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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

You obviously didn't understand what I said! And Yes we can and will fly to that theater to fight Su and MiGs. You still act like Russia has as many operative Su-27s as we have F-22s.




posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
The strength of the US military is a complete myth.

The US military has NEVER been able to successfully defend the USA against an attack, and has lost wars in many areas where they should have won.

The US really doesn't get bang for their buck given how much they spend on their military.

If you really want to beat the USA, attack the mainland head on, or use militia forces.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

Hitting us with GROUND troops.... in our country?
WOW what rock DO YOU live under?
They MIGHT be able to make land fall then get attacked and their equipment stolen by gangs, Unless the military shows up to save them they will get attrocites commited on their forces and be left beaten and naked.
UNLESS you are DUMB enough to hit us with WMDs AND use a preemptive strike that is ACTUALLY 100% successful,it will NOT work.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.


The F-15, F-16 and F-18 are restricted by range. Russian bombers dont have to be Close to the US border or within the range of US fighter to fire their New crues missiles.

Even With the air delivered Sunburn missile the US fighter will be out of range to intercept. This means that the Russian bombers will be able to fire their missiles before the US fighter are capable of intercepting Russian bombers.

There is no way a US fighter or missile is capable of intercepting a sunburn missile.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: spy66

You obviously didn't understand what I said! And Yes we can and will fly to that theater to fight Su and MiGs. You still act like Russia has as many operative Su-27s as we have F-22s.



No you wont. The US wont fly a mission With their F-22 form the US to fight a air Battle in the EU.

Not even the B2 will be of any use in this Battle. It will be brought Down before it can deliver it medium range missiles.
If it does get it short range missiles away the S400 and S500 will take them Down. Or THe panzir or Tor will do the job.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
The strength of the US military is a complete myth.

The weak link in the 'US might' chain isn't the military. But, it is there and that link continues to get weaker.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.


The F-15, F-16 and F-18 are restricted by range. Russian bombers dont have to be Close to the US border or within the range of US fighter to fire their New crues missiles.

Even With the air delivered Sunburn missile the US fighter will be out of range to intercept. This means that the Russian bombers will be able to fire their missiles before the US fighter are capable of intercepting Russian bombers.

There is no way a US fighter or missile is capable of intercepting a sunburn missile.


Which Spy66 is why some F-22 along with other components of the USAF in any battle/skirmish/war would be deployed outside America....potentially Europe or other locations to engage the threat you identify...

PDUK



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.


The F-15, F-16 and F-18 are restricted by range. Russian bombers dont have to be Close to the US border or within the range of US fighter to fire their New crues missiles.

Even With the air delivered Sunburn missile the US fighter will be out of range to intercept. This means that the Russian bombers will be able to fire their missiles before the US fighter are capable of intercepting Russian bombers.

There is no way a US fighter or missile is capable of intercepting a sunburn missile.


Now your going to use an anti ship missile on ground rargets?? By the way doesn't work on land to much back round noise for the seeker head. And the plane launched variant only has 100 k range meaning well the bombers toast because it's on range. Let's hope you get a promotion to Russian general if you were in charge the NATO forces would have Russia gone in 24 hrs lol.

Seriously guy you need to at least know something about missiles and nit just ohh sunburn scary stuff. By the way this was true in the 90s today they can be easily countered and Russia doesn't have enough to even concern the US fleets. Know how many the Russians have mounted I n there pacific fleet 1 destroyer. Don't think there going to have a hard time knocking that out do you.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
And the plane launched variant only has 100 k range meaning well the bombers toast because it's on range. Let's hope you get a promotion to Russian general if you were in charge the NATO forces would have Russia gone in 24 hrs lol.

Seriously guy you need to at least know something about missiles and nit just ohh sunburn scary stuff.

The air deployed Sunburn (KH-41/Moskit/ASM-MMS) has a range of 250 km.
2nd.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

So now, in addition to destroying every airfield in Europe at once they have enough missiles to hit the US at the same time?

Why are you using an anti ship missile on land targets?



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Of course, because Russia says so, right? And no manufacturer would ever exaggerate, even when it's never been tested against a system.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: dragonridr
And the plane launched variant only has 100 k range meaning well the bombers toast because it's on range. Let's hope you get a promotion to Russian general if you were in charge the NATO forces would have Russia gone in 24 hrs lol.

Seriously guy you need to at least know something about missiles and nit just ohh sunburn scary stuff.

The air deployed Sunburn (KH-41/Moskit/ASM-MMS) has a range of 250 km.
2nd.


Dont matter since its a SURFACE SHIP WEAPON. Also SEArams land based variant can obliterate them easily.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Of course, because USA says so, right? And no manufacturer would ever exaggerate, even when it's never been tested against a system.

I hope the irony of me doing this is not lost on everyone.

As for ground targets...as long as there is nothing above 20 m for the cruising stage (entire trip), and nothing above 7 m for the attack stage, the missile wouldn't be able to tell you if it was hitting a ground or sea target. It's not that smart of a system.

Does that exclude the vast majority of ground targets? Yes.

Does that make the missile incapable of hitting a ground target? Nope. It could be utilized against coastal structures, like naval bases, without much issue.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
No one can invade the USA because of it's Nuclear retaliatory response capability.

BUT

What some are saying is true, without that we are somewhat undefended our Military is designed for excursion not defense.

People like to say "all our guns" etc... meaningless in a modern war, if somehow you got past our navy our got into Canada or mexico with an Invasion force we are defenseless on land. Our cities have nothing, the majority of Americans will not become "wolverines" over night, our "gangs" wont last 3 minutes against soldiers, most of our terrain isn't good for "hiding" much of our nation is an open plain, our woods aren't "thick" anymore about the only place nature serves rebels is Alaska in this country beyond that they would find you. Not to mention if they get their hands on it your own govt has records, dna, finger prints and more on everyone... ripe for the taking.

It's true... the way to go for America would be to "somehow" land the men in large numbers, our cities could fall rapidly.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: spy66

You obviously didn't understand what I said! And Yes we can and will fly to that theater to fight Su and MiGs. You still act like Russia has as many operative Su-27s as we have F-22s.



No you wont. The US wont fly a mission With their F-22 form the US to fight a air Battle in the EU.

Not even the B2 will be of any use in this Battle. It will be brought Down before it can deliver it medium range missiles.
If it does get it short range missiles away the S400 and S500 will take them Down. Or THe panzir or Tor will do the job.

If you are so sure of what the US will do then why are you debating? Maybe, you need to work at the Pentagon with your great understanding of how our military functions. They do hire civilians from time to time but they usually have an extensive military background.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
So let me get this straight. There are people on this thread trying to out knowledge and argue with Zaph when it comes to military aviation. Guess they don't know. Good luck with that one.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
The west is totally outclassed by Putins man missile..

It's the most lethal and largest man rocket in the soviet arsenal.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

Except that stealth aircraft have been tested against active defenses. Including more modern systems that the US and its allies have gotten their hands on. Show me a modern stealth aircraft Russia has gotten their hands on to test their systems against.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: rigel4

Since the passing of Ivan the great, I suppose. But the US has a black president, so again, our missile is bigger than theirs. Longer range, maybe slightly smaller payload.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

(No Racism Intended)

Send in the black ... there's no going back




top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join