This is getting sillier and sillier.
Not sure if you are intentionally being facetious with your one liners and non sequiturs or you are paid to do so and having a laugh behind your display screen.
Moreover, despite overwhelming evidence that I have brought, collated and supporting cogent arguments that I have presented you and the readers with, you come up with more alternate, imagined versions of history or cooked up theory - presented again as one liners - to support whatever it is you are arguing in favour of.
At this time, I am not sure you know what the original discussion related to.
Regardless, let me try and see where this back and forth exchange, mostly meaningless, leads to. You are probably unique in that most other back and forth exchanges that I have had led to meaningful conclusions because, despite their political or ideological views, no other member here was as persistently stubborn in ignoring facts, objective evidence or cogent arguments.
You are simply unable to lead a civil discussion. You insult me, provoke and then run to moderators. Try to avoid it next time.
This is quite unbecoming of you. You should quote the part where I insulted you explicitly so everyone can see it and I would be glad to erase that personal insult. To my dismay, despite repeated accusations from you, I can not find such an insult.
All are just crude force old generation anti aircraft missiles. New generation missiles are:
1) Small super maneuverable with ABM capabilities (Patriot Pac 3, 9M96, Aster, Barak-8, David's Sling...)
2) Exoatmospheric ABM with space kill vehicle (THAAD, SM3, Arrow 3, PDV Mk II...)
1. This is a nonsequitur. If you can not debate the original point discussed, you should not deflect the topic.
2. This argument of yours is also invalid. Aster-15 is just a short range missile (mere 30 km range) and with a booster its putative kinematic range extends to only 120 km. Rumours say the extended range thanks to the booster, as in the Aster-30 missile, maybe up to 160 km. Even then, it falls comfortably short of the superior missiles in question.
For 48N6, 48N6DM or 40N6 missiles as used in various S-400 or derivative SAM/ABM systems, the lengths and diameters are comparable to the Sayyad-4 missile as used in Bavar 373 system.
Similarly, the SM-3 missile or the SM-6 missile (endoatmospheric) are of comparable lengths and diameters to the Sayyad-4 missile as used in the Bavar 373. For your information, the SM-3 missiles (of any block) are not shorter than 6.5 metres and the same is true for SM-6 missiles.
The rest of the systems you mention are inferior in performance and class, thus not worth comparing here.
3. These exoatmospheric ABM systems do not even work. They have not been pressed into service in the armed forces of any overseas customers for this reason, among others.
Apart from their poor probability of kills, coupled with the incomplete coverage provided by ground based/sea based battle management radars that also suffer from poor records against controlled test targets (such as Black/White/etc Sparrow missiles) intended to
simulate real ballistic missiles, they also have no record of operational success.
Jericho II has absolutely nothing to do with MD-650. Its not just a completely different missile (completely different dimensions, numbers of nozzles surfaces...), it is a completely different class of the missile.
I thought you would not be making this argument since you believe that SM-1 missile is the same as Sayyad-4 missile despite the complete differences in dimensions (length, diameter), performance (speeds, kinematic range, engagement ranges, altitude, max acceleration), aerodynamic control surfaces (wings, fins, winglets), TVC (lacking in outdated SM-1 and present in Sayyad-4 missile) and ability to target ballistic missiles.
But the better part is, at least, we know that Jericho 1 was just a rebadged MD-620 missile from Dassault. We also know that Shavit and Jericho 2 are the same and has been admitted as such (evidence of which has been attached above in my earlier response).
I said Iran has nothing close to Shavit. Why you bring Italy here?
You still failed to provide any proof that Bavar is ABM capable.
I did not mention Shavit/Jericho 2 or ballistic missiles or ICBMs/Space Launch Vehicles in this discussion first. You did. Since you did so, I merely reminded you that Italian Vega outclasses puny Shavit comfortably. Even North Korean Hwasong 15 outclasses Jericho-2/Shavit comfortably. Not sure what the point of your argument is.
One possibility is that Iran has not
publicly tested the Ghaem SLV - which you did not mention even after I had posted an image of one of its stages - because they have not succeeded in the last 10+ years in developing it successfully. However unlikely this event might be, it is indeed possible.
Another possibility is that a soft-hearted people like the Iranians can not compete with the mischievous propaganda of their enemies. In that context, for better or for worse, whether right or wrong, their leadership may have decided not to test them at all, or not in public since the anti Iranian hysteria in Western media and decision making centres would assume much higher pitch.
However, the recently tested mobile TEL launched Qased SLV tells us that they may be more prepared to launch more capable ICBMs than the Qased SLV if their leadership changes their mind. Will their leadership change their mind? I can not speak about that as I am not a member of their leadership.
I showed, that you mix up between production and development. I brought i official documents which prove:
US did not develope anything in Arrow 2 and in even in Arrow 3 it developed only minor secondary parts like motor cases sade arm, batteries etc.
Unfortunately, this is one of your numerous errors. I have lost count of how many more errors you have made. Earlier, at least 5 (five) different sources were presented to convince you and the readers that Arrow 2 was developed by the United States, unlike what you would like to believe.
Let me provide those links for your conveniences.
The Knesset Finance Committee Will Today Discuss a Request by Former Prime Minister MK Shimon Peres (Labor) for the State to Continue Financing His Special Tel
www.haaretz.com
Israel successfully tested the Arrow 2 ballistic missile interceptor, developed in collaboration with the United States, on Wednesday
The system successfully intercepts a simulated long-range surface-to-surface warhead • Netanyahu: “Those who seek our ill should know the State of Israel is prepared for any threat.”
www.jns.org
The United States and Israel signed a memorandum of understanding in 1986 to co-develop and co-fund the Arrow program, as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative.
www.globalsecurity.org
The US Department of Defense began developing the system in 1988, and the Arrow 2 version was first tested in 1995. Israeli Aircraft Industries signed a contract with Boeing in February 2003 to purchase Arrow 2 systems manufactured in the US.
Arrow 2 is a missile defense interceptor used in the Arrow Weapon System, the upper layer of Israel’s missile defense system. Co-developed by the United States and Israel, the Arrow system is designed to defeat short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. The two-stage, solid-propellant missile...
missilethreat.csis.org
Arrow 2 is a U.S.-Israeli developed system designed for theater defense against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Tel Aviv has successfully tested the Arrow-2 ballistic missile interceptor, developed in collaboration with the United States. “I commend the defense establishment and...
www.middleeastmonitor.com
the Arrow-2 ballistic missile interceptor, developed in collaboration with the United States.
These references have already been provided in my earlier comment located at
Sayad-4 is derived from Sayad-3/2 which is derived from Standard-1. You should provide evidence for your claim. I am not proficient with computer graphics. That's why I hope you or other members or silent readers would be able to make sense out of my amateurish attempt at pointing out some...
defencehub.live
You should have read that message more carefully.
Successful space test indicates it is a mature system.
On the contrary, there is no evidence
whatsoever that the Indian Prithvi ballistic missile derived PDV is in their inventory. Rather, I have already provided evidence to the contrary in one of my earlier messages. Apparently, despite being proven wrong, you like to post meaningless one-liners without any logical or factual basis.
That sort of behaviour should not help your reputation or standing in the real world. In the realms of the virtual world, if you are paid to post frequent one-liners with little to no factual or logical basis, maybe that is the only justification for continuing to do so.
The ' Pradyumna' Prithvi Defence Vehicle ( PDV) & 'Ashwin' Air Defence (AAD) interceptors by Shiv Aroor It’s official: The...
www.indiandefensenews.in
TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2020
The IAF has pledged full support to the Indian BMD program and the necessary logistics to see it roll into operational service on time.
Moreover, you are the member who argues one instance should not prove a trend. If that is so, you should also never have argued that one successful test would, by default, mean a system is mature.
There are many successful ICBM and nuclear tests made by Russia. But you cant show any successful exoatmospheric interception.
There are no successful Russian ICBM and nuclear weapons tests over the territory of the United States or France.
I hope you would not believe that Russian ICBMs or nuclear weapons do not work.
Speaking of which, you can not show a video of
1. Arrow-2 or Arrow-3 intercepting a real ballistic missile
2. David's Sling intercepting an enemy aerial target in combat
3. Barak-1 or Barak-8 intercepting an enemy aerial target in combat
4. Aster-15 or Aster-30 intercepting an enemy aerial target in combat
5. Any Indian SAM intercepting an enemy aerial target in combat
6. Spyder (surface based Python/Derby) missiles intercepting an enemy aerial target in combat
In contrast, I can show you video footage of Iranian Khordad-15 downing an RQ-4 of the US Navy. Moreover, I can show you various footage of the Yemeni Houthi faction shooting down or hitting F-15, Tornado or MQ-9 fighter jets/drones. You can also look them up on your own if you are interested.
Combat record speaks volumes more than online chatter.
Nudol is very primitive system with RC guidance. In order to cover its low accuracy they are equipped with nuclear warheads. US ditched such primitive systems 50 years ago.
Interesting that you know more about the guidance system of the PL-19 Nudol ABM than many observers within Russia and outside. All this while, I had thought its performance parameters or specifications (such as guidance method) would be secret.
Also of interest might be your insistence on standing on the shoulders of the USA now.
Weren't you earlier arguing that "Israel"/Zionist entity is more advanced than Russia? Why do you need to deflect the discussion towards the USA now?
In any case, if you wish, the USA too has
never developed a surface combat vessel as well armed as the Kirov class cruiser, as well armed or as heavy (in terms of displacement) as the Typhoon/Akula class SSBN, as capable of defeating
any ABM on planet Earth as the Zirkon/Tsirkon hypersonic glide vehicle which can be delivered via RS-28 Sarmat or some other previously developed ICBMs - delivered along the shorter North Pole route or the longer South Pole route, alongside a long list of other weapons too many to mention.
Moreover, Russian S-300, S-400, possibly S-500 SAM/ABM systems are widely popular in international markets among such "giants" as China or India (with their ICBM and nuclear warheads, and thus able to pursue relatively independent foreign policies), or with other customers such as Iran (S-300), Egypt, Turkey (S-400, and possibly S-500 in the future) and even clients of Western weapons such as Saudi Arabia.
In contrast, American ABM systems are not purchased by anybody else apart from their "client"/"vassal" states (no nuclear warheads, no ICBMs, no permanent membership of UNSC) and American/"Israeli"/Zionist Arrow-2 or Arrow-3 find no customers
whatsoever abroad.
That should also provide a hint for intelligent readers.
Post just one picture of significant damage in Tel Aviv area from 2014 war. Just one.
Hamas and PIJ launched dozens of rockets towards Tel Aviv metro but failed to make any damage (despite some debris from destroyed rockets).
Rockets launched by Hamas are pretty rudimentary in nature. By default, they can not do too much damage anywhere. Some pictures/videos of failed interceptions by the Iron Dome were presented earlier by me, if you are still interested.
Here is a typical rocket launched by Hamas, the representative of the people of Gaza as recognized by many countries including world powers such as Russia, regional countries such as Turkey, Iran and many more.
They just wanted to make a show. If they wanted to replace Assad they would bomb him in 2011 and supply weapons to rebels.
Again, another one of your baseless conjectures.
They should have simply donated that money to suffering Syrian civilians instead of "making a show" by launching useless Tomahawk missiles at an airbase that would later be repared within less than 24 hours.
There are pictures of 3 different destroyed S-200 radars.
For you pictures of destroyed radars are not evidence but baseless claims from Russian propaganda are evidence.
A Twitter account is no source, much less an unverified Twitter/social media account.
In that very tweet, the author mentions "Pantsir-S". No mention of S-200, no sight of S-200 radars in the video. The images could be from anywhere, posted in a Twitter account.
It should be obvious why that counts as less reliable.
For your knowledge F-16 was developed 1970-es. Using one event as proof is very unprofessional. What matters is that after this event S-200 were destroyed and Israel carried many dozens of attacks in Syria and their air defence could do nothing. That means IAF won and Syrian air defence lost.
Earlier, you were arguing that one success by an Indian Prithvi short range/tactical ballistic missile modified to hit a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellite proves that the system is mature and therefore, in inventory of the Indian Armed Forces.
Now, you say judging the outcome based on a single outcome is very unprofessional.
This is not the first time, possibly not the last time either, that you would contradict yourself in a single message.
I could also make up a conspiracy theory that Su-30 was hit by missile and not a bird. But unlike you I dont deal with baseless speculations. There is zero evidence that F-35 was damaged by a missile. If you find one let me know.
You are free to make any conspiracy theory you like including relying on Twitter/social media accounts, worse yet, unverified accounts.
Other members or observers are also free to dispute your supposed evidence based on their questionable reliability or authenticity. Ultimately, readers should be able to make their own conclusions based on the evidence presented and the soundless of the arguments put forth. As explained before, the virtual world is different from the real world and not many people can afford to spend a large chunk of their daily lives trolling/debating using one-liners or contradictory statements within one single message.
