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.

 

Russia to sell Iran S-300PMU

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Care to elaborate?


As darksided pointed out, the Hezbollah showed the progress of Iran in electronic warfare against Israël. That's what I wanted to show.




posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The S-300PMU is already a defeated system.
The F/A-22 can approach to within killing distance before being detected by this system.


Aww.. c'mon I'm sure we can do better than that?
The B-2 could exact similar damage so to speak; but then the S-300 hasn't seen any live combat yet has it?
Are we saying that you envision F/A-22 seeing action in any fututre Iranian conflict?
I still don't think the Russians are 'offering' the S-300PMU for sale here. The Iranians would have gobbled them up immediately.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
The S-300 eouln't make much difference to a US attack on Irans facilities. Before any manned plans went in you can bet their would be a barrage of precision guided standoff weapons, such as the "brilliant" JASSM 200 mile range cruise missile. More than capable of taking out an S-300 unit.


In general i agree ; a single S-300 battery is unlikely to change anything in a strategic sense even if it cost the US a few more planes in the short run. Remember that precision guided weapons needs to know exactly where the target currently is and that between their launching and their arrival a S-300 battery can pack up and be miles away had you even known their last location. If one looks at what the Serbs managed with a Sam's from the 60's and 70's against modern US cruise missiles and UAV's it's obviously always better to show respect to something as modern as S-300.


Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm you haven't heard of the JASSm, I thought a person such as yourself would have been well aware of this missile for several years now.


Yes but with the current limited range and low speed of that weapon it's going to badly lose a dual against the S-300 unless it fires from outside it's range which then gives the S-300 20 odd minutes to displace ( which it can do in little more than 5 minute's) or simply wait and shoot it down when it comes over the radar horizon. Remember that high value assets like the S-300 can not only defend itself against cruise missiles and aircraft but have active short range ( cheaper) point defense weapons to help in the defense of the expensive S-300 system.


I ail to see how you think the S-300 an untested system against US weapons is a magic bullet.


The S-300 is 'untested' only as far as the F-22 is 'untested' as the basics the weapons are founded on have been tested in numerous other designs and wars. Stating that the S-300 is untested ( and thus somehow bound to fail) logically leads to the same conclusions for the 'untested' F-22.


What test results lead you to the conclusion that the S-300 is so deadly apart from tsalk and hype. It seems the US weaposn are held to a miuch higher standard of verification than Russian ones.


I don't know where you get this idea from but i assume it's cause when American systems shows signs of inadequacy it must be the bias of the source while Russians systems are considered 'crap' whatever the source of the claim. Talking about all that how many aircraft can actually deploy the Jassm at this date? I think that missile will make any difference in a truly strategic conflict with either China or Russia your very much mistaken and a country like Iran can certainly be overpowered without it.


I believe teh JASSM would be more than a match for any S-300 defended target. NBearing in mind this weapons wouldn't be used in ones or two's, they would be slavoed by the dozens approaching the target from many directions. Their accuracy would ensure that if only one got through the target ould be destroyed.


Well that is clearly a belief and i guess you have the right to believe whatever you like.
Against a country who deploys only one or two batteries they might be relatively easily surrounded and overwhelmed ( even if the USA could not manage that against lesser armed Serbs mobile forces) but once again that is hardly relevant considering the overwhelming power the USA could visit on Iran and like armed countries. Interestingly everyone assumes that simply because you have Harm's or Tomahawks or Jassm's you somehow 'just know' where the Sam's are but as quite evidently not clear that is simply not so. S-300's and the like have also been upgraded ( well not all but their busy) with LPI radar's and they have ample passive means to detect active radars seeking to discover targets.


Originally posted by rogue1
LOL and what test results can you site to prove this ?


Russian sources claim it and Western sources ( Jane's and the like) does not seem interested in any general disagreement. LO is just a dumb idea hoping for dumb enemies who are hopelessly technologically backwards and strangely Stealth aircraft needs the same ( more actually as their are such high value platforms) or more jamming and defensive support as normal aircraft. Subsonic cruise missiles can simply not fly low enough with the normal terrain mapping methods to pose a real threat to even STATIC strategic targets and that is more than evident from the dismal performance of the Tomahawk in general.


It seems american weapons have to have the test results to back up their claims, however Russian weapons need no such burden of proof. Also who said anything about individual missiles, the JASSM is chep enough that it can be deployed en masse.


The Jassm is NOT cheap and considering the volume of cruise missiles/harm's expended in recent wars to be even marginally successful i am not convinced that they would be effective weapons in a fast paced global war with massive disruption of infrastructure and resources/information networks being the norm.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The S-300PMU is already a defeated system.
The F/A-22 can approach to within killing distance before being detected by this system.


Says the brochure but then again the S-300 brochure says that it can track and engage even the stealthiest targets! I can't say i know who to believe but it's pretty simple to realise which system offers the best value for money! Once the F-22 can shoot down ICMB's or dozens of aircraft without needing any base, that will quickly be destroyed in a nuclear war, i might consider it but until then i go with with the passive defense that does not seek to try survive beyond it's utility.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Even the article doesn't say that the S-300 is going to be sold - it merely comments that Iran wants it. Iran may want the S-300PMU but Russia has turned down customers for that system in the past, not least Syria.



I agree with there planeman, but what is concerning is that Ukraine already sold "Kalchuga" systems, and we both know there is no point of using such an advanced system with short/medium range SAMs, and attempts of using BUK/TORs in such a manner will result in a total waste.


The S-300PMU is already a defeated system.
The F/A-22 can approach to within killing distance before being detected by this system.


That's a laugh. Seekerof, do you glue little airplane models kits and hang them up over your bed to gaze upon them while bundling up in a Bart Simpson blanket?

Man, it's the same crowd every time, do you guys like get payed with Xbox games for this or something?

Glad to see Stellar here. Keep it going man.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
Isn't the S-300 supposed to be protected using Tor-M1.


There are a number of defensive weapons that will be used in that capacity. To get some idea of what numbers they are deploying their air defenses in ...

en.wikipedia.org...


As in the S-300 hits air targets and the Tor-M1 takes out any incomming missiles such as HARM(anti-radiation missile), ALARAM(anti-radiation missile), Cruise missiles, Laser Guided bombs etc...


Ideally yes but obviously anything can be overwhelmed if it exposes itself to overwhelming numbers of countermeasures so the S-300 has the added capacity of being able to pack up and move in little more than 5 minutes according to official sources. At the subsonic speed most western cruise missiles travel at the S-300 can probably detect it and then have enough time to displace and so completely avoid having to defeat it by active means. Few platforms have the speed to lob a laser guided bomb far enough to actually escape having to actively deal with either the incoming missiles or the fire from supporting batteries as their heading out.


Also i think that the Buk-M1 is to be used there as well so what yuo have is a combination of Tor-M1, Buk-M1 and S-300 providing a short, medium and long range coverage.


To buy and deploy these systems in sufficient numbers to make a difference is probably beyond the capacity of the Iranians and trying will far more likely bankrupt them than win a war against the USA and allies.


The Iranians have also been going for this combo. They already have purchased the Tor-M1 and have enquired about the Buk-M1 and S-300.

I suspect that the Russians are going to try and sell these through Belarus


In terms of geopolitics it would probably be unwise for the Russians to sell this to Iran as it would suit them far better if America gets involved in yet another ground and occupation that destroys billions worth of equipment in wear and tear beyond all the other costs.


www.missilethreat.com...

but then Russia obviously denied it :
www.isn.ethz.ch...

but they did sell them to Belarus :
en.rian.ru...


Good links; i can see your doing research of your own .



So i don't know whats going on there. Alot of reports have been comming out that a countyr like Belarus does not require such a system so they are only getting it to retransfer.


Having a single S-300 battery deployed against a average world power is a MASSIVE advantage and it will aid your air defense no end not to even talk about the credible ABM capacity it gives you.


Anyway here is some Info/Video on there 3 Systems :

Interestingly all these systems are enhanced to take out cruise missiles and certain types of PGM.


That's the threat they face on the modern battlefield and if you can not defend yourself someone else will have to. Apparently the Serbs managed to fly rather ancient planes as cruise missile defense platforms and it shows you what can be done if one has well protected airfields ( the Serbs lost a small percentage of front line aircraft against NATO) and are willing to actively risk your forces in defensive operations.


Personally my own opinion is they will go for only Tor-M1(which they already purchased) and S-300 and use the Improved Hawks they already have as the medium range SAM.


For some reason i wanted to respond to your post ( I normally only respond if i want to correct at least a few statements) but i can't seem to find it!

Anyways!

Stellar



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
That's a laugh. Seekerof, do you glue little airplane models kits and hang them up over your bed to gaze upon them while bundling up in a Bart Simpson blanket?

Excuse me?
Iskander, grow the hell up or better yet, grow a pair? Hows that for a laugh?
Tell you what, if you have nothing better to counter with than your pointless directed belittlements, then make no comment.

Apparently, your own insecurities in being the only one who sleeps with a Bart Simpson blanket while gazing up at your freshly glued little airplane model kits has you making such comments asserting such of me. Not! Try again. Better yet, try avoiding directed belittlements and simply grow up, you think?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Alright Seekerof, we've been down this road before, in particular, I remember the topic of your PJ career. As I recall I've asked you a question to which you still have not replied.

I also remember sharing with you that my gramps was a Recon Paratrooper, thus the reason for my questions. Any bells ringing yet?


The S-300PMU is already a defeated system.
The F/A-22 can approach to within killing distance before being detected by this system.


Ok then, 1R13, 55Zh6, 76N6/FA-51MU - 40V6MD/40V6M, 64N6E, 30N6E, FA52MU/F52MU, when up to speed, the come back and feel free to "revise" your statement.

In the mean time, after you get your bearing on what's going on in the world of radar technology, here's some home work for you on the Raptor, the yet another "silver bullet", the lone basket we all supposed to put all of our eggs in."

Meet Franklin C. Spinney;

Staff Analyst
ASD/PA&E (Tactical Air Division)

www.fas.org...

Then jump straight to these fine gentleman (Air Command and Staff College) - Major Craig A. Hughes and Matthew B. Caffrey;

www.fas.org...

Isn't it the day of a yearly confession? Any words? Maybe tomorrow?
Take your time, no worries.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
A little dysfunctional family talk;

"How's Randy doing?

Awfully and totally fu****

Why is that?

Oh it's a Dee Dee.

And the kid?

What can I say, no prenup, alimony and child support for life."

I'm sure from here everybody can figure out what JSF stands for in this context.

It's like a trailer park soap opera on a perpetual re-run, but at a cost of the very future of out nation.

Randy - R&D
Dee Dee - Dead Duck



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Seekerof
The S-300PMU is already a defeated system.
The F/A-22 can approach to within killing distance before being detected by this system.


Says the brochure but then again the S-300 brochure says that it can track and engage even the stealthiest targets!


LOL, you like to take Russian brochures as fact, doesn't matter if the S-300 has never been tested against a stealth target

I have to have a chuckle when reading these assertions from you, the americans have to have a proven tested system to be believable yet the Russians merely have to have vague assertions. You see the double standard.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   
They might as well sell them flaming bowling balls and wooden catapults.

If the US wages war against a country, theres nothing that can stop it.
Thats one of the perks of spending trillions of dollars on your military.

Good luck.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by super70
They might as well sell them flaming bowling balls and wooden catapults.

If the US wages war against a country, theres nothing that can stop it.
Thats one of the perks of spending trillions of dollars on your military.

Good luck.


Nope, asymetrical war can stop them, though I'll agree no one in direct conflict can face them. Asymetrical war is quite another story, ask Israel in Lebanon...or Us in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan....



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by darksided
This is the on the specific version of the weapon system being discussed.

As with all things for attacking SAM defenses, the target wouldn't be the SAM itself rather its attached radar, command, and control systems.


Well that is really the only target that normally presents itself in a highly mobile and the best place to aim a dumb bomb for long term disruption/destruction of the battery as a very effective defensive system. The Serbs did however fire their missiles without the use of radar for the most part and with SARH/IR/ARM warheads that can still present the enemy with enough headaches so that they may in the end choose altitude as blanket safety precaution.


This would be a considerable upgrade for Iran, far beyond the Tor-1 missile systems acquired last year. While the Tor-1 is a very accurate weapon system, the version acquired by Iran is really a short range system. The S-300PMU-2 is a long range SAM able to independently track and engage fast moving and high altitude targets, including limited ballistic missile defense capability.


From what i have read the 'limited ABM" capacity is not at all limited...


The actual western equivalent would be the PAC-2.


If the PAC-2 actually worked it may have been considered such but it clearly needs a great deal of work on the warhead before it will be a effective weapon against even short range ballistic missiles.


On mobile launchers that make constant rotations, this would add a sophisticated A2D2 (anti-access/area-denial) system that would make it tough for all but the most robust dedicated penetration capabilities.


While the Kosovo situation/experience is very much in agreement with what you say i think the few batteries Iran can deploy should not be that hard to overwhelm and i am still finding it hard to understand why NATO could not properly interdict Serbian ground forces or at least shut down their air defenses permanently.


While I am not certain it would change the dynamic between Iran and the US, it would certainly change the dynamic between Iran and Israel.


It surely would as Israeli F-15's would probably be on their last legs even after being tanked up once already... The best defense against long range Sam's is simply to turn and outrun them but without the fuel for Mach 2+ dashes to safety your going to pay the price in planes...


Originally posted by darksided
Indeed. Iran's electronic warfare capability certainly was useful for Hezbollah against Israel. There was a major discussion about it on DefenseTech.org


Thanks


The F/A-22 is every bit its hype. It is invisable on ground radar over 60,000 ft., as it turns out F/A-22s simply don't give off enough signiture for a ground radar to track.


Well what exactly is so special about the F-22 that it can completely evade radar detection when that has never been possible when there is line of sight? The Russians and others have long deployed system that tracks even the stealthiest aircraft even if it can not provide targeting data at long range it certainly gives their general position away so that Sam's in the area can prepare to turn on their targeting radars at just the right times....


Some beaming techniques have supposedly had limited success, but you have to know the exact position of the F/A-22 just to achieve detection, nevermind track the plane.


Limited in the sense that they can not perfectly track you at extreme distances but enough information to launch long range S-300 type missiles on. These long range missiles have a variety of warheads ( SARH would be best in this case) and they receive course corrections in flight based on the SARH warhead which sends back better tracking information the closer it gets to the target. Essentially this means that you can fire these long range missiles based on very little information which will increase as the missile gets closer to the stealthy target.


The only reports I have heard about regarding a F/A-22s being tracked over a significant period of time on radar required a combination of multiple radars from the AEGIS system, the Advanced Hawkeye, and F/A-18 Super Hornets with AESA radar, a technological combination only available in one nation today, the US Navy.


And there are thousands of radars of all types all over Russia which might very well be able to do this in the same manner had their older long wave radars not been enough to give away the general course and position of stealth aircraft.


Had the F/A-22 had any jamming support at all, it probably wouldn't of worked.


If the F-22 needs jamming support that will rob it of it's element of surprise and in the end that still means the jamming/ECM aircraft will have to stay out of range of the nearest suspected 300 Km range Sam site... As a rule of thumb distance is a deciding factor in ECM and if the SARH equipped missiles or whatever is feeding it it's tracking information is closer than your jamming support it wont be effective and guarantee you any acceptable NATO low intensity warfare level of safety.


The F/A-22 stealth is currently ahead of the radar tracking curve. Radar systems will undoubtably eventually catch up, meaning stealth will have to make advances again to remain competitive.


The F-22 and F-117 have long been on the books and to suggest that they are ahead of the curve after being deployed so much later than was at first intended is kinda forgetting history! Fact is NATO had a hard time dealing with the limited Serb air defenses dating from the 60's and 70's so one can only begin to imagine how things will turn out against modern systems deployed in sufficient numbers as they are in Russia.

en.wikipedia.org...

Just look at the numbers those TEL's are deployed in and remember that most deploy with four missiles per TEL and the same number of reloads within a few hundred meters!

Stellar

[edit on 8-10-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, you like to take Russian brochures as fact,


I do not and i keep saying that. To pretend very many people on this forum would let me get away with such a thing is quite funny when considering the massive bias in favour of 'superior' American weapons.


doesn't matter if the S-300 has never been tested against a stealth target


Russian missiles dating from the 60's and 70's have been used against stealthy UAV's and cruise missiles in Kosovo with apparent great success so what basis in reality do i have to deny the possibility that Russian weapons have gotten better in the last three decades?


I have to have a chuckle when reading these assertions from you, the americans have to have a proven tested system to be believable yet the Russians merely have to have vague assertions.


It's EXACTLY the other way round but since your perception is so hopelessly biased and twisted it's nor surprising that you will turn reality on it's head to serve yourself.


You see the double standard.


I understand very well that claims made about American equipment are always given every and each benefit of doubt possible and that Russians equipment have to be dragged trough mud, be handled by people without any formal schooling and be employed by poorly trained and led armies, who never had a hope in hell of winning when outmatched in numbers and equipment numbers, to win wins to gain even a modicum of acceptance and praise. The double standard here is quite readily apparent to anyone who's actually dealing with what normally would be considered 'reality'.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, you like to take Russian brochures as fact,


I do not and i keep saying that. To pretend very many people on this forum would let me get away with such a thing is quite funny when considering the massive bias in favour of 'superior' American weapons.


Well you do and you never provide anything but suppostion to back you up. Where are the test results for the S-300 etc. You have nothing, siple as that, Most peopel don't let you get away with anything and tell you you are wrong quite often, but you merely refuse to listen to them. That simple, LOL.



doesn't matter if the S-300 has never been tested against a stealth target


Russian missiles dating from the 60's and 70's have been used against stealthy UAV's and cruise missiles in Kosovo with apparent great success so what basis in reality do i have to deny the possibility that Russian weapons have gotten better in the last three decades?


Oh right right, once more wildly unfounded claims. One F-117 was shot down and it was mostly because the route of the aircraft took was known in advance. And what stealthy drones did they shoot down. What is this " great success " you like to trumpet

As I said, what test results do you have access to, to make these claims about teh S-300 ? You never produce anything, just dance around saying nothing of substance.



I have to have a chuckle when reading these assertions from you, the americans have to have a proven tested system to be believable yet the Russians merely have to have vague assertions.


It's EXACTLY the other way round but since your perception is so hopelessly biased and twisted it's nor surprising that you will turn reality on it's head to serve yourself.


It is, how so ? None of the "new" Russian equipemnt has been tested in combat, DUH. You NEVER back up your claims with anything remotely related to fact. You make huge assumptions, which are for the most part incorrect.


You see the double standard.

double standard here is quite readily apparent to anyone who's actually dealing with what normally would be considered 'reality'.


Well reality was never your string suit, LOL. We all know that. If your backng up someone like Iskander, you're credibility is already in the toilet.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Well you do and you never provide anything but suppostion to back you up. Where are the test results for the S-300 etc.


Where are the test results for the F-22? It's like Russian air defenses have never shot down a single plane and that the Russians just slapped some new ideas together to come up with the S-300! You really think they pulled the ideas from thin air and that it's not based on prior experience and battlefield testing? The F-22 is basically a doomed designed based on this type of logic.


You have nothing, siple as that, Most peopel don't let you get away with anything and tell you you are wrong quite often, but you merely refuse to listen to them. That simple, LOL.


I listen and provide evidence which you very very infrequently attempt to refute with successes being few and far between. Bluster is your main weapon and it's about as effective as Iraqi scuds; don't do damage but can't find the damn things to stop them from shooting their missiles ( mouth in your case) off.


Oh right right, once more wildly unfounded claims. One F-117 was shot down and it was mostly because the route of the aircraft took was known in advance.


Why fly the thing along the same path then and just how do you track it at all ? Your pretending that the Serbs attacked it 88 mm second world war style and that's just a fantastic delusion invented by embarrassed pentagon spin doctors.


And what stealthy drones did they shoot down. What is this " great success " you like to trumpet


If you did some research maybe you would not expose yourself to the ridicule that will follow if you persist in this vapid denial of reality.


As I said, what test results do you have access to, to make these claims about teh S-300 ? You never produce anything, just dance around saying nothing of substance.


I have learnt at great expense to myself ( a few days worth of effort i wont get back) that you do not care for facts or dispute them with facts of your own. ALl you do is avoid them or pretend that they are not 'relevant' or 'true' based on your apparently better informed opinion so rarely supported by factual information others can use to validate your claims. I ALWAYS supply adequate reference material and i can refer you back to the links ( un-refuted as they stand) if you have trouble remembering how you always run away when i things becoming factual.


It is, how so ? None of the "new" Russian equipemnt has been tested in combat, DUH.


Just like the F-22 has not been tested in combat? What sort of argument is this?



You NEVER back up your claims with anything remotely related to fact. You make huge assumptions, which are for the most part incorrect.


I post 20 links to main stream source for each one of yours but still you persist in these lies. It's fascinating what a man driven into a corner will do when his assumed reality is successfully contested and largely destroyed. I am not going away and i can keep this up all year if that's what it takes to expose your vapid and largely fraudulent claims. You KNOW Russian Sam's have worked in the past yet refuse to believe that Russians learn from past experience. if that is not a extraordinary strange way of going about defending your reality i don't know what is.


Well reality was never your string suit, LOL. We all know that. If your backng up someone like Iskander, you're credibility is already in the toilet.


Iskander is willing to back his claims with material i can then go evaluate and while you refuse to do the same on any meaningful scale ( one quote to attack pages worth of generally unrelated facts adds nothing) i wont take your attempts at discouraging my investigation seriously.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   


Where are the test results for the F-22? It's like Russian air defenses have never shot down a single plane and that the Russians just slapped some new ideas together to come up with the S-300! You really think they pulled the ideas from thin air and that it's not based on prior experience and battlefield testing? The F-22 is basically a doomed designed based on this type of logic.


What you're saying here is that if the other person doesn't provide evidence then you do not feel the obligation to provide evidence as well. In essence you are admitting to not providing evidence.




I listen and provide evidence which you very very infrequently attempt to refute with successes being few and far between. Bluster is your main weapon and it's about as effective as Iraqi scuds; don't do damage but can't find the damn things to stop them from shooting their missiles ( mouth in your case) off.


Which evidence have you provided to back up you claims? Stating that this happened then and there and that weapon system is not capable of doing this and that is not considered evidence. Quoted information and facts from generally accepted outside sources are considered eveidence, something you learn in every grade level language class.




If the F-22 needs jamming support that will rob it of it's element of surprise and in the end that still means the jamming/ECM aircraft will have to stay out of range of the nearest suspected 300 Km range Sam site... As a rule of thumb distance is a deciding factor in ECM and if the SARH equipped missiles or whatever is feeding it it's tracking information is closer than your jamming support it wont be effective and guarantee you any acceptable NATO low intensity warfare level of safety.


This is another example of not providing eveidence to back up you claim. How will a jamming support aircraft rob the F-22 of its element of surprise? Who says that a the electronic warfare aircraft has to stay 300 km away from SAM site it is jamming? Same goes for your last "sentence": says who? If you would at least give us some facts on which you base your assertions or "conclusions" on, it would go a long way towards making you credible.




I have learnt at great expense to myself ( a few days worth of effort i wont get back) that you do not care for facts or dispute them with facts of your own. ALl you do is avoid them or pretend that they are not 'relevant' or 'true' based on your apparently better informed opinion so rarely supported by factual information others can use to validate your claims. I ALWAYS supply adequate reference material and i can refer you back to the links ( un-refuted as they stand) if you have trouble remembering how you always run away when i things becoming factual.


Really we don't care for facts, yet we dispute them with facts of our own...? When did you give quoted facts? Where and/or when have you ever supplied adequate refernce material to support your claims? Please refer me back to these links because I am having trouble remembering.



I post 20 links to main stream source for each one of yours but still you persist in these lies. It's fascinating what a man driven into a corner will do when his assumed reality is successfully contested and largely destroyed. I am not going away and i can keep this up all year if that's what it takes to expose your vapid and largely fraudulent claims. You KNOW Russian Sam's have worked in the past yet refuse to believe that Russians learn from past experience. if that is not a extraordinary strange way of going about defending your reality i don't know what is.


Where are these 20 links?

Your posts remind me of a not so sober late night bar conversation of a pseudo intellectual: brave assertions and swollen language. Thus I believe that you are mildly mislead as to why people are not refuting your assertions. Hint: it is not because your omniscient.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by noyhcat]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   
So those pesky Russians are selling Iran a SAM missile system capable of destroying incoming aircraft out to a distance of 200 km.

That would be really impressive provided, the SAM sites are not sited like they did with the SAM2 sites in the Viet Nam TAO. I am referring to the 5 'pointed star' layout with the radar truck in the centre.

Of course Russian doctrine has changed since Viet Nam and the last Arab-Israeli war, but not that much.

When the Chel Ha'Avir flies in to bomb the crap out of the site, they won't be worried about multiple SAM belts, CIWS or anything else for that matter because, I suspect that US stealth aircraft will visit the facility to 'pave the way' as it were.

And we all know that SAMs don't see Stealth - period!



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
To fritz,

Iran doesn't use russian/soviet warfare doctrine at all.

They have there own system they designed during the 1990's which is a whole different battle warefare stratergy.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
So those pesky Russians are selling Iran a SAM missile system capable of destroying incoming aircraft out to a distance of 200 km.


Actually probably more like 300 km...


That would be really impressive provided, the SAM sites are not sited like they did with the SAM2 sites in the Viet Nam TAO. I am referring to the 5 'pointed star' layout with the radar truck in the centre.


S-300 type systems can deploy or pack up in little more than 5 minutes ( well they say 5 but that must be under ideal conditions and training) so siting this type of system in a static way is probably not wise if the war is going to start. In peacetime you obviously need some kind of permanent living quarters to keep everyone healthy but no need to stay still and get killed when you suspect war is coming.


Of course Russian doctrine has changed since Viet Nam and the last Arab-Israeli war, but not that much.


What does Russian doctrine have to do with those wars?


When the Chel Ha'Avir flies in to bomb the crap out of the site, they won't be worried about multiple SAM belts, CIWS or anything else for that matter because, I suspect that US stealth aircraft will visit the facility to 'pave the way' as it were.


Stealth aircraft need to know where the target is to bomb it and keeping tabs on that many batteries worth of anti air defenses must be close to impossible even in peace time. US stealth aircraft and cruise missile strikes were not very successful ( some say ineffective) against static Iraqi strategic targets and after Kosovo it become quite clear to me that the threat is increasing while NATO capacity to deal with it is sharply declining.


And we all know that SAMs don't see Stealth - period!


Appealing to consensus.
It is in fact not very hard to see that there is 'something' ; they hard part is shooting it down based on so little information at the start.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join