Or you can put lots of missiles on foot mobile infantry and make life far too exciting for anything stupid enough to fly below 10,000ft
Lessons learned from GWI - Stay high or die
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You can put missiles on tracked chassis as well. Or, if they're shooting at Frogfoots dropping dumb bombs, even guns could conceivably have a chance.
Or you can put lots of missiles on foot mobile infantry and make life far too exciting for anything stupid enough to fly below 10,000ft
Lessons learned from GWI - Stay high or die
Heavier systems aren't mobile, they are static defences for infrastructure.This is why AD systems are, ideally, layered. You use MANPADs for low- and med- alt work, and heavier, vehicle-borne systems for med-to-high-alt work. It both is and isn't rocket science, lol
Heavier systems aren't mobile, they are static defences for infrastructure.
The Russian fixation on so many mobile SAM systems is a testament to their Air Forces inability to every achieve air superiority over a battlefield.
And these systems against any credible enemy are just more targets.
If there is anything bar helicopters operating above the FEBA, your Air Force has failed
Patriots are indeed long in the tooth, I'm not sure how well they are going to do against lower radar signature planes like some of the new Chinese fighters and even against conventional targets like SCUDS they didn't do so great.
Yes, quite a few.Wouldn't the Patriot system have been receiving upgrades over the years?
Agreed, but my point was that this claim that large, mobile SAM systems are useless doesn't seem to be borne out in general, and also that they are a part of a layered anti-aircraft system. No one system is perfect, which is precisely why defenses are, ideally, layered.
They're on trucks, and not really any more mobile than a 6x6 bus or M977 awd truck. The tracked variety is what you need once you're off the main roads. But unlike the Russian Buk-M shown below, the NATO tracked SAMs seem to be shorter ranged.Actually, systems heavier than MANPADs can indeed be mobile, and often are, and the US has built them as well.
They're on trucks, and not really any more mobile than a 6x6 bus or M977 awd truck. The tracked variety is what you need once you're off the main roads. But unlike the Russian Buk-M shown below, the NATO tracked SAMs seem to be shorter ranged.
View attachment 667609
View attachment 667610
I wouldn't call the S-400 just "one more target". It's got a range north of 275 miles and some pretty good fire-control. That's a little outside of Stinger territory, and is still mobile. The Patriot is also a pretty healthy mobile system as well, although it's a bit long in the tooth.
Relying solely on MANPADs and manned fighter aircraft leaves large gaps in an air-defense net.
Range north of 275 miles?
Oh Please!It CAN detect a target at 275 miles, as long as its a large civil airliner flying above 30,000ft
Against fighter sized targets? 45 miles tops on a good day.
There's a VERY good reason S-400 has <25 mile range SHORAD missiles in some of its tubes - they are for self defence from attacking fighters.
Ya canna change the laws of physics, not even the Russians - S-400 needs an AWACS to target anything flying low beyond 25 miles miles.
And if you have an AWACS to guide SAMS, why isn't it guiding fighters at far greater ranges as BARCAP?
Or even a raised antenna, which is a common workaround to expand a radar horizon.
And yeah, I'd kinda expect a SAM system to have some missiles for self-defense.
Maybe those fighters are executing offensive missions rather than pulling standing patrols?
Hey, if large mobile systems are useless, how come so many militaries use them? Remember, that's the claim I'm disagreeing with.
NATO can rely on total air superiority from the off, big SAMS on your FEBA are Gods way of saying you are getting beaten.
Kickbacks?if these systems are useless, why are so many militaries investing in them?