hound

Now we are talking S-300PMU:

The 9K81 S-300V Antey-300 (Russian 9К81 С-300В Антей-300 - named after Antaeus, NATO reporting name SA-12 Gladiator/Giant) is a bit different from the other versions. It was built by Antey as opposed to Almaz. The V suffix stands for Voyska (ground forces). It was designed to act as the top tier army air defence system, providing a defence against ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and aircraft, replacing the SA-4 Ganef. The "Gladiator" missiles have a maximum engagement range of around 75 km (47 miles) while the "Giant" missiles can engage targets out to 100 km (62 miles) and up to altitudes of around 32 km (100,000 ft). In both cases the warhead is around 150 kg (331 lb).

Anon

The USAF typically bombs at 15k feet.

SA-14/18 are VSHORAD systems.

The SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, and SA-8 are all good against medium altitude threats, and the Iraqis had all those too.

And A-10s operated as low as 50 feet at times. The Tornados were also exclusively used in a low altitude runway cratering role early in the war as well(and suffered the loss rate to prove it)

Anon

S-300 is a damned dangerous weapons system, but if the USAF has to attack someone that has them it still won't stop us.

We just have too many top of the line modern AC and ECM, and of course they're flown by fantastically talented aircrews.

No IADS alone is enough to stop the US military. You'd need an EXTREMELY robust anti-missile(cruise and ballistic) system and a top of the line air force as well just to have a chance.

Archer

India confirmed the Spyder recently

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...ce+briefs.html

Indian spyder

The Indian army has selected Rafael’s Spyder mobile air-defence system over a rival offer of the VL-Mica from MBDA, with deliveries to start soon. The Israeli-developed Spyder system is based on Rafael’s Python 5 passive infrared and Derby active radar-guided air-to-air missiles, with an effective range of 15 km. The system uses an Elta search radar.

__________________
Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

My bow is stretched for its task

hound

'SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, and SA-8'

To be fair SA-2 and SA-6 belong to the early 1970s so they stood no chance against top of the line USAF items in 1991 and so on.

True S-300 would not stop USAF but sure can take a good toll especially when it can also shoot down stealths so it will be one long campaign.

'And A-10s operated as low as 50 feet at times. The Tornados were also exclusively used in a low altitude runway cratering role early in the war as well'

These were brought into picture once missiles were all shot out so 'fly as you will' environment existed.

Anon

Funny, cause the SA-6 shot down/damaged quite a few A/C in 1991...

It can't shoot down stealth's cause you're not really putting much thought into how it would be attacked by the US.

Nope, not true. Tornados flew low altitude airbase cratering missions from day 1 of the war, and the A-10 was used quite extensively in a Wild Weasel role- directly attacking Iraqi SAM sites.

dbereal

BTW ZSU-23/4 when came out in 70 was superior to whatever US had at Time.... its a 4 decade old platform now..... u wanna compare it compare it with modern Systems then take russian modern systems as S-300 & S-400...

Tunguska M-1 and ZSU -23/4 are 2 totally different systems ,,,, from deferent era's..

Anon

LOL...it was 'superior to whatever US had' eh?

Well how do you know...considering you don't even know what the US had?

LOL...communists.

You want to compare the ZSU-23/4 to a SAM system?

What for comrade?

dbereal

If its so simple... Then TRY a fight against a equal enemy PPL might enjoy the fireworks display in the Air...

Popping 60's era AD of a dictator's ARMY with 2 month AIR & ARTY & Missile attack really Tells the strength....

Rem the U2 incident .... shooting down by russian AD... at that time US didnt have a AD system/ Missile to operate at that Altitude...

REM US F-117 incident...

Fight against a well trained and Motivated enemy is a totally diff ball-game

dbereal

See, --- Again ZUS-23/4 and Tunguska M-1 are two diff systems discussion was on Tunguska M-1 who bought in ZSU-23/4.....?

I am not a Communists...

hound

'It can't shoot down stealth's cause you're not really putting much thought into how it would be attacked by the US.'

Anti-Radiation Missiles.............i think s-300 had defenses against arm especially when it can track targets at 300km and fire missiles that can guide themselves.

Garry

I guess that correct comparison to CLAWS would be Tor-M1 not Tunguska....
and it is quite more mobile system vs CLAWS which can not shoot from the movement..... On the other side CLAWS has 15km range vs 12km range of the Tor-M1. The advantage of Tor-M1 is number of targets it can engage... their size and the ENAGEMENT SPEED. The vertical launch system increaes the speed for engagement but reduces the range compared to CLAWS. In case of CLAWS it needs to physically turn missiles into target's direction which requires more time for engagement and reduces number of targets which can be engaged simmultaneously. The advantage - less energy lost and hence longer range. This are my random thoughts on the two.....

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/m.../row/sa-15.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/tor.htm

dbereal

Is SPYDER a better system that CLAWS and Tor-M1 .... it should be in the same league

Garry

I am not really a right person to compare those. Seems like Spyder is also a movable system but not mobile. So this is a point defense system not like Tor-M1 which is made to protect tank brigades during attacks/movement.

It also requires that missiles are directed towards target before laucnh. However it can use datalinks from other guidance platforms.... In my view this really adds value to the system!

It also exceeds Tor-M1 on range and hight of engagement. Also Pyton-5 are great missiles.....

Anon

Find us an opponent that is our equal.

Oh...right....there is none.

Um, son...the air campaign was 1 month, not 2.

Um, son...the SA-13, SA-14, and SA-18 are all systems the Iraqis used- NONE of which were fielded in the 60s. Let alone the Western Roland, which is a very modern SAM system.

Doh...

BTW, most of our planes are from the mid-70s...IOW, they were facing many systems that were NEWER.

Oddly enough the Soviets did not have an A/C that could fly remotely as high at the time. How ODD that we'd not design missiles to hit planes that did not exist....

LOL, dumbasssed Russians.

You mean like the Japanese, the Spanish, the Russians, the Germans, the British(twice), China, the Vietnamese, and the DPRK?

You mean like ALL those countries the US has faced in war?(5 of which were major world powers at the time we fought them).

LOL, you're as clueless as the other wanna-be commie. Yet more reason to despise the lot of you.

PWNED