ABM/Missile Defense Discussion

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 05 Nov 2015 11:47

^^
I dont know if S-400 has ABM capability or even if it has the capability, the version offered to us will not have such capability unless i see the same being demonstrated by IAF.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 05 Nov 2015 14:00

Surely, you guys won't accept delivery of the s-400 until you see the darn thing demonstrated in various scenarios? Geezus.......come on.

The US tests the Patriot system regularly on multiple target types.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Nov 2015 14:17

The Russians too test the S-400 on regular basis and IAF would do its due diligence with the system when they buy it.

Some info on its radar

Russia’s Air Defenders Give Insight on S-400 Missile System

http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150814/ ... tails.html

What makes the S-400 so special is its intelligent radar, which can “see” just about everything both in the air and on the ground, and can easily discern even a tiny aircraft from, say, a truck moving on the ground.

“Even if a plane is flying low and with the same speed as a vehicle moving on the ground, the radar will show it on the screen,” the officers told Zvezda TV on Thursday.

They also said that with the S-400 guarding the skies, no incident like Mathias Rust’s landing his Cessna plane on Red Square in 1987 is possible because the system will immediately track down any potential violation of the Russian airspace.

“For the S-400 there is no such thing as “stealth” aircraft, the system will see it and will shoot it down,” an S-400 battery commander told Zvezda TV.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Nov 2015 14:18

Graphics S-400 http://sputniknews.com/infographics/201 ... 78863.html

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 05 Nov 2015 21:21

^^^At the very least the S400 system will render all Pakistani ballistic missiles vulnerable vs India, everything from the Nasr to the Shaheen.

Wiki says that part of the S400 system is an elevated radar mast which has a detection range of 100 kms, supposedly to identify low flying targets such as CMs and aircraft at that range. Should give adequate reaction time against a target flying at 800-900 kmph. In addition that radar will be supplemented by AWACs.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 06 Nov 2015 07:06

My cross-post from India-Russia thread:

"Hinoz Dilli Door Ast" is always a good maxim for complicated deals like this, but if we are to speculate, the S-400 will be shooting down an impressive number of targets even before the first regiment gets deployed in India:

- MMRCA in general (we have no more money left) AMCA becomes the new MMRCA, long live amcha amca!
- PAK FA (possibly) PAK FA was always about much more than an IAF operational necessity, and quite possibly the bargain is to quietly shelve PAK FA and use this mega deal to showcase Indo-Russian military relationship. So there is definitely a, shall we say, "non-technical" dimension to this whole deal
- Also recollect that India has been in talks with US for dog's years over the sale of Patriot systems. So this is a huge finger to Unkil
- To US leverage over Pak via sale of F-16s. Suddenly, all those shiny toys will begin to look like trinkets, even to PAF
- And, of course, the biggest intended target is nuclear blackmail by Pak.

All in all, not a bad list of victims! I am very pleased at how all of this has developed, and I think that we have not heard half of the bargain yet. Pay close attention to what we get on Su-30MKI spares, all this was in part inducement to make the IAF's spearhead more maintainable. I expect to see either huge Make in India concessions on SuMKI spares, upgrades, or both. Plus major chunks of Make in India for the S-400 systems. So the next few weeks till Modi's visit to Russia are going to be a agonizing wait for details to emerge!

A thought on the system itself - given the extreme geography of India's northern frontiers and limited options of road networks, a fixed system of targeting radars and missile locations might have advantages over a mobile system. Plus, the elevation advantage of mountain deployment can be combined with larger planar arrays for the radar units to have a customized system for India that is even more powerful than corresponding units deployed in Russia. So I would like to see sub-sets of the S-400 system cherry picked and integrated into India's existing AD network to set up a missile shield for the country, especially along the northern and western borders. But given how this whole deal has been a surprise, I am confident that the decision makers will come up with an effective package for India.

All in all, a fantastic development and a game changer for the strategic environment in the Indian subcontinent.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Nov 2015 07:38

If India wanted a BMD system, they'd have purchased this:
http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/ ... /1223/1227

The S-400 seems more of a combination system primarily against aircraft/UAVs/CMs with a useful mid range BMD capability (TBM/MRBM) whereas we'll need the local BMD system for a true BMD capability. Still very powerful though against 99% of airpower.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Nov 2015 07:49

TSJones wrote:Surely, you guys won't accept delivery of the s-400 until you see the darn thing demonstrated in various scenarios? Geezus.......come on.

The US tests the Patriot system regularly on multiple target types.

You constantly test Air & Missile defense systems for two main reasons :

- To get an idea of what the probability of success is so that you can match your inventory and launch capacity with the threat. It would be dumb to assume you'll hit all the time, so you need to constantly test to get an idea of how your systems are maturing and evolving (not just the missiles but increasingly complex targets strain targeting and command and control far more than the missile)..

- To introduce countermeasures and counter-AMD capability into the targets and to throw other challenges at your systems. Your own technology advances over time, and so does your knowledge of what your competitors are fielding and its valuable to incorporate that into your own test program to see whether assumptions in the first point are still valid and if not what costs do the new assumptions impose.

Either of those things are not going to be possible to test out as one would test out a fighter or a tank for example in a pure validate before purchase pov. What you do get through a strong bi-lateral relationship is access to testing and what the sort of intensity of the testing was so that you can gauge whether a particular AMD system is useful or not.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 06 Nov 2015 08:24

Keep an eye out for Patriot system donation in the garb of bolstering "defensive capabilities" of munna.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Nov 2015 09:13

Karan M wrote:If India wanted a BMD system, they'd have purchased this:
http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/ ... /1223/1227

The S-400 seems more of a combination system primarily against aircraft/UAVs/CMs with a useful mid range BMD capability (TBM/MRBM) whereas we'll need the local BMD system for a true BMD capability. Still very powerful though against 99% of airpower.

Karan ,S-400 capability as a system is way higher than Antey-2500/S-300VM system not just to deal with Air Breathing Targets but also BM one , S-300VM is an army system on tracked wheel chassis that moves along , S-400 is an Airforce system designed to protect cities etc

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Nov 2015 09:47

I don't get this second guessing going on here? A good needed system is being acquired. What do we know more than them?

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 06 Nov 2015 09:50

^^The S400 system missiles can intercept incoming warheads with a speed of upto 4.8km/sec, that translates into a range of 2500 kms roughly depending on the flight profile. All Pakistani missiles fall within that range. Even Chinese conventional missiles used as the opening salvo in any attack on India will be short and medium range, such as the ones they have massed against Taiwan.They are not going to waste their long range missiles to attack India.

As Y I Patel has pointed out, this move is a game changer, far more than the acquisition of the MMRCA which could get a quiet burial as a result.

Also, just realized that MTCR does not apply here, this is classified as an ABM and the US unilaterally withdrew from the US-Russia ABM treaty in December 2001. The Russians therefore are not bound by that treaty. I would presume that the Russians can therefore export the longest range 400 km, 40N6 missile in the S400 system to India. That missile is a monster, can hit targets upto an altitude of 185 kms.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Nov 2015 10:23

ldev wrote:^^The S400 system missiles can intercept incoming warheads with a speed of upto 4.8km/sec, that translates into a range of 2500 kms roughly depending on the flight profile.

S-400 is capable of intercepting targets flying at 4.8 km/sec to peak limit of 5 km/sec which corresponds to IRBM target flying at 3000-3500 km [ link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_%28missile%29

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Nov 2015 10:27

Karan M wrote:If India wanted a BMD system, they'd have purchased this:
http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/ ... /1223/1227

Almaz-Antey site is not updated , the S-300VM/Antey-2500 they have put up is from the 90's era , The latest S-300V system is S-300V4 and their export model is advertised with same designation An-2500 , latest specs are in the link , They managed to increase the range to 350 km and altitude to 30

http://www.spslandforces.com/story.asp?id=244

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 06 Nov 2015 10:27

I think we are preparing for a possible nuke missile attack from Pakis and S400 is being purchased for that purpose. Once it is finalized, we are going to see lot of back end burning in pakis. Further I am think this system will be customized to deal with our needs against paki nukes and may not be normal version of S400.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Nov 2015 10:30

there is also a S350 which is IOC.

btw for credible BMD and also time for our leadership to go underground/airborne, we need to kind of massive OTH radars that give warning from really far away...more the warning better. esp true for SLBM strikes from deep ocean.

seems to be height of 10 storey building.

member_29151 · Post by **member_29151** » 06 Nov 2015 10:53

As Pakistan Nasar missile have 60 to 100 km ranges once S400 neutralie it a bhramos can wibe that launcher.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Nov 2015 15:26

Picklu wrote:Keep an eye out for Patriot system donation in the garb of bolstering "defensive capabilities" of munna.

The current Patriot/MEADS system with its upgraded radars and the PAC-3MSE is too sensitive to let China play around with

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 06 Nov 2015 17:36

In reality, I expect Packeestan to get some S-300 Chinese type gear in response. Just the Chinese being the Chinese.

Gawk this wiki article......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anza_(missile)

past performance indicate future tendencies......

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Nov 2015 17:41

Austin wrote:
Karan M wrote:If India wanted a BMD system, they'd have purchased this:
http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/ ... /1223/1227

The S-400 seems more of a combination system primarily against aircraft/UAVs/CMs with a useful mid range BMD capability (TBM/MRBM) whereas we'll need the local BMD system for a true BMD capability. Still very powerful though against 99% of airpower.
Karan ,S-400 capability as a system is way higher than Antey-2500/S-300VM system not just to deal with Air Breathing Targets but also BM one , S-300VM is an army system on tracked wheel chassis that moves along , S-400 is an Airforce system designed to protect cities etc

Again I am yet to see conclusive evidence on the BM front for the S-400 bar claims that it has BMD capability. Trials, targets, specific system attributes all of which all point to a capability in PAC3 class or slightly better (think AAD) but not equivalent to a dedicated BMD like ours or THAAD or Aegis with SM-3. The S-400 is but the extension of the S-300 PMU2 and not a purpose designed ABM system as the S-300V series was.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Nov 2015 17:44

Austin wrote:
Karan M wrote:If India wanted a BMD system, they'd have purchased this:
http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/ ... /1223/1227
Almaz-Antey site is not updated , the S-300VM/Antey-2500 they have put up is from the 90's era , The latest S-300V system is S-300V4 and their export model is advertised with same designation An-2500 , latest specs are in the link , They managed to increase the range to 350 km and altitude to 30

http://www.spslandforces.com/story.asp?id=244

Yes exactly - which is why to me the S-400 was chosen presumably because of its better all-round capability as versus the ABM role in which case the S-300V would have likely been superior unless we have data otherwise. That tells me the DRDO BMD program will continue, since it was developed after an Indian team saw the S-300v in action and decided the system (and variants clearly) would not be sufficient for us to meet our requirements though the VLRSAM program may no longer be an immediate priority. The PDV intercepts at an alt of upto 120km. The AAD at upto 30km (S300VM plus above states 25km max). Basically our BMD system is far more comprehensive and remains relevant. We are talking of nearspace and in space interception with EKVs. The S300 series is for terminal interception like the AAD. Plus unless we double the radar component, the same radars can't dual task between both modes, the scan angles and prep time are an issue. VLRSAM will remain relevant only if above S300 numbers are still insufficient -which despite 12 battalions, given india's geography may be true.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 06 Nov 2015 18:08

Just a noob question. How does S-400 radars fare compared to Green Pine radars? Who has best bang for buck (Greenpine or S-400 radar systems). Is Green pine radar just 1 type of radar or multiple radar systems like that of S-400s.

Will Russia allow Bharath limited tinkering of S-400 radars (SW modes), so that we can integrate our own missiles with it.

Will S-400 radars can guide Russian A2A missiles fired by Sukhois and Migs?

TIA.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Nov 2015 18:29

These are specifications (overall max attributes) for the S-400.
http://missilethreat.wpengine.netdna-cd ... /s-400.png

Note target speed of 4.8km/s and engagement altitude of 30km. A 3500km ranged missile has a target speed of ~5km/s per memory

The LRTR (circa 2008, 7 years back, after which DRDO went publicity averse on the program, could detect targets with a speed of 6km/s) and PAD/AAD combo had altitude envelopes of 30km & 80km max respectively. The radars used for the Indian BMD were both AESA - LBand & S Band, with the LBand radar used as acquisition & fire control for the PAD/PDV while the MFCR would take over for the AAD terminal targeting.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GgxksZx5Fxs/ ... C01790.JPG
Subsequently India tested the PDV at 85km which has a design max of 120km.

While theoretically, the 40N6 400km missile is stated to be able to engage targets upto 180km - there is conflicting data on whether it can do so and whether it is truly superior to the S-300V series,the exact targets it has been tested against are unclear. Plus, the system its part of is ok for targets of upto ~3000km, however the missile itself is not as specialized as the PDV (which two stage system incorporates a special IIR seeker for end game interception as versus a RF seeker. The Raytheon EKV also uses multi-color sensors.

In short, our BMD system will need to continue, against more and more sophisticated targets. The S-400 offers useful "immediate" capability with a focus on air breathing targets including the most sophisticated ones and basic ballistic missiles, but it won't be equivalent to a national BMD system.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Nov 2015 18:32

kmkraoind wrote:Just a noob question. How does S-400 radars fare compared to Green Pine radars? Who has best bang for buck (Greenpine or S-400 radar systems). Is Green pine radar just 1 type of radar or multiple radar systems like that of S-400s.

I presume you are asking about the LRTR derivatives of the Greenpine. The answer is the LRTR is superior, larger array, AESA, we have control of hardware & software, and its significantly more sophisticated overall.
However, its a purpose designed BMD system & not as mobile as the S-400 systems which are more easily transportable & can be redeployed much more easily.

Will Russia allow Bharath limited tinkering of S-400 radars (SW modes), so that we can integrate our own missiles with it.

Will S-400 radars can guide Russian A2A missiles fired by Sukhois and Migs?

TIA.

Very doubtful regarding both of the above.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Nov 2015 19:59

Karan M wrote:
The S-400 seems more of a combination system primarily against aircraft/UAVs/CMs with a useful mid range BMD capability (TBM/MRBM) whereas we'll need the local BMD system for a true BMD capability. Still very powerful though against 99% of airpower.

My thoughts too. I'm guessing the pad, aad are better at bmd of the irbm class, but are consequently more limited. The 400 otoh, is more versatile, which allows the forces more flexibility. The pipeline projects will fructify much later is my guess, and so the triumf is chosen, note also that it comfortably surpasses all other systems in range.

Not sure if lrsam is doa, perhaps it will be used to ensure adequate layers, redundancies are built up. Haven't orders already been placed for the lrsam?

Otoh, what might be dead is the iaf dream of having a 55 sqd force with large numbers of twin engined fighters. Effectively now iaf will have to choose lca to expand. Long ranged strike will be only via mki and pakfa. Raffle is doa unless pakfa takes a hit.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 06 Nov 2015 20:44

SaiK wrote:ldev ji, on the paki missiles, the longer shaheen once will be aided by post-mid course gravity to slam us. i'd think we would use our own PAD & AAD for ballistics. I am thinking S 400 more on the longer range cruise missiles.

per wiki
Operational
range
400 km (40N6 missile)
250 km (48N6 missile)
120 km (9M96E2 missile)
40 km (9M96E missile)
Speed
Mach 6.2 (48N6)
Mach 2.9 (9M96E2)
Mach 2.3 (9M96E)
so, mach 6 for 250km range is what the max we can look for.
Austin, what would be 40n6 max mach?

The limitation is the radar i.e. read somewhere that the S400 radar can acquire a 0.4 sq meter rcs object at a distance of 230 kms, larger objects can be tracked out to 600 kms. So an incoming warhead at 5km/sec will be acquired at 230 kms at which point it is within range of the 48N6 which is capable of Mach 6.2. i.e. 2 km/sec. You can calculate the theoretical interception distances based on that. Also have to take into account the response time for the S400 control system to calculate the incoming warhead trajectory and launch the 48N6. To utilize the 40N6 400 km range, purely for ballistic missile defence, a better radar may be needed.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 06 Nov 2015 21:21

On the other hand, because of the mobile nature of the S400 system, 100% against Pakistan and to a certain extent against China, it will be able to track, if placed say 100 kms from the Pakistan border, any ballistic missile launch, anywhere in Pakistan, the missile will have a gigantic rcs at launch and the S400 will be able to detect it out to 600 kms and use the 40N6 missile to its full range of 400 kms.

However, development/deployment of the AAD/PAD has to continue to protect against longer range IRBMs/SLBMs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Nov 2015 22:29

Karan M wrote:Again I am yet to see conclusive evidence on the BM front for the S-400 bar claims that it has BMD capability. Trials, targets, specific system attributes all of which all point to a capability in PAC3 class or slightly better (think AAD) but not equivalent to a dedicated BMD like ours or THAAD or Aegis with SM-3. The S-400 is but the extension of the S-300 PMU2 and not a purpose designed ABM system as the S-300V series was.

Back in the days of SU Antey was a seperate entity that designed SAM for Army and Almaz for PVO/Airforce , Yes the S-300V those days had interceptor with higher energy and higher average speed and the warhead was designed for both airbreathing targets and ABM plus better cross country mobility on tracked chassis it moved with the army , compared to airforce S-300PMU/PMU1 which dealt with just airbreathing targets but with S-300PMU2 ABM capability was added basicly warhead was improved to deal with BM and Radar capability was improved and range to 200 km from 150.

S-400 have different missile compared to S-300 as energetic as the S-300VM series type, Also they have different guidance S-300PMU2 the last variant had TVM guidance while S-400 moved to SAGG guidance ( you can check SOC website on this or just email him ) , 9M96E1/E has ARH/HTK type , 48N6 E1/E1 has SAGG and 40N6 ARH

As matter of operational philosophy and doctrine all the interceptor are designed to deal with both BM and air breathing targets unlike says THAAD that can deal with BM targets even S-500 has those capability being anti-ICBM types interceptor thats their requirement.

On your other question only 40N6 has 185 Km altitude the Russian have termed it as near space and has been recently inducted just this year having both exo and endo capability rest all missile of S-400 have endo capability up to altitude of 35 km , you can just google out for official statements on it and you will find it.

You can find this old article ( 2008 ) written by chief designer of Almaz Antei not very current but still gives you idea of what the system is about

http://old.raspletin.ru/press-centre/news/2008/080603/

Compared to S-300 the S-400 has the following capability

In conclusion, the advantages discussed export version AAMS "Triumph" air defense missile systems in comparison with C-300PMU1:

expanded class of targeted objectives to flight speed of 4800 m / s (intermediate range ballistic missiles with a range of up to 3000-3500 km);
significantly increased the affected area of small targets and goals such as "Stealth" (50% range defeat) due to an increase in the energy potential of RFCs and 91N6E MRLS 92N6E;
significantly enhanced immunity system through the introduction of new means of anti-jamming;
significantly improved reliability, reduced size and power consumption of system resources using the most advanced electronic equipment, new equipment for autonomous power supply, new vehicles.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Nov 2015 22:34

SaiK wrote:so, mach 6 for 250km range is what the max we can look for.
Austin, what would be 40n6 max mach?

I think for any SAM average speed at full range would matter more than top speed unless one is intercepting at low and close where the solid fuel is burning.

For the smaller missile of 9M96E/E1 the average speed M 2.18 and M 2.91

Check Basic characteristics of the 9M96E and 9M96E2 missiles
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Nov 2015 22:50

Army tests Anti-aircraft missile system S-400 "Triumph"

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 06 Nov 2015 23:07

Cain Marko wrote:
ldev wrote:On the other hand, because of the mobile nature of the S400 system, 100% against Pakistan and to a certain extent against China, it will be able to track, if placed say 100 kms from the Pakistan border, any ballistic missile launch, anywhere in Pakistan, the missile will have a gigantic rcs at launch and the S400 will be able to detect it out to 600 kms and use the 40N6 missile to its full range of 400 kms.

However, development/deployment of the AAD/PAD has to continue to protect against longer range IRBMs/SLBMs.
Hmm Idevji, I am a bit skeptical of this...how can the S400 radar overcome LOS limitation? IOWs, it can truly detect and engage low altitude launches within the horizon limitation ~ 100km at most if the mast mounted radar provides that kind of elevation. At very long ranges and high altitudes - the radar should detect the missile, but well past the launch phase?. However, the missile should become visible to the radar sometime in the boost phase. once it starts tracking, it is only a matter of time before the incoming target is within the range of its own missiles...

Just my understanding of this fwiw.

I don't want to speculate on what kind of tactics can be used given this system, but as far as line of sight is concerned it's pretty straight forward. If the radar is placed on a mast 30 meter's high, then line of sight calculations show that a missile launched 500 kms away would need to get to about 20,000 meters (pls check my estimates!!) before it appears on the horizon at the radar site. Depending on the range of the missile and depending on whether it was launched on a lofted or depressed trajectory, would depend the ultimate height of its parabola. And here's where I do not know what kind of tactics would be used for interception. Is boost phase interception possible with this system, may yes, if the missile launch is closer than 500 kms. If not, and if there is full radar coverage across India with multiple s400 systems, the missile will be tracked almost from launch for the duration of its flight, if let's say it's target is Bangalore. Actual interception can occur during the terminal stage by another unit but if all units are networked, the trajectory and probable target of the attacking missile will be available very early to enable the interception unit fire of its missiles.

This does not mean that India should give up it's effort at AAP/PAD. But it does give India for the very first time since Pakistan went nuclear the ability to retaliate conventionally without fear of nuclear retaliation. However, this system will not provide protection against a Chinese DF-31 or JL2.

Added later: This does not take into account AWACs, satellites, AEROSTATS and other ground based radar to detect and track missile launches and to feed that information into what will be hopefully an integraded AD system for the whole country.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 07 Nov 2015 00:16

Once deployed by IA/IAF, it must be secretly tested against a paki BM test.

disha · Post by **disha** » 07 Nov 2015 00:50

ldev wrote: I don't want to speculate on what kind of tactics can be used given this system, but as far as line of sight is concerned it's pretty straight forward. If the radar is placed on a mast 30 meter's high, then line of sight calculations show that a missile launched 500 kms away would need to get to about 20,000 meters (pls check my estimates!!) before it appears on the horizon at the radar site.

A thumb rule formula is (distance_km = sqrt(13xh_metres)). Or turning it around., if an object climbs to sqrt(13xh_meters) it is visible at distance "d" kms.

Plugging in the numbers., if an object climbs to 1000 mtrs (or 1km)., it will be visible sqrt(13 x 1000) = 114 Kms. The observer is parallel to the ground. If the object climbs to 10km (or @32,000 feet)., it is visible 360 Kms.

So yes., your calculation is right - that for a missile to be visible some 500 kms away - then it has to climb some 20km up.

Assuming all all ballistic missiles follow a parabolic path., all baki ballistic missiles are accounted for. Including Nasr., since the range of Nasr is 60 km., it has to climb a mere 300 meters to pop up in radar., and even at that Nasr will still be some 10 km short of the radar.

Also missiles like Babur are accounted for some 20-25 km in advance (based on mast height) and giving some 1.5 mins. of warning.

The advantage of S-400 is that 1. It is mobile and 2. It's complete setup time is 5 mins.

For the western theatre., all of baki missiles are accounted for.

This does not obviate the need for AAD/PAD. This is layered defence at its best., you have the first wall of defense thrown in 5 mins. and a second wall available (and that too a completely different system - LRTR/AAD/PAD) that takes care of all threats cruise/ballistic missile threats up to IRBMs.

From the perspective of China., this makes it extremely costly. Now Chinese cruise/ballistic missiles have to penetrate two different layers of defense.

For the bakis, they were nuke-nood earlier. Now they are missile-nood as well.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Nov 2015 11:52

^^ Looks more like assembly plant for final assembly

Re-Posting the video

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Nov 2015 19:51

Austin wrote:Back in the days of SU Antey was a seperate entity that designed SAM for Army and Almaz for PVO/Airforce , Yes the S-300V those days had interceptor with higher energy and higher average speed and the warhead was designed for both airbreathing targets and ABM plus better cross country mobility on tracked chassis it moved with the army , compared to airforce S-300PMU/PMU1 which dealt with just airbreathing targets but with S-300PMU2 ABM capability was added basicly warhead was improved to deal with BM and Radar capability was improved and range to 200 km from 150.

S-400 have different missile compared to S-300 as energetic as the S-300VM series type, Also they have different guidance S-300PMU2 the last variant had TVM guidance while S-400 moved to SAGG guidance ( you can check SOC website on this or just email him ) , 9M96E1/E has ARH/HTK type , 48N6 E1/E1 has SAGG and 40N6 ARH

As matter of operational philosophy and doctrine all the interceptor are designed to deal with both BM and air breathing targets unlike says THAAD that can deal with BM targets even S-500 has those capability being anti-ICBM types interceptor thats their requirement.

Austin, missiles (or for that matter any system) are usually optimized for one set of targets while they have "capability" against another set. The question is what capability does the S-400 have in the ABM arena. Details are nearly non existent.

On your other question only 40N6 has 185 Km altitude the Russian have termed it as near space and has been recently inducted just this year having both exo and endo capability rest all missile of S-400 have endo capability up to altitude of 35 km , you can just google out for official statements on it and you will find it.

Are you serious- google for it? And you think I haven't? The official statements are virtually meaningless as they don't have any specifics.

Case in point.

You can find this old article ( 2008 ) written by chief designer of Almaz Antei not very current but still gives you idea of what the system is about

http://old.raspletin.ru/press-centre/news/2008/080603/

Compared to S-300 the S-400 has the following capability

In conclusion, the advantages discussed export version AAMS "Triumph" air defense missile systems in comparison with C-300PMU1:

expanded class of targeted objectives to flight speed of 4800 m / s (intermediate range ballistic missiles with a range of up to 3000-3500 km);
significantly increased the affected area of small targets and goals such as "Stealth" (50% range defeat) due to an increase in the energy potential of RFCs and 91N6E MRLS 92N6E;
significantly enhanced immunity system through the introduction of new means of anti-jamming;
significantly improved reliability, reduced size and power consumption of system resources using the most advanced electronic equipment, new equipment for autonomous power supply, new vehicles.

Just high level claims but no specifics about BMD tests (what kind of targets, trajectories, target discrimination) or what anti-jamming measures (raw power or more ECCM ie filtering or receiver sensitivity or coding..) or the specific tests which would tell us what kind of ECM was used.

In short, the claims made here are so generic so as to be disregarded if not for the fact that we are buying it and hence the belief the IAF would have done some due diligence.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Nov 2015 20:12

Karan M wrote:Just high level claims but no specifics about BMD tests (what kind of targets, trajectories, target discrimination) or what anti-jamming measures (raw power or more ECCM ie filtering or receiver sensitivity or coding..) or the specific tests which would tell us what kind of ECM was used.

Sure when IAF buys these they will ship one S-400 system to you to find these capabilities

Jokes apart I will see if there is brochure of radar that will list that out

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Nov 2015 21:21

Karan M wrote:For every Indian system we have inducted or tested we have a fair amount of data on several of these parameters. In short, what you have more or less admitted is there is no clear data easily at hand for the S-400 which is my exact point. There's been a lot of "we are now BMD proof now we have S-400" sorta posts, but very little to actually indicate that is the case. One can at least postulate the ECCM will be good based on general advances in Russian industry & prior history w/S-300PMU1/PMU2 etc but the actual tests against BMD optimized targets would tell us what is what.

There was no proof either that Klub could fly more than 220 Km before they travelled 1500 km other than vague statements that they could do it.

Pont is If the IAF has shown interest in S-400 I am sure its not that would just wake up and buy it , they would have studied all the information and got information beyond brochure stuff , specially when India has access to Arrow or US systems too.

IAF would do its due dilligence if they buy this system or may be they wont either if it does not meet its requirement , I would still see the S-400 buy as speculation untill they sign the deal.

Its not brochures but actual tests we need to track down. The radars themselves are firmly far behind the LRTR class system anyhow but that's the tradeoff for mobility & iterative development (vs abinitio) S-400 took.

The Radar is fine except its a Hybrid PESA then a AESA like LRTR , They are good with PESA and have invested a lot developing generation of PESA system , Ofcourse I think its the right approach one shuld do what one is good at and not follow blindly leading edge systems because its there.

IF we are good with AESA then we should invest in it , I am not says x is superior or y is inferior etc , I read from Almaz report they are developing further modifiction of 40N6 and even AESA is under development now that they have maturity in it or may be they will just integrate with S-500 AESA systems now under development.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 07 Nov 2015 22:55

These radars along with the Green Pine may have applications as directed energy weapons.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Nov 2015 23:36

Austin wrote:There was no proof either that Klub could fly more than 220 Km before they travelled 1500 km other than vague statements that they could do it.

Pont is If the IAF has shown interest in S-400 I am sure its not that would just wake up and buy it , they would have studied all the information and got information beyond brochure stuff , specially when India has access to Arrow or US systems too.

By the same standards, India's MiG-29K, Smerch, T-90 etc purchases all had "information beyond the brochure stuff". We all know (or should know) what happened thereafter. Glitches galore.

India has been asking for US stuff for a while now. It does seem though, that instead of getting Patriots we were offered obsolete Hawks and similar 3rd grade stuff.

The S-400 purchase is basically the "victory" of the conservative defence planners who have always been arguing that India needed an immediate solution to Pakistan's China supported nuclear blackmail.

We looked at Russia's S-300VM & the Arrow and went for our own system, but its very plausible that the S-400 also has some decent capabilities against the current gen of Pakistan and China's missiles. Hence my queries about what exactly can it do.

Our local BMD will provide the 2nd layer against advanced threats and must and should be continued as the LRTR/MFCR combination plus PDV/AAD and advanced variants are by dint of architecture superior to the S-400 class mobile systems with a size premium & also fully in our control for upgrade and modification.

IAF would do its due dilligence if they buy this system or may be they wont either if it does not meet its requirement , I would still see the S-400 buy as speculation untill they sign the deal.

And what about the IAF's "due diligence" for its MiG-29s way back, which were hanger queens for a long stint till IAF started making its own spares.

The point is merely saying "if India has chosen to purchase this, its all fine" is a flawed proposition.

A better argument would be that the S-400 is a new product which is in series production for Russia itself, under mass induction and an iterative development of the S-300 series hence (hopefully) most of the flaws and serviceability challenges would have been worked out.

I would have been far more worried if this was a brand new product with the usual Russian brochure bashing of being better than this or that western analog.

The Radar is fine except its a Hybrid PESA then a AESA like LRTR , They are good with PESA and have invested a lot developing generation of PESA system , Ofcourse I think its the right approach one shuld do what one is good at and not follow blindly leading edge systems because its there.

The point that I was making is that the LRTR is a more powerful system with better reliability (AESA vs PESA) plus the other advantages (gain/noise etc). Even the MFCR was similarly, an AESA. We chose these expensive & maximized configurations because we wanted a no holds barred BMD system the same as Israel did.

IF we are good with AESA then we should invest in it , I am not says x is superior or y is inferior etc , I read from Almaz report they are developing further modifiction of 40N6 and even AESA is under development now that they have maturity in it or may be they will just integrate with S-500 AESA systems now under development.

Basically, the S-400 is a further development of the S-300 PMU1/PMU2 family and hence it retains most of the same basic radars with upgrades (power & signal processing). By itself this is not a bad thing. For instance, even the PAC-3 system as I recall had a PESA & it like the LRTR boasts advanced signal processing and power attributes allowing it to distinguish between decoys and real targets.

I don't see any reason why the S-400 won't have similar capabilities, but as always, it would be great to have some detailed information on what tests it underwent.

Anyways, if I get some time, I am going to start cataloging its exact capabilities in detail & pros & cons. Should be interesting.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Nov 2015 08:52

pandyan wrote: Retired Air Marshal PK Barbora told Defenseworld.net that an Indian delegation was given a demonstration of the S-400 back in the in the early-2000s, when he was air attaché at the Indian embassy in Moscow. At that time too, the Russians wanted to sell the system to India. They had hinted that to secure New Delhi, the country will require one unit of the BMD. That was to cost then $ 700 million.

Early S-400 got operational with PVO somewhere in 2009-2010 so there is no chance they were demoed S-400 in early 2000 , most likely it would be S-300 systems