Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are the Russians more prepared for Nuclear war?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
ape

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
well let me start with this piece from russian sources

www.gateway2russia.com... straight from the source.

“Russian air defense is in deplorable condition, but it is not hopeless,” he said. According to Kornukov, the country’s air defense weapons “remained the same as several decades ago” due to the lack of funds and the absence of modernization. As an example, he referred to the S-50 air defense system. The combat effectiveness of the system is halved, according to the former air force commander. "

where russia stood nuclear wise in 2005 www.thebulletin.org...

and now where they currently stand www.thebulletin.org...


and now onto current US nuclear capabilites www.thebulletin.org...

clearly the US still dominates this category stellar, russia may be formidable but has not invested as much into a high tech aresenal like the US has done. the ASSUMPTION that we would not be able to hit targets in russia is exactly that, if any exchange were to take place it's very hard to predict what the outcome would be, of course I realise it's just your opinion but in regards to this subject money does matter when your investing in defense and offense. the US navy and airforce are also superior.



posted by stellarx
Why do you have to build airplanes that do the same as the enemy when you have already basically countered it by deploying direct energy weapons?


I didnt know the russians deployed DEW to counter the f-22.




The REFORM of the former USSR had very little to do with their economic position as is widely admitted by US intelligence specialist. Nothing the US did in terms of spending money could at that point force the USSR into folding. Considering the overwhelming superiority the USSR have build up by that time they could simple afford the reforms they wanted to make for some years before


"in the mid-1980s Soviet leaders faced many problems. Production in the consumer and agricultural sectors was often inadequate (see Agriculture of the Soviet Union and shortage economy). Crises in the agricultural sector reaped catastrophic consequences in the 1930s, when collectivization met widespread resistance from the kulaks, resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities, famine, particularly in Ukraine (see Holodomor), but also in the Volga River area and Kazakhstan. In the consumer and service sectors, a lack of investment resulted in black markets in some areas."

"In addition, since the 1970s, the growth rate had slowed substantially. Extensive economic development, based on vast inputs of materials and labor, was no longer possible; yet the productivity of Soviet assets remained low compared with other major industrialized countries. Product quality needed improvement. Soviet leaders faced a fundamental dilemma: the strong central controls of the increasingly conservative bureaucracy that had traditionally guided economic development had failed to respond to the complex demands of industry of a highly developed, modern economy."

source is wikipedia i thought I would start out basic. en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

"After some experimentation with economic reforms in the mid-1960s, the Soviet leadership reverted to established means of economic management. Industry showed slow but steady gains during the 1970s, while agricultural development continued to lag. Throughout the period, the Soviet Union maintained parity with the United States in the areas of military technology, but this expansion ultimately crippled the economy. In contrast to the revolutionary spirit that accompanied the birth of the Soviet Union, the prevailing mood of the Soviet leadership at the time of Brezhnev's death in 1982 was one of aversion to change."



ape

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   
"In the 1970s, the Soviet Union achieved rough nuclear parity with the United States, and surpassed it by the end of that decade with the deployment of the SS-18 missile. " en.wikipedia.org...

indeed they became superior but at what cost? they had huge domestic issues and yet still poured billions into research that they couldnt afford and ended up folding, you broke up my original post when I said " the last time russia tried to keep up with the US their economy ended up collapsing, of course this isnt the sole reason behind the collapse". alot of factors played a part in the collapse but it is true infact that the reforms that were made were to counter the failed USSR economy, them spending massive amounts of money to compete with the US made them bankrupt because they were not generating any kind of serious revenue.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

man that dude is still challenging you on the hannity forms


[edit on 19-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
no country would ever speak out and say "our Air defense is in deplorable condition, so you can probably launch a few ICBM's before we can do anything" so i don't think that is fact... nevertheless, i guess Stellar is better than me at this, i'll leave continuing this argument to him...


ape

posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   
take a look at the russian fleet, how many patrols they do and how many ssbn's are active, do you remember the kursk sinking and the other sub failing horribly at a demonstration infront of putin? so what makes you think he is being dishonest? besides he said this in early 2004 they have actually improved their situation since then. he is also retired and that was not coming from an active government source, so if anything he could just be speaking the truth, what the hell makes you think the russian government is going to admit they are vulnerable or outclassed? they will attempt to keep everyone guessing until they can actually pull up the funds to improve and upgrade.

you play poker much? my guess is no.

[edit on 20-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 20-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by INc2006
no country would ever speak out and say "our Air defense is in deplorable condition, so you can probably launch a few ICBM's before we can do anything" so i don't think that is fact... nevertheless, i guess Stellar is better than me at this, i'll leave continuing this argument to him...



Hahahah I disagree.

Russias advantage is our underestimating her and therefore most likely anything Russia says is misinformation. One only needs to look at Chechnya to see the total devestation that can be wrought by Russia.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
well let me start with this piece from russian sources



“Russian air defense is in deplorable condition, but it is not hopeless,” he said. According to Kornukov, the country’s air defense weapons “remained the same as several decades ago” due to the lack of funds and the absence of modernization. As an example, he referred to the S-50 air defense system. The combat effectiveness of the system is halved, according to the former air force commander. "

www.gateway2russia.com...


Very interesting find but what does 'deplorable' mean when your air defenses are still so extensive?

www.globalsecurity.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

warfare.ru...

So even if those are in a 'deplorable' state one can possible look at the Serbian example after their own wars? If one looks at what the Serbs managed with their outdated and limited number of Sa-6 and Sa-3 systems the Russian air defenses would have to be in a truly horrible state for a NATO force to stand any chance whatsoever IMO. So while the Russian commander might pretend his forces are in a deplorable condition ( compared to which other country or to what year of the USSR's existence?) i am not sure the numbers and military spending reflects that and one might ask how they upgrade hundreds of air defense missiles systems to these modern standards?


The S-300PMU1 is an extended range version of S-300PMU with a limited anti-ballistic missile capability, including capabilities against aerodynamic targets with speeds up to 3 kilometers/second.

The S-300PMU2 Favorit variant is a new missile with larger warhead and better guidance with a range of 200 km, versus the 150 km of previous versions. Unveiled at the MAKS'97 exhibition in August 1997, it represents a thorough modification of the S-300PMU1. The first tests were performed on 10 August 1995 at the Kapustin Yar firing range. One new element is the entirely new 96L6E autonomous mobile radar, which works in conjunction with the 83M6E2 control post and S-300MPU2 launchers. The new 48N6E2 missile, developed by MKB Fakel, weighs 1,800 kg, and is 7.5 m long and 0.5 m in diameter. After a cold start in the upright position with help of a catapult, the 48N6E2 accelerates up to 1,900 m/s in 12 sec time, and then approaches the target from above. The 48N6E2 differs from the older 48N6E in having a new warhead specially designed for destroying ballistic missiles, with a warhead weight of 145 kg versus 70-100 kg.

www.fas.org...



Russia inherited most of the Soviet empire's illegal national ABM defenses. Although the Hen Houses and LPARs located in the successor states created significant gaps in coverage, Russia still controls 12 or 13 of those radars. Consequently, SAM/ABMs still defend most of the Russian Federation from U.S. ICBMs, much of the SLBM threat, and Chinese missiles. Scheduled completion of the LPAR in Belorus will restore complete threat coverage, except for the gap left by the dismantled Krasnoyarsk LPAR. Granted, the Hen Houses are old, but the United States has been operating similar radars for 40 years.

Despite its economic difficulties, Russia continued development and production of the SA-10, adding (in 1992-1993 and 1997) two models with new missiles and electronics and replacing more than 1000 SA-5 missiles with late model SA-10s having greatly improved performance against ballistic missiles of all ranges. Russia is protected by as at least as many (about 8500) SAM/ABMs as in 1991, and they are more effective. No wonder Russia shows little concern for its proliferation of missile and nuclear technology.

Even more impressively, Russia has begun flight-testing the fourth generation "S-400" ("Triumph") SAM/ABM designed not only to end the "absolute superiority" of air assault demonstrated by the United States in the 1992 Gulf War and the 1999 Kosovo operation, but also to improve Russia's illegal ABM defenses against strategic ballistic missiles. The S-400 is scheduled to begin deployment in 2000, more testimony to Russia's commitment to maintaining its national ABM defenses in violation of the ABM Treaty.

www.security-policy.org...



Mr. Lee's analysis is complex. To vastly simplify, he says he has evidence that Russia's surface-to-air interceptor missiles carry nuclear warheads and therefore are capable of bringing down long-range ballistic missiles, not just aircraft and shorter-range missiles, which is their stated purpose. Russia has 8,000 of these missiles scattered around the country, and Mr. Lee says he has found numerous Russian sources that describe how successive generations of SAMs were in fact designed with the express intention of shooting down ballistic missiles, which is illegal under the treaty.

www.opinionjournal.com...



The missile troops are equipped with about 150 SA-2 Guideline, 100 SA-3 Goa, 500 SA-5 Gammon, and 1,750 SA-10 Grumble missile launchers. A program to replace all of the older systems with the SA-10, well under way by 1996, has been considered by experts to be one of the most successful reequipment programs of the post-Soviet armed forces. Seven of the military districts have at least one aviation air defense regiment each; two districts, Moscow and the Far Eastern, have specially designated air defense districts.

The borders of the Moscow Air Defense District are the same as those of the Moscow Military District. The Far Eastern Air Defense District combines the territory of the Far Eastern Military District and the Transbaikal Military District. Presumably, the boundaries of the other military districts are the same for air defense as for other defense designations.

Data as of July 1996

www.country-data.com...



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...



"Full antimissile defence the length of the perimeter of the borders
of Europe and Russia is not planned," Ivashov said. "It is intended to
concentrate all that we already have, coordinating ABM systems, obtaining
opportunities to destroy ballistic missiles and opportunities in the
command structure, and directing those opportunities in directions
presenting a missile danger."

He said that the systems should cover peacekeeping contingents, and
the civilian population and civilian facilities as well as military
facilities, damage to which could cause significant harm to civilians.

The Russian side has no doubt that "NATO members will not start
purchasing Russian ABM systems on a large scale, like the modernized
S-300PMU or the new S-400, which can effectively combat ballistic
missiles, although NATO's European members do not have systems like
these", Ivashov said. Moscow does not in any case intend to extend its
missile technology to NATO countries, and Sergeyev said this frankly in
Brussels a few days ago.

www.fas.org...



Meanwhile, Russia's de facto national missile-defense network, with at least 8,000 modern interceptors and 12 long-range radars, will gain in strategic importance as the United States and Russia decrease the number of offensive nuclear weapons to lower and lower levels.

www.findarticles.com...




The PLAAF ordered the first batch of the S-300PMU (SA-10A) surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems in 1991 and received them in 1993. The exact number of the missile is unknown, but some reports suggest that this may include one regiment (4~6 SAM batteries). In Russian Army’s order of battle, each S-300 battery consists of three SAM transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) vehicles, each with four ready-to-fire missiles. If the PLAAF follows the Russian organisational structure, this could total 48~72 missiles. In 1994, the PLAAF purchased additional 120 spare missiles from Russia to replace those fired in exercises. The second regiment may have joined the PLAAF in the late 1990s.

By 2004, the PLAAF may have already received as many as four regiments of the S-300 system, which includes 48~72 TEL vehicles and 192~288 missiles. The third and fourth regiment are equipped with the improved S-300PMU1 (SA-10B) variant carried on the MAZ7910 8X8 vehicle. The S-300 missiles were initially deployed around Beijing area, but some batteries were deployed to a second site in Longtian, Fujian Province across the strait from Taiwan. The third and fourth S-300 site in Xiamen, Fujian Province and Shantou, Guangdong Province became operational in 2000 and 2001 respectively.

www.sinodefence.com...




[edit on 20-12-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Continued..

So basically they can afford to build them and export them but not keep their own in service? I find that hard to believe ( considering that Russian arms manufaturers are on a rather short leash) but this is the type of thing you will have to believe to take these Russian claims at face value...


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...


So that's why i think his not telling the full story and feigning weakness on order from high above. The basic technical specifications coming from military sources on ground level always seems to disagree with the pronouncements made by their military officials when their speaking to western audiences...


where russia stood nuclear wise in 2005 www.thebulletin.org...
and now where they currently stand www.thebulletin.org...
and now onto current US nuclear capabilites www.thebulletin.org...
clearly the US still dominates this category stellar, russia may be formidable but has not invested as much into a high tech aresenal like the US has done.


I have looked at all these sources years ago ( well as they became available anyways) and if you go add up the warheads based on intelligence estimates and official data you will notice that in both yield, warhead sizes and numbers the USSR has a lead to mention nothing of their survivability and the reload capacity of all Russia's land based nuclear weapons. I made some posts on ATS with extensive data and layouts but not sure where to go look for all of that at this time.

All i will say for now is that the data as given in the links you posted proves the opposite of what you think it does. The Russian land based arsenal are newer and generally as or more accurate than the American one and the American SLBM force are due to their warhead types not a threat to the Russian land based ICBM forces. Even if it turns out that those are inferior by 20% or 50% in strategic potential the US still lacks the national ABM defenses that the USSR and now Russia still deploys. How you can allocate your nuclear warheads knowing that hundreds if not thousands will never reach their targets makes your force less useful by a order of magnitude considering how many fewer strategic targets you can now hold hostage with any certainty of success.


By the end of the 1960s, targeting may have focused on Moscow, with all the missiles of a nuclear submarine committed to destroying the ABM system and the city. The capability of the Moscow ABM system might have limited the flexibility of British targeting by tying down most of the deployed force. Polaris appears to have been judged much more effective against the SA-5B Gammon interceptors of the Tallinn system. A 1970 study published by the British Atomic Energy Authority concluded that SA-5B interceptors were not a threat to British Polaris missiles, and that it would take only two Polaris missile payloads to saturate a standard SA-5B battery.

In 1972, the British government decided to develop a new front end for the Polaris missiles "designed specifically to penetrate [the] anti-ballistic missile defenses" around Moscow. This improved system, called Chevaline, was deployed in 1982. It carried pen-aids and three 40-kiloton maneuverable reentry vehicles that were "hardened" against the radiation effects of the nuclear ABM interceptors.

www.thebulletin.org...



By the end of the 1960s, targeting may have focused on Moscow, with all the missiles of a nuclear submarine committed to destroying the ABM system and the city. The capability of the Moscow ABM system might have limited the flexibility of British targeting by tying down most of the deployed force. Polaris appears to have been judged much more effective against the SA-5B Gammon interceptors of the Tallinn system. A 1970 study published by the British Atomic Energy Authority concluded that SA-5B interceptors were not a threat to British Polaris missiles, and that it would take only two Polaris missile payloads to saturate a standard SA-5B battery.

In 1972, the British government decided to develop a new front end for the Polaris missiles "designed specifically to penetrate [the] anti-ballistic missile defenses" around Moscow. This improved system, called Chevaline, was deployed in 1982. It carried pen-aids and three 40-kiloton maneuverable reentry vehicles that were "hardened" against the radiation effects of the nuclear ABM interceptors.

From late 1970 (when the British SSBN force became operational) through 1996 (when the Chevaline's operational deployment ended), the combined number of U.S. and British weapons assigned to suppress the Soviet ABM system may have been well over 200 warheads.

www.thebulletin.org...


Why do you have to 'saturate' something that posses no threat to you? 200 warheads to ensure the destruction of 100 interceptors? As far as current sources goes the Russians still operate 650 or so Sa-10 air defense TEL's meaning up to 2500 missiles that can be employed in a ABM role? How do allocate your warheads given you do not know what they are assigned to protect? The wastage resulting from the inherent overkill will probably enable to Russians to fire just their silo based ICBM's in response with their land mobile and SLBM forces to hold a now prostate America hostage for a very long time indeed. I can use more specific numbers and quotes but i am not sure if you have seen any of this before so i will wait for a response first.



the ASSUMPTION that we would not be able to hit targets in russia is exactly that, if any exchange were to take place it's very hard to predict what the outcome would be, of course I realise it's just your opinion but in regards to this subject money does matter when your investing in defense and offense. the US navy and airforce are also superior.


Is the US navy really superior? Based on? Will the US air force 'superiority' really matter when it has to go up against Russian air defenses and the Russian air force which wont have any other task than running counter DEAD/SEAD general air superiority operations? The US air force can not really fight above the Russian SAM defenses ( or for say a 100 km infront of it's lines) so what does the fact that it's generally larger mean when it's capability to attack ground defenses are declining so fast? I can't even say that i think the US Navy is superior by the type of margin supporting ground operations in Europe would require it to be...


I didnt know the russians deployed DEW to counter the f-22.


They were actually using those against American satellites in the late 70's already so the day of the manned fighter aircraft is in my opinion long over...



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Continued


"in the mid-1980s Soviet leaders faced many problems. Production in the consumer and agricultural sectors was often inadequate (see Agriculture of the Soviet Union and shortage economy). Crises in the agricultural sector reaped catastrophic consequences in the 1930s, when collectivization met widespread resistance from the kulaks, resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities, famine, particularly in Ukraine (see Holodomor), but also in the Volga River area and Kazakhstan. In the consumer and service sectors, a lack of investment resulted in black markets in some areas."


They had that same civilian economy since the early 1920's and things were not getting much worse if not slowly better... The Russian government just basically decided not to send in tanks to quell the riots that started in Poland and after they showed that they were not going to use force to suppress these movements things just went the way the knew it would. To suggest that the fall of the USSR were unplanned and due to 'pressures' from outside can't imo be supported with facts as just declined to use force to suppress what they had so many times before...


"In addition, since the 1970s, the growth rate had slowed substantially. Extensive economic development, based on vast inputs of materials and labor, was no longer possible; yet the productivity of Soviet assets remained low compared with other major industrialized countries. Product quality needed improvement. Soviet leaders faced a fundamental dilemma: the strong central controls of the increasingly conservative bureaucracy that had traditionally guided economic development had failed to respond to the complex demands of industry of a highly developed, modern economy."

source is wikipedia i thought I would start out basic. en.wikipedia.org...


Actually i think they responded very well in the military technology arena and it resulted in their superior , IMO, strategic and conventional forces by the 1980's. The fact that it did not follow other civilian economies around the world was a question of lack of emphasis and choice not IMO one of fundamental capability to respond to civilian pressures. There are plenty of examples of centrally planned food, health and resource distribution networks that do in fact respond to the requirements of the people. A absolute massive majority of Americans wants the US to adopt a British type public health care system ( that actually works unlike the American attempts that were doomed to failure from the start) yet it is not happening? So in summary central planning is not a bad thing IMO and if Germany, Italy and Japan planned their economies in such a centralized way as the allies i'm not sure we would have been speaking English right now.


"After some experimentation with economic reforms in the mid-1960s, the Soviet leadership reverted to established means of economic management. Industry showed slow but steady gains during the 1970s, while agricultural development continued to lag. Throughout the period, the Soviet Union maintained parity with the United States in the areas of military technology, but this expansion ultimately crippled the economy. In contrast to the revolutionary spirit that accompanied the birth of the Soviet Union, the prevailing mood of the Soviet leadership at the time of Brezhnev's death in 1982 was one of aversion to change."

en.wikipedia.org...


Crippled which economy ( military or civilian) and how can a state that is largely self sufficient in all strategic minerals and materials really spend itself into a situation that it did not choose or can not recover from by re-assigned resources and emphasis? How does one then explain how the USSR became so overwhelming superior ( in my opinion anyways) in the strategic sense by the mid late 80's? Their ICBM's and SLBM's were longer ranged, as efficient in terms of yield versus accurcy, with many more missiles housed in more survivible weapons platforms deploying many more warheads? This is not mentioning their overwhelming superiority in conventional arms or their national ABM defenses.... Their civilian economy were always dependent on a almost dry hind teat and


Originally posted by ape


"In the 1970s, the Soviet Union achieved rough nuclear parity with the United States, and surpassed it by the end of that decade with the deployment of the SS-18 missile. " en.wikipedia.org...



indeed they became superior but at what cost?


Well Americans allowed their government to spend massive amounts of resources in a effort to reach that strategic dominance that it lost in the late 70's so i will presume that they would have allowed even more spending had they realised their precarious position....


they had huge domestic issues and yet still poured billions into research that they couldnt afford and ended up folding, you broke up my original post when I said


Why could they not afford it in the ' so what if our people don't all have fridges or cars' sense? While i am sure Russians would rather have had those things than ICBMs ( had the choice been up to them anyways) they did not have a choice yet they mostly had enough food and warmth to survive with... In the purest sense Russia as national entity could afford it and it did as we can see by the strategic and conventional forces they deployed.


" the last time russia tried to keep up with the US their economy ended up collapsing, of course this isnt the sole reason behind the collapse". alot of factors played a part in the collapse but it is true infact that the reforms that were made were to counter the failed USSR economy,


Yes, they tried to change the economy in ways that would be easier on the people but once again the best evidence seems to indicate that it did not do much good , and were mismanaged and wasted in the effort, but did not do great damage either... At that stage they could afford to make such mistakes as their strategic position were superior by that kind of wide margin.


them spending massive amounts of money to compete with the US made them bankrupt because they were not generating any kind of serious revenue.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


The US intelligence agencies never actually said that they knew what the USSR spent and the estimates they came up with where basically arbitrary as far as can tell. Those figures are still classified and it's still rather hard to say what Russia does or does not spend on weaponry.


man that dude is still challenging you on the hannity forms


Well lucky for me his challenging reality ( so i can't 'lose' ) while i am only challenging his perception of it.


Stellar








[edit on 20-12-2006 by StellarX]


ape

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   
yes indeed alot of that information I had not come across, thats an impressive missle defense system ( on paper ) if it is truly deployed as suggested. in theory those who rule the sky rule the war, you can only do so much on the ground eventually you break, the US has ABM defenses that are formidable aswell, we wouldnt just be subject to a strike at any time IMO.

also they only did that kill ration on tomahawks, tomahawks are not stealth the AGM-129a stealth ACM could possibly penetrate those defenses.

we both can speculate the could of should of's with the USSR but the fact remains they had a failing system and an industry that could only sustain itself to a certain point before it broke, thats why all of these reforms were taking place and all of the money ended up going into keeping up and eventually surpassing the US going into the 80's, they government was bankrupt, they were spending money they didnt have while lacking a strong industrial, agriculturial and domestic advancments the rest of the world had passed them up. we both can't disput the fact the USSR collapsed do to bankruptcy and failed economic and domestic policies that couldnt sustain itself.

are you going to respond to highstreet?



[edit on 21-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
well it is widely believed that bankruptcy was one of the big reason that the Soviet Union collapsed, but i mean it's weird, why would Gorbachev rush reforms in teh way he did, he could've went little by little, until the USSR became a trully socialist country like Sweden or Finland or so(in domestic policy)... why the rush?



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
And you know the full capabilities of the F-22? That aircraft is classified.


And since when does it having a classified status in western press or military circles means that Russia or China or the Saudi's have not long since payed off the right person?


I highly doubt an inferior russian military could come up with an aircraft the 'surpasses' the F-22.


Why build a superior aircraft when you can just enhance the detection methods your particle beam, plasma or RF weapons already use? What is so inferior about the Russian armed forces anyways?


Americas "AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER".The US has been at this game alot longer then russa has.


This is a joke, right?


Our military budget is $$560,000,000,000$$$ worth.


How efficiently is it spent and do you end up in Siberia when you waste funds? How much of it in fact gets spent on 'the military'?


I have no doubt american military techno is 50 years beyond what the public knows.


Neither do i but i am not stupid enough to assume that this is not true for many or most other nations as well...


Russia is a paper tiger. A shell of its former self.


Well things used to be better but considering it's massive , imo, lead in strategic and conventional arms it's still generally superior in most respects and certainly in terms of combined arms capability.


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.


Russia is not starting from the 'ground up' and i have no idea how people like you can even begin to imagine that a true super power can lose it's powers so fast despite nothing really happening to it's infrastructure or equipment in the years after the so called ' collapse'. It was a slow decline and there was never weakness imo that even began to approach what the US would require to come out ahead in a large scale global confrontation.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
full capabilities of f-22 , yeah a b-2 and 2 f-117's got shot down in serbia and yet.... people make calims like stealth is invincible






Now, American F-22 "Raptor". Actually, I don't see why this contraption is called a fighter.

It has maximum speed of Mach 1.7 with afterburner (planned to reach Mach 1.8) and supercruise speed of Mach 1.5. That's reminds me of good old days of Vietnam war, when automatic cannon of old Stalin's MiG-21 was enough to burn down American airwing.

That actually means that we don't need to use much SAMs against F-22. With F-22 slow speed and weak ground attack capability, we can use cheap mobile AAAs with anti-AGM capability like "Tunguska" to counter threat of invading F-22.

"Tunguska" perfectly sees "stealth" aircrafts. Well, as we all know, American stealth aircrafts are invisible only for American radars.

Classic armament of F-22 includes two AIM-9 (not sure why they fit them, because they cannot engage modern Russian aircraft), six medium-range AMRAAM missiles (good ones, in some cases they can match Soviet medium-range stuff, if you approach to close, that is), 20-mm gattling gun and two JDAMs

That means that F-22 has no long-range engage capability, and on long ranges, poses no threat to Russian air fighters like Su-37, MiG-31 or MiG-MFI.

Maneurability of F-22 is also inferior to MiG-MFI and especially to Su-37.

I don't see the point of deploying F-22. Instead of deploying 350 "Raptors", upgrade your existing fighters or create something better - at least something PHYISICALLY CAPABLE of engaging modern Russian jets. Bring back "Phoenix" mods project - that will be better investment.

I mean, even after years of "free market" degradation, Russia still possesses enough MiG-31 fighters (more than one hundred) to destroy all F-22 fighers you are planning to deploy!

So, I suppose F-22 is just method of draining money out of USA budget - F-22 is one of most costly fighters ever

www.soviet-empire.com...



from the mouth of colonel ivan krutov , a former soviet officer in the soviwet KGB military industrial complex...


in his opinion a f-15 with a plasma stealth generator would a perfect candidate to engage any modern soviet fighter

--------------------------------
are russia prepared ?
no
on;ly ussr was prepared no one else...

[edit on 24-12-2006 by vK_man]

[edit on 24-12-2006 by vK_man]



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
yes indeed alot of that information I had not come across, thats an impressive missle defense system ( on paper ) if it is truly deployed as suggested. in theory those who rule the sky rule the war,


Vietnam? Korea? Iraq? The Second world war? I think there is enough examples to the contrary so that this can not be considered a rule at all. The Russian ABM defenses are certainly there and certainly effective as even the Sa-2 could be shown to have ABM capabilities when certain assumptions as to likely employment and control methods , that could not be proved one way or another due to intelligence gaps, were made.... It's probably one of the reasons why the US power in the world have been declining steadily since the 70's.


you can only do so much on the ground eventually you break, the US has ABM defenses that are formidable aswell,


What ABM defenses does the US currently operate as i am not aware of anything that is officially admitted to? In which war in the last hundred years did aircraft alone determine the outcome of the war? I juts do not see the historic example's or for that matter the viability of the theory.


we wouldnt just be subject to a strike at any time IMO.


Well i agree to some extent but not based on what i can prove to be fact; based on what evidence do you claim the US can passively defend itself in a nuclear war?


also they only did that kill ration on tomahawks, tomahawks are not stealth the AGM-129a stealth ACM could possibly penetrate those defenses.


I think i explained what i know about that easy in another response to you.


we both can speculate the could of should of's with the USSR but the fact remains they had a failing system


What was failing?


and an industry that could only sustain itself to a certain point before it broke,


Based on what?


thats why all of these reforms were taking place and all of the money ended up going into keeping up and eventually surpassing the US going into the 80's,


The country was experiencing little or no growth in the 80's but it was hardly heading for disaster as you suggest? Where on earth did this rumour originate from? Most certainly not from informed defense intelligence specialist?


they government was bankrupt,


The system they were running could not really go bankrupt; the currency was not based on trust....


they were spending money they didnt have


So was the USA but in Russia spending what you did not have did not matter much.


while lacking a strong industrial,


The one that did not make a hundreds of thousands of tanks and armored fighting vechiles as well as tractors and other industrial equipment? The one that did not build vast underground shelter space for large parts of the civilian population as well as widely dispersing it's vital industries as well as harden it ( at relative great cost) to withstand nuclear effects?


agriculturial and domestic advancments the rest of the world had passed them up.


The grains the USSR were importing were only going into Silo's so as to ensure that most of the USSR's population could be be supplied with food stuffs for months if not years after the outbreak of a general war. Don't for a moment believe that they did not actually produce enough food to feed their people as that's just another one of those strange assumptions , they import food so they must have shortages, that uninformed parties so often make.


we both can't disput the fact the USSR collapsed do to bankruptcy and failed economic and domestic policies that couldnt sustain itself.


I can and most certainly will continue to dispute what is not proved or supported by at least some facts!


are you going to respond to highstreet?


I'm pretty busy and it's not a race as far as i am concerned; reality has no expiry date!

Stellar



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
take a look at the russian fleet, how many patrols they do and how many ssbn's are active,


Which year are we talking about? Do you have to hold frequent patrols to win the battle when it starts? They do not need active ballistic missile submarines as the vast majority of the missiles they deploy can reach targets in the USA from mooring positions. That being said even as late as 6 years ago they still had 13 operational BM submarines with more than 200 operational missiles and they have since added another to the list of operational submarines. You might notice the absence of the Typhoons from many lists but they are still around...

warfare.ru...

warfare.ru...

warfare.ru...


do you remember the kursk sinking and the other sub failing horribly at a demonstration infront of putin?


In the last five years two American submarines came close to never returning to port so why point fingers instead of being happy about the good fortune experience by the US submarine arm? What was so horrible about that test launch failure?


so what makes you think he is being dishonest? besides he said this in early 2004 they have actually improved their situation since then.


Indeed but the situation was never as bad as might think based on his statements.....


he is also retired and that was not coming from an active government source,


And that's why his such a usefull propaganda source that may talk to western press agencies and disclose all these nice 'facts' that everyone who drives a SUV wants to hear.



so if anything he could just be speaking the truth,


The 'truth' is probably classified and i don't believe one may disclose state secrets upon retirement.....


what the hell makes you think the russian government is going to admit they are vulnerable or outclassed?


Well how on Earth did the whole of the world come to believe that the Russian threat somehow evaporated overnight? Do you think such is possible without the Russian government supporting the notion? Did SH promise the US 'the mother of all battles' and is Russia not still better able to defend themselves? Why do you never hear them saying that in the western press? Think about it and consider how loudly the weak tend to proclaim their strength.


they will attempt to keep everyone guessing until they can actually pull up the funds to improve and upgrade.

you play poker much? my guess is no.


Why do you think what they now operate needs improvement to win a conventional or nuclear war?

Stellar



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Because this has become entirely off-topic, I'm going to request we drop the military capabilities of Russia vs. USA debate. That topic is not allowed according to forum-rules, and by hijacking this thread, you've directed it into that theoretical rut.

The fact is, neither side will win. You'll never be able to make a fair comparison between equipment, you'll run out of legitimate evidence, and, like now, you'll resort to useless bantering where replies are endless and no retort will manage to shift the balance, with each side believing it's inevitable that 'they win', because that is how reality is.

StellerX, while your posts were originally admirable, covering a wide array of topics with evidence to back your statements up, it has deluded into obvious nationalistic nonsense, has lost the vast majority of its backing, and upon going into one of your sites to view the conversation at hand-- [Soviet-Empre] -- And it was clearly nothing than more unsubstantiated nonsense, and I shudder to think that you'd use such a biased place.

Meanwhile, most of those backing the USA, the vast majority of you have failed completely. Few of you began with supporting evidence, and fewer still stayed with it. 'We' hardly made any concrete claims, and ended up resorting to theorist bull#, and conspiracy-mongering.

Let's drop the topic.

I suggest we lay-out what resources are required to measure how prepared a nation is for nuclear war -- State, with supporting evidence, as many nation's capabilities as we see fit to argue, and discuss only proven facts and information, or projected abilities. Not, 'This is better because..' as that leads back into a pit of bigotry and self-assurance.

Thank you.


ape

posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
it's almost unrealistic to compare a nation that the US outspends militarily along with the rest of the worlds nations combined and underestimate the US like it doesn;t have the upperhand. the US is more formidable than any other army on this earth and this is undisputed. russia does not have deployed DEW in strategic positions to take out the f-22, thats just pure imagination.

the USSR fell for a reason stellar, they have no domestric industrial base and no agriculture base along with a failing economy, they collpased for a reason and the reforms made to prevent collpase even before gorbechev, this is documented in history that they could not compete with the Us with the system they had and history proves this.


also you said the AGM-129a was built as a nuclear missle only and this is not true, take a look at the links i provided, the AGM-129a is nuclear capable, they are not developed and manufactured nuclear but instead conventional, so it would not infact be expensive and 'not worth' using them seeing they would take out the target.

the AGM-129a would be able to penetrate targets mentioned.
iblis i backed my argument up about actual US capability and provided my links which i believe are reputable, i hope your scorn like comments were not directed at me.









[edit on 24-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 24-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 24-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 24-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape
it's almost unrealistic to compare a nation that the US outspends militarily along with the rest of the worlds nations combined and underestimate the US like it doesn;t have the upperhand. the US is more formidable than any other army on this earth and this is undisputed. russia does not have deployed DEW in strategic positions to take out the f-22, thats just pure imagination.

the USSR fell for a reason stellar, they have no domestric industrial base and no agriculture base along with a failing economy, they collpased for a reason and the reforms made to prevent collpase even before gorbechev, this is documented in history that they could not compete with the Us with the system they had and history proves this.


also you said the AGM-129a was built as a nuclear missle only and this is not true, take a look at the links i provided, the AGM-129a is nuclear capable, they are not developed and manufactured nuclear but instead conventional, so it would not infact be expensive and 'not worth' using them seeing they would take out the target.

the AGM-129a would be able to penetrate targets mentioned.
iblis i backed my argument up about actual US capability and provided my links which i believe are reputable, i hope your scorn like comments were not directed at me.









[edit on 24-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 24-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 24-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 24-12-2006 by ape]


ape, russia i don't know about but yes i know one thing with ayaks, gerakl aircraft carrying triniti lasers ,s-500,s-300V etc... the soviets had some capability,

--------
S-300 batteries with various sorts of missiles protects "Varyag" from long-range attacks, ballistic missiles and against possible sci-fi edge hypersonic targets. Let me remind you, that any S-300 battery can fire at any direction without turning around.

"Varyag" was armed with "Shkwal" hydroreactive underwater missile torpedoes - completely unique technological marvel of Soviet science - this is not actually a torpedo, but underwater rocket which uses artificial cavitation to remove natural speed limits of underwater weaponry.

The speed of Soviet "Shkwal" super-torpedo is more than 360 kph, that's FOUR times faster than most conventional torpedoes. So, forget those Tom Clansy stories about slow pace of naval combat, this combat will don't give you time to react.

"Varyag" was also supposed to be equipped with Soviet MLTK-50 200-ton CO2-lasers for anti-air and close-range anti-ship defence, and TRINITI laser, powered from main reactors of "Varyag".

This ship is "Tiranosaurus Rex" of sea. Enough to defeat any aircraft carrier supported fleet of USA.

But that's only the beginning.

This ship is aircraft carrier, right? Aircraft carriers carry aircrafts, right?

Here's what we have for you

www.soviet-empire.com...
---------------
here ,krutov is talking about the supercarriers that USSR had planned to deploy by 1999....
MLTK co2 laser and triniti laser, thes are also directed energy weapons
------
"Varyag" was also supposed to be equipped with Soviet MLTK-50 200-ton CO2-lasers for anti-air and close-range anti-ship defence, and TRINITI laser, powered from main reactors of "Varyag".


ape

posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
all on paper, whats funny is i dont see the russians doing deomstrations to prove all of this capability like the US does and please dont give me the line of top secret or w/e, the US demonstrates it's force and the projection is clear, I dont see any kind of high tech shows and demonstrations about high tech weaponry or anything thats mass. take a look at all of the deployed US battle groups and SSBN's and attack susb etc.


funny whenever i do recall the russians demonstrating weaponry is always fails, they have no plane, the JSF will dominate sales and if the US felt any competiton the would possibly put the raptort up for purchase just to blow russia right out of the water?, please dont sit here and tell me that raptors and JSF's are obsolete because thats just a pipe dream fantasy, can anyone else see the raptors being sold with of course limited capability just to blow russian competiton right out of the water if it ever did arise to that level?

i certainly dont see the projection of force by russia, the US on the otherhand has been projecting it's force strong since the collpase of the flawwed USSR system.

www.thebulletin.org...

www.thebulletin.org...

this is a more accurate view on where we stand.







[edit on 25-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 25-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape
all on paper, whats funny is i dont see the russians doing deomstrations to prove all of this capability like the US does and please dont give me the line of top secret or w/e, the US demonstrates it's force and the projection is clear, I dont see any kind of high tech shows and demonstrations about high tech weaponry or anything thats mass. take a look at all of the deployed US battle groups and SSBN's and attack susb etc.


funny whenever i do recall the russians demonstrating weaponry is always fails, they have no plane, the JSF will dominate sales and if the US felt any competiton the would possibly put the raptort up for purchase just to blow russia right out of the water?, please dont sit here and tell me that raptors and JSF's are obsolete because thats just a pipe dream fantasy, can anyone else see the raptors being sold with of course limited capability just to blow russian competiton right out of the water if it ever did arise to that level?

i certainly dont see the projection of force by russia, the US on the otherhand has been projecting it's force strong since the collpase of the flawwed USSR system.







raptor does not even have speed , nor any thing boy ....
this is a flying contrapetion

yes JSF has been highly praised even by russian websites like venik...

for vertical take off which russians have not achieved for fighters




funny whenever i do recall the russians demonstrating weaponry is always fails, they have no plane, the JSF will dominate sales


so , how come has russia sold 200+ sukhois to china and india..sukhois are far more manuverable in combat ..




all on paper, whats funny is i dont see the russians doing deomstrations to prove all of this capability like the US does and please dont give me the line of top secret or w/e, the US demonstrates it's force and the projection is clear, I dont see any kind of high tech shows and demonstrations about high tech weaponry or anything thats mass.


if you are talking about plasma weapons , then
------------------
Already, Cohen reported, the Russians have a sophisticated nuclear-based missile defense system around Moscow and possibly elsewhere. According to published intelligence reports, in the late 1980s the Russians began developing a "plasma weapon" for missile defenses. The plasma weapon uses nuclear energy to ionize the atmosphere, destroying or rendering inoperable any missiles passing through the plasma field

www.manuelsweb.com...
--------------------



The Radio Instrument Building Research Institute under the supervision of Academician A. Avramenko developed a plasma weapon capable of killing any target at altitudes of up to 50 kilometers. Engineers and scientists of the institute in cooperation with the National Research Institute of Experimental Physics (Arzamas-16), Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute,
www.warfare.ru...


this was in 1988 soviets achieved it ..boy ....
usa does not even have a plasma weapon till now...


ape

posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
yeah and what i can recall also from russian sources is that they were going to take over the US economically and militarily right before they collapsed hard so anything coming from russian sources is a bunch of crap IMO. ( russia never eliminated the MAD factor with the US even when they developed a better missle this is a fact I dont need any bias sources or opinions to challenge this)

dont talk like russia has something better than the f-22, this is pure fantasy and dishonesty, please be realistic as this is thr weapons forum and we dont need a bunch of unreliable biased opinions on how russian weaponry will simply dominate the US, on mig alley the US pilots had a 7-1 kill ratio and the russian sources only tried to save face by being dishonest and making up obsurd numbers, anyone who challenges this is misinformed.

once again take a look at the US projection of force, anyone who says ther JSF and raptor are a waste of money or are obsolete against russian forces is just being biased and ignorant, I mean your posting links to ' the soviet empire' like it is actually legit, give me a break man. ' communist MEGA TECH vs yankee crap', it doesn't get more biased then that, plus the posters on that site are a bunch of biased idiots who need to get checked, I remember when i tried to reg for that forum to debate them and I never got a response or anything I couldnt post anything, bunch of commie dishonest sources HAHAHA.

the links you provided are outdated and crap.

[edit on 25-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 25-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 25-12-2006 by ape]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join