Russia lifts ban on delivering missile-defence system to Iran

a reply to: mSparks43

Actually according to its specifications 25 meters is its starting engagement zone. SO cruise missiles or weapons launched outside of the detection zone are no issue. A helicopter such as a Apache can fly below its engagement zone.

Teh S-300 uses a doppler radar correct?
In military airborne applications, the Doppler effect has 2 main advantages. Firstly, the radar is more robust against counter-measure. Return signals from weather, terrain, and countermeasures like chaff are filtered out before detection, which reduces computer and operator loading in hostile environments. Secondly, against a low altitude target, filtering on the radial speed is a very effective way to eliminate the ground clutter that always has a null speed. Low-flying military plane with countermeasure alert for hostile radar track acquisition can turn perpendicular to the hostile radar to nullify its Doppler frequency, which usually breaks the lock and drives the radar off by hiding against the ground return which is much larger.

Sorry the S-300 is beatable without being in space. Not saying its not a good system but its not as you say. Also if it uses microwaves if your airfraft absorbs it and does not return it it isnt worth anything.

Also Stop dodging my information about the F-22 being able to get within 25 miles before detection. its been verified when they went up against them in Greece who has some.

Oh no we better hid now, don't worry people America can handle Iran.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: mSparks43

Actually according to its specifications 25 meters is its starting engagement zone. SO cruise missiles or weapons launched outside of the detection zone are no issue. A helicopter such as a Apache can fly below its engagement zone.

Teh S-300 uses a doppler radar correct?
In military airborne applications, the Doppler effect has 2 main advantages. Firstly, the radar is more robust against counter-measure. Return signals from weather, terrain, and countermeasures like chaff are filtered out before detection, which reduces computer and operator loading in hostile environments. Secondly, against a low altitude target, filtering on the radial speed is a very effective way to eliminate the ground clutter that always has a null speed. Low-flying military plane with countermeasure alert for hostile radar track acquisition can turn perpendicular to the hostile radar to nullify its Doppler frequency, which usually breaks the lock and drives the radar off by hiding against the ground return which is much larger.

Sorry the S-300 is beatable without being in space. Not saying its not a good system but its not as you say. Also if it uses microwaves if your airfraft absorbs it and does not return it it isnt worth anything.

Also Stop dodging my information about the F-22 being able to get within 25 miles before detection. its been verified when they went up against them in Greece who has some.

less than a 1km height and you are dead from aa cannon. no need to waste expensive missiles.

originally posted by: Ancient Champion
Oh no we better hid now, don't worry people America can handle Iran.

Uh huh. The proof being how well they did against the powerhouses of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The difference is that Iran actually has a viable military.

a reply to: mSparks43

Not if you dont have any AA cannons left surrounding youre exspensive missile system. Youre just being contrary now.

originally posted by: Ancient Champion
Oh no we better hid now, don't worry people America can handle Iran.

Or you could just leave them alone?

Just cause you can attack them does not mean you should attack them.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Ancient Champion
Oh no we better hid now, don't worry people America can handle Iran.

Uh huh. The proof being how well they did against the powerhouses of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The difference is that Iran actually has a viable military.

The proof is the fact that we beat Germany twice and Japan. If Iran wants a fight they know where they can find us.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Ancient Champion
Oh no we better hid now, don't worry people America can handle Iran.

Or you could just leave them alone?

Just cause you can attack them does not mean you should attack them.

Have we attacked them? Fact is we are going the route of diplomacy and they are yelling "Death to America". so who really wants war?

originally posted by: Ancient Champion

The proof is the fact that we beat Germany twice and Japan.

No you beat Germany twice with heavy allied help.
UK put in about equal the manpower and equipment in ww2 European theater and more in ww1 and the candians and Aussies put in a big chunk to.

The USA would not have got anywhere in WW1 on its own as Germany was near breaking point by the time you entered.
WW2 I doubt you could have fought Japan and Germany on your own.

originally posted by: Ancient Champion

Have we attacked them? Fact is we are going the route of diplomacy and they are yelling "Death to America". so who really wants war?

Not much different from your Saudi allies then.

Least Iran hasn't flown 3 planes into USA buildings yet.

originally posted by: Ancient Champion

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Ancient Champion
Oh no we better hid now, don't worry people America can handle Iran.

Uh huh. The proof being how well they did against the powerhouses of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The difference is that Iran actually has a viable military.

The proof is the fact that we beat Germany twice and Japan.

Did you now? I guess we should stop calling them "World" wars then. Let's look at USA War 1. The world in it from 1914-1918. USA 1917-1918. USA War 2. The world 1939-1945. USA 1941-1945. Pretty easy to step in when everyone else is spent. Hell you weren't even in the War when the UK stopped Hitler's move to take the logistics away from the Allies via the Battle of Britain. If they had taken the UK there would have NO logistics to fight across the Atlantic. But hey, they DID it. Secondly the Soviet Union used men as bullets. Lost 20 million people that way.

If Iran wants a fight they know where they can find us.

It's patently clear that Iran wants no such thing but that US and it's proxies do.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Ancient Champion

The proof is the fact that we beat Germany twice and Japan.

No you beat Germany twice with heavy allied help.
UK put in about equal the manpower and equipment in ww2 European theater and more in ww1 and the candians and Aussies put in a big chunk to.

The USA would not have got anywhere in WW1 on its own as Germany was near breaking point by the time you entered.
WW2 I doubt you could have fought Japan and Germany on your own.

Allied help? The UK was barely staying in the war and Russia didn't have enough weapons for their soldiers until we started sending weapon s to them.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Ancient Champion

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Ancient Champion
Oh no we better hid now, don't worry people America can handle Iran.

Uh huh. The proof being how well they did against the powerhouses of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The difference is that Iran actually has a viable military.

The proof is the fact that we beat Germany twice and Japan.

Did you now? I guess we should stop calling them "World" wars then. Let's look at USA War 1. The world in it from 1914-1918. USA 1917-1918. USA War 2. The world 1939-1945. USA 1941-1945. Pretty easy to step in when everyone else is spent. Hell you weren't even in the War when the UK stopped Hitler's move to take the logistics away from the Allies via the Battle of Britain. If they had taken the UK there would have NO logistics to fight across the Atlantic. But hey, they DID it. Secondly the Soviet Union used men as bullets. Lost 20 million people that way.

If Iran wants a fight they know where they can find us.

It's patently clear that Iran wants no such thing but that US and it's proxies do.

Didnt you get the Memo from Hollywood? UK,Canada,Australia and Russia just sat in a corner crying doing nothing while the USA won it all single handed.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: mSparks43

Not if you dont have any AA cannons left surrounding youre exspensive missile system. Youre just being contrary now.

the typical route is high altitude attack of aa cannon to gain air superiority
followed by ground troops and helicopters.

no high altitude neutralisation of heavy assault weaponry and aa cannon.
means
no helicopters ground troops or low altitude attack

Iran hasn't started a war in over 400 years.
it's pretty clear who the aggressors are. (go Hillary!!)

and I wasn't dodging the 25km info.
first it's not true. range of each station is 125km for anything bigger than a small bird.

and second it's a grid. so 25km would just mean you need more antennas in the grid.

s300 is a system.
separate launchers. command post and radar units.

each command post is capable of protecting a land area twice that of Iran.

originally posted by: Ancient Champion

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Ancient Champion

The proof is the fact that we beat Germany twice and Japan.

No you beat Germany twice with heavy allied help.
UK put in about equal the manpower and equipment in ww2 European theater and more in ww1 and the candians and Aussies put in a big chunk to.

The USA would not have got anywhere in WW1 on its own as Germany was near breaking point by the time you entered.
WW2 I doubt you could have fought Japan and Germany on your own.

Allied help? The UK was barely staying in the war and Russia didn't have enough weapons for their soldiers until we started sending weapon s to them.

I see you know # all about history.

Thanks for pissing on the graves of your allies that fought and died side by side with you arrogant selfish self centered yanks.

Were is the nearest US war memorial so I take a piss up it?
Actually that will do a disservice to the decent Americans out there.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Ancient Champion

Have we attacked them? Fact is we are going the route of diplomacy and they are yelling "Death to America". so who really wants war?

Not much different from your Saudi allies then.

Least Iran hasn't flown 3 planes into USA buildings yet.

What does 9/11 have to do with Iran?

originally posted by: Ancient Champion

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Ancient Champion

Have we attacked them? Fact is we are going the route of diplomacy and they are yelling "Death to America". so who really wants war?

Not much different from your Saudi allies then.

Least Iran hasn't flown 3 planes into USA buildings yet.

What does 9/11 have to do with Iran?

Are you really that obtuse?

Well you know # all about history so I cant expect you to know # all about the English language to level to understand my point in that post.

originally posted by: Ancient Champion
Allied help? The UK was barely staying in the war and Russia didn't have enough weapons for their soldiers until we started sending weapon s to them.

Extreme BS. The Soviets did it on their own. Did you know that they flew their entire manufacturing facilities far away from German bombing? Piece by piece.

Secondly, what about all that money US manufacturers made off of feeding the Nazi war machine? You really should read some book published outside the US.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Ancient Champion

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Ancient Champion

The proof is the fact that we beat Germany twice and Japan.

No you beat Germany twice with heavy allied help.
UK put in about equal the manpower and equipment in ww2 European theater and more in ww1 and the candians and Aussies put in a big chunk to.

The USA would not have got anywhere in WW1 on its own as Germany was near breaking point by the time you entered.
WW2 I doubt you could have fought Japan and Germany on your own.

Allied help? The UK was barely staying in the war and Russia didn't have enough weapons for their soldiers until we started sending weapon s to them.

I see you know # all about history.

Thanks for pissing on the graves of your allies that fought and died side by side with you arrogant selfish self centered yanks.

Were is the nearest US war memorial so I take a piss up it?
Actually that will do a disservice to the decent Americans out there.

Your really going to say that despite all the anti-American bs on this site. You worship the ground putin walks and think we are evil so excuse me if I hurt your feelings.

originally posted by: Ancient Champion

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Ancient Champion

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Ancient Champion

The proof is the fact that we beat Germany twice and Japan.

No you beat Germany twice with heavy allied help.
UK put in about equal the manpower and equipment in ww2 European theater and more in ww1 and the candians and Aussies put in a big chunk to.

The USA would not have got anywhere in WW1 on its own as Germany was near breaking point by the time you entered.
WW2 I doubt you could have fought Japan and Germany on your own.

Allied help? The UK was barely staying in the war and Russia didn't have enough weapons for their soldiers until we started sending weapon s to them.

I see you know # all about history.

Thanks for pissing on the graves of your allies that fought and died side by side with you arrogant selfish self centered yanks.

Were is the nearest US war memorial so I take a piss up it?
Actually that will do a disservice to the decent Americans out there.

Your really going to say that despite all the anti-American bs on this site. You worship the ground putin walks and think we are evil so excuse me if I hurt your feelings.

Were the # did you pull the idea I worship the ground Putin walks on?

Were the # did you pull the idea I think the USA is evil?


Yes I think the USA has made mistakes (Iraq,Vietnam), Yes I think the US government is useless at the moment. But thats far from thinking your evil.

And no Im not cheering for a attack on Russia, but that far from loving Putin, in fact I think him a evil SOB and think we should hit him with more sanctions.

Or in your silly little world does not thinking the USA isn 100% perfect = Thinking it evil?
And not wanting to start WW3 with Russia = loving Putin?