HOW TRUMP UNLEASHED MEDITERRANEAN ARSENAL ON ASSAD

[gambit]

S-400 is basically ABM system with a limited capabilities against fighter jets and CM, while S-300 is basically SAM system with a limited capabilities against BM and CM thats why its can't intercept US CM

Here is my take on this S-300/400 vs cruise missiles debate...

When I was on the F-111, there was no credible Soviet defense against the jet. At every arms control/reduction talk, one of their demands have been for US to remove the F-111 from England. We always said STFU.

My take is that even the US military is uncertain on how to defend against the cruise missile. Simply put, we never been on the receiving end of such an attack before, at least not to the scale that we launched against our targets. The cruise missile is just a simpler version of the F-111.

 

[khansaheeb]

USA tech way better than Russian technology:-

http://www.thebrofessional.net/30-f...+Raptor+Does+Things+Scientist+Cant+Figure+Out

 

[Fledgingwings]

Situation is escalating in syria.

 

[Basel]

You can shoot down a cruise missile with a machine gun but only if somehow the cruise missile make it that easy for you. Whether the Russians put their air defense assets on standby or not is pure speculations. Those who want to believe in Russian hardware will insists that those air defense radars were 'turned off'. The idea that American cruise missiles can escape detection is simply unacceptable.

Ultimately, the best defense against cruise missiles is EARLY detection from an airborne platform, aka AWACS'. Anything less and the odds of the target hit dramatically increases. No different than detection against manned aircrafts.

Do you think Pakistani LACMs have chance of getting through if 50 are fired 25 hitting target in India??

 

[gambit]

Do you think Pakistani LACMs have chance of getting through if 50 are fired 25 hitting target in India??

Depends on several factors.

As I have pointed out on other discussions relating to the Syrian airbase strike: Why was the strike done at night ? Because night time is when most people and vehicles are stationary, defenses are often on reduced alert status intentionally or unintentionally, locations of targets, and flight altitude.

You may not have a choice on whether it is night or day because the target(s) maybe in transit. Being translocation is not the same as being mobile. A truck is a mobile vehicle but a towed artillery piece is translocation. Translocation mean to be able to be moved from one place to another but on the new location, the thing must be fixed. A cruise missile is better than manned aircraft when the target(s) are often in transit but your intel can track those locations. As soon as the target(s) are stationary, the cruise missile can launch.

Manned missions requires planning. Simply put, you want the return of your weapon. The cruise missile is a one-way vehicle. Its usage is limited by your creativity.

 

[banvanaxl]

So with extended Babur range from 1000 to 2000 KM we can easily F**k indian from any point , any angle and style ... their coming s400 wont work i think so

The ball rolls both ways mate ..

Do not forget that our NFU policy is worth less than the paper it's written on and you definitely do not want to go there .. else the 120,00,00,000 folks will collectively indulge in some serious anal action across the border.



If it comes to that, it'll be all about who survives to tell the tale to their grand kids .. Pakistan has just about as much chance as that of a tinkers piss pot being mistaken for Dom Perignon.

 

[MIR RAZA HUSSAIN]

beca

What about Russian S-400 system? Why in your opinion it couldn't shot down the cruise missiles? Would you think the pantsir system could do that?

because they wer informed before and S-400 or any air defense was not working all of them wer shut down other wise some tom Hawk might have been taken out.

The ball rolls both ways mate ..

Do not forget that our NFU policy is worth less than the paper it's written on and you definitely do not want to go there .. else the 120,00,00,000 folks will collectively indulge in some serious anal action across the border.



If it comes to that, it'll be all about who survives to tell the tale to their grand kids .. Pakistan has just about as much chance as that of a tinkers piss pot being mistaken for Dom Perignon.

just for you info due to mountainous terrine of Pakistan and Gaydia cruse missiles will have advantages and cruse missiles can be use to take out radars of Air defense battires and then ballistic missiles can do the job easily.

 

[Penguin]

S-400 is basically ABM system with a limited capabilities against fighter jets and CM, while S-300 is basically SAM system with a limited capabilities against BM and CM thats why its can't intercept US CM

BS.

The S-400 Triumf (NATO: SA-21 Growler), previously known as the S-300PMU-3, is an anti-aircraft weapon system developed in the 1990s by Russia's Almaz Central Design Bureau as an upgrade of the S-300 family. It has been in service with the Russian Armed Forces since 2007. The S-400 air defence missile system uses four new missile types in addition to the missiles of the S-300PMU system: the very-long-range 40N6 (400 km), which combines active and semi-active radar homing, the long-range 48N6 (250 km) and the medium-range 9M96E2 (120 km), which are semi-active radar homing, and the short-range active radar homing 9M96E (40 km). The new anti-ballistic missiles 77N6-N and 77N6-N1 entered service in 2014, supposedly add inert/kinetic anti-ballistic capability to the system. The same missiles will also be used by the S-500, which has a clearly stated anti-ICBM role.

Types of targets the system is supposedly able to handle:

• Strategic bombers such as the B-1, B-2, FB-111 and B-52
• Electronic warfare airplanes such as the EF-111 and EA-6
• Reconnaissance airplanes such as the TR-1, U-2S
• Early-warning radar airplanes such as the E-3 and E-2
• Fighter airplanes such as the F-15, F-16, F-35 and F-22
• Strategic cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk
• Ballistic missiles (range up to 3,500 km)

Range of aerodynamic target (km)

• maximum : 400km
  
• minimum : 2km

Altitude limits for aerodynamic target (2015, km)

• maximum : 27(easily)/30, 56 (for 9m96e2), up to 185 km (for 40Н6Е)
  
• minimum : 0.005 (for 9M96) / 0.01(all) [EDIT: that's 5 to 10m]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system

So, it can clearly handle a variety of targets, at various distances and altitudes, including very low level ones.
"The system can engage all types of aerial targets including aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), and ballistic and cruise missiles within the range of 400km, at an altitude of up to 30km."
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/s-400-triumph-air-defence-missile-system/

The Almaz S-400 Triumf or SA-21 system is the most recent evolution of the S-300P family of SAM systems, initially trialled in 1999. The label S-400 is essentially marketing, since the system was previously reported under the speculative label of S-300PMU3. At least one report claims that funding for the development of the Triumf was provided in part by the PLA. The principal distinctions between the S-400 and its predecessor lie in further refinements to the radars and software, and the addition of four new missile types in addition to the legacy 48N6E/48N6E2 used in the S-300PMU2 Favorit. As a result an S-400 battery could be armed with arbitrary mixes of these weapons to optimise its capability for a specific threat environment.
The most detailed technical paper to date covering the S-400 was produced by Dr Alexander Lemanskiy, Chief Engineer on the S-400, Igor Ashurbeili, General Director, and Nikolai Nenartovich, Chief Engineer, of Almaz-Antey, published in the Russian language Vozdushno-Kosmicheskaya Oborona journal, No.3 (40), 20081. Unfortunately it lacks the detail of later Almaz-Antey disclosures on the S-300PMU2 Favorit, but does provide a good discussion of the rationale behind the S-400 design design, and its key design features.
Lemanskiy et al state that definition of the S-400 design was performed jointly by the designers and the Russian MoD, with specific capability foci in:

• Defeating threats at low and very low flight altitudes;
• Dealing with the overall reduction of target signatures resulting from the pervasive use of stealth technology;
• Dealing with the increase in target quantities resulting from the widspread use of UAVs;
• Applying all means to defeat advanced jammers employed by opponents;
• Surviving in an environment where PGMs are used widely;
• Accommodating an environment where an increasing number of nations are deploying TBMs and IRBMs.

Lemanskiy et al observed that several key imperatives were followed during the design process:

• An open system architecture with a high level of modularity, intended to permit follow-on capability growth in the design;
• Multirole capabilities and the capacity for integration with legacy IADS technologies;
• Suitability for the air defence of fixed infrastructure targets, as well as manoeuvre forces;
• Suitability for integration with naval surface combatants;
• The ability to exploit legacy missile rounds already in operational use;
• High operational mobility and deployability;
• High lethality and jam resistance;

There imperatives were applied to the design of configurations for the Russian Armed Forces and for export clients.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-400-Triumf.html

 

[Ultima Thule]

BS.

The S-400 Triumf (NATO: SA-21 Growler), previously known as the S-300PMU-3, is an anti-aircraft weapon system developed in the 1990s by Russia's Almaz Central Design Bureau as an upgrade of the S-300 family. It has been in service with the Russian Armed Forces since 2007. The S-400 air defence missile system uses four new missile types in addition to the missiles of the S-300PMU system: the very-long-range 40N6 (400 km), which combines active and semi-active radar homing, the long-range 48N6 (250 km) and the medium-range 9M96E2 (120 km), which are semi-active radar homing, and the short-range active radar homing 9M96E (40 km). The new anti-ballistic missiles 77N6-N and 77N6-N1 entered service in 2014, supposedly add inert/kinetic anti-ballistic capability to the system. The same missiles will also be used by the S-500, which has a clearly stated anti-ICBM role.

Types of targets the system is supposedly able to handle:

• Strategic bombers such as the B-1, B-2, FB-111 and B-52
• Electronic warfare airplanes such as the EF-111 and EA-6
• Reconnaissance airplanes such as the TR-1, U-2S
• Early-warning radar airplanes such as the E-3 and E-2
• Fighter airplanes such as the F-15, F-16, F-35 and F-22
• Strategic cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk
• Ballistic missiles (range up to 3,500 km)

"The system can engage all types of aerial targets including aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), and ballistic and cruise missiles within the range of 400km, at an altitude of up to 30km."
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/s-400-triumph-air-defence-missile-system/

The Almaz S-400 Triumf or SA-21 system is the most recent evolution of the S-300P family of SAM systems, initially trialled in 1999. The label S-400 is essentially marketing, since the system was previously reported under the speculative label of S-300PMU3. At least one report claims that funding for the development of the Triumf was provided in part by the PLA. The principal distinctions between the S-400 and its predecessor lie in further refinements to the radars and software, and the addition of four new missile types in addition to the legacy 48N6E/48N6E2 used in the S-300PMU2 Favorit. As a result an S-400 battery could be armed with arbitrary mixes of these weapons to optimise its capability for a specific threat environment.
The most detailed technical paper to date covering the S-400 was produced by Dr Alexander Lemanskiy, Chief Engineer on the S-400, Igor Ashurbeili, General Director, and Nikolai Nenartovich, Chief Engineer, of Almaz-Antey, published in the Russian language Vozdushno-Kosmicheskaya Oborona journal, No.3 (40), 20081. Unfortunately it lacks the detail of later Almaz-Antey disclosures on the S-300PMU2 Favorit, but does provide a good discussion of the rationale behind the S-400 design design, and its key design features.
Lemanskiy et al state that definition of the S-400 design was performed jointly by the designers and the Russian MoD, with specific capability foci in:

• Defeating threats at low and very low flight altitudes;
• Dealing with the overall reduction of target signatures resulting from the pervasive use of stealth technology;
• Dealing with the increase in target quantities resulting from the widspread use of UAVs;
• Applying all means to defeat advanced jammers employed by opponents;
• Surviving in an environment where PGMs are used widely;
• Accommodating an environment where an increasing number of nations are deploying TBMs and IRBMs.

Lemanskiy et al observed that several key imperatives were followed during the design process:

• An open system architecture with a high level of modularity, intended to permit follow-on capability growth in the design;
• Multirole capabilities and the capacity for integration with legacy IADS technologies;
• Suitability for the air defence of fixed infrastructure targets, as well as manoeuvre forces;
• Suitability for integration with naval surface combatants;
• The ability to exploit legacy missile rounds already in operational use;
• High operational mobility and deployability;
• High lethality and jam resistance;

There imperatives were applied to the design of configurations for the Russian Armed Forces and for export clients.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-400-Triumf.html

Thank you sir for correcting me

 

[HeinzG]

Here is my take on this S-300/400 vs cruise missiles debate...

When I was on the F-111, there was no credible Soviet defense against the jet. At every arms control/reduction talk, one of their demands have been for US to remove the F-111 from England. We always said STFU.

My take is that even the US military is uncertain on how to defend against the cruise missile. Simply put, we never been on the receiving end of such an attack before, at least not to the scale that we launched against our targets. The cruise missile is just a simpler version of the F-111.

That makes me wonder how modern Carrier battle groups would fare if they come under latest anti shipping missile attack.

 

[Penguin]

Technically, S400 S300 wont be an ideal weapon system to counter low flyiing terrain hugging cruise missiles like Tomahawk. Pantsir should have responded but then again it is a limited range system and it is not known for certain that it was present in the area that was targeted (although there is a picture or two floating of a destroyed vehicle that looks like Pantsir but you cannot be sure).

The al-Shayrat military airfield, near Homs, is a base used by both Syrian and Russian military forces.

S-400 can engage targets flying as low as 10m, some missile types even less (see previous post)

Russian military Pantsir, if any in Syria, would be used primairly to defend any Russian S400 itself in Syria, and S-400 is probably stationed the Russian air base near Latakia.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34976537

Syrian military Pantsir (36 to 50 max) could be stationed at the airfield, but not necessarily so (Consider: Is there a real air threat? Given limited available numbers, what is the AD priority of ths site, relative to others? Its 2 twin 30mm guns can also be used against ground targets.)

The Pantsir-S1 fire control system includes a target acquisition radar and dual waveband tracking radar (1RS2-1E for export models), operating in the UHF and EHF waveband. Detection range is 32–36 kilometres and tracking range is 24–28 kilometres for a target with 2 m2 RCS [> that implies 1m x 2m. It will be less for targets with smaller RCS. Minimum target size 2–3 square centimetres (0.31–0.47 sq in) (0.0004 square metres (0.0043 sq ft)]. This radar tracks both targets and the surface-to-air missile while in flight. Missile range is 20 km and altitude 15 km.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

The American missiles targeted Syrian fighter jets “and other infrastructure” at the base, according to a senior military official who spoke to The New York Times. The Washington Post reports that the missiles zeroed in on “air defenses, aircraft, hangars, and fuel.” But Russian assets, stationed at al-Shayrat since at least late 2015, were reportedly avoided in the strike. The base was to be “used by Russian warplanes in operations around the [ISIS]-held city of Palmyra.” and just last month, Russia sent a handful of its new attack helicopters there.
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna.../what-is-al-shayrat-military-airfield/522249/

So, if present at this airbase, the Pantsir may actually even have been among the targets...

@Arsalan: could you find it in your heart (and practical) to post said vehicle image? Much obliged!

Was it this one?

Before

After (at least this is a 4 axle vehicle with 4 supports/stabilizers, with cab similarities, just like the vehicle carrying the Syrian Pantsir systems have. If not the Pantsir vehicle, what other Syrian military vehicles are 8x8, with 4 stabilizers and this type of cab?)

http://politics.stackexchange.com/q...ia-about-missile-strikes-in-syria/17940#17940

Irrespective of whether or not Russia stood down its own air defence units when informed of the impending strike, clearly the fact they were informed didn't stop Syrian AD units from getting hit. That means either the Syrians weren't informed, or - if they were informed - they were unable to react (in time), or - if they did manage to react by activating and/or moving their AD units - at least some were unable to protect themselves.

 

[Super Falcon]

so there is some thing fishy here, if S-400, S-300 was unable to detect or counter in a short period of time, then Pakistani Cruise missile will be able to strike deep inside India with out giving them enough time to counter them.

i am new here need experts advice on this.

U hit where it hurts the most with pin point accuracy

 

[Penguin]

Thank you sir for correcting me

You're welcome (nothing personal ;-)

 

[Arsalan]

@Arsalan: could you find it in your heart (and practical) to post said vehicle image? Much obliged!.

As i said, just saw that circulating on the forum, have not details or confirmation about what it is. In fact, i will appreciate if someone can help explain this.

Here is the post:

https://twitter.com/x/status/850682393816182784

Images:

 

[Penguin]

As i said, just saw that circulating on the forum, have not details or confirmation about what it is. In fact, i will appreciate if someone can help explain this.

Here is the post:

https://twitter.com/x/status/850682393816182784

Images:
View attachment 390229

View attachment 390230

Clearly the destroyed vehicle is an 8x8 truck, with 4 hydraulical stabilizers with round 'feet', and a cab of a design just like that the vehicle that is carrying the Pantsir system container found in use with the Syrian military. See below:

Clearly in aircraft shelter setting

https://southfront.org/syrian-milit...systems-to-kuweires-airbase-near-aleppo-city/


Note Syrian (not Iraqi) flags

(Russian) Pantsir system at Latakia air base

Nevertheless, Syria is not the only Pantsir user in the Region.

Iraq Receives Last Batch of Pantsir-S1 Combat Vehicles

http://www.defaiya.com/news/Regional News/Iraq/2016/02/15/iraq-receives-last-batch-of-pantsir-s1-combat-vehicles

See also:

Surface-to-air missile weapon system Pantsir-S1 and Igla-S MANPADS system with 1PN97M Mowgli-2M thermal imager, used by Iraq's armed forces.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201704091052462296-russian-syria-air-defense-upgrade/

Those of UAE are mounted on a different truck, the MAN-SX45

Pantsir-S1 air-defence missile system of United Arab Emirates Army arrive to Yemen

http://defence-blog.com/news/pantsir-s1-air-defence-missile-system-of-uae-arrive-to-yemen.html

Jordan, Oman and Iran also have or ordered Pantsir S1.

So, question is, when/where/by whom was the pic of the destroyed vehicle taken? Original source would proof valuable information.