that Iran could develop a similar air missiles system On 11 June 2010, Russia stopped sale of the S-300 air defence system to Iran in light of U.N. sanctions against Iran, stating that the "S-300s fall under these sanctions". On 4 August 2010, Iran claimed it has obtained two S-300PT (SA-10) from Belarus and two others from another unspecified source despite Russian refusal to deliver them. The Belarusian government has denied rumors that Minsk had allegedly sold S-300 air defence systems to Iran. "The State Military-Industrial Committee can officially state that Belarus has never held talks with Iran on the deliveries of the S-300 air defence systems", said committee's spokesman Vladimir Lavrenyuk. "Belarus has never supplied S-300 systems or their components to Iran," he said, adding that Minsk strictly complied with international arms control regulations. On 22 September 2010, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree banning the sale of the S-300 and other military equipment to Iran. The sale was canceled because of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 sanctions on Iran. On 10 November 2010 Iran announced that it had developed a version of the S-300 missile. However Pieter Wezeman of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has questioned Iran's ability to duplicate the Russian missile system. And by 2012 the Iranian position had softened to merely considering the production of such a system. In April 2012, Iran filed a lawsuit for $4 billion in damages for failure to deliver the missiles. Then Iran blamed foreign media for inflaming the situation when Russia threatened to reduce diplomatic support for Iran if the lawsuit continued. Russian Technologies (Rostech) CEO Sergei Chemezov said on Thursday 30/05/2013 that the US applied heavy pressure on Moscow to stop the agreement under the pretext that the Iran-Russia deal was against UN Security Council sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic. Chemezov, added, however, that Washington later changed its rhetoric, saying the UN resolution did not specifically mention the S-300 system and Russia had acted on its own. "The Americans now agree that it is a defensive system and Russia alone should be responsible for the breach of the contract," Ria Novosti quoted Chemezov as saying. He added that Moscow now seeks to reach a settlement with Tehran to withdraw its lawsuit against Russia's state-run arms export company Rosoboronexport over the canceled deal, saying Russia’s chances "to win the case are very slim." On 10 June 2013, Iran's ambassador to Russia rejected Russia's offer to substitute S-300 with Tor air defence system. Ambassador Seyed Mahmoud-Reza Sajjadi said Iran had developed a national defense system "and within that system the proposed Tor system would be unable to fulfill the S-300's functions." In late August 2013, the Almaz-Antey Corporation said that the S-300 missiles that were to be delivered to Iran had been scrapped. Some dismantled parts that could be reused were saved, but the rest were completely scrapped. The S-300s could not be entirely re-sold to other buyers because requirements, specifications, and software are different for each particular client and cannot be adjusted. Rosoboronexport had no plans at the time to provide a replacement system, but reversed themselves in 2013 and decided to go forwards with the shipment in exchange for another $800 million payment. On 13 January 2014, it was revealed that Iran would send a delegation to Russia to discuss the delivery of a substitute missile system to the S-300, possibly the Tor missile system, which was rejected in a previous offer, or the S-300VM. Negotiations resumed. Stated - S-300 and S-400 are likely to be delivered.

&mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on S-300 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/20111111004257/http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.50/system_detail.asp to http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.50/system_detail.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160209214444/http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1725424.html to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1725424.html
 * Added tag to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2012/07/11/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522172519/http://www.armyrecognition.com/s-300_variants_sol_air_missile_system_russia_uk/s-300pmu2_s-300_pmu2_sa-20b_gargoyle_b_surface_to_air_defense_missile_system_technical_data_sheet_uk.html to http://www.armyrecognition.com/s-300_variants_sol_air_missile_system_russia_uk/s-300pmu2_s-300_pmu2_sa-20b_gargoyle_b_surface_to_air_defense_missile_system_technical_data_sheet_uk.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on S-300 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/20110928142727/http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.93/pub_detail.asp to http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.93/pub_detail.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121223072244/http://www.inbsite.com/missiles2.html to http://inbsite.com/missiles2.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.raspletin.ru/zenitnye-raketnye-sistemy-ryada-s-300p
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://pvo.guns.ru/other/slovakia/s300_nato.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110211747/http://cns.miis.edu//cyprus/s300tdms.htm to http://cns.miis.edu/cyprus/s300tdms.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041214100723/http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Asia-Sams-Pt1.pdf to http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Asia-Sams-Pt1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060723191844/http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Asia-Sams-Pt2.pdf to http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Asia-Sams-Pt2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928142727/http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.93/pub_detail.asp to http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.93/pub_detail.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on S-300 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/20100430054736/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/s300.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/s300.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405072843/http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/hongqi-10-hq-10/ to http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/hongqi-10-hq-10/
 * Added tag to http://www.almaz-antey.ru/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910213035/http://www.sinodefence.com/army/surfacetoairmissile/s300.asp to http://www.sinodefence.com/army/surfacetoairmissile/s300.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.mashreghnews.ir/fa/news/363390.html
 * Added tag to http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/
 * Added tag to http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824043319/http://www.dtig.org/docs/S-300_Familie.pdf to http://www.dtig.org/docs/S-300_Familie.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Relation to S-400 (inconsistency)
According to the family tree figure S-400 is the child of S-300PM2, but according to the S-400 section it was initially known as S-300PMU-3 indicating that it would belong to the PMU branch.

Of course, it doesn't necessarily belong to either branch, the text describes it as a totally different complex, and using misleading designations for the purpose of commercial or intelligence deceiption is certainly not unheard of.

Still it would be good if someone could clarify the relation between S-300xxx and S-400.150.227.15.253 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kraz 6446.jpg

28 September 2018 Syria
I suggest to add a paragraph about the significant event announced on 28 September 2018 about Syria. Multiple sources have reported that the deployment started. How about the draft paragraph below? I tried to include both point of views (POV), with their respective sources.



Francewhoa (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The Israeli PM statement is irrelevant for this article - moreover imho it fails to show "both sides".
 * Let's see how this developed on the field (if at all) Anglealive1349 (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * S 300 u Istri 1998..jpg

Azerbaijani claims.
Should those claims be considered in the article?. They seems to me Propaganda from Partisan Source.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Completely fake claims. No fire units were destroyed. Some camera zooms, but nothing actually destroyed. Unless we see pictures of destruction, we can dismiss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.144.224 (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Syria operational use - fake stories
Cited from S-300 missile system article and I quote: "incapable of detecting and hitting Israeli cruise missiles on numerous occasions", interpreted from middleeastmonitor.com that uses avia.pro as cover and source for its ridiculous claims and in same time avia.pro is based on another source not official Syrian army. Avia.pro claims based on unofficial tweeter news(deleted in meantime) that S-300 is not integrated in Syria radar network, does not claim it is not capable. Fake story in short and middleeastmonitor.com proven as unreliable source Loesorion (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Eik Corell (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Any further addition of Avia.pro in this type of extraordinary claims will be reverted. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Avia.pro is not a high quality source to say the least.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

specification section
This is pretty close to being gibberish. Paragraph combat?? Pstemari (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

S-300
The article shows photos of everything except the actual S-300. 151.49.2.194 (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Not fielded by Ukraine
This missile system is not operated by the Ukrainian military. 98.115.218.149 (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

- Yes it is, several sources cited in this article mention it, including www.forbes.com - "This one"2001:1C06:280D:5B00:6D9C:A5B2:3430:A1B4 (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Specifications
"The System for the defence of the major industrial and administrative objects, military bases and control points from the shock means of air-space attack of the enemy."

That seems to be garbled; it doesn't make sense, and apppears to have no main verb. It's presented in quotes, but it's uncited. I propose to delete it.

MrDemeanour (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody objected, so I went ahead and deleted it. It's in quotes, but there's no way to know who might have said it, because it's uncited. Also, it's not a sentence - there's no main verb. And I for one don't know what it means.

MrDemeanour (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

PM or PS?
Essentially the same image here labelled as PM may be found in colour at https://www.armyrecognition.com/s-300ps_sa-10b_grumble_b_systems_vehicles_uk/s-300_ps_s-300ps_sa-10b_grumble_b_long_range_surface-to-air_missile_technical_data_sheet_information.html but label S-300PS. 150.227.15.253 (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Add British English Template?
This article seems to be written in British English, as evidenced from the completely and utterly incorrect spelling of the word "defence" and that the infobox for the missile system says to use British English. As such, I'd like to propose the inclusion of the "British English" tag to the talk page. CrowEater (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Potential in this article
If this article is improved, the amount of info it has might turn it into a good article or even a featured article. Only if the grammar and how it is written is improved. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Mate, I've been trying, but this article has problems that go far deeper than just fixing up grammar and style.
 * CrowEater (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

So many variants. Which are common?
The article lists dozens of variants with different range, speed, guidance and other capabilities.

I suspect that a small number of these are much more common than the rest. Even if exact figures are not known it would be very useful to say which are the most common variants. Ttulinsky (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Article is very dated
The article prominently states at the very first paragraph: "The S-300 is still regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile systems in active use." and refers to some source from the year 2006. (Kopp, Carlo (25 February 2006)

This reads like russian propaganda and recent events show that the system failed more than often. A couple of hours ago just another S-300 got destroyed by an air attack in belgorod oblast. 176.4.190.146 (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It was an accurate statement at the time in 2006. Times change. That's not "russian propaganda", that's just technology advancing. I've removed the line in question. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the "Comparison with other systems" section pure propaganda?
This section seems to imply that the S300 is incredibly superior to the Patriot missile system in every way, but in practice we're seeing Patriot taking out "hypersonic" missiles and the S300 being taken out by everything from ATACMS to fixed wing drones Hugzz (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not particularly. It's poorly sourced, and super inaccurate in some places (there is zero chance that any S-300 battery can be set up to fire in 5 minutes, for instance); but a comparison of capabilities doesn't imply anything about one system's superiority than the other. S-300 was a very good last-generation missile system. It's not nearly as good or capable as a modern, upgraded MIM-104 firing PAC-3's, but to be honest this section doesn't make that comparison (it's using way outdated stats for the MIM-104) and maybe it should. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)