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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I want to sue every single country that tests nuclear bombs because they are putting the entire Earth in danger by disrupting Earth's magnetic field during the explosion of the Nuclear bomb. Who gives these idiots the rights to play with things we have no real clue about?




posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


Look... I know this is hard for you to accept, and I realise that to someone who clearly idolises the United States the concept that the USA isn't actually all conquering is a difficult one but....

The USAF has never directly flown in combat against a modern military that is fully equipped with the latest technology at its disposal.

Never. Not in Korea, Not in Vietnam, Most certainly not in Greneda, or Yugoslavia, or Iraq. Don't buy the hype. The US has been the equivalent of the 300lb gorilla taking on the chimpanzee in all of those conflicts - taking on countries with little or no airpower and/or properly organised air forces.

As such, it all looks a damn site easier than it is, and all your bold claims and proclamations mean nothing.

The only time the US will ever do such a thing is, god forbid, if it takes on either the Russians, the EU as a whole or, in 5/10 years time, China.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Yeah my bad, It was the hustlers advantage over the bear that was about twenty years.


Excuse me if i do not give you credit for in fact knowing that.



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.


Speed has almost always been the answer if armor/active defense can't get the job done and the speed of the SAM is not relevant when all modern strategic bombers have stand of munitions or can penetrate at very low level where Sam's are unlikely to find them unless very extensively deployed.


Not being heard or seen is the way to success.


Stealth in general is a very good idea but one must not compromise all other abilities in the vain hope that you will go unseen. In my opinion the B-2 makes far too many compromises, it attacks only at night, can manage about 2-3 intercontinental missions per week, has rather smaller bomb load than the B-52 ( and inferior to even the TU-22 Backfire to say nothing of the Tu-160 Blackjack bombers which can carry more than twice as much internal stores), is according to mainstream sources slower than the B-52 and the prop driver Russian Tu-95 to say nothing of the backfires and blackjacks, is certainly far more expensive to construct than anything else around and is as vulnerable to typical ground base low frequency radars as anything else. The thing that most people do not seem to understand is that you can not make a plane stealthy against both high frequency fighter radars and low frequency ground radars and that stealth delivery may not matter much when modern air defense can intercept JDAM's and cruise missiles any ways.

The B-2 makes too many compromises to attain that ONE relatively small advantage and i would MUCH rather invest the same resources in Russian systems.


F-15s and F-22s can fly at Mach 2.5


We know that F-15's with weapons are much like Su-27's with weapons and that neither of the two actually flies at mach 2 often or at all. While i sure that the backfire and blackjacks are no more likely to often fly at that type of speeds they do have much larger fuel capacities and are thus very likely to make a intercept very hard if they become aware of it. As to the F-22 there is some claims that it will fly much faster than mach 2 but i am confident in stating that the data will eventually show that it will have a slightly faster than F-15/Su-27 type speed with mid mach 2 speeds being well beyond it's loaded operational capacity.


with Mach 5 missiles so yes the T-160 will be shot down.


Sure some Tu-160's will be shot down...


Just to let you know, Every city in the U.S. is covered by air bases close to them.


Well that's how it should be but it is not true so i suggest you start lobbying your government to make it so.


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.


In a conventional war i think the US air force have a decent capacity to fight the Russian air force over Canada and the Northern US but there are not many Sam batteries( nothing like the amounts the Russian federation deploys) of either type available for such a defense so if the USAF fails to intercept these bombers things will go very badly very quickly.


Do you know that we have around a thousand interceptors here at home and even more overseas?


I am aware of that...


The only way the TU-160 is going to penetrate a modern air defense is to nuke its way in with cruise missiles,


If they tried to penetrate Russian air defenses they have little chance but then the US is not defended like Russia and given their capacity to simply run away they are not going to be as easy to intercept as you think.


Then all bets are off.
I would put money on the US Air Force any day of the week Vs any countries air force.


Well since your share of the US federal debt is around 40 000 USD (not counting state and all those other bubbles) you do not have money to put where your mouth is.



We have never lost yet!!!


Well if you keep attacking third world countries and keep building aircraft faster than they can shoot them down your are bound to keep winning. The problem with this reality is the fact that there are countries that can shoot down aircraft far faster than you can build them....

Stellar



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
You need to do more studying my friend, The Patriot has been upgraded allot since the first gulf war.


Right and that did not seem to help all that much in 2003:


Marines deployed north and east of the headquarters suddenly observe a low-flying missile passing overhead, pointed towards Kuwait in the direction of Camp Commando. IMEF’s air defense computer terminals display nothing out of the ordinary, and no Scud alert is sounded. Marines in the headquarters are astonished and surprised to hear the signature of a low-flying jet engine overhead, followed by the noise and concussion from a large warhead blast.
An Iraqi Seersucker antiship cruise missile converted into a land attack role has just missed decapitating IMEF by a mere one hundred yards. The missile, launched from the Faw peninsula, flew undetected and unengaged straight through the heart of an alert and robust U.S. theater air and missile defense system. Following this attack, the U.S. Marines maintained a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) of F/A-18s over the Faw peninsula for several days.
Fortunately, the cruise missile in this instance was armed with only a conventional warhead. Because of their payload capabilities and their inherent ability to fly over large swaths of land, land attack cruise missiles (LACM) are a platform optimized for the employment of chemical or biological weapons. Currently, such an attack would likely go undetected, preventing U.S. forces from donning protective equipment and taking shelter.
During OIF, five Chinese-built CSSC-3 “Seersucker” antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) were launched by Iraq against land targets in Kuwait. The attack described above was the first. A second attack, using two Seersucker cruise missiles on 28 March, was aimed at ships at the naval base of Kuwait City. One missile homed in on a radar reflector, the other on a seafront shopping center. Two Seersuckers were also launched on 31 March—one at the port at Umm Qasr and the other at troops at Safwan. Not a single one of these missiles was targeted or even detected in-flight.

www.jfsc.ndu.edu/current_students/documents_policies/documents/jca_cca_awsp/Cruise_Missile_Defense_Final.doc


But your right probably right that the system has been improved...


Israeli officials and experts agree that the Patriot failed in its military mission. The only debate in Israel is whether the Patriot hit one or none of the Scuds it attempted to intercept. Israeli officials tracked each Scud to the ground and thus had the craters to prove that the initial claims of
intercept success were false.

The Army claims, with varying degrees of confidence, that the Patriot Missile system destroyed 52 percent of the Scuds.The General Accounting Office does not share that confidence. Independent review of the evidence in support of the Army claims reveals that, using the Army’s own methodology and evidence, a strong case can be made that Patriots hit only 9 percent of the Scud warheads engaged, and there are serious questions about these few hits. (GAO Report: "Operation Desert Storm: Data Does Not Exist to

Conclusively Say How Well Patriot Performed, " September 1992, NSIAD 920340) The speed of the Scuds, he limitations of the Patriot missile system, and the confusion and targeting difficulties caused by the break-up of the Scud missile as it re-entered the atmosphere seem to have contributed to the high failure rate.

www.ceip.org...



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's VERY traceable and while it's a pretty good weapon against aircraft it's not so great at anything else and that it's unlikely that it's shortcomings can be 'fixed' by modifications.


It cant be jammed.


It can...


PAC 3 can take out ballistic, Cruise missiles and aircraft with ease.


Many systems can take out aircraft with ease but the Patriot has no proven capability against ballistic missiles or cruise missiles.


Every conflict the U.S. has been in since WW ll has been against Russian hardware and training,


So you think a professional boxer should practice on his wife? Do you realise that the numbers that were deployed by most countries the US fought invalidates most of the conditions&principles they were designed to operate in?


Even on occasion a few Russian pilots who met their maker.


Right!


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

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

www.acepilots.com...



To the previous poster who was talking about the P3 Orion. We are talking about strategic bombers here!!


We know...


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.


The foxbat/foxhound only had to replace it's engines when it engines normally went into runaway cycles at speeds exceeding Mach 2.8 and it's widely known that Mig-31 can and do make runs of 700 miles at a constant Mach 2.7. The Tu-160 specs are probably about as accurate as your knowledge of the B-2 is and if you wish to object to cited data for that plane i will start hassling you will all the data that contradicts some claims made by the B-2's PR firm.


All the United States aircraft are combat proven, Except the raptor yet after many war games people are begging to buy it.


And so are most Russian aircraft having served in third world air forces all around who fought the USAF head on inflicting casualties despite the overwhelming superiority in numbers and support platforms arrayed against them.


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.


And now your just nit-picking....

Stellar

[edit on 13-9-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Guys... obviously you aren't going to be able to defeat years of programing that have warped Sky Watcher's views. It's no accident that a large portion of the American public will sit around watching Future Weapons, whilst masturbating furiously and dreaming of bombs falling on far away countries that the know nothing about nor care to.

It's something that's been drilled into their heads since they were children.
Weapons = freedom
America = best
Critical thinking = bad

So please, give it up!
We can all see that Sky Watcher doesn't know what he's talking about, but we can also see that he has no interest in learning.
Can we please try to be on-topic for at least ONE PAGE?



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
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.


That's almost on topic.

I might point out that their bomb is still in the testing phases. Why waste thousands of dollars on guidance packages when you're just testing to see how much BOOM you can get outta the thing?



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Guys... obviously you aren't going to be able to defeat years of programing that have warped Sky Watcher's views. It's no accident that a large portion of the American public will sit around watching Future Weapons, whilst masturbating furiously and dreaming of bombs falling on far away countries that the know nothing about nor care to.


Since i can not ignore it that is the best i can come up with and if we split the workload i reckon we might get more of these guys to stop typing and start reading...


It's something that's been drilled into their heads since they were children.
Weapons = freedom
America = best
Critical thinking = bad


Since i don't see how unarmed people are more likely to be free than armed people. As to the second i find it hilarious (in this context at least) to point out how badly their armed forces have failed in so many wars before; maybe if they actually had some true history to work with critical thinking could be done?


So please, give it up!


And do what?


We can all see that Sky Watcher doesn't know what he's talking about, but we can also see that he has no interest in learning.
Can we please try to be on-topic for at least ONE PAGE?


He has a few ideas and at the very least he has to read over my responses before deciding to ignore them! What topic?


Stellar



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   
One heck of a millitary.

[edit] First Chechen War
Main article: First Chechen War
The First Chechen War occurred when Russian forces attempted to stop Chechnya from seceding in a two year period lasting from 1994 to 1996. Despite overwhelming manpower, weaponry and air support, the Russian forces were unable to establish effective control over the mountainous area due to many successful Chechen guerrilla raids. Widespread demoralization of the Russian forces in the area prompted Russian President Boris Yeltsin to declare a ceasefire in 1996 and sign a peace treaty a year later.

The war was disastrous for both sides. Conservative casualty estimates give figures of 7,500 Russian military dead, 4,000 Chechen combatants dead, and no fewer than 35,000 civilian deaths—a minimum total of 46,500 dead. Others have cited figures in the range 80,000 to 100,000.[5]

Talk about getting your ass kicked



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BitRaiser
 


I have laid out the numbers and the United States Air force is far Superior in every category. Stop jerking off that moose up there and you will see that.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


Look... I know this is hard for you to accept, and I realise that to someone who clearly idolises the United States the concept that the USA isn't actually all conquering is a difficult one but....

The USAF has never directly flown in combat against a modern military that is fully equipped with the latest technology at its disposal.

Never. Not in Korea, Not in Vietnam, Most certainly not in Greneda, or Yugoslavia, or Iraq. Don't buy the hype. The US has been the equivalent of the 300lb gorilla taking on the chimpanzee in all of those conflicts - taking on countries with little or no airpower and/or properly organised air forces.

Well maybe not the USAF, but the US Navy has - remember WWII and the battle for coral sea and the battle of midway? Military tactics and stragety isn't all inclusive of thats countries hardware. Not only does the US Have superior hardware, we have superior strategic and tactical minds using that hardware. We conqured in WWII against Nazi Germany and Japan, you don't think with superior technology and tactics we couldn't conquer Russia if it came down to it?



As such, it all looks a damn site easier than it is, and all your bold claims and proclamations mean nothing.


I think it means quite alot, frankly. The US Has a great history in warfare. Yeah we took some black eyes (iraq, vietnam) but we also helped saved the world. If it weren't for the United States in WWII, we may very well be speaking german/japanese instead of english. And thats not an exaggeration.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   

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


Its achieved by using a secret blend of vodka brewed from nano-potatoes with a dash of TNT




posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
And do what?

Stay on topic.


What topic?

"Russia Tests 'World's Most Powerful Non-Nuclear Bomb'".
Not hard to figure that one out... it's kinda listed at the top of the page 'n all.
I fail to see how any rational mind could manage to read that topic as "Russian vs US airforce pissing match".

That said...
On Topic:

How do you think these super powerful "conventional" weapons will impact warfare?
Seems to me that this will be yet another blow to ground armor/tanks. Large tank divisions are going to be very vulnerable to this sort of weapon, as will static bases, and fortified camps.

Seems that mobility stealth is going to be the order of the future for ground warfare.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   
the B-2 has the ability to detects the range and motion of all radar frequencies and then pilot around while at night to reduce visibility even more, it's radar crosssection even if, once again even if it was detected is smaller than a bumble bee. IT CAN PENETRATE DEEP INTO THE HEART OF RUSSIA CHINA OR ANYONE. dont forget bahgdad was the most heavily air defended city in the world at the start of gulf war one, yet we used at that time, 10 year old technology that was just publicly released.


This year alone we have 18$ billion in classified pentagon projects....we have no idea what we are capable of, let alone the 16 years after teh cold war and with moores law and all. THe US hands down can take the whole world at once if it wanted to and thats really no joke, we have the means the money and the no how to do it. we can feed our troops and supply them en mass with the very best we have to offer. what can china do but give rice and an AK-47 to its army, it doesnt have the means to feed and hold that massive of an army. WE DO.

All American factories would be converted to the war effort, our economy would freeze and if your not fighting ur building things that support it. lets not forget poeple we went in to WW2 as a very poor very weak nation, just barely starting to pull itself out from under the Great Depression.

Now we have the wealth, the technology, and the means to raise and maintain a highly sophisticated, highly advanced, superior war fighting machine. It bogglings my mind to here poeple say how weak we are, obviously they dont no there history and what the american poeple are capable of.

BTW anyone heard of Future Combat Systems. Imagine that on a massive US army, and the types of technologies we would develop to bring it to mass scale. I'm honeslty scared for other countries if they try to attack or declare war with us.

Even if the world turns on us economically, we are America, the poeple will unite and we wil get through by any means nessecery, everyone underestimates the US only because its been on such a high level of superiorty that it seems normal and average to the US population. We have been the worlds sole superpower economically and militarily for the past 16 years. Our name, America, symbolizes freedom, everyone knows it, Democracies dont go to war with each other, thats proven...



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Ok, I guess there's just no chance of this thread staying on topic... so let me add some fuel to the fire:

If you don't find that video impressive, there's something wrong with you.


While the US has been working on very expensive toys that rely on technology to get an advantage, Russia has been producing aircraft that are much more cost effective and focus on balls-out maneuverability.

That and I think Russian pilots are generally a little more nuts. Hehe, I've never seen an American pilot even attempt some of the stunts these guys are pulling off.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Saber rattling to the most extreme extent. I think they know we got sumptin' bad...re: the missile shield to be built in Poland, and they are pulling out the stops. IMHO



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Finally, there's video released of this new bomb doing what bombs generally do best... ah... go BOOM!

Perty good bang.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by BitRaiser
 


Oh wow, seriously, wow. My mouth was agape for the longest time.

What are those planes with the swept forward wings?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


SU-47s.

Don't get too excited, they're basically a proof of concept craft. The poof that Russian technology could do what American can't. The US attempted to build a similar craft way back, but they couldn't get it to fly. Aside from being a "so there", the SU-47 shows that an unstable aircraft with extreme attack on the wings can be built, flown, and do some damned impressive things.

I suspect that they'll be using what they learned to produce something even more interesting in the future.

BTW, the SU-30 is by far my favorite aircraft in the world. That's the bird you see doing things like back flips 'n extreme cobra stalls in that vid. They cost only a fraction of an F-22, yet are more maneuverable, can carry more payload, have a higher top speed... and are just fruggin cool.


Oh yeah, Russia has a lot of 'em, unlike the US's F-22s. They also sell 'em to China. I've even heard that Iran might have some of too.

Also, did you notice that they don't need a catapult to take off from aircraft carriers? They use the ol ski-jump launch because they've got better lift than even the F-18. F-22s aren't even deployed on carriers.

[edit on 14-9-2007 by BitRaiser]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by BitRaiser
 


Coolness. Thanks for the info. My country buys hardware from both the US and Russia, but I can see us buying more from Russia in the future because they accept palm oil as payment. Barter trade is good



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   
While we're on the subject...

The S-400

Kinda amusing to note the propaganda in that report.
It's funny to see the other side of the same damned coin. This has to be Russia's version of Fox.


It is a very impressive system, however. Note their claim that it can target and hit stealth craft.

[edit on 14-9-2007 by BitRaiser]



new topics




 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join