Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Broski
    Broski

    Posts : 30
    Points : 32
    Join date : 2021-07-12

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  Broski Tue Jul 20, 2021 7:37 pm

    RTN wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Armement Air-Sol Modulaire/Hammer is a gliding bomb kit, they have plenty of those already... GROM for instance...


    It comes in  two versions, one with a solid rocket motor to deliver the 250kg HE weapon 100km to target at mach 2, or you can replace the solid rocket motor with 130kgs more HE but no rocket motor.

    It is based on the Kh-38 which is a guided weapon delivering a 250kg bomb too..
    I'll explain why the Hammer is far more cutting edge than any Russian analogue.


    The Hammer missile is equipped with INS/GPS/Laser Guidance. SBU-54 version of Hammer is equipped with INS/GPS/IR (infrared) guidance. It also has a powerful automatic target recognition technology which enables HAMMER to hit the target with utmost precision.

    HAMMER has an unmatched capability of targeting locations that are even at 90 degrees to the direction of aircraft as it can approach its target in pure geographical coordinates which give it surgical precision wherein enemy location behind a cliff can also be targeted with ease.

    The real problem with glide bombs in general is how slow they are compared to conventional missiles, most western aircraft would struggle to reach Mach 2, and the height those bombs have to be released to reach 100km+ would put both the weapon and launch platform at risk of being shot down by any country with decent A2/AD. So these expensive glide bombs are effective against only 3rd world militaries and insurgents, not too useful.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 671
    Points : 673
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  lyle6 Tue Jul 20, 2021 7:44 pm

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 E6phEqHXEAI4cjd?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
    What a weird looking precursor charge(s). I think the idea is these charges, which are canted inwards and focused on one point, would go off in quick succession and dig a much deeper channel. Seems to me the entire thing is set on a movable base as well so on oblique impacts the crosspiece moves the entire thing closer to normal to the surface and minimizing the impact of sloping.

    GarryB, medo and LMFS like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29854
    Points : 30382
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  GarryB Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:11 pm

    I assumed that was some sort of passive radar active radar array design.... the warhead is not normally located in the tip of the nose.


    The real problem with glide bombs in general is how slow they are compared to conventional missiles, most western aircraft would struggle to reach Mach 2, and the height those bombs have to be released to reach 100km+ would put both the weapon and launch platform at risk of being shot down by any country with decent A2/AD. So these expensive glide bombs are effective against only 3rd world militaries and insurgents, not too useful.

    And a serious factor for France is that the solution to the threat of glide bombs was invented in the mid 1980s in the form of TOR... SA-15, and it has been upgraded and improved repeatedly since it entered service then...

    In comparison a Russian equivalent has a much easier time... in the glide versions not a huge IR signature, and the powered model would be quite fast too...
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4269
    Points : 4263
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 45
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  Hole Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:16 pm

    According to some sources this are shaped charge warheads.
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 324
    Points : 326
    Join date : 2014-11-26

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  ALAMO Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:00 am

    You are talking to a troll, who is copying&pasts the other people's materials as his own statements, you realized that, don't you? Laughing

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Zrzut_12

    I will make it easier for you.
    Each time when he puts a sentence longer than 5 words, it is a copied text from some source pretending his own.
    Never noticed that, for all that years? Laughing

    x_54_u43 and Hole like this post

    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 318
    Points : 320
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  Mir Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:45 am

    RTN wrote:
    Isos wrote:New kh-59mkm. In the back there is also the mini kh-35 with an electro-optical homing head.
    Not as advanced as Armement Air-Sol Modulaire/Hammer

    Back in the day (1960's) the US thought that there was a missile gap in favour of the Soviets. It turned out there was a gap but it favoured the US.
    Today there is a missile gap again - but this time it is in Russia's favour and it will probably stay that way for a long time.

    The reason for that is because the US keeps poking it's nose in places where it shouldn't - wasting a lot of valuable R&D resources.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29854
    Points : 30382
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  GarryB Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:48 am

    According to some sources this are shaped charge warheads.

    Warheads are normally located between the radar/sensor/guidance system in the nose and the propulsion system in the rear.

    It could also be an EMP warhead, but it is still located in a very odd place... under a radar transparent nose cone...

    You are talking to a troll, who is copying&pasts the other people's materials as his own statements, you realized that, don't you?

    Lots of people read this sort of claim in western publications and wonder how true they are, so they go to places like this and offer this big juicy chunk of meat for the lions to rip up and shred... as long as they don't get the feeling they are being used it is a good way of finding a balanced view on many things you might otherwise not be sure about.

    Sometimes also English is not their first language so often they don't completely understand the original quote to start with which can make things interesting because sadly words are so often misused and distorted by marketing departments...

    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 423
    Points : 400
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  RTN Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:34 pm

    Isos wrote:It is also expensive. They quickly run out of those ammos in Libya.
    Due to low volume of production in France as compared to greater numbers of similar weapons like JDAM built in the US.

    Isos wrote:And it comes with differznt warheads so it can be used against ground but also naval targets contrary to nato missiles.
    What different warheads? HAMMER can also be used against both ground based and sea based targets.

    Isos wrote:USSR/Russia aren't that much interested by gliding bombs since you need to fly very high to reach 100km range thus putting you in range of AD missiles or easy target for air to air missiles.
    Any airborne object can be targeted by SAMs if there are SAMs in that area.

    HAMMER uses single, double or triple store adaptors and uses Sagem’s Hemispheric Resonating Gyro, inertial / GPS hybridisation and strap-down infrared imagers and associated algorithms for conventional deep strike missions. HAMMER has a range of over 60km at high altitudes and 15km at low altitudes. It has fire and forget capability, and an extended stand-off capacity.
    avatar
    limb

    Posts : 260
    Points : 268
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  limb Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:44 pm

    One of the only advantages NATO has in terms of missile design is stealthiness.
    Cruise missiles are already small, so if they are LO shaped and coated with RAM, they have extremely small radar signatures, and in a peer to peer environment when Radars are degraded due to jamming, this would make them almost impossible to detect. meanwhile russian missiles still arent LO, and many still use the retarded shitty engine pod, like the Kh-59, Kh-101 or Kh-55. This is still an extremely serious advantage, and it makes me  think Russians are actually technologically primitive in designing Stealthy weapons and jet engines for cruise missiles, since they make them podded or with huge 80s tier intakes like with the Kh-35. Compare the kh-35U intake to the JASSM. The JASSM is light years ahead. The taurus KEPD is in service since 2005 and has superior range, stealth and speed compared to the Kh-59 or Kh-69.

    NATO A/G guided weapons with stealth shaping and RAM:
    Storm Shadow
    SCALP
    Taurus KEPD
    JSOW
    Kongsberg NSM
    LRASM
    JASSM

    Russian LO A/G weapons:
    Kh-101
    Kh-69(experimental)





    Many russian Guided A/G weapons have the avdantage of being faster, but for the Kh-59, Kh-35, Kh-38, Drel, grom, LMUR are both slow and relatively easy to detect using Xband and OTH radar.

    Also NATO 4th gen fighters(typhoon, EF-18, rafale, F-15E, F-16V, Tornado, Gripen can carry taurus KEPD, JASSM ER, SCALP, Storm Shadow, kongsberg NSM, and super hornets can carry LRASM and SLAM ER) can launch cruise missiles with 500km + range, while russian fighters and even Su-34s are limited to Kh-35s and Kh-59, and only russian heavy bombers can carry cruise missiles with equivalent range.
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 324
    Points : 326
    Join date : 2014-11-26

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  ALAMO Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:27 pm

    limb wrote:
    Many russian Guided A/G weapons have the avdantage of being faster, but for the Kh-59, Kh-35, Kh-38, Drel, grom, LMUR are both slow and relatively easy to detect using Xband and OTH radar.

    And what they will do with them?
    Shoot at with bows&arrows? Laughing
    The whole of Saudi Arabia's airspace is penetrated by Iranian assets daily basis.
    It used to be protected by combined Saudi&US assets, THAAD including.
    Now Muricans withdrew their toys, as damage to its image was unstoppable.
    Do you really consider, it would work any better against modern Russian PGMs?

    GarryB, miketheterrible and Hole like this post

    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 445
    Points : 437
    Join date : 2016-04-06

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  Azi Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:31 pm

    limb wrote:One of the only advantages NATO has in terms of missile design is stealthiness.
    Cruise missiles are already small, so if they are LO shaped and coated with RAM, they have extremely small radar signatures, and in a peer to peer environment when Radars are degraded due to jamming, this would make them almost impossible to detect. meanwhile russian missiles still arent LO, and many still use the retarded shitty engine pod, like the Kh-59, Kh-101 or Kh-55. This is still an extremely serious advantage, and it makes me  think Russians are actually technologically primitive in designing Stealthy weapons and jet engines for cruise missiles, since they make them podded or with huge 80s tier intakes like with the Kh-35. Compare the kh-35U intake to the JASSM. The JASSM is light years ahead. The taurus KEPD is in service since 2005 and has superior range, stealth and speed compared to the Kh-59 or Kh-69.

    NATO A/G guided weapons with stealth shaping and RAM:
    Storm Shadow
    SCALP
    Taurus KEPD
    JSOW
    Kongsberg NSM
    LRASM
    JASSM

    Russian LO A/G weapons:
    Kh-101
    Kh-69(experimental)





    Many russian Guided A/G weapons have the avdantage of being faster, but for the Kh-59, Kh-35, Kh-38, Drel, grom, LMUR are both slow and relatively easy to detect using Xband and OTH radar.

    Also NATO 4th gen fighters(typhoon, EF-18, rafale, F-15E, F-16V, Tornado, Gripen can carry taurus KEPD, JASSM ER, SCALP, Storm Shadow, kongsberg NSM, and super hornets can carry LRASM and SLAM ER) can launch cruise missiles with 500km + range, while russian fighters and even Su-34s are limited to Kh-35s and Kh-59, and only russian heavy bombers can carry cruise missiles with equivalent range.
    But you are forgetting two crucial factors!

    Cruise Missiles are small and suffer from rayleigh scattering, so you can design them with a super duper stealth shape and it wont help really!

    Second factor is even standard missiles from 50'ies or 60'ies are really stealthy in their shape. What makes objects unstealthy are shapes and regions that act similar to a "cat eye". From front a 50'ies soviet missile is nearly exact same steathy like JASSM.

    The shape of modern western missile make maybe 5-10 % more stealthiness and RAM maybe 5-15 % more...that's not really much!

    ---

    Russian forces can observe in Syria nearly weekly strikes with best high tech cruise missiles and other stuff. Do you really think they don't collect enough data??? If these missiles would be so extreme dangerous, they would act accordingly. By the way...russian forces in Syria are attacked regulary with drones from extremists and they are made out of wood and/or composites...so small and really heavy to target because of small RCS...and they shoot them down with nearly 99,99 % success.

    Stealth for cruise missiles is only advertising for western politicians. By the way...Taurus is not really advertised as stealthy! Only Muricans advertise nearly EVERYTHING as stealthy, because most other things you can see...if you advertise it black and the missile is blue you would think they cheat on you, but RCS is not really easy visible and measureable for western politicians and buyers of weapon.

    GarryB and Hole like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 671
    Points : 673
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  lyle6 Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:06 pm

    limb wrote:One of the only advantages NATO has in terms of missile design is stealthiness.
    Cruise missiles are already small, so if they are LO shaped and coated with RAM, they have extremely small radar signatures, and in a peer to peer environment when Radars are degraded due to jamming, this would make them almost impossible to detect. meanwhile russian missiles still arent LO, and many still use the retarded shitty engine pod, like the Kh-59, Kh-101 or Kh-55. This is still an extremely serious advantage, and it makes me  think Russians are actually technologically primitive in designing Stealthy weapons and jet engines for cruise missiles, since they make them podded or with huge 80s tier intakes like with the Kh-35. Compare the kh-35U intake to the JASSM. The JASSM is light years ahead. The taurus KEPD is in service since 2005 and has superior range, stealth and speed compared to the Kh-59 or Kh-69.
    NATO doesn't have any land based IADS worth a damn that could take advantage of the exposed podded engines. The engines are on the bottom because during low level flight its hidden from any look-down radars mounted on surveillance or interceptor aircraft.

    Stealth is not just a matter of designing stuff; its how you operate said stuff that has more bearing whether you are actually stealthed from the enemy.

    GarryB, Isos, miketheterrible and LMFS like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7643
    Points : 7627
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  Isos Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:06 pm

    Nato missiles are highly vulnerable to GPS jamming.

    Kh-59MK2 is the equivalent of those missiles. But the thing is that russia is building hypersonic missiles which are better since none existing system can intercept them and even if nato create one it will be huge, the size of patriot, so they will have very few of them.

    On the opposite russian small AD system can intercept nato missiles.

    GarryB likes this post

    medo
    medo

    Posts : 4151
    Points : 4235
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  medo Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:15 pm

    limb wrote:One of the only advantages NATO has in terms of missile design is stealthiness.
    Cruise missiles are already small, so if they are LO shaped and coated with RAM, they have extremely small radar signatures, and in a peer to peer environment when Radars are degraded due to jamming, this would make them almost impossible to detect. meanwhile russian missiles still arent LO, and many still use the retarded shitty engine pod, like the Kh-59, Kh-101 or Kh-55. This is still an extremely serious advantage, and it makes me  think Russians are actually technologically primitive in designing Stealthy weapons and jet engines for cruise missiles, since they make them podded or with huge 80s tier intakes like with the Kh-35. Compare the kh-35U intake to the JASSM. The JASSM is light years ahead. The taurus KEPD is in service since 2005 and has superior range, stealth and speed compared to the Kh-59 or Kh-69.

    NATO A/G guided weapons with stealth shaping and RAM:
    Storm Shadow
    SCALP
    Taurus KEPD
    JSOW
    Kongsberg NSM
    LRASM
    JASSM

    Russian LO A/G weapons:
    Kh-101
    Kh-69(experimental)





    Many russian Guided A/G weapons have the avdantage of being faster, but for the Kh-59, Kh-35, Kh-38, Drel, grom, LMUR are both slow and relatively easy to detect using Xband and OTH radar.

    Also NATO 4th gen fighters(typhoon, EF-18, rafale, F-15E, F-16V, Tornado, Gripen can carry taurus KEPD, JASSM ER, SCALP, Storm Shadow, kongsberg NSM, and super hornets can carry LRASM and SLAM ER) can launch cruise missiles with 500km + range, while russian fighters and even Su-34s are limited to Kh-35s and Kh-59, and only russian heavy bombers can carry cruise missiles with equivalent range.

    Kh-59MK2 and Kh-50 are fully stealth and Kh-59MK2 have range of 500+ km, while Kh-50 have range of over 1500 km...

    GarryB likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29854
    Points : 30382
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  GarryB Sat Jul 24, 2021 12:19 pm

    What a weird looking precursor charge(s). I think the idea is these charges, which are canted inwards and focused on one point, would go off in quick succession and dig a much deeper channel. Seems to me the entire thing is set on a movable base as well so on oblique impacts the crosspiece moves the entire thing closer to normal to the surface and minimizing the impact of sloping.

    It seems that they are shaped charges... but canting them inwards would not make sense as none of them would make a hole big enough for the entire missile to travel through.

    I rather suspect they are angled slightly outwards and their purpose is to all go off together... imagine a sheet of glass... if you run into it it will stop many soft things not going particularly fast, but if you whip out a shotgun with four heavy ball bearing rounds in it and fire it just before you hit the glass the four spaced hits would shatter the glass so you would not be stopped by the glass as a solid wall... the four charges would shatter or at least seriously weaken the wall and then allow the HE warhead behind which is likely AP to penetrate through the hard outer shell and explode inside.

    GPS guided so for fixed bunkers or heavy structures like dams or nuclear power stations perhaps?

    Due to low volume of production in France as compared to greater numbers of similar weapons like JDAM built in the US.

    TOR was designed to shoot down unpowered munitions like this and is ideal and very effective at the job.

    S-350 would likely also be very good as would the new Pine system and of course Pantsir.... S-350 could probably shoot down the launch platform too with a 150km range and a 30km ceiling.

    What different warheads? HAMMER can also be used against both ground based and sea based targets.

    Often anti ship weapons have incendiary material added to them to make fires much more vigorous and dangerous... ironically surrounded by water a fire can often do more damage than the warhead exploding.

    HAMMER has a range of over 60km at high altitudes and 15km at low altitudes. It has fire and forget capability, and an extended stand-off capacity.

    15km is the range of the TOR system, while Pantsir can reach 20km in the current models and 40km in the new models, and the upgraded Pine will reach 20km too. High altitude release of a bomb would only work against a third world country because S-350 can reach 150km and BUK and of course the S-400 missiles can reach much further... flying at high altitudes would not be safe.

    One of the only advantages NATO has in terms of missile design is stealthiness.

    Even with advantages in stealth they will still struggle to penetrate Russian air defences. Western air defences on the other hand are worse than Soviet air defences in the 1980s and have nothing like the numbers the Soviets had then let alone the Russians have now.

    Cruise missiles are already small, so if they are LO shaped and coated with RAM, they have extremely small radar signatures, and in a peer to peer environment when Radars are degraded due to jamming, this would make them almost impossible to detect

    Not sure I agree... Russia is rather well covered by radar and also other EO systems these days, individual systems used separately and located near targets without an IADS in Syria operated by Syrians managed to shoot down most of the incoming American super missiles...

    Amazing western air defences as shown by Saudi Arabia didn't even see drones and cruise missiles coming...

    meanwhile russian missiles still arent LO, and many still use the retarded shitty engine pod, like the Kh-59, Kh-101 or Kh-55.

    With low flying missiles an engine pod hanging under the weapon is not going to be visible to enemy aircraft and AWACS so it simply frees up more internal space for extra fuel.

    Improvements in fuel and engine efficiency means they can be launched from ranges that are going to be safe from enemy responses.

    This is still an extremely serious advantage, and it makes me think Russians are actually technologically primitive in designing Stealthy weapons and jet engines for cruise missiles, since they make them podded or with huge 80s tier intakes like with the Kh-35.

    Actually I would say the opposite... the simple and cheaper construction costs means they can make orders of magnitude more missiles... likely more attack missiles than HATO has SAMs and AAMs creating the obvious problem for HATO... do you use up all your available defence missiles on their first and second and third wave of attack missiles, or do you save them for the wave of aircraft coming with the next batch of missiles?

    The US is squealing about a new generation cheap cruise missile because they recognise the value of launching a lot of weapons at once... like the Russians currently can.

    Compare the kh-35U intake to the JASSM. The JASSM is light years ahead.

    Compare the quality of air defences each has to penetrate... the JASSM hasn't been able to get through since S-300... the Kh-35 will use up how many SAMs that they wont have an enormous number of? But who cares because you are comparing Americas best with something that entered service in the mid 1980s on ships made for East Germany... what about JASSM vs Zircon?

    The taurus KEPD is in service since 2005 and has superior range, stealth and speed compared to the Kh-59 or Kh-69.

    And the chances of it getting through are low.

    I notice there not much talk about an old joint missile programme... seem to remember it was called ANS or something... French and German I believe... was going to use combined rocket and ramjet propulsion and for tactical fighters have a speed of mach 2.5, and be 800kgs and have a range of about 90km.

    They talked about it for years.... with the 600kg mach 3 150km range Kh-31 never mentioned at all in any of the articles in western publications discussing the issue, but no, you tell me all about the superior western missiles...


    Many russian Guided A/G weapons have the avdantage of being faster, but for the Kh-59, Kh-35, Kh-38, Drel, grom, LMUR are both slow and relatively easy to detect using Xband and OTH radar.

    And what unified integrated air defence and OTH radar does HATO share at the moment?

    Detection is just half the problem... besides you mentioned western stealthy weapons getting through because of jamming... are the Russians not allowed to use tactics to get their missiles through too?

    And lets talk numbers... how many of those expensive western missiles have they got and how many cheap simple missiles can Russia make?

    Also NATO 4th gen fighters(typhoon, EF-18, rafale, F-15E, F-16V, Tornado, Gripen can carry taurus KEPD, JASSM ER, SCALP, Storm Shadow, kongsberg NSM, and super hornets can carry LRASM and SLAM ER) can launch cruise missiles with 500km + range, while russian fighters and even Su-34s are limited to Kh-35s and Kh-59, and only russian heavy bombers can carry cruise missiles with equivalent range.

    The HATO forces have nothing like Kh-32 or Kinzhal or the Tu-22M3M, and also more importantly nothing like TOR and Pantsir and S-400 and S-300 defending their forces.

    Now Muricans withdrew their toys, as damage to its image was unstoppable.
    Do you really consider, it would work any better against modern Russian PGMs?

    Look at the difference... Iran attacked US forces in Iraq with ballistic missiles giving prior warning... and the US withdrew its SAM batteries in response????

    In Syria the enemy are using drones and are likely getting support from the west, so Russia moves in more air defence systems and they seem to be very effective.

    Sounds rather strange doens't it... almost like US air defence systems have not needed to work for so long they haven't bothered making them effective any more.

    NATO doesn't have any land based IADS worth a damn that could take advantage of the exposed podded engines. The engines are on the bottom because during low level flight its hidden from any look-down radars mounted on surveillance or interceptor aircraft.

    Stealth is not just a matter of designing stuff; its how you operate said stuff that has more bearing whether you are actually stealthed from the enemy.

    And being sensible about the design making it cheaper they can make them in larger numbers and be less afraid to use them because replacements can be made easily and cheaply enough.

    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 324
    Points : 326
    Join date : 2014-11-26

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  ALAMO Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:24 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Look at the difference... Iran attacked US forces in Iraq with ballistic missiles giving prior warning... and the US withdrew its SAM batteries in response????
    In Syria the enemy are using drones and are likely getting support from the west, so Russia moves in more air defence systems and they seem to be very effective.
    Sounds rather strange doens't it... almost like US air defence systems have not needed to work for so long they haven't bothered making them effective any more.

    Of course, they are widely helping the terrorists there.
    On meeting with Bolton Oct 2018, Putin started the conversation with "bringing 13 tomahawks with him" anecdote.
    He was addressing a massive strike of 13 drones from multiple directions, unleashed on the Russian base a day or two earlier.
    The strike was assisted by P-8 flying just next by, and the Russian accusation was that they actually led the strike.
    If they tried to penetrate the defence, or "only" examine the safety protocols and actual effectiveness of the defence, not sure.
    But no "tomahawk" reached the target.
    What we witness now in Saudi Arabia and in Iraq with the effects of using Patriots against the Iranian missile technology representing Soviet level about 40 years ago, is actually funny.

    Sponsored content

    Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM): - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Jul 27, 2021 5:13 pm