“Green Light” to War on Russia, H. Res. 758

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think T-50's RCS is not even as good as F-35, let alone F-22s. Have also heard of some new missile which gives one shot one kill ability but for that to happen T-50 will have to come close to F-22s like around 60km for IRST to kick into use. F-22 can see its opponent from as far as 400 km I think depending on the RCS ofcourse.

Also the avionics of USAF is far superior in like they can burn the other aircrafts radars which would be like taking away 50% of the capabilities right away.

With the trends going so far, the only chance for RuAF to be able to decently defend their territory would be to launch a "very efficient very effective" pre-emptive strike on certain assets of US. Otherwise, they might have to threat with nukes within 3 days itself i.e. last resort to fend off the aggressor. If US goes into pre-emptive on the VeVe mode, then major chips down for Russian defense establishment.

a reply to: victor7

It won't be as good as an F-22, but it will be very low.

With the new jammer, if it's even half as good as they think, combined with the new missiles, the game just swung the complete opposite direction.

The jammer won't work well against the F-22 radar, being LPI, but it will work well against missile radars, and non-LPI systems.

With only 180 F-22s to ever be available, Russia can make any air battle hurt a lot more than in the past, if nothing is done in the next 5 years. Win an air war, no, not until they catch up some more, especially in training. Make it hurt like hell, yes.

originally posted by: xavi1000
Meanwhile

This incident tok Place last year. We in Norway dont know the real facts behind what happened.

This video seams to be brought out to boost the agenda against Russia.

Reckless Congress ‘Declares War’ on Russia

Today the US House passed what I consider to be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever

The resolution gives the green light (paragraph 45) to Ukrainian President Poroshenko to re-start his military assault on the independence-seeking eastern provinces, urging the “disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine.” Such a move will mean many more thousands of dead civilians.

To that end, the resolution directly involves the US government in the conflict by calling on the US president to “provide the government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty.” This means US weapons in the hands of US-trained military forces engaged in a hot war on the border with Russia. Does that sound at all like a good idea?

Source

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: victor7
Aegis BMD has been tested in very realistic conditions, including dummy targets being released by the incoming missile.
Once the SM-6 completes testing it will be even more capable.

From your posts it's easy to see you have a much better grasp of the current missile defense issues than 99% of people. Good to see your posts. The US system is many, many years and 100's of Billions of dollars ahead of any Russian ballistic missile defense. In fact Russia doesn't even have the supporting military targeting architecture to build such a system outside of a few Russian urban centers. The best Russia will achieve in the medium term is a 'last chance shot' which will produce a low probability of interception.

As you surely know, one of the weakest phases of an ICBM is the launch period. This is why a US missile defense base in Eastern Europe is critical. It is also why Missile defense is strongly Sea based and can be prepositioned where needed. Missile defense WILL CHANGE THE BALANCE OF POWER in the world and Russia won't like the result.

The only thing Russia will have to rely on is Sub's (big reason they are building Borei subs) and missile quantity. Eventually the US will be able to overcome larger and larger numbers of missiles and even that ability will be neutralized. Leaving Russian nuclear retaliation to trying to slip a sub past US defenses up to the US coast for an unstoppable strike...or getting lucky and seeing 10-20 out of a 1000 missiles actually get through. Of course after that first wave there is nobody left living in Russia to do anything anymore.

It's an important topic for the future. People need to understand the upcoming shift in power missile defense will cause. They need the truth which is, as always, hard to find.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: Zaphod58
With the trends going so far, the only chance for RuAF to be able to decently defend their territory would be to launch a "very efficient very effective" pre-emptive strike on certain assets of US. Otherwise, they might have to threat with nukes within 3 days itself i.e. last resort to fend off the aggressor. If US goes into pre-emptive on the VeVe mode, then major chips down for Russian defense establishment.

Very correct. In fact, Russia has already been very clear about it's willingness in military doctrine to use tactical nukes on the battlefield. They wouldn't sent up all their air assets to get destroyed 10 to 1 for more than a day. Russia has a huge and robust tactical nuclear arsenal and would begin using them very quickly in any US engagement.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

It won`t work.

The United States’ missile defense system will never work — which is why we’re spending more money on it

So urce

It`s only for contractors making money of it.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

So far you've managed to ping on Iron Dome, designed for short range missiles for Israel, and the Ground Based Interceptors. Care to try again for the BMD system I've been talking about?

The BMD system has missed in a small handful of tests, when the interceptor failed. In a real engagement more than one missile would be fired, so if one failed, the other would still be targeted on the incoming missile.

With the SM-3 they can't target an ICBM, but with the SM-6 they have improved the booster, the missile sensor, and the kill vehicle. It will be a few years before they try against an ICBM, but there's a real chance it will work against them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

About ICBM...

- They have to be really close during launch

- They have to be really numerous, too numerous

- And don`t forget about the decoys which can be employed

Russia and China are too big to come close enough with the systems, it would require massive amount of those system to be close to the launch sites to be even effective, and we than we`re not even talking about counter measures which can be taken with decoys. Those systems are also limited in what can fired at once, the ammo problem is another factor.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

The way technologies are going it might be possible that soon we will have missile-men actually flying these beauties like fighter pilots and maneuvering them in the space and then detaching their control vehicle once all the threats have been crossed.

Too much is going to happen in space and that is not good. Russians have also declared holiday once US did not put BMDs in Poland and moved them to the ships. The ship based BMDs are much more dangerous given the mobility factor.

Seems Kremlin's main strategic policy is to hope that US does not go on offense. That is not happening. US will go on offense once it is sure that it can treat Russia like any other third world country that it has dealt with since the fall of the USSR. Seems Kremlin corruption and cleptocracy is eating Russia from inside.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

No, they don't. It's EASIER to stop them in the boost phase because they're slowest then. That doesn't mean it's ONLY possible to stop them then. It gets harder later in the flight, but again, if you have the sensors, and a KV that's good enough you can do it.

As for decoys, IRBMs have decoys too. One way to detect the real warhead from the decoy is a good enough radar. That's where systems like SBX come in. The SBX can tie into the BMD system, but not well yet. Over the next two years the BMD will tie in SBX, ground based, and airborne radars and IR sensors, as well as launch on remote, and target on remote capabilities. This will eventually lead to a system that can kill an ICBM.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It has to chase the missile, so it needs to be close enough.

And we`re not even talking about the dangers of EMP weapons making systems go down.

The capability of the system are being overstated so they can be sold, someone needs to make money of course.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I don't know where you're getting this but you REALLY need to study up on it.

A KV fired from ahead of the ICBM does NOT need to chase the missile. It's a matter of targeting an area ahead of the missile and correcting as the two missiles close. If you have a kinetic KV then you have to hit it, which is harder. You can also detonate the KV ahead of the missile and throw debris in its path.

As for EMP, once again you are underestimating mlitary systems. In the 1960s Starfish Prime was detonated at high altitude. The EMP caused damage to Hawaii, 700 miles away, but caused no damage to the ships and planes directly under it. The military is well aware of EMP effects and counters to them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

ICBMs goes almost straight up and is already in the air, so the missiles need to be faster in order to catch it.

Here's Why the U.S. Missile Defense System Is Utterly Broken

Source

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Please tell me you're not serious. You do realize there are THREE dimensions right? That means you can hit something from more than one angle.

According to you if I want to hit a car with a rock I can only do it when the car is just pulling away from me.

The EASIEST way is to be close and hit it during boost. It's NOT the only way. Look at ANY defense system. They don't chase their targets, they aim slightly ahead of it, at a place it's going to be when the missile fired at it is going to be there. Any kind of missile, be it short range, IRBM, or ICBM is the same. The biggest challenge with an ICBM is the speed of the warheads reducing the intercept time.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

It even says in the article there are three ways to intercept an ICBM, yet you insist they HAVE to chase it.

You also seem to think there's only one missile defense system, when in reality there are four counting the Patriot systems. The GMD system is currently the only one dedicated for an ICBM, but it's not the only system.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Have you read it ?

I believe in it not being effective enough and also not being effective enough in the near future. The`re just contractors who want to make money of it, and by so the effectiveness is being overstated, just as with the Patriot and Iron Dome systems. Effectiveness as a ship defence I`m however convinced it works.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Yes I've read it, many times. I've also seen videos of tests, including successful ones.

Did you see the biggest complaint about it? Concurrency. That's always a bad idea in any system. But when the politicians demand a system be built, whether it's ready or not, it gets built.

As for Patriot, once again, the original system wasn't as effective as thought. The PAC-3 is as different from that system as an F-22 is from an F-4.

have you guys seen this? if this aegis is shutdown, then what?