Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=23357
Russia would probably be destroyed, but the U.S. would be devastated by Russia's nukes.Superman wrote:If the Soviets and Americans would have actually gotten into an all out war, who do you really think would have won? Honestly, I know Russia was very nuclear capable, but could they have brought the United States down?
What do you think?
Mutually Assured Destruction.Superman wrote:Oh, my bad. Let me give a time frame. Let's say the year is 1980.
Russia's long range bomber fleet was never a credible threat until the 1980s, when they built 100+ new-build Tu-95MS BEAR-H cruise missile carriers (each carrying 16 200kt each cruise missiles with 3,000km range) and began production of the Tu-160 BLACKJACK (both of which expected to serve with upgrades until 2030-40).Gandalf wrote:Mostly depends on the era, anything before 1949 US nukes the hell out of em. After that however, until that brief time in Cuba, the Soviet nukes couldn't reach the US, only Western Europe.
Once the USSR gets long range bombers it basically MAD.
I think I will.Gandalf wrote:Mutually Assured Destruction.Superman wrote:Oh, my bad. Let me give a time frame. Let's say the year is 1980.
See: Dr Strangelove, Fail Safe.
Both sides probably had a good deal of intel on each other, as people could be smuggled into USSR through East Berlin. And once you left the USSR it was easy to get into the US.Z'Ha'Dum wrote:I recall the Soviet Union having the advantage of advance intelligence. I believe the U.S. did have a spy scandal in the navy around the early 1980s (correct me if I'm wrong). The KGB also had the Ames fellow as a mole in the CIA and was able to identify several major operatives inside the iron curtain that gave the US a disadvantage.
Intelligence could tip the balance in war. But I don't know how significant it could have been.
Zha'dum is correct. The Soviets had an amazing lead, intel wise. They could read every Goddamn Navy transmission.Gandalf wrote:
Both sides probably had a good deal of intel on each other, as people could be smuggled into USSR through East Berlin. And once you left the USSR it was easy to get into the US.
They could read ours and Commonwealth intercepts. If war broke out, the USN would be hosed. It is truly amazing the amount of knowledge they gained about our procedures, capabilities, doctrine, patrol patterns, etc.Howedar wrote:Unfortunately for the Soviets, they didn't weigh enough to truly kill off the USN.
As good as the Akula is, it wasn't even competition against the LAs and barely could hold its own against the Sturgeons. Even then its Sonar suites weren't very good. While being able to read the Navies mail was important, they still could not have seriously hurt it.Lonestar wrote:They could read ours and Commonwealth intercepts. If war broke out, the USN would be hosed. It is truly amazing the amount of knowledge they gained about our procedures, capabilities, doctrine, patrol patterns, etc.Howedar wrote:Unfortunately for the Soviets, they didn't weigh enough to truly kill off the USN.
The Akula SSN was the result of the Soviets finding out how easily we could track their subs. The Akula being signifigantly quieter than previous classes. I cannot underestimate the danger we would have been in if war broke out prior to the breaking of the Walker spy ring.
Alyeska wrote:
As good as the Akula is, it wasn't even competition against the LAs and barely could hold its own against the Sturgeons. Even then its Sonar suites weren't very good
Not true. The Sturgeon is ancient compared to Akula, and the Los Angeles and Akula are basically the same in terms of capability. A little history- the Project 945 SSN (callsign Sierra) was meant to be the Soviet's premiere SSN- it had a titanium hull that made it very costly, so only four were built, but it is credited as equivalent to the LA but with a superior non-acoustic detection system and integrated acoustic countermeasures system. The 971 SSN (callsign Akula) was basically the same as the 945 except it had a steel hull, making it cheaper to produce. The Improved Akula and the Akula II are of course more improved models- the Akula II is credited by Western experts as quieter than the 688i. The Sea Wolf is probably still the most quiet.That's true, but only because only over a dozen Akulas were built compared to the huge fleet of LA and Sturgeon subs. The Victor SSNs that made up the majority of the Soviet SSN fleet sucked ass.While being able to read the Navies mail was important, they still could not have seriously hurt it.
I've never heard this. Which Western experts?Vympel wrote:The Improved Akula and the Akula II are of course more improved models- the Akula II is credited by Western experts as quieter than the 688i.
It is in numerous mainstream Western reports back in 2001, when the Akula II SSN Gepardwas commissioned (it wasn't the first to be commissioned, but it was important enough to warrant coverage). The Akula II is known to be 4m longer, has advanced quietening tech, and increased automation (crew reduced from 71 to 53).Howedar wrote: I've never heard this. Which Western experts?
Basically, Akulas capabilities came as a shock. It was blithely assumed that the US would always have the accoustic advantage in SSN technology; the Russians managed to pretty much close the gap in that regard- and of course defense contractors take advantage (like jeezus, running an AD?), but that doesn't mean they're bullshitting.Although Western military buffs are often quick to dismiss the former Soviet Union as technologically inept, the Akula class has raised serious doubts of who is leading whom.
This turnaround was painfully evident when US officials recently acknowledged for the first time that US submarines could not readily locate an Akula submarine operating off the coast of the USA. "It is difficult to find the most advanced Russian Akula class submarines when they operate at tactical speed or less," Admiral Jeremy Boorda said. Other military experts sounded the alarm as early as 1988. Anthony Batista, senior staff member of the Armed Forces Committee declared, "The Akula is the best submarine in the world today." A recent report from the Office of Naval Intelligence noted that the improved Akula submarines could indeed surpass the quieting of the Los Angeles class at tactical speeds. On August 9, 1995, during a lobbying effort on behalf of the Seawolf and the following Virginia class submarines, retired Vice Admiral E.A. Burkhalter announced that the $7 billion-per-year Russian program had produced "the Akula submarine, which is quieter than Seawolf." In an effort to raise public awareness, Martin Marietta, a leading defense contractor, ran ads featuring the Akula class in a number of newspapers including the San Diego Union-Tribune. While it may be difficult to separate the hype military supporters chronically use to "talk up a potential threat, in order to justify their own building programs" from the actual capabilities obscured by Russian secrecy, one impression remains: America can no longer claim uncontested dominance of the oceanic strata.
True. Another factor to consider. I just wanted to emphasize the Akula is a mean ass boat.*EDIT* I'd also question the effectiveness of Soviet submarine crews compared to those on a 688. I'm not questioning a Soviet crewman's dedication or innate skill, but AFAIK the Soviet Union simply didn't train their crews as well as the USN.
They're not as skilled. Piss poor is an entirely new ballgame.Alyeska wrote:Quiet as the Akula is the crews are piss poor
The sonar is worse than piss poor? It's sonar is only 1/3 as sensitive as the Los Angeles class, reportedly (how they know this I don't know, but anyway). That hardly qualifies as piss poor. It's just not as good.and the sonar is even more pathetic.
Didn't say it was, and I know the Sea Wolf is currently the best. Whether the 885 Yasen runs off with it's title is another questionFurthermore, the Akula is NOT the best submarine in the world. That title is clearly reserved for the Sea Wolf class thank you very much.
Sturgeons are *not* comparable to the Akula. At all. Period. It's like saying the F-4 Phanom is a match for the MiG-29. The first Sturgeon was commissioned in the late 60s, for fucks sake. The Akula is an entire generation ahead in technology.Any war between the USSR and the US in the 1980s would not favor the Soviets at all in the submarine business. The Akula was in very limited numbers and with its poor sonar capability Sturegons would be comparable while 688s would blow it away. Sure the improved Akula and the Akula 2 are nice, but those are 90s era subs.
Tom Clancy's best work, IMO.CaptainChewbacca wrote:Red Storm Rising is one of my favorite military fiction novels. Its a story about a limited-theater war between NATO and the Soviets in 1988, taking place in central europe and the atlantic.
Ends kinda in a stalemate, but it is very good reading. The invasion of Iceland was masterful.
Anyone else read it?