Military Vehicles [Russia]: 9К81 С-300В Антей/9K81 S-300V Antaeus SAMS (СВРФ)

[theekrusher]

Can they launch one of those at Jersey Shore?

[DanieruShidebuteru]

@theekrusher

Not without some permits. Hehe....

[6digit]

i have this on my garage!

[DanieruShidebuteru]

@6digit

Unless your last name is Medyedev, I'd say: liar liar, your balls on FIRE!! :)

[boudiSVK]

One of these beasts is protecting Slovakia .

[boudiSVK]

One of these beasts is protecting Slovakia .

[marktimmer2212]

I keep hearing that song from Yuris Revenge!

unit ready unit ready unit ready unit ready unit ready

[StiviGun1]

What's cool about these systems is that everything on them is automatic. This vastly decreases the emplacement time, which is crucial in a war. But they were never battle tested. There's no actual proof that they are so good as many experts think they are. What ballistic missiles did this system ever shot down? Does anybody know? To me, the fact that the Russian army keeps their weapons tests results secret is very suspicious. If they systems are as good as they claim, why aren't they showing

[DanieruShidebuteru]

@StiviGun1

Hey, thank's for your comment, it's a very good question. However, isn't it as plausible that the reason the information is still classified is due to the usual national security interest? USA has similar policy on information deemed to be in the interest of national security, and Russia (as the successor to the highly secretive Soviet Union) should be even more so. I guess, old habits die hard.

[StiviGun1]

@DanieruShidebuteru Well, showing tests that produced good results doesn't affect national security at all. ON the contrary, it shows that you have powerful systems that work. So I don't buy that "national security interest" argument. And America does show a lot of its tests. That's how people know about those F-22 crashes. Which allowed the anti-military lobbysts to make propaganda against it until it was cancelled.

[DanieruShidebuteru]

@StiviGun1

Having said that, it's also true that most Russian cold-war top military technologies are still not battle-proven; not even in recent conflicts (a few are even theoretically judged to be obsolete or strategically insignificant but are still operationally active, ironically for that very same reason). I personally would give a benefit of a doubt that it had more to do with old-school bureaucracy that even Russians today still haven't shaken off.

[StiviGun1]

@DanieruShidebuteru That's right, almost none of the Russian systems were ever battle proven. And those who were tried in battle, lost in front of the American and Western equipment. That is why I;m amazed how many "experts" say about the Russian systems that they are more effective and reliable than the American systems. How the fuck do they know that it the Russian systems have never been battle tested?

[DanieruShidebuteru]

@StiviGun1

All of it is in the realm of simulations and professional judgement, of course. I personally think that Russia's equipments are outdated, a few are obsolete, but they are in such numbers that any projection of war with Russia would be a war with high attrition rate, a scale of war that is rather unlikely at this time and age. I am also sure that the reason they are still funded is also due to its deterrent value, a bit like the old battleship-at-port doctrine.

[StiviGun1]

@DanieruShidebuteru Well, much of their equipment is outdated, yeah. But I'm talking about the new ones, like the S-400 that everybody says it's so good, but nobody really knows anything about it.

A war against Russia can never take place not because it would become a huge war of attrition, but because it would turn into a nuclear war that would destroy almost all living things on the planet.

[DanieruShidebuteru]

@StiviGun1

I don't know anything about the S-400 actually, I have to read more on that. I have not been following latest developments much due to life priorities so thank's for the enlightening.

My idea of huge war of attrition assumes that Russia would adhere to its anti-nuclear warfare (that anti-proliferation thingy) agreement with USA, of course! Though that doesn't cover attacks by all other nuclear powers, I don't think. Sorry, still thinking in the ol' cold war mindset sometimes. :D

[DanieruShidebuteru]

@StiviGun1

Also take into account that what Westerners think are "effective" and "reliable" is quite different to what Russians think! You're well worn already with stereotypes about simple, spartan, rough-around-the-edge, Russian technology, of course! But therein also lies its strength. Maintenance is taken for granted in the comfortable West but not so in Russia. Russian hardware is reliable in the sense that it almost always require much less attention and care than its Western counterpart.

[StiviGun1]

@DanieruShidebuteru Well, that's the thing, there's no actual proof that Russian systems need less maintenance. For instance, their tanks, that use autoloaders need maintenance. Their TVC engines from their latest fighters also need a lot of maintenance. The reality is that everything the Russians make is mechanically complex and such systems always need a lot of maintenance in order to work properly. The S-300/400 with their cold launch systems are very complex, for instance.

[DanieruShidebuteru]

@StiviGun1

And that of course, contributes to its effectiveness. Every minute of those "maintenance time" is a time spent not on the battlefield. And not to mention, all the training costs that come with it. Russian technology is distinctive for being complicated to those who build it but not necessarily to those who use it, and almost always built in very long service time in mind, in contrast to Western technology which relies on constant comparative advantage and thus, short shelf life.

[StiviGun1]

@DanieruShidebuteru Like I said, if you look at almost every Russia weapons system, you can see that they build a lot of mechanically complex weapons systems. The S-300/S-400, their tanks which use complex mechanical autoloaders, the Tor M1 anti-aircraft system, look how complex their thrust vectoring nozzles from their fighters are. Such systems always need a lot of maintenance. Just ask the Indians who bought Su-30MKI from Russia.

[DanieruShidebuteru]

@StiviGun1

I do not know much about Russian aircraft technologies so I can't say anything for that; you may very well be correct. When it comes to tanks, their mechanical autoloaders seem to be on par with western technology, if not more effective as it uses less moving components, though their first attempt was notorious for failing. I forgot into what tank it was first put in but that model earned a nickname of 'coffin' or something to that effect due to that.

[StiviGun1]

@DanieruShidebuteru Those autoloaders still have failure problems. Mostly jamming problems. The first tank that they put such an autoloader on was the T-64. It had a very complex aoutoloader. It was faster than the one put on the T-72, but it was also jamming much more often.

[DanieruShidebuteru]

@StiviGun1

Ah yes, I think it was something like that. Cheers!

[DanieruShidebuteru]

These are all just amateur observation, of course! I'm not a professional at this or knowledgeable enough. Just someone fascinated with machines, that's all! Your guess could be as good or better even, than mine :D

Thanks for your comment!

[Stratofortrees18]

who can translated?

[vuckotadic]

nice send some to serbia :)))

[trnec2hood]

@vuckotadic axxaxaax bravo brate :D za siptare :D