It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Do you know what the US response was to Russian reactive armor? Nothing. They said shoot it below the turret. The problem with reactive armor is that it often sets off adjacent armor packs and pretty soon you have a turret so mangled that it is useless. The shock damage of a non-penetrating round was enough to disable a T-72. In many cases, the reactive armor blew off the main gun tube. That is just wonderful.


So basically while you hope to 'often' set off other reactive armor the Russian T-72 gets off how many shots at you? Where do you get this nonsense, at least in my opinion, from?


History and experience says that I am right.


History proves that Soviet weapons were rarely if ever deployed as they were designed to be and never by the USSR against the enemy they were designed to fight. The US frequently deployed it's weapons against the enemies it were designed to fight ( the third world) and frequently failed badly for one reason or another. The history you think proves your point largely invalidates it as the USSR never deployed any significant part of it's armed forces against the forces it were designed to fight thus leaving people like you able to make up 'facts' as you please.

Stellar




posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaaaa
What is often overlooked in evaluating Russian quality and effectiveness is the time honored practice in that country of stating unrealistic figures to themselves in order to fulfill quotas, goals, etc.


As if that is not the norm for the US? Where are the B1 fleets of bombers or the thousands of Joint strike fighters or F-22's?


Many a 5-year plan was achieved by simply lying about results rather than doing the book-keeping in a rational way.


Sources please as i tire of these vague nonsensical claims that simply disregards DIA records on how the CIA perpetually underestimated both the numbers and their strategic roles.


To say that the Russians never gave or sold thier best stuff to thier client states is no doubt true, one remembers the Indian Air Force equiped with Soviet aircraft kicking the crap out of Pakistan's American stuff.


It's good to know that at lease some people are reading some history! I would not however say that the Pakistanis did THAT badly...


Nevertheless, people here tend to overestimate the Russians the same way the CIA used to; no source is informed well enough to provide a fully accurate appraisal of thier capabilities.


After the 50's CIA almost always underestimated the strength of the USSR and this is well recorded in at least half a dozen critical instances that changed the balance of power significantly in favour of the USSR.


To say that they can sortie a dozen boomers or shoot more than a handful of hypersonic cruise missiles at any given time is so speculative as to be a topic for idle fantasy.


Most western defense analyst have for half a century underestimated the power of the USSR and this has not changed in the last decade. If you wish to start citing sources i have opposite and equally expert opinions by the tens of dozens with supporting details coming from respected journals. The fact is that these strengths are well understood and known by most all and that they are simply paid or told to represent the reality you have been fooled into supporting. It's not your fault and probably just bad luck that you have run into one of the few people who are are both interested and able to show up these media lies.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by moot2007
Thanks for making this an unreadable thread. The topic was lost by two retards that think everything they read is solid. I work in the intelligence community and know without a doubt that most of what you read is propoganda.


A great deal of propaganda is spread and sometimes the weapons are far less able and other types have far greater capabilities.


Especially when it comes to weapon systems. LOL... Taking Stats from a page like FAS or the like and then figuring out which country is better is about as ignorant as you get.


I think your elitist approach is quite worse than any ignorance that might result from depending on 'official' sources that might or might not be accurate.


I remember arguing with my father "SOT-A" when I was younger about how the HIND could hold 144 (Im probably wrong now and dont care, I was still looking at boobies in the sears catalog at that time) rockets and the apache couldnt hold as many so the HIND must be better. Dad and I still laugh at that conversation. (I cried to momma!)


Hehehe, pffft. Do you have anything of value to add beside your general scorn of those who attempt to make sense of the world by the best practical means possible?


Anyhoo, my point is, its nice to have a cool little discusion about which system is better and whos country has the ability to out tech another country.


I don't think the majority of those who took part so far think this discussion is 'cool' but i suppose your just going to add more derogatory adjectives in your vapid attention seeking posting style.


The facts still remain. You will never, no matter how many Wiki/STAT/White papers you read, know the true capabilities of any armed forces.


That is no fact at all and it's odd that you imagine it could be.
Do one have to be 100% correct to predict the outcome of other events and why is this so different?


There are too many variables involved.


So complexity gives you a headache resulting in claims that the subject matter can not be understood by anyone? Arrogance abounds...


And for my fianle, The US and Russia have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out human life on earth. We ALL F'n SUCK!


Typical vapid nonsense from those who have not actually done the research. When you have actually read some of those thousands of 'stupid' papers i have feel free to come back and make vapid claims that are at least detailed enough to warrant a response including some sources.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Considering how many are often infuriated by StellarX's type of response, and how I imagine, some are kept a bit away by his repeated usage of superfluous English, allow me to translate his discussion into something which the common, proper man can understand:
'I am right, you are wrong. Because you are Western, and most, if not all Western sources are fallible. Meanwhile, the infinitely-crafty and supreme Soviet Union - Russian Federation is more capable in so many ways, that it's simply funny. Clearly, you are by-and-large uneducated graduates of the failing American education system.'

Not to appear crude -- Though this topic is far enough off-topic all-ready, and as far as I'm concerned, due to several posters, the quality of debate has eroded significantly.

Perhaps I'm wrong, though any additional discussion on this topic is wasted.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
stellarXs posts are nothing new iblis. And I agree with you about his points.

As for the CIA "underestimating" the russians. Maybe you should look in the mirror stellar. The only one underestimating anyone here is you underestimating the richest country on the planet who has a military expenditure larger then Russias entire economy. While the USSR spending became less and less after they lost the cold war, the US kept on spending 100s of billions of dollars over the past decade and a half assuring that they would always be a mile ahead of the closest competitor. Our spending throughout all of the 90s was never smaller then 275 billion dollars. Now its over 500 billion. (and probably over 600 billlion once you factor in the iraq war spending) We spend I believe over 70 billion dollars a year on R&D which is more then russia spends on its entire military infrastructure. By the year 2010 the US military spending is projected to top the 1 trillion dollar mark. If you think the russian federation can 'keep up' (couldnt the first time) or has an upper hand even now then you are biased and naive.

And what about the next technological revolution which will involve the convergence of nano, bio, information and materials technology? The US leads in this field of technology (like many other fields). This technology will further the US militarys prowess, while leaving more and poorer nations like russia in the dust.

As for your missiles. We have lasers that move at the speed of light. We also have a rail gun that has a 300NM radius. The navy recently developed a 8 megajoule rail gun this year. The navy is wanting a 64-Megajoule rendition adorning our ships by 2020. We'll be seeing a 32-Megajoule prototype in June this year. by as early as 2015 the DD(X) could be equipped with a 64 or 32-megajoule variant as well as other naval vessels. They are talking about putting this weapons system on tanks as well. It goes on and on.




were talking about a kinetic missile that flys at mach 7-plus.


[edit on 073030p://0104pm by semperfoo]



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Sell it to Iran and China they would make billions way to go, good luck hope we are in safe hands. < it takes this many words to make 1 and half lines of writing in the writing box, but it adds to 1 line also known as a 1 liner in the main screen.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by The time lord]



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
The problem with Stellar X is that he would flame his own posts.

Point out that the U.S. intellegence community underestimates potential enemy capability and you are wrong.

Pose the possibility of hidden strengths there and you are wrong.

Links, Please? To be simply argumentative does not contribute to denying ignorance, and the refusal to accept any other opinion (yes, that is what it boils down to) leads readers to the obvious conclusion that a distrurbed agenda of deliberate confrontation is what is occuring here.

I would hope freedom of expression rules here, not the dictatorship of a snide derision of others contributions to the thread.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Shhudupp Cartman!!


When are the DDXs meant to be commisioned?



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Shhudupp Cartman!!


When are the DDXs meant to be commisioned?



Respect my authority!!!!!!
(had to)

Well there were plenty of hiccups but the program seems to be going full steam ahead. The Zumwalt DDG-1000 will be commissiond in 2013 and will serve out till 2053.

check out this site below. It details how many will be ordered per year and when theyll be commissioned.
www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaaaa
The problem with Stellar X is that he would flame his own posts.

Point out that the U.S. intellegence community underestimates potential enemy capability and you are wrong.

Pose the possibility of hidden strengths there and you are wrong.

Links, Please? To be simply argumentative does not contribute to denying ignorance, and the refusal to accept any other opinion (yes, that is what it boils down to) leads readers to the obvious conclusion that a distrurbed agenda of deliberate confrontation is what is occuring here.

I would hope freedom of expression rules here, not the dictatorship of a snide derision of others contributions to the thread.


AGREED



You have voted aaaaa for the Way Above Top Secret award



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Considering how many are often infuriated by StellarX's type of response, and how I imagine, some are kept a bit away by his repeated usage of superfluous English, allow me to translate his discussion into something which the common, proper man can understand:
'I am right, you are wrong. Because you are Western, and most, if not all Western sources are fallible. Meanwhile, the infinitely-crafty and supreme Soviet Union - Russian Federation is more capable in so many ways, that it's simply funny. Clearly, you are by-and-large uneducated graduates of the failing American education system.'

Not to appear crude -- Though this topic is far enough off-topic all-ready, and as far as I'm concerned, due to several posters, the quality of debate has eroded significantly.

Perhaps I'm wrong, though any additional discussion on this topic is wasted.


LMAO, very funny and spot on.


You have voted Iblis for the Way Above Top Secret award.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Thanks Iskander!
Ive learned a lot i didnt know before



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Links to the bombers? Perhaps some claim as to actual working bombers, including crews with sufficient training-hours to run said machines?


According to information posted by another user the following is a indication of how bad it got


The former Air Forces and Air Defence Forces have now been merged into a single service (at a cost of some 93,000 posts), under Colonel General (Aviation) Anatoly Kornukov. Whilst still a large force, it has suffered from a decade of underfunding, which has led to a lack of modern airframes, abysmally low flight training levels and problems with repair and maintenance. It has also failed to adjust to the fragmentation of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union and the effect that this would have on Moscow's old integrated air defence system. In 1998, the deputy Commander-in-Chief of the air force expressed his desire for the annual flying hours per pilot to average around 50 hours. In 1990, the air force accumulated two million annual flying hours, by 1999 this had dropped to 200,000-230,000.

www.aeronautics.ru...


You can read the rest as it does not disagree with any of your major points...

Now given that numbers and a experienced pilot core how many hours do you require per year to maintain the standard of flying required by the Russian integrated air defense system? The flying hours are in fact allocated to keep a certain percentage of pilots ( presumably what they think is required to assist the air defense network against any hostile threat) as proficient as before and given the reality of the modern versions of the Su-27/30 and Mig 31 200 000 hours is more than plenty to keep a core of 500 -1000 pilots trained to general NATO standards of around 120 hours per year.


Lastly -- Of course the Russian's will have more missiles. The United States has all-ways been the driving force in nuclear-arms reduction


The USSR have always been the force behind arms reductions while relentlessly and persistently cheating on every treaty while the CIA does it best to hide those transgressions from the US congress.


counter-balanced by a technological nuclear superiority, and because of Russia's poor practice of zero-maintenance,


What nuclear superiority? What zero-maintenance? Where do you get this from?


they've arguably never removed a missile from service since conception, save for safety concerns and international treaties.


They did withdraw missiles from service but not normally as quickly as the US save for say the B-52's which the US have chosen to rebuild ever so often.

Post 2


Originally posted by Iblis
Considering how many are often infuriated by StellarX's type of response,


Give me a 'ballpark' number as this claim seems no less vague than the rest of what you normally present here.



and how I imagine, some are kept a bit away by his repeated usage of superfluous English, allow me to translate his discussion into something which the common, proper man can understand:


Not my first language and while i apologise for any 'disruption' my abuse of the language results in in find it quite hard to believe that my sources quotes are that hard to understand considering the mastery, of the language, most of the writers tend to display.


'I am right, you are wrong. Because you are Western, and most, if not all Western sources are fallible.


The vast majority of the material i source comes from western journals or media sources ( probably 90%) and i am always surprised when i am attacked based on my sourcing record..... When my 'critics' ( i'm being generous as this is clearly not about 'the facts') starts sourcing and defending their views as least as well as i do maybe some respect might follow and maybe the criticism might be considered at face value.


Meanwhile, the infinitely-crafty and supreme Soviet Union - Russian Federation is more capable in so many ways, that it's simply funny.


It seems to be the case but mostly due to the supreme and diligent efforts of some very prominent Americans who worked so long and so hard to destroy everything that had made the US a world power by the early part of the last century.


Clearly, you are by-and-large uneducated graduates of the failing American education system.'


Being educated in a reality that does not in fact correspond to observed reality may not make one 'uneducated' but it leaves one sadly unprepared to affect your long term best interest even if you will be well rewarded in the short term for your defense of a convention that you do not understand.


Not to appear crude -- Though this topic is far enough off-topic all-ready, and as far as I'm concerned, due to several posters, the quality of debate has eroded significantly.


Agreed.


Perhaps I'm wrong, though any additional discussion on this topic is wasted.


There is quite a bit to learn if one decides to look past the superficial spamming and it's always my hope that some takes the time to do so while i attempt to deal with those who refuse to do so.. ....

Stellar



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaaaa
The problem with Stellar X is that he would flame his own posts.

Point out that the U.S. intellegence community underestimates potential enemy capability and you are wrong.


I make it quite clear in which era's i believed they overestimated and even give a specific decade ( the mid 60's) when the CIA and it's political oversight started to blatantly deceive the American public as to the massive build up that was taking place in the USSR.


Pose the possibility of hidden strengths there and you are wrong.


I have time and time again pointed out that i believe both countries have operated direct energy weapons of various strengths since the middle 70's and i am not the one who attempts to obscure the fact that the US could have had deployed a armed force that could have ruled the world by any means it chose. I have pointed out how the US could have had a national missile defense program with a swizz style passive defense system that could have provided every man women and child with a ventilated and supplied shelter space DECADES ago had the American government been interested in protecting it's citizens against a enemy that was always dangerous enough to get tens of thousands of Americans killed in pointlessly skirmishes in that countries that did not, and still does not , pose a threat to US security. I am quite confident when i say that the US deploys weapons far beyond your wildest imagination but also that the USSR managed it's own share of breakthroughs resulting in their massive strategic superiority in the late 70's and early 80's leading to the vain attempts of Reagan to rearm the US before it was too late...


Links, Please? To be simply argumentative does not contribute to denying ignorance,


Which proves how little you have contributed. I may be wrong , somehow, about many of the things i believe but at the very least i source my claims so that others may know why i am objecting to the reality they refuse to defend in any concerted sourced fashion. Who contributes more to 'denying ignorance' than those who introduce large volumes of sourced information that others rarely seem aware of?


and the refusal to accept any other opinion (yes, that is what it boils down to)


I don't accept what no longer makes sense and if you are not willing to where the information leads you don't take part. I don't accept your opinions, on the larger strategic issues, because they are largely based in ignorance and denial of conclusions that could logically be reached with even a modicum of objectivity. In recent times i may have resorted to too many snide remarks but i am confident that my record in the weapons section will show that far more often than not any disagreement i have with stated opinions are far better sourced; if not in volume then in detail.


leads readers to the obvious conclusion that a distrurbed agenda of deliberate confrontation is what is occuring here.


And i will keep confronting what i consider to be your defense of what never has been supported by reality. What you want to believe has nothing to do with me but when you want to propagandize others i will respond to your posts with what i believe to be the truth; a situation which could easily be alleviated by simply not posting leaving me with no chance to correct the observed 'wrongs'. You can accuse me of having a agenda the moment i start creating dull witted threats ( as in the norm on ATS) but until then rather campaign to silence the ignorant opinions i have chosen to correct.


I would hope freedom of expression rules here, not the dictatorship of a snide derision of others contributions to the thread.


And while you think your 'contributing' in a way that serves the ATS community this 'problem' you have with me will go unresolved.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo


Russias militar spending is not going to be enough to beat the US military budget or even come close to it which is over 500 billion dollars and this is not even counting the spending going on in Iraq.


No one really knows how much the old USSR or now RF spends on it's military so please stop pretending that we do. Why is it that when the USSR built tens of thousands of tanks and aircraft quality beats quantity but when the USA spends more, more is suddenly better? Please explain this 'logic'. Have you for instance considered that more than half ( and it's increasing ) of the Pentagons budget is simply spent on salaries? When do we start talking about the 120 dollar astrays and 2 billion dollar submarines that can be built for a fraction of the price?

What about the basic maintenance cost and bribes to keep those 700 facilities on foreign soil in operation? What about the massive operational cost of relying on forward deployed forces ( carriers and SSBN's/SSN's) instead of on passive defenses such as the Russians have focused on? I can assure you that once all these considerations are added and substracted you might find that spending more dollars ( which have been massively devalued) does no mean much in the grand scheme of things and that aquiring newly bult obsolete weapons does not help any armed force who most rely on using them very actively to affect the strategic balance at all.


the US spends more on its military then russias entire GDP.


Does that logically mean that the US is better able to defend itself against it's enemies? Why does so much of the evidence suggest otherwise?


Russias military (while improving..) is simply not in americas league.


It's nuclear arsenal is larger and far more survivable.


No one is, so russia shouldnt feel left out. (sorry just had to get into this wang measuring contest)


Please grow up.


Also the US has a defense capability that moves at the speed of light that pretty much makes these so called "invincible" missiles obsolete.


So does the Chinese for probably at least a decade and the Russians since the middle 70's so please wake up and or do some research.


Its called "lasers". We lead in this area as well.


No you do not and actual informed 'experts' dont share your enthusiasm for everything that is American.


ASATs The Soviets may have a new "direct-ascent" antisatellite
capability, according to the Pentagon's annual report
to the Congress. This would be more effective than the "coorbital"
ASAT, which has been operational since 1971. It is
speculated that the new ASAT could carry a nuclear warhead.
Lasers: According to Paul Nitze, the Soviets have over a
half dozen major development facilities, including an ABM test
center at Sary Shagan. US intelligence sources suspect that
Soviet lasers have already damaged some American spy
satellites. In 1984, Richard DeLauer testified that it would
take the US about ten years to reach parity in laser weapons.
Active Measures (Wet)?: Since July 1986, there have
been seven terrorist bombings, three assassinations, five highly
suspicious "suicides," and one disappearance among European
scientists and officials working on SDI-related projects.
(Washington Inquirer, 12/18/87).

www.oism.org...



At the annual meeting of The American Civil Defense Association (TACDA) in Los Angeles, October, 1985, Dr. Teller stated that the U.S.
has made encouraging progress in research on x-ray lasers. But he believes the Soviets are a decade ahead of us in strategic defenses.

www.oism.org...



To power the laser system the satellite received two turbine generators, and the laser gun itself was placed in the fairing moved to the fuselage. This fairing was located between the trailing edge of the wing and the fin.

Since late 1960s, the Soviet Union was working on development of ground laser systems for anti-satellite defense and pumping from nuclear explosions. Unlike the Roentgen laser of Teller, such lasers were reusable. One of such lasers was probably built near Dushanbe. In different periods Yu. Babaev and Yu. Ablekov supervised the work on such laser, but due to the unilateral moratorium announced by the USSR, and the followed mysterious deaths of both engineers the work on such lasers was suspended in the mid-1980s.

In 1994-1995, The High Temperatures Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences sold the Pamir-3U mobile electric generator to the United States. The Pamir-3U had an output of 15 megawatt, dimensions of 2.5 x 2.65 x 10 meters, and weighed about 20 tons. The generator could be used in Russia (USSR) on the ground or in outer space for power supply to long-range laser and super high frequency weapon systems.

The Soviet Union also worked on designing of an "orbital fortress" based on a space station of the Mir type. Modules of the aiming system served as the side blocks of the station. The side blocks were attached to the basic module. The blocks were to be delivered to the station in cargo compartments of the Buran shuttle orbiter. The station was intended for killing of warheads of ballistic missiles from outer space when the crew was on board.

www.fas.org...



The Soviet response was immediate. Yuri Andropov ordered additional funding and implementation of Fon-2. At the same time Soviet diplomatic initiatives were undertaken. A proposal was made to the Unite States to ban all space-based weapons. Andropov declared a unilateral moratorium on testing of the improved IS-MU ASAT. As a 'warning shot' the Terra-3 complex was used to track the STS-41-G space shuttle Challenger with a low power laser on 10 October 1984. This caused malfunction of on-board equipment and temporary blinding of the crew, leading to a US diplomatic protest.

www.astronautix.com...


.

We have right now, I believe, one weapons-grade laser operating in the United States. The Soviets have at least ten we have identified and there may be more. At Los Alamos right now our scientists are working on developing a very compact particle accelerator. This is vital work toward the development of something you have all heard about, a particle beam weapon of some kind. At the heart of that system is a Soviet invention dating back to the 1960s called a radio frequency quadrapole. Years ago, the Soviets mysteriously decided that there would be no more literature, open or semi-open, on this or any similar development. Such information suddenly disappeared from these vaunted scientific exchanges that we hear are so important. Of course, the Soviets exchange very little information that is vital to them in these so-called exchanges, anyway.

www.heritage.org...



The Soviets built high-energy laser devices in the 1980s and generally placed more emphasis on the weapons applications of lasers than did the West. The tactical laser program had progressed to the point that by the mid-1980s, U.S. analysts anticipated that laser weapons would be deployed with future Soviet forces.

www.dia.mil...


So basically laser technologies are not at all new and there is good evidence to suggest that the USSR had a substansial lead in the general direct enrgy weapons field.


We have a modified 747 airborn laser and in the not so distant future F22s as well as the JSF 35 will be outfitted with a laser of their own for offensive capabilities as well as defensive ones.


So?



Particle-beam weapons inflict damage in a similar way. They emit beams of particles, perhaps hydrogen or deuterium ions, at near-light speed. Details remain sketchy, but the principle is essentially the same as in an ion-propulsion system (New Scientist, 21 November 1998, p 22). A working particle beam is believed to have been on board the mysterious Soviet "battlestar" Polyus-Skif, which was launched in May 1987 but crashed during take-off. Polyus-Skif also carried a prototype laser for destroying satellites. In the US, research on particle-beam weapons continues at the High Energy Research and Technology Facility on Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico.

www.jamesoberg.com...



In 1983 flight trials of the approximately 60t laser device commenced on an Ilyushin Il-76MD heavylift transport. At the same time research was being carried out on the propagation of laser beams in the atmosphere.

Starting at the end of the 1960s, the Russians also developed ground-based nuclear laser systems for combating spacecraft. Unlike the American x-ray lasers, they could be used several times over. The programme was terminated after the USSR announced a unilateral moratorium on trials of the space defence system and the puzzling deaths of the two project managers in the mid-1980s.

The mobile Pamir-SU electro-generator, with an output of 15MW and a mass of around 20t, could supply power to long-range lasers and ultra-high-frequency weapon systems. It could be used both on the Earth and also in space. In 1994/1995 this equipment was sold to the USA.

www.flug-revue.rotor.com...


continued



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   

There have been occasional reports of actual laser weapons, usually in the Hong Kong press.[5] In late 2003 Taiwanese military sources reported that the PLA had deployed a “laser cannon” with a 100km range in the Nanjing Military Region. [6] While this alarming report received no coverage in the U.S., if true it would handily precede U.S. intentions to deploy its first ground-based laser weapons by 2007 or 2008.[7] The U.S. hopes to test an airborne chemical laser in 2004 and is developing a range of military lasers to include air, naval and land-based solid-state lasers. If it indeed exists, the PLA’s laser would be useful for shooting down aircraft, cruise missiles, some PGMs and some ballistic missiles. In addition, Internet sources indicate the PLA Army has a laser-radar (LIDAR) system small enough to place on an armored personnel carrier for chemical detection purposes.

The Pentagon’s Congressionally-mandated annual reports on PLA modernization have been warning about potential breakthroughs in laser weapons since their first issue in late 1998. In its 2002 report the Department of Defense stated, “China reportedly is focusing its laser weapon development on anti-personnel, counter-precision guided munitions air defense, and ASAT roles.”[8] Beginning with its 1998 report the Department of Defense noted the probable PLA use of ground-based lasers to damage satellites. In its 2002 report the U.S. Department of Defense stated this observation as follows:

In 1984 Russia used a laser to track the U.S. space shuttle and caused some malfunctions.[15] In the early 1990s Western observers were surprised to discover the KDKhR-1N laser-based “chemical reconnaissance system.” Russian ships have used lasers to ward off U.S. aircraft, and on occasion have blinded U.S. pilots. Developed in the 1980s it is a laser-radar on a tracked APC chassis configured to detect and classify chemical agents. Russia markets a variety of laser tracking and designating systems. One system marketed at the 2003 Moscow Airshow, the Nudelman Precision Engineering Bureau’s PAPV uses lasers to locate enemy optics, like a sniper scope, and deliver a laser blast that blinds the sniper, or worse.

www.uscc.gov...



To power the laser system the satellite received two turbine generators, and the laser gun itself was placed in the fairing moved to the fuselage. This fairing was located between the trailing edge of the wing and the fin.

Since late 1960s, the Soviet Union was working on development of ground laser systems for anti-satellite defense and pumping from nuclear explosions. Unlike the Roentgen laser of Teller, such lasers were reusable. One of such lasers was probably built near Dushanbe. In different periods Yu. Babaev and Yu. Ablekov supervised the work on such laser, but due to the unilateral moratorium announced by the USSR, and the followed mysterious deaths of both engineers the work on such lasers was suspended in the mid-1980s.

In 1994-1995, The High Temperatures Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences sold the Pamir-3U mobile electric generator to the United States. The Pamir-3U had an output of 15 megawatt, dimensions of 2.5 x 2.65 x 10 meters, and weighed about 20 tons. The generator could be used in Russia (USSR) on the ground or in outer space for power supply to long-range laser and super high frequency weapon systems.

The Soviet Union also worked on designing of an "orbital fortress" based on a space station of the Mir type. Modules of the aiming system served as the side blocks of the station. The side blocks were attached to the basic module. The blocks were to be delivered to the station in cargo compartments of the Buran shuttle orbiter. The station was intended for killing of warheads of ballistic missiles from outer space when the crew was on board.

www.fas.org...



U.S. Fears Satellites Damaged
Peter G. Neumann
Sun 24 Jan 88 14:10:34-PST

Subtitle -- Soviets used lasers to cripple equipment, sources contend.

Washington, by Richard Sale (UPI, 24 January 1988).

U.S. intelligence agencies are convinced Soviet laser attacks have damaged
supersophisticated U.S. spy satellites deployed to monitor missile and
spacecraft launches, administration sources said. These sources said they
believe the Soviets fired ground-based lasers to cripple optical equipment
attempting to scan launches at Tyuratam, the major Soviet space center, to
obtain a variety of sensitive military information. Administration
intelligence sources said they fear that other vital U.S. reconnaissance
satellites will soon be endangered because six new Soviet laser battle stations
are under construction... "There is no way you can protect the optical sensors
on satellites" from laser attacks, an Air Force official said. ...

Intelligence sources acknowledged that the Pentagon also has trained
ground-based lasers on Soviet spacecraft, sometimes in attempts to disrupt
their sensors. ...

catless.ncl.ac.uk...




On Sept. 29 and 30, the Soviets practiced bombing Hawaii.
They also zapped three American airplanes with lasers. The
pilots were not seriously injured, but most of the electronic
surveillance equipment on one plane was knocked out
instantly. For several hours, Mikhail Gorbachev and a number
of other top Soviet officials occupied the deep underground
bunkers near MOSCOW, according to US intelligence sources
(Washington ZTmes, Oct. 13, 1987 Al). But they did not need
such a huge protection factor. The US government responded
with a protest, and with optimism about the upcoming summit.
A few Hawaiian citizens called their Director of Civil Defense
to ask where the shelters were, and had to be informed that
actually there aren't any (personal communication, War Crisis
Workshop, Ark. Department of Emergency Services, Nov. 4).

www.oism.org...


So now that we have established that that this is old news .....


also one thing that I think is worth mentioning is the next technological revolution which will involve the convergence of nano, bio, information and materials technology and will further bolster the US military and put us that much further ahead of the "closest competition".


As if the USSR/RF were/are not leaders in many of these fields! Why do you so vapidly believe what you like Semper?


The US is the leader in this technology (as it is in most fields) and it looks to stay that way for the foreseeable future.


I'm just waiting for the evidence.... Why do you presume that the US ( or some forces in it) wont sell any such breakthroughs to the enemy as it's past record indicates it does?


the US accounts for some 40% of the worlds spending on R&D. as for "black projects". A successful military doesnt let its secrets out. Which is probably why you dont hear much about the US black projects.


Considering the scale of the secrets being kept by the US the mind should real at what the USSR could ( and did ) do... Do you remember all those thousands of undeclared ICBMs?


Has anyone here ever seen the documentary labled "star wars in Iraq"?

EDIT Cant get yvid to work so heres the links..
www.youtube.com...

Also, I think MTHEL would have something to say about your "unstoppable missiles".
Speed of light > Mach 3+
www.youtube.com...
And this is just what they have declassified. I can only imagine what is still "classified".


ICBMS might very well be useless at this late date unless one has a means to pre-emptively target the defensive DEW installations with your own direct energy weapons from orbit or other platforms. The 'imagine what is still classified' goes for both sides and i wonder why this does not rather scare you as secrets can certainly be better kept in places such as Russia...


Also when the US won the cold war many USSR scientist immigrated to the US for work here. Im willing to go out on a limb here and say whatever the soviets had been working on that was previously unknown to the americans is probably well known now.


The US did not win the cold war as is evident by the fact that the US is destroying itself from the inside out for reasons one is hard pressed to explain by alternative means. Where is the supposed 'facts' of all those scientist that came to work in the US and how long do you think they would have lived if they disclosed state secrets? The US intelligence agencies can not even protect two giant towers and considering how riddled with foreign agents the whole intelligence infrastructure is your better off on your own.


Also after the USSR collapsed it was found out that the USSR was some 10-15 years behind that of the US military tech.


The type of nonsense people should get banned for. I keep showing what sort of vapid lies you spread as fact yet you just keep going as if i'm not even here...


Today it is estimated to be at about double that.


Pray tell by who( beside yourself)? It would be my pleasure to rip apart the 'credibility' of the individual intelligence/defense 'specialist' which lies you have chosen to believe in your self serving delusions of US superiority. .


The two best weapons the USSR had was MAD, and smoke and mirrors, making us think they had capabilities they most certainly did not have.


The USSR never prescribed to the 'MAD' Ideology hence their massive civil defense and missile defense preparations that consumed such a massive proportion of the Soviet industrial effort.

continued



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   

The vast Soviet network of shelters and command facilities, under construction for four decades, was recently described in detail by Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci.The shelters are designed to house the entire Politburo, the Central Committee, and the key leadership of the Ministryof Defense and the KGB. Some are located hundreds of yards beneath the surface, and are connected by secret subway lines,tunnels, and sophisticated communications systems. "These facilities contradict in steel and concrete Soviet protestations that they share President Reagan's view that nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought,"Carlucci said (Ariwna Republic, April 3, 1988). These
facilities reveal that they are preparing themselves for just the opposite." The shelters are also protected against chemical warfare agents, and stocked with sufficient supplies to allow the leadership to survive and wage war for months.In contrast, the limited US shelter system begun in the 1950s has mostly been abandoned."To have something comparable, we'd have to have facilities where we could put every governor, mayor, every Cabinet official, and our whole command structure underground with subways running here and there," Carlucci said. "There's just no comparison between the two."

www.oism.org...



Industrial dispersal. The Soviets have been involved in an industrial dispersal program for more than 15 years. Their approach to the program has been and continues to be the siting of new industrial complexes in towns and settlements with populations of 100,000 people or less. The program has several advantages for the Soviets. First, it is of great economic importance from the standpoint of accelerating and expanding their economic development; this is especially true regarding growth of such sparsely developed areas as Siberia. Second, it prevents high concentrations of industry in a small number of large industrial centers and helps the Soviets make better use of their abundant natural resources. Third, dispersal creates a proliferation of aimpoints for U.S. strategic planners and greatly complicates targeting tasks.

Industrial hardening. The Soviets have an ongoing program designed to harden their industrial base. Included in this program are underground facilities, new plant construction techniques, construction of duplicate plants, retrofit hardening of existing facilities, and expedient techniques. The first three hardening methods can be productively utilized only for new facilities and require a long lead time for fruition. The fourth method, retrofit hardening of existing facilities, has near-term implications but is expensive. The fifth means, expedient techniques, is relatively inexpensive and has short-term implications; it will be the focus of this discussion.

If current Soviet expedient hardening preparations for protection of their industrial base are implemented on a large scale, the effectiveness of a U.S. retaliatory capability could be significantly degraded. By utilizing relatively inexpensive and simple expedient techniques such as packing machinery in sandbags, the Soviets could make their industry relatively invulnerable to overpressures of a few pounds per square inch (psi). Depending on the specific precautions taken in mounting and protecting machines, they can be made to survive overpressures in the range of 40 to 300 psi. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate specific hardening techniques.7

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



This dispersal plan had a huge impact on city planning in the Soviet Union. When new cities were built, they were planned as dispersed cities with suburban populations instead of centralized towns (see above).
Changes to existing cities included constructing wide streets, artificial reservoirs, and a network of highways around the city, as well as reducing building density to reduce the possibility of blast and fire damage.
The Soviets, therefore, assumed that they would have enough advance warning of an American attack to implement the aforementioned evacuation and dispersal exercises. Through the use of these removals, pre-attack warning systems, and improved city planning, Soviet military leaders hoped to reduce the number of civilian and economic (industrial) losses.

In 1968, Radio Moscow reported that the most reliable protection available against nuclear, chemical, and bacteriological weapons was "evacuation from large cities and industrial areas". Soviet leaders assumed that American attacks would be centered around cities and industrial centers, so with proper warning time, Soviet citizens could escape to rural and suburban areas without harm.
In the event of an American nuclear attack, there were nine (9) different warning signals that could be broadcast throughout the city. One of these signals (which corresponded to different levels of urgency) would be played all over the city using sirens, loudspeakers, whistles, and radios.
When citizens heard the signal, they were instructed to move to a pre-assigned location, or "collection point", from which they would be evacuated to rural or suburban areas, out of harm's way. Every available mode of transportation (including trucks, cars, trains and buses) would be used to get as many people as possible away from the city center in the shortest amount of time.

link


And there is more where that came from saying much the same


The USSR military was a poor mans military, albeit a powerful one.


And despite all the evidence to the contrary you will probably just keep saying this hoping to somehow change history by willpower alone.

In closing who are these so called 'terrorist' in your opinion and where do you think they could possible be hiding to escape retribution for doing such things? Which country could possible generate the energy required or ward of any retaliation by feigning weakness and retaining enough conventional nuclear firepower to prevent the US from interfering?


"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.

A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.

DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen


Terrorist with weapons that can create earthquakes and set of volcanoes? Why is the US respond to build multi billion dollar Nuclear hunter submarines and rebuilt Ohio submarines to deploy hundreds of Cruise missiles? Do we need the JSF and F-22 to fight terrorist in caves?

Some may choose to believe that the defense spending that is driving the American economy into the ground is in fact to fight wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, however crazy that theory looks on closer inspection, but closer inspect will show that the neither ever did anything to seriously threaten US national security ( selling oil in dollars is not actually a threat in the 'real world') and we must continue to look for the real threat that is so powerful as to prevent the US from taking anything but very indirect action.

I just hope people figure this out before it's too late but with cheerleaders such as yourself one wonders if the lone voices of reason ( and that's admittedly very presumptuous of me) will not be drowned out by your persistent denials of the reality that something is very wrong in/with the country who should be defending the American dream.

Stellar

[edit on 10-4-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
You know stellar's credibility was completely shot when he claimed that the New Orleans hurricane was the work of the French and Russians using weather weapons

I see he still follow his usual tactics of trying to browbeat everyone to death by constantly copying and pasting the same stuff which must be for like the hundrendth time. Much has been disproven in similar threadsm yet he still posts exactly the same stuff, for over a year.
Seems many more have his measure now



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Goddamn... Stellar is certainly entitled to his own opinion, but when his argument comes down to "ifs" and "buts" then there is no argument. Just theory. his theorys. I can respect that.. I read about 2/3 of his post and then got bored...

"If, 'Ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, wed all have a merry christmas." Remember that.


Stellar, Russia was a powerful country at one time. But its military might was constantly being overstated by soviet officials to keep the Americans "fearful" of fake russian super weapons. This was russias second greatest weapon in the cold war. This was a sign of a substantially weaker opponent as well. So america did not underestimate russia, only until it was found out russia was full of # and lost all form of creditability. So forgive the arrogant americans for hurting some soviet pride. Was russia powerful? Of course it was. More powerful then america was say in the late 80s to mid 90's? Nope. Not in americas league. The soviets simply no longer believed that they could compete technologically with the US because of the damage that it could do to their economy.

Lasers. Honestly I dont know what russia has in this field and to be frank, I dont care. Same with china. The title of this thread is "unstoppable missiles" yada yada yada. I was just pointing out that it was simply not true. And do you by any chance have any photographic or video evidence like I have provided of a successful american laser defense systems? Do you infact have evidence that validates that there are soviet lasers shooting down incoming mortars, missiles, and artillery pieces? This would help validate your 'claims' about soviet lasers.

And the US accounts for 40% of the worlds spending on R&D. Thats a fact.. We are constantly at the forefront of developing the latest technology. And we do lead in the nano and bio industries along with a plethora of other ones, that also is a fact. Could this information be stolen or sold? Of course it could. But fact is same could be said about any nation. Regardless, thats a pretty weak argument on your part though.

Stellar, you are having a creditability issue on this board with your sources that have the ppl with the likes of your intellect convinced...

America is the richest most powerful nation on planet earth. As if that title simply implies nothing..


America is not perfect and I would be the first to admit that. We have our own problems just as any other nation on gods green earth does. what bothers me and gets me responding like the way I am is when ppl like you come on here and paint the US as if it were a GIANT pansy. You come across as haveing an agenda. I just think that america is being discredited by you and others here. I think america deserves some respect for its accomplishments. So forgive the over patriotic tone. If its gotta be someone, it might as well be me..

[edit on 093030p://3904pm by semperfoo]



posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   


And do you by any chance have any photographic or video evidence like I have provided of a successful american laser defense systems? Do you infact have evidence that validates that there are soviet lasers shooting down incoming mortars, missiles, and artillery pieces? This would help validate your 'claims' about soviet lasers


well.. semper foo some info on mltk experimentAL truck based LASER and its tests and photos of test:

---
Mobile Laser Technological Complex was developed by NPO “Almaz” ( www.raspletin.ru... ), the producer of such famous Russian air defence systems as C-300, C-400, systems “Triumph”, “Favorit”, and many others. There were successful tests of the military version of the MLTK, as photographic evidence indicates. I believe the project was suspended in the early 90’s(1990-1992).

However, the work continues for the development and manufacturing of MLTK for civilian purposes. Thus MLTK-50, and MLTK-5 (see photos) were developed and are currently manufactured for Gazprom. The systems are used for remote (50 meters) metal cutting, and oil removal from water surfaces. The mltk-50 system is capable of cutting through 120mm to 560mm of reinforced steel at 30 meters in 5 seconds. Smaller variants of the system are used for precision metal cutting in manufacturing.

During 2005, NPO “Almaz”, as part of OAO “Almaz-Antey” (ОАО "Концерн ПВО "Алмаз - Антей"), was the top leading arms manufacturer, and had the best financial results within Russian Military Manufacturing Complex. Whether the project is going to be reinstated remains to be seen.

Other Laser System for Transfer of Energy, or LSTE (ЛСПЭ), developed in the 80’s (1979-1985) include “Aydar” LSTE (50 megawatt) installed on Black Sea transport ship “Dikson”. This experimental system was capable of hitting targets at a distance of 4 km, albeit, with insufficient impact. These results were considered outstanding, considering that LSTE system was meant for service under the conditions of vacuum and as part of a space military satellite system. Nevertheless, even this experimental system was capable of cutting or melting through a plane at a distance of 400-1200 meters under the conditions of atmospheric dispersion.

Less is known about the experimental system A-60, which was developed approximately the same time on the basis of IL-76. The system was lost in a fire.
-------
photo of mltk experimental military laser test (truck based) on a drone biplane in the early 80's:




concepts and photos:










www.militaryphotos.net...


history of soviet laser and ASAT program:


For the first time in the world, the IS (satellite killer) experimental interceptor satellite killed a target satellite with a fragmentation warhead in August 1970. The interceptor satellites were about 6 meters long, their hull had a diameter of 1.5 meters, and they weighed about 2,500 kilograms. Domestic SDS could kill satellites with probability of 0.6, whereas its American counterpart had a target kill probability of only 0.18.

This circumstance allowed placement of the SDS on combat duty on July 1, 1979. A. Savin and V. Kovtunenko were the chief designers of the system and its followed versions. The last trial of the IS satellite was performed on June 18, 1982, within the framework of big exercises of the Soviet strategic nuclear forces, when the Cosmos-1379 intercepted a target satellite which imitated an American navigation satellite Transit. Overall, during the trial of the IS interceptor satellites a few tens of launches were conducted. In April 1991, the IS-MU SDS including the Tsiklon-2 delivery vehicle and 14F10 satellite was put into operation.

Since 1978, the Vympel Design Bureau was designing an anti-satellite missile capable of being launched from a MiG-31D airplane. A prototype of the MiG-31D was tested in 1986. In 1976, the Energiya Research and Production Association headed by V. Glushko joined the work on the space anti-missile defense. For killing of military satellites two types of combat satellites were developed from the common basic design. These satellites were to be armed with various types of on-board armament (laser and missiles). The first type of satellites had to be used against low-orbit satellites, and the second type against satellites in medium and geo-stationary orbits. Due to the business of the Energiya with development of the Energiya super-heavy delivery vehicle and Buran shuttle orbiter, the Salut Design Bureau (General Director D. Polukhin) was instructed to continue the Skif theme (development of a laser combat station). The Skif satellites were to be manufactured at the Moscow-based machine building plant of M. Khrunichev. This satellite with a laser on-board system was designed by the Astrofizika Research and Production Association. It was about 40 meters long, and weighed 95 tons. For launches of the Skif satellites it was offered to use the Energiya rocket. Between 1983 and 1987, flight tests were conducted, and distribution of beams of a laser system weighing about 60 tons in the atmosphere was tested at the IL-76MD (A-60) flying laboratory. To power the laser system the satellite received two turbine generators, and the laser gun itself was placed in the fairing moved to the fuselage.
On August 16, 1983, Yu. Andropov, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, announced that the USSR unilaterally stopped trial of the SDS, and the testing was stopped. However, due to ascension of M. Gorbachev to power, and launching of the "Star Wars" (Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI) program in the US development of the space defense continued. The Skif-D dynamic model was designed for testing of a laser combat station. A scale model of the Skif-DM station (Polus) was made later for test launch of the Energiya delivery vehicle. The model had a length of 37 meters, diameter of 4.1 meters, and weight of 80 tons. The Skif-DM had four sustainer engines, 20 orientation engines, and 16 stabilization engines. At the station it was planned to conduct 15 applied military and a few geophysical experiments, including launching of targets. Before the launch Mikhail Gorbachev, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, declared an impossibility of moving of the armament race to the outer space, after which it was decided not to perform military experiments at the Skif-DM satellite. A test launch of the Energiya delivery vehicle with the Skif-DM satellite was conducted on May 15, 1987. The satellite separated from the rocket 460 seconds after the launch, and fell in the Pacific Ocean some time later because of the control system's failure. There was no laser system on board. Instead the satellite carried its scale model. Some elements of the "Soviet SDI" were to be mounted on the Spektr space module, but it was delivered to orbit only five years later than it had been planned, and was included into the Mir orbital station.

Since late 1960s, the Soviet Union was working on development of ground laser systems for anti-satellite defense and pumping from nuclear explosions. Unlike the Roentgen laser of Teller, such lasers were reusable. One of such lasers was probably built near Dushanbe. In different periods Yu. Babaev and Yu. Ablekov supervised the work on such laser, but due to the unilateral moratorium announced by the USSR, and the followed mysterious deaths of both engineers the work on such lasers was suspended in the mid-1980s.

In 1994-1995, The High Temperatures Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences sold the Pamir-3U mobile electric generator to the United States. The Pamir-3U had an output of 15 megawatt, dimensions of 2.5 x 2.65 x 10 meters, and weighed about 20 tons. The generator could be used in Russia (USSR) on the ground or in outer space for power supply to long-range laser and super high frequency weapon systems.

The Soviet Union also worked on designing of an "orbital fortress" based on a space station of the Mir type. Modules of the aiming system served as the side blocks of the station. The side blocks were attached to the basic module. The blocks were to be delivered to the station in cargo compartments of the Buran shuttle orbiter. The station was intended for killing of warheads of ballistic missiles from outer space when the crew was on board.

It was also planned to use a group of three missiles to stretch a kevlar net to cut warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

www.fas.org...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join