S-400 As Naval Sam and Other Russian Navy Questions ???

RIM-161A is designed to intercept ballistic missiles outside atmospher (so its range and speed) but couldn’t work against anything else. As RIM-156 was cancelled, it let only the SM-2 block IV and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile on the american side. Both decent SAM but with shorter ranges than its european counterparts.

What are you smokin’? The SM-2 Block IV has a 240 km range. No European SAM comes anywhere NEAR that. S-300 doesn’t either. The SM-6 (which is essentially a Block IV with AMRAAM’s active radar for terminal homing) will be further still. ESSM has a range of over 50 km and only the long ranged version of ASTER beats that for European SAMs. As for SM-2 MR even the ANCIENT Block I was good for over 70km. Current Block IIIBs most likely have a MUCH longer range.

Yes its quite strange that the Shtil dosent uses PAR to guide it compared to its land based cousin using PAR to track and guide.

Not the land based Shtil uses a radar mounted on the launch vehicle for target illumination. The PAR is for search and tracking only.

Quite strange logic ,

Not strange. One feature of a PAR is that with electronic scanning it can scan very quickly the entire FOV. Spinning it means that it will often have to wait half a second for the target to be in view again. Not a huge issue, but it pretty much makes an illumination radar manditory if you are using SARH guidance as the target cannot be continuously illuminated.

But remember the SAM also receives mid course updates

They do but the corrections are far too coarse to hit a target… otherwise terminal homing would not be needed.

as far as jamming by heli goes , remember that ships can too counter jam the heli its not a one way traffic ,

If the Helo is jamming the frenquency the long range SAM the ship has I don’t know what else the ship can do except call in fighters.

If the radar jammer switches off the SAM would be travelling in the general direction of the target ,

No it won’t, if the jammer turns off the missile will have been homing on the jamming source to it will be heading towards the helo.

if it ARH it would reacquire the target ,so would be provided updates by ship borne system.

Which raises a question. If they were just blanket jamming the helos would not actually be aware of whether they were in trouble or not till the HOJ SAM exploded below them because of course the HOJ SAM would be operating passively. If they are playing the game I suggest changing roles of jammer between them then it becomes very difficult for the ship. If the target ship is well protected although jamming the long range SAM might actually work it alerts the ship to an attack so it can set up a defensive array of false targets and prepare its medium and short range active defence systems. Any further long range SAM will betray its use when it turns on its ARH seeker which the helos could detect which would cause them both to jam the missile (to either protect themselves or the antiship missile) at the expense of the decoy.

Obviously this scenario requires huge coordination of the attacking forces, excellent intelligence resources of the attacking force… what is the frenquency an ARH SAM uses? and what is its range? etc etc. It also assumes the target ship has no other assets in support… a sub could even send a diver through a torpedo tube with a rubber dinghy and a MANPADs to deal with the helo… though time would be a problem if this trap is performed multiple times and recon detects the “trap” it might be an option…

Will read the article…

Unless it spins it is four radars that will cost rather more than a simple illuminating radar. If it does spin then it loses most of the advantages of being a phased array radar.

Quite strange logic , The EMPAR is a passive phased array radar , It spins at 60 RPM , It can carry Air/Surface survellence , Track Targets and guide 24 Aster missile to 12 targets has a range of 300 KM

The much more sophisticated SAMPSON MF radar on Type-45 is a Dual Faced Active Phased Array radar spins at 30 or 60 RPM and can do all the thing that EMPAR does , has longer range 400 Km and can track 500-1000 targets.

And BTW both of there are rotating radar and spins 😉 and are effective.

Yes its quite strange that the Shtil dosent uses PAR to guide it compared to its land based cousin using PAR to track and guide.

Hovering helicopters are very difficult targets at the best of time. SAMs that simply reaquire another target if its prior target disappear are quite rare as this makes it quite dangerous for potential neutrals in the area. What happens if the radar jammer switches off while the SAM is 50km away from it… it loses the HOJ target and turns its ARH on and aquires what? The biggest target is the sea, but the next target it sees is a friendly frigate 5 km directly in front of it with its helo just landing… a few fishing vessels are around too… what will it do?

Garry heli are difficult , But remember the SAM also receives mid course updates , as far as jamming by heli goes , remember that ships can too counter jam the heli its not a one way traffic , If the radar jammer switches off the SAM would be travelling in the general direction of the target , if it ARH it would reacquire the target ,so would be provided updates by ship borne system.

But if I am a good strategist , and have a CBG support I wouldnt allow these heli or jammer to come so near atleast 500 Km of ring around my ship. I really dun see a big problem for any modern SAM as far as jammer goes most of them have good ECCM capability and ships too can couter jamming .

And Yes I suggest you read this if you havent already , we already had a debate over AESA vs PESA , this should clear all you doubts about the superiority of AESA

http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/articles/Article_044.pdf

Yeah But you have to add that extra radar for illuminating tthose targets and the overhead that comes with such installation, EMPAR is a PAR so Its just the Single Radar which does all the job of Tracking , targetting and Guiding & Midcourse updates, Needless to mention the Advantage of PAR over the conventional antenna.

Unless it spins it is four radars that will cost rather more than a simple illuminating radar. If it does spin then it loses most of the advantages of being a phased array radar.

The search radar of the ground based Shtil is a phased array, so I don’t see why the naval version would not use a phased array or the existing search radar of the vessel.

Using the ships existing search radar would be best as having various radars operating all the time is not a great tactic no matter how many SAMs you have.

You too are assuming too many thing here , what makes you think that a hovering heli over the horizon cant be engaged by a SAM.

Hovering helicopters are very difficult targets at the best of time. SAMs that simply reaquire another target if its prior target disappear are quite rare as this makes it quite dangerous for potential neutrals in the area. What happens if the radar jammer switches off while the SAM is 50km away from it… it loses the HOJ target and turns its ARH on and aquires what? The biggest target is the sea, but the next target it sees is a friendly frigate 5 km directly in front of it with its helo just landing… a few fishing vessels are around too… what will it do?

Well If some heli is Jamming me lets say 50 KM apart , I will launch a SAM right from the word go in Lock On Jam mode , so two sam would be enough to engage these two targets specially if these targets are actively jamming me , It makes my Job all that easier.

No you misunderstand. With two helos 50km apart with one jamming. Every 30 seconds or so it will stop jamming and the other will start jamming for 30 seconds etc. Any HOJ missile you fire would need enormous range and fuel capacity to keep switching between such targets and it will lose kinetic energy and fall into the water. Remember the enemy will know the rough range of your missiles and because it is launching AShMs at you ship while you are playing with their helos it will know the time it has between launch and impact. While you are playing with the helos… you might hit the jammer BTW but as the jammer is 300m below the helo it is likely to survive the proximity explosion anyway so it can return to base and another helo can take its place or it can deploy another decoy if it has more. Even assuming you hit both helos after hitting their decoys first, even with very fast SAMs if the helos are 150km from your ship the time it takes for two missile launches to reach that range (assuming you can’t hit the helos till the jammers have been destroyed, so the first SAMs are passive and the next two are active radar homers) how long has that taken? 8 Onyx missiles launched from 300km when the helos started jamming the SAMs… how close would those mach 3 missiles be?

Not a completely easy thing to coordinate I admit but super long range missiles are nice to have but they are something you could do without. To be honest a group of 4 Su-33s or F-14s or Sea Harriers would be more use than really long range missiles in my opinion.

But In reality I wouldnt allow that heli come so close to me just 50 Km away,my aircraft would take care of the heli long before she comes that close.

No, the helos would be over 100km away from you and flying at about 4-500m. They will be 50 km apart…horizontally… so as they switch on and off during the SAMs flight it is switching left and right changing between targets using up energy to greatly reduce range.

I am no expert….but I did come across this…….

THE STANDARD MISSILE FAMILY
http://www.raytheon.com/products/static/node4751.html

SM-3 PDF
http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055769.pdf

SM-3 KW PDF
http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055770.pdf

http://www.raytheon.com/feature/static/node4942.html

From Designation Systems

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html

Data for RIM-161A

Length (incl. booster) : 6.55 m (21 ft 6 in)
Finspan : 1.57 m (61.8 in)
Diameter : 0.34 m (13.5 in)
Weight : ?
Speed : 9600 km/h (6000 mph)
Ceiling : > 160 km (100 miles)
Range : > 500 km (270 nm)
Propulsion : Booster – United Techologies MK 72 solid-fueled rocket
Sustainer – Atlantic Research Corp. MK 104 dual-thrust solid-fueled rocket
3rd stage – Alliant Techsystem MK 136 solid-fueled rocket

Warhead : Hit-to-kill kinetic warhead (KW)

RIM-161A is designed to intercept ballistic missiles outside atmospher (so its range and speed) but couldn’t work against anything else. As RIM-156 was cancelled, it let only the SM-2 block IV and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile on the american side. Both decent SAM but with shorter ranges than its european counterparts.

For the cost of extra illuminating radars the Shtil could do that too. And you get to keep using the illuminating radars… they aren’t destroyed when used.

Yeah But you have to add that extra radar for illuminating tthose targets and the overhead that comes with such installation, EMPAR is a PAR so Its just the Single Radar which does all the job of Tracking , targetting and Guiding & Midcourse updates, Needless to mention the Advantage of PAR over the conventional antenna.

You assume many things here. How many jammers does the helo carry? Without the jammer in operation what makes you think the SAM can engage a hovering helo over the horizon? A smart decoy that mimics the radar signature of an antiship missile when turned off may look nothing like anything the SAM would or could engage. Simply having two helos with two jammers 50km apart would be enough to waste a lot of SAMs as they
waste kinetic energy switching between the two.

You too are assuming too many thing here , what makes you think that a hovering heli over the horizon cant be engaged by a SAM. ???

Well If some heli is Jamming me lets say 50 KM apart , I will launch a SAM right from the word go in Lock On Jam mode , so two sam would be enough to engage these two targets specially if these targets are actively jamming me , It makes my Job all that easier.

But In reality I wouldnt allow that heli come so close to me just 50 Km away,my aircraft would take care of the heli long before she comes that close.

Garry what could be the cost of converting an SARH SAM like Shtil to an Active Seeker , I mean the seeker cost .

An active radar seeker the size you’d be fitting to a Shtil would be a very good fraction of the cost of a radar for an aircraft the size of a Mig-21. Each missile would need one and the ones that fail to hit the target cost just as much as the ones that work as advertised.

The Empar is capable of tracking and attacking 12 targets with upto 24 Aster missile at long range.

For the cost of extra illuminating radars the Shtil could do that too. And you get to keep using the illuminating radars… they aren’t destroyed when used.

As I have mentioned missile do have good ECCM capability to burn through the jammers , But as the scenario you have mentioned logically what I can think about is that first the Jammers Goes ( lock on Jam) and then the Heli Goes

You assume many things here. How many jammers does the helo carry? Without the jammer in operation what makes you think the SAM can engage a hovering helo over the horizon? A smart decoy that mimics the radar signature of an antiship missile when turned off may look nothing like anything the SAM would or could engage. Simply having two helos with two jammers 50km apart would be enough to waste a lot of SAMs as they waste kinetic energy switching between the two.

I think it is not so important for the longer range missiles as it is for closer range weapons. Big missiles will be expensive already. Making them more expensive is not a good idea. Plus with large size for range there is a limit to how many you can launch. Firing ten ARH missiles at each target is ridiculous but where do you draw the line?

Well Ideally for any modern SAM like say a S-300P ( naval version) or Aster you would fire 2 missile per target , for high probabality of Kill , And also for such long range SAM it would depend what your Target would be for a ASW aircraft ( lets say Orion ) one would suffice , and if a Supersonic Anti-Ship missile is approaching you ( lets say Brahmos ) you would fire atleast 2 perhaps more so that you are assured of a higher probability of Kill against it.

But The thing is atleast you have a capability the do so , and as you have mentioned its just one part of the whole matrix , there are jammers/decoys , surv/Early warning platform and other assets like aircraft , a Layered Defence is Highly desirable.

I just happen to read on the Empar MF radar , which is likely to be purchased by the Indian Navy for its P-17 /P-15A class of ships ( It would replace the Top-Plate ).
The Empar is capable of tracking and attacking 12 targets with upto 24 Aster missile at long range.

I really dont see a scenerio where Indian Navy would require such capability , but its also good to have and know that if need be it can be done.

Saving money on ARH seekers could be spent on naval airpower to add that extra layer and extend SA.

Garry what could be the cost of converting an SARH SAM like Shtil to an Active Seeker , I mean the seeker cost .

What if the jammer is 300 m below a helicopter hovering 100km from the ship that launched the missiles on the path the missile is flying?

As I have mentioned missile do have good ECCM capability to burn through the jammers , But as the scenario you have mentioned logically what I can think about is that first the Jammers Goes ( lock on Jam) and then the Heli Goes:D .

So ineffect many more missile can be put in air and would not depend on the restriction of ship illumination radar.

I think it is not so important for the longer range missiles as it is for closer range weapons. Big missiles will be expensive already. Making them more expensive is not a good idea. Plus with large size for range there is a limit to how many you can launch. Firing ten ARH missiles at each target is ridiculous but where do you draw the line?

In case of jamming , missile do have good ECCM capability and features like lock on jam are available.

What if the jammer is 300 m below a helicopter hovering 100km from the ship that launched the missiles on the path the missile is flying?

Now add to that the advantage of a PAR/Apar with an Active Missile ( like for eg SAMPSON/Aster/Empar + Aster SAM ) and you have a great advantage here.

On paper it is an advantage, but what happens when during the missile flight you find that the target is an Iranian airbus. With a SARH you can turn off the illuminator radar, with ARH you get a few more seconds to write out your speech to the families of those you are about to kill.

At medium and short range autonomous homing… IR, radar, optical or whatever is a very useful feature but it isn’t manditory for the ultra long range missiles. Saving money on ARH seekers could be spent on naval airpower to add that extra layer and extend SA.

Thanks Garry for the correction on the Shtil thing.

I kinda broadly agree with you on the layered defence part , But as far as SARH goes and as you have mentioned it depends on the number of illumination radars , Also in case of ARH missile only midcourse updates needs to be provided when missile is launched and say a certain distance from the target ( lets say 30 Km ) , the missile Active seeker will take over and would not depend on the FC on ships to guide it.

So ineffect many more missile can be put in air and would not depend on the restriction of ship illumination radar.

Now add to that the advantage of a PAR/Apar with an Active Missile ( like for eg SAMPSON/Aster/Empar + Aster SAM ) and you have a great advantage here.

In case of jamming , missile do have good ECCM capability and features like lock on jam are available.

Mate a SARH would require that the Ship Based FC Radar for the SAM has to guide the missile till it reaches the Target , so assuming at max with 6 -8 FC 12 ****l can be guided.

If you use the correct term Shtil I don’t think it will be censored…

But to your point about having to continuously track the target… even if you had ARH missiles surely you would be tracking the target anyway. With SARH missiles you can often fire several at the same target that is illuminated by one radar. The only limitation is the number of targets you can illuminate at once. The number of missiles you have in the air at once will reflect the number of illumination radars you have.

Against a superpower you’d want as many targets enageable at once as possible, but then who is actually planning to take on a superpower?

The reality is full integration of all weapons systems would be more beneficial than using ARH missiles. What I mean is a well coordinated defence with layers means more than having ARH long range missiles. What if the enemy uses shore based anti ship missiles like Harpoon or exocet. Will all your ships stay away from land all the time?

A short and medium range SAM would be useful. Something equivelent to the short range SA-N-4, plus the medium range SA-N-7 plus a CIWS missile as used on the Kashtan, plus gatling guns plus any medium calibre guns like 57, 76, 100, and 130mm guns can be used in layers against subsonic missiles. With proximity fuses the 57-130mm guns could engage several of the incoming missiles, plus the 8-10km range missiles on the CIWS could take a couple more, plus the SA-N-4 or equivelent a few more… you don’t just rely on the SA-N-7 or SA-N-6 or whatever you have.

Working together these weapons become much more effective.
ESM, ECM and other equipment are just as important if not more so.
Though you do have to be wary as a decoyed missile is still a threat to shipping, whereas a missile shot down is only a threat to what it lands upon.

so in case of ARH Shtil you can put much more number of Missile in the air , also IN case of SARH missile it can be jammed ie missile & FC data link .

It is much easier to jam or interfere with the tiny radar seeker of an ARH missile than the rather larger radar fitted to the ship launching the SARH missile.

Thanks Blackcat for bringing this thread alive

but, improving its sensors aka making it ARH wud mean than additional cost and Shtil is basically meant as a low cost highly effective missile, with the condition that the guidance for it is there. Btw, Shtil is the normal aka arm launched missile system and Shtil-1 is the VL system which smaller control surface (and not that appealing, atleast for me)

Thats true , that addition of ARH would some what increase the cost , but by how much ??? , If the cost increase is just 20-30 % then IMHO I would think it could be worth having.

Talking About ****l Correct me if I am wrong, there is

>>****l ( range 0 – 25 km, speed-3 Mach ) as on 3 Delhi Class
>>****l-1 ( range 0-45 km speed-3 Mach) as on 3 Talwar Class ( single arm launcher )
>>VLS- ****l-1 ( range 0 – 35 KM speed 4.5 mach ) will on P-15A

I understand these are the different version if ****l

BTW Austin ….. how come the SARH comes into disadvantage when the ship is lost … …. they are there to protect the ship first, but ok, the sub element is there … but still …

Mate a SARH would require that the Ship Based FC Radar for the SAM has to guide the missile till it reaches the Target , so assuming at max with 6 -8 FC 12 ****l can be guided.

In case of ****l SARH max 12 can be guided , but with Active Radar ****l you can get fire and forget capability , only midcourse updates will be provided and later the missile can be guided by its own Active Radar( something similar to Aster ) , so in case of ARH Shtil you can put much more number of Missile in the air , also IN case of SARH missile it can be jammed ie missile & FC data link .

Talking of long range SAM , The IN more or less has decided that it will go for the EMPAR MF radar for it P-17 & P-15A ( suprising ) ship , Adm Arun Prakash earlier this year visited Italy and inspected the system and the deal will be signed later this year per a report .

It gives you a clear indication that Aster-15 ( initally ) and Aster-30 (later will be realesed for export by 2008) will be the main long range sam of the Indian navy , The EMPAR MF radar would replace the TOP-PLATE MF radar , it would be interesting to see which radar replaces the RAWL SSR there is the SMART-L or the RAN-40L which could be selected.

The MICA-IR/RF which has a range of 70-80 Km as AAM has about max 20 KM in VLS mode.

Crap you’re right, I got confused there. I was thinking of the SA-N-3 GOBLET, not SA-N-1 GOA, which is of course the naval version of the SA-3 GOA.

Naval counterpart for S-125 = SA-N-1 (Russian designation M-1 Volna). In fact, missile designed for naval use (B-600) proved to be more succesful and was adopted also for S-125 instead of the original B-625.
Perhaps you meant S-200 which really doesn’t have a naval version.

Although The Russian Navy uses the Naval variant of S-300 ir S-300F for Naval Air Defence , But Its a old system and perhaps needs to be replaced with a newer variant of S-300 ie the S-400 family

There is a newer version, the S-300FM, which has been installed on Pyotr Veliky (Kirov Hull 04). It uses 150-km ranged 48N6 missiles and has seen the forward TOP DOME engagement radar replaced with a TOMB STONE.

As has been the tradation in Russia most of the Ground Based SAM have been converted to Naval Variants , Although due to financial constraints and since S-400 is a relative new system in the Air Defence Unit there are no immediate prioroties to do so , But later on the S-400 in all likelyhood to be converted in to a Naval SAM .

S-25: no naval variant
S-75: failed naval variant
S-125: no naval variant
S-300V: no naval variant

It’s typically the tacitical SAMs that are adapted for naval use given their smaller size.

” Surface-to-air missile. Family: Russian SAMs and ABMs. Country: Russia. Department of Defence Designation: SA-20. Manufacturer’s Designation: S-400. Launch System: Triumph. Complex: S-400. Missile: 9M96. Manufacturer: Efremov/Lyulev. Location: Moscow, Russian Federation.

The proper designation is currently SA-X-21, with the X being dropped as soon as the system is operational somewhere. The SA-20 is actually the S-300PM-1/2. Here’s a few pointers:

FLAP LID/5V55 series missiles: SA-10 GRUMBLE
TOMB STONE/48N6 series missiles: SA-20 GARGOYLE
GRAVE STONE/9M96/48N6/40N6 series missiles: SA-X-21

There are two variants of S-400 the

Big Missile : with a Range of 400 Km
9M96 : with a range of 120 km

The S-400 will also use the 48N6 series of missiles with ranges of up 150 to 200km depending on variant. The “big missile” is the 40N6.

Austin,

Wanshan , Addidition of Booster is a good example of extending the range and increasing its life , But what I am mainly looking at Improvement in Shtil besides the one mentioned is to Improve upon its sensors , Instead of the present SARH mode of Guidance an Active radar or IIR mode of guidance will do a lot good to the system.

but, improving its sensors aka making it ARH wud mean than additional cost and Shtil is basically meant as a low cost highly effective missile, with the condition that the guidance for it is there. Btw, Shtil is the normal aka arm launched missile system and Shtil-1 is the VL system which smaller control surface (and not that appealing, atleast for me) and vectoring nozzle (Garry am i rite?) …. in terms of beauty (yeah i look it that way too …hehe) the SM series is damn good looking, and had wished to see the Shtil (9m317) to be like that and in the future with a booster too, but the VL version is like blad, almost ugly …. looking at its control surfaces make me doubt if its as manuevrable as the 9m317.

SARH suffers one major disadvantage is that if the Guiding platform is lost in this case the ship , the missile ends up being a Dud , So even having Multiple Launch capability the inherent disadvantage of SARH is there specially when its short on Range between 30 – 40 km.

yes, i particularly don like the IN stick with these short range missile and then giveing the whole thing a very BIG name – area defence – its actually small area. I hope they enlarge that ‘area’ a bit more bigger to hve 100 + km missiles. But as said earlier, the Shtil is a low cost missile and Russians sell it like that and thats is the reason y its SARH. I don think there wud be a great deal of work to make it aa ARH, but there must be someone seeking the missile (as Russian Navy wud not be in emeegrncy need now) if yes , i don see the Russians putting up an ARH variant of the same.

BTW Austin ….. how come the SARH comes into disadvantage when the ship is lost … 😉 …. they are there to protect the ship first, but ok, the sub element is there … but still …

So the best solution for Shtil upgrade would be

Shtil-1 + Booster + IIR/Active Radar Homing

yup exactly, thats what i too want from the Shtil-1, hope a version of that kind come out in the near future.

if the above system could achieve a range of 70-80 km from the present 45 Km that would be a welcome change , I am sure IN would love to have such system.

yea 70-80 km is good, but its better to have it in the 100 + range and wud love to see it in the form of a 290 km (MTCR) range Shtil-X.

BTW as u said earlier, the small 9M96E2 (120 Km range) missile that come with the S-400 wud be a fine one in the naval form, as it got good range & is more compact than the Aster also. In addition to that is its also lighter as the penalty of the booster weight is not there with the missile. I hope some progress is made on making a naval variant of this missile. BTW Austin, there are three missile with the S-300 with an option for the smaller missile – 9m96e (40km) and 9m96e2 (120km) and of this the better option obviously wud be the 9m96e2 with a 120 km range.

Emm VL launched Adder would again be short on Range , not more than 15-20 Km , also its ability to kill a tight and highly manovering and high speed target ( like supersonic missile ) in the end game would be highly doubtful .

well i don know if the range of a missile with a 100km range (ideal condition) will come down so much (15-20km) on VL firing … maybe 30-40Km? …but addition of booster wud be good though. Now i don think the seker and its manuerabiliy wud be a problem, after all its meant for takiing on 12g manuevering targets, so that department seems ok, but will have to get refined for naval ops.

BTW, how much was the range of the vertically launched RVV-AE-ZRK/R-77-ZRK that was meant for the ground ADS much like what MBDA is presenting with their VL Mica??

I hope the Russians jump into that game and spoil the French hope of getting the VL Mica installed with the Indian Army, with their own VL variant of R-77 – the R-77-ZRK 😀 …. that wud be really fine. After all, in the 90’s the French in the name of collaboration have tried a lot to get VL and cold launch tech from the Russians, where as the Russians thought that they were in for joint development, the French idea was get as much from the Russians and make their own stuff and market it independently. But i don know how much they have it in their Aster though. Isn’t Aster and Mica VL hot launched like other western missiles ??

The MRDS also wud be a fine one which seems a lot more better than what the French can offer with the VL Mica ADS.

Abt the Shtil-1 (which is the VL), is a multi-channel missile (again low cost) and for that illuminators is necessary, which determines how many channel system they become. The Shtil-1 ranges from 2 at the minimum to 4, 6, 8, 10(?) and 12 channel system.

here is a quote from Milparade.

The Shtil system, too, is a multi-channel device. In the Shtil the multi-channel feature is achieved by the number of illuminators applied to each target. This is built on the modular principle and, depending on the ship’s water displacement, may have 4, 6, 8 and 12 channels. The Shtil system has no radar of its own. It uses information coming from the ship’s radar, which is why it is not very expensive.

The picture below seems like that of a 12 channel Shtil-1 system with it showing intercepting 10 targets. BTW, am not sure, if this multi-channel one is meant only for the VL version. but it seem more likely so …

The wide range of scan over 1000’s of Frequency possible by AESA is just not possible by PESA

It is my understanding that the frequency changing is possible with any radar, and the advantage of AESA is beam shape AND frequency optimisation for a particular role. Due to atmopheric and target conditions (ie closing targets, low targets, LO targets, high target etc etc) the signal can be optimised to get maximum range and best performance while using the lowest possible emission power. This also means an AESA can listen much more than it transmits.

According to advertising for the Su-34 its PESA can perform air search, terrain avoidance and surface target search simultanously.

The advantages of AESA over PESA seem to me to revolve around this beam shaping capability in addition to graceful degredation of performance. The low sidelobes are common to both as is the speed of electonic scanning making tracking widely seperate targets easier. The rapid frequency changing is only useful against narrow band ESM systems. A wide band ARH will have more problems with both PESA and AESA because of the narrow sidelobes than any frequency hopping they might do. Needless to say the only reason the Patriot battery was hit in the last Iraq war was because the ARM was fired by the aircraft being targeted.

First of all thank you very much Vaiar for a mature and sensible reply. When discussing issues like this on the internet more often than not when answering my arguements many resort to US hater rhetoric that is both very boring and prevents any future meaningful discussion. It seems some believe that some countries can do no wrong and anyone who disagrees is anti-(insert country name here). Anything that can’t be criticised is not real.

You apparently don’t agree with the “US this, US that, US etc.” approach of the article.

I definitely do not. I think the US would use such an institution to galvanise countries in the region against other countries that don’t meet its expectations or don’t do as they are told. NK would of course be the immediate victim and others would likely be created as time passed. I don’t blame the US for this… it seems natural for them to do this type of thing… I just don’t think this is good or healthy for Asia as a region.

I accept that the US has the money and power to make such things happen when it is needed but such effort is only expended when the US deems it worthy of action… again not necessarily in Asias interests as it is in the USs interests.

of the author; for me it’s about the main message of a multilateral institution or a continuance of the current situation which has a risk of unstability.

This instability noted is really only very localised instability. Obviously war between the two koreas would be bad, and a chinese attack to prevent Taiwan from becoming and independant state would be bad as well but for asian countries outside the warzones which would be even more limited without outside intereference would be minimal.

If the solution is dialog then ASEAN is the place for that… that is what it is for. If it is inadequate then expand it. Suggesting it can’t solve all of Asias problems but some big american created (and enforced) org will do better is rubbish. Americas history of Diplomacy seems to be reasonably good when they have no or little stake in the outcome. Northern Ireland springs to mind but that is about it. In Kosovo it was obvious they had picked sides and in the Middle East does anyone believe they can be impartial? Really? In Asia with the US obviously not happy with NK and wanting to help Taiwan remain seperate I can’t see them being the unbiased entity they would need to be to make it work.

it ensures that none of the countries in question might consider driving threats through and it may prevent instability of arising by trying to quell small conflicts that might get out of hand.

I don’t agree. I think they have yet to solve sea related problems like piracy in the region… which is not their job anyway, let alone prevent any wars or other incidents. They have no track record of preventing instability in the region at sea or on land. The threat of their great power stopped no wars on its own in the region either.

The US is biased versus certain countries (allies) and strives after its own interests, which are not limited to economic and political stability in the region.

Very much agree with this and you probably agree with me that while not ideal it is not evil or bad or in fact different from any other major power in such a position. Ie I am not having a go at the US.
However without a US threat of enforcement I could see this new security org being toothless when stopping incidents, and with US enforcement then selective enforcement of things of interest to the US will make it seem biased to lesser members. In other words it will become a mini UN. Now I don’t think that is bad per say, but I do think that it is not what Asia needs right now.
If communication is a problem then a forum of politicians rather than diplomats makes more sense. Of course the rules would need to be very clear that this was a forum for communication amongst ALL the countries of asia and not some place to score some polticial points. In other words a place to discuss openly needs and fears and for others to perhaps dispel some fears others might have for their actions or intentions. As such it would appear more like a councilling session than a debate or council meeting. Openness would not occur to the level required to get the most benefit out of it in a large group so really the best ultimate solution would be for one on one meetings with the countries involved would make more sense. In other words NK is not likely to open up with its needs and wants and fears with the US in the room. But if it fears the actions of japan then it might talk to Japan directly as long as confidentiality can be achieved and maintained. Electronic bugs and spies would ahve a field day however and it probably wouldn’t work for that reason.

Currently, the region is so reminding of late nineteenth century Europe: prosperous, strong dynamics though apparent stability and calm, until the mutual tensions running for a long time below the surface suddenly erupt like vulcano due to a pathetic accident, with consequences nobody had wanted.

Of course the power blocks that were created in Europe is what erupted in the early 20th century to create WWI and later WWII. This forum needs to be inclusive and at least allow everyone to have a say if not act on every members wishes. I don’t think solutions adopted in Europe should be applied elsewhere without thought on the completely different situation there.

Therefore, until the countries involved embrace some sort of formalized way of dealing with their security affairs I applaud the strong presence of the US in the region, even if it is not ideal.

They have used their presence for the local good and for their own good that has sometimes translated into local bad. I really don’t think if they left that it would make much difference. Indian or Chinese or Japanese fleets don’t have the range or force structure to wander further than they already do, and the current US ships don’t seem to be a major force stopping piracy in the region, so I really don’t see that there would be any difference.

JonS , what you say is true ,But true to an extent if the illumination can only be provided by ships , but look further , what if tommorow AWACS can, Not only scan and Track and provide C&C , but can also illuminate the target , what if a forward based UAV can do the same , now i believe that with netcentric warfare sky is the limit , not limiting to Naval warfare but all forms of warfare ( Sea & Subsurface(subs,UUV etc), Air & Land ) .Information shared seamlessly across all platforms any time and anywhere.

Hence I believe the whole idea of Netcentric warfare is revolutionary in Nature,A warfare of 21st Century where Information is power.

The US defence forces has conceptulised Netcentric warfare for the same purpose.

I should add here that even Indian Navy is building its naval forces around netcentric warfare , Not in the same scale as US is doing ,but in the same direction .

, so which in effect means that some distant ship, will fire the missile and some other will povide illumination for it.

but still that aegis vessel thats illuminating has to have the lo flying enemy targets within the horizon, it itself will be vunerable to an attack unless those targets dont detect it or dont plan on attacking it. Such concept is useful in scenario of a paticular vessel runs out of ammo or vls cells are damaged but doesnt improve the ability to intercept lo flying targets much.