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 ‘Had Laser Cannons Before U.S.’

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Russia never did have a inercontinental bomber until the 80's, plus they were usually behind when it came to aircraft, nuclear, and even electronic warfare. But its not impossible to say that they were behind when it came to lasers. After all, they kept the Ak-47 a secret until that rebellion in hungry, I think, when the west was suprise at the new weapon. So it shouldn't be a suprise that they hid a laser from the west too. Also they were the first country that I'm aware of that didn't have to aim the nose of there fighter jets to launch a missle. I believe now is to comfirm the events to people who saw the laser in use, like in China. That should comfrim the story.




posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
WHAT YOU PROOVE IS THAT all YOU CAN DO IS TELL US TO TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT, SCINCE YOU CAN'T PROVIDE THE SOURCES THAT PROOVE RUSSIA IS BEHIND IN WEAPONS SYSTEM!!

AND AGAIN


[edit on 28-7-2008 by Lambo Rider]



Well, you have provided no proof that Russia is superior in anything. It swings both ways. What we do know that what the US has in service is superior in most regards to anything the Russians have. As weapons are becoming more and more high-tech the ability to pack more and more computing power into smaller and smaller spaces is the domain of the US, hence allowing the US to spearhead high-tech weapons.

You know Lambo Rider you have never provided proof of anything, you ust jump onto someone elses argument. Why don't you do some research for once. U lying sack of sh!@@# go back at my posts on this stupid thread and READ you lying sack of sh!@#@$#!!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
U lying sack of sh!@@# go back at my posts on this stupid thread and READ you lying sack of sh!@#@$#!!!!!!!


I have, you provide nothing to the conversation except insults
How anyone can take you seriously.......ahh that's right they don't. Poor kid, I really do feel sorry for you.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
U lying sack of sh!@@# go back at my posts on this stupid thread and READ you lying sack of sh!@#@$#!!!!!!!


I have, you provide nothing to the conversation except insults
How anyone can take you seriously.......ahh that's right they don't. Poor kid, I really do feel sorry for you.
This is the first time in my posts on this thread that I have posted anything that can be constude as insults, which prooves your LYING!!.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by Lambo Rider]



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lambo Rider

This is the first time in my posts on this thread that I have posted anything that can be constude as insults, which prooves your LYING!!.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by Lambo Rider]


It saddens me to see how bad the eduction has become with this generation. People can't seem to distinguish the right use of your or you're ( you are ). For your information you should use you're not your. I bet if I go back through your posts, that you don't know how to use they're, their or there.
If you weren't so dimwitted I'd be annoyed at your insults, but I can't but help feel sorry for you.

Also proves is spelt with one "o" not "oo". Did you sound that word out ?




posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by sirbikesalot06
 


sorry but your wrong here:

the Myasishchev M4-3M `Bison B` had air to air refueling and a range (without fueling) of 11,000km`s and that was in 1956

and how could you forget THE airbourne icon that to many was the `red threat`

the TU-95RT `Bear-D`

designed as a long range nuclear bomber - like the B52 it has evolved into many many roles - the Bear-D being the fear of a carrier group commander , as following would be the backfires and badgers of soviet naval aviation.

first flew in 1952



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Sentiments which will probably be lost on many so let me do a 'real' response instead

[edit on 29-7-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Lambo Rider

This is the first time in my posts on this thread that I have posted anything that can be constude as insults, which prooves your LYING!!.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by Lambo Rider]


It saddens me to see how bad the eduction has become with this generation. People can't seem to distinguish the right use of your or you're ( you are ). For your information you should use you're not your. I bet if I go back through your posts, that you don't know how to use they're, their or there.
If you weren't so dimwitted I'd be annoyed at your insults, but I can't but help feel sorry for you.

Also proves is spelt with one "o" not "oo". Did you sound that word out ?

I see your tactic is to try and talk about some spelling errors as YOU see it, and by doing this you'll slowly get people'a attention off of what I was saying about "my posts"
You've just been EXPOSED,
get outta here LOSSER!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
I see your tactic is to try and talk about some spelling errors as YOU see it, and by doing this you'll slowly get people'a attention off of what I was saying about "my posts"
You've just been EXPOSED,
get outta here LOSSER!!!!!!!!!!


Yes exposing your intelligence. BTW it isn't looser it is loser. What about your posts ? I don't think anyone really bothers to read them, sorry.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
I noticed the dates all were in the mid to late 80's, now the reason why this is significant is: This does not indicate that the US is behind today, and, let us consider the fact that the soviet union collapsed in '89-'91, a time where the US was far outspending the USSR, and had alot of lobbyist in washington.


The dates are mostly in the 80's because that was the time when the cold war become quite hot, in my opinion, the Reagan administration desperately tried to catch up to the USSR's lead in both strategic and conventional weaponry; the 'liberation' of Kuwait and invasion of Iraq was the result of almost a decade worth of investment. I am still mystified as to how that 'outspending' was measured and what it really means if the USSR were building many more planes, tanks, submarines and almost everything else in the same period that they were so badly 'outspent'. More interestingly where is the evidence that the quantity that were produced in the USSR were inferior by margins wide enough to necessarily lead to defeat in the combined arms war that was bound to take place on European battlefields?


The reason why I bring this up is because the CIA was accused of overestimating the Soviet threat to justify a higher military budget. (Note the date the article was published, 1990.


Sure the CIA were accused of overestimating but who did it and for what purposes? How was the estimation that wrong when you could count the tanks and aircraft/submarines in 1990 and 1991? Have i not in the past provided you with half a dozen major instances where the CIA knowingly falsified data, or were proven wrong, to suggest that the USSR were weaker than they knew to tbe the truth? Weren't the DIA persistently closed to the truth with their projections and didn't their estimation turn out to be more accurate when both countries reduced their capabilities in the early 90's?


The reason why this is significant contrast to your arguments which were published from the mid to late 80's is because it speaks of overestimating the Soviet Union on false pretense. The article below is a fair example of this, when confronted with the source I've provided, which I feel further scrutinizes your article which was published in 1986.)


Plenty of allegations were made on both sides and while i respect the logic that the CIA might have been overestimating the strategic threat, such as they surely were back in the late 40''s to early 60's, i have investigated and found the claims to be at best inaccurate and at worse plainly false.


So, can you disprove rather or not this was a gross overestimation by the US Gov. considering the fact the CIA openly overestimated the USSR to extrapolate more funds from US taxpayers?


In my opinion i already did and if you can't find the thread on ATS i will just have to go dig it up. That being said much money were in fact being wasted and a competitive defense could throughout the entire cold war have been staged without ever coming lose to the volumes that were invested without significantly affecting the balance of power.

Would like to change some of the claims/opinions but for the sake of consistence you can take a look at what i have said on record.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...&colorshift=yes&colorshift=yes&colorshift=yes

[quote[ Heres another source which speaks of overestimation of the Soviet Union by the CIA.

Unless your willing to discuss each claim in detail, instead of relying on summations by others, i don't think you have much reason to question my specific counter claims.

If you want i can just add a few articles such as the following;

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



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...


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


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...


That's the type of stuff you will find when you start digging and it really just goes on and on the deeper you look.


The youtube video does not support your biased view, so it must be wrong, however, do proceed to tell me how and why you think the former program director of Los Alamos, Ret. Colonel John Alexander, is wrong.
(The youtube video was actually a documentary that was on BBC.)


I must apologise for not having yet watched it and i hope to do so early next month. I am most certainly not set against the notion that the US could have managed to achieve superior ground based lasers in the 90's and all i wish to make clear is that something else must have happened in between to not only allow the USSR the strategic freedom to completely reform it's economic model while reduce it's military expenditures but to also largely negate the effectiveness of the newly deployed US DEW's. I don't know if this is due to Russian weapons on the Moon, hundreds of deployed FOBS that has somehow been maintained, hidden super weapons as per my Tesla theories or just some combination of these. What i will keep pointing out is how the US economy is slowly being destroyed while the Russian federation and it's economic allies prospers.

I for one don't believe that the Bush regime would pointlessly impoverish the American people if they could enrich both themselves and their 'voters' but as always their interests comes first and we should investigate how the US have lost the preeminence that allowed both it's corporations and people to prosper in middle decades of the past century.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Good finds Manson, but this article is talking about some aircraft-mounted design nonetheless a completely different challenge. And according to the Russian representative, fully operational in 1972, I would be more inclined to believe this if it was in the 80's but 1972 seems a bit of a stretch in my opinion.



Images of a distant, Buck-Rogersian future. But military lasers date back to the Vietnam War, when they were first used to guide bombs to their targets. Targeting lasers don't pack any punch, but even then the Pentagon was funding research into high-energy lasers that would destroy rather than "designate" targets. Army and Navy lasers began shooting down small missiles and unmanned aircraft in limited late-1970s tests and the programs accelerated in the next decade under Star Wars. But it wasn't until the mid-1990s that laser tracking and control systems became accurate enough for reliable weapons.

Kornilov points out a laser reflector but gives no information on any scientific experiments using it. He also states that personnel on ships, aircraft and the ground were to take part in experiments with Polyus. It appears they were to attempt to target the platform by radar, infra-red and visible light, and when the platform was detected they were to fire at it with lasers. If the laser hit the platform, the mirror would reflect it back to Earth, and thus the platform's stealthiness could be tested without making radio transmissions. Earlier launch pad photos showed that the Polyus was covered by an optically black shroud and it is suspected that this may have been radar absorptive as well.

www.stratmag.com...



In 1983 flight trials of the approximately 60t laser device commenced on an Ilyushin Il-76MD heavylift transport. At the same time research was being carried out on the propagation of laser beams in the atmosphere.

Starting at the end of the 1960s, the Russians also developed ground-based nuclear laser systems for combating spacecraft. Unlike the American x-ray lasers, they could be used several times over. The programme was terminated after the USSR announced a unilateral moratorium on trials of the space defence system and the puzzling deaths of the two project managers in the mid-1980s.

The mobile Pamir-SU electro-generator, with an output of 15MW and a mass of around 20t, could supply power to long-range lasers and ultra-high-frequency weapon systems. It could be used both on the Earth and also in space. In 1994/1995 this equipment was sold to the USA.

www.flug-revue.rotor.com...


If what's unclassified says 1982 then 1972 isn't all that much of a stretch in my opinion. That being said i am one of those guys who believe that these types of things can in fact largely be kept secret just like planes such as the F-117 were. In fact if the USSR says i managed to do something then and we can clearly do it today i have little reason to think they couldn't have kept the secret by killing whoever they had to.


The fact that the US has only just recently developed an airborne laser weapon suggests to me it was simply not feasible or possible any earlier.


I think it's common to confuse what is disclosed today with what is possible today and i think it's a BIG mistake. I am fairly confident that both countries deployed direct energy weapons back in the 70's and that the cold war wasn't cold because no one got hurt but because battle's were fought were we couldn't see them by people who couldn't go 'missing in action' for lack of their official existence. If we one day start fully exploring the moon i wouldn't be surprised if we found the remnants of past battles....


Either that or they're hiding more from us than we thought.


I am confident that the US has plenty of advanced weaponry itself and that the cold war wasn't lost due to some kind of inability on the US side to develop technologies or implement weapons. The US were undermined from the inside out and it's politics and policy that allowed the USSR to gain the vast lead it had attained by the mid 80's.


And the Russians trailed in the US is just about about every high-tech weapons department.


Lets say they did? How would you explain the massive disparity in arms and armaments that so strongly favored the USSR by the mid 80s'?


They simply didn't have the luxury of resources to spend on projects which may not actually develop realistic, practical weaponary.


Please refer to the air defense system that were designed for Moscow post world war two to begin to form a understanding of what they could and did do to attempt a defense. It's a fascinating subject in itself despite the fact that the system were rendered largely obsolete before it could be completely despite the expenditure of a very substantial portion of the USSR's GNP.


Lasers are still far from practical to be used on the field, which why the necessity of mounting them onto huge weapons frames like planes or ships; the power requirement has still yet to be solved in an effective and compact manner.


It doesn't look to me like your actually reading the sources? Why do you believe they are far from practical when they have been in relative open use for a decade with large enough generators being quite a bit older? What exactly is the technological hang up in your opinion and what do you think is happening behind closed doors given what we are allowed to see?

Stellar



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
Stellar may be your hero, but he is not nearly as smart as he thinks (or you think).


What i consider myself is knowledgable and as i actually worked/learned and have never depended on some notion of 'inherent' smarts to get my information and opinions accross.


Which is far more sensible when referring to a discussion about Russia.


As opposed to your basic idea that everything Russian must be somehow useless?


As can no one prove or disprove the Claims of Gary McKinnon (And he has some interesting one's in regards to the US
).


Yes he does and i do not have much reason to doubt that both sides are engaging in combat with a host of secret weaponry in orbit and even on the moon.


Only if the Ret. colonel John Alexander (former program direcetor of LOS ALAMOS) is not "reliable" enough evidence for you...


Everyone in such a post should have his voice heard.


What is funny is, people like you are actually unaware of how screwed up the Soviet era military was (Along with their accounting practices).


Sure it was dysfunctional in the same way that the US army in Vietnam was. People do not want to be drafed and train for a war they don't want to fight! What i fail to understand is how people such as yourself have managed to ignore all the achievements that they did make and how many cheap and effective weapon systems they deployed. As post war tests have shown their usage of reactive armor gave them very considerable advantage in the 80's which were only discovered after the fact. The effectiveness of the Mig-23 and other interceptor aircraft such as the Mig-31 and 25 were only appreciated long after the fact. It's hard to believe that all that technology and numbers can be dismissed when a far more comparatively inferior force managed to destroy possibly the most effective fighting force the modern world has seen.


It is not possible, as the soviet union collapsed as result of the 'illusion' they tried to attain/maintain.


The USSR did not 'collapse' as there were almost no bloodshed. If there as ever been a engineered 'fall' that was it. No one predicted it because there was absolutely no logical reason to expect such a thing to happen. You wont find a western analyst in the 80's that seriously suggested that the USSR would give up it's empire without many shots fired or without a world war. You wont find such a person because it's a insultingly stupid argument to make.


The US could easily spend 5-6% of GDP and far out spend the soviet union, (The US had a GDP more then 10x that of the soviet union at the time. The Soviet defense budgets were less than half the size of the American ones.) let us not forget of the brain drain to the United States that occurred at that time period either.


The US could have spent more but as it was it spent an average of at least 7.5% of GNP.

www.cato.org...

I am not sure if veterans affairs are included or all the 'aid' to third world countries to build up their military forces either; i wouldn't be surprised if the true number approachs or exceeds 15-20%. THis is all based on the presumption that GNP is a meaningfull number for comparison.


The US had the brains, as well as the money to out compete the soviet union.


In theory it absolutely did and yet it didn't manage to as the last thirty odd years have proved with the US economy spinning out of control ever faster.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
I have no reason to disbelieve the Russian's standpoint, after all the first working laser that could operate at room temperature was created by the Russians (read up about Zhores Alferov) but nevertheless that seems a bit hard to swallow.

10 years after the first working laser (1960) is made they had mounted them onto planes and had a suitable, portable powerplant that produced enough wattage so it could take down missiles?

You only need to take a look at the Boening YAL-1 to realise that's quite a feat, not only do you a require a huge airframe to mount this thing on (Boeing 747) you need immense power.



That thing is basically one huge chemical tank full of propellant with a massive diode on the nose.

Mmmm, bit of a stretch in 1972.
In fact I think the only airframe they could of mounted this on in the 70's was the "Bear" (Tupolev Tu-95) and that thing is 20 metres shorter than a 747 and has even less load capacity (about 170,000kg compared to 190,000kg).

So again, maybe they should release a few photographs or something because that really would have been a stunning achievement.

Note also this comes from a Russian paper. We all know how the Russians love to toot their own horn.


[edit on 24/7/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]


oh stop it
im assuming yoy rather hear it from an american point of view lol. The russians are more then capable to create anything wether you like it or not.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirbikesalot06
Russia never did have a inercontinental bomber until the 80's, plus they were usually behind when it came to aircraft, nuclear, and even electronic warfare. But its not impossible to say that they were behind when it came to lasers. After all, they kept the Ak-47 a secret until that rebellion in hungry, I think, when the west was suprise at the new weapon. So it shouldn't be a suprise that they hid a laser from the west too. Also they were the first country that I'm aware of that didn't have to aim the nose of there fighter jets to launch a missle. I believe now is to comfirm the events to people who saw the laser in use, like in China. That should comfrim the story.


they were never behind in electronics.. and also never behind in aircraft or nuclear. Thats called western bias my dear friend...they post things on the web with no proof coming up with unfactual evidence that relates irrelevent things to the soviet union. the west had the largest propaganda machine in the world...many articles regarding the soviet union were nagative and bias false information. even when the russians put up their first satelite the american press reduced its significance by saying its not better still lol.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Saying something is better or worse with no factual basis negates the entire point of the post, in my opinion.

-Iblis



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Russians have no = when they claim to have done something first. Every major scientific discovery in the world since the Communists took power, through their fall and up to today. I am sure you can find Russians that will tell you they did it first.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
this is funny statement as most of my sources are scientific journals like federation of american scientists(fas),flug-revue(german scientific journal)


Your sources from FAS in fact aren't reliable. They are all quotes from the DIA yearly assessment in the 80's of Soviet Military Power (SMP). In fact many of the things reported in there never existed. I have proved conclusively to stellarx that these reports were grossly overinflated to boost the budget of the US military under Reagan. Simple as that, those reports are completely unrealiable.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Your sources from FAS in fact aren't reliable.


Not all for sure. FAS is most certainly not always accurate but for the most part it just isn't always up to date.


They are all quotes from the DIA yearly assessment in the 80's of Soviet Military Power (SMP). In fact many of the things reported in there never existed.


Such as? You can name just one...


I have proved conclusively to stellarx that these reports were grossly overinflated to boost the budget of the US military under Reagan.


Regan never needed a incentive to boost reactionary spending and he would have done it with or without knowledge of the fact that the USSR had by the late 70's reached a position where they had notable strategic advantages. Reagan may have tried to 'save' American by trying to catch up to the USSR ( which the US didn't even if it narrowed the gap somewhat) but it's more probably that he just spent money because that is what being a friend of industrialist logically leads to.

As for the reports being 'grossly' overinflated they are in some respect as related to some weapons but in other areas they were severely underestimating or classing weapons as non strategic when they were.


Simple as that, those reports are completely unrealiable.


Like all things written by mere human beings you should work from multiple sources and inspect your previous claims with the knowledge hindsight allows. The team B reports were over estimations but the overestimation where not larger than the team A reports underestimated and generally obscured developments in the USSR. Team B's estimation where closer to the GDP spending the USSR were in fact allocating towards a military buildup; not something we could have known without the later opening of records.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Thomas1016
 


the russians were the first to do many things.. its in their history..... this isnt propaganda like the United States. the russians did invent many things that we use today. the americans are the bias ones here.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RussiaUSA
reply to post by Thomas1016
 


the russians were the first to do many things.. its in their history..... this isnt propaganda like the United States. the russians did invent many things that we use today. the americans are the bias ones here.


Ahem and just what did you invent that we use today ? It's obvious what America has invented and produced, what has Russia ?

And yes the Russians are masters of propaganda.




top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join