What drives some to make the assumption that the U.S. is NOT as Militarily Advanced as it truly is?

reply to post by squarehead666


I've always said that other countries have military capability equal to some of the US capability. But just because the US doesn't demonstrate technology doesn't mean they don't have it. There are a ton of black projects we won't see unless absolutely necessary for many years.

reply to post by squarehead666


Hey bud, I design some of that "shoddy gear" (expression) that you've cast over everything. I'm telling you firsthand, what you see is not what we have.

reply to post by squarehead666


To sum up in a single word "Kursk!" See, this works both ways. Except I bet I can find a lot more examples of Russian failures than of American failures.

This December 3-7 go to the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando, FL for the I/ITSEC convention and come on back with your evaluation.

www.iitsec.org...

reply to post by SoulVisions


And that counts for what exactly?

You have no idea what I 'see' or 'hear' for that matter, but I'm not the one resorting to jingoism here.....Why don't you just try typing USA, USA, until I go away?

The fact is you've been sold a pack of lies, your alleged military superiority is just one card. The French were in a similar position at the beginning of WWII.....Look where it got them!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by squarehead666

 

To sum up in a single word "Kursk!" See, this works both ways. Except I bet I can find a lot more examples of Russian failures than of American failures.

I'll certainly take that bet!

M-247 Sgt. York DivAD
en.wikipedia.org...

Your turn.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SoulVisions


As for the Shkval, yes it's a dangerous weapon, but everyone seems to think it's the be all end all weapon, and it's simply not. If all your target has to do is turn, and you're going to miss, that's not the greatest weapon in the world, that people claim it is.

Please do show WHAT SHIP the USN has that can "TURN" at or more than 300mph, (thats how FATS Shkval travels UNDERWATER)

reply to post by ATSWATCHER


They don't have to turn at more than 300 mph. It doesn't instantly go from 0-300. It's launched at 50 kts, and takes time to get up to speed. It's also incredibly noisy when it's fired, due to the way that it operates. If they are paying attention, and hear the launch, they can turn quickly, and it misses.

He's absolutely right.....At a range of 15km you have approximately 15-20 seconds before a Shkval impacts, how far do you think even an attack sub or destroyer can move in that time.

The answer is not far enough!

The Shkval is not at 50Kph for long.....Once the rocket ignites and the steam bubble forms, it's on it's way. It is capable of mid course correction that will more than cover any possible move by the target.....And of course, you don't just launch one.

PS - Still waiting for your next Russian military failure.....Got at least a dozen more US flops waiting in the wings (all of which were still very profitable for the defence contractors concerned of course).

Originally posted by squarehead666
reply to post by SoulVisions

 

And that counts for what exactly?

You have no idea what I 'see' or 'hear' for that matter, but I'm not the one resorting to jingoism here.....Why don't you just try typing USA, USA, until I go away?

The fact is you've been sold a pack of lies, your alleged military superiority is just one card. The French were in a similar position at the beginning of WWII.....Look where it got them!

edit on 20-11-2012 by squarehead666 because: Content

What in the world? Why are you resorting to personal attacks? I stated earlier that we were on level ground, so what are you even going on about? So sensitive.

reply to post by SoulVisions


How exactly is that a personal attack?

I merely asked how your involvement in producing US defence equipment makes it inherently better than anyone else's stuff.....I have no doubt that you are doing your absolute best for your troops, but that doesn't mean you are working to the best plan.

Given the 'profit first' motivation of US defence contractors and the corruption in the Pentagon ($2.3 trillion missing at the last count wasn't it?) you really shouldn't be so surprised and shocked by what I'm telling you.

reply to post by ATSWATCHER

When one looks at the Weapons that were used in Iraq and Afghanistan...99% of these Weapon Systems are Early 1960's or in the case of the B-52's...1959 Tech.

Black U.S. Military Weaponry that is using current U.S. Tech. is beyond belief and we will not see these systems in our lifetimes as they will REMAIN secret.

Split Infinity

reply to post by ATSWATCHER


The Soviet Union concentrated on Particle Beam Tech. and the U.S. primarily concentrated on Laser Tech. The Soviet Union became Russia and to this day the current Russian Particle Beam is seldom if ever used. The reason for this is that many a Soviet or Russian has died attempting to fire their Particle Beam as it has a nasty habit of IRRADIATING ANYONE THAT USES IT.

Split Infinity

Your evidence for these bold statements please?

Not disagreeing with you (yet) but I will need to be seeing some (seriously convincing) links before I'll accept such outlandish ideas as fact.

reply to post by squarehead666


Hey, Square,

He's right about those tests. They had some success in aerial tests with it, somehow trying for a "bunker buster" beam, but all it did was leave somewhat shallow holes in the ground. "Mysterious" holes. I gave an example of one item we're working on earlier. The "light-speed particle rail-gun" (not the typical rail-gun). It won't matter how thick an armor plating is over an an area/vehicle, at the speeds the "munition" is traveling, it won't be stopped anytime soon.

Split Infinity, others, and I had a pretty decent conversation about this FEL weapon under a different thread. It really is unlike anything elsewhere, Russia included. The last report from Russia was that they were at around 10kW(?) and currently on hold, while the American laser was up to 14-15kW and being fitted to reach 100kW before being deployed out onto the battlefield with current date for vehicle fittings to be around 2018. I was arguing counter-measures but even I had to digress at that point. Once it reaches a certain temperature, unless you have some sort of oscillating barrier (untested), then anything in it's path would pretty much be obliterated. There are definitely ways to shield against it for a few seconds at any power level, but not if more than one is pointed at you.

Still, we're around the same level when it comes to firepower. The US has some slight advantages, especially in the speed of deployment, space warfare, power of allies, and cyber warfare arenas, but again, it doesn't really matter due to (again) mutual destruction.

I do have a question for you however, and this is an honest one, does Russia currently employ fighter jets that hack into the systems of nearby enemy jets - causing a stealthier approach or even total systems failure? We have a few systems like this in place on ours, is why I ask.

edit on 20-11-2012 by SoulVisions because: (no reason given)