http://mil.today/2015/Syria31/
>>27898609
>expensive missiles that get defeated by decoy drone spam
I dunno the purpose of this thread
>>27898884
>even more expensive planes that get shot down before they launch their decoy drones.
I dont know why but this comment was deleted
>
There was a photo earlier with 96L6 radar system, but the same radar can be used for latest S-300s as well. Russian-specific variant modernized S-300s are already overkill for practically any aerial threat. I don't see a reason for them to deploy S-400s in Syria considering they're even more advanced and their priority is specifically to strategic points within Russia itself.
Deploying S-300 would've drastically changed balance of power in the region. The range on its longest range missiles is crazy (400 km) and the battery system / missiles themselves are considered the best in the world.
Is it wrong or what?
>>27899038
>ADM-160 range: 465+km
>S-400 range: ~400km
>Russian doctrine: Shoot missile at ~1/3 of max range for highest Pk
>...get shot down before they launch their decoy drones
baka desu senpai
>>27900123
>anyone shooting any guided missile 400+ miles at non-stationary targets
>>27900153
Good point, sort of what I was trying to get at.
Though, putting it that way, the aircraft would surely have a lot bigger an advantage, right?
>>27899051
I wouldn't call it "wrong" per se, though I sure as hell wouldn't call it "right" either...
I, particularly, don't like the "inflation" (I just woke up, does that word fit?) of it's capabilities... (Overkill, best in the world, etc...)
Otherwise, it's probably a deterrent or something for Russia against any of the more advanced nations that might bother them or whatever.
>>27900123
>S-400 opens fire 2 missiles at strike package at max range
>pilots scramble to release their loads and rtb
>malds have fun searching with just 65km of range to spare while S-400 trucks had 10 minutes of moving done, all the while pantsirs are scanning the air lookin for you.
>>27900153
>>anyone shooting any guided missile 400+ miles at non-stationary targets
ever heard of ABMs?
>>27900262
>Pilots realize missiles were fired at max range, loop back around, or just bug out while the guys behind them continue on
>Aircraft now have an idea where S-400's came from, and can scrutinize the area further
>Fly above Pantsir's effective altitude
>Don't even need standoff weapons, just SDB the shit out of everyone
>>27900286
>>Pilots realize missiles were fired at max range, loop back around, or just bug out while the guys behind them continue on
or much more likely, strike package aborts mission since HOLY SHIT 2km/s missile heading our way from bumfck nowhere and we have no idea where the rest of the 11 launchers are, we are prolly heading into the killing zone of one.
>>Aircraft now have an idea where S-400's came from, and can scrutinize the area further
nyet, just a launcher.
>>Fly above Pantsir's effective altitude
kek, 20km is way,way below 185km max alt of S-400 40n6 and you are still well within the aircraft killing missile 9M96E2 alt.
>>27900286
>>Don't even need standoff weapons, just SDB the shit out of everyone
being this delusional
>>27900262
>hitting anything that does any kind of evasive maneuvers at your maximum range, even if the target is closing
Nah brah.
Nah. Physics don't work like that no matter the missile.
>>27900377
with a terminal velocity of 1km/s at least its jettison everything to dooooooodge or you get turned into confetti.
not to mention evasive maneuvers could lead you into nasty sorts of positions where the more agile aircraft killing missile from guess what just 100km away could exploit and turn you into confetti just the same.
>>27900362
Or, through superior intelligence, they already know where the missiles are and can track them, and have planned accordingly.
>Pantsir
>185km altitude
Breh...
Besides, it's not 185km at 400km either... lrn2missiles
>>27900412
>with a terminal velocity of 1km/s
That's not how it works.
If you launch anything at it's maximum range, it's a complete crap shoot as to whether or not it's going to hit anything that's even not maneuvering. Pic related to give you a general idea. Nobody fires at max range because it has a drastic effect on your pk% You always wait for it to enter the optimal range where your missile has enough energy to maneuver as needed and ideally within the 'no escape zone'.
>>27900467
>Or, through superior intelligence, they already know where the missiles are and can track them, and have planned accordingly.
remember the scud hunts of GW1? and those were against targets that cant fight back and dont have organic SAMs to protect them.
>Breh...
learn2read
>Besides, it's not 185km at 400km either...
ofc. it isnt, but you mentioned dropping SDBs with impunity which means you are relying on 1960s(kek) technique of having as much altitude as possible to avoid getting shot down. and we all know how far missile tech has gotten since then.
>>27900506
>That's not how it works.
>If you launch anything at it's maximum range, it's a complete crap shoot as to whether or not it's going to hit anything that's even not maneuvering. Pic related to give you a general idea. Nobody fires at max range because it has a drastic effect on your pk% You always wait for it to enter the optimal range where your missile has enough energy to maneuver as needed and ideally within the 'no escape zone'.
for old missiles yes. however S-400 snapshot missiles and its counterparts fly ballistically and over stratosphere for most of their flight so when they reach the target they have buttloads of energy to manuever from falling down.
>>27900552
Tech and doctrine has improved since the 90's pal.
>learn2read
Pot, meet kettle... I specifically said to be above the PANTSIR's altitude, not the fucking S-400, as you said they'd be relocating.
We all know how jamming, decoys, tactics, etc. has gotten since the 60's too... If you're referring to the Vietnam war, SEAD and such was actually very effective, and US air power was barely hampered.
>inb4 muh Linebacker
>>27900581
Proofs?
>>27900591
>Pot, meet kettle... I specifically said to be above the PANTSIR's altitude, not the fucking S-400, as you said they'd be relocating.
that was just 1 or a couple launchers at best moving- no one is insane to have them all bug out and be in firing position when datalinks allow them to fire hundreds of km from radars.
>We all know how jamming, decoys, tactics, etc. has gotten since the 60's too... If you're referring to the Vietnam war, SEAD and such was actually very effective, and US air power was barely hampered.
which is why NATO airpower brutalized the Serbian military- oh wait.
>>27900599
>Extended range missile shots typically involve ballistic flight profiles with apogees in excess of 40 km. The protracted development of the 40N6 suggests that directional control through the upper portions of the flight profile may have presented difficulties. One advantage of such flight profiles is that the missile converts potential energy into kinetic energy during the terminal phase of its flight, accelerating as it dives on its target. This provides higher endgame G capability in comparison with flatter cruise profiles used in legacy designs.
>http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-400-Triumf.html
jesus quick google its among the first results.
>>27900614
Just like there'll be more than one strike group, not to mention all the other assets...
Care to elaborate on Serbia? :^) You're probably thinking of another conflict.
>>27900632
Neat.
>>27900581
>for old missiles yes.
All missiles. Physics doesn't change.
>however S-400 snapshot missiles and its counterparts fly ballistically
This is not unique or new. The physics of energy conservation do not change. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.
>it's an amerifat vs slavshit thread
>>27900718
>Nearly every thread on /k/
>>27900638
>Just like there'll be more than one strike group, not to mention all the other assets...
already taken into consideration. blufor strike packages come in hard and fast and more importantly in numbers with all the EW support it needs, no need to pull one's punches here, esp. since the SAM menace can be everywhere and nowhere in the span of time in between it would take for waves of strike packages to arrive.
>>27900638
>Care to elaborate on Serbia? :^) You're probably thinking of another conflict.
well Serbian military and just the military survived the air campaign of 80 or so days relatively intact- tho of course they failed to protect their country's people and infra. but what can you do with just a few pieces of SAMs?
>>27900733
jhfjhvgjhb
>>27900707
>This is not unique or new. The physics of energy conservation do not change. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.
now you're just talking past me and apparently didnt read what i just quoted.
>>27900733
First point: Exactly, giving the SAM's little time to act, and most likely be overwhelmed.
Second point: So what exactly are you saying? The military failed, the air forces did what they needed to do, destroyed what they needed to do... I don't understand how this is in any way negative of the air forces.
>>27900768
>First point: Exactly, giving the SAM's little time to act, and most likely be overwhelmed.
which is why you wont encounter S-400 divisions in isolation anywhere on the planet. the steep price range alone ensures you at least own a capable air force and force multipliers to go along with it.
>Second point: So what exactly are you saying? The military failed, the air forces did what they needed to do, destroyed what they needed to do... I don't understand how this is in any way negative of the air forces.
the objective is to destroy military capability of the Serbs- they failed.
>>27900818
I think you need to read up on that whole Serbian thing m80...
As for the other thing, even with the other assets, the S-400's wouldn't fair so well. At least not against America. I don't know a lot about the rest of the EU or China's capabilities when it comes to SEAD and such, so for all I know they'd be fucked against Russia, but otherwise, I seriously doubt even Russia's top-tier IAD would fare incredibly well against America. (Obviously it'd be tough as fuck and there'd be casualties, but in the end, I doubt Russia would prevail.)
>>27900818
Not the other anon but Agreed.
I read a fun New York Times article from 2000 where the interviewer went to Kosovo and the Kosovan military analyst pointed out how almost all the coalition strikes hit targets the Serbian army set up. There were pictures of where our strikes hit 1940's broken trucks, ww2 tanks, and even a painting of a tank. He explained that our inability to hit the right targets was what kept the Serbian army fighting for so long.
Finally, he said that Russia's lack of full support for Serbia was what led to Serbia's withdrawal.
>>27900845
>As for the other thing, even with the other assets, the S-400's wouldn't fair so well. At least not against America. I don't know a lot about the rest of the EU or China's capabilities when it comes to SEAD and such, so for all I know they'd be fucked against Russia, but otherwise, I seriously doubt even Russia's top-tier IAD would fare incredibly well against America. (Obviously it'd be tough as fuck and there'd be casualties, but in the end, I doubt Russia would prevail.)
we have no way of knowing anyway- such a conflict and its Topol-Ms and Trident 2s talking. plus Western airpower never really had pleasure of getting its airfields bombed, its valuable force multipliers like tankers and AWACS sniped with BVRs, jammers HARMskied or basically getting on the defensive against an enemy that is actually capable of fighting back, its all strike packages bombing with impunity all this time so if i had to give the West credit its that it chooses who to bomb really well.
>>27900757
You still don't seem to realize that such missiles fly in a parabolic arc, and at their maximum range they're well below the perfect potential energy that they have at the peak of their arc. For example, the AIM-54 also did a parabolic arc to increase it's range and come down on a target. The problem is that such missiles run out of fuel well before they reach the apex of their arc and from that point on are coasting along and using control surfaces. The further they move out, the slower they are moving and further into the atmosphere they are moving back into. Thus their energy potential greatly diminishes. This is why ALL missiles, no matter who makes them are never used at their maximum range.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand. Help me out. I'm honestly trying to help you understand this.
>>27900907
Will there really never be any conventional conflict between bigger nations again though?
What purpose do conventional forces hold then? If it was going to be nukes guaranteed, wouldn't it be more economical for countries like Russia to just disband it's conventional forces?
>>27900910
i understand just fine, let just agree to disagree.
>This is why ALL missiles, no matter who makes them are never used at their maximum range.
as one insufferable whiny girl said, "never say never". one very possible reason to shoot for max is to suppress AWACS or disrupt tankers doing their jobs. those targets cant certainly dodge for the life of them and would present an ideal target for a missile with low Pk against maneuvering targets as you said.
>>27900962
>Will there really never be any conventional conflict between bigger nations again though?
hopefully not soon.
>What purpose do conventional forces hold then? If it was going to be nukes guaranteed, wouldn't it be more economical for countries like Russia to just disband it's conventional forces?
well having a conventional force does allow you to throw your weight around the block so to speak- also great for throwing them back in line in case they get uppity- see Georgia888
>as one insufferable whiny girl said, "never say never". one very possible reason to shoot for max is to suppress AWACS or disrupt tankers doing their jobs. those targets cant certainly dodge for the life of them and would present an ideal target for a missile with low Pk against maneuvering targets as you said.
admittedly these are very contrived events, but they show the disruptive effect of ultra long range snapshot coming in the most; that they have very really killing potential and not just disrupting strike packages.
>>27900845
I think you need to read up.
>Of military equipment, NATO destroyed around 50 Yugoslav aircraft including 6 MiG-29s destroyed in air-to-air combat. >A number of G-4 Super Galebs were destroyed in their hardened aircraft shelter by bunker-busting bombs which started a fire which spread quickly because the shelter doors were not closed. At the end of war, NATO officially claimed that they had destroyed 93 Yugoslav tanks. Yugoslavia admitted a total of 3 destroyed tanks. The latter figure was verified by European inspectors when Yugoslavia rejoined the Dayton accords, by noting the difference between the number of tanks then and at the last inspection in 1995.[citation needed] NATO claimed that the Yugoslav army lost 93 tanks (M-84's and T-55's), 132 APCs, and 52 artillery pieces.[202] Newsweek, the second-largest news weekly magazine in the U.S, gained access to a suppressed US Air Force report that claimed the real numbers were "3 tanks, not 120; 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220; 20 artillery pieces, not 450".[202][203] >Another US Air Force report gives a figure of 14 tanks destroyed.[44] Most of the targets hit in Kosovo were decoys, such as tanks made out of plastic sheets with telegraph poles for gun barrels, or old World War II–era tanks which were not functional. Anti-aircraft defences were preserved by the simple expedient of not turning them on, preventing NATO aircraft from detecting them, but forcing them to keep above a ceiling of 15,000 feet (5,000 m), making accurate bombing much more difficult
>>27901033
Not him, but the objective wasn't only to destroy military assets as the other anon implied. He even said so in one of his earlier posts. (If it was his.)
>The military failed to protect...
That one...
>>27901031
I expect a major war in the next decade.
Conventional armed force speaks far better politically than nuclear weapons. There's a definite ideal that threatening with nuclear weapons is a no-no on the international stage. Despite what our media says, even Russia has refrained from these threats.
So conventional is needed.
Yep. Max range is only rarely used, but it's can be useful. Still most use will occur within half of the max range.
Who else thinks missiles and their guidance systems are the future of warfare?
Imagine an S-400 missile variant that simply guides the other missiles and updates their information. With all the electronic advancements I see this happening.
>>27901059
I don't get how protecting your citizens is the main goal of a war if the other sides goal is to defeat your military, not your civilians.
(It sounds bad but no military nowadays is trying to kill millions of civilians and declare that a victory)
We won in Kosovo, but not nearly as quickly or effectively as we thought we would. Russia not giving Serbia support was what won it for us desu.
>>27901084
>Conventional armed force speaks far better politically than nuclear weapons. There's a definite ideal that threatening with nuclear weapons is a no-no on the international stage. Despite what our media says, even Russia has refrained from these threats.
>So conventional is needed.
hint: advent of PGMs means that most military targets that would need nukes could be dealt with conventionally.
Does anyone know how effective these missiles are against the latest American fighters?
>>27901187
no one here knows and if some do they arent posting anything unless they want masked men coming out of black unmarked vans on their doorstep the night after,
>>27900718
>muh ISD can KO your Galaxy-class in 1 hit
>lol, lasers don't work on trek shields
>more magical lies, star wars is just too advanced to be understood
>phasers outperform blasters
>muh freeze-frame and joules
>muh shitty special effects
>REEEEEEEEEE
>REEEEEEEEEE
It reminds me of dickwaving sci-fi fans but the subject is actually real. It's still bullshit, like fantasy sports leagues.
>>27900757
The no escape zone for the AIM-120D is the same as the AIM-120C-7 because it uses the same rocket motor, despite having a longer overall range. The reason for this is because the missile can loft itself at a higher angle and still track. However at ranges where the missile has the highest probability of kill, the HOBS lofting capability is un-necessary. The same applies to the SA-21. It has an excellent missile, but once that rocket motor has burned out, any real maneuver such as a simple direction change, would cause the missile to have to change it's intercept vector, causing it to lose energy that it can't regain, reducing the PK.
Also.
What altitude does something have to be flying at for the radar to detect it at 400km? Radar horizon is a thing.
>The no escape zone for the AIM-120D is the same as the AIM-120C-7 because it uses the same rocket motor, despite having a longer overall range. The reason for this is because the missile can loft itself at a higher angle and still track. However at ranges where the missile has the highest probability of kill, the HOBS lofting capability is un-necessary. The same applies to the SA-21. It has an excellent missile, but once that rocket motor has burned out, any real maneuver such as a simple direction change, would cause the missile to have to change it's intercept vector, causing it to lose energy that it can't regain, reducing the PK.
>comparing two wholly different missiles
this is the problem; one is an ersatz phoenix replacement while other is in sm-6 class but can engage jets on the side. the former does not achieve the alt needed to possess enough PE but the latter can and does have oodles of it to play with at endgame.
>What altitude does something have to be flying at for the radar to detect it at 400km? Radar horizon is a thing.
doesnt need to be high flying as long as someone connected to BMS and can do midcourse tracking calls it in.
>>27900123
nigga that sentence structure is wrong.
>>27903579
9050m ~ 30000ft. Assuming of course that the limiting factor is the curve of the earth, not a hill, or tree line, etc.
>Anti-aircraft defences were preserved by the simple expedient of not turning them on, preventing NATO aircraft from detecting them, but forcing them to keep above a ceiling of 15,000 feet (5,000 m), making accurate bombing much more difficult
This is the part all the Russian S-400 is god posters need to learn. Russian air defense doctrine is to set up and radiate for 30 seconds, before taking down your system, moving to a new position at least 2km away and setting back up. This means that a single air defense system is in operation just 3% of the time. This is fine when protecting quick moving targets like single tanks/apcs/squads, but is completely insufficient for large static strategic targets like, bridges, dams, supply depots, command centers, supply routes, air fields, etc.
What does this mean fora hypothetical NATO Russia war? Russia has to fight with small independent groups, not massed formations of soldiers. This means it will be very bloody for Russia. On the flip side, NATO will not be able to completely remove Russia simply by bombing, and hence they will have to engage in infantry and tank battles. NATO will take loses, but a lot fewer than Russia. The billion dollar question is, who gives up first?
>>27905693
>This is the part all the Russian S-400 is god posters need to learn. Russian air defense doctrine is to set up and radiate for 30 seconds, before taking down your system, moving to a new position at least 2km away and setting back up. This means that a single air defense system is in operation just 3% of the time. This is fine when protecting quick moving targets like single tanks/apcs/squads, but is completely insufficient for large static strategic targets like, bridges, dams, supply depots, command centers, supply routes, air fields, etc.
no, just wrong. never heard of this before- ffs it takes 5 minutes to setup what kind of moron leaves after radiating for 30 secs. where did you get this shit? maybe you misread it- i do know radiating times are pretty brief- but then they certainly dont bug out but rather turn passive and wait for the next multi func. radars returns. hell the big ass panoramic radar certainly does not "bug out after radiating for 30 secs" >>27905693
>What does this mean fora hypothetical NATO Russia war? Russia has to fight with small independent groups, not massed formations of soldiers. This means it will be very bloody for Russia.
kek, you didnt even manage to bloody the Serbs and that was in a very permissive environment how did you come to this conclusion besides preexisting delusion?
>>27905408
Same principle; an object without power will not be able to regain the energy it has lost by having to change direction. This is simple physics. A missile flying ballistically has drag force and gravity acting on it, causing it to fly parabolically, which will cause it to slow until it reaches terminal velocity heading straight vertically towards the center of Earth's gravity. An unpowered missile that has to change direction will have to, among other things, increase it's drag and also it's velocity which will cause it to lose some kinetic energy. This is kinetic energry that won't be there to be used again't a maneuvering target or one that decides to turn and run, thus reducing the probability of kill.
>>27906188
They assume that every place they fight will be a third world flat desert like Iraq, where all targets stand out brightly, theres no foilage, they don't know how to hide from IR, they don't know how to build decoys, and they have no money.
>>27901109
You didn't really "win" in kosovo
The serbs gave up, because you killed thousands bombing civilian targets.
It was all a over a lie too, so how can that be called a win.
>>27906804
what the hell man- for fcks sake the point of going through all that altitude is to store enormous potential energy and minimize drag(air is so fcking thin up there conventional control surfaces like stabs and tails are useless- you need like gas actuators used in satellites or thrust vectoring)- when it starts to come down this energy turns to kinetic one that the missile bleeds when maneuvering- more importantly it has a lot of it- compared to some ersatz phoenix missile and still possesses at least 1km/s on the endgame plus the fck huge proximity frag warhead. i dont get why it is important to mention the missile is unpowered through most of its flight- fck all missiles have like a few seconds of burn time in their stages and coast through the way to their targets unpowered.
I dont know why Russiaboos jack off to shoot and scoot so much. It's completely irrelevant to static defense. It's the reason why Yugoslavia lost important structures. They were too busy not shooting and hiding. IADS not doing anything is already a victory.
>>27907204
Also before some smart alec makes a comment about Yugo nonexistent IADS.
>Yugoslavia’s air defenses were dominated by surface-to-air missile
(SAM) batteries equipped with thousands of Soviet-made SAMs, in-
cluding three SA-2 battalions; 16 SA-3 battalions, each with numer-
ous launchers directed by LOW BLOW fire-control radars; and five
SA-6 regiments fielding five batteries each, for a total of 25 SA-6 bat-
teries directed by STRAIGHT FLUSH radars. These radar-guided
SAMs were supplemented by around 100 vehicle-mounted SA-9 and
several SA-13 infrared SAMs, along with a profusion of man-portable
infrared SAMs, some 1,850 antiaircraft artillery (AAA) pieces, and nu-
merous stockpiled reserve weapons and buried communications
lines
Yugoslavia basically had the best air defense in Europe next to Russia. Basically, a war with Russia will go the same way.
>Haha stupid Amerikanski can't find our SAMs and radars.
>Oh shit we lost our bridges, electricity, depots, and factories
>>27906188
>Russian air defense doctrine is to set up and radiate for 30 seconds, before taking down your system, moving to a new position at least 2km away and setting back up.
This comes from the mouth of Zoltan Dani. YOu might know him as the former soviet, and then Yugoslav officer, who shot down both NATO planes shot down during the serbian bombing campaign.
>"fire control radar could only be turned on for a maximum of 2 x 20 seconds in combat, after which the battery's equipment must be immediately broken down and trucked to a prepared alternative launch site, whether or not any missile has been fired."
The advantage of mobile air defense systems is that they are mobile; however, air defense systems are not functioning while moving. assume 5 minute breakdown, five minute setup, and five minutes to actually move to the second position. (seriously takes way the hell longer than 5 minutes over broken ground, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt.) Hence 3% of the time the air defense system is active.
How does he know when to turn on his radar? Much like artillery commanders, he has forward observers, who let him know when they hear/see a plane. Dani used a network of spotters with radios, to communicate suspected positions of planes, and then guessed when one would be in range of his batteries.
If you stay still after radiating you have just given up your position, and are staying in the one place you know your enemy will be looking, and you will be unable to target any enemy which is not radiating.
>>27907370
>This comes from the mouth of Zoltan Dani. YOu might know him as the former soviet, and then Yugoslav officer, who shot down both NATO planes shot down during the serbian bombing campaign.
what does he know about how russkies operate their IADS?- he was trained in Soviet one and equipment and tactics have changed since then.>>27907370
>The advantage of mobile air defense systems is that they are mobile; however, air defense systems are not functioning while moving. assume 5 minute breakdown, five minute setup, and five minutes to actually move to the second position. (seriously takes way the hell longer than 5 minutes over broken ground, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt.) Hence 3% of the time the air defense system is active.
you are projecting his experiences and tactics on the Russians who are not constrained materially and technologically unlike him and the rest of his unit.
mucho respect for the guy given what he had accomplished with sparse and ancient equipment but his way would not be followed by any IADS commander tasked with defending - I repeat DEFENDING strategic targets. Zoltan Dani and his unit were simply tasked with suriving and inflicting damage at the safest opportune until some political solution comes and thats it.
>>27907284
>Yugoslavia basically had the best air defense in Europe next to Russia. Basically, a war with Russia will go the same way.
yeah, if we count huge numbers of ancient and easy to overfly/jam/spoof crap as good air defence then NK would be a contender today. your post was bad and you should feel bad. not to mention they kinda had a civil war ongoing so a lot of those stuff arent even in their hands (Serbs) anymore.
>>27907284
lol that is so shit. WOW 1850 AAA guns! that is gonna a bombing run in the jet age.
>>27907370
It's nonsense.
>>27907204
>I dont know why Russiaboos jack off to shoot and scoot so much. It's completely irrelevant to static defense. It's the reason why Yugoslavia lost important structures. They were too busy not shooting and hiding. IADS not doing anything is already a victory.
because they are not like some morons who think shoot and scoot means they operate 3% of the time. shoot and scoot doesnt mean every radar and launcher unpack and relocate at the same time. they move in, setup, radiate for a brief moment, turn passive and wait for others radiation until its their turn again, shoot if something's detected, and finally unpack and relocate when given order which usually comes from time to time or after an attack but never without being under cover of other radars and their associated launchers.
>>27907204
Well of course shit like bridges and dams are going to be lost when the enemy has complete air supremacy over you.
But these was months of bombing for almost zero military gain. That's how it'll happen vs a real military force.
As far as I recall, S-400 is anti-AWACS/anti-high altitude bomber, tactical strike fighters are left to mobile BuK systems. S-400 does not travel alone, a division comes with its own Buk regiments, Tor brigades, Tunguska battalions also Pantsir point defence and other stuff like Gazetchik.
The most it can do is detect and then handover the data/information to targeting radars like BuK et al.
murica vs slav threads are always brilliant
>>27898884
>IADS
>defeated by decoy drone spam
>>27908360
Buk is to be phased out by Vityaz and Morfei
They're basically S400Jr. and his lil brother.
Each coming with shorter range but progressively more missiles in the trunk.
They probably thought about cruise missile or drone saturation attacks too.
>>27909517
>>27909517
Tracked mid-range SAM system of the Ground Forces will be phased out by wheeled short- and mid-range SAM systems of Air Defence Forces? You have no idea what you are talking about, please abstain from further posting.
>>27906957
How do you think the missile is able to intercept a target if it can't maneuver you idiot?
>>27909221
>what is MALD-J
It's the decoy drone that wrecks your IADS, sempai.
Now with datalinking to AGM-88E HARMs for that nonlinear-network boosted zerg rush.
>>27909774
>What is IADS?
It's the system that pisses on your plastic toy so far untested even against stationary SA-2. Stay mad.
>>27909774
>MALD-J
Damn this thing is bad ass. What a clever way to defeat Russian SAMs. Can't hit them? Make them waste missiles. Genius! The battlefield of the 21st century will be a whole bunch of shooting at nothing until one side ends up with more bullets to take out the other.
>>27909860
>Implying it can fool advanced IADS into wasting missiles
Top kek.
>>27909902
>Implying it can't fool
Unless the Russian IADS can visually confirm the target, there's no differentiating the radar signature. I don't think Lil Pootin wants to risk not shooting down a potential bomber at his doorstep. Don't be butthurt that Russians aren't the only ones with decoys and tricks now.
>>27909825
>>27909902
>Slavaboos so smug about "superior" Russian decoys and EW
>Can't deal with the fact US can do it too.
Yes, give us more tears.
>>27909609
Buk doesn't belong in S400/500-Vityaz-Morphei order, the latter are even designed with elements common with S series. So it will be phased out of its role in mid-range Air Defence. What role will it buk be then is another matter.
Now fuck off.
>>27910188
>what is rcs
>>27910301
>So it will be phased out
It won't, because it is a tracked SAM system that belongs to the Ground Force regiments. It has nothing to do with future Air Defence Forces SAMs. Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
>>27910188
>there's no differentiating the radar signature
From the perspective of a lone stationary SA-2 in the middle of nowhere? Maybe. But then again, this is what burgerfat amerilards are told the IADS really are.
>>27910215
>Burgerlards still can't deal with the fact that Russian IADS piss on their anti-towelhead plastic toys
You're so salty a single tear shed for your prematurely deceased rectum would kill you.
>>27910334
>he doesn't know about luneberg lenses and methods to increase RCS
>>27910395
Yes! More salt!
>>27910334
>what is rcs
>He doesn't know rcs can be replicated
>He doesn't know MALD carries active radar
>>27910395
>From the perspective of a lone stationary SA-2 in the middle of nowhere? Maybe. But then again, this is what burgerfat amerilards are told the IADS really are.
What does this non sequitur have to do with anything? Your IADS has only two choices: Go passive and and hide when decoys enter (IADS becomes effectively disabled) or waste missiles.
>>27910407
>He thinks this can fool IADS
Tip top kekkity keks.
>>27910435
Yet another confirmation unitedstatians barely understand how do IADS function.
>>27910507
It might just be me, but i get the feeling you don't actually know how radar works.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0acJ3xyhaJo
Public service advertisement for our vatnik friends.
>>27907204
I'd argue that static defense itself is irrelevant and futile. Air defense is and always has been a game of attrition - never an impenetrable barricade.
>>27908360
>what is 9m96
anyway nobody official stated that S-400 especially the ultra-long range 40N6 missile is anti-AWACS/bomber/whatever big and slow target- some moron thought it was and retards everywhere ran away with it. Buks are an army system- they are with the tank and motor rifle brigades not with Aerospace forces.
>>27909774
>>27909860
>>27910188
>>27910215
>>27910435
>>27910507
>>27910519
>>27912083
>>27912338
and Murican educational system strikes again.
predator drones that are order of magnitude more expensive than your mald crap get spoofed by export EW suites- what makes you think this cheaper crap is gonna do better.
also no expensive missiles are gonna be fired- zip,zilch,zero, nada because this crap wont even survive an EW so thick you can cut it with a knife- you guys know about russian EW assets like krasukha-4 right? not to mention those big ass multifunc radars can alway pick up the slack and do jamming too- the sheer size of the set guarantees at least brute force defeat of crap like mald.
also these mald crap are easy to id- what they look like fighters on x-band, welp time to look at it through other bands then- and oh now it doesnt look like one.
>>27914800
Excuse me.
You aren't very good at English.
I suggest that if you wish to enlighten the other posters on your board with your wisdom, you attempt to improve your grammar, capitalization and punctuation.
>>27914819
One beet will be removed from his account.
