Comments by "ZIPZ" (@zipz8423) on "Covert Cabal" channel.

  1. You mean like Hezbollah?? Up yours.
    14
  2. Tell that to fucking Ukraine.
    11
  3. Reza, you're probably correct, I hope your people can one day determine their own destiny how they want to shape it.
    4
  4. Games, F-117 was not meant to be "invisible" from a range of 9 nautical miles, that was the firing range at the time of the shootdown. I can think of quite a few SAM systems capable of doing the same job as the S-125 with a capable crew from that kind of range.
    4
  5. You would be wrong about the Pentagon, Sec Mattis said exactly what I've stated. "I see no difference in Russian capabilities , the systems shown in the video (Putins masturbation fantasy) , are years away from being real systems". It's propaganda . No country in modern history has ever had an automated system that could create the end of the human race automatically. You've been watching Dr Strangelove too much my friend. Stop reading Wiki for God's sake.
    3
  6. @Tommy Tanker You sir, are full of shit.
    3
  7. The system is now receiving billions in extra money, IRG, the Navy , intelligence alone to get 1 Billion dollars . Peaceful Iran is a myth.
    3
  8. And Va-China says it has magical mulsamic ray guns that can shoot down burritos at 1,000 kms...
    3
  9. "Quantum radar" Do you know what the concept is and where it originated? It wasn't in China. I like the fact you guys keep talking about the F-35, which means its relevant and scares you guys to death. It should.
    3
  10. The makers of the S-400, Almaz have publicly stated there are probably a million ways to counter their system, and that the US and Israelis probably have in their locker, most of those methods. It's a dangerous system if you ignore its capabilities, not so dangerous if you know how to circumvent it. Over the last few years the Ukraine Air Force has been discussing how it's been defeating another system, the Pantsir with NATO defence evaluation bodies. There's no such thing as an "unbeatable SAM". Today the best means are with EW, spoofing , cruise missiles routed around its lethal MEZ bubble, flying low and attacking blind spots. There aren't that many SAM radar units with true 360 degree capability. A good example was the day after the Barzeh research centre strike when the Syrians thought their AD system had detected inbound missiles, launched their interceptors , only to discover they were shooting at ghosts somebody put inside their processors.
    3
  11. Russel K Israel now has nuclear tipped cruise missiles that can be submarine launched. A first strike wouldn't prevent the IDF from a counter strike.
    3
  12. Dead hand was deactivated 20 years ago, and the system had human intervention in the command chain, the Politburo were aghast at the prospect of an "automated" nuclear Holocaust. Research your history dude. All of the other fancy Russian defence equipment is mostly baloney. They are many years away from becoming operational systems . Some of them will run into dead ends.
    3
  13. "French defence force put out a statement that a few of their missiles malfunctioned". I would like to see any link to that statement sir. "Point two if all those missiles hit only three targets and successfully hit them would one not see for example the Scientific center in Damascus be totally flattened with multiple craters?" TLAMs are not cratering munitions, if you wanted craters you'd use Mk-82 gravity bombs. The Barzeh complex was almost completely flattened, which is what you would expect after a raid by 76 cruise missiles. You can set TLAM aimpoints at any elevation, they dont have to detonate at ground level, it was certainly overkill, but they did a plume analysis of any chemical precursors stored and decided to incinerate the site to mitigate the spread of contaminants. As you could see from footage from the site the next morning there were officials walking around without CBRN gear, either there were no substances held at the site, or what was onsite had been successfully incinerated. I tend to believe there was nothing really harmful at that site, but it was a centre for chemical weapons research, equipment used in that field has a building designed around it so cannot be relocated.
    2
  14. Raf, Israel has more nuclear weapons than Pak and India combined. Pakistan is in no position to be cocky against anybody apart from India.
    2
  15. Not really, Stalin said "Quantity has a quality all of its own". Russia just made cheap aircraft in huge numbers , the west made better aircraft with better technology in smaller numbers.
    2
  16. Bibi has a good relationship with Putin, oddly enough but I am glad they do. Makes it easier for Israel to kick the snot out of the Iranians with a free hand.
    2
  17. So basically, Putin is just a modern day version of Comical Ali?
    2
  18. Your premise is faulty, S-400 missiles are very expensive so are the systems radars. There`s no such thing as a cheap AESA Array. Quantity over quality is dead.
    2
  19. That`s quite a collection of conspiracy tabloid bullshit websites you have there. Eastern Europe needs to wean itself off Russian gas because they will eventually use it as a weapon. That`s the priority in the EU.
    2
  20. John Brown , ICBM's both US and Russian use AIN with stellar cameras on the RV BUS, but they could utilise the GPS signal as an extra means of fixing . I believe we are about to see a renaissance in the use of Astro inertial Nav modules. B2, B52 etc already have them. It's the only real way to replace reliance on GPS. Smaller AIN units on smaller weapons, EO optics can see stars in daylight quite well. By th way I still have doubts about the accuracy of really long range ICBM's, there are localised environmental conditions such as gravitational fluctuations and other atmospheric conditions that are going to affect RV trajectory. The US tests its ICBM's in the wrong direction. Area targets they may get away with inaccuracy , but it erodes confidence in hard target capability somewhat or at least perception.
    2
  21. Ayyy Lmao, thats the response you deserve.
    2
  22. Remember that film where the US President dropped a 100 MT Nuke on Baghdad from a B2? Well, "TRump".
    2
  23. @Pablo, you are still thinking in one dimension, we aren't going to play into the hands of your county's super duper "see all radars" , all of those "brochure" numbers you constantly regurgitate are "best case" test scenarios where the "opposition" walks right into the teeth of those systems like a Duck crossing a highway. Real life isn't like that son, every air war the US has taken part in should inform you of that fact. Show me an air war in the last 40 years where the USAF was scythed down by Russian SAMS? Or the Israelis for that matter? Thats right you cant , for good reason. Counter AD is what we do. We`re good an no , we dont take anything lightly, we plan, we test, we work around air defences, we train, we start the cycle again. That S-400 system set up in Syria hasn't made the USAF or USN pause a single day in operations over Syria. Hell the Israelis would tie it up in knots.
    2
  24. @Jacko Theyve built over 100 operational THAAD rounds and the budget has just asked for more which have been approved.
    2
  25. Sorry pal you are incorrect, tactical doctrine was "not" followed which led directly to the loss of the F-117. My own estimation of the events was a mixture of methods used including electro optical data made available to the Serb SAM installation C2 , to HUMINT on the ground at Aviano and COMMINT, all tied together to make the difficult, possible. You have to remember and many people do not was that the range for the F-117 SAM kill was just 9 nm from the battery. That`s pretty damned close in terms of range, I would be disappointed as a SAM Regimental Co NOT to have gotten that shot when i had everything going for me that night. If what you have said is true, can you tell me why the B-2`s which dropped ordnance on Belgrade just before those F-117s were not tracked and attacked or even detected? Secondly, computational power had increased exponentially between each generation of stealth platform, from faceting to blending as had composites technology and RAM compounds, IR countermeasure applications etc etc. A comparison between the F-117 and F-22 is really Apples and Oranges. Another point, the F-22 of 2017 is a very different aircraft than that of 2001 in ways you probably do not appreciate. You guys can carry on thinking in one dimension and imagine VHF radar as your panacea , hold onto it if it makes you feel warm at night, Russian defence planners know better than the Russia supporting social media cohort / anti F-35 bandwagon horror show ill informed no hopers et al.
    2
  26. It doesn't sound right to militarily illiterate people.
    2
  27. The OPCW confirmed the UK findings on Novichok.
    2
  28. The Syrian BUK crew provided no radar data as evidence so we can forget whatever they said. Where were the Pantsyr systems? Were they near the targets?? Obviously not, they are point defence systems only. Those older Sov systems have virtually zero chance of shooting down a cruise missile especially a JASSM or a SCALP., and even the bulbous nosed Lo frontal RCS TLAMs.they just wouldn't see them in that terrain which is very hilly in western Syria. As much as you would like to hear the news, they shot nothing down.
    2
  29. Like the TLAM / TACTOM strike with 60 missiles into Syria, your S-400 couldn't have done shit about that because you have no airborne radar network , you absolutely HAVE to have airborne radar as a kill chain component to kill cruise missiles. You`d better hurry because the next generation of US cruise missiles are going to be even harder to detect.
    1
  30. S-400 is no more capable than PAC-2 Patriot except In missile range. There are areas where Patriot capability exceeds S-400 capability. The biggest difference is Patriot has been used in combat, S-400 has never been used not once in real combat. That's a huge advantage for Raytheon.
    1
  31. This is what the OPCW actually said "But a 2016 OPCW report said that "Syria has not yet adequately explained the presence of indicators of four chemical weapons agents." They never had a permanent office in Barzeh, and sections of the complex were "off limits" to the OPCW, the OPCW said that also. Strange right? As a 22 year Navy vet, also an old cynic, I can assure you, that never happened to the Donald Cook and its technically and physically impossible for an aircraft to burn out a high power radar system on a naval ship. 4 EA-6Bs tried it to a Tico` once and got nowhere and they are dedicated EW birds. The KRET pod carried by the SU-24 isnt designed to attack ship mounted radar systems its designed to counter missiles from other aircraft operating at MUCH lower power levels. Personally, I am not a supporter of these US strikes, I believe the US should leave Syria immediately. On the tech side, I tend to agree with the US assessment of the strike, I dont see many holes in it.
    1
  32. Sir, i dont need to research, i trained instead. Trying to "jam" an SPY radar on a DDG-51 using a pod on a fighter sized aircraft would be like trying to blow out the after burner flame on an F-16 using only your own breath. We are talking kilowatts of radiated power versus the several megawatts of radiated power on a ship, its just not possible i`m afraid. Even the Russian government has made no statements on the Donald Cook fantasy and worse, the pod makers KRET have even stated the SU-24 wasn't integrated with that particular pod at the time. Even if it used a pre production version, KRET on their own webpages will tell you what its purpose is, which isn't to "jam" a ships radars. During my service, the tech guys with their briefs were always pretty accurate with their analysis of Russian equipment and we found that out when engaging it for real.
    1
  33. There is much more to this than meets the eye, I am going to speculate now, the Syrians didn't engage in anything but a token way because if they tried to shoot down US missiles their AD systems would most likely have been targeted by the US. They may have been willing to "stand down" since its very likely the Russians would have told the Syrians what the targets were likely to be, dont forget, US and Russian military chiefs had been talking with each other in the days before to ensure no escalation took place. Primarily, the Syrian AD systems just aren't capable of shooting down cruise missiles, they weren't designed to do so. The Syrians only launched 40 SAMs, AFTER the last few TLAMs had hit their aimpoints.....
    1
  34. That looks ok ,you can see on radar if you have intercepted a target if you have the requisite resolution but yes, not visually unless you have a decent EO solution within range. Good work Deep Blue lets defeat Russian lies with the truth brother.
    1
  35. if they splashed 71 inbounds, the Syrian countryside should be littered with missile debris, that fact they have produced none of it should put any doubts to bed for any rational person.
    1
  36. tell me why and how they shot down 71 cruise missiles with no more than 5 second separation between missiles, coming from multiple bearings, even the vaunted S-400 couldn't do it because its radars operate in only a 120 degree arc.
    1
  37. The problem with your thesis is the very radars searching for stealth aircraft will be detected up to 3 X the range by passive systems before the threat radar gets any usable returns.
    1
  38. What should bother us more is the USN deployed 60% of its aviation strength just to defeat Iraq in 03. it was massive overkill.
    1
  39. They also had a reputation for killing their pilots with impunity.
    1
  40. @frederick. Are you talking about a Multistatic radar set up? Long wavelength systems are only part of the story, on their own they are not the answer to stealth. Defeating stealth is not easy even if you think you have an AD set up to counter it. They also have some VERY good IR countermeasures. Ive served on ships working with these aircraft. And no don`t ask, thanks.
    1
  41. @Davey1123 Of course you don`t have to agree with me but I am telling you stealth is worthwhile. If it were worthless the Chinese and Russians wouldn't be building their own, they know its worth really rather well.
    1
  42. @Davey Filtering. Those aircraft normally fly with luneberg lenses attached.
    1
  43. The Iranians used Phoenix to knock down Iraqi jets during their war but the biggest barrier to using BVR weapons is ROE not technical, you need a VISIDENT and usually 3 or 4 other confirmations, "electronic" , before a shot is authorized give or take depending on the tactical position.
    1
  44. You'd be wrong in thinking current stealth platform designers have not considered all radar bands in their design work. You still aren't going to get long range detection against stealth aircraft hoping to rely on the ,longer wavelengths. The F-22 community are all about using the range advantage they have right now regards detectability, they "shoot and scoot" keeping that range after launching AIM 120`s at supercruise imparting a significant range advantage, going active very late in the engagement if at all, I wouldn't be surprised if they used AMRAAM in some very smart ways.....
    1
  45. Stealth isnt about "hiding" from anybody or anything, its all about "RANGE". if you can reduce actionable engagement range and reduce the threat systems MEZ you've won as long as you have weapons you can release before a threat system can lock you up. That is what stealth is all about and it works.
    1
  46. Paul you just don`t understand how difficult it is to counter these stealth platforms, the Russians and Chinese have invested billions to attempt to do so. You seem to think Stealth is irrelevant, maybe you should tell the PAK-FA designers your findings in case they are missing something or wasting their time.
    1
  47. Already told you, its not about "hiding" its about "range".
    1
  48. These guys need to think more laterally before they post. They need to think of Stealth as a "system" within a "system" in force tactical doctrine.  Their thinking is very one dimensional because "VHF" radar , even radar in general, used in isolation is just not enough to defeat what we have, it amuses me when I read that. The people flying Stealth platforms know their strengths and weaknesses better than anybody else and they leverage "both" to achieve their aims, they are bloody good at it, not just in counter air warfare but in tactical strike be it Naval operations or land ops. They use every technical and operational means at their disposal, its a pretty big library too. The F-22 and F-35 are going to surprise them by not playing into the hands of their opponents. They had better make sure that those "stealth" platforms they see on their scopes are really F-22`s and they aren't chasing ghosts we put there for their processors to play with.
    1
  49. Sorry Hanz, you dont understand what why or how the damage happened, so your opinion is uninformed and therefore irrelevant. Lets put it another way, you have zero HE weapons qualifications, you have directly compared the physical structure of two different buildings when you dont understand that reinforced structures are designed and built to different standards of hardening, even the concrete used is different as well as the steel reinforcement., what layering was used , single or double walls etc. You have Military standard and civilian standards. You have structures designed not to keep weapons out but to keep volatile chemicals inside its far more complex than you give it credit, so are weapons/ effects determinations I guarantee you, there is nothing usable inside whats left of those buildings whatsoever which was the point of the attack. You are also making assumptions about the types of warhead used, were they general HE warheads or shaped multi effects charges? You just dont know. You are fixated on numbers, and because you have no knowledge of the problem you've made ill informed assumptions. Please leave BDA to the experts. I will leave you with a better picture a side by side image taken via satellite, its pretty obvious what 78 missiles can do when focused on what was a large site. https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2018/04/Slide2.png
    1
  50. @ Dominik "But I reality it is a group of systems and measures". That is pretty much how I meant it to come across, sorry we got crossed wires. LO is a valuable asset, I was in the Navy for 22 years and know its worth and if you look at where its being used, ie, in virtually every aspect of weapons design where military equipment would benefit from radar LO , its already been done.  I served on the very first major naval hulls to eliminate all right angles / corner reflectors, were built with reduced sig` in mind from conception, directly from lessons learned in the Falklands War. Those lessons were shared with NATO. Today we have every major surface combatant on the planet designed with reduced RCS as a design feature and every nation is doing so or has already got there, from China to Russia to the UK to the Euro Navies. If the naysayers took a moment to have a close look they would see it for themselves, in every hull in every picture posted on line. Then they can take a look at Cruise missiles of all flavours, UAVs, hell even MBT designs. The detractors have their own agenda which pretty much reduces their credibility to zero in scientific and technical terms.
    1
  51. @Jacko The connection I use is heavily software moderated it does some screwy things, Yotube doesn't display correctly. NO, Russia and China do not "spend a couple of billion", they spend BILLIONS. You think counter stealth is cheap?? Are you kidding? The computational power alone to design and prove processing algorithms costs a small fortune after you've spent another small fortune building your super duper pseudo AESA VHF / HF radars. THAAD is not the same class of weapon as S400 so stop comparing the two. Sorry you are wrong about the THAAD battery numbers as well. THAAD is co operated , they are sited in the middle east, Guam, the ROK, CONUS The South Koreans are deploying 6 batteries total, they have decided to roll out the remaining 4. Your Russian equipment acronyms arent impressing anybody you dont even know how 90% of those systems are employed so I dont know why you are quoting them in the first place.
    1
  52. @Davey Open Skies?? It escapes me why you mentioned Open Skies. By the way, Russia has begun to restrict Open Skies flights and the US has reciprocated because the Russians, typical of them have significantly upgraded the sensor packages allowed by the Treaty. The USA, UK, Canada etc have all carried out dozens of Open Skies flights over Russia, Ukraine and Belarus so whats your point? The Russians are obligated to take UN Observers in their military exercises when they involve more than 13,000 personnel but they consistently lie about the participating numbers. As such, there have been ZERO observers of any Russian Military exercise since Putin has been in power. It seems Russia has created its own bogeyman, called Russia.
    1
  53. What warhead was on that test missile and what warheads were on the ones that hit Barzeh? You're making assumptions you cant back up.
    1
  54. To me the BDA pictures look perfectly viable for a 76 missiles strike, what did you expect to see?
    1
  55. What you are talking about is a multi static sensor network, which would be just that, static. If we know where it is and what it can do we will just choose the right weapons to circumvent it, history is replete with examples.
    1
  56. Oh, I didn't know you did it cumulatively.. If they had used 76 Mk82 gravity bombs then you would see craters, you aren't going to see craters with TLAMs, these missiles may have utilized Joint Multi-Effects Warhead System (JMEWS) but I am not sure what the status of that program was.
    1
  57. The Iksander is still a ballistic missile using INS Gains strapdown as its primary guidance system, im not particularly worried about it , it isnt going to be evading a SAMP-T for example.
    1
  58. @Jacko, ""That S-400 system set up in Syria hasn't made the USAF or USN pause a single day in operations over Syria" Instead of answering that one you just pushed some kremlin hyperbole. lets have an honest quasi technical discussion without the BS propaganda?
    1
  59. Ive seen a lot of things, but I aint never seen no TLAM with a 7,000 lb warhead.
    1
  60. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=AzyH0M4C8TY
    1
  61. LOl :P
    1
  62. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=AzyH0M4C8TY
    1
  63. 1. Those L band arrays on the SU will emit detectable RF energy which can be used to get a tally on them. 2. Several aircraft stooging around emitting trying to find Stealth aircraft will have to worry about the guy who is not emitting, flying at high altitude supercrusing behind them launching AMRAAMs at BVR ranges in salvos in their direction, being cued from his buddies and his ALR-94. 3. F-22`s dont fly around using their radars on full power, in fact they have dialed down the power requirements which was a consequence of tactical lessons learned during training. The down size is the detection range reduction but the plus side is being less detectable. 4. LPI means "Low probability" not "No probability". 5. Pretty much every system which emits anything on the F-22 and F-35 is an LPI design.
    1
  64. No, the F-22 was designed with all aspect stealth in mind, the F-35, not so. The B2 even more so than the F-22. B2 `s were flying over Belgrade minutes before the F-117 was shot down, the Serbs never got a whiff of the B2. Also, the authors video is fundamentally flawed in regards to RAM coatings and what they are for. they have a very specific and narrow function.
    1
  65. For airborne radar yes, but not for ground based surveillance radars. You would be right if you consider the faceted F-117 which had a computed flight attitude control system that "presented" the aircrafts lowest return aspect to the threat radars. The F-35 was just not designed to be as stealthy as the F-22 but In some ways it's better, others not much I would suggest.
    1
  66. Its much more likely the F-117 was just too close to the SAM site, the range was 9 Nm.
    1
  67. And the aircraft's own radio and radar.
    1
  68. The F-35 has had a lot of work around IR sig / UV index management. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=AzyH0M4C8TY
    1
  69. Japan never shot it down for quite a few reasons, none of which can be understood by someone of your poor technical or geopolitical understanding.
    1
  70. True but that is against western systems, what they would love to do and absolutely require is to see the performance against Russian and Chinese systems. For this we need to provoke their radars, we have done this for decades. The F-35 was recently flown into the Baltics , accompanied by several USAF ELINT aircraft for this purpose for example.
    1
  71. They typically have warheads of 450 kg, not 3500kg.....
    1
  72. Yes because you may be thinking under the false premise that TLAMs are cratering munitions, which they are not, if you wanted craters, ask them to use Mk 82 dumb bombs fuzed to detonate on ground impact. Then you'll have your craters.
    1
  73. Nobody has made such a claim in regard to stealth aircraft. Ever.
    1
  74. More interesting is the fact the Serbs didn't see the B-2s which bombed Belgrade just before the F-117s.
    1
  75. the B-1 is not a stealth aircraft.
    1
  76. id have some respect for Sprey if he actually designed either of them, which he didnt.
    1
  77. The Russians have thrown their hat into passive detection as well as active , ie detecting data links, uplinks etc to localize threat aircraft. The S-400 complex has a large passive RF detection component but the truth is nobody is saying whether it works against a 5th gen Stealth aircraft. At any great range, I doubt it.
    1
  78. LOl
    1
  79. If you believe that, then you have never been trained on the effects of the multiple warhead types associated with TLAM use.
    1
  80. The 55Zh6ME Nebo M RLM-ME VHF-Band Radar System has never been deployed to Syria. This is the so called "anti stealth" VHF system.
    1
  81. The S-400 in Syria is actually an S-350 system, there are elements associated with the S-400 that have never been deployed to Syria.
    1
  82. In the entire history of SAM combat, they have only shown a 30% success rate, the S-400 would be no different. That system is limited in its engagement capability mostly because of the topography in Western Syria (very hilly) and the fact that its acquisition radars operate in a narrow field of 120 degrees, they cant handle attacks from multiple bearings , their reload time is also 50 minutes, 30 for an exceptional crew and only has 4 ready rounds in the tubes, one of them an extremely long range round which would not be used to engage a low flyer. There`s no precedent in history of any AD system splashing 71 cruise missiles out of 105. They would need a vital airborne element - airborne radar plugged into a kill chain linked to the S-400 batteries. Russia doesn't have that capability in Syria other than the odd visiting A-50 AEW bird, of which they have precious few. As long as low flying cruise missiles are used, they can attack Syria with impunity, with or without Russian help.
    1
  83. Coco, both the United States and Britain helped Israel produce nuclear weapons. The British supplied weapons grade Plutonium on behalf of the Americans who couldn't directly supply them for political reasons ,obviously , the British did it secretly. Some released cabinet papers confirmed it.
    1
  84. They just "touched them" with 105 missiles.
    1
  85. I would be interested to know what EW support was used, there were a heck of a lot of EW and ELINT birds in the air that night according to several sources.EA-6B, possibly Growlers not sure but NATO RC-135`s and EP-3`s. My guess is they were standing by just in case they were needed.
    1
  86. I was referring to a Soviet timeline, when the positions were very different. Sorry I should have stated that.
    1
  87. In advance of what? The S-300 and 400 hardware architecture is a result of studying AEGIS and Patriot regards system integraion and a modular approach with o upgrade paths. They have learned from the best. Patriot radars have remained pretty much static until now with ARES 360* In the short term pipeline , it's pretty much ready to go now. S-400 lacks a 360 degree fire control system.
    1
  88.  @papalaz  thats not a myth.
    1
  89. @Deus Vult Unfortunately thats not quite correct, the US military is much smaller now than it was in 2009.
    1
  90. Deus, when was it designed and when did the first prototypes fly?
    1
  91. It used to be the top 30....
    1
  92. I bring trolls down.
    1
  93. It was the only one that lit up against IAF aircraft then got whacked.
    1
  94. The A-125 has virtually zero capability against even a handful of ICBM's with complex decoy payloads. Think about target discrimination rather than the size of the intercepting warhead. Secondly, western RV's are shrouded, unless you are going to put up 50 megaton interceptors , a bad idea for all sorts of reasons , the Russians have to start thinking about other ways to defend Moscow.
    1
  95. I have serious doubts about Russian claims for their endoatmospheric "manouvering RV's" , not talking glide vehicles here , once a MIRV RV "manoeuvres", without a terminal guidance package I can't see how it can hit its aimpoint , the targeting for RV's is refined before they leave their Bus.
    1
  96. The Moscow ABM system was a token force really. No way could that have stopped more than 1 or 2 incoming RV's. Moscow admitted this in the 1990's , great against slower MRBM'a like Pershing II that had to a "slow" 30 mile terminal glide in order to use its target matching radar, but against ICBM's with complex decoy payloads with 23 Mach RV's? Not a chance .
    1
  97. Playah please piss off, people like you are a dime a dozen on YT. The same tired old tropes.
    1
  98. For what in particular.
    1
  99. Rex stop believing in Russian fantasies , none of what you believe is real. If the Syrians shot down all of those missiles how did those targets end up smoking holes?
    1
  100. Dimitriy, most of those TLAM were probably targeted in a different way than most people realise. Ie, not many of them were detonated on the ground but at elevated positions , therefore, we were never going tto see a cratered field. The primary objective was to incinerate any possible airborne contaminants. For me, the satellite imagery of the Barzeh target is exactly as I would expect after dozens of cruise missile hits. Weapon / target matching is an age old art.
    1
  101. Its just the S-400 with new missiles and radar so what?
    1
  102. Then it's an S-450.
    1
  103. Oh it will work, if you walk right into the teeth of the system. If one is smart it can be circumvented like any system.
    1
  104. We should always assume what we have may not work , that way we can create viable countermeasures and have them in our locker when needed.
    1
  105. Playah, next you're going to tell me only Putin is the answer, right? Iran wont attack Israel if the IDF decide to strike Iran`s Nuke program, thats never going to happen, you know it I know it, everybody knows it.
    1
  106. "Peace through strength", all Reagan retro on your ass.
    1
  107. Remember Pearl Harbor, never underestimate your enemy.
    1
  108. Russian Troll.
    1
  109. They can try that, but they had better have 1 million sunblock.
    1
  110. Which is another interesting supposition, and completely illiterate.
    1