Why don't western powers have anti-aircraft missiles like Russias S-400 series?
Seems like a gap in capability when you consider they are developing an S-500 which is specifically designed to shoot down ICBMs.
The current systems are very nearly capable of shooting down anything that flies as it is. Any further leap in capability will leave the West lingering behind in the anti-aircraft missile game.
Dunno if you're intentionally misunderstanding but it means that they're not concerned with defensive anti-air primarily because they can rely on their air forces to protect their air space before ground-based interception becomes an issue.
Have a look at military history, friend. Existing doctrines are always changing and adapting the doctrine your military has may not be the right one to win the next war with it's unforeseeable circumstances. A good example of this is the french tank doctrine at the start of WW2, they believed that tanks should maintain pace with infantry and work in tandem, this created a slow moving army that could not quickly adapt to the fast paced tank heavy maneuver warfare the Germans pioneered.
Yankeedoodle doctrine may have been a winner so far but there hasn't been a WW3 to test it yet.
Air superiority is impossible over an area protected by S-400 series missile systems, how can you rely on air superiority to defend your airspace when you have no air superiority?
>Air superiority is impossible over an area protected by S-400 series missile systems
IADs are not new, and the S-400 isn't some magical leap forward in capability that nobody has a way of dealing with. SEAD/DEAD has been around for a long ass time, and is only getting more potent with things like MALD and JSOW.
Western powers are in no illusions about having air superiority over Russia. Simply but every motherfucker knows War with Russia has to be fought with missiles both with conventional and nuclear.
>Why don't western powers have anti-aircraft missiles like Russias S-400 series?
Because it's overall less expensive to make planes that kick the shit out of anything else that flies, walks or swims.
Arguably. Plane and aerial weapon development is far more costly than AA.
Doctrine and geographic position.
Russia needs to defend a shitload of land. US - does not, it has oceans. Hence the american focus on ship-borne AA.
Similarly it doesn't matter how advanced your aircraft are if they are getting shot down by land based missiles. No air defence is impenetrable, but not being impenetrable does not mean guaranteed air superiority for your opponent. What air defence does do is shoot down a lot of planes, the S-400 is good at this.
At a strategic level, IADs have always lost.
Nobody is arguing that you won't shoot down planes, but thats a pretty shitty strawman. Just that in the overall picture, you're not going to win using it.
>Even opponents that have some air cover and IADs have historically lost.
Understand this - IAD's don't save you if you loose the air-war flat out (which all of your historical opponents for one reason or the other did). What they do - is allow you to win it with less forces.
Obviously it's just a simulation, but CNAO had the S-400s as being somewhat effective against the F-35 with jammer support, but not enough for HARMs to lose their effectiveness. It'd gain the shot at the last minute, with intermitant but nonterminal contact from a fair way away.
Though the Air Force plays it up as such in order to get more delicious tax monies for their already massive budget.
>Why don't western powers have anti-aircraft missiles like Russias S-400 series?
US has Standard missiles, which are naval operated instead of ground units. French have Aster. They are not exact Triumf analogues but differ because of the doctrine. Russia has vast land mass to cover which calls for fast long range SAM. West doesn't have this exact problem, but need more naval oriented air defence. Thus, more smaller missiles.
>Similarly it doesn't matter how advanced your aircraft are if they are getting shot down by land based missiles.
"Rust crossed the Baltic coastline over Estonia and turned towards Moscow. At 14:29 he appeared on Soviet Air Defense (PVO) radar and, after failure to reply to an IFF signal, was assigned combat number 8255. Three SAM divisions tracked him for some time, but failed to obtain permission to launch at him. All air defenses were brought to readiness and two interceptors were sent to investigate. At 14:48 near the city of Gdov one of the pilots observed a white sport plane similar to a Yakovlev Yak-12 and asked for permission to engage, but was denied."
Nothing would stop the US from cramming standard missiles in a land platform. I guess they don't see a need for such system.
The system already exists, it's just never been deployed because you can park a ship near the coastline and you've already covered the entire country without having ground installations.
Apparently they're being stationed in Poland and Romania soon though.
>not combining russian and german tech into unbeatable doom weapon
The S-400 can probably defeat a B-2 with the Protivnik GE radar. I don't know about the F-22, it might be able to launch weapons and leave before the radar has a clear enough picture to guide a missile.
If I'm controlling an S-400 I would want as many Protivnik as I can get my hands on preferably in the more mobile variant if I'm expected to defeat an F-22.
If the F-22 is using a GBU-40(Long range gliding) then I might be able to maneuver after detection and start up another radar. Could end up as a most dangerous game of cat and mouse until ideally the F-22 runs out of weapons.
Even if you can't defeat the F-22 you might be able to keep the strike package at bay with deceptive tactics. Giving your command time to do whatever they can to counter the strike package. It almost relies on your knowing the F-22 is coming though, assuming it can defeat the Protivnik.
US is working on organic, embedded stand alone assets to defend against UAV's, helicopters, planes and cruise missiles.
Its called the MML, and will be augmented with an upgraded avenger system. You guys remember the stinger Humvee? Its getting AIM-9's now.
Then they are taking the HIMAR's MLRS system and quad packing each unit with a Hit to kill kentic missile, making it have about 50 interceptors, thats primarily for organic anti cruise missile defense (terminal) to supplement the patriot and aegis ashore installations.
It will all be networked into the open architecture Integrated Air and Missile Defense battle command system that already exists for patriot (and other nato systems).
The organic assets will be complemented with an equally mobile system, an upgraded Sentinel X-band radar.
Basically, what the US army is doing is turning its semi fixed instillation's and mobile units into what amounts to navy ships. Air support handles far off threats, THAAD/agies ashore/Patroit handles medium ranged threats, and the MML Himars system handles short range pop up immediate threats and the Humvee/Oshkosh mounted Sidewinders handles short range/small threats on the move, with CRAM as the last line of defense for anything that gets though.
All before 2020.
The US' air defense is actually defensive instead of an area denial asset. C-RAM, Patriots, SLAMRAAMs, etc, there's no need to drive a bunch of trucks carrying missiles and radars to where they're useful when you can have actual planes do it, far less vulnerable.
Russia's Air Force is trash is why. Their goal was to only ever achieve parity with NATO and they couldn't do that. The west already developed a better system than the S-400 in MEADS, but then realized it was pointless as their potential adversaries didn't require it and THAAD blows the shit out of what Russia is claiming that the S-500 will do to say nothing of SM-3 or GBI
>organic, embedded stand alone assets
>organic anti cruise missile defense
So, I see that word get thrown around quite often on /k/. It's a long old time since I was in the army, and the only time I can remember people saying it was in reference to a person, for instance "the most failiure prone component of a Lynx is the organic matter between the seat and the stick". Presumably organic missile defence doesn't involve getting the new guy to stand in front of an incoming rocket, so could someone enlighten me as to what it means?
Ok, so assuming we let RPG wielding yellow people around our air defense assets, what difference does it make what is its carrier?
AMPV, oshkosh, humvee....they will still be killed by one.
Because we don't need it. We have old, semi-static launchers that are "good enough" to shoot down most credible threats plus the ability to put a shitload of current-gen fighters in the air so they're second-line defense anyway.
Because while the Russians are -just now- developing an anti-ICBM missile, we've had a good one since the 70's. They're over 40 years behind the power curve on that one.
>what are 5th-gen stealth/VLO aircraft the S400 cannot target
>what are long-range AtG munitions like the JSOW/JSOM, cruise missiles, and HARM?
Literally the only thing the S400 has going for it iis being mobile, therefor (if used right and not by a bunch of lazy cunts like the Russians that park the trucks in the same spot for years on end) being potentially no longer there by the time a cruise missile gets from hundreds of miles away to where it is/was.
>the US has roughly twice as many operational 4th and 5th gen fighter and strike aircraft as Russia has S300 and S400 combined
Even if every single missile shot down a plane Russia wouldn't even kill half of the US air power. And that is simply a statistical impossibility. Ergo, US still achieves air superiority over Russia, it'd just be very costly.
>hurr S400 can shoot down F22 and F35 despite it already being proven the radar is incapable of even detecting much less tracking and locking on them
So in other words, EA18's come in low and fast and HARM it to death, then the F35 is free to putt along at cruising speed at 50,000ft and JDAM/JSOM all the launchers at its leisure?
> There was an awareness that it had flaws, including an inability to handle MIRVs. In 1967 a Ministry of Defence commission decided that it should not be fully implemented. The eight radars were to be reduced to the two that had been started: the Dunay-3 at Akulovo (Kubinka) (also known by the NATO codename Dog House) and the Dunay-3U at Chekhov (NATO name Cat House)
It's like the 7th line of defense. The land based version is mainly an ABM system, not "hey [enemy country] already has fighters over the mainland, let's shoot them down even though that pretty well guarantees at best a pyrrhic victory if not a loss"
Total air superiority isn't a necessity.
Being able to bomb priority targets with acceptable losses is enough.
If Russia had something a country REALLY wanted to bomb, it would be bombed.
Same goes for us.
This. Go on youtube and watch "SAMs over Bagdad".
>Global Hawk/other VLO extreme-altitude UAV JDAM's/JSOM's the radars from the exosphere
>EA18's roll through and HARM all the smaller shit around it
>F35's putt along at 50,000ft and JDAM's/Mavericks the launchers at their leisure
Also, the Russians have a history of parking 1 radar truck and 3 S400 launchers in an open field with no organic support units and calling it good. In theory they're layered, everything we've seen is they're lazily and haphazardly placed on commercial airliner routes with no support.
YOU KNOW THERE'S MORE THAN ONE BATTLESHIP FAN OUT THERE, RIGHT
I'm a battleship fan, submersible carrier fan, flying carrier fan... and I'm working on being a flying tank fan. Gotta find out how it could be realistic first.
>Global Hawk/other VLO extreme-altitude UAV JDAM's/JSOM's the radars from the exosphere
no such capability exists yet
>everything we've seen
we ain't seen shit yet. why would they reveal their doctrine in peace time?
No, but neither is anyone else.
Remember, this is a thread about
>look what Russia might maybe think about actually producing in the next 50 years, also S400 now
CIWS is over 99% in trials, has not been used in actual combat. Its little brother the anti-mortar system had a 90ish percent success rate, and those are coming almost straight down and are about the size of a football.
My only problem with CIWS is it needs much more ammo capacity.
Like, at least twice what it has now.
They have like, ten seconds of actual missile defense time before needing to reload? NOPE.
Phalanx, and against everything. Even tested against mach-2.5 HY3 Silkworms.
C-RAM, tested against several unspecified mach-3 missiles with a 75% hit rate on things going faster than mach-1.5 (didn't seem to matter if it was going mach-1.501 or mach 3) and a 100% hit rate on all objects under mach-1.5 all the way down to 60mm mortars. Used extensively in the ME, has attained a 90ish% success rate in real combat but almost exclusively against mortars and subsonic rockets.
With the other anti-air defenses on ships it's a third or fourth line of defense. 10 seconds is fine, if you're getting spammed so hard your third line of defense runs out of ammo you're as good as sunk anyway.
The CRAM, being trailer mounted, has at least a minute of ammo. I was stuck in a bunker right next to one during Ramadan 07 and listened to it fire for about a minute straight. The barrels were literally glowing red.
>you are now aware there are 17 models of Silkworm missiles going anywhere from mach 0.7 to mach 2.5 and carrying anywhere from 30kg HE to 300kh HE
Some of the older ones are firecrackers compared to the HY3 and HY4, and the HY3 is mach 2.5.
>how would it fare against a Granit
Well considering that a Granit is a mach 1.7 missile, I imagine pretty fucking well if it can shoot down a mach 2.5 missile that's smaller.
~1100 MIM-104 Patriot's with 70km range
~150 S-400's with 40km range
+an unknown number of US stealth planes that can carry nukes that are all but invisible on radar
I don't see problem here
>implying a Granit will ever be at altitude when engaged by a Phalanx system
For the purposes of whether a Phalanx can shoot it down, it's a mach 1.6 sea skimming missile.
>uses swarm tactics
>only 3 ships can carry them, and all three combined can only launch 42 of them total (12 for Adm Kuz, 10 for Adm. Naki, 20 for Pyotr), those 3 ships will never be in the same AO at the same time
>implying a Granit will ever be at altitude
no what i'm implying is that HY3 can't do mach 2.5 at sea level
a swarm is a group of four to eight missiles.
in addition to listed ships you also have oskar-class submarines, three in northern fleet four in pacific fleet, each carries 24 missiles.
>Russians are -just now- developing an anti-ICBM missile
>The System A anti-ballistic missile equipped with the V-1000 rocket made the first intercept and destruction in the world using a conventional warhead of an intermediate range ballistic missile warhead coming in at 3 km/s on 4 May 1961. The US did not demonstrate an equivalent capability until 1984.
>Comparing Shittriot PAC-Shit to S-300
>Angled launch in the year of our Lord 2016
>Why don't western powers have anti-aircraft missiles like Russias S-400 series?
Because planes are fundamentally strategically superior.
IADS travel in 2d at speeds of 30 to 60 mph.
Planes travel in 3d at speeds of 300 to 900 mph.
This means that before ever bringing in tactics or operational planning, thanks to nothing more than pure physics, planes maneuver better.
Being inherently able to outmaneuver enemy units is a big deal.
Russia has recently started production of an initial batch of 40H6 missiles that give their AA S-400 defense system a range of 400km against actually aerodynamically maneuvering targets, not just ballistic ones. US has jack shit that could compare to that, the Patriot is a fucking joke.
Russia has completed Bulava ICBM test launches and this missile has warheads capable of maneuvering to counter any anti-missile defenses while the US relies on outdated garbage like Tridents for their nuclear capability. And no, none of those kinetic hit-to-kill SM interceptors are capable of hitting a maneuvering target, because they're supposed to work against purely ballistic threats.
Russia has also the most advanced anti-ship missiles that are capable of supersonic sea-skimming flight, while the US still relies on massed salvos of subsonic missiles.
There is number of departments where Russia is outmatched by the US but strategic missiles isn't one of them.
Congratulations, you're smarter than every strategist since WW2.
>And no, none of those kinetic hit-to-kill SM interceptors are capable of hitting a maneuvering target
>The SM-3 Block IB, due in 2010, offers upgrades which include an advanced two-color infrared seeker, and a 10-thruster solid throttling divert and attitude control system (TDACS/SDACS) on the kill vehicle to give it improved capability against maneuvering ballistic missiles or warheads.
You were saying?
yeah right they get raped by euro subs in excercises all the time
This missile is prototypical and obsolete. You have to try harder than scouring useless junk. The fact is that USA has superior anti ballistic missiles. Russia always focused on anti aircraft and only recently had something comparable to the sm3 with the s400. Keep in mind that ballistic missiles are much more difficult to hit. The only real anti ballistic missile by russia is based in moscow. Russia was shit at anti ballistic missile and that's a fact.
The most funny part about Patriot is that two Saudi military camps were destroyed by Yemeni "Tochka" ballistic missiles and killed in general around 500-700 soldiers.
Those camps are supposed to be covered by the recent Patriots.
>we ain't seen shit yet. why would they reveal their doctrine in peace time?
Because you don't practice a doctrine during peacetime and then completely throw that out when war is declared. You practice your wartime doctrine during peacetime so that when war breaks out you already know what to do.
If you took all the money spent on aviation, and invested that into ground forces/logistics/etc
You would produce a force maybe 10 times as strong
Fundamentally, all air power relies on ground based spotters, or the enemy not understanding the capabilities of aerial surveillance.
>Russia has completed Bulava ICBM test launches and this missile has warheads capable of maneuvering
Every fucking slavaboo claims Bulava has MARVs and then never ever posts any proof.
> This missile is prototypical and obsolete
Retard. USSR had developed and operation anti-ballistic missile shield even before Americans created their first long range air defence missile.
Also, kinetic missiles interceptors considered by Russia as ineffective and absolute technology.
and new one system in final stage of trials
>>The System A anti-ballistic missile equipped with the V-1000 rocket made the first intercept and destruction in the world using a conventional warhead of an intermediate range ballistic missile warhead coming in at 3 km/s on 4 May 1961. The US did not demonstrate an equivalent capability until 1984.
Except Nike Zeus was killing Atlas (aka ICBMs, not just IRBMs,) in tests from 1962 with conventional warheads. The 1984 HOE test was about a kinetic kill with no warhead at all.
Similar doctrine is shared by Israel, but exactly from the opposite reason: they're so small that they don't have any strategic depth to maneuver in, so the focus is always fighting in enemy territory.
>Why don't western powers have anti-aircraft missiles like Russias S-400 series?
We do, you're just too stupid to pay attention and research something before shitposting about it.
Also this. You're aware of the S-400 because the Russians fucking depend on that shit.
>two Saudi military camps
This should really explain everything.
Because the Houthis, unlike the Saudis, have actual combat experience and aren't a literal show force meant to show off how rich they are to their neighbors.
No political reality can change that.
In this specific case, if IL gets to a point where they have to fight inside their own territory- it can only be a "be or cease to be" situation in which they already had previously shown the balls to flip the bird to politics and do what they deemed needed.
Air defenses can be suppressed.
US has stealth aircraft which seriously hamper the effectiveness of air defenses, on top of having a lot of air-superiority fighters.
Reason why Russians (and formerly Soviets) spend so much on air defense is because it's the most cost-effective way of covering their vast airspace.
Despite intervention in Ukraine and Syria, Russian strategic thinking is highly defensive.
I am extremely retarded and am talking about a subject I have absolutely no knowledge about
But why don't they have something like this? Have the plane feed the system info
The easy answer is that would require having enough planes and airbases to serve all your batteries. Russia doesn't have enough planes for that; their AEWC assets are probably the most pathetic part of their airforce.
If I remember correctly, didn't the U.S recently develop a drone that can mimic the signature of any other aircraft? They are supposed to be dropped from either the bomb bay or cargo bay of another aircraft, I don't remember which.
Wouldn't this basically invalidate s-400s?
Datalinking from an AWACs is totally a thing, just not generally to land-based systems. Its more designed around designating targets for other aircraft.
The reason why your picture wouldn't really work is that AWACs are extremely vulnerable strategic assets and in no way belong in front of a friendly CAP. They'll just get shot down.
Literally didn't happen...
Only ballistic missile attack towards KSA has been eleminated by Patriots, it's launch vehicle was also destroyed by an AH-64 hell they even released footage of it.
>If Russia had something a country REALLY wanted to bomb, it would be bombed.
>Same goes for us.
depends if the target in question is a nuke power with a credible response capability because if he is then you can not get away with plinking strategic targets at will.
>This. Go on youtube and watch "SAMs over Bagdad".
The Iraqi IADS is a joke.
>Vietnam had a state of the art IADS designed, deployed, and operated by Russians and it was dubiously effective at actually stopping attacks, even with an excellent air force.
LOL! an IADS based on late 1950s S-75 Dvinas were state of the art in early 1960s maybe, but by the time of Linebacker Ops the Soviets were rolling out S-200s and have deployed S-125s that would have complicated US SEAD efforts.
Fortunately the Soviets didn't deploy Nevas for fear of Chicoms copying the system.
>The Iraqi IADS is a joke.
Typical post-battle rationalization. In it's era it was considered cutting edge, just like S400s are today.
Allow me to chart the lifepath of a typical anti-US military amateur critic.
prewar: "OMG X military is huge and battle-hardened and high tech"
war start: "it's going to be a close call, could go either way but the US will be bloodied"
war end: ...
10 years later: "those dudes were incompetent and had shit gear anyway so defeating them proves nothing"
Funny thing about fighting NATO. It doesn't matter who you are, in the end, you lose and all your former shills who thought you were badass call you a moron.
Hindsight is 20/20 like that, because the USA loves to undersell its equipment and hide its true capabilities.
as long as the saudis keep pumping, russia cant afford jack shit, never mind an arms race with the u.s.
lol fuckin vatniks think they're relevant on the world stage. russia is the world's largest 3rd world nation-state.
>Also, the Russians have a history of parking 1 radar truck and 3 S400 launchers in an open field with no organic support units and calling it good. In theory they're layered, everything we've seen is they're lazily and haphazardly placed on commercial airliner routes with no support.
moron. Peacetime practice != wartime practice
Why should they run about all the time with those million dollar trucks when they could just park them in prepared sites until an order comes telling them otherwise or there is a big exercise coming up. Hell, for all we know the trucks are sitting inside warm garages while decoys are sitting in the sites instead.
Actually air planners would be most cautious when considering an attack through a overhanging ridge- its literally the best place to spot a medium range SAM trap that could also call in fire support from its longer range brethren just below in the plains.
>Has not been used in actual combat
It was used in actual combat. It shot the bridge and was regarded as the very first to actually damage the Missouri. Its own ship.
Also was not able to hit an incoming drone that slammed into a ship.
Its not that good outside of a controlled environment.
>Hell, for all we know the trucks are sitting inside warm garages while decoys are sitting in the sites instead.
Considering how they store ammunition and tanks, I think it's safe to say that's complete bullshit
>can only point to two instances in decades of exercises against supersonic missiles
>Meanwhile slavshit can't even hit their targets in exercises as the indians have found out
I think that speaks for itself.
>Hindsight is 20/20 like that, because the USA loves to undersell its equipment and hide its true capabilities.
keep telling yourself that. when in reality its the US who loves to use its best toys in token conflicts when it could just as well gotten the same results with other less sophisticated but known assets.
BTW the Iraqi IADS was organized by the French but using obsolete Soviet crap just so you know.
Granit is titanium armored to protect itself from CIWS and shrapnels from exploding missiles. It can only deviate if you use kinetic hit missiles.
It is a 7 ton supersonic mass. When it enters CIWS range it will have enough momentum to damage the target unless it gets deviated.
Good thing there are multiple layers of defence before CIWS range, like Nulka and Standards.
It can datalink with AN/APG-81s installing Suter 1/2/3/n+1 on Sigma, lol.
>Considering how they store ammunition and tanks, I think it's safe to say that's complete bullshit
dunning-krueger effect- how they store excess and unoperational equipment is not indicative of how they treat their operational equipment.
>For a Russian fanboy you're pretty ignorant of the opinions of Russian high command re the Gulf Wars.
which Russian experts? btw actually the Real Russian experts consider the US performance Gulf War as a perfect rendition of their own doctrine.
for the short version.
for a longer one.
tl;dr, the soviet concept of IADS has/had serious vulnerabilites and major reform is/was required to be competitive. Among other things, such as the 'zerg rush' of the Fulda Gap pre-smart-weapons being rendered worthless.
Ground based defenses are inherently less mobile and therefore less able to respond to the evolving threats on a battlefield.
Ground based AA is top act as a deterrent, or iff the deterrent effect fails as a guerrilla force to harass the enemy.
The western doctrine requires an absolute focus on achieving air dominance as that allows you to strike anywhere, move things anywhere and have eyes ANYWHERE
The west has focused on making sure they have the most effective A2A and SEAD to remove the actual defense assets while the USSR and by extention modern Russia worked towards "Theater defense" missiles and huge range AAMs with the hope of being able to reach out and shoot down AWACS removing the control aspects of the airforce.
The fundamental issue is the Russian approach only slows down the enemy, it does not stop them.
The western approach requires more effort but actually removes the enemies ability in a way they cannot sustain.
>Suter 1 allows its operators to monitor what enemy radar operators can see. Suter 2 lets them take control of the enemy's networks and direct their sensors. Suter 3, tested in summer 2006, enables the invasion of links to time-critical targets such as battlefield ballistic missile launchers or mobile surface-to-air missile launchers.
Haters gonna hate but that won't make USCYBERCOM go away.
>tl;dr, the soviet concept of IADS has/had serious vulnerabilites and major reform is/was required to be competitive. Among other things, such as the 'zerg rush' of the Fulda Gap pre-smart-weapons being rendered worthless.
And this was not known how? it was a time when the West is finishing up on deploying its counters to the Soviet IADS at the time so ofc. the latter would look deficient in certain respects- one would hope so otherwise the investments of the other side would be all for naught. Its nothing out of normal of the recurring theme that held sway over the Cold War of measure then countermeasure, then counter-countermeasuere, and so on. The only difference is that because of circumstances outside the military and its planners control the Soviet response was delayed.
Why are you so reluctant to accept the consensus of experts about their own military (and/or their top competitors military)?
The Soviet model was discredited. The Soviets said so, the Americans said so.
You are now aware that titanium is not that good as armor
You are now aware that in order to defend vs 23mm cannon shells on the cockpit the A-10 needs a 1/2 ton of it
you are now aware the phalanx fires tungsten discarding sabot rounds
you are now aware that the closing speed of the granit is mach 1.6, this means the Phalanx with a range of 3.5km has an engagement timeframe of 7 secs or 11 for the SeaRAM from final target, not factoring in crossing the paths of picket ships
>Haters gonna hate but that won't make USCYBERCOM go away.
Hate to break it to you bud but the most successful invasive computer programs were not known for a long time. When you advertise them the other side is free to think of ways on how to counter them there now is it?
Plus the Russians are kind of a big deal in the Cyberwarfare game. They and Belarusian comrades were kinda the ones to expose on the Stuxnet virus.
>Hate to break it to you bud but the most successful invasive computer programs were not known for a long time.
Suter is ancient. The US didn't even have a Cybercom then, it was whipped by by Lockmart and the Israelis. There's been a lot of advancement and investment since then, and it's been kept secret.
What does that tell you about the state of technology today? Will more smart people, more training, more technology and money, more political support, result in better programs, or worse programs?
The answer is so good, that Suter is obsolete and the US talks about it publicly.
>Colonel Aleksandr Tsalko, who headed a Soviet Air Force Training Center prior to assuming his duties as a Soviet People's Deputy
hint: as a member of the People's Deputy(you know the organization Gorby made to oversee reforms) it was very much fashionable for him and his colleagues to discredit the old ways and advocate for further reforms regardless if they hold actual merit or not.
The active military officers opinions are much more mild with regards to how their doctrine held up when compared against the backdrop of the Gulf War...
>The part of our government assigned to telling people they fucked up does it a lot
No shit moron. The fact that makes it less valid in your eyes shows you how fucked your shit is.
>No shit moron. The fact that makes it less valid in your eyes shows you how fucked your shit is.
ITT: naive jackoff thinks bureaucrats can and will dindu nuffin wrong.
There had actual people with vastly more experience, knowledge, and ability to critique the military and they were part of the military- not some ersatz congress.
Weaker, Titanium is roughly 2 times stronger than Aluminium while only being roughly 50% heavier.
This, coupled with good heat and corrosion resistance is why we use it for aerospace.
It is a 7 tonne missile
750Kg is the warhead, it then needs control surfaces, hydraulics, guidance systems, a ram jet large enough to sustain 7 tons at mach 2+ at high altitude and enough fuel for 650km
In order to defeat 23mm HE fragmentation with a RHAe of 15mm the A-10 uses a 1/2 ton of the stuff and has a max takeoff weight of 22 tonnes and this is before we even mention that the Granit is a nose breathing missile meaning and frontal hits that fail to glance away will be hitting the engine inlet and being drawn into the engine intake
also don't forget that the DM63 has a muzzle velocity of 1,100 m/s for the rated 60mm RHAe
The mach 1.6 closure speed of the Granit is 550m/s. increasing the combined impact speeds of the round to close to 50% more than the official figures, and thos figures are based on the old 60 inch barrels as we have nothing official on the newer 78inch barrels
The Granit is a Missile and weighs 7 tonnes
in order to defend against 80mm of RHA penetration at 1km the Bradley needs to be fitted with steel rather than aluminium and weighs nearly 30 tons
>CIWS vs Granit
Uh. The CIWS is the last of several defenses, it's not really expected to stop big ASHMs even if it can do it occasionally.
Granit vs Standard/ESSM is the real contest, and I don't think there's any dispute that an SM-6, or pair or quartet of ESSMs [since ESSM defensive shots start in pairs and work up] will kill Granits reliably.
>Why doesn' Russia have have air, ground, and submarine based-hypersonic kinetic kill vehicles
Seems like a gap in capability when you consider they are developing a Mach 10 vehicle which is specifically designed to shoot down ICBMs, satellites, and ANY FUCKING GROUND TARGET IN LESS THAN 60 MINUTES. WORLDWIDE.
The current systems are very nearly capable of shooting down anything that flies as it is. Any further leap in capability will leave the Russia in the froze shit-mud it plants its vatnik feet on
Not enough to meaningfully protect it from a RAM or SM-3 at a combined closing speed over a thousand meters per second.
So if the SSDS gets bored of watching them crash into the ocean when Aegis shuts them they can shoot them down instead.
Can't find it at the moment. I thought I saw something proposing two different methods with a slight reduction in (loss of about 300km from the stated 2500km max) range due to the increased weight from secondary low yield conventional war head working in conjunction with the Stage 3 seeker in the final kill moments.
>You're aware of the S-400 because the Russians fucking depend on that shit.
And the US is depending on it's carriers...same thing. Without your carriers US power projection would be minimal.
Btw, why do THAAD missiles do the that corkscrew manouver after clearing the launchbox?
The difference is that the USA isn't settling for second best when it comes to carriers, while Russia's reliance on SAM systems stems from an inability to defend their airspace more proactively.
>Btw, why do THAAD missiles do the that corkscrew manouver after clearing the launchbox?
With hit to kill missles, sometimes going to sanic is not good.
Its to bleed excess energy.
At this point, pretty much every Standard Missile has some ABM capability.
It's called PGS but I'm sure the boys at skunk works have a cooler name for it.
This is declassified information. Made public in 2011. What kind of shit do you think we have now?
You can all get fucking rekt
Why the fuck would we ever want to give them to China?
We just give them to Israel, the best ME client state. Also, all of Russia's old Euro enemies that want it. Also, Japan and Korea.
>It's called PGS but I'm sure the boys at skunk works have a cooler name for it.
>This is declassified information. Made public in 2011. What kind of shit do you think we have now?
>You can all get fucking rekt
LOL, in your own link it says China and Russia themselves are working on their own hypersonic glide vehicles.
I don't know what the fuck that is, but if someone took the Iskander and used it as a boost stage for a scramjet, that someone would probably be in breach of the INF treaty
>Typical post-battle rationalization.
Your post is. The internal American "state of art Iraqi IADS" propaganda is truly pathetic.
>In it's era it was considered cutting edge
In the times of Gulf War S-300 was cutting edge and SA-2s that Iraq IADS consisted of were considered what they really were - rusted export crap for monkeys.
>opinions of Russian high command re the Gulf Wars
Which is "turns out American rustbuckets are not as pathetic as we thought and can not be repelled with Arab operated rusted crap from late 50s".
>US doctrine raped Russian doctrine
Except US has never encountered neither S-300, nor Russian IADS.
>inb4 those cardboard S-300 mock-ups in some American shithole
>inb4 Slovak S-300 at NATO exercises
Lone obsolete S-300 complex of the modification that is not even operational in Russia anymore standing in the middle of nowhere represents neither the full capability of S-300 as a system, nor Russian IADS as a whole.
Iskander is the subject of INF because the definition of "effective range" in the treaty itself is rather vague and technically the current modification of the missile can fly further than that, while its effective range is indeed limited to only 500 km.
Iskander-K is also the subject of INF because of concerns that it could be simply the new incarnation of RK-55.
>Its a limitation of the missle itself.
No, and that's the whole point why NATO is now whining about it.
>It traded range for speed
This is bullshit.
>Iskander is the subject of INF because the definition of "effective range" in the treaty itself is rather vague and technically the current modification of the missile can fly further than that, while its effective range is indeed limited to only 500 km.
It cant fly all that further, and yes that is why they are whining about it.
Its nitpicking but its not as if it has a 1000km+ range, the issue is the extra 100km or so.
>This is bullshit.
Its a hypersonic for nearly its entire flight profile on a single stage solid propellent engine.
Yes, it very much traded range for speed.
I didn't imply it has 1000 km range, but whether the issue is 100, 200 or 300 km of possible additional effective range is pretty much unknown as of today and would most likely remain so until Russia will withdraw itself from INF. Same for whether it has traded range for speed or not. The export modification has less range, the domestic modification can very well be not the highest limit of missile capabilities, which is exactly why NATO is concerned.
>but whether the issue is 100, 200 or 300 km of possible additional effective range is pretty much unknown as of today and would most likely remain so until Russia will withdraw itself from INF.
Even if it had more than 50% more than stated range (which is kinda silly), it really does not change the platform all that much, both in theater or strategicly.
>whether it has traded range for speed or not.
Again, its a soild single stack hypersonic rocket. It traded range for speed, there is no real way about it.
>the domestic modification can very well be not the highest limit of missile capabilities
Its not a domestic modification, the export is the modification. There is zero evidence of major performace gains from that missile.
>which is exactly why NATO is concerned.
No, nato is just nitpicking over russia playing fast and loose with the 500km limit. Thats it.
One happened in 08, using tech that both countrys still employ.
The other happened in 72 using tech that got phased out in the early 90s.
If i have to explain it further, you are terminally retarded.
>bu...bu....bu.... without more naval power than the rest of the world combined (inb4 total ship numbers matter, green water coastal patrol boats aren't a navy chinks) you'd just be an unassailable continent protected by two oceans with the first and second largest airforce in the world.
the US air force literally has more 4th gen planes, not to mention the 5th gen planes it can't shoot down, than you have S400 missile ivan, you only ordered 6000 of them and have 150 launchers; considering most have been sitting in the same open fields since 07 when implemented and operated by slavs... they wouldn't last long in the make believe conventional war first world armies prepare for.
There is nothing silly about retaining higher performance capability while technically fulfilling treaty requirements. No matter if you call it modification, variant or else, the point is that they can make the very same missile with less range if required. There is indeed no direct evidence that the domestic variant was somehow downgraded, but the concerns of NATO serve as indirect evidence of that. Think of it for a moment. Russians were producing hypersonic theatre missiles with 500 km range ever since late 70s. These missiles were later scrapped because of INF treaty despite technically not being the subject to it. 30 years later Russians develop basically an improved variant of those missiles and NATO starts whining about how it is the subject to INF. Now why would that be? BEcause nato is concerned about the possibility of having slightly more range than it is allowed due to vague definition of "effective range" according to INF or because the possibility that the missile could have 100-200-300+ km more range and only restricted to 500 km due to the treaty.
>One happened in 08
What happened in '08 exactly?
No, the reason F-117 ran a train on Yugoslavia was that they had no IADS whatsoever and operated fucking SA-3s, you know the ones developed in the fucking 50s.
>Even if they know it's there they can't get a missile lock
That is of course correct when enemy "IADS" consists of SA-2s and ZSU-23-2 mounted on toyotas in the middle of plain desert.
>but the concerns of NATO serve as indirect evidence of that.
Again, they are less concerned with that specific missle and more concerned with the fact that it plays with the treatys limits.
And the missle you referred to, the oka, was not hypersonic until terminal, and then only just so.
Treaty limit itself is rather vague and I sincerely doubt that the case of NATO concerns is how the missile could possibly be thrown at 25 km beyond the limit in the unguided mode.
I dont understand how SEAD works.
Okay so you fire some anti-radiation missiles or whatever.
Whats stopping the enemy from shooting them down? They would obviously develop a counter to them right?
If the enemy can just sit back and spam AR missiles to take out all your AA then AA just became very ineffective.
>Whats stopping the enemy from shooting them down?
The absence of capability to do so, which is not the case with Russian IADS.
For some reason people like to think we didn't take massive aerial losses in vietnam.
Or that Iraq was a good example of a aerial defense network, on par with the russians.
Minding that we'd fly over baghdad with little more than ZSU's firing at our planes, blindly at night. Lol.
Thats because they did not have the ability to lock on to our stealth planes.
They did have an extensive IAD network, with 4 spokes and sub hubs. It used fiber optic cables and was french designed.
Problem was that the central hub in bagdad ate a bunker buster, and the sub hubs could not deal with the deluge of allied planes that saturated the fuck out of their networks.
Russian tier? No.
One of, if not the best export system at the time? Yes.
At work at the moment, ill see if i can dig up the PDF made during the war that outlined what i said.
funny you mention F-117 in yugoslavia because it was shot down by an SA-3 that got a missile lock
stealth does not make the plane invidible. it reduces detection range.
by how much the range is reduced is a function of plane's RCS and radar's power.
not even B-2 can get close to an S-400. every penetration mission is meticulously planned so that the plane does not get anywhere near a SAM radar.
A B-2 could very easily get within standoff range of an IADs. don't be retarded.
Didn't say that, friendo
But I think launching a mix of JSOW/MALD/JASSM from any platform which can do so from standoff range (and there are more than one) is a massive headache for an IADs.
You really need to stop quoting wikipedia numbers. Especially numbers that are sourced to blogs, which source another blog, which doesn't even explain the number.
Secondly, the AGM-154B would be more appropriate than the C to stop an IADs, which is significantly cheaper.
JASSM isn't even in service.
It doesn't have to be a B-2 launching them.
They're standoff weapons. Could launch them from an F-16 for all it fucking matters.
and no, nobody cares if they're expensive. We're launching Javelins at people in mud huts. If it means the destruction of an IADs which the enemy relies on, its getting fucked to death with such munitions.
>and no, nobody cares if they're expensive
in a real war (i.e., not clubbing a poor third world country) we will have to care.
if it's expensive it'll cost a lot of resources to replace. if it takes more resources to wage war than your country can produce, you have lost.
see also: WW2
Nigger they're nearly a quarter the cost of a single AIM-120D. A JASSM is half.
It is not an issue. Comparitively, they're dirt cheap.
>A B-2 could very easily get within standoff range of an IADs. don't be retarded.
France and Australia have claimed to have detected the B-2 with their OTH radars. If the Russians have been alerted to the presence of a lone aircraft that was(and this is a big assumption) not engaged by an S-400 battery with attached Nebo-M complex then they could always send a Mig-31 to engage- there is no hiding from that one if it makes visual range.
>They're standoff weapons. Could launch them from an F-16 for all it fucking matters.
The problem with standoff weapons is that they are only good if you have a decent idea of where your targets are. When the opfor's radar emissions have low probabilities of intercept your decoys are going to be limited to running around the place trying to sniff something- only that they are putting up jamming and decoys and shooting your decoys down while they are at it. And the standoff range for S-400 batteries are ridiculously long- and what did they say about area and radius?
>B-2s are just one option.
they are the most credible option.
>When you outrange an S-400, it doesn't really matter what you're sending up. F-35s would be fine.
who says they too can outrange an S-400? also see>>28495827 for when you launch the decoys from standoff ranges.
>Only that they are putting up jamming and decoys and shooting your decoys down while they are at it.
..Which is exactly what people utilizing MALDs want?
Launching on anything makes you vulnerable. Wasting 40N6 on some cheap decoy that only narrows down your location for more expensive and dedicated systems like JASSM spells the beginning of the end.
>Wasting 40N6 on some cheap decoy
The entire idea around MALD, especially MALD-J, is that it is difficult to tell. A decoy that you know is a decoy isn't all that useful.
If you're waiting until you're in Pantsir range (20km?) before engaging threats that may or may not be jets with HARMs, you're fucked anyway.