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.
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?
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
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...
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...
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...
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...
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.
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...
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.
I didnt know the russians deployed DEW to counter the f-22.
"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...
"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...
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?
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
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.
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...
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,
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?
Originally posted by ape
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.
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]
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.
funny whenever i do recall the russians demonstrating weaponry is always fails, they have no plane, the JSF will dominate sales
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.
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...