There is nothing like this in NATO, period. No, some may have similarities in function but Tor-M2 proved itself an absolute monster of short range AD. Not that others, like S1 Pantsir, did worse. They also performed brilliantly. But here is the combat work of two Tor-M2 systems.
So, what's the future for Tors? It is bright, as it is for Buk-M3 and S1 Pantsir--they provided an outstanding shield for Russian forces on and around battlefield, not to mention an immense data which already allows to introduce even more deadly and advanced upgrades. I talk about short to medium range systems. And then there are those monsters such as S-350, S-300s, S-400 and S-500--that is a whole other story of Soviet Union/Russia pursuing non-stop for more than 70 years a complete domination of the air-defense field. The combat performance of Russian Air Defense has been outstanding, to put it mildly and there is very little doubt that the integrated system will continue to evolve and improve with some systems we haven't seen yet going on-line and completely overthrowing NATO air and space operations concepts and making them completely obsolete. This we can already observe today, in real time.
In the end, even technology savvy people from USAF have to admit:
I have news for the author of this piece, USAF Colonel (ret.) Thomas Cantrell--the US has no speed, range nor multidomain experience and only now begins to see what it is when looks at 404 and SMO. In other words--remove Douhet writings and Doolittle experiences into the museum where they belong because modern battlefield "of a future great-power conflict" will look nothing like what they teach in NATO war colleges, and combined NATO will lose advantage in numbers of air power in the first 48-72 hours of such a conflict. This is not a theorem, it is an axiom now. What will be the situation in Washington when NATO loses 40-50 F-35s and 3-4 E3 Sentry in the first 24 hours? Exactly... Is S-600 coming?
No comments:
Post a Comment