S-300 = Patriot ?

Look mate. I didn't say any of that. In this case their seems to be information which says the Russians did copy the Patriot, that is all.
Like people have already said, it works both ways.
Why don't you prove to "evil and dumb russians coying everything" crowd, that the US has copied Russian/Soviet weapons systems, with some examples. I will be keen to see what you come up with, I'll have a look as well

ooohhh man read the article, is nothing to do with russians kgb/gru is about american CIA

and have nothing to do with tech aplication is about to know the enemy

but obviously is the oportunity for many ridiculus guys to cry "russians are copying us"....... lol

[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

^^^^ erm, got no idea what your talking about

All you seem to say, errr russian doesn't copy america, yet people provide examples. Obviously you don't think America is copying Russia, seeing as you provide no examples.

Stone,
It has nothing to do with the outward appearance and everything to do with the technology inside.
I don't think anyone is saying one is an outward direct copy of the other, only that the technology, the circuitry, the target acquisition, tracking follow-through and internal computational methodologies are nearly indentical.

For instance; the chips in the guidance system may be made in different countries, may be a different size or shape, and may be in different places on the circuit boards, but they're nearly identical in what and how they process as well as their overall functionality.

When I found out about the similarities between the 300 and the Patriot I honestly presumed that it was the Russian S-300 that had been copied by the US. When I was told otherwise I knew I would need some kind of substantiating sources - which I have endeavored to provide through links in the original post.

Rather than using various emoticons mixed with blithering denial, it would be great if those with opposing viewpoints could provide substantiating information with their posts. Instead all we are getting here is nationalistic pride being hurt and that being expressed through uninformative posts.

Had I found out that the Patriot was a direct copy of the 300, would my pride be hurt? would I be all up in denial and such? No - I'd be saying "way to go CIA!"... and carefully considering the information provided in substatiated links.

As for the comment that there is a "veeeery" big difference between "an air defence system" and a "semi-anti ballistic system"... actually as far as circuitry goes, no there does not need to be a big diference between the systems. As Russia is already keenly aware ABM technology is great for air defense.

[edit on 12-8-2005 by intelgurl]

rogue,

a russian fan will say that everything is copied by americans, and a american fan will say that everything is copied by russians

ahhh... what you think, that im a russian fan??? , the fact is that both countries had -and have- very competent research teams, engeeners, test sites, etc..., and both designed and developed their own systems


[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

intergurl, lady, im must be clear, so sorry , but all that you posted is only nice speculation

the requierements between an air defence and a semi-abm are very differnent in the resoultion radar, the time of reaction, the algorithm core, etc..

intergurl, the main link that you posted is about CIA operations, not even about russian intelligence operation, not to say tech aplications

nationalistm pride is what some guys think, that the russians or other research team from other land dont have the knowledge to design something whitout copying the holy american thec, that is nationalism pride

by the way im not russian, nor easter european, nor comunism fan, nor nothing, only a engeenier student

[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

How right you are - however, I started out with the presuppostition that the US had somehow copied the S-300. Then as I dug - all the information pointed in the other direction. I was actually shocked.

As for the ABM vs AD it goes one way - ABM tech makes for great air defense, air defense tech makes for lousy ABM. And that is "technology", not necessarily the actual systems.



[edit on 12-8-2005 by intelgurl]

no one copied nothing, the us developed their pacs and the russian their s300 both with different objetives and requierments, the military russian tech in electronics, radars missiles was good in 80-70s, that is , the americans didnt copied the s300 nor the russians copied thr pacs, all that you have is the usual intelligence info to know what have your enemy, only that, so what is your point??



[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

My point is what was stated in the original post - it hasn't changed.

The S-300's internals are apparently composed of compromised Patriot technology.

It has nothing to do with insinuations of superior US technology and everything to do with an honest seeking of the facts; and all substantiated information thus far points toward the S-300 containing Patriot technology.

That is the point.

[edit on 12-8-2005 by intelgurl]

well, you dont like to see the rest of my post???

im not saying that you arent objetive, but this topic is based only in missconceptions, you say apparantly, but that isnt a fact, actually i just cant see how you support your "apparently"

anyway, there will be always people believing in that a stealth plane is invisible, the f22 can reach M3, the su27 is a copy of the f15, the aurora stuff etc...



[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

heres a thought - that russia `reverse engineered` the patriot system , then improved it.

well, me also could say that the americans copied the s300 and "reversed" it to improve the patriot, but that is just a claim, their radar and missile reasearch was very strong in the 70s-80s they managed to design a small efficient and advanced system like the sa6,their military electronics were above in some areas than the occidental ones in the 80s, like in data links, or wide apperture radars so why the people is surprised by the s300?? that btw is completely different to the patriot



[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

So when exactly did the Russians fall so far behind ( when they were so far ahead for so long) that they had to not only steal US rocket tech but actually chose to use enough ot it to become obvious in their own design.... Just wondering since all my knowledge on the rocket race between the two countries indicates the Russians never lost their post war lead......

Anyways

Stellar

Well you could say the Russians fell behind in WWII. Yes they did get the first man and satellite into sapce but only by narrow margins. It was Kenndy's implementation of the Apollo program where the Americans took the big leap. As far as ICBM technology the US always had the lead until recently, mainly because the US hasn't developed a new ballistic missile for 16-17 years. Whereas as Russia has been plowing ahead. The US still has the most accurate and advanced SLBM's - the Trident II D5.

The main reason for this tech superiority for so long is because capitalism has always proven itself to be far more innovative and creative than communism. It seems only after communisn fell di the Russian really start getting their tech moving, proving IMO that capitalism is superior when it comes to advancement of technology.

about the slbms and icbms , thats another story, but the russians had some ideas about both and were very different of the american tech

about the failed moon mission, that was a lot to do by the dead of sergei koroliov and the fall of krushev, no doubt that a very heavely political system to one side isnt the best system (like the almost pure comunism-that krushev didnt liked), but also america isnt a pure capitalism

antway, this isnt a capitalism vs comunism thread, is about engenier-technician tech and research topic

i guess that this disscusion will be degradated to the "batman vs spiderman" stuff that iskander pointed, well, actually it havent a brilliant start, lol


[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

Allow me to be a little bit more specific, as I have confirmed that this information is available in open sources:

It is strongly believed that through Soviet/Russian espionage efforts, certain key technologies of the Patriot seeker system were obtained and incorporated into the S-300V, namely the Track-via-Missile (TVM) technology. The Patriot was the first SAM to incorporate this critical seeker technology, which was originally pioneered by Raytheon engineers in 1974. It is not clear when this theft of Patriot technology occurred, but is was very likely prior to Gulf War I.

TVM technology began showing up in 2nd generation SA-10's in the mid-1990's. As early as 1995, the PLA purchased a small number of S-300V missiles to evaluate. They had already purchased a fair number of S-300PMU systems. It was probably through Chinese channels that the US became aware of the existance of TVM technology in S-300V missiles. Not surprisingly, it was only a few years later (1997) that the US obtained some S-300V missiles of their own to evaluate.

However, the Chinese themselves may have already been aware of the Patriot's TVM capability as early as 1991. It seems that sometime during 1991 or 1992 the PLA was able to obtain a single working Patriot seeker. Various reports indicate that Israel was the likely suspect, but the U.S. sent a team to Israel to investigate, and they found no proof of this (this in of itself does not mean it never happened). Some other sources have also pointed to Germany as being the guilty party.

In any event, the PLA developed the HQ-9 SAM, which utilizes technology from the missile seeker of the Patriot, search and guidance equipment derived from the Russian S-300PMU (which they bought legally), and a Chinese designed missile motor and airframe.

It just goes to show that Patriot technology is not just being sought out by the Russians. The Chinese have fought to obtain it, and some of our friends have been apparently unable to resist the urge to sell Patriot parts to our adversaries. There are now at least three SAM systems on the international market with patriot-like capabilities.



[edit on 8-12-2005 by Pyros]

ahhhh, man TVM using SARH concept is old the first system was the s300 deployed in service 1978, and such system is widely used in AA missiles, so isnt so special as you think


[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

If I’m the one who’ll have to put an end to these shenanigans, so be it.

From www.edefenseonline.com/default.asp?func=article&aref=02_01_2002_IF_01

“Only one serious development came out of the ill-fated merger: the S-300P adopted the semi-active guidance method developed from the outset for the S-300V. This was further developed into the track-via-missile (TVM) method. Although TVM was designed in the Soviet Union separately from the TVM capability of the US Patriot system, the general IDEA was copied. There were some rumors that TVM-related documentation was stolen from Raytheon Co. by a Polish spy in the late '70s. Another theory says that the documentation probably was stolen by other HUMINT sources, and the Polish connection was only a "smoke screen". Whatever the truth is, when the Soviet Union had the US TVM system, it was not used to actually make a full copy, but rather to evaluate both countries' solutions and to adopt those elements of the US version that were deemed better and simpler.”

If anybody want the full article p2p’me, or whatever its called.

“The S-300's internals are apparently composed of compromised Patriot technology.”

intelgurl, with all do respect, poppycock.

For example, if you and I are charged with task of creating an object that will uniformly bounce from flat surfaces, I will be amazed only if you come up with something other then a round rubber ball.

TVM is a old concept that was the core of the new generations of sams (sa10 and patriot) that were deployed in the late of the 70s and early 80s

"Although TVM was designed in the Soviet Union separately from the TVM capability of the US Patriot system, the general IDEA was copied."

lol, is like to say that the fbw of the su27 is a copy of the 16, both are fbw and operate under the same basics

come on iskander

anyway at least the doc remark that both are diferent designs



[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

Take it easy grunt2, you seem to have a habit of jumping the gun. The article simply points that that yes, the principal was, I would say “adapted”, which is only smart. No need to re-invent a bicycle.

“lol, is like to say that the fbw of the su27 is a copy of the 16, hell both are fbw and operate under the same basics”

You are repeating the meaning of my post, yet disagreeing at the same time