- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Russian TOR M2 AA system firing
Posted on 1/9/20 at 9:56 pm to Lima Whiskey
Posted on 1/9/20 at 9:56 pm to Lima Whiskey
You think the Iranians have the Russian latest and greatest generation of AA defense weapons tech?
I have an island for sale...
I have an island for sale...
2
Posted on 1/9/20 at 10:14 pm to BallsEleven
That chain gun thing on the ship, reminds me of
Posted on 1/9/20 at 10:21 pm to Apollyon
quote:
You think the Iranians have the Russian latest and greatest generation of AA defense weapons tech?
They don't but then again they don't need it, even stuff a generation or two back is effective. Russians know their stuff in SAM and aircraft targeting systems, you can talk to any US military pilot on how effective even their older stuff is.
Posted on 1/9/20 at 10:28 pm to davyjones
The number here are half remembered. But the jist will be accurate.
We said we hit two sites, if I remember correctly. The Russians said we were aiming for half a dozen.
We said our missiles had a 100% hit rate, which doesn’t happen.
The Russians said they intercepted or disabled 71 of 103. And even recovered a fully intact missile.
The problem with our story is two fold. We launched too many missiles for too few targets. It’s illogical. And the bomb damage photos aren’t consistent with the numbers of missiles we launched.
One thing about the Russian story that clicked with me. They claimed to have completely defeated the smaller missile salvos against secondary targets, but, and they didn’t say this but it was implicit, they had a lower success rate when facing larger missile salvos.
We said we hit two sites, if I remember correctly. The Russians said we were aiming for half a dozen.
We said our missiles had a 100% hit rate, which doesn’t happen.
The Russians said they intercepted or disabled 71 of 103. And even recovered a fully intact missile.
The problem with our story is two fold. We launched too many missiles for too few targets. It’s illogical. And the bomb damage photos aren’t consistent with the numbers of missiles we launched.
One thing about the Russian story that clicked with me. They claimed to have completely defeated the smaller missile salvos against secondary targets, but, and they didn’t say this but it was implicit, they had a lower success rate when facing larger missile salvos.
This post was edited on 1/9/20 at 11:00 pm
Posted on 1/9/20 at 10:31 pm to Apollyon
They produced their own copy of the S-300. No idea how it actually compares, but Iran has good engineers. Look at how accurate their ballistic missiles were.
This post was edited on 1/9/20 at 10:35 pm
Posted on 1/9/20 at 10:33 pm to Clames
They shot down their own slow moving commercial airliner with obsolete AA tech.
I'm gonna go with "Things they won't be able to do against 4 dozen inbound simultaneous guided missile strikes, for 1000, Alex"
I'm gonna go with "Things they won't be able to do against 4 dozen inbound simultaneous guided missile strikes, for 1000, Alex"
Posted on 1/9/20 at 10:40 pm to Lima Whiskey
If we went "shock and awe" with our assets in the gulf and from the numerous air bases that surround Iran, you need to realize that they could not intercept every missile. They would not approach even a 50% defense-kill rate. Their entire air defense network could be taken out in the first strike.
Guess what happens after that?
And we are not even discussing US EMP weaponry, which you and I both know would eliminate ANY non-obsolescent, non-hardened grid. They would be left only with the analog stuff... good luck with that.
Guess what happens after that?
And we are not even discussing US EMP weaponry, which you and I both know would eliminate ANY non-obsolescent, non-hardened grid. They would be left only with the analog stuff... good luck with that.
This post was edited on 1/9/20 at 10:41 pm
Posted on 1/9/20 at 10:58 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
The bomb damage assessment photos we released after the Syrian attack. The photos don’t show enough damage, given the number of missiles launched.
A sizable portion of the missiles fired were part of a new class of SAMs that are designed to be exceptionally precise — a good choice for a chemical weapons facility surrounded by civilians, I’d say. The lack of massive, Hollywood-style damage is kind of the point.
I’ve seen the declassified photos and videos of the 19 JASSM strikes from individuals who had access to them before they were declassified, as well as to the missiles and/or aircraft involved. Those strikes, at least, are almost certainly legit.Posted on 1/9/20 at 11:27 pm to DeepBlueSea
quote:
I’ve seen the declassified photos and videos of the 19 JASSM strikes from individuals who had access to them before they were declassified, as well as to the missiles and/or aircraft involved. Those strikes, at least, are almost certainly legit.
If there was an issue I think it was with the TLAMS.
This is an info graphic the Russians put together, or at least is based on the Russians claims.
Worst case scenario, and we accept the Russian claims, it still suggests the Russians had a hard time with the JASSMs.
The Russians, for their part, claimed Barzah was not operational. And so was not a priority.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News