Are anti-air systems a meme?
>>30538054
meme
mēm/Submit
noun
an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.
The concept of anti-air systems is a meme. The systems themselves are actually objects.
>>30538054
Well such 'meme' made all commercial air flights diverge from any modern conflict zone.
>>30538054
against aircraft? especially civilian airliners? they are quite lethal.
against an ICBM wave from russia? they're a joke.
>>30540676
Actually NATO missile defense is pretty good.
>>30540714
Even the best missile defense is simply a "better than nothing" kind of deal.
>>30538865
The concept of your autism is a meme. Your autism is actually diagnosis.
>>30540714
can it stop 200 icbm's coming for western europe?
>>30538054
yeah OP AA is useless trash.
youre right bro!
Fixed systems ala Aegis Ashore are stupid shit.
Mobile systems ala Burkes and S-400 are good.
>>30538054
They are at a fundamental disadvantage.
Air Defense systems without air support is doomed, it won't work. Syria on paper has a fairly decent air defense system but the Israeli's keep embarrassing it and have for decades because they don't have the air force to compliment it.
This is why a third world dirthole buying an S-300 battery really isn't that big of a deal. Air Defense has to be a combined effort of detection systems, SAM systems, command-and-control, and fighters.
The only countries int he world today with a competent combined air defense network are , Japan, Israel, South Korea, and in certain areas Russia.
>>30543576
>The only countries int he world today with a competent combined air defense network are , Japan, Israel, South Korea,
>>30539273
>syria
>iraq
>The entire fucking middle east
fak off m8
![f_117_nn1[1].jpg_m=1289694140.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/croscQE.jpg "f_117_nn1[1].jpg_m=1289694140.jpg")
>>30543576
>This is why a third world dirthole buying an S-300 battery really isn't that big of a deal
Keep telling that to yourself fuccboi
>>30543837
This is a good example. An isolated incident of shooting down an aircraft was fun and all, but the Serbs were unable to stop NATO aircraft from stopping their military operations.
>>30543862
>Serbian rebels unable to stop the most powerful military in the world
Gee, you think so?
>>30543862
As a serb I am obviously biased, but I also think I might be slightly more knowledgeable on the subject. Our air force was and is still incredibly tiny in number, we had a handful of MIGs and none of them were 100% functional. Pilots would fly off to intercept a group of F16s or whatever with busted avionics, unfunctional radar systems etc. So that was a no brainer one way or another.
AA systems and crews that manned them were relatively ingenious and would come up with all kinds of tricks, on the other hand. They were mobile as fuck, they would llight up, take a pot shot, 10 seconds later instantly shut everything down and move, sometime as much as 200km per day. American government offered Zoltan Dani (dude who knocked the f117 down) the job to train their AA crews but he declined the offer. As an odd bit of trivia, he ended up meeting the f117 pilot and they became good friends who continue to visit each other.
>>30543893
Most powerful military didn't manage to invade. Google "battle of koshare". So there is that desu.
>>30543837
The f117 was shot down with a system designed in the 1950's.
bu...bu...my amerifat stealth.
>>30543576
>Japan, Israel, South Korea,
Only have MANPADS, PD SPAAGs and ABM systems with very vast gulfs of capability in between that are supposed to be filled by fighters.
Not even close to a real definition of a competent IADS which only Russia and China possess and excel in.
>>30543576
This guy is somewhat correct. If enemy planes can swoop in and hit your AA sites unopposed, why even have them in the first place? Its harder to infiltrate air space in which you have to dogfight and dodge SAMs at the same time
>>30543937
>Google "battle of koshare". So there is that desu.
What are we supposed to get out of this? No invading by "the most powerfully in the world" occurred here, just the Americans continuing their bombing of Serbian positions with impunity, and the Serbs killing 114-200 Albanians in exchange for 108 of their own men. They even eventually lost the position. You're not honestly implying that if the U.S. committed to a war with Serbia that the Serbs would actually stand a fraction of a chance at accomplishing anything but their own untimely demises.
>>30543937
Serbs also fired thousands of missiles for few hits. Serbian air defence was equivalent of Arab firing an AK burst from 300 meters at passing US convoy. Sure he might get a hit but he isn't stopping the convoy.
Also Serbs gave up from bombing. The first country ever to surrender from bombing alone.
>>30544245
>Serbs also fired thousands of missiles for few hits.
Suppression. Most of which were harrassing fire meant to disrupt strike sorties and make them jettison their payload as well as keep the need for dedicated SEAD/DEAD sorties (which aren't bombing other targets when they are at it).
The thousands of HARMs launched didn't hit home very much either but got the batteries to stop radiating.
>Also Serbs gave up from bombing. The first country ever to surrender from bombing alone.
Debatable. Finding no one willing to back them probably did them in as much as the bombing did.
>>30544083
>If enemy planes can swoop in and hit your AA sites unopposed, why even have them in the first place?
But you need an overwhelming amount of material superiority to really contest control of the skies from ground based IADS with complete tiers. You need AWACS, jammer aircraft, decoy and recon drones, lots and lots of strike fighters(even stealthed ones nowadays), and lots and lots of jets- nobody outside of US has those complete package. If you haven't done anything bad to ruffle Uncle Sam's feathers and have a complete IADS patterned on Russian and Chinese usage chances are you are pretty much untouchable.
>>30544286
>jets
HARMs
>>30543946
This is a meme. The Nighthawk flew the same flightpath several weeks in a row which gave the Serbs opportunity to experiment with different AD systems until they found out some old-ass Russian one was able to achieve lock on for some reason. Stealth is technology + doctrine, so something bad was bound to happen after that many sorties with no variance in flight path.
>>30544245
>The first country ever to surrender from bombing alone.'
didn't The Netherlands surrender because Rotterdam was bombed to the ground?
>>30544359
Not only that, but to my knowledge it usually had a SEAD escort as well but it didn't that time. Atleast that what I heard here.
>>30544295
meme round
>>30543837
shoot randomly everyday in the same place.
hit f117
MUH stealth
>>30543576
>because they don't have the air force to compliment it.
I doubt any Arab air-forces could compete with Israel AF. They would be just another target.
>>30539273
>All of those planes covering Europe.
>All of those contrails contributing towards Global Dimming.
>Massive amounts of CO2 being directly pumped into the atmosphere.
My fucking god, its like Europe is one gigantic climatalogical timebomb.
>>30544747
Imagine what the U.s. looks like on that map.
Anti-aircraft weapons don't even need to shot down planes to do their job. Even if for every shot, you take down a single aircraft, you make the life of pilots and planning of air strategy much more difficult. Their purpose is area denial.
>>30547041
Then all you need to do is ship in pipes painted to look like missiles.
After M247 Sergeant York debacle...
>>30547041
Except AA systems aren't cheap.
The US/UK lost a ton of bombers during WW2, but Germany also used up a ton of ammo and artillery barrels to shoot them down. The estimate was something like 3-5000 flak round to bring down a single bomber. That's like 2 weeks worth of shell allocations for a field division. Not to mention high velocity AAA tubes have limited service life and have to be replaced after 5-600 shots. 8.8 cm flak tubes are not cheap.
An S-300 battery is something like 200 million dollars for the radar, 6 TEL's, and spare missiles.
>>30543155
If the Americans could put as many THAAD/Aegis Ashore batteries in Europe as they wanted without Russia getting mad then yes, they could.
>>30548446
http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20130514/181146715/5-Questions-on-Russian-S-300-Missile-Complex-Sales-to-Syria.html
> four S-300 batteries and 144 missiles has a price tag of $900 million,
It's still pretty cost effective. Assume a modern fighter is $100 million. That's 9 fighter jets for $900 million. 144/9 = 16 missiles per aircraft. That's 16 chances to shoot each the enemy. Pretty good for the defensive team.
>>30548446
>AA systems aren't cheap.
Yes they are. One Pantsir with radar, missiles and runs costs less than an MQ-9.
>An S-300 battery is something like 200 million dollars
Wrong. An S-400 battalion with 8 launchers and 48 missiles, radars, low altitude detectors, control vehicles and data-link capable to communicate with other systems like Pantsir and Tor is "something like $200 million" according to a 6 years old estimation. To put it into perspective, one B-1B costs $400+ million, two F-22A cost $330+ million, two F-35 cost $200 million even without the engines.
>Trying to compare flaks to top-notch IADS
What is the purpose of this shitposting?
>>30548492
>THAAD/Aegis Ashore
>Can intercept ICBMs
Poor joke.
>>30543155
Russia does not have the capability to shoot 200 ICBMs at the same time.
>>30540714
Nope. It's still clumsy, static, have a short range and vulnerable.
How common are S-300/400/etc compared to other systems? Where are they deployed in the Russian Order of Battle?
There's no one-size-fits-all anti-ballistic system. For each different kind of ballistic/cruiser missile (different ranges/trajectories/etc), you need a specific defence.
>>30543155
No, but it could probably stop <6. which is about all it was intended to do, and is highly impressive. Effects doctrine a lot.
>>30549022
It wouldn't need to defend against 200 ICBMs anyway because Russian would be retarded to waste a quarter of their nukes not on USA. That is why the missile defense system bothers Russia, because it distracts Russian targeting.
>>30538054
They have their purpose. But relying on them or even thinking that you can achieve so much as Air Parity with them is a meme. Defensive systems will always be at a disadvantage to offensive as they are, by definition, reactive in nature and not proactive.
>>30549056
Not really. It bothers them because its an excuse to install more NATO bases in the former Warsaw Pact violating the spirit of the NATO-Russia-founding act. These bases need soldiers guarding them, so you have a reason to increase NATO forces.
Of course, the Russian will not claim this is the reason. The upside for the Russians, is that that gives them an excuse to deploying more nuclear missiles and forces and creatively interpret the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
>>30549103
>Warsaw Pact violating the spirit of the NATO-Russia-founding act.
Oh we're now going on 'the spirit' after having been btfo after so many times about how there was no agreement or even promise of it. Not to mention that in order to join NATO, a country must first petition to begin the process, NATO doesn't go out and lobby for new members.
>>30549132
>NATO reiterates that in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks. In this context, reinforcement may take place, when necessary, in the event of defence against a threat of aggression and missions in support of peace consistent with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] governing principles, as well as for exercises consistent with the adapted CFE [Conventional Armed Forces in Europe] Treaty, the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 and mutually agreed transparency measures. Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe.
>>30549103
>install more NATO bases in the former Warsaw Pact
NATO countries are by definition already NATO bases, you idiot.
>>30538054
there's that word again
>>30549144
See, genious:
>>30549138
NATO cannot form new permanent bases in the new countries. That's where all the idea of non-permantent, rapid-reaction forces come from and why the Eastern members of NATO complain.
>>30549172
>NATO cannot form new permanent bases in the new countries.
No such thing. Just because Russia wishes it doesn't make it so. And you failed to see my point. Every country in NATO is a base unless you think Russia can attack some land in NATO without repercussion. The whole point of the alliance is defense not just protect military installations.
>>30549138
>quoting something that says absolutely nothing regarding having former Pact countries join NATO
I love it.
>>30549001
They are the main long range systems under command of Aerospace Forces, i.e. it's what you will be facing first when trying to hit industry, headquarters and other strategic targets.
>>30549022
Only western system that can "probably stop <6 ICBMs" is GMD. That is if it won't fail. Other shit like THAAD and alike is against theatre ballistic missiles at best.
>>30549056
>That is why the missile defense system bothers Russia
It bothers Russia because it can be used as long range ground attack missile system.
>>30549221
You are an ignorant. NATO is forbidden from deploying and building NATO bases and forces in the former Warsaw Pact. Individual countries may increase their forces, but there cannot be permanently mixed NATO forces.
>>30549247
>It bothers Russia because it can be used as long range ground attack missile system.
>>30549221
>unless you think Russia can attack some land in NATO without repercussion
>Implying NATO will start a war with Russia for some baltshit non-countries
Riveting take, chap.
>>30549263
>You are an ignorant. NATO is forbidden from deploying and building NATO bases and forces in the former Warsaw Pact. Individual countries may increase their forces, but there cannot be permanently mixed NATO forces.
Who forbids? Russia? Don't make me laugh. Stop making stuff up.
>>30549278
Then go to war with them already. :3
>>30549285
NATO itself and the Western leaders. Unlike you, they are not interested in WW3.
>>30549291
They have to wait for their turn :3
>>30549301
>Unlike you, they are not interested in WW3.
Nobody is interested in WW3, but that doesn't mean they didn't request additional help. That's why Romania requested THAAD and Baltics requested NATO quick response force. Please stop reading your stupid propaganda.
>>30549263
>NATO is forbidden from deploying forces in the former Warsaw Pact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Air_Policing
>>30549329
I forgot, Russia can't even fight a proxy war without running out of supplies.
>>30549334
No propaganda. Germany and the US have said NO to building permanent bases repeatedly.
>>30549359
Are you still upset?
>>30538054
>Are anti-air systems a meme?
This is super simplistic, but yes.
An air force will always be fundamentally able to outmaneuver and thus out-concentrate a land force; that's why air forces are a big deal, until sufficiently powerful lasers come around and equalize the field.
As long as maneuver is a thing, planes win. The AA system is a forlorn hope: the goal is not to stop the aerial assault, because that's impossible; it's an attempt to outlast it and cause some casualties in the hope the enemy will go away or in the hope friendly land forces can cross a border to kill the enemy air bases, which is the hard counter to logistics-dependent aircraft.
>>30549390
Why would I be?
I'm still waiting on super strong Russir to attack weak pussy NATO since they obviously won't defend anything. Besides, Russia is so strong that anything NATO does shouldn't rectal ravage them so much, right?
>>30549366
There are some disagreements but that is not the same as strict denial by every member. Baltics and Poland are united in a strong defense. Don't move the goalpost.
>>30549398
>the goal is not to stop the aerial assault, because that's impossible
Lol. Americans had to stop their assault to reconsider their tactics in Iraq after what, like 2 lost F-16s? And that was against rusted shit from 50s. Modern IADS will rape any reasonable-sized air attack.
>>30549423
Kek.
>>30549440
Who is moving goalpost? Founding Act is pretty clear.
>No new bases for you.
Poland is a buffer state. Regards, a fellow member of NATO.
>>30543971
Eh? Israel at least has one of the densest air defense networks int he world. 10 Patriot batteries + 17 Hawk batteries + 14 Iron Dome and 3 Arrow ABM's (these can also target aircraft). Their 3 corvettes also serve as mobile SAM platforms. This plus 300 F-16's and 90 F-15's. Given the tiny size of the state this is far more dense than anything in Russia or China.
>>30549446
Not talking about the gulf war; I'm talking about the physics of the strategic calculus.
If one side has better tech, or one side is dumb, obviously those help/hurt; but the initial playing field is air launched missiles > ground launched missiles and air traveling munitions buses > ground traveling munitions buses.
Not to imply that you understand maneuver warfare. The anons who do can figure this out for themselves. The benefit of ground platforms is loiter time and clutter, and as sensors and computers improve, the latter drops like a rock.
>>30549454
FUCKING ITALY
>>30549466
>Founding Act is pretty clear.
>NATO reiterates that in the current and foreseeable security environment
>current and foreseeable security environment.
Apparently not clear enough, my illiterate friend.
>>30549454
>>30549390
What is the point of posting Ukrainian pictures that has nothing to do with NATO?
>>30549454
I'm still waiting.
>>30549495
Stay mad.
>>30549446
The Iraqi ADA was cutting edge for its era. The USA crushed it's nuts so hard that 20 years later pro-ADA people consider losing a few vehicles but dominating the war a bad performance.
>>30549503
So longs the politicians say the Founding Act is valid, there won't be any new bases. NATO is not your personal army.
>>30549503
>Ukrainian pictures that has nothing to do with NATO
It's NATO equipment looted in Georgia, silly. Americans were quite upset and demanded to return it, or at least pay for it.
>>30549521
>SA-2
>Cutting edge in 1991
>>30549531
so basically the russians are thieves that had to steal equipment that actually worked?
>>30549526
>So longs the politicians say the Founding Act is valid, there won't be any new bases. NATO is not your personal army.
Moving the goalpost again. You tried to post a legal basis for no new bases but failed. By the way, no relevant politicians say this since NATO continues exercise in Baltics and Poland. Cry more.
>>30549555
The key is "Permanent". I'd suggest you to improve your reading compression.
>>30549513
>ppp
kek. go back to high school geography, vatnik
>>30549573
The key is
>current and foreseeable security environment.
I'll let you grab a dictionary.
>>30549488
Only that ground-based stuff allows much higher performance through not having limitations of air-based stuff.
>I'm talking about the physics of the strategic calculus
Strategic calculus is very simple: in the Gulf War if was enough for rusted 50s crap to knock out just a couple planes to make the US reconsider its tactics.
>>30549543
Might want to look at the whole of the French-derived fiberoptic combat net instead of cherrypicking legacy gear.
Of course, that would imply you cared about analysis and comprehension, instead of scoring imaginary social-status points on an Bulgarian culinary forum.
>>30544412
That was the final straw I think, the Germans had boots on the ground too and the Dutch could only hope to delay them. Terror bombing the cities made them capitulate faster.
>>30549546
No, so basically NATO is a bunch of pussies that run dropping rifles and cars as soon as Russians show up on the horizon.
>>30549581
>M-MUH DORRUR!
Fatnik, please.
>>30549586
Since the Founding Act has not been declared officially invalid, it is till holds. And will continue so until Germany, France, etc says otherwise.
>>30549597
"French-derived fiberoptic combat net" worked with fucking SA-2s and Fan Songs. Your argument is invalid.
>>30549623
>Fatnik, please.
Nobody cares about PPP since the ruble is worthless outside of Russia.
>>30549628
Who says anything about it being invalid? The word is stipulation. Cry more.
>http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-summit-idUSKCN0ZN2NL
>NATO agrees to reinforce eastern Poland, Baltic states against Russia
I'm tired of this Russian. Someone get a new one.
>>30549649
Nobody cares about dollar, since it is not the currency Russia buys its military equipment for.
>>30549596
>Only that ground-based stuff allows much higher performance through not having limitations of air-based stuff.
That's backwards. Air based stuff inherently has better transport speed, maneuvering speed, and initial velocity for munitions.
Ground stuff has much larger safety margins, while air, being energy-dependent, has narrower ones.
Needless to say, that's the invisible elephant in the room.
The USA has good precision manufacturing and can thus design and turn out products well within specced tolerances.
Russia can't.
>>30549674
>That's backwards
Present us airborne equivalent of Nebo-M, 40N6 and Krasukha-4.
>Russia can't.
Well memed.
>>30549705
AWACS, AMRAAM, and HARM. Wew.
how does it feel building turbines that break every 500 hours?
>>30549513
>Countries
>EU
>>30549649
>Russians.
Jokes on you. I don't even speak or read Russian and their Moon language. My dear, second-class vassal.
>>30543576
More to do with Syrian incompetence than anything else.
>>30549668
>>30549737
>AWACS
>Equivalent of a linked multi-band radar network
Lol.
>160km range 20kg warhead petard
>Equivalent of 400km range AWACS killer
Double lol.
>150km range petard
>Equivalent of an EW system that can knock out electronics in 300km range and reach to satellites
Triple lol.
>>30549866
America has the largest oil reserves in the world.
Russia's GDP fell 3.6% this year.
>>30549892
Actually, that one is Venezuela. Not like it's helping them at the moment.
>>30549892
>America has the largest oil reserves in the world
CNN told you that?
>>30549933
Step it up, senpai - read the new news. America > Russia > Saudi > Canada > Iran.
-3.6% is from January. Who knows what December will bring?
>>30550000
You're a big guy
>>30549946
Norwegian oil consultants who you'd know, if you could google.
Your newsfeed: NPR, Fox, or reddit?
>>30549057
>dude defense is disadvantage lmao
I suggest you read some Clauzewitz instead of striving to regurgitate some autistic videogame nonsense of your own.
>>30550000
>>30550032
Nigger, just leave.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2244rank.html
>>30549612
No. They bombed Rotterdam and then they threatened to flatten Utrecht. So we capitulated and welcomed our new germanic overlords by helping them rounding up the jews.
>>30549612
>>30550084
Scratch that Im retarded.
>>30550063
>not realizing Venezuela inflates its numbers by including estimates of undiscovered fields while the USA underestimates them by using only proven fields.
No, you.
>>30550129
>CRUDE OIL - PROVED RESERVES
>PROVED
>cia.gov
>LIES!
>Animefag shitposter on /k
I think I'll stick to CIA data.
I'll just leave it here
>>30550221
Wet fatnik dreams.
>>30549513
>UK is poorer than fucking Brazil and Indonesia
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>>30548927
> Wrong. An S-400 battalion with 8 launchers and 48 missiles, radars, low altitude detectors, control vehicles and data-link capable to communicate with other systems like Pantsir and Tor is "something like $200 million" according to a 6 years old estimation.
I'm going to need a source on that, $200 million is the price estimate for a late production S-300 battery with spare missiles. S-400 has a high power ESA, which are not cheap to make. Big missiles with sensitive seeker heads aren't cheap either. A single SM-6 is around 4 million dollars, a 40N6 is going to cheaper, but definitely not below 2 million.
Then there's the inherent problem of comparing post-conversion equipment prices between American and Russian equipment. Russian labor is much cheaper throughout the pipeline. Compare the price of S-400 to a squadron of Su-35's.
>Trying to compare flaks to top-notch IADS
> What is the purpose of this shitposting?
Shows AA was never a wonder weapon against organized and well equipped air forces. The Germans shot almost the price of a bomber in ammo and barrels to shoot down a bomber. The Serbs shot 2000 missiles for 2 kills and 1 damaged. SA-2 and SA-3 are not expensive missiles, but they don't grow on trees either.
A good AA system can hamper a modern air force, but the only thing that can stop an air offensive cold is a modern IADS in conjunction with a modern air force of your own.
>>30549875
>Equivalent of a linked multi-band radar network
even worse, AWACS is better because it can look down and ignore terrain.
>Equivalent of 400km range AWACS killer
At 400 km, the curvature of the earth means that radar horizon is 12,500 m.
AWACS drops to below 10k altitude, turns off radar.
Missile loses guidance and flies off.
Or just have an escort throw an AMRAAM at the 40N6, those big SAM's can't maneuver for shit.
>Equivalent of an EW system that can knock out electronics in 300km range and reach to satellites
HARM has a warhead and actually kills things.
Also do Russian schools not teach the Inverse Square Law?
>>30550485
>Cpeдняя цeнa oднoгo дивизиoнa мoжeт cocтaвить бoлee 200 миллиoнoв дoллapoв.
http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20100430/228581189.html
>Compare the price of S-400 to a squadron of Su-35's.
$200 million buys you five Su-35S.
>AA was never a wonder weapon against organized and well equipped air forces
Look up SA-6 performance in the Yom Kippur War. Also think about why Ukraine stopped using their air force.
>The Germans shot almost the price of a bomber in ammo and barrels to shoot down a bomber
AAA is irrelevant in the modern warfare, where targets are shot down with missiles.
>The Serbs shot 2000 missiles for 2 kills and 1 damaged
How many of these missiles were up to date? The answer is 0.
>the only thing that can stop an air offensive cold
Define "stop an air offensive cold". Modern IADS alone can deal enough damage for the enemy to cease any actions. It's not a video game where you fight till your last plane and then just buy more. Like I said, it took a bunch of rusted 50s SAMs and a couple of shot down fighters for the US to stop and reconsider its tactics. Modern IADS will simply butcher any reasonable-sized air force.
>>30550628
>AWACS is better than a linked multi-band radar network
Lol.
>AWACS turns off radar
Double lol.
>escort throw an AMRAAM at the 40N6
Triple lol. Are you the same dumbass that suggested shooting AMRAAMS at R-37s? Also, still no equivalent.
>150km range petard
>Equivalent of an EW system that can knock out electronics in 300km range and reach to satellites
Quadruple lol. So no equivalent then? Good that you admit your argument is invalid.
>>30550210
http://www.rystadenergy.com/NewsEvents/PressReleases/united-states-now-holds-more-oil-reserves-than-saudi-arabia
How about installing nukes on anti-aircraft missiles? Would it work?
>>30550905
>A new independent estimate
>>30549597
That's a shitty argument especially since their most advanced missiles were 1960s vintage Kubs. Vacuum tube powered with mechanical computers.
Now tell me how a fibre-optic wire helps?
>>30550957
>The Douglas AIR-2 Genie (previous designation MB-1 and also known as the blivet[citation needed]) was an unguided air-to-air rocket with a 1.5 kt W25 nuclear warhead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie
>a 25 kt nuclear warhead triggered by command signal only
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200_(missile)#Missiles
>The S-300PS/S-300PM (Russian C-300ПC/C-300ПM, NATO reporting name SA-10d/e) was introduced in 1985 and is the only version thought to have been fitted with a nuclear warhead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)#Land-based_S-300P_.28SA-10.29
>>30550988
>as opposed to some fat saudis royal decree that has zero transparancy
>>30538054
see
>>30550790
>>30548927
>>30547041
/thread right there
i was going to
>inb4 lots of muh slavshit versus muh americlap shit
>inb4 muh stealth versus muh stealth breaking serbian SAM
it it has already started.
>>30549485
Eh? Moscow has:
12 Battalions(battery) of legacy S-300PM systems, 8 S-400 Battalions plus 5 Gazelle ABM sites, Tunguska and Pantsir PDs, full spectrum of ESM assets, 3 Aviation and 1 Interceptor regiment in the immediate vicinity,...
Its really no contest.
Plus, Hawk and Patriot batteries have the potentially fatal disadvantage of not being omnidirectional in both launch and search/engage. They aren't overlapping in as much as looking out and trying to converge their LOS as much as possible around them.
>>30550628
>Missile loses guidance and flies off.
Old ass 60s/70s missiles maybe, even 80s model R-37s can be guided from outside sources to possible intercept point and when you are a big slow and unmaneuverable aircraft there won't be that much spread as to where that intercept would be.
>The Serbs shot 2000 missiles for 2 kills and 1 damaged.
How many strike missions had to be abandoned when someone loosed a round or two at them? How many SEAD/DEAD missions were mounted that had eaten precious airframe time, fuel, and precision munitions?
>Shows AA was never a wonder weapon against organized and well equipped air forces.
Vietnam disagrees. The combination of SA-2s molesting high flying aircraft and dense AAA nets to cover low flyers was enough to inflict about a thousand aircraft casualties on you well organized and well equipped air force.
>>30554085
> Vietnam disagrees. The combination of SA-2s molesting high flying aircraft and dense AAA nets to cover low flyers was enough to inflict about a thousand aircraft casualties on you well organized and well equipped air force.
SEAD was in it's infancy in Vietnam, after some doctrine revisions and new equipment, the US could go wherever they wanted in North Vietnam despite all the SAMs and AA.
Rolling Thunder was a quite spectacular failure, losing lots of aircraft for little effect, but Lineback 4 years later had much more manageable losses over more heavily contested airspace.
With proper jamming support and SEAD aircraft, losses of high-flying aircraft to SAM's dropped to a trickle. Most losses were low altitude aircraft lost to AAA.
During Desert Storm, the high/medium altitude strike fighters suffered very light losses, the largest single loss of air-frames was from a low level mission. People dismiss the Iraqi air defenses now, but back in the 90's it was about as good as you got outside of the Soviet Union. The Syrian batteries in Bekaa Valley were considered very advanced at the time, then the IAF dismantled it without a single airframe loss and had free reign over Lebanon.
The one time that the USAF could not go where it wanted to was in Korea. Because the Soviets/Chinese had enough fighters to contest air superiority outright.
IMO, the balance of power between SAM's and planes has never been more biased towards planes as now and the immediate future. Stealth is just a huge game changer against SAMs.
>>30554782
>IMO, the balance of power between SAM's and planes has never been more biased towards planes as now and the immediate future. Stealth is just a huge game changer against SAMs.
Dude. Stealth isn't some magic "I win button". Its still grounded in Physics principles that both the Russians and Chinese understood and know very well. VHF radars that disregard shaping and RAMs altogether since their pulses resonate with the airframe itself is just one if not the most commonly touted counter. It has vast problems with target recognition owing to low resolution and larger detection boxes of course but nothing maths and computing power can mitigate, plus of course there are active seekers on most SAMs nowadays. Then there are passive detector arrays spread out over the battlespace that would sniff out reflected EM waves from your VLO jets...
If the West isn't careful and understimate these developments they would be in for a capability "surprise" surprise a la early SA-2s in Vietnam and Yom kippur Kubs.
>>30554782
>People dismiss the Iraqi air defenses now, but back in the 90's it was about as good as you got outside of the Soviet Union
Just because other countries can't organise proper air defence doesn't mean top-notch Russian IADS are somehow ineffective.
>The Syrian batteries in Bekaa Valley were considered very advanced at the time, then the IAF dismantled it without a single airframe loss and had free reign over Lebanon.
SA-6 slaughtered IAF in the Yom Kippur War.
>balance of power between SAM's and planes has never been more biased towards planes as now and the immediate future
>Stealth is just a huge game changer against SAMs
As proven by which modern combat engagement between two contemporary systems? Don't be so eager to give away your fantasies for real life.
>>30555029
>steal isn't magic
>but magic maths and computing will overcome limitations of physics for VHF
You do understand that's literally CSI enhance level bullshit, right?
VHF does not disregard shaping and RAM. VHF is effective only because the wavelength is long relative to the features which are supposed to defeat it. Thus the F-35's geometry doesn't help because it's literally too small. The tail especially is problematic.
But that isn't such a problem for a larger aircraft that do not have a tail such as the B-2 or B-21.
>>30555090
> SA-6 slaughtered IAF in the Yom Kippur War.
That they did, and then they got stomped in return 9 years later in Bekaa valley when the IAF applied what it learned during the Yom Kippur war.
> Just because other countries can't organise proper air defence doesn't mean top-notch Russian IADS are somehow ineffective.
After the early 80's, we haven't seen any IADS be effective against a modern and well organized air force. That has a lot to do with the huge mismatches between the air forces and the air defenses they stomped on, but what else do we have to go on? Word of mouth from SAM/Aircraft manufacturers?
> nothing maths and computing power can mitigate
You literally can not get the same quality of information out of long wave radar that you can out of X-band, no matter how good your signal processing it. That's just the physics of resolution.
Resonance smells of bullshit to me, since resonance is an extremely complex phenomena that usually has to be tested rather than calculated. In engineering, calculating the resonating properties of even the simplest objects is near impossible unless there is a similar known object to extrapolate off off. Calculating specific frequencies of highly classified fighter jets smells funny.
The other point of stealth is that it significantly ramps up the footprint and cost of AA systems that attempt to counter stealth. Distributed sensors and long wavelength radars are either expensive, cumbersome, or both.
>>30555489
9 years later IAF operated F-16 and F-15, while Arabs still had same SA-2/3/6. Meanwhile, by the time of the Lebanon War SA-10/11/12/19 were a thing. Your argument is invalid.
>After the early 80's, we haven't seen any IADS be effective against a modern and well organized air force
As proven by which modern combat engagement between two contemporary systems?
>>30553597
quality post right there.
>>30553597
>12 Battalions(battery) of legacy S-300PM systems
I think they're all PMU by now.
>Its really no contest.
Add to that unmatched early warning network. There is not city on Earth more protected than Moscow.
>>30555343
>You do understand that's literally CSI enhance level bullshit, right?
Mitigate, not eliminate. Rejecting clutter and false targets alone through STAP algos. would be a big help in determining which targets to engage and what with.
>>30555489
>Distributed sensors and long wavelength radars are either expensive, cumbersome, or both.
And aircraft aren't?
>>30549446
Modern IADS will be enjoyable to watch during a shooting war. After all, US is in possession of Russian radar and SAM systems in their Nevada.
>>30549705
The US equivalent is Suter.
>>30556240
Only thing the US possesses are cardboard mock-ups of retired S-300PT.
>>30556240
The Allies had captured samples of German tanks,.. didn't stop those in German hands from ripping and tearing them a new asshole anyhow.
>>30544359
>Doing same thing over and over and over
>Expecting the enemy to never hit you via your sheer predictability
What?
>>30556357
As well as ISR platforms constantly flying near Russian, Chinese, etc borders, or orbiting overhead.
>>30556681
You are now trying to scare a hedgehog with a bare ass.
>>30538054
Yes if you have around 15000 of modern planes, basically anything like F-35 will do, I hope US government will order more of them otherwise 100 years old AA guns will decimate their airforce.
>>30548946
They can throw 200 MIRVs, though.
>>30544692
t. scholomo shekelbird
>>30556817
He's right though. Not because IAF is some special snowflake, but because the level of Arab incompetence is simply beyond human comprehension.
>>30556831
Nah it's because Israel gets gigantic aid from the USA while Arabs have to work for everything they have.
>>30556870
And even when they finally buy something it's overpriced and purposefully flawed to fail. Same goes for foreign "advisors" they're all plotting how to make arabs lose.
>>30556870
Iran-Iraq war disagrees.
>>30548946
Russia has 500 ICBMs. They're perfectly capable of 200.
>>30550628
>Or just have an escort throw an AMRAAM at the 40N6, those big SAM's can't maneuver for shit.
But they are insanely fast. Try Mach 14 and even worse its moving high up in the stratosphere where an AMRAAM's fins won't work.
>HARM has a warhead and actually kills things.
It can't detect VHF signals.
>Also do Russian schools not teach the Inverse Square Law?
A truck mounted system is at an advantage when it comes to extending range and burning through by raising power output. It doesn't have to fight gravity and it has access to thousand hp gensets as well as the power grid, if necessary. An AWACS is limited here plus when it broadcasts everyone in the LOS can pick up its position whilst a radiating ground transmitter can be hidden by ground clutter and terrain features.
>>30555841
>>30553597
Man, where does Russia get the money and tech to maintain such stuff?
>>30557212
>burning through by raising power output
That's last century tech senpai.
Get some networked LPI.
>>30558218
It's not exactly expensive, and they have a huge supply of rusting parts stores to cannibalize.
With recent developments in decoy technology, any air defense task will be magnitudes harder than they used to be.
Jamming decoys using active signature argumentation that can simulate evrything from B-52s to cruise missiles can flood any IADS, forcing them to track and fire at potential targets lest they'll let actual targets through.
Without having fighters in the sky the advantage is definitely on the atacking side.
>>30553597
Murmansk-BN jammer has a standoff range of 5000 km. Shit's pretty surreal. It's a pipedream, I know, but I'd wish to see US/NATO attempt at air offensive against Russia. I'm interested as to what tactics/equipment they deem conceivably fit to counter the monstrosity of new generation IADS. I'd like to see how much of their respective air forces would survive such an endevaour.
>>30543416
>Implying those aren't functionally fixed during operation
>>30544359
The bomb bay doors were also open at the time, otherwise it would've been another normal flight.
>>30558440
Suter is probably a good clue. Same for MALD-J, they're both proven technologies. But the USA has a habit of keeping its high-end stuff under wraps, because it doesn't need to show it for propaganda.
I'd guess lasers, HE aerial active defenses, micro-drone swarms like Perdix, and HPM weapons would all play a part.
>>30548850
>Implying IADS has ever achieved that without SEAD wrecking their shit first
>>30558218
It is internally produced and not exactly expensive on the first place, plus modern technologies makes it substantially cheaper.
>A Voronezh-M is claimed to cost 2.85 billion rubles and a Voronezh-DM 4.3 billion rubles.[13][14] This compares to the 5 billion ruble cost of a Dnepr and 19.8 billion rubles for a Daryal,[13] at current prices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronezh_radar
>>30550875
Here's your ₽50 for your efforts, comrade.
>>30559782
>they're both proven technologies
Lol.
>USA has a habit of keeping its high-end stuff under wraps, because it doesn't need to show it for propaganda.
Only that it is exactly vice versa, the US has been spewing out propaganda about invisible jets with 0.0000000001m2 RCS, space lasers, railguns, all that kind of bullcrap for decades by now. And you are the living walking proof that they do succeed in it.
>>30558401
Depends if they can reliably copy the return signals, and even if they could the transmitter can always overpower and force the true returns. By this point it has emitted and could be located.
>>30558252
>Get some networked LPI.
Aren't Russian and Chinese radars mostly LPIs nowadays?
>>30560068
Even if they are, that doesn't mean it can't be detected. Especially when you consider that part of the point of the ASQ-239 is detecting and engaging LPI transmitters.
What happens to RCS when say, a bird shits on the plane?
>>30540917
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
>>30560483
ASQ-239 is a glorified RWR.
>>30556357
>cardboard mock-ups
delusional
Israel also trains against S-300s.
>>30544747
You know they aren't as big as they appear on this map, right?
>>30538054
History would say otherwise
>>30560775
Nice projections.
>>30560697
>Advanced passive EWO suite tied into the rest of the sensor system
>Glorified RWR
Vatniks gonna vatnik, amiright?
>>30556357
US actually trained against Slovak S-300`s.
>>30560068
>overpower and force the true returns
This is not a jammer but a booster of received signals. The true returns are boosted to look like a bigger target through both active and passive means.
Besides, the true RCS of a decoy is minuscule so even with a relatively low powered jammer the burn through range is far to close to take a chance.
The MALD-J combines both features and given that the US air force and navy both instantly bought it in bulk shows that they have considerable trust in its capability to deceive the latest threats.
The predecessor, TALD, performed exceedingly well during the first gulf war, so the concept is proven to work.
>>30561046
And that was about as close as the US will ever get to operational S-300.
>>30561089
>The predecessor, TALD, performed exceedingly well during the first gulf war, so the concept is proven to work.
Proven to work against rusted 50s SA-2.
>>30561146
Radar physics didn't magically change in 50 years.
>>30561154
Radars did.
>>30549398
Well said.
>>30538054
OP, air-defense is actually a significant component of Chinese and Russian strategy for neutralizing an American threat, and has been since the birth of the SAM. Air forces are incredibly expensive to build and maintain, making them cost prohibitive to all but the most wealthy countries. Since the US can out-spend China and Russia in producing both higher quantity and quality, it is more cost-effective for them to invest in IADS that are sophisticated enough to negate, or at least minimize, the effects of American air superiority.
For the US Army, though, Air Defense is something of a meme. Our air defense systems are primitive compared to those of our rivals, and a lot of my friends at West Point branched Air Defense Artillery simply because it's a chill branch. The Air Force actually handles most of the serious missile defense, while Army focuses more on the C-RAM (FOB defense) and (until recently) MANPADS.
>>30561170
Early warning radars are not new. They're still worthless for targeting.
>>30561217
Soviet Union operated the largest air force on the planet, which did not prevent them from developing air defence technology that nowadays resulted in the most sophisticated IADS even built. These are not mutually exclusive, the SU developed them because it is a part of their doctrine, not because they lacked money for air force.
>>30561232
It is not about early warning, lol. You can't even comprehend what is pictured on the image, it seems.
>>30561299
>VHF
>Not early warning
Oh really tell me more
>>30538054
You are the biggest, stupidest, most dense and retarded retard on /k/ and should fucking kill yourself for posting probably the most idiotic thread on /k/ unless maybe that stupid goat fucking faggot started one. Delete your fucking thread you incredible piece of shit.
A2/AD systems have to have 100% success rate.
It`ll take one bomb, one drone, one dumb decoy to disable it, if not destroy it.
Sure, it`s networked nowadays but if one pillar falls, the entire structure becomes unreliable.
>>30561306
That's not what I said, dumbass.
>>30560068
No to both, no force has "mostly LPI" not even the Americans.
But the Chinese have more LPI sets in use than the Russians.
>>30561319
>it`s networked nowadays
>if one pillar falls, the entire structure becomes unreliable
>>30561170
>Radars did.
So did the decoys.
The inverse square law is still a thing and no technobabble about advanced computing algorithms is going to change that.
Russia has invested significant resources into detecting target that does not want to be seen and the US flipped the game by introducing decoys that does everything to be seen.
If it forces a human operator to evaluate every single contact to determine which target might be a plane, a cruise missile, a decoy or a jamming decoy, it's a huge advantage for the attacker. The burn trough range on both the F-35 and the MALD-J is short as fuck, giving an operator just a few moments to try to guess the real targets from decoys before the bombs start falling.
The US Navy had all in all 200 TALDs and now they and the air force has bought over a thousand MALD-Js.
The MALD-J was introduced several years after the S-400 so it's a no-brainer to guess which systems they had in mind when they built them.
>>30561325
>Chinese have more LPI sets in use than the Russians
Gook shill, please.
>>30561346
That's what you think it does against S-300. That's what it only does against SA-2.
![jAOL5kt[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/b6bTC9z.png "jAOL5kt[1].png")
>>30561324
So what are you saying? VHF is worthless for targeting. X band could probably provide targeting information to an F35 but the F35 is optimized for X band. The only thing left is L band. Of course an L band has a greater width than X band so it must pump up power to detect an F35. More power = more radiation = more targets for HARM.
Like I said, physics haven't changed in 50 years.
>>30561366
>russian gear can automagically predict and counter future technology that was specifically designed to defeat it
Putin, plz.
Face it, the MALD-J renders russian air defense obsolete and F-35 could fly fucking victory laps around Kaliningrad if they deployed enough decoys.
>>30561417
>L-band targeting
Could be pretty hard to target a plane without altitude data.
>>30561417
I am saying that you obviously can't even comprehend what is pictured on the image.
>Implying anyone would allow you to come close enough to launch HARM
Lol.
>>30561431
>American gear can automagically predict and counter future technology that was specifically designed to defeat it
Fatnik, pls. Nebo-M is younger than MALD-J. Your pathetic decoys can only fool SA-2.
>>30544359
Same flight path, Serb Spies outside base spotting pre-flight/takeoff/land times, no SEAD or Weasel ecort that flight, modified radar emitter of SA-2 battery, bomb bay open enlarging signature..... AAAAND it still took a third lock attempt (against Serb SOP) to finally get a launch able lock.
If anything it's a damn success of Stealth Tech when the plane had pretty much every single factor against it past a maintenance malfunction.
>>30561468
>I am saying that you obviously can't even comprehend what is pictured on the image.
And I'm saying it's comedy gold that you think VHF is worth anything.
>>30561461
>Could be pretty hard to target a plane without altitude data.
Oh, I forgot about that. Russian radars confirmed worthless against F-35.
>>30561046
US operates S-300s. Greece also operates S-300s and uses them in training. Bulgaria also brings S-300s and other systems to training.
Vatniks should be pleased the US operates the S-300.
>>30561285
They did not lack money for air force, yes. They lack money in all areas.
>>30561346
>determine which target might be
>a plane, a cruise missile, a decoy, or a jamming decoy
Don't forget Suter. Empty airspace volume may not be empty, and apparent targets may be empty volume.
>>30561468
>Fatnik, pls. Nebo-M is younger than MALD-J. Your pathetic decoys can only fool SA-2.
>Missile warning radars
>performing uncooperative target recognition.
Fucking vatniks, I swear.
FYI, SIGINT and spyplanes are regularly flying next to russias border spying on systems in Kaliningrad or even in the moscow district due to the purported power of russian radars. That's the thing about radar, they spew a fuckton of energy into the atmosphere and if you are high enough up in your plane you can detect them from exceedingly long distances.
I doubt russia has radars in Nevda to spy on decoy test flights.
Besides, Nebo-M is only about a year younger than the MALD-J, there is no way they could have predicted and planned against unseen US decoys in that short times pan.
Pic related, things like these sniff for signals close to the russian border which is why putin gets so assblasted that he orders fighters to harass in an illegal way all the time.
>>30543703
>syria
The rebels don't have any real SAM systems and the russians haven't "lost" any of their S-300s there yet.
Also most of the ones that look like they're over Syria in that map actually aren't, it just looks like it because they're fuckhuge on the map
>Iraq
I don't see many planes over Iraq friend :^)
>The entire fucking middle east
isn't a warzone yet
>>30561492
>He still thinks this is about specifically VHF
Lol.
>>30561531
The US only operates cardboard mock-ups of retired S-300PT.
>>30561603
>This upset fatnik and his important saliva spitting and squealing "LIES!" in a complete lack of argumentation
Keks were had.
>>30561628
>it's only cardboard!
Vatnik pls.
>>30561625
>yet
I like your way of thinking.
>>30561657
>LIES
Have yet to see anything other than krokodil fueled dreams from your part :^)
Please tell how missile defense radars can perform uncooperative target recognition against state of the art decoys. I'll be waiting.
>>30561674
>LIES! LIIIIIEEES!!!
>S-300P purchased from Belarus (1994). The system was devoid of electronics.
Fatnik damage control in 3, 2, 1...
>>30561628
>The US only operates cardboard mock-ups of retired S-300PT.
But NATO operates fully functioning S-300 systems.
>>30561674
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/08/us-restricted-and-classified-test-sites.html
>>30561699
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_Missile_Crisis
Do you think Greece, a NATO member, is keeping those S-300 systems a secret from the US?
The US has every nut and bolt down to spec on the S-300.
>>30561685
>B-B-BUT WE SPY ON U!
>LIES IT CANNOT BE!
Fatnik, no need to be upset.
>state of the art decoys
That can only fool SA-2.
>>30561741
>L-LIES!
>S-400 UNDEADABLE!
>ROSSIYA STRONK!
Still waiting, vatnik. Give a shred of evidence to back up your claims.
>>30561701
Yep, NATO does operate a couple of S-300 systems, mostly with piss old missiles. And judging by the recent western SAMs it is still space magic for them to introduce something that does not require pathetic angled launch and half an hour to prepare. Besides, a couple of dated S-300 systems do not constitute for any kind of IADS, let alone Russian ones. Even Serbs wanted better than that when they planned to purchase it from Russia. I bet one of the main reasons NATO attacked when is to prevent them from buying it. Elsewise American Air "Force" would most likely be crippled in the day one.
>>30561788
>Makes claims based on performance against SA-2
>Demands evidence
Kek, fatniks.
>>30561845
The TALD, predecessor of the MALD defeated the SA-2.
The MALD-J is a quantum leap in technology, decades ahead of anything that russia has even laid eyes upon.
Still wanting to know how a missile warning system can do uncooperative target identification against a decoy.
>>30561912
>Decoy technology only ever defeated SA-2
Ftfy.
>Nebo-M
>missile warning system
>uncooperative
I'm not even sure you are a fatnik anymore. Judging by imbecility, complete lack of comprehension and all these combat pictures you are most likely a lonely Mykola from iArmy, lol.
>>30561826
>does not require pathetic angled launch
pls tell why angled launch tubes are a bad thing.
The obsolete Nike Ajax launched from a vertical position but the US abandoned vertical launch.
That being said, the Aegis systems gives anything russia have a run for it's money.
> it is still space magic for them
On the flip side, NATO is way, way ahead of russia in aircraft technology, it only reflects doctrine.
Land based SAM is third line of defense for NATO.
>>30561969
>I'm not even sure you are a fatnik anymore. Judging by imbecility, complete lack of comprehension and all these combat pictures you are most likely a lonely Mykola from iArmy, lol.
>combat pictures
I find it funny that vatniks cannot tell the difference of drawn pictures mocking them and pictures of real russian soldiers.
Still waiting for any kind of evidence to back up your claims regarding Nebo-M dealing with decoys.
Hint: There is no evidence because it cant deal with decoys.
>>30558218
Moscow's impregnability is emblematic of the Russian mindset and the country's geostrategic encirclement more than anything else.
Looking out from the Kremlin, since the 80s, it's been them versus the world. Recently this reality has been partially changed with the improvement of ties with China--but that is an alliance of necessity and convenience first and foremost, one complicated by nuclear weapons on both sides and great game competition in Central Asia.
So when you're surrounded by enemies on all sides, you do whatever it takes to ensure that you're equally well-defended.
>>30562026
I find it funny how Mykola starts to squeal illegibly each time he is confronted with the fact that decoy technology only ever defeated SA-2.
>>30562029
That mindset is just so astonishing. Even though there is no desire to destroy Russia or engage it conflict with it.
They shoot down airliners full of people, dredge over the wreckage to disperse any evidence and blame other nations.
This attitude even manifests itself at individual level frequently. Such convoluted thinking that puts them on even keel with subhuman garbage.
>>30562227
>NATO is a defensive alliance m8 :^)
>>30562218
The S-300 and S-400 has never even seen combat let alone fired a shot in anger. It's untested garbage.
Still waiting for evidence regarding Nebo-M dealing with decoys.
The lack of forthcoming evidence certainly lends credit to the claim that it can not do so.
>>30562296
So just like MALD-J then, only that S-300 is still space magic for the US and the decoy technology only ever defeated SA-2.
>>30562327
The US has successfully fielded the TALD, the predecessor to MALD.
Neither the S-300 nor the S-400 has ever even fired a shot against an enemy. Untested trash both of them.
Still waiting for evidence regarding Nebo-M dealing with decoys.
The lack of forthcoming evidence certainly lends credit to the claim that it can not do so.
>>30562366
>The US has successfully fielded the TALD
Against SA-2, lol.
>>30562386
More than the russians have ever used their air defense systems. Proven concept versus untested garbage.
Still waiting for evidence regarding Nebo-M dealing with decoys.
The lack of forthcoming evidence certainly lends credit to the claim that it can not do so.
>>30562418
Proven against SA-2, lol.
>>30562431
Totally unproven.
Still waiting for evidence regarding Nebo-M dealing with decoys.
The lack of forthcoming evidence certainly lends credit to the claim that it can not do so.
>>30562443
>Totally unproven.
No, Mykola, not unproven. Proven against SA-2, lol.
>>30562455
>Proven against SA-2
The S-300 is basically a few SA-2 taped together anyway.
Still waiting for evidence regarding Nebo-M dealing with decoys.
The lack of forthcoming evidence certainly lends credit to the claim that it can not do so.
>>30562484
>The S-300 is basically a few SA-2 taped together anyway.
Mykola is of broken.
>>30562510
It's true, S-300 is unproven shit, barely an upgrade compared to legacy systems.
Still waiting for evidence regarding Nebo-M dealing with decoys.
The lack of forthcoming evidence certainly lends credit to the claim that it can not do so.
>>30562532
Only true thing here is that decoy technology only ever defeated SA-2.
For anyone seriously interested in why decoys are such a threat to automated air defenses, look at the CAPTCHAs that we all know and love.
As we all know, google is using them to train their image recognition programs to recognize certain objects such as road signs or storefronts.
While computers are good at identifying if there is something there or not, they are incredibly bad at recognizing exactly what they are looking at.
That is why Google is forcing the entire internet to train their robots.
Radars and computers today are very good at finding targets against ground clutter or naked sky.
They are terrible at knowing if it is a true target or not.
For a computer there is little difference between an image of a store front and a radar return echo, it is all just data to be processed to them.
This is a twofold problem for automated air defense. First, it's hard to train against enemy decoys like google does with CAPTCHA as there are no true examples to train against and second, human aren't that good at recognizing radar data either. That takes training unlike recognizing a car or a bunch of flowers.
This is why the US is doubling down on decoys and why russians are piss terrified of them.
>>30562552
The one true thing here is that the S-300/400 has not defeated anything at all.
Still waiting for evidence regarding Nebo-M dealing with decoys.
The lack of forthcoming evidence certainly lends credit to the claim that it can not do so.
This thread is exactly why we can't allow Russia to disappear. Chicom threads just aren't the same.
>>30562699
Nothing like a good vatnik desperately grinding the debate down to the absolute lowest point in an effort to deflect russias shortcomings.
>MALDs
America moved on to Perdix for decoys, so sorry. 30 3d printed ECM drones per swarm per flare dispenser.
MALDs are going to be the new Tomahawks, with onboard COTS sensors and datalinks for swarming and a ~20lb HEAT-frag or MEFP warhead.
On the same note, vatniks where are your proofs Russian ADA is proofed (lol) against Suter I/II/III/infinity?
>>30562327
The US owns a S300 system for its pilots to train on, friend. See >>30558262.
Pic semi-related, it's a flare-box-launched APS for Americans. Imagine these spammed by the dozen against incoming SAMs.
>>30563416
>>30563366
Vatniks operate on the presumption that any and all russian systems are 100% immune to any western countermeasure until actual combat data proves them otherwise.
Read the thread, they seriously think that 80's legacy SAM systems are totally immune to any jamming despite that NATO has had over a decade of research on the actual system to find weaknesses.
Then they automatically assume that any russian countermeasure or EW is 100% effective and that their jammers can jam anything within 400km radius.
No citations will be posted by them, nor will they accept any proof that is not from russian state media.
>>30563416
Only thing the US owns are cardboard mock-ups of retired S-300PT.
>flare
>Against S-300
Are you serious, lol?
>>30563555
>Fatniks operate on the presumption that any and all American systems are 100% immune to any Russian countermeasure until actual combat data proves them otherwise.
Yep, sounds about right.
>Modern S-300
>80's legacy SAM systems
Lol.
>are totally immune to any jamming
Not any, but pretty much most of it, since American jamming capabilities are limited to countering SA-2 and towelhead walkie-talkies.
>NATO has had over a decade of research on the actual system to find weaknesses
Never happened. Only thing NATO had was a piece of practice against a lone Slovak system with old missiles.
>any russian countermeasure or EW is 100% effective
Knowing how good are Russians at it and that Russian system had no problems with American UAVs, yes, pretty close to 100%.
>their jammers can jam anything within 400km radius
300km, yeah. Krasukha-4 effectively shits on everything up to LEO inclusive. Stay mad, Mykola.
>>30563581
>flare
It's a miniature decoy/jammer. Super effective if the missile is operating in Track-on-Jam mode.
Also, the US has been molesting that greek S-300PMU1 of 1999 vintage since forever.
>>30563693
>vatnik goes on to simply post a contradictory statements without evidence, too retarded or brain damaged from krokodil injections into the skull to think up any argument of his own
>Krasukha-4
Completely obsolete against anything not a soviet rustbucket in Ukraine
>Knowing how good are Russians at it
At least a decade behind the west and has always been so
>Never happened
Greek S-300PMU1, look it up
>but pretty much most of it
If you define less than 1% "most of it", yeah
See how fun it is to dream up bullshit on /k/?
Post fucking links or try to explain your reasoning like in >>30562565 why or why not something works.
But you won't since you only get paid per post, quality not factoring in. Putins shill doctrine mostly revolves about shutting down debate, not actually argue a point or view.
.
