Comments by "ZIPZ" (@zipz8423) on "S-500 Prometheus - Overview" video.

  1. Tell that to fucking Ukraine.
    11
  2. Games, F-117 was not meant to be "invisible" from a range of 9 nautical miles, that was the firing range at the time of the shootdown. I can think of quite a few SAM systems capable of doing the same job as the S-125 with a capable crew from that kind of range.
    4
  3. The makers of the S-400, Almaz have publicly stated there are probably a million ways to counter their system, and that the US and Israelis probably have in their locker, most of those methods. It's a dangerous system if you ignore its capabilities, not so dangerous if you know how to circumvent it. Over the last few years the Ukraine Air Force has been discussing how it's been defeating another system, the Pantsir with NATO defence evaluation bodies. There's no such thing as an "unbeatable SAM". Today the best means are with EW, spoofing , cruise missiles routed around its lethal MEZ bubble, flying low and attacking blind spots. There aren't that many SAM radar units with true 360 degree capability. A good example was the day after the Barzeh research centre strike when the Syrians thought their AD system had detected inbound missiles, launched their interceptors , only to discover they were shooting at ghosts somebody put inside their processors.
    3
  4. Ayyy Lmao, thats the response you deserve.
    2
  5. Your premise is faulty, S-400 missiles are very expensive so are the systems radars. There`s no such thing as a cheap AESA Array. Quantity over quality is dead.
    2
  6. John Brown , ICBM's both US and Russian use AIN with stellar cameras on the RV BUS, but they could utilise the GPS signal as an extra means of fixing . I believe we are about to see a renaissance in the use of Astro inertial Nav modules. B2, B52 etc already have them. It's the only real way to replace reliance on GPS. Smaller AIN units on smaller weapons, EO optics can see stars in daylight quite well. By th way I still have doubts about the accuracy of really long range ICBM's, there are localised environmental conditions such as gravitational fluctuations and other atmospheric conditions that are going to affect RV trajectory. The US tests its ICBM's in the wrong direction. Area targets they may get away with inaccuracy , but it erodes confidence in hard target capability somewhat or at least perception.
    2
  7. Not really, Stalin said "Quantity has a quality all of its own". Russia just made cheap aircraft in huge numbers , the west made better aircraft with better technology in smaller numbers.
    2
  8. For what in particular.
    1
  9. It was the only one that lit up against IAF aircraft then got whacked.
    1
  10. The A-125 has virtually zero capability against even a handful of ICBM's with complex decoy payloads. Think about target discrimination rather than the size of the intercepting warhead. Secondly, western RV's are shrouded, unless you are going to put up 50 megaton interceptors , a bad idea for all sorts of reasons , the Russians have to start thinking about other ways to defend Moscow.
    1
  11. I have serious doubts about Russian claims for their endoatmospheric "manouvering RV's" , not talking glide vehicles here , once a MIRV RV "manoeuvres", without a terminal guidance package I can't see how it can hit its aimpoint , the targeting for RV's is refined before they leave their Bus.
    1
  12. The Moscow ABM system was a token force really. No way could that have stopped more than 1 or 2 incoming RV's. Moscow admitted this in the 1990's , great against slower MRBM'a like Pershing II that had to a "slow" 30 mile terminal glide in order to use its target matching radar, but against ICBM's with complex decoy payloads with 23 Mach RV's? Not a chance .
    1
  13. It used to be the top 30....
    1
  14. Deus, when was it designed and when did the first prototypes fly?
    1
  15. Rex stop believing in Russian fantasies , none of what you believe is real. If the Syrians shot down all of those missiles how did those targets end up smoking holes?
    1
  16. Dimitriy, most of those TLAM were probably targeted in a different way than most people realise. Ie, not many of them were detonated on the ground but at elevated positions , therefore, we were never going tto see a cratered field. The primary objective was to incinerate any possible airborne contaminants. For me, the satellite imagery of the Barzeh target is exactly as I would expect after dozens of cruise missile hits. Weapon / target matching is an age old art.
    1
  17. Its just the S-400 with new missiles and radar so what?
    1
  18. Then it's an S-450.
    1
  19. Oh it will work, if you walk right into the teeth of the system. If one is smart it can be circumvented like any system.
    1
  20. We should always assume what we have may not work , that way we can create viable countermeasures and have them in our locker when needed.
    1
  21. @Deus Vult Unfortunately thats not quite correct, the US military is much smaller now than it was in 2009.
    1
  22. "Peace through strength", all Reagan retro on your ass.
    1
  23. In advance of what? The S-300 and 400 hardware architecture is a result of studying AEGIS and Patriot regards system integraion and a modular approach with o upgrade paths. They have learned from the best. Patriot radars have remained pretty much static until now with ARES 360* In the short term pipeline , it's pretty much ready to go now. S-400 lacks a 360 degree fire control system.
    1
  24. I was referring to a Soviet timeline, when the positions were very different. Sorry I should have stated that.
    1
  25. They can try that, but they had better have 1 million sunblock.
    1
  26. S-400 is no more capable than PAC-2 Patriot except In missile range. There are areas where Patriot capability exceeds S-400 capability. The biggest difference is Patriot has been used in combat, S-400 has never been used not once in real combat. That's a huge advantage for Raytheon.
    1