S-500 – a miracle of a weapon

[killerx]

china will make a copy we will buy from them cheap ad saves time and money to make one of our own

 

[Ottoman-Turk]

my grandad can shoot a unarmed jet because it cant shoot back , what a system

The very last time Russian weapon systems went up against the WEST this is what happened.


Daily Kos: Turkish Air Force F4 Shot Down by Syria - Confirmed

 

[Koovie]

only poor russian excuses....

ok then provide me a example of an encounter between Russian and western tech...

 

[ptldM3]

my grandad can shoot a unarmed jet because it cant shoot back , what a system

My dear, it has nothing to do with shooting back, the F-4 terminator's electronic counter measures could not deal with the threat which was likely a Pantsir. A combination of two could have happened and probably did, the F-4 was unable to jam the incoming missile and the ECM's such as flares, if deployed, which they probably were because all modern aircraft have some sort of radar warning system which alerts the pilots at incoming threats, did not fool the Syrian air defense system.

 

[Zabaniyah]

my grandad can shoot a unarmed jet because it cant shoot back , what a system

Damn, your granddad sounds awesome! Shoot down a jet with a pistol or less!!

My dear, it has nothing to do with shooting back, the F-4 terminator's electronic counter measures could not deal with the threat which was likely a Pantsir. A combination of two could have happened and probably did, the F-4 was unable to jam the incoming missile and the ECM's such as flares, if deployed, which they probably were because all modern aircraft have some sort of radar warning system which alerts the pilots at incoming threats, did not fool the Syrian air defense system.

Wasn't the F-4 brought down by AAA?

 

[LeGenD]

A true, noob, The last time the west faced any modern Russian systems was in Vietnam.

No. It was Persian Gulf War 1991.

Moreover, weapons capabilities are only one part of the equation. Many Arab countries failed not because of their weapons but because of their tactics and training. A vast majority of noobs think that when two armies meet that it’s a simple head to head battle but the truth is far from that. The Iraqi military leadership could not counter, let alone get an upper hand on US/NATO forces when it came to military planning, instead it worked the other way around. The Iraqis never expected US forces to strike trough the west thus they were left exposed. Furthermore, The US used deception/false information to force the Iraqi military to move entire divisions.

Indeed. However, Iraqi military did improved a lot during the course of Iran-Iraq war, specially after 1986 and shaped itself according to Soviet doctrine prior to Persian Gulf War 1991.

It also is amazing that people still believe myths about the T-72 in Iraq. For one most T-72’s were Iraqi built tanks that were cobbed together from parts built by Warsaw pact countries as well as Iraqi made parts. Many other tanks such as T-55’s were often mistaken for T-72’s and they were in fact Chinese versions of the T-54/55 tanks which were based on a 40+ year old design.

T-72, no matter where it was manufactured, was done so on the basis of Russian specifications. Yes, Iraq may have customized it for its needs. And Iraq actually improved its T-72 fleet prior to invasion in 2003.

That is quite funny considering that the west ended up implementing many concepts from the Soviet Union/Russia and in some cases it took a decade or more to adapt those systems.

Everybody copies concepts from each other. It is no big deal.

 

[Killuminati]

How many time it cost to reload 4 s-300/s-400/ and probably s-500 missiles after it launched?

 

[ptldM3]

No. It was Persian Gulf War 1991.

The Iraqi military used mostly relics. Iraq had very few modern systems, to say that Iraq used modern Soviet equipment is bit of a stretch.

Indeed. However, Iraqi military did improved a lot during the course of Iran-Iraq war, specially after 1986 and shaped itself according to Soviet doctrine prior to Persian Gulf War 1991.

The only problem is that their military leadership was absolutely awful. Iraqi generals were outclassed.

T-72, no matter where it was manufactured, was done so on the basis of Russian specifications. Yes, Iraq may have customized it for its needs. And Iraq actually improved its T-72 fleet prior to invasion in 2003.

Iraqi T-72’s or their own versions did not come with composite armor, nor did it come with explosive reactive armor (ERA), although there is speculation that some Iraqi tanks could have had ERA from Poland. The worst part about many Iraqi tanks was that they used low cost training round, that are not designed to penetrate armor. Furthermore, whatever rounds that the Iraqis used that were not training rounds were tungsten core. The Soviet Union/Russia has depleted uranium rounds (DU) but they are kept in storage due to health risks.

Iraqi tanks did make some improvements by adding additional armor, but I have my doubts that welding extra armor to their tanks would be more effective than composite armor with a combination of ERA.
The point is Iraq’s Air Force failed, Iraq’s planning failed, and the poorly trained ground forces paid for it.

Damn, your granddad sounds awesome!


Wasn't the F-4 brought down by AAA?

At 13km away, I doubt it.

 

[Zabaniyah]

T-72, no matter where it was manufactured, was done so on the basis of Russian specifications. Yes, Iraq may have customized it for its needs. And Iraq actually improved its T-72 fleet prior to invasion in 2003.

The truth about Iraqi T-72s:

And yes, they were very different from the Soviet versions.

 

[LeGenD]

The Iraqi military used mostly relics. Iraq had very few modern systems, to say that Iraq used modern Soviet equipment is bit of a stretch.

Following equipment were not relics;

01. T-72M MBT
02. Lion of Babylon MBT (Customized T-72 design)**
03. G-5 155mm Howitzer*
04. Roland 2 SAM system*
05. Crotale SAM system*

06. Mig-29 Fulcrum
07. Mig-27 Flogger-D/F
08. Mirage F-1C (EQ5/EQ5-200 version)*
09. Mig 21 Bison
10. SU-25 Frogfoot

**This variant was produced after poor performance of T-72M during Iran-Iraq war.
*Non-USSR weapons

Their are probably more examples.

In addition, Iraq also modified several other Soviet military equipment in its inventory including its missile arsenal. The export versions of Soviet weapon systems were known to be not as good as their counterparts for domestic use. This is why Iraqi leadership chose to diversify military procurements and made modifications to its fleet of Soviet equipment.

For detailed information, check RAND report.

The only problem is that their military leadership was absolutely awful. Iraqi generals were outclassed.

All Iraqi generals were not incompetent. Issue was that Saddam was more concerned about loyality to him rather then professional competence. But still, Iraq was no pushover during 1990s. Many Soviet and Chinese military analysts predicted a long and difficult war in the making. They were shocked by US performance during this war.

Iraqi T-72’s or their own versions did not come with composite armor, nor did it come with explosive reactive armor (ERA), although there is speculation that some Iraqi tanks could have had ERA from Poland. The worst part about many Iraqi tanks was that they used low cost training round, that are not designed to penetrate armor. Furthermore, whatever rounds that the Iraqis used that were not training rounds were tungsten core. The Soviet Union/Russia has depleted uranium rounds (DU) but they are kept in storage due to health risks.

Iraqi tanks did make some improvements by adding additional armor, but I have my doubts that welding extra armor to their tanks would be more effective than composite armor with a combination of ERA.

Iraq did use composite armor on some of its Tanks; information is short in this regard. Even some Iraqi T-55 were equipped with composite armor.

The point is Iraq’s Air Force failed, Iraq’s planning failed, and the poorly trained ground forces paid for it.

No.

1. Point is that Soviet MBTs had not been put to serious test between Indo-Pak War of 1965 and Persian Gulf War 1991.
2. Point is that US learned valuable lessons from Vietnam War and reformed its military accordingly.
3. Point is that US developed considerably better weapons and associated tools then USSR after the Vietnam War.
4. Point is that due to economic and other issues, USSR could no longer keep up with USA in an arms race. And the technological disparity is apparent even now. Those who think otherwise are only fooling themselves.

Yes! I acknowledge Russian accomplishments in the arms race. Some Russian weapons are GOLD. However, Russia does not sets the technological bar.

The truth about Iraqi T-72s:

And yes, they were very different from the Soviet versions.

My friend, ponder over this assessment from a 'competent' Iraqi general:-

One day, I had a meeting with Saddam Hussein and he asked me to explain the changes that had occurred, and how to deal with the American Army. What are the existing difficulties? I used a piece of paper to draw out the answer, since Saddam was not a military person. There was an Iraqi T–72 tank [General draws a tank] and then there was an [American M–1] Abrams tank. So these are advanced systems. But one tank is not a substitute for the other. I gave the T–72 a value of 1.5 out of 5, while the M–1 gets a 5 out of 5. Both tanks fire the sabot rounds with muzzle velocities of 1,800 meters per second. The ultimate range of the T–72 for a first-round hit is 2,200 meters, while the Abrams tank can produce a first-round hit at 3,000 meters.

In addition [drawing a helicopter over the M–1 tank], we can see the Apache helicopter which carries the Hellfire missile [hovering] above the Abrams. Each [helicopter] carries 16 of these missiles, and the Hellfire has a range of 8,000 meters. This type of missile has a 90 percent probability of hitting its target. Above this Apache, you have an A–10 [Thunderbolt II ground attack jet]. This aircraft also carries missiles with extended ranges. Then, there are F–16 aircraft and the F–15 above that. Above that are the Blackbird, the reconnaissance information aircraft and above that, are the U–2, the AWACS [airborne warning and control system], and satellite systems. All this for one mission! That mission is to detect the tank location and its maneuver area. However, the T–72 has no aerial cover. So that on our quality scale, the U.S. tank with a 5 might become a 25. Because of a lack of support, the T–72 with a value of 1.5 may become -5.

This is what I explained to Saddam. What does the tank require? It requires firepower, self-protection, and maneuverability. As a result of being detected in real time, all weapons are going to range in on it. This tank is not going to be able to detect the enemy weapons aiming at it, because the maximum range of T–72 observation is 5,000 meters, while the Apache has an 8,000-meter range. So there is a 3,000-meter difference, where one can watch, the other one is blind. The T–72 cannot maneuver because of the satellite detection or the Blackbird reconnaissance and the new unmanned aircraft. Even these unmanned aircraft carry missiles that the Americans can guide. So this tank becomes nothing.

You see? Even Russian ATGMs will be useless under the above mentioned scenario.

USSR itself was no longer in the position to challenge USA militarily during 1990s; excluding nuclear weapons.

Even now Russia cannot challenge USA in conventional terms. No country can.

 

[Hyperion]

Great missile, but let's see if it can match the grand-daddy SM3 - RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Off-topic: Enjoy this awesome video of Minuteman III ICBM

 

[Zabaniyah]

My friend, ponder over this assessment from a 'competent' Iraqi general:-

One day, I had a meeting with Saddam Hussein and he asked me to explain the changes that had occurred, and how to deal with the American Army. What are the existing difficulties? I used a piece of paper to draw out the answer, since Saddam was not a military person. There was an Iraqi T–72 tank [General draws a tank] and then there was an [American M–1] Abrams tank. So these are advanced systems. But one tank is not a substitute for the other. I gave the T–72 a value of 1.5 out of 5, while the M–1 gets a 5 out of 5. Both tanks fire the sabot rounds with muzzle velocities of 1,800 meters per second. The ultimate range of the T–72 for a first-round hit is 2,200 meters, while the Abrams tank can produce a first-round hit at 3,000 meters.

In addition [drawing a helicopter over the M–1 tank], we can see the Apache helicopter which carries the Hellfire missile [hovering] above the Abrams. Each [helicopter] carries 16 of these missiles, and the Hellfire has a range of 8,000 meters. This type of missile has a 90 percent probability of hitting its target. Above this Apache, you have an A–10 [Thunderbolt II ground attack jet]. This aircraft also carries missiles with extended ranges. Then, there are F–16 aircraft and the F–15 above that. Above that are the Blackbird, the reconnaissance information aircraft and above that, are the U–2, the AWACS [airborne warning and control system], and satellite systems. All this for one mission! That mission is to detect the tank location and its maneuver area. However, the T–72 has no aerial cover. So that on our quality scale, the U.S. tank with a 5 might become a 25. Because of a lack of support, the T–72 with a value of 1.5 may become -5.

This is what I explained to Saddam. What does the tank require? It requires firepower, self-protection, and maneuverability. As a result of being detected in real time, all weapons are going to range in on it. This tank is not going to be able to detect the enemy weapons aiming at it, because the maximum range of T–72 observation is 5,000 meters, while the Apache has an 8,000-meter range. So there is a 3,000-meter difference, where one can watch, the other one is blind. The T–72 cannot maneuver because of the satellite detection or the Blackbird reconnaissance and the new unmanned aircraft. Even these unmanned aircraft carry missiles that the Americans can guide. So this tank becomes nothing.

Makes sense. The nature of American military operations were indeed very resource intensive. They also had military satellites which the Iraqis didn't have, and had no means to counter them.

Although, I really wouldn't compare the T-72 to the technologically superior M1 Abrams. The US version of the Abrams is very hard to beat even if they don't have heavy air support.

You see? Even Russian ATGMs will be useless under the above mentioned scenario.

ATGMs are only a part of an operation. Russians make good ATGMs though.

USSR itself was no longer in the position to challenge USA militarily during 1990s; excluding nuclear weapons.

Even now Russia cannot challenge USA in conventional terms. No country can.

Agreed.

 

[LeGenD]

Makes sense. The nature of American military operations were indeed very resource intensive. They also had military satellites which the Iraqis didn't have, and had no means to counter them.

Although, I really wouldn't compare the T-72 to the technologically superior M1 Abrams. The US version of the Abrams is very hard to beat even if they don't have heavy air support.

Satellites are just part of the equation. It is the layer upon layer of supportive systems that make the real difference. As nicely surmised by you: very resource intensive.

Directly challenging US in combat is suicidal. Iraqi generals pointed out that even IDF pales in comparison.

IDF found Hezbollah challenging? US would have torn Hezbollah a new one in the same conflict.

ATGMs are only a part of an operation. Russians make good ATGMs though.

Indeed. But useless against US warfare doctrine.

 

[Wright]

Satellites are just part of the equation. It is the layer upon layer of supportive systems that make the real difference. As nicely surmised by you: very resource intensive.

Directly challenging US in combat is suicidal. Iraqi generals pointed out that even IDF pales in comparison.

IDF found Hezbollah challenging? US would have torn Hezbollah a new one in the same conflict.


Indeed. But useless against US warfare doctrine.

The US pretty much got rid of Iraq's command and control structures in both gulf wars. So it appeared as Iraq never put up organized resistance. They simply could not.

 

[LeGenD]

The US pretty much got rid of Iraq's command and control structures in both gulf wars. So it appeared as Iraq never put up organized resistance. They simply could not.

Yes! You are right. Without C&C structure, a military machine is as good as dead.

This is how US fights now. It did the same with Libya and Kosovo as well.