Russia’s newest Su-30 multirole jets and Su-24 bombers practiced attack runs on NATO

Excuse me... I'd like to cut in with an off topic subject... is anyone else getting the weird messages on this site, that 'due to a security breach, they are offering a free credit check? It's attached to various words with a green symbol by it. AND my computer has been alerting me that I now have a virus?? Just want to know if anyone else is having issues??

 

Besides the U.S. Navy.....Russia is a distant second as far as Submarine Construction.

I would list the U.K. as #2 but too much American Tech. is devoted to British Sub's so U.K. Sub's I would have to group with U.S. Subs.

The problem with Russian Sub's just as the problem was with Soviet Subs is THEY CUT TOO MANY CORNERS DUE TO EITHER MONEY COST CONCERNS OR DUE TO LAGGING TECHNOLOGICALLY.

But still Russia makes a good sub.

But the Submarines made by the U.S. Corps.....well they are just the absolute best ever built.

Part of this has to do with the long history of Submarine Development as in 1776, during the American Revolution, a submarine was used to attack an enemy ship. The Turtle (left), as the sub was called, was built by David Bushnell and piloted by Ezra Lee of the Continental Army. Lee piloted the Turtle under the British flagship HMS Eagle and attempted to attach a large explosive charge to the bottom of the ship. However, he was unable to successfully attach the explosives to the ship and was forced to give up. George Washington personally congratulated Lee on his survival and later gave him employment on secret service.

The United States during it's CIVIL WAR in 1861-1865 such submarines like the H.L. HUNLEY a submarine of the Confederate States blew up the USS Housatonic in Charleston, South Carolina, harbor.

There were also several "Union"....name given the Northern States during the American Civil War....Submarines developed and at one point USN Admiral Dahlgren asked for the services of "3-4 submarines" to help clear Charleston Harbor of obstructions.

Meanwhile, in the south there were many efforts underway to build a sub to break up the Union blockade. First, there were "David" boats: long, narrow steamboats which ran awash with snorkel type smoke stacks and air intakes. These boats were largely ineffectual and not truly submarines.

U.S. Navy Submarine Development continued and as the Soviet Union by vast majority concentrated only on defeating Germany and the Nazi's....the United States Military did not have that luxury as the U.S.....even though aided by a small by comparision number of U.S. Allies in the fight to defeat Japan......it was the United States Military that did the over 99% of the MILITARY BATTLE WORK!!

During the Second World War, submarines comprised less than 2 percent of the U.S. Navy, but sank over 30 percent of Japan's navy, including eight aircraft carriers. More important, American submarines contributed to the virtual strangling of the Japanese economy by sinking almost five million tons of shipping—over 60 percent of the Japanese merchant marine. Victory at sea did not come cheaply. The Submarine Force lost 52 boats and 3,506 men.

USS Gato (SS-212), launched 21 August 1941, was the first of 54 submarines in her class. Gato-class boats carried the brunt of the U.S. submarine war early in World War II. Later in the war they were joined by the 122 boats of the similar Balao-class; the main difference was a thicker pressure hull for increased operating depth.

World War II submarines were basically surface ships that could travel underwater for a limited time. Diesel engines gave them high surface speed and long range, but speed and range were severely reduced underwater, where they relied on electric motors powered by relatively short-lived storage batteries. Recharging the storage batteries meant surfacing to run the air-breathing diesels. Even combat patrols routinely involved 90 percent (or more) surface operations.


Commissioned in February 1943, USS Balao carried 10 officers and 70 enlisted men in a hull 312 feet (95 m) long that displaced 2,415 tons submerged. Her armament included deck guns and 24 torpedoes. On the surface, powered by four diesel engines, the Balao had a top speed just over 20 knots (37 km/hr); cruising at 10 knots (18 km/hr) her range was 11,000 nautical miles (20,000 km). Two 126-cell battery groups gave her a submerged top speed of 8.75 knots (16.2 km/hr); holding her speed to 2 knots (4 km/hr), she could remain submerged for 48 hours.

The Submarines that the U.S. Navy uses today are TRUELY REMARKABLE!!!

The OHIO CLASS.....which is a BOOMER....a name for a Nuclear Missile Carrying Submarine.....is SO QUIET....it is virtually impossible to detect by listening.

A single OHIO CLASS SUBMARINE....The UGM-133A Trident II, or Trident D5 is a submarine-launched ballistic missile, built by Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, California, and deployed with the US and Royal Navies.

The UGM-133A Trident II, or Trident D5 Warhead (in USA usage only): The Mark 5 MIRV can carry up to 14 W88 (475 kt) warheads.....which means a SINGLE OHIO CLASS U.S. NAVY SUBMARINE CAN CARRY 24 MISSILES EACH WITH A TOTAL OF 14....475 Kiloton Thermonuclear Warheads for a total of 336 THERMONUCLEAR WARHEADS WITH ACCURACY SO GREAT THAT DURING TESTING A FEW ACTUAL...........

.............DIRECT HITS......WERE REGISTERED!!!!!

Now the Soviet Union and Russian Navies Nuclear Warhead Accuracy or CEP well Russia considers a DIRECT HIT....when one of their Nuclear Warheads either explodes a thousand meters above the target and within a radius of accuracy or CEP between 1000 to 1500 Meters.

The United States Navy and Nuclear Submarine Forces demand much more accurate MIRV DETONATION as the
Trident D5 Warhead CONSIDERS A DIRECT HIT OR CEP REQUIREMENT: 90–120 metres (300–390 ft)....and although actual test results are CLASSIFIED.....IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP SECRET THE FACT THAT UPON MULTIPLE OCCATIONS DURING TESTING THE TRIDENT D-5

 

NEVER CHECK YES FOR A FREE CREDIT CHECK OR FREE SECURITY CHECK!!

You have picked up a Virus.

If you have Virus Protection I suggest you run a scan!!

AboveAlpha

 

IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP SECRET THAT ON MULTIPLE OCCATIONS DIRECT HITS WITHIN THE 5 METER CEP OR ACCURACY RANGE WERE HAPPENING!!!


This classifies the Ohio and Vanguard Class using the UGM-133A Trident II Missile and or Trident D5 Warhead MIRV system as a FIRST STRIKE NUCLEAR SYSTEM BEYOND COMPARE!!!

U.S. Navy and British Vanguards could get in close and launch and BEFORE RUSSIA COULD EVEN HAVE TIME TO MAKE A DECISION......THE UGM-133A Trident II Missile and or Trident D5 Warhead MIRV system WOULD DESTROY ALL RUSSIAN SILO'S, ALL RUSSIAN MOBILE LAUNCHERS....ALL RUSSIAN RAIL SYSTEMS.....ALL RUSSIAN BOMBERS AND THEIR BOMBS OR CARRIED AIR LAUNCHED MISSILES...ETC.........

BEFORE THERE WAS ANY TIME TO EVEN INFORM PUTIN THIS WAS HAPPENING!!!

This fact along with the reality the U.S. would still posses it's entire ICBM Force and B-52's, B-1B's, B-2's Ship Lanched Nuclear Cruise Missiles.....all U.S. Carriers Battle Groups of which one Carrier posses more Nuclear Weapons than the entire Nation of China...etc.

Plus along with the reality that U.S. Conventional Weapons Systems and Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force...etc...exist as THE WORLDS MOST POWERFUL CONVENTIONAL FORCE BY FAR.....

......IT IS BEYOND IDIOTIC FOR PUTIN TO BE EVEN MENTIONING SO CONCEPT OF A WAR BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA!!!

Those of us who know the Military Realities just at first LAUGHED IT OFF AS A JOKE!!!

But Putin persists....and it's not funny anymore but just sad!

AboveAlpha

 

Well the F-35 B could go land in that small clearing in the forest in a FORWARD ENEMY TERRITORY provided the Marines go in first & construct the special landing pad required to prevent damage to the F-35's engines due to all the FOD that gets kicked up otherwise. Then the enemy notices all the commotion as the small clearing landing pad construction is going on & decides to divert a UAV to take a snapshot on it's way back to it's own base. Having found the landing pad in the small clearing the enemy then decides to shell it before sending troops. However this takes time, the landing pad was ready right before the F-35 got there, bombs & fuel arrive at the pad to be loaded but just then the shells start dropping(bad timing), the F-35, fuel, bombs & half the Marines go BOOM. The enemy troops come into sight & the remaining marines, still dazed, attempt a fighting retreat back to US lines - only a few make it back.

As for "as F-35B VTOL will most likely be used as MARINE AIRCRAFT!!" thats exactly what it was designed for Doh!!! But that does not mean you can get away with using it on badly planned missions.

Freddy.

 

Ten years ago the modern German subs were considered the best subs survival wise due to the quiet propulsion system. All US subs have nuclear propulsion & the cooling systems tend to make a bit of noise.

Freddy.

 

I do believe the F-18s & Mig-25s were a generation apart in the gulf war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engagements_of_the_Gulf_War

Freddy.

 

You haven't been keeping up, have you? Even your own air force chaps admit Russia's aerial superiority in fighter jets: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/21705/
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-french-shot-down-u-s-stealth-fighter-f59db16282ca
Perhaps more salient is that America has only 187 F22s in service against an enormous, and enormously capable, Russian air fleet. Write them off at your peril.

 

Would there be any point in asking you to provide evidence to back up what you say vis-a-vis the latest generation of Russian aircraft? Ditto the missile question? Ditto the AWACS.

Besides that, AWACS are now highly vulnerable to counter IRS missile systems, such as the Russian R-37/AA-13 that specifically targets AWACS and similar from distances over 200 miles, thus avoiding the protection afforded by US fighter aircraft.

What I understand is that the US lead over Russian aircraft technology is now only incremental and that lead is being narrowed very rapidly. I also understand that the new F35 will be outclassed in all cardinal performance parameters. The Flanker outperforms the F-15. The F-22 is, however, a better all round fighter than the Russians currently have.

In short, the hype about US aircraft versus Russian aircraft results from backward thinking. It largely is not true. (see HERE re the foregoing)

Well yes. The Eurofighter is not a stealth aircraft. It's a bit of a lemon. I could probably beat it in a dogfight.

 

Remember that noisy Chinese diesel sub which popped up in the middle of a US battle fleet? How embarrassing was that!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

 

Believe me, I didn't check yes! I know where to get free credit checks if I want them, and it's not from a pop-up site!
(It even puts those green symbols by some of your words... I just didn't know if my computer is the only one showing it, or if others are having the same issues.

My computer goes to the shop today, needs updating anyway... take care of two birds with one stone that way.
Thank you for the reply.

 

Where a VTOL F-35B lands in a forward position means the Marines have already taken enough terrirory in advance of this landing site for it to be safe.

You actually think the enemy will still be alive within 30 to 50 Miles of such a landing spot?

No...no they will not be still alive.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

They might be a tiny bit quieter....but they have to refuel.

Plus ours can dive much deeper.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

What is your point?

The same thing would happen to the Mig-29's or Su-30's

AboveAlpha

 

We won't write them off....we will just shoot them down.

AboveAlpha

 

The term you used was "in a FORWARD ENEMY TERRITORY POSITION". If you have control of 30 to 50 miles then it is no longer enemy territory, Just put in a rough airstrip & use the F-35 A or C.

Just that an older generation Mig-25 export model shot an F-18. Would you at least admit that there could be some circumstances where the Migs & Sukhois could shoot down an American aircraft.

Freddy.

 

The problem with predicting what a new aircraft will do in combat is that it's real capabilities are probably not the same as what can be estimated from publicly available information.

 

What you have to understand is an F-15C with the new off the line AAMRAM and it's new Avionics, Radar, Integrated Service Systems....which allow any U.S. Military Detection system on land, sea. space or in air....to allow the F-15C to be able to gain Air Superiority over all Russian Aircraft.

Same thing with all the other TEEN Series.

But F-22's and F-35's.....they cannot be detected to any degree that will allow either Russian SAM's or Aircraft to stop them from penetrating Russian Air Space and drop their 2 each 1000 lbs JDAMS and blow up the Russian Aircraft in their hangers, bunkers....usually just out in the open to HELL.

The USAF is not producing more than a few Hundred F-22's because we are already not just testing but DEPLOYING.......SELF DETERMINING ROBOTIC FIGHTER/ATTACK AIRCRAFT.

The early versions like the X-47B....years ago have carried out pilotless Carrier take off and landings and dropped JDAMS.

Thing is without a Pilot.....such Gen 6 and Gen 7 American Robotic Aircraft can outfly anything in the sky's including the F-22.

Their Stealth Characteristics are unreal.

And they an stay flying on station for over 24 hours.

AboveAlpha

 

EXCUSE ME!!!!

CAPTURED FORWARD ENEMY TERRITORY!!

Oh by the way......everyone eventually get's lucky.

Yes.....A Mig-25 shot down a F/A-18C Hornet but most of those have been replaced by SUPERHORNETS....which is over 25% larger and much more advanced and even THESE are going to be replaced SOON....by Robotic Fighter/Attach Aircraft.

In the 1990s, the U.S. Navy faced the need to replace its aging A-6 Intruders, and A-7 Corsair IIs with no replacement in development.[13] To answer this deficiency, the Navy commissioned development of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Despite its designation, it is not just an upgrade of the F/A-18 Hornet, but rather, a new, larger airframe using the design concepts of the Hornet.

A Mig-25 can cruise for short periods of time at Mach 2.3 but could achieve close to Mach 3 when they were not 37 years old.

A Mig-25 Pilot would have to be directly lined up with a F/A-18C and closing at high speed and even then the F/A-18 Pilot would have to have made some mistake.

Russian and Soviet Aircraft have a dismal record when encountering U.S. Aircraft.

AboveAlpha

 

You know the reality about that!!!!

The Japanese were refusing the U.S. to base a NUCLEAR POWERED NIMITZ CLASS CARRIER in Japan.

Thus the KITTYHAWK.......and old desil Carrier was stationed there.

In the middle of the Kittyhawk Battlegroup Exercize......htis litle Chinese Subs pops up.

The U.S. and Japanese Press GOES CRAZY!!!

DEMANDS INVESTIGATIONS!!!

HOW....does this Chinese pice of crap Sub avoid the Kittyhawk Battlegroups Antisub Capability????

IT DIDN'T!!!

A U.S. Carrier Battle Group uses listening devices in all oceans.....Satellite Magnotometers and Ground and Sea Penetrating Radars......and is closely followed and monitored by a MULTITUDE OF THE VERY BEST ATTACK SUBMARINES EVER MADE....like the L.A. Class, Seawolf and Virginia Classes.

RESULT????


U.S. Navy get's what it want's and now the Nuclear Nimitz Class George Washingtom Battle Group is stationed there.

If anyone...and I MEAN ANYONE......thinks the agenda WAS NOT TO ALLOW THIS LITTLE CHINESE SUB TO POP UP IN THE MIDDLE OF A BATTLE GROUP.....they are fooling themselves!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Nice fantasy. Your navy screwed up. Deal with it. If you're still convinced that the navy 'allowed' the Chinese within torpedo range of your aircraft carrier perhaps you should cast your eyes over the following:
http://defensetech.org/2006/11/14/behind-the-kitty-hawk-incident-updated/
Now, while we're dealing with fantasy what would you have said if the Chinese had popped-off a torpedo or two at the Kitty Hawk and sunk it-'oh, they were just checking to see how vulnerable they might be, so they let them sink it'?

 

No, you got no excuses. You captured it, you got 30 - 50 miles wiped clean of all enemy land forces & total air dominance. Put in the rough airstrip, bring the Herks, Wart hogs, Lightning II A & Cs & don't waste the F-35B taking off straight up with only a small bomb load.

Australia has been buying Super Hornets & some think the Super Hornet better fits Australia's defence needs than the F-35A which IMO does not have enough legs.

So far in modern times the US has only shot down the Soviet era Aircraft belonging to third world air forces in situations where the US had full spectrum air dominance including overwhelming numbers & force multipliers. The Mig-25 kill of the F-18 should not have happened in that environment but it did show that the Soviet made missile & aircraft could be effective in the right circumstances.

Freddy.

 

Actually Russian aircraft have a very good record as numerous mock engagements have proven. And then there's this: http://www.wired.com/2012/11/russia-stealth/
And if you think the US owns drone technology, think again. http://in.rbth.com/economics/2015/04/06/future_belongs_to_air_combat_drones_-_mig_creator_42431.html

 

Are you still trying to convince me with personal opinions when what I want, and repeatedly ask for is evidence of your assertions? Show me strong evidence? I keep asking. You keep ignoring it. I can't help but wonder why you feel your opinion should be read as truth?

Evidence please!

Evidence please.

 

Longer legs?

Wikipedia says the range is roughly the same between an F35A and FA18E. Reflected in the internal fuel loads as well, where it looks like te F35 carries more fuel;
F/A-18E: 14,400 lb (6,780 kg)
F-35A: 18,498 lb (8,382 kg)

 

It is called "L" Band Radar. It detects stealth aircraft & tells other systems where to look that can then achieve lock on. Stealth does not mean invisibility, it means lowered detection range. The Russians will see the F-22s & F-35s coming, whether or not they would get shot down in a real war would require a real war to prove it one way or the other, not something I would recommend.

Freddy.

 

No robotic fighter has yet been deployed. They are still in the experimental stage of development: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-carrier-drone-fight-20140607-story.html
For someone claiming to have unique inside knowledge of this stuff you're not doing very well, are you?