http://www.klsreview.com/HTML/2009Jan_Jun/20090312.html
(in chinese) Interesting hypothetical discussion on the possible engagement between the CAEW & the Russian SAM system.

great to know we are terrifying their pants off. :lol:

now they have to resort to weapons they dont have to calm their fears. :P

anyway, that website is manned by :blink: dont bother with it.

S400 system can theoretically shoot down Russia's new State of G-550 AWACS

KLS报导：KLS在接获读者针对能否用防空导弹击落新加坡G-550空中早期预警与控制机（AEW&C）的询问后，就把提问转交给俄罗斯事务研究者杨政卫做出解答，他说，理论上在马国部署BUK防空导弹，是能击落从新加坡起飞的G-550预警机。

KLS reports: KLS received by readers in response to whether the use of anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down Singapore G-550 air early warning and control aircraft (AEW & C) of the inquiry, the question put to the Russian affairs Cheng Wei-made answers to the researchers, he said that the theory BUK up in Malaysia to deploy anti-aircraft missiles, are able to take off from Singapore to shoot down the G-550 AWACS.

KLS读者MARK-II来函询问:有可能用防空导弹击落G-550预警机吗？
KLS readers MARK-II letter asked: there is likely to use anti-aircraft missile shot down by G-550 AWACS吗?

MARK-II读者也表示，新加坡的G-550预警机，据说其AESA雷达有效探测距离为+-400公里。 MARK-II reader also said that Singapore's G-550 AWACS, the AESA radar is said to effective detection distance of + -400 km.

研判其安全飞行路线及活动范围，是介于新加坡岛及印尼纳土纳群岛（Natuna）以南，新山及古晋之间的国际领空。 Judging the safety of flight routes and scope of activities, are between Singapore Island and the Natuna Islands and India Nena (Natuna) south between Johor Bahru and Kuching international airspace.

此空域之位置，距离东西马陆地约300-350公里，一般防空导弹根本难以企及，可说非常安全。 The location of this airspace, distance horse things about 300-350 kilometers of land, the general anti-aircraft missiles can hardly stand, and it is very safe.

他说，假设要用防空导弹打预警机，有可能吗？
He said that the assumptions used to fight anti-aircraft missile early warning aircraft, there is possible?

理论上，俄罗斯S-400防空系统配上400公里射程的40N6导弹，可以做到。 In theory, the Russian S-400 air defense systems with a range of 400 kilometers of 40N6 missiles, can do it.
参考以下图片：柔佛东岸至古晋距离约720公里，中间距离是360公里，而柔佛东岸及古晋距离印尼阿南巴斯群岛（Anambas，左）及纳土纳岛（右）的中间国际空域，约400公里。 Refer to the following picture: the east coast of Johor to Kuching, about 720 kilometers distance, middle distance is 360 kilometers, while the east coast of Johor and Kuching distance Anambas Islands Indonesia (Anambas, left), and the Natuna Island (right) between international airspace , about 400 kilometers.

“如果在柔佛东岸某地及古晋附近，各部署一套S-400防空系统，将可能击落G-550预警机。” "If at a certain place and the east coast of Johor near Kuching, the deployment of a set of S-400 air defense system would be shot down by G-550 AWACS."

另一方面，俄罗斯事务研究者杨政卫回答MARK-II询问时表示，如果预警机是从新加坡本土起飞，俄罗斯BUK系统可以击落预警机，但是如果预警机是部署在境外，就另当别论。 On the other hand, Russian affairs researcher Wei Cheng answer MARK-II asked that if the local early warning aircraft are taking off from Singapore, the Russian BUK AWACS systems can be shot down, but if early warning aircraft are deployed in the outside is another matter.

“我想强调的是，S-400能不能打预警机这个问题，主要要看假想的战况如何而定。S-400的射程400公里，但没有说明是对什么目标以及在什么条件，所以不能确定是否能打400公里外的预警机，只能知道射程比S-300大很多。” "I want to emphasize is that, S-400 can not beat this issue early warning aircraft, mainly to see how the imaginary of the war. S-400 missiles with a range of 400 kilometers, but did not say what the objectives are and under what conditions, so not sure whether the play 400 kilometers outside the early-warning aircraft, can only be aware of the range than the much larger S-300. "

他说，假设对预警机也能有400公里的射程。 He said that the assumptions of early warning aircraft can also have a range of 400 kilometers.

这样一来预警机的活动与指挥能力势必大大受到限制，届时预警机将很难指挥在S-400防区附近作战的飞机。 This early-warning activities and the ability to command is bound to be limited, when the early warning aircraft will be difficult to command at S-400 Stand-plane near the fighting.

不过，空战未必发生在陆上，可能发生在海上，这时S-400未必打得到预警机。 However, the air may not happen in the land, may occur at sea, when S-400 may not receive early warning aircraft to fight.

S-400的关键在于它的防空范围，和预警机管制的尺度已经差不多，相较之下以往的防空飞弹的防空范围小于预警机战管范围的尺度。 S-400 the key to the scope of its air defense and early warning aircraft to control the scale is almost, compared to under the previous air defense missile air defense early-warning range is less than the yardstick of the scope of warfare.

“不能说S-400能百分之百把预警机档在门外，因为军事作战这回事，没有可能有一个武器能达成100%防御，我只能说S400防御效果应该很高，对方会受到非常大的限制。” "Can not Say S-400 early warning aircraft to stall at 100% outside the military operations because this is the case, it is not possible there is a weapon can reach 100% defense, I can only say that the effect of S400 defense should be very high, the other will be very large restrictions. "

KLS编辑部在此补充，S400防空导弹系统，目前确实有意出口到国际市场。 KLS editorial in this supplement, S400 anti-aircraft missile systems, is really intended to be exported to international markets.

但事实上，有关S400的详细技术特征，迄今依然不清楚，俄方近几年在马来西亚的推销，也只是着重在BUK系统，所以KLS记者目前对S400的了解并不多。 But in fact, the S400 of the detailed technical characteristics, so far remains unclear, the Russian side in recent years in Malaysia to sell, they are just focused on the BUK systems, so the current KLS reporter does not know many of the S400.

我们曾经有问过俄方有关出口S300或S400到马来西亚的问题，其中我们有了解到俄方出口的S400的宣传中，宣称S400的最大射程只有240公里，而不是400公里。 Once we have asked Russia for export to Malaysia S300 or S400 of the problem, we have learned that one of the Russian export of publicity S400, the S400 that only the maximum range of 240 kilometers, instead of 400 kilometers.

这240公里射程的S400，是不是只针对出口的系统，不得而知。 This range of 240 kilometers of the S400, are not only for the export system, is not known.

但S-400确实是有好几种射程的弹种可以使用，240公里是其中一种，也是目前测试的一种，在原来的设计中，240公里与400公里版本是打不同目标的。 However, S-400 does have are several species of a range of shells can be used, is one of 240 kilometers, is also a kind of test, at the original design of 240 kilometers and 400 kilometers are playing different versions of the objectives.

俄方新闻官曾经有告诉过KLS记者，S400是一套提高防空作战效益及可信赖的防空系统。 Russian press officer once KLS reporter has been told, S400 enhance air defense operations are an effective and reliable air defense systems.

就马来西亚防空态势而言，马来西亚的确需要大量的防空系统，因为在战争中，防空导弹的是其中一个必须大量消耗的装备。 On the air defense posture in terms of Malaysia, Malaysia is indeed required many air defense systems, because in the war, anti-aircraft missiles are to be one of a substantial consumption of equipment.

但是，马来西亚需不需装备S400防空系统，我们相信这必须经过讨论及考虑到马来西亚防空部队将面对什么样的对手等各种因素后，才会有一个结果。 However, Malaysia will take no S400 air defense systems and equipment, we believe that this must be discussed and taken into account Malaysia's air defense forces would be faced with what kind of opponents and other factors, there is only one outcome.

如以国土纵深的马来西亚而言，其目前的防空系统确实不足够，假设有一天马来西亚真装备了射程240公里的S400防空系统，并且部署的柔佛，那么，届时S400不仅能够涵盖马来西亚半岛南部防空，而且已经把防空作战的空域扩大到新加坡上空。 Such as depth to land in Malaysia is concerned, its current air defense system is of course not enough to assume that one day Malaysia has really equipped with a range of 240 kilometers of the S400 air defense systems, and deployment of Johor, then the S400 will be able to cover not only air defense in southern Peninsular Malaysia, air defense operations and has put the expansion of the airspace over to Singapore.

惟必须注意的是，国际公约已阐明禁止各国出口射程超过300公里的导弹，所以即使俄国真的有超过400公里射程的40N6导弹，其能否出口到国际市场还依然是一道疑问。 However, it must be noted that the International Convention on the Prohibition of the countries exports has made it clear that a range of more than three hundred kilometers of the missile, so true, even if Russia has more than four hundred kilometers range 40N6 missile, which can be exported to international market still is a doubt.

这也可能是俄国向国际市场推出240公里射程，而不是400公里射程的导弹的原因。 It may also be in Russia to the international market a range of 240 kilometers, 400 kilometers rather than the reasons for the missile range.

回到首页 Back to Home

Translated in Google

Massive failure by Google Translate.

Sample

Any smarter and I would be wary. :lol:

Hmm, pardon my noob-ness. So the report is saying that the S400 missile and our G550 AWACS systems would just nice fall under each other range?

The S-400 is able to change its mid-air course, right? In that case, isn't it down to an alertness of the operators on "who detects who first"?

Edit: grammar error

actually the translation while grammatically wrong, is right.

The proper sentence structure should be:
At any place between Johore and Kuching, the deployment of a set of S-400 air defense system would be taken down by G-550 AWACS directed -ahem- planes.

Do we have anti-radiation such as the AGM-88 HARM?

That will be useful against the S-400 radars.

I believe that the detection range of our G550 will allow it to stay beyond the reach of the BUK but not the S-400. That being said, there are currently to export of S-400 missile systems from Russia.

The issue I had with the translation was that anyone who cannot read Mandarin could very possibly assume that the article meant that the S-400 would take down the G-550 AWACS, since the G-550 alone wouldn't be performing any direct offensive action, hence rendering the original "shot down by G-550 AWACS" invalid.

I think we had Shrikes, not sure if we ever bought HARM.

uh oh. shrikes are pretty unreliable in their role, I really hope we do have AGM-88s hidden away...

well, we still have AH64s to help out in the anti-radar role as they did just that in GW1, we might have learnt from the US a lesson or two about those missions by now...

JSOW were employed to target fixed AA sites apparently.

Thanks to LazerLordz for taking the trouble to post up the translation. To all of those complaining about the accuracy of the translation, yes, its not totally accurate, but at least give credit to LL for posting it up mah. Show some appreciation mah, unless you want to take initiative to post up your own super-accurate translation. <_<

It's not his work I fail to appreciate, it's Google. ;)

The reason for bringing it up is to let those who can't read Mandarin know that there are some discrepancies in the text. I apologize if you were offended, LazerLordz.

But as you mentioned, I did forget to thank him. Thanks for the translation, LazerLordz. :)

No offence taken, guys.

If my Mandarin was any better, I'd have amended it. But.. I'm atrocious with that and may have ended up causing more confusion. :lol:

Yup. No need for HARMs. HARMs, until the -E version which is only in low rate production has very low success rates.

JSOW-ER, JASSM, SLAM-ER, ATACMS have long enough reach as well, not to mention moving target ability.

Not sure if even MY will buy expensive SAM batteries only to be rendered cost-ineffective by far cheaper missiles which target radars that cannot be easily hidden.

MY alone cannot achieve the capability as AWACs can fly southwards far enough to bring SAMs into range. ID will need to acquire the capability as well which doubles the cost.

Thats not counting radar jammers & aircraft decoys and onboard self protection suites. One might be able to note the aircraft taking off but IDing it in the air is not that easy.

An example of a cost-effective decoy...

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1215

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/mald/

The MALD was targeted to cost US$30k per unit (FY95) but current est is ~$125k each. MALD-J was authorised in April 2008 to add radar jamming capability to the basic MALD.

(sound of the MM coughing) ;)

Mmmm...How are we suppose to launch an Anti-Radiation missile when RSAF aircraft will most probably be locked on after gaining a certain level of altitude. An altitude that doesnt permits our fighter to launch an immediate offensive strike against any known targets. Instead of an air launched strike, our planners will most probably consider a Ground to Ground as a better alternative.

The Israelis once employed ground launched HARMs/Shrikes. Cant remember which conflict.

And we's got UAVs. They can try popping off their SAMs at those... =) If not, they UAVs will just hunt down the SAMs based on whatever ELINT we can gather.

I think you guys might wanna be aware about this as well. AKA STAR-1
http://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/mm/mm0955.doc

They mounted Shrikes on a Sherman chassis and were used during the Yom Kippur War. Very interesting idea.

Shouldn't the longer range loitering SEAD missiles be considered here too?

TALD/MALD, Delilah(or some chukar derivatives) maybe even Harpy.

I think they are better suited for the ranges involved.

The Kilshon was not used during Yom Kippur. It entered service after Yom Kippur when post war analysis showed the F-4 shrikes weren't very useful.

The Keres (standard ARM armed ground based on truck) was used in Ops Peace for Galilee in 1982.

Shotgun got it right with the UAVs but range is a factor. 200km max with 100km sight means longer ranged UAVs needed.

A good candidate would be the 500km ranged Harpys.

My bad. Yes, right after Yom Kippur.

During Op El Dorado Canyon against Libya, SEAD aircraft would fly behind the main strike force en route to the target. The HARMS were then fired ahead of the main strike force ('lofted')before any of the US aircraft were in the SAM's detection range. As the HARM entered the radar detection envelope (still ahead of the strike force) they would lock on to the radar source and the radar was more or less a goner. All this would depend a lot on good timing though.

Harpy launched onboard RSN's fleet would be great!

I hope all future platforms should model after the likes of USCG legend class, Absalon, Austal's MRVs etc. Ships with long flight deck(to launch uavs like the snowgoose, and lsv strike vehicles), ro-ro deck, either a dock or aft transom to launch and recover usvs/mini subs and accomodations for strike troops.

Actually the Endurance class is pretty close. Well perhaps when they are due for upgrade, more stealthy superstructure with a 50m extension if the beam allows for it. :rolleyes:

Not to mention F-35Bs.... Heavier amph dock ships seems to be a natural progression.

Apologies for being off topic. Personally, I like the Mistral class. French knowhow shouldn't be difficult to integrate/localise (eg Formidables). Not too exp either.

There is a "Harpy 2" called the Harop which was introduced in 2005. It includes a EO seeker which allows TV guidance in addition to the ARM. This effectively allows targeting of targets eg radars which have been switched off as well.

With such UAVs already in service with Turkey, India, South korea and even China (for Harpy), I'd be surprised if RSAF hasn't looked at it to date.

Ultimately, there's a lot of cost-effective ways to tackle expensive SAM battaries. It probably explains in part why a replacement for the I-Hawk hasn't entered service.

Nice vid of harop launch.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=520_1234404413

Personally, I feel that the comments given by the 'experts' seems more pointed towards a marketing pitch!

S-300 positioned at JB would be sufficient, let alone the S-400, to 'threatened' any aircraft taking off from Sing (Pardon my technical deficiency over the technical capabilities of systems). But on the other hand, any deployment of S-300 SAM-category in M'sia would be interpreted as a direct hostile threat not just to Sing but also to Indonesia, Thailand and to a certain degree, Australia. Come on to be fair to everyone, ANY system whether air/sea or land deployed by Sing will directly or indirectly 'touch' everyone in the immediate neighbourhood. Why? just look at the map - is there a difference if HAWKS SAMS are deployed at Changi vs Lim Chu Kang? :blink:

Anyway, if the MAf were to purchase S-300/400, I can bet that it will trigger off a round of proliferation of ARMs in this region and I'll support Sing's acquisition of SAM-hunting Harpy UAVs.

Well, if put into the local context....

Then any SHORAD from neighbours could cover slow take-offs and climb outs. :unsure:

On a wider viewpoint, with LOAL missile types, I wonder if ARMs are the answer.

The irony here is that we were the ones who the Russians tried to market the S-300 system to, a few years back. :lol:

O.T abit, and how can we delude ourselves that we arent in an arms race ? :angry:

destabilizing destabilizing. not good. but dont we have a FPDA IADS HQ together with malaysia in butterworth penang ?

is it still a functional or purely symbolic agreement ?

because if the FPDA is still functioning, its more of a benefit than a potential threat towards us.

SG isn't in an arms race. MY hasn't bought a MR or LR SAM yet and current budgets doesn't seem catered for it. MY has a lot of other priorities, foremost as with RSAF is the upgrading of its airforce. One can't have an arms race when 1 party spends consistently double what the other spends on defence.

FPDA is not a symbolic agreement cos of the mechanics. The agreement is not signed with MY but with UK, Aus and NZ. Similar agreement on MY part with the 3 countries make it 5 powers but no agreement bet MY and SG nor will there be one.

I suggest reading the below to get some SG perspective on the FPDA.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/bac...8/Vol24_2/3.htm

I don't quite agree on the arms race bit but I won't argue with u on this

Thanks for the link, will read up more about it. I raised the pt As I'm wondering, why would a hypothetical redland s300/400 be more of a threat to us ? Wont it be a great deal better for us under the framework of fpda iads hq in butterworth?

I would view the FPDA's context as one of regional defence. But as we all know, there are more macro or micro levels of analysis.. hence most perceived insecurity complexes between us and the North come at a lower-level.

At the regional level, I would agree that we stand together more than we pitch insults at each other. Well, at least military-military. Let's leave the politicians out of this.

Wait, what are we talking about here, IADS or FPDA?

The IADS arrangement was born in 1968, 3 years before the FPDA in 1971.

The IADS is a framework, and yes if you want to be realist and call it a piece of paper, it is essentially it. However, it is the only institution that specifies a defence arrangement that we have to commit resources to. It is thus maintained as a framework, ready to implement its plans when required.

The FPDA is a different agreement that does not require any of the 5 powers to commit any resources to any conflict. It only stipulates that the 5 powers are to consult each other on threats.

Essentially, any institution is symbolic in my opinion. At least until the point when it states part of it activate its resources and policies to fulfil its obligations to them.

I find this discussion to be abstract in the extreme. Malaysia does not even possess medium range SAM, let alone S-300/400. Judging from the state of the economy, I would think large arms purchases would be very unlikely.

hmm, they arent interrelated ?

i remembered an article somewhere that involved the RAAF, RSAF and RMAF in the IADS framework. the article mentioned something about the IADS being central to FPDA and its activities or something. but my memory's pretty hazy. might have remembered wrongly.

there are several new variants of the HARM missile in the pipeline

http://www.zinio.com/express3?issue=324068337
[page 29]

worth considering...

i guess its just treating this as an academic exercise? if not the short answer to 'G550 vs S400' would be S400 win cuz G550 is unarmed :P

The IADS cannot remain relevant outside of the FPDA. To me, at least.. the role of the IADS symbolically concretises the role of the FPDA in the common defence or defence-consultation towards any threat against SG or MY.

FPDA itself without a proper role in peacetime, is merely a talkshop and a forum for cooperative security. Without the IADS, it may very well go down that path.. I feel.

Follow-up on this thread title, What news on the 2x G550 SEMA aircrafts for RSAF?

They would be a REAL transformative capability.

This would be G550 vs not just S400 BUT ANY Air Defence Ground Environment!!!:ph43r:

Looking forward to it.

Sorry to burst the bubble. The G550 sema is only a sigint aircraft, something akin to the EP3.

The main feature of the SEMA is the E/3001 of which capabilities are identified below. That's why its called the AISIS.
http://www.iai.co.il/24733-26483-en/default.aspx

In respect of the G550 CAEW or the SEMA, self protection is possibly by way of the EL/L8247. Link below.

http://www.iai.co.il/33792-26550-en/ELTA.aspx

What the CAEW definitely has (which is in the brochure) is an integrated self protection system with a 360 deg coverage incl RWR, MAWS employing radar and IR technologies. The SPS countermeasures include chaff & flares dispensers (CF) and directive IR countermeasures (DIRCM).