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.

 

S-300 = Patriot ?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
well, the russians also have gps, did you know??


I assume you're talking about GLONASS, it is too put it bluntly the poor cousin of the US GPS system. It's coverage is scattered to say the least and not nearly as accurate as US GPS, as they don't have enough satellites in orbit.




posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   
they have enought for the 2d precission that is required for the mission, look even with that a slbm is hard to manage, because you need more corrections in the flight

ahh, and again that crappy claim of "all american is better"



[edit on 9-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

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 ?




Yep , they also developed it further for use in there own D-5 system , and the usa wanted it as its very VERY good.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
they have enought for the 2d precission that is required for the mission, look even with that a slbm is hard to manage, because you need more corrections in the flight


Ermm, no. Satellite guided weaponry ahs to be guided in 3 dimensions if they are going to have any chance of being accurate. You seem to be thinking that car GPS type systems are the same as those used for guided weapons.



ahh, and again that crappy claim of "all american is better"



Sigh, just sating fact, your the whine who whines about this all the time, yet you produce nothing to back you up



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
man 2d is enough for that stuff, a ballistic missile isnt a tomahawk


the fact is that there are examples in wich other nations are more advances than the US in some areas and the US is more advanced in others, the fact is that are reasearch teams in all the world, that are wise people arround the planet and not all are americans


[edit on 9-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
man 2d is enough for that stuff, a ballistic missile isn't a tomahawk


Once again completely wrong, a satellite guided weapon has to know where it is in3 dimensions




the fact is that there are examples in which other nations are more advances than the US in some areas and the US is more advanced in others, the fact is that are research teams in all the world, that are wise people around the planet and not all are Americans



Isn't this the same thing you say all the time
The fact is you provide no examples of anything, you don't back up any of your statements. I'd be surprised that you even knew what Russia's sat nav system was before I told you


[edit on 9-12-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
well, is senseless, abot this of-topic missile stuff, anyway again is about the nature of the slbm

about your great america, for example the mig 29 overcome the fbw-unstable design with better aerodynamics, and the same s300 example that is more advanced with the real competetor the sm2


[edit on 9-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Grunt2 what this intended for me? “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”

I’m screening rouge1’s post out, so I can’t tell. I hope you understood that my mentioning my family’s military service was intended to show that I hold no bias in the matter.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
no wasnt for you iska, calm down, anyway, to much oftopic here.. lol



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
weel, is senseless, abot this of-topic missile stuff, anyway again is about the nature of the slbm


Well before you edited this post, you claimed that stellar/inertial navigation was just 2 dimensional navigation. Both systems navigate in 3 dimensions




and the same s300 example that is more advanced with the real competitor the sm2


LOL, once again this is more BS, back yourself up - prove it. I doubt you've even compared the capabilities of the 2 systems.
BTW, the SM-2 has proven itself superior to the Patriot. The SM-3 will be rolling out soon and they are already designing the SM-4.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
well, both have almost the same performances, but right now, the s300/400 with their active homming is more advanced, not??


man, i wont enlarge the 3d-2d stuff, only to say that actually 3d guidance is more relevant in coorbital -complete direction missiles, this is just a ballistic missiles


[edit on 9-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
SM-2 system is old, it exhausted its upgrade capacity, and is no longer competitive.

Some white papers on what’s to come.

“The THAAD system, the most advanced and the most sophisticated in the BMDO inventory, consists of a very capable X-band radar for fire control and an interceptor missile capable of exoatmospheric and some endoatmospheric intercepts. In addition, THAAD has a good ground-based control computer. THAAD has had a troubled history, however. Eight of the first nine test shots failed. Only in late 1998 and early 1999 were two successful hit-to-kill intercepts conducted at the WSMR. The early failures were caused primarily by poor quality control in the manufacture of the missiles, but a number of design flaws in various missile components also became apparent. Therefore, the test program using the old test missiles was terminated in the summer of 1999, an engineering development phase of the program was initiated during which the missile will be redesigned, and other components of the system will be improved. The THAAD system is a ground-based system that can be moved from place to place, but not easily. The PAC-3 defense system is genuinely mobile; in contrast, THAAD is movable. The THAAD system is the most advanced of the theatre-wide ABM defense systems. The first units will probably be fielded in 2007 or 2008.”

“The first three THAAD flight tests, which did not attempt target intercepts, demonstrated basic missile functions. The next four THAAD tests were also very successful in every aspect, except the very critical end-game in which the weapon consistently failed to intercept the target. Following the fourth test failure in March 1997 an extensive program review was initiated, with additional intercept attempts planned for 1998. However, the next flights on 12 May 1998 marked the fifth consecutive failure for this troubled program, which remains unblemished by success. Prior to the March 1997 test the number of test flights planned as the basis for entering engineering and manufacturing development was reduced from 20 to 9 flights to stay on schedule. But the delays imposed by the test failures appear to have resulted in THAAD's initial operational capability once again slipping from 2004 to 2006.”

“The sole U.S. missile defense program being tested against ballistic mis- siles today is the ground-based system being initiated by President Clinton. Pictured above is the system’s interceptor is a July 2000 attempt that failed. To date, the system has scored two hits in six intercept attempts, although the tests do not replicate operational conditions.”


Ground-Based Midcourse Defense

Designed to Counter - The projected system’s goal is to intercept strategic ballistic missiles in their midcourse stage

Status – “To date, the system has four successful intercept attempts in six developmental tests. The next intercept attempt is scheduled for August. The development of the multistage booster for the EKV is more than 18 months behind schedule. The proposed booster failed its second flight test on December 13, 2001, within 30 seconds of its launch. A second U.S. company has been contracted to develop an alternative booster.”

An so on. By now I hope everybody is aware that I list from reliable sources.

If anybody is actually interested I will be happy to provide links.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
so, here we go again...


is quite obvious that the 300/400 superior than the sm2, but i guess that all this have nothing to do with the original topic, not offence iskander



[edit on 9-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Oh yea, both S300 modifications and S400 successfully intercept their test targets on regular bases. The Patriot on the other side, which supposedly was copied into the above mentions SAM’s, is yet to successfully intercept anything with out a homing beacon attached to it. Israeli radar records clearly show that not only Patriot didn’t hit the SCUDs, but also missed free falling debris after SCUDs broke-up in mid air.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Israeli radar records clearly show that not only Patriot didn’t hit the SCUDs, but also missed free falling debris after SCUDs broke-up in mid air.


I truly hope that you would be past the whole SCUD thing. Not only did it happen 14 years ago but if you know anything about the PATRIOT you know that it was not the PATRIOT that was at fault. It was the fact that it was never intended nor designed to protect cities from missiles.

Off Topic

By the way, why don't you copy the entire thing that Zaphod said, because as I recall, it wasn't at all what your signature suggests.


As Zaphod58 said...."Grunt has spoken"


[edit on 9-12-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
You’re absolutely right WestPoint23, I guess that’s exactly why Israelis jumped head first into development of “Hetz “, right after they go to know the “true” potential of the Patriot.

That’s after we equipped them with Patriots, after Germans “passed” some along, and after we “pitched” in additional 14 billion of our taxpayer’s cash so they can develop their own system that works.

Also correct me if I’m wrong, but the Patriot is actually called “anti-missile system”. I could be wrong though.

The funny thing is, is that while WE are funding “Hetz”, which successfully went through every test phase, and we’re still sitting with our thumbs you know where.

So how is that they spend the same green (actually our) cash and come up with a working system while we’re still poking around, ever pondered upon that?



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
“The sole U.S. missile defense program being tested against ballistic mis- siles today is the ground-based system being initiated by President Clinton. Pictured above is the system’s interceptor is a July 2000 attempt that failed. To date, the system has scored two hits in six intercept attempts, although the tests do not replicate operational conditions.”


Hmm seems wherever you get your information from, it's wrong


The AEGIS LEAP Intercept (ALI) program has demonstrated the design capabilities of the SM-3 KW with a series of ground and flight tests. ALI culminated in two successful ballistic missile intercepts on the first two engagement missions. Flight Mission Two (FM-2) flown on 25 January 2002 and Flight Mission Three (FM-3) on 13 June 2002 were completely successful allowing the program to proceed into testbed development....
....On 24 February 2005 the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Weapon System and Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) destroyed a ballistic missile outside the earth's atmosphere during an Aegis BMD Program flight test over the Pacific Ocean. The Feb. 24 mission -- the fifth successful intercept for SM-3 -- was the first firing of the Aegis BMD "Emergency Deployment" capability using operational versions of the SM-3 Block I missile and Aegis BMD Weapon System.

www.globalsecurity.org...




An so on. By now I hope everybody is aware that I list from reliable sources.


As you've proven with your information it's either wrong or very outdated




If anybody is actually interested I will be happy to provide links.


Why didn't you provide them in the first place ? Too Lazy



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

An so on. By now I hope everybody is aware that I list from reliable sources.

If anybody is actually interested I will be happy to provide links.


(And Now Let's Pause for a Little Housekeeping Message)
You should be providing links to any web based sources (if they are available) when making claims that something is fact.

For instance the paragraph on the THAAD comes from A White Paper on the Defense Against Ballistic Missiles; Hans Mark, National Academy of Engineering - 2001.

Ok, Now Back to the Action... iskander or Grunt, Looks like the ball's in your court!


[edit on 12-9-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Also correct me if I’m wrong, but the Patriot is actually called “anti-missile system”. I could be wrong though.


And the PATRIOT was and still is, it was designed to protect Military Facilities from missiles and aircraft, not large cities. The PATRIOT’s in Israel hit the scuds albeit not all of them, but due to a delayed fuse charge the missile was hit toward the tail end section, causing the missile to break up and fall to the earth. The warhead of the scud was intact so when the debris hit the ground it still killed people. If it had been a military base the missile would have not hit its target because its specific flight path was changed. In a city you have to completely destroy the missile because it will just fall on another part of it.

BTW those problem were corrected and today's systems are far more advanced, if you think the PATRIOT is not good system I have to disagree.

Read below for a further explanation of my points.

Gulf War PATRIOT System

MIM-104 PATRIOT



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   
WP, one of the problems of the patriot was that, but the main problem was the very heavely TVM concept, the problem wasnt solved reducing tolerances in the fuses, was solved changing to manual and surveilance tracking, actually the arrow is developed in a different way, the concept is more like the modern s300, but with different harware configuration

intergurl, i dont understand what is your point, well , the us is developing their own abm, the concept is like the spy1, but what is the point??, actually what is the point of this thread??


and please dont mix the people with that "X and Y", i mean, lady this isnt a conspiracy


btw, for the s400 uses 3 differnt defence layers with missiles (3 if i remember well), from 3km of range (or lower, i dont have the exact number), to 400km of range (missile N4 something, i guess), i dont remember if this last missile -or variants- was used earlier in s300



[edit on 10-12-2005 by grunt2]




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join