Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Share

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Viktor on Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:32 am

    dionis wrote:
    collegeboy16 wrote:
    no, imo if natto is tac. nuked they could only escalate to tac. nukes or back down since natto knows the rus are prepared to use strat. nukes.

    In the event of losing a territorial / economic dispute, Russia will up the ante to strategic nuclear weapons, basically guaranteeing losing *everything* in the follow up retaliation?

    Really impressive thought process there. Neutral


    Now you figure it out situation in which Russia will attack with nuclear weapons  Very Happy 

    Russia's new military doctrine allows pre-emptive nuclear strikes

    Nikolai Patrushev wrote:"An option is stipulated for the possibility of using nuclear weapons depending on the situation and the intentions of a potential enemy,"



    Russia says preemptive strike on NATO missile system is possible

    Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov wrote:"A decision to use destructive force preemptively will be taken if the situation worsens,"

    dionis
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 64
    Points : 65
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  dionis on Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:17 am

    GarryB wrote:

    NATO would never bother targeting civilian infrastructure in Russia... it would target military forces able to attack NATO in return... with a fairly high priority on nuclear forces... both strategic and tactical.. because if they don't neutralise such forces such forces might end up being used against them.

    And of course any attempt to take out Russian nuclear capability will lead to a use it or lose it situation... 45,000 NATO tanks on Russian borders would result in tactical nuclear strikes to neutralise those heavy formations in their holding areas or their forming up areas.

    NATO has a massively superior conventional capability and unless they are total morons would use that capability to try to take out Russians nuclear retaliation capability..The most sensible use of Russias nuclear capability would therefore be to blunt the attack and retaliate with nuclear forces.

    Under CFE Russia has about 6,000 MBTs in western Russia. Sure the CFE is not in effect at the moment because while Russia has signed it none of NATO signed it... ironically because Russia had peacekeeping troops in South Ossetia.

    The purpose of CFE was a balance of forces so the Warsaw Pact could have 20,000 MBTs and NATO could have 20,000 tanks. the situation now of course is that NATO has 34,000 tanks and Russia has 6,000 tanks... which is pretty much the reverse of the balance during the 1980s in the cold war and it was generally accepted that a 3 to 1 advantage in tanks by the WP would lead to NATO using nukes in days to hold back the enemy. With a near 6 to 1 advantage in MBTs do you really think the Russians would not use nukes?

    Really?

    We were talking about 500+ cruise missile attacks... that is not a minor dispute... that is attempted regime change. And yes... they would blunt the attack with nukes and force NATO back with the threat of more nukes. I rather doubt that NATO would continue to push. Result.

    Please do not compare a massive land invasion and an economic/territorial dispute. The former is indeed a "regime change" effort and will no doubt result in tactical nuclear weapon use - but that's basically a do or die situation. (BTW - 30,000 tanks? really? Rolling Eyes what year is it?). For obvious reasons, this conflict will likely never happen.

    On the other hand, the latter, even with hundreds of cruise missiles, is far from a "regime change" (are you referring to an attempt to topple the Russian government?) of any kind and would only result in Russia losing military assets and *potential* economic interests - a far more likely conflict. This kind of conflict can be expected in the Barents, around the Black Sea or in the Pacific / Far East. Going nuclear would guarantee everybody losing. And if Russia loses the conventional fight - then goes tactical nuclear to ensure the other side loses - there's no guarantee that the enemy won't hit back even harder with their own tactical nukes. I'm obviously referring to NATO/US and China.




    Viktor wrote:
    no, imo if natto is tac. nuked they could only escalate to tac. nukes or back down since natto knows the rus are prepared to use strat. nukes.


    Now you figure it out situation in which Russia will attack with nuclear weapons  Very Happy 


    Nikolai Patrushev wrote:"An option is stipulated for the possibility of using nuclear weapons depending on the situation and the intentions of a potential enemy,"


    Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov wrote:"A decision to use destructive force preemptively will be taken if the situation worsens,"

    Like I said - if there's some unbelievably desperate situation where NATO somehow loses its collective sanity and attempts any kind of land invasion, then tactical nukes would make sense. Given the probability of that scenario is basically nil, and far more likely "next door" conflicts will not allow for "free" use of tactical nuclear weapons, then that strategy is basically irrelevant.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:43 am

    dionis wrote:
    collegeboy16 wrote:
    no, imo if natto is tac. nuked they could only escalate to tac. nukes or back down since natto knows the rus are prepared to use strat. nukes.

    In the event of losing a territorial / economic dispute, Russia will up the ante to strategic nuclear weapons, basically guaranteeing losing *everything* in the follow up retaliation?

    Really impressive thought process there. Neutral

    You can once again question whatever the ministry of defense and the head of the federal government will and will not do. But in the end, they would and could use tactical nukes within their borders and would on sinking a ship if they have to.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:58 am

    All this talk, there is only two situations that are actually likely, the war drumbs are plaid to create a public perception that Russia is an evil empire and wants to conquer Europe, same nonsense US evil empire spewed out during Cold War 1.0. The goal is to tune european citizens to be anti-russian and be more prone to attack Russia. The anglo-saxons with their divie et impera tactics do not care about anyone else but themselfs and are happy to depopulate the planet by using people they feel are inferior to them, the mindset of old colonial empires. The goal is to use countries against Russia so Russia will not use nuclear weapons such as Ukraine or Germany,Poland and so on.

    They tried terrorists and failed, they tried china against russia but they were smarter than that, now they are using those slavic people they have brainwashed for past 23 years and told them they are not russians and the biggest threat to russia was always the 5th column inside Russia a majority of oligarchs willing to genocide russians just to keep their money or getting more. This 5th column consisting of zionistic orientated scum like Khordokovsky, Abrahamovich,Saxarov, the remaining caste of the families Jeltzin and Prochorov all oligarchs all trying and unfortunatley succesful intervening with Putins policy in Ukraine. Those are the real threat, nothing from outside will even scratch on russian federation but the 5th column.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:27 am

    If tactical nukes are unusable then why bother even having them... after all strategic nukes fill the role quite nicely.

    The fact of the matter is that your claim that Russia wont use tactical nukes for fear of escalation is actually the opposite of the truth. Tactical nukes offer a choice that is not strategic in nature... it is a choice they can make that is not strategic nuclear attack and destruction of the world.

    Please do not compare a massive land invasion and an economic/territorial dispute. The former is indeed a "regime change" effort and will no doubt result in tactical nuclear weapon use - but that's basically a do or die situation.

    You already have been contradicted there by reality... if the former is massive land invasion AND regime change then the Coup in Kiev is a massive land invasion because it was clearly regime change implemented by the US.

    But clearly it wasn't one but it was clearly the other.

    (BTW - 30,000 tanks? really? Rolling Eyes what year is it?). For obvious reasons, this conflict will likely never happen.

    CFE restricts MBT deployment and numbers and was allocated 20,000 to NATO and 20,000 to the Warsaw Pact. Those number allocations didn't change but the Warsaw Pact is now NATO... in fact several parts of the former Soviet Union is now part of NATO. Work it out for yourself.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Asf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 488
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Asf on Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:00 am

    Those number allocations didn't change
    But europians decreased numbers of their tanks dramatically

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  collegeboy16 on Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:13 pm

    Asf wrote:
    But europians decreased numbers of their tanks dramatically
    more like majority is redistributed to other euro countries while some are exported elsewhere.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Viktor on Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:58 pm

    BIG one  thumbsup 

    http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/736382

    A hypothetical enemy’s massive air raids will be simulated with the maximum possible number of cruise missiles and aircraft

    The air defense force will be using the S-400 Triumf and S-300 Favorit air defense systems, Pantsyr-S anti aircraft guns, Kasta-2.2 radars and Fundament-M automation system.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  collegeboy16 on Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:55 pm

    Viktor wrote:BIG one  thumbsup 
    now this is how one should flip the bird towards cockgarglers.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Austin on Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:50 pm

    $40-billion missile defense system proves unreliable

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  medo on Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:39 pm

    Viktor wrote:BIG one  thumbsup 

    http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/736382

    A hypothetical enemy’s massive air raids will be simulated with the maximum possible number of cruise missiles and aircraft

    The air defense force will be using the S-400 Triumf and S-300 Favorit air defense systems, Pantsyr-S anti aircraft guns, Kasta-2.2 radars and Fundament-M automation system.

    Russian PVO go through more and more trainings and exercises, so they get more and more skills and higher quality.  thumbsup 

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:25 am

    Quick question: How does S-400/S-500 stack up against the Pentagon's RIM-161 Standard Missile 3, I know the're's versions of Standard Missile that have insane range of 2500 km, however the history of American SAMS in the last 25 years have been problematic (which may also hold true with the latest Standard Missile series), less than stellar, and less of a "hit" and more of "miss" (from the Patriots SAMS' terrible performance in the first Gulf War, to the countless testing failures of the Ground-based Midcourse System aka GMD), also recently the Pentagon admitted the latest variants of the Standard Missile series blueprints, testing data and other vital secrets have been compromised by hackers (most likely from The Peoples Liberation Army of China). the latest Standard Missile variants get their range with a 4 stage missile which would give any missile insane range, let's discuss...

    dionis
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 64
    Points : 65
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  dionis on Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:22 am

    GarryB wrote:If tactical nukes are unusable then why bother even having them... after all strategic nukes fill the role quite nicely.

    The fact of the matter is that your claim that Russia wont use tactical nukes for fear of escalation is actually the opposite of the truth. Tactical nukes offer a choice that is not strategic in nature... it is a choice they can make that is not strategic nuclear attack and destruction of the world.

    You already have been contradicted there by reality... if the former is massive land invasion AND regime change then the Coup in Kiev is a massive land invasion because it was clearly regime change implemented by the US.

    But clearly it wasn't one but it was clearly the other.

    CFE restricts MBT deployment and numbers and was allocated 20,000 to NATO and 20,000 to the Warsaw Pact. Those number allocations didn't change but the Warsaw Pact is now NATO... in fact several parts of the former Soviet Union is now part of NATO. Work it out for yourself.

    I think I'm repeating myself, but tactical nukes are the second-to-last move of desperation. Last being strategic nukes. The response to a tactical nuke may well be strategic nukes - who knows. The firepower is comparable. As an example, if you nuke that hypothetical tank formation (coming to implement this so-called "regime change") and end up obliterating a part of a NATO city... can you imagine the response? Lastly, if tactical nukes were so wonderful and could secure Russia, they would probably not spend what they are spending on conventional arms.

    The Kiev "coup" - done by the Americans .. or not, did not involve open military operations. That difference should make this example obviously irrelevant.


    dionis
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 64
    Points : 65
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  dionis on Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:25 am

    sepheronx wrote:

    You can once again question whatever the ministry of defense and the head of the federal government will and will not do.  But in the end, they would and could use tactical nukes within their borders and would on sinking a ship if they have to.

    I do agree that a scorched earth style nuclear response - if facing a land invasion, is possible. This also makes this whole scenario extremely unlikely.

    When it comes to wars over resources - going to nukes basically guarantees that no one will win. That's not necessarily the outcome Russia would want.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Viktor on Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:47 pm

    S-400 is in high demand

    Russia received from abroad application for the purchase of S-400

    but here is interesting sentence

    Until a few years ago the Defense Ministry announced that by 2015 all production of the C-400 will only work in the interests of Russia. Even Russian allies Belarus and Kazakhstan will receive these new complexes only after they fully equip the Russian missile defense system, defense, noted in the military

    Nice to know that Belarus and Kazahstan intend to buy S-400 which would make nice addition to their S-300 and all

    zg18
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 869
    Points : 945
    Join date : 2013-09-26
    Location : Zagreb , Croatia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  zg18 on Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:08 pm

    Not sure if posted



    S-400 factory , many ask about missile in the foreground? S-500 , S-400 large missile?

    http://i-korotchenko.livejournal.com/900591.html

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3225
    Points : 3349
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:58 am

    Viktor wrote:

    Nice to know that Belarus and Kazahstan intend to buy S-400 which would make nice addition to their S-300 and all

    I don't think is a good idea Belarus get an S-400.. he seems that will backstab Russia and the second opportunity .  Just look at Ukraine..
    They HAve S-300s and for sure know NATO have to be reverse engineering them.. same with the SATAN missiles.. So if Belarus
    suddenly betray Russia he could use the S-400s and sell them easily to US for enough money to build its own Sochi olympics for free..
    Russia should trust no one.. their Best hardware.. because any coup in that nation will allow US to get access to Russia advanced
    military hardware. They can sell them to CHina after 10 years at least . China problem is they reverse engineer things and later sell it cheaper  to others..


    Quick question: How does S-400/S-500 stack up against the Pentagon's RIM-161 Standard Missile 3

    Not completely sure , but if i read it correctly ,people in discussion have said there is no comparison.  Because the Sm-3 (and this is according to discussion about it)  is NOT a SAM.. (surface Air Missile)  but more like a  SSM  (surface space missile) is only an Mesosphere Midcourse Interceptor. designed only to intercept High Altitude Ballistics ICBMs. And its warhead will not operate until is traveling on space orbit where satellites operate. So it cannot be used against a Combat plane ,drone or even less a cruise missile. Only operate at very high altitudes.. the 2500 range is not a big deal ,when you consider it operate under a near zero gravity space.  Smile  FLight ceiling is said to be 1,500km which is more than enough for any ICBM.  Limitations i have read of the SM-3 is that is only mid-course  ,means can only intercept when the ICBMS are in space zero gravity orbit and not when they are on the First phase or final phase ,also some said it cannot intercept fast mobile space targets and do not fly on a predictable linear path.   All said doesn't look like the SM-3 can intercept the Iskander ballistic  missiles ..
    because they fly not in a linear ballistic trajectory ,do heavy irregular flight path ,can do 90 degrees violent turns , and do not fly on the mesosphere space orbit the SM-3 operate.

    S-400s in the other hand ,have several missiles  3-4, that covers the entire spectrum of possible air to space targets.
    From very low altitude cruise missiles to ICBMs in space ,but without hit to kill ability  ,but using instead proximity fuse explosive.

    S-500s it have been said will be S-400s with hit to kill capabilities and with much enhanced range. .

    S-400s and perhaps S-500 have no analogue in US defense system. Because is a multi purpose all air +space defense.
    in the Case of USA.. they use at least 2 or 3 defense system to do what S-400s can do.. but without the hit to kill ability.



    edit.. This movie clearly the SM-3 how it works.... It needs to detach 2-3 boosters and float in space FIRST for its real warhead to operate.
    SM-3 is very good missile.. but Russia have nothing that im aware that could be compared.. Because SM-3 is mostly like a Mid-Course Space Interceptor. is a space weapon. It can be said the NATO lacks of a good air defense system but have a good space mid course interceptor for Navy.  The advantage of SM-3 is that it can take an ICBM very early on space.. Russia do not have much use for an Sm-3 however because their potential enemies like Poland and baltic states and now ukraine are right next to their borders. So any missile targeting Moscow will be Descending into an heavy air space environment. and SM-3 its warhead only works on zero gravity. it will not be able to aim a target if it cannot float as in the movie.  So its an interesting missile but is limited to high altitude space interception.

    The SM-3 interceptor.. its warhead is hidden inside a 3 stage rocket booster.. and its warhead accelerate from zero speed in space towards its target. So could be said is a reversed missile ,the interception is from top to down.  The S-400 intercept ICBMs.. from down to top ,the warhead aims from the start to the target ,as if they were planes . So 2 different ways to do the same thing. Just that the Sm-3 is limited to space ,it will not work with the regular air space with winds and gravity.. So for example an SM-3 is used against an iskander ballisctic missile  ,it will need to first reach zero gravity space bypassing the trajectory of the iskander and hope to catch it later. which dont think can do it ,because the warhead when start to chase a missile ,it already dropped all its powerful rocket boosters. Means it will have limited flight chase characteristics. Seems more like a Step in the middle bomb ,like a space mine but that can position in the front of an ICBM missile. but is very doubtful the warhead can chase from behind anything flying fast without rocket boosters.

    it will fail if for example is fooled by decoys..So i suspect NATO will need to fire many dozens of SM-3 missiles to try a single fast maneuverable ICBM missile .

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:57 am

    question: how much does the most common s-300/400 missile cost? are we talking a million dollars a piece or less?

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:16 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:question: how much does the most common s-300/400 missile cost? are we talking a million dollars a piece or less?

    What do you mean by "cost"?

    How do you define "cost" in this context?

    eridan
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 127
    Points : 133
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  eridan on Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:31 pm

    Cost could be defined as contracted value for missile production. Like MoD pays xxx million for production and delivery of xx missiles this year.

    Large and complex missiles like these cost several million dollars in the west. While surely a bit cheaper in Russia, i'd still guesstimate a single 48n6 missile to cost upward of a million dollars, possibly even two million. For comparison purposes, 9m55 rockets (smerch mlrs) were sold to the likes of Algeria and India for about a million dollars apiece. 48n6 missiles are likely to be more complex and more expensive.

    Asf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 488
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Asf on Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:14 pm

    but Russia have nothing that im aware that could be compared.. 

    A-135 and A-235? They aren't mobile at all, of course, but are dedicated strategic missile defence systems

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3225
    Points : 3349
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Vann7 on Fri Jun 20, 2014 4:49 am

    Asf wrote:
    but Russia have nothing that im aware that could be compared.. 

    A-135 and A-235? They aren't mobile at all, of course, but are dedicated strategic missile defence systems


    The A-135 is kinetic projectile with propulsion as far im aware.. with a nuclear warhead.  and the A-235 a newer version with hit to kill. Is like a Giant Bullet wit turbines.



    http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-350.html)


     The SM-3 is more like a a space mine .. that needs to be deployed more or less  on the same trajectory that a missile will pass ,at least thats what it looks ,because is not a missile at all , Is more like a space mine with some limited propulsion and  Infra red sensors.  it will have not a chance to catch an an ICBM if fly pass it  . With normal Sams defenses a missile can chase a plane. but SM-3 warhead ,i don't think can chase a mach 23.0  ICBM from behind.. specially when the warhead of the SM-3 do not have rocket engines and start from speed zero..not a chance. Means the SM-3 can only work IF can predict the trajectory of a missile more or less.. and deploy its warhead earlier than a ICBM pass.

    It is good to remember that all S-400s -S500 can be used as mid course interceptors too. Difference is the Sm-3 is more like a space mine
    while S-400s and S-500 are maneuverable air and space missiles.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:26 pm

    But europians decreased numbers of their tanks dramatically

    For economic reasons only.

    The could and might greatly increase the number of MBTs they have on their territory... the CFE treaty is not being observed by anyone at the moment so they can actually make as many as they want.

    A bit like american ABM missiles in Europe.

    however the history of American SAMS in the last 25 years have been problematic (which may also hold true with the latest Standard Missile series), less than stellar, and less of a "hit" and more of "miss" (from the Patriots SAMS' terrible performance in the first Gulf War, to the countless testing failures of the Ground-based Midcourse System aka GMD)

    First of all keep in mind that the Patriot failed because it was designed to hit aircraft and not ballistic missiles. It took an average of 32 Patriots for each shot down Scud which is not to say 31 missed... most that made it to the target exploded but did not destroy the warhead of the falling missile which meant the warhead fell intact and still did damage.

    Patriot was not a bad missile, though it did kill more allied aircraft than S-400 has.

    I think I'm repeating myself, but tactical nukes are the second-to-last move of desperation.

    Repeating something does not make it true. If Russia had promised not to use nukes first then I would agree, but they have not made any such promise.

    In a situation where NATO forces are concentrated and attacking Russia why would Russia not use nuclear weapons? It is called defending yourself.

    The response to a tactical nuke may well be strategic nukes - who knows. The firepower is comparable.

    Rubbish. Tactical nuclear weapons are relatively small and will not be used all at once... strategic nukes are much more powerful and will all be used together.

    A tactical nuke strike can be seen as a line drawn in the sand... if NATO continues the result will be strategic war... but whatever NATO is doing it might think it is worth using conventional forces, but is not worth a nuclear conflict and so could back down if Russia uses nukes. Escalating would be pointless as it leads to a place where neither side wants to go.

    As an example, if you nuke that hypothetical tank formation (coming to implement this so-called "regime change") and end up obliterating a part of a NATO city... can you imagine the response?

    A hypothetical NATO tank force moving into Russian territory is hardly going to end up with part of an important NATO city being destroyed... it would be likely a Ukrainian or Baltic city for which most of NATO could care less and certainly not risk escalating the conflict to the point where their cities might get nuked.

    Lastly, if tactical nukes were so wonderful and could secure Russia, they would probably not spend what they are spending on conventional arms.

    They don't rely on them by choice, but by their current situation.

    An improved conventional force will not make tactical nukes obsolete either...

    The Kiev "coup" - done by the Americans .. or not, did not involve open military operations. That difference should make this example obviously irrelevant.

    Ukraine has never been and will never be a serious threat to Russia that warrants nuclear weapons. NATO forces moving into the Ukraine on the other hand is something completely different. The American coup in Kiev just shows Putin that the US is not interested in cooperation and working together and will always be an enemy. There are other directions to look for allies and friends and trading partners... eventually when Europe grows a spine and cuts the umbillical cord from the US (which seems to operate in the reverse direction to human umbillical cords BTW) they might be able to work out closer ties there too... but certainly not worth it any time soon.

    I do agree that a scorched earth style nuclear response - if facing a land invasion, is possible. This also makes this whole scenario extremely unlikely.

    A NATO attack by ground forces on russia is very unlikely too, but in the event do you really think they would wait for those NATO forces to reach Russian territory before they start using nukes?

    Do you think NATO air power would wait till the ground forces got stuck before providing air support and trying to deal with Russian air defences?

    If NATO aircraft are attacking Russian air defences do you really think the Russians would refuse to attack massed NATO forces on NATO borders with Russia?

    When it comes to wars over resources - going to nukes basically guarantees that no one will win. That's not necessarily the outcome Russia would want.

    Of course... Russia would much rather be invaded by NATO for its resources than defend itself and its territory. My question would be... why would NATO think a ground invasion would work any better now than it did 60-70 years ago... the Soviet Army was in a terrible state then too, but if Stalin had tactical and strategic nukes do you really think he would not use them?



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Viktor on Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:00 pm

    Going east - well during 2014, 3 S-400 regiments are scheduled for deployment

    S-400 Air Defense Systems to Protect Russia's Kamchatka

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:07 pm

    zg18 wrote:S-400 factory , many ask about missile in the foreground? S-500 , S-400 large missile?

    I should mention that this question had been answered more than a year ago on this site.

    It's a missile from the S-75 system, without its wings, interstage, and first stage, maybe undergoing conversion to a drone.

    Sponsored content

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:31 am


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:31 am