It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sukhoi T-50 begins weapons integration

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: boomer135
Oh come on! We forget that our pilots are better than any pilots in the world!


So, if the air bridge with all that fuel and help to cross the Atlantic is at the bottom of the ocean, how is that raptor going to get to the fight? it isn't.





Put a Russian or Chinese man in an F-22 and an American in an F-15 and I'll take the American every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Lol


We shall forever and a day disagree with this. Each to their own.


Bottom line is these projections don't take into account the skill level of the pilots. If we had 180 raptors in theater that would be more than the first week of the Iraqi Shock and Awe campaign.


So how do you suppose to have 180 Raptors in both theatres when you only have that number in total, and not enough tankers for two sustained high intensity fights? you don't.

As for skill set, we figured in a 88% mission readiness and a 95% efficiency for every pilot in a NATO airframe. Russians were down to 73% MRR and an 80% efficiency.

As for those who say Russia couldn't take Europe, you do realise that at this very moment, the best elite troops in NATO are at 24hrs notice, and the rest? you can measure their readiness rate in weeks.




posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: boomer135

And BVR, with a missile you can't see incoming how does skill help you? Skill does wonders for WVR, and for knowing how to use your equipment, but if you're BVR, with a missile coming in that has an LPI radar and datalink on it, being guided by another LPI radar, all the skill in the world doesn't help you. It's all about reaction time, and the new AESA missiles don't give you any.

Not to mention our pilots have to have air bases to operate from. NATO has downsized their mission to the point where we don't even have equipment in the area to shadow Russian equipment as it transits through NATO territory, let alone stop a full blown blitz by low level Backfires and Blackjacks.


So you don't think we have something that could identify those missiles? Bottom line is you guys are going off of what the public knows about these birds, not what they are capable of. Think about this. I refueled an lrs-b technology demonstrator in 2005. Just now, nine years later were about to get the information that the pentagon wants on these jets. That's just a decade behind what the public knows. Most people would be correct in assuming that we have technology 20 plus years ahead of what the public knows about. Its like anything else, if we couldn't defend against it, we wouldn't let them develop it. Nukes or otherwise.

And as for the air bridge, your saying that they are going to put over four hundred tankers on the bottom of the ocean? I bet they dont get close to shooting just one down. During air bridge ops, there's obviously too much firepower and defensive forces for anything to get close to a tanker. In my opinion. They would sacrifice an F-22 to keep a tanker airborne.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Oh and raptors or any other jet for that matter doesn't need a tanker to get across the pond. Its just way faster and it helps.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Sure there is, but do you really think that we have them sitting and ready to go? It'll take them 24 hours to even realize something is going on in Europe, and at least that long again to get equipment moving. Look at how long it took them to get equipment to Saudi and Kuwait. We don't have the capability to do that anymore now.

Who said anything about bringing the tankers down? Where exactly are the tankers going to operate from? Russia takes the UK, and there goes Scotland and the UK as far as bases go. That limits where our tankers go for operations. They're going to have to start to operate further and further from the theater of operations, which limits their effectiveness, which limits the fighters effectiveness. They don't have to shoot anything down if they can take away the bases they operate from. No bases, no tankers. Just how many tankers can refuel from others? Something like 8 KC-135s, and the KC-10 fleet.


Oh and raptors or any other jet for that matter doesn't need a tanker to get across the pond. Its just way faster and it helps.


And where are they going to land after Russia hammers the hell out of the bases in the area? No one in NATO has the capability to stop a large wave of high speed bombers, operating at low altitude, firing long range cruise missiles.

The entire premise of the counter attack, and stopping Russia requires bases to operate from. If Russia really wanted to, they wouldn't even have to shoot down most of the fighters, they could just send in their Blackjacks and Backfires low level, with a pop-up cruise missile attack and they'd wipe out at bare minimum half of the NATO bases in the region, which immediately limits what you can do to fight back.
edit on 6/4/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Poking my head in to cherry pick some quotes here.


originally posted by: boomer135
Oh come on! We forget that our pilots are better than any pilots in the world! Put a Russian or Chinese man in an F-22 and an American in an F-15 and I'll take the American every day of the week and twice on Sundays.


This is the sort of gamble that loses wars. It is perhaps the same sort of hubris that has led to Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War (and the later resulting Iraq War), and Afghanistan. Saying "our troops are trained better" and even lumping in "equipped better" as well to pre-claim victory is a dodgy thing to do under any circumstance. This sort of logic only stands up on its own if you assume that you are plopping every piece of equipment and personnel on the ground opposite one another and they lob projectiles until everyone falls over and stops moving.


Bottom line is these projections don't take into account the skill level of the pilots. If we had 180 raptors in theater that would be more than the first week of the Iraqi Shock and Awe campaign.


Assuming that everything is serviceable and combat-ready is pretty out there. This is government work we're talking about.


originally posted by: Zaphod58
Not to mention our pilots have to have air bases to operate from.


This is very important. The scenario being tossed around assumes a Russian surprise attack. In this scenario, you've got 24 hours before you even figure out what is going on under the best of circumstances (remember how long it took before the world even had an idea of what was going on in Ukraine when Russian soldiers had boots on dirt). You need airfields. Administration centres. Resource centres. Imagine how many of those are within 24 hours of Russia's border at Tu-95, Tu-22M, Tu-160, or even ballistic missile speeds. You can do a lot of damage in this seemingly short amount of time.

Another vital part of this scenario is Russia's love for anti-air vehicles. Anti-air defense installations are constantly under development by them, something I wish was reflected in our Western states given how frequently air power seems to be the linchpin of modern warfare. If the Russian army can actually claim territory and get their air defense installations down, it will be a real pain in the ass to try to reclaim it using air power. And you can imagine how fun it will be trying to fly in reinforcing ground forces.

Just stirring the pot.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Darkpr0

There is no unit in the US, anywhere that is going to go from a cold start, to wheels up in under 24 hours, even if they recognize, and react in less than 48, which is extremely unlikely. If Russia were to launch a surprise attack, even without putting troops on the ground, and they came down the GI-UK gap with their bombers, by the time anyone in the US even realizes what's going on, any airfield they can use to operate from is going to have been hammered into rubble.

Start at the outside, with the UK, Greenland, Scotland, etc and work back to the continent, and the US is screwed when it comes to taking Europe back.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Darkpr0

There is no unit in the US, anywhere that is going to go from a cold start, to wheels up in under 24 hours, even if they recognize, and react in less than 48, which is extremely unlikely. If Russia were to launch a surprise attack, even without putting troops on the ground, and they came down the GI-UK gap with their bombers, by the time anyone in the US even realizes what's going on, any airfield they can use to operate from is going to have been hammered into rubble.

Start at the outside, with the UK, Greenland, Scotland, etc and work back to the continent, and the US is screwed when it comes to taking Europe back.


What??? Sept 11, 2001, after the second plane hit we were sent home for crew rest and ten hours later launched to the air bridge. Its why we train for this stuff. On sept 13 we were already flying sorties into Afghanistan, and we weren't even the first tankers in country...



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

I should have specified "fighter unit" in the US that could go from a cold start to wheels up in 24 hours. Airlift yes, but fighter units? Not gonna happen. They have to recognize what's going on, get the aircraft loaded, get at least minimal support loaded onto aircraft to go with them, etc. Fighter units don't react well to a cold start, as we saw on 9/11.

When we used to have paper exercises for Korea, it was based on being 36-48 hours after a surprise attack before the first fighter unit was landing in Hawaii on the way to Korea, and a full 72 hours minimum before they were even in theater. Yes, we could have units in Europe faster, but if the first strikes take out the UK and other bases on the western edge of Europe, it's going to be a lot harder to get them in theater.

Even if by some chance we had a force of F-22s in the region, in a surprise attack scenario they'd be almost useless. One thing that the Air Force is no longer very good at (largely because of having air superiority since the end of WWII) is base defense. If Russia were to launch a surprise strike on our bases, the defenders would be hard pressed to get more than any alert aircraft airborne, which means we might get as many as four aircraft into the air.
edit on 6/4/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Astr0

One should wonder WHAT we have in ORBIT that can shoot too. I guess these would be called "LAST USE " but whatever their titles we have ALWAYS pulled our punches in EVERY single conflict since Korea. We can do FAR greater harm but it isn'r necessary to win...yet.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Getting off the Tom Clancy Red Storm Rising 1980s cold war Ruskie tank rush which takes Euro in 72 hours back to the Sukhoi T-50. lol. The old Ruskies didn't go so well in Afghanistan, a few AKs, RPGs, IEDs and stingers pissed them right off and they went home. Asymmetric counter insurgency guerrilla warfare after the initial invasion. As coalition forces have found out in Iraq and Afghanistan can be a real nightmare. I found this interesting India is not very happy with the T-50 and there is some info about the F-35.



The Russian prototype is "unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered,” said Indian Air Force Deputy Air Marshall S Sukumar



“The Russians are good aircraft designers, and they know how to build an agile aircraft, and [the new plane they are working on] is a step forward the path of more agility and flexibility, but the problem is -- it's not all about the frame, it's about what your put in it. The F35 can see around itself, 360 degrees, can see a missile take off 820 miles away, it has a radar that's extraordinary, and the systems are integrated. The Russians I think are nowhere near that at this point.”


www.foxnews.com...

See a missile launch from 820 miles seems a bit far fetched.
edit on 5-6-2014 by JimTSpock because: Forgot link duh



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I think we forget about the US naval assets in all if this. We've got bmd destroyers all over Rota, then carriers rotating in the med, the gulf and all over 7th fleet. Granted it would be minimally effective against a full on suprise attack from the Russians. I think we would see more survivability and at least a marginally better response from the Americans and NATO. This is also assuming that Russia jumped in and had everything go 100% according to plan and no western nations had any idea whatsoever that they were preparing for an attack. I think the idea that Russia would roll in and absolutely decimate half of Europe in a 24 hour timescale is a little out there. The concept that we are I'll prepared and resting on our laurels is definitely spot on though...just my .02



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astr0
The Russians are forming a new tactical doctrine that's going to cause F-35 drivers a sever case of 'fukkit wheres my Growler'.

The Russians know the vulnerability of the F-35 very well, and we will see within the next two years an influx of radars that do don't point outwards, but across the borders.

This will be mirrored by combat tactics for their aircraft that will hunt in wolf packs and ripple fire missiles that are guided in by data links to other ground and air assets that are outside the X-band efficient frontal arc of the F-35.

The F-22 and B-2b are the only publicly known airframes that are in any way survivable against this upcoming threat.

:
Your qualification on airplanes is obvious.. Not much at all. You don't have a damn clue what ''the russians know'.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: starfoxxx

And you really think they're NOT aware of the problems the F-35 has, and are working on countering them?



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: truttseeker

Again the problem lies in the surprise factor. Even with an aegis in the area, that initial surprise is going to be huge. At least the first few missiles will probably get through before anyone can react.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: starfoxxx

And you really think they're NOT aware of the problems the F-35 has, and are working on countering them?


Who gives a rats ass. not worried about russia



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: starfoxxx

Well that's good for you, but done people are more realistic and see the threats out there, and watch them.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: boomer135

I should have specified "fighter unit" in the US that could go from a cold start to wheels up in 24 hours. Airlift yes, but fighter units? Not gonna happen. They have to recognize what's going on, get the aircraft loaded, get at least minimal support loaded onto aircraft to go with them, etc. Fighter units don't react well to a cold start, as we saw on 9/11.

When we used to have paper exercises for Korea, it was based on being 36-48 hours after a surprise attack before the first fighter unit was landing in Hawaii on the way to Korea, and a full 72 hours minimum before they were even in theater. Yes, we could have units in Europe faster, but if the first strikes take out the UK and other bases on the western edge of Europe, it's going to be a lot harder to get them in theater.

Even if by some chance we had a force of F-22s in the region, in a surprise attack scenario they'd be almost useless. One thing that the Air Force is no longer very good at (largely because of having air superiority since the end of WWII) is base defense. If Russia were to launch a surprise strike on our bases, the defenders would be hard pressed to get more than any alert aircraft airborne, which means we might get as many as four aircraft into the air.



So, um, who do you think we were setting up the air bridge for? Certainly not heavies or transports. My first sortie on the air bridge were strike eagles off the east coast. They flew really long flights that night.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: truttseeker

Again the problem lies in the surprise factor. Even with an aegis in the area, that initial surprise is going to be huge. At least the first few missiles will probably get through before anyone can react.


I would agree but it wouldn't just be one aegis. It would be probably 3 with the given carrier strike group in fifth fleet, along with rota being home to a few of the bmd destroyer platforms with the porter on the way soon. I mean, 6th fleet headquarters is in rota with a bunch of destroyers and cruisers. That in itself is a hefty antiaircraft ability. 7th fleet aor is about 2 days worth of steaming to get to at least a counter attack position. Whatever carrier transiting to 5th fleet or coming out if 5th fleet could provide ~18hr response given initial reports of an impending/underway Russian attack at a flank bell. They will be carrying ECM squadrons with them and a sizeable fighter/attack capability. Plus ssgns could pinpoint and neutralize at least some of the ground units moving across Europe. Units from Djibouti/afghan/Kuwait could be mobilized with a moderate quickness in the situation of attack. I agree that the initial attack would be catastrophic to NATO, but I would assume a swift counterattack on Russian forward stations and main air bases via b-2s out of Diego/b-1s along with heavy cruise missile attacks from Indian Ocean and 7th fleet unit.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

I'm well aware of what the air bridge was set up for. And it took about 24 hours for the first fighter units to be wheels up and moving. That was with having somewhere to land. In this scenario, there's a very limited area to land.

The major question is still there. If Russia were to launch a surprise attack, and hammer NATO airbases, where are the tankers and fighters going to land to operate from? I guarantee that an F-22 is not going to fly across the ocean, fly combat operations, and fly home again. They simply can't. Not in a fighter. I saw pilots that flew an 8 hour ferry flight almost have to be physically lifted out of the cockpit because they cramped up so badly. And that was just a routine straight and level flight, with refueling added. Throw combat into that, and you're going to lose them all just on the flight home because of pilot fatigue.

The first attack will almost certainly hammer the UK, and bases in that area. One of the biggest lessons learned from WWII was that if you deny the US the UK, there's not a lot that they can do. You need airfields to operate from. You can't do 40 hour missions in a fighter.
edit on 6/5/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: truttseeker

By 18 hours, the GI-UK gap is hammered, and they've moved inland on the Continent. There will be B-1 and B-2 strikes but the B-1s will be extremely vulnerable to the new missiles, and if another idea goes active, they will get even more dangerous. We might be able to save the UK, and the islands, but the Continent would be screwed, because of our limited long range strike capabilities.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join