Invader ZIM

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Raytheon_delivers_first_Standard_Missile_6_from_new_Alabama_missile_integration_facility_999.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18630622 Yea, it's sort of up there with Cobra Commander's Weather control machine from G.I. Joe, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction lol.

LOL, these are hilarious Sierra.

I saw it too, thanks for posting it.

Hi Rubin, At the end of the document there's a list of references where they got their information from, it's in the Endnotes section. I don't think anyone, not just us reading this really knows how many forces there were, that's why in the document it's basically a guess as to the amount of personell involved on both sides, so even the professionals may only have educated estimates to go by. But I agree that this document is just one version of the information about the war that's out there, and that no one can guess what tomorrow might bring. I don't mean to laugh at what you had said above, but it translated into English that is well said, and true. People have to eat and have a job to do, but "Media adds the pepper", I like that. :thumbup: The document does mention the 2 billion dollars in aid to Georgia, and it appears that the document is criticizing the U.S. because it did not adequately train for such an event, which basically falls into your idea that you can't predict the future. Thanks for taking the time to read over the document guys, Rubin, I appreciate you taking the time to translate and read through it, and providing your thoughts on it as well. So far the only other document about this war from a more Russian perspective seems to be from a book entitled "The Tanks of August" Which I haven't gotten to yet, but sounds like it's the Russian version of this document based on the following: "The Tanks of August" / M.S. Barabanov, A.V. Lavrov, V.A. Tseluiko; Edited by R.N. Pukhov. Moscow, Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, 2010 - 144 pages.

maturin does have a point, and I also can see how the wording is strong in some areas right at the beginning of the document, but looking at the authors themselves of this document helps one to get a perspective on that.

Well said Maior, but the document in the opening pages actually mentions it's meant to generate discussion positive or negative on the topic, even the author gives his contact info and is interested in discussing the issue, so even though =KAG=RubiN feels the document is too political in nature doesn't mean his assessment is wrong or right, it's just his opinion based on how he's seeing it and he has a right to that opinion. But Rubin, can you tell me more about why you think the document is too slanted in one direction over another? If it's more convenient you can answer in Cyrillic, I use google translate as I know it's probably inconvenient to translate all the time. To me I feel it's balanced and it enticed me to look deeper into some of the details mentioned to confirm some of the material for it's plausibility. That doesn't mean my opinion is right or wrong either.

Never knew about the European GPS based on Quasar's, thanks for that, something to look into now lol. Don't worry about reputation, you might give me some but someone else will simply disagree and it'll be taken away lol. I don't put much stock in it, and don't judge others based on their ratings, but thanks for the thought. :D

Yea, agreed on both counts, couple the advancements of the latest generation SAM units and IADS networks and throw in good doctrine and it can be a very scary situation for the opposing force. :) Been there and done that lol, you don't know how many times that happens, everywhere!!

I know what you mean about the education system setup for military hardware, lol that illustration of the Portugese engineers and their Radar system is pretty good, but not the only example I've seen lol. My Associates in Electrical Engineering only partially messed me up in the head in that regard :thumbup: My specialty is in Electro-Optical systems, image intensified and thermal specifically. We got systems back from the field that had a very easy fix, that could have been done in the field but in order for the field units to take advantage of the warranty it had to be crated up and shipped back to us. There were other times we came across emergency field repairs and sort of were gobsmacked at what was done just to keep the system viable in the field until it could be shipped back to us. Can't give more details other than it was a gun based anti-aircraft and anti-ordinance system. Also in the article above: Most people get the idea that you can just set up and turn on a SAM system and leave it on all the time, a sort of easy button for finding an aircraft, but the illustration above sort of highlights that not only can such systems not be turned on indefinately in a ready state, there's the real threat of Anti-radiation missiles homing on said systems set up like that. And the larger the system, say like an S-300 or S-400 battery, the less mobile they tend to be, requiring all sorts of extra defensive efforts to protect them from attack, as well as running into an enemy that may not give them the ability to scan the skies for very long without fear of attack.

I know it's fun to speculate on how these aircraft are going to dogfight against an adversary with extremely advanced technology, but in my opinion the F-35 is going to be avoiding any sort of fight unless it's coming in knowing it has the upper hand, since it's a strike aircraft first. And when your talking about a U.S. Air Force F-35, because of the network it's going to be plugged into, your going to get a different type of fighter than say another allied countries F-35 that may not be plugged into a network as wide scale as the U.S. military. In short, depending on the customer and their backup warfightning networks that will integrate with the F-35, your mileage may vary. Because when you look at the extensive space network the U.S. has, I can see where the individual F-35's as part of the network may be more effective than F-35's outside of such a network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacrosse_(satellite) http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=progress%20in%20space%20acquisition&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.au.af.mil%2Fau%2Fawc%2Fawcgate%2Faf%2Faf_hdbk_cong%2Fspace.pdf&ei=EgUxUYjlItGL0QGVhYDIBw&usg=AFQjCNGlBYmZ1gT0uimmBCZQB8t-JMoeaw&bvm=bv.43148975,d.dmQ CCS space jamming system and locator: For CCS Satellite system, used for space based jamming and location of enemy jamming attempts: DSCS III Milstar: Space Radar: Now what I'm implying is what's to stop the F-35 from having the benefit of a space radar datalink that's going to show formations where enemy aircraft are and their heading? If such is the case, I can either avoid them using the data, or set up for an ambush, without even having to turn on my radar. Having the high ground of space integrated with a system like the F-35 is a game changer, regardless of it's close in maneuvrability and dogfightings skills.

I know it's fun to speculate on how these aircraft are going to dogfight against an adversary with extremely advanced technology, but in my opinion the F-35 is going to be avoiding any sort of fight unless it's coming in knowing it has the upper hand, since it's a strike aircraft first. And when your talking about a U.S. Air Force F-35, because of the network it's going to be plugged into, your going to get a different type of fighter than say another allied countries F-35 that may not be plugged into a network as wide scale as the U.S. military. In short, depending on the customer and their backup warfightning networks that will integrate with the F-35, your mileage may vary. Because when you look at the extensive space network the U.S. has, I can see where the individual F-35's as part of the network may be more effective than F-35's outside of such a network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacrosse_(satellite) http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=progress%20in%20space%20acquisition&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.au.af.mil%2Fau%2Fawc%2Fawcgate%2Faf%2Faf_hdbk_cong%2Fspace.pdf&ei=EgUxUYjlItGL0QGVhYDIBw&usg=AFQjCNGlBYmZ1gT0uimmBCZQB8t-JMoeaw&bvm=bv.43148975,d.dmQ CCS space jamming system and locator: For CCS Satellite system, used for space based jamming and location of enemy jamming attempts: Milstar: Space Radar: Now what I'm implying is what's to stop the F-35 from having the benefit of a space radar datalink that's going to show formations where enemy aircraft are and their heading? Or jamming sources and their location? If such is the case, I can either avoid them using the data, or set up for an ambush, without even having to turn on my radar. Having the high ground of space integrated with a system like the F-35 is a game changer, regardless of it's close in maneuvrability and dogfighting skills, but if the allied country has no acces to such systems, I still think the F-35 adds a lot of capability to that airforce, it's just not as big of a bargain that the U.S. is getting because of the available network the U.S. will be using the F-35 in.

Lol, I agree, thanks for the clarification on the respective countries doctrine.

Thanks for that video link Maior, Kosovo is another major area of study that makes interesting reading, but it's sometimes hard to pick through and find the nuggets of info to help form a complete picture of the battlefields depending on what materials you read. I like this U.S. Army report for a few reasons: 1. It's not afraid to mention where it's facts come from in the footnotes and not afraid to comment on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of either sides tactics and equipent, allowing the reader to better form his or her own opinion of what happened on both sides. 2. It's cold hard details and also self criticism of how the U.S. and NATO made errors during this timeframe. 3. Writing from a U.S. Military point of view that is both professional and shows respect to both sides militaries and outlines lessons to be learned for U.S. strategy studies. We sometimes all get hot headed in these forums when national pride comes into play, but it's interesting that on a professional level when documents like this are available you can see the respect given to a potential adversary.

I was surprised that the Iraqi and Iranian systems were optimized for engagement of aircraft at 5,000 feet minimum, and higher. I don't know all the upgrades and detailes of the SAM network that might have led up to the 1991 war, as well as the combined stealth F-117, low altitude Apache's and God knows what else pummeling of the IADS network and the severely detrimental effect that they had on the Iraqi coordination of the systems. It certainly is a different world regarding their network vs. other countries at the time, and an interesting read for sure.

Hi =KAG=RubiN I came across the article and found the U.S. Army war college information interesting regarding how the battlefield systems were used on both sides in an actual military operation. There weren't too many threads I could find addressing the specific issue so I figured others interested in such matters would find the reading material interesting. I have no intentions on discussing politics, as I'm only interested in battlefield systems in operation. But the other guys here in this discussion have touched on some of the very points discussed in the article, indicating that some of it's points may be rather valid. I simply posted this up for information and simple discussion. If anyone has any other reading that they could recommend on the war I'd like to read it, especially if there's a comparative document from the Russian side or Georgian side. From the document:

Exactly right Maior, and although the snippets I used may seem dismissive of the Russian Command, in other parts later in the article it explains that the Russian command had a handle on how to conduct an operation, but were hampered by problems with communications systems, among other problems. It mentions that the tactics of the armored spearhead are effective. I know it's a long read, but I found it thought provoking and interesting. Thanks for that link EvilBivol-1 pretty neat to see the system displayed like that. Back in 2008 during the war though, according to Wikipedia (Ugh, sorry) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS there were only: And in order to get consistent coverage: So this would indicate problems with coverage back in 2008 if 18 satellites were needed for the region.

Thanks for the link and the interesting read, I found the info about the SAM networks of both countries an interesting read particularly. The technology and strategies and capabilities are such a far cry even from what some of us were used to in the 1991 war when a superpower was involved.

This got me thinking more about the GLONASS and I found a Russian Times Dec. 22nd 2012 article that seems to imply the GLONASS system isn't very reliable even almost 5 years after the war. So it's possible that during the war the system was even less reliable for guiding PGM's. http://rt.com/news/russia-glonass-corruption-failure-543/

An interesting question Riptide, I also knew the GLONASS system was started long before this war, but because it wasn't completed perhaps there were holes in coverage that wouldn't allow Russian forces to use it in the area of operations in this instance. It also seems the U.S. was denying GPS service to the region, and there was a critical lack of guided munitions used by Russian forces. This report does give credit to each side if you read it. But also explains the advantages of the tactics used by both sides. It's a U.S. military paper that is for critical analysis of advantages and shortcomings of military forces, including the U.S. which is for learning how to address shortfalls in ones own force structure. You probably won't find this at your local bookstore lol.

Hey guys, I came across this document in my studies of military equipment and tactics and thought some would find it an interesting read. This document goes into detail how the battles were fought, what equipment was used and how effective or ineffective both sides were with differing tactics and equipment. It's a free document, you can get it here: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=1069 Just click on which format you want to download it in beside the photo of the blue covered book on that page. Some interesting material posted below from the document, even more inside the book. It's a cold analyses of what was used in the war, how effective it was, deficiencies of both sides, and advantages of both sides. Critial thoughts on US activities and self assessment of the US's role in the conflict. I found it pretty interesting to help one understand how these two countries conducted operations only a few short years ago. Grab a cup of coffee and sit back and enjoy. for the Russian effort when the command group of the 58th Army, including the commander, General Anatoly Khruliev, was almost completely destroyed by Georgian forces. Of the 30 vehicles in the command group, 25 were destroyed, killing a significant number of officers and soldiers, and wounding

My most favorite Russian made aircraft!! Go!! Go!!! Go!!! Thanks for the effort :thumbup:

As Maior says, but look at the recent aviation news thread where the U.S. is putting different decoy and jammer systems on the cheap drones, so now you have drones jamming enemy communications and radar for instance, and stealthy aircraft like the F-22 and JSF that can come in through the confusion to add to the pain. Like I said, it's just too attractive an option to let go, I think marcos posted about the new U.S. bomber and one of the reqirements was optional piloted or unmanned operation.

True, from a ethical standpoint as well.

We're definately heading for fighter drone aircraft X-45 and X-47 programs seem to have been revived again and work is continuing in that area, it's a idea that's too attractive to die off.

Seems more like we're reaching the limits of human physiology, aside from designing a new encapsulated breathable air cockpit like a space capable plane might have, there is a reason the air mixture is what it is for the F-22.