. What we know of the S-300 we can extrapolate into what we believe the S-400 can do.
That is a very general statment.
Another one gullible enough to believe the Serbs. This has been debated and debunked here many times over. I suggest you take some time with the 'Search' feature and read up on how. The short version is that while no one dispute the fact that an F-117 was lost, what was debunked was that Zoltan Dani somehow managed to track and target the F-117. Numbers do not lie but people do. NATO flew tens of thousands of sorties but we lost only two aircrafts, an F-16 and an F-117. If what Dani did was supposedly so good, then why are there not more air casualties? The truth is that Dani got lucky. We never claimed that the F-117 was 'invisible'. Just very difficult to detect. Dani refused to reveal how many missiles he launched but Dale Zelko recalled he had to dodge at least two missiles before he was hit by the third, or perhaps even fourth. That is called 'spray and pray' tactic and it is an acceptable one.
I'm no saying that the Serbs simply locked onto the F-117. I'm saying that the Serbs used man, moment, machine. The "pray and spray" just sounds too crazy, and, yes, i realize that only one F-117 was shot down. However, the Serbs had only one modified SA-3. The same SA-3 that shot down the F-117. Now couple that with reports thats 2 other F-117's were damaged. Also, how does the "pray and spay" work? It's not like the SA-3 had gun sights, and even if it would it would be nearly impossible to perfectly time the launch probably 1 in a trillion shot. I'm not trying to argue that the SA-3 can simply shootdown stealth, because it can not. What I'm trying to say is a system like the S-400 may be able to do so, because according to the manufacture it was succesfully tested against stealthy cruise missles, but i'm not soley basing my argument on that alone. If the S-400 was used in conjunction with intelligence, spotters, and other intell much like Zoltan Dani did with his old SA-3 than it is not out of the realm of possibility to say that, perhaps an S-400 can shoot down a stealth aircraft. It has been done before. This next artical does a good job describing man, moment machine:
The Serbian battery commander, whose missiles downed an American F-16, and, most impressively, an F-117, in 1999, has retired, as a colonel, and revealed many of the techniques he used to achieve all this. Colonel Dani Zoltan, in 1999, commanded the 3rd battery of the 250th Missile Brigade. He had search and control radars, as well as a TV tracking unit. The battery had four quad launchers for the 21 foot long, 880 pound SA-3 missiles. The SA-3 entered service in 1961 and, while it had undergone some upgrades, was considered a minor threat to NATO aircraft. Zoltan was an example of how an imaginative and energetic leader can make a big difference. While Zoltan’s peers and superiors were pretty demoralized with the electronic countermeasures NATO (especially American) aircraft used to support their bombing missions, he believed he could still turn his ancient missiles into lethal weapons. The list of measures he took, and the results he got, should be warning to any who believe that superior technology alone will provide a decisive edge in combat. People still make a big difference. In addition to shooting down two aircraft, Zoltan’s battery caused dozens of others to abort their bombing missions to escape his unexpectedly accurate missiles. This is how he did it.— Zoltan had about 200 troops under his command. He got to know them well, trained hard and made sure everyone could do what was expected of them. This level of quality leadership was essential, for Zoltan’s achievements were a group effort.— Zoltan used a lot of effective techniques that American air defense experts expected, but did not expect to encounter because of poor leadership by the enemy. For example, Zoltan knew that his major foe was HARM (anti-radar) missiles and electronic detection systems used by the Americans, as well as smart bombs from aircraft who had spotted him. To get around this, he used landlines for all his communications (no cell phones or radio). This was more of a hassle, often requiring him to use messengers on foot or in cars. But it meant the American intel people overhead were never sure where he was. — His radars and missile launchers were moved frequently, meaning that some of his people were always busy looking for new sites to set up in, or setting up or taking down the equipment. His battery traveled over 100,000 kilometers during the 78 day NATO bombing campaign, just to avoid getting hit. They did, and his troops knew all that effort was worth the effort.—
The Serbs had spies outside the Italian airbase most of the bombers operated from. When the bombers took off, the information on what aircraft they, and how many, quickly made it to Zoltan and the other battery commanders.— Zoltan studied all the information he could get on American stealth technology, and the F-117. There was a lot of unclassified data, and speculation, out there. He developed some ideas on how to beat stealth, based on the fact that the technology didn’t make the F-117 invisible to radar, just very to get, and keep, a good idea of exactly where the aircraft was.
Zoltan figured out how to tweak his radars to get a better lock on stealth type targets. This has not been discussed openly.—
The Serbs also set up a system of human observers, who would report on sightings of bombers entering Serbia, and track their progress. — The spies and observers enabled Zoltan to keep his radars on for a minimal amount of time. This made it difficult for the American SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) to use their HARM missiles (that homed in on radar transmissions.) Zoltan never lost a radar to a HARM missile. —
Zoltan used the human spotters and brief use of radar, with short range shots at American bombers. The SA-3 was guided from the ground, so you had to use surprise to get an accurate shot in before the target used jamming and evasive maneuvers to make the missile miss. The F-117 he shot down was only 13 kilometers away.Zoltan got some help from his enemies.
The NATO commanders often sent their bombers in along the same routes, and didn’t make a big effort to find out if hotshots like Zoltan were down there, and do something about it. Never underestimate your enemy.
Defence Aviation - Who shot down F-117 ?
"We used a little innovation to update our 1960s-vintage SAMs to detect the Nighthawk," Dani said. He declined to discuss specifics, saying the exact nature of the modification to the warhead's guidance system remains a military secret.
It involved "electromagnetic waves," was all that Dani — who now owns a small bakery in this sleepy village just north of Belgrade — would divulge.
USATODAY.com - Serb discusses 1999 downing of stealth
James O'Halloran, editor of Jane's Land-Based Air Defense, said the Serbs could succeed because the
stealth fighter was not design to be invisible to old long pulse duration radars.
how do you for certain if the other seller is telling the truth when he claim his junk can outperform his competitor?
Why junk? And no one claimed it can outperform anything but stealthy cruise missles, and conventional aircraft. This "Junk" you speak of has garnered the attention of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a long time US allie as well as an important customer of US weapons. If the S-400 was junk don't you think Saudi Arabia would opt for the PATRIOT, or whatever else the US has to offer? Crazy Saudies willing to spend 7 billion dollars on "junk." Right now Israel is strongly opposed to the sales of the S-400 because its range could threaten Israeli aircraft, so as for now nothing is clear. However, Saudi Arabia a country that has traditionally has bad relations with Russia and good relations with the US, so isn't it strange that Saudi Arabia is interested in the S-400?
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGklYqo...p%3a//www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6353
Please...Just from looking, I can tell there is nothing 'stealth' about that thing. Any radar engineer will tell you that a single vertical stab is just as good as a beacon. Calling something 'stealth' does not make it so.
How do you explain AMERICAN stealth cruise missles with one vertical stab? I'm not arguing that a single vertical stabalizers is better than the v-stabalizer because it probably isn't but the US has build several stealthy cruise misles with one vetical stabalizer.
http://defense-update.com/images/jassm-aa04.jpg
http://www.wingweb.co.uk/wingweb/img/450-AGM-129A_Cruise_missile.jpg
http://www.wingweb.co.uk/wingweb/img/450-AGM-129A_Advanced_Cruise_Missile.jpg
.[/QUOTE]
we promise to share what we learn 
