What's new

Possible Russian S-400 sale to India and Pakistan's Response.

S-400 and S-300V4 fire control radars operating in C, X and Ku bands cannot paint low observable projectiles except at very close ranges
Improvised Missiles, Strike Force, PAF decoys..........can easily be used to counter this.

@Allen Iverson, @500, @BABA AGHORI, @HAIDER, @boomslang, @Starlord, @Lankan Ranger, @Esc8781, @Zain Malik, @MilSpec, @Indus Falcon, @F-22Raptor, @salarsikander

:cheers::pop:
First of all thanks for your tag..

Secondly it is very difficult to destroy a cruise or ballistic missiles .. there is about 20% chance of success that the SAM will shield the Missile...
 
.
First of all thanks for your tag..

Secondly it is very difficult to destroy a cruise or ballistic missiles .. there is about 20% chance of success that the SAM will shield the Missile...


Care to share precious knowledge of yours regarding 20% chance of success?
 
.
I think that this talk about drones need to be settled.

CH-3/Burraq has a speed between range of 120-150 Km/hr, with a maximum speed of 220 Km/hr (claimed, never observed). IAF has three AA guns in service: ZSU-23-4 and ZSU-23-2 having a muzzle velocity of 980m/s, and Bofors 40mm with muzzle velocity of 1030 m/s.

Assume that Burraq is flying at its maximum possible altitude of 4Km: Applying newton's law, following is the time AA gun shell would need to reach Burraq, and the distance Burraq would have moved, even if it is traveling at its maximum possible speed, and the degree of deflection needed by the shell:

ZSU-23-4/2 :Time= 0.01457 second, Distance moved by Burraq at 220 Km/hr = 89 cm, degree of deflection: 0.8014 seconds.

Bofors 40mm: Time= 0.0138 second, Distance moved by Burraq at 220 Km/hr = 85 cm, degree of deflection: 0.763 seconds.

As you can see, even at its best, a CH-3 is as good as a stationary target.

In 0.01457 seconds, ZSU-23-2 with muzzle velocity of 980m/s and a deceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 due to earth's gravity would travel only 14.28 m assuming it shoots straight up into the air. The bofors shell will travel only 14.21 m. At other angles, the trajectory would be parabolic, so it isn't a simple matter of drawing a line from the muzzle of the AA system to the position of the aircraft.

Maybe it would be a better idea if you actually fired these weapons at a real life aircraft to get a feel for their performance, before you make claims on an online forum.
 
.
Terrorist do not even have AA guns. They could even be bombed by this:

biplanes_and_us_9_GALL.jpg__600x0_q85_upscale.jpg
https://defence.pk/threads/pa-cobra-hunting-uzbek-ttp.348845/
 
.
First of all thanks for your tag..

Secondly it is very difficult to destroy a cruise or ballistic missiles .. there is about 20% chance of success that the SAM will shield the Missile...
See guys, let us not get hyped at it.. S400 is an Anti Ballistic missile defence shield, which is proven and tested platform by The Russian forces .
Now lets leave aside all the technicalities.. Hitting a projectile with a missile is like hitting an Arrow with another arrow.. It is the most difficult thing to do..
But there is a slight difference to hitting an aircraft and a missile with a missile.. The RCS of a Fighter is many times bigger than that of a Missile but at the same time the aircraft doesn't follow a predictable flight profile.. it can maneuver with decoys as well.. Hence the more difficult for a SAM to hit it.. But at the same time the Ballistic Missiles and even cruise missiles for that matter follows somewhat predictable flight path and is vulnerable on that front for a salvo attack.. only problem with BMs are that, there might be MIRVs which makes the interception dificult also the interception should happen at the terminal phase.. So i guess as long as the MIRVs are not there, the ballistic targets can be intercepted..
 
Last edited:
. .
only nuke is response of the Indian weapons.
If Pakistani Nukes are the response to Indians missile defence systems, then what will be the response for Indian Nukes, Pakistani Djinns??? ..
My dear , keyboard warriors like you are forgetting the holocaust a Nuke attack can create.. Your own nukes can destroy half of Pakistan(Lets assume that Indian nukes are a Dud) with the Radiation and fallout once it is dropped in Indian Soil..
Think before you type..
 
.
S-400 and S-300V4 fire control radars operating in C, X and Ku bands cannot paint low observable projectiles except at very close ranges
Improvised Missiles, Strike Force, PAF decoys..........can easily be used to counter this.

@Allen Iverson, @500, @BABA AGHORI, @HAIDER, @boomslang, @Starlord, @Lankan Ranger, @Esc8781, @Zain Malik, @MilSpec, @Indus Falcon, @F-22Raptor, @salarsikander

:cheers::pop:
New cruise missile in built which will glide after first thrust and once it reach the target it use second thrust . undetected..its short range.
 
.
See guys, let us not get hyped at it.. S400 is an Anti Ballistic missile defence shield, which is proven and tested platform by The Russian forces .
Now lets leave aside all the technicalities.. Hitting a projectile with a missile is like hitting an Arrow with another arrow.. It is the most difficult thing to do..
But there is a slight difference to hitting an aircraft and a missile with a missile.. The RCS of a Fighter is many times bigger than that of a Missile but at the same time the aircraft doesn't follow a predictable flight profile.. it can maneuver with decoys as well.. Hence the more difficult for a SAM to hit it.. But at the same time the Ballistic Missiles and even cruise missiles for that matter follows somewhat predictable flight path and is vulnerable on that front for a salvo attack.. only problem with BMs are that, there might be MIRVs which makes the interception dificult also the interception should happen at the terminal phase.. So i guess as long as the MIRVs are not there, the ballistic targets can be intercepted..


You forget that some of the cruise missiles also change their path based on the flight plan and terrain its flying on...
 
.
See guys, let us not get hyped at it.. S400 is an Anti Ballistic missile defence shield, which is proven and tested platform by The Russian forces .
Now lets leave aside all the technicalities.. Hitting a projectile with a missile is like hitting an Arrow with another arrow.. It is the most difficult thing to do..
But there is a slight difference to hitting an aircraft and a missile with a missile.. The RCS of a Fighter is many times bigger than that of a Missile but at the same time the aircraft doesn't follow a predictable flight profile.. it can maneuver with decoys as well.. Hence the more difficult for a SAM to hit it.. But at the same time the Ballistic Missiles and even cruise missiles for that matter follows somewhat predictable flight path and is vulnerable on that front for a salvo attack.. only problem with BMs are that, there might be MIRVs which makes the interception dificult also the interception should happen at the terminal phase.. So i guess as long as the MIRVs are not there, the ballistic targets can be intercepted..

It's not just hype, we have a genuine reason to be concerned. The thing is, while our concerns are valid, our response strategies are also valid.
 
.
You forget that some of the cruise missiles also change their path based on the flight plan and terrain its flying on...
First of all I shouldn't have included the term cruise missiles.. Cruise missiles are not high value targets, though it can be intercepted by S400, it will be a waste of an Asset.. And subsonic cruise missiles though follow terrain hugging profile are not fast enough and hence are vulnerable to Air defence guns which can spray bullets at low flying targets..
 
.
S-400 and S-300V4 fire control radars operating in C, X and Ku bands cannot paint low observable projectiles except at very close ranges
Improvised Missiles, Strike Force, PAF decoys..........can easily be used to counter this.

@Allen Iverson, @500, @BABA AGHORI, @HAIDER, @boomslang, @Starlord, @Lankan Ranger, @Esc8781, @Zain Malik, @MilSpec, @Indus Falcon, @F-22Raptor, @salarsikander, @MaXimMaRz

:cheers::pop:

Every Weapon or System which was developed , and used there is a counter to it .. Drone and decoys is just one way to confuse the Radars for any SAM's. there is a Video on youtube in which the US has explain how to Counter the S-400 ... you will find it interesting , now of course Pakistan is not that Technologically Advance or rich to counter like American do but we will find our solution to counter it .. but what i personally think , that S-400 will mostly be deployed near China border ..
 
.
US trident ICBMs on British submarines,
hehe you forgot to mention the tomahawks and the deal was done long ago.

That is because Israel was not conducting artillery strikes against origin sites of those rockets due to international pressure. SoP in case of a rocket/artillery strike is to saturate source with counter battery fire, which if done in Gaza would mean death of every Palestinian and international sanction and condemnation that accompanies it.


All saturation fantasies assume that whole of IAF and rest of SAMs (Spyder, Pantsir, Akash, S-300, whole zoo of soviet era SAMs) and Anti-Aircrafts guns would take a day off so that PAF could have a fair fight against S-400.




A dud and working missile cost same. You could field different systems ,one costlier and one cheaper, but in that case Radar would be able to make out which is what and leave interception of 'dudder' system to cheaper interceptors or AA guns.




MTCR is a missile control regime, not even a treaty. There is no legal obligation on anyone to abide by its rule so no waiver would be required.

Also SAMs are not in export control list of MTCR as they do not satisfy criterion on MTCR.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/mtcr



Or you could take a look at whole annex:

https://fas.org/nuke/control/mtcr/text/mtcr_handbook_guide-annex.pdf

Some parts of S-400 are listed under annex-II ,which urges members to consider end use, and this is implicitely not applied on SAMs.




I think that this talk about drones need to be settled.

CH-3/Burraq has a speed between range of 120-150 Km/hr, with a maximum speed of 220 Km/hr (claimed, never observed). IAF has three AA guns in service: ZSU-23-4 and ZSU-23-2 having a muzzle velocity of 980m/s, and Bofors 40mm with muzzle velocity of 1030 m/s.

Assume that Burraq is flying at its maximum possible altitude of 4Km: Applying newton's law, following is the time AA gun shell would need to reach Burraq, and the distance Burraq would have moved, even if it is traveling at its maximum possible speed, and the degree of deflection needed by the shell:

ZSU-23-4/2 :Time= 0.01457 second, Distance moved by Burraq at 220 Km/hr = 89 cm, degree of deflection: 0.8014 seconds.

Bofors 40mm: Time= 0.0138 second, Distance moved by Burraq at 220 Km/hr = 85 cm, degree of deflection: 0.763 seconds.

As you can see, even at its best, a CH-3 is as good as a stationary target.

Moral of the story: You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. If there would have been cheap alternatives to SAMs, they would not have come into existence. All countermeasures against S-400 are very costly and at this time onle USA (probably Israel?) possess them.



Terrorist do not even have AA guns. They could even be bombed by this:

biplanes_and_us_9_GALL.jpg__600x0_q85_upscale.jpg
then the entire point of the mtcr is useless then. and dont forget who's fault it is that resulted in the mtcr's creation.
 
.
hehe you forgot to mention the tomahawks and the deal was done long ago.


then the entire point of the mtcr is useless then. and dont forget who's fault it is that resulted in the mtcr's creation.

MTCR is an exclusive group of select countries, which have achieved certain milestones in UAV/ missile development.

MTCR is basically an agreement, that member nations will not proliferate UAV of more than 300 Km range and 500 Kg payload to non MTCR nations, so as not proliferate these technologies

But nothing stops them from trading these these technologies, amongst themselves.
 
.
MTCR is an exclusive group of select countries, which have achieved certain milestones in UAV/ missile development.

MTCR is basically an agreement, that member nations will not proliferate UAV of more than 300 Km range and 500 Kg payload to non MTCR nations, so as not proliferate these technologies

But nothing stops them from trading these these technologies, amongst themselves.
i cant be bothered argueing with you. enjoy your s400 with out the 40n6 missile
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom