RTN wrote:What is China's or Russia's answer to E-8, RQ-4B or E-2? US can triangulate all the information captured by these airborne assets along with the info provided by space based assets to detect any incoming threat.
Do you know the answer is very similar.....you know we are emotionally attached to very good ideas.....to that conceived to deal with all others gold-plated US systems (such as aircraft carriers, E3 AWACS, theirs fleet of tankers and obviously theirs completely defenceless air bases widespread as fungus all around the world) constructed to sustain american violent and imperialistic expeditionary military policy against weak nations around the world : reduce them to smitheens from stand-off range
It is a very good deal: they develop those incredibly frail assets at absurd costs and time of construction and we develop unique systems ,without foreign counterparts, capable to reliably destroy them (and many other different targets) ,from safe stand-off range, at several orders of magnitude lower cost and time of construction.
Those E-8, RQ-4B ,E-2,E-3 will probably not complete even theirs first mission in a large scale war; them will be downed from several hundreds of km of distance by purposely designed missiles delivered at very high supersonic speed by aircraft that at the same very high supersonic speed will egress from the area after separation ,theirs DCA squadrons will never get a chance to hit those aircraft. After that the remaining will be forbidden to carry out any further mission.
In all those years and something like 80 attempts (including through infiltrated agents and corrupted syrian operators) israelis have managed to destroy one and damage within repair another
RTN wrote:Was the Pantsir S1 that Israelis blew to bits in Syria also suffering from these same design defects that you identified in the Patriot? If not how could a mobile unit be destroyed?
- it defend Syrian air space in those same moments...- insulated not working unmanned Панцирь-C1s
(export version of the Панцирь-C) capitalising bad, unprofessional habits of theirs operators.
Those same few ,insulated syrian-operated Панцирь-C1s in those same years have destroyed cruise missiles , AG missiles, planning bombs and UAVs ,majority of which just delivered by IAF, for a cost (excluding those enormous of the air operations behind them) amounting to about 2,5-3 times theirs cost.
It is not a surprise therefore that Панцирь-C1 is the most hated system among foreign military forces and the primary object of badly orchestrated defaming PR campaigns.
RTN wrote:And why would you think that Kh-31 cannot be intercepted by NASAM?
I do not think, i am absolutely certain that NASAM cannot cope with air targets much much less complex than X-31
But ,you know, this is the american way : when you lack the technological expertise to produce a specific product ,in this instance a modern medium range SAM interceptor, you adapt other products to the role obtaining in this way vastly sub-standard results , nothing new.The aerodynamic layout and ,above all, actuators of a ground-delivered interceptor and an air delivered one are worlds apart in terms of conceptual design and structural and material requirements
; among western affiliated nations only Israel (mostly thanks to the fundamental contribution of scientist coming from ex СССР) can boast good products in those sectors.
RTN wrote: U.S has some of the best ground based EW systems.The U.S. Marine Corps has two ground-based EW systems, the AN/ULQ-19(V)2 EA set and the AN/MLQ-36 mobile EW support system. While the AN/MLQ-36 is an electronic support system and the AN/ULQ-19 is an EA system.
One of the most important EW initiatives today is the C4ISR/EW Modular Open Suite of Standards (CMOSS), which seeks to converge EW in such a way as to leverage a lot more software-defined radio.
Are you serious RTN ? Do you seriously want to put in the same sentence, not league, systems such as Мурманск-БН
, capable to disrupt short wave radio channels (those used at example by ISR and command aircraft or by interflight networked data exchange or communication with naval units) in a range form 5000 to 8000 KM !
or Красуха-2O/4 or Дивноморье
capable to interrup or contaminate hundreds of radar sources of aircraft such as E-3 or J-8, weapon guidance channels and even satellite surveillance (such as Lacrosse series) and GPS update for several hundreds of Km of distance and even destriy the electronic of inbound PGMs at close range.
http://nevskii-bastion.ru/krasuha-4-tm-2014/or the new Тирада-2С
optimized to interrupt, twart or even put out of work from the ground satellite's functions and theirs link with the enemy.
with AN/ULQ-19(V)2 EA set or AN/MLQ-36, there are literally orders of magnitude of difference in potential and ductility among those systems.
If you are interested in what think US officials of the field you can read this, you will get an idea of what we talk about....