Arab spring uprises Tunisia/Egypt/Libya/Syria
- Thread starter Vince_Fiero
- 975 comments
- 66,928 views
- 9,058
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
- 7,637
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
That's only an issue if there is a launch at close range. If the window for hitting the missile is smaller than the window for hitting the launcher, so it's the launcher you go after.
I'm not even sure if Wiki is up to date. The Su-33's ability to use the missile might never had made it to operational status.
Naval launched versions would be launched from further and possibly fly higher at some point, and so would be easier to detect and shoot down.
There are many types. A lot of them floating around are basic. One reason why MiG-29's fall out of the sky when faced with F-15 is because there is often a 20-30 year tech gap between the versions. Russia still has some old models, but they have various amounts of modernized versions too.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
The current concern in missile defence is swarm tactics. This won't be a prolonged war and Syria's best chances are hitting a ship hard and hoping American public opinion flinches.Exorcet
Multiple missiles from multiple platforms will leave the missile defences acting at maximum rate. You suddenly put 30 missiles in the air from various bearings amd you've got a storm in a teacup.
Russian tech on the whole is very dated and well matched by American defences. But there are several exceptions to this.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
What parts are dated and on par with the U.S. ? The U.S. has air superiority over Russia. I have limited knowledge on Naval weaponry so I can't really comment on that end.
I don't see their modern versions being an issue either, especially (just looked at it) the 4+ gen of the mig-35 is barely coming to active duty. Our own 4.5 gen has been established and seen the war front already. Also seeing how far the rest of the world is in development to Gen 5 planes (Russia's ten years after our F-22)
- 7,637
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
This wouldn't be unexpected for the USN. It's gone now, but the F-14 was basically built to handle this. The Super Hornet is short in some areas compared to the F-14, but it has a few advantages as well along with the fleet it's protecting being a bit more modern than it was when the 14 was around.
It's not out of the question that the US loses a ship, but who ever takes that ship will probably suffer greater losses in the process. Still, that may be enough.
The Russian airforce on the whole is probably 4th gen compared to a 4.5+ USAF, but they'll have better odds than say Iraq of '91. The MiG-29 isn't going to be the biggest threat. The Flanker family would be, especially Su-27SM and Su-30's along with the handful of Su-35's available. The Su-34 and 24 should also be able to reach near parity with US strike aircraft.
There are also the SAM's, the US has never faced the S-300 family, but knows it's pretty capable. That system was one of the reasons for stealth aircraft in the first place.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
The only worry I have with the SU-33 or Mig-29 and other variants (SU-27) is that they have a better thrust:weight ratio than the Hornet. Yet the hard worked upon and vastly updated targeting and avionics to be on par with Gen 5 (hence the 4.5 title given) are what help the Hornet outdo the Russian aircraft.
Tech gap only rely on avionics and radar capacities that are already being covered by AWACS systems (as it happens Russians and Chinese also have their own AWACS and Satellite support system).
Besides, Su-27/Su-33/Su-34 are from the 80's, just as the F/A-18. No combat between these fighters have ever been recorded on even conditions (just engagements between F-15s and Mig 29s that were outdated as Iraquis didn't had AWACS capabilities or any electronic countermeasures that would exist on a Russian/US/Chinese scenario).
As far as Syria goes, are the US really willing to ignite yet another conflict with the middle east? At this point they are encouraging more and more nations like Iran to take part in a conflict that would result in yet another Iraq, which in itself is another Vietnam. Oh and don't forget Israel, nearly all neighbour countries are queuing to take some shots at it.
- 4,573
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
Do you guys know about T-50 (PAK FA)?
However, it's not yet mass-produced... Mass production is going to start in 2015, but small-scale production is about to start in this year.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I already said and talked about it, I didn't say it by name.
^ meaning 2016 for the PAK
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
Russian avionics are not believed to be on the same level as existing western platforms like the F-22 and F-35. The situational awareness that these aircraft have is remarkable and is a far greater advance that what you see on the skin.
The same can be said of much of the Naval sensor suites as well, don't forget the Russian Navy was largely left to rot for 20 years and is only now starting to rebuild and re-arm. They don't have the equivalent tech of the US Aegis and British Type-45.
That said, the Russians did keep their anti-ship missile programs well run. Much like the Chinese realise now, you can't fight the US Navy head-to-head, but if you can threaten a Nimitz class then you've got a good tool.
The P-800 (SS-N-26) is a good example of this. Fairly recently in service it's a capable missile. That's not to say it's a better system than the US Harpoon, or that a single missile could defeat a Super Hornet w/ AMRAAM, Aegis Missile shield or a CIWS defence. But you put enough of them in the air and you can create havoc for even the most organised fleet.
The Super Hornet would spank the F-14, with newer versions of the AMRAAM having similar range to the Pheonix.
And like I said above, a single missile would be taken out by any 3 lines of defence, but a multiple launch is a likely tactic.
I think there's a huge difference between the US losing a frigate and an aircraft carrier. The form would be embarrassing. The latter would be a humiliation and would swing public opinion.
That could go either way, wiping out those responsible, or retreating with tails tucked between their legs. There's examples of both in US history.
Afghanistan and Iraq were fuelled on the anger of 9/11. Vietnam was fuelled by the fight against communism. I see a potential conflict in Syria following the latter more, but that's an outsiders view looking in.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Basically what I was saying when I said my nation has air superiority over Russia. Because Boeing integrated gen 5 avionics into a gen 4 plane. So part of this I don't understand because you seem to echo me. The Naval info though is much appreciated I only know a fraction of that since I follow the prototype stuff, also I'm not a naval engineer and doing my stuff in Aero so yeah...clearly you can see where my priorities are. I only know about US naval equipment and some EU nations but nothing else...oh and China
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
I wasn't quite sure what you were asking, so if I echo'd anything you were saying then my apoligees.
I'm an Aerospace Engineer working in 'land' systems, I call my priorities 'defence'The Naval info though is much appreciated I only know a fraction of that since I follow the prototype stuff, also I'm not a naval engineer and doing my stuff in Aero so yeah...clearly you can see where my priorities are. I only know about US naval equipment and some EU nations but nothing else...oh and China
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 7,637
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
The ranges are probably not measured in similar conditions. For a non maneuvering missile or bomber, I'd say the AIM-54 probably has noticeably more reach, but I don't have hard data. The SH is also much slower than the 14 so the missile gains less from the launch platform in extreme situations. The SH has a major avionics advantage, but in terms of detecting and engaging the missile(s), the F-14 has more raw radar power.
Agreed.
- 29,443
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
John Kerry has given al-Assad one week to comply with a request to hand over his chemical weapons, or face a US attack.
But given that the US Congress is set to vote this week on the use of force against al-Assad, it seems a tad premature to be making such an ultimatum.
If Congress don't approve the use of force, Obama will either have to ignore them or stand down.... neither option is acceptable. But Kerry has already made it clear that the US can still attack without Congressional approval - so then why bother voting or consulting Congress, if their approval is not necessary?
This has all the makings of an omnishambles.
But given that the US Congress is set to vote this week on the use of force against al-Assad, it seems a tad premature to be making such an ultimatum.
If Congress don't approve the use of force, Obama will either have to ignore them or stand down.... neither option is acceptable. But Kerry has already made it clear that the US can still attack without Congressional approval - so then why bother voting or consulting Congress, if their approval is not necessary?
This has all the makings of an omnishambles.
- 862
- Northamptonshire
- Ryanswannell
Even if Al-Assad does comply and hands over chemical weapons, how can they be sure that ALL of them have been handed over?
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Politics. When you are unsure of a decision, one easy way out is to say, "rah rah rah I am all for this", then when you don't get public approval and haven't got the stones for unilateral action you pass it off to someone else. If they approve it and it goes sour, you can throw your arms up and say, "wasn't my decision it was them". If it goes well you can say, "Yeah, look at me this is what I wanted, I'm the man". If the other guys vote no and the carnage continues, which it surely will you can always say, "I told you so". No matter what Obama comes off looking good, at least to like minded lefties.
Many Presidents in the past have taken unilateral, limited military action. Reagan, Bush and Clinton among them so precedent is there. Public opinion is massively against this so I can't see Obama getting the votes in the Republican House to pass any kind of approval. Going to be an interesting week of finger pointing.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
Although a direct quote from Kerry wasn't given, the article I read on this had Kerry saying it wouldn't be possible for Assad to do so, anyway. So what was the point of the demand? Unless you can do something impossible, we're gonna waste you?
When asked about the evidence that Assad was responsible for the attack, he changed the subject. If this evidence exists, why aren't we seeing it?
When asked about the evidence that Assad was responsible for the attack, he changed the subject. If this evidence exists, why aren't we seeing it?
- 87,855
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I've recently seen an interview between a reporter I don't recognise and Bashar al-Assad on probably-CNN (it was broadcast on Sky and they buddy up sometimes).
Assad tore him a new one. A butthole he may be, but his points were valid.
He asked for evidence that his regime had used chemical weapons and why Kerry hadn't brought it to the UN. The reporter said Kerry had taken it to Congress. Assad asked why the evidence hasn't been shown to the public. The reporter responded "It has been shown to the public... representatives in Congress". Assad remarked that it was probably the same evidence Colin Powell showed to Congress in 2001...
One cut later and the reporter asked what the consequences of an American strike would be. Assad said "Expect everything.". The reported demanded to know if this meant chemical weapons strikes on US bases in the region. Assad responded that it could be on the table, because he has no idea what the other factions have, pointing out that his government is not the only player in the region. Currently this is being reported as Assad saying retaliation with chemical weapons is likely in the event of a US strike.
It's not really that unreasonable a request, to have the evidence claimed to condemn him shown to the UN Security Council. Even if they do nothing about it and the US, France and allies go in without their approval, it needs to be presented rather than waved about without ever being revealed.
- 87,855
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Problem with that is that "opposing forces" are likely next door neighbours.
It'd be like having the UN on your town keeping the Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green, UKIP and BNP (we'll add Plaid Cymru, seeing as it's you) voters apart.
It'd be like having the UN on your town keeping the Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green, UKIP and BNP (we'll add Plaid Cymru, seeing as it's you) voters apart.
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
Was it Charlie Rose interviewing him in Damascus? If so, I plan on catching that interview on PBS sometime today, They'll air it several times. If that's not the one it's defo one to watch for anyone interested 👍
EDIT: There has been talk of splitting the State into 3 or 4, it's not like we haven't seen that done before. Keep em separated.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Flash News Analysis!
The unlikely duo of Putin and Hillary have teamed up to offer a way out.
Assad will turn over his chemical weapons to the UN.
Obama will grab at this as a way of obviating the impending but surely losing war vote in Congress. Susan Rice plays the bad cop.
The unlikely duo of Putin and Hillary have teamed up to offer a way out.
Assad will turn over his chemical weapons to the UN.
Obama will grab at this as a way of obviating the impending but surely losing war vote in Congress. Susan Rice plays the bad cop.
- 4,573
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
Saw on TV today: RT reports about a provocation being prepared by the rebels. They're going to make a chemical weapons strike to Israel, and they're going to launch them from the territory controlled by the government! Anybody heard of that?
- 38,989
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-handover-619/
Thank god. Now to find that interview with Assad and Charlie Rose.
Thank god. Now to find that interview with Assad and Charlie Rose.
Similar threads
