It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Actually, Japan imports most of its electronics these days as well. Semi-conductors were developed by the U.S., and the technology sold to Japan, because the U.S. was already busy working on integrated circuits, which put them decades ahead of the Soviets.
Numerous discoveries have been made throughout the decades on developing stronger atomic structures for stronger materials. The key is making the technology happen. The U.S. is obviously far ahead of Russia in these areas. If Russia knew what they were doing in these areas, they would have succeeded in putting the technology to use. Always you have some evidence of some technolgy that the world doesn't know about, proving Russian superiority, but never any solid proof to point at.
The U.S. is obviously far ahead of Russia in these areas. If Russia knew what they were doing in these areas, they would have succeeded in putting the technology to use.
I guess the Soviets should have used a great deal more of those advanced tanks that were so invulnerable to U.S. technology, if they existed, and then they would have gotten their butts kicked in Afghanistan.
The first widespread use of a composite armour appears to be on the Soviet T-64. It used an armour known as Combination K, which apparently is glass reinforced plastic sandwiched between inner and outer steel layers. Through a mechanism called thixotropy, the resin changes to a fluid under constant pressure, allowing the armour to be moulded into curved shapes. Later models of the T-64, along with newer designs, used a boron carbide-filled resin aggregate for greatly improved protection.
Gee, if the Soviet nanotechnology was so advanced, why couldn't they ever develop a Mach 3 aircraft to match the SR-71 built with U.S. 1950ties technology. If Russia were to succeed in building a Mach 3 aircraft like the SR-71 today, they would still be fifty years behind U.S. technological capabilities.
One of the key accusations Kalashnikov makes against the Soviet government and the modern media is the fact that the Russian people have lost sight of their heroes and achievements. That is why the author decided to tell about these achievements himself with the main goal of inspiring his compatriots with pride and honour. That is why his books have become popular, especially among the Russian youth.
It is true that the elements exposed in the book are very hard to find anywhere else. Such things as the AYaKS aerospaceship program, the Soviet plasma anti-friction generator, the Ekranoplan program, and most importantly the names of the unknown heroes that fought in Korea, Cuba, Algeria, Viet-Nam, Egypt, Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan but also on the territorry of the Soviet Union.To Kalashnikov, those people were the "Hammer and Sword "of the Soviet nation. They were unknown in the Soviet era because of the secrecy policy. That is the main reason for the respect and popularity of Maxim Kalashnikov in modern Russia.".
Where is the Russian space shuttle?
By the way, the U.S. has been using laser technology in industry for decades.
We now have a laser cannon that we can mount on aircraft, where as the Russian laser cannon must be mounted on a semi-truck.
The Beriev A-60 was a Soviet airborne laser laboratory aircraft based on the Ilyushin Il-76MD transport.
In the middle of 70's a special aviation complex was established at Taganrog machine-building factory by George Dimitrova for the purpose of creating an airborne laser. Its purpose was to solve the complex scientific and engineering problems regarding the creation of an airborne laser. In the early 80's, the United States' SOYA program was in the development stages of their own laser weapon.
Chances are the that it constantly breaks down, and can't be relied upon for tactical military uses. Good for bragging rights, but not much else.
Good for bragging rights, but not much else.
Originally posted by mattifikation
.reply to post by Anonymous ATS
I will address this post though.
If your whole point is that "diplomacy should never involve threats," and you're making that statement as a criticism against the United States, then you should take a look at the TOPIC and the TITLE of this thread. At any rate, I'll be starring your post when I'm done writing this because in spite of the side-splitting irony I do agree with it to a large extent.
Now, on to the topic at hand.
First of all, the Phalanx is considered by many analysts to be worthless against multiple incoming supersonic cruise missiles. If you look at the numbers, it makes sense. However, SeaRAM has demonstrated a 95% success rate against such missiles in trials, which means that Russia would have to fire a whole lot of ordnance to saturate the NATO navy's defenses.
Second of all, well, Russia has a whole lot of ordnance. If they had a brain in them, and when it comes to war they definitely do, they might decide to launch their old, low-tech missiles in a massive strike at the NATO ships. Once the anti-missile defenses were busy engaging all those smaller threats, NATO's fleet would be open to a more advanced attack from the "good stuff," so-to-speak.
Third, however, is the fact that 20 minutes is more than enough time for NATO to respond by firing off just as many missiles as Russia fired at them. It doesn't take 20 minutes to push a button, after all.All these people arguing "which side would win" need a serious clue in. The situation would never boil down to one fleet being sunk by the other. The only issue would be which fleet was sunk first.
The Late Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, US Navy (Retired), himself a former aircraft carrier skipper, was also an outspoken critic of the Navy and its infatuation with big aircraft carriers and its collective fear of change. He once said that if the United States continues on its path to build ever larger and ever more expensive aircraft carriers, it will eventually degenerate into a “bankrupt nation.” The most damning comment ever made by a senior officer was that of the Late CNO, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, US Navy, who in 1971 confessed that with the advent of long-range Soviet anti-ship missiles, if there had been a US-Soviet conventional naval war, the US Navy “would lose.”
If Zumwalt was correct, the only way the US Navy could handle the Soviet Navy was through the use of nuclear weapons, which in turn would provoke a Soviet response, and then, in all likelihood, both sides would be destroyed. Apparently, Admiral Thomas Moorer, US Navy, was worried also. When Soviet and US ships confronted one another in the Mediterranean during the October War of 1973, Goldstein and Zhukov observed: “Soviet battle groups were using the actual U.S. aircraft carriers in the area as virtual targets, an act comparable to holding a cocked pistol to an adversary's temple. Adhering to a kamikaze-like, "battle of the first salvo" doctrine, the Soviet force of 96 ships was poised to launch approximately 13 surface-to-surface missiles (SSMs) at each task group in the U.S. 6th Fleet deployed in the Mediterranean. U.S. Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then chief of naval operations, recalled a Washington Special Action Group meeting at the peak of the crisis, during which Adm. Thomas Moorer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, estimated: "[W]e would lose our [expletive] in the Eastern Med [if war breaks out]."
It's just like mutually assured destruction - there's just so much firepower involved that can be launched so easily and so quickly, that when the smoke cleared there wouldn't be anything left. Even if one side is more advanced than the other, neither is advanced enough to survive the sheer quantity of weaponry that the other side is fielding right now.
I do believe the moral of the movie "Wargames" is very applicable to a war between the U.S. and Russia: "The only way to win is by not playing."
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Russian tanks are better than yours, we just didn't use them in battle because blah, blah blah. Then again, most likely they didn't use their super advanced tanks because they knew that they wouldn't fare any better, and be shown once again to be another Russian advertisement that doesn't live up to its name.
Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:
"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION
"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.
"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.
"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.
"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"
The carbon filament stuff has been around for decades in the U.S.. When the word nanotechnology is talked about these days, they are talking about building tiny robots. That is one huge leap above carbon filaments. The U.S. is already using nanotechnology with their most advanced microprocessors and memory systems. The Russian are still decades behind in these technologies.
they are talking about building tiny robots.
Russia uses titanium because they have most of the ore, and yet with vast amounts of titanium, they still have failed to produce superior armour
Originally posted by poet1b
So why didn't they use their heavily armored tanks in Afghanistan?
I have heard about this supposedly superior tank Armour, but why wasn't it put to use when Russia needed it? Could it be that these tanks were overrated?
Could it be that the U.S. military was happy to pretend that these Soviet tanks were so impenetrable, so they could justify more arms expenditures?
Or could it be that these tanks were so heavy that they simply weren't maneuverable enough to be effective in battle.
Armour is great, but if the tank is heated up enough to cook the men inside, it still isn't worth much. One can only speculate.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you just keep telling yourself that Russia is really the worlds technological leader, and the U.S. is nothing but a pretender.
Never mind that the U.S. economy is the most productive economy in the world,
never mind that the U.S. pioneered the industrial age,
mass production of steel,
development of electrical generation and telecommunications,
and computer technologies.
Russia's secret weapons programs are ahead of the U.S.. Sure, of course, I buy that
Chances are that if these Russian supersonic surface to surface missiles have any maneuvering capabilities, then they are extremely inaccurate, and would be lucky to hit an aircraft carrier.
In addition, the Russian navy probably has very few of these missiles to fire. Russia isn't exactly known for their quality.
Originally posted by poet1b
You need to go check your facts, U.S. labor is more productive then every other nation in the world, per man hour, and has always been, and in fact has increased its lead over the last decade.
A few areas of France compete on an hourly basis, but that is it. Japan's productivity peaked back in the eighties, and even then they were never as productive as U.S. workers.
The U.S. developed the methods to mass produce cheap steel shortly after the civil war, and that really was the beginning of the industrial age. You need to read up on the development of the modern world.
Yes, you have all steadily claimed Russian superiority in weapons technology, on all levels. It really is quite the joke.
You talk on and on about weapons systems that have never been proven. It's always the same, the latest and greatest models are far better, some day you will see.
These ones that were defeated were the older, inferior units. Somehow the Soviets could never sell tanks to the Iraqis with good quality armour to stand up to U.S. tanks.
The effectiveness of Kontakt-5 ERA was confirmed by tests run by the German Bundeswehr and the US Army. The Germans confirmed that in tests, the K-5, mounted on older T-72 tanks, 'shattered' their 120mm DM-53 penetrators, and in the US, Jane's IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness confirmed that "When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which were among the most formidable tank gun projectiles at the time."
Newer KE penetrators like the US M829A2 and now M829A3, have been improved to defeat the armor design of Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well; see T-84 and T-90) . The M829A2 was the immediate response, developed in part to take on the new armor bricks. The M829A3 is a further improvement of this as well and designed to fight future armor protection methods. As a response to M829A3 russian army produced new type of ERA, Relikt, most modern russian ERA, which is claimed to be twice as effective as Kontakt-5.
Why not, certainly the Soviets needed the money. They had to keep every decent tank on the line in Europe because of course, NATO was going to attack any day. Sorry, don't buy it.
Originally posted by poet1b
I don't know why I bother to reply, but in short, your sources back up the reality that the U.S. remains the most productive work force.
In terms of output per hour we have three European countries doing better than the US _ that's Belgium, Norway and France, and they have done so ever since the mid-80s,'' Schmidt said.
Norwegians lead the league, with an output of US$38 per hour worked last year.
French workers were in second place, with an average of US$35 an hour, the report said. Belgians were third at US$34. US workers were in fourth place at US$32 per hour worked.
Schmidt said it wasn't clear why the three countries outscored the United States.
``There are many, many reasons,'' she said. ``One might be that during the time that these people work, they work more efficiently. It might be that the technology they use enables them to be@efficient in this one hour.''
Carnegie never developed the production of cheap steel, the U.S. steelsmith workers did, because Carnagie talked up the value unions.
Carnegie then turned his back on unions, doing everything he could to break them, at which he failed.
The U.S. is hardly the only nation in the world with the resources for steel. The U.S. has simply been the best at utilizing our resources.
As I stated earlier, you don't have to penetrate a tanks armor, you only have to cook it and the occupants inside. [/quotte]
Right and your going to do that how exactly?
Speed and accuracy are far more important than armor. The worlds weapons manufacturers aren't going to admit this, it would cut into their profits.
Speed and accuracy of weapons are but part of the issue as you would know if you did not presume that weapons automatically penetrated by virtue of being on target.
As for the manufacturers i will wait for your source on that one.
[edit on 29-9-2008 by StellarX]