A faulty missile defense system generated $ 2 billion in bonds for Boeing

Interceptors failed to destroy their targets in six of 11 tests - a record that led independent experts to conclude that the system can not be used to thwart a nuclear attack from North Korea or Iran.

Frankly, given the state of the US defense industry, I'd be shocked to see a contractor not rewarded for failure these days.

michellhilton.com/2016/09/sistema-de-defesa-antimisseis-falho-gerou-2-bilhoes-para-a-boeing.html

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David's_Sling
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_(missile)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-500_(missile_system)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duga_radar
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronezh_radar
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-73_(missile)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon-class_submarine
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava
youtube.com/watch?v=G2TQ0wAfRts
youtube.com/watch?v=qXzMhUHZ3SM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Nuclear_proliferation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel#Marine
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_(missile)#Components
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-95_Agile
forums.spacebattles.com/forums/the-war-room.23/
forums.spacebattles.com/members/occidental-flame.317589/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Oh well, just more money dumped into another program. Working as intended

Like the iron dome, rite?

>>>/oven/
>>>/reddit/

What's the success rate of Russia's interceptors? China's? I couldn't find anything with a quick search.

magic money
voodoo economy

money out of nothing

It doesn't really matter because, the CIS and PRC aren't basing such a large part of their strategy on ICBM intercept.

That said the Chinese have had some success and I believe the Russians have as well. No one has a leg-up MAD wise, yet. The stationing of short-range missile systems are the current provocation because, if Russia specifically, succeeds in ICBM intercept they have a secure strategic position; ergo- proliferation of short range systems on Russia's front step.

We reward failed CEOs, why would this be any different?

God bless this great country.

They can build the Iron Dome and it's 150% okay and then somehow drop the ball on South Korea????????

The real question is: how good is Israel's missile defense system? How likely are they to survive a couple hundred ICBMs flying their way? Their so-called "Samson Option" means shit if they get nuked into glass first

fuck off leftypol

China's strat is to blind us and knock out our satellites and watch us shoot each other and starve to death.

Wrong threat realm.
Iron Dome and Beam are for low speed ballistic kinetics in the realm of a car muffler (one of them was in its first life). Even then it takes two on average for these optimum shots.

These are faster, higher, and not pure ballistics, have more mass to require on said impact, and generally a very different beast.


Is this why they won't give me FIOS?

I do not think they have long range missile defence system. Only short range.

They can shoot down low flying and slow missiles. iron dome was intended for short range.

They have patriot missiles for long range. They are developing new long range system but it is not operational

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David's_Sling

China's basically doesn't exist, and we honestly don't know about the Russians. During the Cold War they experimented with nuclear tipped ABMs, fixing the precision issue with a bigger boom. It's likely that they still have those systems, officially their only ABM system is in place to defend Moscow, but realistically there are an unknown number of emplacements of unknown quality, at least for us in the public.

Speculation: Russian ABM systems are roughly equivalent to our own, and both are unable to affect the balance of MAD. That said, if either side deludes themselves into believing their ABM is capable of defeating a second strike, the reality might not matter.

Addendum: Russia in particular has always geared its military to cost efficiently counter the technological superiority of the west. Their reaction to America's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty was to withdraw from START and recommence production of advanced MIRV missiles. Their goal isn't to compete with American ABM, they simply need to be able to defeat the ABM system defending America.

Samson Option relies on submarines, not domestic silos.

During the 90s general anti-air missile systems were technologically more than a decade ahead of western equivalents. Even S-300 has some limited ABM capabilities, not sure if it has any chance against ICBMs though.

Could they just stop with this meme already?

Great in boost, nada shortly after.
S-400 is a definite boost phase killer with some hop of terminal.
S-500 is expected for midcourse and possible anti satellite duty.

MAD no longer exists, you ignorant nigger. The doctrine of the last decade has been "Deterrence", which is very different from "Mutually Assured Destruction".

There are no longer enough warheads in fielded condition on both sides to assure the complete destruction of both sides in the event of nuclear war. Conflict avoidance and geopolitical stability now relies on the cost simply outweighing the benefit. In other words, the "mutually assured" part is no longer valid.

For the US… Russia cannot rely on its small and outmatched subs to maintain nuclear security.

Are you sure about that? In particular, I thought the Russians had a different problem, namely not enough delivery vehicles. Either way, a 500 warhead strike is still completely within the capabilities of both Russia and the US, and while such a strike wouldn't destroy the world, it would certainly destroy the USA and the Russian Federation as coherent political entities.
Deterrence has been the nuclear policy of the world for decades, MAD is a subset of deterrence.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory

Russia has really good electronics and best rocket engines.

This is s-400. it is fully operational and tested

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_(missile)

s-500 should be operational this year. All big city’s are protected by one or the other version. Also, some of the systems are (probably) in polar circle.

s-500 system can destroy hypersonic cruise missiles and aircraft

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-500_(missile_system)

Russia also has early warning radars. This is the old version

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duga_radar

and this is the new version

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronezh_radar

there 7 operational at this moment. (pic related).

China has s-400. Operational and functional. S-400 is best ABM system in the world at this moment (operational).

The best defense against enemy aircraft is technologically competitive friendly aircraft. SAM's are just Tomahawk fodder that don't survive the opening minutes of a conflict against a competent and equipped air force.

The West didn't give a fuck about SAM's because SAM's are what a nation with a shitty air force depends on. You'll notice that virtually all modern Western SAM's focus on dealing with enemy missiles, not aircraft. There's a reason for this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-73_(missile)
Get bent.

If it cannot be delivered, it isn't a fielded warhead. Use your brain for half a second.

"Boris, Motherland is fully secure, we have an entire warehouse full of warheads in Siberia."

That's fucking retarded. If it can't hit a Western target today, it's irrelevant to war strategy.

The condition and combat viability of both Russian warheads and delivery systems is questionable at best.

Yeah its the US assumes it will have forever air superiority to knock places over with, and look at that, they don't go near any place with more the shorad complexes.

SAMs are what you use to fuck over aircraft, next up are DEWs and a sudden drop down to heavy usage of microdrones.

lol, compare you Slavshit heat-seeker to an Python-V and report back.

Russia has enough delivery vehicles (pic related)

Spotted the kike.

S series missiles are impressive, but we have no clue how well they would work in actual combat conditions.
Also, there literally aren't enough of them, this has always been the problem ABM systems have. Wikipedia says there are 152 S-400 launch systems in active service. Scale that up by 4 missiles per system and you have 600 missiles. There are 450 Minuteman III missiles active, each with 3 warheads, for a total of 1,350 individual RVs, assuming that any interception of the missile as it leaves America is impossible.

Can you answer this?
In what year did Yahvee abandon kikes?

You're fucking retarded. USAF/USN and IAF have knocked out long range SAM's with regularity. Tomahawk's and standoff weapons excel at it.

Having unrealistic expectations of third-rate Slavic crap and obsolete war doctrines is not a wise approach for the Russians.

you need several nukes per silo

There he goes again defending "Askhenazim ingenuity".

The biggest sub in the world is russian

Shark

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon-class_submarine

there is 1 operational and there are 2 retired that can be activated

You can either analyze military hardware on its merits and base your doctrines on reality, or you can allow social influences to cloud your judgement. One of these leads to defeat. Chose wisely.

...

Yes but can you type out that Yahvee abandoned the Jews back in 160AD**?

MUH MERIGA?!?!? MERICA NUMBER 1 NO ONE CAN COMPETE ANYTHING YOU SAY IS WRONG IVAN USA!!!! USA!!! USA!!!!

...

Oh really? I suppose you might consider a pntsir complex long range given that you also consider stingers an adequate vehicle mount system.
Tell me, if an sdm glidebomb fucntions at 42 miles at the 40k feets for a target lock on using ITSR whiel the F35 C has a RADAR observability range in golf band of 273 miles, how many caskets do you need to order with matching AMerican flags?

Hint, its a double digit prime number.

Yeah that's nice and all. There are 76 modern Yars missiles in operation, a few more of the older types. Meanwhile their equivalent of the Trident II is still in development and suffering from reliability issues.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava
I'm not talking about diversity in nuclear equipped vehicles, I'm literally talking about the number of missiles they have.

Have you seen pictures of the Interior?

They're shit heaps.

1) The Typhoon in service is a testbed for new missile development. It is not sent on nuclear patrols. Russia has a few newer subs they use for that… As in two. And there are about 20 highly advanced western Attack subs searching for them at any given time. Best of luck getting to firing debth Ivan.

2) A Typhoon would be obsolete these days anyway. Small screws, and other design limitations, make it loud as fuck. The thing can be tracked with ease and would be sunk before it could ever fire its SLBMs in conflict.

Russia's best bet for deterance is something like Project Pluto, and a bunch of highly mobile TEL ICBM's. It's time for Stop-Gap measures and they are too far behind on subs to expect to be competitive results within a decade.

warheads are in siberia because it is shortest flight to U.S. (and china). There are also warheads in other places


Russia can hit any target anywhere in the world. By planes, submarines and aeroplanes. Russia has proven it by hitting targets in Syria (with precision) from aeroplanes and ships. I do not know if there were submarines involved

No. it it si not. It was proven (recently / at this moment) in syria.

FIRST VIDEO: Russian warships attack ISIS positions in Syria from Caspian Sea

youtube.com/watch?v=G2TQ0wAfRts

Russia in Syria- Tupolev Tu-160 Planes Firing high precision Cruise Missiles

youtube.com/watch?v=qXzMhUHZ3SM

There is no doubt that russia can target any place on earth with high precision

>can't type "Yahvee abandoned the Jews back in 160AD" for some reason

You're retarded fam, and I say that as the guy was insulting.

Any thread about military hardware become an automatic excuse to shitpost. Shall we move on to the F35 then gentlemen

This is true. But also they can work great and really shitty…


There is much more missiles per system but you do have a point.

Also, it is a question how many Minuteman III missiles will actually work. And you should consider also China…if things go nuclear they will be involved.

You're ignorant of how air wars actually work, and should be ignored.

Here's what happens to your precious S-300/400 sites in a conflict with the West:

1) A strike list is generated (from the current datasets, updated daily) of high priority targets. significant SAMs are on this list. Locations and relevant target information is on this list.

2) This information is fed into a shitload of Tomahawks on a SSGN and they are launched.

3) A few of these are targeting your SAM, Tomahawk's are low altitude, terrain masking and difficult to detect.

4) Tomahawk's hit your SAM site. The end.

Alternatively, there are various air launched standoff options. I find it hillarious that you had to use a glide bomb to make your SAM site seem relevant. That's not what glide bombs are used for, genius.

...

Not really. I think it is beneficial to put this information out there

You know you can dial yield on nuclear missiles ?

What is your opinion. how much they need ?

they (and U.S.) have (probably ) around 2000

In 2002, the United States and Russia agreed to reduce their stockpiles to not more than 2,200 warheads each in the SORT treaty.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Nuclear_proliferation

also, china has unknown number. To be honest…russia and U.S. also have unknown number

You realize Western air forces have conducted airstrikes into a fucking shitload of nations during the last few decades of imperialism, right?

Fixed fortifications, which is what and S-300/S-400 battery is, are monuments to human stupidity.


If you want to fix Russian air defense, here's how:
1) Restart MiG-31 production, modernize them and make a shitload. You need platforms with speed and altitude to survive.
2) Fuck SAM's, pour your research into upgraded R-77's.
3) Distrubute your airframes well. This minimizes loses in the opening of a conflict. You've got geography, use it.

Have you seen interior of T-34 ? it is also shit heaps.

But it works.

I counted one full load because I doubt you'd be able to fire your full payload on discrete targets, perform a combat reload, and fire again before the ICBMs impact.
Generally, American hardware is better maintained than Russian hardware, particularly after the fall of the USSR. There have been issues at US missile bases, true, but Russia has a problem where their modern missiles (Yars) are likely superior to anything the west fields, but they have a comparatively tiny amount of them. The mainstay of their missile force is a holdover from the USSR, and that quality is far more questionable than those Minutemen. This is ignoring sub based and airborne delivery systems, both of which America has a lead in.
One thing a lot of people in this thread seem to have a problem with is that quantity matters, and Russia's modern nuclear system, at the moment, doesn't have enough missiles.

Again, warheads and missiles are different. Russia has a massive quantity of warheads lying around, and unlike the US they have hardened facilities intended to survive a direct nuclear strike that could produce nuclear warheads during a conflict, which is a pretty massive advantage. None of this matters, because as says, all the warheads in the world don't matter if you can't send them from Siberia to America.

So:

Do you have any idea how many tomahawks are actually present in an AO to start?

Do you know how Tomahwaks actually fly?

And then you are quite truly expecting nobody to shoot at them and just line up to die?

And finally, assuming this all works, what are decoys, did you hit a TEL, command vehicle, relay node, emitter, receiver, datalink, power generator, munition store, fuel store, casing?


Ah yes, a thin skinned vehicle that cannot eke more performance from the engines, at the tend of a fatigue life, cruising at subsonic speeds, unable to mount a dazzler that might at least counter a strela, is much more effective, and somehow enchants a missile to be an aerocraft's bane.

Right.

Why does it even have those stools, they might as well just leave the driver to squat as is natural.

I was just responding to claim that russia does not have big submarines.

As for los angeles class submarines ( i guess you mean them ?) they are great piece of technology. It does not mean they can find russian strategic submarines. Actully, they even do not need to get out of harbour to launch


I guess our opinions differ. If you have sonar recording of typhoon class we can discuss if they are "loud as fuck.".

If not…it is difference in opinions.

One issue with limiting yourself to ~2,000 fielded warheads using MIRV'ed ICBM's is the "all your eggs in one basket" problem.

When all the West has to do is knock out 50-100 missiles on the ground (theoretically possible, with luck) to avoid a nuclear exchange, yet these same missiles blossum into >1,000 warheads after launch (impossible to stop), it encourages a first strike by the West.

A smarter approach is a very large number of small mobile TEL ICBM's, with ~3ish warheads each, distributely widely and not at fixed sites. This makes a successful first strike impossible.

Samson Option refers specifically to Israel.

Does Israel even have submarines? Submarines that could launch missiles?

Yes. I also realize that S-300 and even less so S-400 were deployed in these. I also realize that Yahvee abandoned the Jews back in 160AD which you do not even seem to address.

Yes, the Germans gave them a few Dolphins because holocaust.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel#Marine

You are wrong. This is not the end. This is just beginning.

After that comes first strike from russian side.

Or do you really think everything gets taken out in first strike ?

Who fucking cares?

In theory they could launch nuclear Tomahawks from their stolen German needledick subs. Like, five of them. They could only hit sites within 1,200 miles of the ocean, if that.

This assumes the Israelis actually have highly miniaturized nuclear weapons that work… Which I'm not 100% sold on, unless we literally sold them our warheads (whole warhead, not just parts). Possible I guess.

Kikes are generally cryptic with their arsenal plus sometimes they tend to exaggerate its capabilities so I have to admit I don't have anything more solid than random google results on it.

...

How many S-300/S-400's have you Slavaboos actually built?

Each SSGN sub can launch 154 Tomahawks. Best of luck to your Air Defense crews.

This isn't the Cold War, you don't have an unlimited supply of hardware anymore. You're both at a technological disadvantage and numerical. That means you need to get smarter, really fast.

Depending on fixed fortifications is a fools approach.

I said who fucking cares because the Israelis aren't capable of a robust nuclear conflict. They depend on the US being their bitch and protecting them in this regard.

I'm convinced the Israeli nuclear arsenal exists solely to give the Israelis the ability to start a nuclear war, expecting the US to finish it for them.

What's your suggestion? Selective breeding with the more successful goyim in exchange of debt relief and extensive inbreeding?

According to wikipedia we refused to sell them sea launched tomahawks back in 2000, so they had to make their own by modifying their domestic AGM. You're pretty much exactly right on the range, though, and they only have 3 submarines.

Actually the Russian counterattack is going at the point the US launches. Tomahawks will be countered en route, Russian counterlaunch will also be countered, it comes down to who has better SHORAD


You do know the US has exhausted its stockpile of Tomahawks and is only in the thousands left now? Nor are they some slippery pete, which are also gone, and will be quite capably splashed going near the citadels.

If you want them down, you are SEAD time, and that now means aircraft.
Which means Ivan definitely has fewer things to launch at you, because the party favors are on the way.

Oh wait, what's that? No active kill against photoimagers because of ATK pulling bullshit?
And Northrup is only barely getting to testing the STRAFE pod (which won't work here anyways).

Oh and guess what?
The US requires fixed airbases to launch from, throw that stone, enjoy a Klub.

Don't start revealing truths to the goyim or it's boiling feces for you!

recalculate

Just one system comprising up to 8 divisions (battalions) can control up to 72 launchers, with a maximum of 384 missiles[33] (including missiles with a range of less than 250 km (160 mi)).[

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_(missile)#Components


This is true.


But also russian hardware is less prone to malfunctions and is designed to require less maintenance.

For example..Ak-47. It works.

M-16…you need more maintenance.

considering this i would say russian hardware is better operational order.


I really do not where you get this. How much missiles russia needs ? I how much russia has ?

Can you provide some sources ?

I really do not know were you get this notion that delivery systems are problem. They can even deliver them from aircraft carrier or kirov class…

There is really not a problem for delivery.

That's also the French plan incidentally.

Smarter as in better mental software. Obviously there isn't time for biological hardware upgrades (that should have happened in the 1970's :( ).

Things that could help:

A shitload of TEL ICBM's. I don't care if you have to crank out beand new 1970's designs, just make a shitload and distribute them well.

A Russian "Project Pluto". Cheap, fast, DILLIGAF nuclear cruise missile. Build a shitload. Much more difficult to intercept.

More MiG-25's and Flankers. Do eeet nao.

Stop jacking off to SAMs. The West has been jacking off to killing SAMs for half a century and has become amazingly proficient at it.

Start reading from the beginning. There are radars.

There is no possibility for first strike without some kind of response. Also, satellites…

There is no possibility. None at all…

Also, satellites

You do realize that HAARM's hit-rate was actually abysmal don't you? Wasting tenfolds the cost of tomahawks on SAM batteries and of Patriots vs SCUDs does not make such tactic "successful" just because murka has the ability to light up cigars with dollar-bills.

I'm pulling the numbers off wikipedia, they might not be completely accurate, but they are ballpark accurate, particularly for operational systems. Frankly, I don't believe any coherent bomber force could be launched from Russia and reach America intact, at least not at the beginning of a conflict. Again, this isn't about what you launch the missile from, one of those TELs is pretty much just a fancy truck, the problem is the missiles themselves.
Also, assault rifles are a far cry from ICBMs.

Radar's are not as dependable as you seem to think.

The B-2 was designed for exactly the mission I describe. Sneak in undetected, drop B-83's on Soviet nuclear assets, behead the snake before it bites. That is the sole reason the B-2 exists, it is the only mission profile it is well suited to.

Early Warning sats don't help with aircraft. I suggest you study some post-1980 nuclear war strategy.


Trust me, more ICBMs is better. Lots of mobile ICBMs are best. You know, facing the reality that enough SSBN's to compete are decades out for Russia right now.

To be fair, the Russians have always been good at coming up with asymmetrical solutions. They don't have anywhere near enough subs, but they make up for it by having mobile TELs that can wander around Siberia, which might as well be the ocean given the size of what you're trying to find.

Russia has the S-350 and S-500 which will both be able to destroy ballistic missiles and RV's when fully deployed.
America has an obsession with attack, Russia pragmatically focuses on defense.

lets just agree to disagree.


I know. I was pointing at type of design. Not complexity of design

You realize that the HARM isn't even relevant to current Western SAM strike doctrines, right? HARM is a self-defense tool for shorter ranges threats now, for aircraft on other missions.

If your SAM site is important enough to matter, it is important enough for a cruise missile or standoff weapon.

You should also know that comparing late-1970s aircraft to modern ones isn't really relevant. The F-117 is a long retired aircraft now.

That's what my first post was all about, you stupid kike. I never said that USSR was somehow technologically superior, as a matter of fact the US Navy started flirting with the concept of an equivalent to AA-11 missile a decade before the Soviets
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-95_Agile
but abandoned the concept in favour of upgrades to the already 3 decades old AIM-9 probably due to the eternal anglo's "HURRR DURRR dogfights were always obsolete" dogma.

You just had to reflexively shit on slavs because they occupy your Khazarian motherland.

A high energy first strike generally beats defense. Look at what Hitler accomplished in WWII.

Jesus Christ, learn from history Slavaboos.

You aren't us EW sats, RADAR, photogrametric, IR, and schelrian tech will pick up the large number of launches.
B2's are not invisible, just low observability, and definitely not from the top or in Golf, S, Kilo, and X bands.
Try picking up some of the old field guides from the 80s or other how to wage war, they have a lot of info in them on US capability, but not so much on Russian.

forums.spacebattles.com/forums/the-war-room.23/

This place is perfect for you, talk to forums.spacebattles.com/members/occidental-flame.317589/

Anyways, the shit issue si there is no way to land a nuclear ramjet, no place to racetrack them, and the big issue that after all that, they only have months of service time before those issues come up big time.

They have plans, fun ones yes, but aircraft don't focus as much as rocketry and ground forces.

Which is why they keep dying to them right?

You know..B-2 looks really cool. like space ship. But it was never tested against anything like modern russian air defence.

F-117 was tested…it got shot down. By old russian technology.


I did. I suggest you study more russian strategy and less Hollywood movies

I shit on Slavs because they are Slavs and generally suck at everything.

The F-117 was 2 decades younger than the F-16s and F-15s that are USAF's backbone up to this day. They just sucked.

Except for sending a man to space fand a man made object to the moon first while being occupied by openly genocidal communist Jews you mean?

One F-117 got shot down, by Polish-upgraded SAM sites, AFTER it delivered its payload, you stupid nigger.

If that same scenario played out in an early 1990s nuclear war, that F-117 would have just dropped two B-61s on Russian assets. I'll gladly trade one F-117 for two Russian strategic sites.

I thought you slavs were good at chess? Don't brag about sacrificing two bishops to take a pawn.

Actually the backbone of the USAF, F-16C's, were generally made after the F-117's. We didn't build all ten billion of those goddamned LockMart lawn darts in the year of the F-16A's first flight.

Read a book. One with words.

I thought the Polish were Slavs.

Please do provide source for your claim.

It also flew that same path day in day out.

But, the RADAR would have worked at any time, it was outside the geometry of the F117 and could have hit it on the way in or out, whenever and where ever it pleased.

It also glowed glowed like Three Mile Island, so it would eat a HARM shortly thereafter.

That's all pretty well known. There's a ton of articles on exactly how that plane was shot down.

Depends. The ones closer to the coast or Germanic lands tend to have more Nordic influence. The ones more inland and eastward tend to be more Slavic.

The point is that the Poles stuck 1980s guidance in the missiles. Hardly obsolete by Warsaw Pact standards of the time.

And who won that war?

I'll give the leader of that SAM battery credit, he was quite the hunter.

But killing a bee after it has stung isn't really a victory in a nuclear war.

In a conventional setting though, it is much more impressive, and quite a testament to him and his men.

The Jews. The same ones with Russia in their sights currently.

The totality of that story is honestly the only good thing to come out of the Yugoslav war. The pilot and the SAM commander met and became friends after the war.

I can't read Hebrew, Mordecai.

The basic design was already nearly two decades operational when F-117 started throwing its one Paveway bomb per mission. F-117 could be similarly upgraded or refitted for production of new units if it did not suck. Against retarded sand-niggers F-16s and F-15Es air-superiority fighter spin-offs were much more proven than that overpriced and overspecialized piece of shit.

Only if they did not know a HARM is coming their way.

it is not to me. Please provide one.

The only way that SAM site survived was by keeping its radar off, putting itself in a likely travel path, waiting until it heard ordnance hitting targets, timing the likely overflight, and turning its radar on at just the right moment.

Smart, but useless to prevent a first strike.

Turn the radar on at any time other than when they did, and the F-117 would see it on its RWR suite and take a terrain masking path around the danger. Then a sortie would be flown to kill the SAM.

Turn the radar on before the F-117 strike occurs, and it gets logged as a threat and the flight path changed to avoid it, meanwhile a sortie flown to kill the SAM.

Either way, it does not prevent the strike.

No, they did not. Provide source

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

NATO had air superiority. That would not happen in case of first strike

In 2005, Colonel Zoltán Dani confirmed this in an interview, suggesting that those modifications involved using long wavelengths, which allowed them to detect the aircraft when the wheel well or bomb bay doors were open

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

another source with polish modifications please…

Not that guy, it was clearly field modified, but I can't find any evidence for Polish upgrades either. I'm pretty sure that was a 30 year old missile system.

Two Paveway's, or more importantly, two B-61's.

The F-117's geometry became obsolete rather quickly as both computing power increased and radars became more diverse in bands. No point in upgrading it, newer airframes were required for low observability, and that was the F-117's only trick.

The F-16 and F-15 are not similarly burdened. They aren't slow and low altitude like the F-117. With modern avionics they remain quite effective at their tasks.

The launch system, missile motors and hulls were all old. The guidance was all new.

Find the interview with the SAM battery commander post-war, he talks about the upgrades to tge system.

Um, yes it would. Russia doesn't keep its entire air force airborne 24/7. Just a few fighters at any time for a huge nation.

No. he does not.

Um…no….

They keep some of the bomber squadrons on stand by at any time. U.S. also does.

Any missiles (in that amount) would be detected very fast. Before any missile would hit its target there would be missiles flying in opposite direction.

And, of course bombers would start to get in the air.

Also, submarines and ships. There is no possibility for first strike without repercussions

Can we please not? The F-35 is just so fat and ugly to look at.

Fucking germans…

Truly the F-117 was shit.

Well this is what you get when you shit all over your education system and can't steal people from Europe like you did post WWII to develop your shit. And to top if all of you've made it almost impossible for white europeans to move to the US.

Nigger brains are starting to hurt you in the "great cultural melting pot"™.

You guys think that maybe Israel is weeding intelligent goy out of the gene pool in order to make sure our advanced weapons systems are so shitty that they don't work?

...

Because ballistic interception is random as fuck. I worked on both ballistic missiles and associated MIRVs, and interception simulators for NATO and UN, and clearly while hitting targets works pretty well, stopping an attack is next to impossible.

Simulations in perfect conditions against a single target fail way too often. Against two targets, it's a coin toss. Against a MIRV, abandon all hope. Against more than one, planet is gone. And in case you hit a warhead, surprise, it's designed to survive atmospheric reentry and if the blast isn't close enough, you may at best only deviate it from a couple kilometers. If only the trajectory is long enough to make it spottable… launches aren't detected by black magic, it takes global IR surveillance and zero clouds, or rapid intelligence, projectiles travel inside a huge jamming cloud that gives radar operator a headache, calibrating a radar isn't done by snapping your fingers, the whole decision process after detection takes time, and it must be destroyed in the upper layers of the atmosphere. No place in the world is safe against any kind of ballistic attack.

Yeah because Germans control Germany, Right?

And it never will be, if you keep poisoning your childrens brains.