S-300s for Venezuela

[seahawk]

Sure. You can expect fiery words, demonstration of strength and colorful rhetoric towards some external enemy... but shooting aircraft deep into enemy territory for no obvious reason... nah..

Not shooting down, just painting the planes will make them feel very uneasy.

[Rodolfo]

Not shooting down, just painting the planes will make them feel very uneasy.

Well that’s my idea too. Mr. Hugo may want to illuminate American Electronic surveillance assets based in Colombia and sneaking around. He is very vocal and noisy on the subject but Lula, although more moderate, seems also to be upset on the issue.

[ante_climax]

Well that’s my idea too. Mr. Hugo may want to illuminate American Electronic surveillance assets based in Colombia and sneaking around. He is very vocal and noisy on the subject but Lula, although more moderate, seems also to be upset on the issue.

Can the Americans not use an Anti Radiation missile against the S 300 radar that is painting them.

And what about the use of dedicated EW aircraft to JAM the massive radar of the S 300 :diablo:

[Rodolfo]

And what about the use of dedicated EW aircraft to JAM the massive radar of the S 300

Well that will be the wonderjamer.

Can the Americans not use an Anti Radiation missile against the S 300 radar that is painting them.

More arguments for Mr. Hugo and his shows.

[ante_climax]

Well that will be the wonderjamer.

Can the Growler not do it ?

More arguments for Mr. Hugo and his shows.

The Chavez gang will probably only have a limited number of S-300 batteries against a superior number of U.S fighters. So if they get painted send a couple of Anti radiation missiles the other way. Even if they get shot down it would be in friendly territory

[Rodolfo]

Can the Growler not do it ?

I have my doubts it can. Ask SOC.

[Rodolfo]

The Chavez gang will probably only have a limited number of S-300 batteries against a superior number of U.S fighters. So if they get painted send a couple of Anti radiation missiles the other way. Even of they get shot down it would be in friendly territory

You are talking about igniting a war in South America. Get serious.

[ante_climax]

There was also talk about a B-52 based standoff jammer. The article is 2 years old however, does anyone know what came of it.

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1536/...k-out-the-jams

You are talking about igniting a war in South America. Get serious.

May be folks here should get serious about painting American planes inside Colombian territory. I for one think they will react.

[flex297]

The Chavez gang will probably only have a limited number of S-300 batteries against a superior number of U.S fighters. So if they get painted send a couple of Anti radiation missiles the other way. Even if they get shot down it would be in friendly territory

I suggest you stay behind your computer, that is where your genial ideas will do least damage..

[ante_climax]

I suggest you stay behind your computer, that is where your genial ideas will do least damage..

The stupid idea is the one that the American fighters won't react positively to the S 300 painting them inside friendly territory.

[flex297]

The stupid idea is the one that the American fighters won't react positively to the S 300 painting them inside friendly territory.

If I were in charge and some cowboy would go beserk and fire a weapon deep into Venezuelan territory just because the system has pinged him with the radar, I would personally hang him by his balls. Fortunately, most of the guys at the controls are cold blooded professionals who know to keep their d..ks in their pants and leave blatant mistakes to wannabe screen warriors like yourself. Thank goodness...

[ante_climax]

If I were in charge and some cowboy would go beserk and fire a weapon deep into Venezuelan territory just because the system has pinged him with the radar, I would personally hang him at his balls. Fortunately most of the guys at the controls are cold blooded professionals and leave blatant mistakes to wannabe screen warriors like yourself.

You see when you are painted you are at risk, I do not think one would wait for the SAM to be fired before he does something about it. And no one can hang anyone by the balls for doing things in self defense.

[swerve]

You see when you are painted you are at risk, I do not think one would wait for the SAM to be fired before he does something about it. And no one can hang anyone by the balls for doing things in self defense.

If your country is not at war, & you are painted by a radar in another country, you do not start a war on your own initiative. If necessary, you die while waiting for an answer to the question you send up the chain of command, asking what to do. Painting you with a radar is not an attack. It is akin to that bloke on the other side of the border pointing his gun at you. You do not shoot him, because that could start a war. You take cover, & report.

Yes, you can be hung by the balls for starting a war by opening fire without orders. Pleading "self-defence" only works once the other side has actually opened fire. Up to that point, your duty is to report, & await orders. You, a pilot or soldier, are not authorised to take your country to war on your own say-so. Doing so is a crime against your country.

[ante_climax]

If your country is not at war, & you are painted by a radar in another country, you do not start a war on your own initiative. If necessary, you die while waiting for an answer to the question you send up the chain of command, asking what to do. Painting you with a radar is not an attack. It is akin to that bloke on the other side of the border pointing his gun at you. You do not shoot him, because that could start a war. You take cover, & report.

Yes, you can be hung by the balls for starting a war by opening fire without orders. Pleading "self-defence" only works once the other side has actually opened fire. Up to that point, your duty is to report, & await orders. You, a pilot or soldier, are not authorised to take your country to war on your own say-so. Doing so is a crime against your country.

There is a good chance of him getting authorization to shoot.

The Iran-Air incident is an example for this I believe.

There is also the two Libyan Mig 23s being shot down, because they got authorization.

Yes I remember its not inside the border or anyting, then again a missile strike or firing across the border do not start a war in most cases, India and Pakistan have been firing shells for ages. Killing soldiers on each side now and then.

[swerve]

There is a good chance of him getting authorization to shoot.

But that is not what you said. A pilot firing a missile with authorisation is very different from a pilot deciding to fire a missile when illuminated by a radar, which is what you suggested he should do.

None of your examples are relevant. Venezuelas borders with its neighbours are open, not fortified. Millions of people cross them every year. There are several hundred thousand (some estimate more) Colombians living in Venezuela, & billions of dollars in bilateral trade, & similar levels of trade with Brazil. This is not like the Indo-Pakistani border, or US relations with Iran or Libya in the 1980s. What you said a pilot should do would be totally out of place.

I fear you have inappropriately transposed the India-Pakistan conflict to S. America, misinterpreting Colombian-Venezuelan relations in light of your own situation. Yes, Chavez is potentially dangerous, but it is not yet at anything like the level of tension or danger hinted at by what you suggest.

[flex297]

You see when you are painted you are at risk, I do not think one would wait for the SAM to be fired before he does something about it. And no one can hang anyone by the balls for doing things in self defense.

You can bet one hundred % one would wait for the SAM to be fired first. Even if a missile actually was fired, a sensible officer in charge would think twice in effort to rule out accidental shot before issuing authorization for retaliatory attack.

Your responses let me see and understand why the Indo-Pakistani relations are what they are. If you got people with your 'first-fire-then-ask' thinking out there on command, then God help us. Just please, upon being painted with radar, at least don't strike back with nukes..

[Farooq]

I think this scenario of being painted by radar and the counter response from the aircraft won't play out impromptu. As soon as the capability is acquired by the adversary it will become part of the equation and there will be specific and very clear ROE around such scenario. This type of scenarios play out all the time on borders where there is potential for conflict and generally both sides know the red lines. Indo/Pak, China/Taiwan, Turkish/Greek etc etc.

I would also think that whatever is considered a red line for one side would be communicated to the other side and consequences made clear. At best i can only see the aircraft employing defensive maneuvers to break the lock(like in an incident reported involving Chinese double digit SAM and Taiwanese M2Ks) or maybe doing some ECM jamming. I wouldn't think anyone would like to start a shooting war based on a lock on.

[slipperysam]

You see when you are painted you are at risk, I do not think one would wait for the SAM to be fired before he does something about it. And no one can hang anyone by the balls for doing things in self defense.

So let me get this right.... your flying over the ocean.... and a CAG is nearby and it paints you with its radar, by your insanely idiotic and teenager logic I can let loose with weapons....??

How dare they throw radar waves at me!!!!

Do you honeatly think during the "cold war" that neither side ever locked on their radars on the "other side" ???
Again using your logic we would all be dead because 40yrs ago the whole world erupted in WW3 because someone decided to turn their radar on?

Locking a radar onto a target in NOT a hostile act..... release of weapons is!

[Pioneer]

Hello gents

Interesting this whole S-300 batteries and Su-30 issue!

Can I ask if this arms deal includes Russian ........what did the Soviets use to term it......'technical advisors'? so as to both maintain and operate these very advance and technical bits of weaponry?




Regards
Pioneer

[Lonevolk]

WOW

Did you come up with all this by yourself or did someone write it for you

[ante_climax]

So let me get this right.... your flying over the ocean.... and a CAG is nearby and it paints you with its radar, by your insanely idiotic and teenager logic I can let loose with weapons....??

How dare they throw radar waves at me!!!!

Do you honeatly think during the "cold war" that neither side ever locked on their radars on the "other side" ???
Again using your logic we would all be dead because 40yrs ago the whole world erupted in WW3 because someone decided to turn their radar on?

Locking a radar onto a target in NOT a hostile act..... release of weapons is!

This is true when the adversaries are evenly matched. But may not be true when you hold clear superiority over your adversary. For example in the case of cold war like you said, sides were evenly matched. But if it was an Iran or Libya or Iraq the situation would be different you see.

[swerve]

This is true when the adversaries are evenly matched. But may not be true when you hold clear superiority over your adversary. For example in the case of cold war like you said, sides were evenly matched. But if it was an Iran or Libya or Iraq the situation would be different you see.

But this is not an Iran or Libya. And even in those cases, US pilots did not attack radars which locked on to them.

[flex297]

Hello gents

Interesting this whole S-300 batteries and Su-30 issue!

Can I ask if this arms deal includes Russian ........what did the Soviets use to term it......'technical advisors'? so as to both maintain and operate these very advance and technical bits of weaponry?

What extent the Russian's will go too continue to think of itself as a world power - buying its allies now?
The Cold War is over - you just didn't lose it, but you crippled your country and people fighting it.......

/.../

Regards
Pioneer

Errrr. One question. Who is you?

[ante_climax]

But this is not an Iran or Libya. And even in those cases, US pilots did not attack radars which locked on to them.

If things go the way they are we probably will have such instances in near future. Then we will see who is right.

[flex297]

If things go the way they are we probably will have such instances in near future. Then we will see who is right.

But you don't have to wait that long because I already know you are as wrong as it gets.

[UAZ]

Hello gents

Blablablablabla...

Regards
Pioneer

This is an aviation forum.
Find yourself a political discussions forum and spill your venom there.

[wrightwing]

You are talking about igniting a war in South America. Get serious.

Painting an aircraft in with a SAM radar, when it's flying in friendly airspace is a hostile act. It'd depend on what the ROE are, to what the proper response would be.

[Rodolfo]

Painting an aircraft in with a SAM radar, when it's flying in friendly airspace is a hostile act. It'd depend on what the ROE are, to what the proper response would be.

AFAIK NATO radars frequently illuminate Tu-95 and Tu-160 over International Waters. Is this labeled as a “hostile act” or just “surveillance” as usually is claimed?

[pigeonracer]

This is an aviation forum.
Find yourself a political discussions forum and spill your venom there.

What's interesting is that your own posts are normaally full of nationalistic screed, and in this case it seems like you are being really rather hypocritical because you don't like what he wrote.

[Trident]

Painting an aircraft in with a SAM radar, when it's flying in friendly airspace is a hostile act. It'd depend on what the ROE are, to what the proper response would be.

And spying on military installations from international airspace is not? Either both are, or neither. Can't have it both ways.

(For the record, I think neither constitutes an act of war)