What's new

F-35s jets and S-400 missiles

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
15,410
Reaction score
917
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Send tanks against AAD? What comic book did you find those tactics in?

Hilarious!
Well when challenged on this notion he quickly started adding more qualifiers with every post to support his scenario so I fully expect by page 10 of this thread he'll have a requirement that it's British F-35Bs with operating in a vacuum with no other assets, using unguided weapons, shitty pilots, EOTS laser designator smashed with a hammer before takeoff, and I'm guessing maybe they'll be forced to fly with their luneberg reflectors attached.
Ok. Lets play another game. Defender-2020, one of scenarios. Russia invades Baltic states, NATO needs to crush Kaliningrad's special defence region to open the way to defend them.
Russian forces in Kaliningrad's region:
- 5 S-400 regiments + 1 S-300V4 regiment - roughly 150 launchers (4 missiles each), with L-band radars, passive sensors, may be lidars and hell knows what else, covered with a number of short range systems, ECM, GPS-jammers, false targets and so on...
- one regiment of Su-27SM3, one regiment of Su-30SM and Su-24S;
- few hundred tanks, 40 of them - T-72B3;
- Iskander-M, Iskander-K, Calibers, with nuclear warheads.
- some ships of Baltic fleet.

What can Europeans (without the American help) do against Kaliningrad region?
I see two main options:
1) to knee and gobble (if we are talking about frontal air attack against well prepared IADS);
2) "Zerg rush" with big masses of land forces (for example, Poland have near 900 tanks) and tactical nukes.

If I had was forced to use ground assets to take out IADS tanks would still be far down on my list of choices. Give me MLRS any day, they are meant for shredding soft targets from hundreds of miles away all you'd need is something to discover their location.
Yes. Something to discover their location and something to protect them from the Scottish militants and the green men's Tunguskas. And don't forget, that PHA has only 21 of them (with 85 miles range), and S-400 can work against ground targets, too.
The Baltic States are there to slow the Russians down. Nato isn't strong enough by itself to defeat the Russians if the Russians are serious enough. But again, Nato just slows them down a bit more to almost a crawl. It buys the US and other nations time to get their heavy forces into action. And the other Nations ARE strong enough to defeat Russia and drive them all the way back to Moscow. I don't mean invade Russia. Can't be done. But make it hurt and hurt bad enough where it happen for another 20 years. And put Putin if a Hague court for trial along with his other protagonists. Even Russia can't defeat the world.

Your stupid way of think doesn't take in enough factors nor the resolve of the Human Factor.
 

Silver Cat

Active Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
335
Reaction score
31
Points
33
Location
Absaroka
I would wager the US already know how to defeat the S-400. All the S-400 is is an updated S-300 and the Israelis have been having a field day against the S-300. .
This. It used to be so much hype about S-300, but here is Israel operating in Syrian airspace with impunity striking whatever they want to strike using mainly 4th gen aircraft.

That video of the "invincible" Pantsir getting an Israeli missile through the driver's side window was emblematic of the hype versus reality of area denial.
Do you mean that video, with Pantsir already shooted all its missiles and prepared to reload?
It is really emblematic of the complicated "real life" vs any "wunderwaffe" hype.
 

Attachments

DrainBamage

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
175
Points
140
Yes. Something to discover their location and something to protect them from the Scottish militants and the green men's Tunguskas. And don't forget, that PHA has only 21 of them (with 85 miles range), and S-400 can work against ground targets, too.
Oh yeah forgot, there is some elaborately pigeonholed scenario you have built up, maybe the same one with British F-35Bs that use unguided weapons (which F-35 has none), unskilled pilots, no laser designators, etc. now we can't use MLRS because there happen to be Scottish militants 100 miles away in the exact place, and we can't possibly discover the location of a weapon system you previously said was constantly emitting RF to jam GPS.
 

DrainBamage

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
175
Points
140
Do you mean that video, with Pantsir already shooted all its missiles and prepared to reload?
It is really emblematic of the complicated "real life" vs any "wunderwaffe" hype.
Well, yeah. Afterall, it was real battlefield footage thus far more real life than the Russian marketing hype you buy into about how invincible everything is. In this very thread you were discounting dozens of glide weapons arriving by declaring point defense systems could eliminate them, now you're making excuses for that system not being able to even defend itself because real life isn't a marketing brochure.
 

DrainBamage

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
175
Points
140
What can Europeans (without the American help) do against Kaliningrad region?
I thought this thread was about F-35 versus S-400?

When you need to dream up a scenario where NATO needs to attack Russians in the Baltic without USA, when USA is part of NATO? Are you really interested in F-35 versus S-400 or more interested in trying to splice weird improbably one-offs to chase your conclusions?
 

Silver Cat

Active Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
335
Reaction score
31
Points
33
Location
Absaroka
What can Europeans (without the American help) do against Kaliningrad region?
I thought this thread was about F-35 versus S-400?

When you need to dream up a scenario where NATO needs to attack Russians in the Baltic without USA, when USA is part of NATO? Are you really interested in F-35 versus S-400 or more interested in trying to splice weird improbably one-offs to chase your conclusions?
How many F-35s do our European friends need to eliminate 5 regiments of S-400?
 

Silver Cat

Active Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
335
Reaction score
31
Points
33
Location
Absaroka
Yes. Something to discover their location and something to protect them from the Scottish militants and the green men's Tunguskas. And don't forget, that PHA has only 21 of them (with 85 miles range), and S-400 can work against ground targets, too.
Oh yeah forgot, there is some elaborately pigeonholed scenario you have built up, maybe the same one with British F-35Bs that use unguided weapons (which F-35 has none), unskilled pilots, no laser designators, etc. now we can't use MLRS because there happen to be Scottish militants 100 miles away in the exact place, and we can't possibly discover the location of a weapon system you previously said was constantly emitting RF to jam GPS.
You are too kind to the poor Brits. They don't have ATACMS rockets. They have GMLRS rockets with the single blast fragmentation warhead and with 43 mi (70 km) effective range only. It sucks, but it is the UK's reality. And 70 clicks from HMNB Clyde is too deep in the unfriendly Scottish territory. If you'll send your MLRS unit there without tanks - brave Scotish militants will burn them all.
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
8,544
Reaction score
747
Points
275
Send tanks against AAD? What comic book did you find those tactics in?

Hilarious!
Well when challenged on this notion he quickly started adding more qualifiers with every post to support his scenario so I fully expect by page 10 of this thread he'll have a requirement that it's British F-35Bs with operating in a vacuum with no other assets, using unguided weapons, shitty pilots, EOTS laser designator smashed with a hammer before takeoff, and I'm guessing maybe they'll be forced to fly with their luneberg reflectors attached.
Ok. Lets play another game. Defender-2020, one of scenarios. Russia invades Baltic states, NATO needs to crush Kaliningrad's special defence region to open the way to defend them.
Russian forces in Kaliningrad's region:
- 5 S-400 regiments + 1 S-300V4 regiment - roughly 150 launchers (4 missiles each), with L-band radars, passive sensors, may be lidars and hell knows what else, covered with a number of short range systems, ECM, GPS-jammers, false targets and so on...
- one regiment of Su-27SM3, one regiment of Su-30SM and Su-24S;
- few hundred tanks, 40 of them - T-72B3;
- Iskander-M, Iskander-K, Calibers, with nuclear warheads.
- some ships of Baltic fleet.

What can Europeans (without the American help) do against Kaliningrad region?
I see two main options:
1) to knee and gobble (if we are talking about frontal air attack against well prepared IADS);
2) "Zerg rush" with big masses of land forces (for example, Poland have near 900 tanks) and tactical nukes.

If I had was forced to use ground assets to take out IADS tanks would still be far down on my list of choices. Give me MLRS any day, they are meant for shredding soft targets from hundreds of miles away all you'd need is something to discover their location.
Yes. Something to discover their location and something to protect them from the Scottish militants and the green men's Tunguskas. And don't forget, that PHA has only 21 of them (with 85 miles range), and S-400 can work against ground targets, too.
The Baltic States are there to slow the Russians down. Nato isn't strong enough by itself to defeat the Russians if the Russians are serious enough. But again, Nato just slows them down a bit more to almost a crawl. It buys the US and other nations time to get their heavy forces into action. And the other Nations ARE strong enough to defeat Russia and drive them all the way back to Moscow. I don't mean invade Russia. Can't be done. But make it hurt and hurt bad enough where it happen for another 20 years. And put Putin if a Hague court for trial along with his other protagonists. Even Russia can't defeat the world.

Your stupid way of think doesn't take in enough factors nor the resolve of the Human Factor.
Russia is not going to invade Western Europe. But their soldiers are tougher at a higher percentage then the Western Europeans. It may be Mother Russia but their military is a Patriarchy.
 

DrainBamage

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
175
Points
140
You are too kind to the poor Brits. They don't have ATACMS rockets. They have GMLRS rockets with the single blast fragmentation warhead and with 43 mi (70 km) effective range only. It sucks, but it is the UK's reality. And 70 clicks from HMNB Clyde is too deep in the unfriendly Scottish territory. If you'll send your MLRS unit there without tanks - brave Scotish militants will burn them all.
ATACMs was a reference to how retarded the claim was that tanks are the best way to destroy IADS. If it had to be done from ground MLRS makes a lot more sense. Then you're off in SilverCatScenarioLandia again where suddenly this is specifically about Brits who are parking rocket launchers near Scottish militants.

Basically the only way you've been able to back up your "tanks are best to destroy IADS" silliness is to manufacture bizarre unrealistic scenarios that match your misguided notions.
 

Silver Cat

Active Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
335
Reaction score
31
Points
33
Location
Absaroka
You are too kind to the poor Brits. They don't have ATACMS rockets. They have GMLRS rockets with the single blast fragmentation warhead and with 43 mi (70 km) effective range only. It sucks, but it is the UK's reality. And 70 clicks from HMNB Clyde is too deep in the unfriendly Scottish territory. If you'll send your MLRS unit there without tanks - brave Scotish militants will burn them all.
ATACMs was a reference to how retarded the claim was that tanks are the best way to destroy IADS. If it had to be done from ground MLRS makes a lot more sense. Then you're off in SilverCatScenarioLandia again where suddenly this is specifically about Brits who are parking rocket launchers near Scottish militants.

Basically the only way you've been able to back up your "tanks are best to destroy IADS" silliness is to manufacture bizarre unrealistic scenarios that match your misguided notions.
Basically my (actually not my, but very old) idea is that you must use your strong sides against enemies weak sides. Do you know "Rock paper scissors" game?
"Tanks beat IADS, IADS beats jets, jets beat tanks".
And yes, real world is much more complicated. If someone have F-35, it does not mean, that he have modern bombs for it, if somebody have MLRS, it does not mean, that he have ATACMs. And yes, in our world the Brits (under corrupted Windsors regime) have poor aviation and even more poor artillery. Thats why they were choosen for the role of "the worst F-35 operators" in the almost abstract scenario "Best S-400 vs worst F-35". And may be it is why the Russians can choose them as their next victim.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
15,410
Reaction score
917
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Why do you think that Russian media can not publish American advertising?
Why do you think Russian media is publishing American advertising for Russian weapons?
Why not? It can be a sort of advertising for American "defending service". "The enemy is strong, so you have to pay more".
The Bread Lines can only get so long. Russia is in a almost constant state of Depression. They can't afford much more.
 

DrainBamage

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
175
Points
140
Why not? It can be a sort of advertising for American "defending service". "The enemy is strong, so you have to pay more".
In other words, you have no idea the source of it and are strangely assuming something specifically pointing out a Russian source isn't.
 

DrainBamage

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
175
Points
140
Basically my (actually not my, but very old) idea is that you must use your strong sides against enemies weak sides. Do you know "Rock paper scissors" game?
"Tanks beat IADS, IADS beats jets, jets beat tanks".
Right, but you quickly jump into childish simplifications that are meaningless in evaluating combat systems. Hah you can't use MLRS because Scottish whatever will attack them since they happen to be at the exact place MLRS systems are and nobody uses combined forces where MLRS would be protected by other ground assets.

And yes, real world is much more complicated. If someone have F-35, it does not mean, that he have modern bombs for it
Can in point, this is utterly retarded. F-35 has a certain set of weapons it has qualified for, which grows with each block update to capabilities. All of those weapons are precision guided modern weapons, so it makes no sense someone who has an F-35 doesn't have modern weapons for it to deliver, since that's all it can deliver.

You claiming it would attack an S-400 with unguided weapons makes no sense.

And may be it is why the Russians can choose them as their next victim.
Interesting you pick British, then ignore the fact they do indeed have PGMs when deciding they can only deliver unguided bombs that F-35s can't even deliver. Sorry to have to break this to you have no idea what you're talking about, it's hilarious to watch you flounder.
 

Silver Cat

Active Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
335
Reaction score
31
Points
33
Location
Absaroka
Right, but you quickly jump into childish simplifications that are meaningless in evaluating combat systems. Hah you can't use MLRS because Scottish whatever will attack them since they happen to be at the exact place MLRS systems are and nobody uses combined forces where MLRS would be protected by other ground assets.
Thats mean, that you use not MLRS only, but a whole armored group (including, of course, tanks). And if you are already using an armored group with the tanks, there is no any seriose reason to stop it in forty miles from your goal and launch rockets by unknown direction. And yes, even if you will succesfuly hit all their positions by rockets - you need to be ensured in their elimination. So - it is good to send tanks anyway.

Can in point, this is utterly retarded. F-35 has a certain set of weapons it has qualified for, which grows with each block update to capabilities. All of those weapons are precision guided modern weapons, so it makes no sense someone who has an F-35 doesn't have modern weapons for it to deliver, since that's all it can deliver.
First: please, don't use so terrible words as "sense", "logic", "reasons" during discussion about our European (especially British) friends.
Second: look at this picture and say, that you don't see unguided bombs on it:

Yes, they are not sertificated yet, but you can use them for your own risk. As far as I know, our F-35A use UGBs for terrain denial operations in Iraq.
Third: The Paveway IV will be almost unguided in a frontal attack against S-400, because if F-35 see and can mark position of S-400, then S-400 clearly see F-35 and can shoot it down. So, only INS, only hardcore.
Fourth: Yes, Brits try to make "SPEAR Cap 3" specially against S-400, but it will be integrated with Block 4 not earlier than in 2024, and, looks like, it will be even less useful than SDB-2.
 
Last edited:

Active Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top