It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

S400 Triumf SAM counterstealth?!?!?!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman11
I do not underestimate Russian R&D efforts, but they are not at Soviet Union levels.


Which were higher than American levels in terms of brain power assigned. Fact is they still do great research on many areas and there is no reason to want to underestimate it.


They were also very wide spread, but included some very ineffective weapon efforts, while the US tries to make gold plated weaponry.


Very ineffective such as? Compared to the huge waste of tax payer money that is the US defense budget nothing the Russians could do could be anywhere near as wasteful with the funds in hand.


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.


Some are but since the Russian efforts were normally far larger in terms of manpower/brainpower allotments i doubt losing individuals would have slowed down the programs as much as lack of funds/interest would. Do you really believe that Soviet scientist were starving and if so why have you chosen to believe that?


(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.


The money that goes into black budgets may go towards weapon systems or more likely into private hands of contractors and the like. I guess you want to assume that corruption will not happen but it would be interesting to see you prove how they can 'lose track' of a trillion odd dollars in ten years. Did that money really go towards super secret weapons or did some fat-cats just get richer? Your assumptions is quite contrary to the blatant rip-offs that the US defense industrial complex repeatedly, and blatantly, visit on the American tax payer.


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.


And this is how you addressed most all my dozens of sources. It does not matter if they were US defense personal or Secretaries of defense or WHATEVER; if the claims they made were contrary to your opinion it was clearly enemy propaganda ( I did not know the US defense sec works for the Russians?) of some sort that you did not have to bother responding to. All you ever had in response to my hard work was blanket denials and a repetitive denial of sources you never even bothered addressing. If you had the guts to list them source my source and state your reasoning for disagreeing i could respect you but the blanket denial proves you were at least smart enough to realise how stupid it would look if you typed " enemy propaganda" in response to 10 sources from widely differing perspectives. Your not serious about defending your point of view and all you have done so far as try dimiss mine with vapid denial.


"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.


And it's a rather well known fact that the equipment can not make you better at war fighting than you already are. Superior doctrine and training/command with inferior weapons can beat inferior doctrine and training/command with far superior weapon systems any day of the week and human history has proven as much time and time again. Large numbers of badly trained/led men with low morale wielding great equipment will still very likely lose against a enemy who has decided to win whatever the cost or the state of his equipment.

Vietnam/Korea/Second world war are all evidence that war is not a linear exercise where superior/inferior equipment decided the outcome.


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.


Well if you studied the topic you would realise that great amounts of American weapons are in fact ' given away' with various programs run by the Us government. Research export credits if you like and you might realise that the large number of weapons sold does not really mean a great amount of money is actually made. The Russians might sell less but it comes with few strings attached if you have the money in your pocked. The US will give you hundreds of millions worth of arms for little short term cost if you are willing to accept the political strings attached.


Though the United States dominates the global arms trade, its arms exports receive finance from export credit-like programs run out of the U.S. Department of Defense rather than U.S. ECAs, with some exceptions. However, most European countries use their ECAs.27 For example, although arms represent only 2 percent of the United Kingdom's exports, in 2000-2001 defense exports represented nearly half the portfolio of the U.K.'s ECA, the ECGD; and the arms business accounts for a massive portion of its outstanding claims.28 Major recipients of ECGD-supported arms exports have included South Africa, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.29 The ECGD promoted the sale of Hawk jets to Indonesia despite their being used in the brutal suppression of East Timor. And in South Africa, facing an ECGD-backed purchase of over $1 billion worth of fighter jets, church and human rights groups have argued that the country's large weapons procurement program directly contradicts its development needs.3

www.foodfirst.org...


I could find some better sources but i would rather spend my evening more constructively.


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.


The logic used in this reasoning is so basically flawed ( it's not your fault your ignorant and do not see the larger economic picture) that it's not really worth responding to. Let's just say the world is a far more complex place than you think it is. Stop accusing me of not being able to understand complexity when you seemingly think weapon sales happens independent of political and economic realities.


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 sometimes, for effect, used words to describe Russian weapons that in biased minds would create the impression that i think they are better than even i would give them credit for. My claim rested on the premise that strategic planners in the US would have had to deal with far more unknowns, in planning for a nuclear exchange, than the USSR/Russia would have and that reality would have given them a clear strategic edge independent of weapon system performances. I tried to build a case that their Sam's were in fact dual use weapons and that coupled with their largely mobile and re loadable ICBM forces and civil defense network they would probably ( more than 50% chance) have won a nuclear exchange if those were in fact the prime movers. There are obviously many factors beyond that which i tried to include but i think i did state it as opinion when i made the claim that they would win. I proceeded to address each of your major objections showing how they did not affect that opinion of mine. If you want to bring new claims or address my earlier one's you are free to do so but as it stands you have brought no evidence that my original statement was not in fact largely or at all inaccurate.


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.


Well you would have been a fool to disagree with everything i said as the evidence is so damn overwhelming in some instances that even you had to accept it. The fact that you ridicule me on other points, when i brought the same amount of undisputed evidence( by you at least), is what got me rather angry at you. While accepting evidence do not require work on your side disputing mine does and if you are not willing to get involved and do your share you MUST consider/keep in mind that evidence when trying to build the larger view. If your logic reasoning process works any other way your never going to be the wiser.


Also the mystery of Yamantau mountain. So don't say I am the one who is stubbornly and blindly patriotic.


Since i am not Russian and you are apparently American i think the patriotism thing applies more accurately to you. If you did not figure out where i am from in all those responses i can but wonder if you read much of the source material i supplied. Makes me wonder just how serious you are about this 'discussion'.


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.


Well i looked at that record and i came away extremely unimpressed. While i understand the role US politicians played in undermining the US 'defense' ( read rabidly offensive) forces i still noted how even small scale conflicts were mismanaged. If the men directly in charge of the armed forces could not wield enough political power to actually get the political backing to WIN the wars how well did they do when it came to weapons procurement and training standards? One can but wonder and i certainly do.


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.


Well i never said small arms fire. What i said was that these long range Sam's forced attack aircraft lower thus exposing them to short range manpads and old fashioned steel-wall AA and others.


The Tornado also specializes in low altitude attack, as the F-15E. Today that Billion Dollar S-400 system can be overwhelmed eventually.


Everything can be overwhelmed imo but they still lost Two Tornado's in the first days of the gulf war trying to do low level bombing against airfields. I am not saying that the damn S-400 is invulnerable as much as i am saying that they are getting better far faster than the weapons that will have to be used to kill them.


How about 100 cruise missiles with the same time on target?


The S-300 could shoot down cruise missiles so maybe you could saturate the target or maybe you just use up all your cruise missiles in the first few days trying to kill radar's that can displace in mere minutes and certainly long before your cruise missile gets there. Whatever you do your still attacking the air defense instead of other things thus buying the enemy time. A good defense buys you time to stage a attack elsewhere but if defense is all your going to bring to the conflict it will probably not work and ESPECIALLY not when you are the weaker power.


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.


Offense is always going to be more expensive than defense. The infrastructure you need to attack is simple more costly than the one you will need in defense and it is kind of silly arguing that the Iraqi's or North Vietnamese ever had a chance anyways. We will not even mention the type of training that offense required compared to defense.



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 i just disagree on that score and if you want to argue dollar costs of offense over defense your free to start doing so and you can start by listing the industrial base required to construct modern fighter planes compared to the infrastructure required for Sam's and the like. I think it will be interesting to try prove my point in terms of dollar value's of the systems.

You do not think Nellis AFB cost a heap of cash to construct and that the fighter pilots in those planes spend hundreds of hours to train for the mission? It's a incredibly costly business to keep a modern air force effective ( well practiced with modern equipment) while the main cost towards a air defense system is the initial cost. There is no comparison cost wise as you will soon realise when you start putting the numbers on paper as i have.


No, I can and have in the past found plenty to refute your claims and posts before, just as I have seen others do.


It would be absolutely AWESOME if you could source me back to even ONE such a incident ( should be easy, right?) if putting down one source will not strain you too much. You can also source that ' seen other's do' if you like as my record is pretty clean last i checked. It's what happens when one sticks to the facts and leave opinions to others.


You just claimed you didn't like my sources. I don't like yours.


The difference here is that i clearly stated why i objected to each source with evidence to back why. You used blanket denials to address half a dozen or more sources even thought the basic premise of such denial frequently did not even apply to ONE source. You were never seriously interested in debate as debates is about addressing EACH and EVERY claim made with logical counter claims or concessions. You never realised that conceding a invalid premise/point lends credibility to your entire argument as readers will realise your in it for the knowledge and not the 'glory'. Until your willing to go back and address all those dozens of claims point by point you will not have a shred of credibility with me.


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 did the right thing for as long as a human being could while you ignored my claims and stuck to repeating the same old lies i just spent hours carefully addressing with dozens of sources. Your lying now as you lied then and i for one will keep pointing that fact out. If the mods could get off their mostly lazy ( anything longer than a page seems to = yawn, 'id-rather-not-read-that-much') behinds you would have been banned AGES ago. Even structuring your post was too much trouble for you.


I think most will agree with me on that point, and I am suprised you have not been banned yet.


Well i am far more surprised that your still here. :0 Fact is my posting record reflect the fact that i do not go around seeking for trouble or insulting people who know less than me if their willing to learn and consider my points. You have never been interested in what i have to say when in contradicts what you have chosen to believe and have gone our of your way to avoid having to address my claims in a pointed, accurate fashion.


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.


It might be difficult to engage me but since it never avoided ANY of your points or statements at least you could have used the opportunity to convince me. What you in fact did was just repeat the same claims numerous time after i just finished explaining my point of view relating to EACH claim you made. If sticking to facts and trying to arrive at logical conclusions is what juvenile,'young' or un-well people do then i guess i am guilty of all that. I always assumed that arriving at conclusions by supporting all my statements and addressing the claims/facts/statements of others were the way one conducted yourself in discussion. You might want to advise me on what you suggest i do if that is not in fact what one should be doing.


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???


Well i do not know if you have looked at the facts as you never address my statements and quotes/ sources in a pointed fashion. Since you are not willing to commit to defending your prior claims i really have no idea what you make of the evidence presented by myself. I would like to ask how the claims made by prominent American defense/intelligence establishment figures can be consider Russian propaganda as i always thought they were actually working for the sides paying them. Now i realise there are high level spies but it would be interesting to see you prove how so many American defense secretaries were working for the Russians. I might be proved extremely ignorant on all scores but that can hardly happen when you never address my claims and thus expose that ignorance. The fact seems to be that you are the more ignorant of the two of US as i did address your claims and proved them mostly inaccurate and false.



Are you an expert? Are you involved in "classified" projects and please expand on that subject, because we all want to hear.


Well there is no way i can describe myself as a expert as all i have done so far is source material and arguments from experts and then try put it together in the most logical fashion. Now since i rely on the expertise of others i will assume all their mistakes in my arguments if i use them as sources and my arguments should then be easily proven false. If i however pick the right sources and use them towards deductive reasoning i should come up with theories that can be defended in detail. Since you have offered nothing in the way of logical counter-claims there is no reason for me to change my theory till such time as i find evidence that suggest i should alter it.

Your "classified projects' and 'secret data' nonsense is growing old as we have to make do with what we have on paper before us. If you can not introduce even ONE source on the Internet to support a claim odds are there is nothing to talk about. Information leaks out and it lands somewhere on the Internet in some obscure discussion board for people to make the basis of their thinking and claims but if you can not cite where you got a idea from your just wasting time and energy on nonsense.


Tell us why we should believe you above the oposite opinion out there, because there are many.


Because i support my claims far better than ANYONE even came close to trying to do relating to SAM's/ABM's being currently in large scale service in Russia. If you want to believe something that is fine but when you make specific claims on a public board the idea is to defend them and eventually go wherever the evidence leads you. If you can not follow the evidence trail you can not make mistakes or learn from them. There is few greater flaws than sticking to a opinion/fact/idea simple because it was the first one you had on the topic.


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...


I am like others here if that is what those others are doing without me ever catching them in the process. Fact is i rarely find ANYONE on this forum who sources their ideas and theories as diligently as i do. My train of thought is evidence in my sources and if such sources is disputed or proven false my train of thought has been proven to change. That is all i ask of everyone on the forum. Basically that means that if my mind is not changing your arguments are not working and odds are i will be showing you why they are not doing so so that you may once again know why i am not changing my mind on the subject. Again that is all that we should demand of each other.


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)


I just wasted a great deal of my time doing just that.

When it comes to serial spammers like you i can never prevent myself from responding as you guys are intelligent and educated enough to do better than your current ignorance would indicate you are. At least i am not spending time trying to save whales or puppies from their own small brains.

Stellar




posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
again stellar you're not adressing the issue simply fillinf haf of ur posts with rhetoric( no offense though)



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
again stellar you're not adressing the issue simply fillinf haf of ur posts with rhetoric( no offense though)


Which issue is that exactly? I am kinda wondering as your post seems to grab quotes from just about everywhere. I presume you like addressing the few things you know something about but it hardly speaks for your general knowledge.


Stellar



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by urmomma158
again stellar you're not adressing the issue simply fillinf haf of ur posts with rhetoric( no offense though)


Which issue is that exactly? I am kinda wondering as your post seems to grab quotes from just about everywhere. I presume you like addressing the few things you know something about but it hardly speaks for your general knowledge.


Stellar


And you seem to be ignoring the facts didi u bother to read the link you gave me u were adressing the reliability od missiles and instead of a good source you gave me an ATS thread with no proof and simply statements that ignore the obvious facts thtat were present when these incidents happnened.



anyways back to the issue heres what milosevich did www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

1he moved his sams and turned oof their radars and put them under EMCON . Anti radar missiles are good but the problem is the concept is all too simple to defeat.

2 The weather has nothing to do with SEAD unless of course you're your talking of radar abnds which attentuate in the rain.

3 Beat u at your own game yes but the SERBS still lost.

4 The Us is developing a weather control system there goes ur notion of "the enemy using a weather control system

5 you provided a thread about peoples views with barely any good sources especially the www.pogo.org. Its not a reilable sources allt he time The F 117 was not even scratched in the most heavily defended areas the writer is no avaition expert, cournil,etc or any experienced person.


6 now lets debunk the first post on the page.


>>

The USS Stark is an old ship we use arleigh burke classes now armed with AEGIS. www.usswaddell.com... just looking at the ship and u can tell it has a huge RCS the Burke class do but under close examining it's angled to deflect radar even with all the "Ornaments" on because ithey're sloped. the sparrow was back then very inaccurate its inception was to take on bombers not fighters . Both the sidewinder and Sparrow werent accurate back then. Many plnes were shot down in GW1 by sparrows.

>>>>>>>> LPI and EMCON i hope you are aware of that. To beat an ARm just shut the radar off. Alot of weapons ahd bad reps at first then legendary. Sparrow and Patriot are 2 examples.

It's a very accurate missile. Your article seems old.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
And you seem to be ignoring the facts didi u bother to read the link you gave me u were adressing the reliability od missiles and instead of a good source you gave me an ATS thread with no proof and simply statements that ignore the obvious facts thtat were present when these incidents happnened.


I gave you a ATS thread that happened to contain a reprinted article from a credible magazine. I am not so sure anymore than you know much about any facts as not being able to read would have been quite the obstacle. I suggest you try be more respectful while assuming that i did at least SOME homework/research before engaging in discussion. It's just not something you seem to have done.


anyways back to the issue heres what milosevich did www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil... 1he moved his sams and turned oof their radars and put them under EMCON . Anti radar missiles are good but the problem is the concept is all too simple to defeat.


Back to the issue? You are the one bringing up unrelated points simple because you could not understand how to read the source material i provided. The Sam's radars were not always off and they moved around between scans so as to make them nearly indestructible. The concept is not that simple to defeat as the Sam's were not 'defeated' as such. One can argue that they did not destroy many allied planes but if one looks at how much of the Yugoslav army were destroyed the Sam's were quite clearly very effective in protecting things that could at all be.


2 The weather has nothing to do with SEAD unless of course you're your talking of radar abnds which attentuate in the rain.


Bad weather is still bad weather and if you do not understand how it limits operations you have no business talking about the topic AT ALL.


3 Beat u at your own game yes but the SERBS still lost.


They could have never 'won' in the way you clearly intend them to win. Since they only had to keep their army largely intact did they in fact lose? The allied air forces mostly avoided losses by avoiding Serb air defenses as best they could thus also making the destruction of those forces impossible as investigation after the war confirmed.


4 The Us is developing a weather control system there goes ur notion of "the enemy using a weather control system


The Russians operate the same type of equipment that the US will be using for weather modification so given your allied with Russian in some way they could counteract any effect American weather manipulation might have.


5 you provided a thread about peoples views with barely any good sources especially the www.pogo.org. Its not a reilable sources allt he time The F 117 was not even scratched in the most heavily defended areas the writer is no avaition expert, cournil,etc or any experienced person.


I suggest you make your objections far clearer as what a website address happens to be has absolutely no relevance towards it's accuracy. If you do not have specific objections beyond claiming that everyone but yourself is ignorant you really have nothing at all. Why should your opion on the matter be taken seriously when the author in question clearly has credentials to brag with?


6 now lets debunk the first post on the page.


Well i guess we will have to wait and see.



The USS Stark is an old ship we use arleigh burke classes now armed with AEGIS. www.usswaddell.com... just looking at the ship and u can tell it has a huge RCS the Burke class do but under close examining it's angled to deflect radar even with all the "Ornaments" on because ithey're sloped.


You think low RCS would have somehow changed it and that the ship failed to defend itself because it had a large RCS? Well it never saw the missiles on radar. Do you really think that a low RCS would have changed much if anything if the ship still did not see the airplanes launch their missiles? Your missing the point completely. Aegis has flaws all of it's own and it's not like missile technology did not evolve in the last 2 decades.


the sparrow was back then very inaccurate its inception was to take on bombers not fighters . Both the sidewinder and Sparrow werent accurate back then. Many plnes were shot down in GW1 by sparrows.


Well the doctrine was the doctrine and if the missiles can not do what the doctrine demands then that is a rather large problem. If you do not understand the distinction your wasting my time.


already adressed . The phantom has no gun either.


And i am sure you imagine that you did 'address', it whatever that really means in your mind, but i really did not notice it happening. I am sorry but your going to have to do better than construct imaginary arguments to defeat imaginary foes. I am still not sure where you found that much straw to work with.


The sideiwnder has a shorter range and not really for BVR. I hope you know that.


Well i know it and so does the author ( who happens to work for a reputable magazine last i checked) if you cared to try figure out what he said. If your going to be fighting strawmen just bring a torch and spare yourself the 'arguments'.


i adressed this why this happened already your sources seems to not know the obvious truth before him.


You have not addressed any issues and certainly not his credibility.


this is vietnam era


Stating the obvious is not helping to inform us ignorants.



LPI and EMCON i hope you are aware of that. To beat an ARm just shut the radar off. Alot of weapons ahd bad reps at first then legendary. Sparrow and Patriot are 2 examples.


If you shut down your radar your not going to be able to defend yourself against radar guided weapons either so a mix of these weapons means you are forced to keep your radar very much 'active'. Weapons do improve but so does defense system ( as you note) and countermeasures. Your argument is however false if you think the weapons will not be mixed for effect.


youa rticle says one thing and changes its mind


It's not 'my' article as i did not right it. The author did not change his mind and if you keep thinking as much do state why you think it.



It's a very accurate missile. Your article seems old.


It says it was written in 1991 ( and i said so from the start) so it IS old in that it sets out to show that the weapons were not living up to the doctrine AT THE TIME. Since nothing much changed in that 2 decades one has to wonder how much has changed in the last but you have every right to be skeptical if you want to believe in this specific missile.


your article says one thing and changes its mind!!![/quote[

The only connection i have with the article is the fact that i reprinted it here. Other than that you should really think about why you would want to confuse what i might think with what the author states. He did not however change his mind as you have convinced yourself to think; somehow.


yea exacly look to my previous response above this and remeber LPI. Thats waht active seekers are for.


When active seekers can't seem to 'seek' properly what is the point of it all? Why create a weapon to help with LPI targeting when it results in even LPI than the original shorter range system? If you can not kill the enemy at distance, you now fly a far heavier plane to lug all the big missiles along, your making your relative position WEAKER.


LPI,EMCON, and freqency hopping will take care of this. AEGIS has much longer range than most arms. The Burke has a reudced detection range as well. Let's not forget AEGIS can intercept sea skimming missiles.


Aegis is suggested to have that capacity but when i last checked it's done best when killing innocent civilians at high altitude. There are means to a proper defense but if the enemy can exploit your massive radar signature to his own advantage your starting to help him and not yourself. The Russians have 400 Km arm's these days so one has to wonder if the American fleet could swim longer than the Russians/Chinese could make it rain. Arms are after all rather cheaper than Ships. Lets not forget everyone makes claims about what their missiles can do and that we really need to look at what sort of testing has been done before we start believing them. We know Aegis has never been anywhere near as good as claimed and we are GUESSING when claiming that it's been much improved.


just adressed this


In your active imagination, possibly.


B 2 flys high altitude it doesnt need to use terrain masking at all.


Then it's going to get it's ass shot out of air trying to deliver nuclear weapons in a first strike type scenario. The idea is to penetrate Russian strategic air defense to get to vital targets and for that you will need to fly very low to avoid exposing your flanks which increases RCS by factors up to 100. If you do not fly low your not going to be penetrating as much as be penetrated.


VHF radar is bad for fire control and bombers have fighter and EW aircraf escort good luck with going visula range. Already adressed the AEGIS aprt.[/quite]

And how is the escorts going to survive long enough to escort i might ask? VHF and fire control?


I only did this agian due to the horrible punctuation on the last post. Ik now hat you're going to say (what does this have to do with anything i posted the link for).


That is a perfectly good question which i did considering asking.


Well i was pointing out its stupid idea to post a thread to respond to a question.


Only if the person you are trying to help is stubborn and stupid IMO.


I was also pointing out your ignorance some of the links were total BS that dont know the full story and all the facts and goes on and on making mistakes.


I only wanted people to comment on the links and since you could not even figure out where they came from i am having a hard time taking your very seriously. You clearly know far less about the ' full story' than any of the authors and i suggest you start showing more respect to people who at least please enough people to get published. When you manage that sort of feat ( and get some 'facts' 'right') i might start having some hope for you.


Stellar



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
response will be tommorow im busy anyways you're arguments are unrepresentative. on onday are thr responses



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158

response will be tommorow im busy anyways you're arguments are unrepresentative. on onday are thr responses


I don't honestly care when you respond as your not contributing imo. My arguments address the issues as stated in the original reports and not your strawman arguments derived from statements never made by the authors. If you find that to be 'unrepresentative' i could not be bothered less as i at least stick to what was in fact said and not what i imagined were.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
>>>> the Issue was SEAD which i was adressing. you were the one bringing up the weather. Besides hutting off your radars wont work anymore. The newest HArms can swith to active seek mode. True mobility is used but when the enemy is bobming you want ur radars to be on. You're not goign to stand there letting the enmy bomb u.

>>>> Your source has no credentials you can tell by reading the article. The B 2 flying low is one thing. The F 117 was never lost in the msot heavily defended areas. that's a fact.




It is if you read my post properly the missiles in the vietnam era were not all that accurate.

>>>>

LPI etc are to significanly reduce the feffective of anti radiation missiles. Why are you criticizing The missiles past tests. Peopel should looka t combat sucesses instead. Now the AMRAAM has significant range.

Im talking about after air superioity is secured and most SAMS have been destroyed.


>>>> How can u figure out twhereit came rom if you dont even post links for it. You need to read up more since you odnt know what you're talking about when you speak of the B 2. Also u apparently ignore truths that are evident especailly about thesparrow.



[edit on 1-4-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Give me the source then. If was credible then why would it talking of weapons that failed in the vietnam era and B 2's flying low level. B 2's are not conventional aircraft they fly at normal altitudes.


It is credible and you better start reading and discover why if you still have not figured it out. B-2's will be flying at low altitude as that is the only way they will survive long enough to attempt penetrating Russian air defenses. Saying otherwise is disagreeing with everyone in the field.


the Issue was SEAD which i was adressing. you were the one bringing up the weather.


Weather is ALWAYS relevant and thus i mentioned it's effect on SEAD/DEAD.


Besides hutting off your radars wont work anymore. The newest HArms can swith to active seek mode.


That is why the the SA-10 in it's last few models could really just pack up and move within minutes before those long range Harm's even arrive IF they could not jam or otherwise counteract them.


True mobility is used but when the enemy is bobming you want ur radars to be on. You're not goign to stand there letting the enmy bomb u.


When the enemy is too afraid to come where you will likely be you do not really have to fight him off since he stays away. Managing what you were supposed to without firing a shot.


I tlimits operations by affecting mobility etc but that's becoming less of an issue.


What does that 'mean' if planes simply do not fly


Poor weather also limited airstrikes. Brig. Gen. Leroy Barnidge, Commander of the 509th Bomb Wing, Whiteman AFB, Mo., told how one night, one of the wing's B-2s en route to the target was recalled because of weather. That night "the weather was so bad, the whole war was canceled," he remarked. 25 Throughout the operation, weather was favorable only about one-third of the time--with most good weather days coming late in the campaign.

www.afa.org...



weere didi i say they could never lose.


Is English your first or second language? What could Yugoslavia have managed other than 'losing' against the forces deployed against them? What would they have had to manage to win? Do you understand that mere survival can be victory if your survival ensures the enemy needs to keep deploying forces to kill you when you do decide to come out and fight? I just think your missing the point when it comes to air defenses who's primary job is not shooting down planes but making them ineffective in their role as ground interdicters.


Your source has no credentials you can tell by reading the article. The B 2 flying low is one thing. The F 117 was never lost in the most heavily defended areas. that's a fact.


And if you can not go look who the author is your not taking this very seriously. Do your part i and i will do mine. So it's better in your opinion when F-117's are lost in lightly defended areas?


Yeah and the radar technology didnt evolve to detect sea smimming missiles. Yes RCS matters if it did why do it in the first place. The AEGIS has a superb radar which would detect the planes coming from a really long range.m ven if its flying low and launch Standard missiles


And it might stop many missiles and then it might not. It's never been tested under combat situations but since missiles are much cheaper it can not really afford to fail even once.


The ships would be identified as ships much later. The planes would be shot down well before being identified as ships.


I have no idea what your trying to say here and i suggest you speak English next time.


All weapons ahve flaws that are in the testing phase nothing is 100% accurate. missiles miss you're right. But if it has a high success rate it's good.


Anti missile missile's in the US inventory have not really been proven to work all that well in combat use so i have my doubts.



You're right about doctrine but it was meant to take on bobmbers not fighters why argue about its failures if it wasnt even designed to take that threat in the first place and if the weapon has had recent successes.


Sparrow designed to shoot down bombers as basic design requirement? Well as far as i know it's just another air to air missile so feel free to source where you get your information from. Fact is it was designed to shoot down planes BVR and it just failed to live up to expectations in that role.


read the my last phrase. your source was repeating the sparrow incidents.


Yes, and he did so for good reason. Sparrows simply could not do what doctrine demanded they should so they are failures as missiles.


true but if the weapon has a shorter range that doesnt give u much an edge in bvr now does it. You cant argue with that.


Well if the longer range missiles do not work then you need to find something else instead of insisting on the same doctrine without the proper equipment to prosecute it.


His bad credibility is already before everyones eyes im not saying he's just making pointless arguments.


You can barely speak the language and i have never had such trouble understanding someone on ATS before. I really suggest you take time to explain your intent as your statements just do not make sense half the time.
The author writes for a highly 'rated' magazine and i really suggest you show at least SOME form of respect for that achievement.


It is if you read my post properly the missiles in the vietnam era were not all that accurate.


Well Russian Air to air missiles in fact had a higher hit ratio than American one's so it all depends on your point of view. What we know for sure is that long range missile fire simply was not very effective.


what are you trying to say of course i know its not your article why make pointless remarks and shy away from the truth.


Well you keep calling it 'my' article for some obscure reason. Your point was about as valid as the rest of them( not at all).


i have every right to be skeptical. Plus the US bever used AMRAAM in GW1. t tests for missiles can be failures why do u think testing lasts for years


And you have evidence to suggest AMRAAM's are in fact doing what they were supposed to do? As i recall they are failing about as badly as the sparrow's were in their time.


LPI etc are to significanly reduce the fefective of anti radiation missiles. Why are you criticizing The missiles past tests. Peopel should looka t combat sucesses instead. Now the AMRAAM has significant range.


You can not achieve LPI if your radar is on against ARM's unless you do so by active means including interception with your own missiles or somehow jamming or distracting them from your emission location.


you need to let the technology mature. jus t lie the patriot it will get better.


How better did the patriot get? Weapons do get better as you said but sometimes your just trying something that is not practical in terms of likely combat conditions. You can obviously spend billions of dollars trying to build AMB defenses but trying to defend slow ships against very fast missiles with other missiles might be a bad idea to start with . Do what the Russians did and take your primary ship killing forces below the waves and fight from there instead. Russian surface forces were basically suicide forces that would sail right at American task forces at times of tension and just hold them hostage with CM's. American attack planes would never even get in the air before the missile would have arrived. It's holding a cocked pistol to the enemies head and daring him to take a shot( pun intended) at ducking in time.


uh you probably dont even know hat i mean.


I have great trouble most of the time but in this case i got you loud and clear thus my response.


More Bs coming from you go read up more on the B 2. the only way to defend yourself is to use long wave radar and send fighter after it for WVR combat.


I do not bother with BS as it really needs nowhere as your proving here. B-2's will simply die if they present their rears to enemy radars so they simple can not penetrate air defenses in depth as you want to pretend.


Bu that wont matter because VHF radars dont last in wars because they're huge and easy targets. Also the b 2 fly at night so you cant visually spot it.


You do not have to spot it with visual aids! Russians deploy thousands of radars with their SAM forces and strategic defense tracking systems so it will take days or weeks to even begin to carve channels into such a network given they play along.


Im talking about after air superioity is secured and most SAMS have been destroyed.


Sam's that are primarily there to make your life difficult will simply stick around and keep you from being effective at destroying ground forces. They could not even destroy the Yugoslav air defenses in all that time.


How can u figure out twhereit came rom if you dont even post links for it. You need to read up more since you odnt know what you're talking about when you speak of the B 2. Also u apparently ignore truths that are evident especailly about thesparrow.


Cause it says very clearly where it comes from. I may not know much but it's clearly far superior to what you pretend to know. I can in fact imagine you running into the truth and then picking yourself up and continuing on your current course.


Stellar



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
> Harms are not the only way to deal with SAMS. What dont u understand by active seeker even without emissiosn they will still be hit. HARMS are not the only way to deal with SAMS .




You cant hide forever. the SERBs still lost.


>>>>>>>>>

I understand what SAMs are to do. but i made a mistake sometimes i phrase incorrectly.


that was due to poor mission planning and some some clever thinking by the serbs.


>>>
Not just the US everyone's. The PAC 3 have done quite well in Iraq but there has been an instance or 2 in GW2 a missile got through.

>>>>>>>> taht's due to mobility but if ur SAMS cant stop the devastating airstrikes then what good are they. ARMS are good for pinned down SAMS.AC will be lost. SAMS will complicate matters i agree totally on that. But they wont last forever.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
any countermeasures such as shuttiing off radars wont work and neither will other such countermeasures one the AARGM comes outwww.globalsecurity.org...
www.deagel.com...

HARm shooters such as the EA6b and Sueprhornet will be armed with this enhanced missile. Anyways why would B 2's deliver a nuclear strike that's waht ICBMs,IRBM's,TBM, and nuclear armed cruise missiles are for.


[edit on 1-4-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
"THE UPGRADED F/A-22 air-to-ground capability will produce a stealth aircraft able to "defeat modern surface-to-air missiles" like the SA-20 or S-400 family and to track and attack moving targets, he said."

www.aviationnow.com... ew%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2F03224wna.xml

Even the Kremlin considers AWAST a very reliable source of information.


(link address may be too long. I have been trying to fix it but you may have to cut and past the address to get it to work)

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Sandman11]

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Sandman11]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman11
"THE UPGRADED F/A-22 air-to-ground capability will produce a stealth aircraft able to "defeat modern surface-to-air missiles" like the SA-20 or S-400 family and to track and attack moving targets, he said."


Well the upgraded version might but untill then they are stuck with not being able to do so? Wont the Russians upgrade their own once more ( as they seem to do every year) to counter whatever happens?


Even the Kremlin considers AWAST a very reliable source of information.


Is that mentioned in the link? If i could buy all publications on such topics from the 'enemy' i think i would and i would especially go out of my way to call them credible if they make me look inferior if my purpose was to deceive the enemy population into thinking they had nothing to fear from me. They could then start moaning about their high defense budget and their leaders ( knowing better) would have to fight them off with sticks to keep their hands on the money. Makes sense to me and it's what we can prove they have ben doing for decades now.


(link address may be too long. I have been trying to fix it but you may have to cut and past the address to get it to work)


Try checking if the link still works that way as i could not get it to work at all.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Confusion Surrounds F/A-22 Upgrade Program
By David A. Fulghum and Robert Wall
03/21/2004 10:23:58 PM

ESCALATION CLAUSE

There are signs the F/A-22 Raptor program is running into the same lethal combination of financial pressures, uneven progress in development and intensified congressional scrutiny that led to the cancellation of the U.S. Army's RAH-66 Comanche.

In the stealth fighter's defense, advocates point to major differences between the two programs that were both started in the early 1980s. Army officials were apathetic, almost weary, of Comanche and for years had given higher priority to heavy armor and other non-aviation efforts. In contrast, the Air Force's senior leaders continue to press for the supersonic fighter, both within the Pentagon and in its dealings with Congress, and they have stripped other projects to keep F/A-22 alive.

However, with defense budget growth expected to peak in Fiscal 2005 (with a significant slide to quickly follow) and with newer, perhaps more transformational, programs being moved forward such as unmanned and long-range strike aircraft, the Air Force again will have to defend the F/A-22 program vigorously against the kind of criticism that killed Comanche.

Right now, the F/A-22 has a total program cost that could top $300 million per aircraft, but a $120-million flyaway cost for the next production lot, said Air Force Secretary James Roche. The price may drop further to $110 million, he said. A new General Accounting Office report contends that the Air Force says it can afford only 218 of the fighters. "It's a new number to me," Roche said in answer to a question about the report's accuracy. "In terms of production, we still, so far, see around 275-277." Congress has waived cost caps on the development, which is expected to be about $28.7 billion.

Two new cost issues have emerged. The first may involve confusion and some conflict of priorities between development of a ground-attack capability for the F/A-22 and research into a FB-22 bomber version of the low-observability design. The second is growing congressional concern about the cost of adding precision and standoff weaponry to the F/A-22 as well as a radar that may offer resolution of as little as 1 ft. Service officials worry that some lawmakers and their staffs are confusing the two issues. As a contributing factor, the GAO report contends that adding an air-to-ground attack capability to the F/A-22 will cost $11.7 billion. (The GAO serves as Congress' investigative arm.)

"I would like to know what they're adding to the account that suggests that [additional cost]," Roche said. "The biggest thing we are doing is changing the radar. In changing the radar, the price falls 40%. We have some technology we're trying to integrate for catching moving targets that we're pressing. That may require more computing power . . . at some point in the growth of the airplane. That's all within the budget."

The huge F/A-22 cost increase suggested by the GAO has many in the Pentagon searching for its origins.

"THE FB-22 [BOMBER] CONCEPT has taken off, but some people think it's an extension of the F/A-22 [program]," said a senior Air Force official. "The FB-22 is [one candidate for] an interim solution to the long-range strike requirement and not a strike version of the F/A-22. It's a new and different aircraft. But a lot of people in the Defense Dept. and Congress think we've got another $5-10-billion addition to the F/A-22 program. That's not the case. The F/A-22 is fully budgeted through development of a robust air-to-ground capability."

There also appears to be some tension within Lockheed Martin. The advanced development programs (Skunk Works) group is promoting FB-22 in an attempt to capture some of the $45 million that Congress has provided for future bomber efforts. But F/A-22 officials don't want anything to threaten their funding by creating confusion over the program.

Roche tried to define the three programs that are involved: an F-22 air-to-ground upgrade, a future long-range strike program and a near-term bridge between the two concepts.

"We're kind of running out of ideas on [introducing new weapons on old bomber aircraft], so you want to think about new platforms and what's appropriate for long-range strike," he said. "In the very long run [2025-30], we don't know what that means. But it appears that if we're going to augment [the existing bombers with a bridge aircraft] then we want an aircraft that's stealthy [and] can be used in daylight as well as at night. That means it can defend itself [and] maneuver quickly. When you try to put all that together . . . you come to what I refer to as a 'regional bomber' that might have range that is something like 75% of the B-2. The FB-22 is in that class. We'd like to explore an FB-22-like animal." Roche said he expects concepts from the three major contractors within a year. Demonstrations of advanced concepts could be slated as early as 2012-15 (AW&ST Mar. 8, p. 59).

THE UPGRADED F/A-22 air-to-ground capability will produce a stealth aircraft able to "defeat modern surface-to-air missiles" like the SA-20 or S-400 family and to track and attack moving targets, he said. It also will be a key to cruise missile defense because with super-cruise speed it can position itself for both a "first and second shot," Roche revealed, which is difficult "because a cruise missile can come from any direction."

"The Skunk Works is trying to get some of the long-range strike money and move up [the initial operational date for a new bomber]," the Air Force official said. "But now people are confusing that [effort] with the F/A-22 program because [the bomber version] hasn't been identified well enough."

The F/A-22 upgrades now encompassed by the program's projected budget include an increased weapons payload, precision delivery capability and the ability to launch new standoff weapons. Improved bombing accuracy would result from installation of a ground moving-target indicator and the high-resolution synthetic aperture radar.

The FB-22 bomber controversy aside, Congress is still critical of the projected costs for improving the F/A-22's ground-attack capability. The GAO says the Air Force has not made a "business case" for why multibillion-dollar upgrades are warranted.

"THE F-35 [JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER] aircraft is also expected to have an air-to-ground role, as are planned future unmanned combat air vehicles," the GAO said. "These could be viable alternatives to this additional investment in F/A-22 capability." Investigators call for the Pentagon to rationalize spending plans for F/A-22.

Roche deflected the suggestion by saying any aircraft newer than the F/A-22 is going to have its own delays and problems. "If you think the F-35 is going to go through this [kind of development and testing] like a hot knife through butter, you're crazy," he said. "This is a plane that after two years is already in trouble. We are making such demands of these very complicated systems that already [problems are] showing up in the F-35." (See p. 26.)

The GAO cites a Pentagon cost estimate for enhancing ground attack that totals about $11.7 billion at the completion of a five-step process projected to run through 2015. The capability would be introduced gradually, with the capability by 2007 to deliver bombs at higher speeds at longer ranges. Better radar performance and new weapons would follow in 2011. Further enhancements to speed-of-delivery and accuracy are planned for 2013, with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance performance to improve in 2015.

However, not all of the improvements and upgrades are optional. Among the key enhancements is replacement of the computer architecture and avionics processors. The latter has to be updated anyway, since the current generation (the Intel i960MX) is no longer being manufactured and USAF has supplies for only 155 F/A-22s, not the 277 fighters the service wants to buy. The new architecture is to be ready in 5-6 years, the GAO was told.

The GAO also warns that "extensive integration and operational testing" will be needed to avoid incurring the same type of avionics problems that currently hamper the fighter's development. Avionics stability (now measured as mean-time between avionics anomaly, or MTBAA) in January was 2.7 hr. versus the goal of 5 hr. to start operational testing. Air Force officials contend that since January, the MTBAA has surpassed 5 hr., although verification depends on data gathered over additional flight hours. The Defense Acquisition Board was to meet Mar. 22 to determine whether the F/A-22 is ready to begin operational test and evaluation.

The aircraft is also still much more maintenance intensive than it should be--a problem exacerbated by the fact that technicians are getting false problem reports from the maintenance support system. Nevertheless, the GAO's verdict on the F/A-22 wasn't entirely bleak. A vertical fin buffeting problem appears to have been cured by strengthening fin and hinge assemblies. Overheating in the rear portion of the aircraft also has been addressed.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
any countermeasures such as shuttiing off radars wont work and neither will other such countermeasures one the AARGM comes out


Once it comes out give that it does come out and works exactly according to plan. Now i have pointed out in the past that few things work as advertised and it's best to evaluate them once they can be tested in accurate simulation ( not something the USAF likes anyways) that would point out the flaws in operational situations.


HARm shooters such as the EA6b and Sueprhornet will be armed with this enhanced missile.


Will be if the missile is in fact deployed sometime in the future.


Anyways why would B 2's deliver a nuclear strike that's waht ICBMs,IRBM's,TBM, and nuclear armed cruise missiles are for.


Well if you do not understand why you would need bombers to deliver nuclear warheads or nuclear tipped ALCM's you need to go back to the books till you do.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Well the upgraded version might but untill then they are stuck with not being able to do so? Wont the Russians upgrade their own once more ( as they seem to do every year) to counter whatever happens?


You assume that the US is one step behind, while I believe it to be one step ahead. The F-22 was designed for the present and future airborne and ground threats, including the S-300. The S-400 does not seem to be much more than an upgraded version, with a missile (long range version) that is not fielded yet. Seeing how many years the S-400 system is allready behind schedule, I am not too worried about keeping up with it.


If i could buy all publications on such topics from the 'enemy' i think i would and i would especially go out of my way to call them credible if they make me look inferior if my purpose was to deceive the enemy population into thinking they had nothing to fear from me. They could then start moaning about their high defense budget and their leaders ( knowing better) would have to fight them off with sticks to keep their hands on the money. Makes sense to me and it's what we can prove they have ben doing for decades now.


Whatever you say, but AWAST is the aviation leader in the west in aerospace technology, and have even disclosed former classified programs. One of the latest was about "Blackstar", which was kept secret until it was retired. Just one example, I apologize for it's length and links dont seem to work well fo rsome reason;

www.aviationnow.com...

Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake?
By William B. Scott
03/05/2006 04:07:33 PM

SPACEPLANE SHELVED?

For 16 years, Aviation Week & Space Technology has investigated myriad sightings of a two-stage-to-orbit system that could place a small military spaceplane in orbit. Considerable evidence supports the existence of such a highly classified system, and top Pentagon officials have hinted that it's "out there," but iron-clad confirmation that meets AW&ST standards has remained elusive. Now facing the possibility that this innovative "Blackstar" system may have been shelved, we elected to share what we've learned about it with our readers, rather than let an intriguing technological breakthrough vanish into "black world" history, known to only a few insiders. U.S. intelligence agencies may have quietly mothballed a highly classified two-stage-to-orbit spaceplane system designed in the 1980s for reconnaissance, satellite-insertion and, possibly, weapons delivery. It could be a victim of shrinking federal budgets strained by war costs, or it may not have met performance or operational goals.

This two-vehicle "Blackstar" carrier/orbiter system may have been declared operational during the 1990s.

A large "mothership," closely resembling the U.S. Air Force's historic XB-70 supersonic bomber, carries the orbital component conformally under its fuselage, accelerating to supersonic speeds at high altitude before dropping the spaceplane. The orbiter's engines fire and boost the vehicle into space. If mission requirements dictate, the spaceplane can either reach low Earth orbit or remain suborbital.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Sandman11]

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
[Mod edit: Edited to shorten quoted content to comply with the T&C, including a source link]

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



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman11
You assume that the US is one step behind, while I believe it to be one step ahead.


Kosovo proves otherwise and so has everything since and even before.


The F-22 was designed for the present and future airborne and ground threats, including the S-300.


Being designed for something is one thing but actually living up to expectations is another. Us planes rarely have lived up to such specs in recent times and i wonder if this one will be the first one.


The S-400 does not seem to be much more than an upgraded version, with a missile (long range version) that is not fielded yet.


Well everything is in the end just upgraded versions of the original Sa-10/S-300 and i hardly see why this is a big problem if the original rocket ( as is the Russian habit) had the capacity to serve as a platorm. The Russians tend to design something so that it may be adapted as technology progresses without the huge cost that American upgrade programs normally require.


Seeing how many years the S-400 system is allready behind schedule, I am not too worried about keeping up with it.


And they may not be deplyoying it because the original serves it's purpose well enough. This is the type of logic your using. Sam's must be behind and slow deployment of new systems proves it. Well does it really make sense to suggest that or do you now realise that you do not need a new system very fast when the others serves their purpose well enough? They failed badly to do anything against serb air defenses limited and outdated as they were.


Whatever you say, but AWAST is the aviation leader in the west in aerospace technology, and have even disclosed former classified programs. One of the latest was about "Blackstar", which was kept secret until it was retired. Just one example, I apologize for it's length and links dont seem to work well fo rsome reason;


I do not doubt that they are but i do point out that they have conflicting information depending on the source they happen to be quoting. This next quote is from Janes and last i checked their reputation was not horrible either.


Throughout the Kosovo War air campaign the major Russian missile manufacturer Almaz Central

Design Burueau was quietly putting the finishing touches to a new family of highly effective S-

300 and S-400 surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems. Destined to become widespread both inside and

outside Russia, the presence of these missiles will "create major problems for [air strike]

planners for years to come", and their significance has been greatly underestimated by Defence

Ministers worldwide. This warning is made by Editors Chris Foss and Tony Cullen in the foreword

of the forthcoming authoritative publication Jane's Land-Based Air Defence 2000-1 Edition.

www.janes.com...


It just seems to me that you believe in offense over defense in this case against our best evidence showing otherwise. American pilots fly so many hours each year and train for the SEAD and DEAD without fail yet they still could not shut it down once and for all with their best efforts. Now if you can not shut down such a limited defense how on earth will you fight modern system deployed en mass? I do not think your addressing this issue any better than the ABM and nuclear war questions.

Good links ( read the second one some months ago) but please don't reprint them here if you want to avoid warnings from the mods. You could really do with brushing up on copyright rules on ATs. We all have run-in's with "The-law" but you do not seem to be learning from yours....

Stellar

[edit on 2-4-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
My point by the classified programs from AWAST is that the US is not behind the Russian technology in the state of the art of air/counterair warfare, but in fact leads, just as most of the world believes, and as the results of such conflicts have shown, including the Russians themselves who are trying to catch up as fast as they can, even if it involves such risk prone projects as "plasma stealth" which has it's many issues as well, but that is a huge subject I don't want to even get into here. The S-400 is really just another SAM with all the limits and problems a SAM has. (see the "radar horizon calculator" previously posted). Stealth is no panacea, it is no absolute. All it does is stack the deck against the defender by making detection difficult, and tracking impossible. As a Stealth pilot, you will be shot at, but it will involve a certain amount of luck to actually connect to stealth equipment, and even in a non-stealthy aircraft, low level ingress/egress will counter the best SAMs down to about the radar horizon, or whatever the terrain can mask which can be much less. Those are hard realities SAMs will never be able to get around, and weapons like SDB will provide standoff well beyond the radar horizon with a very cheap weapon.
You can spend billions on a modern "manigiot line" but the fewer reasources can be spent on the offense to counter such a defense by concentrating on one point in the modern Manigot line.
"fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man" -Patton



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman11
My point by the classified programs from AWAST is that the US is not behind the Russian technology in the state of the art of air/counterair warfare,


Their ABM/Laser/CM's/airframes/Submarines shows that they in fact lead in most areas despite the claims so commonly heard on western news. I have repeatedly shown that western technology does things that is not required to 'win' reliably if your concentrating on the right aspects of the scenario and that these cost overruns makes their systems priced beyond what anyone can afford unless the US gives them half the stuff for free or on 20 year payback plans just to keep their own factories running to some extent.


but in fact leads, just as most of the world believes,


People are ignorant of anything that is not said on CNN and i can reliably prove to you that much of what you read in popular aviation magazines will refuted /contradicted by other magazines or in the next issues of the same one.


and as the results of such conflicts have shown, including the Russians themselves who are trying to catch up as fast as they can,


Who said anything about catching up? If you deploy a system slowly when you clearly have the money to do otherwise are you not in fact so far ahead of the curve that there is no real hurry? What is more logical in terms of strategic balance? Why assume the worse case scenario whenever dealing with Russian arms and research programs despite the evidence showing otherwise?


even if it involves such risk prone projects as "plasma stealth" which has it's many issues as well,


What's risky about plasma stealth if you can bolt-it-on? There are threads about the issue if you want to go argue the point there where i have been busy talking about that issue.


but that is a huge subject I don't want to even get into here. The S-400 is really just another SAM with all the limits and problems a SAM has.


Sam's are what they are and only so much needs to be improved as shown by the campaign against the Yugoslav forces. I smart enemy can keep his radars alive AND keep you from destroying his operational forces it seems. That is all managed by putting such a fear of missiles into the planning teams minds that they will avoid likely deployment areas and go bomb something that they reckon is not well defended. What else are Sam's supposed to do in your mind? Do you really go with the silly logic that Sam's must shoot down things to be effective in their damage-denial role?


(see the "radar horizon calculator" previously posted).


They have masted their S-300 radars for some time now and 75 feet/120 feet elevation means their going to see you coming a long way unless you fly right where their short range point defense weapons wants you to fly.


Stealth is no panacea, it is no absolute.


Stealth is more tactics and mission planning than low RCS in fact. Just go take a look and you will soon find that the whole concept of LOW RCS on such massive planes is mostly trickery and deception of the masses to start with.



All it does is stack the deck again st the defender by making detection difficult, and tracking impossible.


They only have to see you once and then they will fire the missile and send more accurate tracking information while it's on the way. You will likely die cursing well short of doing anything but dying 'a-hero's-death(TM)'.
If they for instance deploy two batteries they will keep one closer and paint you with the one to the rear. If they pick you up even briefly the will fire 2 missiles per target and if they still have trouble getting a good solution around the half way mark they will briefly paint you with the forward radar that sends that information view data link back to the command center ( or directly to the missile?) which then proceeds to update the missile leading to you dying or breaking away presenting your VERY high RCS ass/side to the battery now just below you. I could work up many scenarios just like that as the defense as options while the only thing the offense has going for it in strategic terms is picking the location to mass forces on.


As a Stealth pilot, you will be shot at, but it will involve a certain amount of luck to actually connect to stealth equipment, and even in a non-stealthy aircraft, low level ingress/egress will counter the best SAMs down to about the radar horizon, or whatever the terrain can mask which can be much less.


I am not trying to make Sam's the-ultimate-killing-machines type weapons as that is not even their design purpose. No one wants to get bombed and killing the enemy plane after your unit is already bleeding/dying is no great reward to anyone but the generals back in their mile-deep bunkers. Sam's are supposed to make ground interdiction ineffective and they do not have to shoot down planes to do that if they can simply force airplanes to stay high/low and generally avoid getting killed 'by-being-there'.


Those are hard realities SAMs will never be able to get around, and weapons like SDB will provide standoff well beyond the radar horizon with a very cheap weapon.


The Sa-10 can in fact shoot and scoot and then be ready to fire again in less than five minutes after arriving at the new location. I assume that five minutes is what it takes to raise the radar masts but i guess it could be some combination of factors. The patriot simply can not measure up and until America deploy anything near as effective as even the Sa-6 i'm not going to be much impressed by your claims. The radar horizon thing is a complete myth as it assumes that you know where the radar IS which you will in fact never know with a mobile platform that does not have to stick around for more than a few minutes after briefly painting to check where you are/are not. They could not catch relatively static Sa-6 and their not going to catch the HIGHLY mobile Sa-10.


You can spend billions on a modern "manigiot line" but the fewer reasources can be spent on the offense to counter such a defense by concentrating on one point in the modern Manigot line.


Well this Maginot line moves around , in minutes, and it can track/find/kill you without ever sticking around to suffer the consequences. I can explain how this all works but it's all just information and use of fire-and-maneuver-for-effect making use of the terrain and your mobility.


"fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man" -Patton


Fixed fortifications are never a problem as long as you have them for a very specific reason. the Maginot line was a great idea IF there was a doctrine and deployment of forces to exploit the benefits it provided. Don't kick the concept because you do not understand it.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Their ABM/Laser/CM's/airframes/Submarines shows that they in fact lead in most areas despite the claims so commonly heard on western news.


Complete bollocks




People are ignorant of anything that is not said on CNN and i can reliably prove to you that much of what you read in popular aviation magazines will refuted /contradicted by other magazines or in the next issues of the same one.


Well you have proven yourself to be far from well informed - kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.



Who said anything about catching up? If you deploy a system slowly when you clearly have the money to do otherwise are you not in fact so far ahead of the curve that there is no real hurry? What is more logical in terms of strategic balance?


Yeah sure deploy tyhre system slowly, so by the time it is fully deployed it is obsolete - gee that makes sense - more of your sterling logic




What's risky about plasma stealth if you can bolt-it-on? There are threads about the issue if you want to go argue the point there where i have been busy talking about that issue.


Plasma stealth doesn't work, simple as that. It might sound good but .....



Sam's are what they are and only so much needs to be improved as shown by the campaign against the Yugoslav forces. I smart enemy can keep his radars alive AND keep you from destroying his operational forces it seems.


The SAM's didn't stop NATO from bombing what it wanted, when it wanted. I wouldn't call the Serb strategy successul in the slightest, they couldn't protect jack.


That is all managed by putting such a fear of missiles into the planning teams minds that they will avoid likely deployment areas and go bomb something that they reckon is not well defended.


Oh right like they did in Serbia - see above



They have masted their S-300 radars for some time now and 75 feet/120 feet elevation means their going to see you coming a long way unless you fly right where their short range point defense weapons wants you to fly.


And that also allows Wild Weasels to see the radar from a long ay as well, so what.



They only have to see you once and then they will fire the missile and send more accurate tracking information while it's on the way. You will likely die cursing well short of doing anything but dying 'a-hero's-death(TM)'.
If they for instance deploy two batteries they will keep one closer and paint you with the one to the rear. If they pick you up even briefly the will fire 2 missiles per target and if they still have trouble getting a good solution around the half way mark they will briefly paint you with the forward radar that sends that information view data link back to the command center ( or directly to the missile?) which then proceeds to update the missile leading to you dying or breaking away presenting your VERY high RCS ass/side to the battery now just below you. I could work up many scenarios just like that as the defense as options while the only thing the offense has going for it in strategic terms is picking the location to mass forces on.


LOL, I'm sure you could come up with plenty of BS scenarios none of which would work. So how exactly can missiles track a stealth aircraft if they only catch a tiny glimpse
Your above sceanrio doesn't exaplain any of that.





The Sa-10 can in fact shoot and scoot and then be ready to fire again in less than five minutes after arriving at the new location. I assume that five minutes is what it takes to raise the radar masts but i guess it could be some combination of factors.


Ahem right - yet you fail to take into consideration hgow long it will take the battery to move to a new loaction, sure it can set up in 5minutes but it'll take far longer to move to it's new location. Even tehn the SDB and SDB-II will hvae the ability with MMW and IIR sensors to track SAM batteries whilst they're on the move. the SDB can be launched from 100km away and leter versions futher away.


The patriot simply can not measure up and until America deploy anything near as effective as even the Sa-6 i'm not going to be much impressed by your claims.


LOL, the SA-6 is hardly more effective than the patriot
Once again baseless claims exposing your lack of knowledge.


The radar horizon thing is a complete myth as it assumes that you know where the radar IS which you will in fact never know with a mobile platform that does not have to stick around for more than a few minutes after briefly painting to check where you are/are not. They could not catch relatively static Sa-6 and their not going to catch the HIGHLY mobile Sa-10.


LOL, well your argument is moot. If the SAM radar isn't active it cannot track an enemy raid. If it is active a SEAD aircraft can see it and attack it, even if shuts down and attempts to move. They are far from invulnerable as you seem to think. Then of course their are aircraft jammers which you always fail to factor in.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join