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.
Originally posted by grunt2
the b2 isnt so stealth as many people think (and that is confirmed with nortrop-usaf tests),
all winged nukers (b52, tu95s,b1s,tu160 and b2s) are backup nukers, that is if the ICBM or SLBMs fail the target, the bombers can get in and destroy it -with the suposicion that the mayority of the defences were destroyed
the b2 wasnt designed to counter movable ICBMs (look the gulf war operations against the scuds), it was designed to avoid soviets movable sams that have an high survival probability and are almost undetectable
the soviet union were not near to an bankrupt due the weapon race, the countries bankrupt reasons are always internal speculation or power problems, no matter what could say the nationalists or "super-ronald reagan" fans
Originally posted by BigTrain
Thread going off topic here. Back to topic, the argument was that the trident sub, which was the ohio class, was a major contributing factor, more so, than the B-2. This can be backed up by many facts including the lack of soviet underwater technology. Their boats could not detect the US boats, therefore could not defend their borders. Even if they could detect the B-2, which again im not sure if one has ever been detected also, but they knew they couldnt fight the submarine warfare.
On a second note, I was reading up about the Seawolf class attack subs, these are so rediculously advanced that it has been said that a Sewolf sub operating at cruising speed, 25 knots, is quieter than a Los Angeles class sitting dock side!!! That much scare some people.
Originally posted by grunt2
if some people dont like the reality, well, thats not my problem, so keep in your fantasies
Originally posted by grunt2
and we know that in the 80s the soviets were very,very informed about the subs tactics and patrol areas-
Originally posted by BigTrain
Originally posted by grunt2
and we know that in the 80s the soviets were very,very informed about the subs tactics and patrol areas-
Ya right. Russian Intelligence officer, "Well, we know they are somewhere in the pacific."
Thats about as accurate as your gonna get.
Train
1. All the regoinal wars were draining the USSR's economic resouces. (you can't run a county without money)
Originally posted by grunt2
is well known that the soviet union espionage had the navy codes and known a loooot about the subs tactics in the 80s, also the combat tactic against enemy SLBMs arent with super-"quiet" subs with problematic sensors (sonar), is basicaly cut or cancell the "shot" order using all the intro orders signals and trying to jam it(with the tu142) you can do that easely with the slbm but is very dificult with th icbm because there are more redoundant sources and is hard to reach an efective jam position.[edit on 15-3-2005 by grunt2]
Originally posted by Gazrok
A lesson the Bush Administration has failed to take to heart it seems...as now WE are the ones being bled dry...
Originally posted by Gazrok
Grunt, Russian subs can go anywhere they want, its called international waters. The US subs were near them every single time, no doubt about it, just like we had subs in the area when the Kursk ate it. We have sonar nets all over the pacific.