It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

S400 Triumf SAM counterstealth?!?!?!

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Complete bollocks


Will argue the points if you care to suggest why you think otherwise.


Well you have proven yourself to be far from well informed - kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.


I read magazines and what i say is perfectly accurate in explaining the contradictions that these magazines are when it comes to 'facts'.


Yeah sure deploy tyhre system slowly, so by the time it is fully deployed it is obsolete - gee that makes sense - more of your sterling logic


Well only if your prior reasoning suggest that the currently deployed systems is not fully capable of dealing with the threats posed currently. You make assumptions and then proceed from there while not offering any evidence to back your prior assumptions.


Plasma stealth doesn't work, simple as that. It might sound good but .....


It probably works ( i think it does) and if you want to go argue the point go to the threads where it's discussed.


The SAM's didn't stop NATO from bombing what it wanted, when it wanted. I wouldn't call the Serb strategy successul in the slightest, they couldn't protect jack.


There were never enough to protect everything and by shifting targets NATO could always bomb something that was not well enough protected. The Serb strategy resulted in them having their armed forces mostly intact after the war and that is in fact the best they could have hoped to manage since day one. If you do not grasp that reality then i can't help you.


Oh right like they did in Serbia - see above


Exactly that, yes. If you can preserve your mobile forces with such limited air defense then your proving a great deal imo. Those were not exactly very modern systems either and they managed the only thing that any fair minded analyst could expect of them.


And that also allows Wild Weasels to see the radar from a long ay as well, so what.


That means that that the defense can fire missiles sooner and theirs is a great deal faster than yours.It also means they can simply pack in and leave their position before you counter-munitions arrive if you have any to fire. Longer detection range gives options to decide how to handle the situation based on your doctrine. The less time you have to react the closer to death you are.


LOL, I'm sure you could come up with plenty of BS scenarios none of which would work. So how exactly can missiles track a stealth aircraft if they only catch a tiny glimpse
Your above sceanrio doesn't exaplain any of that.


My scenario points out the capacity of the weapon system in being able to fire missiles unguided at a distance target on suspicion of aircraft detection even if it's not enough information to get tracking data from just yet. If you have a specific problem with my scenario do point it out as i am obviously not expert either. My scenario points out that stealth just reduces your RCS and that makes it far harder to track at distance even if they know it's quite likely a enemy plane. The radar at the back may then obviously ask forward deployed radars to quickly check that sector to make sure before the missile is fired if there is limited stocks or if the firing system is forced to shut down it's radar due to incoming ARm's or other munitions.


Ahem right - yet you fail to take into consideration hgow long it will take the battery to move to a new loaction, sure it can set up in 5minutes but it'll take far longer to move to it's new location.


Well it will take time to do that but it's point defenses might stay at old location to protect the 'gap' in defenses if that is required as they enemy will not simple be able to assume your absence if your radar is no longer broadcasting your presence. The defenses only have to more far enough to make any attack on the previous location a complete waste while waiting for you to return and do it all over again. Shooting down planes is very cool and all but it's hardly required if you can dictate the enemies movements and limit his capacity to interdict yours.


Even tehn the SDB and SDB-II will hvae the ability with MMW and IIR sensors to track SAM batteries whilst they're on the move. the SDB can be launched from 100km away and leter versions futher away.


Yeah and i guess that explains why they managed to kill almost non of the Sa-6 batteries of the Yugoslav army? While that may be possibilities we have not seen it work but we HAVE seen how air defense can survive when cleverly managed. Now admittedly if NATO were prepared to lose planes ( which they were not due to political issues) they could have afforded to swallow some Sam's and then go about destroying them taking the losses that would have resulted in.


LOL, the SA-6 is hardly more effective than the patriot
Once again baseless claims exposing your lack of knowledge.


The Patriot has never had to face down enemy aircraft trying to kill so it does not have the now proven record of the Sa-6. I must admit i did not intend to say what i kinda did just there. I don't think the Sa-6 is the superior weapon of the two but i have great suspicion of the claims made about the relative claimed effectiveness of the patriot against anything but planes.


We have found no convincing evidence in the video that any Scud warhead was destroyed by a Patriot. We have strong evidence that Patriots hit Scuds an two occasions (in WSMR Events 8 and 13), but in both cases we found video evidence that the Scud warheads fell to the ground and exploded. These clips suggest that even when Patriots could hit Scuds they were still not able to destroy the Scud warheads. We also have several other clips where it is possible that Patriots hit Scuds without detonating their warheads. but the evidence in these clips is quite ambiguous (see, for example, Additional Event 3).

In addition, we have estimated minimum miss distances for all cases where we could clearly observe Patriot missing Scuds. We present our summarized findings in tabular and graphical form in figures 8, 9 and 1O. The median minimum miss distance was roughly 600 meters. This is much larger than the press video minimum resolvable miss distance of 35 to 70 meters. To achieve lethality against Scud targets, a system like the Patriot must routinely achieve miss distances of meters to tens of meters, not hundreds to thousands of meters as observed in the video. This result of the video review by itself indicates unambiguously that there was a serious problem with Patriot during the Gulf War.

www.fas.org...


While it's not all that related the only thing the patriot proved so far, at least imo, is that it could reliably shoot down allied aircraft.


LOL, well your argument is moot. If the SAM radar isn't active it cannot track an enemy raid. If it is active a SEAD aircraft can see it and attack it, even if shuts down and attempts to move. They are far from invulnerable as you seem to think. Then of course their are aircraft jammers which you always fail to factor in.


Well they survived the efforts of NATO last time round and it proved quite clearly that clever use of the weapon systems makes them very very hard to kill. I never EVER suggested they were invulnerable but repeatedly keep noting that the US air force could not even deal with the Sa-6. If you can explain their abject failure to destroy such a limited ( but well managed) air defense i can always change my mind on the topic.

Stellar




posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
yes but stealth is only detectable at short ranges around the sams. HARMs and cruise missiles will soften the sams uo . Not true the F/ 22 has all aspect stealth and its wideband only wavelengths about the sme size or larger will detect it unlike the F 177. All aspect means all sides not just the front and sides. . like i said stellar do u have any proof that it is high on the backside. A JSf is optimized for A2g and wil alert the F/A 22 and other JSf's to fire HArms, cruise missiles etc SAMS can only last for so long. The upgraded F/A 22 air to ground refers to better SEAD weapons. No matter how advanced your SAM gets the same concepts towards radar still apllies. How about more sources indicating the F/A 22 will slaughter the S400. The US AC have been good in the past, that statement u provided exposes your lack of knowledge. look at the F 15 and F 16. The F 15 has bever been shot down in A2A engagement. Anyways remember when the SA 5 came out it was supposed to be to counter the SR 71 but failed to shoot them down over so many missions.
SAMS havent proven to be all that reliable The Sa 5 has been one example. Anyways it max altitude is only 90,000 feet any conventional jet goign 100,000 feet such as an SR 71 will bypass it. Simple steallar if yu cant discriminate that bee from all the other billions of ones how will u noe which one to fire at. besides under the cover of the ABl and JAmmers the SEAD aircraft will destroy the sam once it turns on. u asked when the new AHrm will come its in 2 years 2008. you probably didnt even bother to read the link. The janes source u provided doesnt conflict at all where does it state the S400 is better than the raptor. It only says it will cause problems even with Stealth Ac they cause problems since only B 2's and F 22's are the only ones that can operate safely and the altest cruise missiles. Also these sams are mobile and only the JSF's front has a low enough RCS. The F/A 22 and B 2 are not necessarily made for A2g against moving targets but i dont see why they cant take them out. their mobility is a problem also these long rnage sams hamper Awacs and other vital Ac like global hawk that are usefu; for avoiding colatteral dmage. The F/A22 and B 2 will bait them to get em active and stay put and then strike.

www.freerepublic.com...
www.f22-raptor.com...
and also First and Only 24/7/365 All-Weather Stealth Fighter




First and Only 24/7/365 All-Weather Stealth Fighter

* Radar signature approximately the size of a bumblebee, thereby avoiding detection by the most sophisticated enemy air defense systems
* Signatures/emissions of sound, turbulence, and heat that can aid detection are reduced
* Requires no direct assistance from electronic support aircraft that may be more easily detected
* Includes planform alignment of the wing and tail edges, radar-absorbing sawtoothed surfaces, an engine face that is concealed by a serpentine inlet duct, "stealthy" coating cockpit design to minimize the usually substantial radar return of pilot’s helmet
* Through internal weapons placement, the F-22 eliminates multiple surface features that could be detected by enemy radar


The F-22 provides "first-look, first-shot, first-kill" transformational air dominance capability for the 21st Century - it can see the enemy first while avoiding detection itself.

* When we meet the enemy, we want to win 100-0, not 51-49
* The F-22 will be able to get to the fight faster and engage the enemy longer
* Parity or inferiority in air dominance is unacceptable; either one means more friendly casualties and a longer, more uncertain campaign. The American people do not want an even match; they want decisive, overwhelming superiority and minimum casualties with no protracted conflict
* Downsizing U.S. forces means that in future conflicts, at least initially, we are likely to fight outnumbered – making the revolutionary capabilities of the F-22 essential for national security










[edit on 2-4-2006 by urmomma158]

[Mod Edit: Shortened quote to comply with T&C on external sources, to include the source link]
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4/2/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   
If the SA-10/S-400 is so sensitive as to be able to detect, track and target a Stealth aircraft, much less missile, then they are even more able to be tricked into reacting against decoys. Decoys were in fact part of the initial air campaign in GW-1, used by the hundreds. Not to mention EW and jamming. All of which adds to the advantages of the side with stealth attacking aircraft.
An attack following or during a Decoy onslaught, combined with EW, HARMS, JASSMs, and finally Maverics and JADMs will overcome any SAM system that sits very long, and the latest SDM ll program involves data links to deal with "shoot and scoot" systems like the SA-10. (BTW, MEADS is just what you say Patriot isn't, only it is Patriot. Very mobile, 360 degree detection, air transportable)



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
yawn just another one of your fantasies B 52's armed with ACM 129's (conventional warheads) these have a range of 1865 miles well beyond the reach of any Russian SAMS i dont need B 2's to penetrate.


The Russians have long since claimed that they can shoot down ACLM's and there is no reason to doubt those claims given their test record and depth of defenses around their major industrial and civilian areas. Remember that to reliable get strategic weapons to certain targets they will have to survive Russian strategic fighter interceptors AND the Sam shield on the borders of the country.


Anyways SEAD would be carried out on good weather.


If your only going to fight in good weather then the enemy gets to move his assets while you take a rest and that means your not interdicting him which is the point of aircraft. Considering your logic so far that would logically have to lead to you admitting that fighters 'suck' compared to Sam's that are always at least on station waiting to hurt you given half the chance.


Chances of rain are not great especially tough rain. even with those russian weather control AC it'll still be cat and mouse.


Where are you from? Do you know what the weather in eastern and central Europe is like most of the time?


Harms are not the only way to deal with SAMS. What dont u understand by active seeker even without emissiosn they will still be hit. HARMS are not the only way to deal with SAMS .


Well they did not hit the Sam's so something is wrong with your theory there. Try discover what instead of insisting on something that was clearly disproved. The Serbs figured out a way to survive all those harm's ( 740 odd just by the US forces i think ) and their radars kept scaring NATO pilots/mission planners into making them mostly combat ineffective against Serb ground forces.


You cant hide forever. the SERBs still lost.


Sometimes surviving IS winning and the Serbs never could achieve anything more than that. If the lion comes after you sometimes the best thing you can manage is try stab him in both eyes before he eats the rest of you. The Serbs did what they could and that could never have involved trying to defend all their fixed targets with their limited assets. All they could do is preserve their operational forces and thus stay alive to ride out the storm if at all possible.


that's because the b2's ram would be washed out by rain. Hopefully the new AHHF material sort this out.www.afrl.af.mil...
Rain doesnt completely stop attacks only certain vehicles which are rain sensitive such as the B 2. likewise E/F 18's and F 16's can still operate also attack helicopters like the apache etc. True it hurts but not entrirely. Chances of raina rent likely and cant completely stop SEAD.


Rain makes each and every system much less effective whether it flies or not and i suggest you go read some material on why exactly i keep saying that.


I understand what SAMs are to do. but i made a mistake sometimes i phrase incorrectly.


You make far too many of that mistakes and i can but hope ( not that it seems that way) that you understand at least some of my explanations.


that was due to poor mission planning and some some clever thinking by the serbs.


Turns out it was more Serb 'smartness' than American 'stupidity' that got the plane killed. At least the pilot lived to try again another day.


the newest warships have te RCS of a small fishing boat. This makes it difficult ot discriminate from the wavetops.


Not while it's radar is on which is my point thus far. RCS is meaningless if the missiles use your own radar emisssions to get close enough to switch to other means.You can not have it both ways!


No nvy i invincible just able to stop most attacks. Do u obvioussly expect the enmy to launch so amny anti ship missiles at once.


Well they have 200 backfires ( mistakenly called theater bombers when their actually strategic platforms) to start with so if they want to sink a American task group they will sink them ten times over on the first go imo. If that fails they will keep coming back till their airfields are nuked to bits since they are not actually going to be killed any other way imo.


due to their reduced RCS they will be indentified as targets much later giving the ship enough time to attack without being detected. And launcha huge barrage.


As above hard choices ( that are not really choices) will have to be made between having your low RCS ships survive and having your not-so-low RCS Aircraft carrier sinking fast.Your AA ships can't switch their radars off since that means admitting defeating in doing their primary job ( defending the battlegroup).


Not just the US everyone's. The PAC 3 have done quite well in Iraq but there has been an instance or 2 in GW2 a missile got through.



We have found no convincing evidence in the video that any Scud warhead was destroyed by a Patriot. We have strong evidence that Patriots hit Scuds an two occasions (in WSMR Events 8 and 13), but in both cases we found video evidence that the Scud warheads fell to the ground and exploded. These clips suggest that even when Patriots could hit Scuds they were still not able to destroy the Scud warheads. We also have several other clips where it is possible that Patriots hit Scuds without detonating their warheads. but the evidence in these clips is quite ambiguous (see, for example, Additional Event 3).

In addition, we have estimated minimum miss distances for all cases where we could clearly observe Patriot missing Scuds. We present our summarized findings in tabular and graphical form in figures 8, 9 and 1O. The median minimum miss distance was roughly 600 meters. This is much larger than the press video minimum resolvable miss distance of 35 to 70 meters. To achieve lethality against Scud targets, a system like the Patriot must routinely achieve miss distances of meters to tens of meters, not hundreds to thousands of meters as observed in the video. This result of the video review by itself indicates unambiguously that there was a serious problem with Patriot during the Gulf War.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
you know nothing of the ACM 129 it is low observable and would shred any IADS since it carries nculear warheads and is very stealthy. B 2 is designed to bomb the crap outta sphisticated enemies it was designed to attack russia so was the F 117A and ACM 129. Weatehr is bad but dont count on it all the time chnaces of rain arent great. ill respond tommorow im going to bed. We're not alking of europe we're talking of asia.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Anyways like i was saying the russians cant stop the ACM 129 it is very stealthy and carries nuclear warheads. No sam system can survive it is designed for striking any enemy ( ACm 129). most of russia is in asia not europe. I live in NJ,USA for your information. You still are quite ignorant the AGm 88 is only guided by emisions its replacement is designed to hit sams even after they shut off by swithcing to active seeker mode. The new HARM wasnt there in yugoslavia which you failed to know. Surviving is one thing winning is another what you dont know is the serbs still surrendered. Rain only hampers certain select AC that are rain sensitive. The A 10, F 16, apache and other AC are all weather. Only some US AC are sensitive to rain. Yes it does rain in europe alot . Ive been to london for a while yes it rains often but it isnt heavy most ofl the time. And besides that has nothing to do with RAM.
Yes it ws american stupidity but only one was lost. LPI radar is hard to detect good lcuk targeting my ship then . its the same concept with the F/A 22. The doors open quick shoot and close. IF RCS was meaningless why do all shipmakers focus on it. You'reright about backfires killing destroyers but its not as easy as you're putting it out to be. The US is developing low RCS carriers as well, do keep up with upcoming Us naval technology. Again this shows how little you know this is the first Gw1. GW2 was a good war for the patriot. they had a moderate amount of fighters. Gw2 didnt have much of an airforce to
deal with. Yea steallar like all a2a missiles will always miss........... like it or not BVR is the future not dogfighting. Anyways i meanto to say the
sparrow was not a good missile at the time. The sparrow was credited with good kills in iraq go read a book. Yes and u make claims and post no sources or at least refernces or an idea of where to find them. Obviously you are still on B 2's flying low flying it has no need to fly low its not a conventional AC. Go read up on the JSf's EOTS shutting off its radar doesnt make it blind. It is easy to say cnn lied but there is no proof. You obviously are full fo this propoganda stuff. And please stop referring to past failures. Everyone knows the Patriot did bad in Gw1. My reserch efoortslol!, at least I talk of real info while all u do is talk of americans using propganda and making BS claims of Us miitary tactics. SAMs are good they help you survive but they wont survive forever if they shut their radars off they're blind and fi they turn them on they will get hit by ARMS. yes and while you hide and run instead of focusing on sams part of my attention can go to capturing your capital and attacking key resources. I read all of your past responses you're the onse speaking of shooting unguided missiles to take out stealth AC and putting excessive faith in sams and weather. Some of your posts show how little you really know. You really do not have any proof thewhen you stated B 2 is designed for taking out third world countries.

JSF EOTS ................ www.lockheedmartin.com...
copy and paste the link if it doesnt work. I can target enemy planes and ground targets without the radar thank you very much.
EOTS allows it to not rely on radar when ARMS come into play so much for your notion of going blind when shutting off radar. lol! passing info to otherr radars once they turn on an ARM is going to silence them and if you shut it off you know what countermeasure my ARM can perform.
Im sorry if i offended you in any of my remarks .
[edit on 3-4-2006 by urmomma158]




[edit on 3-4-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 3-4-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 3-4-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
you know nothing of the ACM 129 it is low observable and would shred any IADS since it carries nculear warheads and is very stealthy.


There is nothing special about the ACM 129 and it's been in operation for near 2 decades now giving the Russians ample time to deal with as they have clearly stated they can for very long.


B 2 is designed to bomb the crap outta sphisticated enemies it was designed to attack russia so was the F 117A and ACM 129.


Well it could not even 'bomb the crap out of' the Serbs and they barely had the means to protect themselves properly. You go figure out what the systems designed nearly 40 years ago ( were used in the 1973 Yom Kippur War) were still able to keep 1100 ( peak) NATO planes from doing their job in destroying Serb forces. You do not think they made advances in 40 years and if you do please explain why such a old system could still manage so much. I have so far assumed the Serbs were very clever in their use but maybe it's just very hard to in fact kill Sam's and the Serbs were not doing anything special. I am not assuming perfect condtions ( what-they-claim-must-be-true) for my arguments yet you keep doing so.


Weatehr is bad but dont count on it all the time chnaces of rain arent great. ill respond tommorow im going to bed. We're not alking of europe we're talking of asia.


I am NOT counting on weather for my arguments but just showing that weather can really affect air power when it does not much to impede Sam effectiveness.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman11
If the SA-10/S-400 is so sensitive as to be able to detect, track and target a Stealth aircraft, much less missile, then they are even more able to be tricked into reacting against decoys.


Why do you think being able to see things is a problem here? You would rather not see the decoys? I do not understand your argument.


Decoys were in fact part of the initial air campaign in GW-1, used by the hundreds. Not to mention EW and jamming.


Awesome and great and obviously kept allied aircraft from being blown up more often. These are defensive measure that only keeps you alive but if it does not lead to you being able to destroy the ground forces of the enemy ( which is the primary assumption of US cold war planning; right?) then what use are they? Staying alive has no point in the strategic sense if your not doing anything BUT that.


All of which adds to the advantages of the side with stealth attacking aircraft.


You do not know where the defense is deployed so advatange is with them till you discover them.


An attack following or during a Decoy onslaught, combined with EW, HARMS, JASSMs, and finally Maverics and JADMs will overcome any SAM system that sits very long, and the latest SDM ll program involves data links to deal with "shoot and scoot" systems like the SA-10.


How can data links deal with systems that move around? Can they predict where they will go at 40 -60 km distance? Your hopelessly optimistic IMO and i suggest you consider what the Janes guys had to say. Did you even bother to check who they were?


(BTW, MEADS is just what you say Patriot isn't, only it is Patriot. Very mobile, 360 degree detection, air transportable)


Well they are clearly slowly learning from the Russians it seems.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
This Russians dont have any ACM 129's to test on and their RCS's are much to low for the S300/400. That was not adressing my B 2 bomber argument Not a single b 2 was lost. Yes the serbs sams were supressed but B 2's were one of the first AC to attack. I do nt take whatever they say is true notion on myself. i only take the more accurate sources and use pure logic while you however seem to be applying the "Russins have made US tech obsolete idea". Russia doesnt have any ACM 129's to test on. And why dont u provide any sources that the russian sams can shoot down ACm 129's. If i am not mistaken you seemed to use the weather as an answer to SEAD. you however provide little or no sources for your argument and most of the sources state the whole thing and didnt i mention that sams cant hide forever. inorder to find the location of the sams you need to bait them to gt em active and then u strike. You however have not aken into account jamming capabilities such as the latest F 18G growler. www.globalsecurity.org...

Not only that but the sophisticated elctronic attack capabilities. attacks.www.globalsecurity.org...

which can seriously mess up the sams computers. Also Sigint and Elint can loate a sam(Rivet joint aircraft)(if they transmit signals) if they're on the move and not using their radars and going under emcon the rivet joint will ahve problems but under those circumstances your sam cant defend the airspace freeing me up to bomb the crap outta alot fo things such as important strategic centers(capital,power grid etc). If they get active they can be easily located and destroyed and if they're hiding they cant defend pick your poison. If they become active the stealth aircraft,jammers,weasels will work together to take them out with their weapons loadout. i already gave u sources stating the JSf can operate without its radars and locate the sams if they become active while the sam wouldnt detect the JSf allowing the JSf to attack it. like i said pick your poison.
www.fas.org...
www.designation-systems.net...

The ACM 129 is designed to strike in heaviliy defended airspace in any enemmy's territory.



[edit on 3-4-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
bThe B 2 is not ta 40 year old system it was designed in 80's and came out in 1988. The age of the F117 doesnt mean anything it is still a lethal and viable system today. Im not saying the man who wrote the article is bad its simply the material provided and how some of it doesnt take into account actual battlefield tactics and ignoring other capabilities. All sams have improved but so have countermeasures, jamers,ALCM's etc.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 4-4-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Awesome and great and obviously kept allied aircraft from being blown up more often. These are defensive measure that only keeps you alive but if it does not lead to you being able to destroy the ground forces of the enemy ( which is the primary assumption of US cold war planning; right?) then what use are they? Staying alive has no point in the strategic sense if your not doing anything BUT that.


It increases aircraft survivability. It makes it easier for them to carry out their missions. It allows them to take out those air defenses, gaining air superiority. This allows you to shoot up the enemy by air, as the Iraqis saw in the Gulf War...



You do not know where the defense is deployed so advatange is with them till you discover them.


Once a SAM is used, it gives away its position and becomes a sitting duck. The attacking force has the advantage here.



There is nothing special about the ACM 129 and it's been in operation for near 2 decades now giving the Russians ample time to deal with as they have clearly stated they can for very long.


Yet, I've seen you talk in other topics about the greatness of other long known weapons, and how they make carrier fleets useless...



Well it could not even 'bomb the crap out of' the Serbs and they barely had the means to protect themselves properly. You go figure out what the systems designed nearly 40 years ago ( were used in the 1973 Yom Kippur War) were still able to keep 1100 ( peak) NATO planes from doing their job in destroying Serb forces. You do not think they made advances in 40 years and if you do please explain why such a old system could still manage so much. I have so far assumed the Serbs were very clever in their use but maybe it's just very hard to in fact kill Sam's and the Serbs were not doing anything special. I am not assuming perfect condtions ( what-they-claim-must-be-true) for my arguments yet you keep doing so.


Um, nonsense? I believe NATO achieved its goals in Kosovo, making this a senseless statement.

I'm sorry. I love when people go on and on about the effectiveness of SAM's. If they were anywhere near as capable as people say, they would have been successfully used in at least one of the conflicts in the past half century.

They have in fact underperformed time and time again. Iran in F-14's could fly into Iraqi airspace. The Syrians airdefenses were useless against the Israelis. Everyone knows the story with Iraq. Same against Kosovo.

I tend to think that actual results on the battlefield speak louder than anything else. SAM's have performed lousy in every chance they've been given.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It increases aircraft survivability. It makes it easier for them to carry out their missions. It allows them to take out those air defenses, gaining air superiority. This allows you to shoot up the enemy by air, as the Iraqis saw in the Gulf War...


Which is more likely explained by Iraqi doctrine and incompetence than anything else imo. They still managed to shoot down 44 aircraft and damage over a 100 beyond repair in operation desert Shield/Storm last i checked. The terrain certainly did not favour the defense either.


Once a SAM is used, it gives away its position and becomes a sitting duck. The attacking force has the advantage here.


Sam's get reloaded and it can move as was proven in the documents i provided earlier so there is nothing sitting-duckish . I really suggest you read it before stating any of your 'opinions' which is clearly not based on all the material it could be. The attacking force does have advantages but it's normally in being able to mass forces against a point and thus strategic hoping-to-be tactical in nature. The defense still have all the old advantages that is inherent to defense and that does not change with Sam's.


Yet, I've seen you talk in other topics about the greatness of other long known weapons, and how they make carrier fleets useless...


Well i was referring to the lack of capacity to US seems to display in combating such weapons while the Russians have long since been deploying their strategic Sam's/aircraft to combat such weapon types.


Um, nonsense? I believe NATO achieved its goals in Kosovo, making this a senseless statement.


Well feel free to state the aims NATO achieved in KOSOVO so that i can agree with you if it in facts turns out to be true. Last i checked NATO's stated aim was to stop the general killing which in fact escalated out of control right about the time NATO started bombing. But maybe your source say something else.


I'm sorry. I love when people go on and on about the effectiveness of Sam's. If they were anywhere near as capable as people say, they would have been successfully used in at least one of the conflicts in the past half century.


Well then you must not be reading the same history i am and i suggest you start telling me about the version your looking at.


They have in fact underperformed time and time again. Iran in F-14's could fly into Iraqi airspace. The Syrians airdefenses were useless against the Israelis. Everyone knows the story with Iraq. Same against Kosovo.


Flying into enemy airspace is pretty pointless if you can not affect events on the ground to conclusion and last i checked it was not the Israeli air force that won the war for them or either the Iraqi or Iranian air forces that won those wars. You can go look at the losses suffered by the Israeli air force when it ignored Sam's instead of spending all their efforts to counter it first. Since the idea with Sam's is to keep them enemy from interdicting your ground forces that is successful use of a weapon system. I agree that if your looking at SAM's alone that picture might form in your mind as the countries who relied on them normally lost air superiority anyways thus having to rely on SAM's alone. I maintain that since this was never the Soviet doctrine it is a false premise.


I tend to think that actual results on the battlefield speak louder than anything else. SAM's have performed lousy in every chance they've been given.


I agree that battlefield results speak louder than anything else. Sam's only performed the way you suggest if you measure their results in terms of aircraft shot down and not in terms of protecting ground forces from taking the brunt of all that attention.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Stellar penetrating airspace is penetrating airspace The F 14's still got in. If it was a modern weasel AC the sams would be dead. The Sa 5's were designed to stop the CIA's SR 71. However unfortunately for thrrussians not one Sr 71 was shot down period in the deepest soviet territory. Sams havent stopped commandrs from getting air superiority just complicate it. Plus if sams are so effective how come no F117's were shot down when they penetrated iraqi airspace. Thye had a very dense network of sams and AAA guns. And the coalition managed this feat in 2003 as well.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Stellar penetrating airspace is penetrating airspace The F 14's still got in. If it was a modern weasel AC the sams would be dead.


Well that kinda did not happen in Kosovo but there was plenty of places to hide which is not always so.


The Sa 5's were designed to stop the CIA's SR 71.


The Sa-5 was designed to shoot down ballistic missiles of all types with the secondary function of trying to shoot down anything else that came close enough.


However unfortunately for thrrussians not one Sr 71 was shot down period in the deepest soviet territory.


Well the Sa-5 was simply not designed with that in mind however much the Russians tried to confuse us by claiming as much. Either way the SR- 71 was VERY fast and any shot taken at it at that altitude was always going to be hard to manage considering it's fly-out speed and ability to manoeuvre out of lead shots. I am however currently at loss to explain the general failure to shoot down more SR-71's if they were in fact flying over the USSR as we are/were told.


Sams havent stopped commandrs from getting air superiority just complicate it.


Air superiority is in itself meaningless if you are attacking and the enemy have all the choices as to when to engage you with Sam's or his strike aircraft. Complicating air superiority into forcing the enemy to allocate dozens of missiles onto one target ( for fear of missing it with only 1 or 2) is about as much as you can require from air defenses when you do not have your own air force with which to engage his strait on.


Plus if sams are so effective how come no F117's were shot down when they penetrated iraqi airspace. Thye had a very dense network of sams and AAA guns. And the coalition managed this feat in 2003 as well.


Because it is hard to shoot down F117's who's missions are normally planned so that they would not go near anything that could shoot them down. 'Stealth' is far more missions planning and tactics than it is low RCS and if you think low RCS will keep you alive without proper mission planning and support your just plain wrong.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Still though after such a dense sam network the SR 71 still did. Once the air superiority is ahcieved significanly and most sams have been supressed then its meaninful. It takes time but ultiately will be achieved. Uhh about the F 117's that's where you're partly incorrect u need mission planning yes taht's important. However the F117 can only be dtected at short rangessurrounding the radars. So the sams can only engage at very short range well before it would dwetect the F 117 while the F117 destroys the sam. mission planning is very importnat where have i stated it wasnt u stated something i wasnt even talking about. Mission planningmis needed because if u acccidentally fly over sam you will get shot down and without it you wont realy know where the sams are. Not to mention inorder to atackle them you need good eling/signint. there are about a good number of sams but that still allows the AC to threaten the most heavily defended targets without a scatch go look up the iraq war. Stealth is noa bvsolute it simply gives u abig adbantage but to make sure ou come back home mission planning and good intelligence is needed. You are right but not completely anyways like i said its iportant like i said.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Which is more likely explained by Iraqi doctrine and incompetence than anything else imo. They still managed to shoot down 44 aircraft and damage over a 100 beyond repair in operation desert Shield/Storm last i checked. The terrain certainly did not favour the defense either.


It's always the incompetence of the user with Russian equipment, isn't it? I mean, the Russians generally trained their allies, and in many cases had advisers who set the systems up.

Following the first Gulf War, the Russians and Chinese both set up the Iraqi air defense systems. Didn't help them much.

In the past 55 years, Russian SAM's fired 50 shots for every 1 plane hit. Really efficient, huh? By comparison, in past conflicts Western designs fired 5 for every 1 plane hit. Stingers had a 90% hit rate.

From How to Make War, by James Dunnigan:
"That said, all the allied aircraft losses in combat during the Gulf War were from low-tech weapons like machine guns and small SAMs. As in the past, air defenses will spend most of their time waiting for targets that never appear."

Reason being, planes simply avoid the heavily defended areas. They are easy to circumvent, as well as easy to attack. They are highly vulnerable.

Another nice example, from the same book:
"Even when the Russians themsleves build an air-defnese system, they get clobered. An example of this occurred in Angola, during the late 1980's, when Soviets constructed the most elaborate air-defense system found outside Europe. Over 70 radars and two dozen missile bases were supported by nearly 100 interceptors. Most of this was maintained by East German mercenaries. Yet South African aircraft regularly penetrated the system."

So, you have faith in your SAMs. I'll trust history on this one.



Well i was referring to the lack of capacity to US seems to display in combating such weapons while the Russians have long since been deploying their strategic Sam's/aircraft to combat such weapon types.


Funny. The NAVY designed their air defenses specifically to deal with the type of threats you were ranting about. There is no instance where missiles had the better of a Western naval force. However, we have plenty examples of SAMs (specifically Russian designed SAMs) failing to achieve their goals.



Well feel free to state the aims NATO achieved in KOSOVO so that i can agree with you if it in facts turns out to be true. Last i checked NATO's stated aim was to stop the general killing which in fact escalated out of control right about the time NATO started bombing. But maybe your source say something else.


The goal of the bombing campaign was to destroy Serbian air defenses, and NATO achieved this.

Bomb the Serbs into submission, and get peace keepers in. NATO succeeded in this. You can't stop genocide on the ground with a bombing campaign.



Well then you must not be reading the same history i am and i suggest you start telling me about the version your looking at.


It's simply. SAMs failed in every war since WW2. Air defenses have been ineffective in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and everytime a Muslim nation has fought a Western military force.


I agree that battlefield results speak louder than anything else. Sam's only performed the way you suggest if you measure their results in terms of aircraft shot down and not in terms of protecting ground forces from taking the brunt of all that attention.


Tell that to the Iraqis in the Gulf War. Many, if not the majority of their tanks were shot up by American air power.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It's always the incompetence of the user with Russian equipment, isn't it? I mean, the Russians generally trained their allies, and in many cases had advisers who set the systems up.


The west always claims the Russians( USSR) were training just about everyone and everything but it turns out they were rarely involved beyond donations or making a fast buck. My claim about incompetence is based on the fact that Israeli has always managed to come out on top however much training and practice the other side got thus leading me to believe that running effective air defense requires a fast learning or highly skilled personal to start with. It just seems to me that trusting just anyone with it seems to be a recipe for disaster when going up against very well trained MASSIVE air forces of the west that these air defenses are always measured against. I think the basic premise is false as there is only a few air forces in the world with both the numbers and the training to do that to well trained defenders.


Following the first Gulf War, the Russians and Chinese both set up the Iraqi air defense systems. Didn't help them much.


They had more than ten years to take pictures and generally make the system ineffective before the war ever started. This example is a very poor one compared to many of the rest.


In the past 55 years, Russian SAM's fired 50 shots for every 1 plane hit. Really efficient, huh? By comparison, in past conflicts Western designs fired 5 for every 1 plane hit. Stingers had a 90% hit rate.


Well feel free to source the second claim as that is not what i read.
The fact that two sides, using nearly the same weaponry, can suffer vastly different losses should be obvious to you from reading history.


From How to Make War, by James Dunnigan:
"That said, all the allied aircraft losses in combat during the Gulf War were from low-tech weapons like machine guns and small SAMs. As in the past, air defenses will spend most of their time waiting for targets that never appear."


Well if air defenses air avoided they are doing their job without doing much anything which thus makes them more than 100% effective.


Reason being, planes simply avoid the heavily defended areas. They are easy to circumvent, as well as easy to attack. They are highly vulnerable.


If you do not understand what your admitting to here then i probably wont be able to tell you anyways.



Another nice example, from the same book:
"Even when the Russians themsleves build an air-defnese system, they get clobered. An example of this occurred in Angola, during the late 1980's, when Soviets constructed the most elaborate air-defense system found outside Europe. Over 70 radars and two dozen missile bases were supported by nearly 100 interceptors. Most of this was maintained by East German mercenaries. Yet South African aircraft regularly penetrated the system."


Well the fact that we took to the air alone ( considering what we were up against) proves that it's hard to quantify success. Does the book state how effective the penetration of the air defenses was or are you assuming that flying over ' enemy airspace' will intimidate them into surrendering?


So, you have faith in your SAMs. I'll trust history on this one.


I have faith in the fact that against most comers Sam's will do their job in making enemy mission planning hard and force them to avoid dense concentrations of your ground forces for fear of getting shot to pieces. Slowly degrading a enemy air defense is obviously something you will do with time but time is not something NATO ground forces would have had when trying to stop Warsaw pact forces from taking a vacation on French beaches. Fact is whenever air forces ignore air defense they suffer badly for it and it simply takes time to degrade them when buying time is all they were supposed to do in the first place. Sam's are only ineffective if your the type of person that defines success as smoking airplane craters in the ground.


Funny. The NAVY designed their air defenses specifically to deal with the type of threats you were ranting about. There is no instance where missiles had the better of a Western naval force. However, we have plenty examples of SAMs (specifically Russian designed SAMs) failing to achieve their goals.


The few instances in which missiles were fired at Western forces it normally did not go so well. Look at what happened when Iran/Iraq fired missiles at each other ships? What sort of Navy does Israel deploy? Those are experienced navies ( Meaning they got ships sunk by missile fire) and look what sort of ships they are currently operating? Are they in fact deploying small missile boats these days? When dozens of Sam batteries go up against a thousand NATO planes our latest score card show that Sam's trying to survive can very well do so. They have been getting more effective with time and they were never the complete failures you suggest they were.


The goal of the bombing campaign was to destroy Serbian air defenses, and NATO achieved this.


No they did not manage that as the article ( and myself) repeatedly states. I wish you would read the links?


Bomb the Serbs into submission, and get peace keepers in. NATO succeeded in this. You can't stop genocide on the ground with a bombing campaign.


Well if you can not stop the genocide which is the stated reason for the intervention then your failing to do anything but be spiteful imo. The Serbian armed forces were NOT bombed into submission since it was politicians who gave in due to having their industry and popularity bombed.


It's simply. SAMs failed in every war since WW2. Air defenses have been ineffective in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and everytime a Muslim nation has fought a Western military force.


Sam's did not fail in every major war? Where do you get that from anyways? Germany lost WW2 before middle 1944 ( they were fighting on 4 fronts if you count skies over Germany when the strategic bombing campaign started focusing on REALLY bombing Germany) last i checked there is still a North Korea so that was 'losing' considering the South invaded the north and in Vietnam i did not see the US sticking around forever either. Air defenses played their part in all these conflicts and the US always had the time and resources to absorb the losses, learn some lessons and build another 2 planes for every one destroyed. Few if any other nations can in fact do that and to suppose this as standard for assuming Sam's are ineffective is plain wrong on a global scale. The fact that the US has the massive air force is does makes air superiority almost a given in most conflicts but that would simply not have been true against the USSR thus making their Sam's far more effective. I enemy that can operate his SEAD forces without having to worry about enemy planes has won rather more than half the battle and yet they could not manage that in Kosovo.

Now we can clearly see from Israel's defense of it's borders that it frequently managed to fight off superior weaponry with inferior equipment so arguing that it's the Sam's that failed the Muslims instead of assuming that it's once again Israeli ingenuity is not fair imo. Who yields a weapon is at least , if not far more, as important as the qualities of the weapon and we would all be lying if we are going to attribute great skills to Arab/Vietnamese/North Korean armies who just did not have the technological/educational/cultural base required to man the weapons in question.


Tell that to the Iraqis in the Gulf War. Many, if not the majority of their tanks were shot up by American air power.


Well trying to fight a battle against NATO air power in the desert got them exactly what could have been expected imo. Once you own the skies so completely and the enemy can not hide from you by passive means ( trees,forests,hills) then your in trouble already and the outcome largely a matter of time depending on many losses the enemy is willing to take. I just do not think your example's are accurate considering the absence of the Iraqi air force and the way America/Israel always managed to gain air superiority by destroying enemy aircraft in a way that indicated clearly who the superior force was to start with. With the disparity in training/doctrine/equipment indicated why assume the Sam's must perform far better even if they are as effective as their Western counterparts?

When that happens it largely proves which side is more skilled and has the initiative in the coming war thus making air defense a moot point in anything but the short run. You can not just give control of the air away and expect to win by passively trying to defend everything while the enemy can mass and crush you on any given point. Sam's are merely complementary and alone one should expect them to be outmaneuvered and crushed in the short/long run ESPECIALLY if you lose control of the skies by having your own interceptors up there. If you do not use the time given to you by your air defenses to achieve something on the battlefield then it's a moot point anyways as the best they could ever do is buy you time. If you look at all the conflicts you mentioned you will realise that what i say is accurate and that air defenses will serve you very well only as long as you have the initiative thus forcing the enemy to concentrate on your ground forces instead of degrading your air defenses.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Still though after such a dense sam network the SR 71 still did.


Density matters not so much when your flying that high and fast trying to take pictures of god knows what.


Once the air superiority is ahcieved significanly and most sams have been supressed then its meaninful.


Look even if Sam's shut their tracking radar's off they still have their early warning one's which can give them a good idea of what your doing if they have theirs on. Air superiority was never completely achieved as NATO aircraft had to fly above 15 000 feet ( admittedly partly for political reasons) thus making them to a large extent ineffective against ground targets. Flying over a Sam might force it to shut down it's radars and move but that does not mean it disappears forever either.


It takes time but ultiately will be achieved. Uhh about the F 117's that's where you're partly incorrect u need mission planning yes taht's important.


Mission planning is in fact the predominant aspect of stealth.


However the F117 can only be dtected at short rangessurrounding the radars.


Define 'short range' if you do not know where the enemy Sam's are. How will you not to get in range of something that you do not know the location of off? Illogical argument.


So the sams can only engage at very short range well before it would dwetect the F 117 while the F117 destroys the sam.


Your assuming knowledge that will rarely be in evidence for any amount of time. Sam radars and batteries are highly mobile today and even the Sa-6 could stay alive without being anywhere near highly mobile.


mission planning is very importnat where have i stated it wasnt u stated something i wasnt even talking about.


You think stealth is about not being seen when it is in fact mostly about mission planning that avoids threat areas and taking any risks.


Mission planningmis needed because if u acccidentally fly over sam you will get shot down and without it you wont realy know where the sams are.


Which has been my point so far. You never know where they are for very long and if you do not have the aircraft on standby to get munitions on target inside 10 minutes you wont only hit air but they will be ready to take a shot at you from another position.


Not to mention inorder to atackle them you need good eling/signint.


You need the best and that is what normally keeps the US air force flying.


there are about a good number of sams but that still allows the AC to threaten the most heavily defended targets without a scatch go look up the iraq war.


They simply lacked the space or force levels to stage a defense in depth in that country where the outside ring of air defenses can be shut down to allow intruders onto the second line where they can be trapped and attacked from all aspects. The first gulf war proves that fighting Iranians do not mean you learn what is required to defend yourself against a NATO air campaign with any success. If you think it says more than that explain in detail why you believe that so.


Stealth is noa bvsolute it simply gives u abig adbantage but to make sure ou come back home mission planning and good intelligence is needed.


Well glad your finally putting it in words that i can fully agree with.


You are right but not completely anyways like i said its iportant like i said.


I reckon once i learn to understand your particular brand of English we might agree on very many more things.


Stellar



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Algain your statements show ur lack of knowledge. Stealth reduces the enmy detection capability to a point where tactical usefulness is very questionable. That's what i mean y short trange which is iterally short range. en.wikipedia.org... . Of course mission planning is needed you need to know where the sams are to increase your chances of cmoing home. However it's not the predominant part but a vital one. Sams are not as difficult to locate as you are putting them out to be. WHich is exactly what the RC 135 RIvet joint AC is for. To get a good location of the enmy sams while other sensors are used for a closer look. Its no goood to only use EW radars . If you can see but not shoot its pointless once the enmy's already in. Well the SA 5 is talented in taking out AC. the soviets knew the US was flying issions above the UUSR but their very dense network couldnt even bring down even 1 SR 71. Turning your sam radars on makes them vulnerable to ARMS. True not all sams will be threatended but a good number. Thus enablingother AC to strike your high valued targets thats what wild weasels do. SOme of your high value targets are not mobile making them even more vulnerable. lol!! an immobile sam is nothing but a target you need mobility. I dont see why you think immobile sams are so surviveable. Short range sams are used to fill in the gaps of coverage by long range sams but are easier to take out due to their lack of range. Refer to the horizon calculator big thanks to sandman for this one . radarproblems.com...
www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

Sams only delay the enmy it cant hold them off forever evn with conventional AC i will break through. Combined with Intelligence AC even a conventional AC can loacte SAM networks and take them out. no sam network lasts forever and it has shown that they have never stopped the enemy dead in their tracks however i do believe they're essential.


[edit on 9-4-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 9-4-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   


The west always claims the Russians( USSR) were training just about everyone and everything but it turns out they were rarely involved beyond donations or making a fast buck.


Um, bull. Russians have often sent thousands of advisers and soldiers into conflicts, especially to their allies in the Middle East.



They had more than ten years to take pictures and generally make the system ineffective before the war ever started. This example is a very poor one compared to many of the rest.


Right. This doesn't apply to Russia and China, right? Or Iran? I'm sure America doesn't have any clue where they have positioned their defenses...



Well feel free to source the second claim as that is not what i read. The fact that two sides, using nearly the same weaponry, can suffer vastly different losses should be obvious to you from reading history.


You have no source. I've provided a source. Guess what? It's now your turn to show otherwise.



Well if air defenses air avoided they are doing their job without doing much anything which thus makes them more than 100% effective.


Problem being here, the enemies are still able to destroy all their targets. If they can do that, the SAMs certainly aren't doing their job.



Well the fact that we took to the air alone ( considering what we were up against) proves that it's hard to quantify success. Does the book state how effective the penetration of the air defenses was or are you assuming that flying over ' enemy airspace' will intimidate them into surrendering?


Um, right. They penetrated the air defenses. They flew over the space with impunity. The statement is clear. You are just desperately trying to spin this.

In Kosovo, NATO did bomb the Serbs into submission.



I have faith in the fact that against most comers Sam's will do their job in making enemy mission planning hard and force them to avoid dense concentrations of your ground forces for fear of getting shot to pieces. Slowly degrading a enemy air defense is obviously something you will do with time but time is not something NATO ground forces would have had when trying to stop Warsaw pact forces from taking a vacation on French beaches. Fact is whenever air forces ignore air defense they suffer badly for it and it simply takes time to degrade them when buying time is all they were supposed to do in the first place. Sam's are only ineffective if your the type of person that defines success as smoking airplane craters in the ground.


Once again, tell this to the Iraqis. Their forces were shot to peaces. An invading force of Russians would have been chicken shoot.



The few instances in which missiles were fired at Western forces it normally did not go so well. Look at what happened when Iran/Iraq fired missiles at each other ships? What sort of Navy does Israel deploy? Those are experienced navies ( Meaning they got ships sunk by missile fire) and look what sort of ships they are currently operating? Are they in fact deploying small missile boats these days? When dozens of Sam batteries go up against a thousand NATO planes our latest score card show that Sam's trying to survive can very well do so. They have been getting more effective with time and they were never the complete failures you suggest they were.


SAMs can survive, huh? They didn't in Kosovo, or Iraq. They were ineffective when the Syrians used them.

Your reference to Iranian and Iraqi naval battles is stupid and irrational. Let's assume for a second there were any major naval conflicts during the war. Neither side had the anti-missile defenses of the Western navies.



Well if you can not stop the genocide which is the stated reason for the intervention then your failing to do anything but be spiteful imo. The Serbian armed forces were NOT bombed into submission since it was politicians who gave in due to having their industry and popularity bombed.


The genocide was stopped. Peacekeepers were put in.



Sam's did not fail in every major war? Where do you get that from anyways? Germany lost WW2 before middle 1944 ( they were fighting on 4 fronts if you count skies over Germany when the strategic bombing campaign started focusing on REALLY bombing Germany) last i checked there is still a North Korea so that was 'losing' considering the South invaded the north and in Vietnam i did not see the US sticking around forever either. Air defenses played their part in all these conflicts and the US always had the time and resources to absorb the losses, learn some lessons and build another 2 planes for every one destroyed. Few if any other nations can in fact do that and to suppose this as standard for assuming Sam's are ineffective is plain wrong on a global scale. The fact that the US has the massive air force is does makes air superiority almost a given in most conflicts but that would simply not have been true against the USSR thus making their Sam's far more effective. I enemy that can operate his SEAD forces without having to worry about enemy planes has won rather more than half the battle and yet they could not manage that in Kosovo.


The point here is the effectiness of SAMs. What you fail to mention is that the West had air superiority in all of those wars.

What you now are trying, or would have to argue, to make your point is that air superiority doesn't determine the outcome of the war. This in itself is irrelevent. This is about SAMs vs. planes, or stealth planes in particular.



Now we can clearly see from Israel's defense of it's borders that it frequently managed to fight off superior weaponry with inferior equipment so arguing that it's the Sam's that failed the Muslims instead of assuming that it's once again Israeli ingenuity is not fair imo. Who yields a weapon is at least , if not far more, as important as the qualities of the weapon and we would all be lying if we are going to attribute great skills to Arab/Vietnamese/North Korean armies who just did not have the technological/educational/cultural base required to man the weapons in question.


Israel had inferior equipment? That's complete nonsense.

I've already cited an example of Russian defenses being manned by mercenaries from Eastern Europe. They didn't do any better.


Well trying to fight a battle against NATO air power in the desert got them exactly what could have been expected imo. Once you own the skies so completely and the enemy can not hide from you by passive means ( trees,forests,hills) then your in trouble already and the outcome largely a matter of time depending on many losses the enemy is willing to take. I just do not think your example's are accurate considering the absence of the Iraqi air force and the way America/Israel always managed to gain air superiority by destroying enemy aircraft in a way that indicated clearly who the superior force was to start with. With the disparity in training/doctrine/equipment indicated why assume the Sam's must perform far better even if they are as effective as their Western counterparts?


Can anyone explain why Russian had to build up its air defenses? Why did they rely so much on SAMs? It was because they basically conceded that the West would gain air superiority over the battlefield. They were looking for a means to neutralize the threat to their ground forces from the air.

Sweeping away the Russian airforce wouldn't have been easy, but both sides expected the West to win the war in the air.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join