Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Does the Russian Tor-M1 render most of the USAF worthless?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoBravery
Since Vietnam (and that could be argued), no anti-aircraft system has prevented the US from carrying out its air strategies.


Well i for one would argue... Does the fact that the air defenses of the countries the US chose to invade failed to defend those countries for long or at all prove that that air defenses are a waste of time or does it prove that overwhelming force, picking on the weak or good planning wins you wars? The US have never fought a nation that invested anywhere near the same amount of resources in it's defense forces than the US invested in it's offensive forces. If we scale up the incidents and wars we have seen i think it's fair to say that air ground based air defenses would prevail under similar resource allocation situations.


You may shoot down some aircraft here and there, but if most aircraft complete their mission, then that's not good for you.


Actually you don't have to shoot down a single aircraft if you can, by your mere presence, ensure their ineffectiveness in some way; it's just NOT about shooting down aircraft even if that never hurts the defense...


More US aircraft are lost to training / operational accidents than enemy fire.


Pffft.


For the Russians, their new system will be considered a success if it exports well--it doesn't have to shoot down a thing.


Since they are willing to export with far fewer economic strings attached ( and they rarely just give things away like the US does) their export situation is favourable but have to be more than competitive as your not very so likely to get any discounts as you would with US arms...


Remember the first shots of the 1st Gulf War were Apaches knocking out Iraqi early warning systems. Good intel is a must.


If it's static it's not so hard to knock out and despite that i don't think Baghdad's air defenses were in fact anywhere near wiped out.


The best air defence is having air superiority.


So basically you need to be the USSR or have similar economic potential so you can have a large enough pure air force with which to resist invasion? Your not giving your ideas much thought imo....


BTW The Serbs did shoot down a F117, so nothing is ever completely safe or flawless.


And they managed to detect it on their radars so it's not jut a question of nothing being invulnerable but the reality that stealth is a very over-hyped commodity best used to attack third world nations that never had a chance to start with.

Stellar




posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
all i want to say is, what have we comprehended from the above discussion? The fact that no weapon, regardless of its sophistication, is invulnerable, and there will always be a way to counter it.....but then my question is, what has the USA learned from all this? Obviously the stuff that has been discussed here, has been pondered by the Pentagon, so what are the likely outcomes of it....?

And what lessons will/has Iran learn? And what are the lessons in store for other countries? One thing i could make out is that you mustn't underestimate your enemy, make efficient use of your terrain, and go in for equipment that your men are experts on.....



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
"to 6,000 meters altitude" sais it all. That's 18 000 feet, I doubt it will be a problem.


Above about 15,000 feet above ground an aircraft's effectiveness is greatly reduced this was obvserved in Afghanistan when stingers pushed Soviet Airpower above that limit to remove them from close ground support.


GPS weapons son... From above 20,000 feet these weapons are capable of precision, plus new targeting pods. The tor's range is not suffiecient. ITs more of a "yeah we have air defences feel good thing".



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by vishu
all i want to say is, what have we comprehended from the above discussion?


Well i have no idea what you 'comprehended' ( such being more difficult for some; no insult even intended) and wont until you ask more questions...


The fact that no weapon, regardless of its sophistication, is invulnerable, and there will always be a way to counter it....


Tanks are not invulnerable but requiring your infantry to fight them off with limpet mines is probably not efficient. I am not saying that the likely victors can not be predicted but that any dependence on one type of 'super weapon' is a very simplistic approach to strategic power.


.but then my question is, what has the USA learned from all this?


The poltical leadership have been consistently undermining American security since the start of the 1960's so this is not a question of learning but a question of keeping the public in the dark by bullying third world nations.


Obviously the stuff that has been discussed here, has been pondered by the Pentagon, so what are the likely outcomes of it....?


You will find plenty of source material in my posts to date suggesting that the Pentagon knows exactly what is going on but does nothing as a weak America is apparently not something they want to change or have the power to do.


And what lessons will/has Iran learn? And what are the lessons in store for other countries?


Iran has laernt from North Korea and Pakistan, and other nuclear wielding nations, that the USA is unlikely to overtly attack them no matter what they do inside their own borders.


y, make efficient use of your terrain, and go in for equipment that your men are experts on.....


It's always hard to simply fall back and resort to such fragmented resistance as your populace becomes mostly defenseless and your infrastructure can be systematically undermined or destroyed. A victory against American forces in the field is very unlikely and anything else will still lead to the destruction of Iran as a indepedent nation...

Stellar



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 02:27 AM
link   
I have "comprehended" that there is no single system that can render USAF (or any other air force) useless, but the Tor M1 in the hands of a good operator is potent.

I completely agree to your second comment

Please elaborate on the next two pointers that you have stated.....why this statement "a weak America is apparently not something they want to change or have the power to do"

So if Iran decides to moderate its stance on Israel, cuts back its backing to Hezbollah and such groups...and then continues its nuclear program, still the US wouldn't do anything?
When I say Iran learned something, I meant on how to use those SAMs

What about the Iranian populace, would they support their regime (in the light of the US invasion)...won't they play a bigger role, won't they go out of their way to help their regime...if so then i do think they wouldn't mind the "sacrifice" so much...


ape

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   
the iranian people have already espressed massive distrust and dislike for the current iranian president, he wont last long and if things continue because take a good look at irans economy and unemployment and domestic situation, that religious government will not last much longer if they dont lighten and loosen up.

stellar is a proven bias vishu, I wouldnt take much to what he says because he obviously believes what he wants. no matter what anyone says the agm-129a stealth acm would take out any ABM defense or anything for that matter.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape
stellar is a proven bias vishu, I wouldnt take much to what he says because he obviously believes what he wants. no matter what anyone says the agm-129a stealth acm would take out any ABM defense or anything for that matter.


Proven by who? If I were you, I would stop arguing because at this point you already look very weak and helpless. I'm surprised you haven't still realized this, despite the fact that Stellar pointed out all the inconsistencies of your posts.
I'm sure you don't even read the information Stellar provides. He provides megatons of actual and factual information while you provide nothing except random products of your mediamind based on the myth of America's invincibility. Wake up and live in the world of facts, which are in fact so far from your broad imagination.


[edit on 1-1-2007 by Leevi]


ape

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
megatons of 'actual factual' information? he posts opinions and russian sources alot of which are horribly outdated, I have caught him manipulating history on these forums, the man is misinformed and if you for once believe anything he says then you're misinformed aswell.

a good example of how misinformed stellar is he said the AGM-129a would be a waste to take out installations, yet the discussion was transformed into how wastefull cruise missiles are and that they cannot take out installations yet when the ACM is brought up it all of a sudden is a 'waste' ?

he chooses to believe what he wants even if it involves ignoring actual fact and history, he even maniupulaed history in another thread

chinas geopolitical strategy thread he was trying to lecture us on how superior russian technology is to american and the west and he said the blow quote



Russian technology that took apart the German army with American and British technology barely making progress on their small stretch of the European front lines?


i then responded to this ignorance with this



ape
another example of ignorance, first of all soviet industry got decimated and if it wasn't for the US lend lease providing all of the raw materials and metals and ammuniton the soviets wouldm not have been able to push back at stalingrad, it was the US who enabled them to roll out those tanks and equip those troops to run over the germans, please stop ignoring history and creating your own version of it. you can thank the US for preventing the total collapse of it's future cold war rival, what a bunch of ungreatfull commies.


along with the facts

en.wikipedia.org...


US deliveries to USSR
The list 1 below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from its beginning until 30 September 1945.

Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

enough said? cut the crap im glad i regged on this website, just to be able to bash on the ignorant especially when they are no open to actual fact and common sense.


[edit on 1-1-2007 by ape]

[edit on 1-1-2007 by ape]

[edit on 1-1-2007 by ape]

[edit on 1-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Do you have any links where it is clearly stated that AGM129a can take out any ABM defense ? It's very interesting.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
Do you have any links where it is clearly stated that AGM129a can take out any ABM defense ?


Huh? That's the funniest question I've seen in awhile. LO cruise missiles have a greater chance of hitting their target than conventional missiles, obviously, especially when combined with other elements, such as EW/Jamming and when launched from other LO platforms.

But keep in mind that the (original) AGM-129 was designed to penetrate a very lethal airspace at arguably the height of Soviet power, in terms of air defense, the mid 80's.



[edit on 1-1-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Yes it gets a bit funny, when you don't provide any links.

Here is an example just for you to know how to do this:



Igla is supposed to be able to penetrate any existing or foreseeable missile defense because its trajectory changes unpredictably at the terminal phase of the flight
www.cns.miis.edu...



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
Yes it gets a bit funny, when you don't provide any links.


Sure does, I was merely pointing out how funny I though your request was by the way, no need to get snippy.



Igla is supposed to be able to penetrate any existing or foreseeable missile defense because its trajectory changes unpredictably at the terminal phase of the flight
www.cns.miis.edu...


Guess we'll have to develop ABM systems that target these super duper maneuverable missiles in the boost and midcourse stages, oh wait, already done.



The Airborne Laser (ABL) will locate and track missiles in the boost phase of their flight, then accurately point and fire the high-energy laser, destroying enemy missiles near their launch areas.



Link (PDF)



The Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) missile is the weapon component of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, and consists of a multi-stage rocket booster (BV - Boost Vehicle) and a kinetic kill vehicle (EKV - Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle) for exoatmospheric interception of ballistic missile warheads.



Link



The SM-3 (Standard Missile 3) is a derivative of the Standard SM-2ER Block IV missile, and is the missile component of the U.S. Navy's forthcoming theater-wide ballistic missile defense system, called NTW-TBMD (Navy Theater Wide - Theater Ballistic Missile Defense). It is an upper-tier ballistic missile defense weapon.



Link


[edit on 1-1-2007 by WestPoint23]


ape

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
www.af.mil...

it was actually upgraded from nuclear to conventional but the numbers changed are not known, but none the less since the conversation turned into nuclear war and not conventional the fact that it was brought up that the US cannot land a nuke on russian soil is really ignorant considering the capabilites of the AGM-129 A and B.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   


Guess we'll have to develop ABM systems that target these super duper maneuverable missiles in the boost and midcourse stages, oh wait, already done.


You're dreaming.



To start with, the damn thing can be maneuvered mid-flight. This makes it practically impossible for any radar system in the world to figure out what trajectory it will follow. The other thing is the kind of evasion technology built into the missile. That makes it invulnerable to any kind of radiation and electromagnetic and physical interference.

Then there is the question of ground-based nuclear warheads traditionally deployed to stop ICBMs in their path. Until now, any ICBM can be taken down by detonating a nuclear warhead from as far as 10 kilometers. The Topol doesn’t blink an eyelid until the time a nuclear warhead gets as close as 500 meters. But given the Topol’s remarkable speed and maneuverability, getting a warhead that close is practically impossible.

That leaves defense establishments with only two options. Target the missile at its most vulnerable points—either when it is on the ground or when it is just being deployed (also known as the boost phase). Apparently, the Russians have gotten around that problem too. Unlike virtually every ICBM that exists on some military base or the other, the Topol doesn’t have to be on a static base. All it needs is the back of a truck. And trucks can be driven anywhere, anytime. That makes it practically impossible for any country to monitor how many of these missiles have been deployed and where.
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...





After studying the SS-25 missile for years, the US military believed it finally had a solution in the form of a multitiered antiballistic missile system that focused on boost-phase intercept (firing antimissile missiles that would home in on an ICBM shortly after launch), space-based laser systems designed to knock out a missile in flight, and terminal missile intercept systems, which would destroy a missile as it reentered the earth's atmosphere.
The NMD system being fielded to counter the SS-25, and any similar or less sophisticated threats that may emerge from China, Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere, will probably have cumulative costs between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion by the time it reaches completion in 2015.


Keep in mind - this is still to be done to eliminate the SS-25 threat.

And now consider this:



However, the Bush administration's dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M. According to the Russians, the Topol-M has high-speed solid-fuel boosters that rapidly lift the missile into the atmosphere, making boost-phase interception impossible unless one is located practically next door to the launcher. The SS-27 has been hardened against laser weapons and has a highly maneuverable post-boost vehicle that can defeat any intercept capability as it dispenses up to three warheads and four sophisticated decoys.
To counter the SS-27 threat, the US will need to start from scratch. And even if a viable defense could be mustered, by that time the Russians may have fielded an even more sophisticated missile, remaining one step ahead of any US countermeasures. The US cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a missile-defense system that will never achieve the level of defense envisioned. The Bush administration's embrace of technology, and rejection of diplomacy, when it comes to arms control has failed.
If America continues down the current path of trying to field a viable missile-defense system, significant cuts will need to be made in other areas of the defense budget, or funds reallocated from other nonmilitary spending programs. With America already engaged in a costly war in Iraq, and with the possibility of additional conflict with Iran, Syria, or North Korea looming on the horizon, funding a missile-defense system that not only does not work as designed, but even if it did, would not be capable of defending America from threats such as the Topol-M missile, makes no sense.
The Bush administration would do well to reconsider its commitment to a national missile-defense system, and instead reengage in the kind of treaty-based diplomacy that in the past produced arms control results that were both real and lasting. This would not only save billions, it would make America, and the world, a safer place.
www.csmonitor.com...




The SS-27 is also designed to survive a strike from any laser technology available, rendering any current space-based laser useless. The missile highlights the need for considerably more research into missile defenses, as the United States is currently defenseless while Russia is protected by a functional defense system. www.missilethreat.com...


[edit on 1-1-2007 by Leevi]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Claims from the Russians and opinions from ABM critics? You can do better than that, show me some missile stats and tests. It has evasive technology built in that makes it invisible and invincible. Oh my now I have heard everything.


But what the mainstream media missed was analyzed in great detail on Internet discussion boards. For starters, something about the time mentioned in the report sounded astounding. For anything to travel from Kapustny to Balkash in 24 minutes, it had to fly at a speed of three miles a second. That’s 180 miles a minute or 10,800 miles an hour. If the reports were indeed true, the Topol RS 12 or the Topol SS 27, as it is known in military circles around the world, had to be the fastest thing man has ever seen. And if you will for a moment excuse the breathlessness, it also represented the pinnacle of modern missile technology. Until this test, the fastest thing known to man was the X43 A. A hypersonic, unmanned plane built by NASA. It flew at 10 times the speed of sound—almost 7,200 miles per hour.


This tells me all I need to know. Lets try again with some reputable sources please.


And the SS-27 is also designed to survive a strike from any laser technology available, rendering any current space-based laser useless. The missile highlights the need for considerably more research into missile defenses, as the United States is currently defenseless while Russia is protected by a functional defense system.


If you look up Intelgurls post's on the current capability of lasers it becomes kind of hard to take this seriously without any proof or demonstration of this claimed feature.


However, the Bush administration's dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M. According to the Russians, the Topol-M has high-speed solid-fuel boosters that rapidly lift the missile into the atmosphere, making boost-phase interception impossible unless one is located practically next door to the launcher.


A laser beam travels at the speed of light, it is actually faster than if you were to launch a missile right next door, as the article so eloquently states. From 200 nm away it would take the laser from the ABL approximately 0.00012 seconds to reach it's target.


The SS-27 has been hardened against laser weapons and has a highly maneuverable post-boost vehicle that can defeat any intercept capability as it dispenses up to three warheads and four sophisticated decoys.


Again I find this hard to believe as making a missile invulnerable to a high powered laser is almost impossible given the conditions of launch. The non-standard flight path, decoys and terminal maneuverability are known and well document and do present a credible challenge; but nothing that is impossible to overcome as these articles state.

[edit on 1-1-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
So if I am to understand this correctly, in your unbiased opinion. Russian systems will do exactly what they claim, but it's propaganda to believe that American systems work? American systems have been combat tested, and shown to work pretty well in the past, so why is it not propaganda to believe that an untested system will perform so much better?



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   


Again I find this hard to believe as making a missile invulnerable to a high powered laser is almost impossible given the conditions of launch. The non-standard flight path, decoys and terminal maneuverability are known and well document and do present a credible challenge; but nothing that is impossible to overcome as these articles state.


And I find it hard to believe YOU, because you haven't yet come up with any bit of official information which corresponds to your imagination.



American systems have been combat tested


Where on Earth were they combat tested ?

[edit on 1-1-2007 by Leevi]


ape

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
hah, these russians seriously deny common sense when it's right infront of them, considering how much the US invests heavily in this kind of R&D it's foolish to think that russia would somehow be more advanced especially when they get information from biased sources and outdated information.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
hah, these russians seriously deny common sense when it's right infront of them, considering how much the US invests heavily in this kind of R&D it's foolish to think that russia would somehow be more advanced especially when they get information from biased sources and outdated information.


Show us at least one official from the American government or military who's point of view you're sharing. Show us evidence, that money is the only key factor to success in the military area along with the basic differences in economical structure of the USA and Russia. Disprove the information above by providing your links to the sources, which would state that the new Russian missiles are in fact vulnerable to any countermeasures.

If you continue to post blindly the same nonsense time after time, you will be a subject to mockery and persecution on this board. Many have realized you've almost become one already.

[edit on 1-1-2007 by Leevi]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Well as a last resort, we can just use our Alien technology that we got from UFOs. With that no weapon system could hope to survive against us. Of course we only use that on special occasions.






top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join