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.

 

Best SAM system

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   
ASRAD-R

High mobility, can be mounted on just about any vehicle (up from Unimog)
Can fire at all targets, inluding armoured vehicles, if a need arises.



• 3D surveillance search and acquisition radar
• Automatic functions from target detection to missile tracking
• Remotely-controlled sensor and weapon platform
• Line-of-Sight guidance, unjammable laser beam riding missile

ASRAD-R is an all-target missile system with high precision at long ranges down to ground level, for self defence also against armoured ground targets, well suited for protection of mobile units and defence of vital objects.

The BOLIDE missile for ASRAD-R utilises the unique and unjammable laser beam guidance of the RBS 70 and provides an intercept range of 8 km. With the BOLIDE missile, the ASRAD-R has an all-target capability, including small targets such as cruise missiles and UAVs.

The ASRAD-R weapon system comprises a stabilised air defence platform for integration on vehicles, containerised or pallet mounted, and a weapon control unit for remote control up to 100 m from the platform.



This is just grunts opinion since these will be protecting me and not some fighter jockeys on a coffee break 100km behind the front


[edit on 18-7-2006 by northwolf]




posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Patriot can not intercept SCUDs, and can not intercept Katushas. S-300 can. That's why Israelis developed their own "Arrow", which I vote after S-400 btw.

By mobility I meant the ability to move on own power. Tends to be rather important when mobilising.


Umm… where are you getting that from? The PAC-3 and upgraded PAC-2 systems are very capable of intercepting TBM’s such as SCUD’s, numerous tests and actual combat have shown that. Also, since the PAC-3 is a dual Anti-Missile/Anti-Aircraft system it’s capable of intercepting cruise missiles/TBM/aircraft and other surface to surface missiles. In 91 the Patriots stationed in Israel/Saudi Arabia were able to hit SCUD’s and did so on several occasions, sure the hit rate wasn’t as high as previously thought (complicated issue if you want to get into it) and there were several glitches, but as another member said they were corrected in the subsequent years. And also, the mobility thing, correct me if I’m wrong but the Patriot is an area defense system; it wasn’t primarily designed to rapidly move day to day with the troops, other systems in the US inventory provide that capability.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
When ever you guys are said and done, you are giving nothing but your opinions.

Each was made for a tactical purpose, making them all different.

The only way to see which is the best, is bye real war. If A hundred planes fly over a battery of each kind... How many planes where shot down bye each???

Then you will find the best.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

In 91 the Patriots stationed in Israel/Saudi Arabia were able to hit SCUD’s and did so on several occasions, sure the hit rate wasn't as high as previously thought (complicated issue if you want to get into it) and there were several glitches, but as another member said they were corrected in the subsequent years.


WestPoint23, I don't want a flame war, I just go by the facts.

Patriot required homing beacons mounted on targets to pull it through testing.

System clock sync and com latency were not the only major problems.

If AFOSI had to be involved in investigations it's not just a matter of software "glitches".

If Patriot did successfully intercepted SCUDs, then considering the very rocky grounds the program was already on, the track/intercept data would have been undisclosed not only to the everybody on the hill, but also made public in order to smooth over the incredibly bad PR the project was getting through out its development.

It's just how it works. If you have actual sources listing battery specific track/intercept data confirming SCUD intercept, then I'm in the wrong, but as far as I know there is no such data in existence, and supposedly successful intercepts are only "verbally" confirmed.

If Patriot performed as advertised, Israelis would not have a dire need to heavily invest into their own Arrow project.

You see, Israelis actually get shot at, and when stuff doesn't work, the go by "if you want it done right, do it your self" philosophy, and Patriot is one of those "do it your self" categories.

For years now Palestinians have been firing Katusha rockets into Israeli, in the areas protected by Patriot batteries. Even now, when you turn on CNN you'll see Patriots stationed all over the place, yet to this day, Israelis have not confirmed a SINGLE successful intercept, out of literally thousands of rockets launched.

At the same time, Israelis clearly didn't give a crap why exactly Patriot failed to hit free falling debris from SCUDs that broke up. They simply needed a system that works, so they built their own, and no amount of politics of "favorable" business deals matter when you got metal raining on your head.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
There is a big difference between intercepting a rocket and intercepting a scud. And why did the SCUDs break up?

Yep, you're not going to find anything other than verbal or video footage of intercepts. Because it is classified. By the same token, let's see some telemetry data on the Arrow system. Same burden of proof exists for that system as does for Patriot.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   


I agree, an excellent land based system.


Doh!

Sorry, missed that in the original post



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Yep, you're not going to find anything other than verbal or video footage of intercepts. Because it is classified. By the same token, let's see some telemetry data on the Arrow system. Same burden of proof exists for that system as does for Patriot.


Rubbish. On every arms trade expo, every major system exporter openly advertises every capability aspect of their systems.

If you are attempting to state that Patriot capabilities are classified when it's sold on open market, while other SAM systems capabilities are clearly advertised, it only means that you never even held an arms trade expo pamphlet.

As far as I know Patriot is not capable of double hit intercept.

Depending of target type/priority and its penetration depth into the defense grid, a single hit on a cruise/anti-ship missile might not be sufficient to neutralise the threat.

Shrap/debris from successfully intercepted cruise missile might still destroy/damage soft targets and kill/wound personnel. In order to assure target neutralisation, a secondary detonation is used to disperse the shrap/debris cloud.

Arrow, S-300, BUK, TOR, etc, do, as I'm sure most other modern SAMs simply advertise such capability and back it up not only with telemetry but actual test intercept videos.

A ton of such videos are floating around the internet, look into it and then tell me about "classified" Patriot capabilities.


S-400 - #1
Arrow - #2

BUK
TOR-1M

It's how it is.l



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   


Rubbish. On every arms trade expo, every major system exporter openly advertises every capability aspect of their systems.


If you believe this, then you know less than I thought about air defence systems. Arms shows advertise some capabilities, with (depending on country) inflated or deflated figures. Having attended over 100 arms shows as part of my job, and having worked on tender evaluations on the operational capabilities of air defence systems, I'm pretty confident I know what I'm talking about.




If you are attempting to state that Patriot capabilities are classified when it's sold on open market, while other SAM systems capabilities are clearly advertised, it only means that you never even held an arms trade expo pamphlet.


Ok, see comment above. I'll give you some more info though. Until you sign a non-disclosure agreement with the manufacture, and as long as the system isn't subject to export control restrictions, and until you provide some money and select the system as the winner of a competitive tender, you will not get accurate performance data. Which is smart security (and competitive) sense. This is why there is so much angst about JSF and technology transfer. It is a standard thing for weapon systems these days.




As far as I know Patriot is not capable of double hit intercept.


And as far as I know, having worked operationally with the system, it can.




Arrow, S-300, BUK, TOR, etc, do, as I'm sure most other modern SAMs simply advertise such capability and back it up not only with telemetry but actual test intercept videos.


Once again, show me the telemetry data. And I'm not talking launch times and dates, I'm talking speed, LATAX, roll, guidance effectiveness, fusing logic and time, countermeasure algorithm effectiveness, time to impact, etc. Can't find any on the net? Hmm, funny that, because if you could find it, you could build a defeat to the system. Gucci videos with pumping soundtracks do nothing other than impress wanna-be's who know jack all about air defence systems. Operational effectiveness and the classified capabilities are what is important. Everything else is just chaff.





A ton of such videos are floating around the internet, look into it and then tell me about "classified" Patriot capabilities.


As keen as I am to serve time in prison, I'm not telling you anything classified. Why videos correlate with classified material has me stumped anyway. For what it's worth, here's some UNCLAS info (which talks about the anti-missile capabilities of the system, backing up what has been said by a few of us already).

Patriot System Performance




It's how it is


Then nothing I say is going to change your mind. But don't come in here and start calling my posts "rubbish" when you do nothing to either back up your point of view, or add to the discussion in a meaningful way. As you've obviously read a lot of shiny pamphlets at various arms shows, you should have a wealth of information to provide. At least try to add some value to the thread by providing content, not just wild claims.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   

If you believe this, then you know less than I thought about air defence systems. Arms shows advertise some capabilities, with (depending on country) inflated or deflated figures. Having attended over 100 arms shows as part of my job, and having worked on tender evaluations on the operational capabilities of air defence systems, I'm pretty confident I know what I'm talking about.


I see. I'm not into chest pounding, and instead of dropping big names everybody knows, all I'll say is that one of the clients I personally worked with was a relatively small company called Space Vector, right here in Chatsworth. They too do some shows, you know.

Chatsworth, Northridge, Woodland Hills, that general area. How are you.


Ok, see comment above. I'll give you some more info though. Until you sign a non-disclosure agreement with the manufacture, and as long as the system isn't subject to export control restrictions, and until you provide some money and select the system as the winner of a competitive tender, you will not get accurate performance data. Which is smart security (and competitive) sense. This is why there is so much angst about JSF and technology transfer. It is a standard thing for weapon systems these days.


See above.



And as far as I know, having worked operationally with the system, it can.


Sure, only salvo sequence is just a "tad" different from a "mop-up". Keep going.



Once again, show me the telemetry data. And I'm not talking launch times and dates, I'm talking speed, LATAX, roll, guidance effectiveness, fusing logic and time, countermeasure algorithm effectiveness, time to impact, etc. Can't find any on the net? Hmm, funny that, because if you could find it, you could build a defeat to the system. Gucci videos with pumping soundtracks do nothing other than impress wanna-be's who know jack all about air defence systems. Operational effectiveness and the classified capabilities are what is important. Everything else is just chaff.


So what you're saying is that you don't have a subscription, right? I though you said you were in the industry.


As keen as I am to serve time in prison, I'm not telling you anything classified. Why videos correlate with classified material has me stumped anyway. For what it's worth, here's some UNCLAS info (which talks about the anti-missile capabilities of the system, backing up what has been said by a few of us already).


I take it you completely missed the whole AFOSI investigation into that hacking deal, you know, the one that pumped out everything there is to know about the Patriot. The cat is out of the bag, so I don't know man, it was a kind of a big deal in the community.


Then nothing I say is going to change your mind. But don't come in here and start calling my posts "rubbish" when you do nothing to either back up your point of view, or add to the discussion in a meaningful way. As you've obviously read a lot of shiny pamphlets at various arms shows, you should have a wealth of information to provide. At least try to add some value to the thread by providing content, not just wild claims.


Oh please, Therac-12, Arienne 5, T12RDA5PMS, 1*1=1 rounded up to 12, whom are you kidding here.

Thanks for the annual "every thing's OK" DOD "pamphlet" though, I feel much safer now.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
It was only called the greatest programming disaster in history of computing.

I can only imagine the size of Robert Shueys never ending headache.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
That DOD comics section got me going. It's like a Playboy centerfold in braille depicting how sexy it all is for crying out loud.

digital.library.unt.edu...

The size of that grain of salt is right there on par with krakatoa prior to 1883.

Here's Israelis polite way of saying "thanks but no thanks, because we kind of want to live";

cls.miis.edu...

More generalisations;

www.carnegieendowment.org...

Yet here we are, about a foot from where we were and looking back.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   


I see. I'm not into chest pounding, and instead of dropping big names everybody knows, all I'll say is that one of the clients I personally worked with was a relatively small company called Space Vector, right here in Chatsworth. They too do some shows, you know.


Yes, I know they do some shows. And thanks for pointing out you're not into chest pounding. 'Cause it kind of sounds like you are, if you hadn't provided the caveat, I may have got the wrong impression.




How are you.


Quite well, thanks for asking.




See above.


I did, and it still staggers me that you believe what you do.




Sure, only salvo sequence is just a "tad" different from a "mop-up". Keep going.


Pretty sure I didn't say salvo. Though it can do both.




So what you're saying is that you don't have a subscription, right? I though you said you were in the industry.


No, what I am saying is that you won't find that level of information on the internet. Nice attempt at a bait though, I would have bitten if I wasn't so sure you have no idea what you're talking about.




I take it you completely missed the whole AFOSI investigation into that hacking deal, you know, the one that pumped out everything there is to know about the Patriot. The cat is out of the bag, so I don't know man, it was a kind of a big deal in the community.


Yeah, for something that happened some time ago. And given that it was sensitive, as opposed to classified, information that was lost, the effect has eroded over time. I personally would have mentioned the reported sale of Patriot technology by Israel to China as a bigger issue.

Israel passes Patriot tech to China




Oh please, Therac-12, Arienne 5, T12RDA5PMS, 1*1=1 rounded up to 12, whom are you kidding here.


I'm not kidding anyone. You are the one who started making claims without any form of validation. And continue to do so. And thanks for quoting mathNews, I especially enjoyed the other high class articles on that website, such as


Coco Frosh
to the tune of Kokomo

Columba, Aquila, oooh I wanna Draco to
Sagitta, Auriga, Pavo, pretty Ursa
Lacerta, and Hydra, Scorpius with Cetus
To the Lyra, go
We'll Aries fast and then we'll Lepus slow
Crux where we Crater go
To the Pisces, whoa!


and



Bonsai Puppy
Ever want to do any crazy fun things with puppies? Well, this article will give you an idea what to do TO your puppy! Fresh out of puppies? No fret, just come to me and I'll hook... you up


I'll supply the link seeing as you obviously didn't want to. I try to inform people who read my posts about what sources I use. Provides a level of credibility.

mathNews

If this is the best open source available to you, then at least it made me laugh.




Here's Israelis polite way of saying "thanks but no thanks, because we kind of want to live";


What, like in the conclusion where it talks about


Link
As pointed out by one scientist, all it would take is for one nuclear tipped missile to be launched in a large volley of conventional missiles to increase the chance of successful impact. For this reason, the Arrow has been paired with
the PAC-3 and other systems that could serve as a layered defense.


Sounds more like a layered defence approach is needed to compliment the strength and weaknesses of each system. In fact, the document states that successes and failures of the Arrow informed the development of the PAC-3 missile. The article you referenced is about technology and export control. It highlights deficiencies in all systems. So, if they think the system so useless, why have they deployed it to Haifa?

IDF deploys Patriot

So here we are. A non-chest thumping industry person up against an operator with operational experience during Iraqi Freedom. Maybe you really believe what you say, that telemetry data is freely available over the web, and that pamphlets at arms shows are gospel. Good luck to you. But when I'm flying into a MEZ, I'll get my info from the guys who actually know the true capabilities of the system, thanks all the same.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   
You have got to be kidding Willard856, it is actually funny, I looked up mathNews. You had to google T12RDA5PMS, and the ONLY page that shows up is mathNews.

Are you for real or are you just yanking my chain here?

Since I see that you're a google savvy type of guy, I'll save you some time here, so enjoy;

This is the one that counts, so feel free to share it with "the guys who actually know the true capabilities of the system" -

www.xent.com...

And more as follows;

sunnyday.mit.edu...

www.niwotridge.com...

www.comp.lancs.ac.uk...

www.cnn.com...

www.around.com...

Here's where it counts on the "wonders" of Therac;

unix.lviv.ua...

lib.align.ru...

Let me know how that went Mr. googleman, 'cause I can read that no problem.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
So once again we skirt around the topic. Similar to your posts on the CIWS thread. How about addressing some issues for a change, rather than resorting to your usual tactic of changing the subject. Maybe then someone will actually listen to what you say. Your total absence of understanding on the topic of air defence systems (which is what we were talking about) is clear. It started with you making claims about Patriot, which I asked you to back up. We are still waiting.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Even though I fail to see how I "skirt around the topic", but sure, and since you are the authority on the subject here, why don't you kick it off and please fill me in on what is the hard data of Patriot system success/failure rate?

Regular stuff like various relationships of linear, hybrid and complex systems to free and bounding variables, parameter sets, condition sets, etc.

I would really like to know that, since at least that information has to be available.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   
since you can not just choose one system to do all the jobs

for the tactical Long Range All Altitude/Weather mission

the S-400

for the medium range tactical mission

the 9K40 Buk-2M

for the short range tactical mission

the 9M331 Tor for PGWs
the 9M311 for helicopters



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Ok, this thread is going a bit astray with the inevitable anti-missile capability argument when I'd hoped the comments on anti-aircraft capability would avoid it.

My interest was to guage general opinions rather than actually determine which is best.

My own vote would go to the British Starstreak short range missile. It isn't the longest ranged, but in my personal opinion it is the most technologically genius and that gets my respect.

The basic concept is that the missile travels as fast as possible (leading to it often being termed a "hypervelocity missile" so that the target doesn't have time to evade and the shooter is exposed for less time. Basically if you can see it you can hit it. It also uses laser targeting which makes it harder to evade other than by putting something solid (like a tree) between you and the incoming missile.

The most distinctive and genius aspect of the missile is that instead of a single ewarhead, it has three seperately guided second stage missiles ("darts") which all try to hit the target. Awesome.


[edit on 20-7-2006 by planeman]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
With all due respect the Patriot (PAC-2 GEM+/PAC-3) don't have any glitches, at least not any more than any other SAM.


Better than some , worse than others...


The time issue is old news, the Patriot has always done what it was intended to do, oh and the PAC-3 can be quickly deployed around the world via air transport.


If by doing what it was supposed to do you mean shooting down blue force aircraft then your quite accurate! They are easily deployable in the same sense that elephants are and they are more likely to 'trample' friendly forces .



Equally worrisome is the spread of cruise missiles and unmanned combat aerial vehicles, which are precision-guided and small enough to be launched from ships and aircraft, said Col. Edward L. Mullin, program manager of the Army’s cruise missile defense office at Redstone Arsenal, Ala. A number of factor makes them dangerous, he said, including:

During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein’s forces fired a number of cruise missiles at U.S. troops, Mullin said. “We were positioned with Patriot missiles,” he said. “Unfortunately, when the cruise missiles were fired, we didn’t even see them. Needless to say, we were directed to get at that threat rather quickly.”

The SLAMRAAM system is a comparatively cost-effective defense against cruise missiles, Mullin said. “At $650,00 apiece, it beats the PAC-3 in terms of price,” he said. Cost estimates for the Patriot advanced capability-3 missile system run as high as $91 million apiece.

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org...



20 March, Camp Commando Kuwait, Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.
Marines of the I Marine Expeditionary Force (IMEF) Headquarters are on alert in their forward-deployed position at Camp Commando Kuwait awaiting the initiation of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF). A U.S. Air Force officer attached to IMEF monitors a terminal that will alert the headquarters of any detected ballistic missile or cruise missile attacks.

Marines deployed north and east of the headquarters suddenly observe a low-flying missile passing overhead, pointed towards Kuwait in the direction of Camp Commando. IMEF’s air defense computer terminals display nothing out of the ordinary, and no Scud alert is sounded. Marines in the headquarters are astonished and surprised to hear the signature of a low-flying jet engine overhead, followed by the noise and concussion from a large warhead blast.

An Iraqi Seersucker antiship cruise missile converted into a land attack role has just missed decapitating IMEF by a mere one hundred yards. The missile, launched from the Faw peninsula, flew undetected and unengaged straight through the heart of an alert and robust U.S. theater air and missile defense system. Following this attack, the U.S. Marines maintained a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) of F/A-18s over the Faw peninsula for several days.


For some reason i did not note the source in my doc file ( as i always do ) but i can go search in my archive if anyone wants it.


BTW xmotex once the SM-6 ERAM is operational it will surpass the SM-2 and greatly increase the AAW capability of the AEGIS combat system.

[edit on 17-7-2006 by WestPoint23]


AEGIS being the scam of note that it is one has to wonder how effective a broken-from-the-start thing can ever be. Either way it's too damn expensive and i seriously doubt if it will shield a CBG from a saturation attack of any ( 10+ missiles) scale.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
StellarX, if button pushers actually met system engineers face to face, and listened to what they had to say, they would no longer think that it's some guy from the motor pool knows better.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
StellarX, if button pushers actually met system engineers face to face, and listened to what they had to say, they would no longer think that it's some guy from the motor pool that knows better.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join