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.

 

a serious question about the US air force

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
The September 2007 raid by Israel on the suspected Syrian nuclear site was as stealthy as it gets


Yes, I found that to be a fascinating indication of how advance U.S. aircraft countermeasure are. I felt that Israel was not only taking out a suspected nuclear site, there were also doing a "testing 1, 2, 3" of Russia's latest anti-air system export. The result was powerful in that it once again proved that Western technology was superior.


Originally posted by dbates
According to this Debka article the Syrians don't know if the intruding aircraft came in from the East, West, or South. Basically they're in the dark as to how the Israeli (Western) aircraft were able to pull off this manuver. Syrian pride in their newly purchased systems was rapidly deflated with their inablility to do anything to stop the intruding aircraft.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


This goes back to the same old same old we saw during the Cold War. The U.S. focuses on smaller precision nuclear weapons while the Russians were making their bombs as big as they could to couner thier lack of aiming skill and rocketry guidance. The story hasn't changed much today. There's no doubt that many countries have excellent air systems that are quite deadly. Pound for pound, the U.S. Air Force is still superior bar none. I'm not just saying that because I was elisted in the USAF for 6 years although that might sway my opinion a little.


[edit on 7-4-2008 by dbates]




posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by intelgurl
 


a research lab with any isotopes of significant quantity to be deemed a threat would have been detetected by now (in fact within a short time of any bombing) -so in this case , irespective of `how` they got there - what was attacked could have frankly been anything ; the sad thing is with all teh rhetoric coming from israel about iran and nuclear weapons , one must fight through a sea of propaganda to find anything with a grain of truth; or maybe it was a case of `there nothing there but lets do this anyway`.

which funnily enough supports an illegal attack - and then israel threaten to nuke iran (and everyone else) if theres an attack on them..... ho hum business as usual.

as an aside - when will LiDAR be used more i wondrer



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
USAF is pretty on top of things, I was stationed at mtn home, idaho
its the 1st composite wing of USAF, within 48 hrs they are to big wherever there is a conflict in need of US attention. 48 hrs they have one or more of every aircraft they have, each working to help each other. Our f-16s may be mangled, but other countries like India, an elsewhere seem to want to buy em just as they are.....

Not to mention the array of Aircraft we have no clue about, back before the war in iraq started they were bringing in a new aircraft to replace both the f-15 an f-16, f-35 i think.... anywho, USAF is just one branch an they could handle themselves nicely whereever they go, for every one jet you see crashed, theres about hundreds of others conducting a mission between when that craft went down an now.

USAF has got their sac on tight.......



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trance Optic
USAF has got their sac on tight.......


SAC rules! No doubt. Beats MAC and TAC any day.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I think we're all missing the point here.

Post Vietnam, The USAF has not engaged any opposing force that is of similar capability; may that be firepower-wise or ELINT-wise.
This is a simple strategic doctrine the USAF has followed.
Anything wrong with it ? Absolutely not!
Its worked ever since then.

So as long as the USAF enjoys tactical and strategic flexibility in deploying its air force, that overwhelming air superiority or supremacy is an inevitability.

Stealth, SEAD, AWACS, Hi-Alt bombing, n/w centric information, kill chain cycle reduction with UAVs etc. ; you name it. There isn't much a lesser air force can do.

What happened in Syria with the Air Raids... well lets not just classify that as technological superiority only per say.
I would like to tag that as a good flight path plotting and some good flying, along with sloppy air defense deployments.

We can take a quick re-look at that flight path, which IIRC circumvents most air defense umbrellas in Syria.
Could we take a look at that again?
I found this post on that attack which I found quite interesting.
Bigger image here
Seems worth a discussion at least.



[edit on 7-4-2008 by Daedalus3]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by intelgurl
The September 2007 raid by Israel on the suspected Syrian nuclear site was as stealthy as it gets





This goes back to the same old same old we saw during the Cold War. The U.S. focuses on smaller precision nuclear weapons while the Russians were making their bombs as big as they could to couner thier lack of aiming skill and rocketry guidance. The story hasn't changed much today. There's no doubt that many countries have excellent air systems that are quite deadly. Pound for pound, the U.S. Air Force is still superior bar none. I'm not just saying that because I was elisted in the USAF for 6 years although that might sway my opinion a little.


[edit on 7-4-2008 by dbates]
I used to believe that, untill I bothered to do he research, as far as I'm concerned the U.S. has/is using "Media-Trickery" to make it seem as so, I suggest you read posts by a person called "StellarX" his posts are U.S. Military/Gov officials addmitting Russia had the advantage in MANY ways during to cold war, BTW Russia WarHeads have a 250 metter (760) feet CEP, well a 450kt-25MegaTon warhead dropping 760 feet away from the target is going to destroy hat target and EVERYThing for the next 5-8 miles, so Russia's nukes aren't THAT "inacurate" besides what the "mediatrickerists" like you to believe, just read StellarX's posts you be SHOCKED at just what U.S. Citezens have been lied to about the socalled "most-powerful military on earth"



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Lambo Rider
 


I suggest you read his posts on this forum and how much or lack or credibility he had after he tried to post his facts compared to a number of our best aviation experts on this forum. He is informed and does bring up good points in his posts but he suffer from more bias and media brainwashing in my opinion the Intelgurl or a number of our other posters.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


All good points Daedalus3 that the flight planing and airmenship is what has played a key role in any of these types of raids that the IDAF has undertook.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


appears i was attributing manson`s post to planeman - top find there and a star for you



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Lambo Rider
 

Well, I did admit to being slightly biased but I still believe that the point isn't completly invalid. I'll have to read up on what StellarX said on the subject. He usually makes a great case to support his opinion. If you have a link to any of these posts I'd appreciate it.

EDIT: On a related note, you might be interested to read this.

Syria strike details to be released

[edit on 8-4-2008 by dbates]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Yes, I found that to be a fascinating indication of how advance U.S. aircraft countermeasure are.


Which must be why the USAF keeps attacking third world nations that fights with 1960's and 70's technology? I don't understand why winning is such a powerful indication of superiority? Do you beat up all the ten year old kids in your area to show that you don't take nonsense from anyone?


I felt that Israel was not only taking out a suspected nuclear site, there were also doing a "testing 1, 2, 3" of Russia's latest anti-air system export.


What do you mean 'latest' anti-air export and why do you think the IAF will get into so much political trouble to simply 'test' stuff? Is that what you think professional soldiers do or advise their political leadership to do?


The result was powerful in that it once again proved that Western technology was superior.


What it proved was that the IAF have no rivals in the area ( as if we were in any doubt after the last few decades of examples) and that you can do a whole lot with the billions and billions worth of American 'aid' they so freely receive. If it can be shown that these systems where in fact in the area what would be proved if they failed to engage for one reason or another? Does the fact that patriot missile failed so miserably against scuds and cruise missiles in the first gulf war mean that the system was useless and why has it not been retired after against failing in so many instances in OIF?


Originally posted by dbates
According to this Debka article the Syrians don't know if the intruding aircraft came in from the East, West, or South.


Which should or should not been taken as evidence that the Syrians were entirely outclassed? How can we even judge a system when it's operators or employment failed to even determine the direction of the attack?


Basically they're in the dark as to how the Israeli (Western) aircraft were able to pull off this manuver.


Well presumably they had no aerial assets they even spotted the raid and apparently even less to interdict the jamming aircraft or the strike aircraft. So much for combined arms warfare.


Syrian pride in their newly purchased systems was rapidly deflated with their inablility to do anything to stop the intruding aircraft.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


That's the type of misplaced pride in equipment that gets just about everyone killed. Should the Germans have retired the Tiger series of tanks after they got stuck in the mud outside Leningrad being taken over by the Russians without having a chance to engage? Just because you fail to properly employ a weapon system does NOT mean that it 'sucks' is 'inferior' or wont work if it's employed as it was intended to. Air defense is just one arm and just like it did not save the Germans or the Brits in the second world war or the Vietnamese, various middle eastern nations since or the Iraqi's and Serbs more recently it's not going to save the Syrians until their air force can effectively interdict Israeli electronic support aircraft. Failing that i doubt if any amount of air defense is going to save them.

Does anyone ask why the Russians bother to maintain more than a thousand fighter aircraft irrespective of JUST their 650 ( four missiles ready to fire each with reloads nearby) S-300 launchers?


This goes back to the same old same old we saw during the Cold War. The U.S. focuses on smaller precision nuclear weapons while the Russians were making their bombs as big as they could to couner thier lack of aiming skill and rocketry guidance.


But is it really a question of means or is it just focus? Was the Russians really incapable of increasing accuracy or did they just find that it was more efficient to increase yield? Just show me that you have looked at this and aren't just quoting convention!


The story hasn't changed much today. There's no doubt that many countries have excellent air systems that are quite deadly.


No doubt at all.


Pound for pound, the U.S. Air Force is still superior bar none.


IT has never been that and few serious analyst have even bothered with making such a claim. Pound for pound exercises have shown that many other air forces do in fact do better despite lacking those hundreds of billions worth of investment funds. In every air war since air war came into fashion the USAF used brute force to do what could have been achieved with much lesser means. IF the USAF ever comes up against a nation which have invested similar resources in the development and construction of a modern air force we can know for sure but until that time we will just have to go by what exercises sure in the absence of actual rivals in the air.


I'm not just saying that because I was elisted in the USAF for 6 years although that might sway my opinion a little.


[edit on 7-4-2008 by dbates]


No kidding.

These posts gets me all worked up. Why do people insist on comparing apple's and oranges?

Stellar



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
I suggest you read his posts on this forum and how much or lack or credibility he had after he tried to post his facts compared to a number of our best aviation experts on this forum.


Aviation experts? Here? No insult intended but i have yet to run into the type of expert here that leaves me without words or questions.
If you want aviation 'experts' i can refer you to some forums where they are in fact congregating!


He is informed and does bring up good points in his posts but he suffer from more bias and media brainwashing in my opinion the Intelgurl or a number of our other posters.


You know your getting somewhere when even the detractors feels somehow compelled to compliment you before continuing to share their particular bias/ideas with you or just generally ripping into your supposed 'credibility' .


At least many people on this and the weapon forum seems to be admitting things they never did a year ago so maybe a good proportion of that 3000 posts weren't a complete waste of my time.
That being said i am of the opinion that the gates still need plenty of guarding to prevent the ignorants from sacking reality.


Stellar



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

I can imagine that the Russian's and everyone in the region and elsewhere who are dependent on similar systems are now rushing to figure out how to counter such and apparently awesome and utterly effective capability.


This I do agree with.
Irrespective of whether:


  1. the technology sucked or
  2. the operators sucked or
  3. the systems weren't operational as yet or
  4. even if the flight path did not fall into the Killzone of these AD systems or
  5. various permutations of all of the above


Everybody around the world who needs to take a look at this will be doing so with utmost interest.
Same situation when the Barak-1 failed/didn't fire on that Israeli LO frigate. Everybody stopped to take a look at what happened.

Not good news for the Russians in the first case and the Israelis in the second. Defense industries always take the flak, unnecessary or not, when certain things fail spectacularly.

EDIT: Stellar, did you read my thread on joint Indo-Chinese Air Exercises?
Really wanted to hear your (and Iskander's) thoughts on that one.


[edit on 8-4-2008 by Daedalus3]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Stellar I have always tried to respond to you posts in a informed manner and in an effort to draw conclusions. But I always have been at odds to the stand you take or tone you use in drawing your conclusions. I guess over all getting all information can help to root out the truth.

I'm sure there is lots of other forums out there of aviation experts but my point is that the group here has a number of different focuses/interests that help to say point out faked photos or Research accident rates on aircraft and possible reasons why those accidents took place. Military tactics and identifying aircraft as well that are brought forward is huge and also a critical but open mind to the possible advance projects that are out there that we don't know "about".

Say what you want about the people that contribute just as much or more then you do to this forum. But when you boil it down you need the people out there that are going to even read or post the stuff to even have the demand for this forum and if you weren't wrong some of the time or if I wasn't just as often. Well then there would be no need for this place.

A bit of a rant I know but I think its something that doesn't get said enough.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
This part is interesting. Written by Fulghum after his initial report. This indicates that the Syrians obviously knew of the impending attack since one of their radar stations was being attacked. The Syrians claim to have engaged the attacking fighters and their radars tracked two groups of fighters (possibly spoof), the fact the Syrians reported it first suggest that their actions were more successful than the Israelis who were forced to acknowledge and then released information later on.

The Pantsir was received in mid August and the action taken on the 6th of September, hardly enough time to deploy the system. For comparison, the S-300 took China roughly 3 months for full IOC. Compared to the Pantsir which is a relatively "untested" the IOC would take even longer because it has just received its design certification. This has been confirmed by the Pantsir's production operation manageer
russiatoday.ru...





The first event in the raid involved Israel's strike aircraft flying into Syria without alerting Syrian air defenses. The ultimate target was a suspected nuclear reactor being developed at Dayr az-Zawr. But the main attack was preceded by an engagement with a single Syrian radar site at Tall al-Abuad near the Turkish border.

The radar site was struck with a combination of electronic attack and precision bombs to allow the Israeli force to enter and exit Syrian airspace unobserved. Subsequently all of Syria's air-defense radar system went off the air for a period of time that encompassed the raid, U.S. intelligence analysts told Aviation Week.

aviationweek.com



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   
The USAF may well be a little over confident and underestimate its possible enemy capability's due to the fact it hasn't faced any real test since Vietnam or Korea. Iraq twice and Afghanistan are and were nothing more then milk runs . I would still rate the USAF in the world but it remains to be if the correct policy decisions will be made to allow this to continue .

Correct me if I'm wrong but the number of F-22 has been cutback to pay for the war in Iraq. If a new or superior(SP?) weapon is deployed in to few numbers its effectiveness is reduced. This was the case when the British first deployed Tanks during WW1.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by xpert11]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Stellar I have always tried to respond to you posts in a informed manner and in an effort to draw conclusions. But I always have been at odds to the stand you take or tone you use in drawing your conclusions. I guess over all getting all information can help to root out the truth.


And as far as i can remember you were testing conclusions instead of asking questions. I am sorry for my 'tone' but i still reckon it's better to sound slightly angry than to calmly propagate widely believed rumours and popular ( if sometimes reasonable seeming) mythology.


I'm sure there is lots of other forums out there of aviation experts but my point is that the group here has a number of different focuses/interests that help to say point out faked photos or Research accident rates on aircraft and possible reasons why those accidents took place.


What i tried to point out was that anything remotely resembling a aviation 'expert' are few and far between and while i most certainly don't know enough to even require such expert teachers i just take offense when some people try to imply that even above average ATS debates are all that intellectual or made by very knowledgeable people. If you want to consider yourself one of them that is certainly your business and since i have no specific reason to insult you i wont disagree.


Military tactics and identifying aircraft as well that are brought forward is huge and also a critical but open mind to the possible advance projects that are out there that we don't know "about".


At least one can discuss military tactics with some specifics but the advance project 'stuff' is really more like talking about UFO's than it is about aviation.


Say what you want about the people that contribute just as much or more then you do to this forum.


There are certainly many people who contribute more than i do but i would like to point out that i don't see half baked ideas/propaganda and popular mythology as the type of contribution i would like to be making. As you may or may not have noticed i try to do the dirty work of disagreeing with people on a point by point basis so as to partly point out how much nonsense would otherwise pass uncontested. Sure intellectuals would rather argue about advanced projects and how accidents happened , where no one is going to be shown to be wrong very often, but of how much use is that when it comes to denying ignorance? Shouldn't denying ignorance be all about undermining popular nonsense so as to form the basis of truly informed discussion?


But when you boil it down you need the people out there that are going to even read or post the stuff to even have the demand for this forum and if you weren't wrong some of the time or if I wasn't just as often. Well then there would be no need for this place.


Well the fact is i don't post UNLESS someone else already put their foot in it by presuming facts not in evidence. If i am responding to someone i would like to think their bias and or ignorance are apparent enough as to be deserving of the type of referenced objections i normally bring to the table. I am NOT one of those people that get involved in friendly chats about which part of aircraft failed based on the evidence a big dark stain on the ground yields. In my opinion lay people should stick to proper sourcing and allow the 'experts' to indulge in their speculation.


A bit of a rant I know but I think its something that doesn't get said enough.


You are obviously free to disagree with anything i say, or just to question my 'methodology' ( if you will allow me to use such word to describe how i do what you don't like), as i am human and do make mistakes. All of that wont prevent me from reading either your posts or your sources as i do value your input if not your particular sentiments towards me.

I don't even remember when we have ever been engaged in a discussion so maybe it would help to refresh my memory and allow me to reconsider the basis of your judgement of me?

Stellar

[edit on 9-4-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by chinawhite
 


So I have a more fundamental question here:
The Israelis came in from the south, flew eastward, bombed, and the exited through the NW into Turkey right?
I am assuming this as the flight plan. Correct me if I'm wrong.

so the pre-emptive strike on tht Tal-a-Abaid place was a strike at an exit point, not entry point.
Whats with that?!

Logic would dictate that you conduct SEAD/EW at point(s) of entry to clear the way for you interdiction force.
Unless it was a diversion that caused a network-wide directive in Syrian
Air Defenses to look North ward (concentrate northward(?), as 'looking' is omni directional in radar terminology).
This created a lack-of-attention toward the south where the main strike force came from then?

Another way of looking at it is, that the northern SEAD/EW attack was meant to clear the way for the returning IAF jets that had flown low till now in Syrian territory, and were now low of fuel and hence literally hi-tailing out of Syrian airspace.


Jus some thoughts. Makes for an interesting discussion.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I just can't seem to help myself so here goes....


Originally posted by xpert11
The USAF may well be a little over confident and underestimate its possible enemy capability's due to the fact it hasn't faced any real test since Vietnam or Korea.


What test's did it face in Korea or Vietnam? Did either of those countries have aircraft factories churning out planes by the thousands as the Germans used to do? The last test the USAF had was during world war two and as was proved it needed all the help it could get and largely managed the victory by a large excess of resources.


Iraq twice and Afghanistan are and were nothing more then milk runs .


In comparative terms yes but i think the Iraqi's have a whole lot of explain as compared to what the North Vietnamese managed. I understand that having a safe place to land makes all the difference in the world but still....


I would still rate the USAF in the world but it remains to be if the correct policy decisions will be made to allow this to continue .


I think it's fair to suggest that the USAF is the premier air force in the world , especially so when it comes to actual war fighting, but if i could have given another nation that infrastructure i am confident that at least half a dozen could operate and fight it more efficiently than the USA currently is. What the USAF have done it has mostly achieved trough brute force and by throwing large volumes of money at the problem and i have no doubt that others could have achieved the same with similar means.


Correct me if I'm wrong but the number of F-22 has been cutback to pay for the war in Iraq. If a new or superior(SP?) weapon is deployed in to few numbers its effectiveness is reduced. This was the case when the British first deployed Tanks during WW1.


But the F-22 is no super weapon to start with and if it's supposed stealth capabilities does not measure up it's little other than a F-15 with less ordinance and fuel and evolutionary developments of tracking and engagement systems. If the stealth holds up to closer scrutiny, or actual combat testing, it's still quite expensive but then by no means the worse investment the pentagon has ever made.

As to the numbers i would be surprised if it exceeds 140 even if the current contract is still for 170? That being said that is a whole lot of trouble if they can truly remain 'unseen'.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
reply to post by StellarX
 


Stellar I have always tried to respond to you posts in a informed manner and in an effort to draw conclusions. But I always have been at odds to the stand you take or tone you use in drawing your conclusions. I guess over all getting all information can help to root out the truth.

I'm sure there is lots of other forums out there of aviation experts but my point is that the group here has a number of different focuses/interests that help to say point out faked photos or Research accident rates on aircraft and possible reasons why those accidents took place. Military tactics and identifying aircraft as well that are brought forward is huge and also a critical but open mind to the possible advance projects that are out there that we don't know "about".

Say what you want about the people that contribute just as much or more then you do to this forum. But when you boil it down you need the people out there that are going to even read or post the stuff to even have the demand for this forum and if you weren't wrong some of the time or if I wasn't just as often. Well then there would be no need for this place.

A bit of a rant I know but I think its something that doesn't get said enough.
I KNEW you didn't like what he (StellarX) posted, because it was facts disprooving the "MYTH" that U.S.A. ALWAYS was better than Russia, instead of pointing out one by one ALL of the "dicredited" things Stellar had said on ATS you just posted this
I know why you HAVEN'T: it's because what he posted is "PROOVEN FACTS" you just confirmed it with your LACK of pointing them out!!



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join