so after proving you wrong you resort to personal attacks


you fail.

the INS Hanit DID have its IFF assisted CIWS switched on and the system failed to work as intended - as as it has in the 3 cases i have given.

welcome to my ignore list - i have no time for you

[edit on 29/11/08 by Harlequin]

Originally posted by Harlequin
so after proving you wrong you resort to personal attacks

Maybe you should word your answeres better rather than trying to bait people.

the INS Hanit DID have its IFF assisted CIWS switched on and the system failed to work as intended - as as it has in the 3 cases i have given.

Actually I did prove you wrong. I guess that you seem to know more about the Israeli Navy than the Israeli's do. Please stop being childish, there is no time for it on here.

*** Civil Posts ***

Anything less will be deleted and the member warned.

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...

No doubt, the S-300, S-400, and all the other weapons systems you outlined are extremely highly capable SAMS at the forefront of technology. However, when a SM-3 fails a single test, it's all of a sudden a complete, useless, corrupt, failure programme. BUT if it's a Russian ABM, it's all good - even though we don't have test results for it; I guarantee it has failures too, that's what testing is for. The status these things get is indeed mythical.

What do you mean by this?

People talk about the numerical superiority 'doctrine' of the Russians. I beg to differ. Unknown Perpetrator said... "Russian military set up would see you ringed by loads of S-400 batteries". The notion the Americans will have a single AEGIS cruiser, is pure nonsence. If you look at raw numbers, the numbers are clearly not so. Furthermore, future American BMD is likely PAC-3, THAAD, and AEGIS.

[edit on 2/12/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz

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...

No doubt, the S-300, S-400, and all the other weapons systems you outlined are extremely highly capable SAMS at the forefront of technology. However, when a SM-3 fails a single test, it's all of a sudden a complete, useless, corrupt, failure programme. BUT if it's a Russian ABM, it's all good - even though we don't have test results for it; I guarantee it has failures too, that's what testing is for. The status these things get is indeed mythical.

What do you mean by this?

People talk about the numerical superiority 'doctrine' of the Russians. I beg to differ. Unknown Perpetrator said... "Russian military set up would see you ringed by loads of S-400 batteries". The notion the Americans will have a single AEGIS cruiser, is pure nonsence. If you look at raw numbers, the numbers are clearly not so. Furthermore, future American BMD is likely PAC-3, THAAD, and AEGIS.

[edit on 2/12/2008 by C0bzz]

The Russians don't realy talk about thier tests, but when they do, it has been recorded by western Gov's, like for example S-300 Family, and the reviews were good, but I understand what your saying. People that still talk about Russia having numbers of tactics are wrong, Russia has tech AND numbers, which equals "over-kill" (AND I AINT EXXAGERATING)

[edit on 2-12-2008 by 121200]

The S-400 and the SM-3 are similar systems. I don't understand the chest bumping in this thread. These systems still depend highly on the skill of the operators as well as the environment/conditions in which they operate.