Author Topic: "Reagan was right..." (Read 1548 times)

Boroda · « **Reply #45 on:** March 24, 2004, 01:31:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry Boroda, but the REAL reason for our ABM/ Starwars sytem development was to assist the Soviet Union in going broke faster. Looks like it worked pretty well.

Sure, I know it. It was probably even more successfull then Khruschev's missile bluff of late-50s, when he declared that R-7 ("Sputnik" launcher, still in service as first two stages of "Soyuz") rockets were standing in our steppes "like candles"...

Did SDI include ABM projects? AFAIK it didn't, US was limited by 1972 treaty...

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #46 on:** March 24, 2004, 01:35:27 PM »

SDI was a research and development project and I believe the 1972 ABM prohibited deployment.

Boroda · « **Reply #47 on:** March 24, 2004, 01:42:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
Patriot is an anti- aircraft missile, 100% accurate. Placed into service in Gulf war one as a placebo against scud (useless as a flying bathtub) missiles. Still had good hits on them.

100% accurate AA missile is a science fiction.

No SAM can be "100% accurate" even agaist non-maneuvering target without ECM and stuff like flares or chaff.

IIRC Patriots intercepted about 3% of Scuds. Remaining Scuds that didn't reach the target exploded on start or felt apart in flight because the original Soviet design was "modernised" by Arabs to improve range. At least it's what I have read about it in Soviet/Russian military press in early 90s. At that times they had no reason to lie.

American SAMs were always behind ours, in everything from powerplants to weird warhead designs and backwards electronics. And in terms of combat appliance, experience and tactics your AA defence must be decades behind. You simply don't have a nessessity to protect your home land from hordes of enemy planes.

Wlfgng · « **Reply #48 on:** March 24, 2004, 01:47:45 PM »

Quote

100% accurate AA missile is a science fiction.

very true.

Quote

American SAMs were always behind ours, in everything from powerplants to weird warhead designs and backwards electronics. And in terms of combat appliance, experience and tactics your AA defence must be decades behind.

again true.

None of this means that the new technologies work/don't work.
Progress on the battlefield has been made recently by the US... tons of progress due to real battle conditions as opposed to theory.

Boroda · « **Reply #49 on:** March 24, 2004, 01:56:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
SDI was a research and development project and I believe the 1972 ABM prohibited deployment.

I don't remember any information about any American ABM projects in the 80s. Wasn't an American ABM programm abandoned in 70s after unsuccessfull attempt to shield "missile farms" in North Dakota? USSR deployed first-generation ABM system protecting Moscow in mid-70s, and by the late-80s we had a second generation system working.

The fact that US tried to shield "missile farms" and USSR have protected the city of Moscow with 10 million people shows a nice difference in approach between two political systems.

Moscow ABM shield never was supposed to shoot down more then 5-10 enemy warheads. It was a protection from an accidental launch. Your attempt to cover the whole continent with an ABM shield looks funny. How many ABMs are you going to deploy? 110? Fired in salvos of two missiles (no less, otherwise it's all nonsence), reaching an improbable 100% hit ratio the whole system will be able to intercept 55 warheads, or 10-12 MIRV missiles. Looks like someone is fooling you guys. You'd better spend the money on something more usefull like public education.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #50 on:** March 24, 2004, 06:17:52 PM »

As I remember it , the ABM treaty allowed a sheild around the capital of both countries, and a limited sheild around 'missle farms'.

To believe USSR did not protect its retaliatory capability I would think would be nieve. (Could be wrong however, they may have been fire on warning policy)

As it is a coastal city, DC is at most only a couple minutes from a submarine launched missle and to feild a missle interceptor with 70's technology that could identify, launch and destroy an incoming weapon in 60 seconds was impossible.

Moscow being maybe 1500+ km from a possible SLBM could have had faith in a system that had considerably more time to react. With the 1970's computing power however it seems unlikely either side could have intercepted incoming missles.

weaselsan · « **Reply #51 on:** March 24, 2004, 06:40:39 PM »

What they say the patriot is capable of today, and what it was capable of in 91' are apples and oranges. The patriot was moved to Isreal in gulf one to placate the Israelis to keep them out of the war. Anyone who wants to go back pre 91' and find anywhere the patriot is described as an ABM I would like to see it.
The specialized radar was of interest to some weapon designers,
but the patriot was designed to be a SAM.

weaselsan · « **Reply #52 on:** March 24, 2004, 06:47:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
100% accurate AA missile is a science fiction.

No SAM can be "100% accurate" even agaist non-maneuvering target without ECM and stuff like flares or chaff.

IIRC Patriots intercepted about 3% of Scuds. Remaining Scuds that didn't reach the target exploded on start or felt apart in flight because the original Soviet design was "modernised" by Arabs to improve range. At least it's what I have read about it in Soviet/Russian military press in early 90s. At that times they had no reason to lie.

American SAMs were always behind ours, in everything from powerplants to weird warhead designs and backwards electronics. And in terms of combat appliance, experience and tactics your AA defence must be decades behind. You simply don't have a nessessity to protect your home land from hordes of enemy planes.

Saddam would have loved to have your AA expertise when he was getting his military and infrustucture pounded into the sand by American airpower.

hawker238 · « **Reply #53 on:** March 24, 2004, 06:53:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
The fact that US tried to shield "missile farms" and USSR have protected the city of Moscow with 10 million people shows a nice difference in approach between two political systems.

NUKE · « **Reply #54 on:** March 24, 2004, 08:38:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
I don't remember any information about any American ABM projects in the 80s. Wasn't an American ABM programm abandoned in 70s after unsuccessfull attempt to shield "missile farms" in North Dakota? USSR deployed first-generation ABM system protecting Moscow in mid-70s, and by the late-80s we had a second generation system working.

The fact that US tried to shield "missile farms" and USSR have protected the city of Moscow with 10 million people shows a nice difference in approach between two political systems.

Moscow ABM shield never was supposed to shoot down more then 5-10 enemy warheads. It was a protection from an accidental launch. Your attempt to cover the whole continent with an ABM shield looks funny. How many ABMs are you going to deploy? 110? Fired in salvos of two missiles (no less, otherwise it's all nonsence), reaching an improbable 100% hit ratio the whole system will be able to intercept 55 warheads, or 10-12 MIRV missiles. Looks like someone is fooling you guys. You'd better spend the money on something more usefull like public education.

I'd like to see the tests in which the Soviets were able to demonstate the ability to intercept an ICBM and/or warhead back then or at any time.

Also, our ABM system is just what we told you people it was going to be.....a DEFENSE AGAINST ROUGE STATES like N. Korea in a limited attack. We have repeatedly told your government and the world that our system would be only to guard against the new reality of a limited attack coming from a rouge state.

Nobody thinks the ABM system is a shield that can stop hundreds of warheads at once.

You mentioned that your ABM system was in place to protect Moscow's 10 million people? If anything they probably deployed whatever ineffective system they thought they had to protect the Kremlin at...... best.

So far almost everything the Russians have put up against US equipment has proven to be an utter failure in combat....including tactics. Baghdad (edit) was said to be one of the most heavily defended cities in the world and equipped with the latest Russian equipment, training and advice. The US came in and made that defense look like joke.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #55 on:** March 25, 2004, 02:12:42 AM »

"equipped with the latest Russian equipment"

sorry this is bs. they have much better first line stuff.

we would not fair as well against it. want to find out invade russia.

Thrawn · « **Reply #56 on:** March 25, 2004, 02:46:59 AM »

NUKE, the US is the best at alot of stuff, but they aren't best at everything. That's okay though, they are still the best and have the best in alot of cases. You don't have to take it so personally.

When you think that yours is the best just because it's yours you risk falling into a trap of overestimating your ability or underestimating your opponents. You are sounding ideological.

"I'd like to see the tests in which the Soviets were able to demonstate the ability to intercept an ICBM and/or warhead back then or at any time."

That is a ligitmate question. Until it is answered than than possibility exists that such a system existed, but it is neither proved nor disproved.

"If anything they probably deployed whatever ineffective system they thought they had to protect the Kremlin at...... best."

See that statement? That's a wild assumption that has no basis anywhere in reality. It a complete figment of you imagination. You have not data to back it up whatsoever.

Pongo · « **Reply #57 on:** March 25, 2004, 03:33:23 AM »

nock nock..anyone home.
Big news. GWB rips up treaties..thats a new one.
Hes real brave to do so sitting on by far the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world..
Wonder how he will like it when north korea has a simular capability?
oh ya thats right. 40 interceptors is enough to make it so that a minor nuclear power cant nuke you but of course..they would need a thousand such interceptors to stop the US.
At the same time bush ratles the sabre to get coutries to comply with the "nukes only for america" treaty..he rips up the ABM treaty..
what a guy!

Boroda · « **Reply #58 on:** March 25, 2004, 08:33:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As I remember it , the ABM treaty allowed a sheild around the capital of both countries, and a limited sheild around 'missle farms'.

To believe USSR did not protect its retaliatory capability I would think would be nieve. (Could be wrong however, they may have been fire on warning policy)

1972 ABM treaty allowed only one region to be protected by ABM systems. The treaty also limited other defence systems like long-range early warning radar stations. The choice of the region to protect was left to the treaty members.

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

As it is a coastal city, DC is at most only a couple minutes from a submarine launched missle and to feild a missle interceptor with 70's technology that could identify, launch and destroy an incoming weapon in 60 seconds was impossible.

Moscow being maybe 1500+ km from a possible SLBM could have had faith in a system that had considerably more time to react. With the 1970's computing power however it seems unlikely either side could have intercepted incoming missles.

By 1975 Soviet ABM system (first generation) was able to refrain from using nuclear charges and switched to conventional warheads because the accuracy was enough to knock enemy missiles directly. AFAIR the upper interception range was 300km, lower was 5km.

After NATO deployed medium-range ballistic missiles in Europe - Moscow was only a couple of minutes from launch sites.

Boroda · « **Reply #59 on:** March 25, 2004, 08:52:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
Saddam would have loved to have your AA expertise when he was getting his military and infrustucture pounded into the sand by American airpower.

It's pretty easy to "pound into the sand" someone who doesn't have a decent anti-aircraft infrastructure and is limited to the equipment that is 30 years old.

You never were at war with a country that has a full-scale aircraft defence system. Even Vietnamese, using Soviet missiles that were already outdated (S-75) scored an impressive number of victories, mostly because of exellent tactics and planning, combined with superior training of the personell. Just remember, there were no Soviet advisors in Iraq. Even in Lybia, 1986, an S-200 long range missile complex, fireing "from the wheels" and not even properly deployed, fireing one missile per targeting station (according to the regulations S-200 fires 2 or 3 missiles in a salvo) shot down two American planes, one missile per hit. In Syria, 1982, Soviet advisors had a long kill list using outdated S-75 in manual targeting mode, relying on high mobility and a good position choice.

It's easy to wage war on amateur cowards.