It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia Tests 'World's Most Powerful Non-Nuclear Bomb'

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
The U.S. has no prop driven bombers!!!!


Depends on how you class a P3-Orion, but thats swings and roundabouts I guess., and yes, I know its a sub hunter, but it drops its weapons. Ah, what the hell, I'll give you that one - Maritime Attack isn't mud thumping.


It took the Russians 20 years to come up with the Bear-95 Prop bomber after we had the B-52.


B-52 Maiden Flight 15th April 1952
Tu-95 Maiden Flight 12th November 1952.



The tu-160 is a bad copy of the B-1


Get real. It has a larger combat radius by 5,000km, 200,000lb better carrying capacity and is faster by nearly 400mph at altitude. Thats not a "bad copy" at all.



It is not stealth. The B-2 Stealth bombers can penetrate any air defense and is the most advanced bomber in the world.


In the right conditions, possibly, but as its never been tested against state of the art, front line technology developed specifically to counter it, you don't know for sure.



We would see every Russian bomber on radar a thousand miles away and they would all be shot down.


You might see them a thousand miles away, but by that stage they would be more than likely be launching kh55 cruise missiles that have a range of 1500 miles.



You loose.


What a childish thing to say



Your wrong and come up with ignorant statements so please move on because you don't have a clue what your talking about.
[edit on 12-9-2007 by Sky watcher]


Pot. Kettlle. Black.

[edit on 12/0907/07 by neformore]




posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I love it how every time there’s a military hardware debate about the US VS whomever, people just assume the US is going to be on Pause while China Russia etc.. Catch up to technology levels.

The stealth bomber saw its first flight in 1989 and designing started as early as the 1970’s. So we are talking over 30 years ago.

Do you guys think the US is really this stupid? They probably are showing only a fraction of their cards right now as far as technology is concerned. By the time Russia catches up I would not be surprised to hear that the US has mastered antigravity. It doesn’t matter what Russia or china has by 2020, because we are all in the black about what the US will have by then and right now they already have the technology to rival what developing countries will have 15 years from now. The military hardware debate is moot. While countries waste time trying to catch up and rival, the US has all the time in the world to innovate setting the new benchmark.

As far as bombs go, Russia may have big bombs, but the US has always scaled back its desire for bang and focused its technology advancement more on targeting instead. This is why Russian nukes were always stronger. The delivery systems were far inferior compared to the US and had a lack of ability to target as accurately, they needed the bang. The MOAB is more of a psychological weapon than anything.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite


Can you have "Green bombs"?

I don't think so


Of course you can! Just paint them green!


Ok, seriously, what they mean is that there would be comparatively lesser collateral damage than a nuke with a similar effect on a given target area. Basically this amounts to zero radiation and no fallout. So it's 'environment friendly'.

But if you are at ground zero and this bomb happens to explode over your head, then the only option available to you is, BEND DOWN, PUT YOUR HEAD BETWEEN YOUR KNEES , AND KISS YOUR ASS GOODBYE!


Cheers!



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by psperos
Do you guys think the US is really this stupid?



Do you think the Russians are that stupid?

Hec I think the whole damn human race is smart if the put their asses to it..
The Russians and the Americans have been smart-assing for the last 50 years, and now other countries are smartening up...
Either you smarten up your ass or it smarts when somebody smacks you on it!!!



Good for us!I await the day when we're all a bunch of smart asses



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I'm really not worried. I have to agree with the poster who said the United States is light-years ahead of any other "world power" in terms of innovation and technological edge.

I'm also seriously not worried about United States air defense. Not when we have the F-22 Raptor and JSF's flying around protecting us. I'm not even worried about russian / iranian / or whatever bomber they may try to use against us. The F-22 will intercept and destroy any potential threat before they (the threat) knew it was there.

I'm not sorry to say that when we have companies like boeing, lockheed martin, nasa (including the dryden research center, to name just a few) - all working together to design next-gen aircraft and defensive/offensive capabilities - I'm not worried.

I even saw these great new missiles the US are developing to take out ICBM's and other cruise missiles without detonating the warhead on future weapons not long ago. Stick like missiles that have seriously advanced targeting and aquisition avionics. *nod to self* good stuff.

If your a US citizen living in America - fear not my friend. If it's one thing the US is pretty good at it's self defense (except of course debated attacks like 9/11).



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
First thing I thought when I read the news report yesterday is that Russia finally admitted they have negligible radiation fusion devices. But they are claiming it is something else.

Next thing I think is that the US will finally admit that we have negligible radiation fusion devices. Though I don't think it will come in the form of an admission but rather just begin using them, because what better way to scare your enemy than to make them think you just hit them with old technology radiation heavy nukes? It is an interesting game the world is in the midst of playing.

Back to the good old days of duck and cover, but this time the survivors in rural areas will not be as effected by fallout.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by psperos
I love it how every time there’s a military hardware debate about the US VS whomever, people just assume the US is going to be on Pause while China Russia etc.. Catch up to technology levels.

The stealth bomber saw its first flight in 1989 and designing started as early as the 1970’s. So we are talking over 30 years ago.

Do you guys think the US is really this stupid? They probably are showing only a fraction of their cards right now as far as technology is concerned. By the time Russia catches up I would not be surprised to hear that the US has mastered antigravity. It doesn’t matter what Russia or china has by 2020, because we are all in the black about what the US will have by then and right now they already have the technology to rival what developing countries will have 15 years from now. The military hardware debate is moot. While countries waste time trying to catch up and rival, the US has all the time in the world to innovate setting the new benchmark.

As far as bombs go, Russia may have big bombs, but the US has always scaled back its desire for bang and focused its technology advancement more on targeting instead. This is why Russian nukes were always stronger. The delivery systems were far inferior compared to the US and had a lack of ability to target as accurately, they needed the bang. The MOAB is more of a psychological weapon than anything.
Please show us how Russian nukes are so off with their CEP that it's usless for them to use them, last I looked Russia's ICBM's had a CEP of 250 meters, but remember it's a 500 kt - 25 Megatone Nukes, so it doesn't matter if they land 750= feet away, the target and everything for 4-5 miles will be DESTROYED, Lake of ability to target, were talking about Russia not N.Korean, show the sources that state this I can post multiple U.S. site that WILL DEBUNKED your theory!!!!


[edit on 12-9-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Yes, but for a 25 megaton nuke to be detonated over a target area, it has to be dropped from a plane. You can't strap one of those things onto an ICBM. What, you think we are going to let Russia cross into our airspace and drop one of those things? Hmm.. well, anything's possible I guess. We let two jets fly into the WTC.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
I'm really not worried. I have to agree with the poster who said the United States is light-years ahead of any other "world power" in terms of innovation and technological edge.


I will go as far as to say that the US SHOULD be light years ahead but even if that is true it'snot being employed to protect the American public...


'm also seriously not worried about United States air defense. Not when we have the F-22 Raptor and JSF's flying around protecting us.


Neither are bad planes but the Russians can build similar aircraft for a 25-50% of the cost


I'm not even worried about russian / iranian / or whatever bomber they may try to use against us. The F-22 will intercept and destroy any potential threat before they (the threat) knew it was there.


And i hope, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that turns out to be the case.


I'm not sorry to say that when we have companies like boeing, lockheed martin, nasa (including the dryden research center, to name just a few) - all working together to design next-gen aircraft and defensive/offensive capabilities - I'm not worried.


What those companies are mostly doing is robbing the US public blind by delivering massively expensive products that are not so obviously superior to what is being produced elsewhere for fractions of the cost.


I even saw these great new missiles the US are developing to take out ICBM's and other cruise missiles without detonating the warhead on future weapons not long ago.


Yeah but both the US and USSR OFFICIALLY had such weapons back in 1960


Stick like missiles that have seriously advanced targeting and aquisition avionics. *nod to self* good stuff.


Maybe if you just don't worry it all works out somehow.



If your a US citizen living in America - fear not my friend. If it's one thing the US is pretty good at it's self defense (except of course debated attacks like 9/11).


Right.


Stellar



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Yeah my bad, It was the hustlers advantage over the bear that was about twenty years.
S.A.Ms fly at Mach 5 or more so the T-160 at Mach 2 isn't going to matter much, Speed is not the answer. Not being heard or seen is the way to success.
F-15s and F-22s can fly at Mach 2.5 with Mach 5 missiles so yes the T-160 will be shot down. Just to let you know, Every city in the U.S. is covered by air bases close to them. Patriots or the older Hawk S.A.Ms would make quick work of a TU-160 if our aircraft could not get to them in time. Do you know that we have around a thousand interceptors here at home and even more overseas? The only way the TU-160 is going to penetrate a modern air defense is to nuke its way in with cruise missiles, Then all bets are off.
I would put money on the US Air Force any day of the week Vs any countries air force. We have never lost yet!!!



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
I would put money on the US Air Force any day of the week Vs any countries air force. We have never lost yet!!!

True... but then again, they have never faced an opponent with anything approaching what would be called an modern air force.

As Chomsky states, there are 3 factors that the US uses to pick an enemy for "preventative war":
- It must be important enough to be worth the trouble (ie, it must have assets to plunder, it should serve as an example to other nations, or it should further someone's career).
- There must be a way to portray is as an ultimate evil and an imminent threat to western survival.
- It must be virtually defenseless.

Anyway, the pissing match is perty damned juvenile. If you believe that a war between the US and Russia/China would be anything other than HORRIBLE, you need to be on better medication.


I just wanna see some test video of this new "DO(h)AB".
Big booms are cool.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
Yes, but for a 25 megaton nuke to be detonated over a target area, it has to be dropped from a plane. You can't strap one of those things onto an ICBM. What, you think we are going to let Russia cross into our airspace and drop one of those things? Hmm.. well, anything's possible I guess. We let two jets fly into the WTC.
Thanx for proving you haven't studied Russia's military.
THE SS-18 Mod-1 IS a 25 MEGATONE ICBM DUDE!!!!!!!!


[edit on 12-9-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Yeah my bad, It was the hustlers advantage over the bear that was about twenty years.
S.A.Ms fly at Mach 5 or more so the T-160 at Mach 2 isn't going to matter much, Speed is not the answer. Not being heard or seen is the way to success.
F-15s and F-22s can fly at Mach 2.5 with Mach 5 missiles so yes the T-160 will be shot down. Just to let you know, Every city in the U.S. is covered by air bases close to them. Patriots or the older Hawk S.A.Ms would make quick work of a TU-160 if our aircraft could not get to them in time. Do you know that we have around a thousand interceptors here at home and even more overseas? The only way the TU-160 is going to penetrate a modern air defense is to nuke its way in with cruise missiles, Then all bets are off.
I would put money on the US Air Force any day of the week Vs any countries air force. We have never lost yet!!!
The U.S. doesn't have good SAMs the Patriots were crap, the Tu-160's have ECM's/ECCM's so don't thing thier just going to fly in with out using them, Here's some info that was put out on another thread about the Patriot:
1. www.fas.org...
2. www.cdi.org...
3. www.cdi.org...


BTW the U.S. doesn't have 1000 interceptors as far as I have seen, only:
1. 230 F-15 C/E's
2. 400 F-16 Blocks 40-60
3. 345 F-18
4. 95 F-22


[edit on 12-9-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 12-9-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   
I have doubts this will make any diferance in a real war, because each aircraft would only carry a few, and I have doubts it would be fielded in any numbers. In my opinion more, precision weapons is a much smarter choice.


Oh, and MOAB stands for Massive Ordinance Air Blast.



The U.S. has no prop driven bombers!!!! Where in the world did you come up with that one.

It does not matter if they're prop driven or not. The Tu-95 is not even a hundred kilometres per hour slower than the B-52, and its range and payload are both very close.


It took the Russians 20 years to come up with the Bear-95 Prop bomber after we had the B-52.

Tu-95 first flew in the same year as the B-52 and was introduced the year after the B-52 is introduced.


The tu-160 is a bad copy of the B-1, It is not stealth.

The Tu-160 can carry cruise missiles with a range of over a thousand nautical miles so 'stealth' is hardly essential 'though it does help. The Tu-160 actually, does have stealth components to it and certain areas DO have Radar absorbant material reducing the Radar cross section, if I'm not mistaken, to under 1 square metre.


. The B-2 Stealth bombers can penetrate any air defense and is the most advanced bomber in the world.

It's also the least numerous and most expensive bomber in the world with some of the lowest utilisation rates in the world, and, I cannot renember it being abled to carry thousand mile cruise missiles? And I'd like to see it attempt to get past an S-400.


We would see every Russian bomber on radar a thousand miles away and they would all be shot down.

Maybe the Tu-95, but that also can carry very ranged weapons. But the Tu-160 and Tu-22M? No way. They both have radar cross sections which are significantly reduced from a conventional aircraft, and still, with very long range weapons, I have doubts you'd be abled to easily shoot them down.


You loose.
Your wrong and come up with ignorant statements so please move on because you don't have a clue what your talking about.

Being a tad hypocritical there?

___

The bottom line is Russian aircraft are usually, in many respects, equal to American aircraft and are sometimes better than American aircraft while being considerably cheaper. They are not (always) cheap copies of Western aircraft, and actually, there combat effectiiveness is way up there.


Do you guys think the US is really this stupid? They probably are showing only a fraction of their cards right now as far as technology is concerned. By the time Russia catches up I would not be surprised to hear that the US has mastered antigravity. It doesn’t matter what Russia or china has by 2020, because we are all in the black about what the US will have by then and right now they already have the technology to rival what developing countries will have 15 years from now. The military hardware debate is moot. While countries waste time trying to catch up and rival, the US has all the time in the world to innovate setting the new benchmark.

Uh, well first of all, it means little if not nothing if the USA has these 'magical' Black Projects which can perform miracles. They are NOT fielded in any numbers and are NOT going to be performing real combat missions any time soon.


As far as bombs go, Russia may have big bombs, but the US has always scaled back its desire for bang and focused its technology advancement more on targeting instead. This is why Russian nukes were always stronger. The delivery systems were far inferior compared to the US and had a lack of ability to target as accurately, they needed the bang. The MOAB is more of a psychological weapon than anything.

With newer systems? Not really.

The Topol-M as far as I know has amazing accuracy and can even dodge ABM systems. As for bombs, well, the Russian Su-25 can use TV guided bombs, laser guided munitions and uses Continuously Computer Release Point to drop dumb munitions exactly on target. It also has the Shkval targetting system (23x) which is far superior to the system in the A-10 which only has a 6x magnification.

That is only a cheap CAS aircraft, but considering the munitions on the 25T are precision, I would expect a large proportion of the RuAF to use precision weaponry too.


What those companies are mostly doing is robbing the US public blind by delivering massively expensive products that are not so obviously superior to what is being produced elsewhere for fractions of the cost.

What the US needs to do, is stop ordering 180 planes, wait till you've spent 50 billion developing, then cutting it to 20 planes. It's an extreme waste of time and money, and what they end up with are extremely expensive aircraft in VERY low numbers while keeping legacy aircraft. B-2, F-22.... F-35... It's all the same story.



[edit on 13/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
reply to post by StellarX
 


The U.S. has no prop driven bombers!!!! Where in the world did you come up with that one. It took the Russians 20 years to come up with the Bear-95 Prop bomber after we had the B-52. The tu-160 is a bad copy of the B-1, It is not stealth. The B-2 Stealth bombers can penetrate any air defense and is the most advanced bomber in the world. We would see every Russian bomber on radar a thousand miles away and they would all be shot down.
You loose.
Your wrong and come up with ignorant statements so please move on because you don't have a clue what your talking about.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by Sky watcher]





The tu-160 is a bad copy of the B-1, It is not stealth.


one of the stupidest claims ever, b-1b has only max speed of mach 1.2 , while tu-160 has mach 2.2 speed max and is far larger , has stealth components .....

using your logic , then b-1 is a ripoff of tu-22m3, if we compare the wingstructure



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Topic fellas, topic!

Anyone have any theories on how this Russian bomb manages to boost yield so dramatically yet use less explosive?

New compound?
Better dispersion?
It just tries harder because it's Russian 'n thats what good Russians do?



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Topic fellas, topic!

Anyone have any theories on how this Russian bomb manages to boost yield so dramatically yet use less explosive?

New compound?
Better dispersion?
It just tries harder because it's Russian 'n thats what good Russians do?


better explosive, well, russians were leaders in physics ,chemistry and metallurgy,plasma based applications,lasers in soviet era, though they were severely lacked in electronics, computers ,communications in comparison to west



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jimjamjerry
 


It's deeper than that. They want to kill their mothers and the mothers of their children, whom they obviously hate with a passion, their fathers whom they also hate, and the men that they most want to have sex with. Hierarchical and patriarchal conditioning that keeps them locked in the closet and deathly afraid to come out. And so they seek to obtain the highest positions of political power so that, in their later years of life, they can act out their fantasies by manifesting their fears into weapons of mass destruction. They really do hate it all -- all of creation, because they do not have the courage to be who they really are. It's noticeable that all of those crazies represent the most rigid hierarchical and patriarchal familial and societal structures.

It's deep -- but I think I'll stop here.




[edit on 13-9-2007 by Areal51]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by YASKY
 


You need to do more studying my friend, The Patriot has been upgraded allot since the first gulf war. It uses the phased array radar system back on the ground that cant be traced then at the last second it sees the target itself and kills its. It cant be jammed. PAC 3 can take out ballistic, Cruise missiles and aircraft with ease.
Every conflict the U.S. has been in since WW ll has been against Russian hardware and training, Even on occasion a few Russian pilots who met their maker.
To the previous poster who was talking about the P3 Orion. We are talking about strategic bombers here!!
Allot of the TU-160 specs are claims, Kind of like the Fox-bat witch had to replace its engines after every high speed run. All the United States aircraft are combat proven, Except the raptor yet after many war games people are begging to buy it.
Buy the way that new Russian bomb is not guided, It looks like the fat boy bomb from WW ll. The MOAB is guided in turn making it allot more effective.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join