Unstoppable - Russian next gen stealth hypersonic ramjet/scramjet cruise/anti-ship missiles.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Did anybody figure out the "Cold Plasma Cavity Active Stealth" thing yet?


I'm just messing around and hope that somebody got a laugh out of it.

longbow, why don't you take a crack at it as a little exercise in what's real and what's not.

Here are some clues;

Pentagon report (white paper), a used car lot in Hawaii, bagpipes, phenomenology, I'll stop here.

It's kind of like a mini ATF/JSF universe, but at least its virtual.




posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
A what the hell.

"NASA Scientific and Technical Aerospace Report".

It's so sad it's painfully funny.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Even if another millitary cannot stop such a plane, the corruption within Russia has allready defeated it.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Russia is NOT the old USSR capable of fielding a zillion man army like before. The smaller Russian economy can't devote mass percentages of its income and resources to weapons programs like the USSR could. Whatever novelties the Russians come up with will never again be seen in numbers or deployed as advantageously as the old days. It's over folks!



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Whatever novelties the Russians come up with will never again be seen in numbers or deployed as advantageously as the old days. It's over folks!


Cruizer, that's like saying that muskets will never be deployed as they were ever again.

Times change, just as Cold War era deployment strategies.

Calling hypersonic craft a novelty is like calling the moon landing a good Vegas show.

What are you basing your opinion on Russian economy btw?

I stopped counting after over 3,000% mil budget increase from couple of years back.

54% of Russian budget is classified.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

Whatever novelties the Russians come up with will never again be seen in numbers or deployed as advantageously as the old days. It's over folks!


Cruizer, that's like saying that muskets will never be deployed as they were ever again.

Times change, just as Cold War era deployment strategies.

Calling hypersonic craft a novelty is like calling the moon landing a good Vegas show.

What are you basing your opinion on Russian economy btw?

I stopped counting after over 3,000% mil budget increase from couple of years back.

54% of Russian budget is classified.


I neither do believe they will any time soon become as powerful as during the Soviet days, thought they have the necessities, a growing economy and the resources to become a powerful country again.

What I scare the most is an alliance between Russia and China. Some might that that suggestion is a ridiculous idea but I am not so sure about it. Current relations between China and Russia are very good. The question is, what side will Russia and China choose should the West get involved in a war with an Arabian/Muslim coalition within a time frame of 10 years?

Should China decide to join the oil rich alliance, I'd say China would be a much better partner for Russia, geographically, economically and militarily (China's army is growing and modernizing very rapidly and will be pretty powerful within 10 years).

Besides, the West would have a lack of resource supplies such as crude oil while China would have sufficient supplies.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
I neither do believe they will any time soon become as powerful as during the Soviet days, thought they have the necessities, a growing economy and the resources to become a powerful country again.


Well I'm not at all convinced that Russia is less powerful than the USSR were in terms of absolute firepower and strategic clout. The 'fall' of the USSR was imo nothing but a elaborate deception campaign under which guise massive restructuring and reform could be quickly conducted...

ttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread192362/pg2

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For know i will just stick to how strong they still appear to be instead of trying to convince you that you were tricked just like everyone else( including me).


What I scare the most is an alliance between Russia and China. Some might that that suggestion is a ridiculous idea but I am not so sure about it. Current relations between China and Russia are very good.


Actually i would say they are very close to a full fledged military alliance which is obviously something the Chinese needs more than Russia does. If


The question is, what side will Russia and China choose should the West get involved in a war with an Arabian/Muslim coalition within a time frame of 10 years?


They both will both try turn as large a profit from the actual war as they can while doing their best to pretend being against such actions. Both countries will benefit by the US armed forces getting involved in yet another quagmire like Afghanistan/Iraq.


Should China decide to join the oil rich alliance, I'd say China would be a much better partner for Russia, geographically, economically and militarily (China's army is growing and modernizing very rapidly and will be pretty powerful within 10 years).


China has already allied itself with the powers of the future (BRIC- Brazil,Russia,India,China) so nothing for me to disagree with here... The don't see where the Chinese army will fight any time soon so i consider their spending in terms of conventional forces pretty pointless beyond the run of the mill nationalistic nonsense.


Besides, the West would have a lack of resource supplies such as crude oil while China would have sufficient supplies.


The West have no shortage of oil and the only reason their so involved in oil elsewhere is to limit production while making use of the very 'cheapest' sources they can lay their hands on. Most effort is however expended trying to limit the flow of oil...

Stellar



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
Russia is NOT the old USSR capable of fielding a zillion man army like before.


Why would they want to do that and what gave you the idea they were ever more dependent on the manpower resources than the USA? Have you looked at their equipment and if so what gave you the idea that they did not care about casualties?


The smaller Russian economy can't devote mass percentages of its income and resources to weapons programs like the USSR could.


The American economy can no more afford it than the USSR could as is evident by the decline of purchasing power and general wealth of the American consumer. Russia is still maintaining a superior strategic nuclear force and they are the only nation with a credible ( and frankly massive ) ABM capacity as well as civil defenses.


Whatever novelties the Russians come up with will never again be seen in numbers or deployed as advantageously as the old days. It's over folks!


I do not think that you have much any idea of this subject matter so in your response i suggest you mention just one fact to prove that can tell the difference.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
It all comes down to $$$ and Russia doesn't have any relative to the old USSR or the USA. How long is any gee-whiz hypersonic aircraft program going to have long-term funding when their space shuttle sits in a park decaying?

As for the US's ability to spend on the military budget, there is no doubt that we can sustain 100 million dollar F-22s and billion dollar B-2s far better that the new Russia can.

Everybody seems to still believe the 10 foot tall Sov soldier propaganda from the Cold War. Even the USSR didn't have the capability to produce superior weapon systems in sufficient numbers. The bombers we were so terrified of at the beginning of the Cold War have been found to have been severely lacking in performance and numbers. The propaganda was mostly all alluding to a paper tiger force of far fewer numbers than the Soviets BSed about. That's what overflights of U-2s and later SR-71s found.

While there have been stand out aircraft designs like the MiG 29 we must realize they were never produced in great numbers anywhere near enough to fill out all the spearhead squadrons. And American philosophy in combat is to fight your fight, use your planes' advantages and not fight the enemy's fight.

The MiG 25 is another great example of hype. Whoa this baby is a monster, huh? When Victor Belenko delivered us on we found out that though it was imbued with innovative details it was crude and ancient by our standards. It couldn't sustain high mach without ruining the engines and was designed for a mission role of interception of the B-70 at high altitude. It missiles were lousy and it had no range. Another paper tiger.

The reality is that even at the height of the Cold War the Soviets with all their resources didn't have the invincible force they pretended to. And now Russia is but a fraction of that conglomerate without the national tax base or national product income of the US.

You never underestimate your enemies or potential enemies but they simply can't compare to the wealth base of the old combination of nations.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
It all comes down to $$$ and Russia doesn't have any relative to the old USSR or the USA. How long is any gee-whiz hypersonic aircraft program going to have long-term funding when their space shuttle sits in a park decaying?


Space shuttle's based on rocket propulsion are pretty dumb as ideas go and i am still trying to figure out if the Russians were just trying to deceive American intelligence agencies or if there were some specific limited purpose that could really not be done any other way.


As for the US's ability to spend on the military budget, there is no doubt that we can sustain 100 million dollar F-22s and billion dollar B-2s far better that the new Russia can.


And America will not win wars against major powers because of these weapons so they are quite irrelevant.


Everybody seems to still believe the 10 foot tall Sov soldier propaganda from the Cold War. Even the USSR didn't have the capability to produce superior weapon systems in sufficient numbers.


Well it now seems ever more clear to me that NATO was the original paper tiger ( from around 1970 for sure) and the the USSR deployed superior weaponry in sufficient numbers to have very likely won a strategic war.


The bombers we were so terrified of at the beginning of the Cold War have been found to have been severely lacking in performance and numbers


Which bombers are these exactly? The USSR always relied on their ICBMs for the main strategic firepower as they had neither the apparent interest or the means to construct bases all over the world from which to deliver strategic firepower by conventional means. If one considers their massive arsenal of ICBMs,SLBM's then it becomes evident that they had a far larger strategic bomber force than required to deliver the same kinds of payloads.


The propaganda was mostly all alluding to a paper tiger force of far fewer numbers than the Soviets BSed about. That's what overflights of U-2s and later SR-71s found.


Overflights of the USSR by U-2s and SR-71's did not take place after Powers was shot down and at that time the USA still had sufficient strategic advantages to risk such.


While there have been stand out aircraft designs like the MiG 29 we must realize they were never produced in great numbers anywhere near enough to fill out all the spearhead squadrons.


Do you believe that the USSR would have needed aircraft like the MiG-29 to gain air superiority over European battlefields? Fact is they kept upgrading older aircraft that were at the very least on par with western aircraft of the time not taking into account the doctrinal differences. Look at what the Indians and Europeans have managed with relative ancient aircraft against the USAF in recent times by just endlessly upgrading their aircraft and personal in proper use of the equipment. Technological advantages are great but they can be squandered relatively easily when the enemy is prepared to lose his major airbases in the first hours and builds planes that can fight from roads and fields when yours can not.


And American philosophy in combat is to fight your fight, use your planes' advantages and not fight the enemy's fight.


That is a strategic maxim by which any smart warrior lives and i would suggest that the USSR were not going to fight symmetrically and always planned to fight a full scale nuclear war which the USA just never prepared to fight or even begin to win.


The MiG 25 is another great example of hype. Whoa this baby is a monster, huh? When Victor Belenko delivered us on we found out that though it was imbued with innovative details it was crude and ancient by our standards.


But considering it's primary purpose as recon and high altitude interceptor it was not bad at all and on the whole VERY functional and relative cheap to produce leading to more than 1100 copies being produced. If all it had to do was dash out at high speed to intercept the first wave of American bombers and ruin their approaches or shoot them down the four missiles it carrier were more than sufficient to serve as a planning nightmare for the strategic planners who were supposed to employ B-1b
s and B-52's to wreck the USSR.. Since there would likely be no bases to return to for repairs anyways ruining the engines in the effort to shoot down nuclear carrying aircraft is not stupid at all but quite smart.

The vacuum tube technology was EXTREMELY robust and could stand EMP effects very well while also allowing fore replacement and the hundreds of smaller runways in the North were facilities and personal were limited. If you carefully investigate the planes constructive you will find that most choices are trade offs based more on it's role than on technological backwardness.


It couldn't sustain high mach without ruining the engines and was designed for a mission role of interception of the B-70 at high altitude. It missiles were lousy and it had no range. Another paper tiger.


It was fast as hell and under similar altitudes and speeds it was under less stress than the SR-71 which could not defend itself by offensive means. Anything being armed with 4 SARH a2a missiles each guided by a powerful radar that is extremely hard to jam is going to be a danger to your bombers.


The reality is that even at the height of the Cold War the Soviets with all their resources didn't have the invincible force they pretended to.


If one does some math and investigation based on primary source material without consulting the consensus reached by the wall street owned CIA you might discover that the USSR was a real threat and that after the early 70's it was NATO that was the paper tiger. If the USSR were ever seriously interested in trying to take over the western world 'just for kicks' ( as is commonly supposed by the 'anti-communist' league) they could imo have done so.


And now Russia is but a fraction of that conglomerate without the national tax base or national product income of the US.


Yet they still operate strategic forces that are far in excess of what a primarily defensive strategy would dictate.


You never underestimate your enemies or potential enemies but they simply can't compare to the wealth base of the old combination of nations.


Well i would suggest you look at some of the following links then as i am confident that i can defend my views based on official information from defense sources.

ttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread192362/pg2

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Stellar



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Excellent Posts Mister iskander.




You have voted iskander for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


And now for a little bed time story, about US and Russian approach to technology approaches:

The NASA really had a problem with pens and ball-pens in Space, since the enviroment without the Law of Gravity did not help the Astronauts to write in space, since the ink in the pens did not want to go "down" as usual on Earth and they have invested millions and millions of US dollars into the reasearch to create a pen, that works in Space, where there is no Gravity. And finally they DID IT! They found a way and made a complex little pen, which can write in Space. But ofcourse they just Had to ask the Russkies, what kind of writing equipment do they use and how they solved the problem with that in Space.

And they answered:

"We use Graphite pencils."





posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
As usual Stellar brings common sense and "denies ignorance". Good job my friend! Keep it up.

I'll still do my bit though, as I always do.

Souljah, thanks for the WATS and for the great remark;


"We use Graphite pencils."


I'll contribute. When Reagan announced "Space Wars" orbital laser defense system, Soviet engineers were ordered to come up with a cheap countermeasure from already available technologies.

This is what they came up with. Load up every type of rocket capable of delivering a payload into orbit with fine aluminum powder, which is packed into dispensing canisters.

Upon release of the canisters they begin "seeding" the aluminum powder, thus creating a cloud which initiates a chain reaction and literally wipes clean everything on its path to do extreme orbital speeds.

A chain reaction has a dual effect, not only it destroys all orbital satellites, but it also "blankets" the orbit with metal particles and jams long range communications, which NATO so heavily relies upon.

Now to issue at hand.

Cruizer, we can do this all day, you're going to repeat the same old propaganda of the "poor little Russians" verses America as the richest nation in the world, and all I have to do is to repeatedly ask you to educate your self on the issue.

Then all I have to ask you is what bases did the Soviet economy operate on during WWII. Then you will say that the only reason Soviets managed to pull through was do to US aid.

Then I'll post links to very boring web sites with factual data, with out all flashy menus, pictures and flash animations.

Then you will get bored and that will be it, while the lesson here is that fundamental struggles are not won by money, but by resolve and willingness to sacrifice.

Well, let's get to it then.


It all comes down to $$$ and Russia doesn't have any relative to the old USSR or the USA. How long is any gee-whiz hypersonic aircraft program going to have long-term funding when their space shuttle sits in a park decaying?


Facts please. I'm not in need of the them personally, it's for your own educational needs.

It is a fact that Buran is a museum piece, so please do all of us a favor and find out why it is so. Then feel free to look into the total tonnage Russia regularly halls into orbit verses what own space shuttles have been doing, the ones that are still operational and do not explode.

Russian had their own "shuttle" concept back in the 1930s, look into Kalinin K-15. Any similarities that you can see there?

Then jump straight to German Lippisch P.12 of 1942, so believe me, there is absolutely nothing revolutionary or unique about the shuttle concept, other then the cost of manufacture and operation.

Famed XF-92 (Convair) by the way, is a direct design by Lippisch, so it's just more of good old Nazi/American cooperation here.


As for the US's ability to spend on the military budget, there is no doubt that we can sustain 100 million dollar F-22s and billion dollar B-2s far better that the new Russia can.


Really? Man, it the situation wasn't so tragic, I would laugh.

Start here;

www.fas.org...

www.fas.org...

www.fas.org...

When done, let me know, as usual there's more.

A billion dollar B-2 is a brilliant and modern concept, not in terms of aeronautical engineering, it's all about the fleecing of American taxpayers.

Let me lay it out how it actually went down;

1924 - Worlds first flying wing: BICh-1 and 2 by Boris Ivanovich Cheranovsky

1926 - Worlds first powered flying wing: BICs-03 by Boris Ivanovich Cheranovsky.

1933 - Worlds first Supersonic delta: rocket powered SAM-3 by Moskalyev.

1942 - Antipodal Orbital Bomber by Sänger

1943 - all-wing (low RCS) Horten 229 (not to mention BMWs flying saucer Flugelrad I of the same year.)

1944 - "Rocket Wing" MX.324 by Northrop

On that note, if you really want to venture out into the world of true aviation innovation and excellence, you'll quickly find out that it's all about the Russians and WWII Germans. There are also some ingenious Italian designs, but as always with Italians, while their designs are truly outstanding they are to exotic and delicate for effective military use.

On our side of the pond, the true innovators were the guys from Canadian AVRO company (like 606 A/B, 707A, Arrow, etc), the company which was sabotaged by American corporate interests. Naturally the overwhelming majority of innovative American projects were conceived and created by German/Canadian engineers which had no choice but to work for Americans.

Let me bring some examples for you to explore;

near space research rocket plane - RP 218

Moskalev "Strela" - pre WWII

Cheranovsky BICh-17

BI 1

G-38 "Light Cruiser" - Grokhovsky

Gu-VRD - Gudkov

1936 KhAI-3

TsAGI 11-EA

Bisnovat Samolyot 5-2

Messerschmitt P. "Schwalbe"

Colani C-309 Racer

Focke VTOL

BMW Flugelrad III

Horten IAe.38

Messerschmitt P.1110E "Ente"

Messerschmitt P.1109

Luftwaffe Ho.P.VIII

LIPPISCH DM-1

Messerschmitt P.1079/16

Messerschmitt 262 HG.III/3

Mizuno Shinryu II

Blohm und Voss Ae.607

That is where the true world of innovation is, and when our Military Industrial Complex tries to dazzle us with yet another multi-billion dollar super tech project, all one has to do is to flip a page of history and see where it all comes from.


Everybody seems to still believe the 10 foot tall Sov soldier propaganda from the Cold War. Even the USSR didn't have the capability to produce superior weapon systems in sufficient numbers.


Were you conscious during the cold war years? 60s, 70s. 80s, three decades of numerical/technological domination on all fronts, especially space.


The bombers we were so terrified of at the beginning of the Cold War have been found to have been severely lacking in performance and numbers. The propaganda was mostly all alluding to a paper tiger force of far fewer numbers than the Soviets BSed about. That's what overflights of U-2s and later SR-71s found.


Which bombers were those? You mean the Siberian B-29 which Tupolev reverse engendered to the last bolt and even a wing patch do to express orders from Stalin? The project which Tupolev was absolutely against, precisely because it would have been much cheaper and quicker to build one of his own next generation designs?

The project of such enormity and complexity that Boeing engineers openly stated that they them selves could not have tackled such a challenge especially given the dead lines Russians managed to pull of?

Must be that one, right?

Keep it coming.

U-2 flights? You mean the ones that were shot and with resulting shame and embarrassment to our country, given that we previously singed an agreement specifically prohibiting such spying?

SR-71? You mean a high speed YF-12 "Blackbird" bomber/interceptor concept TURNED into a temporary recon platform do to its inability to perform its intended mission?

Here's a time line for that particular project;


YF-12 Timeline:



* 24 December 1957: First J58 engine run.

* 30 July 1962: J58 completes pre-flight testing.

* October 1962: Letter of intent for $1 million for YF-12 delivered to Lockheed.

* 7 August 1963: First flight of YF-12 (#06934) with Lockheed test pilot James Eastham.

* 29 February 1964: President Johnson announces existence of A-11 (actually the YF-12).

* 16 April 1964: First XAIM-47 ejected from YF-12 in flight.

* 18 March 1965: First firing of YAIM-47 from YF-12A.

* 1 May 1965: Two YF-12A (#06934 & #06936) set speed and altitude records.

* 28 September 1965: GAR-9 fired from YF-12A at Mach 3.2 at 75,000 feet.

* 5 January 1968: Skunk Works receives official notice closing down YF-12 operations.

* 5 February 1968: Lockheed ordered to destroy A-12, YF-12, and SR-71 tooling.

* 11 December 1969: NASA's first YF-12 (#06935) flight.

* 7 November 1979: Last YF-12A (#06935) flown to the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB.



www.sr-71.org...



While there have been stand out aircraft designs like the MiG 29 we must realize they were never produced in great numbers anywhere near enough to fill out all the spearhead squadrons. And American philosophy in combat is to fight your fight, use your planes' advantages and not fight the enemy's fight.


Cruizer, you really did made me smile there. What are production numbers for MiG-29/SU-27? What are the classic roles of MiG-21/23/25/29/31 and Su-27/30/33/34 in VVS?

What are our air combat tactics again? "Fight our fight" what? Man, I love a good chuckle, especially considering that since WWII USAF keeps to a traditional strategy of fighting in the enemy airspace, while Soviet doctrine was always a combination of front line fighters supported by fast/high alt interceptors and long range cap.

This is where you find out which VVS fighter does what.


The MiG 25 is another great example of hype. Whoa this baby is a monster, huh? When Victor Belenko delivered us on we found out that though it was imbued with innovative details it was crude and ancient by our standards.


That just shows how little you know on the topic. What was MiG-25s role? Why did it in fact use vacuum tubes instead of solid state? There's a very specific reason there, look into that. How was it build and why? Where was titanium used and where was steel used and for what reasons?

All good questions, don't be lazy, do some reading.


It couldn't sustain high mach without ruining the engines and was designed for a mission role of interception of the B-70 at high altitude. It missiles were lousy and it had no range. Another paper tiger.


Where do you get such nonsense? Some comic books or something? Do you even know the basics of what you're talking about?

In Iraq a lone and unsupported Foxbat downed an F-18 which had an ECM package, precisely because Foxbats radar was specifically designed to reliably operate in conditions of extreme ECM and EMP. After a successful attack it simply outran everybody to reach safety.

That "paper tiger" from 1950s chumped down on a modern design of 1980s, and then outran all of its pursuers. That's some paper tiger, with some real teeth and real legs.

Read up, come back and tell me all about Fulcrum losses, and I'll tell you exactly why such losses occurred and why all such encounters were completely one-sided.

No doubt that you'll bring up the Tomcat, and I'll respond by explaining why exactly it was designed around the Phoenix, and its rots in AVRO Arrow project.

Then I'll move right to MiG-31 Foxhound and its phased array radar, which allows the much cheaper semi-active R-33 to outperform the much more expensive active radar AIM-54, and why Zaslon/R-33 is a much better and effective combination, especially with the use of Foxhounds secure-data link which allows for precise and coordinated strikes while staying out of AIM-54s reach.


The reality is that even at the height of the Cold War the Soviets with all their resources didn't have the invincible force they pretended to. And now Russia is but a fraction of that conglomerate without the national tax base or national product income of the US.

You never underestimate your enemies or potential enemies but they simply can't compare to the wealth base of the old combination of nations.


Good God, you have a long way to go and a lot of reading to do my friend. My advice, try to have fun with it and enjoy your self, but remember, even in movies, when a villain who has all the money in the world is under the gun of his foe, he always tries to bargain for his life by offering all of the money he has because he still believes that money is power, and that's precisely when his head gets blow off.

Money is a concept, an icon, an ideal, engineered as means for social control, but as soon as its a matter of life and death, it quickly turns in to what it really is, printed paper, something to burn in a fire or wipe you fanny with.

When things turn ugly, only commodity and resolve is of any value. On the global scale it's all about the natural resources, and that's where Russians feel really comfortable. All the bank accounts, digital ones and zeros, and all the printed paper in the world is not going to help when "what goes around comes around".

That's how it is, how it always was, and will be.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
So after all this, there is still no evidence that Russian can build let alone deploy a " hypersonic ramjet/scramjet cruise/anti-ship missiles ". It seems like someone has been reading too mnay technothrillers and can't seperate fact from fantasy. As ou cn see, Iskander vehemently attacks anyone who disagrees with him no matter how logical their arguments are and how illogical his are.
Prainsing othe members for backing you up reminds me of the schoolyard playground,



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
"Unstoppable".....!........?
Still working for the Mosnews.com?

Uh, well, iskander, I guess after that proclamation, there is nothing more to be said or debated, huh?


Btw, newsflash and office memo: H-e-l-l-o?!
* The Titanic, Yamamoto, Bismarck, etc were proclaimed to have been unsinkable.
* The Russian made 'Sunburn' anti-ship and S-Series anti-air missiles, along with Russia's bolt-on Plasma stealth, have been proclaimed to be "invincible."
* During the Cold War, the Russian Armored Forces were proclaimed as being "unconquerable" and "unbeatable."

List of historical examples could go on, but what for when now we have "unstoppable".....oh, my.

Will the nonsense ever end, but hey, according to you, it will not because:

Originally posted by iskander
That's how it is, how it always was, and will be.


Cannot even mass produce their own household indigenous computers but the Russians certainly in hell can produce "invincible," "unconquerable," "unbeatable," and now, "unstoppable" military hardware. Hmmm, yeah....okie dokie. Again, according to whom, you and the MOSNEWS.COM?

What is that old historical dictum again...hmmm..."nothing is unbeatable"? Thus, if such a dictum is 'true,' then nothing is "unstoppable", at least among the sphere of manmade things.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Hi there Seeker. I was wondering when you were going to join this one.


Still working for the Mosnews.com?


Nope, but I did work for FOX news at one point. Does that make you feel better?


Uh, well, iskander, I guess after that proclamation, there is nothing more to be said or debated.


Nope, that is exactly the focus of the debate. Which weapon in US arsenal can stop a hypersonic cruise missile?


Btw, memo: h-e-l-l-o?!
The Titanic, Yamamoto, Bismarck, etc were proclaimed to have been unsinkable.
The Russian made 'Sunburn' anti-ship and S-Series anti-air missiles, along with Russia's bolt-on Plasma stealth, have been proclaimed to be "invincible."
During the Cold War, the Russian Armored Forces were proclaimed as being "unconquerable."


I'll skip the Titanic and such, but what are the defenses against Sunburn given the extremely short reaction time? Don't say Phalanx, it just doesn't work worth diddly squat, and we all know it.



List of historical examples could go on, but what for when now we have "unstoppable".....oh, my.


I appreciate your flare for drama, all those exclamation/question marks and the tone of a peachy cheeked young lady when her skirt is blow up by a gust of air,


The none sense will never end, but hey, according to you, its because:
quote: Originally posted by iskander
That's how it is, how it always was, and will be.


Again, you seem to thoroughly enjoy misquoting people and twisting their original meaning into what ever suits you.

Just to set things straight;


When things turn ugly, only commodity and resolve is of any value.



EQUALS:


That's how it is, how it always was, and will be.


Moving on;


Cannot even mass produce their own household indigenous computers but they certainly in hell can produce "invincible," "unconquerable," and now, "unstoppable" military hardware. Hmmm, yeah....okie dokie.


Any knowledge of history on that point Seekerof? Because personally, I'm closely familiar with the first Russian PC, BK 0010/0011. Are you?

By the way, which keyboard type from one of those models was used in Soviet aircraft industry?

Please enlighten all of us since you obviously have solid information on which you are basing you opinions on.


What is that old historical dictum again...hmmm..."nothing is unbeatable"? Thus, if such a dictum is 'true,' then nothing is "unstoppable", at least among the sphere of manmade things.


The "historical dictum" here, is that cultures which ignore the passage of time while being blinded by misguided belief in their own invincibility, all become victims of their own demise, and end up being just another page in the book of historical blunders.

Trojan horse anybody? Sadly, these days most Americans will associate it with condoms and sports, while very our Trojan Horse is the collective and misguided belief that the ultimate power in the world is the all mighty dollar.

How much do we refuse to believe in the simple truth that money is the easiest thing to take away, and we only get the point when repossession agencies and banks take away entire lives. We refuse to even think that the hardest things to take away is faith, resolve, and willingness to make the greatest sacrifice for victory over your oppressor.

Even after Vietnam we just shrug it all of and run to the mall to shop our ignorance away.

Keep doing what your doing Seekerof, because the fall of American Empire will not be in the form of "Red Dawn", it will be in a form of another depression, the kind we'll not be able to survive as we did before, because the pace of modern world will simply not allow it.

You want to know what the future of American economy will be if we are to continue on the path we are on? Extreme wealth for less then 1% of populace, and SWAP-MEATS for the rest. eBay anybody? Hey, how inventive that is, a cyber pawnshop, a globalized heaven for small time thieves and all kinds of frauds.


Time will show.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
1. There is effective defense against supersonic antiship missiles - Sea Ram. It eliminated all weaknesses of the Phalanx in this regard.


Evidence beside what the brochure sorta suggests?


2. Stealth technology is incompactible with high speed ,ESPECIALLY concerning cruise missiles. Fast cruise missile flying low in dense atmosphere produces a huge amount of heat by friction and it would be easily visible by all IR sensors in area.


So IR sensors now see over radar horizon's and ground clutter and are widely in use in cruise missile defense? How well is the IR defense capabilities developed?


Not to mention that RAM materials are very heat sensitive.


Who said anything about RAM?


3. US didn't make super and hypersonic cruise missiles, because they didn't need them.


So striking first is no longer important? Does it matter if your missiles hit after their parent ships have been mission killed or destroyed? How many carrier launched planes can you keep from attacking you by simply having your missiles get there faster?


Russian surface Navy was so weak that it could be easily dealt with conventional Harpoons.


Well it's clearly you have not studied this specific topic matter then.



Fast missiles are unsuitable for land attacks, because of their short range and payload - there was simply no need for US Navy to have them.


Well if your aim is to terrorize third world nations is certainly a suitable strategy but it would have been a bad idea to try win a conventional or nuclear war against the USSR in this way. If Russian ships deployed their cruise missiles with nuclear warheads what chance would American carrier battle groups have? Remember the harpoon is the only anti ship missile being deployed by the US navy and it has a range of only 140 km with Russian cruise missiles normally having a range of 500-600 Km's when launched from surface combatants.How many F-18's can you arm in 15 minutes and get off the deck? What defense would carrier battle groups have against a Oscar class launching at short (50 km odd range).


4. I don't believe any hypersonic ramjet could make 3000 km at Mach 5, you'd need to provide some evidence for this claim, because the longest ranged supersonic missiles are Shipwreck with +/-500 km and those weight 8 tons.


I think his proved his point?


The longest ranged ramjet equipped missile is Yakhont/Brahmos with range less than 300km, however this is only achievable if missile flies more than half of it's range at high altitude.


Which is still half again as far as the Harpoon at 30% of it's speed. American ships will likely be dead well before they ever had a chance of firing weapons in response had the carrier suffered any damage or could not get Hornet's launched in time. The Soviet surface fleets ( when deployed) long had the habit of shadowing American task forces keeping within launching distance thus making carrier based strike power largely useless.

Zumwalt and others summed it up pretty well.

Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, former Navy Chief of Operations, said at the Australian Naval Institute Seminar in February, 1979:


“It is the professional judgment of senior officials in the United States that our Navy has only a 35% probability of winning a conventional naval war against the Soviet Union. Our military knows this, and so does theirs. About the only people who do not know it are the general public in the United States and Australia. Nor do they know that a nuclear exchange in 1981 on present trends would result in about 160 million dead in the United States.”


Stellar



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Lol,

Funny how the thread's gone so off-topic.

As for the missile being 'unstopable'... that's a claim that Russia's going to have to proove. And Russia doesn't have a good history of providing evidence that their weapons systems are 'unstopable'.

The funniest thing is you're providing all these different weapons systems and sources basically trying to say that Russian firepower is greater than the United States... are you failing to realise half these things you're posting are only on paper? The United States already has stuff very similar to these things.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Stellar - the range and speed of SCM when compared to Harpoon doesn't matter. In order for Brahmos to have range of 280 km it needs to fly more than half maybe even more time at high altitude. Do you think during this time the Aegis radar will not detect it when is it not hiding behind the horizont? Anyway the surface ships will NEVER get 300km to CBG, they will be detected by satellites long before or UAVs long before.

Their only use would be in coastal waters fired from ground platforms. And to the Oscar class submarines, I think there is a high chance that those will be tracked by US attack subs long before they will close enough to the CBG.
Also again to the advantages of those hypersonic cruise missiles - surely they might be better than subsonic ones but as said is one X-90 hypersonic missile better than 10-12 subsonic stealthy AGM-129 with the same range and payload? Especially if this supersonic missile needs to fly a lot of time quite high too, while AGM-129 flies constantly 50 meters over surface? Because those 12 subsonic missile are equal in weight to just 1 X-90. Do you think it is worth it? Certainly russians realized it's not, because they cancelled it in favour of subsonic variant.
e same about Brahmos or Sunburn - surely one is better than Harpoon, but is this 2 ton missile better than 3 Harpoons fired at once?

To the IR sensors used for long range detection - it is certainly not difficeult - Airborne Laser is based on them, it has no radars at all. If the plane with IR detector flies high it can see cruise missile 300-400km away because the terrain would not protect it.
Th



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I must say i really dont know alot about weapons or modern warfare strategies. But as it seems to me it would

be a helpful hint for longbow to look at his statements in a more empiric/scientific way:


Originally posted by longbow
Stellar - the range and speed of SCM when compared to Harpoon doesn't matter. In order for Brahmos to have range of 280 km it needs to fly more than half maybe even more time at high altitude. Do you think during this time the Aegis radar will not detect it when is it not hiding behind the horizont? Anyway the surface ships will NEVER get 300km to CBG, they will be detected by satellites long before or UAVs long before.



I mean are missiles/crafts actually able to "hide" behind the horizon.. as a child would hide behind a tree, for instance? It's a matter of altitude, arch angle and so on.. you would have to calculate and draw things using realistic data.

Another question is: Are those statements actually based on realistic warfare tactics?
How can range, speed and direction not matter in terms of missiles and their interception?? If you look at physics, vectors and all that stuff..


"...but as said is one X-90 hypersonic missile better than 10-12 subsonic stealthy AGM-129 with the same range and payload? Especially if this supersonic missile needs to fly a lot of time quite high too, while AGM-129 flies constantly 50 meters over surface? Because those 12 subsonic missile are equal in weight to just 1 X-90. Do you think it is worth it? Certainly russians realized it's not, because they cancelled it in favour of subsonic variant.
e same about Brahmos or Sunburn - surely one is better than Harpoon, but is this 2 ton missile better than 3 Harpoons fired at once?"


Sounds like a video-game and alot of hypothesis to me: Speed is extremely important. But you are describing it as a question of quantity.. or even weight.. Actually it is a question of speed and velocity. If you look at those beginner's physics formulas i must b really mistaken if there is ANY weight factor.

in the end it is only a question if it actually penetrates the enemies defensive possibilities. And this certainly won't be due to the "weight" factor of an object.
After all.. the Velocity, Stealth and Technique will decide who wins.
There's no use in sending out more "payload" if it actually never reaches it's target.

Btw how can you compare apple and pears in such a gross way? hyper/subsonic? without even explaining mere possibilities of really used offense/defense technologies.

As far as i understood the hypersonic missile would probably be launched from some atmosphere entry point.. to avoid precise detection. It's speed would excell the defensive skills of american counter-weapons..

IF the russians have technology to detect and stop those low-flying, stealthy AGM-129 the answer would be..

Yes. One hypersonic X-90 missile would definately be better than AGM-129's.



To the IR sensors used for long range detection - it is certainly not difficeult - Airborne Laser is based on them, it has no radars at all. If the plane with IR detector flies high it can see cruise missile 300-400km away because the terrain would not protect it.


So it isn't difficult for the longrange IR sensor because the Airborne Laser is based on them?? And what about the hypersonic X-90 coming from space?? At MACH 8-10 or something? What are you going to do with an IR (Infrared?) scanning plane which hasn't even got other means of Detection? What if the attacking missile suddenly appears to have ceramics, other materials and shapes to avoid interception? And this at 4x the speed of regular missiles?

....

I assume that I more or less understood iksander's descriptions.
All i want to say is that it would be nice to understand your's in a empiric and logical way too..



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Stellar - the range and speed of SCM when compared to Harpoon doesn't matter.
In order for Brahmos to have range of 280 km it needs to fly more than half maybe even more time at high altitude.


The numbers i gave are for the use FROM SHIPS and the altitude matters not at all. Not sure where you get that idea from but why do you think this changes the fact that they will get their missiles on target first?


Do you think during this time the Aegis radar will not detect it when is it not hiding behind the horizont? Anyway the surface ships will NEVER get 300km to CBG, they will be detected by satellites long before or UAVs long before.


What does it matter if they are detected? Russian naval groups just sailed from port and headed right for positions within CM range during peace time? Whenever things heated up in the world ( some kinda strategic issue) Soviet naval groups will be deployed en mass and sail to within range thus effectively holding American CBG's hostage to a overwhelming first strike. If there was no naval group in range there was still the cruise missile operating submarines deployed en mass or backfire based massed cruise missile strikes to contend with.


Their only use would be in coastal waters fired from ground platforms. And to the Oscar class submarines, I think there is a high chance that those will be tracked by US attack subs long before they will close enough to the CBG.


Then you need to study how effective American submarines ( or those of any nation) were at tracking other submarines back in those days. I think you will be surprised to find that even attempting tracking of that many submarines was completely beyond the admitted means of the time.


Also again to the advantages of those hypersonic cruise missiles - surely they might be better than subsonic ones but as said is one X-90 hypersonic missile better than 10-12 subsonic stealthy AGM-129 with the same range and payload?


But the US did not deploy stealth cruise missiles from their ships so the point is entirely moot.


Especially if this supersonic missile needs to fly a lot of time quite high too, while AGM-129 flies constantly 50 meters over surface? Because those 12 subsonic missile are equal in weight to just 1 X-90. Do you think it is worth it?


The Russian's needed to shut down America's capacity to reinforce their forces in Europe and for that you only need to strike first and make it count. You do NOT need to survive the exchange of fire to fulfil your strategic aim.


Certainly russians realized it's not, because they cancelled it in favour of subsonic variant.e same about Brahmos or Sunburn - surely one is better than Harpoon, but is this 2 ton missile better than 3 Harpoons fired at once?


The Russians still deploy the fast paced cruise missiles of old and if they now believe that their ships will survive the initial cruise missile exchange why not equip them with more numerous small slow flying stealthy missiles with which to continue the battle? Maybe the Russians discovered they can now win the naval war in this way when they could not do so in the 70's or 80's? I do not know but i think it's self serving to assume that what they had would not have worked since they are not deploying new weapon systems. It's much like claiming the F-15 was a mistake now that the F-22 stars flying...


To the IR sensors used for long range detection - it is certainly not difficeult - Airborne Laser is based on them, it has no radars at all.


IRST has long been used by both sides so there is nothing new about the concept. I think Iskander might be a bit better informed than i am on that topic so ask him if it's wise to rely on heat sources ( imagine a third world war and the heat and vapor clouds due to nuclear blasts on the ground or in the atmosphere) as detection and tracking method...


If the plane with IR detector flies high it can see cruise missile 300-400km away because the terrain would not protect it.
Th


I don't think it's effective to that range but if so it must still be shot down and last i checked the ABL was not exactly in a state to accomplish such a feat. Show me how American air/anti air forces can patrol their borders against Mach2-3 cruise missiles and manage successful interceptions ( seeing the fist coming is absolutely meaningless if you have no time to react or dodge it) and i will start wondering why the Russians have chosen this method of attack.

Stellar





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join