India S-400 Acquisition - News Updates and Discussions

gadeshi

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,636
Now @Immanuel
don't be so sure of this point. As I am from N.E and worked pretty much close to services here, I would say that 1 regiment can't cover the whole of A.P. You do need at least a regiment of 3 to be relaxed over here :).
Pretty much so, but batteries are not constant oositioned, but constantly moving.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
 

Immanuel

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
3,555
Likes
7,476
Country flag
Now @Immanuel
don't be so sure of this point. As I am from N.E and worked pretty much close to services here, I would say that 1 regiment can't cover the whole of A.P. You do need at least a regiment of 3 to be relaxed over here :).
Considering a regiment can have up to 256 ready to fire and 384 missiles including reloads, 1 regiment is more than enough to cover A.P/Sikkim. The entire East & North East (Bengal/Orissa, Sikkim/AP which in my opinion would require 4 regiments, Pak would need 3 (from Punjab, down to Gujarat/Maha), All Kashmir/Himachal would need 1, 3 regiments can easily cover all of the south, 1 regiment will protect all of Andaman and surrounding areas. Keep in mind the protected distance of a single battery is around 400 km in radius or 800km in diameter. For Eg: basing a single battery near Tezpur alone can cover a distance beyond Lhasa in Tibet.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
8,761
Likes
22,778
Country flag
Pretty much so, but batteries are not constant oositioned, but constantly moving.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
That's the reason I did said 3 regiments. Taking in consideration the geography of A.P, a single regiment is not enough. And moreover the weapon is good only when it could track its target.
 

Immanuel

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
3,555
Likes
7,476
Country flag
Keep in mind, S-400 in this context would be a the main large area defense weapons, meant to proect the frontiers from long ranges. They will be combined with Barak-NG, Spyder ADS and Akash for point and key asset defense.
 

Immanuel

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
3,555
Likes
7,476
Country flag
That's the reason I did said 3 regiments. Taking in consideration the geography of A.P, a single regiment is not enough. And moreover the weapon is good only when it could track its target.
3 regiments in A.P alone is over-kill, they will spread the battalions and batteries over good distances allowing for better over-lapping coverage. Batteries will be mobile but they won't venture far, partly because they won't need to. They will move in and out of secured underground bunkers, find appropriate fire positions relative to the enemy, fire and scoot.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
8,761
Likes
22,778
Country flag
Considering a regiment can have up to 256 ready to fire and 384 missiles including reloads, 1 regiment is more than enough to cover A.P/Sikkim. The entire East & North East (Bengal/Orissa, Sikkim/AP which in my opinion would require 4 regiments, Pak would need 3 (from Punjab, down to Gujarat/Maha), All Kashmir/Himachal would need 1, 3 regiments can easily cover all of the south, 1 regiment will protect all of Andaman and surrounding areas. Keep in mind the protected distance of a single battery is around 400 km in radius or 800km in diameter. For Eg: basing a single battery near Tezpur alone can cover a distance beyond Lhasa in Tibet.
I am sure you are undermining the geography of A.P. Arunachal is divided into two controlling sectors basically. One is Tezpur and another being Tinsukia (both in Assam). Tezpur does ahve area control from Tawang in West to Upper Subansiri in East (All along Tibetean plateau) and Tinsukia virtually controlling West Siang in West to Anjaw in East. Another reasons bordering Myanmar in being manned by troops from Tinsukia and Dimapur in Nagaland. Now to get a upperhand and aerial dominance in the region you have to allign one regiment each in Tezpur and Tinsukia. As I have already mentioned earlier in my post that the weapon system is good enough only when it does start tracking targets.

Now to be practical, if ever Chinese aggression occur over in this area, it is very unlikely that they would repeat their 1962 feat of infiltrating through Tawang sector. I would place my dime on the thought that they would make a coordinated move on west as well as east front. Places like Anini has been regularly seeing their influx. So it would be impractical to place just a regiment in Tezpur. Moreover it is very unlikely that they would use BM in these areas. There best bet would be to use their Airforce to accompany their infantry and mechanized division. So stretegically speaking, 1 regiment in Tezpur and one in Tinsukia with other one being in reserve is a viable option here.

And also take into account the mobility factor. I have came across troops who consider mobility in A.P to be much more hazardous and troublesome then J&K.
 

swastic_1170

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
101
Likes
85
Country flag
Finally a nice acquisition proposal. A long pending one but seeing it go thorough till completion will be a dream come true..
 

Immanuel

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
3,555
Likes
7,476
Country flag
I am sure you are undermining the geography of A.P. Arunachal is divided into two controlling sectors basically. One is Tezpur and another being Tinsukia (both in Assam). Tezpur does ahve area control from Tawang in West to Upper Subansiri in East (All along Tibetean plateau) and Tinsukia virtually controlling West Siang in West to Anjaw in East. Another reasons bordering Myanmar in being manned by troops from Tinsukia and Dimapur in Nagaland. Now to get a upperhand and aerial dominance in the region you have to allign one regiment each in Tezpur and Tinsukia. As I have already mentioned earlier in my post that the weapon system is good enough only when it does start tracking targets.

Now to be practical, if ever Chinese aggression occur over in this area, it is very unlikely that they would repeat their 1962 feat of infiltrating through Tawang sector. I would place my dime on the thought that they would make a coordinated move on west as well as east front. Places like Anini has been regularly seeing their influx. So it would be impractical to place just a regiment in Tezpur. Moreover it is very unlikely that they would use BM in these areas. There best bet would be to use their Airforce to accompany their infantry and mechanized division. So stretegically speaking, 1 regiment in Tezpur and one in Tinsukia with other one being in reserve is a viable option here.

And also take into account the mobility factor. I have came across troops who consider mobility in A.P to be much more hazardous and troublesome then J&K.
Geography has little to do with basing such units, since moving them around once basing them would be limited to a few 10 of KMs from underground shelters. You are also thinking along lines of Army controlling zones while this order here is for the IAF. As said a regiment can be pretty big with significant firepower.

A single fire unit can protect Tezpur and another Tinsukia. Besides, you should know these are but area defense sams. In and around there will be plenty of Akash, Barak-NG and Sypder.
 

Shadow

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
495
Likes
1,070
Country flag
The IAF’s Perception Management Disconnect & Its Plans For TMD

The customary press conference given by the Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) of the Indian Air Force (IAF) every year prior to Air Force Day (which falls on October 8) by and large targets contemporary issues on the balance-of-airpower in the subcontinent and the more glamorous and glitzy issues regarding the IAF’s on-going force modernisation efforts and future plans. However, issues regarded as ‘esoteric’ by the mainstream media in India are very rarely raised and explored. This was exactly the case on October 3, when not a single question was asked, for instance, about the IAF’s thinking and desired forcer posture regarding theatre missile defence (TMD), or about the fate of the An-32RE tactical transport aircraft upgrade, or about the IAF’s roadmap for the large-scale induction of various types of simulation systems and part-task trainers for both frontline combat/transport aircraft and helicopters, as well as those related to standoff precision-guided munitions (PGM). Nor did the CAS, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, bother to throw any light on such issues through his prepared narrative that was read out by him prior to the question-and-answer session.

Therefore, this is a honest effort by your’s truly to throw some light into the issues concerning the IAF’s desired TMD force posture, and future prospects for inducting into service an IAF-specific version of the LCA (Navy) Mk1 MRCA, along with the Rafale M-MRCA. But first, a few words about how the IAF failed on October 8 to undertake a successful perception management exercise. While the IAF has rightly touted its Su-30MKI heavy-MRCAs as being air-dominance platforms, this fact-of-life was totally missing in the IAF’s giant billboard that was displayed on the parade ground at Hindon on October 8. What was shown through an illustration was a Su-30MKI armed only with R-27R and R-77 BVRAAMs—no R-73Es, no Litening-2 LDP, and no PGMs.

This is inexplicable, given the fact that in successive Aero India and DEFEXPO expos since the previous decade, both HAL and BrahMos Aerospace have repeatedly displayed scale-models of the Su-30MKI armed with both AAMs and PGMs! So what prevents the IAF from showcasing similar exhibits? Your guess is as good as mine.

TMD Developments
Though the IAF had decided to acquire TMD assets way back in 1996, it was the MoD-owned DRDO that first got into the act of proposing a homegrown solution, for which it initiated the development of the PAD/PDV family of exo-atmospheric interceptor missiles and AAD family of endo-atmospheric interceptor missiles. For target acquisition-cum-engagement, two EL/M-2080 ‘Green Pine’ active phased-array L-band long-range tracking radars (LRTR) were ordered in late 1998 from Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), along with two THALES-built Master-A MFCRs, and a TMD simulation testbed from Israel’s Tadiran Electronic Systems.


The primary threats—both then and now—stemmed from the Pakistan Army’s 80 solid-fuelled single-stage M-11 (Hatf-3/Ghaznavi/CSS-7 Mod 1/DF-11) 280km-range TBMs that were inducted into service on February 22, 2004, and 60 liquid-fuelled single-stage Hatf-5/Ghauri-1/Nodong-1 IRBMs of North Korean origin, was inducted into service on January 8, 2003 under the 47 Missile Group of the Pakistan Army’s Strategic Forces Command (SFC). Presently, the Pakistan Army deploys two Missile Groups each of the Ghauri-1 and Ghaznavi (grouped under two separate Artillery Brigades, these being the Hyderabad-based Missile Brigade South comprising Missile Groups 25, 35 and 40; and the Sargodha-based Missile Brigade North comprising the 14, 28 and 47 Missile Groups).

During hostilities with India, all these missiles will be armed with conventional HE or FAE-based warheads. Each such Missile Group comprises 18 Ghaznavi TELs each with one ready-to-fire missile and two reloads, and 18 Ghauri-1 TELs each with two ready-to-fire missiles and two reloads. A Group can also be divided into three Batteries (with six Ghaznavi TELs and six missiles plus two reloads and six Ghauri-1 TELs with 12 missiles and 24 reloads). Presently, Batteries of the Ghauri-1 and Ghaznavi are deployed at Gujranwala, Okara, Mangla Multan, Jhang, Sonmiani, Quetta and Dera Nawab Shah.

Unfortunately, despite 19 years of R & D effort, the DRDO has to date been unable to even offer a fully functional TMD system, leave alone a networked TMD network. The main problem has been the DRDO’s inability to develop hypersonic interceptor missiles and their internally-mounted Ka-band active phased-array radars for terminal guidance. Only homegrown X-band and Ku-band radar seekers have been designed and tested without demonstrable success.


And that is precisely the reason why, two years ago, when a combined team from IAI and Russia’s JSC Almaz-Antey MSDB made an unsolicited presentation to the IAF on an improved version of the S-400 ‘Triumph’ LR-SAM (a generation ahead of what has been sold to China) that would make use of IAI’s latest EL/M-2090U UHF-band active phased-array LRTR, the IAF began making hectic plans for procuring such a system for TMD within the foreseeable future.



Presently, the S-400 makes use of four different types of supersonic endo-atmospheric interceptor missiles (top speed of 4.8km/second): the 40N6E, the 9M96E2, the 48N6E3 and the 48N6E2, all of which are armed with HE-fragmentation warheads. What Russia has proposed for the IAF are two HYPERSONIC missiles, the exo-atmospheric 77N6-N and the endo-atmospheric 77N6-NI, having top speeds of 7km/second and also being the first SAMs of Russian origin to possess INERT warheads, i.e. warheads that do not contain any explosives and instead, are ‘hittile’, meaning they will destroy inbound TBMs, IRBMs or MRBMs by sheer force of impact.



The most revolutionary element of the 77N6-N and the 77N6-NI hypersonic LR-SAMs will be their on-board nose-mounted, Ka-band millimeter-wave active phased-array radar seekers and their real-time discrimination algorithms required for fire-control and guidance of hit-to-kill interceptors. To this end, the radar seekers have been designed with a rigid mount and narrow beam to provide precise angle metric accuracy. The combination of metric accuracy, wide bandwidth, and high Doppler-resolution capabilities makes them excellent sensors for real-time discrimination, for they can provide extremely accurate identification-processing estimates of motion differences caused by mass imbalances on real and threat-like targets.


The 300-tonne EL/M-2090U ULTRA C-22 LRTR features an array of 22 UHF-bandtransmit-receive modules (TRM) in a single clustered unit that has been designed so that modules can be easily swapped. UsingUHF, rather than the higher frequency bands, has particular application at long ranges since it suffers from less signal loss in the atmosphere. A discriminating innovation of theELM-2090U is the digitisation of the signals at the TRM-level, which allows more flexibility in beam-forming and shaping. For TMD along a sectoral footprint, IAI has developed the EL/M-2090U’s ULTRA C-6 version, which has six TRM clusters. Each cluster can electronically steer its beam through +/-60 degrees in azimuth and across a 40-degree sector in elevation. In all cases, the array can be mechanically tilted through 30 degrees in elevation to provide a total elevation coverage of 70 degrees. The larger C-22 version comes mounted on a rail assembly that can be mechanically slewed through +/100 degrees to give 320-degree coverage.

As per the IAF’s projections, there exists a requirement for 12 Batteries of the S-400 (each Battery using four TELs each housing four cannister-encased LR-SAMs), plus 12 C-6 LRTRs and two C-22 LRTRs. In other words, as per the IAF’s appreciation, a total of 11 strategic sectors are required to be protected against inbound TBMs, IRBMs and MRBMs.

But does this all mean that the procurement of S-400 LR-SAMs is a foregone conclusion? Absolutely not. Significant questions still remain over the yet-to-be-demonstrated effectiveness of the hypersonic 77N6-N and the 77N6-NI missiles. In addition, a lot will depend on Russia’s ability/inability to ramp up series-production of such missiles over the next five years. Also, exercising the Russian option means that India will have to invest cost-prohibitive financial resources on deploying a network of space-based early-warning satellites, since Russia has diminished capacities in this arena. But most importantly, the US is not sitting by and let Russia and Israel have the cake and eat it as well. Since 2012, the US has been taking keen interest in India’s plans for acquiring exo-atmospheric/endo-atmospheric interceptor missiles, especially after the latter officially decided not to field a new generation of solid-fuelled tactical ballistic missiles—be they conventionally armed or nuclear-capable—for replacing the liquid-fuelled Prithvi-1 NLOS-BSMs of 1990s vintage. What this essentially meant, was that unlike Pakistan, India will not use ballistic missiles of any type that are conventionally armed, since such weapons have zero counter-force/counter-strike value. Pakistan, on the other hand, views conventionally armed ballistic missiles as weapons that can be employed as ‘terror weapons’ against civilian targets like large Indian cities as part of an effort to demoralise the civilian population residing in cities that are either India’s financial hubs, or technological hubs.

Therefore, if Pakistan wants to secure the deterrent value of its strategic WMD arsenals against an Indian TMD shield, it can only do so if it formally adopts a ‘no first-use’ doctrine with universal applicability, at least for its strategic WMD inventory, if not for the short-range TNWs that are presently intended for use only in battlefields within Pakistan. Whether Pakistan will be willing to, or forced into adopting such a posture following the forthcoming meeting between US President Barack Obama and Pakistani Prime Minister Mian Mohd Nawaz Sharif (slated for October 22), remains to be seen. Prior to this meeting, however, there will be a series of meetings held in Washington DC between the Pakistan Army’s COAS, Gen Raheel Sharif and his SPD Director-General on one hand, and their counterparts from the Pentagon.

If Pakistan decides against adopting the a ‘no first-use’ doctrine, then the US will have two policy options to act upon: firstly, degrade and diminish the credibility of Pakistan’s nuclear WMD assets by offering to supply India with the hypersonic (Mach 8.2) Theater High-Altitude Air-Defence (THAAD) TMD system that has been jointly developed by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon; and secondly, initiate contingency planning along with India, the UK, Afghanistan and possibly Iran, for physically confiscating or destroying Pakistan’s entire arsenal of nuclear WMDs.

It is in this light that one ought to view the symbolism of Indian Prime MinisterNarendra Modi’smeetingwith the Chairpersonof Lockheed Martin, Ms Marillyn Hewson, inNew York on September 24, 2015. That India’s national security decision-makers will favour the THAAD over the S-400 is hardly in doubt, since they are already convinced about the superior performance parameters of the US-origin TMD solution. At the military-industrial level too, both Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have already established their reputations in India as worthy industrial offsets partners and leading network-centric solutions providers. For instance, the systems integration software for the Indian Navy’s Gurgaon-based, Rs.452 crore state-of-the-artInformation Management and Analysis Centre (IMAC), which was commissioned on November 23, was provided entirely byRaytheon, with the computing servers coming from CISCO. In future, the IMAC will morphe into the ‘nodal fusion centre’ of the Navy’s Rs.1,003 crore National Command Control Communications and Intelligence Network (NC3I).

For the IAF’s countrywide, quick-reaction TMD network too would such a‘nodal fusion centre’ be required, along with the requirement for networking with the vast array of space-based early warning satellites that the US presently deploys. Therefore, if the IAF opts for the optimum TMD solution that makes use of THAAD, then India for sure will be required to ink theBasic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation (BECA), which is the key to securing access to ballistic missile early warning alerts from the US Air Force Space Command’s satellite networks.

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.in/
 

brational

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
1,223
Likes
2,644
Country flag
A single fire unit can protect Tezpur and another Tinsukia. Besides, you should know these are but area defense sams. In and around there will be plenty of Akash, Barak-NG and Sypder.
Add a battalion in Shillong. This along with Tezpur and Tinsukia/Chabua will cover whole NE airspace. For Sikkim you need to place a battalion each in Hashimara and Panagarh.
 

Yumdoot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
778
Likes
688
The IAF’s Perception Management Disconnect & Its Plans For TMD

That India’s national security decision-makers will favour the THAAD over the S-400 is hardly in doubt, since they are already convinced about the superior performance parameters of the US-origin TMD solution. At the military-industrial level too, both Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have already established their reputations in India as worthy industrial offsets partners and leading network-centric solutions providers. For instance, the systems integration software for the Indian Navy’s Gurgaon-based, Rs.452 crore state-of-the-artInformation Management and Analysis Centre (IMAC), which was commissioned on November 23, was provided entirely byRaytheon, with the computing servers coming from CISCO. In future, the IMAC will morphe into the ‘nodal fusion centre’ of the Navy’s Rs.1,003 crore National Command Control Communications and Intelligence Network (NC3I).
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.in/
:devil: See told you guys so.

Import opportunity. :drool:
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
8,761
Likes
22,778
Country flag
Geography has little to do with basing such units, since moving them around once basing them would be limited to a few 10 of KMs from underground shelters. You are also thinking along lines of Army controlling zones while this order here is for the IAF. As said a regiment can be pretty big with significant firepower.

A single fire unit can protect Tezpur and another Tinsukia. Besides, you should know these are but area defense sams. In and around there will be plenty of Akash, Barak-NG and Sypder.
Geography does play a lot of role in your area defence and air superiority. Why do you think IAF is augmenting four of its bases in East (2 already operational in N.E) for MKI's, if it would not have played such a vital role. I've hitched ride in Mi-17 at some of the advance border post in A.P and did experienced the flying pattern used by pilots to evade Chinese radars. Do you think Chinese would not use these maneuvers in time of a confrontation? Moreover, area defence or air dominance is not at all complete without an AEWS. Only few days ago IAF were about to hit the panic button when to of the MKI's hit blindspot while on a routine sortie in the area. See, the point is untill and unless you saturate the sky with firepower, you cant dream about an area defence or air dominance. And to counter any threat from China, the batteries would have to be well within A.P rather then in Tezpur or Tinsukia.

Moreover Army does plays a major role in A.P then IAF. As of now they are only playing supporting role in the region due to lack of ALG's in these areas.

Add a battalion in Shillong. This along with Tezpur and Tinsukia/Chabua will cover whole NE airspace. For Sikkim you need to place a battalion each in Hashimara and Panagarh.
A battalion in Shillong would serve the purpose of a BMD. But I doubt they would be of any good against ICBM's, which you would need to target Shillong from Deep within China. Moreover I don't think they would be suicidal enough to attempt flying all the way from Tibet to Shillong. But yeah if they do come from Bay of Bengal, it would come in handy.
 

brational

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
1,223
Likes
2,644
Country flag
A battalion in Shillong would serve the purpose of a BMD. But I doubt they would be of any good against ICBM's, which you would need to target Shillong from Deep within China. Moreover I don't think they would be suicidal enough to attempt flying all the way from Tibet to Shillong. But yeah if they do come from Bay of Bengal, it would come in handy.
Since you are familiar with NE you should know that China doesn't need an ICBM to attack NE. Moreover, these S-400 systems are good against potential air invasion/intrusion and to safeguard military assets in NE.
Shillong is strategically located (Read Shillong Peak and Eastern Air Command). It is also located below the flight path between Kolkata and Chendu/Kunming. Shillong can provide a coverage upto foothills of Arunachal Pradesh, Chabua, Hashimara (back up for the battalions deployed there) and yes almost all Bangladesh airspace.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
8,761
Likes
22,778
Country flag
Since you are familiar with NE you should know that China doesn't need an ICBM to attack NE. Moreover, these S-400 systems are good against potential air invasion/intrusion and to safeguard military assets in NE.
Shillong is strategically located (Read Shillong Peak and Eastern Air Command). It is also located below the flight path between Kolkata and Chendu/Kunming. Shillong can provide a coverage up to foothills of Arunachal Pradesh, Chabua, Hashimara (back up for the battalions deployed there) and yes almost all Bangladesh airspace.
Dear @brational I did worked in EAC HQ and had a few acquaintances over there. It itself is located in Himalayan foothill, and being HQ is no doubt strategically important. But if you think that putting a regiment, battalion or a battery over there to cover foothills of A.P, then I am sorry, but its a far fetched idea (you could confirm it with any of the serving gentleman). And believe me, an IBM with 5000 km range is not enough to attack Shillong. Speaking again of strategic importance, there are few more spots in between A.P and Shillong, which are far more important then HQ itself (you have to see to believe).

My main point is, till date IAF is playing more of a supporting role to IA in this region. And you could take my words, if any aggression takes place ever in N.E, the first wave would be terrestrial, not arial. Moreover, ballistic missiles and jets would not not play as important role as cruise missiles and helos in this region as of now.
 

Jagdish58

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
796
Likes
644
Can they intercept NASR missile battery or other short range nuclear weapon??
 

Immanuel

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
3,555
Likes
7,476
Country flag
Add a battalion in Shillong. This along with Tezpur and Tinsukia/Chabua will cover whole NE airspace. For Sikkim you need to place a battalion each in Hashimara and Panagarh.
Indeed, adding fire units in these locations are sufficient, as mentioned before 4 regiments in enough to cover all of N.E and East.
 

Immanuel

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
3,555
Likes
7,476
Country flag
Geography does play a lot of role in your area defence and air superiority. Why do you think IAF is augmenting four of its bases in East (2 already operational in N.E) for MKI's, if it would not have played such a vital role. I've hitched ride in Mi-17 at some of the advance border post in A.P and did experienced the flying pattern used by pilots to evade Chinese radars. Do you think Chinese would not use these maneuvers in time of a confrontation? Moreover, area defence or air dominance is not at all complete without an AEWS. Only few days ago IAF were about to hit the panic button when to of the MKI's hit blindspot while on a routine sortie in the area. See, the point is untill and unless you saturate the sky with firepower, you cant dream about an area defence or air dominance. And to counter any threat from China, the batteries would have to be well within A.P rather then in Tezpur or Tinsukia.
Moreover Army does plays a major role in A.P then IAF. As of now they are only playing supporting role in the region due to lack of ALG's in these areas.
A battalion in Shillong would serve the purpose of a BMD. But I doubt they would be of any good against ICBM's, which you would need to target Shillong from Deep within China. Moreover I don't think they would be suicidal enough to attempt flying all the way from Tibet to Shillong. But yeah if they do come from Bay of Bengal, it would come in handy.
IAF augmenting its bases and landing ground have little do with how the S-400 will be deployed. The main point here is no matter how mobile these S-400 SAMs are, a regiment or battery or battalion will be assigned a dedicated area to work with, with-in this area they will have some mobility. If you think every time the enemy pops up, a battery will relocate anything more than 10's of KM, you are wrong, the logistics involved would make it counter productive.

Secondly, the kind of saturation you speak off can't be done alone with S-400, as we know 12 regiments will be acquired and they will form a formidable set of layers. off course, this won't deter the enemy from using known blind spots or other sneak tactics but its not the job of the S-400 to cover blind spots. Blind spots are best suited to be handled by Akash, Spyder ADS and Pantsir S-1.

S-400's prime usefulness would be to counter the enemy's SRBMs, long range cruise missiles, AWACS, Transports, High altitude bombers, fighters etc. with-in their own airspace, it is meant to prevent the enemy from getting close enough to bite, incase they slip through, there will other layers to take care of them.

It isn't meant to deal with very low level, highly maneuvering targets. Hence every S-400 regiment has plenty of Pantsir-S1s to cover the area to keep an eye on blind spots. Pantsir with its twin autocannons and 12 ready to fire missiles will be hidden exactly in such blind spots waiting for the enemy, they simply have to pop-up fire and scoot.
 

Immanuel

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
3,555
Likes
7,476
Country flag
Can they intercept NASR missile battery or other short range nuclear weapon??
Yes, 3 regiments facing Pak will result in profuse diarrhea on Paki side. NASR, Babur and majority of their SRBM/ IRBMs should be easy meat.
 

Immanuel

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
3,555
Likes
7,476
Country flag
Dear @brational
My main point is, till date IAF is playing more of a supporting role to IA in this region. And you could take my words, if any aggression takes place ever in N.E, the first wave would be terrestrial, not arial. Moreover, ballistic missiles and jets would not not play as important role as cruise missiles and helos in this region as of now.
Not true, a ground offensive in this day without fighters against an enemy like India is doomed to fail from the start. Hence PLAAF has been ramping up its activities in TAR. There is no way they have any success without fighters backing up to the ground offensive.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
1
Likes
1
I used freemaptools.com to set a 400 km radius and placed the 12 prospective units at different locations, hypothetically & combined them into a final google map.

So far as I could find, 12 units do not cover the whole of India. Tripura, Mizoram, the two island chains, a part of Central India etc remain outside its protective ambit.

To fully cover the Indian landmass including the Andamans, a total of 15 units are required.

The unit are based at these locations in my hypothetical list:
  1. Drass
  2. Shimla
  3. Balrampur (UP)
  4. Siliguri
  5. Tinsukia
  6. Barbil
  7. Bijapur (C'garh)
  8. Tiruchilapalli
  9. Hampi
  10. Aurangabad
  11. Bhuj
  12. Pokhran
These are marked in green in the map. To cover rest of India, I placed 3 more units,marked red, at the following places
  1. Unit 13: Andamans
  2. Unit 14: Lunglei
  3. Unit 15: Ashoknagar(MP)

The link to the map : https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zeOLfMwdhK5A.ksXhWUaxdwBo
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top