What's new

Why we need s400

migflug

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
4
Country
India
Location
India
Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Therefore, this is a honest effort by your’s truly to throw some light into the issues concerning the IAF’s desired TMD force posture, and future prospects for inducting into service an IAF-specific version of the LCA (Navy) Mk1 MRCA, along with the Rafale M-MRCA. But first, a few words about how the IAF failed on October 8 to undertake a successful perception management exercise. While the IAF has rightly touted its Su-30MKI heavy-MRCAs as being air-dominance platforms, this fact-of-life was totally missing in the IAF’s giant billboard that was displayed on the parade ground at Hindon on October 8. What was shown through an illustration was a Su-30MKI armed only with R-27R and R-77 BVRAAMs—no R-73Es, no Litening-2 LDP, and no PGMs.

This is inexplicable, given the fact that in successive Aero India and DEFEXPO expos since the previous decade, both HAL and BrahMos Aerospace have repeatedly displayed scale-models of the Su-30MKI armed with both AAMs and PGMs! So what prevents the IAF from showcasing similar exhibits? Your guess is as good as mine.


TMD Developments
Though the IAF had decided to acquire TMD assets way back in 1996, it was the MoD-owned DRDO that first got into the act of proposing a homegrown solution, for which it initiated the development of the PAD/PDV family of exo-atmospheric interceptor missiles and AAD family of endo-atmospheric interceptor missiles. For target acquisition-cum-engagement, two EL/M-2080 ‘Green Pine’ active phased-array L-band long-range tracking radars (LRTR) were ordered in late 1998 from Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), along with two THALES-built Master-A MFCRs, and a TMD simulation testbed from Israel’s Tadiran Electronic Systems.


The primary threats—both then and now—stemmed from the Pakistan Army’s 80 solid-fuelled single-stage M-11 (Hatf-3/Ghaznavi/CSS-7 Mod 1/DF-11) 280km-range TBMs that were inducted into service on February 22, 2004, and 60 liquid-fuelled single-stage Hatf-5/Ghauri-1/Nodong-1 IRBMs of North Korean origin, was inducted into service on January 8, 2003 under the 47 Missile Group of the Pakistan Army’s Strategic Forces Command (SFC). Presently, the Pakistan Army deploys two Missile Groups each of the Ghauri-1 and Ghaznavi (grouped under two separate Artillery Brigades, these being the Hyderabad-based Missile Brigade South comprising Missile Groups 25, 35 and 40; and the Sargodha-based Missile Brigade North comprising the 14, 28 and 47 Missile Groups).

During hostilities with India, all these missiles will be armed with conventional HE or FAE-based warheads. Each such Missile Group comprises 18 Ghaznavi TELs each with one ready-to-fire missile and two reloads, and 18 Ghauri-1 TELs each with two ready-to-fire missiles and two reloads. A Group can also be divided into three Batteries (with six Ghaznavi TELs and six missiles plus two reloads and six Ghauri-1 TELs with 12 missiles and 24 reloads). Presently, Batteries of the Ghauri-1 and Ghaznavi are deployed at Gujranwala, Okara, Mangla Multan, Jhang, Sonmiani, Quetta and Dera Nawab Shah.

Unfortunately, despite 19 years of R & D effort, the DRDO has to date been unable to even offer a fully functional TMD system, leave alone a networked TMD network. The main problem has been the DRDO’s inability to develop hypersonic interceptor missiles and their internally-mounted Ka-band active phased-array radars for terminal guidance. Only homegrown X-band and Ku-band radar seekers have been designed and tested without demonstrable success.
 
Last edited:

And that is precisely the reason why, two years ago, when a combined team from IAI and Russia’s JSC Almaz-Antey MSDB made an unsolicited presentation to the IAF on an improved version of the S-400 ‘Triumph’ LR-SAM (a generation ahead of what has been sold to China) that would make use of IAI’s latest EL/M-2090U UHF-band active phased-array LRTR, the IAF began making hectic plans for procuring such a system for TMD within the foreseeable future.



Presently, the S-400 makes use of four different types of supersonic endo-atmospheric interceptor missiles (top speed of 4.8km/second): the 40N6E, the 9M96E2, the 48N6E3 and the 48N6E2, all of which are armed with HE-fragmentation warheads. What Russia has proposed for the IAF are two HYPERSONIC endo-atmospheric missiles, the 77N6-N and the 77N6-NI, having top speeds of 7km/second and also being the first SAMs of Russian origin to possess INERT warheads, i.e. warheads that do not contain any explosives and instead, are ‘hittile’, meaning they will destroy inbound TBMs, IRBMs or MRBMs by sheer force of impact.


 
Last edited:
The most revolutionary element of the 77N6-N and the 77N6-NI hypersonic LR-SAMs will be their on-board nose-mounted, Ka-band millimeter-wave active phased-array radar seekers and their real-time discrimination algorithms required for fire-control and guidance of hit-to-kill interceptors. To this end, the radar seekers have been designed with a rigid mount and narrow beam to provide precise angle metric accuracy. The combination of metric accuracy, wide bandwidth, and high Doppler-resolution capabilities makes them excellent sensors for real-time discrimination, for they can provide extremely accurate identification-processing estimates of motion differences caused by mass imbalances on real and threat-like targets.


The 300-tonne EL/M-2090U ULTRA C-22 LRTR features an array of 22 UHF-bandtransmit-receive modules (TRM) in a single clustered unit that has been designed so that modules can be easily swapped. UsingUHF, rather than the higher frequency bands, has particular application at long ranges since it suffers from less signal loss in the atmosphere. A discriminating innovation of theELM-2090U is the digitisation of the signals at theTRM-level, which allows more flexibility in beam-forming and shaping. For TMD along a sectoral footprint, IAI has developed the EL/M-2090U’s ULTRA C-6 version, which has six TRM clusters. Each cluster can electronically steer its beam through +/-60 degrees in azimuth and across a 40-degree sector in elevation. In all cases, the array can be mechanically tilted through 30 degrees in elevation to provide a total elevation coverage of 70 degrees. The larger C-22 version comes mounted on a rail assembly that can be mechanically slewed through +/100 degrees to give 320-degree coverage.

As per the IAF’s projections, there exists a requirement for 12 Batteries of the S-400 (each Battery using four TELs each housing four cannister-encased LR-SAMs), plus 12 C-6 LRTRs and two C-22 LRTRs. In other words, as per the IAF’s appreciation, a total of 11 strategic sectors are required to be protected against inbound TBMs, IRBMs and MRBMs.
 
Last edited:
The Triumph's leading developer is the Almaz Central Design Bureau. According to Alexander Lemansky, General Designer of the Bureau, the comprehensive manufacturer's tests of the new-generation air defense missile system have demonstrated that it possesses considerably higher performance qualities in terms of the engagement envelope, effectiveness, and a variety of potential targets than was available with the previous generation systems. This phase of the preliminary design tests is scheduled to be completed by late 1999, A. Lemansky stressed.

The S-400 system is intended to engage current and future air threats such as tactical and strategic aircraft, Tomahawk cruise missiles and other type missiles, including precision-guided ones, as well as AWACS aircraft, at ranges of up to 400 km. It can also detect stealth aircraft and other targets at all altitudes of their combat employment and at maximum ranges.

Air Force Colonel General Anatoly Kornukov, Air Force Commander-in-Chief, characterizes the Triumph air defense system as a fourth-generation system with a brilliant future because its components are based on the most advanced know-how in the field of radiolocation, missile manufacturing, microcircuitry and computing technology.

Work on the development of the S-400 air defense missile system is a visible embodiment of cooperation among weapon developers. Besides the Almaz Central Design Bureau, these include leading enterprises of the Russian defense industry, such as the Fakel Machine-Building Design Bureau, the Novosibirsk Research Institute of Measuring Instruments, the St. Petersburg Special Machine-Building Design Bureau, and a number of others.

General Designer Vladimir Svetlov, head of the Fakel Bureau-the leading developer of missiles for the S-400 systems-underlines that the Triumph is the first system in the country and, perhaps, in the world that can selectively use several types of missiles, both previously developed SAMs and the new, unique SAMs.

"The long-range missile," Vladimir Svetlov says, "has no analogs. The other missile, the 9M96, does have foreign counterparts, such as an advanced American missile for the PAC-3 Patriot system, but outperforms it, as well as the French Aster, in terms of overall effectiveness by approximately twofold."

The two versions of the 9M96 medium-range missile (9M96E and 9M96E2) were discussed in detail in the March/Apr '99 issue of Military Parade. As for long-range missiles capable of engaging various targets at ranges of up to 400 km, It is premature to describe them, let us only note here that they are available and ready for trials.

The Triumph air defense system can also use 48N6E missiles of the S-300PMU-1 system and 48N6E2 missiles of the S-300PMU-2 Favorit system. Incidentally, the 48N6E missile was successfully test-fired on February 12, 1999.

A high degree of automation at all phases of battle performance, as well as modern types of circuitry, has made it possible to considerably reduce the attending personnel of the S-400 air defense system. The principles of construction and the ramified communications network of the S-400 system allow its integration into different level chains of control throughout the Air Force and other armed services. The arrival of the Russian Federation Defense Minister, Igor Sergeyev, at the test site is indicative of the importance of the next phase of Triumph trials. He told journalists that it was too early to sum up the results before the commencement of the state tests. However, it is expedient, in his opinion, to make investments into the development of the S-400 air defense system because in terms of the effectiveness-cost ratio it is 2.5 times more proficient than the now-functioning systems.
 
EL/M-2090U ULTRA C-22 LRTR mated with S-400's missiles can really get us some breather space while DRDO continues its development of BMD. Radar seems to be really amazing. Specs are too good.
 
Pls do not consider S400 as an ABM System. It was developed and optimized for taking out high altitude supersonic recce planes. Though it can take out BMs but it will be it's secondary objective. PAD & AAD are made just to take out the BMs in endo and exo atmospheric region. They are custom build for the task. For an analogy consider S400 as MKIs and PAD/AAD as jags. MKIs can be used as ground pounders but Jags are custom build for it.
 
What's the range of EL/M-2090U ULTRA C-22 LRTR and of the 77N6-N and the 77N6-NI hypersonic LR-Sam??
 
IS this the end of our AAD & PAD programmes?
I don't think so but DRDO is unable to buil hypersonic interceptor & ka band AESA seeker for AAD & PAD,it will take at least 5 years at minimum to reach the level of older missile used by S 400 like 48N6E3 or 48N6E2 ,even Chinese needed TOT from Russia to develope their own copies despite spending such huge amount on R&D ,it just show how complex is it to build this type of advance systems
 
What's the range of EL/M-2090U ULTRA C-22 LRTR and of the 77N6-N and the 77N6-NI hypersonic LR-Sam??
single-module ELM-2090U has range of 500 km & the system come in 6 or 22 module configuration rest you do the math as for range of of 77 N6-N & 77N6-NI it is widely rumored to be 500km +/- to an altitude of more than 200 km ,note range could be much higher as its kinetic interceptor & doesn't contain any warhead
 
a bit offtopic.... wanted to know which is better S400 vs Patriot vs Arrow ....abit of professional help plz @Chanakya's_Chant @Abingdonboy @Didact

Against aircraft S400 is unrivaled by any land-based system, though SM-6 outclasses it at sea:


20120529095919918.jpg


US missiles THAAD:


3._TH_Launcher.jpg


And SM-3, part of Aegis Ashore:


54d383a26ab9b.hires.jpg


Are superior anti-missile missiles with superb ABM capacity, but have more limited anti-aircraft capabilities. SM-3 also has an ASAT role:


S-400 is a lot like SM-2, which can be used as an ABM, SAM or even an AShM, in that S-400 can cover a lot of roles, but not as good as a dedicated ABM, but still really good as a SAM:


horizontal.jpg


SM-6 is even better at all roles, but doesn't have the ASAT or high-altitude ABM capabilities of SM-3:


620429-004.jpg


Make no mistake, this is a potent, survivable and capable missile system.

S-400_Triumf-34.jpg


a bit offtopic.... wanted to know which is better S400 vs Patriot vs Arrow ....abit of professional help plz @Chanakya's_Chant @Abingdonboy @Didact

Patriot isn't the best comparison, since its PAC-2 GEM+ and PAC-3 are shorter-ranged missiles. PAC-3 has good counter-missile capabilities against cruise, tactical SRBM and IRBM class missiles.

A PAC-3 launcher carried 4x the number of missiles as a S-400 launcher.


Maintenance_check_on_a_Patriot_missile.jpg


PAC-2 GEM+ is a strong anti-aircraft missile, but not in the class as S-400. PAC-2 has a limited ABM capability.


Patriot_pac-2_7.jpg


a bit offtopic.... wanted to know which is better S400 vs Patriot vs Arrow ....abit of professional help plz @Chanakya's_Chant @Abingdonboy @Didact

I have no reliable information on the performance of Arrow, so I can't help with that. However, Arrow, being jointly developed by IAI and Boeing, should be a capable ABM with potential for an ASAT role as well.

Arrow does not appear to be optimized for a SAM role.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom