[SmartCat]

Swedish defense research institute has come out with a 100+ page report on drawbacks of Russian anti-aircraft weapon systems like S-400. They seem to think that Russian systems are highly overrated.

“In our report we establish that Russia’s A2/AD capability is less effective than what is claimed by either the Russian military or the Western press. For one thing, it’s more difficult than many people think to detect and strike a target that’s tens of kilometres away,” says Robert Dalsjö, Deputy Research Director at FOI, who wrote the report with Michael Jonsson.

Secondly, analysis shows that the actual range of the new Russian anti-aircraft system, S-400, which is promoted as having a range of 400 kilometres, is actually only 150-200 kilometres. Against low-flying missiles, the S-400’s range may be as short as 20 kilometres.

There are several measures for countering A2/AD systems. Some are passive, such as flying around the coverage area of sensors, or stationing troops at a location in good time. Others are active countermeasures, both “soft,” in the form of electronic jamming or chaff dispersed from aircraft, and “hard,” where portions of overall capability are physically knocked out.

“One can neutralise an entire system by knocking out just one link in a functional chain, for example a data link or a fire-control radar. And since seeing over the horizon requires airborne radar, it may then be enough to shoot down the radar aircraft,” says Robert Dalsjö.

To support their thesis, the researchers find support from, among other things, the war in Syria.

“There, we’ve seen how aircraft have merely flown detours around the areas where the Russian systems can operate. We can also see that in spite of the fact that the Russians have sold one of their most modern anti-aircraft systems to Syria, the Syrians haven’t managed to shoot down a single Western plane and, in thirty years, only an isolated few Israeli planes.”

The entire 100+ page report can be downloaded from:
https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI-R--4651--SE

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Swedish defense research institute has come out with a 100+ page report on drawbacks of Russian anti-aircraft weapon systems like S-400. They seem to think that Russian systems are highly overrated.

Dear SmartCat, thank you for sharing.

All,

I would take the report with a very big pinch of salt. The Swedes love the Russians as much as we adore the Pakistanis!! The points he is raising are too generic and would apply equally to any SAM missile system so I would ignore those points in the box. As for the Syrians - a racing car driver is usually more important than the car - the same system in the hands of the IAF could produce different results. The Israeli aircraft shot down by the Syrians are not by the S-400 but by older systems. I would not refer to shooting down Israeli aircraft as trivial as the author tends to write. For now I would say if the IAF assessed the S-400 to be a competent and reliable system after having tested and studied it then their judgement counts for more than a journalist writing based on public data.

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

journalist writing based on public data.

Isn't FOI the the Swedish Defense Research Agency, a government agency?

Sweden I think is still psyched by the Russian submarine incursions. And are even more uncomfortable by not being part of NATO, and by Russia's newly expansionist mood. Report might be to calm jittery nerves.

Syria was where Russia wanted to battle test and showcase some of their systems, except that the West didn't play ball.

Regards
Sutripta

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I would take the report with a very big pinch of salt. their judgement counts for more than a journalist writing based on public data.

Originally Posted by Sutripta

Isn't FOI the the Swedish Defense Research Agency, a government agency?

Right. FOI reports directly to Swedish Defence Ministry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedis...esearch_Agency

One obvious disadvantage of S-400 is that Pakistanis will know all about its drawbacks and shortcomings (thanks to Chaddi Buddyness between China and Pakistan). Pakistanis will surely come up with a strategy to take on (or avoid) India's S-400 in a conflict.

[ads11]

Though the Swedes might like their salt (believe me I know - I dated one, I thought I was the one with the impending heart issues come meal time..) I feel that like most rhetoric involving bleeding edge military capability, there remains an element of truth. There really can be no denying that in the hands of the Syrians, Russian air defence systems are a laughing stock. Honestly the Israelis probably do air quotes when referring to Syrian air defence batteries in their mission briefings. Fine, I can understand the message about the driver rather than the car, but I don't much fancy the odds of it doing any better in the hands of some hokey young Russian conscript. Surely they must've known and designed the system to be able to be used by relative farmhands. So either the Syrians are truly laughably inept or there remains some actual doubts about the S-400 under all that bluster. At this point one could raise the argument then that why would the USA and NATO be so worried about the S-400 purchase by Turkey then? Well, even then I think it could be a bit of a moot point. It's the radar picture that the Americans are worried about, less so the actual kinetic vehicle itself - so perhaps the former is the real threat within the S-400 system.
I really think the whole world is waiting for an engagement between an S-400 and a modern system, say an F-35. The results of which will no doubt be the most important matter in the defence world (so little luck for us Joe Bloggs to get wind of the actual results till long after).. I think that'll be the only time we can know for sure if it's up to snuff. For now all we have to go on are the respective brochures really.
I don't think the Russians have any S-400s in Latakia that I know of that could be used against F-35I's from Israel.
Meanwhile in our neck of the woods I could Maybe see S-400 systems engaging PAF units, though I think folks would be more curious to know how it would fare against the J-20 (can't see that being used against us..yet!)

[V.Narayan]

Air warfare is one subset of our military strategy. Of that air defence is one sub-set. Of that SAMs are a sub-set. And of that the S-400 is a subset. Just wanted to put the context in place. The S-400 by itself won't win or lose a conflict. Russian, American and French missiles especially from the 1970s onwards have usually performed as advertised. The air warfare missiles which have rarely done well in real life conditions (or when tested by prospective buyers) are from the British. So I would stay with the S-400 and not bother with the Swedes.

Originally Posted by SmartCat

One obvious disadvantage of S-400 is that Pakistanis will know all about its drawbacks and shortcomings (thanks to Chaddi Buddyness between China and Pakistan). Pakistanis will surely come up with a strategy to take on (or avoid) India's S-400 in a conflict.

The Chinese are clever enough to know they have an ally with an unstable administration and jihad philosophy. If they share too much with the Pakis their concern will be of information leaking out of Pakistan to USA with seven intermediaries in between. And in any case India's air defence does not depend solely on the S-400.

Originally Posted by ads11

There really can be no denying that in the hands of the Syrians, Russian air defence systems are a laughing stock.

I don't know. They may be somewhat incompetent and disorganized. It is not as if Western fighters are criss crossing Syria's skies all the time.

...but I don't much fancy the odds of it doing any better in the hands of some hokey young Russian conscript. Surely they must've known and designed the system to be able to be used by relative farmhands.

That has been the traditional Western view of Russian armed forces. Partly true. But I wouldn't bet my defense strategy on it.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The S-400 by itself won't win or lose a conflict.

Oh absolutely! I'm not saying a SAM system, however advanced is some silver bullet. That's a media problem. They're always itching to label the latest bit of kit some sort of celestial weapon..

I don't know. They may be somewhat incompetent and disorganized. It is not as if Western fighters are criss crossing Syria's skies all the time.

I disagree here. Discounting the air space around the Russian base at Latakia, initially the coalition forces were flying with impunity over Syrian skies. Heck, part of the reason Syria bent over backwards to let the Russians have a permanent base there was that at least with their arrival out of necessities sake the US and allied air forces had to liaise with the RuAF to set up air corridors in their operations against ISIS. Of course Russia handily overlooked this to bomb factions Bashar didn't fancy but that's another story..
Even now look at the disdain with which the Israeli's choose to strike Syrian territory. I think it's safe to say the Syrians truly don't have much competence left alive because they've seen folks stroll freely over their aerial patch.

That has been the traditional Western view of Russian armed forces. Partly true. But I wouldn't bet my defense strategy on it.

Sure there's value to taking a more conservative view to it but the truth is Russia has been struggling for defence staffing - mandatory conscription will only achieve so much. If you think about it there's plenty of evidence through time about the advantages in efficacy of a professional fighting force as opposed to one conscripted. All that being said, I will say that something that gets lost in the din is that Russia's combat doctrine (for all their chest thumping) is primarily designed to defend the motherland and to that effect their platforms and structures are probably sufficiently adequate. Even when thinking about the Russian kit that India has purchased it should hold that we'll be fine, as our defence posture is also traditionally defensive in nature.

Anyway that was all quite a tangent.

Ultimately I'm glad India is purchasing the S-400. What I'm unsure about is how our developing ties with the US will play out as a result of it. Already we're seeing the impact on Turkey due to that purchase. I wonder then if the tail will wag the dog and the Americans will look sideways in lieu of the riches in store for them if they could brag big Indian contracts for the coming years.

[V.Narayan]

Govt of India orders Rs 5000 crores of Akash Surface to Air Missile for IAF


In a strong sign of confidence in the indigenous Akash SAM the GoI has ordered six squadrons for the IAF and two more regiments for the Army. This will be in addition to the 8 squadrons already in service with the IAF and the 2 regiments in service with the Army. An IAF squadron comprises of 125 missiles. On the other hand an Army regiment is differently organized and comprises of 675 to 750 missiles. This is the right way to go – big orders for indigenous weapons. Such large long term orders aid local development of both design and manufacturing capabilities and ancillary supply chain.

The Akash is said to have an effective range against a fast low flying target of ~30 kms. Its warhead of ~55 kgs is large and enough to bring down/seriously damage a fast jet with a near miss. The rocket motor burns out after boosting speed to Mach 2.5+. After that a ramjet motor takes over taking advantage of the high air intake speed and keeps the missile flying at its cruise velocity of Mach 2.5+ till the target.


https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/gove...-force-2096337

Photo Source: Ministry of Defence, GoI as posted on Wikipedia

[SmartCat]

Any idea why IAF gets the Brahmos surface-to-surface missile system, and not the Army?

IAF carries out twin firings of BrahMos
https://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...le29770347.ece

[AlphaKilo]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Any idea why IAF gets the Brahmos surface-to-surface missile system, and not the Army?

IAF carries out twin firings of BrahMos
https://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...le29770347.ece

Indian Army was the first user of Brahmos. IAF has also started using them since recently. What makes you think Army doesn't have it?

Some interesting analysis: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...-mach-28-21657

I cannot vouch for the article's credibility.

From wikipedia but the Army Missile carrier: (Clearly shows the unit flag and it belongs to the Indian Army)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...S_Launcher.JPG

[SmartCat]

Defence sales is a murky world.

Dec 2 article on Firstpost:

'Akash missile system can't be trusted during war': Degraded by govt defence agencies, loopholes in strategic weapon system threaten national security
https://www.firstpost.com/india/akas...y-7728651.html

Dec 3 article on Financial Express:

Indian Air Force to get deadly Akash missiles! Places order for 7 squadrons of Made-in-India missile system
https://www.financialexpress.com/def...ystem/1783341/

Why would IAF place an order for Akash SAM system then? I think Firstpost article is a propaganda piece placed either by Russian or Israeli defence companies.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Defence sales is a murky world.

Dec 2 article on Firstpost:

'Akash missile system can't be trusted during war': Degraded by govt defence agencies, loopholes in strategic weapon system threaten national security
https://www.firstpost.com/india/akas...y-7728651.html

Dec 3 article on Financial Express:

Indian Air Force to get deadly Akash missiles! Places order for 7 squadrons of Made-in-India missile system
https://www.financialexpress.com/def...ystem/1783341/

Why would IAF place an order for Akash SAM system then? I think Firstpost article is a propaganda piece placed either by Russian or Israeli defence companies.

I would prefer to belive the person who puts his money where his mouth is. In this case the IAF. The First Post article is too generic . Words are cheap. Indian journalists tend to file criticism without backing it with solid technical analysis and believe that throwing in a some jargon suffices for technical integrity of their writing. And it is not a strategic weapon system. It is a tactical one.

Mind you it is entirely possible that Akash is not yet perfect. The last 5% of perfection in a weapon system only comes after you put it into squadron service.

[comfortablynumb]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The last 5% of perfection in a weapon system only comes after you put it into squadron service.

Reminds me of this conversation between Jim Hacker and Bernard Woolley, from Yes Prime Minister (specifically 1:10 onwards):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKQlQlQ6_pk

Noob question alert - If and when the powers that be give a Green light for taking out terrorist launch pads (whose coordinates are accurately known) across the LOC, why isn't the Army version of the Brahmos used, instead of SFs? Would that be classified as a higher escalation rather than a surgical strike, with more serious ramifications?

Cheers,
Vikram

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by comfortablynumb

Noob question alert - If and when the powers that be give a Green light for taking out terrorist launch pads (whose coordinates are accurately known) across the LOC, why isn't the Army version of the Brahmos used, instead of SFs? Would that be classified as a higher escalation rather than a surgical strike, with more serious ramifications?

Across LOC, exchanging 155 mm artillery shell is the highest level of escalation that takes place. Even if we ignore the escalation part, it does not make sense to lob cruise missiles at 'soft' targets. Each Brahmos missile costs $1.2 million, while an artillery shell costs around Rs. 40,000.

Also, there is an "indirect fire" weapon system for every range, with increased explosive power (and also cost) -

Mortars - Up to 5 kms
Artillery - Up to 40 kms
Multiple Launch Rocket System - Up to 100 kms
Cruise missile - Up to 1,000 kms
Ballistic missile - Up to 10,000 kms.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by comfortablynumb

Noob question alert - If and when the powers that be give a Green light for taking out terrorist launch pads (whose coordinates are accurately known) across the LOC, why isn't the Army version of the Brahmos used, instead of SFs? Would that be classified as a higher escalation rather than a surgical strike, with more serious ramifications?

Cheers,
Vikram

Further to Smartcat's answer, lobbing a stand off weapon of any sort is definitely a far greater provocation. In a sense using human assets kinda gives you plausible deniability should you so wish, an artillery shell or missile of any sort isn't quite the most subtle way to kill an individual target, especially when there are cases of collateral damage. Plus it's much harder to play dumb when fragments of ordinance that only belongs to you are found at the cratered target site.
Let's look at some of the most publicised incidents by JSOC, Bin Laden and more recently Baghdadi. Each time, once the intelligence was fairly concrete, the Americans sent in a team of SEALs to terminate said target. There's additional value to this. At the end of the day, the politicians and the public are far more willing to take the testimony of the humans at the end of the barrel who executed said mission than some satellite images of a cratered house. Human assets can not only add a degree of comfort for the powers that be in terms of convincing them the mission was carried out, once they're on the ground they often are able to raid the site for valuable intel (those of you who'll have seen Zero Dark Thirty would remember the scenes trawling the house for hard drives etc).
I suppose that's the reason that we still see soldiers at the tip of the spear for the most high value targets, though of course we have and will continue to see increasing use of strikes from above by drones or aircraft what have you. For our restive border regions, and given the febrile atmosphere in these areas, I think for both sides, this game of cat and mouse involving special forces or unattributed "elements" is far preferable to volleys of missiles or artillery.
And as ever there's the cost factor attributed too. Imagine the uproar if a multi million dollar missile not only inconclusively missed the target but took out a whole bunch of innocents? I imagine we'd have to hire the best retired ex Israeli Army lawyers we can to consult on the public response!