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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by mad scientist
 


Dude LIDAR satellites exist. They have been using it for ground mapping. We did experiments with lasers when I was getting my physics degree. Yes I know what lasers are capable of.


Obviously you don't because you stated LIDAR can see through clouds, it can't. Also taking a still image of a fixed point is no where even close to the capability of tracking a realtime target.

As for your physics degree, there is some debate as to whether you even have one, especially if you think LIDAR is an all weather sensor


my physics degree s valid i can show you pictures of my work

LIDAR has been used to communicate via water with subs. realtime means video tracking with optics. its very simple.




posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mad scientist
 


Dude I have read those capabilities. I know what I am talking about. Read any of the links.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Interesting, where are your reliable sources that back up your opinion? My sources show that the JASSM/JASSM-ER are not match for your systems you mentioned above. Honest question and I'm not trying to be smart, where do you hear/make this stuff up? You are a big boy, I do not need to keep providing you facts that are available on the internet. 2 minutes of searching I pull this up.

"Cruise missiles are at greatest risk during the terminal dive at the target, as they will usually by directly exposed to terminal defences. SAM systems like the S-300PMU(SA-10)/S-400(SA-20) and S-300V (SA-12) systems were specifically designed to kill cruise missiles, and the Russians have actively marketed the 9M331 Tor (SA-15) for this purpose. The cancelled AGM-137 TSSAM and it replacement AGM-158
JASSM were built for high stealth for exactly this reason. As highly mobile SAM/AAA systems further proliferate in this region, non-stealthy cruise missiles will become increasingly less credible. It is worth noting that the digital datalinks now being sold on cruise missiles with the aim of ‘inflight retargeting’ may actually prove more useful for ‘inflight rerouting’ to bypass mobile SAM/AAA batteries."

www.ausairpower.net...


"The S400 is the latest version of Russia’s robust SAM technology.
The JASSM-ER is necessary to ensure that a strike on a target protected by the S400 is a success."

defensetech.org...


Seriously, research before you write anything else. With your "degree" in "physics" maybe you should have took Ethics 101 in your escapade, you seem to need it.

There are tons of other sources that agree with me.

Good Day.
edit on 7-4-2011 by Laxpla because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
The problem with US military doctrine and strategy is they are only set up for fast overwhelming attack or battles. The US military is not capable of fighting large sustained ( over 60 days ) all out battle.

The B2 bomber requires 130 Hours of Maintenance for each hour of flight, this is ridiculous and cannot be sustained in serious combat environment.

The F-22 has not seen a day of combat since its creation and production. There is something wrong with this picture. The Air Force does not allow it to fly into combat, for some reason.

Carrier strike groups are WW2 strategy, and should be removed / reduced as part of US military doctrine just like the Battleship was slowly exited after WW2. Carrier groups are high value targets and will be prime targets and easy prey for modern weapon systems.

High technology is the Achilles Heel of US military strategy. We have come to rely on technology more than having proper strategy and historical understanding. This is primarily evident in the invasion of Iraq, a tactical win but a strategic blunder costing the US economy trillions in unrecoverable expenses. We are making the same mistakes countless empires and governments have made before; believing we are invincible to the point laws of economics and guidelines of strategic warfare do not apply to the USA.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
my physics degree s valid i can show you pictures of my work


Sorry but I don't believe a word you say or that you even work. You could show me pictures which anyone can grab off the internet. So, no don't bother.


LIDAR has been used to communicate via water with subs. realtime means video tracking with optics. its very simple.


Sorry but LIDAR was not used to communicate with subs. A blue-green laser was used. This bares absolutely no relevance whatsoever to your assertions that a spaced based LIDAR satellite can track aircraft. You are a master of bull#ting around a subject but never offering anything relevant to back up your fantasies.
As I said before LIDAR cannot penetrate clouds.

I know you're type very well, constantly attempting to change your arguments as you're proven wrong over and over again.
edit on 7-4-2011 by mad scientist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ariel bender
The B2 bomber requires 130 Hours of Maintenance for each hour of flight, this is ridiculous and cannot be sustained in serious combat environment.


You fail to understand what the B-2 is to be used for, that is destroying high value targets in the opening stages of a war.


The F-22 has not seen a day of combat since its creation and production. There is something wrong with this picture. The Air Force does not allow it to fly into combat, for some reason.


And where exactly should it see combat? It's a fighter plane, so it's pointless to use in Iraq or Afghanistan. The USAF has seen more combat on the last 30 years than the rest of the worlds air forces combined. I think they know what they're doing.

Of course armchair generals will always have their opinions



Carrier strike groups are WW2 strategy, and should be removed / reduced as part of US military doctrine just like the Battleship was slowly exited after WW2. Carrier groups are high value targets and will be prime targets and easy prey for modern weapon systems.


And who would be stupid enough to attack a carrier?


We are making the same mistakes countless empires and governments have made before; believing we are invincible to the point laws of economics and guidelines of strategic warfare do not apply to the USA.


LOL a nice cliche which has been repeated over and over for decades about America. Forgive me for saying you sound like a parrot.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
The AGM-88 HARM is too big to fit in the F-22's internal bay.

Not happening.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ariel benderThe F-22 has not seen a day of combat since its creation and production. There is something wrong with this picture. The Air Force does not allow it to fly into combat, for some reason..


Mad Scientist has it right. No air-to-air to be fought and they haven't perfected the SDB or the baby JDAM yet.

Sure, they could have flown the no-fly-zone over Libya, but in a shocking move that made sense, they sent the F-15's from England and the F-16's from Italy to do it.

Much cheaper to fly from Lakenheath to Aviano as the CAP starting point than all the way from Florida, Virginia or Alaska...



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Hi bender,


Originally posted by ariel bender
The problem with US military doctrine and strategy is they are only set up for fast overwhelming attack or battles. The US military is not capable of fighting large sustained ( over 60 days ) all out battle.


Perhaps not against the Russian federation or China but practically anyone else just lacks the volume of hardware and technology to credibly deter the US or fight and survive as a modern industrial nation. Why the US is not designed to fight against what remains essentially Soviet era forces in the current Russian federation is a more complicated matter...


The B2 bomber requires 130 Hours of Maintenance for each hour of flight, this is ridiculous and cannot be sustained in serious combat environment.


130 man hours of maintenance...... Presuming that number is accurate if you have 50 or 100 people involved in the process you would be surprised how fast they turn that thing around on you.... Fact is no matter how inefficiently and stupidly the Pentagon fights it's still going to destroy almost any nation or even large blocs of allied nations.


The F-22 has not seen a day of combat since its creation and production. There is something wrong with this picture. The Air Force does not allow it to fly into combat, for some reason.


There would be little point as it's primary designed as a air superiority fighter and it's ground attack capabilities are still in the working up phase; either way there is no point to risking such a asset in forward bases, third world countries or any kind of even low risk combat operation.


Carrier strike groups are WW2 strategy, and should be removed / reduced as part of US military doctrine just like the Battleship was slowly exited after WW2. Carrier groups are high value targets and will be prime targets and easy prey for modern weapon systems.


Submarines do get lucky against carrier task groups but the US can afford to lose a few and still crush practically anyone with ease. Practically all nations would have to launch their entire air forces ( something that will not happen) to stand a reliable chance of swamping a single carrier task groups air defenses and in so doing invite defeat in open skies. Most don't have the reach ( lacking the tanker capacity) even if they wanted to try and if they did they will just leave their ground based air defenses open to saturation and penetration.

The only country that ever had a chance to fight and 'win' in the open seas was the USSR and they could only do that because their fleet was essentially designed to block the Atlantic traffic for long enough to defeat NATO forces on the continent. Their design reflects this fact as much as the US design philosophy reflects their imperial aim of keeping third world nations terrified of massed task carrier task groups laying waste to their countries in mere weeks. Even thought the USSR could focus itself on a 'disposable' fleet ( carriers have serious staying power if you can not saturate and destroy them outright) for a few massive battles it's a open question if it's surface forces would have great success or if it would have come down to the large numbers of submarines they deployed.

There is also the danger that if you sink too many you ( as third/first world little nation) might piss them off and that they might nuke you by 'accident' or get spiteful and carpet bomb you with B-52's. Even winning involves serious risks....


High technology is the Achilles Heel of US military strategy. We have come to rely on technology more than having proper strategy and historical understanding. This is primarily evident in the invasion of Iraq, a tactical win but a strategic blunder costing the US economy trillions in unrecoverable expenses.


High technology is not the problem! It's technology for the sake of technology and technology for the sake of preserving lives when you are a nation of 300 million. It's ridiculous to expend such resources on saving soldiers lives while hundreds of thousands die due to inadequate health 9 per year) and many more lost to the draft due to sickness and general obesity related illness. High tech is not the problem as long as the intent is to win at the least cost ( even if it costs many lives) and to spend the saved resources on developing your country and it's future potential.

I would rather lose a dozen aircraft than operate one B2; admittedly i don't want to fight unpopular wars for corporate profit so i will always have millions of young men lining up at the draft office to defend their country when it's actually under threat...

As to Iraq being a strategic blunder? With these oil prices European industry is choking and so are many other. Since the aim of American corporate regime is to employ the US military machine to line their pockets the strategy is sound ( for them at least) and the tactics irrelevant as if it's inefficient the US taxpayer pays.... It's a win win and why it's why it makes sense to keep fighting at least one country thus showing the rest that you have teeth and you will bite if they do not allow you want you want.


We are making the same mistakes countless empires and governments have made before; believing we are invincible to the point laws of economics and guidelines of strategic warfare do not apply to the USA.


Well if you were not making those mistakes you would not be a empire. Empires can not help but exhaust the tax payer at home in the interest of lining the pockets of the reigning corporate interest....

So in closing non of this is a mistake, stupid or badly thought out beside perhaps the root concept of capitalism which dictates we get as much as we can while the environment still sustains gathering activities.....

Grand concept indeed.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ariel bender
 


The B2 bomber requires 130 Hours of Maintenance for each hour of flight, this is ridiculous and cannot be sustained in serious combat environment.

thats actually MMH / FH



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by ariel bender
 

The B2 bomber requires 130 Hours of Maintenance for each hour of flight, this is ridiculous and cannot be sustained in serious combat environment.

thats actually MMH / FH


In simple terms, the B-2 paves the way for other ground strike packages like the B-52 and B-1
edit on 9-4-2011 by Laxpla because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

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?


So their evil dictators can stay forever.



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Glad you liked the links. Very interesting background you have.
finally it good topic



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Modern air power makes hard targets obsolete. That means that enemy forces and their stockplies of supplies have to be mobile and dispersed or they will be destroyed before any ground forces enter the fight. This logistic fact also applies to nuclear war.

In Afganistan and Iraq, the forces in that succeed in maintaining ground control against air power by hostile action were moblie and dispersed.

In both Gulf Wars and the Serbian Campaign the opfor depended on fortifications and were destroyed as a coherent armed force before ground forces reduced the hard core pockets of ground troops.

A war with Russia or China was here to fore assumed to become nuclear and our air power would not matter so much.

I agree that the stealth bomber is a one time per campaign, first strike, edge of the wedge, penetrator. After that it's utility is a bonus but not a requirement.



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
So their evil dictators can stay forever.


At least the 'evil'( i don't agree but lets go with that) Iranian and North Korean dictators can only terrorize their own people whereas the Pentagon ( does Iran have fortified military command and control centers in pentagonal forms?) at the behest of the American government have invaded and bombed several countries and directly caused the deaths of more than a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trough it's command of the world oceans it has also managed to guarantee the reign of a ruthless world corporate capitalism system that at the very least substantially contributes to the deaths of tens of thousands per day. Trough it's manipulation of foreign governments and coup's and assassinations of foreign leaders it has also ensured that Democracy never had much of a chance in South America, South East Asia and central, eastern Europe as well as the Balkans. Compared to the record of the United states government these dictators ( some of them rather more democratically selected than the previous American president) normally have good sounding reasons for wanting nuclear weapons or generally arming themselves.

In the case of North Korea they have continuously said that they would give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons if the US signed a non aggression pact with them or at the very least signs a peace treaty thus formally ENDING THE KOREAN WAR. If you had not known the Korean war was ended with a glorified cease fire agreement which in good part explains why the North Korean people could never relax their vigilance or stop arming and preparing themselves. Even cursory glance would show you that the South Koreans are more than able to defend themselves and in fact pose a significant conventional threat to their northern neighbors with or without the aid of the US. Just that may explain a North Korean nuclear program....

As for Iran what is it supposed to do other than arm itself when the US just invaded a neighbouring country building sprawling base networks ( the US will be in Iraq for at least as long as they have been , and still are, In Japan, Germany and Korea) from which a assault against Iran becomes ever more feasible? What would a 'democratic' Iranian government do other than also pursue weapons that would allow itself some measure of defense?

Having said all i know it may very well be meaningless to you as the US are the 'good' guys so everything they do ( including mass murder and genocidal sanctions ) is par for the course and always somehow the fault of the 'bad guys'. I have not yet figured out how to argue against such juvenile and misinformed/deluded reasoning so i guess i am still stuck just trying to establish what has actually happened in history and who's really been terrorizing and killing who.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Laxpla
 


B2 can be tracked optically. The QW photodetectors are getting better and better and the F-22 nor does the B-2 have an invisibility shield. If a B2 gets within range of the missile, it is lights out for the pilot



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Laxpla
 


B2 can be tracked optically. The QW photodetectors are getting better and better and the F-22 nor does the B-2 have an invisibility shield. If a B2 gets within range of the missile, it is lights out for the pilot


I have little doubt about your knowledge on air warfare. I do doubt your sincerity on discussing the newest technologies. It seems more likely that your fishing for some engineer (to take up your challenge) to reveal the newest DARPA weapons system. It won't happen.
As I said earlier, these SAM operators may as well hang their tombstones outside the trailer.
Be patient Mr Professional, you'll get your answer. Just not the way you wanted.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


I am pretty familiar with DARPA technologies, and it does not impress me. I do not need an engineer telling me things. That said this was a SAM system that was 15 years older than the F117 and still managed to shoot it out of the sky.

When I get the chance I will write up an article on the newest anti-stealth technology, focusing on optical tracking



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Laxpla
 


B2 can be tracked optically. The QW photodetectors are getting better and better and the F-22 nor does the B-2 have an invisibility shield. If a B2 gets within range of the missile, it is lights out for the pilot


If you don't know where it is, it's very hard to track optically. So far you have provided nothing which backs up any of your assertions.
You make far too many assumptions of what things may or may not be like in the future. We can all do that...... it's easy. I don't see any particular insight from you which I haven't read over the years from hundreds of others. The thing is DARPA has people working for them far far smarter than you. So whatever you think you know, they took into account 10-20 years ago.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mad scientist
 


You don't need to know where precisely. Plus Darpa didnt think of lots of things. The F22 is basically 20 years old now and it still aint invisible. The DARPA people are not the smartest, I met one DARPA person and not the brightest.




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join