Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

S400 Triumf SAM counterstealth?!?!?!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
i read some articles of the S400 and im shocked
www.enemyforces.com...
www.missilethreat.com...
there ALSO AMNY OTHER ARTICLES EARCH IT UP ON GOOGLW so wat do u guys think?

[edit on 19-3-2006 by urmomma158]




posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   


Lots of claims of being able to engage stealth aircraft from cell phone systems to the S-400. The proof is in the pudding. IMHO the stealth claims are nonesence untill proven otherwise.

However, the more signifigant aspect is its long range. It in thory could hold at risk AWACS planes close in or even the new ABL 747 in development which would have to be pretty close to the battlefield. However, I see no reason the ABL could defend its self using the laser against the inbound SAM



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
so ur sayin te ABl cant dfend itself i thought it could?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
so ur sayin te ABl cant dfend itself i thought it could?


I think he meant that the ABL could defend itself against the s400 but it came out wrong and ended up sounding like he was saying that it couldnt.

Justin



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
The ABL can defend itself, but it has to SEE the SAM, and it has to be at the right angle to HIT the SAM. Otherwise it's reduced to using chaff and flares like any other plane. And it's a BIG radar target. If they were to wait until it flew over, and launch an optically guided SAM at it, they would be in trouble.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Sorry my bad. Yes I was saying assuming that it can track the S400 it should be able to hit the missiles.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   
That these things with a grain of salt. Most of these claims are based on perfect conditions and does not reflect on "real" conditions.

The SA-6 to SA-10 probaly had a similar marketing and claims. What was the quote.

"if missiles makers claims were true then every airplane would have been shot down twice over" (?) something similar to that



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Stealth tech, even the one used in the f-22a is extremely simplistic.

All they had to find is a wave with properties of such that it did not get absorbed /scattered by the coating of the f-22a, b2, f117 and other stealth planes.

Extremely easy.

Now whats REALLY hard to detect is plasma stealth......especially if the target is far away.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak
Stealth tech, even the one used in the f-22a is extremely simplistic.

All they had to find is a wave with properties of such that it did not get absorbed /scattered by the coating of the f-22a, b2, f117 and other stealth planes.

Extremely easy.

Now whats REALLY hard to detect is plasma stealth......especially if the target is far away.


LOL, of course the US wouldn't have thought of this
Also it's not as simple as you seem to think it is. Using longer waves ( which are capable of detecting stealth )reduces the accuracy of the radar. BTW, coatings are only a percent of the stealth technology used


Once again another claim by the Russians which is completely unfounded - not surprising considering their history.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Once again another claim by the Russians which is completely unfounded - not surprising considering their history.


Are you historian? Are Russian History expert? Educated person will never make such a "clever" statement.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArcPeter

Originally posted by rogue1
Once again another claim by the Russians which is completely unfounded - not surprising considering their history.


Are you historian? Are Russian History expert? Educated person will never make such a "clever" statement.


Tut Tut, if you disagree with my statement prove it wrong. They make claims all the time about their military hardware which is unfounded. Chechnya prived alot of their new equipment which was supposd to be amongst the best, in fact was inferior.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
So all your knowledge in Russian History is ending on Chechnya?
War in Chechnya is Russian/Soviet Weapon against Russian/Soviet Weapon. And it is Modern History.

Btw Chechens were always known as fierce fighters.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArcPeter
So all your knowledge in Russian History is ending on Chechnya?
War in Chechnya is Russian/Soviet Weapon against Russian/Soviet Weapon. And it is Modern History.

Btw Chechens were always known as fierce fighters.


Just one example out of many. Surely it is relevant as the S-400 is part of modern history. I don't understand your point - or is this deliberately to sidetrack the thread ?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
My point is that only nuts are bashing entire nations in their posts.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
stealth aint easy or counter the F/A 22 and B 2 have been tested for a broad range of frequencies. and all tihs hype over long wave radar is total bs(ever ynation ahs it and its inaccurate for fire control ) thats what short wave radars are for. if my stealth plne was only designed to avoid detection by fire control radar it would still be sufficient even if u were loaded with long waves. plus rogue is right her claim is waht an educated person would say or a historian etc what you say is totally idiotic and fyi you semm to view the americans as stupid military.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArcPeter
My point is that only nuts are bashing entire nations in their posts.


Like wise only nuts insult other peoples opinions and evidence without any counter evidence.

Justin



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   


Like wise only nuts insult other peoples opinions and evidence without any counter evidence.


Absolutely. Or post opinion based on nothing.


[edit on 20-3-2006 by ArcPeter]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3

Originally posted by ArcPeter
My point is that only nuts are bashing entire nations in their posts.


Like wise only nuts insult other peoples opinions and evidence without any counter evidence.



Actually it's based on many facts - I just don't feel like posting an essay at the moment.
I haven't seen you give any examples of this vaunted Russian high-tech weapons industry - maybe because there isn't any.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
I just don't feel like posting an essay at the moment.


Your essay or a article?



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Im sure it can shoot down the F117 but more modern planes like the B2 and the F22 or JSF? I dont know.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution