Hahahaha… yeah, putin the time traveller. By the time putin was legitimately voted into office the intentions of the west was clear. Russias concerns and interests mean nothing and must sign anything the west puts in front of its nose. Yeltsen thought doing what the west wanted would win him international support… well what do you expect from an old drunk.

While the evil putin and the evil Yeltsin introduced a pitiful number of SSBNs into service and ICBMs entering service are not at a rate high enough to replace those being retired, and all those bombers they are building really make the 100 odd F-22s look like a joke, not to mention the 1,200 plus F-35s the west is going to build.

There are hawks and doves everywhere. You will be surprised how many in Russia share my views on the US now that the gloves are off and the teeth are showing.

There are about 4 litres to a gallon… many countries are already paying more than $2 a litre… cry me a river.

The US policy of containment for Russia is a well known stated goal. An ABM system in the US with 60 missiles, plus a system in Poland with a further 10, with no limit caps on either, and indeed no evidence that the US wont decide to build an ABM system in every former eastern bloc country.
Russia has not said they can’t do that. What they have said is what steps they will take if they do… but somehow it is Russias fault. You see why they perceive the west as unfathomable and therefore not trustworthy.
But no, I am sure you think it is Russias fault.

The version I saw said it would not put missiles in place till there was clear evidence that Iran was a threat… ie had a missile and a deliverable nuclear warhead.
I am sure the Bush administration made it a verbal promise in loose language that can be riggled out of later… I am also sure the Russians don’t believe them and will likely have already decided to not reduce warhead numbers below those agreed in the Moscow Treaty.

The west doesn’t seem eager to test existing defences let alone anything they might have in the near future.

You mean like the F-22 in my counter example?

And where do they keep their S-300s? In the glovebox or the boot?

The fact that they are taken out would suggest it was already beyond that issue.

The number they are moving towards by Dec 12 2012 I think, based on the Moscow Treaty they are only allowed between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed strategic nuclear weapons. I’d say with the US ABM system in Europe it will be 2,200 and also that any future discussions to reduce tactical and strategic nuclear weapons will not result in them going any lower.

THE US do not nor will not be aloud to have 2200 ABM’s in Europe, WW3 will have started by then, only those who believe WW3 is not coming believe in this fake “disarmament treaties, will happen.” theory.

With a mission 1 profile the FTD revieled that it could do Mach 1.72 against a goal of Mach 1.5 . 100nm used for ATF definition and required formation was merely for a range definition and they stipulated x nm in subsonic flight and x nm in supercruise only to ask the 2 contendors to meet the minimum requirements.

It can supercruise in highest military seting , they only use 100nm for definition of range ie. it had to be able to accomplish 360 nm radius (Combat) with 100nm of that being at a speed of atleast mach 1.5 (it acheives much more then the requirement – around 14% more). 100nm has nothing to do with what the raptor can do or cant it was merely a reference no. that they expected the f-22 to do in a given profile for range/radius reference only. Speed is constant at constant altitude unless their is manuverability induced drag or weapons bay induced drag. Available thrust and thrust to drag ratio does not change if an aircraft is going in a straight line at same altitude and without thrust change. The F-22 can go on supercruising forever at highest military setting its just that the range would be much less as compared to if it supercruised only over areas of high threat which its sensors allow to detect.

Also 100nm is not range but radius .

Thats the main point, it’s purpose IS to cruise threw high threat areas to do missions, but if it can only do it for a short while there’s no point in purchasing it, those claims by the military/ and F-22 manufacturers about it’s success over are over-estimations in order to secure Government money.

The problem is that the number of aircraft that can carry them has plummeted with the withdrawl of the Su-17M3/M4 and Su-22M3/M4 and of course the Mig-27 models that could carry such weapons. Really only the Su-27SM, SU-25SM, Su-24M and the new aircraft, Su-34 and Su-27BM are able to carry such weapons, and probably the Mig-31BM.
Only a fraction of what was previously able to carry them really, and they will have to invest a lot of money to actually make them. Now that they are actually spending money on upgraded aircraft and new aircraft it becomes more worth while spending money on the more expensive munitions they can now use too.

The Maginot line was an attempt by France to gain allies and prevent trench warfare on their soil. By forcing the Germans to go around the line the French got warning of the attack and gained guaranteed allies in the low countries that Germany would have to attack first to bypass Frances M line. Their mistake, or their problem was that they didn’t realise that germany wasn’t interested in static trench warfare either and the capitulation of the low countries meant no alliance the French could sent troops to fight with outside French soil.

The US ABM system is an attempt to put US bases in Eastern Europe for the purpose of containing Russia.

Have said repeatedly that 10 ABMs will not defeat Russia alone, but as part of a larger ABM system that can be expanded numerically (ie more interceptors) and Geographically (ie the UK wants to join as does Japan etc etc) it represents a defence that might undermine Russian nuclear deterrence. As such Russia will adjust its force structure and foreign policy to take it into account.

S-400 and what ever S-500 ever gets into service are air defence missiles… for use against aircraft and cruise and ballistic missiles of various types. As such they are not single use ABM white elephants, but air defence systems that can upgrade existing systems and offer a valuable product for export.

If 1,000 warheads represented the entire Russian strategic arsenal that would mean about 333 SLBMs, 333 ICBMs and 333 air launched cruise missiles. As with today it is cheaper to have 10 warheads in each ICBM… it is cheaper to have 33 x SS-18s than 333 Topols. If they had 33 SS-18s then they are hardly going to fire more than 10 of them at Europe… the vast majority will be fired at the US and China and other nuclear armed states with land based nuclear weapons.

actually it’s more like 3000

Sounds like the air to air model for anti AWACs use… especially the designation.

I think the RS-24 is the new “large” ICBM?

It seems that in some interview it was said to be slightly larger than the Topol-M, with both new and Topol-M components being used in the system.

Considering the US is deploying the missile system anyway it seems, didn’t the Russians actually want to re-deploy IRBMs? Some sort of mass produced SS-20 type launch system.

Most of thier IRBM’s are in storage what they were talking about was just redploying them.

The Captor, the APG-77 and probably even the APG-79, never mind the APG-63 V(2) and 3 should be able to get similar performance.

Sources please not your U.S. FAN BOY stuff:D

U.S. has 228 F-15 C/E and 500 F-15 A/B (Obsolete anyways) and about 60+ F-15D’s

yeah and how many are deployed with the Russian armed forces?:rolleyes:

I have not found any Russian/U.S. sources that actually state the amount of Sunburns there are, but I’m sure it’s defenatly enough to send most if not all of the U.S. Navy underwater.
😉