Thread: Russian aircraft buzz USS Kitty Hawk

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

"A" low-tech missile? More like fourteen. Give the aircraft some credit.

Well sure. But it then it does not bode well for the (thankfully never carried out) mission it was designed for that is of stealthily flying thrpugh Soviet airspace and dropping a pair of B-83 on the Kremlin.

Originally Posted by sparten

Well sure. But it then it does not bode well for the (thankfully never carried out) mission it was designed for that is of stealthily flying thrpugh Soviet airspace and dropping a pair of B-83 on the Kremlin.

That's a one-time job. The Yugoslavia incident proves that if you know where it's going to be after repeated nights, you can use electro-optical guidance and a whole batch of missiles to get it, it doesn't prove that you intercept it coming in with the element of surprise and less haphazard guidance techniques.

Besides, I didn't know that the F-117 was supposed to deliver nukes to Moscow, considering its range, but hey - you learn something new everyday.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

That's a one-time job. The Yugoslavia incident proves that if you know where it's going to be after repeated nights, you can use electro-optical guidance and a whole batch of missiles to get it, it doesn't prove that you intercept it coming in with the element of surprise and less haphazard guidance techniques.

Besides, I didn't know that the F-117 was supposed to deliver nukes to Moscow, considering its range, but hey - you learn something new everyday.

It would have been based in Germany. And the Russian AD system would have been a lot more demce, even around Moscow.

Originally Posted by sparten

It would have been based in Germany. And the Russian AD system would have been a lot more demce, even around Moscow.

Never have I heard of the F-117 intended for that. The B-2? Yes. But the F-117 is a fighter-sized aircraft, it can't penetrate that far and return safely. It would have been a waste of a pilot and an aircraft.

Originally Posted by sparten

It would have been based in Germany. And the Russian AD system would have been a lot more demce, even around Moscow.

Well, a Cessena got through ...

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Well, a Cessena got through ...

So all the USAF had to do was plan the attack on Border Guard's Day and make sure the F-117 pilot was a German teenager named IronOxide?

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

If im a russian military planner trying to make a surprise offensive work i know im going to go after the carriers immediately and im going to make it look as much like a 'cold war buzz' as i can until it's too late.

Sorry. I don't like taking chances like that. Until you VID a threat you have no idea what he's packing.

If the Russians deployed a tactical nuke on an American carrier the carriers themselves would become irrelevent as war would have escalated past the point where they'd be the preferred weapon.

Carriers are good platforms to wage conventional war, I don't think they're a cost effective or reliable way of waging nuclear war.

Originally Posted by canoe

If the Russians deployed a tactical nuke on an American carrier the carriers themselves would become irrelevent as war would have escalated past the point where they'd be the preferred weapon.

Carriers are good platforms to wage conventional war, I don't think they're a cost effective or reliable way of waging nuclear war.

Nonsense.

US Carrier groups each packed about 100 "Specials" back during the cold war.

100 planes plus 100 weapons = A VERY good way to wage a nuclear war on any enemy within a 1000nm radius.

Really such cases not a rarity both for you, and for us. They happen constantly and at all do not mean that someone tries on someone a misfortune. First it is investigation, secondly working off of tactical receptions.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Nonsense.

US Carrier groups each packed about 100 "Specials" back during the cold war.

100 planes plus 100 weapons = A VERY good way to wage a nuclear war on any enemy within a 1000nm radius.

Yah but how many warheads are they carrying right now?

If the Russians had just launched a nuclear attack on your carriers and some of them in theory had F14's which intercepted the migs and some of the carriers survived... how would those carriers in anyway assist?

In the time it would take to load up and transfer all the warheads to the ship then to deploy them from the ship most of the damage is already going to have been done to both sides.

The carriers would probably be a decent platform if the nuclear weapons were already on them. But as far as I'm aware the U.S agreed to remove them all from the carriers. I think if your going down the nuclear road all that matters is who can saturate their enemies territory with the most warheads with the highest yields in the least amount of time.

And yes I'm aware the U.S has second strike capability and its fairly important from a deterrence standpoint. However if the U.S got themselves into a sustained major nuclear war with the Russians the U.S would never completely recover from it making the carriers long term value extremely low as the logistical chain to support the carriers would likely be damaged or destroyed beyond repair.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

That's a one-time job. The Yugoslavia incident proves that if you know where it's going to be after repeated nights, you can use electro-optical guidance and a whole batch of missiles to get it, it doesn't prove that you intercept it coming in with the element of surprise and less haphazard guidance techniques.

Besides, I didn't know that the F-117 was supposed to deliver nukes to Moscow, considering its range, but hey - you learn something new everyday.

Listen..... when you say that it was shot down because it went same way few nights IT MEANS IT WAS DETECTED GOING THIS WAY FEW NIGHTS.

Secondly. Are you going to follow Mr Bluesman who is hard believer in SHOOTING F-117 IN THE NIGHT WITH OPTICAL GUIDANCE? He actually never explained how it was possible..... if it is then WHY THE HELL TO BE STEALTHY IF YOU CAN BE DETECTED BY RADAR AND THEN SHOT DOWN WITH OPTICAL GUIDANCE?

So despite all the funds sunk into its development real effectiveness of F-117 against highly dense SAM defence areas is highly doubtful..... Look NONE OF F-16 used in Yugoslavia were shot down though they had a lot of sorties...... are they really stealthy?

I actually don't understand what is the point of flying over Carrier? Intelligence? Satellites can make great picture and give all neccessary details of the deck life..... I pretty sure Russian satellites do film US Carriers.

Originally Posted by Garry

Listen..... when you say that it was shot down because it went same way few nights IT MEANS IT WAS DETECTED GOING THIS WAY FEW NIGHTS.

Secondly. Are you going to follow Mr Bluesman who is hard believer in SHOOTING F-117 IN THE NIGHT WITH OPTICAL GUIDANCE? He actually never explained how it was possible..... if it is then WHY THE HELL TO BE STEALTHY IF YOU CAN BE DETECTED BY RADAR AND THEN SHOT DOWN WITH OPTICAL GUIDANCE?

So despite all the funds sunk into its development real effectiveness of F-117 against highly dense SAM defence areas is highly doubtful..... Look NONE OF F-16 used in Yugoslavia were shot down though they had a lot of sorties...... are they really stealthy?

Youa re forgetting Scott O'Grady.
BTW STealty does not equate = invisible. It only means detection will be so late as to prevent effective counter measures. In both GWI and Yugosolavia the enemy routinly did track the Nighthawk, usually too late.

When I spoke about investigation, I had in view of, that its purpose was to study reaction to approach of fighters to a carrier group.