Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are the Russians more prepared for Nuclear war?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo

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?


Most types currently developed and I was an observer for the Cy-35 in one of its more famous flights when the pilot did a 180 in 8 seconds.

I've watched a couple red flags for F-16s and a demo for the F-22 which didnt seem to show its full capability.




posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luis51Tree
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


Its pretty easy to detect a nuke...even Nokos dud was detected. So its not very secretive.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
yes but you can't be 100% sure that they haven't tested nuclear weapons underground, and i can't be 100% sure that they have but i have my sources and thats what i believe... not that its a fact



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
check out this vid of underground nuclear explosion. www.youtube.com...

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



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luis51Tree
yes but you can't be 100% sure that they haven't tested nuclear weapons underground, and i can't be 100% sure that they have but i have my sources and thats what i believe... not that its a fact


Except you can be 100% sure...seismic signatures and radiation signatures.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
do you have these alleged signatures?



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Most types currently developed and I was an observer for the Cy-35 in one of its more famous flights when the pilot did a 180 in 8 seconds.

I've watched a couple red flags for F-16s and a demo for the F-22 which didnt seem to show its full capability.



This is stupid cant believe im arguing over it but, do you want to reserve you statement on whos got the better pilots? Especially when your comparing and f16 to mig35? not exactly a fair contest.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luis51Tree
do you have these alleged signatures?


underground nuclear explosions would create an earthquake. Did anyone bother looking at my video i post from youtube. It shows what an underground nuclear explosion looks like.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luis51Tree
do you have these alleged signatures?



www.youtube.com... That video explains it a lil better.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
yes but these are public explosions that were filmed... do you think they would film secret explosions? or let anyone know about them... they are not that stupid



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
No I compare Cy-35 to F-22 as they are similar platforms. F-16s typically are compared to MiG-29s.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
No I compare Cy-35 to F-22 as they are similar platforms. F-16s typically are compared to MiG-29s.


And follow up...though he was a German pilot, with the Mig-29 he took out 4 F-16s.

Which is great concidering the battlefield score is much different...



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
No I compare Cy-35 to F-22 as they are similar platforms. F-16s typically are compared to MiG-29s.


And follow up...though he was a German pilot, with the Mig-29 he took out 4 F-16s.

Which is great concidering the battlefield score is much different...



Still not a fare assessment. You cant compare a f22 to an f16. I would take the mig 29 over the f16 anyways. I dont contest that. the F22 however is a different story.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luis51Tree
yes but these are public explosions that were filmed... do you think they would film secret explosions? or let anyone know about them... they are not that stupid

Watch the second video i just posted.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
i did watch it, and its interesting... but all of these are explosions that were let out to the public to see... its not like people are flying around in search of secretive explosions... they keep themvery secret... too secret, and its scary to know that they don't inform us of these



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luis51Tree
i did watch it, and its interesting... but all of these are explosions that were let out to the public to see... its not like people are flying around in search of secretive explosions... they keep themvery secret... too secret, and its scary to know that they don't inform us of these


I agree. nukes are not the way to go. We should do away with them. Just no point in haveing them if know one wins.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo

Originally posted by Luis51Tree
i did watch it, and its interesting... but all of these are explosions that were let out to the public to see... its not like people are flying around in search of secretive explosions... they keep themvery secret... too secret, and its scary to know that they don't inform us of these


I agree. nukes are not the way to go. We should do away with them. Just no point in haveing them if know one wins.


Not according to Russia. Keep in mind over 1600 Nukes have been tested, the world's not dead yet.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Pfft. I blame early-morning replies.
Yes, I apologize, you said billions. :]

Otherwise: One of the Raptor's greatest assets is the software, computing, and radar-capabilities. None of which can be expanded upon, in any great detail, by mere specs. Talk about that. ;]

]Black Widow = Sexy.]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Pfft. I blame early-morning replies.
Yes, I apologize, you said billions. :]

Otherwise: One of the Raptor's greatest assets is the software, computing, and radar-capabilities. None of which can be expanded upon, in any great detail, by mere specs. Talk about that. ;]

[Black Widow = Sexy.]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis

Pfft. I blame early-morning replies.
Yes, I apologize, you said billions. :]

Otherwise: One of the Raptor's greatest assets is the software, computing, and radar-capabilities. None of which can be expanded upon, in any great detail, by mere specs. Talk about that. ;]

]Black Widow = Sexy.]


Well the forward radar does not exceed both Satellite feed or good visibilty... on a good day a good pilot may see more than 100 miles. This gives the Russian the ability to close on his enemy before the radar is useful.






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join