How Effective Are Modern Air Defenses?
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 07. 2024
- Get over 64% off the Kove Commuter 2 here: koveaudio.com/covert64
Code: COVERT64
Discount/Free US shipping subject to change 9/14
For Business Inquiries - gregr1251@gmail.com
Amazon Prime 30 Free Trial - amzn.to/2AiNfvJ
Microphone I use = amzn.to/2zYFz1D
Video Editor = amzn.to/2JLqX5o
Military Aircraft Models = amzn.to/2A3NPxu
Military Strategy Book = amzn.to/2AaqwST
----------------------------------
Credits:
Footage:
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
The NATO Channel
Ministry of Defence of Estonia
Department of Defense (US)
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
KCNA - North Korea State Media
Music:
BTS Prolog - Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com
HMS Sheffield Image
Author: Nathalmad
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en
The "includes paid promotion" got me worried because I really couldn't afford another missile defense system
Another?
Lol 😂
@@carpetclimber4027 He has 2 on his roof, I installed them. With those babies installed, he's safe from intercontinental ballistic missiles
Nerokasta
Well can I interest you in a cwiss system for close in defense? For those pesky threats that may get past the other missile defense systems
This is why i love this channel: no bias and just cold facts from different angles.
Kreo it is bias and copy binkov. binkov is unbiased.
@@fatgirlboy9341 This doesn't copy binkov at all...
John Law Binkov mostly talks about possible ideas for a War or Battle, Cable mostly talks about the Future, and Present branches of warfare and geopolitical conflicts. Each stay to their own realm. How is Covert Cable Biased, can you give me an example?
@@fatgirlboy9341 I'd love to see where Covert Cabal went from unbiased review to a clearly taking sides.
Thats what Kove wants you to think
We know for sure AA is effective against civilian airliners. Tested in real life conditions :(
What if I tell you that all weapons are firstly created to protect goverment from they own people, secondarily to impose will upon udeveloped countries and finally to fight against equal foe.
Serj Levonyuk Proofs?
@@SerjLevonyuk that you know nothing about the real world, thats what i believe
@@carso1500 There is probably a little bit of truth to what he said tho.
It's Israel's fault. Their military planes often attack ground targets in other countries, then hide behind civilian airplanes. If a missile is following them at that moment, they sometimes accidentally hit the civilian airplanes. What Israeli airplanes do is basically using civilians and children as live shield. But the news then blame it all on the enemy, never even mentioning this disgusting tactics.
03:09
Love how in movies, like the Incredibles, Surface to Air Missiles just close in and try to “Dance” with their targets while they do aileron rolls until the Missile “kisses” their target
The lumbering "deathstar" SAM, it such a funny trope. Too many believe it to be reality though...
These systems are more effective when not used, with the enemy not knowing how good or bad they are and just leaving them in areas to deny airspace because the fact that AA systems are there is enough to deter the enemy.
That could easily be why Syria hasn't used their newest AD systems yet, they're saving them for when they really need them. Use them on a small raid they might end up giving the Israelis valuable intelligence on the system's actual capabilities and potentially compromise their air defense at a time when the Israelis might be coming in for more than a simple raid.
@@Riceball01 exactly.
Like Star Wars; or nukes.
You would think that AA can be easily tested with a handful of cheaper sacrificial drones or even RC aircraft. Fly a few decoy sorties over defended areas and see how effective AA really is.
@@gooble69 That is why you need light AA to cover up heavier ones. Heavy AA simply should not engage drones/decoys.
The thing about these systems, and what most people don't understand, is that they are NOT a silver bullet. By themselves, they cannot do much. They are a part of a layered defense approach, where you have multiple layers, both on the ground and in the air, and, if those systems are used correctly, they are very capable. But if they are not, they will be quickly neutralized. For example, if you have one battery of the S-300, and if it's always on the same location, it can, and WILL, be neutralized.
Anyone that tries to be first gets a Covert Cabal Nuclear missile straight to their computer.
_covertly_
Imagine that. "Hey here's a shield to help protect you. One catch. Never actually use it. It might not work."
@Melani Natasha even before the deployment, Israel very rarely bombed the northern parts of Syria.
Yeah, Patriot has very bad operational results indeed.
Now imagine the other side. One spear, one throw, will likely break if it hits a shield.
This is how deterrence works.
@@silphonym But a nuke is the equivalent of a bullet against the shield.
@@JonatasAdoM no, the nuke is the equivalent of f**king grenade in the bar fistfight.
Anyone's who has played Defcon will know that even with air defenses, once the ICBMs start flying, everyone loses. Nuclear War: the only winning move is not to play.
Greetings professor Falken.
One thing I miss in this video is the role of anti-radiation systems (which lock on to radar radiation), like the old F-4E, which saw action in Iraq (and was pretty effective).
Probably the most important factor why Syrian S-300's didn't engage Israeli AF
FWIW I was a FIM-92 Stinger Operator, attached to a H.A.W.K. squadron, which was attached to a Patriot system (we had a 3 tier AA setup) in the 90's. This was in the Dutch Airforce.
We just phased out the ancient 40L70 Bofors "Fly-Catcher".
I stopped following development of the latest generation of Aircraft and what kind of equipment they carry. I remember CH 47's having a detection system. And the AH-64 used a system called PANDORA. No idea what type the Soviets have/had (they must have, because of what happened in Afghanistan, with the 1st gen Stingers)
What I was taught was that not many planes have a system like that, to save weight and prevent aerodynamic issues.
Anyway.
The S-300 was used last year in the Nagorno-Karabakh war, actually. It successfully took out some drones, but in turn was taken out by loitering munitions.
6:48 the article is not about "S-300 in Syria". It is actually about Pantsyr in Syria.
People just think that a SAM says max distance 400km and they think that they can kill anything at 400km. They forget the losses of energy on the way to target. SAMs are big and heavy to hit a figter jet. But they can make pilots change their path or even cancel their mission. Shorter range SAMs get the kills
Honestly your videos always surprise me. They are really well researched and very high quality. But what I am really surprised about is the community! Very positive and upbeat, basically everyone is so nice!
0:15 thousands of rounds whitout hitting the target
Me in war thunder: killed by AAA
1:50 it turned out that the Patriot battery guarding the oil facilities was on maintenance that's why none of the missiles or drones were intercepted, but as a Saudi I can tell you that the Patriot proved it self as a very capable system out of 300 ballistic missiles and 300 suicide drones only a handful weren't intercepted and shot down apart from the oil facility attack.
Ballistic missiles and drones always attack my city and I can't remember the last one that wasn't intercepted.
What city?
@@kekkeyan8614 Khamis Mushayt and Abha
Yup yemen cough iranians have been lobbing dozens of missiles at the UAE and actually few have gotten through
@@Kozak806 no it's alright, they always get shot, it's actually quite a sight.
@Jeffro 2000 hope you had a good time in Saudi Arabia sir.
When were you deployed?
Looks like Armenia just got one of their S300 knocked out by a drone.
I've found the opposite news. Armenians have shot down the Azerbaijan drone produced in Israel:
eurasiantimes.com/watch-now-armenia-shoots-down-israeli-drone-operated-by-azerbaijan-defence-forces/
@@cinegraphics yes that was a separate engagement. The S-300 got it first kills but were suicide drones and had one destroyed a few days later by Azerbaijan drone.
How are chinese drones and missiles?
@@NitinJadhav-cc2xh knock offs but will still probably do their purpose Russia started making more stuff that they sell to china unable to be reverse engineered cuz china was copying designs from even Russia Thier ally
@@UninstallUpdate it actually makes no sense to launch an S-300 rocket at such a drone, because the drone is probably much cheaper than the defense rocket...
I don't think it will be much longer before we find out.
Agree
: (((((
Covert, your vid quality is so awesome that I don't even wait for youtube to notify me or recommend your vids. I search your channel myself from time to time. Please stay on this track. Never move away from straight on facts and figures. Thanks and love.
Very good video, and accurate breakdown. There’s so many variables and situations for every weapon, it’s difficult/impossible to truly judge and declare a winner.
What an amazing video. You can really tell that there is a passion coupled with dedication and inherent knowledge behind every video posted here.
You never know what happens when a war breaks out. One can only dream their systems works as well as they are designed. This goes to both US and Russia.
Thank you again for personally narrating this channel, rather than using a computer voice. It's one more thing that makes it special.
In a real conflict it's rare everything will go as planned. That "stealth" F-117 was shot down by an old S-125 system that was designed in 1950s.
Sorry, we didn't know it was invisible xD greetings from Serbia :)
Because they visually observed that plane's flight path over time and knew it would fly overhead, what speed it would be at etc,...They didn't lock on to it, they just knew roughly where to shoot.
The F-117 was designed in the 80s. Only 1 shot down out of 1300+ missions is really good.
@@KevinWilliams19723 If I may correct you on this.
Stealth technology is designed to be most effective against the most common, cm wavelength (X-K band) radars. The early warning radars used by (among others) the S-125 used metre wavelength radar (UHF). With those a stealth plane is "visible", but it cannot provide accurate information, what the target is or if it is one target or several in close formation, only that "something is there". That is enough to engage the target once it gets within missile range, with a low chance-to-hit of course. Cm wavelength targeting radars can still see the stealth target, but only from a relatively short distance, say 20 kilometres instead of 80.
At the time of the incident I served in an air defence regiment next door (11th Duna Combined Home Air Defence Regiment, Hungary) that operated both S-125 and S-75 systems. Next couple of days we discussed it at length. It's been a while though.
@@imrekalman9044 good viewpoint, as mentioned in end of video, that there are many factors to consider in defense system. it is more complicated than just press button and system is running.
How Effective Are Modern Air Defences? Very Effective Every side has proven they are able to down civilian airliner.
😳😳😳
They work. But it's not always going to hit. Like what people keep saying "the S-400 system is the best ever" 😆 it only depends
yeah, it entirely depends on whose interests you mean when saying "it's the best at protecting interests"
@@512TheWolf512 here's an idiot. 😆
@@nesseihtgnay9419 please, you didn't need to introduce yourself
@Русские геи Didn't the russian aerospace defense forces tested the S-400 in Syria?
@Русские геи that argument is pretty stupid, combat excercises in most cases simulate combat conditions as closly as possible, if it works there, then there is no reason to doubt its effectiveness in real combst
Remember that the S300 and S400 have scale out engagement radars. Each additional radar system might add 20 additional targets to engage.
What if the opponent launches 50 cruise missiles at once at the mighty S-900 which costs say 2 billion dollars ? Hitler did not saved the war with jet airplane, or V2. Better to spend that money on schools and universities :D
Being checking this channel daily for updates
4:18 You can tell that footage is recent.
I noted that too, everyone was masked up.
@John Doe Amen.
Prizrak2084 this is kinda like the video, masks work in tests or controlled environment with skilled workers like in surgery. But real life?
Prizrak2084 those mask-wearing countries are now having a big second wave of cases. What will you do to push your pseudoscience then?
Personally I’ll trust my medical training I got from the CDC during the 2009 pandemic when medicine wasn’t so politicized and I was on the front lines as an EMT. We were immunized, trained in the proper use of properly-fitted N95 masks, and the CDC told us that nothing would keep us safe from H1N1 or any other respiratory illness except to stay at least six feet away from anyone showing symptoms. We didn’t even go into the room with patients unless absolutely necessary, and if we did we were considered exposed, regardless of other precautions. But I guess you don’t trust Obama’s CDC.
Prizrak2084 LOL, you actually resort to pretending I didn’t contradict you. Such defense mechanisms.
The news article in russian language u showed says about failure of pantsir-s in syria not about S-300.
Still tho,Its hard to trust a not battle proven weapon system.
This is the first thing you have advertised I actually consider purchasing
Glad you have a sponsor for this video man.
Make it into a sport. I would love to watch air defense systems take on drone swarms and missile salvos. Air Force vs Navy teams...
Air defenses are expensive as fuck though
An interesting, and as usual, timely subject. Always seemed to me that an aggressor has an inherent advantage, able to plan missions around the apparent defenses, and the human element cannot be denied.
Great video as usual....one of few unbiased military channel on youtube. It is funny how many people think that s-300/400 are the only type of air defenses system and that they need to protect them self. They are designed to take down distant ballistic missiles, nuclear bombers, in short, very valuable enemy attacking force, but for the closer range and protecting s300/400 there are so many more...buk, tor, pantsir etc...
" They're not perfect but undoubtedly getting better every year " You're right bro, that's the true facts about all these Air Defense System
Seeing in Wargame my Patriot missed 3 shots on B-5, this video is definitely telling the truth.
01:38
Missed an opportunity for promo code KOVErt kabal
Analysis is on point and very elaborately direct.
the narrative / thought process / why and what etc = excellent ... good job on this channel!
Wow thanks, now I feel safer when I fly my F-35 over hostile areas.
The Patriot system has a pretty decent track record. Just don’t let Saudis operate them. Last time I flew into Riyadh, they were all pointed north lol.
Spoiler Alert: Yemen is south 🤦♂️
Saudis are not allowed to operate any patriots in their country, they are all operated by the US
That makes it even funnier then that they were pointed the wrong way haha.
But Iran is north.
True, they’re not exactly friendly with one another. The missiles that the Yemenis lob at Riyadh are Iranian after all.
Love your content. Yes well done as always. I definitely support as much as I can.
I ordered those sponsored Kove speakers, reviews are off the charts and your ‘covert64’ discount code was legit, cost me $82.99 vs 99.99 on Amazon. Thank you!
5:50 it should be noted that fighters in the high-end role are much the same way. It is one thing to engage in ground attack (precision or otherwise), but such operations hardly validate them as 'tested in combat' when their design origins call for them facing peer level threats.
For example no 5G fighter (F-22, F-35, J-20, etc) has been tested in combat against another air threat, at least on peer level.
This said air defences do have their own cons aside, which you pointed out in your video.
Well, I think Red Flag does a great job at simulating real combat as best as possible. As for 5th gen fighters, new aggressor squadrons are being equipped with early block F-35s, this will make it possible to simulate 5th gen vs 5th gen combat in the near future.
@@rusher2937 all true and it is definitely easier to test aircraft as opposed to air defence, but even things such as Red Flag aren't a full substitute.
It may not be the aircraft but rather the sensors and weapons on board, just as in an air defence battery. The battery and fighter alike may prove flawless in training - but the reliability of the actual weapon or sensor against a real target (with tailored techniques, technologies and tactics) may prove inadequate when compared to a simulated system or hardware tests against target drones.
Perhaps in a decade or so we may see targeting drones replicate actual maneuvres and techniques employed by human piloted fighters. Having an F-16V conduct complex procedures could help improve the hardware of both air defence batteries and air warfsre fighters alike.
@@ArisenfromDogma Afaik in red flag sensors are used to their full extent, probably even jamming. Weapons can't for safety reasons, but are also constantly tested in other training areas.
Of course nothing is 100% reliable, but in the past years electronics have become increasingly cheap to manufacture and reliable in both the civilian and military domain. Based on what I heard from real pilots, the F135 engine (which is fully automated) is incredibly reliable by today's standards.
I agree that no training is a complete substitute for real combat, enemy tactics might be unpredictable, and testing of niche tech is often not done to the extend that real combat will, for economic reasons.
However, I don't see how modern targeting drones like QF-4s or QF-16s wouldn't already be able to perform complex maneuvers. I guess the main reason that small prop-driven drones are often seen in videos is that in those situations the main scope is training the operators in their procedures at low cost, not hard-test the limits of the system. Maneuvering QF-4s have already been used when testing stuff like the AIM-9X, it only makes sense that they and similar platforms are also used to test a variety of other air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles and attached systems.
@@rusher2937 again all good points (and it is QF-16 as you said, not F-16V).
"and testing of niche tech is often not done to the extend that real combat will, for economic reasons."
Knocked it on the head there. Whilst it is different depending on the system being tested, ensuring great reliability of a system requires continuous and robust testing. For economic reasons (among others), this is not always feasible and a factor in the design of both air defences and fighter/fighter mounts.
There are potentially also commercial reasons - companies lobby hard to ensure their interests (such as perceived product reliability) are ensured. The M16 and M2 Bradley, prior to Pentagon acquisition reforms, are good examples. This is not to say the risk has disappeared however and it is not something limited to just the West.
With regards to complex targeting drones, complex manoeuvres are only one part of the problem. Nothing occurs in a vacuum - targeting drones should be able to manoeuvre with regards to everything else in the battlespace.
If the West is training for multi-domain operations, then targeting drones (including other systems replicating their own unmanned systems) need to be able to work with integrated air defence networks in a coordinated manner, or in a manner exploiting the complexity of the ground for low-level operations (for strike, interdiction or anything else).
Training systems such as drones will become more advanced, particularly as AI and other software becomes more advanced and robust. This may even alleviate the limitations placed on testing large quantities of air defence and fighter systems. But at the end of the day no one can predict how war (tactical and close through strategic) will play out once it all goes hot. This isn't unique to aircraft or air defence - but the cost of preparing for real business remains a barrier to good business.
Pilots with real air combat experience are all in diapers now.
When I was stationed at Ft. Bliss in Texas, it was the home of ADA and those folks thought they were the baddest-ass troops in the military. Pretty comical really.
I meet a ada ssg at bliss, and he said they never went to the field, worked half days but the patriot batteries deploy quite often though.
@@smokeypuppy417 Nice
Heading there in feb 🤦
@@christianmendez26 fort bliss is where all dreams go to die especially if you are on east bliss.
@CAG Hotshot 19k, 5th Brigade 1st CAB, Future Combat Systems. Barracks number 2905.
Seeing how over a thousand American fighter planes and bombers were shot down over Vietnam by Russian designed surface to air missiles and triple a guns, I imagine surface to air missiles are still effective against 4th generation aircraft and can threaten stealth fighters as well if they get close enough.
@Русские геи yep aircraft will beat even the most sophisticated Sam's.
Another excellent video from one of the best channels, Covert Cabal...nothing but facts...👍🏻👍🏻
6:42 Little mistake here. This article is about PANCIR-C, not about s-300.
Да он пропагандист,говорит С-300 не было использовано против Израиля,а что у Сирии С-300 по всей стране установлены?С-300 в Сирии прикрывают только Дамаск по моему и все.Я имею ввиду Сирийские с-300,а не те которые на Российской базе.
@@imperskiikulak446
В Израиле есть:
224 F-16
58 F-15 EAGLE
25 F-25 STRIKE EAGLE
24 F-35
Одна или две батареи C 300 не могут помочь против такой силы
@@simonsimonovic4478 это здесь не при чем. просто там гористая местность. израиль пользуется этим.
@@simonsimonovic4478 есть и Красухи ))
I’ve been watching Covert Cabal for a while now! I loved their content!! As such, I made my own sci-fi/futurist channel!!
A proven tactic, leaching off of a larger creator in order to get publicity for yourself
Wow use a good channel with massive views to try and boost your own which isnt good at all
Boooooo
Thank You for finally some common sense reality on the relationships between testing a system to show it works to how a system performs in actual combat. Well Done!
Most weapon systems don have half the challenges that air defense systems have
A very precise analysis as usual.
i'm not sure how I feel about a weapon system not being used because "it would hurt sales".
It all makes sense because the main goal is to make money. Air defense is just a side by-product of making money. The same is true for all other products on the market.
My view on this is that when countries eventually look into unmanned aerial defences, it would likely be more successful in defending an area compared to a manned one. But the challenge would be, at peacetime, how could they tell a difference between a Bomber to a Civilian airline? Unless that problem is solved, Air defences will likely have the same effectiveness as their predecessors.
I imagine they would have a officer or group of officers give an order to turn air defence online. Kind of like a chain of command authorizing a nuclear strike but as the threat gets higher in a specific area the decision to go online would get more and more local eventually to battalion commanders or even single lieutenants
@@Aaron-wq3jz I was thinking more of Areas in peactime but tensions are at a boiling point, like Saudi Arabia or Iran. It would be hard for an AI to differentiate between a civilian plane to a military one. But yeah, a chain of command could work in certain areas, like in Europe where tensions are relatively low.
Excellent work, as always.
I think AA defence was always more about creating an Area of denial/a deterrent than actually shooting down planes. AA solutions are inherently ineffective at direct combat, but that's part of how and why they work. If you have no AA defence, the enemy can just fly straight over your cities/ships/bases and attack whatever he wants without fear of getting destroyed. If you put AA around critical spots, then the enemy will have to adjust, stay out of optimal range and take risks. So while they rarely see action and even more rarely get kills, it's not because they don't "work", but because they do what they're supposed to :) Imagine a blockhouse with an HMG inside, is it ineffective, because it never kills anyone? Or is it effective, because the enemy has to go around it, as to not get shot into pieces by that HMG?
I'm surprised you didn't talk about Iron Dome.
Same.
That thing faild to defend against local missiles costing only $200 he clearly dosen't have to talk about trash
@@negan_lq9499 Next time maybe watch the video before commenting? It'll help you look like less of an idiot.
@@infinitelyexplosive4131 it's indeed trash, iron Dom never tested in real battlefield, when I talked about real war, I mean never engaged with super Sonic ballistic missiles
@@khaleddekar2188 iron dom is for small to medium air defense not for ballistic missiles
What is that game he’s playing looks interesting, the one with the missile simulations
@@janavavrova6448 thanks appreciate it
@@patrickb4620 if you mean the gameplay from 3:15 thats DCS World
that’s right. well thought out hard cold facts jack.
Excellent video, very balanced, not inclined to one side or the other, congratulations!
S-300: "You know I COULD shoot you down, I could"
F-15: " No its fine no no ur fine I'm gonna just, you know, leave."
*leaves*
S-300: "Holy shit thank god."
Too funny.
it is more like..
S-300: "You know I COULD shoot you down, I could"
f-16: bomb release and hit target.
F-16: " No its fine no no ur fine I'm gonna just, you know, leave."
F-16: leaves
S-300: "Holy shit thank god."
Covert Cabal-- How Effective Are Modern Air Defenses?
Iron Dome-- Hold my beer.
@istiak monsur its not meant to. only counter rockets, artillery, and motors. (C-RAM). Iron Dome is 90 percent successful which makes it effective and is a modern air defense system.
@@men8212 ... the title of the video refers to "Effective" "Modern Air Defenses" which includes SAM systems and any other weapon meant to Defend against a hostile air attack/action(guided or unguided). Iron Dome is a SAM system with a C-RAM type use case proven to be effective and yes expensive. This video raised the issue of real combat use to which Iron Dome has seen successful in real combat use since 2012.
@@men8212 Near Defense or Long Range Defense. Still "Modern Air Defense" and therefore comparable.
@@men8212 you missed my point. the joking is comparing for comparison sake. it is kind of humor that you are not understanding it seems. does that make sense to you?
Thank you for great information and the reduced to no bias
Another great video as usual!
@7:28 But what You leave out is that the F-117s in Bosnia always did a bomb bay door open-close test on the way to the target..... thereby lighting up on enemy radar screens.... so the enemy strategically placed a missile battery under the air space where this happens and got a lucky lock on and strike. One.... The rest of the time for the Whole war the F-117s were invincible... Only 1 F-177 was ever lost in combat.. and that includes Gulf War 1 plus Bosnia and everywhere else....
I think most weapons geeks know that the f117 shoot down was a clever one off. The point was that no tech is *invincible*.
@@psuedozardozz So 1 kill is something to brag about? That means that U.S. tech can invincibly invade and destroy.
@@sumerbc7409 No one has claimed otherwise. It simply shows that the opponent is constantly thinking and can't be expected to simply give up.
That was also the first time stealth coatings were captured intact by an opponent. New coatings have been developed for more modern aircraft, but that was very close to the end of the 117's life cycle.
@@psuedozardozz True
@@psuedozardozz The Bosnian War took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995. STEALTH F-117s led the way all through out the 1st gulf war.... you are sadly and woefully mistaken. The F-117 was widely publicized for its role in the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Although it was commonly referred to as the "Stealth Fighter", it was strictly a ground-attack aircraft. F-117s took part in the conflict in Yugoslavia, where one was shot down by a surface-to-air missile (SAM) in 1999; it was the only Nighthawk to be lost in combat. The U.S. Air Force retired the F-117 in April 2008, primarily due to the fielding of the F-22 Raptor. Despite the type's retirement, a portion of the fleet has been kept in airworthy condition, and Nighthawks have been observed flying in 2020.[5]
This is how you defeat russian air defences - Launch a swarm of seagulls
Love your content and really intrigued to who Eric is 🤷♀️
Modern air defense systems are layered and divided into three categories 1.Point defense or Very Short and Short range (CIWS, Stingers, RIMs), 2. Medium range (Tor, Buk) , 3. High range (Patriot, S-400) which connected to central commanded and controlled and ultimately ballistic missile defense which only few countries posses.
Perfect timing cuz everyone in south asia is investing heavily into this.
Who wouldn't?
@@1moneyking lol true.
Wolf Puppy The philippines bro! HAHAHA we have the worst govt lol. The philippine president trusts china more than it's citizens
@@1creeperbomb I am waiting for My country Somalia to get those.
:>
@@jaranis9273 maybe because they hate the USA.
I mean don't forget "American Imperialism"
9:02 not just the Sheffield. USS Stark. That Israeli ship got hit by Hezbollah. Saudi LCS got hit off of Yemen. What about Patriots shooting down allied planes in the gulf war? Things just work badly when not on full alert and run by veterans. Destroyer colliding with tankers comes to mind. But then when really focused, Serbians can hit a stealth plane.
Excellent Analysis
Love the channel and depth of research, would love a video on India/China military options in the current stand-off
Russia: "hey syria don't use S-300 to early"
Syria: "okey but S-200 Go Brrrrrr shoot down israeli missile attack.
Is that why Israel bombs targets in syria when ever they want to?
@@masonhidari I mean syria does try to counter the Israeli missiles. It sometimes works, usually it doesn't of course
"The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.
The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.
"
Well you have the russian missile wall that egypt had in 1973 it was very effective.
Great vid as always
It doesn't help movies and video games make SAM defense appear like a wall of doom that instantly melts any flying objects that gets into maximum range.
The easiest argument against SAM is that most of the energy (propellant) in a SAM is wasted on fighting gravity and aerodynamic drag while climbing through lower atmosphere. The tyranny of the rocket equation is very punishing. A fighter plane carrying AAMs will always be more effective because the plane does most of the heavy-lifting using a more efficient air-breathing engine.
The real deterrence is potential loss of well trained pilots since planes are replaceable, pilots are not. Today's aircraft are so complicated that personnel training will be the bottleneck in a real war not industrial capacity.
This is why drones are such a game changer in future air combat. It just turns it into a game of who has more money to throw at the enemy. To counter drones, strategic air defense systems would evolve into slow, efficient drones/balloons carrying an arsenal of AAMs that could stay in the air for weeks. At that point SAMs will mostly retreat into short range point-defense systems.
Or they could install AA's on satellites
Interesting opinion...
8:20-8:40 What game was that.
Pls someone tell us.
@@PohjolanPeikko CMANO
Oh yes, I have a kove speaker. It’s like a 2 year old one, and it works like it’s brand new. I would highly recommend it
I saw a great video on the f-117a that was shot down. That was mainly down to lazy flight path selection paired with a great shot. The flight paths of the bombers had been compromised, so the groundbtroops had a general idea of where they would be, and they still had trouble locking the aircraft up. This was stated by the crew that fired it, so I don't think they are spreading that to make the f-117a look better.
No modern airforce can afford to lose pilots - whose training takes years and millions of dollars and multimillion dollar jets - over any sustained air campaign.
Once missile and air attacks begin...you are using very expensive and difficult to replace assets. If your airforce "breaks" itself by losing those assets attacking a country with advanced anti-air systems it will take years to replenish what you lost.
There are parameters set on any attack by commanders as to what are acceptable losses....they would not want to lose 5 jets in a day. Any ground campaign relies on air superiority to launch strikes on exposed enemy assets...without that you are looking at a much longer campaign. I believe modern air defence is quite effective and that's the reason NATO got out of the "no fly zone" business after Libya
There is no system that can’t be overwhelmed, that is why countries establish their defense system on layers of different air defense systems!
YES! ITS A NEW VIDEO!
A former coworker of mine worked as enlisted personnel with the Patriot missile for eight years. He said it was insanely crappy.
Wearing Covid masks.... that's some up to date stock footage!
Article at 6:53 is talking about Pantsir, not S-300
@Intel Guru deservingly so this is what happens when russia claims everything they produce is the best and yet almost everything they produce struggles tremendously. MiG 29 has the worst record of any modern fighter jet and 2nd is the SU27 lmao
@@calebpatterson5141 I love the excuse that all their losses are with other nations yet American, UK and French made products are as well and perform well haha
@@calebpatterson5141 Su-27 is 8 kills 0 deaths. And a third of MiG-29 deaths were to Su-27 in africa.
@Intel Guru It has also shot down missiles from every israeli attack, but you can always add more missiles to the attack to overwhelm the air defenses.
The political situation in Syria makes it that the russians can only deliver enough systems to make israeli attacks more costly, not prevent them. It has nothing to do with the systems. Think about it, what would be the next step if the russians give the Syrians and Hezbollah a nearly fully effective air shield? Any guess?
Yeah, unfortunately for Pantsir, it’s been destroyed multiple times by those two countries.
Israel has attacked Syria hundreds of times for years. They often release satellite images of the targets before and after the raids, proving that some of their missiles were able to avoid Syrian air defenses and destroy their targets. There’s many images out there on the internet. Shouldn’t be too hard to find.
How could you ignore the Iron Dome?? Probably the best example of in-use and effective air defense.
Very well done!
So basically the only good air defense system is Iron Dome.
Is that Israel’s system?
ricky bear yes
Aegis
Aaron I guess it’s effective against mortar shells
@@ckr3167 both are really effective at what they were designed for
What game is he playing at 8:29
up. anyone?
Just got a reply from Cabal by e-mail, it's from Command: Modern Operations (CMO)
Great job. You got a new sub!
7:50 best line of the video , sums up modern warfare perfectly
Why are you mixing up Anti-ballistic air defence and "general" air defence?
Why you didn't sort them out and clarify that they are completley different
Well to be honest
Israel Iron Dome can be considered one of the best Air Defance in the World.
They are being tested almost every month and it works unlike others 😁😁😁😁
I'm just thinking of all the F-105s shot down over Vietnam.... seemed pretty effective there.
Always excellent.
How effective are modern air defenses?
Answer: idk.
Look for Iron Dome
@@user-pm7bh3zz3v The one defending against home made trash cans?
How do you go through a whole video about air systems saying "they are never used" and don't talk about the Israeli iron dome which has been used 1000s of times and has a very very high success rate
Enjoyed your video I gave it a Thumbs Up
You are the most professional youtuber I ever saw.