by As is expected, by far not all data on actual capabilities of S-500 is available, but the range of 600 kilometers against any aerodynamic targets means one not just tactical or even operational, but fully strategic ramification--it is precisely the range within which latest versions of E3 Sentry AWACS aircraft must enter to have any impact of the target acquisition and battle management. So, you get the idea, right? As you can see, my next book (while still not 100% completed, very close, though) is getting ready for hitting shelves this Summer, and it touches partially on these issues. No NATO Air Force is capable to fight without AWACS enabler. Without it it becomes severely degraded and an easy pick for hostile Air Force and, especially, ground-based modern AD complexes such as
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Russian military, S-500
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes Sputnik — Putin Explains Why Russia Can Afford to Spend Less on Defence
Mike Norman writes Moon of Alabama — Putin Trolls Trump
Mike Norman writes Reality Check — Andrei Martyanov
Mike Norman writes J.Hawk, Daniel Deiss, Edwin Watson, Harold Hoover — RUSSIA 2019+ MILITARY DOCTRINE
As is expected, by far not all data on actual capabilities of S-500 is available, but the range of 600 kilometers against any aerodynamic targets means one not just tactical or even operational, but fully strategic ramification--it is precisely the range within which latest versions of E3 Sentry AWACS aircraft must enter to have any impact of the target acquisition and battle management. So, you get the idea, right? As you can see, my next book (while still not 100% completed, very close, though) is getting ready for hitting shelves this Summer, and it touches partially on these issues. No NATO Air Force is capable to fight without AWACS enabler. Without it it becomes severely degraded and an easy pick for hostile Air Force and, especially, ground-based modern AD complexes such as Buk-M2, S-400 and S1 in the "ambushes". While one may argue with Irina Alksnis' (in Russian) that Russia didn't exit from arms race, she simply won it, there is very little doubt about the fact that within last 15 years Russia designed, developed and produced some of the most revolutionary weapon systems in history, and which did change warfare and rendered old operational and strategic thinking still dominating Western military-political circles simply obsolete.…This is what Russia and China mean by "asymmetric response." This is nothing new. Chinese military history is replete with introduction of new weaponry to counter advances in weaponry by enemies. See below.
This is also doing the arms race on the cheap. The US builds up its forces expecting an expensive symmetrical response, only to find that its investment has been countered by less expensive, more innovative means. This is key, because key to the US strategy in an arms race is to "bankrupt" the adversary. It is as much economic warfare as military.
Reminiscence of the Future
S-500 Is On Line
Andrei Martyanov
See also
Checkpoint Asia
China’s New Destroyers Outrange America’s by a Ridiculous Amount
Ryan Pickrell
Also
Reuters
Special Report: China's vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific