sir still considering that s-300 has a worldwide reputation of being lethal, just look how iran was lobbying hard to get their hands on them recently and why israel and the us raised a hue and cry last december about the possibility of s-300 sales to iran by russia. the recently developed s-400 is a great upgrade as confirmed by the defence analysts worldover.
yes very true sir i forgot to mention about the recent georgia war it was the most potent weapon the georgians had and its performance was pretty good considering georgia was using some old version. so i think india can still go for the s-300 upgrade while it builds its own BMS.
Avi don't sir me dude. I might be younger than you. Israel-US raise a hue and cry at every Iranian move that is nothing new. S-300 is a great SAM but not the best ABM. I believe India tested them in an ABM role, its shortcomings prompted the failed Arrow ABM purchase. S-400 can also be employed in conjuction to the MR and LR-SAM being co-developed with Israel and the Indigenous BMD shield consisting of PAD-AAD
ok no sir thats the whole point, you are right that india can use the s-400 in conjuction with the medium and long range sams being developed having a variety of sams will make the air defence mighty strong.
I may not be the most qualified to answer this but quite simplistically speaking, each missile is built for a particular purpose. A Naval SAM such as Barak is used as an anti-missile missile, a SAM such as Tungsuka is used as a low altitude SAM to target low flying objects, a SAM such as Akash is used to target fast moving jets at high altitude. Though it appears that India is at times procuring similar missiles but all of them serve a different purpose. S-300 were primarily procured in a BMD role their replacement will most likely PAD/AAD as part of Indigenous BMD programme. Barak MR/LR-SAM(50-160km? range) being co-developed with Israel will be more technologically advanced than S-300 in service too. S-300 as I said earlier have not performed well in the Indian conditions, Barak MR/LR-SAM is tailor made for Indian conditions and technologically superior to S-300 in service currently.
According to the definition of the treaty.... The MTCR was created in order to curb the spread of unmanned delivery systems for nuclear weapons, specifically delivery systems that could carry a minimum payload of 500 kg a minimum of 300 km. At the annual meeting in Oslo in July 1992 it was agreed to expand the scope of the MTCR to include nonproliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for all weapons of mass destruction, making the payload/range threshold much less rigid than the original 500kg/300km. Since the s-300 and 400 fall under missile's I am guessing that they do have the limit imposed on them.
If it is required than there is full chance to employ it but against Pakistan Enhanced LR-SAMs like the 250mile S-400 will serve no purpose. Most of their assets are based within a 100mile radius of Indian borders anyways. What is required is a robust highly capable credible Cruise missile defence shield and BMD Shield coupled with agile MR-SAMs to take out any flying object posing a danger to India. I think MTCR is invoked during ToT of nuclear capable missiles for eg. UK operates Trident ICBMs. Turkey is being provided full ToT for S-3/400 system stated range. anyways a missile like Brahmos is too expensive and heavy too be used for greater range. Imagine a 1200km Brahmos, it will, on extrapolating, cost 8million$ and weigh 12tons. Tomahawk, in comparison, travels 3000km, weighs 1.5 tons and costs under a million$
i think we need to stress on these lines is the s-400 or thaad capable of delivering nuclear weapons?
NO...the s-400 is a SAM and that's it...it can't be re purposed to be say a cruise missile. THAAD carries on it no explosives but rathers uses Kinetic energy to destroy the projectiles..; Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), formerly Theater High Altitude Area Defense, is a United States Army project to develop a system to shoot down short- and medium-range ballistic missiles using a hit-to-kill approach. The missile carries no warhead but relies on the kinetic energy of the impact. THAAD was designed to hit Scuds and similar weapons, but also has a limited capability against ICBMs.
true but our non-nuclear brahmos range had to be reduced to 390km I know one is offensive and one is defensive/offensive but like anything else rules can be bent if you wrote them.
If I remember this right, if India succeeds in building a cruise missile that can travel over 1000Km then Russia would be free to help us in any future endeavors. The MTCR treaty only applies to nations that have not demonstrated a proven capability...
Brahmos range was never reduced, Yakhont the missile on which its propulsion (ramjet engine) is based on, is again <300km in range. So nothing was reduced but nothing was enhanced either. Brahmos is a nuclear warhead capable missile.
Okay there seems to be a lot of confusion with MTCR....here is the OFFICIAL WEBSITE http://www.mtcr.info/english/index.html
