S400 Triumf SAM counterstealth?!?!?!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
By the way Stellar the Us always gets in hands on russian gear. Mig 29's are f

flying over Area 51 as well as other russian aircraft and equipment not to

mention radars. I wouldnt be surprised if they had a Triumf in their hangars for

testing. Stellar your logic " o well you havent done F/A 22 vs S 400 you dont

know if it could shoot it Down or not". since it hasnt been tested on the US's

stealth aircraft it has noc apability against them again i repeat if it hasnt been

tested against them how is it going to do it?!?!/ answer that one . so

according to th e raptor's tech its raptor>S 400. The raptor is better while the

S400 is overhyped.


america can get hold of any russian weopon it wants but it wont make a difference to the russians becuase the versions that america gets ahold of are export versions of russian tech. the export versions use different codes, engines, weopons(export weopons) etc... then the russian versions. so if america comes up with a counter measure for the export tech it ownt make a difference to the russian verison. also export tech is usally downgraded and not full technology like the russians versions. russia knows that the people it sells to can switch side at any time becuase it deals with shady countries so it doesnt give them the full blown versions of there stuff. so america can have all "mig-29" and "s-300" it wants it doesnt mean it has the version that russia has or even india and china have. becuase russia gives different levels of tech to each country like america with its f-35 will give different tech levels of its aircraft to different people like america will recive the full-blow version with full stealth while britain will recive a slightly down graded version and then everbody else will recive a different verion but all aircraft will be the same version but with different technology inside < that was an example.

thats what russia does with all its stuff.




posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
To say the US has a "robust" reasearch and development effort would be an understatment that is laughable. Right now the US is preparing its current and future weapons against things we are not even aware of in Russia, and the S-400 is nothing new, paritcularly since it is 5 years delayed in it's deployment. The S-400 directly effects the way the US would deploy and fight the next conflict, so it is no large leap of faith to conclude the US has known about it and has made accomodations for it in it's weapons and tactics.
And SAMS will never the the end all against aircraft, not until radar can see below the horizon at a local level, and I have yet to see where this system, or any SAM ground radar can do that. With that in mind flying low will be the nemisis to the land based SAM.
Horizon calculator.
radarproblems.com...
Believe what you want, but, again I say, until large numbers of stealth aircraft are being shot down, and until it is American instead of Russian equipment that feeds the scrap metal market of the world, I at least would not make the mistake of underestimating the US tech. You can find any source to say whatever you believe as a premis on the internet. Ultimately, unless you have the classification to know such things, then you don't know, and if you did you couldn't tell. Everything else on this subject is pure speculation and internet rumor, mixed with nationalistic patriotism.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Sandman11]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx

Originally posted by urmomma158
By the way Stellar the Us always gets in hands on russian gear. Mig 29's are f

flying over Area 51 as well as other russian aircraft and equipment not to

mention radars. I wouldnt be surprised if they had a Triumf in their hangars for

testing. Stellar your logic " o well you havent done F/A 22 vs S 400 you dont

know if it could shoot it Down or not". since it hasnt been tested on the US's

stealth aircraft it has noc apability against them again i repeat if it hasnt been

tested against them how is it going to do it?!?!/ answer that one . so

according to th e raptor's tech its raptor>S 400. The raptor is better while the

S400 is overhyped.


america can get hold of any russian weopon it wants but it wont make a difference to the russians becuase the versions that america gets ahold of are export versions of russian tech. the export versions use different codes, engines, weopons(export weopons) etc... then the russian versions. so if america comes up with a counter measure for the export tech it ownt make a difference to the russian verison. also export tech is usally downgraded and not full technology like the russians versions. russia knows that the people it sells to can switch side at any time becuase it deals with shady countries so it doesnt give them the full blown versions of there stuff. so america can have all "mig-29" and "s-300" it wants it doesnt mean it has the version that russia has or even india and china have. becuase russia gives different levels of tech to each country like america with its f-35 will give different tech levels of its aircraft to different people like america will recive the full-blow version with full stealth while britain will recive a slightly down graded version and then everbody else will recive a different verion but all aircraft will be the same version but with different technology inside < that was an example.

thats what russia does with all its stuff.


That's not what i meant. I meant that the US doesnt directly purchase it. They get it through means of bribery that's what the folks at area51 do. They did it during the cold war as well.they had smuggled Migs and radars there since the 60's. They basically bribed the people and smuggled it out to area 51.
If you want proof go watch "Area 51 Fact or FIction","Inside Area 51", and "Return to Area 51" on the history and discovery channels.
[edit on 27-3-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by urmomma158]


[edit on 27-3-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
nice to know were also going to go for S-400, i know we have S-300 but dam having this kind of air defence around our nuclear plants would be awsome.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman11
To say the US has a "robust" reasearch and development effort would be an understatment that is laughable. Right now the US is preparing its current and future weapons against things we are not even aware of in Russia, and the S-400 is nothing new, paritcularly since it is 5 years delayed in it's deployment. The S-400 directly effects the way the US would deploy and fight the next conflict, so it is no large leap of faith to conclude the US has known about it and has made accomodations for it in it's weapons and tactics.
And SAMS will never the the end all against aircraft, not until radar can see below the horizon at a local level, and I have yet to see where this system, or any SAM ground radar can do that. With that in mind flying low will be the nemisis to the land based SAM.
Horizon calculator.
radarproblems.com...
Believe what you want, but, again I say, until large numbers of stealth aircraft are being shot down, and until it is American instead of Russian equipment that feeds the scrap metal market of the world, I at least would not make the mistake of underestimating the US tech. You can find any source to say whatever you believe as a premis on the internet. Ultimately, unless you have the classification to know such things, then you don't know, and if you did you couldn't tell. Everything else on this subject is pure speculation and internet rumor, mixed with nationalistic patriotism.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Sandman11]


Nice one Sandman that was an excellent post but can i ask you one thing i'm kinda havin trouble using the radar horizon caluclator .

Alrite you PEOPLE can BELIEVE whatever you want but remeber they cant test on n F/A 22 ,its common sense. Sure they can build a boxy stealth aircraft like an F 177 but the F/A 22 is a whole different ball game. The latest Russian Sams according to the pictures i saw have high radar heights. A low flying plane with terrain masking will hide it. heres a likely tactic that will be used. note: it assumes there are no radars with lower heights nearby www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

also stellar please go over the RCS's of aircraft it is on the bottom the page www.aerospaceweb.org...
[edit on 27-3-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
I have already shown many of your sources to be grossly inaccurate on several occassions,


You have suggested that they are inaccurate but you never stuck around to defending the claims made by the source after i explain why their wrong to make the claims they did. If you will not stand by your sources and defend their claims what's the point of using them as sources? ...

Read entire post here


one of your sources supports the F/A 22 are you trying to only take certain parts of the article to make that part of your thread look informational. Also u like i said the US also has stealth detecting radars such as the AN/SPY 3 Multi Function Radar for the DDX and the Silent Sentry which is Passive choherent location.


*Trimmed excessive quoting*

[edit on 28-3-2006 by dbates]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Nice one Sandman that was an excellent post but can i ask you one thing i'm kinda havin trouble using the radar horizon caluclator .



No problem, Just plug in whatever paramaters are known to the specific situation (either airborne height, or ground antenna height)in whatever units of measure you want, and it will fill in all the rest automatically.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158


Nice one Sandman that was an excellent post but can i ask you one thing i'm kinda havin trouble using the radar horizon caluclator .

Alrite you PEOPLE can BELIEVE whatever you want but remeber they cant test on n F/A 22 ,its common sense. Sure they can build a boxy stealth aircraft like an F 177 but the F/A 22 is a whole different ball game. The latest Russian Sams according to the pictures i saw have high radar heights. A low flying plane with terrain masking will hide it. heres a likely tactic that will be used. note: it assumes there are no radars with lower heights nearby www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

also stellar please go over the RCS's of aircraft it is on the bottom the page www.aerospaceweb.org...

[edit on 27-3-2006 by urmomma158]


i have to disagree with that website. nobody apart from incompetent 3rd world countries deploys a radar by itself. if the russians/chinese/iranians deploy the radar they have combined air defence systems to defend the areas for example :

iran :

-s-200/s-300
-Pechora 2-M
-improved Hawk missile system
- Russian Tor-m1
- British Rapier IR/radar short range system
- sweedish RBS 70
- misagh 1/2

china :

- s-300u
- hq-2
- hq-7/fm-80
- QW-4 / PLD-9
-QW-3

etc....


all countries use combined systems. if the f-22 is low enough the iranians can shoot them down with the rbs-70 and even stealth fighters can't escape the RBS-70 becuase its a laser riding surface to air missile. and russia and other countries also use a anti-air mine which takes out any aircraft flying below 250m and they have released a later upgraded version which can attack faster flying craft then the origonal model. the f-22 is not untouchable like most people make it out to be. it can and will be knocked out of the sky if america ever face a decent enemy as long as they continue fighting people who can barely afford to buy shoes ofcourse it will remain untouchable considering the lack of air defence in both iraq and afghanistan. yes iraq 2 becuase a large amjorty o fthe air defence was made from obsolete missiles and air artillery and they lacked any form of modern IR guided surface to air missiles.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   
where did the link say the F/A 22 will be flying at low altitude itwill be flying at high altitude out of the range of the mines and that air defense system. I said in my last post that it assumes there are no other systems nearby. Besides why would theraptor fly so low. The raptor is made for modern air defenses and for fighting actual enemies not just 3rd world crapholes like iraq. Its also made for sophisticated ones as well which most peopel dont realize.The time will come when we will have to fight a more sophisticated enemy sucha s Iran or North Korea. Until Stealth Aircraft regularly these claims are nothing but BS.


[edit on 28-3-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 28-3-2006 by urmomma158]

*Mod Edit: It's not necessary to quote the entire post that's directly above yours*

[edit on 28-3-2006 by dbates]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
I have made no mistakes, nowhere have you provided any information that these missiles can shoot down ICBM/SLBM reentry vehicles - NOWHERE


I provided the information and you have ample links to my former posts proving that capacity has existed since the very start. I'll just keep repeating this from now on as evidence is clearly not something you really want to see anyways.


UNtil you provide the information you're just making outlandish claims. Show me some test information not juist speculation.


I have, repeatedly, provided such information time and time again on at least half a dozen threads on ATS. You never stuck around to prove that they do not have the capacity they are claimed to have so why should i take your current denial seriously? You know full well where you can resume you defense of ignorance but to just deny that i have made the case is shear madness.


The S-300 by your own sources has only been tested against a target travelling at 1600m/s an ICBM RV has a speed of 7000m/s. Do you understand the difference ?


Then you either can not read or do not want to read. The SA-5 ( Based on the V-1000;is the basis for all these missiles) could intercept a IRBM travelling at 11 000 km per hour in 1961 with a CONVENTIONAL explosive warhead. ICBM warheads of ANY type normally impact the ground at between 1 m/s and 4 m/s ( older ----> Newer) and we are only talking about missile speed which in itself is NOT a huge problem considering that with good enough tracking data you can hit something very fast with something relatively slow.Now the SA-5 ( admitted to be a ABM missile in disguise by it's designers) is also called the S-200 ( Hint, hint) and developed by the same agency so why would they make it too slow to intercept ICBM's when they US could manage the feat in the same time-frame?. It really just depends on tracking information and targeting resolution getting to launch site in time from larger radars all over Russia. That does not even address using large nuclear warheads that ensures that you only need to get within a few hundred meters.

Are we really back to assuming Russians are just morons and can't do what the US did? It seems to be your only viable defense and the one you keep alluring to for lack of anything more substansial.


Well, the US have been able to aquire certain S-300 missile systems and have been able to do some testing. The Russians on the other hand have not been able to get their hands on an F-22 much less a B-2.


YEEEEEEEEEEES..... The Russians could never build low RCS drones to test their missiles against since stealth is something allien that only the US can manage. Since the Russians are such complete fools they never figured out that stealth does nothing but reduce a plane's RCS and that you could simulate that by creating small drones to simulate interception of various cross sections to test the effectiveness of your weapon. It's a great thing their such total losers huh? Your reaching and your making a mockery of this discussion. Please stop wasting my time.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
By the way Stellar the Us always gets in hands on russian gear. Mig 29's are f
flying over Area 51 as well as other russian aircraft and equipment not to
mention radars.


It always does? Why do i have links to documents showing that the US Navy asked the Russian government to buy some Sunburns in 1997? Was it a joke or do they sometimes have trouble getting their hands on Russian equipment?


I wouldnt be surprised if they had a Triumf in their hangars for
testing.


Well i would be surprised if they managed to get it so soon but it's not impossible....


Stellar your logic " o well you havent done F/A 22 vs S 400 you dont
know if it could shoot it Down or not". since it hasnt been tested on the US's
stealth aircraft it has noc apability against them again i repeat if it hasnt been
tested against them how is it going to do it?!?!/ answer that one .


Actually that was not my argument. Rogue indicated that the S-400 was untested ( when it's in fact nothing but once again upgraded S-300 'sameness') against LO targets. Stealth has been around for a LONG time and the Russians have certainly had time to experiment with countermeasures if they at all cared to do so. Why should we imagine otherwise in the first place?

Stealth ( if it's all they say it is) just reduces RCS which can be easily simulated with small drones or other means. It's no big deal really and if the Russians had some idea what the RCS of the F-22 will be like they could make a drone with the same general flight specs ( speed/altitude/RCS) and test the missile system against it. The F-22 is ( as far as we know) not something special in that it is a LO airplane.


so according to th e raptor's tech its raptor>S 400. The raptor is better while the S400 is overhyped.


Well we really have can not be sure how it will turn out on the battlefield. I for one think the Sam's will kill the planes but that's just based on what i have read so far.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
I have made no mistakes, nowhere have you provided any information that these missiles can shoot down ICBM/SLBM reentry vehicles - NOWHERE


I provided the information and you have ample links to my former posts proving that capacity has existed since the very start. I'll just keep repeating this from now on as evidence is clearly not something you really want to see anyways.


you have provided no evidence whatsoever, I've asked you to post some, yet all you do is post quotes which prove nothing. Where have the Russians tested their ABM against an ICBM RV
They haven't. You obviously don;t understand the difference in teh reentry speeds of ballistic misisles. An IRBm is far easier to interecept than an ICBM




UNtil you provide the information you're just making outlandish claims. Show me some test information not juist speculation.


I have, repeatedly, provided such information time and time again on at least half a dozen threads on ATS. You never stuck around to prove that they do not have the capacity they are claimed to have so why should i take your current denial seriously?


LOL, you know I've proved your calims wrong in this respect. Not only have I stuck round but have persevered in the face of your mind numbing repetition.
You have NEVER proved they have the capacity to shoot down ICBM's with conventional warheads. Show me the proof. Constant bleating do not make your assertions any more believable.


The S-300 by your own sources has only been tested against a target travelling at 1600m/s an ICBM RV has a speed of 7000m/s. Do you understand the difference ?



Then you either can not read or do not want to read. The SA-5 ( Based on the V-1000;is the basis for all these missiles) could intercept a IRBM travelling at 11 000 km per hour in 1961 with a CONVENTIONAL explosive warhead. ICBM warheads of ANY type normally impact the ground at between 1 m/s and 4 m/s ( older ----> Newer) and we are only talking about missile speed which in itself is NOT a huge problem considering that with good enough tracking data you can hit something very fast with something relatively slow.


This shows your lack of knowledge. An ICBM is a far different prsospect than an IRBM
You still obviously haven't grasped the basics.
As for your vaunted V-1000 test they made one succesful intercept out of what dozens - no doubt under the best conditions imaginable.

BTW, 11000 km/h equates to about 3 km/s an ICBM for the hundreth time travels at 7km/s.



Are we really back to assuming Russians are just morons and can't do what the US did? It seems to be your only viable defense and the one you keep alluring to for lack of anything more substansial.


My deense is you provide no evidence that they can use the S-400 and previous conventional missiles to shoot down ICBM's. You can't produce a single test result where ICBM's were involved. In fact you can only produce one successful test result with the V-1000 against a far easier target an IRBM.



YEEEEEEEEEEES..... The Russians could never build low RCS drones to test their missiles against since stealth is something allien that only the US can manage. Since the Russians are such complete fools they never figured out that stealth does nothing but reduce a plane's RCS and that you could simulate that by creating small drones to simulate interception of various cross sections to test the effectiveness of your weapon.


Once again where's teh evidence. All you can manage is inuendo. Whyhaven't the Russians shown these results against these supposedly stealthy drones you assume they can build ? The claim it can detect stealth, where is the actual proog


[edit on 28-3-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman11
To say the US has a "robust" reasearch and development effort would be an understatment that is laughable.


Well money can be wasted and throwing tons of it at a problem does not automatically lead to it getting solved. I do not doubt that the US has a large scale research effort into many fields but do you realise that the same seems to be true for the USSR?


Right now the US is preparing its current and future weapons against things we are not even aware of in Russia, and the S-400 is nothing new, paritcularly since it is 5 years delayed in it's deployment.


That's kinda illogical ( nothing new for you) but i guess one can try deal with future threats even while your not even dealing with current one's; doesn't seem to make sense but when it comes to the US government it really does not have to. You are at least accurate in claiming that the S-400 is nothing new in terms of system capacity or threat it will likely pose to low RCS aircraft.
Well done.


The S-400 directly effects the way the US would deploy and fight the next conflict, so it is no large leap of faith to conclude the US has known about it and has made accomodations for it in it's weapons and tactics.


And this is not the reason they keep updating the S-300 in all it's various incarnations? Why is it always, in your opinion, worth noting that the Us would be prepared to face all comers when the historic record clearly shows otherwise? Why the leap of faith that the Russians will not be able to outwit the US same as all their other enemies at one time or another did? Why always state the the US "will-be-prepared" as if no one else on the planet ever bothers with preparation? Why keep stating the obvious when it comes to the US while assuming the obvious is not obvious for anyone else? It makes no sense but once again i am not much surprised by your 'logic'.


And SAMS will never the the end all against aircraft, not until radar can see below the horizon at a local level, and I have yet to see where this system, or any SAM ground radar can do that.


And the lower you fly the easier you get shot down with cheap-as-hell AA guns/short range missiles. You apparently do not understand that there are more than one type of AA threat out there. Let me try remind you.


Conversely, stealthy—and very fast—aircraft such as the F/A-22 will be able to penetrate defenses and attack their targets before the enemy has time to defend himself or escape.
Even after they were overtaken long ago by events, old notions of air warfare persist, Lewis continued. He noted that, in Vietnam, the thinking was that a pilot who actually saw a SAM fired at him could probably outmaneuver it.

That’s not true anymore, Lewis said, noting that modern SAMs are faster, longer ranged, and dramatically more agile than their 1970s-era forebears.
In Iraq, Lewis noted, well-known examples of fratricide saw Navy and British fighters inadvertently targeted by the Army Patriot system. “The pilots knew what was going on, and they did everything they could to defend themselves.” Lewis said. “They still got shot down.”

The Patriot is comparable to the S-400 system now being sold by Russia, with double the range. A single S-400 battalion—eight launchers and 32 missiles—can be bought for $1 billion, Lewis said. This threat would pose an extremely difficult challenge for the fourth generation fighters that make up most of today’s Air Force.

www.afa.org...


And that is just SAM's.....


With that in mind flying low will be the nemisis to the land based SAM.
Horizon calculator.
radarproblems.com...


Well i guess by your earlier 'logic ( which really wasn't) the Russians will be
'prepared'. Or is it only in the US that that solutions to obvious problems are investigated?


Believe what you want, but, again I say, until large numbers of stealth aircraft are being shot down, and until it is American instead of Russian equipment that feeds the scrap metal market of the world, I at least would not make the mistake of underestimating the US tech.


Yawn* This is not a question of me underestimating US tech as much as it is me trying to point out the inherent weakness some systems have. You insist on seeing every statement i make as a pro-Russian one when it is only me indicating that their strategic choices seems to be more defensive and thus logical imo. Stop trying to discover my motive and try sticking to the data? I for one am here trying to focus everyone attention on US weaknesses and i do not see how that makes my 'enemy agent'.


You can find any source to say whatever you believe as a premis on the internet.


Well you could never manage a source to dispute what i said so i presume you can not find everything on the Internet? Is that it or were you just too lazy to bother addressing my points way back then? My sources are not from anywhere and since you never bothering trying to refute them you admitted as much countless times.


Ultimately, unless you have the classification to know such things, then you don't know, and if you did you couldn't tell. Everything else on this subject is pure speculation and internet rumor, mixed with nationalistic patriotism.


So then i suggest you just stop posting as your clearly wasting your time and , more importantly, my time. If nothing can be proven, or talked about with any certainty, your really directly contradicting yourself your own beliefs by even being here. Do you switch on this specific logic module only when responding to me or is your whole ATS activity based on the same rather large contradiction?

Stellar



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
quote]Originally posted by rogue1
you have provided no evidence whatsoever, I've asked you to post some, yet all you do is post quotes which prove nothing.

I want you addressing each and every quote with why it is not relevant and why it 'proves nothing''. If you will not invest the time to do that you not serious and your just hoping no one else will look at them and discover your lies. You can start whenever your ready.


Where have the Russians tested their ABM against an ICBM RV
They haven't. You obviously don;t understand the difference in teh reentry speeds of ballistic misisles. An IRBm is far easier to interecept than an ICBM


I understand the differences rather well but since it's not really as big a deal as you suggest it shows up as the diversion it is. The difference in speed between a IRBM and a ICBM is only a factor of 2 - 2.5. ICBM's slow down by about half by the time they reach common interception altitude so it is no big deal. They are selling these systems with radars that can intercept track ballistic missile and work out firing solutions so why imagine that the massive radars in Russian itself will not be able to do tracking and send data to defense systems? I have showed again and again that the whole Russian air defense is one integrated unit but you just ignore that fact. Fact is they intercepted IRBM's in 1961 but yet you keep telling us they can not intercept something moving twice or three times as fast nearly 50 years later? Why you have chosen to believe that i do not know and since i have never seen one source from your side to defend why you think that i can not do much to address where you get your opinions from. Please start siting sources as to why it can not be done as i have cited sources stating why it can.


LOL, you know I've proved your calims wrong in this respect.


You have never proved my claims wrong and i would relish the chance of you trying to source the claim so i can defend myself against this type of lie. You keep saying it but you never back anything you say with data. Please start now and prove you are interested in a serious discussion.


Not only have I stuck round but have persevered in the face of your mind numbing repetition.


The only thing you have done so far is stuck around repeating the same old baseless objections without citing sources as to why you imagine my claims so. if you want to be taken seriously you would have long ago sourced your objections or addressed each of my claims in turn with a proper rebuttal. The complete absence of such attempts proves your here to defend bias and opinion against solid sourced claims and facts. How can i defend my claims when you never source why you disagree with them? You just dismiss them as if your some kind of final authority when you have never proven such capacity.


You have NEVER proved they have the capacity to shoot down ICBM's with conventional warheads. Show me the proof. Constant bleating do not make your assertions any more believable.


I have cited great amounts of information that related to what capacity the SU had 40 years ago and what claims they made about it then. They had a clearly ABM capacity even back then but never openly talked about it yet you cite amazement that they do not claim, on all news stations, that they have it now? Why would the US want to extend the ABM treaty to Ex soviet states anyways? Maybe because they already had them since they surely did not have the money to develop them? You remember the clause where Sam's should not be tested in ABM capacities? All very interesting if you bothered to read anything i said so far. Constant denial on your side only proves you can not address the fact properly and must thus rely on blanket denials to hide your ignorance and maintain your opinion.


This shows your lack of knowledge. An ICBM is a far different prsospect than an IRBM
You still obviously haven't grasped the basics.


They are not all that different and if you want to convince me somehow ( which would be impossible since your premise is false) you can cite your sources so that i can show why your misrepresenting this fact. If you do not give me a chance to address your objections in a proper factual way you are just trying to evade a conclusion.


As for your vaunted V-1000 test they made one succesful intercept out of what dozens - no doubt under the best conditions imaginable.



On 29 November 1960 the first attempted intercept of an R-5 IRBM by the V-1000 was fully successful. The anti-ballistic missile passed within the kill radius of the high-explosive fragmentation warhead of the V-1000. But the warhead itself had not completed development and was not installed. The five following intercept attempts were unsuccessful - five R-5's and two V-1000's were expended (three times the system failed to launch the anti-ballistic missile in time):

* On 8 December 1960 the system didn't function due to the failure of the 6N55 tube of the central computer
* On 10 December there was a failure of the software to recognise the anti-ballistic missile in flight
* On 17 December there was a failure of the receiving unit of the radar at the command point
* On 23 December there was an error of the operator of the long-range radar
* On 25? December the second stage of the V-1000 failed to ignite.
* On 30 December a sixth attempt was planned, but the launches of both the R-5 and V-1000 were scrubbed when the long-range radar couldn't come on line.

1961 began with another string of failures (5 further launches were planned in the first test series). A variety of warheads were wasted in attempting to destroy the incoming missiles. Once, manually, and twice, automatically, the missile made a more-or-less successful intercept. But this was followed by three failures, indicating a great amount of time and effort were needed to develop the intercept method.

On 4 March 1961 the V-1000 achieved a world first - the destruction of the re-entry vehicle of an R-12 IRBM. This was followed by the destruction of an R-5 re-entry vehicle. In all, there were 11 launches with military warheads, plus launches of developmental warheads. The S2TA variant used an infrared-homing self-guiding high-explosive warhead and was designed by Storozhenko at the GOI State Optical Institute in Lengingrad. It was capable not only of determining the moment for warhead detonation, but also was capable of guiding the anti-ballistic missile independently using an on-board computer. The R2TA version used a radio-guided explosive warhead, with two types of proximity fuses used to determine the correct moment for warhead detonation. These were the G2TA, a radio ranging system, developed by Bondarenko and an optical system, developed by Emdin at GOI. Flight tests of the V-1000 with a nuclear warhead designed at Chelyabinsk-70 were also carried out.

www.astronautix.com...


I keep posting that and you keep getting even the number of intercepts wrong. Do you at least read what i post or do you just dismiss it assuming that you know better already?

They succeeded the very first time ( got V-1000 close enough but warhead was still being developed/not carried so no 'boom') and they then had a number of errors in the chain so many of the following missiles never even launched mostly due to electric and coordination problems. The missile's all seemed to work very well already so the problem was ironing out the data-links and general coordination to be able to intercept BM's. The V-1000 made at least two intercepts destroying the target IRBM's (R-5's-1200 km and R-12's 2000km) and another 1 intercept with no warhead. There were three other intercepts where the interceptor got close but not apparently close enough to be sure enough of theoretical target destruction. At this time the US was busy trying to get nuclear warheads close enough while the Russians were allready trying to do it with conventional explosives. Makes you think, right?


BTW, 11000 km/h equates to about 3 km/s an ICBM for the hundreth time travels at 7km/s.


I know that and i pointed out that the warheads slows down a great deal as they get closer to target. By the time they hit the ground they are travelling at about 4 m/s With the S-400 being able to intercept at up to 4.6 m/s. That's what they say and i have no reason to doubt this considering that they had 40 years to practice how to go from 1-2 m/s to 3-4 m/s intercepts? The sources all seem to agree that they have ABM capacity so why doubt them? Where are your sources claiming differently? Are there anyone but you claiming differently?


My deense is you provide no evidence that they can use the S-400 and previous conventional missiles to shoot down ICBM's. You can't produce a single test result where ICBM's were involved. In fact you can only produce one successful test result with the V-1000 against a far easier target an IRBM.


As above your arguments are based on flawed reasoning and you have no sources actually backing these claims. Please start telling me where you get your ideas from as the world does not seem to agree with you.


Once again where's teh evidence. All you can manage is inuendo. Whyhaven't the Russians shown these results against these supposedly stealthy drones you assume they can build ? The claim it can detect stealth, where is the actual proog


And you will endlessly avoid the issue without citing a single source as inspiration for your apparently unsupported opinions.. I have supplied you with the claims made and made suggestions as to why there is no logical reason to doubt the basic claims made. If you have objections please state your sources for doing so.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by urmomma158
By the way Stellar the Us always gets in hands on russian gear. Mig 29's are f
flying over Area 51 as well as other russian aircraft and equipment not to
mention radars.


It always does? Why do i have links to documents showing that the US Navy asked the Russian government to buy some Sunburns in 1997? Was it a joke or do they sometimes have trouble getting their hands on Russian equipment?


I wouldnt be surprised if they had a Triumf in their hangars for
testing.


Well i would be surprised if they managed to get it so soon but it's not impossible....


Stellar your logic " o well you havent done F/A 22 vs S 400 you dont
know if it could shoot it Down or not". since it hasnt been tested on the US's
stealth aircraft it has noc apability against them again i repeat if it hasnt been
tested against them how is it going to do it?!?!/ answer that one .


Actually that was not my argument. Rogue indicated that the S-400 was untested ( when it's in fact nothing but once again upgraded S-300 'sameness') against LO targets. Stealth has been around for a LONG time and the Russians have certainly had time to experiment with countermeasures if they at all cared to do so. Why should we imagine otherwise in the first place?

Stealth ( if it's all they say it is) just reduces RCS which can be easily simulated with small drones or other means. It's no big deal really and if the Russians had some idea what the RCS of the F-22 will be like they could make a drone with the same general flight specs ( speed/altitude/RCS) and test the missile system against it. The F-22 is ( as far as we know) not something special in that it is a LO airplane.


so according to th e raptor's tech its raptor>S 400. The raptor is better while the S400 is overhyped.


Well we really have can not be sure how it will turn out on the battlefield. I for one think the Sam's will kill the planes but that's just based on what i have read so far.

Stellar


o ok steallar. But any country could experiment witha drone with simulated RCS's anyone can. Its not as easy as it sounds to counter stealth. the problem is the F/A 22's RCS is classified . true they've been here since 70's but were only unveilled in 1988. But what ive read is SAMs have never bneen as effective as they've been hyped to be. Sure they're credited for a lot of kills but most of the time AC have been winning ( wild weasels)
true the S 300/400 are immune to HRMS but other radars wont likely be immune to it. Especially with the new HARM versions coming out. SAMS vs Weasels have been the Weasels winning 95% of the time. probably not true for the S 300/400. but hey u nver know with the newer HArms coming out so we just have to wait and see how the new HARMS do.


[edit on 28-3-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158


You should look at the way you quote as it's going to get you in trouble with the mods. It wont be undeserved either...


o ok steallar. But any country could experiment witha drone with simulated RCS's anyone can. Its not as easy as it sounds to counter stealth.


Well your right in that any country could probably manage to do that and thus work out how effective their Sam's would be against even the smallest RCS any stealth plane could manage. NOTHING relating to war is simple and if you got the impression that i thought stealth was ' easy' to counter you got me all wrong. It really comes down to the people behind the equipment imo.


the problem is the F/A 22's RCS is classified . true they've been here since 70's but were only unveilled in 1988.


Some math could be done and there are bottem lines for what can be achieved with low RCS configurations. Anywhere along the route of approach there might be short range sam's just waiting to active ( not even mentioning hand held) on data link command from the long range S-400 radar. War aint simple and even the best system can fail entirely when not used in conjuction with supporting units.


But what ive read is SAMs have never bneen as effective as they've been hyped to be. Sure they're credited for a lot of kills but most of the time AC have been winning ( wild weasels) true the S 300/400 are immune to HRMS but other radars wont likely be immune to it.


Well Sam's were effective in keeping the enemy occupied with surviving Sam's instead of concentrating on bombing ground targets ( which is the real point of air power after all). If Sam's force airplanes to fly either very low or very high their already protecting ( buying time) ground targets from being destroyed outright. As far as i know S-300/400 radars are not immune to anti radar weapons and there will always be weak areas to exploit in each and every weapon system.


Especially with the new HARM versions coming out. SAMS vs Weasels have been the Weasels winning 95% of the time. probably not true for the S 300/400. but hey u nver know with the newer HArms coming out so we just have to wait and see how the new HARMS do.


Well you only have to go look at how many allied planes were shot down or damaged in the first gulf war to understand that even such a compromised ( and limited in scope) air defense system can still inflict damage on the enemy. The Israeli's came the closest to fighting integrated air defense systems and when they tried to concentrate on ground targets instead of fighting the Sam's ( which is already conceding initiative) they had their air force shot to bits in no time at all. And Sam's have improved no end in the last 30 years.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally by StelarX:
You should look at the way you quote as it's going to get you in trouble with the mods. It wont be undeserved either...

i'm not so fmiliar how u split quote


Originally by StelarX:
Well your right in that any country could probably manage to do that and thus work out how effective their Sam's would be against even the smallest RCS any stealth plane could manage. NOTHING relating to war is simple and if you got the impression that i thought stealth was ' easy' to counter you got me all wrong. It really comes down to the people behind the equipment imo.


true there will always be well traine dpeople behind these systems. But can you answer one thing can u give me a source stating the Russians tested on a low RCS drone. They cant make a blended body one.........


Originally by StelarX:
Some math could be done and there are bottem lines for what can be achieved with low RCS configurations. Anywhere along the route of approach there might be short range sam's just waiting to active ( not even mentioning hand held) on data link command from the long range S-400 radar. War aint simple and even the best system can fail entirely when not used in conjuction with supporting units.


The Raptor is a step ahead go lok at my previous post from the raptor team website on the 2nd or 3rd page. How would the S400 perform fire control on the Raptor answer that. it would be flying at high altitude sueprcruising.


Originally by StelarX:
Well Sam's were effective in keeping the enemy occupied with surviving Sam's instead of concentrating on bombing ground targets ( which is the real point of air power after all). If Sam's force airplanes to fly either very low or very high their already protecting ( buying time) ground targets from being destroyed outright. As far as i know S-300/400 radars are not immune to anti radar weapons and there will always be weak areas to exploit in each and every weapon system.

true but an AC has the lowest number of weak points while an IAD has several. The SAMS would be taken care of before the bombing started


Originally by StelarX:
Well you only have to go look at how many allied planes were shot down or damaged in the first gulf war to understand that even such a compromised ( and limited in scope) air defense system can still inflict damage on the enemy. The Israeli's came the closest to fighting integrated air defense systems and when they tried to concentrate on ground targets instead of fighting the Sam's ( which is already conceding initiative) they had their air force shot to bits in no time at all. And Sam's have improved no end in the last 30 years.


Have you checked a wild weasels success rate against a Sam .95%. Plus all those are with conventional AC. No nighthawks(F 117's) were lost in the gulf war in the most heavily defended areas. Thye didnt evn get a scratch as a matter of fact.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 28-3-2006 by urmomma158]

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.
Also, Zedd's Handbook for BBcode
[Mod Edit: To include appropriate tags for quoting another member]

[edit on 4/2/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Well money can be wasted and throwing tons of it at a problem does not automatically lead to it getting solved. I do not doubt that the US has a large scale research effort into many fields but do you realise that the same seems to be true for the USSR? .


I do not underestimate Russian R&D efforts, but they are not at Soviet Union levels. They were also very wide spread, but included some very ineffective weapon efforts, while the US tries to make gold plated weaponry. And It would seem most USSR scientists and engineers are now working for Lockheed and General Dynamics, and the head of the former Soviet Biological weapons program is now working for the US Gov where they are all paid what they are worth, instead of starving. (not that the US was doing bad before they came over) How are you so sure that money is being "wasted"? That is only your opinion. There are a lot of "black Budget" programs we have to hide and pay for in our $500.00 cappicino machines we put in P-3s.



That's kinda illogical ( nothing new for you)but i guess one can try deal with future threats even while your not even dealing with current one's; doesn't seem to make sense but when it comes to the US government it really does not have to. You are at least accurate in claiming that the S-400 is nothing new in terms of system capacity or threat it will likely pose to low RCS aircraft.
Well done..


It's "kinda illogical" (nothing new for you either) to assume Russian leads where no evidence of any inferiority exists outside your claims and one sided external sources with varying agenda's, like generals wanting more money for the F-22. "If it's Russian, it's better" is the premis. Sorry that is not good enough for me. The American Army went through Sadam's army like a hot knife through butter, and every proxy war (with other nations fighting with US against Russian made hardware) has favored the US made equipment. With this in mind, the world knows who's is best. The market pays for the best and the US is still the largest arms exporter for that reason. As such, it makes perfect logical sense that the US does not have to even advertise, as opposed to Russia, who has to exaggerate it's claims on weapons capabilities to get customers. Let's see some US equipment take a bad defeat before you make too many claims to Russian technological superiority.


Why is it always, in your opinion, worth noting that the Us would be prepared to face all comers when the historic record clearly shows otherwise? Why the leap of faith that the Russians will not be able to outwit the US same as all their other enemies at one time or another did? Why always state the the US "will-be-prepared" as if no one else on the planet ever bothers with preparation? Why keep stating the obvious when it comes to the US while assuming the obvious is not obvious for anyone else? .


I have never made that claim, but you have, repeatedly, how if it's Russian, it is better, and Russia will win any major conflict. I have actually agreed with you on some points, for example that there were "Dual use" SAMS in Russia, but disagree as to their effectiveness. Also the mystery of Yamantau mountain. So don't say I am the one who is stubbornly and blindly patriotic. Given the US's armed forces record against major armies on the battlefield within the last couple decadesI think you underestimate the US, but that is your opinion.



And the lower you fly the easier you get shot down with cheap-as-hell AA guns/short range missiles. You apparently do not understand that there are more than one type of AA threat out there. Let me try remind you..

The A-6 was a wonderful medium range low altitude bomber. Yes some small arms fire brought down a few of them, but the vast majority of them flew under the radar coverage and attacked their targets. There were losses, but that is war. It was rare though that small arms brought down an Intruder. The Tornado also specializes in low altitude attack, as the F-15E. Today that Billion Dollar S-400 system can be overwhelmed eventually. How about 100 cruise missiles with the same time on target? Or maybe JASSM's, whose stealth and low level would make engagement difficult. It's all economics ultimately, and tactics with lower cost weapons like JASSMs, JADAMs, HARMs, and Cruise Missiles will overwhelm any defense complex, dollar for dollar. The attackers are cheaper than the defenders. A billion dollars of attacking weapons will defeat a billion dollars of defending weapons in the example above with tactics and training that goes on at Nellis, and Red Flag.




Well you could never manage a source to dispute what i said so i presume you can not find everything on the Internet? Is that it or were you just too lazy to bother addressing my points way back then? My sources are not from anywhere and since you never bothering trying to refute them you admitted as much countless times.

So then i suggest you just stop posting as your clearly wasting your time and , more importantly, my time. If nothing can be proven, or talked about with any certainty, your really directly contradicting yourself your own beliefs by even being here. Do you switch on this specific logic module only when responding to me or is your whole ATS activity based on the same rather large contradiction?

Stellar
.

No, I can and have in the past found plenty to refute your claims and posts before, just as I have seen others do. You just claimed you didn't like my sources. I don't like yours. I might go beyond the 30minutes or so I have spent on you tonight, but the way you treat people, you are not worth it. I think most will agree with me on that point, and I am suprised you have not been banned yet. It is difficult to engage anyone seriously on such juvenile terms, and either you are very young, or you are not well. Either way, believe it or not, I hope the best for you.
Of course I expect your insulting, demeaning and irrelevent response to claim I have not looked at the true facts you present (which I have, and I reject as Russian propaganda ), but what you don't realize that you are not the expert you claim you are, unless you want to reveal something to add credibility to yourself??? Are you an expert? Are you involved in "classified" projects and please expand on that subject, because we all want to hear. Tell us why we should believe you above the oposite opinion out there, because there are many. Or are you like most others here, amatures as I am searching the haze between fact and fiction, trying to find the truth, amongst a lot of static, which you are so good at spewing... So please, do me the favor of not responding to my post. Don't "waste" your time, as you say. (I bet you can't control yourself, and will)


[edit on 29-3-2006 by Sandman11]

[edit on 29-3-2006 by Sandman11]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
i'm not so fmiliar how u split quote


It's fairly simple. When you respond to me it should be easy to note how and where the quote boxes go and all you do is include such boxes around the part of the text your responding to.

Simple, really



true there will always be well traine dpeople behind these systems. But can you answer one thing can u give me a source stating the Russians tested on a low RCS drone. They cant make a blended body one.........


Well there is no other way to test your Sam's than against high speed purpose built drones unless you have plenty of old high performance aircraft that you can modify for ground based control. You can use various types of missiles as well but high speed drone-like targets are best. I could probably find a link if i started looking but i really have better things to do than do ALL your research work for you.



The Raptor is a step ahead go lok at my previous post from the raptor team website on the 2nd or 3rd page. How would the S400 perform fire control on the Raptor answer that. it would be flying at high altitude sueprcruising.


High altitude is no place to try hide from modern Sam's but it is a great way to lob nearly-dumb bombs if you have very low RCS and can sneak close enough. The S-300 has data links so it can get it's tracking data from AWACS and it can also fire missile long before it has a positive lock on. Not that all of that is relevant but i think your simplifying the issue a bit much when you claim the F-22 will have a field day against systems designed with stealth in mind.


"US and NATO aircraft fired at least 743 HARMs against radars supporting these enemy SAMs... Even during the operation’s final week, NATO spokesmen conceded that they could confirm the destruction of only three of Serbia’s approximately 25 known mobile SA-6 batteries."

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...


And the SA-6 has nothing like the range of these weapons. Against a clever enemy who is willing to use the terrain and manoeuvre effectively there is nothing simple about taking out Sam's of ANY type.


true but an AC has the lowest number of weak points while an IAD has several. The SAMS would be taken care of before the bombing started


The whole of NATO could apparently not even destroy the Yugoslavian air defenses in all that time so one really has to wonder how much SEAD is in fact hyped. The fact that they never could take care of the Sam's explains piss-poor performance against the Yugoslav army and ground units VERY well. They could never really fly the anti ground missions as they were always just waiting and watching to get blown out of the sky.


Have you checked a wild weasels success rate against a Sam .95%. Plus all those are with conventional AC. No nighthawks(F 117's) were lost in the gulf war in the most heavily defended areas. Thye didnt evn get a scratch as a matter of fact.


The 95% thing is a myth of epic proportions and you will have to be more careful what you use as 'facts'. You will be surprised how few 'facts' are anything close to certain. The fact that the US lost so few planes as more to do with how limited in scope the air campaign was and how well supported their bombing missions was.

If you start reading material on this
thread you might notice that a clever enemy making good use of the weather ( and all such things you can't control either) and his manpower and weapon systems can beat you at your own game.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally by StellarX:
It's fairly simple. When you respond to me it should be easy to note how and where the quote boxes go and all you do is include such boxes around the part of the text your responding to.


still dont understand what ur saying


Originally by StellarX:
Well there is no other way to test your Sam's than against high speed purpose built drones unless you have plenty of old high performance aircraft that you can modify for ground based control. You can use various types of missiles as well but high speed drone-like targets are best. I could probably find a link if i started looking but i really have better things to do than do ALL your research work for you.


still not stealth AC you werent adress ing the questiom there. They cant for example test it out on a JSF (russia is struggling to build stealth fighters that are blended body quite sad attempts)


Originally by StellarX:
High altitude is no place to try hide from modern Sam's but it is a great way to lob nearly-dumb bombs if you have very low RCS and can sneak close enough. The S-300 has data links so it can get it's tracking data from AWACS and it can also fire missile long before it has a positive lock on. Not that all of that is relevant but i think your simplifying the issue a bit much when you claim the F-22 will have a field day against systems designed with stealth in mind.


The F/A 22 doesnt use altitude and speed for hiding the stealth does that. Supercruise complicates things further. Short wave radar wouldnt work you're acting like the F/A 22 is easy to bring down. The Raptor can also fire weapons via datalink from AWACS and other fighters.


Originally by StellarX:
And the SA-6 has nothing like the range of these weapons. Against a clever enemy who is willing to use the terrain and manoeuvre effectively there is nothing simple about taking out Sam's of ANY type.

Give me asources stating what milosevich ddid with his sams.he used

they turned em off, dispersed them and put them under emissions control www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil... beth.htm


Originally by StellarX:
The whole of NATO could apparently not even destroy the Yugoslavian air defenses in all that time so one really has to wonder how much SEAD is in fact hyped. The fact that they never could take care of the Sam's explains piss-poor performance against the Yugoslav army and ground units VERY well. They could never really fly the anti ground missions as they were always just waiting and watching to get blown out of the sky.


read the top. it also shows how good the SEAD was during the Gulf war


Originally by StellarX:
The 95% thing is a myth of epic proportions and you will have to be more careful what you use as 'facts'. You will be surprised how few 'facts' are anything close to certain. The fact that the US lost so few planes as more to do with how limited in scope the air campaign was and how well supported their bombing missions was.


If you start reading material on this
thread you might notice that a clever enemy making good use of the weather ( and all such things you can't control either) and his manpower and weapon systems can beat you at your own game. >>>
limites scope the SAMs were perfectly surpressed except mbaghdadad. night hawks fly so amny sorties without getting scratched. No F 15's were lost in A2A . 95% is ann educated guess based on one war not overall. HARMS have been dangerous sometimes. for example when there were no enemy emissionsthe HARM hit a B 52. AIm 7 sparrow were optimized for bombers not fighters the article fails at pointing that out. About milosevih rmemeber emissions control. the HARMS concept is quite simple but when it works its great.


Originally by StellarX:
Unfortunately, radar has not only turned out to be less than invincible, it has recently become a liability. Fueling what is now a raging debate are the last few shooting engagements in the Middle East: The USS Stark could not defend itself against two Exocet sea-skimming missiles; USS Vincennes Aegis cruiser fired BVR at what its crew thought was an attacking fighter and downed an Iranian airliner; and two F-14s fired twice at intruding Libyan fighters, missing them BVR with radar-guided Sparrows and shooting them down within visual range with a Sparrow and a heat-seeking Sidewinder.

The Stark is a an old and sad vessel dont why its mentioned.Sparrows were made to shoot down bombers not fighters. Same with the aptriot incase you try pointing that out . (patriot was for planes not missiles just modified to do that) . Friendly fire has ahppened before. Sure its embarrassign but it happens.


Originally by StellarX:
Suddenly, a minor enemy arose who put up a limited air challenge with inferior MiGs. The U.S. fielded its front-line fighters, in particular the F-4 Phantom II, which had been designed for fleet defense rather than violent close-combat aerial maneuvering. Back came the dogfight, but since pilots had little dogfight training and worried about killing their buddies, the Americans did not do well, especially with radar-guided Sparrows and especially beyond visual range.

The sparrow was made for bombers not fighters. The F 4 has no gun either.


Originally by StellarX:
Even though Vietnam drove home the lesson that pilots and aircraft must learn to dogfight within visual range, the air services asked for improved radar missiles. The AMRAAM emerged, supported by advocates inside and outside the DOD. To score a kill during a swirling dogfight, a pilot would have to launch missiles one after the other at multiple targets, a dubious tactic quickly called "launch-and-leave." "What no one wanted to say," says Myers, "is that they already had a missile that did this -- the cheap, accurate heat-seeking Sidewinder."


Sidewinder is a short range heat seaking missile it simply doesnt have the range to match it.



Originally by StellarX:
At $ 500,000 a missile, the AMRAAM solution has a cost 10 times higher than a Sidewinder. It is so expensive that the services have been forced to stop buying the Sidewinder because they can no longer afford both radar-guided and heat-seeking missiles.


like i said


Originally by StellarX:
Burton fast became one of the most unpopular men in the Pentagon. He titled the briefing he gave on his findings "Letting Combat Results Shape the Next Air-to-Air Missile." His findings? Of more than 260 Arab aircraft knocked down by Israel in 1973, only five fell to Sparrows in 12 firings. Of the 632 Sparrows fired in all the wars Burton studied, only 73 destroyed the airplane they were fired at, for a kill rating of 11%. The ancient Sidewinder did almost three times better: of some 1,000 Sidewinder firings, 308 kills resulted in a kill rating of 30%.

In Southeast Asia, Sparrow had such a poor reputation that pilots routinely ripple-fired their Sparrows, firing off two or more in a row rather than taking a chance on a single shot. Even though few fighters came to Vietnam equipped with guns, they had a better kill rating than Sparrow-equipped fighters. Burton found that guns actually made about one-third of all the kills counted in Vietnam


Never forget the Sparrows original mission. Missles werent that good back then.


Originally by StellarX:
Burton fast became one of the most unpopular men in the Pentagon. He titled the briefing he gave on his findings "Letting Combat Results Shape the Next Air-to-Air Missile." His findings? Of more than 260 Arab aircraft knocked down by Israel in 1973, only five fell to Sparrows in 12 firings. Of the 632 Sparrows fired in all the wars Burton studied, only 73 destroyed the airplane they were fired at, for a kill rating of 11%. The ancient Sidewinder did almost three times better: of some 1,000 Sidewinder firings, 308 kills resulted in a kill rating of 30%.

In Southeast Asia, Sparrow had such a poor reputation that pilots routinely ripple-fired their Sparrows, firing off two or more in a row rather than taking a chance on a single shot. Even though few fighters came to Vietnam equipped with guns, they had a better kill rating than Sparrow-equipped fighters. Burton found that guns actually made about one-third of all the kills counted in Vietna


didnt i say HARMS have the tendency to hit allies when there are no emission from the enemy.



Originally by StellarX:
In 1984, Burton managed to have the idea tested in McDonnell Douglas' differential maneuvering simulators. The results were devastating. Over and over, ARM-equipped fighters shot down AMRAAM aircraft and missiles. The results were turned over to the AMRAAM office, which invalidated them and threw out the exercise. In airborne tests in Nevada, Red Force aircraft using simple radar homing and warning devices could see Blue Force AMRAAM radars coming on 10 mi. away. The warnings allowed Red Force to turn away and beat the missile. When the AMRAAM radar was reset to come on 5 mi. from the target aircraft, the change negated the longed-for BVR scenario.


well obviously what are anti radiation missiles going to do. They're obviously goign to home on.


Originally by StellarX:
In 1984, Burton managed to have the idea tested in McDonnell Douglas' differential maneuvering simulators. The results were devastating. Over and over, ARM-equipped fighters shot down AMRAAM aircraft and missiles. The results were turned over to the AMRAAM office, which invalidated them and threw out the exercise. In airborne tests in Nevada, Red Force aircraft using simple radar homing and warning devices could see Blue Force AMRAAM radars coming on 10 mi. away. The warnings allowed Red Force to turn away and beat the missile. When the AMRAAM radar was reset to come on 5 mi. from the target aircraft, the change negated the longed-for BVR scenario.

In addition, the missile's fabled multiple-target tracking and killing capability turned out to be no more effective than single-target shooting, either in simulations or live aerial firings. "The simple launch-and-leave ARM casts a pall over the whole issue since it homes in perfectly on an illuminating radar," says Defense Dept. analyst Thomas Amlie. "This means you can't use AMRAAM, AIM-7, Phoenix, or any other radar-guided missile in combat."


launch and leave gives you good survivability. like everyone says just turn off your radar and go under emissiosnc ontrol there goes your anti radar missile down the drain. (thats why they didnt choose it). A lot of missiles have bad rep at first then become legendary look at the patriot and the sparrow. The AMRAAM seeker is being applied to the standard missiles.


Originally by StellarX:
Meanwhile, the USSR has a well-developed series of ARMs, including the AA-10 Alamo for air-to-air combat. They have also converted the AS-4 Kitchen and AS-6 Kingfish, both with 2,200-lb warheads, into ARMs. Notes Amlie: "They never throw anything away. Flying at Mach 3+, these are a tremendous threat to the U.S. fleet, which is virtually bathed in radar. Now our prime weapons systems, such as Aegis, STARS, E-3A, Patriot, and Hawk, are in serious jeopardy."


the latest phased arrays have LPI. and are difficult to intercept. that doesnt work anymore.


Originally by StellarX:
The pilot firing the ARM still has problems, such as obtaining distance from the target, the need for his own radar to paint the target and give its range, the possibility of the ARM homing in on multiple enemy and friendly radars in the air, ground, and sea, and the very strong possibility of homing in on decoys. Regardless, the mere presence of ARMs in the air can lead to everyone turning off their radars, which puts the real combat arena squarely back into the visual, maneuvering, close-up fight that, AMRAAM supporters say, is not likely to happen because of the "reality" of BVR combat.


yea u tell me why peopel are developing BVR missiles. if you shut your radar off waht good is it going to do with an AMRAAM.



Originally by StellarX:
In 1969, the DOD tried to test an air-to-air ARM developed from the Sparrow airframe under the project name Brazo. At modest cost, three test firings destroyed three target drones. Amlie says the program "was cancelled when it could be interpreted as eliminating large radar fighters such as the F-14 and F-15, since the tests proved you could not use a radar fighter in combat when up against ARMs. The only countermeasure was to turn the radars off, so everything was swept under a rug." Now, department rumblings suggest that development of an air-to-air ARM is again under consideration.

The host of U.S. radar-based weapons are all vulnerable to ARMs. The E-3A AWACS has a superb radar antenna that can detect hundreds of targets simultaneously -- and can itself be seen at extremely long distances. An AS-4 or -6 could be launched 300-400 mi. away and home in on it with ease. The same is true for the 40 Aegis cruisers and destroyers destined for fleet service with the Navy. With hundreds of Soviet ARMs ready for firing from submarines, surface ships, aircraft, and land, a U.S. carrier battle group, heavily dependent on radar, might be in serious trouble, especially if the missiles were sea-skimmers.

like fighter wil ust fly up to the awacs when swarms of missiles are being shot at them yea........ Ever hear of air escorts, and LPI. but like you said turn your radar offf. Arleigh Burkes have LOW RCS's and are accompanied by subs.


Originally by StellarX:
At best, Navy countermeasures are limited against so simple a weapon. Sea-skimmers pop up over the radar horizon a bare 14 mi. away, and when radar does detect the missile, the radar reflections bounce off the waves, making it difficult to determine altitude, thus throwing off tracking. A third Soviet line of attack comes from their radar jammers, among the world's most powerful.

Pilots of B-1 and B-2 bombers penetrating Soviet airspace most likely will use terrain-following radar to stay low and avoid detection. Using inexpensive radar finders, like the fuzzbusters motorists use to avoid police speed traps, on hiss surrounded by flat terrain, the Soviets should have no trouble seeing the bombers coming. And Soviet radar homing and warning equipment can pick up VHF transmissions or over-the-horizon radar from distant approaching aircraft. In fact, the whole issue of stealth technology could become moot, if one considers that a radar antenna runs along the entire length of a B-2 wing's leading edge. Once in visual range, stealth is irrelevant. It is more than probable that an F-117 or a B-2 can be found, identified, and shot down using basic common sense. The F-117 has to make such wide turns that its survival in a visual air-to-air fight is precarious.


AEGIS is designed to deal with sea skimmers. radars are getting better at recocgnizing targets from clutter.Why would B-2's fly low they can fly high and avioidd etection. Visual range yea right. Try this...the B-2 is black and so is the sky . Other fighters are near........ F 177's fly at night. very low chance of visual interception. VHF radar and OTOH cant perform fire control u need x band. These are immobile. The US wiped out all long wave and OTOH radars out with cruise misssiels and apaches flying low.



Originally by StellarX:
Myers, who proposed the first stealth aircraft ideas under Project Harvey (after the famous invisible rabbit), is extremely disappointed over where things have ended up. He recommended a small, inexpensive aircraft that would be hard to find with radar and eye. Yes, payload would have been small, but the idea was to confuse the opposition. "Suppose I weigh only 75 lb, with the payload of a hatpin, but I'm visible," he says. "How much trouble and chaos could I cause in the enemy camp?" A small aircraft carrying a small ARM and a gun, Myers' original stealth plane was to effectively blind the enemy by taking out radar vans and emplacements. The F-117 seems to have a similar mission, but had to be bigger to carry weapons like the Maverick missile as required by current Air Force doctrine.

Still, a growing number of soldiers and analysts are asking tough questions about the future of radar warfare. "We cannot go around radiating signals," says Amlie. "The French sell a missile to the entire Third World that will hit an Aegis every time. We are building a peacetime military that will never be effective in combat."


read about modern radar. It isnt easy to dect thme anymore.

Your article made a lot of comments without adressing all facts and recent advances etc. you posted a blog instead of an article please adress the issue.

forgive any punctuation errors im going to late for an appointment.

awesome and funny.....media.putfile.com...



[edit on 29-3-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 29-3-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 29-3-2006 by urmomma158]

Zedd's Handbook for BBcode
Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.
[Mod Edit: To include proper BBcode tags for quoting another member]

[edit on 4/2/2006 by 12m8keall2c]





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

log in

join