Iran is developing system similar to S-300

[gambit]

Lol, why do you have your underwear all in a bundle?

I do not think the man lives up to his handle.

 

[longbrained]

Lol, why do you have your underwear all in a bundle? It's a proven fact the U.S. was experimenting with rockets before any captured Nazi scientists were on the scene. And after the war the U.S. did take advantage of German expertise. The Russians did the same thing and that is a historical fact as well.

And your assertion that the US has no equivalent to the S400 is bankrupt. The SM-3 and SM-6 (extended range SM-3) is more than a match. And their targeting radars exceed in capability.


RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

S-400 (SAM) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have consistently lied and I have exposed you again and again here. US government was experimenting with fire works not with missiles at the time. The technology in those fire works before Nazi engineers took over in US was on par with Chinese ancient rockets. Only when Nazi engineers took over that US was able to move on. This is historical fact. Even today as I said, your top of the line rockets use Soviet engines. SM-3/6 are not S-400 system. S-400 is designed to be highly mobile and modular capable of being deployed in minutes any where on land and sea. SM-3/6 are bulky, low grade defense system basically used at sea with almost no to limited capability against non-ballistic targets. No comparison there at all. US rocket science owes it to Nazi engineers. Sorry but that is true. You started it yourself on this thread and I pulled down your trousers. Always think before jumping in and ridiculing others. Today you stand here ridiculed for your stupidity.

---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 PM ----------

I do not think the man lives up to his handle.

I have exposed the US rocket technology. It is way above your IQ level. Nazi engineers had a hard time working with dumb people like you. I pity them.

 

[gambit]

I have exposed the US rocket technology. It is way above your IQ level. Nazi engineers had a hard time working with dumb people like you. I pity them.

YOU have exposed your own ignorance and incompetence at basic research and logical thinking.

 

[longbrained]

Utter garbage. And here is why...

- Dependency
- Time

The question of dependency is about how much technology acquisition and adoption by one party from another.

NASA - Dr. Robert H. Goddard, American Rocketry Pioneer

We know that during WW II, all the major powers had some experience in varying degrees of rocketry. Imperial Japan had the least experience. Nazi Germany had the most. The Allies were in between. The science of rocketry, including the sub disciplines such as ballistic flights, were already established in the US. The absence of a deployed weapon, as in an American version of the V-2, should not be taken as an absence of the base science and foundations of engineering of the device. If there are any amount of technology acquisition and adoption, the question then is about the extent. Since the US already had the base science of rocketry, any technology acquisition and adoption would most likely be in practical engineering, not base knowledge, and by the works of Goddard, we know that the level of dependency is minimal.

For the question of time, if we assume that a country does possess some base knowledge and practical engineering, we can reasonably ask were there any time elapsed from point of the establishment of that amount of indigenous knowledge and engineering until the time of foreign technology acquisition and adoption. The greater the time elapsed, the greater the dependency. We can tell that this is not the case with the US, despite the absence of a deployed weapon like the V-2. Since both the US and Nazi Germany had similar technology levels in rocketry, the US does not need the V-2 to eventually develop something like the Saturn V or a weapon like the Minuteman ICBM. Any technology acquisition from Nazi Germany would be more geared towards verification of theories and correlation of engineering principles, in other words, 'they' and 'us' double-checked each other in terms of science and engineering with the acknowledgement that the Germans were slightly ahead in engineering.

Can the same argument be applied to Iran? No.

The current Iranian rocketry and ballistic missile weapons program is well near completely dependent upon foreign technology acquisition and adoption. Any indigenous programs involving base science and engineering have atrophied for a variety of reasons, least of all because of human intellect. Iranians are no less intelligent than Italians or Germans or Americans. Just that different circumstances produced different outcomes.

Your charge that the US depended wholly upon Germany's science failed -- spectacularly.

Well, is not Iran, which has hired Nazi engineers. It was US that did that. The Nazi engineers made all the rockets in US. When they died, not much has happened in US since then. US loved Nazi engineers.

---------- Post added at 07:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 PM ----------

YOU have exposed your own ignorance and incompetence at basic research and logical thinking.

It is part of history. You can not deny that Chief designer of US rocket projects was a Nazi German. Your anger is understable though but it is not going to change the facts here. US thrived on Nazi technology.

 

[Thomas]

You have consistently lied and I have exposed you again and again here. US government was experimenting with fire works not with missiles at the time. The technology in those fire works before Nazi engineers took over in US was on par with Chinese ancient rockets. Only when Nazi engineers took over that US was able to move on. This is historical fact. Even today as I said, your top of the line rockets use Soviet engines. SM-3/6 are not S-400 system. S-400 is designed to be highly mobile and modular capable of being deployed in minutes any where on land and sea. SM-3/6 are bulky, low grade defense system basically used at sea with almost no to limited capability against non-ballistic targets. No comparison there at all. US rocket science owes it to Nazi engineers. Sorry but that is true. You started it yourself on this thread and I pulled down your trousers. Always think before jumping in and ridiculing others. Today you stand here ridiculed for your stupidity.

---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 PM ----------



I have exposed the US rocket technology. It is way above your IQ level. Nazi engineers had a hard time working with dumb people like you. I pity them.

"S-400 is designed to be highly mobile and modular capable of being deployed in minutes any where on land and sea."

Please show me this sea version of the S400


"SM-3/6 are bulky, low grade defense system basically used at sea with almost no to limited capability against non-ballistic targets."

Actually a land variant called "Aegis Ashore" is being tested with a proposed deployment Europe in 2015. It can hit targets such as aircraft. But it's intended purpose is missile defense. And at 10 million+ per copy not cost effective for such use (aircraft).

http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/aegis_ashore.pdf

as far as other targets off shore the SM-2 and ESSM is more then able to handle threats. On shore the PAC-3 can handle any threat.



MIM-104 Patriot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RIM-162 ESSM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Thomas]

Well, is not Iran, which has hired Nazi engineers. It was US that did that. The Nazi engineers made all the rockets in US. When they died, not much has happened in US since then. US loved Nazi engineers.

---------- Post added at 07:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 PM ----------



It is part of history. You can not deny that Chief designer of US rocket projects was a Nazi German. Your anger is understable though but it is not going to change the facts here. US thrived on Nazi technology.

your obsessed with Nazis both Russian and Americans used German scientists after the war. And do you think Iran employs just Iranian scientists? no, one problem Russia has had in thier high tech industry is losing thier star talent to other countries where they make a lot more money. Iran being one of those countries.

 

[longbrained]

your obsessed with Nazis both Russian and Americans used German scientists after the war. And do you think Iran employs just Iranian scientists? no, one problem Russia has had in thier high tech industry is losing thier star talent to other countries where they make a lot more money. Iran being one of those countries.

First of all there is no proof for Iran having hired Russian scientists. No mention of it by any intel report or respectable news agency. These things can not be hidden. And even if hypothetically Iran has hired Russians, it still is not on par with US having hired Nazi war criminals. Russians can not be compared to Nazis. Hiring foreign skill is something US is famous for, not Iran. I am not obsessed with anything. I am just showing you the mirror. You jumped into this thread with goal of ridiculing non-westerners. You got what you deserved for here. Dont you agree, now seeing yourself in the mirror?

 

[Thomas]

First of all there is no proof for Iran having hired Russian scientists. No mention of it by any intel report or respectable news agency. These things can not be hidden. And even if hypothetically Iran has hired Russians, it still is not on par with US having hired Nazi war criminals. Russians can not be compared to Nazis. Hiring foreign skill is something US is famous for, not Iran. I am not obsessed with anything. I am just showing you the mirror. You jumped into this thread with goal of ridiculing non-westerners. You got what you deserved for here. Dont you agree, now seeing yourself in the mirror?

Well let's see, your main argument seems to be that the US had no missile programs before the end of WWII. And then used German scientists to advance our rocket program. You also tried to say that many of those scientists ran slave labor camps ("Many of them were running concentration camps using slave labor for their factories"). which was an obvious lie.

The US deffinitly benefited from German rocket scientists after the war. But so did the Russians which you seem to not want to admit.

GERMAN LEGACY IN THE SOVIET ROCKETRY

German legacy in the Soviet rocketry


We can agree to disagree on foriegn involvment in Irans missile program. Most experts in the field though believe they are getting help. whether it be officially or through other means.

here is an interesting read on the matter.

http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/fulltext/npreview/karp53.pdf


**still waiting to see that sea based S400

 

[longbrained]

Well let's see, your main argument seems to be that the US had no missile programs before the end of WWII. And then used German scientists to advance our rocket program. You also tried to say that many of those scientists ran slave labor camps ("Many of them were running concentration camps using slave labor for their factories"). which was an obvious lie.

The US deffinitly benefited from German rocket scientists after the war. But so did the Russians which you seem to not want to admit.

GERMAN LEGACY IN THE SOVIET ROCKETRY

German legacy in the Soviet rocketry


We can agree to disagree on foriegn involvment in Irans missile program. Most experts in the field though believe they are getting help. whether it be officially or through other means.

here is an interesting read on the matter.

http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/fulltext/npreview/karp53.pdf


**still waiting to see that sea based S400

It is astounding to see you lie so much. Go above and read all the comments. You have lie so much. In the beginning I said, Russians benefited from Nazi technology but then the moved on. Their chief engineer was not a Nazi engineer unlike the case with US. The mere fact that US top of line rockets use Russians engines are testimony to their having moved on unlike US, which depended on Nazi technology. If Iran is getting help despite sanctions then good for them. US got all the help they could from Nazi engineers. That is the shame here.

And yeah, ever heard of S-400F? The naval version of S-400? Does US have a similar system? No, it does not.

 

[gambit]

It is part of history. You can not deny that Chief designer of US rocket projects was a Nazi German. Your anger is understable though but it is not going to change the facts here. US thrived on Nazi technology.

Give it up. No one with any experience in any technical field, let alone aviation, buy your weak argument.

 

[Thomas]

And yeah, ever heard of S-400F? The naval version of S-400? Does US have a similar system? No, it does not.

actually I had not heard of it which is why I asked. In fact there is hardly no information avialable for it. But you are dead wrong still in saying the S400 has no equal. The SM-6 which is replacing the SM-2 is it's equal. And if the F version is using a similar targeting radar as it's cousin then the SM-6 exceeds it. Especially when combined with the AN/SPY-3 and AMDR.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

...
On shore the PAC-3 can handle any threat.
MIM-104 Patriot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RIM-162 ESSM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does the PAC-3 have the capability to engage low-flying targets and smart bombs or cruise missiles, or something else in the layered AD takes care of them? I get the idea that the PAC-3 is designed to climb and do that quickly.

 

[Thomas]

Does the PAC-3 have the capability to engage low-flying targets and smart bombs or cruise missiles, or something else in the layered AD takes care of them? I get the idea that the PAC-3 is designed to climb and do that quickly.

The most recent software upgrade PDB-6 gives PAC-3 the ability to hit low flying targets such as cruise missiles.

 

[mnd]

Please show me this sea version of the S400

Redut complex (ship based) uses S-400 family missiles.

"SM-3/6 are bulky, low grade defense system basically used at sea with almost no to limited capability against non-ballistic targets."

Actually a land variant called "Aegis Ashore" is being tested with a proposed deployment Europe in 2015. It can hit targets such as aircraft. But it's intended purpose is missile defense. And at 10 million+ per copy not cost effective for such use (aircraft).

Current SM-3 missile is not worth of comparison, in what missile design is referred. Despite being larger and having a much higher ceiling, it is capable only to intercept medium range missiles (25000+ Km range, doubtful against new) Current S-400 does the same, but more efficiently, just at lower altitude, and missile is multipurpose. And guess what? Decent ABM capability, including long range ICBMs, is scheduled for the SM-3 for... 2020.

In current form SM-3 is a waste of potential.

http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/aegis_ashore.pdf

as far as other targets off shore the SM-2 and ESSM is more then able to handle threats. On shore the PAC-3 can handle any threat.

PAC-3 is about soviet 3rd generation in terms of design (mobility, fire configuration, coverage) just with modern electronics. A fail of "multipurpose" system intended against primitive missiles with simple flight trajectory. Little use against modern air plattforms.

 

[Thomas]

@lidsky

link me some info on the S-400F I can't find much on it. I am more interested in it's ship based fire control radar.