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.

 

Russia claims HYPERSONIC fighter

page: 9
9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
How do you know that until they get there? If we knew what they are doing from the moment of launch, why wouldn't they try and stop them? Seeing as how NATO shot down a Russian ground attack aircraft…

Next you'll tell me the Russians announced it ahead of time.

You can get a fairly good idea based on trajectory. Sending up missiles, on an off course trajectory, just gives defensive systems more time.

I imagine that a large number of people were aware of the launch as soon as it happened (enemies and clients alike), with the only party aware ahead of launch being Iran (client and friend) and a select group of clients (brought to watch and assess).

Obviously, forces on the ground, near impact sites, were probably aware ahead of time as well.
edit on 27-1-2016 by peck420 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: intrptr

Your logic is circular.


Back to he point I originally made, this is a Russian ploy. How does that disagree with all the military proponents on here… again?

Oh thats right, I speak up about the US Military industrial complex and the unjust wars waged by the US government overseas.

So here, last time:

A hypersonic jet isn't useful as a "fighter", "interceptor" or "bomber". It does none of those functions well and is already obsolete considering modern theatre warfare between the supers will be made up primarily of a plethora of missiles. Conventional old style combat between Carriers and combat sorties of jets is obsolete, old school dogma.

In a super power engagement the first mass of jets leading bombers will be gone shortly after they appear on the scopes of the OPFOR.

Proposing conventional war somehow will be fightable between nuclear armed armies and navies is ridiculous. Picking on the little guys through proxy is dangerous, reckless and ignorant, to the whole world.

The Russians aren't going to break stride with their old adage, quantity has its own quality. Wasting time inventing Wundewaffe (wonder weapons) is the refuge of losers.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And yet they've developed the T-50 stealth fighter, are working on a new stealth bomber, and other new "wonder weapons".

So how exactly are aircraft going to be "gone shortly after they appear on the scopes of the OPFOR"? You have to have a way to shoot them down.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420


You can get a fairly good idea based on trajectory. Sending up missiles, on an off course trajectory, just gives defensive systems more time.

"Fairly good idea?" Not if they are launched far enough away from the conflict (nobody is looking for a threat coming from the Caspian Sea).

Launched from vessels (Mobile launchers), terrain avoiding, ground hugging, over friendly territory (like Iran) cruise missiles aren't ICBMs, giving off launch signatures that are monitored from space.

The reason Russia used them is the same one the US uses them to open conflicts. They avoid detection and interdiction, striking their targets and going boom before anyone knows what happened.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

That's where airborne radars come in to play, as well as multiple ground radars, mounted high up in the mountains. They also would appear on radar in the terminal guidance phase of flight, which is when the anti missile batteries would fire on them. They didn't go into Turkish airspace, so they weren't fired on.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420


Obviously, forces on the ground, near impact sites, were probably aware ahead of time as well.



Yah, they filmed them going by, even getting off some hip shots.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

So, yet again, why would Turkey shoot down missiles in Syria?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gpols

And swear a lot.


But that happens IRL (In Real Life)....



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   



In a super power engagement the first mass of jets leading bombers will be gone shortly after they appear on the scopes of the OPFOR.



If our aircraft are stealth, then how are the OPFOR gunna even know to shoot them down?


edit on 27-1-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

uhm... wouldn't the scopes be rendered useless in a super power engagement?

Radar emplacements would be targeted first.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

Mobile radar. It's harder to find than a mobile missile launcher, if the station commander is halfway intelligent.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
So Russia is going to miraculously have an infinite inventory of cruise missiles despite a plummeting economy. With historically and relatively worse training and failure rates respectively, and all of them will hit their targets, despite the many proven countermeasures the U.S. and allies have developed?

Your claim of "Hypersonic" has already been disproven, your claim about Turkey not shooting them down makes no sense, and now you're saying that cruise missiles (or even missiles in general) miraculously heralded the end of manned jets and bombers despite all major powers still pushing stealth technology.

Nothing that you're saying or implying coincides with financial, historical, or empirical reality.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BASSPLYR

The A-12 wasn't, the YF-12 was. It had to fit the AN/ASG-18 fire control radar that the A-12 didn't require.


Hey Zaph, I've read the notches in the nose chines of the YF-12 were to accommodate an infra red tracking/targeting sensor.


edit on 27-1-2016 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Never heard that one.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Never heard that one.


Here ya go...


The YF-12A was quite similar in overall configuration to the A-12 from which it was derived. It differed from the A-12 primarily in having a second crewman in a position immediately behind the pilot

This second crewman was added to operate the extremely powerful and capable Hughes AN/ASG-18 pulse Doppler fire control radar, which had originally been developed for the F-108 Rapier.

The AN/ASG-18 was installed in the extreme nose of the aircraft, with the forward chines being cut back to accommodate the 40-inch radome. The ASG-18 radar supposedly had a search range as great as 500 miles.

Infrared sensors were installed in the forward edges of the cut-back chines.


Roadrunners International/YF-12 Story



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
Ever considered that in a scenario like you paint, SATS will be one of the first things going to be destroyed?
Without GPS, you can use starnav (only at night and only clear sky) or inertial systems to bring your rocket (basically that´s what it is, compared to GPS and such) near your target.

So I would say, all the ships and assets are not obsolete. Otherwhise, military planners would be dumb and you could take their jobs.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Awesome story, really suprised at what we find in our back-yards and tucked away for a rainy day. Seems a lot of effort for just a single attack sub though. I figure by now they have fully staffed and secret underwater bases on or near our coasts and/or Island chains for refuel/resupply and rearming. a reply to: Bedlam



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnthejedi24
Awesome story, really suprised at what we find in our back-yards and tucked away for a rainy day. Seems a lot of effort for just a single attack sub though. I figure by now they have fully staffed and secret underwater bases on or near our coasts and/or Island chains for refuel/resupply and rearming. a reply to: Bedlam



By now, probably, this was in something like 1978 though.

What's funny is that if you look back in the late 60's, early 70's, the local newspaper has an annual blurb about the Navy sailing a sub up the river to that town for 'navigational testing' or something. Apparently it was a yearly event for a while. But the actual reason they were doing it was to verify that they could get up the river and into the repair facility.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Drunkenparrot

You're talking about the prototype interceptor.



Came across it this week.

BTW speaking of fast planes. Spoke with someone online today that worked on the base that the SR-71's were stationed at along with U2's.

Said they used souped up el caminos for the U2. I thought they used something else besides an el camino.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

They used whatever could keep up. They used to have to use them for the SR-71 too. They had to go ahead of them and sweep the taxiway and runway for anything they might run over. The tire pressure was so high that if they ran over a dime, they 'd blow a tire.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join