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.

 

Details of a 1985 CIA Report on the reactions of the Soviets to the development of Stealth

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   
The CIA in 1985 issued this SNIE (Special National Intelligence Estaimate) about the Sovieats reactions to the development of Steath technology and thier capacities to defend against it.

It is long document 30 pages and goes into detail about the Soviets capacities for Air Defence, ability to develop stealth projects, and ability to develop counters for stealth aircraft. It comes at a time of increasing tensions between the US and CCCP. Back to back paranoid leaders (Andropov and Chernenko), tensions over the US aiding the rebels in Afganistan and the KGB's operation RYAN which was activly trying to find out if Reagan was considering a preemptive strike against the USSR. If this SNIE was studied by the KGB, it would have pegged thier paranio meters in that regards.

It concluded that the Soviet air defence network would be unable to detect stealth aircraft in a ten year time frame.
Was not well equipped to intercept low flying cruise missiles or aircraft.
Would not field a stealth aircraft till at least 2000.

Also of interest is describing the US stealth program the author used a picture that is a dead ringer for the fictional F-19 frisbee. Have Blue and the ensing F-117 program must have been held pretty tight


/3ss3z
[edit on 1-8-2004 by FredT]

[edit on 1-8-2004 by FredT]

[edit on 1-8-2004 by FredT]




posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   
When you got big urls, use www.tinyurl.com thanks.


And reading the report now,



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kormy
When you got big urls, use www.tinyurl.com thanks.
And reading the report now,


Will do thanks.. I accidently deleted my blurb up to and fixed that...



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 03:41 AM
link   
So they would not be able to detect stealth at the time we only had the F-117 and the B-2 can they detect what we have now? Also I wouldn't put it past the Russians to have some sort of stealth.


[edit on 2-8-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
So they would not be able to detect stealth at the time we only had the F-117 and the B-22 can they detect what we have now? Also I wouldn't put it past the Russians to have some sort of stealth.


The report was in 1985 and the info was claimed to be good for only 10 years. Its now 20 years since the report was written They no doubt have made advances, and we are unlikely to see a declassified SNIE on thier capacities anytime soon. The Russians may want to develop stealth esp for export, but they lack the funds for a massive development program. The S-37 Berkut is supposed to be stealthy as well as the MIG Project 1.44.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:27 PM
link   
The Soviets/Russians have countered Stealth by developping new, advanced Surface-to-Air missile systems such as the S-300, S-300V, S-300PMU and S-400. As well as upgrading older systems with better radars/FCS.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Necro those sams don't mean anything! They have never shot down a US stealth plane and are not proven against stealth planes, so I wouldn't be to Skippy like you about their ability. I have no doubt they are good SAM's but to say they can counter stealth without proof is BS.


[edit on 2-8-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   
so what you saying is that stealth is NOT detectable then westy?
please no one else answer this question for him.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:53 PM
link   
A bit of realism on sealh technology please.

I have noticed tha a number of people on these boards seem to talk as if stealth means a plane is invisible to radar. It is not even remotely invisible to radar. Stealth technology as we currently know it (yes I am sure there is plenty we don't know) simply means that an aircraft is harder to detect and will normally be accurately tracked at a shorter range. However if you were to fly a B2 over the UK, France, Russia, and many other countries in a nice boring flight profile, then you can pretty much garuntee it wouldn't come out the other side. Most competent and contemporary radar systems are more than capable of tracking and intercepting stealth aircraft as we currently know them (F22 included). Even B2's plan their flightpaths to avoid SAM threats as they know full well they are trackable by radar, and that doesn't even take into account other technologies.

Stealth is not a go anywhere technology at present bu it most certainly is a highly valuable and creditable technology which when used tactically as it should be can provide a hugely effective capability for the USAF. If you want proof of this just look at GW1. It wasn't F117's that lead the way but a flight of Apache helicopters. Why? Because the USAF knew that without using the Apaches to open up a corridor of airspace that was significantly degradedin its tracking capacity then the F117's were vunerable to Iraqi SAMs. Stealth is a huge benefit, and full marks to the US for developing it into usable platforms, but on its own it isn't half the advantage you might think unless employed tactically with the correct support, and it most certainly does not mean you can fly at will over any country with a competent air defence without fear of loosing any aircraft.




[edit on 2-8-2004 by Badger]

[edit on 2-8-2004 by Badger]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Sorry Devilwasp, missed your post whilst typing.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badger
Sorry Devilwasp, missed your post whilst typing.


its ok you actually saved me another post thanks



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
so what you saying is that stealth is NOT detectable then westy?
please no one else answer this question for him.


No stealth is detectable but if the russian SAMs are able to detect it, I want to see some proof first other than just someone one saying so and people believing in it. Does that answer your question devil?



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by devilwasp
so what you saying is that stealth is NOT detectable then westy?
please no one else answer this question for him.


No stealth is detectable but if the russian SAMs are able to detect it, I want to see some proof first other than just someone one saying so and people believing in it. Does that answer your question devil?


eh why don't you read "Badger'" post?



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by psteel



eh why don't you read "Badger'" post?

ta psteel

any way westy listen stealth is designed to reduce your signature on radar,does not mean your completely invisible.
if a sam locks onto a stealth plane you know the pilot will crap himself and try to evade or most likely run.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 09:06 AM
link   
I've been studying stealth technology since the Early 1990's. Stealth Aircraft are NOT Invisible to Radar! They however are very hard to see. The only radars That can not see the stealth are the tiny ones in fire and forget missiles. I research stealth technology for the B-2 Research Project. Pay attention and I'll explaine how stealth works and is used.

Nomally radar network are set up so that they overlap to provide continuious coverage of an area. Because of cost, Radar stations in the network are spread out, which creates area where the Radar signals are very weak(usually in the overlap zones). When a regular plane (like a B-52) flies throught the net the radar enegy relected back provides the plane location speed and heading. Now, the B-2 is design to look very small on Radar to begin with. By flying through the areas were the Radar signal is the weakest to start with, The B-2 creats such a weak signal that the computer system cannot get the information it need to calculte an accurate fireing solution needed to guide SAM's or AAA from the Ground, at the same time the mini-Radars in the SAM's don't have enough power to use the weak return signal for guidence.

Here an Analogy: Imagin hunting with a rifle that does not have a scope on it. If you wanted to aim at a Condor that is a 1/4 mile away (Just an example, no Animal rights complaints PLEASE!), you would find it with you eyes(the RADAR), and then line the barrel of your gun up with the target to take the shot. This is like the Radar aiming at a B-52. Now soppose you were hunting with the same rifle, but instead of a condor, we have a Robin this time. The Robin is not invisible, but you're eyes (the RADAR) aren't sharp enought to pick out the robin and aim at it from a 1/4 of a mile. You konw it's there, but you still can't see it well enought to aim and take a shot. This it like the Radar aiming at a B-2.

That(in a nutshell) is how stealth works. The secret of stealth is in the Concept of First Look, First Shot, First Kill! If you can spot and kill you enemy before he can find and kill you, you get to go home at the end of the day! It's that simple.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join