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.

 

Tupolev Tu-160 pair make first transatlantic flight

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
You wouldn't have double standards would you?


The AMRAAM D and SM-6 are simply an issue of time, not validity. In any case the SM-2ER Block IV has the same kinematic performance that the SM-6 will, the only difference being largely the seeker. A moot point given these are non LO bombers. Same pretty much goes for the AIM-120C7 which is in service, albeit at a reduced range.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
All are air launched, all fly from the air to sea/ground-level and destroy things on the sea/ground.


By that criteria the JASSM and JDAM should always be mentioned in the same sentence. Clearly a little absurd.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
The first three had a range of a couple hundred miles. Enough to get the job done.


Must be news to the NORAD guys who routinely detect and intercept Russian bombers several hundred miles off Alaska. Good luck to any crew attempting to get within 200-300 miles of the lower 48. Then again maybe the super stealthy Tu-160s will have a better chance, all 16 of them.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Why not? Because it highlights the sillyness of your argument?


And that would be my "silliness" of not giving credence to imaginary variants?


Originally posted by kilcoo316
But as pointed out, the offense call the plays, and here the defence have no time-outs.


It would be astonishing if US satellites and SIGINT systems do not detect all of Russia's strategic bomber force going on alert and getting airborne.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by WestPoint23]




posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by neformore
 



I do not count out the New Soviets capability. All the more reason for the US to keep investing in BMD, More F-22's Conventional ICBM's for quick strike, Laser based offensive and defensive weaponry and the like.

The only thing that bugs me is the near mythological status some New Soviet weapons systems seem to attian here in discussions.
What bugs me is that sources have already shown that old,Soviet weapons were capable of Destroying any nations military, and there are people here still doubting these even Newer Russian weapons, oh well guess people will only learn when WWiii starts.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by neformore
 

The only thing that bugs me is the near mythological status some New Soviet weapons systems seem to attian here in discussions.


Completely Agree Fred.

Though some would argue that the F-22 / SR-71 has the same position on the forums with those who have just skimmed the surface. In my opinion we do a good job trying to balance and bring forward as much information for digestion as possible.
Yeah just like "AirForce Monthly" that reported back in 07 that the MiG-31 had intercepted the SR-71 some 169 times during the Mid-late 80's.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by kilcoo316
You wouldn't have double standards would you?


The

Originally posted by kilcoo316
The first three had a range of a couple hundred miles. Enough to get the job done.


Must be news to the NORAD guys who routinely detect and intercept Russian bombers several hundred miles off Alaska. Good luck to any crew attempting to get within 200-300 miles of the lower 48. Then again maybe the super stealthy Tu-160s will have a better chance, all 16 of them.


It would be astonishing if US satellites and SIGINT systems do not detect all of Russia's strategic bomber force going on alert and getting airborne.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by WestPoint23]
But everyone knows that Russia is just testing U.S. capabilities when doing these manovers, if it was a real attack those Tu-160's would be using ECM/ECCM/ESM/ESSM''s, and not just flying, if this was the B-1 we're talking about you would have mentioned that, but scince it's the Tu-160 you all of a sudden forget that, I can assure you the U.S. Military doesn't.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
The problem with ECM, and jamming is that it's like putting up a giant sign saying "HERE WE ARE!". Jamming works great for defense, but it makes it really really obvious that something is coming, and the general area where it is too. Sheer power can cut through it as well, such as the SBX radar. I don't care which side you are on, it works both ways. Whether it's a B-1 fleet trying to jam their way through defenses, or TU-160s trying to jam through.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by kilcoo316
You wouldn't have double standards would you?




It would be astonishing if US satellites and SIGINT systems do not detect all of Russia's strategic bomber force going on alert and getting airborne.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by WestPoint23]
Yeah just as astonishing as Iranian UAV's tracking U.S.Cairriers
www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
How is that astonishing? A CVN is a HUGE target. It stands out on radar as the biggest return around. If you know where to look a blind man can track a CVN, and in the Gulf, there are only so many places you can hide. If it was in the middle of nowhere in the Pacific then I'd be impressed. In the Gulf, not really.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How is that astonishing? A CVN is a HUGE target. It stands out on radar as the biggest return around. If you know where to look a blind man can track a CVN, and in the Gulf, there are only so many places you can hide. If it was in the middle of nowhere in the Pacific then I'd be impressed. In the Gulf, not really.
I didn't mean it's "astonishing" I was showing even Iranians can track U.S. groups, and so Russians being able to do that is easy.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
ANYONE can track a CBG if you know where it is. CBGs are NOT stealthy in any way, except for some ships in the group, like the Burke class ships. The only time a CBG would be hard to track is in the middle of the ocean under EMCON.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
CVN's are big radar targets. The Burke class DDG's have alot of stealth features built in but all that does is reduce thier detection range.

CBG's can avoid known observations satelite tracks however. I think the big differienation point would be open ocean versus a confined waterway liek the Persian Gulf



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Westie did mention that the Tu-160 fleet wasn't very impressive, numbers-wise. I agree with him on that:


Production has since been restarted and a Tu-160 was delivered to the Russian Air Force in May 2000. 14 aircraft are now in service in Russia.


Tu-160 Facts

It appears to the Russians that the need for a conventional-style bomber has not gone away; rather in fact it has increased. (The US figured this out during the first Iraq war). I suspect that the production line has restarted with this in mind.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How is that astonishing? A CVN is a HUGE target. It stands out on radar as the biggest return around. If you know where to look a blind man can track a CVN, and in the Gulf, there are only so many places you can hide. If it was in the middle of nowhere in the Pacific then I'd be impressed. In the Gulf, not really.


You would be surprised, the USN is rather good at hiding. They have good deception abilities, and in the 80s and could at night often get away from shadowing Soviet ships.

There was a incident in the Med, mid 80s I think right before the attack in Libya, where the CVN quietly slipped away with lights out and no emissions, while a couple of smaller ships were broadcasting a tape of air traffic, and with very bright lights. In the morning, Soviets had no idea where the carrier was. A CVN at 35 knots, can get pretty far away overnight.

Yes, they are big targets, but remember, the ships can detect a planes radar, at twice the distance that the planes can detect the ships. Radar returns have to travel that distance twice for the plane to know where the ship is.


[edit on 22-9-2008 by firepilot]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by wantawanta
 


The Iranians sending up an unmanned UAV while a CBG may be in transit thorough the Persian Gulf does not really factor into any type of wartime surveillance capability. The fact that such an aircraft was not intercepted and destroyed only highlights the awareness the USN had of it. As others have mentioned during wartime with a constant CAP and heightened state of alert such a drone would be inconsequential. Even if in the Persian Gulf a CBG would not be near the Iranian coast. Operating from waters close to Western friendly nations they would see anyone trying to fly across toward them.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How is that astonishing? A CVN is a HUGE target. It stands out on radar as the biggest return around. If you know where to look a blind man can track a CVN, and in the Gulf, there are only so many places you can hide. If it was in the middle of nowhere in the Pacific then I'd be impressed. In the Gulf, not really.


You would be surprised, the USN is rather good at hiding. They have good deception abilities, and in the 80s and could at night often get away from shadowing Soviet ships.

There was a incident in the Med, mid 80s I think right before the attack in Libya, where the CVN quietly slipped away with lights out and no emissions, while a couple of smaller ships were broadcasting a tape of air traffic, and with very bright lights. In the morning, Soviets had no idea where the carrier was. A CVN at 35 knots, can get pretty far away overnight.

Yes, they are big targets, but remember, the ships can detect a planes radar, at twice the distance that the planes can detect the ships. Radar returns have to travel that distance twice for the plane to know where the ship is.


[edit on 22-9-2008 by firepilot]
Thats the tipical U.S. mumbojumbo thats stated everytime it was show Russia has the same capabilities the U.S. does, the Russians have and are still tracking U.S. SHIPS JUST LIKE THE U.S. ON RUSSIAN SHIPS, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THEY DON'T BROADCAST IT ALWAYS LIKE THE U.S. DOES. (If you ask me the U.S. broadcasts it always because thier just trying to make it seem as if they got Russia beat.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
reply to post by wantawanta
 


The Iranians sending up an unmanned UAV while a CBG may be in transit thorough the Persian Gulf does not really factor into any type of wartime surveillance capability. The fact that such an aircraft was not intercepted and destroyed only highlights the awareness the USN had of it. As others have mentioned during wartime with a constant CAP and heightened state of alert such a drone would be inconsequential. Even if in the Persian Gulf a CBG would not be near the Iranian coast. Operating from waters close to Western friendly nations they would see anyone trying to fly across toward them.
The fact that such an aircraft was not intercepted and destroyed only highlights the FACT the CBG "DIDN'T" know it was thier, and in a war time sceinairio if the Iranians choose to arm them they'll have the same chance of hitting that target, as did the Iraqs in 87:
"For some reason, the sea-skimming missiles were not detected by the Stark's sophisticated monitoring equipment"
eightiesclub.tripod.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


It's quite a bit different being in the Med where you have a LOT more room, and being in the Gulf where things are a lot tighter. There are parts of the Gulf where you can just about see all the way across to the other side.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by wantawanta
The fact that such an aircraft was not intercepted and destroyed only highlights the FACT the CBG "DIDN'T" know it was thier, and in a war time sceinairio if the Iranians choose to arm them they'll have the same chance of hitting that target, as did the Iraqs in 87:
"For some reason, the sea-skimming missiles were not detected by the Stark's sophisticated monitoring equipment"
eightiesclub.tripod.com...


So everytime something flies over a CBG they are supposed to shoot it down? Does that include Russian bombers? In a peacetime environment any aircraft has the right to overfly any ship in international waters. MANNED aircraft will be escorted over a CBG, but an UNmanned aircraft will be monitored and shot down ONLY if it performs any act that would be considered hostile.

As for the Stark not picking up a sea skimming missile, the Stark did NOT have "sophisticated monitoring equipment". The Stark was an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate. The OHPs were built starting in the 1970s, and the Stark was comissioned in 1982. The STIR used on the OHP had a blind spot, and the Exocets were fired in that blind spot. The new Aegis class ships DON'T have that blind spot, and are a LOT more advanced than any previous air defense ship built.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by wantawanta

Originally posted by WestPoint23
reply to post by wantawanta
 


The Iranians sending up an unmanned UAV while a CBG may be in transit thorough the Persian Gulf does not really factor into any type of wartime surveillance capability. The fact that such an aircraft was not intercepted and destroyed only highlights the awareness the USN had of it. As others have mentioned during wartime with a constant CAP and heightened state of alert such a drone would be inconsequential. Even if in the Persian Gulf a CBG would not be near the Iranian coast. Operating from waters close to Western friendly nations they would see anyone trying to fly across toward them.
The fact that such an aircraft was not intercepted and destroyed only highlights the FACT the CBG "DIDN'T" know it was thier, and in a war time sceinairio if the Iranians choose to arm them they'll have the same chance of hitting that target, as did the Iraqs in 87:
"For some reason, the sea-skimming missiles were not detected by the Stark's sophisticated monitoring equipment"
eightiesclub.tripod.com...



Huh, why was the US Navy supposed to shoot it down? I can think of lots of reasons why not to. There is no reason to shoot it down in when there is not a shooting war going on, and lots of reason why it is better not to.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by wantawanta

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How is that astonishing? A CVN is a HUGE target. It stands out on radar as the biggest return around. If you know where to look a blind man can track a CVN, and in the Gulf, there are only so many places you can hide. If it was in the middle of nowhere in the Pacific then I'd be impressed. In the Gulf, not really.


You would be surprised, the USN is rather good at hiding. They have good deception abilities, and in the 80s and could at night often get away from shadowing Soviet ships.

There was a incident in the Med, mid 80s I think right before the attack in Libya, where the CVN quietly slipped away with lights out and no emissions, while a couple of smaller ships were broadcasting a tape of air traffic, and with very bright lights. In the morning, Soviets had no idea where the carrier was. A CVN at 35 knots, can get pretty far away overnight.

Yes, they are big targets, but remember, the ships can detect a planes radar, at twice the distance that the planes can detect the ships. Radar returns have to travel that distance twice for the plane to know where the ship is.


[edit on 22-9-2008 by firepilot]
Thats the tipical U.S. mumbojumbo thats stated everytime it was show Russia has the same capabilities the U.S. does, the Russians have and are still tracking U.S. SHIPS JUST LIKE THE U.S. ON RUSSIAN SHIPS, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THEY DON'T BROADCAST IT ALWAYS LIKE THE U.S. DOES. (If you ask me the U.S. broadcasts it always because thier just trying to make it seem as if they got Russia beat.


Mumbo jumbo? I am sorry that reality is mumbo jumbo for you but if it is, maybe you should learn more about military capabilities. And also this was not exactly broadcast out there for all to know about either, since you were not exactly aware of this incident either it seems.

And no, Russia did not have the same capabilities as the western Navies, nor do they still do this day. Did they have some great capabilities? Yes they did. But not the same or as great.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by wantawanta


So everytime something flies over a CBG they are supposed to shoot it down? Does that include Russian bombers? In a peacetime environment any aircraft has the right to overfly any ship in international waters. MANNED aircraft will be escorted over a CBG, but an UNmanned aircraft will be monitored and shot down ONLY if it performs any act that would be considered hostile.

Yes even Russian bombers, but they didn't because they didn't know they were there until it they had over flown the,, despite lying through thier teeth claiming they saw them on their radar, no non-Authorised planes are alowd to over fly UBG's so when they are over flown, it's only 2 reasons:
1. They got permission.
2. They didn't know they were there.



As for the Stark not picking up a sea skimming missile, the Stark did NOT have "sophisticated monitoring equipment". The Stark was an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate. The OHPs were built starting in the 1970s, and the Stark was comissioned in 1982. The STIR used on the OHP had a blind spot, and the Exocets were fired in that blind spot. The new Aegis class ships DON'T have that blind spot, and are a LOT more advanced than any previous air defense ship built.
Yeah Yeah, and now ANTI-ship missiles are even more advanced than they were 20+ years ago, so it will be they same result.

[edit on 22-9-2008 by wantawanta]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join