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.

 

Russian Arms philosophy

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
The MiG-31 is also a giant intercepter who has the size to hold a very advanced radar, at the price of any ground attack ability and mission flexiblity.

The Russian fighters are designed for very specific purposes. The MiGs may very well have superior datalink ability, but it is only because they were designed to defend soviet airspace, and do not have the radar nessesary to do so, and thus rely heavily on ground control and directioning. It is not a design fault, but just a reflection of how they aircraft were invisioned to be used. American aircraft have much more flexible electronics and computer systems, allowing them a high degree of independance.

Doesnt mean either are inferior, but only when they are compared *with* their relative mission in mind.




posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   


The Kosovo incident showed it to be absolutely true, when a F117 was brought down by a SA-2 system. An existing radar “spoofing” system on a bear bomber was cheap, practical and effective. The system successfully “phased” the bombers radar signature in a radius of up to 300km from its actual position, thus forcing F-14 Tomcats to chaise “ghosts” and “shadows”.


Um, proof? The evidence of that shoot down all indicates a lucky shot. Clearly if the SA-2, or any of the Russian radars they had, were capable of detecting and shooting down F-117's, they would have done it more than once.



"My God! Look what this thing is made of! Why, the dumb bastards don't have transistors; they're still using vacuum tubes! These engines are monsters! Maybe the Sovs have a separate refinery for each plane! Jesus! See these rivet heads sticking out, and look at that welding! They did it by hand! Hell, the pilot can't see a thing unless it's practically in front of him! This contraption isn't an airplane; it's a rocket! Hey, see what they've done here! How clever! They were able to use aluminum! Why didn't we ever think of that? How ingenious! It's brilliant!"--- MiG Pilot : The Final Escape of Lieutenant Belenko”


It was far less developed than the West originally thought, and was found far inferior to what the West was producing.



The tube radar was EMP/jam proof and was so powerful it could burn through jamming signals emitted by approaching bombers.


Wasn't that radar horribly out dated, and replaced just several years after the defection in a different variant?



MiG-31, (1975) was the first interceptor to carry phased array radar with encrypted digital link, allowing it to process and share target data with other platforms in real time. This allows MiG-31s to tactically engage various targets in a “pack”, and while one MiG for example tracks a target it can simultaneously fire on another target tracked by either another MiG or a by a ground/sea based radar, and vice versa. To this day MiG-31 it is the most capable interceptor platform.


Good for the MiG-31. Unfortunately for them, though, they've been unable to produce those silly AWAC's, or at least any that could even compare to what America has.


I’m not going to go in depth, but just as an simple example of Soviet metallurgy and machining capabilities, other then making the best missile/submarine hauls and aircraft fuselages, Russians still have the longest range artillery technology dating back from the 50s, while we still have to rocket assist our shells just to match Russian unassisted range. Obviously we still can’t touch the range of Russian rocket assisted shells.


Um, evidence? I've never seen anything from the Russians that has a greater range than the Crusader. The Russian M1976 has a range of 40 km's assisted , same as the Crusader. Your claim seems baseless.



Comments?


Yes. Your post seems to be full of a lot of baseless claims at worst, and at best many exaggerations.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
oooohhhh a lucky shooot!!!!, get real...

the fact is that the main reason was the lack of a EW plane in the zone, to cover the operation for the f117, showing very clear that the nighthawk isnt that invisible, and it was downed by a missile, direct to that, the serbian sams and radars are somewhat mobile, is more probable that the plane dindt knew that was in the misile range, despite he knew that his plane was in the enemy radar screen

about the 25s radar, get real again, these are old radars, the russians wanted something reliable for such system the transistor tech only was reliable in the 80s

the russians manged to desing and produce an 120 mm cannon for tanks, the americans only did that with help of well, the german masters, also the crusader is out, by operative-cost reasons, you cant compare opertaive machines with prototype ones



[edit on 3-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   

the fact is that the main reason was the lack of a EW plane in the zone, to cover the operation for the f117, showing very clear that the nighthawk isnt that invisible, and it was downed by a missile, direct to that, the serbian sams and radars are somewhat mobile, is more probable that the plane dindt knew that was in the misile range, despite he knew that his plane was in the enemy radar screen


The main reason according to who? That F-117 had flown that same course in the past. It was only shot down AFTER dropping its bombs. There may have been technical malfunctions resulting in the door not shutting all the way. There is no evidence indicated the Serbs ever even managed to lock on to the F-117, and it's doubtful they did. It seems they simply knew it was coming, saw it, and shot it down.

The F-117 flew hundreds, perhaps over a thousand sorties in Kosovo. One time is sure as hell a fluke.

But, you keep on believing that there was some radar that could actually detect it, yet could only manage to do it once throughout the entire war...



about the 25s radar, get real again, these are old radars, the russians wanted something reliable for such system the transistor tech only was reliable in the 80s


I don't even know what you are actually trying to say, so it would be much easier to just get a source:


NATO had its first detailed look at the MiG-25 when a Soviet pilot defected to Japan with one in September 1976. This exposed its 1950s-era radar and other features that dispelled much of the mythology built up by some Western analysts since the first sighting of the 'Foxbat' in 1967.


www.globalsecurity.org...



the russians manged to desing and produce an 120 mm cannon for tanks, the americans only did that with help of well, the german masters, also the crusader is out, by operative-cost reasons, you cant compare opertaive machines with prototype ones


The Crusader was pulled for one reason. It was too heavy and slow for what we were going for with our future combat systems. It's perfectly comparable with the M1976, anyway, as it's a very new Russian design, and I'm not even sure how/if it's been deployed.

Either way, we can compare the American MLRS A1 with the Russian BM-27. Both have a max range of 40 km's.

I'm not even sure what you mean by your comment on the 120 mm's cannon, so I'll respond with something equally as idiotic. Russia couldn't even design its own bomber, so had to copy the B-29. Don't forget the T-34 was in fact an American design, as well. How about the S-300? Inferior copy of the Patriot...



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
look i wont start a "copy" thread, but man the s300 a copy ot the patriot???tsss.....is obvious that you are a fanatic

if they copied the b29, well that hapened, so??, the post war industry in the SU wasnt healthy, they made their own b29 because was more practical in that time, i know that the case is documented and the russians have acepted that, but only because of that case, for some idiots the SU had copied everything from the american tech marvels


about the t34, they didnt copied that, they bought the project and later adapted with their own tech, they changed the transmission and suspension to make a more tought machine, also they increased the sloping armour concept in the tank

again about the mig25 radar, they designed in that way because was more reliable dor that power output, some thechs works nice but have their limits, the semiconductors tech in the 70s-60s canot outut such power in a reliable way, when the mig31 was deployed the worlds semiconductor tech was mature enought to such requierements

and in the serbian war, tell me how many planes were downed by the serbians???, not many, not??, how can you put that stupid comment "yet could only manage to do it once throughout the entire war", when the serbians just faced all the NATO-UN

[edit on 3-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
NATO had its first detailed look at the MiG-25 when a Soviet pilot defected to Japan with one in September 1976.


I wonder how pilots defect without getting intercepted/shot down?



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   
In a variety of ways, from prior intelligence to in-flight notification of intentions.




seekerof



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   


But, you keep on believing that there was some radar that could actually detect it, yet could only manage to do it once throughout the entire war...


That's a common misconception about stealth.

Stealthy design characteristics don't make aircraft invisible to radar. They make them less visible to radar. Stealth's effectiveness is also affected by airframe orientation to, and range from, the threat emittter.

If I recally correctly, the F-117's operating in the area were made vulnerable by the fact that they were using the same ingress routes night after night. Place a SAM guidance radar in an unexpected location very close to the aircraft's expected flight path, switch it on at the last moment, and even an F-117 can be locked onto and taken down. I suspect that's what happened.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   
“The MiG-31 is also a giant intercepter who has the size to hold a very advanced radar, at the price of any ground attack ability and mission flexiblity.”

That is correct. It is a dedicated long range interceptor, like F-14.

“The MiGs may very well have superior datalink ability, but it is only because they were designed to defend soviet airspace”

Makes no sense to me. This is a good gun, but only because it was designed to shoot bullets. ?

“and do not have the radar nessesary to do so”

Contradictory to the previous statement.

“and thus rely heavily on ground control and directioning.”

Yes, they do rely on GCI, but that would be because the very airspace they defend is HUGE, and GCI is required in order to coordinate large scale defense networks.

“American aircraft have much more flexible electronics and computer systems, allowing them a high degree of independance.”

Based on what?



Dear Disturbed Deliverer,

Educate your self or be polite about your naiveté. Reason and common sense is an ability just like any other and it is your own responsibility to exercise it, like a muscle. If you can’t put 2 and 2 together I’m not the one to hold up a multiplication table and point to a plus sign on a wall.

Tupolev was personally ordered by Stalin to copy the B29 bolt for bolt, to make a point. Tupolev presented designs which were superior to B29, yet the feat or copying a complex machine such as B29 was acknowledged by the Boeing engineers as task they them selves could hardly imagine. Over 125 thousand parts were meticulously catalogued and reproduced, down to the patch on the wing. It was an obvious statement of technological advancement.


Learn from SteveR –“ I wonder how pilots defect without getting intercepted/shot down?”

Now that is a common sense question, especially considering that Soviet/Russian strategic interceptors have standard navigation and weapons fail safe systems.

Picture this, B52 on a usual run, MiG-25 casually tracking it, B52 changes course towards Soviet airspace, MiG pilot awaits confirmation from GCI but his comm fails. He gets a firing solution, still no word, he freaks out, let’s one go and brings a B52 down. Now we have a massive international incident at best, or a nuclear apocalypse at the worst.

Or even simpler, a MiG pilot suffers from a fatal brain aneurism wile flying on autopilot towards US airspace.

All angles have been considered, reconsidered, tested, tested again, and factored in. One does not just “fly” away, unless of course there is a massive conspiracy with the ground crew, maintenance personnel, base commander, the premier minister, etc…

There is always a possibility of a “hey check this out” factor though.

It’s kind of like when some loud mouth punk is giving you crap at the ATM, all while you have a conceal carry and sporting a .224BOZ mod ready to go. You can’t really pull on him until he pulls on you, yet he’s not leaving you in peace, so you’re either stuck there just waiting for him to get stupid, or play along and raise your hands real high so the jacket will pull up and flash the gear. Then it’s on. No charges filed


edit: spelling damnit

[edit on 4-12-2005 by iskander]



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

look i wont start a "copy" thread, but man the s300 a copy ot the patriot???tsss.....is obvious that you are a fanatic


I may be a fanatic, but that claim is fact:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



about the t34, they didnt copied that, they bought the project and later adapted with their own tech, they changed the transmission and suspension to make a more tought machine, also they increased the sloping armour concept in the tank


I said it was an American design at heart, and it was. Of course they made changes to a tank design purchased in 1928 by 1944...



again about the mig25 radar, they designed in that way because was more reliable dor that power output, some thechs works nice but have their limits, the semiconductors tech in the 70s-60s canot outut such power in a reliable way, when the mig31 was deployed the worlds semiconductor tech was mature enought to such requierements


Right, they were using 50's era tech for the MiG-25's radar because it was simply more reliable. That's always why, just three years after the MiG-25 was captured, they replaced that radar...


and in the serbian war, tell me how many planes were downed by the serbians???, not many, not??, how can you put that stupid comment "yet could only manage to do it once throughout the entire war", when the serbians just faced all the NATO-UN


This ignores numerous factors. One, which were going on dangerous missions. Other planes weren't allowed into the most heavily defended areas. At the same time, we can find the F-117 having no losses in Iraq while flying the same sort of missions. Same with Iraq War 2.

During the Gulf War, 75 allied planes were lost.



Yes, they do rely on GCI, but that would be because the very airspace they defend is HUGE, and GCI is required in order to coordinate large scale defense networks.


This isn't really true. The American air force works with minimal ground support by comparison. Once again, AWAC's can fill most of those roles.


Tupolev was personally ordered by Stalin to copy the B29 bolt for bolt, to make a point. Tupolev presented designs which were superior to B29, yet the feat or copying a complex machine such as B29 was acknowledged by the Boeing engineers as task they them selves could hardly imagine. Over 125 thousand parts were meticulously catalogued and reproduced, down to the patch on the wing. It was an obvious statement of technological advancement.


Oh, that would explain why the thing remained in service in Russia until the mid 60's. Also explains why the Russians have never been able to create a bomber on par with America since then.

I mean, I'm sure the B-29's track record throughout the war had nothing to do with it. Surely they just wanted to copy, and use it to simply show us foolish Americans they could...



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


about the t34, they didnt copied that, they bought the project and later adapted with their own tech, they changed the transmission and suspension to make a more tought machine, also they increased the sloping armour concept in the tank


I said it was an American design at heart, and it was. Of course they made changes to a tank design purchased in 1928 by 1944...


The only thing the T-34 has in common with American design was the ' Christie ' suspension, that was all. It seems obvious that nothing else even resembles an American tank.
The T-34 was a far superior design to nay that the Western allies built in WW2, yes it was a Soviet design.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
The T-34 was a far superior design to nay that the Western allies built in WW2, yes it was a Soviet design.


The rest i have no argument with but the T-34 was not superior by any wide margin to say the M-4 Medium tank. But it was a Soviet design as you say and if one wants to see the Christy design ideas go look at the British cruiser tanks them being poorly armed, thinly armored, and notoriously unreliable.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
lol, the s300 is a copy of the patriot???, tss. analyse both designs are completely different in the concept, the radars systems, the detection interface the requierements and performances, even in the active homming of the s300.

yeahh, the s300 is a patriot missile, like the mig 29 is f15 copy??? tipical stupid cold war claim....dont be idiot, what you think that the CIA didnt had info of the soviet weapons, one thing is to have info of the enemy, other is to copy a design

hell, even the US tried to purchase the s300, i guess that the hardware, but not the algoritms, that is the jewel of the system

is a typical way of thinking of some idiots, that cant acept that other research team from other land can do better stuffs




[edit on 4-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Disturbed Deliverer, don’t take offense but you’re ignorant. Please understand that it’s not an insult, but a common condition we all suffer from. The point is not to be stuck there permanently. Give yourself time to think when you read. When you’re not flat out “misinformed” you misread and reply entirely off topic.

Cheers mate.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
“The rest i have no argument with but the T-34 was not superior by any wide margin to say the M-4 Medium tank.”

Wow. I’m not even going to go there. Don’t remember exactly, but the poor Sherman’s went through about seven different engine models. Ronsons’ had it bad enough over the years so may those death traps rest in piece.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Wow. I’m not even going to go there. Don’t remember exactly, but the poor Sherman’s went through about seven different engine models.


I am civil and as long as your interested in that notion you can bring me your facts and figures and we can compare notes.
Nothing like a good old fashioned difference of opinion where the facts can speak for themselves!

Stellar



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I agree with the differences of opinion, absolutely. I tent to gravitate towards opinions of people with first hand experience. My opinions on the Sherman are based on a number of books I read ages ago, but since this thread is on Soviet arms it’s of topic.

If you would like feel free to start a new thread.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
I agree with the differences of opinion, absolutely. I tent to gravitate towards opinions of people with first hand experience.


Their hard to find and there is always bias in history.... I have read my fair share of personal accounts of people involved in the Second world war....

Edit: On account of the T-34 "versus" M-4 i somehow managed to compared the Panzer IV with the M-4 ( as the rest of the earlier post and this one indicates) instead of what i should have done. I am rather surprised i have not been taken to task for my error!


My opinions on the Sherman are based on a number of books I read ages ago, but since this thread is on Soviet arms it’s of topic.


Well the older the book the less chance you will get a accurate reflection of equipment involved. As time goes by there is more dissident writers who are willing to put the numbers infront of you instead of telling you there opinion. The Sherman being such a horrible tank was just another excuse to explain the massive tank losses the allies suffered. I have compared to details and the losses had more to do with the allies attacking ( and not doing it very efficiently) than it had to do with superior German tanks...


If you would like feel free to start a new thread.


I am content with what i know( obviously possibly subject to change at future date) and there are more interesting things to talk about imo.


Stellar

[edit on 5-12-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
The Sherman being such a horrible tank was just another excuse to explain the massive tank losses the allies suffered. I have compared to details and the losses had more to do with the allies attacking ( and not doing it very efficiently) than it had to do with superior German tanks...


Well the Shermans 75mm gun was crap, it couldn't penetrate a Tiger or Pnather at over 100 meters, whereas a Tiger or Panther could penetrate the Shermans frontal armour at over 2.5 km. That may explain the massive losses the allies suffered.
The only gun cpab;e of taking on a Tiger/Panther was the Brit 17 pdr, used in Firefly Shermans and other allied tanks. These guns were small in number though and only a few tanks had them.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Once again, you cannot compare the Sherman and T-34 against each other because they were designed to furfill different roles on the battlefield.

The T-34 was a fast tank designed to exploit armored breakthroughs by larger tanks. It was developed from the BT-5 tank and its primary mission was to create and exploit the breakthrough situation, and it was not designed to work with foot soldiers, but be the hammer in a motorized breakthrough army. It would have to have an acceptable gun and be able to duel with enemy tanks, and above all retain its speed.

The Sherman was designed as an infantry tank from the start. All prewar US tanks were for infantry use only and virtually no one in any position of power wanted to use tanks independantly from infantry because they knew that only infantry can effectively hold ground. They felt Shermans would be fire support for infantry and allow the infantry, not armor, to breakthrough. To deal with enemy tanks, their would be groups of tank destroyers in reserve.

They fill very different roles and should be simply stacked against each other. If you were going to compare them, compare how well they furfilled their role.

In which case, the T-34 certainly suceeded up to and possibly beyond its original requirements, however, because of lack of doctrine for combined arms like in Germany, the T-34 was good, but its support wasnt.

The Sherman also went above and beyond its requirements. However, it is bashed because it was not able to deal with enemy armor, something it was not designed to do, and not just any armor, but Germany's wondar waffen Panthers and Tigers. However, with infantry, it was excellent in giving support.

So, I hope that cleared up some of the "Tank vs Tank" minirants.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join