Abbott v Putin

[Swoop]

Christ. You are quite the comedian, aren't you?

The word you are looking for is "retard".
Deluded, uninformed.

[angle]

As an aside, because I was curious,rather than worried about anything other the chest puffing occurring, it seems the FA 18's Harpoons outrange the Russian air to air missiles........
still rather have first roll of the dice with Putins girlfriend rather than Abbots wife..........

Range is not everything, you need to detect, acquire, identify and provide target information to the missile first. F/A-18 organic sensors are significantly, and I mean significantly, inferior to those on the ships (due to size and power limitations). Secondly, the Harpoon is a very slow missile (sub-sonic) and the only way it is going to penetrate the air defenses (i.e. missile defenses) of that surface group is by overloading all of it's firing channels, i.e. you need to fire a lot of Harpoons, at least >30, and even then there is no guarantee that all channels will be overloaded, considering how many radars (including phased arrays) those ships operate, artillery anti-missile systems also have to be taken into account. Thirdly, those ships will need to be hit by quite a few Harpoons in order to be considered a mission kill, Harpoons are small. Finally, the range of the anti-aircraft SAMs those ships are carrying is unknown as S-300F operates a vast family of missiles with very different ranges and capabilities which are not fully known. The last time it was believed that russian SAMs did not have the range ended up with a shot down U-2. The only Australian weapon systems that can be used effectively against those ships are the Aus Collins SSKs.

Some relevant recent events....

http://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html
As the Russian jet approached the US vessel, the electronic device disabled all radars, control circuits, systems, information transmission, etc. on board the US destroyer. In other words, the all-powerful Aegis system, now hooked up - or about to be - with the defense systems installed on NATO’s most modern ships was shut down, as turning off the TV set with the remote control.

The Russian Su-24 then simulated a missile attack against the USS Donald Cook, which was left literally deaf and blind. As if carrying out a training exercise, the Russian aircraft - unarmed - repeated the same maneuver 12 times before flying away.

This article is complete and utter nonsense. USS Donald Cook would have shot that Su-24 out of the sky without breaking a sweat. The claim that the jet "disabled" the warship is quite funny though. Anyone with a basic knowledge of electronics and physics should be able to see the technical bullshit. Simulating a missile attack is an act of war and has very serious consequences.

[Hans]

Amen....10 characters.

[husaberg]

Range is not everything, you need to detect, acquire, identify and provide target information to the missile first. F/A-18 organic sensors are significantly, and I mean significantly, inferior to those on the ships (due to size and power limitations). Secondly, the Harpoon is a very slow missile (sub-sonic) and the only way it is going to penetrate the air defenses (i.e. missile defenses) of that surface group is by overloading all of it's firing channels, i.e. you need to fire a lot of Harpoons, at least >30, and even then there is no guarantee that all channels will be overloaded, considering how many radars (including phased arrays) those ships operate, artillery anti-missile systems also have to be taken into account. Thirdly, those ships will need to be hit by quite a few Harpoons in order to be considered a mission kill, Harpoons are small. Finally, the range of the anti-aircraft SAMs those ships are carrying is unknown as S-300F operates a vast family of missiles with very different ranges and capabilities which are not fully known. The last time it was believed that russian SAMs did not have the range ended up with a shot down U-2. The only Australian weapon systems that can be used effectively against those ships are the Aus Collins SSKs.

This article is complete and utter nonsense. USS Donald Cook would have shot that Su-24 out of the sky without breaking a sweat. The claim that the jet "disabled" the warship is quite funny though. Anyone with a basic knowledge of electronics and physics should be able to see the technical bullshit. Simulating a missile attack is an act of war and has very serious consequences.

It was just a spit ball, plenty of ships including the Sheilfeld have been pretty banged up by one missile, infact the Exocet didn't even explode and still f-ed up the Sheffield. (Destroyer)
from google I just discovered that the Brits had even got the codes for the homing radar on the Excoets so that should not have ever even happened......nor the one that struck the Atlantic Conveyor (Cargo ship)or the Glamorgan (Destroyer)

In the years after the Falklands War, it was revealed that the British government and the Secret Intelligence Service had been extremely concerned at the time by the perceived inadequacy of the Royal Navy's anti-missile defences against the Exocet and its potential to tip the naval war decisively in favour of the Argentine forces. A scenario was envisioned in which one or both of the force's two aircraft carriers (Invincible and Hermes) were destroyed or incapacitated by Exocet attacks, which would make recapturing the Falklands much more difficult.

Actions were taken to contain the Exocet threat. During the preparation for the war, Britain benefited from the help of France, which gave the Exocet's code and homing radar.[16] A major intelligence operation was also initiated to prevent the Argentine Navy from acquiring more of the weapons on the international market.[17] The operation included British intelligence agents claiming to be arms dealers able to supply large numbers of Exocets to Argentina, who diverted Argentina from pursuing sources which could genuinely supply a few missiles. France denied deliveries of Exocet AM39s purchased by Peru to avoid the possibility of Peru giving them to Argentina, because they knew that payment would be made with a Credit card from the Central Bank of Peru. British intelligence had detected the guarantee was a deposit of two hundred million dollars from the Andean Lima Bank, an owned subsidiary of the Banco Ambrosiano.[18][19]

Its all academic anyway both sides are just willy waving.....

Ps as for slow not being effective remember the Bismark was brought down because the weapons control systems were not programed for such a slow attack by the swordfish.......

[R650R]

This article is complete and utter nonsense. USS Donald Cook would have shot that Su-24 out of the sky without breaking a sweat. The claim that the jet "disabled" the warship is quite funny though. Anyone with a basic knowledge of electronics and physics should be able to see the technical bullshit. Simulating a missile attack is an act of war and has very serious consequences.

But they didn't shoot it down... and they would have even for it flying close let alone what it did...

[R650R]

Never mind the cruisers, harpoons and f-18s, no doubt one of the new Borei class strategic nuke subs is shadowing the fleet...

[husaberg]

If the Russians wanted to impress me with their technological might they should Find the missing MH370, That would be impressive.......

[angle]

It was just a spit ball, plenty of ships including the Sheilfeld have been pretty banged up by one missile, infact the Exocet didn't even explode and still f-ed up the Sheffield. (Destroyer)
from google I just discovered that the Brits had even got the codes for the homing radar on the Exocets so that should not have ever even happened......nor the one that struck the Atlantic Conveyor (Cargo ship)or the Glamorgan (Destroyer)

The damage to HMS SHEFFIELD was caused by the Exocet's fuel (that version of the missile used liquid fuel, Harpoons always used solid fuel) which started a major 'D' class fire. They missed the missile because they were too relaxed and that taught them a lesson. Secondly a Type 42 DDG and project 1164 CG are very different classes of ships, in size and capability. Very different, there is no comparison even.

Ps as for slow not being effective remember the Bismark was brought down because the weapons control systems were not programed for such a slow attack by the swordfish.......

That is an urban myth.
Harpoon's slow speed does not give it more effectiveness, quite the opposite.

But they didn't shoot it down... and they would have even for it flying close let alone what it did...

No they would not have, as I said, just imitating an attack is an act of war, let alone firing in anger. All the Su-24 did was take pictures, it was a recon aircraft. Flying close to ships is done quite often by both sides. An example of a famous one ages ago, which was also labeled as a "mock attack" by the journalists: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...sage461289/pg1

[husaberg]

The damage to HMS SHEFFIELD was caused by the Exocet's fuel (that version of the missile used liquid fuel, Harpoons always used solid fuel) which started a major 'D' class fire. They missed the missile because they were too relaxed and that taught them a lesson. Secondly a Type 42 DDG and project 1164 CG are very different classes of ships, in size and capability. Very different, there is no comparison even.

That is an urban myth.
Harpoon's slow speed does not give it more effectiveness, quite the opposite.

No they would not have, as I said, just imitating an attack is an act of war, let alone firing in anger. All the Su-24 did was take pictures, it was a recon aircraft. Flying close to ships is done quite often by both sides. An example of a famous one ages ago, which was also labeled as a "mock attack" by the journalists: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...sage461289/pg1

Its not an urban myth at all, the Bismarck the mightiest warship in the world (at the time) was brought down by a humble obsolete yet sturdy and stable biplane flying bloody slow..........
As afar as I am aware it is still pretty sunk too.