US general warns Russia on nuclear bombers in Cuba

Originally posted by Russian Boy
reply to post by DarthAmerica

 

Yeah of course i dont deny Usa has more cash , which means more research ,more tech , they got many impressive toys thats for sure . B-2 dont fly anymore after the crash , they are grounded . We can take any subject listed or propose and analyse it till every aspect possible and i can show that we do have better toys

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Russian Boy]

Russian Boy,

Please, again and I know you are passionate about Russia and I respect that, however, do a little research before making assertions ok? B-2's were only grounded briefly for a post crash investigation. They are quite operational. I'm sure you aren't trolling and you just weren't aware that B-2 is still operational.

Also, war isn't about "toys". It's about systems. How well those systems are tied together and supported logistically is what wins wars. Russia is not capable of projecting power and sustaining it outside it Borders very far and certainly not across an ocean.

www.af.mil...

Russian "toys" are not in the same category as the systems America sends to war. They are not to be underestimated, but they aren't on the same level technologically speaking. Trust me, the US Defense budget dwarfs what Russian can spend on R&D. Russian spends about ~$40 Billion USD annually on it's entire military TOTAL. The DoD spends ~$80 billion on R&D alone. ~$20 billion , or half what Russia spends on its entire military, is on classified programs R&D.

There is no comparison. Russian is no longer the equal it was during the Cold War. Accept that fact. Russia has...

www.spacewar.com...

...Things like that are what they do when reality sets in. Quite a bit less than putting Tu-160's in Cuba and much more rational. They will also make trouble in places like Georgia too. But challenge the USA in a position of disadvantage, outnumbered, outgunned and in the western hemisphere is a lesson already learned.

LEKHTUSI (Leningrad Region), December 22 (RIA Novosti) - A new early-warning radar has become operational in northwest Russia's Leningrad Region, to fill a gap in national radar coverage that had existed for seven years, the defense minister said Friday.
"By putting this radar on combat duty, we have closed the gap in Russia's radar coverage [of its borders] that existed for the last seven years," said Sergei Ivanov.
The coverage gap appeared after the closure of an obsolete Dnestr-M radar in the Latvian town of Skrunde, 150 km from the ex-Soviet Baltic country's capital Riga, in 1998

Under the program for the development of Russia's Space Forces, another Voronezh-type radar is being built in the Krasnodar Territory in southwest Russia, the defense minister said. Construction of the new radar is expected to be completed in 2007.

Ivanov also said Russia will stop using radars in ex-Soviet republics in the future, and will deploy early-warning arrays only on its own territor

en.rian.ru...

The two nations have explored waysof addressing the problem at least since last year, when another CBO study suggested giving Russia access to the U.S. early warning satellite system. Faced with considerable political pressure not to release such sensitive information to the Russians, Daschle asked the budget office to consider "nontraditional" alternatives.

Since then, according to the letter, the CBO has learned that Russia has built seven new early warning satellites, but "is unable or unwilling to devote the resources necessary to launch them."

The United States could buy Russian rockets -- which are less expensive than American rockets -- and launch six of the satellites for about $200 million, the CBO said.

The letter lists several arguments against the option, including the fact that if Russia were sufficiently worried about false alarms, it could cough up the money itself. In addition, the six satellites would not allow Russia to monitor launches around the globe, only in the United States.

www.fas.org...

Basically the early warning system has worked well enough to prevent massed attacks for sure ( always enough sattelites to check for ICBM launches) and sufficient ABM defenses to prevent 'strike from the blue' attacks even in those corridors where EW coverage were lacking.

The Russian military had a lot of decay following the cold war and it will take a lot to restore. None of this is a knock on Global Security or FAS but they aren't dwelling in current info or even accurate info in a lot of cases.

I understand the shortcomings of both FAS and Global security which is why i would rarely think of using them in isolation.

If you want an assessment I will be more than happy to go through it with you. Just be prepared to support any disagreement because I have probably seen evidence to the contrary.

I don't mind assessments in the least and i will consider your disagreements with a open mind; i would prefer evidence myself but i am open minded either way.

A LOT goes on in our world that if people really knew would boggle the mind.

Your talking to someone who believe in direct energy weapons that can change weather patterns, cause earthquakes and destroy cities; that's the type of thing i have little doubts about anymore so you can imagine what i wonder about.

A lot of that has to be carefully guarded before being let into the public domain.

Why? Why does the fact that the US is comparatively badly defended be guarded so as to be prevent the US citizenry from finding out?

As a rule of thumb, the more specific it is on the net, like a missile speed or ALT_MAX, the less likely it is to be true.

That's a very broad claim to be making in this day and age. Do you have any examples for comparison that has in fact leaked out over time?

In fact when we talk as professionals, its not too often we discuss quoted specific numbers. Thats because such data cannot be known or is unknown.

What do you mean specific data can't be known? Since when are we dealing with quantum weapons here! Do you REALLY believe that the Russians can reverse engineer a B-29 but fail so miserably to learn anything else about the US armed forces? Sure there are always margins of error but the US have not exactly sat around without fighting a multitude of wars the USSR/Russia could not learn from. To suggest that they have no experience with American cruise missiles/aircraft and other commonly used fighting systems is in my opinion shear fantasy.

If I'm a North Korean Missile Scientist and I know EXACTLY what the performance parameters of he PAC-3 are. How hard is it going to be to make a work around? What if I don't know? That's the difference.

Just because you can see that someone fires a gun does not mean that you can dodge it, lets not confuse knowledge with fate and presuppose that having hard facts about enemy systems at your disposal necessarily makes your resistance possible or even probable. What would have happened if the Iraqi defense force knew the exact operational capabilities of each and every coalition system in the first gulf war? Would they have won or done much better? Exactly....

I'm not going to bother trying to teach the finer points of details for now. Just the general assessment.

OK.

With regard to this post. Russian Bombers in Cuba are not a good option for Russia and it is something the United States is very well prepared to defend against.

In theory yes, but in practice i am not so sure.

That includes any missile they managed to fire in their final moments.

Yeah, why not! US defense is as they say ' invulnerable'.

The mere act of taking off would squander away the best advantage the Russians would have. Surprise. The Bombers would be under end to end surveillance non stop until diplomacy or B-2's removed them from Cuba.

The whole point of Russian bombers in Cuba would be to make a diplomatic point, not to gain some small strategic advantage by basing cruise missile armed aircraft in Cuba! In my opinion Russia probably wont have to launch any aircraft or ICBMs to win a war with the US but since i am just dealing with out of date and inaccurate sources and data on the Internet my opinion can't be worth a damn.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


Why are you being purposely stubborn? I've already demonstrated several huge differences in what weapons systems are capable of vs whats claimed.

I told you about a broad spectrum of inaccuracies too so that you could see it is not a coincidence.

I told you about

SSN Speeds
Hint 1: Speeds of some collisions of late
SM-3 max altitudes
Hint 2: ASAT test. Which by itself is a dramatic increase in capability and revealed for a reason
F-22 Internal Fuel
Hint 3: Technical Order 00-105E-9 Revision 11 dated 1 February 2006


Go look into it. If you thing the US is lacking and poorly defended then thats your fault. I've pointed you in the right direction. If you for some reason wish to continue to disagree for the sake of it, so be it. I actually get to see these things do what they do so it makes no difference to me. Also, the Russians have not plugged the GAPs in their ability to protect themselves from nuclear strike. They haven't reconstituted that capability. Nor is the capability they do have robust enough to ensure reliability. They have at least 10 years of very focused rebuilding to do. But keep on thinking different and watch in amazement as the data you hold so sacrosanct is trashed continuously.

Again, Russians putting bombers in Cuba isn't diplomacy. Its lunacy. And if they did, they would stay there more than a few days until the pressure forces them out or the DoD destroyed them.

I dont see the point of this thread to be continue any more as some people never learn or dont try to make an effort at all. I dont know Stellar how can you do what you do, trying to show people the reality even when they turn it down but you insist with every single one of them, that must be very hard to do , i am not that stubborn as your are shame on me . I enjoy reading you posts which are always fully backed up keep it up man

reply to post by Russian Boy


well, do expect Stellar to rip Darth's fallacious statements to smittereens ,

Originally posted by Russian Boy
I dont see the point of this thread to be continue any more as some people never learn or dont try to make an effort at all. I dont know Stellar how can you do what you do, trying to show people the reality even when they turn it down but you insist with every single one of them, that must be very hard to do , i am not that stubborn as your are

shame on me

. I enjoy reading you posts which are always fully backed up keep it up man

Are we posting in an alternate universe or something? Russian Boy, you are the one who thought B-2's were retired. Stellar is the one who was unaware of the differences between todays PAC-2/3 and the Patriot of Operation Desert Storm. Others didn't even realize that SCUDs and BMs slam down at hypersonic speeds. You guys are just realizing that Globalsecurity and FAS do not have accurate data and specifications for a lot of platforms. I only showed you specifically. But then again, I only work here FOR REAL so what do I know.

Originally posted by DarthAmerica

Originally posted by Russian Boy
I dont see the point of this thread to be continue any more as some people never learn or dont try to make an effort at all. I dont know Stellar how can you do what you do, trying to show people the reality even when they turn it down but you insist with every single one of them, that must be very hard to do , i am not that stubborn as your are

shame on me

. I enjoy reading you posts which are always fully backed up keep it up man

Are we posting in an alternate universe or something? Russian Boy, you are the one who thought B-2's were retired. Stellar is the one who was unaware of the differences between todays PAC-2/3 and the Patriot of Operation Desert Storm. Others didn't even realize that SCUDs and BMs slam down at hypersonic speeds. You guys are just realizing that Globalsecurity and FAS do not have accurate data and specifications for a lot of platforms. I only showed you specifically. But then again, I only work here FOR REAL so what do I know.

B-2 last flight was the day it crashed after that all bombers were grounded its been almost 8 mounths and untill they are back on air, for me they are retired. You have proclaimed your self as an expert but you fail to debate on the subject when reality reaches you by denying everybodys post,have you wonderd why nobody on this thread believes you ?
Believe me when i say Stellar is very awareof what he say he has spent so many hours on reaserch and provided such amount of material and evidence to ATS that his words are solid as a rock. Thats why he's got my respect and the respect of others.
You still havent showed anything you just say you know everything.

Here a little something to get more educated on the topic that is being unfolded in this thread .Russian next gen stealth hypersonic ramjet/scramjet cruise/antiship missiles
That topic will open your eyes and maybe you will think twice before you make ignorant statements about Russian military. We are not farmers you know


[edit on 7-8-2008 by Russian Boy]

reply to post by DarthAmerica


i can assure you the USA CANNOT monitor every square inch of ocean , its a vaste place and carrier groups can be missed let alone a tiny missile launch; ergo a `boomer` near the coast could `slip one in` - RORSATS arn`t as good as you want to believe.

Originally posted by Russian Boy

Originally posted by DarthAmerica

Originally posted by Russian Boy
I dont see the point of this thread to be continue any more as some people never learn or dont try to make an effort at all. I dont know Stellar how can you do what you do, trying to show people the reality even when they turn it down but you insist with every single one of them, that must be very hard to do , i am not that stubborn as your are

shame on me

. I enjoy reading you posts which are always fully backed up keep it up man

Are we posting in an alternate universe or something? Russian Boy, you are the one who thought B-2's were retired. Stellar is the one who was unaware of the differences between todays PAC-2/3 and the Patriot of Operation Desert Storm. Others didn't even realize that SCUDs and BMs slam down at hypersonic speeds. You guys are just realizing that Globalsecurity and FAS do not have accurate data and specifications for a lot of platforms. I only showed you specifically. But then again, I only work here FOR REAL so what do I know.

B-2 last flight was the day it crashed after that all bombers were grounded its been almost 8 mounths and untill they are back on air, for me they are retired. You have proclaimed your self as an expert but you fail to debate on the subject when reality reaches you by denying everybodys post,have you wonderd why nobody on this thread believes you ?
Believe me when i say Stellar is very awareof what he say he has spent so many hours on reaserch and provided such amount of material and evidence to ATS that his words are solid as a rock. Thats why he's got my respect and the respect of others.
You still havent showed anything you just say you know everything.

Here a little something to get more educated on the topic that is being unfolded in this thread .Russian next gen stealth hypersonic ramjet/scramjet cruise/antiship missiles
That topic will open your eyes and maybe you will think twice before you make ignorant statements about Russian military. We are not farmers you know


[edit on 7-8-2008 by Russian Boy]

OK, I tried. Last chance at civil discussion with you. B-2's are not grounded. I FREAKING SAW ONE FLYING. YOU CAN TOO...

www.af.mil...

Col. Tom Bussiere, the 509th Operations Group commander, and Maj. Rich Collins, the 394th Combat Training Squadron operations officer, took a B-2 into the Missouri sky April 15 in the first flight since a B-2 crashed on takeoff Feb. 23 at Andersen AFB, Guam.

"We definitely wanted our return to flying to be deliberate and safe," said Brig. Gen. Gary Harencak, the 509th Bomb Wing commander.

OK, notice the .mil website. OFFICIAL. NOTICE THE PICTURE OF A FLYING B-2. Stop being willfully ignorant. If you can't even understand something this trivial why would I listen to anything you say on something as complex as a weapons system? Last chance. You can troll someone else.

regards

reply to post by DarthAmerica


They wernt even officially grounded as they couldnt be sure what caused the one on guam to `fal out of the sky` - so it was a stand down rather than a grounding - they , of course could be used if needed

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by DarthAmerica

 

i can assure you the USA CANNOT monitor every square inch of ocean , its a vaste place and carrier groups can be missed let alone a tiny missile launch; ergo a `boomer` near the coast could `slip one in` - RORSATS arn`t as good as you want to believe.

Yes it can and does for missile launch. Wow you guys here are way behind on military knowledge.

Defense Support Program (DSP) Satellites

Existing Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites, now orbiting the earth in a geosynchronous orbit, provide global coverage for early warning, tracking and identification. Besides warning of a ballistic missile launch, satellite sensors can develop an early estimate of where the hostile missile is headed. Integration of DSP into the initial missile defense capability provides first, accurate warning and early tracking of a ballistic missile launch.

Soon to be replaced by...

Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS)

The Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) constellation will provide early warning of ballistic missile attacks and accurate state vector information to effectively cue other Ballistic Missile Defense System elements to support, intercept and negate the threat. Currently under development by the U.S. Air Force, SBIRS will provide early warning messages, accurate launch point estimates to support theater attack operations, radar cue for enhanced active defense for both theater operations and Ground Missile Defense operations, and impact area predictions.

www.mda.mil...



With regard to monitoring for surface ships and aircraft. BAMS or Broad Area Maritime Surveillance will take care of that. However, this is a different subject.

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by DarthAmerica

 

They wernt even officially grounded as they couldnt be sure what caused the one on guam to `fal out of the sky` - so it was a stand down rather than a grounding - they , of course could be used if needed

Thats what I've been trying to tell people(aka RUSSIAN BOY) and others among other things. And now you that the USA monitors the globe for the launch of BMs. Something only the US is capable of.

PAVE PAWS is the UEWR system used for tracking balisitc launches , and the DSP sats are actually coming on 30 years old (block 1) and have near enough used there fuel for retasking , and since its a geosynch satelite , anyone with a laptop knows when there coming.

but its a moot point - given a low arc SLBM launch , what would you do in the 6 minutes you have? thats IF the launch is detected and IF it can be tracked

the entire system was designed for tracking incoming russian missiles coming over the pole.

anyway - off to work , got a busy night coming up.

There we go again you just ignored my whole post there , but you saw the flying B-2 does that make you happy ? Ok you seen a bird in the sky that still does not make you an expert . You ignore 99% of people's post but to quickly jump to debate on the mistake in their post. You still havent showed anything here really.

reply to post by DarthAmerica


Darth, I see you have yet to debunk my post.
So here it is again, so you don't get confused, in plain view:

The PAC-3 apart from having a pathetically short range, also has a low intercept altitude.

These hypersonic missiles like the Kh-22 travel at cruising altitudes of 27,000m and then rapidly dive at the target just before impact while in terminal phase.

According to FAS the Patriot has a maximum intercept ceiling of 25,000m and that's the PAC-2.

The PAC-3 can only intercept targets upto a maximum altitude of 15km.
www.fas.org...

Uh-oh...
So again, another point to remember.

Not only is the PAC-3 slower than the Kh series, it's also designed to intercept at much lower altitudes.

The Patriot loses all round. Maybe it had a decent chance against Iraqi-modified Scuds, which were essentially flying scrapyards with TNT on the end, but it's seriously inadequate for stopping more modern threats. It was designed in the 1970's after all, it was developed to stop unguided, Russian theater ballistic missiles not hypersonic cruise missiles.

Even IF, these missiles travelled at lower altitudes, remember, 15km is covered in a matter of seconds by a Mach 3 missile.
Even less time by a Mach 6 missile like the Kh-20/22.
Now with a range of 15km, that would require some extraordinarily precise timing for the PAC-3 to just intercept the bogey as it came within range without running out of fuel first.

And the K-22 DOES move at 2km/sec...
The newer Kh-22B variant cruises at Mach 4 and enters Mach 6 in it's terminal dive attack.
www.globalsecurity.org...

The Patriot wouldn't have a chance in hell of stopping that.

Here's a few more analytical reports on the Patriot's performance and effectiveness:
www.fas.org...
www.fas.org...
www.cdi.org...
www.associatedcontent.com...

reply to post by DarthAmerica

Something only the US is capable of.

Uhhh... I don't think so.

The geostationary Cosmos-2379 (GEO, 24 Aug 2001, 26892) is a newer satellite of the 71Kh6 type, which has the capability to detect missiles against Earth background.

russianforces.org...

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira



It's not necessary to further "debunk" your post. I'm done with you until you can post something relevant. You don't seem to understand the concepts here and your arrogant attitude and stubborn behavior is not conducive to a good discussion. If you want to believe false information about PAC-3 and Kh-22 then by all means go ahead. Just don't expect me to further waste my time going over and over the same things with you. Here is a small hint for you. How high do SCUD fly before coming down? How is it they are intercepted? Think about that before you make another error filled response. Until then, our discussion is over. Feel free to ask for help if you really want to know how this works.

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

 

Something only the US is capable of.

Uhhh... I don't think so.

The geostationary Cosmos-2379 (GEO, 24 Aug 2001, 26892) is a newer satellite of the 71Kh6 type, which has the capability to detect missiles against Earth background.

russianforces.org...

Did you bother to read it all sport?

Satellites deployed on the highly-elliptical orbit--Cosmos-2422 (HEO, launched on 21 Jul 2006, NORAD catalog number 29260) and Cosmos-2430 (HEO, 23 October 2007, 32268) -- are most likely first-generation satellites of the 73D6 type that were built for the US-KS system (also known as Oko). This system was designed to detect launches of ballistic missiles from the U.S. territory and cannot detect missiles launched from sea or other regions. The geostationary Cosmos-2379 (GEO, 24 Aug 2001, 26892) is a newer satellite of the 71Kh6 type, which has the capability to detect missiles against Earth background. Satellites of this type were developed for the US-KMO system, which was supposed to provide global coverage. This system is not yet operational.

The HEO satellites, Cosmos-2422 and Cosmos-2430, are in the position to observe launches from the U.S. territory for about 12 hours a day. Cosmos-2379 had been moved into the point of 12 degrees West on geostationary orbit in September 2007. This configuration does not allow the satellites to maintain 24-hour coverage of the U.S. territory, but may provide some coverage of SLBM launches from North Atlantic.

What do you not understand about "NOT OPERATIONAL" or "DOESN'T PROVIDE 24 HOUR COVERAGE" or "SOME COVERAGE"?

You are wasting my time.

reply to post by DarthAmerica

If you want to believe false information about PAC-3 and Kh-22 then by all means go ahead.

Oh okay I forgot, you have the PAC-3 Field Manual and blueprints for the Russian Kh-22 in your possession I assume...?

Or have you operated both systems?
When's the last time you intercepted a cruise missile?

Christ. "You can't argue with me because you don't know what I know. Of course what I know I can't prove to you, just please trust me that I know the truth"

Yeah we all believe ya buddy...

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

 

If you want to believe false information about PAC-3 and Kh-22 then by all means go ahead.

Oh okay I forgot, you have the PAC-3 Field Manual and blueprints for the Russian Kh-22 in your possession I assume...?

Or have you operated both systems?
When's the last time you intercepted a cruise missile?

Christ. "You can't argue with me because you don't know what I know. Of course what I know I can't prove to you, just please trust me that I know the truth"

Yeah we all believe ya buddy...

Nice way to bow out gracefully kid. Again, you don't have to take any of this personal. I already showed your myopic perception of Russian, BMEW with your own source...lol. You have an opportunity to learn something and a wise person would do so. However, like I said, if you want to lie to yourself about Kh-22's and PAC-3 then go right ahead. I've operated WITH the system so I'm familiar with the kinds of threats it can protect my unit from. Things like that are part of the IPB process. PAC-3 is part of the system that protects us from those kinds threats.