Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
If you had been tracking the Russian AD coverage that I posted here many of the points were already well known just after the attack......

If you had read the CrowBat posts as well over the past year both S300s/400s are not a serious threat even to non TLAMs....which Russia has been trying to avoid talking about.....

BUT here is the interesting single point....at all weapons trade fairs over the past year..check the Russian materials being handed out.....

They emphasize the fact that both systems have a anti cruise missile capacity...question will be now can they hold those previous statements when potential buyers point out that fact????

Secondly, the EW use of Growlers formerly Prowlers is a well documented simple fact that even the Russians should have taken into account when setting up their AD bubbles....

NOW go to the Ukrainian thread and di out the comments of the Russian A2AD bubbles being built against NATO.....where they claim they cannot be broken through on ...you must then seriously question whether they are simply bluffing or outright lying......

In the Cold War days the Soviets literally built SA6/8 "belts" that had to be broken through by SEAD aircraft where the US calculated heavy loses during the 1st/2nd SEAD waves before the belts were broken....

NOW the Russians are talking about S500s......

Here is an interesting fact...if the cruise missile detection and engagement bubble is only 30/40kms what happens if the aircraft suddenly are Tornado's are Growlers using HARM type missiles travelling low and slow?

Remember this package was used often in VN with Prowlers armed with HARM type missiles leading the attack waves....usually followed by F4s...the high SAM shot down rates over VN was due to simply barrage firing of SAMs which in Syria the S300/400s cannot sustain....

Find it interesting though that the Russians signal their weaknesses in public and hopefully are trying to coverup their basic failure in detection and non downing of anything fired that morning...

Find it also interesting that they keep repeating on 23 hit anything when US ISR clearly tracked from start to finish 58...with one going down along the way...and one misfire....

What they did indicate as a major naval weakness inadvertently was the fact that they cannot fire their missiles either in pairs and or in combination with other ships simultaneously....or in the US case as a broadside like in the cannon days.... then go immediately into a complete reload at sea mode...

This is something the Russians cannot do....
McDermott is an expert on the Russian military and wrote the book on the South Ossetia War, which is how I began following him.

Some of what he wrote was a reiteration of what we already know or have deduced.

However, he has made good points about the Russians' admission that they have trouble detecting and targeting subsonic low-flying maneuverable cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk.

You will recall that there is grave concern over the efficacy of US cruise missiles, prompting development of the LRSO, etc. A number of analysts are concerned that US missiles are too slow, but it seems that stealth and maneuverability are actually better.

In addition, McDermott has noted that Russia has no A2/AD zones, but rather small bubbles.

Basically, as CrowBat would agree, the fears over Russian and Chinese SAMs are overblown both qualitatively and clearly quantitatively i.e. no more Cold War era dense belts...