while i agree traditional AA is outdated
there is no real alternatives so far (lasers for medium range work is in limited use) so missiles and guns it is
Perun explained it very well in the tank argument. cant remember the quote anymore but point was
we still use humans in wars despite them being terrible in pretty much anything(low armor low speed fatigue, cant fly)
and if you think about it they didn’t even change much in the last 10 000 years still just trowing hard objects at each other
Do you have some links ? Im interested in it’s effectiveness.
Ill concede on the type 625 for now as i cant find what initially led me to make the statement regarding the supposed chinese domestic version, that doesnt mean im retracting what i said regarding missile+gun spaas.
Maybe our definitions for what a moderm country is might be a bit different. How many of the countries with money to spend and the choice to buy from western nations choose to go for russians or chinese systems?
Modern spaas as a concept are outdated there isnt much else to say there, that was something already pretty well recognized from most of the world, the recent war does seem to support that claim even more, stationary air defense seems to be better in all but some select cirmustances, and pantsirs and tors service record in ukraine has been less than stellar.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure, even completely ignoring it constant failures against drones, its effectives against rotors and fixed wing aircraft has subpar at best.
We got a war thunder player here guys,.
I would be interested to know where you found that/read the source. As the US Army considers Pantsir and Tunguska two of the most dangerous threats we face.
One of the biggest reasons is specifically because they are multiple weapon platforms that have overlapping and complimenting WEZ capabilities that minimize the ability to exploit a gap in one system or the other.
Because thats what the us army does. Im basing this of their perfomance in their current active conflict.
So am I. Which is why I’m curious where you got that from. Because as a current Army aviator who does this for a living, what you’re claiming and the reports I’m seeing, aren’t meshing.
Yes, the Pantsir and even the Tunguska have had multiple instances of having trouble engaging drones.
But there are a lot of dead fixed and rotary wing crews because of those two systems specifically, so I would be very interested in reading the sources you have suggesting that either system has trouble engaging its two primary adversaries
Since when does subpar translates to utterly useless?
Its primary adversary still remains drones for now, and im not sure if we have the same definition of what alot of dead crews and destroyed aircraft is. Theyve destroyed quite a bit of helis? Sure over three years of missions in contested airspace with outdated helis that tends to happen, not the same can be said about fixed wings though.
Hell over the years there have been multiple pantsirs destroyed by TB2s.
I would like to see a source that documents the effectiveness of either system against rotary or piloted fixed wing aircraft as sub par to be honest.
The primary adversaries of those two systems are NATO combat helicopters and fixed wing. That is most likely why they have had some documented struggles engaging drones. Because they were optimized for being an integrated part of the unit to defend against our fixed and rotary wing, and not to kill drones at high altitude with relatively low radar returns and small/cold engines.
I DEFINITELY don’t define it as “Modern = Western”, because that isn’t at all how it is.
Well… Let’s see. If we’re taking “countries with money to spend” as in GDP, I’ll be going with nations only in the top quartile of the World Bank’s readings.
For nations using Russian / Chinese SPAA that carry both high-caliber guns and missiles:
Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and India.
2 of these are considered world powers. One is a regional power.
As a concept, yes, though I had meant “not outdated” in a sense that as an SPAA the Pantsir can engage at twice the range of the S-300V.
Seeing as stationary systems are capable of far better mobility, I’d say they’re effectively the new SPAA.
Constant failures against what drones? The most I’ve seen of drone misses are from Tors with crews expecting to be able to down anything smaller than a group 4 drone.
Hell, I feel the Pantsir’s effectiveness against its own friendly units says enough.
What?
If by “war thunder player”, you mean a somewhat realistic person?
Leonardo’s laser-driven SPAA is a hilarious mess. Its effective output is lower than the minimum wattage of the silent hunter, and at best 1/3 of its peak output.
As a pseudo AFV, I can see its use. As a dedicated anti-drone platform… It’s a step in the right direction.
There have been a lot of videos/reports from the field showing the Pantsir and/or Tunguskas struggling to engage, or not even attempting to engage drones of all sorts/shapes and sizes (mostly with guns) and some of the new multiple mini missile variants Russia is debuting/testing are specifically trying to improve performance against UAVs.
US suffers once again
I can’t really tell if you mean this seriously or ironically, but this issue doesn’t only affect the US
they have no other choice,
mostly a political choice at the time and are focusin on their own indigenous systems.
that leaves two countries considered developed who chose non western systems.
that makes it sound as if you were being selective, but there really arent many developed countries with a choice that chose russian/chinese systems. pakistan comes to mind but theyre a special case and have no choice either way
i feel thats overstated quite a bit, russian iff isnt that bad or at least it shouldnt be.
which i called out, but the concept isnt bad in the slightest, and its definetly the kind of spaa we’ll see the most going forward.
going to my original point, with modern ranges and systems spaas simply arent needed anymore(for modern armies that is). now i do think we’ll see a few more stopgap spaags with a more anti drone focus, and for one im exited to see how the skynex leopard pans out as that would be an INSANELY cool vehicle for a potential future.
Its more geopolitical stuff, for example, why does Pakistan go for J10s rather after using F16s with AMRAAMs, not that J10s they bought aren’t superior but rather because they need China as a strategic partner. Whilst for nations like Serbia, despite China offering J10CEs for 1/3 of the price of Rafael, due to the situation, they still went for Rafael.
Ah yes the target lead is such a useful feature against planes 10KM away, and the IR tracking definitely doesn’t stop working when the target moves behind the smallest cloud possible, like the radar tracking mode on Tunguska, which ADATS doesn’t have.
I doubt any nato country would sell anything to pakistan as of now.
True, but for example, despite having the choice of Rafael, India is still purchasing Mig29s which are pretty obviously inferior, this is partly due to their reliance on Russian oil and partly due to their 1 per year crash rate.
india hasnt purchased russian aircraft in a while and its unlikely to do so again, the indian su30s arent russian products anymore.
Yes they are assembled in India, but literally half the parts are bought.
