So did NATO accidentally prove that areal denial with SAMs work?
Or is the crucial part the SEAD capabilities the NATO has unlike Russia and China?
So did NATO accidentally prove that areal denial with SAMs work?
So did NATO accidentally prove that areal denial with SAMs work?
Or is the crucial part the SEAD capabilities the NATO has unlike Russia and China?
what's accidental about it you fucking retard?
russia can't SEAD
area denial with sams only works if your sams are good and the enemy can't SEAD
that is all the patriot has proven in Ukraine
well that and the Khinzal being a meme
Both SEAD and AD works, they always did it.
But you have to upgrade them continuously.
Something that russia haven't made well, rebranding their systems and brute force their missiles with more fuel for speed is NGMI.
That and not being stupid. The S-300 is a easy targets for small drones.
>So did NATO accidentally prove that areal denial with SAMs work?
yeah theirs does
But wasn't the common knowledge that NATO can't get into SAMs?
>NATO can't get into SAMs?
That was always a vatnik/chink/raghead lie
No we just never had cause to use them since we made it a first priority to destroy enemy air assets whenever we began an armed conflict.
Kind of how people were saying himars was garbage and no better than 50 year old Russian equivalents before Ukrainians started fielding them.
Shit meant to respond to
But mas miring your didgeridooits.
I remember russians saying HIMARS is basically just a worse version of their "Tornado"
kek
now you know better than to trust muh common knowledge
NATO always had better SAMs, in fact soviets had to steal the tech from brits at one point. It's just NATO never put their money on SAMs like soviets did.
Turkey strong
>turkey totally didn't inspect them down to every solder like the chinese
>totally didn't use that information in R&D
>totally didn't share that with every NATO country
All the while the melon seller boosted his domestic popularity, it all worked out. But I wouldn't be surprised if turks buy some western air defense system in the the next 10 years, especially when/if they fail coming up with at-home solutions. Considering they gutted their air force, it's a precarious situation they are in rn
>soviets had to steal the tech from brits at one point
Tons of points, actually. In addition to the SA-4 they also stole the Redeye, VT fuse and radar direction tech for the S-60 and tons of other stuff.
>Tons of points, actually. In addition to the SA-4 they also stole the Redeye, VT fuse and radar direction tech for the S-60 and tons of other stuff.
The 57 mm gun in S-60 was based on the world war 2 german 55 mm AA gun prototype.
Radar gun laying controller for it was a separate piece that was stolen from US along with the other atomic documents.
Which side regularly shoots down civilian aircraft again?
well there have been a few times that Isreal has shot down civilian aircraft without real justification, and America has done it once or twice. Overall the vast majority of shootdowns of civilian aircraft that can't be justified by airspace violations and stuff are by the PRC or various middle eastern countries, compared to them, Russia barely factors in.
Absolutely not.
The list went Imperial Japan, followed by the Soviet Union/Russia, then there was a big gap, and then it was various African and SEA warlords
>But wasn't the common knowledge that NATO can't get into SAMs?
Anon, never trust vatniks or gypsies.
maybe in 1967
NATO uses its airforce as its primary AD system, its SAMS tend to be shorter range point defenses but they are very get at their job. Russia uses much longer range AD as their primary defense. Their systems are pretty good at what they do but are a outclassed by the airpower based approach of NATO because good SEAD is always better than good AD
Funnily enough, NATO used to have much longer air defense systems than soviets but it tends to go over people's heads because the difference is most pronounced in US naval missiles.
>good SEAD is always better than good AD
fundamentally untrue. SEAD has fundamental disadvantages imposed by what can be bolted to an airframe and still have it fly, it's just far more mobile. Over large areas though airpower has the advantage of mobility, while ground based air defenses are relatively inflexible on an operational scale.
Near the end of the cold war America was actually considering implementing a nearly soviet style air defense doctrine with concentric bubbles of air defense capabilities with things like the FAAD program, but they ended up being canceled with the peace dividend.
Biggest advantage of an air force is how easy it is to concentrate your forces onto a single target or theatre, that's always been the case. Another massive advantage is the radar horizon that limits the view of any low-flying targets from the gound. There are other two but these are the major ones.
>Near the end of the cold war America was actually considering implementing a nearly soviet style air defense doctrine
Biggest fake nonsense i've read on this site today. You should be ashamed and choke on the vatmoron dick you're sucking.
>You should be ashamed
NO U! should be ashamed. You're being arrogant and pretending that because a group of people who generally came up with bad ideas came up with a good idea, when a parallel line of thinking led to an actually pretty great idea, then the original line of thinking was bad. FAAD was a fucking awesome idea, having Bradleys equipped with ADATS and able to blow up aircraft OR tanks from 8km out with drone directed indirect fire is not just awesome, it's fucking erotic. GTFO newfag, we love weapons here, we don't care if some drunk slav came up with a similar idea in the first place, even if we're supporting some other slav country that is at war with them currently.
If your bradleys have enemy aircraft within 8km of them you're doing it wrong. Your retarded single vehicle focused fantasy is exactly like the stupidity that russian vehicles are designed around, silly paper stats in a bloated and unusable design that doesn't do anything right.
>If your bradleys have enemy aircraft within 8km of them you're doing it wrong.
if your Bradleys have an enemy aircraft within 8km then they are advancing like they were in Desert Storm, but against an enemy that is actually putting up a fight.
>Your retarded single vehicle focused fantasy is exactly like the stupidity that russian vehicles are designed around, silly paper stats in a bloated and unusable design that doesn't do anything right.
Russian vehicles are designed around the idea that their crews will be too poorly trained and possibly also too drunk to coordinate with their friendly units. Which is a very realistic and pragmatic assessment of the situation. Just because it doesn't play to the strengths of western militaries doesn't mean it's a bad choice for the Soviet Union, although typically Soviet thinking lead to designs that were poorly optimized for the modern Russian armed forces.
>but against an enemy that is actually putting up a fight.
Just shut the fuck up, you worthless vatmoron.
>Russian vehicles are designed around the idea that their crews will be too poorly trained and possibly also too drunk to coordinate with their friendly units.
Nope, that's how they're fielded. They're designed by retards like you who cannot understand combined arms and want to ram everything into a single vehicle, no matter the practicality or usability of it. Basically scum like you ruins militaries.
>doesn't mean it's a bad choice for the Soviet Union
What a massive gay you are, holy shit.
You are so retarded you make Gonzalo Lira look like an O-6
>silly paper stats in a bloated and unusable design
You do know the Canadians fielded the ADATS for some time, right?
ADATS was unironically a pretty good fucking idea and system. If it's sole purpose was to act purely as SHORAD, then yeah it'd be as retarded as the Sgt. York. But it not only did SHORAD thangs, with the *same* missile for AD you could *reliably* bust Soviet tanks of its era. I don't recall Tors or Pantsirs being touted for their dual-use flexibility-by-design.
You're entirely too focused on not resembling those big dumb Russian icky-stupid-heads that you're ignorantly writing-off actually feasible iterations of badly-executed vodka-monkey ideas.
ADATS didn't do anything that an M2 Linebacker didn't do better, more efficiently and cheaper. The idea of combining air-to-air and anti-tank missiles results is a poor compromise from both tactical and financial perspective and will be unable to completely replace either of those roles.
From the beginning, the idea that you MUST have local small-unit anti air because reasons is dumb because you could just devote these resources into making sure they're not actually being bombed, something that the puny point defense systems can hardly prevent anyway.
Mobile forces will always be better than fortifications.
Yeah, just like US rocket artillery, which wasn't the focus in their military operations... until it was used in Ukraine and turned out to stealthly be top notch all along.
NATO air defense is a weird mishmash. They have the best MANPADS and best static AA like Patriot and the Sea Sparrow, and best strategic AA like THAAD and SM-3. However, there is a gap in adequate mobile AA deployed at the company level, something equivalent in role to the TOR. Instead, they just expect exposed infantry with MANPADS to fend off AA threats like swarms of helicopters and attack aircraft. It hasn't been an issue obviously and probably wont ever be, but it is a credible capability gap.
wonder how long ESSM-on-a-truck would take to emerge in the event of a serious war
probably about two months
already exists, NASAMS-ER
They rely on air support. Russians assumes by doctrine that they'll not have air superiority.
TOR was created as a system to protect the troops from cruise missiles where reaction time and multiple target engagement is essential, otherwise it's barely better than MANPADS in its respective role, even when it works which it, as usual for russian trash, often doesn't. Soviets fielded a ton of such small size SAMs because their MANPADS were unreliable shit and they had a tradition making them going back to the time when they replaced AA cannons. TOR is just another extention of that, a pointless overly ambitious project meant to throw a bone to the dying soviet MIC. All these vehicles are pointless burden that don't do anything manpads don't do more efficiently and with better flexibility. They've been owned and wrecked in almost every conflict they engaged in and only someone looking out to dickride russians for anything, literally anything, would want to imitate them.
>they have the best
explain how they fucked up in saudi arabia but somehow they work almost 100% in ukraine with insane interception rates
ill wait
They've actually worked really well in saudi arabia too, with hundreds interceptions to date. It was just few failures related to small commercial drones, the system being switched off and similar stuff.
https://missilethreat.csis.org/report-the-missile-war-in-yemen/
I think a more accurate statement is that NATO SAMs aren't as good as they could be, nor as numerous which leads to them being more expensive then they could. The US doesn't invest a huge amount of money into developing SAMs to the point where they're world beating wunderwaffens that'll be best in class for decades like we do the things we care about such as air power and subs, for example, so while NATO SAMs will get the job done, they're not game breaking because they're a lower rung on the priority level.
Like most things, it works when first-worlders do it...
JAPCC has whole libraries dedicated to A2/AD. There isn't much to prove about the effectiveness of AA networks or about the need to always hone you SEAD and anti-A2/AD skills.
The fundamental problem is always we somehow project our NATO capacities into potential enemies. Like Russian aligned voices claimed that the Russian Air Force would be capable of destroying crucial commando structures, air bases, SAMs and other critical infrastructures, despite the fact that Russia has never archived something like that in the past. NATO has put decades of work into that capability including writing doctrines and developing the hardware.
I think that's a good thing to think that. The bad thing is, we get a lot of clickbaity titles on every wargames the US lose. I still remember someone spamming a screenshot of an example on that.
You always assume that your enemy is stronger and more competent than you are.
This. Victory is born from (mild) paranoia. The F-15 is a perfect example of that.
>The F-15 is a perfect example of that.
why?
F-15 was developed after the west got a look at the Mig-25 and thought it was some kind of hyper maneuverable, high performance air superiority fighter. This led to the f-111/f-14 type fighter program for the USAF being cancelled and a new development program being started to develop the ultimate air superiority fighter to counter the foxbat.
This led to the F-15, which is currently 104-0 in air to air combat.
It turned out the Mig-25 was a fat, huge interceptor that can't do anything but go in a straight line very fast and eats it's own engines in the process.
Not necessarily. War is expensive and difficult. Ideally, you want just enough military power to make your enemy think twice about attacking. if you think about it as a complete "national competition," an overinvestment in military could leave your economy and infrastructure lacking.
Ideally you want enough military power to stop your enemy if they attack. While the ability to build and maintain a military is tied directly into the size and capacity of your economy, minimum credible deterrence is a concession to economics.
No you retard the ideal is overmatch, to utterly dominate your opponent so completely and utterly in the quickest and most efficient way possible. Warfare is literally a life or death situation for nations and you do not compromise on trying to fight that shit with a 'just good enough' mindset. Desert Storm convinced the US that a war can indeed be fought quickly and easily when you stack the decks in your favour so high enough that you reign supreme.
An overinvestment in military does not infact cause a downgrade in the economy because the money is flowing from the government back into the private sector due to the military-industrial complex
Obviously if you're going to get into a war the best way out is to be incredibly overpowered. But war isn't free for the enemy either. They might believe they can win, but if you make it so expensive to them that it's not worth it, they won't do it (if you believe they're acting rationally, lol). Looking at the two obvious cases today:
>Ukraine
Everyone did a shit job of making Putin believe he was going to lose horribly and suffer irreparable economic and demographic damage. In fact, many people thought he would win handily, so he went ahead and did it. He struck at what he thought was a weak moment -- the US pulling out of Afghanistan. And there was indeed a moment where Biden confirmed he would not send troops to Ukraine, which Putin interpreted as a further sign of his sure victory.
>Taiwan
Right now, China is not coercing or invading Taiwan because they can't be sure of an easy win. If they were sure the US would not intervene, they could probably blockade and pressure them into capitulation today without taking many losses (invasion would be harder). Even if they were capable of beating the US, they wouldn't do it unless they really overmatched them. They can't afford a costly victory.
A security guarantee is not the same thing.
>overinvestment in military could leave your economy and infrastructure lacking.
Military spending only needs to be like 2% to 4% of your GDP to be effective. Most euros are too cucked for even 1%. If your country thinks devoting a tiny fraction of it's productivity towards self defense isn't worth the money than they deserve whatever fucked up shit happens to them.
I'd add a layer of 'don't be detected' between 'don't be there' and 'don't be seen'. Sound, signals, HUMINT, etc.
I would assume "don't be seen" kind of implies that, but I get your point. There is a difference between the enemy being aware of your presence versus knowing your exact location.
If Russia seriously claimed to have genetically engineered supersoldiers the USA would immediately start working on closing the supersoldier gap, before ending up with an affordable Iron Man suit they'd be able to hand out to whole companies at the same time...
Just before finding out that the Russian genetically engineered supersoldiers are all vodka addled Down Syndrome retards.
actually... Stingers and Strelas were enough to deny access for Russian CAS and helicopters.
When the Gepards dropped Russia already gave up on that, though there is one recorded case of Gepards shredding Russian helicopters.
Link/webm pls.
> though there is one recorded case of Gepards shredding Russian helicopters.
Sauce nao plz!
>Gepard shredding Ka-52
holy KINO. please post webm
Has this recording possibly happened in a war simulator named Arma 3 or similar?
As much as my dick wants it to be IRL, it's probably fucking Warthunder.
>the realization of what NATO/USA have been training and building weapons for in the last 50 years is now starting to dawn on OP
i would laugh at you OP, but i guess the russian military is in the same position as you.
> 50 years
Preparation to fight Soviet Russia started before the end of WW2 you dolt. The decision to nuke Japan into surrendering was end the Pacific War before the soviets could get involved and carve up post-war Japan the way that Germany was. The spread of communism scared the shit out of capitalists, and were already known to be the next enemy.
>The spread of communism scared the shit out of *literally every society that wasn't already communist or commie-sympathetic.
FTFY
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mg915af.12?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
This is ancient study from 20 years ago, but China back then were implementing SEAD with inferior technology. Now 20 years later, their weapons have reached parity/more advanced and with a much more developed/robust system in place.
>Thread about USA and Russia
>"OH HERRO FERROW GWEILO PrepHoleOMMANDOS, DID YOU KNOW ZHONGGUO HAS STRONK SEAD TOO? EVEN MORE STRONK THAN INFERIOR AMERIMUTT SEAD IN SOME CASE.
Why the fuck are they like this?
>Or is the crucial part the SEAD capabilities the NATO has unlike Russia and China?
Underestimating your opponent is how you lose, and there's a dangerous tendency for Westerners to become complacent after watching Russia's failure.
Nobody is complacent, russian chimpout resulted in a massive boost in readiness, funding and attention to the militaries in developed world in place of slow and decrepit decay they've been experiencing before.
you have obviously missed the subtle shift to war economy in Europe and Japan
>does X prove defense is better than offense
>does Y prove offense is better than defense
repeat for all of human history since the invention of the pointy stick and hide shield
There is a reason why everybody wants F-35 now.
It's really not a competition anymore
Pretty sure the S-300s and BUKs were doing a stand-up job of area-denial over Ukraine for the past year until their ammo ran out.
IADS were always effective as long as you had a solid doctrine for their use. That's exactly why the US invested so much time and money into SEAD doctrines to counter them.
What we see here in the current Ukraine war is that Ukraine is actually competent with their air defense systems, Russia has no clue what they're doing but have a huge reserve of them, and neither have the resources, capability, or knowledge to conduct an organized SEAD campaign.
The US just makes air campaigns look easy because they do literally everything in their power to stack the deck in their favor.
>So did NATO accidentally prove that areal denial with SAMs work?
i dont know i wouldnt trust a country that constantly says that they intercept 95% of any attack while not even iron dome the most battle proven system barely gets up to 90% some times..
>"OH HERRO FERROW GOYIM PrepHoleOMMANDOS, DID YOU KNOW JERUSALEM HAS STRONK SAM TOO? EVEN MORE STRONK THAN INFERIOR AMERIMUTT SEAD IN SOME CASE.
why are they like this?
yes its always that ONE persky kalibr that gets past their defences and manages to blow up several targets
like those bollywood movies where they split a bullet in half with a knife
gee i fucking wonder if things would play out differently against an airforce with 1000 LO airframes and a dedicated SEAD mission
SAMs do work, nobody ever contended that. The problem is that they're not infallible and to actually deny air space you need a combination of both SAMs and a competent Air Force. russia always thought they could just build more SAMs and that would be enough despite history showing time and time again that you can't deny air space that way.
russia's inability to conduct any kind of SEAD is what has rendered what SHOULD have been a few months long war into a multi-year slog fest for villages less than 50km from their border.
The Soviet air net was build on the idea that at some point quantity makes strategy unfeasible, while the west always was of the opinion that the only counter to strategy is to make your quality something so ahead of the curve they cant get around it comprehensively enough faster than you can iterate on it