Turkey Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
And yet it never cross American minds that they can also study the electronic signature of the S-400 in turn. The most premier Russian SAM atm.
The Americans have more to lose in such a trade. The F-35 is more important to the US and nations using it than the S-400 is to Russia. In any case, SAMs are very specific in their role which is contrast to a multirole fighter/attacker. SAMs are also at a huge disadvantage to begin with in a SEAD vs SAM fight. A well equipped force of 4th gen fighters can easily wipe out S-400s. Why? Because there are very limited number of missiles they can launch to intercept whereas a fighter can go in and out of it's range as long as it avoids the NEZ... even then, there are numerous ways a fighter can challenge an NEZ. So many decent anti-SAM weapons are available already. If such a "force field" SAM is ever made, it will still run out of missiles whereas the fighters can re-equip.

No doubt air defence has a worthy place but we're comparing apples and oranges.

The initiative is entirely on the side conducting SEAD. So for such a trade, the Americans will be getting less by knowing all the "super secrets" of S-400 whereas the Russians would be gaining a genuinely valuable insight into F-35's radar, heat, electronic signatures.
 

maint1234

New Member
Registered Member
And yet it never cross American minds that they can also study the electronic signature of the S-400 in turn. The most premier Russian SAM atm.
From the 1st gulf war , the performance of American equipment has easily outshone the Russian origin one. It's very lopsided. I am not convinced how effective even the s400 is compared to the american EW. It didnt do well in Syria when the airbases were attacked. Also Russia losing a jet to the Turkish AF was very revealing. F35 is a state of the art plane and why would any AF risk revealing its secrets for minimal gain ? Americans have very effective EW planes from a long time , who's only job is to continously pick up and analyze electronic signatures. Why risk the f35s for that.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
And yet it never cross American minds that they can also study the electronic signature of the S-400 in turn. The most premier Russian SAM atm.
It means that by the best knowledge of the Capitol and Pentagon it is easier to detect and shoot down a F-35 than to defeat with stealth a modern IADS like the S-400.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
The Americans have more to lose in such a trade. The F-35 is more important to the US and nations using it than the S-400 is to Russia. In any case, SAMs are very specific in their role which is contrast to a multirole fighter/attacker. SAMs are also at a huge disadvantage to begin with in a SEAD vs SAM fight. A well equipped force of 4th gen fighters can easily wipe out S-400s. Why? Because there are very limited number of missiles they can launch to intercept whereas a fighter can go in and out of it's range as long as it avoids the NEZ... even then, there are numerous ways a fighter can challenge an NEZ. So many decent anti-SAM weapons are available already. If such a "force field" SAM is ever made, it will still run out of missiles whereas the fighters can re-equip.
If the SAM operators has no training, and follow stupid practice, and the aggressor well trained, and follow the best strategy.


But with equally trained personnel the SAM has huge advantages.
Starting with that they will radiate only for the time they launch the missile, based on early warning radar data, so all strategy described above become useless.
Oh, and of course there will be ten times more decoy than actual unit, so it will be quite hard to know the exact position of the real radar/launcher : )
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
The Americans have more to lose in such a trade. The F-35 is more important to the US and nations using it than the S-400 is to Russia. In any case, SAMs are very specific in their role which is contrast to a multirole fighter/attacker. SAMs are also at a huge disadvantage to begin with in a SEAD vs SAM fight. A well equipped force of 4th gen fighters can easily wipe out S-400s. Why? Because there are very limited number of missiles they can launch to intercept whereas a fighter can go in and out of it's range as long as it avoids the NEZ... even then, there are numerous ways a fighter can challenge an NEZ. So many decent anti-SAM weapons are available already. If such a "force field" SAM is ever made, it will still run out of missiles whereas the fighters can re-equip.

No doubt air defence has a worthy place but we're comparing apples and oranges.

The initiative is entirely on the side conducting SEAD. So for such a trade, the Americans will be getting less by knowing all the "super secrets" of S-400 whereas the Russians would be gaining a genuinely valuable insight into F-35's radar, heat, electronic signatures.
The S-400 is literally the best SAM that Russia can afford for the defense of it's air space atm until the S-500 comes along in the future and gods knows how long that is going to be. It is currently the main SAM umbrella in Syria which is a significant Russian foreign endeavor and it is in demand by every single potential US adversary bar India.
Hardly something of "less importance"

And the S-400 can reload it's missile like all modern SAM systems and it is a comprehensive missile system that has multiple layers of defense all of which are re loadable and deals with a multitude of targets as well as SEAD weapons. The Russian's aren't dumb and they are clearly aware of the threat of SEAD.
Even the HARM AGM-88 the best anti radiation missile the US has in surface does not outrange the full range of the S-400 so it is a mystery how a a well equipped force of 4th gen fighters can easily destroy a full battalion of S-400. Unless we are handicapping the S-400 on purpose.
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
From the 1st gulf war , the performance of American equipment has easily outshone the Russian origin one. It's very lopsided. I am not convinced how effective even the s400 is compared to the american EW. It didnt do well in Syria when the airbases were attacked. Also Russia losing a jet to the Turkish AF was very revealing. F35 is a state of the art plane and why would any AF risk revealing its secrets for minimal gain ? Americans have very effective EW planes from a long time , who's only job is to continously pick up and analyze electronic signatures. Why risk the f35s for that.
It is a common knowledge that Russian equipment in the ME are not only a generation behind what the US used during the Gulf War but also they are mostly monkey version of the original. And their ME user's incompetence is to the max.
The weapons used in the attack against Russian airbases in Syria were improvised drones, the same type which the US find so difficult to fend against in Saudi Arabia but let just use the banged up excuse of Arabian incompetence which curiously is justifiable here (no bias at all). And according to most sources, Russian losses from those attacks is minimal at best.

The F-35 while significantly advanced is a plane that is actually permitted to be exported instead of the F-22 due to reason of "national security". So either the F-35 is a worse plane than the F-22 or someone in the Pentagon had really screwed their charts over bad.
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
It is a common knowledge
This “Common Knowledge” is often a flawed knowledge. Common Knowledge is that T34 was the best take of the Second World War yet failed miserably when against it often derided Sherman counterpart in Korea. It’s common knowledge that AR15 is less reliable than AKM yet in mud tests and dust test AKs jam well AR soldiers though. It’s also common knowledge that AK is inaccurate vs M16 yet they perform similarly in semi automatic fire.
It’s common knowledge that Iraqi Lion of Babylon T72 we’re so inferior to Abrams they fled and surrendered before fighting or were blown up by air strikes. Yet in fact all evidence no Lion of Babylon were ever built. The tanks they used were export Warsaw Pact Polish T72 which for the late 80s early 90s were the Soviet standard meant to take on Abrams tanks. The two having been introduced on top of each other. Where the Iraqis failed was 1) part tactics 2) parts command and a general inferiority of the tank not as a monkey model but In a more general sense.
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
This “Common Knowledge” is often a flawed knowledge. Common Knowledge is that T34 was the best take of the Second World War yet failed miserably when against it often derided Sherman counterpart in Korea. It’s common knowledge that AR15 is less reliable than AKM yet in mud tests and dust test AKs jam well AR soldiers though. It’s also common knowledge that AK is inaccurate vs M16 yet they perform similarly in semi automatic fire.
It’s common knowledge that Iraqi Lion of Babylon T72 we’re so inferior to Abrams they fled and surrendered before fighting or were blown up by air strikes. Yet in fact all evidence no Lion of Babylon were ever built. The tanks they used were export Warsaw Pact Polish T72 which for the late 80s early 90s were the Soviet standard meant to take on Abrams tanks. The two having been introduced on top of each other. Where the Iraqis failed was 1) part tactics 2) parts command and a general inferiority of the tank not as a monkey model but In a more general sense.
The USSR also had the more modern T-80U, and they develop the T-72A which is a more improved version of the original. The rest of the Warsaw Pact have to make do with the T-72M which are not entirely comparable to the later models.

And a single tank does not remove the fact that during the Gulf War, Iraq had nothing like the S-300, SA-11, SA-15 or any aircraft more modern then a Foxbat at the time.

I am not going to turn this into a d*** measuring contest between the T-34/Sherman, or the AKM/AR15 (although it really was the AK-47 that is the topic of contention). But it is really annoying to see people generalizing military equipments with a giant paint brush.
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
It means that by the best knowledge of the Capitol and Pentagon it is easier to detect and shoot down a F-35 than to defeat with stealth a modern IADS like the S-400.
I would rather put it down to incompetence at the top, which both has in spades atm.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
My point is that “Common knowledge” is often a bit of propaganda to pass off why one Side as you put if falls short but there own will not. The Iraqi Lion of Babylon is pointed to as a convenient mechanism to excuse the T72 failure in Iraq yet that couldn’t happen so the claim is had they been Soviet Russian made “superior” models. Yet the Chechen wars prove that dubious as we learned that Soviet ERA was not as plentiful as needed on T80U. That ERA is the heart of the counterclaim that forms the “common knowledge”.

The T34-85 gets pointed to as a superior weapon well Sherman gets derided as a inferior. Yet that is based on the paper specs without considering the quality of materials. On Paper T34-85 is impressive however it is flawed in practice as the Soviet Union could only produce a high hardness brittle steel.
M4 Sherman gets derided yet at the end of war half of the T34 that fought were destroyed well most of the M4 were still serviceable. The crews of M4 suffered less casualties and the M4 would remain effective. The flaws of gun and fuel would be found in common with the best German tanks of the war.
This appears again as a flaw and is part of the myth you just mentioned the AK47 is not the AKM. The weapon we know today is based off the AKM which is a evolution of the AK47s principles. AKM was the gun AK47 was unable to be.
The problem was that the Soviet Union until the later 50s couldn’t produce the stamped steel they wanted to the AK47 so they had to produce them with milled steel. The result is a receiver that is almost 2 pounds heavier and more expensive. Yet in practice neither the AK47, AK74 or AKM when placed in mud tests are still not as resilient as AR15 because the open tolerances allow mud in where AR15 was designed to keep it out.
In the case of the T72 the flaw lack of more modern armor. Yet even the Russians had T72 in service lacking the composite and Era even if they had that there is still no guarantee that it would have made the difference often claimed. The Armor was improved but would those improvements have been available to the Iraqis or across the Soviet bloc in numbers at the time would those combined with the tactics used have allowed victory? Not likely.

we see that today in Turkish and Modern Iraqi tank losses. We know those tanks would do well if properly employed but with improper employment and lacking some upgrades they fail.
 

Top