Sukhoi PAK FA (Russian Fifth-generation fighter)

page: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Stellar if you haven't noticed only our recent posts in our last 180 days of activity can be viewed. So I don't think all of the threads you took part in will be visible.




posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
quote]Originally posted by West Coast
With all due respect Mr.X, I havent the time nor the desire to go through hundreds of your posts just to get the answer im looking for. Please do try to make it easy for me, thats why I asked.


Your not looking for a answer anyone can give in any well 'summarized' can of why; what you apparently want is the new york times and everyone else to agree with me. The best i can do is start with one of factors that i believe has entirely changed the balance of power.


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...



immediately prior to the signing of the ABM treaty, the Soviets had developed a surface-to-air missile, the SA-5, which was observed to have a peculiar trajectory. The SA-5 was fired high above the atmosphere and then would descend to intercept and destroy enemy bombers. While technically such a trajectory could not be ruled out, logically, however, it could not be accepted as this type of trajectory represents the least efficient way to shoot down enemy aircraft. On the other hand, the SA-5?s trajectory would be just the ticket for shooting down incoming ballistic missiles which themselves travel above the atmosphere. Taking this into account, the SA-5 had to be an ABM weapon. But with the ABM treaty almost in hand, this fact was ignored and the treaty went into effect. The treaty remains in effect, limiting development of a U.S. ABM system. Meanwhile, Russian dual-purpose (anti-aircraft/anti-missile) missile systems like the SA-5 continue to exist.

www.thenewamerican.com...



However, Soviet and Russian sources, including former Premier Alexei Kosygin and the Chief Designer of the original Moscow ABM system, confirm that: the SA-5 and SA-10 were dual purpose antiaircraft/missile systems (SAM/ABMs), and that the Hen House and LPAR radars provided the requisite battle management target tracking data. These and other sources cited in The ABM Treaty Charade are not exhaustive.

Nevertheless, CIA has not revised its position on this issue, nor have the U.S. Congress and the public been informed that the ABM Treaty was a valid contract from beginning to end.

In the late 1960s the U.S. sacrificed its 20-year technological advantage in ABM defenses on the altar of "arms control." As Russian sources now admit, the Soviet General Staff was in total control of Soviet "arms control" proposals and negotiations, subject to Politburo review, which was largely pro forma. The Soviet military's objective was to gain as much advantage as possible from "arms control" agreements (SALT).

www.jinsa.org...



The Soviets have developed a surface to air missile -- SA-12. This missile is mobile. They are about to deploy it. In a few years they will have hundreds of them -- maybe 1000 or 2000 -- maybe more. The Soviets claim these missiles are there to defend against incoming airplanes.

What counts in such a defense is acceleration -- how quickly the missile can turn. That acceleration, published in reliable British sources, is "at least 10 times the acceleration that any pilot can stand." I estimate that with appropriate available equipment, these surface to air missiles could stop any incoming ballistic missile --particularly ours.

www.commonwealthclub.org...


I have dozens more showing that Russia is still operating a massive and integrated national missile defense system that in the late 80's could and would have blunted or negated a full NATO nuclear attack. The fact that this is not admitted in the US press goes a long way towards showing who has the power and may very well be responsible for the economic decline of the US.


Its not quite 10,000 USD. More like $9,200 USD. Lets get the fact straight Mr.


I remember reading 9600 but i suppose this is as close to questioning my claims sd you will come.


The average Russian makes 300 USD per month. You talking about nearly 3 months more pay which is huge for the average Russian. So I ask that we do try and keep the facts straight, thanks .


The average pay for Russian works were supposedly 460 USD in 2006 so if you want to quibble about side issues at least check your facts first.


I applaud the Russians attempt at 'trying' to fix a sinking ship. There is just to many holes though.


Thanks for making it clear that the Russian government could in your opinion never do enough. How many other countries are giving their workers the equivalent of 30 -40 months worth of wages for having a second child?


Simply put, its not going to work. Many Russian Mothers are not persuaded by such an offer. To them. Its not enough.
A second baby? Russia's mothers aren't persuaded.
www.csmonitor.com...
It’s a band aid solution for a bullet wound.


From the rather biased source ( The war in Chechnya 'contributed' to a lack of men?($#$^#?) ) the following is still admitted.


Others say Putin is moving in the right direction. "Russian women typically have one child ... but many of my patients would like a second if they felt they had enough support," says Galina Dedova, a gynecologist at Happy Families, a private Moscow clinic. "Most of my patients count their rubles.... If they could reliably expect more money, some might [consider] more children."

Putin also doubled subsidies for foster families, to 4,500 rubles ($166) per month, a move widely welcomed by child- care experts. In recent years, Russia has cracked down on foreign adoptions, leaving 700,000 institutionalized children with few options. "I believe the situation will begin to improve after Putin's measures, and more people will see the importance of adopting," says Galina Krasnitskaya, an adviser to Russia's State Duma.


The economic situation in Russia is fast changing ( salaries expanded by 25% in 2006) and these additional measures will solve the problem as it did in France and elsewhere. There is no reason to see this as problem unless one is desperately looking for anything that might provide ammunition.


An Aids epidemic, homelessness, alcoholism and infertility is something that is on a steep rise in Russia as well. And this, still, doesn’t explain how this will help russias first world birth rate, compared to its third world mortality rate problem.


The average life expectancy of males in Russia are still 60 and it's ludicrous to argue that the absence of men or any 'pandemics', infertility( more than half of babies were aborted!) is to blame for this temporary problem.


Compared to various places in Africa, Yes.


And India, China, South East Asia in general, most of South- America, Eastern Europe and North America( Mexico); it's easy to make the world fit with your views when you don't in fact know anything about the world.


But, is Russia posting a surplus or a deficit in regards to this (ppl going in and out of the country)?



While many countries manage to make up for demographic problems by attracting immigrants to buttress their populations, Russia is posting a deficit in this regard as well. Only about 70,000 immigrants enter Russia per year, while about 100,000 leave the country. www.rferl.org...


Yet Putin seems to want to spend tens of millions of USD to repatriate illegal immigrants? What does that in your opinion mean?


Also, why are the meshket turks unwelcomed in Russia? Why does the Russian government not look at them as Russian citizens?


Because they are not , according to Putin, Russians?


Racial profiling is something Russia is going to have to get past in order to ‘survive’ as a nation in the 21st century.


As if the American people are benefiting from the tens of millions of illegal immigrants? Is American wages expanding at 25% per year or the economy growing at 6-7% without the US having to add the hundreds of billions being spend in Iraq?


Though even that has its problems as the above quote excerpt states. This could also threaten unity in Russia as well (having to accept more ‘non russians’). But to say in the least, its worth a try. If they don’t, Russia faces a grim outlook.


More people certainly benefits the economy but industrialization has long ago ensured that you do not need a massive population base to drive a economy. Both France, Britain, Italy and Germany have far smaller populations yet supposedly far stronger economies so the argument that Russia needs more people for economic prosperity is disingenuous at best.


(I am happy and proud to say, that we, the United States of America have accepted all 30,000 meshket turks from Russia.) Russias loss is our gain.


It's always good to allow to most educated and skilled to immigrate but this makes me wonder as Sweden has taken in orders of magnitude more Iraqi's than the US has. Maybe those Turks will help the American economy as much as those millions of illegal generally unskilled Mexicans did?

Continued



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

For debates sake, I was more or less asking you to provide comparative illustrations. You were the one who made the allegations in question. Not me. Therefore the burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.


I have repeated myself often enough so just open a few and begin to get a idea of what i have presented in the past.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


And your argument for this is?


Observation? Reading? Study? The general conclusions of defense and intelligence specialist?


How have they faired versus Chechen rebels?


About as well as the US fared against Vietnamese rebels only they did not lose 3000 planes and 5000 helicopters before finally deciding to leave. If the US had committed the same resources and drafted manpower the result would have been much the same as is evident from the experience of professional formations in Iraq.


Agreed. However, US unemployment rate is (I believe ) hovering at 4.6-5 %. But, you do have a point.



To begin with, the prison system makes a direct contribution to regulating the lower segments of the labour market - and does so in infinitely more coercive fashion than any social charge or administrative rule. Its effect here is artificially to compress unemployment levels both by forcibly abstracting millions of males from the job-seeking population, and also by boosting employment in the prison goods and service sector. It is, for example, estimated that during the 1990s US prisons brought down US unemployment figures by two percentage points. According to Bruce Western and Katherine Beckett, taking into account the differences in levels of imprisonment in the two continents, and contrary to the idea commonly accepted and actively disseminated by the advocates of neoliberalism, for 18 of the past 20 years US unemployment rates have been higher than those of the European Union (12).

However, Western and Beckett show that the jump in the prison population is a two-edged weapon: while in the short term it makes the employment picture look rosier by cutting labour supply, in the longer term it will inevitably worsen the employment situation by making millions of people more or less unemployable. Although imprisonment has cut US unemployment levels, the prison system will have constantly to be abandoned to keep those levels down.

The fact that Blacks are massively and increasingly over-represented at all levels of the prison system highlights its second function in this new form of government by poverty: it is to replace the ghetto as a means of containing population groups considered deviant and dangerous, not to mention superfluous from both an economic and a political point of view - Mexican and Asian immigrants are far more docile. Poor Blacks hardly ever bother to vote and the country’s electoral centre of gravity has in any event shifted towards the White suburbs. To that extent, prison is merely the ultimate manifestation of a policy of exclusion of which the ghetto has been a means and an end since it first appeared in history.

mondediplo.com...



According to official numbers by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of January 1999, only 5,950,000 million Americans were unemployed. But the truth is that while the current official national unemployment rate in the United States stands at a low 4.3 percent, there are far more people than that who are either out of work, only able to find part-time work, employed at below poverty level wages or employed below their skill level. Official jobless figures are only the tip of the iceberg. In contrast to many European countries, the United States, in compiling jobless data, excluded persons without employment who had stopped looking for work. People who want to work but are discouraged about job opportunities and so have given up an active job search are not counted here as unemployed. Instead, they are considered not to be in the labor force. Part-time workers who wanted full-time jobs are nevertheless counted as fully employed. People working even as little as one day a week are categorized as "employed." About two million Americans, for example, are "on-call" workers who are called to work as needed -- sometimes for one day, sometimes for longer. Substitute teachers meet this definition. Such a methodology for determining the extent of unemployment in America is symptomatic, at the very least, of the lack of official concern regarding the problem. Many might say, with good reason, that it reflects an intent to mislead.

Many independent economists accept that the true level of unemployment in the United States of America is at least double the official figure. Even former Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Janet Norwood, after declining reappointment in 1991, began speaking out on the inadequacies of government data. Not only did she acknowledge that the unemployment numbers were misleading, but she also said, "I am very worried, extraordinarily concerned, about the polarization I see going on in our country."

The discrepancy originates in the methodology of calculating unemployment rates: only those signed up at the unemployment office are being officially counted as unemployed. The six million officially unemployed persons consist solely of those who are registered at state unemployment centers as actively seeking for work. Many millions more have concluded that pursuing nonexistent jobs is futile and have dropped out of statistics altogether. Millions of discouraged people aren't being counted and are simply disappearing from official U.S. unemployment statistics. This discrepancy also reflects the fact that many unemployed people are simply hard for a government bureaucracy to track. Unless a person qualifies for unemployment benefits, they are virtually impossible to identify. Even people who once qualified for unemployment fall out of the system once their benefits end.

www.sullivan-county.com...



Jobs data don't count the down-and-out
Williams starts by discussing the headline economic data: "Real unemployment right now -- figured the way that the average person thinks of unemployment, meaning figured the way it was estimated back during the Great Depression -- is running about 12%. Real CPI right now is running at about 8%. And the real GDP probably is in contraction." (By "real," he means calculating the data the way they used to be calculated, not as inflation-adjusted.)

He then explains how the employment data are compiled, noting that 5 million chronically unemployed people are not included in the statistics. In fact, there are seven or eight different employment statistics. One called U-3 is the official one. The broadest one, U-6, currently shows unemployment as running around 8.4%. As he explains, the one that's the most historically consistent is running around 12%.

moneycentral.msn.com...


Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

www.bls.gov...

Things are rarely as they seem and certainly not so when your belief corresponds with the official line.


Well Mr. X. that makes two of us.


I like Jnr Bush far less and at least Putin did not have to steal his last election, or for that matter the one before.


Mostly TV (I kid of course) And it is speculation on my part (perhaps you missed me saying “could potentially”) But its no more speculation then yours.


I think this view might result from the idea that the 'collapse' of the USSR were in fact spontaneous when the evidence for that is quite thin on the ground.

reformed-theology.org...
www.sierratimes.com...
www.thefinalphase.com...
www.markriebling.com...
www.stoptheftaa.org...

The specifics of the breakup were predicted long before; i don't believe in coincidences of such magnitude and certainly not when it involves politicians and policy makers.


Russia faces problems, and, as I said before, what happened to the USSR in the early 90’s, could potentially happen to Russia at any time.


EVERY country faces problems and what i am saying is that some 'problems' are forced onto them under duress.


History doesn’t lie.


Your right but for it to teach you anything you need to arrive at the closest approximation of the historical fact; not a mean feat and not something you will find in school text books or gain by means of a university education.

Continued



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Lying? Or does this not support your opinion/agenda? Well. Regardless of what you think Mr. X, he said it.


Politicians say contradictory things ALL THE TIME and it's easy to believe what suits you. I believe that i explained why i think he was not telling the truth this time round.


Well that’s because Russia could go nowhere but up.


Things can always get worse and at least half a billion people are starving substantially faster than they did twenty years a go.


Don’t try to turn this around. If you would like to make separate thread relating to the American decline, I would happily follow along in post in such a thread.


I don't really start threads on those types of issues....


But not usually sponsored by the president himself.


Like the republican party does not sponsor , fake, gun wielding youth movements.



LOL that was sarcasm on my part.


Mostly sarcastic but serious enough to warrant a response in kind.


I am aware of the fact that the implications are being steadied of such a weapon (the USAF plans to own the weather by 2025 I believe, and has plans out for it) Proving russia is any more advanced then the US in these regards would be nice. I happen to think that the current technology infrastructure is no where near to making this a reality at the time.


These weapons have been real since the early 1960's and actively and extensively employed by the USSR since the mid 70's.

Maybe we should start with the 'how'?


US researchers have outlined a relatively simple system that could deliver power to devices such as laptop computers or MP3 players without wires.
The concept exploits century-old physics and could work over distances of many metres, the researchers said
The team from MIT is not the first group to suggest wireless energy transfer.

Nineteenth-century physicist and engineer Nikola Tesla experimented with long-range wireless energy transfer, but his most ambitious attempt - the 29m high aerial known as Wardenclyffe Tower, in New York - failed when he ran out of money.

Physics promises wireless power



He lit vacuum tubes wirelessly at both of the New York locations, providing evidence for the potential of wireless power transmission.

en.wikipedia.org...


Could not track down the claim in the officially provided sources thought...


With high frequencies, Tesla developed some of the first neon and fluorescent illumination. He also took the first x-ray photographs. But these discoveries paled when compared to his discovery of November 1890, when he illuminated a vacuum tube wirelessly—having transmitted energy through the air.

www.pbs.org...


So energy could be transferred wirelessly even back then.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
amasci.com...

And their apparently finally admitting that much by introducing it in the private sector.

news.bbc.co.uk...
en.wikipedia.org...:Anthony_Appleyard/Tesla's_role_in_the_history_of_radio
www.pbs.org...
www.technologyreview.com...

According to my best information the transfer is dependent on longitudinal ( or even transverse) waves :


Waves traveling through a solid medium can be either transverse waves or longitudinal waves. Yet waves traveling through the bulk of a fluid (such as a liquid or a gas) are always longitudinal waves. Transverse waves require a relatively rigid medium in order to transmit their energy. As one particle begins to move it must be able to exert a pull on its nearest neighbor. If the medium is not rigid as is the case with fluids, the particles will slide past each other. This sliding action which is characteristic of liquids and gases prevents one particle from displacing its neighbor in a direction perpendicular to the energy transport. It is for this reason that only longitudinal waves are observed moving through the bulk of liquids such as our oceans. Earthquakes are capable of producing both transverse and longitudinal waves which travel through the solid structures of the Earth. When seismologists began to study earthquake waves they noticed that only longitudinal waves were capable of traveling through the core of the Earth. For this reason, geologists believe that the Earth's core consists of a liquid - most likely molten iron.

www.glenbrook.k12.il.us...


And the technology/science of interferometry:


Interferometry is the science and technique of superposing (interfering) two or more waves, which creates an output wave different from the input waves; this in turn can be used to explore the differences between the input waves. Because interference is a very general phenomenon with waves, interferometry can be applied to a wide variety of fields, including astronomy, fiber optics, optical metrology, oceanography, seismology and various studies of quantum mechanics. Interferometry can be applied to both one-dimensional waves such as time varying signals, or to multi-dimensional waves such as coherent images produced by laser illumination.

en.wikipedia.org...



Of two rays of light match each other perfectly in color, they can interact in a surprising way. Because all the crests of one wave have the same wavelength as the second ray the crests of the two waves can be lined up with each other. As each wave crest of one ray coincides with the crest of the other ray, the two amplitudes of the waves add up to twice the amplitude and the result is a single, much brighter light ray. This is called constructive interference. (Probably the only time when it is considered constructive to interfere!)

planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov...


So that basically shows that energy can not only be transferred but directed to very specific locations where constructive interference can be employed to releases energy remotely high in the atmosphere or deep underground.

According to Tesla it was perfectly possible to set up a global energy network in this way:


Tesla's system can produce a variety of wave propagations, pending the driving apparatus. Tesla believed that his wireless system would be better than most other radio systems because transverse electromagnetic waves (whose behavior depends on its wavelength) would decay as they travelled from the transmitter, making the signals uselessly weak at long distances. Tesla advanced that longitudinal electromagnetic waves (such as those that occur in waves in plasmas) through the medium would be used, as he theorized that they would be practically lossless. His devices can be driven to produce either transverse or longitudinal waves.

Besides his intention to transmit wireless signals of intelligence, he proposed to transmit electric power via electrical conduction through the Earth and the upper atmosphere, as well as in between them both (in the Earth-ionosphere region which is now known as a resonant cavity). This power transmission was to be done not by "hertzian waves", but through standing surface waves. Tesla’s proposed wireless transmitter utilized a resonant transformer to apply a very high voltage of high frequency between the earth and a large elevated conductor, as discussed earlier.

en.wikipedia.org...:Anthony_Appleyard/Tesla's_role_in_the_history_of_radio


And started contruction on the Wardenclyffe_Tower which was supposed to prove the viability of such energy distribution networks.

We know that Tesla had other ideas for this system:


Related to the operation and utilization of Wardenclyffe Tower was Nikola Tesla's work on a macroscopic particle beam weapon in the 1930s. A Wardenclyffe styled facility which included the weapon was contemplated by Tesla. He offered it to Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company in early 1934. It was also offered to the US War Department, Great Britain, and Yugoslavia. A descriptive 17-page type-written document on Tesla's office letterhead titled, "New Art of Projecting Concentrated Non-Dispersive Energy Through Natural Media," which presently exists in the Nikola Tesla Museum archive in Belgrade, shows that his macroscopic particle beam, also called the "Peace Ray" and "teleforce," was a narrow stream of charged clusters of mercury or tungsten accelerated by high voltage, produced by either a huge Van de Graaff generator or Tesla Coil. Immediately after his death, a component of the particle beam projector that may have been found among Tesla's possessions is said to have disappeared. Russian spies reportedly raided the room and the safe containing the schematics of the "death ray". The FBI never found any of the important parts of the schematics nor the trunk with the prototype, as far as existing public records show.

en.wikipedia.org...


And that he may very well have been accidentally involved in the Tunguska 'event':

Continued



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   

There is another possible - if wildly improbable - cause of the mysterious event at Tunguska in 1908 (7 September, p 14). One of Nikola Tesla's great projects was the wireless transformation of energy over large distances. He believed that this could be harnessed in war to destroy incoming attacks from over 300 kilometres away.

Tesla built his "death ray" at Wardencliffe on Long Island, and it is a possible that he tested it one night in 1908. The story goes something like this. At the time, Robert Peary was trekking to the North Pole and Tesla asked him to look out for unusual activity. On the evening of 30 June 1908, Tesla aimed his death ray towards the Arctic and turned it on. Tesla then watched the newspapers and sent telegrams to Peary, but heard about nothing unusual in the Arctic.

However, he did hear about the unexplainable event in Tunguska, and was thankful no one was killed, as it was clear to him that his death ray had overshot. He then dismantled his machine, as he felt it was too dangerous to keep it. See www.parascope.com/en/1096/tesdeth.htm for the full story.

www.newscientist.com...



The explosion registered on seismic stations across Eurasia, measuring 5.0 on the Richter scale in some areas, and produced fluctuations in atmospheric pressure strong enough to be detected by the recently invented barographs in Britain. Over the next few weeks, night skies were aglow such that one could read in their light, sometimes called "bright nights." In the United States, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Mount Wilson Observatory observed a decrease in atmospheric transparency that lasted for several months.

Blast patterns

The curious effect of the Tunguska explosion on the trees near ground zero was replicated during atmospheric nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s. These effects are caused by the shock wave produced by large explosions. The trees directly below the explosion are stripped as the blast wave moves vertically downward, while trees further away are felled because the blast wave is travelling closer to the horizontal when it reaches them.

Soviet experiments performed in the mid-1960s, with model forests (made of matches) and small explosive charges slid downward on wires, produced butterfly-shaped blast patterns strikingly similar to the pattern found at the Tunguska site. The experiments suggested that the object had approached at an angle of roughly 30 degrees from the ground and 115 degrees from north and had exploded in mid-air.

en.wikipedia.org...


So basically it looks like a atmospheric explosion and it involved rather peculiar electromagnetic effects which is not altogether unexpected when we presume a electromagnetic origin...

Is this the technology Soviet premier Khrushchev spoke of in January 1960? Did Soviet spies really get to Tesla and T Henry morays work first and grasped it's importance before others did?

www.rexresearch.com...
peswiki.com...:Thomas_Henry_Moray
www.linux-host.org...


"It is now quite clear," Khrushchev went on, "that the U.S. is not the world's most powerful military power. We are not trying to sweat anybody, but these are the facts." Rattling his rockets in the style he used to assail Western "military circles" for doing a few years ago, Khrushchev promised to "wipe from the face of the earth" any aggressor, and boasted: "Though the weapons we have now are formidable indeed, the weapon we have today in the hatching stage is even more formidable. The weapon, which is being developed and is, as they say, in the portfolio of our scientists and designers, is a fantastic weapon." (U.S. Atomic Physicist Ralph E. Lapp guessed that the Russians might be planning an H-bomb to orbit the earth indefinitely, ready on signal to plunge down on any terrestrial target.)

www.time.com...


Now i think Ralph E. Lapp guessed wrong and the following instances more than convinced me:


1976: Chinese earthquake kills hundreds of thousands
Hundreds of thousands of people are feared dead following an 8.3 magnitude earthquake in China.

The quake has virtually destroyed the city of Tangshan, north-east of Beijing, and Western sources believe the death toll may be much higher than the official figure of 240,000. Some believe the figure is more like 750,000.

The force of the quake has been so strong that people are reported to have been thrown into the air after roads, bridges, railway stations, homes and factories were completely destroyed.The quake has also knocked out power throughout the city, making rescue efforts difficult

news.bbc.co.uk...


Thrown people into the air?


The earthquake occurred directly under Tangshan at a depth of 8km (5 miles).
A magnitude 7.1 aftershock 15 hours later caused further destruction and killed many people trapped in collapsed buildings.

news.bbc.co.uk...



The night preceding the earthquake, July 27-28, many people reported seeing strange lights as well as loud sounds. The lights were seen in a multitude of hues. Some people saw flashes of light; others witnessed fireballs flying across the sky. Loud, roaring noises followed the lights and fireballs. Workers at the Tangshan airport described the noises as louder than that of an airplane.2

history1900s.about.com...



28 July 1976
"Just before the first tremor at 3:42 am, the sky lit up like daylight. The multi-hued lights, mainly white and red, were seen up to 200 miles away. Leaves on many trees were burned to a crisp and growing vegetables were scorched on one side, as if by a fireball."

Some New Details on China's Quake


So i'm thinking there might very well have been a fireball or at least intense heat? Does massive electric discharges burn living material?


The earthquake hit in the early morning, at 03:42:53.8 local time (1976 July 28 19:42:53.8 UTC), and lasted for around 15 seconds. Many sources list it as 8.2 on the Richter scale, but Chinese Government's official sources state 7.8. It was followed by a major 7.1 magnitude aftershock some 15 hours later, increasing the death toll. It was the first earthquake in recent memory to score a direct hit on a major city.[1]

Many people in Tangshan reported seeing strange lights (so-called "earthquake lights") the night before the earthquake. Well water in a village outside of Tangshan reportedly rose and fell three times the day before the earthquake. Gas began to spout out of a well in another village on July 12 and then increased on July 25 and July 26. Other wells throughout the area showed signs of cracking.[citation needed]

It has been reported that animals in the area sensed the earthquake before it struck. A thousand chickens reportedly refused to eat and acted wildly, along with several hundred geese who reportedly tried to eat each other in desperation and frustration, and sheer terror. There were also reports that dogs would not stop barking and goldfish jumped out of their bowls (see earthquake prediction).

The large loss of life caused by the earthquake can be attributed to the time it struck and how suddenly it struck. The earthquake lacked the foreshocks that usually come with earthquakes of this magnitude. It also struck at just before 4 AM, leaving many people unprepared as they lay asleep. Tangshan itself was thought to be in a region with a relatively low risk of earthquakes. Very few buildings had been built to withstand an earthquake, and the city lies on unstable alluvial soil.

en.wikipedia.org...


It's interesting then that this all happened in the same month as the Russian 'woodpecker' signal was first heard on the air which allegedly came from their over the horizon radar ( A Russian Wardenclyffe Tower(s)? ) system.


The Russian Woodpecker was a notorious Soviet signal that could be heard on the shortwave radio bands worldwide between July 1976 and December 1989. It sounded like a sharp, repetitive tapping noise, at 10 Hz, giving rise to the "Woodpecker" name. The random frequency hops disrupted legitimate broadcast, amateur radio, and utility transmissions and resulted in thousands of complaints by many countries worldwide.

en.wikipedia.org...


The loss of the US submarine Thresher have also never been resolved and i believe the electrical interference that prevented the Skylark from promptly getting trough a message as to the Threshers demise is also indicative of the real fate of the Thresher.


# 9:20 AM: Skylark continues to page Thresher, repeatedly calling for a radio check, a smoke bomb, or some other indication of the boat's condition.
# 11:04 AM: Skylark attempts to transmit a message to COMSUBLANT (Commander, Submarines, Atlantic Fleet): "Unable to communicate with Thresher since 0917R. Have been calling by UQC voice and CW, QHB, CW every minute. Explosive signals every 10 minutes with no success. Last transmission received was garbled. Indicated Thresher was approaching test depth.... Conducting expanding search." Radio problems meant that COMSUBLANT did not receive and respond to this message until 12:45 PM. Hecker initiated "Event SUBMISS [loss of a submarine]" procedures at 11:21 AM, and continued to repeatedly hail the Thresher until after 5:00 PM.

en.wikipedia.org...


Continued



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

The mission began as a routine deep-dive test, but the crew of the USS Skylark knew something was wrong. Their test submarine had barely reached her assigned test depth when static-filled underwater telephone transmissions from far below told them things were going wrong, very wrong.

On April 10, 1963, the nuclear submarine USS Thresher (SSN-593) and submarine rescue ship USS Skylark (ASR-20) journeyed to the cold waters 200 miles east of Massachusetts for deep-diving testing. Only fifteen minutes after reaching her test depth, Thresher notified Skylark that she was "experiencing difficulties." Within moments, Skylark's crew heard a noise "like air rushing into a tank" and then there was silence. Frantic efforts to reestablish contact with the sub failed. Thresher was down with all hands, which included a crew of 112 and 17 civilian technicians on board to observe the testing. A hastily arranged search group found only bits of debris and a pair of gloves. After four months of searching, the bathyscaph Trieste located broken parts of the sub in over 8,000 feet of water. The photos taken by Trieste in August of 1963 are all that is known of Thresher's fatal accident.

www.history.navy.mil...



After the sub sank, the Navy investigated and determined that the most probable cause of the accident was a leak in its engine room because of corrosions in its pipes. This, in turn, could have caused electrical problems on the sub.

After the accident, the Navy established additional safety procedures, including the SUBSAFE program, which requires each submarine to pass a series of safety tests.
Over the next several years, a massive program was undertaken to correct design and construction problems on the Navy's existing nuclear submarines, and on those under construction and in planning. Following completion of this "SubSafe" effort, the Navy has suffered no further losses of the kind that so tragically ended Thresher's brief service career.

At 9:13 a.m., the USS Skylark received a signal indicating that the submarine was experiencing "minor difficulties." Shortly afterward, the Skylark received a series of garbled, undecipherable message fragments from the Thresher. At 9:18 a.m., the Skylark's sonar picked up the sounds of the submarine breaking apart.The Navy's investigation concluded that while the Thresher was operating at test depth, a leak had developed at a silver-brazed joint in an engine room seawater system, and water from the leak may have short-circuited electrical equipment, causing a reactor shutdown and leaving the submarine without primary and secondary propulsion systems.

www.arlingtoncemetery.net...



Curtis, George D.

Text: "An electromagnetic radiation pattern over the ocean." Reports a previously unknown weak electromagnetic radiation pattern over the ocean. When all known effects are accounted for, the anomalous pattern still remains. Undersea Technology. 5(8), Aug. 1964. p. 29-30; 40.

www.svpvril.com...


Evidence of the same standing waves that were later more strongly observed in the Woodpecker broadcasts?

Were all the garbled communication just as result of damage to the submarine or evidence of interference from a outside source? Why did the captain say that the difficulties were minor and why did the navy 'correct the designs' of all existing nuclear submarines if this was a construction problem inherent in a new class or as result from shoddy construction in one port? Were the Scorpion lost for similar reasons about five years and one month later?


hat report said the bulk of the evidence suggested an internal explosion in the sub's massive electrical battery caused the sub to flood and sink.

However, two senior Navy officials involved in the initial Scorpion probe in the summer of 1968 told the Post-Intelligencer that the Court of Inquiry conclusion of an accidental torpedo strike remains the most realistic scenario because of the key acoustic recordings of the sinking.

Underwater recordings retrieved from three locations in the Atlantic -- the Canary Islands and two sites near Newfoundland -- captured a single sharp noise followed by 91 seconds of silence, then a rapid series of sounds corresponding to the overall collapse of the submarine's various compartments and tanks.

seattlepi.nwsource.com...


Another source: listserv.buffalo.edu...

I know that electricity is absolutely vital for a nuke sub ( ballast issues) but it does suit my theory to argue that this reference to a internal explosion of the electrical battery is rather suspicious.

While there are certainly very real weapons applications those are normally hard to hide and the most damage may be wrough by simply manipulating the weather for the same type of effects.


Again, my attitude is, if it's not going exactly right, we're going to make it go exactly right. If there's problems, we're going to address the problems. And that's what I've come down to assure people of. And again, I want to thank everybody.

And I'm not looking forward to this trip. I got a feel for it when I flew over before. It -- for those who have not -- trying to conceive what we're talking about, it's as if the entire Gulf Coast were obliterated by a -- the worst kind of weapon you can imagine. And now we're going to go try to comfort people in that part of the world.

Thank you. (Applause.)
www.whitehouse.gov...


Maybe that is a slip of the tonque as we know they are well aware of the reality of these weapons and have in the past admitted to them in many different ways.


"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.

A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.

DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen



Directed energy takes an unexpected turn and surfaces as a handy antimissile device that can be built into aircraft, ship and ground-based radars

By David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie

Radar is emerging as one of the key weapons--nearly all of them still shrouded by secrecy--in the Pentagon's growing arsenal of nonexplosive devices.

Knowledge that radar can produce violent effects on electronic systems is not new. More than 20 years ago, bomber aircraft radars were capable of generating enough concentrated noise jamming to burn out the valve amps (tube amplifiers) in fighters attempting an interception. The emergence over the last few years of the active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, and its ability to provide high average power for appreciable times, makes such electronically destructive devices all the more attractive and effective.

omega.twoday.net...



"Pick up any text book on hurricanes and it will tell you that the one place where hurricanes do not occur is the South Atlantic Ocean. The atmosphere does not provide enough spin near the surface to get them started and winds higher in the atmosphere tend to shear off any that do make a start. Hence, it was with some amazement that meteorologists watched the first ever recorded hurricane develop off the coast of Brazil in the last week of March."

Catarina hits Brazil


But they do and maybe it's not so hard to understand why when one takes into account modern avances in science?


The director of the Russian geophysical observatory of the Russian Meteorological Service, A.Voyeikov, says that the process of making a weather forecast for Russia, the USA, Europe and Canada is much more complicated in comparison with other states. "Atmospheric processes are not stable on these territories, and cyclones may occur absolutely incidentally," Voyeikov said."

Modern technologies unable to predict weather changes


Absolutely incidental? Atmospheric processes are not stable?

Continued



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

"CNN) -- Hurricanes aren't behaving like many of us are used to them behaving. They're bigger and meaner, and more numerous than many people have seen.
Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne tore up parts of Florida last year. After tweaking Florida, Katrina and Rita are wreaking havoc this year along the Gulf Coast from Alabama to Texas.
But don't rush to blame it on global warming, experts warn.
Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, told a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday that we're in a period of heightened hurricane activity that could last another decade or two."
CNN-It's a 'new era' of hurricanes.



MIAMI (Reuters) - Hurricane Wilma became the most powerful Atlantic hurricane on record on Wednesday as it churned towards western Cuba and Mexico's Yucatan peninsula on a track towards Florida, having already killed 10 people in Haiti.
The season's record-tying 21st storm, fuelled by the warm waters of the northwest Caribbean Sea, strengthened alarmingly into a Category 5 hurricane, the top rank on the five-step scale of hurricane intensity.

H urricane Wilma strongest hurricane on record.


So it's supposedly not global warming?


Although hurricane forecasting is an inexact science, an investigative series by The Miami Herald suggests it could be considerably more accurate if the National Hurricane Center's equipment functioned better and its research efforts were bolstered.
The newspaper's study of 45 hurricanes that have struck land since 1992 indicated significant failures of buoys, weather balloons, radar, sensors and aircraft that hindered the tracking of nearly half of the storms. Forecasters are, in the words of one science officer, "forecasting blind'' because of inadequate funding and -- to a lesser extent -- misallocation of resources.
Budget constraints that grounded the center's uniquely equipped Gulfstream jet, coupled with critical data lost because of computer crashes, may have caused forecasters to fail to predict damage from Hurricane Katrina in South Florida and delayed evacuation warnings to New Orleans. Missing weather balloon readings, malfunctioning observation stations and a failure to fly planes equipped to measure wind speeds may have contributed to an inability to anticipate the power of Hurricane Charley when it shifted course and slammed into Punta Gorda, Fla., killing 35 people.
Hurricane researcher Mike Black told Herald reporter Debbie Cenziper that putting proper equipment in place could improve hurricane tracking by 20 percent and intensity forecasts by 50 percent. That could save lives and many times the needed outlay in economic losses, especially in an era of increased hurricane activity.
Congress needs to set aside more money for hurricane forecasting, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration needs to do a better of allocating resources.

Indystar-Forecasting trouble


And why invest in predicting hurricanes when you are reasonably sure that your trying to predict what is now not exclusively the work of nature?

REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY ON THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE IN SPACE

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

So there is another affirmation that by 1977 things had become so obvious that the US were forced into a binding treaty that also happened to coresspond to the slow decline of the American economy and the living standards of it's people.


Well Mr.X, I thought it was sarcasm, which is why I responded the way I did. I suppose it would be Russia that they are talking about, possibly the Chinese.


Rather obviously...


I think one thing that needs to be said is that, this is no longer a conventional war, that was done and over with in 3 weeks time.


Actually it took twelve years of near perpetual bombardment and economic warfare...


Right now, the US is asking to much from its brave men and women. They are not a police force, and should not be treated like such in my honest opinion.


Well why would they then create the conditions that could result in few if any other eventualities


The point of the question was to prove that no one is a qualified expert (especially here, even though some might think they are J)when it comes to such ‘subject matter’.


I do not profess to be a expert at anything but being able to spot those who are less informed than myself. I will also admit to extreme proficient at finding those who arrogantly profess their ignorance by engaging in superficial discussions.


Now,you might know more in a few select fields, but an expert that does not make.


Why thank you and thanks for doing your part by studying all the source material and cross-referencing against your own sources; i really do enjoy these constructive mutually information 'discussions'.

Stellar


[edit on 6-9-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Hey Mr.X, thanks for finally getting back to me.
I am impressed!

I have dozens more showing that Russia is still operating a massive and integrated national missile defense system that in the late 80's could and would have blunted or negated a full NATO nuclear attack. The fact that this is not admitted in the US press goes a long way towards showing who has the power and may very well be responsible for the economic decline of the US.


Mr.X, The americans, never stopped either.
In one of Reagon's journals, he openly admits that the US never stopped developing and advancing its ABM capabilities. I will find a source, and post it later. Im a bit tired at this point(juggling work and school). So forgive any delayed response to the rest of your post, I will eventually get there.


Im not going to say, that you are wrong with your sources, honestly, no one here knows any better. The soviets were always known for having big heads. They had this blind arrogance approach to them in regards to alot of things. (so did/does the US) They often, let there egos get in the way of there actual defense capabilities. Now this isnt to say the soviets did not have some neat toys. They most certainly did. Just that, the overall capabilities were often exagerrated.

I found this bit of info interesting. Maybe the soviets were not the only ones with big heads. Then again, maybe the americans knew something we dont? Maybe the americans have somthing the soviets didnt, and they knew it would blow the soviets socks off. Look at Mr. Gary Mckinnons claims. Quite interesting if his claims are true, wouldnt you say? Do a quick google of his name, he has a few interviews out there as well. Anyways, the below excerpt states that the CIA deliberatly overestimated the soviet threat to further US hegeomy.

Two years ago, the Central Intelligence Agency released reams of intelligence documents on the former Soviet Union that had been classified for nearly 30 years. The findings were damning: the CIA for more than 10 years greatly exaggerated the nuclear threat the communist country posed to the world.

The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Raymond Garthoff, a longtime C.I.A. military analyst, admitted in 2001 "there were consistent overestimates of the threat every year from 1978 to 1985."
www.onlineopinion.com.au...

The soviet threat garnerd alot of support from washington, which fed the Department of defenses budget. The bigger the soviet threat, the more money that would go into building a superior force to counter such a threat. Was/is it superior? Honestly, who knows. I happen to think so, perhaps I will have the chance to adresse this further on down.


Thanks for making it clear that the Russian government could in your opinion never do enough. How many other countries are giving their workers the equivalent of 30 -40 months worth of wages for having a second child?

How many countries are there that are facing an extreme crisis like russia is? Its nothing more then desperate measures by the russian government.
Russia, is also a third world nation. First world birth rate, third world mortality rate = not good.
bad demographics.

What I find also interesting, is how you keep bringing up france, and comparing it with russia, as if that somehow has signifanct relevance to the discussion. France is a first world power, russia is not. Now, France, along with the rest of Europe, are facing a demographic crisis of there own. How to fix it? Import more muslims from the middle east.. We all know what that means. How would the white supremacist of russia deal with what would have to be the inevitable?


The economic situation in Russia is fast changing ( salaries expanded by 25% in 2006) and these additional measures will solve the problem as it did in France and elsewhere. There is no reason to see this as problem unless one is desperately looking for anything that might provide ammunition.

Russia had hit rock bottom in the 90's, it could only go up from that point. As I said, life in moscow is great, as for life in the rest of russia, it is pretty dismal. There are more russian migrants wanting out of the country versus migrants wanting to come into the country. Then there is always that pesky race factor that those russian white supermacist have a problem with. this could potentionally drag the country down in further turmoil.

The Emptying of Russia
www.washingtonpost.com...

The average life expectancy of males in Russia are still 60 and it's ludicrous to argue that the absence of men or any 'pandemics', infertility( more than half of babies were aborted!) is to blame for this temporary problem.


60 is a bit opptimistic. I have heard estimates as low as 56. Though I am sure Moscow skews the statistics up somewhat.

As for infertitlity.

The Washington Post headline said it all: "Russians Feel Abortion's Complications: Used as Birth Control in Soviet Times, Practice Has Led to Widespread Infertility." Indeed, the number of abortions is incredible and the ramifications are nothing short of staggering.

According to the Post, "About 5 million--or 13 percent--of Russian married couples are infertile, and doctors report that diagnoses of infertility are on the rise. In nearly three out of four cases, infertility is attributed to the woman, typically because of complications from one or more abortions, according to [Vladimir] Serov and other health experts."

But this enormous infertility plague follows as night follows day in light of the startling fact that there are more abortions than live births in Russia: l.7 abortions for every one live birth, to be exact. (In the United States there are roughly three births for every abortion.) A 1994 study by the Rand Corporation found that by the end of her child-bearing years, the average Russian woman had undergone no less than three abortions, the Post reported.


Im going to stop there for tonight. Some of what you say, I find myself agreeing with. I will eventually get to the rest of your posts in due time.



[edit on 7-9-2007 by West Coast]

[edit on 7-9-2007 by West Coast]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 05:27 AM
link   
This is some picture of T-50, if you could help me to find the other T-50 when it's turns on her plasma clouds


[img]http://
[/img]

i was read about it in wikipedia . it's a good one!

[edit on 9/13/2007 by Eastpolar Commander]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
All available "images" or "pictures" of the PAK-FA are mostly fan created CGI. They are not official images, to date there are on public images of the real PAK-FA so we do not know what it will specifically look like.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


What he said. The closest thing that we have to an actual design picture was a concept drawing of PAK-FA done by Saturn, which is the company in charge of designing PAK-FA's new engines. See here.


Picture

[edit on 9/13/2007 by Darkpr0]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
Hey Mr.X, thanks for finally getting back to me.
I am impressed!


My 'pleasure' i suppose and if you stick around i think you might become even more 'impressed'. I am however curious what exactly you expected when i have made many posts of this length with some containing far more interesting and supportable 'facts'.



Mr.X, The americans, never stopped either.
In one of Reagon's journals, he openly admits that the US never stopped developing and advancing its ABM capabilities. I will find a source, and post it later. Im a bit tired at this point(juggling work and school).


Which is kinda irrelevant as the US had a effective deployed ABM system back in the 60's that could in my opinion have been expanded to basically blunt or negate a full Soviet ICBM attack:


Second, contrary to the NIEs, the intelligence evidence indicated that the Politburo had approved engineering development of MIRV systems emphasizing counterforce rather than population targeting. The MIRVed successor to the SS-9 (eventually designated "SS-18") would open the "window of vulnerability" of MM silos (at 300 psi) by 1975, so that few MM could be expected to survive a Soviet attack by 1980. By the same token, allocating most of their ICBMs to counterforce attacks would reduce the number of warheads targeted on U.S. urban areas, hence NIKE-X defenses (and fall out shelters) would reduce U.S. population fatalities to far less than McNamara's "assured destruction" minimum of some 50 million, even against an all out Soviet attack.

Third NIKE-X would be cost-effective against a 15 year projection of the Soviet threat that, in retrospect, closely approximated the strategic ballistic missile arsenal actually deployed through 1980. The advances in NIKE-X technologies, combined with realistic costing of FSU missile responses, had brought the cost-exchange ratios down to approximate parity, ranging from 4:1 in favor of the
offense to 4:1 in favor of the defense depending upon various initial assumption

www.fas.org...



Building on the ABRES experience, the NIKE-X system that emerged in 1963-64 was a revolutionary advance in ABM technologies combining a powerful, multi-aperture phased array radar (MAR), an IBM 360 type computer, and a high acceleration missile (SPRINT) for low altitude intercepts. NIKE-X was designed against MIRVs with high performance RVs, while the computer and the SPRINT interceptor took advantage of atmospheric filtering to discriminate precision engineered decoys and other countermeasures. The MAR radar combined battle management, target and interceptor tracking functions and was highly resistant to nuclear effects. The only high confidence way to overcome the NIKE-X system was to exhaust the stock of interceptors with real RVs

www.fas.org...



With Eisenhower departing the White House, and being replaced with Kennedy, the funding situation for Nike Zeus did not improve. Although funding was made available in 1961, it was not spent, and no further funding was provided in 1962 and 1963. Kennedy and his Defence Secretary (McNamara) both did not like Nike Zeus and argued against it. The Army presented Nike Zeus as a system that could protect the US, however, Kennedy and McNamara felt that although the system was viable against missiles that existed at that time, it could not cope with any future missile threats and so was not worth implementing.

In 1963, Project Defender from AARPA presented a look at the future of radar, data processing and rocket propulsion. With new improved technologies in these areas, AARPA felt that a much improved ABM could be developed. (AARPA was already in the process of showing the feasibility of phased array radars) As a result, AARPA presented a number of options. NZ-0 was the current Nike Zeus system, NZ-1 was the same as NZ-0 but had a higher velocity missile for endoatmospheric interceptions, NZ-2 had a faster missile and phased arrays, while NX used faster missiles, phased array radars and most importantly, faster computers. NX was known as Nike-X and was the preferred option. Nike Zeus was dead, and Nike-X was born. Needless to say, the Army was not happy.

www.paineless.id.au...


But apparently the American people were not worthy of such expansive protective measures so it was dismantled and the money funneled into warships and conventional arms which could be applied against third world nations such as Vietnam.


An effort was made by the Army in 1966 to acquire production funding but such funding was not actually forthcoming until 1968. In the meantime, McNamarra was forced into a corner. All the objections that he had raised over the years against an ABM system had been resolved and he found himself in a position where his reasons for non-deployment were no longer valid, and he could no longer deny funding. So he started questioning the deployment.

In June 1967 China exploded their first thermo-nuclear device and so a new threat was perceived to exist to the USA. It was felt that they would have missiles with a range capable of reaching the continental US within a number of years. It was also during this time that the USA and the Soviets were having talks regarding arms limitation. From a political perspective, it was felt not advisable to deploy an ABM system designed to intercept Soviet ICBMs. So Johnson and McNamara re-orientated the ABM system to counter the perceived Chinese threat instead. Nike-X died and Sentinel was born

www.paineless.id.au...



The installation at Grand Forks reached initial operational condition in April 1975 with 28 Sprint and 8 Spartan missiles. It was declared fully operational on 1 October 1975 with 70 Sprint and 30 Spartan missiles.

On 2 October 1975, the US Congress voted to shut down the system. A final bill was passed in November 1975 that allowed the PAR to continue to function, but the MSR was to be turned off, and the missiles disarmed and removed. Starting in February 1976, the US Army shut down the MSR and started to remove the warheads from the missiles as well as removing the missiles from their launching cells. The site had barely operated for 5 months.

It seems strange that the US Congress voted to shut the system down after it had been operational for barely 24 hours. The were many reasons why it was done. Many were political, and some were technological. It had been known for many years, that the system could be overwhelmed by the Soviets if they used multiple warheads on their missiles - the Soviets were arming their missiles with MIRVs. It was also felt that the huge radars were very vulnerable to attack and represented a critical failure point of the system, even though they had been designed with highly redundant systems and hardened against nuclear attack. Although these were well known problems with the Safeguard system, and all other systems before that, Congress just lost the ability to continue to support it.

www.paineless.id.au...



The George C. Marshall Institute recently released a study concluding that a 93% effective, three-layered defense based on "smart" kinetic energy weapons, could be deployed by the mid-1990s at a cost of $121 billion (or an annual cost of 3 to 4% of probable Department of Defense budgets). This figure is about 12% of the $1 trillion cost estimate of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is widely quoted in the news media.I also saw it in a videotape that is shown by PSR on visits to Tucson schools. I asked about the basis forthe figure, and was assured that it was "documented." Some investigators at the Center for Peace and Freedom in Washington tried to find the "documentation."Peter Clausen of the UCS said that he was "not sure much lies behind it analytically."Some anti-SDI groups credited former Secretaries of Defense Harold Brown and James Schlesinger. Brown stated that the question was "not susceptible to [a]...detailed and documented approach." Schlesinger repeatedly refused to answer his mail or his telephone.

www.oism.org...



So forgive any delayed response to the rest of your post, I will eventually get there.


Take your time and address whichever particulars you find most interesting, distressing or inaccurate.
Since i am used to people simply disappearing off the face of the forum at this stage i welcome any time of constructive criticism or discussion..


Im not going to say, that you are wrong with your sources, honestly, no one here knows any better.


Many seem to know 'better' and that's why i am so often forced to get involved in these discussion.



The soviets were always known for having big heads. They had this blind arrogance approach to them in regards to alot of things. (so did/does the US) They often, let there egos get in the way of there actual defense capabilities.


This i wont bother arguing with as it's clearly true for either side and in many instances.



Now this isnt to say the soviets did not have some neat toys. They most certainly did. Just that, the overall capabilities were often exagerrated.


I think the CIA and others were overestimating their capabilities during the early years of the cold war, to justify their criminal anti socialist/freedom operations and coups in the third world, but by the mid late 60's and early 70's they in fact started to undermine the intelligence picture by deliberately hiding data from the American public and even, sometimes, their oversight.

Continued



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Prior to 1967 there was a consensus that the SA-5 could be a SAM/ABM, with the Hen Houses as the battle-management radars. After 1967, however, the CIA argued that the SA-5 was only a SAM, and that the Hen Houses provided only early warning of a missile attack. By about 1970 the majority agreed. Subsequently only a handful of Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analysts, plus occasionally the Air Force and a few Department of Defense officials, made the case for Soviet national ABM defenses based on the SA-5/SA-10 SAM/ABMs and the Hen House/LPARs as battle-management radars.

The CIA relied almost exclusively on the "hard evidence" from U.S. technical collection systems despite the fact that such evidence was inconclusive and plagued by major "intelligence gaps." Now Russian sources have filled in most of the intelligence gaps, thus refuting the CIA's analysis on every critical issue.

www.security-policy.org...



The V-1000 ABM was first seen in the public in 1963 when it was paraded on the Red Square and was retired from active service in the following year from yet undefined reasons, but It should be noted that the 5V28 "Volga" missile from the S-200 (SA-5 Gammon) SAM system, which was also developed by Grushin's OKB, is considered to be a highly modified version of it.

warfare.ru...



However, Soviet and Russian sources, including former Premier Alexei Kosygin and the Chief Designer of the original Moscow ABM system, confirm that: the SA-5 and SA-10 were dual purpose antiaircraft/missile systems (SAM/ABMs), and that the Hen House and LPAR radars provided the requisite battle management target tracking data. These and other sources cited in The ABM Treaty Charade are not exhaustive.

Nevertheless, CIA has not revised its position on this issue, nor have the U.S. Congress and the public been informed that the ABM Treaty was a valid contract from beginning to end.

In the late 1960s the U.S. sacrificed its 20-year technological advantage in ABM defenses on the altar of "arms control." As Russian sources now admit, the Soviet General Staff was in total control of Soviet "arms control" proposals and negotiations, subject to Politburo review, which was largely pro forma. The Soviet military's objective was to gain as much advantage as possible from "arms control" agreements (SALT).

www.jinsa.org...



I found this bit of info interesting. Maybe the soviets were not the only ones with big heads. Then again, maybe the americans knew something we dont? Maybe the americans have somthing the soviets didnt, and they knew it would blow the soviets socks off. Look at Mr. Gary Mckinnons claims. Quite interesting if his claims are true, wouldnt you say?


As may be evident from my previous post i am sure both sides had weapons that were never acknowledged yet deployed and used in anger. I am familiar with Gary Mckinnon's claims but i am of the opinion that the UFO's in American airspace is for the most part not American.



Do a quick google of his name, he has a few interviews out there as well. Anyways, the below excerpt states that the CIA deliberatly overestimated the soviet threat to further US hegeomy.


At one time they did but during the time frame mention below they were doing everything they could to undermine US security.



Two years ago, the Central Intelligence Agency released reams of intelligence documents on the former Soviet Union that had been classified for nearly 30 years. The findings were damning: the CIA for more than 10 years greatly exaggerated the nuclear threat the communist country posed to the world.
The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Raymond Garthoff, a longtime C.I.A. military analyst, admitted in 2001 "there were consistent overestimates of the threat every year from 1978 to 1985."
www.onlineopinion.com.au...


The article does not make specific accusations but since i am such a hard working individual i will present a few instances where the CIA knowingly misrepresented data or simply did not know any better.

1: As mentioned earlier the USSR deployed thousands of ABM in hundreds of complexes that would have severely blunted the uncoordinated SLBM's strikes while doing much to severely degrade the effectiveness of the full landed based ICBM assualt.


immediately prior to the signing of the ABM treaty, the Soviets had developed a surface-to-air missile, the SA-5, which was observed to have a peculiar trajectory. The SA-5 was fired high above the atmosphere and then would descend to intercept and destroy enemy bombers. While technically such a trajectory could not be ruled out, logically, however, it could not be accepted as this type of trajectory represents the least efficient way to shoot down enemy aircraft. On the other hand, the SA-5?s trajectory would be just the ticket for shooting down incoming ballistic missiles which themselves travel above the atmosphere. Taking this into account, the SA-5 had to be an ABM weapon. But with the ABM treaty almost in hand, this fact was ignored and the treaty went into effect. The treaty remains in effect, limiting development of a U.S. ABM system. Meanwhile, Russian dual-purpose (anti-aircraft/anti-missile) missile systems like the SA-5 continue to exist.

www.thenewamerican.com...



Construction of the dual-purpose SAM/ABM system began in 1960 but was abandoned in 1963 to be replaced by SA-5s. Between 1970 and 1975 the SA-5 was modernized with two-missile models and new electronic circuitry.

Ironically, the development of the upgraded ground-based battle-management radars, which can track MIRVed RVs, was carried out during the ABM Treaty negotiations. Construction of these facilities could hardly have gone unnoticed by the West, for they resemble several Manhattan skyscrapers joined together in one unit. Construction began in 1972, and the first units became operational in the1980s. The well-known Krasnoyarsk Radar-the sixth of nine such radars--was a deliberate treaty violation by the Soviet leadership. Is it possible that United States and NATO spy satellites did not detect these massive structures? If not, then why are these flagrant treaty violations being ignored?

In total the U.S.S.R. deployed two generations of national missile defenses, consisting of 18 large radars and 12,000 SAM/ABM interceptors at 280 complexes. Moscow itself is protected not only by 100 ABM missiles, as permitted by the treaty, but also by several thousand SAM/ABM interceptors.

newsmax.com.../4/24/53247



The ABM Treaty was quite a different matter; it had to be violated from the beginning. The infamous Krasnoyarsk radar was the sixth in the LPAR series, constructed in that location by a Politburo decision in deliberate violation of the ABM Treaty. However, the really serious Soviet violation was nationwide deployment of the dual purpose SA-5/10s and the battle management radars in violation of article 1 of the ABM Treaty.

When CIA concluded in 1967 that the SA-5 was just an anti-aircraft (SAM) system, and that the Hen House radars were just for early warning (and space tracking), a majority of the U.S. intelligence comunity joined the CIA choir. Subsequently ClAts analysis of the SA-5 and the Hen House radars was extended to the SA-10 and the LPARS. Once enshrined, CIAls erroneous analysis was not challenged even when "hard" evidence to the contrary appeared.(31)

By the time the Empire collapsed, more than 10, 000 dual purpose SAM/ABM interceptor missiles were deployed at SA-5/10 complexes. Yet the U.S. officially counts only the l00 interceptors of the "ABM X-3" system at Moscow, which are permitted by the ABM Treaty. ABM X-3 is a scaled up model of the NIKE-X system, vintage late

www.fas.org...


2: Could not or did not keep track of all deployed Soviet nuclear weaponry despite all those satellites.


In July 1988, US Army Colonel Edward H. Cabaniss led an American INF inspection team to Petropavlovsk in Kazakhstan, approximately 2,000 kilometers east of Moscow. Petropavlovsk was the location of the V.I. Lenin Heavy Machine Building Plant, where the American team conducted a closeout inspection of the former SS-23 missile launcher production facility. The last of 239 SS-23 missiles was destroyed at the Saryozek Missile Elimination Facility on 27 October 1989. The final SS-23 launcher was eliminated the same day at the Stan'kovo elimination facility.

The Soviet Union had negotiated separate diplomatic agreements with both Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic, where Soviet INF missile units had been based. In the case of the INF Treaty, the Soviet-declared data was not agreed to by each side, and it was not included in the Treaty. Later it turned out that the Soviets had falsified some of their INF data. In April of 1990 the Soviets admitted that they had covertly provided SS-23 missiles banned by the INF Treaty to three East European nations - East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria. At least 120 Soviet-controlled SS-23s covertly deployed in Eastern Europe, which the US INF negotiator termed "deceit and mendacity" during the negotiations. In February 1990 President Bush sent Congress a report stating that the Soviet SS-23 deployment did constitute "bad faith." But he didn't say whether it was a violation of the INF Treaty. The State Department was embarrassed by the discovery later that some Soviet-declared INF data was false, because the State Department had repeatedly vouched for its accuracy in public when advocating the Treaty.

www.globalsecurity.org...


Continued



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
3: The CIA and others misrepresented the capabilities of some of the the USS R's long range BM's.


. SS-20 data taken from the IISS Military Balance 1981-1982, page 105. Mod 2 is the version so often discussed in the European theater, with 3-150 KT RVs. The range of Mod 2 is given at 5600 kilometers. By shifting to a single 50 KT RV, a range of 7400 kilometers is obtained. Both Mods clearly meet the SALT II criterion of being an ICBM, yet the SS-20 is not listed anywhere in the agreed statements or understandings as being a SALT II accountable ICBM. Despite the fact that the Mod I only has a 5000 kilometer range, any missile that has been tested in an ICBM mode is supposed to count.

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


That's a 650 missiles that were never officially considered in any way part of the Russian ICBM arsenal.

4: The Backfire were not considered a strategic weapon when it could clearly serve in such a role with the addition of a refueling probe. It's such considerations that makes CIA analysis almost farcical.


According to press reports in the late 1980s, a defector stated that the Backfire was regularly exercised at intercontinental range, that this intercontinental range was greater than the Bison's, that the Backfire had a screw-in type refueling probe, that this screw-in refueling probe was stockpiled for every Backfire at all bomber bases, and that the Soviets had an active program of camouflage, concealment, and deception to mislead the West about the intercontinental range capability of the Backfire.

"DIA stated in its unclassified February 1990 Soviet Force Structure Summary publication on page 6 that: `The Backfire has an intercontinental strike capability when equipped with a refueling probe.'

The US proposed to the Soviets that they sign a politically binding declaration outside of START, which would commit them to: (1) not give the Backfire an intercontinental capability by air-to-air refueling or by any other means; (2) deploy no more than 400 Backfire; and (3) include all Backfire -- including naval Backfire--in the Conventional Forces in Europe [CFE] aircraft limits.

www.fas.org...


5: Hides data that would prove that the USSR flagrantly violates agreements while the CIA and others stays very silent:


The reason: a factor of two uncertainty exists concerning the method for estimating the'yields of Soviet underground nuclear tests. Critics contend that, with current test measuring capa bilities, a test at 150 kilotons would occasionally appear on the measuring instruments to be 300 kilotons, and more important occasionally appear to be only 75 kilotons. Finally, the TTBT would prevent testing of nuclear weapons designed for the defen- sive purpose of attempting to minimize nonmilitary casualties and damage from a nuclear exchange.

When the first evidence of Soviet testing well above the TTBT limit came to light in 1976, the initial U.S. government response was to stop releasing reports of Soviet nuclear test yields to the public tific basis to cast doubt on the yield estimates themselves In 1977, the Carter White House ordered the intelligence community to adopt a new methodology that in effect cut estimates of these yields in half doubled the yields of their underground testing and again appeared to be in violation of the TTBT The next step was a search for some scien Within a year of this change, the Soviets nearly During this period there were press reports, since confirmed by the Reagan Administration of Soviet tests with estimated yields or central values, the middle of the range of estimates of possi ble yields) well above 150 kilotons responded by withholding the facts and making misleading statements The Carter Administration See infra p. 9 See. for example. Jack Anderson U.S. Can't Tell If Russia Cheats on Test Ban," Th Washington Post,

www.heritage.org...



Soviet Union. A ``technical detail'' that slowed the START Treaty concerns missile throw-weight. The Soviets are supposed to decrease their first-strike arsenal of SS-18s by half. But according to a CIA memorandum, the upgraded model of the SS-18 (the SS-18 Mod 5) ``can still maintain the capability to destroy all US silo-based ICBMs.'' Frank Gaffney, former Defense official, said that the Mod 5 has ``roughly twice the payload capability of its predecessor, higher yield warheads and vastly improved accuracy, thanks to important innovations in Soviet propellant and guidance system.'' He estimates that Soviet capability for attacking hard targets may be greater with 154 Mod 5s than with 308 SS-18 Mod 4s. They may have to allocate only one Mod 5 warhead per target, instead of two, to have a high kill probability.

While the Gorbachev regime may have the most benign intentions, the Soviet Union becomes increasingly unstable. Moscow News (Mar 17-24, 1991) maps 76 cities, districts, and regions where citizens are in ``mortal conflict'' on ``ethnic grounds.'' A year ago, only a third of these flashpoints were in evidence. Also, the possibility of an accidental launch remains. Soviet General Kochemasov disclosed that a Soviet ballistic missile left its launch pad ``of its own accord.'' Fortunately, the missile (which may have carried a nuclear warhead), crashed nearby.

www.oism.org...



Testing at these yields enables the Soviet Union to develop new and improved nuclear weapons systems for its seemingly unending series of new missiles. At the same time, the U.S. limits itself to testing at 150 kilotons and cannot develop weapons suitable for use on its MX, Trident 11, or Midgetman ICBM unless it adapts existing, older designs. The only other available option entails the serious risk that major new strategic systems will be deployed with warheads that will not deliver their expected yield because of the lack of appropriate testing.

If the current situation persists-in which the Soviets are probably testing at two to three times the Treaty limit--the U.S. will con tinue to fall behind the Soviet Union in strategic military power When the U.S. revised its testing methodology in 1977, the When combined with the features of the SALT I and SALT I1 The TTBT is not now verifiable and cannot be made verifiable Brian Green Policy Analyst 24 Report of the President's Commission on Strategic Forces, April 1983, Brent Scowcroft, Chairman, pp 10, 12.

www.heritage.org...


I could go with a few more serious cases, and numerous less significant 'misunderstandings' with serious implications, but since you have not really done anything but cite accusations i will continue when you start.


The soviet threat garnerd alot of support from washington, which fed the Department of defenses budget.


In the late 40's, 50's and even sixties they in my opinion seriously exaggerated the USS R's potential to wage a strategic war against the US mainland and while they built up a massive arsenal of strategic weaponry it's a open question if they could have held Europe given their lack of investment in conventional arms.

[quote[The bigger the soviet threat, the more money that would go into building a superior force to counter such a threat. Was/is it superior? Honestly, who knows. I happen to think so, perhaps I will have the chance to adresse this further on down.

Your quite right that they military industrial complex greatly benefits by inflating the Soviet threat but what you have seen should serve as evidence that there were those in the US government who where misdirecting funds so that while it made corporations rich it did not serve to defend the US efficiently or at all.


How many countries are there that are facing an extreme crisis like russia is?


It's not a extreme crisis and many other nations have recovered from far worse, France serves as notable example, in just recent history.


Its nothing more then desperate measures by the russian government.


So when they take no action it's because they do not care or can't fund it and when they do it's out of desperation and too late? What can or should they do to satisfy you?


Russia, is also a third world nation. First world birth rate, third world mortality rate = not good.
bad demographics.


www.guardian.co.uk...

english.peopledaily.com.cn...

article.wn.com...

www.economist.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

moneynews.com...

The situation just is not as dire as you suggest and it's certainly not something nearly as unique as you wish to suggest.


What I find also interesting, is how you keep bringing up france, and comparing it with russia, as if that somehow has signifanct relevance to the discussion. France is a first world power, russia is not.


I don't see what first world and third world has to do with this? Russia is country with first world education and social conditions but with a third world economy that is slowly being addressed.


Now, France, along with the rest of Europe, are facing a demographic crisis of there own. How to fix it? Import more muslims from the middle east.. We all know what that means.


France wanted French speaking people and those happened to be North African Muslims..

Continued



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

How would the white supremacist of russia deal with what would have to be the inevitable?


Russia has can draw on a vast pool of Russian speaking Caucasians in neighbouring countries and if they are not happy with those they can simply import young capitalist from elsewhere in the world.


Russia had hit rock bottom in the 90's, it could only go up from that point.


In the late 90's yes...


As I said, life in moscow is great, as for life in the rest of russia, it is pretty dismal. There are more russian migrants wanting out of the country versus migrants wanting to come into the country.


Life outside is supposedly not THAT bad but if you wish to bring some sources to the table feel free!


Then there is always that pesky race factor that those russian white supermacist have a problem with. this could potentionally drag the country down in further turmoil.


Russians are no more white supremacist than the Germans or the French are so i am not sure where you come up with this.
These issues normal arise with poverty and troubles economic conditions so it will be addressed as the Russian economy keeps expanding.


60 is a bit opptimistic. I have heard estimates as low as 56. Though I am sure Moscow skews the statistics up somewhat.


And it's impossible to have many kids before that age? I am not sure where you are going with this argument...


As for infertitlity.

The Washington Post headline said it all: "Russians Feel Abortion's Complications: Used as Birth Control in Soviet Times, Practice Has Led to Widespread Infertility." Indeed, the number of abortions is incredible and the ramifications are nothing short of staggering.

According to the Post, "About 5 million--or 13 percent--of Russian married couples are infertile, and doctors report that diagnoses of infertility are on the rise. In nearly three out of four cases, infertility is attributed to the woman, typically because of complications from one or more abortions, according to [Vladimir] Serov and other health experts."


So the Russian population will decline to a lower level? How will it prevent such a resource rich country ( that already has a trillion dollar GDP based on mostly natural wealth) from not massively expanding it's GDP and the prosperity of it's people? Will Russia be any less powerful with 120 million people than it is with 140 million?



But this enormous infertility plague follows as night follows day in light of the startling fact that there are more abortions than live births in Russia: l.7 abortions for every one live birth, to be exact. (In the United States there are roughly three births for every abortion.) A 1994 study by the Rand Corporation found that by the end of her child-bearing years, the average Russian woman had undergone no less than three abortions, the Post reported.



Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-four percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]

In 2002, 1.29 million abortions took place, down from 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2002, more than 42 million legal abortions occurred.[3]

Each year, two out of every 100 women aged 15–44 have an abortion; 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion.[4]

www.guttmacher.org...


So thanks for telling me what i know and pointing out that's not really a question of fertility and that even under such relatively favourable conditions women are still having abortions. Given the fact that Russian women may probably be on average more and better educated than American women it's no surprise that they are resorting to pregnancy more often knowing that it's in their best interest.

What you may not be aware of is that 10% or higher infertily rates are certainly not unheard of:


American Demographics, May 1993 v15 n5 p48(4)

In pursuit of pregnancy. (coping with infertility) Paula Mergenhagen DeWitt.

Abstract: The treatment of infertility has become a large business and accounts for $2 billion in total annual revenues.
The National Center for Health Statistics reveals that in 1988, 11% of married couples, a total of 3.1 million couples, had
trouble conceiving or giving birth to a child. Infertility problems can be attributed to women in 50% of the cases, to men
in 40% of the cases and to both in 10% of cases. However, women are the primary recipients of infertility treatments,
which range in price from $4,000 to $11,000 per treatment.

At least 10 percent of infertile couples may benefit from high-tech treatments, but the costs and risks remain high.
Infertility has become a multibillion-dollar industry, driven by technological advances and an aging baby boom. Insurers
foot some of the bill, but most costs are covered by patients who will go to extraordinary lengths to have babies.

Conventional wisdom holds that baby boomers are having infertility problems because they waited too long to try to
have children. Yet the overall infertility rate has fallen since 1976, although the number of affected women has increased
in some age groups. During the 1980s, medical treatment improved, and a new generation of active health-care consumers
with infertility problems sought help. Baby boomers are turning eagerly to high-tech remedies like IVF and artificial
insemination, as well as more traditional treatments like hormone therapy and surgery.

nobabyonboard.com...



Im going to stop there for tonight. Some of what you say, I find myself agreeing with. I will eventually get to the rest of your posts in due time.


I will stop here for tonight as well and i hope you do get back to me.


Stellar



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 07:17 AM
link   
West Coast & StellarX,

While you both are presenting great arguments supporting your beliefs - this has gotten WAY off course for the "Aircraft Projects" forum. There are more suitable forums here on ATS if you wish to continue down this path of discussion.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   
^^


totally agree - infertility isn`t really this forum related



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
^^

Totally agree - infertility isn`t really this forum related


Your not exactly fertile if your dead so it's not entirely accurate to say that fertility is not related to weapons or weapon forums. Obviously if your serving in a Abrams tanks or working with DU ammunition odds are your not going to be fertile no matter how long you live


As long as i am never accused of being unable to connect dots i will be able to put up with a great deal of abuse!

I do try, Intelgurl , but this can all be dealt with if people are prevented from making claims on weapons forums that are not exactly related!

Sorry...

Stellar



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Here are some pictures off the SU T50/PAK FA:















I hope that you have much viewing pleasure out off this



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I have heard rumors about Indian involvement in PAK FA as Russians are short of $$$$.

Even the Indian officials are confirming that they are in talks with Russia for the joint development of 5th Gen fighter.

I have also read that India has rejected the proposal of PAK FA as Indians wanted a lighter plane.

If anyone has other insight in this aspect kindly throw light





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join