Seeing this thread being filled with Americans who are indeed right in their opinion about the SM-3 systems but are totaly wrong about the S-400 "counter-claims".

The SM-3 is a good system and does NOT fail like the original poster wants us to believe/convince.

It even destroyed a sattelite filled with lethal chemicals who otherwise would have hit the contintal states off America. That gives it also capabillity to destroy a low speed meteorite.

And now is see that some fellow American are wrongfully bashing the S-400 system wich like the SM-3 system, is good and eventough it isnt realy tested, it will perform like a charm. Infact the S-400 is an ultra upgraded "new" S-300, just like the SM-2 is for the SM-3.

Originally posted by deltaboy
However, it seems to disturb the Russians with just 10 American interceptors in Poland. Why?

It doesnt disturb them from military point off view but rather a political one.

Placing interceptors, no matter how many or little, it gives off a signal/statement.

That statement is perceived in Russia as threating. Its like the USA wants to contain Russia and aquire nuclear supremacy over that country.

For them it is a matter off national security. So they have the right to be immensly pissed at the US.

Originally posted by mad scientistErm how many S-400's have been deployed? fewer than the SM-III. How many successful exoatmospheric interceptions have they performed? ZERO. So having many missiles unproven to be able to hit anything is better than having a few that have Provide some proof for once, you have shown yourself far from an expert so we are hardly going to settle for your rantings as fact.

Mad Scientist, the S-400 system is new and the Russians have tested the S-300 systems very thouroughly. Like my previous comment mentiond, the S-400 is an ultra upgraded S-300.

America for being the top of the technology tree seem to fail to get a lot of these basic systems to work well.... yet they put 11 men on the moon with a less processing power than your avergare micorwave oven. Got to question it.

Nothing to question about here since these missiles have to battle countless more factors and circenstances then the Apollo missions ever would expierince.

Basic systems No offense but it is obvious you don't know the first thing about these systems. Oh yeah BTW has anyone else been to the moon?

The Soviets where nearly there but they canceld the project since iff they landed it would only accentuate the fact that they where second and the US was first.

The only time the west has ever seen the S-300 was in a war game in which Slovakia participated in 2005 for Operation `Trial Hammer`- and NATO forces were very impressed with the capabilities of the older S-300 which Slovakia brought , thats the older system not the newer ones.


as for CIWS;

no CIWS has ever `worked as intended`

USS Stark - was hit and an excuse as to why CIWS didn`t enage

USS Misouri - the goalkeeper ship , the USS Jarret fired its CIWS and missed the silkworm missile

and lastly

INS Hanit - the latest Israeli warship , which they claimed (in a war zone) the CIWS was switched off even though the CIWS had an IFF system to prevent shooting friendly aircraft - a claim refuted by many sources who state it did engage and missed the C-802 missile

China use a combined missile/gun defence , as do russia - its only western navies who used gun CIWS exclusively - and are now changing to the sidewinder/stinger combination

Actually, the carriers use the phalanx, for very close in, then searam missiles for a little more range. Not to mention that its not just a carrier. Hence the name carrier battle GROUP. Theres going to be destroyers, frigates, cruisers, all watching out. its not like a carriers gonna be sitting there like. OH NO MISSILES, WE ONLY HAVE ONE LINE OF DEFENSE!!!.

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
Seeing this thread being filled with Americans who are indeed right in their opinion about the SM-3 systems but are totaly wrong about the S-400 "counter-claims".

The SM-3 is a good system and does NOT fail like the original poster wants us to believe/convince.

It even destroyed a sattelite filled with lethal chemicals who otherwise would have hit the contintal states off America. That gives it also capabillity to destroy a low speed meteorite.

And now is see that some fellow American are wrongfully bashing the S-400 system wich like the SM-3 system, is good and eventough it isnt realy tested, it will perform like a charm. Infact the S-400 is an ultra upgraded "new" S-300, just like the SM-2 is for the SM-3.

How can the SM-2 be an "upgrade" for the SM-3, didn't the SM-3 can after the SM-2

The only time the west has ever seen the S-300 was in a war game in which Slovakia participated in 2005 for Operation `Trial Hammer`- and NATO forces were very impressed with the capabilities of the older S-300 which Slovakia brought , thats the older system not the newer ones.

Not correct at all, about the first time the west saw the S-300 was in 2005. You might take a bit of a drive around southern NV sometime. You might be interested to see S-300 components, that we have had before 2005.

Originally posted by 121200How can the SM-2 be an "upgrade" for the SM-3, didn't the SM-3 can after the SM-2

Sorry for the confusing sentence but you should know that i am not a native english person so please forgive my typing error.

It is indeed that the SM 3 is an upgraded SM 2.

Hope that helps.

Originally posted by Harlequin

as for CIWS;

no CIWS has ever `worked as intended`

USS Stark - was hit and an excuse as to why CIWS didn`t enage

USS Misouri - the goalkeeper ship , the USS Jarret fired its CIWS and missed the silkworm missile

And this was what between 15 and 20 years ago. You know technology does develop But you know keep on citing obsolete examples.

11 successful tests, ONE failure, 11 carriers alfoat, ONE SUNK!

Depends which carrier you are on.

You mentioned the Apollo programme. The first Apollo mission, Apollo 1, left three Astronauts dead. One failure does not equal unsuccessful programme, as displayed by every single weapons programme to date. They do these tests to ensure to find weak points and get rid of them, further developments of the SM-3 Block IB and SM-3 Block IIA, with enhanced everything, have not been tested yet.

I suggest you get an understanding of what AEGIS BMD is designed to do. BMD is for Ballistic Missile Defense. There are no Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles. No carrier would be sunk. By the way, layered defense means ABL, AEGIS BMD, AEGIS, THAAD, PAC-3, PAC-2 and Rim-116 And I'll think you'll find, minus THAAD, there is far more PAC-3 and AEGIS BMD your mythical S-400, and likely S-300, too.

Armchair experts? Like yourself? Most professionals would get these basic facts correct.

[edit on 28/11/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzzI suggest you get an understanding of what AEGIS BMD is designed to do. BMD is for Ballistic Missile Defense. There are no Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles. No carrier would be sunk. By the way, layered defense means ABL, AEGIS BMD, AEGIS, THAAD, PAC-3, PAC-2 and Rim-116 And I'll think you'll find, minus THAAD, there is far more PAC-3 and AEGIS BMD your mythical S-400, and likely S-300, too.

The S-300 and 400 arent "Mythical" they are real threats to the US and you have left out the BUK-M*, Tunguska, Pantsir, Kahstan, TOR-M* and many others...

All have succesfull test launches and some off them are also battletested.

I realy dont doubt the capabillity's off the US systems, they are great, but you should try and appreciate the Russian systems more pall...

Armchair experts? Like yourself? Most professionals would get these basic facts correct. [edit on 28/11/2008 by C0bzz]

Forget that dude, SM-3 or any other system is doing a fine job but you should realy get knowing Russian systems more to get a more objective view.

Originally posted by C0bzz

11 successful tests, ONE failure, 11 carriers alfoat, ONE SUNK!

Depends which carrier you are on.

there is far more PAC-3 and AEGIS BMD your mythical S-400, and likely S-300, too.

What do you mean by this?


[edit on 28/11/2008 by C0bzz]