orca - I have been out of the combat aircraft 'sphere' for a very long time now. Some of the articles I read were years old, so I probably am the very last person to hear about the S400! I came across another article about phones that can fit in your pocket; I am going to get one when they come out! Such is my Robinson Crusoe existence, without the palm tree's unfortunately.
I came across the S400 a while ago but didn't check out its specs. My comments were a little tongue-in-cheek but I was impressed by how far the goal posts had moved.
I guess principles of SAM systems are fundamentally the same and so the initial means of dealing with them can still be used, along with more modern methods. SAM = radar + fire control + missile + data-link; I suppose this equation is still valid although there is probably a bit more too it now.
One thing that wont change are the laws of physics. A missile is still a pole with short stubby fins on it. A missile that can go 400km is going to be big and heavy. It has a long reach but its not invincible. When a SAM turns its 'headlights' on, its there for all to see.
Radar is still limited by the curvature of the earth, so seeing a jet on the deck beyond a flat 25 miles or so is still problematic unless you have airborne radar.
I read an account of a Gulf War A-10 pilot who was shot at by a SAM at night. He saw the launch and tracked the 'flame' of the SAM and began to 'dance'. Then the flame went out and he had to time his moves based solely on his predictions of what the now invisible SAM was doing. That's one hell of a way to earn a living but it shows the defensive tools and training work.
I suspect that today's high threat environment puts emphasis on team work more than ever. The S400 is a clear marker of how much more lethal the battle space is becoming. No doubt technology will continue its game of 'leapfrog', where one advance is negated by another.
What was interesting in reading some government published documents was that it was pointed out that the 6thGen Tempest does not necessarily refer to a single aircraft; Tempest could actually be the name for a system of several components that deliver the required capability.
OAP - you are right. Rules of Life: No.1 Never eat yellow snow; No.2 Never trust a glossy brochure. I take your points exactly. The theoretical capabilities can be far different to the 'every day' real world capabilities. I 'over egged' it a bit in making the point that the systems of today are highly lethal and getting more so.
Manufacturers can be over enthusiastic with their 'new born babes'. Back in the beginning of the SAM/missile age many thought the missile had killed the dogfight; they thought once the missile was launched it was game over for the poor target. The manufacturers were eager to sell their wonder weapons and they undoubtedly sold them to themselves first and made gross claims that these miniature kamikaze's could not be dodged if launched within their limits. When these wonder weapons went to war in Vietnam, they did not work as advertised.
Like wise the Sea Harrier in the Falklands. I do believe an initial serious assessment by some outside the FAA was that they would all be lost in one or two weeks and were no match for the supersonic jets and missiles. The pilots had other idea's but it took putting the systems and the personnel to war to reveal reality. As you say, no matter what the brochure says it will take putting those systems to the test to know how effective they really are.
The proliferation of highly capable weapon systems like the S400 may give some crazy person the impression they are now more protected than they really are, leading to them starting something somewhere. As well as the battle space impact of these systems they may also have a political space impact. They may destabilise various regions.
Thanks to you both for your sharing the benefits of your experience; this thread has been a great read.