S-300 = Patriot ?

Originally posted by grunt2
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??

If this is such a pointless thread, one has to wonder why are you even participating?
The point has been made - and your opinion noted. Also noted is your apparent inability to understand what the point is.
Amazing.

Originally posted by iskander
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.

LMAO, and the Russians are so transparent with their testing parameters The fact is you don't know if they've been successful or not, you just rely on what TASS says. Once again you provide no information for your assertion.

ok, my lady, only for you, oooonly for you, my lady, im out

good luck

[edit on 10-12-2005 by grunt2]

Actually the AEGIS program is up to 6 of 7 sucessful tests, with one software glitch causing the miss. The USS Lake Eerie has been doing the tests at the Pacific Missile Range here in Hawaii.

[edit on 12/10/2005 by Zaphod58]

I take everything back, we’re like the bestest hotness ever, and all those Israelis, Russkies, Indians, Chinese and the rest just don’t know crap.

Is it so hard to believe that Yes, just maybe the Soviets DID copy part of the Patriot to make improvements to the S-300? Especially considering the guy that would KNOW admitted it?

Originally posted by iskander
I take everything back, we’re like the bestest hotness ever, and all those Israelis, Russkies, Indians, Chinese and the rest just don’t know crap.

Hmm, seems a whinge is the only defence you hvae. you provide no facts about anything as usaul. Everyone knows you're full of it

whit permission of intergurl i will make a last thing, specially by zaphod post..

"its so hard to believe"???

what???, that both TVM uses the same idea?? , there is not any evidence that the russians copied that, ahh of course the "this guy told me that" argument, and an article that says how the cia got info from the soviets

yeah, zaphod, tell, that "is so hard..." is the same crap of almost all this forum....

-its so hard to believe, that the sr71 can reach M4
-its so hard to believe, that the f22 can reach M3
-its so hard to believe, that the aurora exist
-its so hard to believe, that stealth is invisible

etc....

but why the people dont have some brain and dont ask themself???

-its so hard to believe, that actually are other reseach teams around the world???

anyway, is funny how this thread fall from "s300=patriot", to russian TVM =US TVM......lol


[edit on 10-12-2005 by grunt2]

Funny how it's good enough for you to say "I talked to engineers and they told me" and not quote sources, but when someone else does it, and DOES quote sources, it's so amazingly hard to believe.

No one is saying that the S-300 is so good because it's a Patriot. It was said that IMPROVEMENTS were made to make it BETTER by copying PORTIONS of the Patriot system.

[edit on 12/10/2005 by Zaphod58]

but from wher you take the "improvements" stuff???, again is like to say that the improved fbw su27 was taken from american tech....get serious

man , im studing engieering, i know that is nothing, but if you know even basic concepts of how works some tech, you should know what is fantasy and what is a real thing, again what i want is just an objetive debate, i mean im not saying "the f22 can reach much higher speeds", why??? "well , because it have a T/W ratio higher than the sr71 , and i have a friend that told me that"...lol

btw in any debate, i dont just enter and say "i have talked whit this guy",the first thing that me always do is to try ro explain how works a system or a concept, yes i have talked with people in the industry, but me also know that sometimes these guys are subjetive, because sometimes you find different criteria in the same team or even love their corporation, only because i comment some experiences, that dont mean that is the core of my argument ,and actually was never the core of my argument or mod, instead me just always try to say "get a physic book"

the fantasy here is that the TVM is a silver bullet, and was copied from the americans, the true is that the soviets had and have their own research teams, developed their own systems, and put their own system in the s300

anyway too much blablabla, the fact is that there is nothing that say that the soviets copied the TVM, ahh, of course the stupid-evil soviets always did that

[edit on 10-12-2005 by grunt2]

sorry, double stuff

[edit on 10-12-2005 by grunt2]

TVM is one variable out of thousands. It is only a tracking method which in not anything new or groundbreaking. Basically it’s just like command guidance with the advantages of using thin beams of phased array radar, thus allowing the tracking of the target in a more discreet manner by relying on the data link.

In my opinion, double source tracking advantages are outweighed by the reliance on the data link, because it is susceptible to ECM and anti-radiation attacks, as the blue-on-blue incident clearly displayed, when an F-16 successfully took out a Patriot station with the aging AGM-88 HARM.

That clearly shows that unlike S300 systems, the Patriot is not able of protecting itself from the attack of a barely Mach 1 HARM, much less Mach 4.5 Kh-31.

The Raytheon radar which is advertised to identify 100 targets, is apparently not able to identify a target by its return, as clearly proven by friendly fire incidents, including the above mentioned F-16 which was misidentified and forced into defending it self by taking it out. Our notoriously buggy IFF systems cause seemingly never ending friendly fire incidents in every type of engagement.

Both PAC-2/3 missiles heavily rely on composites throughout their construction. At first it sounds good, but in reality it’s the opposite. If anybody here actually knows about it feel free to share it. The missiles are smaller and lighter then S300 missiles, in short they are NOTHING alike. The use completely different directional control systems and so on.

Patriot complex is “movable”, not mobile as S300, all while multiple S300 systems are designed to be wire linked in the radius over one kilometer, allowing it to overcome the disadvantages mentioned above. It masks complex position by eliminating the need for wireless comm, allows it to set up effective “blinking” traps, tight anti cruise missile barrier, and provides high levels of survivability against HARM attacks.

In conclusion saying that Patriot=S300 is kind of like saying that Harley=superbike because they both have two wheels.

OK, we have all read about the max range of the newest long range SAM the RUssians are making. The SA-10 and SA-20, are claimed to be able to hit somehting like 400 km out. The US had the Nike Herculese that could hit 90 miles, and the BOMARC
www.hill.af.mil...
which could reach 440 miles with a nuclear warhead. The SA-5 could do much the same. So long range is not anything new if it were to be desirable to design into a missile. My question is this, and maybe Avon or some of those with SAM experience can shed some light; If the curvature of the earth is such that the "radar horizon" is 20 miles or so against a low flying aircraft, (with no geographical advantages to the attacker like hills or mountains, meaning a flat surface to the horizon for argument sake) then any long range figure is useful only against high flying targets at any sort of "long range". In the Falklands the Argentinians were able to fly under the radar horizon and attack well armed SAM missile ships of the British Navy,(no lightweight in technology), and attack them with GRAVITY BOMBS! So why would long range in a SAM be desirable, at considerable expense, when they can be circumnavigated by flying low, a relatively easy task, and approached and attacked from low level at relatively short stand off range from a non-stealthy aircraft?
I guess what I am getting at is that the cost does not justify the returns,,,,, that is unless the latest Russian SAMS aren't just SAMS, but might in fact have ABM capability. The missiles themselves have quite a good performance base, not Sprint or Spartan performance, but still good, and all they would need is the nuclear warhead option, and a data link, microwave tower or satellite uplink, to a "battle management" system with an X-band capability. Interesting thought...
Did anyone else read William T. Lee's book which documented the ABM potential of Russian SAMs? Evidently it was quite a battle within the CIA around the time of the signing of the ABM treaty and beyond.
www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org...
I believe we are kidding ourselves in self delusion by trusting that the Russians are NOT possessing at least a basic national ABM system.


[edit on 19-12-2005 by Sandman11]

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Sandman11]

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by StellarX
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......

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.

Really? Can anyone say China?

Ok ok people!

If we go by all USA sources then TVM was taken by Russians from USA for their S-300. This might be true and I am frankly to lazy to waste sleep to agrue it.

Now for you people saying that Russia copies all the USA stuff... How about you learn how to guard your secrets? I am damn proud that my comrades can out smart you and get the tech for 1/1000000 of the price!

Also if some tech is on S-300 cam from the PAC it doesnt mean the S-300 is worse. It also doesnt mean Russia stole the tech and just dumped it into the S-300. The TVM if use copied was modified to meet the Russia goals and only the princaple was used for that system.

Out,
Russian

Originally posted by Russian

Now for you people saying that Russia copies all the USA stuff... How about you learn how to guard your secrets? I am damn proud that my comrades can out smart you and get the tech for 1/1000000 of the price!

Yeah you should be glad we suck at keeping secrets. Thanks for taking our nuke secrets as well.

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by iskander
I take everything back, we’re like the bestest hotness ever, and all those Israelis, Russkies, Indians, Chinese and the rest just don’t know crap.

Hmm, seems a whinge is the only defence you hvae. you provide no facts about anything as usaul.

Everyone knows you're full of it

Why you hiding behind Intel girls back? All you do in this thread is bash people that dont give backup for their posts but you...

Out,
Russian

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Russian

Now for you people saying that Russia copies all the USA stuff... How about you learn how to guard your secrets? I am damn proud that my comrades can out smart you and get the tech for 1/1000000 of the price!

Yeah you should be glad we suck at keeping secrets. Thanks for taking our nuke secrets as well.

Maybe we stole the secret to living and going to the bathroom too? Maybe soon we will so good at stealing we will just steal your country and name it Russia.

Out,
Russian

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Russian]

Russia will have problems just to keep from disintegrating or getting invaded from 1.4 billion Chinese for the natural reasources and space in Siberia. Maybe you can buy a few acres in Alaska if you want. Better go through customs though, and make nice or we can get scary. I would try to stay away from thinking of "stealing" anything though. The Chinese will be the biggest threat there.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by Sandman11]

Originally posted by Sandman11
I guess what I am getting at is that the cost does not justify the returns,,,,, that is unless the latest Russian SAMS aren't just SAMS, but might in fact have ABM capability.

And i think they have had that capability on most of their prominent Sam's in effective numbers since at least the early 70's

Since you seem interested i think this will explain my point of view very well. Can't miss the bright orange and anything before is just running trough the normal assumed information that tends to prevent real comprehension.

The missiles themselves have quite a good performance base, not Sprint or Spartan performance, but still good, and all they would need is the nuclear warhead option, and a data link, microwave tower or satellite uplink, to a "battle management" system with an X-band capability. Interesting thought...

Russia had as stockpile of around 40- 50 000 nuclear warheads and they would not make them in those numbers and sizes for any other reason in my opinion... The management system they have had for a long time in open breach of most weapon reduction agreements. They clearly do not care for these agreements when it does anything other than limit American efforts to catch up...

Did anyone else read William T. Lee's book which documented the ABM potential of Russian SAMs? Evidently it was quite a battle within the CIA around the time of the signing of the ABM treaty and beyond.
www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org...
I believe we are kidding ourselves in self delusion by trusting that the Russians are NOT possessing at least a basic national ABM system.

Will be giving it a read to see how much of it agrees with what i have read to so far. Thanks for the link

Russia will have problems just to keep from disintegrating or getting invaded from 1.4 billion Chinese for the natural reasources and space in Siberia.

They signed the agreements and both countries removed large formations of troops from their mutual borders. China and Russia have been sharing a common strategic view for some decades now and this is becoming more readily apparent as the years pass...

Maybe you can buy a few acres in Alaska if you want. Better go through customs though, and make nice or we can get scary.

The Chinese are buying up large tracts of most countries so unless their assumed to be aiming for global domination at one stroke i see no reason for concern.

I would try to stay away from thinking of "stealing" anything though. The Chinese will be the biggest threat there.

Well if one looks at history we have nothing to worry about when it comes to China. You may go look at the way China explored the world during their exploration age and see the gulf of difference in aims and cultural imperatives. I believe the threat has not changed and that China wont become part of it any time soon.

Stellar

[edit on 21-12-2005 by StellarX]