The Russian ship-based S-300 versus the American Standard missile defense system: which missile is better? (The National Interest, USA)
Military expert Charlie Gao in an article by TNI compared the Russian S-300, which were created for the Soviet air defense forces with American "Standards". He comes to the conclusion that the US missiles are superior to the Russian ones in some aspects.
Air defense is one of the most important elements of a modern warship. Aircraft pose a serious danger to ships, since they are armed with modern anti-ship missiles and other guided munitions. But ships are an ideal platform for the deployment of anti-aircraft missile systems, since they have enough electricity, and ship-based SAMs are not limited in weight and mobility like ground-based systems.
The main naval means of combating enemy aircraft is a surface-to-air naval missile. The main naval anti-aircraft missile in the United States is the "Standard". This family of sams has been in service since the 1960s. The manufacturer of the "Standard" company "Raytheon" calls it "the world's best naval air defense weapon". The Standard rocket was created specifically for launching from a ship - either from a rotary installation or from a vertical launch installation.
Russia's main naval anti-aircraft missile is the S-300 variant, which was created for the Soviet air defense forces. The S-300F is the result of the parallel evolution of sea and land-based anti-aircraft missile systems. But what does this rocket look like in comparison with the latest version of the "Standard"? Does the naval origin of the American missile give any advantages when placed on board a ship? Or does the fact that the S-300 accompanies several targets in scanning mode make this missile more deadly?
To compare these missiles and complexes, you should start with how they are integrated on their ships. The complexes of the "Standard" family are mainly equipped with ships of the "Arly Burke" and "Ticonderoga" types. On both types of ships, missiles are placed in Mk41 vertical launch units. The Standard rocket is modular, which means that more of them can be placed on the ship by loading the Standards instead of other missiles. The installation of the Mk41 vertical trigger is very simple: this is a set of containers, each of which contains a rocket. Rockets can be launched in almost any order.
The S-300F also uses a vertical launch system, since the ground-based missile was originally stored in a container, and its launch was carried out vertically. But unlike the "Standard" S-300F has a rotating drum-type launcher. The rockets are stored there vertically in a drum. There is only one position for launching, and the drum must turn slightly to bring the next rocket to the launch line.
As a result, the rate of fire of the S-300F is lower than that of the Mk41. In addition, the space on the deck intended for the S-300F cannot be used for other purposes, which is why ships with the Mk41 installation are more versatile. The latest Russian ships use a universal ship firing system (UKSK), from which it is possible to launch lighter anti-aircraft missiles. But heavy missiles such as the S-300 (and even more modern S-400) are still launched from drum launchers.
As for the missiles themselves, the United States has a clear advantage due to the fact that the development of missiles of the Standard series has been going on for a long time, and considerable experience has been accumulated. Sea-based missiles are usually unified to a certain extent with their land-based counterparts, and they receive an increase in range at the same time.
The US Navy, using the SM-2 Block IV missile, can fight air targets at a range of 240 km. This rocket entered service in 2004 after a long period of development of an accelerator with a deflected thrust vector, thanks to which its launch range significantly increased. Russian ships achieved parity with this missile only in 2015, when a version of the 48N6DM missile (a S-400 missile adapted for the fleet) appeared on Admiral Nakhimov. Its range is up to 250 km.
But by that time, the United States had already been armed with the SM-6 missile for four years, which has active radar homing. The exact characteristics of this new missile are kept secret, but active radar homing, coupled with network-centric capabilities based on the use of integrated information and control networks, means that the effective range of the SM-6 can be much longer. Some sources call the figure 370 km .
Thus, the Standard special-purpose missile developed and gained new capabilities faster than the Russian C-series naval missiles. The US Navy increased the range of the Standard missile in order to maintain an advantage over potential threats. And since the "Standard" is a naval missile and is not included in the unification program, nothing hinders its development.
In contrast, Russian C-series missiles are unified with ground-based systems, which do not have incentives for the same rapid development, as a result of which they lag behind. A shorter launch range may be an acceptable compromise for the Russian Navy, since it is defensive in nature, and long-range sams do not matter much to it.
Charlie Gao
Charlie Gao specializes in defense policy, national security, and military technology topics. He studied political science and computer science at Grinnell College.
