Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nilsen on October 06, 2006, 06:03:26 AM
-
During the 70s and 80s our fighters intercepted between 5 and 600 russian military planes every year. After the cold war ended that has dropped to about one every week.
Now they are flying again and testing our response times.
These pics were taken a few days ago by an F16 when 6! Bears flew just outside our territory down towards Scotland and back?... just like in the good old days.
Can we hope the russkies are back in business? ;)
(http://www.vg.no/bilder/edrum/Fly_saken1.jpg)
(http://www.vg.no/bilder/edrum/Fly_saken2_1.jpg)
(http://www.vg.no/bilder/edrum/Fly_saken_nede.jpg)
I wish i had access to hig res photos from this encounter.
-
At least your guys have something to do right now :)
Look at it at the way that you have to opportunity to practice... for free :D
-
Indeed... Must be fun to jump in your plane and go full afterburner to meet and greet someone.
Even during the cold war we had a freindly and respectful relationship with our neighbours up there. They never violated our airspace but they always went so close that they could almost put their arm over the border. I bet they have all our response times down to the second noted in their files. Almost strange that there never was an incident up there during all those years of close encounters. Would be fun to be able to look thru the photo archives and radar data the airforce has tho.
-
Actually there were many incidences. Remember that Su-27 that clipped the propeller of one of our P-3 Orions? Also I remember my father telling me stories about the hazards of night interception in the North Sea. The Russians used to drop flares to blind our pilots at night. One F-104 crashed as a result and his wingman nearly lit off a Sidewinder at the offending Bear. There were many incidents during the cold war, but most were kept quiet for obvious reasons. :)
-
Well.. i did mean shooting incidents.
bang-bang.. dead bear.
followed by
bang-bang.. dead norway
-
In WESTPAC they played lots of games, especially at low altitude. If you joined on them at very low alt they'd do a sudden (well...sudden for a Bear) turn into you to try to push you off in the water. They also liked to do the same thing by making a tight turn around a ship like the CV to scrape you off on the superstructure. There were numerous close calls. Of course worst was when the guy in the tail blister would hold up the current month's Playboy...and we hadn't received it yet on the boat. Those guys.....always such kidders...:D
Mace
-
Same game was played here around Iceland. The US had to scramble all the time.
They have just left the party, no jets left. So maybe we'll have to check Ebay for Jets :D
-
Ebay might be a good idea. The better solution would be to give us your fishing rights in return for us putting a squadron of F16s and a NASAMS battery there. :D
-
Fall 2002 International Air Power Review has a very good 50 page article on the TU-95/142 Varients.
Amazing aircraft when you consider it mated probally the most powerful turboprops every produced to an airframe - 15,000 SHP.
-
I think its safe to downgrade the Bear to a poodle. Yes, the Russian Poodle is here, new and improved!
-
Wasn't the noise from the props so incredibly loud that it hurt the ears of the pilots intercepting them?
I vaguely recall hearing about this and seeing the prop tips were close to supersonic I can see it might happen.
Of course my recollection is from some dolt who was completely out of that loop.
It was probably from a tv show so maybe my recollections are about as good as the source.
-
so it begins...
-
Originally posted by fuzeman
Wasn't the noise from the props so incredibly loud that it hurt the ears of the pilots intercepting them?
I vaguely recall hearing about this and seeing the prop tips were close to supersonic I can see it might happen.
Of course my recollection is from some dolt who was completely out of that loop.
It was probably from a tv show so maybe my recollections are about as good as the source.
Loud yes...painful? No. They were loud enough you could hear them in an F-14 cockpit which is quite a feat considering how loud the F-14's ECS system was. You could put your hand on the canopy and really feel the vibrations. What always astounded me was that these guys could fly around in a Bear for 15 or 20 hours and not have all their fillings fall out or their brains pour out their ears.
Mace
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
What always astounded me was that these guys could fly around in a Bear for 15 or 20 hours and not have all their fillings fall out
Easy! In Soviet Russia, fillings are for party officials only who must interact with the corrupt capitalist pigdogs. Good strong citizens simply remove tooth, no need for luxury cosmetics like fillings.
-
Maybe the Russians are just bored?
-
Originally posted by dmf
Maybe the Russians are just bored?
This guy got bored.
http://www.rcwarbirds.com/feature.html
(http://www.rcwarbirds.com/bear4big.jpg)
(http://www.rcwarbirds.com/bear8big.jpg)
(http://www.rcwarbirds.com/bear11big.jpg)
(http://www.rcwarbirds.com/bearflying1.jpg)
(http://www.rcwarbirds.com/bearflys3.jpg)
1/10 th. scale model of Russian TU-95 "Bear" intercontinental nuclear bomber of the Cold War.
Wingspan: 21'- 6"
Length: 18'- 7"
Weight: 90 lbs.
Height: 4'- 3"
Wing Area in Square Inches: 4000
Servos: 28
Batteries: 16
Switches: 25
Receivers: 3
Glow Plugs: 16
Fuel Tanks: 8
Air Systems: 3
Radio: Futaba
Landing Gear: Robart
On Board Starters By Brookside Machine 4
Wheels, Air Brakes By Brookside Machine 8
Engines 2 Cycle, 4 Strokes 1.82 C.I. EA-R.A. 4
Custom True Turn Spinners: 4
Tubing and Wiring Approx.: 6 Lbs.
Robart Air Valves: 4
Robart Air Tanks:
4
Constructed from Don Smith plans by B.B. Webber. For the great metalic look Mr. Webber used 3/4 oz. fiberglass cloth put down with thinned Finish Cure epoxy. He primed it with PPG automotive primer and then sanded it down. The bottom is painted with flat automotive enamel and the top is done with a process called Skinny Dip. The process involves spraying on a clear adhesive then literaly rubbing on a coat of powdered aluminum. The excess is wiped off. In essence it really is an aluminum finish. BB said he only used about 8 ozs. of the powder on the whole airplane so, weight is minimal.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
During the 70s and 80s our fighters intercepted between 5 and 600 russian military planes every year. After the cold war ended that has dropped to about one every week.
Now they are flying again and testing our response times.
These pics were taken a few days ago by an F16 when 6! Bears flew just outside our territory down towards Scotland and back?... just like in the good old days.
Can we hope the russkies are back in business? ;)
(http://www.vg.no/bilder/edrum/Fly_saken1.jpg)
(http://www.vg.no/bilder/edrum/Fly_saken2_1.jpg)
(http://www.vg.no/bilder/edrum/Fly_saken_nede.jpg)
I wish i had access to hig res photos from this encounter.
Yes, but we a probing your defense for when bush decides to be stupid and start war with Russia, besides the nukes we also have bombers :P
-
Originally posted by Krypto
Yes, but we a probing your defense for when bush decides to be stupid and start war with Russia, besides the nukes we also have bombers :P
But apparently not a map. The US is on the other side of the Atlantic.
-
You can go either way on the globe and get there, just depends on how fast you want to do it.
-
Originally posted by Krypto
Yes, but we a probing your defense for when bush decides to be stupid and start war with Russia, besides the nukes we also have bombers :P
you call them bombers, we call them targets.
-
We only ask that you keep your bombers within the reduced combat radius of our F-18 derivative fighters. We apologize for the inconvenience, but the retirement of our F-14 fleet has limited our ability to service threats with the same level of care we were previously able to offer.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
We only ask that you keep your bombers within the reduced combat radius of our F-18 derivative fighters. We apologize for the inconvenience, but the retirement of our F-14 fleet has limited our ability to service threats with the same level of care we were previously able to offer.
Sig material
-
I haven't seen him Nielsen....Want me to call if he shows up in Austin Tx.?
-
Why would we want to attack Russia? We've got yer hot woman dying to come to us, Putin is slowing putting ya back into the Cold War prose and your cars suk! I like it the way we have it now!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
We only ask that you keep your bombers within the reduced combat radius of our F-18 derivative fighters. We apologize for the inconvenience, but the retirement of our F-14 fleet has limited our ability to service threats with the same level of care we were previously able to offer.
You havent seen the SuperHornet yet have you?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Well.. i did mean shooting incidents.
bang-bang.. dead bear.
followed by
bang-bang.. dead norway
Do a google search on "cold war" shoot downs. Theres a suprising amount, especially in the 60's.
-
Originally posted by dmf
You havent seen the SuperHornet yet have you?
What'd they do, add dorsal droptank capability? ;)
-
Originally posted by dmf
You havent seen the SuperHornet yet have you?
Congratulations! You win an all expenses paid trip to the military reference website of your choice to learn about the differences between the Super Hornet and the Tommy Cat.
-
Originally posted by Krypto
Yes, but we a probing your defense for when bush decides to be stupid and start war with Russia, besides the nukes we also have bombers :P
Never will happen. He thinks Russia is part of east Texas.
hap
-
the guy in the tail blister would hold up the current month's Playboy...and we hadn't received it yet on the boat.
:lol
:mad: :mad:
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Do a google search on "cold war" shoot downs. Theres a suprising amount, especially in the 60's.
did norway ever shoot down any russian planes? :confused:
-
If you guys take a look at the second pic i posted then it aparently is a very rare photo of two bears tanking in the air at the same time on one photo.
awwww... wish i was a newspaper or something, then i could get access to the free photo archive of the norwegian military.
if any of you work in a paper then go and register and you should get tons of free photos that have been taken over the years. maybe even these are there in high-res.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Ebay might be a good idea. The better solution would be to give us your fishing rights in return for us putting a squadron of F16s and a NASAMS battery there. :D
Nonono, we fought for the fishing right and even gunned holes in the British trawlers.:D
News update, - Russian aircraft have been spotted around the country. What's going on?
-
Notice the tanker carries the Russian flag whilst the Bear still carries the old Soviet star.
Interesting.
-
Guess they're out of paint.
They still have money for the fuel though....
-
Originally posted by wooley
Notice the tanker carries the Russian flag whilst the Bear still carries the old Soviet star.
Interesting.
(http://www.vg.no/bilder/edrum/Fly_saken_nede.jpg)
-
well the standard duck and cover procedure for war time is simple
put your head between your legs and kiss your butt goodbye
-
Are the roosians feeling upstaged by NK and Iran?
-
I'm sure we can send a MinuteMen missile if the occasion calls for it:D :noid
-
I wonder if they're testing the north. The GIUK gate. But then...why?
The only change that has occured is that the US has left Iceland, and that leaves a gap in the N-Atlantic "gate". But why?
-
A) Regelar training.
B) Showing others that they still have the capability.
C) Checking what the response would be if they did it.
D) Testing the planes before selling them to China. :D
Or a number of other reasons.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Well.. i did mean shooting incidents.
bang-bang.. dead bear.
followed by
bang-bang.. dead norway
What, shooting at the neighbours? Now that wouldn't be very friendly now would it? ;)
-
our bombers are faster then there bombers :D
but there fighters are better:cry
-
Russia is a shadow of the old Soviet Union. Whos afraid of some old turbo-prop bombers?
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Russia is a shadow of the old Soviet Union. Whos afraid of some old turbo-prop bombers?
I would be if I was ther target.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I would be if I was ther target.
Exactly. A Turboprop means what? Oh, yes it's not supersonic.
It still is rather fast and can carry some really nasty stuff..
BTW, the Bear seems AFAIK to be a rather reliable bird.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Russia is a shadow of the old Soviet Union. Whos afraid of some old turbo-prop bombers?
The russian method was to build alot and hope to win a battle of attrition.
-
Guess what.
USS WASP is now visiting Iceland. Coincidense?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Guess what.
USS WASP is now visiting Iceland. Coincidense?
Are they rounding up the sheep?
-
Doubt so, and they're not working for Clint Eastwood either. All the LVT's from him have left.
-
Well.. if they are not there for the sheep i would be very worried if i were you.
-
The Russians are no threat to Scandinavia, relax.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
our bombers are faster then there bombers :D
but there fighters are better:cry
Nope, it's the other way around. Russia has hundreds of bombers faster than US bombers, but the US has the best fighters (F-22). :)
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/planes/tu22m3_006.jpg)
(http://tonyrogers.com/weapons/russian/tu160_01_500x306.jpg)
(http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/usa/lockheed_martin/f-22/F-22launch2_300.jpg)
-
Can't touch this (http://www.sonymusic.com/artists/UltimateGrammyBox/Disk3/ucanttouchthis.wav)
(http://www.spacedaily.com/images/plane-b2-bomber-bg.jpg)
-
That's probably the slowest bomber in service. What's your point?
-
Faster ain't always better.
Can't touch this (http://www.sonymusic.com/artists/UltimateGrammyBox/Disk3/ucanttouchthis.wav)
-
Viking, if you can't see it, you can't kill it.
Having the fastest fighters means excellent protection.... against daytime attack.
-
The thing I noticed FIRST is that while in the past the tailgunner was VERY careful to point his guns straight up, these guys are just letting the tailgun dangle out back. This used to be a really big deal.
Maybe they don't believe we'd really shoot back anymore...
-
Originally posted by lukster
Faster ain't always better.
Can't touch this (http://www.sonymusic.com/artists/UltimateGrammyBox/Disk3/ucanttouchthis.wav)
Ah, so your point is you are unable to comprehend that my post was in response to Raider14's. Ok, np. :)
In any case I'd take superior speed over superior stealth any day. Being faster than your enemy gives you the opportunity to escape if you're detected. A 50 year old fighter can kill the B-2 if it is spotted, and it is not so difficult to spot a stealth plane as some people would like you to believe. Stealth gives you more options, but there is still a lot of good planning required to successfully penetrate a modern air defense. A poorly planned stealth mission is a death sentence for the otherwise defenseless stealth planes, like the Serbs showed us.
The completely outdated Iraqi Mig-25's on the other hand attacked a flight of F-111's in broad daylight and were engaged by escorting F-15s. The F-15s fired all their BVR missiles in vain; the Migs were untouchable.
Like wise the Tu-22M and Tu-160 are faster than any currently operating western fighter (carrying a war load). The only possible exception is the F-22 which carries its missiles internally.
The oldest rule in the book: Speed is life. Unfortunately this rule seems lost on many.
-
Uh, did you forget about SAMs? I think when it comes to speed they are multiple times faster.
You seem to revel in contention. You sure you aren't related to gscholz?
-
I seem to revel in contention? Look in the mirror my friend. Perhaps next time you spot a "fastest bomber" discussion you won't jump in with irrelevant arguments about stealth? We don't need your lectures on stealth; it's not a new concept.
If we were to have a dragster related discussion I bet you'd chime in saying "Yeah well F1 cars can TURN!". :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Viking
I seem to revel in contention? Look in the mirror my friend. Perhaps next time you spot a "fastest bomber" discussion you won't jump in with irrelevant arguments about stealth? We don't need your lectures on stealth; it's not a new concept.
If we were to have a dragster related discussion I bet you'd chime in saying "Yeah well F1 cars can TURN!". :rolleyes:
So it is you gscholz. Why the name change?
-
Nm.
-
Originally posted by Viking
see rule # 4.
If you're not gscholz you could be his twin. But I believe ya. I don't think gscholz would lie about who he is.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Well.. if they are not there for the sheep i would be very worried if i were you.
:rofl
Sadly we only have 400.000 ewes left in the country and they're scattered all over the place.
Then on to speed vs stealth.
Speed brings a problem with design and maintenance. So does stealth. They're just different.
A really really high speed, - like the upper speed of the cold-war era russian fighters puts a hih demand on airframe and skin. A little bump in heading means enourmous G's, and the air friction is heating the airframe enourmously.
And a total stealth aircraft needs a shape that's not entirely aerodynamic, it needs a skin, and it needs to cover the IR.
So it's a matter of scoice.
And Viking: I think you are Scholzie. I don't know where exactly You/Scholzie lost it on the boards enough to be banned (I don't know the thread or issue) but sure enough, the quote on that interception is the same as his.
So either you are Scholzie (in which case I say hello and how are you doing ;)), or that particular interception is the hottest thing in Norway for years.
-
I was away from this board for the better part of a couple of years. I have no idea if/why gscholz was banned. He did seem to take much as a personal affront or challenge though.
-
Angus. All I can say is that Skuzzy has laid down the law:
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Whether he is or is not, is irrelevant. Each handle on the BB will stand on its own merit, unless it is quite obvious the owner is trying to circumvent a ban from the board.
Let's stop the witch hunt folks. Leave that to us. :)
However if I was gscholz I'd respond: Hi Angie, I'm fine. Thanks for asking! All well up in Iceland? :)
-
hehehe, I missed you. Now make the merit stick !
-
Originally posted by Viking
Ah, so your point is you are unable to comprehend that my post was in response to Raider14's. Ok, np. :)
I see 8 posts (including another message by you) between Raider's last post and your reply above. Your message was immediately below Lukster's stealth bomber, so... uh, you might want to re-read the thread.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Angus. All I can say is that Skuzzy has laid down the law:
However if I was gscholz I'd respond: Hi Angie, I'm fine. Thanks for asking! All well up in Iceland? :)
BTW, that was a very intelligent way to answer :aok
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I see 8 posts (including another message by you) between Raider's last post and your reply above. Your message was immediately below Lukster's stealth bomber, so... uh, you might want to re-read the thread.
I believe you're mistaken sir. I quoted Raider14.
-
So when a comparison of US and Russian bombers and fighters is made I'm not allowed to post a pic of the world's premier bomber (imo) and a catchy tune without it being a challenge to your post Viking?
Don't take everything so personal, you'll live longer.
-
Please dont let my excellent thread go down the drain or out the door Mr Lukster and Mr. Viking. :)
-
NP Nilsen, I'll just dodge Iron's hook this time. He uses old bait anyways. ;)
-
Look. Russian Fighters can still beat American Aircraft. If russia wanted we would upgrade even more and pass the US once again.
1. Russian migs can "Beam" an american aircraft for a missile lock and FIRE before the American is in range, and trust me these missiles are tricky buggers RK-73 :)
2. Practically every Russian fighter can outturn and do even more depending on the pilot compared to american craft.
3. We have more VTOL aircraft
4. We don't exactly need stealths we don't need to worry if we wanted one we would make it.
5. All American spy planes have been shot down, no matter how high, stealth or not.
6. Russia basically also has nukes ya know, the ammount is insane, start war, on day 2, Bush will be dead. Or whomever started it. Sure the US has nukes and such, but about a fraction of what Russia does
-
Oh nice... Russian vs American propaganda. This is good stuff.
Hopefully we will never find out who would win a conventional fight between a fully trained and fitted America and Russia. I doubt either will be close to 100% at the same time anyway.
I put my money on Sweden, Austria and the Swiss.
-
Originally posted by lukster
So when a comparison of US and Russian bombers and fighters is made I'm not allowed to post a pic of the world's premier bomber (imo) and a catchy tune without it being a challenge to your post Viking?
Don't care bout Viking, but B2 (in strategic terms) is just about useless.
21 in service with about 45% MC rate (according to Pentagon, other sources say it's bellow 40%).
Probably the most expensive PR ever...
-
Originally posted by Krypto
5. All American spy planes have been shot down, no matter how high, stealth or not.
There's plenty of fodder for an exciting response, but I cherry picked this little nugget. The SR-71 had over 1000 missile launches against it, but was not shot down even once. Your error is extravagant in its scope.
-
Originally posted by Viking
NP Nilsen, I'll just dodge Iron's hook this time. He uses old bait anyways. ;)
I really didn't know who you were. Have to admit to enjoying some of our past arguments and look forward to more, even if you do pop your cork, maybe especially if you do. :p
-
Originally posted by Krypto
Look. Russian Fighters can still beat American Aircraft. If russia wanted we would upgrade even more and pass the US once again.
1. Russian migs can "Beam" an american aircraft for a missile lock and FIRE before the American is in range, and trust me these missiles are tricky buggers RK-73 :)
R-73 is a short range missile. Both the AMRAAM and Sparrow have longer range. You also obviously don't understand the term "beam" and what it means. Iraq had R-73s, they had exactly 0 kills with them.
Originally posted by Krypto
2. Practically every Russian fighter can outturn and do even more depending on the pilot compared to american craft.
MIG-25? 31? I'll grant you that both the MIG29 and SU27 can turn well, but, I'll remind you that the MIG-21 could out turn an F-4. F-4 still had the better kill ratio.
Originally posted by Krypto
3. We have more VTOL aircraft
I don't know the exact number of VTOL aircraft Russia still has but the Forger is generally considered to be failure with shorter range, less payload, and weak weapon system comparted to the AV-8B. Also, the US has the JSF on the way.
Originally posted by Krypto
4. We don't exactly need stealths we don't need to worry if we wanted one we would make it.
LOL. Stealth was probably the last nail in the USSR's coffin. The USSR had neither the technical means to defeat it nor the money to develop it.
Originally posted by Krypto
5. All American spy planes have been shot down, no matter how high, stealth or not.
I think Chairboy answered this one although I don't know that more than a 1000 missiles were fired at it, I'll just add that this plane first flew in 1966, that was 40 years ago and none was even scratched by a Soviet/Russian missile.
Originally posted by Krypto
6. Russia basically also has nukes ya know, the ammount is insane, start war, on day 2, Bush will be dead. Or whomever started it. Sure the US has nukes and such, but about a fraction of what Russia does
Yeah...well...what does one say to that? I can overkill you more than you can overkill me? I guess I can point out that Russian can't afford to destroy what they have, that's why the US is giving the Russian government money to destroy all the excess.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Nope, it's the other way around. Russia has hundreds of bombers faster than US bombers, but the US has the best fighters (F-22). :)
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/planes/tu22m3_006.jpg)
(http://tonyrogers.com/weapons/russian/tu160_01_500x306.jpg)
(http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/usa/lockheed_martin/f-22/F-22launch2_300.jpg)
F-22 projected got canceled didn't it now its the F-35 JSF
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
F-22 projected got canceled didn't it now its the F-35 JSF
No. We have both.
-
LOL, a Russian-American contest.
Krypto: your stuff has proved to be faulty. Ponder on this:
American and russian aircraft have been clashing since Korea. The supposed performance was sometimes in the Russian favour. Sometimes the numbers were too. Yet, the score is vastly better from the behalf of the U.S. Hardware, - the top dog being the F-15 if my memory serves me.
-
I am pretty sure that if the americans had used russian hardware, but had the same training and tactics as they did then they would still have won those air wars.
Its training and how its used that really puts the americans one step ahead of their prior counterparts. Not saying that the technology in sertain areas are not superior but not by as much really.
Sadly im confident that if the russians decided to take on NATO they would run over all european and american forces stationed there during the cold war. They would have suffered alot of losses but their share number and the element of suprise would do it. The focus on quality and "microchip" technology over quantity would benefit the USSR.
-
Nilson, I think tactical nukes would have quickly evened things up
-
Originally posted by Excel1
Nilson, I think tactical nukes would have quickly evened things up
im pretty sure both sides had them
-
Originally posted by Krypto
Look. Russian Fighters can still beat American Aircraft. If russia wanted we would upgrade even more and pass the US once again.
1. Russian migs can "Beam" an american aircraft for a missile lock and FIRE before the American is in range, and trust me these missiles are tricky buggers RK-73 :)
2. Practically every Russian fighter can outturn and do even more depending on the pilot compared to american craft.
3. We have more VTOL aircraft
4. We don't exactly need stealths we don't need to worry if we wanted one we would make it.
5. All American spy planes have been shot down, no matter how high, stealth or not.
6. Russia basically also has nukes ya know, the ammount is insane, start war, on day 2, Bush will be dead. Or whomever started it. Sure the US has nukes and such, but about a fraction of what Russia does
I don't believe your post is serious but I'll answer it anyhow. You might want to recheck your numbers on nukes.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp
-
Lots of nukes, and even the French have enough to plonk anybody down to the stone age.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Lots of nukes, and even the French have enough to plonk anybody down to the stone age.
So the French have both white flags and nukes...strange, strange country. How are they going to use them? If their surrender isn't accepted right away they threaten to blow up Paris? That would really piss off the invading country, they wouldn't get to visit all the cool Parisian places the Germans told them about. ;)
-
lukster, ever been to russia, plenty of active silos guarded still around. Plenty actually and you think the russians will admit the true amount of nukes? And why isn't the US dismantling their nukes from the patriot act
-
Originally posted by Krypto
lukster, ever been to russia, plenty of active silos guarded still around. Plenty actually and you think the russians will admit the true amount of nukes? And why isn't the US dismantling their nukes from the patriot act
Because START II was ratified which is the only thing pertaining to nuclear disassembly and verification and is subject to bi-lateral verification by both Russian and Americans. START II put the goal level for reductions at 3000 warheads per side divided amongst the strategic triad's of both Russia and the US. But nuclear weapons are expensive to maintain, and Russia actually wants to go below 1000 which is the basis for START III.
The patriot act has nothing to do with nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Yes I have been to Russia, 4 times in the last 2 years - yes I have a nuclear weapons background. I taught a Physics class at the university level dealing specifically with nuclear weapons, war and arms control.
Wolf
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
im pretty sure both sides had them
I know
your missing the point I was making
In the scenario of nato folding under a soviet blitzkrieg rolling across western europe..and from a purely military perspective, which side had the most to gain by using tactical nukes on the battlefield?
-
The Soviet war plans drawn up for an invasion of Western Europe in case of a war with NATO called for the use of chemical and nuclear weapons on day one. Short-medium range tactical nuclear missiles were to be used against NATO marshaling areas and important supply centers. Chemical weapons were to be used indiscriminately by the Red Army from Poland/East Germany and further west.
In a war with NATO the Soviets wouldn't aim to conquer Europe, but to destroy it.
-
Very interesting
So much for my conventional weapons to nuclear escalation theory.
I assume that nato would have responded with at least equivalent force from the get go.
It would seem that under that scenario that any disparities in the quantity and quality of the conventional forces of each side wouldn't have had much bearing on the course the war took, let alone the outcome.
-
Yes it would most likely quickly escalate to a full blown nuclear war. However if it only stayed at the tactical level conventional forces would matter. Europe is big and mountainous, so tactical nukes only do very localized damage. With a force advantage of 10 to 1 over NATO the Soviets would probably have won a European war.
-
I'm just hypothesising that the war stayed tactical, and I don’t know if it was ever deployed in Europe, but wasn't the tactical use of the neutron bomb suppose to level the playing field as far as the soviet's numerical advantage of conventional forces was concerned? 25-30 years ago there was a lot of propaganda about it, but as I understood it at the time, the neutron bomb's high intensity radiation and low blast damage properties would have allowed nato to nuke the hell out of an invading Warsaw pact while at the same time keeping collateral damage in western European countries to a minimum.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The Soviet war plans drawn up for an invasion of Western Europe in case of a war with NATO called for the use of chemical and nuclear weapons on day one. Short-medium range tactical nuclear missiles were to be used against NATO marshaling areas and important supply centers. Chemical weapons were to be used indiscriminately by the Red Army from Poland/East Germany and further west.
In a war with NATO the Soviets wouldn't aim to conquer Europe, but to destroy it.
Are you sure here? With that plan, it's no point in having an army, just nukes. And then get nuked. Defcon 5 on the first day?
AFAIK the USSR plan was offensive (reverse to the iron curtain which only could work inwards), but in case of bad going they had their targets lined up, and that would also have been the case with the USA.
Oddly enough, - in the late nineties, about the same times as you could go to Moscow and sit in a MIG, the old USSR targetplan was on display.
They had Iceland there, - three aiming points on the city of Reykjavík, but none on the US airbase in Keflavík, which is some 45 km away.
So, you do have a point :confused:
-
The Nutron bomb got banned. A weapon that only destroy living things, now that's just not right! ;) In any case, as early as the 1960's the Soviets started lining the crew compartments of their tanks and other vehicles with lead. Most military combat vehicles in the world are now ABC (NBC to you yanks) sealed, meaning that only the destructive part of a nuke can kill them.
Angus, a tactical nuke has a very low yield; we're talking kilotons, and sometimes less than a kiloton. The blast radius is very limited, and therefore they are only used against specific targets like airbases and such. Radiation is still bad though since most of these weapons are fission devices. Also just because one or both sides are using tactical nukes in Europe does not mean that the USA or USSR would gladly sacrifice their own nations in a full scale nuclear exchange. It would probably end with that though, but it is not Defcon 1 on day one. (Defcon 5 is peacetime Angie ;))
I remember reading in the 1970's invasion plan for Norway that if the Soviets couldn't take Bodø, my home town, within 3 days they would low-yield nuke it. Also, if the Soviets managed to take it NATO would nuke it. Either way we were screwed. :)
-
You talk like those days are behind us.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I remember reading in the 1970's invasion plan for Norway that if the Soviets couldn't take Bodø, my home town, within 3 days they would low-yield nuke it. Also, if the Soviets managed to take it NATO would nuke it. Either way we were screwed. :)
Well.. there is really nothing worth having north of Bergen anyways so I would not say that we were screwed.
Some nukes would really solve the problem (the population up there) and free up the beautiful landscape so that the rest of us could finally enjoy it without beeing bothered with the local population :D
-
ROFL, you bloody søring! :lol
-
LMAO friggin nordlending :D
-
Now I see why people moved from Norway to Iceland and untill this day have benefitted from snatching ladies from other countries for crossbreeding purpouses :D
Anyway, north up, the Soviets already were in Norway in WW2. They pretty much know how an advance would have to be, - if not through Sweden as well, and that means Finland also, - 3 countries with armies which are designed for defense only. So, on we go:
"Angus, a tactical nuke has a very low yield; we're talking kilotons, and sometimes less than a kiloton. The blast radius is very limited, and therefore they are only used against specific targets like airbases and such. Radiation is still bad though since most of these weapons are fission devices"
I know. Even small enough to be fired from a cannon, and used in a subhunt, etc etc. Sorry that I got mixed up in the defcon number, but I think the point is worth looking into, - how fast does the defcon count, how fast were the Soviets ready to open the countdown in tactical warfare? same goes to the other side of course, - especially in the submarine warfare.
Then as a sidenote...."only" a kilotonne is 100 times as powerful as the grand slam, yet only 5-10% of Hiroshima/Nagasaki blast power. Then we are also into the business of at what depth the detonation occurs.
P.S. Nilsen, are you truly from Sörland? I was around there from Oslo, Kristianssand, Vanse/Lista, and along all the way to Sandnes...many years ago.
-
Originally posted by Angus
P.S. Nilsen, are you truly from Sörland? I was around there from Oslo, Kristianssand, Vanse/Lista, and along all the way to Sandnes...many years ago.
No not sørlandet, but Østlandet..
Im located between Oslo and Kristiansand... abit closer to Oslo.
-
Everyone south of Trondheim are søring. You all look the same to me. :p
-
And while we're talking about Norway... I read a bit of news a week or two ago from there, I think it was from Porsgrunn - the name of the town sorta caught my attention. Something about the mayor giving money to young couples for hotel rooms to boost the births? :)
-
Originally posted by Panzzer
And while we're talking about Norway... I read a bit of news a week or two ago from there, I think it was from Porsgrunn - the name of the town sorta caught my attention. Something about the mayor giving money to young couples for hotel rooms to boost the births? :)
LOL yeah.. the mayor sponsored hotel rooms for young folks who wants to make babies.. It was a stunt around a sertain date 9 months before the towns birthday. The aim was both to increase the birth rate and to get a baby as close as possible to the birthday of the town. :D
Dont think anyone took him up on the offer but it made some headlines. I would not be suprised if more babies are born around that date.
-
OK guys,
Physics lesson here so bear with me. ALL things nuclear start off with a fission trigger. If it is a boosted weapon, i.e. has a tritium packet, the fission trigger heats the tritium so it boosts the yield with a fusion reaction.
IT makes NO difference if the yield is 1kt or 100kt - the amount of radiation released will be the same, just with a varied dispersal depending on the FISSION yield, because of having the use the same amount of fissile material to start a chain reaction in the first place. (Usually on order of 7kg of PU-238 - not many U-235 guntype bombs hanging around).
Enhanced Radiation Weapons (Neutron bombs) were actually the cleanest weapons - and the historical irony is the TSAR BOMBA, the 51 MT black coc-k of death was, by yield - the cleanest explosion every attempted on earth.
P.S. On a side note - if you were able to create the same conditions to heat the fusion packet up which the fission trigger does, but without using the fission trigger - you'd have perhaps a frightening paradigm of a fusion weapon without the harmful long lived transuranics.
Wolf
-
Thanks for that added bit of information. :)
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Because START II was ratified which is the only thing pertaining to nuclear disassembly and verification and is subject to bi-lateral verification by both Russian and Americans. START II put the goal level for reductions at 3000 warheads per side divided amongst the strategic triad's of both Russia and the US. But nuclear weapons are expensive to maintain, and Russia actually wants to go below 1000 which is the basis for START III.
The patriot act has nothing to do with nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Yes I have been to Russia, 4 times in the last 2 years - yes I have a nuclear weapons background. I taught a Physics class at the university level dealing specifically with nuclear weapons, war and arms control.
Wolf
i think a 'pwnd' is in order.
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
OK guys,
Physics lesson here so bear with me. ALL things nuclear start off with a fission trigger. If it is a boosted weapon, i.e. has a tritium packet, the fission trigger heats the tritium so it boosts the yield with a fusion reaction.
IT makes NO difference if the yield is 1kt or 100kt - the amount of radiation released will be the same, just with a varied dispersal depending on the FISSION yield, because of having the use the same amount of fissile material to start a chain reaction in the first place. (Usually on order of 7kg of PU-238 - not many U-235 guntype bombs hanging around).
Enhanced Radiation Weapons (Neutron bombs) were actually the cleanest weapons - and the historical irony is the TSAR BOMBA, the 51 MT black coc-k of death was, by yield - the cleanest explosion every attempted on earth.
P.S. On a side note - if you were able to create the same conditions to heat the fusion packet up which the fission trigger does, but without using the fission trigger - you'd have perhaps a frightening paradigm of a fusion weapon without the harmful long lived transuranics.
Wolf
Damn, now I see where I went wrong. I'll be out in the garage for a while fixing it. Thanks for the tip Wolf :aok
-
Anytime. Gimme a call if you need help locating the fissile material.
Me and brother Kim are like > <
Wolf
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Anytime. Gimme a call if you need help locating the fissile material.
Me and brother Kim are like > <
Wolf
I think Kim's fissile fizzled.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I think Kim's fissile fizzled.
Thats a problem when you don't have enough resources to rub 2 sticks together. Sorta like guys who bling up their tires on a 15 yr old Honda Civic.
-
In my haydays I'd rather have helped out with the Norvegian fertilization project, but I missed and turned to the German soil instead.
Why do people speculate on nuculation when all they need is copulation.....
Or as the Beatles promptly put it....All you need is Love ...da.da rara. da.
-
Or, as Mark Foley would put it..."you can't hug children with nuclear arms"