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.

 

Many people believe the B2 won the cold war.....

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
the b2 isnt so stealth as many people think (and that is confirmed with nortrop-usaf tests),


Your right - the B-2 can NOT just fly over anywhere undetected.

What it does is creat gaps in the defence network. It makes defending an area so costly (by forcing so many resorces per area) that radar/thermal coverage does not cover enough land. This allows it to slip between the gaps.





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


I wouldn't go that far Grunt. Both sides used bombers as part of their first strike plan. It is simply a matter of what does what best.

ICBMs have no counter (untill SDI becomes available), but strategic bombers have their place in first strike doctrine. The B-2 for example, would (in most cases that involve US first strike) have been across Soviet boarders before the ICBMs were even launched. Bombers have many advantages over ICBMs even in strategic nuclear war.


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


I don't think that the B-2 was designed to do anything but slip by air defences. It wasn't made JUST to take out mobile ICBMs OR to get around mobile SAMS. It was made to penatrate well protected airspace. That design allows it to fill a number of missions.



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



This is just not true Grunt. The USSR would have been fine had the Ragan not initiated the arms race. It's simple historic fact. I don't know how you can say that it was all internal - it wasn't.

The USSR went under reform - it went for the "take one step back so that we may take two steps forward" doctrine.

The USSR was doomed if it did not reform. RR knew this, and aplied the most pressure when Russia was weakest. They had two options - admit they couldn't keep up and lose the propoganda war, or try to keep up and risk the economy.

Either way they were not going to win, but they risked the economy to try to keep up with the US.

As they say the rest is history.




posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
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.

Train



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

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.


I don't think it was really any single project that killed the soviet union - it was the combination of them all.

With the Peacekeeper first strike ICBM, Trident missle subs, B-2, and SDI all coming out in that period, the USSR just had too many areas they had to keep up in.




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.


Yeah - the SeaWolf is just plain sick. Unfortunatly I don't think the US has built many and their are none planned for the future if I remember correctly - the reason being that the SeaWolf was made to be an open ocean attack sub while the US sees costal operations as more important.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
i have explained the reasons of the the soviet union fall, i have exlained the reasons of the american "air-nuke" strategies, and i have explained the reasons of the B2 proyect, if some people dont like the reality, well, thats not my problem, so keep in your fantasies ("super ronald reagan" ,weapon race,b2s preemptive attack, etc...)


the SLBMs have poor accuracy dont have enough nuke power also the comunications can be jammed easely (tu140s) -and we know that in the 80s the soviets were very,very informed about the subs tactics and patrol areas-

wellllllllllllllllllllllllll, only one think before i leave this topic, please, pleassssseeee, read an economic, politic, society book



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
if some people dont like the reality, well, thats not my problem, so keep in your fantasies


Grunt, the reality here is that you refuse to accept half of the story. You want to make it out as if the US had nothing to do with the USSR collapse.

There is no getting around that the arms race was what pushed Russia down. Everyone agrees. Well, everyone but you



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
One theory I've heard advanced about the B-2 (more credible than the exotic propulsion theories expounded on) is that because of the flying wing airframe, the aircraft could "power down" and spend an extensive amount of time over a target area, making it the ultimate counterforce platform.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   

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



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
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]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

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


Don't even bother trying to explain reality to him. I have tried, and he doesn't want to listen.

According to him in Vietnam they shot down an A-12 (CIA version of SR-71) and the US had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 05:23 AM
link   
there are alot of small things that add up to the whole. no one piece was the defining factor in the colapse of the former SU. The lack of allowing free enterprise to grow is where the main difference is from what i can see.

one of my former jobs was in electronic assy here in the northwest. at the time when "the hunt for red october" came out we happened to be wiring card cages under contract for the navy. nothing top secret about them they were for wire guided torpedoes. we needed to make a change in the placement of a couple of wires for ease of assy.

the civilian engineer, who was assigned to ok the changes, could not tell us much about what our capabilities were other than that what we saw on the screen in that movie was extremely close to what was real with our subs and surface ships.

remember the moving map on the aircraft carrier that showed where all the subs and surface ships were? or the listening area on the "dallas"? The dsrv and how deep the subs could go? or that torpedoes that could be remotly detonated.

it is free enterprise that basicly did in the former SU. why else would there be so many companies trying to get work for the military. the job we did was bid on by several companies. the fact we got it was because besides being a lower bid we were owned by a woman. how many companies in the former SU were owned by minorities? how many airplane companies were there in the US before the big mergers? how many in the SU? how many companies are in the silicon valley for that matter. anyone who wants can start their own business if they succeed great. in the former SU you didn't need to start a new company because you had a better idea or could do things better, you were basicly gaurenteed the basic staples for living.

bombers are not really first strike weapons... each piece of the nuclear triad has built in delays. remember planes take several hours to reach their targets. balistic missles? 20- 30 minutes. those are first strike weapons.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
bigx, , with that "remember the red october?", yea, the darkness red october athmosphere, or the "crazy ivan" maneuvre
, or the incredible sonar eficiency, do you know anything about ocengraphy???, the effect of the deep or termal currents in the sonar???, more deep is better sonar efficiency no matter the sonar design(but that in deep oceans, in seas with medium deep is more difficult because there is an "groud absortion effect") .

china have a looot of occidental companies, any signal of bakrupt????


mad man, i never said that the a12 was downed, it was reached and damaged but not downed.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

1. All the regoinal wars were draining the USSR's economic resouces. (you can't run a county without money)


A lesson the Bush Administration has failed to take to heart it seems...as now WE are the ones being bled dry...



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

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]


Grunt,
I will apologize in advance for this, and please don't take it personally......but with regards to Soviet ASW capabilities and the USN's stealth abilities for our subs.......you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

The biggest lie the Soviets ever told their own people was that they could protect the USSR from US submarines. And counter to what you said, the Trident system using the D-5 modification, has the accuracy and capability to engage hardened targets such as silos and bunkers. More information on the D-5 can be found at:

Missilethreat.com

While the exact nature of the absolutely stunning and awe-inspiring capabilities of our submarine forces are, by necessity, shouded in secrecy, I can state as fact that at no time since the launching of the USS George Washington has the Soviet submarine force ever been a serious threat to the US and UK SSBN fleet.

You give way too much credit to the Soviets with regards to their ability to interfere with our SSBN C4. The fact that they desperately relied on espionage to keep up with our technical prowess only reinforces the fact that their SSN engineering was 20 years behind ours, while our ASW capabilities were 10-15 years ahead of our own quieting technologies! And BTW, the Bear Foxtrot is a dedicated ASW aircraft, with no C3CM capabilities. The only version of the Bear F that is not dedicated to ASW is the Mod 4, which is a communications variant that was designed to communicate with Soviet/Russian SSBN's, much like the US TACAMO aircraft.

There were many facets of the Cold War; some were won by the Soviets, most were dominated by the West. However, the US and UK submarine advantage over the Soviet Union was, without question, a complete and utter domination over the Soviets. Some day, the true nature of this domination will be revealed........



[edit on 16-3-2005 by Pyros]



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
wow, if the soviets were sooo desperated, why they had yankees class subs in the 80s sooo near of the US coasts -with all that inteligence info-


all the bear-Fs are ASW inteligence and reconaissency plataforms, the M4 had an special VLF communication sistem to contact subs in inmersion.

SLBMs are not precise, it dont mean that all the missiles will fail, but an proportion will fail (more than icbms), the corporations always will say that theire missiles are the best, but we must analyse the technology, in the gulf war the "inteligent" bombs were not so inteligent, the "patriot" missiles were not so patriot etc...., but in the same way for the soviet technology.

the sub-killer tactic is stupid, the ocean is noisly and you cant coordinate the tactics, the main LA sub task was to defend carriers fom other SSNs, not to hunt enemy SSBNs

im not saying that the SU was the winer, but it fall by the internal circunstances, only that, wasnt by SUPER DUPER HYPER RONALD REAGAN


[edit on 16-3-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

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...


Gazrok, You obviously do not understand the difference of Mandatory spending and Discretionary spending. You need to do some research bro before you and your fellow uneducated persons continue to blame the military spending for the deficit. The mandatory spending, accounting for 63% of the 2.5 tril dollar budget is consisted of Social security, medicare and medicaid. The military takes up less than 20% of the budget. Why dont you open your eyes and look at where the US is really wasting money. Its in the mandatory spending which increases faster than the military budget every yr. Mandatory spending reaks of communism! Don't take my world for it please, look it up yourself.

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. What about that US sub that snuck into the port of Valdivostok i think, and launched a secret seal operation. Maybe someone knows what im talking about.

Train

[edit on 16-3-2005 by BigTrain]



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
big train, what i try to mean is that with the info obtained in the 70s and 80s the russians didnt change their tactics, there is an very stupid missinterpretation about the "retirement" of the soviets subs into the "bastions", the reason is the SLBM technology, not the "awsome" NATO asw capacities, in fact in the 80s the NATO commanders were crying by the use of the LF sonar towed array by the anti-sub tactic problems, in fact the soviets were thinking to turn their yankees into SSNs


about this topic there are loooooots of miths, like the "noisly" russian subs -due the soviet tactic to cross the north atlantic sea at high speed (more practical)-, near US coasts they keept quiet in patrol speeds, or that "crazy ivan" maneuvre so famous in holywood
, etc...

"we had subs in the area ", jeje, where??? in kursk accident???, bermudas accident??, titanic accident???, the moon???, man sub tactics is an damm very hard problem, but there are accidents like crashs between subs, between subs and ships (even carriers),but noot the us pride will never admit that the problem is the sonar unefficiency or the envyroment (low deep waters), noooo, the problem is the russians with the "crazy ivan"
, the kursk problem was by the use of an new torpedo.

[edit on 16-3-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Grunt, Im not making my thoughts as clear as possible. Here goes. The Soviets or russians, whichever you perfer to call them, have indeed, WITHOUT a doubt, some of the smartest mathemtaticians and scientitsts ever. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is taking the ideas of these brilliant men and then making them work. The military could not properly transform these ideas as effectively as the US had. It was both a manufacturing and a computer problem as much as an economic problem for them. This is why our tech has always been better. They ideas have been properly transistioned to the real world.

Another thing, almost every major military project and space endevour has been broadcast and publicly given to the US citizens. Russia has hiden tons of old tests and videos from its public to deny massive failures, such as rockets explosions and recently with the Kursk. If the research was more open, then more minds could be involved and the russian tech wouldnt be so far behind.

Train



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
man, i dont care if the russians are smart or are good in maths, what i dont like is to see how such cuantify of miths are become "facts", and obviusly that move an industry that waste money in uneffective technology with the "corporative-nationalism pride".



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   

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.


this is very true. international waters start 3 miles from shore. here in the puget sound area there is quite a bit of "international water"

a couple of years ago i was supprised by this fact , as i was out fishing with a friend on his comercial boat. we were up in alaskan waters, where chatam straight meets frederick sound, if you look on a map you'll see that it is a ways in from the gulf of alaska. however we were still in international waters, as we were more than 3 miles from any of the islands in the alaskan pan handle.




the same as there are quite a bit of international waters here in the puget sound, even though we are quite aways from the pacific ocean.
And yes there have been many a russian sub here in the puget sound waters, all leagal as they were in international waters. the us military knew they were here with the vast sono bouy net scattered across the pacific ocean, as was revealed several years ago ( if i could find a pic i'd post it )



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Grunt, your the one spreading myth, obviously you are still living in dream world. Im done with you, seems your brain capacity is as real as your russian tech.

Big Train



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join