Originally posted by urmomma158
Anyways like i was saying the russians cant stop the ACM 129 it is very stealthy and carries nuclear warheads.
The Russians ( or anyone else ) can stop the AGM 129 given they have limited space to defend or enough planes to patrol the skies in search of them. They are just stealthier cruise missiles with VERY long range but since there is only 400- 500 in stock and they have not been in production for a decade now one has to wonder if anyone will spend strategic weapons ( 3700 km range) on Sam radars which can move around? The US forces fired over 750 short range ( relatively little response time compared to this 800 km/h weapon) HARM's killing very few ( 3 out of 26 Sa-6 batteries confirmed) for the effort. Whatever the decisions made the only planes that carry them are the B-52H Stratofortress which will likely be operating from their American basis meaning this weapon will be very unlikely to be effective against fleeting targets such as mobile Sam batteries.
No sam system can survive it is designed for striking any enemy ( ACm 129). most of russia is in asia not europe.
Well where did you read such a weapon will be used against mobile Sam radars anyways? Do you believe there is not 400-500 strategic targets to hit in any given country and in this case Russia? Would anyone waste such limited stocks on such fleeting targets considering the odds of it being effective? Most of Russia is not in Europe but one can argue that most of the great population and strategic ( and thus defenses) is in European Russia.
I live in NJ,USA for your information. You still are quite ignorant the AGm 88 is only guided by emisions its replacement is designed to hit sams even after they shut off by swithcing to active seeker mode.
Well if you were born in America you must be very young to speak the language the way you do. I am not ignorant of what the Harm will or can do considering we had a good opportunity to see it in action against fleeting targets in Kosovo. The only aircraft that can currently carry the AGM 88 is the F-16c's which still have to get in range ( 50 km's of the threat radar to fire the weapon even if you know where it is) which will probably be a bad idea against 200 - 300 km range S-300 systems.
The primary lethal Supression of Enemy Air Defense [SEAD] platform, the F-16 employing AGM-88 High Speed Anti-radiation Missiles (HARM) has several shortfalls. It is becoming increasingly difficult to logistically support the F-16 and the HARM. SEAD forces have limited automated mission planning capability. It is very difficult to stimulate, decoy, and saturate enemy threat radars without putting friendly forces in harm's way, and the ability to reactively target surface-to-air threats is limited. The ability to employ off-board targeting sources is limited in the timeliness and accuracy required for the preemptive destruction mission. Though offboard sources may find mobile targets, there is a limited capability to pass required information in real time so fighters can reactively or preemptively target mobile surface-to-air threats. There is no on-board capability to preemptively target mobile surface-to-air threat systems. Current SEAD weapons all depend on RF homing for guidance and are vulnerable to emission control (EMCON) countertactics. There is also limited capability to perform real-time battle damage assessment (BDA). On the non-lethal side, there is limited capability to suppress RF threats and C2 systems
As you can see the system is rather limited and it explains why it was so ineffective against Kosovo's Sam batteries. When the newer system enters service we can debate whether it will do any better to fight the S-400 than the current Harm will likely in fighting S-300's.
The new HARM wasnt there in yugoslavia which you failed to know.
Well it's not even in service yet ( and it might never be) so it could not POSSIBLE have been there much as you like talking about it.
Surviving is one thing winning is another what you dont know is the serbs still surrendered.
I full well know they surrendered but their defense forces were more than read to continue the battle had the political will existed. They folded because losing your industries ( and thus your friends) is something a president/dictator can only take for so long before seeking terms.
Rain only hampers certain select AC that are rain sensitive.
Anything stealthy is seriously compromised in rainy weather as the effect of water bouncing in every and all directions makes for a far larger RCS and generally degrades the RAM coats.
The A 10, F 16, apache and other AC are all weather.
They have all weather capability but every plane flying today is far less effective in bad weather situations if they fly at all. "All weather' is a catch-phrase which means they can fly and bomb stuff and MAYBE even hit it.
Only some US AC are sensitive to rain. Yes it does rain in europe alot . Ive been to london for a while yes it rains often but it isnt heavy most ofl the time. And besides that has nothing to do with RAM.
It rains plenty and everything stealthy will have it's RCS increased by ANY rain falling on it.
Yes it ws american stupidity but only one was lost. LPI radar is hard to detect good lcuk targeting my ship then .
It is at least as much American stupidity as it is Serb Ingenuity and they not only shot down that one but damaged another which sent it back to base rather promptly as i understand.
its the same concept with the F/A 22. The doors open quick shoot and close. IF RCS was meaningless why do all shipmakers focus on it.
RCS is not meaningless but as i said before the F-22 carries nothing that another plane could not carry even if the F-22 can probably get it's JDAM's closer by virtue of surviving to get them there. RCS is great but it coming at the cost of carrying effective weapons leads me to question the logic.
You'reright about backfires killing destroyers but its not as easy as you're putting it out to be.
War is only 'easy' if the enemy presents you with opportunities( by virtue of having no means/intelligence/practice) enough to make it so. Considering how standards differ 'easy'( for politicians) can still mean almost anything unless your the grunt with the bullet in the gut ( if your lucky).
The US is developing low RCS carriers as well, do keep up with upcoming Us naval technology.
Yes i do and i am still laughing that anyone in their right mind can be sold such a
patently dumb idea when the platform is still only moving at 30 odd knots.
Again this shows how little you know this is the first Gw1. GW2 was a good war for the patriot. they had a moderate amount of fighters. Gw2 didnt have much of an airforce to deal with.
What do i not know about the first gulf war according to you? The only things patriots seems to shoot down with success is friendly aircraft and the performance only improved in operation Iraqi freedom because it could not really get any worse than it was in the first one.
Yea steallar like all a2a missiles will always miss........... like it or not BVR is the future not dogfighting.
Please prove to me that BVR is in fact reality even know in battlefield conditions. Your free to speculate about the future but i for one imagine it being short range high energy fights due to intense countermeasures and general electronic 'noise'. I think countermeasures in general will just get better and better and that we in the end will have either bullet or laser 'knife fights' with either manned ( unlikely , imo) or unmanned platforms.. BVR is imo a dream built on the ideal that wars can be fought without losses instead of concentrating on superior training, human material and numbers off slightly superior platforms to win. The problem with stealth and such MASSIVELY expensive programs ( B-2 spirit costs 2.2 billion dollars if you take research cost/infrastructure costs against airframes; which admittedly is not entirely fair)is that these idiot politicians wants to police the world and keep everyone in line without suffering any losses thus being able to avoid the local news. If you only fight the wars that you can not avoid ( where you have actually moral authority) then you can accept losses and AVOID the risk that comes with such untried and tested doctrines such as BVR and massively expensive stealth standoff fighting. If your technological advantage or doctrine comes at the cost of not being able to accept casualties when things 'go wrong' ( as they tend to in war) then your risking where you need not to.
Anyways i meanto to say the sparrow was not a good missile at the time. The sparrow was credited with good kills in iraq go read a book.
I did and there is really nothing to talk about when it comes to the sparrow's success in iraq. I never suggested that the missile itself was horrible as much as that it did not live up to the specified task of killing enemy aircraft at the ranges it was supposed to.
27. Major Lewis D. Hill, Doris Cook, and Aron Pinker, Part I: A Statistical Compendium in Gulf War Air Power Survey, vol. V, A Statistical Compendium and Chronology (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993), 653-654; John M. Deur, "Wall of Eagles: Aerial Engagements and Victories in Desert Storm," unpublished page proofs. Prior to Desert Storm, U.S. and Israeli pilots had only recorded a total of four BVR missile kills during Rolling Thunder (1965-1968), Linebacker I/II (1972-1973), the Yom Kippur War (1973), and Operation Peace for Galilee (1982)Csee James Burton, "Letting Combat Results Shape the Next Air-to-Air Missile," briefing, January 1985, slide 3. Note that in at least three of the 16 Desert Storm engagements that began with BVR shots, the kill was either accomplished by another missile launched within visual range or, in one case, by the Iraqi fighter running into the ground.
The Sparrows are intermediate-range air-to-air missiles. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, they were used by American forces to shoot down 25 Iraqi planes.
While having missiles coming at you from long range is certainly not going to brigthen up your day ( even if you see them coming) it really does not say much that the USA can still not manage such a small percentage of their kills on BVR. These sources basically make it clear that even if all of the BVR kills were made with the Sparrow that still means only half of planes killed with sparrows were from BVR. Is this really all that 2 decades of fighting the BVR doctrine could result in?
Yes and u make claims and post no sources or at least refernces or an idea of where to find them.
When i claim something as fact odds are massively in favour of it being such as i probably checked just to be sure. I have pride enough to make sure my claims are supported. I have posted many sources but after seeing how you treat those ( you have great trouble reading it seems) i will just keep talking for now. Feel free to make a list of things you consider lies so i can then proceed to embarrass you at lenght.
Obviously you are still on B 2's flying low flying it has no need to fly low its not a conventional AC.
The B-2 started life as a "black program" known as the High Altitude Penetrating Bomber (HAPB), it then became the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB) and used the project code word Senior Cejay, it later became the B-2 Spirit. An estimated 23 billion dollars was secretly spent for research and development on the B-2 in the 1980s. An additional cost driver was the mission was changed from a high altitude bomber to a low altitude penetrating bomber in 1985 which required a major redesign. Because the development of the B-2 was one of the best kept secrets of all USAF programs, there was no opportunity for public criticism of its massive cost during the development process. The first B-2 was publicly displayed on November 22, 1988, when it was rolled out of its hangar at Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, California, where it was manufactured. Its first flight was on July 17, 1989. The B-2 Combined Test Force, Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., is responsible for flight testing the engineering, manufacturing and development aircraft.
Now if you want to disagree with that just tell me why with your own sources. The B-2 was meant to replace the B-1 which was a low altitude penetrating bomber. I am not suggesting that the B-2 could not fly at high altitude as well but just that it's primary design function was to penetrate Soviet defenses at the time which is something you did not try do at high altitude.
Go read up on the JSf's EOTS shutting off its radar doesnt make it blind. It is easy to say cnn lied but there is no proof. You obviously are full fo this propoganda stuff.
I have plenty of proof to show how CNN and most other Western networks consistently lie about most anything you can imagine and if you have not noticed them doing so it says far more about your general knowledge( rather lack of it) than it does about mine. The only one full of 'propaganda stuff' is the one who claims that that things work as specified in their manuals and that is NOT what i am doing as should be obvious to anyone. I know about the JSF's EOTS and it's just not something that will change much anything considering what it adds.
And please stop referring to past failures. Everyone knows the Patriot did bad in Gw1. My reserch efoortslol!, at least I talk of real info while all u do is talk of americans using propganda and making BS claims of Us miitary tactics.
Past failure is all we should spend time on as those are the best cases to learn from. You thought the patriot was some kind of wonder women and i showed that it could not even destroy scuds, once, it seems. You talk about real life tactics? Where did you and for that matter everyone uses propaganda so i am not suggesting the US is the only military that inflates it's prowess beyond reality.
SAMs are good they help you survive but they wont survive forever if they shut their radars off they're blind and fi they turn them on they will get hit by ARMS.
If one shuts it's radar off there are still others in the battalion which could keep theirs on. They could in fact always have at least one on or ready to go on moments notice while the rest are displacing to new positions. You seem to forget that they still all have their early warning radars and that the Russians also had their mainstains and other early warning aircraft to warn the Sam's of approaching hostiles. Your entire theory is centered around the fact that you imagine Sam's all on their own when they are designed to work with supporting forces towards a general effort. Since most countries the US attacks can simple not contest US air superiority ( when it comes to having their own airfields and planes not shot to bits) you now imagine that because their Sam's do not contribute towards winning that Sam's are thus useless. Well your the one making up fantasy scenarios to try make one system look worse than it is.
yes and while you hide and run instead of focusing on sams part of my attention can go to capturing your capital and attacking key resources.
If your air force can not give a measure of resistance in the air you can not simply expect a few dozen batteries of Sam's to suddenly do that against a thousand planes that the enemy can send at you ( NATO in Kosovo). Fact is there is very little ANYONE can do when so outclassed whatever few wonder weapons they might have.
I read all of your past responses you're the onse speaking of shooting unguided missiles to take out stealth AC and putting excessive faith in sams and weather.
Unguided missiles for part of the flight after you possibly picked up enough data for general directional launch. The S-300 missile has it's own radar and when it gets close to target it will send the data pack for processing so that the battery can send it a firing solution for intercepting the target. This means that you can fire unguided without having precise tracking information thus greatly increasing the range at which you can attack even fleeting targets.
Some of your posts show how little you really know. You really do not have any proof thewhen you stated B 2 is designed for taking out third world countries.
All of your posting show that you read a few military brochures and that you know think you understand anything about combined arms warfare when it's patently obvious that you do not. I have plenty of proof to show that the US armed forces is designed for policing third world nations and not designed to fight a major war against a rival like the USSR were. The USSR understands that in a nuclear war you build your armed forces around throw-away weapons and that you can not depend on massively expensive things ( aircraft carriers and B-2 stealth bombers) that can operate only from certain ports or in the case of the B-2 from i think four airfields that would not be there to return after the first mission. If your weapons system can only operate from air conditioned hangers and need 10 hours of maintenance( B-2 and it used to be almost 20 meaning it flies one mission every four to seven days) for each in the air your looking for trouble and reasonable sure that the enemy can not in fact do anything to upset your delicate logistic chain.
JSF EOTS ................ www.lockheedmartin.com...
copy and paste the link if it doesnt work. I can target enemy planes and ground targets without the radar thank you very much.
Yes it can but how far away can you detect something by FLIR? If the are not moving or have had some minutes for their engines to cool their will not see a thing unless you want to target random humans i imagine. Now how easy is it to place decoys against infrared detection you might ask and i will say not so hard. Ask the Serbs how they managed to fill various things with water and how sunlight then helped warm it so that the USAF could then waste rather expensive weapons on it. How will you decide which of the dozens of vehicles employed by a Sam battery is actually the radar given the entire battery recently moved so is still visible? There are more questions then answers IMO and if you fire on the wrong you you expose yourself rather well and you only have to look at the weapons load out of the stealth mission JSF to see that you do not have the weapons to get into the type of fights where you must destroy multiple targets to ensure your own survival.
EOTS allows it to not rely on radar when ARMS come into play so much for your notion of going blind when shutting off radar. lol! passing info to otherr radars once they turn on an ARM is going to silence them and if you shut it off you know what countermeasure my ARM can perform.
The JSF can not carry ARMS internally and if it's on pylons there goes your stealth.It was proven that even in a small country, relatively close to American bases, and surrounded from all sides the US could never have enough Harm carrying platforms around to do anything but protect strike packages to some extent and even then most of the HARM's fired were preemptive with very VERY little result. I am sorry but it's quite obvious that the threat of modern Sam weaponry is on another level entirely and that you do not even begin to understand the complexity of fighting IADS.
Im sorry if i offended you in any of my remarks .
Your offending me by still being here and insisting that you know what you clearly do not.
[edit on 22-4-2006 by StellarX]