Hidden_Hunter
Needs more IceBone
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 8,612
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
- Car(s)
- '13 BMW 125i, '26 Buick Standard Six
What and you don't think the russians could do exactly the same for American technologies...
Iran receives Russian defense missiles
- Thread starter Firecat
- Start date
What and you don't think the russians could do exactly the same for American technologies...
jetsetter
Forum Addict
Depends on the technology they are trying pursue.
They both overstate the capabilities of their missile, as well for the brits and frenchies (or at least do not consider the ones who miss to adjust their "official" accuracy).
<notseriousmode> We, French, have the most accurate missile in ze world. The only drawback is that we have only one, and hope it won't fail. </notseriousmode>
jetsetter
Forum Addict
Trust me, people have examined the published Russian data and the actual results from testing.
I know they were strongly overstating their results during the Cold War, and this applied on many domains: MIG-25, the Russian "competitor" of the Concorde...
nomix
True Viking
- Joined
- May 26, 2005
- Messages
- 7,293
- Location
- Norway
- Car(s)
- Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Well, the subjective oppinion of a country by a translator, doesn't seem like something to base defense doctrine on.I knew of someone who spent quite a few years in Russia as Boris Yeltsins interpreter for CNN. She said that the former USSR was built by people who just didnt give a shit, and why should they have? You were employed whether you did or didnt want to, or have a job you didnt want. She called Russia, and I quote, "Europe's idiot sister to the East". Lovely people, the Russians, but uh...just a little behind on politics and technology.
I wouldnt be surprised if those missiles, after being launched, did a 180 and head back to their original place. Or just go flying off to Chechnya.
And Jeltsin was weak. Putin, is not.
They are wastly better on submarine technology, and probably just as good in others.
They just couldn't BUILD what they designed during the cold world, I can design an airplane for 200 people, but I don't know how to build it.
Why the hell would they not want a torpedo that's faster than all other torpedos? That's like having a stone vs. a gun on 50 meters range..
Hidden_Hunter
Needs more IceBone
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 8,612
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
- Car(s)
- '13 BMW 125i, '26 Buick Standard Six
if you're going to claim this you might want to get your facts at least somewhat right. MIG25 was a supersonic interceptor and last time I checked the concorde didn't...
I suspect you're thinking of the TU-144, which although some russian agents got busted with the brake schematics from the very early on in the development program actually flew before the concorde by several months.
Every government overstates their militry capabalities, the US/UK/FR/DE/RU/AUS etc
Firecat
Politically Charged
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 5,730
On the subject of Iran...
Iran defends U.S.-backed Iraqi government
http://washtimes.com/upi/20070124-123419-8773r.htm
All together now...
Iran defends U.S.-backed Iraqi government
http://washtimes.com/upi/20070124-123419-8773r.htm
All together now...
You didn't suspect well
, I used the MIG-25 AND the TU-144 (I didn't remember its name) as example of strong Russian overstatements: the MIG-25 never reached Mach 3 and the Tupolev had never been safe.
jetsetter
Forum Addict
You should know that this torpedo could not turn and if it did the bubble of air around it would break and it could no longer travel fast. This torpedo was design as a weapon against the carriers. It would carry a nuclear warhead and the submarines would have to line up with the carriers to make the shot. Even then it was likely to miss unless the sub was somewhat close but as it got closer the likelyhood that the submarine would be detected also went up. The US Navy didn't need this torpedo because there were fewer large targets in the Soviet Navy.
I believe the world you were looking for is "vastly" but I don't agree. Throughout the Cold War the US had a lead in submarine technology. The US had this lead in the 50s, 60s, 70s, even 80s. But by the 80s the Russians were starting to catch up slightly but even then there produced these upgraded subs in any numbers and we still can't be sure how they performed. And please don't bring up the Typhoon. Sure it was big but its size also made a larger target. During the Cold War the US Navy assigned one sub for every Russian missile sub. That means that where ever the Russian sub went there was always a US sub behind it. This was because in case of nuclear war the US subs would try to destroy the Russian subs before they could launch their missiles.
Last edited:
nomix
True Viking
- Joined
- May 26, 2005
- Messages
- 7,293
- Location
- Norway
- Car(s)
- Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
The doctrine of destroying the subs of the Big Red Bear is know, yes.
I find myself defeated by your technical knowledge of Russian technology, thank you for the corrections, allways usefull to learn new stuff.
As for the typo, yes, it might make the meaning a bit.. iffy.
But I still maintain, the Ruskies are better than we give them credit for.
I find myself defeated by your technical knowledge of Russian technology, thank you for the corrections, allways usefull to learn new stuff.
As for the typo, yes, it might make the meaning a bit.. iffy.
But I still maintain, the Ruskies are better than we give them credit for.
jetsetter
Forum Addict
The doctrine of destroying the subs of the Big Red Bear is know, yes.
I find myself defeated by your technical knowledge of Russian technology, thank you for the corrections, allways usefull to learn new stuff.
As for the typo, yes, it might make the meaning a bit.. iffy.
But I still maintain, the Ruskies are better than we give them credit for.
The problem is that the Soviets made a huge number of mistakes but you never heard about them because they had almost complete control on what news left the Soviet Union and what news didn't. One example is the Soviet Space program. While it may have seemed to be more successful than the US space program quite a few people actually died to achieve what the Soviets did. But because of the clamp down on the Soviet media the news never got out. One of the more interesting cases is of Sputnik. While it is the first artificial satellite in orbit many people don't know that the US could have most likely put a satellite up first. The problem was that the rocket that would have been used would have been a military rocket. The President wanted a civilian rocket to be used, the Soviets didn't have a problem using a military rocket. But the civilian US rocket was flawed and kept crashing even though the US military had a rocket that worked and could have put a satellite in orbit.
About Soviet mistakes:
My dad was stationed in Turkey back in the 70s. Their whole purpose was to intercept telemetry from the Soviet space shots; my dad did the preliminary analysis of the medical telemetry before sending it on to the pentagon.
It has all since been declassified, but at the time this was Top Secret work. I'm pretty sure he could tell me all kinds of stuff about their unpublicized failures.
About Soviet Submarine Technology:
The Soviets were struggling to keep up with the US for decades. In fact the reason they didn't know how far behind they were was because we were so far ahead. Doesn't make sense? The primary weapon of a sub is stealth, our boats were so quiet and the Soviet sonar so bad that they couldn't detect us sneaking in and out of their waters, shadowing their ships and sailing right through the middle of their military exercises. By the time they realized how far ahead we were it was too late to catch up. Their first sub that would even come close to being comparable was the Akula Class, and it was crude by our standards. Everything about our subs was kept Top Secret, even the shape of the propellers. The US used what is called a "double raft" design to dampen sound - noisy or vibrating equipment is mounted on rubber pads or mounts and then the deck that it sits on is also mounted to the hull with rubber mounts. This means that almost no vibration from equipment is making it to the hull and thus into the water. All the decking is clad in rubber and crew wear soft shoes instead of boots.
Subs is the one place where the philosophy of loose tolerances and rough construction does not work. All of that leads to more noise which makes a sub easy to detect and track. Also our electronics were much better so we had superior sonars.
Read Blind Man's Bluff
My dad was stationed in Turkey back in the 70s. Their whole purpose was to intercept telemetry from the Soviet space shots; my dad did the preliminary analysis of the medical telemetry before sending it on to the pentagon.
It has all since been declassified, but at the time this was Top Secret work. I'm pretty sure he could tell me all kinds of stuff about their unpublicized failures.
About Soviet Submarine Technology:
The Soviets were struggling to keep up with the US for decades. In fact the reason they didn't know how far behind they were was because we were so far ahead. Doesn't make sense? The primary weapon of a sub is stealth, our boats were so quiet and the Soviet sonar so bad that they couldn't detect us sneaking in and out of their waters, shadowing their ships and sailing right through the middle of their military exercises. By the time they realized how far ahead we were it was too late to catch up. Their first sub that would even come close to being comparable was the Akula Class, and it was crude by our standards. Everything about our subs was kept Top Secret, even the shape of the propellers. The US used what is called a "double raft" design to dampen sound - noisy or vibrating equipment is mounted on rubber pads or mounts and then the deck that it sits on is also mounted to the hull with rubber mounts. This means that almost no vibration from equipment is making it to the hull and thus into the water. All the decking is clad in rubber and crew wear soft shoes instead of boots.
Subs is the one place where the philosophy of loose tolerances and rough construction does not work. All of that leads to more noise which makes a sub easy to detect and track. Also our electronics were much better so we had superior sonars.
Read Blind Man's Bluff
Last edited:
hanasand
Despot
Russians... I don't understand them, it's time for them to get rid of all the corruption and crime-leagues running things,
and learning how to do maintenance. I mean, look on the entire country, espescially
the naval bases in Google Earth, there's rust everywhere. Why is that?...
A nation ruined by alcohol and to much testosteron.
and learning how to do maintenance. I mean, look on the entire country, espescially
the naval bases in Google Earth, there's rust everywhere. Why is that?...
A nation ruined by alcohol and to much testosteron.
Hidden_Hunter
Needs more IceBone
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 8,612
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
- Car(s)
- '13 BMW 125i, '26 Buick Standard Six
And the soviets probably said the reverse about the US.
Firecat
Politically Charged
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 5,730
On the subject of Iran.
Gates reinforces link between bombings in Iraq and their connection to Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070210/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates
Gates reinforces link between bombings in Iraq and their connection to Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070210/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates
jetsetter
Forum Addict
Everyone knows there are Iranian agents operating in Iraq, even the Iranians I talked to believe it. US and Iraqi soldiers have encountered them on numerous occasions.