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

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
The bottom line is they ain't got no more money! To design, do research and development throught prototype stage, tool up for manufacture, produce sufficient quantities of product and spares across the board for all categories of weapons systems and continually upgrade them is beyond the capabilities of Russia alone. Her pockets are real shallow these days. No follow through. What ever gee whiz stuff they may come up with will never go the distance in eith quality or quantity compared to Westrern standards. Crude weaponry and lots of propaganda just doesn't make it anymore.




posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
That's it, I'm officially tired of such blatant display of ignorance.


The bottom line is they ain't got no more money! To design, do research and development throught prototype stage, tool up for manufacture, produce sufficient quantities of product and spares across the board for all categories of weapons systems and continually upgrade them is beyond the capabilities of Russia alone.


Cruizer, what are your facts? If you don't have any, please be kind enough to stop this nonsense. This forum is for people to discuss issues with a "deny ignorance" degree of maturity, insight and responsibility, not for endlessly repeating the same nonsense over and over again.


Her pockets are real shallow these days. No follow through. What ever gee whiz stuff they may come up with will never go the distance in eith quality or quantity compared to Westrern standards. Crude weaponry and lots of propaganda just doesn't make it anymore


Again, if you do not have anything tangible to contribute to this topic, please feel free to either educate your self on the issues at hand, or find some other thread to compromise with such baseless and endless babble.

Thank you for your understanding, and please note that I've asked you to keep to the nature of this topic a number of times.

If you do care to educate your self and actually contribute something to ATS forums, here's something for you to look into. What is the lowest monthly pay grade for Russian reconstruction PMCs sent to Lebanon to rebuild bridges?

Then find out the lowest pay grade which American reconstruction PMCs get in Iraq.

Come back with results if you still care to participate, if not, have a great weekend.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by zikan42
omg, I keep trying to post and it wont work


I might be able to help so tell me more.



stellar, arent the majority of the tanks and arty that russia has outdated? It doesnt have many t90s, does it?


The majority of German infantry fought with a 40 year old rifle design and i would say very many with rifle's probably as old.
You must remember that tanks are not supposed to fight tanks to start with ( that's the duty of artillery, towed and SP AT guns, infantry with anti tank weapons and airplanes ) and even thought that's so the Russians have upgraded even their old T-55's to be able to take on modern tanks in European conditions. Does the year a 155 mm SP gun date from really make a difference when the shell explodes near you?

Why throw something away when you can maintain and upgrade it or just change it's role to reflect it's growing limitations, if any?


alot of people that returned from the army told me that there is no order in russian army and that the training pretty much sucks.


I have heard that said about many armed forces including the US army,navy and air force so i only read so much into it. Remember that only about 30% of the Russian army consists of conscripts and that there are hundreds of thousands of professional soldiers in their armed forces with the same decades of experience as those in other professional forces. I, like the Russians, tend to take the strategic view on war and in that the weakness of individual training will lose you a war not much faster than bad strategy or inferior equipment. Conscription is just a way to ensure that there will always be a few million men who had recent training ( within last 5 years) which can be called up immediately when war breaks out.


How much do you think this will play a role in a war with u.s(much better training)?


The Russians are apparently interested primarily in defense ( calling the US armed forces a 'defense' force is pretty inaccurate) and their conventional forces are unlikely to come into contact with American forces large enough to even begin to present a challenge in/on the European mainland. The battle will largely be decided with nuclear and other strategic weapons and there the USA is exceedingly vulnerable imo.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Russia is not the old USSR. And while innovations may be born there never again will the might of the USSR exist with the ability for massive manufacture and to field monster armies.

Sorry but that is just common sense. It makes no sense to delude one's self into believing Russkie fantasies for my part. I have a much right to express my opinions here as anyone does so please cool it. Y'all can go back to your thread now



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Russia is not the old USSR. And while innovations may be born there never again will the might of the USSR exist with the ability for massive manufacture and to field monster armies.


Cruizer, who's saying that it is? Where have you been for the past decade and a half? Russian army has been ACTIVELY restructuring AWAY from Soviet era doctrine, and that's exactly what I've been saying the entire time.

Where do you get this stuff man?


Sorry but that is just common sense. It makes no sense to delude one's self into believing Russkie fantasies for my part. I have a much right to express my opinions here as anyone does so please cool it. Y'all can go back to your thread now.


Cruizer, the very point of ATS forum is education, and that is precisely what members do here, share factual information.

My apologies, but you just keep repeating the same baseless misconceptions, and simply refuse to accept anything else.

Surely you have the right for your opinion, but I do hope that at least you look up its exact definition.

I started this thread with the information on Soviet era hypersonic projects, yet I specifically stated "NEXT gen" in the headline.

And after all this talk nobody even asked a simple question, like "What are the current Russian hypersonic projects?"

Cruizer, you kept repeating the same nonsense like Russians are poor and simply don't have the money for anything, and didn't even care to look into ANYTHING first.

Now talking about something you have absolutely no idea about, is pretty much what ignorance is.

To make my point, here are some of the current Soviet/Russian hypersonic weapons.

3M54E KLUB (NATO SS-N-27) With hypersonic 200 KG. warhead.

P-80 Zubr SS-N-22 Sunburn 3M82 Hypersonic anti-ship missile arming early Pr-956 destroyers.

P-900 Alfa SS-N-X-27 3M51 Version of Granit carrying hypersonic final attack stage.

P-1000 Vulkan 3M70 Hypersonic heavy anti-ship missile replacing P-500 and P-700. (SS-N-12 and SS-N-19)

P-170 - Hypersonic target drone. (I guess Russians also know how to actually bring one down)

So you see Cruizer, it really does make sense to educate your self on the issue before presenting baseless opinions, and the fact that everybody has one does not bring any validity to it.

That's what "denying ignorance" is all about.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Here's some more of the LONG history behind Soviet hypersonic projects.

RSS-52
Spiral 50-50 EPOS - (my favorite, the original Space Shuttle!)
VKS
MAKS-D



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I apologise for offending anyone by my point of view of Russian hardware. It is borne out by living through every day of the Cold War. We were scared into believing every day the Sovs were momentarily on their way over the pole with nukes. Little did we know then their crappy bombers didn't have the range. Over the years we heard of all this constant stream of Soviet propagana. Kruschev and the the "we will bury you" crap , and so on. The BS about how Russians invented the 1st TV, radio, airplane, submarine and all the rest of the patent bullcrap.

As time went on those of us with military backgrounds or knowledge of certain weapons realized that it was the popularist media that half created the image of the invincible Sov weapons and soldiers. For years we were blunted into thinking that the cobbled up MiG 25 was hot feces- like every previous MiG of the year touted as invincoble by the press. We found out it was cold crap instead and a big dog. Even in 1991 it was more of the same stuff with how "the uncomplicated Russ armor in Iraq would destroy the M-1s with their high-tech complexity."

After the Wall came down we found out how brokeass the USSR really was. Their shuttle sits in a park and their military guys get paid infrequently when the motherland scrounges up some rubles.

In the Post WW 2 era the Sovs kidnapped German technical personnel to the USSR and forced them to continue their development of weaponry which the Sovs lied was their own! Literally every 2nd generation jet of the VVS was German-designed.

Anyhow after a lifetime of listening to Soviet bullsh11t the Russky wonder weapon stuff just kinda caps it off for me. I love technology as much as the next person and in a clinical way am interested in perusing articles on innovative stuff they've done. But from hard evidence of the past lies I have to behold it all with a jaundiced eye. Don't wish to argue for the sake of it so y'all know where I'm coming from.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
Russia is not the old USSR.


If you actually investigated the issue you woulf find that there are great similarities and that far less change took place that is commonly believed.



And while innovations may be born there never again will the might of the USSR exist with the ability for massive manufacture and to field monster armies.


Then you should attempt to explain why it still fields a monster field army with twenty thousand tanks and as many self propelled and towed artillery pieces. They simple do not require a massive air force anymore as NATO will not be able to interdict their ground movements ( in a conventional war) in any meaningful way considering the vast amount of highly mobile surface to air weapons. That being said they still have a larger front line force than anyone their likely to come up against


Sorry but that is just common sense. It makes no sense to delude one's self into believing Russkie fantasies for my part.


Well if you can look at their armed forces and deny away the scale of it you are in the fact that one suffering from grand delusions.


I have a much right to express my opinions here as anyone does so please cool it. Y'all can go back to your thread now


You have as much right as anyone to express your opinions bur when you state fantasy as fact you will have me objecting to it. Opinions are fine but then make sure you say it's your ( you may add 'uninformed' as that's what you are on this issue) opinion and not something that was the product of research ( it clearly was not) and looking behind CNN/BBC's reports.

Stellar


[edit on 15-10-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
stellar, im still a bit unsure about russian tanks stockpiles, after all, we;ve seen how old tanks perform against new ones in persian golf. Granted they did not have airsupport and other privilages russia would. Please explain more...

also, comment on russian industrial capabilities and compare they to american.

I have no doubt that russia would have an edge in nuclear exchanges, but im still not sure about conventional forces..please explain some more


I have a feeling the guy above will get burned hard.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by darksided
I think you are making a great point,


Why thank you; i had no idea!



but I think it goes both ways. The US Patriot system is the only long range anti-aircraft/missile system of its kind actually deployed in combat, starting in 1991 and again in 2003, and both times there were major problems discovered.


So basically the S-300 does not have to be considered as worthy of any thought cause it's not been ' battle tested' ( that was a real war , yeah).

Well lets consider the following...


Throughout the Kosovo War air campaign the major Russian missile manufacturer Almaz Central Design Burueau was quietly putting the finishing touches to a new family of highly effective S-300 and S-400 surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems. Destined to become widespread both inside and outside Russia, the presence of these missiles will "create major problems for [air strike] planners for years to come", and their significance has been greatly underestimated by Defence Ministers worldwide. This warning is made by Editors Chris Foss and Tony Cullen in the foreword of the forthcoming authoritative publication Jane's Land-Based Air Defence 2000-1 Edition.

www.janes.com...



The S-300 grouping features several different types of missiles built to strike at everything from low-flying drones and stealth cruise missiles to high-altitude reconnaissance airplanes and distant sensor platforms. Arrival of these systems in the arsenals of military foes will greatly complicate US operations, which continue to depend heavily on nonstealthy aircraft and will for years to come.

Gen. Richard E. Hawley, the now-retired former commander of USAF's Air Combat Command, told an AFA symposium in February that these new SAMs, if deployed in numbers large enough to create overlapping zones of engagement, would figuratively present "a brick wall" to nonstealthy fighters,

www.afa.org...



In 1997, the Russians unveiled yet another variant of the system, this time called S-300PMU-2 (SA-10E Favorit). Its larger missiles (9M96E and 9M96E2), longer range (200 kilometers), and better guidance system make the S-300PMU-2 a thorough modification of its predecessor. The system can engage targets between 10 meters and 27 kilometers above the ground.(7) The Russians claim that, during a series of tests in the mid-1990s, the S-300PMU-2 shot down a target ballistic missile traveling at 1,600 meters per second, and that the system can destroy targets traveling at 4,800 meters per second.(8) The Russians add that the system has a kill ratio between 0.8 and 0.98 against Tomahawk-class cruise missiles and from 0.8 to 0.93 against aircraft.(9)

www.missilethreat.com...



The missile had to have minimal reaction time, improved military utility, minimum time to target, ease of manufacture, and operate under a wider range of climatic conditions. The production missile had to be a 'certified round' - have a guaranteed reliability throughout its lifetime. The result was the TPK combined launch and transport container. This container was never opened between the time it left the factory and the launch of the missile inside. The vertical launch technique adopted used a catapult accelerator within the container to pop the missile to an altitude 20 m above the launcher, where the main motor ignited. The 4M330 featured the world's first gas-dynamic steering system, allowing quick manoeuvrability when homing in on the target.

And:

In 1995 MKB Fakel developed a new 48N6E2 missile for the S-300PMU system, the Favorit. This had a capability against medium range ballistic missiles, incorporating lessons learened from Scud attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War. In that war the surface-to-air missiles would successfully intercept the incoming rockets but the incoming warheads would still get through. Favorit was tested against a series of Scud launches at Kapustin Yar and succeeded in destroying every warhead. As with other modern Russian surface-to-air missiles, the Favorit is launched verticallly, and only in the air after clearing the launcher does it pitch over in the direction of the target. This technique proved of great interest to other surface-to-air missile developers, notably France.

And:

In 1999 MKB Fakel announced development of new rocket versions 9M96E and 9M96E2. Development of these new missiles had begun in the 1980's. The missiles had, respectively, masses of 330 and 420 kg, ranges of from 1 to 40 and 1 to 120 km, and altitude capabilities of from 5 to 20 and 5 to 30 km. Both were ejected by a cold gas cartridge from vertical container-launchers, the motor igniting 30 m in the air above the container. They were equipped with self-contained inertial guidance with updates from the ground, and used gas dynamic steering. Near the target they were capable of what the Russians called 'hyper-manoeuvring', being able to turn 20 degrees in 0.025 seconds. Trials showed the missiles had a 70% kill rate in intercepts of tactical missile re-entry vehicle's, with miss distances of a few metres. This extreme accuracy allowed a light (24 kg) warhead to be carried. The mobile launcher carried four rocket containers. In the S-300PMU-1 variant, launchers for the 5V55R, 48n6Ye, or 48N6Ye2 rockets could be mounted interchangeably on a single vehicle. By the time the latest version went into production, MKB Fakel had produced over 16 basic types of surface-to-air missile, 30 modernisations of these basic versions, and exported missiles to over 50 countries.

www.astronautix.com...




The S-300P is a highly effective SAM that first entered service with the former Soviet Union in 1980. Capable of engagements at short and long range and from low up to high altitude the S-300PMU, especially with later variants, effectively replaces the earlier SA-1/2/3/4/5 systems. As well as being used against aircraft the S-300 and variants are capable against cruise missiles and some varieties of ballistic missiles. In Soviet service many S-300PMU units were deployed to defend Moscow and other key sites. Other units were deployed at the Army or Front level in anti aircraft regiments. An S-300P battery may field up to 12 TELs each with 4 missiles mounted in container-launchers. A battery also has a command post, 76N6 Clam Shell 3D target acquisition radar and a 30N6 Flap Lid A I-band phased array radar (PAR) for fire control. A regiment comprises three such batteries and also employs the 36D6 Tin Shield long-range surveillance radar or with later versions the 64N6E Big Bird long range F-band 3D surveillance PAR

www.harpoonhq.com...



Considering the missile was never tested against a ballistic missile until the Gulf War itself, it did a pretty good job even though it couldn't destroy the incoming missile.


It did a horrendously bad job and how could these problems not be sorted out on testing ranges in the USA? It clearly was not properly tested in that capacity and should never have been sold as something that could do that job.


However, I'd also point out none of the problems of 1991 were visable in 2003, instead it was a different set of issues. The Patriot I was used in 1991,
the Patriot II was used in 2003,


It displayed the very same problems as my earlier links indicated so why do you ignore the evidence?


and today the US deploys the Patriot III.


And the Russians keep upgrading their far larger inventories of S-300 types....


While tested as often as international competitors, it is still considered the defacto standard of anti-missile weapon systems, because it is the only weapon system to be thoroughly tested in combat with an abundence of data to draw from, and improve upon.


Combat against who? Could the Patriot system even begin to cope with European combat conditions ( large numbers of planes in the air at all times) if i managed to shoot down so many allied aircraft without Iraqi aircraft anywhere in site? I think that in that type of situation the Patriot would have been largely useless as it can apparently just not tell friend from foe. I'm sorry but but i don't see how something can become a standard when it failed so badly to do it's primary job ( shooting down enemy aircraft; not allied one's).

www.abovetopsecret.com... for some information as to why i believe it to be far better than the Patriot.


If it was me, I'd take the Patriot over any other system, because it is the only proven system against Ballistic missiles. I'll take a proven system that has been heavily tested and invested in over a leading competitor with no practical experience outside of controlled testing anyday, and that goes for any military product.


Considering the dismal record of the patriot against BM's one must suspect that controlled testing was not done very well or at all. The Russians tested their S-300 against scud type targets in the mid 90's and they did not have problems....


And btw, that is why I am against many of the 'futuristic' style weapon proposals that are unproven, when proven alternatives should be persued and enhanced instead (IMO).


Well if your not willing to invest in something you think will be required to make win in the future you will most surely fall behind rather fast.


In combat, "neato" doesn't carry much weight, but "reliable" sure as hell does.


And reliable is not something i would call all that many modern American fighting systems so we can probably agree on that.


Stellar



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by zikan42
stellar, im still a bit unsure about russian tanks stockpiles, after all, we;ve seen how old tanks perform against new ones in persian golf.


What we saw is how Russian tanks with inferior almost everything were solidly beaten by American armoured forces. The T-72 was never designed to duel western main battle tanks with it's own main gun at 2 and 3 km ranges ( standard combat distances in western Europe is 500 or so meters at which range the T-72's main gun is perfectly good) as it would use it's anti tank main gun fired guided missiles for that task. I am unsure if the Iraq's had such equipment at all and read the following to get a idea of just how heavily the odds were stacked against the Iraqi's


Outside the USSR, licenced versions of T-72 were made in Poland and Czechoslovakia, for WARPAC consumers. These tanks had better and more consistent quality of make but with inferior armour, lacking the resin-embedded ceramics layer inside the turret front and glacis armour, replaced with all steel. The Polish-made T-72G tanks also had thinner armour compared to soviet standard (410mm for turret). Before 1990, Soviet-made T-72 export versions were similarly downgraded for non-WARPAC customers (mostly the arab countries). Many parts and tools are not interchangeable between the Russian, Polish and Czechoslovakian versions, which causes logistical problems.

The Yugoslavs called their copy the M-84, and sold hundreds of them around the world during the 1980s. The Iraqis called theirs the Assad Babyl, which means "Lion of Babylon," though the Iraqis assembled theirs from "spare parts" sold to them by the Russians as a means of evading the UN-imposed weapons embargo. More modern derivatives include the Polish PT-91 Twardy and Russian T-90. Several countries, including Russia and Ukraine also offer modernization packages for older T-72s.

The T-72 is common around the world in the armies of many potential enemies of the U.S. and other Western nations. Many Western analysts regard this as worrisome because, at least theoretically, its 125 mm 2A46 main gun is capable of destroying any modern main battle tank in the world today, including the M1 Abrams. On the other hand, on those three occasions when Soviet clients using T-72s have met Western armies that possessed modern main battle tanks —Lebanon in 1982 (against the Israeli Merkava), Iraq in 1991 (against the U.S. M1 Abrams and the British Challenger 1), and again Iraq in 2003— the T-72 did not show its abilities. After clashes in Lebanon in 1982, both the Israelis and the Syrians claimed their main tank's superiority, but there is no verifiable evidence of a T-72 destroying a Merkava or vice versa. In the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi tank units were heavily defeated, although this might have more to do with the poor training and full air supremacy than with any deficiencies of the T-72 itself. Furthermore, while facing the most modern Western tanks, the versions the Iraqi army fielded were out of date at the time. The Iraqi T-72s were downgraded export versions that had not been significantly upgraded over time and were firing inferior ammunition (often with steel penetrators and half-charges of propellant).

en.wikipedia.org...



Granted they did not have airsupport and other privilages russia would. Please explain more...


Well i am not sure if there is much more to be said ( beside the dozens of pages worth of information i could go dig up from my archives taking me a few hours) beside all the specifics and i think the general summary is about as much as you need to know to do some great research of your own.


also, comment on russian industrial capabilities and compare they to american.


Russian industrial capacity ( well since the revolution anyways) and infrastructure have always been strictly focused on creating the infrastructure that would make national survival in a world war possible and as far as my research goes that did not change much post 1989 or later. They are still focusing on survival based on the idea that long lives is better than very luxurious lives and on the whole Russians are far better off than the majority of the worlds population. They could obviously have relatively luxurious lives if Russias energy and industrial potential is strictly focused on the civilian economy but considering the world we live in that's not altogether so surprising.


I have no doubt that russia would have an edge in nuclear exchanges, but im still not sure about conventional forces..please explain some more


Well i don't see Russia attacking it's neighbours simply because they have a clear superiority ( they have had it since the 70's ) and while that superiority is growing there is ever less danger as they can simply use blackmail and other methods to get what they want without bloodshed on their own side. Research on the Internet is all about asking the right questions and never assuming that your asking the right questions...


I have a feeling the guy above will get burned hard.


The guy above does not care about getting 'burned' so I'm unsure if reality is going to affect his assumed point of view. The only reason i am on this forum is to contest what i believe to be untrue and in so doing testing my ideas against reality and seeing where i end up.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

In 1997, the Russians unveiled yet another variant of the system, this time called S-300PMU-2 (SA-10E Favorit). Its larger missiles (9M96E and 9M96E2), longer range (200 kilometers), and better guidance system make the S-300PMU-2 a thorough modification of its predecessor. The system can engage targets between 10 meters and 27 kilometers above the ground.(7) The Russians claim that, during a series of tests in the mid-1990s, the S-300PMU-2 shot down a target ballistic missile traveling at 1,600 meters per second, and that the system can destroy targets traveling at 4,800 meters per second.(8) The Russians add that the system has a kill ratio between 0.8 and 0.98 against Tomahawk-class cruise missiles and from 0.8 to 0.93 against aircraft.(9)

www.missilethreat.com...


You don't seem to understand the difference between a calim and a fact, somehing which pervades most of your posts.


They can claim all they want to, but as many people have said it has never been battled tested at all. Whose to say these tests aren't rigged like many people say of the AMerican systems ? WHat would make the Russians any different ? Nothing.


And reliable is not something i would call all that many modern American fighting systems so we can probably agree on that.


I had a good chickle at this. S you're claiming that Russians systems are reliable, based on what ? Their combat record ? They have none


[edit on 15-10-2006 by rogue1]

[edit on 15-10-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Cruizer, I do appreciate your good effort, and as always I will do my part.


I apologise for offending anyone by my point of view of Russian hardware.


I only speak for my self, and I sure don't take offense when ANYBODY presents ANY of their views. The only element that matters is what those views are based on.

Are they full of hot air, or are they based on a good faith effort and unbiased research presented for the benefit of the discussion?

It's exactly what FORUM is for. Start from Rome and go back to the Greeks.


It is borne out by living through every day of the Cold War. We were scared into believing every day the Sovs were momentarily on their way over the pole with nukes.


The entire world was blackmailed by the nuclear politics. Read up on that, and learn for your self how exactly it all started. Two Japanese cities will come real quick in that research.


Little did we know then their crappy bombers didn't have the range.


I'll skip the Siberian B-29. In strategic nuclear role, the Tu-95s is a primary cruise missile carrier, while its main role is a heavy bomber.

Soviets put their money in ICBMs, not bombers, look into to why America so heavily invested into strategic bombers. USAF, strategic bombing of WWII, and names will comes up. McNamara is one of them, start there.


Over the years we heard of all this constant stream of Soviet propagana. Kruschev and the the "we will bury you" crap , and so on. The BS about how Russians invented the 1st TV, radio, airplane, submarine and all the rest of the patent bullcrap.


Soviet propaganda, American propaganda, Greek propaganda, Mameluke propaganda, Martian propaganda, get the drift? One has to understand the mechanics of propaganda first, then it can be discussed.

Kruschev UN show banging? Cruizer, here's a simple question, what was he talking about, and what exactly got his goat so much? When established, please share it with us all.

Soviets didn't have patents by the way, find why, and what happened to the pre-Soviet Russian patent office.

Isn't History just fun because you get to find out what's real and what is not when you do your own work?


As time went on those of us with military backgrounds or knowledge of certain weapons realized that it was the popularist media that half created the image of the invincible Sov weapons and soldiers. For years we were blunted into thinking that the cobbled up MiG 25 was hot feces- like every previous MiG of the year touted as invincoble by the press. We found out it was cold crap instead and a big dog.


Cruizer, you obviously have absolutely no idea what the Foxbat is about. After you do your own reading and find out what's up, I'll be more then happy to contribute to a such topic.


Even in 1991 it was more of the same stuff with how "the uncomplicated Russ armor in Iraq would destroy the M-1s with their high-tech complexity."


Well that's just embarrassing. Again, my friend, our world is LITERALLY FULL of information, we are practically suffocated by it, so please, put some of it to use, or at least into your head.

"the uncomplicated Russ" "high-tech complexity". You are contradicting your self.

I'm not even going to go there, but for your own sake look into what exactly stands behind the very designation of T-72, when it was developed, which configuration package Iraqi T-72s were equipped with, and then compare it to the Abrams.

To put it simply to everyone else here, stripped export version of T-72 against a modern M1 is like trying to race a stock, consumer muscle car from the 60s against a custom built, track tuned one from the 90s.

I'm going to coin a new phrase here "Comparing Apples to Oranges = IGNORANCE".



After the Wall came down we found out how brokeass the USSR really was. Their shuttle sits in a park and their military guys get paid infrequently when the motherland scrounges up some rubles.


Cruizer, you have a long way to go my friend, but I get a distinct impression that you simply don't want to. You just kind of repeat the echoes that keep bouncing inside your head, and ignore reality even when it's literally presented to you on a plate.


In the Post WW 2 era the Sovs kidnapped German technical personnel to the USSR and forced them to continue their development of weaponry which the Sovs lied was their own! Literally every 2nd generation jet of the VVS was German-designed.


Wow. That is actually offensive to all forms of intellect, human and beyond.

Cruizer, tell me straight, are you ignoring the written word on purpose, and will posting PICTURES make any difference? Because if that's how it has to be, I will take the time and post PICTURES, one by one, with corresponding letters. Deal or no deal?

Start here - Huntsville, Alabama. The Von Braun Center. A place where American youth reaches for the future, under the name of a Nazi war criminal, who knowingly worked slaves to their deaths in underground V2 missile factories.

The same V2 technology that took America into space by the way, and all the way to the Moon, all while directly under Von Brauns management thanks to his post-Nazi NASA job "placement".

www.vonbrauncenter.com...

Need I say more or are we good here? Because that list is longer then I care to think about.


Anyhow after a lifetime of listening to Soviet bullsh11t the Russky wonder weapon stuff just kinda caps it off for me. I love technology as much as the next person and in a clinical way am interested in perusing articles on innovative stuff they've done. But from hard evidence of the past lies I have to behold it all with a jaundiced eye. Don't wish to argue for the sake of it so y'all know where I'm coming from.


Cruizer, I don't argue, I discuss technology, you are the one who's apparently hung up on all that "Soviet bullsh11t" and all other "Russky" topics, which these days, you know, on the basis of political correctness, kind of classifies it for what it really is.

I'll stop right here.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
You don't seem to understand the difference between a calim and a fact, somehing which pervades most of your posts.


I would say the same about you but since you do not normally provide us with the material you base your claims on it would be mostly pointless.


Over the past decade, Russia has deployed thousands of S-300V and Antey-2500 missiles around its key military and industrial complexes. In addition, it has exported these systems throughout Asia, Europe, and the Middle East as a means of financing its ailing economy in the wake of the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse. According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, “in the worldwide competition to sell ballistic missile defense systems, the Russian Antey Corp.’s S-300V is a main contender.”(8) The advantage for buyers of Russian surface-to-air missiles is that, unlike buying from the U.S., there are no political strings attached and, more often than not, the weapons are significantly cheaper than their U.S. counterparts

www.missilethreat.com...



*The Moscow-system missiles, the SA-5 and SA-10/12, were tipped with small nuclear warheads so they didn't require the incredible bullet-hitting-bullet complexity of the U.S. systems developed during the Clinton years. U.S. spy satellites repeatedly identified tactical nuclear-warhead storage sites at the interceptor bases spread across the Soviet empire.

* G.V. Kisun'ko, the chief designer of the ABM systems developed or deployed around Moscow for more than three decades, confirms in a 1996 memoir that large Hen House and Dog House radars at Sary Shagan were designed as battle-management radars for the early Soviet ABM system for the defense of Moscow. Kisun'ko also stated that the SA-5 was designed as a dual-purpose SAM/ABM in conjunction with the Hen House radars.

* B.V. Bunkin, the designer of the follow-on SA-10 and SA-12 (S-300 PMU and S-300V in Russian nomenclature) missile systems, and several other Russian sources, confirmed that these also were dual-purpose SAM/ABMs. SA-10s largely have replaced the thousands of SA-5 interceptors deployed across the Soviet empire during the Cold War. Bunkin's latest SAM/ABM design, the SA-20, is scheduled to begin deployment this year.

www.findarticles.com...



However, Soviet and Russian sources, including former Premier Alexei Kosygin and the Chief Designer of the original Moscow ABM system, confirm that: the SA-5 and SA-10 were dual purpose antiaircraft/missile systems (SAM/ABMs), and that the Hen House and LPAR radars provided the requisite battle management target tracking data. These and other sources cited in The ABM Treaty Charade are not exhaustive.

Nevertheless, CIA has not revised its position on this issue, nor have the U.S. Congress and the public been informed that the ABM Treaty was a valid contract from beginning to end.

In the late 1960s the U.S. sacrificed its 20-year technological advantage in ABM defenses on the altar of "arms control." As Russian sources now admit, the Soviet General Staff was in total control of Soviet "arms control" proposals and negotiations, subject to Politburo review, which was largely pro forma. The Soviet military's objective was to gain as much advantage as possible from "arms control" agreements (SALT).

www.jinsa.org...



Critics of the ABM treaty argue that the
treaty is no longer binding because the Soviet
Union no longer exists and because the
Soviets were, and the Russians continue to be,
in violation of the treaty. They contend that
the Russians have more than the one ABM
system permitted by the treaty.

Joseph Arminio, chairman of the National Coalition
for Defense, states:
Not only did the U.S.S.R., unlike the
U.S., deploy the one missile defense
permitted by the treaty, ringing
Moscow with the 100 interceptors
sanctioned by law. It also littered
about Soviet territory with another
10,000 to 12,000 interceptors, and 18
battle-management radars. Together
the Moscow defense and the vast
homeland defense formed an interlocking
system—nearly all of it illicit.10

The “10,000 to 12,000 interceptors” to which
Arminio refers are SA-5, SA-10, and SA-12
anti-aircraft missiles that some ABM treaty
opponents argue have an anti-ballistic missile
capability.1

www.cato.org...



The Bush administration’s policy was not an automatic continuity or continuation of all treaties with the USSR, but provided a framework to review each agreement and determine necessary changes. Such a review was particularly important for arms control agreements. As President Clinton stated in a letter to Congressman Gilman in March 1997, and I quote, “Particularly in the area of arms control, a case-by-case review of each agreement was necessary.” In that case-by-case review, the administration negotiated a memorandum of understanding [MOU] on succession to the ABM Treaty. The MOU, was concluded in September 1997 and identified Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia as the successor states to the treaty. This selection of successor states seemed to be consistent with a statement by the President that, and I quote, “neither a simple recognition of Russia as the sole ABM successor (which would have ignored several former Soviet States with significant ABM interests) nor a simple recognition of all NIS, Newly Independent States, as full ABM successors would have preserved fully the original purpose and substance of the treaty, as approved by the Senate in 1972.” That was the letter from the President to Congressman Gilman. The administration went on to reiterate in that same letter that the MOU on succession “works to preserve the original object and purpose of the treaty.” To summarize, the administration believed in 1997 that recognition of Russia alone or all of the successor states together would not have preserved the original purpose of the treaty.

www.missilethreat.com...



In mid-1994 the Belarusian air force operated two interceptor regiments with MiG-23, MiG-25, and MiG-29 aircraft; three strike regiments with MiG-27, Su-17, Su-24, and Su-25 aircraft; and one reconnaissance regiment with MiG-25 and Su-24 aircraft. Four regiments had 300 helicopters, and one transport regiment had more than forty helicopters. Personnel numbered 15,800.

Belarus also had an air defense force with 11,800 personnel and 200 SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, and SA-10 surface-to-air missiles. The system was being integrated into Russia's air defenses in 1994 owing to Belarus's lack of resources.

www.globalsecurity.org...



Kazakhstan is investing the equivalent of one billion dollars to upgrade its air defense system, reports Interfax, with the upgrades reportedly being made by a British company, BAE Systems. The systems upgraded reportedly include the S-75, S-125, S- 200, and S-300. The size of the contract reflects the extent of the defense systems built by the Soviet Union

www.missilethreat.com...



THE AIR DEFENSE FORCE
Structurally consist of three Corps, deployed correspondingly in Lviv, Odesa, Dnipropetrovs'k. The Force HQ is located in Kyiv.
48 000 men are in Air Defense service. The Force is armed with Air Defense complexes S-75; S-125, S-200, S-300. It also includes Fighter Aviation.
The Air Defense Force of Ukraine was developed at the basis of formations, deployed in Ukraine at the moment of its independence's proclamation.

ukraineinfo.us...


Why extend the ABM treaty to countries who lack the funds to build their own ABM defenses or research such technologies? Is it not pretty obvious that it was extended because they already had ABM systems but were under treaty not allowed to develop the capability to it's full extent or do testing in that role?

I have dozens more sources but it seems to me that your attacks on my person increases with the volume of factual material i post so lets see what you do with this few sources which failed to respond to on the other thread last week.


They can claim all they want to, but as many people have said it has never been battled tested at all. Whose to say these tests aren't rigged like many people say of the AMerican systems ? WHat would make the Russians any different ? Nothing.



In 1995 MKB Fakel developed a new 48N6E2 missile for the S-300PMU system, the Favorit. This had a capability against medium range ballistic missiles, incorporating lessons learened from Scud attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War. In that war the surface-to-air missiles would successfully intercept the incoming rockets but the incoming warheads would still get through. Favorit was tested against a series of Scud launches at Kapustin Yar and succeeded in destroying every warhead. As with other modern Russian surface-to-air missiles, the Favorit is launched verticallly, and only in the air after clearing the launcher does it pitch over in the direction of the target. This technique proved of great interest to other surface-to-air missile developers, notably France.

www.astronautix.com...


continued

[edit on 16-10-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

First, the SA-5 system was tested and developed at the officially declared ABM test range, Sary-Shagan.28 Second, medium- and intermediate-range missiles were fired to impact areas located at Sary-Shagan. Senators John "Jake" Garn and Gordon J. Humphrey have charged that many of these missiles could have served as the targets for ABM intercept programs.29 If so, the target most closely approximated in terms of range, radar cross section, and trajectory would be SLBMs. Third, if such a system as the SA-5 were to act as a terminal atmospheric defense weapon, it would require all-azimuth radar data for warning, acquisition, and pointing inputs to the SA-5 intercept radar. The Hen House long-range radar deployment was coincident in time with initiation of the SA-5 deployment.30 Hen House radars are deployed (in accordance with the ABM treaty) on the periphery of the U.S.S.R., scanninig outward over U.S. SLBM launch areas.31 As a linear array radar, Hen House can handle multiple targets limited only by internal computer configurations that can never be physically seen or assessed directly by U.S. intelligence.32 Acknowledged ABM radars such as the Dog House and Cat House also possess the capability to be used by the SA-5 in an ABM role as does a new class of large ABM capable phased-array radars publicly announced by Senator Garn.33 Fourth, and most important, the assessed technical characteristics of the SA-5 system itself indicated a clear capability to perform as a terminal ABM system to destroy ballistic missile targets of the SLBM variety given adequate radar acquisition data.34

Because of this relative wealth of uncertainty, the final ABM treaty included an explicit obligation in Article VI not to test SAMs "in an ABM mode." Since the ABM testing of the SA-5 could have been completed for some years prior to 1972, the treaty’s impact on an SA-5 ABM capability would be slight. Even at that, the reported repeated violations of the treaty after 1972 by the use of the SA-5 radar in tracking ballistic missiles resulted in Soviet tests against missiles similar in range to a normal SLBM trajectory.35 The Soviets claimed (and the administration) accepted) that the SA-5 radar was not being tested in an ABM mode, but rather was being used in a "legitimate range instrumentation role."36 Whether it is designated as a "range instrumentation radar" does not alter the fact that it has been used in a missile-tracking role. Its ability to track missile warheads on the range is therefore prima facie evidence of its ABM capability. Former Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird claims that thousands of SA-5 interceptors have been deployed in hundreds of sites around some 110 Soviet urban areas, principally in the European U.S.S.R.37 Such a deployment could play havoc with the surviving 1440 SLBM RVs.

The SA-5 anti-SLBM defenses are unorthodox and even "sneaky" in that they exist in the context of an ABM treaty under which the United States officially assumes they do not exist and takes no actions or precautions to counteract the capability. And an SA-5 ABM capability only makes sense in an overall damage-denial scheme which negates ICBMs some other way and reduces the number of SLBM RVs by ASW efforts to levels which can be countered by active SA-5 defenses, civil defense, and hardening of key targets.38

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...



The SA-5 was designated the S-200 Volga by the Soviets — the SA-5A and SA-5C are conventional versions; the SA-5B is nuclear. The warhead probably has the option for either command or proximity detonation. It was designed in the 1950s to counter American high-altitude aircraft such as the B-70 Valkyrie and SR-71 Blackbird, as well as the new stand-off missiles such as the Hound Dog, Blue Steel, and Skybolt. The United States has long claimed the SA-5B has an ABM capability (and was tested in this role in the 1970s), particularly given the sizable 25 kiloton nuclear warhead it carries. Over 2,000 missiles are deployed (the percentage of the nuclear SA-5B version is unknown), though the aging SA-5 has increasingly been replaced by the SA-10 Grumble. However, the SA-5 has received numerous upgrades and modifications, including terminal maneuvering capabilities.

www.cdi.org...&f/database/rusnukes.html



In March 4, 1961, in the area of the A testing ground the V-1000 ABM with a fragmentation-high-explosive warhead successfully intercepted and destroyed at an altitude of 25 kilometers the R-12 BM launched from the State Central Testing Ground with a dummy warhead weighing 500 kilograms. The Dunai-2 radar of the A system detected the BM at a distance of 1,500 kilometers when it appeared over the radio horizon, then the M-40 central computer found parameters of the R-12 trajectory, and prepared target designation for precision homing radars and the launchers. The ABM was launched and its warhead was actuated by the signal from the command post. The warhead of the ABM consisted of 16,000 balls with a carbide-tungsten core, TNT filling, and a steel hull. The warhead had a fragments field shaped as a disk perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the ABM. The warhead was actuated by the signal from the ground with a deflection necessary for formation of the fragments field. The warheads of this type were designed under the supervision of Chief Designer A. Voronov. The M-40 central computer was designed by the Precise Mechanics and Computer Research Institute of the Academy of Sciences under the supervision of Academician S. Lebedev. The computer could make 40,000 operations per second.

The V-1000 had two stages. The first stage was a solid-propellant booster, and the second stage was a sustainer stage with a warhead which was equipped with a liquid-propellant engine developed by the Design Bureau of Chief Designer A. Isaev. In addition to the fragmentation warhead a nuclear warhead was also designed for the missile. The flight tests of the missile, which could intercept targets at altitudes of up to 25 kilometers, started in 1958. The parallel approach to the target at a strictly counter course was chosen as the method of the ABM's homing. The V-1000 was delivered to the trajectory calculated according to the homing method along the regular curve, parameters of which were defined by the predicted target trajectory. P. Kirillov was the Chief Designer of the missile's automatic pilot. On March 26, 1961, the ABM destroyed the warhead of the R-5 BM with 500 kilograms of TNT. Overall, during the trial of the A system 11 launches of ABMs were performed which destroyed warheads of BMs, and experimental ABMs with heat seeking self-homing warhead, radio-controlled fuses, and optical fuses were also launched. The S2TA version of the V-1000 ABM with a heat seeking self-homing warhead was tested at the A testing ground between 1961 and 1963. The flight tests of the V-1000 with the nuclear warhead (without the fissible material) designed in Chelyabinsk-70 were conducted in 1961. For this warhead two types of proximity fuses were designed and tested: the optical fuse (designed by the GOI under the supervision of Chief Designer Emdin) a and radio-electronic fuse (Chief Designer Bondarenko) for the R2TA and G2TA versions of the missile.

Systems for surmounting of air defenses intended for domestic BM were also tested during the trial of the A system. The launched target ballistic missiles were equipped with inflatable false targets Verba, unfolding false targets Kaktus, and Krot active jammers. Overall, the field tests of the A system showed a principle possibility of BM warheads interception. Experiments under the coded name Operation K were conducted (K1, K2, K3, K4, and K5) to check a possibility of the A system functioning under the influence of nuclear explosions at altitudes of 80 to 300 kilometers between 1961 and 1962 at the Sary-Shagan testing ground. The A system showed its capability to function even when a conventional enemy used nuclear weapons.

www.fas.org...



1961 began with another string of failures (5 further launches were planned in the first test series). A variety of warheads were wasted in attempting to destroy the incoming missiles. Once, manually, and twice, automatically, the missile made a more-or-less successful intercept. But this was followed by three failures, indicating a great amount of time and effort were needed to develop the intercept method.

On 4 March 1961 the V-1000 achieved a world first - the destruction of the re-entry vehicle of an R-12 IRBM. This was followed by the destruction of an R-5 re-entry vehicle. In all, there were 11 launches with military warheads, plus launches of developmental warheads. The S2TA variant used an infrared-homing self-guiding high-explosive warhead and was designed by Storozhenko at the GOI State Optical Institute in Lengingrad. It was capable not only of determining the moment for warhead detonation, but also was capable of guiding the anti-ballistic missile independently using an on-board computer. The R2TA version used a radio-guided explosive warhead, with two types of proximity fuses used to determine the correct moment for warhead detonation. These were the G2TA, a radio ranging system, developed by Bondarenko and an optical system, developed by Emdin at GOI. Flight tests of the V-1000 with a nuclear warhead designed at Chelyabinsk-70 were also carried out.

www.astronautix.com...


What is your reason for calling into question incidents widely acknowledged in the West? Where is the evidence that these incidents never took place?


ussians systems are reliable, based on what ? Their combat record ? They have none


Based on the combat record of their weapons in wars all around the world.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Damn StellarX, that's as solid as it gets, and man do you have patience.

I quit on that particular "aspect" long time ago.

Keep it up.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
^^^ lol, once again for the stupid. The SA-5 was never fielded and was a monsterous missile. Also teh US articles you site are from teh early 80's when Soviet power was diliberately over inflated to justify more defence spending,this is common knowledge.

I have already proven these FACTS bogus, many times but as usuual you try and browbeat me into submission by repeating the same things over and over.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Iskander- I simply explained where I was coming from in an inoffensive manner an you chose to be a swaggering know it all holding court with your minions so I'll defer to your superior intellect. And by the way von Braun was no war criminal or a member of the Nazi party.

I'm clicking the ignore button on you bud so I'll never have to read any of your wise guy tripe again, thankyou.
Smirk all you like pal.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   


I'm clicking the ignore button on you bud so I'll never have to read any of your wise guy tripe again, thankyou. Smirk all you like pal.


No worries, to each their own, and there's nothing to smirk about here, at least for me.

You do what you want to do, it's your thing man.


And by the way von Braun was no war criminal or a member of the Nazi party.


Well that's debatable, but hey, you seem to want to "cut and run", so, have a good one.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
I'm clicking the ignore button on you bud so I'll never have to read any of your wise guy tripe again, thankyou.
Smirk all you like pal.


You have voted Cruizer for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

I hear you, some people just don't know a damn thing





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join