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.

 

Shooting down Stealth/F22 and winning the war

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by warbird03
Reply to post by StellarX
 


You wouldn't use FAEs to target the equipment though, but the personnel instead. Nobody to use the equipment, no threat.


A Sa-10( S-300 ) battery does not require that anyone be outside of the tracked vehicles during a engagements or even during deployment or redeployment. The idea of people standing around outside of guns feeding shells is from a different era entirely. Modern air defenses rely on mobility and high levels of automation to both cut down on the number of skilled operators. Professional armies can not afford to do it another way and the more you involve people the greater possibility of human error which does more than any other factor to throw off your tactical calculations.


Perhaps the rock paper scissors analogy wasn't the best. Point is, though, that would it not make sense to take out equipment meant for air defense with ground forces?


Oh the theory is good but if you can get to the air defenses with your land forces that normally means that your not employing your aircraft tactically ( what would be the point?) and still requires that you deal with air defenses for interdiction raids or strategic strikes. It's not as simple as sending in the lings to take out the stalkers before you send in the mutas


Stellar




posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


I understand the bit about mobility, but I would think that mobility would be greatly reduced if you lose a sizable amount of your men to something like an FAE.

The whole point is probably moot though. I imagine there's a great deal of technology they have for situations like this that we have no idea about.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Thanks for your comments, and appreciate the reference-links. I have some knowledge of radar, with emphasis on phased array, multi-module, IR, blended, and other current scanner technology. Looking at VERY sensitive field-detection based on minute changes in certain EMF, and its use in technologies. Am investigating exploiting my favorite area: Quantum Dynamics as it's applied to bio-communications and sensors, with (My main field is neurological and organic conductive polymers) signal&communications in and "how to" apply to solving technological engineering issues. Very interested in history, crypto, and anything living translating into organic systems-based technology. But in truth, organisms just seem intuitive to me, because it unlike our current concept of "systems" won't fall apart, be fooled, countered, have a hissy fit like what "systems" are about. Bottom line: Systems endure, organisms adapt. I'm much more aware of echo-acoustic's, and bio-sensory ability and have looked at synthetic applications for such technology. Amazing potential, even bio-SIGNET, and "Dolphin/Bat based echolocation based counter-measures" (no kidding) combination sensor-communications but it adapt's like all living things. Many other areas I choose not to talk about. Self censorship, conscience based. Best kind.

Other areas I track include point defense energy weapons. Have looked at a weapon that's a form of "projected-blended envelope" that creates a high broad scope targeted defense-sensor, I call "pins and needles" thats a field of increasing density that need's very little energy, reducing detection even if one knows about it, but is seriously as close to what I can think of to a "Defensive Energy Screen" But the same system has many possible permutations also could be used to "smell" (metaphorically of course, though it could detect chemicals at PPT) so quietly and adapt to and in ways the people who designed it not even know.Try looking at how the visual cortex see's the same thing but "lights up" in different patterns EVERY SINGLE TIME. Hard to pass secrets by some traitor when he does know what they are, or can't. I like that a lot... Yes, has much potential; anything based on biology always does. Tapping into/scramble neuron-communication,s, I'm more aware of. Know about EM accelerated "slugs" (20,000 mph you can hit-'em with Tinker Bell and we one bad hair day for anything "incoming") ABM systems, anti-torpedo/submarine potential. Military areas of interest include but not limited to; aerospace and Naval, Space Defense, sensors, cybernetics, self repairing systems battlefield "smart-medic " or intelligent uniforms, "bio-camo" "chameleon battle wear", IR, and other types of spoofing as "He's over there"

Member many professional organizations of interest to your area such as AIAA, was on the short lived Research and Advisory Panel for Aviation Week & Space Technology, sounds so cool but include such critical areas like reviewing articles, making comments or suggestions. No doubt I was who really won the cold war... But as a very young guy in 1983-1984, being on a group, just so very cool. Am a single engine pilot but can't fly alone anymore, since 1989, developed epilepsy. But do when I can get a pilot to second chair. Hell of nice way to just relax... Had the honer of meeting with Ben Rich at Skunk Works in 1985, (That was my one damn near religious experience) when at my first "real" job at a biotech company, looking at bio-coatings, sensors, I came with a bio- active-coating to convert MW radar to a form that then "smokes off" along with the signal hence no signal to be seen. It was actually a form of "ablative fig leaf" Also a coating that would repair skin lacerations in aircraft, though just to get home with, but this is more simple surface chemistry. Turn the whole plane into a bio-sensor coated structure that used fractal differentiation not isolated "lonely" sensors. I had no idea about anything "stealth" not even then knowing the word. Though I was not contacted again, who knows? It just seemed logical, being life is at least 3.8 billion years older then any engineer, it seemed why not cheat and use nature for our own purpose. Look forward to further discussions.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Or develop small yield nukes with a reliable delivery system. Just my two cents since I am not a weapons expert. The only real winners in war are the bankers and the military-industrial complex. Lets not feed the beast more than we have to.


Using nukes against countries that can litterally nuke you off the map ( if your a third world country) is just a very bad idea! The whole purpose of nuclear weapons is deterrence as their actual usage, when there is such a disparity in numbers of nukes, would ensure your prompt destruction.


Then why does north korea and iran want nuclear weapons? Any deterance is better than no deterrance, especially given the fact western countries have a low tolerance to casualties.



I agree that we should do less of this war thing but that's rather pointless given who has been attacking who in recent memory. The only reason why the world has not been united under one king/queen dictator is because people fight back and the only reason why it will remain that way is if people keep on resisting even when it's so very costly.

Cheers,

Stellar
edit on 28-3-2011 by StellarX because: Wrong thread


Huh? Who has been attacking who.........

And why would anyone want a one world government when our own governments can't even handle our own national problems? Corruption is rampant everywhere even if you don't believe much in conspiracy theories!

As for the rest of your post, I will agree its foolish to take on nato and the cost is defeat. I was simply talking from a theoretical perspective based on guerilla wars of the past but what is effective against a superior enemy can be disadvantageous in a neighbor fight.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 


Glad you liked the links. Very interesting background you have. Sorry for the epilepsy, that you can't fly anymore. Yea I originally joined the forum because of my interest in Area 51 and Weaponry, but it seems nowadays this board has turned into a lot of politics. I look forward to nice discussions with you as well. I added you as a friend



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
It's a response but not as on topic as many might prefer....


Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Then why does north korea and iran want nuclear weapons? Any deterance is better than no deterrance, especially given the fact western countries have a low tolerance to casualties.


They do not 'want' nuclear weapons but feel they need them to deter probable future US aggression against them; empires create their own enemies. Western countries have a high tolerance for casualties ( US/Britain/Germany/France second world war?) provided that they are actually under attack and the citizenry can be made to believe that the country's independence is at risk. Since the US government can not convince many Americans that it's wars are in fact 'preemptive defense' they can not afford many casualties as that tends to convince many of the rest that it's not 'worth' the cost. Given real enemies with real capabilities the US armed forces will immediately go back to the draft and casualties will be norm given the lack of equipment with which to fight the war of attrition that any war with the Russian federation or China will almost inevitably become.


Huh? Who has been attacking who.........


The United States government have physically invaded and occupied two countries in less than ten years. Neither attacked the united states or were sponsors of terror against the United states nor were they, in the case of the Taliban unwilling to cooperate in delivering terror suspects. This is off topic so if you are unaware of all this and wish to talk about it we can find a suitable thread for it.


And why would anyone want a one world government when our own governments can't even handle our own national problems? Corruption is rampant everywhere even if you don't believe much in conspiracy theories!


Well obviously people do not want the type of globalised one world government that protects corporate interest instead of our rights but they would not be as completely opposed to effective service delivering world central government as many would suggest. People are not greatly concerned with their 'freedoms' as long as they are economically well off; Saddam and many dictators like him stay in power not because of continued oppression but because of efficient governance and decent service delivery for a sufficiently large majority to ensure the peace.

As for governments not being able to handle national problems why do you believe that when these people are getting fantastically rich and have sufficient degrees to suggest that they have more than fair intellectual ability? Why do you believe they are incapable of effective governance and service delivery instead of considering the possibility that their just not trying or that it's simple not in the interest of the wealthy to do any of things we commonly see as the 'failings' of big government? Why could Saddam feed everyone ( one of the most efficient food distribution networks the UN apparently ever saw) he chooses to despite sanctions when there are actually people in the US that die from exposure and malnourishment due to lack of food? I mean how did we come to believe that 'big government' is inefficient in delivering services when the same sort of government finds the time and means to monitor your emails and actively spy on individuals? Is it so unbelievable that it's just a question of their chosen priorities and how their interests happen to be different from that of the citizenry?


As for the rest of your post, I will agree its foolish to take on nato and the cost is defeat. I was simply talking from a theoretical perspective based on guerilla wars of the past but what is effective against a superior enemy can be disadvantageous in a neighbor fight.


I should not even call it NATO as NATO has no strategic teeth without the US and would not engage in much in the way of aggressive action outside of Europe. It is thus foolish to oppose (US, in this case but it's not much different than any before) imperial interest but some leaders and their people do so anyways. No one willingly engages in guerrilla type resistance as it's a admission of complete defeat and leaves your population complete at the mercy of the occupiers with nominally predictably gruesome results.

If they can not get away with massacring the people outright they will starve them out or take away access to services and medicine that allows anything like a modern society to function. Iraqi's resistance has already cost it somewhere over one million excess deaths and as long as anyone shoots back the occupying government will keep on taking it out on the citizenry.

But your right in stating that it is foolish to resist. Unless you have your own empire or are sufficiently strong in your own right right and wrong doesn't enter into it and it's best to make a deal lest the empire becomes vindictive/spitefull as well.

Stellar
edit on 29-3-2011 by StellarX because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Theoretical opinion on the death of Stealth:

Imagine this scenario, you are China and you have a satellite in space. You spot 5 F-22's parked on island X in the Pacific Ocean with your satellite. You released a tiny re-entry capsule from another satellite that's so small it can't be detected. After re-entering the atmosphere the capsule pops open and a tiny guided dart picks up the UV Laser that satellite is using to target an F-22 parked on island X. The tiny guided dart glides down to Earth and strikes the F-22 in the inner left wing area and penetrates the advanced composites leaving only a needle head sticking out...it's antenna.

Beacon deployed. The technology already exists. Nobody would ever detect such an operation.

Another tactic soon to be used is....... "Stealth" means the plane won't reflect...it's made to absorb. Peculiar things happen when things absorb energy instead of reflect. You can send energy up and make a F-22 become the anode...receiving the energy if it's there and becoming your flash tube. A simple study of what metallurgy is on the airframe and then start thinking. Read Philipp Lenard's work, xrays, "townsend discharges", and eventually you could create a system to pulse discharges into the atmosphere and make something really stand out. Maybe even to the visible eye.

Tether weather balloons to the ground and have a box on the weather balloon emitting GPS signals the satellites give off...maybe JDAM munitions could be ran off course with errant data thus making the stealth airplane's mission a failure anyways. Maybe those weather balloons wouldn't even have to be tethered, just released after the first bomb fell.

I'm sure there are Chinese scientists who actually went to a college and are smarter than me already came up better ideas.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Supposedly the Chinese are working on a H-10 ramjet bomber.

Speed beats stealth if the other guy can't shoot your ramjet aircraft. Who knows if it's just chinese propaganda or if they are actually building it. They don't have much experience building anything without stealing copies from someone else.

Maybe the chinese working in our defense labs got our blueprints for our ramjet bomber and will fly one before we do. How the heck do you shoot down something with a ramjet anyways?



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Most kind comments, thank you, and are also a friend. One who seeks answers, reasonable in presenting a view and has passionate love for ideas. We need many more people like that.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Nukes are like college degrees, You have to be really smart to apply them to the everyday world.

Fuel air bombs make high pressure, so they would be best against trench systems or fortifications that are open to the atmosphere. Fragmentation can be blocked by angles of dirt, but pressure goes through out the trench like hydrolic fluid in a brake system. Offensive hand grenades are high pressure blast, while defensive hand grenades are lower pressure fragmentation.

I think FAE is best against defence in depth trench systems. Cluster bombs would exert all of their potential when used against a moblie SAM unit.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
Supposedly the Chinese are working on a H-10 ramjet bomber.

Speed beats stealth if the other guy can't shoot your ramjet aircraft. Who knows if it's just chinese propaganda or if they are actually building it. They don't have much experience building anything without stealing copies from someone else.

Maybe the chinese working in our defense labs got our blueprints for our ramjet bomber and will fly one before we do. How the heck do you shoot down something with a ramjet anyways?


If the ram jet has a human in it, then its path is restricted to the g forces the human can survive. Anything ( maybe as small as a BB) in the path of a hypersonic vehicle would destroy it. I would rather be invisible than fast.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


Who says there has to be a human in it? I would rather be mach 20 hypersonic than be stealth because stealth can be rendered useless by satellites watching the skies from above. Radar from space bouncing down and high powered optics is something that the designers of the F22 did not anticipate. It costs cheaper to set up a few satellites with that capability and detect all planes and render the first shoot first kill advantage. That is where the Mach 10 plane comes in and destroys any stealth fighter.

Plus how would you shoot any BB at a hypersonic fighter lol. My fart can cloud the window of the F22 making the pilot blind but its not practical, just as the shooting a BB at a hypersonic fighter lol.
edit on 3-4-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
The S-400 is one bad mothafu#ka but so is the f-22 LOL



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


A hypersonic fighting vehicle without a human would be a diety of death. The ramjet has no moving parts so an appropriately beefed and streamlined HFV could impact its victims and dodge anything, since it could pull maximum g.

Somewhere back in the 70's I heard that the fighting planes were limited in performance by the forces that the crew could function at. Humans can take 9 g. I don't know what the planes can withstand but an order of magnitude estimate would be at least twice that many. Especially if the planes (vehicles) were designed with high g in mind.

Matbe they've already got them. You don't know the real state of affairs untill they need to kill you and then the walls come to life.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


The first truely invisible vehicle will be a plane or a tank. Their silhouettes are clean (or could be made so) and could be completely covered with LCD panels.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 



Plus how would you shoot any BB at a hypersonic fighter lol. My fart can cloud the window of the F22 making the pilot blind but its not practical, just as the shooting a BB at a hypersonic fighter lol.
edit on 3-4-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


The BB would be more like a snare or mine or trap than a missle. Kind of like barrage balloons. A company working on dyes and lubricants came across a chemical that instantaneously turns from a powder to a solid block on impact.
A cloud of such a chemical would either rip up the hypersonic vehicle or reduce its flightpaths and give the AA a chance to shoot at it.

Sighting a stealth plane by its interference between cell towers is pretty cool. Hopefully there is always something like that when you're downrange.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


As the same cloud can cover the F22 pilot with paint the pilot cant see as well as render the stealth useless. Plus the Hypersonic fighter has a faster chance to outmaneuver and escape such clouds.

It is a neat idea but the US method is you wont see us coming (this can be rendered useless by satellites as i described). The Russian method is you will see us coming, but you can't stop us lol.
edit on 3-4-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
It is a neat idea but the US method is you wont see us coming (this can be rendered useless by satellites as i described). The Russian method is you will see us coming, but you can't stop us lol.
edit on 3-4-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


It's easy to assert something, but making it practical is another thing entirely. Satellite coverage is spotty and satellites can be easily spoofed. SO no your description is not sufficient to render anything useless. Anone can make something up and say it'll work, but you have no idea about the complexities of implementing it in the real world or how it would move from the drawing board to something practical.

Seems you like pies in the sjy



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
You mean the X-37 that is currently being developed and is being tested right now above your head by Boeing when you consider Mach 20? Don't worry the US Military are pioneering in speed and stealth to counter any threat to its offensive and defensive schemes. I tend to ask myself to this day, why lead in just stealth when you can lead in both?

The original scenario in the first post in this thread, the JASSM/JASSM-ER cripples it, yet you tend to shy away from proving this wrong.

Good Day.
edit on 5-4-2011 by Laxpla because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mad scientist
 


How many reports of satellites have been spoofed? It is extremely difficult with good encryption etc. They wont fool anyone. high powered satellites have just rendered stealth useless.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join