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 could destroy NATO ships in 20 mins: Admiral

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





I see this claimed, but it is BS. Electronic shielding was an easy solution to this problem. If the USSR had known what they were doing, they would have known this, but having worked with Russian electronic Engineers, this was something they just weren't aware of. The integrated circuit, the microprocessor, put the U.S decades ahead of the Soviets, and the rest of the world for that matter. Having worked in Aerospace for several years, I know a little about the subject. Computer controlled electronics greatly enhance instrumentation and controls to a degree that few can appreciate


seems you have no understanding in soviet theory and you spout BS around ....

Even if the pulse is not powerful enough to produce thermal damage, the power supply in the equipment will readily supply enough energy to complete the destructive process. Wounded devices may still function, but their reliability will be seriously impaired. Shielding electronics by equipment chassis provides only limited protection, as any cables running in and out of the equipment will behave very much like antennae, in effect guiding the high voltage transients into the equipment.




I see this claimed, but it is BS. Electronic shielding was an easy solution to this problem.

seems you don't understand the how electric EMP weapons operate do you... and you do not understand the problem of shielding communications and sensor electronics and the costs involved in solid state electronics ,which is not a problem in thermonic vaccuum tube electronics

Even if the pulse is not powerful enough to produce thermal damage, the power supply in the equipment will readily supply enough energy to complete the destructive process. Wounded devices may still function, but their reliability will be seriously impaired. Shielding electronics by equipment chassis provides only limited protection, as any cables running in and out of the equipment will behave very much like antennae, in effect guiding the high voltage transients into the equipment.
www.ausairpower.net...

by the way , check page 7,para2 of above xternal source document , on the resilience of therminoic computer tech(vaccuum tubes) in comparsion to solid state equipment

also read on the problems with shielding and hardening electronics from a CIA document ...



Defence against EM Bombs

In any future war our defence forces are going to face some kind of EM weapons and it would be necessary to pay attention towards the defence against this emerging threat of the future. No air defence system could provide total safety from air attacks and therefore those systems that could suffer probable damage by such a new menace must be electro magnetically hardened.

Faraday Caging could be one method of this hardening process. Cage the entire system in an electrically conductive atmosphere to avoid being exposed to electromagnetic radiation. This can prevent the electromagnetic field from gaining access to the protected equipment. But that would be next to impossible and certain amount of damage cannot be ruled out because the equipment would have to breathe and maintain contact with the outside world. This will give it away and its protective shield. To ensure better security the lines entering the equipment could be fed through an arrester. 18

Limitation of Hardening

There is no doubt that system hardening is an absolute must to avoid damage to any part of the electromagnetic equipment. But hardening has its limitations. Conceptually the E weapon menace is at its infancy, as such no one really knows whether equipment can be hardened totally or some part will remain vulnerable to electromagnetic attack. And if one part gets affected, what would happen to the equipment as a whole? Considering this futuristic threat, the newer generation equipments could be hardened to an extent at certain cost. But it would be next to impossible to harden the older equipment. The damage is sustained mainly by the wounding semi-conductors and as such the equipment does not get destroyed completely and may keep on working intermittently, which would be more disturbing than a complete breakdown.
www.ciaonet.org...




Electromagnetic field strength achievable at a certain distance from the application would be the prime consideration. Vacuum tube equipment based on Thermionic technology is extremely resilient to the electromagnetic weapons effect than solid-state technology. Therefore a weapon designed to destroy solid state computers and receivers, may cause little damage to a thermionic device. Early 1960 Soviet equipment falls in this category.
www.ciaonet.org...






Having worked in Aerospace for several years, I know a little about the subject.


and wheres the proof for it ..... qualifications??? degrees ??

lol, the only thing you are good at is Islam bashing .... do us favour and go back islam bashing , so that intellectuals can have laughs over your posts ...

[edit on 7-9-2008 by manson_322]




posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by maloy
Those who understand how nuclear weapons and mutual destruction "works" know that ABM won't change much. The biggest deterrent to any use of nuclear weapons - is the other side's nuclear weapons.


Mutual destruction doesn't work any more than it did in the second world war when the British government departments prepared for a million casualties ( death certificates, etc) as it was believed that bombers would always get trough. As it was Britain didn't suffer a million casualties in the entire war despite bombardment of various types going on for years. The same is very much true for nuclear weapons as standard 'math' involves calculations based on everyone standing in their street outside their homes with black clothes, no warning and no preparation of any kind. When people make second world war type air raid shelters and stock food enough for a few months casualties immediately falls by 80- 90% presuming that civilians are the direct target of nuclear strikes.

ABM defenses were demonstrated to work in both the US and USSR in the early 60's:


First Soviet anti-ballistic missile system. Development began in 1956 and the system was tested at Sary Shagan 1960 to 1961. It was clear that enormous development work was needed to achieve an operational anti-ballistic missile system. Therefore work began on the successor A-35 system, although the Americans were led to believe that an operational system was deployed around Moscow. The System A anti-ballistic missile equipped with the V-1000 rocket made the first intercept and destruction in the world using a conventional warhead of an intermediate range ballistic missile warhead coming in at 3 km/s on 4 May 1961. The US did not demonstrate an equivalent capability until 1984 .

On 4 March 1961 the V-1000 achieved a world first - the destruction of the re-entry vehicle of an R-12 IRBM. This was followed by the destruction of an R-5 re-entry vehicle. In all, there were 11 launches with military warheads, plus launches of developmental warheads. The S2TA variant used an infrared-homing self-guiding high-explosive warhead and was designed by Storozhenko at the GOI State Optical Institute in Lengingrad. It was capable not only of determining the moment for warhead detonation, but also was capable of guiding the anti-ballistic missile independently using an on-board computer. The R2TA version used a radio-guided explosive warhead, with two types of proximity fuses used to determine the correct moment for warhead detonation. These were the G2TA, a radio ranging system, developed by Bondarenko and an optical system, developed by Emdin at GOI. Flight tests of the V-1000 with a nuclear warhead designed at Chelyabinsk-70 were also carried out.

As the anti-ballistic missile system reached maturity, a range of anti-ballistic missile countermeasures deployed by the incoming missiles challenged it. These included Verba (inflated decoy warheads); Kaktus (an anti-radar system that generated false targets on the anti-ballistic missile system radars); and Krot (an active jammer). Operation K (including live nuclear-armed target and interceptor missile exercises K1 through K5) tested the effects of nuclear explosions at altitudes of 80 to 300 km on the ability of the anti-ballistic missile system to function. System A demonstrated its ability to continue operation despite the nuclear detonations, although the tests were primarily conducted to obtain scientific data for the design of the next generation of anti-ballistic missiles. At the end of 1961 KB-1 and SKB-30 were transferred to OKB-301 and dedicated to full-time anti-ballistic missile work. In 1966 the developers of System A received the Lenin Prize for their work.

www.astronautix.com...



Bell's proposal would have to deal with bombers flying at 500 mph (800 km/h) or more at altitudes of up to 60,000 ft (20,000 m). At these speeds, even a supersonic rocket is no longer fast enough to be simply aimed at the target. The missile must "lead" the target to ensure it hits it before it runs out of fuel. This means that the missile and target cannot be tracked in a single radar, increasing the complexity of the system. One part was well developed. By this point, the US had considerable experience with lead-calculating analog computers, starting with the British Kerrison Predictor and a series of increasingly capable U.S. designs.

For Nike, three radars were used. The acquisition radar searched for a target to be handed over to the Target Tracking Radar (TTR) for tracking. The Missile Tracking Radar (MTR) tracked the missile by way of a transponder, as the missile's radar signature alone was not sufficient. The MTR also commanded the missile by way of Pulse-position modulation, the pulses were received, decoded and then amplified back for the MTR to track. Once the tracking radars were locked the system was able to work automatically following launch, barring any unexpected occurrences. The computer compared the two radars directions, along with information on the speeds and distances, to calculate the intercept point and steer the missile. The entirety of this system was provided by the Bell System's electronics firm, Western Electric.

Some small-scale work to use Nike Zeus as an anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) was carried out from 1962 until the project was cancelled in favor of Thor based systems in 1966. In the end, neither development would enter service. However, the Nike Zeus system did demonstrate a hit-to-kill capability against ballistic missiles in the early 1960s. See National Missile Defense and anti-ballistic missile systems.

en.wikipedia.org...



All ABM does is add instability to the equation.


Human existence is 'unstable' ( we get sick) and freedom from tyrannical and well armed opressors far more so. It is good to have a very potent sword or be able to fire arrows accurate to long ranges but there is a reason why soldiers armor themselves in as much defensive garb as they can afford. A good defense enable's a good defense as it provides the security that proper consideration of options allows for.


A truly capable ABM system is extremely expensive - no less expensive than the money it takes the other side to build more ICBMs to overcome it.


In theory possibly but the moment the enemy starts to prepare active defenses , especially the mobile variety, a multitude of uncertainties are introduced for enemies in terms of warhead allocations. Since the USSR's ABM defenses have been largely mobile since the introduction of the Sa-2 it has always lead to wealth of uncertainties for the US strategists.

How one can choose not to wear body armor because the enemy might start to deploy better armor piercing bullets is obviously no better explained than why one should not attempt a defense against nuclear weapons.


So the ABM system will not lead to any safety or security - it will only lead to further ICBM production and development.


Apparently not so as the Russians keep deploying more ABM defense systems while the American warheads keep declining...

Stellar



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mazzroth
I'm all for not ignoring the Russian military might but there is one thing to consider here, they have done business scaring the rest of the World over the 50+ years of the Cold War with empty painted pipes passed off as Nuclear Missiles paraded in front of the World on Lenin's Day.


Where do people such as yourself come up with this sort of thing when post cold war inspections revealed that they had more nuclear warheads and missiles than presumed?


They are the masters of Bluff and I would not totally discount the possibility that they have nothing in the order of what they claim. You only have to read Pravda ( Russian Propaganda Rag ) to realize they are in the business of deceiving the "West" by which ever means possible.


Sure they were masters of that and that's why so many in the west believes that Russia today is weak (or were in the 90's ) when they are still quite capable of wrecking the same devastation as at the height of the cold war.


Deception is their biggest weapon and sadly there are Major powers that know this but feel they can justify massive Arms Spending ( not needed ) to offset Soviet Claimed weaponry.


Or invaded other countries based on entirely false premises.... If you can show me the nature of the massive 'overestimation' of Soviet capabilities i will mail you as many cookies as you might like.


The Defense Contractors are in on this scam as they benefit financially and the poor dumbed down public suffers with a fair percentage of Public money going into Military spending and not Hospitals for the Elderly.


Absolutely. The American taxpayer is not only being milked into oblivion by the military industrial complex but not getting like the capabilities and defenses they could have had had Pentagon policy makers been interested in arming Americans for national self defense.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


Obviously you know nothing about electronic shielding, or thermal conduction. Shielded wiring has been around a long time, and it is quite easy to test the effectiveness of shielding. By the way, a great many of the top scientists and developers never had a degree. Never underestimate field experience. Sorry, but you don't need any information about my background.

Yeah, the Soviets have always disagreed with the kill ratio numbers, but then again, they claimed the MIG 25 was a mach 3 aircraft. Kill ratios in Vietnam over Soviet aircraft dropped down to a 1 to 1 ratio for awhile, but simply adding a cannon allowed the F4 kill ratios to climb back up above 10 to one. You might also want to look into when the SR-72 was built, and its obvious superiority.

Here is a decent reference.

books.google.com... n&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA105,M1

The U.S. miscalculated with the F4, but small changes returned high kill ratios for U.S. forces, and once the F-14, F-15, and F-16 were developed, the Soviets had nothing to compete.

The biggeset undeniable point is the Soviets inability to keep up with the U.S. in computer technology. This is the 500 pound gorilla you are trying to ignore.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





Obviously you know nothing about electronic shielding, or thermal conduction. Shielded wiring has been around a long time, and it is quite easy to test the effectiveness of shielding.


lol, wheres the proof for your BS you spout



Shielded wiring has been around a long time, and it is quite easy to test the effectiveness of shielding.

quit dancing around , and tell me how solid state technology is more resilient to thermonic technology and how will you fully shield communications and sensor part of equipment from EMP damage


Even if the pulse is not powerful enough to produce thermal damage, the power supply in the equipment will readily supply enough energy to complete the destructive process. Wounded devices may still function, but their reliability will be seriously impaired. Shielding electronics by equipment chassis provides only limited protection, as any cables running in and out of the equipment will behave very much like antennae, in effect guiding the high voltage transients into the equipment.

do you even know what virtual cathode ray oscillator is ....




By the way, a great many of the top scientists and developers never had a degree. Never underestimate field experience. Sorry, but you don't need any information about my background

so you are implicitly proving you have no knowledge you have




, but then again, they claimed the MIG 25 was a mach 3 aircraft.


soviet never made that BS claim , it was the Israelis who made that claim , as they consistently failed to intercept mig-25 with their F-4 and hawk SAM batteries




Kill ratios in Vietnam over Soviet aircraft dropped down to a 1 to 1 ratio for awhile, but simply adding a cannon allowed the F4 kill ratios to climb back up above 10 to one.


again(10-1 ratio) this is disagreed upon by vietnamese sources in relation to f-4 , but yes, they do admit that F-8 crusader fighter was a terror for even experienced vietnamese fighter pilots because of manuverability in dogfights (f-8 managed to get 7:1 kill ratio agianst Mig-17 and mig-21) ....




You might also want to look into when the SR-72 was built, and its obvious superiority.
SR-72 is project 'blackswift' , a future hypersonic recon craft project of DARPA, no Sr-72 has been built ....




Here is a decent reference.

from your source:


he mission:Become the most skilled, highly-trained, and deadliestfighter pilots in the world.The place: TOP GUN In the darkest days of the Vietnam War, the U.S. Navy's kill ratio had fallen to 2:1 -- a deadly decline in pilot combat effectiveness. To improve the odds, a corps of hardened fighter pilots founded the Fighter Weapons School, a.k.a. TOP GUN. Utilizing actual enemy fighter planes in brutally realistic dogfights, the Top Gun instructors dueled their students and each other to achieve a lethal new level of fighting expertise.

which talks about change of tactics of USAF and the Topgun program to train fighter pilots and not about technology .....




and once the F-14, F-15, and F-16 were developed, the Soviets had nothing to compete.

lol, enter the Mig-31 with its extremely powerful Zaslon radar to deal with F-15 and F-14 threat.... even today , Mig-31(Mig-31BM version) is regarded as second best in BVR engagement capability ,F-22 being the first,



F-16 is a point defence fighter , like mig-23 and mig-29





The biggeset undeniable point is the Soviets inability to keep up with the U.S. in computer technology. This is the 500 pound gorilla you are trying to ignore.

yes, lack in microprocessor speed tech , do you know how soviet scientists compensated for that .....

by Data linking , superior logic and Networking

from Boris Babain , former soviet supercomputer scientist:



Mr. Babaian is justifiably proud of his engineering team's work for the Russian government. "Beginning in the mid-'50s, our team designed the most powerful Soviet computers, many of which are still in use in our space program and defense applications," he says. What the Elbrus supercomputers lacked in chip density, he explains, was compensated for by superior logic design.
www.thocp.net...

also Boris Babaiain was the designer of superscalar CPU architecture system , which was first used in soviet computer Elbrus ..


In the 1970s, as chief architect he produced the first superscalar computer, the Elbrus-1. Using these computers in 1978, ten years before commercial applications appeared in the West, the Soviet Union developed its missile systems and its nuclear and space programs.
en.wikipedia.org...


in fact, intel and other US computer hired Mr.boris to incorporate the superscalar CPU tech in their computers
superscalar microprocessor architectures that enable more than one instruction to be executed per clock cycle. Nearly all modern microprocessors, including the Pentium, PowerPC, Alpha, and SPARC microprocessors are superscalar.
the first superscalar computer was the soviet Elbrus-1
en.wikipedia.org...

by the way, according to Mr.Babaian, by late 80's , soviets had developed a better computer than western computer tech ....


he Elbrus-1 and Elbrus-2 supercomputers the firm developed were a mainstay of the Soviet military and parts of the public sector. But Elbrus-3, reputed to have been twice as fast as the Western competition, never made it to market because of the collapse of the Soviet state. In that machine, Babaian claims to have pioneered a number of techniques that are only now beginning to be exploited by Western firms, including the use of VLIW very long instruction word techniques that are a feature of Merced. Babaian is now proposing to utilize those techniques, among others, to make an "Intel-ki ller" microprocessor he calls the E2k that can emulate both the Intel x86 and its next generation IA-64 instruction set in silicon, while outperforming anything that Intel can offer. Using a 0.18 micron process and a clock speed of 1.2GHz, the chip will run at 135 SPECint95 and 350 SPECfp95, says Babaian, and use only 126 mm square of silicon and 35 watts of power. The Microprocessor Report estimates that, using the same process, Merced would clock at 800MHz and deliver 45 SPECint95 and 70 SPECfp95, on 300mm square of silicon and 60 watts of power. Merced, however, is thought to be a year ahead of the E2k in the development cycle. The key, says Babaian is binary compilation, a technique most visibly used to date by Digital Equipment Corp in its FZ32 emulation product, which runs Intel x86 programs on the Alpha. But the Elbrus binary compiler will be built into the silicon rather than offered as a software add-on. Binary compilation is also the technique that secretive Silicon Valley start-up Transmeta Inc is said to be working on, and intriguingly, Transmeta CEO Dave Ditzel worked with Elbrus for several years while he was at Sun Microsystems. The E2k is currently only implemented in an executable Verilog database, and to build a prototype, Babaian needs substantial investment - as much as $60m. Until now the project has been funded by Elbrus's maintenance and systems integration division, and by work Babaian and his team have been carrying out for Western companies such as Sun Microsystems Inc and Avant! Inc. The search for capital is being managed by San Francisco-based Plantagenet Capital Management, which says that two European semiconductor giants, Germany's Siemens AG and the Franco-Italian STMicroelectronics, are both showing an interest.
findarticles.com...


seems to me that soviets even caught up in chip microprocessor density in late 80's before their collapse ..

[edit on 7-9-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 7-9-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


Sorry if you don't understand electronic shielding, but I am not going to bother explaining it to you, either you get it or you don't. It is quite easy to completely surround electronic components with shielding, and to keep them cool because heat flows through metal. Your claims about electronic shielding are so lacking in understanding it is a joke.

If Russia has these advanced computers, then they have they yet to make them commercially viable? Why aren't their Russain made computers taking over the market. Certainly these days Russia has the capital to join in these markets.

www.american.edu...


The domestic computer hardware and software market is dominated by imports from US companies. US firms control the entire Russian import share of the software market while US computing hardware, especially quality and more powerful machines, are more and more in demand. In general, domestic production of software in Russia is limited to the development and production of various accounting/financial software and specialized software development under special orders of local enterprises and government agencies. The hardware industry is primitive and quality of hardware is generally regarded to be inferior to that of Western machines.


Russian fighters verses U.S.. From a Russian site.

aeroweb.lucia.it...&Falcon.html


There are NO confirmed or unconfirmed reports of any MiG-29 kills in any theater of conflict, while at least 6 have been shot down by other fighters.*


Other fighters being U.S. fighters. The MIG-31 is just an upgraded 29. All bragging aside, not yet proven.

By the way, I meant the SR71. Still superior to anything Russia has ever built. Who knows what its replacement's capabilities are, they have yet to be exposed.

Also, wikpedia is not a credible source. You need to find a source that you can't change yourself.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


StellarX you appear to be fairly knowledged regarding the ABM business. I found a very interesting and relevent report recently that questions its effectiveness (it is very lengthy and detailed):

russianforces.org...


See what you think about the arguements it presents.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





Sorry if you don't understand electronic shielding, but I am not going to bother explaining it to you, either you get it or you don't.


clearly , you admit you don't understand the concept of shielding



It is quite easy to completely surround electronic components with shielding, and to keep them cool because heat flows through metal.


still dancing around , huh, so explain me how , sensor part of equipment , i.e the VHF,UHF recievers, radar transmittors ,communications equipment , even if they are shielded they are vulnerable, these tranmittors are very vulnerable as they would absorb and transmit
Due to the gigahertz-band frequencies (4 to 20 GHz) involved, HPM has the capability to penetrate not only hardened communications recievers and transmittors and destroy them(these act as absorbers of EMP) , but also the most minute shielding penetrations throughout the equipment



Your claims about electronic shielding are so lacking in understanding it is a joke.

and you as usual have no managed to bring NO proof for the BS you post

and this source will blow your crappy claims :


High-power microwave (HPM) sources have been under investigation for several years as potential weapons for a variety of combat, sabotage, and terrorist applications. Due to classification restrictions, details of this work are relatively unknown outside the military community and its contractors. A key point to recognize is the insidious nature of HPM. Due to the gigahertz-band frequencies (4 to 20 GHz) involved, HPM has the capability to penetrate not only radio front-ends, but also the most minute shielding penetrations throughout the equipment. At sufficiently high levels, as discussed, the potential exists for significant damage to devices and circuits. For these reasons, HPM should be of interest to the broad spectrum of EMC practitioners.

Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) and High Powered Microwave (HMP) Weapons offer a significant capability against electronic equipment susceptible to damage by transient power surges. This weapon generates a very short, intense energy pulse producing a transient surge of thousands of volts that kills semiconductor devices. The conventional EMP and HMP weapons can disable non-shielded electronic devices including practically any modern electronic device within the effective range of the weapon.

The effectiveness of an EMP device is determined by the power generated and the characteristic of the pulse. The shorter pulse wave forms, such as microwaves, are far more effective against electronic equipment and more difficult to harden against. Current efforts focus on converting the energy from an explosive munitions to supply the electromagnetic pulse. This method produces significant levels of directionally focused electromagnetic energy.
www.tonyrogers.com...


The effectiveness of an EMP device is determined by the power generated and the characteristic of the pulse. The shorter pulse wave forms, such as microwaves, are far more effective against electronic equipment and more difficult to harden against.

as i said , EMP can penetrate electronic shielding and the shorter the pulses, the more difficult to harden against

also putting radio recievers in faraday cage is no solution as it will cut off communication



Other fighters being U.S. fighters. The MIG-31 is just an upgraded 29. All bragging aside, not yet proven.

mig-31 a upgraded mig-29??this is the biggest load of BS i ever read
this is the biggest load of BS i ever read ....Mig-31 is a evolution of mig-25 and uses much more titanium in its airframe and also the very powerful Zaslon radar
with your such stupid claim.... you clearly proved that you never worked in aerospace


Development of the MiG-25's replacement began with the Ye-155MP (Russian: Е-155МП) prototype which first flew on 16 September 1975. Although it bore a superficial resemblance to a stretched MiG-25 (with a longer fuselage for the radar operator cockpit), it was in many respects a totally new design. Soviet manufacturing limitations forced the MiG-25 to use nickel steel for 80% of its structure. The Ye-155MP doubled the use of titanium to 16% and tripled the aluminum content to 33% to reduce structural mass. More importantly, supersonic speed was now possible at low-level altitudes. Fuel capacity was also increased, and new, more efficient low-bypass-ratio turbofan engines were fitted.

The most important development was the introduction of an advanced radar capable of both look-up and look-down engagement (locating targets above and below the aircraft), as well as multiple target tracking. This finally gave the Soviets an interceptor capable of engaging the most likely Western intruders at long range. It also reflected a policy shift from reliance on ground-controlled interception (GCI) to greater autonomy for flight crews.
en.wikipedia.org...

mig-29 is 21 tons and the Mig-31 is 46-50 ton supersonic supercruise fighter


High altitude fighter interceptor aircraft MIG-31 made it's first flight in 16-th of September 1975. It was intended to counteract against strategic reconnaissance aircrafts SR-71 "Blackbird's", strategic bombers B-1B and long-range cruise missiles. The MiG-31 "Foxhound" was first time exhibited in 1991 at Paris Air show. After Lockheed SR-71 retirement MIG-31 became fastest serial production aircraft.
www.enemyforces.com...



Nowadays there are no MIG-31 analogs. In 1992 appeared new version of fighter interceptor MIG-31M. New aircraft has significant changes first of all in board radio location set and increased armament. Now it carries 8 missiles in stead of 6 carried by MIG-31.
www.enemyforces.com...





By the way, I meant the SR71. Still superior to anything Russia has ever built. Who knows what its replacement's capabilities are, they have yet to be exposed.


SR-71 is a recon craft , and was vulnerable to mig-31


In 1993 it was decided to retire the SR-71 - the reasons given for the premature retirement was the ability of satellites to carry out the mission and the increasing cost of maintaining the SR-71 fleet. Apart from the cost of maintaining the SR-71 fleet, another factor may have been that may have been taken into consideration was the knowledge that the aircraft had become vunerable. This had been demonstrated on 3 Jun 86 over the Barents Sea, when 6 MiG-31 Foxhounds performed a SR71 co-ordinated intercept against an SR-71 that would have subjected the aircraft to an all-angle AAM attack that even the high speed/altitude and ECM capability of the aircraft would have had great difficulty in defeating.
www.spyflight.co.uk...


SR-71 was intercepted several times by Mig-31 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
also , read page 280 , military 1st class pilot Mikhail Myagkiy intercepted Sr-71 in the Mig-31 from 1984 to 1987 14 times ....

books.google.co.in... &hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result




If Russia has these advanced computers, then they have they yet to make them commercially viable? Why aren't their Russain made computers taking over the market. Certainly these days Russia has the capital to join in these markets.


firstly western marketing and brandname are much more established than russian ones

and your source is outdated from 1994 and has no reference to soviet developments in superscalar processor....



[edit on 8-9-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 8-9-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 8-9-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   


The Russian MiG-31 is a long-range supersonic interceptor. It used to be dedicated to the air defense of the Soviet Union. Although based on the MiG-25 the many changes neccessary to improve range and flight performance at low altitude resulted in an all new aircraft.
www.milavia.net...


mig-31 is an more advanced evolution of mig-25

and if start talks on faraday Caging to shield communications , here are the problems :



Any non-military electronics within range of the E-bomb that have not been protected have a high probability of being damaged or destroyed. The best way to defend against E-bomb attack is to destroy the platform or delivery vehicle in which the E-bomb resides. Another method of protection is to keep all essential electronics within an electrically conductive enclosure, called a Faraday cage. This prevents the damaging electromagnetic field from interacting with vital equipment.

The problem with Faraday cages is that most vital equipment needs to be in contact with the outside world. This contact point can allow the electromagnetic field to enter the cage, which ultimately renders the enclosure useless.
There are ways to protect against these Faraday cage flaws, but the fact remains that this is a dangerous weakpoint. In most circumstances E-bombs are categorized as 'non-lethal weapons' because of the minimal collateral damage they create. The E-bomb's 'non-lethal' categorization gives military commanders more options to choose from



The problem with Faraday cages is that most vital equipment needs to be in contact with the outside world. This contact point can allow the electromagnetic field to enter the cage, which ultimately renders the enclosure useless.
------
most vital equipment needs to be in contact with the outside world, are equipments like communication antennas,Radar arrays etc,and other sensors of the electromagnetic spectrum..

more:


The narrowband HPM weapons, that Cuba is developing with China and North Korea, and of course, the United States at New Mexico, are nonlethal, reusable, and tunable. They can be fired from miles away. Like a laser, the focused beam disperses only slightly over great distances. They can even penetrate electronics shielded against a nuclear detonation. The deepest bunkers with the thickest concrete walls are not safe from such a beam if they have even been a single unprotected wire reaching the surface. One big push in microwave weapons has been toward portability.
www.lanuevacuba.com...


narrowband EMP HPM wepaons , can pentrate shielded electronics too....

enough said .....

and get your facts straight

[edit on 8-9-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322


The problem with Faraday cages is that most vital equipment needs to be in contact with the outside world. This contact point can allow the electromagnetic field to enter the cage, which ultimately renders the enclosure useless.
------
most vital equipment needs to be in contact with the outside world, are equipments like communication antennas,Radar arrays etc,and other sensors of the electromagnetic spectrum..

more:


The narrowband HPM weapons, that Cuba is developing with China and North Korea, and of course, the United States at New Mexico, are nonlethal, reusable, and tunable. They can be fired from miles away. Like a laser, the focused beam disperses only slightly over great distances. They can even penetrate electronics shielded against a nuclear detonation. The deepest bunkers with the thickest concrete walls are not safe from such a beam if they have even been a single unprotected wire reaching the surface. One big push in microwave weapons has been toward portability.
www.lanuevacuba.com...


narrowband EMP HPM wepaons , can pentrate shielded electronics too....

enough said .....

and get your facts straight

[edit on 8-9-2008 by manson_322]


Well i would hope the Russians have figured out hot to shield communications. We have there called Bandpass shielding enclosures simply put it only allows frequencies you want eliminates the ones you dont. So i guess communications can be protected. There even starting to use it in cell phones to prevent interference.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by maloy[/i
StellarX you appear to be fairly knowledged regarding the ABM business.


It's been a interesting area to research since i got the impression a few years ago that all might not in fact be what it seems like related to the current balance of power in the world. Much as i like compliments there are very few people who have the background in physics and engineering to be 'fairly knowledgable' in this area so you can just credit me with being a past master at search tools and spending far too much time sifting trough it all.



I found a very interesting and relevent report recently that questions its effectiveness (it is very lengthy and detailed):

russianforces.org...
See what you think about the arguements it presents.


It's interesting in terms of having used far too many bright colors but other than that i would very much appreciated it if Mr Postol could concern himself with issues that he wont so deliberately misrepresent.

1: We all know that the interceptors in Poland could and would be using against Russian ICBM's; thanks mister Postol for pointing out the exceedingly obvious.

2: There is in my opinion little reason to doubt that the Aegis system could not be made somewhat effective in the ABM role; thanks mister Postol for pointing out that relatively obvious fact.

3: The Russians know more than enough about ABM defenses to know when to feign mock horror and ignorance so as to best enable you ( mister Postol) to pretend that the Americans are 'breaking new ground', so to speak, in the ABM/SDI race.

Basically Theodor Postol is conspiring with others to undermine the legitimate claims about just how effective ABM defenses can and have been made in the past. Who his working for i don't know but either way i don't have much too much good to say about him.

There is a wealth of information related to past success stories with ABM defenses in both countries so if the US is having trouble fielding such systems today it is a deliberate effort to keep the US and it's armed forces defenseless.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SRTkid86
 


In terms of nuclear war Russia win easily .. sorry man!!!



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 





Well i would hope the Russians have figured out hot to shield communications. We have there called Bandpass shielding enclosures simply put it only allows frequencies you want eliminates the ones you dont. So i guess communications can be protected. There even starting to use it in cell phones to prevent interference.


yes, from what i know , this bandpass is meant for shielding communication devices like military communications networkd and from EMI(weak electromagnetic interference ) and at most broadband EMP weapons ,
but not massive 10 -100 gigawatt EMPs generated by russian pnarrowband electric HPM weapons, which can penetrate shielded electronics

p.s 10 gigawatt power is equivalent of power of 10 1 GW nuclear reactor




Well i would hope the Russians have figured out hot to shield communications.


russians have more experience in this field than the west as they were the first to create HPM weapons in 70's

[edit on 8-9-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Antennas are shunted to prevent pulses from destroying electronics. Aircraft have to be able to take direct hits from lightening. Aircraft have mulitple layers of shielding, and the electronics are hardened and tested. If they could be easily taken out by microwaves then they would be worthless. This is old, well developed technology. I don't care if you want to believe what I tell you or not. You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

The MIG's watched a few SR-71's fly past, possibly came within range a few times when the SR's were not flying at their top altitude or speed, but never close enough to shoot one down. It had been bragged that they could have shot down an SR-71, so why didn't they? Being that the Soviets shot down a commercial jet that flew into their airspace, there is little doubt that they would have taken out an SR-71 if they had the chance. Like I said, pure BS.

www.f-16.net...

www.wvi.com...

Maybe the U.S. only relies on deployment of satelites for spy missions, and maybe the stories I read about supersonic M6 craft that skims along the top of the atmosphere back in the late eighties was just a myth. The SR-71 was designed in 1968, it was well aged.

www.fas.org...

Who knows what the MIG-31 can do, it hasn't been battle tested yet, but its very similar predecessor, the MIG-29 was 0 for 6 against U.S. fighters.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


i take issue on your information of the MiG-31


the MiG-31 is a bomber interceptor - quite likely the last of its kind , very similar in ROLE to the RAF Tornado F3 and the F-14 Tomcat - they were designed to go after bombers , carrying powerful radars , long loiter time and long range missiles; but in a `dogfight` bleed energy very badly and can`t turnat high `G` levels at all - this isn`t a`Top Gun` movie but reality.

The MiG-29 is a close range air defence fighter - similar in original concept to the F-16 / F-18 , where as the SU-27 is similar in concept tp the F-15;

www.aeronautics.ru...


that is a picture of the MiG-31 `Foxhound`


and

www.aerospaceweb.org...

is a picture of the MiG-29 ` Fulcrum`

they don`t look anything like each other , as an idea the -29 is 55 feet long where as the -31 is a gigantic 74 fet long ; its longer , wider and heavier than any of its `rivals` in the interceptor role - and the very large radar is over 1.4 meters accross with over 2000 modules (its a PESA set) shunts out enourmous power.

please don`t confuse them



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Antennas are shunted to prevent pulses from destroying electronics. Aircraft have to be able to take direct hits from lightening. Aircraft have mulitple layers of shielding, and the electronics are hardened and tested. If they could be easily taken out by microwaves then they would be worthless. This is old, well developed technology. I don't care if you want to believe what I tell you or not. You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.


The MIG's watched a few SR-71's fly past, possibly came within range a few times when the SR's were not flying at their top altitude or speed, but never close enough to shoot one down. It had been bragged that they could have shot down an SR-71, so why didn't they? Being that the Soviets shot down a commercial jet that flew into their airspace, there is little doubt that they would have taken out an SR-71 if they had the chance. Like I said, pure BS.

www.f-16.net...

www.wvi.com...

Maybe the U.S. only relies on deployment of satelites for spy missions, and maybe the stories I read about supersonic M6 craft that skims along the top of the atmosphere back in the late eighties was just a myth. The SR-71 was designed in 1968, it was well aged.

www.fas.org...

Who knows what the MIG-31 can do, it hasn't been battle tested yet, but its very similar predecessor, the MIG-29 was 0 for 6 against U.S. fighters.





Being that the Soviets shot down a commercial jet that flew into their airspace, there is little doubt that they would have taken out an SR-71 if they had the chance. Like I said, pure BS.

where did get this propaganda from???

have you read the circumstances of Kal 007 airliner , the soviets...



Soviet air defense units had been tracking the aircraft for more than an hour while it entered and left Soviet airspace over the Kamchatka Peninsula. Soviet aircraft had initially tried to contact the pilot of the aircraft by radio and by making visual contact. When this failed, the pilot of the lead aircraft reported firing rounds from his machine guns in four 30-round bursts, but the pilot of KAL 007 still failed to respond. The order to shoot down the airliner was given as it was about to leave Soviet airspace for the second time after flying over Sakhalin Island.
en.wikipedia.org...

Soviet air defense units had been tracking the aircraft for more than an hour the korean pilot of aircraft did not respond to soviet orders to comply




there is little doubt that they would have taken out an SR-71 if they had the chance. Like I said, pure BS.

by the way, wheres the proof .... , most intercepts of Sr-71 by mig-31 ,took place over international waters near soviet territory and the main goal was to force them to abandon mission .... also Soviet rules of engagement (ROE) did not permit pilots to fire missiles without affirmation to do so from superiors
also also Sr-71 avoided being shot down because it never left international airspace and entered Soviet territory after deployment of Mig-31
from the book on Sr-71 again,check page 283 :
'If the Sr-71 had violated Soviet airspace ,a live missile launch would have been carried out . there was practically no chance that the aircraft could avoid an R-33.But in the early 1980's,the Blackbirds did not violate the borders,although they sometimes 'tickled' it
Indeed, the counter intelligience unit dreamt of finding pieces of Sr-71 ,if not land them in the territorial waters of the USSR
(refer to page 283)
books.google.co.in... t8GbJ372mrLM4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA283,M1


on June 3, 1986 six MiG-31s performed a coordinated intercept against a SR-71 Blackbird on a training mission over the Barents Sea. This would have subjected the aircraft to an all-angle air-to-air attack which even its great speed and electronic countermeasures may not have been able to defeat. No missiles were fired (the interception took place over international waters) but the Soviets had certainly made their point.
ezinearticles.com...




books.google.co.in... #PPA325,M1




In 1993 it was decided to retire the SR-71 - the reasons given for the premature retirement was the ability of satellites to carry out the mission and the increasing cost of maintaining the SR-71 fleet. Apart from the cost of maintaining the SR-71 fleet, another factor may have been that may have been taken into consideration was the knowledge that the aircraft had become vunerable. This had been demonstrated on 3 Jun 86 over the Barents Sea, when 6 MiG-31 Foxhounds performed a SR71 co-ordinated intercept against an SR-71 that would have subjected the aircraft to an all-angle AAM attack that even the high speed/altitude and ECM capability of the aircraft would have had great difficulty in defeating.
www.spyflight.co.uk...


by the way, both your sources are opinion based not fact based ...
by the way R-33 Vympel is a mach 4.0+ missiles


“The main power of the plane lie in targeting system, in detection range, locking, launching, in the amount of air targets it can track and engage, the frontline it can cover by itself or in group not to allow enemy aircrafts to approach protected objects.” - says Valeriy Knish.

By the experts opinion it was Mig-31 creation for US to retire Blackbirds. After Mig-31 creation this unique aircraft became vulnerable. After new Mig entered service and successfully performed several interceptions, US aviation activity had decreased greatly.


www.aviapedia.com...




Who knows what the MIG-31 can do, it hasn't been battle tested yet, but its very similar predecessor, the MIG-29 was 0 for 6 against U.S. fighters.

are you ABLE TO READ OR YOU ARE BLIND
firstly MIG-31 IS NO PREDECCESSOR OF MIG-29




the MIG-29 was 0 for 6 against U.S. fighters.


THE serbians claimed to have shot down 4 fighters with mig-29, two f-16,1 f-15 and a F-117 too(out of three they claimed to have shot down) - but i do have difficulty in believing serb sources



Antennas are shunted to prevent pulses from destroying electronics. Aircraft have to be able to take direct hits from lightening. Aircraft have mulitple layers of shielding, and the electronics are hardened and tested. If they could be easily taken out by microwaves then they would be worthless. This is old, well developed technology. I don't care if you want to believe what I tell you or not. You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

antennas are shunted???? what is AESA or PESA radars ..... they are transmittors and receievers , and would be effected by HPM attack
While many electronic devices can be partially shielded using the same techniques outlined for EMP weapons, most sensors and high-gain antennas cannot be shielded from HPM without preventing them from performing their primary functions.by sensors it means radar arrays like AESA and PESA


Aircraft have mulitple layers of shielding, and the electronics are hardened and tested.

and narrowband HPM weapons are capable of penetrating multiple shield electronics , it depends on the power and frequency of pulse
While many electronic devices can be partially shielded using the same techniques outlined in the section on EMP weapons, most sensors and high-gain antennas cannot be shielded without preventing them from performing their primary functions.


This is old, well developed technology.

and narrowband HPM wepaons will penetrate them



[edit on 8-9-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
1: We all know that the interceptors in Poland could and would be using against Russian ICBM's; thanks mister Postol for pointing out the exceedingly obvious.


Well in order to calm some people down the U.S. government report stated that the ABM can't realistically shoot down the ICBMs. This report points out that this information was purposely misleading. But yes - obviously no surprises here.



Originally posted by StellarX
2: There is in my opinion little reason to doubt that the Aegis system could not be made somewhat effective in the ABM role; thanks mister Postol for pointing out that relatively obvious fact.


So would the U.S. not be content with just improving the Aegis system, which appears to be more cost effective anyway? It wouldn't cause all the problems with Russia. I understand that the ABM system in Eastern Europe is a second layer of defense - but given the tension it has caused with Russia, wouldn't the viable alternatives be a better choice?




Originally posted by StellarX
3: The Russians know more than enough about ABM defenses to know when to feign mock horror and ignorance so as to best enable you ( mister Postol) to pretend that the Americans are 'breaking new ground', so to speak, in the ABM/SDI race.


Again no surprises here.

But what about the Early Warning Radars specs mentioned? Why did the U.S. not choose to parter up with Russia, to operate an already completed and highly potent radar installation in Azerbaijan, and the pending project in Armavir? Again this would be more cost effective, would provide better capabilities to monitor any activity in Iran, and would work towards improving relations with Russia?



Originally posted by StellarX
There is a wealth of information related to past success stories with ABM defenses in both countries so if the US is having trouble fielding such systems today it is a deliberate effort to keep the US and it's armed forces defenseless.


So you think this is deliberate action by the U.S. to justify further military spending?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Why do i keep seeing all this talk about the Mig 31 its old tech was manufactured before the break uo of the USSR it is not some super aircraft. The raptor would kill it in a dog fight. and be heading home before the pieces hit the ground.
The F22 can cruise supersonic without afterburners has no cross section to radar an avionics package that fully integrates to allow the pilot to fly the system takes care of threats. as apposed to the radar system on the mig 31 can only track 4 targets If it even realized the raptor was there. So please stop the Mig 31 stuff all ready.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Why do i keep seeing all this talk about the Mig 31 its old tech was manufactured before the break uo of the USSR it is not some super aircraft. The raptor would kill it in a dog fight. and be heading home before the pieces hit the ground.
The F22 can cruise supersonic without afterburners has no cross section to radar an avionics package that fully integrates to allow the pilot to fly the system takes care of threats. as apposed to the radar system on the mig 31 can only track 4 targets If it even realized the raptor was there. So please stop the Mig 31 stuff all ready.


to deal with raptor like threats, Mig-31 is getting fifth generation upgrades ....



MiG-31 to Get Fifth-Generation Upgrades
Modernized MiG-31 interceptors will be fit to take on fifth-generation aircraft, according to chief commander of the Russian Air Force Alexander Zelin. He said that fifth-generation technology would be used when modernizing the planes, which will increase their military value 1.5-4 times, depending on the nature of their task.
Modernized MiG-31 models will be able to strike a target at a distance of 200 km. Thanks to new radar and missiles, it will be able to detect and defeat stealth planes and low-altitude cruise missiles at greater distances. The MiG-31 will remain in use as a long-distance radar plane to manage the flights of other types of fighter jets, Zelin added
www.kommersant.com...


mig-31 is in process of upgrade to deal with the F-22 threat


"Modernization of the fleet of MiG-31 interceptors will significantly increase the combat capability of air defenses, especially over remote areas of Northern Russia, Siberia and the Far East, where air defense contingents have been sharply reduced since the 1990s," Mikhailov said.

The MiG-31 modernization and overhaul program will be implemented at the Sokol aircraft plant in Nizhny Novgorod, in Central Russia.

Mikhailov said the modernized supersonic interceptor will become a formidable rival to all fifth-generation fighters, due to enhanced radar detection and tracking capabilities, and a wide array of advanced weaponry.


According to various sources, about 500 MiG-31s have been produced since serial production began in 1978, approximately 370 of which remain in service with the Russian Air Force.
www.globalsecurity.org...

Mig-31 will become a formidable rival to all fifth-generation fighters, due to enhanced radar detection and tracking capabilities
P.s the current fifth gen aircraft is F-22 and F-35
[edit on 9-9-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 9-9-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by maloy
Well in order to calm some people down the U.S. government report stated that the ABM can't realistically shoot down the ICBMs. This report points out that this information was purposely misleading. But yes - obviously no surprises here.


Anyone who knows anything , which probably aren't too many people, knew that was a lie and obviously the best way to interdict Russian ICBM is to get as close as possible to the launch field sand launching large yield Nuclear tipped ABM missiles against them. This wont be enough but the actions of the desperate are not known to be very consistent or logical.


So would the U.S. not be content with just improving the Aegis system, which appears to be more cost effective anyway?


Yes but it would require that most ships go back to port eventually for long and relatively costly modifications; i don't think the Aegis system will be very effective against ballistic threats as it's deployed today and as per neo con war plans it doesn't look like they have given themselves time enough to do anything like that. Basically the fleet can protect itself by simple movement at high speed to escape having to engage ballistic missile attacks and and can in it's current form still serve to provide some defense to coastal cities in the US or elsewhere.


It wouldn't cause all the problems with Russia. I understand that the ABM system in Eastern Europe is a second layer of defense - but given the tension it has caused with Russia, wouldn't the viable alternatives be a better choice?


I would suggest that the sighting of the defense system is mostly political to 'prove' to the these nations that the US will 'invest' in their defense. Just like the French could have extended the Maginot line to the Channel coast so the US can protect itself at home but since that might have resulted in the low countries staying neutral or backing Germany they didn't take the chance and made themselves vulnerable to prove a point. The financial interest of the US national security state is tied up all over the world and a well executed economic and military defense would soon turn Americans against interventions anywhere and everywhere thus the choice to make Americans both economically and strategically vulnerable.

Corporate globalization is all about about making countries so interdependent ,by means of financial institutions and monetary manipulation, that non can set independent course as their citizens might dictate. Basically this all about making democracy a empty practice since everything is being privatized and thus out of the hands of the voters.



Again no surprises here.
But what about the Early Warning Radars specs mentioned? Why did the U.S. not choose to parter up with Russia, to operate an already completed and highly potent radar installation in Azerbaijan, and the pending project in Armavir? Again this would be more cost effective, would provide better capabilities to monitor any activity in Iran, and would work towards improving relations with Russia?


Because non of this is has in my opinion much to do with providing for the security of anyone as Americans wont be better protected, the Poles will still be overun and Iran can't be attacked and wont strike first. Iran wont attack anyone with nuclear weapons any more than South Africa, Pakistan, India, China or anyone else has and the Russian radar installations in those areas are meant to detect a American nuclear assault. The Russians would not have minded sharing them ( they don't need them for early warning as much as battle management) but the US can not accept because this is about convincing Poland, and other new NATO 'allies' that they can and will be defended in the next world war against the Russia and It's Eastern allies..


So you think this is deliberate action by the U.S. to justify further military spending?


I think it's a deliberate effort to justify continued military spending on largely conventional fighting systems which is intended to be used to fight and win bloodless wars ( at least on the US side) against third world nations who wishes to set independent courses or to align themselves with Russia/China. It is one thing to continue spending on conventional fighting systems but to do it so wastefully while your strategic arms stagnates and falls apart with no civil defenses in site and almost no national ABM defenses deployed leads me to, very controversially and unbelievably ( because i don't think any or many does) believe that the USSR won the cold war back in the 80's and have largely been dictating terms to various US administrations while not risking itself too overtly.

Since you can't/wont believe that just put it out of your mind and try to validate all the other data, ideas i have provided. I will be happy to supply sources for everything or to direct you to some of my past discussions on these various topics.

Thanks

Stellar




top topics



 
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join