Jump to content


Photo

Himars For Romania


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,738 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 22 August 2017 - 1035 AM

 

How viable would S400 be at engaging ATACM's or even MLRS derivatives? I would guess MLRS would separate not long after reaching the apex, making it a bit moot?

S-400 is wholly unsuitable for that. ATACMS and different MLRS rounds(not MLRS itself) would be intercepted my Tor and Pansir-S. S-300, S-400 and Buk family can relatively easy intercept ATACMS, but that's not too close to their initial role(S-300V and S-400 have ABM capability from beginning, but that's more add-on than real reason d'etre as for PAC-3).

 

I seem to recall S-300V had the ability to intercept Lance tactical missiles IIRC? Which considering how long ago that was is pretty impressive.



#22 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2017 - 1044 AM


 

How viable would S400 be at engaging ATACM's or even MLRS derivatives? I would guess MLRS would separate not long after reaching the apex, making it a bit moot?

S-400 is wholly unsuitable for that. ATACMS and different MLRS rounds(not MLRS itself) would be intercepted my Tor and Pansir-S. S-300, S-400 and Buk family can relatively easy intercept ATACMS, but that's not too close to their initial role(S-300V and S-400 have ABM capability from beginning, but that's more add-on than real reason d'etre as for PAC-3).
 
I seem to recall S-300V had the ability to intercept Lance tactical missiles IIRC? Which considering how long ago that was is pretty impressive.
Yeap, that was one of the two purposes of S-300V: long-range AA work in field conditions and short range ABM work for army formations.

#23 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,296 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 22 August 2017 - 1109 AM

 

 

How viable would S400 be at engaging ATACM's or even MLRS derivatives? I would guess MLRS would separate not long after reaching the apex, making it a bit moot?

S-400 is wholly unsuitable for that. ATACMS and different MLRS rounds(not MLRS itself) would be intercepted my Tor and Pansir-S. S-300, S-400 and Buk family can relatively easy intercept ATACMS, but that's not too close to their initial role(S-300V and S-400 have ABM capability from beginning, but that's more add-on than real reason d'etre as for PAC-3).

 

I seem to recall S-300V had the ability to intercept Lance tactical missiles IIRC? Which considering how long ago that was is pretty impressive.

 

Not really.

 

http://www.astronaut...m/md/index.html

 

HAWK intercepted Honest John

Nike Hercules intercepted Corporal

both in 1960, without modifications



#24 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2017 - 1204 PM

Not really.

 

http://www.astronaut...m/md/index.html

 

HAWK intercepted Honest John

Nike Hercules intercepted Corporal

both in 1960, without modifications

 

And both are as mobile as your momma after two big buskets of chicken fries. Well, you got the analogy.



#25 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,296 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 22 August 2017 - 1314 PM

You should look that up.

 

HAWK wasn't much less mobile than Patriot is now.



#26 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2017 - 1410 PM

Initially it was even less modile. And even with Pat level of mobility its just not 2, but 1 basket of chicken fries.



#27 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,894 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 22 August 2017 - 1418 PM

If they're going to have to trade off at least two high end SAMs for each ATACMS or ATACMS follow on they attempt to intercept, that's not an unfavourable exchange ratio, especially as they'll be giving away the position of the SAM battery in the process.

 

How can you argue that ATACMS is vulnerable to SAMs on the one hand yet would only be about as effective as a tactical fighter with a targeting pod on the other? I can't see how the fighter can be less vulnerable. If the Russians shoot down an ATACMS that's them spending an expensive missile or two to shoot down an expensive missile. If they take out the (much more vulnerable) plane tooling around at medium altitude to use its targeting pod they've traded an expensive missile for a very expensive plane, the expensive ordnance its carrying and at least one trained pilot/WSO.



#28 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2017 - 1424 PM

If they're going to have to trade off at least two high end SAMs for each ATACMS or ATACMS follow on they attempt to intercept, that's not an unfavourable exchange ratio, especially as they'll be giving away the position of the launcher to begin with.

 

How can you argue that ATACMS is vulnerable to SAMs on the one hand yet would only be about as effective as a tactical fighter with a targeting pod on the other? I can't see how the fighter can be less vulnerable. If the Russians shoot down an ATACMS that's them spending an expensive missile or two to shoot down an expensive missile. If they take out the (much more vulnerable) plane tooling around at medium altitude to use its targeting pod they've traded an expensive missile for a very expensive plane, the expensive ordnance its carrying and at least one trained pilot/WSO.

ATACMS is not directly compared with jet in terms of survivability. At one hand it is much faster and travels at higher alts, at the other it is wholly unmaneuverable, can't turn out from escape zone, can't deploy ECM. And destroyingincoming proj is always win, cause it's not cost of interceptor vs cost of proj, it's interceptor vs possible damage done. 



#29 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,894 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 23 August 2017 - 1437 PM

 

If they're going to have to trade off at least two high end SAMs for each ATACMS or ATACMS follow on they attempt to intercept, that's not an unfavourable exchange ratio, especially as they'll be giving away the position of the launcher to begin with.

 

How can you argue that ATACMS is vulnerable to SAMs on the one hand yet would only be about as effective as a tactical fighter with a targeting pod on the other? I can't see how the fighter can be less vulnerable. If the Russians shoot down an ATACMS that's them spending an expensive missile or two to shoot down an expensive missile. If they take out the (much more vulnerable) plane tooling around at medium altitude to use its targeting pod they've traded an expensive missile for a very expensive plane, the expensive ordnance its carrying and at least one trained pilot/WSO.

ATACMS is not directly compared with jet in terms of survivability. At one hand it is much faster and travels at higher alts, at the other it is wholly unmaneuverable, can't turn out from escape zone, can't deploy ECM. And destroyingincoming proj is always win, cause it's not cost of interceptor vs cost of proj, it's interceptor vs possible damage done. 

 

 

But when the potential enemy has an economy the size of the Benelux, the amount of SAMs it flings at incoming NATO ordnance still cost it disproportionately more, even if the target is protected. You also have to remember that HIMARS/GMLRS isn't the entire toolkit, just one of the tools in the box.



#30 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 August 2017 - 1514 PM

But when the potential enemy has an economy the size of the Benelux, the amount of SAMs it flings at incoming NATO ordnance still cost it disproportionately more, even if the target is protected. You also have to remember that HIMARS/GMLRS isn't the entire toolkit, just one of the tools in the box.

 

Why do you think that one 9M331 or one 57E6E will cost more that one ATACMS missile AND possible command post/SAM battery/ammo depot?



#31 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,894 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 24 August 2017 - 1201 PM

 

But when the potential enemy has an economy the size of the Benelux, the amount of SAMs it flings at incoming NATO ordnance still cost it disproportionately more, even if the target is protected. You also have to remember that HIMARS/GMLRS isn't the entire toolkit, just one of the tools in the box.

 

Why do you think that one 9M331 or one 57E6E will cost more that one ATACMS missile AND possible command post/SAM battery/ammo depot?

 

 

I don't. First of all, they're not going to shoot one missile at an incoming ATACAMS targeting anything of significant value - they would (if in a position to do so) shoot at least two for insurance purposes. I think the 2+ missiles would cost Russia, as a percentage of it's GDP, staggeringly more than an ATACAMS would cost NATO. I'm not sure I buy the idea of Pantsir as an ATBM system - I suspect the Russians would use more capable and long range missile systems vs it, given the chance.



#32 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 August 2017 - 1442 PM

I don't. First of all, they're not going to shoot one missile at an incoming ATACAMS targeting anything of significant value - they would (if in a position to do so) shoot at least two for insurance purposes. I think the 2+ missiles would cost Russia, as a percentage of it's GDP, staggeringly more than an ATACAMS would cost NATO. I'm not sure I buy the idea of Pantsir as an ATBM system - I suspect the Russians would use more capable and long range missile systems vs it, given the chance.

 

Sooooo... Your bet? Sit and wait for impact?



#33 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,894 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 26 August 2017 - 0552 AM

 

I don't. First of all, they're not going to shoot one missile at an incoming ATACAMS targeting anything of significant value - they would (if in a position to do so) shoot at least two for insurance purposes. I think the 2+ missiles would cost Russia, as a percentage of it's GDP, staggeringly more than an ATACAMS would cost NATO. I'm not sure I buy the idea of Pantsir as an ATBM system - I suspect the Russians would use more capable and long range missile systems vs it, given the chance.

 

Sooooo... Your bet? Sit and wait for impact?

 

 

No. Effective deterrence is a matter of convincing a potential attacker that their offensive action may well not achieve its aims and/or that the cost of achieving those aims will outweigh the advantage gained by achieving them. Clearly conventionally tipped TBMs (which Russia has also invested in) are not infallible, nor are they, in themselves an effective deterrent. However, the fact that you have those things in your toolkit forces the opposition to take them into account. I have great respect for Russian military capabilities - not just in their scale, but in the intelligence and imagination put into them, leading to them differing in many ways from those of the west. I believe, for example, that Russia could easily take out all the military airfields within at least 1000km of its Western Borders with survivable standoff weapons. For that reason, and Russia having best-in-world GBAD/IADS, I think Romanian investment in high performance aircraft, beyond a small number required for airspace policing, is a massive waste of money. Those 54 HIMARS MRLS on the other hand could easily disappear in the complex terrain and built environment of Romania or other E. European countries and pose a standing threat. Arguably their GMLRS capability is more important (definitely more survivable and offering greater target defence saturation capability) than ATACMS, but both can easily be replenished by Uncle Sam and GMRLS by other NATO allies. This is a capability that Russia cannot easily destroy whilst in the field. SAMs may neutralise them to some extent, but you have to realise that there will be a whole lot more going on than ATACMS vs medium/long range SAM shootouts. Will Russia want to keep SAM and EW radar radars transmitting on the offchance of an ATACMS attack? Will those SAM systems themselves be under attack? Will there be decoys, jamming, stay behind teams etc.? Will they be logistically resupplied? Will their command and control network be compromised or taken down?  The chief problem for me with systems like ATACMS would be long range target acquisition - obviously less of a problem with GMLRs (and its Russian counterparts). Given the expense lack of survivability of other methods (the Russians could even blind recon satellites with ground-based lasers), I think it would probably come down to stay behinds and agents with satphones and GPS/GLONASS.



#34 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,738 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 26 August 2017 - 0622 AM

Sounds like the makings of a good CMANO scenario. I gather they were doing a romania dlc.



#35 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,894 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 26 August 2017 - 1546 PM

Sounds like the makings of a good CMANO scenario. I gather they were doing a romania dlc.

 

Indeed, but I'm still loving Steel Beasts Pro PE 4.xxx at every opportunity :)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users