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.

 

New missile deployed with RAF

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 10:20 AM
link   
i doubt that russian planes are inferrior i would place them level with americans.




posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
i doubt that russian planes are inferrior i would place them level with americans.


How do you figure? They have no stealth, the US is on it's 3rd and 4th stealth planes, the US has supercomputers in it's aircraft, the Russians aren't even close to that, the US has much superior avionics while the Russians have lesser avionics.

Basically, the Russians make great aircraft, but they aren't close to the state of the art US planes, such as the B-2 and F/A-22.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by devilwasp
i doubt that russian planes are inferrior i would place them level with americans.


How do you figure? They have no stealth, the US is on it's 3rd and 4th stealth planes, the US has supercomputers in it's aircraft, the Russians aren't even close to that, the US has much superior avionics while the Russians have lesser avionics.

Basically, the Russians make great aircraft, but they aren't close to the state of the art US planes, such as the B-2 and F/A-22.

The most modern Russian aircraft in series production MiG-29 cannot refuel in the air
MiG-29 is on the F-15/16 level while US have much better aircrafts such as EA-6B in series production



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   
what about the KA-52? thats a good helicopter designed to kill apache's.
everyone knows russia makes good helicopters.
also that point about the mi-29 so what it cant refuel in air mabye its not designed to do that i aint an exspert on it and dont knw much about it. so give me a while to do some researching.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX


Basically, the Russians make great aircraft, but they aren't close to the state of the art US planes, such as the B-2 and F/A-22.

The most modern Russian aircraft in series production MiG-29 cannot refuel in the air
MiG-29 is on the F-15/16 level while US have much better aircrafts such as EA-6B in series production


Uhm, yeah Ok. MiG-29 is fully capable of inflight refueling. (source, source, picture of refueling).

Russia never persued stealth for several reasons. Firstly, the F-117 was not an airforce capability order, it origionated from a CIA silver bullet requirement. Hit any country anywhere with complete deniability, that was the goal of the F-117.

The B-2 was a cold war first strike capability order from the airforce. Basically they wanted the ability to decapitate the soviet leadership in the event of a war scenario.

The soviets never saw the need for a silver bullet aircraft, their Spetznaz special forces were much better and much cheaper when deployed in the same role. They also had no need to spend the vast amounts of money (and some say they were incapable of spending the money) to attain a first strike bomber. Instead they spent the money on what they knew best, submarines.

The submarines they produced scared the witts out of the US command, which is why you saw billions and billions spent on SOSUS warning nets, two submarines to tail every russian one as it left port, and every other conceivable means of detection. The Aqula class soviet submarine was the fastest attack submarine of its time, and was virtually silent. Each time an american submarine went up against one of these, the aqula usually just 'dissappeared'. The Typhoon submarine could sit off the coast of america for months without being detected. One single Typhoon class alone carried enough warheads to make north america glow only 3 minutes after launch. That my friends is why they never needed stealth bombers.

The Russians lost 6 more nuclear submarines than the US (8 to 2) between the end of WW2 and present, but they also have had more than 4x in service than the US in the same period.

-fixed links

[edit on 1-9-2004 by RichardPrice]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Uhm, yeah Ok. MiG-29 is fully capable of inflight refueling. (source, source, picture of refueling).


Hey man, none of those links work!

I just get sent to Microsoft.com. - NOOO

You need to take the apostrophes at the beginning and end of the urls out.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hyperen

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Uhm, yeah Ok. MiG-29 is fully capable of inflight refueling. (source, source, picture of refueling).


Hey man, none of those links work!

I just get sent to Microsoft.com. - NOOO

You need to take the apostrophes at the beginning and end of the urls out.


Damn, they should now
Cheers



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Russia never persued stealth for several reasons. Firstly, the F-117 was not an airforce capability order, it origionated from a CIA silver bullet requirement. Hit any country anywhere with complete deniability, that was the goal of the F-117.


Agreed on the ability of the F-117, but as far as the reasons the russians didn't persue stealth aircraft were the inabillity for their computers to creat a fliable stealth aircraft at the time, the lagging behind in RAM, lack of money, and last but certainly not least - they didn't think of it despite the theory being Russian.



The B-2 was a cold war first strike capability order from the airforce. Basically they wanted the ability to decapitate the soviet leadership in the event of a war scenario.

The soviets never saw the need for a silver bullet aircraft, their Spetznaz special forces were much better and much cheaper when deployed in the same role. They also had no need to spend the vast amounts of money (and some say they were incapable of spending the money) to attain a first strike bomber. Instead they spent the money on what they knew best, submarines.


Sorry, but the Spetznaz, for all their worth as SF units, cannot in any way shape or form produce any thing aproaching the ability of a B-2 spirit. You cannot compare them in any way. The Russians didn't produce a first strike bomber because they couldn't. They didn't have the technology, plain and simple, and still don't to this day 2 decades later.

As far as "knowing submarines best" - yeah right! Thats why the US navy litterally used to ping every soviet SSBN simultaneusly at random just to let them know they would all be dead.



The submarines they produced scared the witts out of the US command, which is why you saw billions and billions spent on SOSUS warning nets, two submarines to tail every russian one as it left port, and every other conceivable means of detection. The Aqula class soviet submarine was the fastest attack submarine of its time, and was virtually silent. Each time an american submarine went up against one of these, the aqula usually just 'dissappeared'. The Typhoon submarine could sit off the coast of america for months without being detected. One single Typhoon class alone carried enough warheads to make north america glow only 3 minutes after launch. That my friends is why they never needed stealth bombers.

Wrong wrong wrong and wrong - see above. US subs were much more quite and more leathal.



The Russians lost 6 more nuclear submarines than the US (8 to 2) between the end of WW2 and present, but they also have had more than 4x in service than the US in the same period.

The US has not lost one in how many decades? When was the last time Russia lost one? Yeah, they really "know subs best"



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man


Agreed on the ability of the F-117, but as far as the reasons the russians didn't persue stealth aircraft were the inabillity for their computers to creat a fliable stealth aircraft at the time, the lagging behind in RAM, lack of money, and last but certainly not least - they didn't think of it despite the theory being Russian.


This idea is often quoted and is actually a load of crap. While certainly lagging behind the west in desktop computing power, IE what the average person had (you could never buy a Sega console, or a Commodore 64 computer or an I386 PC), they were actually on par with the west in military computing power.

IE what the military had was perfectly capable of computing the surface angles required for F-117 style stealth capability, they just chose to use it in other ways.





Sorry, but the Spetznaz, for all their worth as SF units, cannot in any way shape or form produce any thing aproaching the ability of a B-2 spirit. You cannot compare them in any way. The Russians didn't produce a first strike bomber because they couldn't. They didn't have the technology, plain and simple, and still don't to this day 2 decades later.



I didnt compare the Spetznaz to the B2, I compared it to the silver bullet idea of an aircraft that the CIA had - EG the F-117. In that role, SF is much more than capable of carrying out the same role, which is basic credance for a SF unit.

And I dont blame the soviets for not persuing a B2 style bomber. They were so costly that even the US only ended up purchasing 22 or so of them, far far far less than required to successfuly penetrate Soviet airspace in the roles they were purchased. (The airforce wanted more than 50 to guarentee a successful penetration)



As far as "knowing submarines best" - yeah right! Thats why the US navy litterally used to ping every soviet SSBN simultaneusly at random just to let them know they would all be dead.


Nope, the US navy used to regularly sh*t themselves over hte loss of a single Typhoon class submarine, or an Aqula class strike submarine, and the Soviets used to regularly drop their US navy shadows and disappear. SOSUS made it easier to pick them back up, but during that time, they could be doing anything.

The US navy would extremely rarely do something as stupid as ping the enemies submarines, as a ping works both ways. They didnt know if the Soviets had a SOSUS net of their own, and a random ping as you suggest would have let the soviets identify a large portion of the US submarines.

Submarine warfare is not about blasting through the ocean with active sonar, that would get you killed very very quickly as a submarine in a war situation. Your pings can identify you, and whether you are the target or the follower, your goal is to act like a hole in the water, deathly silent.




Wrong wrong wrong and wrong - see above. US subs were much more quite and more leathal.


Right right right. Read up on the Typhoon class, and go read some mission reports. In the early days of the Typhoons deplyment, it used to regularly disappear, so much so that the US Navy used to have 3 or 4 of its own subs sitting outside the Typhoon classes home port, waiting to pick them up from the moment they exited. Once the typhoon got to open water, it was almost impossible to pick them up, you had to be tailing them at a matter of a few 10s of meters.

The US was not top dog when it comes to subs.




The US has not lost one in how many decades? When was the last time Russia lost one? Yeah, they really "know subs best"


Fine, the former Soviet Union lost hte Kursk not that long ago. Loss of a submarine does not denote lack of knowledge in that area (after all, how many F-117s have the US lost - about 10 at last count). The Kursks sinking has been proven to be down to a manufacturing flaw in a torpedo.

Which country has the largest submarine?

Which country has the fastest submarine?

Both answers - Russia.


Face it, the soviets ruled your asses under the water.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
In the military, no nation has an absolute technical superiority, each country has its strengths and weaknesses. The US is in electronics and computer aided design. The Russians in unique and lateral thinking in getting solutions to things the overspecialized US contractors wouldn't have thought about. Helmet mounted sights, steerable IRST's, rocket torpedoes that go 200mph underwater, thrust vectored missiles, titanium metallurgy in submarines, tanks with antimissile systems, superior to Patriot SAM's. Russia has its strengths for sure.

Technological chauvanism is a vice you indulge in at your own peril, for what its worth Russia and the US have admirable approaches to military technologies, as do other countries, different approaches to more or less equivelent capability, only limited by budgets, a hinderance the US doesn't seem to have especially post 9/11.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
what about the KA-52? thats a good helicopter designed to kill apache's.
everyone knows russia makes good helicopters.


I wouldn't compare a KA-52 to an AH-64D Longbow Apache.

Currently, the Apache has no rival (With the exception of the RAH-66, but it has been cancelled, so thus, the Apache remains supreme).



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567


I wouldn't compare a KA-52 to an AH-64D Longbow Apache.

Currently, the Apache has no rival (With the exception of the RAH-66, but it has been cancelled, so thus, the Apache remains supreme).

why not?
also the comanche versus the apache? get real. the apache is armoured the comanche is a scout thing. hell i wouldnt fly in a comanche.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
This idea is often quoted and is actually a load of crap. While certainly lagging behind the west in desktop computing power, IE what the average person had (you could never buy a Sega console, or a Commodore 64 computer or an I386 PC), they were actually on par with the west in military computing power.

IE what the military had was perfectly capable of computing the surface angles required for F-117 style stealth capability, they just chose to use it in other ways.


Nope, try again. The US has ALWAYS been ahead in computer technology. To this day they have to aquire supercomputers from the US.




I didnt compare the Spetznaz to the B2, I compared it to the silver bullet idea of an aircraft that the CIA had - EG the F-117. In that role, SF is much more than capable of carrying out the same role, which is basic credance for a SF unit.


While SF units can do bombings, they do not offer the same abillity as a stealth strike aircraft. The reason being that men must be brought to the enemys boarders and then sneak in - usually on foot. If you want to hit something in the middle of a country, SF units will take a much longer time carrying out that duty. And in war, time is one of the most critical factors.



And I dont blame the soviets for not persuing a B2 style bomber. They were so costly that even the US only ended up purchasing 22 or so of them, far far far less than required to successfuly penetrate Soviet airspace in the roles they were purchased. (The airforce wanted more than 50 to guarentee a successful penetration)


The original AF requirement was 120 (I believe, I know it was over 100) over a span of 30 years (again, from what I remember), with the majority of the bombers produced during the second half of the production period. The common cited figure is 2 billion an aircraft. That is the cost of one when you only build 20 some odd planes, and includes R&D costs. However, if the 100+ were purchased, that figure per airframe would be significantly reduced.

Besides, it doesn't matter if "you don't blame them" for not building it. The simple fact is THEY COULDN'T. They couldn't 20 years ago and they can't today, they simply don't have the technology nor the money to spend on R%D and procurement. And that is what we are talking about right? That Russian planes are equal to that of American ones?



Nope, the US navy used to regularly sh*t themselves over hte loss of a single Typhoon class submarine, or an Aqula class strike submarine, and the Soviets used to regularly drop their US navy shadows and disappear. SOSUS made it easier to pick them back up, but during that time, they could be doing anything.

Again, you are missinformed, as my cousin served on a LA submarine throughout the 80's. They were on the Russian SSBN's like white on rice.



The US navy would extremely rarely do something as stupid as ping the enemies submarines, as a ping works both ways. They didnt know if the Soviets had a SOSUS net of their own, and a random ping as you suggest would have let the soviets identify a large portion of the US submarines.


Yes, it works both ways - it was simply a "message" to the soviet navy saying, "we can kill you anytime we want." The fact that before this fleet wide ping went out the soviets had no idea our subs were there speaks volumes as to who had the upper hand in the sub game.



Submarine warfare is not about blasting through the ocean with active sonar, that would get you killed very very quickly as a submarine in a war situation. Your pings can identify you, and whether you are the target or the follower, your goal is to act like a hole in the water, deathly silent.


Don't try to lecture me on submarine warfare. I have enough familly members involved in it to know what I am talking about.



Right right right. Read up on the Typhoon class, and go read some mission reports. In the early days of the Typhoons deplyment, it used to regularly disappear, so much so that the US Navy used to have 3 or 4 of its own subs sitting outside the Typhoon classes home port, waiting to pick them up from the moment they exited. Once the typhoon got to open water, it was almost impossible to pick them up, you had to be tailing them at a matter of a few 10s of meters.

The US was not top dog when it comes to subs.

Sorry buddy, you are missinformed. This may have been the case as you say, early in their deployment, but that happens to all weapons of war - they come out, then you learn how to defeat them. The fact is that the US had the quitest nuclear subs, always have.

Read this:



Russia claims the Akula is the quietest of its domestically built submarines and is fitted with acoustic countermeasure equipment. Noise reduction efforts include rafting the propulsion plant, anechoic tiles on the outside and inside of the hulls and possibly other measures such as active noise cancellation. Nonetheless, the American Improved Los Angeles class retained a decisive edge in silencing compared to the Akuka I. The Project 971A Akula II incorporated an improved double layer silencing system for the power train. According to Russian sources, this variant had noise emissions that were roughly the level of a basic Los Angeles and that of the Improved Los Angeles at slow speeds. At medium or high speeds the Improved Los Angeles design retains an acoustic advantage according to Russian sources. The Project 971 uses advanced sound insulation techniques that may not withstand Russian service conditions, and it may actually be noiser than earlier designs using more basic quieting technologies if poorly built or improperly maintained. The Project 971 is said by Russian sources to be at a distinct disadvantage in sensors, with a sonar suite that is roughly one-third as sensitive as the Los Angeles, able to track only two targets simultaneously (as opposed to the multiple target tracking capabilities of the American system).

Global Security
You were saying they have better subs????
Looks like all that speed gives them away - I thought you wanted to be quite?



Fine, the former Soviet Union lost hte Kursk not that long ago. Loss of a submarine does not denote lack of knowledge in that area (after all, how many F-117s have the US lost - about 10 at last count). The Kursks sinking has been proven to be down to a manufacturing flaw in a torpedo.


It does denote inferior knowledge in that area. The US didn't have all of these problems, the Russians did. As far as the F-117 goes, first off, only 1 has ever been taken down to enemy fire - and that had to do with the combination of a tip off to the mission and the same flight path being used before - and second, does anyone else even field a stealth aircraft today? No, they don't. The US has 3 in service and a fourth under way. Face it - the US has the best military technology in the world.



Which country has the largest submarine?

Soviets, but as they say - bigger is not always better.



Which country has the fastest submarine?

As far as maintaining it's stealthyness while going fast, the US.

As you said, you want to be quite in sub warfare, and who has the quitest subs?

AMERICA



Face it, the soviets ruled your asses under the water.


Face it, you don't know what your talking about, even the Russians said we had better subs.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 06:52 PM
link   
umm mad man ask your family members in the navy why the submarine has fins on the connning tower instead of on the hull?
i mean they turn slower. why dont they change it?



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Dads at the beach, my cuz worked sonar so I don't know if he'd know. I would say (and this is not an "expert" opinion) it may have had something to do with either accustic signature or maybe simple engineering compromises (why, I don't know).



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   
FAS thread

[edit on 2-9-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Sorry, for some reason when I edited the above post it took everything away...

Anyways, it seems new US subs have changed it...

Seawolf


VA class


Future Attack Submarine


See the link in the above post if anyone's interested in this killer sub


[edit on 2-9-2004 by American Mad Man]

[edit on 2-9-2004 by American Mad Man]

[edit on 2-9-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
As you said, you want to be quite in sub warfare, and who has the quitest subs?

AMERICA


Actually I think either the German or Swedish SSK is the quietest.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Link

Edit: For some reason they didn't include the older Swiftsure class.

[edit on 2-9-2004 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Are you sure they are nuclear?

also, the best SSN is far and away the SeaWolf. Hands down, no comparison. I mean for god sakes it's quiter running at 25 nots then the LA is at pierside!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join