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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.


In a strict aerial role I would say yes. I say throw all of our naval assets that are over in Europe, mixed with euro navies and you have a very potent defense. Destroyers and cruisers take almost no time to come up thanks to has turbine engines. Nimitz classes are in port in standby and could easily get underway in no time, and be across the pond in a day in a half, maybe a day. This is all also assuming that there is absolutely NO prior warning.




posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I don't know about all this. A surprise attack with aircraft?

People and land transports maybe. Aircraft's in sworms? I doubt it.

Russia makes great planes. I am not saying they don't. But they sometimes get ahead of themselves and until any of this is really proven I will call BS.

They may want their capabilities to be like what is described but actually developing, building and then Fielding what they built is no small endeavour.

Also, we are assuming that all our capabilities are known even to our average military.

As far as detection I will think that we can see all around the world. Even if we lose some assets. The entire wealth and power of the west wouldn't be in a precarious situation considering that enough money gets what you want.

There is a shortage of money in our bank accounts, not in the upper echelon of our leadership and the power elite.

I think we like to look weaker than we are. You usually gain more by losing sometimes.


edit on 6 5 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: truttseeker

But how do you protect the inland portion of the countries? You can protect around the coast with navy units, but how do you get an Arleigh Burke to inland France? Or some of the other nations?

The initial hits will all be missile strikes using long range cruise missiles, as well as fighter and SEAD strikes to take out the defenses.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

It's not the aircraft that is the threat, it's the new air to air missiles.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: truttseeker

But how do you protect the inland portion of the countries? You can protect around the coast with navy units, but how do you get an Arleigh Burke to inland France? Or some of the other nations?

The initial hits will all be missile strikes using long range cruise missiles, as well as fighter and SEAD strikes to take out the defenses.

In that case you will definitely see the cruise missiles. We will see their planes being loaded/ fueled and will have some prep time. There is no way we wouldn't see some preparations. An undertaking of a magnitude that would decimate Europe in one fell swoop would throw up a couple red flags.

The destroyers and Spain would at least put up a good base of resistance.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: truttseeker

Except that they wouldn't need to move into those bases, just flatten them. There is almost nothing we could do to defend them if they decided to hammer NATO.

Yes, there would be some signs it's coming, but if they were to do it right now, how do we tell the difference between one of their massive training exercises and an actual attack plan before it's too late? With practice they could start loading, and launch in less than 24 hours.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Honestly, I think you are overestimating them and underestimating us.

There is NOTHING we can do? I don't think so. They would have done something by now. They haven't because they can't.

So they have a new missile. OK. Lessons learned with all of our "new" missiles. Lets see how it fights before we say we are invincible because of it.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

And you, and others are seriously underestimating them. A number of people are of the "We're the US, and they're Russia, we'll win" mentality. The truth of the matter is that this has been studied and the people that have a lot more information than we do are extremely concerned about these missiles. They're not invincible by any stretch, but they're going to utterly devastate any non-stealth aircraft out there. Some of them won't even see them coming until it's far too late to do anything about them.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
I am going to agree with this.India's Su 30MK's(not the MKI's or the new super sukhoi upgrades) beat all legacy F16's and F15's with radars on training mode and no AWAC support at Red Flag. They since have upgraded to MKI's and now are going to Super Sukhoi(make them close to su 35s).
The T50 is designed as a F-35 killer. Even though it is lacking on stealth(even that is debatable) it has excellent new radars, long range missles, IRST. The F35 will be sitting ducks without AWACS and numerical superiority. F35 is a stealthy bomb truck. It is best used to get into weak countries air defenses. That will not work for China or Russia. Air combat is all about making the enemy fight on your terms. Already the US legacy planes are behind the newer 4.5 gen planes like the EF, rafale, the new Migs and the SUs. The F22's are mostly for US mainland defense, they cannot be deployed in large numbers outside the US.


edit on 5-6-2014 by an0nThinker because: sp



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

No I am not the "we are the glorious USA" and will win all.

I understand that it wont be pretty and that their new weapon systems are top of the line.

I am just saying that with the combined strength of the US and Europe that they wouldn't have a cake walk.

It would be hard either way. That's why I am not gloomy about their new missile being better in terms of range and target acquisition. It really is a numbers game. How many missiles can each aircraft carry? How many aircraft can they get in the air and back again after the attack?

First wave will hurt us bad. They then have to keep them coming and not sustain heavy losses.

We had the best missiles during Vietnam. Tactics were learned to circumvent them making us miss every time.

Every weapon system gets old and every system has flaws. Its just a matter of time until those flaws are learned and exposed.


edit on 6 5 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

That's why I said "some", I haven't gotten the impression that you are, but others have that attitude.

Each fighter will only carry 8-10 missiles, but there are rumors that they are modifying other aircraft to carry them in much larger numbers that would go in with fighter support and salvo fire them. It could increase the numbers of missiles in the air to numbers far larger than you would expect to see from a wave of fighters.

NATO doesn't have a lot of strength right now. They've just passed an agreement that will create closer ties, but NATO right now is in a world of hurt. They're barely able to perform some of their basic missions. The biggest thing recently that really jumps out is that the Admiral Kusnetsov sailed through NATO waters recently, and the one ship that was in the area was unavailable to keep an eye on it.

With the cutbacks that Europe has undergone recently, the US has become NATO, and we're hurting too.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
not that this is remotely relevant, but when the zombie apocalypse comes i want and A-10 warthog.

Fancy shmancy computer decced out stealth is great and everything, but im a sucker for large chain guns so beefy they can stall the aircraft.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
There are rumors that a new Russian modification has been seen flying recently. If so, it changes things pretty drastically as far as the missiles go.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Russian missile truck?



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
You cant win a war with a missile, it may be a good missile, but still.

Russia suprise attack on UK airfields - what will they bomb our airfields with, the bear, a sitting duck up there? How are these BFO bombers going to sneak in? Will our Typhoons just let them in? Will our AA missiles not work against the bear?

These missiles, have they got 100% success rate or do they just look like it on paper?

NATO picks up bears and support fighters flying towards Scotland, Typhoon scrambles, Russia launches super missiles at Typhoons with dubious results as Typhoon DASS suite is still pretty secret.

UK shares data with NATO partners and Gripen, F-15 and F-16 from Nato pop up behind bears and super missile trucks and hands them a can of whoopass. AEGIS ships divert to North Sea to protect airspace, France mobilises Carrier, Germany, Italy etc, on full alert, all Radars pointing at Russia.

USA B1 and B2 and cruise missiles from all our subs wipe out russian airfields within reach to UK and France making russia rely on refueling trucks to keep fighter is the air, Russia now spread thin protecting tankers and bears, AEGIS picking off cruise missiles.

America mobilises, UK airfields remain open, France, Germany and Italy also remain open, Russia has nothing to stop the Airbridge to Europe...

I love fantasy war fighting....lol
edit on 5-6-2014 by IamSirDrinksalot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: IamSirDrinksalot

So all the Typhoons, and US F-15s in the UK are sitting there armed and ready to take off at a moments notice? And our Aegis ships are already off the coast?

And who said they were going to be Bears? It's far more likely that any attack would come from Blackjacks and Backfires flying at high speed and low level, which would make them a lot harder to detect until the last minute, when it's too late. The Bears would have another mission.

It takes hours to arm fighters and get them ready to launch. By the time they would be ready to go, the whole thing would be over and done with.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

No but our Type 45s are more than capable plus our QRA aircraft are ready.

I doubt the russians can build tiny AESA in any great and reliable quantities, I think its all smoke and mirrors and they are still using valve technology and copper wire to fly their jets, I hear they still have dial up internet too.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: IamSirDrinksalot

Your QRA fleet is in such small numbers that they could be easily overwhelmed by any kind of large attack force. Even 5-6 Backfires could get through the UK QRA fleet. The Type 45s aren't sitting there radars turning, ready to defend against an attack force.

You are majorly underestimating the Russians, and overestimating NATO forces. Russia has always been better with missiles than the West. A force of high speed bombers coming in on a high-low-high attack profile, launching AS-4/AS-6 cruise missiles is going to do a lot of damage, and is going to get through.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Sorry Zaph if you already told me (I have memory issues from D Storm) What about the whiz bang rail guns and lasers?
Is there a chance for a large aircraft to haul a system like that?
Perfect for a Hyper sonic platform.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Lasers, other than short range jamming types, suffer from range problems due to atmospheric interference, among other things, and rail guns are still too big to put on any kind of aerial platform.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join