US vs Russia: Surface to Air Missiles Comparison
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 01. 2018
- Correction: In the list of Russian short ranged air defense weapons, I state Tunguska yet show the Pantsir S1. The Pantsir S1 is upgraded/improved version of the Tunguska.
I started a merch store. Get cool products & help support the channel!
teespring.com/stores/covertcabal
For business inquiries/sponsorships - gregr1251@gmail.com
If you'd like to help support me continue to create videos, you can do so here...
Patreon (Monthly) - / covertcabal
PayPayl (One Time Donations) - www.paypal.me/covertcabal
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
ANTI BALLISTIC MISSILE VIDEOS:
• US Tests ICBM Intercep...
• Stopping a North Korea...
• S-500 Prometheus - Ove...
• Can the US shoot down ...
1)
Y292ZXJ0Y2FiYWw=
2)
vvdwzlvhffttgoswfcnzczfsntibxauexggnexxoepnokgxsiwvoweckttcfnerbcvgrdx
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
3)
dzbgbncdvhkkqdudzkbktdrkdzchmfsndudmstzkqdvzqc
----------------------------------
Credits:
S-300 Image
Author: SLonoed
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en
S-125 Image
Author: Cloudaoc
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Buk Image 1
Author: Александр Цимбалистов
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en
Buk Image 2
Author: Віталій
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en
Footage:
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The NATO Channel
Department of Defense (US)
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Music:
BTS Prolog - Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com
Correction: In the list of Russian short ranged air defense weapons, I state Tunguska yet show the Pantsir S1. The Pantsir S1 is upgraded/improved version of the Tunguska. I had it right in my notes, and used the right video, but mixed them up while recording the voiceover. My apologies.
Thank you
I'm only upset that you didn't include naval SAMs, unless you have a separate clip for it. Otherwise, this is an excellent video. Keep up the good work!
Covert Cabal
.
kempmt1 Iu
kempmt1 k
Also the Chestnut CIWS system
Its nice to turn on a military video on CZcams and not have a silly computer voice.
Watch the infographics show, they're pretty good 😃
@@SynergyYT The infographics show makes mistakes on a weekly basis and I've seen them flat out make stuff up.
@@phath0m135 Can confirm, infographics show is utterly useless for any military related things. I can't say anything about anything else they've made, but don't watch their videos on anything to do with the military.
RIley playz Infographics have fancy animations to look at in order to compensate for their mistakes
Ee E True enough. I find them enjoyable to look at but there’s certainly better ones. But the animations is about as far as the channel has, the rest is just…yeah
These days unbiased analysis such as this is hard to find. Both SAM and aircraft solutions have their strengths and weaknesses and the local geopolitical picture dictates which system is more advantageous.
the russkies are only good in propaganda. no one even buy their s300 and s400. but everyone buys patriots.
Steve Arthur patriot is old as fuck bro and still highly effective for like forever my guy and we just recently updated to THAAD meanwhile russia makes a bew one every like 5 years just to keep up
Dam facts just get in the way ! lol
which country has better surfaces and air?
Steve Arthur ...
Saudi Arabia has 6 billion dollars worth of Patriot missiles that proved to be worthless a week ago.
@Metal 1974 Aha. Brilliant defense system. Attack from any direction they're not aimed at, and useless. Check into the S-400. Vertical launch, can fire in any direction. By the way, as a non-American, I strongly urge you to vote Trump again in 2020. And please attend every non-lockdown rally you can, without a mask.
@@JCO2002 If you're attending rallies, then that's the time you should wear one. Agreed with the rest of the comment tho.
@@JCO2002 And needs another system to defend it. Worthless against israeli F35s and f16s.
@@kcimb Apparently, the Patriots also need another system to protect them.
@Jope Lamp Yes, I'd like to upgrade my Patriot missile system. The stereo in the old ones is 8-track, and the colour scheme is all wrong (a peachy-pink with chartreuse highlights). Whom do I contact re price and availability?
This is a very unbiased review, good job.
I didn't know Nike made missiles as well as shoes.
Max Baurov and they cost the same :\
i didn't get the joke
Max Baurov maybe adidas too!
Max Baurov LOL 😀 I can not believe that you did not know that. It has been in service for a long time.
Brown Panda he's talking about Nike the global sports brand.
Translation of some name for you, English speakers.
"Стрела" (Strela) Arrow. "Игла" (Igla) Needle. "Бук" (Buk) Beech - tree. Тунгуска (Tunguska) named after river in Russia. In NATO classification name will be different so.
greetings ukrainian brother
Богдан Беркут strijela, igla, bukva... Pozdrav iz Hrvatske Bogdane
Beech, not Beach. -.-'
They can call it whatever they want. I call them "sitting ducks". News of the day: another Russian plane crashed, killing everybody aboard. Seems to be a recurring theme with Russian planes, crashing and killing, crashing and killing. Last time they wiped out the entire Military music performance team. Note: Russians should drink less, make better planes, maintain them better, avoid crashes. If their military tech is anything like their civilian planes, God help them!!
Funny how their planes are still safer than their American counterparts.
Your videos are really informative and leaps and bounds better than other channels. Thank you for taking the time to make original content.
I was surprised that you didn’t mention any of the US Naval SAMs or the Aegis ashore system, as I find these systems extremely interesting. Nice video
"This video is talking about ground based missiles." u deaf???
You have been crushing it lately.
I am so glad I found your channel. I live and love this subject matter. Keep up the great work!
Thanks! And thanks for watching!
Your content is wholly underrated. Another excellent video, good sir. I have to admit, it was a little eerie seeing the aerial photo of Forts Hood and Bliss. brings me back to my Army years.
+limescale onetwo Thank you! It was interesting looking through Fort Bragg, Hood, and Bliss in satellite imagery. They are all absolutely massive. It took quite awhile to find the Patriot missiles. Infact I couldn't find them at Fort Bragg which is why I didn't include it.
Thanks for watching!
You forgot about S-500, and we also develop S-600
Giving away weapons secrets in the open Tovarish? YOU WANT THE CAPITALIST PIGS TO KNOW ABOUT THAT!!?!
@@pikoloksh6195 dis capitalists vill neva reach level of russian technologies. There always will be something new in da pocket.
@@nich7622 True, now we have the S-700E
3:13 that's a pantsir system, but i suppose we can also add tunguska to the list
2:59 Buk m3 with 9Р31М missile has ranges up to 70 km
3:26: could also add 9K333 Verba czcams.com/video/gm43qGznNOk/video.html
1:57 we can also potentially include 50R6 Vityaz missile system(s-350)
6:02 i would say that stationary aircraft on the runway are much more vulnerable than mobile or fixed air defense sites to cruise/ballistic missiles,
6:23 air defense is a complementary feature to russian airforce, rather than stand alone feature
6:31 only partly true against low flying threats, on high altitude targets not really any difference, a low flying aircraft will have its radar capabilities limited as well, also networked air defense can share targeting data between sites what one radar will not see will be picked up by another radar.
6:45: russian bombers such as tu160 and tu 95 carry kh101/102 cruise missiles(5500 km range for conventional missile, i assume a nuclear one has even greater range), they can target US west coast without leaving Kamchatka airspace, or target europe while flying over ural mountains. tu22m3 carries kh32 missile that has range of 1000 km and travels at speeds of mach 4-5
6:47 Iskander-k/m, Kalibr cruise missile, kh-101/102, kh-32, P800 oniks can target all those locations and bases
7:05 russia has
359-412 Su-27 aircraft of all types
288 mig 29s of all types
250-282 mig 31 of all types
219 su-24
116 su-34
35 su-33
68 su-35
120 su 30 of all types
200 su 25 of all types
95 yak 130
69 tu22m3 bombers
60 tu 95 bombers
16+1 tu 160 bombers
Well, they dont. Most of those numbers are wishful thinking as we found out. And Russia don't have enough pilots even for the planes that are in condition to fly.
Those numbers are fake
21k subscribers wow congratulations . Days move fast but u deserve alot more
6:23 "Completely avoid the sam site altogether by flying around them"
Unless you have very good stealth, its a bit hard to fly around a sam site with a 600km detection and 400km strike range.
Yes, the US has some excellent stealth aircraft, but they constitute a very small and very expensive part of the available forces.
Exactly LOL. All these Russian military strategists on youtube seem to think that the US is just going to come at them guns blazing from 30K feet and run directly into their bullets/missiles like it's fucking call of duty.
@C North The US is an aggressive force, and Russia holds all the keys to defensive. You send aircraft- Shot down. You send a navy - they are peppered and sunk by anti ship missiles. You send cruise missiles - Russia also has the key to these.
The US military budget is almost 10 times that of Russia's budget. US has Russia outnumbered in aircraft by 4:1 at least, and that's not even counting all the moth ball fleets or the stuff the US gave to NATO to use. The US also has a 5:1 ratio of helicopters. US aircraft carriers outnumber Russia 20:1, and US destroyers outnumber Russia over 4:1. Russia's population is half that of the USA while its landmass is double that of the USA. You know what that means? Twice as much area to defend, with half as many people and 1/10th the budget. Russia has a lot of tanks, but that doesn't mean shit against air superiority.
We could go into all of the logistics, but don't think for a second that Russia could stop the US if the US really wanted to attack. The US could send every plane it has at Russia and guess what.....Russia would run out of missiles before the US runs out of planes.
Now nukes are a different story. Both sides have enough for mutual annihilation. But if Russia were to ever make itself an imminent threat, the US would have no choice but to weather the storm, shoot down as many incoming nukes as it could. Russia would likely force its leaders out before they allowed their leaders to use nukes. We already know people in the Russian military have ignored direct orders to launch nukes in the past, even when they had false indications that a nuke from the US was incoming. So even if there was a war between the US and Russia, it would likely be conventional only, and Russian leaders would likely be ousted in order to end the war.
Even Putin knows this is a likely possibility, since people would generally rather surrender than be destroyed, even if they know the other side would be destroyed too. Many people also know that the US isn't a conquering force. The US didn't take land from Iraq, it didn't even take oil from Iraq. When the soviet union fell, the US didn't come in and bomb them to hell. When Cuba worked with Russia and got spanked by the US, the US had every sacred right to wipe Cuba off the face of the earth....it didn't. It didn't even occupy Cuba. Putin knows the US would be happy to leave Russia alone if they acted right, but Putin has ever growing ambitions of wealth and power, so he tries to get away with what he can when he can. Putin doesn't want Russia to be just a regional power, or a world power, Putin wants Russia to be THE world power.
Everything bad guys like Putin and Kim do, is to skirt around the US's kindness and leniency. They know the US won't do anything if they don't force the hand of the US, and that's what their entire strategies are centered around. Putin knows his power is only as good as his bluffs and if people aren't willing to call him on it.
Ah here we go the good old *we have more money than you debate* US budget is so large because they have so much to MAINTAIN and the cost of maintenance goes up EVERY year. Look how much they actually spend on research and development, it almost matches that of Russia in cost, then add the fact that things are cheaper to produce in Russia and this is how you end up with an entire new tank and APC lineup while Abrams have rust painted over and the factories shut down.
The fact you think a stockpiling nation like Russia is going run out of missiles before they run out of aircraft shows exactly how naive you are. Also what are they going intercept Russia nukes with? They have next to nothing. Ground based midcourse defence system has less than 50% success rate. Meanwhile Russia has constantly evolved its ICBM arsenal. Also carriers? Is that joke? What are carriers going do in this scenario, I can give you a clue. *SINK* Russian doctrine has and still is around the idea that they will be outnumbered, and they have compensated for this. Why invest in extremely expensive aircraft carriers to project power when you have no need to do that? Instead invest in the tools to destroy them.
It takes 2 months to get a battalion to Europe never mind Russia and you are going simply *walk over there*. USA knocked out Iraq government and installed its own, the entire invasion was over commerce.
Also if you look on a map before making stupid comments most of Russia is not inhabited, and they only have to defend from key borders. Russia has the power to expand and become more so why would they not? Crimea was take with little to no effort and no resistance, hopefully in the future all of Ukraine will be Russia again. Russia is also just starting to expand in the middle east by being given naval bases and airfields without the use of force. Meanwhile the US digs its heels and screams like a little kid as its being forcefully removed.
Don't even start of Kim, the US is upset it hasn't got another war on its hands. They try so hard to paint him as the bad guy for many years and it hasn't worked. Stupid stories like executing people with AA guns.
You're clearly in denial. Even with a 50% success rate, launch at least 2 and that's basically a 100% success rate. The US has bases all over the world that it could inflict death by a thousand paper cuts with, each with their own supply chains. You shrug off carriers, but I bet Putin takes them seriously. It's not like carriers travel alone either. Just because Russia doesn't run a bunch of carriers, doesn't negate the benefit of carriers.
You know what power projection means? Bottled up. Russia would find itself under siege, with their lines crumbling day by day as they're forced more and more inland. Ever heard the phrase a best defense is a good offense. Meanwhile, with that power projection, Russia would find itself intercepted if it did try to project. Those middle east bases are surrounded, would be very difficult to keep supply lines to, and would fall relatively easy. Taking Crimea without resistance doesn't speak to power, because of the fact that there wasn't really any resistance.
You talk about only needing to defend key borders, but conveniently forget that every undefended area is a potential beach head. You seem to have this fantasy perspective that focuses on strengths but not weaknesses, and attributes everything the US has in its arsenal as a weakness even though it's clearly superior. A war with the US and Russia would be bloody for both sides, but in the end, the US would prevail.
Russian SAM
Long Range ;
1) S-400 Truimf / S-400F (Navy)
2) S-300PMU2 Favorit
3) S-300VM
3) S-300V4
Future : (S-500 & S-500F - Navy)
Medium Range :
1) Buk M2
2) Buk M3
3) S-350 Vityaz
Short Range :
1) Pantsyr-S1
2) Pantsyr-S2
3) Pantsyr-SM (Artic Region)
4) Pantsyr-SA (Artic Region)
5) Tor-M2
6) Tor-M2U
7) Tor-M2KM
8) Tor-M2DT (Artic Region)
9) Sosna AMDS
Why still the 80's type thinking about the USA vs Russia. Russia has much in common with USA and should be an ally and not seen as a threat.
I agree
You'd think so wouldn't you?
And yet here we are, with Russia invading and occupying it's neighbours.
Now, admittedly the Americans invaded Iraq and Afghanistan recently, but they'd been attacked with terrorists armed with airliners.
What's Russia's excuse?
@@MostlyPennyCat 15 of the Hijackers were Saudi, 1 from Egypt, 2 from UAE, 1 from Lebanon. Yet whom did the US invade? Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. Brilliant !!!
@@anup2565 like if the terrorists were ordered by those nations. Your logic is stupid
@@anup2565 Then again, look at british acid attacks. Half the attacks were from british citizens, but were set forth by Isis and alqaeda.
Wow this is a great summary of the disadvantages and advantages of both approaches. Great video.
+Aphid Thanks. I appreciate it! Thanks for watching.
Is the name Aphid from the Soviet R-60 missile? That was the first thing I thought of when I saw your user name
Covert Cabal Yeah that's exactly it :D
Knowledgeable analysis without propaganda. Well done
I just found your channel . Remarquable analysis !
Love from Algeria.
+cocothefly Thanks man I appreciate it! And Algeria! Wow. Thanks for watching!
three major things you left out.
1. Aegis
2. Aegis Ashore
3. THAAD
Those are an anti-ballistic missile
@@kurama567
THAAD is, Aegis + Standard Missiles are not, except for the SM-3.
@D D apples to oranges. Russia stronk!
Did you forget how the Russians disabled "AEGIS" with a tv remote control.
@@osamaalafghanee8868 No, they didn't.
objective video, pros and cons given. thank you.
Good job. Very nice to hear unbias accurate analyse and opinion.
missiles ,rockets that's Russians domain. don't go there.
Serge Baron Very true! Even now the US buys Russian rocket motors.
Serge Baron - Thanks for the laugh. Russia isn't ahead of the US when it comes to missiles and rockets. If the US wanted a really good anti air systems, it would build one. But the US doesn't need them. As far as missile technology, the US has always been ahead of Russia. But you keep on thinking that and everyone will be laughing at you lol.
@@mississippirebel1409 no one ask you for anything
@@mississippirebel1409 S 400 > Patriot
@@youngrody2386 If the S400 was that good Turkey wouldn't be asking for Patriots in Syria to protect their troops.
I think Russia has the better system overall, a lot more practical, easier to deploy, cheaper, and most importantly proven. I believe every one of their systems have shot down a military jet so far.
No doubt they are very skilled and ingenious when it comes to surface to air weaponry. It seems like there are alot of people who believe Russian weapons are inferior to their American counterparts due to budgetary restraints. But that's far from the truth.
The S-300's performance and capability, for example, took everyone in the West by surprise. The range, mobility, and fast setup time shocked analyst. I have an old edition of Jane's Intelligence Review from the end of the Cold War, and even they underestimated its abilities.
Covert Cabal
Come to Russia I'll give you a tour in the Museum Kubinka
† Адепт People don't simply come to Russia, Russia comes to them.
@@mohaamd_7505 Yes they like to annex land and murder people who speak out. Praise mother russia!
especially in Vietnam
Love your videos!
GREAT REPORT !!!!! THANK YOU WELL DONE !!! 👍👍
Yup, just "fly around" an SAM battalion position. S-400 have a 600km radar coverage so it will be a piece of cake for F-35 to flew it around with F-35 combat radius of 1080km for A, 865km for B and 1140km for C mods..
And how is F-35 planning to do that without emitting a radar signature? Don't be a fool, stealth refers mostly to reduced RCS...it's no invisible to Russian target acquisition radars. Flying F-35s over Russian airspace is a suicide mission.
u are fucking crazy if u think a shitty f35 can fire A FUCKING MISSILE THAT HAS A RANGE OF 1080KM stealth aircraft need to be 5-35 km away from the target if this was true then russia wouldnt even make s400 s300
Your Buk pronunciation is wrong, and the vehicle you said is Tunguska was Pantsir S1.
Yep, it's pronounced "book", not "buke".
@The Doge-Emperor of Dogekind Is this supposed to be a joke?
wonderful..very insightful. thanks
Thanks for the info
BUK is pronounced like Book , not Byuok!😎
Buick :D
the F35's getting advanced anti-radiation missiles to deal with ground targets.
Dr Bendover Just another FAIL for the Fag35.
Which can not, in the foreseeable future, fit the internal bays for the F-35.
Officer KD6-3.7 the F-35 is actually great.
S-200 hit an F-35! Israel called it bird hit and NEVER ALLOWED ANYONE TO HAVE A PIC OF THAT JET !! Nw tht S-300 being deployed in Syria, says its opreation in Syria will be limited.
jtillon1 where did you find this?
GREAT JOB DONE!
Good vid and narration.
anyone notice there are no missiles in northern Russia, a place where US ballistic sub commonly roam.
@eddie money So from when could SAM's sink ballistic subs ?
ur wrong there are so many AA's there
No mention of SM-3 or SM-6?
IKR, those would actually be the most prominent SAMs if US and Russia ever got into a conventional war. US destroyers could easily move in close to the Russian coast after defeating the Russian navy and completely deny any aerial access in the coastal regions. Of course the US would lose a major fraction of their ships but the US has 80 DDGs so there would be plenty remaining.
Radar guided SAMs don't need satellite navigation. And latest US cruise and ballistic missiles probably have a backup independent navigation system. GPS satellites are there to update position, but if the human operators already know the DMS position of their missile launch site then the missiles will only need that starting position to begin the entire flight to a Russian target(but accuracy is greatly reduced).
S&M 69
No mention of essm or searam either
@Artruis Joew The only unique thing about the Falcon-9 is that it can land, which is questionable from a financial point of view when you consider the extremely high R&D costs.
It's also about as unreliable as the Proton rocket, failing on about 10% of it's launches, while having the same payload capacity.
It's modern, cheap and looks the same as the Zenit (also modern at the time and cheap, but has since been sunk by the Russian-Ukrainian relations).
great video
Please upload more to cure my covert disease I watch your videos multiple times
Comparing US and Russia military, I'd say Russia has edge in SAMs, massive edge in anti ship cruise missiles and a slight edge in army. US has a edge in submarines, massive edge in surface navy and air force.
Russia does not have an edge in army. At all.
Johan Lassen Na. Russian army is slightly stronger than US. It’s not hard to see why. It’s stronger than US only because US hasn't paid the same amount of focus on it’s army as it has on it’s navy and airforce. Since US doesn't have any hostile neighbours, it doesn't need to focus on army while Russia lost millions of lives to German blitzkrieg and has NATO threat right on it's borders.
US Army is bigger, better equipped, more experienced and better trained. You'd have to live in a fantasy world to believe otherwise.
US has a edge on Submarines? you nuts mate? Russia always had superior submaarines compared to US at least nuclear submarines.
Manula Wijayawickrama dude, before calling others nuts, back up your claims with facts and specifications. Else you are the one looking like a nut..
When it comes to SAM systems, and missiles (rocket tech) in general, Russia is WAY ahead of the US.
Difficult to say. The US has, generally speaking, a tech lead (sans a few areas, like the mentioned Rocketry). Which should lend itself towards them having the superior equipment, but as has been proven time and again, that has not always been the case. So honestly, i dont know :)
Future glory of Zion yep it's useless against tomahawk, I mean why would they even use it against a missile which won't even reach its target, duh
Future glory of Zion it doesn't need to
Future glory of Zion I laughed my ass off on the blog written by Arthur Dominic villasanta
Strange Faction cruise today alone is not a solution, even if they cruise they r detected at a good range. The best cruise missile in world ATM is brahmos which uses supersonic speed plus cruise and maneuverability all to avoid interception.
U also need to be fast enough that u don't give Sam a chance to counter after u r detected.
I saw my home town when you showed the slamraam
nice vid!
And just for your sleeping pleasure lol, Russia has activated its "Dead Hand" switch. They did on January 12 of this year.
Tell me they want do not want to something?
Fakking great video again! I really like your unbiased view on this topic. Sweden just opted for the Patriot system. This was great to build diplomatic ties but the cost was orginaly 1,2 billion US Dollars but right after the deal was done the price went up to 3,2 billion Dollars.
Thats alot for the Swedish economy. I can also see another reason why Sweden opted for the Patriot sysstem. It uses 1 radar inetsad of 2 (as for the S-300), which means fewer People is needed to oparate the system.
Thats my thoughts on the system! And again This Video was superb! Do not lose your unbiased view on military topics!
The Super Knug is fakking out! :)
Good that Sweden got Patriot. Do not buy Russian tech ever. The Ruskies dont know anything about physics and engineering. Those S300 and S400 are just propaganda launchers. Countries do not even buy them, because everyone knows our country makes the best SAM systems. This is why we never lost a war before.
Yes, the Ruskies dont know anything about physics and engineering.
That's why Nasa is quite happily paying $85m per seat to get their astronauts to the space station on russian rockets, because the US shuttle was just blowing up too often and got itself retired, and nasa has been trying for the last 16 years to build a replacement, but failing.
Strange Faction Anubis.
Strange Faction Why? We want to win the fight! ;)
Strange Faction Well that is becouse Gripen is not a stealth plane and if it would be, Finnish radar is good enough to detect every stealth plane still on US soil ;) Finland is Great in every way!
Great video :)
Not bad analysis. Missed couple things but overall accurate. Thanks,
relying on aircraft as air defense is extremely fragile
specially when you consider US aircraft which need tons of maintenance time, special runways and break when a grain of sand gets into the engine.
+bojackobviously That's true, it's extremely expensive to do. But if you can afford it, it offers much more flexibility.
And, to your point, US aircraft tend to be more 'fragile' than Russian aircraft to the elements. Russian aircraft can and have operated from some real rough airbases with runways in horrible horrible condition. At US airbases, the crews literally walk down the entire runway and carrier decks to make sure there isn't a single bolt or screw on the ground, as it could shred the smaller US aircraft tires causing a wreck.
The Earth is round. An Aircraft flying at 50,000 ft can see much further than a missile radar. Fighters can fly hundreds of miles to defeat the enemy before they can attack. Static defenses are only good when the enemy is knocking at your door.
And they can't be used for other missions.
The missiles of a SAM site are much bigger thus longer ranged that missiles that are light enough to be carried by an aircraft. just because you can see then doesn't mean you can kill them.
Sams need to be bigger to have a chance of reaching a hostile aircraft. when launching from the ground you are fighting gravity. An AMRAAM fired from 50,000 feet is both not fighting gravity and is also not having to travel as far to reach the target.
Air based Air Defense is not "fragile"
How exactly US Fighters can engage enemy SLBM and ICBM's and Cruise missles? Russia has S400, S300, Buk M2, Tor M2, Gazetchik, Panstir S1, Tunguska, OSA and many others against this threats! Paitriots and Stingers can't secure against all of this threats either!
Yeah they are like 50 times less than Russias ABM's and still have to protect 10 times bigger army and 2 times the population. The point of the video was that United States lag far behind Russia in those systems, but it catches up with numerous fighters ... and that is my question. How fighters fight SLBM, ICBM and Cruise missles.
Yeah and I forgot to mention Russia have A135 nuclear tipped ABM which is more comparable to THAAD but a little bit hardcore. THAAD is far behind S400 not to mention A135...
Did you forget about sm 3 and sm 6? And how do you judge that THAAD is far behind from S400? AndI don't think that 1995 A135 anti ballastic missile is very more advance than 2008 THAAD.
I didn't take into account naval air defence systems.
THAAD is far behind in multiple engagement and range even payload, THAAD is ineffective against cruise missiles.
A135 is not more advanced actually quite the opposite. But it is Very effective it detonates nuclear head it rely both on physical damage and EMP damage and have range from 350km to 900km.
Even if they miss the target by far Nuclear detonation will deactivate all electronics GPS and etc. on the enemy missiles IF they survive the nuclear blast they will be deactivated and drop like bag full of potatoes. They can make an nuclear EMP umbrella around Moscow and defeat tens of nuclear missiles in their terminal phase at once. Well that is not more ecological way but at least Moscow will be safe ... with a bit higher levels of radiation even if missiles detonated 30 to 60 miles away.
I don't have a info about THAAD multiple engagement Did you have one for me?
Nice documentary
Why doesn't this channel have more subscribers? Excellent and interesting content.
Back in 1999, NATO attacked Serbia with 1500 modern aircrafts. Serbia had only few operational MiG29 and a dozen of older third generation. The air war lasted 79 days... But Serbia had very good and integrated air defence. They managed to shut down F117.
DesignBam Serbia didn’t have an integrated air defenses. As far as I know they only had few S-200 and older models
Jasurbek Jabbarov what os integrated for you? Having new weapons or having every element working perfectly with other elements?
They didn't even have S-200s - they had S-75s, S-125s and 2K12 Kubs. Every one of these platforms was woefully outdated.
If you only look at the number of aircraft shot down, you miss a large part of the effectiveness of the SAMs. More than 40% of the aircraft used by the US in Serbia were jamming aircraft, massively increasing the cost of the campaign. By posing a constant threat they probably also forced NATO aircraft to carry around a bunch of anti-radiation missiles, which would have decreased their bomb carrying capacity.
As someone who served in Serbian air defense I can confirm we had no S-200. Just a year or 2 prior to NATO bombing S-75 Dvina was retired from service which limited our SAM reach from 45km to 20km. We were heavily depending on S-125s and 2K12 Kub and portable man pads such as Strela and Igla. AA guns were there just for show as they were only effective in shooting drones and cruise missiles.
The effectiveness of NATO (90% USAF) was tested every day. 78 days of intensive air campaign against Serbia who relied on SAM systems from 50's and 60's only succeeded in destroying Serbia's infrastructure. Army was intact. Military records are not a secret as Serbia signed an agreement with NATO. Serbia had 128.000 troops mobilized. Lost 1008 soldiers and police officers, most in combat operations on the ground, not from NATO bombs. NATO managed to kill some 300-400 Serbian troops. Only 11 tanks was destroyed from the air, less than 20 artillery pieces. NATO spent 45 billion dollars, launched 1.300 cruise missiles, dropped 23.000 tons of bombs, including the cluster bombs, 250 tons of depleted uranium ammo. Only several radar stations were destroyed and Serbs had in total 11 radars. At the end of the war, Serbian air defenses were practically intact but effective as they could have been at the beginning of the war considering the obsolete weapons they had. If Serbian conscript military could deal with NATO imagine what would Russian military, do with all of weaponry they have at their disposal. No one should underestimate Russians no matter what.
@pikador81 That's very interesting to hear from someone who was there. Thanks for sharing that.
Also, there's an article from APA ( www.ausairpower.net/APA-SAM-Effectiveness.html ) that talks about the differences between the usage of such equipment in the Middle East and how it was quickly destroyed and and how the same weapons in Serbia fighting against much newer aircraft largely survived (emissions control, camouflage, moving as much as possible, decoys, crew proficiency, etc). If you have the time, I was wondering what your thoughts on it were.
Russia has the best missiles systems in world unstoppable.
I can't believe he left out one of the most important things that is required to keep aircrafts flying in the sky and that's the mechanic to make sure the thing is running right and to work on it when it breaks down
Nice comparison
The US has numerous options for dealing with surface-to-air missile sites. We've had stealth cruise missiles for decades, for example. We also have many electronic warfare, decoy, drone and swarm systems capable of defeating surface-to-air systems and clearing the way for our manned aircraft to enter enemy territory.
devwreck127 jassm er ,jsow /now er, and harm missile to name a few.
we have not had stealth cruise missiles for "decades"
Strange Faction my bad, I was thinking ship launched like the tomahawk. You are correct.
War against Russia would progress to nuclear war very quickly.. So no such war will be starting any time soon.. People can be confident to take on Russian Anti air systems and at the same time not want to start a war against Russia..
Simple-Minds it's called thermonuclear war dumb dumb. That's why.
Go ahead Russia And putin Respect from pakistan
Very nice video i subscribed
I hit like before watching because I know it will be good!
Why you say nikey you don’t ride a bikey you ride a bike Nike you Americans have ruined English lol
Nike Shoes is pronounced the same way. Its our missile we pronounce it our way.
Two students wrote to the Nike chairman to settle once and for all how to pronounce the sporting brand name. The Nike tick and slogan ‘Just Do It’ may be among the most recognizable advertising in the world, but it appears some of us are still unclear about how to pronounce the name of the sporting brand.
This week, however, the matter was settled once and for all after two students - one of whom thought it was pronounced Nike, and the other Ni-key - wrote to chairman Philip Knight for clarification.
He circled Ni-key and returned their letter.
Ben Martin and Kendal Peters, the students in question, say they have now solved one of life’s “biggest unanswered questions”. www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/virals/10871877/Nike-or-Nikey-10-of-the-most-popular-mispronounced-brands.html
🖕
"why you say"
Bravo, Strange Faction. Bravo
Here is my response 😂. America has a flawed system. America should copying the s400, idk why and planes are much more expensive to replace then missles. Lel
we can shoot down missiles easily with our planes. we are 50 years ahead of russia, or other countries. all other countries are shitholes. USA is the best! we defeated germany on our own. the british and french where useless. and then we defeated vietnam. and now we are winning in afghanistan, yemen, libya and syria. why use missiles, when you can afford to use planes. we have the strongest economy in the entire world! just look at gdp. our gdp is 10 times of the european union!
+USA Bestnationonearth
I give your trolling a 2/10. You should eat more tide pads if you want to raise your score.
tolik lisiy 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂, feel sorry for You're mother
your vids are on par and best against any nearest competetion..
keep up
In addition to the mentioned differences is the persistence a SAM offers vs the finite protection of a jet
These analytical videos are excellent, pal. Keep up the good work. No propaganda please. Many thanks.
I like how some of the systems just yeet the missile out before launching the missile lol
Seems like a balanced and enlightening video. I had kind of wondered why the USA no longer bothers much with SAM installations, now I guess I know.
Excellent work. Thank you. Discord link?
The Russians (and Chinese by extension) developed this doctrine of advanced AA capabilities in response the USA's doctrine of air power. Basically a way of saying "If you are planning to control to skies, then we are planning to make the skies an uncontrollable space for you". You can see a similar response in the development of very advanced anti ship missiles by Russia. The US Navy currently has 21 operational Aircraft carriers, with more being under construction. Russia has a grand total of 1! The current technological developments of Russia are not only a military doctrine, but a requirement in order to shift the ballance of power, but also a way to bridge the gap considering that their industrial and economic potential is way more limited than USA's.
Impressive !...... What a flourishing industry with an astronomical price tag.
You earned a subscription.
Why didn't you include the MEADS air and missile defense
3:12 why there is an Pancir-S1 on screen whe u spoke of Tunguska? And where tf is Pancir... as well as Derivacia-PVO (Деривация-ПВО), Shilka, Strela?
Can you make video on indo-russian defence projects and research.
Great video. Can you do a video on Israels Arrow system? Thanks
What about the the MEADS? (medium extended air defence system)
+Covert Cabal
What is your valuable observation of out India's home designed fighter jet the Tejas Mk2 and Mk3 that uses the American General Electric monojet engine? Where does it figure out in the global fighter aircraft arena?
Your candid opinion will be very very appreciated.
Thank you.
what about the SM-2/3?
Small detail, but I noticed that you didn't mention the vehicle mounted Strela, (NATO name SA-13 Gopher) and it's planned replacement, the Sosna, which is reportedly going to be a laser beam rider.
I think they're working on replacing parts of the 2K22 Tunguska with the Luchnik-E. Also depending on how redundant the grid is and how good the systems are some of the mobility disadvantages can be mitigated but that's good to include the aircraft, people tend to miss that about American air defense and just go to then ground based systems
all good
hey make a video on cruise missiles vs air defense and land targets
I am really impressed with the S400 system now .. 😎😎😎
How many years their Private sector in defence took to reach upto this level
You forgot S500.
What about AEGIS, SM-2 and SM-6?
Pantir s1?
SAM complex include command post & different types of radars, not only launch vehicle.
for example, russian S-500 includes: battle management radar, acquisition radar, multimode engagement radar, ABM engagement radar.
Bruh, you make the best military weapons videos.........
The system you mentioned as Tunguska is a Pantsir, an upgrade of the former.
+sparkss4 You're right. Thanks
I got mixed up somewhere. Looking back at it, I actually had it right in my notes. I must have seen the footage and thought it was a Tunguska as they look similar on top.
EDIT: I just put a correction in the description
Thanks for letting me know
I wonder how much those S-400 truck wheels are. I bet they are very expensive.
did u forget the US THAAD and Aegis ashore?
Ye Jo es s400 ki battery ka damage ye Europe se aaya hoga ya Russia ne khud bunaya pur kya suteek combination bedahe technology ka power to power ratio chipka or missileka dono suteek load le or performance de
what pansir can,t immersed in this video????
Put some stingers on the VADS and make the MIM-23 HAWK mobile with a Abram chassis kinda like the SA-12 Gadfly or the buck missile defense system
I found it pretty realistic comparison... but still need some more infos to complete ex(( new panzer s1/ s500/ thad/etc
You forgot all the surface to air variants of the Sparrow and Sidewinder. Plus all the systems in use by the Navy which is deployed off shore at all times.
I would only add two things:
1) Fighter air craft can be used in a defensive or offensive role. Significantly increasing the cost/benefit analysis.
2) The US is updating their SHORAD systems. The Boeing SHORAD system will be fitted to Strykers and JLTVs using Stinger, Hellfire and AIS-3 (AIM-9) missiles.
+D-G-A-F Thanks. True they can be used offensive as well. Some SAMs though are also able to be fired at land based targets as well, but you're absolutely right, they have no where near the firepower and range as a strike aircraft.
I hadnt heard of the Boeing SHORAD, sounds interesting. Looks to be an improved and more capable system than the Chaparral which also used Sidewinders.
I thought about including Aegis Ashore. But first of all its not currently operational by the US. And second the SM-3 is an ABM, and for this video I did not include any ballistic missile defense systems like THAAD, GBI, A-135/235, etc. But I just looked it up, it looks like they may also use the SM-6 on Aegis Ashore in the future as well. That could turn out to be a formidable, yet expensive, surface to air missile system.
The Boeing SHORAD looks like a winner for sure. They can mount it to Strykers or JLTV and use any combination of available weapons. A 2kw laser will be integrated for small drone defense.
The Stunner is another promising developing technology; PAAC-4. The Israeli's don't mess around.
You are so unbiased
3:44 shows what Big Brother thinks of Fly-Over country.