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 Leevi
American systems have been combat tested
Where on Earth were they combat tested ?
[edit on 1-1-2007 by Leevi]
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.
In every real combat scenario, in recent history, where Russian equipment has gone up against American equipment, it has been found lacking.
Originally posted by Leevi
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.
You love your country more than required if you think so I'm afraid to ask you if you've got any references to support such outrageous statements.
In every real combat scenario, in recent history, where Russian equipment has gone up against American equipment, it has been found lacking.
Please be more specific. Why bother posting nonsense ?
[edit on 1-1-2007 by Leevi]
Originally posted by Leevi
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.
Originally posted by Leevi
You haven't completed your hometask again ?? You know what, you need a good ban. Your ignorance on the subject is irrefutable and undeniable.
I'm surprised how mods here deal with you. I've reviewed several threads with your participation where you're imposing your childish accusations on the others who "bash" and "insult" your country. You doesn't have a slightest idea that this simply isn't so.
You're uneducated, inhospitable, stubborn person who has a very weak self-esteem. Acknowledge that and never come back to discuss the matters you have no idea of until you learn your mentality, correct your behaviour and read up on the subject as well.
You revealed yourself as a pathological nationalist who has no respect to other countries, people from other countries or their opinions. You're an egoistical and opinionated product of American mass-media who is blind and so weakly developed that nothing will make you believe anything except what you've been told to. Sorry, I quit this senseless dialogue with you.
Ignore mode "on".
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Originally posted by Leevi
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.
Huh? What do I need "official" information for? The speed of light? Everything I've said is common sense and well known.
Look up the flight test results of the systems I posted about, the information is in the links.
Link 1 Link 2
Originally posted by Leevi
You need to sek for the public information that reflects your opinion on the countermeasures against SS-25 and SS-27 in particular.
Originally posted by Leevi
What does an average Joe's hypothesis have to do with the reality?
Originally posted by StellarX
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...
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....
Originally posted by GT100FV
Weapon systems in general. In every real combat scenario, in recent history, where Russian equipment has gone up against American equipment, it has been found lacking.
Originally posted by GT100FV
As for the first bit, that's known in some circles as sarcasm. As for the other claim- US fighters have an unbeaten A2A record vs. Russian aircraft(I think one F-18 was shot down in A2A, out of how many MIG and SU types that have been shot down since the late 70s/early 80s)
US Tanks vs. Russian Tanks, and so forth.
Originally posted by ape
who am i being mocked by? a bunch of russians? anyone with common sense agrees with my posts and wespoints, you guys flame these forums talking about communist superiority posting a bunch of russian sources ( and we all know how honest russian communist loving sources are ) when we are here posting links which you asked for and showing you evidence on how bunk stellarX is and yet you still talk shiza? agm-129a would take out anything in russia and for your information the 460 ACM's in operation for the USAF are used in mass to ensure destruction of any target tomahawks follow up if the US really wants to to do some damage. stop acting so superior and mocking americans and american weaponry unless you want to be made fool of.
westpoint has provided some good reads from some credable sources that are actually legit, you can find THEL videos all over the place with the testing at white sands etc, the US in 10 years will have total DEW domiance and make ICBM's obsolete, leaving russia in the dust because they will not be able to keep up and deploy. russia on the other hand doesn't provide anything and all you can dig up are a bunch or articles from back in 87 like stellar did, only one thing I have to say.. HAHAHA.
Originally posted by vishu
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...
Originally posted by DoBravery
Regardless of systems, I think the advantage goes to the aggressor,
I think the most successful use of SAM's was by the Egyptians in the Sinai against Israel. But Egypt/Syria were also the attackers, were better prepared, and outnumbered Israeli aircraft 2 to 1.
And yes. You do need significant military economic resources to avoid invasion. N Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia all had about as best defense systems as you can get outside of Russia.
None of which caused the US to cancel air ops. Even if some SAM batteries repel an attack, without air supperiority the target will be attacked the next hour, day, or week.
To be honest. I'm sure the US could plan a successful air attack against any nation including the USSR.
The mission from Aviano Air Base in Italy to Kosovo or from Incirlik Air Base in Turkey into Iraq took two hours or more. The situation could change fairly radically given the presence of mobile Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs). In the Iraqi situation, Saddam's SAMs did not move around much but in Kosovo enemy SAMs moved constantly. My favorite opponent was the Serbian SA-6 operator located outside of Ponikve, Serbia. I called him "Slavko the Destroyer" as he was extremely mobile. He was moving about every two days and that was making our tactical situation very difficult.
We learned on September 11th that the intelligence picture we saw -- of a dangerous world -- was accurate. Unfortunately, we ignored it. If we are to continue the War on Terror, allied aircrews will face very robust, advanced surface-to-air missile systems. U.S. and allied forces need to be able to handle them. One of my deputies in Kosovo was killed in the Pentagon. My other deputy luckily was not. One of the things we were planning before the hit on the Pentagon was a brief on these new advanced SAM systems. I think Members of Congress need to see the capability of these new threats to allied aircrews and especially their real ability to burn through our current jamming.
I am very worried about these new systems. I know that the Kosovo campaign would have shifted radically had advanced SA-10 SAMs ever shown up in theater. As the squadron's Intelligence Officer, I was asked one question each morning: where are the SA-10s and have the Russians delivered them to Serbia or not? That would have radically changed the situation. For the future, we have got to plan on facing such fearsome SAM batteries in the next conflict.
www.house.gov...
Its more about being the attacker than being the defender. The problem is that there are ramifications outside of just air defense. For example the US could easily bombard N Korea's airbases with cruise missles while aircraft deal with anything that emits a radio wave.
WASHINGTON--Data released piecemeal by U.S. and European military authorities are finally painting a well-rounded portrait of NATO's bombardment of Yugoslavia--and showing how limited its effects have been.
The figures indicate that while more than five weeks of pounding have badly damaged important parts of the nation's military infrastructure, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic retains many of his field forces and air defenses, and much of his fuel and ammunition. His forces generally can communicate with each other, maneuver and arrange for resupply.
The Yugoslav army still has 80% to 90% of its tanks, 75% of its most sophisticated surface-to-air missiles and 60% of its MIG fighter planes, according to official estimates released during the past week. And although NATO warplanes have blown up the major rail links into Kosovo, five of the province's eight major roads remain at least partially passable, according to British officials.
Yugoslav troops in Kosovo still have nearly half their resupply capability, the Pentagon estimated last week, and Milosevic's military has been able to maintain--or perhaps even expand--the force of 40,000 it had there when the air campaign began March 24.
Despite NATO's ability to strike big, immobile targets with precision weapons, its warplanes have failed to attack 80% of the Yugoslav army's barracks. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces have also left untouched, or only lightly damaged, 80% of Yugoslavia's ammunition depots, officials say.
These grim statistics, which add up to the first well-rounded portrait of the air campaign, reflect in part the effect of the persistently inclement weather that has forced NATO to cancel more than one-third of its 4,400 sorties. President Clinton suggested Wednesday that better weather ahead will allow NATO to intensify its campaign; in addition, nearly 400 more warplanes will soon join the bombardment.
Despite the damage to many of its best planes, the MIG fighters, the Yugoslav air force still has 380 of its 450 aircraft. Eight of the country's 17 airfields have not been struck, and six more have sustained only moderate or light damage.
Although Clark declared that the Serbs' integrated air defense system is now "ineffective" overall, it remains a powerful defensive weapon: It has kept NATO planes generally at altitudes above 15,000 feet, too high to most effectively hit Milosevic's field forces.
And U.S. forces report that Serbian air defense troops are not ducking combat, as most Americans think, but are engaged in tactical games with the NATO fliers in a bid to lure them into missile and artillery traps.
www.aeronautics.ru...
But. . . aircraft alone can't stop an army. Seoul would be leveled. North Korean nukes? China? Economics and cost? Reason?
SAM's are anything but 1 shot 1 kill. For every aircraft downed, there are tens of misses. When the enemy has air superiority, SAM's too are scared to activate. When the US army was gone and we were enforcing the No-Fly, any SAM that targeted or fired on a US jet was quickly dispatched.
I think you way over-estimate the ability of ground based air defense.
I think air defense might dissuade a moderately armed neighbor country, but this thread identifies the US.
While its always good to upgrade, I don't think it will ever be said: "We can knock out Iran's nuclear program in one swoop. The reason why we can't is because the facility is surrounded by a bunch of those damn impassable Tor-M1's."
Basically we are intimidated by enemy nukes, not air defenses.