Can modern SAM systems shoot down a cruising altitude commercial jet?

Can modern SAM systems shoot down a cruising altitude commercial jet?

Attached: 1280px-EM_QANTAS_744-Contrail_from_KLAX_(2990519579)[1].jpg (1280x857, 72K)

A Russian SAM shot down that one flight, so, yeah.

Iran Flight 655, 1988

Well yeah, have you seen how slowly they move in the sky?

Not sure about modern ones, but the russians sure can

Airliners cruise at around 35,000 ft, a USSR SA-2 shot down a U-2 spyplane back in 1960 while it was flying at nearly double that altitude.

So yeah, basically.

Has any SAM really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Attached: 1525442346636.png (351x351, 498K)

Yes. In fact even obsolete ones can.

What is this supposed to even mean?

that you are really new.

lurk at least a week or two.

modern SAM systems can also be comfy.

Attached: 10-5-16-russian-missile-launcher-beds-kids.jpg (578x325, 21K)

They don't think it be like it is, but it do.

I'll take that as pure shitpost. And fuck you, you've got to lurk for more than a couple weeks before you post. A month at minimum, or you could do the traditional two years.

>And fuck you, you've got to lurk for more than a couple weeks before you post. A month at minimum, or you could do the traditional two years.

they told me that Jow Forums took everything literally. I should have listened.

That you're a newfag.

Attached: bed of proofs.jpg (1749x1271, 892K)

Based bed Buk

The correct answer is that it depends on the system. SAMs are designed to work as part of a network.
There might be long-range high-altitude stand off systems that are supposed to destroy bombers or, in the case of the S-400, AWACS. They are supported by short-range low-altitude systems that protect from cruise missiles and planes that terrain mask in order to get to a target. There might also be a mobile short-range but also high-altitude system present.

In short, whether or not a system is modern has nothing to do with it being able to engage commerical jets. SA-2s for example aren't modern and neither are SA-5s but they could still do it with one or two missiles because commerical airplanes obviously don't really have any chance of evading the missiles. Not flying over an active fucking warzone is a great advice but I guess Malaysians don't understand that.

What is MH-17?

Large SAMs are generally restricted in range by the maneuvering potential of the target, and the stress on the SAMs targeting system based on the range, not so much the altitude of the target.

If the SAM has enough energy to reach the altitude of the airliner, and the airliner is in a respectable range of the SAM, there's not really much the airliner can do to avoid being hit. Most SAMs can hit airliners without trouble.

>Can modern surface to air missiles attack air targets from the surface

Attached: 1527875765373.png (666x666, 221K)

Attached: 1283874305467.jpg (2250x1500, 2.09M)

>Can modern SAM systems shoot down a cruising altitude

Gary Powers was shot down in 1953 and he flew much higher than a commercial jet at cruising altitude. He flew the most high tech aircraft of the time and was shot at the most advanced Russian SAM at it's time.

Attached: 14900849887110.jpg (736x736, 111K)

Pee door?

^ google chrome translator.

American liberal education system sponsored by the NEA. No child left behind.

Attached: 1513532035187-his.jpg (400x363, 69K)

>More newfags

Attached: 1255012002208.png (404x404, 142K)

Impossible. Only a Su-24 doing a clutch timed popup to their flight altitude can pull it off.

Attached: 1510387889424-ck.jpg (894x894, 368K)

blyatt.

Attached: Russification.jpg (604x394, 52K)

>newfag

^ guilty dog barks the loudest.

Luckily, MANPADs can't, and I dread the day when they can.

>Reddit spacing
You just outed yourself

They can if you fire 9K333 from the gunner seat of Il-2.

Attached: il-2 (3).jpg (960x640, 178K)

Hey we had to find out if AEGIS worked somehow.

Attached: Sea-delivered suppositories.jpg (1000x541, 131K)

That meme is at least a decade old by now, gramps.

What did he mean by this?

fuken underrated post

Attached: 1509655486462.jpg (818x960, 212K)

It was a Malaysian Airlines commercial jet that was flying over Ukraine a few years back. If I remember, that happened about 6 months or so after the Malaysian Airlines jet went missing in the Indian Ocean in route to or from Australia, I think.

If it can pop U-2 in 1960 and 1962, it can sure as hell hit an A320 or 767 today

Attached: 1311684611689.jpg (544x350, 21K)

Being this new. You must be 18 to post, faggot.

Attached: F98893D7-DD66-4B26-A047-DF04FF7F3CC0.gif (276x220, 799K)

Attached: NBuk.jpg (1200x799, 134K)

>New one carries 12 small ones
>Old one carries 4 big ones

Why?

yes

criminally underrated

god why are you people like this?

Attached: 1522441664405.gif (309x265, 3.71M)

No, unfortunately military technology has yet to match that of commercial jets

>small ones
>big ones
What? Bottom is the new one.
>Why?
Because modern technology allows to.
>12
That's TEL, used to be 8 missiles. The vehicle with radar carries 6 missiles, used to be 4.

Attached: 450px-3M9_9M38M1_9M317_9M317ME_russian_captions.svg.png (450x350, 26K)

Natalia is so fucking beautiful

quit shilling dirty commie SJW scum.