But what we do need to see is that most of the countries with AWACs are not of immediate threat to the US. Hence, US sees no immediate need to develop such a weapon. In addition, passive anti radiation are defence based. US see no point in defending itself again such a threat. China on the other hand have a very different point of view. What US is developing, however, is mostly offensive anti-radiation missle such as Harm and its derivatives.
Chinese SAM
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
Sea Dog said:
This 500 km thing is doubtful, seeing how almost no sm-3 sources state this, and the missle has yet to interceot an icbm futher than 150km. and these are just "claims" too.
The s-300v is udoutedly superior to the pac-3. The s-300 offers the same performance for half the cost. The pac-3 may have been used in combat, but those were the "malfunctioning versions". the new "upgraded" pac-3s have yet to see combat. Alot of american claims are untrue, such as on the perfromance of the pac-3s
The s-400 is currently at the same stage as the sm-3. The russians have tested the missle against their own icbms. The russians have a very in depth stealth program, and i bielive they can design an airframe(notice how i said airframe, not engine+controls) as stealthhy as a b-2s. being albe to intercept aircraft, cruise missles, and icbms, the s-400 exceeds all the sm's in terms of usability for only a fraction of the cost.
s-300 and s-400s can stay in their containers for 10 years without need for maintenance. Id liek to see a patriot do that!!
Since the s-400 is likely to be china's sam of the future, it fits in perfectly fine for this topic
MIGleader said:
Untrue. That's why you see a Mk72 booster added to a BlockIV frame. Plus an added third stage rocket motor. Definitely outclasses any S-400 in range. Any weapons analyst can come up with a similar range looking at the assembly. The range always fluctuates around 500Km or more. And the range, altitude, and type of warhead requirements were in the request for proposal. If it couldn't achieve it, it wouldn't be used. That's the nature of the U.S. defense industry. By the way, the future SM-6 goes beyond 600Km. About the SM-3 in the works:
This is highlighted and open-sourced data. Not much out there concerning S-400 other than speculation. The U.S. proves the value of their system for all to see. And it's actively fielded. The S-400 is not at the same level as the SM-3 program. But I admit, when the S-400 is fielded it will be a great system.
Here's an interesting read:
Sounds pretty confident.
As far as S-300, another great system,
I'll say it is obviously an advanced and capable SAM, but it's comparisons are something difficult to ascertain. China has made long strides and has great capabilities in missile and SAM development. Look at HQ-9 FT-2000 and such.
But still, you can't really say S-300V is a superior system to PAC-3. It may be better. It may not. It has never been tried in battle. And I'm willing to bet it will show lower capabilities against PAC-3 when you account for OPFOR systems(Stealth aircraft, EW, etc). So far, the U.S. understands what went wrong with PAC. S-300's real-time application problems have not even been assessed. If you expect S-300 to be some magical system, you might be disappointed with it's real results.
And sorry to reiterate. But Russia does not have anything comparable to American stealth aircraft. You just don't go out and build a B-2 airframe. It's shape is one matter, but there is much more to stealth than airframe shape. And even that's extremely complicated to duplicate. If it were easy, We'd see somebody else out there with something similar. We don't. Stop kidding yourself.
Last edited:
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
I accept the 500km range, not too unreasonable.
as for the s-300, it itself is not a miracle, but the fact it can offer equivalent performance to the patriot for half the cost is. The systmes lineage dates back to the 60s, decades before the patriot was even concieved. i doubt the patriot can track stealth aircraft if it cant track scuds. Even if the u.s has installed some upgrades on the missle, id like to see those upgrades proven
as for russian stealth, ill keep it to a minimal to avoid going off topic. i only mentioned designeing a stealthy airframe. no engines, no controls, it doesnt even have to fly. China has made a copy of the f-22's frame, so russia should be able to pull off somthing similar.
as for the s-300, it itself is not a miracle, but the fact it can offer equivalent performance to the patriot for half the cost is. The systmes lineage dates back to the 60s, decades before the patriot was even concieved. i doubt the patriot can track stealth aircraft if it cant track scuds. Even if the u.s has installed some upgrades on the missle, id like to see those upgrades proven
as for russian stealth, ill keep it to a minimal to avoid going off topic. i only mentioned designeing a stealthy airframe. no engines, no controls, it doesnt even have to fly. China has made a copy of the f-22's frame, so russia should be able to pull off somthing similar.
PAC actually could detect scud, it just couldn't completely destroy it. I think Russian weapons are just cheaper due to the much lower RnD and labour cost. Let's face it, a Russian weapon system of the same quality as an American weapon system should be cheaper. Of course, the problem is that rich countries look for the best systems and the Russians can't compare to the Americans in most fields. Although, I'd say that the gap in SAM is not as large as some of the other fields.MIGleader said:
Yeah, I really also have questions about how Russians and Chinese can make claims that they have SAMs that show good performance against stealth objects.
tphuang said:
I'm not even sure there is a gap in SAM's. I just don't know. For all we know, S-300 does outclass PAC-3. And when you look at FT-2000, the USA hasn't built a SAM that performs similarly. I think it may be that they (USAF/USN)expect to be able to kill any enemy AWACS with aircraft (air dominance). In terms of the S-300, what I'm saying is it's hard to assess it's real capabilities incomparison to PAC-3 in actual combat conditions. Will it's PK be comparable to PAC-3? Will it exceed it...especially when counting for low-observable OPFOR systems? The interesting thing in the comparison of SM-3 to S-400 is that they are two different philosophies in usage. I just don't see how they can be compared unless you speak of them as the Standard Missile Family vs. S-400. The SM-3 is built solely to defend against exo-atmospheric missiles that have multiple seperating warheads and maybe aircraft at long range. The S-400 to it's credit is designed as a multi-purpose system. But again, will S-400 actually work? I know Standard missile systems do.
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
The s-400 was first tested in february 1999, in the astrakhan kapustin yin test site, the russians did not disclose the full details, but reported the tests were sucessful. The 2004 state tests of the missle featuring an improved range 48n6dm s-400, which sucessfully destroyed a ballistic missle.
Much of the s-400 radar, control, and launch infrastructure is based on that of the s-300, which itself has completed dozens more sucessful firings and scored plaenty of export sucesses.
Misslethreat claims the s-400 has twice the range of the pac-3, although the exact range of the pac-3 is never revealed.
Much of the s-400 radar, control, and launch infrastructure is based on that of the s-300, which itself has completed dozens more sucessful firings and scored plaenty of export sucesses.
Misslethreat claims the s-400 has twice the range of the pac-3, although the exact range of the pac-3 is never revealed.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Is it true that China invested in the development of the S-400. If so, does that mean China will have a license to produce it themselves?
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
The s-400 was a highly secretive and advanced russian military developement, and did not recieve any foreign funding, part of the reason why its entery into service waas delayed to now. But china may eventually obtain a liscence to produce the missle after few purchases, just like how china obtained a liscence to build the s-300.
I wouldn't be too surprised if China did invest in certain parts of S-400 system though. It seems like a good choice for China to upgrade some of the existing S-300PMU or PMU1 series to PMU2 standard or S-400. Since, this entire series uses modular approach, it shouldn't be too hard.MIGleader said: