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: 66605
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: 544
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: 3352
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: 7479
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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
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: 3507
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: 245
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: 10783
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: 23315
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: 23315
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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
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: 36299
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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2497
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

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 05 Feb 2019 16:47

Forget the headline but his views on general ABM system is interesting to hear


nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6835
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby nachiket » 06 Feb 2019 03:32

Cain Marko wrote: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.

The Chinese Flanker clones would be a lot more expensive than the J-10's, both to buy and operate. I don't think the PAF would have even seriously considered getting them, a few wet dreams notwithstanding. IIRC the Chinese offered them the J-10 but it makes little sense to acquire that when they already have access to the F-16.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10783
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 06 Feb 2019 10:30

I think about 2-3 months ago CHinese have transferred 1 squadron Hq-9's to Pakistan

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 06 Feb 2019 10:38

nachiket wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: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.

The Chinese Flanker clones would be a lot more expensive than the J-10's, both to buy and operate. I don't think the PAF would have even seriously considered getting them, a few wet dreams notwithstanding. IIRC the Chinese offered them the J-10 but it makes little sense to acquire that when they already have access to the F-16.


PAF chief have been quoted since last 5-8 years they will buy J-10 as a substitute to F-16 and then even looking into 5th Gen J-20/31 but that said all they can afford is JF-17 and keeping older Mirages flying from spares around.

They are realising this and they cant buy any high end aircraft and are investing in SAMS from China ..something even IAF does to make up for suadron shortfall in the decades that went by.

Not the right thread to discuss this though so last word on the topic

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 27 Mar 2019 16:42

Check the S-400 coverage wrt Pakistan Airspace in that article by Vayu

The Game-changing Triumf

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17949
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 28 Mar 2019 03:02

John wrote:
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.


5 regimental sets, each with 2 battalions of 8 launchers.
http://www.defencenews.in/article/Russi ... 023-581465

Under the current contract Russia will complete the delivery of S-400 Triumf air defense systems to India within the tightest deadlines, by the spring of 2023, a military-diplomatic source has told TASS.

“Under the contract concluded in New Delhi on October 5 Russia is to supply to India five regimental sets of S-400, each consisting of a regimental command center and two battalions of launchers (eight in each battalion). In the autumn of 2020 Russia is to provide the first regimental set. Another one will follow in 2021. Then it will supply the third, fourth and fifth sets. The delivery of the last one will be completed in the spring of 2023,” the source said.

“In a word, Russia will provide to India five regimental sets of S-400 within the tightest deadlines, in just two years and six months."


https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201810051068629091-s400-deal-india-implications/

Under the terms of the deal, India will receive five regiments (or ten battalions) of S-400s, with a battalion typically consisting of 8 launchers, 112 missiles, and the associated command, radar, and support vehicles.


Thats 1120 missiles, 3360 with 2x reload etc.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Austin » 30 Mar 2019 21:19

96L6 radar, part of S-400.

Image
Image
Image

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby John » 30 Mar 2019 23:12


Thats 1120 missiles, 3360 with 2x reload etc


That 1120 missile count includes reloads and training round but that count is not official yet it depends on variants that are ordered. I wouldn’t be surprised if count is less since we are ordering less # of 9m96. I believe 9m96 alone costs over a million dollars, have not gotten a solid price figure on the other missiles.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Singha » 30 Mar 2019 23:16

Such radars will help to track everything over tsp amd reduce need for standing patrols

Once they fly we can activate qrt

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby John » 30 Mar 2019 23:22

Fyi as per Sirpi arms transfer Russia lists 650 48N6 to India. Very close to my early estimate :D

(650) 48N6/SA-10 SAM (2017) Part of INR390 b ($5 b) for S-400 SAM systems

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17949
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 31 Mar 2019 01:12

Yes, but that's only one missile type. At $5.2 Billion, IAF will definitely take a substantial amount of missiles spread out across all the 4 or thereabout, types. We have also reportedly been cleared for the 400km class missile.

That 1120 missile count includes reloads and training round


No, that's just a *single* full loadout for the configuration mentioned for 5 regimental sets per some Russian language sources I recall reading. Usually, the Russians calculate reloads and training rounds as extra.

These rounds are the allocated rounds for the whole battalion for combat etc, including wastage. The number of rounds comes if we assume 16 launchers per regiment, 5 regiments, so that's 80 launchers per order. 4 missiles per launcher. that's 320 rounds per the deal, and the 1120 missiles translate to 3.5 loadouts per available # of launchers.
If we wish to save money and not buy additional loadouts up front, this should still allow for a few live fires etc.

Edited.

“Under the contract concluded in New Delhi on October 5 Russia is to supply to India five regimental sets of S-400, each consisting of a regimental command center and two battalions of launchers (eight in each battalion). In the autumn of 2020 Russia is to provide the first regimental set. Another one will follow in 2021. Then it will supply the third, fourth and fifth sets. The delivery of the last one will be completed in the spring of 2023,” the source said.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17949
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 31 Mar 2019 01:39

Now, what's in a battalion.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_ ... ystem.html

Each battalion has a 55K6E command post, 1x central "Big Bird" radar for surveillance. A mobile mast is optional.
Fire control is provided by the "Grave Stone" Engagement radar, and upto 12 launchers can be added (we have 8x launchers). If this wants to be made more independent, we can have a 96L6E acquisition radar as a 3D search unit to back up the central Big Bird. In short, the 8x launchers can be split between 2x Grave Stones, each with a 96L6E and with the command post having the 55K6E + central Big Bird.

So lets assume IAF took a minimum option (just to conservatively see the figures) and we have:
5x regimental sets. 10x Battalions.

So that's 10x 55K6E command units, 10x Big Bird radars (with masts optional, which we will likely take, we even had them for our ST-68 U/M which too were S-3xx radars which we used independently as MPRs), 10x Gravestone radars, 80x launchers.

Considering each battalion as an independent firing unit, aka battery that's 10 firing units.

Now I dont think IAF will go for such a conservative loadout. You have 8 launchers per radar, each fire control radar can only scan/focus on one area if its set up for a BMD role. In effect, if you want to have BMD coverage + Air target coverage, and optimally utilize your launchers you can split up your battalions.

In which case, they would prefer to split each battalion into at least further 2 firing units for optimal flexibility, add a Grave stone radar per 4 launchers and give them a 96L6E for air search. In which case I wont be surprised if our order has:

10x Big Bird + 55K6E command post + 20x Grave stone radars, 10-20x 96L6E radars and 80 launchers. Missiles will be a mix of all types with max being the longer ranged ones.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17949
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 31 Mar 2019 01:54

Now, what would I do if I were the IAF is definitely try and integrate the planned HPR & BMD sets into the S-400 network. By doing so, I can provide EW (Early Warning) to the S-400 sets. For search handover, then fire control & BMD work you may well require the S-4XX radars to take over still. So that may not reduce the overall # of radars required, but at least you improve their effectiveness by giving them substantial warning time. As a note, our LRTR could (many years back), track a 0.1 sq mtr target at 600 km. DDR reports its now been enhanced to double that number. S-400 can track a 0.4 sq mtr target at 230km. You can see the substantial advantages of integration.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby John » 31 Mar 2019 01:58

^ I don't think the overall order for other missiles we will be that many i believe the order is heavily skewed toward long range missiles of which russia has confirmed 650 where as with Chinese order they have confirmed 300 and for Turkey i believe it is around 100. IMO that's right thing to do since we already have MRSAM which provides similar coverage as 9M96.

I believe we are also paying more than what China is (of course Russians claimed inflation), so that leads me to believe our order more heavily tiled towards 48N6 since China and Turkish order have less 48N6 per system. Till Russia releases arms transfer for other missiles we can only speculate but i will stand by my assessment till facts emerge otherwise but it is good to large # of 48N6, hopefully these are 48N6E3?

China
(300) 48N6/SA-10 SAM 2015 2018 (250) Part of $3 b deal for 8 S-400 SAM systems
Turkey
Turkey (125) 48N6/SA-10 SAM 2017 For S-400 SAM systems
Last edited by John on 31 Mar 2019 02:01, edited 1 time in total.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2350
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby nam » 31 Mar 2019 02:00

Singha wrote:Such radars will help to track everything over tsp amd reduce need for standing patrols

Once they fly we can activate qrt


The best region to place a radar is in North Kashmir in the high mountains, looking down the length of Pak.

A powerful multi beam, multi target tracking radar would be nice..

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 Mar 2019 02:01

Karan M wrote:Now I dont think IAF will go for such a conservative loadout. You have 8 launchers per radar, each fire control radar can only scan/focus on one area if its set up for a BMD role. In effect, if you want to have BMD coverage + Air target coverage, and optimally utilize your launchers you can split up your battalions.


They would have to be pretty close to each other when set up for BMD role against the higher end threat where they'll be acting as point defense interceptors. S-400 is not an Area-BMD asset (S-500 will be).

John wrote:Fyi as per Sirpi arms transfer Russia lists 650 48N6 to India. Very close to my early estimate :D

(650) 48N6/SA-10 SAM (2017) Part of INR390 b ($5 b) for S-400 SAM systems


I assume this will be E3? The E3 will probably be the most widely produced export missile on the S-400 system and I expect the Chinese order to be comprising majority of this missile..The 40N6E has only recently been developed (40N6 inducted into Russsian service and an Export designation/config. developed) so I doubt the Chinese would have gotten a majority of them..The 48N6-E3 is the most affordable missile on the lot given its production rate..
Last edited by brar_w on 31 Mar 2019 02:09, edited 1 time in total.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby John » 31 Mar 2019 02:07

brar_w wrote:
John wrote:Fyi as per Sirpi arms transfer Russia lists 650 48N6 to India. Very close to my early estimate :D



I assume this will be E3?

No idea i believe Russians keep these disclosures vague on purpose, i hope it is E3.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17949
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 31 Mar 2019 02:11

You are going by SIPRI numbers, problem is in recent years more I look into it, SIPRI numbers can be quite "off", and often on the conservative side. Its quite frankly all up to how diligent the researcher is in terms of finding information, how much data Govt's release, and for it to be updated etc.

In fact I think it will be heavily tilted towards a mix of 40N6 (400km) + 48N6 (250km) + 9M96E2 (120Km).

Remember what VCAS Nambiar said:
https://salute.co.in/military-modernisa ... air-force/
The S-400 also gives us the capability to be an anti Ballistic Missile System, with a fairly large coverage. We are buying five squadrons of the S-400, and with the induction of this weapon system, we would be capable of defeating most ballistic missiles launched at us.


This automatically implies IAF is looking towards the longer ranged missiles, in particular both the 40N6 and 48N6 can take on targets up to 4.8Km/s.

We won't be taking any or very few 9M96E (40km) as this is QR/SRSAM (35km), MRSAM (70km) and Akash NG (50km+) territory (I wont be surprised if IAF asks DRDO to just replace the expensive MRSAM with a local equivalent).

Note 5 squadrons as well.

IAF designation of squadron is each squadron has 2 independent flights, i.e. batteries. The IAF squadron literally equals a regimental set, with each flight equal to a battalion. Doesn't prevent the IAF from making those flights more dual task capable by adding more radars.

Alternatively, IAF can station each squadron as a full combat unit in each area, with one flight tasked for the air target role, another for BMD. With a 400 km footprint, not a small deal.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17949
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 31 Mar 2019 02:14

brar_w wrote:They would have to be pretty close to each other when set up for BMD role against the higher end threat where they'll be acting as point defense interceptors. S-400 is not an Area-BMD asset (S-500 will be).


Pretty close is not the issue, the problem is you can't have a radar dual-task for BMD and standard air breathing target, and the cruise missile threat all in one, especially when it is a large but still limited aperture PESA optimized for mobility. If you wish to handle more classes of targets, either networking more radars in (not easy, for a closed system for fire control) or adding more radars to the launcher sets is a given. This can theoretically radically improve the capability of each IAF firing unit/battalion, giving them, in a sense 10 squadrons., 20 firing units worth albeit with fewer launchers per battery (16 missiles each as versus 32 missiles).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 Mar 2019 02:17

Karan M wrote:the problem is you can't have a radar dual-task for BMD and standard air breathing target, and the cruise missile threat all in one, especially when it is a large but still limited aperture PESA optimized for mobility.


Of course you can. PDB 6+ AN/MPQ-53 and Baseline 9.0+ AN/SPY-1's both do this as (probably) the S-400 too. MEADS technology demonstator end items have also demonstrated this back in the 2012 timeframe with Flight-Test -2 intercept of a TBM and Air Breathing target.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17949
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 31 Mar 2019 02:22

That's just on paper for a ground system like the S-400 with a single panel PESA (not a 4 panel SPY-1 on naval ships), try doing the scanning when a multi-vector attack comes in. If you put a 4 panel HPR AESA on the ground, then you lose the mobility advantage (the S-400s are intrinsically more survivable than the 12x IAF HPRs).

But that single antenna comes with a limitation. Your radar is scanning in one location, a bunch of cruise missiles are coming in from directly opposite in fact even 180 degrees out given waypoint navigation advances, 20 air targets from another zone (varying altitudes, mixes, force packages, a squadron/regimental attack) and you have to provide fire control for multiple split target BMs which are again coming from different zones. Look at the target update rates.

Rotating PESAs cant match a 4 panel AESA, and that 4 panel AESA will again have coverage and other limitations against different classes of targets. Try hoisting a LRTR on a mast for coverage against low flying cruise missiles.
We are talking of taking a radar weighing several tons on a mast, for a job best suited for lighter planar arrays or even AWACS, UAVs or other solutions.

Bottomline, its better to optimize per target and then link together for CEC or overall situational awareness (if CEC can't be pulled off). Mixing up BMD & air breathing targets is cost effective and affordable, but won't lead to doing either job well, which is why at best the S-400 can provide a temporary or quasi-BMD capability for India, but the real BMD unit is the one the DRDO has developed and needs to take even further.

A one-off test like the MEADS proves nothing I am afraid. Let them demonstrate - say, a 10 cruise missile strike, 10x ballistic missile strike, and an airborne fighter strike - again from different directions, against a single target, like an IAF central airbase. Against the PRC, those are the kind of attacks we will be facing.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 Mar 2019 02:28

Karan M wrote:That's just on paper for a ground system like the S-400 with a single panel PESA (not a 4 panel SPY-1 on naval ships), try doing the scanning when a multi-vector attack comes in. Your radar is scanning in one location, a cruise missile is coming in from directly opposite, 20 air targets from another zone and you have to provide fire control for split target BMs which are again coming from different zones. Rotating PESAs cant match a 4 panel AESA, and that 4 panel AESA will again have coverage and other limitations against different classes of targets. Try hoisting a LRTR on a mast for coverage against low flying cruise missiles. Bottomline, its better to optimize per target and then link together for CEC or overall situational awareness (if CEC can't be pulled off).


Multi-vector attack is a different problem because your Air Defense systems are given sectors to defend/defended Areas (that is how all air-defense assets are employed) and that is how those formations are set up i.e. they must be capable of carrying out the tasks associated with the system within their defended area. Systems like the S-300, S-400 or Patriot are designed to provide defense against air breathing and ballistic threats to varying degree. On the Patriot, it has to be able to defend against all those threats within its sector and the batteries currently deployed in Korea for example do that while being networked with surveillance sensors and covering all the necessary sectors and potential vectors (hence the more than 100 loaded/in launcher interceptors per battery). You overlap your systems to cover all sectors and then introduce other elements like SHORAD and VSHORAD for point defense but you do not have to switch between BMD or Air Defense modes even with modern PESA's and battle management systems. You have to be able to perform both concurrently .You can't have one battery set up primarily for BMD while the other for AAW (you can it is just not desirable) because who knows where each threat will come from.

A one-off test like the MEADS proves nothing I am afraid. Let them demonstrate - say, a 10 cruise missile strike, 10x ballistic missile strike, and an airborne fighter strike - again from different directions, against a single target, like an IAF central airbase. Against the PRC, those are the kind of attacks we will be facing.


The MEADS test proves that a single battery can cover both missions. It is not trying to prove out "Raid scenario" but demonstrating that its software and battle management functions can handle concurrent missions. No one goes out and prove a "Raid scenario" like the one you mentioned. Mostly it is a maximum of 2-3 simultaneous live launches. Could you point me to a single missile defense asset test where 10 cruise missile + 10 ballistic missile strike and an airborne fighter was used? Can any air-defense operator afford a test like that? Probably not..but you run the tests and model what you need to and most importantly design your system to be able to handle raid scenarios. Look at the transformation of the US theater defense systems from the 90s to now.

Magazines have grown beyond just linear growth. A forward deployed Patriot+THAAD dual battery shows up with between 150 - 170 missiles covering a 120 degree sector. This is precisely for the scenarios you have described but in the mass attack TBD sense for the upper tier roles..Again, you cannot afford to configure batteries based on AAW or BMD roles if you have the latter capability. They must be able to fight for both concurrently and systems (probably including the S-400) already do this and have been doing it for a while now.
Last edited by brar_w on 31 Mar 2019 02:44, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17949
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 31 Mar 2019 02:40

You are still missing the point, multi-vector attack is the *norm* for us. Just because the US does things a certain way or Israel does or Russia does, is not the answer for India. We have to look at what meets our needs best.

Systems like the S-300, S-400 or Patriot are designed to provide defense against air breathing and ballistic threats to varying degree.

To what varying degree? Again, you are simply not getting the point that a single system cannot do everything. Look at the elevation coverage, target altitude, target speeds, varying RCS requiring different target revisit rates, radar bands, target update rates to provide to fire control, etc. Bringing in the Patriot in Korea is meaningless. What the Koreans face is not what India faces, our adversaries are both more professional and more well equipped, and at least one is quite competently trained. And they can surge assets of all kinds to score decisive blows especially if our assets are concentrated across a limited number of bases (which they are).

Image

Can Patriot take on mass IRBM strikes? Optimization is inevitable.

You can't have one battery set up primarily for BMD while the other for AAW (you can it is just not desirable) because who knows where each threat will come from.

First, go look at a map of India & its adversaries, and its quite clear that there is a reasonable amount of "prediction" as to where the threats will come from. You can co-locate multiple batteries each with a dedicated tasking, especially if the systems are capable against a set of both classes of targets.
In the case of the S-400, one battery can be primarily tasked against both low flying & std, air threats with the mast mounted Big Bird, and the second battery in the squadron for a BMD role, again with the 400km missile footprint + sensor feed from IACCS, it may well provide a good degree of overlap with the standard battery.
The easier thing to do is make each battery more multi-functional. Like it or not, a std single panel radar cannot fire control a bunch of missiles against a mass BM attack and a CM attacking from another axis entirely. Not effectively anyhow. The more fire control radars you add to a battery, the more capability you give it, and the battery command post is designed for this.

Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 591
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Y I Patel » 31 Mar 2019 02:43

Deleted - wrong thread

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 Mar 2019 02:45

Karan M wrote:To what varying degree?


To the degree of the limitations of their capabilities i.e. up to Medium Ranged Ballistic Missiles for Patriot and S300 and up to Intermediate Ranged Ballistic Missiles for THAAD.

Karan M wrote:The easier thing to do is make each battery more multi-functional. Like it or not, a std single panel radar cannot fire control a bunch of missiles against a mass BM attack and a CM attacking from another axis entirely. Not effectively anyhow.


I am actually in agreement with you. Each battery will be responsible for its defended area but it should be able to handle a diverse set of threats within its defended area or sector.

Karan M wrote:You are still missing the point, multi-vector attack is the *norm* for us.


Not missing the point at all. Multi-Vector attack is the *norm* for everyone. No one expects, or prepares to defend against attacks from one vector only. It is a sure shot recipe to a quick defeat.

Karan M wrote:The more fire control radars you add to a battery, the more capability you give it, and the battery command post is designed for this.


Of course. This is without doubt.
Last edited by brar_w on 31 Mar 2019 02:50, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17949
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby Karan M » 31 Mar 2019 02:49

China's 2nd Arty has several hundred SRBMS, several hundred MRBMs, around a 100 IRBMs, many hundred Cruise Missiles. Per OSINT etc. Nothing prevents them from launching a mass attack from a mix of these assets on any of our limited nodes/central bases. And simultaneously launch an air attack along with it. A single S-400 battery will be hard pressed dealing with *one class* of target. Forget S-4XX, the Patriots record is well known in operational conditions. India whether it likes it or not, has to start deploying a mix of assets to critical infra, population nodes. The homegrown BMD system + S-400 provide a useful complementary capability, especially when supplemented with mass deployment of the much cheaper Akash variants.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 Mar 2019 02:52

Karan M wrote:A single S-400 battery will be hard pressed dealing with *one class* of target..


Who is saying that a single S-400 battery must defend against all these classes of targets and all volumes of the threat? I most certainly never said it. Air defense assets are deployed with three things in mind, Coverage, Density, and Threat types. You deploy your Air Defense units with these things in mind. If your main adversary has the ability to execute massive TBM and ABM raids then you need to address each of these three areas and that is exactly why I cited the explosion in magazine size that the US theater deployed systems have had to do in response to the ever growing capability of China and others to generate massive Raids. A gulf war Patriot battery had 36 missiles. A current forward deployed Patriot battery in Korea has more than 120. But that is on top of the basic ability for it to defend against a wide spectrum of threats concurrently within its defended area.
Last edited by brar_w on 31 Mar 2019 03:00, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], juvva, milindc, shobhits89, VickyAvinash, Vinod Ji and 39 guests