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.

 

Russia’s missile sale to Indonesia upsets DRDO

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


If you actually took the time to understand what i had written then i was actually agreeing with you - but instead you launch into the distribe that you want at times to spout


Do not attempt to suggest unproven and newer designs which do even not offer some of the Tomahawks capabilities



you making up junk now... i never at any time even hinted at that

so sad....


make another thread about JASSM - you post as though its the saviour at the type , whereas i am correcting you.

Tomahawk is one damn fine weapon doing a job it wasn`t exactly built to do but has since been adapted to the role.

but make another thread to continue this discussion.




posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
reply to post by and01
 


I wouldnt say bye bye Darwin. The airport up here is a joint military/ commercial airport so there is always air support here and Tindal airbase is 300km south of here so if we are attacked there is always a large military presence. Plus the whole of Darwin is full of army and navy personel. Probably the best guarded city in Australia at the moment


Those are precisely the reasons why Darwin may be a target, if it isn't already.

Also, one of the quickest ways to bring down Japan would be to blockade its oil, which is Japan's achilles heal. China would be quite keen to facilitate a united Korea before annexing it and blockading Japan's oil through its proxy, Indonesia. This could be done very effectively via blocking the Straits of Malacca and the Indons using their new weapons to stop an oil trade rat run through their archipeligo. Such a chain of events would spell major naval engagements North of Aussie to decide the future of the Western Pacific in a hypothetical future naval conflict scenario.

This might be why the US and its allies are doing so many anti-submarine naval exercises around Hawaii and Guam involving CBG's; they can see the writing on the wall. Stealth submarine aircraft carriers armed with VTOL attack aircraft, anti ship missiles and torpedoes would be ideal should such a scenario eventuate, otherwise the Pacific might be about to get a whole lot of new diving wrecks.



[edit on 9-10-2007 by and01]



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Ok so apart from the slightly off-topic Tomahawk banter..

This missile sale is actually not going to be a purely Russian decision(If it is the BrahMos that the Indons want and not the Yakhont).

You see the BrahMos is a 50-50% Indian-Russian venture so both countries need to authorize a 3rd party sale.
Now the weird bit is that this particular BrahMos sale hasn't got so much of a Russian hand in it as it does and Indian one.
Note that the article quoted has the Indon Naval Chief visiting India and expressing interest in purchasing the BrahMos.

So what's the deal here? Esp with the Indians and the Aussies forming new naval ties by participating in recently held naval exercises(The Indons were conspicuously absent). This exercise had 'securing the Malacca Straits energy route' written all over it.

Finally I do not believe that the Indons would be able to single-handedly block the straits off w/o Singapore and Malaysian consent. They would need Indian and USN approval for the same too. So its pretty far fetched.

This Indon LACM interest hence I feel hasn't got much to do with the straits but more to do with targets on the Australian mainland.
Or maybe its for the Phillipines? Do the Indons have any other 'foes' in the area?



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Finally I do not believe that the Indons would be able to single-handedly block the straits off w/o Singapore and Malaysian consent. They would need Indian and USN approval for the same too. So its pretty far fetched.



Actually it would be very easy to block the Straits of Mallacca. A couple of Yakhonts fired across the bows of a couple of oil tankers, and all sea going traffic in the Straits stop. What wth massive insurance premiums and risk aversion, it only takes a minimal amount of shipping harassment to cause the complete cessation of shipping traffic in the Straits of Malacca.

Even the slightest whiff of geopolitical instability in the Straits would cause insurance premiums to go through the roof. Also, geographically at points the Straits are only 25km wide, so on a military level it could even be blocked using basic artillery and land based missile systems being fired from either side to stop all shipping traffic. Even a terrorist group could achieve this.

[edit on 9-10-2007 by and01]



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by and01
 


A missing piece of the puzzle is the Chinese naval base being built on the Burmese coast, purely to extend China's sphere of influence into the Indian Ocean and Straits of Malacca area.



[edit on 9-10-2007 by and01]



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by and01
Actually it would be very easy to block the Straits of Mallacca. A couple of Yakhonts fired across the bows of a couple of oil tankers, and all sea going traffic in the Straits stop. What wth massive insurance premiums and risk aversion, it only takes a minimal amount of shipping harassment to cause the complete cessation of shipping traffic in the Straits of Malacca.

Even the slightest whiff of geopolitical instability in the Straits would cause insurance premiums to go through the roof. Also, geographically at points the Straits are only 25km wide, so on a military level it could even be blocked using basic artillery and land based missile systems being fired from either side to stop all shipping traffic. Even a terrorist group could achieve this.


Well I doubt they'd waste Yakhonts for an over-the-bow shot.
Silly ol' Hezbollah-type Katyusha rockets would do the trick.
And yes it would put a spanner in the smooth working of the world's economies.

But I'm a little doubtful of the cessation of ship traffic through the straits itself. That would be suicidal for economies that depend on the energy that flows through this strait. So I'm betting they'd be willing to take a risk and continue shipments. Also they'd be very keen on investing in a protection umbrella during this passage.
Put 5 decent naval vessels with air-defence capabilities and that mostly nullifies any terrorist driven missile threat in the straits.
So IMO the traffic will continue at an albeit slower and cautious pace.

My definition of 'blocking the straits' is to provide such a threat to shipping in the area that even the regional naval powers wouldn't be able to guarantee safety for the same.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by and01
reply to post by and01
 


A missing piece of the puzzle is the Chinese naval base being built on the Burmese coast, purely to extend China's sphere of influence into the Indian Ocean and Straits of Malkacca area.



And which puzzle is that?
Could you elaborate on that?
Thanks



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by manson_322







Are you aware that we are not? Our efforts have gone into making the Tomahawk less observable while adding valuable upgrades to it's guidance and control suite, as well as newer warheads. The US is not convinced that hypersonic cruise missiles are necessary apart form the faster reaction time they offer. We are confident enough in the capability and past performance of the Tomahawk (unproved claims not withstanding) to continue developing it. This is why we are developing the similar JASSM, JASSM-ER and JASSM-XR. The RATTLRS so far has not been ordered, and it would not replace either missile only serve in a complimentary role.


funny is that why there are considerations for a supersonic tomahawk ...
read what you say reminds me of a spokesman for Raytheon in a defence expo

seems you are not aware that is speed is increasingly the focus of US forces
project FALCON

Late last week, they handed out contracts to 10 firms to start designing a hypersonic missile that can outrun the now-retired Concorde, and can hit a terrorist nest in Europe from the East Coast.
www.wired.com...




The military wants Falcon operational by 2010, and is taking a two-step approach to reaching the deadline. The first is to design a cruise missile that can travel at hypersonic velocity, and deliver a 1,000-pound, bunker-busting bomb.
www.wired.com...




But this is only the beginning of the Falcon project. In the long-term, Darpa and the Air Force aim to send the hypersonic CAV cruise missiles not by rocket, but by an ultra-fast drone aircraft. This unmanned plane, dubbed the Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle, would take off and land from a military airport, travel more than 10,000 miles in less than two hours, and deliver 12,000 pounds worth of CAVs or sensors. The Pentagon wants the drone carrier in service by 2025

another project: The X-51 hypersonic


The craft is the same size and shape as a Joint Air-to- Surface Standoff Missile, so it can be attached to a B-52 or fighter jet. It runs on standard JP-7 jet fuel, not on rocket fuel, so it fits in neatly with the military's existing logistical chain. The X-51 is made from a fairly standard nickel alloy, not from exotic materials. And the advanced engine technology is very real. In 2004, NASA broke speed records while testing its X-43A, a precursor to the X-51 (see "Breakthrough Awards 2005," Nov. 2005). In a final test flight, the 12-ft.-long aircraft hit 7000 mph — nearly Mach 10. In other words, the X-51 is not just some lab experiment; it's being designed from the start to deploy. "I've got tremendous confidence in it working," the Air Force's Mark J. Lewis says.
www.popularmechanics.com...



seems that USA is in 5 years from fully developing the hypersonic counterpart of the Soviet Kh-90 hypersonic cruise missile


Once across the border, the cruise missile is supposed to be able to penetrate Soviet air defenses effectively because it flies very low, hugging the terrain and staying out of sight of Soviet radars. However, it is vulnerable to an attack from above by the new Soviet
Foxhound fighter, with its lookdown, shootdown radar. The current version of the cruise missile is also as slow as a commercial air liner, and can be shot down by the Soviet SA-10, a relatively new surface-to-air missile.
Improved cruise missiles – supersonic, and with a “stealth” design making them nearly invisible to Soviet radar – are under development, but will not be available in large numbers before the end of the decade.
Until then, the air-launched cruise missile is not
likely to make a major contribution to the viability of the US strategic triad.
www.marshall.org...


[edit on 9-10-2007 by manson_322]



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Force Application and Launch from Continental United States (FALCON) is a program to design an aircraft (HVC) with hypersonic capability which does not utilize rockets for power. The criteria is to design, essentially a bomber, with a limited payload of around 12,000 lb so that it may carry 8-12 CAV's each in turn will carry a munition with a payload of 1,000 lb. The point is that the FALCON aircraft would be able to launch within two hours and reach any point in the world in the same amount of time. Much more rapidly than our current conventional CONUS based assets.

The idea is to respond and provide direct power anywhere in the world in short order to project temporary retaliatory force until our massive sustainable forces are mobilized and deployed. The doctrine and strategic thinking that led to it had little to do with Soviet SAM's and more to do with time critical targets and other situations. Namely that we might not always have forward deployed bases available to project immediate force. So we need something operating in the CONUS capable of offering the same level of response, it was designed to meet a strategic gap. Although it will likely be able to penetrate most air defense systems, it is still vulnerable to ABM systems, it was not primarliy designed to replace sub sonic cruise missiles or to counter SAM's.

In fact the FALCON program has nothing to do with hypersonic cruise missiles, or missiles in general. The aircraft itself will have a range of around 9,000 miles and carry a propulsion-less combat air vehicle (CAV). A fancy name for saying an empty metal/composite shell designed to take advantage of the kinematics and aerodynamic forces it encounters with room to store a 1,000 payload. The CAV is a maneuverable, un-powered vehicle which uses the kinematics of the HVC to essentially glide to the target and release it's payload. Initial specification call for the CAV to have a 3,000 mile glide range, later goals call for the development of a rocket powered CAV with an increase in range.

Hypersonic concepts may be explored and eventually aircraft and missile may result but it is not because the "usa is developing a long strike range hypersonic cruise missle to counter the problems posed by S-300 systems".

As for the X-51, it is not a missile or a combat capable system, it is a technology demonstrator. The article linked above it pure fantasy. It's technology may lead to weapons systems but the vehicle in question itself cannot without essentially creating a totally new system. There is also currently zero effort, funding, research etc... to arm or develop the X-51 into a combat system as it is.

And the Regan era paper, interesting but the fact remains the US has no long range hypersonic cruise missile in the inventory. This will likely change but again, not for your stated reason, they will be complimentary systems used in a variety of roles. Speed offers time benefits but it does not increase survivability. A stealthy, low flying cruise missile is just as good, if not better, then an IR beacon, high flying supersonic cruise missile.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by and01
reply to post by and01
 


A missing piece of the puzzle is the Chinese naval base being built on the Burmese coast, purely to extend China's sphere of influence into the Indian Ocean and Straits of Malkacca area.



And which puzzle is that?
Could you elaborate on that?
Thanks

the part related to developing a blue water navy.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
albeit slower and cautious pace.

My definition of 'blocking the straits' is to provide such a threat to shipping in the area that even the regional naval powers wouldn't be able to guarantee safety for the same.






My belief is that use of any kind of major weapons systems on any of the worlds important narrow waterway would result in cessation of all large scale commercial shipping traffic. Of course small scale traffic may still occur, but large freighters are not going to navigate these waterways. Even the threat of disruption will affect sea going traffic in major waterways.

[edit on 9-10-2007 by and01]



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by and01

My belief is that use of any kind of major weapons systems on any of the worlds important narrow waterway would result in cessation of all large scale commercial shipping traffic. Of course small scale traffic may still occur, but large freighters are not going to navigate these waterways. Even the threat of disruption will affect sea going traffic in major waterways.

[edit on 9-10-2007 by and01]


I believe the decision wholely lies on the risk owner.
Now if countries like Japan,Koreas(and China btw) are the risk owners,i.e. tanker owners, insurance bearers etc. and their economies are coming to a grinding halt because of this low-scale missile activity, then if I were them I would bear the risk and continue shipments; definitely at a slower pace but I would HAVE to continue them. I would send a naval task force to escort my vessels through the area of concern. I would ask allied/friendly navies in the region to join in on patrols and evict the miscreants.

Another thing.. its kind of difficult to 'selectively' block the straits. You block it for Japan, Korea etc.. then you block it for China as well. So any reaction to such a blockage would result in a combined effort between these countries to
secure traffic through the straits.

So blocking the straits can only done by major powers/alliances that have:


  1. enough military means to execute the blockage
  2. alternate energy supply routes.


That narrows the list down to the US(West),China, India (and Russia maybe).
And the conundrum is that if any one of these (esp India or China) tries to unilaterally block the straits, then the other along with the west will make life miserable for the them. This is because India and China(to a certain extent) do have a strategic reach to block each other's alternate energy routes as well. Also they(India and China) share a long common border along which either can make aggressive moves to put the other in a worrisome situation to say the least. Note that this is why neither is actively engaging in 'intervention' in Burma right now.

That leaves only the US(west). This entity is the only one that faces the least backlash(immediate backlash at least) by blocking the straits. Their energy routes are more or less secure, and they d not face immediate military action elsewhere as a knee-jerk reaction.

Talk about conspiracies aye?



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   


And the Regan era paper, interesting but the fact remains the US has no long range hypersonic cruise missile in the inventory

because of the collapse of USSR




This will likely change but again, not for your stated reason, they will be complimentary systems used in a variety of roles. Speed offers time benefits but it does not increase survivability. A stealthy, low flying cruise missile is just as good, if not better, then an IR beacon, high flying supersonic cruise missile


with great investment being made in counter stealth devices by Russia and China ,ukriane,india and there integration in airdefence (kochulga passive Radar is combined with s-400 and s-300 favorit to counter subsonic stealth) , subsonic Steath is becoming increasingly vulnerable , thus being slowly replaced by supersonic stealth , examples are F-22 and the supersonic tomahawk

survivablity matters on speed as proven by Sr-71 , or mig-25 as speed enables them to outrun SAMs



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   


And the Regan era paper, interesting but the fact remains the US has no long range hypersonic cruise missile in the inventory

because of the collapse of USSR




This will likely change but again, not for your stated reason, they will be complimentary systems used in a variety of roles. Speed offers time benefits but it does not increase survivability. A stealthy, low flying cruise missile is just as good, if not better, then an IR beacon, high flying supersonic cruise missile


with great investment being made in counter stealth devices by Russia and China ,ukriane,india and there integration in airdefence (example: kochulga/vega passive Radar is combined with s-400 and s-300 favorit to counter subsonic stealth )development of more advanced radars, microwave based sensors ... evne low wavelength radars(though very vulnerable to jamming) are capable of detecting stealth , subsonic Steath is becoming increasingly vulnerable , thus being slowly replaced by supersonic stealth , examples are F-22 and the supersonic tomahawk

survivablity matters on speed as proven by Sr-71 , or mig-25 as speed enables them to outrun SAMs



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
This has been discussed to death and im sorry but the battle between the stearkers and the dancers is over - speed is the best defence. You reduce a reaction time from 3 or minutes to 30 seconds thenyou have a massive increased chance of a kill.


and with a Shipwreck - 1 out of the salvo is the `eyes in the sky` and datalinks to the rest so you don`t need aircraft to follow them in updating.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
because of the collapse of USSR


Even though the S-300 and S-400 (including all variants) have been developed and deployed since then. That was the main threat the US was supposedly (not) developing cruise missiles to counter...


Originally posted by manson_322
...with great investment being made in counter stealth…


The advantages that VLO systems offer cannot yet be totally or effectively countered with any great sustained measure of success.


Originally posted by manson_322
…are capable of detecting stealth…


Virtually every military radar system is capable of detecting and tracking stealth systems, that is not the same as effectively neutralizing the threat presented by stealth system however.


Originally posted by manson_322
…subsonic Steath is becoming increasingly vulnerable thus being slowly replaced by supersonic stealth…


Subsonic stealth offers advantages that supersonic stealth does not, both have weakness and strengths, to say one is "better" is a fallacy. The point, once again, is complimenting one capability with another, not replacement.


Originally posted by manson_322
...examples are F-22 and the supersonic tomahawk...


Never said supersonic capability does not offer any advantages, just that it is not "better". Two different methods of accomplishing the same task, not "better" or "worse", just different. The supersonic Tomahawk is concept proposed by Raytheon to develop a shorter ranged missile for time critical targets. The DoD has not yet ordered the systems and there is no proof that it is not more "survivable" than the current tomahawk nor that it is being designed to counter "Russian SAM's". A point, which I must say you have yet to prove.


Originally posted by manson_322
survivablity matters on speed as proven by Sr-71 , or mig-25 as speed enables them to outrun SAMs


Over simplification, in certain parameters and situations sure both platforms can use their kinematic performance to escape from missiles. However to believe that either platforms can "outrun" SAM's or other missiles at will, with ease and in all situations is foolish. Both systems would be shot down (in a much much higher percentage) if they tried to fly towards a highly defend target (not unlike what the Tomahawk does). There is a reason why the Blackbird never overflew the USSR, or ventured deep into highly defended Soviet sites.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 






Even though the S-300 and S-400 (including all variants) have been developed and deployed since then. That was the main threat the US was supposedly (not) developing cruise missiles to counter...


firstly the Tomahawk was developed in 70's because long range SAMs like S-200 could not operate at low altitude and Russia did not have low altitude Radars, and S-300P was the response to it




The advantages that VLO systems offer cannot yet be totally or effectively countered with any great sustained measure of success.


unless you are refering to saturation of a Defence system , your claim remains questionable




Virtually every military radar system is capable of detecting and tracking stealth systems, that is not the same as effectively neutralizing the threat presented by stealth system however


no , necessarily




The DoD has not yet ordered the systems and there is no proof that it is not more "survivable" than the current tomahawk nor that it is being designed to counter "Russian SAM's". A point, which I must say you have yet to prove.


becuase currently , the Russian early warning system is in doldrums and the Trident nuclear missile launch from Arctic can decimate more than half of Russia's command centers and nucleare arsenal(excluding mobile systems) in less than ten minutes if trident are launched from gaps in the early warning coverage




A point, which I must say you have yet to prove.

proven by Reagan era source, any ways i am waiting to see something to disprove it




there is no proof that it is not more "survivable" than the current tomahawk

using your logic , F-22 is just as 'survivable' as tomahawk ,




if they tried to fly towards a highly defend target (not unlike what the Tomahawk does).

firstly , low altitude detection radars in networks or ESSM systems are the problems for tomahawk

first thing , once a subsonic stealth is detected , IT LITERALLY HAS NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL , compare that that to a superson/hypersonic stealth system




if they tried to fly towards a highly defend target (not unlike what the Tomahawk does). There is a reason why the Blackbird never overflew the USSR, or ventured deep into highly defended Soviet sites.

similiarly the subsonic stealth systems




There is a reason why the Blackbird never overflew the USSR, or ventured deep into highly defended Soviet sites.


the sites that they overflew were mostly the Kola Peninsula or eastern europe and certain regions in baltics in late 70's and 80's that it and did not overlfly other sites , the reasons :

1. the existence of certian RF/Microwave/Plasma based weapons in certain regions like the Kamchatka peninsula or the Sura facility
2.deployment of antei S-300V systems(not Almaz's S-300P variants)
3.deployment of Mig-31



Although infrared weapon technology is not widely discussed in the West, the Soviet infrared beam weapon is nothing new and was already used during a Soviet dispute with China in 1969 to destroy "a wall" at the Ussuri River, which separates Manchuria from Russia's Far East, according to the physicist.
----
There are indications, according to the physicist, that such a weapon was used when the KAL plane was shot down over Kamchatka (Soviet Union) in September 1983. In the early 90s, this technology returned to scientific discussions in the West and the technology itself appears to have been transferred from the Soviet Union.
www.serendipity.li...



continued......

[edit on 11-10-2007 by manson_322]



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
continued...


A former East German physicist who studied Soviet infrared technology and plasmoids during the 60s and 70s, and who was directly involved in a demonstration of a Soviet laser beam weapon in 1991 for the U.S. Air Force in Weimar (DDR)
www.serendipity.li...


In 1991, before the Soviet military withdrew from East Germany, the GRU demonstrated for the U.S. Air Force Electronic Security Command (AFESC) the capabilities of its infrared beam weapon by reducing a ceramic plate into dust from a distance of one mile. This display of Soviet weapon technology was meant to impress upon the U.S. Air Force "how a stealth bomber could be turned into dust in the same way," the physicist said
www.serendipity.li...



and yes , the claims of use of DEW for the downing of KAL 007 in 1983 in kamchatka peninsula are verifed by the book psychotronic Golgotha , which has some brief discussion on various soviet directed energy weapon applications , but is mainly concerned with its mind control applications

you could order the book ,psychotronic Golgotha , though it is available in Russian language

mindjustice.org...



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 03:53 AM
link   
So a laser beam shot down KAL-007 and not a Su-15?


And the Soviets used beam weapons at Ussuri?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join