Russia v. Georgia
-
I want to know what you guys think and why. My personal opinion is pretty much taken completely from this article (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php), so I will just paraphrase the important part to me.
Totten says that there is a highway pass from Russia into Georgia and according to the geography it is the best place to defend against an attack instead of waiting to fight once the invaders come through to the other side. Georgia got confirmation that Russian tanks were moving down that pass and so decided to make its stand. In order to get its military components there, Georgia had to go through South Ossetia to get to the pass. Thus, Georgia looked like it was attacking South Ossetia and when Georgian forces were repelled Georgia was screwed as Russian forces could easily get through the pass and stream into South Ossetia themselves. -
QUOTE (Jimmah7 @ Sep 17 2008, 01:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>i don't know who started it, but it was always burning since the world's been turning
Post of the year.
-dan -
QUOTE (Jimmah7 @ Sep 16 2008, 11:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>i don't know who started it, but it was always burning since the world's been turningQUOTE (dan @ Sep 17 2008, 05:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Post of the year.
-dan
lol isn't that billy joel -
QUOTE (Pheylan @ Sep 17 2008, 11:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>We'll probably never know who "fired the first shots" but regardless of who started the shooting, it's very clear that it was a trap set by Russia to draw itself into a shooting war with Georgia.
That much I can agree with. -
QUOTE (coffee @ Sep 17 2008, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>lol isn't that billy joel
That one sure didn't go over your head. Did it big shot? -
QUOTE (Jedd @ Sep 17 2008, 01:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>That one sure didn't go over your head. Did it big shot?
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Sand-filled_vagina
-
You may be right. I was trying to work in that joke and it did come out a bit harsh.
Don't ask me why I was trying to be the entertainer, but you have to believe that I am an innocent man. -
QUOTE (Pheylan @ Sep 17 2008, 02:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>We'll probably never know who "fired the first shots" but regardless of who started the shooting, it's very clear that it was a trap set by Russia to draw itself into a shooting war with Georgia.
Absolutely. But Georgia's completely retarded for falling for it. Where's Akbar when you need him? -
QUOTE (ANunes @ Sep 17 2008, 07:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't think we'll ever know who shot first.
Han Solo. -
-
ima head this one off at the pass
Russia sells a bunch of anti aircraft equipment to Iranian Mullahs. So we should be terrified that *when* Iran gets nukes we won't be able to take out those sites, ever. Right?
Not quite.
The S-300 surface-to-air missile system has a maximum altitude of 20k feet.
Our bombers fly at 25k-30k ft. (we have lower flying planes, but you don't use them when they can get shot down like that.)
So before we all get scurred: Russia just pulled a fast one on Iran, in an effort to piss us off. If you're piss-your-pants scared about this, you're playing right into their hand. -
QUOTE (ANunes @ Sep 18 2008, 02:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>ima head this one off at the pass
Russia sells a bunch of anti aircraft equipment to Iranian Mullahs. So we should be terrified that *when* Iran gets nukes we won't be able to take out those sites, ever. Right?
Not quite.
The S-300 surface-to-air missile system has a maximum altitude of 20k feet.
Our bombers fly at 25k-30k ft. (we have lower flying planes, but you don't use them when they can get shot down like that.)
So before we all get scurred: Russia just pulled a fast one on Iran, in an effort to piss us off. If you're piss-your-pants scared about this, you're playing right into their hand.
Not so fast! What about Israel? Although they have decent technology I am not sure they have stealth bombers that go that high.
Also, I dispute your 25k-30k ft number. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle4781027.eceQUOTEReports have circulated for some time that Russia is preparing to sell its S-300 surface-to-air missile system to Iran, offering greater protection against a possible US or Israeli attack on the Islamic republic’s nuclear facilities. The missiles have a range of more than 150 kilometres and can intercept jets approaching at low altitudes.
150 km = 93 miles ; 93 miles * 5280 ft/mile = 491,040 ft = 400k ft v. your number of 25k
Additional info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300QUOTEIran's status regarding the S-300 system remains controversial. They seem to have acquired an unknown number of S-300PMU-1 missiles in 1993, maybe even recently from Belarus.[20] Iran claimed to have signed a contract with Russia on 25 December 2007 on the sales of the S-300PMU-2 missile system.[21] Russian officials have denied this.[22] According to senior Israeli defence sources Iran is to receive S-300s by 2009, deliveries will take place from September until begin 2009.[23][24][25]QUOTEThe S-300PMU-2 Favorite (Russian C-300ПМУ-2 Фаворит – Favourite, DoD designation SA-20B), introduced in 1997, is an upgrade to the S-300PMU-1 with range extended once again to 195 km (121 mi) with the introduction of the 48N6E2 missile. This system is apparently capable against not just short range ballistic missiles, but now also medium range tactical ballistic missiles.
-
also, http://www.aviation.com/technology/080807-...00-missile.htmlQUOTEAlthough on July 9 U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates denied the possibility of Iran acquiring the missile — known as the S-300PMU-1 by its Russian designers — “anytime soon,” defense reporters have speculated widely that the operational deployment of the S-300 air-defense system would represent a “red line” for an Israeli air strike on Iran. This is because the SA-20/S-300 represents a nearly insurmountable obstacle for conventional aircraft, according to air power experts.
“For non-stealth aircraft, the SA-20 represents a virtual no-fly zone,” said retired United States Air Force General Richard E. Hawley.QUOTEThe S-300PMU-1 system is capable of engaging targets from altitudes as low as 30 feet to as high as 90,000 feet, against incoming targets travelling at a velocity of 9,000 feet per second, according to the Web site of the Almaz Scientific Industrial Corporation, the Russian company that builds the weapon.
And in case you still think Israel has what it takes to take down the system:QUOTEAccording to Hawley, the only ways to engage the SA-20 with conventional non-stealth aircraft would be to use stealthy cruise missiles such as the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), fired from outside the range of the air defense missiles; or to resort to Vietnam-era low-level tactics.
The problem for Israel is that it does not have the JASSM missile — production of the weapon has only recently restarted for the U.S. Air Force after a lengthy delay due to technical faults — and so its aircraft would have to use the low-altitude approach against the SA-20.
Low-altitude tactics — where jets skim the earth at treetop levels — are extremely hazardous and are of limited effectiveness, and an attacking force would likely face “very significant losses,” said Hawley.
P.S. Russia selling military crap to Iran doesn't help at all with hoping to get Iran to fall in line through sanctions. -
QUOTE (Evestay @ Sep 18 2008, 04:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Also, I dispute your 25k-30k ft number. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle4781027.ece
150 km = 93 miles ; 93 miles * 5280 ft/mile = 491,040 ft = 400k ft v. your number of 25k
As per the line from your quote "The missiles have a range of more than 150 kilometres and can intercept jets approaching at low altitudes."
Last I checked 400k feet is not a low altitude, but indeed, would be outside of the earth's atmosphere... Perhaps there may be some difference in aviation between lateral distance and vertical distance capabilities. Just a thought. A plane that can fly around the world can not, indeed, fly through space, one would assume the same laws of physics apply to rockets. -
eh I still think the system is impassable by Israel. From that same aviation article:QUOTE“For non-stealth aircraft, the SA-20 represents a virtual no-fly zone,” said retired United States Air Force General Richard E. Hawley.QUOTEHawley said the most effective way to combat integrated air-defense systems was to operate stealth aircraft such as the F-22A Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II.
For Israel that may not be an option. The earliest the IDF can acquire the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter is in 2014 and not only is the F-22 too expensive, but also it is banned from export by the so-called "Obey Amendment" under US law due to the extremely sensitive nature of its technology. -
From what I've discussed with other people on the subject, it really won't be that bad a thing for Iran to get it, because it gives countries like Israel and the US to fly against the outskirts of it and develop what they need to jam it. It's a constant fight to figure to balance out the abilities of rockets to lock on and for the US and its allies to find signals to jam those frequencies with their Electronic Warfare systems.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!