They know their RCS from different angles, and if anything is emitting, then their ESM systems(or those systems on other platforms) can work out the threat rings around emitters based upon analysis of the signal(and its POO), and the electronic order of battle. If nothing is emitting, then it doesn’t matter how high or low their RCS is, unless somehow someone lucked out in detection with passive systems that just happened to be in the area.
As for the TOR/Pantsyr- are you saying that they’re constantly moving? Presumably they’re stationary at somepoint. In any case, SDBs can hit moving targets, and have demonstrated that capability.

Unless the SDB has direct laster guidance, it’s not hitting anything moving period. That thermal guidance and its use is really questionable on the SDB-II.

If the S-300 or S-400 are emitting, they’d be doing it in LPI (the unstoppable, I-WIN button, remember?) – and they’d be backed up by EWLRS (long-wave) systems deep in enemy territory far out of reach of any F-22s or F-35s. So at this rate, the F-35 is just HOPING the S-300/400 has remained stationary.

And the TOR and Pantsyr would sure as hell constantly move in any realistic situation. Or is this some fantasy land attack where the enemy plays “sitting duck” for the USAF? :rolleyes:

That ship may well be worth $300 – $400 million.

It’s a large, S-300 (or S-400) capable vessel with room to carry those nasty P-1000 Vulkans.

LOL.. kiddo. So you are suggesting you know the detection and tracking ranges of some S-300 models against the F-35? :rolleyes:

Engage the SAMs with what? GPS guided munitions? That would get shot down by the point-defense weapons systems?

I think you will find modern tanks especially western designs are very survivable against anything but a similar tank. Modern armour like Dorchester on the Challenger II is very resistant to RPG and ATGW attacks and there are cases in GWII where CR2s survived many direct hits. Ad modern Active Protection Systems (APC) like Trophy and such like and the balance of power is back with the AFV. The Russian have developed many APCs in the past and fitted them to their tanks. THis is probable one of the areas they intend to improve on the T-90.

Reports say that the OLDER T-90 in Chechnya survived 7 – 8 direct RPG hits – but these were old warheads. Same as the ones used by the Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Insurgents/etc.

I highly doubt Dorchester has been tested against multiple tandem-HEAT RPG hits or against missiles like the AT-14,15,16.

As well as guided weapons like the Kh-25,29,38.

Also, not that I did mention that it’s APCs that are insanely hard to turn into survivable vehicles, not tanks (which are far better off, but still questionable as per my statements above).

Gibka – 3 km – IR – 1155 (Adm.Kulakov), 21630 (Astrakhan’)
Kolchan (Kinzhal upgrade) – 15km – r/com – 1155 (Severodvinsk – aft FCS)
Palica (naval Pantsyr’) – 15 km – r/com – ?
Redut (naval Vityaz’) – 40 km – AR – 20382, 22350
Krepost’ (naval S-400 Triumf) – 180 km – SAR/AR – ?

Enjoy.

Awesome – just one more thing — can you add the “original” name of the naval and land SAM system from which they evolved (if any).