Georgia appeals for help over Russian "invasion".

They are still FARMERS equipped with 60-80 year old equipment.

Bigg_Boi

[QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

Ever heard of "Fighter aircraft" or "Surfarce to air missiles" before? It would be like flying into a proverbial hornets nest for an American pilot.

alexmurray

Tactical Stealth Fighters and Bombers.

The Serbians managed to shoot down a stealth fighter with a SAM. It's difficult but certainley not impossible. Also, it would be very hard for a Russian pilot not to notice a giant black wing in the sky with him. Especially since America's stealth fighters are VERY loud.

F-117 aren't exactly what I meant, Those'd be used as well of course. However, I meant B2s and F22s.

Many of you people seem to think that attacking Russia is like attacking Iraq or Panama. Bush didn't even had the balls to attack North korea :?

no one has said it wouldn't be hard of-course it would be alot easier if the EU joined in. It would be a big fight but I dont think Nukes would ever be used too many contries have ICBMS for it to be a nuclear war

Russia would never use nukes on its own soil unless it was an incredibly desperate situation. An invasion of North Korea let alone Russia would be a very costly and difficult affair for the US.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

They're farmers from Iran/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Libya/Somalia etc. It really doesn't matter in the end. And please do not say "Army" personnel are fighting US troops in Iraq.

Bigg_Boi

Insurgents is a catch all term for someone who engages in Unconventional Warfare. They still just are Arab farmers regardless of intricate names.

They are still FARMERS equipped with 60-80 year old equipment.

IDE's are not 60-80 year old equipment.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

They are still FARMERS equipped with 60-80 year old equipment.

LJS9502_basic

Did I ever say they weren't trained? I only stated that they were by all means and purposes, farmers. If American reports are correct, then the most modern equipment they have is some SVD sniper rifles (the older models used by insurgents can't penetrate US body armor) and some Iranian supplied Anti-tank weapons.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

They're farmers from Iran/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Libya/Somalia etc. It really doesn't matter in the end. And please do not say "Army" personnel are fighting US troops in Iraq.

The_Ish

Insurgents is a catch all term for someone who engages in Unconventional Warfare. They still just are Arab farmers regardless of intricate names.

They are still FARMERS equipped with 60-80 year old equipment.

IEDs can be everything from a tissue box filled with gunpowder and cow manure to a highly sophisticated bundle of C4.

Did I ever say they weren't trained? I only stated that they were by all means and purposes, farmers. If American reports are correct, then the most modern equipment they have is some SVD sniper rifles (the older models used by insurgents can't penetrate US body armor) and some Iranian supplied Anti-tank weapons.

Bigg_Boi

Not 80 year old weapons either.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

They're farmers from Iran/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Libya/Somalia etc. It really doesn't matter in the end. And please do not say "Army" personnel are fighting US troops in Iraq.

Bigg_Boi

Insurgents is a catch all term for someone who engages in Unconventional Warfare. They still just are Arab farmers regardless of intricate names.

They are still FARMERS equipped with 60-80 year old equipment.

anyways we have a convential military that was meant to combat other militaries, not insurgents. It's almost impossible to stop this type of warfare with these conventinal means as most if not all contries have experienced during history

[QUOTE="alexmurray"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="alexmurray"][QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

Bigg_Boi

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

You honestly think that the U.S. military doesn't have cold-weather gear?

To equip the hundred of Thousands it would require to invade Russia? yes.

They will just buy some the Us has the highest military spending in the world, and the Us would win the T-90 is a okay tank but most Russian tanks are T-72 and look what happened to them in the gulf war

Do not try to argue with someone that has a very complete knowledge of Russia's miltiary gear. First of all, the T-72 export model (the one usd by Iraq) is missing half (if not more) of the features that a Russian T-72 has. The Iraqies didn't even have reactive armor on their T-72s! Also, Russia has around three times as many tanks as the US has.(23,000 to approximately 6000).

Also, Russia's T-55s (upgraded of course) are considered around the same as most modern MBTs.

Reactive armor gets crushed by chobham on the Challenger and the Abrams, you cant compair a T-55 and I dont care how upgraded it is to a Western MBT. The only good tank that stands a chance is the T-90 and the modernized T-72s that are at T-90 standard

You people talk as if the T-90 is a god weapon. It really is jus an improved T-80. You also severly underestimate the effectiveness of a tank. A single shell from an upgraded T-55 in the rear armor of an M1A1 would almost be a guaranteed kill.

No one is saying the Abrams wont die, and I hope your not saying a upgraded T-55 is better than a T-90. The T-90 isnt a god tank and the Abrams isnt a god tank there are many good tanks in service today the lecrec the Challenger the type 99 and the leopard 2. I think people overestimate the Abrams power not the t-90's

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="alexmurray"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="alexmurray"][QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

alexmurray

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

You honestly think that the U.S. military doesn't have cold-weather gear?

To equip the hundred of Thousands it would require to invade Russia? yes.

They will just buy some the Us has the highest military spending in the world, and the Us would win the T-90 is a okay tank but most Russian tanks are T-72 and look what happened to them in the gulf war

Do not try to argue with someone that has a very complete knowledge of Russia's miltiary gear. First of all, the T-72 export model (the one usd by Iraq) is missing half (if not more) of the features that a Russian T-72 has. The Iraqies didn't even have reactive armor on their T-72s! Also, Russia has around three times as many tanks as the US has.(23,000 to approximately 6000).

Also, Russia's T-55s (upgraded of course) are considered around the same as most modern MBTs.

Reactive armor gets crushed by chobham on the Challenger and the Abrams, you cant compair a T-55 and I dont care how upgraded it is to a Western MBT. The only good tank that stands a chance is the T-90 and the modernized T-72s that are at T-90 standard

You people talk as if the T-90 is a god weapon. It really is jus an improved T-80. You also severly underestimate the effectiveness of a tank. A single shell from an upgraded T-55 in the rear armor of an M1A1 would almost be a guaranteed kill.

No one is saying the Abrams wont die, and I hope your not saying a upgraded T-55 is better than a T-90. The T-90 isnt a god tank and the Abrams isnt a god tank there are many good tanks in service today the lecrec the Challenger the type 99 and the leopard 2. I think people overestimate the Abrams power not the t-90's

Even a modest RPG (not the ones used by insurgents) can penetrate the rear armor of a M1A1.

They're on their own.duxup

no they are not if the west will not help them they should try and get Muslim terrorist and fighters to help them there 2-0 against superpowers they have beaten Russia before and stood there ground against America

IMHO Georgia is getting exactly what it deserves. South Ossetia is to Georgia what Kurdistan was to Iraq under Saddam. Georgia sent troops to try and regain control of SO by killing people and destroying villages. Russia swooped in and owned the Georgian troops and tanks. And are probably using it as an excuse to take over Georgia.

As an American I will say the US government has no place to tell Russia to cease hostilities. Russia is "freeing" the Ossetians and Abkhazians just like the US "freed" the Iraqis.

[QUOTE="duxup"]They're on their own.Norg

no they are not if the west will not help them they should try and get Muslim terrorist and fighters to help them there 2-0 against superpowers they have beaten Russia before and stood there ground against America

Georgia would never even think of asking for help from terrorists, Arabs especially. The Russians would probably become even more aggressive if they learned the Georgians were employing terrorists.

IMHO Georgia is getting exactly what it deserves. South Ossetia is to Georgia what Kurdistan was to Iraq under Saddam. Georgia sent troops to try and regain control of SO by killing people and destroying villages. Russia swooped in and owned the Georgian troops and tanks. And are probably using it as an excuse to take over Georgia.

As an American I will say the US government has no place to tell Russia to cease hostilities. Russia is "freeing" the Ossetians and Abkhazians just like the US "freed" the Iraqis.

SunofVich

and your okay with that. The world refused to recognize the two breakaway regions and the Georgians offered them greater autonomy and they refused. they started to attack georgia so georgia attacks ossetia so russia attacks georgia witch I have no problem with. I have a problem with russia continuing to attack after they captured the region. Georgia is a key ally needed for energy security

Russia just wants to monopolize oil, they shall take anything they can get their grimy mits on. Bastards picking on little guys like Georgia, America should go to war with Russia over this and kick their ass.l0ve

I laugh at your ignorance and ludicrous amount of propaganda induced stupidity. First of all, Russia was simply defending itself since the Georgians were killing Russians in South Ossetia. Secondly, America would not "kick ass", especially against a superpower like Russia.

Not only have you completely disregarded credible news of the conflict, but you spew forth some of the most ludicrous and down right dumb things I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

Russia just wants to monopolize oil, they shall take anything they can get their grimy mits on. Bastards picking on little guys like Georgia, America should go to war with Russia over this and kick their ass.l0ve

Clearly you have no idea what is happening do you? Do you know how big of a war it will be if we go to war with Russia and how many casualties we might have? They have nukes you know and for all we know we could looking at another Cold War.

[QUOTE="Norg"]

[QUOTE="duxup"]They're on their own.Bigg_Boi

no they are not if the west will not help them they should try and get Muslim terrorist and fighters to help them there 2-0 against superpowers they have beaten Russia before and stood there ground against America

Georgia would never even think of asking for help from terrorists, Arabs especially. The Russians would probably become even more aggressive if they learned the Georgians were employing terrorists.

it could happen just south of Georgia is the Middle east a Muslim army could use this has a excuse to move the conflict of fighting thats going on there up north a little tho itz a iffy because i know Iran is allied with Russia

iam not saying Georgia will do that but iam sure the terrorist are watching this and might send a letter offering there help

if this goes on four months or weeks and the georgian goverment is swamped they might do some crazy things

[QUOTE="l0ve"]Russia just wants to monopolize oil, they shall take anything they can get their grimy mits on. Bastards picking on little guys like Georgia, America should go to war with Russia over this and kick their ass.Bigg_Boi

I laugh at your ignorance and ludicrous amount of propaganda induced stupidity. First of all, Russia was simply defending itself since the Georgians were killing Russians in South Ossetia. Secondly, America would not "kick ass", especially against a superpower like Russia.

Not only have you completely disregard credible news of the conflict, but you spew forth some of the most ludicrous and down right dumb things I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

America would not kick Arse I agree but Russia is no longer a superpower it relies on quanty is a quality of its own. The only problem is that Russia and the Us have the same troop levels. The only superpowers today is The US and you could say china with 2 million troops is.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

[QUOTE="l0ve"]Russia just wants to monopolize oil, they shall take anything they can get their grimy mits on. Bastards picking on little guys like Georgia, America should go to war with Russia over this and kick their ass.alexmurray

I laugh at your ignorance and ludicrous amount of propaganda induced stupidity. First of all, Russia was simply defending itself since the Georgians were killing Russians in South Ossetia. Secondly, America would not "kick ass", especially against a superpower like Russia.

Not only have you completely disregard credible news of the conflict, but you spew forth some of the most ludicrous and down right dumb things I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

America would not kick Arse I agree but Russia is no longer a superpower it relies on quanty is a quality of its own. The only problem is that Russia and the Us have the same troop levels. The only superpowers today is The US and you could say china with 2 million troops is.

America is a waning superpower. Russia's power will rise exponentially when Saudi oil runs critically low. I suppose China could be considered a superpower but when oil runs out, China will fall straight down.

[QUOTE="SunofVich"]

IMHO Georgia is getting exactly what it deserves. South Ossetia is to Georgia what Kurdistan was to Iraq under Saddam. Georgia sent troops to try and regain control of SO by killing people and destroying villages. Russia swooped in and owned the Georgian troops and tanks. And are probably using it as an excuse to take over Georgia.

As an American I will say the US government has no place to tell Russia to cease hostilities. Russia is "freeing" the Ossetians and Abkhazians just like the US "freed" the Iraqis.

alexmurray

and your okay with that. The world refused to recognize the two breakaway regions and the Georgians offered them greater autonomy and they refused. they started to attack georgia so georgia attacks ossetia so russia attacks georgia witch I have no problem with. I have a problem with russia continuing to attack after they captured the region. Georgia is a key ally needed for energy security

Yes I am okay with that. What? Is ethnic cleansing okay if we (the US) says its okay.

[QUOTE="alexmurray"][QUOTE="SunofVich"]

IMHO Georgia is getting exactly what it deserves. South Ossetia is to Georgia what Kurdistan was to Iraq under Saddam. Georgia sent troops to try and regain control of SO by killing people and destroying villages. Russia swooped in and owned the Georgian troops and tanks. And are probably using it as an excuse to take over Georgia.

As an American I will say the US government has no place to tell Russia to cease hostilities. Russia is "freeing" the Ossetians and Abkhazians just like the US "freed" the Iraqis.

SunofVich

and your okay with that. The world refused to recognize the two breakaway regions and the Georgians offered them greater autonomy and they refused. they started to attack georgia so georgia attacks ossetia so russia attacks georgia witch I have no problem with. I have a problem with russia continuing to attack after they captured the region. Georgia is a key ally needed for energy security

Yes I am okay with that. What? Is ethnic cleansing okay if we (the US) says its okay.

I agree. Since when did Abkhazia and South Ossetia attack Georgia first? It was Georgia that attacked South Ossetia since they broke off and tried to become autonomous.

[QUOTE="l0ve"]Russia just wants to monopolize oil, they shall take anything they can get their grimy mits on. Bastards picking on little guys like Georgia, America should go to war with Russia over this and kick their ass.Bigg_Boi

I laugh at your ignorance and ludicrous amount of propaganda induced stupidity. First of all, Russia was simply defending itself since the Georgians were killing Russians in South Ossetia. Secondly, America would not "kick ass", especially against a superpower like Russia.

Not only have you completely disregarded credible news of the conflict, but you spew forth some of the most ludicrous and down right dumb things I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

if Azerbaijan & Armenia are next then we might have a problem Norg

Both Azerbaijan and Armenia (to an extent) are allies or friends of Russia. Azerbaijan was actually one of the founding members of the CIS.

[QUOTE="alexmurray"][QUOTE="SunofVich"]

IMHO Georgia is getting exactly what it deserves. South Ossetia is to Georgia what Kurdistan was to Iraq under Saddam. Georgia sent troops to try and regain control of SO by killing people and destroying villages. Russia swooped in and owned the Georgian troops and tanks. And are probably using it as an excuse to take over Georgia.

As an American I will say the US government has no place to tell Russia to cease hostilities. Russia is "freeing" the Ossetians and Abkhazians just like the US "freed" the Iraqis.

SunofVich

and your okay with that. The world refused to recognize the two breakaway regions and the Georgians offered them greater autonomy and they refused. they started to attack georgia so georgia attacks ossetia so russia attacks georgia witch I have no problem with. I have a problem with russia continuing to attack after they captured the region. Georgia is a key ally needed for energy security

Yes I am okay with that. What? Is ethnic cleansing okay if we (the US) says its okay.

ethnic cleansing isnt okay and no one is doing it, I dont live in the US and I think they have poor human rights (GITMO) so even if there was the Us cant lecture anyone

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

[QUOTE="l0ve"]Russia just wants to monopolize oil, they shall take anything they can get their grimy mits on. Bastards picking on little guys like Georgia, America should go to war with Russia over this and kick their ass.l0ve

I laugh at your ignorance and ludicrous amount of propaganda induced stupidity. First of all, Russia was simply defending itself since the Georgians were killing Russians in South Ossetia. Secondly, America would not "kick ass", especially against a superpower like Russia.

Not only have you completely disregarded credible news of the conflict, but you spew forth some of the most ludicrous and down right dumb things I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

You are simply covering up the truth that you have absolutely no understanding of this conversation or even the premise of this thread. Please GTFO unless you have something remotely usefull or interesting to say.

[QUOTE="l0ve"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

[QUOTE="l0ve"]Russia just wants to monopolize oil, they shall take anything they can get their grimy mits on. Bastards picking on little guys like Georgia, America should go to war with Russia over this and kick their ass.Bigg_Boi

I laugh at your ignorance and ludicrous amount of propaganda induced stupidity. First of all, Russia was simply defending itself since the Georgians were killing Russians in South Ossetia. Secondly, America would not "kick ass", especially against a superpower like Russia.

Not only have you completely disregarded credible news of the conflict, but you spew forth some of the most ludicrous and down right dumb things I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

You are simply covering up the truth that you have absolutely no understanding of this conversation or even the premise of this thread. Please GTFO unless you have something remotely usefull or interesting to say.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="l0ve"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

[QUOTE="l0ve"]Russia just wants to monopolize oil, they shall take anything they can get their grimy mits on. Bastards picking on little guys like Georgia, America should go to war with Russia over this and kick their ass.l0ve

I laugh at your ignorance and ludicrous amount of propaganda induced stupidity. First of all, Russia was simply defending itself since the Georgians were killing Russians in South Ossetia. Secondly, America would not "kick ass", especially against a superpower like Russia.

Not only have you completely disregarded credible news of the conflict, but you spew forth some of the most ludicrous and down right dumb things I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

You are simply covering up the truth that you have absolutely no understanding of this conversation or even the premise of this thread. Please GTFO unless you have something remotely usefull or interesting to say.

The only thing I can leave you is an immense amount of pity. Over the course of this conversation, you have continously shown your imaturity, lack of knowledge, and child like behavior.

Overall, insulting you is like argueing with an ADD stricken child after he just ate a sack of sugar.

[QUOTE="l0ve"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="l0ve"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

[QUOTE="l0ve"]Russia just wants to monopolize oil, they shall take anything they can get their grimy mits on. Bastards picking on little guys like Georgia, America should go to war with Russia over this and kick their ass.Bigg_Boi

I laugh at your ignorance and ludicrous amount of propaganda induced stupidity. First of all, Russia was simply defending itself since the Georgians were killing Russians in South Ossetia. Secondly, America would not "kick ass", especially against a superpower like Russia.

Not only have you completely disregarded credible news of the conflict, but you spew forth some of the most ludicrous and down right dumb things I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

You are simply covering up the truth that you have absolutely no understanding of this conversation or even the premise of this thread. Please GTFO unless you have something remotely usefull or interesting to say.

The only thing I can leave you is an immense amount of pity. Over the course of this conversation, you have continously shown your imaturity, lack of knowledge, and child like behavior.

Overall, insulting you is like argueing with an ADD stricken child after he just ate a sack of sugar.

Since your intelligence is severly lacking, I leave you this image for ease of reference.

Ever heard of "Fighter aircraft" or "Surfarce to air missiles" before? It would be like flying into a proverbial hornets nest for an American pilot.

Bigg_Boi

Ever heard of TARCAPs or HARMs?

There is something called a surface to air missile that can REALLY screw up those supply drops. Serbian SAMs managed to down a stealth fighter, an almost unattainable feat, with only a basic SAM. Also, the units in the desert would be the only ones with combat experience! The others would be green as hell and would definitely have a very hard time.

Bigg_Boi

Yes, they shot down one stealth bomber... which by the pilot's admission left itself open to the attack because of poor mission planning and execution. You're not going to get through a war unscathed, and you shouldn't expect to. But when push comes to shove, all that really matters is whether or not your losses are unsustainable.

Throughout this debate, you seem to highly underestimate the capabilities of Western militaries. You know a lot about the Russian military, and seem to be emotionally attached to it for some reason. But you forget that in dealing with certain Western militaries, you're dealing with fighting forces which, at worst, are just as formidable as the Russian forces. And if you have to deal with many of these militaries simultaneously, you will be beaten, provided that they are resolute in beating you.

Of course, such a situation may well lead to a bunch of nuclear missile attacks... and that just wouldn't be good for anybody who wants to continue living on this planet.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

Your are incredibly ignorant if you are comparing the Pearl Harbor assault with Nuclear submarines. Unlike planes and aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines are very difficult to detect and even more difficult to destroy.

The_Ish

And you're being ignorant if you think the US can't mobilize their Navy and their own Nuclear submarines to counter Russia's, especially since so much of it is trained and built in the West Coast, and are far more advanced.

Agreed. Again, Bigg_Boi seems to believe that Western militaries don't have nuclear submarines, naval intelligence, or detection methods in place... as if the threat of a nuclear submarine attack by Russia hasn't been a possibility for many decades.

The serbs downed two Tactical stealth fighters in 1999 and let Russian engineer's to reverse engineer their stealth technology. No to mention that Russia AA defence are much tougher than that.

loco145

:lol:

Who the hell cares if they reverse engineered it? You can't make stealth technology more detectable, no matter how well you understand it. It's not like it's sending out coded pulses or something, and it's not meant to be total invisibility technology in the first place. It just makes it much more difficult for the plane to be detected beyond visual range, and you really can't do anything about that when any and all radar pulses are absorbed or deflected by the way the plane is constructed. So unless the Russians have learned of a way to detect targets at the same range as a modern radar with some form of energy that does not obey basic physical principles and the laws of physics, you can forget about seeing stealth technology better as a result. What it WOULD allow the Russians to do is incorporate successful stealth technology into their designs if they wanted to.

Do you know how many successful sorties were completed by stealth fighters in the Serbian war? I'll give you a little hint... more than two planes were involved.

Seems like the war is over. Russia is holding inside the 2 break away regions. Georgian forces are now really pulled out from those regions and Russia now promised that fighting would not continue. I'm not sure whether that means they've signed a ceasefire yet.

Georgia's earlier claims about Russia advancing far into Georgian territory towards the capital turned out to be false, as confirmed by the US. According to the US, there's nothing that indicates Russia is planning an invasion.

[QUOTE="loco145"]

The serbs downed two Tactical stealth fighters in 1999 and let Russian engineer's to reverse engineer their stealth technology. No to mention that Russia AA defence are much tougher than that.

pianist

:lol:

Who the hell cares if they reverse engineered it? You can't make stealth technology more detectable, no matter how well you understand it. It's not like it's sending out coded pulses or something, and it's not meant to be total invisibility technology in the first place. It just makes it much more difficult for the plane to be detected beyond visual range, and you really can't do anything about that when any and all radar pulses are absorbed or deflected by the way the plane is constructed. So unless the Russians have learned of a way to detect targets at the same range as a modern radar with some form of energy that does not obey basic physical principles and the laws of physics, you can forget about seeing stealth technology better as a result. What it WOULD allow the Russians to do is incorporate successful stealth technology into their designs if they wanted to.

Do you know how many successful sorties were completed by stealth fighters in the Serbian war? I'll give you a little hint... more than two planes were involved.

Why :lol: ? The fact is that Serbians did detect them and shoot them down. Is a fact. And yes, none expected the tiny Serbia to prevent the full NATO to gain Air Supremacy.

[QUOTE="pianist"][QUOTE="loco145"]

The serbs downed two Tactical stealth fighters in 1999 and let Russian engineer's to reverse engineer their stealth technology. No to mention that Russia AA defence are much tougher than that.

loco145

:lol:

Who the hell cares if they reverse engineered it? You can't make stealth technology more detectable, no matter how well you understand it. It's not like it's sending out coded pulses or something, and it's not meant to be total invisibility technology in the first place. It just makes it much more difficult for the plane to be detected beyond visual range, and you really can't do anything about that when any and all radar pulses are absorbed or deflected by the way the plane is constructed. So unless the Russians have learned of a way to detect targets at the same range as a modern radar with some form of energy that does not obey basic physical principles and the laws of physics, you can forget about seeing stealth technology better as a result. What it WOULD allow the Russians to do is incorporate successful stealth technology into their designs if they wanted to.

Do you know how many successful sorties were completed by stealth fighters in the Serbian war? I'll give you a little hint... more than two planes were involved.

Why :lol: ? The fact is that Serbians did detect them and shoot them down. Is a fact.

The US flew so many sorties during that air campaign that downing two aircraft is hardly a large accomplishment for the Serbians. Also, he is laughing at you because studying those aircraft aren't going to make them easier to detect when they are in the air unless the Russians make some kind of amazing law defying discovery.

Besides my understanding is the aircraft that were shot down are due to be replaced by a newer generation anyway.

Why :lol: ? The fact is that Serbians did detect them and shoot them down. Is a fact. And yes, none expected the tiny Serbia to prevent the full NATO to gain Air Supremacy.

loco145

:lol: because it doesn't matter a hoot whether they reverse engineered the stealth technology or not. It really doesn't... unless the Russians have found a way to make energy not obey the laws of physics. Stealth technology is designed specifically to physically absorb and deflect energy. All it does is minimize a target's radar signature, which makes it more difficult to detect beyond visual range. And there's nothing you can do about that, because energy is going to behave the way energy usually behaves. It's not going to magically bounce off of a reflective surface in a different way just because you understand how and why it bounces off the target the way it does.

Serbia most certainly did not prevent full NATO air supremacy. Supremacy does not mean that you take 0 losses. It's positively idiotic to think that you're going to go through a modern conflict with no losses whatsoever against an opponent that does have relatively modern technology at its disposal. Old or not, a SAM is a SAM, and even with old technology, you'll get lucky from time to time - as the Serbians did in the case of these couple of planes. But the Serbian air force was a total non-factor, and its air defenses were not able to inhibit aerial bombardment in any significant way. And that's exactly what total air supremacy is - when the enemy's air forces and ground defenses are at the mercy of your air forces.

Why :lol: ? The fact is that Serbians did detect them and shoot them down. Is a fact. And yes, none expected the tiny Serbia to prevent the full NATO to gain Air Supremacy.

loco145

[QUOTE="loco145"]

Why :lol: ? The fact is that Serbians did detect them and shoot them down. Is a fact. And yes, none expected the tiny Serbia to prevent the full NATO to gain Air Supremacy.

LJS9502_basic

I don't think he was laughing. He was asking why I was laughing... and my reason was similar to yours. Downing two aircraft is not a signiciant achievement in light of how many operational sorties were flown by NATO forces in that conflict. And reverse engineering the stealth technology isn't going to help you one iota if your goal is to make it easier to detect, because stealth technology is not emision-based. It's a physical attribute of the design itself. Arguing that you can make it more detectable because you understand why the stealth techology works is like saying you can make an enemy plane less aerodynamic when you understand why it works.

Stealth technology can't absorb or deflect 100% of the energy is receives, nothing can, Its impossible. Think again before :lol: at me. As you said, they "minimise", don't prevent.

"According to NATO Commander Wesley Clark and other NATO generals, Yugoslav air defenses found that they could detect F-117s with their radars operating on unusually long wavelengths. This made them visible on radar screens for short times."

I don't think he was laughing. He was asking why I was laughing... and my reason was similar to yours. Downing two aircraft is not a signiciant achievement in light of how many operational sorties were flown by NATO forces in that conflict. And reverse engineering the stealth technology isn't going to help you one iota if your goal is to make it easier to detect, because stealth technology is not emision-based. It's a physical attribute of the design itself. Arguing that you can make it more detectable because you understand why the stealth techology works is like saying you can make an enemy plane less aerodynamic when you understand why it works.

pianist

It may disappoint you to know your friend Drail somesuch was banned. I saw it in ATM's. Will you be making a thread?

Stealth technology can't absorb or deflect 100% of the energy is receives, nothing can, Its impossible. Think again before :lol: at me.

"According to NATO Commander Wesley Clark and other NATO generals, Yugoslav air defenses found that they could detect F-117s with their radars operating on unusually long wavelengths. This made them visible on radar screens for short times."

loco145

Stealth technology can't absorb or deflect 100% of the energy is receives, nothing can, Its impossible. Think again before :lol: at me.

"According to NATO Commander Wesley Clark and other NATO generals, Yugoslav air defenses found that they could detect F-117s with their radars operating on unusually long wavelengths. This made them visible on radar screens for short times."

loco145

No design can be expected to successfully absorb or deflect 100% of the energy that strikes it, because regardless of how many angled surfaces you manage to use, there MUST be some that the energy will hit square on, leading to the return signal. But that doesn't matter... because provided that it deflects most of it most of the time, you can not get a firing solution on the aircraft. It's really that simple. If the Yugoslavians had found a REAL way to defeat stealth technology... why weren't they able to down more than two planes? The answer is simple. Their workaround will only take them so far. So the stealth technology is still extremely effective, and frankly, it is unlikely that it will ever be rendered ineffective, no matter how much tinkering is done with radar technology.

I'll re-iterate once again that stealth technology was NEVER conceived of as 'total invisibility' technology, and the only people who believe it is supposed to be that are laymen who are easily misled by hyperboles.

True.....but strangely some people choose to ignore the strengths of the US while promoting the perceived strengths of the combatant.

It may disappoint you to know your friend Drail somesuch was banned. I saw it in ATM's. Will you be making a thread?

LJS9502_basic

Already? I thought he'd last longer than that. But he seemed to have some problems with anger management.

Anyways, no... you were closer to him, so I think the 'honour' should fall to you. :P

True.....but strangely some people choose to ignore the strengths of the US while promoting the perceived strengths of the combatant.

It may disappoint you to know your friend Drail somesuch was banned. I saw it in ATM's. Will you be making a thread?

LJS9502_basic

We aren't promoting the strengths of USA because, at least on this boards, they don't need promotion. Just look at all those post going "America! f*** YEAH!, we can crush Russian military like we did against Panama! We can bomb them to stone age like we did againts the Serbs!". Im just saying that a war against Russia in Russian soil is far from being a guaranteed victory.

That being said, I think USA can defeat the Russian army 100% of the time in neutral soil and they would get crushed if they attempt to invade any Western European country, let alone USA.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

True.....but strangely some people choose to ignore the strengths of the US while promoting the perceived strengths of the combatant.

It may disappoint you to know your friend Drail somesuch was banned. I saw it in ATM's. Will you be making a thread?

loco145

We aren't promoting the strengths of USA because, at least on this boards, they don't need promotion. Just look at all those post going "America! f*** YEAH!, we can crush Russian military like we did against Panama! We can bomb them to stone age like we did againts the Serbs!". Im just saying that a war against Russia in Russian soild is far from being a guaranteed victory.

That being said, I think USA can defeat the Russian army 100% of the time in neutral soil and they would get crushed if they attempt to invade any Western European country, let alone USA.

The people who say things like that are the same people who believe stealth technology makes planes totally invisible. Pay them no heed. A conflict with Russia would be difficult and bloody, and both sides would suffer significant military losses. And that's why it's quite unlikely that such a conflict would ever occur. People remember what happened the last couple of times, and know full well that the technology the potential combatants have at their disposal is even more deadly now than it was then.