Why don't western powers have anti-aircraft missiles like Russias S-400 series?
Seems like a gap in capability when you consider they are developing an S-500 which is specifically designed to shoot down ICBMs.
The current systems are very nearly capable of shooting down anything that flies as it is. Any further leap in capability will leave the West lingering behind in the anti-aircraft missile game.
Since western doctrine focuses on offensive air superiority rather than defensive airspace denial
>like Russia. There's your answer right there
>>28482812
Eurofagistan does.
>>28482821
Americans and Britbongs focus on offence which is kind of easy if you're living on a island or have a whole continent as your base.
Just letting you know you're going to be seeing a lot of "we don't NEED it for some nebulous bullshit reason" in this thread OP
>>28482836
Because if we did need it, we'd have it you cuck
They do, it's called the SM-3. It has a range of 2,500km and can shoot things out of orbit.
>>28482831
>>28482821
So the West is lacking in that department? They can't adequately defend their airspace because their respective airforces are primarily designed for attack?
>>28482863
they can because you can't attack them with no air superiority
>>28482863
Dunno if you're intentionally misunderstanding but it means that they're not concerned with defensive anti-air primarily because they can rely on their air forces to protect their air space before ground-based interception becomes an issue.
>>28482863
>They can't adequately defend their airspace
You really need to understand what air superiority means.
>>28482842
Exhibit A for you OP
>>28482842
Have a look at military history, friend. Existing doctrines are always changing and adapting the doctrine your military has may not be the right one to win the next war with it's unforeseeable circumstances. A good example of this is the french tank doctrine at the start of WW2, they believed that tanks should maintain pace with infantry and work in tandem, this created a slow moving army that could not quickly adapt to the fast paced tank heavy maneuver warfare the Germans pioneered.
Yankeedoodle doctrine may have been a winner so far but there hasn't been a WW3 to test it yet.
>>28482877
Don't bother. When Dmitri gets on full Russia Stronk -mode there's no stopping him.
>>28482870
>>28482873
>>28482877
Air superiority is impossible over an area protected by S-400 series missile systems, how can you rely on air superiority to defend your airspace when you have no air superiority?
>>28482889
Lucky that the USA happens to have the most capable force when it comes to air superiority AND the best anti-aircraft missile, huh.
>>28482906
>Air superiority is impossible over an area protected by S-400 series missile systems
Not really.
IADs are not new, and the S-400 isn't some magical leap forward in capability that nobody has a way of dealing with. SEAD/DEAD has been around for a long ass time, and is only getting more potent with things like MALD and JSOW.
>>28482906
Western powers are in no illusions about having air superiority over Russia. Simply but every motherfucker knows War with Russia has to be fought with missiles both with conventional and nuclear.
>>28482906
No, because stand-off weapons such as cruise missiles and anti-radiation missiles exist.
>>28482906
>Air superiority is impossible
You've already fucked up, believing that any kind of air defense is impenetrable and invulnerable.
>>28482812
>Why don't western powers have anti-aircraft missiles like Russias S-400 series?
Because it's overall less expensive to make planes that kick the shit out of anything else that flies, walks or swims.
>>28482906
Static defenses alone don't mean shit. If you can't get any planes in the air, the other side can just sit back and fire missiles at your AA guns
>>28482946
Arguably. Plane and aerial weapon development is far more costly than AA.
>>28482812
Doctrine and geographic position.
Russia needs to defend a shitload of land. US - does not, it has oceans. Hence the american focus on ship-borne AA.
Would the US invade Canada if it tried to claim neutrality in a Russia v US war? Their airspace is pretty crucial in defending against the reds.
>>28482951
>>28482943
Similarly it doesn't matter how advanced your aircraft are if they are getting shot down by land based missiles. No air defence is impenetrable, but not being impenetrable does not mean guaranteed air superiority for your opponent. What air defence does do is shoot down a lot of planes, the S-400 is good at this.
>>28482982
At a strategic level, IADs have always lost.
Nobody is arguing that you won't shoot down planes, but thats a pretty shitty strawman. Just that in the overall picture, you're not going to win using it.
>>28482992
>You're not going to win using ONLY IADs
Fixed it for you.
>>28482999
Yeah, no.
Even opponents that have some air cover and IADs have historically lost.
>>28482906
Considering we have several planes whose only job is to troll Russian air-defense, I thinking got that covered.
>>28483004
>Even opponents that have some air cover and IADs have historically lost.
Understand this - IAD's don't save you if you loose the air-war flat out (which all of your historical opponents for one reason or the other did). What they do - is allow you to win it with less forces.
S-400 vs an F-22 and a B-2
Can the s400 even detect the planes?
>>28483066
Yes. Yes, question is range.
>>28483069
Also a question of whether we define detect as "something is out there" or "hard enough lock for a missile launch."
>>28483079
True, although we don't have the knowledge to answer the second question with anything more solid than a guess.
>>28483097
Obviously it's just a simulation, but CNAO had the S-400s as being somewhat effective against the F-35 with jammer support, but not enough for HARMs to lose their effectiveness. It'd gain the shot at the last minute, with intermitant but nonterminal contact from a fair way away.
SAMs aren't magical hard counters to aircraft.
>>28483004
Well, they were third world countries going up against America, so that's not surprising.
1/2
>>28483223
2/2
>>28483135
This.
Though the Air Force plays it up as such in order to get more delicious tax monies for their already massive budget.
>>28482812
>Why don't western powers have anti-aircraft missiles like Russias S-400 series?
US has Standard missiles, which are naval operated instead of ground units. French have Aster. They are not exact Triumf analogues but differ because of the doctrine. Russia has vast land mass to cover which calls for fast long range SAM. West doesn't have this exact problem, but need more naval oriented air defence. Thus, more smaller missiles.
>>28482982
>Similarly it doesn't matter how advanced your aircraft are if they are getting shot down by land based missiles.
Russia stronk!
"Rust crossed the Baltic coastline over Estonia and turned towards Moscow. At 14:29 he appeared on Soviet Air Defense (PVO) radar and, after failure to reply to an IFF signal, was assigned combat number 8255. Three SAM divisions tracked him for some time, but failed to obtain permission to launch at him. All air defenses were brought to readiness and two interceptors were sent to investigate. At 14:48 near the city of Gdov one of the pilots observed a white sport plane similar to a Yakovlev Yak-12 and asked for permission to engage, but was denied."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust)
Nothing would stop the US from cramming standard missiles in a land platform. I guess they don't see a need for such system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David's_Sling
>>28483255
The system already exists, it's just never been deployed because you can park a ship near the coastline and you've already covered the entire country without having ground installations.
Apparently they're being stationed in Poland and Romania soon though.
>>28483255
Fucking ass-backwards Catholic hooligans
Because it is a defensive weapon. You dont world police with a defensive weapon.
Also budget for this means smaller budget for planes. Do you want lockheed to get angry?
>>28483292
It seems rather fixed though.
>>28483312
It has a fucking range of two and a half thousand kilometres.
>>28483332
I'm thinking survivability.
>>28482975
Pretty sure that Canada would have to pick a side if the Reds want to go through them. Either they let the US move through, join the Russians, or join the US.
>not combining russian and german tech into unbeatable doom weapon
>>28483066
The S-400 can probably defeat a B-2 with the Protivnik GE radar. I don't know about the F-22, it might be able to launch weapons and leave before the radar has a clear enough picture to guide a missile.
If I'm controlling an S-400 I would want as many Protivnik as I can get my hands on preferably in the more mobile variant if I'm expected to defeat an F-22.
If the F-22 is using a GBU-40(Long range gliding) then I might be able to maneuver after detection and start up another radar. Could end up as a most dangerous game of cat and mouse until ideally the F-22 runs out of weapons.
Even if you can't defeat the F-22 you might be able to keep the strike package at bay with deceptive tactics. Giving your command time to do whatever they can to counter the strike package. It almost relies on your knowing the F-22 is coming though, assuming it can defeat the Protivnik.
>>28482812
You gotta be shitting me
>>28482812
US is working on organic, embedded stand alone assets to defend against UAV's, helicopters, planes and cruise missiles.
Its called the MML, and will be augmented with an upgraded avenger system. You guys remember the stinger Humvee? Its getting AIM-9's now.
Then they are taking the HIMAR's MLRS system and quad packing each unit with a Hit to kill kentic missile, making it have about 50 interceptors, thats primarily for organic anti cruise missile defense (terminal) to supplement the patriot and aegis ashore installations.
It will all be networked into the open architecture Integrated Air and Missile Defense battle command system that already exists for patriot (and other nato systems).
The organic assets will be complemented with an equally mobile system, an upgraded Sentinel X-band radar.
Basically, what the US army is doing is turning its semi fixed instillation's and mobile units into what amounts to navy ships. Air support handles far off threats, THAAD/agies ashore/Patroit handles medium ranged threats, and the MML Himars system handles short range pop up immediate threats and the Humvee/Oshkosh mounted Sidewinders handles short range/small threats on the move, with CRAM as the last line of defense for anything that gets though.
All before 2020.
http://defense-update.com/20150328_mml.html#.VZ7OLMIw8dU
>>28482812
The US' air defense is actually defensive instead of an area denial asset. C-RAM, Patriots, SLAMRAAMs, etc, there's no need to drive a bunch of trucks carrying missiles and radars to where they're useful when you can have actual planes do it, far less vulnerable.
>>28482812
Russia's Air Force is trash is why. Their goal was to only ever achieve parity with NATO and they couldn't do that. The west already developed a better system than the S-400 in MEADS, but then realized it was pointless as their potential adversaries didn't require it and THAAD blows the shit out of what Russia is claiming that the S-500 will do to say nothing of SM-3 or GBI
>>28483727
christ anon, you just gave me a stiffy
>>28483727
>organic, embedded stand alone assets
>organic anti cruise missile defense
>organic
So, I see that word get thrown around quite often on /k/. It's a long old time since I was in the army, and the only time I can remember people saying it was in reference to a person, for instance "the most failiure prone component of a Lynx is the organic matter between the seat and the stick". Presumably organic missile defence doesn't involve getting the new guy to stand in front of an incoming rocket, so could someone enlighten me as to what it means?
>>28483864
organic = fully integrated. Like an organ to the body.
>>28483864
You have the air defense squad or whatever part of the standard force structure and not its own separate unit you have to request the use of.
>>28483372
If trudeau was in charge, he'd probably pick the reds
>>28483727
If they were smart they'd put it on their AMPV's not on humvees.
>>28484023
It does not honestly matter.
The Osh could do it too.
>>28484074
Well it does matter because any future conflict will be like Iraq/Afghanistan, with a lot of guerrilla's
Nor could humvees keep up with armored units going offroad.
>>28484093
Bro, guerrillas are not flying around UAV's and helicopter or low flying aircraft.
>>28484120
Guerrillas are putting an RPG in the back of your 50 million dollar air defense humvee
>>28484144
....you just missed the entire point of that, huh?
Pray tell, what makes you think an air defense Humvee will be in a place whos air does not need defending?
>>28482812
Overrated, vatnik.
>>28484152
>What are partisans/guerrilla's
When the invasion force lands on the smog choked beachs of china, they will need air defense.
>>28484169
Protip: Ships exist.
>>28484169
Ok, so assuming we let RPG wielding yellow people around our air defense assets, what difference does it make what is its carrier?
AMPV, oshkosh, humvee....they will still be killed by one.
>>28484196
Naval doctrine is to sit 50+ miles out
They would need Battleships to provide air defense to a landing force.
ITT Vatniks who dont know about SM3s and Patriots
>>28484218
>>28484218
>Naval doctrine is to sit 50+ miles out
"Shit I'm making up as I go along"
>>28482812
Because we don't need it. We have old, semi-static launchers that are "good enough" to shoot down most credible threats plus the ability to put a shitload of current-gen fighters in the air so they're second-line defense anyway.
Because while the Russians are -just now- developing an anti-ICBM missile, we've had a good one since the 70's. They're over 40 years behind the power curve on that one.
>>28484221
Patriots are piece of crap.
But AEGIS is pretty good.
>>28482906
>what are 5th-gen stealth/VLO aircraft the S400 cannot target
>what are long-range AtG munitions like the JSOW/JSOM, cruise missiles, and HARM?
Literally the only thing the S400 has going for it iis being mobile, therefor (if used right and not by a bunch of lazy cunts like the Russians that park the trucks in the same spot for years on end) being potentially no longer there by the time a cruise missile gets from hundreds of miles away to where it is/was.
>>28483208
Vietnam had a state of the art IADS designed, deployed, and operated by Russians and it was dubiously effective at actually stopping attacks, even with an excellent air force.
>>28484422
>the Russians are -just now- developing an anti-ICBM missile
wrong, they had them since 1971
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-35_anti-ballistic_missile_system
>>28482982
>the US has roughly twice as many operational 4th and 5th gen fighter and strike aircraft as Russia has S300 and S400 combined
Even if every single missile shot down a plane Russia wouldn't even kill half of the US air power. And that is simply a statistical impossibility. Ergo, US still achieves air superiority over Russia, it'd just be very costly.
>hurr S400 can shoot down F22 and F35 despite it already being proven the radar is incapable of even detecting much less tracking and locking on them
Slavaboo plz
>>28484446
>stealth/VLO aircraft the S400 cannot target
stealth does not work that way dummy.
>>28484218
oh god not you again.
>>28483114
So in other words, EA18's come in low and fast and HARM it to death, then the F35 is free to putt along at cruising speed at 50,000ft and JDAM/JSOM all the launchers at its leisure?
>>28484484
>it already being proven
please tell me more
>>28484483
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-35_anti-ballistic_missile_system
> There was an awareness that it had flaws, including an inability to handle MIRVs. In 1967 a Ministry of Defence commission decided that it should not be fully implemented.[2] The eight radars were to be reduced to the two that had been started: the Dunay-3 at Akulovo (Kubinka) (also known by the NATO codename Dog House) and the Dunay-3U at Chekhov (NATO name Cat House)
>>28483336
It's like the 7th line of defense. The land based version is mainly an ABM system, not "hey [enemy country] already has fighters over the mainland, let's shoot them down even though that pretty well guarantees at best a pyrrhic victory if not a loss"
>>28484506
>come in low
and gets raped by Tor or something similar
big SAMs like S-400 have a layered defense.
>>28482928
Total air superiority isn't a necessity.
Being able to bomb priority targets with acceptable losses is enough.
If Russia had something a country REALLY wanted to bomb, it would be bombed.
Same goes for us.
>>28483135
This. Go on youtube and watch "SAMs over Bagdad".
>>28484537
aircraft aren't the only VLO air threats out there anymore.
maybe /k/ will surprise me and do the math on this one.
>>28484517
should i be a dick and list all the failures that SM-3 had during development?
and i'm pretty sure EKV can't kill MIRVs either
>>28484547
subsonic cruise missiles are relatively easy to shoot down
>>28484537
Fine.
>Global Hawk/other VLO extreme-altitude UAV JDAM's/JSOM's the radars from the exosphere
>EA18's roll through and HARM all the smaller shit around it
>F35's putt along at 50,000ft and JDAM's/Mavericks the launchers at their leisure
Also, the Russians have a history of parking 1 radar truck and 3 S400 launchers in an open field with no organic support units and calling it good. In theory they're layered, everything we've seen is they're lazily and haphazardly placed on commercial airliner routes with no support.
>>28484500
YOU KNOW THERE'S MORE THAN ONE BATTLESHIP FAN OUT THERE, RIGHT
I'm a battleship fan, submersible carrier fan, flying carrier fan... and I'm working on being a flying tank fan. Gotta find out how it could be realistic first.
>>28484581
if you can find them.
plus thats one less missile to target an aircraft. saturating a radar with cruise missiles and decoys is a lot cheaper than a S-400
>>28484581
But they're really not.
A 15% success rate at shooting down cruise missiles is pretty fucking bad for the side trying to shoot them down, because literally nobody fires only 1.
>>28484609
>Global Hawk/other VLO extreme-altitude UAV JDAM's/JSOM's the radars from the exosphere
no such capability exists yet
>everything we've seen
we ain't seen shit yet. why would they reveal their doctrine in peace time?
Because WE control the world's greatest naval force ever devised.
>mfw US merch fleet has more tonnage going for it than most navies entirely
>>28484671
>what is the Boeing X45
>what is the Northrop-Grumman X47
They exist
>>28484692
>X-
is USA sending experimental planes to war now?
>>28484629
Any idea what the success rates of western CIWS are? What about against supersonic?
>>28484708
No, but neither is anyone else.
Remember, this is a thread about
>look what Russia might maybe think about actually producing in the next 50 years, also S400 now
>>28484721
CIWS is over 99% in trials, has not been used in actual combat. Its little brother the anti-mortar system had a 90ish percent success rate, and those are coming almost straight down and are about the size of a football.
>>28484747
>CIWS is over 99% in trials
which CIWS, against what?
THAAD and Patriot Pac3 will kill aircraft and missiles.
>>28484747
My only problem with CIWS is it needs much more ammo capacity.
Like, at least twice what it has now.
They have like, ten seconds of actual missile defense time before needing to reload? NOPE.
>>28484782
Phalanx, and against everything. Even tested against mach-2.5 HY3 Silkworms.
C-RAM, tested against several unspecified mach-3 missiles with a 75% hit rate on things going faster than mach-1.5 (didn't seem to matter if it was going mach-1.501 or mach 3) and a 100% hit rate on all objects under mach-1.5 all the way down to 60mm mortars. Used extensively in the ME, has attained a 90ish% success rate in real combat but almost exclusively against mortars and subsonic rockets.
>>28484861
>Phalanx, and against everything. Even tested against mach-2.5 HY3 Silkworms.
can i get a source on that pls?
>>28484856
With the other anti-air defenses on ships it's a third or fourth line of defense. 10 seconds is fine, if you're getting spammed so hard your third line of defense runs out of ammo you're as good as sunk anyway.
The CRAM, being trailer mounted, has at least a minute of ammo. I was stuck in a bunker right next to one during Ramadan 07 and listened to it fire for about a minute straight. The barrels were literally glowing red.
>>28484861
>Silkworms
meh. I wonder how it would fare against P-700
>>28484895
>you are now aware there are 17 models of Silkworm missiles going anywhere from mach 0.7 to mach 2.5 and carrying anywhere from 30kg HE to 300kh HE
Some of the older ones are firecrackers compared to the HY3 and HY4, and the HY3 is mach 2.5.
>how would it fare against a Granit
Well considering that a Granit is a mach 1.7 missile, I imagine pretty fucking well if it can shoot down a mach 2.5 missile that's smaller.
>>28484916
>Granit is a mach 1.7 missile
1.6 at sea level 2.5 at altitude.
and it's not about just speed these missiles use swarm tactics, evasive maneuvers and ECM
>>28482812
~1100 MIM-104 Patriot's with 70km range
~150 S-400's with 40km range
+an unknown number of US stealth planes that can carry nukes that are all but invisible on radar
I don't see problem here
>>28484957
>implying a Granit will ever be at altitude when engaged by a Phalanx system
For the purposes of whether a Phalanx can shoot it down, it's a mach 1.6 sea skimming missile.
>uses swarm tactics
>only 3 ships can carry them, and all three combined can only launch 42 of them total (12 for Adm Kuz, 10 for Adm. Naki, 20 for Pyotr), those 3 ships will never be in the same AO at the same time
"no"
>>28485056
>implying a Granit will ever be at altitude
no what i'm implying is that HY3 can't do mach 2.5 at sea level
>no
a swarm is a group of four to eight missiles.
in addition to listed ships you also have oskar-class submarines, three in northern fleet four in pacific fleet, each carries 24 missiles.
>>28484885
Regardless of that, I'd still rather they had more ammo. Sometimes they act like deck guns too, right? Blasting ships and whatnot.
>>28484422
>Russians are -just now- developing an anti-ICBM missile
>The System A anti-ballistic missile equipped with the V-1000 rocket made the first intercept and destruction in the world using a conventional warhead of an intermediate range ballistic missile warhead coming in at 3 km/s on 4 May 1961. The US did not demonstrate an equivalent capability until 1984.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/v1000.htm
American "missiles".
>>28485000
>Comparing Shittriot PAC-Shit to S-300
>Angled launch in the year of our Lord 2016
American "missiles".
>>28482812
>Why don't western powers have anti-aircraft missiles like Russias S-400 series?
Because planes are fundamentally strategically superior.
IADS travel in 2d at speeds of 30 to 60 mph.
Planes travel in 3d at speeds of 300 to 900 mph.
This means that before ever bringing in tactics or operational planning, thanks to nothing more than pure physics, planes maneuver better.
Being inherently able to outmaneuver enemy units is a big deal.
>>28482861
this.
>>28485172
airfields travel at 0 mph.
mobile launcher can outmaneuver an airfield therefore missiles are superior to aircraft
>>28484221
>>28484422
Russia has recently started production of an initial batch of 40H6 missiles that give their AA S-400 defense system a range of 400km against actually aerodynamically maneuvering targets, not just ballistic ones. US has jack shit that could compare to that, the Patriot is a fucking joke.
Russia has completed Bulava ICBM test launches and this missile has warheads capable of maneuvering to counter any anti-missile defenses while the US relies on outdated garbage like Tridents for their nuclear capability. And no, none of those kinetic hit-to-kill SM interceptors are capable of hitting a maneuvering target, because they're supposed to work against purely ballistic threats.
Russia has also the most advanced anti-ship missiles that are capable of supersonic sea-skimming flight, while the US still relies on massed salvos of subsonic missiles.
There is number of departments where Russia is outmatched by the US but strategic missiles isn't one of them.
Things are developed because of a need. Russia's airforce is not threatening enough to warrant a western s400 system.
>>28485267
Congratulations, you're smarter than every strategist since WW2.
>>28485267
>airfields travel at 0 mph
Incorrect.
>>28482906
> what is standoff range
>>28485281
>And no, none of those kinetic hit-to-kill SM interceptors are capable of hitting a maneuvering target
>The SM-3 Block IB, due in 2010, offers upgrades which include an advanced two-color infrared seeker, and a 10-thruster solid throttling divert and attitude control system (TDACS/SDACS) on the kill vehicle to give it improved capability against maneuvering ballistic missiles or warheads.
You were saying?
>>28485281
>what is SM3
Does the same shit. Except, y'know, out to 2500km instead of just 400km. And it works on ships, not just giant trucks.
>>28485313
some travel at 30 mph but are vulnerable to submarines
>>28485337
>30 mph
Try again.
And submarines are vulnerable to them.
>>28485337
>some travel at 30mph
Try about 35kn. Which is about 42mph.
>>28485357
yeah right they get raped by euro subs in excercises all the time
>>28485378
You've just completely and totally discredited yourself. Congratulations you willfully ignorant cuntswab.
>>28485133
This missile is prototypical and obsolete. You have to try harder than scouring useless junk. The fact is that USA has superior anti ballistic missiles. Russia always focused on anti aircraft and only recently had something comparable to the sm3 with the s400. Keep in mind that ballistic missiles are much more difficult to hit. The only real anti ballistic missile by russia is based in moscow. Russia was shit at anti ballistic missile and that's a fact.
>>28485378
And how exactly do you know the sub was not tracked
>>28483298
Don't they know it's the current year?
>>28482812
>what was the nike series
>what is the patriot
The most funny part about Patriot is that two Saudi military camps were destroyed by Yemeni "Tochka" ballistic missiles and killed in general around 500-700 soldiers.
Those camps are supposed to be covered by the recent Patriots.
>>28484671
>we ain't seen shit yet. why would they reveal their doctrine in peace time?
Because you don't practice a doctrine during peacetime and then completely throw that out when war is declared. You practice your wartime doctrine during peacetime so that when war breaks out you already know what to do.
>>28485609
shhhhh
If you took all the money spent on aviation, and invested that into ground forces/logistics/etc
You would produce a force maybe 10 times as strong
Fundamentally, all air power relies on ground based spotters, or the enemy not understanding the capabilities of aerial surveillance.
>>28483226
Is the S-400 capable of datalinking with other kinds of radar, like AWACS?
>>28485281
>Russia has completed Bulava ICBM test launches and this missile has warheads capable of maneuvering
Every fucking slavaboo claims Bulava has MARVs and then never ever posts any proof.
>>28485406
> This missile is prototypical and obsolete
Retard. USSR had developed and operation anti-ballistic missile shield even before Americans created their first long range air defence missile.
Also, kinetic missiles interceptors considered by Russia as ineffective and absolute technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-35_anti-ballistic_missile_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system
and new one system in final stage of trials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A–235_anti-ballistic_missile_system
>>28485133
>>The System A anti-ballistic missile equipped with the V-1000 rocket made the first intercept and destruction in the world using a conventional warhead of an intermediate range ballistic missile warhead coming in at 3 km/s on 4 May 1961. The US did not demonstrate an equivalent capability until 1984.
Except Nike Zeus was killing Atlas (aka ICBMs, not just IRBMs,) in tests from 1962 with conventional warheads. The 1984 HOE test was about a kinetic kill with no warhead at all.
>>28484443
Patriot has come a long way since the Gulf War, much more reliable system now.
>>28482831
Similar doctrine is shared by Israel, but exactly from the opposite reason: they're so small that they don't have any strategic depth to maneuver in, so the focus is always fighting in enemy territory.
>>28482812
>Why don't western powers have anti-aircraft missiles like Russias S-400 series?
We do, you're just too stupid to pay attention and research something before shitposting about it.
>>28482821
Also this. You're aware of the S-400 because the Russians fucking depend on that shit.
>>28482863
"Attack" is the best way to defend your airspace, you fucking mong. The enemy can't perform an aerial offensive if their planes, runways and fuel are all bombed to shit.
>>28485874
>the focus is always fighting in enemy territory.
Unless political realities dictate otherwise, that should always be the focus.
>>28485609
How are the yemenis so good anyway?
>>28486052
They're not. The Saudis are just that bad.
>>28485609
>two Saudi military camps
>Saudi
This should really explain everything.
>>28486052
Because the Houthis, unlike the Saudis, have actual combat experience and aren't a literal show force meant to show off how rich they are to their neighbors.
>>28485609
Surely you don't mean PAC-3, the Saudis only ordered them this past August.
>>28485928
No political reality can change that.
In this specific case, if IL gets to a point where they have to fight inside their own territory- it can only be a "be or cease to be" situation in which they already had previously shown the balls to flip the bird to politics and do what they deemed needed.
>>28485509
>being this offended by a rainbow
Air defenses can be suppressed.
US has stealth aircraft which seriously hamper the effectiveness of air defenses, on top of having a lot of air-superiority fighters.
Reason why Russians (and formerly Soviets) spend so much on air defense is because it's the most cost-effective way of covering their vast airspace.
Despite intervention in Ukraine and Syria, Russian strategic thinking is highly defensive.
>>28483226
I am extremely retarded and am talking about a subject I have absolutely no knowledge about
But why don't they have something like this? Have the plane feed the system info
>>28487241
The easy answer is that would require having enough planes and airbases to serve all your batteries. Russia doesn't have enough planes for that; their AEWC assets are probably the most pathetic part of their airforce.
If I remember correctly, didn't the U.S recently develop a drone that can mimic the signature of any other aircraft? They are supposed to be dropped from either the bomb bay or cargo bay of another aircraft, I don't remember which.
Wouldn't this basically invalidate s-400s?
>>28484120
They're flying hobby-grade quadcopters around in Syria today for snackbar ISR.
![UAV-rq170_enhanced1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/veYSK0N.jpg "UAV-rq170_enhanced1[1].jpg")
>>28484671
RQ-170 and 'RQ-180'
>>28487378
That's the MALD - not sure exactly how effective it is though.
>>28487378
That's MALD, the ones we use now also have jammers to make them even more painful to target.
>>28485825
>Nike Zeus
>conventional warheads
American "missiles".
>>28487241
Datalinking from an AWACs is totally a thing, just not generally to land-based systems. Its more designed around designating targets for other aircraft.
The reason why your picture wouldn't really work is that AWACs are extremely vulnerable strategic assets and in no way belong in front of a friendly CAP. They'll just get shot down.
>>28487701
I don't understand the last part of your post. Are those not missiles?
>>28487472
unarmed.
>>28487472
Neither of which are armed.
Literally what 'RQ' denotes.
So saying they're going to drop JSOW/JDAMs is a little retarded.
>>28482861
>it's specifically an ABM
>>28485825
Sprint was making direct hits on warheads when it was made as well.
>>28485609
>>28486052
Literally didn't happen...
Only ballistic missile attack towards KSA has been eleminated by Patriots, it's launch vehicle was also destroyed by an AH-64 hell they even released footage of it.
>>28487960
>>28487962
Not that fag, but both RQ-170 and 180 are classified as hell. I'd be very, very surprised if an armed variant didn't exist.
>>28484541
>If Russia had something a country REALLY wanted to bomb, it would be bombed.
>Same goes for us.
depends if the target in question is a nuke power with a credible response capability because if he is then you can not get away with plinking strategic targets at will.
>This. Go on youtube and watch "SAMs over Bagdad".
The Iraqi IADS is a joke.
>>28484478
>Vietnam had a state of the art IADS designed, deployed, and operated by Russians and it was dubiously effective at actually stopping attacks, even with an excellent air force.
LOL! an IADS based on late 1950s S-75 Dvinas were state of the art in early 1960s maybe, but by the time of Linebacker Ops the Soviets were rolling out S-200s and have deployed S-125s that would have complicated US SEAD efforts.
Fortunately the Soviets didn't deploy Nevas for fear of Chicoms copying the system.
>>28488763
>Fortunately the Soviets didn't deploy Nevas for fear of Chicoms copying the system.
*in Vietnam
>>28488763
>The Iraqi IADS is a joke.
Typical post-battle rationalization. In it's era it was considered cutting edge, just like S400s are today.
Allow me to chart the lifepath of a typical anti-US military amateur critic.
prewar: "OMG X military is huge and battle-hardened and high tech"
war start: "it's going to be a close call, could go either way but the US will be bloodied"
war end: ...
10 years later: "those dudes were incompetent and had shit gear anyway so defeating them proves nothing"
Funny thing about fighting NATO. It doesn't matter who you are, in the end, you lose and all your former shills who thought you were badass call you a moron.
Hindsight is 20/20 like that, because the USA loves to undersell its equipment and hide its true capabilities.
>>28482812
lol russian "technology"
>>28482928
as long as the saudis keep pumping, russia cant afford jack shit, never mind an arms race with the u.s.
lol fuckin vatniks think they're relevant on the world stage. russia is the world's largest 3rd world nation-state.
>>28484446
>>28484609
>Also, the Russians have a history of parking 1 radar truck and 3 S400 launchers in an open field with no organic support units and calling it good. In theory they're layered, everything we've seen is they're lazily and haphazardly placed on commercial airliner routes with no support.
moron. Peacetime practice != wartime practice
Why should they run about all the time with those million dollar trucks when they could just park them in prepared sites until an order comes telling them otherwise or there is a big exercise coming up. Hell, for all we know the trucks are sitting inside warm garages while decoys are sitting in the sites instead.
>>28483226
Actually air planners would be most cautious when considering an attack through a overhanging ridge- its literally the best place to spot a medium range SAM trap that could also call in fire support from its longer range brethren just below in the plains.
>>28484747
>Has not been used in actual combat
It was used in actual combat. It shot the bridge and was regarded as the very first to actually damage the Missouri. Its own ship.
Also was not able to hit an incoming drone that slammed into a ship.
Its not that good outside of a controlled environment.
>>28489149
>Hell, for all we know the trucks are sitting inside warm garages while decoys are sitting in the sites instead.
Considering how they store ammunition and tanks, I think it's safe to say that's complete bullshit
>>28489175
>can only point to two instances in decades of exercises against supersonic missiles
>Meanwhile slavshit can't even hit their targets in exercises as the indians have found out
I think that speaks for itself.
>>28488870
>Hindsight is 20/20 like that, because the USA loves to undersell its equipment and hide its true capabilities.
keep telling yourself that. when in reality its the US who loves to use its best toys in token conflicts when it could just as well gotten the same results with other less sophisticated but known assets.
BTW the Iraqi IADS was organized by the French but using obsolete Soviet crap just so you know.
>>28484916
Granit is titanium armored to protect itself from CIWS and shrapnels from exploding missiles. It can only deviate if you use kinetic hit missiles.
It is a 7 ton supersonic mass. When it enters CIWS range it will have enough momentum to damage the target unless it gets deviated.
>>28489245
For a Russian fanboy you're pretty ignorant of the opinions of Russian high command re the Gulf Wars.
tl;dr US doctrine raped Russian doctrine according to the Russian experts.
>>28485706
Yes its part of the RED AEGIS aka Sigma their combat management battle network system
>>28489263
Good thing there are multiple layers of defence before CIWS range, like Nulka and Standards.
>>28489297
>>28485706
It can datalink with AN/APG-81s installing Suter 1/2/3/n+1 on Sigma, lol.
>>28489210
>Considering how they store ammunition and tanks, I think it's safe to say that's complete bullshit
dunning-krueger effect- how they store excess and unoperational equipment is not indicative of how they treat their operational equipment.
>>28489295
>For a Russian fanboy you're pretty ignorant of the opinions of Russian high command re the Gulf Wars.
which Russian experts? btw actually the Real Russian experts consider the US performance Gulf War as a perfect rendition of their own doctrine.
>>28489224
Please point out cases in actual combat or outside of controlled environments ie not exercises that the CIWS performed aside from those two instances.
>>28485836
yeah all those pulverized saudis can attest to that
>>28489353
Which pulverized Saudis, exactly? Got a source?
>>28489335
The original point of contention was how will CIWS fare against Granit. Nice of you to move goal lines though.
>>28489337
Start here:
>http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rs-storm.htm
for the short version.
Or here:
>https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2009/R4164.pdf
for a longer one.
tl;dr, the soviet concept of IADS has/had serious vulnerabilites and major reform is/was required to be competitive. Among other things, such as the 'zerg rush' of the Fulda Gap pre-smart-weapons being rendered worthless.
>>28482812
Ground based defenses are inherently less mobile and therefore less able to respond to the evolving threats on a battlefield.
Ground based AA is top act as a deterrent, or iff the deterrent effect fails as a guerrilla force to harass the enemy.
The western doctrine requires an absolute focus on achieving air dominance as that allows you to strike anywhere, move things anywhere and have eyes ANYWHERE
The west has focused on making sure they have the most effective A2A and SEAD to remove the actual defense assets while the USSR and by extention modern Russia worked towards "Theater defense" missiles and huge range AAMs with the hope of being able to reach out and shoot down AWACS removing the control aspects of the airforce.
The fundamental issue is the Russian approach only slows down the enemy, it does not stop them.
The western approach requires more effort but actually removes the enemies ability in a way they cannot sustain.
>>28489390
Different anon, but go get that (You). You deserve it.
>>28489370
yeah try reading the news nigger
http://www.janes.com/article/56688/analysis-arab-coalition-reportedly-hit-by-second-tochka-missile-attack-in-yemen
>>28489335
>It can datalink with AN/APG-81s installing Suter 1/2/3/n+1 on Sigma, lol.
Now this just burgershitposting.
>>28489457
>Suter 1 allows its operators to monitor what enemy radar operators can see. Suter 2 lets them take control of the enemy's networks and direct their sensors. Suter 3, tested in summer 2006, enables the invasion of links to time-critical targets such as battlefield ballistic missile launchers or mobile surface-to-air missile launchers.
Haters gonna hate but that won't make USCYBERCOM go away.
>>28489404
>tl;dr, the soviet concept of IADS has/had serious vulnerabilites and major reform is/was required to be competitive. Among other things, such as the 'zerg rush' of the Fulda Gap pre-smart-weapons being rendered worthless.
And this was not known how? it was a time when the West is finishing up on deploying its counters to the Soviet IADS at the time so ofc. the latter would look deficient in certain respects- one would hope so otherwise the investments of the other side would be all for naught. Its nothing out of normal of the recurring theme that held sway over the Cold War of measure then countermeasure, then counter-countermeasuere, and so on. The only difference is that because of circumstances outside the military and its planners control the Soviet response was delayed.
>>28489507
Why are you so reluctant to accept the consensus of experts about their own military (and/or their top competitors military)?
The Soviet model was discredited. The Soviets said so, the Americans said so.
>>28489263
You are now aware that titanium is not that good as armor
You are now aware that in order to defend vs 23mm cannon shells on the cockpit the A-10 needs a 1/2 ton of it
you are now aware the phalanx fires tungsten discarding sabot rounds
you are now aware that the closing speed of the granit is mach 1.6, this means the Phalanx with a range of 3.5km has an engagement timeframe of 7 secs or 11 for the SeaRAM from final target, not factoring in crossing the paths of picket ships
>>28489499
>Haters gonna hate but that won't make USCYBERCOM go away.
Hate to break it to you bud but the most successful invasive computer programs were not known for a long time. When you advertise them the other side is free to think of ways on how to counter them there now is it?
Plus the Russians are kind of a big deal in the Cyberwarfare game. They and Belarusian comrades were kinda the ones to expose on the Stuxnet virus.
>>28489626
>Hate to break it to you bud but the most successful invasive computer programs were not known for a long time.
Duh.
Suter is ancient. The US didn't even have a Cybercom then, it was whipped by by Lockmart and the Israelis. There's been a lot of advancement and investment since then, and it's been kept secret.
What does that tell you about the state of technology today? Will more smart people, more training, more technology and money, more political support, result in better programs, or worse programs?
The answer is so good, that Suter is obsolete and the US talks about it publicly.
>>28489562
>Colonel Aleksandr Tsalko, who headed a Soviet Air Force Training Center prior to assuming his duties as a Soviet People's Deputy
hint: as a member of the People's Deputy(you know the organization Gorby made to oversee reforms) it was very much fashionable for him and his colleagues to discredit the old ways and advocate for further reforms regardless if they hold actual merit or not.
The active military officers opinions are much more mild with regards to how their doctrine held up when compared against the backdrop of the Gulf War...
>>28489748
>The part of our government assigned to telling people they fucked up does it a lot
No shit moron. The fact that makes it less valid in your eyes shows you how fucked your shit is.
>>28489606
20mm DM63 kills up to 60mm of RHA. Is titanium tougher or weaker than RHA?
>>28489791
>No shit moron. The fact that makes it less valid in your eyes shows you how fucked your shit is.
ITT: naive jackoff thinks bureaucrats can and will dindu nuffin wrong.
There had actual people with vastly more experience, knowledge, and ability to critique the military and they were part of the military- not some ersatz congress.
>>28489447
since when did the saudi have Patriot in the Taizz province? This was were that incident happened.
>>28489856
Weaker, Titanium is roughly 2 times stronger than Aluminium while only being roughly 50% heavier.
This, coupled with good heat and corrosion resistance is why we use it for aerospace.
>>28489976
What about Ti6Al4V?
>>28490043
That grade has a yeild at 950MpA vs RHA at 1215mpa
>>28490081
correction, 950 is Grade 5's tensile Mpa, the Yeild Mpa is around 810.
>>28489447
You have not read yourself have you? This was a long way from any Patroit system.
>>28490043
Aircraft grade titanium is roughly 15% to 20% weaker than RHA of the same thickness, however it is 44% lighter than steel.
>>28490193
So a missile the size if a P-700 could have quite a lot of titanium in it.
>>28485609
>Weapon has 99% success rate
>That 1% happens a couple times across decades of service
>OMG IT MUST BE SHIT LOLZ
Slavboos, everybody.
>>28490383
not really,
It is a 7 tonne missile
750Kg is the warhead, it then needs control surfaces, hydraulics, guidance systems, a ram jet large enough to sustain 7 tons at mach 2+ at high altitude and enough fuel for 650km
In order to defeat 23mm HE fragmentation with a RHAe of 15mm the A-10 uses a 1/2 ton of the stuff and has a max takeoff weight of 22 tonnes and this is before we even mention that the Granit is a nose breathing missile meaning and frontal hits that fail to glance away will be hitting the engine inlet and being drawn into the engine intake
>>28490642
also don't forget that the DM63 has a muzzle velocity of 1,100 m/s for the rated 60mm RHAe
The mach 1.6 closure speed of the Granit is 550m/s. increasing the combined impact speeds of the round to close to 50% more than the official figures, and thos figures are based on the old 60 inch barrels as we have nothing official on the newer 78inch barrels
>>28490383
The Granit is a Missile and weighs 7 tonnes
in order to defend against 80mm of RHA penetration at 1km the Bradley needs to be fitted with steel rather than aluminium and weighs nearly 30 tons
>CIWS vs Granit
Uh. The CIWS is the last of several defenses, it's not really expected to stop big ASHMs even if it can do it occasionally.
Granit vs Standard/ESSM is the real contest, and I don't think there's any dispute that an SM-6, or pair or quartet of ESSMs [since ESSM defensive shots start in pairs and work up] will kill Granits reliably.
>>28490831
Huh. Do ESSMs fire simultaneously or one after another?
>>28482812
>Why doesn' Russia have have air, ground, and submarine based-hypersonic kinetic kill vehicles
Seems like a gap in capability when you consider they are developing a Mach 10 vehicle which is specifically designed to shoot down ICBMs, satellites, and ANY FUCKING GROUND TARGET IN LESS THAN 60 MINUTES. WORLDWIDE.
The current systems are very nearly capable of shooting down anything that flies as it is. Any further leap in capability will leave the Russia in the froze shit-mud it plants its vatnik feet on
>>28491125
Ripple fire. NBD given the ranges.
>>28491183
Name this weapon. Now.
>>28491183
>>28491247
>Name this weapon. Now.
there isn't one. unless you count experimental scramjet test vehicles as operational weapons- which btw both China and Russia have too.
>>28492483
Knew he was full of bullshit.
Here's a nice video on ESSM.
https://youtu.be/cRRc2Bv5aeQ
>>28490383
Not enough to meaningfully protect it from a RAM or SM-3 at a combined closing speed over a thousand meters per second.
So if the SSDS gets bored of watching them crash into the ocean when Aegis shuts them they can shoot them down instead.
>>28482861
https://youtu.be/vDuDxwnip6w
That thing is fast.
>>28492702
SM-3 is an ABM. SM-2 and SM-6 are the SAMs.
Which reminds me, what happened to SM-4 and SM-5?
>>28488002
There are rumors of it being given a conventional warhead instead of just its current kinetic impact based system. I would be interested in know how that plays out.
>>28492776
Rumors where?
>>28492821
Can't find it at the moment. I thought I saw something proposing two different methods with a slight reduction in (loss of about 300km from the stated 2500km max) range due to the increased weight from secondary low yield conventional war head working in conjunction with the Stage 3 seeker in the final kill moments.
>>28492867
I hope you understand, naturally I need to say sauce or GTFO.
>>28485892
>You're aware of the S-400 because the Russians fucking depend on that shit.
And the US is depending on it's carriers...same thing. Without your carriers US power projection would be minimal.
Btw, why do THAAD missiles do the that corkscrew manouver after clearing the launchbox?
>>28492893
I understand. When I find the link I will post it. I am on /K pretty regularly now.
>>28492902
The difference is that the USA isn't settling for second best when it comes to carriers, while Russia's reliance on SAM systems stems from an inability to defend their airspace more proactively.
>>28492773
SM-6 is also an ABM, along with being anti missle and anti aircraft.
>>28492905
Some talk of it here
www. defencetalk. com/forums/missiles-wmds/w80-warhead-aboard-sm-3-a-11938/
>>28492902
>Btw, why do THAAD missiles do the that corkscrew manouver after clearing the launchbox?
With hit to kill missles, sometimes going to sanic is not good.
Its to bleed excess energy.
>>28492927
At this point, pretty much every Standard Missile has some ABM capability.
>>28492939
Even the Patriot Missle System has some ABM abilities
>>28492939
Yes, but the SM-6 is specifically an ABM missle along with its other duites.
I post thread on glorious russian forum and people laugh at American lack of intelligence. wuwuwu
Russia can sell S-400 to Syria but America cannot give F-35 to China. wuwuwuwu
>>28492951
>>28491247
>>28492483
>>28492593
It's called PGS but I'm sure the boys at skunk works have a cooler name for it.
This is declassified information. Made public in 2011. What kind of shit do you think we have now?
You can all get fucking rekt
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike
>>28492951
Why the fuck would we ever want to give them to China?
We just give them to Israel, the best ME client state. Also, all of Russia's old Euro enemies that want it. Also, Japan and Korea.
>>28493011
Dubs confirm glorious American black projects
>>28493011
>although no specific PGS system has yet been finalized as of 2015.
HAHAHAHA
Meanwhile Russia already has Iskander-MKM
>>28493011
>It's called PGS but I'm sure the boys at skunk works have a cooler name for it.
>This is declassified information. Made public in 2011. What kind of shit do you think we have now?
>You can all get fucking rekt
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike
LOL, in your own link it says China and Russia themselves are working on their own hypersonic glide vehicles.
>>28493028
What the fuck does Iskander have to do with it? 500 km? Seriously?
>>28493183
>>28493028
>On 11 April 2010, United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates indicated that the United States already had a Prompt Global Strike capability.
>>28493228
He was talking about conventional warhead ICBMs you dumb hick.
>>28493221
That's a limitation of the INF treaty, not the missile system.
>>28493276
Actually, he just said longer ranged missles.
ICBMs never came up, in fact he specifically was talking about tech that we have now that we did not "in the soviet days".
>>28493312
The missle itself is subject to INF because of its 500 km range.
Its a limitation of the missle itself.
It traded range for speed
>>28493221
>Iskander-MKM
I don't know what the fuck that is, but if someone took the Iskander and used it as a boost stage for a scramjet, that someone would probably be in breach of the INF treaty
