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.

 

Does the Russian Tor-M1 render most of the USAF worthless?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi




American systems have been combat tested


Where on Earth were they combat tested ?

[edit on 1-1-2007 by Leevi]


Weapon systems in general. In every real combat scenario, in recent history, where Russian equipment has gone up against American equipment, it has been found lacking.




posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   


Well as a last resort, we can just use our Alien technology that we got from UFOs. With that no weapon system could hope to survive against us. Of course we only use that on special occasions.


You love your country more than required if you think so
I'm afraid to ask you if you've got any references to support such outrageous statements.



In every real combat scenario, in recent history, where Russian equipment has gone up against American equipment, it has been found lacking.


Please be more specific. Why bother posting nonsense ?

[edit on 1-1-2007 by Leevi]


ape

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   
who am i being mocked by? a bunch of russians? anyone with common sense agrees with my posts and wespoints, you guys flame these forums talking about communist superiority posting a bunch of russian sources ( and we all know how honest russian communist loving sources are ) when we are here posting links which you asked for and showing you evidence on how bunk stellarX is and yet you still talk shiza? agm-129a would take out anything in russia and for your information the 460 ACM's in operation for the USAF are used in mass to ensure destruction of any target tomahawks follow up if the US really wants to to do some damage. stop acting so superior and mocking americans and american weaponry unless you want to be made fool of.

westpoint has provided some good reads from some credable sources that are actually legit, you can find THEL videos all over the place with the testing at white sands etc, the US in 10 years will have total DEW domiance and make ICBM's obsolete, leaving russia in the dust because they will not be able to keep up and deploy. russia on the other hand doesn't provide anything and all you can dig up are a bunch or articles from back in 87 like stellar did, only one thing I have to say.. HAHAHA.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi


Well as a last resort, we can just use our Alien technology that we got from UFOs. With that no weapon system could hope to survive against us. Of course we only use that on special occasions.


You love your country more than required if you think so
I'm afraid to ask you if you've got any references to support such outrageous statements.



In every real combat scenario, in recent history, where Russian equipment has gone up against American equipment, it has been found lacking.


Please be more specific. Why bother posting nonsense ?

[edit on 1-1-2007 by Leevi]


As for the first bit, that's known in some circles as sarcasm. As for the other claim- US fighters have an unbeaten A2A record vs. Russian aircraft(I think one F-18 was shot down in A2A, out of how many MIG and SU types that have been shot down since the late 70s/early 80s)
US Tanks vs. Russian Tanks, and so forth.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
ape, you haven't done anything I proposed you to keep up your competence so you've failed miserably by posting nonsense again. What Russian sources I use you are talking about ? Please specify at least one Russian source of mine.

My list of proposals for you still applies. Since you haven't contributed anything useful to the discussion lately, this will be your homework.

Show us at least one official from the American government or military who's point of view you're sharing. Show us evidence, that money is the only key factor to success in the military area along with depicting basic differences in economical structure of the USA and Russia. Disprove the information above by providing your links to the sources, which would state that the new Russian missiles are in fact vulnerable to any countermeasures.

Try not to do away with it as this will show us how competent you are when it comes to the subject matter and the board will know whom it is dealing with: a wise man or a good-for-nothing stubborn troll.

Thank you


[edit on 1-1-2007 by Leevi]


ape

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
why would I need to post any links stating money is a significant factor in developing new and lethal weapons when anyone with common sense knows that it is. Are you going to put chains on the developers and the people who manufacture the weapons? are you going to whip them into submission and feed them bread and potatoes??? get a clue man you only make yourself look foolish.

funding is everything, it ensures that the proper backing has been put into the project what do you think the term 'cut funding' means and why people who are working on projects in any country dread hearing those words? the US outspends the next top 20 countries in this subject and I think that means everything.

I was also talking about stellar constantly referencing inaccurate and biased sources, i laugh when they got a .ru after them





[edit on 1-1-2007 by ape]

[edit on 1-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Haven't you completed your hometask again ?? You know what, you need a good ban. Your ignorance on the subject is irrefutable and undeniable.
I'm surprised how mods here deal with you. I've reviewed several threads with your participation where you impose childish accusations on the others who "bash" and "insult" your country. You don't have a slightest idea that this simply isn't so.
You're uneducated, inhospitable, stubborn person who has a very weak self-esteem. Acknowledge that and never come back to discuss matters you have no idea of until you learn your mentality, correct your behaviour and read up on the subject as well.
You've revealed yourself as a pathological nationalist who has no respect to other countries, people from other countries or their opinions. You're an egoistical and opinionated product of American mass-media who is blind and so weakly developed that nothing will make you believe anything except what you've been told to on CNN. Sorry, I quit this senseless dialogue with you.
Ignore mode "on".


[edit on 1-1-2007 by Leevi]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
And I find it hard to believe YOU, because you haven't yet come up with any bit of official information which corresponds to your imagination.


Huh? What do I need "official" information for? The speed of light?
Everything I've said is common sense and well known. Look up the flight test results of the systems I posted about, the information is in the links.

I suggest these for reading as well.

Link 1
Link 2

[edit on 1-1-2007 by WestPoint23]


ape

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
You haven't completed your hometask again ?? You know what, you need a good ban. Your ignorance on the subject is irrefutable and undeniable.
I'm surprised how mods here deal with you. I've reviewed several threads with your participation where you're imposing your childish accusations on the others who "bash" and "insult" your country. You doesn't have a slightest idea that this simply isn't so.
You're uneducated, inhospitable, stubborn person who has a very weak self-esteem. Acknowledge that and never come back to discuss the matters you have no idea of until you learn your mentality, correct your behaviour and read up on the subject as well.
You revealed yourself as a pathological nationalist who has no respect to other countries, people from other countries or their opinions. You're an egoistical and opinionated product of American mass-media who is blind and so weakly developed that nothing will make you believe anything except what you've been told to. Sorry, I quit this senseless dialogue with you.
Ignore mode "on".


what exactly does this post have to do with funding for r&d which you were attempting to debate me on ??? this is a prime example of what westpoint and I are dealing with here and yet we are called ignorant children? someone needs a grip on reality.



[edit on 1-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Leevi
And I find it hard to believe YOU, because you haven't yet come up with any bit of official information which corresponds to your imagination.


Huh? What do I need "official" information for? The speed of light?
Everything I've said is common sense and well known.


You need to seek for the public information that reflects your opinion on the countermeasures against SS-25 and SS-27 in particular. So, what are you waiting for ? Go ! Floor it !



Look up the flight test results of the systems I posted about, the information is in the links.


Well, at least they can fly..




Link 1 Link 2


What does an average Joe's hypothesis have to do with the reality ?


[edit on 1-1-2007 by Leevi]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
You need to sek for the public information that reflects your opinion on the countermeasures against SS-25 and SS-27 in particular.


Already been posted, you alleged that they would not work against the Topol-M, and proceed to present dubious and incorrect 'facts', now you accuse me of not presenting "official" information? Like I said, for US systems there are flight test results and published stats on their capabilities, some of which have not yet fully matured. From the Russians we have claims and speculation. No doubt, as I said before, some of the capabilities of the SS-27 are know and have been demonstrated, such as maneuvering in the terminal phase and the non orbital flight path. However there is no evidence forthcoming for some of the more extraordinary acclaimed features, without which there is no meet in your argument that US countermeasures won't work.


Originally posted by Leevi
What does an average Joe's hypothesis have to do with the reality?


You haven't been here long but let me give you a heads up, Intelgurl is not your "average Joe" and her information does reflect reality an current capabilities.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


Originally posted by DoBravery
Since Vietnam (and that could be argued), no anti-aircraft system has prevented the US from carrying out its air strategies.


Well i for one would argue... Does the fact that the air defenses of the countries the US chose to invade failed to defend those countries for long or at all prove that that air defenses are a waste of time or does it prove that overwhelming force, picking on the weak or good planning wins you wars? The US have never fought a nation that invested anywhere near the same amount of resources in it's defense forces than the US invested in it's offensive forces. If we scale up the incidents and wars we have seen i think it's fair to say that air ground based air defenses would prevail under similar resource allocation situations.


You may shoot down some aircraft here and there, but if most aircraft complete their mission, then that's not good for you.


Actually you don't have to shoot down a single aircraft if you can, by your mere presence, ensure their ineffectiveness in some way; it's just NOT about shooting down aircraft even if that never hurts the defense...


The best air defence is having air superiority.


So basically you need to be the USSR or have similar economic potential so you can have a large enough pure air force with which to resist invasion? Your not giving your ideas much thought imo....



Regardless of systems, I think the advantage goes to the aggressor, for it choses when or where. I think the most successful use of SAM's was by the Egyptians in the Sinai against Israel. But Egypt/Syria were also the attackers, were better prepared, and outnumbered Israeli aircraft 2 to 1.

And yes. You do need significant military economic resources to avoid invasion. N Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia all had about as best defense systems as you can get outside of Russia. None of which caused the US to cancel air ops. Even if some SAM batteries repel an attack, without air supperiority the target will be attacked the next hour, day, or week.

To be honest. I'm sure the US could plan a successful air attack against any nation including the USSR. Its more about being the attacker than being the defender. The problem is that there are ramifications outside of just air defense. For example the US could easily bombard N Korea's airbases with cruise missles while aircraft deal with anything that emits a radio wave. But. . . aircraft alone can't stop an army. Seoul would be leveled. North Korean nukes? China? Economics and cost? Reason?

SAM's are anything but 1 shot 1 kill. For every aircraft downed, there are tens of misses. When the enemy has air superiority, SAM's too are scared to activate. When the US army was gone and we were enforcing the No-Fly, any SAM that targeted or fired on a US jet was quickly dispatched.

I think you way over-estimate the ability of ground based air defense. I think air defense might dissuade a moderately armed neighbor country, but this thread identifies the US. While its always good to upgrade, I don't think it will ever be said: "We can knock out Iran's nuclear program in one swoop. The reason why we can't is because the facility is surrounded by a bunch of those damn impassable Tor-M1's."

Basically we are intimidated by enemy nukes, not air defenses.

[edit on 3-1-2007 by DoBravery]


ape

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
the agm-129a acm can penetrate any russian system.

[edit on 3-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
Weapon systems in general. In every real combat scenario, in recent history, where Russian equipment has gone up against American equipment, it has been found lacking.


Thats becuase there has always been a mismatch in generation of weapons.

You usally get the latest American weapons with the latest block xx update vs 1960's and early 1970's SA-2 and SA-6 possibly with some SA-7 in there vs F-16, F-18, F-117a with all the latest block upgrades eg.. 40? 52? etc...

Of course they are always going to lose.

If you want to test American air superiority try your stuff against S-300 + Buk-2m and Tor-m1 combo's as see how the results are.



Originally posted by GT100FV
As for the first bit, that's known in some circles as sarcasm. As for the other claim- US fighters have an unbeaten A2A record vs. Russian aircraft(I think one F-18 was shot down in A2A, out of how many MIG and SU types that have been shot down since the late 70s/early 80s)
US Tanks vs. Russian Tanks, and so forth.


American weapons are a mismatch once again generation and upgrade wise vs what they face.

The Americans use the latest upgrades and frames with the enemy who uses old tech. E.g. Iraq used T-55(1960's) and T-72(1970's) vs Ameircan M1A1(1980's) & M1A2(1990's)



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I'm including Mig 29s in the A2A that have been shot down in BVR and WVR conditions against F-15 and F-16s, and a F-16 shot a Mig 25 down too(not the latest technology of course, but still a difficult target when operating at high speed and altitude, and when it's armed as well).

It's true that the Flankers have advantages in certain manuevering characteristics vs. F-15 and F-16s, but if equipped with HMS, AIM 9X, and AIM120 C7 or D, and AESA, one would be foolish to completely write them off as not posing a significant threat. Not even a Flanker or Fulcrum pilot would chose to go WVR, if they can keep the fight BVR. That's a very dangerous place to be for any pilot in any aircraft.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape
who am i being mocked by? a bunch of russians? anyone with common sense agrees with my posts and wespoints, you guys flame these forums talking about communist superiority posting a bunch of russian sources ( and we all know how honest russian communist loving sources are ) when we are here posting links which you asked for and showing you evidence on how bunk stellarX is and yet you still talk shiza? agm-129a would take out anything in russia and for your information the 460 ACM's in operation for the USAF are used in mass to ensure destruction of any target tomahawks follow up if the US really wants to to do some damage. stop acting so superior and mocking americans and american weaponry unless you want to be made fool of.

westpoint has provided some good reads from some credable sources that are actually legit, you can find THEL videos all over the place with the testing at white sands etc, the US in 10 years will have total DEW domiance and make ICBM's obsolete, leaving russia in the dust because they will not be able to keep up and deploy. russia on the other hand doesn't provide anything and all you can dig up are a bunch or articles from back in 87 like stellar did, only one thing I have to say.. HAHAHA.

damn dude,, you seriously have a problem or something.. every thread I read you have to call people communists.. LMAO SOVIET UNION BROKE UP!!! and believe it or not, i doubt that slavics(eastern europeans) who debate on these forums are communists..
you are like Joseph MCCarthy thinking and assuming that if he is russian, HE's GOT TO BE a cOMMUNIST! hahaha



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The simplest way to counter these threats is to remove them before they are a threat. Where money comes into the equation is that all of these cutting edge weapon systems are so expensive that the quantities availible are minimal.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by vishu
I have "comprehended" that there is no single system that can render USAF (or any other air force) useless, but the Tor M1 in the hands of a good operator is potent.


I think you comprehended as much as could be.



I completely agree to your second comment


I could get used to this...


Please elaborate on the next two pointers that you have stated.....why this statement "a weak America is apparently not something they want to change or have the power to do"


Well the Pentagon and various American administrations have been working America into a every worse economic and strategic position for three decades now and one must at some point consider if this has to do with what they want for American or what they can not prevent others from doing to the US....


So if Iran decides to moderate its stance on Israel, cuts back its backing to


Why should they moderate their stance on Israel if the US has never moderated it's stance against them? Israel certainly has much to do with American policies so why must they moderate how truthful they are going to be in reporting on this matter?


Hezbollah and such groups...and then continues its nuclear program, still the US wouldn't do anything?


Pakistan also has nuclear weapons and that country is also run by a actual dictator? Pakistan sponsors rather more terror ( that we can prove anyways) than Iran does so why are so much propaganda aimed at Iran when there is NO, ZERO evidence ( according to Ron Paul) that they are trying to build nuclear weapons? I think the US will eventually attack Iran as it's already created almost perfect conditions ( destroying the Taliban; sworn enemy of Iran,' liberating' the Shia majority in Iraq so that they can aid Iran when the time comes) for failure which seems to be driving intent ( coerced or not) of Washington policy makers.


When I say Iran learned something, I meant on how to use those SAMs


You can't really move the Sa-5 around and in peace time one must deploy your air defenses in permanent locations of some sort for training and general maintenance as well as good crew quartering and support facilities. That is especially so for strategic air defenses such as the Sa-5/Sa-10 and such bases can be observed all over Russia as well. The Sa-10 will deploy into the field once the long range cruise missiles and ICBMs/SLBMs warheads have been dealt with but that cost more money and obviously harder on the crew and equipment. The regular army air defense units is however a very different matter as they are based where army units are and will deploy in support of them.


What about the Iranian populace, would they support their regime (in the light of the US invasion)...


Iranians know who their enemies are and if people think the US is having a hard time in Iraq they are going to be very surprised by the levels of resistance they will enc outer before and after a invasion of Iran...


won't they play a bigger role, won't they go out of their way to help their regime...if so then i do think they wouldn't mind the "sacrifice" so much...


I think you will find the following article quite revealing...

www.house.gov...

Stellar



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoBravery
Regardless of systems, I think the advantage goes to the aggressor,

for it choses when or where.

Well in terms of overall strategy that might be true but remember that Soviet and air defenses in general are there to protect not only strategic forces but mainly mobile forces ( strategic air defense rest on a combination of fixed air defense and aircraft) and the fact is that the American air force would not have been able to choose where to attack but would have had to respond to Soviet penetrations thus robbing them of the strategic initiative already.


I think the most successful use of SAM's was by the Egyptians in the Sinai against Israel. But Egypt/Syria were also the attackers, were better prepared, and outnumbered Israeli aircraft 2 to 1.


And if it was not for the SAM defenses things would have gone far far worse for Egypt and allies... My point is that it gives great efficiency for comparable cost and is generally simpler to operate within design specifications than any comparable air force infrastructure you could deploy. Also remember that aircraft by mere definition needs extensive infrastructure to maintain in operational conditions as well as air fields that does not move as becomes subject to prompt theater nuclear or conventional missile attack thus ensuring that aircraft might not be effective beyond the first few hours or days of a nuclear war which is the war the Soviet forces prepared to fight for decades. Do not attempt to compare the two armed forces as they were simply designed for different kinds of wars and should know who i think was better prepared to fight a real war in self defense.


And yes. You do need significant military economic resources to avoid invasion. N Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia all had about as best defense systems as you can get outside of Russia.


No they did not and especially not compared to the resources of those they were attacked by. North Vietnam were a devastated country suffering various occupations for decades before. The US had ten years to destroy ( and they largely did) Iraqi's actual air defenses and the Balkans were hardly a quite area in which the Serbs could spend all their money on air defenses when they were required to fight ground wars. Libya is not worth mentioning and i am not sure why you did.


None of which caused the US to cancel air ops. Even if some SAM batteries repel an attack, without air supperiority the target will be attacked the next hour, day, or week.


There was no way either countries could deploy air defenses or air forces ( what were they supposed to do if not use Sam's?) in the numbers required to really prevent US aggression anyways. Remember that air defenses do not have to shoot down anything if they can create conditions where the enemy would rather avoid endangering themselves... Air defenses are deployed to prevent enemy interdiction and if they can do that without firing any missiles or shooting down planes that is success by definition.


To be honest. I'm sure the US could plan a successful air attack against any nation including the USSR.


Well i don't think there is much evidence to show that a NATO air force that were so useless against well operated Serbian air defenses ( dating from the 60's; if well maintained and sometimes upgraded) could possible take on the depth of modern Russian AD. I have provided some good information in the past which you might want to look up.



The mission from Aviano Air Base in Italy to Kosovo or from Incirlik Air Base in Turkey into Iraq took two hours or more. The situation could change fairly radically given the presence of mobile Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs). In the Iraqi situation, Saddam's SAMs did not move around much but in Kosovo enemy SAMs moved constantly. My favorite opponent was the Serbian SA-6 operator located outside of Ponikve, Serbia. I called him "Slavko the Destroyer" as he was extremely mobile. He was moving about every two days and that was making our tactical situation very difficult.

We learned on September 11th that the intelligence picture we saw -- of a dangerous world -- was accurate. Unfortunately, we ignored it. If we are to continue the War on Terror, allied aircrews will face very robust, advanced surface-to-air missile systems. U.S. and allied forces need to be able to handle them. One of my deputies in Kosovo was killed in the Pentagon. My other deputy luckily was not. One of the things we were planning before the hit on the Pentagon was a brief on these new advanced SAM systems. I think Members of Congress need to see the capability of these new threats to allied aircrews and especially their real ability to burn through our current jamming.

I am very worried about these new systems. I know that the Kosovo campaign would have shifted radically had advanced SA-10 SAMs ever shown up in theater. As the squadron's Intelligence Officer, I was asked one question each morning: where are the SA-10s and have the Russians delivered them to Serbia or not? That would have radically changed the situation. For the future, we have got to plan on facing such fearsome SAM batteries in the next conflict.

www.house.gov...


There are few air defense systems now deployed by the Russians that can not pack up and deploy for firing within 5-10 minutes.


Its more about being the attacker than being the defender. The problem is that there are ramifications outside of just air defense. For example the US could easily bombard N Korea's airbases with cruise missles while aircraft deal with anything that emits a radio wave.



Modern air defenses ( going back as far as the late 60's and 70's ) can shoot down cruise missiles and if their not stealth and terrain following they are only more useful in the sense that they can be deployed en-mass to overwhelm defenses in the first hours when such might lead to serious attrition for aircraft... North Korea has moved much of it's vital strategic infrastructure underground and if a few cruise missiles could not in many weeks do serious damage to Serbian infrastructure one has to seriously question the capability of conventional armed cruise missiles having that capability against Russia or North Korea.


WASHINGTON--Data released piecemeal by U.S. and European military authorities are finally painting a well-rounded portrait of NATO's bombardment of Yugoslavia--and showing how limited its effects have been.
The figures indicate that while more than five weeks of pounding have badly damaged important parts of the nation's military infrastructure, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic retains many of his field forces and air defenses, and much of his fuel and ammunition. His forces generally can communicate with each other, maneuver and arrange for resupply.
The Yugoslav army still has 80% to 90% of its tanks, 75% of its most sophisticated surface-to-air missiles and 60% of its MIG fighter planes, according to official estimates released during the past week. And although NATO warplanes have blown up the major rail links into Kosovo, five of the province's eight major roads remain at least partially passable, according to British officials.
Yugoslav troops in Kosovo still have nearly half their resupply capability, the Pentagon estimated last week, and Milosevic's military has been able to maintain--or perhaps even expand--the force of 40,000 it had there when the air campaign began March 24.
Despite NATO's ability to strike big, immobile targets with precision weapons, its warplanes have failed to attack 80% of the Yugoslav army's barracks. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces have also left untouched, or only lightly damaged, 80% of Yugoslavia's ammunition depots, officials say.
These grim statistics, which add up to the first well-rounded portrait of the air campaign, reflect in part the effect of the persistently inclement weather that has forced NATO to cancel more than one-third of its 4,400 sorties. President Clinton suggested Wednesday that better weather ahead will allow NATO to intensify its campaign; in addition, nearly 400 more warplanes will soon join the bombardment.

Despite the damage to many of its best planes, the MIG fighters, the Yugoslav air force still has 380 of its 450 aircraft. Eight of the country's 17 airfields have not been struck, and six more have sustained only moderate or light damage.
Although Clark declared that the Serbs' integrated air defense system is now "ineffective" overall, it remains a powerful defensive weapon: It has kept NATO planes generally at altitudes above 15,000 feet, too high to most effectively hit Milosevic's field forces.
And U.S. forces report that Serbian air defense troops are not ducking combat, as most Americans think, but are engaged in tactical games with the NATO fliers in a bid to lure them into missile and artillery traps.

www.aeronautics.ru...



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

But. . . aircraft alone can't stop an army. Seoul would be leveled. North Korean nukes? China? Economics and cost? Reason?


Indeed and not to mention the fact that China and Russia have a mutual defense treaty as far as i know. I am not sure China will defend North Korea but there would be too many prompt American casualties for US politicians to provoke a war there at this time and imo.



SAM's are anything but 1 shot 1 kill. For every aircraft downed, there are tens of misses. When the enemy has air superiority, SAM's too are scared to activate. When the US army was gone and we were enforcing the No-Fly, any SAM that targeted or fired on a US jet was quickly dispatched.


The NATO air campaign ( and there were serious bureaucratic issues that hampered the campaign) was still at best ineffective until it was employed to terror bomb Yugoslavian factories and basic electric and water infrastructure which are fixed targets and not things the Serbs could defend with their meager and defense capacity. Russia deploys many thousands of highly mobile systems and have the depth of defense and infrastructure to allow for any attrition they might suffer in a conventional air war. There is nothing the Serbs could have done to defend their infrastructure more effectively and keep what little air defense they had intact.


I think you way over-estimate the ability of ground based air defense.


I think you do not really study the wars you talk about and have no real of the mismatched forces you are employing towards your conclusion. Non of the countries or wars you mentioned would have had other outcomes if the Sam infrastructure and resources were allocated to more air force infrastructure. The only way we would really be able to tell what Russian air defenses are capable of in Russian hands and employed in the original fashion is if the US and Russia went to war and despite my intellectual interest in such i am not going to wish to be proved right or wrong.

In the Soviet doctrine ground based air defense are there to protect their ground forces from interdiction before or after breakthroughs and in that sense they are not really defensive weapons but offensive. Where NATO would have gotten the time to actively engage in elaborate SEAD and DEAD operations with their air basis under constant cruise or ballistic missile attack is any one's guess but that's what they would have had to do unless they were willing to accept the attrition and focus on trying to destroy Soviet penetrations despite of the massed air defenses.


I think air defense might dissuade a moderately armed neighbor country, but this thread identifies the US.


Iran simply lacks the resource base to afford the level of air defense investment that could actually result in denying the US the ability to destroy strategic targets of their choice and if there is a ground invasion i doubt they could mass enough air defenses to prevent active interdiction even if they gave up protection of their cities and general infrastructure... I don't see how Iran could 'win' anything but political points by being systematically destroyed in the long term of say a few months.

For average states air defenses are simply cheaper and more efficient as they do not require a militarized culture or the 'practice' that one gets from invading other nations....


While its always good to upgrade, I don't think it will ever be said: "We can knock out Iran's nuclear program in one swoop. The reason why we can't is because the facility is surrounded by a bunch of those damn impassable Tor-M1's."

Basically we are intimidated by enemy nukes, not air defenses.


That will not be said and i don't see how even a few dozen batteries ( maybe one fifth of what Russia deploys) of Tor's could change a damn thing beside end the lives of a few British Tornado pilots ( or other equally reckless individuals) .
Iran has no nukes of their own and there is no evidence , to say nothing of credible evidence, that they have such or are attempting to build some.

Well that's how i feel and i am quite sure i can support it with as much evidence as is required.

Stellar

[edit on 4-1-2007 by StellarX]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join