Russia Preparing for Nuclear Attacks on U.S, Britain

Originally posted by Peace
All the major nuclear powers are committed to abolishing their nuclear programs within the next decade, i think it's time they put those thoughts into actions and we live in a world free of nuclear weapons, before it is too late.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

in fact all we have done is agreed to stop the proliferatiion of ICBM 's. in the last decade Russia has developed a rather large supply of tactical battlefield mini nuclear weapons. that is why two weeks ago congress gave the military 400 million to develop some for our side.

furthurmore I belive Russia and China will soon form an Alliance with each other, forming a formidable force for the U.S. to deal with. just as Europe as joined together to form a formidable ecomomic force to replace the American dollar. OPEC is planning on switching the currency of purchasing oil from the dollar to the euro.
the wars of only just begun and sides are being drawn, grab your ankels and kiss it goodbye
all hail the Aliens

tut tut

$tranger,
thanks for all the updates, especially the sub one, but...

Stealth tech isn't obsolete, yet. The F-117 that was shot down in Yugoslavia was 20 years old, and was the victim of a lucky shot. Besides that, traditional stealth is just one of the things we have. look down the message board to the 'aircraft; section. The picture in front of it shows the 'Bird of Prey' a recently declassified aircraft that is rumored to have a form of primitive invisibility. Yes, I said that correctly, no typo. Invisibility.

True, we only have around 20 F-22s, but even our conventional fighters can tear through the Russian air force. Just look at the AMRAAM... it can take out most russian jets before they've even sighted their american opponent on radar. And, look at real-world results... when was the last time a Russian built aircraft shot down an american one? You'd have to go back to the Vietnam era to find an incident where a russian jet defeated its western counterpart.

And, so far as the subs go... yeah, they have some high-performing subs, but most of them are laid up in the docks.

The bottom line is this: When you look at the technological baseline, the USA is decades, not years, but decades ahead of Russia. I'm not talking in performance terms, only... I'm talking about materials, electronics, and training technology. Also, whereas Russia and China are compelled to dispaly their best wepaons, so as to save face, the USA has the luxury, since its technological preeminence is recognized, to hold its best stuff in reserve.

If you ask me, the smart move, on the part of the Russians, would be to try to fight the chronic alcoholism that is draining their productivity... or to break up the formerly state-run monopolies that were given to special interests at the fall of the soviet union... so that they could, possibly, have a functioning economy.

I read someware that HAARP can destroy missles in their silos.

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams


True, we only have around 20 F-22s, but even our conventional fighters can tear through the Russian air force. Just look at the AMRAAM... it can take out most russian jets before they've even sighted their american opponent on radar.

how stealthy is an aircraft illuminating a target for an AMRAAM? Or, for that matter, how stealth is an AMRAAM itself? All that low-observability goes straight out the window when you fire a radar-guided missile.
the AIM-120 is already outclassed by the R-77
the AIM-120 has been fired in combat from an average range of 10-15 miles. At medium and high altitude this is DEEP inside the R-73's envelope, mainly because of the huge kinetic heating effect the F-22's supercruise will generate.
(AIM-120 and AIM-9) which are inferior to the treats they face (R-77/AA-12, and R-73/AA-11), lack of forward deployability, etc,

the AMRAAM cannot be "buddy-targeted". The firing platform MUST ILLUMINATE THE TARGET. And from long range the AMRAAM is usually launched SEMI-ACTIVELY, meaning the F-22's radar can no longer use it's frequency agility. Several Russian missiles can be "buddy-targeted" with the firing platform not using it's radar at all. Meaning that it NEVER has to radiate. And not only that but every Russian fighter squadron, and many of their allies, are equipped with Anti-Radiation versions of the R-
27, and soon the R-77 as well. And BOTH of these weapons, when free from illumination concerns, have a longer range than the AIM-120. Russian fighters can engage in effective BVR combat with none of the aircraft radiating, using only IR sensors and medium-range (up to 30 miles) IR missiles. And with stand-off targeting by MiG-31s or Su-30s they can engage with Radar-guided weapons without radiating as well.

And the F/A-22 can in fact carry just as many missiles as most versions of the MiG-29. That's not the point. The point is that it's weapons are inferior: of shorter range, and of less use (no off-boresight capability, no buddy-targeting, no medium-range IR, no ARMs).

It's BVR capability is NOT necessarily superior.

Guys am looking for supportive information with respect to the original link in Russian periodicals such as the Moscow Times and St. Petersburg times. So far have seen nothing, the Russian paper the article is quoting is on the Internet but with no apparent English translation.

As far as credibility a link indicates it has not yet been rated.

See links....

www.mondotimes.com...

www.ng.ru...

www.moscowtimes.ru...

$tranger,
Granted, in the seconds between when the radar on the jet targets the bandit and when it's actually off the rail... An F-22 firing an amraam will be vulnerable to detection (well, it's always 'vulnerable' to detection as it's not a perfect stealth). The point, though, is that it has a 'fire and forget' capability (like most western fighters)... the computer inside that missile probably has more power than the one flying the russian jet! Remember, the computers inside the american jets are about a generation ahead of their russian counterparts (as well as their jamming systems).

Another, very important, thing that you're forgeting is probability of success. Even if this or that russian missile is faster and has better range, the american one will always be of better quality, and so more likely to work. For all the weapons you mentioned above... look at their success/failure ratios.

And... like I said before, theory is one thing, practice another. In the last 30 years, the bad boys from St. Louis and Fort Worth have enjoyed a dramatically advanatageous kill ratio ober their russian-built opponents. Sure, you can say, that's a matter of training... But, following your argument about missiles... If modern air to air combat was a matter of, as you said, two platforms trying to outrange each other, or two ranging systems trying to out aim each other, shouldn't differences in pilot ability be minimized. I mean, if Russian missiles/computers WERE, in fact, better than their western counterparts, wouldn't even Serbian and Iraqi pilots be able to go, at least, one on one with F-15s and F-16s, no matter their training?

The reality is that the Russian-built platforms have failed to perform. It's doubtful that they could perform well even in the hands of russian pilots, as the Russian air forces now receive very little trianing (as measured in flight-hours).

..and, as far as quality goes... I remember, as a kid, seeing a MiG-29 at an airshow. It was the first time a MiG had been on dispaly in the US, I believe. Well, though the Fulcrum (I believe the Russians call it the Falcon) has amazing manueverability, when you approach it, you realize that it is hardly well-built. I mean... the bolts that were hanging out from it weren't even in any symetrical pattern (that is, if you compared how they were placed on different sides of the plane, you realized that they were just slapped on). So, though the design may have been good, and the pilot (at that time) good, the thing was a slapjob. It was a Yugo.

Now, I'll just review the advantages the USA has:

In today's fighters:
Superior,
materials
computers
training (pilots and ground crew)
and (in some cases) radar evasion

In tomorrow's fighters:
superior,
materials
computers
training
stealth (radar and visual)
supersonic cruise

Now, advantages that Russia has, today and tomorrow:
Raw top speed
Raw manueverability
Number of units

...and I haven't even brought up unmanned fighters (which will be able to out turn everything) and beam/directed energy weapons (how well will a MiG with even the best missiles do against a 747 totting a high power lazer?)

...and so much, much more can be said about lazers, microwave weapons, and other things like HAARP (as mentioned by someone above).

russia also got haarp etc.. and the 747 is an abl system
iraq and serbia had downgraded old migs,


Sorry, but American obsession with "new", "breakthgough" stuff is unquestionable. Just look at teleshops. Obsession with F-22 is the perfect example. It's more than a decade long and you should read some of you countrymens' posts to see how far it goes.

It's less manueveable (understandably, being much larger than almost any other fighter). Very large, and very VISIBLE.

It's about 10 times more expensive than it's Russian contemporaries like the su-30 su-35 etc....[compare them with the us fighters]

It is not forward-deployable.

In it's normal configuration/role, it has a high IR signature (and ALL other modern fighters, except American ones, use IRSTs).

It has no sensors other than radar.

It is available only in small numbers (less than 400 currently ordered, and projected to drop to as few as 200, if indeed the project isn't cancelled).

It cannot be used on carriers (unlike the Rafale, MiG-29, Su-27 series, F-10). The only study done in this direction was soon dropped as being prohibitively expensive... For a fighter whose development has already cost more than any other fighter in history.

It cannot dogfight competitively with contemporary fighters (all of which are smaller, have off-boresight weapons, and are more maneuverable).

It does have the lowest observability of any fighter. And it does have excellent ECCM capabilites. And it is VERY fast. But when combined with it's disadvantages, this makes it roughly equivalent to other fighters today. Not an "Air Dominance", or "Air Supremacy" fighter. It does not dominate in it's intended role, and cannot compete in others.

America will still have to rely on the skill of it's pilots as it's only real advantage.

It cannot dogfight competitively with contemporary fighters (all of which are smaller, have off-boresight weapons, and are more maneuverable).

I think this remains to be seen. I find it hard to belive a fighter like the f-22 with vectored thrust capability would manuever worse than a Mig-29.

Forewarned: For anyone who reads this post, especially non-americans, keep in mind that I am really just having fun, and in no way do i mean to insult non-americans. I am really not a Bravo-Bull type american.


So, to $tranger,
Wait,
The F-22 isn't forward deployable? It uses less groundcrew than an F-15. Granted, right now it just flies in the States, but that's because it's still being introduced to service.

As for all of those many victories being against downgraded Russian craft... You're forgetting that many of those victories have been achieved by allies (or partners) of the US flying downgraded craft, themselves. You're forgeting that in EVERY conflict between US supplied countries and Russian supplied countries, the one with the American equipment ALWAYS wins. I bet, and I haven't checked the facts (so I'm guessing here), more american-built planes have been shot down by other american built planes in the last 30 years than have been shot down by Russian built planes (Greeks versus Turks, Saudi Arabia versus Iran ((which flies very old F-14s)) and various Latin american countries versus eachother). Sorry dude, but, again, performance in the field is what counts -- Russian aircraft always lose.

And, in the same light, the buyer is always correct -- notice how EVERY recently de-communized country has opted to buy american aircraft. You guys are only selling stuff to China and North Korea right now, which, to be frank, isn't saying much when their official philosophy is 'quantity, not quality'.

And, as for the F-22, you know, the computer onboard, if damaged, can switch tasks to other computers onboard the craft.. almost like an organic brain. A week ago I watched a documentary on the russian strategic missile service... the dudes were using computers that looked like they were built in 1975!

And.. as for what my 'countrymen' think, half the americans on this board are closet communists who dream of the day when america will be crushed by red hordes, so their opinion doesn't matter ! (just joking).

Anyways, $tranger, you have to show that a neutral, strategically non-important country would choose to purchase a russian fighter over an american one to win this argument. Granted, China and North Korea buy a lot of Russian stuff, as does Libya, Syria...etc... but since your former 'allies' (Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria...) are now stocking up on equipment made in the USA... you'll be hard pressed to find a buyer.

Also, $tranger, I've had fun with this discussion, and mean it only in a light-hearted way. Please do not feel bad that I've made fun of Russia's economy/technology. One day you will get to 1985.

Originally posted by $tranger

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
their air force would be ripped a new one by ours and they dont have the stealth technology. the us would come out with far fewer casulties than the russians.

lol what stealth technology?

the one that they shot down in yugoslavia or the f22? btw how many f22 you got?

thats the thing of the past.. it only works against 3rd world countries, an air battle over russia would be impossible because of the thousands of s300 and s400 sam sites, the tomahawks will be shot down like flies by the mig-31s...

What a dummy....

One: the serbs got lucky by shooting down ONE F-117
Two: The MiG-31 is just a new version of the MiG-25.
Three: How Skilled do you think that russias air defence troops are? and how reliabel are those sam batteries? HELLO? our pilots went aginst the same stuff in Iraq and we killed almost all of em!
Four: Those SAM sites would be taken out by aircraft launched HARM anit radar missles. They ride the radar's beam all the way down to the target.
Five: Western coventional forces are far superior to anything Ivan has. why do you think he's only using his last option as his fist. His Forces would be torn a new one if we went to war this very second.
Six: if a war did break out between the US and theRussians our first target would probally be ivan's missle silos taken out by cruise missles.
Seven: The USAF is working on developnet of a stealth cruise missles with conventional or nuclear cabapilities.
Eight: Sealth is a great advantage in warfare.
Nine: The US Navy is far suprior to its Russian counter part. Not to mention we would have our Los Angles class hunter killer subs and our sea wolves and our virginia sub flowing their boomers (ballistic missle subs) ready to blow them outta the water if they so much a open a missle door.
Ten: How well do you think there missles will work? hell i bet most are duds.

Originally posted by KrazyIvan


One: the serbs got lucky by shooting down ONE F-117
and damaged another two with 60s sam

Two: The MiG-31 is just a new version of the MiG-25.
and?

Three: How Skilled do you think that russias air defence troops are? and how reliabel are those sam batteries?
the s300 and s400 are the only abl systems in the world
well and the arrow.. the pentagon even wanted to buy them to replace the patriots.


HELLO? our pilots went aginst the same stuff in Iraq and we killed almost all of em!
sa-300/400 in iraq?

nah only camels with stingers

Four: Those SAM sites would be taken out by aircraft launched HARM anit radar missles. They ride the radar's beam all the way down to the target.
do some research about the s300v and s400 first

[Six: if a war did break out between the US and theRussians our first target would probally be ivan's missle silos taken out by cruise missles.
again mig-31 and s300 systems.


Seven: The USAF is working on developnet of a stealth cruise missles with conventional or nuclear cabapilities.
russia has them from the 80s and now it got a new stealth missile the yakhont-3 and alpha.

Eight: Sealth is a great advantage in warfare.
on 3d world countries.. yes.

Nine: The US Navy is far suprior to its Russian counter
we dont need navy, fast speed missile boats and couple of tupolevs are enough to destroy you're navy

and it will take out a team of other fighters (and did so) before they even know it's there... Granted, this info is only via communication with someone who works on said fighter....

Just saw a programme on something like this called Dirty Bomb scary stuff Russia has lots radioactive material lying around, u know what will jappen when bad guys get a hold of some.

Originally posted by Gazrok
and it will take out a team of other fighters (and did so) before they even know it's there... Granted, this info is only via communication with someone who works on said fighter....

no it cant, and 20 f22s wont help anyway.

After all, it likely won't be public for at least another few years....

I think maybe our first line of defense should be to stop paying for Russia's military upgrades! DUH! I will never understand why, when we caught them laundering aid funds to their military, didn't we cut off the international welfare? Russia needs oil and Russia needs a warm water sea port. To get them, it will hold the US at bay while the Arab nations take Isreal..or at least try. Thats what the build-up and posturing is all about. It will agree to stay out of it as long as the US does but when the Arabs start taking an ass whipping from Isreal, again , Russia will have to interceed and so will the US.

well Ivan says the he has 20,000 to 40,000 tactaical nukes. i bet he dont know where half of em are.

"Russia has the bomb. 'We have many bombs! We dont know they all are. So you want a dirty bomb huh?'" -Robin Williams

$tranger,
Tupelovs and torpedo boats can defeat the US Navy?

Stealth doesn't matter?

Oh lord, with that kind of thinking Russia won't stand a chance. As Ivan (I think) said, why is Russia's last option its first? Especially if its torpdeo boats are so deadly?

Also, you do realize that the entire Tupelov bomber series is based on a single american B-29 that was confiscated by the Russians during world war 2, right?

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
$tranger,
Tupelovs and torpedo boats can defeat the US Navy?

Stealth doesn't matter?

Oh lord, with that kind of thinking Russia won't stand a chance. As Ivan (I think) said, why is Russia's last option its first? Especially if its torpdeo boats are so deadly?

it is known that russian anti shipping missiles are the best in the world, like the mosquito and yakhont and many more,

stealth?
*cough*infra red sattelites*cough*

hey akula! do you know why NATO gave it the call sign "Fulcrum?" in physics a fulcrum is the point where a lever pivots. in the case of the MiG-29 it could potentually pivot the outcome of a war in ivan's favor. the MiG-29 is a damn good aircraft. not to mention the Tu-22M Backfire, but thats a different story.