What's new

Iran builds S-300-style anti-aircraft!

Then are you saying that Hamas and Hezbollah are wrong in fighting against Israel? All the Jews asked is to be left alone living inside the borders the UN gave to them. Let the Palestinians use the hundreds of millions Arafat stole to build their country. Then wait until the Mahdi return and wipe Israel off the map for good.

UN ??? what a joke. UN which was controlled by US and Britain at that time, It wasn't UN but USA & Britain which made Israel and gave them their blessing to kick out & KILL the people living in that newly occupied area which they called as Israel.

First you guys killed and subdued the local Red Indians and then gave your master Israel the power and free ticket to kill as many as they like with no questions asked.

Hypocrisy at its best.
 
.
UN ??? what a joke. UN which was controlled by US and Britain at that time, It wasn't UN but USA & Britain which made Israel and gave them their blessing to kick out & KILL the people living in that newly occupied area which they called as Israel.

First you guys killed and subdued the local Red Indians and then gave your master Israel the power and free ticket to kill as many as they like with no questions asked.

Hypocrisy at its best.

Both US and USSR chose to support the partition of Palestine into Israeli and Arab country. Other Arab countries invaded and Israel single handedly repelled them and captured more territories. So its best for the muslim countries to recognize the existence of Israel and work with Israel to defeat terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Its a good time for US to work together as these groups endorsed Obama as the prez.
 
.
Do not fall into the false belief that just because Iran, Russia and China cannot do <something> no one else can. The S-300 have been fully 'exploited' and tactics to defeat it have either been fully realized or inevitably will be.

The only way the US would be able to exploit the S-300 is to study it; when did the US ever get the opportunity to study the S-300? If they did they likley had the early varients (circa 1970's-1980's) but i would like proof, nonetheless.


Furthermore, any "tactics" the US used against sams in the past is likley irrelevent because most sams the US have incountered were from the 1960's, and 1970's.

Also how can the US defeat the S-400 if it has a range of 250 miles (400 km) and is said to detect and track stealthy cruise missles?

What is the US strategy?
 
.
The only way the US would be able to exploit the S-300 is to study it; when did the US ever get the opportunity to study the S-300? If they did they likley had the early varients (circa 1970's-1980's) but i would like proof, nonetheless.


Furthermore, any "tactics" the US used against sams in the past is likley irrelevent because most sams the US have incountered were from the 1960's, and 1970's.

Also how can the US defeat the S-400 if it has a range of 250 miles (400 km) and is said to detect and track stealthy cruise missles?

What is the US strategy?

If can probably detect stealthy cruise missiles. But not "stealth" cruise missiles or planes. F-22 currently has no enemy that can harm it.
 
.
Its seems like a bluff by Iranain minister

Or they have recieved the Russian S300 and created mods to it with Russian permission or changed the look for the system from outside or something

I don't think you can just build a S300 copy ,with out help of some kind ... it should take 300-400 computer software engineers 4-5years to write code 3-4 million line to track the air boogies and neutralize them

I don't believe in the iranian statement its a poker bluff
 
.
The only way the US would be able to exploit the S-300 is to study it; when did the US ever get the opportunity to study the S-300? If they did they likley had the early varients (circa 1970's-1980's) but i would like proof, nonetheless.
Did you even read what I presented?

Furthermore, any "tactics" the US used against sams in the past is likley irrelevent because most sams the US have incountered were from the 1960's, and 1970's.
How is it irrelevant?

Also how can the US defeat the S-400 if it has a range of 250 miles (400 km) and is said to detect and track stealthy cruise missles?

What is the US strategy?
Who is this 'it' that made this claim? The Russians? Why should we take this claim seriously when they cannot even produce an F-117 equivalent as a demonstrator to test against?
 
.
Haven't Russians and the Chinese recently agreed for further sanctions on the Iranian regime?

The regime is not willing to come clean, fanatical as it is. Its high time that students and moderates in Iran take matter into their own hands and lets hope a peaceful revolution will remove the fanatical regime/leaders.

And I do agree with others' assessment that any attack on Iran will not go down well with the Persians - no matter on which side of their internal political divide they stand!

As far as I'm concerned your country, India has more than 100 nuclear warheads so don't lecture me about Iran having nuke! Mind your own business!
 
.
And BTW I don't know why you guys are talking about India in this Iran-related topic but I can assure you this system has been built in 2001 with the help of Russian technicians (At the Khatami era we had better cooperation with Russia on military hardware and transferring the technology!) this system has been built as I said and they used the Belarus acquired batteries in 97 to reverse engineer them, however I MUST add these systems are not battle tested and they're are using Saeghe (A uav designed to simulate the stealth planes and it's fast for a uav of course, around 400 km/h but has very good maneuvering capability) these Iranian S-300 looks are very similar to U.S mid-range hawk system, however they use the gamma radar to identify the stealth planes, which is quite effective. moreover Iranian S-300 is called Shahin and it can carry 4 missile per battery, but it has the same target simulation as S-300pmu-2.

Hey Black Stone!
How are you?! Long time no see?
Yes, I believe that was very noobish of IRGC to do that trick but do you know why that missile test failed? I believe it was Shahab-2 missile, howver other 5 launched successfully and hit the targets in Yazd deserts!
As you may know, building missile is cheap but keeping them is expensive! When Njad came to power, he and his gang started mass-production of solid-fuel missiles such as Shahab-3B, these solid fuels are only usable in a short period of time, in Iran's case it's 5 years, because they mostly being kept in underground facilities, do you hear the news about missile being launched every several months? Not even Russia do the launching at this rate!!! It's only because they want to get rid of the old missiles which are nearly at their expiry date!
 
Last edited:
.
Did you even read what I presented?

Yes, and i still do not understand how the US is able to exploite something they have not faced. For example, the Israelis were confident when they faced Hezbollah, but to there suprise Hezbollah was equiped with the lates Russian RPG, the RPG-29. Consiquently, Israel lost scores of Merkava tanks, the Merkava is regarded by many in the west as the best armoured tank in the world in tirms of protection. The Merkava was built to withstand hits from 120mm canons, but a shoulder fired rpg was able to take down the mighty Merkava. The Merkava's would be able to exploit the RPG-7, but when they faced the RPG-29 they were in for a rude suprise.


How is it irrelevant?

Because the US hasn't faced the latest S-300's or S-400's. The newer syestems have greater range, velocity, accuracy, and are very difficult to fool with couter measures.


Who is this 'it' that made this claim? The Russians? Why should we take this claim seriously when they cannot even produce an F-117 equivalent as a demonstrator to test against?

Then why take anything the American say seriously? The S-400 is in servise with the Russian military, and i'm sure at some point it will be exported to other countries. Point in case, if the Russians arn't truthful with what they claim then they can forget about sales. No one just buys military hardware without evaluating it first. If the Russian were such liars, the Indians, Chinese, and everyone in between wouldn't buy from them.

Why would the Russians produce an F-117 equivalent when they can built cheap stealth drones?

A little off topic with the F-117, but as you know Russian should test the Pak Fa any month now, and considering the F-117 was 1970's technology the Pak Fa will easily surpass it. Also Russia has the wreckage of the F-117, so things like RAM and composites can be studied, although i don't think the Russians learned anything significant from the F-117. In closing, Sukhoi has been able to reduce the rcs of the SU-35 and SU-27, that means the Russians have mastered RAM and comosite technology. The only thing left to do is incorporate the geometry nessesary to deflect radar waves, and that has already been done because three prototypes exist.
 
.
Did you even read what I presented?
Yes, and i still do not understand how the US is able to exploite something they have not faced.

Because the US hasn't faced the latest S-300's or S-400's. The newer syestems have greater range, velocity, accuracy, and are very difficult to fool with couter measures.
No...Obviously you have NOT read what I presented, so here it is again...

IMINT & Analysis: US Restricted and Classified Test Sites
The most interesting facility found at Tolicha Peak is the S-300P launch site. It would appear that a nearly complete collection of radars is present, as well as two TELs and a 40V6 mast assembly. The 40V6 is used to mount either the 30N6 (FLAP LID) engagement radar or the 76N6 (CLAM SHELL) low altitude detection radar on a 23.8 meter mast to provide better performance in areas with varied terrain or vegetation. The shadow cast by the southern 5P85 TEL seems to indicate that it is a 5P85S, complete with the control compartment for controlling the adjacent 5P85D TEL. The vehicle which is most likely the 30N6 engagement radar vehicle appears to have the radar array lowered in the travel configuration. Given the presence of the mobile TELs and the mobile 30N6 radar, the system present here is likely either an S-300PS or S-300PM.
Tolicha Peak Electronic Combat Range (TPECR) and Tonopah lies within the same area. When the F-117s was stationed at Tonopah, they regularly flew against numerous Soviet/Russian radars that we acquired throughout the years from former Soviet satellites and former Soviet client states. Tonopah and Tolicha are not publicly acknowledged by the US military but many Nevada residents know about them, aka Area 51. We flew MIGs out of the same area. During the Cold War, we had MIG-17s, -21s and -23s. After the Soviets collapsed, we acquired -27s, ICBMs, tanks, SAMs, and who knows what else. When you go beyond facing against a weapon system to actually in physical possession of it to take your time to study its operations, capabilities and limitations, you pretty much know about it as well as the potential adversary who is wielding it.

Then why take anything the American say seriously? The S-400 is in servise with the Russian military, and i'm sure at some point it will be exported to other countries. Point in case, if the Russians arn't truthful with what they claim then they can forget about sales. No one just buys military hardware without evaluating it first. If the Russian were such liars, the Indians, Chinese, and everyone in between wouldn't buy from them.
Correct...But then again, when one of the sellers is somewhat hostile to you, do you really think he would sell your weapon systems that one day could be used against him? If the Russians claim their radars are also 'death rays' and the US does not make an equivalent claim, how do you know the Russians are telling the truth? The Russians claim their junks can detect 'stealth'...Fine...Now the burden is upon YOU, the buyer, to perform INDEPENDENT tests, or should you take the Russians words for it? So how do you test for 'stealth' detection? Do you think you can just simply call US to provide you with a few days of F-22 flight time for your benefits?

Why would the Russians produce an F-117 equivalent when they can built cheap stealth drones?
Are there any?

A little off topic with the F-117, but as you know Russian should test the Pak Fa any month now, and considering the F-117 was 1970's technology the Pak Fa will easily surpass it. Also Russia has the wreckage of the F-117, so things like RAM and composites can be studied, although i don't think the Russians learned anything significant from the F-117. In closing, Sukhoi has been able to reduce the rcs of the SU-35 and SU-27, that means the Russians have mastered RAM and comosite technology. The only thing left to do is incorporate the geometry nessesary to deflect radar waves, and that has already been done because three prototypes exist.
I presented several long explanations on basic radar behavior and the difficulties of RCS reduction measures. I suggest you look them up. Radar absorbers (RAM) and composite materials are, believe it or not, minor factors in comparison to planforming, or body shaping. Radar detection is about deflections and RCS reduction is about influencing the DIRECTION of deflection. The F-117 represent one method. The B-2, F-22 and F-35 represent another method that are more complex. So either the Russians show the world at least they can produce an F-117 flying equivalent, not an actual active duty squadron, any claim they have regarding their 'stealth' program should be suspicious. That is not an American argument but simply common sense.
 
.
No...Obviously you have NOT read what I presented, so here it is again...

IMINT & Analysis: US Restricted and Classified Test Sites

Tolicha Peak Electronic Combat Range (TPECR) and Tonopah lies within the same area. When the F-117s was stationed at Tonopah, they regularly flew against numerous Soviet/Russian radars that we acquired throughout the years from former Soviet satellites and former Soviet client states. Tonopah and Tolicha are not publicly acknowledged by the US military but many Nevada residents know about them, aka Area 51. We flew MIGs out of the same area. During the Cold War, we had MIG-17s, -21s and -23s. After the Soviets collapsed, we acquired -27s, ICBMs, tanks, SAMs, and who knows what else. When you go beyond facing against a weapon system to actually in physical possession of it to take your time to study its operations, capabilities and limitations, you pretty much know about it as well as the potential adversary who is wielding it.


The S-300PS and PM are 24 years old. The new S-300's and S-400's are nothing like the ones the US tested. More importantly, the US does NOT posses the newer S-300's let alone the S-400, the S-300PM and PS are just 2 of 27 different S-300's models. It's no suprise that the US had Russian technology, the US even opperated a squadron of Mig-29's, but i did not know they had S-300's, but either way they are old and outdated, and probably purchased from Soviet States after 1991.

But anyhow, how does the US counter the S-400 when they only have the old S-300's. It's like Iran building a counter to the F-14, only to face the F-22. Back to the topic, the only viable counter the US can use against the S-400 is stealth, and even then it is no guarantee that stealth will work the way it has against, say, Iraq. During Kosovo, for example, the Serbs figured out the flight path of the F-117, and with the help of some spotters, and a modified, and old SA-3 the Serbs were able to down an F-117. If a crusty SA-3 was able to shoot down an F-117 why can't the S-400 which was tested against stealthy cruise missles? The US may try cruise missles but the S-400 was built to couter that treat. The last and probably not the best counter would be to fly around the 250 mile kill zone, or fly fast and low and hope you can out-turn, and at the same time use counter measures, but the problem is the new generation SAMS such as the S-400 can hit targets as low as 10 meters, or 32 feet, they are very accurate, very meanuverable, very fast, and very powerful, that is, it doesn't need a direct hit it just needs to get close enough and when it does its proximity fuse will activate, anything remotley close will be in big trouble.

Correct...But then again, when one of the sellers is somewhat hostile to you, do you really think he would sell your weapon systems that one day could be used against him?

I don't understand what that means? The Russians are hostile towards their sellers?


So how do you test for 'stealth' detection? Do you think you can just simply call US to provide you with a few days of F-22 flight time for your benefits?

By using stealthy cruise missles such as the Kh-101 or X-90. The US gets its hands on alot of Russian technology why can't we barrow the F-22? :azn: we promise to share what we learn :D

X-90: http://www.sergib.agava.ru/russia/raduga/gela/images/gela.jpg


Are there any?

First off, lets go back to your original question. Why doesn't Russia built an equivilant to the F-117 to test the S-300/400, and the answer is because we we can simply use our stealthy cruise missles or built cheap stealth drones. Does Russia actually have stealth drones? I'm not sure, but it wouldn't be difficult to built. For instnce Iran has built a stealth drone.


I presented several long explanations on basic radar behavior and the difficulties of RCS reduction measures. I suggest you look them up. Radar absorbers (RAM) and composite materials are, believe it or not, minor factors in comparison to planforming, or body shaping. Radar detection is about deflections and RCS reduction is about influencing the DIRECTION of deflection. The F-117 represent one method. The B-2, F-22 and F-35 represent another method that are more complex. So either the Russians show the world at least they can produce an F-117 flying equivalent, not an actual active duty squadron, any claim they have regarding their 'stealth' program should be suspicious. That is not an American argument but simply common sense.

From what i understand all of the aircraft you mentioned use RAM and composites. The B-2, F-22, and F-35 due differ from the F-117 because they are streamlined where as the F-117 was boxy and exhibited poor aerodynamic qualities. Is this what you meant by more complex?

-Merry Christmas.
 
Last edited:
.
The S-300PS and PM are 24 years old. The new S-300's and S-400's are nothing like the ones the US tested. More importantly, the US does NOT posses the newer S-300's let alone the S-400, the S-300PM and PS are just 2 of 27 different S-300's models. It's no suprise that the US had Russian technology, the US even opperated a squadron of Mig-29's, but i did not know they had S-300's, but either way they are old and outdated, and probably purchased from Soviet States after 1991..

True, I hope US doesn't test F-22 against the older S-300. But I'm certain that Patroit PAC-3 missile or the Aegis ABM standard missile is enough to test F-22.

But anyhow, how does the US counter the S-400 when they only have the old S-300's. It's like Iran building a counter to the F-14, only to face the F-22. Back to the topic, the only viable counter the US can use against the S-400 is stealth, and even then it is no guarantee that stealth will work the way it has against, say, Iraq. During Kosovo, for example, the Serbs figured out the flight path of the F-117, and with the help of some spotters, and a modified, and old SA-3 the Serbs were able to down an F-117. If a crusty SA-3 was able to shoot down an F-117 why can't the S-400 which was tested against stealthy cruise missles? The US may try cruise missles but the S-400 was built to couter that treat. The last and probably not the best counter would be to fly around the 250 mile kill zone, or fly fast and low and hope you can out-turn, and at the same time use counter measures, but the problem is the new generation SAMS such as the S-400 can hit targets as low as 10 meters, or 32 feet, they are very accurate, very meanuverable, very fast, and very powerful, that is, it doesn't need a direct hit it just needs to get close enough and when it does its proximity fuse will activate, anything remotley close will be in big trouble...

If its between F-22 vs S-400 or even S-500. I'll take F-22 any day. I understand that there was never a direct confrontation between these two systems. But chances are, I take F-22. Maybe S-500 can detect F-35 or F-15SE but I doubt it.

I don't understand what that means? The Russians are hostile towards their sellers?




By using stealthy cruise missles such as the Kh-101 or X-90. The US gets its hands on alot of Russian technology why can't we barrow the F-22? :azn: we promise to share what we learn :D

X-90: http://www.sergib.agava.ru/russia/raduga/gela/images/gela.jpg




First off, lets go back to your original question. Why doesn't Russia built an equivilant to the F-117 to test the S-300/400, and the answer is because we we can simply use our stealthy cruise missles or built cheap stealth drones. Does Russia actually have stealth drones? I'm not sure, but it wouldn't be difficult to built. For instnce Iran has built a stealth drone.




From what i understand all of the aircraft you mentioned use RAM and composites. The B-2, F-22, and F-35 due differ from the F-117 because they are streamlined wear as the F-117 was boxy and exhibited poor aerodynamic qualities. Is this what you meant by more complex?

-Merry Christmas.
 
.
The S-300PS and PM are 24 years old. The new S-300's and S-400's are nothing like the ones the US tested. More importantly, the US does NOT posses the newer S-300's let alone the S-400, the S-300PM and PS are just 2 of 27 different S-300's models. It's no suprise that the US had Russian technology, the US even opperated a squadron of Mig-29's, but i did not know they had S-300's, but either way they are old and outdated, and probably purchased from Soviet States after 1991.

But anyhow, how does the US counter the S-400 when they only have the old S-300's. It's like Iran building a counter to the F-14, only to face the F-22.
The Sopwith Camel and the F-16 are governed by the same aerodynamics laws. Radar detection is no different and probably are even more constrained than flying. There are freqs best for long range and volume search, then there are some freqs best for high rate target data update in order to have a firing solution. Regardless of whether it is the S-300 or S-400, the ghz bands are for high rate target data update. Models are evolutionary, not revolutionary. What we know of the S-300 we can extrapolate into what we believe the S-400 can do. The differences between the Sopwith Camel and the F-16 are far greater than between 300 and 400.

Back to the topic, the only viable counter the US can use against the S-400 is stealth, and even then it is no guarantee that stealth will work the way it has against, say, Iraq. During Kosovo, for example, the Serbs figured out the flight path of the F-117, and with the help of some spotters, and a modified, and old SA-3 the Serbs were able to down an F-117. If a crusty SA-3 was able to shoot down an F-117 why can't the S-400 which was tested against stealthy cruise missles? The US may try cruise missles but the S-400 was built to couter that treat. The last and probably not the best counter would be to fly around the 250 mile kill zone, or fly fast and low and hope you can out-turn, and at the same time use counter measures, but the problem is the new generation SAMS such as the S-400 can hit targets as low as 10 meters, or 32 feet, they are very accurate, very meanuverable, very fast, and very powerful, that is, it doesn't need a direct hit it just needs to get close enough and when it does its proximity fuse will activate, anything remotley close will be in big trouble.
:rofl:

Another one gullible enough to believe the Serbs. This has been debated and debunked here many times over. I suggest you take some time with the 'Search' feature and read up on how. The short version is that while no one dispute the fact that an F-117 was lost, what was debunked was that Zoltan Dani somehow managed to track and target the F-117. Numbers do not lie but people do. NATO flew tens of thousands of sorties but we lost only two aircrafts, an F-16 and an F-117. If what Dani did was supposedly so good, then why are there not more air casualties? The truth is that Dani got lucky. We never claimed that the F-117 was 'invisible'. Just very difficult to detect. Dani refused to reveal how many missiles he launched but Dale Zelko recalled he had to dodge at least two missiles before he was hit by the third, or perhaps even fourth. That is called 'spray and pray' tactic and it is an acceptable one.

I don't understand what that means? The Russians are hostile towards their sellers?
There are two major weapons manufacturors in the world: US and Russia. China and Europe are minor. My point is that if one of the sellers -- the US -- is hostile to you, how are you going to evaluate anything from that seller? Remember, your point is that no one buys anything from anyone without evaluating it first. But if you cannot evaluate equipments from one seller, how do you for certain if the other seller is telling the truth when he claim his junk can outperform his competitor?

By using stealthy cruise missles such as the Kh-101 or X-90. The US gets its hands on alot of Russian technology why can't we barrow the F-22? :azn: we promise to share what we learn :D

X-90: http://www.sergib.agava.ru/russia/raduga/gela/images/gela.jpg

First off, lets go back to your original question. Why doesn't Russia built an equivilant to the F-117 to test the S-300/400, and the answer is because we we can simply use our stealthy cruise missles or built cheap stealth drones. Does Russia actually have stealth drones? I'm not sure, but it wouldn't be difficult to built. For instnce Iran has built a stealth drone.
Please...Just from looking, I can tell there is nothing 'stealth' about that thing. Any radar engineer will tell you that a single vertical stab is just as good as a beacon. Calling something 'stealth' does not make it so.


From what i understand all of the aircraft you mentioned use RAM and composites. The B-2, F-22, and F-35 due differ from the F-117 because they are streamlined where as the F-117 was boxy and exhibited poor aerodynamic qualities. Is this what you meant by more complex?
The F-117 used angled faceting, or exploited deflections, to reduce RCS to the aggressor radar. The B-2, F-22 and F-35 are more complex in the sense that they use curves to exploit the 'creeping wave' behavior...

Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Creeping waves greatly extend the ground wave propagation of long wavelength (low frequency) radio. They also cause both of a person's ears to hear a sound, rather than only the ear on the side of the head facing the origin of the sound. In radar ranging, the creeping wave return appears to come from behind the target.
They use far less radar absorbers than the F-117.
 
.
. What we know of the S-300 we can extrapolate into what we believe the S-400 can do.

That is a very general statment.

:rofl:

Another one gullible enough to believe the Serbs. This has been debated and debunked here many times over. I suggest you take some time with the 'Search' feature and read up on how. The short version is that while no one dispute the fact that an F-117 was lost, what was debunked was that Zoltan Dani somehow managed to track and target the F-117. Numbers do not lie but people do. NATO flew tens of thousands of sorties but we lost only two aircrafts, an F-16 and an F-117. If what Dani did was supposedly so good, then why are there not more air casualties? The truth is that Dani got lucky. We never claimed that the F-117 was 'invisible'. Just very difficult to detect. Dani refused to reveal how many missiles he launched but Dale Zelko recalled he had to dodge at least two missiles before he was hit by the third, or perhaps even fourth. That is called 'spray and pray' tactic and it is an acceptable one.

I'm no saying that the Serbs simply locked onto the F-117. I'm saying that the Serbs used man, moment, machine. The "pray and spray" just sounds too crazy, and, yes, i realize that only one F-117 was shot down. However, the Serbs had only one modified SA-3. The same SA-3 that shot down the F-117. Now couple that with reports thats 2 other F-117's were damaged. Also, how does the "pray and spay" work? It's not like the SA-3 had gun sights, and even if it would it would be nearly impossible to perfectly time the launch probably 1 in a trillion shot. I'm not trying to argue that the SA-3 can simply shootdown stealth, because it can not. What I'm trying to say is a system like the S-400 may be able to do so, because according to the manufacture it was succesfully tested against stealthy cruise missles, but i'm not soley basing my argument on that alone. If the S-400 was used in conjunction with intelligence, spotters, and other intell much like Zoltan Dani did with his old SA-3 than it is not out of the realm of possibility to say that, perhaps an S-400 can shoot down a stealth aircraft. It has been done before. This next artical does a good job describing man, moment machine:

The Serbian battery commander, whose missiles downed an American F-16, and, most impressively, an F-117, in 1999, has retired, as a colonel, and revealed many of the techniques he used to achieve all this. Colonel Dani Zoltan, in 1999, commanded the 3rd battery of the 250th Missile Brigade. He had search and control radars, as well as a TV tracking unit. The battery had four quad launchers for the 21 foot long, 880 pound SA-3 missiles. The SA-3 entered service in 1961 and, while it had undergone some upgrades, was considered a minor threat to NATO aircraft. Zoltan was an example of how an imaginative and energetic leader can make a big difference. While Zoltan&#8217;s peers and superiors were pretty demoralized with the electronic countermeasures NATO (especially American) aircraft used to support their bombing missions, he believed he could still turn his ancient missiles into lethal weapons. The list of measures he took, and the results he got, should be warning to any who believe that superior technology alone will provide a decisive edge in combat. People still make a big difference. In addition to shooting down two aircraft, Zoltan&#8217;s battery caused dozens of others to abort their bombing missions to escape his unexpectedly accurate missiles. This is how he did it.&#8212; Zoltan had about 200 troops under his command. He got to know them well, trained hard and made sure everyone could do what was expected of them. This level of quality leadership was essential, for Zoltan&#8217;s achievements were a group effort.&#8212; Zoltan used a lot of effective techniques that American air defense experts expected, but did not expect to encounter because of poor leadership by the enemy. For example, Zoltan knew that his major foe was HARM (anti-radar) missiles and electronic detection systems used by the Americans, as well as smart bombs from aircraft who had spotted him. To get around this, he used landlines for all his communications (no cell phones or radio). This was more of a hassle, often requiring him to use messengers on foot or in cars. But it meant the American intel people overhead were never sure where he was. &#8212; His radars and missile launchers were moved frequently, meaning that some of his people were always busy looking for new sites to set up in, or setting up or taking down the equipment. His battery traveled over 100,000 kilometers during the 78 day NATO bombing campaign, just to avoid getting hit. They did, and his troops knew all that effort was worth the effort.&#8212; The Serbs had spies outside the Italian airbase most of the bombers operated from. When the bombers took off, the information on what aircraft they, and how many, quickly made it to Zoltan and the other battery commanders.&#8212; Zoltan studied all the information he could get on American stealth technology, and the F-117. There was a lot of unclassified data, and speculation, out there. He developed some ideas on how to beat stealth, based on the fact that the technology didn&#8217;t make the F-117 invisible to radar, just very to get, and keep, a good idea of exactly where the aircraft was. Zoltan figured out how to tweak his radars to get a better lock on stealth type targets. This has not been discussed openly.&#8212; The Serbs also set up a system of human observers, who would report on sightings of bombers entering Serbia, and track their progress. &#8212; The spies and observers enabled Zoltan to keep his radars on for a minimal amount of time. This made it difficult for the American SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) to use their HARM missiles (that homed in on radar transmissions.) Zoltan never lost a radar to a HARM missile. &#8212; Zoltan used the human spotters and brief use of radar, with short range shots at American bombers. The SA-3 was guided from the ground, so you had to use surprise to get an accurate shot in before the target used jamming and evasive maneuvers to make the missile miss. The F-117 he shot down was only 13 kilometers away.Zoltan got some help from his enemies. The NATO commanders often sent their bombers in along the same routes, and didn&#8217;t make a big effort to find out if hotshots like Zoltan were down there, and do something about it. Never underestimate your enemy.

Defence Aviation - Who shot down F-117 ?

"We used a little innovation to update our 1960s-vintage SAMs to detect the Nighthawk," Dani said. He declined to discuss specifics, saying the exact nature of the modification to the warhead's guidance system remains a military secret.

It involved "electromagnetic waves," was all that Dani &#8212; who now owns a small bakery in this sleepy village just north of Belgrade &#8212; would divulge.

USATODAY.com - Serb discusses 1999 downing of stealth

James O'Halloran, editor of Jane's Land-Based Air Defense, said the Serbs could succeed because the stealth fighter was not design to be invisible to old long pulse duration radars.



how do you for certain if the other seller is telling the truth when he claim his junk can outperform his competitor?

Why junk? And no one claimed it can outperform anything but stealthy cruise missles, and conventional aircraft. This "Junk" you speak of has garnered the attention of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a long time US allie as well as an important customer of US weapons. If the S-400 was junk don't you think Saudi Arabia would opt for the PATRIOT, or whatever else the US has to offer? Crazy Saudies willing to spend 7 billion dollars on "junk." Right now Israel is strongly opposed to the sales of the S-400 because its range could threaten Israeli aircraft, so as for now nothing is clear. However, Saudi Arabia a country that has traditionally has bad relations with Russia and good relations with the US, so isn't it strange that Saudi Arabia is interested in the S-400?

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGklYqo...p&#37;3a//www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6353


Please...Just from looking, I can tell there is nothing 'stealth' about that thing. Any radar engineer will tell you that a single vertical stab is just as good as a beacon. Calling something 'stealth' does not make it so.

How do you explain AMERICAN stealth cruise missles with one vertical stab? I'm not arguing that a single vertical stabalizers is better than the v-stabalizer because it probably isn't but the US has build several stealthy cruise misles with one vetical stabalizer.

http://defense-update.com/images/jassm-aa04.jpg

http://www.wingweb.co.uk/wingweb/img/450-AGM-129A_Cruise_missile.jpg

http://www.wingweb.co.uk/wingweb/img/450-AGM-129A_Advanced_Cruise_Missile.jpg


.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
.
Actually building of stealth UAV is not easy, you will need nano-polymers, which only three countries in the world can produce, Iran included, Iran is very capable in the nanotechnology sector... You can import the material but it will cost you almost cost you 5 million USD with this money you can buy some of the best UAV around the world such as: Reaper, that's why Russia military insist on importing several UAV from Israel. Somethings are better to be bought instead of building inside the country. We had to build the nano-polymers our own because no one would sell it to us.

About Russia anti-aircraft capability... everyone knows it's the best in the world, no one in the world can challenge Russia about it's missile superiority.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom