Russia ‘Had Laser Cannons Before U.S.’

reply to post by West Coast



So, it was quanity over quality. The only threatening thing about their weapons was their nukes.

One thing I find most interesting is that many "assume" that the Russians could not have this type of weapons. However, in 1975 the US had one in a B-52 and by 1980, partical beam. Now if we had it don't you think they might also have it?

If you want references, sorry, DOD was my source during that time. Both Russia and the US have things if brought out into the public would cause you to lay a pant load. What you see and hear about today is 10 - 20 years in into the past. Plus the Russians had us hands down in IR tech.

So if Russia were ahead in this field ,, why was it that the star war race
was a big part at bring them down ,, they were trying to keep pace with the US ,, they are right now ,, trying to say they dont want another arms race with the US,, they know whats going to happen,,, i think the US needs to bump this machine back into high gear

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


In addition, knowing a little (very little) about the Russian military, I wouldn't put it past them to be experimenting with nuclear reactors as a power plant. We all know they can't be trusted with that. (nor can we).

Good pic!

The Russians also tend to be good at the hardware (after stealing it) but are poor with delivery systems and tactics in some areas.

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira

None of these planes could have been used as an airframe for an airborne laser in 1972 as the Russian representative claims.

an-22 was capable of carrying 80 tons , was created in 1965...

They may have been testing them, but I highly doubt they had actually made working prototypes which had been mounted onto aircraft and vehicles, which were in an advanced state of completion

nuclear lasers no, but chemical ones yes...

Could you fit one on a plane though? Or a big truck?

possible , the soviets created the Gerakl craft and be-2500 concept craft design for this capable of carrying 1000-1500 ton paylaod in 80's and planned to test them in 90's-2000's

Yep they did.

it was the west and clearly , as Western press had limited access to soviet scientific journals/institutions , it may not hqave been known

George Bush spends more on defence than the GDP of Western Europe and now with all their secrets out in the open, the Americans should have now found out how the Russians managed to accomplish this in the 60's. Their lack of development in that area (Directed Energy Weapons) recently suggests to me there was nothing new to gain from the Soviets after their collapse.

the underground facilities and the secrecy of KGB suggests different ...

Pick your words carefully though, there's a big difference between the two. TESTING could mean it wasn't even mounted onto any mobile platform they were simply doing laboratory research, or it was in the very early stages of prototypical construction.

read this:

Commenting on the announcement, the Russian expert said: "We tested a similar system back in 1972. Even then our ‘laser cannon was capable of hitting targets with high precision."

I said the Russians were trailing behind the US in most areas I never said they couldn't make better technology, they did, but civilian space programs are a far cry from laser weaponry don't you agree?

Russians were trailing in many areas ,particularly civilian not in most ,

Especially when it came to automated systems, computers, electronics and software. Russia developed all that much later.

, but yes, USA had major advantage in comput5ers and automated systems, computers, electronics and software.

We're talking about Directed Energy Weapons here. NOT vehicles.

yes.

Especially not one with an old-school mentality that believed in the adage of "bigger is better" and were barely able to keep their huge arsenal of tanks and planes actually running, let alone mounting lasers onto them.

lol, they developed lighter tanks than their western counterparts and were the best in using combined arms approach

Falcon Tech. > all the above

and soviet AYAKS>Falcon tech

West Coast:

To the Orical (You are horribly uneducated on the matter) and Mr. Monsoon (Who parrots soviet propaganda so nicely, and stellar is a horrible source for you to use. When he is presented with facts that contradict his biased view, he simply stops responding).

and you parrot american pentagon propaganda at best ....
if i was parroting propagnada , i would have not admitted that soviets were lacking computer,electronics and software
and by the way , you stopped responding to StellarX posts mostly ..

so , stop making baseless allegations against Stellar

History does not lie, but rather reinforces this fact.

quote of Goebells -
' the bigger the lie , the more it is believed

According to your sources, there is no solid evidence that reinforces such an argument.

and you can neither prove nor disprove

Now there are three parts to that video. Does anyone honestly still think the US is playing "catch up" in regards to laser technology?

Video no youtube , lol ....'reliiiable' evidence

yes USa is playing catch up ...

s it possible to have an "inferior economy" yet have developed superior technology ??? Seems to me, you need a solid Strong Economy , to Afford that kind of weapons development? No seriously explain this to me, how is it possible?

it is possible , as soviet were spending 1/3 resources on military development
[edit on 25-7-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 25-7-2008 by manson_322]

When it comes to the US and the USSR I think we should just get BOTH leaders, stick them in a room and just let them shout " my dads bigger than your dad" at each other all day.
That's all this " we had lasers before you" reminds me of.
You never know that may actuallymake them grow up and start acting like responsible leaders of nations instead of sounding like petulant children in a playground all the time....

reply to post by TheOracle

well lets see

T-90> Abrams
KA-52> Cobra
T98> Hummer
Topol M> minuteman
SA400> patriot
SU-25> A-10
and so on

I'm sorry but this list you just conjured up is pure garbage. Where did you pull this from exactly? Could you post a source for this?

Look you think I'm trying desperately to make the East seem like a rabble of farmers with pitchforks. I'm not.
I respect the Russians.

The Russians certainly shouldn't be underestimated, they do have a large, advanced force. But when it comes to the US, in the 21st Century they are lagging behind in that game of Checkers.

Let's just take a look at what you said: I'll be brief.


T90 Vs. M-1 Abrams:

The T90 weighs around 42 Tons.
The Abrams 67.
Their about the same length and width, height wise the Abrams is slightly taller coming in 2.44m compared to 2.22m

They both have 125mm smoothbore cannons and can fire a smorgasbord of ammunition. There's no point arguing over firepower because whatever rounds the US can come up with so can the Russians. And the same caliber means their restricted to the same varieties so nobody wins there.

But the T-90 does have one 7.62mm Machine Gun where as Abrams has 3, one coaxially mounted, one .50 Caliber mounted on the top and another on the pintle.

Look at the engines. The Abrams has a 1500HP Jet turbine, one of the most powerful MBT engines developed. The T90 has a 950HP V12 engine.
Not only is the M-1 more powerful it's faster too, top speed 68Km/h while the T90 comes in at 63Km/h.

As for armour, their both covered in composite armour protected with a layer of reactive armour. Thickness you can't compare because the T-90 armour is classified but, the M-1 has been in service since the 1980's and the US has yet to loose a single M-1 to enemy fire.
Yes a single tank. The T-90 came out in 1995 and so far has not seen any combat, it hasn't been baptised by fire and there's no word on it's reliability yet.

Look at the power to weight ratio, the T-90 gets 18.1 hp to the tonne, the M-1 Abrams gets 24.5 hp to the tonne. The M-1 is a far more efficient design in terms of mass and energy.
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...

Now do you see how ignorant a statement you just made by classifying the T-90 as a better MBT than the M-1?
The least you could do is google up some statistics and do a comparison, but instead you choose to talk out of your ass and just state that as fact.

Don't do that. You loose credibility.

I could continue comparing vehicles, aircraft and weaponry and find many glaring advantages each US counterpart has over it's Russian one you just listed.
But I'd run out of space and frankly I don't want to waste my time on somebody who considers themselves a self-appointed "Military Analyst".

In fact a few of those comparisons are just ludicrous to begin with.
The T-98 is not the Russian equivalent of a Humvee, the T-98 isn't even in mainstream service with Russia to begin with it's a special purpose vehicle, the "Vodnik" is the Russian Humvee: en.wikipedia.org...

Your lack of knowledge here shows me you have no clue what your on about.

Please get off your high horse and do some more research before you make sweeping statements like that.

reply to post by manson_322

an-22 was capable of carrying 80 tons , was created in 1965...

True but remember, you can't just drag up any old airplane and say "Oh, they COULD have used this one!". Yeah they could have but WOULD they?

The An-22 is slow, big cargo plane. I mean it has a top speed of 740kn/h! Do you really think they would consider using an outdated cargo plane as a laser weapons platform?

It would never last in battle. You have to be realistic. The only aerial platform I could see them using is the Bear (Tu-95) as I said before and even that would be a stretch, because it's got a maximum payload of 15 tons, which is a bit small to mount some complex chemical laser.

So I think that rules out the fact they could have used any suitable aerial platform to use for these chemical laser prototypes.

carrying 1000-1500 ton paylaod in 80's and planned to test them in 90's-2000's

Too late if they were supposed to be "battle ready" by 1972.

the underground facilities and the secrecy of KGB suggests different ...

There's two sides to that coin though.
America has far more infrastructure than the Russians. Especially underground installations.

Who knows what they're testing at Area 51, Wright Patterson AFB, the Dugway Proving Grounds, etc...

Maybe they do extremely powerful chemical lasers already in testing? We might never know, but don't discredit the fact that they could be hiding something too.

lol, they developed lighter tanks than their western counterparts and were the best in using combined arms approach

Remember the Tsar-Bomba? The world's largest thermonuclear weapon?
52 Megaton bomb. Most powerful human weapon ever created.

Why did it have such a large yield? Because it was so inaccurate, so the only way they could compensate for their lack of technology was to make everything far more powerful.

The Russian scientists and engineers may have disregarded that but their military elite were very old-minded, old-fashioned men; they believed in weapons that exploded, vaporised or shredded the enemy.

Not infra-red beams you can't see and plasma cannons.
Same was true of the US you could say, but unlike a Communist Government, those with control of the military didn't have as much influence as they did in a Communist country, so America was able to break free of those old-fashioned attitudes.

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


The M1 doesn`t have ERA , it uses DU lined chobham (which would make it a rolling nuke bomb if a neutron bomb was used but lets not go there) whilst the T90-S uses the battle prvoen kontakt-5 heavy ERA (in fact thats even now being replaced with better) and has the SHTORA/ARENA ATGM jamming/active counter measure system - and the russian are working on an active anti-anti-tank system (shoots the incoming APFSDS tank round)

reply to post by Harlequin


The record speaks for itself. Not one Abrams lost to enemy fire in almost 30 years of service.

The T-90 has yet to see the battlefield, I would reserve my judgement until I see the facts.
That's what I'm saying, Oracle incorrectly pointed how the T-90 is somehow far superior to a M-1.

It's not, there about on par in every aspect, but the M-1 does have a slight lead.

As for active countermeasures, the T-90 only uses the Shtora (en.wikipedia.org...), which is an older electro-optical jamming system and an active countermeasure system.

The ARENA is still in development cycle as far as I'm aware and these Active Defense Systems have got some serious hurdles to overcome, like the huge blast radius of the anti-missile/projectile rounds which would neutralise any friendly infantry near the tank and it's reaction time.
Plus it's only currently effective against light armour piercing rounds, like RPG's.


[edit on 25/7/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

ARENA has been in service for a good 10 years now , replacing the 1980`s system called DROZD (which the USA didn`t have a clue about at the time) , it is actually very effective against most ATGM in service today;

K-5 or Kontakt-5 is battle proven , on the thunder run 2 T-70`s (not lions) were engaged outside the airport ; and as usual M829 rounds were loaded and used - to the utter horror to the tankers , the rounds bounced off the (what they thought) were the same tanks they had been killing for weeks - in fact they were ex-soviet army top of the line (and mobility killed an M1 at the same time) before secumbing to massive hits.

kontakt-5 is allready been replaced by the clam-shell Relikt and Kaktus ERA, the latter being deisgned to bounce the latest M829A2 round.

Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a nice thread about russian kit - lots of good discussion;

i have some video`s of the ARENA system in test - live rounds against live tanks.

About the T90 vs Abrams comparison, I believe it was created specifically to be better than the Abrams. You point out that the Abrams is bigger and heavier, which is in my opinion, a weakness. Lower silhouette and higher speed is very important in tank battles.
I am not sure why you are talking about the cvodnik which is older. I am talking about the T98: www.armoringgroup.com...
You call me ignorant and yet you dont know much yourself. Its not about having far superior equipment, my point is that Russia can compete and even surpass the US while western propaganda wants you to believe that the russian army is cold war era and falling apart. Yes they may keep the older stuff but thats mostly for sale to developping countries.



And to all those who say: "Russia cant possibly compete because we are spending 50 times more ! How could they possibly beat us?"
Well western propagandists dont tell you that the US spends so much more because everything costs much more in the US.
For example to develop a simple pencil the US would pay a scientist 5000 dollars to design it, another 5000 for an engineer to create it and buy the carbon, wood and paint from private companies (capitalism wants that)
Whereas the russian (and soviets) would make the very same pencil for much less.
Sure money helps but it doenst guarantee you a lead.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by TheOracle]

reply to post by TheOracle

I am not sure why you are talking about the cvodnik which is older. I am talking about the T98:

Because the Russian army has yet to adopt the T-98, the GAZ-39371 (Vodnik) is the standard Russian, light armour troop transport, akin to the HMMWV field by the US:

The GAZ 39371 Vodnik is the Russian answer to the Hum-Vee. "Russian "Hummer"" is the nickname given by people to one of the latest products of the Arzamas automobile plant - the high-mobility multipurpose vehicle GAZ-3937 "Vodnik". The purpose of the vehicle, as well as its appearance resemble those of its American "brother"

www.globalsecurity.org...

It is the Russian equivalent of a Humvee.
The T-98 is far too lightly armed and armoured to be compared to a HMMVW, it looks like something a General would ride around in. Besides it was designed for the transportation of dignitaries and VIP's:

The Combat T-98 is the fastest armoured 4WD in the world, and was built from the ground up to be the most capable non-military armoured luxury vehicle in the world.

www.gizmag.com...

Seriously, it would do you good to know what your talking about it.
Just some competitive advice. I'm not trying to tell you your stupid, because in this day and age anyone can educate themselves on any old topic by just doing some general reading on the internet.
But your not even sure of what your preaching.

western propaganda wants you to believe that the russian army is cold war era and falling apart.

Right because the Soviets are totally clueless when it comes to disinformation and lies?

I mean they only ran the world's largest Covert Intelligence Agency not to mention state-run Broadcasting Agency, so they really have no clue as to how to spin things to their favour?

Wakey, wakey time... One Russian representative says the Soviets had laser cannons and you take him at face value and believe it?

Don't bite off more propaganda than you can chew, this isn't me talking by the way, look at what President Putin said:

"Thank God Russia is not Iraq," Putin told a questioner who asked about supposed US intentions to gain control of Siberia's vast natural resources.

"We will develop missile technology including completely new strategic (nuclear) complexes, completely new," he said. "Work is continuing and continuing successfully."

"We will not only give attention to the whole nuclear triad - strategic rocket forces, strategic aviation and the nuclear submarine fleet - but also other types of weapons".

www.smh.com.au...

Why do you think they're spending every penny they can on their defence?
Their army needs it and they know it.

I would believe the words of President Putin instead of some random representative. If anyone knows the condition of the Russian armed forces, it's him.

Well western propagandists dont tell you that the US spends so much more because everything costs much more in the US.

He admitted that inflation, which at 8.5 per cent in the year to date has exceeded the government's target for the whole year, was a problem but blamed global economic factors such as cuts in European agricultural subsidies and demand for biofuels.

www.smh.com.au...

Inflation in Russia is exceedingly high. If things were cheaper to make in Russia everyone would be outsourcing it to there.

Their not. Ever since Russia gave up Communism it's people turned their backs on cheap labour and mass production; they have no more huge working classes who march off to factories every day.

Thus the cost of living in Russia is much the same as in the US.

Whereas the russian (and soviets) would make the very same pencil for much less.

Ahh I assume your referring to the old "Space Pen joke":
The US spent 10 million dollars designing a pen that could write in zero gravity for it's Space Program while the Russians used a 2 dollar pencil.

One word: De-bunked.
www.sciam.com...
NASA used pencils all along

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
There's a differencen between "working on them" from having them developed and deployed,

The technological infrastructure did not exist during the 80's (mere tests, does not make an effective deployable weapon system), making your claims of deployable 'soviet lasers' highly suspect to further scrutiny.

which my links are stating,

Without delving to much into your questionable links, they state that the soviets "blinded" US satellites, (damaging censors, etc), something the US and Soviets were known to be doing to one another at that time (something the Chinese have been accused of doing today. etc).


In regards to your initial claim, (I would add a rather ignorant claim) the questionably links state nothing of the sort. Or need I remind you of your claim which was rather outrageous. You were the one who said the US was "behind". So do proceed to clarify why you think the US is behind?

Also, in regards to your sources, they are not very substantial either, so you should help yourself out by providing better data that is substantiated proof to what you claim.

so what was that your saying.

I am sure that those four "lol" smiley's helped to reinforce your "solid" argument. /sarcasm

tee hee


[edit on 25-7-2008 by West Coast]

Well show the proof then, because evertthing that I posted CONTRADICTS what you and your theory says??????????

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
There's a differencen between "working on them" from having them developed and deployed,

The technological infrastructure did not exist during the 80's (mere tests, does not make an effective deployable weapon system), making your claims of deployable 'soviet lasers' highly suspect to further scrutiny.

which my links are stating,

Without delving to much into your questionable links, they state that the soviets "blinded" US satellites, (damaging censors, etc), something the US and Soviets were known to be doing to one another at that time (something the Chinese have been accused of doing today. etc).


In regards to your initial claim, (I would add a rather ignorant claim) the questionably links state nothing of the sort. Or need I remind you of your claim which was rather outrageous. You were the one who said the US was "behind". So do proceed to clarify why you think the US is behind?

Also, in regards to your sources, they are not very substantial either, so you should help yourself out by providing better data that is substantiated proof to what you claim.

so what was that your saying.

I am sure that those four "lol" smiley's helped to reinforce your "solid" argument. /sarcasm

tee hee


[edit on 25-7-2008 by West Coast]

Your saying my sources have nothing "substatual" dude that youtube link does NOTHING but show some Iraqi's who got zapped, you called my links questionable, well some of those links were U.S. Gov/Military links so now your doubting your own socalled "supieriour" nations links, HAHAHAH,
anyways please provide some sort of eviedence those links are NOT telling the truth, here's more:

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). www.oism.org...


At the annual meeting of The American Civil Defense Association (TACDA) in Los Angeles, October, 1985, Dr. Teller stated that the U.S.
has made encouraging progress in research on x-ray lasers. But he believes the Soviets are a decade ahead of us in strategic defenses.
www.oism.org...


We have right now, I believe, one weapons-grade laser operating in the United States. The Soviets have at least ten we have identified and there may be more. At Los Alamos right now our scientists are working on developing a very compact particle accelerator. This is vital work toward the development of something you have all heard about, a particle beam weapon of some kind. At the heart of that system is a Soviet invention dating back to the 1960s called a radio frequency quadrapole. Years ago, the Soviets mysteriously decided that there would be no more literature, open or semi-open, on this or any similar development. Such information suddenly disappeared from these vaunted scientific exchanges that we hear are so important. Of course, the Soviets exchange very little information that is vital to them in these so-called exchanges, anyway.
www.heritage.org...

Sadly you still dont get the point I am trying to make. I will say it one last time, maybe this time you will get it:

The USSR could and Russia can compete and even make better equipment than the US.



If you want sources simply visit serious unbiased military websites. And if you want people to take you seriously, answer the points and dont try to change subjects or cherrypick bits totally irrelevant to the argument - where did i mention a space pencil? Anyways done feeding the troll, i think everybody else got the message.

Especially when it came to automated systems, computers, electronics and software. Russia developed all that much later.

Next time wipe your lenses, no offence.
Scine 98 Russia had recived 2 IBM 'Supercomputers" they have built upon that scine then.

We're talking about Directed Energy Weapons here. NOT vehicles.
Completely unrelated topic. Russia's ground forces are about on par with everything America has to offer, the discrepancy is in all these cutting-edge, advanced projects, to which America has the advantage.

Oh really: Particle-beam weapons inflict damage in a similar way. They emit beams of particles, perhaps hydrogen or deuterium ions, at near-light speed. Details remain sketchy, but the principle is essentially the same as in an ion-propulsion system (New Scientist, 21 November 1998, p 22). A working particle beam is believed to have been on board the mysterious Soviet "battlestar" Polyus-Skif, which was launched in May 1987 but crashed during take-off. Polyus-Skif also carried a prototype laser for destroying satellites. In the US, research on particle-beam weapons continues at the High Energy Research and Technology Facility on Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico.www.jamesoberg.com...
" Russian ships have used lasers to ward off U.S. aircraft, and on occasion have blinded U.S. pilots. Developed in the 1980s it is a laser-radar on a tracked APC chassis configured to detect and classify chemical agents. Russia markets a variety of laser tracking and designating systems. One system marketed at the 2003 Moscow Airshow, the Nudelman Precision Engineering Bureau’s PAPV uses lasers to locate enemy optics, like a sniper scope, and deliver a laser blast that blinds the sniper, or worse."
www.uscc.gov...



"Malaysia is to use Russian rain-making equipment to clear the haze which has covered parts of south-east Asia for many months.

The rain machine is designed to produce high winds, creating the conditions which cause clouds and rain. The Russians say the winds will not damage property or the environment - and the Malaysian authorities will only have to pay if the rain machine works.

Russia has a long record of attempts to control climate. The latest, in September of this year, involved Moscow's mayor, Yuri Luzhkov. He paid the equivalent of £500,000 to stop rain falling during the day of the capital's 850th anniversary celebrations.

The rain held off, but scientists say it is impossible to assess if the mayor got value for money, or was just lucky, without detailed measurements."
news.bbc.co.uk...
And those links are full of it, if you go to globalsecurity/fas.org pr any-other military site you'll see Russia is still on par with the U.S. with the exeption of SSN other than that Russia is right there, but when it comes to SAM's ABM's Russia is WAY ahead of U.S.A.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by Lambo Rider]

reply to post by TheOracle


Well good riddance, at least concede defeat don't play that "Holier than thou" game here and then give up because apparently I'm a misguided troll who has no clue of what he's talking about.

Says the person who was trying to tell me the Soviets never lied... and talked out of their ass for two consecutive posts.

Where do you get your nerve btw?

Damn right I didn't pay attention to your point, why should I?
You never payed attention to mine:

Look you think I'm trying desperately to make the East seem like a rabble of farmers with pitchforks. I'm not.
I respect the Russians.

[edit on 25/7/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by TheOracle

 

Well good riddance, at least concede defeat don't play that "Holier than thou" game here and then give up because apparently I'm a misguided troll who has no clue of what he's talking about.

Says the person who was trying to tell me the Soviets never lied... and talked out of their ass for two consecutive posts.

Where do you get your nerve btw?

The Soviets lied, but the U.S. lied just as big if not bigger than them, so what's your point, you Americans just love to try and bring Russia down even if ot's at the coast of Truth.

reply to post by Lambo Rider

The Soviets lied, but the U.S. lied just as big if not bigger than them, so what's your point, you Americans just love to try and bring Russia down even if ot's at the coast of Truth.

Ahem.... word of advice.
See where it says "Location" on my avatar? Does that say USA to you?

I'm defending neither side, nor do I particularly like either side to be honest, they both seem to be two sides of the same coin at times; it's completely irrelevant.

Everyone always love to go off on the USA Vs. Russia tangent.
We're talking about the alleged Laser Cannon here and people just can't help themselves from comparing weapons and tanks and what not.

Hell if you want to play that game, go ahead at least KNOW what your talking about. Unlike a certain misguided poster a few posts above.
I just felt compelled to correct those misperceptions...

That's all, I'm not taking the American side, believe me, look at my other posts on ATS if you don't, I NEVER take the American side.

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira

The An-22 is slow, big cargo plane. I mean it has a top speed of 740kn/h! Do you really think they would consider using an outdated cargo plane as a laser weapons platform?

why not ??? what proof is there that they could not ....

So I think that rules out the fact they could have used any suitable aerial platform to use for these chemical laser prototypes.

no, and its debatable

Too late if they were supposed to be "battle ready" by 1972.

there is a major difference b/w chemical and nuclear lasers , don't mix up

America has far more infrastructure than the Russians. Especially underground installations.

now this statement has me laughing , USA has only 3-5 underground facilites and those are nowhere superhardened as Russian ones , while Russians have 200 underground bases , with 27 of them the size of cities , the largest being Yamantau and Uragan Defence , which can sustain operations even under sustained nuclear assault, which USa has no counterparts in ...

Today, Russia may be conducting nuclear deception on a far vaster scale beneath Yamantau Mountain, where it has dug out a gigantic underground military complex designed to withstand a sustained nuclear assault. U.S. intelligence sources tell WorldNetDaily that the Yamantau complex is but one of some 200 secret deep underground nuclear war-fighting sites in Russia, many of which have been significantly upgraded over the past six years at a cost of billions of dollars.
www.worldnetdaily.com...

www.viewzone.com...

Remember the Tsar-Bomba? The world's largest thermonuclear weapon? 52 Megaton bomb. Most powerful human weapon ever created. Why did it have such a large yield? Because it was so inaccurate, so the only way they could compensate for their lack of technology was to make everything far more powerful.

Tsar bomba was a bomb tested for political showoff and had no military value , so this is a very poor example , by the way, the Russians deployed the first Counterforce ICBM R-36M(NATO name:SS-18) which was meant for destroying minuteman ICBM silos
Soviet nuclear doctrine, expounded in a wide range of Russian defense literature, has five related elements:

* Preemption (first strike).
* Quantitative superiority (a requisite for preemption and because the war may last for some time, even though the initial hours are decisive).
* Counterforce targeting.
* Combined-arms operations to supplement nuclear strikes.
* Defense, which has been almost totally neglected by the U. S. under its concept of mutual deterrence

may have disregarded that but their military elite were very old-minded, old-fashioned men; they believed in weapons that exploded, vaporised or shredded the enemy. Not infra-red beams you can't see and plasma cannons. Same was true of the US you could say, but unlike a Communist Government, those with control of the military didn't have as much influence as they did in a Communist country, so America was able to break free of those old-fashioned attitudes.

this sort of arguement is one of silliest sort of arguements ,
it was the soviet military doctrine to fight and win a nuclear war AT ANY COST , AND ENSURE SURVIVAL OF 75% POPULACE , AS A RESULT THE massive civil defence network , Plasma wepaons research (as my interview of Mr.Cohen contained , even warfare.ru has a link on Russian prototype plasma wepaon) and larger R & D effort on lasers in compare to USA

www.etpv.org...

Soviet Marshall Ogarkov was the first one to predict a revolution in military affairs , particularly in combined arms approach

The T-98 is far too lightly armed and armoured to be compared to a HMMVW,

silly statement as T-98 top end version weighing 5.5 ton can withstand attack from anti-tank weapons like RPG-7 , which Humvee cannot withstand ....

HMMWV Armament Carriers have neither the power nor the design features to give them a reasonable chance against common threats such as RPGs and command-detonated mines.
www.angelfire.com...

T-98 can :

Armor Protection * Base armour protection provides Level B4 ballistic protection (7.62 mm x 51 Ball) to the vertical sides and roof to include the crew-compartment and engine-bay. * "Pro Level" will protect the inhabitants from a 9mm parabellum, and will not be seriously damaged by a straight-on collision with a heavy truck or a lamppost. * "Hi.Pro" will stand up to 7.62x39mm or 7.62mm NATO thermoprocessed bullets. * "Hi.Pro.S." can take a hit from an RPG-7 or similar anti-tank weapon Note - The blast floor will withstand attack by 1 x L2A2, 2 x DM51 hand grenades and anti personnel mines.
en.wikipedia.org...

also , Kombat can be modified for use in military operations :

www.armoringgroup.com...

Not infra-red beams you can't see and plasma cannons.

and why were reputed physicists like teller,Cohen ,Asinov, and scientific journals like fas,revue stating that Russia had more R & D in lasers

-------
Plasma-based weaponry is any group of weapons designed to use high-energy ionized gas or "plasma", typically created by superheating lasers or superfrequency devices. There has been notable interest in its development. One plasma prototype weapon exists in Russia which was developed by The Radio Instrument Building Research Institute under the supervision of Academician A. Avramenko. Their action is based on focusing beams of electromagnetic energy produced by laser or microwave radiation into the upper layers of the atmosphere.
en.wikipedia.org...
---
also Mr.Cohen has stated that there is another plasma weapon that uses nuclear energy

According to published intelligence reports, in the late 1980s the Russians began developing a "plasma weapon" for missile defenses. The plasma weapon uses nuclear energy to ionize the atmosphere, destroying or rendering inoperable any missiles passing through the plasma field.
www.manuelsweb.com...

[edit on 25-7-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 25-7-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 25-7-2008 by manson_322]