How come Euromuslims and Americlap don't have a analogous system?

>this is your brain on poverty

They did. It's called Roland.

I’m not sure how a headless Norwegian mercenary is gonna shoot down a plane. Especially with only a .45 ACP SMG.

NATO =/= USA. What happens to Euroshit once all of america air bases have been liquidated by means of nuclear bombs?

How would air-to-air defence when your army is very extended on the battle field? Is this not the reason why even the amerimutt have MANPAD?

Salaam aleiku

Well, the US has these great things called CVNs, which are pretty much mobile airfields that are relatively good at not getting nuked, especially in a closed-off Mediterranean with no access to Soviet subs or surface ships.

Also, many euro air forces were/are designed to operate off of highways in case their airfields become targeted. There’s a number of cool photos of Reforger exercises with A-10s taxiing on the autobahn.

In terms of air defense of American forces, the plan was to remove Soviet access to the skies in the initial phases of the war, which would absolutely be doable given the sheer gap in numbers and capability between the US and Russian air forces. The Soviets, of course, realized this, and intended to use ground-based systems like the one in the OP to protect their forces once they lose air superiority. At the end of the day, the US plan to defend its troops from enemy air attack is to simply kill all the enemy airplanes, which they tend to do quite well.

But in the modern context, CVN are vulnerable to anti-shipping weapons. Are you trily confident that your mobile battalions would not benefit from mobile air defence?

>What happens to Euroshit once all of america air bases have been liquidated by means of nuclear bombs?

Probably die when the fallout from all the nukes that hit Eastern Europe and the USSR comes over.

> Is this not the reason why even the amerimutt have MANPAD?

They had those.

Arguably, CAMM is going to fulfill this role. It has both maritime and land based variants, and is meant to engage both supersonic aircraft and manoeuvring anti ship missiles (so presumably can do the same on land). The missiles are also soft launched from quad packed pods which are usable both on land from a truck based launcher or at sea from a VLS. It also has a CAMM-ER variant with a booster for longer range.

Attached: DSEI-3.002_HD2-900x500.jpg (900x500, 84K)

A CVN wouldn’t be particularly vulnerable in a WW3 scenario if it were placed in the Mediterranean. The Soviets would have to find a way to enter a sub through either the Bosporus or the Straits of Gibraltar, which are both under NATO control. If they tried to attack with aircraft, they’d likely be shot down over Europe due to the aforementioned plan to secure air superiority. The US generally has had the means to clear the sky over any environment they’ve fought in since 1967 or so, and as a result, their enemies tend to focus on ways to survive once they’ve lost control of the air.

Soviets had already neutralised minor NATO aerial advantage by deploying vast array of anti air weaponry and missiles, ranging from long range to middle range SAMs to rapidly manoeuvring tactical missile systems like Tungucka and Tor. The question is, what was the NATO plan of action in case their air assets has been eliminated or sufficiently reduced and their mobile armies are defenceless to helicopter and drone attack?

>They had those.
So why did they not complete the task and develop self propelled anti-air systems?

>So why did they not complete the task and develop self propelled anti-air systems?

They had the M48 Chapparal, VADS, and PIVADS systems.

how is this different from Patriot?

> The US generally has had the means to clear the sky over any environment they’ve fought in since 1967 or so, and as a result, their enemies tend to focus on ways to survive once they’ve lost control of the air.

would USAF be willing to test this over Russian skies?

>Euromuslims
Seriously?

youtube.com/watch?v=EyCHuY7uY_E

>minor NATO air advantage
NATO had more planes and better planes.

Attached: BA821EBE-5399-4EF0-BB01-57FE7982716F.jpg (1024x791, 138K)

there had never been direct engagement between WARPAC and NATO

If necessary, yes. SAMs aren’t an optimal solution to air defense. If you can’t meet the enemy in the sky, your radars and missiles will eventually get SEAD’ed into oblivion.

True, but in every engagement that planes from either side were involved, the Soviet aircraft tended to lose out disproportionately, even in cases where the Soviets were flying the aircraft, like Rimon 20.

but there has always exist the cost asymmetry between Russian and NATO missiles, making it easy for Russian defences to overwhelm a NATO agression with SAMs which NATO can't feasibly respond to with SEAD weapons

>never been direct WARPAC/NATO air engagements
I seem to recall Russians mysteriously turning up in Korea and Vietnam

while we're talking about Soviet/Russian mobile ADS, why does this Tunguska exist alongside the Tor?

Attached: VDay_Parade_Rehearsal_Moscow03.jpg (2816x1880, 2.51M)

They were willing to for the fifty years between WW2 and the collapse of the Soviet Union when the commies were a serious threat, don't see why we wouldn't now when Russia is the definition of a paper tiger.

Because the Soviet MIC was insane.

>NATO aggression
Therein lies the first issue. In pretty much any scenario planned by the US or USSR, the Soviets are the ones attempting to advance into Western Europe. By the time the US is in a position to counterattack and push them back into Russia, the Soviets will have already used most of their resources in a costly push in an attempt to fortify the region before the US arrives in force.

This. Just take a look at how many NPO/KBP/KB design bureaus there were during the Soviet period, many of which were basically redundant organizations working on wastefully similar weapon systems.

It represents the sheer power of commie gibs and authoritarian fiat.

Because its sexy and makes my cock hard
>t. someone working in the Soviet MoD

The rivalries between the bureaus and the people in charge of them are pretty interesting. Korolev and Glushko, especially. They fucking hated each other. It’s part of the reason why the Soviet manned lunar program never produced any results.

They had three fucking mainline MBTs with different hulls, engines, and suspension systems.

If you wanna get really freaked out, look at their sub procurement over the years.

I've studied it fairly extensively, the only reason I didn't bring it up is because the character limit doesn't let you adequately described the 1000 levels of fucked that the submarine design bureaus were operating at.

Is this the fight between the T-72 and T-80 or the T-55, T-62, T-64 lunacy?

Even without Americans NATO has complete air superiority.

Yeah. Soviet planes were never particularly effective compared to their western counterparts. The main issue the euros would have on their own was a comparative lack of SEAD experience, I’d imagine. That could just be me not knowing much about European antiradiation missiles, though.

Has this been updated for the recent Indian/Pakistan shenanigans?

This thing is target practice for IDF in Syria

Pantsir =/= Tor.

Tor is equipped with fast maneovreing missiles that can shoot down even shells.

The picture predates that, so no.
At the same time, it doesn’t make too much of a difference. The MiG-21 is now 240-502, while the F-16 is 77-1.

Look at the difference in missile size and mass, it's almost an order of magnitude smaller. Patriot is similar to ASTER 30-SAMP/T in size and capability. CAMM on the other hand is even smaller than the TOR's 9M331 missile.

mbda-systems.com/camm-solution/camm/

mbda-systems.com/product/aster-30-sampt/

Attached: PR_2015-10-15_EN-435-900x500.jpg (900x500, 45K)

We tried, and it was such a shitshow nobody wanted to try again.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York
The Euros have their own systems.

ARMs are no longer the be-all-end-all of SEAD, and haven't been for some time.

They're a useful tool, but advancements in ISTAR have stopped them being absolute necessity if you have a good SIGINT and Survey capability, or just planes capable of tracking it themselves anyway (Most upgraded 4.5th and F-35 can do this now.)

Remember that time 2200 russian troops got shredded by a single (one) 1 AC-130 in Syria?

Lmao "mobile air defence" head ass

Enlighten me please.

>don't have a analogous system?
Holy shit, that exact phrase was an recurring joke during cold war. Imagine russian pile of junk - unreliable, shoddy crafted and outright dangerous to personn. That's what
>nye imyeiut analoga v mirie
reallt meant.

Attached: 1558559930931.png (1584x665, 578K)

with NASAMS?

Attached: ashfsdbffdgdfg.jpg (590x354, 27K)

I always thought he was from Alaska and I was heartbroken when I found out.

The Soviet Navy had too many different classes of submarine, this was an issue that started to crop up in the 60's but became more troublesome as time went on. By the late cold war (~85) they had five types of diesel boat in service, six classes of SSN (even the 1st generation November class), five classes of cruise missile submarine, and six classes of ballistic missile submarine. This isn't counting variants or conversions, and for comparison the USN had only four types of ballistic missile submarine, six classes of SSN, and one class of diesel boat in regular service at that time.

This absurdity was caused mostly by the immense political power wielded by the Soviet sub design bureaus which were able push for so many designs to be produced, despite the fact they had exceeded the navy's maintenance capabilities. The dockyards could not keep up with so many designs and had already been at overcapacity due to the expansion of the navy surpassing the development of its own maintenance infrastructure. So now not only were deployments heavily restricted by maintenance schedules, but the quality of the work suffered as well due to the different requirements for each class of vessel. Like those that crewed these vessels, much of the maintenance staff were conscripted, and at only two years the retention for experienced personnel was low and being already overburdened the quality of their work declined. So now newer classes of submarine are entering service and can only be expected to remain quiet for about two years until the maintenance crews are unable to adequately keep their quieting features in good shape.

Attached: Victor-III.jpg (600x435, 81K)

>This absurdity was caused mostly by the immense political power wielded by the Soviet sub design bureaus
This is pretty true across all of the Soviet military hardware sector. Their MBT development is particularly amusing to read about.

>twitterspeak

(cont.)

Subs were kept in service long past their prime for a number of reasons, but mostly because the Soviet Navy was at a numbers disadvantage and didn't want anything that could be deemed useful out of service. "Usefulness" was a very flexible and strange term in their hands as they kept classes like the Projects 613/644/665 "whiskey", basically variants of the WWII era Type-XXI u-boats, and the project 627 "November", which was the first nuclear attack sub they built and consequently was unreliable in its day and considered deaf and noisy not soon after. As a result you had new crewmen coming out of training learning to use systems that were basically useless in any modern war, and because experience in the Soviet Navy was at a premium this was a pretty serious issue. As such the Soviet Navy was both increasingly looking to innovate with their newest sub designs but also retain vessel which could only be considered totally obsolete resulting in a frankly bizarre collection of subs that hurt its ability to actually use them.

Attached: november.jpg (1227x417, 138K)

This is really interesting. Where could one find all this information?

I read Nathan Polmar's Cold War submarines book and his guide to the Soviet Navy, and a few articles here and there. The sub book is cheaper and easier to get a hold of.

Thanks user

*Norman Polmar

Americans have different doctrine and yropoors can't afford assigning Army AD.

Attached: Panorama-TsM-SADCP-1S.jpg (768x525, 282K)

>Only need air defense if you're too poor to afford an air force that can maintain air superiority.
They are not mutually exclusive, retard. The US lacks proper Army AD because it only goes at war with irrelevant shitholes.

>static air defense
>good
It hasn't been good since 70s and the US doesn't have static air defense anyway. What are you even talking about?

>the plan was to remove Soviet access to the skies in the initial phases of the war, which would absolutely be doable given the sheer gap in numbers and capability between the US and Russian air forces
USSR operated the largest air force on the planet supported by the best IADS on the planet. "Doable" is a stretch to say the least.
>intended to use ground-based systems like the one in the OP to protect their forces once they lose air superiority
You have no clue what you are talking about.
>the US plan to defend its troops from enemy air attack is to simply kill all the enemy airplanes
Sure worked out well in even such an impotent shithole as Iraq. Oh, wait.

The missile seem to fit the role, but the TEL does not.
youtube.com/watch?v=WmzQZ2GrDjw

>USSR operated the largest air force on the planet

Size is a liability when your pilots fly a fraction as the enemies and are tied into an anachronistic ground intercept system.

Tunguska is regiment gun/missile system, Tor is battalion missile system.

Attached: 9k331 tor-m2dt.jpg (2250x1500, 2.82M)

>Therein lies the first issue
Issue being your incomprehension of military strategy. Unlike the West that began plotting against Russia even before WWII was over, USSR didn't have any plans to invade the Western Europe and has always been stuck to defensive doctrine rightfully expecting NATO to attack. In which case, the only realistic scenario for the SU to survive was steamrolling continental NATO forces before the US could get a firm hold on land, cutting any America-Eurasia naval supply lines and calling for negotiations on the premise of status quo ante bellum between USA and USSR.

None of your inane communist drivel actually counters
>the Soviets are the ones attempting to advance into Western Europe

Except it literally does.
>Unlike the West that began plotting against Russia even before WWII was over, USSR didn't have any plans to invade the Western Europe and has always been stuck to defensive doctrine rightfully expecting NATO to attack.

Oh boy, good that this was not the case then.

Their plan was to "defend" their "allies" in Eastern Europe by invading western Europe. Your fanfiction that Leopards and Abrams would be rolling through Poland is just that and you know it.

It certainly was.

>What happens to Euroshit once all of america air bases have been liquidated by means of nuclear bombs

Everyone dies, because America launches a countervalue ICBM attack and the Russians respond with one of their own.

What did you expect to happen, a tea party?

>USSR didn't have any plans to invade the Western Europe and has always been stuck to defensive doctrine rightfully expecting NATO to attack.
Fuck off Russkie and die of aids. You revisionists are disgusting.

>the only realistic scenario for the SU to survive

Soviet plans were to go offensive in the case of the war, everyone in higher echelons of Soviet politics had experienced WWII in some shape or form and they believed that if such a war was ever again fought that it happen over enemy territory.

Their plan was to defend their country against NATO aggression.
>Your fanfiction that Leopards and Abrams would be rolling through Poland
Cite where I said that.
Westfaggots factually did plan to attack USSR even before WWII was over and continued to nurture such plans afterwards. Your history revisionism will not get you anywhere.
>Soviet plans were to go offensive in the case of the war
Yes, in the case of war started by NATO.
>they believed that if such a war was ever again fought that it happen over enemy territory
That and the fact that denying the US any firm hold in Eurasia and particularly in Europe was the only realistic way for USSR to defend itself against NATO.

>Yes, in the case of war started by NATO.

This was the warplan in any case, that and its nonsensical that the USSR would start a war and go on the defensive at the outset.

>the only realistic way for USSR to defend itself against NATO.

They believed that defeating NATO would be to destroy their capability to fight on the continent.

Then what, pray tell, were the OMGs for? Or the bridging units?

>counter-value
>anytime after the '60s
That would require some fairly stupid generals, and a President who would sign off on it.

Counter-force replaced counter-value once the latter became unwinnable.

>in any case
The case being NATO aggression.
>its nonsensical that the USSR would start a war
Indeed, because they didn't plan to. Their military strategy proceeded from NATO attack.
>They believed that defeating NATO would be to destroy their capability to fight on the continent.
No, they believed that destroying NATO capability to fight on the continent would bring the war to status quo where neither the US can carry out major military operations in Europe, nor USSR - in America, hence bringing NATO to negotiations table.

The USAF and pic related.

Attached: FIM-92 Stinger Missile.jpg (4272x2848, 3.98M)

I just told you in the very post you replied to.

>rightfully expecting NATO to attack
>Cite where I said that.
That is literally what you said verbatim. Is this total ineptitude while speaking English the power of a Russian education?

VSHORAD are the S-Ducts of America.

>pic related
Couldn't afford FIM-92I.

Attached: 9k333 verba.jpg (1500x1000, 355K)

So Russia gobbled up all it could as it turned into the USSR.
The USSR gobbled up basically all of eastern Europe when it got the chance.
Past collapse, Russia has now invaded Georgia and Ukraine, might anschluss Belarus, and is looking at the Baltic countries in a worrying way.
But sure, in between there they were for once in Russian history in no way whatsoever interested in expansion.

>rightfully expecting NATO to attack
Yes, this is indeed literally what I said verbatim. Cite where I said "that Leopards and Abrams would be rolling through Poland". Leo 2 and Abrams appeared in late 70s and were not deployed in meaningful numbers until early-mid 80s. Their design is specifically a response to the strategy with which USSR was expected to response to NATO attack, aimed at preventing Soviet military from denying the US firm hold on the continent.
Do you have any fucking clue what you are talking about? Because from your posts it seems like you have military strategy and history comprehension of a 5 y/o.

>Russia has now invaded Georgia and Ukraine, might anschluss Belarus, and is looking at the Baltic countries in a worrying way.
Turn off CNN.

Attached: russian invasion cartoon.jpg (765x533, 94K)

>Their design is specifically a response to the strategy with which USSR was expected to response to NATO attack, aimed at preventing Soviet military from denying the US firm hold on the continent
I.E invading western Europe, in response to this mythical "NATO attack" that you have created in your revisionist mind.

No, i.e. defending against a NATO attack that they rightfully expected due to the such plans factually having been continuously nurtured by the West and the UK/US in particular since even before the end of WWII. Your history revisionism will not get you anywhere.

>the such plans factually
I don't care about your made up "plans"
> UK/US in particular
Oh right, I forgot that Russia dindu nuffin and those Ukrainian-Atlanticist Homonazis are keeping them down.

>Sure worked out well in even such an impotent shithole as Iraq
It obviously did, yes. The Iraqi air force was a non-factor by the time US troops were on the ground.

>your made up "plans"
>Pike, Unthinkable, Dropshot, Totality are all "my made-up plans" because a bitten in the ass russophobe on the internet is ignorant about history
Ok retard.
>Oh right, I forgot that Russia dindu nuffin
Unlike the UK/US, Russia didn't plan to attack Western Europe and didn't start the Cold War.

>I don't care about your made up "plans"
1919

>defending against a NATO attack that they rightfully expected
>NATO doctrine focused on defense of Germany

Damn those warmongering NATO imperialists!

>cutting any America-Eurasia naval supply lines

They pretty much gave up on this. You're not cutting those routes with the second or third line forces that were the only things they were comfortable with risking.