It is a good system for what it was designed to do, but in all not capable of dealing with realistic threats. It would have minimal effect against cruise missiles or planes using terrain mapping radar. Or the latter combined with HARM missiles. Or Maverick missiles for that matter. And my guess is that it is fairly vulnerable to jamming. Even if it could be fired manually the planes would of dived back down and disappeared by the time the system could actually react.
@franknbeans4761 You sound like a pregnant teenager in denial of pregnancy. This system was designed to cope with immediate 'realistic' threats, such as air strikes of any kind. Cruise and HARM missiles are a whole other story, fore which we have a whole other effective AA platform to deal with. Planes using terrain mapping radar are just as vulnerable, as they emit a heat signature, despite how low they fly to the ground. Arching heat seeker missiles...you really think we're that dumb? Idiot.
The S-300 cannot detect aircraft of a certain RCS. The S-400 can, but only out to 60 km.
So in terms of S-300 sites, stealth aircraft can/would bomb it.
And just so you know, radar systems are limited by the curvature of the Earth. They cannot see under the horizon. So if you fly low, you can get close enough to launch cheaper, stand-off weapons en mass at the site.
Or just in general launch saturation strikes to simply overwhelm the site.
@franknbeans4761 The S300 are obsolete, and are phased out. Likewise for S400. However, this is not a ballistic missile platform. Your argument is irrelevant.
Don't be so cock-sure either. We've got other platforms to cope with the crap you're describing. Your underestimation is primitive.
@DigitalDNA The S-300 is still used in large numbers in Russia & throughout the world. It is still a fair SAM, but they are not as effective as everyone makes them out to be.
hahah i just came to see all the little hate comments. Why dont you all grom up because honestly everyone whos making hate comments is hiding behind their computers. Just calm down cause both America and Russia make some pretty good military equipment. so just stop, really.
An A-10 can pop up from below the minimum engagement height, fire a burst at one of these with it's 30 mm cannon, and drop back below minimum height before the cannon rounds from the AA can reach it. Result = one happy A-10 and some dead Russians.
@vtkrey Nope. I've seen this scenario described as one of the missions of the A-10. Pop up at long range, acquire, fire, drop back down. The return fire can't reach it before it's out of the way. A-10s would massacre these things.
Just because you saw it on some listed scenario thosent mean it works. Very likely that the A-10 will have to gain considerable altitude to find targets at long range, at which point long range radars will pick it up, from there is easy work for the S-300/400.
@Parrotguy1999 hehe... this thing chews warthogs, apaches, and lowflying aircraft of any kind including bobmers and jets at a range of 30-60km easy. This system can be concealed and not seen until it fires by them its late for anything.
@darthjaiz No but aircraft doing evasive maneuvers are incredibly hard to hit with bullets, and radar guided missiles can be defeated electronically... but I bet an air-to-ground missile can hammer that AA platform into flaming bits...
For instance. If you were commanding a regional front, and you were a russian commander, and your air assets got ahnialated, and american air assets started gradually gaining control of your region, these things would be your best friend. Because with these, you could stalemate the air war in a losing side of your own, and gain enough time to reimburse your own russian air assets to make a large and productive (hopefully) counter-attack on american assets.
@MrAmericanAce However, i must admit, that in the case of a war with america russia would be using long range sams ontop of these, and below these, in regional control of battle arena conflicts. It would be an extremely devistating thing. something most experts do not wish to think about. However ontop of that. In war with lesser military capable countries, russia could easily advance core perimiter air security with these. highly highly effective. conventionally... no matter who it is.
@callofdutyrullzzzzz and the russians also know that they are using these particular weapons as a final main resort to keeping air dominancy in question should they begin losing a battle. these only force countries like america to make repetitive long range high or submersed altitude strikes (Thousands of miles) in repetitive ways and give the russians time to maneuver their air assets to replace gaps. thats what these are for. America is the only military in the world that can counter the plan
Stealth, eh yeah and no. It's a constant arms-race, newer sensors will see it (new generation L-band radar, better passive sensors, IR), newer masking methods will appear, etc etc
@UtahMike41: From the info I have, the 30mm's are twin-barrelled 2A38M's. That's twin-barrel in each mount. Just the way they're laid out, each mount looks like a single weapon. Thus, the rate of fire.
Nah. They'll jam the radar and blow them up with Mavericks. Still, it's not a bad design for an AA system, the combination of missiles and cannon was a great system.
You don't turn the radar on until Apache or whatever flying object is allready in the range - and when it's in the range ... bye, bye ... Jamming works only on poorly trained military in flat, desert terrain. "Apache justice" didn't work in Kosovo war on Serbian army for example - Apaches were grounded in that war because they would have been sitting ducks against mobile AA and portable shoulder launched IC missiles ...
@SovietWarrior thats why these would be obliterated with long range precision munitions from b2's, then any remaining threats hit with f15 strike eagle versions at medium long range (about 70 miles) then when thats done and after however many waves (probably several of the long range waves) the other aircraft would establish high altitude air dominancy then gradually lower the altitude to ground and air coagulantcy with f-16's../ THEN a-10 and appache would come in and take care of surplus groun
Sorry to burst your bubble of mother-country pride, but A-10 Warthogs were designed to utterly dominate any ground unit, no matter how fancy. As long as an American pilot is at the helm, that thing is toast.
Plus, Apache Longbows with their advanced radar and targeting system would annihilate this thing with a surface-hugging missile while the Apache hovers safely behind cover of a hill.
@TerrbleTrioHerb I think you are wrong... A_10 are nothing anymore and they will never dominate air if anything like Tunguska will be around... why don't you want to ask your pilots...indeed I think they are not around anymore anyway...(a-10)s.
@vikruss pshhh.. A-10's are the most valuable close air support for ground forces. nailing one of those tunguska sardine cans would be like shooting fish in a bucket.. A-10's eat stupid AA shit for breakfast kid, end of discussion.
@TerrbleTrioHerb Said the man who plays Halo, HAHA what do you know about war? you think A10 Warthogs can fly through space shooting a thousand rockets per second and dropping nuclear bombs, you're pathetic, we'd whup your stinky ass.
@cokekiing You are absolutely correct...this is some impressive hardware. Sadly, it is manned by...Russians. that fact negates any system value. Kind of a paradox. In the 70's the Soviet man was capable, but the technologies didn't work.
@lmf800 In 70's russian had created R-36 ICBM, supperior version to peacekeeper 3. Alhough heavier, faster (7.9 km/s, mach 28, 10 MIRVs and 40 penetration adds (design was capable of 38 MIRVs and no decoys (adds)).
Power from hell, 20MT max per rocket, typically ,,just" 10 (hiroshima x 900 or x 450).
Peacekeeper had at that time lower speed and max amount of MIRVs 3.
US Technology - 45% of US engineers were born abroad (1998).
Russians are great slavic nation, we are proud of them.
Please USA technology its when Russian teacher show physics principles for Chineses emigrants,rest of USA folks is stupid niggers and jew scum,or i fogot Irish alcocholics
@cokekiing Yeah I play halo, infact its pretty much the only game i do play. Probably unlike you, I actually have reflexes. Put me in the Marines and I would kill your sorry ass immediately
@TerrbleTrioHerb Oh, so now you're trying to prove that i play more videogames than you? well yeah, i play Battlefield bad company 2, Left 4 dead 2, and many other titles, does that make me unable to perform military actions? no, nice try, kid, but that isn't going to work, I do not need to put you in the Marine corp, your extreme amount of patriotism has led you to that, and enlist, just to walk around the desert roads in Afghanistan waiting to step on an IED and fuck your friends in the shower
@cokekiing Hmm. Okay i wasn't trying to prove anything, i was just letting you know that I played video games, but unlike the usual 13yo gamer, I do have a sense of reality. All that rest of your comment was a bit unnecessary, and obviously shows your lack of respect, honor, intelligence and the list goes on.
@cokekiing fucking extreme patriotism on youtube pissing me off, video games every1's played, every1's played em, gamers/ non - gamers, but that comment you just said was so funny
@SovietWarrior Turn Apaches and Warthogs into trash? I don't know about that, all Hellfire missiles (the main armament of the Apache) has a range of over 7,500 meters while newer models have ranges of 8,000 meters. The missile armament of the Tunguska is less than that. Apaches could destroy them before they even knew what was coming. As for the A-10, it flies low to the ground en-route to the target and is only vulnerable for a few seconds when it launches a missile or shoots it's main gun.
@franknbeans4761 Im curious to know where you got those numbers from. The Tunguska missiles effective range with MK12 (an underpowered AA interceptor missile) is 10,000m minimum. The 30mm fires more than 4000m, even at an arch. The Hellfire maximum effective range is 8,000m, give or take 500m at pilots experience. In aerial warfare, 500m makes a big difference.
There are actually many ways to catch radar-immune aircraft. Remember the F-117 shot down over Serbia in 1999? They had modified their S-300s and it didn't rely on radar.
i read in the serbian newspaper a statement from the Mig-29 pilot who said he took off and within minutes he said he found himself luckily behind the flying F-117, all he had to do was to shoot the missile.. hovewer, serbians claim they shot down three F-117s so i dont know what is true, oer even if the statement in the article was true...
One F-117 is shot down with old NEVA AA system. It is has been seen on long wave length radar that is technically upgraded by Serb engineer. Actually, every rocket is good enough for F-117 when you get it on a radar because it is slow airplane. Another F-117 is heavily damaged and fall on albanian territory.
The third was also badly damaged but succeeded to return to it's base - to bad :(((
After we showed to the world how vulnerable are those planes, the production of F-117 is stopped! ;)
I'm pretty sure if they built this AA system out of some radar absorbent material and then cooled everything down to ambient temperature, this Tunguska is a nice system for close air defense.
The tactics used is also extremely important for this system. If the radar is switched on for too long, then the enemy will lock on and this thing is dead meat.
Considering the low price of this system, the best way is simply to deploy a lot of these to screen of close anti-air support.
you reckon I'll need 8-10 million USD to drive a civilian legal third-hand version of this thing home? I know it can be done at half the price. But 8 mil is still cheap compared to the us military vehicles!
Go to China, the fire-departments use old tanks and APCs to mount water guns, but all the armor is still there, so they can still shove annoying people blocking the way out of the road. I know where they got them.
And if you ask me, it's way cooler than any a 8 million dollar car.
so no, it's not low, I don't need one (better to "borrow" the SWAT APC down the street in the event when I do need one!) and the price goes down a lot when they are about to scrap this cold war stuff.
Oh, watch out for the militarization of the police forces in your area. That's the only reason why one might consider getting a loan for some soviet armor.
mk 88's can be fired by almost any military fixed wing aircraft. Mid-long range missle can knock this AA out before it can even see the aircraft. Patriot sam launchers are deadly!
Why, do you dream of getting in close contact with Spetsnaz forces and VDV? They'll turn you into a bloody pulp before you even get close to these vehicles.
@SovietWarrior most would shit their pants for a real war. once they realized it was real people with real weapons thinking EXACTLY like they are thinking, trying to kill them. And that the rest of the war would come down to strategical superiority or strategical chance... with those real people... yeah.. most wouldnt touch it.
@SovietWarrior 10 but fifteen if they had second chance pro. ( STUPID FAT 5 YEAR OLD: OH SHIT U MEAN CALL OF DUTY ISNT REALISTIC?!?! OH SHIT REALLY??)
i wanna have this inside of my house!
6digit 4 months ago
BF3
HEROSOLDER1 5 months ago
Good luck stopping a cruise missile....
toddfa 5 months ago
from Rasha with love
chokumba 6 months ago
Wish Gaddafi had those to thwart the NATO aggression
Cabal777 7 months ago
Comment removed
Cabal777 7 months ago
It is a good system for what it was designed to do, but in all not capable of dealing with realistic threats. It would have minimal effect against cruise missiles or planes using terrain mapping radar. Or the latter combined with HARM missiles. Or Maverick missiles for that matter. And my guess is that it is fairly vulnerable to jamming. Even if it could be fired manually the planes would of dived back down and disappeared by the time the system could actually react.
franknbeans4761 7 months ago
@franknbeans4761 You sound like a pregnant teenager in denial of pregnancy. This system was designed to cope with immediate 'realistic' threats, such as air strikes of any kind. Cruise and HARM missiles are a whole other story, fore which we have a whole other effective AA platform to deal with. Planes using terrain mapping radar are just as vulnerable, as they emit a heat signature, despite how low they fly to the ground. Arching heat seeker missiles...you really think we're that dumb? Idiot.
DigitalDNA 2 months ago
@DigitalDNA Reread what I said. You didn't.
The S-300 cannot detect aircraft of a certain RCS. The S-400 can, but only out to 60 km.
So in terms of S-300 sites, stealth aircraft can/would bomb it.
And just so you know, radar systems are limited by the curvature of the Earth. They cannot see under the horizon. So if you fly low, you can get close enough to launch cheaper, stand-off weapons en mass at the site.
Or just in general launch saturation strikes to simply overwhelm the site.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 The S300 are obsolete, and are phased out. Likewise for S400. However, this is not a ballistic missile platform. Your argument is irrelevant.
Don't be so cock-sure either. We've got other platforms to cope with the crap you're describing. Your underestimation is primitive.
DigitalDNA 2 months ago
@DigitalDNA The S-300 is still used in large numbers in Russia & throughout the world. It is still a fair SAM, but they are not as effective as everyone makes them out to be.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
Nice AAA. I'll counter with a Maverick.
A-10: 1
Tunguska: 0
AlabamaSoldier 8 months ago
hahah i just came to see all the little hate comments. Why dont you all grom up because honestly everyone whos making hate comments is hiding behind their computers. Just calm down cause both America and Russia make some pretty good military equipment. so just stop, really.
tisconhah 8 months ago 4
if we only had this back in 99. when we were fucking nato
banesu1 11 months ago
I wonder if the stock model plays the mission impossible theme song while it preferates planes.
corporaldog1 1 year ago
Good stuff for tanks company,tanks can forget about chelicopters tanks killers:) NICE
SlavaSvarogu 1 year ago
My dick is bigger than yours!
avaruusmiesspiff 1 year ago 3
@avaruusmiesspiff
You mean you dick half of inch?
Sorry baby you realy big dick man
Could I bye you a magnifier ?
You will see your "dick" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wg390 8 months ago
An A-10 can pop up from below the minimum engagement height, fire a burst at one of these with it's 30 mm cannon, and drop back below minimum height before the cannon rounds from the AA can reach it. Result = one happy A-10 and some dead Russians.
Parrotguy1999 1 year ago
@Parrotguy1999
Very unlikely scenario, before the A-10 can gain enough altitude the Tunguska will most likely have spotted it and fired missiles.
vtkrey 1 year ago
@vtkrey Nope. I've seen this scenario described as one of the missions of the A-10. Pop up at long range, acquire, fire, drop back down. The return fire can't reach it before it's out of the way. A-10s would massacre these things.
Parrotguy1999 1 year ago
@Parrotguy1999
Just because you saw it on some listed scenario thosent mean it works. Very likely that the A-10 will have to gain considerable altitude to find targets at long range, at which point long range radars will pick it up, from there is easy work for the S-300/400.
vtkrey 1 year ago
@Parrotguy1999 hehe... this thing chews warthogs, apaches, and lowflying aircraft of any kind including bobmers and jets at a range of 30-60km easy. This system can be concealed and not seen until it fires by them its late for anything.
Ouija121085 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol... Gepard AA, 1960's... Tunguska AA, about 10 years later.
Am I the only one that's wondering if they ever invented any military hardware themselves?
Must be sad to see the Chinese out-doing them in the art of copying stuff. Now they're not even no. 1 at that anymore... :)
SolarMichael 1 year ago
Pointless argument. A10 is not designed to go against AA platforms, they wouldn't engage. Those things don't fight one on one.
niskytank 1 year ago
yah A-10 are only good when there is no anti air
if there is
well they're screwed even if they have flares flares only stop sams not bullets or radar guided missles
darthjaiz 1 year ago
@darthjaiz No but aircraft doing evasive maneuvers are incredibly hard to hit with bullets, and radar guided missiles can be defeated electronically... but I bet an air-to-ground missile can hammer that AA platform into flaming bits...
Wahlnutz 1 year ago
Tunguska and ZSU are the A10 and other pilots' worst nightmare, besides SAM.
A10 will be shot down like crows.
IIPluto 1 year ago
jeasus christ look at the recoil on that fucking thing puches like 40ton to the ground omg!
zabbot93 1 year ago
fuck USA ,RUSSIA WINNER
inkari1981 1 year ago
Damn, does that thing ever spit bullets!
sharpz214 1 year ago
For instance. If you were commanding a regional front, and you were a russian commander, and your air assets got ahnialated, and american air assets started gradually gaining control of your region, these things would be your best friend. Because with these, you could stalemate the air war in a losing side of your own, and gain enough time to reimburse your own russian air assets to make a large and productive (hopefully) counter-attack on american assets.
These are very effective machines.
MrAmericanAce 1 year ago
@MrAmericanAce However, i must admit, that in the case of a war with america russia would be using long range sams ontop of these, and below these, in regional control of battle arena conflicts. It would be an extremely devistating thing. something most experts do not wish to think about. However ontop of that. In war with lesser military capable countries, russia could easily advance core perimiter air security with these. highly highly effective. conventionally... no matter who it is.
MrAmericanAce 1 year ago
i wouldnt like to be in a plane or heli and get shot by this ! russians know what r they doing :)
callofdutyrullzzzzz 1 year ago
@callofdutyrullzzzzz and the russians also know that they are using these particular weapons as a final main resort to keeping air dominancy in question should they begin losing a battle. these only force countries like america to make repetitive long range high or submersed altitude strikes (Thousands of miles) in repetitive ways and give the russians time to maneuver their air assets to replace gaps. thats what these are for. America is the only military in the world that can counter the plan
MrAmericanAce 1 year ago
@MrAmericanAce how are you gonna counter that ? i doubt its possible
callofdutyrullzzzzz 1 year ago
I wouldn't like to meet one of them in a dark ally...
ethalin 2 years ago 4
I would like to hear real voices, othervise cool.
Hanmieson 2 years ago
Among the Ukrainian and Russian is the radar "Mail" who sees your stealth. Ha Ha Ha
Madironfly 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
stealth -- can't shoot down what you can't see.
yokehuatgoh 2 years ago
@yokehuatgoh
Stealth -- overrated.
Chrinik 2 years ago
Stealth, eh yeah and no. It's a constant arms-race, newer sensors will see it (new generation L-band radar, better passive sensors, IR), newer masking methods will appear, etc etc
In the end there will always be a better gun
Abanamat85 2 years ago
че страшно????????
zamazzura 2 years ago
That's an insane cyclic rate for a single barrelled weapon.
UtahMike41 2 years ago
@UtahMike41
Jup...
I dunno how russian engineers do it, but for such a ROF, the US would need more barrels...
Chrinik 2 years ago
@UtahMike41: From the info I have, the 30mm's are twin-barrelled 2A38M's. That's twin-barrel in each mount. Just the way they're laid out, each mount looks like a single weapon. Thus, the rate of fire.
MorganKeyes 2 years ago
But, besides all that...
It's still one sweet weapon though!
I sure wouldn't mind getting one of these in my christmas stocking!
bbFuzzy0976 2 years ago 2
Can I fire its gun Pweez Pweez!!
lon9i9 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice... but it wont work if the russian soldiers keep on being drunk all the time :p
alexblackdeck 3 years ago
It is designed to work only if the operator is drunk - Wodka-sensors check will check it out (...)
Konjunkturflaute 3 years ago 8
Those sensors can detect if your mother wa drunk and make you ?
12345roIU 3 years ago
а вот кто-то ща пизды получит)
donmutti0 2 years ago
This stuff is made to turn Apaches and Warthogs into trash. And it will turn them into trash easily and elegantly.
SovietWarrior 3 years ago 70
Nah. They'll jam the radar and blow them up with Mavericks. Still, it's not a bad design for an AA system, the combination of missiles and cannon was a great system.
jhkiller263 3 years ago
You don't turn the radar on until Apache or whatever flying object is allready in the range - and when it's in the range ... bye, bye ... Jamming works only on poorly trained military in flat, desert terrain. "Apache justice" didn't work in Kosovo war on Serbian army for example - Apaches were grounded in that war because they would have been sitting ducks against mobile AA and portable shoulder launched IC missiles ...
weedmaker2 2 years ago 4
It's okay though, an AGM-88 (HARM) only needs a fraction of a second to lock onto enemy radar.
Not only that, but at Mach 2+ and the ability to follow the source of radar emission after it's powered down...
It's just lights out...LANOCH!
bbFuzzy0976 2 years ago
@SovietWarrior thats why these would be obliterated with long range precision munitions from b2's, then any remaining threats hit with f15 strike eagle versions at medium long range (about 70 miles) then when thats done and after however many waves (probably several of the long range waves) the other aircraft would establish high altitude air dominancy then gradually lower the altitude to ground and air coagulantcy with f-16's../ THEN a-10 and appache would come in and take care of surplus groun
MrAmericanAce 1 year ago
@SovietWarrior
Sorry to burst your bubble of mother-country pride, but A-10 Warthogs were designed to utterly dominate any ground unit, no matter how fancy. As long as an American pilot is at the helm, that thing is toast.
Plus, Apache Longbows with their advanced radar and targeting system would annihilate this thing with a surface-hugging missile while the Apache hovers safely behind cover of a hill.
TerrbleTrioHerb 1 year ago
@TerrbleTrioHerb I think you are wrong... A_10 are nothing anymore and they will never dominate air if anything like Tunguska will be around... why don't you want to ask your pilots...indeed I think they are not around anymore anyway...(a-10)s.
vikruss 1 year ago
@vikruss pshhh.. A-10's are the most valuable close air support for ground forces. nailing one of those tunguska sardine cans would be like shooting fish in a bucket.. A-10's eat stupid AA shit for breakfast kid, end of discussion.
TerrbleTrioHerb 1 year ago
@TerrbleTrioHerb Said the man who plays Halo, HAHA what do you know about war? you think A10 Warthogs can fly through space shooting a thousand rockets per second and dropping nuclear bombs, you're pathetic, we'd whup your stinky ass.
cokekiing 1 year ago
@cokekiing You are absolutely correct...this is some impressive hardware. Sadly, it is manned by...Russians. that fact negates any system value. Kind of a paradox. In the 70's the Soviet man was capable, but the technologies didn't work.
lmf800 1 year ago 3
@lmf800 In 70's russian had created R-36 ICBM, supperior version to peacekeeper 3. Alhough heavier, faster (7.9 km/s, mach 28, 10 MIRVs and 40 penetration adds (design was capable of 38 MIRVs and no decoys (adds)).
Power from hell, 20MT max per rocket, typically ,,just" 10 (hiroshima x 900 or x 450).
Peacekeeper had at that time lower speed and max amount of MIRVs 3.
US Technology - 45% of US engineers were born abroad (1998).
Russians are great slavic nation, we are proud of them.
thomaspruzina 1 year ago
@thomaspruzina
Please USA technology its when Russian teacher show physics principles for Chineses emigrants,rest of USA folks is stupid niggers and jew scum,or i fogot Irish alcocholics
SlavaSvarogu 1 year ago
@SlavaSvarogu Well said, I agree.
Richard678 1 year ago
@cokekiing Yeah I play halo, infact its pretty much the only game i do play. Probably unlike you, I actually have reflexes. Put me in the Marines and I would kill your sorry ass immediately
TerrbleTrioHerb 1 year ago
@TerrbleTrioHerb Oh, so now you're trying to prove that i play more videogames than you? well yeah, i play Battlefield bad company 2, Left 4 dead 2, and many other titles, does that make me unable to perform military actions? no, nice try, kid, but that isn't going to work, I do not need to put you in the Marine corp, your extreme amount of patriotism has led you to that, and enlist, just to walk around the desert roads in Afghanistan waiting to step on an IED and fuck your friends in the shower
cokekiing 1 year ago
@cokekiing Hmm. Okay i wasn't trying to prove anything, i was just letting you know that I played video games, but unlike the usual 13yo gamer, I do have a sense of reality. All that rest of your comment was a bit unnecessary, and obviously shows your lack of respect, honor, intelligence and the list goes on.
TerrbleTrioHerb 1 year ago
@cokekiing fucking extreme patriotism on youtube pissing me off, video games every1's played, every1's played em, gamers/ non - gamers, but that comment you just said was so funny
minerofblood 1 year ago
@SovietWarrior and we as Russians would LOVE to see billion dollar equipment and its courage wrecked by Tunguska
cokekiing 1 year ago
@cokekiing You will...once you again start shooting down your own aircraft in droves, see Soviet/Afghan war. HTH.
lmf800 1 year ago
@SovietWarrior Turn Apaches and Warthogs into trash? I don't know about that, all Hellfire missiles (the main armament of the Apache) has a range of over 7,500 meters while newer models have ranges of 8,000 meters. The missile armament of the Tunguska is less than that. Apaches could destroy them before they even knew what was coming. As for the A-10, it flies low to the ground en-route to the target and is only vulnerable for a few seconds when it launches a missile or shoots it's main gun.
franknbeans4761 7 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Im curious to know where you got those numbers from. The Tunguska missiles effective range with MK12 (an underpowered AA interceptor missile) is 10,000m minimum. The 30mm fires more than 4000m, even at an arch. The Hellfire maximum effective range is 8,000m, give or take 500m at pilots experience. In aerial warfare, 500m makes a big difference.
DigitalDNA 2 months ago
you wish nigga
americaneagle1967 3 years ago
Why You Jealous. I Think You Jealous.
Matanjun 4 years ago
There are actually many ways to catch radar-immune aircraft. Remember the F-117 shot down over Serbia in 1999? They had modified their S-300s and it didn't rely on radar.
vyasan 4 years ago
Serbia did not have the S-300
they shot the f117 by using a SA-6 (s-125)
from the 60s!
T80s 4 years ago 5
i read in the serbian newspaper a statement from the Mig-29 pilot who said he took off and within minutes he said he found himself luckily behind the flying F-117, all he had to do was to shoot the missile.. hovewer, serbians claim they shot down three F-117s so i dont know what is true, oer even if the statement in the article was true...
tibchy144 3 years ago
One F-117 is shot down with old NEVA AA system. It is has been seen on long wave length radar that is technically upgraded by Serb engineer. Actually, every rocket is good enough for F-117 when you get it on a radar because it is slow airplane. Another F-117 is heavily damaged and fall on albanian territory.
The third was also badly damaged but succeeded to return to it's base - to bad :(((
After we showed to the world how vulnerable are those planes, the production of F-117 is stopped! ;)
BajkeTheSerb 2 years ago 10
Yup
:D
ah4321 2 years ago
Yup, yup ;)
BajkeTheSerb 2 years ago
There is at least one confirmed Air to Air kill of a stealth f117. I dont know about 3.
Garrettv11 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure if they built this AA system out of some radar absorbent material and then cooled everything down to ambient temperature, this Tunguska is a nice system for close air defense.
The tactics used is also extremely important for this system. If the radar is switched on for too long, then the enemy will lock on and this thing is dead meat.
Considering the low price of this system, the best way is simply to deploy a lot of these to screen of close anti-air support.
soccom8341576 2 years ago
@soccom8341576
Low price? 8-10 million is low for you?
Chrinik 2 years ago
you reckon I'll need 8-10 million USD to drive a civilian legal third-hand version of this thing home? I know it can be done at half the price. But 8 mil is still cheap compared to the us military vehicles!
Go to China, the fire-departments use old tanks and APCs to mount water guns, but all the armor is still there, so they can still shove annoying people blocking the way out of the road. I know where they got them.
And if you ask me, it's way cooler than any a 8 million dollar car.
soccom8341576 2 years ago
so no, it's not low, I don't need one (better to "borrow" the SWAT APC down the street in the event when I do need one!) and the price goes down a lot when they are about to scrap this cold war stuff.
Oh, watch out for the militarization of the police forces in your area. That's the only reason why one might consider getting a loan for some soviet armor.
soccom8341576 2 years ago
You remember right but they used a wired S-125 not an S-300
Zcsomos 3 years ago
Matanjun, I think you are jealous since you searched this video to watch this beautiful technology in action!
Unit987654321 3 years ago
mk 88's can be fired by almost any military fixed wing aircraft. Mid-long range missle can knock this AA out before it can even see the aircraft. Patriot sam launchers are deadly!
Tiarga 4 years ago
Just Use Radar Jamming Consufe It Radar Then Use Laser Guided Missile To Nock It Out.
Matanjun 4 years ago
Gaaa , havet seen the SAME vid 7 times now
AussieV8tassie 4 years ago
" nothing a 500 p,,blablablabla " ,,,, I dont think so!!!
morongo1950 4 years ago
nothing a 500 pound bomb from a stealth fighter or a cruise misille couldnt solve
omgweapons 4 years ago
Shilka-tunguska can destroy any guided missiles
+ never forget TOR system and S-300
vaninec 4 years ago
Why, do you dream of getting in close contact with Spetsnaz forces and VDV? They'll turn you into a bloody pulp before you even get close to these vehicles.
SovietWarrior 4 years ago 2
Only if they haven't got shot each other first.Have seen the footage of the Ammin's pallace storm in Kabul back in 1979?
fener4e 4 years ago
those are fun to blow up!all you need is darkness and some semtex....then you have a bon fire.
SOLIDSNAKE555 5 years ago
Everything ya know about life you learnt from video games. Boy, how many seconds would such morons last in a real war?
SovietWarrior 4 years ago 42
@SovietWarrior most would shit their pants for a real war. once they realized it was real people with real weapons thinking EXACTLY like they are thinking, trying to kill them. And that the rest of the war would come down to strategical superiority or strategical chance... with those real people... yeah.. most wouldnt touch it.
MrAmericanAce 1 year ago
@SovietWarrior how long would you last?
parko456 8 months ago
@SovietWarrior 10 but fifteen if they had second chance pro. ( STUPID FAT 5 YEAR OLD: OH SHIT U MEAN CALL OF DUTY ISNT REALISTIC?!?! OH SHIT REALLY??)
THR33SIXX3MPYR 4 months ago