# F-35s jets and S-400 missiles



## ChinSwee (Dec 22, 2019)

S-400 missiles can hit targets 400 kilometers away. No fighter jets can fire missiles 400 kilometers away.

Stealth is the only sophisticated feature that will save F-35 jets from Russian S-400 missiles. Many countries are buying S-400s when many countries are buying F-35 stealth jets.


----------



## MAGAman (Dec 22, 2019)

ChinSwee said:


> S-400 missiles can hit targets 400 kilometers away. No fighter jets can fire missiles 400 kilometers away.
> 
> Stealth is the only sophisticated feature that will save F-35 jets from Russian S-400 missiles. Many countries are buying S-400s when many countries are buying F-35 stealth jets.


Range is important,  but not the only factor.

ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) vs ECCM (Electronic  Counter-Counter Measures) is far more important.  

Tactics, stealth, and cyber-attacks also factor highly.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 22, 2019)

ChinSwee said:


> S-400 missiles can hit targets 400 kilometers away. No fighter jets can fire missiles 400 kilometers away.
> 
> Stealth is the only sophisticated feature that will save F-35 jets from Russian S-400 missiles. Many countries are buying S-400s when many countries are buying F-35 stealth jets.



You're right, jets can't fire missiles that far, but they really don't need to.  All they really have to do is send in radar jammers in ahead of the jets doing the attack and they can stop the missiles.

When I was in, the preferred airframe was the EA6B Prowler.  Was easily spotted on the flight deck because it looked like an Intruder, but the tail section had a huge bulge on the top, and there were 4 crew members in the Prowler, where the Intruder only had 2.


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 12, 2020)

ChinSwee said:


> S-400 missiles can hit targets 400 kilometers away. No fighter jets can fire missiles 400 kilometers away.


You know the earth curves right? 

Sure it's a system of systems where tracking/targeting radar might be in a different location but it's not like you just build a missile that can fly 400 kilometers and hit planes that far away that you can't even see because they are below the radar horizon. Also, the max range of missiles usually has a very small hit probability, it's like the max speed/range of aircraft more theoretical than practical.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 13, 2020)

MAGAman said:


> ChinSwee said:
> 
> 
> > S-400 missiles can hit targets 400 kilometers away. No fighter jets can fire missiles 400 kilometers away.
> ...


And the best way to crush enemy's AAD is to send your tanks against it. Sure, there is no and can not be any "absolutely invincible defence". The only question is how much resourses you need to crush it. And from this point of view S-400 can be very good acquisition.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 13, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> > ChinSwee said:
> ...



Actually, the best way to take out AAD is to send in radar jamming aircraft, as well as aircraft to target said installation.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 13, 2020)

The claim is that standard U.S. fighter planes have no defense against old crappy Russian surplus SAM's? How does this kind of propaganda end up on a U.S. discussion forum?


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 14, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> And the best way to crush enemy's AAD is to send your tanks against it.


Nonsense. Weapons for SEAD/DEAD have advanced right along with everything else and are far more capable today than even a decade ago.

Latest HARM has a millimeter-wave seeker so turning off a radar is no longer a defense against the anti-radiation missile, it'll still look for anything that matches the image of an IDADS component. 

There are far more standoff weapons options available now for use against IADS elements from a distance, JSOW, SDB, etc. so aircraft can lob relatively inexpensive glide weapons from 40 miles+ distance.

USAF has thousands of MALD/MALD-J to spoof as attacking aircraft to reveal radar locations and bleed missile batteries of expensive rounds.

Pilots say  in exercises an F-35 can take out a ground radiation source with a JDAM faster than three F-16J Wild Weasels with HARMs because it's sensors can geolocate radiation sources, it has 360 electro-optical coverage to see launches, and it's radar can find targets through the clouds with SAR.

There is no IADS on earth that can withstand a determined long-term assault by USA, it's just a matter of time before the pieces get whittled down and the entire system snowballs in degradation.


----------



## Scamp (Jan 14, 2020)

How are S-400's against low flying cruise missiles?


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 15, 2020)

Scamp said:


> How are S-400's against low flying cruise missiles?


Who knows? Russians say that good enough against CM at 5 m and higher.
It highly depends on terrain type.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 15, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > And the best way to crush enemy's AAD is to send your tanks against it.
> ...


Sure. There is no IADS on Earth that can withstand a determined long-term assault by US Air Force, because United States are rich and powerful. There is no even well prepared, deep layered anti-tank defence that can withstand a deteremined long-term assault by american tanks.
But sometimes (pretty frequently) it is much better to use aviation against anti-tank defence, and tanks against IADS.
Duel situations (like isolated F-35 vs isolated S-400) are rather rare, and can arise in very uncommon and wierd circumstances.
So, lets play the game.
Once upon a time, in year of our Lord 2022, in the cursed Kingdom a civil war was started. Two English Princes - Philip and Henry are fighting each other for the throne, IRA and FSA are fighting for the freedom of Ireland and Scotland (the latter is openly supported by EU).
PHA have half of British tanks (95) near half of infantry, all (15) F-35B, and you as a military advisor.
HMNB Clyde with two nuclear Vanguard-class submarines was captured by FSA irregular battalion and now is guarded by unknown (obviously unofficial Russian) full S-400 battalion, including, of course, SA-22 for self-defence, L-band radars and passive sensors for stealth detection.
Prince Henry ask your advice - "How can we recapture this base?"
What would you preffer - to send 15 F-35B in a frontal attack (IMHO it will be a suicide mission), or to send few infantry regiments with 95 Challengers? (You don't have enough money to send both of them).


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 18, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> But sometimes (pretty frequently) it is much better to use aviation against anti-tank defence, and tanks against IADS.


Nope. Tanks are always best used _after_ you control the skies over them.




Silver Cat said:


> Prince Henry ask your advice - "How can we recapture this base?"
> What would you preffer - to send 15 F-35B in a frontal attack (IMHO it will be a suicide mission), or to send few infantry regiments with 95 Challengers? (You don't have enough money to send both of them).


Absurd false dichotomy that has no bearing on the decision to take out IADS with aircraft first.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 19, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > But sometimes (pretty frequently) it is much better to use aviation against anti-tank defence, and tanks against IADS.
> ...


Ok. So, just show us how you will destroy the S-400 battalion with 15 F-35B only.




Silver Cat said:


> Prince Henry ask your advice - "How can we recapture this base?"
> What would you preffer - to send 15 F-35B in a frontal attack (IMHO it will be a suicide mission), or to send few infantry regiments with 95 Challengers? (You don't have enough money to send both of them).





> Absurd false dichotomy that has no bearing on the decision to take out IADS with aircraft first.


So, what will be your advice? "Call Septics, and ask them to solve your problem?"


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 20, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Ok. So, just show us how you will destroy the S-400 battalion with 15 F-35B only.


Send MALD-Js to light them up, then prosecute with SDB2 and JSOW.





Silver Cat said:


> So, what will be your advice? "Call Septics, and ask them to solve your problem?"


I'd rather they call the Bureau of Ridiculous Nonsensical Military Scenarios. BRNM is a great outfit.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 20, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. So, just show us how you will destroy the S-400 battalion with 15 F-35B only.
> ...



Hey, watch it.  I once did a TDY to that outfit.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 21, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. So, just show us how you will destroy the S-400 battalion with 15 F-35B only.
> ...


Good plan. For a few little exeptions.
First and most important - RAF don't have anything from this stuff.
Second. MALD-J are more jamming, their recon possibility is rather low. Range of S-400 is near 400 clicks, range for MALD-J - near 475 clicks, so, you must be very careful using it to recon positions of S-400.
Third. F-35B can't bear JSOW at all, and it can bear only 2x2 SDBs in its wealons bays.
Forth: Operational range of both SBDs and JSOW is not more than 110 clicks, that is obviously inside of S-400's operational range, so, there are good chances that the most of your F-35B will be shoot down even before they will open their bays.
Fifth: SDBs are good targets for Tunguska's, so 2x2x15=60 SDBs (even if they were launched) were intercepted.





> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > So, what will be your advice? "Call Septics, and ask them to solve your problem?"
> ...


Sure. I said, that the duel scenarios like "isolated S-400 battalion" vs "isolated squadron of F-35B" are really uncommon and even weird.
But it is not me, who suggested to send 15 almost unarmed F-35B in the frontal attack against fully equipped and covered S-400 battalion.
As Pierre Bosquet said:
_«C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre: c’est de la folie»_


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 21, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



You are not giving the F-35B the benefit of it's cross section.  Yes, the S-400 has that kind of range but that's against a 3rd or regular 4th gen bomber.  Fighters (even 4th gen) will be harder to see and harder to hit.  And 5th gen (real ones not fake ones) will even get closer before detected and then be even harder to hit.  Since both are "Sooper Secrit" the only way to know is for the Russians and the US to do battle and I don't see that happening anytime soon without a lot of debrea outside my window.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 21, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > DrainBamage said:
> ...


Physics is not secret. F-35 and F-22 are "stealth" only for X-band radars. L-band (UNF) -radars see them quite well.

"The Protivnik-GE is an anti-stealth UHF radar with a 400-kilometre (250 mi) range.[27]The Moscow-1 passive sensor is 2 1⁄2 times more effective than the Protivnik, with a 400-kilometre (250 mi) range[28] Orion[29] for a target-designation on-the-air defence system, and the Avtobaza-M[30] and Orion+ Avtobaza adds high-precision detection. The 1RL220BE[20][31] versions were reportedly used for jamming.[32] "

S-400 missile system - Wikipedia

And British F-35B can use only unguided bombs and external pod gun against ground targets.

Are you still sure, that you want to send them, and it will not be a suicidal mission?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 21, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



Yes, use Wiki for all secrit information.  Newsflash:  The only radar that is affective at that range is low band and you can't use low band to target much less lock on with.  UHF, no matter how you try and use it, is NOT low band.  Now, unless the Russians have rescinded the laws of Physics.  Wiki can be written and edited by anyone.  I can do that myself.  I can make it read anything I wish it to read.  I just don't feel the need to correct it.  Better for people like you to believe in a fairy tale.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 21, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Yes, use Wiki for all secrit information.  Newsflash:  The only radar that is affective at that range is low band and you can't use low band to target much less lock on with.  UHF, no matter how you try and use it, is NOT low band.  Now, unless the Russians have rescinded the laws of Physics.  Wiki can be written and edited by anyone.  I can do that myself.  I can make it read anything I wish it to read.  I just don't feel the need to correct it.  Better for people like you to believe in a fairy tale.


No problem. It is not that I suggest you to believe Australians, but Carlo Kopp is rather clever and well informed guy. This report is a bit obsolet, but you can find it interesting.

http://www+++.ausairpower.net/APA-S-400-Triumf.html


 (delete pluses)
But anyway, are you still sure, that sending F-35B with unguided bombs against the well prepared air defence is a good idea?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 21, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, use Wiki for all secrit information.  Newsflash:  The only radar that is affective at that range is low band and you can't use low band to target much less lock on with.  UHF, no matter how you try and use it, is NOT low band.  Now, unless the Russians have rescinded the laws of Physics.  Wiki can be written and edited by anyone.  I can do that myself.  I can make it read anything I wish it to read.  I just don't feel the need to correct it.  Better for people like you to believe in a fairy tale.
> ...



Nice article.  Very informative.  But it doesn't quite say the type of Radar the system uses.  But I filled it in.  The reason it works well against Jammers is that it uses AESA radar.  Makes it hard to jam unless the other side uses a dirty jammer.  The old Mig-23 Jammer was a  dirty Jammer.  Anything in front of it in a 60 degree arc was blind as a bat.  Those went out of style decades ago.  It seems that all you have to do is put a jammer seeker up it's radome and it's defeated.  So AESA is the one to beat now.  The F-35 can't defeat it but it can minimize the sensing and lockon range for AESA radar.  

And you read in the narrative you want to to win an argument you have already lost.  If the F-35B is going Mach 1.3 and drops a JDAM care to speculate the range of a JDAM?  They invented a special JDAM just for the F-35B and C which has a shorter bay than the A.  Now, put the A in there and you are going up against more sophisticated weapons with even more range.  But I'll give you a hint.  The fight starts at over 50 clicks for the B.  The question is, can the S-400 system not only detect, lock on, come up with a firing solution and track the missile to conclusion at that range before the JDAM gets there from 55 clicks.


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 21, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Good plan. For a few little exeptions.
> First and most important - RAF don't have anything from this stuff.
> Second. MALD-J are more jamming, their recon possibility is rather low. Range of S-400 is near 400 clicks, range for MALD-J - near 475 clicks, so, you must be very careful using it to recon positions of S-400.
> Third. F-35B can't bear JSOW at all, and it can bear only 2x2 SDBs in its wealons bays.
> ...


First... I said any IADS can be defeated by air. You keep pigeon holing further to try to get results you want, now we're at a specific number of a certain plane flying for a certain nation. Let me repeat my argument: Any IADS can be defeated by air.

Second. Wrong, MALD-J is a decoy and a jammer. It flies in looking like attacking aircraft, IADS elements that search, track, and target emit, their locations become known and ripe for attack.

Third. Sorry forgot how much you narrow scenarios to get results you want, that's fine SDBs for the win.

Fourth. You have no idea what the effective range of an S-400 is against a LO aircraft.

Fifth: You have no idea how effective a Tunguska is against a glide bomb, yet are assuming they just shoot down everything that's in the air.





Silver Cat said:


> Sure. I said, that the duel scenarios like "isolated S-400 battalion" vs "isolated squadron of F-35B" are really uncommon and even weird.


Uncommon and weird is someone who believes they can prove tanks are more effective than aircraft at attacking IADS by saying they can only be attacked by a certain number of aircraft of a certain type. You know you're wrong when you must try so hard to invent fantastic scenarios to be right.



Silver Cat said:


> But it is not me, who suggested to send 15 almost unarmed F-35B in the frontal attack against fully equipped and covered S-400 battalion.


It's you who took "any IADS can be defeated by air" to mean F-35Bs that are almost unarmed.

Oh wait, now they are British too. WHat next a roster of the names of the pilots?


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 21, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Physics is not secret. F-35 and F-22 are "stealth" only for X-band radars. L-band (UNF) -radars see them quite well.
> 
> "The Protivnik-GE is an anti-stealth UHF radar with a 400-kilometre (250 mi) range.[27]The Moscow-1 passive sensor is 2 1⁄2 times more effective than the Protivnik, with a 400-kilometre (250 mi) range[28] Orion[29] for a target-designation on-the-air defence system, and the Avtobaza-M[30] and Orion+ Avtobaza adds high-precision detection. The 1RL220BE[20][31] versions were reportedly used for jamming.[32] "
> 
> S-400 missile system - Wikipedia


Detecting is one thing, tracking and targeting is another, and you sure don't know the effective range of either versus weapons that can be employed against them.




Silver Cat said:


> And British F-35B can use only unguided bombs and external pod gun against ground targets.


Wow, you're the first person I've seen who believes a Paveway 4, which can be both GPS and laser guided, is unguided.

You know JDAMs and SDBs are guided too right?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 21, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Physics is not secret. F-35 and F-22 are "stealth" only for X-band radars. L-band (UNF) -radars see them quite well.
> ...



And he keeps picking on the F-35B.  Britain also purchased the more lethal A model which has a longer weapons bay and can carry even more lethal and longer ranged weapons.  Let's give him a better target.

Let's have the F-35B take off from a long runway with full external stores and a centerline fuel tank (he is going to need one hell of a lot of runway to get off).  When he gets to the combat area, he is to lower his flaps, open is bay doors and fly at 15,000 feet straight and slow (not too slow with that kind of load).  Now he can have it his way.


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 22, 2020)

It is the most bizarre thing.

He has defended his claim that the best way to take out a IADS is to send tanks by dreaming up a situation where the only option to compare to those tanks is 15 F-35Bs from UK that are carrying unguided weapons, some marketing hype about untested S-400 capabilities, and the believe that planting a few AA vehicles in the area renders one invulnerable to bombs.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 24, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> It is the most bizarre thing.
> 
> He has defended his claim that the best way to take out a IADS is to send tanks by dreaming up a situation where the only option to compare to those tanks is 15 F-35Bs from UK that are carrying unguided weapons, some marketing hype about untested S-400 capabilities, and the believe that planting a few AA vehicles in the area renders one invulnerable to bombs.


No. It is just a scanario with best S-400 operators against the worst F-35 operators on the civilized, tank-friendly terrain. And yes, in this scenario, F-35B sucks.
I can suggest another one.
2022, Nikaragua. RAAN separatists (supported by a Chines "non-government organisation" are fighting against the new pro-US government and managed to stop their land forces. China supported them with few hundred of HJ-12 (Red Arrow-12) ATGMs, some PGZ-09 and even one old Russian S-400 complex in the minimal configuration.
The POTUS ordered to US Air Force to send in Nikaragua as many F-35A, as they need to win the war as soon as possible.
Yes, in this scenario S-400 (with mixed China-Latino crews) has less chances than a snowball in hell (and I don't mean "on the beach of Cocytus lake").


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 24, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Physics is not secret. F-35 and F-22 are "stealth" only for X-band radars. L-band (UNF) -radars see them quite well.
> ...


May be Turks have some info? And  may be it is why they preffer to buy S-400.




> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > And British F-35B can use only unguided bombs and external pod gun against ground targets.
> ...


Forget about GPS if you are going to bomb a battalion of S-400 in the full configuration. And yes, in this scenario you don't have laser designators near the green men positions.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 24, 2020)

Old systems had a 1500 mile range............s4000 defense systems have caused a shift to LSRO cruise missiles launched from our bombers...........I didn't see the range but the new missiles are stealth..........

So the s4000 aren't going to shoot it down..........
Cruise Missile Controversy - Air Force Magazine


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 24, 2020)

Missiles of the United States | Missile Threat


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 24, 2020)

Coup-proofing? Making Sense of Turkey’s S-400 Decision | Missile Threat

*Next Steps*
Now that Turkey has acquired the S-400, the question is what the United States will do in response. The United States appears to be prudently terminating Turkey’s involvement in the F-35 program. Like his predecessor Patrick Shanahan, acting Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has confirmed that the United States will suspend F-35 sales should Turkey acquire the S-400. Turkish pilots that had been training on the F-35 are being sent home, and a new foreign partner is being sought to substitute for Turkish involvement and investment.

Sanctions on Turkey for purchasing Russian military equipment are also likely. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Congress in 2017 passed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which imposes sanctions on any country purchasing significant military equipment from Russia. Turkey’s S-400 purchase puts the Trump administration in the awkward position of either enforcing sanctions on a NATO ally or pretending that Turkey’s S-400 acquisition is somehow a vital national security interest of the United States such that sanctions could be waived. Whether or not CAATSA sanctions are implemented, or for how long, allowing Turkey to have the F-35 is incompatible with Turkey’s operation of the S-400, and that sale must be terminated if Turkey operates the S-400.

But if Erdogan’s S-400 decision is driven by fundamental desire to preserve his rule—as a matter, as he says, of “national sovereignty”—then both the loss of the F-35 and CAATSA sanctions may be a price he is willing to pay.

If Turkey’s S-400 is indeed intended to provide military and political insurance for Erdogan against another coup attempt, it would go a long way to explaining why he is willing to endure considerable U.S. and NATO pressure to acquire it. This more specific purpose might explain why Turkish defense minister Hulusi Akar still maintains that Turkey remains open to acquiring the Patriot—as defense against other external threats. In the long term, Turkey may reverse the current move towards Russia, perhaps in a post-Erdogan period. If so, the prospects of both F-35 and Patriot air defenses could be reopened along with a future integration with NATO air defenses. For now, however, Turkey’s decision to acquire the S-400 represents a significant win for Russia.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 24, 2020)

eagle1462010 said:


> Coup-proofing? Making Sense of Turkey’s S-400 Decision | Missile Threat
> 
> *Next Steps*
> Now that Turkey has acquired the S-400, the question is what the United States will do in response. The United States appears to be prudently terminating Turkey’s involvement in the F-35 program. Like his predecessor Patrick Shanahan, acting Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has confirmed that the United States will suspend F-35 sales should Turkey acquire the S-400. Turkish pilots that had been training on the F-35 are being sent home, and a new foreign partner is being sought to substitute for Turkish involvement and investment.
> ...



When I view the capability between the Patriot and the S-400 I see some stark differences.  In some areas the Patriot is better but it has a very narrow utiization as compared to the S-400.  The S-400 isn't as good, say, against incoming Bombers and Fighters but it has a broader range of things it's designed to be used against.  Call the S-400 the Swiss Army Knife of the two.  To a rich country that can afford the specialized weapons, the Patriot would be the best buy but to the poorer country that has to watch it's funds, the S-400 may be the better buy.

It's like having to pick between a fighter that costs 50M versus the F-35A at 80M.  Or do you go with the T-6 or the T-29 if that's all you can afford.  Do you need the expensive fighters and can you even afford the most expensive.  Will the slight cheaper or the extremely cheaper do the job you see in your near future.  

But I'll say it again, Turkey gets the S-400 they don't get the F-35 because then they get to have them both side by side and can quickly learn how to defeat either one.  It's not to the US best interest for the Turks to learn this and if the Turks learn it, you can damn well bank on the Russians will get that  information 10 minutes after the Turks learn it.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 24, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Coup-proofing? Making Sense of Turkey’s S-400 Decision | Missile Threat
> ...


That's why the sale of F-35s to Turkey were stopped ......and their trainee pilots sent home..........

We are going to have to pull out of Turkey eventually............and kick them out of NATO...........It's been coming.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 24, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Coup-proofing? Making Sense of Turkey’s S-400 Decision | Missile Threat
> ...


Really? Why? From what distance a Patriot PAC-3 can detect, say, a B-2A "Spirit"?



> But I'll say it again, Turkey gets the S-400 they don't get the F-35 because then they get to have them both side by side and can quickly learn how to defeat either one.  It's not to the US best interest for the Turks to learn this and if the Turks learn it, you can damn well bank on the Russians will get that  information 10 minutes after the Turks learn it.


But if the Turks will learn how to defeat the S-400, the American will get that information even before the Turks will learn it.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 24, 2020)

Congress Endorses Hypersonic Weapons as Development Ramps Up - Air Force Magazine

As the enemy catches up to our tech..........we advance to the next..........s4000 will not matter much in a decade.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 24, 2020)

eagle1462010 said:


> Congress Endorses Hypersonic Weapons as Development Ramps Up - Air Force Magazine
> 
> As the enemy catches up to our tech..........we advance to the next..........s4000 will not matter much in a decade.


Yes. S-500 will.
S-500 missile system - Wikipedia


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 24, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Congress Endorses Hypersonic Weapons as Development Ramps Up - Air Force Magazine
> ...


Neither we or the Russians sell our best stuff.............We sell what we consider Obsolete but still good weapons........not the good stuff.

The S-500 will not be sold until it's obsolete.........Wash, Rinse, Spin, dry and repeat.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 24, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



I would wager the US already know how to defeat the S-400.  All the S-400 is is an updated S-300 and the Israelis have been having a field day against the S-300.  The trick for the S-400 is to detect, lockon, get a firing solution, track with the weapon all the way to the hit.  At any point, if the solution is broken, you start all over from scratch.  Downing an F-35A with all it's bells and whistles in time before it launches one of it's standoffs is going to be tricky at best.  A fully function US F-35A has never faced a fully function S-400 system.  The only way for that to happen is for the US and Russia to go head to head.  And I doubt if either side wants that question answered that bad.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 24, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Ok. Let's imagine, that we need to create a diversion, and then strike China, when Russia is distracted. We have (for example) two suicidal countries - the UK and Poland, they have to crush and conquere Kaliningrad region and then to die heroically under the full scale Russian attack, buying us some time to defeat China.
How many F-35 they need to do it?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 24, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



Zero.  Both Britain and Poland aren't that stupid to spend their wads meant to stop the Russians non some out of the way berg.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 24, 2020)

eagle1462010 said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



The S-500, by itself, isn't useable.  It's not able to shoot down bombers, fighter, ASMs or any kind.  It's strictly designed to be used against Ballistic Missiles.  It's worthless for even cruise missiles.  The S-400 still carries the bulk of the load.  Right now, the S-400 needs the S-300 system to handle the Ballistic Missiles.  This is why they have to wait until the S-500 is in the field to get rid of the S-300.  As good as the S-400 is, it does have holes in what it can be used as.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 24, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...


Likely, it is able. The quote from the Russian avia.pro site (delete $):
http://$$$avia$$$.pro/news/rossiyskiy-s-500-poluchil-vozmozhnost-sbivat-celi-yadernymi-boegolovkami


The Russian S-500 system will be the only one in the world that can shoot down hundreds of targets simultaneously.
Beginning this year, tests of the latest Russian air defense / missile DEFENSE SYSTEM s-500 "Prometheus" began to acquire a number of details, so, according to the information publication "Rossiyskaya Gazeta", the s-500 "Prometheus" will receive anti-aircraft guided missiles equipped with nuclear warheads. This gives Russian systems the ability to simultaneously destroy dozens or even hundreds of targets, not to mention the powerful electromagnetic pulse created, which will completely disable radars over the territory of the enemy or allies.
"The s-500 will use both missiles from the s-400 Arsenal - for example, 40N6M with a confirmed combat range of 380 kilometers - and new ones that were not used in other systems. For example, the 77N6-N anti-missile is designed for transatmospheric interception of ballistic missiles at an altitude of up to 165 kilometers. To destroy satellites in low orbits, the S-500 has a 77N6-N1 rocket with a small nuclear warhead, " the newspaper reports.
Given the fact that nuclear weapons can also be equipped with missiles designed to hit aerodynamic targets, Russian Prometheus missiles will be able to simultaneously destroy large air formations.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 24, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Sure, they are. If you can imagine any stupidity - they can do it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 24, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



YOU are that stupid but you aren't governing a nation.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 26, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Do you really believe, that "the nation governors" are something special? They are ordinary people with all human weaknesses.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 26, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



And if they want to remain in power, they MUST be a whole lot smarter than you..


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 26, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


You are wrong again. They must be smarter not than me, they must be smarter than their competitors - other Brits and Poles, and it is much easier. And yes, not too many of them remain in power long enough to demonstrate their smartness.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 26, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



Then if you are so damned smart, why aren't YOU in charge?  Never heard of you and I am sure if you were in charge you wouldn't be wasting your time in here.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 26, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> > ChinSwee said:
> ...



Send tanks against AAD?  What comic book did you find those tactics in?

Hilarious!


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 26, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > MAGAman said:
> ...



You gotta watch out for those skiffs with the 120mm smooth bores mounted....Hey, where'd they go.  They were here a minute ago.  And what are all those bubbles from.  His Military is frightening.  Your Navy won't stand a chance.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 27, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > MAGAman said:
> ...


Don't you want to start your military education with FM3-90?

"1-14.   These options represent a starting point for the tactician to create a unique solution to a specific tactical problem. Each decision represents a choice among a range of options; each balances competing demands requiring judgment at every turn. While there may be checklists for techniques and procedures, there are no checklists for solving tactical problems. The commander must not look for a checklist approach to tactics; instead, he must use his experience and creativity to outthink his enemy."
[...]
"1-16.   The second aspect of the art of tactics is decision making under conditions of uncertainty in a time-constrained environment and demonstrated by the clash of opposing wills—a violent struggle between two hostile, thinking, and independent opposing commanders with irreconcilable goals. Each commander wants to impose his will on his opponent, defeat his opponent's plans, and destroy his opponent's forces. Combat consists of the interplay between these two opposing commanders, with each commander seeking to accomplish his mission while preventing the other from doing the same. Every commander needs a high degree of creativity and clarity of thought to outwit a willing and able opponent. He must quickly apply his judgment to a less than omniscient common operational picture provided by his command and control (C2) system to understand the implications and opportunities afforded him by the situation. The commander always uses the most current intelligence in order to facilitate his visualization of the enemy and environment. That same C2 system transmits the decisions resulting from his situational understanding to those individuals and units required to engage and destroy the enemy force."


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 28, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> No. It is just a scanario with best S-400 operators against the worst F-35 operators on the civilized, tank-friendly terrain. And yes, in this scenario, F-35B sucks.


Ahhh so now you've added yet another qualification to prove tanks are best for taking out IADS. The pilots, who must be in a certain plane and in certain numbers and completely exclusive other assets like in real world operations and cannot deploy guided minutes.... must also suck.

When you need to contort yourself into a pretzel to try to make a point, you really had no point.


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 28, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> May be Turks have some info? And  may be it is why they preffer to buy S-400.


So your speculation about Turkish motivations is proof of S-400s capabilities? That's incredibly naive. Money, politics, etc.




Silver Cat said:


> Forget about GPS if you are going to bomb a battalion of S-400 in the full configuration. And yes, in this scenario you don't have laser designators near the green men positions.


Great, your assets scream exactly where they are trying to jam GPS signals, F-35s quickly geolocate them and take them out with SDB2s, Spears, etc. that use millimeter wave radar on terminal.

Also = there is a laser designator under the nose of every F-35.


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 28, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I would wager the US already know how to defeat the S-400.  All the S-400 is is an updated S-300 and the Israelis have been having a field day against the S-300. .


This. It used to be so much hype about S-300, but here is Israel operating in Syrian airspace with impunity striking whatever they want to strike using mainly 4th gen aircraft.

That video of the "invincible" Pantsir getting an Israeli missile through the driver's side window was emblematic of the hype versus reality of area denial.


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 28, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> The Russian S-500 system will be the only one in the world that can shoot down hundreds of targets simultaneously.


Congrats on being able to regurgitate Russian marketing hype. You know they sell weapons right?


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 28, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Send tanks against AAD?  What comic book did you find those tactics in?
> 
> Hilarious!


Well when challenged on this notion he quickly started adding more qualifiers with every post to support his scenario so I fully expect by page 10 of this thread he'll have a requirement that it's British F-35Bs with operating in a vacuum with no other assets, using unguided weapons, shitty pilots, EOTS laser designator smashed with a hammer before takeoff, and I'm guessing maybe they'll be forced to fly with their luneberg reflectors attached.

If I had was forced to use ground assets to take out IADS tanks would still be far down on my list of choices. Give me MLRS any day, they are meant for shredding soft targets from hundreds of miles away all you'd need is something to discover their location.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 28, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I would wager the US already know how to defeat the S-400.  All the S-400 is is an updated S-300 and the Israelis have been having a field day against the S-300. .
> ...



Thank you for finally identifying your location.  That explains a lot.


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 30, 2020)

I didn't identify my location, and it changes all the time.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 30, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> I didn't identify my location, and it changes all the time.



You don't have to.  But I am willing to allow you to stay in that mystique if it makes you feel good.  Let the Rubes just wonder even if in the back of their minds.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 30, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Send tanks against AAD?  What comic book did you find those tactics in?
> ...


Ok. Lets play another game. Defender-2020, one of scenarios. Russia invades Baltic states, NATO needs to crush Kaliningrad's special defence region to open the way to defend them.
Russian forces in Kaliningrad's region:
- 5 S-400 regiments + 1 S-300V4 regiment - roughly 150 launchers (4 missiles each), with L-band radars, passive sensors, may be lidars and hell knows what else, covered with a number of short range systems, ECM, GPS-jammers, false targets and so on...
- one regiment of Su-27SM3, one regiment of Su-30SM and Su-24S;
- few hundred tanks, 40 of them - T-72B3;
- Iskander-M, Iskander-K, Calibers, with nuclear warheads.
- some ships of Baltic fleet.

What can Europeans (without the American help) do against Kaliningrad region?
I see two main options:
1) to knee and gobble (if we are talking about frontal air attack against well prepared IADS);
2) "Zerg rush" with big masses of land forces (for example, Poland have near 900 tanks) and tactical nukes.



> If I had was forced to use ground assets to take out IADS tanks would still be far down on my list of choices. Give me MLRS any day, they are meant for shredding soft targets from hundreds of miles away all you'd need is something to discover their location.


Yes. Something to discover their location and something to protect them from the Scottish militants and the green men's Tunguskas. And don't forget, that PHA has only 21 of them (with 85 miles range), and S-400 can work against ground targets, too.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 30, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > The Russian S-500 system will be the only one in the world that can shoot down hundreds of targets simultaneously.
> ...


Technically, I regurgitate American marketing hype. The general idea: "Europeans can not protect themselves, so Europeans have to pay."


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Jan 30, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



The Baltic States are there to slow the Russians down.   Nato isn't strong enough by itself to defeat the Russians if the Russians are serious enough.  But again, Nato just slows them down a bit more to almost a crawl.  It buys the US and other nations time to get their heavy forces into action.  And the other Nations ARE strong enough to defeat Russia and drive them all the way back to Moscow.  I don't mean invade Russia.  Can't be done.  But make it hurt and hurt bad enough where it happen for another 20 years.  And put Putin if a Hague court for trial along with his other protagonists.  Even Russia can't defeat the world.

Your stupid way of think doesn't take in enough factors nor the resolve of the Human Factor.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 30, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > I would wager the US already know how to defeat the S-400.  All the S-400 is is an updated S-300 and the Israelis have been having a field day against the S-300. .
> ...


Do you mean that video, with Pantsir already shooted all its missiles and prepared to reload?
It is really emblematic of the complicated "real life" vs any "wunderwaffe" hype.


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 30, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't identify my location, and it changes all the time.
> ...


By all means, out me. Where do I live?


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 30, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Yes. Something to discover their location and something to protect them from the Scottish militants and the green men's Tunguskas. And don't forget, that PHA has only 21 of them (with 85 miles range), and S-400 can work against ground targets, too.


Oh yeah forgot, there is some elaborately pigeonholed scenario you have built up, maybe the same one with British F-35Bs that use unguided weapons (which F-35 has none), unskilled pilots, no laser designators, etc. now we can't use MLRS because there happen to be Scottish militants 100 miles away in the exact place, and we can't possibly discover the location of a weapon system you previously said was constantly emitting RF to jam GPS.


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 30, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Technically, I regurgitate American marketing hype.


Read your own source:

_according to the information publication "Rossiyskaya Gazeta"_


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 30, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Do you mean that video, with Pantsir already shooted all its missiles and prepared to reload?
> It is really emblematic of the complicated "real life" vs any "wunderwaffe" hype.


Well, yeah. Afterall, it was real battlefield footage thus far more real life than the Russian marketing hype you buy into about how invincible everything is. In this very thread you were discounting dozens of glide weapons arriving by declaring point defense systems could eliminate them, now you're making excuses for that system not being able to even defend itself because real life isn't a marketing brochure.


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 30, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> What can Europeans (without the American help) do against Kaliningrad region?


I thought this thread was about F-35 versus S-400?

When you need to dream up a scenario where NATO needs to attack Russians in the Baltic without USA, when USA is part of NATO? Are you really interested in F-35 versus S-400 or more interested in trying to splice weird improbably one-offs to chase your conclusions?


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 1, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > What can Europeans (without the American help) do against Kaliningrad region?
> ...


How many F-35s do our European friends need to eliminate 5 regiments of S-400?


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 1, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Technically, I regurgitate American marketing hype.
> ...


Why do you think that Russian media can not publish American advertising?


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 1, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Something to discover their location and something to protect them from the Scottish militants and the green men's Tunguskas. And don't forget, that PHA has only 21 of them (with 85 miles range), and S-400 can work against ground targets, too.
> ...


You are too kind to the poor Brits. They don't have ATACMS  rockets. They have GMLRS rockets with the single blast fragmentation warhead and with 43 mi (70 km) effective range only. It sucks, but it is the UK's reality. And 70 clicks from HMNB Clyde is too deep in the unfriendly Scottish territory. If you'll send your MLRS unit there without tanks - brave Scotish militants will burn them all.


----------



## 22lcidw (Feb 1, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > DrainBamage said:
> ...


Russia is not going to invade Western Europe. But their soldiers are tougher at a higher percentage then the Western Europeans. It may be Mother Russia but their military is a Patriarchy.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 2, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> How many F-35s do our European friends need to eliminate 5 regiments of S-400?


No idea.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 2, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Why do you think that Russian media can not publish American advertising?


Why do you think Russian media is publishing American advertising for Russian weapons?


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 2, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> You are too kind to the poor Brits. They don't have ATACMS  rockets. They have GMLRS rockets with the single blast fragmentation warhead and with 43 mi (70 km) effective range only. It sucks, but it is the UK's reality. And 70 clicks from HMNB Clyde is too deep in the unfriendly Scottish territory. If you'll send your MLRS unit there without tanks - brave Scotish militants will burn them all.


ATACMs was a reference to how retarded the claim was that tanks are the best way to destroy IADS. If it had to be done from ground MLRS makes a lot more sense. Then you're off in SilverCatScenarioLandia again where suddenly this is specifically about Brits who are parking rocket launchers near Scottish militants. 

Basically the only way you've been able to back up your "tanks are best to destroy IADS" silliness is to manufacture bizarre unrealistic scenarios that match your misguided notions.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 4, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think that Russian media can not publish American advertising?
> ...


Why not? It can be a sort of advertising for American "defending service". "The enemy is strong, so you have to pay more".


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 4, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > You are too kind to the poor Brits. They don't have ATACMS  rockets. They have GMLRS rockets with the single blast fragmentation warhead and with 43 mi (70 km) effective range only. It sucks, but it is the UK's reality. And 70 clicks from HMNB Clyde is too deep in the unfriendly Scottish territory. If you'll send your MLRS unit there without tanks - brave Scotish militants will burn them all.
> ...


Basically my (actually not my, but very old) idea is that you must use your strong sides against enemies weak sides. Do you know "Rock paper scissors" game?
"Tanks beat IADS, IADS beats jets, jets beat tanks". 
And yes, real world is much more complicated. If someone have F-35, it does not mean, that he have modern bombs for it, if somebody have MLRS, it does not mean, that he have ATACMs. And yes, in our world the Brits (under corrupted Windsors regime) have poor aviation and even more poor artillery. Thats why they were choosen for the role of "the worst F-35 operators" in the almost abstract scenario "Best S-400 vs worst F-35". And may be it is why the Russians can choose them as their next victim.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 4, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



The Bread Lines can only get so long.  Russia is in a almost constant state of Depression.  They can't afford much more.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 4, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Why not? It can be a sort of advertising for American "defending service". "The enemy is strong, so you have to pay more".


In other words, you have no idea the source of it and are strangely assuming something specifically pointing out a Russian source isn't.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 4, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Basically my (actually not my, but very old) idea is that you must use your strong sides against enemies weak sides. Do you know "Rock paper scissors" game?
> "Tanks beat IADS, IADS beats jets, jets beat tanks".


Right, but you quickly jump into childish simplifications that are meaningless in evaluating combat systems. Hah you can't use MLRS because Scottish whatever will attack them since they happen to be at the exact place MLRS systems are and nobody uses combined forces where MLRS would be protected by other ground assets.



Silver Cat said:


> And yes, real world is much more complicated. If someone have F-35, it does not mean, that he have modern bombs for it


Can in point, this is utterly retarded. F-35 has a certain set of weapons it has qualified for, which grows with each block update to capabilities. All of those weapons are precision guided modern weapons, so it makes no sense someone who has an F-35 doesn't have modern weapons for it to deliver, since that's all it can deliver.

You claiming it would attack an S-400 with unguided weapons makes no sense.



Silver Cat said:


> And may be it is why the Russians can choose them as their next victim.


Interesting you pick British, then ignore the fact they do indeed have PGMs when deciding they can only deliver unguided bombs that F-35s can't even deliver. Sorry to have to break this to you have no idea what you're talking about, it's hilarious to watch you flounder.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 7, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Right, but you quickly jump into childish simplifications that are meaningless in evaluating combat systems. Hah you can't use MLRS because Scottish whatever will attack them since they happen to be at the exact place MLRS systems are and nobody uses combined forces where MLRS would be protected by other ground assets.


Thats mean, that you use not MLRS only, but a whole armored group (including, of course, tanks). And if you are already using an armored group with the tanks, there is no any seriose reason to stop it in forty miles from your goal and launch rockets by unknown direction. And yes, even *if *you will succesfuly hit all their positions by rockets - you need to be ensured in their elimination. So - it is good to send tanks anyway.



> Can in point, this is utterly retarded. F-35 has a certain set of weapons it has qualified for, which grows with each block update to capabilities. All of those weapons are precision guided modern weapons, so it makes no sense someone who has an F-35 doesn't have modern weapons for it to deliver, since that's all it can deliver.


First: please, don't use so terrible words as "sense", "logic", "reasons" during discussion about our European (especially British) friends.
Second: look at this picture and say, that you don't see unguided bombs on it:





Yes, they are not sertificated yet, but you can use them for your own risk. As far as I know, our F-35A use UGBs for terrain denial operations in Iraq.
Third: The Paveway IV will be almost unguided in a frontal attack against S-400, because if F-35 see and can mark position of S-400, then S-400 clearly see F-35 and can shoot it down. So, only INS, only hardcore.
Fourth: Yes, Brits try to make "SPEAR Cap 3" specially against S-400, but it will be integrated with Block 4 not earlier than in 2024, and, looks like, it will be even less useful than SDB-2.


----------



## Litwin (Feb 7, 2020)

ChinSwee said:


> S-400 missiles can hit targets 400 kilometers away. No fighter jets can fire missiles 400 kilometers away.
> 
> Stealth is the only sophisticated feature that will save F-35 jets from Russian S-400 missiles. Many countries are buying S-400s when many countries are buying F-35 stealth jets.





MAGAman said:


> ChinSwee said:
> 
> 
> > S-400 missiles can hit targets 400 kilometers away. No fighter jets can fire missiles 400 kilometers away.
> ...



great job MODS , it was an  olgino troll propaganda.ru  here is the fact 

*Russia's S-300 didn't stop Israeli from airstrikes on Iran in ...*

16 jan. 2019 - Russia's air defenses can't stop _Israel_ from stomping on Iran in Syria with airstrikes ... _Israel_ rarely confirms individual airstrikes, and either confirmed _or_ didn't deny these attacks. ... shooting down a friendly _plane_ and quickly shipped the more advanced S-_300_ missile defenses to ... Tech Jobs · _C_-Level Jobs.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 8, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Thats mean, that you use not MLRS only, but a whole armored group (including, of course, tanks). And if you are already using an armored group with the tanks, there is no any seriose reason to stop it in forty miles from your goal and launch rockets by unknown direction. And yes, even *if *you will succesfuly hit all their positions by rockets - you need to be ensured in their elimination. So - it is good to send tanks anyway.


Ummmm no.

I wouldn't need an armored group of tanks to protect long range artillery assets, infantry would be fine. What you're doing is taking your silly conclusions about tanks and desperately trying to make it fit some scenario. All I'd need is the location of their search radars which along with any jamming equipment would be easiest to geolocate since constantly emitting, take out the search radar and a lot of other pieces become relatively useless.




Silver Cat said:


> Second: look at this picture and say, that you don't see unguided bombs on it:


That picture is from years ago showing what weapons could potentially fit internally and externally by size and weight, not a blueprint to what would actually be implemented. This is so old it shows SDB as a weapon under development, and cluster munitions US no longer uses.

Currently this is no unguided weapon that can be delivered by F-35 besides a 25mm round from the gun, and there are no plans to implement any unguided weapons for F-35.



Silver Cat said:


> Yes, they are not sertificated yet, but you can use them for your own risk. As far as I know, our F-35A use UGBs for terrain denial operations in Iraq.


Nonsense. F-35 uses UAI, any weapon that hasn't been certified and implemented in the UAI wouldn't show as an option at a given station in the cockpit and cannot be delivered. You claim about F-35As using unguided bombs in Iraq is complete bullshit. I'd love to see your source on this, you're saying that for some reason with all the 4th gen assets available in Iraq the USAF decided to work around the very strict weapons certification and software requirements of F-35s to use them to drop dumb bombs they weren't designed to drop. It's so stupid it's funny.



Silver Cat said:


> Third: The Paveway IV will be almost unguided in a frontal attack against S-400, because if F-35 see and can mark position of S-400, then S-400 clearly see F-35 and can shoot it down. So, only INS, only hardcore.
> Fourth: Yes, Brits try to make "SPEAR Cap 3" specially against S-400, but it will be integrated with Block 4 not earlier than in 2024, and, looks like, it will be even less useful than SDB-2.


You're making assumptions about what S-400 in wartime situation with standoff/standin/escort jamming, decoys flying in, antiradiation missiles being launched at radiation sources, about whether they can see stealth aircraft, and assumptions that GPS jammers are immune to attack to prevent Paveway 4 from using GPS, and making assumptions about the utility of Spear that are unfounded. Real world isn't some uncluttered environment where radar

Basically you claimed F-35B can only carry unguided weapons, and when pointed out how stupid this statement was you're dreaming up all these reasons that make a guided weapon like Paveway 4 not a guided weapon because you believe in the hype about invincibility of S-400.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 8, 2020)

Litwin said:


> 16 jan. 2019 - Russia's air defenses can't stop _Israel_ from stomping on Iran in Syria with airstrikes ... _Israel_ rarely confirms individual airstrikes, and either confirmed _or_ didn't deny these attacks. ... shooting down a friendly _plane_ and quickly shipped the more advanced S-_300_ missile defenses to ... Tech Jobs · _C_-Level Jobs.


Good luck trying to make sense with someone who actually believes the effective range of S-400 is 400 kilometers.

Maybe a large blind high flying non-maneuvering target like an airliner? Effective range is affected greatly by aircraft that can detect launches, maneuver, and curvature of the earth. Lobbing one of their longest range missiles at a radar blip 400km away is a nice way to waste a lot of money.


----------



## Litwin (Feb 8, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Litwin said:
> 
> 
> > 16 jan. 2019 - Russia's air defenses can't stop _Israel_ from stomping on Iran in Syria with airstrikes ... _Israel_ rarely confirms individual airstrikes, and either confirmed _or_ didn't deny these attacks. ... shooting down a friendly _plane_ and quickly shipped the more advanced S-_300_ missile defenses to ... Tech Jobs · _C_-Level Jobs.
> ...



my friend , he is paid troll from olgino, and banned one . + S-400 does not exist , "S-400" is a veneration of S-300


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 8, 2020)

Litwin said:


> *Russia's S-300 didn't stop Israeli from airstrikes on Iran in ...*
> 
> 16 jan. 2019 - Russia's air defenses can't stop _Israel_ from stomping on Iran in Syria with airstrikes ... _Israel_ rarely confirms individual airstrikes, and either confirmed _or_ didn't deny these attacks. ... shooting down a friendly _plane_ and quickly shipped the more advanced S-_300_ missile defenses to ... Tech Jobs · _C_-Level Jobs.


Why do you think that Russian S-300 tried to protect Iranian proxies from IAF at all? F-16 is not stealth, and their strikes are coordinated with the Russians.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 9, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Nonsense. F-35 uses UAI, any weapon that hasn't been certified and implemented in the UAI wouldn't show as an option at a given station in the cockpit and cannot be delivered.


UAI show it as an error, but BRU-67,68 (or Scorpion ERU as well) still hold it, until it is dropped by a selective jettison. And if you armed your Mk-83s with the mechanical fuses M904, M905 and MAU-182 Ring and Swivel Assemblies, it can even blast. 
It's America, bro. A dollar saved is two dollars earned.



> You claim about F-35As using unguided bombs in Iraq is complete bullshit. I'd love to see your source on this, you're saying that for some reason with all the 4th gen assets available in Iraq the USAF decided to work around the very strict weapons certification and software requirements of F-35s to use them to drop dumb bombs they weren't designed to drop. It's so stupid it's funny.


Just speak with people, it is not a big secret. Sure, officially they will denie it, but isn't wasting PGMs for a terrain denial mission even more stupid?



> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Third: The Paveway IV will be almost unguided in a frontal attack against S-400, because if F-35 see and can mark position of S-400, then S-400 clearly see F-35 and can shoot it down. So, only INS, only hardcore.
> ...


Don't forget, that we are discussing about an abstract situation "The Best S-400 Operator Against The Worst F-35 Operator". 
GPS-jammers are almost immune from Paveway IV strike because of a simple reason - they are covered with S-400 and AAA. To drop the bomb, F-35 needs to came too close to SAM and AAA positions, and a bomb itself is a good target for Tunguskas. 
And yes, don't forget that Tunguskas can try to hit your MLRS M-31 rockets as well.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 9, 2020)

Litwin said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> > Litwin said:
> ...


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 9, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> > Nonsense. F-35 uses UAI, any weapon that hasn't been certified and implemented in the UAI wouldn't show as an option at a given station in the cockpit and cannot be delivered.
> ...



There are NO Worst F-35 Pilots.  All of them are the cream of the crop much like the F-22.  They are handpicked from other fighters.  Hate to break it to you but Larry, Mo and Curly won't be running the British Royal Air Force.


----------



## 22lcidw (Feb 9, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > DrainBamage said:
> ...


I do not believe that. There are pilots better then others.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 9, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> There are NO Worst F-35 Pilots.  All of them are the cream of the crop much like the F-22.  They are handpicked from other fighters.  Hate to break it to you but Larry, Mo and Curly won't be running the British Royal Air Force.


First, the best fighters from US Air Force much better than the best RAF pilots, at least because USA have much more pilots and they have much more practice. And yes, Brits are Brits (stupid, ignorant and hardly trainable).
And I said "worst operators" not "pilots". RAF don't have enough jets, ordnance, UAVs, satellites, etc...
"US Air Force vs RAAN militia's Chines S-400" would be a much more short and simple story.


----------



## Litwin (Feb 9, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Litwin said:
> 
> 
> > *Russia's S-300 didn't stop Israeli from airstrikes on Iran in ...*
> ...



*"Russian S-30*0 tried to protect Iranian proxies from IAF at all? F-16 is not stealth, and their strikes *are coordinated with the Russians."*

1) modern days  Muscovy can´t  produce high-tech weapons  , just ask our brothers in Tzahal 
*HOW ISRAEL DESTROYED RUSSIAN PANTSIR ... - YouTube*

8 aug. 2018 - Link to video :  The _Pantsir_ S1 missile system is a self-propelled surface-to-air missile system. It is designed to ...

*Israel can beat Russian-supplied S-300 air shield in Syria ...*
Översätt den här sidan
3 okt. 2018 - _Israel_ can beat _Russian_-supplied _S_-_300_ air _shield in_ Syria: minister ... that it had delivered the _S_-_300_, a decision it took _after_ accusing _Israel_ of indirect ... spy plane by Syrian forces as they fired on attacking _Israeli jets_ last month. ... a few months ago, to _destroy_ Syrian _missile_ batteries, and I hope they won't ...



2) No , noting was coordinated with "russians" 

*Russia said to warn of 'catastrophic' result if Israel hits its S ...*

23 apr. 2018 - _Russia_ may hand over its powerful S-_300_ missile defense system to Syria in the ... The sources told the newspaper that if _Israel_ tried to _destroy_ the ... The statement came _following_ a series of airstrikes against Syrian targets by ... _jets_ on their maiden flight as part of the _Israeli_ Air Force on December 13, 2016.


*Russia's S-300 didn't stop Israeli from airstrikes on Iran in ...*
Översätt den här sidan
16 jan. 2019 - _Russia's_ air defenses can't stop _Israel_ from stomping on Iran _in_ Syria with airstrikes ... which they hope to export, are routinely defeated by _Israeli jets_. ... one of its bombs _destroying_ a _Russian_ air _defense system_, _Russian_ media offered ... shipped the more advanced _S_-_300 missile_ defenses to Syrian hands.


----------



## Litwin (Feb 9, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Litwin said:
> 
> 
> > DrainBamage said:
> ...




*Russia engaging in 'information warfare' ahead of 2020 ...*
 - _Russia_ engaging in 'information warfare' ahead of 2020 _election_, _FBI_ ... “Unlike a cyber-_attack_ on an _election_ infrastructure, that kind of effort ...


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 9, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > There are NO Worst F-35 Pilots.  All of them are the cream of the crop much like the F-22.  They are handpicked from other fighters.  Hate to break it to you but Larry, Mo and Curly won't be running the British Royal Air Force.
> ...



Again, if  you want an Air Force ran by Mo, Larry and Curly, you would have to look at the Iranian Air Force and I doubt if they are going to have any F-35s.  Then you would have to talk them into attacking themselves. Maybe we could pay them.  What  a concept.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 9, 2020)

22lcidw said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



There are no NEW pilots flying the F-35 ANYWHERE.  All are high time pilots which equates to a high degree of skill level.  They are hand picked from other Fighter Units.  There are NO "WORST" F-35 pilots.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 9, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


OK. Every professional sportsman is a high time athlete which equates to a high degree of skill level. But some of them are winners and some of them are losers. Why? Because some of them are better than others. 
Some of them have the better abilities, some of them have better health, some of them use better drugs, some are better trained.
American F-35 pilots bomb real targets in Iraq and Syria, British ones just "demonstrate flag". Who have better bombing practice?


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 9, 2020)

Litwin said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Litwin said:
> ...



First of all, I'm not Russian, I'm American.
Second: I'm not troll.
Third: Your nickname is one of Slavic forms for "Lithuanian", which is often used by those of White Russians, who pretend to be political heirs of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Jemaitija and Russia, a competitor of the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Kingdom of Poland in the gathering of Russian lands.
Fourth: you tried to cause an emotion reaction to your words.

Are you a Russian troll?


----------



## Litwin (Feb 9, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > 22lcidw said:
> ...


"F-35 pilots bomb real targets in *Iraq *and Syria, British ones just "demonstrate flag"" i thought British pilots have done some job in *Iraq ? am i wrong ? *


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 9, 2020)

Litwin said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



They have but not using the F-35.  So that means, the British does have skilled pilots to draw from for thier F-35s if the need arises.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 9, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> First of all, I'm not Russian, I'm American.
> Second: I'm not troll.


It would be "I'm not a troll" they use indefinite articles in English.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 9, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> UAI show it as an error, but BRU-67,68 (or Scorpion ERU as well) still hold it, until it is dropped by a selective jettison. And if you armed your Mk-83s with the mechanical fuses M904, M905 and MAU-182 Ring and Swivel Assemblies, it can even blast.


Ahhh so you have intimate knowledge of how UAI works, how long have you been an F-35 pilot? You're making shit up, you know it, and everyone knows it.



Silver Cat said:


> Just speak with people, it is not a big secret. Sure, officially they will denie it, but isn't wasting PGMs for a terrain denial mission even more stupid?


No, the stupid isn't using dumb bombs for terrain denial it's the notion of using stealth fighters that aren't able to drop them, despite the majority of assets in that area are.

I guess it's also pretty stupid you're a grown man pretending to "speak with people" about some secret capabilities of F-35s flying in Iraq that you clearly cannot source. What are you 12?




Silver Cat said:


> Don't forget, that we are discussing about an abstract situation "The Best S-400 Operator Against The Worst F-35 Operator".


Nope. See thread title, it's F-35s versus S-400s. You are the one who will continue to pigeonhole the discussion hoping to get the results you want, I think you're almost at the point of declaring F-35s must be flown by pilots with vision issues and shaky hands.



Silver Cat said:


> GPS-jammers are almost immune from Paveway IV strike because of a simple reason - they are covered with S-400 and AAA. To drop the bomb, F-35 needs to came too close to SAM and AAA positions, and a bomb itself is a good target for Tunguskas.
> And yes, don't forget that Tunguskas can try to hit your MLRS M-31 rockets as well.


Hah hah the old "immunity" schtick. There is no "too close" since you have no idea how close they can get in a jamming environment, and if GPS jammers are broadcasting they are the targets for HARMs, SDBs, etc. the worse place in a scenario involving F-35s would be something screeching RF nonstop since it'll be geolocated the biggest target.


----------



## Litwin (Feb 10, 2020)

great news


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 10, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > UAI show it as an error, but BRU-67,68 (or Scorpion ERU as well) still hold it, until it is dropped by a selective jettison. And if you armed your Mk-83s with the mechanical fuses M904, M905 and MAU-182 Ring and Swivel Assemblies, it can even blast.
> ...



He must be speaking if it were me piloting that ill fated F-35.





*Sleep Well, I am awake protecting you*.​


----------



## 22lcidw (Feb 10, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


I don't believe that.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 11, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > UAI show it as an error, but BRU-67,68 (or Scorpion ERU as well) still hold it, until it is dropped by a selective jettison. And if you armed your Mk-83s with the mechanical fuses M904, M905 and MAU-182 Ring and Swivel Assemblies, it can even blast.
> ...


Do you have any experience in the military, aviation or other sophisticated tech development? The safety is our priority, isn't it? Now, tell me, pls, what else can UAI do in "no response from the bomb"situation? The safety protocol must be short, simple and reliable. Can it call "911" and ask for help independently? No, it is a stealth fighter, it must be able to work without any communication at all. To jettison it immediately and independently? No, it can be unsafe. To block it on the BRU? No, it can be unsafe to land with the damaged bomb.
So, the only reasonable safety protocol is "Inform the pilot. Hold the bomb on the BRU untul the pilot's jettison command".


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget, that we are discussing about an abstract situation "The Best S-400 Operator Against The Worst F-35 Operator".
> ...


It depends from the whole situation. In the situation "All US F-35s vs small isolated group of Nicaraguan separatists and a Chines S-400 battalion in the minimal complectation" S-400 will suck.
In situation "British F-35 (in their real current status) vs Scottish militants and a Russian S-400 battalion in the full complectation, covered with Tinguskas" -  F-35s will knee and gobble. 



> Hah hah the old "immunity" schtick. There is no "too close" since you have no idea how close they can get in a jamming environment, and if GPS jammers are broadcasting they are the targets for HARMs, SDBs, etc. the worse place in a scenario involving F-35s would be something screeching RF nonstop since it'll be geolocated the biggest target.


Ha! May be, I have no idea, but many professionals certainly have. That's why they are searching other ways to crush S-400.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 11, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



I don't know if Drainbamage has any real life experience in Aviation or not but I do and on this I mostly agree with him.  Now, play that same game on me.  The fact remains that the F-35A flies against the S-300 and it's upgraded S-400 on a daily basis in Syria and Iran is proof enough.  Yes, they can pick off an occasional F-16 but who can't these days.  But the fact remains that there have been times reported by Iran where they are crying about F-35s spying on them inside of Iran that tells us the whole story.  The F-35 is NOT invisible to visuals and a Goat Herder can identify one clearly by sight.  But that same Goat Herder can't knock it down by throwing Goat Dung at it.  

So how about slowing down on that Goat Dung slinging.  It's really getting messy.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 11, 2020)

Litwin said:


> great news


Do you really think, that those photos of the burning Turkish vechicles were made from the Syrian F-35s?







"The aviation beats tanks", you know...


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 12, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Litwin said:
> 
> 
> > great news
> ...



And this has to do with F-35s How, When, where?  I can tell when someone has lost it.  They almost always start doing the old "Hey, Look over There" routine like you are doing now.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 12, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Do you have any experience in the military, aviation or other sophisticated tech development?


Yes.



Silver Cat said:


> The safety is our priority, isn't it? Now, tell me, pls, what else can UAI do in "no response from the bomb"situation? The safety protocol must be short, simple and reliable. Can it call "911" and ask for help independently? No, it is a stealth fighter, it must be able to work without any communication at all. To jettison it immediately and independently? No, it can be unsafe. To block it on the BRU? No, it can be unsafe to land with the damaged bomb.
> So, the only reasonable safety protocol is "Inform the pilot. Hold the bomb on the BRU untul the pilot's jettison command"


In other words you have a bunch of assumptions about how UAI works, no real experience with it, yet are stating as fact that F-35s are using uncertified dumb bombs in Iraq.

Again, where is your source for F-35s dropping unguided weapons in Iraq? 




> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > It depends from the whole situation. In the situation "All US F-35s vs small isolated group of Nicaraguan separatists and a Chines S-400 battalion in the minimal complectation" S-400 will suck.
> ...


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 12, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Do you really think, that those photos of the burning Turkish vechicles were made from the Syrian F-35s?


Destroyed by Scottish militants?

That seems to be your standard ace-in-the-hole demon around here? They just pop up out of nowhere and tip the scales!


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 12, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Yes.


Really?



> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > The safety is our priority, isn't it? Now, tell me, pls, what else can UAI do in "no response from the bomb"situation? The safety protocol must be short, simple and reliable. Can it call "911" and ask for help independently? No, it is a stealth fighter, it must be able to work without any communication at all. To jettison it immediately and independently? No, it can be unsafe. To block it on the BRU? No, it can be unsafe to land with the damaged bomb.
> ...


In other words you can't even imagine any reasonable alternative safety protocol for the " unresponding bomb" situation, can you? And do you really think, that the wasting $2.8M ordnance just to clear a little forest is a good idea?

Twitter



> Again, where is your source for F-35s dropping unguided weapons in Iraq?


How many US F-35s pilots said you tete a tete that they never use unguided weapons in Iraq?




> Unrealistic scenarios aren't interesting to me, why not ponder on F-35s versus dragons from Game of Thrones too?


"A lonely F-35 vs a lonely S-400" is an unrealistic scenario anyway. It is a simplification, but any model is a simplification, it is why the model can be useful at all.




> > Ha! May be, I have no idea, but many professionals certainly have. That's why they are searching other ways to crush S-400.
> 
> 
> So you admit you have no idea about something you are using as the cornerstone of your argument. Why am I not surprised?


[/QUOTE]
I said "may be". 
Do you have any idea why S-400 is often named as "A2/AD system"?


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 12, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really think, that those photos of the burning Turkish vechicles were made from the Syrian F-35s?
> ...


No. Destroyed by Syrian aviation.




> That seems to be your standard ace-in-the-hole demon around here? They just pop up out of nowhere and tip the scales!


Don't you think, that there can be a lot of Scottish militants in Scotland? And 70 clicks from HMNB Clyde is a pretty deep in the Scottish territory. And yes, don't forget, pls that the green men commander can send few Tunguskas to meet your MLRSs at the march - PHA have many spies in Scotland, but FSA have many spies in England, too.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 13, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> In other words you can't even imagine any reasonable alternative safety protocol for the " unresponding bomb" situation, can you? And do you really think, that the wasting $2.8M ordnance just to clear a little forest is a good idea?


1. So you're basically confirming you're just making assumptions about how UAI works when stating it's easy to just strap any uncertified bomb on there right?
2. It has nothing to do with how smart it is to drop smart weapons to clear a forest, and more to do with using F-35s to drop bombs they don't carry.




Silver Cat said:


> Twitter


Ahh the Qanus Island bombing. Those were PGMs, look at the exact dispersion. Here are some press releases on it:

USAF F-35As and F-15Es Flatten ISIS "Infested" Island In Iraq With 80K Pounds Of Bombs (Updated)
_The F-15Es appeared to be carrying loads of at least five 2,000-pound class GBU-31/B Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) GPS-guided bombs. The Joint Strike Fighters had their external wingtip rails for the AIM-9X Sidewinder fitted, but did not appear to be carrying any of those air-to-air missiles. They were not carrying any other external ordnance, suggesting that they were likely each carrying two additional GBU-31/Bs._

Here is a picture of an F-15E being loaded for the strike, clearly those are JDAMs.





So what we've arrived at here is that you "guessed" that these must be unguided bombs, with absolutely zero evidence, and then came in here and declared F-35s are delivering unguided munitions. That is foolish.




> "A lonely F-35 vs a lonely S-400" is an unrealistic scenario anyway. It is a simplification, but any model is a simplification, it is why the model can be useful at all.


Yes, that is another one. Why not propose a realistic one?




> Do you have any idea why S-400 is often named as "A2/AD system"?


Yes.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 14, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> 1. So you're basically confirming you're just making assumptions about how UAI works when stating it's easy to just strap any uncertified bomb on there right?


No. I said, that there is no, and couldn't be, any alternative safety protocol for the "unresponding bomb" situation.
And, you don't have even a spark of idea, what alternative security protocol could be there.




> 2. It has nothing to do with how smart it is to drop smart weapons to clear a forest, and more to do with using F-35s to drop bombs they don't carry.


F-35s can carry and even drop the unguided bombs. And you don't know any F-35 pilot, who claim the opposite, do you?



> > "A lonely F-35 vs a lonely S-400" is an unrealistic scenario anyway. It is a simplification, but any model is a simplification, it is why the model can be useful at all.
> 
> 
> Yes, that is another one. Why not propose a realistic one?


Because reality is much more complicated. Ok. There are "Defender-2020" drills. General (unrealistic, too) conception is rather simple: "Russia invades Baltic states, European and American allies fight Russia and defend Baltic. There is Kaliningrad's region with Russian A2/AD systems (including five regiments of S-400 and one regiment of S-300V4). To be able to protect Spratslands, we need to crush the IADS first." The question is simple: "Can European NATO members (without American help) crush that systems with their airforces, or they have to find an alternative way?"


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 14, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> > 1. So you're basically confirming you're just making assumptions about how UAI works when stating it's easy to just strap any uncertified bomb on there right?
> ...



Do you know the difference between a dumb bomb sand a JDAM?  Please tell us, we all want to know.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 14, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> No. I said, that there is no, and couldn't be, any alternative safety protocol for the "unresponding bomb" situation.
> And, you don't have even a spark of idea, what alternative security protocol could be there.


Me not having an idea is different than you not having any idea then claiming something can be done when you have no idea. If you haven't flown in an F-35 that uses UAI then all you're doing is speculating, so you're hilariously using speculation to back up your idiotic claim that the F-35 has been using dumb bombs to clear forests in Iraq.




> F-35s can carry and even drop the unguided bombs. And you don't know any F-35 pilot, who claim the opposite, do you?


No, they can't. You're making something up and it's funny to watch. I can look at a list of weapons that have been certified to carry on F-35 with each block software/hardware release and see there are no unguided bombs. I can look at the projected schedule for additional weapons integration and see no unguided bombs. 

So far the evidence you've presented is that you didn't understand what was going in that video of Qanus island, made some idiotic assumptions that were quickly proven false, and are now desperately trying to stay afloat in an argument you can't win. 




> Because reality is much more complicated. Ok. There are "Defender-2020" drills. General (unrealistic, too) conception is rather simple: "Russia invades Baltic states, European and American allies fight Russia and defend Baltic. There is Kaliningrad's region with Russian A2/AD systems (including five regiments of S-400 and one regiment of S-300V4). To be able to protect Spratslands, we need to crush the IADS first." The question is simple: "Can European NATO members (without American help) crush that systems with their airforces, or they have to find an alternative way?"


USA is a member of NATO, why wouldn't they help?


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 14, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> USA is a member of NATO, why wouldn't they help?


May be USA are more interested in fighting China, than in the defending useless Spratslands. May be USA are not satisfied with the current level of European defence. May be something else.
One thing, if Europeans can defend themselves independently, the different thing if Europe needs to pay much more for protection.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 14, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Do you know the difference between a dumb bomb sand a JDAM?  Please tell us, we all want to know.



Joint Direct Attack Munition - Wikipedia


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 14, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Do you know the difference between a dumb bomb sand a JDAM?  Please tell us, we all want to know.
> ...



I didn't ask for a cut and paste or a Wiki link.  I asked you to define the difference in your own words.  I can.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 14, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Orly? If so - tell us about how exactly UAI see Mk83, and what is the difference with a damaged GBU-16 or 32?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 15, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



Then you don't know.   Let me explain.  Take any dumb bomb of a decent size, say 500 lb or bigger.  Add fins and a guidance nose cone and, Presto, you just made a JDAM.  Oh, I know, they have gotten a bit more sexy lately but at one time, we had tons of these free fall dumb bombs and a kit was offered to cheaply convert them to JDAMs.  Unlike you, I don't need to look it up.  I spent three years working in a Munitions Squadron as a Manager around the Buffs.   The Buff carried both the JDAM and the Dumb Bomb along with a whole bunch of other nasty weapons.  We didn't call them JDAMs back then.  The systems were a bit more crude and less reliable.  But in 1995, the new system was introduced after I retired and things changed big time.

The MK-82 and MK-83 gets a GBU designator when the kit is installed.  The Big 1000 and 2000 lb BLUs also get changed to the GBU designator.  

Now for the range.  From level flight at subsonic speeds, they have about a 15 mile average range for the 500lbers.  Of course, the bigger ones have shorter ranges.  They could be launched from any angle, any attitude including a bird doing evasive action.  Once released, they were completely independent.  Now unless you can jam the JDAMs internal guidance, it's going where it was aimed after release.  One Fighter can drop multiple JDAMS to multiple targets in a matter of seconds.  

Now, let's look at a method used in the Venerable F-4 doing Nuke duty.  If a F-4 were to drop his nuke payload on a target he would have to get too close.  Let's face it, 5 miles is just too damned close with something that big.  So they developed a Bomb Toss for the Dumb Nuke.  The Fighter went to Supersonic Speed, Put it into a climb pulling some mighty impressive Gs and then released the bomb.  We are talking about a bomb about the size of 4 55 gallon barrels welded end to end.  He could get about 15 miles out of that toss.  After release, the climb would drop him below mach, he would finish the split S and get back on the gas and get the hell out of there.  And this was all done at low altitude where he was hard to pickup.  Of course, this sonic booms wouldn't exactly hide him.  But if you heard the boom, it was too late anyway. I won't say where the originating position was nor where the target was but let's say it scared the living hell out of the Russians during the cold war and the F-111 wasn't the only Nuke Armed Fighter.

Now, let's allow you to have your lone S-400 and I get my Lone F-35A.  No nukes allowed.  I get one JDAM and you get one of your best Missiles.  We each get one shot.  I go up to 40K, put the bird up to just under Mach, do a reverse Split S and launch while 40 to 50 miles away.  I am too slow for my skin to heat up enough for your IRs until AFTER the bomb release.  You finally are able to pick me up and maybe get a lock when my doors come open for that 1 to 2 seconds.  You fire.  The Doors close and my F-35 just went to Mach 1.6.  For a few miles, your IR will light up.  But you just lost your lock.  Oh, you can still track for a few minutes but the lock is lost.  In the first few  minutes of flight of your Missile, it's going to have to rely on your S-400 site to guide it.  Maybe you can do it, maybe you can't.  But there are more than a few things that you have to have right to deliver that missile on target.  If any of those things go wrong, your missile won't hit my F-35.  

Meanwhile, the JDAM isn't attached to any outside guidance.  No Radar, No IR, nothing.  Once it's locked on, it has the Location locked in and using global positioning to guide it internally.  The only thing you can do is get your Radar Vehicles shut down, cleaned up and get them moved real fast.  That 500lber is going to hit within just a few feet of where it was aimed at.  While not as slick as a Tomahawk, the JDAM is pretty damned fool proof.  You are going to lose at least part of your S-400 system and be knocked out of business until you bring in replacement trucks.  You also might (if you are very lucky and should have bought a lottery ticket) take out the F-35.  The normal scenario is for you to lose the use of your S-400 for a few days and personnel and the worst case is the loss of the F-35 and you still lose the use of your S-400.  Under the normal operation, your cost will be in the millions along with a few lives against about 27K+ Dollars for the JDAM including the cost of the 500lber dumb bomb.

Tell you what, I'll give you 4 S-400 systems and you give me 4 JDAMS and only one F-35A.  Under normal operation, yo still won't get the F-35 but he's going to put 3 of your 4 S-400 sites out of operation.  Nothing is perfect and he will probably miss one.  But what he did was he opened up a huge corridor for Gen 4 fighters which was his job all along.  The fact he can do other things isn't going to be a factor at first.  It's the fact that he is specifically designed to take out Missile Sites.  And to him, a S-400 is just another missile site.  

Do it the way that's been practiced over and over again and your F-35 comes home.  And one thing that should be driven into ANY High time Fighter Pilot is to do it right the first time.  When that high time Fighter Pilot sits his ass into the F-35, he just has to get used to his new ride.  There won't be any low time fighter pilots sitting  his ass in that F-35 and I don't care what country is flying them.  He's going to have a ton of time on something else like a F-16, F-18, Mig-29 or a host of other Multiroled fighters.  He'll have to learn some new tactics but most of what he has already learned and practiced will still apply.  

You can have the  highest quality crew manning your S-400 system but even they can't make it any better than it already is.  Your Scenario is busted.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 17, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Now unless you can jam the JDAMs internal guidance, it's going where it was aimed after release.  One Fighter can drop multiple JDAMS to multiple targets in a matter of seconds.


Sure. But the fighter must know where are these targets, and the GPS-signal can be jammed. The 30m miss is unacceptable for some kinds of targets, you know.

Boeing JDAM

"Using full GPS-aided INS guidance, the accuracy of _JDAM_ is officially quoted as 13 m (43 ft), but real figures are reportedly slightly better, around 10 m (33 ft). When GPS is unavailable (e.g. because of jamming), accuracy in INS-only mode drops to 30 m (100 ft) CEP, but that's still good enough for many purposes, and therefore GPS-jamming is far from disabling _JDAM_ bombs."

And don't forget, that "Thor" and "Tunguska" can shoot bombs.



> Now, let's allow you to have your lone S-400 and I get my Lone F-35A.


"The Last Bullet Fight" scenario? It usually looks much better on a movie screen than on a battlefield. But as you wish.
"After a week of the fierce battle all British jets were shoot down, and only one Norwegian F-35A with two JDAMs is still active at RAF Marham.
The little green men lost all their AAA, L-band radar, passive sensors, wasted almost all missiles. But: they still have their main radar, one missile, observers with IR-seekers (their own and in FSA), some fake missile launchers and 3 roughly masked fake radars (with emmiters). FSA have a few agents in your army, mostly friendly population in Scotland, support of the EU and enough of Mistral-M3 MANPADS.



> No nukes allowed.


Nukes are allowed in the most of my scenarios, but right now, well, a nuclear submarine with ICBMs is just a super-important target (another one was successfully destroyed in the previous suicidal attack). If you fail to destroy it - Free Scotland Army (with French support) will win the war. And you don't know her exact position in the harbour, because it was moved after your previous attack.



> You can have the  highest quality crew manning your S-400 system but even they can't make it any better than it already is.  Your Scenario is busted.


Really? You have one F-35A with two JDAMs, one super-important target, three fake SAM radars, one real (you will know who is who only after one of them lock you at the distance 35-50 clicks), the battlefield is covered by smoke and aerosol veil and you can't use low-attitude attack because of MANPADS.

It will be anything but a piece of cake.
How it was in that old DPRK comedy?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 17, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Now unless you can jam the JDAMs internal guidance, it's going where it was aimed after release.  One Fighter can drop multiple JDAMS to multiple targets in a matter of seconds.
> ...



The F-35A won't use low altitude.  He's going to be at somewhere between 20 and 40K in altitude flying as level as possible using his stealth.  In a best case scenario, you might be able to scan him at 35K and lock on closer than that.  Using a Bomb Toss, he can get 50 to 75K distance out of his JDAM Mk82.  And while you are trying your damnedest to jam him, he is doing the same to you.  And he's very, very good at that.  Even if you jammed the GPS, it still won't change the fact that the JDAM used it to only get the initial location.  Your site is not mobile.  And he's after your Radar Domes and Antennaes.  30 meters is close enough.  He doesn't have to destroy it but send enough shrapnel through it to take it off line.  What you should be worried about right after that is the 4th gen fighters coming  in to finish the job completely uncontested.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 17, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Orly? If so - tell us about how exactly UAI see Mk83, and what is the difference with a damaged GBU-16 or 32?


Hah after that utter fail on the JDAM islands bombing where you assumed they were unguided bombs, you're still in here hammering away on UAI and pretending you know something about it.

I love it.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 17, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> "Using full GPS-aided INS guidance, the accuracy of _JDAM_ is officially quoted as 13 m (43 ft), but real figures are reportedly slightly better, around 10 m (33 ft). When GPS is unavailable (e.g. because of jamming), accuracy in INS-only mode drops to 30 m (100 ft) CEP, but that's still good enough for many purposes, and therefore GPS-jamming is far from disabling _JDAM_ bombs."


Good way to die when SEAD/DEAD is happening is to have something broadcasting a constant signal like an area-wide GPS jam.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 18, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > "Using full GPS-aided INS guidance, the accuracy of _JDAM_ is officially quoted as 13 m (43 ft), but real figures are reportedly slightly better, around 10 m (33 ft). When GPS is unavailable (e.g. because of jamming), accuracy in INS-only mode drops to 30 m (100 ft) CEP, but that's still good enough for many purposes, and therefore GPS-jamming is far from disabling _JDAM_ bombs."
> ...



A Million and ONE ways to die in combat.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 19, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Orly? If so - tell us about how exactly UAI see Mk83, and what is the difference with a damaged GBU-16 or 32?
> ...


Well. May be you are right, and we should add some info in the discussion:


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Are you sure?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 19, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



Only an idiot will sit there and broadcast your GPS jammer.  That makes you  a sitting duck for a AGM-88C.  Do you know the range of one of those puppies?  150K or 92 miles.  And it's coming in at over 1400 mph.  And guess what the F-35A can carry?  You changed to rules to suit yourself.  So I get one Harm and you just lost your radar site.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 19, 2020)

You see, the main problem for using INS-only "guidance" is time. All those JDAMs, SDBs, Paveway IV and other garbage use relatively cheap fibre-optic gyroscopes, same as were used in the early versions of F-15E. Its mistake is a bit more than 1 mile/hour.
If you toss your bomb or ersats-CM at 60 km, with initial speed 1000 km/h, its average horizontal speed will be not more than 600 km/h, and TOF - 0,1 h (six minutes), and the CEP - 0,1 mi.
It means, that such things are almost useless in GPS-denied environments (including situation of the global war).


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 19, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> You see, main problem for using INS-only "guidance" is time. All those JDAMs, SDBs, Paveway IV and other garbage use relatively cheap fibre-optic gyroscopes, same as were used in the early versions of F-15E. Its mistake is a bit more than 1 mile/hour.
> If you toss your bomb or ersats-CM at 60 km, with initial speed 1000 km/h, its average horizontal speed will be not more than 600 km/h, and TOF - 0,1 h (six minutes), and the CEP - 0,1 mi.
> It means, that such things are almost useless in GPS-denied environments (including situation of the global war).



If you are talking about a F-35A, he has so many tricks up his sleave that your Radar Site isn't going to make it.  That's exactly what he's designed to take out.  Just because he can do other things doesn't take away his primary mission is to take out radar sites.  He can sneak up on it, jam it, blind it, burn it out and a lot more.  And remember, there are a whole series of factors that any radar site or even an IR site has to comply with to get a missile kill and all the F-35 has to do is to break just one of that cycle and the Missile cannot hit it's target.  Meanwhile, he just has to get close enough to drop his SBD which is going to temporarily put your radar or IR site out of action long enough to give the 4th Gen fighters the corridor they need to take out everything else.  The real damage isn't going to be done by the F-35.  He's just going to enable all the 3rd and 4th gen fighters and bombers the ability to rain heaven and earth on you by opening up an open corridor.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


First (and most important) neither the UK, nor Norway have AARGM. 
Second (if we restart the game "F-35 squadron  vs S-400 battalion" from the very beginning) - Tunguskas will shoot down your AARGM easily.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 19, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



Oh, so now you want 2 missiles.  Does that mean I get more toys as well?  Are we expanding the war?  Now I get two F-35s or more.  And one of them is going to blind your Radar Sites with ease where it can't see a damned thing.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 19, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> It means, that such things are almost useless in GPS-denied environments (including situation of the global war).


Fail, again.

Anti-radiation missiles target GPS jammers, so they cannot remain constant.
Laser guided weapons don't need GPS.
MMW guided weapons don't need GPS.
IIR guided weapons don't need GPS.




Silver Cat said:


> Well. May be you are right, and we should add some info in the discussion:


Of course I'm right, you're the guy who was playing expert saying they were clearing forests with F-35s and dumb bombs because he was making assumptions without knowing they were actually JDAMs. 

Now you're posting manuals for something that isn't UAI, apparently in a feeble effort to protect your misguided notion that F-35 delivers unguided weapons. The "forest clearing" evidence was yanked out from under you yet you lack the self-awareness to understand how silly you sound carrying on about F-35s delivering unguided weapons that they clearly don't deliver.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 19, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> First (and most important) neither the UK, nor Norway have AARGM


In a thread about F-35 versus S-400, that isn't important at all.




Silver Cat said:


> Second (if we restart the game "F-35 squadron  vs S-400 battalion" from the very beginning) - Tunguskas will shoot down your AARGM easily.


Nope. Tunguskas aren't designed to track or engage mach 2+ missiles. They were originally designed for helicopters and low flying attack aircraft, were upgraded to target cruise missiles.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 20, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > First (and most important) neither the UK, nor Norway have AARGM
> ...



And Cruise Missiles are subsonic and very large.  The Harm is supersonic (Mach 2) and small in comparison.  And the Harm comes in High, not low.  The way to defeat a Harm is to shut your radar site down and move it.  Just shutting it down won't work since it's locked on to the last known position.  And the F-35A can carry two externally.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 20, 2020)

and as of AGM-88E you've got to move it pretty far since they added a millimeter wave radar that will search for objects that looks like IADS components

GPS jammers are even more vulnerable than search radars or targeting radars, they'd be picked off as part of the attrition of the system.  Silver Cat is attempting to fall back on some notion that installing a few 70s era short range anti-aircraft trucks somehow makes this system impervious to attack from supersonic missiles yet I'm not sure there is even a single real world example of them stopping a cruise missile much less something coming in at mach 2.

He ignores the fact that Israel has been operating around and attacking Russian made IADs for decades with near impunity using 4th gen air assets, it's a shame those operators didn't get Silver Cat's memo that all you need is some GPS jammers and antiaircraft guns sprinkled about to become untouchable. They would have smacked themselves on the forehead and said "why didn't we think of that?" pure genius.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 20, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...


If PHA can buy Harms, FSA can buy Panzir-S1 and Tor-M2, which can intercept 700-1000 m/s missiles.
There is no and can not be any "unbreakable" defence. Any defence can be crushed. It's just a question of the sufficient resources.
One S-400 (or even S-300V4) battalion with old Tunguskas is enough to protect one important target from all British F-35 in their current status.
IADS of Kaliningrad region is sufficient to stop the whole European (without American support) aviation.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 20, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> and as of AGM-88E you've got to move it pretty far since they added a millimeter wave radar that will search for objects that looks like IADS components
> 
> GPS jammers are even more vulnerable than search radars or targeting radars, they'd be picked off as part of the attrition of the system.  Silver Cat is attempting to fall back on some notion that installing a few 70s era short range anti-aircraft trucks somehow makes this system impervious to attack from supersonic missiles yet I'm not sure there is even a single real world example of them stopping a cruise missile much less something coming in at mach 2.
> 
> He ignores the fact that Israel has been operating around and attacking Russian made IADs for decades with near impunity using 4th gen air assets, it's a shame those operators didn't get Silver Cat's memo that all you need is some GPS jammers and antiaircraft guns sprinkled about to become untouchable. They would have smacked themselves on the forehead and said "why didn't we think of that?" pure genius.


As I said earlier - "The smart pilots with the dumb bombs are much more effective than the dumb pilots with the smart bombs"


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 20, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > DrainBamage said:
> ...



Burning hulks can't protect anyone from anything, cupiedoll.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 20, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Yes. The only question is how exactly our European friends pretend to do it without American help. 

Combien faut-il de Français pour défendre Paris? Personne ne le sait: ils n’ont jamais essayé.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 21, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> If PHA can buy Harms, FSA can buy Panzir-S1


Oh yeah Pantsir, which became the laughingstock after Israel put a weapon into the driver's side window.

UAWire - Experts: Pantsir-S1 air defense systems unable to protect Russian base in Syria
The Pantsir-S1 anti-air missile systems which are deployed in Russia’s Khmeimim air base in Syria are useless, according to the post published on the Telegram channel "Military Journalists". A similar statement was earlier posted on Facebook by Viktor Murakhovsky, a well-known Russian military expert and editor-in-chief of the "Arsenal of the Fatherland" journal.

Does Russia's Anti-Drone Pantsir S1 System Even Work?
“In Syria, it turned out that the Pantsir was practically incapable of detecting low-speed and small-sized targets, which include military UAVs. At the same time, the complex regularly recorded false targets—large birds flying around the base—rather confusing the operators.”





Silver Cat said:


> One S-400 (or even S-300V4) battalion with old Tunguskas is enough to protect one important target from all British F-35 in their current status.


Nope. Israel has no problem with Russian IADS, and neither would England. 




Silver Cat said:


> IADS of Kaliningrad region is sufficient to stop the whole European (without American support) aviation.


Nonsense, you really buy into Russian marketing hype.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 21, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> As I said earlier - "The smart pilots with the dumb bombs are much more effective than the dumb pilots with the smart bombs"


You being the guy who thought USA, despite all the available aircraft capable of dropping dumb bombs, rigged F-35s with them to game the interface to do forest clearing, despite clear evidence that they were actual 2,000 lb JDAMs right?

Sorry but anyone who came away looking that foolish doesn't carry much weight quoting themselves as some fountain of wisdom. You have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 21, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Yes. The only question is how exactly our European friends pretend to do it without American help.


Typhoons, Tornadoes, Rafales, Grippens, F-35s, F-18s, F-16s,  etc.
JDAM, LGB, SDB, AARGM, JSOW, Storm Shadow, Brimstone, Electronic attack, Drones, etc.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 21, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



Ever hear of an organization called "NATO"?  So our European Friends don't have to go it alone anymore than the US does.  And, Comrade, I doubt if you HAVE any friends left in Europe these days.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 21, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Ever hear of an organization called "NATO"?  So our European Friends don't have to go it alone anymore than the US does.  And, Comrade, I doubt if you HAVE any friends left in Europe these days.


Do you think, that those little whores can be our friends?






Poll: In a Russia-US conflict, Europeans favor neutrality over America


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 21, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. The only question is how exactly our European friends pretend to do it without American help.
> ...


Bla-bla-bla... Most of this stuff will be destroyed at bases by nuclear Iscanders, Calibers and other missiles in the first hours of the conflict.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 21, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > As I said earlier - "The smart pilots with the dumb bombs are much more effective than the dumb pilots with the smart bombs"
> ...


I know, that F-35  use unguided bombs for the terrain denial operations, and I clearly demonstrated that there is a technical opportunity for it, and such operations are performed regulary.
I don't care do you believe me or not at least because your opinion does not matter.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 21, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > If PHA can buy Harms, FSA can buy Panzir-S1
> ...


Oh, hell! "UAwire" is a bunch of Ukro-Canadian clowns, who knows nothing about both Ukraine and Canada (or anything else in the world).
Victor Murakhovskiy is a tanksmen, he is not expert in anti-air defence (for example, he denies that the ukroboing was shoot down by Iranians).
Pantsir have its own advantages and disadvantages (first of all - weight, price and low maneuverability), but it is not, what those "experts" will write about.
And yes, according official Russian position, Pantsir-S1 was rather effective (even against low-speed targets):







> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > One S-400 (or even S-300V4) battalion with old Tunguskas is enough to protect one important target from all British F-35 in their current status.
> ...


Yes. Israel has no problem with Russian IADS because they don't try to attack Russian targets.
England is not Israel, so their way is a bit different. They will ask Americans to fight instead of them.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 22, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Do you think, that those little whores can be our friends?


Hah hah this explains a lot, someone is emotionally invested here.



Silver Cat said:


> Bla-bla-bla... Most of this stuff will be destroyed at bases by nuclear Iscanders, Calibers and other missiles in the first hours of the conflict.


Ahhh so now you are attempting to prove an S-400 cannot be defeated by European aircraft by simply adding to the scenario a nuclear conflict that removes all their aircraft from the scenario. In other words, you know you were full of shit, can't talk your way out of it, so are adding nukes.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 22, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> I know, that F-35  use unguided bombs for the terrain denial operations


You thought you knew and you posted as evidence an operation where they were using JDAMs. You ended up basically screaming "I have no idea what I'm talking about" at the top of your lungs, since we showed you pitures of those JDAMs being loaded onto aircraft for that operation. You were dumb. You were clueless. You were naive. It's embarrassing for you.



Silver Cat said:


> , and I clearly demonstrated that there is a technical opportunity for it, and such operations are performed regulary.


No you didn't, you posted some manual from another system then just made assumptions, kind of like the one that made you such a laughingstock here about the F-35s and F-15s dropping JDAMs you assumed were dumb bombs. Yes, we're still laughing at you over that.




Silver Cat said:


> I don't care do you believe me or not at least because your opinion does not matter.


Awww you going to take your ball and go home?


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 22, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Yes. Israel has no problem with Russian IADS because they don't try to attack Russian targets.


They attack targets defended by the greatly overhyped Russian IADS, and they've been doing it with impunity for decades. It's part of what makes you so funny on here babbling about how invincible Russian IADS, and when when you actually have to prove it you're suddenly talking about preemptive nuclear strikes and Scottish insurgents riding unicorns.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 22, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Ever hear of an organization called "NATO"?  So our European Friends don't have to go it alone anymore than the US does.  And, Comrade, I doubt if you HAVE any friends left in Europe these days.
> ...



Unless the Russians are right next door and then that graph changes fast.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 22, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


In what direction? They may join Russia as well.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 22, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Israel has no problem with Russian IADS because they don't try to attack Russian targets.
> ...


No. Iranian or even Syrian forces are not protected by the Russian IADS. Russia is neutral in Syria-Israel conflict. And yes, Israel is not the United Kingdom. They have better weapons and much more experienced forces.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 22, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



Ask Ukraine if they want to join Russia.   How about Georgia?  Or Poland or any of the other STans.  I think one or two might but the rest are scared to death of a Russian Invasion.  It's a pretty given fact that once you allow Russian troops into your country, you are now a Russian State and there is nothing you get to say about it after that.  NATO is much more positive than Russia is and it's more trusted.  And it's the only thing that stands in the way of Russia going any further than it's already gone.  The lines have been drawn.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 22, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > I know, that F-35  use unguided bombs for the terrain denial operations
> ...


No. It is you, who were naive. You saw a picture with JDAMs, you saw a video with blastes, and you decided, that the isle was bombed with JDAMs. 



> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > , and I clearly demonstrated that there is a technical opportunity for it, and such operations are performed regulary.
> ...


May be, I could show you more documents, if I was sure, that you curiousity is legal. But right now I'm certain it is not.




> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care do you believe me or not at least because your opinion does not matter.
> ...


No. I just said, that I know better.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 22, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Sometimes, the Russians can give the very convincing arguments, you know. So, what if we leave Europeans to their own? What if we'll be too busy with China? Will Europeans be a part of "Eurasian problem", or a part of its solution? Can they independently distract Russia from the Pacific war theatre and buy us some time to win the war against China or they prefer to make business, not war? Can they sacrifice themselves for the greater goal or they are too weak and selfish for this?


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 23, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think, that those little whores can be our friends?
> ...


No. Nukes is an important part of the most of my scenarios. Modern war is a nuclear war. And I don't say, that the Russian will destroy "all their aircraft". They hardly have more than few hundreds of tactical nukes in Kolosovka.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 23, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



There will be NO war between the US and China or Russia.  It's something that just can't happen.  The only war that can happen between any combination of those 3 would be nuclear.  And after one looks at the population and industrial makeup of all 3, while there would be no winners, the biggest losers would be Russian and China.  Again, there will be NO war in any combination between China, Russia nor the US.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 23, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



The first one to start throwing Nukes pisses off everyone else and that's not a scenario you nor anyone else wants to see.  Nukes are out.  And so is direct confrontation between the US, Russia and China in anything other than small skirmishes.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 23, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Does it mean, that you really believe, that:
1) Russia will never attack Turks, Baltic states or any other NATO members;
2) If Russia will attack them, the USA will not attack Russia?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 23, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



The US has already sunk billions of equipment in so that they can defend themselves.  And you will find that where ever there are US Troops, Russian doesn't attack.  We have troops in many of the Baltic States now.  That prevents an attack.  And Turkey can defend itself pretty well with all the billions the US and Nato have sunk into that country.  If Turkey feels that an attack is imminent, I am sure they are going to invite US Troops inside their borders.  

And it will be the US Troops defending themselves in contained battles that won't escalate into a full blown war.  Russia already felt the sting of the US in a heads up battle already.  300 dead Russians with Zero losses on the US side.  And a lot of back pedaling by Russia trying to disavow that attack.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 23, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > DrainBamage said:
> ...


Sure there are many scenarios of full-scale nuclear exchanges. And what "everyone else" can do about it?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 23, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



And not one has anyone winning anything.  Pretty much, the only Government that would survive would be what's left of the America's Government.  China and Russia wouldn't have a government at all.  And neither would most of the countries in the world outside of some out of the way 3rd world countries.  And how long they would last is questionable.  Russia and China will lose almost their entire Industrial Complex and over 95% of their population in the short and long term.  The US will lose about 85%.  

All of a sudden, Arizona becomes cooler, rains more and becomes the new grain belt.  In Russia, they completely lose their entire bread basket.  It will take the US at least a decade, maybe 2 decades to dig it's way  out but Russia and China will be closer to 100 years.  Russia and China will know how to make the wheel they just won't have the industry to actually make them.

NOBODY want's MAD to be done.  And if it's done, although the US will fare slightly better, if a nuclear bomb goes off, I want to be at the direct center of it because it would be more humane.  If you can't see that then you are a fool.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 23, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> The US has already sunk billions of equipment in so that they can defend themselves.  And you will find that where ever there are US Troops, Russian doesn't attack.


Do you remember Korean War, Vietnam War?


> We have troops in many of the Baltic States now. That prevents an attack.


And what if not? What, if the Russians will attack anyway and kill all our soldiers in Lithuania? Should we escalate or de-escalate the conflict?



> And it will be the US Troops defending themselves in contained battles that won't escalate into a full blown war.  Russia already felt the sting of the US in a heads up battle already.  300 dead Russians with Zero losses on the US side.  And a lot of back pedaling by Russia trying to disavow that attack.


And what if next time our soldiers will be killed? Should we try to disavow this conflict or escalate it?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 23, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > The US has already sunk billions of equipment in so that they can defend themselves.  And you will find that where ever there are US Troops, Russian doesn't attack.
> ...



If it happens, it's going to be a mistake and Russia is going to backpedal hard.  The last thing they want is a limited war with the US with US Casualties.  The US won't just pull out, the US will ship in more and more.  If you knew anything about the Russian Training for their conscripts you would know that they should hardly be considered a professional Military.  Don't take the Spec Ops you see of the Russians and think that's what the rest of them are like.  Meanwhile, the US Troops are all Professionals.  This is what was demonstrated in Syria already when the Russians attack the US positions.  300 dead Russians with zero American losses.  Russia was met by a buzzsaw.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 23, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> And not one has anyone winning anything.


Nucleophobia detected. Highly depends on your definition of the term "victory".



> Pretty much, the only Government that would survive would be what's left of the America's Government.  China and Russia wouldn't have a government at all.


It depends.



> And neither would most of the countries in the world outside of some out of the way 3rd world countries.  And how long they would last is questionable.


There are more than 2 million cities and towns in the world and a bit more than 3 thousands of strategic nuclear warheads. One warhead for 666 targets. Certainly, it is not "end of civilisation".



> Russia and China will lose almost their entire Industrial Complex and over 95% of their population in the short and long term.  The US will lose about 85%.


From where did you get this percents? Even "Mad Butcher" scenario gives near 30% losses.



> All of a sudden, Arizona becomes cooler, rains more and becomes the new grain belt.  In Russia, they completely lose their entire bread basket.


Ha! Their "bread basket" is Ukraine and Middle Asia.



> It will take the US at least a decade, maybe 2 decades to dig it's way  out but Russia and China will be closer to 100 years.  Russia and China will know how to make the wheel they just won't have the industry to actually make them.


Really? What about Europe or India?



> NOBODY want's MAD to be done.  And if it's done, although the US will fare slightly better, if a nuclear bomb goes off, I want to be at the direct center of it because it would be more humane.  If you can't see that then you are a fool.


If you can "see" it, you are a hallucinating environmentalist like a Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 24, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> No. Iranian or even Syrian forces are not protected by the Russian IADS. Russia is neutral in Syria-Israel conflict.


Russian equipment, ditzo.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 24, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> No. It is you, who were naive. You saw a picture with JDAMs, you saw a video with blastes, and you decided, that the isle was bombed with JDAMs.


Actually there are articles that describe the weapons as JDAMs and showed  pictures of them loading said JDAMs onto aircraft for the mission you showed in your video. You're acting like a child trying to latch on to this ridiculous notion that they had F-35s dropping unguided bombs because it's horribly embarrassing that you actually believed. You should just tattoo "I don't know what I'm talking about" on your forehead.




Silver Cat said:


> May be, I could show you more documents, if I was sure, that you curiousity is legal. But right now I'm certain it is not.


Ahh so you could have shown documents on UAI but instead decided to post something else entirely?  You're a joke.




Silver Cat said:


> No. I just said, that I know better.


Says they moron who believed JDAMs were dumb bombs, and that of all the aircraft that are capable of dropping dumb bombs they decided to chickenwire F-35s to do so. Bad combination = naive + stubborn


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 24, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> No. Nukes is an important part of the most of my scenarios.


Well at least they became that way after you couldn't bluff your way into making a convincing argument.

You: NATO could not defeat might S-400!
SanePeople: Sure they could, with all these aircraft and weapons
You: No those weapons were already nuked

Cop-out much?



Silver Cat said:


> Modern war is a nuclear war. .


Except for the past 75 years that have proven you wrong.


----------



## DrainBamage (Feb 24, 2020)

Once again, since Silver Cat is still in denial, about the bombing of Qanus Island:

_Official pictures that accompanied the press release did show F-35As and F-15Es, both of which are presently forward deployed to Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, taking part in the operation. There are also presently Air Force B-52H bombers deployed to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which would have been well suited to this mission, but there is no indication that they participated. The F-15Es appeared to be carrying loads of at least five 2,000-pound class GBU-31/B Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) GPS-guided bombs. The Joint Strike Fighters had their external wingtip rails for the AIM-9X Sidewinder fitted, but did not appear to be carrying any of those air-to-air missiles. They were not carrying any other external ordnance, suggesting that they were likely each carrying two additional GBU-31/Bs. _

Yet Silver Cat is still insisting they were unguided munitions. Hilarious.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 25, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > And not one has anyone winning anything.
> ...



You are doing it again.  You only factor in the initial damage.  You don't figure in the "Day After" and the weeks, months and years after that.  Yes, only 30% will actually die on the initial barrage.  But after that, it's going to be a slow death for as many as 95% of Russia and China population while the US will be in the upwards of 85%.  You really need to look at the concentration of population of Russia and China versus the US.  The US is spread out a lot more and will fare better.  The US will still fare poor but not as disastrous as Russia and China.  It's a war that no one will win, period.  And it keeps the Russians, Chinese and the US from directly confronting each other to prevent it escalating to that level.


----------



## MAGAman (Feb 25, 2020)

A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 27, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Once again, since Silver Cat is still in denial, about the bombing of Qanus Island:
> 
> _Official pictures that accompanied the press release did show F-35As and F-15Es, both of which are presently forward deployed to Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, taking part in the operation. There are also presently Air Force B-52H bombers deployed to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which would have been well suited to this mission, but there is no indication that they participated. The F-15Es appeared to be carrying loads of at least five 2,000-pound class GBU-31/B Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) GPS-guided bombs. The Joint Strike Fighters had their external wingtip rails for the AIM-9X Sidewinder fitted, but did not appear to be carrying any of those air-to-air missiles. They were not carrying any other external ordnance, suggesting that they were likely each carrying two additional GBU-31/Bs. _
> 
> Yet Silver Cat is still insisting they were unguided munitions. Hilarious.


Oh, man... Such articles are written not be be literally "believed", but to "deliver messages".
For example, there is an interesting article in TheGuardian:
US staged 'limited' nuclear battle against Russia in war game
"*US staged 'limited' nuclear battle against Russia in war game*


The Pentagon has briefed about the simulated exchange in a move that could signal readiness to fight and win nuclear conflict

Julian Borger in Washington

Mon 24 Feb 2020 23.14 GMTLast modified on Tue 25 Feb 202018.55 GMT

Shares
659




The US conducted a military exercise last week which simulated a “limited” nuclear exchange with Russia, a senior Pentagon official has confirmed.

The war game is notable because of the defence department’s highly unusual decision to brief journalists about the details and because it embodied the controversial notion that it might be possible to fight, and win, a battle with nuclear weapons, without the exchange leading to an all-out world-ending conflict.

The exercise comes just weeks after the US deployed a new low-yield submarine-launched warheadcommissioned by Donald Trump, as a counter to Russian tactical weapons and intended to deter their use.

Acording to a transcript of a background briefing by senior Pentagon officials, the defence secretary, Mark Esper, took part in what was described as a “mini-exercise” at US Strategic Command in Nebraska. Esper played himself in the simulated crisis, in which Russia launched an attack on a US target in Europe.

“The scenario included a European contingency where you are conducting a war with Russia, and Russia decides to use a low-yield limited nuclear weapon against a site on Nato territory,” a senior official said. “And then you go through the conversation that you would have with the secretary of defense and then with the president, ultimately, to decide how to respond.”

The official said that “in the course of [the] exercise, we simulated responding with a nuclear weapon”, but described it as a “limited response”.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 27, 2020)

MAGAman said:


> A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.


You see, Russia with its poor economic is not a great threat by itself. China with its poor military force is not a threat, too. But together they are a threat. Shanghai Pact (SCO), is the clear and present danger.







The SCO is widely regarded as the "alliance of the East", due to its growing centrality in Asia-Pacific, and has been the primary security pillar of the region. It is the largest regional organisation in the world in terms of geographical coverage and population, covering three-fifths of the Eurasian continent and nearly half of the human population.
---------------------------


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 27, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Oh, my. The level of thirty percent casualties can be reached only in Russia-USA "mad butchers" exchanges. But, the most common idea is that the full-scale nuclear war is a world war, at least "NATO vs CSTO" or "NATO+ vs SCO". And in a world war we have to divide 7000 warheads against 2 000 000 cities and towns.
Another moment, that not all warheads will hit their targets - some of them will be eliminated by the enemies strikes, some - intercepted by ABD, some - failed because of tech problems.
And the most important moment, is that "Mad Butcher" plans are loser's plans. Just imagine two states: "Ursia" and "Pindosia" going to nuke each other. They can optimise their nuclear attack plans to kill maximum of the opponent's civilians, to destroy his industry or eliminate his military force.
For example Ursia choose to kill 30% of Pindosia's civilians, and Pindosia choose to eliminate Ursia's Army. At the next turn almost intacted Pindosian Army invade defenceless Ursia and genocide 100% of the Ursian population. Pindosia win.
Certainly, the real life is much more complicated, but it is not a big secret, that the reasonable warplans of the nuclear states are not focused on the mass murder of civilians.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 28, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> You: NATO could not defeat might S-400!
> SanePeople: Sure they could, with all these aircraft and weapons
> You: No those weapons were already nuked


No. Anybody can defeat S-400 (and any other target), even an almost unarmed guerillas. The only questions is how exactly do it, what forces you need for it and what tactic should you choose.
There are several possible ways to defeat Kaliningrad's defence region (even for "European Army"), but airstrike is definetly not one of them.


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Modern war is a nuclear war. .
> ...


No. There were no big war because of the clear understanding, that the modern war is a nuclear war. The nuclear deterrence, you know.


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 28, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > No. Iranian or even Syrian forces are not protected by the Russian IADS. Russia is neutral in Syria-Israel conflict.
> ...


You see, Iranian proxies overhelm USA-Israelis IADS sometimes, too. It's just a local game - exchange with missiles strikes without any significant result. "Disturbing fire" and "reconnaissance by combat". 
The Jews can't use their aviation in Syrian or Iranian airspace as free as they wish, and the Arabs and Persians can't use their aviation in the Jewish airspace as free as they wish. "IADS in being", you know.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Feb 29, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



The Israelis know that in order to not set off the tinderbox, they need to show restraint.  So they do what they must do to keep their borders safe from the Iranians.  That means keeping an area that they need for refueling to strike or recon Iran clear of any and all missile sites.  And it doesn't matter if it's a Syrian or an Iranian missile site.  It gets taken out.  The Russians know this and make sure they don't feed that tinderbox.  But it doesn't stop the Russians from selling the Syrians the hardware.  

As for Arab or Syrian Air Power operating in Israel, that just isn't happening.  The closest thing to that would be some fringe groups lobbing a few unguided rockets and mortars in annoyance attacks.  Iran supports those fringe groups.  Israel knows who the real enemy is.  And it's not really Syria nor an Arab State.  If you care to check, neither Syria nor Iran are Arabs.  And if either of them wants to get burnt real bad, they know all they have to do is start flying in Israel air space.  BTW, in order for Iran to do this, they also would need refueling bases.  Not Air to Air Refueling like the Israelis, but Iran would need to have refueling bases in Syria.  Israel just won't let that happen.


----------



## Silver Cat (Mar 2, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > DrainBamage said:
> ...



It is not relevant. Ok. Lets compare two examples - Russia and Israel. Russia is interested in killing Turkish and Saudies proxies in Syria and desroying their facilities. Israel is interested in killing Iranian proxies in Syria and destroying their facilities.
Targets are equal. Russia use two dumb bombs FAB-500 (price - $100 each when they were new fifty years ago, now - less than zero)  to destroy a weapons warehouse. $100×2=$200. IAF needs to launch twenty AGM-142 ($1500000 each) to destroy a same target (with 50/50 odds) 20×M1,5=$30M. 
Do you see the difference? So, why the expences are so different? Yes, it is result of IADS existence. So, Syrian IADS is rather effective. Israel can't bomb Syrian targets as often as Russia do, so the most of Turkish and Saudies proxies are killed, and most of Iranian proxies are still alive.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Mar 3, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



I think the difference is to whom the Russians have supplied the good stuff.  They have provided the good stuff to Syria but not Iran.  Meanwhile, the Israelis don't need to spend that 150K per hit.  They can do the same job with JDAMs at 27000 a copy.  And Israel has plenty of those.  Much more than either Syria or Iran has launchers.  Yes, Russia can do it cheaper but not without raising the hackles of the rest of the entire world.  Israel can attack Iran inside Syria and the only other country that will raise a stink will be Syria and they really don't want to get too antsy on their response.  

The problem with attacking the Iranian Proxies is that they are mixed in with the various populations and Israel has to tread carefully in order to not raise the ire of the Arab Nations.  And if Russia decides to attack Turk sites then they lose not only the support of most of the rest of the world but also the entire Arab Nations.  

You paint a nice and tidy picture but I do wish it were that simple.  It's not.


----------



## Silver Cat (Mar 5, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


1.As far as I know, the Jews very rarely use JDAMs in Syria. They rarely, and, looks like unsuccessfuly use even local SDBs. Their main munition are CMs, launched from outside Syrian airspace. 
2. No problem. Russian Airforce attacked Turk's sites in Syria, and Erdogan capitulated. EU was impressed and decided to improve relationships with Russia.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Mar 7, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



Not so simple, is it.


----------



## Silver Cat (Mar 8, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Any simulation is a simplication.


----------



## Silver Cat (Mar 19, 2020)

There is a funny promoting video from LaMers: "Give us more money, and may be, your F-35 will be able to fight S-400"


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Mar 19, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> There is a funny promoting video from LaMers: "Give us more money, and may be, your F-35 will be able to fight S-400"



Thank  you for showing why we can defeat the S-400 system even on a bad day.  Hell, we can do it even better on a bad day.  They same can't be said for the operations of the S-400.


----------



## Silver Cat (Mar 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > There is a funny promoting video from LaMers: "Give us more money, and may be, your F-35 will be able to fight S-400"
> ...


Watch the video one more time and try to understand what exactly they had demonstrated.
First of all, they show a preemptive strike against Russian Yars-complex, protected by S-400. Forgot about your nucleophobia, it's not in the fashion anymore. Both sides are openly preparing for the nuclear war, started with a sudden nuclear (mostly counter-force) strike.
Second - they don't suggest already working solution, they "are working" for it.
Third, Russian Iskanders have much more chances to hit a Patriot-defended airbase with American B-61-12 nukes, than F-35 with fururistic UAVs - S-400 defended Yars position.
Fourth, it's a promotion video, reality is much more complicated.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Mar 19, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



You missed the penetration radar where they followed the holes that the F-35 created so the B-2 can get through as well as Gen 4 birds.  It's not just about Nukes.


----------



## Silver Cat (Mar 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


At what exactly second did you see B-2, or F-35, creating holes?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Mar 19, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



You didn't pay attention to the Radar Bubbles and the penetrating Aircraft flying around them (between the holes).


----------



## Silver Cat (Mar 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


I paid enough attention to it. 
There was no any B-2, and nobody "created" holes in the Air Defence.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Mar 19, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



If you studied the radar bubbles you would see holes in it.  Those holes create corridors which the 4th and 5th gen birds can evade detection.  Birds like the F-35, F-22 and others can see those holes and help others through them.  The F-22 and F-35 can create those holes by taking out select radar installations.  

In Syria or anywhere else in the Middle East, there are glaring holes or corridors that are open.  There just aren't enough decent Radar Installations to plug all the holes.  Even Russia doesn't have enough to plug all their own holes in Mother Russia and neither does the US in Saudi Arabia.  You can add Israel to that same list.  The 5th Gen F-22, F-35 and B-2 can see those open corridors and fly through them uncontested.  The reason you can't see them is that they know where you are looking and where you aren't looking.


----------



## Silver Cat (Mar 21, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Sure. They can find a hole and bomb a farm with few deers, in the theory. In the practice of war, we need to attack important targets, and those important targets are often well-defended.
Returning to Defender-2020. Can our (and European) F-35 eliminate IADS in Kaliningrad region in the reasonable time, and allow previous generations aviation to destroy their Iskanders, airbases, tanks and so on, and then to help the Baltic States, or we have to find other ways (for example, Polish Zerg Rush)?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Mar 21, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



In one word, Yes.  This is why the AF F-35A is doing practices in non nato countries as I type this.  The F-35A gets to practice against Russian made equipment in real time.  Maybe not the S-400 but what they will be face with most.  You honestly believe that Russia has the funds to field all that many S-400?  They can barely afford the gas for the trucks to deliver them.  Meanwhile, the US and others are fielding more and more F-35As.  With the cost of crude down as it is, Russia is in serious trouble once again.  They can't even afford to buy enough uniforms for their military to wear.


----------



## Silver Cat (Mar 21, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


In one word, No. There are two Air Defence Brigades (six regiments) on the tiny plot of land 105x208 km. And yes, I'm sure they are pretty real.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Mar 21, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



That won't even slow the F-35, F-22 or the B-2 down.  There is going to be a swath cut right down the middle.


----------



## harmonica (Mar 21, 2020)

MAGAman said:


> A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.


???!!!.....they withstood Germany and Germany's Aliies
..tiny North Vietnam withstood the MIGHTY US for a VERY long term conflict AND Vietnam withstood and defeated France....with France and the US using much:
 more sophisticated/more lethal/etc weapons
Naval and air supremacy 
..stone age Afghanistan withstood the MIGHTY Britain and Russia


----------



## harmonica (Mar 21, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> > and as of AGM-88E you've got to move it pretty far since they added a millimeter wave radar that will search for objects that looks like IADS components
> ...


..I would say there are not too many ''dumb'' military pilots .....especially regarding air support ......the US had ''dumb'' pilots bomb their own troops in the Vietnam War .....they move fast--that's why they called them ''fast movers''' ...it's not easy putting dumb bombs *on target*--no matter who the pilot is ....
..maybe pilots with more training are better 

...they usually don't put dumb people in a multi-million $ aircraft !


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 20, 2020)

ChinSwee said:


> S-400 missiles can hit targets 400 kilometers away. No fighter jets can fire missiles 400 kilometers away.
> 
> Stealth is the only sophisticated feature that will save F-35 jets from Russian S-400 missiles. Many countries are buying S-400s when many countries are buying F-35 stealth jets.



Not really, that is only the top theoretical range, assuming everything is working just perfectly.

As in the RADAR is located on a high location, with nothing obstructing it's line of sight out to that distance.  But you rarely have that, you often have these really annoying things like "mountains", "buildings", and other things obstructing your line of sight.

Then you have to factor in ground clutter.  When configuring the RADAR< it is normal to put in a "minimum scanning altitude", so you do not get random reflections from the ground giving you false readings.  Otherwise, things like cars, trucks, large flocks of birds, and even random artifacts will appear on the screen as "targets".

And of course enemies will be using things like ECM and terrain in order to get as close as they can.

That "400km" is highly theoretical.


----------



## Scamp (Jun 15, 2020)

Unanswered Israeli Air Strikes Against Syria Raise S-400 Questions - Breaking Defense
					

The first signs of dissatisfaction with the Russian air defense systems came on May 1 when the Syria Direct website ran a story quoting what was described as a Syrian military source who criticized the S-300 air defense systems supplied by Russia.




					breakingdefense.com
				



*Unanswered Israeli Air Strikes Against Syria Raise S-400 Questions*

 "The attacks continue apace this year with Syrian air defense forces having launched more than 1,000 surface-air missiles to try and foil the repeated Israeli attacks. They’ve had little effect so far."


----------



## Silver Cat (Jul 10, 2020)

The new collection of essays from Swedish Defence Research Agency. 








						Beyond Bursting Bubbles – Understanding the Full Spectrum of the Russian A2/AD Threat and Identifying Strategies for Counteraction
					

States with the ability to use a combination of sensors and long-range missiles to prevent adversaries from operating and thus creating an exclusion zone, are said to possess anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities. This collection of essays uses our previous FOI report on Russian A2/AD...




					www.foi.se
				




*Beyond Bursting Bubbles – Understanding the Full Spectrum of the Russian A2/AD Threat and Identifying Strategies for Counteraction*

*Abstract*
States with the ability to use a combination of sensors and long-range missiles to prevent adversaries from operating and thus creating an exclusion zone, are said to possess anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities. This collection of essays uses our previous FOI report on Russian A2/AD capabilities (Bursting the Bubble) as a point of departure. Ten experts analyse five themes: Russian A2/AD capabilities today and in the future; options for counter-A2/AD operations in Europe; concepts for defending or reconquering territory under a hostile A2/AD umbrella; different approaches to managing the long-range precision strike threat; and the impact of A2/AD on the balance of power in Europe. The study does not arrive at any single, overarching conclusion, but there is significant convergence of views amongst a majority of the authors. On the one hand, Russia cannot create impenetrable "bubbles" where NATO forces cannot operate. On the other hand, counter-A2/AD operations are complex, requiring significant assets and capabilities, and carry significant risk of high attrition rates. The critical factors are the assets required, expected attrition rates, the time frames needed - and political will to shoulder costs and risks. A majority of the authors also argue that Russian A2/AD would be at its most troublesome during a short, sharp war, making well-rehearsed countermeasures essential. Compared to Bursting the Bubble, the multi-domain character of counter-A2/AD operations, including i.a. electronic warfare and non-military means, is emphasised, thus deepening the granularity of the analyses. Considerable uncertainty or disagreement remains on topics such as the level of integration within Russian air defences, the impact of stealth, and electronic warfare.


----------



## Sonc (Oct 15, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Russia already felt the sting of the US in a heads up battle already. 300 dead Russians with Zero losses on the US side. And a lot of back pedaling by Russia trying to disavow that attack.


They were mercenaries.


----------



## Sonc (Oct 15, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> You are not giving the F-35B the benefit of it's cross section.  Yes, the S-400 has that kind of range but that's against a 3rd or regular 4th gen bomber.  Fighters (even 4th gen) will be harder to see and harder to hit.  And 5th gen (real ones not fake ones) will even get closer before detected and then be even harder to hit.  Since both are "Sooper Secrit" the only way to know is for the Russians and the US to do battle and I don't see that happening anytime soon without a lot of debrea outside my window.


1) F117 was shot down by the s-125 system
The difference between an airplane and a rocket is 20 years (the radar was older)

2) I don't know why you are talking about the S-400?




__





						S-500 missile system - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




3) Why are you talking ONLY about s-400?
Air defense consists of many elements








						Beriev A-50 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				











						S-350E Vityaz 50R6 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



Buk M1-2-3








						Pantsir missile system - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				











						Krasukha (electronic warfare system) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Dayton3 (Oct 15, 2020)

Not a single surface to air (SAM) missile system,  especially not Russian (Soviet) ones has ever worked even remotely as well as claimed.


----------



## Sonc (Oct 15, 2020)

DrainBamage said:


> Oh yeah Pantsir, which became the laughingstock after Israel put a weapon into the driver's side window.
> 
> UAWire - Experts: Pantsir-S1 air defense systems unable to protect Russian base in Syria
> The Pantsir-S1 anti-air missile systems which are deployed in Russia’s Khmeimim air base in Syria are useless, according to the post published on the Telegram channel "Military Journalists". A similar statement was earlier posted on Facebook by Viktor Murakhovsky, a well-known Russian military expert and editor-in-chief of the "Arsenal of the Fatherland" journal.
> ...





Dayton3 said:


> Not a single surface to air (SAM) missile system,  especially not Russian (Soviet) ones has ever worked even remotely as well as claimed.


ага))







Just open the list of US air losses in Vietnam and Iraq 91.
See the composition of the Iraqi air defense
f16 (74 y) VS S-75 (57 y)


dfd


About drones - now it's a problem for everyone.
_The Abqaiq oil facility was protected by three Skyguard short-range air defense batteries.[14] Neither the Skyguards nor the other Saudi air-defense weapons — MIM-104 Patriot and Shahine (Crotale) — are known to have brought down any of the attacking weapons









						Abqaiq–Khurais attack - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





*Now there is a new concept for short-range air defense - 57 mm projectiles with controlled detonation.*_


----------



## Dayton3 (Oct 15, 2020)

Sonc said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yeah Pantsir, which became the laughingstock after Israel put a weapon into the driver's side window.
> ...



aircraft losses in no way means a SAM system works well or remotely as claimed. 

If you launch 5,000 missiles and down a handful of attacking aircraft it means nothing.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 15, 2020)

Sonc said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > You are not giving the F-35B the benefit of it's cross section.  Yes, the S-400 has that kind of range but that's against a 3rd or regular 4th gen bomber.  Fighters (even 4th gen) will be harder to see and harder to hit.  And 5th gen (real ones not fake ones) will even get closer before detected and then be even harder to hit.  Since both are "Sooper Secrit" the only way to know is for the Russians and the US to do battle and I don't see that happening anytime soon without a lot of debrea outside my window.
> ...



How to shoot down a F-117.

Know the exact time it's going to be in exactly the right coordinates
Know the exact flight plan
Know the exact altitude
Narrow your Antennae search down to a very tight search area
Use more than a few Radar Sites to increase the chances for a lock on

I use directional Antenna all the time.  I can use an Omni like many radar sites use which covers a broad area but spreads it's signal over a wide area but is weak.  Or I can use a directional and get a stronger signal over a narrower beam that has a longer range.  I can also use overlapping antenna to increase the chances of station detections.  It works both ways.  And that is how they brought down one F-117.  It was more on the stupidity of the management of the Flights of the F-117 than the brilliance of the Radar Sites.  This is why the same plane was much more successful against the Iraqis in 1991 because they didn't fly the same profile, the same speed, the same pathway, same altitude, the same time each and every day.  

Comparing the F-117 (which has radar signature about the size of a baseball) to a B-2, F-22 or F-35 which has the radar signature of a Hummingbird means that the modern 5th gen will be able to safely get a lot closer for attack.  In the F-35As case, the targets they are going to initially be going after are the radar and missile sites enabling the 4th gen fighters to operate in the area.


----------



## justinacolmena (Oct 15, 2020)

ChinSwee said:


> F-35 stealth jets


"Based" in Alaska, it is rumored. Manufactured? I really don't know of any such facilities or activities on an adequate scale in the entire state.

Either Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks or Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson near Anchorage. Pit stops on the way to Russia.


----------



## Silver Cat (Oct 15, 2020)

Dayton3 said:


> Sonc said:
> 
> 
> > DrainBamage said:
> ...


The main goal of Air Defence is not "down aircrafts". The main goal is to not allow an enemy to work more or less freely in your airspace against your sites and forces. When the Russians want to destroy a site of pro-Turkish militants in Syria - they use few cheap iron bombs, then control results and repeap if there are some survivors. When the Jews want to destroy a site of pro-Iranian militants in Syria - they can't use cheap bombs, they have to launch very expensive missiles from a large distance.

The main goal of Russian S-400 in Kaliningrads region is not to defend it forever. There is no unbreakable defence, you know. All they need - to buy time for missile launch and deployment of troops.


----------



## Sonc (Oct 16, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> How to shoot down a F-117.
> 
> Know the exact time it's going to be in exactly the right coordinates
> Know the exact flight plan
> ...


What are you comparing?
This situation is 1 on 1.
I may be wrong, but in my opinion you were interested in this particular situation.

On the one hand, a super-modern, expensive stealth plane ... on the other ... decommissioned war junk.
These missiles have expired. They are 20 years old. One of the missiles flew close to the plane (the pilot saw it) and did not explode ...
(Radar was 30 years old)!
These were not only the old, but also the cheapest missiles ... with a semi-active guidance system.
These are weapons that were given away because they are cheaper than properly disposed of.



Daryl Hunt said:


> the targets they are going to initially be going after are the radar and missile sites enabling the 4th gen fighters to operate in the area.


How does the pilot know where the radar is?
How does he know how many radars are in the area?
How does he know the number of launchers in the area and their location?

(There are mobile radars of various capacities).
1
2


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Oct 16, 2020)

ChinSwee said:


> S-400 missiles can hit targets 400 kilometers away. No fighter jets can fire missiles 400 kilometers away.
> 
> Stealth is the only sophisticated feature that will save F-35 jets from Russian S-400 missiles. Many countries are buying S-400s when many countries are buying F-35 stealth jets.


F35 is over ..some were even laughing that the pentagon built the f35 to throw the world off

Cause what they have in the pipeline is simply revolutionary 









						United States Has Flown A Brand-New Fighter Jet
					

Several defense industry outlets are reporting that the United States Air Force has flown a new fighter jet.




					www.planeandpilotmag.com
				




Several defense industry outlets are reporting that the United States Air Force has flown a next-gen fighter, which has already broken several records on its first flights. The remarkable thing? No one knew anything about it until Tuesday. Here’s what we know now.

And be forewarned: It’s not much. We know, according to multiple sources, that it was developed in secret (duh) and that the program is being conducted unlike any before it, using extensive computer modeling, cutting-edge tool creation and small batch production methods. It’s being referred to as a sixth-gen fighter, which means it’s more advanced than the F-35 Lightning or the F-22 Raptor.

The chi coms are nothing but annoying buzzing little flys


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 16, 2020)

Sonc said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > How to shoot down a F-117.
> ...



One on One is not how war is fought.  There will never be One Aircraft or even one type of Aircraft.  Just like there will never be one Defending Radar Platforms.  You keep using 1 on 1 which rarely exists.

For instance, here are the types of defense Radar that may be encountered.

1.  Fighters.  These are actually the worst radar platforms.  They have the worst cross section in the nose which the radar they give off is very short ranged.  The only good the have is that they are airborne.  But the limiting factor is still you only have X number of space to place a Radar Array.  Usually no more than 3 feet.  And effective Radar requires power, lots of power which fighters are limited.

2,  Ground based.  Ground based have the power but are limited to the curvature of the earth.  Usually, they are limited to about 400 miles max if things are over the water.  Over the land, it's much shorter.  Land base may use the lower frequencies to locate possibles.  Those lower frequencies cannot be use for Identification or lockons.  In fact, they rely on certain design flaws in the Aircraft in order to get return signals.  When they do get a return, they have to rely on a shorter band radar to get identification.  The problem is, in order to get an ID on something like the F-35A they are also going to get signals from Sea Gulls, Bats, and other Flying Animals.  Now, they have to use even a shorter band radar to separate those natural flying animals from the real threats.  The good news is, it's usually done automatically where the Human isn't even aware that this is going on.  Meanwhile, the threat just gets closer and closer.  Yes, you may be able to pick up a F-16 up at 150 miles and know it's a F-16 but really can't fire on it until it hits within 50 miles.  Meanwhile, the F-35 may not be picked up and ID'd until 45 miles and you can't actually fire on him until under 35 miles.  The problem is, while the F-16 may be stopped, the F-35 has that 15 or more miles to come into his own attack range.  And the F-35A has fire and forget weapons that you are going to have to shut down systems and fire up others to deal with.  While ground Radar Sites are better they have one problem.  When in operation, they aren't mobile.  They have to be stationary.  But the ground radar is only limited by the power generators they have and have plenty of power.

Large Aircraft EW.  As a Radar Platform, the Large Aircraft like EWs have large arrays.  Okay, not as large as the Ground but they are yards wide instead of feet.  And they are in the air.  They have almost all the power the ground station has.  They aren't there to do anything themselves.  They are there to pass on their information to either smaller assets or ground assets who will do the actual attack.  Or they may be used by the Command Posts for planning.  Their biggest weakness?  They fly with a huge "Shoot Me" sign on them at all times.  

Large Stealth Bombers.  The Fighters have to take shortcuts to obtain Stealth.  But the bomber does not.  I won't go into all the things a bomber does to break up or redirect the radar signals but let's just say that every part of the bird is designed to redirect or absorb incoming radar including even the leading edges and intakes.  This is why the B-2 is as stealthy as the F-22 from the bottom, sides and the front.  From the top, not so much.  You just can't do as much with the intakes designed in the 80s.  I suspect that this will be addressed much better in the B-21.  This means that the B-2 can get within smart bomb range of almost every radar site in existence.  But they aren't going to use a 2 billion dollar Bomber when a 80 million dollar fighter can do the same job. 

Radar Sites won't go out of business.  Since only a handful of nations have real Gen 5 birds, the Radar Sites will still be effective.  Those sites have all but left the Gen 4 birds as flying coffins for those that don't have Gen 5 fighters to clean them out.  And even then, a lucky shot can be done even on a Gen 5 when he has some sort of damage like his weapons doors won't close or he's taken damage on his radar absorbing skin.  Or his Refueling Probe won't recess.  Maybe a panel has shifted and left a gap.  Welcome to Combat where shit happens.

How does a pilot know where the Radar Sites are?   Easy answer.  And this applies to almost every bird in the US Inventory and most of the front line birds in the Russian Inventory.  They just keep it up on their display.  That information is coming via a datalink from his own systems or someone elses including ground and air assets.  Even Naval and Satellites.  Again, in order to have a Ground Site on line, it's going to have to go stationary and go active.  At that point, he's lighting up the Sky, Ground and Space.  There are NEVER going to be stealthy ground Radar Sites.  And even if you are flying an Aircraft Fighter, flip on that Radar and you have given your entire history away from it almost down to what you had for breakfast.  Stealth War Planes fly with their Radar OFF and rely on other systems to see for them.  But on their own readouts, it reads like their radars were on.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 16, 2020)

Deplorable Yankee said:


> ChinSwee said:
> 
> 
> > S-400 missiles can hit targets 400 kilometers away. No fighter jets can fire missiles 400 kilometers away.
> ...



You know exactly what they want you to know.  Now, let's look at what makes up a 6th gen.

Stealth.  So does a 5th gen.  But even better. Using the F-35, instead of painting it on, you bake it into the structure.  The B-2 and F-22 spend about 2 days for every one day down for repair on their Stealth Painted Surfaces while the F-35 just gets a panel change.   Just an improvement

Able to handle Energy Weapons.  As the energy weapons come on line so will the F-35A and C.  The Fighter has to be so rediculously over powered that it has power to burn to use for electricity for the energy weapon.  The F-35 already meets that requirement.  But so does the B-2, B-1, B-52, AC-130 and a whole host of birds on both sides.  So it's just an improvement, not something new.

Linking to other AC and Swarms.  Considering the F-35 already has that capability, the only thing they are doing is improving on it.  But the Swarm is still under testing.  So they go for improvement only.

Notice, not one single mention of size or dogfighting capability.  There is a chance that the Gen 6 fighter will actually be larger than the Gen 5 fighter to the point of being the size of a Medium Bomber.  That gets around many problems.  

But they ain't saying.  Or is what they ARE saying even true.


----------



## Sonc (Oct 16, 2020)

Dayton3 said:


> Sonc said:
> 
> 
> > DrainBamage said:
> ...


that means a 30-year-old system ... detects and shoots down the plane.

everything else is questions ...
the presence of  reconnaissance aircraft
Their quality and quantity
High Command Training
Junior officer training
etc


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 16, 2020)

Sonc said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> > Sonc said:
> ...



Vietnam no longer is a good yardstick.   A lot of advances have happened to the point we can't use the Primitive Vietnam Era.


----------



## Sonc (Oct 16, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Sonc said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


I mean, the f-35's advantages are greatest when there is air combat.


If we consider the scenario of a ground operation ... 90% of success comes from reconnaissance. A simple example. If you see the Buk. Its range is 30 km. You don't need a stealth plane. You can take a hot air balloon and a rocket that will fly 30 km + 1 km. But if you don't know where the radars and launchers are .. the plane can be shot down from cheap MANPADS.




> How does a pilot know where the Radar Sites are?   Easy answer.


Why keep all the radars on?
You can keep several radars in one area ... but turn on in turn ...
Without reconnaissance, the pilot cannot be sure that the radar he sees is not a trap for him.


----------



## Sonc (Oct 16, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Meanwhile, the threat just gets closer and closer. Yes, you may be able to pick up a F-16 up at 150 miles and know it's a F-16 but really can't fire on it until it hits within 50 miles.


Why?








						Active radar homing - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				








Daryl Hunt said:


> Vietnam no longer is a good yardstick. A lot of advances have happened to the point we can't use the Primitive Vietnam Era.


But rockets from the primitive era shoot down planes 30 years younger.
Time has passed. Technology has evolved. But the principle hasn't changed.
A stealth plane pilot cannot operate without reconnaissance.
He does not know where they will shoot at him ... and where the previously invisible radar will turn on ...
And reconnaissance of the area covered by air defense is a problem.
Because "Their biggest weakness? They fly with a huge "Shoot Me" sign on them at all times."


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 16, 2020)

Sonc said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Sonc said:
> ...



Okay, let's look at modern Aerial Combat.  You have a flight of 5 F-35s against a flight of 5 SU-35s.  Coming in, it's now 5 F-35s against 4 SU-35s and then they merge.  At no time is it one on one.  It's going to be one side against the other side and EVERY bird can shoot down every other bird.  One may be twisting and turning with another but takes the shot on another bird twisting and turning with another.  The winners aren't going to be the best AC but the best pilots, weapons and electronics package.  And right now, the F-35A is top of the heap.  And it can turn and burn with a F-16C so it's not bad in the turn in burn category.  Yes, the SU-35 may or may not be better or worse but when you are also having to worry about everyone else bagging you then that will effect your performance drastically.  It may just come down to the Pilot at this point and all equipment and Voodoo bets are off.  Just remember this, the SU-35  will enter into the fight at a disadvantage from the very beginning and it's going to take one hell of a pilot to make that up.

Outside of mobile sites being mobile, both sides will know exactly where the other side has the ground installations so not having the Radar operating is not a plus.  And the second that mobile site goes active, it's no longer mobile.  The F-35A can fire much faster than the Mobile Site can at the F-35A.  The Mobile Site has to aquire the F-35A, ID and then lockon.  His missile must also aquire, lockon and maintain that lockon during the entire flight.  The F-35A just has to aquire the site and since the site isn't mobile and MUST maintain active, the F-35A uses the sites own radar signature to stay on target.  If the signal is lost, the Missile goes to the location of the last known signal.  Meaning, the site still gets hit.  The Ground Site doesn't have that benefit since the F-35A is constantly changing direction and altitude.  And that is giving the nod that the F-35A is within that distance that the ground site just can't miss.  When you are dealing with a flight of F-35As and a squadron of Ground Sites, the advantage will always be with the F-35A.  This is not to say that some F-35As won't be lost.  Shit happens in war.  But it's suffices to say that all the Radar Sites will be lost that turn on their Radar even intermittently.  It ain't Vietnam anymore.


----------



## Sonc (Oct 16, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Okay, let's look at modern Aerial Combat


1) Modern air combat does not imply close range.
2) How does this relate to the S-400?




> His missile must also aquire, lockon and maintain that lockon during the entire flight.


No=)



> The F-35A can fire much faster than the Mobile Site can at the F-35A


For *Active radar homing* (*ARH) needed *only an approximate area.

The rocket can be launched from a distance of 400 km. She goes much higher than the F35 flies.
the radiation power depends on the distance quadratically ...
Therefore, the closer she is to the plane, the better she sees.

You think the launcher is in the same place as the radar.
But it could be right under the plane.
Or 20 km behind. Or 10 km to the right.

Once again - without reconnaissance, the plane is like a man walking through a minefield.
He can prepare to attack an object 500 m away, but he will be shot at close range with a shotgun from around the corner.

Good air defense can only be overcome with "brute force". If in some region there are 300 air defense missiles ... then you need to launch 400 cruise missiles, and then planes.


----------



## Dayton3 (Oct 16, 2020)

Sonc said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, let's look at modern Aerial Combat
> ...



People love to use range as one of the great positives of various missile systems. 

But they ignore the obvious.   A SAM (or an AAM) with long range will be extremely low on energy and unmanuverable at the extreme limits of its range.   That's a simple matter of physics.    Which is one reason fighter pilots almost never launch a missile at the outer limits of the missiles range and expect it to get a kill.  

About the only time they do so is to force approaching attacking aircraft to at least break formation or ideally to jettison their war loads in order to evade.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 16, 2020)

Sonc said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, let's look at modern Aerial Combat
> ...



You only need to knock out the controlling centers.  Without the eyes and ears, those missiles are nothing more than expensive paper weights.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 16, 2020)

Dayton3 said:


> Sonc said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



I think the first time I heard of something like that was when Robin Olds got his Ace in one day.  Him and his wingman jumped about 50 Luftwaffe Fighters massing to attack a bomber fleet.  Olds and his wingman hit them hard in two passes, each one picking up X number of fighter hits.  Most of the enemy fighters didn't know what as going on, only that they knew that the guy next to him blew up (that 20mm cannon had that effect).  The entire gaggle broke formation.  The Bomber formation got through that day without enemy fighter indertiction.  All because two P-38s made a couple of high speed passes with guns.  

The same thing happens when that stealthy bird fires his missiles into an enemy flight.  It's going to turn from an orderly flight to a real Circle J*** fast when they start trying  to see and find the enemy fighter and they don't know what direction or altitude he is at.  And that is how the F-35A is going to enter the Frucus.  The SU-35 will enter into the frucus at a severe disadvantage.


----------



## Sonc (Oct 17, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Sonc said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



I have a feeling that you do not read what I write.
1) Using aircraft without reconnaissance is not effective and dangerous
2) reconnaissance of the area covered by air defense is a problem

In all the articles I read, the f-117 pilots said they were effective because of the great reconnaissance and planning work done. Each route was checked 3 times.

Therefore, the American tactics in this case is to deliver the first strike with cruise missiles. That the air defense would spend their missiles and find their positions.




> I think the first time I heard of something like that was when Robin Olds got his Ace in one day. Him and his wingman jumped about 50 Luftwaffe Fighters massing to attack a bomber fleet


What year was that?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 17, 2020)

Sonc said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Sonc said:
> ...



The downed F-117 was an series of blunders on the USAF part with a leftover plan from Vietnam plan plus some really good spying by the enemy.

1.  Flying the same flight profile each day at exactly the same route, same altitude, same speed, and same time each day.  Now, that was stupid with the Nickels and even dumber with the F-117.

2.  The Enemy had the information prior to the flight down to the last detail.  They were able to narrow their radar down to a pinpoint and fire at exactly the location of the F-117 at the exact time, altitude, speed and more.  The didn't even need a lock.  The F-117 was bagged due to the brilliant spy network of the serbs and the stupidity of the Americans.  This was not repeated 2 years later for Iraq where many more flights were done against an even more formitable ground missile defense and not one single F-117 was lost.  The Iraqis had to use their radar in a broad sweep which reduces the effective range and strength.

As for the year for the Olds P-38 attack, that was in early 1944 when the AAF were doing fighter sweeps ahead of the bombers using the two long ranged fighters on hand, the P-38J and the P-51B.


----------



## Dayton3 (Oct 17, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Sonc said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



If you look at the details of a vast number of losses to SAMs from the Vietnam War,  to Israel in the Middle East and up to the modern day you will find that in a lot of them they occurred mainly because the air force got lazy.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Oct 18, 2020)

harmonica said:


> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> > A really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.
> ...


Russia is a pale shadow of the WWII USSR.  And the only reason the USSR survived the first year of the German invasion is that the Germans sucked at logistics.  Most of the German army used horse drawn wagons to haul supplies.  As for the PRVN standing off the USA, that only happened because we allowed  the Soviets and Chinese a free hand in supplying the PRVN with everything from food to SAMs.  When we finally decided to close the rail links to China and block Haiphong harbor with mines, the PRVN begged to sign the Paris Peace Accords because they were out of munitions and the North Vietnamese population was nearing starvation.  The PRVN stood off the USA for the same reason the thirteen American Colonies stood off Great Britain;  the war wasn’t very important to the great power, it was unpopular at home, and the Colonies (and the PRVN) were receiving monetary and military support from a major power that was free from attack by the great power involved in the war.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Oct 18, 2020)

Sonc said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > How to shoot down a F-117.
> ...


A radar that isn’t emitting is useless.  Radar, like a flashlight can be seen far further than it can see.  On the modern battlefield, anything that can be seen can be destroyed.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 18, 2020)

AZrailwhale said:


> Sonc said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



I can see the other guys point of view.  Not with Russia and the US but with the North Koreans who hides much of their artillery and radar in caves along the DMZ.  At least that is what they want us to think.  They may have exactly what we think they have, they may have more, or they may have a ghost force with tatters of a real force.  The only way to know is to go into full scale attack.

The problem with that is, what happens if they really do have what we think they have.  They are just over 30 miles from the capital of South Korea with all that Artillery pointed at the highest population point in SK and the will to use it.  In essence, NK holds millions of SKs as hostage at this point.  If those systems were out in the open, it would be childs play to take them out before most of them could fire.  But they aren't out where they can be neutralized much less IDd and that poses a huge problem.  So the NKens do have systems that have their radar off and it's a trap.  One where both sides know it's a trap.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 18, 2020)

AZrailwhale said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > MAGAman said:
> ...


plain and simple --we ''lost'' in Nam--it was unwinnable
--Russia was too big with too big of a population for Germany to defeat
here is the thread on Nam


			Vietnam War was unwinnable


----------



## AZrailwhale (Oct 18, 2020)

harmonica said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


If we lost the Vietnam War, Why did the PRVN sign the Paris Peace Accords which accomplished none of their objectives?  The answer is that they wanted US troops out of Vietnam so they could renege on their promises, invade and conquer South Vietnam without having to fight the superior American troops.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 18, 2020)

AZrailwhale said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > AZrailwhale said:
> ...


hahahahhahahahahahahhahahahha
there is no more South Vietnam---we did not win the Vietnam War


----------



## harmonica (Oct 18, 2020)

AZrailwhale said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > AZrailwhale said:
> ...


..that's right--they DID conquer SV


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 18, 2020)

harmonica said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



Okay, let's look at the blunders.

The US Ground Pounders ALWAYS  defeated the enemy.  But the enemy was allowed to resupply over and over again.  Now we come to the real failure and that was in the Air Power both USAF and Navy (including Marines).  They were NEVER allowed to do what they knew how to do with the exception of the two Linebackers.  

We lost more F-105 Pilots than we had.  WE ended up training Cargo Pilots to pilot the Nickels.  Why was that?  The Nickels always flew the same racetrack flight paths at the same time every day.  All the enemy had to do is position their ground installations along those paths and wait.  There were viable targets that were placed off limits like Dams and Power Plants.  We didn't touch the railroad from China to Hanoi.  The Missions were micro managed by the McNamarra and Johnson.  Johnson even bragged about it.  Then came Nixon and Abrams.  Abrams was asked what they should do and he said, not in his exact words, do what you need to do.  That means, as of 1969, the Racetracks ended and we started hitting those off limits targets.  China was told that the Railroad was going to be destroyed.  They complained that the Railroad Workers were all Chinese.  Nixon told them they needed to get their Chinese Workers out of there if they didn't want to lose them.  All of a sudden, the resupplying was cut deeply and the Air Attacks could come at any time from any direction.  The NV had to cover a much larger area with their Sams and AAs.  All of a sudden, they weren't effective anymore.  And the Buffs started hitting hard as well.  In 1971, Abrams made the brag that he could fly in a Chopper anywhere in South Vietnam safely without fear of being shot down.  He was right.  And the Caches just outside of South Vietnam were being destroyed as they were being built up.   In late Dec 1972, Nixon allowed the USAF, Navy and Marines to do Linebacker II because the NV were refusing to go to the Paris Peace Talks.  It took them 11 days to decide to reenter the peace talks.  The War was won.

Now for how it was lost.  In the Peace Talks, the agreement didn't have anything preventing the NV from building up supplies and forces in Laos and Cambodia.  By then Laos had changed in government where it was sympathetic to the NV and not the SV.  Late 1972, the USAF was asked (demanded) to leave Laos.  And Cambodia didn't have much of a government to begin with to have any say in anything.  So in 1973, the US does a drastic troop reduction.  The US promised that we would resupply the SV and provide Air Power in the event of the NV attack.  

When the NV attacked with a well trained and battle hardened army of 550,000, they came up against a  1.3 million SV army.  The math falls apart on this one.  The SV had only enough rifles for 400,000 troops and enough ammo for a Mag for each one.  Plus, their Fuel for their trucks,tanks and recips were all but depleted.  They had almost no Jet Fuel either.  The promise of the resupply was withdrawn by Ford.  Plus, the Air Power that was sitting in Thailand wasn't used either.  I knew it was lost when a captured F-5 with a Red Star painted on it's tail attacked the SV Palace in Saigon.  The NV took those 2 years and built up hard in plain friggin sight.  

Ford, Congress and the American People threw the South Vietnamese under the bus.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 18, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > AZrailwhale said:
> ...


..what's your point?  the US could've won??!!


----------



## harmonica (Oct 18, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > AZrailwhale said:
> ...


.....no, the ground pounders didn't do it--the air and choppers provided a great advantage
..here, the ground pounders got pounded...then they had to use choppers/etc 
2 whole platoons decimated/plus
without air and choppers, it would've been worse 








						Operation Buffalo (1967) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## harmonica (Oct 18, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > AZrailwhale said:
> ...


without air and choppers, the ground pounders would've been in big trouble
..the NVA were good..greatly respected by the US forces 








						Battle of Ia Drang - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Dayton3 (Oct 18, 2020)

harmonica said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



No war is unwinnable.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 18, 2020)

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > AZrailwhale said:
> ...


hahahhahahahahahhaha
OBVIOUSLY they are
.....2 of the most powerful nations lost in Afghanistan --- !!!!! Britain and Russia......not 1 but 2!!!!!! explain that
....the US lost in Vietnam 
WW2 was unwinnable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dayton3 (Oct 18, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



What are you babbling about?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 18, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



The US could not win.  It never could win.  The only way for the US to win would be to completely take over SV like the French did.  Then, all of a sudden, even the friendlies ain't so friendly anymore.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 18, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



And vice versa.  Even today, there is NO Army that can go up against the full might of the US Army if you keep the Politicos out of it.  This is why on a unit of about 300 Russians tried and got eaten alive.  And then, to cover Russias ass, Russia announced they were mercenaries.  No Country or anyone wishes to go against the US Army in a open field battle.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 18, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



400 Marines afforded themselves very well against a much superior force.  And they not only kept the territory, they took territory.  

I was involved in an Overrun.  The Overrun failed.  They had more than 2000 NVA, we had about 100 on the line.  I was assigned to a bunker.  We shot, shot and shot.  It was so bad that we couldn't see what we were shooting at.  But with 2000+ targets, it wasn't hard to hit them.  And our M-60 went through many barrels.  I went through 6 M-16s.  You fired till it was empty, reloaded, fired till it was empty (wash, repeat....) until the barrel was glowing in the dark.  You threw the 16 out ahead of the Bunker and grabbed another one.....Wash, Rinse, repeat.....  There were M-16s, M-60s, M2s, M-203s being melted down to slag.  It wasn't until the next day that my hearing came back but it took a few days for the ringing to stop.

Unlike those marines, we were dug in and expected them.  Our losses?  I never asked.


----------



## Dayton3 (Oct 18, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



If we had flattened Hanoi in 1965 I would bet good money that the North Vietnamese would have thrown in the towel.    They would've spent the next ten years rebuilding their capital and would've had no energy to wage the war in South Vietnam.

With a ten year respite,  South Vietnam would probably have straightened itself out and been too strong for the communists to attempt to take over.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Dayton3 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


--you people don't know much about wars/history/etc--you think in TV/movie/unrealistic/one dimensional terms:
..I've been over this same thing a million times
....Germany was a much more industrious country than NVietnam--and we pounded the shit out of it!!! --and they did not surrender
..we destroyed almost all of Japan's major cities--and they did not surrender
...even after the A-bombs, the vote to surrender was tied 3-3 .....
..we pounded Iraq--no surrender
...we pounded the Taliban--no surrender 
NO--Hanoi would not have thrown in the towel

.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Dayton3 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


ever hear of Dresden or Hamburg????


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Marines should be capitalised
...the Marines got beat in the ambush at Buffalo 
...without air and choppers, the US ground pounders would've lost a lot more


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


omg
..you see, like I just said in another post--you people think in TV/movie/unrealistic/one dimensional/etc terms:
1. the military should NEVER be in charge of *POLITICS/POLITICAL *decisions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you are wrong--the politicos NEED to be involved
2. the military is subordinate to the politicians -for good reasons
3. most wars are CONTAINED/*RESTRICTED*--for GOOD--POLITICAL reasons
---most wars are NOT like WW2--where US military power could be used to it's greatest advantage
IE = the Brits were restricted in the Falklands
...you can't just '''flatten'' Hanoi---hahahah---there was a very good argument that the US was on the wrong side in Nam
...you can't just ''flatten'' Baghdad/Tehran/etc --*POLITICS* are GREATLY involved in these conflicts 
4. if you have ever read about history/wars/conflicts, it is much more complicated than just ''flattening'' this city or that city....
--much more to it than MILITARY power
5. [ etc etc ] the US military totally destroyed Iraq's military in PG1-----but look at the problems today!!!!!!!!!!!!!  hahahahhahaahah 
-this is a perfect analogy [ proof!! ] of what I am saying :  you could've destroyed the NVA and marched into Hanoi----but there would still be no win!!!!!!!!  just like in Iraq today
====there are very few examples of a country invading another and taking it over---changing it's POLITICS/etc = just like we see in Iraq AND Afghanistan
....US military power was supreme in Afghanistan -- but the problem still exists - just like it would in North Vietnam
etc etc etc


----------



## Dayton3 (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



I've taught virtually every history class offered for a dozen years.    And I don't get how you can say that Germany and Japan did not surrender.   They most certainly did.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Dayton3 said:
> ...


hhahah stop the bullshit---either you know what I mean, or you are not smart, or you are bullshitting:
you said if we '''flattened Hanoi'' they would surrender---NO Germany and Japan did not surrender after we ''flattened'' their cities


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Dayton3 said:
> ...


..and thank you----history classes are nowhere near anything like researching/etc wars/etc---they don't go into all the details


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Dayton3 said:
> ...


'''''''' Almost 16 square miles in and around the Japanese capital were incinerated, and between *80,000 and 130,000 *Japanese civilians were killed in the worst single firestorm in recorded history.'''''

no surrender





						Firebombing of Tokyo
					

On the night of March 9, 1945, U.S. warplanes launch a new bombing offensive against Japan, dropping 2,000 tons of incendiary bombs on Tokyo over the course of




					www.history.com
				



.


----------



## Dayton3 (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



Except I DID NOT SAY that the North Vietnamese would have "surrendered".    I said they would've "thrown in the towel".    By that I meant with their capital effectively destroyed (by effectively destroyed I mean 25-40% destroyed by the way) they would no longer have had the resources to provide much support to the  enemies of the South Vietnamese government and the South could've held on. 

Sorry I confused you.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

Dayton3 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



Johnson was too fearful that we could have another Korea on our hands.  He didn't do anything that might jepordize a single Chinese Citizens life.  And the Chinese Techs were well embedded into the NV area.  Johnson was in error as Nixon proved.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Dayton3 said:
> ...


hahhahahahahahhha
OMG
1. we bombed the shit out of German resources and they still continued fighting...ever hear of the Battle of the Bulge where they equipped *THREE *armies -in late 1944????!!!!!!
2. they were getting a lot of their resources from Russian and China!!! 
WOOOOHOOOOOOO
3. we bombed the shit out of Berlin---no surrender
''''''''''And yet Allied assaults [ bombing ] had no significant effect on German production until the last year of the war. German industry unexpectedly counterbalanced the destruction of a number of their plants by a further increase in productivity'''''
parentheses mine 

......I j*ust said it*--Germany was a much more industrious country than NVietnam---and you failed to comprehend the meaning of that 
...if it didn't significantly affect an industrious country--it surely won't affect NVietnam 





						The Bombing of Germany 1940-1945 - Centre for the Study of War, State and Society - University of Exeter
					






					humanities.exeter.ac.uk


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Dayton3 said:
> ...


---the South was shit-----they were never going to be able to defend themselves
read this








						A Bright Shining Lie - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



and:








						Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Dayton3 said:
> ...


hahahhahahahahah
the Germans and Japanese didn't throw in the towel either


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



You still don't get it.  We didn't have to flatten Hanoi.  Just remove it's war making capability and electric power.  It gets tough to follow and build war supplies when you can't run your cars, trucks, trains or even see at night.  Military Boycotts are a wonderful thing.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


Dayton said:
'''''If we had flattened Hanoi in 1965''''
....I just said it and YOU don't get it---we tried that with Germany and Japan--they did not surrender--they adapted
...they tried that!!   = to bomb the Ho Chi Minh Trail!!!!!!  didn't work
you are playing a board game like a kid does
.....you don't have ANY idea how wars/bombing/etc work
..they have more than 1 power grid --they will just rebuild whatever we destroyed
..why can't they run their cars and trucks?  they can rebuild their railroads

. ''''''In 1965 during the Vietnam War, it was the objective of many attacks by US Air Force and US Navy aircraft which would fail to destroy the bridge until 1972,* even after hundreds *of attacks''''

pay attention to the big, bold words





						Thanh Hóa Bridge - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



That's just one battle and the SV won it at a high cost.  You need to learn from your mistakes.  When Tet happened, the blood was sucked right out of the NVA.  They were never a viable force again after that.  The VC were NEVER SV, they were NVA sent down to terrorize the South and force young family members to fight for them at the fear of their families lives.  At some point, it got to be very suicidal for the NVA to send those "Representatives" down south as the villages would kill them.  This was the time to take it home to the North with taking out their dams, powerplants, manufacturing and transportations.  But Johnson wouldn't do it.  And many lives were lost in the process.  Yes, the Rolling Thunder should have been done in 1968 and continued until the North sued for peace.  Not surrendered, but sued for peace on the terms that gave SV a chance to establish itself as a viable nation.  

You keep saying that we had to win.  We weren't there to win.  We were there to stop Communism from flourishing, as dumb as that sounds.  And Johnson's fear of China was a very large driving factor which turned out to be false when Vietnam handily handed China it's ass in the 70s.  The point here is, Johnson was an idiot and wouldn't listen to his Military.  He listened to McNamara who has his own brand of insanity.  Our heavy influx of ground forces were NEVER needed as the South always had the numeric superiority.  What they lacked was Air Power and we had that in spades.  But due to the two Washington Idjits, that air power was severely mismanaged.  What would have happened if, in 1965, had we started a Rolling Thunder Campaign and kept it up?  Would China have become as invested?  Probably not and the outcome would have been much different for not only Vietnam (both sides) and over 50,000 Americans.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



Pay attention to someone that was there.  Pay attention to someone that shelled the Trail.  We stopped 1 out of 200 supply vehicles (a supply vehicle can be anything from trucks, barges, Elephants, mules, bicycles).  The VC never got a chance to regroup and pretty well died out in 1969.  And the North was stopped from amassing in Laos and Cambodia by either the US Military or the Laotian Hill People trained and equipped by the US Air Force.  The only thing not being done is mining the Highphong Harbor and taking out the power supplies, manucturing capabilities and transportation systems in North Vietnam.  Winning a war isn't about killing the other side. It's the ability to remove their resolve to fight.  And until 1970, we didn't start doing those actions.  We started doing some of that in lat 1969 when we froze the Supplies from the North to the South but we didn't go far enough until Linebacker I and II.   It took a change in Leadership in the US to make those changes and a promise by Nixon to end the war.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Dayton3 said:
> ...


hahhahahah--\
1. I never said we had to win = you are babbling
2. NOT A BOARD GAME--you just don't ''take out powerplants/etc'''
3. ok, so we take out their powerplants/etc--then what?? they just rebuild/wait it out/etc
4. you use the words '''Would China''' and ''*probably''* --HAHAHAHH = your unsubstantiated opinion/thoughts/babble
5. how many times do I have to say it!!????????
history shows us the North is* NOT going to sue for peace*
6. if you knew history, you would know the Chinese sent hundreds of thosuands of soldiers into NKorea because we crossed the parallel......Johnson had good reason not to ignore the Chinese 
--what does Vietam handing the Chinese a whoopass got to do with Johnson not wanting the Chinese to get involved in the Nam War???!!

plain and simple---we couldn't win or stop communists ....


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


......you might have been there, but you don't know history/WW2 history/bombing history/etc


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


hahahahhahahah!!?????
1. do me a favor, and re-read your post.....correct your mistake please
2. I've said it a million times--you can bomb them like we did Germany and Japan--they will NOT lose the resolve to fight


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


..allow me to add--correct your *grievous* mistake......it's not a typical grammar/etc error


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


for someone who was there---I am very ''confused'' on how you made that mistake...??


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


what unit were you with?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



We weren't there to win.  You keep thinking of a Germany/Japan Surrender.  We were there to stop the hostilities from the North to the South.  They was to do that is to make it so costly, they blink.  We started that in late 1969 and continued until late 1972 when the Peace Accords were signed.  I wonder what 1975 would have been like had Nixon still be President as he was about the last US President to actually keep his word about anything.  He promised the resupply of the South and air power which we had all over the friggin place.  Neither happened and the North gambled that it wouldn't be forthcoming and they were right.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


..correct your mistake, please


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



You are confused, yes.  But not on what you think you are confused about.  Vietnam was a total Cluster F*** of the worst kind for the US and it's leaders as well as the info given to the US Citizens.  Let me ask you one question.  What was the #1 incident that caused the US to agree to such a lopsided Paris Accord Agreement?  I'll give you a hint.  It wasn't anyone military, didn't happen in Vietnam and it was one man.

Lets' see if you are as up on things as you claim you are.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


..the US could do nothing to make it too costly for the North
here:








						Vietnam War | Facts, Summary, Years, Timeline, Casualties, Combatants, & Facts
					

Vietnam War (1954–75), conflict that pitted the communist government of North Vietnam and its allies in South Vietnam, the Viet Cong, against South Vietnam and its principal ally, the United States. It was part of a larger regional conflict as well as a manifestation of the Cold War.



					www.britannica.com
				



.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



My mistake?  You mean Johnson and McNamaras many mistakes that cost tens of thousands of lives, don't you.  How about you point out "MY" mistake and we can discuss it.  And stop trolling.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


..are you going to correct your mistake or not?


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


..you've proven that you possibly are lying with your mistake--I've given you a chance--I won't give another


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


....in your post here---please, re-read it for me..slowly--- and correct your grievous mistake


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



This is where you allow the one person that doomed the whole thing to dictate the history recording.  While heaped in facts, the way the facts are laid out gives a false narrative.  

Again, name that one person.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



Since you have yet to directly point out my "Mistake" do I take your withdrawal as a strategic withdrawal because you are unable to counter my "I was There"  narratives?  Sorry, cupcake, there are still a few of us that are still alive that can tell the truth.  You should wait at least another 15 years or so before you try this again.  We won't be around to correct you.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



Since I don't believe I made a factual mistake, how about you type slowly and point it out.  It's a simple thing for you to do.  Otherwise, you are just trolling.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


--ok, well....it's Haiphong Harbor--not HIGH
...this is not your everyday grammar mistake......anyone with a basic knowledge of the subject, would never say HIGHphong 
......????


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



Wow, is that all?  So I got an A- instead of an A+.  If all you can find to point out is spelling and grammar mistakes, I can live with that.  I never claimed to be extremely highly edumicated.  And I am not writing a piece for a  University that depends on spelling and grammar more than content for a grade.  Most of my Long Time Friends can't spell it correctly either.  Some even have trouble spelling "CAT" correctly but that doesn't mean they can't communicate what went on in their lives.  And their lives all have been very long and most do not agree with the way the Press  and most historians write about Vietnam.  We were there, you weren't.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


no, no--this is not a basic grammar-spelling mistake 
....so, you are not highly educated, but you think you know about history/etc? !?
...so then, you won't be able to understand or comprehend what is posted.......??!!
...so, you don't know much about Haiphong Harbor--yet you mention it in your post----you act like you know a lot about it......but you don't 
???


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


..I was in the USMC for 8 years...Had a relative die in Operation Buffalo Vietnam


----------



## AZrailwhale (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


Even based upon the Wiki article, that was a complete US victory.  Even if you cut the NVA killed in quarters, they lost two to one fight a defensive battle.  In defense the losses are usually one third to a half of the offensive losses.  Compare German losses in Normandy to Allied ones.  The day most of the US losses occurred, the NVA had total surprise and overwhelming numerical superiority.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


The North might not lose the RESOLVE to continue the fight, but actual events proved that once the rail links to China and Haiphong harbor which was the sea link to the USSR were cut, North Vietnam lost the ability to prosecute the war.  Neither North or South Vietnam produced any of their military supplies unlike Germany and Japan in WWII.  In WWII the bombing totally destroyed Japan's ability to produce any war material more complicated than a pike or sword.  Germany was able to move some of it's industry underground by the use a slave labor but allied bombing totally destroyed the ability of Germany to move raw materials and finished products.  Yes the Germans were able to "create" three armies for Watch on the Rhine,  but the gutted their existing forces to do it and the infantry were mostly the very old and the very young who were really unfit for combat.  Germany's manpower position in December 1944 was much like the Confederacy's in 1864.


----------



## Dayton3 (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



Obviously you don't either.    As you thought the Battle of the Bulge was AFTER the massive bombings of German cities.   In fact it was largely BEFORE.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



I don't?  Here is a site for you to visit if you wish to learn about Military History.

Militaryvids.com

Then tell me how wrong that site is.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



One of the things I have notice, the average ground pounder isn't up on many thing other than pounding ground.  That is unless they are at least a certain rank.  Otherwise, it's probably not best to think about things.  Meanwhile, in USAF, it's beneficial to do so.  In fact, it's encouraged at all ranks.  

As for education, I have a feeling I am at least your equal or better.  And my Military Experience far exceeds yours by at least a Decade.  Got my permanent DD-2 and 5 DD-214s.  I have one short tour to South East Asia and 2 long TDYs there during that time.  I got to experience part of that war that no Marine nor Army will EVER get to experience.  And I voted and did the background to know whom I wanted in office.    Where were you at during this time?  Were you even born yet?

As for family member losses in Vietnam, we all have.  And the one member of your family that knew what was going on (even the slightest) ain't around to tell it.  You ain't paid the price of admission.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> As for education, I have a feeling I am at least your equal or better


As for education, I have a feeling I am at least your equal or better
hqhqhqhhqhqhhhahahhahahahah


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > As for education, I have a feeling I am at least your equal or better
> ...



How's the weather in Moscow?  Don't bother googling it.  Just stick your head out of the window.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

AZrailwhale said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


hahhahahahahah
........Russia had twice as many military deaths as Germany in WW2----Germany lost --Russia won


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


..... so the French lost...then the US lost---and you people say it was winnable and our politicians lost it???!!!!! WOOOHOOOO


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


..wrong.....that is total bullshit ...you are babbling---providing NO evidence/etc
...Germany was bombed long before Dec 1944!!!!!!


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



And can you explain why that is?  I think me and the others know why but do you?


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



It was never ours to win.  It WAS ours to lose.  I know you will never understand that.  So I close with that statement, Troll.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


wooooohoooooooooo!!!!!!! that's what I posted long ago...do you know who said it!!!!?????


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...


woooohooooooo--I posted that in my other thread--that's what JFK said--exactly we could not win it!!!!!!


----------



## harmonica (Oct 19, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > AZrailwhale said:
> ...


why does it matter??--it totally refutes what he said


----------



## Dayton3 (Oct 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



Not the large scale city burning air raids.


----------



## Sonc (Oct 20, 2020)

Daryl Hunt said:


> I can see the other guys point of view. Not with Russia and the US but with the North Koreans who hides much of their artillery and radar in caves along the DMZ. At least that is what they want us to think. They may have exactly what we think they have, they may have more, or they may have a ghost force with tatters of a real force. The only way to know is to go into full scale attack.
> 
> The problem with that is, what happens if they really do have what we think they have. They are just over 30 miles from the capital of South Korea with all that Artillery pointed at the highest population point in SK and the will to use it. In essence, NK holds millions of SKs as hostage at this point. If those systems were out in the open, it would be childs play to take them out before most of them could fire. But they aren't out where they can be neutralized much less IDd and that poses a huge problem. So the NKens do have systems that have their radar off and it's a trap. One where both sides know it's a trap.



Yes something like that.


----------

