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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


You really should read your own references eh? The bolded part is mine eh



The relatively cheap Ukrainian Kolchuga radar station, which is able to detect and identify practically all known active radio devices mounted on ground, airborne, or marine objects, actually cancels out all those billions of dollars spent on stealth-based armaments.
www.hi-tech.org.ua...


Note 'Active" radio devices. Active being the key. If a B-2 of F-22 comes in with radar lit up then yeah its going to be detected.

Both Iraq and perhaps the hitler like Serbians have recieved the radar according to most reports

www.taraskuzio.net...

Among others and the results are plain to see as to how thier air defence systems worked.

As far as the B-2's stealh, it seems it already has come up against this sytem at least once and perhaps twice in combat eh? As the very name and description from your site suggests it only works IF the target aircraft or ground target is emitting, if its not, where exactly is the advantage?




posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They bought 50 SU-33s, and they have laid down the no slip coating they put down before putting to sea. Seriously, I'm going by credible sources when I say that she'll be operational in the 2008-2009 timeframe.


Well there was a lot of hullabaloo over these Su-33s about a year back and all info seems to have stagnated at that timem period. No new updates that I can locate at least.

The no-skid coating is good. A definite indication that they are serious about the carrier etc.. (Something which I was hesitant to believe at first).

But operationalising the carrier is another thing, and like I said before, a relative concept.



I only post things like this when I have VERIFIED them. If I don't verify them, I don't post them as facts. The FACT is that the ex-Varyag is getting closer and closer to operational. It won't take as long as you think to get her fully operational if they take delivery of the SU-33s and begin land based training with them, as the USN does.


Indeed. But your post indicated that you were did not find anything amiss in the 2007/08/09 timeframe..So I presumed that you believed that the chinese
would have a fully-ops carrier by 09 latest.

Again, I'm sure that the Varyag will see seaworthy operations soon. But how soon is soon?

Facts:


  1. The Su-33 deal as of Oct 06 was said to be 'on'. Nothing eems to have been circulating about the sme since then. No confirmation of the deal. No successive news of PLAN instructors going to that Su-33 Training Centre(I forget where it is) to train as Su-33 instructors so that they can come back and start building OCUs. Once the OCUs are created then they can begin land-based training on mainland China.Now they could be very hush hush about this but I see no reason esp since the carrier is there for everyone to see. Also I wonder what happened to the TVC+STOBAR theories for a naval J-10. Any updates on that? I couldn't find much.
  2. 2) No news on the propulsion system. China is very capable of building its own steam turbine based ones, but then again, this would be their first aircraft carrier engine. First one that they'd operate;building is a whole new story. How much are the Russians helping on this? Nobody knows and so we can all speculate.
  3. Carrier components like ASW, AEW, CIWS are all in their infancy for this Varyag adventure. There's rumors of indigenous designs and the likes. Have they started fitting these bits ont the main body and training crew for the same? Who Knows? Rather.. 'Hu knows!!'




So you see 2007(almost over),08 or even 09 seems a tad too early for the very first chinese 'operational' carrier for me.

But then I found this nice little sentence on sinodefence.com:



It was speculated that following extensive studies the ship would be finally converted into a fully operational aircraft carrier for training purpose.


So its really a mystery in terms of determining what exactly the PLAN plan on getting fully-ops in this time frame. On the big hulk of the ship w/o the air wing? With the carrier components or w/o them?
Its all a big mystery.
IMHO they would have an operational carrier in the true sense of he word 2012 onwards and that too if they're really burning the midnight oil on this till then.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
The contract for the first two was supposed to be completed by December of last year. China was going to take delivery of them for testing/training purposes, and have the option of as many as 50 more. Delivery of the two would be late this year or next year. No firm date was announced. Initial testing was to be land based, with them moving out to a carrier for later tests. So that tells us there that either Varyag is farther along than thought, or they worked out a deal to test on the Kusnetszov. The deal for the 50 fighters was confirmed in February of this year. Varyag have tentatively been renamed Shi Lang, and given the pennant number 83.

You can say how long it would take to become operational all you want, but the clues are that they are within a few years of having it in service. She PROBABLY had no engines, rudders, and few electronics, but that wasn't confirmed for sure.

China has an ultimate goal of three carriers by 2016. THAT I have trouble believing, but I can see MAYBE having two by then, if they lay the second one down soon, or have already.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   
B-2 bombers practice on US targets

Throughout the 80's , I was stationed at N.A.S. Fallon NV. , now the top gun school . Google Earth Fallon , and check out the blackouts .
The entire U.S.Navy carrier group used this bombing range , and the Air Force would arrive , nukes in transit , with a mandatory stopover in Fallon .
Frenchmen NV. just outside Fallon , was a underground nuke test site .
This is located next to the White Sands Missile Range .
I personally watched napalm sorties at this site and worked with E.O.D. disposing grade 3 ordnance .
Of course the U.S. D.O.D. practice on DOMESTIC targets .



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 






Note 'Active" radio devices. Active being the key. If a B-2 of F-22 comes in with radar lit up then yeah its going to be detected



yes, mainly active radio devices and how would a B-2 hunt for a ground Topol M launchers or mobile command centers though on a longe range , using radar, unless USA has a satellites provided prefed data coordinates to B-2 are already fed in in its supercomputers and if topols are not already mobile or in case in near range , with IR sensors possibly , thus not using radiolocator
also kochulga is capable of detecting communication and navigation emissions reportedly in 250 km range and other electronic emissions , which was responsible for fueling speculation about kolchuga being capable of detecting RF noise around the engines


Purpose: The Kolchuga system provides identification, early warning and location of radio frequency emissions from land, sea, or air platforms. Kolchuga can detect communications and navigation emissions, but is designed to detect radar emitters. Kolchuga can assist in the production of the Electronic Order of Battle, as well as providing early warning, target classification and limited tracking.

Function. Both variants of Kolchuga search for electronic emissions. Bearing information is provided for all emissions, but pulsed emissions are analyzed further to allow determination of emitter type and function. .
www.iraqwatch.org...


this is speculation i was refering too:


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...




Both Iraq and perhaps the hitler like Serbians have recieved the radar according to most reports

nonsense , the reports suggested that serbians had tamara passive radar not kolchuga
and as for the iraq there is not even proof to determine whehter kolchuga was sold or not :

Janes Defence Weekly reports that the US and UK sent investigators to Kiev in October 2002 to explore claims from March of that year that Ukraine had defied UN arms sanctions by selling the Kolchuga system to Iraq the Ukrainian government denied the allegations and they were never confirmed.
www.janes.com...




Among others and the results are plain to see as to how thier air defence systems worked
As far as the B-2's stealh, it seems it already has come up against this sytem at least once and perhaps twice in combat eh?

as i said i am yet to see any proof for your claims , there is not even proof that whether kolchuga was received by iraq or not

and if you are refering to the tamara ,one f-117 was shot down and another posibly damaged accoridng to western sources, while according to serbians , three f-117 and 1 b-2 was shot down , though it is difficult for me to believe that b-2 was shot down because tamara cannot detect navigation/communication/ electronic emissions or RF noise like kolchuga




hitler like Serbians

western propaganda BS as usual , the CIA helped the KLA and then brought in NATO



[edit on 26-11-2007 by manson_322]

[edit on 26-11-2007 by manson_322]

[edit on 26-11-2007 by manson_322]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by lnc_63
 


Of course we use US targets for practice, but how often is it reported by the news? How often did you have the AP there covering the exercises where you were at? This was a message to someone and not for domestic consumption. Ask yourself why was this reported and how about the timing of it?





[edit on 26/11/07 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   





3 carriers by 2016...

Well lets wait and watch..



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


I have never thought that using B-2 to hunt mobile missiles was a feasable plan.

As far as transphers to Iraq and Bosnia, the proof is no more or less valid than the claims of this radar system.

As far as detecting RF emissions from engines etc. the engines on the B-2 are buried within the structure. That structure is patrially comprised of RAM I doubt that those low emissions could be detected



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Just think about it for a minute.

Russia or any other enemy does not have to target population centers.
Just one or two bombs going off in any two major cities in the US would send this country into anarchy! There would be ethnic cleansing and bands of thugs taking every thing in their path. The rule of law would be gone and it would be every man for himself. (another good reason to become a gun owner)

There are many criminals and moral morons that would use the chaos to their advantage. There are also many survivalists ready to take up the challenge. You just need the sparks to start the flames.

The bottom line is we would kill ourselves faster than the enemy could.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by manson_322
 


I have never thought that using B-2 to hunt mobile missiles was a feasable plan.

As far as transphers to Iraq and Bosnia, the proof is no more or less valid than the claims of this radar system.

As far as detecting RF emissions from engines etc. the engines on the B-2 are buried within the structure. That structure is patrially comprised of RAM I doubt that those low emissions could be detected




I have never thought that using B-2 to hunt mobile missiles was a feasable plan.

basically , it was designed for this purpose in cold war , to hunt down soviet rail mobile missiles(NATO name:SS-24) and road mobile topol m




As far as detecting RF emissions from engines etc. the engines on the B-2 are buried within the structure. That structure is patrially comprised of RAM I doubt that those low emissions could be detected

as a long range , your agruement is right , but if B-2 is nearby , then i do not think so



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join