Russia to sell Iran S-300PMU

^^^^My point is the F117 is OLD tech its basically facets and RAM.Hell even destroyers and frigates utilize this. ANYONE can come up with this thing.Besides those stipulated remains still have plenty of holes and breaks and cracks in the structure increasing RCS.

He noted that, although the F-117 had been operational for 15 years, “there are things in that airplane, while they may not be leading technologies today in the United States, [that] are certainly ahead of what some potential adversaries have.” Kaminski added that the main concern was not that any exploitation of the F-117’s low-observable technology would enable an enemy to put the F-117 at greater risk but that it could help him eventually develop his own stealth technology in due course.21 Reports indicated that military officials had at first considered attempting to destroy the wreckage but opted in the end not to follow through because they could not have located it before civilians and the media surrounded it.22 Those issues aside, whatever the precise explanation for the downing, it meant not only the loss of a key US combat aircraft, but also the dimming of the F-117’s former aura of invincibility, which for years had carried incalculable psychological value.

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...



[edit on 13-10-2006 by urmomma158]

I'll jump on board again.

To recap;

Even the article doesn't say that the S-300 is going to be sold - it merely comments that Iran wants it. Iran may want the S-300PMU but Russia has turned down customers for that system in the past, not least Syria.

As usual planeman is correct. The issue here might be in sales not from Russia directly, but as always through proxies. Ukraine, even though it has been labeled as a number one US supporter in the region, sold passive Kolchiga systems.

S-300 very well might be resold in a similar fashion through Ukraine, Belarus, China, NK, and so on. Its been done before countless of times, and there is no doubt that it will continue.

The actual western equivalent would be the PAC-2.

That is not correct. Totally different classes here, (apples and oranges) and therefore they can not be compared directly.

EDIT:What's this 'brilliant' 200mile JASSM? What stops the S-300 from taking it out as well?
I see no way out other than saturation salvos launches..

JASSM - Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile.

Another GPS guided cost saver. I'm way beyond being skeptical about continuing emphasis on GPS guided munitions. Sure, they save a ton of production expenses to manufacturers while they're raking in top profits from our defense dollars, but even though they are always stating some magic anti-jamming technology, every time portable GPS jammers were used in combat, all kinds of GPS guided weapons landed in Santa's lap instead of on target.

The sad reality is that the entire family of GPS munitions are designed to be used against third world countries which simply do not have a long standing high tech culture.

S-300 will hit just about everything it can track simply do to high missile speed and massive warhead. All kinds of guided bombs, ATGMs, all kinds of missiles, and so forth.

TOR-1M on the other hand uses double hit technique (not Patriot type "ripple fire") to assure target destruction and dispersion of debris.

The F/A-22 stealth is currently ahead of the radar tracking curve. Radar systems will undoubtably eventually catch up, meaning stealth will have to make advances again to remain competitive.

Based on what? Can we all please state facts and not assumptions?

LOL.

C'mon, people. Let's get something straight. As far as the actual capabilities and performance for the systems being discussed in this thread are concerned................the crapola you find on the internet regarding these systems is, at best, probably 50-75% accurate. Real performance data is classified and unknown to the general public.

Pyros has a bit of a point here. While various internet sources are plentiful, and some of them do present flawed information, in order to discriminate reality from fiction one has to know the true history of any given subject.

Until people start posting actual user's manuals and classified capabilities briefings, you are all just chasing your tails.

That I'll disagree with. We can make logical assertions based on available information.

Since the issue here is again the concept of stealth, once again I'll do my part and bring some fresh air into the fog of "United States of Amnesia".

Stealth concept is constantly misunderstood and mislabeled just a gun silencer for example. There are no gun silencers, they are only suppressors, and it's exactly the same with stealth, there is no stealth, only low RCS observability.

Modern concept of low RCS was developed by Russian mathematician named Pyotr Ufimtsev. After review of his work, his paper was openly publishes in a public Soviet scientific magazine sometime in 1960s. Can't remember exactly when it was published, you guys look that up.

Years later, Ufimtsev paper was translated and came across Denys Overholser who was part of the "Skunk Works" crew.

Using Pyotr Ufimtsevs formulas, Overholser wrote a computer program called "Echo 1", which calculated RCS returns just as Ufimtsev outlined in his original paper.

In fact, the very reason for such research and its funding was the extreme effectiveness of Soviet SAM systems in Yom Kippur War which resulted in very high Israeli losses.

In 18 days IDF lost over 100 US built fighters to Arab SAMs which were operated by crews with average levels of training at best.

In light of such clear reality, USAF desperately needed an alternative to conventional approaches.

Thus the "Skunk Works" stealth projects.

The true facts are that the actual roots of stealth concept/combat go all the way to WWII, and in order to understand why exactly Soviets ignored seemingly groundbreaking work by Ufimtsev, we have to look into that history.

In truth, for Soviets the concept of stealth was such an old news, that Ufimtsevs RCS formulas were not only anything but new, but have been well known and chewed on decades ago, and that is precisely why they have allowed public publishing of his paper.

This is where it gets interesting.

In order to get a clear picture, one needs to grasp the elements involved, and I'll try to be as short as possible.

The main elements involved here are flying wing/pure delta research, and actual implementation of stealth concept in anti-radar role in WWII.

First for technology.

Worlds first flying wing was developed by Boris Ivanovich Cheranovsky in 1924 with his BICh-1.

Worlds first delta was developed by Moskalyev in 1933, it being the rocket powered SAM-3.

Here's where it gets interesting. Soviets were very active in radar research in the 30s, and by late 30s they already developed a three-coordinate L-band pulse radar. The work on the radar was conducted in Ukraine.

Various SAM-3 tests were run along side with conventional piston engine chase planes, and most importantly with radar assist, so lets keep that in mind.

Now we get into actual combat of WWII, and this is where some absolutely incredible history comes into light.

The first ever historically recorded stealth combat was carried out by Russian women pilots. Germans called them "Nachthexen", or night Night Witches.

The Night Witches belonged to all women, 588th Night Bomber Regiment. All of the support personnel including bomb loaders, mechanics, refuel, etc, were also women.

The sole task of the 588th was dedicated harassment bombing of German front line troops.

Out of all Soviet air power, the Germans hated and feared the "Nachthexen" the most, specifically do to the tactics Night Witches used.

Here's the run down.

The Night Witches flew outdated, Po-2 bi-plane remnant of WWI. The biplane was constructed from wood and canvas surface cover and powered by a small 110 horsepower engine with a top speed of about 94 mph, which in fact is even less then most WWI era fighters.

On the other hand the Po-2 was extremely maneuverable, and Night WithesWitches used it to the fullest extent.

Upon encountering a 109 for example, Po-2 would execute an extremely tight turn way below the minimum stall speed of the 109, forcing it to make a wide turn, and would just repeat it as soon as the 109 is again in range. Another tactic was bush flying, and by flying below tree and even hedgerow level Po-2s regularly escaped German fighters, and that is precisely why German pilots were awarded the Iron Cross for shooting a Po-2 down.

Main mission of the Night Witches was night-time harassment bombing of the front line German troops. Upon spotting the camp fires of German encampment site, the pilots disengaged the engines and glided to the site. By the time German heard the whistle of wing bracing wires it was to late and the bombs were away. At that time the engines were restarted and they flew to home base to refuel/rearm.

The devastation brought by Night Witches was enormous. The biggest damage was the utter destruction of German soldier morale, because they could do absolutely nothing to defend them selves, and were kept up all night just waiting for a bomb to drop on their heads. Putting out the fires during winter was simply not an option do to brutal Russian winters. During warmer seasons smokey fires were necessary to keep mosquitoes away, otherwise there would still be no sleep for the troops.

Here's where the technical part comes in.

Damage and enormous demoralizing effect brought by Night Witches was so devastating, that entire wings of German Nightfighters were dispatched specifically to hunt the Night Witches down and fly CAP over the camps.

And here's where Po-2 was used as a stealth platform for the first time in history.

Do to low RCS of it's wooden frame and canvas surface cover, German Nightfigther radars simply could not detect them, and Night Witches simply passed right by all kinds of Nightfighers equipped with FuG 202 Lichtenstein BC, FuG 212 Lichtenstein C-1, and FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2 Nightfighter radars.

So here we have the first historical use of stealth concept in actual warfare, and very successful one at that.

Now to dedicated SEAD missions, which is the very backbone of the modern stealth concept.

Do to very successful use of low RCS Po-2, and its ability to avoid German radar equipped Nightfighers, if was thought that it would be a good idea to try and use Po-2s against high value German ground radar installations, which were naturally heavily defended both by air wings and AAA/88mm flak guns.

As a result, Po-2s were successfully used against ground radar stations, probably such as FuGM 402 Wassermann, Wurzburg FuGM 39/62, FuMO 51 Mammut, etc.

Again, this is the first historical use of low RCS (Stealth) concept against ground radar installations.

So for the Russians stealth is not only old news, but a well proved war time experience going back to WWII.

No we go back to Moskalyev SAM-3 tests. Naturally the tests were absolutely top secret. At the same time, the naturally low RCS properties of pure delta layout could not have passed the radar technicians tracking the flight, especially given the return contrast from piston powered chaise planes.

Can't remember exactly when the final tests were conducted, 1941 or 1942, but the point is that unofficially it was the first supersonic flight ever made. By simply looking into the very design of SAM-3, everything about is screams supersonic. Layout, construction materials, rocket thrust-to-weight ratio and its burn time, etc, all point to calculated supersonic ambitions.

Then we go straight to magnificent German Horten 229, which in it self is the father of what we now know as B-2. Wooden frame, its shape, internal engines, the entire concept is right there.

On the other side we have the incredible Antipodal Orbital Bomber by Sanger 1942, which instead of low RCS goes for sheer power and speed, which in the very concept is all about Russian research.

For the Russians the possibility of supersonic flight was not a matter of question but a matter of reaching the levels of technology required to achieve it. The calculations were already made back in 1903 by fundamental work of Konstantin Eduardovitch Ziolkovsky, who is the very pioneer of space flight.

Ziolkovsky published his scientific "Exploration of Space with Reactive Devices." paper back in 1903, thus turning the fiction of Jules Verne into scientific reality. Naturally at that point supersonic flight was simply a matter of fact, which only needed to be achieved through technology.

Similarly, before the German Antipodal Orbital Bomber, Ziolkovsky laid out the foundation for a piloted orbital spacecraft capable of re-entering the Earth's atmosphere from space in 1924. The Antipodal Orbital Bomber was a near earth orbit adaptation of Ziolkovskys concept.

So this is how the true history goes, and there's simply no other way about it.

So let us add all of this up.

Russians knew all about the benefits of low RCS concept back in WWII and actually used it in combat with great success.

Russians developed the very concept of space flight, created the first flying wing and pure delta air craft back in the 20s/30s. Rocket powered SAM-3 pure delta was designed to break the sound barrier prior to WWII, and undoubtfully did so in 1941/42 during final test phases.

US became aware of stealth concept in late 60s early 70s by reading a publicly published Soviet scientific paper, a concept which was rejected by the Soviets, and lets keep in mind that at the same time Soviet successfully implemented stealth tactics in actual combat during WWII.

Now I'll leave it to ATS members to put 2 and 2 together and figure out what exactly is in the core of this "stealth" issue.

Keep in mind MAD doctrine, US approach to area denial, air superiority/supremacy/dominance doctrine dating to WWII, traditional Soviet front line air power, tactical/intercept/long range cap tactics, extensive ECM use, extremely effective bomber based (Tu-95) radar ghosting technology, and so forth.

When there, I guarantee that things will become so clear, that all of the "back and forth" on the "magic" of "stealth" will come to a definite end once and for all.

I for one know that there's no magic there what so ever, only a desperate necessity in light of extremely robust Soviet/Russian air defenses.

At the same time, implementation of such "stealth" tactics are not governed by technological superiority, but by the sheer necessity and the willingness to use such tactics, all of which naturally initiates a cause and effects reaction, the one we will not be able to counter our selves.

This is really simple, while Russians traditionally fielded extremely robust and very dense SAM networks capable of detecting and effectively intercepting low RCS targets, while we simply do not.

Long range, low RCS cruise missile technology will become cheap and available on the open market with in the next decade, and that's when we will be in some serious trouble.

3 thousand mile stealth cruise missile at the disposal of a nation determined to oppose our foreign policy will simply devastate our foreign relations politics, its as simple as that, and no amount of B-2s, F-22s and F-35s will do a damn thing to change it.

It's a question of who has more to loose, and in just about every scenario we are the ones with more to loose.

Look into it and make up your own minds.

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL they don't back up #e. It is very easy to dazzle the ignorant with BS, sin your case.

It's surprising how you insult just about everyone who ever has a disagreement with you... Do you have anything positive to add beside ridicule of everyone who disagrees without offering the remotest proof that your point of view is in fact accurate? I have rarely seen you offer evidence as to why you disagree and never seen you actually address the objections to your evidence. You are clearly not interested in discussion and have long ago decided what you want to believe.

I for one and other more studious members

Find some people who will put their names behind yours and bring whoever you can find here. It will defend my views as far as the evidence allows and if your ideas do not pan out don't bother appealing to a audience you do not have.

can see straight through the BS and it's obvious the claims they make are not backed up by fact, just inuendo based on a little fact.

You never address the facts i offer up with anything but innuendo so this is just another instance of standing reality on it's head to defend your ignorance.

This however does not support the conclusions they come to.

So maybe my conclusions are incorrect in many or a few instances but that has not become apparent based on your few and disjointed objections in this case. I value interested and objective disagreement but you have never admitted any errors or compromised one inch on a belief that you have seemed completely unable to defend in a factual and civil manner.

Stellar


[edit on 15-10-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL they don't back up #e. It is very easy to dazzle the ignorant with BS, sin your case.

It's surprising how you insult just about everyone who ever has a disagreement with you... Do you have anything positive to add beside ridicule of everyone who disagrees without offering the remotest proof that your point of view is in fact accurate?

Just following your example. You love to call people ignorant all the time because they disagree with you. In fact anyone who disagrees with you is labelled ignorant

Find some people who will put their names behind yours and bring whoever you can find here. It will defend my views as far as the evidence allows and if your ideas do not pan out don't bother appealing to a audience you do not have.

I don't hvae to they have already posted numerous times asking you for proof of what yu say. You offer a little fact about somwething then make these grandiose leaps. That is all.

You never address the facts i offer up with anything but innuendo so this is just another instance of standing reality on it's head to defend your ignorance.

When you do use fact it rarely backs up what you're saying. You assume alot based on a few facts. It's time consuming and annoying arguing alot of the time with what you post as you never offer up any concrete evidence of what you're saying. Just claims and some third party said this......

I value interested and objective disagreement but you have never admitted any errors or compromised one inch on a belief that you have seemed completely unable to defend in a factual and civil manner.

Just following your example. Maybe when you offer up some real evidence of what you say, I may take you seriously. As far as the S-300 being capable of what you calim, you can privde very little substantiation, I just want to see ( as well as otyher members ) some concrete facts. Eg. You say they have tested the S-300 against various targets, well tell us the conditions of the test and what thse targets were - somethign which backs you up. Not just some vague statement " oH, they've conducted tsts agsainst various targets ......"

You know FACTS.

Stellar


[edit on 15-10-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by rogue1
Just following your example. You love to call people ignorant all the time because they disagree with you. In fact anyone who disagrees with you is labelled ignorant

Well i call people ignorant because they make claims without posting any of the information they base it on and generally refuse to address the information the other side uses. If you can not substantiate your opinions with facts or address those of others you are ignorant.

I don't hvae to they have already posted numerous times asking you for proof of what yu say. You offer a little fact about somwething then make these grandiose leaps. That is all.

I addressed those questions and then the people with the questions disappear and do not contest the information. What i am to make of people who can not defend their points of view with facts and substance and run away at the first sign that the other guy is laying out the information his basing his claims on?

When you do use fact it rarely backs up what you're saying.

In your opinion but you never provide the information or facts you derive your opinion from. Saying the other guy is wrong but not providing factual reasons why is VERY pointless and the tactics of someone who believes what they want instead of what can be proven.

You assume alot based on a few facts.

That may be so but then it should be relatively easy for anyone to contest it and prove my claims vapid and stupid; since so few ever posts the information they base their disagreements on ( i am normally aware of the reason for the disagreement as i also once believed much of what you do) or get involved in actual factual discussion with me i don't really know what to do. Am i change my views simple based on the opinions of others when they do not or can not defend their opinions while i can mine?

It's time consuming and annoying arguing alot of the time with what you post as you never offer up any concrete evidence of what you're saying.

It's terribly annoying and time consuming to point out the dozens of factual errors your average post contains but have you seen me giving up on correcting your blatant ignorance? If you can not or will not defend your beliefs at some cost to yourself then those beliefs are not worth a damn thing and clearly faith based instead of based on reasoning based on evidence.

Just claims and some third party said this......

I do my best to avoid making mistakes but sometimes that happens and i have admitted to very many in the past. You rarely ( i can't in fact remember a single time) admitted making even one mistake even if they are obvious for everyone to see. Since you lack the courage, honesty and personal integrity to even admit obvious mistakes you are not a credible source for anything as you simply can not admit your own mistakes.

Just following your example.

I want to compile a list of the times i have admitted to mistakes ( it's not long but at least it's on record) and compare it to the obvious absence of any admitted mistakes on your side so people may judge who does actual introspection and can admit mistakes when they were obviously made. I just do not understand how you can shout so loudly about what i may be doing wrong when you have such a hard time getting even the very basics of the subject matter right.

Maybe when you offer up some real evidence of what you say, I may take you seriously.

What you consider real evidence i do not care for as your standards are clearly incredibly high when you do not want to believe and incredible low when you have chosen to dogmatically believe. What am i to do when nothing that disagrees with your opinions and beliefs ( rarely even backed by the remotest use of factual material) has credibility in your mind? How am i supposed to defend my point of view when dozens of quoted source pages are never contested individually but simply dismissed as 'inaccurate' based on nothing but your say so ?

As far as the S-300 being capable of what you calim, you can privde very little substantiation, I just want to see ( as well as otyher members ) some concrete facts.

I think you should let the other members speak for themselves as very few are as close minded as you are. Very few are obviously ready to contest my information in a factual way but i can respect those who keep quite admitting in a way that they either agree or lack the time, knowledge, interest to contest in factual way what i have proposed. You have neither the good sense to avoid getting involved in discussions where you must defend your beliefs or the good sense to actually manage marginally interesting objections. I can obviously not respect anyone for such vain glorious stupidity.

Eg. You say they have tested the S-300 against various targets, well tell us the conditions of the test and what thse targets were - somethign which backs you up.

I have in the past provided you with those sources and contested them but when that did not pan out for you you simply gave up and started denying the reality you failed to contest. This is not how it's done and if you are not ready to go back and defend your point of view properly i see no reason to restate my position by posting facts you are well aware of. I am not on this forum to take up space and endlessly quote material people like you are well aware of. I know the new guys from the old and when someone new objects i am always willing to point them in the right direction or to restate what i have come to believe.

Not just some vague statement " oH, they've conducted tsts agsainst various targets ......"

You know FACTS.

You should not be one to use the word ' fact' as you care not for any that you do not like. If you can not contest 'facts' in a determined, extensive and factual manner you have no business objecting to it and your claims will not be taken seriously by well informed parties.

Stellar

Ok Stellar, honestly, by this point I just started cracking up;

You have neither the good sense to avoid getting involved in discussions where you must defend your beliefs or the good sense to actually manage marginally interesting objections. I can obviously not respect anyone for such vain glorious stupidity.

Well put, LOL!

If you are not already a parent, you will make a great one, because it's the type of titanic patience it takes to raise a child!

Hmm lets see, I'll skip the 95% of the crap in this post, doesn't leave me much.

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
Maybe when you offer up some real evidence of what you say, I may take you seriously.

What you consider real evidence i do not care for as your standards are clearly incredibly high when you do not want to believe and incredible low when you have chosen to dogmatically believe. What am i to do when nothing that disagrees with your opinions and beliefs ( rarely even backed by the remotest use of factual material) has credibility in your mind? How am i supposed to defend my point of view when dozens of quoted source pages are never contested individually but simply dismissed as 'inaccurate' based on nothing but your say so ?

LOL you can quote all your " sourced " pages y want, but alot of them are inaccurate or wrong which I hvae proved on your previous threads. For instane the DIA's report on Soviet Military Power, which I have proven to be very inaccurate, it was basically a tool to justify the increase in military sending. Many of the tings mentioned in that repoert didn't even exist
Yet you refuse to believe teh " facts ". You can't defend yur point of view because you can't back it up.

As far as the S-300 being capable of what you calim, you can privde very little substantiation, I just want to see ( as well as otyher members ) some concrete facts.

I think you should let the other members speak for themselves as very few are as close minded as you are. Very few are obviously ready to contest my information in a factual way but i can respect those who keep quite admitting in a way that they either agree or lack the time, knowledge, interest to contest in factual way what i have proposed.

You hvae no facts to cntest, as I have said time and time agan, you cannot back up your claims with straight facts. you may report a fact about something then make this huge leap in technoogy and claim smethng else, but you have no direct facts to back it up

You have neither the good sense to avoid getting involved in discussions where you must defend your beliefs or the good sense to actually manage marginally interesting objections. I can obviously not respect anyone for such vain glorious stupidity.

LOL, typical example of Afrikaaner arrogance, very funny.

Eg. You say they have tested the S-300 against various targets, well tell us the conditions of the test and what thse targets were - somethign which backs you up.

I have in the past provided you with those sources and contested them but when that did not pan out for you you simply gave up and started denying the reality you failed to contest. This is not how it's done and if you are not ready to go back and defend your point of view properly i see no reason to restate my position by posting facts you are well aware of. I am not on this forum to take up space and endlessly quote material people like you are well aware of.

You hvae provided no facts on these supposed tests f the S-300, not a single one. You hvae provided no information on teh targets or parameters used for these testss
I want facts, so that I can make a judegement, you have provided none therefore you opinions are nothing more than fiction.

You should not be one to use the word ' fact' as you care not for any that you do not like. If you can not contest 'facts' in a determined, extensive and factual manner you have no business objecting to it and your claims will not be taken seriously by well informed parties.

FACTS ? I do not have to provide facts, d3ebunking your so clled facts is all I need to do. You provide no facts.
Also I like how when someon proves you wroig about some Russian hardware you change the subject to a US bashing post. This shows your simple mentality and basic thought process.

LOL I se ein another thread you've run way after postnig some ignorant comments on teh Russian war in hechnya. Once again you were easily proved wrong. I know oyur tctics are to wait a few days so there is a new page in the post and people wont read your incoherent and completely wrong babble

You are a true progenitor of Ignorance is Bliss.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by rogue1]

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm lets see, I'll skip the 95% of the crap in this post, doesn't leave me much.

It's what you have been doing since day one so why mess with something that's working so well for you?

LOL you can quote all your " sourced " pages y want,

Oh i have and i will continue to and thinks for saying that i may!

but alot of them are inaccurate or wrong which I hvae proved on your previous threads.

Well you have proved that the data are sometimes not very accurate ( CIA vast underestimations and DIA sometimes inflating the weapon system numbers) but you have not even come close to establishing that the overall picture in fact points to a general overestimation. Based on your claims i did a great deal of further investigation and as i pointed out in previous threads all that did was reinforce my view that the CIA lies and that the DIA is willing to get close but not go all the way to pointing out the real threats...

For instane the DIA's report on Soviet Military Power, which I have proven to be very inaccurate,

You most certainly have done nothing of the sort. Feel free to post links to the thread where you did as i remember quirte clearly how the information i presented ripped apart your feeble objections.

it was basically a tool to justify the increase in military sending.

Well that was certainly so, the CIA so underestimated the threat that the DIA numbers were still not near the true scale of the USSR's arsenal, but not in the way you think.

Many of the tings mentioned in that repoert didn't even exist

Actually i addressed that specific claim and i showed that the USSR indulged in interesting measure where they gave totally new missiles the names of older one's and just said that it was a 'modification' while the arms treaties clearly established that a weapon system differing by a margin of 5% were in fact a new system. These tricks were relatively easy to discover ( plenty of defense establishment authors pointed them out at the time) if one wanted to but provided the CIA with a excuse to make mistakes and thus disarm America as their wall street masters ordered them to.

Yet you refuse to believe teh " facts ". You can't defend yur point of view because you can't back it up.

Well i can believe whatever i want but when i provide you and the other readers the exact material i base it on and you fail so completely to discredit it you should hardly be the one to talk about 'belief' as yours is clearly not supported by much anything of substance.

You hvae no facts to cntest, as I have said time and time agan, you cannot back up your claims with straight facts.

I keep providing the information/facts in great amounts but i can not force you to read it or in fact consider it something worthy of addressing in detail. All i can do when you choose denial over discussion and debate is repeatedly present the material i have so far as i refuse to back down simply because you have chosen to spread lies and disinformation without providing much of substance to support your clearly uninformed views.

LOL, typical example of Afrikaaner arrogance, very funny.

Lets involve culture then! The sad reality is that you have never had anything constructive to add and apparently your now running out of run of the mill insults as well...

You hvae provided no facts on these supposed tests f the S-300, not a single one.

Hey i have provided you with more facts than you need to come to a reasonable conclusion but in all honesty there is no requirement for me to even do that as no one gets worse at making these types of things. Do i really have to establish that the S-300 works in a complete vacuum without looking at the Russian technology that came before and were battle tested in such extremes? That's the type of insane arguments there really is no good way to deal with.

You hvae provided no information on teh targets or parameters used for these testss

And once again i do not have to! The Russians tested the Sa-5 types successfully against 3-4 km a second ICBM's ( 11 000 km/h) warheads in 1961 and you want me to believe that was all made up ( the American army managed the same type of feats) to fool us? Even if so do you REALLY believe that intercepting ICBM's are so very hard? Where is the evidence that it takes hit to kill technology when you have nuclear warheads on your ABM systems? Why did the Brits have exact numbers for how many SLBM's it would require to overwhelm/destroy a Sa-5 battery? Your basic argument here is that EVERYONE in the world's defense establishments are wrong without presenting the remotest fact to support your contention that intercepting ICBM's is impossible to this date. Even the lying, drug dealing twisted CIA admitted that the Sa-5 had a 'limited' capacity against BM's and that was back in the late 60's!

"Because of this relative wealth of uncertainty, the final ABM treaty included an explicit obligation in Article VI not to test SAMs "in an ABM mode." Since the ABM testing of the SA-5 could have been completed for some years prior to 1972, the treaty’s impact on an SA-5 ABM capability would be slight. Even at that, the reported repeated violations of the treaty after 1972 by the use of the SA-5 radar in tracking ballistic missiles resulted in Soviet tests against missiles similar in range to a normal SLBM trajectory.35 The Soviets claimed (and the administration) accepted) that the SA-5 radar was not being tested in an ABM mode, but rather was being used in a "legitimate range instrumentation role."36 Whether it is designated as a "range instrumentation radar" does not alter the fact that it has been used in a missile-tracking role. Its ability to track missile warheads on the range is therefore prima facie evidence of its ABM capability. Former Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird claims that thousands of SA-5 interceptors have been deployed in hundreds of sites around some 110 Soviet urban areas, principally in the European U.S.S.R.37 Such a deployment could play havoc with the surviving 1440 SLBM RVs."

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

Prior to 1967 there was a consensus that the SA-5 could be a SAM/ABM, with the Hen Houses as the battle-management radars. After 1967, however, the CIA argued that the SA-5 was only a SAM, and that the Hen Houses provided only early warning of a missile attack. By about 1970 the majority agreed. Subsequently only a handful of Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analysts, plus occasionally the Air Force and a few Department of Defense officials, made the case for Soviet national ABM defenses based on the SA-5/SA-10 SAM/ABMs and the Hen House/LPARs as battle-management radars.

The CIA relied almost exclusively on the "hard evidence" from U.S. technical collection systems despite the fact that such evidence was inconclusive and plagued by major "intelligence gaps." Now Russian sources have filled in most of the intelligence gaps, thus refuting the CIA's analysis on every critical issue.

www.security-policy.org...

"To the best of my knowledge, reports of Kosygin's remarks lumping Moscow and Tallinn (the SA-5) together as ABM systems never reached DIA. Whether it was reported elsewhere I do not know. In any case, it did not deter McNamara from telling Congress six months later that U.S. intelligence, i.e. the CIA, was now confident that
the system was only a SAM, not a dual purpose SAM/ABM although such systems could have some marginal ABM capabilities."

www.fas.org...

I want facts, so that I can make a judegement, you have provided none therefore you opinions are nothing more than fiction.

I have presented you with dozens if not hundreds of source pages over the last year and frankly i think you are paid to make these arguments as no person can be so close minded or stupid as to not realise the overwhelming extent of the evidence i have presented. You make a mockery of discussion by suggesting that your lack of source material is somehow 'better' than my dozens of pages worth of defense establishment sources.

FACTS ? I do not have to provide facts, d3ebunking your so clled facts is all I need to do. You provide no facts.

Any self respecting person would be simply too ashamed to tell such blatant lies but you apparently have no problem. Please contest my 'non-facts' ( above) with 'facts' then as i should at least be given a opportunity to learn from this experience and your better and generally 'superior' sources.

Also I like how when someon proves you wroig about some Russian hardware you change the subject to a US bashing post. This shows your simple mentality and basic thought process.

You have never proved me arguments wrong in any substantial way ( everyone can spell something wrong after all) and until that day i will obviously be left with the impression that i am not completely or at all wrong.

LOL I se ein another thread you've run way after postnig some ignorant comments on teh Russian war in hechnya.

I am not 'running' away as much as i normally provide factual material witch takes some time to prepare even when you have it on notepad or stored on HD. When you make baseless claims and attacks people in the vapid way you do you can obviously ramble off a few dozen posts a day.

If you spent less time making vapid accusations i would probably have more time to address valid questions and objections but here i am; busy dealing with your inane drivel.

Continued

Once again you were easily proved wrong.

I have not even had a chance to respond but i already stand convicted. Do you care for what i know , what mistakes i might admit making or generally what i have to say or do you just want to look at threads filled with your own opinion and general accusations without evidence?

I know oyur tctics are to wait a few days so there is a new page in the post and people wont read your incoherent and completely wrong babble

I always respond ( i can think of less than half dozen instances where i did not) to people who question what i said either with correction, more information or to make a apology related to something i found to be inaccurate in my original post. I still have that post of yours related to WOMD and the scale of industry in notepad to respond to at some future date ( when i get time to research it as well as i want to ) but i don't think skipping one response to you in one hundred is indicative of some general disdain for discussion or admitting my own fallibility and mistakes. Show me a person on ATS who more diligently, consistently and factually defend their views and i show you someone who gets (well)paid by the hour.

You are a true progenitor of Ignorance is Bliss.

Well i do not consider myself well informed when i look at the universe before me but in all honesty when i look at you i do not feel particularly bad about what i have so far come to understand about this reality. You do serve as inspiration but probably not in the way you imagine.

Stellar

[edit on 18-10-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by rogue1
And what, you still provide no facts to back yourself up. this is getting old and boring.

Yes you are.

Bring some facts to the table for once, not a never ending stream of BS and supposition.

What is your definition of 'facts' as i keep quoting FAS,Janes and so many other normally reputable sources without you giving them any consideration or offering the evidence that disputes what they said. What am i supposed to make of this?

LOl, just repeating what I said, LOL. One stealth plane has been shot down out of thousands of sorties.

Thousands of sorties? If you compare the amount of sorties that say the F-15 has flown to the number of planes lost which plane comes out as 'safer' ( lets not even speak about economic efficiency) in your 'learned' opinion?

Yep what a stupid idea

Of course someone with your minute knowledge must know better.

Well my knowledge may be as minute as you suggest but i still site sources while you rarely do. What am i to make of the reality where i can post dozens of sources with my minute knowledge while you offer non in return when you dispute them? Is this the way intelligent well informed people behave and if so why do we need any of you on the planet?

But no fact, your sources may make some calims but present no fact.

Yesterday's claim is today's fact and i suppose we should just scrap all the ECM and Harm's because the Russians are clearly just full of it. They managed to track and detect the F-117 with the Sa-3 system so why do you think the S-300 lacks the capacity? It just makes no sense imo...

On March 27, 1999, the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Missile Brigade under the command of Colonel Zoltán Dani, equipped with the Isayev S-125 'Neva-M' (NATO designation SA-3 'Goa'), downed an American F-117A "Stealth Fighter" with a Neva-M missile. According to Wesley Clark and other NATO generals, Yugoslav air defenses found that they could detect F-117s with their "obsolete" Soviet radars operating on long wavelengths. This, combined with the loss of stealth when the jets got wet or opened their bomb bays, made them visible on radar screens. The pilot survived and was later rescued by NATO forces.

www.answers.com...

I can find " sources " which can suggest just about anything. FACTS are FACTS and you have presented none.

You might be able to do that but since i have never actually seen you carry out this threat by supporting your arguments with such material i can only assume that your ideas and opinions are so far out that you can not find a crazy enough source on the internet.

Where is this mydterious evedence which supposes this ? Can't find it LOL. How surprising. Do you actually have any FACTS ? Didn't think so.
I don't want the respect of an idiot, it brings me down.

I think i just provided something you can attempt to dispute with facts if you like.

Nope, I prove your " FACTS " ( which I apply the term loosely ) wrong all the time.

Show more than five factual errors i made ( of any scale ; this should be very hard anyways) in response to you and we can talk. Should i start pointing our the few tens of dozens or hundreds of times i have had to correct you from official document?

Yet you just keep n repeating the same old BS. I don't run away, I just can't be bothered replying to carbon after carbon copy of your posts which I have already shown to be false.

I keep repeating ' the same old bs' time and time again as it's never refuted in any detail and certainly not in it's totality. Correcting my spelling is NOT refuting a dozen sources from different authorities btw.... You will keep this up for a few more posts and then you will fade away as you always do.

It's very boring and uninteresting, you seem to think if you repeat somethign anough, you'll browbeat people into accepting it as fact.

I hardly want to repeat myself ( otherwise i would have posted all those long pages of material again already) but what can i do when you pretend that i never supply sources and facts? Some people here might obviously get the impression that there is some truth to what you say and i have always assumed that is the aim as your memory just could not be that selective or short...

LOL, I beleive many more mebers believe that you are full of it. A poster here in this thread has alreay asked you for your facts, yet you giver him nothing. Come on

What posted would that be? Find me more than the regular crazed objectors ( "Your so wrong i wont even post any facts to support myself") and then we talk about this.

LMAO, did I just read this. So you beleive the brochures that the arms manufactureres put out. Oh but wait they demonsrate them to foreign buyers in ( rigged tests ).

I do not believe ALL the arms brochures ( especially not some of the usual suspects)if that's what your asking. Rigged tests is all well and good but one does have a reputation to deal with!

Gee they must be all that they say they. Once again the S-300 has never been tested in combat only under very benign test conditions.

Well one can say the same for the F-22, Typhoon and dozens of other types but their still being bought and sold so presumable not having a specific system take part in a war does not say so much. One relies on the companies track record and Russian/Soviet Sam's have proved that they are the best chance a third world country has of shooting down planes of whoever attacks it.

This hardly makes ot the formadle weapon you make it out to be

BUt heys the brochures saud so .......LMAO.

It's based mostly on the performance of far older systems like the Sa-3, Sa-6 which both have good combat records when one takes into account the professional and technological advanced forces they had to be used against. Against lesser enemies they are obviously rather devastating...

WHat are it's previous incarnations ? What teh SA-10, it's hardly a super weapon LOL and never [played a decisive role in any battle.

Your quite right that it never won a war but i would argue that it's at least partly responsible for a few not taking place! The West has never had to fight integrated air defenses based on the Sa-5 or Sa-10 types but here is what a few defense analysts had to say.

The S-300 grouping features several different types of missiles built to strike at everything from low-flying drones and stealth cruise missiles to high-altitude reconnaissance airplanes and distant sensor platforms. Arrival of these systems in the arsenals of military foes will greatly complicate US operations, which continue to depend heavily on nonstealthy aircraft and will for years to come.

Gen. Richard E. Hawley, the now-retired former commander of USAF's Air Combat Command, told an AFA symposium in February that these new SAMs, if deployed in numbers large enough to create overlapping zones of engagement, would figuratively present "a brick wall" to nonstealthy fighters,

www.afa.org...

The Antey-2500 is designed to combat aircraft and tactical missiles, including ballistic missiles with a launch range of up to 2,500 kilometers. The Antey-2500 mobile complex, developed on the basis of the well-known S-300V [SA-12] air defense complex, is a new-generation system, capable of autonomous combat action. It can simultaneously engage 24 aerodynamic targets, including stealth targets, or 16 ballistic targets with a RCS of up to 0.02 meters, flying at speeds of up to 4,500 m/s. Improved characteristics of the radar information facilities and optimization of radar signal processing technics make it possible to combat high-speed ballistic targets with a small radar cross section. Antey-2500 can effectively protect an area of up to 2,500 sq. km and engage targets at altitudes of 25 to 40,000 m.


www.globalsecurity.org...

Throughout the Kosovo War air campaign the major Russian missile manufacturer Almaz Central Design Burueau was quietly putting the finishing touches to a new family of highly effective S-300 and S-400 surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems. Destined to become widespread both inside and outside Russia, the presence of these missiles will "create major problems for [air strike] planners for years to come", and their significance has been greatly underestimated by Defence Ministers worldwide. This warning is made by Editors Chris Foss and Tony Cullen in the foreword of the forthcoming authoritative publication Jane's Land-Based Air Defence 2000-1 Edition.

www.janes.com...

And there are a few more but I'm not sure if you even read anything remotely factual looking so lets stick to three.

But you provide no facts to discuss

It's a strange reality you have chosen to believe in.

Stellar

Stellar, I really do suggest a different approach.

Providing facts to pathological hecklers only gives them something to heckle at, so try posing questions which will force them to either do their own work and thus educating them selves in the process, or if they are lazy and suffer from desperately short attention span, they'll just disappear in a puff of smoke.

It's only natural that most teenagers are used to having everything handed to them on a silver platter in a nice and shiny wrapper.

Eventually they do grow out of it, but only if they put in the work required, and only then they grow to appreciate things for what they are.

Just my two cents, because it is indeed getting painfully repetitive.

You know, the old school yard "yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is infinity, no it isn't double infinity", and the first one that swallows his own snot looses

Originally posted by StellarX
Hey i have provided you with more facts than you need to come to a reasonable conclusion but in all honesty there is no requirement for me to even do that as no one gets worse at making these types of things. Do i really have to establish that the S-300 works in a complete vacuum without looking at the Russian technology that came before and were battle tested in such extremes? That's the type of insane arguments there really is no good way to deal with.

And here we have the crux of the problem, no need to deal with the rest of the waffling BS. The S-300 has never been testd in an ABM role simple as that. You hvae just admtted you have nothing to prove that it is capable at all against long range ballistic misiles, especially not any facts ie. tests against IRBM's. You have nothingmore than assertions so please from now in state when you say these things IMO, because you are not using facts.
Game Over and goodnight.

Originally posted by rogue1
And here we have the crux of the problem, no need to deal with the rest of the waffling BS. The S-300 has never been testd in an ABM role simple as that.

Like saying the F-16 has never been tested in a flying role.

You hvae just admtted you have nothing to prove that it is capable at all against long range ballistic misiles, especially not any facts ie. tests against IRBM's.

So basically you are saying that it's not possible because the USSR made no progress in BM interception since 1961 when they managed to shoot down various BM's? How can this be a argument?

You have nothingmore than assertions so please from now in state when you say these things IMO, because you are not using facts.

If this came from a 12 year old i could understand but are you not getting a bit old for these types of games? Do you really believe that by simply saying it's not true you can make it true?

Game Over and goodnight.

Interesting how you believe you can just wish this all away. I am never going to let you get away with these denials on a public board unless you start providing some source material that proves what i have provided inaccurate.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
And here we have the crux of the problem, no need to deal with the rest of the waffling BS. The S-300 has never been testd in an ABM role simple as that.

Like saying the F-16 has never been tested in a flying role.

What a stupid and completely irrelevant comaparison. NOt only can the F-16 fly it has been tested in combat several times The S-300 has never been tested against any long range ballistic object let alone in combat

You hvae just admtted you have nothing to prove that it is capable at all against long range ballistic misiles, especially not any facts ie. tests against IRBM's.

So basically you are saying that it's not possible because the USSR made no progress in BM interception since 1961 when they managed to shoot down various BM's? How can this be a argument?

No basically I'm saying where is your PROOF, you know facts. BTW shooting down one wrhead out of multiple failed tests does not a reliabl weapon make. ALso what were the prameters of the test, was the warhead carrying a beacon etx. At the very least they knew the exact time it was to be launched and the exact plce it would be, far from vombat conditions and they only managed on " successful " test out of many

If this came from a 12 year old i could understand but are you not getting a bit old for these types of games? Do you really believe that by simply saying it's not true you can make it true?

LOl, lets put the shoe on teh other fooy, by simply saying it is true, doies it make it so Because you provde no concrete evidence at all, it's obvious by your arguments and your dancing around the subject. WHERE ARE THE FACTS ABOUT THE S-300, TEST RESULTS ?

Game Over and goodnight.

Originally posted by rogue1
What a stupid and completely irrelevant comaparison. NOt only can the F-16 fly it has been tested in combat several times

The S-300 has never been tested against any long range ballistic object let alone in combat

And this objection could have at some stage been made for every weapon on the planet! Does it matter that they have held field exercises and extensive testing of this weapon over the last nearly three decades? Does it matter that defense analyst consider it the best SAM system in the world?

No basically I'm saying where is your PROOF, you know facts. BTW shooting down one wrhead out of multiple failed tests does not a reliabl weapon make. ALso what were the prameters of the test, was the warhead carrying a beacon etx.

I remember just posting two posts worth about 20 000 words on that score Saturday but maybe your efforts to evade them really were this successful. If you failed to see it please tell me so i can direct you there!

At the very least they knew the exact time it was to be launched and the exact plce it would be, far from vombat conditions and they only managed on " successful " test out of many

It took the USA twenty five years to manage the same feat under the same type of testing conditions so why are we trying to play this down as if the USSR was chasing fools gold and completely deluding themselves? Where is YOUR evidence that that was the case when it's widely admitted that ABM's with nuclear tips were tested and working on both sides of the ocean by the early mid 60's. The only thing really worth debating is hit to kill technology with conventional warheads.

LOl, lets put the shoe on teh other fooy, by simply saying it is true, doies it make it so

By simply claiming that i am lying ( without the remotest factual base) does not make it lies.

Because you provde no concrete evidence at all,

Well since you are clearly not blind i am wondering what other thing you could possibly be suffering from! Where is your concrete evidence that my evidence is at all flawed? Claiming so does not make it so!

it's obvious by your arguments and your dancing around the subject. WHERE ARE THE FACTS ABOUT THE S-300, TEST RESULTS ?

Game Over and goodnight.

It's obvious by your avoidance of any quoted material that i do post that you are running away from reality.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
What a stupid and completely irrelevant comparison. Not only can the F-16 fly it has been tested in combat several times

The S-300 has never been tested against any long range ballistic object let alone in combat

And this objection could have at some stage been made for every weapon on the planet! Does it matter that they have held field exercises and extensive testing of this weapon over the last nearly three decades? Does it matter that defense analyst consider it the best SAM system in the world?

They have, please provide some links to it being tested against ballistic targets - you are the one making the claim therefore you should back it up.

No basically I'm saying where is your PROOF, you know facts. BTW shooting down one warhead out of multiple failed tests does not a reliable weapon make. Also what were the parameters of the test, was the warhead carrying a beacon etc.

I remember just posting two posts worth about 20 000 words on that score Saturday but maybe your efforts to evade them really were this successful. If you failed to see it please tell me so i can direct you there!

Quite astounding that with " 20 000 " words you still cannot provide any concrete proof, just conjecture. You should be saying IMO, not fact.

At the very least they knew the exact time it was to be launched and the exact place it would be, far from combat conditions and they only managed on " successful " test out of many

It took the USA twenty five years to manage the same feat under the same type of testing conditions so why are we trying to play this down as if the USSR was chasing fools gold and completely deluding themselves?

Oh similar conditions, please provide some reference material about the Russian test. You are making the claim they are similar, where is the Soviet material to make a comparison.

Where is YOUR evidence that that was the case when it's widely admitted that ABM's with nuclear tips were tested and working on both sides of the ocean by the early mid 60's. The only thing really worth debating is hit to kill technology with conventional warheads.

When and where were these nuclear tipped ABM's tested ?

LOl, lets put the shoe on the other foot, by simply saying it is true, does it make it so

By simply claiming that i am lying ( without the remotest factual base) does not make it lies.

It is up to you to provide the information to prove what you're saying is correct, so far you haven't. Therefore without the necessary proof, how can you believed ?

Because you provide no concrete evidence at all,

Well since you are clearly not blind i am wondering what other thing you could possibly be suffering from! Where is your concrete evidence that my evidence is at all flawed? Claiming so does not make it so!

But you provide no evidence which clearly states what you say. I am still waiting for it.

it's obvious by your arguments and your dancing around the subject. WHERE ARE THE FACTS ABOUT THE S-300, TEST RESULTS ?

Game Over and goodnight.

It's obvious by your avoidance of any quoted material that i do post that you are running away from reality.

Well by all means if the material existed, why wouldn't you post it again after repeated requests. Simple fact is, there is no concrete evidence to back up what you say. Only your conjecture base on certain dubious " facts ".



[edit on 24-10-2006 by rogue1]

russian is selling this buy saying this that this weapon system is completly defencive and not offencive

Originally posted by rogue1
They have, please provide some links to it being tested against ballistic targets - you are the one making the claim therefore you should back it up.

2

This new evidence reinforces longstanding concerns about systematic Soviet violations of the ABM Treaty. Battlefield management radars are
the long leadtime component of any ABM defense system and the Soviets seem to have gained a great deal of experience in this field since 1975 when they installed an ABM-X-3 radar in the Kamchatka impact area for their ICBM tests. Over the years, the Soviets have also been upgrading their surface-to-air (SAM) bomber defense systems--now presumed to perform an ABM role. Since the Carter Administration, the Soviets repeatedly have tested various types of SAM missiles in'a discernable ABM mode at altitudes above 100,000 feet and have deployed thousands of less capable SA-5 missiles around-Soviet cities. These illegal ABM activities and the development of an anti-tactical ballistic missle system clearly point to a Soviet decision to subvert the ABM Treaty shortly after signing it.

Refusals to acknowledge these Soviet treaty violations point to the perennial dilemma of what to do after detecting cheating. The Administra-. tion is doingitself and the country no favor by refusing to acknowledge the mounting evidence that the Soviets are developing a capability which seriously erodes strategic stability and will soon permit the Soviet Union to break out of the ABM Treaty. The Administration should document and publicize Soviet ABM activities and Treaty violations. It should accele- rate the U.S. ballistic missile defense (BDM) program. Unless Moscow can refute the evidence that its radar and weapons programs are not de- signed for an ABM role, the U.S. should abrogate the ABM Treaty.

www.heritage.org...

26

The SA-5 was designated the S-200 Volga by the Soviets — the SA-5A and SA-5C are conventional versions; the SA-5B is nuclear. The warhead probably has the option for either command or proximity detonation. It was designed in the 1950s to counter American high-altitude aircraft such as the B-70 Valkyrie and SR-71 Blackbird, as well as the new stand-off missiles such as the Hound Dog, Blue Steel, and Skybolt. The United States has long claimed the SA-5B has an ABM capability (and was tested in this role in the 1970s), particularly given the sizable 25 kiloton nuclear warhead it carries. Over 2,000 missiles are deployed (the percentage of the nuclear SA-5B version is unknown), though the aging SA-5 has increasingly been replaced by the SA-10 Grumble. However, the SA-5 has received numerous upgrades and modifications, including terminal maneuvering capabilities.

www.cdi.org...&f/database/rusnukes.html

9

The SA-5 was designated the S-200 Volga by the Soviets — the SA-5A and SA-5C are conventional versions; the SA-5B is nuclear. The warhead probably has the option for either command or proximity detonation. It was designed in the 1950s to counter American high-altitude aircraft such as the B-70 Valkyrie and SR-71 Blackbird, as well as the new stand-off missiles such as the Hound Dog, Blue Steel, and Skybolt. The United States has long claimed the SA-5B has an ABM capability (and was tested in this role in the 1970s), particularly given the sizable 25 kiloton nuclear warhead it carries. Over 2,000 missiles are deployed (the percentage of the nuclear SA-5B version is unknown), though the aging SA-5 has increasingly been replaced by the SA-10 Grumble. However, the SA-5 has received numerous upgrades and modifications, including terminal maneuvering capabilities.

It is interesting to note that the warhead of this anti-aircraft missile has a larger yield than the bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Part of the SA-5B network consists of a line of bases across the northwest approaches to Russia, known as the Tallinn Line. The current status of the nuclear warheads assigned to the strategic SAMs is unknown — they may have been placed with the tactical weapons in centralized storage. Yeltsin did announce in January 1992 that one half of all anti-aircraft nuclear warheads would be destroyed, and because of its age, the SA-5B Gammon

www.cdi.org...&f/database/rusnukes.html

24

First, the SA-5 system was tested and developed at the officially declared ABM test range, Sary-Shagan.28 Second, medium- and intermediate-range missiles were fired to impact areas located at Sary-Shagan. Senators John "Jake" Garn and Gordon J. Humphrey have charged that many of these missiles could have served as the targets for ABM intercept programs.29 If so, the target most closely approximated in terms of range, radar cross section, and trajectory would be SLBMs. Third, if such a system as the SA-5 were to act as a terminal atmospheric defense weapon, it would require all-azimuth radar data for warning, acquisition, and pointing inputs to the SA-5 intercept radar. The Hen House long-range radar deployment was coincident in time with initiation of the SA-5 deployment.30 Hen House radars are deployed (in accordance with the ABM treaty) on the periphery of the U.S.S.R., scanninig outward over U.S. SLBM launch areas.31 As a linear array radar, Hen House can handle multiple targets limited only by internal computer configurations that can never be physically seen or assessed directly by U.S. intelligence.32 Acknowledged ABM radars such as the Dog House and Cat House also possess the capability to be used by the SA-5 in an ABM role as does a new class of large ABM capable phased-array radars publicly announced by Senator Garn.33 Fourth, and most important, the assessed technical characteristics of the SA-5 system itself indicated a clear capability to perform as a terminal ABM system to destroy ballistic missile targets of the SLBM variety given adequate radar acquisition data.34

Because of this relative wealth of uncertainty, the final ABM treaty included an explicit obligation in Article VI not to test SAMs "in an ABM mode." Since the ABM testing of the SA-5 could have been completed for some years prior to 1972, the treaty’s impact on an SA-5 ABM capability would be slight. Even at that, the reported repeated violations of the treaty after 1972 by the use of the SA-5 radar in tracking ballistic missiles resulted in Soviet tests against missiles similar in range to a normal SLBM trajectory.35 The Soviets claimed (and the administration) accepted) that the SA-5 radar was not being tested in an ABM mode, but rather was being used in a "legitimate range instrumentation role."36 Whether it is designated as a "range instrumentation radar" does not alter the fact that it has been used in a missile-tracking role. Its ability to track missile warheads on the range is therefore prima facie evidence of its ABM capability. Former Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird claims that thousands of SA-5 interceptors have been deployed in hundreds of sites around some 110 Soviet urban areas, principally in the European U.S.S.R.37 Such a deployment could play havoc with the surviving 1440 SLBM RVs.

The SA-5 anti-SLBM defenses are unorthodox and even "sneaky" in that they exist in the context of an ABM treaty under which the United States officially assumes they do not exist and takes no actions or precautions to counteract the capability. And an SA-5 ABM capability only makes sense in an overall damage-denial scheme which negates ICBMs some other way and reduces the number of SLBM RVs by ASW efforts to levels which can be countered by active SA-5 defenses, civil defense, and hardening of key targets.38

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

11

The Bush administration’s policy was not an automatic continuity or continuation of all treaties with the USSR, but provided a framework to review each agreement and determine necessary changes. Such a review was particularly important for arms control agreements. As President Clinton stated in a letter to Congressman Gilman in March 1997, and I quote, “Particularly in the area of arms control, a case-by-case review of each agreement was necessary.” In that case-by-case review, the administration negotiated a memorandum of understanding [MOU] on succession to the ABM Treaty. The MOU, was concluded in September 1997 and identified Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia as the successor states to the treaty. This selection of successor states seemed to be consistent with a statement by the President that, and I quote, “neither a simple recognition of Russia as the sole ABM successor (which would have ignored several former Soviet States with significant ABM interests) nor a simple recognition of all NIS, Newly Independent States, as full ABM successors would have preserved fully the original purpose and substance of the treaty, as approved by the Senate in 1972.” That was the letter from the President to Congressman Gilman. The administration went on to reiterate in that same letter that the MOU on succession “works to preserve the original object and purpose of the treaty.” To summarize, the administration believed in 1997 that recognition of Russia alone or all of the successor states together would not have preserved the original purpose of the treaty.

www.missilethreat.com...

12

In mid-1994 the Belarusian air force operated two interceptor regiments with MiG-23, MiG-25, and MiG-29 aircraft; three strike regiments with MiG-27, Su-17, Su-24, and Su-25 aircraft; and one reconnaissance regiment with MiG-25 and Su-24 aircraft. Four regiments had 300 helicopters, and one transport regiment had more than forty helicopters. Personnel numbered 15,800.

Belarus also had an air defense force with 11,800 personnel and 200 SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, and SA-10 surface-to-air missiles. The system was being integrated into Russia's air defenses in 1994 owing to Belarus's lack of resources.

www.globalsecurity.org...

13

Kazakhstan is investing the equivalent of one billion dollars to upgrade its air defense system, reports Interfax, with the upgrades reportedly being made by a British company, BAE Systems. The systems upgraded reportedly include the S-75, S-125, S- 200, and S-300. The size of the contract reflects the extent of the defense systems built by the Soviet Union

www.missilethreat.com...

14

THE AIR DEFENSE FORCE
Structurally consist of three Corps, deployed correspondingly in Lviv, Odesa, Dnipropetrovs'k. The Force HQ is located in Kyiv.
48 000 men are in Air Defense service. The Force is armed with Air Defense complexes S-75; S-125, S-200, S-300. It also includes Fighter Aviation.
The Air Defense Force of Ukraine was developed at the basis of formations, deployed in Ukraine at the moment of its independence's proclamation.

So my question is this? Why force these three countries who both operate the S-300 or S-200 to accept the ABM treaty if they do not have systems that can be operated or adapated ( with operating and infrastructure development) to operate in a ABM role?

27

Note: SA-5 is actually a reused NATO reporting name: it originally referred to the Russian V-1000 Anti Ballistic Missile system, introduced in 1963 and retired the following year for unknown reasons. The SA-5 (as described here) is apparently considered to be a "highly modified version of it".

everything2.com...

29

In March 4, 1961, in the area of the A testing ground the V-1000 ABM with a fragmentation-high-explosive warhead successfully intercepted and destroyed at an altitude of 25 kilometers the R-12 BM launched from the State Central Testing Ground with a dummy warhead weighing 500 kilograms. The Dunai-2 radar of the A system detected the BM at a distance of 1,500 kilometers when it appeared over the radio horizon, then the M-40 central computer found parameters of the R-12 trajectory, and prepared target designation for precision homing radars and the launchers. The ABM was launched and its warhead was actuated by the signal from the command post. The warhead of the ABM consisted of 16,000 balls with a carbide-tungsten core, TNT filling, and a steel hull. The warhead had a fragments field shaped as a disk perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the ABM. The warhead was actuated by the signal from the ground with a deflection necessary for formation of the fragments field. The warheads of this type were designed under the supervision of Chief Designer A. Voronov. The M-40 central computer was designed by the Precise Mechanics and Computer Research Institute of the Academy of Sciences under the supervision of Academician S. Lebedev. The computer could make 40,000 operations per second.

The V-1000 had two stages. The first stage was a solid-propellant booster, and the second stage was a sustainer stage with a warhead which was equipped with a liquid-propellant engine developed by the Design Bureau of Chief Designer A. Isaev. In addition to the fragmentation warhead a nuclear warhead was also designed for the missile. The flight tests of the missile, which could intercept targets at altitudes of up to 25 kilometers, started in 1958. The parallel approach to the target at a strictly counter course was chosen as the method of the ABM's homing. The V-1000 was delivered to the trajectory calculated according to the homing method along the regular curve, parameters of which were defined by the predicted target trajectory. P. Kirillov was the Chief Designer of the missile's automatic pilot. On March 26, 1961, the ABM destroyed the warhead of the R-5 BM with 500 kilograms of TNT. Overall, during the trial of the A system 11 launches of ABMs were performed which destroyed warheads of BMs, and experimental ABMs with heat seeking self-homing warhead, radio-controlled fuses, and optical fuses were also launched. The S2TA version of the V-1000 ABM with a heat seeking self-homing warhead was tested at the A testing ground between 1961 and 1963. The flight tests of the V-1000 with the nuclear warhead (without the fissible material) designed in Chelyabinsk-70 were conducted in 1961. For this warhead two types of proximity fuses were designed and tested: the optical fuse (designed by the GOI under the supervision of Chief Designer Emdin) a and radio-electronic fuse (Chief Designer Bondarenko) for the R2TA and G2TA versions of the missile.

Systems for surmounting of air defenses intended for domestic BM were also tested during the trial of the A system. The launched target ballistic missiles were equipped with inflatable false targets Verba, unfolding false targets Kaktus, and Krot active jammers. Overall, the field tests of the A system showed a principle possibility of BM warheads interception. Experiments under the coded name Operation K were conducted (K1, K2, K3, K4, and K5) to check a possibility of the A system functioning under the influence of nuclear explosions at altitudes of 80 to 300 kilometers between 1961 and 1962 at the Sary-Shagan testing ground. The A system showed its capability to function even when a conventional enemy used nuclear weapons.

www.fas.org...

31

On 29 November 1960 the first attempted intercept of an R-5 IRBM by the V-1000 was fully successful. (1) The anti-ballistic missile passed within the kill radius of the high-explosive fragmentation warhead of the V-1000. But the warhead itself had not completed development and was not installed. The five following intercept attempts were unsuccessful - five R-5's and two V-1000's were expended (three times the system failed to launch the anti-ballistic missile in time):

1961 began with another string of failures (5 further launches were planned in the first test series). A variety of warheads were wasted in attempting to destroy the incoming missiles. (3)Once, manually, and twice, automatically, the missile made a more-or-less successful intercept. But this was followed by three failures, indicating a great amount of time and effort were needed to develop the intercept method.

(2)On 4 March 1961 the V-1000 achieved a world first - the destruction of the re-entry vehicle of an R-12 IRBM. This was followed by the destruction of an R-5 re-entry vehicle. In all, there were 11 launches with military warheads, plus launches of developmental warheads. The S2TA variant used an infrared-homing self-guiding high-explosive warhead and was designed by Storozhenko at the GOI State Optical Institute in Lengingrad. It was capable not only of determining the moment for warhead detonation, but also was capable of guiding the anti-ballistic missile independently using an on-board computer. The R2TA version used a radio-guided explosive warhead, with two types of proximity fuses used to determine the correct moment for warhead detonation. These were the G2TA, a radio ranging system, developed by Bondarenko and an optical system, developed by Emdin at GOI. Flight tests of the V-1000 with a nuclear warhead designed at Chelyabinsk-70 were also carried out.

Manufacturer: Vympel/Grushin. Launches: 37. Failures: 5. Success Rate: 86.49%. First Launch Date: 1958-10-16. Last Launch Date: 1962-11-01. Launch data is: incomplete. Apogee: 100 km (60 mi). Total Mass: 8,800 kg (19,400 lb). Core Diameter: 1.00 m (3.20 ft). Total Length: 14.50 m (47.50 ft). Maximum range: 300 km (180 mi). Boost Propulsion: Solid rocket. Cruise Propulsion: Storable liquid rocket, AK-20I/TG-02. Cruise engine: S2.726. Cruise Thrust: 102.900 kN (23,133 lbf). Guidance: Radio command. Maximum speed: 3,600 kph (2,200 mph). Ceiling: 25,000 m (82,000 ft).

www.astronautix.com...

33

Based on operational nuclear--capable delivery platforms, knowledge about the size and composition of the nonstrategic stockpile during the Cold War, and statements made by Russian officials about implementation of the 1991-1992 presidential initiatives, we estimate that Russia maintains approximately 2,330 operational nonstrategic warheads and some 4,170 nonstrategic warheads in reserve. The operational warheads include: approximately 700 warheads for antiballistic missile and air defense systems (the A-135 system around Moscow and the SA-10 Grumble/S-300 system); some 975 air-to-surface missiles and bombs for delivery by land-based Tu-22M Backfire and Su-24 Fencer strike aircraft; and 655 warheads for cruise missiles, anti-air missiles, antisubmarine rockets, and torpedoes delivered by submarines, surface ships, and land-based naval aircraft. All naval warheads are stored on land.

www.thebulletin.org...

[edit on 27-10-2006 by StellarX]

4

On 04 March 1961 an R-12 ballistic missile fitted with a mockup in the form of a 500-kg steel plate, simulating a standard warhead, was launched from the State proving ground at station Sary-Shagan. The target was detected by proving ground radars at a range of 1,500 km and destroyed by a V-1000 antimissile missile, outfitted with a high-explosive-payload.

In 1963 the Griffon [NATO reporting name] interceptor was paraded in Red Square, and characterized as an ABM interceptor. The Griffon was a two-stage liquid fueled interceptor that was 16.5 meters long with a range of over 250 kilometers. Construction of the RZ-25 ABM system, which employed the V-1000 interceptor, was first detected in the early 1960's near the Estonian capital Tallinn. However this construction soon ceased. A highly modified version of the Griffon, the Gammon, was subsequently developed.

www.fas.org...

The Gammon is a 'highly refined' version of the Griffin ( wich was succesfully tested at the Russian ABM testing grounds against SS-4)wich the DIA and CIA in their wisdom decided to call a SAM system when all the evidence suggested that it was a dual use system at worse and a full blown ABM system, under the guise of a SAM system, at worse.

35

"Former Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird claims that thousands of SA-5 interceptors have been deployed in hundreds of sites around some 110 Soviet urban areas, principally in the European U.S.S.R"

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

Quite astounding that with " 20 000 " words you still cannot provide any concrete proof, just conjecture. You should be saying IMO, not fact.

The Earth has always been round yet the worlds best minds ( hehe) found a way to think of it as flat and since i can hardly consider your mind to be one of the best i have run into over the years i can well understand how proof is not proof in your mind.

Oh similar conditions, please provide some reference material about the Russian test. You are making the claim they are similar, where is the Soviet material to make a comparison.

These tests were observed by American radars ( as the earlier source material indicates) so why pretend that they would have invested as much as they did without succes; we know the US managed succesful intercepts with nuclear tippped missiles so why doubt the reality of the Soviet experiments and test?

d where were these nuclear tipped ABM's tested ?

At the end of the briefing McNamara accepted the cost-exchange ratios as being no more than 4: 1 in favor of the offense (down from 100:1), which made NIKE-X cost-effective by the standards he had prescribed. (12) However, in an emotional outburst during the briefing McNamara rejected the evidence that the Soviets put first priority on destroying MM silos in order to limit damage to the USSR, saying that as a Soviet Marshal he would target the entire arsenal on U.S. cities. Hence he refused to approve NIKE-X deployment to protect U.S. citizens from the FSU on the grounds of MAD theology--U. S. ABM defenses would be "destabilizing" by forcing the Soviets to respond with a massive MIRVed ICBM buildup.

The Joint Chiefs used a version of that 1966 NIKE-X briefing to ambush McNamara when they met with President Johnson at his ranch in December 1966, persuading Johnson to overrule McNamara and order deployment of U.S. national ABM, although not the defense against the FSU that the Chiefs proposed.(13) While the Chief's briefing is not available, a memo for the record prepared by W. W. Rostow, then President Johnson's national security adviser, is.(14)

According to Mr. Rostow's memo, the Chiefs recommended MIKE-X deployment at 25 cities to save the lives of 30 to 50 million U.S. citizens, if attacked. McMamara opposed the Chiefs' proposal on the grounds of MAD theology and simplistic "action-reaction":

* it was "inconceivable" that the Soviets would react in any other way but to restore the status quo ante, i.e. 120 million U.S. population fatalities;
* both sides would spend a lot of money and end up where they started, but we would waste the most because offensive weapons were so much cheaper than ABM systems;
* the danger of war would not be reduced;
* the FSU had "been wrong in its nuclear defense policy for a decade" because everything spent on all types of defenses (air and missile) had been wasted.(15)

The Chiefs saw it quite differently:

* NIKE-X would save tens of millions of lives against a Soviet population attack, and that was a worthwhile objective;
* while they could not predict with confidence how the Soviets would react, all likely reactions had a substantial price and would divert funds from other military programs--no free lunches;
* the risk of nuclear attack would be reduced

www.fas.org...

They American tests as far as i know did not include nuclear warheads but the testing showed that they could get a small nuclear warhead close enough to result in ICBM destruction.

It is up to you to provide the information to prove what you're saying is correct, so far you haven't. Therefore without the necessary proof, how can you believed ?

I keep testing my ideas against the evidence and the more i research this issue the more obvious and terrible this reality becomes.

But you provide no evidence which clearly states what you say. I am still waiting for it.

Define 'clear' in terms that does not depend on your own denial and ignorance on this matter....

Well by all means if the material existed, why wouldn't you post it again after repeated requests. Simple fact is, there is no concrete evidence to back up what you say. Only your conjecture base on certain dubious " facts ".]

Well if you want to keep believing what you like i guess that is your choice but i wont stop me from contesting it.

Stellar

[edit on 27-10-2006 by StellarX]