So, i've seen everyone talking about this S400, i couldn't understand anything from wikipedia or other sites,
what does this thing exactly do?
and why is NATO worried about it?
>>29952473
It's an evolutionary upgrade to the venerable S-300 system that the USSR have been using for a long time.
What it does is shoot down aircraft from very long range, and the idea is that a few S-300 batteries can deny large swaths of airspace to NATO aircraft.
How well the S-300 works is a lot of guesswork. It puts up very good performances in trial firings and NATO pilots speak highly of it when practicing against them (Slovenia inherited a battery, and the US bought some post collapse of the USSR). However it has never fired a shot in anger.
However, vatniks talk about the S-400 constantly, to the degree that the presence of an S-400 within 400km of aircraft causes them to spontaneously explode out of fear.
>>29952522
so this s400 shoots down aircrafts, forcing enemies to attack without Close air support.
Rad as hell
can it shoot down missiles?
>>29952541
>forcing enemies to attack without Close air support.
Forcing them to take out the missiles first, or operate stealth fighters for CAS.
It can shoot down missiles, but you wouldn't want to waste them on anything less than a cruise missile. The S-500 is an even more advanced version, but is more aimed at taking out ballistic missiles.
>>29952597
>It can shoot down missiles
even ICMBs?
>>29952609
Yes, ICBM and warheads with a max speed of Mach ~7
But most reentry vehicles are a lot faster (up to Mach 15+) and Russia is not in the geo position to shoot down ICBM before the warhead detaches from the missile
So... it's a gimmick
>>29952609
Yes, that's one of its core purposes. Of course, there's nowhere near a 100% guarantee that it'll hit its target.
>>29952597
>but you wouldn't want to waste them
Which is why each battalion comes with Pantsir-S1s.
>>29952647
Russians have other ICBM defences though. Nuclear tipped ones, so don't need to hit your target.
>>29952665
not only russia has them
but it's a waste of a warhead because the amount of nuclear warheads are limited and you want something to shoot back/attack first
>>29952522
>and the US bought some post collapse of the USSR
The US bought mock-ups, they don't have a single functioning system.
>>29952665
sorry, >>29952717
was for >>29952668
>>29952751
Riiiiggghhhttt
>Hey Victor, this S-300 doesn't work! We'll buy it!
>>29952717
>the amount of nuclear warheads are limited
Nuclear warhead limitation lays no restriction on the amount of nuclear ABM a country can deploy, only on the amount of strategic offensive nuclear weapons. ABMT restricted the amount of deployed ABM systems to one per country, but the US withdrew from it.
>>29952473
>what does this thing exactly do?
Intercept aircraft and stuff.
>and why is NATO worried about it?
Because it's new. Same thing happens all the time whenever someone makes something new. It's basically just generic fear mongering and cries from defense officials that dey need dem monies fer dem programs. It's old as time.
>>29952776
It's right there in writing americuck
DEVOID
OF
ELECTRONICS
>>29952776
This is pretty much what happened.
>>29952751
k. keep me posted.
>>29952790
Yes, we all know the US has S-300 mock-ups in some desert. That's what I said.
>>29952787
and? russian electronics are shit anyway?
important is the missile
>>29952787
>literally the only source is a russian equivalent of politico
k
>>29952806
>Missiles contain no electronics
Summer on /k, everyone.
>>29952777
it you want to contaminate your own homeland with a shitload of radiation, no problem, go ahead.
russia threw their nukes in these things away and replaced them with normal warheads
>>29952811
>Only source claiming elsewise is anon on /k
>>29952816
what part of "russian electronics are shit anyway" did you not understand?
autsim on /k, everyone
>>29952816
It's slavposting time. Expect absurd claims that make no sense at all.
>NO COMRADE YOU SEE THEY HAVE MISSILE BUT IS ONLY CASING! HA DUMB CAPITALIST BLYAT
>>29952819
>Let me tell you about your ABM system
>>29952825
>Memes
Summer on /k intensifies. This is obviously not going anywhere near a serious coherent discussion. Enjoy smearing each other in shit, I'm out.
>>29952840
>>Let me tell you about your ABM system
yes, because you're not up to date with these things - they changed it in 2003, sucks for you to be a retarded vatnik
no more 100kt warheads. okay, they have a few with 10kt warheads.. but 10kt? lol
half as weak as the bombs from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
the only thing you can shot down with these firecrackers are civil airlines
but then again, i wouldn't doubt it if the retarded russian would keep that shit still in service
>Vladimier! we shot down several american nuclear warheads! we save naow!
>nyet Dimitry, our own ABM system will kill us now with radiation ))))))))
>bylaaaaaaaaaaaaat
>>29952647
>So... it's a gimmick
Not necessarily. It'd be neat but its never in the design parameters afaik so no loss there if it can't.
IRBMs though? Most definitely, I must say. In fact there are speculations that the Russians will get out of INF as soon as they render themselves IRBM-proof when S-400s replace most of the S-300s.
>>29952662
No, its not. You're thinking of IRBMs.
>>29952806
>important is the missile
The missiles won't work without initial guidance from the engagement Flap Lid radar.
>>29952874
You seem upset.
>>29952883
>The missiles won't work without initial guidance from the engagement Flap Lid radar.
because the US couldn't have such things, oh wait ...
also, it was more important for them to get some informations about the russian missile design (and performance) than their radars
>>29952874
hi du u wanna suk ur dik?
>>29952917
>le butthurt maymay
ayyy lmao
like a clockwork
vatnik, your script sucks
go to your fsb officer and demand a new one
>>29952923
not interested, but i will go to the russian army if i want to know more about it
>>29952923
ebin rebuttal
>>29952473
because its an upgrade of the S-300.
and if you look at the losses the americans had fighting the fucking vietnamese, you can understand the fear of enough units deployed and competently manned could do to NATO or anyone else.
Shit looks twice as big as a patriot missle but I doubt it can track a F22
>>29954390
It can track the F22 However the detection range for stealth fighters like the F22 is much smaller than non-stealth fighters.
Its more of a cat and mouse game: both sides are the cat, both sides are the mouse. Whoever fucks up first gets put at the greatest disadvantage. Stealth fighters like the F35 and F22 can get in closer than any other jet can.
>>29954475
They don't need to get close with upgraded AIM 120 of ranges up to 100nm or JDAMs of over 40km away over twice the deployable range of f16/18 counterparts. In terms of air to air superiority the f22 simply has no Rival and would knock out fighters without them even know they were being tailed.
>>29952840
>serious coherent discussion
