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.

 

Russia rearming, new aircraft carriers and 5th gen a/c the T-50

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
I agree Ape.

It never ceases to amaze me that, during the 60s, 70s and 80s, we in the 'west’ were simply terrified of the Russian Bogeyman. Of course we now know that the majority of her armed forces were complete rubbish.

About 90% of ICBMs sitting in their silos were unserviceable; there were only just enough operational AFVs to mount a limited attack after which, they would have had to rely on obsolete equipment and, aircraft were often grounded due to lack of spares and fuel.

Whilst the Russians had (at least on paper) a formidable navy, their deep water fleet was hardly a threat as they were, more often than not, old diesel boats.



Man will you have long drawn out discussion with StellarX!!




posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   
over and over again I hear this: Russian equipment is rusty, doesn't work, malfunction, etc etc etc, that is complete bs! I see Russian equipment working fine, keeping up with Western tech, and new equipment produced, though a small amount so far, but when Russia's budget goes up I'm sure there will be more new Russian toys out.

next time you associate current Russian military with the word 'rusty' or other bs, post a source with that, this bs is being said way to often, often for no reason at all, and quit the Russian bashing, racism is very bad



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape

this is a lie, I have posted facts on this from the bulletin of the atomic scientists. they were only doing 2 to 3 patrols yearly in the last 4 years and i forgot which year they infact didn't patrol at all while the US patrols like we are still in a cold war. US capabilities exaggerated? hmm never. the US demonstrates it's capabilites. you're bias.
[edit on 14-2-2007 by ape]


Bulletin of... What??
And how would they know of the frequency of Russian SSBN patrols?
I contest your claim and the validity of the information supplied by this bulletin.
Please post the relevant info so I can cross-check..



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Has the Russian military finally started to pay their soldiers and sailors on a regular basis? I know they were way behind for the longest time and nothing kills moral like not getting paid for your job, especially one that requires you to lay your life on the line!


Maybe Russian soldier can answer if he is associated with the military?


The USA could learn a lesson about the flat tax being imposed by Russia it is helping that economy a lot. The weapons procurement is still not up to speed with the USA but it is much better than it was through the 90's. Well that's at least what I read and is being reported. The original article that I posted seems to be the largest public annoucement of a modernization plan by the Russians.


ape

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by ape

this is a lie, I have posted facts on this from the bulletin of the atomic scientists. they were only doing 2 to 3 patrols yearly in the last 4 years and i forgot which year they infact didn't patrol at all while the US patrols like we are still in a cold war. US capabilities exaggerated? hmm never. the US demonstrates it's capabilites. you're bias.
[edit on 14-2-2007 by ape]


Bulletin of... What??
And how would they know of the frequency of Russian SSBN patrols?
I contest your claim and the validity of the information supplied by this bulletin.
Please post the relevant info so I can cross-check..


i posted up the links in the russias status as a superpower thread...

unfortunatly you need a subscription now to even view the links I posted, but they have the current and past status of the worlds nuclear arsenals along with missile capability, SSBN patrols etc etc...

the bulletin is oldschool and invented the cold war doomsday clock, the fact you dont know what this is says alot about how out of touch with the world you are.

check them out en.wikipedia.org...

here is the article I cannot dig it up from the bulletin but this site salvaged the article, it was not my original source.

skeptically.org...




Over the past year, the Russian Navy has conducted eight SLBM test launches, three of which failed spectacularly. During a naval exercise in the Barents Sea on February 17, the Delta IV SSBN Novomoskovs attempted to launch two SS-N-23 missiles; Putin was observing from the nearby Archangelsk. Both tests were aborted due to technical problems. The next day, the Karelia managed to launch an SS-N-23, but the missile was blown up when it strayed from its planned trajectory. On March 17, the Novomoskovs finally succeeded in a second attempt, during which an SS-N-23 was launched from the Barents Sea and later hit the Kura target range on the Kamchatka Peninsula.




The Russian Navy resumed SSBN deterrent patrols in 2003, after not conducting any in 2002 and only one in 2001, according to the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence. Since 1990, the number of patrols had declined steadily. Even after resumption, the number is a far cry from the U.S. SSBN patrol rate of more than 60 a year.


they got this information from US navy intel, the US navy patrols like it's still the height of the cold war, I think they would know what's in the water.

look they charge now... thebulletin.metapress.com...

beofre they took the money road you were able to look up 02, 03,04,05 and 06.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by ape]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Ok..
Fair enough,

Maybe you should check the number of RuN SSBNs that were undergoing refit during that decline period in 2001-02.
Also check the new commissions due by 2012-15.

I concede that Russian patrols have been declining from the 1990s onwards; but that is obvious, esp since they had a whopping 50+ patrol rollcount just before the breakup. Economic cutbacks would have forced the reduction of these in an organised manner.
My point was the trough figure has already been reached and its all uphill from hereon(2003 onwards). That makes it exponential nonetheless.

Finally I've looked at the accuracy of the this bulletin by comparing its info on the subject I may have some homegrown knowledge on:



THE SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF INDIA'S nuclear arsenal is difficult to determine. From various sources, we estimate that India has a stockpile of approximately 30-35 nuclear warheads (fewer than Pakistan), which it is thought to be expanding. The Indian Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) stated that the series of five nuclear test explosions in May 1998 involved both fission and fusion designs.

On May 11, New Delhi claimed that the first three tests achieved yields of 43 kilotons (a "thermonuclear" device), 12 kilotons (a fission device), and 200 tons (a low-yield device). If the devices actually produced the yields ...

Source


It suffices to say that this information is definitely wrong in the following aspects:

1)India has less warheads than Pakistan. This is a preposterous claim from any angle. India has at 2-3 times the number of warheads Pakistan has purely because India has always been at least 20 years ahead of Pakistan in terms of N-weapons. Also the sheer production capability of India's 20+ reactors dwarfs the 1(maybe 2 now) reactors Pakistan has.
Absolutely preposterous. This is common knowledge.

2) By 2002 the Nuclear Arsenal of India had its lower estimates in the 50s and upper estimates in the 150-200 region.
30-35 warheads is severely pessimistic at best.

No offence to BoAS but you've got to be kidding me..

Maybe if we could get hold of that entire article(the Indian one) somehow we could further validate/invalidate BoAS.


ape

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
well how would you judge the federation of american scientists ( FAS )

www.fas.org...

www.fas.org...

here is cdi's stats from 2003

www.the-south-asian.com...




back on topic, looks like russia did 9 patrols in 2005, so yes its a small increase. this information comes from US naval intelligence.

www.nukestrat.com...







[edit on 24-2-2007 by ape]

[edit on 24-2-2007 by ape]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   


posted by fritz

I agree Ape.

It never ceases to amaze me that during the 60s, 70s and 80s, we in the 'west’ were simply terrified of the Russian Bogeyman. Of course we now know that the majority of her armed forces were complete rubbish. [Edited by Don W]



That information was always out there, but it never made the main stream media. The Nation, The Reporter, The Manchester Guardian Weekly Air Mail Edition, The weekly National Observer cancelled after 2 years by the Dow Jones Publishing Co which also publishes the Wall Street Journal. And so on. It was repotted for the truth, the story that a Navy Ensign was arrested in his quarters for possessing classified information. It turned out he had a copy of Interavia, the notable British aero mag, which always published up to date data on all nations aircraft, as in Janes All the Worlds Planes, etc. The question is why? Why did our CIA and I presume your MI



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
well how would you judge the federation of american scientists ( FAS )

www.fas.org...

www.fas.org...



Well I have no idea about Pakistan, and general estimates are in the 20-40 range.
FAS...hmm..well let me just give you a link. I think this is closest one can get to accurate info on the Indian Nuclear program.
Notieably there are many differences between the FAS report and this one.
Most importantly, India's nuclear program had begun in theory much before than what is claimed by FAS.
The general ballpark figure here is 50-100 as well.
Comparing this with Pakistan's 20-40 one must also take into account the industrial/infrastructural capability of both nations to design/construct weaps grade fuel enrichment facilities-->design/construct a 'working' minaturised delivery mechanism--> and deploy a fully servicable/maintainable arsenal(no duds).

Now in all of these aspects Pakistan severely lags behind India for obvious reasons. Except maybe the enrichment/delivery design bit because in this domain China has literally spoonfed Pakistan with stuff right from bluprints to actual hardware components to scientists. I would go so far as to say that Pakistan would be only a little better than where Iran is today w/o Chinese assistance.



here is cdi's stats from 2003

www.the-south-asian.com...


They seem to be confused about the numbers as well..

The key is India has enough reserves to build ~1000 warheads, and has the production/assembly capability more than thrice that of Pakistan. Now whether either country is actually using its full production capability is for the
spooks to figure out






back on topic, looks like russia did 9 patrols in 2005, so yes its a small increase. this information comes from US naval intelligence.

www.nukestrat.com...


Figures for 2006 and then later for 2007 would give an even better picture.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
1)India has less warheads than Pakistan. This is a preposterous claim from any angle. India has at 2-3 times the number of warheads Pakistan has purely because India has always been at least 20 years ahead of Pakistan in terms of N-weapons.


India might have been 20 years ahead in 1971 but its no way has any lead at this present time, Pakistan is probably leading in the number of deployed missiles while india has a higher production capability (un-utilized)

Pakistan has far more delivery platforms which can be used compared to Indias Angi series of I/II which is probably under 60 missiles which might not all be nuclear capable while Pakistan has imported and produced a variety of nuclear capable missiles. Pakistan has taken their nuclear capability seriously and had their single enrichment plant running just for nuclear power instead of production of energy. China has more nuclear power plants then india but its nuclear arsenal should be about 200 and its been making bombs and enriching uranium since 1964.


Pakistans one single plant produces enough uranium to arm their missile forces, something like 800kg every year. Divide by 15 for a nuclear payload and thats about 53~54 bombs a year. You get one little country worried about its safety making bombs and it gets a large stockpile (like russia in the cold war)



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

India might have been 20 years ahead in 1971 but its no way has any lead at this present time, Pakistan is probably leading in the number of deployed missiles while india has a higher production capability (un-utilized)

Pakistan has far more delivery platforms which can be used compared to Indias Angi series of I/II which is probably under 60 missiles which might not all be nuclear capable while Pakistan has imported and produced a variety of nuclear capable missiles.


You're going out on a limb here. India Agni I/II are not Pakistan centric. The Privthi is sufficient to encompass of of Pakistan.

Pakistan is obsessed with getting enough ability to strike deep Indian cities like Calcutta and Madras, and thus concentration on testing these long range missiles.

How many of them are actually servicable? Well a source on your 'more delivery platforms' claim would help.

Also you forget that India has 4-5 times more a/c that are N-weaps capable.




Pakistan has taken their nuclear capability seriously and had their single enrichment plant running just for nuclear power instead of production of energy. China has more nuclear power plants then india but its nuclear arsenal should be about 200 and its been making bombs and enriching uranium since 1964.


Maybe before 64. Doesn't have to be only after 64.



Pakistans one single plant produces enough uranium to arm their missile forces, something like 800kg every year. Divide by 15 for a nuclear payload and thats about 53~54 bombs a year. You get one little country worried about its safety making bombs and it gets a large stockpile (like russia in the cold war)


That itself is questionable. Actually 800kg per year from Kahuta?!! Thats preposterous!! It can be 1/10th of that max. Where did you get this figure? 800kg sounds like Pakistan ENTIRE HEU reserves!

The enrichment procedure used by them was until now only sufficient to produce enough fissile materail for a couple(max 5) of bombs a year. The newly proposed plutonium plant(Chasma) takes this figure to a possible 30-50 but that again is if it operates at full capacity.

Hec even Kahuta has never operated continuously. Infact US intel reports say that production was completely for sometime at Kahuta during the early 90s due to the arm twisting by the US and the Pressler Amendment.
Pakistan's HEU reserves were gauged around ~300 kg in 1998. If you take 15 kg per bomb, you'd get measly tactical weapons. So you get 20 tac weapons in 98, maybe 10 if you take a bigger 25 kg HEU per bomb.
Again post 98 it has been reported by US intel that Kahuta again ceased to produce HEU though AQ Khan denies it.
(Of course he would never affirm it even it were ever true!
).
The production rate prior to the Chasma reactor(construction started late 2006?)was a measly 2-5 bombs a year.

To add to this, Pakistan's dependance on HEU and NOT plutonium requires it to employ extremely heavy bomb designs thus severely limiting the payload/range equations. This puts more stress on its assembly capability.Only after Chasma can they hope to look toward lighter plutonium designs.

Summary: Pakistan has more of a verbal deterrent than anything else as of now..

CW, please source your info on this comparison you draw between Pakistan and India. I think its drastically flawed if not totally incorrect.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Regarding the topic, which 'new carriers' are we talking about?
Never heard of anything like this before..



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   


posted by Daedalus3

Regarding the topic, which 'new carriers' are we talking about? Never heard of anything like this before.




The Russian Federation - successor in chief to the USSR - has always been a Eurasian land power. Despite the superhuman efforts of Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and Catherine, old Russia never obtained a warm water port. Not to count Vladivostok. Kalinigrad - stolen from Germany - is the closest they have come in 300 years. And it is land-locked. Plus, any small gunboat can close the Denmark Straits. So Russia neither needs nor can it afford nor can it support a supercarrier.

My memory is that immediately post the 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis, the USSR announced it would build several ultra modern and highly capable heavy cruisers and also, an aircraft carrier. I recall a Brit frogman was killed in mysterious circumstances apparently while attempting to photograph the underside of the lead cruiser when it called at a British port. Not much was said then but I heard later the Soviets had posted 3 of their own frogmen to guard the ship. I wonder if that plan was leaked to the KGB? I do not recall if the USSR ever finished the carrier. It turned out the cruisers were not all that much to talk about either.

Ancillary commentary. I hear the US pays the Red Army forces guarding the nuclear weapons. We saw the Navy in action in the Krusk disaster. I hear the larger part of the Red Army and Russian Navy miss paydays. If you can’t pay your light bill, how can you plan to add a room to the house?

Internal problems will prevent Russia - Putin or his successor - from achieving the role Russian high doctrine indicates they are “entitled” to play in the Middle East and especially Iran. I understand the struggle with Ukraine and Belarus over the stealing of trans-shipped oil and gas, but to shut off your cash-paying customers in Europe because of a thief in the hen house is bad business. Maybe Bush43 with his MBA could go consultant to the RF - as his brother Neal is to the PRC - in 2009?

[edit on 2/25/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
You're going out on a limb here. India Agni I/II are not Pakistan centric. The Privthi is sufficient to encompass of of Pakistan


The Prithvi is termed as a IRBM with the capability of launching a nuclear warhead, I haven't seen any proof that a warhead has been developed for the said missile but reports which suggest its nuclear capable

I haven't seen any evidence India has aircraft launched nuclear weapons nor have i seen any information which suggest India has a SQN for nuclear attacks.


Sure India has more "possible" platforms than Pakistan but Pakistan has been the only country to show its capabilities. Although I have not physically touched their nuclear weapons I would assume they dont develop 1000km+ missiles just for a conventional payload




That itself is questionable. Actually 800kg per year from Kahuta?!! Thats preposterous!! It can be 1/10th of that max. Where did you get this figure? 800kg sounds like Pakistan ENTIRE HEU reserves!


I mis-quoted this from memory and it was its total stockpile while production stands at 110kg.


Here is where I got my information from.


Pakistan has built a second enrichment plant at Golra, 6 miles from Islamabad. It is expected to be even larger than Kahuta, with more advanced centrifuges. It may not yet have begun production though due to difficulty in obtaining the necessary parts now. In March 1996 the New York Times reported that China had sold Pakistan 5000 ring magnets suitable for use in gas centrifuges.

In April 1998 the unsafeguarded Kushab reactor began operating. This reactor is a heavy water-natural uranium reactor built with Chinese assistance and has an operating power of 50-70 MW. This reactor should be able to produce around 10-15 kg of plutonium a year at a 60-80% load factor (the fraction of the time the reactor actually operates) [Albright 1998b]. Through the end of 2000 approximately 10-28 kg is estimated to have been separated from the fuel, a figure that is strongly affected by how quickly the fuel is processed after irradiation, and the effectiveness of the separation plant. Pakistan has a pilot plutonium reprocessing plant called "New Labs" at the Pakistan Institute of Scientific and Technical Research (Pinstech) complex near Rawalpindi. Reportedly the New Labs facility was expanded during the 90s to handle the full fuel load from Kushab. CBS News reported on 16 March 2000 that US intelligence had found evidence (such as krypton-86 emissions) that Pakistan is reprocessing irradiated fuel from the Khushab reactor and recovering separated plutonium [Albright 2000]. Fission weapons require 4-6 kg of plutonium, so 2-7 weapons could have been manufactured from this material.

In addition to Kushab, Pakistan is also manufacturing reactor-grade graphite and has its own heavy water plant both of which may be used to build additional plutonium production reactors fueled with natural uranium. It currently possesses two power reactors - the Karachi Nuclear Power Plant (KANUPP) with an output of 137 MW electrical, and the Chasma Nuclear Power Plant (CHASNUPP) with an output of 300 MWe. CHASNUPP is a pressurized water reactor constructed by the China National Nuclear Corporation was completed in late 1995. CHASNUPP began operations in November 1999 and was connected to the power grid (run by the Karachi Electric Supply Company) on 14 June 2000. These reactors have produced 600 kg of plutonium in their spent fuel but this plutonium remains unseparated and under IAEA safeguards.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...

Power plants/plutonium enrichment (information before 2001)

Chasma - built
Kushab - built

Enrichment plants

Golra - built
Kahuta - built


This is no small effort, but if we take into account the amount of years and production capability, it at least runs to 100 warheads or close to that figure



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I was talking about Chasma-2. All plutonium produced by Pakistan so far is unseparated.
Where does your figure of 100 nuclear weapons come from?
Are you directly converting plausible HEU reserves to weponised warheads?

not so fast..
Not only are you implying a near 100% usability factor but you're giving the infrastructural ability to manufacture operational warheads at a phenomenal rate.
I think not..



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join