Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "Russia to study U.S. missiles" video.

  1. Simon, the Tunguska and Pantsir are only suitable for point air defence, meaning they have to be located in the immediate vicinity of the intended target. They have limited range, which is limited even further by the low altitude at which cruise missiles operate. Also, their missiles lack seekers of their own, which means they need to be guided by a ground-based radar system until impact. You can't hit what you can't see. Neither the Syrians nor the Russians have the numbers to protect targets except for the most valuable ones. In summary, they're not the perfect weapons you make them out to be.
    1
  2. Simon, on the contrary, sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles are easier to detect than land attack variants. There's no hiding between the waves, but the Tomahawk can duck behind hills and even buildings. The radar systems on Pantsir and Tor need an unobstructed view of the target.
    1