WT Forums

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /s-400.htm

Now, I don't put stock in Russian tanks, planes, ships, subs, or command leadership for that matter.
However, I do think they have a credible SAM threat. Russian weaponry has always been durable and yields the capacity to pack a punch. But, they have always had piss-poor technology and manufacturing. This area has the possibility of changing if they make consortiums with the technological competent India.
The "Triumf" missile system is said to be superior to the PAC III, and it has been tested successful without any of the ususal literary hyperbole.

Could this inhibit our 5th generation aircraft RCS capabilities?






Edited by - tritonal on Feb 07 2005 2:44 PM

No.

<b>"You got me all wrong Mudd...i don't like anyone.</b><img src=newicons/saevil.gif border=0 align=middle>"
<img src="http://worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&stc=1" border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
No.

<b>"You got me all wrong Mudd...i don't like anyone.</b><img src=newicons/saevil.gif border=0 align=middle>"
<img src="http://worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&stc=1" border=0>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>theres so much ambiguity with that answer Snipe... could you be more clear please

" At least God has a sense of humor about the end of the world. Dr. Atkins died. Slipped, hit his head, got brain damage, died on life support. The man that invented the all meat diet...died a vegetable."
Titus

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

This SAM system would have been what Sadaam was wishing for. It looks like it was tailor made to push back Airborne Early Warning and Combat Air Patrols. If he had this system, the no fly zones would have been much more complicated, and US air dominance less achievable. Maybe if he had this system, we would not have attacked him at all, fearing failure (until the F-22 came along anyway). Isn't it lucky for us that evil dictators end up spending their national treasure on weapons that are less than useful in the long run (chem-bio-nuke)? And isn't it also fortunate that we have the F-22 in production to give us back the advantage anyway.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<i>And isn't it also fortunate that we have the F-22 in production to give us back the advantage anyway.</i>

According to them , their system wants to take the advantage away.
I know that our top pf the line systems can pick off a Raptor in no time.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I know that our top of the line systems can pick off a Raptor in no time.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Interesting Tri? That would be some top military secret. May I discreetly inquire how you learned it?<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

That's a legitimate question Stress,
I talked to an engineer for Lock Mart radar systems. He said that their systems can detect low sig/small profile, supersonic objects. Consequently, he said detecting our stealth technology is very possible.
Look at the new Aegis III, if you ever read the specs for that it seems also very capable of spotting, tracking and engaging an LO at a very tactically advantageous range, engaing as it would to a non-LO aircraft.

This is just about the subject of LO airframes. As for the new electronic and jamming countermeasures, that's a whole new ballgame.

Stress, you're very close to this project. Are you by any chance at liberty to divulge any info about our ground-based detecting and tracking capabilities of these new airframes?
You know, <i>nothing that will get you in trouble...</i><img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Are you by any chance at liberty to divulge any info about our ground-based detecting and tracking capabilities of these new airframes?
You know, nothing that will get you in trouble...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


Saying anything about that subject could get me in trouble, theoretically. Luckily, I am not privy to any specific data, so there is no danger of spilling the beans. Those people who really know are not likely to talk, which makes me think your source is talking from a theoretical physics point of view, without benefit of real world test data. On the other hand there is this statement, released today in an official Air Force communication:

<i>Effectiveness measures the ability to accomplish the mission. The operational effectiveness of the F/A-22 is overwhelming, <b>demonstrated by the Raptor's ability to operate against adversary ground and air defenses with impunity. Ground defenses could not engage the F/A-22, nor could adversary aircraft survive.</b> </i>

They could be exaggerating...or understating. Believe what you want to believe because we will never see the actual data. I can tell you that I don't think it possible to fudge this stuff, because people who are likely to take this weapon into combat are involved in the tests themselves. If they sign up to it, then so do I.


THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

No Problem, just want to stir the pot.

Moreover, an area of hardware I'm interested in is our ground-based detection systems and the capabilities they posess.

I REMEMBER THEM SAYING THE "SGT YORK" AA GUN COULD KNOCK OUT ANYTHING IN THE SKY,HELL WE SENT A COUPLE OF HOGS UP THERE FOR TESTING AND THEY COULD ONLY HIT A HOG IF HE SLOWED DOWN WITH THE LANDING GEAR OUT.

IT SURE DIDNT LAST LONG,BUT IT SURE LOOKED COOL

GOOSE

MONEY TALKS,B.S. JUST PILES UP.

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

The Sgt York Gun... I even remember those days.

DIVAD was the most effective port-a-potty killer ever devised by man...

And no, based on all my conversations with 'experts', and my knowledge of SAMs, how they operate, and their limitations....no, the S-300, 400, 800, blah, blah, blah cannot hope to defend against the F-22.

Hence my answer of "NO".

<b>"You got me all wrong Mudd...i don't like anyone.</b><img src=newicons/saevil.gif border=0 align=middle>"
<img src="http://worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&stc=1" border=0>

Okay then, let's turn the tables: what about our stection and tracking capabilities?
The tech is state-of-the-art and our operators are probably the best trained in the world.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
And no, based on all my conversations with 'experts', and my knowledge of SAMs, how they operate, and their limitations....no, the S-300, 400, 800, blah, blah, blah cannot hope to defend against the F-22.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I can neither confirm nor deny that statement.<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

"I can neither confirm nor deny that statement."

Hehehehe.

<b>"You got me all wrong Mudd...i don't like anyone.</b><img src=newicons/saevil.gif border=0 align=middle>"
<img src="http://worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&stc=1" border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>"I can neither confirm nor deny that statement."<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Oh, yes he can...but he <i>won't</i>!<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

So, you have trouble. We all have trouble. Build a bridge and get over it.

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

Something tells me that our opposition gets the best of it and our RCS comfort zone will not be long...

<i>Now as for our electronic jamming...</i>

The Russians are broke. Even if they field this system, it will be in very small numbers.

And remember, TLAMs stick to SAMs. Or was that Napalm sticks to kids?

Eh...whatever.

<b>"You got me all wrong Mudd...i don't like anyone.</b><img src=newicons/saevil.gif border=0 align=middle>"
<img src="http://worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&stc=1" border=0>

<i>And remember, TLAMs stick to SAMs. Or was that Napalm sticks to kids?

</i>


A little bit of both.

Why are you discussing something that you have no knowlege of as if you are an expert?

Show me anywhere where you can find what our "RCS comfort zone" is...

You cant, because no one outside of the design team knows what the RCS is on any of our stealth aircraft and only they are the ones that will know what capability the Russian SAM systems have in relation to them.

Period...

The rest is all crap!


CAG out...



Edited by - CAG Hotshot on Feb 07 2005 9:40 PM

Not much of a critical reader, are we CAG?
<img src=newicons/Whatever_anim.gif border=0 align=middle>

Let me surmise: We have a big-HUGE advantage right now. As our opponents widdle down the advantage, which they eventually do, it gets less and less potent. As for the RCS method of cloaking, it appears finite. I'm <i>posing</i> the idea that it's not a good idea to put all our eggs in one basket and chase the stealth whore.

As for your expert comment: It's funny how the expert who did actually post on this topic didn't blow their gasket like you did.

This is all I'm going to reply to you on this topic. I have seen how these things boil over. Feel free to troll, flame, or whatever...



I also want to point out that there is no "PERIOD" in the international arms race. If it did have a quotation mark, it would be one of these: <i>...</i>













Edited by - tritonal on Feb 08 2005 11:01 PM

I deal in facts and commonsense Tritonal and not in guesses and opinions(unless stated in advance as such). As you have no personal knowledge on subject then your statements must be the latter...

As for you cowardice statements of insulting and then tucking your tail and running, I'll let you know now, if you keep insulting my signature signoff and you and I are going to have problems.

That is a fact...


CAG out...

CAG it's simple, a poster only has the right to call out a person's lack of experience if that person fronts as being an expert; I showed none of that. There are experts here and they will chew out a poser in no time. Thus, the forum's participants are kept in check.
It's the difference between suggesting something or DECLARING something- this was explained on a recent thread.
How you thought in my posts that I was biting as an expert is <i>beyond</i> me.

Trit is a NJ college kid, he never pretended to be anything but that.

If only 'experts' were allowed to opine on message boards then you'd hear a lot of virtual crickets on all of them...

<b>"You got me all wrong Mudd...i don't like anyone.</b><img src=newicons/saevil.gif border=0 align=middle>"
<img src="http://worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&stc=1" border=0>