Author Topic: new russian weapon...US shield is useless (Read 5277 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #15 on:** March 30, 2004, 08:30:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen10
lol Iron.. you do know that Finland uses the F18 dont you?

I wasn't aware that the F-18 had any anti-icbm capability. Do you think that the US sells any of it's most advanced or secret weaponry? The F-117 is over 20 years old, got any of those?

mora · « **Reply #16 on:** March 30, 2004, 08:31:38 AM »

Nilsen · « **Reply #17 on:** March 30, 2004, 08:32:14 AM »

lol, was refering to your comment:

"I can understand how some with little advanced technology and/or no military capability might want to believe that."

Boroda · « **Reply #18 on:** March 30, 2004, 08:32:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
It means how would you know what the US has up it's sleeve?

Hmm. It's common knowledge that your attempts to build a working ABM system were a total failure since 60s. Last tests showed that not much have changed.

Even if you'll succeed - the total planned number of deployed missiles is too small to protect you from an attack from China now or India in a matter of years.

More to say, this new Russian hypersonic-maneuverable warhead makes intercept impossible on current stage of technological development.

The funniest thing that his new missile was researched on American money, granted in early-90s. I have heard this scientific and experimental studies of hypersonic air-space maneuverable warhead was payed by US, and the only thing they recieved in return was the conclusion that this thing is possible and we can make it.

AKIron · « **Reply #19 on:** March 30, 2004, 08:37:22 AM »

If you guys think that the US doesn't spend a great deal of money and effort on completely secret military research then you really are clueless. If you think these efforts don't yield successful results then you are only fooling yourself. If it makes you feel better to believe Boroda knows all the answers then who am I to try to stop you?

Nilsen · « **Reply #20 on:** March 30, 2004, 08:40:59 AM »

Nobody doubts that the US is spending billions on top-secret and advanced military stuff.

Boroda · « **Reply #21 on:** March 30, 2004, 08:45:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Meanwhile Ukraine can't find its *** from a hole in the ground...

Ukraine officials: Hundreds of Soviet-era antimissiles missing

Marchuk didn't specify the types of missile. Defense Ministry spokesman Kostyantyn Khivrenko told The Associated Press that he was referring to S-75 air defense missiles — also known in the West by the code-name SA-2.

S-75 "Dvina" was the first Soviet non-stationery SAM. It was obsolet 20 years ago. Calling this huge liquid-fueled radio-command homing winged monster an "antimissile" is funny.

I think I can reveal the great Ukrainian military secret: all this SAMs were stolen, scrapped and sold as recycled aluminium.

Russia now developes a target drone for SAM tests based on S-75 missile. They were produced in huge quantities, to have a stock big enough to withstand a full-scale war with NATO. S-75 is an interesting design, simple as a 5-kopeyka coin, but too old now. I doubt there are any of them still in service in ex-USSR.

Boroda · « **Reply #22 on:** March 30, 2004, 08:53:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
If you guys think that the US doesn't spend a great deal of money and effort on completely secret military research then you really are clueless. If you think these efforts don't yield successful results then you are only fooling yourself. If it makes you feel better to believe Boroda knows all the answers then who am I to try to stop you?

I never pretend to "know all the answers", I only can't find any reasonable explaination for the American "national missile defence". If you want to make it effective - why don't order it from the people who know how to do it? And now it only looks like an attempt to feed your military-industrial complex.

Can you give me links to any reports of successfull ABM tests in last five years?

AKIron · « **Reply #23 on:** March 30, 2004, 09:02:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
I never pretend to "know all the answers", I only can't find any reasonable explaination for the American "national missile defence". If you want to make it effective - why don't order it from the people who know how to do it? And now it only looks like an attempt to feed your military-industrial complex.

Can you give me links to any reports of successfull ABM tests in last five years?

Goes back to the old measure/counter measure thing Toad mentioned Boroda. Why would the US spend a great deal of effort developing a system and then reveal it's characteristics so that a counter measure might be developed?

Obviously, with secret things the public will never know what capabilites exist or don't exist.

Yeager · « **Reply #24 on:** March 30, 2004, 09:12:47 AM »

was my understanding that the missle defense was targeted at rougue states that have "limited ICBM capability", single or small numbers of missles not a massive strike like the FUSSR could mount. North Korea was mentioned as the focus with its offloading of missle technology to muslim states also mentioned as a serious concern. The FUSSR (F for Former) was not described as a concern.

I support the effort to develope a limited ICBM defense.

Nilsen · « **Reply #25 on:** March 30, 2004, 09:17:19 AM »

With alot of things i would agree with you on that one Iron, but not in this case.

A missile shield is a deterrent, and those dont work unless the "enemy" is aware of them.

an SSBN is completly useless unless the enemy knows you have them and they work.

A functional defence against ICBM's would work in the same way so keeping a functional shield secret makes little sence. .

Boroda · « **Reply #26 on:** March 30, 2004, 09:17:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Goes back to the old measure/counter measure thing Toad mentioned Boroda. Why would the US spend a great deal of effort developing a system and then reveal it's characteristics so that a counter measure might be developed?

Obviously, with secret things the public will never know what capabilites exist or don't exist.

The declared goal of the NMD is to prevent a nuclear missile strike from "rogue countries". This means that they must know the capabilities of missile defence, so they'll not pe provoked to try penetrating it. With 110 deployed AMBs the only thing they will need is to deliver 55+1 warhead to be 100% sure they'll get what they want.

Another thought: 1972 AMB treaty limited ABM capabilities mostly to make both sides understand that they can't hide behind a "missile shield" and MAD was inevitable. Anyone believing that he can wage a "limited nuclear war" is extremely dangerous.

Naso · « **Reply #27 on:** March 30, 2004, 09:21:38 AM »

What Yaeger said seem the more rational explanation.

The rest is an Area 51 guess.

Naso · « **Reply #28 on:** March 30, 2004, 09:23:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
The declared goal of the NMD is to prevent a nuclear missile strike from "rogue countries". This means that they must know the capabilities of missile defence, so they'll not pe provoked to try penetrating it. With 110 deployed AMBs the only thing they will need is to deliver 55+1 warhead to be 100% sure they'll get what they want.

Another thought: 1972 AMB treaty limited ABM capabilities mostly to make both sides understand that they can't hide behind a "missile shield" and MAD was inevitable. Anyone believing that he can wage a "limited nuclear war" is extremely dangerous.

Boroda, how many MIRV tha SS-20 had on board?

(Was the SS-20 the dangerous ICBM that was "traded" in exchange of the minutemans?).

Just checked a site for the MIRVs.

Amaizing is the MX (Lgm118A Peacekeeper).

Up to 10 x 300 KT MIRVs

Nilsen · « **Reply #29 on:** March 30, 2004, 09:26:50 AM »

10 Naso