No EW or SEAD/DEAD was used. The NVA couldn't even hit B-52s after they started using EW. The small Pk they did achieve was due to blind air bursting of SA-2s. SAMs were relatively new back then, the US learned how to deal with them through Vietnam, after that they have never posed any trouble, e.g. look at Libya in 1986, Desert Storm in 1991 and even Allied Force in 1999. People harp on about the F-117A shoot down but they flew 2,055 sorties, typically hitting two key high value targets per sortie. So they shot down one F-117A, while F-117A destroyed ~4,000 bunkers, and C3 targets. I'm quite happy with that exchange ratio.
It wasn't stealth aircraft that destroyed SAM radars and batteries in Grand Canyon or Desert Storm. They only used the stealth aircraft and cruise missiles to hit the HV targets up front before the SEAD/DEAD had begun in Desert Storm. The main benefit of stealth is that it allows you to fly past the SAMs to hit deeper targets on day 1.
This article has more details.
Investigation finds pilots of downed F-16 failed to defend themselves
There are some holes in the story. Like the missile locking on to the jet, when it is semi-active. The article probably means the radar.
There were two pilots, so why were they so busy considering the missile hit well after the strike mission was over and they were heading back to base?
When the SAMs were of the same generation as aircraft, there were aircraft losses. When the SAMs were outmatched in generation terms, the aircraft survived. There's nothing more to it.
In the 70s, single digit SAMs reigned. In the 80s came the double digit SAMs, like the S-300. The West never tested against this class of SAMs. Even in the 90s and 2000s, the West were still dealing with single digit SAMs.
I don't care about the F-117 loss, or the lone F-16 loss over Serbia. Those SAMs were completely obsolete and the countries were facing the might of NATO at that point.
Even in this case, the F-16's loss to the S-200 was more about embarrassment than anything else. But the fact is even the Israelis are worried about the new Syrian S-300, which is an early 2000s era SAM, and nearly 15 years after it was invented, so nearly at the end of its technological life now.
You are missing the whole point.
Do you think what you are writing over here on an open platform, the people who make decision to buy S400, billion dollar system, are not aware of?
Do you think they did not perform feasibility or viability analysis and do not not simulate the environment S400 have to operate in?
Be sure they did and theoretically S400 holds itself well and thats why they spend billions of dollars on it.
There were relatively few losses in Vietnam, even before EW and Wild Weasel became a thing. Most aircraft were lost to AAA fire. Even in Yom Kippur, the Israeli aircraft, which were 10 years behind the US, suffered few losses compared to the Syrians and their allies.
Ofira Air Battle - Wikipedia
Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia
Air power won in spite of SAMs, it always has done and always will.
Nope, air power reigned and caused more losses throughout history, SAMs were only a relatively small inconvenience. They would have been taken care of earlier in Vietnam were it not for the bombing restrictions on the warehouses.
So?
The F-16 is fairly old too.
I think the effectiveness has been grossly exaggerated. When people talk about anti-access, area denial, I know they're talking utter crap. These systems will not stop stealth aircraft flying between them, nor SEAD/DEAD missions taking them out. The 50 year-old trend will continue.
India once complete the XRSAM development.it will create one more air defense layer (2021-2022)...so best of luck to our friends who wish to penitratrae Indian multilayered air defense system ...not to forget India successfully developed own seeker and AESA radar so there will be frequent technological upgrades.
Performance of Nato air power against countries like Syria, Libya, Mozambique etc...
S-400 is not a ABM. It is 'just' an extremely able SAM with very limited ABM capabilities.
Its purpose, in Indian defence is three folds.
1. Deny Pakistan from operating a AWACS or a Fuel Tanker to extend their limited range and force of PAF.
2. Deny Pakistan's F-16 any operational capabilities in Indian Airspace and to a large extent, Pakistani Airspace as well.
3. Defeat most of Pakistan's cruise missiles at a longer distance. A cruise missile is much more maneuverable and potent threat than a Ballistic missile.
I am referring to the 30 sep 2015 incident in which the pilot died in air itself due to direct hit of the missile.
IIRC, that jet crashed in South Israel, which was too far away from any Syrian SAM site.
So, USA is modern day superman? Do you think Russia is incapable? On what basis? USA and Russia have an arrangement o de-escalation. So, neither does USA shoot down Russian planes nor Russia shoots USA planes
Stealth aircrafts are not Alladin's flying mat! They have low visibility but not invisible. Also, the air defence network has radars from various angles due to which not just the frontal RCS is seen but sideways RCS is also seen which is god enough to give away any stealth plane.
Russia did not help any of these countries with lethal and modern weapons. The SAMs used are very old in these countries
As of SAM use, I don't know why people easily forget that S-400 in Indian use is meant to be just one part of the larger integrated air defence system, and not a standalone system by any means. Everything from short-range systems like SPYDER, medium ranged Akash Mk.1/1S/NG, long range Barak-8/8ER to the extremely long ranged 40N6E rounds on S400 all work together, and a common air situation picture is shared between all these systems, pictured by radars ranging from small slotted array gapfiller types like ASLESHA to more sophisticated AESA arrays available in all types, shapes & sizes that go up to BMD/massive airspace surveillance radars.
When all these systems work in conjunction, they create one of the most sophisticated and advanced air defence infrastructures in the world. I wouldn't honestly believe the most top-tier US/NATO air warfare units can take that lightly - this is several leagues ahead of anything such forces have faced in real world scenarios. Working around such a network is easier said than done - especially when one has to fight against not just the ground-based AD threat (which can strike down aircraft flying well within Pakistani airspace), but the IAF fighters and force-multipliers (Phalcon, Netra, upcoming EW aircraft) as well.
The current or foreseeable arsenal available with PAF does not seem well poised to effectively deal with such a threat, at all. This is the kind of network that top-tier air forces would struggle to break through without incurring unsustainable losses. Dealing with a ground based AD threat is one thing...facing such threat when you are struggling to gain air superiority is another level.
And the closer a system like S400 is to the border (provided IAF decides to use them in an offensive anti-air role), the farther PAF force multipliers have to move away from the combat theatre, further lessening their effectiveness of influencing the battle. If such lumbering aircraft enter S400 envelope they're dead.
---
As of BMD, the S400 as we are buying it is simply not the be-all end-all of the BMD efforts India will implement. This is just one piece of the puzzle (and not even a complete piece, it'll be complete only once the 77N6N series rounds have been acquired). Theatre-level BMD is a ways off, with missiles like AD-1 and AD-2 not even been tested yet.
What about China-India. Pakistan is barely Iraq-level opposition, in fact they are below 1991 Iraq as an opponent.