Israel missile defense system fails to launch in U.S. test

Originally posted by Harlequin
no the unit was delivered to the government testing as a production ready missile in 1998 , it was accepted into service till 2000


next year the first production F35 will be made - does that mean thats when its ready? no - the first in service F35 will not occur for a few years after that.

The Arrow II was delivered to the government AFTER all the tests were done and it was certified "operational". That means its good to go. That is when its ready. When the IADN decides to give it a wax and tie a giant ribbon on it is up to them and politics to decide. So when people ask when it was made, it will be 1998 technology, not 2000.

The F35 is the same deal and so was the case with the F22. The F35 will be production ready next year or so but the technology will still be outdated with respect to current 2009 technology. So 19 December 2008 will be the day the F-35 Lightning II was good to go with production in place. In 2018 the F35 will be a decade old.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
What I think is that like most Israeli made weapons the missle is a piece of junk and the reports of it being tested sucessfully elsewhere are a piece of junk too, and all propoganda.

America shouldn't be paying for this stuff and people who aren't American shouldn't go running around on the Internet pretending that they are!

Besides being off topic, there isnt a single sentence in your ravings that is worth responding to. Clearly your deep rooted biases coupled with your paranoia is keeping you from making any coherent if not cogent statements.

reply to post by IAF101


well the US gvernment in regards to teh F35 and the Israel government in regards to the Arrow2 disagree with you - i have allready supplied the lniks so now you are proving you rpofound depth of ignorance by arguing against the people who make and purchase these systems - the IAF say the system was opperational on march 14th 2000.

you do not , which quite frankly makes you look even more stupid than you allready are.

I wonder what the significance of this test failure is, if the shield system is as suggested fully capable to defend against an array of different missles?

What would be the point of even testing a system which has already been confirmed flawless?

We should count ourselves lucky, that here at ATS we have an expert for every occassion, and what good fortune to be visited by a missile defense expert in this very thread!

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Why does America need to pay for this nonsense?

If Israel stopped all it's war mongering and human rights violations and anti-Islamic rehtoric and propoganda it wouldn't need a missle shield if they just joined the human race and made restitution to the Palestinians and returned all the stolen occupied lands.

I really don't think any other nation's defense but America is worth American taxpayer dollars.

I agree on one point here: American tax dollars should not be used to develop and fund foreign weapons. Israel is not an ally, despite what the government may claim, just a country that has an annoying amount of influence in my own.

Other than that, I don't agree. The Palastinians are as bad as the Israelis, and I could care less about them or Israel. If Israel wants to nuke them or Iran or whoever, i could care less. I just want the U.S. completely removed from all their silly BS.

Originally posted by Harlequin
well the US gvernment in regards to teh F35 and the Israel government in regards to the Arrow2 disagree with you - i have allready supplied the lniks so now you are proving you rpofound depth of ignorance by arguing against the people who make and purchase these systems - the IAF say the system was opperational on march 14th 2000.

you do not , which quite frankly makes you look even more stupid than you allready are.

You are utterly ridiculous!
I have shown you the links and have even proven that the Arrow II is a decade old but apparently, it is inconvenient to your delusions so you disregard it out of hand. That is your choice but I hope that you choose to deny you ignorance.

Neither the US government nor the Israeli government deny anything that I have said. Your shoddy research and the links you pointed out merely state the unit induction dates and a production date to suit your flimsy argument. However, I have consistently taken the operational clearance date in both cases making my argument both factually and logically sound.

Please try to impress somebody else with your half knowledge and little understanding.

Wow there is blatant deception at play in title of this topic. I think the title should be changed. It's arranged like propaganda.

The topic says this "Israel missile defense system fails to launch in U.S. test"....NOTHING FAILED!

The source says the launches were ABORTED, and NOT LAUNCHED. How could it "fail to launch" if they didn't even try to launch it?

"Not all test conditions to launch the Arrow Interceptor were met and it was not launched," the Pentagon said.

You see, they wanted to test the defense in certain conditions, to see if it works in those conditions. Those conditions were not met, so they didn't even try to test it, they aborted. They already know it works in other conditions, they just wanted to test in specific conditions...

Nothing failed. The only thing that did fail was this propaganda in this topic.

reply to post by IAF101


so in your sad little world - ignoring the factual links from the IAF , you know the people who use this sysem , not some half baked blog which you pretend is a source , you choose to ignore the government of israel , again from a factual link , to carry on in your own little deluded world ; well heres a small little fact


your wrong

the IAF say your wrong

the government of israel say your wrong

but carry on arguing against the people that make , buy and use the Arrow-2 ; there words ` first deployed in march 14th 2000`

as proven many many times.

so please carry on being an idiot and arguing against the people that actually use this.

[edit on 27/7/09 by Harlequin]