"End looms for US Air Force's 'Warthog' ground-attack jet" This is Ridiculous!

The AH-64 will not replace the A-10.

What they have in the works and are already flying is the New Drones.

They have drones that can stay on station some for 24 hours some for longer and are designed with stealth and High Survivability Construction.

They can be flown by some Deck Jockey Drone Pilot.

They can be run in complete Robotic Autonomous Mode.

And they can even be directed to targets hidden by U.S. Ground Forces.

You can build 20 of them for the cost of maintaining an A-10....a plane I LOVE and when I would here that BRRRRRRRRRP!!! I knew my ass was safe!

We will see how things work out.

AboveAlpha

 

Drones are A-OK til somebody hacks or jams the comm link.

 

Given the nature of modern manned aircraft, that same theory would apply.

While a human pilot could over-ride direction given to his/her aircraft computer over control, i.e. the actual flying of the aircraft....they could be hacked to mis-direct themselves or their ordinance drop to the wrong target.

If an F-35 pilot is relying on his computer to tell him when he's over a target and when the target has been locked-on.....and somebody hacks the computer and tells him to drop his JDAM on an empty cow pasture instead of an ISIS or Taliban command bunker.....he'll drop it on the cow pasture.

 

They can't hack them when they are using a Rotational Chaos Theory Based Algorithm.

And thre Jamming issue has been solved just as it is impossible to Jam an Ohio Class Sub....but different Frequency.

Robotics and Direct Energy Weapons are the Future.

AboveAlpha...p.s...anyone say....Terminator?

 

The era of manned fighter aircraft is almost at an end. The expense and extra weight of carrying a pilot and the life support around is no longer cost effective any more. That accounts for at least a third of the costs of current fighters, not to mention the training costs. The F-16 can't even be flown at its max capabilities, because of pilot blackout and associated problems, and that plane is almost three decades old. Pilots are a hindrance on new tech and designs, and have been for a while now.

 

What?

First of all, there is not many SAMs in the region of front line combat. And "longer range AAM" is of absolutely no use in the region of airspace (low altitude) that the A-10 is designed to operate in.

SAMs operate well behind the enemy lines, protecting C&C locations, major supply depots, troop predeployment and gathering sites, places like that. They do not operate among the front lines. And if you have an A-10 darting in and out of the front lines going after tanks and enemy formations at 200-300 feet altitude, it is well below the horizon that any Air Defense Missile can operate at, short of MANPAD and old school heavy machine guns.

And no, you are not going to take fighters tasked with trying to secure the airspace that have gone bingo with ordinance and then retask them with ground support. They are going back to their base, reloading with more ordinance, and going fight back into the mix with other fighters.

Energy weapons? We are talking reality here, not Science Fiction. And do not expect drones to be any kind of major player against a technologically sophisticated enemy. As Taxcutter stated so clearly, UAVs are remarkably easy to stop for an enemy like Russia or China. They have only been effective as they have been because the enemies they have been used against have been very unsophisticated, most of the time only having light weapons, and no RADAR or air defense missiles at all.

And there is a saying that relates quite clearly to multirole fighters and almost any other piece of equipment designed to handle a wide variety of tasks. And that is "Jack of all trades - master of none". Sure it can do air superiority, but it does not excel at it (that is why we also need the F-22). Sure it does CAS, but it does not excel at it like a true CAS aircraft does.

By your reasoning, why not cancel the F-22? After all, can't a multi-role fighter do the exact same thing? We do we need a dedicated Air Superiority fighter? We can just have the Lightning II operate in an air to mud role until it's ammo is depleted, then it can take off after other fighters.

Sorry, but you really do have a limited knowledge of how Air Defense missiles operate. When the target is at low altitude several miles away, it is pretty much invisible to any conventional Surface to Air Missile (to be specific, it is below the RADAR's visible horizon). And if it is operating near any kind of background obstruction at all (hills, buildings, etc), then it really is invisible because the RADAR effectively ignores anything in that region as part of the background.

And I am not even going to go into ground clutter, yet another reason why RADAR launched air defense missiles can't launch on low flying targets.

So while what you are saying is interesting, it does not work like you think it does.

 

LINK.....http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume4/vol4ch03.pdf

WASHINGTON — The US Air Force is unable to keep up with a growing demand for pilots capable of operating drones, partly due to a shortage of volunteers, according to a new study.

Despite the importance placed on the burgeoning robotic fleet, drone operators face a lack of opportunities for promotion to higher ranks, and the military has failed to identify and cultivate this new category of aviators, Air Force Col. Bradley Hoagland wrote in the report published for the Brookings Institution think tank.

In 2012, the Air Force had a goal to train 1,129 “traditional” pilots and 150 drone pilots to operate Predator, Reaper and Global Hawk robotic aircraft.

But the Air Force “was not able to meet its RPA (remotely piloted aircraft) training requirements since there were not enough volunteers,” the report said.

As of last year, the Air Force had 1,300 drone pilots, making up about 8.5 percent of the force’s aviators, compared with 3.3 percent four years earlier.

The fleet of unmanned aircraft includes 152 Predators, 96 Reapers and 23 Global Hawks, which is large enough to fly 61 combat air patrols.

The military measures air power in terms of combat air patrols, or CAPs, which are supposed to provide 24-hour air coverage over a designated area. It typically takes three or four drones to make up a combat air patrol.

But goals for expanding the patrols are increasing “at a faster pace than the AF (Air Force) can train personnel to operate these systems,” the study said.

One of the factors behind the shortfall is a high rate of attrition among drone operators, which is three times higher than for traditional pilots, it said.

Another factor is the intense tempo of operations for drone missions over the past decade.

The constant drone flights mean operators, unlike their counterparts in other specialities, lack the time for additional education and training to attain a higher rank, undercutting their career prospects, the author wrote.

The problem is reflected in a 13 percent lower promotion rate to the rank of major over the past five years, compared to other military fields.

The lower number of promotions is also fed by a military culture that still does not fully appreciate the skills of drone pilots, Hoagland said.

“One of the controversies surrounding their historical lack of high level recognition is the viewpoint that RPA pilots were not risking their lives while operating their aircraft 7,000 miles away in Nevada,” he wrote.

In a bid to give them more recognition, the Pentagon in February created a new “Distinguished Warfare Medal” for pilots of drones or digital specialists who affect the battle at a remote distance.

But two months later, in the face of an outcry from veterans groups, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel scrapped the medal, which had been placed relatively high in the hierarchy of military honors.

Instead, a device will be attached to existing medals to recognize the new-era warriors.

LINK....http://www.defensenews.com/article/.../US-Air-Force-Lacks-Volunteers-Operate-Drones

LINK....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z78mgfKprdg

NOVA RISE OF DRONES


Rise of the Drones
Meet a new breed of flying robots, from tiny swarming vehicles to giant unmanned planes. Airing January 23, 2013 at 9 pm on PBS Aired January 23, 2013 on PBS
Program Description
Drones. These unmanned flying robots–some as large as jumbo jets, others as small as birds–do things straight out of science fiction. Much of what it takes to get these robotic airplanes to fly, sense, and kill has remained secret. But now, with rare access to drone engineers and those who fly them for the U.S. military, NOVA reveals the amazing technologies that make drones so powerful as we see how a remotely-piloted drone strike looks and feels from inside the command center. From cameras that can capture every detail of an entire city at a glance to swarming robots that can make decisions on their own to giant air frames that can stay aloft for days on end, drones are changing our relationship to war, surveillance, and each other. And it's just the beginning. Discover the cutting edge technologies that are propelling us toward a new chapter in aviation history as NOVA gets ready for "Rise of the Drones."
More Less

“Rise of the Drones” is produced by WGBH, which maintains complete editorial control over all episodes of NOVA. Both Lockheed Martin and Boeing are involved in the development and production of drones. Boeing is a current funder of the NOVA series while Lockheed was a funder at the time this program was originally broadcast.

LINK...http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html

AboveAlpha...p.s.....SCI-FI IS HERE...NOW....ON STATION.....DEPLOYED....AND KILLING THE ENEMY!!!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident

If even Iran can interfere with our drones, do you really think they are the "way of the future"?

Drones are ridiculously easy to bring down. All it takes is an enemy with more sophistication then relying on WWII era technology (and even some WWII era technology is enough to bring down drones).

Sorry, they are good against primitive irregulars, but not against any kind of semi-modern military force.

 

Oh....and besides COST....why do you think we are not building anywhere NEAR the number of F/A-22 Raptors first intended?

Because Tech. is moving so fast that we can build 10 Drones for the same price of an F/A-22 that each one is...let's ee what this say's.....17 times more manuverable, faster, capable of Carrier Takeoff, capabe of carrying more ammo and missiles and bombs as these drones are F/A as well.....and because a HUGE percentage of the mechanics, weight, electronics...etc....is dedicated to KEEPING THE PILOT ALIVE.....as even an F-16 never mind an F/A-22 would KILL the Pilot if electronic fly by wire speed and momentum GOVERNORS were not built in.

Of course.....Direct Energy Weapons Systems like the soon to be completed and installed in all U.S. Carriers and Cruisers starting with CVN-78 Gerald R.Ford being installed with the Free Electron Laser.

The FEL was developed by Stanford physicist John Madey in 1976, and is one of the laser classifications being evaluated by military organizations for DEW devices. The FEL uses a beam of electrons is pushed via particle accelerator to nearly the speed of light, the the electrons are moved through a field of magnets that are arranged with north and south poles facing the stream of electrons. This creates a "wiggle" in the electron stream, emitting light on a wavelength, and a change in the magnets alters the wavelength of the FEL beam. While FEL is consider one of the powerful lasers for military application, there are issue with FEL. One being the size of the laser equipment, the need for vacuum pumps, power requirements. Still, the US Navy is moving ahead with FEL laser emitters for their ships and tested the FEL laser around 2011 in the 14 KW power range.

• 100 kW laser with a BQ of about 2 and use of adaptive optics;
• Extended-range operations against targets such as EO sensors, small boats,
UAVs, RAM, and MANPADs, as well as ASCMs that are flying on a
crossing path (rather than at the ship);
• Navy After Next—FEL:
• 1 MW FEL laser using a beam director with a diameter of more than 1 meter
(more than about 39 inches);
• Self-defense operations against transonic and supersonic/highly
maneuverable anti-ship missiles, and ballistic missiles.

These reports some are 6 to 10 years old.

AboveAlpha....p.s...just imagine if this is PUBLIC INFORMATION.....what we have OPERATIONAL ON A SECRET CLASSIFIED LEVEL?

- - - Updated - - -

See....here is where opinion and ideology seperate as I KNOW WHAT THE REALITY IS.....you can only guess.

AboveAlpha

 

If they are not doing it already I would assume that at some point we will have a dual layered system of drones. Small stealthy drones could scout out areas and locate and paint targets and then larger armed drones flying at ridiculously high altitudes could launch munitions and they would be guided by the scout drones.

 

Yeah....we are ridiculously advanced in such Drone Production and the plan is to have the bulk of all U.S. Military Forces as SEEK AND DESTROY ROBOTIC.

AboveAlpha

 

I also love how that "I KNOW WHAT THE REALITY IS.....you can only guess" funny guy above. So many delusions.....

 

OK, let's see first what we are looking at, shall we?

OK, interesting choice, the RADAR unit for the Kub, known to NATO as the SA-6 Gainful. Yes, granted, that is a pretty powerful missile system, don't get me wrong at all. In many conflicts this has proven to be a very powerful missile system. However, it is also old and been studied in detail, and their threat has largely been negated. They are also part of a defensive missile system, not an offensive one intended to be used on the front lines.

Wow, is that second one actually the Osa? Known to NATO as the SA-8 Gecko? Really nothing more then an amphibious AVENGER, but it is decent. Very short operating range, 15km. But in most cases it has not been as effective as hoped. Kuwait used them against Iraq, with limited success. As did Libya during the fall of their last government, once again to limited success. Once again, point blank defense.

And the newer generation, the Pantsir S1, known to NATO as the SA-22 Greyhound. Once again, a combination of 30mm cannon with short range naval point-blank defense missiles. Intended to be the CP of traditional air defense guns.

The Tunguska, known to NATO as the SA-19 Grison. Primarily designed to be a mobile command most for various other Air Defense systems, like the ZSU series guns. Basically 2 30mm guns, combined with 8 short range point blanks Naval Defense missiles (akin to the US RIM-116). Really nothing more then a more powerful MANPAD. And designed more as a command post for air defense guns then an actual air defense asset itself.

And finally, the BUK system. Known to NATO as the SA-N-12 Grizzly.

Interesting mix here. Half of these are exactly what I said would be used (short range point blank defensive weapons), the other half is exactly what I said would be left "in the rear with the gear" (point in fact, the BUK system).

Now, before I go any further, do you actually remember what my job in the Army was for over 5 years? I know I have told you about it before, but here, let me remind you again, shall I?

I was the operator for the US PATRIOT Air Defense Artillery missile system, and cross trained in both the STINGER MANAPAD, and the Avenger mobile air-defense system.

This is what I trained extensively for, and deployed as. So yes, in this case I very much have a damned good idea "WHAT THE REALITY IS".

ADA (Air Defense Artillery) is by it's nature not very mobile. Most requires an hour or more to set up, and it is highly vulnerable to enemy fire, even small arms can easily wreck such a system, or shrapnel from artillery. For these reasons, other then the guns and MANPADS they are kept behind enemy lines.

Also for obvious reasons, the ground forces generally do not want to be anywhere near them (with the exception once again of the cannons). The RADAR systems they use are natural targets for HARM missiles, and a serious Grade A #1 target for the enemy air forces. So as soon as the RADAR fires up, you can guarantee that the other side is planning on how to launch HARM missiles at it to destroy it. Guns do not have this problem, and can also be lowered to use against vehicles and ground troops, so are much more welcome.

Say being a bunch of grunts assigned to hold next to a BUK system, might as well be camping in a big target area that says "bomb and missile the snot out of me here".

How do I know this? Well, as I stated, this is what I did for a living. Not delusion, my profession. Nobody puts the high end stuff close to the front lines, to vulnerable. And half of what you posted is exactly what I said would be there (cannons with short range missiles), the other half would not be anywhere near where you claim it would be (SA-6, BUK).

But please, if you want to get into a pissing contest over Air Defense Missile systems, how they are deployed, and their capabilities, bring it on! You are looking at pictures and information on web pages. I have actually worked with them, deployed with them, operated them (a system fairly similar to the SA-6/BUK systems), and know what is involved in taking such a battery of equipment and putting them into operation.

In the highly volatile environment of front-line combat, nobody places a sophisticated ADA missile system. Nobody. SO you may insist some do, but not the Russians. They are not that stupid. Maybe I give them more credit then you do.

 

Actually that is "Tor" missile system (SA-15 by your classification). Whoops.

Forgive me for quoting Wikipedia:

all-weather low to medium altitude, short-range surface-to-air missile system designed for engaging airplanes, helicopters, cruise missiles, precision guided munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles and short-range ballistic threats (Anti-Munitions)

This is battlefield level AA system. The thing you said doesn't exist.

Yes, it had little to no success. But point stands. This is AA system for using on the battlefield.

Not exactly short range and not exactly fair to use this particular modification on my part, this one is for defending top of the line AD units, however, there is a tracked version avaliable for the use on the battlefield.

Nope. It is not a command post, but a separate unit, dedicated to protect infantry and tanks on the battlefield. The thing you said doesn't exist.
It is designed to provide day and night protection for infantry and tank regiments against low-flying aircraft, helicopters, and cruise missiles in all weather conditions.

Ten kilometers engagement range was like twice of a MANPAD up until now.
This one is the worst opponent any CAS aircraft can meet on the battlefied. It doesn't have "blind zone" purely missile systems have and it surpases CAS aircraft by the range of engagement.

Not exactly. Basically any tracked system is intended to be able to follow tanks and IFV on the battlefield and on the move (higher passability). Othervise it would have wheels instead(higher resourse and cheaper maintance).
Taking into account it's range of engagement it is dedicated to be used in second line, however it can escort units and that is exactly the reason TELAR vehicle of BUK complex can act independently.

Yeah, yeah,yeah, you worked with AD systems, I remeber that.
I served in the airforce, does it makes me an expert, whose words can't be denied, on the subject or something?

That is the reason there are long range AD systems. Just so some smartass pilots can't score a free kill on short and medium range systems without being shot down.

What do you think I claim those to be, again?
All I said you statement
> " it is well below the horizon that any Air Defense Missile can operate at, short of MANPAD and old school heavy machine guns"
is hilarious. There is a (*)(*)(*)(*)load of AD systems A-10 or any other CAS aircraft can perfectly well encounter.

All you did to disproof that was calling those systems "point defence" or "mobile CP", despite they are not.

Oh, you won't dare to argue with me about planes, then?

No, you don't. Do you think infantry and tanks won't be protected from low flying helicopters or CAS aircraft on the battlefield? Dream on. Tunguska, Shilka, Osa, perhaps Pantsir in the future are dedicated for that role.


But you still can retreat calling those "big MANPADS" and "artillery guns"

 

*shrugs*

That is what they are. "Point Defense" is a valid military term, intended to reference any weapons that cover the zone from 0-10 kilometers out from a target.

The MANPAD is a Point Defense system. So is the CIWS, C-RAM, and most of those you describe here. So why you are objecting to that is absolutely beyond me. Point Defense simply means it is a short range system. Don't like that description, well tough, because it is valid. These are all Point Defense systems. Using Point Defense missiles and cannons.

Now as for "Long Range", that is not really used on the battlefield itself at all. Those are all kept way back for the most part, defending strategic targets and not tactical targets. On the battlefield itself, you find Short and Medium range Air Defense Assets. Long Range with it's heavier equipment and longer deploy and undeploy times is simply to slow and vulnerable to attack to risk placing close to the battle lines.

Consider the good old SA-6 in Vietnam. Did the NVA place them along the DMZ between them and South Vietnam, or did they place them well inland, close to assets that needed to be guarded? In the Gulf War, did the US place PATRIOT missiles along the border of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, or were they placed well back, at key command and troop concentration points?

Now in Gulf War II, there was an experiment where PATRIOT did attempt to move forward with the front line units. It was not very useful, and most accept it was a huge mistake and not to be repeated. The units that were leapfrogging with the Front Line units were not effective, because by the time they got dug in and emplaced, it was almost time to pack up and move out again. And in moving out, all of their equipment was horribly vulnerable and the personnel did not have the skills and training needed to operate on the front lines of the battlefield.

Or have you never heard of the 507th Maintenance Company? The mechanic company that got separated and attacked in an ambush in 2003, resulting in the capture of several individuals, including one Private First Class Jessica Lynch. Don't bother looking for the 507th Maintenance Company, they have been redesignated as Echo Company, 5-52 Air Missile Defense. Yep, that convoy that was jumped pretty much crippled an entire PATRIOT battalion.

That is why Medium and Long range Air Defense assets do not move with front line troops. They stay "in the rear with the gear". And leave the battlefield air defense to the short range "Point Defense" assets.

And funny, you refuse to even mention the threat of HARM weapons to these assets. Because unless you fire up the RADAR units, those you mention are nothing but anti-aircraft guns. But in order to fire the missiles (or be accurate with the guns), you have to fire up the RADAR units. And the moment you do, every aircraft in the area with a HARM missile on the rails is going to instantly paint great big bullseyes all over that nice pretty tank chassis.

Do I think that such systems are a threat? Of course I do. But it is also a threat easily neutralized. The Israelis had no problem doing so once they were aware of the threat, and the US did not have much of a problem doing it either. That is what Wild Weasel missions are all about after all.

Current Wild Weasel doctrine often has F-16s and F-15s working in tandem with A-10s to seek out and destroy the Air Defense Assets in a Wild Weasel fashion. First you have the A-10 operating "low and slow", as it's mission dictates, trying to "tickle" the defenders into lighting off their RADARS. At that point, the fast movers light off their HARM missiles and send them after these RADAR units.

So do I think these systems can be effective? Oh hell yes, I never said otherwise. However, I think their lifespan on the battlefield will be relatively short lived. This is why the US has chosen to not place RADAR units on it's own Point Defense Anti-Air systems. They are all optically tracked, either visually or on heat signatures. No RADAR to track back.

This is what the M1097 Avenger and M6 Linebacker were for. Now the M6 has been retired, but the Avenger still lives on, and is the primary Point Defense system for the US Army. It can be linked to a search RADAR for increased range and accuracy, but primarily they train to operate alone, with no RADAR at all.

And yes, the Tunguska was intended primarily as a command post vehicle for a battery of short range Air Defense assets. Such as the Strela 10 (SA-13), much like the Avenger can be linked to US RADAR systems, the Strela-10 can be linked to the RADAR of the Tunguska, making it more accurate and with greater range. But it is most effective as the Command Post and Fire Control RADAR of a battery of 6 ZU-23 series guns. Especially since it allows the ZSU-23s to operate with their own fire control RADARS turned off, and to operate in a more effective and coordinated manner. And if this one vehicle is taken out, each of the 23s goes to individual mode, still being a highly effective air defense system.

And yes, I have also studied Warsaw Pact - Russian Air Defense doctrine. They actually have some things that I wish the US had, like the ZU-23 series guns. I think one of the dumbest things the US Army did was to scrap all of it's air defense guns, and go entirely to missiles.

 

I see you are posting HARM Targets again!

Let's see if you know what a HARM MISSILE is....we use them to destroy systems such as these at the beginning of a campaign.

AboveAlpha

 

Myself, I am well aware of what a HARM weapon is. That is why I specifically mentioned it in my response to this post (which he then completely ignored). And as a PATRIOT operator, that is our #2 worry, behind attack helicopters.

To any RADAR based air defense, HARM is a giant threat, and it's RADAR system is it's biggest weakness. Take out the RADAR, and the entire Battery is pretty much useless. They are giant beacons screaming to anybody within 40-100+ miles "Here I am! Look at me!". And they can be fired upon by enemies far outside their range to detect.

Our main Air to Surface HARM is the AGM-88, which has been in service for over 30 years now. And it has taken out many air defense systems, including a Libyan SA-5 in 1986, and a great many in Iraq during both the 1990 and 2003 Gulf Wars, the fighting over Serbia, and others.

In fact, one trick that our pilots have started to use is to give over the radio the codeword for preparing to launch a HARM missile (generally as a warning for friendly pilots to turn off their RADAR units). Quite often, a pilot giving the word "Magnum" as if he was about to fire off a HARM was enough to cause the enemy side to shut off their RADAR and end the track.

http://theaircache.com/2012/08/17/agm-88-harm/

In fact, many times during exercises we would have thrown at us Russian fighters with either Kh-58 (AS-11 Kilter) HARM missile, or the Kh-31 (AS-17 Krypton) missile.



Love that photo, an Su-30 with a AS-17 HARM missile.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-ASM.html

No Air Defense unit takes the threat of these weapons lightly. Even the suggestion they are operating in an area is normally enough to cause us to shut down and go cold.

 

Next time KGB posts I am going to post back.......

I knew many KGB AGENTS personally sir!!

Sir....YOU ARE NO KGB AGENT!!! LOL!!!!

Yeah.....they would turn off and turn on their Radars but now days with our newer Satellite and Drone Capabilities....they turn on ONCE....we pick them up even if they shut their radars down and we can track them and destroy them.

I would prefer NOT to discuss the manner this is now done if you know what I mean.

All this crap about Putin talking about war and Nuclear and...etc....that is all for Russian internal consumption.

Putin has to create and generate a NON-EXISTENT THREAT....that being the United States Military at any moment is going to penetrate Russian and Crimean Air Space and Boarders and wipe Russian Forces out....which is what would happen if for some reason UNKNOWN TO ME OR ANYONE ELSE.....shoudl U.S. Forces attack! LOL!!!!

Yeah....right!!!

We have U.S. Military Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons Disposal Teams working RIGHT NOW in Russia as we are destroying old Soviet Weapons that the Russian's themselves either don't have the money to do or don't have the Technical Expertise as the old Soviet Biological Weapons sites ARE A SERIOUS MESS!!!

WE....the United States are PAYING for this clean up and destruction and if we wanted to kill Russian's all we would have to do is walk away and allow RUSSIA to attempt to disassemble and destroy SAFELY their own IDIOCY of placing WEAPONIZED BIOLOGICAL AGENTS....into Missiles that are not capable of containing Engineered Viruses and Bacteria forever as some of the Missiles ARE MADE OF STEEL instead of Alluminum and are rusting!!!!

All the U.S. has to do to destroy Russia is to just walk away!!

But instead we are over there and I have been there and to many former Soviet Satellite Nations many times and the Soviets never had a very good record with SAFETY!!!!

AboveAlpha

 

I don't believe any of you are who you say you are.
I could say that I'm in British army and hold a degree in history with the intent of going on to study Arabic & Chinese but that doesn't mean anything because it's the internet.

Well, how many satellites are actually in orbit with this ability?

I'm curious.

That's doubtful as the US purchase of nuclear material from Russian warheads was completed last year.
If there are US teams there then it's likely that they are there as observers.

It's a fair exchange.

I don't think so

 

And that's fine. However, I never claim to be anything other then a former Marine Infantry NCO, a crew leader for a Patriot Launcher, the Recon NCO for a PATRIOT Battery, and a computer professional (Hardware & Networking). I claim nothing really Earth shattering or special.

Actually the ability to home in on a RADAR once it has been turned off has not a thing to do with satellites. It is done through inertial navigation inside the missile itself. It simply "remembers" where the source of RF energy was last seen and continues to head for it in a kamikaze fashion. Like a man in the dark who spotted a light which has been turned off, and still walks towards it.

And a RADAR system is pretty fragile, even a near miss can do considerable damage to it and the other systems in the Air Defense Battery. Taking out generators, communication antennas, cables, firing platforms, fuel and ammunition depots, even personnel tents. A hit on any of these will damage or cripple a battery. An Air Defense Battery is normally spread out in an area the size roughly a square kilometer.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/A...2!3m1!1s0x3e467f35e3f471ef:0x1d8d9fff676ac8cb

In fact, in 2003 an Air Force F-16 fired a HARM at a Patriot Battery, destroying the RADAR system. This shut down the Battery for almost a week until a new one could be rushed in from stateside.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-173545/F-16-fires-Patriot-radar.html

Of course, now Allied aircraft are much more careful about avoiding "No fly zones" around air defense batteries. Most people do not realize that around such facilities there are clear "do not cross" boundaries, and any pilots (friendly or enemy) cross those at their own peril.

 

Havn't you just said, that these don't exist at all?

I am going to quote you once again:

This statement is wrong, as I have proved.

Oh, well, S-300V family tends to disagree with you:


The 9K81 S-300V Antey-300 (Russian 9К81 С-300В Антей-300 – named after Antaeus, NATO reporting name SA-12 Gladiator/Giant) varies from the other designs in the series. It was built by Antey rather not Almaz.[7] The V suffix stands for Voyska (ground forces). It was designed to form the top tier army air defence system, providing a defence against ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and aircraft, replacing the SA-4 'Ganef'. The "GLADIATOR" missiles have a maximum engagement range of around 75 km (47 mi) while the "GIANT" missiles can engage targets out to 100 km (62 mi) and up to altitudes of around 32 km (100,000 ft). In both cases the warhead is around 150 kg (331 lb).

A tracked long-range AD system designed for army use. Also I somewhat agree that they are not going to be used in the first line, their range should be sufficient to protect ground forces from air attacks even if they would be 50 kilimeters behind the frontline.

Deployment time~5 minutes.

Well, this one is an irrelevant example. A lot have changed since 1965.

Was it some kind of a specialised PATRIOT type, dedicated for following the army and providing AA protection or just a general version? If it was just a vanila PATRIOT, then no wonder it wasn't wery effective. Like I said, we do have a specialised version for it, I bet the Chinese have too, but I am not sure.

Taking into account a lot of these systems (Pantsir, Tor and Tunguska) are specifically designed to defeat all kinds of tactical missiles, HARM included, your comment doesn't make any sence. Yeah, there is a possibility of a loss by HARM missile, but there is no war without casualties.
Besides, bringing down planes, armed with HARM missiles, is exactly a job for S-300VM and Airforce.

Oh, tell me about it. Havn't you lost over 120 aircraft of all types over Iraq in 1991? And that was sorta 3-rd world nation in complete isolation without any end of the line equpment.

When it was last time Tunguska or Tor was lost? Right, never. So, irrelevant examples are irrelevant.

Nice plan. Unless the oppforce does have figher jets or long range systems to shot those out of the sky before they would be able to reach battlefield level AD.

Bunch of MANPADS on a lightly armored vehicle? Yeah, that would be an easy prey for any expirenced CAS aircraft pilot. If detected, this system only takes one Kh-25 or S-25 to deal with. Their lifespan is goind to be very short.

Yeah.....that is why it is equipped with two autocanons and 8 G2A missiles. Just a command post.

Zu-23 is close to useless on current battlefield. Effectively outranged by most of threats it was designed to counter. But you still can use them against ground targets.

Watch out those HARM missiles' carriers so they don't end up in flames after a frienly talk with S-300 or MiG-31, BelowOmega.

 

Ok.

When I addressed AboveAlpha he was referring to the use of satellites.
It's not my contention but rather his.

I think that depends on the weapon system and the mission.

You don't have to convince me as far as I'm concerned this argument is between you and KGB agent but what concerns me the most is AboveAlpha's statements.

At their own peril? Pilots can use their own discretion as to their flight plan?
I suspect that's something left to the C.O.

 

I really could care less if you or anyone else on this forum believes a word that I post.

But I have a 100% success rate with stating something will occur under certain circumstances and 30 to 90 days later we all end up finding out I was right.

The Sam Lugar Bill extends not only to just Nuclear but Chemical and Biological and we have a LOT of work left to go on the Biological Weapons and Facilities as basically when people in the former Soviet Union stopped getting a paycheck they basically stopped working and servicing these weapons and there are areas that I personally would not go within 200 Kms of.

I will NOT discuss how we are able to continue to track SAM and other like Mobile Systems after they shut off their radars.

AboveAlpha

 

Once again, twisting facts and statements, ignoring what is actually stated.

First of all, learn the difference between the different kinds of Air Defense assets. You keep trying to throw them all together, mixing and matching at will. The S-300 is a medium-long range system. Good luck trying to shoot it at an inbound helicopter at 150 feet elevation 3 kilometers away.

And unlike you, I do not dismiss the Zu-23. Hardly obsolete, it was damned effective against Libyan helicopters and even jets when mounted on the back of trucks. They also took out a lot of armored vehicles.

And the vehicle mounted ZSU-23 is also a formidable weapon. SO why you are dismissing something I have absolutely no idea, other then it shows your lack in really understanding weapon systems. Good thing for us NATO pilots take the threat from these a lot more seriously then you do.



Damage by a ZU-23 on an A-10 over Baghdad in Iraq, 2003.

"Close to useless"? OMG, you have absolutely no idea what you are saying, do you? You really do just make it up as you go along.

 

I don't care if you're a fantasist but try and keep if grounded in reality.
Don't be outlandish because that exactly what some of the stories you're coming out with are.

No you don't

You mean the Nunn-Lugar act?
I'm also doubtful that you could find a facility which you wouldn't go 200km's of.
Even nuclear dumps based in Kyrgyzstan for example aren't immediately dangerous but are a long term health risk.
As I said US purchase of nuclear material has been concluded. And I believe that Russia is handling it's own biological and chemical weapons.
In fact they're actually building more facilities to do that.

And yet you're more than happy to talk about orbital weapons systems (rod of god) which are not only illegal but also don't exist
You seem happy to tell others that you were shot point blank by an AK round and survived because you were wearing an ultralight piece of body armour.

To be honest it just seems like a mish-mash of video games, tv shows and films all rolled into one.