S-400 Threat

NATO invading and occupying India? Probably the most laughable stuff I've read all week.

In one post Flanker86 will have you beleive that NATO is weak and easily defeated. In the next Flanker86 will tell you they're trying to occupy INDIA!

originally posted by: Flanker86
Recent S-400 sales to India and the Trump's upcoming sanctions response are in fact the 2 sides of the same coin which has defeated the EU-NATO attempts at orchestrating an invasion of the Asian continent starting from what they perceived as weak spots.
The NATO-EU Nazi colonialist plan for the invasion and occupation of India during the next 10 years, was actually concocted and pushed through by EU Royal families and governments of major NATO countries, such as the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Poland, Spain, Greece, Portugal.

All these countries have been plotting destabilization, terrorism, and finally the invasion of South Asia, starting from Myanmar and India.

Do you dream this stuff up whilst you're asleep? At least put a source in there.

a reply to: Flanker86

...and who, pray, is going to invade India??

NATO? Seriously? They can barely handle Afghanistan...so they're going to invade the second most populous nation on Earth? One that has a first world economy, and a military to go with it?

Not happening, and certainly not within the next decade.

The S-400 or S-300 missiles cannot be avoided or dealt with by NATO, there's simply no way, unless they are ready for a nuclear war in Europe on which all of NATO would be strategically destroyed ...
Reports from , god knows what news outlet, or from "unnamed officials" are irrelevant in this case. the EUronazis cannot get rid of the S-300 and S-400 without losing NATO and the EU

a reply to: Flanker86

The US has been training against the S-300 for decades, because Russia sold them the S-300. 5th generation will make short-work of them.

NATO has ordered more than 3,000 5th generation fighters.

D'oh!

originally posted by: Flanker86
The S-400 or S-300 missiles cannot be avoided or dealt with by NATO, there's simply no way, unless they are ready for a nuclear war in Europe on which all of NATO would be strategically destroyed ...
Reports from , god knows what news outlet, or from "unnamed officials" are irrelevant in this case. the EUronazis cannot get rid of the S-300 and S-400 without losing NATO and the EU

The hopes of NATO being able to use those S-400 delivered to Turkey as a weapon against Syria, better be dashed quickly ... that's not gonna happen, neither the coming weekend not ever in the future

a reply to: Flanker86

Right, because S400s make awesome offensive weapons. You really do love to just make it up as you go, don't you.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Probably, but not really that far fetched if you think about it. ERAM has a ASuW capability.
I dont think it would be impossible to set up a surface to surface capability based on these systems.

a reply to: Flanker86

Have you signed up to storm Area 51 yet it's going to be a blast?

a reply to: mightmight

The SM family was designed pretty much from the word go to double as a limited antiship missile. The SM-2 has anti surface warfare capabilities, but the chances of seeing any SAM used in a ground attack role are laughably low. You're not going to expend valuable ammunition on something like that, when you have far better options available, unless it's a desperate "use it or lose it" type situation.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well, y'know how it is...

Anything built by non-EuNATOnazi's has just got to be so much better than anything built by actual EuNATOnazi's, right??

@cobzz
"- I would have thought that Russia would probably attempt to shoot down the cruise missiles. Maybe they would avoid using the S-400 for that to prevent giving out information, but the S-400 wasn't ideally positioned to do so anyway. More likely this would rely on other systems deployed in Syria if they were present. "

all the air strikes and cruise missile strikes are in Damascus miles away from Latakia. Cruise missiles have low altitude profiles radar horizon limits the s-400 to even track these missiles in Damascus if their radars are located in Latakia.

"They should compare S-500 with Block IIA SM-3 combined with Sea-based X-band Radar, which is 5 times the range of the S-500. The radar in SBX can track an object the size of a baseball from 4,700 km away. But anyone can build a bigger missile with longer range with a bigger radar, there's nothing stopping for example, an AMRAAM from being mounted on top of an ICBM."


You are literally comparing a mobile radar to a ground radar system
They are not the same thing. A comparison for the SBX would be the voronezh-sm radar for the A-235 defense system.

@yuppa

"In full ECM A F22 can get within 60 NM of a S400. well within strike range of anti radar missles to kill them. "

1st of all the F-22 is built only on air superiority hence equipment of air to air missiles. This aircraft does not even have such missiles in its inventory that is for the F-35 a "multi"-role fighter. 2nd only RCS is front estimates for F-22 and no estimates on ventral RCS in which depression arc angles allow underbelly readings that give higher RCS estimates than the front of an aircraft.

"The GREEKS have a S-400 system we tested them against. Im not just talking out of my Butt here. Although they have recently updated to the newer models of S-400. Still within JASSM range of a thousand km (when its in a NON ECM environment) "

They have a s-300pm1 systems Russians have many more better s-300 variants than this system.

@TinfoilTP
"If they were any good they would have at least turned them S400's on and shot stuff out of the sky, it would be a free chance to sell them, now nobody wants to buy that junk when the Russians themselves wouldn't show them off for their potential buyers. "

Same answer I gave cobzz the location and missiles used, show it is impossible for the S-400 to target them.

Are you guys even trying?

a reply to: panzerfeist1

Are you? I mean, Russia!

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: spy66
According to Syria they downed 71 out of 103 missiles tracked.

That figure is disputed. The absence of video evidence all over Russian propaganda sites, like rt.com, would tend to indicate that the 105 missiles were unhindered.

Even in this day not everything gets recorded. You can't seriously expect them to video every interception.

Even if they did record them, they might not shoe you footage in case it gives away location data or in case it accidentally includes thing that are classified.

We don't get video of every iron dome interception, do we.

originally posted by: Woody510

originally posted by: Flanker86
The S-400 or S-300 missiles cannot be avoided or dealt with by NATO, there's simply no way, unless they are ready for a nuclear war in Europe on which all of NATO would be strategically destroyed ...
Reports from , god knows what news outlet, or from "unnamed officials" are irrelevant in this case. the EUronazis cannot get rid of the S-300 and S-400 without losing NATO and the EU

You know that this is a spy plane, right?

a reply to: AaarghZombies

actually this particular plane was a trainer

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Is it really?

a reply to: AaarghZombies

And it had exactly one even remotely successful intercept by any missile fired at it during its life.

a reply to: panzerfeist1


if it was as effective as they claim they would show it off in syria. Remeber India canceled their order because they started to doubt its effectiveness. If they saw an impressive show they would be purchasing again. Russian claims that they can use their IADs to track and shoot down fifth gen fighters is largely BS. Russians systems may be able to broadly state that American 5th gen fighters are in the area, but unless they were within radar horizon it would just be a lucky guess. OTH radars wont get a missile even close to the target Now in a vacuum with no electronic countermeasures, no standoff missiles, and no decoys, maybe, occasionally they would lose an F-35 or two… but that’s not how America fights a war.