It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"The American ‘stealth' planes are a publicity stunt" - Russian General

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   
lol, yeah it's not a cloaking device...lmao




posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Zaphod58




There's no way to make it truly invisible,


Yet .

YES. Convince them what exists DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST [its impossible]; this argument is happening before my eyes with intelligent people debating a given fact. Change the profile, kill the specie; its all the same and human ingenuity can accomplish this.


Speaking from a strictly science point of view we have the ability to do a lot with 'EM radiation. In fact we can make things invisible at night by preventing scattering. We can make things that can't be seen by specific apectrums. And moving forward with carbon nanotubes we may be able to make a truly invisible plane. The technology is here now it's a matter of inplimenting it. To do this on something that can fly requires comprimises. But I see not to far in the future this won't be the case.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Well as said the Russian General is going to say that

What it boils down to is America has the aircraft and Russia has the missiles and radar

There is only one way to find out who's bluffing who and the outcome of that could be deadly

What would Russia do if these stealth craft evaded all their counter measures and destroyed every target they had?

What would America do if their aircraft dropped out the skies like flies and their aircraft carriers sank to the bottom on the ocean?

Dangerous games



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Whereismypassword

What would Russia do if these stealth craft evaded all their counter measures and destroyed every target they had?
Launch Bulavas?


What would America do if their aircraft dropped out the skies like flies and their aircraft carriers sank to the bottom on the ocean?
Launch tridents?



Dangerous games
Indeed. Why would the US attack targets in Russia? Why would Russia start shooting down aircraft?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Why would America attack targets in Russia?

Obviously if the two countries were at war,that's the only reason and I never said they were but highlighted that's the only way to see the full hand at disposal between the west and Russia

We have one side banking on offensive aircraft and another counter measures

Who's bluffing?

Is it the Russians with their radar and missiles or the Americans with stealth

I do know stealth isn't the only option for America as missile and radar isn't the only one for Russia

These two are the main devices the media focuses on and if one sides gets totally humiliated will they do the unthinkable and launch nukes?

I'm guessing the west and Russia won't go to war for MAD reasons



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Whereismypassword

We have one side banking on offensive aircraft and another counter measures
A war between Russia and NATO would not be fought with only aircraft.

Some Russian targets would be successfully attacked and some NATO aircraft would be shot down. Not all, of either. Your scenario is not valid.

edit on 7/9/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Russians do what Russians do best, let the USA spend billions developing some thing then they see how the technology can be over come. For example the F-117 that was shot down was done so by using it stealth against it. They looked for what was not on the radar that should of been there, yes they could not lock on to it but the could "see" where it was by the fact there was stuff missing on the radar screen . By firing sams they were able to guide the F-117 into a killing zone. The F-117 got shot down because the pilot believed that he was invisible to the "primitive " Russian tec. The biggest mistake any country can make is thinking every thing they have is better that what every thing everyone else has.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: imod02

That's not how it happened at all. The F-117 flew the same route at the same time three nights in a row. The Serbian missile Commander moved his battery on foot, and used the radar sparingly so NATO wouldn't know he moved it. He attacked when the F-117 was least stealthy, while the bomb bay doors were open, and used the optical tracking ability to launch so the pilot didn't realize he had launched until too late.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

They've lost five aircraft in the last month to crashes.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: imod02
Russians do what Russians do best, let the USA spend billions developing some thing then they see how the technology can be over come. For example the F-117 that was shot down was done so by using it stealth against it. They looked for what was not on the radar that should of been there, yes they could not lock on to it but the could "see" where it was by the fact there was stuff missing on the radar screen . By firing sams they were able to guide the F-117 into a killing zone. The F-117 got shot down because the pilot believed that he was invisible to the "primitive " Russian tec. The biggest mistake any country can make is thinking every thing they have is better that what every thing everyone else has.


That's the stupidiest thing I've ever heard they looked for what wasn't there. The f 117 was shot down because they knew its orders so had the strike point. And then they knew the radar would pick it up when bomber doors were opened.Serbs monitored U.S. and allied radio comms on UHF and VHF frequencies which were mostly in the clear. Which means they had access to air tasking orders. From there simply a waiting game for the bomber to come over target. If you position radar at any bomb site it will always pick up any stealth aircraft.

The reason for this is something called signal to noise ratio. If the signal is strong enough you will always get a detection. And the closet you get to the source the stronger the signal. This is why say f35s will put up detection grids for the pilot to fly around. If he goes into these grids he knows he will be spotted. The trick of stealth is to get you close enough to fire without detection or in the case of a bomber limit the time you can be detected.
edit on 7/9/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Your don't know the outcome of a war between Russian and America so your above scenario is equally not valid

We both don't know the outcome but surely having air superiority would be a winning factor



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
a reply to: Phage

Your don't know the outcome of a war between Russian and America so your above scenario is equally not valid

We both don't know the outcome but surely having air superiority would be a winning factor



This is a no win situation this is very scary lately. We even have terms coming out of Russia of limited nuclear strike there is no such thing. Did you notice Russia changed the policy on when they would use nukes? New policy simple whenever they are threatened. And what do they keep saying they feel threatened so doesn't take a lot to figure the outcome does it.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I apologize I forgot i was writing in ATS where there are supper intelligent people also sadly people with the IQ of petrol pumps.I really dont have the time to explane the science of seeing what is not there, compared to the science of seeing what is there. People are trained and condition to see what is there, so it makes them easy to fool and control by using the science of seeing what is not there. So having said that i bow to your more advanced knowledge . ( a little helper the science of seeing what is not there is not about seeing what is invisible, its about seeing what is not seen)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: imod02

Go read the interviews with the Serbian missile battery Commander. It had nothing to do with "seeing what wasn't there". It had everything to do with taking advantage of mistakes, and playing to strengths.
edit on 7/9/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Aren't Russians still pretty afraid of the 117? I was talking to an airforce buddy and he said that Russia has asked the U.S. not to use 117's during drills near the border.

He could be blowing hot air, of course. Just curious.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: imod02

Go read the interviews with the Serbian missile battery Commander. It had nothing to do with "seeing what wasn't there". It had everything to do with taking advantage of mistakes, and playing to strengths.

I suppose you even believed Richard Nixon, anyway you seem to need to be seen as the all knowing aeroscience wizard, and in ATS you probability are. Thank you for your information.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: imod02

What is to be more believed, the Serbian missile commander who straight up told us how he did it, or your rambling suppositions about "The science of seeing what isn't there"?

It came straight from the horse's mouth. The missile commander said how he did it. What reason would he have to lie?

So, how is your version of events more valid than what the missile commander said? Were you there when it happened?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: imod02

So the guy that shot it down is lying now? Wow, that's a hell of a claim to make. He's been lying for 16 years about how he did it huh. And I'm supposed to take your word over his? Yeah, I don't think so. If you're going to claim he's lying, then prove it.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I just took you for a walk using the science of seeing what others dont see



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: imod02
a reply to: Zaphod58

I just took you for a walk using the science of seeing what others dont see
What does that even mean?

Is that a fancy way of saying "LOL I TROLED U."?




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join