Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Erkki]

Also, USA has nukes in Turkey.

I wrote a long reply but the forum are it again. Bah. Long story short, miljan, I figure you could also just carry on ignoring me like you did when I pointed out in the Wunderwaffe thread that claimed kills per losses doesn't equal to actual fighters versus fighters win ratio and make Hurricane and Hawk good.

Sergarr: you could turn the point other away around: why do nations keep buying products over a dozen times more expensive per unit(fighters) if they are easy to shoot down; why do even so many nations that don't plan on ever fighting a war on anyone else's turf use significantly more money on fighters and the vulnerable, static facilities they require, than missile A2/AD systems? Why not just lob missiles at each other from ground level and leave surveillance, scouting etc. SA providing for cheap, expendable drones, ground signal intelligence and, for the great powers, satellites? Why arent S300 and S400 or say, Patriot, export miracles everyone wants to have masses of? The answers could include: the missile AD systems have severe limitations beyond being slow to relocate and ground bound(which could be compensated by numbers, as they're cheap), they may not even be cost effective solutions, aircraft may not be easy to shoot down, aircraft and missiles may not be as easy as advertised to even become aware of, track and target, such systems may themselves be vulnerable to various soft and hard countermeasures and anti-air defense tools from HARMs and jamming to cruise missiles.

[smjjames]

They do have those limitation, but the thing is unlike in the past modern radars have a lot better detection of the noise near the ground. And also multiple radar in high position and different locations  makes it very hard to do anything without detection. And cruiser missiles as said before are easy targets for thor and panser systems. Systems as s400 and s300 are mainly used for elimination plane threats.

It's actually a huge problem for turkey to do anything, because a huge part of its territory is under surveillance both from sea and ground, and the anti air system go very deep in its territory. Not only would they have huge casualties trying to go through the air defense, they would have problems on the ground itself as they are in range of multiple ballistic and also cruise missiles from fleets, in fact their territory is in a way flanked making any move for them extremely hard now and expensive. So its not easy to do at all as you assume here or with low casualties.

Surveillance? Lol. Russia can be fighting in Syria but they wont be attacking within Turkish borders. That would end Putin's autocracy real quick, so I figure any accidental violations would be dealt with in crisis phone line to Brussels and Washington, past the problem member of the alliance.

Those same radars are also themselves "easy" targets(easier than what they try to track) because they need to radiate to operate, and they rely on yet more radiating missile defenses for their own protection. Anyone blinking is seen further than they themselves see. Why do you assume unreal capabilities from of just a couple of launchers, no matter what they are?

And those long range missiles arent very maneuverable. The short ranged ones too don't have a higher load factor than Western missiles that have scored a Pk of about 50% only, and against much lower tech opponents to boot. The Pk has been only high against friendly helicopters. An S300/400 launcher vehicle only has 4 tubes, the potential of kills one can shoot before its dead is rather low, if cost effective. Pk is a thing and saturation works because defensive systems can only track and shoot so many targets at once.

No system is perfect, planes and missiles get through. Turkey and Saudis will have massive superiority in numbers if they decide to move in, it likely wont be even a cost effective to trade whatever Russia has in Syria away in combat unless the Turks screw up(which they shouldn't as a NATO member). Similarly, those A2/AD systems are operated by people too and thing.

Made in Russia plaque and marketing speeches dont make stuff magic.

Sorry if turkey attacks russian forces , be sure that they will be a retaliation on the turkey itself to limit its capabilities to continue the invasion.

Actually, no. Russia should not attack Turkey itself, because there's little in Turkey that can be hit without striking nearby NATO installations and equipment. Besides, it would greatly increase possibility of Article 5 being invoked.

It's much better to do what USA has did in 1980s Afghanistan war, and ensure your long-term victory by allowing your opponent to enter the quagmire unopposed, and then using your and your allies assets to constantly maintain said quagmire until your opponent retreats by demands from its internal population.

That kind of sounds like what happened to the US in Vietnam, except that it was China that was behind the funding of the Viet Cong I believe, not Russia.

[Sergarr]

Sergarr: you could turn the point other away around: why do nations keep buying products over a dozen times more expensive per unit(fighters) if they are easy to shoot down; why do even so many nations that don't plan on ever fighting a war on anyone else's turf use significantly more money on fighters and the vulnerable, static facilities they require, than missile A2/AD systems? Why not just lob missiles at each other from ground level and leave surveillance, scouting etc. SA providing for cheap, expendable drones, ground signal intelligence and, for the great powers, satellites? Why arent S300 and S400 or say, Patriot, export miracles everyone wants to have masses of? The answers could include: the missile AD systems have severe limitations beyond being slow to relocate and ground bound(which could be compensated by numbers, as they're cheap), they may not even be cost effective solutions, aircraft may not be easy to shoot down, aircraft and missiles may not be as easy as advertised to even become aware of, track and target, such systems may themselves be vulnerable to various soft and hard countermeasures and anti-air defense tools from HARMs and jamming to cruise missiles.

You know, that argument would've made sense if Turkey's aircraft were as modern as Russian SAMs. But you see, they aren't. S-400 is a significantly modern product than F-16. Turning that point back at you again, there's a reason why modern states all try to get those stealth fighters - which Turkey doesn't actually have.

As to the reason why most countries do not buy anti-air complexes, that's because list of countries which use aircraft in significant numbers, but don't have modern stealth fighters (i.e. countries against which said ground anti-air systems could be cost-effective), is very, very small. Also, you need a lot of ground systems to cover all enemy approaches.

So either people don't have a reason to buy them due to lacking air threats, people don't have a reason to buy them because they're not effective enough, or people simply can't cough up enough money to buy enough of them to be of significant use.

[Erkki]

Turkey's F-16s are old but they've seen at least one upgrade cycle. They're not stealthy and their ECM jammer has a huge blind spot(since its carried in a pod under belly or wing) but for defeating a missile the kinetic way they're as good as, or nearly, most new fighters. They're better at it than, say, the USN's much newer Super Hornets with their low 7,5 G limit, even.

--

As to the reason why most countries do not buy anti-air complexes, that's because list of countries which use aircraft in significant numbers, but don't have modern stealth fighters (i.e. countries against which said ground anti-air systems could be cost-effective), is very, very small. Also, you need a lot of ground systems to cover all enemy approaches.

--

Wait, no, I think you derped.  Most nations in the world do not field true stealth/reduced observability aircraft, so it should make sense to get SAMs. Out of the planes used by Euro nations and US, most such as Typhoon and Rafale start to have "stealth" features now but its not applicable to the entire world. One of the "selling" points of the S400 and such is the range, so that(on the brochure) less units are needed to cover the same area as before with shorted ranged units.

[Loud Whispers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35595446
ISIS popped up in Afghanistan, accidentally got killed by everyone

[smjjames]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35595446
ISIS popped up in Afghanistan, accidentally got killed by everyone

Accidentially? They seem to try to make enemies out of everybody, even those not typically thought of as 'The West' and targeted by the likes of Al Quaeda.

If you don't get my reference, I mean the two Japanese hostages (who, honestly, shouldn't have been in that area in the first place) who were killed. Japan is probably the last country one would think of as being targeted by the likes of ISIS and Al Quaeda.

[miljan]

So the east Aleppo pocket is fallen, as majority of ISIS and other rebel groups fighter retreated to al-Bab (still not 100% confirmed).

Nice map of government, kurds, ISIS (and other rebels) and turkish forces (map is big) in Aleppo area
http://i.imgur.com/TZuY8gw.jpg

[Loud Whispers]

The things teamwork can accomplish

[Sergarr]

--

As to the reason why most countries do not buy anti-air complexes, that's because list of countries which use aircraft in significant numbers, but don't have modern stealth fighters (i.e. countries against which said ground anti-air systems could be cost-effective), is very, very small. Also, you need a lot of ground systems to cover all enemy approaches.

--

Wait, no, I think you derped.  Most nations in the world do not field true stealth/reduced observability aircraft, so it should make sense to get SAMs. Out of the planes used by Euro nations and US, most such as Typhoon and Rafale start to have "stealth" features now but its not applicable to the entire world. One of the "selling" points of the S400 and such is the range, so that(on the brochure) less units are needed to cover the same area as before with shorted ranged units.

I don't think I did? The key word here that you seem to have missed is "in significant numbers", and by significant I mean like 500+. If the number of aircraft your potential opponent is bringing is relatively low, it makes much more sense to invest into buying aircraft, so that you can not only kill opponent aircraft, but also utilize your own aircraft to basically win the war.

For a good example of how this works, see Pakistan-India dynamic. Pakistan has 900+ aircraft, but no stealth. So it makes sense for India to buy S-400 - and indeed it did buy them, although they've yet to be delivered.

[Sheb]

MSF refuses to share the GPS coordinate of its hospitals with Russia and Syria for fear of being targeted.

[Baffler]

MSF refuses to share the GPS coordinate of its hospitals with Russia and Syria for fear of being targeted.

It's kind of hard to miss a hospital if you've got consistent reconnaissance over an area, which with Russian assistance they probably do. If they are, in fact, deliberately targeting hospitals all this does is make it take slightly more effort for the Russians/Government to pick their targets and gives them plausible deniability (we didn't know it was a hospital. You didn't send us the coordinates, and possibly even deliberately made it look like not a hospital! It could easily have been a command center, or barracks, or supply depot, or any number of other legitimate targets!) when they carry on blowing them up as before.

[martinuzz]

MSF refuses to share the GPS coordinate of its hospitals with Russia and Syria for fear of being targeted.

It's kind of hard to miss a hospital if you've got consistent reconnaissance over an area, which with Russian assistance they probably do. If they are, in fact, deliberately targeting hospitals all this does is make it take slightly more effort for the Russians/Government to pick their targets and gives them plausible deniability (we didn't know it was a hospital. You didn't send us the coordinates, and possibly even deliberately made it look like not a hospital! It could easily have been a command center, or barracks, or supply depot, or any number of other legitimate targets!) when they carry on blowing them up as before.

Yeah, that's a pretty darn stupid decision by Dw/oB, now they can be bombed by everyone wihout breaking Geneva convention (medics are protected, but not if they do not make themselves recognizable, and their location known).

[miljan]

ISIS offensive cut the main supply road of government troops that lead to Allepo

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

A case fire should start by the end of the week if all parties comply

[Zangi]

So ISIS is on the green team?  I'm pretty ignorant without the legends thing telling me what is what.

[Erkki]

I don't think I did? The key word here that you seem to have missed is "in significant numbers", and by significant I mean like 500+. If the number of aircraft your potential opponent is bringing is relatively low, it makes much more sense to invest into buying aircraft, so that you can not only kill opponent aircraft, but also utilize your own aircraft to basically win the war.

For a good example of how this works, see Pakistan-India dynamic. Pakistan has 900+ aircraft, but no stealth. So it makes sense for India to buy S-400 - and indeed it did buy them, although they've yet to be delivered.

India also ordered 135 T-50s and is currently fielding a good number of state of the art fighters. The first alone a dozen-billion dollar investment. SAMs are bought for what they're good for(area denial and cost-effectively locally protecting whatever needs protection), not for replacing aircraft.

Unit prices of fighters are literally over a hundred times higher than those of simplier planes(like the Super Tucano) that could do terrorist hunting just as well. If one doesnt presume much aerial resistance they'd buy cheap planes and the backup SAM system - see what South and Central American nations use. 

Even poor Finland that cant hope to achieve better than local air superiority anywhere and with a potential opponent not exactly lacking in aircraft has 3 times more fighters than medium and long range SAM launchers put together.