|
|
Post by navyseals on Mar 20, 2014 3:36:02 GMT -5
A combination of SAMs and fighters, in my opinion, will for the same cost provide better overall IADS. Not to mention SAM systems can provide a permanent presence that fighter jets can't. There's also the question of numbers. You can get many more SAMs then fighter jets.
EDIT: US SAM sites and European NATO SAM sites. Note this doesn't include inactive sites, or mobile SAMs. It also doesn't include other GBAD such as radars or EW units.
|
|
|
|
Post by burnnotice on Mar 20, 2014 5:29:09 GMT -5
A combination of SAMs and fighters, in my opinion, will for the same cost provide better overall IADS. Not to mention SAM systems can provide a permanent presence that fighter jets can't. There's also the question of numbers. You can get many more SAMs then fighter jets. EDIT: US SAM sites and European NATO SAM sites. Note this doesn't include inactive sites, or mobile SAMs. It also doesn't include other GBAD such as radars or EW units. Yes but i can send those fighters/bombers and EW planes to the target area FAR, FAR faster. Its like i said our force is built for mobility and the best use of resources. When your not using those sames all they can do is sit there. A F18 can do well pretty much anything. Thats why its awesome. |
|
|
|
Post by crimsontide on Mar 20, 2014 7:29:00 GMT -5
Yes but i can send those fighters/bombers and EW planes to the target area FAR, FAR faster. Its like i said our force is built for mobility and the best use of resources. When your not using those sames all they can do is sit there. A F18 can do well pretty much anything. Thats why its awesome. Immature and inappropriate. Last comment edited. It's a question of doctrine. What if I (like most countries in the world) don't need to send my planes anywhere? What if I'm concerned with my immediate region, and my own defense? A SAM is always in use. It's use is it's very presence in a given area because it adds another search radar (or a few in the case of more advanced systems), as well as extending the engagement envelope of your IADS. A SAM also doesn't need to be sent to a target area. It's already at it's target area. Not to mention it allows you to project your engagement envelope into hostile airspace without having to establish a physical presence there. (look at China and Taiwan) |
|
|
|
Post by burnnotice on Mar 20, 2014 7:38:16 GMT -5
The comment was ment as a joke but okay......
Im not really disputing you. For a power that doesnt really want to do much or cant do much outside of its region or with limited man power and $$$ sams are great its just they dont work so well for us. However we are kinda big into anti missile systems so.
|
|
|
|
Post by ispyi on Mar 20, 2014 9:09:40 GMT -5
The missile range is not the only important element in evaluating effectiveness of SAM system. It is true that common logic tells you that by increasing the range of the missile you create larger kill zone, but what you can do in this kill zone is as important as its size. The number of simultaneous targets you can engage by the system, reaction time, average time to kill the target from the moment you engage it and kill ratio are just some of the things which shows you how those extra miles translates to the increased value of the system.
Of course flying the combat mission is not as simple as flying from point A to point B, so it is hard to compare the systems just based on the numbers you can find for each system. This numbers are quite often just optimal parameters that can be achieved by the system when used in favorable conditions, and it is for sure that such numbers doesn't tell you anything about how will people behind the system handle the real combat situation. It also doesn't tell you anything on the operational readiness of the system in peace or war time.
It is also important to understand that when you build your own SAM system like US, you will not compare its range against the opponents SAM systems. SAM system needs to respond to the threats that enemy air force can present to your territory or your armed forces deployed world-wide, so you have to range it to cope with such threats, their stand-off attack capabilities and tactics in general.
Under the old Soviet doctrine they have created numerous SAM systems with overlapped kill zones, under assumption that such approach will result in the environment where you can't render all systems totally useless, at least not in one go. Also, Soviet in general had a tendency to increase the weapon effectiveness by using more crude approach like making them bigger, faster or by increasing the range. While this sometimes resulted in increased combat potential, sometimes the value of such gains were highly questionable.
US on other hand never really faced the imminent danger of mass scale Soviet AirForce attack against the US soil, so development of SAM systems where never high on their agenda. It is different with US Navy, which front line deployment required effective protection against mass scale attack. However even the navy deployed the fighters as outer defense shield, while missile systems were kept as inner shield to cope with those enemy forces that would breach the outer perimeter.
|
|
|
|
Post by hitman on Mar 21, 2014 0:12:10 GMT -5
That kind of power is what most of the world comprises of. So while I understand the dissmissive attitude, in terms of weapon development you have to realize that the needs of the US and the needs of much of the rest of the world are not the same. Hence why SAM systems are effective and definetly have their place in most of the worlds armed forces.
|
|
|
|
Post by spygirl on Mar 21, 2014 0:23:57 GMT -5
That kind of power is what most of the world comprises of. So while I understand the dissmissive attitude, in terms of weapon development you have to realize that the needs of the US and the needs of much of the rest of the world are not the same. Hence why SAM systems are effective and definetly have their place in most of the worlds armed forces. True, but as far as what i believe what was being wondered (im sure im probably wrong) was why the US seems to have so few SAM systems. Which accually we have quit a few there just burried inside of Destroyers, Cruisers and other Naval vessels. |
|
|
|
Post by forcereconelite on Mar 24, 2014 11:37:43 GMT -5
That kind of power is what most of the world comprises of. So while I understand the dissmissive attitude, in terms of weapon development you have to realize that the needs of the US and the needs of much of the rest of the world are not the same. Hence why SAM systems are effective and definetly have their place in most of the worlds armed forces. True, but as far as what i believe what was being wondered (im sure im probably wrong) was why the US seems to have so few SAM systems. Which accually we have quit a few there just burried inside of Destroyers, Cruisers and other Naval vessels. Absolutely. A more interesting dynamic is the reduction in US SAM systems since the end of the Cold War. |
|
|
|
Post by patriotgames on Mar 24, 2014 12:11:30 GMT -5
VVS is the Russian Airforce and literally is Voenno-Vozsdushniye Voyska, Military-Aerial Forces. Current Russian SAM-sites are not around the borders. They cluster heavily around Moscow and St. Peters and otherwise are few in number and far between. Thanks! An off-topic question though: Are you Russian? Or someone who reads/writes Russian? Very interesting pictures. I have to find time to read that blog though. I guess putting up SAM sites around Washington DC, NYC, LA and Chicago would not make economic sense for the US eh? And that they'd rather buy more aircraft than develop longer-range SAMs, or even just purchase a few more Patriot Systems? |
|
|
|
Post by ispyi on Mar 24, 2014 12:37:07 GMT -5
Which accually we have quit a few there just burried inside of Destroyers, Cruisers and other Naval vessels. This makes a lot of sense. I guess the Navy's SM missiles + land BMD + Patriots would be the US's "answer" to the S300/S400. Too bad though that it seems the US's allies will have to look elsewhere to buy their SAMs in the absence of Aegis warships and equivalent. |
|
