New Russian Missiles Aid China, Iran -- May Spark New Arms Race

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1786850/posts

India to acquire new air-to-air missiles
Press Trust of India(PTI) ^ | 18 Feb, 2007

IAF to acquire air-to-air BVR missiles

NEW DELHI: To maintain its unchallenged dominance in beyond visual range (BVR) combat in the South Asian region, Indian Air Force has embarked upon a major plan to acquire longer range air-to-air missiles.

India's dominance in offensive air superiority operations is being dented by the supply of similar BVR missiles to Pakistan by the US in government-to-government sales.

This sudden move has spurred IAF officials to make quick efforts to purchase 120-km range air-to-air missiles. The acquisition of such missiles, which sport ramjet propulsion, will make IAF the lone air force in Asia to have such an unparalleled capability, top IAF officials said.

The acquisition of these missiles is being undertaken in tandem with moves to induct combat aircraft with active phased array radars.

The new 40 Sukhoi-30 advanced version MKI, whose purchase in a deal worth 2.6 billion dollars has been cleared by the government, and 126 medium range combat aircraft, tenders for which are expected to be floated by this month-end, will be equipped with the new radars, officials said.

These new radars will give IAF, for the first time, the capability to detect targets as far as 300 km away and the means to fire such longer range air-to-air missiles.

Till now, the IAF had an unchallenged dominance in beyond visual range combat with its array of MiG fighters equipped with R-27 REI and R-27 RETs missiles with a target lock on of 35 km for close combat and the longer range R-77 and French R-550 Magic Mantra missiles capable of shooting down targets 60 km away.

But the recent decision of the US administration to clear the supply of AMRAAM and AIM-9M Sidewinder beyond visual range missiles to Pakistan has eroded the IAF's dominance in air combat, officials admitted.

The US government has cleared the sale of AMRAAM and Sidewinder air-to-air missiles worth 240 million dollars to Islamabad to equip its new batch of 50 F-16 fighters.

"There are moves also to start indigenous development of such long range missiles by DRDO with possible foreign collaboration," DRDO sources said.

With the induction of three Phalcon airborne early warning and control aircraft between November this year and 2009, the IAF would get the capability to conduct and control airborne operations upto 400 km inside hostile airspace.

The new Su-30MKI, which India would be acquiring by 2009, would be equipped with Ibris active phased radars which will transform the fighters into a dedicated information weapons platforms.

Thanks to a large number of fighter exercises carried out with foreign air forces, IAF pilots have mastered beyond visual range combat even in an AWACS environment. "The pilots are all agog to train with longer range BVR missiles," an IAF official said.

"May Spark New Arms Race"

So...? If we really get going on ABM defense systems and get some domestic competition going with those, they'll be far less expensive to build than nuclear weapons. We can relatively easily win this "arms race," if we have enough will to survive.

Ping.

Mean while in the 1990's, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were
"reinventing government". Making huge cuts to show just
how thrifty Democrats could be. Someone should have
pointed out to them that 90% of the reductions came at
military's expense. Oh gee! Maybe they were already too
distracted by Global Warming to realize....JJ61

R-77 = AMRAAMski

Gee, would BIll & co have anything to do with leak as well?

No shit, and the other day that moonbat Pelosi had the gall to blame the President for under funding US military training and equipment. One day the dims will be held to account for the sorry defense policies. Unfortunately it will most likely be to the detriment of our nation and include an unnecessary loss of life.

The article, in my opinion, has amped the TRUE threat posed by these missiles. Of all the missiles named there only one presents a TRUE threat (and by true i mean a real threat that is VIABLE). This missile is the S-300 (and 400) SAM system.

Let me explain.

The article mentioned the Topol-M, which is a very credible ICBM system. However as a REAL AND VIABLE threat it is absolutely nothing! Why? Well, because the only user of the Topol-M is Russia, and Russia is not going to be lobbing nukes via ICBM anytime soon. Reason is that the Ruskies recognize the implications and significance of M.A.D.! Also remember that we (the Ruskies and us) lived under MAD for several decades, with nothing happening. Third, recognize that the Russians are not going to sell one of their only remaining silver bullets to places like Tehran, Pyongyang, and most certainly NOT Beijing (probably Russia's greatest future threat). The Topol-M is not ending up in the hands of Iran, N.Korea or China.

Next let us look at the R-77 and the R-73. The R-77 is a nice missile, but saying that it is 'better' than the AMRAAM is a little disingenuous. It might have the same range (or even greater) than that of the AMRAAM, but the so called 'AMRAAMSKI' doesn't have the same level of sophistication when it comes to seeker technology. I would personally rather have 2 AMRAAMs than 4 AMRAAMskis. Now, when it comes to the Archer (R-73) and its variants (particularly its more advanced variants) we have a true threat. It is one of the best IR-AAMs around, and it actually led to the development of next-gen Western IR-AAMs (when Germany reunified the West got to see just how capable the Archer was when it inherited former E.German stocks). However the west now has missiles that are just as good ....a smattering which include the Python-5, the Sidewinder AIM-9X, Iris-T, and ASRAAM. Furthermore, the Archer is a short-range missile ....to be A VIABLE THREAT the opposing aircraft has to get CLOSE ENOUGH to use it. Now, what are the chances of (say) an Iranian jet fighter coming close enough to a USAF/USN jet to have a chance of using the Archer? What are the chances of the opposing jet getting through AWACs detection, past AMRAAMs, and getting close enough to let lose an Archer?

That is why I am saying that while some of these missiles are credible threats, they are not viable threats.

Then we have the SunBurn (and other similar missiles). This is another area that Russia has managed to do some VERY good work. When it comes to anti-shipping missiles they can arguably be called the best (whether that ruffles some feathers or not it is still quite true). Some of those missiles are true killers, and they can truly bring down a ship. What is the problem here? Well, if some freeper called 'Spetznaz' knows that the Moskit is a 'danger' you can be certain that the Pentagon has probably known that since Moses was a wee baby! And that they have come up with ways to negate the threat (possibly by having several AEGIS destroyers creating an umbrella that should mitigate against the threat). Now, the Soviet idea behind missiles like Sunburn was to use a 'ripple' salvo launch, and hopefully overwhelm AEGIS defences through sheer numbers of EXTREMELY fast, terminally maneuvering, missiles that are coming in from up and others flying a few feet above sea level. Sheer numbers leading to saturation. The question to ask is this .....does Iran have enough to do that? No. It does not. The Sunburn (and Moskit etc) are REALLY good missiles that have been turned into Bogeymen. They are very effective, but they require the nation using them to have a number of them. One can sink a ship ....but if you want to take on a US Carrier group that has several AEgis capable ships providing defence, then you need to have a number of them. Otherwise what happens is that you blow your wad for nothing!

Although it should be noted that China IS working towards having large numbersof them, but even they do not have enough to pose a threat. For now.

Which brings us to the missile that is not only a credible threat BUT a viable one as well. The S-300.

The thing about this missile is that it is really capable of doing what it says it can, and it is also able to bring down anything dumb enough to be locked on by it. The threat posed by it in Iran is arguable, but the Chinese are really making investments in this missile. The way it looks, to get to certain places in China will require B-2s and F-22s (to be honest, I wouldn't want to be in a F-35 JSF going into S-300/400 territory. The JSF is optimized against aircraft X-band radars .....personally I'd rather be in a Raptor, whose all-aspect stealth but super-cruise ability should enable it to be largely immune to S-300 SAMs). And buying an S-300 battery and training a crew to effectively use it is far cheaper than purchasing fighter jets and training pilots/support (and only to have those jets and pilots shot down within the first few hours of a war by USAF jets). One S-300 battery has a far greater chance of shooting down American jets than an entire airfield of fighter jets (which would just be AMRAAM bait), and with an integrated air-defence network that incorporates S-300 systems (and TOR missile systems to protect the S-300 radars and missiles ....the TOR is claimed to be able to even intercept a bomb, and thus should be able to protect the S-300 from HARMs etc) a nation can be able to give itself anti-aircraft protection that simply COULD NOT be provided by it purchasing jet fighters (unless that country feels like spending millions upon millions on jets that wouldn't survive the first two days of war).

To be honest, if I was some tin-pot dictator I wouldn't waste money on an airforce. I would purchase several attack helicopter gunships (to massacre my country men when they protest too much), and then spend the rest of the money on S-300 (and Tors). That would give far better bang for the buck than simply buying MiG-29s that, no matter how good my pilots or what missiles they carry, would be all shot down by some 20-something year old American pilots within the first day. At least with the S-300 I can basically be guaranteed to take down several of those pilots.

Anyways ....the only real viable threat is the S-300. The Sunburn (and similar) is a threat, but it has to be deployed in sufficient numbers. Iran (and even China) do not yet have those numbers. The R-73 and R-77 are good missiles, but they are useless if you are facing an enemy (eg the USAF) with amazing situational awareness and whose jets have already shot AMRAAMS at you (after being vectored in by AWACS) BEFORE you have even acquired them. And the Topol-M is a nice ICBM, but it will not be having Iranian or Chinese colors on it.

Only the S-300 is a worry. And I am sure that the Pentagon already knows this and has had some of the best and brightest look at ways of negating it, at least to some extent. I actually wouldn't be very surprised if there are S-300 SAMs in the Continental United States for testing .....

Very interesting post. Thanks for the intel.

The AA-12/R-77 was ready before Clinton even entered office.The 'Amraamski' name was given by NATO.

I can't help but think that if we get to the point of attacking defended sites in China or Russia nukes will be in the game, and all the S-300 systems are not going to mean much.

Now in Iran or Korea that is a different story for now.

The article is six years old. Why post an old article?

Only the S-300 is a worry. And I am sure that the Pentagon already knows this and has had some of the best and brightest look at ways of negating it, at least to some extent. I actually wouldn't be very surprised if there are S-300 SAMs in the Continental United States for testing .....==

S-300 is the old weaponry too. It is al least 20+ years old. And Russia will never sell the ful capacity of such or any weaponry. It is bad for testing but it is good means that capable versions will never be at any hands except Russia'. The modern one is S-400. It includes the new missile too.

The S-300, like most top-line Russian missile designs, has undergone several upgrades and there are various variants of the type (again, like most top-line Ruskie missiles ....e.g. the R-77 has all sorts of variants, including IR types). The latest generation of S-300 is not 'old weaponry.' It will knock nearly anything out of the sky.

Take the S-300PMU-2. 'Favorit' was introduced in around 1997-98, and that thing will chew anything flying that doesn't have 'Raptor' in its name (i.e that doesn't have the advantage offered by all-aspect stealth, whereby acquisition is degraded, and super-cruise ability, whereby the Raptor can use sheer kinematic performance to stay beyond the missile's viable acquisition range).

As for the S-400 (by the way, also known as the S-300PMU-3), the 'Triumf' is indeed superior to the legacy S-300 series. While the Russian claims that it can target stealth aircraft have to be taken with a (HUGE) grain of salt, the fact does remain that it is arguably one of the best anti-aircraft missiles out there (is it the best? Well, I'll leave that question to the makers of Patriot PAC_3, the latest versions of Standard missiles, and ofcourse the makers of the Triumf). But the fact does remain that it will engage legacy aircraft with ease, it will engage cruise missiles, and it can even offer some level of defence against ballistic missiles. That is not a missile to be caught by when you are flying a SuperHornet.

Anyways, the S-300 (particularly later generations) are a major threat. Just because the S-400 is 'better' doesn't mean that the S-300PMU-2 is rooster poo! It would be like saying that an African Lion is not a dangerous beast because Siberian tigers exist.

Both will kill you just as easy.

And of all the missiles listed in the article, only the S-300 is a major threat.

Actually you proved my point by the way ....the fact that Russia is not willing to simply sell S-400 to anyone means that the S-300 is actually a MORE DANGEROUS threat than the S-400, simply because it will be more available to threat nations than the Triumf would be!

Whether Russia has Topol-M, or extended range AAMs geared at AWACs aircraft, or some new India-Russian 'super' cruise anti-shipping missile, or the S-400 missile system ....all that doesn't mean jack. What is a worry is if IRAN gets its hand on (what you call) 'old' S-300 systems. Trust me, that 'old' missile (if old means something that was made starting from 1998) will knock the taste out of a pilot flying in a Viper or Hornet or Eagle. And while there would be serious work put into discovering and destroying such missiles, there is always the chance that some will escape ....and that some will be shot at our aircraft ....and that some will hit (and a S-300 hit is not something you parachute from). Look back at the Gulf War ....Saddam's SAMS managed to bring down a number of aircraft, and note that although his IAD network was extensive it wasn't as advanced as something (say Iran, or for that fact China) would have.

The following link shows the number of coalition aircraft that suffered attrition during GW1:

http://webcom.com/~amraam/aaloss.html

Now, imagine if Saddam (through the use of ....bear with me ...a time machine) had gotten his hairy mitts on S-300 PMU-2s.

Anyways, all the missiles listed in that article are either phantoms and phantasms (in that while credible threats they will probably NEVER be used ....a good case example being the Topol-M), or they are paper tigers e.g. the R-77 and R-73 ....a missile like the R-73 is indeed very lethal, but the aircraft carrying it wouldn't survive long enough to use it. MiG-29s are not bad aircraft ....it is just that when you are flying against the USAF/USN your chances are lower than dirt! Russian aircraft normall get a bad rap on FR, but they are actually quite good. Problem is, when you have Iraqi pilots with R-27 AAMs flying 'Soviet Doctrine' against F-15Cs with AMRAAMs and AWACS support ....well, one doesn't have to be good to kill all those Iraqi pilots! It is a turkey shoot.

A favorite scenario I love to use to drive this point is India and Pakistan. India's frontline fighter is the Russian made SU-30MKI. Pakistan's frontline fighter is the American F-16.

If the two met in a war by all measures the Pakistani airforce would be decimated! Why? Well, the MKIs radar would be picking up the Pakistani Vipersa LONG distance off, and the MKIs have formidable BVR weaponry. Then add to that that the Flankers would also have AWACS support (Israel is selling AWACS systems to India). An engagement between the Indian and Pakistani airforces would lead to a Viper massacre! But that doesn't mean that the F-16 is a bad plane ....it has proved itself over and over again. Yet in that particular scenario it would be a failure.

Same thing with the Iraqis. They had no chance! You could actually have given them F-15s and the results would have been 100% the same ....Iraqi pilots being turned into Pixie dust like it was bl@@dy open season in the skies.

Anyways, a (say) Iranian jet may have R-73s and R-77s, but it wouldn't have a chance to use them. Thus those missiles are good, but in VIABLE terms they are almost 100% useless.

The S-400 is good, but the Triumf is not being sold everywhere.

However the S-300, whcih is still one of the most capable SAMs out there, is available for sale. With sufficient money ANY country could buy them.

And they work.

That is a viable threat. The rest are nothing more than phantoms (real capability, but will never be used unless all hell breaks lose ...and if that happens we would ALSO be letting lose our own 'pet projects') and/or paper tigers (credible weapons, but not viable against an enemy like the United States of America).

The S-300 is a real threat.

The S-300 is a real threat.==

Okey. I just wanted to think that the real anti-aircraft system should be something like shoulder-launched or tripod launched which can be carried by just 1-2 men. Should reach the 20-30 km altitude in few seconds and hit the aircraft like the kynetic pebble. Like perspective anti-tank weaponry. Perspectively each russian building or vehicle carring any valueable thing like truck or APC or tank has to have one launcher. If it happened then the military aviation as we know it today will gone dead including all new toys like F-22 or B-2.
S-300 is very big and heavy and old story now. The computer-sofware inside of them is maybe 30 year old already. They may catch up pretty any aircraft now but them selves are very begemothic. It is good that they are sellable now and Russia will make some money but Russia herself does not lean on such systems.
I think the future of airwar is the unmen very small and manuarable aircraft(like fly). The big high altitude fliers would be sitting ducks. As far as I red the RUnet it is possible that such things will appear sometime as soon as those anti-aircraft things which will shoot them down.
I hope Russia will have time to rearm herself with them.