Replies

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.

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 .....