Russia to Deploy S-400 Missile Defenses

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
NATO lost 388 planes, 444 cruise missiles, 60= UAV's desert storm Coalltion lost 73 planes U.S. alone lost 37 www.rjlee.org... including the "so called never been shot down F-15" hehehe


[edit on 11-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]


Don't be stupid. Thats from AAA. When was the last time a F-15/F-16 got shot down by a MiG-29? LMAO, the MiG-29 hasn't even shot down ONE SINGLE plane!




posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
In my opinion, the S-400 would most definately be capable of engaging and destroying the B2 and F-22. If it is not, they would not have created it; as the S-300 is already capable of effictively intercepting nearly all planes in the world currently.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kenshin
In my opinion, the S-400 would most definately be capable of engaging and destroying the B2 and F-22. If it is not, they would not have created it; as the S-300 is already capable of effictively intercepting nearly all planes in the world currently.


If you are correct, then why are they buying the Raptor still? The reason the S400 is being made in my opinion, is to get shoot down less advanced aircraft that is around the world. The USA only hold the stealth dominance fighter, while all the other 200+ countries dont. The S400 would be exported for a price, the Raptor wont. I post sources of how the Raptor and the stealth UCAV can bypass the S-400, but your minds are one dimensional, thinking what you want to believe.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kenshin
In my opinion, the S-400 would most definately be capable of engaging and destroying the B2 and F-22. If it is not, they would not have created it; as the S-300 is already capable of effictively intercepting nearly all planes in the world currently.


Oh yeah
Just because the Russians say it can doesn't make it so. Everyone talks about the NMD tests being rigged, it is highly likely that the Russian tests are much the same if not even more flagrant.

Russia doesn't know if it can shoot down a stealth plane, they hardly have any stealth drones to test it against.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if most of the claims have been vastly overinflated.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   
They shot down an F-117 , even if there were many other the factors it still shows they CAN shoot one down, detecting it is another matter....



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
They shot down an F-117 , even if there were many other the factors it still shows they CAN shoot one down, detecting it is another matter....


Hmmm well if you can't detect it how do you shoot it down ? If the sytem can't detect a stealth plain then it can't shoot it down simple as that. You can hardly rely on a fluke hit to defend your country.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
They shot down an F-117 , even if there were many other the factors it still shows they CAN shoot one down, detecting it is another matter....


Originally posted by rogue1
Hmmm well if you can't detect it how do you shoot it down ? If the sytem can't detect a stealth plain then it can't shoot it down simple as that. You can hardly rely on a fluke hit to defend your country.


Yes you can,the Serbians launched 4 SAM missles,luckily enough there was a F-117 above as they thought and one shot it down,but that was just luck as they had predicted the same flight path,not because they got it on radar,



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmmm well if you can't detect it how do you shoot it down ? If the sytem can't detect a stealth plain then it can't shoot it down simple as that. You can hardly rely on a fluke hit to defend your country.

Thats one of the questions surrounding the event, if they couldnt see it how did it get shoot down?
Isnt that correct about battle , what you cant see you cant hit?



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
hshshsiwqstd78qew7gd

[edit on 12-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
You say we Russian say a lot but it isn't true, well the same with you Americans you guys are always making tests and saying this will work this will work, this is called (making things look good on paper) the very thing YOU accuse us of doing, can you provide the Serbia evidence that Serbs shot 4 SAMs for that weal little 117, we don't want to hear what U.S. says cuz they can say anything (DISinformation) no I thought you couldn't so what you said is just rehtorc coming otta the mouths of U.S. military, offcorse their (U.S. Military) goning to say that cuz they don't want to be embaressed.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Could you explain why we'd be investing billions in stealth technology if it was so ineffective? If every nation could detect it as you the various Europeans, Russians, and Chinese on here believe, then why is America investing so much in it?

Guess it's just because we're incompetent...



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Because it makes it harder to spot. You can still pick them up, you can still target them and destroy them.

It is why Russia, China, etc, pump money into Anti-Stealth technology. While America pumps money into Stealth technology to cancel out the effect.

It goes both ways, it's fairly simple to understand.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Don't woory he'll find out the HARD WAY (WORLDWAR 3)



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
If one nation could spend a fraction of what America spends to cancel out stealth, then there'd be no point to it. It would be far better to pump money into building a larger airforce with updated F-15's, or get more B-52's.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
If one nation could spend a fraction of what America spends to cancel out stealth, then there'd be no point to it. It would be far better to pump money into building a larger airforce with updated F-15's, or get more B-52's.

The F22 isnt just about stealth , thatts why they didnt just design a stealth inteceptor or bomber.
Its supposed to be an airsuperiority fighter, longer range , better BVR and generaly better.
Also as it was said stealth is not invisibility it is just a way to reduce your signature.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I see stealth as just another thing in the arms race. New weapon better protection, again new weapon, again better protection etc etc.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

The F22 isnt just about stealth , thatts why they didnt just design a stealth inteceptor or bomber.
Its supposed to be an airsuperiority fighter, longer range , better BVR and generaly better.
Also as it was said stealth is not invisibility it is just a way to reduce your signature.


Everything you named was secondary to the stealth. The plane could be produced with more speed, manueverability, range, and payload then what it has now at a far cheaper price.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Everything you named was secondary to the stealth. The plane could be produced with more speed, manueverability, range, and payload then what it has now at a far cheaper price.


Yes, but it would have been shot down more easily, what you dont see is. The weapons buisness a weapon is built ; for sake lets say the rifle, they invent protection against it; body armour and helmets, the other side invents a more powerful gun; the other side invents even better protection and so on.
What you see is that there is no real perfect defense or offesnsive weapon.

Now the SAM there is good at shooting down planes and even better with more radar , now stealth just reduces the reaction time of the SAM, it doesnt make it unable to shoot it down.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Okay, can someone please post a reliable source stating that the S-400 can sucessfully shoot down a Raptor? I gave sources of the Raptor destroying the S-400, but not one source has been made in the opposion view.

The Raptors main asset is stealth.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
'The S-400, also known by its NATO designation, SA-20 Triumf, is an advanced Russian surface-to-air missile system. Once operational, it will be able to destroy aircraft, cruise missiles, and short- and medium-range ballistic missiles at ranges of up to 400 kilometers. The Russians eventually plan to phase out their existing S-200 (NATO: SA-5 Gammon) and S-300P (NATO: SA-10 Grumble) systems and replace them with S-400 complexes.'
February 12, 2005 - www.missilethreat.com...

It isn't even up and running yet, I'd worry if the Raptor couldn't destroy a weapon system that isn't operational. You'd really have to ask where your tax goes then, wouldn't you?

LMAO





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join