Russian Capablitilies part II: Eletic bogaloo

>>31710620

Whoops, OP was meant in response to >>31710446

>>31710635
>>31710620
>guy thinks russia has Cooperative Engagement Capability.

Wew laddy, they are in the 90s right now, trying to build a cohesive airborne battle network.

Pretty fucking funny shit to think they got to CEC levels of a battle web.

>>31710719

Yeah, its a bit weird why he would imply Russia has this, when they clearly don't, hence why i asked for proof.

>>31710776
Its not "weird", guy was talking out of his ass, because he wanted to "win".

Russians dont have CEC, end of discussion.

Now, out spamming russian IADN seems valid, which is interesting...

>>31710635
>2 tankers
>a "logistical burden"

Vattys sure like to shitpost huh?

File: 1443834921_xxl2028229.jpg (288KB, 850x600px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 850x600px

>>31710827
Outspamming. Ok, let's do the math.

There are 100-120 divisions of S-300 (including S-300V4 with 400km range). Which is 1000 launch pads, 4 missiles in 4 tubes accordingly. Which translates into 4000 currently armed and loaded missiles. The missiles are mostly 48N6DM (280km) and 9M82MV (400km). Wikipedia will give you the number of 1900 launch pads, but that includes systems in storage and obsolete ones like S-300PT/PS/PMU, S-300V, etc.

Then there are 23 divisions of S-400, which is 184 launch pads with 4 missiles in each. If math holds true those are 736 currently loaded missiles.

And those are just S-300/400 without whole set of mid-to-low range air-defense like Buks, Pantsirs and Tors. Just the loaded ones, google how long it takes to reload S-300/400 if you like

What we do next is take the entire USN/USAF aircraft fleet, disregarding how many of those even flyable right now, miraculously lift them all in the air, and simultaneously 'spam' them all into Russian airspace.

United States have exactly zero chances at 'outspamming' Russian SAMs. And when you remember about Russian emphasis on ground EWAR assets, those chances are rapidly going down into negative values. Mind you, that is strictly russian air-defense vs. USN/USAF calculus, not even adding Russia's own air force into equation. Totally disregarding how every airfield in Europe lies within range of Russian stand-off cruise missiles.

But wait, let's look a bit further into future. By 2020, Russian AD will be fully rearmed with S-400, S-300V4, Pantsir-M, Tor-M2 and Buk-3M + S-350 with 12 9M96 (36 9M100) missiles in each launch pad. At that point, any scenario of air offensive against russia, even backed by the entire NATO airpower, belongs to the realm science fiction.

So no, anon, "outspamming" IADS is not a very sane idea. Assuming you don't want to see the entire US air force annihilated in the process.

>>31711130
>taking two forces and compareing them as if they would face each other on a 1:1 basis

This would be true if the sam system's any where close to being as manuverable tactically as jets.

They are not. From one air base you can pick and choose where to attack, and with what. Hence the defeat in detail. US systems don't have to fight every sam system russia has, they just have to fight the minimum amount necessary to achive whatever objectives they have.

>>31711130
>If math holds true those are 736 currently loaded missiles.

The USAF has over 5,000 aircraft.

Your move.

Dos the USAF or the US government even have the guts to sacrifice a significant portion of its pilots and airforce in a purely attrition-based scenario?

>>31711528
The missiles would do the majority of the dying. Why get in range of assets you dont need to?

>>31711130
>Implying SAMs have a 100% kill rate

Threadly reminder that yes, the s300 and similar systems can shoot at f35s and similar systems. They can, hypothetically, turn on the X-band radar and pump enough electricity into it to get a lock on stealthed aircraft at some range. This is not, however, mean that said aircraft(or anything with a radar, really) would not see this lighthouse of electromagnetic radiation farther away and be able to react to it sooner. This is based on, as I'm sure you all know by now, the law of inverse returns. Based on, as I'm sure you all know by now, the law of inverse returns. In essence, the entire purpose of stealth.

>>31711130

We wouldn't be spamming them with b-52s. we'd be spamming them with ADM-160s, cruise missiles and stealth aircraft supported by the greatest airborne jamming and cyberwarfare the world has ever seen.

>>31711130
That's fucking retarded. You don't take the combined assets of two nations and throw them together.

You have to assume some fixed of various IADS assets that would reasonably be deployed to cover an area, and based on those, figure out how many JASSMs or other missiles it would take to overwhelm those defenses, and how many fighters you would need to protect the bombers from interceptors.

>>31711737
*fixed number of