Russian Rockets - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Russian Rockets
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Posted by Dervish on Apr-03-2005 18:02:

I confused are you talking about RAM (or SCRAM) jets??? Or something else? Or just using gas phase (as oposed to liquid phase) fuel?

Because the first stages of any jet engine is gas (air) compression.

Posted by trance85 on Apr-04-2005 04:14:

@Megaman:

cite a source or provide a link:

quote:
the info is top secret, so no actual info or pictures havent been released yet, but Putin already made statement about it and there is no reason to disbelieve him

That really isn't good enough for me. Not to mention if Putin did say that, why would there be no reason to disbelieve him?

And you live in Canada, do you get alot of top secret Russian information there?

Posted by occrider on Apr-04-2005 04:44:

quote:
Originally posted by MegaMan
what makes is so advanced, is again, it ravels close to the ground (cannot be detected) and can go around objects, a ship, building, mountant w/e, and does not require any control over it, as it has super computer on board with ability to do, and trust me its more than 2400 operations per seconds, its not like its 2.4 ghz at all.
super computers these days can do trillions operations per second
and cost around a lemon dollars

Sounds like any other cruise missile out there asides from the speed. Most are subsonic except for a few. Other than that, they all have terrain mapping waypoints to maximize ground clutter by staying low and avoiding high elevations. Of course making those types of turns at mach 2 would consume a significant amount of fuel which leads me to question what the range is of these missiles? Furthermore, the link I provided detailed exactly what the "mosquito" missiles are, so what rockets are you referring to?

Posted by MegaMan on Apr-04-2005 21:03:

"the russian rockets"

________________________
thread is over

Posted by smokeape on Apr-04-2005 21:46:

NOthing more than cruise missles at best. Maybe a little faster, but you lose some accuracy the faster you go. Bet on the US, they have lots of experience launching cruise missles against real targets and have the feedback to improve targeting. What have the Ruskies shot at lately?

Low flying plane or stealth launched nukes can easily take out naval ships and ground based targets without much hoopla and no matter how many layers of local defenses. You only gotta get close, like in horseshoes and handgrenades...

[[[smoke]]]

Posted by biznology on Apr-04-2005 21:54:

Posted by SOLO on Apr-05-2005 21:31:

Re: Russian Rockets

quote:
Originally posted by MegaMan
Hi, Russian technology is ahead of everyone�s, new rockets had been made called "Sunburn", flying 2.1 times faster than the sound, cannot be detected by US newest systems Aegis (radar) and related to this system Phalanx, which is able to shoot 5000 times per minute, if it sees anything on the radar.

That would be a real slow missile considering that the F-16 can fly at the same speed (mach 2 or more)

http://www.edwards.af.mil/brochure/...ml/f16falcn.htm

Posted by Aquadyne on Apr-08-2005 02:46:

Several things...

I believe that the missile in question is the Topol-M. There has been a bit of hype about the capabilities that the Russians claimed it would have and many were skeptical given the general impression (false impression at that) of Russian technical ineptitude. It has been discussed quite widely in the past several months and the missile has been used as a justification by several American politicians as a justification to ask for more military spending on strategic forces. This is partially one of the major reasons why the Bush administration has been hyping the missile shield. The major fear is that the Russians may import some or all of the Topol-M technology to a regime such as China which will be wrestling with U.S. in the future for hegemony in East Asia - particularly over Taiwan.

One of the tests runs for Topol-M just a few months ago had the Topol-M fly a distance of almost 6,000 miles on a zigzagged course, just about from one end of Russia to another and hit the target accurately within 50 meters or so if I am not mistaken.

quote:

Russia is quite intent on maintaining a semblance of power, but without the mystique of Communism they cant achieve much. even at the 'height' of Soviet power, Finland defeated the Northern Soviet armies to maintain some measure of independence. and where are most of those troops, equipment and factories?

The Russo-Finnish War which happened in 1940 was hardly the "height" of Soviet power. It wasn't anywhere even close actually as was evidenced the next year in 1941 when Barbarossa was unleashed and just about brought the USSR to its knees. 1941 and 1942 were probably some of the darkest years in Russia's entire history as it reeled back from the Nazi onslaught. The Russo-Finnish war was characterized by poor training, sloppy tactics and absolutely hamfisted approach to the campaign.

As for maintaing the semblance of power - they do not maintain it for reasons of symbolism or projection of force abroad. The post-Yeltsin Russia has realized that there is a distinct disadvantage of being close allies with the Anglo-American bloc as it has been repeatedly promised things in the 1990s and the promises have not been consistently kept. Russia realized that the yoke and the subordinate role it placed itself under was actually doing it more harm than good and the post-Yeltsin Russia has taken advantages of its new liberties and is making a buck (or ruble). It has created a sizable revenue stream out of military hardware sales where it is not only selling surplus military hardware from the Cold War (reference the sale of 100,000 AK-47's to Venezuela just a week ago), but also selling big ticket items that it cannot or does not want to upkeep such as aircraft carriers (reference the sale of an aircraft carrier to India with a full complement of MiGs several years ago). However, Russia is actively developing new military hardware for sale - it definitely sees a long term future demand for it.

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Apr-08-2005 17:04:

quote:
Originally posted by smokeape
NOthing more than cruise missles at best. Maybe a little faster, but you lose some accuracy the faster you go. Bet on the US, they have lots of experience launching cruise missles against real targets and have the feedback to improve targeting. What have the Ruskies shot at lately?

Hmm, chechens?

Pages (2): « 1 [2]