quote]I certainly don't think that russian weapons are crap, and US is superior in all aspects. I just think that since communism Russians have much
bigger tradition than US to overrate their weapon systems, especially those "secret" ones that are not in service. Especially famous "plasma
stealth" claims. Just beacuse they say something doesn't mean it's true.
I fail to see what you are basing you opinion on here. How do Russians exactly "overrate their weapon systems"? Please provide factual examples.
While Cold War annalists were forced to repeatedly speculate on capabilities of Sov weapons, since the break up and enormous Russian arms trade
sector, Russians openly provide actual test data to their potential costumers. All kinds of claims claims has been proved by repeated and open tests.
It's just a fact and I would like to know where you get your information from.
The USSR scientists were very good indeed, and US scientific education has huge problems, I agree, but look at it from other side - those
scientists working in US private companies EMIGRATED from USSR after Cold War and most of them are NO LONGER available for Russians, thats clear loss
for them and US gain. That's together with lack of money is the reason why I think Russia is slowly loosing it's competitivnes even in this
longbow you seem to be stuck in the 90s, and we're in the 21st century now. It is true that young Sov scientist flocked to US in the early 90s, and
back then it was a situation of so called Russian "brain leak", but for the past decade the situation is exactly the opposite. Not only Russian,
but Indian, Chinese etc. scientists are in fact going back to their countries. For some time now media has been ringing the bells of alarm and
stressing the point that now US is suffering the so called "brain leak".
It's in the news, look it up. Also the fact that less Americans are graduating and that we're already suffering from a shortage of qualified
professionals. It's just a fact.
The lack of money is a myth. Russians are sitting on a sky high pile of oil, natural gas and arms export money. As I said before, over 54% of their
budget for 2007 is classified and CIA 2006 fact book does not even post what their military budget is, because we just don't know.
Russian is not only "loosing it's competitiveness", but on the contrary they are increasing the gap. Europe runs on Russian propane, Russian arms
trade export already surpassed that of US, and given the extraordinary levels of Russian cooperation with Europe, they build standardized systems
which are easily integrated.
Basically they have been raking in the money for over a decade, and who knows what they've been spending it on. I'm sure you know that most of the
propane/petroleum is consumed by the industrial sector and not by consumers, and as long as the price per barrel doesn't drop below $60, they will
only be in the plus, and we all know that oil price will only go up.
Russians bought out Airbus by the way, which I'm sure you know is the only competitor to Boeing. They already paid out their post Soviet dept, and
have been paying out their Soviet era dept left and right.
How people still figure that Russians have no money I have no idea, because all they have to do is just look for them selves instead of choking on
All their current weapon systems are upgraded Cold War designs and they have huge problems to come with something really new. You said russian
economy is improving, but that doesn't mean it is powerfull. Certainly it is more stable than during Yeltsin, but I was in Russia and aside from
Moscow it still looks like some 3rd world country. Situation is stabilized and Russia's pride was restored but this "stable" level is quite
Get out of the old in get into reality longbow. This is what I recommend, seriously, start with going to CIA.gov and take a good long look into their
2006 fact book, then we can continue.
you really think Hezbollah "won" because of ATGMs, well OK. It is easy to fire at tank if you're hiding behind civilians and you knows that
enemy is not very keed to risk their lives in roder to get you.
Hezbollah did win. IDFs goal was to destroy their infrastructure, and they failed. Hezbollah remained active to the very last day of the conflict,
and by default that is their victory. The hiding behind civilians talk is again propaganda, and if you find any factual documented occurrences of
that happening let me know.
The fact is that Hezbollah took out of action enough Israeli armor to halt their push into Lebanon, which prevented IDF to run ground operations.
Special forces were being inserted in various areas by helos, but with out support they had minimal effect.
In this particular case, an armed MILITIA was able to fend of the strongest regional power in the area, deny it the use of armor and ground forces
through the use of Russian built RPG-29s and ATGMs.
This goes to prove that your earlier statement that Russians some how "overate" the capabilities of their weapons is misguided at best.
Russian RPGs and ATGMs performed as advertised, and were able to repeatedly defeat what is considered by some as the best armored tank in the world,
Mr_albest the problems of capitalist/corporate system were very actual during communism in USSR era too. They too had problems with costs,
resources, timeframe etc. Add to this much bigger problems wit beaurocracy and inflexibilty of planing system. And the results were in many cases
obviuous too, just look at their submarines safety record for example.
longbow if your interested I can bring to\you up to speed on the topic of Soviet military complex, but in another thread. Just to throw in some
starters, their system always had a very peculiar duality. While end product was (and is) always the appitamy or reliability, functionality and
simplicity, the system behind it was exuberant in comparison to the west. Western annalists have always said the same thing; "How do they justify
(and afford) all those calibers and custom systems!?".
So on one end we see a very robust, reliable, cheap and effective approach based on numerical superiority, while on the other a gigantic system
comprised of high tech, specialized custom design solutions.
Just looking at their conventional arsenal, they got a weapon for every occasion, and probably something for the officers to fend of their moms in
Submarine safety records are a mirror image of how hard they've been pushing the envelope. I'm not going to bring it up, I'll just say that to
this day Russian subs enjoy a level of automation which allows them to cut the crew number in half in comparison to US designs.
They have green houses, gyms, rec rooms and pools on their subs. When US sailors took a look at Typhoon class, they said it's like a luxury cruise
ship, and not at all what they've expected, especially when it comes to the much lesser work load of Russian sailors.
But stop talking about it, this thread was about the threat of stealthy hypersonic missiles. I still think stealth is incompactible with high
speed until some fundamental technologic breakthrough.
Good deal. So you think F-22 on super-cruise is incompatible with stealth? In your opinion the most expensive flying supercomputer in the world is
just one big mistake on the part of USAF?
Iskander there is no need to detect fast flying missile at 3000 km - it is over the horizon anyway, but I think it is extremely easy to detect
it 400 km away and that's more than enough.
Why do you think it's "extremely easy to detect it 400 km away", got some numbers we all can take a look at? The RCS of a modern subsonic cruise
missile is in the hundreds of a m2. A shallow dive directly at the radar emitter is what creates the blind spot in the first place, and given
hypersonic speed with low RCS, it's pretty much it.
And because it needs to fly high to have longer range it would be easy prey.
So which missile in US arsenal can intercept a hypersonic target? Just curios, because I for one don't know of any, that works anyway.
SA missiles will be ALWAYS faster and more manuvrable, it is stupid to try to compete with the in speed. It only makes sense with antiship
Man, longbow, I hate keep saying this, but please be sensible and look things up first. This forum presents an opportunity for us all to learn from
each other, but it doesn't hurt to do some homework, especially considering that this is not a chat and you have all the time in the world to do
SAMs top out at +/- Mach 7, and that's only for a short period of time because they just burn out. Sustained hypersonic speeds present an entirely
new set of challenges for SAMs.
When the target is traveling just as fast as the intercepting missile, the margin of error becomes increasingly small because there is simply no room
left for corrective maneuvers, and that's while putting aside the enormously difficult task of tracking the target do to incredibly short reaction
Do some math, figure it out for your self. Start with Naval defenses, and you'll quickly find out that already today, supersonic anti-ship missiles
simply overwhelm the defenses because they take away the reaction time.
Also please note how big it is, I mean 12 meters long? That's not missile that's already small aircraft.
longbow, again, Google Redut, Bazalt, Granit, etc. Main Soviet/Russian anti-ship missiles ARE supersonic, automated kamikaze type craft, and that is
precisely why it only takes ONE to take down a carrier. It's almost like Russians picked up right after Japanese. Granit weighs in at SEVEN tons,
it's powered by a ramjet which pushes it to Mach 2.5 (!) and gives it 500km range.
Before you said that you were not aware of any ramjets which have range over 300km, so live and learn ha? Granits' US designation is "shipwreck",
which is pretty damn accurate I would say.
By the way talking about Russian sub safety record, just before Kursk went down in 2000 it was conducting live fire tests of Granit, and 22 missiles
which were still aboard were salvaged in 2001.
I wonder how many of them could be really carried by bomber. That said I'd always prefer subsonic stealthy low cruisng missile like AGM 129.
It has better chance to "come through", and what's more important you can carry 10 of them instead of one hypersonic missile - all with same range
and payload. I certainly think 10 AGM 129 have better chance to destroy the target than 1 X-90.
Tu-95 carried two X-90, each having two warheads, for the total of four warheads per load.
Stealth AGM-129s are very effective, no doubt there, and that's precisely why Russians fielded their own stealth Х-101 in 1995 (5000km range/5 meter
accuracy), 12 of which are carried at a time by Tu-160.
At the same time, Sov/Russian SAM systems are much more effective against stealth cruise missiles by default, simply because we don't even HAVE a SAM
system whit similar capabilities. Don't say Patriot, please, because I'll just direct you to other threads where it all has been discussed
So what is better, having BOTH stealth (low RCS) subsonic cruise missiles AND low RCS hypersonic missiles, along with already existing SAM systems
which are capable of intercepting such weapons (S-400/500), or having only stealth cruise missiles with out having your own SAMs which can intercept
them, that's the question here.
Direct energy weapons are decades away from being able to intercept fast and highly maneuverable targets. What we have now only works against slow
and non maneuvering targets, and works by setting of fuses or liquid fuels. They don't cut holes in metal.
Boeing chem laser literally has to heat up the liquid fuel of a SCUD to the point of combustion, which naturally takes a long time and the SCUD has to
be in the "sweet spot" to begin with. SCUDs don't maneuver and fly on a predictable path, thus allowing enough time for the laser to heat up the
fuel, but it the target is able to maneuver, all bets are off and back to the drawing board.
It's like lighting a leaf with a magnifying glass from a Swiss army knife, and if that's not hard enough, try it on a running ant.
Solid state lasers that intercept mortar shells heat up the fuse until it blows. It only takes a temp resistant fuse and the party is over.
Both in Iraq and Afghanistan lasers are regularly (and very successfully) used to clear mines, but it takes minimum of seven minutes to heat one up
for it to go off, and the mine has to be exposed in the first place.
Shooting down a hypersonic craft with a laser is still in the realm of science fiction. Hypersonic vehicles are built from exotic materials to
withstand extreme temperatures (titanium, ceramic composites, etc), and in flight they create a layer of superheated gasses which act as a natural
insulation against laser beams.
Hypersonic anti-ship/cruise missiles? Big problem. Kinetic hit-to-kill approach? Yet to be proved in any sort of fashion even against non
maneuvering warheads. Variable atmospheric conditions, ECM and maneuverable target make it highly unlikely, if not impossible.
Solutions? Well, we haven't even raised the questions yet, so we're far from getting to that point, not to mention the long time threat (2-3
decades) of Mach 2.5 vehicles for which we still don't have a countermeasure.
So what's the deal as of now? We're 8 trillion in dept, which the children of our children will still be paying of, our hand is out to anybody
who's willing to loan us money, that includes not only China but MEXICO as well, we're stuck in a quagmire both in Iraq and Afghanistan and we
can't even supply our troop with enough ammunition while PMCs are rolling in luxury, all while we still don't have tested and proved defenses
against Soviet era weapons.
We can indulge in ignorance and denial all we want, but to this day not a single test against a low altitude Mach 2.5 target was carried out because
we don't even have drones that go that fast.
We officially had to buy Kh-31s from Russia for "testing" purposes, and if they were indeed conducted, the results were naturally not disclosed.
That's how it is any way you spin it, and until we can openly display our ability to counter existing threats, we can't even begin to approach
hypersonic generation of weapons which exist since the late 80s.