Your posts are so knowledgeable and interesting , you really are an asset to the forum , please keep posting , your content is like a breath of fresh air.A-135 was supplanted by A-235, which in turn has been modernized to the PRS-1M standard, which is optionally nuclear (mean it doesn't need a nuclear warhead for interceptions).
There are downsides to this missile system too. While for strategic defence, it's launchers are static silos.
And unlike S-400 and S-500, which used active or semi-active radar homing, the A-135 and S-235 missiles are radio command link guided only. It's... limited, especially when compared to the American GBI or SM-3.
S-500, erroneous translations aside (and I do both speak and read Russian (Russian alphabet and traditional Cyrillic)) is supposed to be akin to a combination of S-400's anti-aircraft and THAAD anti-missile capabilities with counter-missile capabilities against maneuvering targets restricted to IRBM class missiles. The reports of ICBM intercept capabilities have mostly come from defence analysts. I hope I don't need to refresh you on their quality.
It depends what India reallys want from the S-400, I have read conflicting accounts of this. If BMD is really the priority/main use, then the American systems are likely better. But if the main use is for defense of Indian airspace + targeting enemy HVT's (tankers, AWAC's etc) + basically grounding the PAF during a conflict (I once read that because of how narrow Pakistan is geographically, 2 S-400 systems on the Western border would basically cover their entire country/airspace); then due to differences in doctrines & how the US and Russia fight their wars, the US simply has no comparable product to the S-400 that they could even offer.
I am not sure if this is true, but if true india should grab onto this oppurtunity with both hands and the get the thaad. Once the numnuts is out of the oval, we might not get the opportunity, while S400 and it's later iterations will always be on the table.
By the time we decide to go for the THAAD, create requirements, start negotiations, sign the deal and get the first battery, we will already have the more advanced Phase 2 BMD operational.
Phase 2 will be able to stop warheads with reentry speeds up to mach 27. THAAD is only a little bit more mature and more mobile Phase 1.
And the S-400 has a long range air defence capability which is a critical requirement. THAAD doesn't fulfil this requirement. Plus we need to buy it now so that it cannot be sold to Pakistan later. They are fine with their old HQ-9s.
We need both BMD and AD out of the S-400.
As for coverage--
This will be LRTR's coverage.
And the S-400.
So the coverage is really good. 4 out of PAF's 8 main bases are covered by just 2 regiments of the S-400. This is the region where most of the fighting will happen.
Potential wartime coverage for all 5 systems.
The only PAF base out of reach will be Samungli in Quetta. And Gwadar, if they ever build a base there.
The US has nothing on offer today that can match this setup.
The only thing comparable the PAF has is some old HQ-9 batteries with less than 150Km range.
@vstol Jockey, your opinion on the coverage?
I think people often forget that PATRIOT is a long-range air-defence system with a range of 200+km for the PAC-2 missile (GEM/T, GEM+), which has limited ABM capabilities. It's blast-fragmentation warhead is a real turd when used against missiles. It's capability against small UAVs, at least in Israeli service with older PAC-2 and GEM+ missiles isn't clear cut either.
That puts it within the range threshold of S-400 against maneuvering, fighter-sized aircraft. And unlike S-400, PAC-2 has actual kills to its name.
PAC-3 has a range against ballistic missiles of 30km, but that's often erroneously stated as its range against all targets. Like seriously, the most common mistake I've seen is people saying PAC-3 has a range of 30km. It doesn't. Against aircraft and cruise missiles the PAC-3 missile has a range of 100km+. It's a proven ABM system and has, operationally, been used to counter UAVs and manned aircraft, including a blue-on-blue engagement during OIF where a USN F/A-18 was downed by a US Army PAC-3 battery
PAC-3MSE has a range that extends beyond 160+km (minimum, but expected to be further) and further extends the range against ballistic missile targets.
And unlike S-400, PATRIOT needs just one missile to achieve those capabilities, not four or five. Now S-400 still outranges PATRIOT, especially against tankers, AEW&CS, electronic warfare support, and other large, lumbering standoff air-frames, but the PATRIOT system compared favorable to the primary components of an S-400 battery.
Source? Once upon a time we wanted PATRIOT and someone had to review the literature, and validate the tests and all that. Plus the Swede's are buying it and getting info from them is never hard.
Last edited:
I think people often forget that PATRIOT is a long-range air-defence system with a range of 200+km for the PAC-2 missile (GEM/T, GEM+), which has limited ABM capabilities. It's blast-fragmentation warhead is a real turd when used against missiles. It's capability against small UAVs, at least in Israeli service with older PAC-2 and GEM+ missiles isn't clear cut either.
That puts it within the range threshold of S-400 against maneuvering, fighter-sized aircraft. And unlike S-400, PAC-2 has actual kills to its name.
PAC-3 has a range against ballistic missiles of 30km, but that's often erroneously stated as its range against all targets. Like seriously, the most common mistake I've seen is people saying PAC-3 has a range of 30km. It doesn't. Against aircraft and cruise missiles the PAC-3 missile has a range of 100km+. It's a proven ABM system and has, operationally, been used to counter UAVs and manned aircraft, including a blue-on-blue engagement during OIF where a USN F/A-18 was downed by a US Army PAC-3 battery
PAC-3MSE has a range that extends beyond 160+km (minimum, but expected to be further) and further extends the range against ballistic missile targets.
And unlike S-400, PATRIOT needs just one missile to achieve those capabilities, not four or five. Now S-400 still outranges PATRIOT, especially against tankers, AEW&CS, electronic warfare support, and other large, lumbering standoff air-frames, but the PATRIOT system compared favorable to the primary components of an S-400 battery.
Source? Once upon a time we wanted PATRIOT and someone had to review the literature, and validate the tests and all that. Plus the Swede's are buying it and getting info from them is never hard.
The Patriot, PAC-3, was offered to India back in 2004. A classified presentation was given in 2005.
http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/IndiaAbroadOCR2_October21,2005_2.pdf
It was rejected.
@ Tech/Mods - can you please look into why I didn't get any notifications that both Randomradio and Kvasir had replied to my comment? This is a bit of an old/long term issue for me, and it genuinely bothers me to think that I may have missed out on a lot of peoples' replies this way over time - leading to missed opportunities for information/conversations as well as giving off a misleading impression that I am willfully ignoring people.
Last edited:
I think people often forget that PATRIOT is a long-range air-defence system with a range of 200+km for the PAC-2 missile (GEM/T, GEM+), which has limited ABM capabilities. It's blast-fragmentation warhead is a real turd when used against missiles. It's capability against small UAVs, at least in Israeli service with older PAC-2 and GEM+ missiles isn't clear cut either.
That puts it within the range threshold of S-400 against maneuvering, fighter-sized aircraft. And unlike S-400, PAC-2 has actual kills to its name.
PAC-3 has a range against ballistic missiles of 30km, but that's often erroneously stated as its range against all targets. Like seriously, the most common mistake I've seen is people saying PAC-3 has a range of 30km. It doesn't. Against aircraft and cruise missiles the PAC-3 missile has a range of 100km+. It's a proven ABM system and has, operationally, been used to counter UAVs and manned aircraft, including a blue-on-blue engagement during OIF where a USN F/A-18 was downed by a US Army PAC-3 battery
PAC-3MSE has a range that extends beyond 160+km (minimum, but expected to be further) and further extends the range against ballistic missile targets.
And unlike S-400, PATRIOT needs just one missile to achieve those capabilities, not four or five. Now S-400 still outranges PATRIOT, especially against tankers, AEW&CS, electronic warfare support, and other large, lumbering standoff air-frames, but the PATRIOT system compared favorable to the primary components of an S-400 battery.
Source? Once upon a time we wanted PATRIOT and someone had to review the literature, and validate the tests and all that. Plus the Swede's are buying it and getting info from them is never hard.
Interesting, because Ashley Tellis, who is a massive proponent of developing Indo-US ties, and getting India to buy any US equipment possible - recently wrote an article on this issue in which he claimed that as far as air defense capabilities are concerned, the US has no truly comparable product to offer that could convince India to ditch the S-400; in his opinion even a combination of the Patriot and THAAD wouldn't have ticked all the boxes for India which the S400 does.
Here's the piece in case you're interested: How Can U.S.-India Relations Survive the S-400 Deal?
I've read a decent amount about its AD capabilities, how good is the S400 for BMD?
India does not just need a SAM but needs some technology for making its own XRSAM of 250km range. India also has Akash SAM which works well and also has BMD systems which nullify the requirement of PAC-3. It is the technology of longer range SAM and tracking guidance that is needed. S400 is not just equipment purchase but technology acquisitionI think people often forget that PATRIOT is a long-range air-defence system with a range of 200+km for the PAC-2 missile (GEM/T, GEM+), which has limited ABM capabilities. It's blast-fragmentation warhead is a real turd when used against missiles. It's capability against small UAVs, at least in Israeli service with older PAC-2 and GEM+ missiles isn't clear cut either.
That puts it within the range threshold of S-400 against maneuvering, fighter-sized aircraft. And unlike S-400, PAC-2 has actual kills to its name.
PAC-3 has a range against ballistic missiles of 30km, but that's often erroneously stated as its range against all targets. Like seriously, the most common mistake I've seen is people saying PAC-3 has a range of 30km. It doesn't. Against aircraft and cruise missiles the PAC-3 missile has a range of 100km+. It's a proven ABM system and has, operationally, been used to counter UAVs and manned aircraft, including a blue-on-blue engagement during OIF where a USN F/A-18 was downed by a US Army PAC-3 battery
PAC-3MSE has a range that extends beyond 160+km (minimum, but expected to be further) and further extends the range against ballistic missile targets.
And unlike S-400, PATRIOT needs just one missile to achieve those capabilities, not four or five. Now S-400 still outranges PATRIOT, especially against tankers, AEW&CS, electronic warfare support, and other large, lumbering standoff air-frames, but the PATRIOT system compared favorable to the primary components of an S-400 battery.
Source? Once upon a time we wanted PATRIOT and someone had to review the literature, and validate the tests and all that. Plus the Swede's are buying it and getting info from them is never hard.
Really? Even now? I figured since I don't see too many complaining about it, it must not be a widespread glitch. Either way, hope they get on top of it soon.
The S-400 is as capable as THAAD when it comes to BMD. Both systems were designed to operate up to the red line limits of the ABM Treaty, so both are designed to stop BMs fired from 3500Km away, with reentry speeds below 5Km/s.
The S-400 has 4 classes of missiles, as you already probably know, and 3 are capable of BMD. 9M96E2, can hit an altitude of 30Km, similar to PAC-3, but its slant range in BMD mode drops down from 120Km to 30Km, similar to PAC-3 again. The 48N6E2 can hit an altitude of 60Km, but its slant range of 200Km drops down to 60Km against BMs. The 48N6E3 has better specs.
The published specs for the S-400's THAAD equivalent 40N6 missile is 185+Km altitude for BMD. But classified figures are much greater. The slant range during BMD also drops down drastically, we don't know how much though.
But the number of targets attacked in exo-atmosphere is much lower compared to THAAD. It's because the S-400 battery has significantly fewer 40N6, since it shares space with 3 other types of missiles. A THAAD battery has 48 missiles capable of both endo and exo defence, while with S-400 will be lucky to have 8 40N6 for exo. We are yet to see the missile and its launcher though.
And the 40N6 also plays an AD role, so even with the small number of missiles, you don't have a lot left for BMD.
No technology in the S-400 will be used in the XRSAM. In fact, the XRSAM will be under flight tests before we even get the first S-400 battery.
PRS-1M is the code for the A-235 or 45T6, the PRS-1 was the A-135 or 53T6.A-135 was supplanted by A-235, which in turn has been modernized to the PRS-1M standard, which is optionally nuclear (mean it doesn't need a nuclear warhead for interceptions).
There are downsides to this missile system too. While for strategic defence, it's launchers are static silos.
And unlike S-400 and S-500, which used active or semi-active radar homing, the A-135 and S-235 missiles are radio command link guided only. It's... limited, especially when compared to the American GBI or SM-3.
S-500, erroneous translations aside (and I do both speak and read Russian (Russian alphabet and traditional Cyrillic)) is supposed to be akin to a combination of S-400's anti-aircraft and THAAD anti-missile capabilities with counter-missile capabilities against maneuvering targets restricted to IRBM class missiles. The reports of ICBM intercept capabilities have mostly come from defence analysts. I hope I don't need to refresh you on their quality
If it's using radio-command link only, it will definitely use a nuclear warhead, since that guidance method is barely accurate enough to even hit a bomber directly.
I'm yet to see a Russian ABM with DACT, which leaves me dubious as to their performance.
Where is the evidence of this? Show me the DACT system on the S-400 missiles.
You mention the ABM Treaty again, the US withdrew in 2001. It no longer exists.
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty - Wikipedia
40km listed as service ceiling for PAC-3 (non-MSE) here:
Almaz-Antey 40R6 / S-400 Triumf / SA-21 SAM System / Самоходный Зенитный Ракетный Комплекс 40Р6 / С-400 'Триумф'
There was a report on 42km somewhere, which i can't find.
Russians haven't mastered DACT yet, that's why fewer targets are intercepted in exo-atmosphere.
What DACT are you referring to? DACS? And why should they show anything?
We are buying the S-400. It suits our requirements. Enough to choose it over THAAD. As long as it is capable of stopping an MRBM outside the atmosphere, it's good enough.
THAAD being a more advanced interceptor is irrelevant to us. Not to mention, who in their right mind will pay more when you can have something similar for less.
Sure.
Direct Attitude Control Thrusters. You're choosing it because it's cheaper, when has it intercepted a anything outside the atmosphere? A simple demonstration doesn't reveal anything sensitive about the workings.