Here's my simple idea to destroy s-300 without any losses :
>put 4 HIMARS 300km from the s-300 systems
>launch all the shit from it
>S-300 can't stop them all, even it there's 4 systems
>??????
>Profit?
Why wouldn't this work?
>>28066336
Touché
>>28066336
what scenario?
and what you do next?
>>28066336
>186.4 mile maximum range
>Why wouldn't this work?
Actual maximum range is 43 miles.
>>28066447
Just google it you dumb piece of shit, there are 5 types of missiles that himars can fire
>>28066430
Well, Enemy SAM is destroyed. And now you can fuck everyone with shitload of BRRRRRT And bombs
>>28066336
Do you honestly believe warfare positioning, intelligence and logistics is as simple as looking at a range radius in an RTS?
>>28066469
The ATACMS is the largest munition that can be equipped that takes a whole 6 cell. All the other rockets that are smaller have a much lesser range. The S-300 has a max range of 250 miles in a spherical radius instead of a circular one. You dumb nigger.
>>28066469
>>28066336
That 300 kilometer (185 mile) range is with the TBM of which the Himars can only fire one of it instead of 6 MRL rockets which do have the shorter range that >>28066447 says they do.
>>28066607
>>28066594
Gather your shit up
>>28066562
Of course not, satellites will be used and other shit, the most important is that s-300/400 can't do shit against bunch of rockets
>>28066698
>Gather your shit up
?
because S-300 battery never travels alones
>>28066698
>Gather your shit up
You dumb nigger.
o
u
d
u
m
b
n
i
g
g
e
r
.
>>28066336
It was never really a threat anyway, Russian missiles tend to be paper tigers. Remember the R-27? Remember it's 4% historical Pd, and 0% Pk? I'd honestly be surprised if the S-300 were even sufficient to defend against AGM-88D's with Growler support.
>>28066753
This is the correct answer.
You have to find out where they are.
That's a dangerous proposition.
Personally, I suspect that HARM, MALD, and JSOW will remove them from existence in the inevitable event that Russia gives them to somebody we end up bombing.
>>28066753
DPICM bomblets don't travel alone either, my acquaintance of african-american descent.
>>28068843
CANT HIT WHAT U CANT SEE
>>28068843
Not particularly, they use radar so you can find them with SIGINT well beyond their firing range; in this they are like every other SAM. Options for that include SIGINT satellites, RC-135's, MQ-1's and 9's, and a laundry list of other SIGINT assets
>>28066753
AA is always at a disadvantage against competent air force. It was always like this and always will be.
>>28069165
Can't hit what you can't find
The idea that "air power" can just magically destroy an enemy is absolute fantasy
>>28069165
>AA is always at a disadvantage against competent air force. It was always like this and always will be.
BS. For same budget AA has advantage over AF. To beat $10 AA you need to use $50 planes.
>>28066490
S-400 can be reloaded in 8 minutes.
I don't get why people think S-400 is single use and then it stops working.
>>28070164
The plane has the physical advantage that they're 50,000 feet above the ground unit and moving at the speed of sound.
That alone makes it very, very difficult to compete on even terms with them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXVcmIYZDM
>>28067078
>I'd honestly be surprised if the S-300 were even sufficient to defend against AGM-88D's with Growler support.
you'd be surprised. S-300's Tomb Stone was able to burn through Growler's jamming in the Mace exercises- enabling it to connect missiles to targets and achieve kills... about the only tactical fighter that was able to avoid getting murderkilled was Rafale with the help of its Spectra, but then again thats only good for self-defence.
>>28068843
>ersonally, I suspect that HARM, MALD, and JSOW will remove them from existence in the inevitable event that Russia gives them to somebody we end up bombing.
Not if opfor doesnt skimp on the support assets like EW, decoys and point defences as well as updates to the S-300 system. heck a Krasukha-4 alone would boost survivability of the whole battery by quite a lot. you now have the ability to lure these Raytheon products away from the battery vehicles to somewhere they cant do no harm- greatly simplifying the task of point defence systems as they now only have to deal with leakers.
>>28070218
>The plane has the physical advantage that they're 50,000 feet above the ground unit and moving at the speed of sound.
It's disadvantage. You need to carry radar, targeting system and missile 50,000 feet above the ground and move them at the speed of sound. While on ground you can have as big and powerful radar as you want and as big and powerful missile as you want.
>>28070584
action vs reaction, OODA loop, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmUU1SUDeAo
>>28070601
>Murrican military strategy
>>28070601
>action vs reaction, OODA loop, etc.
getting your SEAD/DEAD packages killed tends to put spokes in your wheel, i mean OODA loop.
Besides, most if not all users of latest export Russian hardware are rich enough to afford an airforce of sufficient size and decent quality- in a way if they can just keep their airforce from getting blown up on the ground (as what had happened in Iraq twice) those planes can go up, help the IADS, and once the strike packages RTB the jets held in reserve can take the initiative and take the fight to the blufor airforce.
>>28070584
>as big and powerful missile as you want
It needs to be.
The ground based missile needs to get to 50,000 feet, and fast, before it can even reach the point that the air based missile started out at.
active defenses when
>>28070739
not saying it wouldn't be sporty. but action always has an advantage to reaction.
countries tend to invest in IADS or an Air Force, rarely both unless they're rich enough that they'd have more to lose in a war with the US than potential gain or via desperation.
>>28066336
Simple, just move the launcher after it's fired.
>>28070584
Look at the size of these things.
Missiles launched from the ground need to overcome gravity. Missiles launched at 50k feet from a plane going mach 1 have it much easier.
>>28070893
This is the obvious solution after any engagement. Just moving a mere 1500 meters would suffice in the short term.
>>28070893
This is not a video game. It takes minutes to prepare these launchers for relocation. With radars it's 20-30 minutes.
>>28070868
>not saying it wouldn't be sporty. but action always has an advantage to reaction.
not in this case.
>countries tend to invest in IADS or an Air Force, rarely both unless they're rich enough that they'd have more to lose in a war with the US than potential gain or via desperation.
which is why these countries are considered targets in the first place.
>>28071018
>Missiles launched from the ground need to overcome gravity. Missiles launched at 50k feet from a plane going mach 1 have it much easier.
you are forgetting about the gigantic pair of turbojets that power your jets. that pair easily costs half the battery ready to launch salvos of big missiles.
>send UAV that is similar to an old variant of F-16 like pic related
>their defense system detects it
>launches the missile
>literally waste it
>>28070218
The plane costs 100 million dollars and consumes massively more fuel/supplies
The idea of air power having the advantage over AAA is a delusional fantasy based on the American experience of outspending enemies 1000-1
>>28071039
>This is not a video game. It takes minutes to prepare these launchers for relocation. With radars it's 20-30 minutes.
5 minutes for most vehicles (exception of mast mounted radars like Tomb Stone relocated, ofc.)
>>28070559
you'd be even more surprised that the United States is an operator of the S-300.
>>28071214
Perhaps. But there are American aircraft that had more than 4,000 Russian antiaircraft missiles fired at them, without a single hit.
>>28066607
That's not an sa20, its an sa12
>>28071316
Depends on the age difference of those missiles, compared to the aircraft.
(and I mean when it was deigned and first produced, but also actually age of the missile in a way)
>>28071294
>you'd be even more surprised that the United States is an operator of the S-300.
and Russia sold them parts of an S-300V battery in the 90s to finance later versions. your point being?
>>28071316
>Perhaps. But there are American aircraft that had more than 4,000 Russian antiaircraft missiles fired at them, without a single hit.
and there are American aircraft that had more than a million rounds pumped into them with no hit. quantity of the threat doesnt matter, the quality does.
>>28071526
I think it was the S-300 sales to the Chinese that helped financed later projects (or kept the industry alive)
>>28071526
>what is the point of the United States having access to Russian surface to air missile batteries
I think you have the mental capacity to figure it out. The Suter system may have something to do with it. Suter, in conjunction with Krasuha-4, means Russian forces can spoof/mislead nonexistant aircraft towards the wrong location.
>quantity of the threat doesnt matter, the quality does
Yes, and quality in military matters is distinctly American. That particular American superiority in the air also seems to have channeled significant fraction of Russian resources into air defense.
>hey let's commit an act of war against a nuclear power in full saber rattling mode, what could possibly go wrong?
>USA STRONG
>>28071648
>he Suter system may have something to do with it.
and pray tell how are you going to "inject" it into Krasuha(a totally unrelated system of different function even) using information from old ass S-300P export systems(yet again might as well be unrelated to Russian versions, what with their proclivity to separate export from domestic in characteristics, and given that its out of the loop of Russian developments for at least 3 decades...).
>>28071648
>Yes, and quality in military matters is distinctly American.
oh please. that vaunted quality didnt make itself apparent that much at all- certainly not against people who dont fck goats and dont know their ass from their hands.
>That particular American superiority in the air also seems to have channeled significant fraction of Russian resources into air defense.
and i could say the same for American resource expenditure.
>>28071253
>It takes minutes to prepare these launchers for relocation. With radars it's 20-30 minutes.
5 minutes.
>>28071166
>turbojets
what is this, 1958?
>>28072151
that's not setup time unless it's really poorly translated slav.
>>28071863
the soviets didn't do very well in Afghanistan either. perhaps it's just a rough part of the world to fight in.
>>28066336
That thing's cab is so hideous yet effective-looking that I thought it was Russian until I looked a bit lower and realized it's an LMTV.
>>28072199
It will take atleast 3-4 HARM to destroy the S-300 radar system. I know Carlo Kopp.
>>28071863
>How does Suter work?
I'm not sure. It seems to have worked well enough for Russia and Iran to investigate how F-15/F-16s flew unchallenged into Syria.
>might as well be unrelated to Russian versions
>out of the loop of Russian developments for at least 3 decades
How do you know the S-300PS is unrelated to Russian versions? How do you know those shifty Americans are out of the loop of Russian developments for greater than 30 years? Given that they openly display possession of relatively advanced Russian IADS and develop specific attacks for it, I wouldn't be so self-assured with your assumption:
>lure Raytheon products away... only have to deal with leakers.
>vaunted quality didn't make itself apparent
Seems like their technology has worked quite well, against all adversaries.
>i could say the same for American resource expenditure
How? Russian aerospace defence hasn't shifted American focus away from the aerospace arena towards some other focus.
>>28072869
>3-4 HARM to destroy the S-300 radar system
I'm not so sure. The Americans practice against it thanks to possessing it, as well as sharing units owned by allied states. There also are non-destructive ways to neutralize these air defence systems as well.
>>28071201
>500k missile destroys 20 million dollar jet
>This is a good thing
>>28072895
USA can afford more 20 million dollar jets than Russia can afford 500k missiles.
Only USA can be called a rival to China.
>>28072882
>I'm not sure. It seems to have worked well enough for Russia and Iran to investigate how F-15/F-16s flew unchallenged into Syria.
so prudence on their part automatically means the measure worked and they are scrambling to correct it... right
>>28072882
>How do you know the S-300PS is unrelated to Russian versions? How do you know those shifty Americans are out of the loop of Russian developments for greater than 30 years? Given that they openly display possession of relatively advanced Russian IADS and develop specific attacks for it, I wouldn't be so self-assured with your assumption:
Because they brought them from some other Eastern European country. Its an export(albeit warsaw pact tier, not monkey model) version that in itself differs quite a lot from the domestic model of their time. that and the Russians have been continuously upgrading their legacy systems all this time. So yeah, about 3 decades out of the loop.
>>28072882
>How? Russian aerospace defence hasn't shifted American focus away from the aerospace arena towards some other focus.
>what is F-35?
>>28072895
>500k missile destroy
Citation needed.
Anyway, then use a 30k$ decoy. Or better yet, a full B-52 load of them.
>>28072938
>>28072938
They might afford it financially, but they can't afford it politically
>USA loses over 200 unmanned airplanes to russian A2A defenses with the only effect being that Russia has to delay some ship refit to spend more money on AA missiles
>>28073241
>>28072938
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD
Because it wouldn't be "US loses 200 unmanned airplanes" it would be "200 decoys do their job and the S400 found itself in HARM's way"
>>28073235
>Anyway, then use a 30k$ decoy. Or better yet, a full B-52 load of them.
>>28073257
>Because it wouldn't be "US loses 200 unmanned airplanes" it would be "200 decoys do their job and the S400 found itself in HARM's way"
as opposed to the more likely scenario that they get the shit jammed out of them and crash into the ground thinking "i got a Grave Stone! by Krasukhas. no? well maybe we are living in Raytheon commercial where the holy trinity of MALD, JSOW and HARM would succeed every time against targets whose previous iterations were trouble for multimillion dollar dedicated jamming platforms. ehh nevermind the double think on the last part all is well....
>>28073135
>Because they brought them from some other Eastern European country. Its an export(albeit warsaw pact tier, not monkey model)
Problem with that is immigration to USA. Swear to fucking god Russian immigrants to the US are a gold mine of information if asked. They will tell you everything you want to know about whatever. Throw money into it and they will be giving you step by step info into every nut and bolt of whatever weapon you want to know.
>>28066753
That's a Tunguska not a Pantsir, Pantsir's are deployed on the back of specialised flatbeds
>>28073416
Did you even Bother reading the info sign in front of the unit? there are versions of the Pantsir S-1 produced on a tracked chassis.
>>28070198
>S-400 can be reloaded in 8 minutes.
Yeah, right. 1500KG of rockets each and it will be placed perfectly in 8 minutes
>>28073447
ur mom
JSOW, MALD, and HARM will royally FUCK anything russia can conceivably put in Syria
>>28073568
Except they don't, because US not gonna use them, and kebabs don't have them.
>>28073606
Kebab does have them
>>28073481
People who failed to build tank autoloader will never believe
>>28073687
Really? Well, too bad for US then, there is no better way to destroy reputation of your weapons than give them to kebabs. Proven by saudis.
>>28066336
>put 4 HIMARS 300km from the s-300 systems
And watch it burn in the purifying fire.
>>28066698
>the most important is that s-300/400 can't do shit against bunch of rockets
It can though. But what is more important, Tor can. As well as Pantsir and Buk.
>>28073235
>HARM
Food for the Pantsir S-1 units
>>28066336
Why doesn't the army use this system n combat? I've literally not seen one operational system deployed in Iraq of A-stan.
>>28074114
They have been used quite a lot in a-stan. That and the M270
>>28075374
Is there any footage of them being used?
>>28075985
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqMCiiZOaIA and so on
