Originally posted by General PutzerRussia's equipment is no joke; especially their AA equipment. I think their ground based AA may be better than ours. However you do have a point about needing technical skill to use it properly.
Russians can sell all their cheap crap to whoever they want, the Americans are light years ahead of anything they come up with, have been for many decades. We prove that every time we go up against a country armed with russia's latest high tech half-a$$ed garbage.
Plus the Iranians will have trouble training their people to use it, if it requires ...[text shortened]... Air Force? Those migs were all useless after they started breaking down, no one could fix them.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, I've been out of the business for 25 years, so you may be right about current Russian AA stuff.
Russia's equipment is no joke; especially their AA equipment. I think their ground based AA may be better than ours. However you do have a point about needing technical skill to use it properly.
It was no big sweat to us when I was an electronic warfare officer on B-52's, we could take their acquisition radars out with no problem. I haven't read a Jane's in many years, you telling me they got the drop on us all of a sudden?
I don't think so.
Originally posted by General PutzerI'm certainly no expert. I guess my source would be Tom Clancy. I suppose someone who actually knows about the current situation should comment.
Well, I've been out of the business for 25 years, so you may be right about current Russian AA stuff.
It was no big sweat to us when I was an electronic warfare officer on B-52's, we could take their acquisition radars out with no problem. I haven't read a Jane's in many years, you telling me they got the drop on us all of a sudden?
I don't think so.
According to this article, the SA-10 is a bit better than the Patriot:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/ref/sa-10_grumble1
Also, when you said this:
It was no big sweat to us when I was an electronic warfare officer on B-52's, we could take their acquisition radars out with no problem.
Keep in mind that you're adding in US EW and air to ground capabilities into the mix. Do you think that if the Russians had US equipment you'd have been unable to do the same thing with your American tools?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTom Clancy actually had some good inside info, his novels were great. I remember The Hunt For Red October, he described the B-52 EWO station to a tee, as well as the various ways it's jamming would affect the reception of enemy radars. It was all very classified, I'd like to know where he got his info. A lot of people should have lost their security clearances is my guess.
I'm certainly no expert. I guess my source would be Tom Clancy. I suppose someone who actually knows about the current situation should comment.
Originally posted by General Putzerthe missiles which this system fire do not reach the height of a b52.
Well, I've been out of the business for 25 years, so you may be right about current Russian AA stuff.
It was no big sweat to us when I was an electronic warfare officer on B-52's, we could take their acquisition radars out with no problem. I haven't read a Jane's in many years, you telling me they got the drop on us all of a sudden?
I don't think so.
any air war waged at lower heights in their vicinity would be dominated by them ... but of course this is easily avoided.
Originally posted by flexmoreIt may be avoidable, but high altitude bombing is nowhere nearly as cost effective as low altitude attack runs from what I understand. I've been seeing more and more that air units are supposed to approach targets from very low altitude using terrain for cover. And any bomb or missile launched from very high altitude will be in the air longer and be easier to shoot down with the missiles that can't reach the high altitude bomber. Also, it would be a pain to use ground forces if we couldn't use Apaches and Warthogs to support them properly (the close air support role)...
the missiles which this system fire do not reach the height of a b52.
any air war waged at lower heights in their vicinity would be dominated by them ... but of course this is easily avoided.
Actually, athousand, low altitude bombing (like 400 feet) was what we did in the buff back 20-30 years ago when I was in them. The new generation smart bombs and cruise missiles have made low level runs an ALMOST obsolete concept for the b-52. No need to drop down low and avoid enemy radar when you can launch ALCM's way outside enemy airspace.
it seems that the iranians have cut a deal with the russians; a technology swap if it were, iranian super torpedos traded for the russian air defense sytem.
so let asks the question that no one seems willing to face, what happens when an iranian super torpedo hits a nuclear powered american aircraft carrier ( or even a nuclear equipped submarine for that matter). do we get nuclear fallout spread clear across europe?
something to think about, no!
Originally posted by flexmoreand it will look so beautiful squashed flat as a pancake ....
wow!
is there such a thing?
how the hell does it work? (does it work?)
p.s. i just found this in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor-M1
including
"Kill probabilities for later versions are quoted as:
0.92-0.95 against aircraft
0.80-0.96 against helicopters
0.60-0.90 against cruise missiles (with an effective range of around 5 km/3 miles)
0.70-0.90 against precision munitions (LGBs, glide bombs, etc.)
0.90 against UAVs "