I mean ukraine claims the ghost of kiev was realSame story for the USA, imagine: they get a S-400 to dissecate, in exchange for selling F-35s to Turkey: kinda win-win for everybody... except Vlad Putin, who may have kittens over such a deal, coming on top of S-400 stupendous performance in Ukraine...
So I would have my doubts that some s-300 launchers got destroyed and they say it was an s-400 or an s-500.That's probably the deal Putin wants. Lost more than a few S-400 units on video, so it'd be good to get one for not too much cash.
Turkey, as a NATO ally, is the kind of country that fulfills all of its commitments to perfection but still gets the short end of the stick.
What a smart constructive statement! What a worthy contribution to this forum's quality...
And yet Putin is literally selling Pantsirs to Saudi Arabia in the middle of a war. Not the same thing, I know, but it makes absolutely no sense, imo, nor did they seemingly bother to even attempt to withdraw the multitude of systems from Syria that had been given to Assad, like, again, Pantsirs, Buks, Kubs, Osas, Shilkas, Strelas, & upgraded S-125s, for example, in addition to other radars like the newer versions of The P-18, but perhaps that simply was not possible in the chaos of the collapse of the regime. Syria was definitely loaded, though.
What "fear" is present in that post?
That's not a win-win for anyone but Turkey.Same story for the USA, imagine: they get a S-400 to dissecate, in exchange for selling F-35s to Turkey: kinda win-win for everybody... except Vlad Putin, who may have kittens over such a deal, coming on top of S-400 stupendous performance in Ukraine...
something that would stop sales of the aircraft, but Trump seems to have rather done that instead.
If we truly believe this than Turkey should have both options on the table like India. I am assuming they are worried talking about the F-35s performance against an S-400. The Euros didn't blink an eye to cut down on the aircrafts which might be another measurement for their worth.
(1)
It's ironic that you specifically chose this from all the things I wrote and used it as an argument, while also using 'smart, constructive,' and 'worthy contribution to this forum' in the same sentence.
I'm not claiming whether a S-500 is destroyed or not but you’re speaking as if only a single S-500 launcher exists. However, as of June 2024, Russia has deployed one active S-500 regiment. A typical regiment consists of two battalions, each with two air-defense batteries, totaling four S-500 batteries and each battery includes multiple launchers. Ukraine's claim of destroying an S-500 launcher and Russia’s ability to showcase an operational S-500 are not mutually exclusive. Both can easily be true at the same time.
How exactly?. Recent events have shown that even cheap drones are very useful tool to penetrate air defenses.
U.S. offering the F-35 to India despite India's S-400 purchase, while denying Turkey the F-35 for the same reason, is primarily due to geopolitical considerations and strategic interests rather than just the technical risk of S-400 integration. As a NATO member, Turkey's acquisition of the Russian S-400 was seen as a direct security risk to the alliance. NATO operates integrated air defense systems, and the concern was that Russia could use the S-400 to gather data on the F-35’s stealth and radar signature, compromising the jet. Turkey was also part of the F-35 production program, meaning it would have both operational and manufacturing insights into the jet. US. and NATO saw this as a betrayal of alliance trust, leading to Turkey’s expulsion from the F-35 program. On the other hand, India is not a NATO member and operates a multi-alignment strategy, buying military equipment from both the West and Russia. US sees India as a counterweight to China, making it strategically beneficial to strengthen India’s airpower. Unlike Turkey, India does not participate in NATO's integrated air defense network, reducing the risk of intelligence leaks to Russia. That why U.S. has waived CAATSA sanctions for India but did not do so for Turkey. US offering the F-35 to India is a way to lure India away from Russian defense systems over time.
The unpredictability of the Trump administration's foreign policy is not just a minor concern it is now a proven risk. They have already suspended intelligence sharing with Ukraine and halted military aid, including critical support for F-16 radar jammers. No matter how advanced the F-35 is, it becomes useless if one day Trump decides to cut off spare parts and maintenance. With system like ODIN with ability to update software across the fleet, some even fear an internal kill switch that can render the F-35 inoperable . At the end of the day, a fleet of operational 4th generation fighters is far more valuable than a grounded fleet of 5th generation jets.
Beat me to it. What an utterly bizarre comment.
At this point I really have no idea, LOL, but we're also not there when these attacks happen, so it's difficult to completely judge. That said, this problem is not confined to The S-400, as one of those Nevo-SBUs was destroyed after a drone found it completely unguarded & perfectly visible, again, right out in the open, iirc. Like, guys...
The irony is that shallowness of French and other European weapon stocks will largely tie everything to US supply anyway.
And doing things like allowing a drone to fly over your SAM battery...
Depends where, Ukraine having incursions to Belgorod, Kursk and I am hearing Belgorod again sounds like they are going in and out of Russian territory. Russia only holds like 20% of Ukraine's territory. Even the estimates max range of the ATACMs allows its trajectory to be lower than an average SRBM and who knows if multiples strikes are used giving more difficulties for interceptions.
There was a complaint from Russia that India showcased one of its Akula submarines which they purchased to western allies. Where is the accountability that India wouldn't do the same thing secretly to Russia or other countries?
Any presidential administration has to have some contact with the Pentagon and the Pentagon has the best intelligence on what is going on around the world since no one has more satellites than the US in space to know how a certain war is going before making the decision if they want to cut off support or not, for example Ukraine. One hand we had the Biden administration having no issues giving Ukraine billions of dollars than on the other hand we have J.D. Vance saying Ukraine never had a chance winning the war 3 years ago, 2 years ago, a year ago and even now regardless of the support they were given.
It doesn't really matter where you deploy ATACMS. As a rocket artillery system, not a direct-fire weapon, it’s never positioned directly on the front line. While its apogee is lower than that of a SCUD, it still flies significantly higher than a cruise missile. At an altitude of 50–65 km, it becomes detectable by ground-based radar within a radius of approximately 939 km.
armyrecognition.com
Beyond technical aspect, there is also the strategic and geopolitical considerations
If you have followed U.S. politics, you would know that Democratic and Republican parties often take opposing stances on nearly every issue. This divide is even more pronounced in foreign policy.
As I mentioned earlier, the key issue is not whether EU purchase 4th or 5th generation fighters from US, as both can theoretically be subject to US control or restrictions. The real concern for Europe is the alignment of strategic interests. The unpredictability of U.S. foreign policy especially during the Trump administration has already demonstrated the risks of over-reliance on American defense systems. Trump himself has suggested that European security concerns, such as the threat from Russia, are not necessarily America's wars to fight. This has reinforced the need for Europe to develop independent defense capabilities.
What does this wall of text have to do with the S-400?It doesn't really matter where you deploy ATACMS. As a rocket artillery system, not a direct-fire weapon, it’s never positioned directly on the front line. While its apogee is lower than that of a SCUD, it still flies significantly higher than a cruise missile. At an altitude of 50–65 km, it becomes detectable by ground-based radar within a radius of approximately 939 km.
If you looking at the map, ATACMS typically used to destroy targets pretty far behind the frontline. That the whole point of having a long range systemATACMS MGM-140
The Army Tactical Missile System (MGM-140 ATACMS) is a short-range tactical ballistic missile system developed by the United States Army. Its primary purpo
View attachment 764483
Beyond technical aspect, there is also the strategic and geopolitical considerations
US views India as a key partner in the Indo-Pacific strategy to counter China’s growing military power. Providing India with F-35s would enhance its air superiority and align with the security objectives of the Quad alliance (US, India, Japan, and Australia). Additionally, strengthening defense ties with India is a priority. India has been actively diversifying its military acquisitions, reducing its reliance on Russian equipment. India has successfully operated and maintained U.S. military assets like P-8 Poseidon, MH-60R helicopters, and C-17 Globemaster without security breaches.. A potential F-35 sale would further boost U.S.-India defense trade, which has expanded significantly over the past two decades.
Moreover, from a Western perspective, India shared details about the INS Chakra (Akula-class SSN) with Western partners could be seen as a strategic alignment with the West, signaling openness to deeper military cooperation. It indicate India's confidence in Western partnerships, showing that it values these relationships enough to offer insights into its military capabilities.
If you have followed U.S. politics, you would know that Democratic and Republican parties often take opposing stances on nearly every issue. This divide is even more pronounced in foreign policy.
Biden has prioritized strengthening alliances, particularly NATO, viewing Ukraine as a key partner in deterring Russian aggression. His administration sees supporting Ukraine as crucial for global security and preventing further Russian expansion.
In contrast, Trump was critical of NATO, frequently arguing that European nations should take greater responsibility for their own defense. He viewed foreign aid as wasteful and even delayed military assistance to Ukraine in 2019, which led to a political scandal and impeachment inquiry over allegations that he pressured Ukraine for political favors. Additionally, Trump sought closer ties with Russia, often questioning the necessity of direct confrontation with Putin.
Zelensky, of course, also made some mistakes.
Firstly, he invested incorrectly by siding with the Democrats, refusing to help Trump dig up dirt on Hunter Biden, and going to Pennsylvania to support Kamala... For a narcissist like Trump, that forever makes Zelensky an unforgivable enemy. And if Zelensky wanted to please Trump, he would have needed to humble himself, flatter, and express remorse... so that even if Trump couldn't truly forgive Zelensky's past 'sins,' he would at least be temporarily satisfied with such gestures. (This is also the way people like Vance or Rubio—who once harshly criticized Trump but later became his 'attack dogs' or 'puppies'—handled it.) Zelensky, though trying to be conciliatory with Trump, did not seem willing to fully yield and has never publicly praised Trump like those others. As a result, Trump has been harboring resentment, just waiting for the opportunity to explode.
Secondly, Zelensky was somewhat arrogant and did not properly assess the role or schemes of Vance. Vance has consistently opposed U.S. aid or involvement in Ukraine. But for over two months, he had been sidelined and became a marginal figure in American politics due to Musk's overwhelming influence. Desperate to regain the spotlight at any cost, he seized every opportunity from scolding European hosts on their own soil to the incident at the White House where Vance rudely interrupted the conversation between the two presidents, launching a series of provocative questions to attack Zelensky.
As I mentioned earlier, the key issue is not whether EU purchase 4th or 5th generation fighters from US, as both can theoretically be subject to US control or restrictions. The real concern for Europe is the alignment of strategic interests. The unpredictability of U.S. foreign policy especially during the Trump administration has already demonstrated the risks of over-reliance on American defense systems. Trump himself has suggested that European security concerns, such as the threat from Russia, are not necessarily America's wars to fight. This has reinforced the need for Europe to develop independent defense capabilities.
The shift away from the F-35 is driven more by political and strategic considerations than by any shortcomings in the aircraft itself. European nations want greater autonomy over their defense decisions, free from the risk of policy shifts in Washington that could restrict access to critical systems, software updates, or operational data. The push for European programs like FCAS and Tempest reflects a broader effort to ensure that future air combat capabilities are developed and controlled within Europe, reducing reliance on U.S. technology and maintaining long-term strategic independence
Not directly, of course. It's to counter Null's notion that Europe's search for an alternative to the F-35 is somehow linked to the S-400's performance in Ukraine.
And now it sits here twice. Kudos.
That, too.
