Russia's new S-550 air-defence system rolled out – TASS

[justoffal]

Only question is what took Russia so long to develop a missile defense system?

They don't need one....frankly.
Tsar Bomba...
Watch it on you tube.

 

[Dayton3]

We saw how Patriot could prevent basic drobes of Houthi rebels from destroying Saudi oil plants... - it completely failed.

as well US hypersonic missiles tests fail one after another, what hypersonic missile does thd US has?

while Russia has hypersonic Kinzhal already, and even not hypersonic Iskander excedes everything the US has, and US LRPF missile will appear only in 2027....

You don't know I guess that Russian built missiles have NEVER worked remotely as well as claimed.

 

[DudleySmith]

Does the OP mean the Russians might finally have an outside chance of defeating Finland in a war? They've never been able to win one on their own for a long while now.

 

[DudleySmith]

perfect, just perfect, you will need them in coming civil war

Probably true.

 

[fncceo]

new S-550 air-defence system​

 

[DudleySmith]

They did a good job of shooting down a civilian airliner, though. Puts them up there with the Iranians in air defense skillz.

 

[Mushroom]

Does the OP mean the Russians might finally have an outside chance of defeating Finland in a war? They've never been able to win one on their own for a long while now.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It may not have been a "secret" anymore, but the Iraq gulf war was where the world got to really see it widespread in action well covered for the first time where the enemy was caught totally unprepared with pants down for it.

The US acknowledged the F-117 because one crashed and they couldn't hide the program anymore. Before the crash it was deep black. Even then they hid the details of the plane. I believe they even leaked false details to Tom Clancy to use in Red Storm Rising.

 

[Mushroom]

The US acknowledged the F-117 because one crashed and they couldn't hide the program anymore.

Not really.

There were actually two crashes prior to it being announced publicly. The first was in July of 1986 near Bakersfield. They were already into the process of declassifying the program when a second crashed in October 1987 on Nellis AFB.. It was yet another year later that it was finally announced to the public, but it had already been in the process of declassification for 3 years prior to that. And shortly after the B-2 was also shown for the first time, as they went ahead and did the appropriate declassification for both projects at pretty much the same time.

But neither one of them was really a "secret". Most knew about both projects since the early 1980's. Although most has expected the fighter to be named the "F-19". Plus, the public knew the F-19 designation was "in use", as the YF-18 was assigned in 1974, and the YF-20 in 1980. Internally it was known as the "YF-19" during the earliest phases of design and initial production.

Ironically, the F-117 designation was both subterfuge as well as happenstance. The "F" was to throw off the Soviets in the event the program leaked more than it had, as "F" is the designation for a fighter, and the correct designation should have been "A" as this was solely a ground attack aircraft. And as all modern fighters use the "Teen Designation" scheme (F-14, A-10, etc), when using captured Soviet fighters they were always assigned "Century Designations" to throw off exactly which former Soviet fighter was which in the US inventory.

And when the plane was going through flight testing, one of the pilots announced himself as "F-117" on the radio, and it just kinda stuck. It is not really an F series fighter, and 117 fits nowhere in the structure of aircraft naming of that era.

 

[SavannahMann]

It may not have been a "secret" anymore, but the Iraq gulf war was where the world got to really see it widespread in action well covered for the first time where the enemy was caught totally unprepared with pants down for it.

Everything is a surprise, the first time it’s done. After that, even moderately intelligent enemies begin working on a counter to the technology, or tactic.

There are so many examples through history, but in short, as one example. The U-Boat. The U-Boat managed to score many military successes, and even snuck into a harbor area to sink several combat vessels. In time, the Navies began to change tactics to counter the threat. They developed technology of their own, SONAR and hunter killer groups to deal with the U boats. That is the way of war. You come up with a technology or tactic. The other side counters the tactic or technology with a development of their own. You change again, and then they change again, and the process goes on until the hostilities end.

For Stealth, it was a surprise at first, and then it became a problem to be overcome. In 1989, the year of Panama, the F-117 was unstoppable. A decade later, one was shot down over Yugoslavia by an Anti Aircraft Missile first fielded in 1961. This was the system we called the SA-3, the one that shot down hundreds of planes during Vietnam.

That old system, obsolete by our standards, was able to see the Stealth with a modification, and fire to shoot it down. That was when we learned that the older Radar systems using long wave radar could see the Stealth aircraft. Not well, not like they saw other non stealth types, but they could see them, and shoot at them. It was just a decade from first use, that the advantage was diminished dramatically.

Now, we are again crowing that our stealth is once again the end all be all of an advantage. We are superior, and awesome. The same sort of thing we cheered when the Stealth’s first appeared. It’s been more than two decades since that day, and if you think that the Russians and Chinese have been sitting on their hands doing nothing to counter Stealth then you’re delusional.

Smart people exist in every country. And they work hard for their own nation. To protect their own nation. So expect that they can see the current generation of Stealths, even if they haven’t let on how well they can see it.

The American Navy was furious when the Politicians let on how easily the Submarines could track their Soviet Counterparts. This led to a big effort by the Soviets to quiet their Submarines down, to make it harder to track and kill them. Today’s Submarines from the Russians are still not as good as ours, by reports, but they have managed to track American Los Angeles class submarines. So assume they are fairly good, if not nearly as good as ours.

And one last thought. Don’t discount Propaganda from the enemies, or believe the propaganda from our side as though it is gospel. Yes, they will boast about things they can’t actually do yet. But they can do something. They didn’t spend that kind of money developing a scam. The Missiles can do something after all. And if you launch a bunch of them, one out of ten may hit. If they launch a hundred missiles and shoot down ten aircraft, that is still a problem isn’t it? Yes, eventually they will run out of missiles, but how long before we run out of stealth aircraft? We don’t have all that many.

And how long before we won’t send in anymore stealths? Because we can’t afford to lose them.

Expect that the Russians and probably Chinese have detailed files on the F-35’s. And the F-22’s as well, since the F-35’s were a development of the F-22 technologies.

Stealth isn’t a magic wand that makes all other systems obsolete forever. It is a technological advantage, that has been around for decades, and people have been working on it for just that long to figure out how to defeat it.

 

[SavannahMann]

Not really.

There were actually two crashes prior to it being announced publicly. The first was in July of 1986 near Bakersfield. They were already into the process of declassifying the program when a second crashed in October 1987 on Nellis AFB.. It was yet another year later that it was finally announced to the public, but it had already been in the process of declassification for 3 years prior to that. And shortly after the B-2 was also shown for the first time, as they went ahead and did the appropriate declassification for both projects at pretty much the same time.

But neither one of them was really a "secret". Most knew about both projects since the early 1980's. Although most has expected the fighter to be named the "F-19". Plus, the public knew the F-19 designation was "in use", as the YF-18 was assigned in 1974, and the YF-20 in 1980. Internally it was known as the "YF-19" during the earliest phases of design and initial production.

Ironically, the F-117 designation was both subterfuge as well as happenstance. The "F" was to throw off the Soviets in the event the program leaked more than it had, as "F" is the designation for a fighter, and the correct designation should have been "A" as this was solely a ground attack aircraft. And as all modern fighters use the "Teen Designation" scheme (F-14, A-10, etc), when using captured Soviet fighters they were always assigned "Century Designations" to throw off exactly which former Soviet fighter was which in the US inventory.

And when the plane was going through flight testing, one of the pilots announced himself as "F-117" on the radio, and it just kinda stuck. It is not really an F series fighter, and 117 fits nowhere in the structure of aircraft naming of that era.

The F-Decision was made before that. The idea was that the General running the program, I don’t remember his name, wanted the best pilots to fly the aircraft. And if it was classified as an A it would not get the “best” pilots. It was also intended as a misdirection for the Soviets who would hear about the program.

Remember that the KGB was extremely effective in gaining intelligence on us. And they were very good at putting together bits and pieces of information from a dozen different sources to create a pretty complete picture.

 

[Mushroom]

Remember that the KGB was extremely effective in gaining intelligence on us. And they were very good at putting together bits and pieces of information from a dozen different sources to create a pretty complete picture.

As are a lot of people. When Tom Clancy first published "Red Storm Rising" and "Hunt for Red October", he caused a lot of concern in the Navy because much of what he wrote about was highly classified. But he went and showed them exactly where he got the information, and he simply sat down and thought about it and realized how many things were achieved.

And while the Soviets knew a lot about the F-117 and B-2, there was also a lot they did not know. Until it was officially announced, even the Soviets thought the F-117 had air to air capability. And why even though I have not worked on PATRIOT for years, I still use Wikipedia to pull up any information I might need on the topic. Not because I do not know, but to verify anything I say is already in the "public knowledge" as a way to protect myself. And yes, on occasion I do see things that are wrong, but I still only repeat information that is in the public.

But yes, I do agree that many do not understand stealth at all. I am often repeating "stealth does not mean invisible". And the goal was never really to create invisible aircraft. The actual goal is to reduce the radar signature enough to protect them from acquisition from surface to air and air to air missiles. To give an arbitrary number, a SAM site needs a certain RADAR return before it can actually "lock on" and be fired at a target. And actually "seeing" stealth aircraft is no big deal, we do it all the time. But we may get a RADAR return of say 15-20%, but the system will simply not fire at anything below 80% return. And if the RADAR signal is lost as the missile is in flight, as a default mode they self-destruct.

In former Yugoslavia they went around that several ways. As you said, using antiquated RADAR systems that are rarely used anymore but are better at picking up stealth than newer ones are. They also networked multiples of them together to strengthen the tracking and acquisition. And finally, a very old SAM (early 1960's SA-3) which actually had a manual override so it could be fired without a positive lock (the Soviets built that in with the idea that just seeing an inbound missile might cause an aircraft to break off their attack). And finally, laying out "bait" that they knew the pilot could not resist attacking, and firing as soon as he opened his bomb bay doors.

Something just not possible on more modern systems for many reasons. Including the simple fact of cost. An SA-3 missile is in the range of $50,000, while any of the modern PATRIOT missiles (GEM+, GEM/T, GEM/C. PAC-3) is in the $1 million and up range. They could afford to launch a half dozen of them, where as a country with a newer system (S-300, PATRIOT, THAAD, etc) can not.

 

[Dayton3]

Submarines from the Russians are still not as good as ours, by reports, but they have managed to track American Los Angeles class submarines. So assume they are fairly good, if not nearly as good as ours.

What's the big deal about that? The basic Los Angeles class submarine design is more than 40 years old. Call back when they manage to consistently track a Sea Wolf or Virginia class submarine.

Now people go on and on about the loss of an F-117 over Yugoslavia. People forget the details, the main reasons the F-117 was shot down was poor planning by the USAF. Even the USAF admits that. No level of technology will overcome bad decisions by the military using it.

 

[Vrenn]

What's the big deal about that? The basic Los Angeles class submarine design is more than 40 years old. Call back when they manage to consistently track a Sea Wolf or Virginia class submarine.

Now people go on and on about the loss of an F-117 over Yugoslavia. People forget the details, the main reasons the F-117 was shot down was poor planning by the USAF. Even the USAF admits that. No level of technology will overcome bad decisions by the military using it.

It flew the same pathway, same altitude, same speed. The learned when it was to launch, did the math and then toss a bunch of 1960s missiles to the exact spot it should have been in. It didn't take a mental brain to compute and hit it. USAF learned that lesson (it was a leftover for Vietnam and bombers) and flew against a much better equipped military without zero losses. Iraq wasn't no sluff.

 

[AlexanderPK]

RT, "Russia Today", is a propaganda fake news site ran by Russian military intelligence.

If you read a story on RT, ask yourself how it damages America, cause that's what RT is for.

That's what CNN is for America, don't you think?

 

[AlexanderPK]

This is America. We have civil wars here just for entertainment.

But should Russia, China, or any other low-grade shithole country decides they want to get froggy and trample out dandelions here in the US, watch how fast we come together and stomp their ass to the curb.

Don't forget that lesbian corporal with two moms. She's a great asset.

 

[AlexanderPK]

Does the OP mean the Russians might finally have an outside chance of defeating Finland in a war? They've never been able to win one on their own for a long while now.

What war did you win other than the civil one? They say though that you don't really know now whether you won it or lost.

 

[DudleySmith]

But yes, I do agree that many do not understand stealth at all. I am often repeating "stealth does not mean invisible". And the goal was never really to create invisible aircraft. The actual goal is to reduce the radar signature enough to protect them from acquisition from surface to air and air to air missiles. To give an arbitrary number, a SAM site needs a certain RADAR return before it can actually "lock on" and be fired at a target. And actually "seeing" stealth aircraft is no big deal, we do it all the time. But we may get a RADAR return of say 15-20%, but the system will simply not fire at anything below 80% return. And if the RADAR signal is lost as the missile is in flight, as a default mode they self-destruct.

Yes. If the smaller signature throws sensors off by just a few feet, or even a few inches, at the air speeds of the missiles and planes are moving, it's a miss.

 

[DudleySmith]

What war did you win other than the civil one? They say though that you don't really know now whether you won it or lost.

No idea what you're babbling about. If English is not your native language, let us know and we can try and work around it.

 

[Mushroom]

Yes. If the smaller signature throws sensors off by just a few feet, or even a few inches, at the air speeds of the missiles and planes are moving, it's a miss.

More than that, as a great many are "fire and forget" type of tracking. They might lock onto a friendly aircraft, or fall on friendly or neutral forces and cause injuries and deaths. At least for ground to air, once they miss their target they self-destruct. But stealth does not "throw off" the location, the closest I can explain is that it makes it look "misty". Generally coming in and out as if a ghost, depending on it's position compared to the RADAR.

However, stealth if no protection against the good old Mark I eyeball or visual tracking. And while the US never seriously used it, both the British and Soviets used audio tracking at various times. And part of battle plans for if the Cold War went hot was to position small squad sized "listening posts" along approach routes to detect inbound bombers out of range of RADAR systems.