S-300 = Patriot ?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
A few days ago I read an article by the Air Combat Information Group (ACIG) an organization which is generally considered a good source of factual information. While reading the article I happened across the following paragraph:

"...between the late 1970s and 1985 nobody less but the chief of the Phazotron Design Bureau was supplying all possible information about such projects R-23, R-24, R-33, R-27, and R-60, S-300, as well as about fighter-interceptor aircraft like MiG-29, MiG-31, and Su-27 and their radars directly to the CIA."
Gone With the Wind
By Tom Cooper
Nov 20, 2003


The thought of a CIA mole passing secret missile & radar technology to the US intrigued me so I asked an aerospace engineer working in Raytheon's missile division what he thought about it.

My first inclination was to think that the Patriot missile system was perhaps a copy of the S-300, but I was surprised when the engineer I spoke to said that it was common knowledge in the missile industry that the S-300 was actually a copy of the Patriot.

Being somewhat jaded by the patriotic ranting I encounter on ATS on both the US and Russian side concerning who's products are the best and who copied who - I asked if he could prove it.

He immediately referred me to a couple of aerospace engineering white papers - one of which states the following:

"These (Soviet) intelligence victories continued until recent times with the KGB stealing the U.S. Patriot anti-missile technology on which the Soviets based their modern version, the S-300, which it now exports to any buyer for hard currency."
The Attack on America’s Intellectual Property - Espionage after the Cold
by S. Eugene Poteat, Winter 2001
(This is from a Tau Beta Pi publication - Tau Beta Pi is very reputable and is the only engineering honor society representing the entire engineering profession.)


From discussions with this engineer and reading the articles of these organizations one can conclude that the SS-300PMU SA-10B GRUMBLE Mod 1 or one of the other upgraded mid-1980's versions is the result of Soviet espionage in the early to mid-1980's which acquired Patriot air defense technology during the Patriots' development phase.

According to the engineer I spoke with, the Patriot technology was indeed found in the tech information passed on to the CIA by their mole at Phazotron.

Thoughts anyone?




posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Thanks for pointing me in the direction this, I had never heard of anything like this before, a total surprise!

I shudder to think what some of the others might have to say though.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
So there goes patriot beats the S300 out of the window towards mars.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
What parts of the S-300 system is claimed to be a copy of the MIM-104 Patriot?

I find it odd, that Russia would take American tech and add it to their own design when they had a 7year head start on America.

The MIM-104 Patriot of course, beginning in 1976 as an Anti-Aircraft weapon.

Where as the S-300 started in 1969.

Although, if they did take the tech and could advance on it/help them, they'd of used it. I just think, with a 7 year head start and previous systems to work off of they'd of invested their spies in better places.

Good find though.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
S-300

This site has a really good overview of the S-300. Including many of the advances it has had added to it, but not all of them.

Might help to use this and check it off against advancements the PAC-3 also had. Maybe find one, that happened around the same time frame (months).



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Although, if they did take the tech and could advance on it/help them, they'd of used it. I just think, with a 7 year head start and previous systems to work off of they'd of invested their spies in better places.

Good find though.



Not really, considering that a 7 year advance on tech doesnt mean a product thats 7 years ahead of the rest of the crowd. The stolen tech may have been easier or cheaper to build, and would have made a good interim weapons platform while you bring the advanced one to market.

One of the things ive realised through my own development work is that something is only '7 years ahead of someone else' when its never ever displayed in the open. Half of all advances is KNOWING its possible - once its been demonstrated, its invariably a lot easier to replicate because you know the end products viable, and just seeing something work gives others a huge leap. A good example of this is nuclear weapons. Prior to 1944 nuclear weapons were Very Hard Indeed (tm) to develop, indeed a lot of people had mused and failed to come up with a way. Once the US had done it, suddenly you COULDNT fail - its a fact that every country that has HAD a nuclear program that wasnt shut down prematurely (eg due to limited experimentation or the NPT coming into effect etc) has never failed to create a nuclear weapon.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
I find it odd, that Russia would take American tech and add it to their own design when they had a 7year head start on America.The MIM-104 Patriot of course, beginning in 1976 as an Anti-Aircraft weapon.Where as the S-300 started in 1969.


If you read throught the post you will find that they modified the S-300 after they aquired the information.

One of the areas I am pondering concentrating when I get cracking on my history masters is Cold War Spying.


Great Find Intelgurl





posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

as posted by Odium
I find it odd, that Russia would take American tech and add it to their own design when they had a 7year head start on America.

Odium, I'm finding it hard to think that the Russian's didn't or wouldn't.
They have and had been stealing military and such tech before.
Espionage = intelligence, whether it be industrial or military or civil.
The Russian pattern of espionage has been linked back to the GRU, predecessor to the KGB. Atomic bomb and other projects come to mind? Very seldom was it the US trying to catch up with the Russians in tech, but in truth, it was the Russians trying to keep up with the US and the West tech. It all started back prior to the end of the WWII. The pattern is there. All one has to do is sit back and look at it.

Personally, both, article and journal entry, were exceptional reads. Great job and excellent scoop on this, Intelgurl.






seekerof

[edit on 9-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
have been going back and forth so much for so long, I am surprised any one can truely keep track. There has to be records some where, that would be something to go over!

Wonder how long until that stuff is declassified, if ever...cloak & dagger, I can see it now, the next ATS convention, members sneaking around acting all covert for nothing. LOL



Ok, seriously now, this was the bread and butter of any cold war agent. They knew this was TOP PRIORITY, space race or weapon plat form, it was required dirty work. We needed to know what they had, and visa versa.
It gets even scarier when we realize it still continues, nothing has changed...but the name.

If you want to see some of Russias' good tech, just see what they wanted to put in Cuba, if you want to see US, just check out a drone. The engines and stageing sections/payload will always evolve and be neater, better, bigger.
Micro rockets to gigantic, both countries have made em all. Until some one else is a good rival/competitor it will always be that way. History is almost always the most fasinating aspect of something, it is the story that goes along with it, the roots of time.

This is an awsome thread, and I'm hoping it continues on for pages to come.





posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Apparently having the S-300 which we have determined incorporates first generation Patriot technology was not enough for the Chinese, they "acquired" more Patriot technology and incorporated it into their indigeonous S-300 copies known as the HQ-9...
See article snippet below:

"A number of the S-300 systems, perhaps as many as 120, were sold to China by Russia, but China is also developing its own versions, the HQ-10 or HQ-15, as well as more advanced missile interceptors which incorporate technology acquired from the American Patriot system, the HQ-9 and the FT-2000..."

Missile Threat.Com



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
This question was bound to come up sooner or later so I thought I would ask it first...


If the Patriot is such a lame system as some have proclaimed here on ATS, and the S-300 has the same technology, what then does that mean for the S-300 system?

To clarify: If the 2 systems share the same technology would that not make them either equally good or equally lame?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Actually, suprisingly enough, I was aware that the S-300 was stolen Tech.

Alot of you will not believe me, but this information was buried in the back of my head. I remember reading a thread on the internet somewhere about the S-300 and Patriot, the thread compared the two, but someone had posted that the two were one in the same. The S-300 had been stolen and made faster and cheaper, where as the Patriot missile system had been further developed.

But this is a great find, took me a while to remember though, after the first few sentences, I began to remember.(I know, it's a bit of a coincidence, but hey, there isn't much I can claim to know.)

But thanx for refreshing my memory, I was almost certain I would have forgotten.

Keep up the good work Intelgurl.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
An extremely interesting read. Sure to be controversial though.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl

This question was bound to come up sooner or later so I thought I would ask it first...


If the Patriot is such a lame system as some have proclaimed here on ATS, and the S-300 has the same technology, what then does that mean for the S-300 system?

To clarify: If the 2 systems share the same technology would that not make them either equally good or equally lame?

Well Intelgurl, this is why we point and laugh at nationalist pigs, because when they say "Ours is better because it's by *insert nation here*" we know damn well that they are making fools of themselves.

People say that the Patriot isn't good because of either that Pro-nationalist pride for another country, or because they dislike American tech so much. People many times say things without the facts, and when they find out the truth, BAM they are feeling mighty stupid.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   
What exactly about the S-300 is copied from the patriot? guidance systems? the entire missile? the missile externally is alot different looking.

Kinda off topic, was the F-8 Crusader based on the MiG-21? I heard rumors about this.

(after doing research, I didn't find any evidence about this, however I distinctly remembered something like this...)

[edit on 10/3/2005 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   
I never knew the S-300 was a copy of the Patriot! Patriot was origionally concieved as part of SDI, the so called Star Wars project. If the Russians were copying the Patriot, they might have been trying to duplicate the SDI missile defense system, program. This would suggest that Russia probably experimented with the idea of weapon satellites as well.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
A very controversial thread indeed!!
But I cannot say anything because I didn't know anything about this..
I shall view it as a respectable point of view as of now..
The S-300 is defenitely cheaper than even the PAC II, but i didn't know the russians wre selling it to "anyone" for hard currency..
If the arab states, China and India (china wont buy, they have their own which again ppl say is copied) are "anyone" then taht is wrong, those countries are old preferred customers of russian tech..



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl

This question was bound to come up sooner or later so I thought I would ask it first...


If the Patriot is such a lame system as some have proclaimed here on ATS, and the S-300 has the same technology, what then does that mean for the S-300 system?

To clarify: If the 2 systems share the same technology would that not make them either equally good or equally lame?


You and I know that the Patriot is not a lame system. The problems that occured were programing issues and I believe have been resolved now. They introduced it a little too early.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter
You and I know that the Patriot is not a lame system. The problems that occured were programing issues and I believe have been resolved now. They introduced it a little too early.

Right, I was trying to illustrate the futility of the typical nationalistic argument of one system being better than the other just because one is Russian and one is American.
Of course the caveat there is that each has had upgrades since they were last compromised and so those upgrades could potentially change the "playing field"...



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
AFIAK the Patriot recently has been improved with Russian tech, the US bought an S-300 system from some country and had a look at what made it tick.....the US has been doing reverse engineering of Russian systems for decades.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join