S400 Triumf SAM counterstealth?!?!?!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
tomcat ha werent u the guy that got wrecked in a similar forum?? yes i rmemeber now it was "Rusian to Deploy S400 missile defenses". I just recently found that out.




posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Actually it's based on many facts - I just don't feel like posting an essay at the moment.


That is the lamest excuse ive ever heard.

Justin



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

That is the lamest excuse ive ever heard.


You haven't been on here long enough to know Rouge, and its not a lame excuse, some people actually have lives outside of ATS.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Actually it's based on many facts - I just don't feel like posting an essay at the moment.


And you have in fact never proven that you have that capacity; at least not in response to anything i said.
Why is that do you think?


I haven't seen you give any examples of this vaunted Russian high-tech weapons industry - maybe because there isn't any.


Well i believe you are partly right in that these weapons never live up to the hype. That being said the Russian high-tech weapon industry is clearly superior in some areas with strategic and tactical air defense clearly being one of them.

You well know where to find the evidence you so diligently avoid.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
Actually it's based on many facts - I just don't feel like posting an essay at the moment.


And you have in fact never proven that you have that capacity; at least not in response to anything i said.
Why is that do you think?


Hmm, stellar are you just going to follow me around the threads and post inane comments ? You are hardly contributing anything.
Stellar all you do is write one line then post external source after external source, no doubt trying to bore people to death. However as I've pointed out, when I can be bothered reading your sources half the time they don't even support what you say.
I think it's obvious that by following me around, you know this to be true and seek to insult me in other threads for the humiliation I've dealt out to your posts.



I haven't seen you give any examples of this vaunted Russian high-tech weapons industry - maybe because there isn't any.


Well i believe you are partly right in that these weapons never live up to the hype. That being said the Russian high-tech weapon industry is clearly superior in some areas with strategic and tactical air defense clearly being one of them.


Bollocks, I've already shown in other threads that they weren't nearly as advanced as you like to believe. You know stellar, repettition of fantasy does not make it become fact no matter how many times you say/post it


Where are the Russian test results against stealth aircraft of ICBM class ballistic targets
There aren't any just vague claims. The burden of proof is on the people who make these claims not me.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
You haven't been on here long enough to know Rouge, and its not a lame excuse, some people actually have lives outside of ATS.


Rogue said it as if he writes essays reguarly (which he doesn't). Even though i have been here shorter than you i have never seen a essay from rogue1.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Rogue said it as if he writes essays reguarly (which he doesn't). Even though i have been here shorter than you i have never seen a essay from rogue1.


Hmm don't know if your dull or what ..... You obviously completely missed the point. The point being that I know enough that I could very well write an essay. However I don't have the time or the motivation to do it. It would be wasted with the likes of you anyway


I hvae already posted here in breif, why the S-400 wouldn't be effective against stealth aircraft. Now are you going to post anything worth reading or keep on trolling ?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm, stellar are you just going to follow me around the threads and post inane comments ? You are hardly contributing anything.


Well i am not trying to contribute and at least i know that while you go around trying but never managing it.


Stellar all you do is write one line then post external source after external source, no doubt trying to bore people to death.


I source my claims ( and i plenty of comments) so that people may see where i am coming from instead of wasting people's time , like you do, with nonsensical opinions based on avoiding reality. I am sorry you hate people who source their claims when almost never can/will.


However as I've pointed out, when I can be bothered reading your sources half the time they don't even support what you say.


You never really dispute what they say either and if it was that easy you should try doing that more often.


I think it's obvious that by following me around, you know this to be true and seek to insult me in other threads for the humiliation I've dealt out to your posts.


I am commenting on your ignorant comments here since we had these discussions elsewhere. If you stuck around and admitted your errors ( or defended your point of view properly) there i would not be here telling you to act your age. Stop running away from the facts when they do not agree with the sources you never siting.


Bollocks, I've already shown in other threads that they weren't nearly as advanced as you like to believe.


No you have not. This is why i respond to your ignorance wherever i see it. You just run away when your opinions are tested and then go around spreading them around as if they were never contested. If you are not mature enough to defend your ideas stop spreading them around like their god's truth.


You know stellar, repettition of fantasy does not make it become fact no matter how many times you say/post it


And unless you prove it is in fact fantasy there is no reason to call it that. My sources are there for you to see and if you can not dispute them why not start considering what they have to say? Are you so stuck with your own ignorant concepts of how they world 'should' work that you have no interest in exploring other ideas?


Where are the Russian test results against stealth aircraft of ICBM class ballistic targets
There aren't any just vague claims. The burden of proof is on the people who make these claims not me.


I have supplied you with the links which you as always avoid without apparently losing any self respect. The burden of proof is with those who dispute sourced material Rogue. If you can not come up with at least something that indicates otherwise you have no business taking part in adult discussions.

Stop spreading your particular brand of ignorance around when you will not stick around to defend your views when they are contested. Just do the manly thing more often and we might even get along.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
And unless you prove it is in fact fantasy there is no reason to call it that. My sources are there for you to see and if you can not dispute them why not start considering what they have to say? Are you so stuck with your own ignorant concepts of how they world 'should' work that you have no interest in exploring other ideas?


I have already shown many of your sources to be grossly inaccurate on several occassions, but you keep on posting them no doubt hoping people will not read the whole thread. Quite frankly, no point arguing with a person who keeps his blinkers on all the time.



Where are the Russian test results against stealth aircraft of ICBM class ballistic targets
There aren't any just vague claims. The burden of proof is on the people who make these claims not me.


I have supplied you with the links which you as always avoid without apparently losing any self respect. The burden of proof is with those who dispute sourced material Rogue. If you can not come up with at least something that indicates otherwise you have no business taking part in adult discussions.


You hvaen't supplied jack
Whihc is why you still provide nothing which backs up your claims. Come on post a source telling us how the S-400 can shoot down stealth aircraft or a test against a stealth aircraft. Or how about where the S-400 has shot down a long range ballistic missile - SLBM.ICBM range not some short range Scud class weapon.

You haven't provided any information, because there is none, just empty claims. Come on where are all these sources you claim to have posted. Post them here. BLAH, I won't hold my breath.



Stop spreading your particular brand of ignorance around when you will not stick around to defend your views when they are contested. Just do the manly thing more often and we might even get along.


Hmm, quite laughable, I defend my views all the time, even in teh face of your monotonous repetition. Quite frankly you're hardly a worthy challenge and I tire of you quickly.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
of course the US wouldn't have thought of this


Presicely.

All Lockheed wants to do is make money. Whether the product delivers the promise or not is unimportant.


Originally posted by rogue1Also 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


I said nothing specific about the length of ways, it's a whole combination of things.

Have a look at what this guy knows.
en.wikipedia.org...:F-22_Raptor#Stealth_System

The stealth of the F-22 is extremely easy to detect if you know how. Unfortunately the people who should care don't, because they are getting paid off.

This is the biggest problem in USA, complete privitization of military forces, bribery and inefficiency.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak

Have a look at what this guy knows.
en.wikipedia.org...:F-22_Raptor#Stealth_System

The stealth of the F-22 is extremely easy to detect if you know how. Unfortunately the people who should care don't, because they are getting paid off.


Well that guy makes all sorts of claims, some I find quite bizarre.


But dont think the F/A-22 is invincible because its far from. Ive already discovered and developed a radar system that can show an F/A-22, a F-117, and a B-2 bomber at there full size. it works with a frequency that can not be altered by an antenna actualy this frequency is in the catogory of microwaves and burned a hole in my wall when i first tested it. Plus i developed a pistol that would shut down any plane with an E.M.P and then magnetize a steel projectile that is flung at the craft, it is magnetized to a certain degree where it will "seek" a fighters engine and go down the shaft. When i tested this I made a mini without a projectile and it shut down my computer for about a week and erased all my info, luckily i had a paper copy of the stuff. Another side effect of the E.M.P is that it infected my computer with a virus, which was not fun when it finally turned back on. I've figured out a lot more than this but if I told the FBI and the Air Force would be pretty mad. So dont think ive told you everything and go do something like try to shoot an F/A-22 down cause I wouldnt give that info out on the internet unless I was paid to. Daniel Glisson

en.wikipedia.org...:F-22_Raptor#Stealth_System


This guy really sounds full of s**t. What's all this crapola about a virus being introduced to his computer because he used some type of EMP weapon he made on it

Come on Manincloak, you need a more reputable source than this big noting weirdo.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   
I think that until Stealth aircraft are being shot down regularly I will take such claims lightly. The S-400 is a superb weapon, but so is the latest in US tech which is specifically designed to deal with such systems, and the US has proven to be at least equal in dealing with the current threat. It would be naive to assume either invincible, and anything more than that is just nationalistic pride, so lets just drop trau, and see who's is bigger and get it over with.


[edit on 26-3-2006 by Sandman11]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm don't know if your dull or what ..... You obviously completely missed the point. The point being that I know enough that I could very well write an essay. However I don't have the time or the motivation to do it. It would be wasted with the likes of you anyway


Since i was the one that brought up the whole issue i think i know what my point was. I doubt you could even write half a essay without the usual double posting of information or without quoting large amounts of articles. You never have and i doubt you ever will


I hvae already posted here in breif, why the S-400 wouldn't be effective against stealth aircraft.


....Did you?. I went over your four brief (very brief) and nothing about how the S-400 wouldn't be effective againest stealth fighters.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman11
The S-400 is a superb weapon, but so is the latest in US tech which is specifically designed to deal with such system


That's the problem...it's not.

The S-400 was released last year, the stealth for the raptor was finished ages ago.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak

Originally posted by Sandman11
The S-400 is a superb weapon, but so is the latest in US tech which is specifically designed to deal with such system


That's the problem...it's not.

The S-400 was released last year, the stealth for the raptor was finished ages ago.


that's has nothing to do with who's going to dfeat who. The first production raptor was finished in 1997. The prototype was finished in 1991. The concept is simply old not the plane design. Besides the S400 was supposed to ome out 4 or 5 years ago. Besides read my last post the raptor was made with sophisticated air defences in mind. Your mind seems one dimensional to me thinking waht you want i just posted 2 links read and go over it then we'll talk. Plus dont forget my third link about the US's anti stealth radar an/SPY 3.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
I have already shown many of your sources to be grossly inaccurate on several occassions,


You have suggested that they are inaccurate but you never stuck around to defending the claims made by the source after i explain why their wrong to make the claims they did. If you will not stand by your sources and defend their claims what's the point of using them as sources? Is it that you do not know enough about the topic to defend the claims after i addressed them or are you just not really interested in standing by your claims? Your free to list whatever claims i made that was false so i can address them here as best i can. You can not just keep making claims and expect to get away with them.


but you keep on posting them no doubt hoping people will not read the whole thread. Quite frankly, no point arguing with a person who keeps his blinkers on all the time.


I keep on posting them as i keep on investing time in defending them against the claims you make. If you are not willing to support your sources where they logically lead ( dead end's and blatent lies according to the evidence i normally present) why should i respect your attempts at all?


You hvaen't supplied jack
Whihc is why you still provide nothing which backs up your claims.


I ALWAYS source my claims and if you avoid reading them that does not mean they were not supplied. Stop pretending i don't do my part when you almost never do yours; the hypocricy will get you.


Come on post a source telling us how the S-400 can shoot down stealth aircraft or a test against a stealth aircraft.


Well here are some i have on wordpad. If they don't work for you i can find some more detail in bookmarks.


The S-400 system is intended to engage current and future air threats such as tactical and strategic aircraft, Tomahawk cruise missiles and other type missiles, including precision-guided ones, as well as AWACS aircraft, at ranges of up to 400 km. It can also detect stealth aircraft and other targets at all altitudes of their combat employment and at maximum ranges.

warfare.ru...



The Antey-2500 is designed to combat aircraft and tactical missiles, including ballistic missiles with a launch range of up to 2,500 kilometers. The Antey-2500 mobile complex, developed on the basis of the well-known S-300V [SA-12] air defense complex, is a new-generation system, capable of autonomous combat action. It can simultaneously engage 24 aerodynamic targets, including stealth targets, or 16 ballistic targets with a RCS of up to 0.02 meters, flying at speeds of up to 4,500 m/s. Improved characteristics of the radar information facilities and optimization of radar signal processing technics make it possible to combat high-speed ballistic targets with a small radar cross section. Antey-2500 can effectively protect an area of up to 2,500 sq. km and engage targets at altitudes of 25 to 40,000 m.

www.globalsecurity.org...



In 1999 trials began at the test range of a new surface-to-air missile, the S-400 Triumf. This fourth generation system used S-300 missiles, but possessed capabilities against low RCS stealth aircraft, small cruise missiles, and future low-RCS re-entry vehicles. The electronics were on a completely new technical basis and used new solutions to the detection, tracking, and guidance problems. The system actually represented a bigger step from third generation systems (S-300PMU, S-300PMU-1, S-300PMU-2) than third generation systems represented to first generation systems.

www.astronautix.com...



Russia has developed a new anti-aircraft defense system capable of hitting targets up to 250 miles away and engaging stealth aircraft, according to a report.

The journal Military Parade, a respected source on the Russian military, provided details of the new S-400 system of missiles and radar, saying it could hit advanced warplanes and cruise missiles. It can also engage and shoot down stealth aircraft, built to avoid normal radar detection, the report said.

The system, named Triumph, is also capable of hitting radar reconnaissance airplanes at extended range, including the AWACS airborne command system used by the United States and NATO, the journal said.

www.gbad.org...



Conversely, stealthy—and very fast—aircraft such as the F/A-22 will be able to penetrate defenses and attack their targets before the enemy has time to defend himself or escape.
Even after they were overtaken long ago by events, old notions of air warfare persist, Lewis continued. He noted that, in Vietnam, the thinking was that a pilot who actually saw a SAM fired at him could probably outmaneuver it.

That’s not true anymore, Lewis said, noting that modern SAMs are faster, longer ranged, and dramatically more agile than their 1970s-era forebears.
In Iraq, Lewis noted, well-known examples of fratricide saw Navy and British fighters inadvertently targeted by the Army Patriot system. “The pilots knew what was going on, and they did everything they could to defend themselves.” Lewis said. “They still got shot down.”

The Patriot is comparable to the S-400 system now being sold by Russia, with double the range. A single S-400 battalion—eight launchers and 32 missiles—can be bought for $1 billion, Lewis said. This threat would pose an extremely difficult challenge for the fourth generation fighters that make up most of today’s Air Force.

www.afa.org...



The S-300 grouping features several different types of missiles built to strike at everything from low-flying drones and stealth cruise missiles to high-altitude reconnaissance airplanes and distant sensor platforms. Arrival of these systems in the arsenals of military foes will greatly complicate US operations, which continue to depend heavily on nonstealthy aircraft and will for years to come.

Gen. Richard E. Hawley, the now-retired former commander of USAF's Air Combat Command, told an AFA symposium in February that these new SAMs, if deployed in numbers large enough to create overlapping zones of engagement, would figuratively present "a brick wall" to nonstealthy fighters,

www.afa.org...



Or how about where the S-400 has shot down a long range ballistic missile - SLBM.ICBM range not some short range Scud class weapon.


Well it's just a upgraded S-300 ( again; isn't everything) so there ain't no issue.


Improvements i n air defense missile guidance threaten to blur
is the development of the SA-12b Giant air defense, possibly intended for point defense
of mobile ICBM launchers.
the distinction between missiles capable of intercepting aircraft and tactical c r u i s e
missiles, and those capable of intercepting some strategic ballistic missiles, thus
making the ABM Treaty "increasingly irrelevant" (Jane's Defence Weekly 8 Aug 87, p. 226).

www.oism.org...



The S-300PMU2 Favorit variant is a new missile with larger warhead and better guidance with a range of 200 km, versus the 150 km of previous versions. Unveiled at the MAKS'97 exhibition in August 1997, it represents a thorough modification of the S-300PMU1. The first tests were performed on 10 August 1995 at the Kapustin Yar firing range. One new element is the entirely new 96L6E autonomous mobile radar, which works in conjunction with the 83M6E2 control post and S-300MPU2 launchers. The new 48N6E2 missile, developed by MKB Fakel, weighs 1,800 kg, and is 7.5 m long and 0.5 m in diameter. After a cold start in the upright position with help of a catapult, the 48N6E2 accelerates up to 1,900 m/s in 12 sec time, and then approaches the target from above. The 48N6E2 differs from the older 48N6E in having a new warhead specially designed for destroying ballistic missiles, with a warhead weight of 145 kg versus 70-100 kg.

www.fas.org...



Russia inherited most of the Soviet empire's illegal national ABM defenses. Although the Hen Houses and LPARs located in the successor states created significant gaps in coverage, Russia still controls 12 or 13 of those radars. Consequently, SAM/ABMs still defend most of the Russian Federation from U.S. ICBMs, much of the SLBM threat, and Chinese missiles. Scheduled completion of the LPAR in Belorus will restore complete threat coverage, except for the gap left by the dismantled Krasnoyarsk LPAR. Granted, the Hen Houses are old, but the United States has been operating similar radars for 40 years.

Despite its economic difficulties, Russia continued development and production of the SA-10, adding (in 1992-1993 and 1997) two models with new missiles and electronics and replacing more than 1000 SA-5 missiles with late model SA-10s having greatly improved performance against ballistic missiles of all ranges. Russia is protected by as at least as many (about 8500) SAM/ABMs as in 1991, and they are more effective. No wonder Russia shows little concern for its proliferation of missile and nuclear technology.

Even more impressively, Russia has begun flight-testing the fourth generation "S-400" ("Triumph") SAM/ABM designed not only to end the "absolute superiority" of air assault demonstrated by the United States in the 1992 Gulf War and the 1999 Kosovo operation, but also to improve Russia's illegal ABM defenses against strategic ballistic missiles. The S-400 is scheduled to begin deployment in 2000, more testimony to Russia's commitment to maintaining its national ABM defenses in violation of the ABM Treaty.

www.security-policy.org...



The Antey-2500 is designed to combat aircraft and tactical missiles, including ballistic missiles with a launch range of up to 2,500 kilometers. The Antey-2500 mobile complex, developed on the basis of the well-known S-300V [SA-12] air defense complex, is a new-generation system, capable of autonomous combat action. It can simultaneously engage 24 aerodynamic targets, including stealth targets, or 16 ballistic targets with a RCS of up to 0.02 meters, flying at speeds of up to 4,500 m/s. Improved characteristics of the radar information facilities and optimization of radar signal processing technics make it possible to combat high-speed ballistic targets with a small radar cross section. Antey-2500 can effectively protect an area of up to 2,500 sq. km and engage targets at altitudes of 25 to 40,000 m.

www.globalsecurity.org...



In 1997, the Russians unveiled yet another variant of the system, this time called S-300PMU-2 (SA-10E Favorit). Its larger missiles (9M96E and 9M96E2), longer range (200 kilometers), and better guidance system make the S-300PMU-2 a thorough modification of its predecessor. The system can engage targets between 10 meters and 27 kilometers above the ground.(7) The Russians claim that, during a series of tests in the mid-1990s, the S-300PMU-2 shot down a target ballistic missile traveling at 1,600 meters per second, and that the system can destroy targets traveling at 4,800 meters per second.(8) The Russians add that the system has a kill ratio between 0.8 and 0.98 against Tomahawk-class cruise missiles and from 0.8 to 0.93 against aircraft.(9)

www.missilethreat.com...



"Full antimissile defence the length of the perimeter of the borders
of Europe and Russia is not planned," Ivashov said. "It is intended to
concentrate all that we already have, coordinating ABM systems, obtaining
opportunities to destroy ballistic missiles and opportunities in the
command structure, and directing those opportunities in directions
presenting a missile danger."

He said that the systems should cover peacekeeping contingents, and
the civilian population and civilian facilities as well as military
facilities, damage to which could cause significant harm to civilians.

The Russian side has no doubt that "NATO members will not start
purchasing Russian ABM systems on a large scale, like the modernized
S-300PMU or the new S-400, which can effectively combat ballistic
missiles, although NATO's European members do not have systems like
these", Ivashov said. Moscow does not in any case intend to extend its
missile technology to NATO countries, and Sergeyev said this frankly in
Brussels a few days ago.

www.fas.org...



The missile had to have minimal reaction time, improved military utility, minimum time to target, ease of manufacture, and operate under a wider range of climatic conditions. The production missile had to be a 'certified round' - have a guaranteed reliability throughout its lifetime. The result was the TPK combined launch and transport container. This container was never opened between the time it left the factory and the launch of the missile inside. The vertical launch technique adopted used a catapult accelerator within the container to pop the missile to an altitude 20 m above the launcher, where the main motor ignited. The 4M330 featured the world's first gas-dynamic steering system, allowing quick manoeuvrability when homing in on the target.

And:

In 1995 MKB Fakel developed a new 48N6E2 missile for the S-300PMU system, the Favorit. This had a capability against medium range ballistic missiles, incorporating lessons learened from Scud attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War. In that war the surface-to-air missiles would successfully intercept the incoming rockets but the incoming warheads would still get through. Favorit was tested against a series of Scud launches at Kapustin Yar and succeeded in destroying every warhead. As with other modern Russian surface-to-air missiles, the Favorit is launched verticallly, and only in the air after clearing the launcher does it pitch over in the direction of the target. This technique proved of great interest to other surface-to-air missile developers, notably France.

And:

In 1999 MKB Fakel announced development of new rocket versions 9M96E and 9M96E2. Development of these new missiles had begun in the 1980's. The missiles had, respectively, masses of 330 and 420 kg, ranges of from 1 to 40 and 1 to 120 km, and altitude capabilities of from 5 to 20 and 5 to 30 km. Both were ejected by a cold gas cartridge from vertical container-launchers, the motor igniting 30 m in the air above the container. They were equipped with self-contained inertial guidance with updates from the ground, and used gas dynamic steering. Near the target they were capable of what the Russians called 'hyper-manoeuvring', being able to turn 20 degrees in 0.025 seconds. Trials showed the missiles had a 70% kill rate in intercepts of tactical missile re-entry vehicle's, with miss distances of a few metres. This extreme accuracy allowed a light (24 kg) warhead to be carried. The mobile launcher carried four rocket containers. In the S-300PMU-1 variant, launchers for the 5V55R, 48n6Ye, or 48N6Ye2 rockets could be mounted interchangeably on a single vehicle. By the time the latest version went into production, MKB Fakel had produced over 16 basic types of surface-to-air missile, 30 modernisations of these basic versions, and exported missiles to over 50 countries.

www.astronautix.com...



Correspondent] The upgraded S-300 can hit a warhead even in space. This is exactly what the Americans are dreaming of when they speak about the ABM system. As soon as it is known about the launch of a combat missile, its trajectory is calculated immediately and air defence experts begin acting. There are just 7-10 seconds to locate a target, acquire it and launch an interception missile. They have done it.

www.missilethreat.com...



Over the past decade, Russia has deployed thousands of S-300V and Antey-2500 missiles around its key military and industrial complexes. In addition, it has exported these systems throughout Asia, Europe, and the Middle East as a means of financing its ailing economy in the wake of the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse. According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, “in the worldwide competition to sell ballistic missile defense systems, the Russian Antey Corp.’s S-300V is a main contender.”(8) The advantage for buyers of Russian surface-to-air missiles is that, unlike buying from the U.S., there are no political strings attached and, more often than not, the weapons are significantly cheaper than their U.S. counterparts

www.missilethreat.com...


-------------------


Throughout the Kosovo War air campaign the major Russian missile manufacturer Almaz Central Design Burueau was quietly putting the finishing touches to a new family of highly effective S-300 and S-400 surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems. Destined to become widespread both inside and outside Russia, the presence of these missiles will "create major problems for [air strike] planners for years to come", and their significance has been greatly underestimated by Defence Ministers worldwide. This warning is made by Editors Chris Foss and Tony Cullen in the foreword of the forthcoming authoritative publication Jane's Land-Based Air Defence 2000-1 Edition.

www.janes.com...



MOSCOW, May 5 (Itar-Tass) - The new Russian air defence S-400 Triumf system is capable of hitting radar reconnaissance and AWACS planes, which raises considerably its competitiveness on the world arms market, says the article "Triumf is put on alert", published in the May issue of the Voenny Parad journal which is now being put on sale and is distributed among subscribers. The S-400 is designed to hit modern and future attack aircraft at a distance of 400 km: tactical and strategic aviation jets, cruises of the Tomahawk type and other missiles", the article notes. Triumf successfully fights air targets, manufactured with the use of "stealth" technology at all altitudes of their combat operation and at maximum distances.

www.fas.org...



*The Moscow-system missiles, the SA-5 and SA-10/12, were tipped with small nuclear warheads so they didn't require the incredible bullet-hitting-bullet complexity of the U.S. systems developed during the Clinton years. U.S. spy satellites repeatedly identified tactical nuclear-warhead storage sites at the interceptor bases spread across the Soviet empire.

* G.V. Kisun'ko, the chief designer of the ABM systems developed or deployed around Moscow for more than three decades, confirms in a 1996 memoir that large Hen House and Dog House radars at Sary Shagan were designed as battle-management radars for the early Soviet ABM system for the defense of Moscow. Kisun'ko also stated that the SA-5 was designed as a dual-purpose SAM/ABM in conjunction with the Hen House radars.

* B.V. Bunkin, the designer of the follow-on SA-10 and SA-12 (S-300 PMU and S-300V in Russian nomenclature) missile systems, and several other Russian sources, confirmed that these also were dual-purpose SAM/ABMs. SA-10s largely have replaced the thousands of SA-5 interceptors deployed across the Soviet empire during the Cold War. Bunkin's latest SAM/ABM design, the SA-20, is scheduled to begin deployment this year.

www.findarticles.com...



The S-300P is a highly effective SAM that first entered service with the former Soviet Union in 1980. Capable of engagements at short and long range and from low up to high altitude the S-300PMU, especially with later variants, effectively replaces the earlier SA-1/2/3/4/5 systems. As well as being used against aircraft the S-300 and variants are capable against cruise missiles and some varieties of ballistic missiles. In Soviet service many S-300PMU units were deployed to defend Moscow and other key sites. Other units were deployed at the Army or Front level in anti aircraft regiments. An S-300P battery may field up to 12 TELs each with 4 missiles mounted in container-launchers. A battery also has a command post, 76N6 Clam Shell 3D target acquisition radar and a 30N6 Flap Lid A I-band phased array radar (PAR) for fire control. A regiment comprises three such batteries and also employs the 36D6 Tin Shield long-range surveillance radar or with later versions the 64N6E Big Bird long range F-band 3D surveillance PAR

www.harpoonhq.com...



You haven't provided any information, because there is none, just empty claims. Come on where are all these sources you claim to have posted. Post them here. BLAH, I won't hold my breath.


I always provide plenty of information, as i just did AGAIN, which might or might not be true depending on which source lies about what. I am not here to vouch for all the claims but just to point out what sort of claims are being made by who on what basis. Why do you keep pretending i do not source my claims when i do so EVERY damn time? Who do you think your fooling? If you want to argue the claims made then DO SO but stop making it my responsibility to prove something which is NOT even disputed when you rarely contribute anything, and almost never anything positive, in response.


Hmm, quite laughable, I defend my views all the time, even in teh face of your monotonous repetition. Quite frankly you're hardly a worthy challenge and I tire of you quickly.


You sometimes TRY, yes. I repeat what i said as you frequently avoid the parts of the information you are not able to 'deal with' ( dismiss on some foolish uninformed pretense) hoping i will not bring it up again. I infrequently bring it up again as my mission is not to insist on every point but to address whatever claims remains. You not only abuse my kindness but want to profit from it? You have no shame.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
^^^^^^

Once again, none of your sources state any successful test against stealth aircraft or ICBM/SLBM ballistic targets. There are plenty of claims but no proof whatsoever, that they are actually capable of what they say.
Where is the evidence, the test results



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
^^^^^^
Once again, none of your sources state any successful test against stealth aircraft or ICBM/SLBM ballistic targets.


Then your not reading the sources and i suggest you try again till you figure it out. This is why responding to you is POINTLESS beyond measure. You clearly have NO interest in the facts, whatever they may be. This is not about discovery but about sticking to whatever opinion you had the very first day you denied Russian dual use ABM/Sam's. How long are you going to run on pure pride scared that admitting even one mistake might damage your 'credibility' ( you have non left with me anyways) beyond repair. You make a mockery of discussion and anything relating to learning something new that HAPPENED to be against your preconceived notions.


There are plenty of claims but no proof whatsoever, that they are actually capable of what they say.
Where is the evidence, the test results


And the F-22 and all the other stealth planes have been tested against this when? Should we dismiss all the F-22 claims based on the same logic? You asked where i got my information from and i provided you with some of the sources. What is your problem?

Stop hating the messenger, 'man'.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
^^^^^^
Once again, none of your sources state any successful test against stealth aircraft or ICBM/SLBM ballistic targets.


Then your not reading the sources and i suggest you try again till you figure it out. This is why responding to you is POINTLESS beyond measure. You clearly have NO interest in the facts, whatever they may be. This is not about discovery but about sticking to whatever opinion you had the very first day you denied Russian dual use ABM/Sam's. How long are you going to run on pure pride scared that admitting even one mistake might damage your 'credibility' ( you have non left with me anyways) beyond repair. You make a mockery of discussion and anything relating to learning something new that HAPPENED to be against your preconceived notions.


I have made no mistakes, nowhere have you provided any information that these missiles can shoot down ICBM/SLBM reentry vehicles - NOWHERE. UNtil you provide the information you're just making outlandish claims. Show me some test information not juist speculation.

The S-300 by your own sources has only been tested against a target travelling at 1600m/s an ICBM RV has a speed of 7000m/s. Do you understand the difference ?



There are plenty of claims but no proof whatsoever, that they are actually capable of what they say.
Where is the evidence, the test results


And the F-22 and all the other stealth planes have been tested against this when? Should we dismiss all the F-22 claims based on the same logic? You asked where i got my information from and i provided you with some of the sources. What is your problem?


Well, the US have been able to aquire certain S-300 missile systems and have been able to do some testing. The Russians on the other hand have not been able to get their hands on an F-22 much less a B-2.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
By the way Stellar the Us always gets in hands on russian gear. Mig 29's are f

flying over Area 51 as well as other russian aircraft and equipment not to

mention radars. I wouldnt be surprised if they had a Triumf in their hangars for

testing. Stellar your logic " o well you havent done F/A 22 vs S 400 you dont

know if it could shoot it Down or not". since it hasnt been tested on the US's

stealth aircraft it has noc apability against them again i repeat if it hasnt been

tested against them how is it going to do it?!?!/ answer that one . so

according to th e raptor's tech its raptor>S 400. The raptor is better while the

S400 is overhyped.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join