S-400
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
How will the US counter thevS-400 system?
How does F-35, F-22 and B-2 fare against them?
Are Russian claims to be believed?
>>29438741
The S-400 is effectively just going to take things back to Vietnam era SEAD operations.
That is to say, they're a threat, but the missiles fired:deadplanes:deadSAMs is going to be painful for the Russians.
I wouldn't be surprised if they caused a fairly serious set of issues against legacy aircraft, though, although given modern EW and all that jazz, even then they're still living second to second. Particularly with MALDs and datelining and stand off range bombs, etc.
Either way, they're only as good as their radar systems, and given that contemporary stealth aircraft might as well have cloaking devices, this brings Russia back to a state where they can say to HAVE an air defence system, if not exactly a legitimately effective one.
How does the Patriot compare to the S-400? Is it shit in comparison like slavaboos say and S-400 is like the silverbullet?
>>29438842
Forgot pic
>>29438842
From what I've heard it sort of leapfrogs the Patriot by a noticeable margin, although the Patriot remains a credible threat. Although given that both are so incredibly reliant on the environment and distribution and manning, etc, it's hard to say.
>>29438781
Vietnam was a complete disaster for American Airforce.
They could never engage in deep strikes effectively and couldn't really resort to the mass-bombings that the army needed to win on the ground. Their last desperate resort was operation rolling thunder which had very little impact against the NVA.
>>29438972
Americans are just shit at everything.
>>29438910
the Patriot has an inferior range.
>>29438741
Consider the difference in tone between US and Russian military procurement:
US: We have this awesome new system, check it out! Specs? Why sure, enjoy, it's not like you can defeat it with just those anyways, the people are just as important as the capability. Here's our brutal annual list of issues still needing to be resolved, as well, but we think we're on the right track on fixing them!
Russia: Fuck you! Systema is perfect kill western dogs who dare oppose us! Can be operated by illiterate jihadist, Serbian peasant, Siberian dirt farmer, or University Moscow graduate, with no difference in performance thanks to handy picture book! Specs? You are spy trying to hurt the motherland! What? IADS has never truly withstood properly mounted SEAD tactics? FUCK YOU CAPITALIST SHILL! Russia stronk! RUSSIA STRONK!
>>29438972
It showed that there were some major organisation and technical changes required. But when the NVA needed to fire 52 SA2s to kill one American plane, I'd say the yanks adapted pretty well.
And they engaged in plenty of mass bombings. More than WW2. They didn't fuck about, and this was against an enemy with what was, at the time, a state of the art air defence network.
>very little impact
Because blowing Nork cities like Hanoi to bits was utterly unrelated to what the VC and NVA needed to function. Might as well ask why they lost despite winning so many ground battles.
>>29438741
look at 2.5 million per missille, given duds, the probability of kill, and multiple launches per target; it seems highly unlikely for it to turn a profit against $10 million 4th generation craft.
Couple this with >>29439197 where in vietnam the SA2 had a significantly lower Pk then the tested value, and the Russians are looking at economically losing against 4th generation craft, winning against 4.5 gen.
>>29438972
>doesn't know operation shining brass
>>29439041
>Specs? Why sure, enjoy
You know they never release the current specifications of any hardware.
It's why on Wikipedia aircraft speeds are listed as "Mach 1.8+"
>>29438741
Don't mind me, just on my way to fuck your shit.
>>29439041
>What? IADS has never truly withstood properly mounted SEAD tactics? FUCK YOU CAPITALIST SHILL! Russia stronk! RUSSIA STRONK!
Fucking thank you.
>>29439602
It's always way more true than anything the Russians release.
>>29438842
> Comparing a SAM to another SAM
A SAM only needs to be as good as its targets. You should be comparing US air defense to the air forces its defending against.
Same on the Russian side: The standard of comparison for the S-400 isn't the Patriot. It's the US air force and naval aviation. Is the S-400 better than the Patriot? Of course. It pretty much has to be, just to get in the game at all.
The Patriot doesn't have to deal with nearly the kind of threat the Russians have built the S-400 for. The question is not how it compares to the Patriot. It's how it compares to US air power.
That said, the has way better IADS than the Patriot.
>>29440793
>That said, the has way better IADS than the Patriot.
The problem here is that land IADS systems are fighting from an inherent position of disadvantage. Sea-based ones work in tandem with aviation as a deterrent system on vehicles that have constant motion. Ground-based units can be A: Hidden, B: Mobile, or C: Active. And without radar systems that American fighters train extensively to defeat, the missiles are expensive paperweights.
There's a reason US ADA personnel are detail monkeys, and their deployments focus on base defense from enemy munitions, not aircraft.
>>29438741
Only way to know for sure is if the russians sell one of those to someone who will use it against a plane we sold to someone.
No other way.
The closest to that might come if Turks decide to fly into Syria, or Saudi's.
I know /k/ hates russians, but the S-400 is no joke when it comes to denying airspace.
And i remember a thread before about it, someone said then someone else confirmed with a schematic and specs, that the radar of the s400 (radar truck, not the rocket truck or the command truck, there are 3 trucks) can be shared to other medium or short range SAMs in the area, not just the s400 launcher.
And the medium range ones are pretty good too. Short ones are like any other and at the end of the range of the s400 there is a shilka riding around and 2 ivans with igla's tag along.
Closer to the s400 are the Buk's, Patnsirs, Tunguska's...
Its basically a saturated area of air defense of all kinds with the best and clearest radar.
Turks cant fly in Syria anymore because of it.
And Assad has the s-300, so NATO cant either without the permission of Assad, or even Russia, which is hilarious when someone realizes it, but causes some bad emotions here for some reason.
>>29441237
>Assad has the s-300
Jew airforce doesn't seem to care
>>29441350
Why would they? S-300 is suceptible to cyber-weapons from the 90s, literally. They're almost useless against their current threat environment.
>>29439549
The real threat of heavy SAMs in Vietnam was to force bombers and SEAD to lower altitudes, where they could be more easily engaged by SPAAGs and other SHORAD. A heavy SAM weapons system is not a one-size fits all solution when it comes to air defence. It is part of a larger equation of medium and short range systems that cover each others weaknesses. Hence, continued development of Russian short and mid range air defense (Tor, Pantsir) systems along with the long range S-400. Fun fact, in Vietnam the US kept losing planes until the NVA had burned through its prewar missile stockpile. After that, missile launches were so sporadic that the threat level for aircraft at higher altitudes had dropped considerably.
>>29441476
Not only that, but the US possesses S-300 systems and operates it for adversarial training.
>>29438741
>Are Russian claims to be believed?
Look, I love Putin. I love Russian Weapons. They, with their Orthodox Faith and rejection of the cancer that is killing the West, might just be the ones to save the Western Tradition.
With all that said,
>Are Russian claims to be believed
You'd have to be fucking stupid to believe anything the Russians tell you when their is even a remote chance they're comparing dick sizes with weapons from other countries, because there is a 102% chance they are lying
>>29441665
>>Russian claims to be believed?
>THE WEST ARE DEGENERATES! NOT US RUSSIANS
aids in russia: subsahara africa level
aids in the west: neglectable
i love it
>>29441714
To be fair, they have a long as fuck border with a whole bunch of shitty Asian countries, including some directly over the Middle East where drugs are pouring in by the truck full, and there are entire cities literally turned into crack dens and the trap, so yeah, not totally surprising that diseases like that are spreading
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsUH8llvTZo
(ignore the VICE logo, their reporting can be pretty OK when they're not talking about SJW crap, and they talk about shit everybody else ignores)
>>29439016
Just for the sake of discussion, what is the Patriots range.
>>29441814
>pretty OK
Vice in a nutshell after Rupert Murdoch sank his teeth into them. It's been getting steadily worse every year since 2013.
>>29442013
Which version? PAC-2 or PAC-3?
PAC-2 is generally believed to be about 100km, PAC-3 shoots a much smaller interceptor and is estimated for 30-40km.
You can get a good idea of a missiles range just by looking at it's weight, most of a SAM is fuel, and the heavier it is, the more fuel you can fit in it.
A patriot PAC-2 interceptor weighs about 700 kilos.
A S-300 missile, which shares the missile frame with S-400, weighs slightly less than 2 tons.
SM-6 weighs about 1.5 tons. The first stage booster separates so the second stage has to lift less weight.
>>29438781
>The S-400 is effectively just going to take things back to Vietnam era SEAD operations.
>>29438972
>>29439197
>But when the NVA needed to fire 52 SA2s to kill one American plane, I'd say the yanks adapted pretty well.
>>29439549
>Couple this with >>29439197 where in vietnam the SA2 had a significantly lower Pk then the tested value, and the Russians are looking at economically losing against 4th generation craft, winning against 4.5 gen.
nitpick. By the time the USAF has adapted against the SA-2 the current state of the art in SAMs is the S-200 which has entered service in the SU for a couple years already.
>>29441476
>Why would they? S-300 is suceptible to cyber-weapons from the 90s, literally. They're almost useless against their current threat environment.
In a NATO exercise only the Rafale with its SPECTRA suite was able to succesfully destroy an S-300 unit, all other Wild Weasel packages failed.
>>29439041
>IADS has never truly withstood properly mounted SEAD tactics
No its more the fact that USAF has never engaged against modern AA.
>>29443579
>destroy
During Trial MACE XIII, the Rafale did not destroy the S-300 but 'contest' the airspace. NATO planes were not able to jam the export model Slovakian S-300PMU, except for the Rafale.
>>29441714
>aids in russia: subsahara africa level
0.6(official)-1.8(unofficial)% for Russia vs at least 4.7% for sub-saharan africa(in reality thrice more at least, given not that much people get tested)
>>29441714
>aids in the west: neglectable
US:0.4-0.9% so no.
thats with cursory googling, I know you have an ax to grind with the gommies but come on!
at least put some effort with your talking points, not this stupid shit thats easily disproven with basic googling.
>>29440516
>Are Russian claims to be believed?
Russian releases are for potential buyers, not for journalists. Any El Presidente can make a test run and check data for himself. Algeria is doing this with Su-35S right now.
>>29443675
This is what vatniks truly believe.
>>29445325
In all previous military campaigns, such as the War in Vietnam, the Arab-Israeli Wars of 1967, 1973, and 1982, combat actions in Chad and Libya in the 1980s, the NATO campaigns in the former Yugoslavia of 1994 and 1999, and the Wars in the Persian Gulf of 1991 and 2003, the air-defense systems in question were all designed in the 1950s and 1960s. This of course excludes the use of modern MANPADS.
In fact, the only country with any SEAD experience against new-generation SAMs is Russia, in course of its 5 day war in South Osetia where Georgians deployed relatively modern and numerous SAM like Buk-M1 which were brought into service in 1980s.
>>29445397
>mentions wars that happened in the 60's
>specifies air defenses from the 60's
Ok.
>>29443876
>thats with cursory googling, I know you have an ax to grind with the gommies but come on!
Cursory google will show you that it is not sub Saharan Africa tier, but it is very much third world tier and a rate at least double any given Western nation.
>>29445426
>>29439574
>doesn't know operation rolling thunder
>>29438842
You can't really compare a Patriot with S-400. If anything, a Patriot (especially PAC-3 variant) is more of a medium-range SAM, closer (yet still superior) to the likes of Buk-M2 or Aster 30
You should compare S-400 with THAAD
pretty easily
>>29445829
>closer (yet still superior) to the likes of Buk-M2
> Comparing a semi-mobile point defence SAM, with a fully mobile SAM designed to provide AD to tank collumns
No, not really. Closest functional analogue would be S-300P(PT)/S-350.
Also, THAAD comparison is stupid. You are trying to compare a system designed to intercept ballistic targets, with a system which can intercept them as a side task.
>>29438741
In a straight-up fight fair fight between air force and IADS - IADS will ALWAYS loose. Simply because (due to the nature of IADS) you never have initiative. You are always on defensive, always allow your opponent to pick where and how to strike.
>>29444684
Say what you will about Russian technical equipment, but Almaz-Antey's marketing division must blow Lockheed-Martin's out of the water to have a legion of internet fanboys salivate over this.
>>29446202
>fly has the initiative rushing into the mantis
>>29446320
> flies with weapons that can kill mantis
> allowing flies to group up where they wish, while mantises can't since they need to defend all of the land
Mantis extinction 147% guaranteed. You heard it here first folks.
>>29446202
>In a straight-up fight fair fight between air force and IADS - IADS will ALWAYS loose. Simply because (due to the nature of IADS) you never have initiative. You are always on defensive, always allow your opponent to pick where and how to strike.
true. but if you can afford a proper "Russian-style" IADS you significantly raise the threshold of air assets needed to contest your airspace, let alone establish a NFZ, to the extent that practically the only one who actually can bomb you to bits with endured losses is the god of AF.
Thats a good enough investment for me.
>>29445397
>In fact, the only country with any SEAD experience against new-generation SAMs is Russia, in course of its 5 day war in South Osetia where Georgians deployed relatively modern and numerous SAM like Buk-M1 which were brought into service in 1980s.
Btw one of the main reasons for the PAK-FA is that the Russians know firsthand how deadly IADS are- they have been on both sides of it.
Now that they are into the racketeering business again it pays to have the capability to handily dismantle downstream IADS (they don't exactly how illusions trying to take down peer IADS without losses since again, they are the ones pioneering anti-stealth fighter tech.)
>>29446193
THAAD can also swat planes pretty easily since the missile has a ton of energy and is hit-to-kill.
>>29446279
Lockheed can't/doesn't need to do marketing for it's products since the US state department decides who sells what to whom. There's plenty of people that Lockheed would like to sell to but not allowed to.
Russian arms export limitations are much looser, which makes finding customers and marketing a bigger part of the deal.
>>29446355
>true. but if you can afford a proper "Russian-style" IADS you significantly raise the threshold of air assets needed to contest your airspace, let alone establish a NFZ, to the extent that practically the only one who actually can bomb you to bits with endured losses is the god of AF.
>Thats a good enough investment for me.
Well, obviously it depends on how much IADS you have (the more you have, the more planes you need). But still, one doesn't need to be a god of AF. One simply needs to have decent air forces. The point I'm trying to make, is that without air forces of your own, which can actually do shit - IADS are virtually useless. As they will be defeated, the only difference will be the speed and losses.
And this is the main thing which people on /k/ don't understand, when they claim either that IADS is god or when they claim that IADS is shit. Especially when the former ones provide Iraq or Serbia as examples.
>>29446362
>THAAD can also swat planes pretty easily since the missile has a ton of energy and is hit-to-kill.
Oh yeah, I totally forgot that all you need in order to shoot down planes is a ton of energy.
*facepalm*
And there's definitely no difference between a fast non-maneuvering target and a slowish manouvering one, right?
>>29446202
>somebody didn't read his Clausewitz
>>29441350
It's suggested that the Israelis have come to an agreement with the Russians on entering Syrian airspace, less that the Israelis don't care about the S300.
>>29446393
>Well, obviously it depends on how much IADS you have (the more you have, the more planes you need). But still, one doesn't need to be a god of AF. One simply needs to have decent air forces. The point I'm trying to make, is that without air forces of your own, which can actually do shit - IADS are virtually useless. As they will be defeated, the only difference will be the speed and losses.
Its not the issue of quantity, its more of the quality. If Libya for example had advanced S-300 variants they would've bloodied the French or deterred them from enforcing a NFZ in the first place.
Why do you think Iran(which has a shedload of anti-air systems albeit antiquated) is so adamant that it gets an S-300?
or that Israel is just as adamant that no S-300/400 be in their neighborhood?
Think about it, pretty much only the US has the requisite assets in effective numbers for SEAD/DEAD alone on the planet- and constantly getting new toys and sharpening skills. Everyone else can only scrape a few of those in the first place.
>Serbia
great example- something like 95% of HARMs were fired by the USAF alone- the rest of NATO would probably drain their entire stock halfway in the campaign.
>>29446338
That's pretty odd comprehension of AA purpose. Maybe because Americans lack AA systems as class and find it difficult to grasp range and mobility of those things.
>>29446427
Allied force was weird, and probably not very representative of what a future high-intensity air campaign would look like.
The USAF had strict rules of engagement, and they weren't allowed to hit the actual valuable targets inside Serbia, or use cluster bombs for SEAD operations. NATO also weren't allowed to fly over certain countries, so they had one air lane to fly over Kosovo with.
The Serbs put their focus on ensuring the survival of their AA batteries than stopping the NATO air offensive, because they valued their SAM batteries and it's ability to harass NATO aircraft as more important than the nominal objectives those aircraft were hitting. Serb operators would cut the radar and move the moment they detected a HARM launch, and often launch missiles on a ballistic path just to force NATO to react. This made their SAM batteries very difficult to hunt down but also means their ability to shoot down planes and stop them from carrying out the mission is basically zero.
That kind of tactic is normally not acceptable. Let NATO aircraft through during WW3 to save your battery could mean a blown bridge, delay timetables, or a wrecked tank division.
>>29446427
>Its not the issue of quantity, its more of the quality. If Libya for example had advanced S-300 variants they would've bloodied the French or deterred them from enforcing a NFZ in the first place.
Would the french need to employ more planes - yes. Would they suffer losses - yes. Would the end result be any different - doubt it. My main point is that IADS isn't a silver bullet of the "i got it, you can't touch me" type, and if you leave your enemy be to figure out how to deal with it - it will fail.
>Why do you think Iran(which has a shedload of anti-air systems albeit antiquated) is so adamant that it gets an S-300?
They want it as a force multiplier. Notice how they want new planes as well, not only new SAM's.
>or that Israel is just as adamant that no S-300/400 be in their neighborhood?
Because bombing arabs without modern SAM's is easier.
>Think about it, pretty much only the US has the requisite assets in effective numbers for SEAD/DEAD alone on the planet- and constantly getting new toys and sharpening skills. Everyone else can only scrape a few of those in the first place.
Israel could do it, probably chinks, this is more an issue of budget cuts and AF's being shit, rather than SAM advantages.
>>29446460
>That's pretty odd comprehension of AA purpose. Maybe because Americans lack AA systems as class and find it difficult to grasp range and mobility of those things.
While AA itself is mobile:
1.) It will be always less mobile than aircraft
2.) Not all of the targets you are protecting are mobile.
>>29446498
Yeah, good thing Russians didn't provide every S-300/400 battery with a regiment of systems whose primary design aim is interception of PGMs.
>>29446547
>Would the french need to employ more planes - yes. Would they suffer losses - yes. Would the end result be any different - doubt it.
Yes it would. We have precedence in the form of Serbia again of ground forces still being able to operate and remove kebab whilst under heavy air campaign, of course with the airspace being contested by their IADS. The Libyans were winning actually right before the intervention- had they hanged on for a bit the rebels would've been defeated.
>>29446547
>They want it as a force multiplier. Notice how they want new planes as well, not only new SAM's.
Its no longer just a force multiplier, its a height barrier- "You need to have this system just to stand a chance". Conversely its for AF too in that they need extensive SEAD assets then.
>Israel could do it, probably chinks, this is more an issue of budget cuts and AF's being shit, rather than SAM advantages.
They can't. again we're talking Russian style IADS here- the whole shebang and with credible airforce as a reminder.
>>29446498
>Let NATO aircraft through during WW3 to save your battery could mean a blown bridge, delay timetables, or a wrecked tank division.
They are not letting them through- each disruption would've meant a strike package jettisoning its payload earlier or targeting cancelled. And we see the results- practically a handful of ground assets were toasted by campaign's end.
![1200031781.1200x782[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/MRgybcQ.jpg "1200031781.1200x782[1].jpg")
posting superioir SAM
how will the russians counter the SAMvee?
>>29446663
>practically a handful of ground assets
*and by ground assets I meant military ones like tanks, ifvs, arty, etc.
If they had better equipment they would've probably do more than save their ground forces though.
The S-400 is effectively just going to leave US with grumman cats for air force. The missiles have a speed of Mach 6 and their approach is invisible until terminal stage illumination through pencil beam of the Gravestone radar.
>>29446803
>this is what vatniks actually believe
>>29438842
The latest Patriot missile is pretty baller.
Hit to kill.
>>29441497
>The real threat of heavy SAMs in Vietnam was to force bombers and SEAD to lower altitudes, where they could be more easily engaged by SPAAGs and other SHORAD.
Only thing this didn't happen m8.
>>29440793
>has way better IADS than the Patriot.
interesting. tell me about them
>>29446853
>glorified mechanic for a stationary battery
>full face paint
why
>>29446853
He looks so disgusted
they already invented a solution
cargo plane carrying 100s of stealth cruise missiles that have range of 1000KM+
>>29446878
In North Vietnam, a majority of USAF losses were due to anti-aircraft artillery. Most of these losses occurred during low altitude attacks on SAM sites themselves, or targets the SAMs were guarding. I suggest you look up the term "flak trap" and research its use in Vietnam and Yom Kippur.
>>29446663
> And we see the results- practically a handful of ground assets were toasted by campaign's end
The Air Force's own studies concluded the lack of effectiveness of the early air campaign is primarily due to not having eyes on the ground.
The Serbs dispersed their forces and kept them mobile. The kill-chain delay between when recon picked up a target and when the strike aircraft arrived is long enough for the Serbs to move their stuff.
Aircraft can kill very well, but they can't hunt. You need ground troops to provide that information.
The other thing they noted is that while the HARM was fairly ineffective in knocking out SAM batteries for good, it was very good at forcing the radar to shut down and missile to lose track. If the flight had SEAD support, even if SAM's are launched at it, it usually didn't drop the payload prematurely.
>>29448661
oh come on now
1000 planes against 100 sam sites and they managed to kill what? around 40 tanks?
that is it?
Great bombing campaign man. And now i prepare for all the excuses you will give me why they were so ineffective, starting with restricted air space, lack of recon. Everything except the simplest solution: the sam network of the serbs worked and did it's job.
The only real loss they had were all their air bases because they couldn't be moved. Everything else was kept intact.
>>29438741
OP, let me ask you this question:
If you own a business that is base on empty false claims, and suddenly someone poked a hole in your claims and you know it be true and will bankrupt you, would you A) go along with the truth and let your business crash and burn, or would you B) rather make up more and more lies just to cover the more and more holes that's being poked just so your business can stay a flow and don't have to suck dicks behind a motel for food?
>>29449155
pretty much the best summary of F-35 program ever written
>>29448970
The lesson here being that air support is just support.
The KLA couldn't provide good enough targeting information to make use of the USAF's help.
They couldn't even take advantage of the Serbs constantly having to shuffle their shit whenever a NATO bombing sortie came over.
gonna post this for future reference
>>29438972
You do realize the airforce lost more aircraft to sabotage and destruction on the ground than they lost to missile batteries right?
Also Nork interceptors were surprisingly effective.
The vast majority of air losses were helicopters either way. For some reason they're included under the general "aircraft lost" in the casualty figures despite not technically being aircraft.
>>29450006
That is nice and all, but does that tall thing give out good wi fi signal?
Can it give good internet signal if its in the middle of Siberia where the Menk jacks off?
What kind of games can it play?
>>29448970
>Great bombing campaign man.
It was. A tank under camo netting and heavy cover 24/7 is not an effective tank.
The USAF shut down all of the heavy armored assets.
>>29449807
Best summery of the viewpoints of f-35 detractors.
>>29448970
>Everything except the simplest solution: the sam network of the serbs worked and did it's job.
If by working you mean had negligible effect outside of resources spent making the Serbs keep them hidden.
>>29450075
No comrade! Serbia was stronk! So what if it was the first country in history to surrender with only an air campaign! IADS worked!
>>29438741
Can't you fire your countermeasures and do a barrel roll?
>>29450023
You do realize that everyone in this thread has specified the Air Force, meaning they are omitting all of the Army's helo losses.
>>29438781
>The S-400 is effectively just going to take things back to Vietnam era SEAD operations.
That is to say, they're a threat, but the missiles fired:deadplanes:deadSAMs is going to be painful for the Russians.
The USA lost 10,000 aircraft. TEN THOUSAND. And the south Vietnames another 2-3000.
Drone spam + unmanned decoys with the RCS and whatnot of an F-35 + arsenal planes seems to be the most effective counter. Let them shoot their missiles and reveal their location before you even send in the expensive manned aircraft.
>>29446907
Cosplay. He probably posts in gearqueer threads.
>>29451382
Anything indicating the US is dveloping such?
I'm Ameriboo by the way
>>29438741
>Are Russian claims to be believed?
No.
>>29439197
>Might as well ask why they lost despite winning so many ground battles.
Army lost the key battles that mattered.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khe_Sanh
After Khe Sanh the entire McNamara line was broken. The Army could no longer meaningfully engage in offensives with current manpower after this point. Then came the Tet Offensive, and the last chance of the Army being able to request another Manpower surge and additional drafts to regain its lost footing was over.
>>29451382
Decoy drones are actually not cheaper than the rockets being used to shoot them down.
>>29452057
>Decoy drones are actually not cheaper than the rockets being used to shoot them down.
>$2 million missile shoot down F-35
>years of training and hundreds of millions of tax dollars gone to waste in a flash
>$2 million shoots down $10-20 drone
>"LOL let's just boot up another drone for you mr. Operator"
>>29452057
Its not amount of economy, but tactics.
You can introduce far more drones into a battlespacs than Sam missles defending it.
Break a hole, kick down the door, kill everything that the sams were protecting, rinse and repeat.
With MALD AND MALD-J, it takes the defensive Sam game, and make it effectively useless.
>>29452227
>$10-20 drone
You don't know what you are talking about do you? Those drones cost millions of dollars. They have to have their own engines, radar emitters, datalinks, etc. They are just as expensive if not more.
>>29438741
stand off range
/thread
>>29452057
>After Khe Sanh the entire McNamara line was broken.
This has less to do with khe sanh and more to do with the fact that the McNamara line never worked, infiltration happened anyways enmass.
The army was already moving to a mobile centric force. Thus, they dismantled the base because it did not fit into the new doctrine. Op Pegasus was a huge sucess.
>>29452395
SAMs are not a viable long-term solution for aerospace defense in any conflict. That was witnessed in the Balkans.
But the concept that multi-layered SAMs can be easily beaten almost immediately by a drone swarm is asinine. For one, a country could have 10000s of missiles, the launchers are mobile, and the cost would be roughly the same if not cheaper than the drones. It would take a determined, and long-term effort to beat an advanced multi-layer SAM system from the air. In which time the army or navy or nuclear forces of the opposition could have altered the course of the war. SAMs are great stalling tactics, and they force difficult situations on the enemy, that was seen in Vietnam.
>>29452419
They dont cost millions. Mald B's cost about 300,000 dollers.
>>29452469
But they dont have all those missles in the same battle space.
I can introduce many more malds (that are decoying to be whatever airframe i want) than a defender realistically has missles.
>>29452456
Khe Sanh was the first time a major forward base was captured by the enemy in the War. It was a huge turning point, because abandoning it meant they had no real strategy going forward. It was also the end of large KDA ratios the army loved to brag about.
'Mobile centric force' is just translation for being reactive to whatever the NVA was planning, instead of trying to contain and defeat them. A tacit admission of defeat.
>>29451778
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/03/08/inside-the-secretive-pentagon-office-planning-skyborg-fighters-and-drone-swarms/
>>29452489
>>29452516
>Mald B
They don't 'defeat' air defenses on their own. They are to help draw fire and locate enemy positions. And they certainly aren't cheap when compared to say, and SA-6, which can cost 30k a missile.
There is a reason it is called 'multi-layered' AA defense. It is not just one system. S-400 is part of a much larger system.
>>29452548
>Khe Sanh was the first time a major forward base was captured by the enemy in the War.
It was not captured, the base was dismantled and left due to shifting doctrine.
>It was a huge turning point, because abandoning it meant they had no real strategy going forward
Thats absolutely retarded. All it was was a admission that the MN line was a bad idea and an abject failure.
>'Mobile centric force' is just translation for being reactive to whatever the NVA was planning, instead of trying to contain and defeat them.
There was never a plan to defeat the NVA, you idiot. Learn about the war and the objectives.
>>29452516
Additionally, when the enemy runs out of missiles, they cede control of their logistics to the enemy's AF.
>>29452633
>They don't 'defeat' air defenses on their own.
Every missle fired at a mald is a victory. Every missle not fired at an airframe is a victory. Every missle not fired at a mald is a victory due to its jamming capabilities.
A mald can defeat every part of the chain.
Once an launcher blows though its 8 missles max (thats including reloads) its effectively done. One F-16 can hold 12 malds on triple mounts.
Malds very much do defeat SAM systems by defeating SAM doctrine itself. It turns it right on its head.
>>29452675
Several decades after the war, and people still suck up the military propaganda.
The major base was lost due to enemy opposition and pressure. You can call it the military preferred word of 'dismantled' despite having cost +3000 allied soldiers to defend.
There simply was no strategy going forward that would have guaranteed a win condition without having yet another major manpower surge and draft. That itself was an admission of defeat that they couldn't achieve their objectives with current manpower and weapons, and no way were they going to get anything more with public opinion of the war at record lows after the Tet Offensive.
>There was never a plan to defeat the NVA, you idiot. Learn about the war and the objectives.
There were never any clear objectives about the war. The only official mission was to support the Republic of South Vietnam. But when you are doing most of the fighting, 'support' isn't exactly the correct term. No, the real strategy was to secure the South and militarily defeat the North, which meant defeating the NVA.
>>29452802
>The major base was lost due to enemy opposition and pressure.
Dumb, considering after op Pegasus hostilities went down tremendously. Op scotland had marines hunting down NVA in the surrounding areas. Yeah, really sounds like a base on the brink of being over run.
>There simply was no strategy going forward that would have guaranteed a win condition
It would be interesting to hear what your "win condition" is, because it seems to be the occupation of north vietnam and the total defeat of the NVA which was never on the table. You subconsciously admit this with your talk of the MN line....or you dont know why the line was made.
>No, the real strategy was to secure the South and militarily defeat the North, which meant defeating the NVA.
Oh, so you DO legitimately think the goal was to occupy north vietnam. Read a fucking book on the war. What the fuck is that.
>INB4 NO BRUH DEFEAT THE NVA WITHOUT OCCUPYING NORTH VEITNAM!!! If thats the case kill yourself.
>>29452726
>Once an launcher blows though its 8 missles max (thats including reloads) its effectively done. One F-16 can hold 12 malds on triple mounts.
There will certainly be more than 1 launcher, and they will be cycling them constantly. Launchers don't operate independently. I don't think you appreciate how many SAM systems would be in place. Thousands of support and SAM vehicles would be in place. This is not even considering the enemy will also be in the skies as well. And how do you guarantee the F-16 safety? There would be a good chance many of them would be shot down, since the air-safe zone would probably be in constant flux as the SAM systems are mobile and enemy aircraft vehicles would also respond. Remember, ground radars will also be vastly more advanced and powerful than anything that goes into a plane.
Defense is always much easier than offense. The art of defeating a complex multi-layer AA defense network is a whole branch of military tactics, strategy, and technology in of itself. I don't buy that all it takes is a few thousand decoy systems being launched over the course of a few days is all it takes.
>>29452924
>There will certainly be more than 1 launcher, and they will be cycling them constantly.
The logistics and ranges in this dont bear this out.
Look at the average offroad speed of these launchers and loaders, and their battle space they are meant to protect, and the time it would take to go though their onboard and support vehicles missles. It takes minutes to blow though your missles, and days to exfil and infil the battle space.
>I don't think you appreciate how many SAM systems would be in place.
I dont think you do.
>Thousands of support and SAM vehicles would be in place.
In one battle space? Laughable anon. Logistics of that aside, the numbers dont bear out.
Russia ITSELF has less than 1000 s-300 launchers, and that is a VERY prolific system. Its going to stick them all in one battle space?
>This is not even considering the enemy will also be in the skies as well.
Very few nations can even contest airspace against the USAF alone, not considering the USN.
>since the air-safe zone would probably be in constant flux as the SAM systems are mobile and enemy aircraft vehicles would also respond.
Of course, but planes are much more mobile than ground vehicles. Put all your eggs in one basket means that basket gets ignored for others. During the battle, these assets are effectively stationary from an airborne veiw. Pushing a defense zone by 10 miles south is meaningless to a pilot.
>>29452909
>Oh, so you DO legitimately think the goal was to occupy north vietnam. Read a fucking book on the war. What the fuck is that.
What in the fuck are you talking about? 'Defeating the NVA' doesn't mean occupying the North. It means disabling their ability to invade and annex the South. Thereby also stopping the spread of Communism into the rest of SEA, or so the Domino Theory goes.
The rest of post is hogwash that doesn't deal with the realities of Khe Sanh. There was heavy pressure from the enemy, heavy causalities, and enormous amounts of manpower and support disproportionately sent to Khe Sanh, only for them to abandon it anyway. It was Khe Sanh that convinced them that their strategy and McNamara Line wasn't going to work, not the other way around. They had no way forward afterwards to defeat the NVA and secure the South.
You sound like an idiot who thinks the army could have easily won the war 'if it wasn't for those damn bleeding-heart politicians in Congress.'
>>29453040
>What in the fuck are you talking about? 'Defeating the NVA' doesn't mean occupying the North. It means disabling their ability to invade and annex the South.
Oh, pray tell how to do this without invadeing and occupying north vietnam?
>The rest of post is hogwash that doesn't deal with the realities of Khe Sanh.
Oh, so op Pegasus was a failure? Op scotland did not involve hunting down NVA in the surrounding areas? Op charlie was not done in an response and part of an entire doctrine shift not just relating to khe sanh?
No, sir, you are either ignorant or straight lieing to me, and what would be the point of that?
>You sound like an idiot who thinks the army could have easily won the war 'if it wasn't for those damn bleeding-heart politicians in Congress.'
Honestly, being that you are completely ignoring the ACTUAL HISTORY of the battle, you sound like the exact opposite of the card.
>>29453004
S-300 is not the only system in air defense. There are multiple SAM systems with varying ranges that all operate as part of a vast system.
Decoys have been around since before Vietnam, MALD is just a continuation of that legacy to keep up with advances in radar. It takes much more than that just to 'defeat' air defenses.
Balkans War had a number of AA systems in place, and they provided good support to stall and delay the war and NATO bombing efforts, even though it was hopeless to stop them. As I have acknowledged before, SAM systems can be beaten by a determined air force over a period of time. That doesn't make them obsolete. They provide cover for forward positions and fulfill a role to protect ground assets, especially when they operate with forces in the air.
>>29450075
>The USAF shut down all of the heavy armored assets.
[citation needed]
afaik the Serbs still operated albeit a bit limited by the airstrikes. tanks, ifvs and trucks still drove around in convoys to their objectives taking great care to avoid detection by air recon assets as well as masquerading as refugee columns (one instance got an actual refugee convoy blown to bits instead). arty still continued bombarding enclaves.
>>29450126
>If by working you mean had negligible effect outside of resources spent making the Serbs keep them hidden.
Actually the Serbs hid most of their ground forces in preparation for the percieved impending NATO ground assault. There was an anecdote of a NATO officer overwatching behind the LOC for most of the campaign and was surprised when come the ceasefire tens of camouflaged AFVs emerged right before his eyes!
>>29453161
>Decoys have been around since before Vietnam,
Not really, not like mald. If so, by all means point them out.
>Balkans War had a number of AA systems in place, and they provided good support to stall and delay the war and NATO bombing efforts
Mald was devolped in direct reponse to prevent another repeat of the early days of the Balkans, because it WAS slow.
>SAM systems can be beaten by a determined air force over a period of time.
Mald's make this period much, much shorter, and does not give an enemy time to resupply.
You seem to think that malds combat sams. They combat the entire doctrine. Its a paradigm shift
>>29453206
>There was an anecdote of a NATO officer overwatching behind the LOC for most of the campaign and was surprised when come the ceasefire tens of camouflaged AFVs emerged right before his eyes!
WOW SO AMAZING! THIS DOES NOT REEK OF PROPAGANDA AT ALL!
>>29453206
>tanks, ifvs and trucks still drove around in convoys to their objectives taking great care to avoid detection by air recon assets as well as masquerading as refugee columns
>tanks
>masquerading as refugee colums
Your entire post is bullshit, but out of all the bullshit, this is the most bullshit.
>>29453102
>Oh, pray tell how to do this without invadeing and occupying north vietnam?
Deplete their forces, cut their supply routes, set up a DMZ, maintain a line of control, provide support to the South.
We saw this before in Korea. I don't know why you are in such denial.
NONE of this could ever be achieved after Khe Sanh. It was a massive failure on nearly all fronts for the army. The unimpressive KDA, the casualties, the wasted manpower and effort. All for just one small base. It was Dien Bien Phu 2.0
I get the impression you have never read any non-Western sources regarding the war, hence your inherently cloudy interpretation of events. Never read the losers account of events, they tend to be even more twisted than the victors.
>>29453301
Also saw it with Desert Shield
>>29453210
> Its a paradigm shift
The only way to find out is another major war.
If Iran gets the S-300 and full SAM systems, and US decides to invade we will have to see if it is another Balkans type of slow wear down or an immediate defeat of air defense systems.
>>29452726
>Every missle fired at a mald is a victory.
Who says they are going to fire a big-ass missile at a mere MALD? Get a battalion of Pantsir-S1s and you are looking at 72 missiles with >90% proven capability to intercept small targets like MALD plus guns for the leakers.
Or better yet, take a Krasuha-2/4 with its bigass jamming suite and force them to fly figure 8s until they crash.
>>29452726
>Every missle not fired at an airframe is a victory.
The point of the new generation of radar and electronic suites is that they can also distinguish targets much more accurately.
MALDs can only look like an F-15 in the X/S bands- cross-referencing with longer wavelengths and you identify the decoy for what it is and mount the appropriate response.
>Every missle not fired at a mald is a victory due to its jamming capabilities.
wait- jam a Gravestone? lemme do a Bender impression and laugh even harder.
Its physically impossible- the SAM set is just orders of magnitude more powerful and more sophisticated(Its why they cost couple millions of dollars for the radar vehicles alone).
>>29452726
>A mald can defeat every part of the chain.
lolno.
>Once an launcher blows though its 8 missles max (thats including reloads) its effectively done. One F-16 can hold 12 malds on triple mounts.
Or it gets blown up from hundreds of miles away by an extended range SAM. If you can afford a couple S-400 battalions you can afford a couple AWACS too so terrain constraints are no more.
>>29453301
>Deplete their forces, cut their supply routes, set up a DMZ, maintain a line of control, provide support to the South.
But this does not complete your objective of disableing their ability to invade, anymore than it did for north korea.
Furthermore, there is a big difference between korea and veitnam wars. DMZs only work if the guys on your side dont want anything to do with the guys on the other. This was NOT the case. Irregulars were pouring over before and after the MN line, thus rendering it irrelevant.
>NONE of this could ever be achieved after Khe Sanh.
It was not being achived before it.
>MUH KDA!!!
For all your bellowing about it, its not even that bad. At khe sahn itself only around 300 died. The rest was ops with the NVA on the defensive during scotland.
>I get the impression you have never read any non-Western sources regarding the war,
I get you only read anti western sources exclusively.
>>29453295
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/IWM-E-18461-Crusader-camouflaged-19421026.jpg
mounting a wooden canvass on top of the vehicle is now bs? have dudes in burqas walking behind it carrying bundles of cloth with guns and ammo inside and it looks the part of a refugee column from the air
>>29453245
>WOW SO AMAZING! THIS DOES NOT REEK OF PROPAGANDA AT ALL!
As I've said its just an anecdote. take it for what its worth and nothing more.
>>29453382
>Who says they are going to fire a big-ass missile at a mere MALD?
Because it looks like a B-52.
>MALDs can only look like an F-15 in the X/S
MALDs can look like everything from a B-2 to a B-52 at a "wide range of frequencys". But you seem to have insider info on top secret tech. Care to share?
>lemme do a Bender impression and laugh even harder.
>what is degredation
>Or it gets blown up from hundreds of miles away by an extended range SAM.
Mald has a range of 920 km. Good luck shooting a strategic sam at a fighter that will just turn and burn.
>>29453407
>But this does not complete your objective of disableing their ability to invade, anymore than it did for north korea.
All of that would have crippled their ability to do so. Korean War prevented the North from mounting a successful invasion after the War was over. The same could not be said for the NVA who reunited the country almost immediately afterwards.
>Irregulars were pouring over before and after the MN line, thus rendering it irrelevant.
You can go a step further. Irregulars were being created in the South itself due to opposition to the perceived American occupation and widely accepted puppet government.
>It was not being achived before it.
The army still felt they had a chance of achieving it. After all the difficulties regarding Khe Sanh that confidence level fell to 0.
>For all your bellowing about it, its not even that bad. At khe sahn itself only around 300 died. The rest was ops with the NVA on the defensive during scotland.
I never said it was bad. It was simply unimpressive. It wasn't in the ratios required to really wear down the enemy. Many more allied soldiers were lost at the numerous battles and raids at Khe Sanh and the area surrounding it, some +3000 KIA all things considered.
>I get you only read anti western sources exclusively
I tend to prefer sources from the side of the victor, because they evidently did something right to win. They also tend to be more accurate if overly embellished.
>>29453452
>Because it looks like a B-52.
from all wavelengths? physically impossible.
In the visual range it looks like a MALD for instance.
>MALDs can look like everything from a B-2 to a B-52 at a "wide range of frequencys". But you seem to have insider info on top secret tech. Care to share?
they are not exactly lying when they said a "wide range of frequencies" those certainly include anything lower than metric band.
>>what is degredation
cuts both ways, still works in favor of the system with orders of magnitude more power available
>Mald has a range of 920 km. Good luck shooting a strategic sam at a fighter that will just turn and burn.
then you just wasted 12 of your $300k missiles. You want a Growler to launch them whilst providing defensive jamming for the enroaching MALDs. Take that away and the enemy can see them earlier and have lots more options to waste them along the way.
>>29453538
>All of that would have crippled their ability to do so
Nice job ignoreing the irregulars
>Irregulars were being created in the South itself due to opposition to the perceived American occupation and widely accepted puppet government.
Oh wait, no you didnt, you implied a majority were domstic, and they were not flooding across the border. This is a litmus test btw, to see how deluded you are.
>The army still felt they had a chance of achieving it. After all the difficulties regarding Khe Sanh that confidence level fell to 0.
>after
The change was made before op charlie, when khe sahn was still very much around. For fucks sake anon, are we ignoring BASIC history now?
>It was simply unimpressive.
And KDA is simply irrelevant. Unless its not, do you want to go down that path?
>I tend to prefer sources from the side of the victor, because they evidently did something right to win.
Well that explains everything then.
You imply i am baised with no proof, but hell, you are admittedly so, and apprently proud of it.
Sad.
>>29453548
>muh visual range
Im going with this being a joke, to give you the benefit of the doubt.
>they are not exactly lying when they said a "wide range of frequencies" those certainly include anything lower than metric band.
So, i take this as " well fuck i dont know the range of the SAS, and my comment about it was pure, fucking, made up bullshit"
Is that fair?
>cuts both ways,
Oh yes, im sure the mald is going to really care that its locally jamming itself.
>then you just wasted 12 of your $300k missiles.
How so? Are you implying that the f-16 is alone?
>defensive jamming for the enroaching MALDs.
Why the fuck would you NOT want the enemy to see the malds? That kinda ruins their point.
>>29453662
>Im going with this being a joke, to give you the benefit of the doubt.
>point goes over his head.
I'll take "flunking Physics" for 500 alex.
>So, i take this as " well fuck i dont know the range of the SAS, and my comment about it was pure, fucking, made up bullshit"
again we all know Physics says something can not look the way it is across a wide range of wavelengths, let alone all of them. What part of metric bands being comparable to the the rough dimensions of the MALD frame therefore rendering any shaping and materials RCS enhancements moot do you not get?
>How so? Are you implying that the f-16 is alone?
you said:
>Good luck shooting a strategic sam at a fighter that will just turn and burn
which implies the launch platform would've turn tail and ran the moment the MALDs left their pylons.
>Oh yes, im sure the mald is going to really care that its locally jamming itself.
As it should. smaller receivers have trouble with crowded airwaves much more so than larger ones.
>Why the fuck would you NOT want the enemy to see the malds? That kinda ruins their point.
you don't want the element of surprise? you remember one of the point of these decoys is that they can actually inflict damage on the SAMs so you could not just leave them be. If they appear 300 km away instead of 900km away then you severely shorten the reaction time and you might actually have a chance of these doing more than just decoying...
>>29453779
>>point goes over his head.
Oh, i get what you were saying, but the visible spectrum has not been used for targeting since the old days of WWII flak cannons.
Thus, its utterly irrelevant.
>know Physics says something can not look the way it is across a wide range of wavelengths, let alone all of them.
Are you saying broadband stealth is impossible? Or are you being overly broad again? Either way, wew lad.
>which implies the launch platform would've turn tail and ran the moment the MALDs left their pylons.
If its acting as a pure carrier...why would it stay? Are you implying, again, that its alone?
>As it should
Its autonomous. Why would it need to receive anything? Are you retarded? Do you have brain damage?
>you remember one of the point of these decoys is that they can actually inflict damage on the SAMs
No? What in the actual fuck?
Here.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD
Read. Read it all. Then come back.
Jesus fucking christ.
>>29453324
It'll be immediate.
The defender has to be strong everywhere. The attacker only has to be strong at the point of attack.
>tfw the US has the resources to be stronger than Iran everywhere, including the points (yes, points, plural) of attack
>>29453382
>Who says they are going to fire a big-ass missile at a mere MALD?
The whole point of a MALD is that it looks like a suitable target for a big-ass missile. Literally the entire point.
>Do you even lift? Get on my level.
>>29453862
>Thus, its utterly irrelevant.
>point whizzes over his head again.
>>29453862
>Are you saying broadband stealth is impossible? Or are you being overly broad again? Either way, wew lad.
depends on how broad. even then theoretical broadband stealth would still be not as good as stealth optimized for specific bands alone, unless we are talking alien technology.
>If its acting as a pure carrier...why would it stay? Are you implying, again, that its alone?
you said a fighter
>a fighter
>Its autonomous. Why would it need to receive anything? Are you retarded? Do you have brain damage?
It has to recieve the SAM radar signals so it knows where and what (bands) to jam. jesus christ.
>No?
kek, thats even worse then.
>>29454019
>The whole point of a MALD is that it looks like a suitable target for a big-ass missile. Literally the entire point.
First, it can't look like one at the metric wavelength, as Ive mentioned post and post again.
Second, what B-52 hangs around the place blasting jamming signals that are way smaller than what something of the size it purports to be can dump? It might work for dune coons but everyone else can put two and two together and see it for what it is.
>>29454043
>Jamming from your own units will somehow keep you from detecting a multi mega-watt radar beam
>I couldn't understand the concepts of intensity, frequency, and pulsing to save my life
>No, but seriously, I'm fucking retarded
>>29454084
but what if it's real? do you just let it through on its merry way because you think it's a decoy? that's what they want to make the enemy think.
>>29454043
>>point whizzes over his head again.
>merely pretending incoming
>even then theoretical broadband stealth would still be not as good as stealth optimized for specific bands alone
This is blatently false. Unless you think the B-21 incorporates alien tech.
>you said a fighter
Yes, one fighter can carry that many malds. What does that have to do with an theoretical SEAD/DEAD mission? Unless you are autistic, which might actually be possible based on your spectrum responses.
>It has to recieve the SAM radar signals so it knows where and what (bands) to jam.
Which it does...*gasp*....BEFORE it jams by god what a thought!
>thats even worse then.
Why, exactly? Is it to be a HARM?
more hilarious is the fact that we are now 5 posts in on a weapon you clearly are ignorant of.
>merely
>pretending
>>29454084
>First, it can't look like one at the metric wavelength
Stop this. All wavelenghts in the spectrum can be measured in the metric system, you god damn retard. Stop being so fucking stupid.
Triggered.
>>29454084
>Second, what B-52 hangs around the place blasting jamming signals that are way smaller than what something of the size it purports to be can dump? It might work for dune coons but everyone else can put two and two together and see it for what it is.
Why does it have to be a B-52? Why can't it be an F-35 on a SEAD run?
> F-35s spamming cluster munition JSOWs all over your IADS.
> Yuo see, ivan, they are just decoys. be of holding fire and drinking vodka, tovarisch
>>29454094
>Jamming from your own units will somehow keep you from detecting a multi mega-watt radar beam
shit quoting practice and putting words in my mouth aside what the fuck does this mean?
at least point out in which part of the conversation you are specifically rebutting to instead of a strawman.
>I couldn't understand the concepts of intensity, frequency, and pulsing to save my life
>No, but seriously, I'm fucking retarded
nice concession.
>>29454001
Don't forget that with 5th Gen now the defender is effectively blind and blasting their positions at an enemy that can map and freely choose whether to engage, evade, or ignore in order to complete mission.
>>29454084
>thinks a mald jams and decoys at the same time
Holy shit, read the fucking link you dumb motherfucker.
You are so stupid on so many levels. Its not even ignorance anymore, just blatent stupidity.
>>29454172
He is saying the emitter is much more powerful than the jammer so it does not really matter how much the jammer is degradeing itself.
Also, you are fucking stupid for not learning about a system you are trying to discredit and the many other reasons listed.
Stop trying.
>>29454172
Oh my god. You are actually autistic. Have you ever heard of context? Do you realize I'm mock quoting you? I'm not sure I can handle the pure ignorance you're spilling, but Ill try.
Naturally, I'm responding to the part where you for some odd reason claimed a MALD (or any receiver for that matter) wouldn't be able to detect a radar beam if it had its hammer on. That's fucking stupid, and you know it.
Hell, the origins F-15C had a defensive jammer, and guess what? It's RWR listens in the spaces between the radar and jammer firing, you daft cunt.
>>29454099
>but what if it's real? do you just let it through on its merry way because you think it's a decoy? that's what they want to make the enemy think.
then you check it with metric band radar/s
>>29454136
>Stop this. All wavelenghts in the spectrum can be measured in the metric system, you god damn retard. Stop being so fucking stupid.
.
metric band radar is a valid term for radars operating in said band. sorry but your nitpick is shit.
>>29454120
>This is blatently false.
saying that does not make it any less true.
>Yes, one fighter can carry that many malds. What does that have to do with an theoretical SEAD/DEAD mission?
what are you even talking about? seriously I know this is just a blatantly bad attempt at backpedaling and burying that shit of a post of yours but come on!
>Which it does...*gasp*....BEFORE it jams by god what a thought!
your words:
>Why would it need to receive anything?
kek, I know I am talking to a mouthbreathing idiot when he even gasps when he types.
>Why, exactly? Is it to be a HARM?
I don't know about you but I want my shit to have the most bang for buck as possible.
>more hilarious is the fact that we are now 5 posts in on a weapon you clearly are ignorant of.
even more hilarious is the fact laid bare that one cannot subsist on Raytheon supplied info. alone against Physics in discussions like this.
>>29454283
Nothing worse than an ingorant autistic.
>>29454302
>metric band radar is a valid term for radars operating in said band.
I actually had to google it and search. You are clearly russian, because that it a russian term.
Call it VHF like everyone else.
>>29454320
Oh, he's just a Russian? Never mind then, no point in trying to prove his vodka addled Slav mind wrong.
>>29454302
>saying that does not make it any less true.
The B-21 is not true?
>what are you even talking about?
Your issue with my "a fighter" quote. Which was referencing a mald carrier f-16. Try to keep up.
>your words:
Yes buddy. You can jam and receive at the same time. Welcome to 1980.
>I don't know about you but I want my shit to have the most bang for buck as possible.
Its meant to be a cheap drone. Sticking an radar seeker and a MWR active seeker would cut range and drive up costs. Retarded.
>even more hilarious is the fact
I disagree, its much more hilarious that your grasp of physics is on the same level as your grasp of the mald system, non existent. Yet, you insist on pretending you know both
>>29454351
Yep, only russian sources refer to it as the metric band...which clearly is not translateing well because it makes no sense
>>29454388
"Meter" band would be better because it goes from 10-1 meter wavelength, but it's still a pretty dumb way to call it when the universally understandable international term is VHF.
And Vatnick is still fucking stupid thinking VHF is useful for anything but "I think there's something up there, but it could be a cloud."
>>29454388
Well, the not making sense part could be that it was created by Russians. These are the same people who's economy and culture is based off a plant from South America.
>>29454416
It might be a mistranslate, i only got a few russian sources that call it the metric band.
Who knows im just guessing here.
>>29454427
Kek
>>29454210
>He is saying the emitter is much more powerful than the jammer so it does not really matter how much the jammer is degradeing itself.
The context is extended range engagements- that megawatt radar beam wouldve attenuated by then.
>>29454283
>Naturally, I'm responding to the part where you for some odd reason claimed a MALD (or any receiver for that matter) wouldn't be able to detect a radar beam if it had its hamme
You mean this:
>As it should. smaller receivers have trouble with crowded airwaves much more so than larger ones.
I just stated a fact. but lo and behold you twisted this into:
> claimed a MALD (or any receiver for that matter) wouldn't be able to detect a radar beam if it had its hammer
again, lets repeat.
You said:>>29453548
>what is degredation
to which i reply:>>29453548
>cuts both ways, still works in favor of the system with orders of magnitude more power available
nothing saying of the sort you say here. in fact it implies MALD gets first look with the search radar which is not LPI, only tracking are afaik.
then:>>29453662
>Oh yes, im sure the mald is going to really care that its locally jamming itself.
then my following reply was mutated ofc.
So tell me again now where did i fucking say MALD wouldn't be able to detect a radar beam you dishonest shit?
>>29454320
>Call it VHF like everyone else.
start using SI units then.
>>29454479
>that megawatt radar beam wouldve attenuated by then.
This implyes the the jammer keeps a stable Db.
>>29454479
>start using SI units then.
US Military does use metric to be interoperable with NATO, you fucking idiot. VHF is the official international term.
>>29454479
>start using SI units then.
What? What the fuck are you asking.
Give me an exmple of SI VHF, UHF, and IR.
You are asking something that does not exist, and if you did it would not be called "metric", it would be called meter, millimeter, etc.
>>29454524
>Give me an exmple of SI VHF, UHF, and IR.
not russian, but you realise that all of these bands are given in either frequency or wavelength, all of which is calculated in hertz (si unit) or meters?
do you really talk em wavelengths in feet and inches in the us?
>>29454479
>You said:
No, I didn't, please try to keep track of these different anons.
In essence you're claiming a bigger aperture cuts through interference better. That's not true. If that were the case, my phone's tiny microwave band antenna would not be able to hear the emissions of a cellphone tower over all the other smaller antennas around.
Obviously, I'm posting from my phone, so that's not the case, now is it?
If you have a big enough peice of metal to detect frequency, you have a big enough peice of metal to detect the frequency. That's just that.
>>29454666
No, we use the metric system for science because we're not actually retarded, and like to work with others.
>>29439011
post a pic of your countries flag on the moon
>>29438781
If it's SEAD on Russian territory we're talking about then comparing such operation with Vietnam is quite ludicrous. The purpose of their AA system as a whole is not to withstand prolonged air campaign, but to provide ICBMs enough time to launch nukes on aggressor country. Then there's this issue of US lacking resources (air, naval, logistical, human) to conduct operation of this scale and magnitude, nevermind your WW2 tier comprehension of EW.
