S500 VS F35 and F22

It's a start.

Same problems as the others, I believe...but it is the ONLY game in town. There simply is no other V/STOL fighter/bomber available to replace the aging Harriers.

Frankly, I am not concerned about the F-35's technical problems. Every new weapon system seems to have them. But it is the HUGE cost overruns that worry me and the fact that they are INCREDIBLY expensive for a compromise aircraft (a cheaper F-22 alternative).
They cost almost as much as F-22's yet are no where near as good.

Also, the per-unit cost is based on a huge production run (over 3,000 I believe - including all other countries who originally wanted it). But what happens if Congress only buys 1/3 of the total originally promised? The same thing that happened to the B-2 and the F-22 when their original purchase numbers were cut....a MASSIVE increase in price as the huge development costs have to be divided onto less airframes.
So these already incredibly expensive, compromise aircraft could end up costing WAY more then the F-22 (even an updated F-22).

And with deficits projected to rise even higher with the tax cuts (though I approve of the corporate tax cut) and the coming infrastructure program, I would be very surprised if Congress ends up buying the original total.

The F-35 programme could get REALLY ugly, IMO...I fear.

 

Among other things, I would underline that the S500 hasn't been projected to face stealth fighters and figtherbombers, but ballistic missiles.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/s-500-russias-plan-make-stealth-obsolete-20860

Then, that such a system can detect and hit also stealth planes is just a mere supposition [based on the technical capabilities of the device].

 

If you look at the guidance system of the S400 it uses optical sensors, that is it literally sees it's target in either visible light or infra red.
So you can be as stealthy to radar as much as you want but if the aircraft the missile is aimed at can be seen it will be hit. and don't forget the S500 will be better than the S400 so who knows what advancements have been made to the guidance system.

 

As for I know also modern fighters use IR systems [IRST]. I guess that also Russian fighters use them [at least I hope this ... for the Russians].

The point is not when you acquire a target, but at which distence you lock it. And this information is difficult to find with accuracy ...

 

I agree with your thoughts on hacking. That is one of the most scary factors of any AI technology. This however, will not stop various military's from moving towards more AI integrated into various military systems. The advantage it confers is too enticing. True AI could be self contained and as you suggest - this would defend against hacking - although most I think would want to retain some operator control (like a remote controlled drone) which would open it up to hacking. Some of the fire and forget missile technology though would not need any remote control ability.

Every economic/military empire that I know of (Rome Spain, Britain and so on) went down the toilet for the same reason - trying to maintain hegemony by projection of power. We are making the exact same mistake.

Technological innovation leads military superiority which leads to economic hegemony. Life is good when you have the gatling gun (machine gun) and the enemy is fighting back with stick and stones. With one gunship the Brits were able to take over an entire African nation.

The natural tendency of technology is to spread. It is very had to contain. Over time that African nation got more sophisticated weapons - including the gatling gun. (think storming a hill defended by machine gun turrets in WW2). The cost of projecting power goes through the roof. Now you have to send not one ship but an entire armada and you will take heavy casualties.

Think of the first scene in Gladiator - The Romans had superior military technology. Over time the barbarians improved their technology which made maintaining garrisons all over the known world very costly.

The exact same thing is happening now. Iraq was a nothing (shithole) country. They had been crippled by the first war with daddy bush and had been under military embargo and sanctions ever since. Much of their population was starving .. there was massive discontent and Saddam military (that which remained after the first war) was 1960' technology most of which was in disrepair.

Even so . .. fighting this silly war still broke the bank. Afghanistan is fighting back with kalashnikov's and home made bombs which they have to strap to a human.

In 2000, Total Military Spending (TMS) was roughly 300 Billion. After 8 years of Bush this number exceeded 900 Billion and went over 1 Trillion under Obama. Had we maintained 2000 spending levels (increasing with inflation) - and this is more than is needed to defend the homeland, there is no massive army massing at our borders - we could have diverted 500 Billion/year x 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars to infrastructure, technology, ramping up our economy to compete in the third millennium.

Instead we threw this money down the toilet to feed the international financiers who run/own the military industrial complex (just as Eisenhower warned).

We pay 450 Billion/year in interest on our debt ... using the same math above you can add another 7 Trillion to the total.

This desire to Police the world is maintained by state propaganda (the same international financiers who own he banks and MI-Complex also own the media - surprise surprise - along with energy, food, healthcare and various other oligopolies)

This path has already seriously affected our long term economic security. Continuing down this path (which we will do as every other economic/military empire) will cause our decline.

The US will still exist .. look at Britain, it is still around... but, we will be just another of many major players around the table.. instead of the major player.

 

All of this is moot since the next war will be fought with drones.

 

True, but it's common knowledge that the S400 (40N6 variant) is 130km for a stealth target, so the S500 would probably increase on that distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system

 

Can you make reference to reliable sources mentioning the operational sigma of S-400 and S-500?

The "sigma" is substantially a measure of the "visibility" of a target on a radar [but it's the same about IR sigma which varies if you are observing an incoming plane or a plane going away, btw]. It's the "basic data" to evaluate this or that AA system.

The problem of remote detection is the reason why, despite the development of IRST devices, all the powers are investing in X band [or similar] radars. If you don't detect an incoming F35 before it launches its cruise missiles ... you will be in troubles.

 

And vice versa.
But we can reasonably expect ground based radar to be more powerful than fighterplane mounted radar.
And also for the ground based AA missiles to have superior range.
I presume the "500" in S500 refer to the number of miles away it can engage from.

Also an object in the sky makes for an easy to distinguish target where something on the ground does not.

S 400 and 500 are not single radars or single AA missiles. They are networked integrated air defence systems deployed over a whole country.
Multiple radars all talking to each other, plus multiple missiles of multiple varieties.

 

An excellent post, IMO.

I agree completely. America's present spending levels on her military is 100% sheer and total madness.

America had better get her act together, balance her budget and get her economy in gear or I agree with you, she will lose her world power status one day.

 

That day is here and now and I think we will end up the better for it. So will the world

 

Do any great powers become better after they fall?

 

Well, it is not here yet.

America can still afford to outspend all the major military powers combined.

It maybe approaching...but not yet.

 

Hard to say. Post Napoleonic France didn't do badly and England was still able to fight WWII after WWI. Then again, Russia did that and in spades, yet most people had seen her as WWI's biggest loser. Germany didn't come out of WWI that badly but then lost WWII big time and Japan, which anyone in 1918 would have called the premier up and comer, was nearly moribund as a society and a people in 1945. (and it is now seen as having re-industrialized and moved on to post-industrial society since then, so has Germany)

The only thing I can get out of it is that Empire is a mugs's game. It's expensive and you don't get anything but more people to take care of. This isnt ancient Rome where the legions could flood the markets with slaves, and it was the slaves that took the Romans down in the end just the same.

 

It would be OK if there was a point to the whole thing - Like some big enemy massing at our gates - but, there simply isn't. If we go to war with a nuclear superpower life as we know it ceases to exist hence the MAD doctrine. It does not take 1 Trillion/year to chase down terrorists.

What gets me is that in the name of "national security -fighting terrorism" we are our security (individual liberty). The real threat to our security is internal not external. It is our Gov't that is taking our individual liberty and economic freedom away (in conjunction with the oligopolies/oligarchs).

 

A lot of the technical specs are way above my head, so feel free to wade through it yourself

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-400-Triumf.html

 

I think it's pretty safe to assume that radar detection range is greater than the range of any missile an F35 can carry.
It's not a very big plane.

 

Ok ... but don't think to find all and don't exclude misinformation ...

 

A good question. But let's have a look at non-European history. China. Somewhat a 150 years ago it was fallen becoming a playground for western countries (US, Japan and Russia as well). Look at China now. If we take Russian Empire then it's place in the world would be 2-5 or even lower. The USSR managed to become undisputable #2 and in some periods it could be even #1. Japan after the WW2 and before its economic crisis was to some extent stronger than any European state, although not even close to EU.
The main thing after collapse is to refuse of all the worst and ill features preserving and developing the best. It can be a new start. The same happens with men. Every second or third story tells about complete change of carreer and incredible success in a new field. It doesn't happen all the time, but it is possible.