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.

 

Raptor gets it's baptism of fire in Syria?

page: 11
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

It makes sense to have the CJs hanging around. Based on things I've heard, I'm die confidence was very high that the Raptor could get in and out safely, there have been a lot of rumors of Syria getting S400s. While I'm sure they could have gotten out past them as well, better safe than sorry.




posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I have a mild interest in the events between Russia and the Ukraine.

I'm actually half 'White Russian' and half Ukrainian by descent. I have zero use for either one.
(except the food)

I don't disagree with what you say regarding how and when Russia has 'moved'. What I am saying is Putin could have moved before now and didn't.

NATO acquiesced to Russia and refused to allow the Ukraine to join NATO. The U.S. backed off on plans to place the ABM system in eastern Europe AND massive reductions of U.S. military presence in Europe, itself.

Almost an invitation to Russia by the U.S. to reclaim the Ukraine...

Troop reduction in Europe had to be a 'factor' to be weighed in Putin's decision to act. Perhaps not a decisive one, I will now admit....



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I dont think he moved before because Ukraine was relatively stable. It was only there PM being removed and the country going into turmoil than gave Russia the opportunity to go in. It dont it many times before with other country's even even when US military was bigger.

Russia would have done the same whatever.

What would a bigger number of troops stationed in Germany/Poland the Baltic have done? Not alot. It does not matter how many troops you had 1) MAD and 2) Huge loss off life would mean the USA would never have risked ww3 over a insignificant NON NATO country that has no US bases in it.

The whole US military could have been in west Europe and Putin would have known the USA would never has interfered over Ukraine.

Ukraine was screwed the moment it gaves it nukes up after the fall of the USSR so is Belarus.



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Agreed re the nukes. Amazing the impact those have...

I'd say your assessment of the when and why of Putin's move is spot on.

All that being said, he still had to concoct an internal uprising in the eastern Ukraine to justify the move.

A masterpiece.



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Agreed re the nukes. Amazing the impact those have...

I'd say your assessment of the when and why of Putin's move is spot on.

All that being said, he still had to concoct an internal uprising in the eastern Ukraine to justify the move.

A masterpiece.



Yup it why a NATO presence is vital in all major EU country's. It creates a red line Putin wont cross. But countrys outside? They are free game. To be fair Germany, UK and France are quite capable of taking the bulk of the defence on with the USA in a supporting role.

Same in the East. USA is keeping China out of a lot of places. But anywhere the USA is not welcome or not present? looks to be at risk, hence why Vietnam trying to get defence packs with you guys.



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Then we are back to square one. That is to say, enough with shrinking the U.S. Military. We can't cover, properly, everything, everywhere -as you point out-as it stands.

Further reductions empowers those of similar ilk to Putin to act similarly. One could argue that the Isis/Isil is a direct result of U.S. 'contraction'. (At the least, a factor.)

Who's next? China?

One superpower moron is preferable to multiple morons, especially when the one power is relatively benign...



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Will a big answer is to get some of the USA key allies to big up some of the slack.

UK/France/Germany have pretty much similar standards and near similar tec.

I dont think the USA should withdraw. But it could scale back a little while us allies could take on a bigger role.



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

That would work.

No further reductions until the rubber hits the road, though. Results, not 'promises'.

Back to my original point, though, an isolationist U.S. and multiple powers is a formula to war. The U.S. has to maintain it's dominance, if not outright superpower status for any chance of global peace...relatively speaking...cough, cough.



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I never really read up on the aviation world, but yesterday I came accross this thread. There is a ton of helpful information reading through the pages of comments. It drew me in. Today upon getting on the Popular Science website, I found a topic about satellites, and drones. The first picture you'll see when you click the link is a satellite image of he Hollywood sign taken by the United States Geological Survey, in california. Wouldnt this show to be the case of the before and after picture in the OP's link? From the comments I read yesterday, I think it was implied that it was possibly a UAS. Go easy on me if I am completely wrong here.. I Just thought I'd stop by to share.

Link to picture



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: jeenyus2008

No, because satellites generally don't do real time video. There's a video of the strike, that is using the same optics as whatever took the before and after pictures. It's definitely a UAS.

That's a good picture of the sign, but the optics of this UAS are head and shoulders above any satellite image I've ever seen.



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. It sucks that you ( or any of the other posters) would go to jail for saying what you know about classified aircraft.. What is your profession, if you dont mind?



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: jeenyus2008

Now, I'm a truck driver. I live and breathe this stuff, and grew up around it.



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Book full of knowleddge, you are Zaph. Thanks again, and have a good rest of the weekend.
2nd
edit on 27-9-2014 by jeenyus2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=18454996]nwtrucker[/post
OK, here’s a question maybe someone here can answer. (Zaphod?) I saw a Lockheed-Martin advertisement video that showed an F-22 launching an air-to-air missile. The F-22 rolled inverted, popped the weapons bay doors open, ejected the missile upwards, where it promptly ignited and took off, snapped the weapons bay doors closed, and then rolled wings level again. The whole sequence only seemed to take 1 to 2 seconds. The whole point, of course, is to not have the open weapons bay exposed downward to ground radars. This way, the missile gets launched and the aircraft never loses its low observable status, in the process.

Does anyone know if the F-22 can launch ground attack munitions in the same way? (Presumably, it would be for the same reason.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: 1947boomer

Theoretically they can launch all their weapons from all aspects, but if you're talking bombs, you'd want to be very careful to be at the right angles to get out of your own weapons way after release.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

If a bomb release from that aspect is possible and appears in the F-22 playbook, then I'm sure that they would have practiced it--on a simulator, if nothing else.

I'm just thinking that this might explain the use of an F-22.

As I'm sure you know, US doctrine is to establish air dominance in an area before going in with ordinary bomb delivery trucks like F-15s and F-18s. Air dominance includes turning off all the SAM radars, neutralizing all the opposition's air-to-air capabilities, C3, etc. That wasn't possible in this case. Even though all those capabilities supposedly belong to Syria, not ISIS, I think the planners would have to treat this attack scenario as though it was airspace disputed by a near peer.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I've seen full res ECS images taken under ideal conditions, and the photos they put online (that I've seen) of this strike do not look higher quality. That's not to say the optics aren't better (I would expect aircraft at 60000 feet to be able to take better pics than a satellite at 200+ miles), but the quality of the images they released do not appear to my eye to be anything special..but who knows how much they were compressed. I may also be thinking of the wrong images though.
edit on 28-9-2014 by quatro because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

?



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: boomer135

?


Nice..



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Yeah those high off bore sight missiles are pretty sweet too. But the f-22 supposedly can open its missile doors, fire the missile, and close in under a second. So I don't think it would matter that they role inverted to launch a missile.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join