ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63341
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Singha » 08 Oct 2018 07:42

perhaps the track2 sino russian cloning deal has a clause against exporting such clones even to client states.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Trikaal » 08 Oct 2018 10:30

Cain Marko wrote:^considering that this is exactly what many thought would happen with Chinese s300 and the complete lack of evidence that the tsp has anything of this sort, this is conjecture at best. Nor have we seen any flanker analogues in tsp livery despite the Chinese churning them out by the dozens

J-10s have been offered multiple times to TSP. The reason they don't fly those is because of F-16 love and China not giving the jets away like US at frienship prices.

As for the clause, it's a good decision. I feared Russia would play the double game and sell S-300 to Pak. No chance of that now. Nothing we can do about the chinese though.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3002
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Kashi » 08 Oct 2018 11:48

According to some reports, Bakis were in negotiations for HQ-9, the Chinese clone of S-300, in 2015-16; unconfirmed reports of the units being in place.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6703
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 08 Oct 2018 16:41

Unless you have equally capable surveillance, fighter aircraft to challenge from the air, and long range interception capability (detect-track-target-destroy) you aren't going to be able to do much with just ground based air-defense systems. Pakistan is likely to get HQ9s in the coming years but overall that by itself is unlikely to make much difference given the wide gap between the two air-forces. You have to be able to protect those assets and the way things are headed they'll loose the air-war rather quickly and then its just a matter of time before those SAMs are hunted down. Those maximum SAM ranges require a cooperative target, and the actual defended radius against a target with countermeasures trying to deceive or deny targeting (like an attack aircraft with an ARM and ECM pods) is going to be significantly less.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1813
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby John » 08 Oct 2018 23:52

Singha wrote:perhaps the track2 sino russian cloning deal has a clause against exporting such clones even to client states.

Could be the case but I suspect russia would love to see such sales since it would equal more Indian orders of S-400. I suspect price and also fear of Pakistan leaking data to western Intel the reasons China has not sold any. Pakistan military personnel are known to sell tech and equipment to most western Intel services including Israel.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3215
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 09 Oct 2018 00:38

Trikaal wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:^considering that this is exactly what many thought would happen with Chinese s300 and the complete lack of evidence that the tsp has anything of this sort, this is conjecture at best. Nor have we seen any flanker analogues in tsp livery despite the Chinese churning them out by the dozens

J-10s have been offered multiple times to TSP. The reason they don't fly those is because of F-16 love and China not giving the jets away like US at frienship prices.

As for the clause, it's a good decision. I feared Russia would play the double game and sell S-300 to Pak. No chance of that now. Nothing we can do about the chinese though.


I don't see the relevance of J10s here - flanker clones are more of russian technology. Also, J10 talks is just that - hawa. They keep getting their Thandaars. IIRC the TSP has been begging for the J10s and fantasizing about them for years - but so far nothing has come through.

HQ9s should have come ages ago - but we see nothing so far.

Amoghvarsha
BRFite
Posts: 242
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 12:56

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Amoghvarsha » 09 Oct 2018 02:54

Dont the TSP already have HQ9s.I thought they had already begged a few.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9823
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 09 Oct 2018 12:09

Regarding HQ-9yet to see concrete evidence of TSP having any of these. These are probably Russian exports to China which are given the tag" reverse Engineered". I doubt China has any spare systems of these to give to TSP. TSP especially online fans like to make all sorts of claims. If you believe Wiki edits by Pakis, they can probably invade and raise flag on red fort in one day.

Till Doklam, many on BRF including me thought China was bristling with HQ-9's that the moment you go anywhere near Tibet, huge numbers of HQ-9's will be flying towards IAF aircraft, it was only when Chinese started boasting that with the odd video of SA-9 and Sa-13's being unloaded from rail's in Tibet it became clear that vast areas of Tibet don't have SAM coverage.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21977
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 10 Oct 2018 07:49

China has lic production rights for S300 PM2 model and is manuf as HQ9 by them

Even we had trialled s300 in mid 90 in Rajasthan when M11 sale news were coming out but pursue that further for financial reason

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21977
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 10 Oct 2018 07:52

I am told S400 is a big deal in numbers deal of century for SAM walas the 5 regiment would be more than 6000 SAM missile with reloads

IAF will likely break down into squadron and deploy it into multiple locations

John
BRFite
Posts: 1813
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby John » 10 Oct 2018 08:39

Austin wrote:I am told S400 is a big deal in numbers deal of century for SAM walas the 5 regiment would be more than 6000 SAM missile with reloads

IAF will likely break down into squadron and deploy it into multiple locations


It's 5 squadrons which is about 10 Batteries which is around 600 not 6000 missiles.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35979
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby SaiK » 24 Oct 2018 11:19

X posting from Massan mil dhaaga.

At the same time, Hostage made it clear that the F-35 is not the plane to send in for hot dogfights. It is, instead, the first US aircraft built specifically for taking out advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) such as the Russian S-300 and S-400. The plane that would lead the way to take out enemy fighters in close-up battles would be the F-22.

https://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-1 ... whos-best/

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1413
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 24 Oct 2018 12:16

^^i thought that was F22s job all along, flying high and fast


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ashokk and 59 guests