Turkey Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
ougoah said:
This is highly inaccurate. You guys are assuming an S-400 site has 120 launches. Not true. These 120 missiles will need a LOT of time to reload canisters. An S-400 division does not have 30 trucks with four cannisters each. Not even close.

Your dollar comparison is again inaccurate because the S-400 will need to shoot down those three F-35s. Question is if the S-400 can defend the targeted site from three F-35s. That's hard to say but I'd bet on the stealth fighters. I personally believe a single F-35 can destroy the site and take out the SAM but that's pure conjecture. None of us know if it's worth it if you only consider the value of the F-35 at how successfully it can conduct this one particular job while ignoring how versatile it actually is.
Click to expand...

I think a S-400 will probably use its entire missile inventory. Reasoning below:
  • The TELs themselves are actually difficult to find, because they aren't emitting radar and are hidden amongst ground clutter.
  • The reload vehicles are even more difficult to find, because they will really be hidden away until needed.
  • It is likely that just the search/acquisition radars will be targeted because they are emitting radar. And these can be replaced.
I also think a S-400 (costing $300M) can successfully defend against three F-35s (also costing $300M). Reasoning below:
  • Each TEL can carry 4 SAMs or 16 smaller SAMs.
  • So this S-400 Division could have anywhere between 32-120 SAMs ready to launch.
  • Three F-35s will have a maximum of 18 standoff missiles.
---
So I also cannot see how a single F-35 could successfully destroy a S-400 by itself.
---
NB. Note that a S-400 Division could have a maximum of 384 SAMs ready to launch,
That should successfully defend against over thirty F-35.
---
From the Chinese perspective, I think this reasoning is partly why they bought six S-400 divisions in 2019. Plus the longer range SAMs denies the use of airspace over Taiwan/Korea.

The Chinese S-400s now cover the entire Chinese coastline from the Arctic North to the tropical South China Seas, as per the latest CBSA maps.
 
Last edited:
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
The RED circles are the 400km S-400 rings covering the entire Chinese coastline.
Some of them extend over Taiwan and South Korea.

Map courtesy of the CBSA.

Zones2.png
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
ougoah said:
How about the ones that failed to intercept air to ground munitions. After all that was their job. Or are all those successful air to ground attacks pulled off by Israel and US fake news?
Click to expand...
I try to summarise :
1. I never seen video missile/bomb hitting operational pantsir. If you have one please share.
2. So, Pantsir useless , because can't protect a 100 000 sqkm country?
3. Other hand the best USA tech can be bought with money failed to protect the most important oil processing plant of Saudi Arabia.

Have you ever heard of game theory ?
And have you recognised that the Turkish doesn't share your view about the disadvantages/advantages of f35/s400?

Or you posses more information then the Turkish army ? : D
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Viktor Jav said:
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.
Click to expand...

SAMs are on the whole deadly and most of the US combat losses are attributed to them rather than to air to air. Specifically with S-400's they are highly mobile and have a very short lock and launch sequence and correspondingly its the reason why the US is against Turkey having the best of both worlds. Such an acquisition may potentially undermine the current edge the F-35 has against the S-400. The F-35 was designed to take on the S-400's of the world and by that very reason knows how much of a margin would tip scale in favor of the S-400 Some aspect angles of the F-35 is probably more vulnerable to detection than others and Turkey having the ability to test the F-35 against the S-400 under different conditions is just not an acceptable risk. The probability of detection is a function of aspect angles, frequency band, modulation signals and the ability to fine tune the filtering process against false signals. Such sensitive data can tip the overall balance. The fact that the US has already taken the decision to drop Turkey as a consequence is the strongest testamentary evidence that the risk is just not acceptable, Any argument is rather moot as the decision is already taken.

AndrewS said:
I think a S-400 will probably use its entire missile inventory. Reasoning below:
  • The TELs themselves are actually difficult to find, because they aren't emitting radar and are hidden amongst ground clutter.
  • The reload vehicles are even more difficult to find, because they will really be hidden away until needed.
  • It is likely that just the search/acquisition radars will be targeted because they are emitting radar. And these can be replaced.
I also think a S-400 (costing $300M) can successfully defend against three F-35s (also costing $300M). Reasoning below:
  • Each TEL can carry 4 SAMs or 16 smaller SAMs.
  • So this S-400 Division could have anywhere between 32-120 SAMs ready to launch.
  • Three F-35s will have a maximum of 18 standoff missiles.
---
So I also cannot see how a single F-35 could successfully destroy a S-400 by itself.
---
NB. Note that a S-400 Division could have a maximum of 384 SAMs ready to launch,
That should successfully defend against over thirty F-35.
---
From the Chinese perspective, I think this reasoning is partly why they bought six S-400 divisions in 2019. Plus the longer range SAMs denies the use of airspace over Taiwan/Korea.

The Chinese S-400s now cover the entire Chinese coastline from the Arctic North to the tropical South China Seas, as per the latest CBSA maps.
Click to expand...

Frankly if the S-400 has to use its entire inventory of missiles it would have failed in its purpose and design. The aim of any attacking aircraft is not to get locked on because its survivability is low under such conditions. The objective is to avoid locked on either via stealth or ECM and to take out the S-400's sensors. The missiles (no matter how many) are useless without the acquisition radar.

Anlsvrthng said:
I try to summarise :
1. I never seen video missile/bomb hitting operational pantsir. If you have one please share.
2. So, Pantsir useless , because can't protect a 100 000 sqkm country?
3. Other hand the best USA tech can be bought with money failed to protect the most important oil processing plant of Saudi Arabia.

Have you ever heard of game theory ?
And have you recognised that the Turkish doesn't share your view about the disadvantages/advantages of f35/s400?
Click to expand...
Enjoy the article and video.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




I have also included for you the Russian's excuse why its Pantsir got taken out.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
MrCrazyBoyRavi

MrCrazyBoyRavi

Junior Member
Registered Member
what if Turkey's purchase of S400 was actually a plot to test/study russian SAM capabilities and Optimize F-35 planes to better counter it? S-400 is deemed as the most potent counter against F-35. Hence throwing 300 million $ to acquire S400 and testing it, can be treated as R&D for F-35. (1trillion + Project).
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Anlsvrthng said:
I try to summarise :
1. I never seen video missile/bomb hitting operational pantsir. If you have one please share.
2. So, Pantsir useless , because can't protect a 100 000 sqkm country?
3. Other hand the best USA tech can be bought with money failed to protect the most important oil processing plant of Saudi Arabia.

Have you ever heard of game theory ?
And have you recognised that the Turkish doesn't share your view about the disadvantages/advantages of f35/s400?

Or you posses more information then the Turkish army ? : D
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Lol

I can't be bothered. You are not worth it... look them up yourself. And no one said anything about 100 000 m^2 coverage. And FYI I never said SAMs are useless and never said Pantsirs are useless. Learn to understand nuance. The quality of your posts are just... errrrgh.
 
Last edited:
A

araberuni

Junior Member
Registered Member
Brumby said:
SAMs are on the whole deadly and most of the US combat losses are attributed to them rather than to air to air. Specifically with S-400's they are highly mobile and have a very short lock and launch sequence and correspondingly its the reason why the US is against Turkey having the best of both worlds. Such an acquisition may potentially undermine the current edge the F-35 has against the S-400. The F-35 was designed to take on the S-400's of the world and by that very reason knows how much of a margin would tip scale in favor of the S-400 Some aspect angles of the F-35 is probably more vulnerable to detection than others and Turkey having the ability to test the F-35 against the S-400 under different conditions is just not an acceptable risk. The probability of detection is a function of aspect angles, frequency band, modulation signals and the ability to fine tune the filtering process against false signals. Such sensitive data can tip the overall balance. The fact that the US has already taken the decision to drop Turkey as a consequence is the strongest testamentary evidence that the risk is just not acceptable, Any argument is rather moot as the decision is already taken.



Frankly if the S-400 has to use its entire inventory of missiles it would have failed in its purpose and design. The aim of any attacking aircraft is not to get locked on because its survivability is low under such conditions. The objective is to avoid locked on either via stealth or ECM and to take out the S-400's sensors. The missiles (no matter how many) are useless without the acquisition radar.


Enjoy the article and video.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




I have also included for you the Russian's excuse why its Pantsir got taken out.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

The Pantsir is a waste of time and money. Since Israel started using Rafael Sky Shield and BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239, Israeli Air Force will roam freely over the Middle Eastern sky.
Israel also has Kamikaze Drones which are doing the job perfectly.

Israeli Kamikaze Drones Are Destroying Russian-made Air Defense Systems in Syria:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
M

maint1234

New Member
Registered Member
People here are confusing a couple of successes against western equipment as a sign of equality or superiority. If we the thousands of missions that NATO or usa has undertaken since the 90s in the middle east and Serbia , the handful of successes are meaningless.
I concede the latest equipment might not be available with the Russian customers to tackle America , but Russia in direct conflict has come off worse in Syria recently. Here Russians were flying and operating the equipment. Russia actually has bent over backwards in Syria to avoid direct conflict with usa. I am specifically talking about air power.
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
ougoah said:
Are you serious? Lol

I can't be bothered. You are not worth it... look them up yourself. And no one said anything about 100 000 m^2 coverage. And FYI I never said SAMs are useless and never said Pantsirs are useless. Learn to understand nuance. The quality of your posts are just... errrrgh.
Click to expand...
You talk about Pantsir failures, and S-400 failures and so on.

Again, could you explain how could 60 point defence system with few 10 km range protect all target in a 100 000+ sqkm country?
Your statement about "fail" has to be defined somehow.

And can explain how the best equipment of USA failed to protect the most important industrial installation in Saudi Arabai ?

Brumby said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!





I have also included for you the Russian's excuse why its Pantsir got taken out.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

I look hard, but I can't see anything in the video that showing a working pantsir taken out by a missile.

I found two video showing how the a missile kill a not-operable Pantsir , but I still waiting for a video that showing how a missile can take out a working point defence system.

This video showing a missile as its getting closer to something (nothing is visible about the target) it is practically useless, and has no clue what they want to show, but the second part of it showing as a missile destroy an idle Pantsir.


This video showing again as a missile destroy an idle Pantsir.

So, the best of the USA managed to destroy two , lonely (without any other unit to cover the one under maintenance/ replenishment) Pantsir.
Great, proof if you use infinite amount of soldier then you can outrun the capacity of the enemy machine guns to kill them . As the geniuses of the WWI envisioned.
Of course in this case we talk about loitering missiles in the sky . : )

The one, that could claim a hit on a working unit has way lower quality than the other two video, and obliterate all detail of the target ,the events , and the thing that actually blowed up . : )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top