bgnewf:rolleyes:
Same applies to everything, it should not need explaining.:rolleyes:
The multiple bullet threat is the point of the multiple kill vehicle programme, something you would have got if you had read the article.
I read the article sir. I took issue with your characterization of it being something that would (in your words) “…provide a massive increase in capability…”.
I await your reply on why you chose to characterize this contract (and that is all it is, a few scribbles on a piece of paper) as something that will massively increase some nebulous capability you speak of.
bgnewfThat is simplistic. When the costs that come with fielding every additional ICBM is more than that which comes with fielding every additional interceptor, that line of reasoning doesn’t hold true anymore.
Simplistic can be true. In fact the simple answers often tend to be more true then complex ones. Everything does not always need to be complex.
Placing MIRVs and decoys on a single ICBM will always be less expensive than deploying more and more and more defensive systems. It is a zero sum game.
bgnewfThat’s because of the treaties which restricted fielding of ABMs and due to political interference which prevented the fielding of what was allowed under the treaties. Many of the technologies like ‘hitting a bullet with a bullet’ were already demonstrated long before critics said it was impossible (notice how critics no longer use that line of argument anymore?) with Nike Zeus.
I am not saying that in the abstract that the concept is not feasable from a technological point of view in the abstract. What I am saying is that the language used to describe the technology is often full of spin and also that simple measures like decoys and saturation are not taken into consideration when speaking about the feasability of these kind of schemes to actually provide the kind of protection its proponents speak of.
And in the “…hitting a bullet with a bullet…” vein, it is pretty simple to overwhelm defensive measures with more bullets. I like to use the analogy of Tank development as a way to describe how defensive measures are always defeated by offensive ones. The more armor a Tank carries the larger the guns and more sophisticated the projectiles become to overcome them. This back and forth technological race has always eventually been won by the offensive side of things and when it comes to BMD I do not see that changing.
bgnewfRaytheon has been awarded a $54 million contract to continue design and development of Multiple BMD Kill vehicles.
This will ultimately provide a massive increase in capability to the BMD force. There is a Raytheon graphic floating around showing a GBI loaded with 6 kill vehicles.
Assuming it works. Design and development contracts are not enough in my humble opinion to state that a technology “…will provide a massive increase in capability…”. With due respect your choice of language in describing this development is misleading.
This sort of description of a technological development is what bothers me about the pro BMD lobby. They have been promising the world for 50 years, since the days of Nike Zeus, and have delivered next to nothing for the hundreds of billions of dollars in treasure already spent.
bgnewfAgree fully with the sea lord on this one.
Russia has not had enough consistent work and development of both platforms and weapons/sensors over the past 17 years since the Berlin Wall came down to considerable advance their state of the art.
Italy/France have Horizon. The UK have the Type 45. The US has the Flight II Burkes, LCS and the DDG1000 program. China, Japan and India are producing significant numbers of new ships. What has Russia done since 1991??? They have finished up a few leftovers from the cold war that were on the slips.
It;s going to take them at least a decade to get to the point where they need to be.
bgnewfWhat’s a Thai trawler’s business in the Gulf of Aden?
A better question for the Captain of the INS Talwar is what sort of job did he and his crew do in trying to identify this boat before blowing it out of the water?
bgnewfAny idea which country
I am going to guess Ukraine. There are Antonov 24/26’s along with MiG-21’s of course and what looks perhaps like a Lisunov LI-2.
If you look at the image in large form it looks like the yellow and blue fin flash of Ukraine is partially visible on the tail of the Antonovs.
bgnewfVenezuela welcomes Russian ships
Russian warships have arrived for joint exercises with Venezuela’s navy, the first deployment of its kind in the Caribbean since the Cold War. The naval squadron, including a nuclear-powered cruiser, sailed into view at the port of La Guaira.
The exercises will coincide with a two-day visit by Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev, which starts on Wednesday. He is on a tour of Latin America, pushing Russia’s ties to a region of deep strategic interest to the US.
The Russian vessels, including the flagship missile cruiser Peter the Great and two support vessels, appeared off La Guaira, near Caracas, early on Tuesday.
The destroyer Admiral Chabanenko docked while Venezuelan forces fired a 21-gun salute.
Timing
The Russian vessels are set to begin manoeuvres in port on Wednesday, the day Mr Medvedev is due to arrive in Caracas, and from 1 December exercises will be out out at sea. President Medvedev is expected to visit the ships with his Venezuelan counterpart, Hugo Chavez, before he continues on to Cuba.
The timing of Mr Medvedev’s tour is significant, coming during the transition period between the Bush and Obama administrations in the US, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus. The Russian president’s aim is to show Washington that if the US does things in Europe near Russia’s borders which Moscow does not like, then Russia can pursue its own policies in a region long seen by Washington as its backyard, our correspondent says.
Boosting bilateral trade between Russia and Latin America, which could reach $15bn (£9.9bn) this year, is another priority for the Russian president during his talks. Mr Medvedev’s tour began in Peru where he signed a series of economic and political co-operation accords. He then travelled on to Brazil, the region’s key economic powerhouse.
Russia is keen to press the benefits of Russian technology in the areas of oil exploration, aerospace and defence. Brazil is currently overhauling its armed forces and is planning to spend billions of dollars in the next few years to refurbish equipment, a prospect that has excited defence contractors from several countries, Reuters reports.
New partners
Russia is already a major arms supplier to Venezuela, with contracts worth some $4.4bn (£2.39bn). During his visit to Caracas, Mr Medvedev could sign an accord under which Russia would help Venezuela build a nuclear energy plant in the state of Zulia. The two countries already co-operate closely on energy matters, with their state-owned energy companies embarking on joint enterprises.
Mr Medvedev’s visit takes place just a few days after the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, toured several Latin American nations with a view to strengthening ties. Bilateral trade between Latin America and China is around $100bn a year. It is still far less than trade with the US ($560bn) or the EU ($250bn), but the trend is significant. China is buying more and more Latin American commodities like oil, minerals and soya.
Latin American governments of all political colours have themselves in recent years been seeking new commercial and diplomatic allies in what they see as a changing, multi-polar world.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7747793.stm
bgnewfI do not think that Iran is a dead topic Flex, I think that a military response is beyond the point of being doable. If Iran wants a bomb they will get one. Whether covertly or overtly after an attack from Israel and/or the USA, they will get one.
The question is what political faction or factions within Iran are supporting this initiative? Iran has a highly complex political structure and to those of you who think that Ahmadinejad calls the shots think again. It is the Supreme leader Ali Khamenei who really calls the shots in Iran and to muddy the waters further he has at different times come out and verbally supported Iran;s program of “peaceful” nuclear developments and on the other side released a fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam.
Getting the Iranians to come in from the fold and re-integrate diplomatically with the rest of the world is arguably the best way to manage this impending nuclear breakout. The military option will simply not work against such a vastly spread out program.
bgnewfThe F-35 isn’t even in the class of the PAK-FA, so how is that relevant?
You also do realize that if the PAK-FA costs 70 – 80 million / unit – it’s basically superior to the F-22 no matter where its technical specs are “short”? If they are, which is going to be debatable.
LM has MARGINAL – literally hardly any REAL experience over Sukhoi! What non-sense is that? The F-22/F-35 were the first stealth fighters they built, or first and second, depending if you count weight class.
But since you are stealth fan boy you will whine and whine about how the LO advantage of LM from the F-117 must be uber, though the aircraft in question in this thread are not even comparable. Disregarding actual aircraft specs in other aspects, the ECM systems, the countermeasure systems, the weapons, etc.
With all due respect I do not know where to start in commenting about your post.
I will start with the fanboy remark and state that it takes one to know one. You are pontificating about a paper airplane to this point with virtually nothing but conjecture to base your opinions on. Can you not see how much of your time you are wasting in your PAK/FA boasts when no one outside of the design bureau has even a clue as to how the aircraft will look and perform? Furthermore your faith in the state of the art Russian radar and ECM gear is again without proof just conjecture.
I am sure Sukhoi will be building a competitive fighter that will perform well and push the Russian state of the art. But until it is more than a source of rumour and conjecture on message boards stop wasting your time.
bgnewfSo do most people think that S300 would be total game changer (had Iran managed to complete purchase )
No I do not. I think even without S-300 the Iranian atomic program is too far along, too well dispersed and too well protected currently to allow Israel to knock the program back far enough to shut it down.
The S-300 only makes it harder for the Israelis or the Israelis in concert with the Americans to knock the program out using conventional weapons and airstrikes. Ground forces in concert with air power might have an overall better chance of doing the job but I think that there would be no guarantees that even this approach would work.
First off, with due respect to Shin Bet and Mossad, how can Israel be sure that they would be targeting enough Iranian atomic infastructure to succeed? Iran has eight reactors of various scale and location either built and on-line or building. They are scattered across 5 locations. Iraq had one reactor. Syria possibly had one reactor. North Korea supposedly has or had 4 reactors operating at different points. Iran and Syria were attacked and Iran and North Korea were not. I am not even mentioning enrichment facilities or centrifuge cascades. I think that persons more in the know than us in this forum have determined that we are well past the point where military intervention would be enough to do this job.
S-300 is a red herring.
bgnewfseeing as we’re asking for proof, what evidence do you have to back up those ‘factual statements’, We would need quotes of russian government and chinese spokesmen regarding not missiles supplied or training done and Iranian documentation about missile ranges.
Not being petty, you asking for evidence without showing what you have
Second the motion:
To quote the old lady in the ad…”Where’s the beef???”
Where is the proof you state as fact that Iran can hit Europe with an IRBM? Where is the proof about no S-300 capability in Iran?
Looking forward to your response sir.
bgnewfKfir C.10 looks about the best of the bunch. The Mirage 50/ENAER Panteras were fine planes as well.
The planes I would love to learn more about would be the Pakistani rebuilt Mirages that have the ROSE III upgrades and the Atlas Cheetah C, which apparently still has much about it that has not been revealed to the public. This last point is particularly intriguing as the aircraft is apparently goung out of servie in ayear or two when the last Gripens are delivered.
bgnewfBoxing Day, in the UK and Canada is the day after Christmas Day. It’s a holiday.
bgnewfAny evidence for that?
Please see my previous post where I use the words “perhaps” and “may“. There is no specific evidence showing Iranian deployments or overt deliveries, however there is a considerable amount of circumstantial and conjecture based evidence out there from multiple sources in multiple countries with multiple points of view.
http://www.data.minsk.by/belarusnews/072008/328.html
http://www.charter97.org/en/news/2008/7/24/8400/
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331102266&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/33685
http://www.cafe-syria.com/syrianews/3131.aspx
http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/049872.html
And again sealordlawrence, with all due respect, I hope you personally see the irony in arguing in this thread about the specifics of an Iranian S-300 purchase/deployment when in another thread you base your entire argument for missile defense sites in Eastern Europe on little or no hard evidence of the kind you appear to demand here.
Irony indeed.
Sign In
