US general warns Russia on nuclear bombers in Cuba

reply to post by DarthAmerica


Your kidding yourself honestly.

Fighters DO NOT hunt missiles. Name me ONE aerial anti-ballistic missile currently in service with the US Air Force....
Go ahead. Find one.

The USAF has two fighters optimized for cruise missile defense and the USN has one. All three of these fighters can intercept Russian missiles.

Care to be more specific? Which ones? How many of these 3 are in service?

And exactly what missiles do they have that can travel at Mach 3 or higher?

Not to mention USN ships and U.S. Army SAMs.

Which are seriously outdated and inadequate for intercepting hypersonic missiles.

America has the Patriot system, which proved worthless in Iraq against Iraqi Scuds: www.cdi.org...

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero."

And the even older HAWK missile, which is even slower with a maximum speed of Mach 2.4.

USN Ships don't rely on their AEGIS combat systems for air defence; that's a last resort measure.
Their whole survivability depends on air combat patrols intercepting bogies before they get in range to launch.

And that can impossible with some of the Russian anti-shipping cruise missiles, which have ranges of over 600km.

the USA has been equipped to deal with supersonic cruise missiles for decades

Sigh... Wrong.

Name me one SAM weapons platform in the US arsenal that can actually travel at Mach 3 or faster...

There isn't a single one. It's common knowledge America lacks any serious SAM firepower in it's inventory and instead relies on air superiority to defend against missile threats.

Hence why the Russians have the S-300 and S-400 SAM systems which are easily some of the world's most potent, their lack of air superiority fighters is compensated by their highly advanced SAM network.

The silos would be empty in addition to the fact that Russian missiles aren't accurate enough to reliably destroy them.

Maybe that would have been true in the 1960's or 70's...
Nowadays all of that is negated by technology.

Russian ICBM's are guided by triple redundant systems composed of satellites, global positioning and radio waves...
Look at the Russian Iskander-E: en.wikipedia.org...

It can hit to within a 20 metre radius of a given target. No US ballistic missile can match that.
Accuracy is not a problem these days.

Your thinking we're still in the Cold War here, things have advanced way beyond those days.

Just a single surviving SSBN is enough to retaliate on Russia. Just one is all it takes. After it's payload is delivered, the cost to the Russians would be unacceptable

Okay, first off America's most advanced SLBM is the Trident III.

It can carry a maximum of 8 warheads, totalling 3.8 Megatons.

8 warheads is not going to make a difference in a Nuclear War, even on Moscow 8 direct hits would not obliterate the entire city.

How would the cost of that be unacceptable? The best an SSBN could do that was cut off from the chain of command with no intel is to aim at Russian cities.

It wouldn't be able to take out any military installations, silos or perform a decapitation strike.

I think your overestimating America's potency here by far.

Would we get some of them, yes. All, no. Enough, I don't think so.

And that's the problem right there, Russia has a huge mobile missile fleet numbering in several hundred's.

Even knocking out half of them, and that would require some serious air-to-ground hunting manoeuvres all over Russia (trying to evade Russia's huge SAM network) wouldn't be enough to guarantee safety.

That other half would have at the least 700 or more warheads left, and with that they could turn US cities into rubble.

Increasing to 10 megatons is not really all that effective. Why do you think most weapons have yields in the low hundreds of kilotons?

Which weapons are you referring to exactly?

Every first strike Russian and American ICBM has total yields exceeding 3 megatons.

Look at the Trident, Minuteman, Peacekeeper, Bulava, SS-18 and Topol...

Higher yields are extremely necessary, even today. With both sides having numerous hardened, underground military installations that can't be damaged by conventional means, huge yield warheads are the only way of destroying them.

Be careful not to get too enamored with Russian weapons. They are good, but not as good as is often suggested on the internet.

Be careful not to underestimate them:

Russia has the most advanced anti-shipping, anti-radiation and nuclear cruise missiles on the planet.

The Kh-20: A Mach 2, Nuclear cruise missile with a 2,300kg Nuclear warhead and a cruise ceiling of 20,000m. With a range of 600km, these could be fire well outside the engagement ranges of any of America's fighters, ensuring the survivability of the bombers.
en.wikipedia.org...

The Kh-22: An anti-shipping and anti-radiation missile that travels at Mach 4, carries a 1,000kg shaped charge Nuclear warhead and a range of 440km which is again well beyond the realm of the Navy's AEGIS defence system or any other American SAM.
en.wikipedia.org...

Or the Kh-55: An air-launched cruise missile with a range of over 3,000km, and a 2,000kg warhead. These could be safely launched from Russian airspace without the need to even come anywhere close to American fighters or SAM's.
en.wikipedia.org...

Or the SS-N-22 Sunburn Missile another advanced anti-shipping variant:

The 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles have the fastest flying speed among all antiship missiles in today's world. It reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2, triple the speed of the American Harpoon. The missile takes only 2 minutes to cover its full range and manufacturers state that 1-2 missiles could incapacitate a destroyer while 1-5 missiles could sink a 20000 ton merchantman. An extended range missile, 9M80E is now available....

....The 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery.

www.globalsecurity.org...

America cruise missiles don't even come anywhere close to their Russian counterparts.

America Tomahawks and AGM-86's are both subsonic and have comparatively smaller warheads (450-500kg), not to mention nowhere the near the ranges of their Russian counterparts.

Read up on the Russian missile inventory; it exceeds by leaps and bounds anything the US has to offer.

Originally posted by manson_322
reply to post by DarthAmerica

 

Also, the USA has been equipped to deal with supersonic cruise missiles for decades and it is nothing new except on the internet where the mere mention of the word supersonic before cruise missile makes people hyperventilate. This is going to be an intel fight and the Russians would be at a very huge tactical disadvantage.

BS...

USA does not have any against hypersonic anti-ship missiles and barely has defences against supersonic ones with exception of ESSM/SM system, but these cannot fend off against a multi supersonic missile strike
in fact in 90's aegis system failed all its tests against the supersonic kh-31 missile , which is not even as capable as Moskit/Klub/Yakhonts ASCMs

and on russian icbm accuracy, SS-18 mod 6 has a accuracy 220 meters , and RS-24 and topolm are sufficiently accurate, also the erstwhile SS-25 had a accurcy of 185 m

[edit on 3-8-2008 by manson_322]
[edit on 3-8-2008 by manson_322]

You don't know what you are talking about. I can't even believe you think we still rely on just Phalanx to deal with AShM's. Are you even competent in the subject matter or in anyway connected professionally? I don't think so. Look at SeaRAM

www.raytheon.com...

First of all, a 2.5 second warning time assumes the Cruise Missile evades detection all the way to the radar horizon. Which would have to be about 2150 meters away at that speed. Also, the Missile would have to be about a foot above the water AND that assumes the radar array detecting it is at zero altitude. Of course its not. If you did the math you would know that. Then you are failing to take into account that the USN has ship based, aircraft based, subsurface and space based assets that would detect the launch. All of this is tied together through CEC and backed up by EW. Multiple USN ships and aircraft dispersed over thousands of square km would be able to shoot at it. You would need either complete surprise or hundreds of missiles launched simultaneously. Not likely. Those days are over and even when the Soviets were capable of this they were only confident of getting through 20 percent of the time. A USN SAG, ESG or CSG is the hardest target in the world to attack by any method. Again, you are reading BS off websites and using that as a substitute for proof. I've only told you about the public information. The USN air defenses are far more comprehensive than you can imagine and it's lead is getting longer.

www.stormingmedia.us...



Also, CEP's of 185-250m are not good enough for counter force strikes. Its takes sub 100 meter accuracy due to the inverse square law effect on the power of a nuclear blast. In english, that means a hardened silo would survive anything beyond except a near direct hit even if you used an gigantic yield weapon. Google the definition of CEP and tell me why a nation would not want to bet its success in a counterforce strike on a 250 meter CEP. Go ahead and see for yourself.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by DarthAmerica

 

Your kidding yourself honestly.

Fighters DO NOT hunt missiles. Name me ONE aerial anti-ballistic missile currently in service with the US Air Force....
Go ahead. Find one.

I'll find four actually and that will increase to five in about 2 to 4 years...

1. www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_025129.pdf

2. isakson.senate.gov...

3. www.freerepublic.com...

4. And the F-35 will have this capability too.


You have read all the websites but little experience you have. Also, you made a strawman. I said "optimized for cruise missile defense" which I showed above. Not ballistic missile defense. But I'll get to that too since you erroneously brought it up...

www.raytheon.com...

www.prnewswire.com.../www/story/05-14-2007/0004587551&EDATE=May+14,+2007

The USAF has two fighters optimized for cruise missile defense and the USN has one. All three of these fighters can intercept Russian missiles.

Care to be more specific? Which ones? How many of these 3 are in service?

And exactly what missiles do they have that can travel at Mach 3 or higher?

All dealt with above.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by DarthAmerica

 

Your kidding yourself honestly.

Not to mention USN ships and U.S. Army SAMs.

Which are seriously outdated and inadequate for intercepting hypersonic missiles.

America has the Patriot system, which proved worthless in Iraq against Iraqi Scuds: www.cdi.org...

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero."

You will find that I don't kid around. However I assure you people would think you were kidding to reference Patriot MIssiles from 20 years ago. You do know that the issue was software related and its been patched to allow for dedicated BMD capability.

You need to look at the present...

www.acq.osd.mil...

...look at the reentry speeds.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by DarthAmerica

 

Your kidding yourself honestly.


USN Ships don't rely on their AEGIS combat systems for air defence; that's a last resort measure.
Their whole survivability depends on air combat patrols intercepting bogies before they get in range to launch.

And that can impossible with some of the Russian anti-shipping cruise missiles, which have ranges of over 600km.

the USA has been equipped to deal with supersonic cruise missiles for decades

Sigh... Wrong.

Name me one SAM weapons platform in the US arsenal that can actually travel at Mach 3 or faster...

Ok, you need to humble yourself a bit. Go back decades...

www.fas.org...

None of this supersonic cruise missile nonsense is new. NONE OF IT. My goodness you guys are very opinionated to misunderstand so much...

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by DarthAmerica

 

Your kidding yourself honestly.

Russian ICBM's are guided by triple redundant systems composed of satellites, global positioning and radio waves...
Look at the Russian Iskander-E: en.wikipedia.org...

It can hit to within a 20 metre radius of a given target. No US ballistic missile can match that.
Accuracy is not a problem these days.

Your thinking we're still in the Cold War here, things have advanced way beyond those days.

OMG...I cannot believe you posted this. You are comparing a short range battlefield missile with an ICBM? BIG DIFFERENCE. And the Russians are having trouble fielding Iskander in case you didn't know.

BTW, Tridents II D-5 can get 10 meter accuracy just to let you know and were going to be the platform for conventional ballistic missiles because of their accuracy.

www.stratcom.mil...&test/strategic_29mar06.html

Okay, first off America's most advanced SLBM is the Trident III.

It can carry a maximum of 8 warheads, totalling 3.8 Megatons.

8 warheads is not going to make a difference in a Nuclear War, even on Moscow 8 direct hits would not obliterate the entire city.

How would the cost of that be unacceptable? The best an SSBN could do that was cut off from the chain of command with no intel is to aim at Russian cities.

OK so you aren't familiar with nuclear weaponeering either I see. Just to let you know it would take fewer than 200 SSBN warheads to kill over 1/3 of the Russian population in a counter value strike effectively ending Russia as a coherent entity.

It wouldn't be able to take out any military installations, silos or perform a decapitation strike.

I think your overestimating America's potency here by far.

Based on what? What qualifications do you have to assert that? I've disproven all of your previous questions with links to support each. Official links BTW with data. I would continue to your erroneous characterization of mobile ICBMs but Im tired. Look, I don't want to get confrontational, but you don't know what you are talking about. I'd say you have a decent superficial familiarity with some military topics but thats it. Try and ask single questions and I'll clear things up as best I can. By the way, there is no Trident III I've ever heard of deployed.

Again, should you choose to contest or question any of this, focus on one issue at a time. Try to support any assertions with some kind of analysis and data and we can review it together.

reply to post by DarthAmerica

You don't know what you are talking about. I can't even believe you think we still rely on just Phalanx to deal with AShM's. Are you even competent in the subject matter or in anyway connected professionally? I don't think so. Look at SeaRAM

when did i say you will use just phalanx

First of all, a 2.5 second warning time assumes the Cruise Missile evades detection all the way to the radar horizon. Which would have to be about 2150 meters away at that speed. Also, the Missile would have to be about a foot above the water AND that assumes the radar array detecting it is at zero altitude. Of course its not. If you did the math you would know that. Then you are failing to take into account that the USN has ship based, aircraft based, subsurface and space based assets that would detect the launch. All of this is tied together through CEC and backed up by EW. Multiple USN ships and aircraft dispersed over thousands of square km would be able to shoot at it. You would need either complete surprise or hundreds of missiles launched simultaneously. Not likely. Those days are over and even when the Soviets were capable of this they were only confident of getting through 20 percent of the time. A USN SAG, ESG or CSG is the hardest target in the world to attack by any method.

lol,
BS, as a sea skimming target is much more difficult to detect
space based assets can track ICBM launches not cruise missile launches
and this is full case scenario in best case USN would be able to track sea skimmers in 25-40 seconds before impact

Unlike subsonic Western anti-ship missiles such as the Harpoon and Exocet, the Moskit is a
supersonic sea-skimmer. It can be programmed to fly a high altitude trajectory at Mach 3, or
a sea-skimming trajectory at Mach 2.2. If the sea skimming mode is chosen, the missile will be first detected by a warship under attack when it emerges over the horizon at a distance ofabout 15 to 25 nautical miles. This provides the defences on the ship with about 25 seconds of warning time before impact. Moreover the speed of the Moskit makes it a challenging target for many shipboard defences.
www.ausairpower.net...

Again, you are reading BS off websites and using that as a substitute for proof. I've only told you about the public information. The USN air defenses are far more comprehensive than you can imagine and it's lead is getting longer.

well, I am still waiting for you to prove the BS you post as you post , as you have provided no proof on how a CBG will intercept a salvo of 25-40 supersonic skimmers

Also, CEP's of 185-250m are not good enough for counter force strikes

for a 750 kiloton of ss-18 with CEP of 220 meters ,there is 95% probaability that a silo of 3000 psi will be destroyed

even your MX with 300 kt a had only probability of 81% in destroying silos

as for trident with 100 kt warhead , has 96% probablity of destroying a 3000 psi silos

go ask Pavel Podvig , expert on russian nuclear

You have read all the websites but little experience you have. Also, you made a strawman. I said "optimized for cruise missile defense" which I showed above. Not ballistic missile defense. But I'll get to that too since you erroneously brought it up...

Ok, you need to humble yourself a bit. Go back decades

lol, do you EVEN UNDERSTAND THE difference between sea skimmers and high altitude missiles ......
sea skimmers are much harder to detect
as for kh-22 hypersonic high altitude cruise missile,easy to detect , but very difficult to intercept its hypersonic mach 5 variant ,

so please expalin how you make bold claims that you cannot prove

[edit on 4-8-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 4-8-2008 by manson_322]

BTW, Tridents II D-5 can get 10 meter accuracy just to let you know and were going to be the platform for conventional ballistic missiles because of their accuracy.

wheres the proof , trident D-5 has a accuracy of 100 meters not 10 meters as you state , and 10 mter accuracy was a proposal , not proven fact that trident is capable of it

The Pentagon proposed the Conventional Trident Modification program in 2006 to diversify its strategic options, as part of a broader long-term strategy to develop worldwide rapid strike capabilities, dubbed "Prompt Global Strike". The US $503 million program would have converted existing Trident II missiles (presumably two missiles per submarine) into conventional weapons, by fitting them with modified Mk4 reentry vehicles equipped with GPS for navigation update and a reentry guidance and control (trajectory correction) segment to perform 10 m class impact accuracy. No explosive is said to be used since the reentry vehicle's mass and hypersonic impact velocity provide sufficient mechanical energy and "effect". It offered the promise of accurate conventional strikes with little warning and flight time. The primary drawback would have been establishing sufficient warning systems so that other nuclear countries would not mistake it for a nuclear launch. For that reason among others, this project raised a substantial debate before US Congress for the FY07 Defense budget, but also internationally.
en.wikipedia.org...

when did i say you will use just phalanx

Strawman #1. I didn't say that you said the USN just uses Phalanx. What you said and its clear above is that missiles that get through will not be stopped by Phalanx which of course is ignorance on your part and ignores the fact the SeaRAM was added to 70+ USN ships to enhance the point defense layer. SeaRAM can engage multiple missiles simultaneously at 5-6x the range of Phalanx and has multispectral tracking capability. It's the pinnacle of publicly known point defense systems.

lol,
BS, as a sea skimming target is much more difficult to detect
space based assets can track ICBM launches not cruise missile launches
and this is full case scenario in best case USN would be able to track sea skimmers in 25-40 seconds before impact

Look, you are sadly misinformed. You do not have the engineering background or military experience to call anything I post "BS". Your own words would make you a laughing stock in professional circles. But I'll offer an explanation so as to dispel this inaccurate information of yours.

Sea skimming missles are hard to detect for two reasons. 1, they approach from beyond the "radar horizon" where radars can't physically see them due to the curvature of the earth. The same reason why you can't see the sun at night. 2, "OLD" radar did not have the processing power to sort the missile out from the radar energy reflected off the surface of the ocean. If you read what I posted earlier, you would realize the USN has overcome both limits.

CEC, or Cooperative Engagement Capability, networks all sensor platforms in the area so that even if I cannot "see" an approaching missile, I can use the data from the E-2C above that does see it to shoot at it and so can every ship and fighter in the group. Also, because computing power has dramatically increases, sorting a fast moving missile from radar returns reflected off the ocean is trivia for modern radar.

But there is more. There are sensors that watch the surface of the Earth for the emissions of rocket motors who have significant IR signatures. Any launch of a rocket toward a USN CSF would cue these sensors and alert the carrier. Moreover, the friction of the air rubbing the nose of a rocket traveling M2.0 at sea level is quite significant and is trackable from multiple platforms including space based sensors. I know this because we have used such technology to alert USN ships when Iranian fighters have taken off from their bases using afterburners. It's why USN SAMs have IR seekers in addition to radar. There are reasons why western nations use subsonic stealthy AShM's. There are reasons why Russia uses supersonic missiles. If you don't understand why, and it's clear you dont, ask.

well, I am still waiting for you to prove the BS you post as you post , as you have provided no proof on how a CBG will intercept a salvo of 25-40 supersonic skimmers

Read above.

for a 750 kiloton of ss-18 with CEP of 220 meters ,there is 95% probaability that a silo of 3000 psi will be destroyed

LOL you never took a statistics class. The SS-18 has a reliability of about 97%. It has a CEP of 220 meters which means that 50% of the time, it will hit within 220 meters of the point of aim. That doesn't take into account some other factors. That means a SS-18 in reality has a 46% chance using your numbers. You would have to target 5 warheads to get a 95% probability. There are only 75 operational SS-18s in the Russian arsenal. There are 450 LGM-30's in silos in the USA. Do the math. There arent that many ICBM warheads in the Russian arsenal to do that. The USAF silo based ICBM force is quite safe from counterforce attack.

Originally posted by manson_322
reply to post by DarthAmerica

 

lol, do you EVEN UNDERSTAND THE difference between sea skimmers and high altitude missiles ......
sea skimmers are much harder to detect
as for kh-22 hypersonic high altitude cruise missile,easy to detect , but very difficult to intercept its hypersonic mach 5 variant ,

so please expalin how you make bold claims that you cannot prove

Prove? How about you prove what you are saying. YOU HAVE NO PROOF of any of your claims besides random unofficial websites that are as inaccurate as you are claiming the USN is somehow lacking because they don't do research or have AGENDAS. Intercepting hypersonic missiles is not hard for AEGIS or Patriot. They are designed to do just that. How fast do you think reentry vehicles are moving? How fast do you think that satellite was moving when AEGIS shot it down?

The U.S. Navy has been preparing and refining its capability to deal with these threats for DECADES...

In 1968/69, the U.S. Army evaluated the AQM-37A, but did not adopt the type. Later, in 1976/77, the Army ordered some AQM-37As modified as Beech Model 1100 and 1101. These were the first and only versions of the AQM-37 equipped with a two-stage parachute recovery system. However, the only major U.S. Army order for the AQM-37A was for more than 400 non-recoverable Model 1102s in 1977. The Model 1102 was equipped with a solid-state autopilot and improved design wings for higher performance.

The designation AQM-37B was never officially assigned. In early May 1982, the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) requested the allocation of AQM-37B to an improved AQM-37A. However, this request was changed a few days later to AQM-37C (q.v.), because "the Navy [was] already utilizing AQM-37B". I don't know the specifics of the variant called "AQM-37B" by the Navy, but it appears that the -37B designation was never officially requested, let alone allocated.

In 1981, the U.S. Navy modified 10 AQM-37As under the Challenger program with a refined high-g autopilot, and enlarged heat-resistant tail surfaces, to allow for higher speed, altitude and manoeuverability. These features were incorporated into the AQM-37C, which was delivered to the Navy from 1986 onwards. The AQM-37C has a radio command control system, which allows changes in the flight path after launch, including a terminal dive at a controlled dive angle. It also features a digital autopilot, and improved radar augmentation in four different frequency bands. Some of the latest AQM-37Cs have further improved heat insulation, and can also be used to simulate ballistic missile threats, being able to fly ballistic trajectories to an altitude of 100 km (330000 ft) and a range of 425 km (265 miles), with terminal speeds of Mach 5. Typical equipment of current AQM-37Cs includes the AN/DRQ-4B and AN/DSQ-37A (or AN/DSQ-50) miss distance indicators, the AN/DPN-88 (or AN/DPN-90(V)) radar beacon, and the AN/DPT-2 pulsed RF ECM transmitter.

...Stop believing all the hype out there. This is nothing new. If you ask questions, I'll give you the real truth so long as its public domain information. But these assertions and wild claims you make need to stop.

www.designation-systems.net...
www.deagel.com...
findarticles.com...&tag=rel.res2?tag=col1;fa_related_widget
findarticles.com...
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/ntsp/gen-d_2002.pdf

Originally posted by manson_322

BTW, Tridents II D-5 can get 10 meter accuracy just to let you know and were going to be the platform for conventional ballistic missiles because of their accuracy.

wheres the proof , trident D-5 has a accuracy of 100 meters not 10 meters as you state , and 10 mter accuracy was a proposal , not proven fact that trident is capable of it

OK, you asked for it...

In addition to the new fuze, an ‘‘accuracy adjunct’’ has been developed for the W76-
1/Mk4A, designed to give the weapon ‘‘GPS [Global Positioning System]-like accuracy.’’
Congress refused to fund the program out of concern that it could lead to more usable
nuclear weapons, but the navy has continued development anyway with funding
provided by Lockheed Martin. A full-scale flight test of the ‘‘three-axis flap system,’’ which
enables the reentry vehicles to make course adjustments during reentry, was test flown on
a D5 launched from the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) on March 1, 2005. A top navy official
involved in the test told the author: ‘‘I had GPS signal all the way down and could steer
it.’’
cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol14/142/142kristensen.pdf

When I tell you something, it's because I have either seen it or can prove it. Failing that I can support it with my own analysis.

reply to post by DarthAmerica


If things starting to go bad the bombers will be there patroling and waiting for the order . Besides thats their role here , they stay airbone for hours and hours if needed they will be refuled to stay for a day or two airbone . Believe me they will get the chance to launch. And No Usa is not more survivable than Russia. Have you seen the size of Russia , they have got thousands silos across the country most of them are unknown

Originally posted by DarthAmerica



Prove? How about you prove what you are saying. YOU HAVE NO PROOF of any of your claims besides random unofficial websites that are as inaccurate as you are claiming the USN is somehow lacking because they don't do research or have AGENDAS. Intercepting hypersonic missiles is not hard for AEGIS or Patriot. They are designed to do just that.

in 2002 President Bush pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to develop a missile shield to protect the nation from terrorists and "rogue states." The U.S. shield is still in its early stages, but according to the U.S. Missile Defense Agency it will be capable of defending all fifty states against a limited ballistic missile attack by the end of 2004

Key words "LIMITED BALLISTIC MISSILES ATTACKS"

That statement of your about patriot and AEGIS intercepting EASILY hypersonic missiles goes beyond ignorance.

Russia recently reported that in military maneuvers described as the largest in more than two decades, it successfully tested a hypersonic weapon capable of penetrating any missile shield. According to the first deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, Colonel-General Yuri Baluyevsky, this "flying vehicle changed both the altitude and direction of its flight

I dont even have to name any of them . They are stated above by other members who obiusly done their reaserch

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Russian Boy]

Originally posted by Russian Boy

Originally posted by DarthAmerica
Prove? How about you prove what you are saying. YOU HAVE NO PROOF of any of your claims besides random unofficial websites that are as inaccurate as you are claiming the USN is somehow lacking because they don't do research or have AGENDAS. Intercepting hypersonic missiles is not hard for AEGIS or Patriot. They are designed to do just that.

in 2002 President Bush pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to develop a missile shield to protect the nation from terrorists and "rogue states." The U.S. shield is still in its early stages, but according to the U.S. Missile Defense Agency it will be capable of defending all fifty states against a limited ballistic missile attack by the end of 2004

Key words "LIMITED BALLISTIC MISSILES ATTACKS"

That statement of your about patriot and AEGIS intercepting EASILY hypersonic missiles goes beyond ignorance.

Russia recently reported that in military maneuvers described as the largest in more than two decades, it successfully tested a hypersonic weapon capable of penetrating any missile shield. According to the first deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, Colonel-General Yuri Baluyevsky, this "flying vehicle changed both the altitude and direction of its flight

I dont even have to name any of them . They are stated above by other members who obiusly done their reaserch

Oh god you are as clueless and the rest of them. I post information about specific hypersonic and supersonic targets being intercepted between wave top height and orbit and you are calling me ignorant? Yeah ok. No one here has done any type of research on this subject matter except for me. All you are doing is regurgitating fanboy nonsense. You probably dont even understand what Colonel-General Baluyevsky is really saying. I'll help you since I know exactly what he means.

Ballistic Missile refers to the fact that ICBMs follow "ballistic trajectories" to their targets. If you can observe any part of the ballistic flight path, you know exactly where the missile/warhead will be at any time during the flight. "Most" current anti-ballistic missile systems go after their targets in the final phase of flight known as "terminal phase". This is because it is the most technically simple stage. So, an anti-missile system after observing a launch will predict where the warhead will be at time x and then have an interceptor meet it at that time. If for some reason the incoming warhead changes its path, the interceptor will probably miss if it isn't capable of maneuver which most aren't beyond small course corrections due to the limited amount of onboard fuel. Nothing special about it just plain old physics.

The counter measure to this is...

a. more maneuverable interceptor

b. Intercept in the midcourse or boost phase before maneuver is possible

c. direct energy weapons

All three methods are currently in development, operation or test. Meanwhile, the Russians have yet to field a single warhead of the type mentioned in that press release.

Also, and again you clearly demonstrate your own ignorance, Missile Defense has already moved beyond stopping "limited ballistic missile attacks" as was publicly demonstrated when the AEGIS shot down a satellite clearly demonstrating its capability to behave in a much more offensive manner. Moreover, the USN wants to spend 3 billion dollars to enable every AEGIS ship in the fleet to carry SM-3 missiles, about 90 ships carrying about 12 or more SM-3 each. Not only that but the latest expansion of Missile defense will allow interception of any ICBM fired at the USA from Russia and it can and will be rapidly expanded.

Every patriot intercept of an Iraqi Ballistic Missile was hypersonic. Again, check the reentry speeds. Impact is at combined speed of 6000 mph.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Russian Boy
reply to post by DarthAmerica

 

If things starting to go bad the bombers will be there patroling and waiting for the order . Besides thats their role here , they stay airbone for hours and hours if needed they will be refuled to stay for a day or two airbone . Believe me they will get the chance to launch. And No Usa is not more survivable than Russia. Have you seen the size of Russia , they have got thousands silos across the country most of them are unknown

NO, actually the silo's are quite known BY TREATY.

www.state.gov...
www.state.gov...

You can also see them on Google Earth...
rapidshare.com...
bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=83812
bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=440691


Russia's size is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. Russia is largely uninhabited. Take a look of a population density map...

maps.howstuffworks.com...

Russia's area is about 17 million square kilometers (6.5 million sq. mi.). It remains the largest country in the world by more than 7 million square kilometers (2.5 million sq. mi.). Its population density is about 9 persons per square kilometer (22 per sq. mi.), making it one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world. Its population is predominantly urban.
en.wikipedia.org...

Easy to exterminate via nuclear weapon if necessary. Why do you think they don't want NATO in Ukraine? That would put the vast majority of Russians within unrefueled driving and flying range of western military vehicles.


With regard to the Bombers, if based in Cuba, they would not survive more than a few minutes in a war situation. If they loitered anywhere off the US coast, they would be under constant surveillance by NORAD and shadowed by Fighters. Especially if they come from Cuba because they would be under the most intense scrutiny assuming the USA even allowed them to remain there. It's not "if things start to go bad". Things will be bad the moment Russia stations just on nuclear bomber on Cuban soil.

Originally posted by DarthAmerica

Oh god you are as clueless and the rest of them. I post information about specific hypersonic and supersonic targets being intercepted between wave top height and orbit and you are calling me ignorant? Yeah ok. No one here has done any type of research on this subject matter except for me. All you are doing is regurgitating fanboy nonsense. You probably dont even understand what Colonel-General Baluyevsky is really saying. I'll help you since I know exactly what he means.

Ballistic Missile refers to the fact that ICBMs follow "ballistic trajectories" to their targets. If you can observe any part of the ballistic flight path, you know exactly where the missile/warhead will be at any time during the flight. "Most" current anti-ballistic missile systems go after their targets in the final phase of flight known as "terminal phase". This is because it is the most technically simple stage. So, an anti-missile system after observing a launch will predict where the warhead will be at time x and then have an interceptor meet it at that time. If for some reason the incoming warhead changes its path, the interceptor will probably miss if it isn't capable of maneuver which most aren't beyond small course corrections due to the limited amount of onboard fuel. Nothing special about it just plain old physics.

The counter measure to this is...

a. more maneuverable interceptor

b. Intercept in the midcourse or boost phase before maneuver is possible

c. direct energy weapons

All three methods are currently in development, operation or test. Meanwhile, the Russians have yet to field a single warhead of the type mentioned in that press release.

Also, and again you clearly demonstrate your own ignorance, Missile Defense has already moved beyond stopping "limited ballistic missile attacks" as was publicly demonstrated when the AEGIS shot down a satellite clearly demonstrating its capability to behave in a much more offensive manner. Moreover, the USN wants to spend 3 billion dollars to enable every AEGIS ship in the fleet to carry SM-3 missiles, about 90 ships carrying about 12 or more SM-3 each. Not only that but the latest expansion of Missile defense will allow interception of any ICBM fired at the USA from Russia and it can and will be rapidly expanded.

Every patriot intercept of an Iraqi Ballistic Missile was hypersonic. Again, check the reentry speeds. Impact is at combined speed of 6000 mph.

Lol that whole thread of yours starting to become a joke are you even aware of what you saying . I think you completly lost the plot here. "Plain old physics" eerrr what ? ? ? Since when are you the physics expert here ? Just for your information i have been studying advance maths and Physics far beyond these in Universities so believe me i know what the general said and what he mean with that. Yeah right , they just decided to make an other old missile , paint it blue,named it "topol-m", put some OLD PHYSICS algorithms in it, blast the media and call it a day.
From its very existence this missile have been designed "not let foreign air defense troops intercept and destroy the missile. "This missile do not allow it self to be locked even from a laser beam.


Defense Dept, December 4, 2002

The Defense Department, preparing for a possible war with Iraq, said today that it would increase production of an improved version of the Patriot missile by 16 percent. Experts say the original Patriot largely failed to hit Iraqi missiles fired at Israel and Saudi Arabia in 1991.

The PAC-2 missiles, which Israeli experts say failed to intercept 39 short-range Iraqi Scud missiles fired at Israel during the gulf war. The PAC-3 missile is a ''hit to kill'' missile, said Craig Vanbebber, a spokesman for Lockheed.

And the story goes beyond

The PAC-3 Operational Requirement Document (ORD) was developed after the Persian Gulf War to improve the PATRIOT system, including a new PAC-3 hit-to-kill missile. Flight testing of the PAC-3 missile began in 1997 and had successful intercepts against three TBMs and two cruise missiles between March 1999 and July 2000. The PAC-3 Limited User Test (LUT) was conducted during March-June 2000. The LUT revealed serious deficiencies in ground system suitability, as well as major effectiveness issues. These included instances when the system misidentified objects, engaged debris, or failed to engage threatening TBMs. There was a new software drop in September 2000 to correct some of these problems.

PAC-3 Interceptors Missed Target In Latest Test, U.S. Army Says Nov 14, 2005
The U.S. Army is investigating why the latest test of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile system apparently failed to achieve an intercept. During the Nov. 11 test at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., two PAC-3 missiles were fired about 8 a.m. Mountain time against a legacy Patriot missile modified to represent a short-range ballistic missile target. But preliminary data show that an intercept did not occur, the Army said.

Failure after failure after failure . It failed to prove it self in war and besides moderization it keeps failing miserably during testing and you seriously expect it to intercept missiles like topol-m traveling at hypersonic speeds and able to change course with some old physics?
Or you will try to bring them down with a fighter jet

now lets be serious.







[edit on 4-8-2008 by Russian Boy]

And yes i believe you are ignorant as several people here are waisting their time and trying to open your eyes to reality and knowledge but you keep posting bold statements

Originally posted by Russian Boy
And yes i believe you are ignorant as several people here are waisting their time and trying to open your eyes to reality and knowledge but you keep posting bold statements

Ok, you are being an idiot. First of all, weapons don't just "magically" fail. There are technical reasons. This is why we test. Patriot was designed to intercept fighters initially from a software point of view. Patches gave it a capability to handle BM's but just like with your OS, the initial versions were not perfect. So you had thing like Patriots homing on SCUD fuel tanks after they broke apart during reentry. Later revisions allowed better target discrimination to the point where it was nearly 100% SUCCESSFUL IN WAR during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The PAC-3 enhances the capability. PAC systems are terminal tactical and theater ballistic missile defense systems. Not ICBM-ABM's although they can shoot down RV's in some cases. The US ABM system is multi tiered and layered. PAC-3 goes after leakers that escape NCADE, GBI, SM-3, ABL, THAAD and other systems that you are unaware of that will be coming on line.

No one is wasting their time except you FANBOY. You do not understand the subject matter and that is clear. It's funny, you respond with crap and public propaganda statements by no numbers and data. I respond with official links and data for analysis. Who to believe? Go figure. You are a fanboy joke.

Patriot Record in Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Iraqi TBM missiles they engaged, with nine of nine intercepts resulting in destruction of the incoming enemy missile. The Patriot system undoubtedly saved many lives and prevented significant damage or destruction of millions of dollars of coalition property or to neighboring countries.

www4.army.mil...

Nine for Nine dude in a war, that speaks for itself. That is why we do realistic testing to make these things fail during the test. Then we make changes so that it works and test again. That way when a war comes, you have already tested out the failures.

We have systems that will intercept Topol-M as well. Again, I've more than shown this with FACTs. Our systems exist in reality. Russian countermeasures only exist in propaganda statements. This is why they are kicking and screaming over our Missile Defense plans. They know their only war time weapons of any significance are being threatened with becoming obsolete.

I challenge you to prove any of the assertions you have made with data? Don't waste my time because I KNOW YOU CAN'T.

Missile Defense is multitier and redundant.

www.mda.mil...

And its getting more capable and advancing well beyond a mere "defensive" system...

www.youtube.com...

...and it's international...

www.youtube.com...

Again, real data, not speculation. Quantifiable proof of concept, not vague propaganda. Raise your standards Russian Boy.

It's a forgone conclussion that any Russian Bombers in Cuba are not survivable. Also clear is that Russian ICBM silos are not survivable against SLBMs because Russia no longer has the ability to detect SLBM launches as it did during the Cold War. Combine that with the accuracy of the D-5 missile which can be as accurate as 10 meters.

How about the Topol-M? Well, first off, I don't think we are in a position yet to reliably go after so many mobile missiles. But, the potential is there and improving continuously. Remember, B-2s were designed to go after mobile ICBMs...

At a press conference explaining the Transformation Panel's findings, McCarthy noted, "You can put 324 of the Small Diameter Bombs on each B-2. If you launch 18 of the 21 B-2s, that's 5,824 individually targeted weapons on that small force." In conjunction with Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles and expanded B-52 launch capability, he added, "You're talking about 8,000 to 10,000 weapons in a single strike package, which is pretty awesome."
www.afa.org...

However, the most effective weapon of all against trucks on the trail was the AC-130 gunship. It had its own sensors, including low-light-level TV, forward-looking infrared, and the shadowy “Black Crow,” which could detect truck engines from 10 miles away.
www.afa.org...

That is a very powerful first strike capability and now it's being backed up by an ABM system.