It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia lifts ban on delivering missile-defence system to Iran

page: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

prove the sun shines.

what difference does it make?




posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

That's what I thought.

It makes a huge difference. What difference does it make if the gun you own works when someone tries to rob you?



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

using your gun analogy.
you are asking the gun owner to prove his gun doesn't work.

military decision makers know the truth.
no one else should.

so I ask again. what difference does it make.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

I'm asking the gun owner to prove it DOES work, which should be easy enough if it does.

So it's OK in your mind to make extraordinary claims and not have to prove it. You can claim anything you want, and don't have to back it up, and you don't see a problem with that?



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mSparks43

Prove an SR-71 was shot down. Because according to people a lot more likely to know it never happened. The Blackbird never flew over Soviet or Russian territory during its life, so that's a hell of an extraordinary claim. So prove it. And not, I saw it on a TV show.

Losing a Nighthawk didn't change anything. It was known that they were at risk, just not as much risk as legacy aircraft. Losing one aircraft, when they flew thousands of combat missions didn't "completely change the battlefield".


Zap i already earlier in this thread showed sparky that no SR-71s were shot down over russia. It was a U2 that was shot down by a sam but he persist in pushing that falsehood to prove his point that SAMs are GOD TIER weapons. Zap check my link about that new chaff a page or so back. Think im right on its usage?



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

There are a couple interesting developments in counter SAM technologies. It's going to be an interesting decade or so.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I still say that a properly delivered Mk. 20 Rockeye is the best counter SAM weapon.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

well. asking the gun owner to prove it does work would be the equivalent of

proving an sr71 wasn't shot down.

good luck proving a negative....

you can't even prove the sun shines.
and that should be an easy one.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

Where did I say anything like that? Although you claim to have seen pictures of the wreckage after the shoot down, so it should be incredibly simple to prove me wrong. Post them.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

20 or 30 years ago.
I may even be wrong.

we could all be wrong.

what difference does it make?

simple fact that the us now give up on spy plane missions when a country gets russian sam systems is well known isn't it?



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

The only plane shot down deep into Soviet territory by a SAM was a U-2 flown by Gary Powers in 1960. And they shot down several of their own aircraft to do it.

No they don't. They stopped flying over countries as a result of treaties designed to keep a war starting over a minor incident. Just like Russia stopped shooting Allied aircraft down in international airspace with their fighters.

As much as you like to imagine that Russian SAM systems are the be all end all, they're not. They're good, but no system is unbeatable, no matter who makes it.


edit on 4/24/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'll bet that he's referring to KAL-007.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

And as much as you'd like to think the f35 f22 and sr71 are unbeatable.

they're not. they're good. but no system is unbeatable.

difference is. you don't launch attacks with sams. and these systems deny all but the most extreme of attacks where failure would cost a lot more than the hundreds of millions of dollars in equipment loss.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

Where have I EVER said they're unbeatable? I've never even hinted that they were, so you really should stop putting words in my mouth.

Although the SR-71 really is now, considering it hasn't flown since about 1993, and none of them can ever fly again.

If you'd bothered to read anything I've posted, instead of assuming, you'd find many times where I pointed out issues and weaknesses with the F-22, as well as pointing out the advantages to foreign weapon systems. It's caked balance. You sound try it some time.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: Zaphod58

And as much as you'd like to think the f35 f22 and sr71 are unbeatable.

they're not. they're good. but no system is unbeatable.

difference is. you don't launch attacks with sams. and these systems deny all but the most extreme of attacks where failure would cost a lot more than the hundreds of millions of dollars in equipment loss.


Actually pilots have the advantage against SAM sites. Basically they can move quicker and have options to defeat them. Sams have to get a lock and hope for missile intercept. A grunt on a SAM unit has a much more dangerous job in combat.No matter which military they are in. Best thing for a sam operator is air support sams are best at baking up air support.
edit on 4/25/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

if you are talking about low altitude attack missions I'd agree.

but you can only plan low altitude attack missions after high altitude highly detailed recon.

which systems like the s300 deny.

which limits you to satelites and limited and outdated battlefield info.

which increases the chance of running straight into a triple a and total loss significantly.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: dragonridr

if you are talking about low altitude attack missions I'd agree.

but you can only plan low altitude attack missions after high altitude highly detailed recon.

which systems like the s300 deny.

which limits you to satelites and limited and outdated battlefield info.

which increases the chance of running straight into a triple a and total loss significantly.


S 300 is good but by no means is it going to stop an assault. couple of aircraft sure provided they don't sneak up on it. As far as satellites you know satellites will have marked the targets all ready. They can do live down links now.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

There are more ways than you think to find the location of SAM sites, besides high altitude recon and satellite overhead.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mSparks43

There are more ways than you think to find the location of SAM sites, besides high altitude recon and satellite overhead.


Well yes I can think of a couple triangulation off thier communications. Thermal of course and I was reading about a new satelite to detect magnetic fields from active equipment. Assuming aircraft might have this ad well you would know better than I.
edit on 4/25/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

SIGINT/ELINT, thermal, mag sensors, seismic sensors to detect vehicle movement, Weasels playing hide and seek, helo recon to name a few.




top topics



 
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join