S-400 performance in Syria = Paper Tiger

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Ahmm Ahmm, from the mouth of the dude who was there to shoot down the limp Tomahawks.


Ahmm AHmm, from the mouth of a Russian MoD:


Funny thing is it was done by much less sophisticated S200 systems.
:hehe:

The funny thing is there is no evidence that any missiles were fired at Assad's airbases that had nothing to do with chemical weapons. So they were unable to save the actual targets but shot down everything at fake targets? If there was evidence of at least one missile getting through they might be believable.
 

singhboy98

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
805
Likes
2,704
Country flag
It is simply too naive (and downright foolish) to evaluate the performance and/or the potential of a weapon system using just one incident as a template. As others have stated above me, you never know what actually is going on behind the scenes. There is a lot of cost/benefit analysis done before deploying the most advanced weapon in one's arsenal. Maybe the Russians decided it was not worth intercepting missiles headed to destroy a chemical weapon manufacturing facility. Maybe the Americans had already taken the Russians into confidence at the highest levels (this happens more often than you think). Think about it, the Russians did not lose anything by refusing to use the S-400. I don't think the S-400 has been used in an active role anywhere before and I don't think it was worth using it for the first time defending a chemical weapons factory. Maybe the Russians thought on similar lines.

So, in conclusion, hold your horses. The Indian Armed Forces put a weapon system through some serious shit before inducting it. That we want the S-400 so badly tells us something.
 

nimo_cn

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
4,032
Likes
883
Country flag
for this Frenchman who has been bragging about their stealthy missiles, it's certainly no good news.
Ahmm Ahmm, from the mouth of the dude who was there to shoot down the limp Tomahawks.


Ahmm AHmm, from the mouth of a Russian MoD:


Funny thing is it was done by much less sophisticated S200 systems.
:hehe:
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
for this Frenchman who has been bragging about their stealthy missiles, it's certainly no good news.
It is great news for the French. If it is true the only bad news is for the Americans. The Russian side has only validated the superiority of French weapons and tactics.

a) they did not detect French aircraft
b) they did not identify any French missiles flying over their ID zone
c) All French targets west of Homs were destroyed
d) the French targets were the only ones with casualties reported

China has spent these billions on Russian weapons because they are superior to their own. What does this say about Chinese air defences? One thing is for sure, the Rafale could pick them apart.
 

scatterStorm

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2016
Messages
2,242
Likes
5,335
Country flag
The funny thing is there is no evidence that any missiles were fired at Assad's airbases that had nothing to do with chemical weapons. So they were unable to save the actual targets but shot down everything at fake targets? If there was evidence of at least one missile getting through they might be believable.
:hmm: let's do quick math over here....

103 missiles fired ... all 103 should've hit there target, that mean death, destruction and mayhem to 103 locations or say few location. Gimme all those building footage. So far only 3 were lit up. Those were abandoned.

Russian MOD says 71 missiles intercepted ... with mere following assets:

- Pantsir S1, S-125, S-200, Buk and Kvadrat

:notsure: ... 32 missiles claims a hit (must be French made :playball:)

Then where in the goodness darn 71 missiles went ... to netherworld?:bplease:

IMHO the claims of 71 missiles were destroyed are real,

"Why would S400 would be launched for dud missile that Russians know will be hit by much cheaper systems?"

"Why would they waste $400 million per fire unit (artillery battalion) missile on duds?"

And, missiles flying over there air base? Cruise missiles have a range much larger. They can take a a large curve path , avoid air defences and hit targets that aren't defended well. Yet they were engaged.

Seem to me its pretty logical.

Guardian newspaper website host a video where it can be clearly seen a AAA battery seems to me a Pantsir S1 system engaging an incoming Cruise missile, which was shot down by an earlier Pantsir-S1 missile launch.


Bottom line :
-----------------
Coalition forces destroyed there own evidences of false flags and to be what ... abandoned buildings?
When several news channel show amateur videos of Pantsir S2 and S200 being engaged.
To me Trump just got lit his ass :troll: wait for Russian response soon.
 
Last edited:

Hari Sud

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
3,682
Likes
8,283
Country flag
Paper tiger or not, so far no American or Turkish planes have crossed into Syria where the S-40o is operating.

This is deliberate propaganda against Indian purchase against of S-400. You an clearly detect from the posts that much is said by not the experts but by boys who have not seen the business end of a gun.
 

scatterStorm

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2016
Messages
2,242
Likes
5,335
Country flag
for this Frenchman who has been bragging about their stealthy missiles, it's certainly no good news.
No nimo chan, not the French missiles, but tomahawks. French one seems to be performing well. But Russian didn't engage them because they though Older systems previously utilized in same attack in fact in the same month of April in 2017 will engaged by theses systems.

What's new is ... French scalp. It can also be engaged by much advanced systems like S400 but throwing an S400 to destroy a cruise missile?

Think for a moment ... S400 battery engaging all Tomahawks and French missiles would essentially make the naval base and other important airbases defenceless, allowing another salvo of missiles being fired on it.
 

nongaddarliberal

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
3,907
Likes
22,145
Country flag
Our old friends the mighty British :biggrin2::pound:
SECOND DEFENCE
Britain had to let France take lead in Syria strikes after cuts left us with NO ships that can fire missiles and ageing fighter jets
Britain was out-muscled in the Syria bombing as the Royal Navy's Type 45 Destroyer HMS Duncan was unable to fire cruise missiles

By Holly Christodoulou
16th April 2018, 10:33 am
Updated: 16th April 2018, 2:25 pm
BRITAIN had to play second fiddle to France in the Syria airstrikes after budget cuts left us with a "depressing" array of ageing jets and ships unable to fire missiles.

The UK blasted Syria with eight Storm Shadow missiles from RAF jets in a blitz on chemical factories that saw 105 missiles fired in total.


PA GRAPHICS
4
This picture shows fire power used in the Syrian airstrikes
Get the best Sun stories with our daily Sun10 newsletter
Your information will be used in accordance with our privacy policy

But the Royal Navy's Type 45 Destroyer HMS Duncan was unable to fire cruise missiles and was out-muscled by France's The Languedoc.

The £1 billion ship has a space on deck for a cruise missile launcher but it was scrapped to save cash, according to reports.

Instead, it was stationed as an "air defence" ship in South East Cyprus to protect against any threat against RAF Akrotiri from Moscow as four French warships sailed into the attack zone.

It means Britain's only way of hitting its target in the joint US, France and UK strikes was to use four Tornado GR4 jets that will be retired next year after 40 years of service.


GETTY IMAGES
4
Destroyer HMS Duncan was unable to fire cruise missils so had to play second fiddle

4
Skies over Damascus lit up by missile fire as a US, UK, France coalition launch revenge strikes in Syria
They were protected by four Typhoons, which can't fire cruise missiles due to an integration programme being axed over financial reasons.

France meanwhile sent its fast Rafale jets to fire Scalp missiles into Syria while protected by a squadron of Mirage 2000s armed with air-to-air missiles.

But the UK did provide the majority of intelligence, maps and surveillance images needed for the bombing on Saturday.

And it also scrambled a top secret 'Rivet Joint' spy plane to jam Bashar al-Assad's missile defence systems.


AFP OR LICENSORS
4
A Syrian solider takes a picture of the wreckage and surveys the damage after the missile blast
A military source told The Times the lack of Britain's fire power was "pretty depressing".

They said: "We need to brace ourselves for the fact that President Macron is trying to be the go-to guy.

"He wants to have a strong relationship with the United States and we have not woken up to that.

"If they are trying to muscle in and they are determined about it and they end up firing more missiles, these things sort of count. They do actually count."

The strike saw the RAF join US and French forces in unleashing a blitz on evil Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons capabilities after a poison gas attack that killed at least 75 people last week.

The three nations launched more than 100 airstrikes in a "one-time shot", with the US firing 59 Tomahawk missiles.
 

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
That is a possibility but just two days ago they were threatening to shoot down all missiles and launch platforms that were striking Syria. You remember when they buzzed the Aquitaine off the coast of Lebanon? For them to bark like that and do absolutely nothing is not their style. They would have at least tried to shoot down incoming missiles only a couple dozen clicks from their S-400 battery. Simple answer is they couldn't see Scalp.
Have you forgotten the Trump's tweet where he spoke like a maniac? So, things changed after that. Also, the claim that Russia will shoot down missiles was made by one Russian ambassador, not by Putin.

Let us not act as fools saying that scalp missile could not be spotted. Cruise missiles are easily spotted. Russia even has AEWACS in Syria to observe frok tge sky.

The thing is S-120/S-200 is ineffective against terrain hugging cruise missiles, this has been known for a long time. As per Syrian disinformation reports is like listening to Baghdad Bob. The only thing that was capable was S-400 and that failed to engage any targets. The press briefing in my OP is there, you can see all targets were destroyed.

France did not avoid Russian areas, the Scalp strikes flew right past S-400 batteries and landed in their backyard.
If the missiles were so effective, why was there no casualty? Was Russia dumb in not shooting down missiles that hit ood building and other cheap structure? The cost for rebuilding tye building is much cheaper than the S400 missiles that woukd have been needed to be fired
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Let us not act as fools saying that scalp missile could not be spotted. Cruise missiles are easily spotted. Russia even has AEWACS in Syria to observe frok tge sky.
Let us review Russia's own reports...

"None of the cruise missiles launched by the United States and its allies entered the zones of Russian air defenses around Tartus and Hmeymim," the Defense Ministry said.

http://tass.com/defense/999720

And yet...



The launches went over the two Russian bases.

___________
In a shock development, it also appears that the French fighter jets involved in the strikes went undetected by the radar of Russian air defence systems since the Russian General Staff claimed that only British and American missiles had been detected.

A spokesman said: "Russian air defence systems at the Hmeymim and Tartus bases have found all the missile launches from naval and air vehicles of the US and Britain."

At the time of the statement, the Russian General Staff denied that French missiles had been used in the strikes.

He said: "The announced participation of French aviation has not been fixed"

https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...k-French-fighter-Rafale-jets-Damascus-strikes

If the missiles were so effective, why was there no casualty?
Earlier, a local security source told Sputnik that at least 6 civilians have been injured as a result of a missile strike on a military depot to the west of Homs.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201804141063542578-civilians-injured-syria-us-strike/

Was Russia dumb in not shooting down missiles that hit ood building and other cheap structure? The cost for rebuilding tye building is much cheaper than the S400 missiles that woukd have been needed to be fired.
They could not shoot down what they could not detect.
 

nimo_cn

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
4,032
Likes
883
Country flag
It is great news for the French. If it is true the only bad news is for the Americans. The Russian side has only validated the superiority of French weapons and tactics.

a) they did not detect French aircraft
b) they did not identify any French missiles flying over their ID zone
c) All French targets west of Homs were destroyed
d) the French targets were the only ones with casualties reported

China has spent these billions on Russian weapons because they are superior to their own. What does this say about Chinese air defences? One thing is for sure, the Rafale could pick them apart.
superiority of french weapons? superior to American weapons? what a far-fetched contention.

I don't worry about Russian S-400 Chinese are purchasing, after all our smart indian fellows know that S-400s are good stuff.
 

Jameson Emoni

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
1,473
Likes
4,250
@Armand2REP

Does France make something comparable to S-400? If so, I would say, it would be far less controversial to buy French hardware under given geopolitical conditions.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
@Armand2REP

Does France make something comparable to S-400? If so, I would say, it would be far less controversial to buy French hardware under given geopolitical conditions.
We make SAMP/T. It is superior to S-400 in everything but range, but then the new 40N6 missile has yet to be seen. China did not get it in it's delivery.
 

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
We make SAMP/T. It is superior to S-400 in everything but range, but then the new 40N6 missile has yet to be seen. China did not get it in it's delivery.
Aster has a 2 stage rocket and is not really great interceptor for planes. One must consider that the plane is likely to detect SAM launch and take evasive maneuver from that moment itself. So, 2 stage missile will only serve little purpose. One must have powerful motor or RAMJET to hit tge plane regardless of evasive maneuver. Aster is similar to NASAMS or Barak-8
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Aster has a 2 stage rocket and is not really great interceptor for planes. One must consider that the plane is likely to detect SAM launch and take evasive maneuver from that moment itself. So, 2 stage missile will only serve little purpose. One must have powerful motor or RAMJET to hit tge plane regardless of evasive maneuver. Aster is similar to NASAMS or Barak-8
There is really no better interceptor for targeting a manoeuvring object than the Aster. It not only has fins for adjustment but built in thrusters for extra agility at all altitudes but especially high altitudes where the air is thin. Aster 30 has a no escape zone of 120km of powered flight, the max range is probably150km before it starts getting too slow to be useful. NASAMS or Barak-8 isn't even in the same class.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
A USAF Gen. essentially confirmed that the US can neutralize any high end Russian SAM system (S-400) if the need arises:

“If we have to go in there to take down, for instance, the Kaliningrad IADS [Integrated Air Defense System], let there be no doubt we have a plan to go after that,” the commander of US Air Forces in Europe assured reporters here today. “We train to that. We think through those plans all the time, and… if that would ever come to fruition, we’d be ready to execute.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/09/target-kaliningrad-eucom-puts-putin-on-notice/
 

Hari Sud

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
3,682
Likes
8,283
Country flag
A USAF Gen. essentially confirmed that the US can neutralize any high end Russian SAM system (S-400) if the need arises:



https://breakingdefense.com/2019/09/target-kaliningrad-eucom-puts-putin-on-notice/

Too much overconfidence. If the Americans could, they would have done it by now. These are paper studies of the Defence College, which mostly assume that smart Americans can overpower anybody except smart Russians would shoot down before any hostile force from America reaches Russian soil.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Too much overconfidence. If the Americans could, they would have done it by now. These are paper studies of the Defence College, which mostly assume that smart Americans can overpower anybody except smart Russians would shoot down before any hostile force from America reaches Russian soil.
First, it's not over confidence. It's called reality check (to temper Russian over adventurism) and reassurance to NATO members most treathened by Russia. Secondly, the US military always have weapons and systems for defeating their best enemy that they do not reveal. Just think of SOSUS (divulged only in the 80s to USSR by US Soviet agent) during the Cold War or F-117 (while it was operational as early as 1983 its existence was not publicly revealed until 1992 after the Cold War).
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top