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.

 

New missile deployed with RAF

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
But surely the idea that Russia wanted to steam into Western Europe was simply a myth brought about by Western paranoia, for their part the Russians were equally convinced that the West wanted to invade THEM, hence the stand off that was only ended by the collapse of communism. Just because a way of life or set of beliefs is different to your own doesn't automatically make it out to destroy you, unfortunately it is the fear and paranoia on both sides that takes control, fuelled by the horrific experience of six years of war and the desperation not to go through it all again?

By the way, although the V-force was small I'm sure the Russians weren't too blase about having it used on them.




posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   
You think that Russia didn't want Western Europe? Man are you missinformed. They would have taken ALL of Germany, if it weren't for the US getting to berlin at the same time wouldn't they?

Then they got nukes,a few years after the US. So say the US went back into it's isolationist thought. You think Russia wouldn't have invaded say, France, with no American nuclear detterent?

The fact that Russia had TENS OF THOUSANDS of tanks ready to invade all of western Europe is testiment to their true intentions. Howeer, the Russians were not stupid and realized that the US was their equal and would defend there allies. Hence, you do not live uder comunism.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
You think that Russia didn't want Western Europe? Man are you missinformed. They would have taken ALL of Germany, if it weren't for the US getting to berlin at the same time wouldn't they?

The meeting of the American and Russian forces in Berlin was carefully choreographed for propaganda reasons. The Russians were ordered to wait and the British were ordered to stay out of Berlin to allow the Americans who were a little behind to get there. Thats fairly well documented, if the Russians were so hell bent why wait? But they did, because at that time we were ALL on the same side.

Then they got nukes,a few years after the US. So say the US went back into it's isolationist thought. You think Russia wouldn't have invaded say, France, with no American nuclear detterent?

That was the common belief at the time, as I said, but it can never be proved or disproved because it didn't happen

The fact that Russia had TENS OF THOUSANDS of tanks ready to invade all of western Europe is testiment to their true intentions. Howeer, the Russians were not stupid and realized that the US was their equal and would defend there allies. Hence, you do not live uder comunism.


Yes the tanks were there, of course, but whether they were there as an invasion force or as a deterrent themselves can only be debated on can it not? The fear of the red menace was deeply ingrained in us all but what I am saying is that THEY fel;t the same way about US so maybe we were both wrong?



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 04:25 AM
link   
The US in all of its 40 years in the cold war never intended to invade the USSR our policy was retaliation not preemptive strike and the Russians knew this and did not put the tanks there to deter the US but just incase the Americans pulled out they were ready to roll through western Europe.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Just as we (and I include myself) believed that the Russians were bent on smashing capitalism (and NATO along with it) it is also true that the Russians took America's VERY OTT stance on communism to indicate a desire to destroy the Soviet Union. Naturally they planned accordingly even though the expense of such rampant militarism brought the country to its knees. What I'm saying is that I believe that what drove the USSR along this path, rather than aggression, was fear. Just as the US forces, both conventional and nuclear, were also the result of fear. I'm not saying it was right or wrong just that the cold war was the result of mutual fear and distrust and not, most certainly not, the result of Uncle Sam bravely standing between the Red Menace and total domination. Its so obvious it shouldn't have to be stated but my, haven't we strayed off topic?



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Ok sure we have gone off topic but I have one last question for you.
Do you think that Western Europe could repel or stop a full soviet union invasion without any help from the US whatsoever if the US was not involved do you think they stood a chance?



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   
If that was the case then certainly not, that is undeniable. I believe it was once stated (in the book The Third World War by a General who's name escapes me) that if Soviet conventional forces advanced into Germany NATO would be forced to go nuclear after five days. This was referring to actual forces as they existed in 1986 so without the USA the situation would easily be much worse.

I may be mistaken but I also believe that even to launch British nuclear weapons from RAF Vulcan and Victor bombers the agreement of the USA was required, does anyone know if the reverse was true with US weapons?

The closest we ever came to World War Three, much closer than the Cuban crisis, was when RAF Vulcans were actually recalled whilst over the English Channel on route to the USSR in, I think, 1958. I will endeavour to find out more on this and maybe start a new thread if I'm successful.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Umm... I am not aware of any rule that states the US has to have the consent of Britain to launch nuclear weapons as far as I know the President is the only one the pentagon needs to ask.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
FOR **** SAKE THIS THREAD IS 3 PAGES LONG AND 2 OF THEM ARE ABOUT US VS UK! no one could of won ww2 on their own ok? we were allies fighting against a greater evil ,end of story. who cares what weapons we gave each other!
can we get back to the original topic!
as much as i would like rally around my flag im more interested about these new missiles the RAF are getting.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
FOR **** SAKE THIS THREAD IS 3 PAGES LONG AND 2 OF THEM ARE ABOUT US VS UK! no one could of won ww2 on their own ok? we were allies fighting against a greater evil ,end of story. who cares what weapons we gave each other!
can we get back to the original topic!
as much as i would like rally around my flag im more interested about these new missiles the RAF are getting.


Quite Right devilwasp. Why do people talk about US vs UK or Europe? -

It's so unlikely to happen and if it did, it would most probably just be a very quick nuclear war.

BTW, nice to see you back.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 05:06 PM
link   
at last our planes are getting better gear!!
now just need to buy a better plane.
btw iv been away on courses been great at biley any army cadets on here that where there?thanks for noticeing man !

[edit on 16-7-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
at last our planes are getting better gear!!


Defence cuts not that long ago.

We'll probably find that 'they' can't afford to buy enough missiles and will have to share them around



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   
To get this topic back on topic, I'd like to talk about the ASRAAM and AIM-9X. ASRAAM was born in the mid-1980s as a joint venture between the US, UK, Germany, and I believe on or two other European countries. The idea was that Europe would take the lead in developing a next generation Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) which the US would also buy. In exchange, the US would take the lead in developing the next generation Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) which the European nations would also buy.

Unfortunately, the ASRAAM project ran into all kinds of problems and everyone pulled out of it except the UK. It took about 15 years, but they succeeded in developing the missile on their own with assistance in developing the seeker from Raytheon in the US. The ASRAAM design does have high off-borseight capability and can be operated using a helmet-mounted targeting system. However, the missile tends to emphasize high speed over agility. ASRAAM travels faster than the American Sidewinder family, but the use of only tail controls without thrust vectoring means the ASRAAM cannot turn as well. I can't quote specific numbers, but the off-borseight capability of ASRAAM is about 2/3rd what AIM-9X is cabale of. Australia was the first export customer for ASRAAM and is integrating it aboard its fleet of F-18 Hornets.

After the joint venture on ASRAAM fell apart, the US went on to build the AIM-9X Sidewinder that is starting to enter service on the F-18 and F-15. It will ultimately be carried on the F-16, F-22, F-35, and F-18E/F as well. Germany also developed its own short-range, IR-guided, high off-boresight missile called IRIS-T.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by aerospaceweb]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Excellent post, thank you. I was going round in circles anyway. You don't know about the Meteor as well do you as my web searches have revealed surprisingly little?



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Excellent post, thank you. I was going round in circles anyway. You don't know about the Meteor as well do you as my web searches have revealed surprisingly little?


I'm not an expert on it, but I know a little about it. It's an advanced long-range air-to-air missile generally comparable to the American AMRAAM but with a much different propulsion system. AMRAAM uses a solid rocket motor while Meteor uses an integral rocket ramjet (IRR). An IRR is essentially a solid rocket inside of a comustion chamber. The solid rocket is used to boost the missile to high speed. Once it is used up, inlets open up to bring in outside air. The air is mixed with fuel in the combustion chamber and ignited to produce thrust. The IRR therefore converts itself from a solid rocket to an air-breathing ramjet. Although more complex and expensive, the advantage of this propuslion system is that it can fly farther than a solid rocket. Meteor has a range of about 55 miles while AMRAAM is limited to about 40 miles. Both travel at about Mach 4 and both use an active radar seeker for terminal guidance.

Anything in particular you'd like to know about Meteor?

[edit on 18-8-2004 by aerospaceweb]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:20 PM
link   
It was mainly how it compared with the AMRAAM. Because the RAF is replacing the AMRAAM with Meteor I wondered if it was significantly better or whether it was a political choice to have a Euro missile on the Typhoon with the ASRAAM? And then of course theres the Raytheon FMRAAM which lost out to the Meteor as well.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I believe that Meteor uses some more advanced technology in its seeker and guidance sections since it is a newer missile, but I don't have enough information to say how much better it might be. I also believe that the UK purchased toe AIM-120B variant of AMRAAM for the Typhoon. The US is now switching over to the AIM-120C and AIM-120D which are much improved versions. I suspect that the Meteor and AIM-120C/D are pretty comparable in their capabilities, except for the Meteor's greater range that I spoke of earlier.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Please excuse the dumb nature of this post but physics has never been anything but a mystery to me!


Anyway, I read on one website that ASRAAM was capable of pulling 50G and engaging pretty much any threat in the pilots sphere of vision using the HMS on the Typhoon. Now with the talk being that ASRAAM is less manouverable than The IRIS-T and AIM9-X due to a lack of TVC i was wondering just how much of a difference this actually makes?

To a simple chap like me it would seem that a missile that can pull 50G's should be perfectly adequate when it comes to engaging a target turning at no more than 9G (is this not the general limit for manned aircraft?). So the question is which of the two seemingly different design philosophies (trading manouverabilty for speed somewhat it would seem) is superior. I assume the TVC missiles would be able to geat a bead on a target at high off boresight angles more quickly, however once this has been achieved does the ASRAAM's higher flight speed compensate for it's disadvantage in acquiring the target as quickly? I may well be making a naive assumption that once either missile is heading in the correct general direction then they are both easily able to out turn the target. Would not using tighter turning TVC controls bleed off more speed in the long run?



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by WestPoint23

And who does low level bombing anymore...oh that's right the brits don't have PGM never mind.



They sooooooooo do.

The problem with you Yanks is that you're so high up that you can't tell whose a friend or an enemy.



if i recall correctly, in Desert Storm about 90% of the runway bombing missions (the most dangerous type of sortie) were performed by british Tornado bombers, because the US didnt have any aircraft capable of that type of low-level mission. this wasnt so long ago!

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 02:24 AM
link   
The best current short range missille is Israelis Python 4. It has no thrust vectoring but is still able to pull 70 Gs. It also cannot be cheated by flares, because it stores also normal image of aircraft not only IR. Also it aproaches to the target by spiral so every attempt to outmaneuvre it for example with cobra manuver will not work. And the Python 5 is already under development (100 Gs).








new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join