S-300 = Patriot ?

Pyros, are you the same “super secret clearance” guy from the other thread? The self proclaimed special “organization” employee that is “well” informed by reliable sources that I can’t talk about due to security issues?

It’s all good bud, do your thing, but the link is dead though.

I’m out for some tea and a smoke. Later all, cause getting out for a puff is a goddamn adventure every time.

Because the Raytheon Patriot Program Manager told me so, and I happen to believe him. I mean, why would he lied

lol, what, he saw the evil commi running with a bunch of secrets files??looool

man the reasearch teams are humans and have their pride

there are concepts that are researched by many words teams, not only americans or russians

there are clear cases of info gathering from soviets, like the walkers case, but dont compare that with tipical arrogant cold war claims, even such cases dont mean tech transference

again the fact is that the s300 is very different to be considered even an inspiration from the patriot, for example the s300 have different multimode radars operating in diferent freqs, instead the patriot use only one set



[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, you obviously haven't read much about the early years of the space race. Bothe countries were flinging so many rockets into space on the same missions, it was more luck who got there first.

It's funny how you keep responding to my posts and keep on being wrong... One would think you would have noticed your bad track record by now?Are you hoping you will have the same kinda luck the Russians had with always being lucky? And then you accuse me of not reading? Do stop pointing fingers ....

One achievement was matched by the other superpower within months.

But then Russian rockets were not blowing up half the time were they? Why were they first and why were their rockets so much more reliable? You will have to do better than just make claims and accusations.

Kinda like throwing darts.

I was really hoping you were taking this seriously....

The Apollo program so far is the peak of manned human exploration.

Why? What makes it such a achievement? Who had the first space station and who has had men living in it for far longer? Wich country took into space men and women from 15 different nationalities? Why do you think that repeatedly landing men on the moon is the pinnacle of manned human exploration?

Here is an actual list out that just goes to show this information is not hard to find.

* First ICBM, the R-7
* First satellite, Sputnik 1
* First animal to enter orbit in space: Laika on Sputnik 2
* First person in space and in orbit, Yuri Gagarin on Vostok 1, Vostok programme
* First dual manned flight and approach in space with Vostok 3 and Vostok 4. While considered by some to be the first rendezvous, Vostok 3 and 4 were 5km apart, and on different orbital planes. American Gemini 6A and Gemini 7 were the first true rendezvous, three years later.
* First woman in space Valentina Tereshkova on Vostok 6
* First three man crew Voskhod 1
* First EVA on Voskhod 2 by Aleksei Leonov
* First docking between two manned craft in Earth orbit and exchange of crews Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5.
* First firing of a rocket in Earth Orbit Luna 1
* First probe on the moon Luna 2
* First images of the moon's far side Luna 3
* First probe to land on Venus Venera 3
* First probe to land on Mars Mars 3 and return data
* First samples automatically returned to Earth from another body Luna 16
* First robotic space rover Lunokhod 1
* First Salyut 1 space station in 1971
* First woman to walk in space: Svetlana Savitskaya in 1984 while on Salyut 7 space station.
* First permanently manned space station, Mir, which orbited the Earth from 1986 until 2001.

Lets not forget as well the American Pionner and Voyager probes which are still transmitting and the 1st of which will shortly be leaving the influence of the sun.

Wich are great achievements....

HAve a look at all the missions by both countries : nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I did my research before i posted.

Hmmm, have you read anything about the history of both countries ICBM's and SLBM's.

Enough to know that you have not read as much as i have.

[qoute]I suggest when you do, you look at the stat CEP ( Circular Area Probable ), which is a measure of accuracy.

It's a measure of speculation open to all kinds of manipulation as the word " probably" should indicate to you. CEP is great but wich submarine force boasts the least rocket launch failures?

See whose are by far the most accurate. It's the reason why US ICBM's have smaller warheads, because they are more accurate, whilst Russia tends to have larger warheads.

Circular reasoning based on odd assumptions. Your assuming it's not just a strategic choice to use larger warheads. What will they be targetting? Will they need to be accurate in the first place or just have large warheads? I do not even have all the answers but i do not make so many assumptions either...

As above, have you done any reading on the subject

Because what your saying seems like you haven't, your statements are wrong

Actually have have stuck to fact so far and your the one speculating and making blatently wrong claims. Please check your facts before making personal attacks.

Stellar

[edit on 8-12-2005 by StellarX]

[edit on 8-12-2005 by StellarX]

Thanks for the links iskander.. I kinda had the suspicion that nothing changed with the patriot intercept record but did not have enough time or interest to go hunt down the information.... Would have mentioned my feelings but i have no interest in getting shouted at for questioning superior American technology without 10 links and 5 eyewitness acccounts....

Stellar

BRAVO StellarX

Great post man. I’d love to disagree with you sometime, because I know you’ll do your part diligently and I will surely learn something if I’m wrong.

I for one appreciate your efforts, but I’ve been down this road with roage1 before and to be honest I simply block his posts, because it’s just no use. Cheers mate.

Just to throw my two cents in;

“See whose are by far the most accurate. It's the reason why US ICBM's have smaller warheads, because they are more accurate, whilst Russia tends to have larger warheads.”

Has nothing to do with technology. The difference in the approach is dictated by expected targets. Soviet cities are large and built from brick and concrete with deep shelters built specifically to withstand nuclear blasts, thus requiring more accurate warheads. American cities are based around the small “down town” centers with large surrounding suburban areas built from 2by4s and sheet rock. No big mystery here, just simple common sense.

Here’s another tidbit for all to consider.


Statistical threat assessment basics.

The deadlier the weapon is, the less combat it sees with resulting lower kill ratio in comparison to more common weapons.

Two main reasons are; as soon as its presence in combat area is know, enemy does everything possible to avoid it. The other, as long as such weapon retains its deterrent capabilities, the more important such value is for the one who wields it, and if the very concept of such weapon is defeated, it will lose its most important attribute.

As simple example, with out a doubt .50 cal rifle is the most effective sniper weapon today, yet it has the lowest kill ratio compared to other calibers.

S300+ and up are simply at the top of the chart in the category.

Originally posted by iskander
S300+ and up are simply at the top of the chart in the category.

No doubt, iskander.
The Russians have long held an edge in anti-aircraft weaponry.
Reason being that it had and continues to have to counter the US advantage in airpower.
No big mystery here, just simple common sense, correct?

And despite your links to indicate the superiority of the S-300+ air defense systems over the PATRIOT, the PATRIOT missile defense system is still an effective anti-air platform. Furthermore, the US Navy's Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) naval based anti-air defense system is unquestionably the most capable ship mounted anti-air platform in the world, unless of course, you wish to attempt to discredit that, as well?






seekerof

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Seekerof, my immediate family member served as an USAF IO for years and is now retired. He was stationed in Turkey among other places, so believe me, I don’t have neither the intention nor interest in “discrediting” our military capability. You’re barking up the wrong there my friend. I only state what is well known. The verdict on SM-2 is still out by the way, and I for one will not be the one jumping the gun.

“Reason being that it had and continues to have to counter the US advantage in airpower.”

Again, look up your own data. Start with simple numerical superiority of Soviet forces through out the cold war. Phantom verses Mig-21 and so on.

To get you going, here’s an outtake from the Langley Air Force Base report by Lieutenant Colonel Hiram Hale Burr, Jr back from around 1977. If you’d like the full report u2u me.

“THE extensive modernization of the Soviet Frontal Aviation forces could decide the survival and success of its ground forces against NATO’s armed forces in a future conflict. The Soviets once emphasized interceptor aircraft with a short range and small payload, but their tactical doctrine now stresses interdiction deep into enemy territory and close air support for their ground forces. The Soviets have developed large numbers of modern aircraft with improved performance in range, weapon, payload, avionics, and electronic countermeasure equipment. They have arrived at a position where their force structure seems capable of carrying out their strategy and tactics in a high-intensity warfare situation. The superiority of U.S. and NATO air forces has eroded because of qualitative improvements in the technology of Soviet aircraft. These Soviet high-technology systems, coupled with the long-standing numerical superiority of FA forces, have greatly increased the threat to NATO ground and air forces.”

well, out of that "im on the USAF" or "thats a secret", the sm2 is a good missile, but it havnt active homming gudance and the modern system is heavely based in the spy1, that is good for some targets, but bad for others

and dont start with that "american airpower" and these discussion of "my daddy is stronger than yours"

[edit on 9-12-2005 by grunt2]

THE SM series of naval SAMS are excellent missiles and their ballistic missile capabilities will increase with the introduction of the SM-III LEAP ( Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile ).

ATS SM-III thread



[edit on 9-12-2005 by rogue1]

right, the sm2-system can be considered as an semi-antiballistic missile like the s300

so whats goin on the american fans will say that then the s300 is a copy of the sm2??? lol



[edit on 9-12-2005 by grunt2]

Originally posted by iskander
“See whose are by far the most accurate. It's the reason why US ICBM's have smaller warheads, because they are more accurate, whilst Russia tends to have larger warheads.”

Has nothing to do with technology. The difference in the approach is dictated by expected targets. Soviet cities are large and built from brick and concrete with deep shelters built specifically to withstand nuclear blasts, thus requiring more accurate warheads. American cities are based around the small “down town” centers with large surrounding suburban areas built from 2by4s and sheet rock. No big mystery here, just simple common sense.

Hmm, this shows a blatant lack of knowlege of the missions ICBM's have been built for since the 70's. Have you ever heard the term ' counterforce ' ? This is where an oppposing enemies nuclear forces are attacked without targetting cities. That is why ICBM's have become more accurate so as to target an enemies silos. The Soviet missiles are less accurate thus require a larger warhead to dig the enemies silos out. US missiles on the other hand are more accurate and need less of a blast to achieve the same result. Simple as that.
The US Trident II D5 SLBM is the first and only, as far as I know, sub launched missile which is accurate enough to perform counterforce strikes as well

well about the missils accuracy, that we cant confirm, only we have claims, the slbms arent so precisse as most people thinks, and the missile tech isnt a sci-fi of 100% effectiveness, anyway a nuke missile really dont need milimetrical presicion, but even the smart bombs arent so smart

i really doubt that ant slbm could be more precisse than a movile ground launched icbm

one thing are claims, other is the reallity -and that goes for russian and american and all the worlds harware-



[edit on 9-12-2005 by grunt2]

Originally posted by grunt2
well about the missils accuracy, that we cant confirm, only we have claims, the slbms arent so precisse as most people thinks, and the missile tech isnt a sci-fi of 100% effectiveness, anyway a nuke missile really dont need milimetrical presicion, but even the smart bombs arent so smart
one thing are claims, other is the reallity -and that goes for russian and american and all the worlds harware-

Being 100 hundreds meters further away could mean needing more than a 50% increase in warhead power. Say ffrom 300kt to 500kt. So yes accuracy makes a huge difference when taking out installations haredened to withsatnds nuclear attack.

Every site and book dealing with Ballistic Missiles rates the US Peacekeeper and Trident II D5 as the most accurate intercontinental missiles around.

I've haven't really ever heard Russia claim it has the most accurate missiles. If you have plaese send me the article.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by rogue1]

man these are claims, only that, but the slbm tech isnt so precisse, there is too much uncertaily in the start position-conditions in the launch, an peackeeper have much more precission, all about ICBM-SLBM and nukes are claims -well general numbers, actually-, they wont sell peacekeepers to israel

but if you have doubts about the russian capacity, just the the buran -yes a patheic case- that done a whole flight under remote-automatic control



[edit on 9-12-2005 by grunt2]

Originally posted by grunt2
man these are claims, only that, but the slbm tech isnt so precisse, there is too much uncertaily in the start position-conditions in the launch, an peackeeper is much more precisse

The Trident D-5 has a maximum range of 12,000 km (7,456 miles), similar to that of silo-based systems, and has a payload as large as 2,800 kg. Its payload carries a Post-Boost Vehicle (PBV) which can carry 8 to 12 Reentry Vehicles (RVs), though the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) limits the number to eight. These RVs can either be the Mk 4 with a W76 100 kT yield warhead or the Mk 5, which has a W88 475 kT yield warhead.
The missile is almost certainly equipped with countermeasures. The system uses an inertial navigation system combined with a stellar reference system that provides an extremely high accuracy of 90 m CEP.

www.missilethreat.com...

There are also plans to further imporve its accuracy using GPS. American SSBN's can also keep a very accurate record of their postion naywhere in the ocean.

yeah, in the 80s all the people said that the laser/smart bombs were super/duper, but the reallity was other, man always the industry over-hipe ther stuffs, is just marketing, but any common guy knowing some of the tech knows that the reallity is much more complicated

btw almost all the icbms use stellar-inertial guidance

anyway i really dont like to talk about icbms, is mostly speculative, only like to talk about general ideas in that topic


[edit on 9-12-2005 by grunt2]

the mk5 also uses some of the british cheveline tech that was used in the polaris system that they fielded (uk)

Originally posted by grunt2
yeah, in the 80s all the people said that the laser/smart bombs were super/duper, but the reallity was other, man always the industry over-hipe ther stuffs, is just marketing, but any common guy knowing some of the tech knows that the reallity is much more complicated

Your argument is moot, history has shown that smart bombs are several orders of magnitude more effective than the dumb forefathers.

btw almost all the icbms use stellar-inertial guidance

A technique pioneered by the US and rather old by today's technology. The US has the technology as I said earlier, to incorporate GPS guidance into the missiles and reentry vehicles, further increasing their accuracy.

Harlequin
the mk5 also uses some of the british cheveline tech that was used in the polaris system that they fielded (uk)

Cheveline referred to the penetration aids used in the British PBV, did it not ?


[edit on 9-12-2005 by rogue1]

well, the russians also have gps, did you know??, but even with that the slbms have their own nature, look even russian slbm with gps and the gods hand will have an uncertaily and a error margin that is hard to manage

about the samrt bombs i dont know about your "magnitude" stuff, im only saying that were not as most people thought

anyway this is another thread


[edit on 9-12-2005 by grunt2]