Originally posted by grunt2
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

Umm, no, grunt2.
In 1978, the S-300 system, namely the S-300P (SA-10A, specifically the 5V55K missile) did not utilize TVM or SARH.
The S-300 systems did not have or utilize TVM or SARH capabilities till the advent of the S-300PS/S-300PM (SA-10B, specifically the 5K55R/RM missiles--S-300F) and S-300FM (naval version, specifically the 48N6/Ye missile).

SARH capabilities were implemented in the S-300PS/S-300PM, 5K55R/RM missiles (S-300F), in 1984-85. The PATRIOT system was using such since 1980-84.

TVM capabilities were implemented in the S-300FM (naval version, specifically the 48N6/Ye missile) in 1990-92. The PATRIOT system was using such since 1980-84.


S-300 system.







seekerof

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Seekerof]

iska, if your point is -as i guess- that the russians taked the patriot system and simplificaied?? or both reasearch teams had the same idea in diferent ways??, if is the second i agee, if is the first just see the su27-f16 example

yes seekerof, you are right about that,actually i had the doubt, so i put later a modificted fost about "late 70s and early 80s", but again SARH TVM isnt so special as most thinks the conceps was investigated for other aplications and missiles, even that dont mean that the russian SARH was a copy of the american one, it was just the next step in the tech

and actually that confirm that the original s300 was very different than the patriot -perhaps the designers didnt trust enough in such system in that time,btw TVM have their problems and are somewhat vulnerable to jamming-

about TVM, if we are talking that both systems are different , but have the same idea, that what we are talking about??

is just -again- of the su27 case, the original ones didnt had fbw, the later ones have, then that mean that the su27 -even the fbw- had tech from f16 or tornado??? only because both fbw use the same idea??



[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

Originally posted by rogue1
Well you could say the Russians fell behind in WWII.

Behind what? Anyone doing much launching of rockets before world war 2?

Yes they did get the first man and satellite into sapce but only by narrow margins.

Dont forget first ICBM, first artificial satellite, first sat around the moon ( as i recall) and first soft landing on moon. Actually they did everything first beside actually landing men on the moon. Why people who say Americans did not land on the moon forget to bring this up i have NO idea.

It was Kenndy's implementation of the Apollo program where the Americans took the big leap.

Big leap to start catching up to the USSR.....

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.

Pantently false in all regards.

Whereas as Russia has been plowing ahead. The US still has the most accurate and advanced SLBM's - the Trident II D5.

Not sure but highly doubt it and do not really believe it.... Nothing i have ever read suggests the US were interested , or i guess capable, of keeping up.

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.

Just not related, please stay on topic and do not bring up bad arguments to support bad information.

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.

Stellar

lol

ahhh, man we just are returning from the start

tell me then, the s300 have something to do with the patriot??, the patriot had TVM, the 300 didnt, actually all the patriots problem is relationated with the very dependable TVM and IFF

btw kgb isnt the international intelligence org ,(kgb was more like fbi) is was the gru

[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

Originally posted by grunt2
tell, e then, the s300 have something to do with the patriot??, the patriot had TVM, the 300 didnt, actually all the patriots problem is relationated with the TVM and IFF

The problems of the PATRIOT have been resolved, but the performance problems the PATRIOT may have had is of no issue here. The issue is that with the evidences shown, the Soviets/Russians may have stolen the TVM tech from the US and the PATRIOT system. The Soviets/Russians may have solved the IFF problem when they implemented the TVM tech into their S-300 system. Who knows, for it matters not to me. The issue here is how the Soviets/Russians obtained the TVM tech in the first place.






seekerof

why, because both use the same idea???, come on...

is like to say thet the mig 29 is based in the f16 because both use lift vortex concept.

so how they obtainde info??, spys???, but americans had also, did you read the first link??, one thing is to know how is your enemy, other is to copy a stuff

again use the su27-f16 example, the flanker was upgrated with fbw, but that dont mean that was a copy, neither the fbw, and again the s300 wasnt based in the patriot concept, they later adapted that, just was a plus, that also dont mean that was a copy


[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

The 'why' is self-evident and within standards of proof, much like how detectives solve cases: using evidences within standards of proof.

Let me see here:
* PATRIOT had TVM (1980-84) prior to the S-300s implemented (1990-92) TVM tech.

* The article asserts from credible and verifiable sources that the KGB stole anti-missile tech from the US PATRIOT system, which was then implemented into the S-300 system.

Hmm, I am no detective here, but standards of proof and the preponderance of the evidences indicate the very likelihood that the Soviets/Russians may have acquired and implemented stolen US PATRIOT tech into their vaunted S-300 anti-air systems.


You add:

so how they obtainde info??, spys???, but americans had also, did you read the first link??, one thing is to know how is your enemy, other is to copy a stuff

If you would stop persisting in your denial mode and read the .pdf from page one, the main topic commentary, you would see that it is indicated that the KGB stole PATRIOT tech, not the US stealing or copying anti-air tech from the KGB or Soviets/Russians. Hello?





seekerof

the same goes with the su27 is a copy of f18-f15 ridiculus claims or even the f15 as a copy of the mig25

but if you have at least some knowledge, you know that all was crap

that was the cold war

isnt a denial mode man, just see the facts

and what accerts the article, that both system had the same idea??

[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

Originally posted by grunt2
that was the cold war

That may well be the case.
But if the Soviets/Russians stole the US PATRIOT anti-air systems tech now used in the vaunted S-300 systems, then how can the S-300 systems be so absolutely superior to the PATRIOT system, as has been eluded to and stipulated in a variety of ways in a variety of topics? To be a bit humorous here, but if the vaunted S-300 systems can shoot down stealth aircraft or the SR-71 or UFO's, etc, then the PATRIOT can do likewise, right?







seekerof

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Seekerof]

This will never end. It what happens when social environment is severely lacking in education and is systematically prepped for “individualized” opinionists, and geared to ridicule and belittle objective rationalists. Typical.

That’s ok though, kind of like observing a happy monkey sawing the branch it’s sitting on.

Why Patriot missiles have control surfaces and S300 don’t?

Oh, that got me through the heart, iskander.
If your so intellectually challenged or lacking intellectual stimulation, then my suggestion would be either to lower yourself down to "our" intellectual levels and discuss or spare us the intellectual belittlements.





seekerof

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Seekerof]

seekerof, you are right, the patriot using manual mode or tracking of its E/F radar band can down the f22, like the sam 3 did with the f117

but its harder with TVM, the problem with the patriot is that is very heavely dependable in TVM

[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

“Oh, that got me through the heart, iskander.
If your so intellectually challenged or lacking intellectual stimulation, then my suggestion would be either to lower yourself down to "our" intellectual levels and discuss or spare us the intellectual belittlements.”

Figures. I feel old. It seems that these days’ people speak an entirely different language. It’s kind of like attempting to communicate with a permanently paranoid stoner.

I knew I should’ve put a disclaimer for those who don’t get it that it’s not a personal attacks but a reflection on a sad state of our current “condition”.

So what about Patriot m’s tail fins and lack of thrust vectoring vanes? Or is it somehow those damn Russkies again...

Seekerof, I absolutely love the Santa thing though! Great touch.

pyros how can you say the the TVM was a stolen idea???, so the french, tornado fbw was a stolen idea from the f16??, get real dude, i mean is clear that both systems are veeeeery different, only because 2 planes have variable wing, that mean that the idea was taked or copied or that was the best solution in that time??, come on..

or the americans copyed the spaceships to the russians because the US craft had the same concept?

But to me, that comes as no surprise, considering it's origins.

lol, man both systems sre completely different, the patriot ones is based in the TVM concept, not the S300, also the s300 hardware, missile, launcher, data link, are different

the funny stuff in the iraq war was that the main problem was actually the TVM, the officials just swiched to manual or surveilance tracking

[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

Originally posted by grunt2
pyros how can you sat the the TVM was a stolen idea???

Because the Raytheon Patriot Program Manager told me so, and I happen to believe him. I mean, why would he lied? It's not like the Grumble is out-selling the Patriot. And its not like the Grumble has reams and reams of actual performance data (good or bad) in actual combat situations to analyze and to use towards making improvements, now is it?

And please, stop talking about aircraft. Its hard enough to follow your point without having to change subjects on the fly.........