Right...So a corvette represent all of 'Western defense' mechanisms?
You must have a difficult time comprehending what I explained. Sorry...But I cannot make it any simpler without violating the laws of physics.
Very good.No, a corvette doesn't "represent all of Western defense" mechanisms because a corvette is a ship!
Then how can you say that this piece of Iranian junk 'defeated' anything? It gone up against only one ship so far. Looky here...I know you are desperately gullible to grasp at any straw...But do try to exercise some critical thinking.
Yer right...And Iraq 'won' Desert Storm.
Very good...Not...So if you concede that human incompetence is either the cause or a major factor in this event, then how can you say that this piece of Iranian junk 'defeated' anything? In weapons development and testing, based from my experience, a weapon should be tested against the full measure of defense wielded by a potential adversary operated by fully trained personnel. That mean get some of my guys to play the bad guys. Have them fully caffeinated running on the best ship or fighter aircraft or tanks or artillery. Let them know ahead of time that an 'attack' is coming so they can fully powered up their defenses to put up the best resistance for this new weapon. That is only way to know the quality and capability of your build. Another important factor/question is the technological level of your potential adversary. It is always easier to simulate an inferior adversary than a superior one. So has Iran tested the Kowsar or <whatever> against an aircraft carrier force centered by a ship as capable as the USS Enterprise? In a real war, you hope to surprise the enemy when his defenses are either off or at ease but you should always be prepared to meet him at his best.
I know, man...Just having some fun.
The problem here is the lack of clarity on the accusation of 'failure'. Take a cruise missile for example. Whenever an aircraft fly below a defense's radar horizon, odds are very good, better than average, that the missile will succeed. In this context, the defensive measures did not really fail because radar detection is only the first part of the entire system. However, if the ship managed to detect the incoming missile, deployed distraction/seduction tactics, took drastic evasive maneuvers...And still got hit by the missile...Now we, the defense, have a serious problem. In other words, we have no possible excuse as everything we can deployed and employed -- we did.
I know, man...Just having some fun.
The problem here is the lack of clarity on the accusation of 'failure'. Take a cruise missile for example. Whenever an aircraft fly below a defense's radar horizon, odds are very good, better than average, that the missile will succeed. In this context, the defensive measures did not really fail because radar detection is only the first part of the entire system. However, if the ship managed to detect the incoming missile, deployed distraction/seduction tactics, took drastic evasive maneuvers...And still got hit by the missile...Now we, the defense, have a serious problem. In other words, we have no possible excuse as everything we can deployed and employed -- we did.
You are wasting your breath and your time. Pick your debate with a sensible person who is not carrying an immense burden of proving his loyalty at any cost. You’ll come across certain people who are by default more interested in bullying and intimidating in order to overcome the resistance (of opinion) rather than refuting an argument with a counter-argument. This is but the sad reality of their deficient and insecure personality and no matter how much they try, they just can’t overcome this vacuum. A wise person must avoid such people to save his precious time. By the way, heartiest congratulation on all your progress no matter how insignificant it may look. Even the greatest achievements of the mankind had very humble beginnings.
