Advanced Pantsyr-S1 air defense proves ineffective, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 02:09 PM by manson_322

reply to post by dbates

sorry dbates , i get irratated with people who jump to conclusions , actually the S1 sys in my opinion is designed to take UAVs , subsonic misiles and for it to intercept supersonic craft ,its not designed for that task , i doubt it was guarding syrian facility , if facility existed , in my opinion israel was probing syrian defences to determine if there new systems integrated inot it ,

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 02:31 PM by Duby78

reply to post by mad scientist

Well, like it not, you have shown that you're quite biased concerning all this stuff. Next time you'll be claiming that Sherman tank was actually superior to T-34, and only because Sherman is made in US and T-34 in USSR.

But let us return on topic. For once again, would you 'enlighten' us with some proof considering this SA-22 issue? Once again, show some proof that the system was manned, battle ready, and that it opened fire on IAF aircraft and failed to do any damage on them. Hell, you can't even prove that they were in the area where this Israeli raid took place, let alone proving they were used. Also, you cannot tell what the target really was. You cannot prove pretty much anything accurate considering this whole issue, except that the attack did happen. As for Debka... nothing but wet dreams

SA-22/Pantsir system's main role is to provide mobile air defense for armored columns. That's why its range is approx. 20 km. Therefore, it is not intended nor capable to provide air defense for vital strategic objects. As for its US counterpart, there isn't any, really. Only perhaps M1097 Avenger, but that is not really fair comparison. Maybe the MIM-115 Roland? Well, it is more appropriate US operated AD system for comparison with SA-22, but has one serious setback... it is not made in USA.

And FYI, my intention is NOT to prove that SA-22/Pantsir is an excellent weapon system, but to find out how efficient it REALLY is. And Debka isn't going to help me with that.

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 03:39 PM by mad scientist

Originally posted by manson_322
reply to post by mad scientist

yawn , are u refering to to old subsonic obsolete mig-17 that was used in vietnam that monkey model export variant before TOPgun came the kill ratio was roughly 1:1 and inspite american techno superiority , USA lost more than 1000 fighters to obsolete sa-2 SAMs, AAA and mig-17

Hmm ok, you've just displayed your lack of knowledge. The North Vietnamese in fact flew MIG-21's. The SA-2 was the most advanced missile the Soviets/Russians had, which they supplied to the Vietnamese by the thousands. Hanoi was in fact the most heavily defended city in the world, combined with the fact the US were flying sorties 24 hours a day for 10 years.

All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft, 1,737 because of hostile action and 514 for operational reasons. A ratio of roughly 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and the 9.7 figure during World War II
www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil...

Also the kill ratio was never even close to 1:1. I suggest you educate yourself. Owned.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by mad scientist]

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 11:09 PM by manson_322

reply to post by mad scientist

Hmm ok, you've just displayed your lack of knowledge. The North Vietnamese in fact flew MIG-21's.

not just mig-21 , also mig-19,mig-17,J-6

many north vietnamese preferred mig-17 as it was easier ,less complex and manuveralbe in comparsion to mig-21 ..topgun came in to train american pilots to handle viet mig-17/mig-21

Some Vietnamese pilots, in fact, preferred the MiG-17 over the MiG-21; it was more agile, though not as fast.
The American fighter community was shocked in 1965 when elderly, subsonic MiG-17s downed sophisticated Mach-2-class F-105 Thunderchief fighter-bombers over North Vietnam. To redress disappointing combat performance against smaller, more agile fighters like the MiGs, the Americans established dissimilar air combat training (DACT) in training programs such as "TOPGUN",
en.wikipedia.org...

The SA-2 was the most advanced missile the Soviets/Russians had, which they supplied to the Vietnamese by the thousands.

once again an incorrect statement SA-5(s-200 ) was the most Advanced SAM/ABM missile in the soviet arsenal and most of the Sa-2 were older second hand missiles that were sent from eastern europe(orginally deployed there) produced in 1956

Between 1965 and 1972, the Soviets supplied to North Vietnam a total of 95 missile complexes - initially SA-75M "Dvina" and later S75 "Desna" - as well as 7,658 SAMs. However, both "Dvina" and "Desna" were not the most advanced Soviet designs and Hanoi did not get the more up-to-date S125 "Volkhov" during the war.

The Vietnamese military reportedly complained that they were getting missiles of obsolete designs. In some cases, the Vietnamese even removed fresh paint from missile complexes and discovered old marks suggesting that the weapons were brought from East Germany or Poland.

Some of the missile complexes supplied to Vietnam from the Soviet Union during the war were actually second-hand weapons, produced in 1956-1958.

www.cdi.org...

Also the kill ratio was never even close to 1:1. I suggest you educate yourself.

another ignorant and absurd statement as usual as expected from you ,

From May-October 1972, the Air Force executed Linebacker I, which included large strike packages from a bunch of bases. It had been four years since Air Force pilots flew combat missions over Hanoi. Training had been inadequate. It did not include air to air. The missions brought a lot of mistakes. The kill ratio dropped below 1:1
web.mit.edu...

The Air Force, opposed by MiG-21s, MiG-17s, and J-6s (the Chinese version of the MiG-19), experienced a virtual 1:1 shoot-down ratio through the first two months of the campaign, as seven of its eventual 24 Linebacker air-to-air losses occurred without any corresponding North Vietnamese loss in a twelve-day period between 24 June and 5 July
en.wikipedia.org...

as i said before there were periods when ratio was 1:1

[edit on 18-10-2007 by manson_322]

[edit on 18-10-2007 by manson_322]

[edit on 18-10-2007 by manson_322]

reply posted on 19-10-2007 @ 02:16 AM by mad scientist

Well if you;re going to quote wikim you shouldn;t ust pick anf choose the favourable parts,

enjoyed a kill ratio of 6:1 in May and June, such that after that the North Vietnamese rarely engaged them thereafter.[52] The Air Force, opposed by MiG-21s, MiG-17s, and J-6s (the Chinese version of the MiG-19), experienced a virtual 1:1 shoot-down ratio through the first two months of the campaign, as seven of its eventual 24 Linebacker air-to-air losses occurred without any corresponding North Vietnamese loss in a twelve-day period between 24 June and 5 July.[53]

Air Force pilots were hampered by use of the outdated "fluid four" tactical formations (a four-plane, two element formation in which only the leader did the shooting and in which the outside wingmen were vulnerable) dictated by service doctrine. Also contributing to the parity was a lack of

air combat training against dissimilar aircraft, a deficient early warning system, and ECM pod formations that mandated strict adherence to formation flying.[54] During August, however, the introduction of real-time early warning systems, increased aircrew combat experience, and degraded North Vietnamese ground control interception capabilities reversed the trend to a more favorable 4:1 kill ratio
en.wikipedia.org...

Yes there was a period of a 1:1 ratio for 2 months out of a 10 years war. You imolt that the 1:1 kil ratio lasted for years. And based on statistics it was more luck then anything else, lol.

[edit on 19-10-2007 by mad scientist]

reply posted on 19-10-2007 @ 06:12 AM by manson_322

reply to post by mad scientist

Originally posted by mad scientist
Well if you;re going to quote wikim you shouldn;t ust pick anf choose the favourable parts,

Yes there was a period of a 1:1 ratio for 2 months out of a 10 years war. You imolt that the 1:1 kil ratio lasted for years. And based on statistics it was more luck then anything else, lol.

[edit on 19-10-2007 by mad scientist]

Well if you;re going to quote wikim you shouldn;t ust pick anf choose the favourable parts,

i was replying to one of your posts that stated vietnamese never had roughly 1:1 ratio in parts of the war

You imolt that the 1:1 kil ratio lasted for years

i did not say thAT becuase in soem part of war US had favourable 20:1 usinf crusader

You imolt that the 1:1 kil ratio lasted for years. And based on statistics it was more luck then anything else, lol.

pure luck????
funny statements because in beginning of 1965 air war in vietnam , vietnam only had 36 airfighters mig-17 and in 1968 160 fighter craft

Such tactics were sometimes helped by weird American practices. For example, in late 1966 the F-105 formations used to fly every day at the same time in the same flight paths and used the same callsigns over and over again. The North Vietnamese realized that and took the chance: in December 1966 the MiG-21 pilots of the 921st FR intercepted the "Thuds" before they met the escorting F-4s, downing 14 F-105s without any losses. That ended on January 2 1967 when Col. Robin Olds executed Operation "Bolo."
www.acepilots.com...

and as i said before there were periods when vietnamese pilots achieved 1:1 ratio and even better

it was the entry of F-8 crusader and top gun that skewed the ratio excessively in US favour...

also on f-4 i share the view of NVAF aces as many f-4 kills were attributed to AAA and sam by US forces , acc. to NVAF aces were done by mig-17/mig-21
home.comcast.net...

while the official vietnamese sources of 70's admitted that f-8 was vastly superior to anything they had

[edit on 19-10-2007 by manson_322]

[edit on 19-10-2007 by manson_322]

reply posted on 19-10-2007 @ 05:24 PM by makeitso

Triple confirmation all in one article?

1. Nuke facility
2. Pantsyr system guarding it
3. Israel beat the Pantsyr

Israel urges Putin to block air defense system for Syria

In a three-hour meeting, Olmert was said to have presented intelligence of Syria's strategic programs, including efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Officials said the prime minister provided Putin with details of Israel's strike on a suspected Syrian nuclear facility in September, protected by the Russian-origin Pantsyr-SE1 air defense system. Damascus received its first Pantsyrs in 2007 in a deal financed by Iran.

*Shrugs*

Dunno, lookls like it though. Maybe Russia will leak the details.

[edit on 10/19/07 by makeitso]

reply posted on 19-10-2007 @ 06:25 PM by Duby78

reply to post by makeitso

Well, i find that article fishy. I've skimmed through at least a dozen of articles, and couldn't find a word about Syria, nuclear reactor, air defense, S-300 or Pantsir. Not a single one. Except this one on World Tribune.

Here's just an example that I've found , from German Deutsche Welle:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says he got reassurances from Russian President Vladimir Putin that his country's security was a priority for Russia. Olmert met with Putin in Moscow to discuss the results of the Kremlin leader's talks in Tehran over Iran's nuclear programme. Neither Olmert nor Putin provided details over their meeting. Earlier in the day, Putin conducted a live televised question-and-answer session with the Russian public. He used the opportunity to again warn the US that Russia could take retaliatory measures if Washington did not heed Moscow's concerns over a planned missile defence shield in Europe. Putin also called the US war in Iraq a "dead end" and suggested the invasion was aimed at controlling Iraqi oil fields.

Source

There are many more.

So, no statements were given, yet some 'officials' have revealed the details. Yet, WT has all the details. I'll wait and see what the UN nuclear watchdog inspection has to say about this alleged reactor, and to see some info from the real officials.

EDIT TO ADD: I've just googled a little in order to find something about credibility of World Tribune, and guess what... whoever discusses WT's credibility/reliability, tells that it's not a trustworthy site.
''The World Tribune is nothing but a right wing spin factory.''

"In my experience the World Tribune is not horribly reliable. It's very right-wing and alot of stories it puts in 'breaking news' either turn out to be misunderstandings or are never heard of again."

Who doubts what I have written, I encourage him to google a little himself.

[edit on 19-10-2007 by Duby78]

reply posted on 19-10-2007 @ 10:36 PM by uberfoop

Haha. If the tribune WAS correct (lol), and the Israelis were whining about the S-300s and the change of balance of power, that would only prove that Israel has reason to beleive that Russia AA detection systems are ungodly infallable and that they must do whatever possible to prevent Syria from actually using them.

Also, the article specifically says that the specific facility was being guarded by pantsir s-1's, which, again, I find incredibly unlikely, for previously mentioned reasons refuted only by what the Israeli propoganda distributors say, which they give no actual reasons for.

reply posted on 7-6-2011 @ 01:12 PM by kondor

Originally posted by uberfoop

Right as I said before ( you can't read ?), Russia normally allows foreign personel to train on systems on their ranges in Russia. So you are sayingnit takes months to turn the on button "on". If so then you back my point that Russian systems are junk. Provide some information to back yourself up.

No, I'm not saying it takes months to turn the button on. It takes seconds. It takes months to properly integrate systems that you haven't used before into your armed forces and military doctrine. Getting the machines running isn't the clunky part.

dbates has a history of infrmative posts, do you ?

Like I said, if his information is from debkafile, you can't really take it too seriously. So no, I don't have a history of informative posts, but looking at his sources, his 'information' is far more likely to be skewed. At least I've gotten this (like the integration time) partly from wikipedia and low-key sites which, while not particularily mainstream, are also not propoganda websites. Debkafile certainly has put up some good information, but whenever twisting the words around and changing what happened suits Israel, they've been known to spew out crap.

OK, so you agree they are junk.

No, I'm saying that they aren't built primarily for large-scale border defense. Their best usage due to their high firepower in a far lower range than heavy missile AA system is to be a heavy defense to long-range air defense and other specific locations. They aren't junk, they just aren't meant to guard large border areas. What you just said is like saying a B-52H is junk because it isn't a very good dogfighter.

Russian/Soviet equipment has always been shown to be inferior in any conflict with Wesern systems. Simple fact. Name one conflict where they have come out on top.

Err..during Vietnam the MiG-21's were preeetttyyy beastly. In the begining of the war when everyone on both sides hadn't had great dogfight training, they were basically wrecking our aircraft whenever they bloody well felt like it. F-105, anyone? Our aircraft were more advanced, but that didn't help us against the extreme cost-effectiveness of MiGs. It wasn't until we built actual dogfighting schools and thus got superior training that we were able to fight them on unequal terms.

reply posted on 7-6-2011 @ 01:18 PM by kondor

Originally posted by manson_322
reply to post by mad scientist

yawn , are u refering to to old subsonic obsolete mig-17 that was used in vietnam that monkey model export variant before TOPgun came the kill ratio was roughly 1:1 and inspite american techno superiority , USA lost more than 1000 fighters to obsolete sa-2 SAMs, AAA and mig-17

[edit on 18-10-2007 by manson_322]

The combat record of MiG-17 against F-4 and F-8

F-4 vs MiG-17/J-4/J-5 4.33:1

MiG-17/J-4/J-5 vs F-4 kills : 15

20.07.1965 J-4 (Vietnam) - 1 x F-4 (US)
4.03.1966 J-5 (Vietnam) - 1 x F-4 (US)
26.04.1966 J-5 (Vietnam) - 1 x F-4C (USAF)
16.09.1966 MiG-17 (Vietnam) - 1 x F-4C (USAF)
21.09.1966 MiG-17 (Vietnam) - 1 x F-4C (USAF)
12.05.1967 J-5 (Vietnam) - 1 x F-4C (USAF)
19.05.1967 MiG-17 (Vietnam) - 2 x F-4B (USN)
20.05.1967 MiG-17 (Vietnam) - 1 x F-4C (USAF)
19.11.1967 MiG-17 (Vietnam) - 2 x F-4B (USN)
17.12.1967 MiG-17 (Vietnam) - 2 x F-4D (USAF)
10.07.1972 MiG-17 (Vietnam) - 1 x F-4J (USN)
18.10.1973 MiG-17 (Syria) - 1 x F-4E (Israel)

F-4 vs MiG-17/J-4/J-5 kills : 65

9.04.1965 F-4B (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (China)
17.06.1965 F-4B (USN) - 3 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
10.07.1965 F-4C (USAF) - 2 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
20.07.1965 F-4 (US) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
6.10.1965 F-4B (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
23.04.1966 F-4C (USAF) - 2 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
26.04.1966 F-4C (USAF) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
30.04.1966 F-4C (USAF) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
12.05.1966 F-4C (USAF) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
13.07.1966 F-4B (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
16.09.1966 F-4C (USAF) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
24.04.1967 F-4B (USN) - 2 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
1.05.1967 F-4C (USAF) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
13.05.1967 F-4C (USAF) - 2 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
14.05.1967 F-4C (USAF) - 3 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
20.05.1967 F-4C (USAF) - 4 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
5.06.1967 F-4C (USAF) - 3 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
21.09.1967 F-4B (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
26.10.1967 F-4D (USAF) - 2 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
30.10.1967 F-4B (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
6.11.1967 F-4D (USAF) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
17.12.1967 F-4D (USAF) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
19.12.1967 F-4D (USAF) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
3.01.1968 F-4D (USAF) - 2 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
18.01.1968 F-4D (USAF) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
14.02.1968 F-4D (USAF) - 2 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
28.03.1968 F-4J (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
6.03.1972 F-4B (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
6.05.1972 F-4B (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
8.05.1972 F-4J (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
10.05.1972 F-4J (USN) - 6 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
10.05.1972 F-4B (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
18.05.1972 F-4B (USN) - 1 x MiG-17F (Vietnam)
23.05.1972 F-4B (USN) - 2 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
11.06.1972 F-4B (USN) - 2 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
12.01.1973 F-4B (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
6.10.1973 F-4E (Israel) - 8 x MiG-17F (Egypt)

F-8 vs MiG-17/J-4/J-5 3:1

F-8 vs MiG-17/J-4/J-5 kills : 15

12.06.1966 F-8E (USN) - 1 X MiG-17 (Vietnam)
21.06.1996 F-8E (USN) - 2 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
1.05.1967 F-8E (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
19.05.1967 F-8E (USN) - 2 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
19.05.1967 F-8C (USN) - 2 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
21.07.1967 F-8C (USN) - 2 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
21.07.1967 F-8E (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
14.12.1967 F-8E (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
9.07.1968 F-8E (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
29.07.1968 F-8E (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)
23.05.1972 F-8J (USN) - 1 x MiG-17 (Vietnam)

MiG-17/J-4/J-5 vs F-8 kills : 5

21.06.1966 MiG-17 (Vietnam) - 1 x RF-8A (USN)
- 1 x F-8E (USN)
14.07.1966 MiG-17 (Vietnam) - 1 x F-8E (USN)
5.09.1966 MiG-17 (Vietnam) - 1 x F-8E (USN)
9.07.1968 MiG-17 (Vietnam) - 1 x F-8 (USN)

reply posted on 7-6-2011 @ 01:23 PM by kondor