User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:54:45 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2003/04/23/Analysis-Strategic-bombing-in-Iraq-war/47351051129899/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russian cruise missiles, 60% of the time they work every time. http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zLq2-uZd5LY/hqdefault.jpg Stings the nostrils... As with many other systems, in the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, the performance of cruise missiles like the Tomahawk was overrated. At the time, the U.S. military reported that of the 288 Tomahawks launched at the Iraqis, eight malfunctioned after launch, 45 missed their targets, two were shot down and 233 scored hits. However, in the years that followed, serious studies found that the Tomahawk's success rate had been significantly overstated. It is now widely believed that Tomahawks destroyed their targets less than 40 percent of the time. The Defense Intelligence Agency conducted a bomb damage assessment on 357 strategic targets for which sufficient data was available. Some of these targets were engaged by Tomahawks. Of the 34 Tomahawks launched against these targets, 18 destroyed their targets and 16 failed to do so, about a 53 percent success rate. Of the 16 that failed to destroy their targets, the largest portion (the exact numerical breakdown remains classified) experienced guidance failures on the way to the target. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2003/04/23/Analysis-Strategic-bombing-in-Iraq-war/47351051129899/ That was 24 years ago in the very infancy of PGM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:56:15 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think they are allied with Iran right now in Syria. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Did the Russians really miss? Maybe it was a case of Fuck you because Fuck you. I think they are allied with Iran right now in Syria. They have been for a long time. I don't know what relations were like during the Shah's tenure as HMFIC, but as soon as he was deposed, the Iranian leadership fell right back into the USSRs sphere of influence. Probably had an F-14 on its way to Russia as soon as the embassy fell. Their friendly relationship goes back quite a ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 5:01:23 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2003/04/23/Analysis-Strategic-bombing-in-Iraq-war/47351051129899/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russian cruise missiles, 60% of the time they work every time. http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zLq2-uZd5LY/hqdefault.jpg Stings the nostrils... As with many other systems, in the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, the performance of cruise missiles like the Tomahawk was overrated. At the time, the U.S. military reported that of the 288 Tomahawks launched at the Iraqis, eight malfunctioned after launch, 45 missed their targets, two were shot down and 233 scored hits. However, in the years that followed, serious studies found that the Tomahawk's success rate had been significantly overstated. It is now widely believed that Tomahawks destroyed their targets less than 40 percent of the time. The Defense Intelligence Agency conducted a bomb damage assessment on 357 strategic targets for which sufficient data was available. Some of these targets were engaged by Tomahawks. Of the 34 Tomahawks launched against these targets, 18 destroyed their targets and 16 failed to do so, about a 53 percent success rate. Of the 16 that failed to destroy their targets, the largest portion (the exact numerical breakdown remains classified) experienced guidance failures on the way to the target. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2003/04/23/Analysis-Strategic-bombing-in-Iraq-war/47351051129899/ The Gulf War was 25 years ago. If the best the Russians can do is equal our stuff from 25 years ago... gosh, I don't know what to say. I wouldn't want to be the target, just in case it worked, but that's not really that impressive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 5:04:36 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love how some people refuse to acknowledge that the Soviet military might of the 70-80s was a Maskirovka. They either didn't read the declassified sources after the end of the Cold War that showed that the USSR military was a hollow shell of an organization, or they have a vested interested ($) to make believe the Soviets Russian Federation are and should continue to be treated as a larger threat than they actually are. Remember how our intelligence agencies predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall? Yeah, I don't either. They were too busy writing assessments about how efficient the Soviets were, in order to guarantee the next quarter's funding. So we could have ignored the Soviets as a threat? 
Glad you cleared that up 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 5:05:02 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Gulf War was 25 years ago. If the best the Russians can do is equal our stuff from 25 years ago... gosh, I don't know what to say. I wouldn't want to be the target, just in case it worked, but that's not really that impressive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russian cruise missiles, 60% of the time they work every time. http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zLq2-uZd5LY/hqdefault.jpg Stings the nostrils... As with many other systems, in the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, the performance of cruise missiles like the Tomahawk was overrated. At the time, the U.S. military reported that of the 288 Tomahawks launched at the Iraqis, eight malfunctioned after launch, 45 missed their targets, two were shot down and 233 scored hits. However, in the years that followed, serious studies found that the Tomahawk's success rate had been significantly overstated. It is now widely believed that Tomahawks destroyed their targets less than 40 percent of the time. The Defense Intelligence Agency conducted a bomb damage assessment on 357 strategic targets for which sufficient data was available. Some of these targets were engaged by Tomahawks. Of the 34 Tomahawks launched against these targets, 18 destroyed their targets and 16 failed to do so, about a 53 percent success rate. Of the 16 that failed to destroy their targets, the largest portion (the exact numerical breakdown remains classified) experienced guidance failures on the way to the target. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2003/04/23/Analysis-Strategic-bombing-in-Iraq-war/47351051129899/ The Gulf War was 25 years ago. If the best the Russians can do is equal our stuff from 25 years ago... gosh, I don't know what to say. I wouldn't want to be the target, just in case it worked, but that's not really that impressive. 10-25 years behind is probably not far off. Though nothing speeds up progress like a good ole fashioned shooting war However, wonder what our accuracy rate was in 2003. Probably classified. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 5:05:03 PM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 5:24:30 PM EDT
[#7]
Laugh all you want but they don't have a fucking Bozo in charge of their military.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 5:32:20 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I doubt it was a mistake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 5:36:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And to think people on this very site believe Russia is a competent and viable fighting force. Mmmmmmmkay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 5:38:20 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is how WWIII could start... Russian cruise missiles accidentally hit a U.S. carrier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 5:44:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So we could have ignored the Soviets as a threat?
Glad you cleared that up Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I love how some people refuse to acknowledge that the Soviet military might of the 70-80s was a Maskirovka. They either didn't read the declassified sources after the end of the Cold War that showed that the USSR military was a hollow shell of an organization, or they have a vested interested ($) to make believe the Soviets Russian Federation are and should continue to be treated as a larger threat than they actually are. Remember how our intelligence agencies predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall? Yeah, I don't either. They were too busy writing assessments about how efficient the Soviets were, in order to guarantee the next quarter's funding. So we could have ignored the Soviets as a threat?
Glad you cleared that up No. We just shouldn't oversell the threat like a coming apocalypse, simply because fear makes people money and guarantees future employment. I'm sure if you rant enough about the Russian Bear maybe the US govt can guarantee you a good contracting gig after you retire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 5:48:37 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No fucks given. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 5:57:31 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
10-25 years behind is probably not far off. Though nothing speeds up progress like a good ole fashioned shooting war However, wonder what our accuracy rate was in 2003. Probably classified. I doubt we ever missed the whole country. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 6:03:26 PM EDT
[#14]
One of the things they are getting out of this little war is that they are able to finally test equipment to see what works and what doesn't.
This is one thing that they have been unable to really do. You can't launch the kind of attacks in Eastern Europe that you can in the Middle East. Because the US was so strong, with allies in Eastern Europe, it prevented the Russians from using their ship launched weapons and a few other things, due to needing to go over airspace belonging to our allies. That was effective containment. On the other hand, our involvement in the ME allowed us to test out and perfect equipment and troops. Had we needed to go up against Russia, they would have been green troops, with untested equipment and untested men, with untested leadership and tactics. It would have gone very, very bad for them. Now that we are weak ( leadership ), and withdrawing, they are able to step in and gain experience and can improve. This is not a good thing, at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 6:05:28 PM EDT
[#15]
Oooopski.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 6:08:06 PM EDT
[#16]
Is this like taking two dogs and rubbing their heads together?
Please please please!!! In for the pissing match! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 6:11:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One of the things they are getting out of this little war is that they are able to finally test equipment to see what works and what doesn't. This is one thing that they have been unable to really do. You can't launch the kind of attacks in Eastern Europe that you can in the Middle East. Because the US was so strong, with allies in Eastern Europe, it prevented the Russians from using their ship launched weapons and a few other things, due to needing to go over airspace belonging to our allies. That was effective containment. On the other hand, our involvement in the ME allowed us to test out and perfect equipment and troops. Had we needed to go up against Russia, they would have been green troops, with untested equipment and untested men, with untested leadership and tactics. It would have gone very, very bad for them. Now that we are weak ( leadership ), and withdrawing, they are able to step in and gain experience and can improve. This is not a good thing, at all. They ain't shit until they have the technology to sync their strikes with ACDC and LTBHTF samples. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 6:17:05 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. We just shouldn't oversell the threat like a coming apocalypse, simply because fear makes people money and guarantees future employment. I'm sure if you rant enough about the Russian Bear maybe the US govt can guarantee you a good contracting gig after you retire. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love how some people refuse to acknowledge that the Soviet military might of the 70-80s was a Maskirovka. They either didn't read the declassified sources after the end of the Cold War that showed that the USSR military was a hollow shell of an organization, or they have a vested interested ($) to make believe the Soviets Russian Federation are and should continue to be treated as a larger threat than they actually are. Remember how our intelligence agencies predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall? Yeah, I don't either. They were too busy writing assessments about how efficient the Soviets were, in order to guarantee the next quarter's funding. So we could have ignored the Soviets as a threat?
Glad you cleared that up No. We just shouldn't oversell the threat like a coming apocalypse, simply because fear makes people money and guarantees future employment. I'm sure if you rant enough about the Russian Bear maybe the US govt can guarantee you a good contracting gig after you retire. Spoken like a true leftist. Regardless, so according to you the Soviets weren't as much of a threat as we thought they were because not *all* of their weapons would have worked as advertised. That would probably explain why they had redundancy in their SIOP to hit some major population centers and other targets up to 12 X over just in case the first 11 bombs didn't detonate. Not that we didn't have proof that their shit worked because we monitored their testing, but everything they build is junk. Got it. And all those Soviet / WP armored divisions in Europe? They were a paper tiger too; NATO totally oversold the threat they posed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 6:20:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Hahaha. Fucking retards
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 6:21:33 PM EDT
[#20]
Iraq was just bitching about the US not giving them enough air support, they've made public moves towards Russia and apparently they let the cruise missile strike go through their air space. The strike might not have impressed anyone in the west but I bet it turned some heads in Iraq and in the former soviet states.
So right now an unnamed "senior defense official" has all the reason to leak this and try to put a damper on Russia's information campaign. It could be total BS while at the same time if some missiles did crash in the middle of nowhere in Iran no one is going to know about it unless the government acknowledges it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 6:27:55 PM EDT
[#21]
scored like horeshoes it wouldn't count.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 6:38:25 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Spoken like a true leftist. Regardless, so according to you the Soviets weren't as much of a threat as we thought they were because not *all* of their weapons would have worked as advertised. That would probably explain why they had redundancy in their SIOP to hit some major population centers and other targets up to 12 X over just in case the first 11 bombs didn't detonate. Not that we didn't have proof that their shit worked because we monitored their testing, but everything they build is junk. Got it. And all those Soviet / WP armored divisions in Europe? They were a paper tiger too; NATO totally oversold the threat they posed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love how some people refuse to acknowledge that the Soviet military might of the 70-80s was a Maskirovka. They either didn't read the declassified sources after the end of the Cold War that showed that the USSR military was a hollow shell of an organization, or they have a vested interested ($) to make believe the Soviets Russian Federation are and should continue to be treated as a larger threat than they actually are. Remember how our intelligence agencies predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall? Yeah, I don't either. They were too busy writing assessments about how efficient the Soviets were, in order to guarantee the next quarter's funding. So we could have ignored the Soviets as a threat?
Glad you cleared that up No. We just shouldn't oversell the threat like a coming apocalypse, simply because fear makes people money and guarantees future employment. I'm sure if you rant enough about the Russian Bear maybe the US govt can guarantee you a good contracting gig after you retire. Spoken like a true leftist. Regardless, so according to you the Soviets weren't as much of a threat as we thought they were because not *all* of their weapons would have worked as advertised. That would probably explain why they had redundancy in their SIOP to hit some major population centers and other targets up to 12 X over just in case the first 11 bombs didn't detonate. Not that we didn't have proof that their shit worked because we monitored their testing, but everything they build is junk. Got it. And all those Soviet / WP armored divisions in Europe? They were a paper tiger too; NATO totally oversold the threat they posed. Yes, the Soviet and WP armored division were paper tigers. Remember how all the analysis from the 80s about COMBLOC capabilities were filled with nothing but fear mongering about the prowess of the Soviet juggernaut? Instead, it turned out to be a bunch of poorly equipped and understrength divisions whose exploding turret tanks were driven by unskilled drunks who had so little military discipline that 80% got Hepatitis while deployed in Afghanistan. I guess at some point I realized that some people sold fear to the public, whether it was about evil terrorist Mooslums, Soviet Russian military capabilities, Global Warming, or whatever else, and made an absolute fortune off of it. Don't see how that means I'm a leftist, but I guess you if you can create a threat from nothing its not hard to create a strawman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 6:40:03 PM EDT
[#23]
I don't think that was an accident.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 6:48:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Hey they hit the ME. Lighten up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 6:51:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, the Soviet and WP armored division were paper tigers. Remember how all the analysis from the 80s about COMBLOC capabilities were filled with nothing but fear mongering about the prowess of the Soviet juggernaut? Instead, it turned out to be a bunch of poorly equipped and understrength divisions whose exploding turret tanks were driven by unskilled drunks who had so little military discipline that 80% got Hepatitis while deployed in Afghanistan. I guess at some point I realized that some people sold fear to the public, whether it was about evil terrorist Mooslums, Soviet Russian military capabilities, Global Warming, or whatever else, and made an absolute fortune off of it. Don't see how that means I'm a leftist, but I guess you if you can create a threat from nothing its not hard to create a strawman. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love how some people refuse to acknowledge that the Soviet military might of the 70-80s was a Maskirovka. They either didn't read the declassified sources after the end of the Cold War that showed that the USSR military was a hollow shell of an organization, or they have a vested interested ($) to make believe the Soviets Russian Federation are and should continue to be treated as a larger threat than they actually are. Remember how our intelligence agencies predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall? Yeah, I don't either. They were too busy writing assessments about how efficient the Soviets were, in order to guarantee the next quarter's funding. So we could have ignored the Soviets as a threat?
Glad you cleared that up No. We just shouldn't oversell the threat like a coming apocalypse, simply because fear makes people money and guarantees future employment. I'm sure if you rant enough about the Russian Bear maybe the US govt can guarantee you a good contracting gig after you retire. Spoken like a true leftist. Regardless, so according to you the Soviets weren't as much of a threat as we thought they were because not *all* of their weapons would have worked as advertised. That would probably explain why they had redundancy in their SIOP to hit some major population centers and other targets up to 12 X over just in case the first 11 bombs didn't detonate. Not that we didn't have proof that their shit worked because we monitored their testing, but everything they build is junk. Got it. And all those Soviet / WP armored divisions in Europe? They were a paper tiger too; NATO totally oversold the threat they posed. Yes, the Soviet and WP armored division were paper tigers. Remember how all the analysis from the 80s about COMBLOC capabilities were filled with nothing but fear mongering about the prowess of the Soviet juggernaut? Instead, it turned out to be a bunch of poorly equipped and understrength divisions whose exploding turret tanks were driven by unskilled drunks who had so little military discipline that 80% got Hepatitis while deployed in Afghanistan. I guess at some point I realized that some people sold fear to the public, whether it was about evil terrorist Mooslums, Soviet Russian military capabilities, Global Warming, or whatever else, and made an absolute fortune off of it. Don't see how that means I'm a leftist, but I guess you if you can create a threat from nothing its not hard to create a strawman. The leftist part is a response to your assertion that my analyses of the Soviet / Russian threat was / is merely posturing myself for a post-military defense contractor job (I already am a contractor, although it has nothing to do with Russia specifically). As to the rest of your statement, you are asserting that senior NATO planners from multiple countries knew less than you, and that they were inept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 7:03:51 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The leftist part is a response to your assertion that my analyses of the Soviet / Russian threat was / is merely posturing myself for a post-military defense contractor job (I already am a contractor, although it has nothing to do with Russia specifically). As to the rest of your statement, you are asserting that senior NATO planners from multiple countries knew less than you, and that they were inept. So your assertion is that senior NATO planners possessed such good intel that they somehow missed that the Soviet military was a military version of the Potemkin Village, that Soviet troops in Afghanistan suffered 75% casualties from infectious diseases easily prevented by not cooking with shit stained fingers, and that the Berlin Wall fucking collapsed and they didn't know. Not rating very high in the confidence dept. When looking for motive about why something happens, ask yourself, "Cui bono" Who benefits? You are a defense contractor. Your entire profession revolves around there being not only a constant fear of war but also that we should spend money on whatever new toy or service your employer is selling. Starting to make sense why you would try to get Americans to fear Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 7:04:56 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Quantity has a quality all it's own" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. "Quantity has a quality all it's own" They don't even have quantity anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 7:11:19 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey they hit the ME. Lighten up. Minute of region?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 7:12:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Firing from the Caspian Sea those missiles must have hit at least 400 or 500 miles short. Talk about a short round. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 7:23:57 PM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 7:30:34 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. I disagree with your assessment to some degree. The Russians are capable of producing exceptional weapons & technology. They fired what 36 cruise missles and one of them went off course. These are also barely out of prototype. Lets look at it another way, an American cruise missle hits right 98% of the time but costs 1.5 million. A Russian missle hits right 88% percent of the time but costs 400,000. They can and will fire 4 for every 1 or ours. In fact they say that they launched two missles per site this last week. Also the are willing to use cluster/fuel air explosives in their warheads. They might not be as great as our stuff but it gets the job done without costing two arms and a leg. Some Russian weapons I can tell you are every bit a match for what we issue. Case in point the T90MS is an awsome tank, I use to think like most Americans that they were junk but recent events in Ukraine have changed my mind. With the help of France/Germany and the USA they have been able to bring that tank up to western standards, probably even exceeding the M1. Also some of their new missle systems, radar, artillery, electric warefare measures have caused serious problems for western gear. Before you blast me I can say that I wish it were not so and only came to that opinion after assessing the Ukrainian conflict. The armor on the t90 with the newest reactive armor is pretty much inpenetrable by anything except top attack munitions,. Even western tandem warheads and sabots failed to destroy them in the few occasions they were available. Usually the Russians export thier crap stuff to the ME and that is usually what we encounter |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 7:34:17 PM EDT
[#32]
26 shots fired, some hit, some miss.
Isn't that spray and pray ? It must be nice to piss away someone else's money, let's see what we can blow up today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 8:13:02 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wouldn't be so sure that this was just a total failure of their technology as opposed to some kind of planned, weird strategy. Don't kid yourself - the Russians are good. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I wouldn't be so sure that this was just a total failure of their technology as opposed to some kind of planned, weird strategy. Don't kid yourself - the Russians are good. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 8:14:13 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryTried to catch him on the border. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 8:15:27 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. Yeah but they make a hell of a lot of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 8:19:02 PM EDT
[#36]
Just wondering if everyone claiming the Russians only build shit realize this was a missile that was "in development" just 6 weeks ago?
Pulled from another thread on here earlier today: Russian Navy Breaks the Seal. Make sure to read the linked piece by Bill Gertz in there as well. This just happened to be a real-world, operational test for them. 87% success rate on a new platform's first actual combat use doesn't strike me as all that bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 8:20:17 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think some T-Hawks went adrift and into Iran when invaded Iraq in 2003. So Russia is only 12 years behind. 10ish in Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 8:29:36 PM EDT
[#38]
Those stupid Russians and their inferior technology. Next they'll be bombing hospitals.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 8:41:53 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So your assertion is that senior NATO planners possessed such good intel that they somehow missed that the Soviet military was a military version of the Potemkin Village, that Soviet troops in Afghanistan suffered 75% casualties from infectious diseases easily prevented by not cooking with shit stained fingers, and that the Berlin Wall fucking collapsed and they didn't know. Not rating very high in the confidence dept. When looking for motive about why something happens, ask yourself, "Cui bono" Who benefits? You are a defense contractor. Your entire profession revolves around there being not only a constant fear of war but also that we should spend money on whatever new toy or service your employer is selling. Starting to make sense why you would try to get Americans to fear Russia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The leftist part is a response to your assertion that my analyses of the Soviet / Russian threat was / is merely posturing myself for a post-military defense contractor job (I already am a contractor, although it has nothing to do with Russia specifically). As to the rest of your statement, you are asserting that senior NATO planners from multiple countries knew less than you, and that they were inept. So your assertion is that senior NATO planners possessed such good intel that they somehow missed that the Soviet military was a military version of the Potemkin Village, that Soviet troops in Afghanistan suffered 75% casualties from infectious diseases easily prevented by not cooking with shit stained fingers, and that the Berlin Wall fucking collapsed and they didn't know. Not rating very high in the confidence dept. When looking for motive about why something happens, ask yourself, "Cui bono" Who benefits? You are a defense contractor. Your entire profession revolves around there being not only a constant fear of war but also that we should spend money on whatever new toy or service your employer is selling. Starting to make sense why you would try to get Americans to fear Russia. My assertion is that senior NATO officers knew what they were doing, what they had to prepare for, and what they were faced with while you make a weak attempt at rewriting history decades after the fact. I have no idea what your source of information is, but it seems to have a certain left-leaning "peacenik" bent to it. Are you a libertarian? Just curious. You have no idea what I do nor do you need to know (nothing glamorous, I promise), but rest assured I have no vested interest in shaping anyone's opinion as to what a threat the USSR was, or what it is now. It affects my job or retirement not one iota. As for "fearing" Russia, I simply believe it to be prudent NOT to become complacent about what they can or cannot do. Assume the worst, prepare accordingly, and there will be no surprises. No upright American concerned with the prosperity and survival of our nation would argue against that. That line of thought served us well during the Cold War, even if you're incapable of "getting it". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 8:42:27 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Iran: Hey, some of your missiles hit us. Russia: You're welcome. It wasn't a problem. Iran: Uh, what? I mean, they didn't cause much damage but... Russia: You. Are. Welcome. Iran: Oh. Thanks. Correct answer |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 8:48:20 PM EDT
[#41]
What I wonder is how the Mossad agent was able to get out without a trace. Sounds like a smooth op.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 8:49:16 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My assertion is that senior NATO officers knew what they were doing, what they had to prepare for, and what they were faced with while you make a weak attempt at rewriting history decades after the fact. I have no idea what your source of information is, but it seems to have a certain left-leaning "peacenik" bent to it. Are you a libertarian? Just curious. You have no idea what I do nor do you need to know (nothing glamorous, I promise), but rest assured I have no vested interest in shaping anyone's opinion as to what a threat the USSR was, or what it is now. It affects my job or retirement not one iota. As for "fearing" Russia, I simply believe it to be prudent NOT to become complacent about what they can or cannot do. Assume the worst, prepare accordingly, and there will be no surprises. No upright American concerned with the prosperity and survival of our nation would argue against that. That line of thought served us well during the Cold War, even if you're incapable of "getting it". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The leftist part is a response to your assertion that my analyses of the Soviet / Russian threat was / is merely posturing myself for a post-military defense contractor job (I already am a contractor, although it has nothing to do with Russia specifically). As to the rest of your statement, you are asserting that senior NATO planners from multiple countries knew less than you, and that they were inept. So your assertion is that senior NATO planners possessed such good intel that they somehow missed that the Soviet military was a military version of the Potemkin Village, that Soviet troops in Afghanistan suffered 75% casualties from infectious diseases easily prevented by not cooking with shit stained fingers, and that the Berlin Wall fucking collapsed and they didn't know. Not rating very high in the confidence dept. When looking for motive about why something happens, ask yourself, "Cui bono" Who benefits? You are a defense contractor. Your entire profession revolves around there being not only a constant fear of war but also that we should spend money on whatever new toy or service your employer is selling. Starting to make sense why you would try to get Americans to fear Russia. My assertion is that senior NATO officers knew what they were doing, what they had to prepare for, and what they were faced with while you make a weak attempt at rewriting history decades after the fact. I have no idea what your source of information is, but it seems to have a certain left-leaning "peacenik" bent to it. Are you a libertarian? Just curious. You have no idea what I do nor do you need to know (nothing glamorous, I promise), but rest assured I have no vested interest in shaping anyone's opinion as to what a threat the USSR was, or what it is now. It affects my job or retirement not one iota. As for "fearing" Russia, I simply believe it to be prudent NOT to become complacent about what they can or cannot do. Assume the worst, prepare accordingly, and there will be no surprises. No upright American concerned with the prosperity and survival of our nation would argue against that. That line of thought served us well during the Cold War, even if you're incapable of "getting it". Those same NATO officers missed a shit ton, and overstated the Soviet threat in such a significant way that they someone missed its collapse. Assuming the worst? No, I think preparing for reality, instead of some make believe land where a conventional war with Russia is even possible when both of us had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Acting like M1 tanks or T80s were going to change the course of a possible war. Hilarious. Any upright American concerned with the prosperity and survival of this nation would be wise to question the fear mongering and blank check mentality of those who benefit financially from war. "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." - another apparent true Leftist Listening to professional soldiers discussing military threats is like listening to global war fanatics working at state funded organizations. Somehow, the world is always about to end, unless of course if you give me money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 8:51:14 PM EDT
[#43]
How did the israelis manage to do this?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 8:52:30 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I disagree with your assessment to some degree. The Russians are capable of producing exceptional weapons & technology. They fired what 36 cruise missles and one of them went off course. These are also barely out of prototype. Lets look at it another way, an American cruise missle hits right 98% of the time but costs 1.5 million. A Russian missle hits right 88% percent of the time but costs 400,000. They can and will fire 4 for every 1 or ours. In fact they say that they launched two missles per site this last week. Also the are willing to use cluster/fuel air explosives in their warheads. They might not be as great as our stuff but it gets the job done without costing two arms and a leg. Some Russian weapons I can tell you are every bit a match for what we issue. Case in point the T90MS is an awsome tank, I use to think like most Americans that they were junk but recent events in Ukraine have changed my mind. With the help of France/Germany and the USA they have been able to bring that tank up to western standards, probably even exceeding the M1. Also some of their new missle systems, radar, artillery, electric warefare measures have caused serious problems for western gear. Before you blast me I can say that I wish it were not so and only came to that opinion after assessing the Ukrainian conflict. The armor on the t90 with the newest reactive armor is pretty much impenetrable by anything except top attack munitions,. Even western tandem warheads and sabots failed to destroy them in the few occasions they were available. Usually the Russians export thier crap stuff to the ME and that is usually what we encounter Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. I disagree with your assessment to some degree. The Russians are capable of producing exceptional weapons & technology. They fired what 36 cruise missles and one of them went off course. These are also barely out of prototype. Lets look at it another way, an American cruise missle hits right 98% of the time but costs 1.5 million. A Russian missle hits right 88% percent of the time but costs 400,000. They can and will fire 4 for every 1 or ours. In fact they say that they launched two missles per site this last week. Also the are willing to use cluster/fuel air explosives in their warheads. They might not be as great as our stuff but it gets the job done without costing two arms and a leg. Some Russian weapons I can tell you are every bit a match for what we issue. Case in point the T90MS is an awsome tank, I use to think like most Americans that they were junk but recent events in Ukraine have changed my mind. With the help of France/Germany and the USA they have been able to bring that tank up to western standards, probably even exceeding the M1. Also some of their new missle systems, radar, artillery, electric warefare measures have caused serious problems for western gear. Before you blast me I can say that I wish it were not so and only came to that opinion after assessing the Ukrainian conflict. The armor on the t90 with the newest reactive armor is pretty much impenetrable by anything except top attack munitions,. Even western tandem warheads and sabots failed to destroy them in the few occasions they were available. Usually the Russians export thier crap stuff to the ME and that is usually what we encounter Can you elaborate? If the ERA they hang on to the sides of the hull and turret of the T-90 can stop our DU KE main gun service rounds, then they could stop top attack munitions like the TOW IIB and Javelin much more easily. There's no doubt the FCS of the T-90 is an improvement over the T-72 upon which it is based, but saying that the armor can stop the latest generation of M829 APFSDS-T service ammo is quite a claim. I'd be very interested in learning more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 8:54:40 PM EDT
[#45]
I guess the imperial to metric conversion got them somewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 8:55:24 PM EDT
[#46]
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned that Moscow's military action in Syria is endangering trade ties with his country, saying Ankara could look elsewhere for gas supplies and cancel the construction of its first nuclear power plant, which is being built by Russia. Russia supplies 60 percent of Turkey's gas needs. Stupid Turkey. They want Crimean War II: The Nuclear Bugaloo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 8:55:25 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those same NATO officers missed a shit ton, and overstated the Soviet threat in such a significant way that they someone missed its collapse. Assuming the worst? No, I think preparing for reality, instead of some make believe land where a conventional war with Russia is even possible when both of us had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Acting like M1 tanks or T80s were going to change the course of a possible war. Hilarious. Any upright American concerned with the prosperity and survival of this nation would be wise to question the fear mongering and blank check mentality of those who benefit financially from war. "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." - another apparent true Leftist Listening to professional soldiers discussing military threats is like listening to global war fanatics working at state funded organizations. Somehow, the world is always about to end, unless of course if you give me money. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The leftist part is a response to your assertion that my analyses of the Soviet / Russian threat was / is merely posturing myself for a post-military defense contractor job (I already am a contractor, although it has nothing to do with Russia specifically). As to the rest of your statement, you are asserting that senior NATO planners from multiple countries knew less than you, and that they were inept. So your assertion is that senior NATO planners possessed such good intel that they somehow missed that the Soviet military was a military version of the Potemkin Village, that Soviet troops in Afghanistan suffered 75% casualties from infectious diseases easily prevented by not cooking with shit stained fingers, and that the Berlin Wall fucking collapsed and they didn't know. Not rating very high in the confidence dept. When looking for motive about why something happens, ask yourself, "Cui bono" Who benefits? You are a defense contractor. Your entire profession revolves around there being not only a constant fear of war but also that we should spend money on whatever new toy or service your employer is selling. Starting to make sense why you would try to get Americans to fear Russia. My assertion is that senior NATO officers knew what they were doing, what they had to prepare for, and what they were faced with while you make a weak attempt at rewriting history decades after the fact. I have no idea what your source of information is, but it seems to have a certain left-leaning "peacenik" bent to it. Are you a libertarian? Just curious. You have no idea what I do nor do you need to know (nothing glamorous, I promise), but rest assured I have no vested interest in shaping anyone's opinion as to what a threat the USSR was, or what it is now. It affects my job or retirement not one iota. As for "fearing" Russia, I simply believe it to be prudent NOT to become complacent about what they can or cannot do. Assume the worst, prepare accordingly, and there will be no surprises. No upright American concerned with the prosperity and survival of our nation would argue against that. That line of thought served us well during the Cold War, even if you're incapable of "getting it". Those same NATO officers missed a shit ton, and overstated the Soviet threat in such a significant way that they someone missed its collapse. Assuming the worst? No, I think preparing for reality, instead of some make believe land where a conventional war with Russia is even possible when both of us had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Acting like M1 tanks or T80s were going to change the course of a possible war. Hilarious. Any upright American concerned with the prosperity and survival of this nation would be wise to question the fear mongering and blank check mentality of those who benefit financially from war. "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." - another apparent true Leftist Listening to professional soldiers discussing military threats is like listening to global war fanatics working at state funded organizations. Somehow, the world is always about to end, unless of course if you give me money. Ok, so you are a libertarian. That explains it then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:00:09 PM EDT
[#48]
So did they hit any doctors without borders?
The Russians are getting a lot of real world experience lately. Those of you talking them up so high, and takling down about them so much are both in the wrong would be my guess. I bet it would be a real eye opener to see what our missile failure rate was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:00:54 PM EDT
[#49]
i'd love to think the redirection was caused by some advanced us countermeasure... but vodka.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:02:15 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So did they hit any doctors without borders? The Russians are getting a lot of real world experience lately. Those of you talking them up so high, and takling down about them so much are both in the wrong would be my guess. I bet it would be a real eye opener to see what our missile failure rate was. That was already addressed, and it's humbling. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
