US Secretary of State Blinken Says Only China Can ‘Seriously Challenge’ Global System

500

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Israel Moderator
Messages
752
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 2,875
Nation of residence
Israel
Nation of origin
Israel
I see that most of your responses are one liners and meaningless. Not only do they fail to address the points brought up and evidence brought forth, they often deflect the course of discussion.

There is not much point in holding such silly one-liner 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.

According to you, rearranging control surfaces, lengthening a missile or expanding its diameter is a minor task. In that case, these matter should not take a few years.

On the other hand, you argue that few years are "nothing in missile development".

By no means should minor tasks take a few years.

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...)


Shavit is the Jericho ballistic missile.

Jericho ballistic missile was a rebadged MD-620 missile gifted by France and developed and produced by Dassault.
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.

Shavit is a minor launcher, the same sort that it has been for decades with a puny payload to LEO only.

Italian VEGA space launcher can send a much heavier payload and send multiple payloads on one vehicle indicating MIRV capability.
I said Iran has nothing close to Shavit. Why you bring Italy here?

This proves nothing since prior to the revelation of the indigenous and unique Bavar 373 SAM/AD system, which is unsurpassed in the entirety of the Middle East/North Africa, Subsaharan Africa, South Asia, Central Asia, Western Europe, ASEAN, Oceania and Latin American region in terms of capability there were many detractors, too, and no publicly available image to support the claims from the Iranian government.

You still failed to provide any proof that Bavar is ABM capable.


At least five sources were presented to confirm that the development of the Arrow-2 programme was conducted by the USA.
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.


Where is the evidence of PDV MK II in Indian inventory?

Do you know the difference between a product under testing and one that is operational/in active inventory?

You said Indian and Chinese BMD systems were in their inventory/operational. Now you show me links of a test by the Indians. You have just corroborated my argument that Indian BMD systems are undergoing tests.
Successful space test indicates it is a mature system.


I can not show you a video of a Russian nuclear warhead detonating over the United States or France, either.

Do you mean to imply that Russian nuclear warheads can not detonate over the United States or France because there is no video of that? I hope not.

There are many successful ICBM and nuclear tests made by Russia. But you cant show any successful exoatmospheric interception.

No need to feel sorry since Russia leads Israel on this and many other matters, too.

For example, the Nudol ABM were deployed many decades ago around Moscow and it certainly did not need any external financing, technological aid in development or production or marketing. Moreover, the Americans have accused Russians of deploying space based ASAT weapons which none of India or "Israel"/Zionist entity has deployed or able to deploy today or anytime in the near future.
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.


They are different locations. You need to check carefully. A few videos were attached, too, for your convenience showing the failure of the Iron Domes.
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).

Then they should not have fired them in the first place and wasted so many of their much vaunted Tomahawk cruise missiles. These invented stories of yours do not fit well with the actual events.

They just wanted to make a show. If they wanted to replace Assad they would bomb him in 2011 and supply weapons to rebels.


That is merely a (an unverified) Twitter account.

It shows a Pantsir radar being targeted, not the radars of S-200. Did you view the video?

A twitter account can not be considered evidence for obvious reasons.

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.


You could continue hitting targets in Tehran, Tabriz or Isfahan if you want to and if you can, successfully, without facing the same fate as the US Navy drone downed by Iran.

That does not change anything regarding the F-16 - the mainstay of the "Israeli"/Zionist air force - fighter jet downed deep inside "Israel"/Zionist entity far from the borders of Syria by an entirely outdated S-200 AD system (developed more than 50 years ago, probably older than you unless you happen to be well over 60 years of age.
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.

Because the Su-30 is twin engined, a crash might indicate bird hit. There have been multiple instances of birds interfering with civil and military aviation leading to a crash.
Near hit by a surface to air missile might have allowed at least one engine to stay operational allowing the aircraft to land safely.

If a surface to air missile hits, or explodes near, a single engined aircraft (like the F-35), it is unlikely it could survive.

My earlier comment on this matter might help you understand better:

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.
 
Last edited:
E

ekemenirtu

Guest
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.


Israel successfully tested the Arrow 2 ballistic missile interceptor, developed in collaboration with the United States, on Wednesday


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.


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 U.S.-Israeli developed system designed for theater defense against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.


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


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.


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.

oHXc7MM.jpg


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.

oHXc7MM[1].jpg




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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

500

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Israel Moderator
Messages
752
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 2,875
Nation of residence
Israel
Nation of origin
Israel
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.


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.
You say my answers are "silly" and keep praising yourself. Quit with this behavior.

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.
Aster-15 and Aster-30 are same missiles with different size busters. These small extramaneuverable new generation missiles.


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.

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.
SM-3 is derived from SM-1 and it is far far more capable than all your Sayads and Bavars.

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.
So you think know better than most advanced militaries in the world?


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.

They have excellent kill probabilities.


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 dont know you are trolling or really dont understand the difference between short range ballistic missile and orbital space launcher. If second then it is a waste of time to explain you the difference.

Iran has short range ballistic missiles for decades, but still cant make anything remotely close to Shavit.


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.

I proved that the Israeli rocket technology far outclasses the Iranian. Why you bring Italy here - I really dont know. BTW Italy bought Israeli recon satellite.

Even North Korean Hwasong 15 outclasses Jericho-2/Shavit comfortably. Not sure what the point of your argument is.
Hwasong is a liquid rocket with Russian engines. It has noting to do with the topic. Plus when it will launch something to orbit then we could compare.

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.

US participates in Arrow program, thats why some journalists mix up between co developing and participating, just like you did.

I brought u official US documents which show the real picture. Arrow-2 is fully Israeli development, while in Arrow-3 US develops just some secondary components (batteries, casings etc..)


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.


Again you can't show any similar test from Iran or Russia.


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.
Nuclear test i Russia works exactly same as nuclear test in France. Physics laws are same in France and in Russia in case u did not know.


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

I can only repeat your own argument: do you doubt nuclear missile effectiveness since they were not tested in combat? Thats what tests are made for. BTW Arrow was successfully tested against real Scud-B missile in 2004.


Bavar was never even tested against a ballistic target.


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.
Congrats for shooting a down big, slow unmaneuverable target. You can declare it a national holiday.

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.

A-235 Nudol is a modification of A-135. A-135 is a crude RC guided system with nuclear warhead. So far everything they did with Nudol is several non interception launch tests (basically they just checked that it can fly).

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?

Of course US and Israel are far more advanced than Russia.



In recent Karabakh war you could witness what happens when NATO technology meets Russian technology.
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.

oHXc7MM.jpg


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.

View attachment 18409

Rockets they launched at Tel Aviv were Fajar-3/5 with huge damage. You could not show a single damage in Tel Aviv area from 2014 war, when they launched at Tel Aviv almost on daily basis.





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.
US is the biggest donor of UN World Food Program, which feeds millions of Syrians.

Second time they attacked 3 empty buildings just for show.


A Twitter account is no source, much less an unverified Twitter/social media account.
Photo evidence is an excellent source.


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.

That's because your knowledge is very poor. So let me enlighten you:

5N62V illumination radar:
Dc63G9yXkAAhcyW.jpg


P-35 2D radar:
Dc63H-1X4AEdBMx.jpg


PRV-17 radar altimeter:
Dc63HaQW0AMxoa4.jpg


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.

Alas, you dont understand anything about warfare. So let me bring you an historic example.

* Since 1956 US was conducting recon flights over USSR with U2 planes. In 1960 Russia shot down one U2. Since then these recon flight ceased. That is a clear victory for air defence.

* Israel was bombing targets in Syria for years. In 2018 Syrians attacked Israeli planes deep inside Israel with S-200 and shot down one. Soon after than Israel destroyed this S-200 and continued bombing Syria like before without interruption till this day. Thats a clear victory for Israeli air force.
 
Last edited:

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom