1MANShape-wise there isn’t too much difference between an RC-135 and a 747 at least, so a visual mis-ID (during darkness!) is very well possible IMO. As for the differences in radar blip between the two, I don’t think one can really say something sensible about that unless one considers the radars used. I doubt the Soviets had any sort of NCTR target-identifying system, and could very well expect an RC-135 to use some kind of ECM to misinterpret it as a target. So no, I think it’s relatively easy to mis-ID an 747 for a RC-135. Besides, the flightpath flown by KAL007 definately suggested it was flying a ‘spy mission’, so the assumption was easily made.
And let’s not forget that a radar is only as good as the people interpreting it’s data. Otherwise it’s considered very well excuseable that a climbing Airbus A300 is mistaken for an altitude decreasing F-14 and subsequently shot down.
Actually the 007 was shot down because of the 2 Senators that were trying to reviel the Soviet Tank build up in Mexico during 78-82 but thats considerd “conspirocy theories”
1MANI think they’re talking about proven stuff or we could add Mantell’s P-51 getting shot down by a flying saucer. đ
Actually Donald Rumsfeld said it was and latter on said he made a “mistake” which is a lie if you ask me, he just slipped up in his speach and admitted what REALLY happend.
1MANBut that’s simply an anti-tactical ballistic missile test. The S-300V has been able to obliterate those for years. True intercontinental ballistic missiles are much harder targets to deal with because they have much higher velocities, otherwise the USA could use the PAC-3 ERINT as an ABM system and Russia could simply deploy hundreds of S-300V2 batteries in the same role.
ABM S-300 will have nuke warheads as they were doing during the coldwar, there no reason for them to stop, especially if they say they’ve “stopped” deploying nukes on the warheads.
1MANAll you have provided is 20 year old speculation. Where is the evidence that the Western speculation has turned out to be accurate?
SAM Weapons of the National Air Defense Forces by Mikhail Perov and Creation of Space-Missile Defense Systems by the same author are two references you should locate. Both of them are Russian-language books (massive books, around 500 pages each and well worth the read) and are populated with interviews and information by the designers and testers of various systems like Terra-3, Okno, Krona, the S-200, and the S-300.
This report came out in the yearly 2000’s:
“Over the years, the Russians have tested the S-300V against a wide array of targets. Antey officials claim that, in a recent series of tests in early 1997, the Gladiator and Giant interceptors successfully destroyed more than 60 ballistic and cruise missiles. Among the target missiles were Scud Bs modified to simulate Iraqâs Al-Hussein short-range ballistic missile used in the Persian Gulf War. In a series of tests, S-300V had a single-shot kill probability of 0.4 to 0.7 against tactical ballistic missiles. An average of 1.5 to 1.75 interceptors are required to bring down a single target.”
http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.51/system_detail.asp
1MANMIG-35/SMT radar.
Well I’m a Russian Tech fan, but I’m not to impressed with the 35’s Radar, the F-22 can tracka 3^2 target at 240km/149mi while what I’ve read the Zhuk-AE can trach a target note (it doesn’t say 3^2 it just says “fighter size” target) at only 130km/80mi:rolleyes:
1MANWow… that would be a rare thing wouldn’t it?
The amusing thing is that the US rocket industry is german, most of their so called innovations in aircraft is german, their current main battle tank has a german gun and british armour, most of the best american jet engines just after WWII were british or evolutions of British designs, Americas standard APC… the Bradley is based on the basic design of the BMP… is there anything the Americans have that isn’t copied or stolen?
Not to mention the JSF’s engine is British “RR”;)
1MANRussia did have laser systems. They probably still exist unless the aliens from Area 51 broke out and stole them. The point is that nobody ever claimed that a national laser defense system of some sort existed, and claiming that one does because it was speclated about 20 years ago is illogical.
And the reporting I am claiming is flawed is reporting speculating about future events when there is no evidence to support the idea that the events they described ever came to pass.
But whatever, I forgot, everything Russia says these days is a pack of lies to trick the West :rolleyes: I guess that they still have nuclear ABMs in service, the Bulava has performed flawlessly in testing, the Kursk never sunk, and there is a laser on every lightpost to shoot down ICBMs. You’re making all of these fanciful claims but have absolutely no real evidence to back them up. Russia is only telling lies…and you can prove this how? Certainly you must have first-hand evidence to prove that they are deceiving everyone.
YOU have no evidence that the posts I posted have been disprooven, so the ball’s in your court, I provided my sources put your’s up?????:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
1MANShow me report that Ruaf has given large order for MIG-29SMT just like Su-27SM?. u have to assume that they are not putting new engines on MIG-29 they will retire with time.
The first batch of 10 to 15 MiG-29SMTs was delivered before the end of the year. In 1999, a total of 20 to 30 MiG-29 fighters were modernized into the MiG-29SMT version, approaching fifth-generation fighters in terms of characteristics.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-29smt.htm
1MANYou’re still missing the point. A US report from the 1980’s talking about an operational system that could be produced from laser research efforts does not mean that such a system is in service today. What if their reporting was flawed? The systems they are speculating about were not in existance when the reports were written, so how can you logically assume that they exist now? There were reports dealing with Soviet fighter development as well, are you going to believe that Russia is secretly operating 500 fifth-generation fighters right now as well?
And Russian laser weapon research was public knowledge back in the 1980’s thanks to the release of the DoD’s unclassified Soviet Military Power publication, so saying that the US was trying to hide such systems from the public is also wrong. There was some pretty amusing artwork of a lot of the laser systems in one of them as well. But even if those test systems still exist, that does not mean that they have been operationally fielded.
There are other reports saying that they did have them lasers, your focused only one one that was saying they “could”
Well if yur going to start that “what if the report was wrong” type of thinking, then what if the reports of U.S. SM-3 and SR-71 not being shot down over USSR are also wrong my friend, you people don’t sem to get it, Russia is thinking strategic, what thier making avaliable is nothing but dis-info, better ask some body man!!
1MANYou’re missing the point. Those are all OLD reports from the 1980’s speculating on future Soviet capabilities. My information was taken from Russian source material, are you saying that the US is a more accurate source on Soviet and Russian programs than Russia is?
No what I’m saying and have been for a few months is that Russia is/has been giving out “disinformantion” and that the U.S. has known that for a LONGTIME, but is willing to give out the dis-info to the American people, what ever Russia makes public is mostly dis-info I have no reason to believe they would be giving out their trump cardS for “ememies” to know, thats what I’m saying.
Also those reports that you say are no longer viable can you provide updates from reputable sources that show those systems are all gone?
Again, I’m not disputing the USSR’s weapons development. My point is that all of those reports are basically ancient and no longer necessarily viable sources of information based on how world events unfolded after they were written.
There are a few (20-40?) ABMs at Fort Greeley in Alaska, but that’s beside the point. Russian SAMs were believed to be dual-purpose with the addition of nuclear warheads. They had an ATBM capability with conventional warheads, but needed a nuke to deal with much faster ICBM targets. Since the SA-5s are no longer in service, they’re irrelevant. And there is no evidence to show that the S-300Ps have nuclear warheads fitted. More to the point, it would seem logical to assume that they didn’t, as it has been reported in the Russian press that the MoD removed the nuclear warheads from the GAZELLE ABMs recently.[/quote] As I said before they were caught numerous times during the coldwar breaking the ABM rules so these “reports” from Russia are just that dis-info.
I never said their ABMs were all gone. But it is a fact that the SA-5 is out of service, and the Russiap press reported the inactivation of the GORGON sites and the removal of nukes from the GAZELLEs. Laser weapons are another story and are likely still being tested or perhaps even fielded, but there is no recent information on these programs apart from your 1980-era Western speculation.
There is NO reports saying Russia’s 80’s Lasers have been disbanned either, why because the U.S. never wanted the public to even know they had them.[quote]
1MANFirst off, a lot of those reports you link to deal with the 1980s. Which of those programs survived the fall of Communism to become active weapon systems?
Which were trialled at Sary Shagan and perhaps the western Krona site.
“may deploy operational systems of space-based lasers for antisatellite purposes in the l990s”…that is of course supposing that the USSR didn’t fall apart like it did.
http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/product/smp_85_ch3.htm
Might be, not is.
Wouldn’t be suprising, but hardly an ABM system. And another “may have” based on decades old reporting.
I’m actually in the process of researching Russian texts and Lee’s book to discuss the feasibility of such a system for my website. The theory is certainly sound, but there are no nuclear S-300Ps in service and the S-200s are gone, so the nationwide ABM, if it existed, no longer does. Leaving the 64 GAZELLE interceptors around Moscow.
Nitpick mode: that’s the ABM-4 system. ABM-X-3 was the S-225.
The LPAR in Belarus is dismantled. They are filling coverage gaps with the Voronezh-DM sites at Lekhtusi and Armavir. This will also allow Russia to stop leasing the Sevastopol HEN HOUSE. Come on, find something current!
The S-300PM was trialled against a slew of ballistic targets. The reports on SAM testing at Sary Shagan indicate that an anti-missile role wasn’t seriously looked at for the S-300P until the S-300PM (SA-20).
Where did that come from? The S-300P systems are enough by themselves to end the Western “absolute superiority”.
Now, feel free to try again at proving my assertions wrong. But you’d probably do a lot better with current information instead of stuff from the 1980s.
S-400 is a dedicated SAM system with an ATBM capability, the S-500 will be the new high-altitude exoatmospheric ABM/ASAT system.
A target with the same shape and IR signature as a warhead will be very hard to classify as a decoy.
That has nothing to do with the argument. Russia can spend money on SAM systems for as long as it likes. It still has no bearing on the fact that against any credible threat the current plethora of American ABM systems being developed represent overkill.
Is America the only potential aggressor on either of their radar screens?
Four missiles (three for the S-400, all tailored to different tasks and ranges). Two engagement radars. They’ll use the same national-level EW assets.
1. Those reports are from U.S. sources I think they know more than YOU, and your site.
2. What those reports let us know is that , the U.S. NEVER wanted the world to know that Russia has had ABM/Lasers longer and more advanced than the U.S.
3. When the SDI (Starwars) system was being talked about the official LIE was to defeat in coming ICMB’s from USSR, but what we know now is it was to shoot down Russuia’s ANTI-sat lasers, put 2 and 2 together.
4. There are 2 “Official” reports the U.S. gives:
The 1. What they tell the public( threw the media ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN)
The 2. What they discuss amoung themselves and sometimes latter on “de-classify” those reports clearly show Russia has more weapons up there sleeves than what U.S.A. has and they had/have an advantage over U.S.
Now the “Plethora” of U.S. ABM being “developed” is just that (being developed) not developed and operational, like 10,000 missiles, so what your saying is wrong because it isn’t ready, all we know is Russia has 6400 SAM’s that in the past has been dual-purpose ABM, and U.S.’s ICBM’s will be knocked out on a 90% basis scince the S-300PMU-2 has a 90% kill ratio, but the U.S. doesn’t have 10,000 ABM’s right now so the strike from Russia will be devestating.
What those reports also let us know is Russia has more ABM/ other weapons developed and operational that the west doesn’t know about, that what we know from these reports, U.S. has always overexagerated it’s so called advatage over Russia, so please show reports like mine showing Russia’s lasers and ABM systems are no more, just don’t post responses as if it’s a fact.;)
1MANRussia has an ABM system around Moscow. Explain to us how that protects the rest of the country, since the S-200 is no longer in service and nuclear warheads for the S-300s are not currently deployed? Russia has around 64 GAZELLE ABM silos, that’s it. The S-500 will make this a whole new ball game, but that won’t appear until 2015.
Your info is not correct:
They’ll use thier lasers which is been active for a long time:
1. The Soviets have now progressed beyond technology research, in some cases to the development of prototype laser weapons. They already have ground-based lasers that could be used to interfere with US satellites. In the late 1980s, they could have prototype space based laser weapons for use against satellites. In addition, ongoing Soviet programs have progressed to the point where they could include construction of ground-based laser antisatellite(ASAT) facilities at operational sites. These could be available by the end of the 1980s and would greatly increase the Soviets’ laser ASAT capability beyond that currently at their test site at Sary Shagan. They may deploy operational systems of space-based lasers for antisatellite purposes in the l990s, if their technology developments prove successful, and they can be expected to pursue development of space-based laser systems for ballistic missile defense for possible deployment after the year 2000.
http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/product/smp_85_ch3.htm
Some of THESE links are not working anymore but they were a couple of years ago:
2. One potential method might be a powerfull ground-based laser (why was the infrared sensor on one of our satellites suddenly blinded as it passed over the USSR?) A laser on the Mir space station recently “illuminated” an ICBM during the cruise phase of its flight in space, demonstrating Soviet ability to detect and track a missile, according t o Pentagon sources (Washington Inquirer , July 24, 1987).
The purpose of Mir may indeed include bringing about “peace” — Soviet style,
implies absence of opposition
http://www.oism.org/cdp/sept87.pdf
3. ASATs The Soviets may have a new “direct-ascent” antisatellite
capability, according to the Pentagon’s annual report
to the Congress. This would be more effective than the “coorbital”
ASAT, which has been operational since 1971. It is
speculated that the new ASAT could carry a nuclear warhead.
Lasers: According to Paul Nitze, the Soviets have over a
half dozen major development facilities, including an ABM test
center at Sary Shagan. US intelligence sources suspect that
Soviet lasers have already damaged some American spy
satellites. In 1984, Richard DeLauer testified that it would
take the US about ten years to reach parity in laser weapons.
Active Measures (Wet)?: Since July 1986, there have
been seven terrorist bombings, three assassinations, five highly
suspicious “suicides,” and one disappearance among European
scientists and officials working on SDI-related projects.
(Washington Inquirer, 12/18/87).
http://www.oism.org/cdp/mar88.pdf
4. Mr. Lee’s analysis is complex. To vastly simplify, he says he has evidence that Russia’s surface-to-air interceptor missiles carry nuclear warheads and therefore are capable of bringing down long-range ballistic missiles, not just aircraft and shorter-range missiles, which is their stated purpose. Russia has 8,000 of these missiles scattered around the country, and Mr. Lee says he has found numerous Russian sources that describe how successive generations of SAMs were in fact designed with the express intention of shooting down ballistic missiles, which is illegal under the treaty.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=85000693
5. By the time the Empire collapsed, more than 10,000 dual purpose SAM/ABM interceptor missiles were deployed at SA-5/10 complexes. Yet the U.S. officially counts only the l00 interceptors of the “ABM X-3” system at Moscow, which are permitted by the ABM Treaty. ABM X-3 is a scaled up model of the NIKE-X system, vintage late
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1996_h/h960927l.htm
6. Russia inherited most of the Soviet empire’s illegal national ABM defenses. Although the Hen Houses and LPARs located in the successor states created significant gaps in coverage, Russia still controls 12 or 13 of those radars. Consequently, SAM/ABMs still defend most of the Russian Federation from U.S. ICBMs, much of the SLBM threat, and Chinese missiles. Scheduled completion of the LPAR in Belorus will restore complete threat coverage, except for the gap left by the dismantled Krasnoyarsk LPAR. Granted, the Hen Houses are old, but the United States has been operating similar radars for 40 years.
Despite its economic difficulties, Russia continued development and production of the SA-10, adding (in 1992-1993 and 1997) two models with new missiles and electronics and replacing more than 1000 SA-5 missiles with late model SA-10s having greatly improved performance against ballistic missiles of all ranges. Russia is protected by as at least as many (about 8500) SAM/ABMs as in 1991, and they are more effective. No wonder Russia shows little concern for its proliferation of missile and nuclear technology.
Even more impressively, Russia has begun flight-testing the fourth generation “S-400” (“Triumph”) SAM/ABM designed not only to end the “absolute superiority” of air assault demonstrated by the United States in the 1992 Gulf War and the 1999 Kosovo operation, but also to improve Russia’s illegal ABM defenses against strategic ballistic missiles. The S-400 is scheduled to begin deployment in 2000, more testimony to Russia’s commitment to maintaining its national ABM defenses in violation of the ABM Treaty.
7. Critics of the ABM treaty argue that the
treaty is no longer binding because the Soviet
Union no longer exists and because the
Soviets were, and the Russians continue to be,
in violation of the treaty. They contend that
the Russians have more than the one ABM
system permitted by the treaty.
Joseph Arminio, chairman of the National Coalition
for Defense, states:
Not only did the U.S.S.R., unlike the
U.S., deploy the one missile defense
permitted by the treaty, ringing
Moscow with the 100 interceptors
sanctioned by law. It also littered
about Soviet territory with another
10,000 to 12,000 interceptors, and 18
battle-management radars. Together
the Moscow defense and the vast
homeland defense formed an interlocking
systemânearly all of it illicit.10
The â10,000 to 12,000 interceptorsâ to which
Arminio refers are SA-5, SA-10, and SA-12
anti-aircraft missiles that some ABM treaty
opponents argue have an anti-ballistic missile
capability.1
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa337.pdf
1MANAccording rather old simulations (for year 2005) including massive counter-value strikes (bombing cities) in both sides, Russia will lose up to 80 million lives (57% population) and US up to 140 million lives (47% lives). I don’t know haw reliable are these numbers but the question that arises is:
-How to declare the “winner” in such war? In % wins US but in lives win Russia. It is obvious that no one wins and better donât try âexperimentation for validating the mathematical modelâ. I will try to re-find and link the article.
Please let us keep discussing the toys rather than discussing âwho winsâ. MAD is still in place.
Those calculations were wrong, scince Russia has an ABM sysytem like no other and the U.S.’s is virtually nothing (outside of 100/150 missiles) most of U.S.’s ICBM’s will be shot down while 95% of Russia’s will hit thier target.
1MANJust like Russia then.:rolleyes:
I can assure at this point right now, if U.S./Russia were to go to nuke war, U.S. would be lossing massivly more than Russa.
1MANYou’ll want to pass that on to the manufacturers of SS-21, -23, -24, -25, -26, -27, S-300, S-400. . . they apparently all missed the memo. Sure an empty shell with no fuel is going to be safer BUT as long as the solid motor is safe ENOUGH it will almost always be preferable. The only time it won’t be is when you absolutely need every pound second of ISP you can get your hands on. The upper stage of NCADE would be a good example of that.
S-300/400/SS-25 use “Solid Liquid” fuel
Sign In
