Turkey Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
You seem fixated on SAM vs SEAD and missing my point that being about initiative, offensive vs defence positions-weapons, and the value of confidential information between these. So I've made my point as well as I could be bothered and readers can decide for themselves but reality doesn't care for feelings and personal suppositions. Any military that looks at SAMs the way you do will have the same end as Saddam's and Assad's. No politics at all just facts. Israel and US fighters have striked Syrian targets pretty easily in the last year. They seem to do as they please even without involving F-35s. Iraq had multi layered "impenetrable" air defence SAM networks... for about a few days before getting wiped... without shooting down a single fighter. Bragged to be "the world's third most well defended airspace" after Russia and China but with even higher concentration of SAMs than either Russia or China.

Yes Tor and Pantsir are there for point defence. I'm aware S-400 has multiple missile types and the S-400 battalion is itself defended by other shorter ranged SAMs designed for this purpose. S-400 is more suited for aircraft, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and invading alien motherships.
I never brought up the issue of SAM vs SEAD. You started it first, and then you focused on it which such a myopic obsession as to move the goal post and include things like magical unlimited ARM missiles and unfair biased scenarios against it.

My original post had never change and it is still such : That the S-400 is currently the premier SAM system Russia can field and which if compromised will badly damage Russian air defense system. That the F-35 might also have its system compromise in return is a valid contention but one which the US can circumvent by withholding certain tech to Turkey. And seeing that the F-35 is cleared for export and not the F-22, the US most certainly had given thought to such a scenario.

Using Syria as an example is absurd, Syria's equipment are at least two generations behind what Israel and the US uses at the moment. Yes they have alot of missiles but the way they used them is terrible.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"“Syrian SAM operators also invited disaster upon themselves. Their Soviet equipment was generally regarded as quite good; Syrian handling of it was appalling.

As noted by Lt Gen Leonard Perroots, director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, “The Syrians used mobile missiles in a fixed configuration; they put the radars in the valley instead of the hills because they didn't want to dig latrines -- seriously."
" The Syrian practice of stationing mobile missiles in one place for several months allowed Israeli reconnaissance to determine the exact location of the missiles and their radars, giving the IAF a definite tactical advantage on the eve of battle. Even so, the Syrians might have been able to avoid the complete destruction of their SAM complex had they effectively camouflaged their sites; instead, they used smoke to “hide” them, which actually made them easier to spot from the air. It is ironic that the Syrians, who have been criticized for their strict adherence to Soviet doctrine, chose to ignore the viable doctrine that emphasizes the utility of maneuver and camouflage.
"

If you have an army who deploys weapons based on how convenient it is for them to take a s*** you know you have a debacle on your hands.

the same repeated itself in Iraq
"The 1982 Bekaa Valley debacle was repeated on a much larger scale in January, 1991, when US led Coalition air forces annihilated Saddam’s SAM defences, the decisive blows inflicted in the first few hours. While that campaign is well documented in detail elsewhere, like the 1982 campaign, large scale use was made of anti-radiation missiles, support jamming, and precision weapons. The deployment pattern of Saddam’s forces also differed little, with few batteries attempting to exploit any inherent mobility in their systems, and often undisciplined emissions permitting easy location, targeting and attack. The composition of Saddam’s SAM force comprised much the same SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-8 and SA-9 SAM systems, supplemented by some modern French supplied Thales Roland SAMs and Tiger series radars."
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
Ahhhhh already wrong. So very hopelessly wrong.
Then tell me how a S-125 SAM which is a defensive weapon in nature, can shoot down a F-117 Nighthawk, a offensive weapon in nature, while avoiding consistent SEAD patrols in the months before ? Oh wait, you can't.

I can however, the operates were well trained, kept radar discipline and did not left their missiles and radars for months on end at the same freaking location.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The 1999 bombing of Serbia is the case study, which closes this loop. While Serbian SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 batteries were largely ineffective due to the use of standoff jamming, anti-radiation missiles and stealth, they also proved vastly more difficult to kill due to smart use of mobility, camouflage and emission control. A single SA-3 battery, commanded by then LtCol Zoltan Dani, downed an F-117A and an F-16C, and damaged another F-117A. Prior to the conflict, Dani worked his crew for weeks in the simulator, driving up proficiency and crew teamwork. During the conflict, he relocated his battery as frequently as possible, and exercised strict emission control. His battery survived and inflicted the single most embarrassing combat loss the US has suffered for decades. Serbian SA-6 crews, following the same hide, shoot and scoot doctrine, mostly survived the war. The Serbian SAMs and radars were largely of the same vintage and subtypes, as those used by the Iraqis and Syrians. The fact that NATO forces were unable to quickly kill off the Serbian SAM batteries forced continuing and ongoing sorties by NATO support jamming and defence suppression aircraft, driving up the cost to drop each bomb delivered several-fold. NATO forces launched 743 AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile rounds for very little damage effect – around one third of the number used to cripple Iraq’s much larger air defence system in 1991."

Same equipment but with very different results.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
I never brought up the issue of SAM vs SEAD. You started it first, and then you focused on it which such a myopic obsession as to move the goal post and include things like magical unlimited ARM missiles and unfair biased scenarios against it.

My original post had never change and it is still such : That the S-400 is currently the premier SAM system Russia can field and which if compromised will badly damage Russian air defense system. That the F-35 might also have its system compromise in return is a valid contention but one which the US can circumvent by withholding certain tech to Turkey. And seeing that the F-35 is cleared for export and not the F-22, the US most certainly had given thought to such a scenario.

Using Syria as an example is absurd, Syria's equipment are at least two generations behind what Israel and the US uses at the moment. Yes they have alot of missiles but the way they used them is terrible.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"“Syrian SAM operators also invited disaster upon themselves. Their Soviet equipment was generally regarded as quite good; Syrian handling of it was appalling.

As noted by Lt Gen Leonard Perroots, director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, “The Syrians used mobile missiles in a fixed configuration; they put the radars in the valley instead of the hills because they didn't want to dig latrines -- seriously."
" The Syrian practice of stationing mobile missiles in one place for several months allowed Israeli reconnaissance to determine the exact location of the missiles and their radars, giving the IAF a definite tactical advantage on the eve of battle. Even so, the Syrians might have been able to avoid the complete destruction of their SAM complex had they effectively camouflaged their sites; instead, they used smoke to “hide” them, which actually made them easier to spot from the air. It is ironic that the Syrians, who have been criticized for their strict adherence to Soviet doctrine, chose to ignore the viable doctrine that emphasizes the utility of maneuver and camouflage.
"

If you have an army who deploys weapons based on how convenient it is for them to take a s*** you know you have a debacle on your hands.
Great let's get back to the basics then.

"My original post had never change and it is still such : That the S-400 is currently the premier SAM system Russia can field and which if compromised will badly damage Russian air defense system"

How will it get compromised? By the US learning about missile's performance parameters? S-400 radar capabilities? I think they already have charts and methods in place to determine these things VERY accurately in case of war. So hardly a surprise. I mean it's easier to make accurate estimates and then verify them without much risk. Compare this to F-35 secrets getting revealed. At what ranges can different radar types track it with enough resolution for firing solutions and guidance. That data is not going to be easily determinable during a fight. The F-35 would likely have killed the target if they ever had an inkling.

I love how failures are ALWAYS blamed on others. M1 tanks get effed up and it's those dumb Saudi or Iraqi operators. Same with Turkey's Leopard 2s and those Leclers. One by one, previously considered perfect and foolproof systems have been humbled on battlefields in the last decade. S-300 and S-400 in Syria have not shot down shit and haven't prevented Israeli and American attacks on sites they consider must go. They're the ones holding back by the way.

So yeah Russian air defence equipment performance is blamed on the Syrians. How convenient. Whatever... those who want to believe the fantasy are ill prepared for reality. Happily I see Chinese military planners go about these things realistically with no self delusions.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
Then tell me how a S-125 SAM which is a defensive weapon in nature, can shoot down a F-117 Nighthawk, a offensive weapon in nature, while avoiding consistent SEAD patrols in the months before ? Oh wait, you can't.
.
LOL this is beyond pathetic. Do you not understand that even a broken clock is correct twice a day? Have you forgotten how many sites those F-117s knocked out? You are presenting that shoot down as if F-117 scored zero hits while that SAM not only deflected attacks to site but also shot down the intruding aircraft. So now that you have been embarrassed, please hide you face in shame.

Nice lie you've got there and nice attempt at misrepresenting history. You got caught. Try harder next time.

I don't know if you have the cognitive abilities to see this, but you literally proved my point with this example. An abysmal exchange rate is the reality between SEAD and AD. All F117 targets destroyed. One F117 lost to SEAD and lost due to an oversight by planners. Was avoidable. That's how one sided this is.

Using this example, can you imagine how terrible it would be for F-35 users if in this case the F117's advantages were negated? That's exactly what I mean by the F-35 has far more to lose.
 
Last edited:

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
Great let's get back to the basics then.

"I think they already have charts and methods in place to determine these things VERY accurately in case of war. So hardly a surprise. I mean it's easier to make accurate estimates and then verify them without much risk. Compare this to F-35 secrets getting revealed. At what ranges can different radar types track it with enough resolution for firing solutions and guidance. That data is not going to be easily determinable during a fight. The F-35 would likely have killed the target if they ever had an inkling.
Charts based on what ? Magical fairy dust ? Or from the same "dimensional pocket" where you get unlimited ARM missiles ?

I love how failures are ALWAYS blamed on others. M1 tanks get effed up and it's those dumb Saudi or Iraqi operators. Same with Turkey's Leopard 2s and those Leclers. One by one, previously considered perfect and foolproof systems have been humbled on battlefields in the last decade. S-300 and S-400 in Syria have not shot down shit and haven't prevented Israeli and American attacks on sites they consider must go. They're the ones holding back by the way.
Because they were not ordered to. S-300s and S-400 SAMs are in Syria purely to defend Russian assets not Syria's. Russia may claim that it had given Syria S-300 but it is more likely that it is mere empty talk and the Russians are not trusting the Syrians to not shoot themselves in the foot again.

So yeah Russian air defence equipment performance is blamed on the Syrians. How convenient. Whatever... those who want to believe the fantasy are ill prepared for reality. Happily I see Chinese military planners go about these things realistically with no self delusions.
Bare denial and conspiracy claim despite evidence to the contrary. How predictable. Bringing in China ain't going to change the circumstance. Another poor attempt by your part to move the goal posts, again.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
F-35 vs S-400 protecting sites is like F-117 vs S-125 protecting sites. So if no secrets were given out at all, then F-35 will destroy all the S-400 protected sites and knock out S-400s whenever and wherever they pleased. If its advantages are revealed and countered, then the F-35 operators have everything to lose. While the S-400 doesn't because it's already going to get bullied by the F-35.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
Charts based on what ? Magical fairy dust ? Or from the same "dimensional pocket" where you get unlimited ARM missiles ?


Because they were not ordered to. S-300s and S-400 SAMs are in Syria purely to defend Russian assets not Syria's. Russia may claim that it had given Syria S-300 but it is more likely that it is mere empty talk and the Russians are not trusting the Syrians to not shoot themselves in the foot again.


Bare denial and conspiracy claim despite evidence to the contrary. How predictable. Bringing in China ain't going to change the circumstance. Another poor attempt by your part to move the goal posts, again.
Charts based on known rocket and fuel technologies. Intelligence gathering. Advertising of S-400 etc... Jeez it's not that hard. Have you completed high school maths? Where do you get these ideas and thoughts from? It's like conversing with a handicapped person. How does one develop any model? Can you please apply some imagination and critical thinking?

Pfffft yeah sure okay. They're there to do those missions sure why not.

Nope just you being a lost case. lol Iraq had higher concentration of SAMs and some of the best available then. You know what? Didn't work.... not even once. Ouch. I mean worse than even the worst projections could have imagined. That's pretty bad.
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
LOL this is beyond pathetic. Do you not understand that even a broken clock is correct twice a day? Have you forgotten how many sites those F-117s knocked out? You are presenting that shoot down as if F-117 scored zero hits while that SAM not only deflected attacks to site but also shot down the intruding aircraft. So now that you have been embarrassed, please hide you face in shame.

Nice lie you've got there and nice attempt at misrepresenting history. You got caught. Try harder next time.

I don't know if you have the cognitive abilities to see this, but you literally proved my point with this example. An abysmal exchange rate is the reality between SEAD and AD. All F117 targets destroyed. One F117 lost to SEAD and lost due to an oversight by planners. Was avoidable. That's how one sided this is.

Using this example, can you imagine how terrible it would be for F-35 users if in this case the F117's advantages were negated? That's exactly what I mean by the F-35 has far more to lose.
I never claim that the F-117 never hit any targets, so stop lying and putting words where they do not exist. I brought this up to disprove conclusively that SAM systems can be easily knock out by SEAD as you claimed. Moreover the amount of weapons that was brought to bear against the Yugoslavians were was so great that it is not a fair stretch to say that it is quantity over quality for the Allies at that point of time. The Yugoslavians did not have counter jamming equipment, they did not have any logistic and resupply chain and they were embroiled in a civil war for so long that any semblance of command and control is effectively obliterated. It was quite literally shooting fish in a barrel at that point of time. But the fact that they were able to make life difficult for the US even with such dated equipments really does give rise to the though of what they can achive if they had S-300s and SA-15s instead.

Charts based on known rocket and fuel technologies. Intelligence gathering. Advertising of S-400 etc... Jeez it's not that hard. Have you completed high school maths? Where do you get these ideas and thoughts from? It's like conversing with a handicapped person. How does one develop any model? Can you please apply some imagination and critical thinking?

Pfffft yeah sure okay. They're there to do those missions sure why not.

Nope just you being a lost case. lol Iraq had higher concentration of SAMs and some of the best available then. You know what? Didn't work.... not even once. Ouch. I mean worse than even the worst projections could have imagined. That's pretty bad.
Oh wow S-400 ads, which are state sanctioned by Russia and charts that are not based off the S-400 directly. Surely they are the final epitome of truth in this matter. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell to you.

"Pfffft yeah sure okay. They're there to do those missions sure why not."
In the same way why the US are quite happy to attack Syrian assets but not Russian. Geopolitics, neither side wants to get entangled directly in open conflict.

"Iraq had higher concentration of SAMs and some of the best available then"

Lets look at it, in 1991 Iraq has the following systems

1) S-75 Divina : Introduced in 1957
2)2K12 Kub : Introduced in 1960
3)S-125 Goa : Introduced 1961
4)Strela-1 : Introduced 1968
5) Strela-10 : Introduced 1976, oh hey finally a system that is not built darn near 30 years ago
6)Roland 2 missiles : Introduced 1977, one year later. Pratically brand new !!

Yeap, literally space age tech right there folks. Especially in comparison to the likes of

1) SA-15 Tor : Introduced 1986
2)S-300PM : Introduced 1985
3)2k22 Tunguska : Introduced 1982
4)S-300V : Introduced 1984

Lol can this get anymore ridiculous
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
F-35 vs S-400 protecting sites is like F-117 vs S-125 protecting sites. So if no secrets were given out at all, then F-35 will destroy all the S-400 protected sites and knock out S-400s whenever and wherever they pleased. If its advantages are revealed and countered, then the F-35 operators have everything to lose. While the S-400 doesn't because it's already going to get bullied by the F-35.
Yeah yeah keep saying that, it will happen........ maybe, eventually :p.
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
You probably also think a kevlar vest is a superior weapon at achieving battle victories over an anti-material rifle. Just because I can be bothered at the moment, defensive weapons ARE indeed by definition at the disadvantage simply because a purely defensive weapon cannot do damage and the moment it does not work 100% PERFECTLY is the moment everything is lost. It cannot be more. An offensive weapon yields a result >1 if it does it's job. A defensive weapon yields a result between 0 (a total loss of objective) and 1. Even at perfect function, it is simply deflecting attacks and can only hope to negate the enemy's attack. The offensive weapon can net positive for its side by destroying important targets.

Now you'll probably say well an S-400 can shoot down fighters. Well on that assumption we'll need to be reminded that the discussion is about S-400 and F-35 in particular. If it can actually have a realistic chance at shooting down an F-35 then I agree with your suggestion that the S-400 is not at a disadvantage. But the reality is not only is it going to have a bad time trying to shoot down an F-35, it's probably abysmal at shooting down a fourth gen fighter. That's reality. You can count the number of fourth gen fighters shot down by SAMs on your hands while the number of SAMs knocked out are too hard to track. Why is this? Jee because real world is not hollywood where the SAM operator sees a perfect blip on his screen, pushes a button, and the fighter gets chased down by an impossble to defeat missile. Absolute delusions.

Now a dimwitted person will take this reality and jump to the conclusion that SAMs are therefore entirely useless. This also isn't true. SAMs demand careful military planning from the other side, it impedes their progress, forces risky and expensive SEAD missions and the other side better have some high quality well trained SEAD forces. You can count those countries on one hand. Russian/Chinese air defence units against weaker nations are going to be non-linearly more effective than they will be against the US. There are dozens of other reasons for SAMs but going up against F-35s and surviving isn't one of them.
Way to drag the goal post all the way from Venus to Mars with that anti-material rifle/kelvar rant. That shot was so wide it did not even hit within the same continental postage.

And we are back to how terrible the S-400 is blah blah blah without any factual prove or evidence and how OP PLZ NERF goddang Awesome sause F-35 and 4th Gen fighters are. Really the bias is spilling over here.
To cut it short again : A SAM system is not going to be a magical cure all wunderwaffen true, but it is certainly not a helpless thing whose sole purpose is to inconvenient the enemy.
 

Top