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.
Originally posted by rogue1
Complete bollocks
Well you have proven yourself to be far from well informed - kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.
Yeah sure deploy tyhre system slowly, so by the time it is fully deployed it is obsolete - gee that makes sense - more of your sterling logic
Plasma stealth doesn't work, simple as that. It might sound good but .....
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.
Oh right like they did in Serbia - see above
And that also allows Wild Weasels to see the radar from a long ay as well, so what.
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.
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.
LOL, the SA-6 is hardly more effective than the patriot Once again baseless claims exposing your lack of knowledge.
We have found no convincing evidence in the video that any Scud warhead was destroyed by a Patriot. We have strong evidence that Patriots hit Scuds an two occasions (in WSMR Events 8 and 13), but in both cases we found video evidence that the Scud warheads fell to the ground and exploded. These clips suggest that even when Patriots could hit Scuds they were still not able to destroy the Scud warheads. We also have several other clips where it is possible that Patriots hit Scuds without detonating their warheads. but the evidence in these clips is quite ambiguous (see, for example, Additional Event 3).
In addition, we have estimated minimum miss distances for all cases where we could clearly observe Patriot missing Scuds. We present our summarized findings in tabular and graphical form in figures 8, 9 and 1O. The median minimum miss distance was roughly 600 meters. This is much larger than the press video minimum resolvable miss distance of 35 to 70 meters. To achieve lethality against Scud targets, a system like the Patriot must routinely achieve miss distances of meters to tens of meters, not hundreds to thousands of meters as observed in the video. This result of the video review by itself indicates unambiguously that there was a serious problem with Patriot during the Gulf War.
www.fas.org...
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.
First and Only 24/7/365 All-Weather Stealth Fighter
* Radar signature approximately the size of a bumblebee, thereby avoiding detection by the most sophisticated enemy air defense systems
* Signatures/emissions of sound, turbulence, and heat that can aid detection are reduced
* Requires no direct assistance from electronic support aircraft that may be more easily detected
* Includes planform alignment of the wing and tail edges, radar-absorbing sawtoothed surfaces, an engine face that is concealed by a serpentine inlet duct, "stealthy" coating cockpit design to minimize the usually substantial radar return of pilot’s helmet
* Through internal weapons placement, the F-22 eliminates multiple surface features that could be detected by enemy radar
The F-22 provides "first-look, first-shot, first-kill" transformational air dominance capability for the 21st Century - it can see the enemy first while avoiding detection itself.
* When we meet the enemy, we want to win 100-0, not 51-49
* The F-22 will be able to get to the fight faster and engage the enemy longer
* Parity or inferiority in air dominance is unacceptable; either one means more friendly casualties and a longer, more uncertain campaign. The American people do not want an even match; they want decisive, overwhelming superiority and minimum casualties with no protracted conflict
* Downsizing U.S. forces means that in future conflicts, at least initially, we are likely to fight outnumbered – making the revolutionary capabilities of the F-22 essential for national security
Originally posted by urmomma158
yawn just another one of your fantasies B 52's armed with ACM 129's (conventional warheads) these have a range of 1865 miles well beyond the reach of any Russian SAMS i dont need B 2's to penetrate.
Anyways SEAD would be carried out on good weather.
Chances of rain are not great especially tough rain. even with those russian weather control AC it'll still be cat and mouse.
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.
that's because the b2's ram would be washed out by rain. Hopefully the new AHHF material sort this out.www.afrl.af.mil...
Rain doesnt completely stop attacks only certain vehicles which are rain sensitive such as the B 2. likewise E/F 18's and F 16's can still operate also attack helicopters like the apache etc. True it hurts but not entrirely. Chances of raina rent likely and cant completely stop SEAD.
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.
the newest warships have te RCS of a small fishing boat. This makes it difficult ot discriminate from the wavetops.
No nvy i invincible just able to stop most attacks. Do u obvioussly expect the enmy to launch so amny anti ship missiles at once.
due to their reduced RCS they will be indentified as targets much later giving the ship enough time to attack without being detected. And launcha huge barrage.
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.
We have found no convincing evidence in the video that any Scud warhead was destroyed by a Patriot. We have strong evidence that Patriots hit Scuds an two occasions (in WSMR Events 8 and 13), but in both cases we found video evidence that the Scud warheads fell to the ground and exploded. These clips suggest that even when Patriots could hit Scuds they were still not able to destroy the Scud warheads. We also have several other clips where it is possible that Patriots hit Scuds without detonating their warheads. but the evidence in these clips is quite ambiguous (see, for example, Additional Event 3).
In addition, we have estimated minimum miss distances for all cases where we could clearly observe Patriot missing Scuds. We present our summarized findings in tabular and graphical form in figures 8, 9 and 1O. The median minimum miss distance was roughly 600 meters. This is much larger than the press video minimum resolvable miss distance of 35 to 70 meters. To achieve lethality against Scud targets, a system like the Patriot must routinely achieve miss distances of meters to tens of meters, not hundreds to thousands of meters as observed in the video. This result of the video review by itself indicates unambiguously that there was a serious problem with Patriot during the Gulf War.
Originally posted by urmomma158
you know nothing of the ACM 129 it is low observable and would shred any IADS since it carries nculear warheads and is very stealthy.
B 2 is designed to bomb the crap outta sphisticated enemies it was designed to attack russia so was the F 117A and ACM 129.
Weatehr is bad but dont count on it all the time chnaces of rain arent great. ill respond tommorow im going to bed. We're not alking of europe we're talking of asia.
Originally posted by Sandman11
If the SA-10/S-400 is so sensitive as to be able to detect, track and target a Stealth aircraft, much less missile, then they are even more able to be tricked into reacting against decoys.
Decoys were in fact part of the initial air campaign in GW-1, used by the hundreds. Not to mention EW and jamming.
All of which adds to the advantages of the side with stealth attacking aircraft.
An attack following or during a Decoy onslaught, combined with EW, HARMS, JASSMs, and finally Maverics and JADMs will overcome any SAM system that sits very long, and the latest SDM ll program involves data links to deal with "shoot and scoot" systems like the SA-10.
(BTW, MEADS is just what you say Patriot isn't, only it is Patriot. Very mobile, 360 degree detection, air transportable)
Awesome and great and obviously kept allied aircraft from being blown up more often. These are defensive measure that only keeps you alive but if it does not lead to you being able to destroy the ground forces of the enemy ( which is the primary assumption of US cold war planning; right?) then what use are they? Staying alive has no point in the strategic sense if your not doing anything BUT that.
You do not know where the defense is deployed so advatange is with them till you discover them.
There is nothing special about the ACM 129 and it's been in operation for near 2 decades now giving the Russians ample time to deal with as they have clearly stated they can for very long.
Well it could not even 'bomb the crap out of' the Serbs and they barely had the means to protect themselves properly. You go figure out what the systems designed nearly 40 years ago ( were used in the 1973 Yom Kippur War) were still able to keep 1100 ( peak) NATO planes from doing their job in destroying Serb forces. You do not think they made advances in 40 years and if you do please explain why such a old system could still manage so much. I have so far assumed the Serbs were very clever in their use but maybe it's just very hard to in fact kill Sam's and the Serbs were not doing anything special. I am not assuming perfect condtions ( what-they-claim-must-be-true) for my arguments yet you keep doing so.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It increases aircraft survivability. It makes it easier for them to carry out their missions. It allows them to take out those air defenses, gaining air superiority. This allows you to shoot up the enemy by air, as the Iraqis saw in the Gulf War...
Once a SAM is used, it gives away its position and becomes a sitting duck. The attacking force has the advantage here.
Yet, I've seen you talk in other topics about the greatness of other long known weapons, and how they make carrier fleets useless...
Um, nonsense? I believe NATO achieved its goals in Kosovo, making this a senseless statement.
I'm sorry. I love when people go on and on about the effectiveness of Sam's. If they were anywhere near as capable as people say, they would have been successfully used in at least one of the conflicts in the past half century.
They have in fact underperformed time and time again. Iran in F-14's could fly into Iraqi airspace. The Syrians airdefenses were useless against the Israelis. Everyone knows the story with Iraq. Same against Kosovo.
I tend to think that actual results on the battlefield speak louder than anything else. SAM's have performed lousy in every chance they've been given.
Originally posted by urmomma158
Stellar penetrating airspace is penetrating airspace The F 14's still got in. If it was a modern weasel AC the sams would be dead.
The Sa 5's were designed to stop the CIA's SR 71.
However unfortunately for thrrussians not one Sr 71 was shot down period in the deepest soviet territory.
Sams havent stopped commandrs from getting air superiority just complicate it.
Plus if sams are so effective how come no F117's were shot down when they penetrated iraqi airspace. Thye had a very dense network of sams and AAA guns. And the coalition managed this feat in 2003 as well.
Which is more likely explained by Iraqi doctrine and incompetence than anything else imo. They still managed to shoot down 44 aircraft and damage over a 100 beyond repair in operation desert Shield/Storm last i checked. The terrain certainly did not favour the defense either.
Well i was referring to the lack of capacity to US seems to display in combating such weapons while the Russians have long since been deploying their strategic Sam's/aircraft to combat such weapon types.
Well feel free to state the aims NATO achieved in KOSOVO so that i can agree with you if it in facts turns out to be true. Last i checked NATO's stated aim was to stop the general killing which in fact escalated out of control right about the time NATO started bombing. But maybe your source say something else.
Well then you must not be reading the same history i am and i suggest you start telling me about the version your looking at.
I agree that battlefield results speak louder than anything else. Sam's only performed the way you suggest if you measure their results in terms of aircraft shot down and not in terms of protecting ground forces from taking the brunt of all that attention.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It's always the incompetence of the user with Russian equipment, isn't it? I mean, the Russians generally trained their allies, and in many cases had advisers who set the systems up.
Following the first Gulf War, the Russians and Chinese both set up the Iraqi air defense systems. Didn't help them much.
In the past 55 years, Russian SAM's fired 50 shots for every 1 plane hit. Really efficient, huh? By comparison, in past conflicts Western designs fired 5 for every 1 plane hit. Stingers had a 90% hit rate.
From How to Make War, by James Dunnigan:
"That said, all the allied aircraft losses in combat during the Gulf War were from low-tech weapons like machine guns and small SAMs. As in the past, air defenses will spend most of their time waiting for targets that never appear."
Reason being, planes simply avoid the heavily defended areas. They are easy to circumvent, as well as easy to attack. They are highly vulnerable.
Another nice example, from the same book:
"Even when the Russians themsleves build an air-defnese system, they get clobered. An example of this occurred in Angola, during the late 1980's, when Soviets constructed the most elaborate air-defense system found outside Europe. Over 70 radars and two dozen missile bases were supported by nearly 100 interceptors. Most of this was maintained by East German mercenaries. Yet South African aircraft regularly penetrated the system."
So, you have faith in your SAMs. I'll trust history on this one.
Funny. The NAVY designed their air defenses specifically to deal with the type of threats you were ranting about. There is no instance where missiles had the better of a Western naval force. However, we have plenty examples of SAMs (specifically Russian designed SAMs) failing to achieve their goals.
The goal of the bombing campaign was to destroy Serbian air defenses, and NATO achieved this.
Bomb the Serbs into submission, and get peace keepers in. NATO succeeded in this. You can't stop genocide on the ground with a bombing campaign.
It's simply. SAMs failed in every war since WW2. Air defenses have been ineffective in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and everytime a Muslim nation has fought a Western military force.
Tell that to the Iraqis in the Gulf War. Many, if not the majority of their tanks were shot up by American air power.
Originally posted by urmomma158
Still though after such a dense sam network the SR 71 still did.
Once the air superiority is ahcieved significanly and most sams have been supressed then its meaninful.
It takes time but ultiately will be achieved. Uhh about the F 117's that's where you're partly incorrect u need mission planning yes taht's important.
However the F117 can only be dtected at short rangessurrounding the radars.
So the sams can only engage at very short range well before it would dwetect the F 117 while the F117 destroys the sam.
mission planning is very importnat where have i stated it wasnt u stated something i wasnt even talking about.
Mission planningmis needed because if u acccidentally fly over sam you will get shot down and without it you wont realy know where the sams are.
Not to mention inorder to atackle them you need good eling/signint.
there are about a good number of sams but that still allows the AC to threaten the most heavily defended targets without a scatch go look up the iraq war.
Stealth is noa bvsolute it simply gives u abig adbantage but to make sure ou come back home mission planning and good intelligence is needed.
You are right but not completely anyways like i said its iportant like i said.
The west always claims the Russians( USSR) were training just about everyone and everything but it turns out they were rarely involved beyond donations or making a fast buck.
They had more than ten years to take pictures and generally make the system ineffective before the war ever started. This example is a very poor one compared to many of the rest.
Well feel free to source the second claim as that is not what i read. The fact that two sides, using nearly the same weaponry, can suffer vastly different losses should be obvious to you from reading history.
Well if air defenses air avoided they are doing their job without doing much anything which thus makes them more than 100% effective.
Well the fact that we took to the air alone ( considering what we were up against) proves that it's hard to quantify success. Does the book state how effective the penetration of the air defenses was or are you assuming that flying over ' enemy airspace' will intimidate them into surrendering?
I have faith in the fact that against most comers Sam's will do their job in making enemy mission planning hard and force them to avoid dense concentrations of your ground forces for fear of getting shot to pieces. Slowly degrading a enemy air defense is obviously something you will do with time but time is not something NATO ground forces would have had when trying to stop Warsaw pact forces from taking a vacation on French beaches. Fact is whenever air forces ignore air defense they suffer badly for it and it simply takes time to degrade them when buying time is all they were supposed to do in the first place. Sam's are only ineffective if your the type of person that defines success as smoking airplane craters in the ground.
The few instances in which missiles were fired at Western forces it normally did not go so well. Look at what happened when Iran/Iraq fired missiles at each other ships? What sort of Navy does Israel deploy? Those are experienced navies ( Meaning they got ships sunk by missile fire) and look what sort of ships they are currently operating? Are they in fact deploying small missile boats these days? When dozens of Sam batteries go up against a thousand NATO planes our latest score card show that Sam's trying to survive can very well do so. They have been getting more effective with time and they were never the complete failures you suggest they were.
Well if you can not stop the genocide which is the stated reason for the intervention then your failing to do anything but be spiteful imo. The Serbian armed forces were NOT bombed into submission since it was politicians who gave in due to having their industry and popularity bombed.
Sam's did not fail in every major war? Where do you get that from anyways? Germany lost WW2 before middle 1944 ( they were fighting on 4 fronts if you count skies over Germany when the strategic bombing campaign started focusing on REALLY bombing Germany) last i checked there is still a North Korea so that was 'losing' considering the South invaded the north and in Vietnam i did not see the US sticking around forever either. Air defenses played their part in all these conflicts and the US always had the time and resources to absorb the losses, learn some lessons and build another 2 planes for every one destroyed. Few if any other nations can in fact do that and to suppose this as standard for assuming Sam's are ineffective is plain wrong on a global scale. The fact that the US has the massive air force is does makes air superiority almost a given in most conflicts but that would simply not have been true against the USSR thus making their Sam's far more effective. I enemy that can operate his SEAD forces without having to worry about enemy planes has won rather more than half the battle and yet they could not manage that in Kosovo.
Now we can clearly see from Israel's defense of it's borders that it frequently managed to fight off superior weaponry with inferior equipment so arguing that it's the Sam's that failed the Muslims instead of assuming that it's once again Israeli ingenuity is not fair imo. Who yields a weapon is at least , if not far more, as important as the qualities of the weapon and we would all be lying if we are going to attribute great skills to Arab/Vietnamese/North Korean armies who just did not have the technological/educational/cultural base required to man the weapons in question.
Well trying to fight a battle against NATO air power in the desert got them exactly what could have been expected imo. Once you own the skies so completely and the enemy can not hide from you by passive means ( trees,forests,hills) then your in trouble already and the outcome largely a matter of time depending on many losses the enemy is willing to take. I just do not think your example's are accurate considering the absence of the Iraqi air force and the way America/Israel always managed to gain air superiority by destroying enemy aircraft in a way that indicated clearly who the superior force was to start with. With the disparity in training/doctrine/equipment indicated why assume the Sam's must perform far better even if they are as effective as their Western counterparts?