Air Defense Systems

yeah... just one of the top 3 US diplomatic policy journals. nothing to take seriously.
kek'd at your massive butthut, dipshit.

being a diplomatic journal doesn't make them qualified to given opinions about matters of military hardware

>What exactly is it that makes an air defense system good and/or effective in the modern-day?

Not being ground based. History continues to show that every single force that relies on a ground based air defense has been unable to prevent enemy air power from achieving its objectives, let alone actually denying air space to an enemy force.

>Also, how come Russia keeps introducing new Air Defense systems

Export and the fact that the Russian MIC somehow manages to be even more corrupt than western MIC. It's why they keep purchasing what are generally minor upgrades to systems they already have in small quantities instead of just developing something that's substantially better and phasing out the older stuff.

>taking midbrow journals seriously

This is what lower middleclass pretending to be above their station ackshully do.

yeah man... only company-funded and produced brochures and article placements can be trusted.
keking at your stupidity and butthurt even harder now!

Attached: 1559638317166.jpg (912x905, 56K)

Neat design

>doubling down

Pay real analysts or read specialist thinktanks if you can't afford it.

Stop feeding armatard

>fact that the Russian MIC somehow manages to be even more corrupt than western MIC. It's why they keep purchasing what are generally minor upgrades to systems they already have in small quantities instead of just developing something that's substantially better and phasing out the older stuff.

That's partially incorrect, the fact is that its much cheaper for Russia to pour money into an integrated air defense system of Igla, Verba, TOR, Pantsir, S-400 and S-500 than it is for them to maintain an Air Force capable of rivaling the USAF, which has always been their doctrine since the Cold War.

You seem upset, awfully defensive and highly combative, more so, you seem specially interested in pushing this narrative that Patriot is a shit system. I wonder how much slavic DNA do you have in your bloodline.

Armatard, figures.

1) In Yom Kippur war the IAF was slaughtered by Egyptian air defenses and did not achieved it's goals. In Vietnam it is hard to talk about "goals" but the numbers speak for themselves, US suffered massive casualties.
2) S-400 is selling well and the list of potential buyers keeps growing, this buyers know a "little" more than you do about the S-400. The same can be said about the Patriot by the way...the fact that Polish government is going to purchase them certainly means something since the current Polish government might be pro-US but they are not puppets of anyone.

>TOR, Pantsir, S-400 and S-500

You seem to be mistaken, those are different systems for different duties. I was referring to generally mid-tier uprades for existing equipment, such as the S-300 family to S-400, which really didn't provide much of an upgrade in performance from the last round of S-300 modernization. Nothing like the leap you saw from previous systems. The Igla/Verba is a better case, though it's primarily because the Igla doesn't have the benefit of being as flexible as the Stinger in terms of having a seeker that was able to be reprogrammed as easily for ECCM.

>muh egypt

Israel was conducting offensive operations into Egypt until the truce went into effect, not saying much about the efficacy of ground based defenses there, tard. Not airspace was off limits to the burgers in Vietnam either. Causing airframe loses != effective. Being able to deny your opponent the ability to perform their mission does.

Oh, right, I see your point.

Goal: Use IAF to attack Egyptian troops that crossed that canal.
Result: Complete slaughter of IAF
Cause: Egyptian air defenses behind the canal

Go study that war if you want to talk about it you tard.

>Also, how come Russia keeps introducing new Air Defense systems (i.e the S-500) but we keep on using the Patriot?

Many reasons. Russia has less money to work with and a much smaller air force compared to NATO, it can't afford to match it in terms of sheer aircraft but some capable anti-air systems allow it to strengthen its ability to defend its force from air attack at a much cheaper price. In terms of exports they develop and sell new systems both as a way to, of course, make money and to lower the cost of production. Its also important because in many other areas Russia's military exports they've got much more serious competition, but no one else is really exporting these kind of air defense systems. Its the only export market they have reliable control over at this point, with its two other major markets, aviation and submarines, seeing intense competition.

>In Yom Kippur war the IAF was slaughtered by Egyptian air defenses and did not achieved it's goals.
A bit of exaggeration on your part, but fair enough, we all know that Egyptian operated, Soviet made, air defense really inflicted severe losses on the Israelis. This has a lot to do with the quality of the crew operating the systems and due to the fact that those anti-air systems were brand new, state of the art, a technological surprise that caught the Israelis with their pants down, for which they had no prior training on how to deal with these systems. So, I believe the main factor here, is not that ADS is impenetrable or even a proper replacement for air surpremacy, but that the combination of efficient training, quality equipment and the element of surprise can be really effective in combat. I believe we saw much of that recently with the US's interference in Syria. Most of the air attacks and cruise missile attacks launched against Bashar Al Assad's forces were ineffective in halting their combative capabilities, with many missiles, in fact, over half, being intercept by the Russian supplied systems, thus forcing US and its allies to rely on saturation attacks to overwhelm these systems.

reminder that Patriots are massive pieces of crap

Attached: 1548358042894.webm (326x640, 1.18M)

>What exactly is it that makes an air defense system good and/or effective in the modern-day?

Being based on airborne surveillance and modern aircraft for interception.

>Also, how come Russia keeps introducing new Air Defense systems (i.e the S-500) but we keep on using the Patriot? Is the patriot even that good?

Patriot is fine. Russia keeps introducing new systems because they want to sell them.

probabaly the only person who doesnt lump SAMs into ridiculous extremes like "ground based fire is 100% useless" or "this new missile makes jets obsolete"

That same failure used over and over again. okay user I believe your propaganda

>What exactly is it that makes an air defense system good and/or effective in the modern-day
Making it mobile, airborne, and stealth.

Attached: Raptor.jpg (1280x720, 146K)