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.

 

B-2 bombers practice on US targets

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   

B-2 bombers practice on US targets


news.yahoo.com

HONOLULU - More than 18,000 feet above the mountains on Hawaii's biggest island, two B-2 stealth bombers drop six 2,000-pound inert bombs on a training range below.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   
So I wonder how long will it be before, if they havnt already, start buzzing Russian aispace ?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS


So I wonder how long will it be before, if they havnt already, start buzzing Russian aispace ?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


and what ?? then end up being targets for Kochulga M passive antistealth radar ...
in fact with the current russian early warnig systems is in ruins the trident missile launch from Barents Sea will decimate 1/2 of the russian nuclear arsenal in less than 7 minutes if USa wanted to attack russia , though it would be suicide as the remainder 1/4 mobile systems like topol m will decimate USA


i don't think they will buzz russian airspace, its just implicit sabrerattling for explict sabre rattling of Russia



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Why would they buzz russian airspace? I would think they'd be buzzing irans airspace first to start ww3, and since russia is on irans side, then buzz russian airspace.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
in fact with the current russian early warnig systems is in ruins the trident missile launch from Barents Sea will decimate 1/2 of the russian nuclear arsenal in less than 7 minutes if USa wanted to attack russia , though it would be suicide as the remainder 1/4 mobile systems like topol m will decimate USA

Just an FYI; To "decimate" is to reduce by one 10th. As in 1 out of 10.
Decimation is an acceptable loss if it leads to strategic victory.

So ya know...

[edit on 22-11-2007 by BitRaiser]



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Uh what??? Practicing using US bombing ranges means that they're going to start buzzing Russian airspace????
Where exactly do you THINK they're going to practice if not US bombing ranges?? They HAVE to practice dropping weapons SOMEWHERE.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
From the title of this thread, I thought this was going to be something about targetting US cites, but after reading, it seems more like the op is concerned about moving in over the russian territory.

The military has targeted US cites, industrial plants, and even vehicles for decades. With weapons systems that track and Laser designate, the operators use civilian assests to practice. Hopefully, they're not lasing us. but I wouldn't even put that past them.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by paraclete1
 


Did you not read the part about the training run on Pearl Harbor? What nations have large navies with large ports? I doubt it was a practice run for China.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Russia, China, North Korea, Iran.... Just to name a few. And Pearl Harbor is a MILITARY port. So the USAF is practicing to attack the USN? So just because they're practicing to attack ships, using a military port, which is better than a civilian port, they're planning to attack the US?
This has been going on for YEARS. If they were going to attack US cities why bother using B-2s? Simply file flight plans for the bombers, get them using approved IFF codes from Air Traffic Control and they could go anywhere they wanted to and no one would bat an eye.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by BitRaiser
 


a military stratagem that causes extreme devastation is stratagem that any sane person would forever avoid.

is winning a military battle worth the deaths of millions!?.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
um heres a thought though...iS military may oppose they could always be gearing up for the ultimate fight of suppression against ourself...just a thought



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Im with Zaphod. So what? They have to practice. Bombers practice all the time....all it means is - practice.

Military holds exercises all the time. They have been doing these things for years. I have lived on military bases for years - It is not out of the ordinary.




[edit on 22-11-2007 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
That's a very misleading title. US aircraft constantly use bombing ranges in the US.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322

and what ?? then end up being targets for Kochulga M passive antistealth radar ...


Ummm, how is the non-radiating B2 going to be picked up by a passive detection system?



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Russia, China, North Korea, Iran.... Just to name a few. And Pearl Harbor is a MILITARY port. So the USAF is practicing to attack the USN? So just because they're practicing to attack ships, using a military port, which is better than a civilian port, they're planning to attack the US?
This has been going on for YEARS. If they were going to attack US cities why bother using B-2s? Simply file flight plans for the bombers, get them using approved IFF codes from Air Traffic Control and they could go anywhere they wanted to and no one would bat an eye.


I think you misunderstood my point. China's navy is no where near on a scale like ours. They dont even have an aircraft carrier. Yeah they have alot of subs but my point is a simulated attack run on Pearl Harbor isn't a message to someone like China. Its a message to someone with a large surface fleet like Russia.

I never said anything about them attacking the US. Where did that come from?



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
China has a much larger surface fleet than people think. And they do have a carrier that they are supposedly in the process of rebuilding. The ex-Varyag is rumored to be close to operational, with a 2008-09 time frame for being operational. They have AT LEAST four or five new very modern cruiser/destroyer types under construction, along with their submarine fleet.


Type 054/054A stealthy FFG. The Type 054A has a larger displacement and VLS. Two were launched in 2006, with two more nearing completion and two more under construction.

Type 071 LPD. Similar in size and mission to the LPD 17 San Antonio class with the USN. It includes a launching deck for amphibious craft, helicopters, and has the potential for a VLS system.

Two Improved Sovremenny destroyers built just for the PLAN by the Russians. The Sovremennys were built to work with other assets to hunt and kill CVNs.

Weishanhu 887 replenishment ship. This joins several other replenishment ships that will give the Chinese a true blue water naval force.

Type 022 FAC stealth catamarans. These are designed with high speed and stealth in mind to launch missile attacks. Believed to be 20-30 already built and as many as another 50 to be built.

Up to 50 SU-33 aircraft. These are navalized SU-27s built to fly off the Varyag. Russia employs these on the Kuznetsov.

Type 52C Aegis type destroyers.

Type 52B guided missile destroyers.

Type 51C area-air defense guided missile destroyers.

Project 956 carrier hunter destroyers.

Yuan AIP diesel submarines.

12 Kilo type diesel submarines.

12 Type 039 Song diesel submarines.

2 Type 093 SSNs.

2 Type 094 SSBNs

7 Yuting II amphibious assault vessels, with more on order.

Rumors of a follow on indigenous aircraft carrier to be built after ex-Varyag is in service. This doesn't include the modernization of their air force as well. They have many Russian designed fighters, as well as new indigenous designed AWACS and fighters.

Sound like a small navy to you? Sure sounds like a pretty powerful navy to me. Which would you rather have, a USAF that goes in to support the Navy in a battle that has to learn as they go how to attack ships, or a USAF that's practicing on our OWN ships and shipyards so that if they DO have to go in to support a USN attack they already know what they're doing beforehand?

During WWII the Army Air Corps was pressed into service attacking Japanese naval vessels with B-17s. When they attacked from altitude, they were less than successful more often than not. When they attacked from low level they were a lot more successful but a lot more vulnerable.

Now me personally, I'd like to see the USAF preparing for a possible Chinese threat, and learning how to attack shipping assets for ANY nation we may end up fighting. It doesn't matter at ALL if they have a carrier or not. Carriers are force projectors, but not necessary for a powerful navy. The key is denying air power to your enemy.


Oh and for the record, "attacking" Pearl Harbor does NOT teach them to attack a carrier, as there aren't any based there. It DOES teach them how to get around an Aegis radar and how to attack SMALLER ships.

[edit on 11/22/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Willard856
 


kochulga M is reported to detect the RF noise, around the engines in the triangulation mode, normally difficult to distinguish for other passive radars like Vera or Vega



Kolchuga is sufficiently sensitive to detect US stealth aircraft from unconventional sources of RF emissions, including radiation from exhaust trails and electromagnetic interference from the engine.
en.wikipedia.org...

this is not possible for most other ESM systems and Kolchuga is a quantum leap



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Until it is seen in actual combat though it's simply another rumor. There are several weapons systems out that claim to detect stealth aircraft, but the question is, without an actual plane to test them on, using active measures to avoid them, how do they KNOW that it works nearly as well as they say it does?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


and looking at stealth it is claimed that it is virtually invulnerable just because it was effectively used against third world countries whose SAM's are of 60's and 70's and easily jammable by ECM measures .....



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
The military does NOT claim it's nearly invulnerable. All the people that I know that work on them admit that they're exactly what they are. They're a way to make it more survivable and more likely to reach their targets.

However, the same could be said about every Russian SAM system to come out in recent years. It's going to make stealth obsolete, and shoot down every stealth aircraft it comes across according to people that talk about them.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join