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.

 

Putin confirms anti-ship missile deployment to Crimea

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

MALD has a 500 mile range roughly.




posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

You are not going to use attacks from the air anywhere near Russian airspace, given Russia's anti air technology.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

That's what stealth, decoys, and cruise missiles are for.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thank you for your reply, so are you telling me that the russian.. S-400 for example cannot handle everything you just said??

AFAIK, the system is designed to target ballistic missiles, stealth craft such as the F-22 and B-2 bombers:

F-22
Stealth airplanes such as the B-2 and F-117A
Strategic cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk
Ballistic missiles

If you know better, I'm curious as to whether Russia can deter the list of targets you said or not



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Stealth only has to survive long enough to reach the launch point. No one knows if the S-400 will or not, because it's never been put up against a modern stealth aircraft that was trying to hide from it.

Non stealthy cruise missiles, certainly. Decoys, absolutely, but that's their entire purpose.

On paper a number of things will destroy stealth, but in reality they aren't as effective as they appear to be.
edit on 3/16/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/16/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Fair enough, so it is all conjecture really? It could go either way, you don't know for sure if the Russians could stop it or not.


I wouldn't bet against the Russians because their missile and tracking technology is pretty good.

ETA: We don't know their deployment methodologies either, that could add the extra effectiveness needed to track any objects attempting to evade or fly under cover.


edit on 16-3-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-3-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-3-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thank you for your reply, so are you telling me that the russian.. S-400 for example cannot handle everything you just said??

AFAIK, the system is designed to target ballistic missiles, stealth craft such as the F-22 and B-2 bombers:

F-22
Stealth airplanes such as the B-2 and F-117A
Strategic cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk
Ballistic missiles

If you know better, I'm curious as to whether Russia can deter the list of targets you said or not


S-400 can track stealth but in a aggressive jamming environment the ability reduces to 60 miles range. Do not know of other passive techs that Russians can deploy. Btw, S-400 missiles are $1 million each which is similar to JASSMs.

One item that always find with potentials is the mile high poles with IRST capabilities (60 km range) covering 360 degrees on circular rotation, placed every 50 miles or so on a grid pattern. Hence it would take 6 poles to cover 300 miles on single grid. Might require few hundreds to give Moscow an additional 300 mile range to find stealth and start tracking it. HARMs, JSOWs etc. can be delivered from 150kms outward hence would be of little use at 300 miles. Each S-400 battery costs nearly half a billion. These poles should not cost that much, given they are protecting few areas and not every square inch of Russian territory.

Russia is much behind in stealth and somewhat behind in avionics. Russian ELINT, jamming, anti-jamming capabilities while good also lack few steps vrs the US.

US also has the favor of numbers and industrial power to back any war effort.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

That's what stealth, decoys, and cruise missiles are for.


And the US has them in spades!!!!



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
America has spent more in the last 50 years on both radar and stealth than russia has spent on its entire military, don't try to tell me they are better in any way at all.

They are not.

They can not track our sheaths.

They do not have an effective countermeasure to stealth.

Sure if our steaths just abandon the "blue line" they will be in trouble.

That is the point though, you don't do it, you fly around their radar umbrellas, and the stealth keeps you invisible.
edit on 16-3-2015 by johnwick because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

Sry for being "aggressive"in my last post been up for all but 4 hours in the last 2 days.

You didn't deserve it this thread doesn't deserve it.

I will edit it now.
edit on 16-3-2015 by johnwick because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Russia has always had great missiles, and has always had the lead in that department. But the US has a decades lead on the rest of the world in stealth, and it's only getting better. The numbers I was given on the RCS of the new bomber are scary how good it is.

Add in some of the new jamming systems that are being implemented, and I'd be willing to bet that by the time it could see a stealth well enough to launch, that stealth would have weapons in the air.
edit on 3/16/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

Yeah in the 80s it was Iran in the Persian gulf with the silkworm missile. That never amounted to anything either. No missile system or weapon of war is a deciding factor. There are always counters and tactics to neutralize them. Have you ever heard of the champ missile?

This video is from 2012. I've seen rumors that it is supposed to be Battlefield ready by 2016. One thing I've noticed in my 50+ years is that when US starts talking about a weapon system for the most part they already have it ready.


edit on 16-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

I think the recent example of the Exocet success in the Falklands war really was a paradigm shift. For me it was anyway, smarter people probably knew it was coming. There are credible reasons to believe if Argentina had more than 5 exocets they would have won the war.

I'm no expert on all the different systems however. I'm led to believe missile tech is ahead of Naval defenses currently.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

You know, the one thing people tend to forget. If your sink one aircraft carrier you don't win the war. During World War II US lost 11 aircraft carriers.

Besides mr. Spad hit the nail on the head earlier. Why on earth would we send ships into the black sea when we have it surrounded with airbases already?



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

Not as far as you think. SeaRAM is quite capable of taking out sea skimming missiles up to mach 2.5.
edit on 3/16/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

I think any offensive onto Russian soil is going to want the option of landing some forces in via the Black Sea. Incirlik in Turkey is there, but invasion forces would need closer air support I think. I know it popular to believe it will never happen, what with nukes and all, but military planners think of stuff like this.

The US doesn't really want anything in Ukraine, except for Crimea.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

The easiest route is the land route. Amphibious operations are both expensive and costly in men and material. If NATO makes an attack on the Russian troops in the Ukraine it will come from Poland or Czechoslovakia where the rebels and Russians seem to be rather thinly spread.

I won't source the build up in Poland/ Czechoslovakia because it is very discreet. (all small amounts of troops it different times ) But you read articles here and there about 500 troops 1000 troops or a striker task force British troops French troops. There is a gradual buildup occurring in Poland as we speak.

Here's one source, i've been reading about small detachments like this regularly deploying forward.


The troops and vehicles involved will be moving from training exercises conducted as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve in Estonia, Lithuania and Poland, the report said. They'll move through Latvia and the Czech Republic as they make their way to Vilseck, Germany, about a 40 miles drive from the Czech border.


armored task force

I have said all along keep your eye on camp Pisa Italy there are two 2 x 2 reinforced armored brigades prepossession there. When they start moving everybody should hold her breath.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




But the US has a decades lead on the rest of the world in stealth, and it's only getting better. The numbers I was given on the RCS of the new bomber are scary how good it is.


That's true US is way ahead of others in Stealth. Guess that leads to conclude that detecting and tracking Stealth planes should be done by other means that do not utilize radar. IRST, Sound, Air disturbance etc. come to mind right away.

Russians are very good in books and theories but they lack money for practical research due to corruption etc. That's where they get a beat by the US and examples are Stealth planes like B2 and F22s.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Well, it's confirmed now. Russia has returned Nukes to Crimea.

www.i24news.tv...

It's no surprise really, just unfortunate.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

Um, maybe I missed something but where was it confirmed? A nuclear capable bomber does not a nuclear weapon make.




top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join