ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

[Boreas]

I think this may give some idea -

Below images show location for radar and ABM sites for Russian A-135, guarding Moscow. (Nothing needs to be placed in between city buildings.)


Radar location (Hen House Radars)


ABM Sites -

[keshavchandra]

The recent AD assets deployment plan for all major cities in phase wise, I see a another area of concern which will emerge in case of NBC defense. As my notion we may prevent the warhead to defuse(fission and fussion wise) in air or ground but still after strike we will get a radioactive or polluted material spread on a wide area(The affected area will depend on the strike altitude and the wind conditions). To deal with this IA placed a proper set of NBC defense equipment(worth Rs 1,200 crore and another Rs 1,200 crore is in the pipeline). But.....Is it suffice or may we develop a regional or brigade level NBC wing just to deal with these affected areas.
Just my two cents....

[Austin]

It seems AAD is far superior to PAC-3. The earlier variants of the Patriot missiles were disaster. During the last gulf war, the PAC-3's performed well against Iraqi missile that were very inferior and had a range of 130 and Al-Samoud-2 having 180 km.

Patriot is a combat proven missile , the only one till date to have proven in combat with actual BM interception , so superiority or inferiority is not an issue here , demonstrated performance and reliability in actual combat is its claim to fame.

The Patriot has an interesting history , its claim to fame is the Gulf War where its capability were deliberately exaggerated by Politician , the reality was Patriot never intercepted any Scud BM , becuase it never had the capability to do so in the first place , the first Patriot used in Gulf War only had ability to intercept Fighter aircraft and Cruise missile. It was hastily deployed in Gulf for more of PR reasons and to take care of aircraft and cruise missile threat which were real , iraq then had a good airforce.

But after war it was improved with PAC-2 giving it longer range and with GEM upgrade given some ATBM capability.

The PAC-3 ERINT is a new missile has little to do but any thing with original Patriot , its designed from scratch to intercept a missile with a range of 1000 km or travelling at 3 km/sec.

When put into combat it really did very well , intercepted all or most of Al Samoud , Abdali missile ..the range was limited becuase under UN sanction Iraq was not allowed to develop missile of more then 200 km. So its not really Patriot fault that it met with a less capable BM. It did its job well which was to intercept BM.

What a co-incidence that Patriot would rise to fame from Gulf War 1 and more then a decade later would still perform the same task at the same place and this time do it well.

Patriot development by co-incidence or just sheer luck has been trial by fire , it simply got better in real combat by plugging its known weakness known in combat.

[uddu]

demonstrated performance and reliability in actual combat is its claim to fame.
.

From the statistics available it has performed excellent against Al Samoud missiles of Iraq. But still it has not performed against 300 km Prithvi. Not even once. While AAD has demonstrated that capability, even though not in a war. I will still rate AAD above PAC-3.

[Austin]

From the statistics available it has performed excellent against Al Samoud missiles of Iraq. But still it has not performed against 300 km Prithvi. Not even once. While AAD has demonstrated that capability, even though not in a war. I will still rate AAD above PAC-3.

Is it Patriots fault that iraq did not had scud becuase they were banned by UN under post war deal ?

I can rate the THAAD higher because it has intercepted targets with much higher capability in many tests .... but that does not take away any thing from PAC-3 actual combat performance. The THAAD for all its performance is still a unproven in combat missile while PAC-3 has been combat proven........thats the only point i wanted to drive home.

[uddu]

Is it Patriots fault that iraq did not had scud becuase they were banned by UN under post war deal ?

What make you think that they will intercept anything other than Scuds?

I can rate the THAAD higher because it has intercepted targets with much higher capability in many tests .... but that does not take away any thing from PAC-3 actual combat performance. The THAAD for all its performance is still a unproven in combat missile while PAC-3 has been combat proven........thats the only point i wanted to drive home.

I just want to point out that PAC-3 is not all that what's being said about it.
It has many many failures during testing itself, So now i do question how it performed better during the war?
http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/tests-pac3.cfm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/sys ... 3-iote.htm
And the latest failure of PAC-3, that i can find with a quick search is a 2005 report
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 311145.xml
Here is further data
test data
The latest failure being in 2009.
Compared to that AAD do have 100 percent success rate.

[Austin]

What make you think that they will intercept anything other than Scuds?

Well as far as ballistic missile goes it can intercept a BM with a maximum speed of 3 km/sec , thats what it is designed to do but its quite competent to intercept air breathing targets ..like they painfully found out when due to IFF issue it intercepted a Tornado and was about to do the same to a F-16 and PAC-3 was working in full auto mode at that time.

I just want to point out that PAC-3 is not all that what's being said about it.
It has many many failures during testing itself, So now i do question how it performed better during the war?
http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/tests-pac3.cfm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/sys ... 3-iote.htm
And the latest failure of PAC-3, that i can find with a quick search is a 2005 report
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 311145.xml

No system is perfect and less so during a war when you are integrated with so many other sensors , radars etc ...Patriot for all its flaws did a exceptionally good job of intercepting most of BM missile target during Ops Enduring Freedom . 9 out of 12 BM of AL-Samoud and Abdali were intercepted

It missed a cruise missile becuase they were not expecting it and all radar were just scanning for BM targets. Shit Happens in War !

If you think all those brouchure advertised system works perfectly as advertised in real war then be my guest ..they would fail as miserably as Patriot did and will get better with combat experience much like Patriot did.

So is Patriot a perfect system ..No...... Is Patriot a combat proven system with proven reliability and performance ..Most certainly Yes.

BM defence is a very complicated subject and much so there are far less systems proven in complex combat environment as PAC-3 did.

[Austin]

Check the book " The Iraq War: strategy, tactics, and military lessons " on Google Books and check the topic "The Role of Patriot" ..... gives you some idea how patriot performed.

Plus check this Patriot Score Card http://www.armscontrol.org/print/1279

[keshavchandra]

Austin Sir, may you explain the possibilities of such happenings as follows..
The recent AD assets deployment plan for all major cities in phase wise, I see a another area of concern which will emerge in case of NBC defense. As my notion we may prevent the warhead to defuse(fission and fussion wise) in air or ground but still after strike we will get a radioactive or polluted material spread on a wide area(The affected area will depend on the strike altitude and the wind conditions). To deal with this IA placed a proper set of NBC defense equipment(worth Rs 1,200 crore and another Rs 1,200 crore is in the pipeline). But..... is it suffice or may we develop a regional or brigade level NBC wing just to deal with these affected areas.

[Austin]

Ofcourse there is a possibility if the Nuclear charge does not detonate and if there is a direct hit at the warhead , it might break up causing contamination over a very wide area from very highly radio active material.

Those contamination itself will cause many death and long term medical problems and cleaning such contamination spread over wide area is prohibitively expensive , even cleaning contamination of DU round are considered as expensive forget over highly radio active material spread over wide populated areas and 2,400 crores even for a single city is peanuts.

Cant think of such happening to our population or to any one. Hope we never reach such a stage ever.

[Kanson]

Plutonium is a highly combustible material. To avoid any radio active debris or any left over warheads, whether it is Nuclear, Chemical or Biological, to reach lower atmosphere, warheads of BM are destroyed by hit to kill mechanism, where it creates such huge temp. that it burns the warhead completely.

PAC 3 is hit to kill,

Whereas PAC 2 is conventional. Studying the failures of PAC 2 against Scud, Americans developed hit to kill vehicle, and Russians went for Directional Warhead.

[Austin]

Plutonium is a highly combustible material. To avoid any radio active debris or any left over warheads, whether it is Nuclear, Chemical or Biological, to reach lower atmosphere, warheads of BM are destroyed by hit to kill mechanism, where it creates such huge temp. that it burns the warhead completely.

How about uranium that our neighbours have ? There are no gurantees that a hit will most certainly burn all NBC component ,considering all nuclear warhead are super hardened against impact ...and yes the HTK should exactly hit the warhead and not other parts of BM , its a tough call and radio active contamination will still fall on ground unless you try to hit in space and it burn during reentry.

PAC 3 is hit to kill,Whereas PAC 2 is conventional. Studying the failures of PAC 2 against Scud, Americans developed hit to kill vehicle, and Russians went for Directional Warhead.

The Russian missile of 9M96E1 and E2 are HTK too and has the same capability as patriot PAC-3 , both patriot and 9M96 carry small warhead , PAC-3 carries 12 Kg and 9M96 carries 24 Kg , both are HTK.

Another point the PAC 2 GEM upgrade gives it ATBM capability and though its not a HTK , it scored major hits in operation enduring freedom , PAC-3 accounted for just 2 BM hits out of 9 the rest were PAC-2 GEM , 4 PAC-3 were fired against 2 Iraqi BM.

[Kailash]

Austin Sir, may you explain the possibilities of such happenings as follows..
The recent AD assets deployment plan for all major cities in phase wise, I see a another area of concern which will emerge in case of NBC defense. As my notion we may prevent the warhead to defuse(fission and fussion wise) in air or ground but still after strike we will get a radioactive or polluted material spread on a wide area

Ofcourse there is a possibility if the Nuclear charge does not detonate and if there is a direct hit at the warhead , it might break up causing contamination over a very wide area from very highly radio active material

Last time asked something on those lanes in BR, I was told that the blast will will happen so high (exo-atmosphere), most radioactive stuff will burn up and concentration reaching ground per sqkm will be negligible. Dont remember the poster.

There can be a million different way a missile could disintegrate (or not) when hit by BMD. Either ways would lead to major evacuations with NO possibility of regaining the land in the near future. In this regard alive and irradiated is as bad a state as dead and irradiated. And I am unsure about the probabilities - makes me wonder if BMD is really worth its price.

[Kanson]

Sir, Uranium is again highly combustible material.

We call PAD with directional warhead as HTK.

[uddu]

Austin, here is a report from Armscontrol published in 2009.
This report says, the PAC-3 was designed and built because the earlier versions were a disaster.
About PAC-2
158 fired against 42 scuds and none shot down or a maximum of 4 scuds shot down with 9 percent success rate.
Now about PAC-3
To this day, the PAC-3 is still untested in war. Iraq fired no Scuds in OIF, having destroyed or dismantled them all per UN resolution. Instead Iraq fired shorter range missiles and low flying cruise missiles for which PAC-3 was not designated. These were FROG-7 missiles. Ababil-100s, CSSCs, and Al-Samoud missiles. A history written by 33rd Army and Missile Defense Command documents 23 Iraqi missile launches. 9 Ababil, 4 FROG-7's, 4 Al-Samoud, 4 CSSC and 2 unknowns.)
In OIF the Army claimed 8 engagement for 9 tries and possibly 9 for 9, that leaves 14 or 15 targets that army did not bring down.
Also, it puts the Army's claim into perspective to point out that 24 Patriots were fired against those 9 targets and if everyone of the 9 were hit that would only a ratio of 37.5%
PAC-3 did not play a role in OIF because, compared to other variants they were relatively new in the field. One PAC-3 was responsible for one of the fratricide
53 PAC-3 were deployed and only 4 were fired. One brought down a U.S Navy F-18.

So PAC is still miserable (even against smaller ballistic missiles) and PAC-3 is untested.

It's just the perception that anything U.S European or Russian is zabardast and Anything Indian is useless. The truth can be reverse.
Read somewhere that the Arabian Peninsula is going to be flooded with the useless Patriots and the never tested in battle PAC-3.
May be our Mandarins are smart enough and capable enough like the Amrikhan, they must have sold AAD to the Sheik to kill mosquitoes and brought in a lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$444

One more thing is Brazil had a need for Patrol craft and it seems BAE took the money while MMS watched in silence the sleeping Deve Gowda.

[sudhan]

Also, it puts the Army's claim into perspective to point out that 24 Patriots were fired against those 9 targets and if everyone of the 9 were hit that would only a ratio of 37.5%

Sir, I do not think during war it's fair to count the number of interceptors fired per target to judge the systems accuracy. Almost always multiple interceptors are fired against a single target to ensure high hit probability. When this is the case for aircraft, then it definitely will be so for BMs.

I would place immense confidence in a BMD system even if 3 interceptors were fired for bringing down a single incoming BM, as long as none of the BMs get through.

[Austin]

uddu , for lack for time just post it briefly , the links i have posted are official numbers and some of the data you have posted relate to test done on PAC-3 system during its testing or trial phase.

The first data on Patriot/PAC-2 is about Gulf War one , where the system never had ATBM capability only GEM upgrade had those.

During OIF , PAC-3 killed 2 BM fired from Iraq , PAC-2 GEM killed the remaining , total 9 out of 13 kills .

At 5 occasion missile were not fired at the target since it was suppose to fall in an outside area ,which means desert etc where it wont do any harm.

Out of the thousand of sorties that were carried out where Patriot were deployed which means every time patriot did a IFF , only 2 -3 failed , 1 was tornado ,1 was F-18 and 1 was F-16 the F-16 fired a harm and destroyed patriot radar.

And remember these are figures from actual war deployment and not the test done in peace time to test the system or some ATBM test.

We are not doing a Patriot versus AAD debate here but to see how ATBM fairs in actual combat and the only one which has seen actual combat are the Patriots.

[Austin]

We call PAD with directional warhead as HTK.

If that is the precise defination of HTK , then all the S-300/400 series would be classified as HTK and so will the PAC-2 GEM , they all carry Directional Warhead.

But from what i have read only AAD , PAC-3 and 9M96 series are classified as HTK ....need to check on this later.

[uddu]

Austin, you can neglect the test data of PAC-3 including the latest failure in 2005.

one which has seen actual combat are the Patriots.

Austin, the article tells otherwise.
The other statistics that you see about 9/11 may be bogus. The correct version is the testimony to the U.S congress by Lt.Gen Ronald Kadish and he says Four PAC-3 fired and the only success (defeat) is the downing of the F-18.

[uddu]

Also, it puts the Army's claim into perspective to point out that 24 Patriots were fired against those 9 targets and if everyone of the 9 were hit that would only a ratio of 37.5%

Sir, I do not think during war it's fair to count the number of interceptors fired per target to judge the systems accuracy. Almost always multiple interceptors are fired against a single target to ensure high hit probability. When this is the case for aircraft, then it definitely will be so for BMs.

I would place immense confidence in a BMD system even if 3 interceptors were fired for bringing down a single incoming BM, as long as none of the BMs get through.

Yes, during war no one will take any chances. More missiles will be fired. Our systems is said to provide 99.something percent for a PAD+AAD combo against a ballistic missile. Sure need hell a lot of testing. Hope that they will better test it with all combinations and targets rather than just Prithvi missile. I think they can try the Agni-1's with a range of 700km as target missile. Nothing to lose. But a lot to gain. Early detection of any failure will be a great thing. That will help to plug the issue. If nothing went wrong and it performed well against Agni's, then very well, we do have a formidable ABM that cannot be defeated.

[Karan M]

There can be a million different way a missile could disintegrate (or not) when hit by BMD. Either ways would lead to major evacuations with NO possibility of regaining the land in the near future. In this regard alive and irradiated is as bad a state as dead and irradiated. And I am unsure about the probabilities - makes me wonder if BMD is really worth its price.

Its anyday preferable to conduct a cleanup with non exploded fragments of radioactive material, then to have it explode over a population center and kill people & contaminate the area both. Contaminated areas can be fenced away/covered up, people cannot be replaced. Our cities are the engines of economic growth - knowledge and skills wise. We have to protect them. A BMD system is hence, essential.

[Karan M]

Sir, I do not think during war it's fair to count the number of interceptors fired per target to judge the systems accuracy. Almost always multiple interceptors are fired against a single target to ensure high hit probability. When this is the case for aircraft, then it definitely will be so for BMs.

I would place immense confidence in a BMD system even if 3 interceptors were fired for bringing down a single incoming BM, as long as none of the BMs get through.

The higher the SSKP (single shot kill probability), the better the overall performance when you fire multiple interceptors. The point is if you fire a limited accuracy single missile, then you'll need many more for a successful intercept - and that too with less guarantee.

Besides which, the all new specialist developments - eg Indian BMD, Israeli Arrow, US ThAAD are IMO preferable to "upgrades" of existing systems like PAC etc because the former were purpose designed using the latest tech for a specific role & hence do not suffer the constraints of adapting new systems to earlier form factors and technology.

[Austin]

uddu here is an official unclassified report from Office of the Under Secretary of Defense on Patriot performance in OIF

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA435837.pdf

Just posting the relevant part the other parts are also interesting

The Task Force investigated the lessons learned from the Patriot system performance in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and assessed if these lessons could be incorporated into the continuing development of Patriot and its follow-on system, the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).

The Patriot role in OIF was defense against tactical ballistic missiles; it had no assigned air defense role, but it did have a self-defense role against anti-radiation missiles. The Patriot deployment was substantial, involving up to 40 U.S. fire units and 22 fire units from four coalition nations. Two types of Patriot interceptor missiles were
used: the improved PAC-2 missile, which is the traditional Patriot interceptor; and a new hit-to-kill missile, the PAC-3. Both were used with success in OIF, with the bulk of the engagements falling to the PAC-2.

All nine enemy tactical ballistic missiles that threatened areas designated for Patriot defense were engaged. Eight of these engagements were observed by enough other sensors to conservatively declare them successes; the ninth engagement is judged to be a probable success. None of the attacking tactical ballistic missiles caused any damage or loss of life to the coalition forces.

The Patriot battalions operated reliably, and the two variants of the interceptor missile worked well against these Iraqi tactical ballistic missiles. One can argue that these relatively slow missiles which did not break up in flight like the Scuds of Desert Storm, were not stressing targets; however, their short range and the coalition’s goal of
large defended footprints and high-altitude intercepts due to chemical warhead concerns made them somewhat stressing targets for the Patriot and their crews.

In an overall sense, the Task Force assessed the Patriot missile defense in OIF to be a substantial success.

[Austin]

"upgrades" of existing systems like PAC etc because the former were purpose designed using the latest tech for a specific role & hence do not suffer the constraints of adapting new systems to earlier form factors and technology.

Actually PAC-2/GEM can be considered as upgrades of existing missile of Patriot to add ATBM capability , PAC-3 is a new missile designed from scratch to intercept MRBM targets with HTK , the interceptor has really nothing to do with previous missile but still comes under the Patriot system upgrade. Arrow and THAAD comes under the medium tire system specially the latter.

[aditya_d]

Air Defence for NCR ready | Mumbai, Bangalore next? | Complete deliverable version missile's flight test soon

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2012/01/a ... umbai.html

Bangalore: Indian version of Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) is ready. Under Phase-1 deployment, the National Capital Region (NCR) will come under the safe shield of programme Air Defence (AD). Sources in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirm to Express that the entire gamut of operations will be linked to the Integrated Defence Staff (IDS) in Delhi.

Since the project inception, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has so far conducted six successive trials. "India's network-centric warfare capabilities will come to the party with AD cover for NCR first. Once, this module is operational, we can replicate the same to other Indian cities. We have prepared a detailed programme and submitted to the government in this regard,” sources said.

In Phase-II deployment, cities like Mumabi, Bangalore and Kolkotta could find a place, though the specifics haven't been yet finalised. "Missile launchers, radars, interceptors and network systems have all being readied for for NCR. India will now be among the league of nations with BMD capabilities,” sources said.

Surrounded by hostile neighbours possessing nuclear capable ballistic missiles with varying ranges, the threat perception to India has been brainstormed and assessed periodically by New Delhi. The AD system detects an incoming missile hundreds of kilometers away and destroys it outside the atmosphere and any leakages will be dealt at lower heights before it could do any significant damage.
Giving the technical challenges of AD, sources said: “We have to detect the missile and should possess the ability to track it at distances of several hundred kilometers. We need to give adequate reaction time to the control center to process and analyse the threat and to the interceptors to be launched and take on the incoming missile before it reaches the target. We have the radars now and the plan for improved longer ranges is in progress."

The size of an incoming missile payload could be just two to three meters and it comes at a speed of approx 5 km/sec, giving very few seconds to the weapon systems to react. This requires very accurate prediction of incoming missile position as well as control of interceptor path. “The coverage has to ensure adequate number of radars, a highly integrated, network-centric system which processes the inputs from various radars, predict the path of the incoming missile and decide when the interceptor has to be launched,” sources said.

DRDO claims that these technologies have been developed and demonstrated to Tri Services Command. “The coverage is for an entire area consisting of several hundred kilometers and not for a specific building. However, the deployment ensures that key assets are at the center of the covered area providing highest protection,” sources said.

Once the NCR module is deployed, similar modules can be adopted covering other important regions and eventually the entire country. “All modules are interlinked in overlapping fashion to generate networked AD system. Satellites are needed only for time-synchronization of different stations across the country. Once the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System is operational by 2014, we will not dependent upon satellite constellation of other countries,”sources said.

Sources say that in future a need will arise to detect the launch of a ballistic missile thousands of kilometers away. This will be done by satellites having very high sensitive infrared detectors to detect the plume from boosters of missiles and provide early warning to the AD systems in the powered phase of the potent target, thus providing more time for reaction. “It would be possible to use high energy weapons to destroy these systems during launch. These are areas where the country needs to look forward and take a technology initiative to close gaps in defence capabilities,” sources said.
The deliverable version of an endo-atmospheric interceptor missile (protection range or down range will be aprox up to 30 km and kill altitude will be up to approx 20 km) is all ready to be flight tested. The missile is part of the twin-layered ballistic missile defence that is being developed by the DRDO which engages the enemy missile in the endo-atmosphere.

The interceptor missile is primarily designed for engaging short to medium-range ballistic missiles (SRBM/MRBM) with ranges up to 2000 km. It has also got the capability to engage quasi ballistic missiles of medium range. The performance in terms of the kill zone and lethality of this missile is significantly higher than contemporary missiles like PAC-3.

Later this month (January), the complete deliverable version of this missile will be flight tested from Wheeler’s Island against a SRBM launched from Chandipur.
A significant research has gone into development of highly sophisticated onboard algorithms to enable the DRDO scientists in predicting a near hit-to-kill performance in the next mission.

[harbans]

^ This is the AAD/PAD Phase 1 deployment that is ready for NCR and it's a real big operational development. I was expecting deployment to come later beyond 2013..deployment and end user trials will happen alongside i guess. Someone in Delhi is feeling the neighborhood pinch for sure. IMHO i think the BMD system is technologically the most demanding of DRDO's various projects. If the deployments have really begun, then we've taken a massive step. Just goes to show the maturity and confidence in the program and those involved.

[uddu]

uddu here is an official unclassified report from Office of the Under Secretary of Defense on Patriot performance in OIF
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA435837.pdf
Just posting the relevant part the other parts are also interesting

In an overall sense, the Task Force assessed the Patriot missile defense in OIF(pac2+3) to be a substantial success.

Hmm, reports from the military. It was hundred percent success during Gulf war 1. Later only the success ratio came down and finally to zero. This is the difference betwenen Indian and U.S military. In the U.S they will claim the missile to be success if it succeeds once and fails 99 percent. The Indian military will say a missile is a failure even if it succeeds 99 percent time and fails 1 time and will import a foreign system that have such claims of substantial success. Anyway we don't have a need for any patriot systems. So let's just ignore the Patriot.

[uddu]

Anyone got any information about the ballistic missile defense capability that the Akash-2 is going to have?

[uddu]

Air Defence for NCR ready | Mumbai, Bangalore next? | Complete deliverable version missile's flight test soon

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2012/01/a ... umbai.html

The interceptor missile is primarily designed for engaging short to medium-range ballistic missiles (SRBM/MRBM) with ranges up to 2000 km. It has also got the capability to engage quasi ballistic missiles of medium range. The performance in terms of the kill zone and lethality of this missile is significantly higher than contemporary missiles like PAC-3.

Later this month (January), the complete deliverable version of this missile will be flight tested from Wheeler’s Island against a SRBM launched from Chandipur.
A significant research has gone into development of highly sophisticated onboard algorithms to enable the DRDO scientists in predicting a near hit-to-kill performance in the next mission.

[Austin]

Update on S-400 development from Military Parade ( www.milparade.com)

TRIUMPH FROM MOSCOW TO RUSSIAN FAR EAST
Author: Alexander Lukashov

Readers of the Military Parade magazine have been familiar with the S-400 Triumph surface-to-air missile (SAM) system since last century. Military Parade wrote about factory tests of the S-400 SAM system at the Kapustin Yar range field as far back as February 1999. Much time has passed since then. The Triumph SAM system was fielded under a governmental decree in April 2007, the first mass-produced system was manufactured and put on combat duty outside a town of Elektrostal, Moscow Region, on August 6, 2007.

In February 2011 the Kapustin Yar range field hosted launches of another regiment of S-400 Triumph SAM systems. The main feature of the exercise consisted in the fact that the Almaz-Antey Design Bureau, manufacturer of the S-400 system, had delivered two whole battalions, rather than separate SAM systems to its customer, the Operational-Strategic Aerospace Defence Command. It is crucial for practicing regiment-size teamwork, since successful engagement of a target is the result of joint efforts of the entire combat crew.

A SAM regiment, equipped with new S-400 SAM systems, will be put on combat duty in Dmitrov this March, thus, reinforcing Moscow's air defence. It will be the second regiment, armed with S-400s, to be deployed outside Moscow. Commander of the Operational-Strategic Aerospace Defence Command Lieutenant General Valery Ivanov pointed out: "It takes at least three to four regiments, equipped with S-400 SAM systems, to ensure effective air defence of Moscow. Such a capability will be available in 2016-2020."

It is worth mentioning that the S-400 Triumph SAM system, developed and produced by the Almaz-Antey Air Defence Consortium, is designed for highly efficient defence of crucial political, administrative, economic, and military installations against air attacks, as well as strategic, cruise, theatre ballistic, and medium-range ballistic missile strikes in adverse combat and electronic countermeasures (ECM) environments.

The system is based on cutting-edge scientific achievements, advanced components, and state-of-the-art technologies. All combat functions, including target detection, tracking, distribution among SAM
systems, lock-on, tracking, identification; missile type selection; launch preparations; missile launch, lock-on, and guidance; and damage assessment, are automated. The system is capable of simultaneously tracking up to 300 targets, guiding up to 72 missiles, and engaging up to 36 targets.

The S-400 can destroy aerodynamic targets at a range of up to 400 km, and at a range of up to 60 km it is capable of killing cruise missiles, tactical and strategic aircraft (including stealth ones), and ballistic missiles flying at a speed of up to 4.8 km/sec. The minimum/maximum flight altitude of an engaged aerodynamic target equals 0.01/27 km. Such targets can be detected at a range of up to 600 km.

As compared with previous-generation SAM systems, the Triumph boasts significantly greater combat capabilities and is more than twice as effective. It is the only system, capable of launching more than four types of missiles, featuring different launch weights and ranges, therefore, establishing layered air defence.

All S-400 assets are based on wheeled cross-country chassis and can be transported by railway, sea, and air.

According to many experts, the S-400 is the world's best SAM system. The Triumph is superior to the top-notch Western US-made Patriot missile system in many ways. For instance, the Russian system can engage low-level targets at an altitude of 10 m plus, while the US one - at an altitude of 60 m and higher. On the modern battlefield, stakes in breaching air defences are placed on low-level attacks.

Vertically launched missiles enable the S-400 to engage incoming targets, approaching from any direction, without having to turn its launchers. The Patriot missile system, which, on the other hand, launches its missile at a pre-set angle, is forced to either turn its launchers or deploy them on missile-dangerous approaches in advance, which inevitably affects its firepower potential.

The deployment time from the travelling position into the combat one is also a crucial factor. While it takes the Russian system less than five minutes to deploy, the US SAM system needs about half an hour.

The deployment geography of the cutting-edge system expands - the Aerospace Defence Command intends to field Triumph SAM systems with a SAM regiment, based in the Russian Far East (it will be the third regiment equipped with S-400s). The top-notch SAM system will replace obsolete pieces of materiel. S-400 surface-to-air missile systems, deployed in the Russian Far East, will facilitate a more efficient defence of Pacific Fleet installations, including nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) bases. This decision is not related to the plans to build up forces in the Kuril Islands or the threat, posed by the North Korean nuclear programme. Deployment of S-400s systems in the Russian Far East is just one of the steps, aimed at boosting capabilities of the regional air and missile defence.

S-400 SAM systems are expected to become the basis for a system, capable of ensuring the required level of securing in the course of the Olympic Games in Sochi in 2014.

Russian arms designers continue making headway. Development of the advanced S-500 SAM system, announced in 2009, is under way. At the present time it is only known that the new-generation system will be smaller and more manoeuvrable than the Triumph, and will be fitted with a state-of-the-art X-band phased array radar. Among other things, the new system is expected to perform space defence missions at an altitude of 40 to 50 km. Its development is planned to be completed in 2013, while in 2014 mass-produced S-500 systems are expected to start entering the inventory. Given the trend to deploy weapon systems in space, it will be of paramount importance to Russia's defence capacity.

Re-equipment of the Russian Armed Forces with S-400 SAM systems and development of the S-500 system are the response to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's order that a new combat arm, the Aerospace Defence Forces, be established. In this light air and missile defence systems are to be integrated and put under a single Strategic Command by 1 December, 2011. A combination of the S-400 and the S-500 is a serious factor in building a joint European missile defence system.

[shukla]

X-post

US says it is open to work with India on missile shield
TOI

The offer was made by deputy assistant secretary of defence Robert Scher who said that the Indo-US defence ties were valuable and critical not only for the security and stability of the region, but globally.

"We are really open to it. And this is something we ask to and ask them if they are interested in it," Scher said on collaboration on the missile shield project in an interview to PTI, emphasising that US "is and will be a dependable weapons supplier to India."

The top Pentagon official disclosed that Washington and New Delhi had been involved in crucial discussion on the ballistic missile shield, adding that the US was looking forward to "restart" the dialogue.

[Kailash]

Unsolicited offers will be subject to rejection and ridicule. Where is the need to adopt/plugin (to) the US ABM program?

If they are so keen on "including" us in their progress, let them give us critical technology and set up missile and radar manufacturing/assembly in India, under our purview. Let them allow us to import sensitive dual use technology. Trust us and we will progress together, like friends do

Unsolicited offers reiterate one thing though - the US needs us more than we do them.

[koti]

^^The biggest issue with going for the US Missile shield is the control of these systems by the US Govt.
What we can do is to be a part of this by employing our own missile forces but integrating US early warning into our systems.

[Pranav]

^^The biggest issue with going for the US Missile shield is the control of these systems by the US Govt.
What we can do is to be a part of this by employing our own missile forces but integrating US early warning into our systems.

If you are relying on a foreign entity for early warnings you better be prepared to deal with deliberately false warnings.

[member_20163]

U said it pranav - and how advisable would it be to rely on US on matters which would need seconds to take action.?? IMO- us should be kept away from BMD programe.

[uddu]

Not to give too much importance to such news from the U.S offering to kill the Indian BMD program. Just neglect it. Such offers were made in the past, and will be made in the future on everything that India is on the verge of testing or deploying.
Our BMD is under deployment phase and the Second phase has started.

[Sanjay]

Actually one of the things we could use from the use is some assistance on the configuration and deployment of the surveillance and tracking assets and on the use of satellites.

Of course there is going to be a concerted effort - which has already started - to state that the PAD and AAD are useless and the tests were a sham !

[Philip]

When we were about to sign the FGFA deal with Russia,the offer of the JSF came,it again surfaced when the two US contenders were dumped in the MMRCA deal.Now we have the offer for "missile defence",just when our indigenous efforts seem to be maturing and cheaper foreign alternatives are available should we feel the need for them too to be integrated into our planned ABM network.But there is more to the offer than just a defence sale.All across Europe the US has been trying to establish a missile defence shield,ostensibly to deter Iran,but its actual target is Russia.This is another insidious attempt-first with the C-17 through cooperartive agreements with C-17 operators,to bring India into a working military relationship with the US,as a "back-door" ally,whcih will eventually be used to encircle Russia from the subcontinent too.

[koti]

Encircling Russia.... maybe, maybe not,
Encircling China.... Oh Yes.

[mikehurst]

Actually one of the things we could use from the use is some assistance on the configuration and deployment of the surveillance and tracking assets and on the use of satellites.

Of course there is going to be a concerted effort - which has already started - to state that the PAD and AAD are useless and the tests were a sham !

Examples please.