Are the Russians more prepared for Nuclear war?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
And you know the full capabilities of the F-22? That aircraft is classified. I highly doubt an inferior russian military could come up with an aircraft the 'surpasses' the F-22. Americas "AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER".The US has been at this game alot longer then russa has. Our military budget is $$560,000,000,000$$$ worth. I have no doubt american military techno is 50 years beyond what the public knows. Russia is a paper tiger. A shell of its former self. Its starting from the ground up again. Russia still has some pretty neat gadgettes and gizmos but without the funding, will never have a top tier aircraft that even comes half as close to the F-22s capabilities for foreseeable future.


No, I don't. I was responding to the other user's claim that the programs, and craft, were equal. Further, be careful about classifying the Russian Military as inferior. Yes, it is neither as well-funded, nor streamlined, nor efficient as our own, though it is still a force to be reckoned with. Second, 'Air Superiority Fighter' is an aircraft label, not a title bestowed upon the F-22. Also, if you think our budget is five-hundred-sixty trillion, you need to .. eh .. 'Get Real', as Dr. Phil might say. No, American Military technology is not fifty-years ahead, whatever that fifty years might signify, of the rest of the world, or ahead of what we have released. Do we have black projects? Of course, but to say fifty years in modern days is to make a great assumption.

Lastly, as said the Mikoyan - 35 is a beautiful aircraft, speaking from a technological, and aesthetic perspective. Could it compete with the F-22? Almost-certainly, without-a-doubt better than most other modern aircraft. However, is it a definite equal, a legitimate opponent, let alone a superior? No.




posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
The YF-22 has evovled. The F-22 and the YF-22 are not the same aircraft. The reason why the f22 was picked over the f23 was because the f22 was more manueverable. The f23 acutally might have a place in the future USAF as a bomber. Which would be a fitting role for such an aircraft.


YF-23*.

Of course they're not the same, they were in competition for the contract.
And, no. The F-22 was chosen for its lesser price. The YF-23 had greater manueverability, fewer radar cross-sections; its flaw being a marginally higher price-tag, and a worse weapons-release system. Further, the F-22 had a .. barely.. greater early-detection system.
Which, in my personal opinion, is pointless, if the Black Widow had half as many radar-crossections, and therefore, wouldn't need early-warning nearly as much.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
No, I don't. I was responding to the other user's claim that the programs, and craft, were equal. Further, be careful about classifying the Russian Military as inferior.


It is inferior to the US military. Thats not to say its a completely incable force that cant cause destruction.


Yes, it is neither as well-funded, nor streamlined, nor efficient as our own, though it is still a force to be reckoned with. Second, 'Air Superiority Fighter' is an aircraft label, not a title bestowed upon the F-22.


Your right. Im saying there is no fighter out there to date that compares to the Raptor. Thus pointing out the air superiority slogan.


Also, if you think our budget is five-hundred-sixty trillion, you need to .. eh .. 'Get Real', as Dr. Phil might say.


No more day time talk show TV for you! You need to go back to school If you think Im talking Trillions.
It is that at the very least rumored to be $560,000,000,000 with the highest estimate being around $580,000,000,000. I took the more streamline number though. And the military budget is expected to balloon to $1 trillion by 2010. These numbers are about right where they should be for now. I read this somewhere. Check this site out for more on the military budget. Decide for yourself. www.slate.com...

And whoa. who said anything about the defense budget be $560 trillions? Not me. there are 9 zeros in a 1 billion. Count how many zeros I put up the first time
Im going to give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend you met billions, not trillions. But just incase 1 Trillion looks like this 1,000,000,000,000. Notice 12 zeros?




No, American Military technology is not fifty-years ahead, whatever that fifty years might signify, of the rest of the world, or ahead of what we have released. Do we have black projects? Of course, but to say fifty years in modern days is to make a great assumption.


Your right. Thats just my opinion. This is a conspiracy site, just trying to make a bit of a stir up.


Lastly, as said the Mikoyan - 35 is a beautiful aircraft, speaking from a technological, and aesthetic perspective. Could it compete with the F-22? Almost-certainly, without-a-doubt better than most other modern aircraft. However, is it a definite equal, a legitimate opponent, let alone a superior? No.


Beautiful? Yes. The most legitimate adversariy out there? Okay, I'll give you that. But rivaling the 22? Nope, sorry. Cant.





[edit on 093131p://444 by semperfoo]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
YF-23*.

Of course they're not the same, they were in competition for the contract.
And, no. The F-22 was chosen for its lesser price. The YF-23 had greater manueverability, fewer radar cross-sections; its flaw being a marginally higher price-tag, and a worse weapons-release system. Further, the F-22 had a .. barely.. greater early-detection system.
Which, in my personal opinion, is pointless, if the Black Widow had half as many radar-crossections, and therefore, wouldn't need early-warning nearly as much.

Hold on Dr. Phil. your getting ahead of yourself here. Your clearly not paying attention to what i said. I said the YF-22 (that aircraft in competition with the YF-23) was not the same air craft as the Raptor is now. The F-22 raptor has evovled since the drawings of the YF-22.
The air force picked the one that was feasible and still gave them the best aircraft out there. And should stay that way for the foreseeable future. Who exactly is going to overtake the throne of 'best fighter' from the F-22 through its service life? You do know they will upgrade this system as the years go on.



No doubt that the YF-23 looks nice.






Notic how the YF-22s appearance has changed since becoming the F-22 Raptor.


[edit on 053131p://444 by semperfoo]

[edit on 083131p://444 by semperfoo]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
So wait...what makes the F-22 such a great aircraft? The Russian Cy-35 is the EXACT SAME platform and the piloting in the exhibitions are remarkable. (Featuring thrust vectoring better computer systems etc.)

They built it only to determine if they could keep up with the US not to match the US...there is no point because they are prepared for nuclear war.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
So wait...what makes the F-22 such a great aircraft? The Russian Cy-35 is the EXACT SAME platform and the piloting in the exhibitions are remarkable. (Featuring thrust vectoring better computer systems etc.)

They built it only to determine if they could keep up with the US not to match the US...there is no point because they are prepared for nuclear war.


I dont know where your getting your info on lockheeds bird since alot of it is classified. Same with Cy-35.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
So wait...what makes the F-22 such a great aircraft? The Russian Cy-35 is the EXACT SAME platform and the piloting in the exhibitions are remarkable. (Featuring thrust vectoring better computer systems etc.)

They built it only to determine if they could keep up with the US not to match the US...there is no point because they are prepared for nuclear war.


I dont know where your getting your info on lockheeds bird since alot of it is classified. Same with Cy-35.


The basic info shows the near similarities as is customary the more technical info is thus extrapolated to be the same. There's only so many ways to make a sword.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
and specs tell the whole story?



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Specs tell strengths and weaknesses, the rest is up to piloting. From what I've seen the Russians fly better than the US. After-all only the Russians flew 5 planes 2-3 meters apart (across) in echelon formation through a hole in a mountain.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
i think russian's are too far behind the U.S. as far as nuclear weaponry... what many of you may not know is that the U.S. is specialized in nuclear testing... much of which is done in area 51... the russians may have very high tech nuclear weapons... like that ballistic missile... but that is nothign compared to the nuclear weapons that the U.S. contains which can be fit into briefcases and capable of unleasing megatons of explosives... is it easier to launch a missile or just place a suitcase somewhere and blow it up... anyways, i KNOW that the russian's are not ahead of us as Nuclear technology goes... unless they have their own AREA 51



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Remember that the USAF had to scale the raptors Max performance back because the human body cant take it. Just think how much more deadlier this aircraft would be without a human pilot.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luis51Tree
i think russian's are too far behind the U.S. as far as nuclear weaponry... what many of you may not know is that the U.S. is specialized in nuclear testing... much of which is done in area 51... the russians may have very high tech nuclear weapons... like that ballistic missile... but that is nothign compared to the nuclear weapons that the U.S. contains which can be fit into briefcases and capable of unleasing megatons of explosives... is it easier to launch a missile or just place a suitcase somewhere and blow it up... anyways, i KNOW that the russian's are not ahead of us as Nuclear technology goes... unless they have their own AREA 51


Um its the Russians who invented the Suitcase Nuke.

The Russians have recently developed Nuclear Missiles the US hasn't done anything with them since 1960s.

The Russians do have their own Area-51.....which tests bombers and has nothing to do with nukes that would be crater flats.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Remember that the USAF had to scale the raptors Max performance back because the human body cant take it. Just think how much more deadlier this aircraft would be without a human pilot.


Think of how much inginuity you lose by removing the pilot...all that capability would be wasted and to use a virtual pilot on the ground would open risk to jamming comms and such.

Also suitcase nukes are about .01 kilotons...nowhere near a megaton.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Specs tell strengths and weaknesses, the rest is up to piloting. From what I've seen the Russians fly better than the US. After-all only the Russians flew 5 planes 2-3 meters apart (across) in echelon formation through a hole in a mountain.


And you beleive the russians? The same nation that lied about its economy saying it was going to surpass americas the year before it colapsed?

We dont know all the specs about either aircraft. Much of the specs are either misleading or are very vanilla. I for one dont trust a thing the russians say.

And their pilots are better? Who gets more flying time? And where the hell is this whole in the mountian. I would like to see this.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
actually many nukes have been tested under american soil recently up until 1992 when they thought it was enough... and the bombs were too dirty... they even blew up a nuclear weapon beneath mississipi... over 50 nuclear explosions were tested under american soil... so they didn't stop during the 60's... it continued



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I would be more worried about EMP. Just before the Soviet Union collapsed the russians were rumored to be working on EMP devices that were rumored to be the size of a soda can. But ofcourse thats open to speculation.

[edit on 093131p://444 by semperfoo]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luis51Tree
actually many nukes have been tested under american soil recently up until 1992 when they thought it was enough... and the bombs were too dirty... they even blew up a nuclear weapon beneath mississipi... over 50 nuclear explosions were tested under american soil... so they didn't stop during the 60's... it continued


Load of horse # but believe what ever you want you don't make decisions in government.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Specs tell strengths and weaknesses, the rest is up to piloting. From what I've seen the Russians fly better than the US. After-all only the Russians flew 5 planes 2-3 meters apart (across) in echelon formation through a hole in a mountain.


And you beleive the russians? The same nation that lied about its economy saying it was going to surpass americas the year before it colapsed?

We dont know all the specs about either aircraft. Much of the specs are either misleading or are very vanilla. I for one dont trust a thing the russians say.

And their pilots are better? Who gets more flying time? And where the hell is this whole in the mountian. I would like to see this.


Russia's basic mods are known as are the USs as for the flying Ive seen both first hand. The Russians are far superior when it comes to maneuverability...is it enough? That can only be tested on the battle field.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Originally posted by semperfoo

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Specs tell strengths and weaknesses, the rest is up to piloting. From what I've seen the Russians fly better than the US. After-all only the Russians flew 5 planes 2-3 meters apart (across) in echelon formation through a hole in a mountain.


And you beleive the russians? The same nation that lied about its economy saying it was going to surpass americas the year before it colapsed?

We dont know all the specs about either aircraft. Much of the specs are either misleading or are very vanilla. I for one dont trust a thing the russians say.

And their pilots are better? Who gets more flying time? And where the hell is this whole in the mountian. I would like to see this.


Russia's basic mods are known as are the USs as for the flying Ive seen both first hand. The Russians are far superior when it comes to maneuverability...is it enough? That can only be tested on the battle field.


That would have to do with how maneuverable the aircraft was. What aircraft were the russians flying when you saw this, same with the americans?



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
no its not a load of Horse &5%# but believe what you want, after all, none of us actually work for any of these secret organizations and know to the fullest any of these secrets





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join