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.

 

The West has lost it's military edge.......

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: victor7

They can, but you can't just slap a coat of RAM and make it stealthy. So you can put them out there, but they're going to be vulnerable to even fourth Gen aircraft.




posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

If you're going to claim Russia can destroy every airfield that the allies can use within minutes without even leaving Russian airspace, then I can claim they have lasers. It's just as much of a stretch to reality as your claim. Do you have even the slightest clue how many airfields there are in Europe that can be used? Before you look at roads?

Any runway over about 6500 feet can launch fighters, and over about 7200 feet can launch a tanker. Even if Russia had the capability to do it, thru don't have enough missiles to do it. They don't even have the missiles to hit all the military bases at once.
edit on 4/15/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




IRST has an maximum airborne range of about 90 miles, looking straight up the tail pipe under absolutely perfect conditions. From the front it's closer to 50 miles. Ground based IRST is more limited because of the thicker atmosphere.


Also to confidently release the weapon, these ranges further decrease to 65% of the original. That leaves roughly 30 miles for the front engagement to fire the missile.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   
AMRAAM has a current combat Pk of 46%...


The Beyond-Visual Range AIM-120 kills were part of the ‘Air Combat Past Present and Future’ Pacific Vision 2008 presentation given to Senior Officers and the slide from the RAND presentation is included later in this submission.

The Pk (Probability-of-Kill) from past operational experience is now ‘open source’ and RAND calculates it to be 46%. The AIM-120D is expected to deliver better results, but has not been fielded because of technical difficulties.

In an Aviation Week article ‘Testing Times’ dated 23 February 2009 describes the difficulty of getting representative targets to test capabilities found in threat aircraft like the Su-35S. REPSIM’s simulations recognise the improvements of the AIM-
120D and can be considered ‘reasonable and representative’ at this time. Typically Pks of
below 0.2 are demonstrated against the Su-35S employing its full set of countermeasures


Found this off the wiki stub... "Assessing the Evidence Provided by AVM Kym Osley, New Air Combat Capability Project Manager (Date: 10 May 2012)"

edit on 15-4-2015 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Really do you realize the number of bases involved and the euro fighter is really good can give an f22 a run for its money in air to air if it gets close enough. They can land on most roads In germany Germans love straight roads. Russian ground missiles are little threat for most of NATO. And Europeans aren't stupid there military capabilities exceed the Russians in mist countries except former Soviet republics.

I'll never understand why people dismiss Europe's military potential just 3 countries in Europe could far exceed anything Russia has. Through in US capabilities for command and control and 8n formation gathering Russia would be kicked back across the border begging for peace.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I get the feeling the west has been poking at Russia for some time now to see their full hand of military equipment,but it's a futile attempt as it's close to their chest

We don't know what their exotic tech is just like they don't know what our exotic tech is

We know their advanced in laser but how about sonics?

Avionics and navy they are no match for America but beat them with missiles,radar and lasers

Do we know how far they have got with lasers?

Are they game changers in warfare or still too cumbersome at the level we are at now ?



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: spy66

Really do you realize the number of bases involved and the euro fighter is really good can give an f22 a run for its money in air to air if it gets close enough. They can land on most roads In germany Germans love straight roads. Russian ground missiles are little threat for most of NATO. And Europeans aren't stupid there military capabilities exceed the Russians in mist countries except former Soviet republics.

I'll never understand why people dismiss Europe's military potential just 3 countries in Europe could far exceed anything Russia has. Through in US capabilities for command and control and 8n formation gathering Russia would be kicked back across the border begging for peace.


Neither the Euro fighter ot the Rafale stand a chance in a war With Russia. All land based fighters are a one stricke reasource when the war breaks out. They will never be able to land again to refule or to rearm.

You can keep on telling Your self what ever lie that suits Your ego....you have probably being doing it for a long time so why stop now.
Russia will not fight anything like the US have been doing. Russia will attack everything NATO has at once massivly. Even the secondary bases and roads. Havent you been paying attention to Russian drills?



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

And they can't destroy every area that can operate aircraft in Europe. They don't have enough weapons. Hell there probably aren't enough weapons of you combine every missile from every military out there to destroy every single area that could launch aircraft from. It would take weeks to do it, even if they have the weapons.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: spy66

.


Neither the Euro fighter ot the Rafale stand a chance in a war With Russia. All land based fighters are a one stricke reasource when the war breaks out. They will never be able to land again to refule or to rearm.

You can keep on telling Your self what ever lie that suits Your ego....you have probably being doing it for a long time so why stop now.
Russia will not fight anything like the US have been doing. Russia will attack everything NATO has at once massivly. Even the secondary bases and roads. Havent you been paying attention to Russian drills?



Everything at once wow with what they're super death ray???? You have no concept of aerial combat there isnt a country on the planet that could do this. You're talking thousands of targets all with defensive capabilities. Anti missile systems air defense not to mention typhoons which are more than capable of taking out any Russian aircraft. But im sure you scared people here with talk of your super death ray the Russians have that will destroy Europe. Next time just say they would Nuke the place at least then you wont look stupid.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Candidly it does not make sense to try to destroy every airfield in a country let alone every strip of highway or even flat grassland from where any airplane can take off.

Attacking fuel depots, spare parts industrial capacities, ammo bases and factories etc. would yield more efficient results.

In the event of war against NATO, Russia's better chances are in being able to keep air forces of west at bay while running the ground operations to gain territories and resources. This all with nukes and WMDs not used as of yet.

Some major decisions taken by Russian leaderships in both political and military areas since 1991, raise questions regarding the practical approach and better use of resources.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: spy66

Really do you realize the number of bases involved and the euro fighter is really good can give an f22 a run for its money in air to air if it gets close enough. They can land on most roads In germany Germans love straight roads. Russian ground missiles are little threat for most of NATO. And Europeans aren't stupid there military capabilities exceed the Russians in mist countries except former Soviet republics.

I'll never understand why people dismiss Europe's military potential just 3 countries in Europe could far exceed anything Russia has. Through in US capabilities for command and control and 8n formation gathering Russia would be kicked back across the border begging for peace.


Neither the Euro fighter ot the Rafale stand a chance in a war With Russia. All land based fighters are a one stricke reasource when the war breaks out. They will never be able to land again to refule or to rearm.

You can keep on telling Your self what ever lie that suits Your ego....you have probably being doing it for a long time so why stop now.
Russia will not fight anything like the US have been doing. Russia will attack everything NATO has at once massivly. Even the secondary bases and roads. Havent you been paying attention to Russian drills?

I have been reading how Russia will defeat the "West" with a scenario that is, well, less than informed. It appears that there has been too much video playing going on here to carry on an educated conversation. This only leaves the players deluded as to the capability programmed into the "GAME."

Just for a moment, let's assume the the performance of Russian airplanes exceeds the F-22 and the F-35 by 10-20%. This is where the gamers stop strategic thinking. The gamers never consider the rules of engagement changes that will occur on the outbreak of the conflict. Gamers never consider the quantitative and qualitative differences in such a conflict.

To make my point clearer, the Su-35 theoretically can out perform a F-22 but when Russia only has 16 built against 200 F-22s fully functional airplanes with fully trained pilots who fly approx. 500 hours per year compared to 50 hours annually for the Russians. Good airplanes are only as good as the pilots flying them. This goes for the mechanics as well and the quality of the aircraft as well. How about the sorte generation and aircraft availability. Your game doesn't factor this accurately.
edit on 16-4-2015 by buddah6 because: lobotomized through superior pain meds.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: spy66

Really do you realize the number of bases involved and the euro fighter is really good can give an f22 a run for its money in air to air if it gets close enough. They can land on most roads In germany Germans love straight roads. Russian ground missiles are little threat for most of NATO. And Europeans aren't stupid there military capabilities exceed the Russians in mist countries except former Soviet republics.

I'll never understand why people dismiss Europe's military potential just 3 countries in Europe could far exceed anything Russia has. Through in US capabilities for command and control and 8n formation gathering Russia would be kicked back across the border begging for peace.


Neither the Euro fighter ot the Rafale stand a chance in a war With Russia. All land based fighters are a one stricke reasource when the war breaks out. They will never be able to land again to refule or to rearm.

You can keep on telling Your self what ever lie that suits Your ego....you have probably being doing it for a long time so why stop now.
Russia will not fight anything like the US have been doing. Russia will attack everything NATO has at once massivly. Even the secondary bases and roads. Havent you been paying attention to Russian drills?

I have been reading how Russia will defeat the "West" with a scenario that is, well, less than informed. It appears that there has been too much video playing going on here to carry on an educated conversation. This only leaves the players deluded as to the capability programmed into the "GAME."

Just for a moment, let's assume the the performance of Russian airplanes exceeds the F-22 and the F-35 by 10-20%. This is where the gamers stop strategic thinking. The gamers never consider the rules of engagement changes that will occur on the outbreak of the conflict. Gamers never consider the quantitative and qualitative differences in such a conflict.

To make my point clearer, the Su-35 theoretically can out perform a F-22 but when Russia only has 16 built against 200 F-22s fully functional airplanes with fully trained pilots who fly approx. 500 hours per year compared to 50 hours annually for the Russians. Good airplanes are only as good as the pilots flying them. This goes for the mechanics as well and the quality of the aircraft as well. How about the sorte generation and aircraft availability. Your game doesn't factor this accurately.


Exactly war is a game of numbers. Generals try to maximize the force they can bring on to particular units. Russia cant win the numbers game even removing the wests advanced tech. There is a 6 to 1 ratio for aircraft between them and NATO. 5 to 1 in troops 3 to 1 in ships. There is no way Russia could hold out against those odds not to mention 60 percent of there military doesn't even meet 21st century standards and poorly trained. The update to there military was supposed to be until 2030 but I'm guessing with the financial crisis they are having its going to be pushed back further. You can't ignore your military for 2 decades and expect them to catch up over night.
edit on 4/16/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
My point exactly.

Most if not all military skills diminish over time. In my case, I have been out of uniform for a quarter of a century and I wouldn't or couldn't do the job as efficiently as I did then. This is not including the improvement in technology. The equipment I used then is long since been replaced.

The military uses computer war games as a tool to predict the outcome of various war scenarios. Most of which are from papers written by students of the National War College. Each program pit the US against other country big, small, friends and foes. The Joint Chiefs get the recommendations from these scenarios before deploying units to a combat theater.

The computer programs used in no way resemble the war games in public use. This why I feel so strongly about some of the posters who obviously get their information and opinions about the military through the war programs commercially available. My grandson routinely defeats MiG-21s with P-51s...lol.


edit on 16-4-2015 by buddah6 because: lobotomized through superior pain meds.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Helious

So what is your alternative?

Allow the middle east to collapse and require the west to be extorted into spending $500 a barrel for oil?

We cannot go after the declared enemies: "no boots on ground" and "no collateral damage" what then is the third alternative?

Convert to Islam? Lick the boots of the Ayatollah? President Obama and the liberal left is facing America down that path as we speak, but most American citizens are stubborn.

Men commit acts against America and/or the Western world and then HIDE amongst civilians. In most peoples eyes that's a human shield. To many here that's America bombing women and children. Rather than blame the cowards that sacrifice their families for their own safety, you demonize the West for striking back.

When a group was fighting Assad and America armed them it was OK because Assad is a tyrant. America was championing the little guy. When that group turned it's guns on another enemy it became "America arms terrorists". Same thing happened in Afghanistan with the Mujaheddin. It's racist to say it but apparently, eventually everyone in that part of the world turns their guns on America sooner or later. Best course of action would be to "pull a Pilate" and wash our hands of the place all together. Not another dime, not another bean, not another bullet, and not another body should be sent into the middle east. Of course then we would really be monsters wouldn't we.

That's what I love and hate about Liberals. They want a different outcome until you give it to them. Then they bitch twice as much about the new one.
edit on 16-4-2015 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

If you're going to claim Russia can destroy every airfield that the allies can use within minutes without even leaving Russian airspace, then I can claim they have lasers. It's just as much of a stretch to reality as your claim. Do you have even the slightest clue how many airfields there are in Europe that can be used? Before you look at roads?


Logistics & fuel & parts & personnel matter.

On the other hand, missiles are very certainly one-use assets.

The question is always, "and THEN what happens?" Some airfields get repaired. All the while the B-2s are dropping bombs, and the B-1's and 52's are sending cruise missiles.
edit on 16-4-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If I knew they were trying to arrest me my patterns might not change as much. But if I knew there was a drone flying overhead with the hellfire missile meant for my ass I would definitely change my patterns so as not to endanger innocent people.

I am not making a moral judgment on the targeting of people with the drones I am just making a simple observation.

if you knew the US was targeting you for a drone strike would you go to your daughter's wedding?




Muslim fanatics don't think that way, read/see the real news...



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: buddah6

Where are the US going to fly the F-22 from ? Are the Americans going to fly sorties accros the Atlantic to attack the SUs and MIGs?

There is not one Place the F-22s will be safe within the EU. If the US ever put the F-22 in any of the EU bases it will be a dead bird... It is easy..... Math.

Russia have the best air defence systems With range that makes them capable of trageting everything NATO has in stalk at a very good distance. They can even target ground accets and airfields far inside of the EU.

All the F-22s will be stationed in the US. Because if Russia engages the EU you can bet Your back end they will attack the US as well. The Russians dont fly sorties by the US border for fun.

If this goes balistic....Russia will go all in right of the bat....that means everyone is going to feel the heat.

If the war breaks out before 2020 there wont be a F-35 to fight any where. Accept the once in testing maybe....


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

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



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

And F-22s aren't required to stop a Russian bomber heading for the US. An F-15, or F-16, or F-18 will work just fine. You act like the F-22 is the only viable asset the US has, just like claiming Russia has a few hundred thousand missiles they can launch at once.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

You should have read my first post before you made that stupid comment.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66




Where are the US going to fly the F-22 from ? Are the Americans going to fly sorties accros the Atlantic to attack the SUs and MIGs?


That would be only if war breaks out suddenly. It takes events, develo pments and time for a stage to be reached when war breaks out. In that build up, F22s can be based in any NATO airfields and that too covertly. It can also not be denied that F22s are already in Europe somewhere parked secretly in hangers etc.

It is better to not develop wild imaginations and that too in the scenarios like war etc. In WWII, there was a saying that the Glorious Red Army will push the Germans out in 3 months and fight the war on Nazi territory. While that did happen eventually but for 3 years Red Army was fighting on its own lands and paid an enormous price to push Germans out.

All the rosy assumptions were proven so wrong that Moscow came within an inch of falling to the invaders and that to within 6 months of the invasion.




top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join