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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Yes, I agree.

Having said that, and to answer another poster to asked what Russian/Soviet doctrine had to do with Iran, well I was thinking about the siteing of the SAMs.

The basic SAM2 site that were built, equipped and crewed by Russian, North Korean and I believe some Cubans, were all built according to the then Russian battlefield doctrine.

I.E - In a 5 pointed star layout with radar detector/locator van in the centre, also acting as a command and control centre. In turn, these SAM sites were individual sites of a much larger 5 pointed star.

Thus one site protecting a key position would have 25 individual SAM launchers and the bigger the target, the greater the quantity of SAMs.

Mixed in with these, would be the A/A positions that could be mobile or fixed.

This was the standard Russian doctrine that was taught to the Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians and Iraqis during their wars with Israel.

During Yom Kippur, the Israeli Air Force [Chel Ha'Avir] lost so many pilots and aircraft to SAMs, that they hastely devised, refined then changed tactics that allowed them to negate the SAM belt over the Suez Canal.

Although the Egyptians moved up more SAMs, the Israeli's managed to defeat them and cross the Canal. The rest, as they say, is history.

What I was trying to get at, is that Russian tactical doctrine dictated that SAM sites had to be built in a certain way - hence the 5 pointed star system. Any other way, and the system would fail.

So my original theory does stand up to criticism and I ask the question of our friend who said the Iranians have their own tactical doctrine, 'Who'se doctrine is theirs based on?'




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz

So my original theory does stand up to criticism and I ask the question of our friend who said the Iranians have their own tactical doctrine, 'Who'se doctrine is theirs based on?'


I'm not sure what there recent trainning is based on but there original trainning and doctrine was based around the American/British/NATO system. They purchased very large amounts of SAM systesms from Europe and America during the time of the shah and also recived trainning as part of the package of weapons from both British and Americans on how to use there SAM's.

But what type of doctrine of warfare they use today i don't really know but i do know that it is mostly indigenous to there own military which i suspect would also be heavily influenced by the British and American trainning the recived during the time of the Shah. They basically have a unique doctrine of warfare which was devised by there own commanders and military planners in Iran.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by noyhcat
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.


What am i saying is that tire of endlessly being the only party that contributes constructively by providing dozens of pages worth of source material that never gets contested in anything more than a marginal spiteful way. Why should i repeatedly spend hours compiling source material to respond to baiting and vapid attacks that never address the source material?


In essence you are admitting to not providing evidence.


In essence you have not looked up the discussions i have had with Rogue in the part and thus have no idea what this is about. Frankly you might become a victim of friendly ( or hostile as his pretty unpredictable) fire if you want to run around between the trench lines.


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.


A few dozen pages worth of material on various threats over many months. Evidence is evidence and you not being aware of it's location or extent reflects rather poorly on you.


Quoted information and facts from generally accepted outside sources are considered eveidence, something you learn in every grade level language class.


Well that's where i learnt it and that's why i am doing it; thanks for the great advice...


This is another example of not providing evidence to back up you claim. How will a jamming support aircraft rob the F-22 of its element of surprise?


Because jamming aircraft can not endlessly stay on station and when their there and jamming you you know something is happening and thus the element of surprise is far harder to achieve.


Who says that a the electronic warfare aircraft has to stay 300 km away from SAM site it is jamming?


It does not have to and generally it might not even know where the nearest Sam is so it would be impossible. The limited number of ECM are unlikely to be exposed to known Sam batteries by bring them within range.


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.


Then why assume ( without apparently doing any research as to what i have said before ) that i have not in fact repeatedly talk about this issue and provided the material i base my views on? It's interesting that you bring up the question of credibility without posting any factual content to support your objections. Is there some other place on this forum where i might look for this information a your 20 posts for far certainly contains nothing on this topic...


Really we don't care for facts, yet we dispute them with facts of our own...?


I care for facts and that is why i demand that others must include the material they base their disagreement on.


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.


There is 1300 posts for you to work trough whenever you feel like actually educating yourself on this topic. I am certainly not going to help you along so just keep this up and help me expose your ignorance to one and all.


Where are these 20 links?


I have in fact cited a few hundred bits of information/pages as references material and it will be hard for you to avoid running into some of it if your searching...


Your posts remind me of a not so sober late night bar conversation of a pseudo intellectual: brave assertions and swollen language.


You should apply yourself more effectively then as spending time with such people is clearly not making you any better informed.



Thus I believe that you are mildly mislead as to why people are not refuting your assertions. Hint: it is not because your omniscient.


Well thanks for all the helpful advice! Without such good natured caring people as yourself one just wonders how we would keep this forum going.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

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.


I never make any claims about the F-22, you however do about the S-300 and as usual you can't fund any " FACTS " to support your claims




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.


You mean FACTS like you statement that teh S-300 can shoot down stealth aircraft ? Ahem.......




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.


LOL, stealth aircraft aren't invisible you know, if they fly over or very near aradar they will be detected, exactly what happened with the first generation F-117. NO secrets there.



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.


Yet you still provide no facts to back yourself up, just make baseles claims. You do the research, YOU made the claim. Where is the evidence ?


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.


You mena FACTS like you statements above. People see right through your FACTS, lol. You provide none to support your claims and make wld leaps from established to facts to some type of fantasy capability.



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


Once again a stupid statement. Saying the above does not make you misinformation about S-300 capabilities anymore credible. It's an argument a child would use.




I post 20 links to main stream source for each one of yours but still you persist in these lies.


I'm still waiting for sources about your assertions about the " GREAT " effectiveness of old Russian SAMS agains stealth targets over Serbia. Or FACTS about teh S-300 anti-stealth capability. Where are these 20 links ?



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.


He backs up nothing, he takes a few facts about certain weapons systems, then like you jumps to wild conclusions and fanatsy.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   


What am i saying is that tire of endlessly being the only party that contributes constructively by providing dozens of pages worth of source material that never gets contested in anything more than a marginal spiteful way. Why should i repeatedly spend hours compiling source material to respond to baiting and vapid attacks that never address the source material?


You're spending hours compiling source material? In this entire thread you have named only one source, namely: en.wikipedia.org...
A page which has dozens of links and -per se- contains no information to support you arguments. Presenting a source in this manner and expecting it to support an argument or statement is expecting too much. It's just like naming wikipedia as your source. When you make a statement you name the exact link of the source and quote the line or paragraph which contains the information that supports your claim.



A few dozen pages worth of material on various threats over many months. Evidence is evidence and you not being aware of it's location or extent reflects rather poorly on you.


It is not my duty to be aware of sources' links you posted months ago. That's just plain silly. Do you really expect people to go sifting through months worth of posts, links and corrosponding pages just to find a paragraph or line which just might support your claims. I fail to see how insisting on accurate links and quoted material to support your claims reflects poorly on me.




Then why assume ( without apparently doing any research as to what i have said before ) that i have not in fact repeatedly talk about this issue and provided the material i base my views on? It's interesting that you bring up the question of credibility without posting any factual content to support your objections. Is there some other place on this forum where i might look for this information a your 20 posts for far certainly contains nothing on this topic...


I do not have to assume. As I have stated before, I have looked at this entire thread and found only one link which per se contains no information to support your assertions. I, on the other hand, have been posting factual content to support my objections: I have repeatedly quoted your posts. My knowledge of this topic is not being debated here and is entirely irrelevant, what is is your inability to support your claims and conclusions!




There is 1300 posts for you to work trough whenever you feel like actually educating yourself on this topic. I am certainly not going to help you along so just keep this up and help me expose your ignorance to one and all.


Like I said before, my knowledge of this topic is not being debated here. If it were and I would find myself at a disadvantage, I would most certaintly not work through 1300 of your posts to educate myself. First, they are poorly written and second, -judging from your handling of sources in this thread- they effectively do not name sources.




I have in fact cited a few hundred bits of information/pages as references material and it will be hard for you to avoid running into some of it if your searching...


...it is not my job to search for sources you should be quoting and accurately providing the location of. If you make a claim, an assertion or come to a conclusion your source should be in that same post and quoted. Not in a post that dates back to 2005.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
noyhcat, this is a typical ATS pattern. Some ATS members repeatedly do the work and present factual information, while others endlessly deny it with out merit and them self repeatedly ask for "links".

After a short awhile it's painfully obvious who are those counterproductive ATS members are, and I for one support StellarX 100%. His forum participation has been consistently solid and substantiated by fact.

All in all, it's a community thing, and at one point members recognize each other for who they are, so jump on board mate.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
You have voted noyhcat for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Well said nad completely true. his friend Iskander is the same. They think they can post a few facts then make wild leaps and claim them as facts as well, with no substantiation.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by noyhcat
You're spending hours compiling source material? In this entire thread you have named only one source, namely: en.wikipedia.org...


In this thread yes but what does that say about my general activity on this forum?


A page which has dozens of links and -per se- contains no information to support you arguments.


So you read them all? VERY impressive. The link was provided to make it clear what sort of equipment the RF still operates.


Presenting a source in this manner and expecting it to support an argument or statement is expecting too much.


Actually it's expecting that people take things in context and do not attribute claims to me i never made. If anything i expected to much when i considered you informed or intelligent.


It's just like naming wikipedia as your source. When you make a statement you name the exact link of the source and quote the line or paragraph which contains the information that supports your claim.


And now your just plain insulting my intelligence. I have provided probably a few thousand such sourced bits of information on ATS and it's surprising that you would say this sort of thing to me. I'm starting to suspect that this is another account of mister Rogue as no sane person makes such blatantly false claims...


It is not my duty to be aware of sources' links you posted months ago.


Actually if your contesting what i say now it is your duty to have reasons for disagreement and basing that on the fact that i am not posting links for every claim i make THIS TIME ROUND is just stupidity taken to a new level.


That's just plain silly. Do you really expect people to go sifting through months worth of posts, links and corrosponding pages just to find a paragraph or line which just might support your claims.


It's what i do when i get into a serious discussion with someone who seems relatively well informed. From this post it's evident that you not only consider me quite stupid and ignorant but that your vanity has led you to believe that you can get away with such behaviour.


I fail to see how insisting on accurate links and quoted material to support your claims reflects poorly on me.


It reflects poorly on you because it suggest that you are too lazy to do the research objecting to other's claims requires. You have posted NOTHING to contest what i say so we are still dealing with your opinions and my opinions only i have in the past defended my claims in great detail using hundreds of source pages. You have over the last two years contributed nothing on this topic with your twenty posts on this forum which leads me to believe that this account is being employed only to launch vapid attacks on people you could not otherwise harass.


I do not have to assume. As I have stated before, I have looked at this entire thread and found only one link which per se contains no information to support your assertions.


And i repeatedly said that the information is on others threads of which Rogue ( the person i am actually 'discussing' this with) is well aware of.


I, on the other hand, have been posting factual content to support my objections: I have repeatedly quoted your posts. My knowledge of this topic is not being debated here and is entirely irrelevant, what is is your inability to support your claims and conclusions!


What factual post on this forum? All you have done is basically questioning the validity of my claims without even beginning to suggest why you question them? That is not a discussion last i checked and i doubt you can or will raise actual factual objections i have not before addressed elsewhere.


Like I said before, my knowledge of this topic is not being debated here. If it were and I would find myself at a disadvantage, I would most certaintly not work through 1300 of your posts to educate myself.


You could have stuck to the weapons related posts or asked me which one's best explains what i am basing my views on. I think i supplied three links earlier to good summaries of what my expressed views here are based on.


First, they are poorly written and second, -judging from your handling of sources in this thread- they effectively do not name sources.


You have quite clearly done no research and it's evident that your twisted attack on me is not about what facts or reality i believe in but simply out of spite.


...it is not my job to search for sources you should be quoting and accurately providing the location of.


I have no such obligation in this instance as my information is not question with even one sourced objection. Since the person i was having this 'discussion' with knows where to look for the information i am siting i don't honestly care how you feel about this.


If you make a claim, an assertion or come to a conclusion your source should be in that same post and quoted. Not in a post that dates back to 2005.


Actually i am not obligated to provide sources to claims at ALL if i choose to conduct myself that way and that's is what the vast majority of forum posters do. I have nothing to prove to you, you have not contested any of my claims after all, and as far as i am concerned we can have this chat for the next year. People like you don't even break my stride anymore.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
I never make any claims about the F-22, you however do about the S-300 and as usual you can't fund any " FACTS " to support your claims


You know very well that i have provided dozens of western and international sources who admit that fighting in even a limited S-300 environment will be very hard to do for. I don't understand how you can just deny the evidence without supporting your position at all.


You mean FACTS like you statement that teh S-300 can shoot down stealth aircraft ? Ahem.......


There is no such thing as a 'stealth' aircraft; only low RCS aircraft and they can ( and have been ) shot down just like any other aircraft. 'Stealth' was a stupid idea from the start and it's imo evidence that the American defense establishment is working against American interest. I have in the past provided you numerous sources that suggest what the S-300 range of weapons can and will do to 'stealth' aircraft.


LOL, stealth aircraft aren't invisible you know, if they fly over or very near aradar they will be detected, exactly what happened with the first generation F-117. NO secrets there.


There is simply no evidence that the F-117 was not shot down at long range after being tracked on radar. If you want to buy into the story that it managed to hit because it 'flew the same height/route a few nights in a row and that they just launched a lot of missiles where they thought it would be at the time' you don't deserve even the little respect i have left for you.


Yet you still provide no facts to back yourself up, just make baseles claims. You do the research, YOU made the claim. Where is the evidence ?


I have provided facts in the past and you know exactly where to find them. I might at post them again but i am not obligated to repeat myself while you run away from reality at your best speed.


You mena FACTS like you statements above. People see right through your FACTS, lol. You provide none to support your claims and make wld leaps from established to facts to some type of fantasy capability.


I have provided facts in the past and you know exactly where to find them. I might at post them again but i am not obligated to repeat myself while you run away from reality at your best speed. You did not contest my claims in the past and since you can not even manage that i can leap where i want without fear as your certainly not the one that's going to be able to correct me. It's hilarious how you believe that simple denying history will somehow gain you credibility when most of the readers are well aware of your pathetic track record when it comes to addressing the material i present.


Once again a stupid statement. Saying the above does not make you misinformation about S-300 capabilities anymore credible. It's an argument a child would use.


You argue that a weapon system will not work as advertised ( based on no evidence at all while i just quote the brochures distributed at arms sales where foreign buyers see it in action) when it's previous incarnations have seen such extensive battle field testing and you do not even have the decency to say WHY. I do not have to prove a thing while it's you who deny accepted standards without ever presenting information. You have NEVER presented a single source that even remotely suggests that the S-300 will not be a formidable opponent even in limited deployed numbers.


I'm still waiting for sources about your assertions about the " GREAT " effectiveness of old Russian SAMS agains stealth targets over Serbia. Or FACTS about teh S-300 anti-stealth capability. Where are these 20 links ?


You know where you can find this information ( you were after all there making the very same unsupported arguments against pages and pages worth of source material) and i am not obligated to repeat myself endlessly. I can however keep wasting your time like you do mine.


He backs up nothing, he takes a few facts about certain weapons systems, then like you jumps to wild conclusions and fanatsy.


Your just completely deluded imo as your the only one that takes wild flights of fancy without even the courtesy of providing us with some , any will do really, material to object to. I might be completely wrong on a variety of issues but for you to even begin to imagine that you could ever find or expose my mistakes in this manner is just exceptionally strange. Your clearly not here to discuss facts ( i migth eventually post all that stuff again but it does take time and i really should not have to) so why should i bother substantiating my claims to any greater extent than you do?

We can , if you want, just have a good old fashioned screaming match where you might, with great luck and perseverance, begin to approach being my equal since i spent so many years wrestling fools like you drenched in verbal mud. The odds are clearly stacked against you but the absence of facts, evidence, source material and such things is probably the best conditions your ever going to manage.

/me Jumps in.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
You know very well that i have provided dozens of western and international sources who admit that fighting in even a limited S-300 environment will be very hard to do for. I don't understand how you can just deny the evidence without supporting your position at all.


And what, you still provide no facts to back yourself up. this is getting old and boring. Bring some facts to the table for once, not a never ending stream of BS and supposition.



There is no such thing as a 'stealth' aircraft; only low RCS aircraft and they can ( and have been ) shot down just like any other aircraft. 'Stealth' was a stupid idea from the start and it's imo evidence that the American defense establishment is working against American interest.


LOl, just repeating what I said, LOL. One stealth plane has been shot down out of thousands of sorties. Yep what a stupid idea
Of course someone with your minute knowledge must know better.


I have in the past provided you numerous sources that suggest what the S-300 range of weapons can and will do to 'stealth' aircraft.


But no fact, your sources may make some calims but present no fact. I can find " sources " which can suggest just about anything. FACTS are FACTS and you have presented none.



There is simply no evidence that the F-117 was not shot down at long range after being tracked on radar. If you want to buy into the story that it managed to hit because it 'flew the same height/route a few nights in a row and that they just launched a lot of missiles where they thought it would be at the time' you don't deserve even the little respect i have left for you.


Where is this mydterious evedence which supposes this ? Can't find it LOL. How surprising. Do you actually have any FACTS ? Didn't think so.
I don't want the respect of an idiot, it brings me down.



I have provided facts in the past and you know exactly where to find them. I might at post them again but i am not obligated to repeat myself while you run away from reality at your best speed.


Nope, I prove your " FACTS " ( which I apply the term loosely ) wrong all the time. Yet you just keep n repeating the same old BS. I don't run away, I just can't be bothered replying to carbon after carbon copy of your posts which I have already shown to be false. It's very boring and uninteresting, you seem to think if you repeat somethign anough, you'll browbeat people into accepting it as fact.



It's hilarious how you believe that simple denying history will somehow gain you credibility when most of the readers are well aware of your pathetic track record when it comes to addressing the material i present.


LOL, I beleive many more mebers believe that you are full of it. A poster here in this thread has alreay asked you for your facts, yet you giver him nothing. Come on




You argue that a weapon system will not work as advertised ( based on no evidence at all while i just quote the brochures distributed at arms sales where foreign buyers see it in action) when it's previous incarnations have seen such extensive battle field testing and you do not even have the decency to say WHY.


LMAO, did I just read this. So you beleive the brochures that the arms manufactureres put out. Oh but wait they demonsrate them to foreign buyers in ( rigged tests ). Gee they must be all that they say they. Once again the S-300 has never been tested in combat only under very benign test conditions. This hardly makes ot the formadle weapon you make it out to be

BUt heys the brochures saud so .......LMAO.

WHat are it's previous incarnations ? What teh SA-10, it's hardly a super weapon LOL and never [played a decisive role in any battle.



Your clearly not here to discuss facts ( i migth eventually post all that stuff again but it does take time and i really should not have to) so why should i bother substantiating my claims to any greater extent than you do?


But you provide no facts to discuss



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, you like to take Russian brochures as fact, doesn't matter if the S-300 has never been tested against a stealth target


Never been tested?


Really?


Senior Russian aerospace officials admitted that they are testing new SAM missiles against the F-117 that was shot down by Serb forces in 1999. The Russians admitted that the F-117 was being used to test new anti-stealth technology and advanced missiles designed to shoot down U.S. aircraft. Russian researchers are testing components of a new air defense system against the F-117 remains.

The Russian anti-stealth tests include radio frequency seekers from surface-to-air missiles and proximity fuses for missile warheads. Russian missile makers Antey Industrial Corp. and the Almaz Central Design Bureau are using the F-117 and modified Russian-made stealth aircraft to test components for the next generation of Russian Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs).

SoftWar.net


Brochures are used to convey what has been tested



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, you like to take Russian brochures as fact, doesn't matter if the S-300 has never been tested against a stealth target


Never been tested?


Really?


Yes really, even in this bogus article below it mkaes no mention of the S-300 being used.


Senior Russian aerospace officials admitted that they are testing new SAM missiles against the F-117 that was shot down by Serb forces in 1999. The Russians admitted that the F-117 was being used to test new anti-stealth technology and advanced missiles designed to shoot down U.S. aircraft. Russian researchers are testing components of a new air defense system against the F-117 remains.

The Russian anti-stealth tests include radio frequency seekers from surface-to-air missiles and proximity fuses for missile warheads. Russian missile makers Antey Industrial Corp. and the Almaz Central Design Bureau are using the F-117 and modified Russian-made stealth aircraft to test components for the next generation of Russian Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs).

SoftWar.net

LOL right softwar. Do you have any actual reputable sources to back this up ? First I've ever heard of this. Interesting how no one else has posted this.
So do you have an actual factual source, who are these " senior Russian aerospace officals " ?

Sounds like a complete load of BS and no fact, just someones say so.



Brochures are used to convey what has been tested


Not in the slightest, brochures are designed to sell a product, they aren't necessarily truthful at all. As has been said mnay times the S-300 has never been battle testd and cetainly ont testd against any of the adversaries it might be used against.
I'm curious where stellarx gets these " brochures " from ? I know he doesn't go to nay defence expos LOL.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   
LOL.

C'mon, people. Let's get something straight. As far as the actual capabilities and performance for the systems being discussed in this thread are concerned................the crapola you find on the internet regarding these systems is, at best, probably 50-75% accurate. Real performance data is classified and unknown to the general public.

You guys can debate back and forth all day long until you are blue in the face, but it really amounts to nothing. Post all the links and references you want - they don't amount to anything conclusive. It's all conjecture and amateur analysis, for the most part. Data released by the manufacturers are undoubtedly either buisness development garbase designed to promote sales, or blatant over (or under) estimations designed to throw off rivals and enemies. Until people start posting actual user's manuals and classified capabilities briefings, you are all just chasing your tails.

That being said, the only actual data you can present to back up any claims regarding system X or whatever is actual wartime performance metrics. That IS the final yardstick by which any given system is really measured, isn't it? So why are you wasting your time posting likes and trying to "prove" this or that? Just say "IMO" and then state your claim.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by noyhcat
You're spending hours compiling source material? In this entire thread you have named only one source, namely: en.wikipedia.org...
A page which has dozens of links and -per se- contains no information to support you arguments. Presenting a source in this manner and expecting it to support an argument or statement is expecting too much. It's just like naming wikipedia as your source. When you make a statement you name the exact link of the source and quote the line or paragraph which contains the information that supports your claim.



YES HE DOES! You catch a fish by the mounth by you catch a man by his words. StellarX does not just type whatever comes into his head but behind his post there is huge amount of hours spent on studying and reaserching.He can always back up his words. The same goes with Iskander. I enjoy reading every single post of his.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK STELLAR









[edit on 13-10-2006 by Russian Boy]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Yes really, even in this bogus article below it mkaes no mention of the S-300 being used.


Is that the best reply you came up with?. Hoping it didn't mention the S-300


Look Under S-300
www.softwar.net...





First I've ever heard of this.


You didn't know a lot to begin with. Softwar.net is one of the most extensive collections of missile related information on the internet. That is one reason why FAS.org has been raiding their website to procure pictures and information.

It is also one of the most up to date information sites on the internet


brochures are designed to sell a product, they aren't necessarily truthful at all.


Brochures are extentions of the truth. Everything they write is the mixed truth because the results they got were done in the lab. Thats why i drive 100km and use 10 litres of petrol while the car brochure quotes 9.2 litres because they were done under pristine conditions.

The figures you read are their MAXIMUM performace and not battle performaces



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1
Yes really, even in this bogus article below it mkaes no mention of the S-300 being used.


Is that the best reply you came up with?. Hoping it didn't mention the S-300



What more needs to be said ? As I said the article is bogis and like all such pieces of writing like this it is typcally vague. Someone said someting, but we're not gong to tell you who it was. //rolls eyes//



First I've ever heard of this.


You didn't know a lot to begin with. Softwar.net is one of the most extensive collections of missile related information on the internet. That is one reason why FAS.org has been raiding their website to procure pictures and information.

It is also one of the most up to date information sites on the internet


That site has alot of BS on it. I would hardly call it reliable. So I can assume by reading the heaings of the articles in that site, that CHina is the evil empire hell bent on war ? Correct ?



Brochures are extentions of the truth. Everything they write is the mixed truth because the results they got were done in the lab. Thats why i drive 100km and use 10 litres of petrol while the car brochure quotes 9.2 litres because they were done under pristine conditions.


LOL, ok so what's the truthful part and what isn't ? Do you know this then plese enlighten us. About the only thing you could rely upon in the " brochure " id that the S-300 is a missile - I'd believe that LOL.

So I guess that the F-22 ( because stellarx likes to mention it so much ) is basically invincible and that the S-300 is easy meat for it. Well.......that's what the " brochure " says, LOL.




[edit on 13-10-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian Boy

YES HE DOES! You catch a fish by the mounth by you catch a man by his words. StellarX does not just type whatever comes into his head but behind his post there is huge amount of hours spent on studying and reaserching.He can always back up his words. The same goes with Iskander. I enjoy reading every single post of his.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK STELLAR



LOL they don't back up #e. It is very easy to dazzle the ignorant with BS, sin your case. I for one and other more studious members can see straight through the BS and it's obvious the claims they make are not backed up by fact, just inuendo based on a little fact. This however does not support the conclusions they come to.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
As I said the article is bogys and like all such pieces of writing like this it is typcally vague. Someone said someting, but we're not gong to tell you who it was.


Your trying to discredit a site you dont even know about?

You can ask him yourself which russian offical he quoted. He takes e-mail as well as feedback comments.
Feeback

Like most defence equipment questions, they never reveal names. Russian, American, Chinese, Japanese, British, French or german simply because its a secruity risk. you will never find information on developers for current systems to get information from


That site has alot of BS on it. I would hardly call it reliable.


Like what?

It does not leave a bias opinion about the weapons or about Russian or American weapons. It just states design history pictures and stats.

And you do realise is a patriotic american site dont you?


So I guess that the F-22 ( because stellarx likes to mention it so much ) is basically invincible and that the S-300 is easy meat for it. Well.......that's what the " brochure " says, LOL.


I would like to see that brochure



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
LOL you mean this F117




LOL and the softwar site looks like crap. LOL it talks of buying a subscription to secret documents and computer gear!



I think he got it from newsmax


In addition, a small number of Russian tactical aircraft have been modified with low-observable stealth technology in order to conduct airborne tests against the new air defense systems.

Russian missile makers Antey Industrial Corp. and the Almaz Central Design Bureau are using the F-117 and modified Russian-made stealth aircraft to test components for the next generation of Russian Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs).

The new lineup of weapons includes updated versions of the SA-10 and SA-20 missiles. In addition, Antey has developed an upgraded version of its SA-12 anti-missile system. The next generation of Antey and Almaz missiles reportedly can shoot down targets up to 250 miles away.

Almaz engineers claim its S-300PMU-2 system can locate and destroy stealth targets up to 60 miles away. Almaz is currently trying to sell the S-300PMU-2 to China.

www.newsmax.com...


[edit on 13-10-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
LOL you mean this F117



Russian researchers are testing components of a new air defense system against the F-117 remains.


It actually stipulated REMAINS







LOL and the softwar site looks like crap. LOL it talks of buying a subscription to secret documents and computer gear!


Funny, the same person would take even less convincing about the F-22 stealth



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join