|
Post by Wes Gear on Feb 1, 2010 23:39:18 GMT 10
was reading an article at dtv where it was mentioned that we could not defeat the sa-300 surface to air missile or the sunburn weapon system.
that is false. the sa-300 is a very capable system but is easily defeated with all of our aircraft's radar jamming systems and stealth technology. nato actually got the chance to run drills with the sa-300 which was provided by an eastern bloc country. older planes not equipped with the newer technology to defeat the sa-300 only had to dip to 500ft and the missile went inactive.
the sa-300 is the older model the sa-400 being its replacement. it has a better radar and can track more targets but doesn't address the issues of how we can defeat it.
so the sa-300/400 most certainly is not a game changer. f-22s,f-16/18/15s, the f-117 and b2 and the new nato fighters will all defeat the system.
SUNBURN.............first off sunburn is more of a myth you hear about on conspiracy sites that any real threat. with that said the russians have published papers about the system and while it claims to be the most sophisticated anti-ship missile ever according to their own technological papers today's modern warships can defeat the missile easily. the only thing extrodinary about the missile is its high speed. its theorized that even if it is shredded which it will be that it will still spray the ship with fragments causing it to need repairs.
again our radar jamming systems and other point of defense measures will counter this missile that doesn't even exist rather well.
this post isn't about the person who made the comments just the fact that the comments are silly and really misinformed.
|
|
|
Post by brillbilly on Feb 2, 2010 0:21:33 GMT 10
the problem with all new hitech weapons is that they are electronic and so can be disrupted with something like a radar jamming system,i know its not that simple but for every weapon there is an anti weapon
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Feb 2, 2010 1:21:08 GMT 10
exactly brill. all technology can be defeated given the country who wishes to defeat it has the money and know how. we learned from the vietnam war to never dismiss a russian surface to air missile system again.
for anyone to think that russia can make a weapon system we do not have a defense against is insane. let iran get a hold of a few and see what happens when israel strikes using just the older f-16,15,18 and special radar jamming planes. iran will be launching them like regular anti-aircraft guns hoping they will hit something. i'm not sure if we are selling any f-22s to israel..........if we have then you get to add stealth to their arsenal.
russia is so far behind the united states now that most of their weapons are more hype then function.
|
|
|
Post by concrete on Feb 2, 2010 3:07:50 GMT 10
Drex. The S-300 system is very capable.
The newer version is also capable of targeting low radar profile objects. That includes stealth planes. The patriot missle system was made, to counter the S-3,4 & 500 systems. But, it's not as good. Thats why the US is plunking them all over the place. Odds are, the more you have, the liklier they will hit something.
True, the 300 series has been around a long time. Just gives more opportunity to tweak the problems out.
Now. The sunburst? who knows. Even rumor has some truth.
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Feb 2, 2010 4:02:14 GMT 10
nato has went head to head with the s-300 and s-400 and defeated it time and time again. to be fair the s-400 at the time was hindered by an older software which has been replaced.
neither the s-300 or 400 can track aircraft below 500ft. which makes it extremely vulnerable to apache attacks.
russia has only made the claim the system can track stealth planes. in reality that is impossible for a radar guided missile. the claim has been dismissed by experts with jane's defense as typical russian bravado.
the s-500 is expected around 2012 and the only major advancement will probably be the missile's speed. the fact russia is concentrating on speed actually reveals that their claim of detecting stealth aircraft is propaganda. the going thought is that you can't stop an attack by a stealth plane but you can determine its flight path after the fact so you need a very fast missile to catch the plane as it speeds away. if you can get the missile within a half mile of the plane it might be able to lock on.
it wouldn't work with the f-22 since it can out maneuver the missile but the b-2 and the f-117 might be in trouble.
america will be able to drill with the s-500 as soon as saudi arabia receives theirs.
i totally screwed up the names of these weapons.............as for the other one it doesn't stand a chance in hell of reaching one of our ships if it even really existed. its claim to fame is speed. our ships can detect missiles from hundreds of miles away. they have three layers of defense and to get through the first layer would be a major victory itself.
for this fictional weapon to work you would need to launch massive amounts of them in hopes of overwhelming the defense systems. that could very well work. the problem is they wouldn't have enough to do it and the prize for launching that many missiles would be maybe two ships at most. so its not a feasible option.
i do not doubt that the russian sams are effective. they are just not a game changer as was claimed at dtv nor are they impossible to defeat. my point is anyone who thinks that has no understanding of military weapons and technology and are only going by what they read on sites that are less than credible or have some form of agenda.
|
|
|
Post by concrete on Feb 2, 2010 4:33:03 GMT 10
Hmm. I understand. But, as a first strike. They would not use apaches. They would use conventional jets/missles, unless that darned 'top secret' jet comes out to play. If a missle system can track and destroy a cruise missle, kinda does sound like a game changer doesn't it? It would mean an offencive force would have to be blatant with their attack, and not just shoot something from a boat or base, and claim innocence. It would mean, to attack it would have to be public and fierce.
Still, it was just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Feb 2, 2010 21:20:38 GMT 10
let me clarify. an apache would only be of use if you were in full battle mode with forces gathered on a front. then they would use the apache because its the exact platform for this type of job.
BUT........that is not the norm. the norm would be long range bombers and jet fighters.
you also made probably the best point yet. the fact it would be effective against long range missile strikes. so props to you on that because it would be a game changer in the sense we would have to attack full force and without anonymity.
the claims these weapons can't be defeated still stands as being absurd but you definitely made the point they are a game changer.
for the record to those not familiar with the dtv thread..........concrete wasn't the one making the claims he just mentioned that iran could be getting their shipment of s-300/400 missiles which might be why iran is doing a lot of tough talking here recently. another poster made the claims we couldn't defeat these two weapon systems which is absolutely wrong.
|
|