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’s Missile Could Make U.S. Attacks on Iran Nearly Impossible

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

That's what terrain masking is for. You don't have to maintain below the radar levels, you use terrain to hide behind.




posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Terrain masking?
Like when bugs bunny used to hide behind trees to make his approach as he used to sneak towards elmer fudd to mess with him?

I say if you want to shut down a nuclear program there are more ways to skin a cat than to alert their air defenses.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

The best radar in the world can't see the back side of a hill.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: junglimogli

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
I believe Russia has already completed the S-400 now (which are not in the deal). So this isn't as much of a game changer as some would have us believe. Iran & Russia first signed the deal for the S-300s back in 2008. So I'd guess Israel & the West have many ways to defeat them now.


It's true the West would have developed plans to counter the S-300.. it's only natural to do so ..
However, they can not completely neutralize the S-300 .. heavy loses would still be expected .. and thats where the problem lies ..
The West always wants to fight wars where their enemy is weak .. and where they don't suffer heavy loses..
In this case, heavy loses would resonate home directly .. and the people would rise up against the war ..as with Vietnam ..

In the first gulf war we heard that we would need 10,000 body bags for our losses. In fact, we lost 324 troops. I suppose that you adhere to the dogma of Baghdad Bob. You can't guess at the number of losses in a hypothetical combat scenario when you only factor one weapons system. With this I must assume that you know nothing about military operations.

As for Vietnam, our world war two command structure made for higher losses than is accepted today. They were painfully slow in changing tactics when dealing with an asymmetric enemy. However, I challenge you to show me a country that can fight a war on two fronts with a 6000 mile supply chain for ten years.

The "WEST" always want to fight a weaker enemy, you say. This only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Sun Zu said 4000 years ago, to attack your enemy at his weakest when you have all the advantages. When you are the big dog the rest of the pack looks weak.

The people will rise up like Vietnam. Most of the demonstrations were young students that were directly exposed to the draft. Now, there is no draft and the military is voluntary. Most students here today have no idea of what is going on in Iran. They are only concerned about student loans and spring break not war.


Today is not 4000 years ago .. and to underestimate your enemy is the biggest mistake you will make ..
Iran is NOT Iraq .. these are not Arabs .. they are Persians .. when you encounter them, you will see what happens ..
As far as fighting wars on multiple fronts.. how are those going for the 'West' btw ..? disastrous as far as the world can see ..
I'm not a supporter if Iran by any means .. but the global situation and reality must be taken into account ..



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
HEre is a F-35 pilots helmet to help with targeting.



The following is a hypothetical.





posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: junglimogli

OH NOES!! PERSIANS!! im SO SCARED lol.

The Greeks and alot of others sent Xerxes back home crying for mommy.m Youre correct its not 4000 yrs ago when the persians used to be considered bad to the bone. We know its not Iraq. We also know how to hurt them very very bad.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MysterX

Satellites aren't sensitive enough to pick up an aircraft in flight. They don't give off enough heat for an IR satellite, and a radar satellite would be overwhelmed by clutter if it had the power to see all the way to the ground.


This is my game programmer side talking, but often times when I have to create graphics, one of the things I need to do is create shadows. To put it simply, shadows involve taking a point in 3d space, and sending a ray from that point along the vector of my light source. If the ray hits the light source I know there's no shadow, but if it's interrupted I know there's a shadow. There's another level to this though where my ray might hit an object behind the light source which still reads as a collision, and then what I need to do is look at the distance between that collision and my light.

Applying this idea to radar systems, wouldn't a radar satellite be able to ignore any return signal that takes more than x time? For example, if I know it takes 0.01 seconds for a radar signal to go from the satellite to the ground, but 0.008 seconds to go from the satellite to a plane in flight, I could ignore any return signals that take more than 0.16 seconds to return. That would filter out the ground. If you sent the radar 5 times per second, that would mean you only need to capture and process 20% of the total return data and doing so would filter out the ground.

Or would this not work because the planes could be flown close enough to the ground to get in under any such filter?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6
How about a SEAD attack prior to bombing the main targets. Obama is the problem not Putin! If Obama hadn't respond in a wimpish way Putin would still be riding his horse.


wimpish??....he's trying to saves lives on both sides...I'm sure you'll be able to tell all of those families that had their sons and daughters die in Iraq, that it was due to bush not wanting to be a wimp, or be seen as being one.....when are leaders in this world going to grow up and start acting the part...f'in 2 year olds that have to shoot it, or bomb it, to get their way. we haven't left the stone age, we just upscaled our clubs.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

No the satellite will constantly get returns that have to be processed. at the same time your signal from the plane comes in a radar return would be coming in from the early scan on the ground below it. Now think our radar signature would show buildings and trees and hills all with different return rates.When radar is used often they use something called differential scattering coefficient aka normalized radar cross-section or backscatter coefficient. This basically looks for increases in the radar signature it will let you know something is there just not its exact location. So as far as tracking a plane or missile not useful finding a ship very useful. In the case of the ship you have time to narrow the beam and find our target.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: buddah6
How about a SEAD attack prior to bombing the main targets. Obama is the problem not Putin! If Obama hadn't respond in a wimpish way Putin would still be riding his horse.


wimpish??....he's trying to saves lives on both sides...I'm sure you'll be able to tell all of those families that had their sons and daughters die in Iraq, that it was due to bush not wanting to be a wimp, or be seen as being one.....when are leaders in this world going to grow up and start acting the part...f'in 2 year olds that have to shoot it, or bomb it, to get their way. we haven't left the stone age, we just upscaled our clubs.


Completely agree. The question I ask people is "Who are the real savages? The innocents being slaughtered or the invaders doing the massacres?"

I believe the people who constantly push for war are the real threats. Just look at their logic. "We don't like your leaders' position so we'll starve & kill your civilians". That's literally state-sponsored terrorism. When people try to encourage war, no one ever talks about the mothers, children, elderly, newlyweds, etc that get caught up in the carnage. Or the schools, cemeteries, workplaces, and water mains being destroyed. And they dismiss any innocent people who are killed, as if they weren't humans but were roaches. (They even call drone strike victims "bugsplat".) There's nothing righteous about that at all.

I believe every person & nation has a right to defend itself. And I have no problem with Iran being able to defend its territory & civilians. Just look what's happened to its neighbors Afghanistan & Iraq, just in the last 15 years. And another of its neighbors, Pakistan, is getting drone strikes against them too.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I don't have the time to argue, I wasn't seeking an argument but apparently you are. I have several projects I'm working on ATM and schooling you is pretty far down the list. It can be done, it's just not up there in my priorities. So have a nice day.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Greece, Egypt and Ukraine all bought this system and that means the US has the technical specs on the system and countermeasures for the system.

The US military has a large number of research bases that take every new non US weapons system and comes up with countermeasures.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.defencetalk.com...
www.worldtribune.com...



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

The reason Russia is arming Iran is because Iran is involved With Yemen. And Yemen is involved With Saudi Arabia.

If Iran and Saudi Arabia go at it....The US must protect Saudi Arabia and attack Iran.

Even China will be involved in this.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Willtell

The reason Russia is arming Iran is because Iran is involved With Yemen. And Yemen is involved With Saudi Arabia.

If Iran and Saudi Arabia go at it....The US must protect Saudi Arabia and attack Iran.

Even China will be involved in this.



Which could be what they want, an excuse via defending Saudi Arabia to fight Iran.


The Nuclear deal is just a cover to make them look like they were trying, yet it seems the cover is blown on their lies by Iran.


edit on 14-4-2015 by bullcat because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

You wonder what these people are fighting over?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Has anyone noticed that the F-35 helmet looks like it has a pair of solenoids or something attached to it. That to me says something. IK may be crazy but .... Brain/ machine wireless communication?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

a stargate



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: spy66

You wonder what these people are fighting over?




Probably a 1 dollar bet.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

" Putin’s Missile Could Make U.S. Attacks on Iran Nearly Impossible "


Really ? The U.S. could Still Bomb the Living Crap out of the Former Soviet Union even with their Latest State of the Art Air Defenses and Putin knows that quite Well . As for Iran , Any Defenses it can Muster would be compromised in a Heartbeat . Sounds like just another B.S. Propaganda piece to me there..............



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Willtell

" Putin’s Missile Could Make U.S. Attacks on Iran Nearly Impossible "


Really ? The U.S. could Still Bomb the Living Crap out of the Former Soviet Union even with their Latest State of the Art Air Defenses and Putin knows that quite Well . As for Iran , Any Defenses it can Muster would be compromised in a Heartbeat . Sounds like just another B.S. Propaganda piece to me there..............


So why haven't you done it yet?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join