 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Mess
editThis article is a mess. Reads like a *parody* of a propaganda piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.147.195 (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems like bad English piece from a Russian-speaking fella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by no1 (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.175.65 (talk)
I think we have to take manufacturer's brochures for anything, not just weapons, with a pinch of salt. There's a few things other than that which need attention. The designation shifts between "C-500" and "S-500" which suggests imperfect transliteration of the cyrillic original, but that needs a better linguist than me to be sure of. 31.185.152.30 (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Butthurt much American trolls, or ego? :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.75.226 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
"I think we have to take manufacturer's brochures for anything, not just weapons, with a pinch of salt." OHO but only for Russian weapons, since i don't see you complain on US weapons pages for that. And no don't start with pointless "Russia is known for lying about weapons" and then you refer to something from 70s USSR, fkin get it USSR is not todays Russia (in any factualy observable manner). In the same time, US goverment lies about nearly anything in today (factualy checkable from WikiLeaks to simple Googling for some topics), more than USSR decades ago, but that does not matter, we take US weapons for granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.66.248 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Nice whataboutism. Russia is known for lying about its weapons. What the person you're replying to comments on, or what the American army does doesn't change that fact. But you know that, of course. 2001:464A:20B5:0:2198:30B9:EFCB:AE8C (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: you're replying to a 7 year old comment that's in response to a 9-year old comment. It's not helpful. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Information Corrections
editThere've been some recent edits to this page since the last time I looked around, and I'd like to discuss some points of information I believe are accurate to make regarding the S-500 as of 12/2017.
-The PravdaReport itself is not sourced properly (much less at all) and clashes with the anticipated intended usage of the S-500. Based on decently reputable sites for missile information, like AusAirPower that uses translated statements and information from Russian analysts, S-500 fulfills a vastly different role than THAAD would. I'd advise not making the comparison in the future, and removing it. In summary, THAAD is intended to engage IRBMs, and to some degree MRBMs during their terminal drop into the atmosphere using a kinetic-kill-vehicle. It is not intended, or able to engage ICBMs, satellites, or theoretically standard airborne threats because it simply is not optimized for that role. A closer equivalent would be the Standard Missile 3, which does have a land-basing option seen in the Aegis Ashore, and is specialized for exoatmospheric intercepts using an EKV. Just in case we see future articles like that but with respect to the US's BMD program; A-135 which S-500 is claimed to be in development to replace, is rather different--A-135 using a nuclear warhead like the decommissioned Nike missile to try and detonate inbound warheads. BMD's program in contrast uses orbital EKVs to hit ICBMs while in orbit, neutralizing them with direct impacts. I'd be critical of articles with poor comparisons being quoted here so haphazardly, especially if they push agendas.
Overall, the age of these claims is showing. I highly advise paring down the majority of this article due to it now containing outdated and unsubstantiated rumors that persist since the program's announcement. Stuff regarding 'response time' and that it can 'target spacecraft' are if anything, information that can be added when (if ever) the program reaches that point. It goes to say that the blurb regarding usage in the Lider class simply adds to the mess, since that program has since been dropped from Russia's program funding for foreseeable future. I can't help but notice the whole thing comes off as an Almaz-Antey advertising brochure.
Pictures
editOfficial picture is posted. https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2021/09/20/14003990.shtml
Best regards, 195.182.156.206 (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Potential Foreign Operator.
editIn December 2023 Leonid Reshetnikov the former Director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies said that Algeria has already signed an agreement with Russia to buy the S-500 System in an interview with Anna Knishenko.
https://x.com/A_Knishenko_RT/status/1740660742473338880?s=20 BladerWasLost (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2024
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I submitted an edit for the S500 article that said preliminary reports indicated the S500 in Crimea had been destroyed by the Ukrainian military. My source is the Newsweek article that can be found at: https://www.newsweek.com/atacms-russia-s-500-prometheus-attack-1918798#:~:text=Ukraine's%20forces%20may%20have%20struck,destroyed%20by%20ATACMS%20cluster%20missiles. Can anyone help me at this citation to my submission? Gmattdavis (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- The article quoted a Ukrainian journalist making a wild claim without photographic evidence, even waiting for evidence. No wikipedia editor have ever included random Russian blogger claims of Russia downing RQ-4 (a news web have recently reported about Russian downing of RQ-4 but it wasn't that reliable) so why would this guy can be accepted when himself aren't sure if S-500 was destroyed Dauzlee (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: The claim is premature: Newsweek says: Ukraine's forces may have struck Russia's newest S-500 air-defense system using U.S.-supplied ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) missiles, according to a journalist in the country.
-- they also note that it was without elaborating on when or where the system was allegedly destroyed
and that Newsweek couldn't independently verify Tsaplienko's claim and has contacted Russian and Ukrainian authorities for comment by email
. It may become usable in the future, if the claims become substantiated but at the moment, the claim wouldn't meet our verifiability and no original research policy standards.