China to get S-400 from russia in 2017

[Star Expedition]

Russia is a stable and trustworthy ally.

 

[terranMarine]

china could hack and steal the information of s 400 why buy it?

you mean the NSA/CIA/FBI could hack and steal under false flag ops

 

[Star Expedition]

Beautiful art.
We should equip 100 sets.

 

[Beast]

thats why all world complain about china hacks

The world never complained and its only USA the big liar complained.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/22/edward-snowden-us-china

Who knows better than a CIA contractor working directly inside the pentagon and know all the secret?

 

[samsara]

FSMTC confirmed the start of the S-400 contract fulfillment to China

TASS - April 26, 2017

China became the first foreign buyer of this system, the signing was announced in the spring of 2015

S-400 launcher © Valery Sharifulin / TASS
​

MOSCOW, April 26. / TASS /. The Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation has confirmed the start of the contract on the S-400 to China. This was reported by TASS in the press service of the Russian FSMTC.

Earlier media quoted the general director of Rosoboronexport, Aleksandra Miheeva said that Russia has started the execution of the contract to supply S-400 to China.

"FSMTC confirms that" Rosoboronexport "is acting in accordance with the terms of the signed contract".

China has become the first foreign buyer of the S-400, the signing was announced in the spring of 2015. According to media reports, the total value of the transaction amounted to about $3 billion.

S-400 "Triumph" (SA-21 Growler, according to NATO classification) - Russian anti-aircraft missile system of large and medium-range missiles. Designed to destroy all the modern and advanced air and space attack. The system can affect aerodynamic targets at ranges of up to 400 km and 60 km - tactical ballistic targets flying at a speed of up to 4.8 km / s: cruise missiles, tactical aircraft and strategic aircraft, combat units ballistic missiles. SAM radar detection means provide air targets at ranges of up to 600 km. The 48N6E3 surface-to-air missile can affect aerodynamic target at altitudes of 10 to 27 kilometers, and ballistic targets -. 2 to 25 kilometers.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

S-400 is design for land, if China integrate S-400 into Zubr as my previous thread, it will have a devastating range and the speed and mobility will make it as sea interceptor.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/china-zubr-s-400-devastator.482605/

 

[Brainsucker]

With only 4 missiles / vehicle that the S-400 has, I don't think that it's enough for the country who operate it to repel the enemy strike with Tomahawk. Just like what the USN showed us recently in Syria that they can launched 50 tomahawk in one air-strike mission to Syria, you will require a lot of this type of anti air missiles to protect your strategic area from the enemy attack.

The problem is, how many vehicles that you will need to cover your entire sky from a barrage of Tomahawk from 4 or 5 Arleigh Burke Destroyer? It is easier to protect the entire air space with several destroyer at the sea, because these destroyers can carry more anti air missiles than any mobile land element can do. But it means you have to ensure that the enemy can't control your near sea territory from the beginning. But that means that the enemy won't launch Tomahawk because they can't do it.

 

[XDescendantX]

@Brainsucker

Why didn't the Russians shoot down any Tomahawks, given their sophisticated AA equipment, in Syria?
https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the...ven-their-sophisticated-AA-equipment-in-Syria

I was going to say China should just buy one S400 and reverse engineer it. But Russia probably knows this already and told China they have to spend a certain amount of $ if they want this system so China was forced to buy a couple of these air-defense systems.

 

[Stuttgart001]

S-400 is design for land, if China integrate S-400 into Zubr as my previous thread, it will have a devastating range and the speed and mobility will make it as sea interceptor.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/china-zubr-s-400-devastator.482605/

As far, the missile 40N6 with 400km range is not available .
These other missiles are the same as S-300PMU.
S-400 may improve its tech some fields, but not enough to be recognized as a leap compared to S-300, therefore needn't be too excited.

@Brainsucker

Why didn't the Russians shoot down any Tomahawks, given their sophisticated AA equipment, in Syria?
https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the...ven-their-sophisticated-AA-equipment-in-Syria

I was going to say China should just buy one S400 and reverse engineer it. But Russia probably knows this already and told China they have to spend a certain amount of $ if they want this system so China was forced to buy a couple of these air-defense systems.

China did want to purchase few of S-400, but Russia disagreed.
The same is the SU-35 deal, which was that China would only like to buy 4 jets at first.

These two deals happened during the period when Russia experienced depression, for which China must buy something to support Russia .

 

[Jlaw]

With only 4 missiles / vehicle that the S-400 has, I don't think that it's enough for the country who operate it to repel the enemy strike with Tomahawk. Just like what the USN showed us recently in Syria that they can launched 50 tomahawk in one air-strike mission to Syria, you will require a lot of this type of anti air missiles to protect your strategic area from the enemy attack.

The problem is, how many vehicles that you will need to cover your entire sky from a barrage of Tomahawk from 4 or 5 Arleigh Burke Destroyer? It is easier to protect the entire air space with several destroyer at the sea, because these destroyers can carry more anti air missiles than any mobile land element can do. But it means you have to ensure that the enemy can't control your near sea territory from the beginning. But that means that the enemy won't launch Tomahawk because they can't do it.

The Russian were given advance notice to evacuate the area. All the equipment and fighters were moved. 59 tomahawk were sent but only 23 hit their intended target. Within 24 hrs the Syrian fighters were taken off from the same "damaged" runway.
You people think Yankee toys are god like.

 

[Brainsucker]

@Brainsucker

Why didn't the Russians shoot down any Tomahawks, given their sophisticated AA equipment, in Syria?
https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the...ven-their-sophisticated-AA-equipment-in-Syria

I was going to say China should just buy one S400 and reverse engineer it. But Russia probably knows this already and told China they have to spend a certain amount of $ if they want this system so China was forced to buy a couple of these air-defense systems.

Do I question the quality and capability of S400? No. I just mentioned the quantity. And for that www.quora.com is, thank, but no thanks. Whatever they write there is only an assumption. If you ask a question why don't the Russian intercept American's Tomahawk, then my answer is I don't know. They have their own reason. My concern is more about the quantity of missiles that the S400 battalion can carry. If a division can bring only 8 launchers, then they are not enough. As the United States can launch 50 or more Tomahawk in an attack operation. An anti missile dome will require more than a 8 missile launcher vehicles that can only bring 32 missiles.

 

[ao333]

I'm curious. Why is China buying S-400 now? It's a decade old, and will be obsolete export-wise as soon as the S-500 arrives. Is it because the HQ-9 has not been a successful copy? It has no foreign operators thus far, not even Pakistan, and this is the type of weapon they need the most.

 

[C130]

I'm curious. Why is China buying S-400 now? It's a decade old, and will be obsolete export-wise as soon as the S-500 arrives. Is it because the HQ-9 has not been a successful copy? It has no foreign operators thus far, not even Pakistan, and this is the type of weapon they need the most.

China has passed Russia long ago in the field of weapons manufacturing and aerospace, but they still buy Su-35 to S400 as a gesture of friendship.

Do I question the quality and capability of S400? No. I just mentioned the quantity. And for that www.quora.com is, thank, but no thanks. Whatever they write there is only an assumption. If you ask a question why don't the Russian intercept American's Tomahawk, then my answer is I don't know. They have their own reason. My concern is more about the quantity of missiles that the S400 battalion can carry. If a division can bring only 8 launchers, then they are not enough. As the United States can launch 50 or more Tomahawk in an attack operation. An anti missile dome will require more than a 8 missile launcher vehicles that can only bring 32 missiles.

why would you use S-400 to shoot down Tomahawks???

but it get's worse. I can see Chinese using S400 to shoot at MALDs, LMAO wasting big missiles for a freaking decoy.

 

[Stuttgart001]

I'm curious. Why is China buying S-400 now? It's a decade old, and will be obsolete export-wise as soon as the S-500 arrives. Is it because the HQ-9 has not been a successful copy? It has no foreign operators thus far, not even Pakistan, and this is the type of weapon they need the most.

S-400 is not obsolete . S-500 has different usage from S-400.

 

[ao333]

S-400 is not obsolete . S-500 has different usage from S-400.

The S-500 does everything that the S-400 can, but better. S-500 also has ABM and CMD capability. The reverse is not true. The only reason the S-400 won't be phased out is because it's cheaper per pop. From a reverse-engineering perspective, there's no reason to buy a S-300 upgrade, with no new features.

You guys either have problems upgrading your own S-300 copies or the Russians are forcing you to buy this by leveraging your need for their engines.