S-400 : A silver bullet for IAF air defence systems?

[Baibars_1260]

What's wrong with the Indo-Pak wars? The only change that came about was that India lost 86,000km^2 of territory.

They also lost 38,000 km^2 to our ally.
But to return to the topic.

@Raj-Hindustani
On topic - I forgot to add Quick Reaction Surface-to-Air Missile(QRSAM) in the list with other defense system.

1. Israeli low-level Spyder quick-reaction surface-to-air missle (QR-SAM) systems (15-km range)
2. Akash area defence missile systems (25-km range)
3. long-range Barak-8 SAM systems (70 to 100-km range)
4. Quick Reaction Surface-to-Air Missile (QRSAM) (3 to 30-km range)
5. S 125 SAM systems (incorporates with the S 300 System " PSM-33 Mk.2 Radar and the ST-68 ‘Tin Shield’ Radar")
6. S-400 Triumf missile
7. Indian Ballistic Missile Defence systems

Any nation that has an impregnable air defense also has the confidence to carry out repeated air strikes on its adversaries to degrade and destroy its air assets and establish air supremacy.
Examples :
Israel's air strikes in Syria, Lebanon,
Iran, Iraq.
Turkey's air strikes and dog fights over Syria and Libya
UAE's and Saudi Arabia's air strikes over Yemen.

We can discount Russia, USA France UK etc. as they are not at war with their neighboring countries and their air domination is projected far beyond their borders. Their air defense is robust. Russia's air dominance over Crimea for example was never contested.,

Does India have an impregnable air defense?
Does the S-400 system whenever installed give India complete invulnerability?
If so, its surface to air missile assets
should protect it from any response from adversaries, and like Israel India should be free to strike all its adversaries repeatedly with impunity. Other nations in the examples above do just that. Other than conducting a Mirage 2000 escorted AN-12 for dropping "humanitarian supplies" and helicopters in Sri Lanka ( the disastrous IPKF operations) India has so far not conducted any airstrikes or air activity that has not met with a response ( all wars with Pakistan included). India has never used its air force to defend its territory from China either.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

They also lost 38,000 km^2 to our ally.
But to return to the topic.



Any nation that has an impregnable air defense also has the confidence to carry out repeated air strikes on its adversaries to degrade and destroy its air assets and establish air supremacy.
Examples :
Israel's air strikes in Syria, Lebanon,
Iran, Iraq.
Turkey's air strikes and dog fights over Syria and Libya
UAE's and Saudi Arabia's air strikes over Yemen.

We can discount Russia, USA France UK etc. as they are not at war with their neighboring countries and their air domination is projected far beyond their borders. Their air defense is robust. Russia's air dominance over Crimea for example was never contested.,

Does India have an impregnable air defense?
Does the S-400 system whenever installed give India complete invulnerability?
If so, its surface to air missile assets
should protect it from any response from adversaries, and like Israel India should be free to strike all its adversaries repeatedly with impunity. Other nations in the examples above do just that. Other than conducting a Mirage 2000 escorted AN-12 for dropping "humanitarian supplies" and helicopters in Sri Lanka ( the disastrous IPKF operations) India has so far not conducted any airstrikes or air activity that has not met with a response ( all wars with Pakistan included). India has never used its air force to defend its territory from China either.

India has so far not conducted any airstrikes or air activity that has not met with a response ( all wars with Pakistan included).

Don't know about your knowledge but suggestions to read sometimes from international sources as well! We might be having too many wrong info!

Just one example_

The Right Stuff In the Wrong Place, by Edward C. Ing..., THE WASHINGTON MONTHLY

www.unz.com

 

[Baibars_1260]

India has so far not conducted any airstrikes or air activity that has not met with a response ( all wars with Pakistan included).

Don't know about your knowledge but suggestions to read sometimes from international sources as well! We might be having too many wrong info!

Just one example_

View attachment 695932

The Right Stuff In the Wrong Place, by Edward C. Ing..., THE WASHINGTON MONTHLY

www.unz.com

Being better informed is beneficial to improving intelligence.
An unarmed civilian Beechcraft parked in the open is a military target and was known to Indira Gandhi who was personally managing air operations in the Western and Northern Air command functioning AOC and instructing the pilots over RT? And the IAF would waste ammunition on a Beechcraft when there were plenty of more worthy targets on the ground? While the Beechcraft was not even an enemy asset. Speaks volumes for the intelligence of air operations controllers and if ACM P.C.Lal was twiddling his thumbs while Mrs. Indira Gandhi was screeching into the RT.
So were you fighting Uncle Sam or Pakistan? Because if you were fighting Uncle Sam you came up short declaring a unilateral ceasefire when Task force 17 turned up in the Bay of Bengal gently knocking outside Vizag harbor. That was the response !
The Soviet Union asked you to continue the fight offering more Tu-16 Moss AWACs, more Mig 21s, more Su 7s to replace the ones downed by the PAF. Any nation with such overwhelming support from a superpower and facing a demoralized enemy would have pressed their advantages to take back the self claimed territory.
But you can tell a chicken with its yellow feathers and squeaks.
Rather expensive payback for one Beechcraft

 

[Fighting Falcon 01]

1) Procurement of HAVA SOJ( capable of locating, deceiving and blinding radars and communications equipment) 4 to 6 units to replace old DA 20s at the same time develop long range SEAD weapons
2) develop stealthy drones which can carry SOWs or SEAD weapons in internal bays these low cost low RCS drones can carry out deep strike roles using SOWs without risking manned aircraft
3) Supersonic cruise missiles are already in development for navy make a variant capable of land attack deploy them with low flying sub sonic missiles
4) purchase HQ9B the 300km range will give IAF pilots something to think about at the same time it can protect strategic assets from enemy cruise missiles
5) ensure surveillance of s400 movements and deployments to effectively neutralise Chinese can help in that regard
Such measures can negate the s400 advantage rest assured PAF will not sit idle while Indians induct Rafael and s400

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Being better informed is beneficial to improving intelligence.
An unarmed civilian Beechcraft parked in the open is a military target and was known to Indira Gandhi who was personally managing air operations in the Western and Northern Air command functioning AOC and instructing the pilots over RT? And the IAF would waste ammunition on a Beechcraft when there were plenty of more worthy targets on the ground? While the Beechcraft was not even an enemy asset. Speaks volumes for the intelligence of air operations controllers and if ACM P.C.Lal was twiddling his thumbs while Mrs. Indira Gandhi was screeching into the RT.
So were you fighting Uncle Sam or Pakistan? Because if you were fighting Uncle Sam you came up short declaring a unilateral ceasefire when Task force 17 turned up in the Bay of Bengal gently knocking outside Vizag harbor. That was the response !
The Soviet Union asked you to continue the fight offering more Tu-16 Moss AWACs, more Mig 21s, more Su 7s to replace the ones downed by the PAF. Any nation with such overwhelming support from a superpower and facing a demoralized enemy would have pressed their advantages to take back the self claimed territory.
But you can tell a chicken with its yellow feathers and squeaks.
Rather expensive payback for one Beechcraft ☺

Seriously???

I will start then will start questioning on PAK fighter pilot capabilities, so pls leave it!

PAK was having a very big advantage during the both wars 1995 and 71 because They were having fighter planes with equipped with AA missiles. Wherein, IAF was not having a single plane with AA missiles , but still Pakistan was unable to save EAST Pakistan and take even Kashmir in 1965.

The Soviet Union asked you to continue the fight offering more Tu-16 Moss AWACs, more Mig 21s, more Su 7s to replace the ones downed by the PAF,
You don't have any knowledge or only one side knowledge! Just read about how many countires supported to Pakistan during the war also gave their fighter aircrafts to PAF.

Imagining that you were getting support from US, UK, china, Srilanka and muslims countries but still unabl to save or achieve anything in both wars.

1. 1965- why was war happened?
Option 1 - To save Lahore
Option 2 - To get Kashmir

I find smile on my face when people say that saving the Lahore was a victory!

2. 1971 - I don't think that I need to explain! Bangladesh is itself a proof.

Again I would say that people are having too much wrong information's!

Sorry for OFF topic discussion - not going to response anymore!

 

[arjunk]

It is half glass full and half glass empty?

I would rather say that Indian army was able to control 65% of J & k during the 1948 war. It was a pak army losses because losing 65% of J & K which claims by PAK.

India started with 100% though...

 

[Baibars_1260]

We should stick to the topic and I am mentioning below how the S75 Dvinas (the S 400 of the era ! ) were operated by India in 1965 war. But I must respond to a few of your inaccuracies and obfuscations.

Seriously???
I will start then will start questioning on PAK fighter pilot capabilities, so pls leave it!
PAK was having a very big advantage during the both wars 1995 and 71 because They were having fighter planes with equipped with missiles. Wherein, IAF was not having a single plane with AA missiles but still was unable to save EAST Pakistan and take even Kashmir in 1965

☺In 1971 what were the Mig 21s equipped with? "Broom handles"?
Yet one was felled to an F-6 and one fell to an F-86.
PAF fighter pilots capabilities?

You don't have any knowledge or only one side knowledge! Just read about how many countires supported to Pakistan during the war also gave their fighter aircrafts to PAF.
Imagining that you were getting support from US, UK, china, Srilanka and muslims countries but still unabl to save or achieve anything in both wars.

Pakistan was under sanctions since 1965.
Could I request you to edit your posts checking, your grammar, sentence structure and vocabulary? I am sure your English is excellent but poor editing and spell checks gives the opposite impression.

Again I would say that people are having too much wrong information's!

Right ! Here is an example of wrong information on the use of an SA-75 Dvina SAM by the IAF in 1965. It is more relevant to the topic of this thread.

On 8 September 1965, during the 1965 Indo-Pak war, an Indian S-75 Dvina was fired against an unidentified target believed to have been on a night mission above Ghaziabad near Delhi during the height of a paratrooper scare. Subsequent news reports would claim the destruction of a PakistaniC-130 west of Delhi, incorrectly publishing a photograph of the wreckage of the self-destructed missile as evidence of airplane wreckage. According to Indian sources, no Pakistani aircraft managed to penetrate so deeply into Indian territory,.[10] Bharat Rakshak
Nothing new ! The IAF was showing an AMRAAM as evidence of an F-16 being downed.

 

[Baibars_1260]

1) Procurement of HAVA SOJ( capable of locating, deceiving and blinding radars and communications equipment) 4 to 6 units to replace old DA 20s at the same time develop long range SEAD weapons
2) develop stealthy drones which can carry SOWs or SEAD weapons in internal bays these low cost low RCS drones can carry out deep strike roles using SOWs without risking manned aircraft
3) Supersonic cruise missiles are already in development for navy make a variant capable of land attack deploy them with low flying sub sonic missiles
4) purchase HQ9B the 300km range will give IAF pilots something to think about at the same time it can protect strategic assets from enemy cruise missiles
5) ensure surveillance of s400 movements and deployments to effectively neutralise Chinese can help in that regard
Such measures can negate the s400 advantage rest assured PAF will not sit idle while Indians induct Rafael and s400

Agree.

If we look back. India acquired the S-75 Dvina systems in 1963. The S-75 Dvina was the S-400 of its era with a fearsome reputation, downing USAF U2s, B52s and Martin B57 reconnaissance aircraft. In the war of 1965 Pakistan faced the S-75 Dvinas when the systems had already proven themselves in combat and would go on to establish a record in many wars. As far as we know the S-400 has not downed a single aircraft manned or unmanned since it has been inducted by several nations including those in combat. S300s are in use in Syria and Ukraine.
If Pakistan could live with the S-75 Dvinas through two wars ( found ways to jam them or avoid them) then it can live with the S400 as well.

 

[Falcon26]

Being better informed is beneficial to improving intelligence.
An unarmed civilian Beechcraft parked in the open is a military target and was known to Indira Gandhi who was personally managing air operations in the Western and Northern Air command functioning AOC and instructing the pilots over RT? And the IAF would waste ammunition on a Beechcraft when there were plenty of more worthy targets on the ground? While the Beechcraft was not even an enemy asset. Speaks volumes for the intelligence of air operations controllers and if ACM P.C.Lal was twiddling his thumbs while Mrs. Indira Gandhi was screeching into the RT.
So were you fighting Uncle Sam or Pakistan? Because if you were fighting Uncle Sam you came up short declaring a unilateral ceasefire when Task force 17 turned up in the Bay of Bengal gently knocking outside Vizag harbor. That was the response !
The Soviet Union asked you to continue the fight offering more Tu-16 Moss AWACs, more Mig 21s, more Su 7s to replace the ones downed by the PAF. Any nation with such overwhelming support from a superpower and facing a demoralized enemy would have pressed their advantages to take back the self claimed territory.
But you can tell a chicken with its yellow feathers and squeaks.
Rather expensive payback for one Beechcraft ☺

As General Yeager once tweeted, attacking that aircraft hurt the Indians because it was used to pick up downed and wounded Indian pilots lol

 

[Goenitz]

Just what I thought.

Good boy!


Good post!

He’s peddling a cheap Indian propaganda and has problems with the facts. These Indian revisionists always end up embarrassing themselves. He doesn’t want people to talk about feb 26/27 because it perfectly encapsulates the PAF’s qualitative edge over the IAF. He rather live in his Bollywood bubble.

Technically we are still in war with India so 71 was a battle/war.
Plus it was difficult to fight when people are not with you.. Same way 'mighty' IA still cannot crush movements in assam, mizoram, nagaland etc

 

[Baibars_1260]

Technically we are still in war with India so 71 was a battle/war.
Plus it was difficult to fight when people are not with you.. Same way 'mighty' IA still cannot crush movements in assam, mizoram, nagaland etc

Unfortunately, there will never be peace with India. Ironically the so called "1000 year old victory " touted briefly ( very briefly) by the then Indian government quickly fell by the way side as recognizing the realities spelled out by none other than Indian COAS General Sam Manekshaw himself the Indian Prime Minister agreed to the 1972 Simla summit. There was no hope of any "victory" in West Pakistan and Indian tanks would not be rolling into Lahore anytime soon. The "victory" in the East turned sour with Indian troops leaving the territory after only 60 days of occupation. The governments in India from 1972-1984 were willing to live with Pakistan, and even cut Bangladesh out of the equation.
This regime is different. It is not Kashmir but deep religiously inspired fascist hatred against Pakistan because it sees Pakistan not just as another country but only as a Muslim population which is to be slaughtered.
I am afraid the next war will have no ceasefire and will stop only with mutual annihilation.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Russian S-400 Surface-to-Air Missile System: Is It Worth the Sticker Price?

Many countries do not fully appreciate that effective air defense requires a networked system and not just one missile system component. Getting the true defensive value out of the S-400 surface-to-air system requires additional components that add costs and complexities.

www.rand.org

_________________________________________________________________________

Interesting extract from the article above showing the limitations of the S400 unless integrated with other defense systems.
________________________________________________________________________
The Indian Armed Forces, like other national militaries seeking to boost their air defense capabilities, must sort through tremendous financial and technical challenges. India faces a diverse set of ballistic missile threats from its neighbors and no single system can solve this complex challenge. Even the S-400, a very high-performance high-altitude missile aerospace defense system (HIMADS), has important limitations.

At a basic level, the S-400's field of view for the search and fire control radar is limited to the horizon of the earth. Because of this common limitation, search radars are typically placed on tall masts to better see over the horizon. An even better solution is to position radars on specialized aircraft, airborne warning and control aircraft systems (AWACS), or on stationary tethered balloons known as “aerostats.” However, without over the horizon sensors, the S-400, and other powerful HIMADS system, are vulnerable to a low-altitude attack by cruise missiles, which, in large numbers, can overwhelm an air defense system.

To be effective against an array of missile threats, the S-400 regiments need to be tightly integrated with AWACS aircraft. Depending on the number of S-400's and the types of targets they are expected to defend, a military may need to expand the size of its AWACS fleet to provide nearly continuous coverage to the SAM sites. Yet, the cost of fuel and maintenance make it expensive to operate a sizable fleet of AWACS aircraft.

Missile tracking information acquired by the AWACS will have to be directed to air defense aircraft launched on alert and/or short-range air defense systems deployed in defense of the high value HIMADS. All this networking is complicated, susceptible to error, and extremely expensive.

The total systems cost of deploying an effective integrated aerospace defense is likely to be many times the procurement and maintenance costs of the S-400 system. Any country with these systems could be vulnerable to a massive operational failure like that experienced by the Saudi armed forces when a cruise missile attack was reportedly launched directly by the Islamic Republic of Iran or its Houthi allies in Yemen on two key Saudi Arab Oil Company production sites.

Furthermore, the low-altitude cruise missile threat is not the only threat. The drone attacks on the Saudi oil facilities and the ballistic missile attack on an American airfield located in Iraq in retaliation for the Trump Administration decision to assassinate General Qasem Soleimani are just a couple of examples of the inherent difficulties in effective air defense. In both cases, air defenses were defeated at a fraction of the cost of complex air defense systems that are difficult to operate effectively. The Iranian accidental downing of the Ukrainian airliner is another example of how difficult it is to operate air defense systems and not make tragic mistakes.

 

[Falcon26]

Unfortunately, there will never be peace with India. Ironically the so called "1000 year old victory " touted briefly ( very briefly) by the then Indian government quickly fell by the way side as recognizing the realities spelled out by none other than Indian COAS General Sam Manekshaw himself the Indian Prime Minister agreed to the 1972 Simla summit. There was no hope of any "victory" in West Pakistan and Indian tanks would not be rolling into Lahore anytime soon. The "victory" in the East turned sour with Indian troops leaving the territory after only 60 days of occupation. The governments in India from 1972-1984 were willing to live with Pakistan, and even cut Bangladesh out of the equation.
This regime is different. It is not Kashmir but deep religiously inspired fascist hatred against Pakistan because it sees Pakistan not just as another country but only as a Muslim population which is to be slaughtered.
I am afraid the next war will have no ceasefire and will stop only with mutual annihilation.

*mutual* is the operative word. No power can undo Pakistan without that power staring at annihilation. This is what really irks the Hindu nationalists, they know that despite their zealous hatred of Pakistan, there’s nothing they can do about it. Zilch. Just fake surgical strikes and more Abhinandans. Pakistan is here to stay till kingdom come, whether they like it or not.

Pakistan is the ultimate repudiation of the Hindu nationalist agenda and it drives them nuts that there’s nothing they can do except peddle in fake news and online rants.

 

[The Raven]

There are a number of reasons why the US and NATO has historically not relied on fixed/semi-mobile SAM systems as an air defence doctrine, but rather invested in an "active dynamic" air defence ethos, i.e. advanced multirole fighters backed by airborne surveillance systems (AEW&C). SAM systems are fine against ballistic threats and as short range tactical systems embedded in large land based units as defence against low altitude air threats, but as active air defence systems against dynamic air threats they have several weaknesses, which can be readily exploited. The concept of long range SAM systems is a "poor mans" attempt at air defence.

The US has developed a strategy against modern long range SAM threats by employing 3 key elements - active decoys, long range stand off weapons, and ARMs. A good example of this is the HARM, JSOW, and MALD (Miniature Air Launched Decoy) combination, see video below.

In the case of the PAF, it has the long range air borne surveillance (Erieye and ZDK-03), the long range stand off weapons and cruise missiles (Babur, Raad, CM-400AKG) and ARMs (CM-102 and MAR-1). In addition, it could have something along the lines of the MALD in the form of the Tornado decoy systems developed by Integrated Dynamics (http://idaerospace.com/tornado/), a...

a lightweight, high-speed, mini-turbojet decoy system with autonomous navigation, pre-strike decoy and fire & forget capabilities ...

A TORNADO system consists of 8 decoy aircraft, a pneumatic catapult launcher system and a portable ground station for pre-programming mission profiles. The TORNADO is designed for decoy missions where simulation of actual fighter aircraft is required and the ground control stations provides simultaneous multiple-vehicle flight capability with a range in excess of 200 km

Note the parts highlighted in bold. In addition, according to the PDF brochure of the Tornado system (http://idaerospace.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Tornado.pdf), its typical payloads include...

Radar enhancement devices

These can be used to simulate the RCS and flight profile of a fighter aircraft. A swarm of these launched against indian S400 units could mimic PAF fighter aircraft profiles at ranges of 200km using RCS enhancement devices, which would rapidly deplete the S400 unit missiles, as well as give away their radar and location data, which can then be used for precise coordinated strikes using a combination of cruise missiles and long range SOW from safe distances.

So yes, while the S400 system is a threat, it's by no means invincible, and given its fixed mode of operation, once accurately spoofed, identified, and positioned, it can quickly become a sitting duck of a target.

 

[JamD]

There are a number of reasons why the US and NATO has historically not relied on fixed/semi-mobile SAM systems as an air defence doctrine, but rather invested in an "active dynamic" air defence ethos, i.e. advanced multirole fighters backed by airborne surveillance systems (AEW&C). SAM systems are fine against ballistic threats and as short range tactical systems embedded in large land based units as defence against low altitude air threats, but as active air defence systems against dynamic air threats they have several weaknesses, which can be readily exploited. The concept of long range SAM systems is a "poor mans" attempt at air defence.

The US has developed a strategy against modern long range SAM threats by employing 3 key elements - active decoys, long range stand off weapons, and ARMs. A good example of this is the HARM, JSOW, and MALD (Miniature Air Launched Decoy) combination, see video below.

In the case of the PAF, it has the long range air borne surveillance (Erieye and ZDK-03), the long range stand off weapons and cruise missiles (Babur, Raad, CM-400AKG) and ARMs (CM-102 and MAR-1). In addition, it could have something along the lines of the MALD in the form of the Tornado decoy systems developed by Integrated Dynamics (http://idaerospace.com/tornado/), a...



Note the parts highlighted in bold. In addition, according to the PDF brochure of the Tornado system (http://idaerospace.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Tornado.pdf), its typical payloads include...



These can be used to simulate the RCS and flight profile of a fighter aircraft. A swarm of these launched against indian S400 units could mimic PAF fighter aircraft profiles at ranges of 200km using RCS enhancement devices, which would rapidly deplete the S400 unit missiles, as well as give away their radar and location data, which can then be used for precise coordinated strikes using a combination of cruise missiles and long range SOW from safe distances.

So yes, while the S400 system is a threat, it's by no means invincible, and given its fixed mode of operation, once accurately spoofed, identified, and positioned, it can quickly become a sitting duck of a target.

Excellent post and completely on point. Look at how much Iran invests in SAM systems and then look at the state of their air force. PAF has traditionally followed the US/NATO style of air defence doctrine and should continue to do so since we have been lucky to have an air force that can do so.