Thread 64502045

>European AA systems powercrept US patriot
how true is this statement?

>>64502045 (OP)
>russia’s upgraded missile attacks that patriots have struggled to stop

Russian narratives belong in the trash.

You should feel bad, OP.

Any “struggles” with patriot are due to insufficient supplies from the US due to kremlin puppets like Trump

>>64502050
The fuck are you talking about
Patriot is a +30yo AA system something "new" performing better than patriot is not russian narratives you nigger

>>64502057
>Russian's "upgraded" missiles are new and thus performing better than 30 year old patriot

Xaxaxa + 50 rubles for you

>>64502045 (OP)
>Patriot: Developed 1976, entered service 1984
>SAMP/T: developed 1990s, entered service 2010

Anyway, MEADS dabs on both of them.

>>64502133
>what's a "Theseus"
>inb4 I was only pretending to be retarded

>>64502133
I thought MEADs was a new plug-and-play system architecture? Not new launchers, radars, or missiles?

>>64502151
ship of theseus is certainly a thing
but if have to keep updating within the same dimensions you are going to lose efficiency
just look at the A220. Boeing and Airbus simply kept ship of Theseusing their old air frames. Then Bombardier came with a completely new design and it would end up eating all of Boeing's market share even in the US.

>>64502045 (OP)
SAMP/T is more comparable to the standard series than Patriot

As America declines, Russia and Europe rises. An alliance between the two is natural.

>>64502045 (OP)
patriots have always kinda Shitty. MIC glossed over alot of the issues in the 90s and then eventually they got sent to ukraine. Pro Ukrainian mandatory positivity pushed people into thinking they'd gotten better.

>>64502045 (OP)
How does sending 30+ year equipment to a battlefield going to improve it? Wouldn't learning how the current up to date systems perform be more important?

>>64502185
Only thing on the rise in russia is aids rates and the churka population percentage.

>>64502045 (OP)
>the United States is losing it’s edge.
You would have a point.
If the US gave a shit about ground-based air defense. Which it doesn’t really.

>>64502045 (OP)
The French have a massive motive to take advantage of the US being cunts and trying to take their arms contracts.
As for how "effective" any system is there are so many factors that without data we can't know shit.

>>64502151
An F-16V is still an F-16.

>>64502165
>I thought MEADs was a new plug-and-play system architecture? Not new launchers, radars, or missiles?
It's basically a Patriot sidegrade - new launcher, new AESA surveillance and fire control radars, vastly improved networking, fires PAC-3 and IRIS-T. Decent option for the yuros but the Army decided to just stick with Patriots until the LTAMDS gets rolled out. LTAMDS is going to be a gigantic upgrade, especially when whatever follows up PAC-3 MSE gets integrated, and given that the INF treaty is ded I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually becomes the basis for a BGM-109 replacement.

>>64502461
US air defense is only ground-based until it gets airborne.

>>64502045 (OP)
>according to frog manufacturer of frog AA systems, frog AA is actually better than american AA
kek

America is a second rate power now. EU and China are the new protagonists of the world.

>>64502045 (OP)
>frenchies lying about military competency
Many such cases.