No kidding. This is NOT the world of 20 years ago, when the Russians were a basket case and we were on top of the world. This is the Russia of TODAY, where they have spent close to 20 Years MODERNIZING their military, as this article shows, and hundreds of other articles on hundreds of other new weapons systems. I doubt we’re matching 10% of what they’re deploying. Last weekend (or maybe a bit before) when we shot down the Syrian plane, it took us 2 SHOTS. The first missile was MISSED because it tricked by the upgraded Russian flares. Again, this was a Syrian plane and it took 2 shots. We didn’t know that the Russians upgraded their flares, making our ‘smart’ missiles much dumber. 20 years ago, easy kill, this time, we had to get closer, with a second type of missile.
If the Neocons want WW3, the least they can do is allow OUR MILITARY to be upgraded first, so we have some chance of at least putting up a reasonable fight.
“The first missile was MISSED because it tricked by the upgraded Russian flares.”
Dude. You need to study up.
The Sidewinder has already been vulnerable to diversion by flares. It has been for 40 years. It’s a heat seeking/IR missile. And all of them have the same weakness.
Our “smart” missiles shoot from more than 100 miles and are radar homing.
“Upgraded flares”. That’s a hoot right there, I don’t care who you are.
It’s best you not post on the subject of military hardware anymore. Your knowledge gap will take years to close.
Because, according to your astute analysis, we need across the board upgrades, to: “at least put up a reasonable fight”.
I don't know who learned more from that encounter, us or the Russians, but both sides learned a lot.
I agree that when our first-line missiles are defeated by their old, export airplanes we are not in nearly as good a position as once thought.
I wonder how long it will take to upgrade our missiles? Is it a software change or do we need to develop new sensors and guidance?