1MANThe objective would be to ‘de-fang’ Iran. Simply a conflict of attrition which Iran couldn’t hope to win. Their navy would disappear and their airfields would be rendered unusable. Target their defence production facilities and the Iranians would gradually be crippled. All that time and effort spent in a military build-up only to have it plinked. No amount of propaganda and taking to the streets in religious fervour will replace those lost military assets.
Do you think the Irainians, don’t know that is exactly what the U.S. plans on doing?, you realy think they haven’t learned from Iraq’s mistakes?
I can tell you they have and it will not go down as easily as you think, they are ready for that type of attack, thier planes will be moved to secret locations, and not just sitting there to be bombed, just like NATO’s destruction of few of Serbia’s Tanks, planes, Iran’s warplanes will not just be bombed on the ground, and this is post WWII the militaries now a days have surpluseS of weapons built and hidden, not being built during “the war”
1MANvERY IMPRESSIVE THREAD,, the only country that tested the MIg-25 in combat was Iraq,,and during the iran-iraq war she was the queen of the sky,,the iranian f-14 not even close…
it shot down a USN f-18 in 1991.
i fly su-24 but the mig-25 is a complete diffrent experience
thanks for the pics
i love that plane.😀
Wrong the first plane shot down during the Gulf War was a U.S. F-18 to a Iraqi MiG-25.
1MANThis is the same military that rounded up thousands of boys in the cities, took them to the Iraqi front, gave each one a plastic key on a string to hang around their neck (the key to heaven) and had them run through Iraqi minefields as human minesweepers. 😮 The only damage the Iranians will do is to use up the meager American ammunition stockpiles. :diablo:
How do you explain that they have a 550,000+ Army with 300,000+ reservists:confused: even the U.S. admitts that Iran is much more capable than Iraq, haven’t you learned from Korea/Vietnam:D
1MANSurely It was USSR that sent millions of its students to study in West and than work in western corporations to gain work experiance and than create supply chain of cheaper products to the same multinational giants from back home. USSR immigrants have direct contribution to Western Science. Not some recycled stuff.
Buying RR Jet engines is just like buying A Rolls Royce car. It does not mean u have obtained the science behind it.
It was less then 5000 not “millions”
1MANSurely It was USSR that sent millions of its students to study in West and than work in western corporations to gain work experiance and than create supply chain of cheaper products to the same multinational giants from back home. USSR immigrants have direct contribution to Western Science. Not some recycled stuff.
Buying RR Jet engines is just like buying A Rolls Royce car. It does not mean u have obtained the science behind it.
It was less thsn 5000 not “millions”
1MANgarry, the U.S. navy could destroy Iran from anywhere in the Persian Gulf or even the eastern most parts of the med… Iran wouldn’t even be able to get within 100 miles of a U.S. or U.K. fleet, no matter what, Iran’s military would crumble in 48hrs or less, thats not to say we wouldn’t have a hard time in the actual occupation of Iran, but the Iranians are different, the youth are becoming more educated, more moderate, probably favour a western liberation. my opinion ofcourse.
Stop watching FOX News, and read up on the Irainian Military, they won’t win in the long run, but they will cause heavy damage to the U.S. military invading.
1MANthere are no possible scenarios except for the iranian air force being pounded into the ground before they take over in a 24 hour cruise missile campaign. air strikes consisting of F-22s would then penetrate certain radar networks and further destroy remaining targets leaving the iranian military crippled in less than 48 hours.
I can assure you 100% with no doubt, it will not happen that way.
1MANThere is a difference in the design methodologies of Russian BMD systems like S-400 and western BMDs like THAAD, Patriot and Arrow. Russian systems have a separate surveillance radar and the tracking-guidance radar, whereas in western BMDs both these functionalities are integrated into one radar unit for atleast the Patriot-3 and Arrow systems.
The advantage of separating the surveillance and tracking radar units as in S-400 is that the separation can be of many kilometers, thus resulting in a wide area of defence. This is in contrast with point defence like Israel’s Patriot-3 and Arrow systems, as a consequence of integrated surveillance and tracking modes on one ground radar.
However, to solve this, the THAAD system instead of a dedicated surveillance radar uses a network of sensors ranging from AWACs, ship-based rardars and other ground radars. This diagram illustrates this.
The network of AWACs etc. will communicate to a central operations centre, which in turn will simply designate the nearest missile launching unit to launch an interceptor at the target.The disadvantage of such a system may be issues of interoperability between various ad-hoc and independent platforms with the BMD centre. Thus, the S-400 may be more robust and also has far fewer issues of interoperability, compared to that of THAAD.
It may be noted that although the Indian BMD Pradyumna uses Israeli radars, it follows the Russian architecture exactly :- a surveillance radar detects an incoming threat first very early. After that, the launcher unit is assigned the target. The launcher unit’s local tracking radar then guides the missile to the target.The Japanese SM-3 which has been co-developed with USA, is similar to the Aegis and Patriot-3 BMDs that it plans to acquire. As per globalsecurity.org, SM-3 is mostly the effort of Aegis’ main contractor Raytheon, with Japan’s role limited to support only. Hence, like the Mitsubishi F-2 fighter jet which is an F-16 clone, the SM-3 is also likely to be only a design replica of the Aegis.
The SM-3 system emphasizes on a precisely homed terminal kill for which it is guided by an infrared sensor. The nose-cone is is jettisoned in the terminal exo phase to expose the sensor. Thus, it may be nearly impossible to jam. The ground-based radars discriminate targets in a target scene.Most of the emphasis is on the stage-wise uplift and protection of the kinetic warhead until the terminal phase. This is an advantage over the S-400 and Indian BMDs, which use proximity fuses.
References :-
I don’t think a “kinetic” warhead has an advantage over a explosive warhead, in this SAM case.
1MANS-400 is supposed to be a universal system that can be better then both PAC-3 and THAAD. In order to be used as THAAD it must have appropriate radar and its famous BIG missle.
Quastions.
1. When this BIG missle be ready and can it really match THAAD specialised missle as high altittude interceptor?
2. Does it have better radar then THAAD?
3. Why everybody forget about SM-3. Its stated specs looks unmatched. Is there a reason for that?
Take alook at THAAD/PAC you’ll see the S-400 is better than them:
1. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/thaad.htm
2. S-400 http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-400.htm
1MANOf course the reason is to potentially fight Russia or any other country, for that matter, much like the reason for having a nuclear arsenal is to potentially obliterate other countries.
For what it’s worth, in response to what you said about stealth being “overexaggerated” by its proponents, I personally don’t think that the F-22 could simply penetrate an air defense network as dense as Russia’s (in some areas) at will. However, what they should be able to do is repel any counterattack by interceptors while chipping away at the network using weapons such as the GBU-39 and GBU-32 (dropped from 50000 feet at Mach 1.5-1.7 for extended range if necessary) in relative safety. If you believe that a system like the S-400 can shoot at the F-22 first, then you’re entitled to that belief, but I doubt it. And if the S-400 can pick off each and every GBU without fail, then it can go right on ahead–those GBUs are dirt-cheap and plentiful in comparison to the S-400’s missiles, and a single F-22 can carry 8 GBU-39s (plus 4 AAMs) internally.
The S-300 PMU-2 can take care of the (with at least 6400 of them operational in Russia now) F-22 let alone the S-400 show how it can’t, (and please don’t answer me by asking to show you how it can?)
you forget that, that Russia would counter strike against U.S. military instalations all over the world, not just sit there and hold a “defensive” position, as you assume, but they won’t be able to get within 1000 miles, before the air defenses know whats up let alone actually get over Russian soil to be able to drop GBU’s.
1MAN“
“From the Russian point of view, the retention of a significant nuclear retaliatory capability by Russia remains the best guarantee of peace for the whole world. The US missile defence system undermines the Russian deterrent and its ability to fulfill this role. ““The only practical way for Russia to counteract the steady advancement of American strategic superiority is to purchase new land and sea-based ballistic missiles. There is no question that Russia can presently afford such purchases, but the deployment for instance, of 30-50 land-based ICBMs, including those with multiple warheads like the recently tested RS-24, would require an annual defence budget increase of at least 20% after 2007. This is in line with planned defence spending increases, but a new escalation of nuclear capabilities after a period of nuclear disarmament would surely have a negative effect on international politics, destabilize relations among the nuclear powers, and increase the potential for an accidental or unintended triggering of nuclear war. Efforts to control the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons will also be discredited, but these factors clearly are clearly less significant for Russia than the necessity of maintaining the effectiveness of its nuclear forces. “
Do you also deny my historical precedents?
Do you also deny the German/Russain recent collaborations?
I knew full well I would be dismissed and belittled.
But no amount of such attacks can change the truth.
Try as hard as you might.
BTW I dont read novels.
“confused, paranoid, delusional,conspiracy” doubful.
Realistic, pragmatic, practical, observant, informed, clear-headed, open minded, are more like it.
Not perfect by any means but certainly undeserving of such ludircrous unflattering characterizations.
But then its really not about “deserve” is it?
Just about attempting to destroy any who disagree with your preformed, and hardened views.
All else is anathema is it not?
And while I agree that some of the info coming out about the Admiarl Nakhimov doesnt seem to make sense neither does the protracted refurbishment of the Gorshkov.
But then getting any reliable info out of either Russia or China is and always has been extremely difficult.
This is a telling line presented above:
“There is no question that Russia can presently afford such purchases,”
But a steadfast refusal to live up to their contractual agreements that are rather minor when considering the Russain Nuclaer renewal IMHO there is far more to it. And the recent Indian/US cooperation is the likely culprit.
The Russain and Chines governmnets are still authoritarian in nature make no mistake and they cant realistically compared to the far more open governments and societys of the Western democracies no matter the faults and shortcomings of those entities.
But the reason I didnt present more evidence to begin with is because of just this sort of nonsensical undocumented denial.
So why more?
Cant help myself always trying to educate the uneducated and enlighten the unenlightened.
But think and believe what you will as I know no amount of evidence can ever convince the unconvinceable.
But I must make some effort from time to time it is a duty irregardless of the personal consequences.
I really hate politics and would rather discuss nuts and bolts but they are in fact part and parcel of naval affairs.
Look forward to more naval discussions.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ill be off visiting for the next few days.
Hope you all dont miss me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can assue you that you are 100% wrong about the U.S.’s having ANY type of Nuclear advantage over Russia, all my life and groing up I used to believe that Russia was weaker than the U.S. but after 1998, I stated doing my own research, well after 7 years of this, I’m now convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, the U.S. military has been using “media trickery” to make Russia seem weeker than U.S.A. 1960 Russia started to catch up to the U.S. by the late 70’s till this day Russia has surpassed the U.S. in ABM/SAM/ICBM DEW (Direct Energy Weapons) and Lasers in space yes (AntSat) capabilites.
I truly believe that Russia has/is using “The Art Of War” strategy against U.S.A. and there’s going to be the biggest FALL the U.S. (or any nation) will take if ever on the other end of the gun against Russia.
1MANThe Su-27SK is equipped with a Phazotron N001 Zhuk coherent pulse Doppler radar with track-while-scan and look-down / shoot-down capability.
The range of the radar against 3m² targets is over 100km in the forward hemisphere and 40km in the rear hemisphere. The radar has the capacity to search, detect and track up to ten targets with automatic threat assessment and proritisation.
Compare that to the APG-63 variants and APG-70 for the F-15C/D/E of the USAF today.
So does the regular Su-27 http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=255&linkid=1604
BTW the site that was talking about APG-63 v1 not the v2
1MANAnd that’s all that is germane to my arguments. 🙂
but to the public, the Pentagon, and the Congress they will say that the beat-up old F-15 (earlier variants) is outdated and only the F-22 will be good enough. It’s a bit of doublespeak, but I don’t blame them for trying.
That’s the spirit! And I disagree with an equal measure of baseless confidence! Take that! Oh, yeah? Yeah! 😀
But the mass majority of the F-15’s airframes are pretty much finished, so a bunch of new F-15 airframes are needed, with the new APG-79, if the U.S. wants to keep up what they have now, but the F-22 is needed because inorder to enter Russian air space this is the kind of plane needed. [You do know that the REAL reason is to fight Russia, don’t tell me you believe for one second, USAF is just wanting to get a new fighter just for kicks/or to look good?! (But I don’t think it will work but who am I right;)
What do you disagree on and assume I’m making a “baseless confidentual” remark on my statment about Russia’s airdefence systems:confused:
1MANRead their statement again carefully–they said that a bunch of modern fighters are “variously superior” in a bunch of different aspects of performance. This does not imply any specific comparisons, such as the Su-27 having a higher T/W than the F-15C, and it certainly does not mean that all of these fighters are superior in all respects to the F-15C because that would be a lie. The real point was to make a broad statement about the need for the USAF to upgrade.
Yes thats true about the T/W but it does say in the most “important” fields they are superior here’s the quote, ” The US Air Force claims the F-15C is in several respects inferior to, or at best equal to, the MiG-29, Su-27, Su-35/37, Rafale, and EF-2000, which are variously superior in acceleration, maneuverability, engine thrust, rate of climb, avionics, firepower, radar signature, or range.”
A lot of different things are going on right now, and people in various organizations are trying to decide upon the best upgrade path. The topic at hand was how the F-15C hypothetically compares to the original Su-27, not how one force structure compares to another, and the same applies to comparing the upgraded F-15C to the Su-27SM. Besides, if the USAF were so worried about 24 Su-27SMs, they might send the 100+ F-22s they currently have against them. 🙂
[/quote] Well thats where the topic went and I stand by my posts, and I assue you Russia’s airdefence network (which there’s non in the world like) will be more than able to shoot everyone of them down, U.S. stealth is soo “overexagerated” but that another topic lets not discuss it on this thread.
[/QUOTE]
1MANHow many original Su-27 are fielded by the Russian AF in December 2007 and what radar do that field?! You can fight with that in operational front-line service only.
400 (350 operationl) regular Su-27’s, Radar= Phazotron N001 Zhuk coherent pulse Doppler radar with track-while-scan and look-down / shoot-down capability.
Sign In
