4 ms·

I'm puzzled why we haven't created something that can compete with S-300 / S-400 / S-500. At the very least the Patriot SAM should be redesigned to allow for v

I'm puzzled why we haven't created something that can compete with S-300 / S-400 / S-500. At the very least the Patriot SAM should be redesigned to allow for vertical launching to allow shooting in all directions. If you point Patriot one way and you get ambushed from behind you're basically caught with your pants down. At the very least you'd need four Patriot missile launchers pointing in all directions to prevent this scenario.

sofixa 5y ago
That's why it was funny that Turkey was ostracized for buying Russian/Chinese SAMs ( was it S-400 last or a Chinese version). What else could they possibly buy? The Patriot system isn't even close, and doesn't seem to be working too well for the UAE ( but then again we don't know how S-300/400/500 would deal against drones and light missiles)
- UltraViolence 5y ago
  Turkey bought S-300 systems and were pummeled for it. I find this puzzling since Greece, also a NATO member, also purchased Russian S-300 systems but weren't penalized for it.
  - lakis 5y ago
    Turkey bought S-400. Greece got S-300. Different systems.
    - UltraViolence 5y ago
      S-400 is an upgrade of the older S-300. Very similar, although the former may require internet connectivity and that's probably what worries NATO. There are a myriad of versions of the S-300, from the original SA-10 introduced in the late 70's to the newest MPU version.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  My guess is that Russia doesn't have that many S-xxx missile systems, and further that they are much more expensive than the Turkish drones. I imagine they're keeping their powder dry, against the risk of NATO planes appearing over Ukraine.
krisoft 5y ago
> I'm puzzled why we haven't created something that can compete with S-300 / S-400 / S-500. In my opinion it is because the American way of fighting a war doesn’t need it. Let say there is a troublesome country who would want to fly airplanes to shoot at American troops. The war plans against such a threat would start with two steps: 1st supress their air defences. 2nd gain full air dominance. Supression of air defences is a polite way to say that they pulverize anything which can shoot US airplanes from the ground or even detect US airplanes using a radar. Gaining full air dominance is a polite way to say that they aim to pulverize all enemy airplanes, runways, taxiways, fueling equipment and maintenance infrastructure. If that is your method of operation why would you need mobile, survivable air defenses. People who routinely plan on destroying clouds (the source of rain) don’t need an umbrella.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  The best US air defense missiles are launched from ships. (These are so good that, like the S-500 they can shoot down satellites!)
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    That's the AEGIS system. It works better when land-based, from what I've read; it's dramatically more accurate than the purely naval fleet-defence version. AEGIS is an integrated, networked system; multiple sensors on multiple platforms (including AWACS) collaborate to detect and hit targets. There was an AEGIS-equipped ship either in the Black Sea, or trying to get in through the Bosphorus (now closed to naval traffic). The presence of AEGIS ships in the Black Sea would be enough to explain the non-appearance of the Russian airforce.

sofixa 5y ago

That's why it was funny that Turkey was ostracized for buying Russian/Chinese SAMs ( was it S-400 last or a Chinese version). What else could they possibly buy? The Patriot system isn't even close, and doesn't seem to be working too well for the UAE ( but then again we don't know how S-300/400/500 would deal against drones and light missiles)

UltraViolence 5y ago
Turkey bought S-300 systems and were pummeled for it. I find this puzzling since Greece, also a NATO member, also purchased Russian S-300 systems but weren't penalized for it.
- lakis 5y ago
  Turkey bought S-400. Greece got S-300. Different systems.
  - UltraViolence 5y ago
    S-400 is an upgrade of the older S-300. Very similar, although the former may require internet connectivity and that's probably what worries NATO. There are a myriad of versions of the S-300, from the original SA-10 introduced in the late 70's to the newest MPU version.
denton-scratch 5y ago
My guess is that Russia doesn't have that many S-xxx missile systems, and further that they are much more expensive than the Turkish drones. I imagine they're keeping their powder dry, against the risk of NATO planes appearing over Ukraine.

krisoft 5y ago

> I'm puzzled why we haven't created something that can compete with S-300 / S-400 / S-500. In my opinion it is because the American way of fighting a war doesn’t need it. Let say there is a troublesome country who would want to fly airplanes to shoot at American troops. The war plans against such a threat would start with two steps: 1st supress their air defences. 2nd gain full air dominance. Supression of air defences is a polite way to say that they pulverize anything which can shoot US airplanes from the ground or even detect US airplanes using a radar. Gaining full air dominance is a polite way to say that they aim to pulverize all enemy airplanes, runways, taxiways, fueling equipment and maintenance infrastructure. If that is your method of operation why would you need mobile, survivable air defenses. People who routinely plan on destroying clouds (the source of rain) don’t need an umbrella.

PaulHoule 5y ago
The best US air defense missiles are launched from ships. (These are so good that, like the S-500 they can shoot down satellites!)
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  That's the AEGIS system. It works better when land-based, from what I've read; it's dramatically more accurate than the purely naval fleet-defence version. AEGIS is an integrated, networked system; multiple sensors on multiple platforms (including AWACS) collaborate to detect and hit targets. There was an AEGIS-equipped ship either in the Black Sea, or trying to get in through the Bosphorus (now closed to naval traffic). The presence of AEGIS ships in the Black Sea would be enough to explain the non-appearance of the Russian airforce.