Originally posted by longbow
Russian weapons work? The nations equipped with russian weapons tended to loose their wars. You may say that in all those conflicts the countries using american equipment had better trained soldiers and such excuses,but you cannot state that russian weapons work, if it is not based on empirical evidence. 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.
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 area. 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 low.
And if 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.
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.
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. 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. And because it needs to fly high to have longer range it would be easy prey. 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 missiles. Also please note how big it is, I mean 12 meters long? That's not missile that's already small aircraft. 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.
Originally posted by longbow
RIM-116 uses the motor and warhead from Sidewinder and a IR seeker from the Stinger. It's an EMERGENCY band-aid kit pushed out do to complete and repeated failure of the Phalanx.
If in your opinion a beefed up Stinger constitutes a high performance supersonic interceptor missile, then reality will just have to disagree with you.
It is not beefed up stinger it is beefed up Sidewinder. Stinger seeker is used because it's better for this purpose. In tests it works great, and I see no reason why it shouldn't work in reality. It is fast can do over 50Gs and has range almost 10km with 20kg explosive warhead. Certainly it is enough against every antiship missille.
Wrong. On all parts. Do the work and look up AGM-129 before making baseless statements. 129A was fielded in 1994 for use in B-52/B-1/B-2. Out of original 1460 units planed, 460 were produced.
My dear, but AGM-129 is SUBSONIC. I was talking that stealth is incompactible with high speed (mach 2-3 cruising missiles). Supersonic planes have problems to SURVIVE temperatures and those are flying over 15 000 meters high. And you are trying to tell me that Sunburn will not emit a lot of heat when flying mach 2.5 10 meters over sea? It's nose would glow like Christmans tree.
This missile you described doesn't seem to be low flying - although fast it will be very visible on radars. No wonder russians cancelled it. Probably because of the same reason why XB-70 was cancelled and why future US hypersonic bomber will never be sucessfull.
I agree that Russians had their black projects too, but don't overestimated their techological abilities. After all they were not capable to place man on moon to send decent probes on Mars or top outer Solar system- they sent some but not very capable compared to american ones. They were not capable to make stealth plane, nor produce more than 50 Su-27 until the end of Cold War - at this time when US had over 500 F-15. They were not able to make their submarines equal to US ones, their AWACS were worse, etc., etc. Surely many of their technological achivements were impressive but don't make them look like some superman nation which led tech reseach in every area. Also don't think all US black projects were featured on discovery.
mod edit: Added quote tags
Quote Reference (review link)
[edit on 1-10-2006 by UK Wizard]
Originally posted by milkyway12
Islander, let me ask you something.
If you know so much, do you not think we have guys that know what you know, plus one hundred fold? If the Russians could decimate our fleet, do you think we would be so aggressive? Do you not think we could counter these missiles if it was such a massive threat?
You give the Russians way to much credit.
Originally posted by PisTonZOR
A laser could shoot it down