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 ...
That was far below my standard and
another good reason why i should not post on days like those.... 
