John Law Binkov mostly talks about possible ideas for a War or Battle, Cable mostly talks about the Future, and Present branches of warfare and geopolitical conflicts. Each stay to their own realm. How is Covert Cable Biased, can you give me an example?
03:09 Love how in movies, like the Incredibles, Surface to Air Missiles just close in and try to “Dance” with their targets while they do aileron rolls until the Missile “kisses” their target
Anyone's who has played Defcon will know that even with air defenses, once the ICBMs start flying, everyone loses. Nuclear War: the only winning move is not to play.
What if I tell you that all weapons are firstly created to protect goverment from they own people, secondarily to impose will upon udeveloped countries and finally to fight against equal foe.
It's Israel's fault. Their military planes often attack ground targets in other countries, then hide behind civilian airplanes. If a missile is following them at that moment, they sometimes accidentally hit the civilian airplanes. What Israeli airplanes do is basically using civilians and children as live shield. But the news then blame it all on the enemy, never even mentioning this disgusting tactics.
One thing I miss in this video is the role of anti-radiation systems (which lock on to radar radiation), like the old F-4E, which saw action in Iraq (and was pretty effective). Probably the most important factor why Syrian S-300's didn't engage Israeli AF FWIW I was a FIM-92 Stinger Operator, attached to a H.A.W.K. squadron, which was attached to a Patriot system (we had a 3 tier AA setup) in the 90's. This was in the Dutch Airforce. We just phased out the ancient 40L70 Bofors "Fly-Catcher". I stopped following development of the latest generation of Aircraft and what kind of equipment they carry. I remember CH 47's having a detection system. And the AH-64 used a system called PANDORA. No idea what type the Soviets have/had (they must have, because of what happened in Afghanistan, with the 1st gen Stingers) What I was taught was that not many planes have a system like that, to save weight and prevent aerodynamic issues. Anyway.
The S-300 was used last year in the Nagorno-Karabakh war, actually. It successfully took out some drones, but in turn was taken out by loitering munitions.
I've found the opposite news. Armenians have shot down the Azerbaijan drone produced in Israel: eurasiantimes.com/watch-now-armenia-shoots-down-israeli-drone-operated-by-azerbaijan-defence-forces/
@@cinegraphics yes that was a separate engagement. The S-300 got it first kills but were suicide drones and had one destroyed a few days later by Azerbaijan drone.
@@NitinJadhav-cc2xh knock offs but will still probably do their purpose Russia started making more stuff that they sell to china unable to be reverse engineered cuz china was copying designs from even Russia Thier ally
@@UninstallUpdate it actually makes no sense to launch an S-300 rocket at such a drone, because the drone is probably much cheaper than the defense rocket...
Because they visually observed that plane's flight path over time and knew it would fly overhead, what speed it would be at etc,...They didn't lock on to it, they just knew roughly where to shoot.
@@KevinWilliams19723 If I may correct you on this. Stealth technology is designed to be most effective against the most common, cm wavelength (X-K band) radars. The early warning radars used by (among others) the S-125 used metre wavelength radar (UHF). With those a stealth plane is "visible", but it cannot provide accurate information, what the target is or if it is one target or several in close formation, only that "something is there". That is enough to engage the target once it gets within missile range, with a low chance-to-hit of course. Cm wavelength targeting radars can still see the stealth target, but only from a relatively short distance, say 20 kilometres instead of 80. At the time of the incident I served in an air defence regiment next door (11th Duna Combined Home Air Defence Regiment, Hungary) that operated both S-125 and S-75 systems. Next couple of days we discussed it at length. It's been a while though.
@@imrekalman9044 good viewpoint, as mentioned in end of video, that there are many factors to consider in defense system. it is more complicated than just press button and system is running.
@Русские геи that argument is pretty stupid, combat excercises in most cases simulate combat conditions as closly as possible, if it works there, then there is no reason to doubt its effectiveness in real combst
Prizrak2084 those mask-wearing countries are now having a big second wave of cases. What will you do to push your pseudoscience then? Personally I’ll trust my medical training I got from the CDC during the 2009 pandemic when medicine wasn’t so politicized and I was on the front lines as an EMT. We were immunized, trained in the proper use of properly-fitted N95 masks, and the CDC told us that nothing would keep us safe from H1N1 or any other respiratory illness except to stay at least six feet away from anyone showing symptoms. We didn’t even go into the room with patients unless absolutely necessary, and if we did we were considered exposed, regardless of other precautions. But I guess you don’t trust Obama’s CDC.
Honestly your videos always surprise me. They are really well researched and very high quality. But what I am really surprised about is the community! Very positive and upbeat, basically everyone is so nice!
Seeing how over a thousand American fighter planes and bombers were shot down over Vietnam by Russian designed surface to air missiles and triple a guns, I imagine surface to air missiles are still effective against 4th generation aircraft and can threaten stealth fighters as well if they get close enough.
What if the opponent launches 50 cruise missiles at once at the mighty S-900 which costs say 2 billion dollars ? Hitler did not saved the war with jet airplane, or V2. Better to spend that money on schools and universities :D
The Patriot system has a pretty decent track record. Just don’t let Saudis operate them. Last time I flew into Riyadh, they were all pointed north lol. Spoiler Alert: Yemen is south 🤦♂️
I think AA defence was always more about creating an Area of denial/a deterrent than actually shooting down planes. AA solutions are inherently ineffective at direct combat, but that's part of how and why they work. If you have no AA defence, the enemy can just fly straight over your cities/ships/bases and attack whatever he wants without fear of getting destroyed. If you put AA around critical spots, then the enemy will have to adjust, stay out of optimal range and take risks. So while they rarely see action and even more rarely get kills, it's not because they don't "work", but because they do what they're supposed to :) Imagine a blockhouse with an HMG inside, is it ineffective, because it never kills anyone? Or is it effective, because the enemy has to go around it, as to not get shot into pieces by that HMG?
Well to be honest Israel Iron Dome can be considered one of the best Air Defance in the World. They are being tested almost every month and it works unlike others 😁😁😁😁
5:50 it should be noted that fighters in the high-end role are much the same way. It is one thing to engage in ground attack (precision or otherwise), but such operations hardly validate them as 'tested in combat' when their design origins call for them facing peer level threats. For example no 5G fighter (F-22, F-35, J-20, etc) has been tested in combat against another air threat, at least on peer level. This said air defences do have their own cons aside, which you pointed out in your video.
Well, I think Red Flag does a great job at simulating real combat as best as possible. As for 5th gen fighters, new aggressor squadrons are being equipped with early block F-35s, this will make it possible to simulate 5th gen vs 5th gen combat in the near future.
@@rusher2937 all true and it is definitely easier to test aircraft as opposed to air defence, but even things such as Red Flag aren't a full substitute. It may not be the aircraft but rather the sensors and weapons on board, just as in an air defence battery. The battery and fighter alike may prove flawless in training - but the reliability of the actual weapon or sensor against a real target (with tailored techniques, technologies and tactics) may prove inadequate when compared to a simulated system or hardware tests against target drones. Perhaps in a decade or so we may see targeting drones replicate actual maneuvres and techniques employed by human piloted fighters. Having an F-16V conduct complex procedures could help improve the hardware of both air defence batteries and air warfsre fighters alike.
@@ArisenfromDogma Afaik in red flag sensors are used to their full extent, probably even jamming. Weapons can't for safety reasons, but are also constantly tested in other training areas. Of course nothing is 100% reliable, but in the past years electronics have become increasingly cheap to manufacture and reliable in both the civilian and military domain. Based on what I heard from real pilots, the F135 engine (which is fully automated) is incredibly reliable by today's standards. I agree that no training is a complete substitute for real combat, enemy tactics might be unpredictable, and testing of niche tech is often not done to the extend that real combat will, for economic reasons. However, I don't see how modern targeting drones like QF-4s or QF-16s wouldn't already be able to perform complex maneuvers. I guess the main reason that small prop-driven drones are often seen in videos is that in those situations the main scope is training the operators in their procedures at low cost, not hard-test the limits of the system. Maneuvering QF-4s have already been used when testing stuff like the AIM-9X, it only makes sense that they and similar platforms are also used to test a variety of other air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles and attached systems.
@@rusher2937 again all good points (and it is QF-16 as you said, not F-16V). "and testing of niche tech is often not done to the extend that real combat will, for economic reasons." Knocked it on the head there. Whilst it is different depending on the system being tested, ensuring great reliability of a system requires continuous and robust testing. For economic reasons (among others), this is not always feasible and a factor in the design of both air defences and fighter/fighter mounts. There are potentially also commercial reasons - companies lobby hard to ensure their interests (such as perceived product reliability) are ensured. The M16 and M2 Bradley, prior to Pentagon acquisition reforms, are good examples. This is not to say the risk has disappeared however and it is not something limited to just the West. With regards to complex targeting drones, complex manoeuvres are only one part of the problem. Nothing occurs in a vacuum - targeting drones should be able to manoeuvre with regards to everything else in the battlespace. If the West is training for multi-domain operations, then targeting drones (including other systems replicating their own unmanned systems) need to be able to work with integrated air defence networks in a coordinated manner, or in a manner exploiting the complexity of the ground for low-level operations (for strike, interdiction or anything else). Training systems such as drones will become more advanced, particularly as AI and other software becomes more advanced and robust. This may even alleviate the limitations placed on testing large quantities of air defence and fighter systems. But at the end of the day no one can predict how war (tactical and close through strategic) will play out once it all goes hot. This isn't unique to aircraft or air defence - but the cost of preparing for real business remains a barrier to good business.
Great video as usual....one of few unbiased military channel on youtube. It is funny how many people think that s-300/400 are the only type of air defenses system and that they need to protect them self. They are designed to take down distant ballistic missiles, nuclear bombers, in short, very valuable enemy attacking force, but for the closer range and protecting s300/400 there are so many more...buk, tor, pantsir etc...
I'm by no means an expert in any of this and this is just an thought about these air defense missile systems. These missiles are expensive and I would assume each system of however many launchers would have a finite number of missiles to fire before going through the process of being "re-loaded". Wouldn't an enemy knowing they are facing this type of air defense just saturate the target area with relatively cheap drones, deplete the highly advanced, super accurate system chasing garbage then then send in the good stuff?
When I was stationed at Ft. Bliss in Texas, it was the home of ADA and those folks thought they were the baddest-ass troops in the military. Pretty comical really.
Covert, your vid quality is so awesome that I don't even wait for youtube to notify me or recommend your vids. I search your channel myself from time to time. Please stay on this track. Never move away from straight on facts and figures. Thanks and love.
"The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't. In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was. The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error. "
S300 shot several air planes over Georgia in 2008. Including TU160. Also its like 30+ years old. As for Syria, Israelis use Lebanon air space and almost never enter Syrian air space, therefore make it inappropriate to use. So, these systems are capable and become more so with each generation.
The S-300 covers almost the entire Israeli airspace according to its location and the claims of range. Lebanon wouldn't be a possible hiding place and Israel wouldn't be lugging bombs so close to it if somewhere there wasn't an exaggeration of its performance.
SAMs can be very effective too. It depends upon the people who are using it and the kind of training that they had. Remember that during the 1973 Yom Kippur war between Egypt and Israel, the Egyptian forces used early generation Soviet SAMs and effectively neutralized the air assets of Israel, even the highly advanced F4 Phantom of that era and prevented the Israeli Air Force from stopping the Egyptian forces from gaining foot hold in Sinai peninsula in the early days of that war. That is a good proof of effectiveness considering the Israeli pilots are among the best in the world. Only in the later part of that war when Israeli tanks and commando forces were able to destroy the Egyptian SAMs that they were able to use their air assets against Egyptian ground forces and eventually won the war. Secondly, it's also the old generation SAM that shot down the F-117.
Да он пропагандист,говорит С-300 не было использовано против Израиля,а что у Сирии С-300 по всей стране установлены?С-300 в Сирии прикрывают только Дамаск по моему и все.Я имею ввиду Сирийские с-300,а не те которые на Российской базе.
I ordered those sponsored Kove speakers, reviews are off the charts and your ‘covert64’ discount code was legit, cost me $82.99 vs 99.99 on Amazon. Thank you!
Actually I was in Belgrade in 99 and what happened is Russia gave us a rocket that flies above the aircraft, before locking onto it and diving at it. We didn’t have the equipment to take down the F-117A
Very good video, and accurate breakdown. There’s so many variables and situations for every weapon, it’s difficult/impossible to truly judge and declare a winner.
S-300: "You know I COULD shoot you down, I could" F-15: " No its fine no no ur fine I'm gonna just, you know, leave." *leaves* S-300: "Holy shit thank god."
it is more like.. S-300: "You know I COULD shoot you down, I could" f-16: bomb release and hit target. F-16: " No its fine no no ur fine I'm gonna just, you know, leave." F-16: leaves S-300: "Holy shit thank god."
An interesting, and as usual, timely subject. Always seemed to me that an aggressor has an inherent advantage, able to plan missions around the apparent defenses, and the human element cannot be denied.
Also there is one inherent flaw which can be exploited. It is based on below two points:- 1. These defence missiles are costly 2. They are limited in number for defending ship or an area on land Let's say cheap missiles with just ability to fly(no detonation or explosion capability) are made in bulk. When someone fires them in bulk towards area which is supposed to be defended, then air defense missiles will try to counter it. This will bleed money as defense missiles are expensive and also make them run out of ability to defend further attacks as they are limited in number. So bulk attack of cheap missiles with a mix of actual weapons or bulk of attack cheap missiles followed by actual missiles can make these systems useless.
It all makes sense because the main goal is to make money. Air defense is just a side by-product of making money. The same is true for all other products on the market.
Find a pilot that would go up against an SA-10 and you'll have found a pilot that has only ever flown in a Battlefield game. Back in the second Gulf War, it took a lot longer than expected to degrade the Iraqi IADS and they were only using modified SA-2/SA-3 systems. You've also forgotten about the air defence systems used by countries such as the UK. Back in my day it was called a Tornado F-3! The most significant weakness of most ADS is C3.
You forgot to mention the Yom Kippur war, when an earlier version of the Russian air defence system was used with massive success. It was a novel weapon at the time so the Israelis had no idea at first how to respond.
@istiak monsur its not meant to. only counter rockets, artillery, and motors. (C-RAM). Iron Dome is 90 percent successful which makes it effective and is a modern air defense system.
@@men8212 ... the title of the video refers to "Effective" "Modern Air Defenses" which includes SAM systems and any other weapon meant to Defend against a hostile air attack/action(guided or unguided). Iron Dome is a SAM system with a C-RAM type use case proven to be effective and yes expensive. This video raised the issue of real combat use to which Iron Dome has seen successful in real combat use since 2012.
@@men8212 you missed my point. the joking is comparing for comparison sake. it is kind of humor that you are not understanding it seems. does that make sense to you?
In the world of Sci-Fi fanbases, I'm a ballistic weapons guy through and through, but the best route for future air defense systems is most certainly lasers.
No modern airforce can afford to lose pilots - whose training takes years and millions of dollars and multimillion dollar jets - over any sustained air campaign. Once missile and air attacks begin...you are using very expensive and difficult to replace assets. If your airforce "breaks" itself by losing those assets attacking a country with advanced anti-air systems it will take years to replenish what you lost. There are parameters set on any attack by commanders as to what are acceptable losses....they would not want to lose 5 jets in a day. Any ground campaign relies on air superiority to launch strikes on exposed enemy assets...without that you are looking at a much longer campaign. I believe modern air defence is quite effective and that's the reason NATO got out of the "no fly zone" business after Libya
To shoot a missile at a target first you have to detect it but then you have to track it while the missiles in flight or against an F117 wildly fire off dozens of exploding missies along the stealth jets known to replenish flight path in hope of one-day hitting one:)
I think an American and a Russian both can watch this video and agreed on this video. And that is the beauty of this channel. Still waiting a video on India vs China 🤔
Oh yea I'm totally going to buy this funky scuffed speaker I've never heard of, can't think of any use for, and don't remember the name of just because some youtuber was payed to promote it.
I think neither Patriot nor S300/400 should be called "ineffective". The biggest problem with SAM Sites is that once th radar is turned on, everyone and their dog know where it is. SEAD flights usually provide enough of a thread to a standalone system to better just leave the radars cold, not to speak of actual ballistic missile attacks which overwhelm the radar. As every piece of military equipment today, they are just a tiny piece of the puzzle in air superiority, and failure is easily blamed on a system that was incorrectly used. They need aircraft keeping the enemy buisy, artillery and ballistic missiles to counter attacks by the same, ground troops keeping the area from just beeing overrun. A S300 wich is properly supported is able to make any fighter pilot turn away from his intended target, and provides sort of a "safe space" for any allied aircraft to hide from enemy attacks. Killing the enemy is hardly anything that military systems today need to do.
Quite remarkable when you think that US military forces haven’t come under any effective form of air attack since the Korean War. Nearly 70 years! If or when it does happen to them again, it’ll probably come as a bit of a shock. Understandably.
Google is getting fucking ridiculous, it cut my stream with a fucking ad virtually ONE word to go! The last 2 words were “every year” and it cut on “every” played an damn ad, and then the clip came back, the narrator said “year” and it finish! What a disservice to such well done content!
shows flaplid radar with a 45 degree or so maximum postitive azimuth. ignores its electronically scanned array. and can therefore point its radar beam straight up at the shown angle of the dish.
I understand the Sheffield was hit because they had to switch the defence off when contacting command in England with satellite communications because it stopped contact
They'll be tested in combat against hundreds of cheap decoys launched ahead of a wave of missiles and drones sent to destroy every radar system that exists.
While DCS is an amazing game, it's still a game and it's made for military aircraft fans to feel good about themselves in the sky. IRL RWR isn't as effective, and not every radar ground AA system will provide you with launch notification in timely fashion and when it does there will be little time for defensive maneuvers.
By the way, i found out that the Syrians were in fact not capable enough to operate S-300, judging by the morale and the structure of the syrian missile brigade at the time.
Thank You for finally some common sense reality on the relationships between testing a system to show it works to how a system performs in actual combat. Well Done!
If a plane can engage beyond visual range with smaller radars and smaller missiles all crammed in a nose of a fighter jet, than there is no reason why surface batteries with no size constraints wouldn't also work
