Comments by "ZIPZ" (@zipz8423) on "Covert Cabal" channel.

  1. @Jacko The connection I use is heavily software moderated it does some screwy things, Yotube doesn't display correctly. NO, Russia and China do not "spend a couple of billion", they spend BILLIONS. You think counter stealth is cheap?? Are you kidding? The computational power alone to design and prove processing algorithms costs a small fortune after you've spent another small fortune building your super duper pseudo AESA VHF / HF radars. THAAD is not the same class of weapon as S400 so stop comparing the two. Sorry you are wrong about the THAAD battery numbers as well. THAAD is co operated , they are sited in the middle east, Guam, the ROK, CONUS The South Koreans are deploying 6 batteries total, they have decided to roll out the remaining 4. Your Russian equipment acronyms arent impressing anybody you dont even know how 90% of those systems are employed so I dont know why you are quoting them in the first place.
    1
  2. @Davey Open Skies?? It escapes me why you mentioned Open Skies. By the way, Russia has begun to restrict Open Skies flights and the US has reciprocated because the Russians, typical of them have significantly upgraded the sensor packages allowed by the Treaty. The USA, UK, Canada etc have all carried out dozens of Open Skies flights over Russia, Ukraine and Belarus so whats your point? The Russians are obligated to take UN Observers in their military exercises when they involve more than 13,000 personnel but they consistently lie about the participating numbers. As such, there have been ZERO observers of any Russian Military exercise since Putin has been in power. It seems Russia has created its own bogeyman, called Russia.
    1
  3. What warhead was on that test missile and what warheads were on the ones that hit Barzeh? You're making assumptions you cant back up.
    1
  4. To me the BDA pictures look perfectly viable for a 76 missiles strike, what did you expect to see?
    1
  5. What you are talking about is a multi static sensor network, which would be just that, static. If we know where it is and what it can do we will just choose the right weapons to circumvent it, history is replete with examples.
    1
  6. Oh, I didn't know you did it cumulatively.. If they had used 76 Mk82 gravity bombs then you would see craters, you aren't going to see craters with TLAMs, these missiles may have utilized Joint Multi-Effects Warhead System (JMEWS) but I am not sure what the status of that program was.
    1
  7. The Iksander is still a ballistic missile using INS Gains strapdown as its primary guidance system, im not particularly worried about it , it isnt going to be evading a SAMP-T for example.
    1
  8. @Jacko, ""That S-400 system set up in Syria hasn't made the USAF or USN pause a single day in operations over Syria" Instead of answering that one you just pushed some kremlin hyperbole. lets have an honest quasi technical discussion without the BS propaganda?
    1
  9. Ive seen a lot of things, but I aint never seen no TLAM with a 7,000 lb warhead.
    1
  10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=AzyH0M4C8TY
    1
  11. LOl :P
    1
  12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=AzyH0M4C8TY
    1
  13. 1. Those L band arrays on the SU will emit detectable RF energy which can be used to get a tally on them. 2. Several aircraft stooging around emitting trying to find Stealth aircraft will have to worry about the guy who is not emitting, flying at high altitude supercrusing behind them launching AMRAAMs at BVR ranges in salvos in their direction, being cued from his buddies and his ALR-94. 3. F-22`s dont fly around using their radars on full power, in fact they have dialed down the power requirements which was a consequence of tactical lessons learned during training. The down size is the detection range reduction but the plus side is being less detectable. 4. LPI means "Low probability" not "No probability". 5. Pretty much every system which emits anything on the F-22 and F-35 is an LPI design.
    1
  14. No, the F-22 was designed with all aspect stealth in mind, the F-35, not so. The B2 even more so than the F-22. B2 `s were flying over Belgrade minutes before the F-117 was shot down, the Serbs never got a whiff of the B2. Also, the authors video is fundamentally flawed in regards to RAM coatings and what they are for. they have a very specific and narrow function.
    1
  15. For airborne radar yes, but not for ground based surveillance radars. You would be right if you consider the faceted F-117 which had a computed flight attitude control system that "presented" the aircrafts lowest return aspect to the threat radars. The F-35 was just not designed to be as stealthy as the F-22 but In some ways it's better, others not much I would suggest.
    1
  16. Its much more likely the F-117 was just too close to the SAM site, the range was 9 Nm.
    1
  17. And the aircraft's own radio and radar.
    1
  18. The F-35 has had a lot of work around IR sig / UV index management. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=AzyH0M4C8TY
    1
  19. Japan never shot it down for quite a few reasons, none of which can be understood by someone of your poor technical or geopolitical understanding.
    1
  20. True but that is against western systems, what they would love to do and absolutely require is to see the performance against Russian and Chinese systems. For this we need to provoke their radars, we have done this for decades. The F-35 was recently flown into the Baltics , accompanied by several USAF ELINT aircraft for this purpose for example.
    1
  21. They typically have warheads of 450 kg, not 3500kg.....
    1
  22. Yes because you may be thinking under the false premise that TLAMs are cratering munitions, which they are not, if you wanted craters, ask them to use Mk 82 dumb bombs fuzed to detonate on ground impact. Then you'll have your craters.
    1
  23. Nobody has made such a claim in regard to stealth aircraft. Ever.
    1
  24. More interesting is the fact the Serbs didn't see the B-2s which bombed Belgrade just before the F-117s.
    1
  25. the B-1 is not a stealth aircraft.
    1
  26. id have some respect for Sprey if he actually designed either of them, which he didnt.
    1
  27. The Russians have thrown their hat into passive detection as well as active , ie detecting data links, uplinks etc to localize threat aircraft. The S-400 complex has a large passive RF detection component but the truth is nobody is saying whether it works against a 5th gen Stealth aircraft. At any great range, I doubt it.
    1
  28. LOl
    1
  29. If you believe that, then you have never been trained on the effects of the multiple warhead types associated with TLAM use.
    1
  30. The 55Zh6ME Nebo M RLM-ME VHF-Band Radar System has never been deployed to Syria. This is the so called "anti stealth" VHF system.
    1
  31. The S-400 in Syria is actually an S-350 system, there are elements associated with the S-400 that have never been deployed to Syria.
    1
  32. In the entire history of SAM combat, they have only shown a 30% success rate, the S-400 would be no different. That system is limited in its engagement capability mostly because of the topography in Western Syria (very hilly) and the fact that its acquisition radars operate in a narrow field of 120 degrees, they cant handle attacks from multiple bearings , their reload time is also 50 minutes, 30 for an exceptional crew and only has 4 ready rounds in the tubes, one of them an extremely long range round which would not be used to engage a low flyer. There`s no precedent in history of any AD system splashing 71 cruise missiles out of 105. They would need a vital airborne element - airborne radar plugged into a kill chain linked to the S-400 batteries. Russia doesn't have that capability in Syria other than the odd visiting A-50 AEW bird, of which they have precious few. As long as low flying cruise missiles are used, they can attack Syria with impunity, with or without Russian help.
    1
  33. Coco, both the United States and Britain helped Israel produce nuclear weapons. The British supplied weapons grade Plutonium on behalf of the Americans who couldn't directly supply them for political reasons ,obviously , the British did it secretly. Some released cabinet papers confirmed it.
    1
  34. They just "touched them" with 105 missiles.
    1
  35. I would be interested to know what EW support was used, there were a heck of a lot of EW and ELINT birds in the air that night according to several sources.EA-6B, possibly Growlers not sure but NATO RC-135`s and EP-3`s. My guess is they were standing by just in case they were needed.
    1
  36. I was referring to a Soviet timeline, when the positions were very different. Sorry I should have stated that.
    1
  37. In advance of what? The S-300 and 400 hardware architecture is a result of studying AEGIS and Patriot regards system integraion and a modular approach with o upgrade paths. They have learned from the best. Patriot radars have remained pretty much static until now with ARES 360* In the short term pipeline , it's pretty much ready to go now. S-400 lacks a 360 degree fire control system.
    1
  38.  @papalaz  thats not a myth.
    1
  39. @Deus Vult Unfortunately thats not quite correct, the US military is much smaller now than it was in 2009.
    1
  40. Deus, when was it designed and when did the first prototypes fly?
    1
  41. It used to be the top 30....
    1
  42. I bring trolls down.
    1
  43. It was the only one that lit up against IAF aircraft then got whacked.
    1
  44. The A-125 has virtually zero capability against even a handful of ICBM's with complex decoy payloads. Think about target discrimination rather than the size of the intercepting warhead. Secondly, western RV's are shrouded, unless you are going to put up 50 megaton interceptors , a bad idea for all sorts of reasons , the Russians have to start thinking about other ways to defend Moscow.
    1
  45. I have serious doubts about Russian claims for their endoatmospheric "manouvering RV's" , not talking glide vehicles here , once a MIRV RV "manoeuvres", without a terminal guidance package I can't see how it can hit its aimpoint , the targeting for RV's is refined before they leave their Bus.
    1
  46. The Moscow ABM system was a token force really. No way could that have stopped more than 1 or 2 incoming RV's. Moscow admitted this in the 1990's , great against slower MRBM'a like Pershing II that had to a "slow" 30 mile terminal glide in order to use its target matching radar, but against ICBM's with complex decoy payloads with 23 Mach RV's? Not a chance .
    1
  47. Playah please piss off, people like you are a dime a dozen on YT. The same tired old tropes.
    1
  48. For what in particular.
    1
  49. Rex stop believing in Russian fantasies , none of what you believe is real. If the Syrians shot down all of those missiles how did those targets end up smoking holes?
    1
  50. Dimitriy, most of those TLAM were probably targeted in a different way than most people realise. Ie, not many of them were detonated on the ground but at elevated positions , therefore, we were never going tto see a cratered field. The primary objective was to incinerate any possible airborne contaminants. For me, the satellite imagery of the Barzeh target is exactly as I would expect after dozens of cruise missile hits. Weapon / target matching is an age old art.
    1