S-400 'Triumf' News & Discussion

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
6,427
1,481
Look up the losses the Israelis suffered in Yom Kippur.
No EW or SEAD/DEAD was used. The NVA couldn't even hit B-52s after they started using EW. The small Pk they did achieve was due to blind air bursting of SA-2s. SAMs were relatively new back then, the US learned how to deal with them through Vietnam, after that they have never posed any trouble, e.g. look at Libya in 1986, Desert Storm in 1991 and even Allied Force in 1999. People harp on about the F-117A shoot down but they flew 2,055 sorties, typically hitting two key high value targets per sortie. So they shot down one F-117A, while F-117A destroyed ~4,000 bunkers, and C3 targets. I'm quite happy with that exchange ratio.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
6,427
1,481
If that was the case, stealth aircrafts wouldn't be needed at all...
It wasn't stealth aircraft that destroyed SAM radars and batteries in Grand Canyon or Desert Storm. They only used the stealth aircraft and cruise missiles to hit the HV targets up front before the SEAD/DEAD had begun in Desert Storm. The main benefit of stealth is that it allows you to fly past the SAMs to hit deeper targets on day 1.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,967
7,619
India
No. Israelis had the EW on but the system prioritises the threats by first dealing with threats which are closest to it. The Russians had told the trick to the Syrians. The radars and missiles closest to the Israeli aircraft lit up when the lang range radars started tracking the F-16s. When the short range missiles were fired, the EW systems tried to tackle them while the high flying, long range missiles took out the F-16. The Israelis were so scared and shocked that very next day they rushed to Moscow to plead to Russians to stop this game.

This article has more details.
Investigation finds pilots of downed F-16 failed to defend themselves

There are some holes in the story. Like the missile locking on to the jet, when it is semi-active. The article probably means the radar.
There were two pilots, so why were they so busy considering the missile hit well after the strike mission was over and they were heading back to base?
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,967
7,619
India
No EW or SEAD/DEAD was used. The NVA couldn't even hit B-52s after they started using EW. The small Pk they did achieve was due to blind air bursting of SA-2s. SAMs were relatively new back then, the US learned how to deal with them through Vietnam, after that they have never posed any trouble, e.g. look at Libya in 1986, Desert Storm in 1991 and even Allied Force in 1999. People harp on about the F-117A shoot down but they flew 2,055 sorties, typically hitting two key high value targets per sortie. So they shot down one F-117A, while F-117A destroyed ~4,000 bunkers, and C3 targets. I'm quite happy with that exchange ratio.

When the SAMs were of the same generation as aircraft, there were aircraft losses. When the SAMs were outmatched in generation terms, the aircraft survived. There's nothing more to it.

In the 70s, single digit SAMs reigned. In the 80s came the double digit SAMs, like the S-300. The West never tested against this class of SAMs. Even in the 90s and 2000s, the West were still dealing with single digit SAMs.

I don't care about the F-117 loss, or the lone F-16 loss over Serbia. Those SAMs were completely obsolete and the countries were facing the might of NATO at that point.

Even in this case, the F-16's loss to the S-200 was more about embarrassment than anything else. But the fact is even the Israelis are worried about the new Syrian S-300, which is an early 2000s era SAM, and nearly 15 years after it was invented, so nearly at the end of its technological life now.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Angel Eyes

Arvind

The PoKeMon
Moderator
Dec 1, 2017
1,389
987
India
Its effectiveness in a combat situation is unknown, but what is known from historical data is that AAMs fired from fighters are more effective at downing aircraft than SAMs. SA-2 Pks were below 1%, with multiple launches per sortie and only 2% of sorties resulting in a loss.

You are missing the whole point.

Do you think what you are writing over here on an open platform, the people who make decision to buy S400, billion dollar system, are not aware of?

Do you think they did not perform feasibility or viability analysis and do not not simulate the environment S400 have to operate in?

Be sure they did and theoretically S400 holds itself well and thats why they spend billions of dollars on it.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
6,427
1,481
When the SAMs were of the same generation as aircraft, there were aircraft losses. When the SAMs were outmatched in generation terms, the aircraft survived. There's nothing more to it.

In the 70s, single digit SAMs reigned. In the 80s came the double digit SAMs, like the S-300. The West never tested against this class of SAMs. Even in the 90s and 2000s, the West were still dealing with single digit SAMs.

I don't care about the F-117 loss, or the lone F-16 loss over Serbia. Those SAMs were completely obsolete and the countries were facing the might of NATO at that point.

Even in this case, the F-16's loss to the S-200 was more about embarrassment than anything else. But the fact is even the Israelis are worried about the new Syrian S-300, which is an early 2000s era SAM, and nearly 15 years after it was invented, so nearly at the end of its technological life now.
There were relatively few losses in Vietnam, even before EW and Wild Weasel became a thing. Most aircraft were lost to AAA fire. Even in Yom Kippur, the Israeli aircraft, which were 10 years behind the US, suffered few losses compared to the Syrians and their allies.

Ofira Air Battle - Wikipedia
Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia

Air power won in spite of SAMs, it always has done and always will.

Nope, air power reigned and caused more losses throughout history, SAMs were only a relatively small inconvenience. They would have been taken care of earlier in Vietnam were it not for the bombing restrictions on the warehouses.

So?

The F-16 is fairly old too.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
6,427
1,481
You are missing the whole point.

Do you think what you are writing over here on an open platform, the people who make decision to buy S400, billion dollar system, are not aware of?

Do you think they did not perform feasibility or viability analysis and do not not simulate the environment S400 have to operate in?

Be sure they did and theoretically S400 holds itself well and thats why they spend billions of dollars on it.
I think the effectiveness has been grossly exaggerated. When people talk about anti-access, area denial, I know they're talking utter crap. These systems will not stop stealth aircraft flying between them, nor SEAD/DEAD missions taking them out. The 50 year-old trend will continue.
 

TARGET

Well-Known member
Dec 2, 2017
442
360
India once complete the XRSAM development.it will create one more air defense layer (2021-2022)...so best of luck to our friends who wish to penitratrae Indian multilayered air defense system ...not to forget India successfully developed own seeker and AESA radar so there will be frequent technological upgrades.
 

Arvind

The PoKeMon
Moderator
Dec 1, 2017
1,389
987
India
I think the effectiveness has been grossly exaggerated. When people talk about anti-access, area denial, I know they're talking utter crap. These systems will not stop stealth aircraft flying between them, nor SEAD/DEAD missions taking them out. The 50 year-old trend will continue.

And the basis for this assertion is?
 

suryakiran

Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
763
916
Bangalore
I think the effectiveness has been grossly exaggerated. When people talk about anti-access, area denial, I know they're talking utter crap. These systems will not stop stealth aircraft flying between them, nor SEAD/DEAD missions taking them out. The 50 year-old trend will continue.

When was the last time you tried doing this against Iran? Hell, when was the last time Israel tried this against Iran? And please, its not because of "We don't want to start a war".
 

Shajida Khan

Senior member
Dec 27, 2017
1,524
1,579
Seattle
I think the effectiveness has been grossly exaggerated. When people talk about anti-access, area denial, I know they're talking utter crap. These systems will not stop stealth aircraft flying between them, nor SEAD/DEAD missions taking them out. The 50 year-old trend will continue.
Its purpose, in Indian defence is three folds.

1. Deny Pakistan from operating a AWACS or a Fuel Tanker to extend their limited range and force of PAF.
2. Deny Pakistan's F-16 any operational capabilities in Indian Airspace and to a large extent, Pakistani Airspace as well.
3. Defeat most of Pakistan's cruise missiles at a longer distance. A cruise missile is much more maneuverable and potent threat than a Ballistic missile.
 

vstol Jockey

Professional
Dec 1, 2017
5,854
11,363
New Delhi
This article has more details.
Investigation finds pilots of downed F-16 failed to defend themselves

There are some holes in the story. Like the missile locking on to the jet, when it is semi-active. The article probably means the radar.
There were two pilots, so why were they so busy considering the missile hit well after the strike mission was over and they were heading back to base?
I am referring to the 30 sep 2015 incident in which the pilot died in air itself due to direct hit of the missile.
 

advaidhya

Member
Aug 2, 2018
325
80
India
More like they went to Moscow to tell them they were going to start applying a liberal dose of SEAD/DEAD if it persisted, which is the other risk for SAMs. At present there is an agreement not to fire SAMs at US/NATO aircraft because they know the SAMs existences will be short-lived if they do. If one US plane goes down, all SAMs will be gone within 24 hours, Russian or Syrian.
So, USA is modern day superman? Do you think Russia is incapable? On what basis? USA and Russia have an arrangement o de-escalation. So, neither does USA shoot down Russian planes nor Russia shoots USA planes

I think the effectiveness has been grossly exaggerated. When people talk about anti-access, area denial, I know they're talking utter crap. These systems will not stop stealth aircraft flying between them, nor SEAD/DEAD missions taking them out. The 50 year-old trend will continue.
Stealth aircrafts are not Alladin's flying mat! They have low visibility but not invisible. Also, the air defence network has radars from various angles due to which not just the frontal RCS is seen but sideways RCS is also seen which is god enough to give away any stealth plane.

Performance of Nato air power against countries like Syria, Libya, Mozambique etc...
Russia did not help any of these countries with lethal and modern weapons. The SAMs used are very old in these countries
 

Shajida Khan

Senior member
Dec 27, 2017
1,524
1,579
Seattle
I think the effectiveness has been grossly exaggerated. When people talk about anti-access, area denial, I know they're talking utter crap. These systems will not stop stealth aircraft flying between them, nor SEAD/DEAD missions taking them out. The 50 year-old trend will continue.
We are talking about Pakistan-India war. Pakistan flies F-16. That too 50/52 block. Thats their best airplane. Their economy ensure that they cannot buy anything newer anytime soon.

SEAD/DEAD is impossible for Pakistan.
 

Parthu

Gessler
Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
944
1,848
24
Vizag, India
S-400 is not the silver bullet when it comes to ABM capabilities... Yes it is a lethal SAM, but as ABM it has limitations.

* Target speed above 14 Mach cannot be tracked .

* Target of above 1 square meter can be detected from up to 600 Km. targets less than 1 meter square RCS can only be detected up to 475 Km and closer.

* The maximum range of engagement for an aerodynamic target is 250 KM and for Ballistic targets its 60 Km.
However the Altitude of engagement in both cases is limited to 27 Km as per Manufacturer's website.
Reason being the Missiles need to remain within thick atmosphere to Maneuver . The 250 Km engagement range is only possible if using their longest range 48N6 missile. The 400 Km range 40N6 missile isn't operational yet.

* After the launcher has fired all 4 Missiles, there is a 5 Minute or more Re-Load time.

* S-400 is not Over the Horizon Radar and curvature of earth will limit radar detection ..
At sea level the S-400 radar can only detect objects at 28000 meter altitude at full 600 Km detection range.
Anything lower than that altitude will need to be closer for detection.
For example an object flying at 10,000 meter altitude will only be detected at 370 Km range when S-400 is at sea level. Because beyond that distance at that altitude the object will still be hidden behind curvature of earth and invisible to radar.

...............

A Pakistani aircraft flying at low altitude of say 1000 meters will only be visible to a Mobile radar, in this case S-400 Radar at 170-200 Km range. If the jet flies lower , the detection range will also be lower (I am not considering supplementary systems such as AWACS here).
At a range of 150-200 Km the Pakistani Jet can fire a standoff weapon(s) and turn back again to hide behind earth's curvature..
here i have considered S-400 Radar height at 200 meters, which is average elevation of Ground in Rajisthan and Indian Punjab.

........................

In ABM scenario. Say for example the Indians have placed their S-400 Radar at a hill top 1000 meters above sea level (Although i am thinking where will be such a place in the planes of Indian Punjab or Rajisthan?)
Pakistan will most probably launch nuclear missiles from the border areas of South Punjab and Balochistan ,from behind the Sulaiman Mountain range. or Koh Suliman.

In that scenario, the Pakistani Ballistic missile will be already 10,000 meter above sea level after launch before any chance of detection by Indian S-400 or any radar.
At that altitude Ballistic missiles are already accelerated to Mach 4+ and continue accelerating. So boost phase shooting down of Pakistani missiles is not even technically possible.

For ballistic missile target engagement after Re-Entry, it depends on may factors. Mainly the speed and size of Re-entry vehicle or the warhead. Modern Ballistic missiles, even those used by Pakistan, shed most of their components before re-entry and the Much smaller warhead enters the atmosphere. For example a Shaheen III warhead is less than 2 meters tall and less than 75 Cm wide, and has a surface area of about 2 to 2.5 Square meters. The Radar Cross section or RCS of this conical shaped warhead will be the section of the warhead facingthe S-400 radar, and actually reflecting Radar energy towards the antenna, and that can even be one fourth of the total surface area , depending on the aspect. Due to small RCS, detection may not be possible at full 600 Km range. Then the speed after apogee increase to Mach 18 , in case of Ababeel, Shaheen-III , both using the same Warhead(s).
S-400 cannot track objects flying above Mach 14.

As of SAM use, I don't know why people easily forget that S-400 in Indian use is meant to be just one part of the larger integrated air defence system, and not a standalone system by any means. Everything from short-range systems like SPYDER, medium ranged Akash Mk.1/1S/NG, long range Barak-8/8ER to the extremely long ranged 40N6E rounds on S400 all work together, and a common air situation picture is shared between all these systems, pictured by radars ranging from small slotted array gapfiller types like ASLESHA to more sophisticated AESA arrays available in all types, shapes & sizes that go up to BMD/massive airspace surveillance radars.

When all these systems work in conjunction, they create one of the most sophisticated and advanced air defence infrastructures in the world. I wouldn't honestly believe the most top-tier US/NATO air warfare units can take that lightly - this is several leagues ahead of anything such forces have faced in real world scenarios. Working around such a network is easier said than done - especially when one has to fight against not just the ground-based AD threat (which can strike down aircraft flying well within Pakistani airspace), but the IAF fighters and force-multipliers (Phalcon, Netra, upcoming EW aircraft) as well.

The current or foreseeable arsenal available with PAF does not seem well poised to effectively deal with such a threat, at all. This is the kind of network that top-tier air forces would struggle to break through without incurring unsustainable losses. Dealing with a ground based AD threat is one thing...facing such threat when you are struggling to gain air superiority is another level.

And the closer a system like S400 is to the border (provided IAF decides to use them in an offensive anti-air role), the farther PAF force multipliers have to move away from the combat theatre, further lessening their effectiveness of influencing the battle. If such lumbering aircraft enter S400 envelope they're dead.

---

As of BMD, the S400 as we are buying it is simply not the be-all end-all of the BMD efforts India will implement. This is just one piece of the puzzle (and not even a complete piece, it'll be complete only once the 77N6N series rounds have been acquired). Theatre-level BMD is a ways off, with missiles like AD-1 and AD-2 not even been tested yet.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: safriz

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
6,427
1,481
We are talking about Pakistan-India war. Pakistan flies F-16. That too 50/52 block. Thats their best airplane. Their economy ensure that they cannot buy anything newer anytime soon.

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