Cyprus-Forum.com

[Robin Hood]

This would suggest that it is a formidable weapon but not infallible ...... but to tackle it would be at a very high cost to the attacker. A bit like the Diamond Back Rattler analogy ...... you might eventually kill it but it will take quite a few of the attackers with it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J9kntzkSQY

[Paphitis]

Also notice the recent attack in Syria was not a war between the West and the Russians.
Presumably both the West and the Russians are actually cooperating in Syria Vs ISIS...
It was simply an attack of the West on fixed targets in Syria.
Syria knew the targets would be destroyed anyway, so it would be a waste of time to do anything about it.
The Russians did not have any reason to intervene, and in case they would, everybody knew it could spark WWIII.
Probably the Russians got the chance to test those Pantzirs though.

This attack on Syria was just a theatrical show by the West, to just support the chemical weapons saga initiated by the UK.
They need to support and maintain this anti-Russian propaganda for their own reasons.

There hasn't been much cooperation.

It is true that the Coalition fought ISIL, and it has really beat them at least in Iraq and in Syria.

Russia and Syria only really fought ISIL around Palmyra.

But< I honestly never said Pootin was stupid or an idiot.

[Paphitis]

What we do know, is that there has never really been a successful documented S400 or S300 launch against Western Coalition aircraft that we know of.

What we also know is that no Western Aircraft has been downed with an S300/S400 missile.

The Russians will need to even prove that they can actually launch a missile before they try to convince anyone that they downed 71 out of 103 Cruise missiles.

It looks like the S400 can't even overcome Western ECM and Jamming.

Sorry peeps, but I want evidence thanks. We need to first establish whether these things actually work. No one has provided any evidence that they actually do work.

What we do know however, is that the Russian BUK Missile is very good at downing a B777 Airliner. So no doubt, the S300/S400 would also be equally if not even more effective than the BUK at shooting down airliners, but there is no documented instance where the S300/S400 has downed a Western Military aircraft or Cruise Missile.

Where is it? the evidence I mean?

Ok, in my first post I was saying that it would be naive to ask for such evidence.
No weapon is unbeatable.
The biggest advantage of any weapon is it's ability to take the enemy by surprise.
Just like the huge loses the Israelis had from anti-aircraft missiles used by Syria and Egypt in the 1973 war.

Demonstrating the abilities of a weapon in action, over and over again is the main factor that would make it obsolete.
Re the Pantzir story makes me think the Tomahawks are already obsolete,

I never said the Tomahawk is unbeatable. It can be beaten, but probably only 1 or 2 of the missiles will be beaten. They have too much redundancy built in. And there is too much riding on that capability. You can bet that the Americans would do something if something insane happened and the Tomahawk was ineffective.

There is no such thing as an obsolete Tomahawk. It really is nothing to upgrade the guidance systems. Not that they need updating either. They just need to work. And from my understanding, TERCOM and its Digital targeting is virtually unbeatable which is why they prefer using that over GPS.

These days, they upgrade aircraft with the latest gear. A Tomahawk will still be flying in 2045. The only difference will be that there will be other variants with increased range. I believe I am correct about the 2045 date as well. AIM-9l are from the 1960s, and yet it is a superb missile. Same as the Sparrow Air to Air medium Range.

They are a very effective weapon and will be arming the 4.5 Billion Dollar Shortfin Submarines. That tells you something.

but it is logical, that if 71 out of 103 were destroyed or didn't make the target, then Syria and Russia should have no problems providing some pictures and video as evidence. They would have some of these missiles in their possession, or they would have a tonne of debris.

[Paphitis]

The S400 has been tickled raw, but it still appears that no one is home.

No evidence that they are effective at all against our aircraft and missiles. In fact, evidence can only suggest that the West has its measure and that the S400 is really an obsolete weapon up against Western ECM, Jamming and AIM-88 HARM.

[Pyrpolizer]

Never mind Paphitis, when the time comes yours can fly straight in against the S-400 and nobody would accuse yours of committing suicide

[Paphitis]

Never mind Paphitis, when the time comes yours can fly straight in against the S-400 and nobody would accuse yours of committing suicide

No one just flies in to Syria without Jamming their Radar first. In addition, there would be multiple aircraft armed with AIM-88 HARM missiles. As soon as a Radar is targeting their aircraft, the Coalition has the option of destroying those radar systems that are used to detect them. But that is the last resort as they don't need to do that. Jamming would be sufficient to render the Air defence incapacitated, and a much more less risky option rather than destroy S400 sites and kill Russians which is not the preferred option. If the S400s were Syrian, the Coalition will attack them, which is interesting because have you all noticed that the Russians will not give the S400 to Syria? Why is that?

Have you noticed that for every Coalition sortie there is at least one American, French or Australian AWACS aircraft. These are Command and Control, and are looking for any threats to Coalition aircraft. When they find one, they jam it, and they could also get another aircraft to fire a HARM missile at it which probably results in it being shut down immediately because it isn't in Russia's interests that the S400 even be used against coalition (reason is the Russians know its real capability Vs the hype). If just one is destroyed, and it will be, then the image the cheerleaders have promoted on the invincibility of the S400 is no longer the case. Yes, the S400 has been made to appear like it is an invincible weapon, even though it has never had any history of success against our forces. On the contrary, it is reasonable to say that the S400 isn't effective at all, because the Russians are scared to flick the switch on. That is an indication and an acknowledgement by Russia, that the West is able to circumvent any S400 threat by jamming it and also that it fears HARM. They should fear it to, because HARM will not miss as long as they are prosecuting any Radar Radiation, that Radar will be destroyed.

The S400 does not have a special radar that can circumvent Western ECM (jamming) or HARM.

It isn't at all very clear cut. The video clearly stated that the Radar can be jammed, and they can also be targeted with HARM. Even the Command Posts can be taken out and once that is done, the S400 is useless. If the S400 turn on their radars (they don't have to) then the launchers would be hit as well.

That is the problem with the S400 for Cyprus. Turkey would easily be able to take out any Radar site and the Command post. The S400 is only good for countries like Russia where the Command Post and Independent radar (not one associated with the S400 launchers) is located hundreds of miles away outside the range of HARM.

It's the same in Syria. HARM can target the Radar virtually anywhere in Syrian Territory.

In addition, the system has never been tested against Western Aircraft. You do not know if it is suicide. Anyone who makes that claim, is deluded because the West is still investing in Billions worth of F-35 aircraft.

And there have been thousands and thousands of Coalition missions into Syrian Airspace. We have not lost a single aircraft apart from 1 Jordanian F-16 over ISIL controlled territory.

Basically Pyro, there are many ways to get past an S400 and none are beyond the Coalition. The Coalition will not send pilots to suicide, it would:
1) JAM the Radar,
2) Target the S400 Radar and Command Post with AIM-88 HARM
3) it will saturate the airspace with decoys which will be detected by the S400 radar
4) use UAVs to further confuse, saturate, and even JAM
5) and TERCOM - or terrain masking like the Tomahawk uses.

[Robin Hood]

Never mind Paphitis, when the time comes yours can fly straight in against the S-400 and nobody would accuse yours of committing suicide

No one just flies in to Syria without Jamming their Radar first. In addition, there would be multiple aircraft armed with AIM-88 HARM missiles. As soon as a Radar is targeting their aircraft, the Coalition has the option of destroying those radar systems that are used to detect them. But that is the last resort as they don't need to do that. Jamming would be sufficient to render the Air defence incapacitated, and a much more less risky option rather than destroy S400 sites and kill Russians which is not the preferred option. If the S400s were Syrian, the Coalition will attack them, which is interesting because have you all noticed that the Russians will not give the S400 to Syria? Why is that?

Have you noticed that for every Coalition sortie there is at least one American, French or Australian AWACS aircraft. These are Command and Control, and are looking for any threats to Coalition aircraft. When they find one, they jam it, and they could also get another aircraft to fire a HARM missile at it which probably results in it being shut down immediately because it isn't in Russia's interests that the S400 even be used against coalition (reason is the Russians know its real capability Vs the hype). If just one is destroyed, and it will be, then the image the cheerleaders have promoted on the invincibility of the S400 is no longer the case. Yes, the S400 has been made to appear like it is an invincible weapon, even though it has never had any history of success against our forces. On the contrary, it is reasonable to say that the S400 isn't effective at all, because the Russians are scared to flick the switch on. That is an indication and an acknowledgement by Russia, that the West is able to circumvent any S400 threat by jamming it and also that it fears HARM. They should fear it to, because HARM will not miss as long as they are prosecuting any Radar Radiation, that Radar will be destroyed.

The S400 does not have a special radar that can circumvent Western ECM (jamming) or HARM.

It isn't at all very clear cut. The video clearly stated that the Radar can be jammed, and they can also be targeted with HARM. Even the Command Posts can be taken out and once that is done, the S400 is useless. If the S400 turn on their radars (they don't have to) then the launchers would be hit as well.

That is the problem with the S400 for Cyprus. Turkey would easily be able to take out any Radar site and the Command post. The S400 is only good for countries like Russia where the Command Post and Independent radar (not one associated with the S400 launchers) is located hundreds of miles away outside the range of HARM.

It's the same in Syria. HARM can target the Radar virtually anywhere in Syrian Territory.

In addition, the system has never been tested against Western Aircraft. You do not know if it is suicide. Anyone who makes that claim, is deluded because the West is still investing in Billions worth of F-35 aircraft.

And there have been thousands and thousands of Coalition missions into Syrian Airspace. We have not lost a single aircraft apart from 1 Jordanian F-16 over ISIL controlled territory.

Basically Pyro, there are many ways to get past an S400 and none are beyond the Coalition. The Coalition will not send pilots to suicide, it would:
1) JAM the Radar,
2) Target the S400 Radar and Command Post with AIM-88 HARM
3) it will saturate the airspace with decoys which will be detected by the S400 radar
4) use UAVs to further confuse, saturate, and even JAM
5) and TERCOM - or terrain masking like the Tomahawk uses.

BUT ........In spite of all that super advanced technology an unarmed SU-24 managed to disable the USS Donald Cook for around 45 minutes back in Nov. 2014 in the Black Sea. What happened there?

So you are saying the US and its allies are way ahead of the game and Russia has just sat and twiddled their thumbs all these years and now have a completely useless defence system? Maybe they spent too much time and effort using their electronics skills trying to bend the US Presidential elections for Donald Trump?

[Paphitis]

No it didn't!

There is no evidence that that is true just more propaganda.

The Donald Cook is active right now near Syria, as part of the US 6th Fleet and all American Ships are being fitted with the AEGIS, including Australia's brand new Air warfare Destroyers.

What the Americans did was let the Russian Su-24 have its fun. There really is no other choice because the alternative is to shoot it down, and that would be an even greater provocation than the flypast.

Western Aircraft have done the same to Russian Ships. Even the RAF buzzed the Kuznetsov Smoking Rust Bucket and low level, but there were never any claims of rendering it dead in the water.

All you have is Russian claims and propaganda. Once again, no evidence. As a cheerleader, you want it to be true. But is it? Well, do you see the Americans decommissioning the USS Donald Cook? Do you see the USN, and other navies around the world scrambling to do something to address this issue for the AEGIS Combat Control System? Is AEGIS still being fitted on ships today?

Does anyone in their right mind want the USN or the Russians to start pressing buttons and shoot down planes over a silly flyover? It is absolutely insane to do such a thing over something so minor. The world would be in very serious shit if the Americans and Russians are unable to keep their cool over such stupid things.

All these reports of invincibility are there to hide and confuse the public about massive gaps in Russia's capability. They for instance have just 1 Aircraft carrier, and its old, rusty and probably has some engine trouble. If I were the Russians, I would look at that rather than make stupid claims of rendering USN navy Ships "dead in the water"

And what does "dead in the water" mean. The fact that oit didn't fire at the Russian Aircraft does not mean they are "dead in the water". First of all, at that range, the Russian Jet could be shot down just with the Phalanx Goalkeeper CIWS. It wasn't which is what everyone should expect from the United States Navy. No POTUS would authorize such an action.

[Londonrake]

There was an agreed convention, which stood throughout the Cold War years. Aircraft would undertake 3 ship passes, usually photographic runs. I can’t recall the proximity limits but they were well defined, safe distances. Normally you would fly low past one side, turn back and down the other. Finally you gained height (hundreds of feet) and flew directly over the top, bow to stern. That was it. Wave goodbye (often they did ). There were also very strict criteria relating to aircraft interceptions. Followed generally by both sides.

Under Putin this seems to have been abandoned and Russian aircraft “buzzing” ships, as close as tens of feet, carrying out extensive mock attacks appears to have become the norm.

So, gone, like another long-standing mutual convention. People involved in formal spy exchanges are left to get on with their lives (another thread).

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

No it didn't! ................. OH YES IT DID!

There is no evidence that that is true just more propaganda.

Have you ever considered that your sources don’t always tell you the bad news?

BTW: Note the source ... its American!

The USS Donald Cook meets Sukhoi SU 24

Few western media covered the story, most dutifully denying any such neutering of AEGIS had occurred and that if the SU-24 was carrying any electronic warfare (EW) equipment known as Khibiny, it would have been visible on the jet’s wing tip where it would normally be found on similar Russian jets. A Khibiny is a mounted EW capsule, considered the most advanced in the world and since there was no observable Khibiny located on the wing dip, such a report of a muted AEGIS must be erroneous. What was not mentioned however was that the video of the jet ‘buzzing’ the Cook clearly indicates a pod mounted on the center line of the Russian SU-24 as well as a basket under the fuselage - either could be a Khibiny pod.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/renee-parsons/the-uss-donald-cook-meets_b_11015434.html

Or this video taken from the deck of the Donald Cook by the crew! I would suggest maybe just a warning not to get too close to Russian military bases.

Compilation of Russian jets passing near the USS Donald Cook

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJFnDfvUVGc

Khibiny..... remember that name!

https://www.disclosurenews.it/en/electronic-warfare-russian-khibiny-blocks-norad/

....or even .......

https://www.disclosurenews.it/en/electronic-warfare-russian-khibiny-blocks-norad/