Russia to Deploy S-400 Missile Defenses

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
Okay, can someone please post a reliable source stating that the S-400 can sucessfully shoot down a Raptor? I gave sources of the Raptor destroying the S-400, but not one source has been made in the opposion view.

Whoa there partner.....I dont think we are saying it can shoot down a raptor, I dont know if it can , I'm just pointing out how SAM's can shoot down aircraft stealth or not and the things surrounding stealth.


The Raptors main asset is stealth.

Yeah, but I was pointing out the other stuff about it how it isnt just a stealth plane like the F-117. Dont you agree?




posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Yes, but it would have been shot down more easily, what you dont see is. The weapons buisness a weapon is built ; for sake lets say the rifle, they invent protection against it; body armour and helmets, the other side invents a more powerful gun; the other side invents even better protection and so on.
What you see is that there is no real perfect defense or offesnsive weapon.


It's funny...Weren't you the one who once tried arguing that there were no offensive and defensive weapons?

Well, that really doesn't matter. The response is always slower then then the action. Armor will always be behind bullet technology.

The counters aren't always reliable, either. Air defenses have shown themselves to be inferior to the best planes and missiles time and time again. Russia has no way of testing their S-400 on an actual stealth plane anywhere close to the level of the F-22. On the other hand, America does have capability to test its stealth planes on the very best radar in the world.

America is spending a lot more on the F-22 then Russia is on the S-400. We have the capability to test our stuff better. We have the capability to make better equipment. We have the reason to test it because we've invested more in it.

America would have no real need for stealth at this point if there was such a cheap and easy counter to it.


Now the SAM there is good at shooting down planes and even better with more radar , now stealth just reduces the reaction time of the SAM, it doesnt make it unable to shoot it down.


SAM's haven't been all that effective at shooting down planes with or without stealth...



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Also:
'not Russia’s most advanced system coming—another system is expected in 2012' www.missilethreat.com...

That would be the system that'd be used against the Raptor? The S-400 will be used as a platform to boost to the next level. So Russia can sell the S-400 to everyone and fund the better design. Makes a fair bit of sense, if you ask me.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It's funny...Weren't you the one who once tried arguing that there were no offensive and defensive weapons?

I was putting it into your terms so you would understand BUT if you want me to put it in my terms then fine , every weapon has an oposite and both will better the other.


Well, that really doesn't matter. The response is always slower then then the action. Armor will always be behind bullet technology.

Not really, armour can stop just about everything.
I mean every year there is a big show where all the main bullet proof glass makers show how good thiers is against a range of weapons, one of them IS the .50 cal sniper rifle...


The counters aren't always reliable, either. Air defenses have shown themselves to be inferior to the best planes and missiles time and time again.

Nethier are missiles.
.....Wha? Ok wait a second here, your trying to say that there has been a conflict between two navies/airforces which are both armed with the best missiles and air defenses?



Russia has no way of testing their S-400 on an actual stealth plane anywhere close to the level of the F-22.

Of course not!


On the other hand, America does have capability to test its stealth planes on the very best radar in the world.

Yeah, its not that hard to test stealth BTW esspecialy if the aircraft doesnt know its being tested...hehe remember that RAF incident?
The rapier tracking the B2 at a airshow?



America is spending a lot more on the F-22 then Russia is on the S-400. We have the capability to test our stuff better. We have the capability to make better equipment. We have the reason to test it because we've invested more in it.

.....So you think the USAF wont produce a jet that cant be picked up by any russian gear?
Wrong the USAF is looking for a good stealth plane , better than the F-117 and near the B2's level and have a good fighter.


America would have no real need for stealth at this point if there was such a cheap and easy counter to it.

It is easy and cheap to counter it, stealth can be detected by just about any radar.
Its the range that counts.



SAM's haven't been all that effective at shooting down planes with or without stealth...

Case 1;

12th May 1982.
1244 hours
Four A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 4, attack H.M.S. Brilliant and H.M.S. Glasgow, 15 miles south of Port Stanley. Brilliant destroys two with Seawolf missiles and a third crashes into the sea while trying to evade missile. All three pilots, Lt Bustos, Lt Ibarlucea and Lt Nivoli are killed.

Case one;
0840 hours.
Pucara of FAA Grupo 6 shot down by Stinger SAM near San Carlos. Pilot, Captain Jorge Benitez, ejects and walks back to Goose Green, which was still in Argentine hands at this time. The Stinger was fired by a senior NCO of D Squadron Air Troop SAS. The shot turned out to be a lucky one because the operator of the weapon had had no training on the Stinger before. The Stingers had been supplied to the SAS by the United States Government. Staff Sergeant O'Connor of the SAS had been trained on the weapon and it was intended that he would teach other troopers how to use the weapon. Sadly O'Connor was killed along with 21 others when the Sea king he was aboard crashed into the sea on the 19th of May. He was carrying all the Stinger training manuals at the time. The pilot of the Pucara, Capt. Benitz, ejected safely from the aircraft

Case 3;
25th May 1982.
0837 hours.
HMS Coventry shoots down an A-4B Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 5 with Sea Dart west of West Falkland. The pilot, Lt Palaver, was killed



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Also:
'not Russia’s most advanced system coming—another system is expected in 2012' www.missilethreat.com...

That would be the system that'd be used against the Raptor? The S-400 will be used as a platform to boost to the next level. So Russia can sell the S-400 to everyone and fund the better design. Makes a fair bit of sense, if you ask me.



Interesting read. Right now the Raptor dominates the S-400, but this machine might give it a hard time. Thats why such systems will be proposed to stop such thing.


Lasers: Lasers on gunships or the JSF which is projected to be out in 2010, would provide vital for protection vs SAMS.

Microwave weapons: Air Force X-45 and Navy X-47 unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAV) have been proposed. At higher power levels, HPM is an extremely effective antielectronic weapon - a pulse only a few milliseconds in length can destroy or cripple sensitive electronics in computers, communications networks and power plants, amongst others.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I laugh a lasers at the moment since they depend on a large amount of equipment and variables and the fact that mother nature can still beat our latest tech with just one of the simple things in life ; rain.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
I laugh a lasers at the moment since they depend on a large amount of equipment and variables and the fact that mother nature can still beat our latest tech with just one of the simple things in life ; rain.


Okay? rain is nothing, thats why the ABL waits to shoot down the ICBM after cloud cover. Advanced computers compute Air pressure, humidity, etc. above the cloud cover to nail the ICBM Several hundred miles away.

The same concept goes with other lasers on the JSF, the JSF would not go under cloud cover when its raining now woud it?



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
Okay? rain is nothing, thats why the ABL waits to shoot down the ICBM after cloud cover. Advanced computers compute Air pressure, humidity, etc. above the cloud cover to nail the ICBM Several hundred miles away.

Yeah, thats the good bit about lasers its the conventional warfare i laugh about.


The same concept goes with other lasers on the JSF, the JSF would not go under cloud cover when its raining now woud it?

No , but you have to laugh at how nature can foil mans greatest tech.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Laxpla
Okay? rain is nothing, thats why the ABL waits to shoot down the ICBM after cloud cover. Advanced computers compute Air pressure, humidity, etc. above the cloud cover to nail the ICBM Several hundred miles away.

Yeah, thats the good bit about lasers its the conventional warfare i laugh about.


The same concept goes with other lasers on the JSF, the JSF would not go under cloud cover when its raining now woud it?

No , but you have to laugh at how nature can foil mans greatest tech.


Conventional warfare the nothing to laugh about. Chances of rain is not that great, and rain wouldn't affect the laser unless the laser is below cloud cover and the missle is shot then.

Nature can foil anything, tornados is what Iam afraid of, never been though one, but they seem scarry.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I do not have proof if the S400 can shoot down the raptor. The article is purely theoretical too. Or do they have access to secret russian files?



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
I do not have proof if the S400 can shoot down the raptor. The article is purely theoretical too. Or do they have access to secret russian files?


Well, the same could go for the Raptor, the Raptor has many secrets that are not reveled. For example, it can fry enemy comptuers with a special radar.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
Conventional warfare the nothing to laugh about. Chances of rain is not that great, and rain wouldn't affect the laser unless the laser is below cloud cover and the missle is shot then.

I am talking about the JSF version you know the one for takeing out targets on the ground?
Besides the laser cant shot through cloud, since cloud is water....


Nature can foil anything, tornados is what Iam afraid of, never been though one, but they seem scarry.

Yeah nature is pretty scary, tornado's are pretty scary but only if your not above it.
If your above it your fine, they actually flew a plane over the tornado over one lol.
Look up " water spout" those are scary to navy guys...



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Laxpla
Conventional warfare the nothing to laugh about. Chances of rain is not that great, and rain wouldn't affect the laser unless the laser is below cloud cover and the missle is shot then.

I am talking about the JSF version you know the one for takeing out targets on the ground?
Besides the laser cant shot through cloud, since cloud is water....


Nature can foil anything, tornados is what Iam afraid of, never been though one, but they seem scarry.

Yeah nature is pretty scary, tornado's are pretty scary but only if your not above it.
If your above it your fine, they actually flew a plane over the tornado over one lol.
Look up " water spout" those are scary to navy guys...


Laser is to take out missiles, bombs is to take out targets on the ground.

I would never fly above a tornado, they must be crazy.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
Laser is to take out missiles, bombs is to take out targets on the ground.

Also the laser guiders , thats one bad point but the GPS sorts that.


I would never fly above a tornado, they must be crazy.

Lol i know....imagine if the engine/s stalled, brown trouser time!



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Laxpla
Laser is to take out missiles, bombs is to take out targets on the ground.

Also the laser guiders , thats one bad point but the GPS sorts that.


I would never fly above a tornado, they must be crazy.

Lol i know....imagine if the engine/s stalled, brown trouser time!


Laser guiders get affected by weather? Like ever see that ghost Recon 2 Commercial where the soldier points the laser and the A-10 launches a missle their?

But, the JSF would be above the clouds when a SAM is launched I hope, so then the laser will not be affected.

Is the export versions getting the laser you think? Or just close allies?


Man, I would freak out over a tornado, I would crap my pants so bad if the engines went out, I would glide over it until I start decending, then eject away from the tornado so I glide down slowely.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
Laser guiders get affected by weather?

Well rain does disrupt all light, i mean youv seen what happens when you shine a light through a liquid.


Like ever see that ghost Recon 2 Commercial where the soldier points the laser and the A-10 launches a missle their?

Yeah, but thats a game. I mean ever seen counter strike? Every one is running around squating looking like their doing a dump!
Hell its just squating!


But, the JSF would be above the clouds when a SAM is launched I hope, so then the laser will not be affected.

When the laser is sent though water it gets disrupted, clouds are water vapour basically thick fog, so the laser gets disrupted, i think....


Is the export versions getting the laser you think? Or just close allies?

Hmm, mabye just give the tech specs or give one prototype to close allies.
If it was exsport it would be a very crapy laser.



Man, I would freak out over a tornado, I would crap my pants so bad if the engines went out, I would glide over it until I start decending, then eject away from the tornado so I glide down slowely.

"Hey is it me or did it just get quiet......hey why are the turbines not mo- ooooh shi-!"



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Not really, armour can stop just about everything.
I mean every year there is a big show where all the main bullet proof glass makers show how good thiers is against a range of weapons, one of them IS the .50 cal sniper rifle...


I was talking more figuratively, really...

Either way, body armor can be penetrated, or the armor can't cover everything. With armor like you have on tanks, or even simpler bullet proof glass, you simply need something with a bigger punch. I don't think bullet proof glass will stand up to a rocket. There are a number of ways to destroy a tank.


Nethier are missiles.
.....Wha? Ok wait a second here, your trying to say that there has been a conflict between two navies/airforces which are both armed with the best missiles and air defenses?


Nations have fought on relatively equal terms. Iran penetrated Iraq's air defenses which had the very best Soviet SAM's in the 80's with F-14's. Israel made it through Syria under similiar conditions.

Then you have the Gulf War and Kosovo.


Yeah, its not that hard to test stealth BTW esspecialy if the aircraft doesnt know its being tested...hehe remember that RAF incident?
The rapier tracking the B2 at a airshow?


You keep mentioning this even though I've addressed it a number of times. It had a signal for a very short time when the B-2 was within a very short range with a number of other special conditions.


.....So you think the USAF wont produce a jet that cant be picked up by any russian gear?
Wrong the USAF is looking for a good stealth plane , better than the F-117 and near the B2's level and have a good fighter.


I believe you meant to say the USAF won't make a plane Russia can detect, but I'm not really sure...

I do not believe America would spend such a huge amount on B-2's, or F-22's if Russia had something that could detect them. It wouldn't be worthwhile. It would be better to simply produce something like a more capable Eurofighter that has more RAM applied. Or maybe just a JSF with less stealth and upped capabilities. There's no need for something like the F-22.


It is easy and cheap to counter it, stealth can be detected by just about any radar.
Its the range that counts.


It does no good to detect something when its right over you. What you're talking about isn't a counter. Conventional radar is not a reliable counter to stealth. Even the low-frequency radars weren't a relaible counter to first generation stealth. The only reliable way I know of to counter stealth is PCL, which no one has.

And for your "cases" to prove the effectiveness of SAM's...That's just pointless. Go take a look at real combat where areas with heavy concentrations of top of the line SAM's have been bypassed by conventional planes.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Laxpla
Laser guiders get affected by weather?

Well rain does disrupt all light, i mean youv seen what happens when you shine a light through a liquid.


Like ever see that ghost Recon 2 Commercial where the soldier points the laser and the A-10 launches a missle their?

Yeah, but thats a game. I mean ever seen counter strike? Every one is running around squating looking like their doing a dump!
Hell its just squating!


But, the JSF would be above the clouds when a SAM is launched I hope, so then the laser will not be affected.

When the laser is sent though water it gets disrupted, clouds are water vapour basically thick fog, so the laser gets disrupted, i think....


Is the export versions getting the laser you think? Or just close allies?

Hmm, mabye just give the tech specs or give one prototype to close allies.
If it was exsport it would be a very crapy laser.



Man, I would freak out over a tornado, I would crap my pants so bad if the engines went out, I would glide over it until I start decending, then eject away from the tornado so I glide down slowely.

"Hey is it me or did it just get quiet......hey why are the turbines not mo- ooooh shi-!"


Yah, the laser will get disrupted if it went through the clouds, or their would be a hole in the clouds because of the heat will evaporate the water. But wouldnt the laser shoot after the SAM broke cloud cover? So the laser wont have to go through the clouds.

When do the planes drop the bombs, on top of below clouds? I would think above, but to be more accurate the bombs do they need to be below ?

lol, u know what the funny part is. Humans are the smartest species on earth right? But why the freak do animals know when something bad is going to happen, for example if a Tornado comes, everything but the cows run. But the Tsunami, before anyone knew it was coming, the animals cleared out and very few died.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I was talking more figuratively, really...

Either way, body armor can be penetrated, or the armor can't cover everything.

Yes, but body armour can stop a bullet as well.


With armor like you have on tanks, or even simpler bullet proof glass, you simply need something with a bigger punch.

Name me one tank round that has been known to penetrate chobrahm armour?



I don't think bullet proof glass will stand up to a rocket. There are a number of ways to destroy a tank.

Bullet proof glass might not stand it but blast proof glass can.
Yes there are multiple ways to take down a tank but there are ways around them.



Nations have fought on relatively equal terms.

Ah but that is not what we are on about is it?


Iran penetrated Iraq's air defenses which had the very best Soviet SAM's in the 80's with F-14's.

Ah but was that the best SAM's in the world?
Also the skill of a pilot and or ground crew has to be taken into account.


Israel made it through Syria under similiar conditions.

See above...


Then you have the Gulf War and Kosovo.

Umm as it was shown in other threads that the iraq air defenses where not the best also in GW2 the defeses where set up by the chinese who arent the best at this are they?
Also in kosovo the exsperience and training of the crews has to be taken into account.



You keep mentioning this even though I've addressed it a number of times. It had a signal for a very short time when the B-2 was within a very short range with a number of other special conditions.

How can it be for a short time?
We nethier know the exact time nor distance.
Also we do not know the "special conditions" of what you speak of.



I believe you meant to say the USAF won't make a plane Russia can detect, but I'm not really sure...

No russian GEAR, the USA doesnt worry about russia that much , its more about the gear they sell to other countries.


I do not believe America would spend such a huge amount on B-2's, or F-22's if Russia had something that could detect them. It wouldn't be worthwhile.

Actually every plane can be detected, so that I am afraid is debunked.



It would be better to simply produce something like a more capable Eurofighter that has more RAM applied. Or maybe just a JSF with less stealth and upped capabilities.

That is so but the military doesnt always have the luxary of going with the simple option.
I believe that the US doesnt need the F22 but something along the lines of the eurofighter, but oh well.

[qutoe]
There's no need for something like the F-22.

I agree.



It does no good to detect something when its right over you. What you're talking about isn't a counter. Conventional radar is not a reliable counter to stealth. Even the low-frequency radars weren't a relaible counter to first generation stealth. The only reliable way I know of to counter stealth is PCL, which no one has.

Ah thats not strictly true.
Detecting something above you is effective if many are placed.
If there is only one anti stealth radar which exists that no one has how can it exist?


And for your "cases" to prove the effectiveness of SAM's...That's just pointless. Go take a look at real combat where areas with heavy concentrations of top of the line SAM's have been bypassed by conventional planes.

I would call a ship a fairly heavy concentration of SAM's , esspecially an anti air ship.
Now tell me again how are these cases not acceptable?
Hell two of them are dirrect attacks on ships by many planes.


Originally posted by Laxpla
Yah, the laser will get disrupted if it went through the clouds, or their would be a hole in the clouds because of the heat will evaporate the water. But wouldnt the laser shoot after the SAM broke cloud cover? So the laser wont have to go through the clouds.

Hmm yes I would guess that would work, the whole basis of point laser defenses. BUT if you coated the missile in a liquid substance then wouldnt the laser simply distrupt?


When do the planes drop the bombs, on top of below clouds? I would think above, but to be more accurate the bombs do they need to be below ?
Yeah mass bombing and stuff is above, the more accurate is the lower down ones.
BUT this all depends on the weather conditions.



lol, u know what the funny part is. Humans are the smartest species on earth right? But why the freak do animals know when something bad is going to happen, for example if a Tornado comes, everything but the cows run. But the Tsunami, before anyone knew it was coming, the animals cleared out and very few died.

Lol yeah
Animals are quite smart, i mean look at the tracking and killing techniques of preditors, we copy them all the time.
Nature , the ultimate warrior.


[edit on 12-2-2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   
But how would you get a liquid substance around the missile? The only known way to bypass the ABL is to use a Solid Propellent. Thats for a ICBM, because the ABL hit's its boosters.

But smaller and less protected missiles will be easy to hit any part to blow them up mid air. A way I thought of quickly, to get by it would be when the missile detects heat from a laser, it seperates and 2 missiles unfold towards the plane, and destorying it.

But I honeslty have to say, microwave weapons is what I love, a simple burst can shut down a ICBM electronics, i think? ICBM hold electronics to keep them in control right?

[edit on 12-2-2005 by Laxpla]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join