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.

 

What about Russia's Stealth?!?! What about the others?!?!

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
i wouldn't say liberty, because, u guys really don't have the money to spend, really, if i were america's president, i don't know what i would do, maybe first thing is raise taxes, what do u guys have 5%? i woyuld put it up to 15% just like in Canada, that would tremendously boost your revenue, like almost 60%, maybe even more, probably even more, this tactic mgith give u a positive budget, let me see, just wait.....................yes, it would, if it did increase budget reenues by 60%, u'd have atotal buedget revenue of $2.8512 trillion, which would give u a postitve $695.2 billion, but that still won't be enough to pay off your yearly trade defecit, and if u raise taxes b 300%, there will be severe riots, and protests, people would go on strike weakening the economy, there might be the need of a military presence to come down the country

really, liberty is the wrong word, just my opinion




posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Here ya go Dima - Clinton

We had a plan, But 4 planes and 19 guys changed all that.


lol, never happen Dima, 300%.


Or every American could pay $25,665, and POOF, it would be gone.

But I think the goverment will fix what it broke. We need to spend less on defence, Not enough to make us lose our superpower status, but i would say double of whatever country is in second, Like: If Russia spends 50 bil then the US should spend 100 billion, but of course it should change if Russia all the sudden spends 500 billion.
I heard the US spends 1 Trillion dollars each year on keeping its massive nuclear arsenal ready to launch at a moments notice, I dont want us to get rid of all our ICBM's and whatnot but I think cutting that in half couldn't hurt.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 03:58 AM
link   
As that chart was prepared in 1999 and represents merely a forecast, the word IF is rather prominent on it, does anyone know if the forecast figures for 1999 throught to 2003 were correct?

Also re the criticisms and claims being made about the T-50, again conclusions are being drawn from a fictitious graphic, the booms and angles highlighted could be nothing more than artistic flourishes. You only have to look at the vast differences between almost every pre first flight artist impression ever published and the resultant hardware. Even the YF-22 was massively different machine from the F/A-22 of today and that wasn't even a drawing, it flew. For this reason I hold the view that proclamations about where the T-50 will be a success or indeed a failure in any particular area are groundless. The best we can do is anticipate an interesting new fighter and speculate about it but dissection of a drawing is going way out on a limb.

[edit on 15-12-2004 by waynos]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   

waynos
the YF-22 was massively different machine from the F/A-22 of today

In what ways? what is so different?



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dima
so what do u guys think of my economic post?

here are some links when i searched for S-400 can detect F-22

www.politicsforum.org...

wait, here, let me check a few more times, most of the links don't work, friggin internet


You supplied a source by a mans view without experience nor knowledge. Please, answer my question.

[edit on 15-12-2004 by Laxpla]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   
You only have to look at it to see the differences. The YF-22 looked almost cartoonish and I couldn't seriously imagine it as the replacement for the F-15 when it was first announced as the winner of ATF, this is not something that comes to mind when I see the hugely impressive production version.


This quote is lifted from the aeroflight website;


Development History:

YF-22 Two development aircaft - first aircraft with General Electric YF120 engines, second aircraft with Pratt & Whitney YF119 Engines.

F-22 EMD Airframe and avionics development aircraft with revised wing and tailplane planforms, wider nose, engine intakes moved aft and Pratt & Whitney F120 Engines fitted.


Spot the difference


external image


external image


external image

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 18/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   
laxpla, the reports do not specifically mention that it will be able to track the F-22, but it does say future stealth aircraft in general, so we can only assume, as most of the specs of this system are unknown

laxpla, give me some sites that specifically say that it will be able to make useless, opposing air-defences

thanx



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dima
about the F-22, i heard that it had the RCS of a tricycle from someone here at ATS


That's funny. Go look at the head of a pin, and tell me how big it is.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   
whats so funny, there's nothing funny going on?


oh, and by the way, for all those americans that were quick to point out how those two russian ICBM's didn't get out of their silo's in those tests in Siberia, here's a link that says a missile failed to even launch!

missile launches have only proved a 62.5% success rate(5/8)

www.defensenews.com...

i don't want to rub it in, just americans kinda rubbed that incident on russians



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Despite what you hear, launching rockets is a dodgy business, no matter who pushes the button.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   
not really, i've seen videos of SAM systems launch rockets like wildfire, one after the other after the other, and ICBM on the other hand, yes, but its not too technical

just saying that everyone makes mistakes, that was the point of the post



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dima
not really, i've seen videos of SAM systems launch rockets like wildfire, one after the other after the other, and ICBM on the other hand, yes, but its not too technical

just saying that everyone makes mistakes, that was the point of the post


Solid-fuel rockets are very reliable, I should have said that launching liquid-fuel rockets is a dodgy business. My dad builds satellites that are launched on the Titan IV, so he, and consequently I, have picked up quite a bit of information on this kind of thing.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   

yo Disturbed Dude, just, give me a link that states that they had to "light" up the skys just to shoot it down, if i'm not mistaken wasn't the F-117 shot down by an SA-3 or SA-6 and it was tracked by radar, there were multiple bullet holes, which were caused by a 23mm anti-aircraft gun, yet there was also a large amount of damage that was created by a SAM system www.aeronautics.ru...
here's a link, its the second large paragraph


Common sense never seems to do it. The fact is, if they could track a stealth plane like you suggest, they would have shot down more than a

cnnstudentnews.cnn.com... F-117.


i know russiqa doesn't have an F-22 to test against, but they still have RAM and coat paintings, and that downed F-117 to test it on, they are a little back in american ways of stealth, but, it won't make much of a difference because russia's future T-50 has the same basic shape of the F-22, look at the third picture and is said to employ stealth technology in the form of RAM and paint coatings, but it mgiht be equipeed with plasma stealth technology www.rfforces.com...


RAM isn't what makes the F-22's stealth stand out. It's an overall design. You're still missing the point. The F-22 isn't our stealthiest plane. The B-2 is far more difficult to shoot down, and would be used for penetration where Russia deploys the best SAM's.

As for that link you gave, the plane doesn't even exist yet. It could hardly be used to test Russian SAM's.


the F-22 can take out 5 F-15's, that doesn't seem reasonable, because, FIVE F-15's can use their radars to triangulate the position of the F-22 to give a braod range of attack, and different methods of deception, like one goes low, one goes high, the other goes tot eh left and the other goes to the right, wtih one in the centre, i thik an F-15 would die to an F-22, but i don't think an F-22 can beat more than 3 or 4 F-15's, 5, mmmmmmmm, probably not, YES, Zerg strategy(Zerg are sick, but i prefer the Protoss)


You can make whatever theoretical argument you want. You have no proof that this test was in any way flawed. Other simulations not done by the military, or even Americans have given far more impressive results. The F-22 was given a 10:1 kill ratio against SU-35's. Even if you count in inaccuracies in their simulations, it's still impressive.


the way u described the F-22, i agree with you, it has extremely advanced avionics suite, with a computing power equivalent to two Crey supercomputers, it has really advanced radar(is it passive?)APG-77 or something, long range, definitely because of its supercruise ability, accurate missiles, yes, but russia has better missiles, as Lazpla stated, and stealth, for which there are many counters to


The F-22's missiles are 90% accurate. That's better than any Russian model I know of.


the only thing i don't understand is that u said it can supercruise to move out of the way, i don't understand, Mach 1.5 is very slow for modern aircraft, the F-22 has good maneuverability, maybe thats what you were trying to point out


It's not the raw speed it gets, its the fact that it can fly at a relatively high speed for a longer period of time. It doesn't have to dodge an enemy missile. It can simply fire its shot from a long range, and fly away before the enemy knows they are there. This is probably the biggest asset of supercruise.


1.yes, u guys have a 10.99 trillion economy with a GDP of 37800, which ranks 1 and 3 in the world respectively, yet u guys are only grwoing at 3.1% compared to Russia's 7.3% and Moldova's 6.3%


Russia is a developing economy. Nations do not keep those rates up.


2. okay lets get to public debt, now, america spends $2.156 trillion, and they make $1.782 trillion every year after taxes(well, all this info is 2004), now, that is a defecit of $374 billion/that was last year, and it will relatively be the same as this year, so basically its $370 billion a year, now that will increase the public debt by about 5.40% a year and america's total public debt is 62.4%, your total public debt amounts to $6.858 trillion


Most developed economies have large debt. Most have a larger debt percentage wise when compared to their total GDP. European nations are a good example.


Moldova on the other hand spends $443.4 million and earns $474.8 million, therefore, just like russia, they have abudget surplus of $31.4 million annually, so basically thats $30 million every year, now their public debt accounts for 88.4% of their GDP, which is the most of America and Russia and one of the highest in the world, yet this translates to $6.89 billion, the $30 million a year will decrease the public debt by 4.36% a year, which is even higher than Russia's


These nations are developing. They are strong exporters. It's not the same as America's economy.


4.now, onto the second last thing, trade turnover, america imports products and services worth $1.26 trillion every year, yet it only exports $714.5 billion, therefore, the trade turnover is a defecit of $713.24 billion, thats annually, now, your current position in trade turnover is at -$541.8 billion, lets compare this to Russia's and Moldova's


America is a consumer society. We buy products from nations like Russia, and China, who are exporters. It is not a sign of a weak economy. Those nations could not survive without Americans buying their products. They couldn't survive without American companies investing in them.


i hope this has cleared all your thoughts about the american economy and has removed the blind fold that Bush has sneakily placed on your eyes


Our economy has been in large debt for decades. It has nothing at all to do with Bush.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer



RAM isn't what makes the F-22's stealth stand out. It's an overall design. You're still missing the point. The F-22 isn't our stealthiest plane. The B-2 is far more difficult to shoot down, and would be used for penetration where Russia deploys the best SAM's.

As for that link you gave, the plane doesn't even exist yet. It could hardly be used to test Russian SAM's.

i beg to differ, RAM and paint coatings(paint coatings reduce the RCS minimally) contribute a lot to the stealthy attributes of the F-22



You can make whatever theoretical argument you want. You have no proof that this test was in any way flawed. Other simulations not done by the military, or even Americans have given far more impressive results. The F-22 was given a 10:1 kill ratio against SU-35's. Even if you count in inaccuracies in their simulations, it's still impressive.

that is nothing, if u were to take a close look at the India cope excercise, the indians used Mirages, MiG-21's and MiG-29's MiG-27's, not only Su-30MKI's: okay so i'm gunna go with u're excuse that u were outnumbered by 3, so 9-3:1, 6:!

american pilots vs. best indian pilots(i disagree with this because, what happened to that message"oh american pilots are the best trained, but i'll be generous and subtract 1)6-1:1,5:1

your AMRAAM had 1/3 the range, so ii'll subtract by 2 5-2:1, 3:1

and now the F-15's weren't equipped with the AESA radar(which the russians also have) -1 3-1:1, 2:1

now, add the fact that Indian equipped Su-30MKI's aren't equipped with all the standard things that the indians WANTED, and considering russia just delivered the first batch in 2002, when they were supposed to deliver them between 1997-2000, with each batch being more advanced, that means, that in 2005 they will be fully Su-30MKI's, so the kill ratio at cope India was 3:1 realistically, now, lets examine the other planes

okay, its taken me a long time, but i have gathered a lot of facts on the planes:MiG-27, MiG-29, Su-30MKI,MiG-21BIS,F-15,and the Mirage 2000

MiG-27 vs. F-15 1:8, no, not even the F-15 would destroy it, 1:9
MiG-29 vs. F-15 1:4
MiG-21BIS vs. F-15 1:9
Mirage 2000 vs. F-15 1:7
so, to balance the the 3:1 ratio(sorry, now its 2:1 because there wasn't an E-3 on the F-15 side) so 2:1, the Su-30MKI kill ratio has to be

Su-30MKI vs. F-15 (wow this is hard to calculate) oh here we go 54:1

that seems like a lot, wow, lol, i'm surprised to

they say that the F-22 can beat the Su-35 10:1,well if you guys made similar comments about russian aircraft when you intrduced the F-15, then i can see how its an uneducated guess, plus, u guys don't even know the Su-35 and its capabilities


The F-22's missiles are 90% accurate. That's better than any Russian model I know of.

well, than u obviously know nothing of russian missiles, it is a generally accepted statement that russian missiles are better than american ones, look at the AIM-9X, even though its MUCH newere than the AA-11 Archer, statistically, the Archer is better, the AA-12 Adder is considerably more effective than the AMRAAM, and the three new missiles that Vympel is coming out with between 2010-20012(for all ranges:short, medium and long) are going to be absolutely sick


Russia is a developing economy. Nations do not keep those rates up.

hahah, u don't know anything about economies, russia is an industrializing economy, there are three headings that you can give to a nation: a developed country that has a high HDI, high life expectancy, well developed social sectors, and high GDP
Industrializing nations:reducing necessity of secondary exports(such as manufactured wood, furniture, and rolls of steel) and a decreasing dependancy on the primary sector(agriculture exp) growth is usually fast, becoming more concentrated towards a social sector
Developing: reducing dependanyc on agriculture and primary sectors of economy such as fishing, low GDP, low life expectancy,badly developed education etc.

u got the idea, Russia is an undustrializing nation and okay, nations don't keep those rates up, yea, thats why they have had a 5% GDP or higher growth rate over the past 5years, your statement is irelevant


Most developed economies have large debt. Most have a larger debt percentage wise when compared to their total GDP. European nations are a good example.

no, they don't only i think four european nations have a debt that is higher than their GDP, let me check...............Serbia and Montenegro 123.2%,Belgium 102%,Greece 100.9%,and Italy 16.4%

i was right, only four, yea so whats your point, its very bad for you to have a high Debt and puxlbic debt



These nations are developing. They are strong exporters. It's not the same as America's economy.

okay, this really shows you don't know anything about economy, i wasn't even talking about exports and imports in the part that you highlighted, that part was talking about expenditures and revenues, lol, go back to Gr.9


America is a consumer society. We buy products from nations like Russia, and China, who are exporters. It is not a sign of a weak economy. Those nations could not survive without Americans buying their products. They couldn't survive without American companies investing in them.

yea so, it doesn't matter if your a consumer society, look at Germany, they are a consumer society but look at their stats

economy:2.231 trillion
growth:-0.1
GDP percapita:27600
budget balance:-94 billion
public debt 64.2%
Trade balance:111.9 billion
therefore, my prognosis is that germany has more than enough to pay off their public debt slowely and pay off their budget balance at the same time, contribute about 20 billion a year to reducing public debt, and using 94 billion to make an even budget, u have 7.9 billion to either reduce your external debt or put it into your gold and foreign reserves, or do both



Our economy has been in large debt for decades. It has nothing at all to do with Bush.


yea, he kinda does, because last year, your debt was something like 1.1 trillion, and now its 1.4 trillion



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dima
laxpla, the reports do not specifically mention that it will be able to track the F-22, but it does say future stealth aircraft in general, so we can only assume, as most of the specs of this system are unknown

laxpla, give me some sites that specifically say that it will be able to make useless, opposing air-defences

thanx



Well, a mach 2.5 aircraft like the Raptor, its pretty good in getting by defences.

I do not like repeating myself, considering you are going in circles because you are wrong.






Stealth Capabilities
First and Only 24/7/365 All-Weather Stealth Fighter

Radar signature approximately the size of a bumblebee, thereby avoiding detection by the most sophisticated enemy air defense systems




The F/A-22 possesses a highly stealthy signature that greatly reduces the enemys ability to find, track and target permits access to defended areas that cannot be accessed by nonstealth platforms

Advances in low-observable technologies provide significantly improved survivability and lethality against air-to-air and surface-to-air threats. The F/A-22's combination of reduced observability and supercruise accentuate the advantage of surprise in a tactical environment









F-22 Team Website

I am still waiting for a reliable source of yours saying that the S-20 or S-400 can detect the Raptor, UCAV and the UAV.



[edit on 18-12-2004 by Laxpla]



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   

i beg to differ, RAM and paint coatings(paint coatings reduce the RCS minimally) contribute a lot to the stealthy attributes of the F-22



Radar absorbant materials, or RAM is applied sparingly on the F-22 airframe as opposed to the entire airframe on the F-117. This is because designers have incorporated curves on crucial surfaces and edges, which lessens the need for RAM. For example, new ceramic-matrix RAM is utilized on the engine exhaust nozzles to reduce radar and IR signatures, and a greater amount of wide-band structural RAM is used on the wing edges. The interesting shape of the radome on the F-22 reflects radar signals at all frequencies except the precise wavelengths emitted from the F-22. This can be attributed to the radome's low bandpass type.


globalsecurity.org...


that is nothing, if u were to take a close look at the India cope excercise, the indians used Mirages, MiG-21's and MiG-29's MiG-27's, not only Su-30MKI's: okay so i'm gunna go with u're excuse that u were outnumbered by 3, so 9-3:1, 6:!

american pilots vs. best indian pilots(i disagree with this because, what happened to that message"oh american pilots are the best trained, but i'll be generous and subtract 1)6-1:1,5:1

your AMRAAM had 1/3 the range, so ii'll subtract by 2 5-2:1, 3:1

and now the F-15's weren't equipped with the AESA radar(which the russians also have) -1 3-1:1, 2:1

now, add the fact that Indian equipped Su-30MKI's aren't equipped with all the standard things that the indians WANTED, and considering russia just delivered the first batch in 2002, when they were supposed to deliver them between 1997-2000, with each batch being more advanced, that means, that in 2005 they will be fully Su-30MKI's, so the kill ratio at cope India was 3:1 realistically, now, lets examine the other planes

okay, its taken me a long time, but i have gathered a lot of facts on the planes:MiG-27, MiG-29, Su-30MKI,MiG-21BIS,F-15,and the Mirage 2000

MiG-27 vs. F-15 1:8, no, not even the F-15 would destroy it, 1:9
MiG-29 vs. F-15 1:4
MiG-21BIS vs. F-15 1:9
Mirage 2000 vs. F-15 1:7
so, to balance the the 3:1 ratio(sorry, now its 2:1 because there wasn't an E-3 on the F-15 side) so 2:1, the Su-30MKI kill ratio has to be

Su-30MKI vs. F-15 (wow this is hard to calculate) oh here we go 54:1

that seems like a lot, wow, lol, i'm surprised to

they say that the F-22 can beat the Su-35 10:1,well if you guys made similar comments about russian aircraft when you intrduced the F-15, then i can see how its an uneducated guess, plus, u guys don't even know the Su-35 and its capabilities


All of this is meamingless garbage simply because it isn't factual. It's just you making half-assed assumptions.

The F-22's 10:1 kill ratio against SU-35's wasn't done by an American source, but a European. As I said, they probably don't know everything about both planes. They still have enough to get a round about number.


well, than u obviously know nothing of russian missiles, it is a generally accepted statement that russian missiles are better than american ones, look at the AIM-9X, even though its MUCH newere than the AA-11 Archer, statistically, the Archer is better, the AA-12 Adder is considerably more effective than the AMRAAM, and the three new missiles that Vympel is coming out with between 2010-20012(for all ranges:short, medium and long) are going to be absolutely sick


Real statistics would be nice. The AMRAAM hits 9/10 times.


hahah, u don't know anything about economies, russia is an industrializing economy, there are three headings that you can give to a nation: a developed country that has a high HDI, high life expectancy, well developed social sectors, and high GDP
Industrializing nations:reducing necessity of secondary exports(such as manufactured wood, furniture, and rolls of steel) and a decreasing dependancy on the primary sector(agriculture exp) growth is usually fast, becoming more concentrated towards a social sector
Developing: reducing dependanyc on agriculture and primary sectors of economy such as fishing, low GDP, low life expectancy,badly developed education etc.


Russia is pretty much a second world country right now. They've had to completely reform their economy. They're rebuilding it right now.


no, they don't only i think four european nations have a debt that is higher than their GDP, let me check...............Serbia and Montenegro 123.2%,Belgium 102%,Greece 100.9%,and Italy 16.4%

i was right, only four, yea so whats your point, its very bad for you to have a high Debt and puxlbic debt


This wasn't even my statement. I said most European nations have a higher debt when compared to the total size of their GDP, not that its larger then their entire GDP. Europe's debt percentage compared to the size of the GDP is about 72%.


okay, this really shows you don't know anything about economy, i wasn't even talking about exports and imports in the part that you highlighted, that part was talking about expenditures and revenues, lol, go back to Gr.9


They're related. An exporting economy sends things out, and can't afford to bring much in. They're going to have good trade deficits when compared to a nation like America that's consumer based.


yea so, it doesn't matter if your a consumer society, look at Germany, they are a consumer society but look at their stats


Germany, like most of Europe, is a nation that relies on industry and exports for their economy. They are not a consumer nation like America.


economy:2.231 trillion
growth:-0.1
GDP percapita:27600
budget balance:-94 billion
public debt 64.2%
Trade balance:111.9 billion
therefore, my prognosis is that germany has more than enough to pay off their public debt slowely and pay off their budget balance at the same time, contribute about 20 billion a year to reducing public debt, and using 94 billion to make an even budget, u have 7.9 billion to either reduce your external debt or put it into your gold and foreign reserves, or do both


Germany is going to do this with a shrinking economym, growing unemployment, and social programs that keep going up in cost? Welfare states like Germany are in a lot worse a situation then America.


yea, he kinda does, because last year, your debt was something like 1.1 trillion, and now its 1.4 trillion


This doesn't address what I really said. Our debt has always been going up. It's been getting larger under every president.

Looking at raw figures when talking about America's economy simply isn't fair. Our GDP isn't even comparable to any other nation's. Everything is going to look larger when looking at raw figures.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I think it's pretty idiotic for one side to say "oh but you've never tested the S-400 vs. the F-22 so F-22 > S-400 according to my sources" while the other side says"oh but you've never tested the F-22 vs. S-400, so S-400>F-22 according to MY sources."


All you're doing is arguing in a circle. No one really knows whether the SAMs of today can deal with stealth planes of today.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
Well, Saddam did not think that the F-117 would work at all at the start of Gw1....

The fact is that while Russia may be able to detect the F-117 and shoot it down, newer planes like the B-2 and the F-22 are light years ahead. The f-22 has not even been flown out of the Us (i think) so how would Russia know if they could defeat it? Russia is not serious about stealth because they hold true to the massive numbers philosophy, if you through allot of units at one objective, even if you lose many units you will eventually destroy it.


yeah.. its funny how the US can com up with kill ratios like 10:1 vs the Su-30 etc.. if one applies the same logic pf the F-22 having not left continenetal USA



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by necro99
i bet the russians are really close to the US in term of Black-technology.
heard of the mig 1.42?


Mig 1.42 was not stealth at all. Just look at the shape. That was the main reason, why it was cancelled. It was basically greatly improved Mig-31 with excelent radar, internally carried weapons, TVC and supercruise.

And to the other stealth planes outside USA - there are none, not even the prototypes. The thing closest to the stealth flying today outside USA is Typhhon and Rafale. The Pak-Fa will be the first non US stealth plane, if produced.

[edit on 29-5-2005 by longbow]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I don't understand how the range of a weapon like the S-400 really is worth it, because the curvature of the earth will prevent any realistic use of that fantastic range, even against a B-52 that flies below the radar horizon.
radarproblems.com...
At 400 km an aircraft would have to be flying at 30,000 ft in order to be seen above the "radar horizon".
Maybe after the missile had a 'lock' on the aircraft it might be able to chase it below the radar horizon, but unless you have some other sensors involved, you just don't have a long range capability unless it is at high altitude. Flying low below radar is something that every country is good at by now, and it would not take a long range standoff missile at that point of weapon release before even seen by the target SAM. According to the calculator you could get within 20 miles at low altitude without being detected from the curvature of the earth alone. Heck, you could approach at low level, and high speed, send in a couple HARMs to keep the SAM buisy, close and "loft" a JADAM or a B-61 that far... Expensive sam destroyed by two HARMs, and a JADAM or Nuke.
Also, a B-52 could launch 16 JASSMs at the maximum 200 range for that missile and never have to descend below 7000 ft to avoid detection assuming a radar antenna 20 ft height. JASSMs are also low flying and stealthy.

I like those economics.



[edit on 18-12-2005 by Sandman11]




top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join