A potential way Pakistan can deal with the S-400 & THAAD

[Philosopher]

Wether you like it or not its not viable idea in indo/pak and how can we increase its range if add more fuel so it can be heavier and longer

You do not increase its range by adding more fuel. Air-launched ballistic missile and rockets have more range and speed compared to when they are launched via ground.

For first your link we need a fighter jet of size of mig-31 to fire ISKANDER type missiles

That was just showing one example of what nations are developing.

And your second link doesn't refer to what is the range of this missile and from the picture that you post its look like it is develop from SAMs rather than a BMs

On top of the image it says:

The Israeli have also recently developed an air launched rocket called Rampage with an alleged range of 150 km

The Israelis have not disclosed its true rage. Given its ground launched version which is called EXTRA EXTended Range Artillery has a declared range of 150km, the air-launched version will naturally be longer.

 

[Ultima Thule]

The Israelis have not disclosed its true rage. Given its ground launched version which is called EXTRA EXTended Range Artillery has a declared range of 150km, the air-launched version will naturally be longer.

And please tell me how its neutralized s-400. ,s-400 range is about 400 km where this rocket has a range of only 150 km as your quote say this rocket equipped jet can easily be shot down by s 400

You do not increase its range by adding more fuel. Air-launched ballistic missile and rockets have more range and speed compared to when they are launched via ground.

Tell me how??

That was just showing one example of what nations are developing.

Air launch ballistic missile can be fired by heavy fighter jets not medium or light weight jets like f16/jf17

 

[Philosopher]

And please tell me how its neutralized s-400. ,s-400 range is about 400 km where this rocket has a range of only 150 km as your quote say this rocket equipped jet can easily be shot down by s 400

You are focusing too much on the specific examples, I used them to show the different projects of different nations. With regards to the s-400, assuming India even gets the 400km ranges missile, that is not something that will be highly effective against manoeuvrable fighter jets like JF-17. The S-400 does will not have a 400km kill zone in practise. Its truly lethal kill zone is much smaller.

Tell me how??

A ground launched system uses its fuel to reach altitude by countering gravity, air resistance etc. When you launch this system already from the air, you remove much of this. This increases the range and speed.

Air launch ballistic missile can be fired by heavy fighter jets not medium or light weight jets like f16/jf17

JF-17 has a payload capability of 3700KG. Why could it not launch Naser missile that has been modified (warhead reduced) to be 1000kg?

 

[Ultima Thule]

JF-17 has a payload capability of 3700KG. Why could it not launch Naser missile that has been modified (warhead reduced) to be 1000kg?

Max payloads it have if if its carry modified nasr so it can't able to carry BVR for defense only sraam can be carried

A ground launched system uses its fuel to reach altitude by countering gravity, air resistance etc. When you launch this system already from the air, you remove much of this. This increases the range and speed.

And same opposite goes to air launch missiles

You are focusing too much on the specific examples, I used them to show the different projects of different nations. With regards to the s-400, assuming India even gets the 400km ranges missile, that is not something that will be highly effective against manoeuvrable fighter jets like JF-17. The S-400 does will not have a 400km kill zone in practise. Its truly lethal kill zone is much smaller.

S-400 uses 4 missiles for interceptions
1 big missiles (range 400 km) purely for ABM purpose
2 medium missiles (range 250 km) purpose fighter jet interceptions
3 medium missile 2 (range 100 km)
4 small missile (range 40 km)

So tell me how air launch ballistic missile equipped fighter jet survive from s-400 ???

 

[Philosopher]

Max payloads it have if if its carry modified nasr so it can't able to carry BVR for defense only sraam can be carried

It's not like you have all JF-17 carry them and not able to deliver their AA capability.

And same opposite goes to air launch missiles

Your question was how does launching a ballistic missile/rocket from the air increases its range and I explained. This is all established science.

S-400 uses 4 missiles for interceptions
1 big missiles (range 400 km) purely for ABM purpose
2 medium missiles (range 250 km) purpose fighter jet interceptions
3 medium missile 2 (range 100 km)
4 small missile (range 40 km)

So tell me how air launch ballistic missile equipped fighter jet survive from s-400 ???

It depends on the range of the air launched system. If you can create an air launched system with long enough range, then you can fire them outside the range of the S-400. These air launched system can have impressive range. Even something like Rampage can have ranges of 100's of kM.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Range of Nasr is 60km, weight is 1200Kg.

Which plane are you going to modify to carry it.

U don't just strap on a ground launched missile to an aircraft and call it a day.

If for some reason Nasr was to be made into an air launched variant...it would have different weight...and different range. A ground launched missile generally weighs more to achieve the same range that a lighter air launched version can achieve...
...simply bcuz the ground launched version has to start at rest and gain altitude and speed...which requires the extra fuel...while the air launched version already has altitude and speed imparted on it by the aircraft carrying it. In conclusion...IF an air launched version of Nasr with the same 70km range(as the ground launched version) was to be developed...it would weigh less.

 

[Ultima Thule]

It's not like you have all JF-17 carry them and not able to deliver their AA capability

Equipped with nasr type aero ballistic missile jf17 range significantly reduced

Your question was how does launching a ballistic missile/rocket from the air increases its range and I explained. This is all established science.

No you don't you over simplify situation there lots of other significant variables you forget

It depends on the range of the air launched system. If you can create an air launched system with long enough range, then you can fire them outside the range of the S-400. These air launched system can have impressive range. Even something like Rampage can have ranges of 100's of kM.

With heavies like F15/Su-27 then yes but with medium or light the answer is BIG NO

 

[Philosopher]

Equipped with nasr type aero ballistic missile jf17 range significantly reduced

The combat range of JF-17 is 1300KM and its max payload is 3700KG. Explain how a JF-17 carrying a 1000KG missile would significantly reduce its range?

No you don't you over simplify situation there lots of other significant variables you forget

Then why not post what I have missed? Make sure you properly reference any claims.

With heavies like F15/Su-27 then yes but with medium or light the answer is BIG NO

There are no limitations here as long as the fighter jet can carry the said aero missile. You can obtained ranges outside the S-400 engagement range with relatively smaller sized missile not much bigger than the Rampage with is carried by Israeli F-16s.

 

[Ultima Thule]

The combat range of JF-17 is 1300KM and its max payload is 3700KG. Explain how a JF-17 carrying a 1000KG missile would significantly reduce its range?

you're talking about combat radius not combat in air to air mode with 4-6 SD-10A and 2 PL-5 with 3 fuel drop tanks, JFT has a max fuel capacity of 2200 kg or 5000 lbs (internally, excluding fuel drop tanks), if Nasr can be carried by JFT the only hard point is central hard point for carrying Nasr type arep ballistic missile or inner (wing root) 2 hard point which means 2 or 1 fuel drop tanks can be discarded for carrying Nasr type aero ballistic missiles which means it will have reduce COMBAT RADIUS AND HENCE RANGE
PS= AIR TO GROUND WEAPONS ALWAYS HEAVIER THAN AIR TO AIR WEAPONS

Then why not post what I have missed? Make sure you properly reference any claims.

IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO INCREASE SPECIFIC IMPULSES OR FUEL RANGE WILL BE SIMILAR TO ORGINAL NASR (70-100 KM)

There are no limitations here as long as the fighter jet can carry the said aero missile. You can obtained ranges outside the S-400 engagement range with relatively smaller sized missile not much bigger than the Rampage with is carried by Israeli F-16s

WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND, air to ground weapons always heavier than air to air weapons hence its could reduced RANGE AND COMBAT RADIUS of delivery systems (fighter jets)

 

[CrazyZ]

If it can be seen it can be killed. All SAMs emit radar that can be seen. A zillion ways to kill them once you find their location.

 

[Philosopher]

you're talking about combat radius not combat in air to air mode with 4-6 SD-10A and 2 PL-5 with 3 fuel drop tanks, JFT has a max fuel capacity of 2200 kg or 5000 lbs (internally, excluding fuel drop tanks), if Nasr can be carried by JFT the only hard point is central hard point for carrying Nasr type arep ballistic missile or inner (wing root) 2 hard point which means 2 or 1 fuel drop tanks can be discarded for carrying Nasr type aero ballistic missiles which means it will have reduce COMBAT RADIUS AND HENCE RANGE

I am unable to find whether the 1300KM combat radius of JF-17 includes only the internal fuel or includes external fuels as well. Anyway, lets assume you are right and we have to sacrifice a central hard-point for an air launched mass and this reduce the combat radius of JF-17. This does not change the argument here. The point is whether the fighter jet can carry the ordinance and fire it within stand off range. Given the still considerable combat range of JF-17 plus the range of the missiles (which can be in 100's of km) then reduced combat radius due to loss of one drop tank is not very significant.

IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO INCREASE SPECIFIC IMPULSES OR FUEL RANGE WILL BE SIMILAR TO ORGINAL NASR (70-100 KM)

Specific impulse is a way of measuring the performance of the engine. This topic is about how firing an aero-ballistic system will lead to longer ranges compared to a ground based system with the same fuel. Although a new fuel can help, this is by no means a pre-requisite to this topic. I have already given you a simplified explanation as to why air launched system have longer ranges. You are basically trying to debate against established physics.

WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND, air to ground weapons always heavier than air to air weapons hence its could reduced RANGE AND COMBAT RADIUS of delivery systems (fighter jets)

The point is whether the plane can carry the missile system and deliver it within the stand off range. The size of the missile here is not that important given they are generally well within the payload capacity.

 

[UkroTurk]

Why does Pakistan need to deal with THAAD?
India has s400 so it is comprehensible. But none of your neighbours has THAAD.
Are you going to attack on Israel?

 

[Philosopher]

Why does Pakistan need to deal with THAAD?
India has s400 so it is comprehensible. But none of your neighbours has THAAD.

THAAD was added later to the title after one member raised the potential of India getting it.

 

[Ultima Thule]

I am unable to find whether the 1300KM combat radius of JF-17 includes only the internal fuel or includes external fuels as well. Anyway, lets assume you are right and we have to sacrifice a central hard-point for an air launched mass and this reduce the combat radius of JF-17. This does not change the argument here. The point is whether the fighter jet can carry the ordinance and fire it within stand off range. Given the still considerable combat range of JF-17 plus the range of the missiles (which can be in 100's of km) then reduced combat radius due to loss of one drop tank is not very significant.

IF WE LAUNCH IT AT HIGH ALTITUDE INDIAN GREEN PINE AND S-400 ASEA RADAR CAN DETECT EARLIER AND LAUNCH IT COUNTER OFFENSIVE LIKE LONG RANGE SAMs like S-400/S-300 OR FIRED BVR AT VERY NEAR TO THE BORDER TO CALL OF JFT MISSION AT LOWER ALTITUDES ITS HAS A NEGLIGIBLE

Specific impulse is a way of measuring the performance of the engine. This topic is about how firing an aero-ballistic system will lead to longer ranges compared to a ground based system with the same fuel. Although a new fuel can help, this is by no means a pre-requisite to this topic. I have already given you a simplified explanation as to why air launched system have longer ranges. You are basically trying to debate against established physics.

LET ASSUME NASR HAS A SPECIFIC IMPULSES OF LETS SAY 40 SECONDS IF WE LAUNCH IT FROM A HIGH ALTITUDE JETS ITS RANGE DEFINITELY INCREASES BUT HOW MUCH ITS MATTER OF DEBATE, BUT HAS CHANCE TO BE DETECTED BY ENEMY SENORS, FROM LOW ALTITUDES TO AVIOD DETECTION
IT WILL HAVE A SIMILAR RANGE LIKE ORIGINAL NASR

The point is whether the plane can carry the missile system and deliver it within the stand off range. The size of the missile here is not that important given they are generally well within the payload capacity.

THAT'S IS I AM TALKING ABOUT, WITH HAVY WEAPONS LIKE NASR, 1/4 OF A MAX PAYLOAD OF JFT AND ALSO CARRYING AIR TO AIR MISSILES FOR DEFENSE CAN FIRE NASR TYPE AREO BALLISTIC MISSILES FROM STAND OFF RANGES, I DON'T THINK SO

 

[Philosopher]

Can you not use full caps when you write please? You will not make your point of view more acceptable by this method.

IF WE LAUNCH IT AT HIGH ALTITUDE INDIAN GREEN PINE AND S-400 ASEA RADAR CAN DETECT EARLIER AND LAUNCH IT COUNTER OFFENSIVE LIKE LONG RANGE SAMs like S-400/S-300 OR FIRED BVR AT VERY NEAR TO THE BORDER TO CALL OF JFT MISSION AT LOWER ALTITUDES ITS HAS A NEGLIGIBLE

As explained previously these systems will be fired outside the range of S-400. Furthermore, the Indian radar system will not be able to know what fighter jets have these systems on board or not. This is another one of the advantaged of using these aero-ballistic missile as highlighted in the document I linked in my original statement. Even if they detected the missile after being fired, by that time it it is getting too late for them.

LET ASSUME NASR HAS A SPECIFIC IMPULSES OF LETS SAY 40 SECONDS IF WE LAUNCH IT FROM A HIGH ALTITUDE JETS ITS RANGE DEFINITELY INCREASES BUT HOW MUCH ITS MATTER OF DEBATE, BUT HAS CHANCE TO BE DETECTED BY ENEMY SENORS, FROM LOW ALTITUDES TO AVIOD DETECTION
IT WILL HAVE A SIMILAR RANGE LIKE ORIGINAL NASR

Like I said, this is not just about specific impulse. Yes at higher altitude specific impulse will be higher (a good thing), but you are not focusing on the other two important factor I explained earlier.

THAT'S IS I AM TALKING ABOUT, WITH HAVY WEAPONS LIKE NASR, 1/4 OF A MAX PAYLOAD OF JFT AND ALSO CARRYING AIR TO AIR MISSILES FOR DEFENSE CAN FIRE NASR TYPE AREO BALLISTIC MISSILES FROM STAND OFF RANGES, I DON'T THINK SO

We have discussed this already. This is not an issue because JF-17 carrying the Nasr can be accompanied by other JF-17s for protection and do not need to be carrying their own AA missiles.