USA are not able to overcome S-300 air defense system

[Bukyanagandi]

The head of the Joint Chiefs of Armed Forces of the United States commented lifting the ban on Russian deliveries of S-300 to Iran. According to Martin Dempsey, anti-aircraft missile complexes do not prevent America strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if necessary.

Recall that in early April, thanks to the newspaper The Wall Street Journal, it was reported that the US military at a secret test site in January tested the largest bunker bombs. As noted, such bomb is allegedly able to hurt anyone, even the most fortified nuclear facilities.

Victor Murakhovski, chief editor of "Arsenal of the Fatherland", " Till now no one experienced of overcoming air defense systems, manned S-300. As the experience of those who are faced with systems of this generation, for example, with the same system "Buk" (it's medium-range complex), the consequences can be very sad.

Therefore, given that Iran already purchased from us near field complexes "Tor", which covered just nuclear facilities (in particular nuclear power plant, which Russia built), and given that they will receive the S-300, it will be united air defense system, which is extremely difficult to suppress or to break. I do not think the United States and General Dempsey dare to do such an operation, but if they do, then success of it will be under the question."

 

[Dotworld]

According to a Daily Beast report:

"Many US defence officials from the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps agree that the Russian missile system effectively renders entire regions no-go zones for conventional jets … [and] only high-end stealth aircraft like the $2.2 billion B-2 Spirit – of which the Air Force has exactly 20 – and the high-performance F-22 Raptor [and] … F-35 joint strike fighter … [will be able] to operate inside those zones."

However, the report goes on further to say that several military experts contend that "no warplane now operating can remain inside those well-defended areas for long".

If Iran were to obtain the S-300 system, that would be "a complete game changer. … That thing is a beast and you don't want to get near it," a senior US Marine Corps aviator toldThe Daily Beast.

Source:

Putin’s Missile Could Make U.S. Attacks on Iran Nearly Impossible - The Daily Beast.

Obama's Agreement To Russian S-300 Weapons Delivery To Iran, Slap In Bibi's Face? - OpEd - Eurasia Review

 

[Jay One]

You guys, US...President clearly said, they CAN PENETRATE S - 300 without any problem....simply no problem... In Syria eg....Russia sold to Syria S - 300...but Israel war planes are striking daily.

Just to alert u....The total world millitary spending combined together is just half of us. Defence budget!! So be very sensitive once u talk of US Millitary capabilities..... it's beyond ur scope and Reach to analyse....I know ur pro- Russians...but US is a lonely Monster..... be aware of tht.

 

[Jay One]

Mr. President
See below

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

US haters mna kazi kweli.

 

[Dotworld]

Mkuu Mr. President
..

Hiyo list yako ya expenditure sio jibu la kuwa Jeshi lako lipo vizuri!

Kama huna home grown Military Industry basi tegemea kuwa utaspend a lot of money katika ulinzi tofauti na wale ambao wana home grown military machines!

Mfano angalia, huwezi kuifananisha nchi kama China na India ambapo China wana make wenyewe for export wakati India wana-import silaha kwa ajili ya Ulinzi.

Sasa US wamezoea kuwaiba na kuwanunua Scientist ambao ni wazuri katika masuala ya silaha kutoka nchi nyingine na kuwapa uraia ndo maana unakuta military xpenditure zao zipo juu.

hali hii ni tofauti na nchi kama Russia ambayo kama ni nyuklia wanazo, scientists wanao hivyo hawahitaji kuwekeza sana katika kuingia gharama za kuwaajiri wanasayansi wapya wa masuala ya kijeshi as anachukua wa ndani tu!

Angalia kwa mujibu wa "data" za image yako ... imagine KSA (Kingdom of Saudia Arabia) ana-spend almost sawa na Russia! - sasa je ina maana kuwa jeshi la Saudia Arabia ni sawa na Russia?!!!!!!!!!! - nonsense!! -

Hawa KSA (Saudi Arabia) wanaspend sana kwa sababu wananunua silaha kutoka US & very expensive! & it means angalia kwanza mfano Yemen, Saudia Mabomu yake yameisha amemuomba US amuongezee mabomu ya kushambulia Yemen! (sasa kuna jeshi hapo?)

So kuniambia kuwa kwa sababu US wana-spend sana katika military basi ndo kiashiria kuwa wapo juu -- hiyo ni nonsense!

 

[Bongolander]

US haters mna kazi kweli.

Dude somewhere in this forums, i said that it is not a myth that Russia are best in air defense systmes. Americans know this very well, we are talking of S-300, not S-400 or leave alone the thing that they are testing now. If you look are most American air defence systems are basically Russian or at least have russian input.

But again looks like US has best offenses, that is why they say the system to them is not a big problem. If persians manage to upgrade the system by a single bit, then Iran will as a whole will be well defended like white house.

 

[Mdau]

Syria hawana S-300

 

[Bukyanagandi]

Dotworld

Mkuu the above REMARKS made by a Senior US Marine Corps Aviator speaks VOLUME about how FORMIDABLE Russian Air Defence Systems really are - I know we gotta some members herein who gonna disagree with AVIATOR'S remarks!!! - They should remember that the Guy is a PILOT and an American 4 that matter consequently he knows what's talking about.

Ah, talking about a so called cure all $2.2 billion B-2 Bombers - lets revisit Bombing raid in a former Yugoslavia - shall we? If my memories servers me right it is exactly 16 years ago, on March 24, NATO began its 78-day bombing of Yugoslavia. These crooks bypassed the UN under a "humanitarian" pretext, launching aggression that claimed hundreds of civilian lives and caused a much larger catastrophe than it averted. Included herein please find a splendid statement made by a Serb Airforce General in Belgrade who was in charge of Russian made Yugoslavia Air Defence System, he was asked how did they managed to bring down B-2s - he declined to disclose what they did on the System/Missiles but he said they had figured out a way of using their current RADAR system to do so.

Here is a fully STORY:

B2 - Spirit of Missouri shot down by Serbs (Yugoslavia)


How did Serbs shoot down AV-8 with a 1960s Russian SAM? Never mind the ego and vanity of U.S Army. Question remains, how?

Serial numbers of B2s always begin with AV. Spirit of Missouri (B-2) which was brought down by Serb Air defense Unit had a Serial number AV-8 88-0329 , mark you we are not talking about F-117 herewe're talking about B-2 that crashed in Bosnia 15 km from the Serbian border.

A Serb retired Generalsaid:"One American B-2A Spirit strategic stealth bomber (AV-8 88-0329 "Spirit of Missouri") was shot down on the 20th of May 1999 over Surcin at 01:00 local time. The formation was detected by long-wave early-warning radars.

During NATO bombing sorties in SERBIA bombers were required to reduce altitude and in order to attack its targets in Belgrade. One of the B-2As was hit by a SAM in the area of the cockpit and crashed shortly after. Crew was killed in the crash according to eyewitnesses."

Croatian newspapers printed about the plane being shot down and crash-landed in Croatia after it diverted to Tuzlaairport because it was damaged. It did not make it there it fell and the Croatian, Croatian military alongside with NATO forces cleaned a couple of square kilometers of soil to get all of the pieces of wreckage, the local newspaper that printed what happened was stopped by NATO and Croatia Military from selling the newspaper in the morning!!

B-2 was shot on the night it bombed the Chinese embassy. There has been people from Croatia that spoke on various forums to saying they saw B-2 falling and a lot more of them posted pictures of land after the clean up (middle of nowhere with the top soil missing) and picture of NATO troops and trucks going to Tuzla to retrieve B-2 wreckages.

American air force transport planes flew the wreck to Germany NATO base. To conceal their loses they named another plane the same name. Of course, U.S Army keeps on refuting that claim – they keep on saying it did not happen!!! Reason they are scared of the World knowing that a 30 year old Russian Missile that had been upgraded with a Serbian know how could easily shoot down a so-called invisible/Hi-Tech Plane.

International community shouldn't be surprised by American refuting the whole story, just imagine Belgrade Air force Museum has on the display wreckages of f117, f16, A10 and other planes but U.S still maintains that only one plane was brought down by Serbs!!

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Dude somewhere in this forums, i said that it is not a myth that Russia are best in air defense systmes. Americans know this very well, we are talking of S-300, not S-400 or leave alone the thing that they are testing now. If you look are most American air defence systems are basically Russian or at least have russian input.

But again looks like US has best offenses, that is why they say the system to them is not a big problem. If persians manage to upgrade the system by a single bit, then Iran will as a whole will be well defended like white house.

Those are just your opinions and you are entitled to them.

But as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to conventional warfare no one is on par with the Americans.

 

[Dotworld]

Those are just your opinions and you are entitled to them.

But as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to conventional warfare no one is on par with the Americans.

Ha! ha! ha! .... eti Conventional warfare?! ... Nyani Ngabu.. Yaani kwa Amerikans?! ... umesababisha nimejikuta nacheka peke yangu ... Amerika siyo nchi ya kuongelea kuhusu Conventional warfare kwa sababu haiwezi kupigana Conventional Warfare hata siku moja.

Amerika Military doctrine ipo katika "Destruction of enemy & projection of Power!" - so haiwezi kupigana vita, wakiona tu wanazidiwa ndio wa kwanza kukimbilia kwenye silaha kubwa kubwa & waging war with an enemy ambae hawalingani nae kijeshi ambapo pia huwa anashindwa.

Wewe unaongelea Conventianal Warfare! ... wapi Amerika kapigana vita ya namna hiyo?! ... alijaribu kwa Wajapani akakuta ni very formidable Enemy wakaona hawawezi kuwashinda mwishoni wakawatupia Weapon of Mass Destruction (Nuclear) tena sio mara moja bali 2 times! ... alafu eti leo mnaongelea eti civilian lives! ... wewe kawadanganye hao hao wengine.

Amerika kapigana wapi vita akashinda? Vietnam was just about waging war na enemy ambae hampo on par nae, IT WAS JUST ABOUT BOMBING & BOMBING & BOMBING as if there were no tomorrow licha ya hayo yote bado costs katika US lives ikawa kubwa US wakaamua kukimbia pamoja na Allies wao (wakashindwa vita na Vietnam).

Korean war ya 1950-1953 it was the same, katika ile vita kidogo ungeweza kuiita ni Conventional War sasa mbona Amerika alishindwa?! - na for your info tu hakuna vita ambayo ilikuwa mbaya kwa US kama ile ya Korea & that's why no one in US wants to wage war again in there! - na ndio maana hata North Korea akiwachokoza mfano bombing Villages au Kulipua Meli za South Korea wanaogopa war maana hawajibu - sasa jiulize kama US wanajiamini saaana kwa nini ndio wa kwanza kuomba amani & they are the ones who turns down vitisho?!

Sasa US alikuwa anaringia Geographical Advantages - kwamba yupo kwenye Continental Amerika kwamba ili enemy afike kwako basi ni lazima azuke 2 oceans --- sasa hiyo kitu ni past! as now Nations wanaweza kufika US na ku-wage war katika US soil!

Ukiongelea Convetional War labda unakuwa unafikiria kuhusu labda projection of Power (Aircraft Carriers & the same) lakini jua tu kuwa katika modern times Aircraft Carriers ikitokea vita haitadumu / kusurvive hata the first 30 min of War! - nchi kama mfano tu India wana makombora wanayatengeneza (wamepewa Technology na Russia) yanaitwa BrahMos! haya yanakwenda katika Supersonic Speed ambapo yanalipua Aircraft Carriers katika very short time na kuwa useless!. Sasa just imagine nchi kama India ina Access Denies Weapons ... ndo itakuwa powerfull countries!

Alafu unapoongelea kuhusu Conventional Warfare ... what is it? ... sijui kama hata unafahamu maana pana ya matumizi ya hiyo hali ... What is conventional warfare? ... that's why unapata nguvu ya kusema when it comes to conventional warfare no one is on par with the Americans!!

Sijui kama unafahamu vizuri kuwa Conventional warfare isn't just about capabilities employed – that is, industrially manufactured, technologically advanced equipment, deployed by recognisably military organisations. Rather it is a society's way of fighting that encompasses the doctrinal thinking, the organisational structures, the rules of engagement, and even the appropriate goals of violence. What makes it ‘conventional' is just that it adheres to the dominant conventions of the time.

Of course, all this changes through time as the societies and conventions involved in generating ‘conventional' approaches to war evolve. Thus, the conventional forces of Napoleon look radically different from the ‘conventional' forces of France today.

Such an evolution in conventional war might include changes in permissible conduct – For example – why were chemical weapons seen as conventional in the context of WW1, but not now? Why could you flatten Dresden in 1945, but not now?

They might also involve changes in force structure – Mfano Why did Amerika use conscripts as part of a conventional military in Vietnam, but not now? What about the use of private contractors? Is outsourcing violence like that ‘conventional', or does it profoundly change the relationship between the state/society and those who enact its violence?
And it might also involve changes in concepts, as for example on attritional force v manoeuvre, where the ‘conventional' approach of British strategic thought (and American, from the early 1980s onwards, if not before) was to substitute manoeuvre and shock action for firepower.

Such conceptual changes might include the actors against whom force is used – ‘conventional' warfare is sometimes supposed to involve armies fighting armies. Allied forces in WW2 would figure in many people's definition of ‘conventional' armed forces – but they put most of their resources in the European theatre into the strategic bombing of the enemy's civilian morale and war-production capability, not the destruction of his main force.

All these variations, which are profound, are sometimes subsumed within a blanket definition of ‘conventional' warfare. So, what we understand by ‘conventional' as a heuristic is a particular approach to warfighting that Russell Weighley describes in his American Way of War – which captures some of the elements one might instinctively think of as ‘conventional': state centric, firepower intensive, industrialised, focused on armies as the enemy centre of gravity, regularised and regulated. But even that covers a multitude of approaches to warfighting, and neglects a great deal of variation, even within individual societies in a particular period.

It might just be that ‘conventional' warfighting is simply a good way of making a polemical point in favour of one's own view of appropriate strategy. Conventional warfare is stale, attritional and inappropriate to the challenges of the modern era na wala usije ukaniambia eti unategemea US akapigana Conventional Wafare ... kwa sababu hajawahi kupigana aina hiyo ya vita hata siku moja na wala haipo katika Military Doctrine yao ... yaani wewe just imagine juzi tu hapa anawapiga mabomu ISIS alafu anasema tume drop sijui bomu la tani 2! kuharibu gari mbili za ISIS alafu mtu kama huyo akikutana na formidable enemy eti apigane Conventional Warfare! .. hiyo vita kwa US wataanza kwa Nuclear mwanzo mwisho! ... forget about Conventional Force kwa sababu katika Marekani huwa hawana hiyo Doctrine!.

 

[Bongolander]

Those are just your opinions and you are entitled to them.

But as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to conventional warfare no one is on par with the Americans.

You are entitle to your opinion as well, you have to remember that Soviet Union was not superpower just by words, and what is left of it is real. I am not military pundit, but try to read a thing or two from respected military experts. From all you will here that Russian air defenses are almost impregnable.

Just remember what they did in Belgrade, a simple Russian missile downed a stealth bomber....to Russian standards it was a simple SAM, but to Americans it was a weapon which was able to beat a state of the art stealth. This S-300 is real, not a bluff.

 

[Bongolander]

Dotworld

Mkuu nadhani uko sawa, unajua hata leo bado watu hawataki kukubali kuwa kijeshi ni Russians ndio walishinda WW 2, many people still think it is Americans who destroyed NAZI army.

And you are right, Marekani inapenda kuonesha ubabe kwa nchi ndogo ndogo kwa CHina na Russia huwa anaufyata, anajua kuwa nao wanaweza ku-inflic serious damage kwenye ardhi yao.

 

[Bongolander]

Bukyanagandi

The reason why Chinese embassy was bombed was because some people who appeared to be chinese were buying debris up to about 25k a piece and most made it to the chinese embassy in Belgrade, so hitting the embassy was no way a mistake as some tried to claim. The fact is the technology which the chinese now already have as a result of reverse engineering of collected debris, is obsolete even in Europe, leave alone US, but the tech which they used to down the bomber has been upgraded.

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Ha! ha! ha! .... eti Conventional warfare?! ... Nyani Ngabu.. Yaani kwa Amerikans?! ... umesababisha nimejikuta nacheka peke yangu ... Amerika siyo nchi ya kuongelea kuhusu Conventional warfare kwa sababu haiwezi kupigana Conventional Warfare hata siku moja.

Aisee!

Kumbe mtu mwenyewe hata hujui maana ya conventional warfare.

Ndo maana umecheka!

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

You are entitle to your opinion as well, you have to remember that Soviet Union was not superpower just by words, and what is left of it is real. I am not military pundit, but try to read a thing or two from respected military experts. From all you will here that Russian air defenses are almost impregnable.

Just remember what they did in Belgrade, a simple Russian missile downed a stealth bomber....to Russian standards it was a simple SAM, but to Americans it was a weapon which was able to beat a state of the art stealth. This S-300 is real, not a bluff.

Those are your opinions and that's that.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Those are just your opinions and you are entitled to them.

But as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to conventional warfare no one is on par with the Americans.

Its amazing the way you praised the yanks!!
You must be in love with a local americana dude in your neighbourhood most likely a Spanish pimp!

 

[Dotworld]

Aisee!

Kumbe mtu mwenyewe hata hujui maana ya conventional warfare.

Ndo maana umecheka!

Wewe ndio ambae hujaelewa point yangu ambayo nilikuwa nakujibu kahusu comment yako kuhusu conventional warfare kuwa hakuna nchi inayoweza kusimama nae.

Wewe Mkuu Nyani Ngabu ndio ume-miss kabisa maana ya Conventional warfare! unachotetea na mimi ninachosimamia ni the use of conventional soma/sema traditional means ya ku-wage war kama tulivyoizoea.

Nikimaanisha kuwa the two sides face each other on the battlefield using weapons against each other, sasa katika hizi weapons usually we are not including biological, chemical makombora ya nuclear!. ... sasa hiyo ndio Conventional warfare!

Sasa ukija kwenye Unconventional warfare, hapa inamaanisha on the other hand, uses unconventional weapons, hapa huwa targets huwa ni civilian population as well as the armed forces, and specializes in unconventional tactics! ... hapa kunakuwa hakuna rules ... whether utatumia Nuclear au whatever bila kujali civilian casualities ... wakifa 2 milion sawa au hata 10 milion! sawa pia as long as ushindi utapatikana.

Na ndio maana nikasema taja nchi ambayo US kapigana nayo katika Conventional warfare akashinda?! - hakuna! .. siyo Iraq (bado vita inaendela), siyo Libya (bado kunawaka moto) siyo Vietnam (huko alikimbia na Allies wake) na wala hata siyo katika vita ya Korea ya 1950-1953 ambapo iliishia kwa Marekani kuomba suluhu! na hawaja-sign peace treaty mpaka leo tunasema Technically bado wapo vitani!

Sasa umeona maana yangu, kwamba kama US alishindwa huko vitani katika sehemu hizo ina maana kuwa hawezi hiyo Conventional warfare!.

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Dotworld

Bado hata huelewi kabisa.

Uwe na weekend njema.

 

[Dotworld]

Bado hata huelewi kabisa.

Uwe na weekend njema.

Sio kwamba sielewi Mkuu Nyani Ngabu , mimi nasema Conventional / UNConventional warfare WAKATI WA WAR - siongelei hiyo Conventional / UNConventional KABLA YA WAR maana kuna 2 sides ya kila scenario!

Wewe unaongelea UNConventional warfare kabla ya war ambapo ni kuforce au malengo in covertly au ambayo siyo well-defined tactics and weapons intensify environments of subversion au intimidation ambapo nia au malengo ya muda mrefu ni coercive au subversive kwa opponent.

Sasa hii Unconventional warfare (KABLA YA WAR) lengo lake ni achieve ushindi kupitia acquiescence au a-agree na kukubali kushindwa kupitia njia mbalimbali kama ku-ipressure nchi husika au kwa kutumia intelligence au clandestine activities ili nchi husika iweze kushinda katika mgogoro fulani bila ya kutumia au kuingia vitani.

The same scenario pia inatokea wakati tayari vita imeshatokea na ndio maana mimi nipo kwenye vita tayari nasema nako pia kuna Unvonventinal war pia ambapo hutumii Traditional means means.

Mimi na wewe hatuelewani sehemu moja - wewe unaangalia kabla ya actual war kutokea ambapo kuna vita ya chini chini - while mimi nilikuwa naongelea kwenye actual war (yaani wapo tayari wanapigana) ambapo huko kuna conventional (traditional) VS UNconventional (Untraditional means.

Anyway, najua kuwa huwa hupendi kushindwa, but anyway Weekend njema na wewe!.