Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Mixed signals for China, India from Russia’s S-400 in Syria

Discussion in 'Indian Defence Industry' started by layman, Apr 10, 2017.

  1. Butter Chicken

    Butter Chicken Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Country Flag:
    India
    Even with 59 missiles,airstrip is functioning and some jets were saved
     
  2. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    2,297
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Only 1000 lb war head on cruise missiles, targets spread out and in harden bunkers, not really useful against a runway. Best I can tell 58 of 59 missiles reached targets and about 20 Syrian Planes destroyed plus repair areas..runways are easy to repair, was not targeted. US satellite are pretty good at showing which targets are the most worthwhile. Ex pect Russians are mainly upset because its going to call into question how valuable there S300 is as a defense measure.

     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
  3. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    2,297
    Country Flag:
    United States
    You would have trouble believing what some of these cruise missiles can do.
     
  4. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    2,297
    Country Flag:
    United States
    These Cruise Missiles Will Go Mach 3
    A new generation of engines will allow cruise missiles to hit speeds never before imagined

    [​IMG]
    • Aviation Week & Space Technology, engine manufacturers Rolls-Royce Liberty Works and Williams International are both developing small turbine engines for a new generation of faster cruise missiles.

      How much faster? How about five times faster?

      As part of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL) supersonic turbine engine for long-range (STELR) program, both are working on compact jet engines that would propel cruise missiles at speeds of up to Mach 3.2, or 2,435 miles an hour.


      Such a missile would be as fast as the SR-71 Blackbird, the fastest plane ever built. The venerable Tomahawk cruise missile, by comparison, is powered by a small turbojet engine that flies at relatively pokey 550 miles an hour.

      Cruise missiles are designed to penetrate enemy airspace at very low altitudes—as low as 100 feet—using terrain features such as mountains, hills, and forests to mask their approach. This keeps them out of view of enemy radars, which require a clear line of sight to targets.




      Putin Could Have Tried to Shoot Down Trump's Missiles. Why Didn't He?

      Most missiles rely on rocket engines for propulsion, but rocket engines are unsuited for low altitude, terrain-following flight. Instead, cruise missiles are powered by small turbine engines, scaled down versions of the kind that power most aircraft.

      While more fuel efficient and better suited to low altitude flight, turbines are slow. The lack of a viable high-speed turbine engine has meant cruise missiles must compromise, trading speed for the ability to hug the ground.

      The new generation of engines won't compromise, allowing a cruise missile to fly both low and fast. It will also almost certainly incorporate stealth technology to reduce the radar signature the enemy does pick up, resulting in a missile that will be difficult to detect and difficult to kill.

      The concept of a supersonic cruise missile is sound, but the engine is only part of the problem. The missile must be smart and nimble enough to avoid plowing into the ground at 3,572 feet per second. A Mach 3 missile will gulp fuel, so a larger fuel tank at the expense of warhead size may be necessary.

      What's prompting this research? Recent tensions with Russia and China have highlighted the aging of America's cruise missile force. Air defense missiles such as the S-400 Triumf, operated by both Russia and China, can detect and kill older missiles such as the Tomahawk.

      But the prospect of an incoming swarm of low-flying, stealthy, Mach 3 cruise missiles would be a daunting prospect for any country.
     
  5. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    2,297
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Its my understanding that now days they have cruise missiles that can have one of a swarm fly higher the others while guiding the others only a few feet off the ground.
     
  6. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    2,297
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Putin Could Have Tried to Shoot Down Trump's Missiles. Why Didn't He?
    Russia didn't react to the United States' cruise missile attack on a Syrian airfield.


    Why the Tomahawk Missile Was Trump's Weapon of Choice Against Syria
    [​IMG]
    U.S. Navy
    Author Copy Created with Sketch.
    By Joe Pappalardo
    Apr 7, 2017
    • the United States launched a volley of cruise missiles against a Syrian airfield.

      This is not one of those situations where Putin had no options. He was warned of the strikes in advance—a good and smart move, given that Russian personnel are stationed at the targeted airbase. With that information in hand, Russia could have tried to intercept America's missiles. It did not. Here's what Putin might be thinking.



      Let's start with what his military has been doing on the ground. The Syrian regime operates Russian anti-aircraft systems, but they are older and not able to handle dozens of cruise missiles. The Pentagon says its Tomahawks targeted anti-aircraft weapons at the airbase, meaning those are likely not there anymore. Russia, on the other hand, has moved its best anti-aircraft missile systems, the S-300 and S-400, into Syria. The Russian move seemed to suggest these weapons were there to protect Syrian airbases from U.S. airstrikes.



      Why the Tomahawk Missile Was Trump's Weapon of Choice Against Syria

      The thing is, these sophisticated systems have been placed at Russian facilities. According to the Russian ministry, the S-400 and Pantsir systems are stationed at Hmeymim airbase (35°24′42″N 35°56′42″E, near Al Assad Airport) and also at the Russian naval base in Tartus. These are Russian facilities—their prime military assets within Syria.

      The Syrian airbase that was targeted, Shayrat, is not too far away. The Russians use that airbase, too, and in late 2015 they improved the runway and moved equipment so that Russian warplanes could stage airstrikes from there. But they didn't need to put air defenses there to protect themselves. It's a safe bet that Russian radar protects the place. It's under the umbrella of the S-300s, which have a range of more than 90 miles, and use a radar system that extends over 185 miles. Tomahawks can be programmed to fly to avoid radar sites, but this pervasive coverage would be hard to skirt.



      Related Story



      Besides, Russia knew the swarm was coming. News agencies in Washington are reporting that the U.S. gave at least one hour of warning before the missiles struck. That is plenty of time to fire up those radars, move mobile launchers, and get the best missile crews at their stations.

      So Putin could have taken a shot at the Tomahawks. He could have claimed he was saving the lives of Syrian allies who are fighting terrorists. Even if air defenses were overwhelmed by the sheer number of American cruise missiles, a few downed missiles could have served as a rebuttal to this new aggressive posture from D.C., not to mention an information warfare coup. In addition, retaliating against cruise missiles makes the question of escalation less intense, since there will be no dead or wounded American pilots.

      But Putin didn't. Maybe this was a tactical choice he made. Maybe the U.S. called his anti-aircraft bluff. Maybe he wanted a message delivered to Assad that his support has limits, and war crimes don't help.

      Or perhaps Putin has another game, one of salesmanship.

      There is no greater open question in the defense world than just how effective Russian anti-aircraft weapons really are against American technology. Russia generates money and international leverage by selling systems that it claims can thwart American weapons. But the United States' jamming, cyberwarfare, smart missiles, and advanced decoys are designed to defeat these digitally-linked Russian systems. There would be no greater marketing disappointment than shooting at U.S. cruise missiles and missing, which would demonstrate the deterrent Russia is selling may not work as advertised.

      Putin could have shot at those Tomahawks, but maybe the risk calculus had more to do with his long-term geopolitical game than a short-term loss of face.


      Maybe he could have, maybe not.
     

Share This Page