On March 4, 2025, a dramatic scene unfolded along the Yevpatoria highway near the city of Saky in Russian-occupied Crimea, where a high-value Russian air defense radar, identified as the 96L6E, was consumed by flames. Video footage circulating online, first shared by the Telegram channel Krymskiy Veter and later reported by the Ukrainian defense outlet Militarnyi, captured the blaze in vivid detail.
Flames consume Russian S-400 system radar on a highway trip
Video screenshot
The radar, a critical component of Russia’s sophisticated S-300 and S-400 missile systems, was being transported when the fire broke out, its antenna module—a key piece of equipment—fully engulfed as flames licked skyward from the vehicle’s rear. The Ukrainian publication noted that the fire appeared to originate behind the driver’s cabin, an area typically housing the engine and transmission, though the precise cause remains shrouded in mystery.
Speculation swirls around whether this was a mechanical failure or something more deliberate, perhaps an act of sabotage linked to the ongoing conflict in the region. The footage leaves little doubt about the severity of the damage: the sensitive electronics and metal alloys of the radar’s antenna, designed to withstand operational stress but not intense heat, were likely rendered inoperable, a loss that could sideline the system for months if not longer.
Recorded near the air base of Saki in Russia-occupied Crimea.
A S-300/400 96L6E radar station was burning on the Yevpatoriya highway around noon today.
The cause of the fire remains unclear. pic.twitter.com/1KJ98UDNPR
— JR2 (@JanR210) March 4, 2025
The 96L6E, known to NATO as the “Cheese Board,” is no ordinary piece of military hardware. Developed by Russia’s Almaz-Antey corporation and introduced into service in 2008 after years of refinement, it represents a cornerstone of modern Russian air defense architecture.
This radar operates in the X-band frequency range, between 8 and 12 gigahertz, enabling it to detect and track airborne targets—aircraft, helicopters, drones, and missiles—at distances of up to 300 kilometers, according to manufacturer claims. Its phased-array antenna, built with active electronically scanned array technology, allows for rapid scanning of the airspace, offering high-resolution imaging that can distinguish between a civilian airliner and a military jet, or even identify incoming missiles amidst clutter-like terrain or weather interference.
The system’s versatility lies in its all-altitude capability, meaning it can spot low-flying threats skimming the ground as well as high-altitude targets soaring tens of thousands of feet above. Integrated into the broader S-300 and S-400 networks, it feeds critical data—speed, altitude, direction—to missile batteries, enabling precise targeting and engagement. Its role isn’t just detection; it’s the linchpin that ties together situational awareness and kinetic response, making it indispensable for defending strategic assets like military bases or occupied territories.
Crimea, seized by Russia in 2014, has since become a fortress of air defense systems, with the 96L6E playing a pivotal role in this militarized landscape. Russia has deployed multiple S-300 and S-400 battalions across the peninsula, turning it into a linchpin of its Black Sea strategy.
Open-source reports and satellite imagery suggest at least four S-400 battalions are stationed there, with key sites near Feodosia, Yevpatoria, Dzhankoy, and Sevastopol. Each battalion typically includes a mix of radars—like the 96L6E and the 92N6E fire control radar—alongside missile launchers mounted on mobile platforms, such as the MZKT-7930 chassis.
The exact number of S-300 systems is harder to pin down, though older variants like the S-300PS and S-300 PM are believed to complement the newer S-400s, creating a layered defense network. Feodosia, on the southeastern coast, offers a vantage point over the Black Sea, while Yevpatoria, where the recent fire occurred, guards the western approaches near Russia’s naval hub in Sevastopol.
Dzhankoy, a logistical node in the north, extends coverage toward Ukraine’s mainland. This concentration reflects Crimea’s dual role: a staging ground for operations in southern Ukraine and a buffer against threats from the sea or air. Estimates suggest Russia could have dozens of missile launchers and associated radars deployed, with each S-400 battery capable of fielding up to 12 launch vehicles, each carrying four missiles—potentially hundreds of interceptors ready to fire.
The war in Ukraine has thrust these systems into the spotlight, revealing both their strengths and vulnerabilities through a series of high-stakes encounters. The S-300 and S-400 have been credited with significant operational successes by Russian sources.
In October 2023, the Russian Ministry of Defense claimed its air defenses, bolstered by the 96L6 radar, downed three U.S.-made AGM-88 HARM missiles during a Ukrainian assault, alongside four ATACMS missiles and eight HIMARS rockets. Such intercepts highlight the systems’ ability to handle multiple threats, a testament to their advanced tracking and engagement capabilities.
Yet the conflict has also exposed their limits. In September 2023, Ukraine reported destroying an S-400 system near Yevpatoria using drones and Neptune cruise missiles, a strike that echoed earlier attacks on Crimea’s air defenses. By June 2024, Ukraine’s General Staff claimed successful hits on S-300 and S-400 radars near Belbek and Sevastopol, with ATACMS missiles—traveling at speeds up to 2,300 miles per hour—proving difficult to counter despite the systems’ ballistic missile defense features.
A particularly striking incident came in May 2024 near Mospino, where video evidence showed an S-400 firing desperately at incoming ATACMS, only to be obliterated by cluster munitions moments later, its launchers and 96L6 radar reduced to wreckage. These losses underscore a recurring challenge: while formidable against conventional aircraft, the systems struggle with fast, low-flying, or stealthy threats, especially when targeted by precision strikes or overwhelmed by salvos.
The fire on March 4 adds another chapter to this saga, raising questions about its implications for Russia’s hold on Crimea and the broader conflict. If it was an accident, it points to potential maintenance or logistical strains—moving such complex equipment in a war zone is fraught with risk, and a single spark near fuel or electronics could trigger disaster.
If sabotage, it suggests Ukrainian forces or partisans have penetrated deeper into occupied territory than previously thought, a notion supported by past strikes and the shadowy presence of resistance networks. The loss of a 96L6E, valued at tens of millions of dollars, isn’t just a financial hit; it’s a tactical one.
Without this radar, nearby S-300 or S-400 batteries lose their eyes, forcing reliance on secondary systems like the 91N6 or older 76N6 radars, which may not match its range or precision. Replacement isn’t simple—Russia’s defense industry, under sanctions since 2014, faces production bottlenecks, and redeploying units from elsewhere could thin defenses in places like Moscow or the Arctic.
For Ukraine, this incident could widen gaps in Crimea’s air shield, offering more room for drones, missiles, or even manned aircraft to operate, especially if Western-supplied F-16s enter the fray as promised by mid-2025.
Yet the picture isn’t one-sided. Russia’s layered defenses mean no single loss cripples its posture entirely—other radars and missile types, like the shorter-range Pantsir-S1, can compensate, albeit imperfectly. The S-400’s ability to integrate with legacy S-300s and newer S-500s ensures redundancy, and Crimea’s saturation with systems suggests resilience against sporadic setbacks. Still, cumulative damage matters.
Reports from 2024 indicate Ukraine has destroyed or damaged at least 15 air defense systems in Crimea, chipping away at Russia’s capacity to project power. Each incident forces a recalibration: more resources are diverted to repairs, more personnel are exposed to risk, and more uncertainty about the next strike. For Ukraine, the challenge is sustaining this pressure—ATACMS and HIMARS stocks depend on Western aid, and partisan operations carry high costs in a heavily policed region.
The fire’s broader ripple effects merit scrutiny beyond official narratives. Russia might downplay it as a fluke, preserving morale, while Ukraine could amplify it as proof of Russian weakness, rallying support. Neither claim holds absolute truth—military systems fail, and wars turn on more than one radar.
But the incident fits a pattern: Ukraine’s strategy of degrading Russia’s air defenses, paired with Russia’s determination to hold Crimea, sets the stage for escalation. If Ukraine exploits such gaps, it could shift the aerial balance, enabling bolder strikes on Russian logistics or the Black Sea Fleet.
Conversely, Russia might double down, accelerating S-500 deployments or tightening security, though at a steep economic and operational price. The 96L6E’s fiery end, whether by chance or design, is a microcosm of this war’s stakes—technology, territory, and tenacity locked in a grind where every loss reshapes the battlefield, however subtly.
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
In late February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, escalating a conflict that had simmered since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. The initial assault targeted major Ukrainian cities like Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Mariupol, with the Russian forces aiming for a quick victory.
However, the Ukrainian military and civilian resistance proved unexpectedly resilient, leading to prolonged urban and trench warfare. International sanctions were swiftly imposed on Russia, and NATO countries increased military support to Ukraine, significantly altering the dynamics of the conflict.
Throughout 2022 and into 2023, the war saw fluctuating front lines, with Ukraine managing to reclaim significant territories during counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson. The human cost was staggering, with tens of thousands of casualties on both sides and millions displaced.
The destruction of infrastructure led to humanitarian crises, with shortages of food, water, and electricity in various regions. Global attention remained high, with numerous diplomatic efforts attempting to broker peace, yet none yielding substantial results.
By mid-2024, the conflict had transformed into a war of attrition, with both sides suffering from military fatigue and economic strain. The international community’s response varied, with some advocating for continued support to Ukraine to maintain its sovereignty, while others pushed for negotiations to end the bloodshed.
The war’s impact was felt worldwide through energy market disruptions, increased food prices, and shifts in global alliances. Despite the ongoing violence, cultural resistance in Ukraine grew stronger, with art, music, and literature becoming powerful symbols of defiance and national identity.
As of early 2025, the situation remains tense with no clear end in sight. Both Ukrainian and Russian forces have adapted to a new normal of sporadic but intense clashes, with significant areas of eastern and southern Ukraine still under dispute.
Humanitarian aid continues to pour in, though the effectiveness of these efforts is hampered by the ongoing hostilities. The war has become a defining issue of the early 21st century, highlighting the complexities of modern warfare, international law, and the resilience of the human spirit amidst adversity.
***
Follow us everywhere and at any time. BulgarianMilitary.com has responsive design and you can open the page from any computer, mobile devices or web browsers. For more up-to-date news, follow our Google News, YouTube, Reddit, LinkedIn, and Twitter pages. Our standards: Manifesto & ethical principles.