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.

 

Are the Russians more prepared for Nuclear war?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape
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)



[edit on 25-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 25-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 25-12-2006 by ape]





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


7 -1 kill ratio ? that was in iraq boy .... iraqis used obsolete tech

and in north korean war soviet -american ratio of losses was 1:1.5

and in vietnam you lost more than 1000 fighters....#

even india won war against pakistan using soviet tech while pakis used american tech , though india suffered heavy losses but pakis suffered more..man



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


rather the same person praised the JSF and F-15 for their capabilties and said they are superior to most russian fighers with the exception of Mig-31 and possibly stealth su-37 with marabu stealth generator.. and that person is a former soviet office in the KGB military complex..
and his argument that F-22 is a crap log is correct that thing 's max speed is mach 1.7 which even stalin era mig-21 can achieve, and for the cost off 200 million $ the manuverbility is low ...



the russian sources only tried to save face by being dishonest and making up obsurd numbers, anyone who challenges this is misinformed.


that even americans do...




yeah and what i can recall also from russian sources is that they were going to take over the US economically and militarily right


the russikies did not say this boy , the right wing americans use to say this , in fact in 1988 gorby admitted that russian economy is weakening ... seems you are ignorant about history and
why i believe russians more:




In the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet people were about 99.7% literate. Soviet elementary and secondary schools, remain the unbeaten example of equality, social accessibility and high achievement. In the 1970s, according to some sources, the common situation was that an American or German university student would fail to meet the standards of a Soviet secondary school physics program.
www.answers.com...


see now , boy why i believe russians , they are highly intelligient ...
certainly more intelligent than americans..

could you show me your registration on soviet empire .com ? i haven't seen you


[edit on 26-12-2006 by vK_man]




posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 03:56 AM
link   

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

for vertical take off which russians have not achieved for fighters


The Russian have VTOL capability. They never put it to production though.
Google YAK 141.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

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

for vertical take off which russians have not achieved for fighters


The Russian have VTOL capability. They never put it to production though.
Google YAK 141.



YAK 141 is only mach 1.5 and with overload max mach 1.8 , it can only achieve..

and yes i meant SVTOL capbility not VTOL slight mistake, here is a list :
www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Because this has become entirely off-topic,


As long as the 'bashing' ( any questioning of the complete superiority of the American armed forces in my experience) is reserved for other countries their rarely considered 'off-topic' it seems....


I'm going to request we drop the military capabilities of Russia vs. USA debate.


Why? Would it not matter if one country had such a huge advantage that it's old rivals fiat currency has depreciated by 60% in just the last five years?


That topic is not allowed according to forum-rules, and by hijacking this thread, you've directed it into that theoretical rut.


What theoretical rut? Do you mean the rut where people flood the forum and loudly scream " USA, USA, USA" till everyone with some sense used to leave?


The fact is, neither side will win.


One side always win and gets to impose it's will on another; however weak that will is after the fight. What i have been trying to show over the last year or so is that one side , based on official intelligence data, seems to be far better prepared to win that war if it ever came while the other prepares only to discourage such a war having no widely known about capacity to actually win it when it stars.


You'll never be able to make a fair comparison between equipment, you'll run out of legitimate evidence,


That depends on whether people consider news sources that does not reflect their bias to have legitimacy. I will keep presenting the information ONLY in response to claims that i disagree with; i am not here to create threads trying to propagandize anyone.


and, like now, you'll resort to useless bantering where replies are endless


I agree that the bantering and generally useless replies like yours are not contributing to this discussion.


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.


I don't for a moment think that the USSR or now Russia would have 'won' ( winning is reaching your objectives and if those objectives include the loss of 90% of your population that might be what your willing to sacrifice) or will do so now and a have repeatedly stated, but probably not often enough, that i just believe, and have shown, them to have a significant advantage in admitted strategic and conventional weaponry.


StellerX, while your posts were originally admirable, covering a wide array of topics with evidence to back your statements up,


You must have had very few free hours the last month or so to have managed to read all the posts and source material i have provided over the last year...


it has deluded into obvious nationalistic nonsense,


I'm not American or Russian so this is not nationalism whatever you may think.


has lost the vast majority of its backing,


How does one 'lose' the credibility that the sources you rely on imparted on your ideas before?


and upon going into one of your sites to view the conversation at hand-- [Soviet-Empre] --


You mean you only read one entire page i never even used as source data? You have the audacity to admit this so openly?


And it was clearly nothing than more unsubstantiated nonsense, and I shudder to think that you'd use such a biased place.


I have never sourced anything from "Soviet Empire" ( i shuddered too BTW) and only recently discovered that it existed when another poster referred me to it as 'evidence' that he knew what he was talking. If you for a moment believe that i would read that trash ( imo) or use it as source material you don't have a clue about me or the topic matter to say nothing of the large volumes of sources i have used in the past. Your bias have literally left you blind, deaf and dumb as only a vapid attempt at dismissal of the sources contradicting your clearly dearly held beliefs could have led you to 'assume' that i would use that forum as source material.

You had no credibility with me and i can't imagine what you would have to come up with to establish some in the future.


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.


If you read some previous threads, related to this issue, you might have noticed that many sharing that bias have contributed in my own education in the past even if they did not or could not 'stay the course'... Knowing what i do now i do not envy the task of those who want to defend the notion of American strategic superiority as research anywhere below the obvious surface wont aid in enforcing that media illusion.


Let's drop the topic.


Lets not as i believe there is much about the American way of life that is worth fighting for and, hopefully, saving.


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.


Which is what i have been doing!

Stellar



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by vK_man
YAK 141 is only mach 1.5 and with overload max mach 1.8 , it can only achieve..

..and yes i meant SVTOL capbility not VTOL slight mistake, here is a list :
www.globalsecurity.org...


Only Mach 1.5??!!Well Its approx ~Mach 1.6-1.7 and thats not much lesser than the F-35.
So nothing lacking in the mach dept.
Russians pretty much have their VTOL bases covered IMO.

I'm sure you know that the Yak was the first supersonic S/VTOL a/c, and the first VTOL a/c.
Infact if an a/c(Yak 141 here) can VTOL then it definitely falls under S/VTOL,STOVL and the whole set of relevant abbreviations if you will. Esp since its a fixed wing a/c.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 08:47 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.


Almost, yes. Do you believe that simply spending more money , on say spears, shields would in the right numbers gain you a victory over a modern mechanized army? It's a extreme example but at what point does having more of inferior armament just leave you completely vulnerable? How much of that Pentagon funds end up contributing to the defense of the united states? What exactly happened to that three or more trillion dollars that the Pentagon have trouble accounting for?


the US is more formidable than any other army on this earth and this is undisputed.


And i disagree and have provided actual evidence that this is probably has not been the case for decades on end.


russia does not have deployed DEW in strategic positions to take out the f-22, thats just pure imagination.



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

www.oism.org...



One potential method might be a powerfull ground-based laser (why was the infrared sensor on one of our satellites suddenly blinded as it passed over the USSR?) A laser on the Mir space station recently "illuminated" an ICBM during the cruise phase of its flight in space, demonstrating Soviet ability to detect and track a missile, according t o Pentagon sources (Washington Inquirer , July 24, 1987).

The purpose of Mir may indeed include bringing about "peace" -- Soviet style, implies absence of opposition.

www.oism.org...



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

[From the San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle, front page, 24 Jan 88. The
article goes on to consider reports that some spacecraft malfunctions may
have been due to laser "hosing", e.g., a KH-11 or Code 1010 satellite, which
was permanently damaged in 1978. Seems unlikely -- the technology was not
very well advanced then? PGN]

[However, the risks of laser interference or accidental triggering are worth
noting. Adding to the risks of computing in SDI, might such a concerted
attack of simultaneous laser bursts on many satellite sensors be mistakenly
detected as the launch of a nuclear attack!? PGN]


catless.ncl.ac.uk...



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

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

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

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

www.fas.org...



the USSR fell for a reason stellar,


Sure it did , everything in politics happen for a reason imo, but is it for the reason you think and what the hell did it have to do with their apparently overwhelmingly superior strategic capabilities?


they have no domestric industrial base and no agriculture base along with a failing economy,


Nonsense.


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.


One certainly has the right to believe what you like, reality to the contrary and all.


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.


And i did not suggest that they could not be used in the way you said but that it would in fact be a waste of a limited strategic capability. If the US started deploying these missiles in their thousands then maybe they could spend them on fleeting targets with low probability of destruction...


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.


The score i direct at people they almost always deserve, in the long run especially as the discussion normally turns ugly when reality knocks down the front door, so it was directed at you and very probably for good reason! Added stealth does not ensure anything beyond better ability to reach the target area but it most certainly contributes nothing to their destruction as it's still the same systems proving the targeting data. Against fixed strategic targets those weapons are far better options but against mobile targets they are subject to the same limitations.

Stellar


[edit on 26-12-2006 by StellarX]


ape

posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
the 'evidence you have provided does not prove anything stellar, i posted what the current US nuclear and russian forces are, the US is more modern and is deployed every where while russia is a shell of it's former self, not to mention russia never eliminated the MAD factor witht he US at any time during the cold war so this ' overwhelmingly' strategic dominance is just pure imagination and opinion.


once again the USSR collapsed, i provided solid non biased evidence of their economic and industrial, agricultural situation and rotting domestic issues which eventually lead to their collapse, this is undisputed and I do not know why it is being disputed, i suggest editing wikipedia because i started out basic w3ith that information.


also if russian tech was so superior why does the US dominate the weapons export game? posting unproven continued deployment of DEW by the russians when they dont even have the money to maintaine thier SSBN fleet is pretty outrageous.


and yes it does matter when it comes to spending, US technology is top of the line, anyone who disputes this is biased, it is top of the line ebcause of the money put in for the continuous research and development to make it lethal and reliable, the US is known for this technology and russia is not, russia cannot even begin to fund the kind of programs the US does and this is a fact, so basically there is no comparison in my opinion.

also vk_man the US sabers has a 7-1 kill ratio on the mig15, this is fact and these numbers are conservative while the russians attempting to not lose face made up outrageous numbers which is recognized as false by the majority of historians.


i mean you're posting stuff from 1987, what makes you think they can even begin to fund something as technical and precise as DEW??? they can't so come on, 1987? before they collapsed hard? this proves nothing. 20 years ago !!! that is a very long time considering what happened to the USSR, to even assume they still haver the money to invest in this sort of stuff is insane, i mean they cant even afford to patrol SSBN's and it's not because they dont want to it's because it takes money and funding to do such operations and as the evidence I have showed you proves that russia does not have the money to invest in this, they even expressed how they are reducing while the US is still enaging active patrols like it was still the height of the cold war war, now patrols are everything as it is a clear sign of projection of force and security and detterant, something that goes along ways in this world.

vk the top speed for the f-22 is classified, please continue to come off as ignorant haha, your a memeber of the soviet empire I dont expect you to be accurate, the f-22 is the onyl aircraft that can achieve supercruise speeds without hitting afterburners, no mig can claim this.

[edit on 26-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
the 'evidence you have provided does not prove anything stellar, i posted what the current US nuclear and russian forces are, the US is more modern and is deployed every where while russia is a shell of it's former self, not to mention russia never eliminated the MAD factor witht he US at any time during the cold war so this ' overwhelmingly' strategic dominance is just pure imagination and opinion.





also if russian tech was so superior why does the US dominate the weapons export game? posting unproven continued deployment of DEW by the russians when they dont even have the money to maintaine thier SSBN fleet is pretty outrageous.


this is biased, it is top of the line ebcause of the money put in for the continuous research and development to make it lethal and reliable, the US is known for this technology and russia is not, russia cannot even begin to fund the kind of programs the US does and this is a fact, so basically there is no comparison in my opinion.

.


i mean you're posting stuff from 1987, what makes you think they can even begin to fund something as technical and precise as DEW??? they can't so come on, 1987? before they collapsed hard? this proves nothing. 20 years ago !!! that is a very long time considering what happened to the USSR, to even assume they still haver the money to invest in this sort of stuff is insane, i mean they cant even afford to patrol SSBN's and it's not because they dont want to it's because it takes money and funding to do such operations and as the evidence I have showed you proves that russia does not have the money to invest in this, they even expressed how they are reducing while the US is still enaging active patrols like it was still the height of the cold war war, now patrols are everything as it is a clear sign of projection of force and security and detterant, something that goes along ways in this world.

vk the top speed for the f-22 is classified, please continue to come off as ignorant haha, your a memeber of the soviet empire I dont expect you to be accurate, the f-22 is the onyl aircraft that can achieve supercruise speeds without hitting afterburners, no mig can claim this.

[edit on 26-12-2006 by ape]





also vk_man the US sabers has a 7-1 kill ratio on the mig15, this is fact and these numbers are conservative while the russians attempting to not lose face made up outrageous numbers which is recognized as false by the majority of historians


majority of what ? american historians?
what a joke ??? you certainly are ignorant ....
and ywes before americans use to say that they had 15:1 ratio ...
hahaha ... what a lie .....

and F-22 's speed is classified ? never heard ...where's proof?

you have me laughing .....





f-22 is the onyl aircraft that can achieve supercruise speeds without hitting afterburners


many other aircraft like SR-71,Mig-31 etc...

so...




i mean you're posting stuff from 1987, what makes you think they can even begin to fund something as technical and precise as DEW??? they can't so come on, 1987?


boy ,stellar is right USSR had a massive particle beam weapons program,and the plasma prog was the largest....

in fact HAARP is based on the soviet SURA station...







Russian politicians are head over heels debating plans of U.S. imperialists and their bloodthirsty military, man-made disasters and floods. They are probably totally unaware that Russia has long build it own facility similar to HAARP. The facility Sura is as powerful as HAARP. It is located in Russia's central area, in a remote and desolate place some 150 km from the city of Nizhny Novgorod. One of the leading scientific research institutions of the USSR, Research Institute of Radiophysical Studies, owns the facility.
english.pravda.ru...



[edit on 27-12-2006 by vK_man]


ape

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
oh i mean stealth fighter, i didnt know they designed a mig to be supercruise capable without hitting after burners, or is that just more soviet empire BS ?

sabre pilots whooped up on mig 15 soviet pilots but w/e.


it takes massive amounts of funding to be able to maintaine DEW technology THEL technology all of that laser tech not only for it to be reliable but for it to be accurate and cost effective. russia does not have the funds for this and posting information from 20 years ago hardly means a thing, funding like that got cut. the ssbn fleet is a prime example of this, SSBN's are a must for any 'superpower' and russias fleet is a joke, they dont have the money to fund this stuff, to think they would even be ahead of the US in any of these categories is obsurd, dont forget the US outspends them and the next 20 countries combinded. and yes proper funding is EVERYTHING.

save the soviet empire retoric for your commie web site that ideology died out along time ago, DOWN WITH BIG GOVERNMENT!

[edit on 27-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape
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]

wow seriously you are an *snip* buddie. 7:1 kill ratio? russians owned the skies over north korea
RUssian kill ratio was 3:1 over usa in north korea
www.acepilots.com... check out that site, us got smoked in n.korea.

[edit on 27-12-2006 by Oplot84]



Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/27/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape
oh i mean stealth fighter, i didnt know they designed a mig to be supercruise capable without hitting after burners, or is that just more soviet empire BS ?

sabre pilots whooped up on mig 15 soviet pilots but w/e.


it takes massive amounts of funding to be able to maintaine DEW technology THEL technology all of that laser tech not only for it to be reliable but for it to be accurate and cost effective. russia does not have the funds for this and posting information from 20 years ago hardly means a thing, funding like that got cut. the ssbn fleet is a prime example of this, SSBN's are a must for any 'superpower' and russias fleet is a joke, they dont have the money to fund this stuff, to think they would even be ahead of the US in any of these categories is obsurd, dont forget the US outspends them and the next 20 countries combinded. and yes proper funding is EVERYTHING.

save the soviet empire retoric for your commie web site that ideology died out along time ago, DOWN WITH BIG GOVERNMENT!

[edit on 27-12-2006 by ape]



wow....sooooo ignorant ....
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-31
T-50 Golden Eagle
Sukhoi Su-47
en.wikipedia.org...

these are some of the aircraft that can supercruise ...

you know nothing ....you proved it and you are full of ignorance

hahahahahahhaha



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
To all members posting in this thread ...


Please keep your replies focused on the content of the POST, not the character of the POSTER!


... and now back to Are the Russians more prepared for Nuclear war?


Thank you.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape
oh i mean stealth fighter, i didnt know they designed a mig to be supercruise capable without hitting after burners, or is that just more soviet empire BS ?

sabre pilots whooped up on mig 15 soviet pilots but w/e.


So maybe the Mig's were shooting down some of the 100 B-29's that were lost over Korea or for that matter shooting down some of the other nearly 3000 planes? Does the mother or the widow the pilot shot down by a mig really care if the US air force decides the attribute the shoot down the ground fire?


it takes massive amounts of funding to be able to maintaine DEW technology THEL technology all of that laser tech not only for it to be reliable but for it to be accurate and cost effective.


So while Russia can hole out entire mountains and maintain and deploy new generations of anti aircraft missiles and ICBM's they will just let their DEW installations fall into dissrepair? Who's the one believing what suits them best here?


russia does not have the funds for this and posting information from 20 years ago hardly means a thing,


They had a operational capability then and there is abolutely no reason to believe or to suggest that they have lost it due to funding issues when they still had so much spare cash for other less important military programs? Is the deployment of DEW technology en-mass part of the reason why the Russian air force has been allowed to shrink to current levels or why there is not so much spending on aircrew training? Feel free to decide what the logical deduction should be...


funding like that got cut. the ssbn fleet is a prime example of this, SSBN's are a must for any 'superpower' and russias fleet is a joke,


They always retained at least ten or more SSBN's and since those could all fire their missiles from dockside there were no good reasons for added expenditure on mass deployments. There is no serious evidence that they could not have deployed their SSBN's when required or that their strategic vulnerability increased because they did not. They currently operate the same amount of SBBN's as the US navy so i don't understand the reasoning behind your vapid accusations.


they dont have the money to fund this stuff, to think they would even be ahead of the US in any of these categories is obsurd,


Only if one does no research and believes everything you hear on CNN.



dont forget the US outspends them and the next 20 countries combinded.and yes proper funding is EVERYTHING.


Funding levels have nothing to do with operational capabilities and if you spend billions on spears and arrows you will still lose to tactical nuclear weapons. Don't tell me that old story that simply having more of whatever wins wars. I wont disagree that it's never a bad thing but it's certainly no assurance.


save the soviet empire retoric for your commie web site that ideology died out along time ago, DOWN WITH BIG GOVERNMENT!


This has nothing to do with the soviet empire web site and i wished i had noticed this line two lines the day you typed it.

Does not matter now as you have already crossed the line elsewhere.

Stellar


ape

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I love how you mention what they have operational when i provided a non bias source into what they actually are investing in, DEW is long gone man, they DO NOT HAVE THE FUNDS, take a look at the current domestic situation in russia and tell me if they would actually fund DEW and all other sorts of high technology when they can only produce 1 SU-47 and only afford 2 patrols a year with their 'active ssbn' fleet which you completly ignored.

=[.


ape

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
and no olpot those russian pilots are trying to save face, f-86 sabre had a conservative estimate of 7-1 kill ration on the mi-15, russians and commies will always challenge this.

home.att.net...

funny how we got the first kill
sabre-pilots.org...

"Review of archived and previously classified documents released after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 disputes the numbers of claims by U.S. pilots, stating that the VVS lost only 345 MiGs. In turn the Soviets claimed to have shot down more than 1,300 U.N. aircraft including more than 650 Sabres. However, USAF records revealed that there were only about 660 Sabres deployed to the Korean theater in the entire war. This fact makes the Soviet claims highly dubious. USAF records also show 224 F-86s lost to all causes, including non-combat. Many air engagements are corroborated by both sides, but with conflicting claims of kills."

en.wikipedia.org...

of course im going to get " the US can manipulate the numbers and blah blah blah" well i suggest you go change wikipedia and then get it edited promptly and someone getting a warning. the soviets are liars



[edit on 30-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 30-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
the 'evidence you have provided does not prove anything stellar, i posted what the current US nuclear and russian forces are,


So did i and their is no indication of generally superior American equipment or numbers and every indication of someone deliberately under-counting the warheads in the Russian arsenal so the US forces might look more balanced? Where is the mention of the three 'Typhoons' Russia still operates?


the US is more modern and is deployed every where


How is it more modern in general and how much of a difference does that make against Russian ABM defenses?


Former Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird claims that thousands of SA-5 interceptors have been deployed in hundreds of sites around some 110 Soviet urban areas, principally in the European U.S.S.R.37 Such a deployment could play havoc with the surviving 1440 SLBM RVs.

The SA-5 anti-SLBM defenses are unorthodox and even "sneaky" in that they exist in the context of an ABM treaty under which the United States officially assumes they do not exist and takes no actions or precautions to counteract the capability. And an SA-5 ABM capability only makes sense in an overall damage-denial scheme which negates ICBMs some other way and reduces the number of SLBM RVs by ASW efforts to levels which can be countered by active SA-5 defenses, civil defense, and hardening of key targets.38"

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


Those are no longer deployed but what they have been replaced with is far more effective and have been systematically upgraded as my previous link indicated.
Will the most modern and polished American warheads make it past Russian ABM and DEW defenses?


while russia is a shell of it's former self,


You see how you compare something with nothing? You have just shown that you never even bothered looking at the warhead numbers, or quality,and just make generalizations based on the perception imparted to you by the great American media institutions. How is a country that operates over five hundred ICBM's ( more than half are mobile) not a threat?


not to mention russia never eliminated the MAD factor witht he US at any time during the cold war so this ' overwhelmingly' strategic dominance is just pure imagination and opinion.


So once again you offer no evidence but your opinion and what 'consensus' in your opinion reflects? Do you read the source material at all or do you just use the references to ensure that you don't arrive at such pages by accident? I might be wrong about the scale of their advantage but a advantage they have for sure.


once again the USSR collapsed,


With it's weapons still very much functioning to this day ( according to Russian and American defense sources; all my claims are based on what they say) so how is the economy and political change related to weapons technology and deployment numbers?


i provided solid non biased evidence of their economic and industrial, agricultural situation and rotting domestic issues which eventually lead to their collapse,


No you did not and that would be impossible a conclusions to reach based on the few biased pieces of information you presented. I pointed out all the inconsistencies and you this is the type of response you make? Your not interested in discussion and i do not take kindly to people who pretend that they addressed issues once they posted one page worth of information. The so called 'collapse' of the USSR had NOTHING to do with economic issues and to pretend that it did despite the fact that this has never been claimed by leading American defense and intelligence establishments personal ( who actually designed the American rearmament policy) just shows that you don't read, have no interest in a true discussion and will say what you want whatever the evidence and sources suggest you should consider or at least investigate.


this is undisputed and I do not know why it is being disputed,


Undisputed because it's never been disputed in the five pages you have read about this subject?


i suggest editing wikipedia because i started out basic w3ith that information.


And now wikipedia is the final authority on such matters? It's a great source but you should at least read the source pages listed by the author of the wiki article if your going to question my source material which you seem happy just avoiding.


also if russian tech was so superior why does the US dominate the weapons export game?


Well they did not dominate it but it was partly due to the USSR concentrating on building up it's armed forces and not wasting it's energy exporting goods that it might use in it's own defense. Why export weapons to third world nations so they can fight wars you instigated between them( Iran-Iraq) at net loss to American security and weapon stockpiles?
It exported mainly second hand or sub standard equipment and for cash while the US almost gave away equipment if the country it were sent to used it to further US interest. The US thus exported larger dollar amounts of equipment but largely at the expense of the American taxpayer who had to pick up the tabs for the weaponry so freely handed out to every tin pot third world dictator the US could sponsor into power.


posting unproven continued deployment of DEW by the russians when they dont even have the money to maintaine thier SSBN fleet is pretty outrageous.


Once again i don't understand what is unproven about the source material that clearly tells us that the USSR were employing DEWS back in the 70's that could permanently damage American satellites. Why does one need a SSBN fleet when what you have deployed will ensure that you could destroy a large proportion of American warheads before they reached the altitude where they could release decoys or be intercepted by the vast numbers of air defense missiles? The problem here is that you have not seriously considered the implications of these well supported claims/facts and do not really seem interested either. Is objective reality really affected when you deny it and have you tested this theory crossing a street while attempting to wish the cars out of existence?

74.52.37.180... For some more information about all DEW's that does not exist like the following....


[FBIS Translated Text] The press reported in very considerable detail on the April 1993 meeting of the presidents of the USA and Russia in Vancouver. But one thing remains not entirely clear: Had Boris Yeltsin proposed to his American friend the idea of carrying out the major experiment "Doveriye" ("Trust") in the vicinity of Kwajelein Atoll, initiating a joint effort to create a global antimissile defense system. It was not until summer of that year that 21ST CENTURY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, the well-informed journal of the American military-industrial complex, finally informed us that there had in fact been a conversation on this topic between the presidents. What did the politicians talk about? What kind of experiment is this?

For practical purposes plasma weapons have already been created in Russia. Their action is based on focusing beams of electromagnetic energy produced by laser or microwave radiation into the upper layers of the atmosphere. These beams would be able to defeat any target flying at supersonic or near-sonic speeds in the near future. A cloud of highly ionized air arises at the focus of the laser or microwave rays, at an altitude of up to 50 kilometers. Upon entering it, any object--a missile, an airplane, is deflected from its trajectory and disintegrates in response to the fantastic overloads arising due to the abrupt pressure difference between the surface and interior of the flying body. What is fundamental in this case is that the energy aimed by the terrestrial components of the plasma weapon--lasers and antennas--is concentrated not at the target itself but a little ahead of it. Rather than "incinerating" the missile or airplane, it "bumps" it out of trajectory.

According to dependable information our scientific proving ground has already conducted tests in which a projectile flying through plasma discharges was deflected from its normal trajectory and self-destructed.

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

and yes it does matter when it comes to spending, US technology is top of the line,


Saying something like that is not a qualification in itself and unless you can somehow established this as fact your just alluding to the extent of your ignorance and vanity. Where is the evidence for the so called superiority or is that just assumed since you happen to be American?


anyone who disputes this is biased,


Bias is not something no one can avoid, imo, and i freely admit my bias towards the facts as earlier cited.


it is top of the line ebcause of the money put in for the continuous research and development to make it lethal and reliable, the US is known for this technology


Such perceptions are not hard to establish when all your country ever does is attack third world nations who never had a chance in hell.


and russia is not, russia cannot even begin to fund the kind of programs the US does and this is a fact, so basically there is no comparison in my opinion.


It does not matter what it's funding capability is as we know what kind of forces and programs it operates. Denying that based on the assumption that it does not fund 'stuff' despite such information being classified is stupidity incarnate.


also vk_man the US sabers has a 7-1 kill ratio on the mig15, this is fact and these numbers are conservative while the russians attempting to not lose face made up outrageous numbers which is recognized as false by the majority of historians.


It's not 'facts' at all as i have pointed out in another post.


i mean you're posting stuff from 1987, what makes you think they can even begin to fund something as technical and precise as DEW???


Because they had a multi decade lead in the 70's according to Teller and others and were managing to damage American planes and satellites. What sort of proof do you require if you will deny whatever you don't want to believe? Why on Earth are they able to deploy dozens of new or upgraded ICBM's and air defense missiles if they do not have funds for the DEWS installations that they build in the 70's and 80's? Hows does a country lose the technological know how and capability to operate weapons installations you built yourself simply because your country changes government form? It is about as illogical a argument as one can make in defense of one's beliefs and commonly the type or argument a person with strong religious convictions would employ...

4.

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

www.oism.org...



they can't so come on, 1987? before they collapsed hard? this proves nothing. 20 years ago !!!


That's how long ago they had the expertise and technology and deployed weapons so one can only imagine what they are doing now if they still have money left to build new nuclear submarines and anti air defense missiles just to ensure victory.


that is a very long time considering what happened to the USSR, to even assume they still haver the money to invest in this sort of stuff is insane,


What is insane is to deny reality because it does not suit you. There is no evidence at all that Russian lacks the capability or funding to operate such facilities as it clearly did thirty years ago. Why anyone who argue otherwise is quite beyond me.


i mean they cant even afford to patrol SSBN's and it's not because they dont want to


You see how you make assumptions with anyone evidence? Why could they not afford to go on patrols and why where they any requirement to do so when all the missiles deployed on those submarines could reach American strategic targets from mooring positions? It's these type of self serving assumptions that destroys credibility.


it's because it takes money and funding to do such operations and as the evidence I have showed you proves that russia does not have the money to invest in this,


The argument is not logical as the conclusion does not follow from the 'facts'. There is no connection to establish.


they even expressed how they are reducing while the US is still enaging active patrols like it was still the height of the cold war war ,


The US has to constantly patrol as their land based weapons are very vulnerable and their trajectories and approach routes too well established for it to probably post a significant threat all on it's own.


now patrols are everything as it is a clear sign of projection of force and security and detterant, something that goes along ways in this world.


The world would rather have America pack up and stay out of everyone's business honestly but that is apparently a hard sell to a opressive and violent American regime.


vk the top speed for the f-22 is classified, please continue to come off as ignorant haha, your a memeber of the soviet empire I dont expect you to be accurate, the f-22 is the onyl aircraft that can achieve supercruise speeds without hitting afterburners, no mig can claim this.


Glad to see you were able to end this post with a statement that is relatively close to the truth. We do not know about any Russian aircraft that currently has such capabilities unless their the one's flying all those thousands of UFO's Americans ( including their presidents) claims to see so often.

Stellar.


ape

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
i made a mistake with the mig and admitted it, none the less nothing russia has develped can compete with US airpower, a stealth supercruise fighter aircraft like the f-22? yeah totally dominated.

oh great so now im getting the SSBN's are obsolete? infact i remember the russians worried about how the US deployed it's strategic nuclear aresenal which was hampered because of the start treaties?

yeah russia has more warheads but your ignoring the fact that alot of them are outdated and needed to be upgraded, you are totally disregarding the atomicbulletin which isnt suprising because you just want to post up paper sources, I dont see russia projecting it's force, back it up its all on paper. why is US force projection is very clear? why does russia not demonstrate this technology because they sell everything they develope???. this type of stuff takes funding, I have seen you disregard actual funding towards weapons programs in the past which is really amusing, funding is everything I think the su-47 is a prime example of this, 1 built? yeah.

I mean the fact you claim that russia have deployed DEW when russia itself is still developing new rockets etc well this doesn't make any sense now does it? DEW tech would make missiles obsolete so whats the point of making missiles when they can just take out ICBM's in the speed of light? your posts are very contradicting.

the fact that you even discredit wikipeda say enough, why dont you go edit it please I am asking you to go edit wikipedia, watch what will happen because there is no proof to back up your claims. go take a look at the USSR economy and if you disagree then edit it. USSR rotted from within.

the US is the richest country on earth and currently invests heavily in this technology yet somehow russia is more advanced in regards to DEW and laser technology and deployment? do you think everyone in the US weapons industry and development are retarded? posting information before the USSR fell is really funny. some of the scientists are russian, they fled the collapsed soviet union to work in the US.

SSBN's and attack subs etc are a crucial part of a fleet and for second strike capability,saying it is not needed totally goes against the triad that both countries practiced and as history obviously proves only 1 was able to maintaine. keep downplaying key aspects of force projection it's really amusing. they dont have funds the sonner you accept that the sooner you will come to closer grips with reality.

so now the triad is obsolete in your opinion? it just keeps getting better.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 30-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 30-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
and no olpot those russian pilots are trying to save face, f-86 sabre had a conservative estimate of 7-1 kill ration on the mi-15, russians and commies will always challenge this.

home.att.net...


The Mig-15 was the ONLY aircraft used by the Koreans and Soviet union so why on Earth are you pretending that only Sabre's shot down Mig's so as to establish the massive disparity which has absolutely no basis in reality? The reality is that less mig's were lost to all causes ( if one believes official numbers at all) than the kills claimed by the Sabre pilots.

Here is another source...


While the Sabres proved their superiority over the MiG when it was flown by Chinese and North Korean pilots, when the U.S. fighter went up against MiGs manned by Russians who were also veteran aces of the Second World War - as were many U.S. Sabre pilots - it was a different kettle of fish. The Russians of the 324th IAD (the first unit to enter combat) were commanded by no less that COL GEN Ivan Kozhedub, with 62 victories the Allied Ace of Aces of the Second World War; in fact, we now know that the Ace of Aces of the Korean War was not 16-victory ace Captain Joseph McConnell of the 51st FIW, but rather COL Yevgeny Pepelyaev, CO of the 196th Guards Fighter Regiment, a fierce believer in the adage "train hard, fight easy" who strove "to meet the American standard" with his pilots. During his 6-month tour in 1951, Peplyaev claimed 23 of the 104 victories scored by the 196th IAP.

Sergei Karamenko, a 13-victory MiG ace (on top of 12 WW2 victories), described combat between Sabres and MiGs thus: "The Sabre was the most dangerous threat to my friends and I in Korean skies. Our MiG-15 and the F-86 Sabre belonged in the same class, similar types with similar performance. They differed only in that the MiG had an advantage in rate of climb at altitude, while the Sabre was superior in maneuvering, especially at low level. These advantages could not always be used, however. The fight, as a rule, was decided in the first attack. After the first pass, we reached for altitude, while the Sabres rushed for the ground. Each tried to reach the altitude where it held a distinct advantage, and thus the battle faded."

Revised figures place USAF claims against the MiG-15 at 375, with admitted F-86 losses of 103, giving a 3.5:1 kill ratio. This is lower than the wartime claim of 10:1, but still very respectable.

members.aol.com...


And why did things go downhill after the first eight months?


Do we know today who "Casey Jones" was? YES, and Hinton's suspicions about his identity were right; he was not an Oriental. He was Sergei Makarovich Kramarenko, a member of the 176th GIAP (Guards Fighter Regiment) of the 324th IAD (Fighter Division) of the Voyenno Vozdushnye Sily, the Soviet Air Force. Actually Eagleston became the third aerial victory of Kapetan Sergei Kramarenko, who had shot down one F-80C on April 12 1951 and one F-86 on June 2. The score of that outstanding Russian pilot kept on rising, to 13 kills. On July 11 shot down the F-86A of Conrad Allard (KIA, despite the USAF sources credit the loss to "disorientation during a ferry flight") and on July 29 1951 bagged the F-86A BuNo 49-1098, which made him the First Ace of the Korean War and the First Jet-vs-Jet Ace of the History.

During the time that the "Honchos" (the nickname given by the Sabre pilots to excellent MiG pilots) were in Korea, between April 1951 and January 1952, they shot down or damaged beyond repair 158 UN aircraft against 68 losses, an overall 2:1 kill ratio. Their most successful month was October 1951, when the Soviet MiG-15s bagged 8 F-86s, 6 F-84Es, 2 RF-80As and one F-80C, one Meteor and 10 B-29As -25 victories- and suffered only 8 MiGs lost, achieving a 3:1 kill-to-losses ratio. During that period over 30 Soviet MiG-15 pilots became aces, among them Nikolai Sutyagin (21 kills); and also Yevgeni Pepelyayev (19), Lev Shchukin (17), the already mentioned Sergei Kramarenko (13), Mikhail Ponomaryev (11), Dmitri Samoylov (10), etc.

www.acepilots.com...



It is also important to mention the reasons for combat losses. Out of 335 MiG-15s shot down during the war, pilots of over fifty percent of the downed aircraft successfully ejected. Almost all of the pilots later returned into active service with a very high opinion about the reliability and simplicity of the MiG-15's ejection system.

A large percentage of losses was sustained by the MiGs during landing. The frontline airfields (Andun, Dapu, Myaogou) were located near the sea and the MiGs were not permitted to fly over the sea. That’s exactly where the "Sabres" gathered specifically to attack the MiGs over the airfields. During landing the MiG-15 was flying at a low speed in a straight line with its flaps and gear extended. This was a position when the MiG could not deflect an attack or escape from it. The quality of the aircraft and all the training of the pilot were quite useless in such situations.

Most MiG-15s downed in actual combat were single aircraft that got separated from their group and were left without cover. Statistics shows that about fifty percent of all losses among pilots account for the first ten combat flights. Thus, survivability of the pilot in combat directly depended on his experience.

www.aeronautics.ru...


And i am not sure the truth will be all that easy to establish. Whatever the case may be most of the kills were made against relatively badly trained Chinese and Korean pilots and the 'allies' still managed to write off 3000 aircraft against; which i guess it is easier to believe were lost due to ground fire and not enemy aircraft.


funny how we got the first kill



Do we know today who "Casey Jones" was? YES, and Hinton's suspicions about his identity were right; he was not an Oriental. He was Sergei Makarovich Kramarenko, a member of the 176th GIAP (Guards Fighter Regiment) of the 324th IAD (Fighter Division) of the Voyenno Vozdushnye Sily, the Soviet Air Force. Actually Eagleston became the third aerial victory of Kapetan Sergei Kramarenko, who had shot down one F-80C on April 12 1951 and one F-86 on June 2. The score of that outstanding Russian pilot kept on rising, to 13 kills. On July 11 shot down the F-86A of Conrad Allard (KIA, despite the USAF sources credit the loss to "disorientation during a ferry flight") and on July 29 1951 bagged the F-86A BuNo 49-1098, which made him the First Ace of the Korean War and the First Jet-vs-Jet Ace of the History.

www.acepilots.com...


And this is the type of cheating you indulge in when your entire society runs on propaganda lacking the Soviet method of just instilling fear.

Why is it funny and why do you pretend that the Sabre were the only plane around for the Mig-15's to shoot at? Your once again failing to mention that the allies lost 3000 aircraft due to all causes but supposedly only 2000 to enemy action. Why is it that the Soviet union lost only 10 aircraft to 'other' causes?


of course im going to get " the US can manipulate the numbers and blah blah blah " well i suggest you go change wikipedia and then get it edited promptly and someone getting a warning. the soviets are liars


I don't go around propagandizing people and i will stick to just engaging people when they attempt to make claims without providing much other than the same old biased information we are so used to seeing.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
I love how you mention what they have operational when i provided a non bias source into what they actually are investing in,


Where? They have deployed 40 or more entirely new ICBM's, satellites when required, various types of armored fighting vehicles in the thousands, planes, large numbers of new or upgraded air defense systems and dug up a few mountain ranges apparently. Did they really have to spend all that much to maintain the superiority they built up before?


DEW is long gone man, they DO NOT HAVE THE FUNDS,


Did aliens come and steal their DEWS installations or did they dismantle it for scrap metal? Are you having me on or are you in some twisted way serious about this weird denial?


take a look at the current domestic situation in russia


WHAT does that have to do with anything?


and tell me if they would actually fund DEW


Why did they have to build any new one's? What does it cost to operate a DEW site that can evaporate dozens of ICBM's before they release their warheads and does it make sense to maintain your DEW sites or build mobile ABM systems such as the S-300 instead? They did have the cash to maintain their early warning and battle management system so why on Earth believe they would let the DEW sites simply fall apart?


and all other sorts of high technology when they can only produce 1 SU-47 and only afford 2 patrols a year with their 'active ssbn' fleet which you completly ignored.

=[.


Once again they can fire their missiles from port just like the OHIO's so there is no need for patrols while those harbors are being protected by ABM defenses. Why do you need additional fighters when you have direct energy weapons and massive numbers of air defense systems?

Your not making any sense.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join