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 to Deploy S-400 Missile Defenses

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Yes, but body armour can stop a bullet as well.


What kind of bullets? I'm sure there are some that are far more powerful then the toughest body armor.


Name me one tank round that has been known to penetrate chobrahm armour?


A DU round could penetrate it. Honestly, do you think the armor is invinsible?


Ah but that is not what we are on about is it?


It really is.


Ah but was that the best SAM's in the world?
Also the skill of a pilot and or ground crew has to be taken into account.


Yes. Syria and Iraq had the very best the Russians had. As for skill, that's completely subjective.


Umm as it was shown in other threads that the iraq air defenses where not the best also in GW2 the defeses where set up by the chinese who arent the best at this are they?
Also in kosovo the exsperience and training of the crews has to be taken into account.


Iraq had pretty much the best of what the Russians had. The Chinese are often flaunted as being able to stop stealth on here. You've probably said it at some point yourself.


How can it be for a short time?
We nethier know the exact time nor distance.
Also we do not know the "special conditions" of what you speak of.


Yes, we do know. I've already given a source for this in a previous argument. Someone else did the same, as well.

And what do you mean how can it be for a short time? They only had its signal for a short period of time before it vanished again.


Actually every plane can be detected, so that I am afraid is debunked


This is just stupid. It CAN be detected, but it would destroy its target long before it is.


That is so but the military doesnt always have the luxary of going with the simple option.
I believe that the US doesnt need the F22 but something along the lines of the eurofighter, but oh well.


You don't think the US needs the F-22 because you think its overkill...

And the military doesn't spend money on something that's obselete.


Ah thats not strictly true.
Detecting something above you is effective if many are placed.
If there is only one anti stealth radar which exists that no one has how can it exist?


PCL is a theoretical form or radar, like sonar or something. It's not an actual device...


I would call a ship a fairly heavy concentration of SAM's , esspecially an anti air ship.
Now tell me again how are these cases not acceptable?
Hell two of them are dirrect attacks on ships by many planes.


They are a handful of incidents that occured throughout time. If something doesn't work 70/100 times, it's fairly ineffective.




posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
The US most definitely needs the F22. Overkill is how you win battles. So that your opponent is crushed. The F-15 was claimed as total overkill when it first came out. AWACS was called, by the Wall Street Journal, an absolute utter waste of the Pentagon's money. Now, we don't know what we'd do without AWACS. And the F-15 is now cited as an example of why we supposedly don't need the F-22.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
1 Soviet Union had DU Rounds , Thernal Imaging, ERA on the T-72's Iraqi T-72's did not SU didn't sell Iraq DU rounds, thermal Imagers, and ERA's so the M1's had a great advantage. 2. 80% of M1's vs. T-72 battles happened at night were iraqs had no advantage and most T-72/55/ 64's were destroyed with Apaches and Laser Bombs from F-16's/18's that is how U.S. won Iraq war.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
What kind of bullets? I'm sure there are some that are far more powerful then the toughest body armor.

Mabye, depends.
You wouldnt use an anti tank round on an infantry man would you?



A DU round could penetrate it. Honestly, do you think the armor is invinsible?

HMM mabye, depends.
I dont think its invinsible, just a little bit invincible...




It really is.

No no, we are talking about the best of the best, not the best of rest.



Yes. Syria and Iraq had the very best the Russians had. As for skill, that's completely subjective.

Ah yet again, the words, "russians had" not "the best in the world."



Iraq had pretty much the best of what the Russians had. The Chinese are often flaunted as being able to stop stealth on here. You've probably said it at some point yourself.

No, i said they could I never said they were the best at it.
Yet again you are saying the best the russians had.
Russia aint top dog on building them anymore.



Yes, we do know. I've already given a source for this in a previous argument. Someone else did the same, as well.

Really?
Care to give a link, would be an interesting read.


And what do you mean how can it be for a short time? They only had its signal for a short period of time before it vanished again.

Ah you mean how long it was detected.
I have no doubt that they lost it but the fact is they can be picked up.



This is just stupid. It CAN be detected, but it would destroy its target long before it is.

What target would that be though?
A ship?
A plane?
A nuclear powered bombsley?.........one of them would be cool you have to admit...



You don't think the US needs the F-22 because you think its overkill...

And the military doesn't spend money on something that's obselete.

Look mate everything is obsolete to something, take the civie street for the best description, you buy a phone and a month later its outdated , dont ya just HATE THAT!



PCL is a theoretical form or radar, like sonar or something. It's not an actual device...

Ah, well then tht shows you there is a defense but it just hasnt been inveted yet.
As is the way with things, its not always over a shorttime.



They are a handful of incidents that occured throughout time. If something doesn't work 70/100 times, it's fairly ineffective.

.......They happened in the course of a few weeks.
Thats a rather high rate for efficiency!
A 50 50 chance in the military is a godsend!
I mean take chaff, 50 50 chance there.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
These pro-americans don't know what their talking about. Trust me. The S-400 can shoot things as low as 50 feet and is anti-stealth. It is designed to shoot down Reconnaisance aircraft, AWACS, cruise ,ballistic missiles and Stealth aircraft. These guys are commenting out of total ignorance. A UAV is the easiest of targets. Saddam shot them down regularly with his SAMs. Read a book!



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
These pro-americans don't know what their talking about. Trust me. The S-400 can shoot things as low as 50 feet and is anti-stealth. It is designed to shoot down Reconnaisance aircraft, AWACS, cruise ,ballistic missiles and Stealth aircraft. These guys are commenting out of total ignorance. A UAV is the easiest of targets. Saddam shot them down regularly with his SAMs. Read a book!


Yah, your right, the S-400 can shoot down Stealth aircraft, but only 1st generation F-117. The F-22 is to advanced for the S-400, I sound like a broken record, but look at the sources I showed you, and then you show me proof that it says it can shoot down a Raptor.

Your Ignorance proves you wrong without me even saying anything.

Yas, UAV's are easy to shoot down, but not new generation Stealth UAV's that are more advanced then the F-117.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
Yas, UAV's are easy to shoot down, but not new generation Stealth UAV's that are more advanced then the F-117.

The whole being smaller than a fighter , that is kinda cheating......



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Dude your wrong. I been knowing about this super sam for years, you just read an article today. Your speaking out of patriotism. We are speaking out of knowledge The Raptor is no less stealthier than the F 117. The only difference is the fact that the Raptor gives off less electrical signals. It's just a pilot guided, rather than pre-programmed plane. It's not what your trying to hype it up to be. That's all. It's no match for the Triumf. Neither do you know how the Triumf function as you are talking about radar signals. The Triumf has about four ways of detecting enemy craft.

[edit on 12-2-2005 by Asia Minor]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
Dude your wrong. I been knowing about this super sam for years, you just read an article today. Your speaking out of patriotism. We are speaking out of knowledge The Raptor is no less stealthier than the F 117. The only difference is the fact that the Raptor gives off less electrical signals. It's just a pilot guided, rather than pre-programmed plane. It's not what your trying to hype it up to be. That's all. It's no match for the Triumf. Neither do you know how the Triumf function as you are talking about radar signals. The Triumf has about four ways of detecting enemy craft.

[edit on 12-2-2005 by Asia Minor]


Show me some knowledge. Skilled and hired proffesionals who work for major companys find out information like this. I showed you sources indicating that the F-22

Lets include some MORE sources, about the X-45 defeating the S-20 (S400) system.


"This latest shift is only one of a series of twists and turns in the Pentagon's attempt to define the road map for fielding a modern electronic attack capability against increasingly sophisticated air defenses available on the world market. Among them are the Russian-built SA-10, SA-12 and SA-20, but they also include digitally upgraded versions of older missiles. Another reason for the delay in deciding how to proceed has been the concern among top Defense Dept. officials that all the Pentagon's electronic warfare (EW) systems must be networked efficiently. "


Link

Okay, what else do you have to say now?

Okay, lets debunk your statement right here and right now!
(The F117 is no stealthier then the F-22)

Hmm, several points to be made

1.) If that was true, then why not add Air to Air weapons to the F-117?

2.) Okay a little lengthy, but it shure shuts you up.


The Birds of Prey, what is it?






Video

It was released in 2002.

Here is a paragraph from an Official Statement

ST. LOUIS, October 18, 2002 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] today unveiled the "Bird of Prey," a technology demonstrator that pioneered breakthrough low-observable technologies and revolutionized aircraft design, development and production. The once highly classified project ran from 1992 through 1999, and was revealed because the technologies and capabilities developed have become industry standards, and it is no longer necessary to conceal the aircraft's existence.




There is no need to explain to you what this means, as you have the "Knowledge" to understand as you stated.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
The F-22 is not the same as the F-117. It has been designed to counter low frequency waves which first generation stealth was somewhat vulnerable to.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The F-22 is not the same as the F-117. It has been designed to counter low frequency waves which first generation stealth was somewhat vulnerable to.


A 7.62 Machinegun can take down a F-22 just as well as a S-400. Moral of the story,nothing is invincible.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
The F-22 isn't invinsible, but it sure closer than any other fighter the world has yet seen.

And really, you can see SAM's have failed time and time again. They're failing Iran right now. We've been overflying the nation with our drones for a while now. They've given the order to shoot down anything over their airspace. The S-300's they're supposed to have from Russia seem to be failing.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The F-22 isn't invinsible, but it sure closer than any other fighter the world has yet seen.

And really, you can see SAM's have failed time and time again. They're failing Iran right now. We've been overflying the nation with our drones for a while now. They've given the order to shoot down anything over their airspace. The S-300's they're supposed to have from Russia seem to be failing.


the last i heard of the claims of the Iranians having the S-300 was 2 regiments located around the capital of tehran in about 2001. I don't know the current situation or inventory of the Iranian s-300's, but I would say that they either don't want to waste precious missiles on a simple UAV or due to the lack of the henhouse/pechora radar network or a similar peripheral network the s-300s capability is severely diminished that they can't get a proper track on a small UAV (which I doubt and I believe the s-300s mobile effective radar range is 100km). Also I don't think we know which s-300 Tehran has if they actually even have it.

Or it could be the US aren't even flying near Tehran


thanks,
drfunk



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Iran has a lot of other SAM's, as well. They have the Rapier, which, according to some people on here, can shoot down a B-2...



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Iran has a lot of other SAM's, as well. They have the Rapier, which, according to some people on here, can shoot down a B-2...


It probably can detect the B-2,but problem is,it will be extremely hard to detect,harder to get a missle to hit it,and even harder to actually shoot it down. If a fighter spots a B-2 (don't know how it could lol),then the B-2 doesn't stand a chance.

BTW drfunk,is that the Russian acrobatics team White Knights' Su-27? Nice avatar



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
In the future a B-2 could be accompanied by F-22's. That would make B-2's far more deadly.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Iran has a lot of other SAM's, as well. They have the Rapier, which, according to some people on here, can shoot down a B-2...


All stealth airplanes can be tracked on most good radar systems. The problem is that you have to be close enough and from the right angle.

All of the accounts of a rapier tracking a B-2 happened when the B-2 was not worried about being tracked. If it was worried about being tracked it would be flying at high speed, very low altitude (lets say 100 ft) and using ECM when neccisary. That is an entirely different ball game.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Iran has a lot of other SAM's, as well. They have the Rapier, which, according to some people on here, can shoot down a B-2...


All stealth airplanes can be tracked on most good radar systems. The problem is that you have to be close enough and from the right angle.

All of the accounts of a rapier tracking a B-2 happened when the B-2 was not worried about being tracked. If it was worried about being tracked it would be flying at high speed, very low altitude (lets say 100 ft) and using ECM when neccisary. That is an entirely different ball game.


Where is the source that said that the B2 was tracked? Also, Stealth planes turn on a Friendly signal when they are in non hostile terroitory, I remember watching on TV( a big fuss), at my home towns airshow, Rochester NY, a F-117 came within 300 feet from a comercial airline, and it forgot to turn on its friendly singnal.

But wouldnt the control towers freakin warn the airline that a f-117 is approaching?



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   
The reason the U.S. IS OVERFLYING IRAN is so Iranian radar can track them so that the u.s. planes can backtrack were Iranian radar station are and be prepared for when U.S. really attacks, thats why Iran is not shooting down those U.S. PlANES.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
The reason the U.S. IS OVERFLYING IRAN is so Iranian radar can track them so that the u.s. planes can backtrack were Iranian radar station are and be prepared for when U.S. really attacks, thats why Iran is not shooting down those U.S. PlANES.


I don't know what your trying to say
. Anyway if the Iranians could shoot down a US plane over their airspace then they would. They love their propoganda over there and this would be a coup.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join