Russia is not a first strike Nuclear threat to anyone.

Trump just mentioned nukes, yeah, that brings Trump into this

 

My 2 cents - Vlad wants to leave a legacy, Vlad has children, Vlad has grandchildren.

No way he nukes anyone UNLESS he believes that nukes will not be used against him in return. So, IMO, unless he believes 100% that nukes will NOT be used against him in retaliation or at all, he will never chance going with a nuke as an offensive move.

I think he is playing out the clock, and so is the NATO & the US, they all likely think that this will be over in 30 to 90 days. Sad but it looks like the way it's going to be played by both sides. Whether or not the current or future sanctions stay in place with be about greed ultimately.

 

We were stationed at McCoy AFB (before it was Orlando International AP) during the Cuban missile crisis.
1. I didn't say all Russian bombers were prop driven, I said most were.
2. We are not talking about an F-86 trying to outrun a cruise missile.

Most would be detected by fighters in the sky, AWACs or surface Navel radar. F-22 pilots actually train to shoot down cruise missiles and they can't outrun AMRAAM missiles, which have a range of over 120 miles. (The AMRAAM seeker is used in the SM-6, so this is just a good a missile as any to shoot down a cruise missile.)

Next we have the PAC-3 Patriot missiles (the newest model)
Then there are land-based air-to-ground system like NASAMS to shoot it down.

If you've in a naval battle, say you've been ambushed by several subs. The carrier group will respond by firing SM-2s (or SM-6s). Each missile type is extremely accurate and has a long range. Once the missiles get within a much closer range, ESSMs (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles) will open up, most likely tearing whatever is left apart. Once we get down to meters, not miles, 20mm CIWS Phalanx (Giant cannon for tearing apart missiles), will stop anything else that's coming.

The US Navy probably has some of the best anti-air capability in the world. We've had to develop it ever since the Cold War started.

Now you have to get close enough to even use a cruise missile which is limited to 600 miles. There isn't a Russian sub or aircraft that can breach that range without detection.

 

In your own post when you said, "Our solid rocket missiles can be launched in 10 minutes."

The point I was making is that US and Russia have the same capabilities. And we don't even know they are fueling unless the Russian government says something what Putin said. If you think we have the capabilites to detect they are fueling for a preeminant strike, think again.

And it's 90 minutes for us too with liquid fueled rockets. We both have pretty much the same capabilities although the Russian SSN30 shaves that 90 minute time a bit. However, being able to launch a missle does not mean fueling the missile. We both have protocols on the launch sequence, which can take up to 10 minutes. You are being fast and loose with your assessment here.

Not guessing anything. FAS and other published information about Russia nuclear capabilities disagrees with your so called assessment. At Dyess AFB, only 4 crews out of 36 are in ready status. The other crews are either training, off base, performing administrative or other pilot duties, inspecting aircraft, etc. It takes time to get everybody in ready status. That is why they rotate ready status amongst the pilots and other key personell. My guess you were at best an E3 when you left, maybe an E4.

what it boils down to is not how long it takes to fuel a ICBM, but the to how the civilian AND miliary, combined, devise an appropriate response to the potential threat you described in your OP. That is the key difference here. For us, we already have protocols and strategies in place. Military will not go on full alert unless the President Authorizes it. All the planes will not go into the air unless the President authorizes it. And that authorization will not take place until after one or more meeting to discuss the increased hostilities. The problem is, in reality, it is much more sublime than what your OP and follow up posts indicated.

 

They have enough jet bombers and cruise missiles to overwhelm our defenses.
You can't shoot down a sky full of cruise missiles.

Their subs can get as close to our shores as they want without detection.

It isn't so much whether Russia has a first strike capability as it is Putin's decision to try it. Certainly, with a first strike they will end up killing tens of millions of our people even if we do wipe them out. We can never count on stopping everything.

The Thai F-86's could not catch the Russian bombers that were overflying Thailand.

You are trying to make it like Russian is no threat to the US. They are, if they are crazy enough to try it. The big question is whether Putin is crazy enough to try it and no one knows for sure. Certainly he has hinted that he might be willing to start WWIII.

 

For bombers, the detection would occure at our early warning detection facilities in Iceland, Japan, Alaska, etc. It is not fool proof, but if they follow routes we know, then they will be detected. radar on fighters is very short range, like 25 miles at max. Also, that lights up the fighter in the defense systems of said bombers who would then change course to avoid contact. More than likely, they would be vectored in from air control staff from reports from said early detection radar installations in Iceland, Alaska, Japan, etc. When the passive radar detects them, then the game is on.

 

You mean he modernized our stockpile of them, added to our defense capabilities, and started Space Force…and began hardening our infrastructure for EMP events?

 

no, he talked about threatening to nuke Russia

 

This is Putin's baby. Full stop.

 

Not really sure how you came up with radar detection from fighters being 25 miles as the F-14 Tomcat of the 70s were detecting aircraft at 100 miles and launching Phoenix missiles guided by their on board radar at 65 miles and could launch and target up to 6 aircraft at the same time. And that was in the 70s.

Just the new AIM 260 JATM missiles carried by the F-18, F-22 and F-35 have a classified range but we know its over 120 miles. Its a mach 5 speed weapon with an unclassified range of 200KM and can be fired while the aircraft is at super sonic speeds.

 

They start refueling and then so what? Do you think we are going to launch before they do?

Also, just in case you have not noticed, we have no real air defense. You can talk about the capability of a single ship or type of gun, but if they are not in the right place at the right time, they are worthless.

 

But they would have to get within 600 miles to use them.
Do you really think we would allow that?

You watch way to many movies as you have no clue what your talking about. Not even close

I told you why they won't start the fueling process as it takes 90 minutes and how most NATO allies and the US would respond.
Again, you watch too many movies as your theories aren't even close to reality

Which means what as we don't use F-86s.

Russian would be a very quiet place for the next 10,000 years if he even attempted to fuel an ICBM.
Russia knows it
Everyone in Russia's command staff knows it
Every NATO ally knows it
And US command knows it

You don't get to just imagine away their 90 minute fueling time or imagine away bombers being tracked flying toward US soil, or imagine away their subs being able to get within firing range without detection.

This isn't 1945.

 

You don't put on a condom unless you're going to F***. You don't fuel an ICBM unless you are COMMITTED to launch.
What did you think? Everyone would just watch Russia launch an ICBM with nuclear warheads to see what happens?
We can take out those missiles without a nuclear launch. Your imagination is running away with you.

We have no real air defense? WTF are you even quacking about? Where did you come up with this theory?
Did you think Russian bombers were going to magically appear over the US?

But heres your chance. Please explain how the US has no real air defense.
I'll wait right here

 

They would be over international waters. So yes, we would allow them.

Twenty years in the Air Force during the cold war says very differently.

Do you think they have never had a practice alert which included refueling? I am pretty sure we did not attack them.

Which means they were flying jet aircraft.

We will not respond until their missiles are in the air and we have at least a rough idea where they are headed. We might launch our bombers before then since they can be turned around, but not the missiles.

 

It is not up me to show you it does not exist. It is up to you to show that it does exist. I cannot prove a negative.

 

What are the indicators? When I pump gasoline, a liquid fuel, into my car's tank, it doesn't make much noise and there isn't much of a smell, so how can we tell when the Russians are fueling a nuke? You seem to have left out that very important detail.

I don't see a link in your post. Where are you getting this?

 

The F14s radar detection was spotting between 25 and 70 miles away, depending on the size of the aircraft. For the F14 to detect an aircraft at 70 miles away, the F14 would have to be flying directly towards that aircraft, at 600 plus knots, for at least a minute or two before its own onboard systems would detect such an aircraft. 25 miles, it was more instantaneous. That is why the ships radar was always used to vector in the F14s if a potential threat was detected. The F14 or any other aircraft does not have the capability you are speaking of, not even today's 5th generation aircraft.

Furthermore, a range of 120 miles does not mean anything. What you need to know if the effective range. The Phoenix missile had a range of 100 miles, but F14 pilots would usually fire the missile at 15 to 20 miles away. It's more effective that way.

 

So by your own admission, you have no idea
1. that NORAD exist who constantly track over 6000 objects orbiting the earth 24/7
2. We have over 5000 military bases in the US and another 600 over seas
3. Over 490 active duty Navy ships and 290 deployable combat ships
4. 11 nuclear powered carrier groups hosting over 1000 US fighters with an additional state side aircraft fleet of over 2000
5. USAF is composed of 5217 active aircraft, making it the largest, the most technologically advanced, and the most powerful air fleet in the world
6. The US Army has over 3300 military helicopters
7. The US Marine's have over 1200 wartime aircraft
8. The US based AN/TPS-59. Developed to provide a mobile long-range surveillance radar capability. It is recognized as the world's most capable long-range ground-based radar for tactical ballistic missile defense with proven performance during live fire tests.
9. The North Warning System comprised of 13 long range radar sites (11 in Canada) and 39 short range radar sites (26 in Canada). Portions of the Pinetree system were incorporated into the new North Warning system.
10. The CADIN/Pinetree upgrades included seven new heavy radars and 45 gap filler radars in Canada.
11. The Mid Canada Line, air defence early warning line along the 55th parallel. This doppler radar electronics fence, nicknamed the "McGill Fence," peaked at 8 sector stations and 90 unmanned doppler detection stations.

But according to you

How absolutely clueless would you have to be to make that statement

 

FWIW, the Russians also have a number of solid-fueled Topol-M ICBM's, including road-mobile versions like this:



They could be launched with very little advanced warning.

 

WRONG,
The F-14s fire control and radar system is one of the most advanced in the world. The AN/AWG-9 weapons control system can detect and track countermeasures-equipped targets at ranges of 195 miles, depending on target size. Up to 24 targets can be tracked simultaneously.

Destruction of targets firing the Hughes AIM-54 missile took place at ranges in excess of 125 miles! The F-14D received a new radar system, the AN/APG-71 radar that enables multiple tracking, too, with twice the range of the AN/AWG-9 radar.
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail...control,targets can be tracked simultaneously.
Try again

 

Jesus Christ dude can you please give Trump a break?
Is there a single ******n topic under the Sun that you won't go right to Trump on?

 

Well. Not really. That would suggest that we have around one hundred military bases per state. It probably averages less than ten. You are talking about facilities with military present which includes recruiting offices. Virtually none of what you list is actually used for air defense. Helicopters, you have to be kidding. Most of those aircraft are unsuited for any kind of air defense. Big numbers are meaningless. What counts is having air defenses in the right locations at the right time. Those simply do not exist.

That is just an example of your nonsense.

 

Fueling your car? lol
Everyone has birds looking down on Russia. EVERYONE. We track convoy and missile movements and we know where every silo in Russia is.

 

More an example of your ignorance.
The pentagons military base numbers include National Guard, Army reserve, bases, Navel ports, and stations.
But you wouldn't know that.

I listed all air defense radar systems to include NORAD, but (out of ignorance) they somehow don't count

You are just posting clueless tripe with obviously no idea what the hell you are talking about.

 

There is not a single state in the union which has a hundred bases. Most have around five or so.

How about listing only those facilities and pieces of equipment are operational that actually have something to do with air defense. All the rest is nonsense as far as this discussion goes.