US general warns Russia on nuclear bombers in Cuba

Originally posted by DarthAmerica
Russian Boy,

Your statement is wildly mistaken.

Not THAT wildy....

The job is not done after missile launch.

In terms of modern land attack cruise missiles it really is given how the host plane is not guiding them to target.

The Russians would have to get the planes airborne and fire the missiles without detection otherwise there will be many dozens of fighters hunting the missiles as well as SAMs.

The Russian planes can launch cruise missiles a few minutes of taking off and long before American planes could intercept the bombers/fighters. Obviously American planes would have to contend with whatever fighter or air defenses both the Cubans have and the Russians brought along if they wish to somehow prevent those aircraft from firing. That being said cruise missiles can be shot down given the right air defense system which the patriot isn't. Fighters can hunt cruise missiles but against relatively large cruise missile swarms your not only going to need many fighters but also AWACS coordination to affect much of a outcome. Cruise missile hunting by aircraft is not easy against Harpoons/tomahawks and certainly very hard and improbable against supersonic cruise missiles in a world war three scenario.

The Russian bombers and their bases would be obliterated.

Highly likely given the relatively overwhelming firepower the US can focus on Cuba. The point here is that even in ideal situation ( a few months of tensions building up) there might not be much left of the US east coast defense infrastructure or , in case of a quick escalation, the East coast population centers.

And in all likelihood, Russia would be facing retaliatory strikes.

Surely so and they are in my knowledge much better prepared to sustain and continue a nuclear exchange.

The US is far more survivable and would be able to respond far out of proportion.

The US does not have a admitted strategic capability that is 'far our of proportion' with the arms the Russian federation possesses.

It would be several simultaneous Hurricane Katrina sized disasters for the USA, the end of Russia as a nation for them.

-DA

It would be far more than several Hurricane Katrina disasters for the US and depending on how well those Russian defenses works somewhere between bad ( millions of casualties) and the same hundred odd million casualties the US will suffer.What does seem clear to be is that the USSR/RF were and still are better prepared to prosecute a nuclear war to victory without suffering debilitating damage to either it's urban population or it's industrial means.

Stellar

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
It pisses them off because they know and we know that 6,000 of 6,050 Russian Nukes are useless because Haarp and a dozen other American projects revolve around the use of everything from Microwaves to Electromagnetics to knock out Icbms and a full shield is already in place.

And obviously the Russians don't have anything like that?

We will never admit it but we all know...

All we know for sure is that the Russian economy is going places while the American one isn't and won't until serious reforms are made.

So what the missile shield really represents is check mate, because if we can knock out their shielded missiles too... they have nothing

The Russians have had ABM defenses as long and in exceedingly large volumes as compared to similar American efforts.

6000 or 50, not much matter in Nuclear war... 50 Missiles with multiple warheads would ruin all of Nato, including the US

But the Russians do not have 6000 missiles and 50 defensive missiles against their thousand + ICBM's and IRBM will make a small if possibly significant difference. In fact why allow anyone to degrade your superiority in any way once you have it?

The Russians aren't stupid they know as soon as we have enough traditional shielding, (missile defense systems lazers) they have to refit every nuke to keep pace...another cold war and go broke or they loose MAD

MAD was nonsense and i have no reason to suspect that MAD wont always be shear unadulterated nonsense spread by those who think the best defense is no defense.

Lets face it... highly sensitive devices that rely on extremely sensitive timers to be able to go off just have alot of weaknesses. The missile defense stuff...is for the properly shielded missiles only... the rest will never go off...

I would ask you to clarify but maybe that is presuming too much knowledge. Can you try to explain what you meant there?

Stellar

reply to post by DarthAmerica

But neither the Russian ABM system or their nuclear arsenal is the equal of what America has now. Not even close.

This is what makes me doubt your "purported" credentials even more.

No self-proclaimed expert would make such sweeping statements like that, without backing them up.

Not even close? Their missiles carry more MIRV's, they have the longest range ICBM's in the world and not to mention some of world's most potent Surface-2-Air defence systems.

Your self-appointed authority on this subject on helps to make you less believable in practice because you refuse to debate with people reasonably, you make ignorant statements, you don't back them up and when someone criticises you, you simply tell them they don't know what they're talking about.

LOL yeah, go to the USN Fact file page and look up the speed of a Los Angeles Class SSN.

25 knots submerged according to the USN themselves: www.navy.mil...

Why would submarine speeds be of epic importance in a debate about missile technology?

Hey, sorry son, it takes years to understand this stuff. Also, not all the data necessary to make these assessments is public domain.

Your not looking in the right domains then. There's more than enough information floating around to make reasonable judgements on the effectiveness of ABM's, Cruise missile and ICBM's.

Doesn't take an expert to see a Patriot PAC-3 with a range of only 15km is not going to have a chance in hell of intercepting a Russian Kh-22 which will cover that distance in approximately 5 seconds, while the Patriot takes 9 seconds to acquire a target and fire.

Or do you just need glasses? I don't know.

There is a reason why some of us are PROFESSIONALS.

I respect honest, decent, open-minded professionals.

Both my parents work for the military industry, I'd be lying if I said I'm biased against military/defence analysts.

What I don't respect are self-appointed "know-it-alls" who think the knowledge of military weaponry revolves around their own understanding of the subject. And anyone else is automatically wrong.

I don't know what companies you worked for but with such a hostile attitude against differing opinions I'm surprised you lasted long, because that's exactly what such industries are made up of, wide-ranging, subjective analytical views.

Not a One-size fits all approach.

I've studies Russian weapons, technology, culture and even language for over a decade. I don't have to dodge son.

It sure as hell doesn't show, you still have it in your head their peasant farmers with pitchforks and WW2-era weaponry.

Whatever. Don't be jealous of me. Don't worry about my perception of myself.

More of your self-proclaimed authority...

Yes, I'm insanely jealous of your arrogance. I wish I could just block out the outside world and it's different viewpoints and shut myself in a make-believe fantasy land where my say is final.

I do this for fun, not as a popularity contest.

Fun? What attacking people just because they disagree with you?
You got a strange notion of "fun".

A brain scientist could show you how brain cancer works. Thats wouldnt mean you understood it would you?

Not if he explained it like you, then hell no.

Stellar I have a question Russia had 39,000 Nuke Warheads during the Cold War, if they have 6000/6050 that means they got rid of 33,000 or 33,050 warheads, how come there is no evidence of how many war heads were destroyed between 1992-2007 if this number 6000/6050 is correct.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by DarthAmerica

 

But neither the Russian ABM system or their nuclear arsenal is the equal of what America has now. Not even close.

This is what makes me doubt your "purported" credentials even more.

No self-proclaimed expert would make such sweeping statements like that, without backing them up.

First of all, this is not a job interview and you are not a potential employer. I don't care what you believe. If you want to take the time to learn, ask a specific question and swallow your pride. The Russian nuclear arsenal as well as the ABM system are adequate for Russian purposes but far inferior to the American arsenal. Russia doesn't even have global coverage to detect missile launch. This means they can be attacked by surprise.

Why would submarine speeds be of epic importance in a debate about missile technology?

The point is that much of the information is not in the public domain. If you want something related to missile technology, look at the purported max altitude for the SM-3 interceptor and the altitude of the satellite it destroyed.

Your not looking in the right domains then. There's more than enough information floating around to make reasonable judgements on the effectiveness of ABM's, Cruise missile and ICBM's.

keep believing that...

Doesn't take an expert to see a Patriot PAC-3 with a range of only 15km is not going to have a chance in hell of intercepting a Russian Kh-22 which will cover that distance in approximately 5 seconds, while the Patriot takes 9 seconds to acquire a target and fire.

Or do you just need glasses? I don't know.

This is why I call you ignorant. The PAC-3 isn't operating alone in a bubble. It will be cued on an approaching threat long before it's organic sensors can see the threat. The PAC-3 will be in the air long before its target is withing range and will "meet" the target. Look, its just obvious you don't even know how our systems even work. Not in theory or practice. Stop trying to debate on subject matter you don't understand. You are making yourself very obvious. SCUD missiles which are intercepted routinely by PAC-3 in test come in at about Mach 5. Kh-22 velocity isn't a problem for PAC-3 and is well within it's design spec. Also your speeds are wrong for the Kh-22. It doesn't move at 3km/s! It's much slower than that. Check your math. Also, the quoted 15km PAC-3 range...lol. OK, just like quoted SM-3 range and SSN speed. Sure...

reply to post by StellarX


Have you forgotten 1962 and the current state of the Russian armed forces?

FYI-

Intercept of supersonic cruise and ballistic missiles is not a new concept and is a capability integrated into nearly every NATO a2a platform...

www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004rangeops/17Nov04/Duggan.ppt
www.mda.mil...
findarticles.com...

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
Stellar I have a question Russia had 39,000 Nuke Warheads during the Cold War, if they have 6000/6050 that means they got rid of 33,000 or 33,050 warheads, how come there is no evidence of how many war heads were destroyed between 1992-2007 if this number 6000/6050 is correct.

Well the vast, VAST majority of those warheads were tactical and even if there were some way to keep them in usable condition you would still have to deploy them which is in fact the hardest part. The reason i 'objected' was basically because of the claim that Russia had 6000 operational nuclear tipped ballistic Missiles; that was never in my knowledge the case. In retrospect the claim could be a bit more accurate if one includes the S-200/300's and presumes a large percentage with tactical nukes to make up for tracking shortcomings...

Either way this is one of the better sites that might help to satisfy you

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

And the following graph you will probably REALLY like.

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

Either way that's just from memory so if you wish to disagree i am sure you will find sufficient data on that site to defend your view. These numbers and details are NOT perfect and there is to this day a a good deal of misinformation and lies.

Stellar

Originally posted by DarthAmerica
reply to post by StellarX

 

Have you forgotten 1962 and the current state of the Russian armed forces?

Not as far as i can tell, no and as for the current state of the Russian armed forces they are not the army of 1941 and the US not Nazi Germany.

As the for defenses against ballistic missiles the patriots could not destroy scud warheads in the first gulf war anymore than the upgraded PAC-2 could destroy, or even notice, second generation cruise missiles. These instances are all well documented and while i share your belief that US systems are supposed to work better that's just not what the record seems to show.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by DarthAmerica
reply to post by StellarX

 

Have you forgotten 1962 and the current state of the Russian armed forces?

Not as far as i can tell, no and as for the current state of the Russian armed forces they are not the army of 1941 and the US not Nazi Germany.

As the for defenses against ballistic missiles the patriots could not destroy scud warheads in the first gulf war anymore than the upgraded PAC-2 could destroy, or even notice, second generation cruise missiles. These instances are all well documented and while i share your belief that US systems are supposed to work better that's just not what the record seems to show.

Stellar

OK, I'm going to try to explain this again. Please read carefully. Gulf War Patriots were not designed to discriminate the SCUD warhead from other pieces of the missile such as the fuel tank when SCUDs often broke apart on reentry. Also, the Patriot Algorithms were modified to deal with ballistic missiles back then. Today, newer purpose built seeker technology allows the Patriot to precisely target the warhead even if surrounded by debris or counter measures. That includes cruise missiles.

You are posting as if our weapons remain static throughout their life. Nothing is further from the truth. We modify and patch systems as threats evolve. The record DOES show that. Notice the Patriots success was 100% against BMs in OIF.

The technology Gap between Russian and US military equipment is widening not closing. They know this.

Originally posted by DarthAmerica
OK, I'm going to try to explain this again. Please read carefully.

Feel free and i always do my best to 'read carefully'.

Gulf War Patriots were not designed to discriminate the SCUD warhead from other pieces of the missile such as the fuel tank when SCUDs often broke apart on reentry.

So basically patriots would have been useless up until 1991 in terms of stopping anything with a ballistic trajectory? That was my point, wasn't it?
In fact, if you go read the source material carefully, you will discover that the patriot warheads normally exploded BEHIND the scud thus mostly destroying the missile body but leaving the warheads intact which on more than a few occasions resulted in patriot batteries being showered with the debri's of their 'kill's', not the type of situation you want against chemical and biological warheads and not really a good idea against either nuclear or conventional.

Also, the Patriot Algorithms were modified to deal with ballistic missiles back then. Today, newer purpose built seeker technology allows the Patriot to precisely target the warhead even if surrounded by debris or counter measures. That includes cruise missiles.

Sure, in theory, and what i couldn't understand is why they patriot couldn't do that back in the first gulf war. I mean non of this is NEW ( hit to kill being demonstrated by both countries back in the very early 60's ) so why exactly were the patriot prone to the flaws i described?

As to the claimed success rate:

First Gulf war:

We conclude that the body of video we have reviewed contains data on at least 22 to 23 out of roughly 47 Desert Storm engagements. Of even greater significance, the video appears to include 17 to 18 out of roughly 30 engagements in Saudi Arabia. This indicates that there is a very substantial base of video information from which an assessment of Patriot's performance can be made.

We have found no convincing evidence in the video that any Scud warhead was destroyed by a Patriot. We have strong evidence that Patriots hit Scuds an two occasions (in WSMR Events 8 and 13), but in both cases we found video evidence that the Scud warheads fell to the ground and exploded. These clips suggest that even when Patriots could hit Scuds they were still not able to destroy the Scud warheads. We also have several other clips where it is possible that Patriots hit Scuds without detonating their warheads. but the evidence in these clips is quite ambiguous (see, for example, Additional Event 3).

In addition, we have estimated minimum miss distances for all cases where we could clearly observe Patriot missing Scuds. We present our summarized findings in tabular and graphical form in figures 8, 9 and 1O. The median minimum miss distance was roughly 600 meters. This is much larger than the press video minimum resolvable miss distance of 35 to 70 meters. To achieve lethality against Scud targets, a system like the Patriot must routinely achieve miss distances of meters to tens of meters, not hundreds to thousands of meters as observed in the video. This result of the video review by itself indicates unambiguously that there was a serious problem with Patriot during the Gulf War.

www.fas.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.

As a result of Congressional investigations into the performance of the Patriot, the Army revised its claims in 1992. The Army now reports that during Desert Storm, 88 Scuds were launched by Iraq. The first 12 were launched at Israel prior to the deployment of Patriot units in that country. Of the remaining 76 Scuds, somewhat less than 45 were actually engaged by Patriots.

A total of 158 Patriot missiles were fired during the war:

86 Patriots were launched at Scud targets in Saudi Arabia and Israel

30% of the Patriots were launched as Scud debris mistaken for targets

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...

OIF:

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...

www.defensetech.org...

So yes, the missiles performance increased markedly but from a exceedingly low base. Why this is so i can't explain as they should be working far better than they seem to.

You are posting as if our weapons remain static throughout their life. Nothing is further from the truth. We modify and patch systems as threats evolve. The record DOES show that. Notice the Patriots success was 100% against BMs in OIF.

I am sorry if that is the impression you got from reading these few posts of mine. All i can say is that i am very well aware of how both the US and everyone else on the planet upgrades their weaponry throughout their useful lifetimes.

The technology Gap between Russian and US military equipment is widening not closing. They know this.

So you say but i have so far allocated a significant proportion of my 3000+ posts to supplying hundreds of press clippings , to say nothing of my commentary, that shows up the shortcomings and strengths of both sides.

While i have great sympathy with the claim that US military equipment SHOULD be superior i have too much information from past conflicts that show how this is not often enough the case despite US forces having so many obvious other advantages.

Stellar

reply to post by DarthAmerica

Russia doesn't even have global coverage to detect missile launch.

Yes they do....

The geostationary Cosmos-2379 (GEO, 24 Aug 2001, 26892) is a newer satellite of the 71Kh6 type, which has the capability to detect missiles against Earth background.

russianforces.org...

This isn't 1961 any more, maybe it's time to stop reading military journals from that era.

The point is that much of the information is not in the public domain.

And since when were we discussing highly classified information here?

We're debating about the possibility of the Patriot system intercepting the Raduga Kh series of cruise missiles.

There are literally hundred's of studies and analyses on the Patriot's effectiveness on the Net, not to mention plenty of facts and figures on the Kh missiles.

More than enough to make a reasonable judgement.

We're not talking about friggin' Nuclear launch codes or pulse detonation engines.

The PAC-3 will be in the air long before its target is withing range and will "meet" the target.

If you had bothered to familiarise yourself with the Patriot's capabilities you would realise that's impossible in this case.

These hypersonic missiles like the Kh-22 travel at cruising altitudes of 27,000m and then rapidly dive at the target just before impact while in terminal phase.

According to FAS the Patriot has a maximum intercept ceiling of 25,000m and that's the PAC-2.

The PAC-3 can only intercept targets upto a maximum altitude of 15km.
www.fas.org...

Uh-oh...
So again, another point to remember.

Not only is the PAC-3 slower than the Kh series, it's also designed to intercept at much lower altitudes.

The Patriot loses all round. Maybe it had a decent chance against Iraqi-modified Scuds, which were essentially flying scrapyards with TNT on the end, but it's seriously outclassed by more modern threats like hypersonic cruise missiles.

Even IF, these missiles travelled at lower altitudes, remember, 15km is covered in a matter of seconds by a Mach 3 missile.
Even less time by a Mach 6 missile like the Kh-20/22.
Now with a range of 15km, that would require some extraordinarily precise timing for the PAC-3 to just intercept the bogey as it came within range without running out of fuel first.

Also your speeds are wrong for the Kh-22. It doesn't move at 3km/s! It's much slower than that.

That's the older model. The Kh-22B variant cruises at Mach 4 and enters Mach 6 in it's terminal dive attack.
www.globalsecurity.org...

The Patriot wouldn't have a chance in hell of stopping that.

Also, the quoted 15km PAC-3 range...lol. OK, just like quoted SM-3 range and SSN speed. Sure...

You keep dreaming the Patriot is an unstoppable force of military engineering all you like.
I have plenty of evidence for myself to the contrary, and some self-appointed military analyst whizz kid isn't changing my opinion.

www.globalsecurity.org...
www.fas.org...

These two sites verify the range and maximum altitude of the PAC-3, and they're more than credible.

If you can offer any evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Stop trying to debate on subject matter you don't understand. You are making yourself very obvious.

What was that again...

Time to face facts bud, the Patriot is an inadequate system for modern threats:
www.fas.org...
www.fas.org...
www.cdi.org...
www.associatedcontent.com...

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


mach 6 is 2041.3 m/s - so 2 km per second.

reply to post by StellarX


We don't intercept missiles that we know will fall outside areas of concern. Thats a waste of very expensive assets. The bottom line, and I showed you, if that the Patriot system is a very capable and well regarded element of the ABM system. The PAC-3 took the capability to a new level.

Judging todays ABM systems based on 20 year old ODS data would be like judging the newer Russian BMs based on SCUD technology or AMRAAMs based on AIM-7 performance in Vietnam. Things change. I do this for a living. In a lot of ways I understand your points. However, when you suggest things like Russia's weapons are on par with or better than the USA's increasingly capable arsenal I know it isn't true. If I was relying solely on free OSINT from news clippings FAS/Global Security I see how one could make those errors. But as a USER and beneficiary of these systems I know the truth. Also, because I have education in related fields, conceptually I can understand things that would otherwise elude some people like God of Conspiracy who is spirited and no doubt intelligent. But doesn't have the wisdom or experience to fill in the blanks. Again, anyone thinking that they are going to confirm specifics on the Net is delusional. Thats why I posted the data about the SM-3 and SSN's to show that such data is entirely bogus. Another example would be the F-22 who's supercruise speed is listed as M1.5 when in fact it is significantly higher. Actually they changed that to say greater than now. However what isn't changed is the fuel capacity which is still quoting 18,000lbs.

www.af.mil...

lol. Yeah sure. I have an technical manual in front of me that would add significantly to this. The point is that we don't post on the net for all to see too many specifics. Sometimes the info is completely inaccurate for obvious reasons. Yet we still have inexperienced posters ranting on about decades old Russian missile technology the USA has long been able to stop. You have to be careful not to become enamored with Russia weapons and their often grossly overstated claims. Like the other claim God of Conspiracy fell for and doesn't realize there is real estate and ocean the Russians "can't see" and an SLBM launched from those areas would blindside them.

The Russian military had a lot of decay following the cold war and it will take a lot to restore. None of this is a knock on Global Security or FAS but they aren't dwelling in current info or even accurate info in a lot of cases.

If you want an assessment I will be more than happy to go through it with you. Just be prepared to support any disagreement because I have probably seen evidence to the contrary. A LOT goes on in our world that if people really knew would boggle the mind. A lot of that has to be carefully guarded before being let into the public domain. As a rule of thumb, the more specific it is on the net, like a missile speed or ALT_MAX, the less likely it is to be true. In fact when we talk as professionals, its not too often we discuss quoted specific numbers. Thats because such data cannot be known or is unknown. If I'm a North Korean Missile Scientist and I know EXACTLY what the performance parameters of he PAC-3 are. How hard is it going to be to make a work around? What if I don't know? That's the difference.

I'm not going to bother trying to teach the finer points of details for now. Just the general assessment. With regard to this post. Russian Bombers in Cuba are not a good option for Russia and it is something the United States is very well prepared to defend against. That includes any missile they managed to fire in their final moments. The mere act of taking off would squander away the best advantage the Russians would have. Surprise. The Bombers would be under end to end surveillance non stop until diplomacy or B-2's removed them from Cuba.

The US cannot monitor every swuare inch of the ocean either , so a russian (or anyone elses) boat could slip one in without any warning ; a low arc SLBM would have moments to land on trget rather than 30 minutes.

all senarios played out in war games no the less.

so bombers on cuba? whilst your saying `send the B2`s to take them out` - you risk nuclear war over this? sure - hope your bunker is fully stocked and your all ready , to help bury the millions of dead.

Ok first to say russian missile tech is far more advance than what the Usa have , there is hole topic on this matter here on ATS , with a little search you can have a look at it everything is discussed and pointed out there with a hundred pages if not more , Second USA will be not less concern about bombers armed with cruize missiles patroling their borders than russia with the missiles in baltic states. Third the B-2 bombers are not operational anymore , out of service , the cost and maintanance was too high. Fourth the Russian do posses equal and more advance weapons than USA , not in all fields of course that would be impossible , you simply cannot be perfect in every way. Same goes for USA in some fields they have better tech . And if anyone want to debate on this , anytime any day just name the subject

Hell we make better missiles , better nukes,better tanks , better helos , better subs , better space tech, Usa astronauts pay russia 22,5 mil per sit so that russia can take them on ISS, need to say more ? We are even the biggest arm export in the world now that must say something to you , are our weapons that crap that the half of the world wants to buy from us now come on lets get serious here.
Just pick a subject and we can take it through the end

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Russian Boy]

Originally posted by Harlequin
The US cannot monitor every swuare inch of the ocean either , so a russian (or anyone elses) boat could slip one in without any warning ; a low arc SLBM would have moments to land on trget rather than 30 minutes.

all senarios played out in war games no the less.

so bombers on cuba? whilst your saying `send the B2`s to take them out` - you risk nuclear war over this? sure - hope your bunker is fully stocked and your all ready , to help bury the millions of dead.

The USA does monitor every square inch of ocean for BM launch, the skies above and tags every SSBN at see with several assets on a constant basis. And yes, I'm saying to start nuclear war over any Russian Bomber in Cuba. We were willing to do it in 1962 and we would do it in 2008. Keeping foreign powers out of the Western Hemisphere is fundamental to US national security strategy. NOT NEGOTIABLE. If Russians went to Cuba, there would be another crisis and it would be acted on if they didn't get out. It's no worry though. The Russians can't sustain a force of Bombers that far away against opposition. They don't have the strength or logistics to do it. They would be forced to back down. Not only that, they would be putting precious few Long Range Bombers at risk of immediate destruction and they don't have enough to squander.

Originally posted by Russian Boy
Ok first to say russian missile tech is far more advance than what the Usa have , there is hole topic on this matter here on ATS , with a little search you can have a look at it everything is discussed and pointed out there with a hundred pages if not more , Second USA will be not less concern about bombers armed with cruize missiles patroling their borders than russia with the missiles in baltic states. Third the B-2 bombers are not operational anymore , out of service , the cost and maintanance was too high. Fourth the Russian do posses equal and more advance weapons than USA , not in all fields of course that would be impossible , you simply cannot be perfect in every way. Same goes for USA in some fields they have better tech . And if anyone want to debate on this , anytime any day just name the subject

Hell we make better missiles , better nukes,better tanks , better helos , better subs , better space tech, Usa astronauts pay russia 22,5 mil per sit so that russia can take them on ISS, need to say more ?

, just pick a subject

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Russian Boy]

Um, I'm sorry Russian Boy but your post is wildly inaccurate. Not only about technology but also about the status of the US Military. B-2's are operational I assure you. Maintenance is a continuously improving process and much higher readiness is possible today. It's ok to be patriotic but you have to be accurate too. If it makes you feel better war isn't always about who has the best tech and Russia is certainly a powerful country. But as advanced as the USA, it is not.

reply to post by DarthAmerica


Yeah of course i dont deny Usa has more cash , which means more research ,more tech , they got many impressive toys thats for sure . B-2 dont fly anymore after the crash , they are grounded . We can take any subject listed or propose and analyse it till every aspect possible and i can show that we do have better toys

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Russian Boy]

Originally posted by DarthAmerica
We don't intercept missiles that we know will fall outside areas of concern.

That makes sense, yes but since non of us were around to determine that all we know for sure is that patriots shot down less than half of the BM's launched. Maybe they could have shot down the rest as well but since we know that the pentagon and others have lied about the effectiveness of the Patriot system in the past i will, for now, have to presume that they managed to shoot down half somehow failing to engage the rest.

Thats a waste of very expensive assets. The bottom line, and I showed you, if that the Patriot system is a very capable and well regarded element of the ABM system. The PAC-3 took the capability to a new level.

You did not show me anything like that and in fact just restated your earlier points despite my pointing out the known failures of this system. The Patriot is not a well regarded ABM system ( ask the Israeli's) and for some unexplained reason it's not as capable as it could or should be.

Judging todays ABM systems based on 20 year old ODS data would be like judging the newer Russian BMs based on SCUD technology or AMRAAMs based on AIM-7 performance in Vietnam.

I don't wish to dismiss progress and am attempting to discuss the fact that the patriot would have failed horribly during the cold war, the US had no serious threat in the Iraq armed forces and it's failure were of little concern for continued operations there.

Things change. I do this for a living. In a lot of ways I understand your points. However, when you suggest things like Russia's weapons are on par with or better than the USA's increasingly capable arsenal I know it isn't true.

Well you will have to excuse me if i for now presume that you are just another in a long line of ATS posters that claim to know better without being able to either supply the sources or prove knowledgeable of open source historic records. I think technological advanced weapons are often presumed to be tactically or strategically more efficient or effective but as we all know from history this is NOT a given if the compromises made are exploited by a premier enemy.

If I was relying solely on free OSINT from news clippings FAS/Global Security I see how one could make those errors.

Sadly that constitutes most of what i depend on ( GOA and other US government agencies also feature ) in terms of research and will continue to until i can do better or see obvious flaws in the method.

But as a USER and beneficiary of these systems I know the truth. Also, because I have education in related fields, conceptually I can understand things that would otherwise elude some people like God of Conspiracy who is spirited and no doubt intelligent.

Well you will have to count me in with him then. As for a conceptually understanding i wont claim to know more than others will give me credit for.....

But doesn't have the wisdom or experience to fill in the blanks. Again, anyone thinking that they are going to confirm specifics on the Net is delusional.

Then i have sure been wasting my time!

Thats why I posted the data about the SM-3 and SSN's to show that such data is entirely bogus. Another example would be the F-22 who's supercruise speed is listed as M1.5 when in fact it is significantly higher. Actually they changed that to say greater than now. However what isn't changed is the fuel capacity which is still quoting 18,000lbs.

www.af.mil...

So basically your saying that conspiracist are pretty much wasting their time unless they have acess to the manuals? That such apparently little secrets are easily kept and that US performance in combat operations are faked to support the notion that the us systems capabilities are sometimes greatly overstated?

lol. Yeah sure. I have an technical manual in front of me that would add significantly to this.

It's surprising that they would trust someone with your apparent disposition, to claiming US superiority in weapons systems, with such specific details when defense correspondents of note have not figured it out. That being said the F-22 have pretty short legs and it would have to be a significant addition indeed for it to become a true super cruiser.

The point is that we don't post on the net for all to see too many specifics.

So how many people have the manual? Non have made a peep?

Sometimes the info is completely inaccurate for obvious reasons.

That is obvious to me and when i have been able to validate it almost always turns out that US equipment were not as good as claimed or that Soviet/Russian equipment were underrated.

Yet we still have inexperienced posters ranting on about decades old Russian missile technology the USA has long been able to stop.

And yet the units in the field fail to stop very old cruise missiles? Are they part of the conspiracy and what about the marine expeditionary HG that nearly got hit?

Equally worrisome is the spread of cruise missiles and unmanned combat aerial vehicles, which are precision-guided and small enough to be launched from ships and aircraft, said Col. Edward L. Mullin, program manager of the Army’s cruise missile defense office at Redstone Arsenal, Ala. A number of factor makes them dangerous, he said, including:

During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein’s forces fired a number of cruise missiles at U.S. troops, Mullin said. “We were positioned with Patriot missiles,” he said. “Unfortunately, when the cruise missiles were fired, we didn’t even see them. Needless to say, we were directed to get at that threat rather quickly.”

The SLAMRAAM system is a comparatively cost-effective defense against cruise missiles, Mullin said. “At $650,00 apiece, it beats the PAC-3 in terms of price,” he said. Cost estimates for the Patriot advanced capability-3 missile system run as high as $91 million apiece.

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org...

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

These events are pretty inexplicable to me as the patriot should certainly not be this ineffective. I hope you can find information in your manuals and journals that will shed some light on this very recent failure to deal with obsolete Russian export model cruise missiles.

You have to be careful not to become enamored with Russia weapons and their often grossly overstated claims.

I do my best to not get too enamoured with weapons whoever builds or maintains them; it's a pretty bad thing for any human to be.

Like the other claim God of Conspiracy fell for and doesn't realize there is real estate and ocean the Russians "can't see" and an SLBM launched from those areas would blindside them.

I am not aware of such a 'gap' and as far as i know the gap existed, but were very small, and it would still only be for SLBM's and then only for very long range detection.

Continued