Posted on 02/24/2010 1:02:06 AM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The Russian S-400 Triumph air and missile defense system was officially inducted into Russian army service – the first two systems have entered operational service with the air defense regiment stationed at the Military Space Defense joint command in Elektrostal, the Moscow Region with additional two scheduled to be deployed by the end of 2010. More systems will be delivered later, along with next generation S-500 currently in early development stage. The Russian Air-defense command is hopeful to achieving full operational capability protecting strategic sites throughout Russia with the new systems by 2015.The S-400 started its way in 1999 as the S-300PMU3, developed by Almaz Science and Production Association. Russian defense officials claimed in 2006 the missile has been inducted in late 2006 and was due to become operational later in 2007. Suffering from teething problems, this milestone has been delayed three years, allowing designers to work on the 'baseline system', awaiting the completion of the full capability version, by early 2010.
(Excerpt) Read more at defense-update.com ...
Good catch,Son,,,
No doubt this one will carry a nuke ground to ground
like one type of the S-300,,,
Dis` ain’t good...:0/
Thanks. I agree
Maybe JH has some new info on this system,,,
I don’t think their radars are much different with this
one but the range and warhead size will be increased,,,
I don’t see this as an ADA weapon IMHO as much as I see it
as a system to deliver battlefield nukes,,,
Think W-88 sized warhead at 200-300 miles...
back in 1940, the maginot line was probably the strongest defensive barrier ever seen on earth. The French proved that even the best defense ever seen is vulnerable to a well thought out and executed offense. In 1991, the Iraqi air defense network was “more dense than that surrounding most Eastern European cities during the Cold War, and several orders of magnitude greater than that which had defended Hanoi during the later stages of the Vietnam War.” We decimated it in record time with minimal losses. What’s my point, if we want to penetrate an air defense network, we will.
Oh, is this the same system that the USAF, U.S. Navy, Israel and a Cesena have walked past with most returning to base before anyone knew what was going on… over the last 20 years?
Here some videos I found on YT of the S-400.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSwQOcQ-3RI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t8fpCMTm94
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVwj44AC25c
Remember that the Iraqi air defense network was mostly early 1970’s Soviet hand me down technology, with some late 70’s French and American tech.
Remember also that the French provided the built-in codes and exploits which allowed the USAF to effectively bypass large sections of their IADS.
Every fortress has a weak spot.
That is a little skewed. It is like me saying that all Patriots are good for are hitting the tail-end of Scuds (leading the warhead intact and tumbling), and shooting down Allied jets (several friendly fire incidents).
As for the Iraqi system, it was a mish-mash of Soviet and French (and British) systems that was primarily geared towards fending off an Iranian attack and/or an Israeli attack (both countries attacked Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor - Iran in 1980, and Israel in 1981). It had Soviet missiles (old), some French/German missiles (again old ones - the Roland), and the brains of the system was a French system called Kari (which was not that good due to its hierachical nature that was open to disruption, particular if key command nodes went down ...as happened with ADOC - Air Defense Operations Center). To add to the confusion, the French built KARI IADs, with its Soviet era and Franco-German missiles, was connected to a British combat management system called ASMA.
Put all of that together, and it was a system that had some sizeable inherent flaws. Against a repeat Iranian and Israeli attack it had some teeth (note it did manage to bring down a number of Coalition planes), but it was just not up to the task.
Add to this the opponents facing it ...the Coalition had the USAF and USN, various NATO forces, and other allies. Both in terms of quantity and quality it was a wash!
So, if you think comparing that with a S-300/S-400 integrated IADS is the same thing, then go ahead. If you even think the Iraqi system could compare to the old Soviet PVO-Strany, go ahead. Yes, right ...a small plane once landed at Red Square! That means it is useless, right? After all, that is the vestigial thinking that goes on at FR sometimes, where people do not take the extra neurons needed to think that a small plane taking off a short distance away, flying low and landing on Red Square may not necessarily trigger off systems. In most cases, the best way to respond to such inanity would be to raise the November 1994 incident where a man crash-landed a small plane in the White House!!!!! I guess the US systems are also so useless folks can flop down at will, huh?
The reality is this - the 300/400 systems are one of the main reason the B-2 and F-22 (at their huge development costs, and their deep maintenance requirements) were developed ...to be deep-IADS penetrators against advanced integrated air defense networks.
However, since FR knows best, those billions were wasted money. Thus Obama is right to cancel the Raptor (and he should even shelve the B-2 Spirit), because all that we need are A-10s and Predator Drones. After all, we REALLY knocked the taste outta the mouth of the Iraqi system!!!! Right, right?
It's a good thing the military feels different, otherwise American and Allied pilots would be at risk flying their A-10s and F-18s towards integrated advanced IADS like the ones China now has (manned with HQ-9 clones of the S-300, and S-300s). It boggles my mind to see some threads on FR where some FReepers (on other threads) even say that all we need are A-10s since all our enemies are Afghanistan types. Well, some day we will fight a real enemy ...they will not always be Grenada, or the former Yugoslavia, or Afghanistan, or Nicaragua, or Somalia.
When it is China, you will realize why during the Cold War A-10s were not supposed to survive the Fulda Gap. The joke was between A-10 pilots and Apache pilots on who would take the most casualties.
Remember the Suter computer program that the Isreais used in Operation Orchard. It is specialised to interfere with the computers of integrated air defence system.Just imagine with longer-range S-300/SA-10 which Iran has been trying to buy from Russia..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/04/radar_hack_raid/
How does one counter so many non-sequiturs…
First, Raptors and ACMs are one of the many components of effective deterrence and national outreach.
Second, when the other side is at the hybrid F-15 level and just now implementing air defense systems from 12 years ago plus migrating to systems which are supposedly effective against stealth (although the enemies of America will use any method available to convince the West and others that their systems do work)… this is no time to be lax.
Third, whether Foreign PsyOps or for Profit, Russia or China are in business, not moving forward against newer or questionable systems has never been proven to be a smart move; further this is what has kept the West protected and will do so as long as Crypto-Neo-Marxists are not allowed to undermine Americas security.
Fourth, you showed yourself with “…Obama is right to cancel the Raptor…”
Keep in mind Bean Counters will sacrifice others for their own personal benefits!
Fourth, you showed yourself with “…Obama is right to cancel the Raptor…”
So, what exactly did I show? Hmmm ...that I support the cancellation of the Raptor by Obama? Wowee ...amazing how I have apparently stepped away from the position I have held since Rumsfeld cut the numbers, nor how I raved against Obama's idiocy at deep-sixing the program. Hey ...maybe it is Bizarro world, right.
Oh maybe we can take a look at what I actually said, and see whether the problem may be someone else having an atrophied ability to comprehend the written word! What was it I said now:
' However, since FR knows best, those billions were wasted money. Thus Obama is right to cancel the Raptor (and he should even shelve the B-2 Spirit), because all that we need are A-10s and Predator Drones. After all, we REALLY knocked the taste outta the mouth of the Iraqi system!!!! Right, right?'
Holy cr@p ...with what I wrote, maybe Obama should also go ahead and carve his face on Mt Rushmore, and rent out Michelle while he's at it. And all that stuff I said about the idiocy of having 4th generation airframes (like F-18s) facing advanced IADS like the S-300/400 and HQ-9 backed systems in nations like China, I must have meant that we should use paper kites instead. Armed with ricin soaked spitballs!
You said:
First, Raptors and ACMs are one of the many components of effective deterrence and national outreach.
I agree, which is why US battle superiority cannot be matched as long as the adults are in charge (and not some of the silly folk on FR who claim all we need is A-10s and Predators). I bring that up because there is a small group that believes that is all is needed, part because all our current enemies boink camels and live in caves, and secondly because of the great successes the US armed forces have had. They forget that a) we will not always face foes that pray to some meteorite, and b) the reason for the past success is because the American military machine has had the best soldiers, best training, and best equipment. Take any one of those away and you get more pineboxes covered with flags, take two away and you risk losing a war.
However my response to you was NOT about 'Raptors and ACMs!'
It was not about 'hybrid F-15 levels' nor about 'crypto-neo-marxists' undermining America's security (and making Spetz retract what he has been saying for years and supporting Obama's cancellation ...damn those mindwave control devices!!!!)
It was a response to this post by you:
Oh, is this the same system that the USAF, U.S. Navy, Israel and a Cesena have walked past with most returning to base before anyone knew what was going on… over the last 20 years?
To which I posted that the systems we have been 'walking past for the last 20 years' are not the S-300/400 systems, but rather a mix-mash of various (old) Soviet systems, linked with French systems, and with even British systems, that were meant to fend off a repeat attack by the Iranians and the Israelis on Iraq (as I mentioned, it stemmed after the 1980 attack by Iran on Osirak, and the 1981 successful attack on the same Osirak reactor by Israel's effective AF). That system would not have stood a chance against the USAF alone, let alone the assembled might of the USAF, the USN air force, the various NATO forces, or even the Saudi Arabian air force.
As for the Red Square Cessna incident I raised the White House landing incident.
Now, I know on FR it is nice to look down on op-force weaponry (I do it myself), and it can easily be seen on threads where a foreign aircraft (e.g. the Eurofighter Typhoon or the Rafale) almost immediately (by the 5th post) gets hit with the 'must have the stealth of a barn' etc etc (with the posters not realizing that the Rafale for instance has a RCS of 0.5m2, while the venerable F-15 Eagle has a RCS of 25m2 ...which is the barn?). However, ribbing is alright.
However, comparing a S-400 advanced IADS system to the mix-mash slop the Iraqis had is too skewed. They are not similar at all, and if one thinks they are then I guess USN F-18s or Taiwanese F-16s and F/A-50s can waltz over and shake their bon-bons at China anytime (and should be easier since China has the S-300 and HQ-9 rather than the S-400 ...and since we know the legacy aircraft were effective in Iraq - apart from a couple of shootdowns by SAMs, and in the case of the F-18, one air-to-air loss by an Iraqi MiG-25).
Anyways, I agree on Raptors and ACMs, I think with the stupidity of the current and previous administration (Obama is the stupid oaf who killed the Raptor, however those before him left it on the slaughter table ...the numbers going from 700 and something to 300 and something, and then from 300 and something to 187, happened before Obama was in office) at killing the Raptor will come to haunt America, I believe that America's lead in a whole host of areas will continue unabated unless the nation itself sacrifices those leads (as is currently happening), and I concur that bean-counters only look at the cents rather than the sense.
No argument there.
However, that doesn't mean that the performance over the last 20 years in places like Iraq with their Kari IADS, ASMA managed, Soviet missile system means that legacy systems could 'walk over' modern advanced IADS with missiles like the S-300.
As I said - the 300/400 systems are one of the main reasons the B-2 and F-22 (at their huge development costs, and their deep maintenance requirements) were developed ...to be deep-IADS penetrators against advanced integrated air defense networks. The Raptor at its inception, for instance, was not only meant to be superior to future Soviet fighters (such as the advanced versions of the Super-Flanker now coming out, as well as the PakFa variants ...the Raptor will be better than the PakFa, since the Raptor was designed to have no excuses or design compromises), BUT ALSO to be able to penetrate advanced integrated and highly lethal SAM defense systems using a combination of all-aspect stealth and high-end kinematics. You don't need that for the KARI IADS of Iraq. You need that for forceful deterrent against a near-peer adversary.
But then again, I read on FR that all our enemies face Mecca and have 'will die for virgins' bumper stickers on their camels and goats, thus we can go riiiiight ahead and get some more Predators and Big Gun (tm) A-10s!
Look at the F-35 ...already with cost creep it is getting quite expensive, to the point one wonders maybe the Raptor should never have been canceled (it should not).
The Raptor is basically unfairness with wings ...it brings an unfair fight to the enemy, which is how wars should be fought. Make them not even dare confront you there ...Saddam buried some of his fighters, and had others flee to Iran (where the Iranians decided to keep them) rather than face off against the US fighting machine during the Iraq War (he understood the lessons of the First Gulf War, but apparently not enough for him to stop his folly before he ended up dangling the dead man's dance). The enemy fears.
China certainly does NOT fear the F-15.
Well stated and detailed, on all counts, further, after reassessing your first post my perspective has changed…although I still believe that Russian air defense systems are not all cracked up to be what they advertise; without real-time networked triple radar imaging these systems still are unable to fully track most of the US offerings, let alone the F-22.
Even a bit older, with the tac and op-ups of the F15, is one of the finest aircraft ever made, the Russians seem to like molding some of their airframes on it, however the JSF-35 should be sold to other countries and not the mainstay of USAF. Because, every airframe has a different purpose, if the JSF-35 is used, should role play similar to the F-16, one basic model, three versions, F-35(American), F-35(Euro) and F-35(Foreign) with swappable parts.
Personally, my preference would be for every four F-35s, there should be a new F-22.
I agree with your position on the Raptor being “basically unfairness with wings ...it brings an unfair fight to the enemy, which is how wars should be fought!”
The Raptor is not just another exotic advancement, it’s a game changer.
Thing is, other nations have watched the American fighting ability (both strengths and weaknesses) for some time now. For instance, after the First Gulf War both Russia and China realized that they needed to change a LOT of what they were doing in terms of tactics and strategy. While their capabilities were beyond those that Iraq had, they were still along the same lines and folded before the assembled US led war machine. They started to change ...a good example is Russia mopving away from a conscript army towards a smaller professional force, or China moving entire sections of its armed strategy to something that is becoming more and more similar to what NATO would have. Add to this the deep study of Us strategy ...for instance I am not an American citizen (lived Stateside for 7 years though, ending 2006), but if you put me in charge of a small battalion to oppose a US led invasion to a country (say my native Kenya) I can assure you that I would cost lives. Imagine what China could do.
We are not talking about winning a fight (the US, even with traitorous Dems and stupid Repubs, would still win the fight), we are talking about causing such a loss of life that the war looks untenable. For instance, look at China's 'Assassins Mace' strategy (a high level asymmetrical warfare stratagem that opposes key US strengths), and say that in the opening stages of a war either a salvo Klub missiles launched by a DE sub, or one of China's anti-ship ballistic missiles, took out an AEGIS destroyer with all hands on board! The hue and cry stateside would be enormous ...the media would blow it out of proportion, and if a Repub president was at the helm the Dems would come out and say 'no to the war' (and, to be fair, same thing would happen if a Dem president was in power - Repubs would come out too). It would be like 'Nam on steroids!
I just hope the adults in charge realize that a single life is far more important than any stupid political games there may be, and that if what the American fighter needs is a Raptor, or body armor, or a better transport than a HUMVEE with bolted on metal, or a gun that soldiers want (e.g. those firing 6.5 or 6.8 rather than 5.56) rather than what the brass feel would be best for decorum and post-military careers ...that is what the fighter needs.
Some day the US will fight against a near-peer adversary, or an adversary that though not near-peer can bring to bear advanced asymmetrical strategies. That day, many of those who think the victories in Grenada and (former) Yugoslavia etc etc etc are some right will realize that those victories were due to hard work, great strategy, and the willingness to bring power to bear. Take those away, and the right enemy will bring you to your knees.
While some laugh long faces watch from the shadows, and in those faces there is no laughter
“…Imagine what China could do...”
Agreed, not only are the wrong people in charge with incorrect philosophies, plus a fifth column working against America, defense is marginal at best versus total offense being unattainable.
As I have been saying for almost 20 years, the Chinese can throw an extra 100,000,000 men into a war and not have any demographic worries!
Why, since there would only be about 100M American Fighting Men total, a conventional war would not be possible, further with the current mindset of not delivering total destruction and possibly annihilation to the enemy, prevents overall success. Now combine Russia, Islamic, African and South American anti-American designs you have a recipe for failure. When America stops playing politically corrupt cops’n robbers and begins being educated and trained as real Americans, willing to fight a real war then do what is needed; all this chaos will stop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.