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.
The Soviets built a space shuttle ..it looks very much like the one we built here. How many Flights did it make?? They have a TU 144 bomber which looks very much like the B1 lancer bomber. Why is that?? Because they know it works??
But they never could get their Space Shuttle to work. Think it through...carefully.
Launch a missile into orbit where all the stages get used up is very different from a Space Shuttle.
Yes. Solving similar physical problems and missions lead to similar solutions. SU-27 looks like a F-15. SLBM's look identical.
And because the Communist party bureaucrats didn't trust the Soviet scientists very much when they came up with an original idea, even when it was superior. (Remember, Soviet scientists were "liberals" and many of them Jews). I've heard it nearly first hand (Sagdeev) that the Soviet Academy of Sciences did a serious study of Reagan's "Star Wars" and concluded that it wasn't ever going to work as advertised and presented no significant strategic threat, and was fairly easy to overcome. They were correct, but the Communists didn't believe them and that fear contributed to changing history. They had a long-standing inferiority complex.
A Russian mathemetician apparently wrote a key paper on radar stealth in the early 70's but they never knew how to apply it, and somebody in Lockheed recognized the brilliance and application. Also stealth depends highly on manufacturing quality, which Russians are terrible at.
The question to ask yourself of which no one wants to answer...is with the new technology ..is it possible to find a dark black hole moving across the background of natural undersea noise level?? What do you think??
Dont answer that??!!
Why do you think the US Navy spent millions at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute on sonar research??
They were not particularly interested it the migrations of these underseas species as much as the patterns and the sounds they make in migrations, feeding, and mating. How this changes the background noise levels.
Does not this fellow Robert Ballard..often work out of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute?? The fellow who found the Titanic, Bismark, and I think the Uss Yorktown. Former Naval Officer...et al..etc etc. Getting the picture yet??
Yes..Woods Hole does some important natural oceanographic research of it's own..no doubt...But the government and particularly the US Navy has its hand deep up the sock puppet of this Oceanographic Institute. This should be obvious. It was to me when watching the news one evening and they were pumping up Woods Hole for their research. But I saw something very different in the news article. Something not made public unless you knew how to think outside the box and some other small details.
Our rocket technology is indeed an extension of what was learned from German/Nazi
scientists and engineers after WW2. However ..America was to take this to new heights in heavy payload know how for which the Soviets could not match in engine design. This is why they stuck with the multi clustered engine booster type packs verses a large engine. This is what got the Apollo project going. The leap in engine design
The U.S. Navy openly acknowledges that they cannot track these subs when they are submerged.
originally posted by: dragonridr
reply to post by nighthawk1954
Trust me if a sub moves it can be detected. No matter how hard you try you cant move through water without creating cavitation. You can minimize it making you have to be closer to the source to detect it but you cant do away with it.