4 ms·
Buk isn't a "cheap and cheerful" alternative to S-300. Soviet air defense doctrine was a multilayered approach featuring systems at almost every organizational
by thereddaikon 5y ago
Buk isn't a "cheap and cheerful" alternative to S-300. Soviet air defense doctrine was a multilayered approach featuring systems at almost every organizational level from infantry squad up to theater. Buk and S-300 serve at different organizational levels. Both are competent systems and ironically are probably more effective against Soviet derived air forces than western ones.
Starting in WW2 and moving forward each side took a very different evolutionary path in terms of air power and air defense. The west relied far more on combat air craft for air defense because that's what worked on the western front. The soviets had a very different experience in the war and had to fight while being under constant attack from German airpower through most of the war. So they focused on giving their army its own air defense capability.
Fast forward 80 years and western militaries will have a few SAM systems like the larger patriot and the Stringer MANPADS but will primarily rely on fighters to clear the skies. While the Russians have a SAM for every situation and a much smaller tactical air force. The west has also since Vietnam spent a lot of effort on defeating Soviet style SAM systems with improved SEAD tactics and equipment whereas it was never a concern for the Russians because there isn't much in the way of SAMs to suppress.
For those reasons you end up with the ironic twist of Russian SAMs being especially effective against Russian aircraft because they didn't prepare to counter their own systems. They DO have anti-radiation missiles and strike aircraft but not as many as the west and their doctrine is not nearly as well practiced.
- PaulHoule 5y agoYou are right about more emphasis on fighters in the U.S. Also the U.S. put its best anti-aircraft missiles on ships.
- thereddaikon 5y agoTrue. The Navy has spent more resources on perfecting SAMs than the Army or Air Force have. Standard Missile and Aegis are a very potent combination. So much so that they adapted it to ground based setups with "Aegis Ashore" which is literally the system taken straight off an Arleigh Burke class destroyer and installed as a ground based missile defense system.
- water8 5y agoI worked on the software for the Ageis and Iron Dome systems. The program got off to a rocky start but once we got things dialed in, it's accuracy became exceptional
- thereddaikon 5y agoI think Aegis and SM are some of the biggest success stories out of the defense sector over the last few decades. Not only is it mature and effective but its also scalable and from what I understand they managed to port the codebase to modern x86 servers and make the libraries more modular as well.
- ethbr0 5y agoThe US blue-water navy has many similar problems to the Soviet Army. Specifically: operating out of range of land-based friendly fighters and interceptors. And since there are only so many carriers, naval aviation also can't be assumed. Consequently, SAMs are prioritized, compared to the army or air force.
- water8 5y agoThat's what the KC-46 and KC-135 are for
- ethbr0 5y agoTankers don't solve transit time for Atlantic and Pacific-magnitude distances.
- water8 5y agoWhat transit time? The Airforce establishes air superiority starting at the carrier and extending out the aircraft combat range (500-700miles) + refueling range (500miles) + missile standoff range (300miles). It's a pretty big sphere of influence and the US has 14 of them.
- ethbr0 5y agoAnd does that for every ship in the Navy? All the time? Because if not, they're launching from Okinawa or Guam. And they don't show up instantly hundreds of miles from there, at the ship's location.
- stefan_ 5y agoIt's wild how many anti-air systems they have deployed, for an almost non-existent enemy air force. At this point they must be effectively supplying the enemy their SAM systems. Very expensive, too - saw a $15M system ditched in a field because the shitty KAMAZ truck carrying it broke its axle.
- edrxty 5y agoIt's partly doctrine, that's just what they do. Highly mobile AA traveling with the armor is their thing and why change up your process right in the middle of a big deployment (rhetorically, obviously). The other reason is if things go south and the US/EU decides Putin is bluffing on the nukes, they'll for sure wish they had it because NATO aircraft would color the sky gray.