S-300 = Patriot ?

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   


That was pretty stupid of me...


no problemo comrade stellar




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)




see even i am open to this espcially where supercomputers were concerned ..




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


but where s-300 is concerned , and source of intelgurl , sounds like cold war propaganda comrade, please go and read her source ,comrade and yes:




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


except the s-300 is much more flexible ..
but where s-300 is concerned , and source of intelgurl , sounds like cold war propaganda comrade, please go and read her source ,comrade and yes:




The S-300V was developed by the Antey Corporation, one of the former Soviet Union's largest defense companies. It was designed mainly as an anti-ballistic missile system, although it also has the ability to target and destroy aircraft and cruise missiles, similar to the U.S. Patriot. The S-300V was first deployed in 1986 and was so successful that, by the late 1980s, the Soviet military was ordering an average of three to four battalions each year.Nikolay Novichkov and Michael A. Dornheim, "Russian SA-12, SA-10 On World ATBM Market," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 3 March 1997. During the 1990s, Antey improved the capability of the S-300V, giving the system the ability to engage targets flying at ranges of up to 100 kilometers.Robert Wall, "Russia's Premier SAMs Seen Proliferating Soon," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 27 September 1999.
www.missilethreat.com...




and on patriot:




Patriot was used initially as an anti-aircraft system, but in 1988 it was upgraded to provide limited capability against tactical ballistic missiles as PAC-1 (Patriot Advanced Capability-1). The most recent upgrade, called PAC-3, is a nearly total system redesign, intended from the outset to engage and destroy tactical ballistic missiles
en.wikipedia.org...




In the late 1980s, tests began to indicate that, although Patriot was certainly capable of intercepting inbound ballistic missiles, it was questionable whether or not the MIM-104A/B missile was capable of reliably destroying them. This necessitated the introduction of the PAC-2 missile and system upgrade.

For the system, the PAC-2 upgrade was similar to the PAC-1 upgrade. Radar search algorithms were further optimized, and the beam protocol while in "TBM search" was further modified. PAC-2 also saw Patriot's first major missile upgrade, with the introduction of the MIM-104C, or PAC-2 missile. This missile was optimized for ballistic missile engagements. Major changes to the PAC-2 missile were the size of the projectiles in its blast-fragmentation warhead (changed from around 2 grams to around 45 grams), and the timing of the pulse-doppler fuse, which was optimized for high-speed engagements (though it retained its old algorithm for aircraft engagements if necessary). Engagement procedures were also optimized, changing the method of fire the system used to engage ballistic missiles. Instead of firing two missiles in an almost simultaneous salvo, a brief delay (between 3 and 4 second) was added in order to allow the second missile fired to discriminate a ballistic missile warhead in the aftermath of the explosion of the first.

PAC-2 was first tested in 1987 and reached Army units in 1990, just in time for deployment to the middle east for the Persian Gulf War. It was here that Patriot became the first successful ABM system, and though its actual performance numbers remain classified (and controversial despite it) it proved that ballistic missile defense was indeed possible.

en.wikipedia.org...

pac-2 first tested in 1987 as a ABM system ..

read what intelgurl said :


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
www.tbp.org...

the question arises that why would russians steal patriot anti-missile tech , when it was so rudimentary and in infancy and s-300v was so superior ?????

MIND IT AND PLEASE READ THIS :




In terms of anti-battlefield and anti-theater missile capability, the Russian S-300V is unrivaled. Under severe competition on the arms market, it is very difficult for our traditional rival, the USA, trying to win contracts for the Patriot ADM system, to admit this fact. A vivid example of this is the disgraceful story of the ad booklet published by Raytheon company and distributed in Abu Dhabi at the IDEX ‘97 international exhibition of arms and military equipment. The booklet intentionally perverted the facts regarding the S-300V ADM system's combat characteristics and price. However, foreign experts were compelled to admit in the Jane's magazine published in England that the S-300V system possesses qualities which no other ADM system in the West will feature until the end of the current decade. The system is a triumph of the development of Soviet tactical anti-missile defense. Capable of intercepting tactical ballistic missiles, it is unrivaled, for there is no other ADM system in the world that can do it.

But more meaningful than the words is that the Americans have recognized the superiority of the S-300V ADM system by buying this system to study it.

Today, the USA is making a strenuous effort to develop the RAS-3 version of the Patriot ADM system and the THAAD system in order to eliminate the lag in the development of tactical anti-missile defense systems, but the USA will have to solve the problems that were solved by Russian specialists long ago


www.enemyforces.com...


THE ABOVE SOURCE IS ENOUGH PROOF THAT AMERCIAN ENGINEER FROM RAYTHEON LIED TO INTELGURL ... INTELGURL HAS LOST ALL CREDIBITLY IN MY EYES ,.. AND FOR POSTING SUCH BIAS INFO (LIKE S-300 IS COPY ) .... DO YOU REALISE RAYTHEON LIED IN A DEFENCE EXPO .... MEANS RAYTHEON IS LIEING ON THE S-300 , S-300 IS NO COPY .... AS RAYTHEON TRIED TO LIE ON S-300 BEFORE ALSO AS PROVEN BY THE SOURCE AND EVEN JANES WAS FORCED TO ADMIT ...




posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   


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....


NO PROBLEMS comrade , and yes forgive me for the personal attack on the thread of fusion replaces fission .... i thought you launched a personal attack on me in some post , so i fired back


anyways this source provides info on what patriot using stolen tech solutions from s-300v:
en.rian.ru...

------



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by vK_man
no problemo comrade stellar
but where s-300 is concerned , and source of intelgurl , sounds like cold war propaganda comrade, please go and read her source ,comrade and yes:


If you must stick to 'dude' as the comrade stuff aint going to help my 'reputation' around here.



read what intelgurl said :
the question arises that why would russians steal patriot anti-missile tech , when it was so rudimentary and in infancy and s-300v was so superior ?????

MIND IT AND PLEASE READ THIS :


I don't think i ever addressed Intelgurl directly ( frankly i don't see how anyone who must advertise so much is going to help me discover much) but i probably should have.



THE ABOVE SOURCE IS ENOUGH PROOF THAT AMERCIAN ENGINEER FROM RAYTHEON LIED TO INTELGURL ... INTELGURL HAS LOST ALL CREDIBITLY IN MY EYES ,..


You giving her a great deal of credit by assuming she could not discover the truth if that was her intent...


AND FOR POSTING SUCH BIAS INFO (LIKE S-300 IS COPY ) .... DO YOU REALISE RAYTHEON LIED IN A DEFENCE EXPO ....


I believe so called 'superior' western technologies would have shown itself to be far from such far more frequently had the opposition in most instances known what side of the weapon to point at the enemy. That is why i like the Serbian example showing what can be done if 1960's Russian technologies are operated within specifications.


MEANS RAYTHEON IS LIEING ON THE S-300 , S-300 IS NO COPY .... AS RAYTHEON TRIED TO LIE ON S-300 BEFORE ALSO AS PROVEN BY THE SOURCE AND EVEN JANES WAS FORCED TO ADMIT ...


They all lie and it's just a question of determining if their hyping the weapon or attempting to hide it's true capabilities.

Anyways thanks for the post 'comrade' and please stop revealing my 'true identity' in public!

As if i don't have enough trouble with those Americans who insist that anything to do with reality is Anti-American...

Stellar



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
the s-300, when tested, had a 100% sucess rate at interceptions of aircraft and missiles. the patriot had about an 87% or so sucess rate at interceptions of aircraft and missiles. the s-300 was purposly developed as an ant-aircraft, and anti-missile missile. the patriot was originaly deeloped as just an anti-aircraft missile and the had an electronics patch and a new fragmentation warhead developed so it could be used as an anti-missile missile. these developments were started after the release of the s-300. so i dont think that the s-300 is part patriot. its 100% russian! so there.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Can you define your post better?
The S-300, under state-run tests had a 100% test-rate.
Meanwhile the Patriot, in battle, or in testing, ha 87%?
Everyone always likes it when they have higher rates.

Also, I imagine a higher success rate, if true would come out of being a new system, regardless of the current upgrades for the Patriot.

You realize the S-300 utilizes fragmentation warheads as well?

'100% Russian' is a massive statement for a post entirely without evidence, and questionable clarity, though I respect your attempt at debate. Simply needs more supporting evidence.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by electrospere15
the s-300, when tested, had a 100% sucess rate at interceptions of aircraft and missiles.


Not true and i have not even seen a Russian defense source that claims as much.


the patriot had about an 87% or so sucess rate at interceptions of aircraft and missiles.


For most combat aircraft both the Patriot and S-300 have a 75-85% hit rate which is why these missiles are normally fired in pairs.


the s-300 was purposly developed as an ant-aircraft, and anti-missile missile.


It was primarily designed as a ABM weapon, in my opinion ( and so was the Sa-2 and Sa-5), and obviously such technology is not hard to deploy against conventional aircraft.


the patriot was originaly deeloped as just an anti-aircraft missile and the had an electronics patch and a new fragmentation warhead developed so it could be used as an anti-missile missile.


It always had anti ballistic missile capabilities ( most of them do ) and it's quite apparent that even the early patriot system were not ineffective in terms of getting the missile very close to the scuds... What it could not do was properly intercept at extended ranges or effective destroy the warheads as it quite evident on the numerous occasions where the patriot battery personal were 'showered' by scud fragments.



these developments were started after the release of the s-300. so i dont think that the s-300 is part patriot. its 100% russian! so there.


It's in my opinion quite clear that the United States armed forces had the same general ABM abilities in the early 60's and it was almost exclusively political intervention that prevented a effective US national ABM system from being deployed and maintained for very long. It is not well known that the US did in fact have a effective ABM in the 'Nike's'.

en.wikipedia.org...

So it's not like the US could not or did not but that politicians decided that it did not suit their interest to provide their country with passive defensive measures. It is after all hard to encourage your citizens to sponsor foreign adventures when they are confident that any enemy who dares attack might not only fail to do much damage but also suffer a overwhelming retaliatory attack. Just imagine what standing a country would gain when it deflects a nuclear strike by a enemy but are then able to dictate terms without needing to resort to mere vengeance.

A nation who wants to 'play' at world policemen but refuses to protect it's citizens at any and all cost is clearly not even interest in the welfare of it's own citizens.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

It's in my opinion quite clear that the United States armed forces had the same general ABM abilities in the early 60's and it was almost exclusively political intervention that prevented a effective US national ABM system from being deployed and maintained for very long. It is not well known that the US did in fact have a effective ABM in the 'Nike's'.

en.wikipedia.org...

So it's not like the US could not or did not but that politicians decided that it did not suit their interest to provide their country with passive defensive measures. It is after all hard to encourage your citizens to sponsor foreign adventures when they are confident that any enemy who dares attack might not only fail to do much damage but also suffer a overwhelming retaliatory attack. Just imagine what standing a country would gain when it deflects a nuclear strike by a enemy but are then able to dictate terms without needing to resort to mere vengeance.

A nation who wants to 'play' at world policemen but refuses to protect it's citizens at any and all cost is clearly not even interest in the welfare of it's own citizens.

Stellar


Stellar is pretty much in the X ring on this view. To my limited knowlege in this arena the concept of a missle hitting another missle is not new but was tried with some success in the 1960s. The System merely needed more refinement to make the hit probability higher.
New Hardware and eventually today..software has made this system more flexible and practical.

Also correct in that the limitations and motives for not developing and deploying such a system were mostly political not practical. This country was to be held hostage to its carefully cultivated fears just as is being done today. Nothing new or changed here. If Americans actually knew how superior militarily they were they wouldnt always be amenable to the next fear tactic/political tactic and realize they dont need all this hardware to protect someone elses investments. Many of these investments being by non Americans.
We are constantly being made to fight with kid gloves on and binding rules where these dont apply to our foes. Same limits in the political arena.

Stellar has target lock on and tracking here in their viewpoint.

Orangetom



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

It's in my opinion quite clear that the United States armed forces had the same general ABM abilities in the early 60's and it was almost exclusively political intervention that prevented a effective US national ABM system from being deployed and maintained for very long. It is not well known that the US did in fact have a effective ABM in the 'Nike's'.

en.wikipedia.org...

So it's not like the US could not or did not but that politicians decided that it did not suit their interest to provide their country with passive defensive measures. It is after all hard to encourage your citizens to sponsor foreign adventures when they are confident that any enemy who dares attack might not only fail to do much damage but also suffer a overwhelming retaliatory attack. Just imagine what standing a country would gain when it deflects a nuclear strike by a enemy but are then able to dictate terms without needing to resort to mere vengeance.

A nation who wants to 'play' at world policemen but refuses to protect it's citizens at any and all cost is clearly not even interest in the welfare of it's own citizens.

Stellar


Stellar is pretty much in the X ring on this view. To my limited knowlege in this arena the concept of a missle hitting another missle is not new but was tried with some success in the 1960s. The System merely needed more refinement to make the hit probability higher.
New Hardware and eventually today..software has made this system more flexible and practical.

Also correct in that the limitations and motives for not developing and deploying such a system were mostly political not practical. This country was to be held hostage to its carefully cultivated fears just as is being done today. Nothing new or changed here. If Americans actually knew how superior militarily they were they wouldnt always be amenable to the next fear tactic/political tactic and realize they dont need all this hardware to protect someone elses investments. Many of these investments being by non Americans.
We are constantly being made to fight with kid gloves on and binding rules where these dont apply to our foes. Same limits in the political arena.

Stellar has target lock on and tracking here in their viewpoint.

Orangetom



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Soviets scored quite good ABM stats already in the 60's,
using...you guessed it, frag warheads.
That was while US was still nuking own satellites.
It actually took russians to point out the possibility they could fire fake missiles without warheads, which would have to be countered with nukes over own territory, resulting fallout. Only then the research on those was abandoned.
I watched this document once about the treaty itself and reasons behind it , and the message about both countries ABM capabilities was about this:
"it took 30 years of delicate studies and examinations of S-300 systems (several!) to make the third generation patriot even comparable to russian AA systems and hit targets flying faster than 2500m/s(aka ABM warhead). And it will take another 20 years to counter latest modifications of russian ICBM Topol-M(variable flight path), by that time it is expected that russians will come up with new ideas"
The only reason russians signed the treaty was because of american MIRVs


What comes to copying tech, tsilkovsky came up with the rocket equation, korolyev designed and built first RAM engines and S-300 had frag warheads, I still dont see russians claiming "omfg all american missiles are copies of russian tech, no wait missiles rocket engines are, no no wait, PAC-3 frag warhead was copied from S-300! Just because my uncle drives a truck for the navy!" even with the fact that they indeed look and tick in a very much same way.

Why is it so hard for americans to admit, that they too, "copy" every fine and working idea they can. Stealth tech anyone?



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   
So from reading a bit I get the idea that so called "Stolen" tech that was made by Russians much better than the "Original" tech made by Americans? I find that funny...

So Russian S300 was made faster, cheaper, and better than the Patriot... then US buy's S300 to see how their tech was stolen and made work better?

So from all that... I get this... If you don’t know what to do then send it to Russians... they will do all the work and in the end you just buy back finished product... then beat your self in the chest and say something like " You damn Russkies... you stole our tech and made it better... how dare you!!!"



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Well the S-300 has never been used in combat, so anyone testifying to how good it is really has no idea. Enough said.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by rogue1
 


S300 has been tested same way Patriot has and has passed while Patriot flanked the test... you right enough said...

What about S400... copy of which US system??? What about the S500 that is being developed... copy? Any takers???

Let’s ask the engineer that said S300 is a copy... maybe he knows... it looks like instead of working on Patriot he just points fingers...





new topics
 
0
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join