lmfao see what they said within 20 km lol geee they would blow up a nuke 20 km away hahahah omg how silly is this , whats the radius of a nuke explosion
@vtkrey you have mentioned the whole coalition but go back and see how many US stealth planes (nighthawk, etc) were shot down by this "short range" air defense, even while the skies are filled with artillery fire the stealths are hitting targets at a 99% rate. This stuff is built only against blackhawk helicopters
@gromxxx Yugoslavia never used 37 mm guns, while ZSU 57 were out of use in that time, nice story. It was shot down by s125 Pecora SA03 Goa end of damn story.
@gromxxx Still, Yugoslavia never used 37mm AA guns, you talk bullshit... Yugoslavia/Serbia used only Bofors L60 and BOV 3 (3x20mm) AA guns and towed 3x20mm guns which are FARRR from even close to hit F117a on its combat altitude. You need to read more, much more, then you maybe even get chance to look smart somewhere... not here..sry.
@sergeikozin47 lol are you drunk? Oo it's made, that's why this video was added 4years ago, so dummy get it straight. But US have many weapons in the arsenal that's unheard-of. You're own prime minister even said that "USA own this planet". So put down the vodka thats apparently drowning you and begin to notice the obvious corruption in your own government. Russia stop slaving your people they need enlightenment
@sergeikozin47 saddam (Iraq) thought the same thing he bought the best soviet made air defense that money can buy and they got smashed by the back to back world war champs without losing a single plane. Don't be scared
Best when they were initially fielded, however, that was decades before the wars, since then the Soviets had developed and fielded several generations of new air defence systems which Iraq did not possess and the systems they did possess were several decades old and severely outdated, nothing compared to the new air defence systems the Soviets possessed at the time of the Gulf War, so there is no surprise that the coalition was able to quickly overwhelm them in both wars.
However, that's not to say that these victories were achieved at no cost, infact, they came with a high cost, the coalition lost approximately 232 aircraft in the two wars, ofcoarse, only part of the total losses were due to enemy action, nevertheless, you are ridiculously wrong to claim that no aircraft were lost.
He had legacy system like S-75, S-125 and Kub and they were downgradad export versions and the staff operating them was not very skilled. Western Air Forces never faced decent systems like S-300, Buk, Tor and so one (and I'm not even mentioning the newest generation SAM's).
THAAD just like most super expensive defense projects such as the F-22 are only good for shooting down our budget! Grossly overrated and will probably be useless against modern maneuvering warheads.
Anywone here watched the "Alien Invasion" documentary and how governments take it serious?... Our weapons means shit towards an outside invasion. Time to stop battleing each other, and develop future weapons for our own defense.
People simply talk out of their asses! Not too many of you have any general knowledge of any of the systems and what kind of technologies are involved. Russian military doctrine is that of defense, as they had to singlehandedly beat Germany in WWII. No one has more expertise in armor, and defensive operations than Russians do. When it comes to offense, Americans have the edge, since they never had to defend, but always assumed the position of the attacker. BTW, no system is perfect.
actually with the US weapons never facing a real opponent, they are the ones that are overrated. I am an american btw, I just see this superiority complex firsthand.
@sergeikozin47 I notice your pathetic comment lacks both material and anything worth taking seriously, Thus, Your arguement if flawed and fails,
Continue to suck the cock of the RT kremlim propaganda machine and dream of what "might" of been while real powers play the game, which you were knocked out of years ago
@1MagicAndMayhem1 russians killed the the ussr bitch, not americans. atleast they saying the truth unlike your american shitload propaganda, so shut you mouth red american tribe member bitch...
@sergeikozin47 fuck you! russians are poor pieces of dogshit on the bottom of my shoe. Go drink your vodka and fuck your mother in the ass. oh wait, I am fucking your mom,you have to wait your turn.damn she is one wore out bitch. i guess I will have to try your grandma next commie.
@420mikepark this red american idiot shows that american are real SUBHUMANS, who you think you are?? a god?? oh boy go to mcdonald's and some burger, and i know this guy is fatty.. :D
@eqGismo Mine too. I don`t know why, but RT videos often have this problem. It`s very uncomfortable for people like me, who use headphones. Only one side sounds and it kinda irritates my ear.
1.5m margin of error is not very accurate, in specially for a short range air defense system. What do u mean this is something that no1 else can achieve? This is not such a high performance. With a 1.5m margin of error, the system is not really that accurate as a short range system should be. The system is very good, that's true, but saying it's the best and that no1 else can achieve such a performance is more than exaggerating.
@StiviGun1 What about NATO`s accuracy of 200km,when they were bombing Serbia they were hitting all countrys around,so dont be a dick that when someone have something better you westerners are jelous.
@drgrujic "200km"? :)))))) U have no idea what u r talking abt. Besides, this topic is a abt ant-aircraft missiles, not bombs. But in bombs technology, the Americans r much better than u. They have much more accurate bombs. They proved this in the 1st Gulf War, in Bosnia, in Kossovo, in Iraq. U didn't proved 2 have even half of the ground striking capabilities, in any of the conflicts that u got involved, neither In Chechnya, where yr bombs & missiles only struck hospitals & houses & neither in
@drgrujic Georgia, where again yr bombs were missing their targets badly. U don;t have the technology 2 build such accurate bombs or missiles like the Americans, not the financial means 2 implement such technology on yr fighter-bombers. In both Chechnya & Georgia, u only used unguided bombs & missiles launched from Su-24s & Su-25s that killed a lot of innocent civilians. In specially in Chechnya. So shut y mouth abt Serbia or any other conflict the Americans got involved which, BTW, have nothing
Firstly Pantsir has range of 36km not 20 as stated here.Secondly it has 1.5 meters margin for error while on the move(listed carefully)and that is 75cm from either side of the missiles pint of impact!How big is the plane?About 20 meters,how about a helicopter?More or less it's a direct impact on any target larger than 1.5 meters.Have you ever been at school???
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 1st of all, how do u know that it has a 36km range? I think u don;t know how 2 make the difference between the engagement range & detection range... & u're asking me if I've ever been 2 any school? As 4 that 1.5m margin of error, the point I was trying 2 make is that this is not at all unique 2 this system. The statement that no1 else can do this is pathetic & nothing more than cheap propaganda. The Brits have a system that is so accurate that the missile explodes only after it
And that's on the move!In most dangerous situations for it's self.Usually it's from stand point because only in full scale attack and if it was by itself surrounded by numerous targets it will have to move and defend it's self or object it's defending,only than!How many situations like that are going to happen?None because it won't be only one to welcome you but others as well as other mid to long range AA systems.There's no equal system nor better than this.
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 U know, this is the 1st time I hear this. Where exactly do u get these specifications? In the vid nobody says that the 1.5m is achieved while it's moving. Did u made this up? Anyway, there r other systems that r more accurate, like the British Rapier system which is much more accurate. & there's another aspect that u have 2 take into account. The NATO countries & in specially US, don't consider they r threatened by an air force anymore, their primary concern is terrorism. So
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 they don't develop anti-aircraft systems anymore & in specially short range air defense ones. That's why the Pantsir is 2day the best short range system. That is if it really has the capabilities that u claim here it has. NATO & in specially US r focusing on ant-missile defense & in this area, they r much more advanced than u. U don't have nothing 2 come close even 2 the THAAD in anti-missiles technology.
Ok,tell me this than How are any of Nato planes/ships or surface weapons gonna launch any missiles since Russia has offensive and defensive weapons whose radars reach much further than engaging range of your missiles?In war over Serbia Nato lost over 180 planes,drones,unmanned spy planes,helicopters and what else not.Natos cruise missiles were more often than not missing and hitting civilian places or even foreign countries.And all that for 78 days against AA systems from early 60's
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 Listen here, 1st of all, u don;t have radars that have longer detection ranges than the Tomahawk's range OK? This is bullshit propaganda that u have probably took from yr military & political officials. & where did u get that 180 planes lost bullshit? NATO's losses were very low. & the Tomahawks always hit their targets. What u r saying here is pure propaganda from u're military & political officials. I once saw a vid in which some Russian military official was even claiming
In Radar tech you will always lag behind.I said 180 planes,spy planes,drones unmanned craft,helicopters.Nato said themselves that losses were worrying and there's official account of Nato losses on IranDefense site which wasn't written by Iranians but by intelligence analysts after the war.Yeah,everything Russian is lies&propaganda while in Nato states is all milk and honey.
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 The number of lost aircraft wasn't even half of the number that u talk abt. The losses were very light 4 NATO in the Kossovo conflict. I don't know where u get these numbers from. & what losses on Iran r u talking abt? When did NATO fought Iran?
Now, that Russian "superiority" in radars, this is just a myth, that I don't know how it started. Go make some research on the radars the Americans have developed 4 their fighters & compare them with the radars that u developed 4 your
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 fighters. The Americans were always ahead of. Go compare the radar that was initially installed on the F-15 with the 1 that u developed 4 the Su-27 & MiG-29. The F-15, F-16, F-14, F-18's radars were vastly superior 2 the Su-27 & MIG-29's radars. The only good radar that u have developed was the 1 4 the MiG-31, but that radar was good because it was BIG. Here, I'm talking abt the times when there was no military cooperation between u & the Americans, the Cold War. Now, u do
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 develop powerful & advanced radars, but this is because of the technology that the Americans have let go on the market & because of the military cooperation between the 2 of u. Basically, yr current radar technology is based on the American technology. The Americans were always far ahead of u in electronics & computers technology. If u don't believe me, just go compare the F-15/F-16/F-14/F-18's radars specs with the Su-27 & MiG-29's radars. The Su-27 & MiG-29's radars were
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 vastly inferior 2 the American ones. Much smaller detection range, much less accuracy, much poorer capability in tracking & engaging multiple targets. In fact the MiG-29's radar had no capability 2 engage multiple targets at all. & don't come 2 me with the radar developed 4 the MiG-35, which was developed after the end of the Cold War, using American technology. I'm talking abt the Cold War developments, when there was no military cooperation between the US & Russia.
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 that in the Gulf War, the Iraqis fought against the Americans only with AK-47s against the Americans Abrams tanks, whereas, the Iraqis had more tanks than the entire coalition combined. Yr military & political leaders have a very ridiculous & hilarious way of making propaganda against the NATO & in specially the US weapons systems. They even claim things that r impossible from any point of view. What is strange though is that u Russians, actually believe these ridiculous &
In Gulf War you didn't beat Iraq,you just took over that part of Kuvait that was taken by Iraq in a incursion.Iraq had tanks at least 20-30 years behind your new Abrams.Even Israel saw weaknesses of your tank and decided to make it's own.Most of destroyed Iraqs tanks were destroyed by helicopters not tanks.Iraq in Kuvait didn't have set up of AA weapons to counter your attack,US intelligence knew that but you did have overwhelming advantage in air.
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 Listen here, I told u 2 stop repeating me yr propaganda. In the Gulf War, the intention wasn't 2 occupy Iraq, go get yr facts straight. It was all abt liberating Kuwait. & wile there were no ground incursions in Iraq, there was a massive air campaign against the Iraq's territory. IN specially against Baghdad, which was covered with AA systems.Don't come 2 me with the bullshits yr military & political leaders r brainwashing u with. What the US did in the 1st Gulf War, shocked the
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 hell out of u & the Chinese. Up until then, u had no idea that an air force can be used like that. Yr political & in specially military leaders were stunned. They were traumatized by what they saw. & when yr experts tried 2 draw attention on the danger the USAF might represent against u, they were forced 2 silence. Yr bureaucratic & corrupt political leaders didn't wanna here it. The truth is the Americans gave u a lesson abt how 2 use the air force & since then, u r trying 2
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 copy them. The pathetic statement of yr generals that the bombing of Grozny campaign was similar with the NATO bombing of Kossovo campaign, proves that u try 2 copy the Americans. U still have a long way 2 go until u will be able 2 conduct an air campaign of the same magnitude of the 1 the Americans conducted in the 1st Gulf War.
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 Oh, & tanks weaknesses? Where did u get this bullshit from? Probably form the same propaganda articles that yr military & political leaders r bullshitting u with. The Abrams tank is probably the best protected tank in the world. Its armour is a combination of RHA, Chobham armour & depleted uranium embedded in the armour. That armour provides a 1320-1620mm protection against HEAT charges & 940-960mm protection against AP rounds. & these r juts the official numbers released.
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 The Abrams' armour offer a much better protection than any of yr tanks, even when they incorporate ERA.
As 4 the Iraqi tanks, yes they were old, built under standards, that were using inadequate ammo. But the fact that every encounter between the Abrams tanks & the Iraqi tanks was won by the Abrams still remains. Yr tanks never had such a record in any of the conflicts that u got involved in.
@StiviGun1 come on everybody know that if that air campaign was a succes was because the iraki army had no resources,after being in a 8year war with iran and the weapons embargo.all the tanks and airplanes were inbad conditions missing parts low ammo.and they stilh put out a fight
@jaguarpow19 Actually, they had a very large army. Their equipment was made up primarily form soviet export versions that r not as good as the Russian ones. But they didn't lack equipment. Saddam Hussein had mortgaged the country's entire economy 2 buy weapons, so yeah, they did had a lot of weapons. & that missing parts thing was valid 4 the Serbian army... I think u r confused...
@StiviGun1 i do agree that they have a big army but i dont think they were in condition to figth after the 8 year war with iran and the weapon embargo
@jaguarpow19 The weapons embargo didn't do shit. Saddam had the biggest army in the Middle East at that time. Even bigger than the Israel's army. Why do u think that the US & NATO had 2 intervene? So The Iraqis had a large military, but quantity couldn't stand against overwhelming technological superiority. Anyway, what the Americans managed 2 achieve there was something that no1 else managed since then. They gave a lesson of how 2 use the air force 2 everybody in that conflict.
@StiviGun1 look what im trying to say is that a large army doesnt do any good if they are in bad shape or lacking weapons and technology. Because they had a war spanning eight years with iran in which they used the majority of equipment and ammunition. Perhaps you should do more reasearch on the iran/iraq war because by the time us and nato invade the military was lacking.
@jaguarpow19 They didn't lack ammo or equipment. It's just that, compared with the US & NATO equipment, the Iraqi equipment was obsolete. U should go do some research abt what kind of AA the Iraqis were having. Baghdad was full of AA systems. Over 3000 of such systems were spread all over the country, but mainly in Baghdad. Yr claim that the bombing campaign was a success only because the Iraqis lacked the mean 2 defend their air space is false. If it was any other air force in there, other
@jaguarpow19 than the USAF, it wouldn't have had even half of the success the USAF had. In fact, I told u that the Russians were shocked by what they saw. They never thought the air force can be used like that & all their calculations abt how many sorties the US fighter-jets could perform per day, were totally under the sorties the USN pilots have been able 2 achieve. They were simply amazed by what they saw the Americans were able 2 do in that conflict.
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 pathetic claims. The Tomahawks hit their targets where they were supposed 2 every time. & show me 1 foreign country that was hit by a US missile or bomb. It was after this claim that I really knew that u only repeat the propaganda that yr political & military officials r indoctrinating u with. As 4 hitting civilian objectives, that happens in every war, but u crossed every line in Chechnya, where u'r bombs & missiles killed a ot more civilians that the US bombs killed in Kossovo
Chechnya was Russian territory.What led to that conflict was attacks on Russian garrisons around Grozny(Chechen capital).Chechnya was to become breeding ground for terror in that region and it's not only Chechnya but Kavkaz,Ingushetya as well .US army went across the Globe to pursue terrorist and Russia can't do that on it's territory?Such is your logic.In war against my Serbia you killed 10 times more civilians than military personnel and more civil buildings were destroyed.
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 10x more civilians killed & buildings destroyed? Well, let's see, the official numbers released by 3 independent human rights groups on the total number of civilian victims in Serbia was somewhere between 450-550. IN Chechnya, the human rights groups, foreign & Russian r talking abt at least 200 000 civilians killed. & the argument was abt the accuracy of the US bombs compared 2 yrs. I don't give a fuck abt what happened in Chechnya. The idea was that yr bombs & missiles missed
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 Ha, after u saw what NATO & US did in Kossovo, u wanted 2 show that u can do the same, yr military officials declaring that the bombing of Grozny (or better described as the massacre of Grozny) had a lot of similarities with the NATO bombing of Serbia. That pathetic claim really made me laugh. 1st of all, u just can't help yr selves comparing u'r selves with the Americans, which is rally pathetic really, & 2nd of all, the bombing of Grozny had absolutely nothing in common with
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 the NATO bombing of Serbia. U didn't even used intelligence guided bombs, only dumb bombs. & so were the missiles launched from Su-24s & Su-25s. There was nothing that had even the slightest similarity between the NATO bombing of Serbia & what u did in Grozny. U killed a lot more people in Grozny alone, than NATO killed in the entire air campaign against Serbia. Tell this 2 Putin & any other political or military official that craps this kind of propaganda, OK?
And by the way I just saw failure/success/abortion rate of that So advanced system you mentioned which looks more like Patriot on steroids and to have only 1/3 success rate isn't really something you can count on when warheads from Topol,Satan,Sickle,Bulava,start falling not to mention supersonic cruise missiles in where Russia rules.I would stick to current S-400 or upcoming S-500 to save my ass.By the way Russia researched anti-missile weapons in beginning of nuclear era,not now.
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 THAAD? & when exactly did u see those failures? At the beginning of the '90s, when it was just at the beginnings of its development? THAAD is more capable against medium & even some ICBMS, than any of ur S-400 or S-500, which is not even at the prototype stage BTW. & nobody says that the THAAD has the capability 2 defend against advanced ICBMs, like Topol or R36M. The Bulava, in case u didn't know, is not in service yet, so stop talking abt things that u don;t even have.
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 But it can defend against medium & some less advanced ICBMs than everything u have. The US is not currently focusing so much on defending against ICBMS, they focus more on defending against the Iranian & N Korean type of missiles, which r not so advanced. & the Americans were also developing anti-missile systems during the Cold War. Check out the Safe Guard & the Sentinel programs. The Safe Guard was so advanced compared 2 ur systems that u actually called 4 a treaty limiting
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 the anti-missile capabilities of the 2 countries. Only the Safe Guard was employed because the Americans wanted 2 spare u from shitting ur pants... They also have another system that can defend against ICBM, but it doesn't get so much attention as the Aegis system, which is more advanced than the THAAD. By 2015, they will employ the SM-3 missiles on land based mobile platforms as well. When that will happen, that system will be the most advanced mobile land based anti-missile
@strelacxxx It depends from what point of view you are talking about. THAAD is an exclusively anti-missile system which uses kinetic warheads, while the S-400 was developed primarily as an anti-aircraft system, with secondary anti-missile capabilities and it uses explosive warheads. In anti-aircraft role, it can't be compared with THAAD, since THAAD is not developed 4 that. In anti-missile role, THAAD is much better though. It's a specialized anti-missile system.
@StiviGun1 Im not sure about the specifications of the THAAD, but the S-400 is still the best SAM today(because its missiles have farther range and can engage six targets at a time). The function of modern SAM is multirole, with one objective -"Blast any hostile flying object in the air".Most SAM's today have a hard time in hitting missiles,its almost impossible to destroy modern ICBM's
@999cheetos999 THAAD's missiles have a reported range of 200 km and a an engagement altitude of 150 km. This high altitude engagement range makes it a much better ABM system than the S-400, which has an engagement altitude of just 40 km. The S-400 is the best anti-aircraft system in the world though, without a doubt.
@StiviGun1 Got it...though im not really sure you have the right info about the S-400, The S-400 radar is able to detect targets 400km away, engage targets 200km away,has a 3,500km missile range @4.8km/s 40N6,
@999cheetos999 No, no, the S-400, right now, uses the S-300 radars that have a maximum detection range of about 300 km. The 40N6 missile is what the Russians call "the big missile" and it has a 400 km engagement range. But with the current radars the system uses, it's not that effective & it's meant to be used more against AWACS, tankers and strategic bombers. The S-400's radar can't detect targets at 400 km away. Future radars, with 500-600 km detection ranges gave been theorized for it, but
@StiviGun1 The S-300 radars are placeholders for future radar, actually the majority of the radars are already available. And in actuality the S-400's real name is the S-300PMU-3..and is an upgraded version of the S-300..they arent necessarily different. And the 36D6 S-300 radar can detect ranges up to 360km. The S-400's radar called "Gravestone" is still has classified info as of now, and is already active and implemented on S-400's.Where did you find the info on the THAAD's detection range?
@999cheetos999 army - technology . com/ projects / thaad / specs . html This is one source about the THAAD's radar detection range. The S-400's radar may be powerful, but it certainly doesn't have the same detection range as the THAAD's radar and the system's missiles have a much lower engagement altitude. This makes it a much weaker ABM system.
@StiviGun1 Ok...ive stumbled upon threads about them and found out that they cannot be compared..how foolish of me to compare..Anyway I understand now, THAAD is better ABM system while S-400 is a better AA system...Not to mention THAAD's use precision and impact to effectively destroy missiles, while S-400 uses large explosions to rip jets to pieces.
@999cheetos999 That's right, they can't really be compared. THAAD is solely an ABM system while the S-400 is mainly an anti-aircraft system with secondary anti-missile capability. It is pretty good in ABM role though too. It's certainly better than the Patriot PAC-2.
@StiviGun1 I'm sorry to say but THAAD so far has a spotty record in terms of being able to successfully intercept incoming SRBMs or MRBMs. It's capabilities are also very limited in engaging ICBMs, and it is useless against warheads which are capable of terminal maneuverability. If anything, it will be Russia that will develop a truly effective ABM system in the form of the future S-500 which is still under development.
@IAmOpenMinded Well, first of all, THAAD was not developed to intercept SRBM, only MRBM and up to a certain degree some ICBMs. PAC-3 is designed to intercept SRBM. And I don't agree with you on THAAD's record. Since 2005, most of its tests were successful.
As for the S-500, that is still only on the drawing boards, so you can't say it will be better than THAAD. In fact,m even from this phase, the S-500 doesn't look like it's gonna be better than THAAD. Its maximum altitude engagement range is
@IAmOpenMinded lower than THAAD's. THAAD's altitude engagement range is 150 km, the S-500's max altitude engagement range will be about 70 km. It will be a much better anti-aircraft system than everything the US has, but it won't be a better ABM system.
@StiviGun1 How can you predict what the max altitude engagement for the S-500 will be compared to THAAD? You said so yourself that it is still "on the drawing board"! I have read the description about the THAAD system and it did mention SRBMs as possible targets for engagement, though PAC-3 might be better suited for that. One of the design goals for the S-500 is to be able to intercept ICBMs right before or after MIRV separation if that tells you anything about possible engagement altitude.
@IAmOpenMinded OK, then give me your source about the S-500 projected specifications. Where did you read that it is meant to do what the American ground based interceptor is designed to do, which is a much bigger missile, by the way. Give me your sources. You also have to take into account that the Russians have a history of bragging their weapons systems but when it comes to practice, those systems always seem to have poorer performances than the Russians initially stated.
@StiviGun1 First of all, let's not continue to get far off topic here as this video is about a mobile short range air defense, not high altitude, long range missile interceptors. But do your search on REAL defense forums, not YouTube or even Wikipedia. The design objective of the S-500, besides long range interception of combat aircraft, is in the role of ABM against ICBMs, and even the capability to shoot down satellites in low Earth orbit. That requires a high max altitude engagement (Cont)
@IAmOpenMinded Well, you say that this topic is about short range air defense, but you're the one who talks about S-500's presumable capability to shoot down ICBMs... And you're not offering any proof to support you either. The S-500 can't do what you claim. It can't shoot down ICBMs fore they get into the terminal phase of flight. The only system that is designed to do that is the US Ground Based Midcourse Defense system and that uses much larger and powerful interceptors.
@StiviGun1 Yes our discussion is off topic but I was merely making an observation about what you were saying on the THAAD system. It (THAAD) has only performed well when the exact moment of launch, trajectory, velocity, etc. of the target was KNOWN IN ADVANCE! In a real life situation, we won't know how it will truly perform, and as I said earlier, it won't be effective against the new generation of terminal maneuverable MIRV warheads no matter how much mid course correction it has. (Cont)
@IAmOpenMinded "It (THAAD) has only performed well when the exact moment of launch, trajectory, velocity, etc. of the target was KNOWN IN ADVANCE!" OK, then what do you know about the Russian systems' testing? How do you know that the Russian systems perform better in testings? As for MIRVEd ICBMs, that is something that is in theory possible. Such an upgrade was proposed for the GMD system but US Congress rejected the proposal. Anyway, it's impossible for the S-500 to perform better against
@StiviGun1 You're just hard headed! I just told you not to believe any specs or performance numbers on a system that isn't even close to being operational. I also told you that tests with the THAAD system were in "controlled conditions". So we'll ask the Russians, and the Chinese to please extend the courtesy to alert us when they fire an ICBM, it's course, and intended target. Oh I almost forgot, to use only older generation warheads to give us a modicum of a chance to intercept it. (Cont)
@IAmOpenMinded "I just told you not to believe any specs or performance numbers on a system that isn't even close to being operational" Really? Then why do you predict that the S-500 will be better than THAAD? And how do you know that THAAD was only tested in controlled conditions? I already told 1000x to give me a link. You say the American systems are not that good and assume that the Russian ones are better without having any proof, just speculations. Now that's stupid.
@StiviGun1 Dude! Are you obsessed?! Why is this topic so important to you?! Do you work for, or have commercial interest in Lockheed Martin? OK, I'm going to say it one more time! The reason why I believe you overrate THAAD is because that system is a Cold War, Ronald Reagan era weapon that was designed to shoot down early generation ballistic missiles, such as the SS-18 for example. Since it's a kinetic kill vehicle (no explosive charge), it must hit it's target dead on or the shot (Con't)
@IAmOpenMinded I don't think I overrate the THAAD system when I say that is the most efficient land mobile ABM system. You're the one that overrates a system that didn't even come off the drawing board based on just some rumors.
& THAAD is not a Ronald Reagan era system, its development started during the Clinton adm. & how many times do I have to tell that its primary role is to shoot down MRBMs, not ICBMs? The ICBMs are left to be taken care of by the GMD system.
@StiviGun1 (Con't) is lost! Most missiles, and warheads today are designed to fly in erratic, unpredictable patterns during terminal flight stage so it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible for THAAD to intercept them. Russia, and China have ICBMs in their arsenals right now with that capability, and if I'm not mistaken, India's new Agni-5 ICBM will too. Iran's new MRBM, the Qiam-1 can actually maneuver in mid flight as well as in terminal phase. It actually use thrust (Con't)
@StiviGun1 (Con 't) vectoring instead of fins to perform course corrections, and evasive action. That means game over for Israel's Arrow, Patriot, and any other ABM systems they may have. Why I believe that the S-500 will be superior is for the mere fact that it's technology will be much newer, and better suited to handle today's potential threats. You might be right about it's engagement altitude being lower than THAAD's but I predict it will be far more effective, and precise. (Con't)
@IAmOpenMinded You forget that the Kinetic kill vehicle that the THAAD and the GMD system's interceptors alos can maneuver. They get data about their target while in flight and they have a divert and control system with six engines that are strapped around them. You can't tell me that a warhead that weights a tonne can outmaneuver a kinetic kill vehicle which is much lighter and can maneuver much better.
@StiviGun1 (Con't) And this is just a rumor. I repeat, a rumor that there may be a variant of S-500's interceptor that may even carry a low yield nuclear device to increase the blast radius, and improve the odds greatly of destroying the target, and at the same time to lighten the payload on the missile's rocket engine, and increase performance. I don't agree with "nuclear anything", but if it takes a small nuke, to kill a big one, and save lives, then so be it! Do your own research! Good bye
@IAmOpenMinded Yeah well, that rumor is a bullshit. Every soviet/Russian weapons system is always rumored to be this or that, but in practice it's always found out that it was overrated.
As for nuclear warheads, can you tell me how those may limit the payload more than a kinetic warheads? Are you insane? You actually believe that a nuclear warhead is lighter than a kinetic warhead?
And BTW, why are you such a fucking fan of the Russian weapons systems? Are you a Russian living in America?
@StiviGun1 (Cont) Sound stupid? Sound silly? Well that's what it'll take for the THAAD to have a decent chance of doing what it was designed for. This is nothing but Lockheed Martin trying to scam the American taxpayer of tens of billions of dollars if you ask me. I'm moving on. Have a great day!
@IAmOpenMinded THAAD is not designed to intercept ICBMs. It has some limited capability against more primitive ICBMs (like the ones N Korea or Iran may develop) but its primary role is to intercept MRBMs. GMD system is designed to be used against ICBMs. And it could have been made to be effective against MIRVed ICBMs but the US congress rejected the proposal for this upgrade.
@IAmOpenMinded ICBMs than THAAD or in specially the GMD system. Like you said, there's almost nothing that is known about the S-500 so how can you assume from now that it will be better than THAAD or even the GMD system?
@StiviGun1 (Cont) And lastly, I find it laughable that you were the first to bring to light that the S-500 is still on the drawing table, and yet you're already making baseless predictions as to what it can, and cannot do. I am sorry but you lost credibility in this debate as far as I'm concerned. I merely wrote what the stated design goals are for the S-500. Will they achieve them, I don't know, and most certainly neither do you! I mean, can it get simpler?
@IAmOpenMinded Listen, I know I've read somewhere that the S-500's altitude engagement range will be 70 km. If I find that article, I'll send it to you.
And if the S-500 is still just on the drawing board, then how can you assume from now that it'll be better than THAAD or GMD system? Yes, the system is still on the drawing board and for that reason you can't justassume that it'll be better than THAAD of GMD system. At least THAAD & GMD systems have been proven in live fire tests. The S-500, on
@IAmOpenMinded the other hand doesn't even exist. Anyway, since it will be based on the same S-300/400 platform, I doubt that it'll have missiles powerful enough to deal with ICBMs. You need powerful missiles for that and also hit-to-kill technology, which the Russians currently lack. They still use proximity warheads in their ABM systems. And there's something else as well. The S-500 will definitely be inferior to the Aegis Ashore system.
@StiviGun1 (Cont) envelope. Any specific figures you might read or relate to us about the max altitude engagement for the S-500 are pure BS. At this point, that is classified information, but just go by what I was referring to as the intended engagement targets to give you an idea of what that might be. And to clear up your comment about Russia's "bragging", the US takes the capabilities of these systems very seriously, hence why it protested vigorously when Iran was trying to buy the S-300.
@IAmOpenMinded "any specific figures you might read or relate to us about the max altitude engagement for the S-500 are pure BS" Then how do you know that the system will be so capable. If there is no real data out there, how can you assume that it'll be so capable. I repeat, give me your sources.
As for why the US opposed Russia to sell the S-300 to Iran, that's because Israel wanted that and the reason they wanted that is because they don't want to have to face an extra capability in case
@IAmOpenMinded they attack Iran, not because the S-300 would be so capable. An aerial attack from Israel on Iran would still be possible even if Iran had the S-300, it's just that it would be more difficult. So why would Israel want that? In my opinion, S-300 and S-400, since they were never tested in battle, their capabilities are just theoretical, are overrated. They're not like the Patriot, a system that has been tested in battle.
@999cheetos999 so far, it uses the S-300's radars. The THAAD's radar, on the other hand, is the the most powerful land based mobile radar, with a 1000 km detection range. THAAD is a VERY effective ABM system. I think it's the best mobile land based ABM system in the world.
Russia for 100% has the best air defense systems in the world, its was part of the arms race, US made new aircraft very expensive-Russia made anti aircraft weapons to counter them-much cheaper. +Russian missiles best in the world, i guess its the other way round with missiles, Russia makes missiles, US counters them
Yeah, kinda, but the main thing is the M1a2 could accurately aim and hit at 2800 yards, and the T-72 had to close within 2000 yards. To do that you have to be in canyons or urban environments. I do know that at least ONE american tank brigade got caught at close range with T-72s, and while it was close, the M1A2 Abrams brought ALL of them home.
Depends on what T72 are you talking about. An Iraqi T72M were issues with rounds which carried only half of the propellant that standard rounds carry. That`s why they were retired from service in the USSR in 1973 and exported widely.
Anyway the T72B version is capable of firing Svir guided missiles which outrange all existing tank rounds in the US inventory, regardless the type and have pin-point accuracy even at maximum range (5km)
I didn`t say that the Iraqis bought those rounds in the 70`s. I said they were retired from service from the USSR in the 70`s and were later sold widely.
It`s not 30 years y the way. Invasion began in 1991. From retirement in the USSR to Gulf war is only 18 years
And t72M is basically a T72A with downgraded armour, gun and sights and Lion of Babilon is basically a T72M built from spare parts to avoid the arms embargo
Russia never sold their top-of the line weapons to anybody. All weapons sol d abroad are less capable downgraded versions.
What did Saddam buy? a few laser rangefinders? The T72A has a rangefinder on it`s own. Most of the basic Asad Babil parts did not even came from Russia. Saddam also bought electro-optical interference pods from China. Does this make him a bad eqquipment buyer?
actually russian forces were using T72`s too in Georgia and they didn`t have any tank loss
I know a T72`s gunner who is tall 184cm and has no problem at all with the internal space of the tank
Dunno what`s you`re talking about detonating ammo though. Penetrating the turret has nothing to do with detonating ammo. It`s very unlikely for a missile or tank round to penetrate the lower hull of the tank
Tank crew`s abbandoned M1`s too as soon as they realised that they couldn`t move
BS. Russian forces did not have any armor loss in the battle. Dunno where the fuck did you get that 20%
Had problems. Yeah like Rpg-7`s destroying the tracks or even worse, setting the whole tank on fire. T72`s crews could do the same thing if their tank was on fire. Ammo explosion is never instant so there is plently of time for the crew to leave before tank explodes
T72`s are safe. That`s the truth, not that Military channel busllshit when the T72 is called a deathtrap
I love the propaganda angle. Syria took delivery of the Pantsir before the Israeli airstrike on the reactor, but they would not deploy their most advanced air defense system to defend their most sensitive military site? That just doesn't make sense.
There has never been a Mig 31 shot down. Mig 31s are only in use in Russia. You mean Mig 25 which was designed around 1967. Mig 29s were designed in the early 1970s.
lmfao see what they said within 20 km lol geee they would blow up a nuke 20 km away hahahah omg how silly is this , whats the radius of a nuke explosion
Live4Cod 4 days ago
@Live4Cod Did you had a brain remove surgery?
Dont comment if you dont know a shit!!!
S1 is not for targeting nukes, it is short range aa that has its own purposes.
S-400 is suitable for intercepting nukes... At least learn basics then post comments...
Baboonmann 3 days ago
This would be FPSRussia's wet dream.
ParanoidGallows 6 days ago
damn I love my freedom of speech!!!!
420mikepark 1 week ago
@vtkrey you have mentioned the whole coalition but go back and see how many US stealth planes (nighthawk, etc) were shot down by this "short range" air defense, even while the skies are filled with artillery fire the stealths are hitting targets at a 99% rate. This stuff is built only against blackhawk helicopters
sssaannn 4 weeks ago
@sssaannn 117 wasn shot down by sam or mig29 as they claim it was just a lucky shot wuth 37mm or 57mm AAA but try to convince them that
gromxxx 2 weeks ago
@gromxxx Yugoslavia never used 37 mm guns, while ZSU 57 were out of use in that time, nice story. It was shot down by s125 Pecora SA03 Goa end of damn story.
ITmage 2 weeks ago
@ITmage sure it was nice story
gromxxx 2 weeks ago
@gromxxx Still, Yugoslavia never used 37mm AA guns, you talk bullshit... Yugoslavia/Serbia used only Bofors L60 and BOV 3 (3x20mm) AA guns and towed 3x20mm guns which are FARRR from even close to hit F117a on its combat altitude. You need to read more, much more, then you maybe even get chance to look smart somewhere... not here..sry.
ITmage 1 week ago
@ITmage yeah you r right i was wrong did my research it seems i didnt have clue what i was talking about good knowledge on your part, nicely done.
gromxxx 1 week ago
@sssaannn where did this guy get 232 aircraft lost is he talking about Battlefield 3
gromxxx 2 weeks ago
@sergeikozin47 lol are you drunk? Oo it's made, that's why this video was added 4years ago, so dummy get it straight. But US have many weapons in the arsenal that's unheard-of. You're own prime minister even said that "USA own this planet". So put down the vodka thats apparently drowning you and begin to notice the obvious corruption in your own government. Russia stop slaving your people they need enlightenment
sssaannn 4 weeks ago
Noticed how it says "short range"
sssaannn 1 month ago
@sergeikozin47 saddam (Iraq) thought the same thing he bought the best soviet made air defense that money can buy and they got smashed by the back to back world war champs without losing a single plane. Don't be scared
sssaannn 1 month ago
@sssaannn where did you get that?? you made it??? :DDD
sergeikozin47 4 weeks ago
@sssaannn in saddam's regime this air defense system are not yet made, so you can shut up..
sergeikozin47 4 weeks ago
@sssaannn
Best when they were initially fielded, however, that was decades before the wars, since then the Soviets had developed and fielded several generations of new air defence systems which Iraq did not possess and the systems they did possess were several decades old and severely outdated, nothing compared to the new air defence systems the Soviets possessed at the time of the Gulf War, so there is no surprise that the coalition was able to quickly overwhelm them in both wars.
vtkrey 4 weeks ago
@sssaannn
However, that's not to say that these victories were achieved at no cost, infact, they came with a high cost, the coalition lost approximately 232 aircraft in the two wars, ofcoarse, only part of the total losses were due to enemy action, nevertheless, you are ridiculously wrong to claim that no aircraft were lost.
vtkrey 4 weeks ago
@sssaannn
...best Soviet-made AD?
He had legacy system like S-75, S-125 and Kub and they were downgradad export versions and the staff operating them was not very skilled. Western Air Forces never faced decent systems like S-300, Buk, Tor and so one (and I'm not even mentioning the newest generation SAM's).
brocalfur 1 week ago
RUSSIA ALL THE WAY!!!!!
sergeikozin47 1 month ago
Lol that's nothing
sssaannn 1 month ago
@sssaannn you know nothing..
sergeikozin47 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
bakit di nila kaya ung ballistic missiles?
The1211deep 1 month ago
so why it can't take down jets in bf3
renzonaitor 2 months ago
@renzonaitor because bf3 is american shit for stupid patriotic american children.
badass3154 1 month ago
@badass3154 i like playing in the russian side
renzonaitor 1 month ago
THAAD just like most super expensive defense projects such as the F-22 are only good for shooting down our budget! Grossly overrated and will probably be useless against modern maneuvering warheads.
IAmOpenMinded 6 months ago
B2 bomber DOWN!!!
LegendKilI3r 7 months ago
Anywone here watched the "Alien Invasion" documentary and how governments take it serious?... Our weapons means shit towards an outside invasion. Time to stop battleing each other, and develop future weapons for our own defense.
GigglinMarley 7 months ago
People simply talk out of their asses! Not too many of you have any general knowledge of any of the systems and what kind of technologies are involved. Russian military doctrine is that of defense, as they had to singlehandedly beat Germany in WWII. No one has more expertise in armor, and defensive operations than Russians do. When it comes to offense, Americans have the edge, since they never had to defend, but always assumed the position of the attacker. BTW, no system is perfect.
tropickman 7 months ago
actually with the US weapons never facing a real opponent, they are the ones that are overrated. I am an american btw, I just see this superiority complex firsthand.
tnix80 8 months ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHA
hrflikk 8 months ago
How come i can only hear this on my left ear plug.
1jilu 9 months ago
According To Russia Today?
LOL
Russia Today Has Been Proven The Most Fabricated Bullshit Airing Channel In The World
Its A Kremlin Propaganda Tool
Only Morons Watch It
1MagicAndMayhem1 9 months ago
@1MagicAndMayhem1 you know nothing bitch..
sergeikozin47 1 month ago
@sergeikozin47 I notice your pathetic comment lacks both material and anything worth taking seriously, Thus, Your arguement if flawed and fails,
Continue to suck the cock of the RT kremlim propaganda machine and dream of what "might" of been while real powers play the game, which you were knocked out of years ago
1MagicAndMayhem1 1 month ago
@1MagicAndMayhem1 russians killed the the ussr bitch, not americans. atleast they saying the truth unlike your american shitload propaganda, so shut you mouth red american tribe member bitch...
sergeikozin47 4 weeks ago
@sergeikozin47 fuck you! russians are poor pieces of dogshit on the bottom of my shoe. Go drink your vodka and fuck your mother in the ass. oh wait, I am fucking your mom,you have to wait your turn.damn she is one wore out bitch. i guess I will have to try your grandma next commie.
420mikepark 1 week ago
@420mikepark this red american idiot shows that american are real SUBHUMANS, who you think you are?? a god?? oh boy go to mcdonald's and some burger, and i know this guy is fatty.. :D
sergeikozin47 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
looks like a tunguska turret on a truck
Srbija141 10 months ago
looks like a tunguska on a truck
Srbija141 10 months ago
how much is one of them bad boys?
maokly1 10 months ago
@maokly1 $13-$16 million export price
999cheetos999 10 months ago
Pantsyr
454jags 1 year ago
simply the best...
caibarien71 1 year ago
hey ...the russkes got to make cash.
but they can't fool us.
check out the toggle swiches...solid state technoligies, still 10 years behind.
radar technology is old too.
haha
alfteck 1 year ago
@alfteck you're already bunch fools. why would anyone want to go through the trouble?!
joejoe4812 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alfteck you're already bunch fools. why would anyone want to go through the trouble?!
joejoe4812 1 year ago
@alfteck You are a fool ha ha ha ha ha ha
nurmiar 10 months ago
My left ear hurts now.
eqGismo 1 year ago
@eqGismo Mine too. I don`t know why, but RT videos often have this problem. It`s very uncomfortable for people like me, who use headphones. Only one side sounds and it kinda irritates my ear.
Durmanstainer 1 year ago 20
in soviet russia...weapon buys you.
omgodsword 1 year ago
@omgodsword in american empire worthless paper dollar buys you!
joejoe4812 1 year ago
@omgodsword on this website, those jokes are old and not funny
PeanutButterAndZorg 11 months ago 2
Chief DESIGNER, not "chief constructor" you fucking translator, a product of fat moscow language schools, born by the drunk 1990s.
DmitryDaren 1 year ago
@DmitryDaren keep displaying your endless stupidity. LOL
joejoe4812 1 year ago
1.5m margin of error is not very accurate, in specially for a short range air defense system. What do u mean this is something that no1 else can achieve? This is not such a high performance. With a 1.5m margin of error, the system is not really that accurate as a short range system should be. The system is very good, that's true, but saying it's the best and that no1 else can achieve such a performance is more than exaggerating.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 What about NATO`s accuracy of 200km,when they were bombing Serbia they were hitting all countrys around,so dont be a dick that when someone have something better you westerners are jelous.
drgrujic 1 year ago
@drgrujic "200km"? :)))))) U have no idea what u r talking abt. Besides, this topic is a abt ant-aircraft missiles, not bombs. But in bombs technology, the Americans r much better than u. They have much more accurate bombs. They proved this in the 1st Gulf War, in Bosnia, in Kossovo, in Iraq. U didn't proved 2 have even half of the ground striking capabilities, in any of the conflicts that u got involved, neither In Chechnya, where yr bombs & missiles only struck hospitals & houses & neither in
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@drgrujic Georgia, where again yr bombs were missing their targets badly. U don;t have the technology 2 build such accurate bombs or missiles like the Americans, not the financial means 2 implement such technology on yr fighter-bombers. In both Chechnya & Georgia, u only used unguided bombs & missiles launched from Su-24s & Su-25s that killed a lot of innocent civilians. In specially in Chechnya. So shut y mouth abt Serbia or any other conflict the Americans got involved which, BTW, have nothing
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@drgrujic to do with you. U take care of yr mess from yr own back yard before looking into the others back yards.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@drgrujic
bruhaha good one
brocalfur 11 months ago
@StiviGun1
Firstly Pantsir has range of 36km not 20 as stated here.Secondly it has 1.5 meters margin for error while on the move(listed carefully)and that is 75cm from either side of the missiles pint of impact!How big is the plane?About 20 meters,how about a helicopter?More or less it's a direct impact on any target larger than 1.5 meters.Have you ever been at school???
BoxerTheSpaceK9 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 1st of all, how do u know that it has a 36km range? I think u don;t know how 2 make the difference between the engagement range & detection range... & u're asking me if I've ever been 2 any school? As 4 that 1.5m margin of error, the point I was trying 2 make is that this is not at all unique 2 this system. The statement that no1 else can do this is pathetic & nothing more than cheap propaganda. The Brits have a system that is so accurate that the missile explodes only after it
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 hits the target. It explodes inside the airplane or the helicopter is fired against. Now THAT is accuracy.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
And that's on the move!In most dangerous situations for it's self.Usually it's from stand point because only in full scale attack and if it was by itself surrounded by numerous targets it will have to move and defend it's self or object it's defending,only than!How many situations like that are going to happen?None because it won't be only one to welcome you but others as well as other mid to long range AA systems.There's no equal system nor better than this.
BoxerTheSpaceK9 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 U know, this is the 1st time I hear this. Where exactly do u get these specifications? In the vid nobody says that the 1.5m is achieved while it's moving. Did u made this up? Anyway, there r other systems that r more accurate, like the British Rapier system which is much more accurate. & there's another aspect that u have 2 take into account. The NATO countries & in specially US, don't consider they r threatened by an air force anymore, their primary concern is terrorism. So
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 they don't develop anti-aircraft systems anymore & in specially short range air defense ones. That's why the Pantsir is 2day the best short range system. That is if it really has the capabilities that u claim here it has. NATO & in specially US r focusing on ant-missile defense & in this area, they r much more advanced than u. U don't have nothing 2 come close even 2 the THAAD in anti-missiles technology.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
Ok,tell me this than How are any of Nato planes/ships or surface weapons gonna launch any missiles since Russia has offensive and defensive weapons whose radars reach much further than engaging range of your missiles?In war over Serbia Nato lost over 180 planes,drones,unmanned spy planes,helicopters and what else not.Natos cruise missiles were more often than not missing and hitting civilian places or even foreign countries.And all that for 78 days against AA systems from early 60's
BoxerTheSpaceK9 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 Listen here, 1st of all, u don;t have radars that have longer detection ranges than the Tomahawk's range OK? This is bullshit propaganda that u have probably took from yr military & political officials. & where did u get that 180 planes lost bullshit? NATO's losses were very low. & the Tomahawks always hit their targets. What u r saying here is pure propaganda from u're military & political officials. I once saw a vid in which some Russian military official was even claiming
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
In Radar tech you will always lag behind.I said 180 planes,spy planes,drones unmanned craft,helicopters.Nato said themselves that losses were worrying and there's official account of Nato losses on IranDefense site which wasn't written by Iranians but by intelligence analysts after the war.Yeah,everything Russian is lies&propaganda while in Nato states is all milk and honey.
BoxerTheSpaceK9 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 The number of lost aircraft wasn't even half of the number that u talk abt. The losses were very light 4 NATO in the Kossovo conflict. I don't know where u get these numbers from. & what losses on Iran r u talking abt? When did NATO fought Iran?
Now, that Russian "superiority" in radars, this is just a myth, that I don't know how it started. Go make some research on the radars the Americans have developed 4 their fighters & compare them with the radars that u developed 4 your
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 fighters. The Americans were always ahead of. Go compare the radar that was initially installed on the F-15 with the 1 that u developed 4 the Su-27 & MiG-29. The F-15, F-16, F-14, F-18's radars were vastly superior 2 the Su-27 & MIG-29's radars. The only good radar that u have developed was the 1 4 the MiG-31, but that radar was good because it was BIG. Here, I'm talking abt the times when there was no military cooperation between u & the Americans, the Cold War. Now, u do
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 develop powerful & advanced radars, but this is because of the technology that the Americans have let go on the market & because of the military cooperation between the 2 of u. Basically, yr current radar technology is based on the American technology. The Americans were always far ahead of u in electronics & computers technology. If u don't believe me, just go compare the F-15/F-16/F-14/F-18's radars specs with the Su-27 & MiG-29's radars. The Su-27 & MiG-29's radars were
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 vastly inferior 2 the American ones. Much smaller detection range, much less accuracy, much poorer capability in tracking & engaging multiple targets. In fact the MiG-29's radar had no capability 2 engage multiple targets at all. & don't come 2 me with the radar developed 4 the MiG-35, which was developed after the end of the Cold War, using American technology. I'm talking abt the Cold War developments, when there was no military cooperation between the US & Russia.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 that in the Gulf War, the Iraqis fought against the Americans only with AK-47s against the Americans Abrams tanks, whereas, the Iraqis had more tanks than the entire coalition combined. Yr military & political leaders have a very ridiculous & hilarious way of making propaganda against the NATO & in specially the US weapons systems. They even claim things that r impossible from any point of view. What is strange though is that u Russians, actually believe these ridiculous &
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
In Gulf War you didn't beat Iraq,you just took over that part of Kuvait that was taken by Iraq in a incursion.Iraq had tanks at least 20-30 years behind your new Abrams.Even Israel saw weaknesses of your tank and decided to make it's own.Most of destroyed Iraqs tanks were destroyed by helicopters not tanks.Iraq in Kuvait didn't have set up of AA weapons to counter your attack,US intelligence knew that but you did have overwhelming advantage in air.
BoxerTheSpaceK9 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 Listen here, I told u 2 stop repeating me yr propaganda. In the Gulf War, the intention wasn't 2 occupy Iraq, go get yr facts straight. It was all abt liberating Kuwait. & wile there were no ground incursions in Iraq, there was a massive air campaign against the Iraq's territory. IN specially against Baghdad, which was covered with AA systems.Don't come 2 me with the bullshits yr military & political leaders r brainwashing u with. What the US did in the 1st Gulf War, shocked the
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 hell out of u & the Chinese. Up until then, u had no idea that an air force can be used like that. Yr political & in specially military leaders were stunned. They were traumatized by what they saw. & when yr experts tried 2 draw attention on the danger the USAF might represent against u, they were forced 2 silence. Yr bureaucratic & corrupt political leaders didn't wanna here it. The truth is the Americans gave u a lesson abt how 2 use the air force & since then, u r trying 2
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 copy them. The pathetic statement of yr generals that the bombing of Grozny campaign was similar with the NATO bombing of Kossovo campaign, proves that u try 2 copy the Americans. U still have a long way 2 go until u will be able 2 conduct an air campaign of the same magnitude of the 1 the Americans conducted in the 1st Gulf War.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 Oh, & tanks weaknesses? Where did u get this bullshit from? Probably form the same propaganda articles that yr military & political leaders r bullshitting u with. The Abrams tank is probably the best protected tank in the world. Its armour is a combination of RHA, Chobham armour & depleted uranium embedded in the armour. That armour provides a 1320-1620mm protection against HEAT charges & 940-960mm protection against AP rounds. & these r juts the official numbers released.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 The Abrams' armour offer a much better protection than any of yr tanks, even when they incorporate ERA.
As 4 the Iraqi tanks, yes they were old, built under standards, that were using inadequate ammo. But the fact that every encounter between the Abrams tanks & the Iraqi tanks was won by the Abrams still remains. Yr tanks never had such a record in any of the conflicts that u got involved in.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 come on everybody know that if that air campaign was a succes was because the iraki army had no resources,after being in a 8year war with iran and the weapons embargo.all the tanks and airplanes were inbad conditions missing parts low ammo.and they stilh put out a fight
jaguarpow19 1 year ago
@jaguarpow19 Actually, they had a very large army. Their equipment was made up primarily form soviet export versions that r not as good as the Russian ones. But they didn't lack equipment. Saddam Hussein had mortgaged the country's entire economy 2 buy weapons, so yeah, they did had a lot of weapons. & that missing parts thing was valid 4 the Serbian army... I think u r confused...
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 i do agree that they have a big army but i dont think they were in condition to figth after the 8 year war with iran and the weapon embargo
jaguarpow19 1 year ago
@jaguarpow19 The weapons embargo didn't do shit. Saddam had the biggest army in the Middle East at that time. Even bigger than the Israel's army. Why do u think that the US & NATO had 2 intervene? So The Iraqis had a large military, but quantity couldn't stand against overwhelming technological superiority. Anyway, what the Americans managed 2 achieve there was something that no1 else managed since then. They gave a lesson of how 2 use the air force 2 everybody in that conflict.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 look what im trying to say is that a large army doesnt do any good if they are in bad shape or lacking weapons and technology. Because they had a war spanning eight years with iran in which they used the majority of equipment and ammunition. Perhaps you should do more reasearch on the iran/iraq war because by the time us and nato invade the military was lacking.
jaguarpow19 1 year ago
@jaguarpow19 They didn't lack ammo or equipment. It's just that, compared with the US & NATO equipment, the Iraqi equipment was obsolete. U should go do some research abt what kind of AA the Iraqis were having. Baghdad was full of AA systems. Over 3000 of such systems were spread all over the country, but mainly in Baghdad. Yr claim that the bombing campaign was a success only because the Iraqis lacked the mean 2 defend their air space is false. If it was any other air force in there, other
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@jaguarpow19 than the USAF, it wouldn't have had even half of the success the USAF had. In fact, I told u that the Russians were shocked by what they saw. They never thought the air force can be used like that & all their calculations abt how many sorties the US fighter-jets could perform per day, were totally under the sorties the USN pilots have been able 2 achieve. They were simply amazed by what they saw the Americans were able 2 do in that conflict.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 nice baseless propaganda!
joejoe4812 1 year ago
@joejoe4812 You're an idiot.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1have you been looking into the mirror again, RETARD ?
joejoe4812 1 year ago
@joejoe4812 No, I was looking at you, RETARD. Go hang yourself, you stupid bitch.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 pathetic claims. The Tomahawks hit their targets where they were supposed 2 every time. & show me 1 foreign country that was hit by a US missile or bomb. It was after this claim that I really knew that u only repeat the propaganda that yr political & military officials r indoctrinating u with. As 4 hitting civilian objectives, that happens in every war, but u crossed every line in Chechnya, where u'r bombs & missiles killed a ot more civilians that the US bombs killed in Kossovo
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
Chechnya was Russian territory.What led to that conflict was attacks on Russian garrisons around Grozny(Chechen capital).Chechnya was to become breeding ground for terror in that region and it's not only Chechnya but Kavkaz,Ingushetya as well .US army went across the Globe to pursue terrorist and Russia can't do that on it's territory?Such is your logic.In war against my Serbia you killed 10 times more civilians than military personnel and more civil buildings were destroyed.
BoxerTheSpaceK9 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 10x more civilians killed & buildings destroyed? Well, let's see, the official numbers released by 3 independent human rights groups on the total number of civilian victims in Serbia was somewhere between 450-550. IN Chechnya, the human rights groups, foreign & Russian r talking abt at least 200 000 civilians killed. & the argument was abt the accuracy of the US bombs compared 2 yrs. I don't give a fuck abt what happened in Chechnya. The idea was that yr bombs & missiles missed
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 their targets too many fucking times. Yr bombs & missiles' technology is way behind the American bombs & missiles technology.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 Ha, after u saw what NATO & US did in Kossovo, u wanted 2 show that u can do the same, yr military officials declaring that the bombing of Grozny (or better described as the massacre of Grozny) had a lot of similarities with the NATO bombing of Serbia. That pathetic claim really made me laugh. 1st of all, u just can't help yr selves comparing u'r selves with the Americans, which is rally pathetic really, & 2nd of all, the bombing of Grozny had absolutely nothing in common with
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 the NATO bombing of Serbia. U didn't even used intelligence guided bombs, only dumb bombs. & so were the missiles launched from Su-24s & Su-25s. There was nothing that had even the slightest similarity between the NATO bombing of Serbia & what u did in Grozny. U killed a lot more people in Grozny alone, than NATO killed in the entire air campaign against Serbia. Tell this 2 Putin & any other political or military official that craps this kind of propaganda, OK?
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
And by the way I just saw failure/success/abortion rate of that So advanced system you mentioned which looks more like Patriot on steroids and to have only 1/3 success rate isn't really something you can count on when warheads from Topol,Satan,Sickle,Bulava,start falling not to mention supersonic cruise missiles in where Russia rules.I would stick to current S-400 or upcoming S-500 to save my ass.By the way Russia researched anti-missile weapons in beginning of nuclear era,not now.
BoxerTheSpaceK9 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 THAAD? & when exactly did u see those failures? At the beginning of the '90s, when it was just at the beginnings of its development? THAAD is more capable against medium & even some ICBMS, than any of ur S-400 or S-500, which is not even at the prototype stage BTW. & nobody says that the THAAD has the capability 2 defend against advanced ICBMs, like Topol or R36M. The Bulava, in case u didn't know, is not in service yet, so stop talking abt things that u don;t even have.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 But it can defend against medium & some less advanced ICBMs than everything u have. The US is not currently focusing so much on defending against ICBMS, they focus more on defending against the Iranian & N Korean type of missiles, which r not so advanced. & the Americans were also developing anti-missile systems during the Cold War. Check out the Safe Guard & the Sentinel programs. The Safe Guard was so advanced compared 2 ur systems that u actually called 4 a treaty limiting
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 the anti-missile capabilities of the 2 countries. Only the Safe Guard was employed because the Americans wanted 2 spare u from shitting ur pants... They also have another system that can defend against ICBM, but it doesn't get so much attention as the Aegis system, which is more advanced than the THAAD. By 2015, they will employ the SM-3 missiles on land based mobile platforms as well. When that will happen, that system will be the most advanced mobile land based anti-missile
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9 system. But right now, the THAAD is the most advanced mobile land based anti-missile system.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 THAAD is very good SAM but not the best in the world... S-400 Triumf is much better
strelacxxx 1 year ago 9
@strelacxxx It depends from what point of view you are talking about. THAAD is an exclusively anti-missile system which uses kinetic warheads, while the S-400 was developed primarily as an anti-aircraft system, with secondary anti-missile capabilities and it uses explosive warheads. In anti-aircraft role, it can't be compared with THAAD, since THAAD is not developed 4 that. In anti-missile role, THAAD is much better though. It's a specialized anti-missile system.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 Im not sure about the specifications of the THAAD, but the S-400 is still the best SAM today(because its missiles have farther range and can engage six targets at a time). The function of modern SAM is multirole, with one objective -"Blast any hostile flying object in the air".Most SAM's today have a hard time in hitting missiles,its almost impossible to destroy modern ICBM's
999cheetos999 10 months ago
@999cheetos999 THAAD's missiles have a reported range of 200 km and a an engagement altitude of 150 km. This high altitude engagement range makes it a much better ABM system than the S-400, which has an engagement altitude of just 40 km. The S-400 is the best anti-aircraft system in the world though, without a doubt.
StiviGun1 10 months ago
@StiviGun1 Got it...though im not really sure you have the right info about the S-400, The S-400 radar is able to detect targets 400km away, engage targets 200km away,has a 3,500km missile range @4.8km/s 40N6,
999cheetos999 10 months ago
@999cheetos999 No, no, the S-400, right now, uses the S-300 radars that have a maximum detection range of about 300 km. The 40N6 missile is what the Russians call "the big missile" and it has a 400 km engagement range. But with the current radars the system uses, it's not that effective & it's meant to be used more against AWACS, tankers and strategic bombers. The S-400's radar can't detect targets at 400 km away. Future radars, with 500-600 km detection ranges gave been theorized for it, but
StiviGun1 10 months ago
@StiviGun1 The S-300 radars are placeholders for future radar, actually the majority of the radars are already available. And in actuality the S-400's real name is the S-300PMU-3..and is an upgraded version of the S-300..they arent necessarily different. And the 36D6 S-300 radar can detect ranges up to 360km. The S-400's radar called "Gravestone" is still has classified info as of now, and is already active and implemented on S-400's.Where did you find the info on the THAAD's detection range?
999cheetos999 9 months ago
@999cheetos999 army - technology . com/ projects / thaad / specs . html This is one source about the THAAD's radar detection range. The S-400's radar may be powerful, but it certainly doesn't have the same detection range as the THAAD's radar and the system's missiles have a much lower engagement altitude. This makes it a much weaker ABM system.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 Ok...ive stumbled upon threads about them and found out that they cannot be compared..how foolish of me to compare..Anyway I understand now, THAAD is better ABM system while S-400 is a better AA system...Not to mention THAAD's use precision and impact to effectively destroy missiles, while S-400 uses large explosions to rip jets to pieces.
999cheetos999 9 months ago
@999cheetos999 That's right, they can't really be compared. THAAD is solely an ABM system while the S-400 is mainly an anti-aircraft system with secondary anti-missile capability. It is pretty good in ABM role though too. It's certainly better than the Patriot PAC-2.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 I'm sorry to say but THAAD so far has a spotty record in terms of being able to successfully intercept incoming SRBMs or MRBMs. It's capabilities are also very limited in engaging ICBMs, and it is useless against warheads which are capable of terminal maneuverability. If anything, it will be Russia that will develop a truly effective ABM system in the form of the future S-500 which is still under development.
IAmOpenMinded 9 months ago
@IAmOpenMinded Well, first of all, THAAD was not developed to intercept SRBM, only MRBM and up to a certain degree some ICBMs. PAC-3 is designed to intercept SRBM. And I don't agree with you on THAAD's record. Since 2005, most of its tests were successful.
As for the S-500, that is still only on the drawing boards, so you can't say it will be better than THAAD. In fact,m even from this phase, the S-500 doesn't look like it's gonna be better than THAAD. Its maximum altitude engagement range is
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@IAmOpenMinded lower than THAAD's. THAAD's altitude engagement range is 150 km, the S-500's max altitude engagement range will be about 70 km. It will be a much better anti-aircraft system than everything the US has, but it won't be a better ABM system.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 How can you predict what the max altitude engagement for the S-500 will be compared to THAAD? You said so yourself that it is still "on the drawing board"! I have read the description about the THAAD system and it did mention SRBMs as possible targets for engagement, though PAC-3 might be better suited for that. One of the design goals for the S-500 is to be able to intercept ICBMs right before or after MIRV separation if that tells you anything about possible engagement altitude.
IAmOpenMinded 9 months ago
@IAmOpenMinded OK, then give me your source about the S-500 projected specifications. Where did you read that it is meant to do what the American ground based interceptor is designed to do, which is a much bigger missile, by the way. Give me your sources. You also have to take into account that the Russians have a history of bragging their weapons systems but when it comes to practice, those systems always seem to have poorer performances than the Russians initially stated.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 First of all, let's not continue to get far off topic here as this video is about a mobile short range air defense, not high altitude, long range missile interceptors. But do your search on REAL defense forums, not YouTube or even Wikipedia. The design objective of the S-500, besides long range interception of combat aircraft, is in the role of ABM against ICBMs, and even the capability to shoot down satellites in low Earth orbit. That requires a high max altitude engagement (Cont)
IAmOpenMinded 9 months ago
@IAmOpenMinded Well, you say that this topic is about short range air defense, but you're the one who talks about S-500's presumable capability to shoot down ICBMs... And you're not offering any proof to support you either. The S-500 can't do what you claim. It can't shoot down ICBMs fore they get into the terminal phase of flight. The only system that is designed to do that is the US Ground Based Midcourse Defense system and that uses much larger and powerful interceptors.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 Yes our discussion is off topic but I was merely making an observation about what you were saying on the THAAD system. It (THAAD) has only performed well when the exact moment of launch, trajectory, velocity, etc. of the target was KNOWN IN ADVANCE! In a real life situation, we won't know how it will truly perform, and as I said earlier, it won't be effective against the new generation of terminal maneuverable MIRV warheads no matter how much mid course correction it has. (Cont)
IAmOpenMinded 9 months ago
@IAmOpenMinded "It (THAAD) has only performed well when the exact moment of launch, trajectory, velocity, etc. of the target was KNOWN IN ADVANCE!" OK, then what do you know about the Russian systems' testing? How do you know that the Russian systems perform better in testings? As for MIRVEd ICBMs, that is something that is in theory possible. Such an upgrade was proposed for the GMD system but US Congress rejected the proposal. Anyway, it's impossible for the S-500 to perform better against
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 You're just hard headed! I just told you not to believe any specs or performance numbers on a system that isn't even close to being operational. I also told you that tests with the THAAD system were in "controlled conditions". So we'll ask the Russians, and the Chinese to please extend the courtesy to alert us when they fire an ICBM, it's course, and intended target. Oh I almost forgot, to use only older generation warheads to give us a modicum of a chance to intercept it. (Cont)
IAmOpenMinded 9 months ago
@IAmOpenMinded "I just told you not to believe any specs or performance numbers on a system that isn't even close to being operational" Really? Then why do you predict that the S-500 will be better than THAAD? And how do you know that THAAD was only tested in controlled conditions? I already told 1000x to give me a link. You say the American systems are not that good and assume that the Russian ones are better without having any proof, just speculations. Now that's stupid.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 Dude! Are you obsessed?! Why is this topic so important to you?! Do you work for, or have commercial interest in Lockheed Martin? OK, I'm going to say it one more time! The reason why I believe you overrate THAAD is because that system is a Cold War, Ronald Reagan era weapon that was designed to shoot down early generation ballistic missiles, such as the SS-18 for example. Since it's a kinetic kill vehicle (no explosive charge), it must hit it's target dead on or the shot (Con't)
IAmOpenMinded 9 months ago
@IAmOpenMinded I don't think I overrate the THAAD system when I say that is the most efficient land mobile ABM system. You're the one that overrates a system that didn't even come off the drawing board based on just some rumors.
& THAAD is not a Ronald Reagan era system, its development started during the Clinton adm. & how many times do I have to tell that its primary role is to shoot down MRBMs, not ICBMs? The ICBMs are left to be taken care of by the GMD system.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 (Con't) is lost! Most missiles, and warheads today are designed to fly in erratic, unpredictable patterns during terminal flight stage so it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible for THAAD to intercept them. Russia, and China have ICBMs in their arsenals right now with that capability, and if I'm not mistaken, India's new Agni-5 ICBM will too. Iran's new MRBM, the Qiam-1 can actually maneuver in mid flight as well as in terminal phase. It actually use thrust (Con't)
IAmOpenMinded 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 (Con 't) vectoring instead of fins to perform course corrections, and evasive action. That means game over for Israel's Arrow, Patriot, and any other ABM systems they may have. Why I believe that the S-500 will be superior is for the mere fact that it's technology will be much newer, and better suited to handle today's potential threats. You might be right about it's engagement altitude being lower than THAAD's but I predict it will be far more effective, and precise. (Con't)
IAmOpenMinded 9 months ago
@IAmOpenMinded You forget that the Kinetic kill vehicle that the THAAD and the GMD system's interceptors alos can maneuver. They get data about their target while in flight and they have a divert and control system with six engines that are strapped around them. You can't tell me that a warhead that weights a tonne can outmaneuver a kinetic kill vehicle which is much lighter and can maneuver much better.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 (Con't) And this is just a rumor. I repeat, a rumor that there may be a variant of S-500's interceptor that may even carry a low yield nuclear device to increase the blast radius, and improve the odds greatly of destroying the target, and at the same time to lighten the payload on the missile's rocket engine, and increase performance. I don't agree with "nuclear anything", but if it takes a small nuke, to kill a big one, and save lives, then so be it! Do your own research! Good bye
IAmOpenMinded 9 months ago
@IAmOpenMinded Yeah well, that rumor is a bullshit. Every soviet/Russian weapons system is always rumored to be this or that, but in practice it's always found out that it was overrated.
As for nuclear warheads, can you tell me how those may limit the payload more than a kinetic warheads? Are you insane? You actually believe that a nuclear warhead is lighter than a kinetic warhead?
And BTW, why are you such a fucking fan of the Russian weapons systems? Are you a Russian living in America?
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 (Cont) Sound stupid? Sound silly? Well that's what it'll take for the THAAD to have a decent chance of doing what it was designed for. This is nothing but Lockheed Martin trying to scam the American taxpayer of tens of billions of dollars if you ask me. I'm moving on. Have a great day!
IAmOpenMinded 9 months ago
@IAmOpenMinded THAAD is not designed to intercept ICBMs. It has some limited capability against more primitive ICBMs (like the ones N Korea or Iran may develop) but its primary role is to intercept MRBMs. GMD system is designed to be used against ICBMs. And it could have been made to be effective against MIRVed ICBMs but the US congress rejected the proposal for this upgrade.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@IAmOpenMinded ICBMs than THAAD or in specially the GMD system. Like you said, there's almost nothing that is known about the S-500 so how can you assume from now that it will be better than THAAD or even the GMD system?
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 (Cont) And lastly, I find it laughable that you were the first to bring to light that the S-500 is still on the drawing table, and yet you're already making baseless predictions as to what it can, and cannot do. I am sorry but you lost credibility in this debate as far as I'm concerned. I merely wrote what the stated design goals are for the S-500. Will they achieve them, I don't know, and most certainly neither do you! I mean, can it get simpler?
IAmOpenMinded 9 months ago
@IAmOpenMinded Listen, I know I've read somewhere that the S-500's altitude engagement range will be 70 km. If I find that article, I'll send it to you.
And if the S-500 is still just on the drawing board, then how can you assume from now that it'll be better than THAAD or GMD system? Yes, the system is still on the drawing board and for that reason you can't justassume that it'll be better than THAAD of GMD system. At least THAAD & GMD systems have been proven in live fire tests. The S-500, on
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@IAmOpenMinded the other hand doesn't even exist. Anyway, since it will be based on the same S-300/400 platform, I doubt that it'll have missiles powerful enough to deal with ICBMs. You need powerful missiles for that and also hit-to-kill technology, which the Russians currently lack. They still use proximity warheads in their ABM systems. And there's something else as well. The S-500 will definitely be inferior to the Aegis Ashore system.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1 (Cont) envelope. Any specific figures you might read or relate to us about the max altitude engagement for the S-500 are pure BS. At this point, that is classified information, but just go by what I was referring to as the intended engagement targets to give you an idea of what that might be. And to clear up your comment about Russia's "bragging", the US takes the capabilities of these systems very seriously, hence why it protested vigorously when Iran was trying to buy the S-300.
IAmOpenMinded 9 months ago
@IAmOpenMinded "any specific figures you might read or relate to us about the max altitude engagement for the S-500 are pure BS" Then how do you know that the system will be so capable. If there is no real data out there, how can you assume that it'll be so capable. I repeat, give me your sources.
As for why the US opposed Russia to sell the S-300 to Iran, that's because Israel wanted that and the reason they wanted that is because they don't want to have to face an extra capability in case
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@IAmOpenMinded they attack Iran, not because the S-300 would be so capable. An aerial attack from Israel on Iran would still be possible even if Iran had the S-300, it's just that it would be more difficult. So why would Israel want that? In my opinion, S-300 and S-400, since they were never tested in battle, their capabilities are just theoretical, are overrated. They're not like the Patriot, a system that has been tested in battle.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@999cheetos999 so far, it uses the S-300's radars. The THAAD's radar, on the other hand, is the the most powerful land based mobile radar, with a 1000 km detection range. THAAD is a VERY effective ABM system. I think it's the best mobile land based ABM system in the world.
StiviGun1 10 months ago
@strelacxxx s-400 high altitude and Pantsir low and midle
SlavaSvarogu 9 months ago
@strelacxxx S-400 for high altitude targets,Pansir for low and midle
SlavaSvarogu 7 months ago
@SlavaSvarogu ......you mean s500
alexmedvec 1 month ago
@BoxerTheSpaceK9
Don't forget Pantsir's 57E6-missile has a high-explosive fragmentation warhead...with that small error margin of 1 meter any aircraft is fvcked
brocalfur 1 year ago
Russia for 100% has the best air defense systems in the world, its was part of the arms race, US made new aircraft very expensive-Russia made anti aircraft weapons to counter them-much cheaper. +Russian missiles best in the world, i guess its the other way round with missiles, Russia makes missiles, US counters them
RaaGoneFishing 1 year ago
@SewerynTheGreat
Yeah, kinda, but the main thing is the M1a2 could accurately aim and hit at 2800 yards, and the T-72 had to close within 2000 yards. To do that you have to be in canyons or urban environments. I do know that at least ONE american tank brigade got caught at close range with T-72s, and while it was close, the M1A2 Abrams brought ALL of them home.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
Depends on what T72 are you talking about. An Iraqi T72M were issues with rounds which carried only half of the propellant that standard rounds carry. That`s why they were retired from service in the USSR in 1973 and exported widely.
Anyway the T72B version is capable of firing Svir guided missiles which outrange all existing tank rounds in the US inventory, regardless the type and have pin-point accuracy even at maximum range (5km)
stalingradComando 1 year ago
@stalingradComando
The T72M USED to have rounds which carried only half of the propellant
that standard rounds carried. When it was made in the 1970s.
I suspect the IRAQIs would buy new rounds in the 30 years since then.
I know that's radical, forgive me.
The Iraqis upgraded the T72 several times, and began building their own version, called the Lion Of Babylon Tank.
Half were destroyed, half were abandoned because they didn't WANT to be destroyed.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
I didn`t say that the Iraqis bought those rounds in the 70`s. I said they were retired from service from the USSR in the 70`s and were later sold widely.
It`s not 30 years y the way. Invasion began in 1991. From retirement in the USSR to Gulf war is only 18 years
And t72M is basically a T72A with downgraded armour, gun and sights and Lion of Babilon is basically a T72M built from spare parts to avoid the arms embargo
stalingradComando 1 year ago
@stalingradComando
You don't think ANY buyer would still have, or buy, deficient rounds from the 1970s, or deficient tanks, with a boss like Saddam Hussein, do you?
Those T72s of any variety were made in the 1970s.
Lets say they served the USSR for 10 to 15 years before being sold, and 18 years since the invasion. That's 30 years +, isn't it?
Hussein BOUGHT upgraded sights from the FRENCH.
Just because he was nuts doesn't make him a bad equipment buyer.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
Russia never sold their top-of the line weapons to anybody. All weapons sol d abroad are less capable downgraded versions.
What did Saddam buy? a few laser rangefinders? The T72A has a rangefinder on it`s own. Most of the basic Asad Babil parts did not even came from Russia. Saddam also bought electro-optical interference pods from China. Does this make him a bad eqquipment buyer?
stalingradComando 1 year ago
@stalingradComando
Who cares? It's still a bad tank. Never won a battle, and even got
turned back by GEORGIA. Bad engine, poor performance, bad
driving position for a midget, leaky fuel system, and badly aiming gun.
Did we mention the ammunition in a perfect location to blow up the crew?
There is a reason tankers abandon tanks, they want to live.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
actually russian forces were using T72`s too in Georgia and they didn`t have any tank loss
I know a T72`s gunner who is tall 184cm and has no problem at all with the internal space of the tank
Dunno what`s you`re talking about detonating ammo though. Penetrating the turret has nothing to do with detonating ammo. It`s very unlikely for a missile or tank round to penetrate the lower hull of the tank
Tank crew`s abbandoned M1`s too as soon as they realised that they couldn`t move
stalingradComando 1 year ago
@stalingradComando
It's the driver that sits up front. He has to be smaller that 5 ft 4.
And Russian forces in Georgia had a LOT of tank losses, actually.
Nearly 20% never made it home, half due to mechanical problems.
Tank Crews DID abandon the M1A2, but then they had problems
destroying it, even with ANOTHER M1A2 at point blank range!
That's in the Abrams wiki page
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
BS. Russian forces did not have any armor loss in the battle. Dunno where the fuck did you get that 20%
Had problems. Yeah like Rpg-7`s destroying the tracks or even worse, setting the whole tank on fire. T72`s crews could do the same thing if their tank was on fire. Ammo explosion is never instant so there is plently of time for the crew to leave before tank explodes
T72`s are safe. That`s the truth, not that Military channel busllshit when the T72 is called a deathtrap
stalingradComando 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5 didnt you read they were using T-72's, there were 0 T-90 losses
hehehe929 1 year ago
@hehehe929
That's why we are talking about T-72s, ya think?
LOL
The T-72 M and it's latest upgrades got blowed up real good, by
35 and 40 year old american aircraft and the 35 year old M1A2
Abrams. That's why crews abandoned half of them.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
T-72M is nit the latest upgrade. Actually is a downgraded T72A
T72 upgrades continue as following
T72 - T72A (and it`s downgraded version T72M ) - T72B - T72B1 - T72B2 (also known as T72BM) - T72BU (also known as T90)
As you see T72M is far away from being the latest upgrade and the 35 years ole M1A2sep is the best tank in the US inventory right now
stalingradComando 1 year ago
I love the propaganda angle. Syria took delivery of the Pantsir before the Israeli airstrike on the reactor, but they would not deploy their most advanced air defense system to defend their most sensitive military site? That just doesn't make sense.
Alcaldemb 1 year ago
@Alcaldemb pantsir delivery after israel airstrike.
Goldrag 1 year ago
'
ussr russia is a worse waste waste arms weapons too much
bestamerica 1 year ago
best my ass
Shizietje 1 year ago
There has never been a Mig 31 shot down. Mig 31s are only in use in Russia. You mean Mig 25 which was designed around 1967. Mig 29s were designed in the early 1970s.
calripson 1 year ago
Why doesn't India buy this?
ronniekingston 1 year ago
American so called "stealth" doesnt work and Russians are laughing at it.
SeXeHRD 1 year ago
The F-15 and F16 are 40 years old, the F-117 Stealth was 30 years old, when it was retired, 15 years old in Kosovo.
ALL of them were successful against Russian aircraft.
The M1A2 Tank is 35 years old, the Stryker 30, the M16 is 50 years old, the M4 is 30 years old, the Patriot is 30 years old.
ALL of them were successful against Russian Ground weapons.
What makes the Eastern Block, or Russian Weapons systems fans, think we would attack them with 1980s weapons systems?
.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago