British RAF Jets Intercept Russian Bomber

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.

Dallas

well i think the plane that replaced the sr71 blackbird is the aurora mach 6 i heard all the way to 20 sighting seen all around the world but we all are forgetting russians are not dumb they had the first rocket/satelite in space and im sure they have black projects of there own we all seem to be making russia sound weak and less advanced

Originally posted by Neon Haze
Hi all,

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,

NeoN HaZe.

hmmm ok lazer deffence if so i am 100% sure russia has there own liltle surprise maybe there own lazers russia is not dumb! they have there own black projects kept secret eu/nato etc are mistaken russia posses technology that we proberly never seen to nock out eu ect america is not the only advanced country

reply to post by WestPoint23


It's real...

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.
Source:Boeing

Boeing - US Laser Defence Net

Boeing's web site on the Laser

This for the Missile Defence Agency

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

June News Release

Missile Defence Fact Sheet

It's Real and it's in action NOW....

All the best,

NeoN HaZe

yes yes i heard of this lazer missile plane thing but there is like 2 of them or hadly enought to do something im sure the russians have a secret of there own.

reply to post by manzoor


You are missing the point...

These are the key issues that relate to this issue.

Q&A: US missile defence

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

Missile shield 'threatens Russia

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

NATO Accepts US Missile Defense System

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.
Source:VOA NEWS

Hope that puts things into perspective for you.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

Any of you ever read the Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy?

Theres these big pink letters on the cover that say

"DON'T PANIC"

First off, this is nothing new. It happened ALL the time in the Cold War, not once a week, or once a month, more like once a day, with different types of planes carrying out different types of missions on different approach patterns.

AND

The "West" does exactly the same thing, the other way round

If you want to learn more, try reading "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich (the guy who used to run the place) and a book called "By any means Necessary" by William E. Burrows, both of which provide a massive insight into the intelligence gathering operations carried out by the USAF during the Cold War.

To the poster who said "why not shoot it down?" - why would anyone want to do that? The planes never, ever enter UK airspace. They fly over international waters.

The poster who asked if its possible to see if they are loaded with nukes - I'm unaware of any passive or active system that could do that - but thats not to say it doesn't exist.

Another poster asked about the triad system - as far as I know the heavy bombers were taken off rotation, because of the submarine systems in place. I'd haev to check but I'm fairly sure that since the end of the cold war US aircraft do not routinely carry nukes anymore in failsafe patrol patterns.

As for the ABL, its a theatre weapon, and would have been ideal in the 1991 Gulf War against Scuds, but its not an ICBM killer, and neither is the proposed "missile shield" which could not cope with a massive ICBM/SLBM launch and enage all the targets.

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.
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.

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 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.

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

Frankly, you have no idea what your talking about. The US is in no position, and will not be for the foreseeable future to neutralize Russia's nuclear arsenal. You might just want to look at why we are undertaking an ABM effort in the first place, it isn't because of Russia. And if you're trying to mock me, suit yourself...

[edit on 22-8-2007 by WestPoint23]

As the interceptor closes in on the target, the active seeker recalculates the trajectory and makes adjustments to the interceptor’s speed and direction. At the point of impact, the PAC-3 achieves catastrophic destruction of the incoming warhead, including any nuclear, chemical, or biological agents. The system is capable of targeting and destroying multiple targets while evading countermeasures and decoys.



On March 4, 2004, two PAC-3 missiles tracked and destroyed a large target missile at the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Ranch in New Mexico. The method of using two PAC-3 missiles is known as “ripple firing.” The target missile, known as Patriot-As-A-Target (PAAT), had been modified to represent a short-range tactical ballistic missile and programmed to simulate the flight patterns of a Scud missile.



In February 2004, the Army awarded another production contract to Lockheed Martin worth $505 million for 159 PAC-3 missiles, including 22 missiles to replace those used in Iraq. Lockheed Martin will deliver the missiles by April 2006.





Sources


Army Technology.
The Boeing Company.
GlobalSecurity.org.
Liang, John. “Patriot PAC-3 Intercepts Target Missile in ‘Ripple Fire’ Test.” Inside Missile Defense, 17 March 2004.
Lockheed Martin Corporation.
“Lockheed Says Pac-3 Missile Test Successful.” Reuters News, 4 March 2004.
Missile Defense Agency, PAC-3 Description.
Missile Defense Agency, PAC-3 Press Release.
“PAC-3 Performs Intercept In White Sands Test.” Defense Daily, 5 March 2004.
Raytheon Company.
Sang-min, Joo. “U.S. To Deploy More Patriot Defense Missiles; Air Defense Brigade To Be Established To Control 8 Antimissile Batteries.” The Korea Herald, 1 May 2004.
“U.S. Army Order 100 PAC 3 Interceptors.” Forecast International Defense Intelligence Newsletters, 15 March 2004.

Know one is saying that right now we can shoot down every incoming Russian missile in a full strike, Years from now though we will make it very hard for even a limited strike option on anyones part. You cant deny the success of the PAC 3 or the Navy systems, They will make THAAD a better reality.
And yes I was mocking you because I say that all the time and people give me hell for it, Nothing personal I just thought it was funny.

thats just typical of most you lot always thinking america is number 1 and cant be touched those lazers wow as mentioned they do not even have enough russia i am sure have there own top secret projects plus there air deffence network is as you could say one of the best stealths aint invinable im sure russia can down most or even take them out on the ground.

soon china will rival up america.

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

I presume you mean the PAC-3 and THAAD.
The PAC-3 is operational. I've seen some pics(at ATS?) of it at Kadena AFB.

The THAAD isn't operational I believe.
But I cannot understand why PAC-3 can't be jammed? Is there a basic limitation?

Also I'm unsure of how good the PAC-3 would be against manueverable ICBMs like the TopolM esp because they have not been tested against the same; and that is because the US is not in possession of manueverable hypersonic projectiles(as far as I know).

There's a lot of weird stuff going on in this thread with lasers and the likes:

The ABL is not operational as of now.
From what I've read, the system needs to be in proxmity(300-600km) of the actual missile during its boost phase in order to shoot in down. This translates to a necessity of proximity to the launch site itself, especially for solid fueled ICBMs(Topol M is solid fueled).
That will not be possible for large countries like Russia and China.

So a lot of grey areas here.
Sorry can't trust you 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.

The Bears will have escorting fighters as well and shooting down cruise missiles with aircraft is not so easy.

With the service intro of the PAC 3 Patriot, Russian Bombers don't stand a chance.

There are not enough Patriot batteries to cover that much space with and the Bears wont be coming into range either way.

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.

The Pac-2's were still not much use against 1970 era Cruise missiles so don't expect too much. The Aegis system is largely untested and the only thing it's managed to shoot down so far is a civilian airliner which it's allegedly thought to be a attacking Iranian aircraft. If that's the case it's any ones guess how it will deal with decoys.

Russia can boast all they want but they are still very weak compared to NATO.

In my opinion Russia today can lay waste to NATO in exactly the same way it could do in 1985.

Stellar

[edit on 23-8-2007 by StellarX]

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.

You are describing the capabilities of the S-300 variety and Russian deploys several hundred of more these system than does the US.

We bankrupted the Soviets in the cold war and we can do it again.

The US could not bankrupt the USSR and it did not as it admitted by even western intelligence and defense specialist.

Yes the PAC 3 that is in service in many theaters right now can handle sophisticated ICBMs. You need to trust me on that

It can not handle ICBMs and i have yet to see a source that claims it's effective against ICBMs.

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.

Not as far as i think anyone can prove and certainly not in numbers that will change anything.

You have the big ICBM killer witch is moving slow but who really knows.

?

The laser system witch is now in testing.

Both the USSR and the USA have had operational laser weapons since at least the early 70's; don't be fooled by the propaganda.

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.

So can the Sa-2/5/10 and they were actually consistently deployed in numbers that could matter. The Pac-3 is not deployed in numbers and i wonder about it's ability to hit nuclear warheads to say nothing of cruise missiles.

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.

Major success against who?

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.

I don't think they will but i know they could and i am confident that i can show how they will win and completely so.

If we position Patriots around every base and major city then the risk of an attack is far diminished.

Standard patriots have no capability against ICBM's and even the Pac-3 has not proved itself even against test TBM type weapons.

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.

www.cdi.org...

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.

www.ceip.org...

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.

www.jfsc.ndu.edu/current_students/documents_policies/documents/jca_cca_awsp/Cruise_Missile_Defense_Final.doc

As far as the Blackjack bomber is concerned, Its so big we would see it take off on radar lol.

Quite unlikely. There are in fact reports of Blackjacks coming quite close to US/Canadian airspace without being detected at all...

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.

The US air defenses are feeble or negligible compared to what Russia deploys and the Blackjack odds for mission success is certainly far higher than the B-2's.

Stellar

[edit on 23-8-2007 by StellarX]

Well Done Neon -

its called posturing - as you across the pond might have missed relations between the Moscow and the UK have been a little poor recently and Mr putin obviously feels it a good time to rattle a few sabres. We have had a rash of expulsions recently and I would guess this amounts to "jaw jaw" and bluster.

We seem to have seen things quiet down over the last week or 2 and given I live at the end of a runway nothing serious moved in here (aside from a USAF Jet) so I guess its all gone quiet now.