Talk:S-300 missile system

message: 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)
thread_title:  Users - Azerbaijan & Armenia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: for  some substantiation check You-tube A First in the Russia-Ukraine War! contributor Sinyor Stephen Knapp (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users - Czechoslovakia and Slovakia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Max engagement altitude? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  'Big' missile 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wot ?! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding Rosoboronexport Ext. Link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Note (rarely used) name S-300F for naval version. This one differs from both P and V. --jno 08:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Move to S-300 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: # --jno 07:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''pro'''

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good work 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Croatian S-300s ?! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cheese Board 

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  S-300P series and S-300V series 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Venezuela 

message: "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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Iran's S-300 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: In Yugoslavia?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible future operators 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does it destroy ballistic missiles or the targets of ballistic missiles? 

message: 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)
thread_title: The Machine ''Itself''

message: 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)
thread_title: Iran SA300

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, it's Transporter-Erector-Launcher; the transporter needn't be tracked.--172.190.41.82 (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "TEL"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent - Iran 

message: 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's (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of users 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Produced by Samsung 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Combat history - Comparison with other systems 

message: Command post S - 300 can manage in any combination the elements of S - 200 and S-300http://www.s300.ru/produce/adms/s300pmu2/83m6e2.aspxhttp://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/c300pmu2/c300pmu2.shtml  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  S - 200 and S-300 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poor English 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bad translation / Omission? 

message: >>> 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)
thread_title: Correct translation needed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  North Korean S300 

message: I learned damn hard the family box and added S300V4 in the diagram :D yee .
--Zafer14ur8 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've did it :D 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :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.Fars News Russia to Deliver S-300 Missile System to Iran 26 December 2007 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.Press TV Russia: No reason to cancel S-300 deal with Iran, 23 December 2009 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."Iran plans to test own model of Russia S-300 missile." Reuters, 10 November 2010 And by 2012 the Iranian position had softened to merely considering the production of such a system."Iran considering to substitute S-300 this year, defence minister." Islamic Republic News Agency. 17 April 2012. In April 2012, Iran filed a lawsuit for $4 billion in damages for failure to deliver the missiles."Iran Demands, Bln From Russia Over Canceled Missile Deal." RIA Novosti, 5 July 2012. Then Iran blamed foreign media for inflaming the situation when Russia threatened to reduce diplomatic support for Iran if the lawsuit continued."Iran Accuses Media of Inflaming S-300 Dispute." RIA Novosti, 14 August 2012. 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,Anti-Aircraft Missile System Bound for Iran Scrapped – Themoscowtimes.com, 30 August 2013 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.Iran to send a delegation to Russia to discuss the delivery of a substitute for S-300 missile system – Armyrecognition.com, 14 January 2014
Negotiations resumed. Stated - S-300 and S-400 are likely to be delivered.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very long note 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relation to S-400 (inconsistency) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Azerbaijani claims. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Eik Corell (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Syria operational use - fake stories 

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

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

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  Specifications 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PM or PS? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add British English Template? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  So many variants. Which are common?  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is very dated