S-400 'Triumf' News & Discussion

[advaidhya]

SAMs in general are no match for air power.

Planes have a large sky to move around and the targets are generally fixed or slow moving. Hence planes generally had the advantage in hitting the targets. But with the supercomputing arriving, the situation has changed. Now the SAMs are getting upper hand over planes except in hilly terrains.

That doesn't make any sense. The stealth aircraft is using the jamming.

Jamming can be both ways. The ground radars also can jam the radar vision of the plane.

A2A I'm yet to see any evidence that an F-22 can be beaten in open combat (not mock dogfights).

F22 is not yet tested against strong foes. That does not make F22 invincible

Nope, they just don't. Ground-based air defences have never successfully countered air power since WWII. Like I said, cruiser and destroyers would still rule the waves if they did.

Destroyers are ships and hence they have limitations in thing like power generation, control over distant parts of seas etc. But ground based systems have unlimited power from power plants and can have lots of ground infrastructure for area denial. Moreover, till the advent of super computing, planes had upper hand over SAMs. But now things have changed after super computing arrival.

 

[advaidhya]

They have nukes. The US/Japan/SKorea were quivering over NK having nukes.

Nukes are not really game changers. They are big bombs but the damage is over exaggerated. Nukes can be hit in 2 ways - air burst or ground hit. Ground hit will reduce the distance of explosion due to terrain and obstacles in the way. Air burst will reduce intensity as the distance of bomb will be high. Air burst is like a mini-cyclone originating in a point area.

Nukes make Pakistan only slightly more worthy than Iraq of 1991. @BMD is right in this point about Pakistan.

 

[randomradio]

Nukes are not really game changers. They are big bombs but the damage is over exaggerated. Nukes can be hit in 2 ways - air burst or ground hit. Ground hit will reduce the distance of explosion due to terrain and obstacles in the way. Air burst will reduce intensity as the distance of bomb will be high. Air burst is like a mini-cyclone originating in a point area.

Nukes make Pakistan only slightly more worthy than Iraq of 1991. @BMD is right in this point about Pakistan.

Wokay, saar, but I prefer the area I live in is free from these over-exaggerated bombs.

 

[advaidhya]

Wokay, saar, but I prefer the area I live in is free from these over-exaggerated bombs.

Would you prefer 10 bombs of 1 ton LGB on your area instead?

 

[BMD]

Planes have a large sky to move around and the targets are generally fixed or slow moving. Hence planes generally had the advantage in hitting the targets. But with the supercomputing arriving, the situation has changed. Now the SAMs are getting upper hand over planes except in hilly terrains.


Jamming can be both ways. The ground radars also can jam the radar vision of the plane.


F22 is not yet tested against strong foes. That does not make F22 invincible


Destroyers are ships and hence they have limitations in thing like power generation, control over distant parts of seas etc. But ground based systems have unlimited power from power plants and can have lots of ground infrastructure for area denial. Moreover, till the advent of super computing, planes had upper hand over SAMs. But now things have changed after super computing arrival.

That makes little sense. Supercomputing arrives for air power too, making geolocation and identification of threats easier and quicker, and it also makes EW more effective against them.

It makes no difference because planes geolocate threats from their emissions. A jamming threat can be geolocated just as easily, and using the same methods as a radar threat, and this is all done passively. ARMs can also home passively.

Neither is the S-300/400/500. In fact it's not been tested against any foes.

SAM batteries are not hooked up to the electricity grid and neither are their radars or support jamming. A large ship can generate way more power than a ground vehicle, and hold way more computing power, yet aircraft carriers are still regarded as way more important than air defence destroyers.

 

[BMD]

In the South China Sea area. They are at-least 10 years away from any respectable force over the Tibet area.

They can put it there whenever they like. Aircraft are extremely mobile.

 

[BMD]

Actually no. Even when Iran had ballistic missiles, surveillance drones were used by US and Israel. Things changed post the shooting down of the stealth UCAV and being paraded around Tehran.

Don't mix things up.

For a start it wasn't shot down, it's comms were interrupted and it was forced to land. And it wasn't a UCAV, it was a reconnaissance drone with no EW or weapons, or RAM.

Don't mix things up.

 

[BMD]

Cruisers and destroyers dont carry S-400s due to financial constraints. Bad analogy.

They could though, but people invest in aircraft carriers instead because they know air power beats air defences every time.

 

[Arvind]

They could though, but people invest in aircraft carriers instead because they know air power beats air defences every time.

Cost benefit analysis must tell you that you dont spend billions to save millions. These highly expensive systems are meant to safeguard strategic assets and civilians.

 

[BMD]

They have nukes. The US/Japan/SKorea were quivering over NK having nukes.

Yeah sure. Kim launches a few ICBMs, they get shot down by GBI, then NK gets turned into glass. Absolutely quivering. It's funny that at one time you mock the UK deterrent and then later massively overstate the NK deterrent, which is pitiful in number.

 

[BMD]

As per whom? Inhabitants of RoI or NI?

As per fact at the time. In terms of numerical size, it was only behind US, Russia and China. You massively underestimate how many tanks, APCs, IFV, artillery pieces and aircraft were destroyed (many still on the ground). It was a demonstration of how fast you get screwed if you don't have air superiority.

 

[BMD]

Besides the J-20 (which is unproven and I can't say how good or bad it is), what does PLAAF have that can give IAF too much trouble in the air? Newer J-10s and J-11s? Nothing an upgraded Su-30MKI cannot handle. Throw in a few Rafales with Meteor and those legacy Chinese fighters are in trouble.

Numbers? When you calculate how many fighters China can actually deploy on the Indian front (they can't bring their entire air force to Tibet or Xinjiang) and how many operable air bases they have that can host an offensive air campaign in this region, its pretty evenly matched.

As of SAMs, they certainly have their role to play in denting an offensive campaign, not to mention their role in shooting down TBMs and cruise missiles.

I believe they have AESA on some flankers and more of them in number. They also have MRBMs and IRBMs with manoeuvrable re-entry vehicles to wipe out your airfields or any SAMs that hang around in one place for more than 10 minutes.

 

[BMD]

Cost benefit analysis must tell you that you dont spend billions to save millions. These highly expensive systems are meant to safeguard strategic assets and civilians.

That makes no sense, aircraft carriers do cost billions, equipping destroyers with S-400 would cost millions.

 

[Shajida Khan]

What about China-India. Pakistan is barely Iraq-level opposition, in fact they are below 1991 Iraq as an opponent.

China and India is more of a diplomatic war than a military conflict. China is a very rational enemy. Wonder how many bullets have been fired on India China border over all these decades? Less than number of bullets fired in an hour with Pakistan, almost daily. Plus, China's mode of war is not a direct or lone confrontation of India. It will be via or with Pakistan.

Lastly, China itself has a bigger problem to solve. They don't have too many airbases near Indian border. And if they move their air assets near Indian border, they have a much bigger enemy than India to bother in the east. To tackle China, we need an understanding with other nations in the region and USA.

 

[Shajida Khan]

You keep concentrating on your weakest opponent, you should concentrate on your strongest opponent. It's like concentrating on Brock Lesnar's child rather than Brock Lesnar.

If it came down to fighting, Pakistan will not hesitate to destroy itself fighting India. China will only fight a limited conflict.
Fight with China is going to be a mountain corps battle. Tanks are extremely hard to deploy in that region because of Himalayas.
Air power without land invasion army is worthless. Air power can only soften an enemy but to actually defeat an enemy, you need boots on ground.

China is limited threat to India because China is not desperate to fight India and India is well guarded against Chinese due to geography.

 

[vstol Jockey]

I love this debate. Nuke attack on India or its IBGs!!! Please tell me where is that Pen which will be used to sign those orders and who's hand will it be? Pak Punjabi Army, which has taken away swaths of land for its own seniors officers, can it be expected to do an act which destroys them completely? Think over and let me know. Long back I had written in the other forum as to how threatening Punjab with multiple thrusts while actually dismembering Sindh and Balochistan will help India. Pak Army will never use nukes as long as Punjab is secure. They will never do anything which makes them lose Punjab. Remember 1965? The offensive in Chamb/Poonch came to a grinding halt the moment we went across in Punjab and till date Pak Punjabi Army celebrates that day as Difa-e-Pakistan day.

 

[suryakiran]

They can put it there whenever they like. Aircraft are extremely mobile.

Seriously? Most of their aircraft cannot take off and operate from Tibet, because of the altitude and heat. Don't know about topic. Keep trap shut. Better option.

 

[suryakiran]

For a start it wasn't shot down, it's comms were interrupted and it was forced to land. And it wasn't a UCAV, it was a reconnaissance drone with no EW or weapons, or RAM.
.

It was brought down. Missile/EW same thing. And are you kidding me on the it was not a stealth reconnaisance drone? It was an RQ 170.

 

[BMD]

Seriously? Most of their aircraft cannot take off and operate from Tibet, because of the altitude and heat. Don't know about topic. Keep trap shut. Better option.

That just means it needs a long take-off run and sense a fighter typically only uses a fraction of the runway, that is no issue.

 

[BMD]

It was brought down. Missile/EW same thing. And are you kidding me on the it was not a stealth reconnaisance drone? It was an RQ 170.

Not the same thing. You can't override the radio control of a manned stealth-fighter because there is none.

The RQ-170 does not have RAM, it's just a stealth shape, nor does it have EW, self-defense, ESM.... Chalk and cheese comparison.