It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Dallas
Not suggesting Russia's been out in the cold on modernizing their old fleet, but for the most part they have.
The bomber days are coming to an end I feel. They were to be used for a slow advance toward either Nation to give time for the leaders to talk.
What replaced the SR71 ? I don't know for sure but have a feeling the USA has a craft (w/out-of-this-world propulsion technology) that can be used for both reconnaissance and air-to-ground attack, approaching Mach 9. US to Russia, China or both in minutes. Perhap's stealth stuff like the B2 and F117 as well as the old but still in use B52 are designed for attack in more conventional war theatres. Same applies for air to air attack F22.
The only real threat to the "West", are missiles and walk-it-in (ground delivery) WMD.
Of course the above is not fact, just speculation. I'm not a war machine expert that's for sure.
Originally posted by Neon Haze
My take on this is that the US and the EU have a laser missile defence net system in place, this system is capable to knock out any threats launched from Russia / Middle East and Far east...
But what about missiles launched from the North Pole???
What if Russia / China is moving its military infrastructure to positions north of Britain?
That would certainly explain the recent Russian Flag placed in a strategic location under the northern ice cap.... claiming that as Russian territory…
So to sum up, the recent increase in activity from Russia is her attempt to retain her defensive equilibrium with the western powers.
If Russia were ever to loose the capability to launch strikes on the west, she would no longer be considered a serious actor on the world stage.
Russia is, however seriously mistaken in her actions.... The US / EU Laser defence net system can more than easily be placed in locations that would respond fast enough to take out ANY ICBM launched or in fact any radar contact at all from ANYWHERE at all....
But hey... they have to do something right??
All the best,
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.
The Airborne Laser is a modified Boeing 747-400 freighter aircraft that will use a high-energy Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) to generate a directed energy beam to intercept and destroy a hostile ballistic missile during the highly-vulnerable “boost phase” of its trajectory—the first few minutes after it is launched.
Advanced tracking lasers will first locate the target missile, measure distance, speed and atmospheric conditions prior to activation of the primary directed energy weapon. The Airborne Laser can also pass information on missile launch sites, target tracks and predicted impact points to other missile defense elements
within the integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System.
Source: Missiles Defence Agency
Russia's President Vladimir Putin has objected to a proposed US missile defence system in Europe.
What is the US proposing to do?
The United States wants to build a system that will let it knock out incoming ballistic missiles potentially coming from North Korea and Iran.
This involves using radars in Alaska and California in the US and at Fylingdales in the UK. Another radar is planned for Greenland.
Source: BBC NEWS
US plans to expand its embryonic missile defence shield to the Czech Republic and Poland are an "an obvious threat", the Russian military says.
Poland has confirmed the US wants to negotiate the use of its territory to build part of its missile defence base.
Source: BBC NEWS
14 June 2007
NATO nations have accepted the controversial U.S. missile defense system, and decided to focus the alliances' own missile defense efforts on protecting its southern flank against short and medium-range missiles from the Middle East. The moves come amid continuing Russian criticism of the U.S. program, and concern in the Czech Republic about hosting a radar for the system that would further antagonize Russia. VOA's Al Pessin reports from Brussels, where NATO defense ministers are meeting.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
reply to post by Neon Haze
Neon Haze I appreciate the reply, I know all about the ABL program and the US proposition of placing GBI missiles in Europe, trust me on that... Needless to say the US or Europe do not currently even have a system in place to deal with a few sophisticated ICBM's, let alone a massive attack from Russia. Our "missile shield" is limited and not yet fully operational. The Russians on the other hand have had an operational "missile shield" for decades. Not only is it bigger (in terms of interceptors) in size than ours but also more capable and proven, I suggest you look into it. For more information and discussion please come visit us in the Weaponry and Aircraft Forum, these topics have been covered before.
Originally posted by Sky watcher
I just listed two fully operational systems, Do we have enough of them yet (no) but we will and they are mobile and you cant jam them. We bankrupted the Soviets in the cold war and we can do it again. Yes the PAC 3 that is in service in many theaters right now can handle sophisticated ICBMs. You need to trust me on that
Originally posted by Sky watcher
The bear bomber is never going to be able to hit anything. All the latest fighters including the F-15 are able to knock out its cruise missiles.
With the service intro of the PAC 3 Patriot, Russian Bombers don't stand a chance.
It can take out any kind of missile and aircraft thats even if they got around the Navy anti-aircraft weapons witch is becoming almost impossible.
Russia can boast all they want but they are still very weak compared to NATO.
Originally posted by Sky watcher
I just listed two fully operational systems, Do we have enough of them yet (no) but we will and they are mobile and you cant jam them.
We bankrupted the Soviets in the cold war and we can do it again.
Yes the PAC 3 that is in service in many theaters right now can handle sophisticated ICBMs. You need to trust me on that
Originally posted by Sky watcher
We the U.S. have many systems now in place to make a good missile shield, Thats what many people understand.
You have the big ICBM killer witch is moving slow but who really knows.
The laser system witch is now in testing.
The two systems that have had great success is the PAC 3 Patriot that Yes can reliably hit nuke warheads, Or any cruise missile and plane.
Then there is the Navy Standard block 2 and 3 that can be positioned anywhere with our destroyers and that has been a major success and is in full production.
Russia would never launch an all out nuke attack knowing that we would be able to hit back with our subs and wipe them out.
If we position Patriots around every base and major city then the risk of an attack is far diminished.
To begin, the 32d AAMDC claims that the Patriot made nine intercepts out of nine engagements, allowing it a 100 percent success rate. This seems to be the result of a rather tortuous portrayal of the facts given in their own history. Reading through it, 23 Iraqi missile launches are documented (9 Ababil-100s, 4 Al Samouds, 4 CSSC-3s, 4 FROG-7s, and 2 unknowns). Of these, indeed, 9 apparently were intercepted by U.S. or Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, thanks to the at least 24 Patriot-type missiles (PAC-2, GEM, GEM+, and PAC-3) that were fired. However, that leaves 14 Iraqi missiles which were not intercepted. Excluding the one Ababil-100 which malfunctioned and blew up shortly after launch and the four FROG-7s which were outside of the Patriot’s range, leaves 9 Iraqi missiles which were not destroyed by the Patriot. The fact that they landed “harmlessly” in the desert or the Persian Gulf, in the words of the authors of the report, does not change the fact that they were not intercepted. In the CENTCOM area of responsibility at the time of the war, there were 1069 Patriot missiles (54 of which were PAC-3 missiles), and 29 U.S. and 5 Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, so there should have been ample assets on the U.S. side to counter these Iraqi threats. Claiming that the Patriot had a 100 percent interception rate seems disingenuous at best and an outright manipulation of events at worst. Also surprising is that after 12 years of criticism, following the dismal performance of Patriot in the first Persian Gulf War, the Army is still calling an "engagement" an interception, when by their own descriptions sometimes "engaged" Iraqi missiles were not intercepted. For example, the history for March 21, 2003, reports six Iraqi TBMs "successfully engaged and destroyed by Patriot systems to date." But that counts an Ababil-100 and an Al Samoud that were NOT intercepted on March 20th. This calls into question what evidence the Army has for the nine intercepts it does claim.
Israeli officials and experts agree that the Patriot failed in its military mission. The only debate in Israel is whether the Patriot hit one or none of the Scuds it attempted to intercept. Israeli officials tracked each Scud to the ground and thus had the craters to prove that the initial claims of intercept success were false.
The Army claims, with varying degrees of confidence, that the Patriot Missile system destroyed 52 percent of the Scuds.
The General Accounting Office does not share that confidence. Independent review of the evidence in support of the Army claims reveals that, using the Army’s own methodology and evidence, a strong case can be made that Patriots hit only 9 percent of the Scud warheads engaged, and there are serious questions about these few hits. (GAO Report: "Operation Desert Storm: Data Does Not Exist to Conclusively Say How Well Patriot Performed, " September 1992, NSIAD 920340) The speed of the Scuds, the limitations of the Patriot missile system, and the confusion and targeting difficulties caused by the break-up of the Scud missile as it re-entered the atmosphere seem to have contributed to the high failure rate.
Marines deployed north and east of the headquarters suddenly observe a low-flying missile passing overhead, pointed towards Kuwait in the direction of Camp Commando. IMEF’s air defense computer terminals display nothing out of the ordinary, and no Scud alert is sounded. Marines in the headquarters are astonished and surprised to hear the signature of a low-flying jet engine overhead, followed by the noise and concussion from a large warhead blast.
An Iraqi Seersucker antiship cruise missile converted into a land attack role has just missed decapitating IMEF by a mere one hundred yards. The missile, launched from the Faw peninsula, flew undetected and unengaged straight through the heart of an alert and robust U.S. theater air and missile defense system. Following this attack, the U.S. Marines maintained a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) of F/A-18s over the Faw peninsula for several days.
Fortunately, the cruise missile in this instance was armed with only a conventional warhead. Because of their payload capabilities and their inherent ability to fly over large swaths of land, land attack cruise missiles (LACM) are a platform optimized for the employment of chemical or biological weapons. Currently, such an attack would likely go undetected, preventing U.S. forces from donning protective equipment and taking shelter.
During OIF, five Chinese-built CSSC-3 “Seersucker” antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) were launched by Iraq against land targets in Kuwait. The attack described above was the first. A second attack, using two Seersucker cruise missiles on 28 March, was aimed at ships at the naval base of Kuwait City. One missile homed in on a radar reflector, the other on a seafront shopping center. Two Seersuckers were also launched on 31 March—one at the port at Umm Qasr and the other at troops at Safwan. Not a single one of these missiles was targeted or even detected in-flight.
As far as the Blackjack bomber is concerned, Its so big we would see it take off on radar lol.
The only true bomber that can penetrate an air defense like ours or Russia is the B-2 Stealth or if we have a better toy now.