S-300P/400 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

Isos wrote:What they should worry about is Iskander and Kalibr hitting their strategic infrastructures like nuclear powerplants or oil storage.

Imagine for 2 second modern western socities without electricty and oil storage facilities.

Any air defense network can be degraded and defeated given enough time. The key is not Russia's air defense network, it is her counterstrike capability. if Syria had Iskander, Kalibr, Tsirkon, or Kinzhal, there would be zero Israel attempts to strike Damascus.

Probably has a greater chance of success, too. All jokes aside, when the US talks about taking out S-300's and S-400, they're almost exclusively talking about export SAM's like the ones China, Iran and Venezuela operate, that may not be protected by medium and short range air defenses like Russian SAM's always are, not to mention how retardedly Syria was using the Pantsir-S in earlier years which lead to losing 2 or 3 of them to the Israeli Harop and the traitorous Armenian President deliberately leaving S-300 components exposed on the frontlines for Azerbaijan to destroy with Turkish drones. Incompetence and Sabotage will play a greater role in any S-300/400 systems being destroyed in future conflicts.

Largely agree, but to be fair Syria does not have enough air defence units to cover absolutely everything and they have clearly decided to split the air defence batteries down to single or twin TELs defending each site.

Recent lack of success from Israel seems to suggest they are moving them around so when they attack a site they really don't know what is there protecting it and it seems they are trying to attack sites not well protected but when they attack there is more air defence there than they were expecting.

Regarding incompetence... that was partly what led to the F-117 shootdown and the Iranian capture of that stealth drone, but it was also all about the defenders not sitting with their thumbs up their own asses thinking they can do nothing against the worlds last super power. It was Serb and Iranian work that led to those outcomes and neither result would have been possible without that work.

Look at the two different methods... B-2 and B-21 seem to be bombers that even with standoff weapons like glide bombs have to get too close to their targets to expect to survive, while the Bear and Blackjack are not even capable of carrying bombs these days AFAIK... they will be using standoff long range cruise missiles and probably hypersonic missiles where the missiles penetrate the air defences and hit the targets... and the air defence over the US is nothing like the air defence over Russia...

Any air defense network can be degraded and defeated given enough time.

Of course, but the bigger it is and the more integrated it is the harder it will be and the longer it will take... the Russian IADS doesn't have to operate for decades stopping HATO attack after attack after attack... when they attack the first time Russia can respond and that response will likely involve seriously damaging HATOs ability to keep attacking...

HATO is at the enormous disadvantage of having its defence and its attack capacity largely being centred around its air power.

It has a lot of aircraft but as we see in Afghanistan... take away the air power and the ground forces are horribly vulnerable to enemy air power because they are used to their own air power dealing with enemy air power and softening enemy ground forces.

To mount an attack HATO would have to strip resources from their defense and in the attack against Russia they are going to take serious losses which means even if they go on the defensive their defense is not going to be the same as it was...

The key is not Russia's air defense network, it is her counterstrike capability.

More accurately it is both because without one or the other they are in trouble... with a good IADS they will eventually get worn down, but with only a counterstrike capability they are vulnerable to the fact that the initial attack from HATO might limit the ability to counterstrike.

The best description of HATO is that it has a combined defence/attack capacity but it is all air based... and therefore rather fragile.

"Of course, but the bigger it is and the more integrated it is the harder it will be and the longer it will take... the Russian IADS doesn't have to operate for decades stopping HATO attack after attack after attack... when they attack the first time Russia can respond and that response will likely involve seriously damaging HATOs ability to keep attacking..."

Russian air defense only has to ensure the survival of Russia's counterstrike force capability. First and foremost nuclear, secondly conventional. That's my point. If you don't have any counterstrike capability, you are like a boxer who can bob and weave real well, but can never punch back. Eventually, you're going to get knocked out.

NATO will be looking at decoy drones like the ADM-160 MALD on a grand scale in an attempt to overcome the unprecedented Russian air defence network. Many will have an ECM role but their key role will be to activate and neutralize air defence radars and saturate surface to air missiles. Only then will they send in the strike aircraft and cruise missiles. The Russian air defence in Syria coped very well with numerous swarm attacks sending a good message to NATO. Judging by the successful Iranian missile strikes in Iraq and also the strikes in Saudi Arabia, NATO air defence missile assets would have avery hard time if Russia were to attack.

HATO pretends it is getting ready to fight Russia but in effect it is getting ready to fight third world countries equipped with token numbers of Russian systems.

If it ever went up against Russia then while it is jamming and making minor attacks the Russians could deal with the force multipliers of the HATO forces which will dramatically weaken the HATO force and leave it open to attacks to its core like Brussels and like Washington and Paris and London that a third world country couldn't hope to touch.

Russian air defence systems have expanded over the generations to deal with increased force size so while Israel might use drones to overwhelm one SA-6 battery by fooling them to turn on their central radar so a HARM equipped aircraft can take out the SA-6 batteries radar leaving all the TELs with three missiles each vulnerable to attack by F-16s equipped with dumb bombs, the BUK has four missiles ready to fire and they are not TELs they are TELARs with their own radars able to engage enemy F-16s trying to bomb them and the TOR battery that operates with them can shoot down those drones with first 8 and then 16 ready to launch missiles for each vehicle...

SA-17 version BUK could shoot down that HARM missile that was going to take out the batteries search and tracking radar and also the wild weasel aircraft that launched the missile...

Each new generation of SAM system has been better able to shoot down ARMs and wild weasel platforms carrying those missiles and the drones used to get them to light up and reveal their position.

The Viking replaces the 3 ready to fire missiles of the SA-6 with 6 missiles ready to fire on the  TELAR and 12 missiles on the so called reload vehicle that are ready to fire.

The S-350 system can carry 12 ready to launch 60km or 150km ranged missiles, but each of those launch tubes can carry 4 short range 15km range IIR guided self defence missiles too...

The four missile tubes of the SA-9 and four missile tubes of the first OSA SA-8 are replaced by the 6 tubes of the SA-13 and 12 tubes of the Pine, or the 6 tubes of the later OSA and the 8 tubes of Tunguska and 12 tubes of the Pantsir system....

The 23mm four barrel cannon replaced by the 30mm two twin barrel cannon and now the single barrel 57mm cannon...

It is only getting harder for aircraft with airburst rounds in 30mm calibre and 57mm as well as 57mm guided shells too...

There are even modified ATGMs for low cost Kornet-EM mach 1 missiles with 10km range and the Pine which is a mach 5 system at 10km and an upgraded model with a 20km range at about mach 7... and of course new jammers and lasers and directed energy weapons and of course anti drone drones...

Heres some comedy gold of western commenters(some fighter pilots and self described experts) using hilariously dumb arguments claiming that IADS is easily defeatable. Most of the arguments hinge upon "inferior russian tech" and "muh nagorno karabakh and israel"

I commented there to call BS on the claims and I got more hate than on F-16.net

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/plqzb1/how_effective_is_russian_antiair_system_against/

Hahahaha.... hilarious... Russian air defence systems don't work against modern western 5th gen stealth and IADS penetrator systems because Russian systems can't see these modern stealthy western systems... yet Russian systems work well in Syria in real time against anything Israel tries to use against them and Israel wont use F-35s over Syria with simple cheap stand off bombs the US claims will obliterate Russian air defences because all Russian systems are so vulnerable to F-35 and F-22 and B-2 because they are invisible to Russian Air defence networks and air defence systems...

What a strange situation where Syrian BUK and Pantsir and Russian S-400 systems and S-300 systems can be so effective against Israeli systems in terms of shooting down missiles and stand off cruise missiles and standoff weapons... they seem to not want to shoot down Israeli aircraft in this case... but imagine how effective they would be if they did...

Almost like Israel would collapse and be forced to use nukes pretty damn fast to maintain force integrity... much like the US in Europe in the same situation... sounds like HATO is in trouble....

limb wrote:Heres some comedy gold of western commenters(some fighter pilots and self described experts) using hilariously dumb arguments claiming that IADS is easily defeatable. Most of the arguments hinge upon "inferior russian tech" and "muh nagorno karabakh and israel"

I commented there to call BS on the claims and I got more hate than on F-16.net

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/plqzb1/how_effective_is_russian_antiair_system_against/

Ignorant retards who live in trailer parks and have never left their home state... It would be hilarious if it wasn't so shamefully pathetic

GarryB wrote:Hahahaha.... hilarious... Russian air defence systems don't work against modern western 5th gen stealth and IADS penetrator systems because Russian systems can't see these modern stealthy western systems... yet Russian systems work well in Syria in real time against anything Israel tries to use against them and Israel wont use F-35s over Syria with simple cheap stand off bombs the US claims will obliterate Russian air defences because all Russian systems are so vulnerable to F-35 and F-22 and B-2 because they are invisible to Russian Air defence networks and air defence systems...

What a strange situation where Syrian BUK and Pantsir and Russian S-400 systems and S-300 systems  can be so effective against Israeli systems in terms of shooting down missiles and stand off cruise missiles and standoff weapons... they seem to not want to shoot down Israeli aircraft in this case... but imagine how effective they would be if they did...

Almost like Israel would collapse and be forced to use nukes pretty damn fast to maintain force integrity... much like the US in Europe in the same situation... sounds like HATO is in trouble....

They have to cheer them up now, when their Patriot worked so well in Erbil this days...

lyle6 wrote:

GarryB wrote:Hahahaha.... hilarious... Russian air defence systems don't work against modern western 5th gen stealth and IADS penetrator systems because Russian systems can't see these modern stealthy western systems... yet Russian systems work well in Syria in real time against anything Israel tries to use against them and Israel wont use F-35s over Syria with simple cheap stand off bombs the US claims will obliterate Russian air defences because all Russian systems are so vulnerable to F-35 and F-22 and B-2 because they are invisible to Russian Air defence networks and air defence systems...

What a strange situation where Syrian BUK and Pantsir and Russian S-400 systems and S-300 systems  can be so effective against Israeli systems in terms of shooting down missiles and stand off cruise missiles and standoff weapons... they seem to not want to shoot down Israeli aircraft in this case... but imagine how effective they would be if they did...

Almost like Israel would collapse and be forced to use nukes pretty damn fast to maintain force integrity... much like the US in Europe in the same situation... sounds like HATO is in trouble....

More importantly it takes a staggering amount of airpower to even suppress a competently laden IADS temporarily. If you're spending 10x at least as much as your opponent you better be fucking flattening him instead of just taking out some launchers here and there. Proponents of airpower don't get this, at all, and this would be their downfall if ever NATO miscalculates and takes on a proper military instead of yet another shithole.

limb wrote:Heres some comedy gold of western commenters(some fighter pilots and self described experts) using hilariously dumb arguments claiming that IADS is easily defeatable. Most of the arguments hinge upon "inferior russian tech" and "muh nagorno karabakh and israel"

I commented there to call BS on the claims and I got more hate than on F-16.net

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/plqzb1/how_effective_is_russian_antiair_system_against/

Redditors are subhuman scum that ought to be gassed. NO EXCEPTIONS

Redditors are subhuman scum and ought to be gassed

Incredibly based

More importantly it takes a staggering amount of airpower to even suppress a competently laden IADS temporarily. If you're spending 10x at least as much as your opponent you better be fucking flattening him instead of just taking out some launchers here and there. Proponents of airpower don't get this, at all, and this would be their downfall if ever NATO miscalculates and takes on a proper military instead of yet another shithole.

The amusing thing is that they don't realise that the IADS of Russia is integrated... so their S-400s wont be broadcasting their current locations, while most radar will be listening only while a few broadcast to scan for targets the very long wave radar will be collecting data on all platforms in the air and transmitting that to all the air defence units... that will be Aerospace Defence Units as well as Army and Navy units too which all have their own air defence systems and equipment.

Launching thousands of MALD drones to get the Russian air defence systems to light up like an Xmas tree might be really disappointing, because they might just use a couple of radar to cover their airspace and launch cheaper missiles like Pantsir and even drones with essentially air to air missiles to deal with such threats.

Even old SA-7 Grail missiles could be mounted on a drone and when flown to within 3km of an air drone could be launched to defeat such a drone easily and cheaply.... and when they are used up they can start using SA-14 and SA-16 and SA-18 and then SA-24 missiles too, plus of course they have enormous numbers of low to medium altitude SA-3s available and they would be ideal for shooting down cruise missile type targets and also drones... and it already would not be costing them very much at all....

They have enormous numbers of obsolete old missiles they could use up against all sorts of threats, but obviously if the west actually achieves the Swarm technology it is trying to create... ie a real swarm like locusts or birds or army ants, tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of targets at a time... then the obvious solution is tactical nuclear devices delivered to intercept these swarms while they are still in enemy territory.

And of course when Russia adopts similar drones and obviously makes them cheaper and better then the west is in real trouble because they couldn't even counter a decent attack of low flying cruise missiles let alone a swarm or hypersonic threat...

Redditors are subhuman scum that ought to be gassed. NO EXCEPTIONS

Got to agree with TMA1 on this one... denying the humanity of the enemy so they can commit war crimes against them is a very Nazi Germany thing to do, and currently it is also a very democrat and republican thing to do too, but as you are on this site it seems that western propaganda on how to treat enemies has infected your thoughts and view... your new very western attitude could be a problem.... perhaps you need to be sent to a re-education camp to understand why what you are proposing is so bad... but look on the bright side... this means there can be exceptions...

Well when I see how they struggled against Iraqi and Yugoslavian outdate air defence forces Yi think they will have a hardtime facing russian or chinese IADS.

Russia and china have also real air force which wasn't the case of iraq and yugoslavia.

They won't be able to carry just Harms and bombs.

calripson wrote:

Isos wrote:What they should worry about is Iskander and Kalibr hitting their strategic infrastructures like nuclear powerplants or oil storage.

Imagine for 2 second modern western socities without electricty and oil storage facilities.

Any air defense network can be degraded and defeated given enough time. The key is not Russia's air defense network, it is her counterstrike capability. if Syria had Iskander, Kalibr, Tsirkon, or Kinzhal, there would be zero Israel attempts to strike Damascus.

This is just theory, in practice any modern air defense network will deplete the enemy aircraft inventory in weeks time, with non stealth fighters in days time.

Check how the whole USA /NATO airforce behaved with the seriously old, outdated Serbian air defences, that lacked any mobile high altitude assets.

Well when I see how they struggled against Iraqi and Yugoslavian outdate air defence forces Yi think they will have a hardtime facing russian or chinese IADS.

Russia and china have also real air force which wasn't the case of iraq and yugoslavia.

They won't be able to carry just Harms and bombs.

It is more than that... as Calripson says at the top of this page any defence can be beaten eventually... but that is only true if it is passive defence that makes no attempts to defend itself or to react to the attacks.

If they are attacking you back then you might not get the chance to wear down their defence...

If we look at Saudi Arabia vs Yemen and Iran Saudi Arabia was so busy bombing Yemen that they didn't really think about where they are vulnerable and what their enemies could easily attack... their enemies didn't just cross the border in nice orderly fashion in tanks that could be decimated by enemy air power... a western strength... they looked at Saudi air defences and weak points and exploited their weak air defence to the point where the drones and cruise missiles they used for the attack were not even detected till they exploded on target... they attacked smart... nothing amazing.... if a HATO planner was tasked with the job of attacking Saudi Arabia they likely would have come up with the same plan but with more aircraft and it would have been more expensive, but possibly less successful because they might have seen it coming and been able to put up more of a fight to deal with it.

This is just theory, in practice any modern air defense network will deplete the enemy aircraft inventory in weeks time, with non stealth fighters in days time.

Exactly... an active defence that it fighting the attack and also attacking the attackers means they could be degrading the attack at a rate the attacking force simply cannot sustain. How many AWACS aircraft can HATO afford to lose... and once they realise how vulnerable they can be they will have to change tactics and either move them further back where they might not be effective or will certainly be less effective, or panic... they might have to come up with ways of working with out them supporting their operations... something they have built everything... planning and tactics and procedures around being able to do.

They would say it will be a game changer... but not in a positive way.

To be clear it wont stop HATO being HATO, but against Russia or China the simply can't expect the same results they get from smaller weaker enemies.

HATO has the advantage of being the aggressor... so if an opponent turns out to be rather more competent than they were expecting then they can always declare victory and run away.... hense Kabul...

In the workshops of the Bryansk Automobile Plant, new sand-colored BAZ-69095 cars with a 6x6 wheel formula were noticed. 

I wrote this message here, because BAZ is part of the Almaz-Antey concern and produces chassis only for S-400/S-500 systems. Apparently, someone in the Middle East/North Africa bought the S-400.

Maybe Algeria but i thought they already had them unless they're buying more with the rise of tensions recently, there were images online of covered S-400 vehicles/chassis in Alegria being transported on streets, idk if it's Egypt they don't like S-400 not being on track or that's what some Egyptian "experts" claim (right...), Saudis don't have the balls AFAIK.

Edit: an Iraqi lawmaker said they want to buy S-300, but they say that all the time about all sorts of weapons, time will tell.

AlfaT8 wrote:Interesting simulation of defeating a very well fortified IAD zone.

Part 1 with legacy systems.


Part 2 with some more modern AD systems.

They are essentially cheating by way of abusing a rather retarded feature the developers included.

The missile sites also lack basic tactics, a real raketchik would not have been baited into wasting missiles, but rather would have baited the americans into a more kinematically favourable position.

We must of course also mention that if there are a bunch of morons trying to deplete your missile stocks you can just call in the airforce to swat them for you while they are preoccupied.

Well it's still a game but it shows what an attack on AD can be.

In real life they would still fly very low but a friendly sukhoi would be above them and its r-77 could be used at longer range than their amraam and they would be fired at. If they go up to fight them the S-300 would down them.

And I would add it's quite impossible to face such concebtration of SAM. The buk would be further away from the S-300 in ambush waiting for those low flying aircraft. And the zone would be covered by MANPADS/pantsirs too.

The main tactic to attack AD is to fly low and try to launch quickly ARM missiles.