Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Share

    dionis

    Posts : 63
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  dionis on Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:02 am

    I think you are missing part of my point.

    Russia is definitely going to retaliate conventionally, but it will not go nuclear unless NATO starts targeting critical civilian infrastructure. The real question is, how long will they last in a conventional fight in any realistic scenario (whatever those would even be?).

    If NATO does launch conventional strikes and Russia goes nuclear - NATO gets carte blance to go nuclear as well. Point being - no one will want to go nuclear first unless they are absolutely desperate.

    For Russia desperation would mean either their critical civilian infrastructure is being wrecked by NATO or they lose all of their local military assets outright.

    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:33 am

    dionis wrote:I think you are missing part of my point.

    Russia is definitely going to retaliate conventionally, but it will not go nuclear unless NATO starts targeting critical civilian infrastructure. The real question is, how long will they last in a conventional fight in any realistic scenario (whatever those would even be?).

    If NATO does launch conventional strikes and Russia goes nuclear - NATO gets carte blance to go nuclear as well. Point being - no one will want to go nuclear first unless they are absolutely desperate.

    For Russia desperation would mean either their critical civilian infrastructure is being wrecked by NATO or they lose all of their local military assets outright.

    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.

    dionis

    Posts : 63
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  dionis on Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:01 am

    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

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:48 pm

    All this debate appear to me completely "corrupted" by a strange induced mindset's conditioning.....


    Expected chances of success of cruise missile attacks against third world IADs , and here i talk even of the most intense ones ever produced by combined NATO Forces in pasted conflicts after several months of long preparations and without any fear of a selective "beheading" attacks by part of the enemy , and one against Federation's IAD (by a very long margin the most advanced ,extended and dense at world) are several orders of magnitude apart.

    Without too many words we can say literally that ПВО and Army IADs has been attentively designed ,long more than 30 years , around the task to consistently defeat (and with a very substantial edge too  Very Happy ) the most large scale saturating NATO stand-off cruise missile attacks employing any kind of ancillary aiding measures -such as massive employing of advanced decoys and EW interference- while contemporaneously allowing domestic sub-startegical Forces to selectively and quickly attack and destroy NATO main military structures "allowing" similar attacks to be carried on, achieving so a progressively faster degradation of NATO's sub-startegic offensive potential up to its complete powerlessness and irrelevance.

    That capability has been retained and enormously improved in the latest years in response to future menaces , just to avoid nuclear escalation against a not startegic NATO attack , and rather to capitalize the hypothetical situation and the resultant international legitimazion to a right conventional response to such an attack to utterly destroy some key NATO military installations in the European theatre and to establish also a sizable "buffer zone" in  the Baltic.

    A similar attack by part of NATO would be the single most shoddy and comical mistake of entire modern military history and contemporaneously the biggest hit to NATO military image in public immaginary ; naturally NATO's military analysts and strategists are not so openly incompetents.  


    For some strange reason anyone seem forget to mention that between the two are NATO's military installations at lacking , in a way sometimes really pathetical, even the most basic semblance of any IAD even only worth of this name  Laughing  Laughing


    If i should make a bet on the chances of a single old X-59M ,with cassette or unitary warhead, to reach totally undisturbed a NATO typical overcrowed airfield -lacking moreover almost always even the most elementary hardening measure- and reduce to confetti several stationed aircraft  or destroy a fuel storage or munition's depot , or that of 30 NATO cruise missiles ,with any ancirally aid available, to overcome even only the first two layers of domestic IAD i would bet all my money on that single old X-59M  Razz  Razz
    avatar
    RTN

    Posts : 188
    Points : 169
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield , CT

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  RTN on Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:35 pm

    Mindstorm wrote: the most large scale saturating NATO stand-off cruise missile attacks employing any kind of ancillary aiding measures -such as massive employing of advanced decoys and EW interference-

    This will not work , primarily because NATO cruise missiles will be deployed along with miniature air launched decoy missiles to confuse the EW systems . The miniature air launched decoys will also be used in concert with the jammer decoys to jam the EW systems . . Towed decoys and terrain-bounce jammers will mimic the missiles they protect thereby throwing your idea of interception for a loop .


    Mindstorm wrote:while contemporaneously allowing domestic sub-startegical Forces to selectively and quickly attack and destroy NATO main military structures "allowing" similar attacks to be carried on, achieving so a progressively faster degradation of NATO's sub-startegic offensive potential up to its complete powerlessness and irrelevance.

    This basically is the only option primarily because the NATO forces in Europe will not have as many cruise missiles or TBMs as Russia .
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3221
    Points : 3307
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  medo on Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:46 pm

    RTN wrote:This will not work , primarily because NATO cruise missiles will be deployed along with miniature air launched decoy missiles to confuse the EW systems . The miniature air launched decoys will also be used in concert with the jammer decoys to jam the EW systems . . Towed decoys and terrain-bounce jammers will mimic the missiles they protect thereby throwing your idea of interception for a loop .

    Cruise missiles will be mostly shot down by AA guns and MANPADs, which work optically, so decoys will not be that effective.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Viktor on Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:38 am

    RTN wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote: the most large scale saturating NATO stand-off cruise missile attacks employing any kind of ancillary aiding measures -such as massive employing of advanced decoys and EW interference-

    This will not work , primarily because NATO cruise missiles will be deployed along with miniature air launched decoy missiles to confuse the EW systems . The miniature air launched decoys will also be used in concert with the jammer decoys to jam the EW systems . . Towed decoys and terrain-bounce jammers will mimic the missiles they protect thereby throwing your idea of interception for a loop .


    Interesting. Mindstorm has said that no "massive employing of advanced decoys and EW interference" can intefere with the work of Russian IADS as it was designed just for that

    and your reply is: "This will not work , primarily because NATO cruise missiles will be deployed along with miniature air launched decoy missiles to confuse the EW systems"



    effectively bringing back discussion to its start or you just created a loop Very Happy  

    Anyway what do you mean by "confuse" EW systems? Russia has long time ago settled to shoot down EVERYTHING - there is nothing to be confused about







    RTN wrote:The miniature air launched decoys will also be used in concert with the jammer decoys to jam the EW systems.Towed decoys and terrain-bounce jammers will mimic the missiles they protect thereby throwing your idea of interception for a loop .

    Russian SAMs has been shooting down all those targets during Vietnam war and ever since - so nothing new there. Remember that we are not speaking about one radar that is searching

    but hundereds of them with fighter and SAM component and AWACS with ground and strong areal ECM/ECCM/ELINT all integrated in a single system. Just look what it took from ECM

    and other equipment to take out a lone export version old S-300 battery at MACE XIII which makes one of the reasons why US ran away in to the stealth technology leaving its best

    ECM/ECCM planes to die severely degrading their ECM capabilities in the process.




    RTN wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:while contemporaneously allowing domestic sub-startegical Forces to selectively and quickly attack and destroy NATO main military structures "allowing" similar attacks to be carried on, achieving so a progressively faster degradation of NATO's sub-startegic offensive potential up to its complete powerlessness and irrelevance.

    This basically is the only option primarily because the NATO forces in Europe will not have as many cruise missiles or TBMs as Russia .


    Not primarily because of CM/BM missile gap in Russian favor but because of complete non-existance of western IADS
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    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

    Posts : 63
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

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

    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.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    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.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    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.


    _________________
    “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

    dionis

    Posts : 63
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    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.


    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

    Posts : 63
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    NATO Cruise missile attack to Russia

    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.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3472
    Points : 3584
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Best defense against Cruise missiles

    Post  Vann7 on Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:23 pm

    Best defense against Cruise missiles is a very powerful counter electronic/jamming wall across the Russian borders.
    Specially closer to Baltic states and Poland.  Because long range Cruise missiles depends on GPS guidance those can be easily jammed..  Also it will not be bad for Russia to have decoys of their S-400s and S-500s missiles.

    Pantsirs and TORs can also intercept them.. but the counter electronics war have to be there just in case.. this way..
    IF US and its Baltic cronies become crazy and launch a surprise full scale attack on Russia by cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads.. all of them will be jammed and never hit their intended targets.

    And EMP walls across Russian borders that can be activated at will ,whenever is need ,will be even better.. it will do wonders.. it will short circuit all the electronics of any low flying missile. This are very doable things that Russia can do right now ..and do not require major investment.. or major research.. as it is the case of creating a new tank or a new combat jet.

    Counter electronics and EMP stations can also be very effective against drones too.

    And for detecting low flying drones and cruise missiles on time.. Aerostat with radars on its belly can become very economically effective to scan for 24 hours non stop all Russian Borders.. not even birds will pass undetected. To scan with planes is most costly and can only be done for small period.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 01, 2015 4:14 am

    Best defense against Cruise missiles is a very powerful counter electronic/jamming wall across the Russian borders.
    Specially closer to Baltic states and Poland.  Because long range Cruise missiles depends on GPS guidance those can be easily jammed..  Also it will not be bad for Russia to have decoys of their S-400s and S-500s missiles.

    Taking it further, the best defence against cruise missile attack is a widespread dedicated command whose purpose is to monitor russian airspace from ground level to outer space. Together will long range radar... ground, air, and space based, and other sensor assets, it should also have aircraft and ground based defences. That would include large numbers of obsolete systems like SA-3 which is in large numbers available and cheap and certainly capable of bringing down a cruise missile, but also newer more capable systems. Even Osa brought down several cruise missiles in Iraq.

    the S model Igla actually had a proximity fuse added to enable it to engage small targets. I have read about a test where 9 Malyutka ATGMs (AT-3 Sagger) were fired to fly at low altitudes as targets for the original Igla missiles. Only 5 were shot down because the remaining 4 missiles did not make contact with the targets because of their small size and because they needed an impact to set off the warheads of the Iglas the 4 that missed just flew past without destroying the missiles.

    I would assume that with proximity fuses the Igla-S should have defeated all 9 targets and a cruise missile is not smaller than an AT-3.

    I expect Verba would be able to get a lock on at much greater ranges so would be even more effective.

    Pantsirs and TORs can also intercept them.. but the counter electronics war have to be there just in case.. this way..
    IF US and its Baltic cronies become crazy and launch a surprise full scale attack on Russia by cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads.. all of them will be jammed and never hit their intended targets.

    Actually engaging targets as they entered Russian air space and also targeting the launch sites of those attacking missiles would be the most efficient response.

    And EMP walls across Russian borders that can be activated at will ,whenever is need ,will be even better.. it will do wonders.. it will short circuit all the electronics of any low flying missile. This are very doable things that Russia can do right now ..and do not require major investment.. or major research.. as it is the case of creating a new tank or a new combat jet.

    EMP walls would also knock out defensive systems too... much better to ensure complete coverage over Russian air space by radar and EO and to remain alert with good communications systems connecting the air defence forces with the other branches of the Russian military.

    Counter electronics and EMP stations can also be very effective against drones too.

    Sending aircraft in peacetime is still the best option as a pilot can observe the target and make decisions based on what they see. A good targeting pod with magnified optics and data communications means that the target can be filmed and that image data sent to the HQ to decide whether to shoot it down or not.

    Most drones when jammed will try to fly back to base and land.

    And for detecting low flying drones and cruise missiles on time.. Aerostat with radars on its belly can become very economically effective to scan for 24 hours non stop all Russian Borders.. not even birds will pass undetected. To scan with planes is most costly and can only be done for small period.

    Very true... the best solution would be large radar installations, plus many more mobile systems including aerostats... the latter would be especially useful in mountains. Aircraft make sense for intercepting targets or adding extra eyes in places where a better look is needed.

    I don't think fitting every tank out for the purpose of air defence makes sense because their primary job is not to sit out in the open emitting enormously powerful radar waves.

    Having radar will allow long range detection of enemy vehicles and perhaps using encrypted signals IFF could be included so enemy tanks can be detected at long range and engaged safely.

    They wont be worried about any cruise missiles flying over head.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3221
    Points : 3307
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  medo on Thu Jan 01, 2015 11:47 am

    GarryB wrote:the S model Igla actually had a proximity fuse added to enable it to engage small targets. I have read about a test where 9 Malyutka ATGMs (AT-3 Sagger) were fired to fly at low altitudes as targets for the original Igla missiles. Only 5 were shot down because the remaining 4 missiles did not make contact with the targets because of their small size and because they needed an impact to set off the warheads of the Iglas the 4 that missed just flew past without destroying the missiles.

    I would assume that with proximity fuses the Igla-S should have defeated all 9 targets and a cruise missile is not smaller than an AT-3.

    I expect Verba would be able to get a lock on at much greater ranges so would be even more effective.

    Igla-S was produced on experiences with Igla MANPAD in 1999 war in Serbia. original Igla have only contact fuse and was good enough against planes and helicopters, but against smaller targets like cruise missiles and small UAVs, many times near miss saves them, although Igla lock them without problem. Proximity fuse in Igla-S is to make near miss a kill for a target. Better homing head is also a big + for Igla-S and new Verba MANPAD.

    Igla-S and Verba MANPADS are the best weapon against cruise missiles, because they are available in larger numbers and you could far easier place MANPAD teams on possible corridors for cruise missiles. Integrated in IADS through Barnail-T C4I and with new day/night sights, they are deadly against cruise missiles and UAVs, which fly low. All other, what fly higher will be shot down by higher level SAMs and guns.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 02, 2015 10:58 am

    Very good point... a MTLB chassis with a small rear mounted turret with two quad packs of Igla-S or Verba is a much cheaper way of dealing with cruise missiles than S-300s or S-400s or indeed S-350s.

    TOR and Pantsir-S also use dumb, cheap missiles too and should also be invaluable in dealing with enemy launched cruise missiles... but the most critical thing is good radar coverage to allow the missiles to be detected early so units can prepare and be ready for when the cruise missiles enter their kill envelope.

    Actually a next generation 57mm gun with laser guided shells would also be excellent for engaging slow straight and level cruise missile targets cheaply.


    _________________
    “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

    victor1985

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  victor1985 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 9:03 am

    GarryB wrote:Very good point... a MTLB chassis with a small rear mounted turret with two quad packs of Igla-S or Verba is a much cheaper way of dealing with cruise missiles than S-300s or S-400s or indeed S-350s.

    TOR and Pantsir-S also use dumb, cheap missiles too and should also be invaluable in dealing with enemy launched cruise missiles... but the most critical thing is good radar coverage to allow the missiles to be detected early so units can prepare and be ready for when the cruise missiles enter their kill envelope.

    Actually a next generation 57mm gun with laser guided shells would also be excellent for engaging slow straight and level cruise missile targets cheaply.
    But when they will be able to put lasers on jet fighter? Recently usa made a truck based laser. In few years whit better batteries they will mount on f22 lasers. And rhen the s300 will be needed again. Lets not think to f22 lets think to a heavier aircraft. Now the truck based laser weight is 10 tons. Whit better batteries and a bigger aircraft than f22 the laser on aircraft is quite feasable. Nowadays the laser kill rockets in long time but can be improve. The only solution will be multiple rockets each whit great speed.

    victor1985

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  victor1985 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 9:19 am

    Also a verba based rocket can have a non linear flight? Cause if so will be hard to hit even by laser. Also protection to laser hits can be put.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:08 am

    Laser weapons the worst, weapons in existence.

    Plattforms like Tanks and Jets can not even provide the needed power to make them anywhere tactical reliable or lethal.
    Laser weapons need direct Line of Sight, which reduces its usefullness.
    Lasers are effected by bad weather and are easily countered by reflective painting, chrome your object and Laser will be useless, stay away from the aircraft for dozens of km and you are absolutley safe from lasers.

    Just a blunt weapon without use for lot of plattforms and inferior to primitive projectiles or SHORADS with Missiles.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:24 am

    But when they will be able to put lasers on jet fighter? Recently usa made a truck based laser. In few years whit better batteries they will mount on f22 lasers.

    Which will be enormously expensive... a few decent laser beam riding 57mm shells will be lethal to all types of aircraft, from UAVs through to helicopters and A-10 type aircraft out to about 12kms.

    Whit better batteries and a bigger aircraft than f22 the laser on aircraft is quite feasable. Nowadays the laser kill rockets in long time but can be improve. The only solution will be multiple rockets each whit great speed.

    The main issue with lasers is power... generation and storage. Also they tend to use very toxic chemicals and either have limited use and are very expensive.

    Currently it doesn't matter what you can fit in an aircraft... you will always be able to put a more powerful weapon on a ground based vehicle and with the ability to plug into the local electricity grid it should be rather more powerful than anything you could fit in a plane.

    Also a verba based rocket can have a non linear flight? Cause if so will be hard to hit even by laser. Also protection to laser hits can be put.

    Modern image processing software can allow a camera or mirror to follow almost any target, so tracking missiles with a laser should not be the biggest problem...

    For the forseeable future lasers are just too expensive.


    _________________
    “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

    victor1985

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  victor1985 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:53 pm

    Werewolf wrote:Laser weapons the worst, weapons in existence.

    Plattforms like Tanks and Jets can not even provide the needed power to make them anywhere tactical reliable or lethal.
    Laser weapons need direct Line of Sight, which reduces its usefullness.
    Lasers are effected by bad weather and are easily countered by reflective painting, chrome your object and Laser will be useless, stay away from the aircraft for dozens of km and you are absolutley safe from lasers.

    Just a blunt weapon without use for lot of plattforms and inferior to primitive projectiles or SHORADS with Missiles.
    Well let me explain. Lets say a laser is efficient only at close range. Then the aircraft will simply let missiles to close and will shoot. Then the aircraft will go close to ground troops that launced the missiles and shoot. Lets say a laser is efficient just at a range of maxim 3km. Well the aircraft would use this range. Or in combination whit missiles.

    victor1985

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  victor1985 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:58 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    But when they will be able to put lasers on jet fighter? Recently usa made a truck based laser. In few years whit better batteries they will mount on f22 lasers.

    Which will be enormously expensive... a few decent laser beam riding 57mm shells will be lethal to all types of aircraft, from UAVs through to helicopters and A-10 type aircraft out to about 12kms.

    Whit better batteries and a bigger aircraft than f22 the laser on aircraft is quite feasable. Nowadays the laser kill rockets in long time but can be improve. The only solution will be multiple rockets each whit great speed.

    The main issue with lasers is power... generation and storage. Also they tend to use very toxic chemicals and either have limited use and are very expensive.

    Currently it doesn't matter what you can fit in an aircraft... you will always be able to put a more powerful weapon on a ground based vehicle and with the ability to plug into the local electricity grid it should be rather more powerful than anything you could fit in a plane.

    Also a verba based rocket can have a non linear flight? Cause if so will be hard to hit even by laser. Also protection to laser hits can be put.

    Modern image processing software can allow a camera or mirror to follow almost any target, so tracking missiles with a laser should not be the biggest problem...

    For the forseeable future lasers are just too expensive.
    Expensive but whit 100% chances to kill missiles, tanks or anything else. Worth spending. We should make few aircrafts like this knowing they are invincible excepts enemy lasers
    Lets thinks also ground based lasers cant be use for atack. The ones plugged at the local electricity cant be move as aircrafts can


    Last edited by victor1985 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:58 pm

    victor1985 wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:Laser weapons the worst, weapons in existence.

    Plattforms like Tanks and Jets can not even provide the needed power to make them anywhere tactical reliable or lethal.
    Laser weapons need direct Line of Sight, which reduces its usefullness.
    Lasers are effected by bad weather and are easily countered by reflective painting, chrome your object and Laser will be useless, stay away from the aircraft for dozens of km and you are absolutley safe from lasers.

    Just a blunt weapon without use for lot of plattforms and inferior to primitive projectiles or SHORADS with Missiles.
    Well let me explain. Lets say a laser is efficient only at close range. Then the aircraft will simply let missiles to close and will shoot. Then the aircraft will go close to ground troops that launced the missiles and shoot. Lets say a laser is efficient just at a range of maxim 3km. Well the aircraft would use this range. Or in combination whit missiles.

    And entering an area where the pilot knows the Missile came from within 3 km of the enemy Air Defense protected zone....sounds truelly stupid, 3km range is effective for even Shilkas, not to mention Tunguskas or Panzirs or anything that is using Missiles.

    Sponsored content

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:50 am