taiwan mentions independence, china commences primary igniti

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

Well, as expected, the Pan-Blue version was passed (Blue > Green legislators). So no voting for independence related issues.

Election season is coming. Watch out for more threats from PRC.

[Sea Skimmer]

knowing it was russian I'd expect the entire thing to be shipped with a tire iron, duck tape, and a 10 pound sledge hammer for maintenance.

No, knowing its Russian a so called no maintenance "wooden round" probably is made of wood, with an inch of paint and some lead weights on it so it looks and feels like a missile.

The Russians are not the most honest arms brokers, when the Chinese bought there first SS-N-22's the Russians gave them expired missiles from the early 80's that barely worked.

[Vympel]

The Russians are not the most honest arms brokers, when the Chinese bought there first SS-N-22's the Russians gave them expired missiles from the early 80's that barely worked.

Source? I smell bullshit.

[Sea Skimmer]

Provided they even have stand-off weapons to hit it with, and can target it. The S-300/S-400s are mobile, they're simply not going to be in the same place when the next targeting cycle comes along- if they even know where they are at all, mind you.

The system doesn't work very well if the radar isn't on. The best tactic though is to send in the good old drone swarm to use up all the firing units ready rounds. Even if you don't run them out, a heavy SAM's isn't cheep and the defenders will quickly run low.

That why if you rely on SAM's for air defence it's a losing proposition, your defence might make points immune, but the enemy is free to plot and attack from beyond there range. Really if you want a SAM system to protect your country, rather then just buying a few to defend your fighter bases your probably better off wall papering the country with low end systems that launch cheep missiles.

Life-cycle and maintenance costs probably even this out.

Certainly the planes cost more to run, but they also can defend a much wider area effectively and conduct strike missions.

[Vympel]

The system doesn't work very well if the radar isn't on.

Are you going to bank on the system conveintly being in transit when you're in the area? With a five minute set up time, I wouldn't- targeting cycles were 72 hours in OIF:

"Observation: Our system of targeting 72 hours out was adversely affected by Iraqi maneuver.

Discussion: this issue is larger than just PIR. The ROE, PIR, and the use of precision munitions all worked in concert to lessen the effectiveness of the 72 hour targeting cycle. The Iraqis maneuvered units forward to engage Allied forces in a leapfrog fashion. As these movements occurred, the staffs and commanders adjusted PIR and targeting process. However, the speed that the Iraqi forces closed with each other caused them to move inside of our targeting cycle. Target folders used for Iraqi unit "A" 72 hours ago were no longer relevant at the 48 hour mark because of a change in their disposition and Iraqi unit "B" now became a priority. This caused confusion with collection managers, who had to change tasks to collectors, develop new PIR and produce new target folders. The problem now is that the commander does not have 72 hours before the new Iraqi unit "B" is within direct fire range of the ground component. In reality, he might have 24 hours left. Units were unable to produce two complete target sets with grids because of restraints of time.

Lessons Learned/ TTP: The US Air Force requires a 72 hour window to prepare crews and equipment for missions. 72 hours becomes too much of a time constraint ... with current intelligence systems able to pinpoint targets fast, a system or method has to be developed to eliminate the time constraints."

from the CALL Operation Outreach report (removed from the CALL website but retained by globalsecurity.org)

The best tactic though is to send in the good old drone swarm to use up all the firing units ready rounds. Even if you don't run them out, a heavy SAM's isn't cheep and the defenders will quickly run low.

That depends on whether the SAM operators are stupid enough to fall for it I guess. There are ways of spotting a fake from the real thing (even the more advanced decoys aren't very creative or complicated in pretending to be an aircraft, and the first generation i.e. TALD are viewed as pretty useless by this point), and in an intergrated defense, checks and balances on wastage.

That why if you rely on SAM's for air defence it's a losing proposition, your defence might make points immune, but the enemy is free to plot and attack from beyond there range. Really if you want a SAM system to protect your country, rather then just buying a few to defend your fighter bases your probably better off wall papering the country with low end systems that launch cheep missiles.

You should go for absoltely everything- there isn't one solution to the problem. The enemy's capability to attack beyond there range depends on the other tiers of the system, and, in the final sense, the ability of the SAM to knock out incoming standoff weapons, if any.

But besides, we are operating off the assumption that your attacker will always be the superpower, which will bludgeon through everything you have unless you have a really fuck-off serious advanced air defense force. On the other hand, look at Cyprus' S-300PMU-1 buy. Turkey shit itself, and for good reason- they wouldn't have stood a snowflakes chance in hell of achieving air superiority with that thing there. Hence the enormous pressure to move it to Crete.

Certainly the planes cost more to run, but they also can defend a much wider area effectively and conduct strike missions.

It depends- they're restricted to certain areas of the country by basing requirements and there are many more variables to defending the sky with fighters than there are with missiles. On the plus side for the SAM operator, he doesn't give two shits how "ace" his opponent is- the missile will kill him all the same (and of course I'm not talking about SA-6s vs F-16C Block 40s or some such nonsensical comparison).

[Sea Skimmer]

Are you going to bank on the system conveintly being in transit when you're in the area? With a five minute set up time, I wouldn't- targeting cycles were 72 hours in OIF:

Not my point, if the systems radar is active then it can be easily located.

It depends- they're restricted to certain areas of the country by basing requirements and there are many more variables to defending the sky with fighters than there are with missiles. On the plus side for the SAM operator, he doesn't give two shits how "ace" his opponent is- the missile will kill him all the same (and of course I'm not talking about SA-6s vs F-16C Block 40s or some such nonsensical comparison).

Pilot quality matters a lot with SAM's, espically long range ones which give lots of warning. The major downsides of SAM's is terrain, even if the area is near completely flat you may only be able to see low flying aircraft out about 25 miles. But a great many areas have pesky hills. That where the advantage of cheep SAM's vs. S-400 systems comes in, if there a dead zone you can simply throw another missile battery in it.

[Omega-13]

Pilot quality matters a lot with SAM's, espically long range ones which give lots of warning. The major downsides of SAM's is terrain, even if the area is near completely flat you may only be able to see low flying aircraft out about 25 miles. But a great many areas have pesky hills. That where the advantage of cheep SAM's vs. S-400 systems comes in, if there a dead zone you can simply throw another missile battery in it.

S-400's would be great for the coast line.

[Vympel]

Not my point, if the systems radar is active then it can be easily located.

You can fire a HARM at its general direction- assuming that it hasn't already knocked you out. You can't fire a stand off precision weapon (e.g. JSOW) on the fly, it takes planning and more data than you'd have off some poor schmuck RWR that's about to be blown apart.

Pilot quality matters a lot with SAM's, espically long range ones which give lots of warning.The major downsides of SAM's is terrain, even if the area is near completely flat you may only be able to see low flying aircraft out about 25 miles. But a great many areas have pesky hills. That where the advantage of cheep SAM's vs. S-400 systems comes in, if there a dead zone you can simply throw another missile battery in it.

The mere probability (and it's a very real one) of MANPADS waiting for you down low is enough to force aircraft into the area where a long-range SAM can see them, we know this from the last several bombing campaigns. What's better isn't the issue- as I said, you need an intergrated air defense network with all of the requisite components doing their part- MANPADS on their own will do nothing but to force your opponent away from the ground- where they'll be anyway, dropping iron on you from directly up, impervious.

[Sea Skimmer]

S-400's would be great for the coast line.

Yes they would be. But buying enough to cover the whole coastline is luxury few could afford, and unless you can block a long stretch that can't be easily flown around you need to keep the batteries adjacent to key targets.

Though the coastline can be very vulnerable since attackers can approach low over the sea without having to worry about any other defence, and there's also a naval threat. Nothing looks worse on reports then your hundred million dollar search radar destroyed by mortar fire from a commando boat. Larger warships can be even more annoying.