SA-10

[RedTiger]

Are there actually countries that the US-minded side sees as a 'threat' that have a decent air defense system along with space based assets?

 

I think the fear (certainly for the US and NATO and maybe for Russia) is that someone, shall we say, irresponsible will buy these types of things in enough numbers to cause a local threat. Russia and the US have mothballed the idea of a full out World War 3 scenario I think. Today we disagree with each other either on global military intervention (I'd include the revival of what is basically SDI to be part of this) and/or the company we keep and who we're selling weapons to. Also, I don't forsee the US adopting a "defensive stance" for a very long time, global opinion be damned.

 

I'd say even during the Cold War when the US millitary industry was designing kit for "defending" Europe, that "defense" actually was quite offensive in nature because that industrial complex was based all the way across the Atlantic. It couldn't rely on mass of numbers of reinforcements or centralized control down to the last rifleman, it all had to be self-contained and available to go offensive as soon as an attack was repelled. This continues today. Its all about projection of power and bringing that power to bear on very short notice. Thats about as offensive as you can get. Now, the reasons why the US maintains this capabilty are surely controvesial to many, Russia included. I think the controversy here is what causes all the sabre-rattling and muscle-flexing.

[GGTharos]

Yep ... all the US hardware was built to take the fight to the enemy. And it had to be!

[SoaringEagle74]

Uhm, no. Patriot and S300-400 give you, INDIVIDUALLY, 15-20nm low-altitude coverage against a tactical aircraft.

 

15-20 miles coverage? LMAO! The plane would probably have to fly below 10 meters agl to escape getting hit and even then it would probably crash into telephone or electrical cables if not get shot down by a manpad or shilka.

 

If the invading power knows your position/configuration, you're screwed, 'cause they can attrit it within a few hours since your IADS loses ANY semblance of a surprise factor it may have had. I doesn't matter /one whit/ what sort of SAMs you've got in it.

 

How can they attrit it within a few hours? If the coverage is thorough enough it will be one hell of a challenge even for a super power. Why do you think the usa had to go to such extreme measures such as cruise missile strikes from offshore, stealth air attacks, low flying gunships, sabotaging radars through computer viruses, etc??

 

GGTharos,

 

I am not saying ground radar is impenetrable nor that air power is trivial however air defense buys you time which in itself is very important. Please don't downplay its importance because that is wrong!

[SoaringEagle74]

^ Yes, countries with developed air defence structures have an integrated air/ground assets, and it may very well be the reason the US is choosing to develop UCAVs to counter that without loss of life. However, they also assume the next threat will be inferior in terms of air/ground defence and that those will be scattered all over the country without communications between them. Oh well, IMHO the US and Russia should cut the crap concerning their show of power and the US and NATO should assume a DEFENSIVE stance, no need to start a world war 3.

Are there actually countries that the US-minded side sees as a 'threat' that have a decent air defense system along with space based assets?

 

As far as I know, the SDI was only intended to intercept ICBMs. Its not for shooting down planes although rumors abound that they can shoot aircraft down, destroy ground targets, sea targets, cities, etc. I guess few people know the extent of SDI. I even remember reading they can shoot ufos and inbound meteors if need be.

 

I don't think there will be a ww3 anytime soon, at least hopefully not. Its probably safe to assume people have matured to the point where they can see the danger in this. Mutually assurred destruction!

 

This show of power is nothing more than bravado and intimidation towards inferior nations. Do what your told or else!:D Its also a way to keep the military industry going full speed in manufacturing new and old weapons. If they stop producing hardware thousands of employees will lose their jobs and companies will go out of business. No government can live with such consequences...jobs=votes and votes=power.

[GGTharos]

The way to educate yourself here (ie. get a clue) is to find and look at actual combat procedures for such systems.

You're horribly misjudging the spacial relationships generated by the interaction of volume that needs to be defended, defender's vulnerability footprint, and the number of air defense assets available to cover the space you wish to cover.

 

So LMAO all you like, but you won't be laughing so much when you acquire a clue ;)

 

SAMs are a speedbump. Period.

 

15-20 miles coverage? LMAO! The plane would probably have to fly below 10 meters agl to escape getting hit and even then it would probably crash into telephone or electrical cables if not get shot down by a manpad or shilka.

 

 

 

How can they attrit it within a few hours? If the coverage is thorough enough it will be one hell of a challenge even for a super power. Why do you think the usa had to go to such extreme measures such as cruise missile strikes from offshore, stealth air attacks, low flying gunships, sabotaging radars through computer viruses, etc??

 

GGTharos,

 

I am not saying ground radar is impenetrable nor that air power is trivial however air defense buys you time which in itself is very important. Please don't downplay its importance because that is wrong!

[AlexHunter]

Yep ... all the US hardware was built to take the fight to the enemy. And it had to be!

 

It is not necessary to be a great analyst, that to understand that it not so. Anxiety about the safety at the USA, it is possible to compare to the maniac at which house mountain of weapon and from fear for the safety he is ready to cut out all of neighbours in neighbourhood.

 

Possibly will new power in the USA revise it external a politician, on reasonable or for acquittal all increasing and groundless expenses on armaments in the USA constantly will search the transmitters of evil and threat society from outside??

 

riginal:Не надо быть великим аналитиком, чтоб понять, что это не так. Забота об своей безопасности у США, можно сравнить с маньяком у которого дома гора оружия и из страха за свою безопасность он готов вырезать в округе всех соседей.

 

Возможно новая власть в США пересмотрит свою внешнею политику, на разумную или для оправдания все возрастающих и необоснованных затрат на вооружения в США постоянно будут искать носителей зла и угрозу обществу из вне?? :)

[TucksonSonny]

The F-22 was a cold war project to deal with the S-300. The question is: “Will it deal also with the S-400?”

We even don’t know if it would deal with the 300.

 

We do know that the F-117 and the F-22 can’t deal with the latest generation Patriots. Why would it with the S-400?:megalol:

[AlexHunter]

The F-22 was a cold war project to deal with the S-300. The question is: “Will it deal also with the S-400?”

We even don’t know if it would deal with the 300.

 

We do know that the F-117 and the F-22 can’t deal with the latest generation Patriots. Why would it with the S-400?:megalol:

 

 

If to talk about S400 that he strongly from S-300 does not differ, there only new RLS (which will utillize and on S-300 on the program of modernization), the most important difference it in a new long-range rocket.

 

New ZUR is intended for the primary defeat of airplanes of DRLO and REB, air KP, strategic bombers, OTBR and BRSD on distance a to 400 km

 

ZUR 9962 differs more powerful engine, greater length, starting mass and distance of defeat. Their efficiency approximately in 2 times higher than possibilities of ZUR "Patriot" of RACES-3 and "Aster". In addition, "Triumph" can utillize the rockets of 48n6e and 4862. All indicated ZUR of vertical start with the inercial'noy system of aiming (radiocorrection on March and active radio-location samonavedenie on eventual areas of trajectory). A gazodinamicheskoe management, providing the manoeuvre of rocket with growth of overload on 20 units, is utillized in the district of target. A target is struck to the splinter-land-mine BCH with a detonating radiofuse and system of initiation of suspension points.http://pvo.guns.ru/s400/index.htm

[GGTharos]

Wow, how do you 'know' this?

The F-22 is a project whose purpose is to deal with current and FUTURE threats, and dominate the battlefield.

Not whatever it is you made up :D

 

The F-22 was a cold war project to deal with the S-300. The question is: “Will it deal also with the S-400?”

We even don’t know if it would deal with the 300.

 

We do know that the F-117 and the F-22 can’t deal with the latest generation Patriots. Why would it with the S-400?:megalol:

[GGTharos]

You have a very poor understanding of the USA. Yes, some of their policies may be isolationist, but there's nothing (currently) insane that they're doing, and their policies change as often as presidents. That they build weapons is prudent - Russia does it as well.

I haven't seen the USA go on a rampage yet ... while people like to fling mud at the USA and claim they're doing whatever they want - I can sling a LOT of mud at the rather EVIL Russia who ground my birth country well - almost to the ground back during the cold war. So please don't give me rethoric about the USA being some kind of maniac, because every country has been and is still doing things they wouldn't like to have pointed out to them. ;)

 

As far as armament goes, the USA builds combat vehicles that will take the fight to the enemy because they have to defend NATO countries - it will be rare for the USAF, for example, to be fighting over its own land compared to the combat it would face in Europe.

 

It is not necessary to be a great analyst, that to understand that it not so. Anxiety about the safety at the USA, it is possible to compare to the maniac at which house mountain of weapon and from fear for the safety he is ready to cut out all of neighbours in neighbourhood.

 

Possibly will new power in the USA revise it external a politician, on reasonable or for acquittal all increasing and groundless expenses on armaments in the USA constantly will search the transmitters of evil and threat society from outside??

[AlexHunter]

You have a very poor understanding of the USA. Yes, some of their policies may be isolationist, but there's nothing (currently) insane that they're doing, and their policies change as often as presidents. That they build weapons is prudent - Russia does it as well.

I haven't seen the USA go on a rampage yet ... while people like to fling mud at the USA and claim they're doing whatever they want - I can sling a LOT of mud at the rather EVIL Russia who ground my birth country well - almost to the ground back during the cold war. So please don't give me rethoric about the USA being some kind of maniac, because every country has been and is still doing things they wouldn't like to have pointed out to them. ;)

 

As far as armament goes, the USA builds combat vehicles that will take the fight to the enemy because they have to defend NATO countries - it will be rare for the USAF, for example, to be fighting over its own land compared to the combat it would face in Europe.

Rather all with exactness and on a turn, about our country you know far less than.

[GGTharos]

How much do you know about the states? ;)

I know what Russia did to my birth country. Are you saying I need to know more? I think it is your mind that isn't open, not mine, as you seem to be implying AlexHunter.

 

But enough of this, if you want to talk about it PM me, otherwise if we proceed with political discussion, this thread will be locked, and this has nothing to do with SA-10 :)

[RvEYoda]

Cold war gone hot in forums. Exciting!

[Pilotasso]

The F-22 was a cold war project to deal with the S-300. The question is: “Will it deal also with the S-400?”

We even don’t know if it would deal with the 300.

 

We do know that the F-117 and the F-22 can’t deal with the latest generation Patriots. Why would it with the S-400?:megalol:

 

Incorrect, it was to made to evade the radar. Engineers dont care about Godzilla VS Mothra movies anymore. :)

[D-Scythe]

The F-22 was a cold war project to deal with the S-300. The question is: “Will it deal also with the S-400?”

We even don’t know if it would deal with the 300.

 

We do know that the F-117 and the F-22 can’t deal with the latest generation Patriots. Why would it with the S-400?:megalol:

 

One has to wonder, where do you keep getting this "information"?

[GGTharos]

He makes it up.

[TucksonSonny]

He makes it up.

 

In fact, the PAC-3 radar (latest MIM-104 Patriot upgrade) is capable, among other things, of discriminating whether or not an aircraft is manned and which of multiple reentering ballistic objects are carrying ordnance.

 

Can you prove that you don’t make up things or that you copy/paste info from sources/websites that didn’t make up things? :D

 

PS. It is not possible to make up logic; if (a<b and b<c) then a < c.

If (system b own system a and system c own system b) then system c own system a

[D-Scythe]

If (system b own system a and system c own system b) then system c own system a

 

Rock, paper, scissors...you just lost.

 

To use logic, you have to recognize the limitations of various truths. Clearly you don't.

[159th_Viper]

As Samuel Butler rightly pointed out.................

 

“The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, and pride and arrogance.”

 

 

 

Everyone should really attempt to be Nicer to each other - would make for a much more spectacular Aura! :D

[504Goon]

What does that have to do with Sa-10?! ^^

 

just kidding of course :)

[GGTharos]

Oh, is -that- a fact now. Heh. :)

 

In fact, the PAC-3 radar (latest MIM-104 Patriot upgrade) is capable, among other things, of discriminating whether or not an aircraft is manned and which of multiple reentering ballistic objects are carrying ordnance.

 

I have to prove it every time I make some suggestion to ED.

 

Can you prove that you don’t make up things or that you copy/paste info from sources/websites that didn’t make up things? :D

Oh yes, logic! And R-27ET's have datalinks too since R-27ER's have them. <-- Note the dripping sarcasm.

 

PS. It is not possible to make up logic; if (a<b and b<c) then a < c.

If (system b own system a and system c own system b) then system c own system a

[SoaringEagle74]

The way to educate yourself here (ie. get a clue) is to find and look at actual combat procedures for such systems.

You're horribly misjudging the spacial relationships generated by the interaction of volume that needs to be defended, defender's vulnerability footprint, and the number of air defense assets available to cover the space you wish to cover.

 

So LMAO all you like, but you won't be laughing so much when you acquire a clue ;)

 

SAMs are a speedbump. Period.

 

It is you that needs to get a clue! Read about Patriot, S-300's, BUK's, KUBs, and all other air defense systems in LOMAC/FC encyclopedia before you tell me I am wrong!

 

For example the 15-20 mile range you are preaching is only valid for short range SAM units. When you say something that is so wrong then clearly it becomes laughable.

 

It is ok to be passionate about air supremacy and dogfighting but you are missing the big picture of war. You have been doing this in many posts and I feel obligated to point it out to you.

 

Also try to keep your insults to a minimum next time. You may or may not know more than others but that doesn't mean you have a monopoly on the truth!

[SoaringEagle74]

S-300 from Wikipedia

 

Surveillance radar

GRAU indexNATO reporting nameSpecialisationTarget detection rangeSimultaneously detected targetsNATO frequency bandFirst used withNotes36D6TIN SHIELD-180-360 km (112-224 mi)120E/FS-300PIndustrial designation: ST-68UM

350 kW to 1.23 MW signal strength76N6CLAM SHELLLow altitude detectionIS-300P76N6CLAM SHELLLow altitude detection120 km (75 mi)300IS-300PMU1.4 kW FM continuous wave64N6BIG BIRD-300 km (186 mi)CS-300PMU-196L6ECHEESE BOARDAll altitude detection300 km (186 mi)300S-300PMU-19S15BILL BOARD-250 km (155 mi)200S-300V9S19HIGH SCREENSector tracking16S-300VMR-75[25]TOP STEERNaval300 km (186 mi)D/ES-300FMR-800 Voskhod[25]TOP PAIRNaval200 km (124 mi)C/D/E/FS-300F

 

 

 

Target tracking/missile guidanceGRAU indexNATO reporting nameNATO frequency bandTarget detection rangeSimultaneously tracked targetsSimultaneously engaged targetsFirst used withNotes30N6FLAP LID AI/J44S-300P30N6E(1)FLAP LID BH-J200 km (124 mi)126S-300PMUPhased array30N6E2FLAP LID BI/J200 km (124 mi)10036S-300PMU-29S32-1GRILL PANMulti-band140-150 km (90 mi)126S-300V3R41 VolnaTOP DOMEI/J100 km (62 mi)S-300F

 

Missile specificationsGRAU indexYearRangeMaximum velocityLengthDiameterWeightWarheadGuidanceFirst used with5V55K/KD197847 km (29 mi)1700 m/s (3800 mph)7 m (23 ft)450 mm1450 kg (3200 lb)100 kg (220 lb)Command5V55R/RM198490 km (56 mi)1700 m/s (3800 mph)7 m (23 ft)450 mm1450 kg (3200 lb)133 kg (293 lb)SARH5V55U1992150 km (93 mi)2000 m/s (4470 mph)7 m (23 ft)450 mm1470 kg (3240 lb)133 kg (293 lb)SARH48N6/E1992150 km (93 mi)2000 m/s (4470 mph)7.5 m (25 ft)500 mm1780 kg (3920 lb)~150 kg (~330 lb)TVM48N6E21992195 km (121 mi)2000 m/s (4470 mph)7.5 m (25 ft)500 mm1800 kg (3970 lb)150 kg (330 lb)TVM9M82198440 km (25 mi)2500 m/s150 kg (330 lb)SARH by TELARS-300V9M831984100 km (60 mi)1800 m/s420 kg (926 lb)150 kg (330 lb)SARH by TELARS-300V9M83ME1990200 km (120 mi)SARH by TELARS-300VM9M96E1199940 km (25 mi)900m/s[26]330 kg (728 lb)24 kg (53 lb)Active Radar HomingS-4009M96E21999120 km (75 mi)1000m/s[26]420 kg (926 lb)24 kg (53 lb)Active Radar HomingS-40040N6[26]2000400 km (250 mi)Active Radar HomingS-400

 

 

 

Just so you get a clue my friend. I won't bother pasting anything else...do your homework next time! Sorry...I can't get the table to appear properly despite taking screen shots and pasting them here as jpg but if anyone can help me I would appreciate it. Until then I am going to leave the data in this raw format.

[GGTharos]

I don't need LOMAC's encyclopaedia. I have more realiable sources than that, including typical Patriot deployment from FM's, and operator testimony. Not to mention far more reliable kinematic simulation than LOMAC ;)

 

Low altitude coverage for a Patriot is 15-20nm at best, same for the S-300 which uses similar kinematics. Part of proof for this is the typical FM deployment which has those units stationed about 15-20km apart, thus giving them some overlap.

 

By the way, did you know that most ballistic warheards and aircraft were shot down within 8-10nm of the launchers in real life?

 

 

It is you that needs to get a clue! Read about Patriot, S-300's, BUK's, KUBs, and all other air defense systems in LOMAC/FC encyclopedia before you tell me I am wrong!

 

For example the 15-20 mile range you are preaching is only valid for short range SAM units. When you say something that is so wrong then clearly it becomes laughable.

 

It is ok to be passionate about air supremacy and dogfighting but you are missing the big picture of war. You have been doing this in many posts and I feel obligated to point it out to you.

 

Also try to keep your insults to a minimum next time. You may or may not know more than others but that doesn't mean you have a monopoly on the truth!

[D-Scythe]

S-300 from Wikipedia

 

[snip]

 

Just so you get a clue my friend. I won't bother pasting anything else...do your homework next time!

 

While I don't think SAMs are simply an inconvenience for air power, I also don't think searching Wikipedia is "doing your homework."

 

The truth is, if SAMs really worked the way their brochures say they would, nobody would bother having an Air Force. The actual reality of the SAM vs. fighter game probably lies somewhere in between the two perspectives presented here. I'd say GG is closer to the truth though.

 

Obviously, EVERYONE knows that *I'M* ALWAYS right. CLEARLY. My opinion is worth 10 of yours :harhar: Yeah, that's right GGtharos (takes off shirt, revealing well chiselled bod) What are you gonna do? What are you gonna do?