Yet about SCMP article that doesn't provide a link to the original research paper. It seems that the core concept is to network together a bunch of radars and use them to triangulate the position of stealth craft using ULF arrays.
The concept is right but the examples are wrong. They're doctrine is focused on AA, it doesnt assume that they already have it, but it assumes they have the might to get it which is true. They abserloutely have focused on AA and defense capabilities...this baffles me, the US have one of the if not the best air defense networks in the world, its a combination of Aegis and their Ground based defense networks.
I havent seen the paper, but it sounds like theyre describing an entirely new radar? Is this true? Cause multi-static radar positioning isn't new the Soviets and US pioneered it.
No no no, why would you do that? How about you open a book? How about you download some PDFs on US military spending since WW2? How about you listen to political scientists? How about you look at just a handful of the extortionate military projects of the last 40 years: F-35, Sentinel, NGAP, Patriot, THAAD, GMD, SM-3, SM-6, Abrams MBT, Bradley, ATF etc etc. Maybe you can just look at how much money was spent over the 20 year long Afghan war? Maybe you want to look at the deals cut between politicians and defense companies in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq?
Anything thats just reentered the atmospher at hypersonic speeds, the friction causes the glow, not to mention these missiles will still be high supersonic.
Wow, this article really makes me understand how wrong everyone besides myself and USSTRATCOM are. I can't imagine what it must be like to believe in such ridiculous conspiracy theories like MAD and nuclear winter.
The issues is the US can't garuntee and intercept of most of the BMs, HWs hypothetically attacking the US. It's a fact, a nuclear war can't be won due to the first and second strike capabilities of the US, Russia and China (primarily) aswell as the number of modern BMs, HWs these nations have to deliver their numerous nuclear weapons.
The hard part is when there will bw realistically little HUMINT and potentially little SATINT due to jamming and ASAT. So with these potentially ineffective then there's nothing you can really do to track them.
Well they're made for purpose, SM-3s are designed for ICBMs/HGVs and IRBMs, SM-6 is designed for anything less than an IRBM and aircraft, and SM-2ER is for aircraft, drones, CMs, AShMs and SRBMs. And then there's PD systems for the last line of defense.
SM-2 ER and MR both are used against most targets, the ER has a longer range, similar speeds, guidance. It's not specifically designed for SRBMs. It's just more capable against those threats. ER is a more capable version of the MR, and like the MR It's designed to defeat most targets. As you say the MR isn't designed to engage any Tactical BMs and especially no Theatre BMs. There is no confusion here, both missiles are multi-use (ABM, ACM, AAM etc).
I suppose whether this decision turns out to be a complete semi-successful disaster is largely dependant on the US Virginia-class submarine (SSN) procurement plan.
Its anything but safe to assume that an aircraft can fly above mach 2.5 when an aircraft that can provably go mach have is drastically lighter (by thousands of KG(tons)) and also has an very aerodynamic airframe. Your logic of assuming an abserloute best case scenario against the odds (not to mention against physics and logic) is folly.
J-8 has a smaller aspect ratio than the J-20, but the J-20 has 3.5x the thrust. J-20's aspect ratio is closer to the Mig-31 than the F-22 or F-35. It would not fly as fast as the Mig-31 if the thrust were equal, but it has around 25% more thrust than the Mig-31.
It’s a pattern that’s been repeated throughout history. The USSR often made bold claims about their technology that led US intelligence to overestimate their capabilities and only later we’d learn they were completely bluffing. Most famously the MiG-25, which always thought to be an incredibly agile fighter jet with a ridiculous top speed that could beat any plane the US had, which directly resulted in the F-15 program to compete. Then a Soviet pilot flying one defected to us, and we learned that it was assembled poorly by hand, could only maintain top speed for 5 minutes in a straight line, made of steel instead of titanium, had a crappy fuel range, used vacuum tube technology, and was actually classified as a bomber interceptor since it couldn’t dogfight at all. By this time both countries had switched to ICBMs and nuclear bombers were basically defunct. And we’d already made the F-15 which could actually do everything the MiG-25 claimed to do.
Yes, frankly it's a pattern followed by many nation, not exclusively the USSR, but the US too. The US based most of its estimations of the USSRs power on CIA/DOD reports, these reports were based on data/information/intelligence gatheered by US spies/Soviet defectors/intercepted comms/public inforation etc etc. Any overestimations usually meant that there was a failiure in intelligence, hence why most estimations were pretty accurate with the occasional overestimate and underestimate.
Good argument, but frankly there's still a number of potentially guilty parties and despite this being a well written and informative piece, nobodies arguing about capability as all accused parties have the capability. What's being disputed is motive.
They definitely do rely on satellites for a multitude of other reasons though (including smart weapons/satellite guided weapons). Theyre not soley used for this. And i doubt that they have 'always' trained to fight blind.
Certainly the reliance in the west on the newest tech and secure sat links for weapon systems means the first thing that will go in a real shooting war with Russia are satellites.
Mind to explain why a radar has a minimum range? The reported maximum range of the 9M96 is 25kms. So the minimum range should be fairly short, don't you agree?
Depending on the pulse width and PoP in combination with environmental factors all affect the min range of the radar (true min range is limited to PoP x Pulse width/2.
Assuming their full, couldve sent other drones and things aswell, thats how they've executed similar missions in the area. All I know is they said they had to kill the radar cause of HARMs in the vicinity and took down a couple decoys.
Rybar, Kotnews, Boris Rozhin those should get you to some good places, some are littered with nonsense, but they usually just post the facts at the time, wargonzos channel still is extremely active with people on the front aswell.
HUh?!?! Don’t act so disingenuous. Ukraine is a NATO trained, NATO supplied, NATO funded, NATO controlled and given 24/7 state of the art NATO intelligence but ‘’NaTo aReN’t iNvoLvEd’’. Grow up mate you’re not fooling anyone with your semantics.
*Partly NATO trained, i doubt it even makes the majority. Mostly NATO supplied, the majority of the armour, vehicles, equipment, AD is still of Ukrainian origin. But at the same time NATO makes up for a lot in these areas, and even the majority in others such as artillery, ammunition etc. Hard to quantify what level of intelligence Ukraine are given (is being used by NATO) but sure they probably have access to most of the assets in the area.
Turkey, which denied the use of its territory to invade Iraq, and that has the best relationship right now with the US /s .... sure. The base they have there is for logistical use btw. Couldnt find any US air base in Azerbaijan, and even if they had, they were already threatened by Russia and wouldnt risk something like that.
Turkey which also has US airbases😂, they have drones on the base as they are part of the assigned units, obviously they are strike capable, additionally the US' Rapid Dragon system could show its worth in such a situation. Not to mention that even if you were right, units could be moved to the base. Turkey’s relationship with the US wouldnt prevent a strike and the US would ignore any request to do so. As i said CGs would be more likely to be used. Do thier more offensive air capabilities. That being said, in this event Incirlik airbase would be the likely base for any operations.
You realise that everybody can see Turkey on that map right? 😂 US have air assets in Turkey. And AShMs in Turkey. So there is a way to detect and is a way to impede. How likely that is or whether they would is a different question.
Sorry? So to protect your troops you want to provoke more attacks? Irans already been bludgeoned by sanctions you want to create more issues for the US domestically, that being said, sanctions are a somewhat reasonable response. But Iran will take it as escalation and provocation. Yeah taking out those leaders...while simulateously provokes mass drone and missile strikes on nearby CGs and bases... oh and i almost forgot (i didnt) there would likely be some form of ground assault into Saudi Arabia, if not done by Iran then by Hezbollah. Russia would then get involved along with Syria and nearby regional allies would too. And then China might get involved and well done...youve successful escalated a missile strike in Kurdish Iraq into WW3 and likely a nuclear war.
Bro... this is completely WRONG. Its definitely NOT "high-hypersonic"... even actual missiles/bms that are supposed to be "high hypersonic" primarily reach that designation while in space (i.e., out of atmosphere, or at least most of it). Most of these short to intermediate range ballistic missiles don't even have max speeds that are high hypersonic... let alone approach/impact speeds. You can literally do a verrryyyyy rough estimate of the height and time to get a speed as it targets impact... its NOWHERE near Mach 15 or Mach 20+ or even Mach 10.
I said high supersonic, meaning the high end of the supersonic speed bracket. Reread my comment. Before you waste time writing a paragraph like that. P.S well written and it was informative nonetheless🙂.
Dont worry about it man, i was a bit bitchy in the last comment, what you wrote was still good information eitherway. Dont worry i once mistook subsonic with hypersonic on a Ru pov sub....didnt go down that well
And drag the US into a constant escalatory cycle with Iran....im British and no thanks.... for what gain? Its a win win for Iran, US looks weak if they dont retaliat but atleast they dont have to deal with the consequences of a war with Iran. If they retaliate they have to deal with the consequences of a war with Iran lol.
Lowkey wouldn’t be surprised if the US is denying damage so there’s no public pressure for retaliation. Essentially trying to sweep it under the rug to avoid war
That would be the equivalent of denying that Iran striked a military base with missile 2 hours after it happened...its stupid because videos will surface to peove or disprove that.
[удалено]
Otto Koch wasn't executed for killing Jews you idiot, and you're right, that was his job and that was their goal.
Yet about SCMP article that doesn't provide a link to the original research paper. It seems that the core concept is to network together a bunch of radars and use them to triangulate the position of stealth craft using ULF arrays.
The concept is right but the examples are wrong. They're doctrine is focused on AA, it doesnt assume that they already have it, but it assumes they have the might to get it which is true. They abserloutely have focused on AA and defense capabilities...this baffles me, the US have one of the if not the best air defense networks in the world, its a combination of Aegis and their Ground based defense networks.
I havent seen the paper, but it sounds like theyre describing an entirely new radar? Is this true? Cause multi-static radar positioning isn't new the Soviets and US pioneered it.
Lol well since you’re studying international relations in your first year of university I guess I’ll just defer to your expertise
No no no, why would you do that? How about you open a book? How about you download some PDFs on US military spending since WW2? How about you listen to political scientists? How about you look at just a handful of the extortionate military projects of the last 40 years: F-35, Sentinel, NGAP, Patriot, THAAD, GMD, SM-3, SM-6, Abrams MBT, Bradley, ATF etc etc. Maybe you can just look at how much money was spent over the 20 year long Afghan war? Maybe you want to look at the deals cut between politicians and defense companies in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq?
Uh I was being sarcastic…
Really!? Wow you had me so convinced.
What ballistic missiles are burning during the terminal phase?
Anything thats just reentered the atmospher at hypersonic speeds, the friction causes the glow, not to mention these missiles will still be high supersonic.
Wow, this article really makes me understand how wrong everyone besides myself and USSTRATCOM are. I can't imagine what it must be like to believe in such ridiculous conspiracy theories like MAD and nuclear winter.
The issues is the US can't garuntee and intercept of most of the BMs, HWs hypothetically attacking the US. It's a fact, a nuclear war can't be won due to the first and second strike capabilities of the US, Russia and China (primarily) aswell as the number of modern BMs, HWs these nations have to deliver their numerous nuclear weapons.
The hard part is when there will bw realistically little HUMINT and potentially little SATINT due to jamming and ASAT. So with these potentially ineffective then there's nothing you can really do to track them.
And probably first Medium Range Ballistic Missile kill outside an exercise.
Well they're made for purpose, SM-3s are designed for ICBMs/HGVs and IRBMs, SM-6 is designed for anything less than an IRBM and aircraft, and SM-2ER is for aircraft, drones, CMs, AShMs and SRBMs. And then there's PD systems for the last line of defense.
Some clarifications/corrections.
SM-2 ER and MR both are used against most targets, the ER has a longer range, similar speeds, guidance. It's not specifically designed for SRBMs. It's just more capable against those threats. ER is a more capable version of the MR, and like the MR It's designed to defeat most targets. As you say the MR isn't designed to engage any Tactical BMs and especially no Theatre BMs. There is no confusion here, both missiles are multi-use (ABM, ACM, AAM etc).
9.2 kilometers per second is fucking insane.
Mach 27... that is crazy
I suppose whether this decision turns out to be a complete semi-successful disaster is largely dependant on the US Virginia-class submarine (SSN) procurement plan.
Notably, the December 2020 thirty-year shipbuilding plan called for three SSNs per year:
Yeah, 3 SSNs seems like a stretch, recently the Pentagon have called for 3 submarines total to be produced a year.
Russia bombs the shit out of ISIS in Syria.
I dont think you understand his point lol. Thats not what he meant by Russia taking the cell out
your right, i got take a big fat L here.
Hahaha, it happens.
Did you guys pass? I did
I did yes
Yeah, you to
Thanks and how did it go for you?
Its anything but safe to assume that an aircraft can fly above mach 2.5 when an aircraft that can provably go mach have is drastically lighter (by thousands of KG(tons)) and also has an very aerodynamic airframe. Your logic of assuming an abserloute best case scenario against the odds (not to mention against physics and logic) is folly.
J-8 has a smaller aspect ratio than the J-20, but the J-20 has 3.5x the thrust. J-20's aspect ratio is closer to the Mig-31 than the F-22 or F-35. It would not fly as fast as the Mig-31 if the thrust were equal, but it has around 25% more thrust than the Mig-31.
Lol Aspect ratio: J-8F = 2.0-2.1 J-20B = 2.56 (from what i can find) Gross weight: J-8F = 15,250kg J-20B = 32,100kg Optimal altitude: J-8F = 60,000ft - 70,000ft+ (M 2.5 would be attainble at the higher end of this regime) J-20B = 65,000ft - 66,000ft (knowm/estimated) Thrust: J-8F = 76kN - 80kN x2 = 152kN - 160kN J-20B = 156 - 160 (safe estimate) x2 = 312kN - 320kN (Not quite the laughble '3.5x' you were claiming.
It’s a pattern that’s been repeated throughout history. The USSR often made bold claims about their technology that led US intelligence to overestimate their capabilities and only later we’d learn they were completely bluffing. Most famously the MiG-25, which always thought to be an incredibly agile fighter jet with a ridiculous top speed that could beat any plane the US had, which directly resulted in the F-15 program to compete. Then a Soviet pilot flying one defected to us, and we learned that it was assembled poorly by hand, could only maintain top speed for 5 minutes in a straight line, made of steel instead of titanium, had a crappy fuel range, used vacuum tube technology, and was actually classified as a bomber interceptor since it couldn’t dogfight at all. By this time both countries had switched to ICBMs and nuclear bombers were basically defunct. And we’d already made the F-15 which could actually do everything the MiG-25 claimed to do.
Yes, frankly it's a pattern followed by many nation, not exclusively the USSR, but the US too. The US based most of its estimations of the USSRs power on CIA/DOD reports, these reports were based on data/information/intelligence gatheered by US spies/Soviet defectors/intercepted comms/public inforation etc etc. Any overestimations usually meant that there was a failiure in intelligence, hence why most estimations were pretty accurate with the occasional overestimate and underestimate.
And which nation has a history of blowing up such pipelines before - and even bragged about it on their own websites:
Good argument, but frankly there's still a number of potentially guilty parties and despite this being a well written and informative piece, nobodies arguing about capability as all accused parties have the capability. What's being disputed is motive.
Russia has always trained to fight blind.They don't rely too heavily upon smart weapons.
They definitely do rely on satellites for a multitude of other reasons though (including smart weapons/satellite guided weapons). Theyre not soley used for this. And i doubt that they have 'always' trained to fight blind.
Certainly the reliance in the west on the newest tech and secure sat links for weapon systems means the first thing that will go in a real shooting war with Russia are satellites.
I think you mean the reliance of all powerful militaries on secure sat links, and not their newest tech but modern tech in general.
Mind to explain why a radar has a minimum range? The reported maximum range of the 9M96 is 25kms. So the minimum range should be fairly short, don't you agree?
To save me from going into detail and spending 30 mins writing this ill send you some links that i have bookmarked to answer your question.
You mean it cannot detect a target that is closer than 50-300 meters, depending on your pulse?
Depending on the pulse width and PoP in combination with environmental factors all affect the min range of the radar (true min range is limited to PoP x Pulse width/2.
Assuming their full, couldve sent other drones and things aswell, thats how they've executed similar missions in the area. All I know is they said they had to kill the radar cause of HARMs in the vicinity and took down a couple decoys.
Yeah thanks for that info though, can i get a link for myself for future reference?
Rybar, Kotnews, Boris Rozhin those should get you to some good places, some are littered with nonsense, but they usually just post the facts at the time, wargonzos channel still is extremely active with people on the front aswell.
K thx
You realize that tanks are basically getting outmatched by drones, and i mean all tanks right ?
You still haven't proven that Ukraine lost all of their Leopards...pssst maybe because they haven't.
You have proof that there are any NATO soldiers under mercenary alias? I doubt it
HUh?!?! Don’t act so disingenuous. Ukraine is a NATO trained, NATO supplied, NATO funded, NATO controlled and given 24/7 state of the art NATO intelligence but ‘’NaTo aReN’t iNvoLvEd’’. Grow up mate you’re not fooling anyone with your semantics.
*Partly NATO trained, i doubt it even makes the majority. Mostly NATO supplied, the majority of the armour, vehicles, equipment, AD is still of Ukrainian origin. But at the same time NATO makes up for a lot in these areas, and even the majority in others such as artillery, ammunition etc. Hard to quantify what level of intelligence Ukraine are given (is being used by NATO) but sure they probably have access to most of the assets in the area.
Yes, Ukrainians are far behind in terms of diversity and inclusion.
I think he means training, equipment and support, but maybe that too.
what pro-UA believe about Russia, pro-RU believe about NATO.
Pretty spot on.
Turkey, which denied the use of its territory to invade Iraq, and that has the best relationship right now with the US /s .... sure. The base they have there is for logistical use btw. Couldnt find any US air base in Azerbaijan, and even if they had, they were already threatened by Russia and wouldnt risk something like that.
Turkey which also has US airbases😂, they have drones on the base as they are part of the assigned units, obviously they are strike capable, additionally the US' Rapid Dragon system could show its worth in such a situation. Not to mention that even if you were right, units could be moved to the base. Turkey’s relationship with the US wouldnt prevent a strike and the US would ignore any request to do so. As i said CGs would be more likely to be used. Do thier more offensive air capabilities. That being said, in this event Incirlik airbase would be the likely base for any operations.
Its a short trip through the Caspian see, and the US or its allies have absolutely no assets near.
You realise that everybody can see Turkey on that map right? 😂 US have air assets in Turkey. And AShMs in Turkey. So there is a way to detect and is a way to impede. How likely that is or whether they would is a different question.
They usually do it over drone footage, which has no audio to begin with..
They dont discriminate 😂. They do it to infantry combat too lol
Sorry? So to protect your troops you want to provoke more attacks? Irans already been bludgeoned by sanctions you want to create more issues for the US domestically, that being said, sanctions are a somewhat reasonable response. But Iran will take it as escalation and provocation. Yeah taking out those leaders...while simulateously provokes mass drone and missile strikes on nearby CGs and bases... oh and i almost forgot (i didnt) there would likely be some form of ground assault into Saudi Arabia, if not done by Iran then by Hezbollah. Russia would then get involved along with Syria and nearby regional allies would too. And then China might get involved and well done...youve successful escalated a missile strike in Kurdish Iraq into WW3 and likely a nuclear war.
Bro... this is completely WRONG. Its definitely NOT "high-hypersonic"... even actual missiles/bms that are supposed to be "high hypersonic" primarily reach that designation while in space (i.e., out of atmosphere, or at least most of it). Most of these short to intermediate range ballistic missiles don't even have max speeds that are high hypersonic... let alone approach/impact speeds. You can literally do a verrryyyyy rough estimate of the height and time to get a speed as it targets impact... its NOWHERE near Mach 15 or Mach 20+ or even Mach 10.
I said high supersonic, meaning the high end of the supersonic speed bracket. Reread my comment. Before you waste time writing a paragraph like that. P.S well written and it was informative nonetheless🙂.
Oh shyt, my bad. I'm just so used to hearing rusaboos talk about hypersonic, i saw "sonic" and my mind just morphed it into what I was expecting, lol
Dont worry about it man, i was a bit bitchy in the last comment, what you wrote was still good information eitherway. Dont worry i once mistook subsonic with hypersonic on a Ru pov sub....didnt go down that well
US is silent for a long time, they have to give some response
And drag the US into a constant escalatory cycle with Iran....im British and no thanks.... for what gain? Its a win win for Iran, US looks weak if they dont retaliat but atleast they dont have to deal with the consequences of a war with Iran. If they retaliate they have to deal with the consequences of a war with Iran lol.
Lowkey wouldn’t be surprised if the US is denying damage so there’s no public pressure for retaliation. Essentially trying to sweep it under the rug to avoid war
That would be the equivalent of denying that Iran striked a military base with missile 2 hours after it happened...its stupid because videos will surface to peove or disprove that.