>Makes your entire airforce ineffective and food for MANPADS

>Makes your entire airforce ineffective and food for MANPADS

APOLOGIZE, APOLOGIZE RIGHT FUCKING NOW

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    NASAM would mog the shit out of it

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are you kidding? Compare the stats. NASAMS is inferior and close to something like the OSA.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        NASAMS 3 beats the shit out of Buk in terms of engagement altitude. And obviously modern Western seekers are wunderwaffe compared to Russian shit.
        Otherwise they're pretty similar.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Compare the stats
        Have you learned nothing from this war? Raw range means nothing, it's about battlespace awareness and integration, and the Buk is shit at that

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The BUK is supposed to be plugged into an automated, integrated ADS.

          NASAMs doesn't have any equivalents.

          NASAMs is much more primitive than BUK, it's closer to an OSA short range system.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Western systems do that across all kinds of platforms using shit like Link 16. Much better, you get a common tactical picture for the entire force instead of having several piecemeal digital environments that have to go back to the stone age to talk to each other.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Western systems do that across all kinds of platforms using shit like Link 16.

              So which Ukrainian sensors are going to feed information to NASAMS?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Just NATO Things

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Explain what's on the image.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Bomber is circling Crimea.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >EP-3
                >Bomber

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's an airplane anon.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So, NATO flies over russian borders and gives intel info to Ukraine?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                that's not russian borders dumbass, you can be 12 nm out and that's perfectly legal

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I mean close to the russian border or border to temporarily occupied Crimea.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                technically? Yes, you can scream all you want at an enemy EWAR plane but as long as it abides by the conventions of maritime law (you cannot actually enter the airspace of another country, be within 12nmi, or approach ships) then it's perfectly legal. Retaliating against an aircraft doing that is an act of war.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nope, they stay out of Russian airspace. But their radar and sensors are good enough to hang out without violating Russian airspace but still see enough to help Ukraine violate Russians.

                Smart move.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yup. They're up there watching Russia and there's nothing Russia can do about it without declaring war on NATO. It's got to be so seethe-inducing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nope, they stay out of Russian airspace. But their radar and sensors are good enough to hang out without violating Russian airspace but still see enough to help Ukraine violate Russians.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I can hear the Indiana Jones theme playing in the background.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The BUK is supposed to be plugged into an automated, integrated ADS.
            >NASAMs doesn't have any equivalents.
            What is IBCS?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >NASAMs is much more primitive than BUK
            kek, that is a good one. It can link up with pretty much any western radar system from long range surveillance radars to mobile systems like AN/MPQ-64 to Ericson Giraffe. They could also use even AWACS or shared radar data from fighters.

            Explain what's on the image.

            EP-3E Aries II flying back and forth along walls of Criminal Penitentiary.

            yep, precisely what's happened. It's why both sides fly at low altitude, Soviet anti-air is very effective at what it does if it can see a target.
            [...]
            western systems are more point-defense focused in general as opposed to Soviet style systems that are about airspace denial. Western doctrine is to counter fighters with better fighters. The downside of this is that Ukraine isn't prepared to do this and the West doesn't really make anything that'll properly replace the Eastern SAMs that Ukraine is using up.
            Get them up in F-16s ASAP and give them lots of HARMs and wild weasel training.

            Problem with western SAM's is that there isn't true medium range mobile systems. Western manufacturers have MANPADS and heavy systems like Patriot. Pretty much only thing that covers the middle that has any kind of wide adoption is NASAMS. Smaller Aster 15 missile of Franco-Italian Aster/SAMP/T system falls on this category as well, but overall the system is heavy system like Patriot.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >western SAMs don't have medium range mobile systems
              exactly, Western doctrine is that's what the air force is for. We invested heavily into air superiority via having the best fighters, which is much more effective but is not something you can just sell to Ukraine and get up and running with a few weeks of training.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              medium AA is a meme if you have a competent airforce. The PIVADS was dead in the 90s and the HAWK/Chaparral were 1950s/60s technology and massively obsolete compared to PATRIOT.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Problem is, by not developing a good medium AA, you're missing out on a large market of poorfag shitholes who can afford neither a large airforce, nor sufficient (or, indeed, any) heavy AA.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                But why? We already sold all the HAWK/Chap systems in the 90s and 2000s

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because, like I said, you're leaving money on the table for the other guy. If you have nothing in the med-AA range on offer, the tinpot generals will shop with your competitors.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                NASAMS is great as area denial tool against enemy air force, as it is distributed system that can link up to multiple sensor inputs and spread out firing units, its limitation is AMRAAM as missile being only very theoretically being able to hit short range ballistic targets. It is great against fighters and cruise missiles. For most users it shares ammunition pool with their air force fighters as it can also use AIM-9X Sidewinder. ER-AMRAAM, Evolved Sea Sparrow with AMRAAM seeker, will give it plenty of extra reach, but I don't think those have been delivered to any of the users so far.

                But why? We already sold all the HAWK/Chap systems in the 90s and 2000s

                Your poorfag allies and client states might run out of serviceable missiles for HAWK and Chapparal pretty soon.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >pretty soon
                >many countries were sold thousands of missiles and retain them to this day

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Didnt work in Top Gun: Maverick they literally dogde those missiles.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              those were SA-3s I think?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Compare the stats
        If we believed the stats Polan and Baltics would be flying russian flag by now. It's all made up, S300 can't hit the broad side of a barn and all the other wunderwaffles too.
        >but BUK hit the airliner
        Because their tech is so shit they couldn't even tell what they are shooting at.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        A good user interface makes all the difference in the world. There's a pretty substantial gap in capability between shooting at blips on the radar and knowing exactly what you're shooting at, overlaid on a GPS map.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Compare the stats.
        Da, tovarisch. And my penis is 50 cm long btw.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, but consider this: we can taunt the Russians for getting Buk-broken.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      NASAM would be a good complement to it.
      Looking at the Ukraine war, it would suggest either Russian long-range radar-guided SAM are actually decent or that all Russian jets and helicopters are easier to target and lack warning systems.
      And while I can believe the latter, we would have noticed the former earlier if it were true.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Russian planes are getting fucked by goddamn MANPADs.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Imagine not having Targeting Pods in 2022.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The 747s and A320 have to watch out, that's for sure

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >a missile designed to shoot down slow moving passenger airplanes with no countermeasures

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically this system has performed better than the S300 and S400 in Ukraine. The S systems has proven themselves to be just too vulnerable near the front lines.

    - All in one system
    - Highly Mobile
    - Relatively Inexpensive
    - Easier to conceal

    I totally agree with OP

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Needs bluer eyes and more muscle tone

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      AI generated images will never not be creepy.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/XwqlEmy.jpg

        Unironically this system has performed better than the S300 and S400 in Ukraine. The S systems has proven themselves to be just too vulnerable near the front lines.

        - All in one system
        - Highly Mobile
        - Relatively Inexpensive
        - Easier to conceal

        I totally agree with OP

        Any idea which AI generates this?

        Or the more anime ones?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        that's photoshop, not AI. look how diff the face is from the rest

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >that's photoshop, not AI. look how diff the face is from the rest
          It's probably a bit of both, there's a module for merging in a real face into the AI image.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I just wanna take her to the gym, buy her steak dinners to help with bulking, and pound that steel trap furiously while she swears in Slavic at me.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Marichka is just Taylor swift but based ?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think the face might be based on Anna Camp, when she was younger

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      you guys have such generic boomer taste, we love her because she has bags under her eyes, so pale she's blueish, scraggly blonde hair from wearing hats and helmets all day, has a toothy grin with stinky but charming canned meat breath. Not some fucking "i just wanna grill for god's sake" poster in your dads garage above the mini fridge. She needs to be doomer.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Well said.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        this guy fuckin gets it. give me snaggle-toothed insomniac about to commit a war crime marichka.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Good post is good

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >so pale she's blueish
        This. It's very unfortunate that most real girls have skin color on the beige to brown spectrum instead of some cool color like blue.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's a Celtic face. Ukrainians have heart shaped face

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lots of Brits went to Ukraine in the late 19th century to build the Donbas industrial base.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So Ukraine has already upgraded these right?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, they've run out of missiles which is the reason they have to resort to inferior Western systems like NASAMs, ASPIDE, Hawk etc.

      Only decent Western system Ukraine has is IRIS-T but we don't know if it's already in the field.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >inferior Western systems like NASAMs, ASPIDE, Hawk etc.
        Nah, they're mostly similar in performance, at least the upgraded versions. Only real downside is their poor mobility, since they're point defense systems, rather than an integrated TELAR unit which can be quickly redeployed to confuse potential counterstrikes.
        On the other hand, this makes them somewhat less likely to get completely wiped out, since a strike only destroys the radar, or one of the emplacements, instead of the whole thing.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    These Soviet-era AD systems, especially systems like BUK with high-performance missiles are very dangerous. That’s why NATO has painstakingly developed tech and doctrine to deal with them. If you’re an Eastern shithole you’re too poor to implement those capabilities and these SAMs which were meant to stand-off Western air power instead become a giant wall against Eastern air forces.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      yep, precisely what's happened. It's why both sides fly at low altitude, Soviet anti-air is very effective at what it does if it can see a target.

      >inferior Western systems like NASAMs, ASPIDE, Hawk etc.
      Nah, they're mostly similar in performance, at least the upgraded versions. Only real downside is their poor mobility, since they're point defense systems, rather than an integrated TELAR unit which can be quickly redeployed to confuse potential counterstrikes.
      On the other hand, this makes them somewhat less likely to get completely wiped out, since a strike only destroys the radar, or one of the emplacements, instead of the whole thing.

      western systems are more point-defense focused in general as opposed to Soviet style systems that are about airspace denial. Western doctrine is to counter fighters with better fighters. The downside of this is that Ukraine isn't prepared to do this and the West doesn't really make anything that'll properly replace the Eastern SAMs that Ukraine is using up.
      Get them up in F-16s ASAP and give them lots of HARMs and wild weasel training.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    i wonder . why isnt there ressources put into dummy rockets that waste all air defence away while costing next to nothing . but i guess it wouldnt be that easy .

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Also. The S300 system family was clearly designed to present a tough and tenacious AD capability in the face of NATO SEAD. Soviet designers of the 70s and 80s weren’t retards. The main feature was the ability to set them up in a geographically dispersed manner. So the TELs, command modules, search radar and targeting radar can be spread across a large area using a data-link vehicle (probably also ground line options). So, if a radar is taken out by SEAD the command vehicle and TELs remain safe, ready to have new radar feed connected.

    If Russia (or Ukraine) would deploy these systems well, maximizing their design features, they’d have a very formidable AD network. The fact that they’re not using them properly and still can’t challenge the covered airspace is really all about the horrible quality of the men, NOT the machines.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ukraine shows that russhit tech can do the job if it's not operated by 80IQ monkeys. Western tech is obviously better.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I apologize. I am sorry.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Can you even effectively camouflage those phallus while retaining the ability to launch reliably and scoot if needed?

      Or they just rely on being far behind front lines and away from any other threat besides incoming bombers?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        you can put camouflage nets on or over the vehicle and rocket tubes so long as it doesn't interfere with the launching of the projectiles or the vehicle's mobility. but the main issue with "hiding" MLRS is that they'll blow up tons of dust and smoke when they launch rockets which can reveal their position to the enemy. but really, the main thing with MLRS is that its mobility allows it to shoot-and-scoot before counter-batteries catch up to it.

        loiter munitions like in the video are really a menace to (especially larger types of) MLRS since they can search for targets using EO/IR sensors and then immediately hit them with good accuracy.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    amazing, when russia deployed BUKs and KUB systems they were basically turned to scrap metal by drones, but when Ukraine uses them they actually do a descent job.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Still trash compared to western systems.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe 3rd world airforces (so russia). There is decoys, ARMs, jammers, etc. That's why the F35 is the new meme since electronic warfare is the hottest thing right now.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *