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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
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...



LOL, Where exactly was I doing that ? You seem to be the one having a rant - " Russian technology is better, because I say so " LMAO. What a fantastic argument
Stop whinging when you're proven wrong.




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I see we’re still on and rogue1 is still at it.

rouge1 for one last time, I’m blocking your posts, because you’re hopelessly dense.

More wonderfully idiotic blabber from rouge1

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

Rouge1, you must be a Nazi lover, because the Apollo program was under management of Wernher Von Braun, a Nazi war criminal that used slave labor in his factories. Is this the great American accomplishment you’re so proud of? That’s ok, keep it to your self until you learn how and what to read.

“Maybe you can buy a few acres in Alaska if you want”

Sandman11, maybe Russians should just take back Alaska, since the 99 year lease negotiated by District of Columbia bank expired in 1966. Considering that Soviet Union is no more, Russian federation can legally pursue the return of its land.


BTW Sandman11, take the time and look into Russian economy numbers.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
This is just precious, just hair short of something like “All American Hitler Theme Park”.

www.vonbrauncenter.com...

They hold concerts in the center named after a man that knowingly worked thousands of slaves to death.

Anybody ever wonder why Russians never trusted us? How about saving and harboring Nazi war criminals for starters.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
I see we’re still on and rogue1 is still at it.

rouge1 for one last time, I’m blocking your posts, because you’re hopelessly dense.


LMAO, this coming from you
, just look at the rest of the BS you just wrote
I think hopelessly dense is title that you and you alone are only capable of holding.
You seem to be the only not contributing anything, just whinging




Rouge1, you must be a Nazi lover, because the Apollo program was under management of Wernher Von Braun, a Nazi war criminal that used slave labor in his factories. Is this the great American accomplishment you’re so proud of? That’s ok, keep it to your self until you learn how and what to read.


And you my friend must be incredibly stupid. The above statement is so ridiculous that I can't stop laughing and you want people to take you seriously
Well somehow I don't think that's going to happen.
The only support you get on this thread is from your other friends here, who have nothing better to say than " Russian equipment is good, I don't have any evidence whatsoever, but it is fact because I say so "


Speaking of Soviet Technology, this is good for a laugh Stalin's half-man, half-ape super-warriors . And some thought the Soviets capable of taking over the world LMAO.


[edit on 22-12-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
This is just precious, just hair short of something like “All American Hitler Theme Park”.


Anybody ever wonder why Russians never trusted us? How about saving and harboring Nazi war criminals for starters.


Gawd, how surprising
Of course the Russians never harboured any NAzi war criminals or profited from their wor
Once again a frivilous post with no point, but hey it's what we're used to.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

“Maybe you can buy a few acres in Alaska if you want”

Sandman11, maybe Russians should just take back Alaska, since the 99 year lease negotiated by District of Columbia bank expired in 1966. Considering that Soviet Union is no more, Russian federation can legally pursue the return of its land.


BTW Sandman11, take the time and look into Russian economy numbers.


Like I said somewhere else in cyberland: Where what was once Moscow, and 500 miles around it, along with most of the habitated and militarily relevent targets in Russia will glow for a hundred years from it's thermonuclear blasted glass bottom before the Russian flag flies over Alaska...
Ain't gonna happen unless you want to hurt.


[edit on 24-12-2005 by Sandman11]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   
And it would appear there is no "99 year lease" that I can find. Looks like a purchase to me.
www.bartleby.com...
college.hmco.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 26-12-2005 by Sandman11]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman11
Like I said somewhere else in cyberland: Where what was once Moscow, and 500 miles around it, along with most of the habitated and militarily relevent targets in Russia will glow for a hundred years from it's thermonuclear blasted glass bottom before the Russian flag flies over Alaska...
Ain't gonna happen unless you want to hurt.



It will not glow for a hundred years or even a few years and that is given the fact that most targets get hit. If they go for airburst most of the radioative effect is lost for wide area destruction. If they go for penetration or ground burst the area effect is lost to kill hardened and burried targets. You cant have it both ways and the Russians have sneaked nearly everything they will need to win a nuclear war underground with the personal and supplies ready and waiting to join the equipment,

You just keep saying the same old things all evidence i provide aside in so many other threads. Since facts dont matter to you i guess i will just spam like you do since this is clearly a matter of who gets the last word.

Stellar



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
A few days ago I read an article by the Air Combat Information Group (ACIG) an organization which is generally considered a good source of factual information. While reading the article I happened across the following paragraph:

"...between the late 1970s and 1985 nobody less but the chief of the Phazotron Design Bureau was supplying all possible information about such projects R-23, R-24, R-33, R-27, and R-60, S-300, as well as about fighter-interceptor aircraft like MiG-29, MiG-31, and Su-27 and their radars directly to the CIA."
Gone With the Wind
By Tom Cooper
Nov 20, 2003


The thought of a CIA mole passing secret missile & radar technology to the US intrigued me so I asked an aerospace engineer working in Raytheon's missile division what he thought about it.

My first inclination was to think that the Patriot missile system was perhaps a copy of the S-300, but I was surprised when the engineer I spoke to said that it was common knowledge in the missile industry that the S-300 was actually a copy of the Patriot.

Being somewhat jaded by the patriotic ranting I encounter on ATS on both the US and Russian side concerning who's products are the best and who copied who - I asked if he could prove it.

He immediately referred me to a couple of aerospace engineering white papers - one of which states the following:

"These (Soviet) intelligence victories continued until recent times with the KGB stealing the U.S. Patriot anti-missile technology on which the Soviets based their modern version, the S-300, which it now exports to any buyer for hard currency."
The Attack on America’s Intellectual Property - Espionage after the Cold
by S. Eugene Poteat, Winter 2001
(This is from a Tau Beta Pi publication - Tau Beta Pi is very reputable and is the only engineering honor society representing the entire engineering profession.)


From discussions with this engineer and reading the articles of these organizations one can conclude that the SS-300PMU SA-10B GRUMBLE Mod 1 or one of the other upgraded mid-1980's versions is the result of Soviet espionage in the early to mid-1980's which acquired Patriot air defense technology during the Patriots' development phase.

According to the engineer I spoke with, the Patriot technology was indeed found in the tech information passed on to the CIA by their mole at Phazotron.

Thoughts anyone?


As an American, I very much hope the S-300 is exactly like the 5-10% success rate Patriot Missile. The best defense is the potential incompetence of our potential enemies.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I think you should have done S-400 = Patriot, instead of S-300 = Patriot. According to Janes, Patriot is the World's most capable S2A missile system.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
I think you should have done S-400 = Patriot, instead of S-300 = Patriot. According to Janes, Patriot is the World's most capable S2A missile system.


Sorry to be a party pooper here, and bear with me for barging in with a minimum of decorum, but anything Jane's wrote or published about US/Russian/Chinese capabilities in the past 10 years is less than satisfactory from an analyst's point of view (not to say they're biaised, no...). What do you expect? The Russian counterpart of Jane writing "S-400 Triumph is sh... compared to the PAC-3"? Jane's Fighting Ships 2005 can't get even the numbers and names of Russian ships right, one has to harvest info from forums or go and check oneself somewhere in Severomorsk (aargh...).

And more generally, guys, before doubting about the economic/military/mental capabilities of any state, please get your info right: you're using the Net after all, no need to indiscriminately and endlessly repeat the good old catch phrases that the media repeat every day. E.g.: "cash-strapped military" or "Russia strapped for cash".
Just in order to expand the debate a bit: in the recent Pentagon report that has been so widely discussed because it stated that the real Chinese defense budget was widely underestimated, the real wording is that "China has a military budget second only to the US and Russia". Strange that nobody seems to notice that... what makes it of the Russian budget, pray?

Moreover, current Russia has almost nothing to do with the Russia of early-mid 90's: they (by "they", I mean the state) are AWASH with cash thanks to oil-gaz sales profits and to the restructurization of large industrial assets into state hands. It's one of the few countries that can boast a budget profit (and a huge one) for the 3rd consecutive year, while the US has a deficit of...how much now thanks to the new neo-cool administration? The Russian Stabilisation Fund is up to 137 billion (dollars) now, gold reserves about the same. Russia has registered the largest increase in the world financial market in 2005 (88%) while the GDP grows at a rate of 5-7% each year. Military spending increased to 56% in 2005 and scheduled to increase further. We're not seeing a sea-change in pure military capability yet because (according to official MoD documents) 65% of the budget will be R&D related till 2010. They tested a new SLBM this year, the world first hypersonic manoeuvring missiles in 2003 and lay down the keel of a 3rd new generation strategic sub past month. Watch the news briefs, guys.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   
So how is Red Square this time of year, comrade?



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
So how is Red Square this time of year, comrade?


Pretty cold I guess, sir. But well, you can judge by yourself (a lot of webcams around there...
)



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 06:10 AM
link   

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......

Anyways

Stellar


stellar , the source is weak and highly questionable , as it only contains bashing of socialism as a system and has only one statement on s-300(that it was copied) , it does not elaborate whether the concept ot technical solution or details on the aerodynamic or ballistic behaviour of the two missiles neither does it document or prove anything ...
i conclude the assumptions (on anything) of the source are highly questionable ...

using similiar methods assumptions and col. krutov statements on technocracy.ca ,i could implicitly prove that aurora is electrochemical MHD version and ripoff of the nuclear powered MHD of AYAKS aerospace vessel, though i consider his conclusion as false
photo of AYAKS :


see the statement in the source given by intelgurl :


These intelligence victories continued
until recent times with the KGB stealing the U.S. Patriot
anti-missile technology on which the Soviets based their
modern version, the S-300,
The loss of our advanced
technology to foreign governments
through this aggressive
economic espionage means not



firstly patriot was orginally a air defence system and not a ABM defence , while S-300 was primarly a missile defence solution of the USSR as proved by you which was ultimately incorporated as nuclear ABM defences in USSR (but i wish to ask you how you conclude that the sys can blunt a first strke , while your sources say that it was meant to deal with the second strike after first strike was achieved),

which makes the accusations made highly debateable and questionable...

but also the assumption of many that PAC-3 is a ripoff of s-300v is also false as from what i know only certain few technical solutions of s-300v are used in pac-3 to remove the glitches and targeting problems in the patroit

---------

also stellar reading the source is like reading american cold war era nationalistic nonsense and propaganda


thank you
vk

seekerof,
russians had SARH and TVM , though initailly TVM of s-300 had problems in detecting lower than 500metres


Modern SARH systems use continuous-wave (CW) radar for guidance. Even though most modern fighter radars are pulse Doppler sets, most have a CW function to guide radar missiles. A few Soviet aircraft, such as some versions of the MiG-23 and MiG-27, used an auxiliary guidance pod or aerial to provide a CW signal. Vympel R-33 AA missile for MiG-31 interceptor uses SARH as the main type of guidance (with supplement of inertial guidance on initial stage).
en.wikipedia.org...




It was originally intended to fit the TVM guidance system onto this model. However, the TVM system had problems tracking targets below 500m. Rather than accept the limitation, the Soviets decided that the tracking of low altitude targets was a must and decided to use a pure command-guidance system until the TVM head was ready
en.wikipedia.org...-dtig10


[edit on 20-3-2007 by vK_man]



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by vK_man
stellar , the source is weak and highly questionable , as it only contains bashing of socialism as a system and has only one statement on s-300(that it was copied) , it does not elaborate whether the concept ot technical solution or details on the aerodynamic or ballistic behaviour of the two missiles neither does it document or prove anything ...


Oh, my, god. Please go into detail as to why you find the massive volumes of information i have posted on ATS on this topic to be 'flawed' and i do mean DETAIL.


i conclude the assumptions (on anything) of the source are highly questionable ...


Which source as this topic is quite old.


using similiar methods assumptions and col. krutov statements on technocracy.ca ,i could implicitly prove that aurora is electrochemical MHD version and ripoff of the nuclear powered MHD of AYAKS aerospace vessel, though i consider his conclusion as false
photo of AYAKS :


If you can defend such ideas in as much detail as i have my ideas on the S-300 you will make a believer of me yet.


firstly patriot was orginally a air defence system and not a ABM defence , while S-300 was primarly a missile defence solution of the USSR as proved by you which was ultimately incorporated as nuclear ABM defences in USSR


Thanks ,i guess, but i am mostly confused now...


(but i wish to ask you how you conclude that the sys can blunt a first strke , while your sources say that it was meant to deal with the second strike after first strike was achieved),


Back in the early 1980's it would have 'blunted' ( it would have robbed American strategic planners of any chance of knowing for sure if they should assigned one warhead or five and thus massively reduce their target list) a US strike buy with the current number of warheads ( after all the reductions and technological evolutions) the US deploys it could truly make a American strike largely futile.


which makes the accusations made highly debatable and questionable...


I don't see why...


but also the assumption of many that PAC-3 is a ripoff of s-300v is also false as from what i know only certain few technical solutions of s-300v are used in pac-3 to remove the glitches and targeting problems in the patroit


The Patriot's can still not bring down scuds while the USSR managed HTK technology in 1961. The USSR are still possibly a few decades ahead in this area as at least some Russian specialist claims.



also stellar reading the source is like reading american cold war era nationalistic nonsense and propaganda


Which one?

Stellar



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Why is it a great thread such as this has to turn into another "biggest dick" contest. It is my understanding that INTELGurl's opinions and knowledge highly reguarded and respected when it comes to aircraft and weapons systems. Thats just my impression.

Espionage is not just a two-way street. Even allies spy on each other, this is less affectionately known as "#ing your buddy." Pardon my French, but thats the short of it. Russia spys on the US and vise-versa, along with everyone else in the world. They all play the game, get over it, its the way of the world. They all steal secrets from one another, just look at how aggressively the Chinese espionage program against the US is.

Timeline of recent Chinese Espionage against the US
CIA/FBI Report to Congress on Chinese Espionage
From China with Love

Those are justa few links I found quickley. I'm sure that the US has spies in China, thats a given. I was just making the point that everyone does it to everyone. I consider INTELGurls information reliable.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   


Oh, my, god. Please go into detail as to why you find the massive volumes of information i have posted on ATS on this topic to be 'flawed' and i do mean DETAIL.


oh my god , stellar , i was not refering to your sources , i was refering to intelgurl's highly questionable source on s-300(which only has one line and does not elaborate) , the first post of this topic




Which source as this topic is quite old


the source of intelgurl(whose claims are contradictory) , but evidence shows that patriot-3 has stolen technology of s-300v , while americans try claim the opposite even while patriot has been a big failure

en.rian.ru...

also intelgurl's assumptions on electronics and computational processes are fundamentally wrong , because russian electronics was 5-7 yrs behind the US electronics(she said that elctronics is same) and soviets relied on superior logic and mathemitcal algorithms will was the hallmark of soviet sciences(she said that computational processes and networking were stolen..... also s-300v ABM was deployed in 1986(tested in early 80's) and was designed for ABM and intercepting crusie missiles , while patriot was first TESTED in ABM mode in 1988 ... so soviets stealing patriot tech is again wrong as russians had already ABM s-300v for ABM purposes(in 1986) and need not steal , but the performance of Patriot in gulf wars , seems to indicate that it needs improvements and stolen tech




If you can defend such ideas in as much detail as i have my ideas on the S-300 you will make a believer of me yet


definitely , not in adequate detail as there is limited info on AYAKS and the technical details i already posted in a former discussion with you , unless ,i am alble to locate some more , possibly on xakep where krutov was a former editor and posted quite a bit on hacking computers ,ATM and servers (main specialty)...






Back in the early 1980's it would have 'blunted' ( it would have robbed American strategic planners of any chance of knowing for sure if they should assigned one warhead or five and thus massively reduce their target list) a US strike buy with the current number of warheads ( after all the reductions and technological evolutions) the US deploys it could truly make a American strike largely futile.


seems to be understood better as you are a specialist on ABM, sometimes i think you are joel skousen or jeffrey nyquist , for the level of knowledge on DIA.... you should be made ATS subject matter expert , especially where weapons and strateegies are concerned .....




The Patriot's can still not bring down scuds while the USSR managed HTK technology in 1961. The USSR are still possibly a few decades ahead in this area as at least some Russian specialist claims.


i meant that some have claimed that patroit is a total ripoff of s-300 that is not true , but yes patriot uses some stolen tech and technical solutions from s-300v




The USSR are still possibly a few decades ahead in this area

a well known and accepted fact




Why is it a great thread such as this has to turn into another "biggest dick" contest. It is my understanding that INTELGurl's opinions and knowledge highly reguarded and respected when it comes to aircraft and weapons systems. Thats just my impression.



rahter ,one of stupidest threatds , i have ever seen



[edit on 27-3-2007 by vK_man]



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by vK_man
rahter ,one of stupidest threatds , i have ever seen


Whats your reasoning there? You dont agree with it? Its perfectly plausible that there is technology in both of these systems taken from both the US and Russia. This type of espionage is very common.

[edit on 3/27/2007 by ludaChris]



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Iskander,

I can't let you say that the USA signed a 99 year lease with Russia for Alaska, and Russia could take it back. From what I ahve learned and what now I have read. You are wrong, and please try to be more correct.

[img][IMG]http://inlinethumb64.webshots.com/4287/2271686690074054169S200x200Q85.jpg[/I MG][/img]
That is a picture of the actual cancelled check from Russia.

I know someone already got this, but I need to re-stress this. Come on.



This is a copy of the treaty with Russia

And another link to the treaty of the PURCHASE not Lease

Note no where is there the words 99 year lease, and you will see it was sold to the USA.


Ok now back to the missles. Sorry.

[edit on 28-3-2007 by sbob]



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by vK_man
oh my god , stellar , i was not refering to your sources , i was refering to intelgurl's highly questionable source on s-300(which only has one line and does not elaborate) , the first post of this topic


That was pretty stupid of me...


the source of intelgurl(whose claims are contradictory) , but evidence shows that patriot-3 has stolen technology of s-300v , while americans try claim the opposite even while patriot has been a big failure

en.rian.ru...


The patriot's war record is quite dismal but who knows what kind of interference of subversion caused it to fail so badly in the anti Cruise missile and ABM roles... Frankly i am open to the suggestion that the Russians steal a great deal of technology ( it would at least in part explain why they are ahead so far in many areas; steal what the other guy is doing while doing something different) but in the instance of air defenses i think the Russians have either refined their technology far beyond what they stole or did not find what they stole very useful in the first place.


also intelgurl's assumptions on electronics and computational processes are fundamentally wrong , because russian electronics was 5-7 yrs behind the US electronics(she said that elctronics is same) and soviets relied on superior logic and mathemitcal algorithms will was the hallmark of soviet sciences(she said that computational processes and networking were stolen.....


I don't think their electronic sciences were very far behind ( in as much as the general science goes or it's implementation in field conditions) if at all and that they mostly chose to avoid it due to the vulnerability of SS technology to nuclear effects.


also s-300v ABM was deployed in 1986(tested in early 80's) and was designed for ABM and intercepting crusie missiles , while patriot was first TESTED in ABM mode in 1988 ... so soviets stealing patriot tech is again wrong as russians had already ABM s-300v for ABM purposes(in 1986) and need not steal , but the performance of Patriot in gulf wars , seems to indicate that it needs improvements and stolen tech


Both the Sa-2 and Sa-5 were tested in ABM roles so the technology were around long before the Sa-10 ( S-300) or for that matter the patriot.


definitely , not in adequate detail as there is limited info on AYAKS and the technical details i already posted in a former discussion with you , unless ,i am alble to locate some more , possibly on xakep where krutov was a former editor and posted quite a bit on hacking computers ,ATM and servers (main specialty)...


My earlier response is a good indication of what happens when one is pressed for time and do not properly evaluate what you are responding to.



seems to be understood better as you are a specialist on ABM, sometimes i think you are joel skousen or jeffrey nyquist ,


Not familiar with Skousen guy and Nyguist i only ran in much later when he came across his article's on Russian strategic deceptions... I am not 'specialist' on ABM and i am completely reliant on open source material and good old fashioned logic; that and massive volumes of time...


for the level of knowledge on DIA.... you should be made ATS subject matter expert , especially where weapons and strateegies are concerned .....


You don't become a subject matter expert by knowing much about ideas or theories that goes against the consensus 'reality' so i will never be made one and neither will you. If you ever receive a applause it will also likely ( meaning more than half the time ) be because are you are being 'civil' or because the moderator in question did not really understand the implications of the dozens of links y or the tens of thousands of words you fleshed it out with. Since they at least seem to be selected for common decency, and sometimes reward good information if probably only since it's one of the occasions where they actually understand it, it's not all bad and as long as you do not expect recognition by anyone but your peers you will serve to help the few people on ATS who are in fact here to learn about more than just the pet 'conspiracy theory' they happen to believe it while spending their time attacking everyone who have theories about the rest of reality.


i meant that some have claimed that patroit is a total ripoff of s-300 that is not true , but yes patriot uses some stolen tech and technical solutions from s-300v


I don't believe that it is but in general my response was made in ignorance of your original intent.



a well known and accepted fact


Maybe by the both of us and a few defense and intelligence people....


rahter ,one of stupidest threatds , i have ever seen


I would just like to ask that you always include the author's name directly above the quote as people may not always be following the thread in enough detail to make out who's saying what!

Thanks for your post and i apologise for the hasty 'pistols at dawn' type of response you had to deal with.
That was far below my standard and another good reason why i should not post on days like those....

Stellar




top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join