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: 19
11
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: haman10

wow. I got quite bored of reading his nonsense. but that f35 laser on the back thing really does take the cake.

anything functional is still huge.

something like this.
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...

is feasible.
except it costs about $5 to protect a missile from it.
and that's just the subsonic missiles.
wouldn't touch anything rated supersonic. they already have to deal with thousand degree surface temperatures from aerodynamic heating and are already rated against nuclear emp.




posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Nvm. You keep believing that.
edit on 4/29/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: haman10
a reply to: dragonridr

did you just say US is ahead of Russia in AD systems ? lol , quite an embarrassing notion IMHO .

Patriot PAC-3 specs :

www.globalsecurity.org...

S-300 , Russia's 70's tech :

en.wikipedia.org...

hmm .

PAC-3 missile range :15 km -75km PAC-3 radar range : 100 km

S-300 missile range : 300km

completely ahead i see . keep up the good job


S-300 160 nm range. COunter measure to it 250 nm. that can be programmed to fly below the 83 ft engagement height.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43




except it costs about $5 to protect a missile from it.


Can you elaborate as to what tech would you use to protect the missile or plane from the laser.

The article mentioned that use of lasers will end the utility of dogfights as incoming missiles will be shot down. That also means these lasers can be used to protect ground assets like SAMs etc. from incoming missiles and bombs.

Has USAF devised something that is going to negate its own advantages? i.e. the airpower.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: haman10
a reply to: dragonridr

did you just say US is ahead of Russia in AD systems ? lol , quite an embarrassing notion IMHO .

Patriot PAC-3 specs :

www.globalsecurity.org...

S-300 , Russia's 70's tech :

en.wikipedia.org...

hmm .

PAC-3 missile range :15 km -75km PAC-3 radar range : 100 km

S-300 missile range : 300km

completely ahead i see . keep up the good job


You do realize patriots don't just use 1 missile the system is designed to use diffrwnt missiles. Your comparing a missile interceptor to an aircraft interceptor. They are designed to do diffrent things. Pac 3 is not for intercepting aircraft. Currently they have 4 diffrent missiles for use in patriot 5 if you count David's sling.Patriot can also have both medium and shirt range at the same time increasing it's lethality. They can fire on a long range target and still intercept an incoming missile from the plane. Russia does not have this capability in The same launcher.
edit on 4/29/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: haman10
a reply to: dragonridr

did you just say US is ahead of Russia in AD systems ? lol , quite an embarrassing notion IMHO .

Patriot PAC-3 specs :

www.globalsecurity.org...

S-300 , Russia's 70's tech :

en.wikipedia.org...

hmm .

PAC-3 missile range :15 km -75km PAC-3 radar range : 100 km

S-300 missile range : 300km

completely ahead i see . keep up the good job


S-300 160 nm range. COunter measure to it 250 nm. that can be programmed to fly below the 83 ft engagement height.


Don't even need it stealth will get within 10 miles before detection by then the dam crew has 3 to 6 seconds before boom. Assuming it hadn't already launched on target of course.
edit on 4/29/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: haman10

wow. I got quite bored of reading his nonsense. but that f35 laser on the back thing really does take the cake.

anything functional is still huge.

something like this.
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...

is feasible.
except it costs about $5 to protect a missile from it.
and that's just the subsonic missiles.
wouldn't touch anything rated supersonic. they already have to deal with thousand degree surface temperatures from aerodynamic heating and are already rated against nuclear emp.


US laser systems don't rely on heat but impact. It's like a sledge hammer hitting multiple times every second. In physics light can and does apply force to an object Russia still believes for a laser to kill it heats up the object it doesn't.lasers do indeed impact the object with force now. Trick is use of diffrent frequencies you create a gas then ignite it. Like mini grenades.
edit on 4/29/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Its directed energy.

Bascially single frequency emp.
stuff that they are fitting on current planes (the russians, chineese US and India) are designed to take out the optics of things like the stinger and igla missiles, which is useful, but easy to protect against.

doesn't take much energy (a few kW for a few seconds) and you have time (stinger and igla is quite slow).

few seconds at mach 6 - the s400 spec, 2 kilometers a second, is well beyond the range of even the huge laser systems, miniature versions will barely manage 1 km.

I discussed this much earlier in this thread (even posted an email invite I got to a conference in feb on exactly this topic).

The problem is not the laser mechanism, that's been around for decades (ship defences already have them, which was why BrahMos was developed).
it's not even the energy source, which is tough, but not insurmountable.

Problem is delivering the power to the laser mechanism.

You need good supercapacitors.
en.wikipedia.org...

Currently these are very, very heavy (need about 8 tons of super capacitor - feel free to disprove this, I could well be wrong - to take out an igla when you don't have line of sight on the optics)
and very very fragile (won't stand any kind of G force).

And after all that, a few dollars investment in stronger shielding on the missile renders the system worthless, and offers very little protection during bad weather.

__________
Supercap
60Ws per kilogram
deliver 2kW for 2 seconds
requires 66kg (possibly enough take out stinger igla optics at short range)

1MW for 1 second (to even think about touching s400 shielding, good probability of kill to take out an unprotected small missile at medium range)
requires 16tons

A lot more than weaponised aviation will change if they can get the energy density up. (taking out a missile with these systems is harder than taking out a plane, and much much harder than taking out a person)
edit on 30-4-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: victor7

it's not really "laser"
directed energy is just photons delivering a ton of energy (lasers are one way of doing this, magnatron microwave emitters are another, there has definately been some good developments in other types).
with when they are absorbed excite electrons and the process causes heating (the precise physical method for this bit is stretching my knowledge)

There's a ton of ways to deal with this.
easiest is to just not absorb the photons (paint that is highly reflective to the wavelengths being used is a good example).
This has the disadvantage of being detectable by radar. but since you already have a massive IR emissions on a missile that can be seen even by the naked eye for hundreds of kilometers, not really that much of an issue.

other way is to dissipate the energy over a large surface area, pretty much any conductive material already does this, best in class is what they've been doing with the ceramics.

Materials science not my strong point, sure there is someone round here who can add more on that.

____
More practical is the railgun tech imo.
much more efficient at converting the stored energy into delivered energy, non of the weather problems, much less fragile than typical DE emitters.

The core problem with both is the same - the super caps capable of transferring the energy quickly enough into the emitter - be that accelerating photons or chunks of ali.

Thinking outside the box, could probably get whats required from some kind of nuclear reaction based system, super mini nukes would do the trick, but I think we're more likely to see superconductor based systems first.
Researchers are getting dangerously close to mass producing the room temperature super conductor materials.

When that happens you can forget everything you think you know about the world, wars, the universe. and we move into star trek type era.
edit on 30-4-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 05:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: haman10
a reply to: dragonridr

did you just say US is ahead of Russia in AD systems ? lol , quite an embarrassing notion IMHO .

Patriot PAC-3 specs :

www.globalsecurity.org...

S-300 , Russia's 70's tech :

en.wikipedia.org...

hmm .

PAC-3 missile range :15 km -75km PAC-3 radar range : 100 km

S-300 missile range : 300km

completely ahead i see . keep up the good job


You do realize patriots don't just use 1 missile the system is designed to use diffrwnt missiles. Your comparing a missile interceptor to an aircraft interceptor. They are designed to do diffrent things. Pac 3 is not for intercepting aircraft. Currently they have 4 diffrent missiles for use in patriot 5 if you count David's sling.Patriot can also have both medium and shirt range at the same time increasing it's lethality. They can fire on a long range target and still intercept an incoming missile from the plane. Russia does not have this capability in The same launcher.
I just compared Today's US tech with the 70's russian tech and the result is obvious : Patriot is not even a good opponent .

Now you're trying to talk about future projects ?lol so get this : Iran's Bavar 373 indigenous Long-range Air Defence system is several times more capable than Patriot PAC-3 and will join the national Network (KAADN) by the end of current Persian year (by march 2016) .

Missile Range : 350km *capable of Intercepting medium-range ballistic missiles as well

Radar range : 500 km for interception - 3000km for early warning (LOL)


I'm not gonna even start on S-400 and S-500 cause you can't simply compare them with anything US got .

David's sling is actually an Israeli site - given it's much more advanced than it's american counterpart - it has nothing to do with US . well except the fact that it's funded by american taxpayer's money (You) . it's still way behind systems like S-400 and S-500 .

i'm sure you know the amazing and stunning features of those systems and if you don't google is always available .
Russia is Ahead of US in terms of missile tech and air-defense tech .

US is way ahead of Russia in terms of Aircraft and fighter jet production , Naval power , ..

No hard feeling



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: haman10

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: haman10
a reply to: dragonridr

did you just say US is ahead of Russia in AD systems ? lol , quite an embarrassing notion IMHO .

Patriot PAC-3 specs :

www.globalsecurity.org...

S-300 , Russia's 70's tech :

en.wikipedia.org...

hmm .

PAC-3 missile range :15 km -75km PAC-3 radar range : 100 km

S-300 missile range : 300km

completely ahead i see . keep up the good job


You do realize patriots don't just use 1 missile the system is designed to use diffrwnt missiles. Your comparing a missile interceptor to an aircraft interceptor. They are designed to do diffrent things. Pac 3 is not for intercepting aircraft. Currently they have 4 diffrent missiles for use in patriot 5 if you count David's sling.Patriot can also have both medium and shirt range at the same time increasing it's lethality. They can fire on a long range target and still intercept an incoming missile from the plane. Russia does not have this capability in The same launcher.
I just compared Today's US tech with the 70's russian tech and the result is obvious : Patriot is not even a good opponent .

Now you're trying to talk about future projects ?lol so get this : Iran's Bavar 373 indigenous Long-range Air Defence system is several times more capable than Patriot PAC-3 and will join the national Network (KAADN) by the end of current Persian year (by march 2016) .

Missile Range : 350km *capable of Intercepting medium-range ballistic missiles as well

Radar range : 500 km for interception - 3000km for early warning (LOL)


I'm not gonna even start on S-400 and S-500 cause you can't simply compare them with anything US got .

David's sling is actually an Israeli site - given it's much more advanced than it's american counterpart - it has nothing to do with US . well except the fact that it's funded by american taxpayer's money (You) . it's still way behind systems like S-400 and S-500 .

i'm sure you know the amazing and stunning features of those systems and if you don't google is always available .
Russia is Ahead of US in terms of missile tech and air-defense tech .

US is way ahead of Russia in terms of Aircraft and fighter jet production , Naval power , ..

No hard feeling


Sad that you believe that but i see reality isnt your strong suit and you have been wrong on almost everything you post. since you refuse to seriously discuss the issue im done. In the US they went into upgrading the missiles and not the launcher Patriots now have many missile variants to choose from depending on their mission. The PAAC-4 is a joint venture between Israel and the US. More specifically between Raytheon and Rafael Its missile the stunner fully compatible with patriots and they are sharing radar systems.Now lets discuss the missile you think is worse than Russians. The PAC-3 utilizes a hit-to-kill warhead, designed to physically strike the target, ensuring that the missile’s warhead is destroyed. Russia has nothing with this level of accuracy they still rely on proximity fuses and hope shrapnel kills the object. Each patriot can have 16 missiles ready for launch with capability to track Multiple targets and fire on them again something Russia can only dream of. This means it has the ability to not only fire on the aircraft but also any missiles that aircraft may fire. See the advantage here s300 if the airplane launches a missile its dead.

Now you can continue with your fantasies about Russian super weapons the reality Is no Russian weapon has ever worked according to Russian specs they always way over estimate its capabilities.This is why Russia has a hard time selling to the international market there equipment never stand up to live testing. T 50 great example India took a look at it and said wow this is incredibly bad and immediately started trying to get the state department to allow them to purchase the F 35. But according to Russia's t 50 stats exceeds the f-35. But as we all know what they can build and what they think they can build are very different things. Now as i stated earlier the s 300 good air defense system is it the best no but arguably one of the best. The s 400 if it works to specs would be good problem is during testing it did lousy. But heres the problem with what your assumptions on range of a missile. Greater range does not mean better heres an example there 400 km (40N6 missile) has a range of 400 km. But the target system only has a range of 230 km. Now at that range they have no idea what they are shooting at could be an su27 for all they know to get positive id the range becomes shorter by alot say within 50 km To verify they have a plane to identify it as friend or foe even closer.Missiles that can go 200 km is useless it will never hit its target and the person firing it has no way to know if its even an aircraft hes firing at,No russian operator is going to fire on an aircraft over 50 km. They know they will miss and they gave away their position.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Raytheon has to be one of the most useless tech companies on the entire planet.
Never deliver
Always 1000% over budget
consistent technical problems with anything they do deliver.

well on a par, if not worse than BAE.

If they weren't such a tiny group of companies willing to sell their souls so TPTB can murder people, they'd of died a death a long time ago.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: dragonridr

Raytheon has to be one of the most useless tech companies on the entire planet.
Never deliver
Always 1000% over budget
consistent technical problems with anything they do deliver.

well on a par, if not worse than BAE.

If they weren't such a tiny group of companies willing to sell their souls so TPTB can murder people, they'd of died a death a long time ago.


Their patents list seem to dispute that claim.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

->But the target system only has a range of 230 km
Yawn
Next you'll be telling us Russians can't call Moscow from Donetsk because their mobile phones only have a range of a couple of kilometers.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: dragonridr

Raytheon has to be one of the most useless tech companies on the entire planet.
Never deliver
Always 1000% over budget
consistent technical problems with anything they do deliver.

well on a par, if not worse than BAE.

If they weren't such a tiny group of companies willing to sell their souls so TPTB can murder people, they'd of died a death a long time ago.


Well considering I've done consulting work with them I'm sure they are more than capable. In fact I'll go as far as saying decades ahead of anything Russia has.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: dragonridr

->But the target system only has a range of 230 km
Yawn
Next you'll be telling us Russians can't call Moscow from Donetsk because their mobile phones only have a range of a couple of kilometers.


Nice way to deflect when your clueless on eletronics. You ignored the fact you were comparing to diffrent systems to one another and think naively that range means better. I can gurantee the direct hit missile will get more kills than proximity hoping shrapnel will happen to hit it. And even if it does still no gurantee it will take out the plane planes have returned with combat damage that wasn't even supposed to be able to fly. Basically give me a missile that will hit a plane in the cockpit or a missile in the nose section any day.

Accuracy has always been a problem for Russia. Oh figured you might like this it's your s 300 in action.





edit on 4/30/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: haman10
a reply to: dragonridr

did you just say US is ahead of Russia in AD systems ? lol , quite an embarrassing notion IMHO .

Patriot PAC-3 specs :

www.globalsecurity.org...

S-300 , Russia's 70's tech :

en.wikipedia.org...

hmm .

PAC-3 missile range :15 km -75km PAC-3 radar range : 100 km

S-300 missile range : 300km

completely ahead i see . keep up the good job


S-300 160 nm range. COunter measure to it 250 nm. that can be programmed to fly below the 83 ft engagement height.


Don't even need it stealth will get within 10 miles before detection by then the dam crew has 3 to 6 seconds before boom. Assuming it hadn't already launched on target of course.


your detection range is off a hare though a f-22 is detected out 40-45 nm SImiliar for a f-35 but yeah by the time its detected a AARMM or regular harm is about to obliterate the target with its 90 nm range.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: dragonridr

Raytheon has to be one of the most useless tech companies on the entire planet.
Never deliver
Always 1000% over budget
consistent technical problems with anything they do deliver.


Would disagree here slightly pal!

US companies do come out with top class goodies, although they are almost always over the budgets but not by 1000%.

The technical problems although not constant can arise if the equipment is much complex and the host nation did not keep up with training the crews appropriately. Training once in operations is not good enough, crews need to know how to repair problems etc.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: victor7

Well, the main thing I remember Raytheon for that they've done in the last few years is:
www.theregister.co.uk...

Happy to hear an example of something of theirs that was actually successful.

@Dragonridr

The title of your video says it all.
Rare.
edit on 1-5-2015 by mSparks43 because: SP



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: victor7

Well, the main thing I remember Raytheon for that they've done in the last few years is:
www.theregister.co.uk...

Happy to hear an example of something of theirs that was actually successful.

@Dragonridr

The title of your video says it all.
Rare.


No Its not rare here's another one if you like this one's even better you get to see everyone run lol.Problem is poor maintainable and lack of funds have severely hampered Russian missiles. And we'll lack of quality control o mm manufacturing. Russia has always had a problem with manufacturing that's why many mission critical parts were made outside of russia. LikE aircraft engines there production facilities aren't were they need to be. Through in there a severe lack of training of conscripts and Russia has severe problems becoming a true fighting force.
www.businessinsider.com...
edit on 5/1/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
11
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join