S-400

>>29834294

F35 can jam it and destroy it from over 1000 miles away, s400 systems are just gimmicks. They couldn't even detect an F35 never mind shoot it down.

>>29834340
Man, those F-35s are amazing. They can apparently carry AGMs with more range than TLAM-D!

Another quality /k/ post.

>>29834294
>implying you need stealth in order to take out SAM sites when they're limited by physics

A radiating radar is a dead radar.

>>29834340
Oh I see we're just starting with the shitposting from the start. I suppose we should destroy the thread at the start instead of waiting for vatnik ass anger to seep through.

File: v3dnQ.png (45KB, 600x320px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x320px

>>29834367
forgot pic

Depends on too many variables.

The simplest method would be keeping tabs on strike groups in the area that Russia is interested in protecting, so when they get satellite images, or spy reports, of fighters taking off they can just go full alert and then there's only so many routes they need to check before they get them. If the plane is carrying any external ordnance, it's not stealth AND on receiving an S-400 lock he'd have to jettison ordnance and fuck off.

Anyways, I think NATO is planning on receiving casualties against such systems.They did tests against S-300's and the conclusion was that there was no way to get in and out without losing planes, even with extensive SEAD runs. Of course they wouldn't disclose results with stealth planes, but as I said earlier, we can guess that Russia would pay a close eye to airfields housing stealth planes in case they knew it'd come down to using their big SAM's.

It's a bit like what happened with the F-117. Stealth is useless if the enemy knows roughly where you are, so it'd be more down to intelligence work rather than the planes and SAMs themselves.

>>29834372
now what about an array of them?

>>29834367
S-400's have more than one radar, and the missiles are active radar homing. Like the AMRAAM, they get target data from the launch platform, then go hot only when they're close.

Radiating radars are not dead if they can shoot down threats before they even reach them. We don't know the real capabilities of the S-400 or stealth planes, and considering what NATO tests said of the S-300 we can assume any non-stealth plane would be fucked.

>>29834367
>A radiating radar is a dead radar
All S-400 battalions come with Pantsir-S1s

File: 42S6 Morfey.jpg (66KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 638x479px

>>29834428
They're also working on a new short range defence system to protect S-400's, based on the TOR-M2 missile system.

It's fairly obvious that the little vodka drinkers care about protecting their anti aircraft systems.

Holy fucking shit, these threads again.

There was a thread earlier basically about the same thing and everyone, but retards and russians, agreed that russian shit doesn't work most of the time.

Their tech is obsolete and they have no money to maintain existing inventory. Even their pride - the space program is falling apart.

I would not trust anything they say until demonstrated otherwise.

http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-samsat-218-nanosatellite-fails-establish-radio-contact-2363875

Stop falling for propaganda of a dictatorship with falling economy,

>>29834415
>>29834419
>S-400's have more than one radar,

And? Every heavy SAM complex since the 70s comes with multiple radars. Does radar horizon somehow no longer happen because there's multiple radars?

It doesn't matter the system, PAC#, HQ-#, S#. Ground based anti air is at a natural disadvantage the moment it radiates because of the inverse square law and radar horizon. This is why SAM traps exist.

>and the missiles are active radar homing.

And? You still need target detection unless you plan on just throwing multi-million dollar missiles into the air at random.

>>29834428
Again, in order to use it, you need to radiate, telling anyone in the air where you are.

Far too many people on /k/ seem to think that SAMs are these magical weapons that just invalidate air power like generals in WWI thought that machineguns invalidated infantry. A SAM complex that just sits around and radiates is asking to either be bypassed or suppressed/destroyed, either outcome results in the complex not achieving its goals. The only type of SAM that can truly get away with such a tactic in relative safety are those that are used in the ABM and point defense role.

File: 1403038997958.jpg (133KB, 776x678px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 776x678px

>>29834462
>their pride - the space program is falling apart
Soyuzs take American astronauts to the ISS every year champ

>>29834475

Yes, using fucking 50 year old tech.

Look at this from this side, a private company in US has made more progress in like 10 years than the fucking RUSSIA STRONG in the past 40 years.

The only thing financing the rus space program is the US+EU, who according to rus propaganda are their greatest enemies. Once US figures this shit with their engines, the mighty cosmonauts will go to space only during alcohol OD hallucinations.

MALD-Js makes the xboxhueg missile approach obsolete. You can easily saturate the radar with identical targets and deplete the enemy missile stocks with little risk towards your own assets.
The only way to distinguish the decoys from the real target would probably be visual or IR which is to allow enemy strikes to be right on top of you more or less.

>>29834512
This.

MALD-J is a counter to the sam doctrine rather than specific sam systems.

It has the potential to be completely game changing.

>>29834441
I just found that slideset. I admit that I know very little about the back and forth between radar and stealth so this was downright enlightening.

I would have never guessed they used this many forms of detection. I guess that's why i'm not being paid in taxpayer tears at some think tank in D.C.

>>29834465
>Does radar horizon somehow no longer happen because there's multiple radars?

I guess then NATO is fucking retarded and you're a genius?

By the way if you plan on shooting cruise missiles from beyond the horizon, you're just sending in easy targets for a system that is supposed to protect against ICBM's.

File: 1443111773269.jpg (32KB, 320x287px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 320x287px

>>29834575
>I guess then NATO is fucking retarded and you're a genius?

How many times do we need to go over this in these threads? Inverse square law means that an aircraft can detect and triangulate a radar well before the radiating source can get a viable return. This allows the aircraft to either go around the area of concern, or if they're going SEAD/DEAD, then they lower their altitude and get close, using radar horizon to their advantage. They can then get close enough to launch a weapon at the target, turn and leave the area or reengage as necessary.

>By the way if you plan on shooting cruise missiles from beyond the horizon, you're just sending in easy targets for a system that is supposed to protect against ICBM's.

I honestly can't tell anymore if these threads are just filled with the willfully ignorant or nothing but shitposting and pretending to be retarded.

File: 1335010664257.jpg (110KB, 720x951px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 720x951px

>>29834646
>go around the area of concern
It's IADS. Everything is the area of concern.
>lower their altitude and get close, using radar horizon to their advantage
What the fuck is minimal launch range? What the fuck is minimal launch altitude? What the fuck is Gazetchik-E?
>They can then get close enough to launch a weapon at the target, turn and leave the area or reengage as necessary.
Even if they get a chance to launch, there's plenty of platforms to intercept it.

We will never EVER know for sure what that system can or cant do until it is used against an American plane.
The fact that Turks no longer fly their planes above Syria somehow shows what NATO thinks of that system.
You can shitpost that its the best thing ever that makes the airfocre obsolete, you can shitpost that its empty and just sits there and does nothing useful.
All are wrong because nobody knows jack shit about it.
Only way we can know something about it, is when russians sell it to any non-NATO member that will be attacked by NATO airforce or US airforce.
If Serbs for instance had s300's in 99, things might have been different.
If Sadam had them, who knows?
All we know for now is that the s-400 is taken very seriously by those who might be its target.

For now, Russians are advertising their toys by using them in Syria and their arms exports have risen and continue to do so.
They showed off their helicopters, the good'ol Hind and the one with 2 rotors, the ka52 and the SU jets.
They might use the s400 soon. Time will tell. I hope they do it successfully so others buy it. THEN we will know what it can and cannot do.

>>29834688
Is there any link you can post regarding if russia actually fields Gazetchik-E in any significant numbers? All I can find is datasheets and such but no info on actual customers. Just like the active IR camouflage from Hägglunds and the ground launched SDBs, no matter how cool they look they must be fielded in large scale to actually be worth using in nationalistic dick waving

>>29834868
Since we're talking of fantasy war scenarios, we must consider the fact that S-400s in a war scenarios would be defendend by full coverage low, medium and high altitude anti air systems. Without even considering any sort of air cover for the sake of the scenario.

You can't just fly low and hope to get into firing range, that puts your aircraft into the worst possible position, you're just fodder for short range SAMs.

>>29835100
That might be true in wide expanses of desert, something the yids found our the hard way.
Things change radically in forest landscapes with hills and rivers. Going sanic speeds at treetop level leaves defenders with a few seconds to aquire, track and fire at the target. That is an extremely hard thing to do, especially if the agressor has intel on where you have your AA assets.
The best defense against such attacks are fighters with look-down/shoot-down capability, something both the US and russia realise and has put considerable effort into. The Su-27 and its variants excel at this task for a reason, the russians know that the absolutely best way to stop a super sonic low level attack is to get up there and simply shoot the attackers while they are sitting ducks down below.

>>29835217
Vietnam saw a lot of aircraft lost to short range air defense systems (primarily SPAAGS) when they flew low to avoid the strategic SAM systems, despite the jungle and heavy tree cover.

>>29835489
Given the absolute insane ammount of sorites and that the Soviets supplied the NVA with some of the best AA systems the second world had to offer, not that many where lost. There is a reason as to why both the russians and the US went crazy about giving their fighters look-down/shoot-down abilitiy in the 70s. It's easy to use hills and valleys to hid from SAM but if a Su-27 or F-15 is up there looking for you, then you're proper fucked

>>29834294
>How can Russia detect and shoot down US stealth aircrafts with such system?
OK, let's go.
How does radar detect targets? He send a signal and receive reflected signal. Stealth technology makes this reflected signal smaller than signal reflected from not-stealth planes. How does stealth plane do this? By special coating and by special designed shape of the plane. So, how do you detect stealth target? First - give more power into the signal, so reflected signal would be more powerful too. Second - use several radars with different frequencies. Special coating can not absorb all waves, it works only against a narrow range of frequencies. Like any material good in absorbing one EM waves and good in reflecting others. So, by using few radars located in different areas, you create a complex image of sky above you. You have big signal from L-band radar and small signal from X-band (for example) radar - you make a conclusion that something flies there. S-400 power is capability to work in complex network with many radars. When you fight against this system you don't fight against one particular machine, you fight against network of machines and not only ground based. Command and control can provide data to plane in the air. For example, L-band radar gives info about something flying in one particular zone, command don't want to turn on targeting radars and send Su-35S, for example. Su-35S has extremely powerful radar which can scan very tight area of sky to range up to 400km. He turns on this scanning mode and check what's in that zone and provide targeting data to other machines, which can fly in silent mode.
Last and very theoretical way to find a stealth aircraft is a passive scanning. In theory, everything you have on board emits electromagnetic waves. SOME manufacturers claims that they developed systems of passive scanning that can receive that electromagnetic emission and detect even stealth targets. This is not something very trustful.

File: HARM-Profiles-S.jpg (35KB, 640x488px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x488px

>>29834294
yes to the first question, to the second:
Large numbers of HARMs would need to be used to overwhelm their defenses and degrade the S-400. Complete degradation in one wave is unlikely, but the first one, if it's large enough, will break the system down enough to allow penetration of the airspace and start mop up work on remaining elements.

>>29834367
>A radiating radar is a dead radar.
Reminder that the F-35 cannot carry HARMS (upgrade scheduled for 2022.)
So they would have to rely on F-15s and/or F18s to break the area for them before they could move in and take part in the mop up.

>>29835876
HARMs aren't the only tool for dismantling an IADs.

>>29836060
They're the only one in the US armor with the range and capabilities to be very useful against a fully operational S-400 system that I'm aware of. JSTORs are certainly no substitute. If you have something in mind say what it is don't wave your hand and tell me that other weapons exist.

>>29834294
>it cant
>besides the fact it cant, the US only has to sit back and laugh at the pathetic number of s400 systems

>>29836177
JSOW has about the same range.

JSOW-ER has a massively greater range.

>>29834419
>what are anti radiation cruise missiles
Good luck shooting those down.

And even if you do, you just spent 100x more to shoot it down than they did to launch it.

>>29835876
>Reminder that the F-35 cannot carry HARMS (upgrade scheduled for 2022.)

So?

The same principles of radar horizon work with any aircraft against any SAM complex.

Lets make up a fictional scenario: weather is crystal clear, location is in the middle of the desert with zero vegitation, lets say that somehow the SAM site has a radar that's up on a 100m tall mast (which is taller than anything anyone has ever fielded that's not a strategic static asset).

Now, lets say that for some reason like people seem to think in this thread, that the SAM site can just sit around and radiate all it wants.

For the Hell of it, lets say that the radar and SAM itself are absolutely perfect, there's a 100% chance of destruction of the target upon detection. Whatever, it doesn't matter for this. If it makes vatniks feel any better, lets say that the SAM site is a Patriot battery.

The radar horizon of that absurdly tall radar where it's going to detect anything even so much as 50 meters above ground is roughly 70km. Sounds great, right? This is all basic trig right here.

Now the aircraft, lets say it's a [insert whatever airframe you want here] and it's armed with an ancient AGM-78 ARM equivalent, not even a HARM. With radar detection gear from the late 70's, it can detect the radiating SAM site further out than the SAM site can get a viable return thanks to the inverse square law. The aircraft then begins descending to stay below the radar. The aircraft only needs to get within 90km of the complex to launch, this is 20km further out than the SAM site can see it and then turn around and leave the area while the missile goes and finds the target radar.

That's what radar horizon means and why the aircraft will always be at an advantage against a radiating ground platform. The aircraft will always have the initiative in such a situation.

This is the exact reason why nobody radiates like a retard all the time and why SAM traps are a thing.

File: no011.gif (1010KB, 500x248px) Image search: [Google]

1010KB, 500x248px

>>29836218
JSOWs are big slow gliders that only turn into missiles after getting nearly to the target. To get that kind of range out of them you have to take them up to your operational ceiling and drop them off there. They're the EASIEST missile in the world for ground defenses to stop.

Which is why we have HARMs. You use HARMs first to degrade those ground defenses, THEN you use JSOWs on other targets, now that they can get through.

>>29836243
>But what about all the defenses around the radar to protect it?

It doesn't matter, again, for this scenario, we'll say that the SAM complex has a 100% chance to destroy that missile the aircraft first launched with no damage to any friendly forces.

What does the SAM site now know? That their position is compromised and the enemy will now either send more assets to destroy or suppress the site, or will plan around it.

So what's the next logical course of action for the SAM site?

To pack up and find a new location. While it's doing this, the site is not combat effective.

This is why you have other assets warning of incoming targets and the SAM site itself only radiates when it absolutely has to, specifically when they know a target is inbound and within their engagement zone. They have thus become an effective unit and have greatly increased their chances of downing enemy aircraft as they have the initiative now and dictate the time and place of the engagement. This is the very, very basic way that a SAM trap works.

>>29834496
If you're talking about SpaceX, I hate to break it to you but that whole program is a piece of shit.

The plural of aircraft is aircraft, not aircrafts.

>>29836342
This

File: 1456984071058.jpg (362KB, 640x821px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 640x821px

>>29834465
>unless you plan on just throwing multi-million dollar missiles into the air at random.

Welcome to the Russian Air Defense Strategy.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Safronov_(fighter_pilot)

>>29836256
Which was the prevailing method for taking out old as shit IADs that could be overwhelmed by speed, or ones that were protected by SPAAGs. Newer ones aren't going to have trouble with a missile when they're protected by short range missile systems themselves.

Now is a case of ECM through MALDs and subsonics.

Much like the AGM-158C, it isn't protected by speed, but by other means.

>>29836324
>>29836243

Sorry to burn your strawman, but I doubt he or anyone else in this thread was imagining S-400s constantly radiating and being immune to any sort of reprisal while they did it. You'd have to be a dumbass not to realize that isn't how an air defense system does its job (Bekaa Valley or Gulf War '91 anyone?). SAM design since the end of the Vietnam War was just as much about making SAMs more mobile, quicker to pack up, and quicker to unpack, as it was about increasing range, accuracy, and detection abilities.

>>29836508
>straw man

Nigga, vatniks were claiming earlier in the thread that radar horizon wasn't real and that flying low was stupid. The entire point of the thread is just "HOW CAN STEALTH EVEN COMPETE?"

>>29836358

What's up with that fucking tracksuit meme, i don't get it. Italians, Arabs, Caucasians, those guys wear tracksuits also very often. Russia is more than fucking tracksuits, also it's just the plebs hanging around on the streets in tracksuits.

What the fuck are you guys thinking about Russia, this country is more than wrestling fucking bears, drinking vodka and squatting in tracksuits

I have never been wearing a fucking tracksuit or even seen a damn bear. I like vodka and squat when waiting for something, but that's it. Stop that shit, it's annoying. Your lifes don't revolve about war for oil, bacon and burgers, i guess. Why the fuck do you insist on thinking we all wear fucking tracksuits

File: dude weed lmao.png (285KB, 470x470px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 470x470px

Why not just have unmanned radar-emitting tracked vehicles roaming around to be missile-attracting cumsluts so the real S-whatever is less likely to take a hit?

Regards, stoned af

>>29835749
interesting

File: Pantsir-S1_(tracked)_-_Engineering_Technologies_2012_-1.jpg (1MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2250x1500px

>>29836324
You see, S-300/400 never travels alone. It doesn't intercept incoming munition. It's entirely able to, but it is not it's job. Every battery is supplemented with close-to-mid range systems whose primary design purpose is to protect SAM from Taurus, Storm Shadow, JSOW and AGM-88. Each of these batteries can be networked to provide dense AD coverage against both jet and missile targets. The Pantsir S1/2 and Tunguska can be deployed as a single autonomous unit as well, to provide point defense for both stationary and mobile ground assets.

Can you suppress them? Yes. In theory, a prolonged, sustainable and retardedly intense air campaign throwing squadron after squadron on a one-way suicidial piercing strike into the teeth of saturated AD network is destined to reach some degree of desirable effect. If the US pilots are briefed that their role in operation is akin to WW2 kamikaze then its perfectly fine. Ultimately it all comes down to how many trained people and aircraft USAF is willing to lose taking cold comfort that maybe 1 out of 10 will survive long enough to have a shot at enemy bridge, air traffic tower or a moving armored column.

>>29836692
>Can you suppress them? Yes. In theory, a prolonged, sustainable and retardedly intense air campaign throwing squadron after squadron on a one-way suicidial piercing strike into the teeth of saturated AD network is destined to reach some degree of desirable effect.
It's not suicidal if they are launching HARMS but it still needs large numbers and a sustained effort.

>>29836551
Just like americans are always depicted as fat rednecks on mobility scooters eating burgers and shooting stuff up and dindus just for the fun of it. It's a meme and it's funny.. Just relax and laugh with us.

>>29836551
Italian here. Tracksuits here are only used if you're, like, running. They're considered ugly as f. Unless you're some hot girl or something but then that's another whole matter.

Russians love tracksuits. They pop up in every picture. There's even some pic around of Russian SF in syria with Adidas caps.

>>29836749
Operational ranges of AGM-88 and 48N6/40N6 missile pretty much say it all. Even taking radar's ground clutter into account there will always be at least ~100km gap between the aircraft's safe zone and the distane from where it can effectively launch missile or drone. The S-300/400 missiles have a speed of Mach 6 and their approach is basically invisible until terminal stage illumination through pencil beam of the Gravestone radar. Yeah, it's pretty much a suicide mission.

>>29834405
>It's a bit like what happened with the F-117. Stealth is useless if the enemy knows roughly where you are,
?
The F-117 was still basically fucking invisible at close range, in the rain, with a weapons bay door open.

I doubt they are even capable of SEEING an f-22 or f-35 or B-1

Their tactic against them would be "hide"

>>29836604
Radar vehicles are expensive
Same reason they stopped making SPAAGS because decent radars cost millions

File: la-fi-spacex-rocket-20160411-001.jpg (38KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 650x366px

>>29836331

Seriously wondering what makes you think that.

>>29836692
>I didn't read anything: The Post

These threads are completely worthless.

>>29836911
I disagree, though of course there is some uncertainty but I think you are wrong there.

It's a matter of approach, though I don't think coming in high and dropping off JSOWS will be very effective.

A mass of F-18s with up to date missiles specifically designed for this job and a few wild weasels could attack from a similar range and a much lower altitude however.
Wouldn't be anything like easy, need a lot of planes, a lot of missiles, other forces waiting to move in and follow up as soon as defenses are compromised... big damn operation, lot of people, lot of equipment, metric shit ton of money. But yeah I think you could do it.

File: but steel's heavier than feathers.png (72KB, 325x282px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 325x282px

>>29836948

hey, i'm not on 4chan to educate myself and read long ass texts

there's a reason i'm not reading a damn book right now

How do Americans also planning to fight against S-500 which is going to enter in service in next year?

>>29836985
Easy. Russia is too pussy to ever do anything

>>29836911
>Match 6
>At low altitudes

>>29836985
Treat it like it is. An S-400 with a shiny new paintjob.

>>29836992
Like the Donald Cuck?

>>29837021
>fly around a ship
>do nothing
>call others cucks
>meanwhile get cuckd our of everyones airspace on a daily basis
>even get cuckd out of syrian air space

jej

>>29836218
>JSOW has about the same range.
Lol.

>>29837058
>>meanwhile get cuckd our of everyones airspace on a daily basis
Never happened. International airspace only. Close to borders, but legal. Turks doesn't count, it's war out there.

>>29836692
>>29836911
The issue with that argument is that SEAD isn't just a pair of Wild Weasels hugging the ground then firing a pair of missiles and bugging out. It's a combined arms tactic of airstrikes, missile strikes, electronic warfare, decoys, and possibly even ground attacks. All of which will be occurring alongside other air operations, missile strikes, and what have you. You'd have a point if the entire US air doctrine was to throw plane after plane into a DEAD mission targeting only radars against a Russian IADS whose doctrine was to only defend itself.

>>29836927
I heard that the Serbs and Croats were baiting strike planes from NATO with false emitters on wires near the real radar that was switched off at the time.
One redneck claimed a microwave oven with the door open and bypassed safety would attract harm missiles sometimes.

What about hole theory? You have a ring of emitters like cell phone towers in a synchronized mesh. You look for the lack of a bounceback signal since the stealth plane deflects of absorbs the radiation?

>>29837462
US had more missiles than serbia had microwaves tho

>>29837518
>US had more missiles than serbia had microwaves tho
That's an extremely expensive way to fight a war.

Good for 'defense' contractors I guess, bad for everyone else.

>>29837566
We could equip our soldiers with M&P15s, Walmart coveralls and boots, and JanSport backpacks too, but that doesn't we should. We're at the point where a single million dollar missile is better than several WW2 strategic bombers.

>>29837021
So you place an aggressive presence on your recon birds after all.

>>29837566
procurement is a tiny part of the US budget
And missiles are getting cheaper all the time, while doing more/being more flexible

>>29837158
>Never happened.
And neither did the Thomas Cuck incident either, other than an amateurish Su-24 flying over the ship while the crew look at it like "what the fuck is this nigger trying to do.."

>>29837088
130 kilometres from altitude vs 150km

Not much of a difference there, they're not different enough to be employed differently.

JSOW-ER allows the range to be more than 500km though.

>>29839222
130km from operational ceiling versus 150km from tree-top level. Yeah, that's not a big difference, not at ALL.

Also once you get to the 500km range, stealth no longer has any value, so why are we paying way more for an F35 than we would for an F-15 that can carry more of them?

Plus we're back to JSOWs not being HARMs. They just aren't. You don't attack a sophisticated SAM system with gliders anon, don't be stupid.

>>29834419
>Considering what NATO tests said of the S-300 we can assume any non-stealth plane would be fucked.
It could still be defeated by conventional aircraft, just not as reliably. I remember a story about israel evading detection by S-300s using F-16s a few years back. Keep in mind that they were crewed by arabs and probably not the latest version.

>>29837462
>I heard that the Serbs and Croats were baiting strike planes from NATO with false emitters on wires near the real radar that was switched off at the time.
One redneck claimed a microwave oven with the door open and bypassed safety would attract harm missiles sometimes.
The microwave thing is a myth, but there are stories of serbs using old MiG-21 radars from old planes and iraqi planes as decoys.

>>29839301
>Firing a HARM from tree-top level

fantasy land treating you okay?

>Plus we're back to JSOWs not being HARMs. They just aren't. You don't attack a sophisticated SAM system with gliders anon, don't be stupid.

You realize JSOWs have literally already been used in SEAD, against a significant IADs, right?

nah, of course not.

>>29839808
Please tell me you are not calling late '90s/early 2000s Iraq a significant air defense network.

>>29836985
Well, since the russians can afford to buy maybe 2/3 of a S500 since the US tanked oil prices on them, because economic warfare is much cleaner than fighting on a battlefield...not much to worry about.

>>29839808
>Iraqi Iglas and Guidelines in the open desert
>significant IADs
Stop drinking the CNNaid

>>29834367
They have AWACS bud to eliminate that gap. Supposedly they and the Chinese have worked on radars mounted on dirigibles a la JLENS way back- not that its a hard thing to even integrate radars on zepellins mind you.
>>29834462
stay buttmad clap. +1
>>29836934
What's the point with SpaceX's reusable first stages anyway? Payloads not too good since you are carrying fuel to go back and the thrust diverter equipment all the time, and refurbishing and testing the whole thing for another launch is undoubtedly going to be expensive- haven't they learned from the space shuttle?

File: 1458254741697.png (463KB, 600x515px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 600x515px

>>29839551
>believing anything the yids say.
good goy.

>>29841935
its supposed to be cheaper to build a few reusable than have to build a new rocket every single time you want to send someone up.

Long term its cheaper despite its cargo disadvantage because all you need to do is refuel it and send another payload if needed.

>>29834340
>1000 miles

Lockheed pls leave

Block 416: Integration of SDB (November 5th, 2818)

>>29841935
you must be the first person to come up with these problems with a reusable rocket. seriously call NASA right now save use lots of money no one else thought about.

>>29842041
makes sense, guess we'll see how it plays out in the end.
>>29842075
no need to be sarcastic, I'm just being curious. I mean reusable stages isn't even that old- we have the space shuttle but our experience isn't as good. To reiterate, it involved multi-million refurbishing and testing before every launch that pushed costs a good order of a magnitude more than planned - and still gimped payload a lot. Plus, afaik rockets with really good T/W ratios for launch vehicles eat up the rocket engine anyways- and I'm not sure if materials tech has catched up to this yet.

>>29842174
you did raise a good point about testing after each launch. However its probably still cheaper to reuse and fix a badly damaged rocket than to build a whole new one that also has to be tested to see if its in good condition.

>>29834294

Just roll teh Abrums over em'. If the Airforce is alone, then bring out the M8s.

If there isn't any ground presence in the area, the AF has no buisness messing around with it.

>>29836692

Why waste actual piloted aircraft when you can strap drone controls to a bunch of Aeronca Chiefs and watch them eat missiles that cost less than they do?

>>29836978
Money and equipment is the least of issues here. Airstrips and forward operating bases in enemy's vicinity is the crucial part. As of now, Rammstein and Italian bases are the only miltiary facilities around equipped for something of this scale and magnitude, and all lie within opearional range of Tu-160, Iskander, Kalibr and Topol-M. This is why I'm baffled every time some autistic mouthbreather says US can pull off large scal SEAD against Russia, it's all based on a notion that the enemy has no cruise missile capability and would just sit idly on his ass watching as you mount gargantuan fucking air offensive on his doorstep.

File: Georgian drone has been shot down by Russia MIG-29(1).webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

>>29842422
If Iran can land top-tier CIA drone, Russian will not have any trouble to jam or kill them by cheapest from SA-8. They are still have thousands of them.

>>29843191
The scenario everyone is imagining is a war in the Baltic. Either hordes of russian troglodytes pouring over the borders to reenslave the Baltics or to relieve Kaliningrad from NATO blockade/attacks.
To send nuclear capable strategic bombers or ballistic missiles towards Rammstein is pretty much the safest way for russia to start WWIII, in no scenario would NATO just sit there and wait until impact to see if there was any nukes involved.
Boomers in the atlantic would rain so much shit on russia and russian ICBMS would be on their merry way over the atlantic before the first Topol even touched Rammstein.
Russia pretty much would have to sit and watch a fuckhuege air attack be assembled in Germany.
What russia possible could do is to "borrow" the Swedish southern coast and Gotland to put SAM batteries on which would give them ample time to intercept flights in the middle of the sea.
While the US would send nukes if russia sent Topols towards their bases, Sweden would only have Deep Concerns to offer up at the moment.

>>29843451
While the Iran thing is still dubious, this dude is right.
Drones will only make target practice for cheap cold war AA systems.

>>29843575

>Russia pretty much would have to sit and watch a fuckhuege air attack be assembled in Germany.

Nah, it's ridiculous to assume that. If they understand war is inevitable they might as well strike first.

>>29843575

>While the US would send nukes if russia sent Topols towards their bases

I doubt the US would use nukes even if Russia nuked targets in Europe, but clearly stated they don't want to attack the US mainland first.

>>29843656
>I doubt the US would use nukes even if Russia nuked targets in Europe, but clearly stated they don't want to attack the US mainland first.

Oh yeah, because the US is totally going to take Russia's word for it, right?

That's also not considering the thousands of US troops and citizens currently stationed and living in Europe, and the fact that most of Europe is the US' ally, and there are multiple treaties between the US and Europe pledging that the US would defend them with their nuclear arsenal as an incentive for Europe not to go full nuclear?

>>29843624
>might as well strike first
Like in start the WIII?
If that's the case, why not get the head start and launch ICBMs from the get go?

>I doubt the US would use nukes even if Russia nuked targets in Europe
If they detected nuclear capable missiles headed for their headquarters in Europe that also happen to house over 50,000 Americans and god knows how many hamburgers, nukes would fly.

>>29843681

>Oh yeah, because the US is totally going to take Russia's word for it, right?

They can detect launches or preparation for launches and if Russia only uses cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles and not ICBMs, the US would most likely refrain from launching a nuclear strike, which would surely invite a full-blown counterstrike on US mainland.

>That's also not considering the thousands of US troops and citizens currently stationed and living in Europe, and the fact that most of Europe is the US' ally, and there are multiple treaties between the US and Europe pledging that the US would defend them with their nuclear arsenal as an incentive for Europe not to go full nuclear?

A treaty is a good thing, but when you know that your country will be physically annihilated if you honor your obligation, but you have a good chance of saving it if you abandon your allies, that's a tricky situation and I have serious doubts the US will use nuclear weapons against Russia first if they know Russians do not intend to nuke the US other than as a counterstrike.

>>29843696

>50,000 Americans and god knows how many hamburgers, nukes would fly.

Is it worth it to avenge 50000 Americans when 150 million+ more Americans will die as a result?

>>29843724
Same goes for russia. Why bother about saving Kaliningrad if +100million russians die in the effort?

>>29843717
>They can detect launches or preparation for launches and if Russia only uses cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles and not ICBMs, the US would most likely refrain from launching a nuclear strike, which would surely invite a full-blown counterstrike on US mainland.

Kalibr they could get away with, but the use of Topol-M and Iskander, which are both ballistic and nuclear capable, will for sure trigger nuclear response, if you've paid attention to anything Oppenheimer has said.

>physically annihilated if you honor your obligation, but you have a good chance of saving it if you abandon your allies, that's a tricky situation and I have serious doubts the US will use nuclear weapons against Russia first if they know Russians do not intend to nuke the US other than as a counterstrike

Except if Russia is nuking Europe that's less nukes to counterstrike the US. I also don't see the US accepting the total loss of Europe with no form of retaliation. This isn't a backwater buffer zone like Ukraine we're talking about here.

>>29843751

The scenarios with Russians attacking NATO members are implausible.

But NATO initiating nuclear exchange over fucking Tallinn or Riga is downright ridiculous, whatever Article 5 might say about it.

>>29843760

Let me rephrase it that way: if the US have reliable intel that all the russian launches (cruise, ballistic, whatever) are clearly and certainly not aimed at US mainland, the US will not nuke Russia.

>I also don't see the US accepting the total loss of Europe with no form of retaliation

It would be a completely different world after that. I don't know what the US response will be, but if they have the option to abandon Europe and survive, they will choose it.

>>29843783
>if the US have reliable intel that all the russian launches (cruise, ballistic, whatever) are clearly and certainly not aimed at US mainland, the US will not nuke Russia.

But the problem is that they won't. They see missiles going for Europe, what possible assurances can Russia give them that the US won't be next?

>but if they have the option to abandon Europe and survive, they will choose it.

I like how you're suddenly the decider of US foreign and military policy.

>>29834294
>How can Russia detect and shoot down US stealth aircrafts with such system?
Pretty much, by the F-35 getting too close. Where exactly "too close" is, and how likely an F-35 is to actually end up there, is quite uncertain to the public.

>>29834294
>How can Russia detect and shoot down US stealth aircrafts with such system?

It can't.

> how can the US counter it?

A SDB.

File: neat.jpg (28KB, 500x491px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x491px

>>29834441
Is that a spherical phased array I see?

>>29843762
>The scenarios with Russians attacking NATO members are implausible.
I have heard Poles, Eestis, Lithuanians and Latvians voicing concerns, especially since there are voices in russia claiming that the breakup of the Soviet Union was illegal.

The scenario is the following; War in the Baltic over the russian diaspora, relief effort towards Kaliningrad or whatever.
NATO amasses huge air assets in Rammstein for use in the baltics. If the russians chooses to use TU-160s and Topols against those force, there WILL be a retaliatory nuclear strike. Maybe not megatons over Moscow but tactical warheads against russian military bases and army formations.

>>29843794

>possible assurances can Russia give them that the US won't be next?

Taking Russian word for it. It's the better option in this scenario. That's all assuming the US can't possibly neutralize the majority of Russian strategic forces in a first strike. If they could, of course they would do it in instant in this scenario.

>>29843760
Keep in mind even France of England's second-strike ability is enough to wipe out Russia economically and cuterally. With Moscow and Saint Petersburg gone Russia is over as a country.

>>29836551
Why are Russians so goddamn sensitive?

Seriously, you people can't even handle the slightest bit of bantz.

>>29843818

>If the russians chooses to use TU-160s and Topols against those force

No one would use Topol for that. Conventional attacks on Rammstein would not invite a nuclear retaliation. There's no way NATO would escalate to nukes first.

>>29843820
>Taking Russian word for it.
Not even russians trust the russian word and no country in the world has done so since 1917.
Ask any eastern European and the will as one tell you DON'T TRUST RUSSIA.

>>29843820
>Taking Russian word for it. It's the better option in this scenario. That's all assuming the US can't possibly neutralize the majority of Russian strategic forces in a first strike. If they could, of course they would do it in instant in this scenario.

And if you've ever listened to Oppenheimer (it sounds like you haven't), then you should know that this is plausible, especially if Russia is dedicating valuable warheads to attacking Europe.

>>29843818
>Soviet Union was illegal.
Wasn't it? It wasn't only illegal, it was literally a fucking catastrophy (just look at the amount of shitty wars which happened due to the breakup), and that's a fact.

>>29843840

We assume that both countries maintain credible second strike capability at all times during the crisis.

The US and Russia have a strong incentive not to strike each other territories with nukes, whatever happens elsewhere.

>>29843842

>Russia is dedicating valuable warheads to attacking Europe.

That would be tactical warheads that can't reach the US anyway.

And I never said anything about russia using even tactical warheads. In my scenario they use strictly conventional means to attack NATO airbases in Europe.

>>29843870
>And I never said anything about russia using even tactical warheads. In my scenario they use strictly conventional means to attack NATO airbases in Europe

I'm not sure if it was you or not but the original post stated the use of weapons like Topol-M and Iskander, which for sure can be interpreted as nuclear strikes if launched.

>>29843839
>Conventional attacks on Rammstein would not invite a nuclear retaliation

Maybe if the russians drove tanks over there and started blasting stuff but cruise missiles and ballistic missiles especially would result in use of tactical nukes. The US would sure as shit no trust the russian word on whether or not there was nukes on inbound missiles.

>>29843839
It would invite a conventional retaliation.

Being that MALDs alone shit on the IAD concept, its fair to say that russia would lose pretty much every conventional conflict sans a "shot from the blue" situation above.

>>29843856
Neither NATO or the Soviet wanted to nuke each other during the cold war but they came inches from doing it anyway.
A threat is only useful if you mean to act on it.
The US HAS to act on its promises or nothing would prevent russia from sending an army of track suit wearing enslavers washing all over the former eastern block.

>>29843889

Iskander is a short-range system with a ~500km range, no way it's launch can be mistaken as an ICBM.

The thing is NATO would detect these launches and would not know if it's nuclear or conventional. But the US would know for sure these launches can't possibly threaten the US mainland in any case.

>The US would sure as shit no trust the russian word on whether or not there was nukes on inbound missiles.

But the US would know by the objective data that these warheads can't threaten the US mainland either way.

The Russians claim they don't want to attack the US. You may choose not to believe them and launch a first strike, but in this case you have everything to gain by believing them and everything to lose by not believing them (assuming secure second strike capabilities on both sides, again).

>>29843933
>But the US would know for sure these launches can't possibly threaten the US mainland in any case.

This still does not change the fact that they would launch to counterstrike Russia's assets. No way they're just going to sit back and watch Europe get nuked and genuinely believe they won't be next on the list.

>>29843926

We assume it's NOT a "use it or lose it" situation. The US could go to defcon 2 and send all the strategic subs on patrols and just wait, they could retaliate if the Russians launch anyway.

>>29843588
The great thing about drones is that they can be built really cheap if all you want is a purpose built decoy. Hell, suicide drones already exist so even if Russia can tell which are decoys they have to consider shooting them down anyways because they don't if they're packed with a hundred pounds of explosives ready to nose dive.

>>29843845
>Wasn't it?
The Soviet Union was illegal, the break up was the people finally throwing the shackles put on them the fascist occupiers from Moscow.
Now that there is yet another fascist in Moscow, it is only natural that the former slaves feel antsy and that the US step up their military presence on the russian border to ensure the liberty and freedom of its allies.

>>29843946
Those are MALDs yeah. Reapers and Global Hawks are not cheap on the other hand.

>>29843946
And if we're talking about MALD-J, these are drones you can't simply ignore because they're flying circles above your SAMs and jamming their radars.

>>29843958
You dont ignore a mald unless you know its a mald.

>Spoilers: you dont know its a mald.

Mald Js wont jam enemys radar, but will seriously degrade it depending on range.

>>29843933
If nuking Europe and leaving the US untouched had such a guarantee of zero retaliation, then why hasn't Russia done it yet?

>>29843945
And go back on their treatises, take it like a bitch when several thousands of Americans die along with the US military presence in Europe? Despite having promised the Soviets and by extension russia that such an act would get them smacked by a nuclear stick?
Get real.

>>29843968

>Spoilers: you dont know its a mald.

How do you know that it can really perfectly imitate another aircraft's radar signature? It's only what the manufacturer claims.

>>29843970
Because it has the GDP of Italy and Europe could crush it without a gunshot by cutting them off from trade and banking.

>>29843981
Because thats its entire point.

A better question is, if you doubt, "how do you know it doesnt"

>>29843979

Talk is cheap. The choice is die a hero and kill your enemy in the process or >take it like a bitch.

We do not know how the US would behave in such a situation, whatever they say know, thinking it will never happen.

>>29843970

Because they are not batshit insane?

File: 2-luneburg-lens.jpg (56KB, 640x391px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 640x391px

>>29843981
How do we know that the S-400 or the S-500 can see a F-35?
It's only the manufacturers claim.
Enhancing a radar signature is fucking easy, the US has been doing it for years to keep true specs on the F-22 a secret.

>>29843981
>It's only what the manufacturer claims.

Same deal with the S-400. You always assume the enemy's equipment will function as well as the press briefings say while your own equipment will function as well as the detractors say.

>>29843981
Mainly because its purpose built to do just that, and the airforce tested them, didnt like the first batch, tested the B then bought a metric fuckton of them.

>>29843998
>Talk is cheap
Exactly, russia too would take it like a bitch and "voice DEEP concerns" even as NATO tanks roll over russian corpses in kaliningrad.
Why bother about a few thousand lives in kaliningrad if it means saving Moscow and St. Petersburg?

>>29843998
>We do not know how the US would behave in such a situation, whatever they say know, thinking it will never happen.

And then you close with.

>Talk is cheap. The choice is die a hero and kill your enemy in the process or >take it like a bitch.

So much for your point.

>Because they are not batshit insane?

Yeah, because doing so means they'll get nuked in response.

>>29844000
That's actually just the plane version of truck nutz.

>>29844012

Nah, NATO is too much of a bitch itself to do that.

In reality neither side will do shit because there is always a threat of events quickly snowballing to nuclear escalation.

>>29844013

>Yeah, because doing so means they'll get nuked in response.

At the very least it would irreversibly change the whole world in very unpredictable ways. You don't do that unless you are desperate and have nothing to lose.

File: 1459900748001.jpg (85KB, 606x539px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 606x539px

These thread.

No one knows what he is talking, and no one is honest enough to admit it.

>>29844035
>Nah, NATO is too much of a bitch itself to do that.

I would argue that russia is to much of a bitch to launch an unprovoked attack on a nato airbase.

>>29844039
Wut.

Alot of these systems are export.

>>29844060

That is true, however if it knows for sure that the airbase is actively being prepared for launching airstrikes against Russia, then the attack is not unprovoked.

>>29844039
>honest
>4chan
plz. It's even in the tagline:
"The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact"
How would it look like if I where to disappoint gookmoot and post useful information here?

>>29844067
It all boils down to if something kicks off in the Baltic region.
If Latvia elected a anti russian government that decided to finally put their russian diaspora on the trains, then I could actually believe that putin would invade and trigger an escalation.
All it requires is a few more years of heightened tensions.

>>29844024
>balls so big that they show up on radar
That should be an official line in the documents.

File: Screen Shot 2016-05-05 at 1.34.53 AM.png (68KB, 688x522px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 688x522px

Ya, here's the issue. The west won the war without firing a shot. Russia is a corrupt oil exporting business with defense contracts, nothing more. They can't do shit because they would have no one to sell oil to, and you can't drink oil.

>>29844084

>invade and trigger an escalation.

Nah, nobody needs that. Those three little shits got really lucky with NATO membership.

And that's why nobody will allow Latvian government to provoke the Russians that hard.

File: c3e608a82e9de9f78e4cd95b418d94a4.png (6KB, 450x317px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 450x317px

Cont...
and they did it by crashing the price of oil. Russia can't afford to do more than build a demonstrator of their tech and then do 3-D animated graphics showing how it works. Their country has no economic future. And its worse if they start a conflict.

>>29844067
>however if it knows for sure that the airbase is actively being prepared for launching airstrikes against Russia, then the attack is not unprovoked.

Yes, anon, it would be.

There are airbases actively prepared to launch at russia (among other places) right now. Most in the continental US.

How can airplanes hope to compete.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GcAUaLrPNU

>>29844104
The harshest measure they would dare take against their russian diaspora would be to put a tariff on tracksuits.
To start ethnic cleansing would risk russian invasion while pissing off NATO and EU to the degree that they would be left to fend for themselves.

>>29844103
>>29844109

LEL

>He believes this stuff

>>29844131

A real strike would require a preparation far beyond ordinary everyday readiness. There is no way it would go unnoticed.

>>29844136
Does the russians even field the Gazetchik-E?
You must actually field it in significant numbers before you brag about it.

>>29844142
No, because a real strike would primarily be carried out by said continental assets.

>>29844140
It's not like these numbers are verifiable by multiple sources or anything.
But no, continue believing that a nation with less BNP than italy, has a nigger tier crude oil and unprocessed resources economy suffering from international blockades is thriving in times of the lowest oil prices in several decades.

File: 1448366550180.jpg (25KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x375px

>>29844103
>2015
>Vatniks: "Russia's economy is improving! These dropping in oil prices did nothing!"
>mfw this pic
oh I am laffin

>>29844145
>he doesn't think they don't field it.

Tope Lel

>Significant numbers
>187

>>29844160
>BNP
The fuck? GDP, not BNP

>>29844160

>less BNP than italy

That's in dollars. The Russian defense sector operates in rubles.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/china_and_russia_combined_now_at_military_spending_parity_with_us.html

>>29844166
Proofs? All I can find are info sheets, no actual list of operators.

>>29843818
Attacking Kaliningrad appears to be lousy strategy for NATO. Alliance is completely outgunned, outmatched and outranged in the region, so what's the point starting the zero sum game where you don't have any clear advantage? Plus Russian doctrine assumes use of nuclear warheads only upon existential threat to state's existence. Should the necessity ever occur, Rammstein will be wiped out by conventional means alone, NATO, having no cogent and unified military doctrine, won't be able to take decision on nuclear response until determining the nature of impact with absolute certainty. Unless of course authority of nuclear targeting won't devolve over the course of the conflict, but yeah nah.

There's no need to precipitate nuclear exchange if one can be avoided, much less over some Baltic backwater.

>>29844185
I bet that Bin Laden chopper has a list of operators that can be googled in the internet too.

>>29844168
PPP is not exactly a good measure of military spending capability.
You cannot seriously claim that investing in a weapon system such as the S-400 is equivalent to a daily bread purchase by a babushka. All the mechanisms of PPP is rendered useless when it's one customer buying from itself a system which the reaserch and testing was paid for by itself.
The article claimed the PPP was a better tool to use but did in no way explain why and from the looks of it, they only used it because they are alarmists.
PPP is NOT a good tool to use here

>>29844218
So there is no proofs whatsoever? Then I can claim that all NATO tanks field ADAPTIV and LOSAT is in all NATO members inventory because who needs Proofs?

>>29844198
NATO is at disadvantage now but given NATOs edge in technology, logistics, economy, large scale battle experiance and baltic members, all it takes is some effort to change that.

File: nato-9.jpg (179KB, 1200x1662px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1200x1662px

>>29844280
NATO has the combat power but lacks unity of purpose and strength of will. On a practical level, their lack of cohesion and unified military doctrine is what will ultimately destroy them, not Russian tanks or missiles. They forgot what the armies are for. You just can't force a political plan into a military framework and expect organization to perform at its full capacity. You can't allow political considerations to dictate not just the decision to use force, but even the practical details of military planning. All of the splendid equipment and expensively trained soldiers are impressive on paper only until you fail to implement them in actual combat and squander them for a political convenience in a time of crisis.

>>29844337
>compareing a large collection of country's to just one

Lel

>>29844261
Sure why not. Americans say F22 is stealthy because it bombed mudhuts but who can say that it actually is anyway.

>>29844337
During Desert Storm, USA fielded over twice as many troops as the largest russian exercise.
If USA could mobilise that number of personel over a squabble between goatfuckers, imagine the number that they could field over pictures of russian vermin raping European women.

>>29844168
Yes, that's why, since their spending is equal to the US, they both have blue water navies and squadrons of 5th generation fighters lined up against us, and not just a collection of rusty soviet era ships, a demonstration tank, a failed experiment of collaboration with india in aircraft design, and the chinese with their best military development being stealing US designs for aircraft and building the worlds biggest coast guard cutter.

>>29844386
The thing is that we have seen the F-22 fly and we have seen it on airfields and shows. The only thing we have seen of the Gazetchik-E is dubious sources on the internet and vatnik shitposting.
Post proofs of russia using it or it is safe to assume that it's just another piece of junk to add to the pile of russian vaporware.

>>29844168
They got less GDP than even Huezil and India for fucks sake
>Russia
>into super power
>ever

>>29844230
Especially considering each S-400 missile cost millions of dollars

Americas stealth aircraft are designed to defeat the narrow bandwidth forward looking radar of other aircraft

The wide bandwidth down looking radar that you get from bouncing off the atmosphere sees them just fine, its not new its how the RAF could detect the Luftwaffe over the horizon in WWII and its our the RAAF air sea gap radar system detects ships and boats in the Indian Ocean including American aircraft operating from Diego Garcia

>>29834441
AAA and cruise missiles are their only advantages

>>29834496
>using fucking 50 year old tech.

If its not broke don't fix it

The mass production of Soyuz allows for economy of scale savings, while incremental upgrades are included in periodic production runs

>>29844418
Nobody does anything when goatfuckers are raping european women today.
USA is nowhere to be found.

>>29844492
Those women invited the goatfuckers in the first place and even Sweden has closed borders and has started to kick out refugees. Then there the fact that russians are literally worse than goatfuckers, both as human beings and at fighting wars.

>>29844538

Did somebody order some bantz?

>>29844464
>Americas stealth aircraft are designed to defeat the narrow bandwidth forward looking radar of other aircraft
This

All these Rusfags going "URA, SLAVSHIT PLANES BEST PLANES", and when they are confronted with the fact that F-22 and F-35 is basically invisible on their radars in BVR, they will go onto "B-but atleast we got S-400 to shoot down you fat amerkanskij PIGS XAXAXAXA"

Though they still have a certain advantage in being harder to detect for said radars

>>29844550
Depends on the airframe in question.

The b2 from the front has excellent VHF/UHF charicteristics.

>>29844559
so they can be used in SEAD operations as Slavshit VHF/UHF radars(that is supposed to be able to detect F-22 and F-35) have difficulty in detecting them?

>>29844567
Useing a B-2 for sead is a bit like using a very expensive and rare sledgehammer for finishing nails, but yes it theoretically can be done.

>>29844492
how many tens of thousands of women do the nigs rape any year?
Whats your point?

File: soyuz.jpg (78KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1000x667px

>>29834496
>Soyuz-FG
>50 year old tech
Lol. Well, it's not Russia's problem that 50 years old American tech is incapable of delivering men to orbit.

>>29844587
That less European women get raped by nigs than russian women that get raped as sex slaves in Europe, Israel, Saudi Arabia or any place else in the world. Russian women are the cattle of the sex trade.

File: Artist_Rendering_B21_Bomber_Air_Force_Official.jpg (53KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1024x512px

>>29844464
Sure, but those systems take tens of minutes to take a decent snapshot of a target area (operators pick out a zone and let the antenna arrays and computers calibrate, compensate for the ionosphere and then begin pulsing and analysing the returns).

They also are seriously limited in resolution; they can detect stealth aircraft, but they can't tell the difference between stealth and non-stealth aircraft. They're also at the mercy of the ionosphere and can sometimes be offline for days if there's a solar storm, etc.

>>29844567
With how few B-2s there are, the US would just instead have some F-22s and F-35s flying around the edges of IADS engagement ranges, finding targets and then directing in a swarm of cruise missiles. Some or most cruise missiles will get shot down, but some will hit and once there's a hole, F-35s will be able to hold it open by denying radars from moving in to patch the hole, while F-22s loosely escort B-2s as they strike strategic targets.

Also, the B-21 is expected to be an absolute beast at SEAD, as it's being designed to be stealthier than the B-2 (simpler shape and using certain materials science from the F-35) and should be able to carry modern weapons like JSOWs and probably SDBs (80+ SDBs anyone?).

>>29844603
50 year old US tech got dudes to the moon. Call me when russia get to the moon.

File: NNIIRT-Nebo-M-CONOPS-1.png (130KB, 768x492px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 768x492px

>>29844559
>from the front
That's the key point.

>Russians save Assad from NATO and USA
>everyone is butthurt
>Russia must pay
>Ukraine starts a 'revolution'
>gets cookies
>russians revolt against revolting
>many more hohols than russians die
>Russians get away with Crimea at the cost of ruble value
>/k/ is jacking off at the sight of Ukrop warriors killing subhuman russhits
>shitposting on the internet doesnt win battles
>their beloved pets die and lose
>/k/ is angry
>Russians start bombing their other pets in Syria
>Assad is to win the war
>USA, NATO, the west FAILED to do what it does best
>a routine thing turned out to be a fuckup after a fuckup
>in the meantime slavshit is being exported and will be much more exported later
>a single s400 controls the skies above syria
>others must get permission to fly above it
>A paper tiger fucked up the entire standard procedure that must be done of the west is to keep influence
>/k/ refuses to see it
>/k/ is bleeding from butthurt but tries to be technical and shit, showing charts, shitposting and jacking off to Simo Haya
>europe is being invaded by muslims
>US is about to have a hippie woman president just because she is a woman

I dont think most of you undercover hohols or shitstains from the butthurt belt should have a saying in anything. Your opinions arent valued, and come to think of it, neither are your lives.
The butthurt belt will be the second thing in history to be nuked, as a demonstration, or a warning that will turn into diplomatic talks that will postpone hostilities, or end them.
Anyway, you batshits that infiltrate and suck off the american cock should know that you and your entire nations will be slaves of anyone that can and decides to rule over you. And you will like it, just like you always do.
Your only glory days are when you can choose whos cannon fodder will you be.

What does /k/ have to say about the mightiest, most expensive and powerful force on earth bitching out and fucking up because some mongoloid subhumans?

>vatniks don't understand radar horizon

Literally every thread about SAMs ever

File: progress m-20m (3).jpg (1MB, 2400x1597px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2400x1597px

>>29844618
Call me back when the US will be able to replicate its own 50 years old tech, lel.

>>29844622
>Fatniks don't understand minimal launch altitude, minimal launch range and Gazetchik-E
Literally every thread about SAMs ever, indeed.

>>29844636
>Gazetchik-E
A system that russia doesn't even field

>launch altitude
Vatniks minds are too simple to comprehend pop-up manoeuvres.

>>29844620
>shitposting on the internet doesnt win battles
/pol/ shitposting Trump to victory would like to have a word with you

>>29844619
Not just from the front; the B-2's use of large aligned and parallel edges means it more or less has all-aspect stealth. The B-21 will be even better if it looks like its concept art. Bistatic arrays are also overblown; they do increase your chances of detecting the jet, but that doesn't mean much if each array is only getting a small momentary blip.

>>29844613
>Sure, but those systems take tens of minutes to take a decent snapshot of a target area (operators pick out a zone and let the antenna arrays and computers calibrate, compensate for the ionosphere and then begin pulsing and analysing the returns).

>They also are seriously limited in resolution; they can detect stealth aircraft, but they can't tell the difference between stealth and non-stealth aircraft. They're also at the mercy of the ionosphere and can sometimes be offline for days if there's a solar storm, etc.

This is true, though it was pretty much a non issue in WWII

>>29844619
>using 3 radars to detect an aircraft

And vatnik thinks stealth is useless

>>29844650
>A system that russia doesn't even field
Cool story, fatnik. It's an integral part supplied with the SAM system.
>pop-up
Get shot.

>>29844670
They didn't use the ionosphere back then; the English channel is only ~200km at its widest and London to the edge of Germany was only 400km.

Today's OTH radars have ranges of 3000km+ and so they need small supercomputers to work.

>>29844686
With what?

All your missles will be wasted on MALDs

>>29844559
>>29844613
And yet the fact remains that Australia air sea gap radar network can detect stealth aircraft flying to and from Diego Garcia

>>29844686
>Cool story, fatnik. It's an integral part supplied with the SAM system.
As usual, vatnik lies from putins paid shills. Post proofs.

>Get shot
A plane could climb above the radar horizon, get of misslies off and dive down again before the drunken vatniks could even shamble to the radar screens.

>>29844668
No, exactly just from the front, just like any other stealth aircraft. Side RCS may easily be larger by an order of magnitude and the point is not to simply irradiate it from a side, but to irradiate it from all sides, putting return signals together and then forming an image of what is going on. It's not just two radars from each side.
>>29844676
>an aircraft
You realise that it alone can track more targets than the US has F-22's?

>>29844665

>/pol/ shitposting Trump to victory
>victory


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/04/upshot/electoral-map-trump-clinton.html

>>29844704
But they cannot track or guide missiles.
That's the thing, Russia might be able to see a f-22 on a search radar but they won't get a track on one.

>>29844704
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jindalee_Operational_Radar_Network

>>29844418
The buildup of military forces as part of Operation Desert Shield took 5 months bud.
>>29843845
Or more accurately with the SU gone the pimp hand keeping the Caucasus from removing themselves was no longer. Its not an accident people refer to that part of the world as another Balkans, even before the SU was even a thing.
>>29843946
MALD-As and MALD-Js don't have warheads.
>>29844010
The B-2 entered service with hunting Topols as one of its main missions. Come the Gulf War and we can't even reliably find those damn Scuds even with complete air dominance. What I'm saying is that something that is made for a purpose sometimes don't perform in the real world as good as thought or if ever, so you use it in another way.
Besides even if it proves ineffective against the Rooskies it would still be ordered because it still shits on pretty much everyone else in the world. More likely its going to be used against brown people and tinpot dictators only for its operational life anyway - like most other US weapons.

>>29844732
They could track missiles

The wedgetail AWACS could guide them I suppose

>>29844727
>implying he's even started on hillary
>In 1980, Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan in many polls this time of year. He went on to lose by 10 points.
>Trump is literally Reagan 2.0

>>29844704
JORN is a very powerful system and I've been told some very interesting things about its early operational history which makes me wonder how powerful it is today, but regardless, it doesn't change the fact that it's only useful as an early warning system.

>>29844717
>to irradiate it from all sides

And how exactly do you intend to do that? Remember, for one array to see the return of another array, you largely need to have the angles of reflection match up with the direction the receiving antenna is pointing. If the B-2 is (eg) 50km to the side of where you're pointing, you have to adjust not one, but both antennas to focus on that new area.

What that means is that you either have to have a fuckton of radars to create a super dense net (good luck), or you have to specially synchronise the rotations of the arrays (which is what I believe is done) to periodically scan various paths / lines in space.

All of this also assumes that you have enough radars to have several emission and reception points. If there's just (eg) 2 radar arrays, you're unlikely to have the angles match up, even if the B-2 flies right between them.

>>29844703
Sorry, Russia doesn't operate obsolete SAM systems.

>>29844732
>Project DUNDEE[25] was a cooperative research project, with American missile defence research, into using JORN to detect missiles.[26] The JORN was anticipated to play a role in future Missile Defense Agency initiatives, detecting and tracking missile launches in Asia.[27]

>project Dundee
>that's not an over the horizon radar

>>29844743
I mean guide missiles as in get a firing solution. Far too low reolution

>>29844744
Well that will happen when you promise to exchange arms for hostages after the election
>>29844750
In the 1990s it was detecting missile launches in China and cesnas flying in East Timor

File: this.jpg (201KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1280x800px

>>29834496
>Yes, using fucking 50 year old tech.
>Look at this from this side, a private company in US has made more progress in like 10 years than the fucking RUSSIA STRONG in the past 40 years.

>>29844752
Yet the russians rely on the pile of garbage that is the S-400.
I could fool that system with some party baloons and a piece of string.

>>29844766
No they haven't
And that private companies work is based entirely on government funded R&D
If the government hadn't been putting billions into rockets and missiles for the past 50 years AND providing the only market for it there would be no spacex to take advantage of that work once it got cheap enough

File: 1428939596561.png (109KB, 534x548px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 534x548px

>>29844620

>>29835749
Good stuff. I've read that terrain avoidance radar is one of the things that can be picked up passively.

>>29836256
>Which is why we have HARMs. You use HARMs first to degrade those ground defenses, THEN you use JSOWs on other targets, now that they can get through.

THIS. This guy knows what the fuck he's talking about. At the very least, this is how you attack:

1. Launch your JSOW at the SAM site.
2. Fire a HARM every two minutes at the fire control radar.
3. ???
4. Dead SAM.

Now it should be noted that modern SAMs like the S-300 and S-400 are good enough that they can actually engage HARMs themselves, instead of being forced to shut off... but once you add jamming support, hitting a small supersonic target like the HARM is fucking hard. Add in TALDs and MALDs and you're going to force them to chew through their loaded missiles very fast. This is how you defeat an IADS, via saturation. Strictly speaking not a single HARM has to actually, uh, inflict harm to be successful; as long as you can get even one JSOW to the target, it'll powerfuck *everything.*

The go-to weapon since anti-SAM SEAD was invented in Vietnam has always been the cluster bomb. The JSOW is a huge-ass cluster bomb with a 40-60 mile standoff advantage. But since it's a glide bomb it needs to come in high, wide and handsome; and it sure as hell can't make any terminal evasive maneuvers. JSOW-ER will really, really help with that; letting it come in under the radar horizon.

Then again we could just use the cluster Tomahawk for that job right now.

File: 1408868838925.jpg (38KB, 258x254px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 258x254px

>>29844668
I thought B-21 was supposed to be a cheaper option to the B-2

>>29843921
>>29843997
>>29844000
MALD-J's SAS is supposed to sqawk back in whatever bands it was being illuminated in to disguise itself, instead of utilizing passive RCS enhancing elements like luneberg lenses that only perform at narrow bands anyway. Whether it also performs as efficiently in the sqawking across all anticipated bands is another issue but its pretty much certain it won't. There's a reason why radars with different operating bandwidths look a lot different than each other you know.

File: ADM-141_TALD_and_ADM-141C_ITALD_decoy_missiles_on_display.jpg (1MB, 2848x2136px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2848x2136px

>>29836692
>You see, S-300/400 never travels alone. It doesn't intercept incoming munition. It's entirely able to, but it is not it's job. Every battery is supplemented with close-to-mid range systems whose primary design purpose is to protect SAM from Taurus, Storm Shadow, JSOW and AGM-88. Each of these batteries can be networked to provide dense AD coverage against both jet and missile targets. The Pantsir S1/2 and Tunguska can be deployed as a single autonomous unit as well, to provide point defense for both stationary and mobile ground assets.

vatnik pls

>>29844789
why would you need terrain avoidance radar? lol
topographical maps are very accurate

File: russian bait.png (103KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 625x626px

>>29836551
>I have never been wearing a fucking tracksuit or even seen a damn bear. I like vodka and squat when waiting for something, but that's it. Stop that shit, it's annoying. Your lifes don't revolve about war for oil, bacon and burgers, i guess. Why the fuck do you insist on thinking we all wear fucking tracksuits

Largely because it pisses you off, actually.

>>29836911
>Operational ranges of AGM-88 and 48N6/40N6 missile pretty much say it all. Even taking radar's ground clutter into account there will always be at least ~100km gap between the aircraft's safe zone and the distane from where it can effectively launch missile or drone.

This is exactly what the Growler exists for. And the F-35. F-35s supported by Growlers == no problemo.

File: russian radar coverage.jpg (159KB, 802x452px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 802x452px

>>29844750
The point is not to see the return of another array, but to combine return signals from different arrays using different bands at different directions.
>you either have to have a fuckton of radars to create a super dense net
Welcome to the Russian airspace.

>>29844795
It will; advances in stealth mean more durable less maintenance-intensive stealth. Making it ~30% smaller than the B-2 also brings down cost heaps. Using largely off-the-shelf technology like from the F-35 makes it even cheaper. Producing 100 instead of 20 also spreads out the cost of R&D and drives down production costs.

>>29844717
>ou realise that it alone can track more targets than the US has F-22's?
Sure thing, if it manages to track such quantity of VLO planes after getting BTFO by SEAD operations and countless of MALDs being spammed

>protip: it can't after getting BTFO

>>29842174

Rocket engines, bro. The rocket engines are fucking expensive. They can ditch the damn fuselage, it's just a cheap fuel tank anyways. But the engines? Those are expensive as shit. If you can reuse them even a few times, you make real bank. Also the payload loss is very small. Satellites do not always weigh exactly what the max payload of the rocket is. There's almost always some wiggle room. And it takes very little fuel to land the rocket - it just keeps falling on its suborbital tajectory, and uses the last smidgen of fuel to deaccelerate for a soft landing - the so-called "suicide burn."

>>29844775

That's generally the way it works, bro, the gubbamint funds the cutting-edge shit and the private companies do what they do best; making it affordable enough for regular use.

>>29844814
>but to combine return signals from different arrays using different bands at different directions.
That's essentially the same thing, but with >2 arrays. The point that I'm saying is that unless the B-2 flies in from Europe, through the thick of that net, you'll struggle to get the required gain on weak off-angle returns from diffraction. In the pic shown for example, the US would probably launch from somewhere like the UAE and Iraq / Afghanistan, flying up around the bulk of those defences, shooting their way through a few S-400s and then sliding through the back door to deliver stand-off munitions.

Another issue as well with that kind of detection is that you need to be networked to those radars to know things like time of pulse. Because you're on the ground and don't have LOS, that means you have to either have wired networks, (which is either hard to set up if you want a military-exclusive network, or vulnerable to Stuxnet-like viruses if you use civilian networks with military tunnelling), or you can use non-LOS radio comms, which makes you vulnerable to being geolocated by F-22s, F-35s, special drones, etc.

File: USAF_F16C_block_87-0257_remains.jpg (58KB, 800x542px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 800x542px

>>29844821
>Can't even properly suppress Iraqi SAM network from 50s
>Talks shit

>>29836551
>Your lifes don't revolve about war for oil, bacon and burgers, i guess.

fuck you, yes they do

>>29844732
>But they cannot track or guide missiles.
Its a search radar duh, its the targeting and engagement radars job to track and guide the missile on to the target, only in this case since it (targeting radar) can't exactly track the target itself it shoots it to a projected point in space instead where the missile's active seeker can do its job. Interestingly, OTH engagements mean the interceptor follows neat high trajectories (to maintain LOS with the tracking radar as much as possible) that would likely have the interceptor closing in on the intercept point from above, offering a favorable aspect for the active seeker against the stealthy B-2 or B-21, unless they twist themselves 90 degrees.
>That's the thing, Russia might be able to see a f-22 on a search radar but they won't get a track on one.
I can't find the source(its in slav runes, just translated so i'm having a fucking good time running potential search terms on a translator then to a search engine) but the Russians tested their VHF radars on really small drones with even smaller RCS from a considerable distance and managed to track them. But of course the trackbox is supposed to be enormous but one of the designers supposed it was small enough anyway for an active seeker on an interceptor to work on.

>>29844872
How many Nighthawks got BTFO my slavic friend?

Take down just one of those radars, and they are almost blind

>>29844603
it is, they just figured out it was cheaper to let the commies do it

>>29842174
space shuttle has nothing to do with what spacex is doing
space shuttle needed refurbishment because it was a piece of shit
not because a rocket automatically has to be refurbished after 300 seconds of burning

>>29844844
It's not the same thing. And no, you do not require to point 15 arrays at B-2 in order to track it. You require one system to be deployed for possible target protection.

>>29844894
Too bad for you Russian doesn't use "one of those radars", you know the shit from 50s US is only capable to engage.

>>29844752
Radar systems age has nothing to do with it.

>>29834462
Anyone over the age of 30 knows Russia is a giant third world country with the tech to match.

Communism stifles innovation. If they can't copy someone else, they'll come up with something that does the job, but in a most rudimentary way. They're clever people, and great at doing more with less, but it doesn't change the fact that they haven't been ahead of the curve since Sputnik...

File: soyuz tma-18m.jpg (124KB, 1600x1065px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1600x1065px

>>29844899
Delta and Atlas are suited for manned launches? Lol.

>>29844934
I'm sure that's what you want to believe. Elsewise you'll have to accept the fact that Iraqi SAM network, the best US has ever faced in its entire history, was just a bunch of rusted crap from 50s.

File: Yuri-Gagarin.jpg (54KB, 600x340px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x340px

>>29844937
>Communism stifles innovation
Kek. USSR was never communist though. The more you know.

>>29844937

>Communism stifles innovation

That's a very broad statement, in case of USSR you certainly can apply this to consumer goods production, but not to defense sector. There were a lot of healthy competition between different design bureaus (all of them staffed by the absolute best of soviet scientific and engineering minds), it was all taken very seriously.

File: america fuck you.png (87KB, 374x375px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 374x375px

>>29844948
>Elsewise you'll have to accept the fact that Iraqi SAM network, the best US has ever faced in its entire history, was just a bunch of rusted crap from 50s.

Most US aircraft losses were attrition from very low-level fire. Of course, it doesn't matter, because we're filthy fucking rich and we can afford to replace every single one, and we've got a shitfuckton sitting around already.

Stay mad you serb goatraper

>>29844796
It's mostly the receiver that's the finicky part of different radars. If you want to be able to get anything useful out of the return echo you need to have very specialised receivers. The transmitter is a glorified microwave in most cases. It is safe to assume that the MALD-J is nearly indistinguishable from the real target or it would be utterly useless for the task it'S meant to do.
To mess with SA-2 or other soviet era junk, the US already had stuff that did so more than well. The MALD-J is specifically designed to deal with the latest russian or Chinese SAMs, if it was easy to distinguish from the real target, the US would not base their doctrines so heavily on using it.

>>29844808
sigh. standoff offensive jamming only works if you manage to reach the signal saturation threshold before his weapon can reach you . Considering the S-400's interceptors include a 400km range missile (NEZ is generally a third of max range, so half to 2/3s of max range is generally closer to 90% chance of a hit in case of two missiles per target.), and the Gravestones a fuck huge and powerful radar the chances of a Growler even coming back from attempting to jam are not likely.

>>29844963
Doesn't matter what it's called it's an unrealizable utopia made by some freeloading rich asshole who dropped out of the eras equvilent of gender poltics course, never worked a day in his life. It's a retarded ideology held in high regard by people who are lazy cunts, an ideology that has always failed and will always failed.

>>29845013

>It's a retarded ideology held in high regard by people who are lazy cunts

In soviet union unemployment was a CRIMINAL OFFENCE. You could literally be sent to jail for being lazy. And yes, the state guaranteed a job for everyone (not necessary a good job, ofc).

>>29842174
asteroid mining

>>29844993
Then its COTS and disposable nature works against itself here, the transmitter won't likely replicate something like the hundreds if not thousands of beams with different frequencies of an AESA for example.

File: USSR 1.jpg (1MB, 1746x2552px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1746x2552px

>>29845013
>Lazy
You just went full retard. Never go full retard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_%28social_offense%29#Soviet_Union

>>29844997
>sigh. standoff offensive jamming only works if you manage to reach the signal saturation threshold before his weapon can reach you . Considering the S-400's interceptors include a 400km range missile (NEZ is generally a third of max range, so half to 2/3s of max range is generally closer to 90% chance of a hit in case of two missiles per target.), and the Gravestones a fuck huge and powerful radar the chances of a Growler even coming back from attempting to jam are not likely.

Then you clearly don't know very much at all about the Growler. To launch a weapon *at all* you need to have a firm track on the target to begin with, which is what the Growler's jamming prevents - it effectively decreases the range of the enemy's targeting radars. They certainly know the general direction you're in, but they can't pin you down nearly well enough to light you up with a missile guidance radar; which is a pencil-thin beam. Russkie systems use track-via-missile (like most do,) which is just glorified SARH. You *need* a firm fix on the target's location for that.

What you DON'T need a firm fix for is launching a weapon that can guide itself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_%28missile%29#Missiles

Why do you think the Russkies even bothered with active-radar missiles? Because there's a range wherein the jammed radars can discern the target's location to a fairly narrow area, but still can't pinpoint them enough to keep tracking them with a targeting radar. But you CAN launch an active-guided missile at them, confident that the missile can find the target itself once it arrives. You think they would have bothered making those very costly missiles if they weren't aware of this problem?

>>29844636
>muh shutting off radars

>meanwhile 3 decade old HARMs can still go after last known location
>Newer ones have their own seekers
>ALARM
>having to turn off your radar means you've been effectively suppressed
>this somehow doesn't count for vatniks

kek

>minimal launch altitude

>vatniks don't know that even the fucking standard ARM and AS-37 could do popup maneuvers

Every single one of these threads is based around vatniks being willfully ignorant. It's amazing.

>>29844717
>You realise that it alone can track more targets than the US has F-22's?

You realize there's a difference between detection and tracking, right? Even 1960s era civilian air traffic could track hundreds of aircraft.

>>29844997
Jamming is more effective the further away you are from the radar. The Tombstones are powerful but the growler only need to overcome the echo. I highly doubt you know what the burnthrough distance of the S-400 is versus a growler since the data needed from both US and russia is classified.
Given the fact that russia tend to integrate comprehensive home-on-jam capability in their systems it's safe to assume that they believe that jamming is a source of concern.

>>29845064
>Jamming is more effective the further away you are from the radar. The Tombstones are powerful but the growler only need to overcome the echo. I highly doubt you know what the burnthrough distance of the S-400 is versus a growler since the data needed from both US and russia is classified.

This, this, THIS. Again, the inverse-square law - the further away you are, the less energy from the radar is hitting your plane, ergo, the weaker the return echo is. Standoff jamming like the Growler exists to shorten the effective engagement range of enemy systems.

That's exactly why the Russians are trying to push their SAM systems engagement range out as far as possible, with both weapon range and radar emitter power; so even when their performance is cut in half, they can still pick up and engage incoming aircraft at a decent distance.

Can't the US just blow it up with their new railgun?

>>29845077
Railguns are naval artillery for now.

File: 1462402101413.gif (120KB, 365x507px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 365x507px

>>29845077
>Can't the US just blow it up with their new railgun?

More right than you know, actually.

Here's what it takes to penetrate an Integrated Air Defense System:

>AWACS birds in the air to provide comprehensive battlespace coverage
>Fighters patrolling to beat off enemy air-to-air fighters and maintain air supremecy
>The initial SEAD wave - carrying HARMs to suppress enemy radars, and launching MALDs/TALDs to stimulate and suppress SAM sites
>The Growlers, to jam the ever-loving fuck out of hostile radars
>The actual strike package, firing JASSMs or JSOWs or whatever to actually hit the targets

Here's what it takes with the Long-Ranged-Gun and/or the railgun:

>Two ships.

Because while SAMs can shoot down incoming missiles and bombs pretty handily, it's still pretty fucking hard to shoot down an incoming artillery shell. And an incoming railgun slug? Kiss your ass goodbye. And both the artillery shells and the railgun slugs are fucking CHEAP. For a single HARM you can fire ten of those long-ranged arty shells and probably a hundred railgun shots.

>>29845060

So if 20 (non stealth ) planes come into S400 range, how many could it shoot down before getting jdamed?

>>29844802
Considering that its installed on things like the F-16, someone uses it. And that's not the point in the end. The point is that the arrayed system also potentially looks for signals coming from sources like that. That's the point. It is looking for multiple sources to get a clearer image of what is out there.

>>29845102
How are you aiming the railguns?

>>29845169
terrain following bullets

>>29845169

Satellite recon, for the fixed emplacements. For more mobile stuff (i.e. SAMs) you've got a variety of reconnaissance options. The most effective would probably be just stimulating the defenses in the conventional way - a simulated attack supported by TALD decoys - and once your airborne electronic signal intercept gear has detected and pinpointed enemy emitters, you skip the entire massive effort needed to help your conventional missiles/bombs get through and just hit them with railgun shit.

This is greatly enhanced if the munitions themselves can find their way a bit, and... well, they can. The next version of Excalibur can engage moving targets on its own with an IR imaging seeker; they're slating the Advanced Long Range Gun projectiles for the same tech - and guided railgun rounds are on the table as well, they're working on those right now. Then you won't need to pinpoint the target, just get it within a few hundred meters and let it find its own way from there.

>>29845051
>Fatnik can't understand the difference between "shutting radar down" and "briefly deactivating transmission"
>Fatnik thinks AGM-88E is three decades old
>Fatnik thinks the RDS does nothing but simply simply turning the radar off
Kek indeed.
>popup
Get shot.
>>29845060
You realise this system was specifically developed to neglect the advantage of stealth?

>>29845193
I was going to say the same thing, but in thinking about it; the shells themselves would be GPS+INS guided. In a war against Russia, there's going to be GPS jammers out the wazoo. Still, nothing says they can't develop anti-radiation shells or some form of laser / IR / millimeter radar guidance.

>>29845193
Satellite recon isn't time sensitive or reliable enough for such things.

Tracking if carriers are in port? sure. AA emplacements of an enemy that is aware of your satellites (considering they're on a fixed orbit, even easier) fuck no.

> The most effective would probably be just stimulating the defenses in the conventional way

Making it no longer a two ship effort.

File: asdfasdf.jpg (2MB, 4256x2832px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4256x2832px

>>29845200
>You realise this system was specifically developed to neglect the advantage of stealth?
You do realise this system was specifically developed to negate the advantage of the S-400?

File: arguing with vatniks.jpg (137KB, 516x1599px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 516x1599px

>>29845200
>if i briefly turn off the transmission, that will surely stop the missile from coming when it already knows the location and can guide itself there!

jej

>thinks only the AGM-88E only ARM ever to have multiple seekers

my sides have entered fucking orbit

>neglect

this word, it doesn't mean what you think it does, shillski

So what stage are we at? Are we only in Denial?

File: 55zh6me nebo-me (2).jpg (249KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1000x667px

>>29845213
Are you implying F-35 is stealthier than F-22, lol?
>S-400
I'm talking about Nebo. Follow the posts before replying, dumbass.

>>29845226
>Are you implying F-35 is stealthier than F-22, lol?


They specifically said it is.

Newer RAM, newer technology.

>>29845224
>Fatnik can't understand the difference between "shutting radar down" and "briefly deactivating transmission"
>Fatnik thinks AGM-88E is three decades old
>Fatnik thinks the RDS does nothing but simply simply turning the radar off
>Fatnik is memeposting
No, fatnik, we're at the "nigga u mad" stage.

>>29844937

>anyone over the age of 30 is probably living in the mindset of late 90s and early 00s, when they learned about the world.
ffgj
Welcome to 2016 btw, it's been 1/4 of a century since communism dissolved. Things change, like it or not.

>>29845234
Was it a part of that statement when they used designated metal golf ball units to describe its RCS?

>>29845245
That statement came out before the first F-35 was even built, let alone flown or RCS tested.

>>29845200
>briefly deactivating transmission

...you do know that standard procedure is to keep firing HARMs at the target every two minutes or so, right? Turn on your radar at ANY time and you'll get your ass blammed.

>>29845205
>In a war against Russia, there's going to be GPS jammers out the wazoo.

We already have a GPS jam-resistant version in service, and the next version of the shell currently in development will incorporate the "attack moving target" capability as well as backup inertial guidance. Inertial guidance is more than good enough to get the shell near enough for its own IR seeker to pick out the target.

>>29845245

>The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/

>"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx

>During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

>Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”

www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

>>29845263
Jam-resistant =/= jam-proof (and there pretty much is no such thing as the latter). But I do agree / believe they'll add active terminal guidance before too long.

File: pak fa.png (2MB, 1895x865px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1895x865px

>it's stealth vs radar thread again

Time for daily reminder
1) https://www.quora.com/What-is-photonic-radar-technology-Specifically-radio-optical-phased-array-antenna-aka-ROFAR
2) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7492/full/nature13078.html
3) http://kret.com/en/news/4057/

>>29845269
>Jam-resistant =/= jam-proof (and there pretty much is no such thing as the latter). But I do agree / believe they'll add active terminal guidance before too long.

It really doesn't need GPS at all to hit SAMs - inertial guidance is more than good enough to get it close to the target (200m CEP) and once its there the IR image-matching seeker can find and pick a target (even a moving target) without a problem.

There's a reason they have the GPS jam-resistant version in service already - they're keenly aware of the problem. I don't think there's a GPS guided weapon in service that isn't capable of backup inertial guidance operation.

File: tfw f35.jpg (62KB, 900x500px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 900x500px

>>29845213
Maybe that was the idea back in the 80s, you know, era where this design actually belongs. A semi-stealthy aircraft intended to perform treetop-skimming supersonic deep-penetration attack runs into East Germany and Czechoslovakia into the teeth of the Soviet SAMs and air defense radars, on a probably-one-way mission to drop tactical nukes on GSFG and Central Group of Forces before they could reach the front lines.
Now that the Russians have air-to-air missiles that can engage BVR missiles, and ground based radar that can track F-35's with air-based radar on the way this capability has no utility in the US Air Force anno 2016. The only casualties it will ever cause would be underweight pilots killed by seat ejection or fainthearted US generals on Pentagon press briefings.

>>29845291

/k/'s problem is that they believe in wunderwaffe.

stealth is not bad, because it may give you an edge. being butthurt about the fact that it doesn't make you invincible is a marker for underage cretin.

File: 138.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>29845298
/k/'s problem is retards like you replying to VERY, VERY obvious meme copypasta posts. Lurk more.

>>29845274
Might be interesting, but its purely theoretical right now. Doesn't really factor into current warfare.

>>29845236
>Fatnik thinks AGM-88E is three decades old

Point out any place where this is even vaguely implied :^)

>>29845180
We've developed tiny F-111 the size of boolits

>>29845263
How are you going to fire HARM at the target every two minutes if you'll get shot after the first pop-up?
>>29845269
>The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s
From which aspect?
>>29845340
>3 decade old HARMs can still go after last known location
>AGM-88E intended to counter radar shutdown

>>29845291
>A semi-stealthy aircraft intended to perform treetop-skimming supersonic deep-penetration attack runs into East Germany and Czechoslovakia into the teeth of the Soviet SAMs

Wew lad, is this what all vatniks think the f-35 is designed to do?

>>29845298
Stealth is not a wunderwaffe, it is not a very common design element of many airframes. Its not the 60's anymore.

File: TRUMPED.png (616KB, 680x487px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 680x487px

>>29845399
>3 decade old HARMs can still go after last known location
>AGM-88E intended to counter radar shutdown

>he doesn't know that the very first production run of HARM could go after last known location
>Even ARMs and Martels could do it

File: 1268693722271.png (25KB, 494x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 494x400px

>>29845446
>AGM-88E intended to counter radar shutdown
>AGM-88 could do that all this time! The US outplayed everyone!

>>29834465

Explain again why A1's and F4's in Vietnam were shot down by semi active SA-2's with only one radar station per battery again? There was no early warning system to overlap multiple missile batteries, that is how Wild Weasels took them out. That is also how SA-2's got kills within only visual range. The actual fire control radar is stronger in scanning and targeting, at a shorter range though. It didn't stop a F-117 from getting shot down by a SA-3.

File: stealth.png (83KB, 950x572px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 950x572px

>>29845291
>semi-stealthy
>SEMI-stealthy

You know, I used to think this too. I used to think the F-35 was like the F-22, where the stealth characteristics were secondary to the asskicking characteristics. That the stealth was there to enhance it's ability as a super-maneuverable ultra-smart wicked-fast rape machine.

I was wrong.

The F-35 isn't as good a fighter as the F-22... because every time a choice came down to sacrificing performance or sacrificing stealth, they nicked performance. It doesn't supercruise, it cruises at Mach 0.9. It's got vectored thrust and all, but it's not truly "supermaneuverable." Why? Because they built this fucking thing to be absofuckinglutely invisible.

I'm not fucking with you. Go look up the best estimates of the F-22 and the F-35s RCS and you'll see some shit, man. The F-35 is a fucking *ghost.* It is a direct counter to the area denial strategies being utilized by Russia and China. This plane is designed to go where the fuck it wants, when the fuck it wants.

File: 1301030037890.jpg (5KB, 175x171px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 175x171px

>>29845399
>How are you going to fire HARM at the target every two minutes if you'll get shot after the first pop-up?
>having to pop-up

That's what standoff jamming from the Growlers are for. It's not like a fucking F-18 has the range to crawl around on the deck for two hundred miles anyways, you know?

>>29845522
The F-35 is entirely supermanouverable.

One of the most supermanouverable jets ever made.

File: 798.png (306KB, 593x540px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 593x540px

>>29845463
Show me a version of the AGM-88 that didn't have INS. Or better yet, read AAR from Operation El Dorado Canyon.

>>29845530
>arguing with vatniks

Anon..

>>29845535

I think so too. You'll find people bitching that it's not TRUE 5TH GEN because it doesn't supermaneuver hard enough. Just like they'll say it can't supercruise because it cruises at Mach 0.9 instead of mach 1.1.

>>29845463

The first anti-radiation missile was the Shrike, introduced to Vietnam to fuck up SA-2 sites. The SA-2 operators quickly learned to use "RF shutoff techniques," i.e. turning off the radars. The successor missile was the ARM, which naturally included a simple switch to keep it aimed at the last known point if it lost track of the radar. The HARM and every variant thereof has the same feature, naturally.

This doesn't make RF shutoff tactics bad; they still work. In Desert Storm we used the volley-launch technique with HARMs; we didn't even care if they hit or not, as long as they kept the radars off and the SAMs suppressed. And some of them hit anyway. If you shut off your radar early enough, the missile will "wander," think of it as MOA limitations in a gun. The "pattern" is wider the further away the missile is. (That does mean you have to shut off a lot earlier to make sure the missile misses you by a decent margin.) So even the AGM-88C will be used in the volley-launch mode.

But the AGM-88E incorporates its own terminal radar seeker; it can attack land targets other than just radars and such - and if you try to shut off to dodge it, it can turn on its radar and fucking hunt you down itself. It's a pretty scary fuckin weapon.

>>29845554

I do it mostly to make sure they can't mislead anyone, desu.

Also I'm bored.

>>29845587
Gotta make sure putins paid shills work for their potatoes.

File: 1455781980669.jpg (64KB, 561x604px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 561x604px

this thread again

>>29841935
>They have AWACS
So something an AMRAAM or two can take out? Not much of a stop-gap.

>>29845407
>Its not the 60's anymore.

It is in many heads.

>>29845324

>purely theoretical

that's why I linked you an article by people who built one in their garage, and who got a publication in a #1 scientific journal of the planet.

>>29845817
We have "working" fusion reactors too.

File: 1462094666133.png (978KB, 1822x846px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 1822x846px

>>29836551
>Your lifes don't revolve about war for oil, bacon and burgers, i guess.
ARE YOU TRYING TO CLAIM I AM NOT AS AMERICAN AS PIC RELATED
JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP

>>29845817
>that's why I linked you an article by people who built one in their garage, and who got a publication in a #1 scientific journal of the planet.

Hey, I found it to be fucking fascinating. LASERS generating radio waves? This shit is fucking wild.

File: f35f22comp.png (116KB, 1014x714px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1014x714px

>>29845234
Lol who is this 'they' huh?

The F-22 is better at stealth, the F-35 has the budget version stealth, and this is public record.

File: 1393570681488.jpg (22KB, 378x273px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 378x273px

>>29846278
>the 20 year old plane made in the 80s has better stealth

sir I do not believe you

>>29846278
>Lol who is this 'they' huh?
>>29845269

>>29846379
Then believe Lockheed Martin you shill.

File: graph.png (16KB, 634x571px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 634x571px

>>29846432
>Then believe Lockheed Martin you shill.

Oh, he's talking tough shit because he has a GRAPH. Well I have one too, smarty-pants. Check it.

>>29846451
You know you should really use google and learn the basics about a subject before you try to lecture others on it, right?

The F-22 has the very best stealth money can buy, it's actually defeated a good VHF radar (the kind that's been deployed to counter stealth) in the field. It's effectively stealthed against all sorts of different radars, IR detection, etc. This is why it's banned from export, they used every trick they had on it.

The F-35 has the budget version stealth. It's primarily effective against X-band which is typically used by short-range targeting radars, making it much harder to acquire and keep a missile lock on it, and on that narrow band it's supposed to be roughly as good as the F-22. But only on that band.