Guess who called “ no brainer” 1st.

Originally posted by tankfanatic:

again the article clearly said the system have multiple type of missile...and able to engage as close as 20km (which is the edge of shorads).... at 20 km is not OTH. Obviously the russian try to designed a multi tier multi level air defence missile.... the reason also obvious...to have everything in one system is better than to have a couple of TOR-M1...and S300...and whatever else dragging behind the CAD? the smaller the number (yet able to perform all task) is better.

Tunguska were not meant to shoot down low flying cruise missile...it can but doesnt mean it should.

Remind u horizon issue is just one of many tricky issues for long range “big “ SAMs to handle the low flying cruise missile, there are other issues like what Shotgun mentioned the “deck” height in his post.

Originally posted by tankfanatic:

this is a no brainer...it literally use its own seeker....

ofcourse its also a no brainer to figure out that the S400 is an intergrated system which mean the detection of target were not necessarily by its own radar ..which also mean it can received target position even before the target reach its detection range.... so why the fuss?

Ya, a brain with too much anyhow thinking will come out this super duper SAMs. You probably play too much PC games that leads you have such thinking, tell me any type of SAMs that can be guided by the offboard radars in the world, sorry, not in the computer games.

Originally posted by tankfanatic:

again the article clearly said the system have multiple type of missile...and able to engage as close as 20km (which is the edge of shorads).... at 20 km is not OTH. Obviously the russian try to designed a multi tier multi level air defence missile.... the reason also obvious...to have everything in one system is better than to have a couple of TOR-M1...and S300...and whatever else dragging behind the CAD? the smaller the number (yet able to perform all task) is better.

Tunguska were not meant to shoot down low flying cruise missile...it can but doesnt mean it should.

Lol, in the land, you are assuming within 20kms radius, there wouldn’t be any hilly terrain which the Tomahawk will exactly capitalize. That works out 1260 sq kms in total!

You seem to believe whatever junks that appears online without using your own mind to judge, S400 is intended to feature as many types as possible missiles. But only the S400 evolved from S300PM-3 is actually deployed, an S-300 is only 20kms in range! What a joke!

No matter how many types of missile, the engagement radar of S400/300 is always the same. Which means the profile will be the same.

At least Proton has realized that there’s a physical barrier that limits the S-400’s radar can’t detect whatever targets at it’s maximum range, yet a slowmo like you only till now wants me to repeat whatever I have explained in my previous posts? If a no brainer likes you want to give it a try AGAIN: I’ll repeat here again: How your S-300/400 engagement radar, as advertised in hundreds kms range, detects a low flying Tomahawk, just several meters above the ground, over the horizon, maybe 20kms away?

Originally posted by protonhybrid:

for your kind reference.

Your level of understanding of the military basics are well demoed so far, so I won’t be surprised you would try all the best to comb the web and find 1 or 2 pieces of whatever “ food for thought” that appears online without your own knowledge to make a selective judgement. You can desperately search all over the web to find something suiting your argument but just ignore the plain/ basic factor that almost every army deploys low tier /close in air defense systems that counter the threat from the low flying targets may suddenly pop up from the horizon. I even went so far that I gave you how the Russian Army deploys low tie TOH-M1 and Tunguska CIWS to protect S-300/400 unit from the low flying cruise missile attack.

Originally posted by protonhybrid:

not precisely replying to you, but anyways, this is about effective range beyond the horizon of s-400 radar.

Lol, As usual, you never understand the stuff that you are quoting or talking about, even the article you quoted has already given you the answer, yet you still drew the wrong conclusion upon it. I have highlighted the part below that exactly explained why the said S-400 will have the over the horizon ENGAGEMENT ability,

The "big" missile [designation otherwise unknown] has a range of up to 400 km and will be able to engage "over- the-horizon [OTH]" targets using a new seeker head developed by Almaz Central Design Bureau. This seeker can operate in both a semiactive and active mode,

It’s obvious that the over the horizon engagement/attack ability is provided by the said S-400 missile’s ACTIVE RADAR SEEKER, NOT because the S-400 Radar has the “effective range beyond the horizon” as you misunderstood.

An s-400 unit will have to 1st DETECTs the target before it ENGAGEs the target. What I said is the S-400’s radar doesn’t have the ability to detect the target over the horizon, I never say the proposed S-400 will never have the ability to engage or attack the OTH target. But you have to understand if the S-400 Radar can’t detect the target OTH, how it will launch the S-400 missile towards the horizon? if the S-400 missile is not launched, how the missile’s onboard radar seeker will start to work that provides the OTH engagement ability?

As far as I know, the currently deployed S-400 is actually evolved from now defunct S300 PM3, so you can see the current S400 is basically the latest S-300 ADS. Basically you can use openly available S300PM2/PMU2’s data to assess it.

As for the 400km ranged S400 with big 40N6 missile we always see in the various articles, that one is still under development and therefore no news and data for it.

Lol, Ignorance leads to annoyance!

The basic law of physics is the ray from the S-400 radar can’t penetrate the radar horizon and will either bounce back or be absorbed by the terrain surface. If the Tomahawk is below the S-400’s radar horizon, then the radar can’t detect the target even though it has the advertised maximum detection range in hundreds kms. Mainly Depending on the height of the radar, the radar horizon in the open sea (the flattest terrain possible) is usually 20-40 kms.

Don’t even know the very basic concept shows someone’s ignorance.

radar horizon

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/r/04406.html

(DOD, NATO) The locus of points at which the rays from a radar antenna become tangential to the Earth's surface. On the open sea this locus is horizontal, but on land it varies according to the topographical features of the terrain.

Proton, let me put in this way: it seems you are the falling victim of Yanks media propaganda that illustrate Russia & China are now capable to challenge The US of A in a global base, that’s just Pentagon’s tricks to justify its hefty military budget that accounts for half of the world total. What we can see Russia & China are basically playing defense only at their doorway instead. Yanks are using this technique only to scare small nations to fall into their influence and buying more of their arms.

One example, AA gun theoretically can shoot bird, if you just compare the AA gun’s speed & range to that of the bird ( Like what you did in comparison of S400 & Tomahawk), but in actual use, everybody will know it’s not practical and ridiculous.

So it’s not about the last line of interception or not, it’s because the low flying profile & very long range of Tomahawk as well as the S400 is designed for high altitude theater defense that pre-determine the S400 system is not capable to handle low flying, low cost Tomahawk. Always bear in mind the earth after all, is round. No matter how your S400 radar’s max detection is advertised to be in hundreds kms, it still has to follow the basic law that limits its physical detection to the horizon. If it’s hilly terrain, then the horizon could be much closer to your S300/400 post. Furthermore, the tomahawk is with a range of 1500kms, as long as it needs to use TERCOM for its guidance, it always has to fly low.

However, if the cruise missile is air launched, like the SLAM-ER, because it’s launched in high altitude, Then, yes, S-400 can intercept it with easy like what some one has quoted. But again, Yanks are still evilest after all, they developed so many type standoff air borne munitions. Like those GPS guided bombs are dirt cheap, would you justify yourself to use expensive S400 shots to intercept those cheap stuff that saturating your air defense?

Originally posted by tankfanatic:

it can ..yet it doesnt mean it should....

Obviously Proton’s meaning is: it should, or he won’t come out his comment like: “Tomahawk, mate you probably haven't heard of s-400”, that shows he is no clue about modern military stuffs he is talking about, yet you can see who talks like a judger. Well, even some basic he also don’t know, what else can you expect from him.

If you think S400 is for intercepting ultra low flying, terrain following cruise missiles like Tomahawk, then you should wonder why Russians, in practice, actually created low altitude air defense systems like Tor-M1 and Tunguska to protect S-300/S-400 ADS from the attacks like cruise missiles & other precision weapons?

S-300/400 systems are designed for theatre air defense with long range missiles to neutralize aggressors & supporting planes at high altitude, by doing so, that will leave the poor radar coverage at low altitude and the long range SAM is in a difficult position to engage low flying cruise missiles prompted up from terrain in a short distance. That’s why the low tier ADS like Tor-M1 and CIWS like Tunguska come to play. On the contrary, the Tomahawk by design is to follow terrain for guidance. Such flying profile determines the terrain will most likely block the line of sight of long range radars, so, it’s not surprised to see a tomahawk suddenly emerges from the behind of a hill and let the S-300/S400 units no time to respond, however, Tor-M1 is designed to address this, the vehicle mounted radar spines very fast, providing a good update rate on horizon scan. The Tor SAM is designed to engage ultra low flying cruise missile usually flying just meters above the ground that let the long range SAMs like S-300/400 incapalbe to intercept at this stage.

Don’t over read it, as long as your IFF is in fault when you are in the air war, you are equal to a soldier forgot his infantry password in the battlefield. See how serious the IFF failure on a fighter can cause, this is just 1 case among many more:

Tornado crew shot down after friend-or-foe system failed
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article424174.ece

WITH 60 seconds to decide whether the dot approaching at a rapid speed from 23,000ft was a friendly bomber returning from a mission over Baghdad or an incoming Iraqi missile, an American Patriot anti-aircraft battery opened fire.

The split-second decision led to one of the tragedies of the Iraq war last year: the dot was an RAF Tornado GR4, flown by Flight Lieutenants Kevin Main and David Williams who died instantly as their aircraft disintegrated in a ball of fire.

On the publication yesterday of the RAF’s board of inquiry into the incident, a senior British defence source said the lives of the two men had been “cut short by a terrible accident”, caused by “human intervention and technical failure”.

After more than a year of investigation by the RAF and the US Army, it was revealed that several factors led to the disastrous “friendly-fire” incident on March 23 which was only the third day of coalition airstrikes on Iraq.

The American Patriot crew which had “misidentified” the approaching Tornado as an anti-radiation missile, was inexperienced, and had no direct communications with its battalion headquarters to seek advice about friendly aircraft in the area.

British defence sources said the American crew had not been trained specifically about the likely threat from Iraqi aircraft or missiles.

In fact, although the Iraqis launched a number of ballistic missiles at Kuwait, Iraq’s air force never became engaged and there were no anti-radiation weapons fired at coalition ground systems throughout the war.

However, the fundamental flaw which played a key part in the destruction of the Tornado was that its “identification friend-or-foe” (IFF) system which was supposed to send coded signals to anti-aircraft batteries had failed.

Steps have now been taken to install a new IFF system to all Tornados.

In outlining the findings of the RAF board of inquiry, the senior defence official said that Flight Lieutenant Main, the pilot, and Flight Lieutenant Williams, the navigator, never knew that their IFF system had stopped working.

There should have been a warning light in the cockpit, but a power failure had scuppered what was supposed to be a crucial fail-safe system.

Believing that it was safe to start a descent from 23,000ft to return to the Kuwaiti air base at Ali al-Salem, the Tornado pilot reduced altitude rapidly.

The aircraft was about 16 miles from the Patriot missile location on the Kuwaiti/Iraqi border — one minute’s flying time — when it received a direct hit. There was no time for either crew member to eject to safety. The defence official said that the Patriot missile crew followed a strict computerised procedure under which the signature of the approaching “target” was assessed to judge whether it was a coalition aircraft or a hostile missile.

But with no working IFF on board the Tornado, the Patriot computer deduced that it was an anti-radiation missile, and the target was attacked.

The board of inquiry said the criteria programmed into the Patriot computer were based on the many anti-radiation missiles available worldwide “and were, therefore, very broad”.

The board considered that the criteria should have been “much tauter, based on the known threat from Iraq”.

It also concluded that the US rules of engagement covering hostile anti-radiation missiles were “not robust enough to prevent a friendly aircraft being classified as an anti-radiation missile”.

As I said in my last post, you use IFF to interrogate those bogeys, if it doesn’t answer correctly, then it’s up to the pilot or CGI for proper action, how many times NATO’s blue on blue fires are caused by the IFF failure already?

Yanks' economy is going down teh drain while russian federation is bouncing back to be a superpower in military and economy too. russian federation spends money wisely whereas yanks waste them on useless wars. they got no money for development.
which yankee offensive nukes are far superior to russian ones mate? i can't think of any. be it defence or offense, my friend, russians have the clear edge. they're not just as bloodthirsty warmongers as yanks.

In year 2006, Yanks economy grew at 2.9%, in relative term, yes, it lags behind that of Russia, but do you ever check the figure in absolute term? 2.9% Yanks’ GDP growth translates into USD is near 400 billion bucks, almost generate half entire Russian economy! Russian’s entire GDP is around 800 billion in 2006! Think about it! If you like to say it’s like drain, then half Russia is already drained!

Tomahawk, mate you probably haven't heard of s-400, how can they hit russian federation. and russian federation always lagged behind usa in naval power since usa has abundant natural resources and warm water port, which russian federation lacks. but with deployment in syria in mediterranean patrol, and revival of strategic patrol of tupolev bombers, we can surely see mr putin is in with a mission. yes they may seem archaic now, but can you say the same about russian s-400, even s-500 systems that some speculate may well have been developed already in secret.

and russian federation is indeed the leader in this field i'm afraid my friend, no matter who leads in stealth planes or who leads in carriers.

LOl, another joke, Yes, I never heard S-400 is for intercepting Tomahawk. Can you elaborate on that? I’ll see how you going to answer, then the credibility of your rest comment will be self solved.

Originally posted by protonhybrid:

mate that was around a few decades ago. the soviets signed that treaty because they made a mistake DIPLOMATICALLY, they lost the war in diplomacy and politics not in actual weaponry or anything else.

in fact it can be argued that overall ussr was more powerful than usa in weaponry while diplomatically usa was obviously more aggressive posing and positioning weapons systems close to soviet borders as close as turkey italy and germany etc. while the crisis of global destruction broke out when cowboy yankees showed their natural traits by crying foul when soviets deployed missiles in cuba.

and the missiles you mentioned pershing II and RS10 or ss-20, still ss-20 has longer range, greater firepower. can you tell me what you're talking about? it was still seen to be and really is a case of political failure by likes of gorbachev or other soviet leaders. and recall that mr putin is ditching the INF treaty amidst a spree of other such ditching of treaties.

What, the Russians of whom you sing the praises all the time are not smart at all? What DIPLOMATIC mistake? You mean Russians are in such courtesy to exchange their 600 plus, much better in your term SS-20s for mere 200 plus, much smaller and inferior (again in you term) Pershing II in the intermediate Ballistic Missile Ban? Dude, just one simple question you could ask yourself, would you exchange 600 plus Mercedes Benz cars for 200 plus Protons just for Diplomatic reason or courtesy or not? If you do, you can start to check who the kid in the forum is NOW.

SS-20 is up to 5 times heavier than Pershing II, yet its range is only double that of Pershing II, the below image is the comparison of SS-20 & Pershing II, if someone still in a mentality that the bigger is the better and draw his edge conclusion upon, then I should I say?

SHOTGUN, the radar usually accompanied with IFF probe, fighters are primarily based on IFF signals to know the targets are friendly or not. The pilot won’t care the target is western made stuff or not, as long as the opposite doesn’t answer his IFF signal correctly, he will be in high alert. Besides radar, there are many other sensors carried by fighters, a good ESM sensor suit can tell the remote target’s radar in emitting is what type, at what mode, the sensor fusion will combine all inputs from different sensor units, to be passive or active, and present to the pilot for fire control.

Originally posted by ferryman2393:

i've offered my explanation before in other threads.

from what i gathered its the inability of the a/craft to register Western made a/craft as bogeys. there was an explanation from the RAAF abt this peculiarity with their hornets but they managed to sidetracked it due to their in-house capability which i reckon does not pleased uncle sam.

all this arises from the tomcats uncle sam sold to iran during the shah's reign where it was used to wallop saddam hussein's airforce during khomeini's reign. they learnt their lessons thereon. or so it seemed. apparently, they don't want future weapons they sold to be used against them. the drawback to potential buyer was that it couldn't be used not only against uncle sam. but against uncle sam allies as well. or uncle sam does not wish his allies to grab each others' throats.

the turkish f16s were up against ground targets for which they should not have any problem. but try pitting them up against the greeks' western a/craft. see how it'd go.

makes sense or not?

Wow, what is this? Black magic? But you have to figure out, how an F15J was shot down accidently by a sidewinder from another fighter, a same type F15J!

Actually what fvwerra talked about the RMAF limited offensive ability is most likely caused by monkey version F-18 exported by Yanks, some functions are locked by Uncle Sammie prior to export. Can’t get what I mean? Think about one daily item, say, Nvidia manufactures the same structure graphic card chips to achieve maximum volume, but Nvidia is offering different level of Graphic cards to the market, like GF7200, GF7600, how does Nvidia do it? Very simple, they just lock some function of the same structure chip to let it become low end GF7200, those without locking, become relatively high end GF7600.

Originally posted by protonhybrid:

your analogy lacks a few key points. vital ones. russian federation's arsenal is far superior to usa's in penetrative ability, range, destructive ability among others. the gunmen in your case are almost equally well equipped, not in reality though!
second, the bulletproof vest (kevlar let's say) may protect your torso but not much more. A shot in the head is more than good enough, now if you've a minute or so of rapid fire from let's say SMG or some other automatic weapon with great range, accuracy and penetration, a glock owner with vest at a great range wont do much, nor can he do much.
russian defences on the other hand are not well known to public as they're quite secretive about their projects (rightly so) instaed of boastful yankees who trumpet even their failed projects in order to ratchet up support for them amongst their faithful "allies" (puppets rather).

I agree so far the Russians’ offensive nuke force are far superior than the current Yanks’ BMD system, but don’t sit idly, Yanks are spending big chunk of money to improve it, furthermore, the better offensive ability than the defensive ability doesn’t downgrade that the Yanks’ offensive nuke force are even more "far superior " than Russian’s zero BMD ability towards main Nuke arsenal of US.

US maintains a modern SSBN fleet with all Ohio class, some even got excess to be converted to Tomahawk launch platforms, while, Russians? Sorry, most their SSBNs are no money to be proper maintained, a few can be on duty. For ICBMs, most US missiles are minuteman-3 standards, while how many Topol-M( SS-27) are even deployed NOW?

Double post, deleted

Well, I think I have elaborated enough so far and indeed should be your turn to provide your “unbiased” backup of your persist calling” Russian ICBM is more advanced than that of Yank’s” ?

Never mind, I just like to remind a piece of history how an edge on Ballistic missile technology let Yanks win the missile treaty in 1980s.

The Pershing II is an advanced middle range BM with terminal guidance and maneuverable RV, refer to the below video clip, you can see “fins” are presented on the warhead of Pershing II,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K6Zfc8Xy-k

obviously, fins are for aerodynamic control, do you agree, or you think it’s biased? If it’s for aerodynamic control, so the fins are only workable in the air, do you agree, or think it’s biased? The fins on the warhead( RV) are the evidence that the RV is maneuverable ( via fins’ aerodynamic control). Obviously, the Russians were convinced such terminal guided/maneuverable BMs are no match for their own counterpart: the SS-20. that’s why they willing to give in their number superiority and signed the MRBM ban accordingly

Lol, what cog? You mean SAF is a cog of your so called common regional security architecture? sounds funny, being such a cog, obviously you are obliged to fulfill your cog role, isn’t it? So, when our good neighbor wants to fight in Spratly for the oil greed, the cogged RSAF is liable to send in F15 to fight as well, isn’t it? Siao, for a neighbor even doesn’t want to supply water, what’s the point for you to fight for its greed of oil?!

Now the more conscious new Aussie government wants to re-examine the true capability of the F-18Fand may well lead to the suspension of its procurement. Well, as I questioned last time, Aussies should consider the eagles instead of the Superbugs.

Jet contract may be torn up
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Tom Allard
December 31, 2007

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/jet-contract-may-be-torn-up/2007/12/30/1198949675268.html

Advertisement
THE $6.6 billion purchase of 24 Super Hornets as a stop-gap fighter jet could be jettisoned by the Rudd Government as it reviews all aspects of the program to give Australia an edge in air-combat capability in the region.

Defence Department planners are believed to have been asked to present a detailed analysis on all the fighter jet options to the new Federal Government and how they stack up against likely adversaries — the first time such a study has been done for at least five years.

All projects in the $30 billion program will be carefully examined. That includes what aircraft are to be bought, in what numbers, when and at what price.

A senior Government source said: "Absolutely everything is on the table."

Even if contracts have been signed, as is the case with the Super Hornets, the Government is prepared to break them if the case is compelling. This marks a shift from previous Labor thinking.

The air combat program is supposed to deliver air superiority in the region — long regarded as a fundamental element of Australia's strategic doctrine, given its large land mass and geographical isolation.

As devised by the previous government, it came under sustained criticism from military aviation experts.

The coming year is looming as a critical one. A final decision must be made on the centrepiece of the air combat project — a $15 billion outlay on up to 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The high-stealth plane has been troubled by delays and is at risk of major cost blow-outs.

The prevailing view in the Government is that it makes sense for the air combat force structure to be re-examined at the same time. A defence white paper outlining the nation's long-term strategic priorities, to be prepared next year, is also likely to guide the review.

Writing in his local newspaper last week, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon made clear his concerns with the Super Hornets — a purchase pushed through with great haste by his predecessor, Brendan Nelson, now the Opposition Leader.

"Few decisions of the Howard government were more controversial than its commitment to spend more than $6 billion on 24 Super Hornets without proper due process or capability justification," he wrote.

Dr Nelson sold the Super Hornet option to cabinet's National Security Committee this year without the co-operation of defence chiefs or undertaking the detailed analysis that usually precedes acquisitions of such scale and expense.

Just months before Dr Nelson's pitch, RAAF planners had said an interim jet was not required. Defence analysts, meanwhile, have argued that the Super Hornet is the wrong aircraft anyway, lacking stealth and power.

The Super Hornet contract — like all those for foreign military sales — can be abandoned at a cost of about $300 million. If the contract is not dumped, the Government may seek to renegotiate its terms or buy fewer planes.

The Government's review takes place against a backdrop of rapid advances in Russian-made fighter jets, many of which are being sold to governments in the Asia-Pacific region.