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.

 

Russian AD junk ? Seems so.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


Excellent post. I just want to say that




posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
reply to post by mad scientist
 


What failed miserably ? Where and when ? The destination of an air strike is not specified, neither do we know what area was bombed, what facilities were there nor do we know whether it was protected by any Russian technology or not.

What are you trying to say here ? I fail to understand what you are basing your conclusions on.. Be more specific. The bits of information coming from the both sides are too vague and inconsistent to say anything certain about the whole story, let alone making anything special out of it as you do here.


You said the attacks didn't occur, I have provided evidence that they did, especially since both sides acknowledge it. The fact is the Israeli's were able to fly into Syrian airpsace unopposed drop some bombs nad fly out again. What is your point. the attack occurred, you were wrong.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by Iblis
 


I do beleieve that 99.9999999999999% of soldiers/sailors and airmen who have served at least 1 tour in an SF unit , generally do not talk about it - there are exceptions but they can be counted on 1 hand. therefore i pesonally would say your neighbour is full of bull.



He worked in Intelligence; it's quite clear to me, by looking at him, that the man was never 'Covert Op' of anything of the sort.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Then he would never even mention he was an ex-member of mossad - he would especially know the consequences of such actions - the Isralies are very tight about who can say or do what.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Well, it certainly helps that he wrote a book.
If you'd like, I can give you the title, and send you a screenshot of that same book, with a dedication to me on the flip-page.

Given, he's a terrible author, but, he point stands.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

You said the attacks didn't occur, I have provided evidence that they did, especially since both sides acknowledge it. The fact is the Israeli's were able to fly into Syrian airpsace unopposed drop some bombs nad fly out again. What is your point. the attack occurred, you were wrong.


Until the Pantsir S1 enters service...

And until Syria gets the S-300/400.

Then those planes are #ed.

Oh the Pantsir couldnt be fielded because off the very limited time frame they had.

they just got those AA vehicles a month and where months away from fielding them

Maybe THATS why the Israeli`s attacked Syria now because else they would need to plough through the Pantsir systems...



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by mad scientist
 


Speculations, speculations and more speculations. Something did happen, but what exactly? How can you prove any AAD system was actually used? Based on what proof? Ant FYI, there is absolutely no proof concerning this whole event here on ATS. Guesses and speculations. People are trying to 'connect the dots', which is commendable, but it is not a proof.

And you're taking this hazy event as a PROOF that Russian AAMs are worthless? Come on, be serious. For now, it is only wishful thinking.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   

The September Israeli airstrike on a suspected nuclear site in Syria had been in the works for months, ABC News has learned, and was delayed only at the strong urging of the United States.


Related Stories
Israel, breaking silence, confirms strike in SyriaTop World News with Charles Gibson stories
Orphan School Opens Its Doors in BaghdadMusic 'Wonder' Hits Road to Honor MomPerson of the Week: Stevie Wonder
In early July the Israelis presented the United States with satellite imagery that they said showed a nuclear facility in Syria. They had additional evidence that they said showed that some of the technology was supplied by North Korea.


One U.S. official told ABC's Martha Raddatz the material was "jaw dropping" because it raised questions as to why U.S. intelligence had not previously picked up on the facility.


Officials said that the facility had likely been there for months if not years.


"Israel tends to be very thorough about its intelligence coverage, particularly when it takes a major military step, so they would not have acted without data from several sources," said ABC military consultant Tony Cordesman.



U.S. Cautious After Flawed Iraq Intelligence

A senior U.S. official said the Israelis planned to strike during the week of July 14 and in secret high-level meetings American officials argued over how to respond to the intelligence.


Some in the administration supported the Israeli action, but others, notably Sect. of State Condoleeza Rice did not. One senior official said the U.S. convinced the Israelis to "confront Syria before attacking."


Officials said they were concerned about the impact an attack on Syria would have on the region. And given the profound consequences of the flawed intelligence in Iraq, the U.S. wanted to be absolutely certain the intelligence was accurate.


Initially, administration officials convinced the Israelis to call off the July strike. But in September the Israelis feared that news of the site was about to leak and went ahead with the strike despite U.S. concerns.


The airstrike was so highly classified, President Bush refused to acknowledge it publicly even after the bombs fell.

abcnews.go.com...


Wells seems there was nuclar technology transfer from NK to Syria and teh Israeli's were able to take it out despite Syrian defences for no loss. You can be sure Syria would hvhave prctected this equipment with their best defences.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
Until the Pantsir S1 enters service...

And until Syria gets the S-300/400.

Then those planes are #ed.[/qquote]

How do you know some of the S1's weren't operational, are you an expert on Russian military technology and training ? So basically you are just speculating with an uninformed opinion. Correct ?
How do you know the S-300 and S-400 are so effective, because the Russian brochures claim so ? Let's face it they have never been combat tested and they certainlyhave never come up against the ultra advanced western ECM systems. So please enough speculation, show me facts.


Oh the Pantsir couldnt be fielded because off the very limited time frame they had.

they just got those AA vehicles a month and where months away from fielding them


How would you know ?



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

The September Israeli airstrike on a suspected nuclear site in Syria had been in the works for months, ABC News has learned, and was delayed only at the strong urging of the United States.


Related Stories
Israel, breaking silence, confirms strike in SyriaTop World News with Charles Gibson stories
Orphan School Opens Its Doors in BaghdadMusic 'Wonder' Hits Road to Honor MomPerson of the Week: Stevie Wonder
In early July the Israelis presented the United States with satellite imagery that they said showed a nuclear facility in Syria. They had additional evidence that they said showed that some of the technology was supplied by North Korea.


One U.S. official told ABC's Martha Raddatz the material was "jaw dropping" because it raised questions as to why U.S. intelligence had not previously picked up on the facility.


Officials said that the facility had likely been there for months if not years.


"Israel tends to be very thorough about its intelligence coverage, particularly when it takes a major military step, so they would not have acted without data from several sources," said ABC military consultant Tony Cordesman.



U.S. Cautious After Flawed Iraq Intelligence

A senior U.S. official said the Israelis planned to strike during the week of July 14 and in secret high-level meetings American officials argued over how to respond to the intelligence.


Some in the administration supported the Israeli action, but others, notably Sect. of State Condoleeza Rice did not. One senior official said the U.S. convinced the Israelis to "confront Syria before attacking."


Officials said they were concerned about the impact an attack on Syria would have on the region. And given the profound consequences of the flawed intelligence in Iraq, the U.S. wanted to be absolutely certain the intelligence was accurate.


Initially, administration officials convinced the Israelis to call off the July strike. But in September the Israelis feared that news of the site was about to leak and went ahead with the strike despite U.S. concerns.


The airstrike was so highly classified, President Bush refused to acknowledge it publicly even after the bombs fell.

abcnews.go.com...


Wells seems there was nuclar technology transfer from NK to Syria and teh Israeli's were able to take it out despite Syrian defences for no loss. You can be sure Syria would hvhave prctected this equipment with their best defences.



i have seen no proof of the so -called 'nuclear' site , only israeli/western propanganda, which sounds like WMD false flag operations , like usa claimed there was WMD in Iraq

[edit on 6-10-2007 by manson_322]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
Until the Pantsir S1 enters service...

And until Syria gets the S-300/400.

Then those planes are #ed.[/qquote]

How do you know some of the S1's weren't operational, are you an expert on Russian military technology and training ? So basically you are just speculating with an uninformed opinion. Correct ?
How do you know the S-300 and S-400 are so effective, because the Russian brochures claim so ? Let's face it they have never been combat tested and they certainlyhave never come up against the ultra advanced western ECM systems. So please enough speculation, show me facts.


Oh the Pantsir couldnt be fielded because off the very limited time frame they had.

they just got those AA vehicles a month and where months away from fielding them


How would you know ?






How do you know some of the S1's weren't operational, are you an expert on Russian military technology and training ? So basically you are just speculating with an uninformed opinion. Correct ?


basically , you are doing the same thing , by using speculative western sources like strategypage that cliam that the s1 was deployed , and the article on strategypage, seemed to be based on Debka article , and Debka has serious credidibility issues




How do you know the S-300 and S-400 are so effective, because the Russian brochures claim so ? Let's face it they have never been combat tested and they certainlyhave never come up against the ultra advanced western ECM systems. So please enough speculation, show me facts.


then please show the facts that 'ultra advanced' western system can counter s-300/s-400 ....




How would you know ?


and how DO YOU KNOW , ??? FROM DEBKA
:lol
the article on strategypage is based on it)



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Mad Scientist and Mason. Please edit your posts because i cant quote both off you guys.

Mad Scientist: I dont know Russian or Syrian procedures on integrating AA systems but what i do know is that one month is too short to field an entirely new system.

You need to train the crew, the technicians and construct the infrastructure required to field the units and to transport them to special maintance stations to keep those units in top notch shape and such things cant be done in one month.

It can only happen in wartimes when things are sped up like crazy.

And we are not in a time off war.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
Mad Scientist: I dont know Russian or Syrian procedures on integrating AA systems but what i do know is that one month is too short to field an entirely new system.

You need to train the crew, the technicians and construct the infrastructure required to field the units and to transport them to special maintance stations to keep those units in top notch shape and such things cant be done in one month.


Well either the Syrians are trained in Russia or there are Russians technicians inside Syrian doing the training. Either way the expertise is there to get the systems operational withing a week.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
The Pantsir-S1 hadn't reached IOC.

EDIT: It took china about 2 1/2 month to reach IOC with the S-300 after the initial delivery

[edit on 6-10-2007 by chinawhite]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Either way the expertise is there to get the systems operational withing a week.

From everything I've ever read, it doesn't matter how godly you are, getting an aa system operating within a month is about as easy as winning a 19th-century land war with Moskva.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
Mad Scientist and Mason. Please edit your posts because i cant quote both off you guys.

Mad Scientist: I dont know Russian or Syrian procedures on integrating AA systems but what i do know is that one month is too short to field an entirely new system.

You need to train the crew, the technicians and construct the infrastructure required to field the units and to transport them to special maintance stations to keep those units in top notch shape and such things cant be done in one month.

It can only happen in wartimes when things are sped up like crazy.

And we are not in a time off war.



i was not questioning you , but mad scientist

anyways the delivery began in mid of august, and you are in my opinion correct


But given the usual timeframe of at least several months to even reach an initial operational level with any complex weapon system it is most improbable that Pantsir-S1 systems where in combat.
en.wikipedia.org...



Also take note that an F-15 can reach mach 2.5 (This however would not be their approach air speed on a bombing run.) and Pantsir can't deal with target that goes faster than 1000m/s
en.wikipedia.org...



36 to 50 on order[10]; signed 2006 as part of arms package worth about US$ 1 billion[11]; deliveries began in August of 2007; British Jane's Defence Weekly reported in May 2007 that 50 systems are on order by Damascus and that at least ten of those Pantsirs would be handed over to Iran by the end of 2008.
en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 7-10-2007 by manson_322]



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist


Well either the Syrians are trained in Russia or there are Russians technicians inside Syrian doing the training. Either way the expertise is there to get the systems operational withing a week.



wheres the proof ?????



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
The Pantsir-S1 hadn't reached IOC.

EDIT: It took china about 2 1/2 month to reach IOC with the S-300 after the initial delivery

[edit on 6-10-2007 by chinawhite]


I doubt Chinese prise would allow Russian advisors on Chinese soil. The Syrians on the other hand....



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
The Pantsir-S1 hadn't reached IOC.

EDIT: It took china about 2 1/2 month to reach IOC with the S-300 after the initial delivery

[edit on 6-10-2007 by chinawhite]



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mad scientist
 


Really, what do we know about this event?

1.) IAF had undertaken an air attack on Syrian territory. Some Israeli sources indicate that the mission was of great strategic importance, and was a success. Officials never confirmed or denied anything about it.

2.) First Syrian response was that IAF aircraft had violated their airspace, but were repelled by their air defense, and that nothing was destroyed. Later, some of their sources admitted something was indeed destroyed, indicating quite a few objects - an abandoned military base, cement factory etc. Also, they've denied any nuclear cooperation with North Korea.

3.) The hype starts with this article. Most, if not all news agencies that are reporting about this event are using this article as a source. But this sounds more like a Tom Clancy novel then real news. Number one author of this article is Uzi Mahnaimi, a man that is not known for his credibility, but because of his creative imagination. Check out this article, for example. Sources - Israeli military and western intelligence sources. Now, where did I hear that before?
And in some later news, the commando story was dropped out. Makes me wonder why.

4.) First news regarding this IAF raid had connected it with arrival of N. Korean ship to Syria. But now, some of the most recent news say that this pla was in the work for months, but was delayed because of US political pressure. You can check it out here. Well, these news are contradicting. Fishy! Furthermore, some sources say that Syrian air control/defense was disabled by new US developed system. Link. Looks fishy too, but not completely impossible.

This more/less all there is about it that can be found in open sources.

And now OP, I am going to point out your main claims, the way I see them:

1.) IAF had undertaken an air attack on Syrian soil. Their target was some kind of nuclear facility, originating from N. Korea. The mission was successful, nuclear facility was destroyed.

2.) The facility was protected by multiple Pantsir AD systems. The system was fully functional, and was manned by trained personnel, whether Syrian or Russian, and was on battle alert. The system was used, but without any results.

3.) Russian AD systems are practically worthless, and one shouldn't even worry about them. Applies to all Russian AD systems (considering your opening post).

Now, you seem pretty confident about your claims, like you know something that some/most of us don't. Well, do you? Because if you don't, all this 'Russian AD junk ? Seems so. talk has no basis in real life. Not at all. If you mange to provide solid evidence for your #1 and #2 claims (as marked by me), I'll take your #3 claim as a very very high probability.

And by the way, 'mission of high strategic importance' could mean quite a bunch of things for Israel. For instance - strikes on almost anything Hezbollah/ Hamas related would perfectly fit into this description. It would also be a good reason for Syria to be silent about it. And by the way, those targets wouldn't enjoy benefits of Pantsir AD for sure.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join