Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
collegeboy16 wrote:
no, imo if natto is tac. nuked they could only escalate to tac. nukes or back down since natto knows the rus are prepared to use strat. nukes.
) the most large scale saturating NATO stand-off cruise missile attacks employing any kind of ancillary aiding measures -such as massive employing of advanced decoys and EW interference- while contemporaneously allowing domestic sub-startegical Forces to selectively and quickly attack and destroy NATO main military structures "allowing" similar attacks to be carried on, achieving so a progressively faster degradation of NATO's sub-startegic offensive potential up to its complete powerlessness and irrelevance. 
Mindstorm wrote: the most large scale saturating NATO stand-off cruise missile attacks employing any kind of ancillary aiding measures -such as massive employing of advanced decoys and EW interference-
Mindstorm wrote:while contemporaneously allowing domestic sub-startegical Forces to selectively and quickly attack and destroy NATO main military structures "allowing" similar attacks to be carried on, achieving so a progressively faster degradation of NATO's sub-startegic offensive potential up to its complete powerlessness and irrelevance.
RTN wrote:This will not work , primarily because NATO cruise missiles will be deployed along with miniature air launched decoy missiles to confuse the EW systems . The miniature air launched decoys will also be used in concert with the jammer decoys to jam the EW systems . . Towed decoys and terrain-bounce jammers will mimic the missiles they protect thereby throwing your idea of interception for a loop .
RTN wrote:Mindstorm wrote: the most large scale saturating NATO stand-off cruise missile attacks employing any kind of ancillary aiding measures -such as massive employing of advanced decoys and EW interference-
This will not work , primarily because NATO cruise missiles will be deployed along with miniature air launched decoy missiles to confuse the EW systems . The miniature air launched decoys will also be used in concert with the jammer decoys to jam the EW systems . . Towed decoys and terrain-bounce jammers will mimic the missiles they protect thereby throwing your idea of interception for a loop .
RTN wrote:The miniature air launched decoys will also be used in concert with the jammer decoys to jam the EW systems.Towed decoys and terrain-bounce jammers will mimic the missiles they protect thereby throwing your idea of interception for a loop .
RTN wrote:Mindstorm wrote:while contemporaneously allowing domestic sub-startegical Forces to selectively and quickly attack and destroy NATO main military structures "allowing" similar attacks to be carried on, achieving so a progressively faster degradation of NATO's sub-startegic offensive potential up to its complete powerlessness and irrelevance.
This basically is the only option primarily because the NATO forces in Europe will not have as many cruise missiles or TBMs as Russia .
dionis wrote:collegeboy16 wrote:
no, imo if natto is tac. nuked they could only escalate to tac. nukes or back down since natto knows the rus are prepared to use strat. nukes.
In the event of losing a territorial / economic dispute, Russia will up the ante to strategic nuclear weapons, basically guaranteeing losing *everything* in the follow up retaliation?
Really impressive thought process there.
Nikolai Patrushev wrote:"An option is stipulated for the possibility of using nuclear weapons depending on the situation and the intentions of a potential enemy,"
Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov wrote:"A decision to use destructive force preemptively will be taken if the situation worsens,"
Viktor wrote:
no, imo if natto is tac. nuked they could only escalate to tac. nukes or back down since natto knows the rus are prepared to use strat. nukes.
Now you figure it out situation in which Russia will attack with nuclear weaponsNikolai Patrushev wrote:"An option is stipulated for the possibility of using nuclear weapons depending on the situation and the intentions of a potential enemy,"Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov wrote:"A decision to use destructive force preemptively will be taken if the situation worsens,"
dionis wrote:collegeboy16 wrote:
no, imo if natto is tac. nuked they could only escalate to tac. nukes or back down since natto knows the rus are prepared to use strat. nukes.
In the event of losing a territorial / economic dispute, Russia will up the ante to strategic nuclear weapons, basically guaranteeing losing *everything* in the follow up retaliation?
Really impressive thought process there.
GarryB wrote:If tactical nukes are unusable then why bother even having them... after all strategic nukes fill the role quite nicely.
The fact of the matter is that your claim that Russia wont use tactical nukes for fear of escalation is actually the opposite of the truth. Tactical nukes offer a choice that is not strategic in nature... it is a choice they can make that is not strategic nuclear attack and destruction of the world.
sepheronx wrote:
You can once again question whatever the ministry of defense and the head of the federal government will and will not do. But in the end, they would and could use tactical nukes within their borders and would on sinking a ship if they have to.
Best defense against Cruise missiles is a very powerful counter electronic/jamming wall across the Russian borders.
Specially closer to Baltic states and Poland. Because long range Cruise missiles depends on GPS guidance those can be easily jammed.. Also it will not be bad for Russia to have decoys of their S-400s and S-500s missiles.
Pantsirs and TORs can also intercept them.. but the counter electronics war have to be there just in case.. this way..
IF US and its Baltic cronies become crazy and launch a surprise full scale attack on Russia by cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads.. all of them will be jammed and never hit their intended targets.
And EMP walls across Russian borders that can be activated at will ,whenever is need ,will be even better.. it will do wonders.. it will short circuit all the electronics of any low flying missile. This are very doable things that Russia can do right now ..and do not require major investment.. or major research.. as it is the case of creating a new tank or a new combat jet.
Counter electronics and EMP stations can also be very effective against drones too.
And for detecting low flying drones and cruise missiles on time.. Aerostat with radars on its belly can become very economically effective to scan for 24 hours non stop all Russian Borders.. not even birds will pass undetected. To scan with planes is most costly and can only be done for small period.
GarryB wrote:the S model Igla actually had a proximity fuse added to enable it to engage small targets. I have read about a test where 9 Malyutka ATGMs (AT-3 Sagger) were fired to fly at low altitudes as targets for the original Igla missiles. Only 5 were shot down because the remaining 4 missiles did not make contact with the targets because of their small size and because they needed an impact to set off the warheads of the Iglas the 4 that missed just flew past without destroying the missiles.
I would assume that with proximity fuses the Igla-S should have defeated all 9 targets and a cruise missile is not smaller than an AT-3.
I expect Verba would be able to get a lock on at much greater ranges so would be even more effective.
But when they will be able to put lasers on jet fighter? Recently usa made a truck based laser. In few years whit better batteries they will mount on f22 lasers. And rhen the s300 will be needed again. Lets not think to f22 lets think to a heavier aircraft. Now the truck based laser weight is 10 tons. Whit better batteries and a bigger aircraft than f22 the laser on aircraft is quite feasable. Nowadays the laser kill rockets in long time but can be improve. The only solution will be multiple rockets each whit great speed.GarryB wrote:Very good point... a MTLB chassis with a small rear mounted turret with two quad packs of Igla-S or Verba is a much cheaper way of dealing with cruise missiles than S-300s or S-400s or indeed S-350s.
TOR and Pantsir-S also use dumb, cheap missiles too and should also be invaluable in dealing with enemy launched cruise missiles... but the most critical thing is good radar coverage to allow the missiles to be detected early so units can prepare and be ready for when the cruise missiles enter their kill envelope.
Actually a next generation 57mm gun with laser guided shells would also be excellent for engaging slow straight and level cruise missile targets cheaply.
But when they will be able to put lasers on jet fighter? Recently usa made a truck based laser. In few years whit better batteries they will mount on f22 lasers.
Whit better batteries and a bigger aircraft than f22 the laser on aircraft is quite feasable. Nowadays the laser kill rockets in long time but can be improve. The only solution will be multiple rockets each whit great speed.
Also a verba based rocket can have a non linear flight? Cause if so will be hard to hit even by laser. Also protection to laser hits can be put.
Well let me explain. Lets say a laser is efficient only at close range. Then the aircraft will simply let missiles to close and will shoot. Then the aircraft will go close to ground troops that launced the missiles and shoot. Lets say a laser is efficient just at a range of maxim 3km. Well the aircraft would use this range. Or in combination whit missiles.Werewolf wrote:Laser weapons the worst, weapons in existence.
Plattforms like Tanks and Jets can not even provide the needed power to make them anywhere tactical reliable or lethal.
Laser weapons need direct Line of Sight, which reduces its usefullness.
Lasers are effected by bad weather and are easily countered by reflective painting, chrome your object and Laser will be useless, stay away from the aircraft for dozens of km and you are absolutley safe from lasers.
Just a blunt weapon without use for lot of plattforms and inferior to primitive projectiles or SHORADS with Missiles.
Expensive but whit 100% chances to kill missiles, tanks or anything else. Worth spending. We should make few aircrafts like this knowing they are invincible excepts enemy lasersGarryB wrote:But when they will be able to put lasers on jet fighter? Recently usa made a truck based laser. In few years whit better batteries they will mount on f22 lasers.
Which will be enormously expensive... a few decent laser beam riding 57mm shells will be lethal to all types of aircraft, from UAVs through to helicopters and A-10 type aircraft out to about 12kms.
Whit better batteries and a bigger aircraft than f22 the laser on aircraft is quite feasable. Nowadays the laser kill rockets in long time but can be improve. The only solution will be multiple rockets each whit great speed.
The main issue with lasers is power... generation and storage. Also they tend to use very toxic chemicals and either have limited use and are very expensive.
Currently it doesn't matter what you can fit in an aircraft... you will always be able to put a more powerful weapon on a ground based vehicle and with the ability to plug into the local electricity grid it should be rather more powerful than anything you could fit in a plane.
Also a verba based rocket can have a non linear flight? Cause if so will be hard to hit even by laser. Also protection to laser hits can be put.
Modern image processing software can allow a camera or mirror to follow almost any target, so tracking missiles with a laser should not be the biggest problem...
For the forseeable future lasers are just too expensive.
victor1985 wrote:Well let me explain. Lets say a laser is efficient only at close range. Then the aircraft will simply let missiles to close and will shoot. Then the aircraft will go close to ground troops that launced the missiles and shoot. Lets say a laser is efficient just at a range of maxim 3km. Well the aircraft would use this range. Or in combination whit missiles.Werewolf wrote:Laser weapons the worst, weapons in existence.
Plattforms like Tanks and Jets can not even provide the needed power to make them anywhere tactical reliable or lethal.
Laser weapons need direct Line of Sight, which reduces its usefullness.
Lasers are effected by bad weather and are easily countered by reflective painting, chrome your object and Laser will be useless, stay away from the aircraft for dozens of km and you are absolutley safe from lasers.
Just a blunt weapon without use for lot of plattforms and inferior to primitive projectiles or SHORADS with Missiles.
Lets say a laser is efficient only at close range.
Then the aircraft will simply let missiles to close and will shoot.
Then the aircraft will go close to ground troops that launced the missiles and shoot. Lets say a laser is efficient just at a range of maxim 3km. Well the aircraft would use this range. Or in combination whit missiles.
Expensive but whit 100% chances to kill missiles, tanks or anything else.
Lets thinks also ground based lasers cant be use for atack. The ones plugged at the local electricity cant be move as aircrafts can
Well ive said the laser would kill them instant. Think also at mount more lasers.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
