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 west cannot be superior in everything

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Because thats just how many were shot down. www.rjlee.org...

[edit on 7-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]




posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Well, since your either searching for the answer or just not wanting to reply, maybe it was because most of Iraq's aircraft were obliterated (destroyed) on the ground (in hangers, bunkers, and on airfields) or they were happily flown to Iran to escape destruction. How wonderful.

Sad part is that after the war, Saddam asked Iran for those aircraft and pilots back, and guess what? Iran told him to take a flying leap....






seekerof



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I posted the wrong site this is the correct one www.fjlee.org...



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Sorry that was the wrong site again here is THE REAL COREECT ONE if this doesn't work then I'm just going to paste the whole page www.rjlee.org... now just go to were it says "ait to air victories"

[edit on 7-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 7-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I think my previous post shuts down your so called argument.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Yes....of course it does......not.





seekerof



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Hardly...the site seems to be created and maintained by one person, who relies on submissions and other sites for information. Do you have a link by any respected news or military statistics organization supporting that only 4 Migs were shot down? I doubt it...


Oh Wait...did you mean only Mig 29's? That was 4...otherwise it was twenty something...compared to the one F18 they shot down air to air (as stated on that site)...my, impressive...


[edit on 7-2-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   
There's the U.S. Figures of how many MiG 29's were destroyed.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Here is the figures of Rus's nukes Statistics:
Total number: ~188


Type: Inter-continental-range, silo-based, liquid-propellant, Multiple Independently targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV)-capable ballistic missile
Launch weight, kg 217,000
Length of the missile in
the launching container, m 34.3
Launching container
diameter, m 3
Warhead 8 MIRV x 20 MT/10 MIRV x 500 KT
Range, km: 16000/11,000
Info by CDI:
Year Deployed: ~1975
Dimensions: 36.5 meters length, 3.0 meters diameter
Weight: 211,100 kilograms
Propulsion: Two stage liquid fuel plus PBV, cold launch
Throw-weight: 8,800 kilograms
Range: Mod 4 - 11,000 kilometers, Mod 5 - unknown, Mod 6 - unknown
Guidance: Computer-controlled inertial for booster and PBV
Circular Error Probable: 250 meters
Warhead: Mod 4 with 10 warheads, Mod 5 with 10 warheads, or Mod 6 with one warhead
Yield: Mod 4 - 500 kilotons each, Mod 5 - 750 kilotons each, Mod 6 - 20 megatons
Locations: Uzhur - 52, Aleysk - 30, Kartaly - 46, Dombaroskiy - 52
Number Deployed: 168 missiles
Primary Contractor: Yangel Design Bureau



This missile is intended for use against strategic targets of all types at intercontinental ranges.

The SS-18 was an evolutionary follow-on to the SS-9. The SS-18, along with the SS-17 and SS-19, deployed in the 1970s, represent the fourth generation of Soviet ICBMs. Like the other fourth generation missiles, the SS-18 is transported and stored in a sealed capsule. SS-18s were designated "heavy" missiles under SALT II, and a limit of 308 such heavy ICBMs was established, with Russia soon deploying to that limit. Though limited by treaty to 10 warheads each, the SS-18 is allegedly able to carry more -- its massive throw-weight certainly suggests such.

During the Cold War the SS-18 was perhaps the most feared of Russian strategic systems (hence its demonic NATO designation) because of the supposed threat it posed to U.S. ICBM silos. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Committee on the Present Danger (among others) touted the "window of vulnerability" -- the threat the large, accurate SS-18 posed to U.S. ICBMs. This fear of ICBM vulnerability (which didn't take into account the invulnerability of the sea leg, and the alert posture of the air leg) was a significant impetus for the nuclear buildup of the 1980s iniated by U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

The Reagan administration and the first Bush administration made this missile the focus of their arms control efforts because of its destabilizing capability. With the SS-18 in mind, the START II treaty banned land-based MIRV systems for ICBMs. In recent years, through the Nunn-Lugar program, the United States has sponsored the dismantlement of many of these missiles.


The RS-20B represents a further development of the RS-20A missile, the principle difference being a new combat stage.

The new version also boasts improved accuracy, greater nuclear warhead yield and a wider RV dispensing area.

No attempt was made to redesign the first and second stages. The functional diagram of the missile systems and the transport launch canister remained the same. The bus motor propellant is identical to that of the sustainers: asymmetrical dimethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide.

The modernized guidance/control system ensures reduced instrumental and methodical errors due to improvements in control units and onboard computer software. The SS-18 has the Russian designation RS-20 and it is believed to have identification numbers 15A14 (RS- 20A) for the Mod 1 and Mod 2 versions, 15A18 (RS-20B) for the Mod 3, and 15A18M (RS-20V) for the Mod 4 version. The SS-18 was also given the Russian designator R-36M to indicate that it was derived from the earlier R-36 (SS-9 `Scarp') ballistic missile. As with the smaller SS-17 and SS-19, the SS-18 was an evolutionary development of an existing missile, the SS-9; this latter missile being used as the development vehicle for the MIRV technology to be incorporated on the SS-18. Development of the SS-18 began in 1964 with the first, single Re-entry Vehicle (RV), version being deployed in 1975. A modification 2 version, with eight RVs in MIRV configuration, was deployed a year later in 1976. A third version, Mod 3, with a single warhead and a greater range was introduced in 1980.

Under the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) terms, the SS-18, was classed as `heavy', as was the US Titan missile. The terms of the SALT 2 Treaty allowed modernisation of missiles in this `heavy' category, but new missiles were not permitted, and SALT 2 allowed a maximum of 820 land-based Inter-Continental-range Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), of which no more than 308 may be of the `heavy' SS-18 category. Early flight tests of a modification 4 (10 RV) version SS-18 missile did not prove successful. The first launch, in April 1986, exploded soon after clearing the silo and another launch in September 1986 ended when an explosion occurred during the separation of the first and second stages. The Mod 4 version entered service in 1988.

Tests in the later 1980s were made using a single RV, and this version was believed to be Mod 5, although it could have been a Mod 3 version, from which it is deduced that the Russians may have had a continuing interest in a missile with one, very powerful warhead. These single warhead tests may have been part of a comparative test programme designed to establish the best way of countering the improved hardness of modern silos, given that single warhead missiles have a greater accuracy and hard target capability than MIRV systems. Description The SS-18 is the largest of the `fourth-generation' Russian inter-continental ballistic missiles and the only `heavy' missile permitted under the SALT 2 Treaty. It is a two-stage, liquid-propelled missile. SS-18 Mods 1 and 2 are 33.6 m long and 3 m in diameter. It is believed that the first stage uses the four-motor RD-251 propulsion system producing 460 tonne thrust, and the second stage uses the single motor RD-0229/0230 system producing 77 tonne thrust. The first stage is controlled by deflecting the motor nozzles, and the second stage by four vernier motors. Both first and second stages use Unsymmetrical Dimethyl Hydrazine (UDMH) and N204 liquid propellants. The bus motor is a solid-propellant motor. Launch weight is 215,000 kg and the throw weight (payload) is 7,200 kg. These missiles have inertial navigation with digital computer guidance and control. The Mod 1 missile had a single 24 MT nuclear warhead, a range of 10,500 km and an accuracy of 430 m CEP. The Mod 2 version had eight MIRVs, each with a 900 kT nuclear warhead and a range of 9,250 km.

The Mod 3 and 4 versions are 34.3 m long and have an increased launch weight of 217,000 kg. Improvements were made to the accuracy for these versions of SS-18, with increased warhead yields and a wider MIRV dispersed area. The second stage has been modified and the engines are single motor RD-0256/0257. The bus motors are liquid propellant using the same propellants as the first two stages. The Mod 3 has a single 20 MT nuclear warhead and a range of 16,000 km. The Mod 4 version has 10 MIRVs, each with a 500 kT nuclear warhead, and a range of 11,000 km. The Mod 4 version also has improved protection against nuclear bursts, improved accuracy and better reliability. The Russians declared both one and 10 RV versions for the STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) data exchange in 1991, believed to be Mod 3 and 4 versions, together with a throw weight of 8,800 kg for the SS-18. Subsequent data indicates that the payload bay is 8.0 m long.

Like other fourth generation ICBMs, the SS-18 is deployed in a launch canister within the silo to provide environmental protection to the missile during transportation and silo loading. The missiles can remain fuelled and on alert for several years. The missile has a life of 22 years, but in 1999 it was reported that this life was to be extended. Operational status The SS-18 was deployed operationally in 1975 in former SS-9 silos and launch complexes converted and improved to accommodate the larger SS-18 missiles. The Mod 2 version was introduced in 1976, the Mod 3 in 1980 and the Mod 4 in 1988. The number of SS-18s deployed was estimated to be 308, the 1991 level of deployment for this system. In 1991, there were six major SS-18 operational sites, four in Russia and two in Kazakhstan. The Russian sites were at Dombarovsky (64 silos), Kartaly (46), Aleysk (30) and Uzhur (64). The two Kazakhstan sites were at Derzhavinsk (52 silos) and Zhangiz-Tobe (52). Training facilities were located at Balabanovo and Panerki in Russia and testing was located at Leninsk with 10 test silos. Missile storage was at Pibanshur and Khrizolitovy, with 58 missiles in store.

The START 1 agreement requires the SS-18 missiles to be reduced to 154 by 2001, and the START 2 proposals that the remaining SS-18 missiles will be removed from their silos and destroyed by 2007. START 2 was ratified by the Russian Federation in May 2000, and some missiles may now be used as satellite launch vehicles rather than being destroyed. In addition, it is believed that the Russians will modify some of the former SS-18 silos to accept the SS-27 (Topol-M) missiles, but it is not known how many silos will be modified. By extending the life of some of the later SS-18 missiles, the Russians are indicating that they would like to amend the START 2 provisions to allow some multiple warhead land-based ballistic missiles to remain in service.

In December 1994, the number of operational missiles had reduced to 255, by July 1996 to 193, and by January 1998 to 180. At January 2000, there were still 180 missiles in service, with 122 Mod 3 and 58 Mod 4 standard. It is reported that all 104 missiles in Kazakhstan have been deactivated and by January 1998, all the missiles had been removed. Some of the missiles removed from Kazakhstan were the Mod 3 single warhead version. All the silos in Kazakhstan had been destroyed by September 1996. An SS-18 destruction plant has been built at Surovatikha near Nizhny Novgorod and this has the capacity to destroy around 30 missiles per year, although there are plans to increase this rate to 50 per year. A trials SS-18 launch was made in June 1995 from Baikonur, testing an 18 year old missile, and a further trial was made in April 1997 successfully testing a 20 year old missile. By January 1999, there had been 157 SS-18 missile test launches completed, with a reported success rate of 97 per cent. The Yuzhnoye NPO offered a civilianised variant of the SS-18 missile, for use as a launcher for large payloads (up to 4,000 kg) into low Earth orbit in 1991. The first launch of a converted SS-18 missile was made in April 1999, with the satellite launch vehicle named Dnepr-1, as a joint Russian Federation and Ukraine programme. The launch was made from one of four available silos at Baikonur, and there are plans to convert a further 20 to 50 missiles for use as SLVs rather than destroying them as required under the START agreements. As you can see we have a lot of 20 megaton bombs I just hope we don't have to use 'em. Here the stats on our ss-19's Year Deployed: 1982
Dimensions: 27 meters length, 2.5 meters diameter
Weight: 105,600 kilograms
Propulsion: Two-stage liquid fuel plus PBV, hot launch
Throw-weight: 4,950 kilograms
Range: 10,000 kilometers
Guidance: Inertial, with onboard digital computer, and PBV
Circular Error Probable: 300 meters
Warhead: Mod 3 has 6 MIRVs (under START II, assumed to be downloaded to Mod 2 with 1 warhead)
Yield: Mod 3 - 550 kilotons, Mod 2 - 5 megatons
Locations: Tatischevo, Kozel'sk
Number Deployed: 150 missiles (105 planned)
Primary Contractor: Chelomei Design Bureau




















[edit on 7-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Who really cares about Russia's nukes? Their recent tests have all been disasters (of course SiberianTiger probably dismisses those as Russia's attempt to lull the West into a false sense of safety).

It doesn't matter how many nukes you have. Just one pretty much makes you invulnerable to any other nations nukes.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
You better believe it, and even if it did fail just a couple of fails is supposed to prove Russia is weak hahahahahaahahah, I can show a few U.S. failers does it mean U.S. is weak no, well why does it apply to Russia then, answer:= because you want to make Rus LOOK weak, but it ain't, you Americans are always saying Rus is going broke Rus is going broke hahahaah if thatvwas true that Rus is "constantly" going bROKE rUS WOULD HAD BEEN TOTAL COLAPSE BY NOW 2005 HAHAHA why do U.S. say this P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A HAHAHAHAAHAH



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Sure the US uses propoganda....

But I have to hand it to the Russians on that....they've got it down to an artform....



It doesn't matter how many nukes you have. Just one pretty much makes you invulnerable to any other nations nukes


Not if the nation you're trying to intimidate has the means to know a few out of the sky....
Then you better have a bunch, like mother Russia....



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   
when it comes to Russian propaganda about communism your right when it comes to Russian Prop about Russian militart you WRONG as usual.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   

You better believe it, and even if it did fail just a couple of fails is supposed to prove Russia is weak hahahahahaahahah, I can show a few U.S. failers does it mean U.S. is weak no, well why does it apply to Russia then, answer:= because you want to make Rus LOOK weak, but it ain't, you Americans are always saying Rus is going broke Rus is going broke hahahaah if thatvwas true that Rus is "constantly" going bROKE rUS WOULD HAD BEEN TOTAL COLAPSE BY NOW 2005 HAHAHA why do U.S. say this P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A HAHAHAHAAHAH


There aren't many real cases of American equipment under-performing. There are a lot more cases of Russian equipment failing completely. Their SAM's have NEVER shown themselves to be effective in real combat. Neither have their planes, or tanks.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Watch this everyone, hey Disturbed can you tell me just how many Russian ICBM luanches have failed in scince 1991?



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Why exactly would I need to know that? It's another dumb question. I have no reason to answer ANY of your questions at this point because you've never addressed anything I've actually said. You always put it off saying you need to ask someone something, or you don't have the time.

Either way, I know the most recent missile tests have been big time failures.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
You are lying I answered your questions over and over about the MiG 29 what iother ? are u talking about hu?

[edit on 7-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Where's the BBC article of the F-15 being shot down by the Mig-29? That's one.


D

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer




The British could not fight a war with America. How much better could anyone really believe British soldiers are? They'd be outnumbered about 10:1, so they had better be ten times as effective. American troops are also equipped better then British soldiers. Our soldiers have better bases. They get paid more. They get fed better.


[edit on 7-2-2005 by Disturbed Deliverer]


And how about some backup to that? How the hell are you supposed to know "They get fed better" How can you compare that. Maybe if you were comparing the US to North Korea you could make a statement like that, but really, how can you compare who eats better when it comes to the US and UK? And how about some figures for the pay? And how can you compare bases as well. Have you gone around and surveyed British and American bases and looked at their blueprints?



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   

And how about some backup to that? How the hell are you supposed to know "They get fed better" How can you compare that. Maybe if you were comparing the US to North Korea you could make a statement like that, but really, how can you compare who eats better when it comes to the US and UK? And how about some figures for the pay? And how can you compare bases as well. Have you gone around and surveyed British and American bases and looked at their blueprints?


You can do the math yourself for something like how much is spent per man. America spends about 33% more then the UK per man. I'll admit, I'm more or less guessing American troops get paid more.

Although the rest is based off the conditions I've read about. American troops get a lot of luxuries. Our bases are completely air conditioned. I believe there's a topic that even talks about how our troops are now able to buy fast food on bases in Iraq. American soldiers get a lot of hardier foods.

America's military budget is growing right now, while Europe's is shrinking.

I think most of what I said is obvious.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join