Turkey Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

ougoah said:

Lol your example and argument is ridiculously stupid.

SAM systems ARE stationary when in use!

Show me an S-400 firing on the move.

They are limited in doing one task... detecting tracking and providing target data to missiles once fired.

You still don't get it. It's about initiative and my analogy is perfect. Shooting things down is possible. When tf did I say it's not? Strawman me?

Equating an F-35 and S-400 dynamic with S-125 and F-117 is indicative enough.

It has nothing to do with better or not better and nothing to do with can SAMs shoot down anything. I'm done. This is impossible. As long as readers can understand.

Click to expand...

The only thing I see here is that you are giving SEAD every bit of an advantage possible while putting SAM systems in the worse situation possible. It is funny how you attempt to shift the goal of the discussion to the capability of the S-400 vis a vis the F-35 to the discussion of strategic planning which have no bearing at all.
You claim that a SAM cannot both track and destroy aircraft while defending itself against radiation missiles which is false. You claim that SAM systems in the field cannot reload which is again false, you claim that SEAD aircrafts has an unlimited number of missiles it can sling at the defenders which is again false. We can all see how you are actively stacking the deck against SAM systems here.
Say a S-400 is stationary when deployed. Do you know where it would be ? The answer would be no, it takes significant intelligence gather to predict the location of a SAM for a SEAD mission. They don't just waltz into the area with HARMs you know.

Viktor Jav said:

The only thing I see here is that you are giving SEAD every bit of an advantage possible while putting SAM systems in the worse situation possible. It is funny how you attempt to shift the goal of the discussion to the capability of the S-400 vis a vis the F-35 to the discussion of strategic planning which have no bearing at all.
You claim that a SAM cannot both track and destroy aircraft while defending itself against radiation missiles which is false. You claim that SAM systems in the field cannot reload which is again false, you claim that SEAD aircrafts has an unlimited number of missiles it can sling at the defenders which is again false. We can all see how you are actively stacking the deck against SAM systems here.
Say a S-400 is stationary when deployed. Do you know where it would be ? The answer would be no, it takes significant intelligence gather to predict the location of a SAM for a SEAD mission. They don't just waltz into the area with HARMs you know.

Click to expand...

Totally incorrect understanding of how SAM and SEAD works and totally incorrect interpretation of my posts. Try harder.

And FYI, it's easy to figure out where the SAMs are after a tiny bit of effort. It doesn't require significant intelligence gathering. E.g. Even I know exactly where Chinese SAMs in SCS islands are. That's a simple example. For well hidden ones? Also surprisingly easy. Hint they are usually positioned to protect important targets and within the outer perimeters of a nation's borders. SEAD can start signals snooping from there. There's also satellites that can help with imaging for suspected SAM sites and recon drones too.

This is all assuming SAM radars are not even turned on. In which case they pose no threat at all and the targets they're protecting will get obliterated when the radars are off. If you believe turning them on and off strategy is still going to work today, you have the problem because reality is not going to oblige.

Jul 19, 2017

Jura said:

...

LOL I wonder how a Military operating both F-35s and Triumphs would fit into the world of various Analysts
I'd be at a total loss

oops now I imagined an exercise which would pitch these weapons against each other

Click to expand...

Why do some people think SAMs are like some sort of force field that never runs out?

They're there to buy time and effectively defend important sites from attack. They would be especially useful against a weaker enemy. For example if Vietnam and Phillippines tried to destroy those SCS bases, Chinese SAMs will be far more effective than if the USN went in to do that. If the former, Chinese forces will quickly destroy all attacking Viet and Filo platforms while successfully defending against their ordinance by using those HQ-9 and HQ-16s. Against the USN, Chinese forces will need to sink all those carriers and destroy every nearby US base otherwise the onslaught will continue until those HQ-9 and HQ-16s get saturated or run out of missiles.

This means if we're to consider Russia getting hands on F-35 signals vs US getting it's hands on S-400 signals and details, the Russians have far more to gain because that information can help them negate the advantage US F-35s naturally hold at the moment.

We all agree that a few dozen F-35s operating off a carrier is going to obliterate the S-400 site protected whatever Tor M-1s and Pantsirs. Even if the freaking stealth of F-35 isn't effective, Tor M1 and Panstirs and S-400 will run out of missiles! You think they carry hundreds of missiles?!?! Those F-35s will continue to harass and have their way with the SAM site. If the SAM site is on stealth mode and hiding, well the F-35s will just go in and destroy their intended targets anyway. It's freakin joke this point is even being discussed on a military forum. Victor you have made some highly comedic posts in the past and this is yet another hopelessly bad misunderstanding on how military matters work in the real world. Do you also think all missiles always hit their marks and radars are godlike machines of perfection?! Get a clue. Missiles and radars don't hit/pick up targets half the time. They're a coin flip in the BEST of circumstances. Against an F-35 launching stealthy stand off weapons, it's guaranteed the SAM loses.

ougoah said:

We all agree that a few dozen F-35s operating off a carrier is going to obliterate the S-400 site protected whatever Tor M-1s and Pantsirs. Even if the freaking stealth of F-35 isn't effective, Tor M1 and Panstirs and S-400 will run out of missiles! You think they carry hundreds of missiles?!?! Those F-35s will continue to harass and have their way with the SAM site. If the SAM site is on stealth mode and hiding, well the F-35s will just go in and destroy their intended targets anyway. It's freakin joke this point is even being discussed on a military forum. Victor you have made some highly comedic posts in the past and this is yet another hopelessly bad misunderstanding on how military matters work in the real world. Do you also think all missiles always hit their marks and radars are godlike machines of perfection?! Get a clue. Missiles and radars don't hit/pick up targets half the time. They're a coin flip in the BEST of circumstances. Against an F-35 launching stealthy stand off weapons, it's guaranteed the SAM loses.

Click to expand...

You have serious bias, that prevent you to understand the strategy and tactics of the SAM vs aggressor game.

SAMs doesn't radiate, ONLY the early warning radars.
Those feeding the data to the SAM sites, and based on the intruder position the most favourable positioned one will launch the missile, and in very favourable condition , the Flap Lid even doesn't need to illuminate the target.

Example, the Russian air defence has separated early warning radars (NEBO family) with X, S and VHF components, those has the job to detect and track.

The SAM sties doesn't need to be active, they even can launch the missile without searching for a target, with the data received from the early warning system.

And finally, due to the above strategy the detection / anti radiation missiles has to use the sidelobes to target the X band radars, but that will be active only for minute even from the real radar.
Means it is easy to make electronic decoys, .

So, how can an F35 destroy the SAM if they don't know the position of it, or in worst case if they think a false target as a SAM ?
The WHOLE strategy of stealth is built around the premise the aggressor know the position of the radars.


Actually,the SAMs has bigger evolution / quantum leap since the introduction of S-125 (the most capable units of Serb air defence) than the aggressors with the introduction of stealth.

maint1234 said:

The Sherman didnt do badly against M47 in the battle of Asal Utar in the indo pak 1965 war. Around 100 Pakistani M47 tanks got destroyed or captured. But during those times the tactics on the ground were more important as communication and coordination was not easy. And in any case both tanks were from western nations.
That's why I wrote specifically about 90s conflicts between American and Russian equipment. Even a European country like Serbia was a sitting duck and managed a single shooting down in the 90s. Argentina with French equipment had many more successes in the Malvinas war against the British (who were supported by the Americans), than the Iraqis, serbians ,Russians,etc combined.
Even in the last decades , India and Pakistan trust their mirage 2000s and f16s more than the newer su30s or FC1 , like we saw in the kargil war or the recent conflict.

Click to expand...

Actually , he Serbs scored two hit, with the single SAM unit that has good training and operating discipline.

But even the other, incapable commanders made it very costly for the aggressors to fly, considering the ratio of SAED vs strike missions, just compare them to the Iraq experience.

Alright cool you guys have convinced me. SAMs are indeed impregnable. I guess all those SAM failures in Syria are just down to silly operators.

ougoah said:

Alright cool you guys have convinced me. SAMs are indeed impregnable. I guess all those SAM failures in Syria are just down to silly operators.

Click to expand...

What SAM failures ?

You talk about that 40 odd pantsir not capable to defend 181000 square km ?
Or a stand alone pantsir can be shoot down during maintenance / reloading ?

Anlsvrthng said:

What SAM failures ?

You talk about that 40 odd pantsir not capable to defend 181000 square km ?
Or a stand alone pantsir can be shoot down during maintenance / reloading ?

Click to expand...

How about the ones that failed to intercept air to ground munitions. After all that was their job. Or are all those successful air to ground attacks pulled off by Israel and US fake news?

ougoah said:

Totally incorrect understanding of how SAM and SEAD works and totally incorrect interpretation of my posts. Try harder.

And FYI, it's easy to figure out where the SAMs are after a tiny bit of effort. It doesn't require significant intelligence gathering. E.g. Even I know exactly where Chinese SAMs in SCS islands are. That's a simple example. For well hidden ones? Also surprisingly easy. Hint they are usually positioned to protect important targets and within the outer perimeters of a nation's borders. SEAD can start signals snooping from there. There's also satellites that can help with imaging for suspected SAM sites and recon drones too.

This is all assuming SAM radars are not even turned on. In which case they pose no threat at all and the targets they're protecting will get obliterated when the radars are off. If you believe turning them on and off strategy is still going to work today, you have the problem because reality is not going to oblige.

Click to expand...

Oh wow lets use the SCS islands, islands that are barely the size of a couple of football field as an example, what a great attempt of bias there. Lets not take the issue that most nation's borders stretches for hundres of kilometers and consist of multiple terrains and geography instead of absolute blank sandy beaches.
Statelite images often takes time to develop and by the time they are done and barely covers much area to begin with, any SAM commander worth their salt will have relocated their SAMs by that time already. Just assuming that SAM systems are located in a nearby area ignores the fact that you will still have to actually find them to get at them. But you are going to just conveniently ignore that.
Smart application of radars is percisely what netted the Nighthawk during the 1999, it is you who is ignoring reality in that sense.