"The biggest disadvantage of SCUD was that it hadn't measures against modern anti-missile protection of possible enemy" - engineers thought in USSR in 70s.
In 1991, too damn promoted and advertised Patriots couldn't intercept even half of SCUDs in Israel and Saudi Arabia! Which lead to development of PAC-3. Which still is unable to intercept such missiles like OKA was and like Iskander is!
@BitnikGr It's not quite like you put it in here. The Patriot was not designed as an anti-missile system, it was designed purely as an anti-aircraft system. It was modified for anti-missile role only a few months before the operation Desert Storm. So the Patriot variant that was used in Desert Storm was basically an anti-aircraft system modified for anti-missile role. The Americans did not invest in develop this technology during the Cold War. Only after. And I can tell you that there
@BitnikGr are great chances that today's variants, the PAC-3, but also the PAC-2 improved variants, the PAC-2 Guidance Enhanced Missile variants, would intercept the Iskander and missiles like Oka. Iskander is actually a more advanced missile than Oka.
@StiviGun1 I have no doubts that PAC-2 GEM and PAC-3 are more capable than PAC-2 in 1991. However, the other side doesn't sit with crossed hands. "OKA" was implementing stealth in order to overcome existing anti-ballistic measures.
Iskander implements stealth with lower RCS than OKA, evading trajectories and can have multiple warheads or cluster warhead with 54 combat elements.
Patriot PAC-3 radar has detection range of 35-40km for target with RCS 0.05. And 20km for interception...
@StiviGun1 ... Taking into consideration time needed to lock on and speed of Iskander missile I would say that PAC-3 has good chances to start interception at distances 3-13km. The only thing I can't say how good one system will actually perform against another is regarding 20-30G evasive maneuvers of Iskander. I don't know if this is enough to evade from PAC-3 or not.
The only problem of PAC-3, even with high-probability kill, is a small radius of detection and interception.
@BitnikGr There are some claims the Russians make about the Oka and Iskander that I really doubt. First, I don't understand how a missile can be made stealthy (the speeds at which it travels would destroy the RAMs) and I don't understand how it can make those maneuvers and in the same time to still have 480 km range.
Regarding PAC-3, yes, it has a too shorter range and detection range. But they say they're improving this with the Missile Segment Enhancement improvement.
@StiviGun1 OKA stealthiness is achieved by small size of its warhead and special radiotransparent cover of warhead's sensors. Engine brakes off after fuel burns out and only warhead flies to the target. Iskander hasn't detachable warhead (in single warhead variants) and it needs its engine in final phase too.
Evasive maneuvers are done only on launch and during last phase. Meanwhile it simply flies changing altitudes, but not with such overloadings.
@StiviGun1 If it would be made of same materials and using RAM then yes. OKA hadn't RAM. Its stealth was based pure on small size of its warhead.
Manufacturer claims that Iskander is even stealthier than OKA. But there are no any specific numbers provided. And there are some skeptics about Iskander's stealthiness because of its "lattice-tails". Theoretically they would work as angular deflectors increasing RCS. That's in theory. Reality is unknown.
@BitnikGr BTW, the MSE upgrade will give the system a very good capability against small RCS targets. But even if it could intercept the Iskander at an altitude of 3-13 km, it would still be very good. If the missile explodes at that altitude it will have no impact on the troops beneath it.
But how could Iskander carry multiple warheads? It's too small to have this capability.
@StiviGun1 3-13km range... not altitude. Altitude can vary from 1 to 20km. Depends on location of PAC-3 battery regarding target and flight path of TBM.
Cluster munition for Iskander has 54 combat elements.
Multiple warheads variant is possible only in nuclear version of Iskander. Tactical nuclear charge is very small and Iskander can fit up to 3 such charges in dimensions of its regular warhead.
Of course, Iskander is subject to limitations agreed by signed treaties.
@BitnikGr 1-20km. Are we talking here about detection altitude or engagement altitude. Because if it can detect it from 20 km and it can intercept it at 5-10 km, it's still more than enough.
54 combat elements. And how are these elements? Do they have independent targeting capability?
@StiviGun1 Difference is in detection and engagement ranges. Altitudes are same in both cases.
No. Those 54 combat elements are non-guided and designed for anti-personnel purpose. For anti-tank purpose it could be fitted with 17 self-guiding combat elements, but such warhead wasn't ever mentioned for Iskander. Self-guiding combat elements remain in cluster munitions for MLRS and Helicopters... maybe in aviation too, but I can't recall any aviation cluster bomb with such elements.
@BitnikGr Well, the Americans tested such a bomb. It was also featured in one of the Future Episodes. It was designed as an anti-tank weapon. But I don't know if the weapon was ever adopted by the USAF.
@StiviGun1 Yes. Sensor-Fusion combat elements. It was field tested in Iraq in 2003.
What is interesting that this weapon was presented as future weapon technology in "Future Weapons". Meanwhile Soviets had such self-guiding anti-tank elements already in service since 1985.
That's one of the clearest examples of the US mass media propaganda.
@BitnikGr I believe the weapon was presented simply as a future weapon, not future technology. And from what I remember, they did mention the weapon was in development from the '80s. It just didn't get enough funds to be completed earlier. It could've been ready from the early '90s, but the Congress said anti-tank weapons are no longer needed. The fact that the Russians had it only shows even more that political will for weapons procurement was always much higher in Russia than in US.
MY fucking country (bulgaria) destroy this amazing SS-23 thsi was our shield to Greece and Turkey we control da balkan with this Ss-23 but americans and Europ union and nato tell us to destroy them beacause they was scaried Russia give us this SS-23 long time ago but they are still effective (SORRY FOR BAD ENGLISH)
It's hard to belive what Michael Gorbachev was capable. I think he should be tried and put in prison for the trecherus service to his country. I just read that durring Desert Storm american Patriots could not get even one of Scudds, Now think about Oka, how much longer that weapon could serve to the Russia, plus it could be used as conventional weapon. O my, I think Gorbachev is really should be tried just for that alone... People wake up...
The Patriot had a pretty good success rate in Desert Storm and in 2003 Iraq war, the PAC-2 with the Guidance Enhanced Missile+ had a 100% success rate against Scud missiles. The Americans insisted that the Oka should be retired because it would've been very easy 4 the Russians 2 give it a much longer range, thus violating the INF treaty. The Americans destroyed their missiles, the Russians had 2 do the same. Looks pretty fair 2 me.
@StiviGun1 What success? Patriot PAC-3 actually was developed because of total failure of PAC-2 in Israel and S. Arabia in '91! 50% of interception is a failure!
OKA had the range of 400km! It wasn't violating the treaty. This is explained in this documentary. Basically destruction of OKA was a gift of Gorbavhev to the USA and NATO. For 17years post-Soviet Russia remained without a missile, which make Western World to shake from fear! Till appearance of Iskander came in 2006!
@BitnikGr That's bullshit. PAC-3 was not developed because PAC-2 wasn't good. PAC-2 was also improved several times since the first Gulf War. It too was used against Scud missiles in the 2003 Iraq war with a perfect success rate.
As for the Oka, that missile had a 500 km range, not 400. So it violated the INF treaty and it was very easy to increase its range even more. That's why the Americans wanted it to be retired. They also retired all their intermediate range missiles so of course you had
@StiviGun1 In 2003 Iraq already hadn't any SCUD! PAC-3 was developed after failure of PAC-2. They understood that they need an anti-missile guided exactly on the warhead of incoming missile and not just to explode somewhere near to the missile.
OKA had 400km range and this is what is explained here! In fact tactical characteristics of OKA wasn't written in INF, simply because manufacture company denied to lie that it had range of 500km. So, they simply omitted them in the Treaty.
@BitnikGr to do the same. As for making the Western World to "shake from fear", you're delusional. Nobody was shaking from fear of the Oka missile. And certainly nobody gives a damn about the Iskander. The only missile that the Americans were concerned was the R36M. That's it. Unfortunately, they retired their missile that made you shit your pants: the Peacekeeper.
@StiviGun1 I do agree with INF. Retirement of any "Attacking tactical missiles" is a good thing for global security. But this should be done on fair basis. It is good thing that both the USA/NATO and USSR/Warsaw pact retired missiles with range of more than 500km. But retirement of OKA wasn't fair as it shouldn't be in that Treaty.
-
When US and Poland declared that they will deploy PAC-3 in Poland, Putin said that Russia will place Iskanders in Kaliningrad. European countries shit their pants.
@BitnikGr Like I said, Oka had a range of 500 km, thus making it very easy for the manufacturers or the countries it was exported to, to increase its range way beyond the INF's limitations. That's why it needed to be retired.
As for Poland, in case you didn't know, the US DID place PAC-3 missile systems in there. Poland is currently hosting PAC-3 missile systems and they also signed an agreement that will enable the US to install there another part of their European ballistic missile defense
@StiviGun1 "Like I said, Oka had a range of 500 km" - And of course you know better than engineers who actually built it and military officers who actually served with it! You think that OKA had 500km range, only because it was included in INF Treaty. This is the bad thing of being informed only in "one way road". As I translate "Voennoe Delo" episode, soon I will translate this one too. And you'll see under what conditions Gorbachov included OKA in the list.
@StiviGun1 Yes, I am informed about PAC-3 installed in Polland. Iskander threat did a lot of noise. Right now Russia make huge reorganization and restructuring of its Army. Iskander units will be placed in every military district EXCEPT Kaliningad's one. In order to not harass Europeans' sensitive minds and to not get blamed again on Cold War tactics. However, every country has all rights to place any weapon system on its own soil.
So, we have a paradox and double facing judgments here. From one side NATO European countries think that it is ok to place foreign weapon systems on land of one of European countries... But other can't place its own weapons on its own land. But this is one more gentle gesture from Russia to NATO. "Ok. We are not a threat for you. We won't place Iskanders in Kaliningrad military district. At least not for now..."
@BitnikGr Look, I don't understand why you, Russians make so much noise about the Oka. It was JUST A MISSILE. And personally, I really don't believe that it had only 400 km range, otherwise NATO and the Americans would also have objections against the Iskander. But I don't see them saying anything about it.
As for placing Iskanders in Kaliningrad, I don't think NATO or US will be so bothered by that. Not placing the system in Kaliningrad was a decision taken by Medvedev. Blame him.
@StiviGun1 "I don't understand why you, Russians" - I am not Russian.
"It was JUST A MISSILE" - It was a missile which was much better than SCUDs and better than Tochka-U, with which Russians eliminated their "Bin Laden" Dudaev and which was very successful in Chechnya and in S. Ossetia.
"And personally, I really don't believe..." - Personally, everyone of us may believe in whatever he likes. Black Magic, Satan, UFO, illuminate... whatever.
@BitnikGr Yeah, it was better than the Scuds or the Tochka. So what? It was still just a missile. All other NATO countries gave up their tactical ballistic missile, the only country that kept one was the US with their ATACMS. But ATACMS has a shorter range than Tochka. So why would the Russians have a better TBM than any other NATO country? What's with this Russian obsession of being militarily superior to the US and NATO? And why do you, a Greek, care about that so much?
@StiviGun1 "It was still just a missile" - It was not "just a missile". It was a missile, against which any existing Missile Defense System was obsolete. Creating of MDS, which could intercept OKA would make the Western World to stat it all over from a scratch. Spending huge amount of money and time.
ATACMS are in service in Greece and Turkey. So, not all NATO countries gave up their TBMs.
And ATACMS range (up to 300km) is much longer than max range of Tochka-U (120km).
@BitnikGr It was a missile against which there was no defense. SO WHAT? Who were the Russians planning to use it against? Were they planning to attack a NATO country? And there was another reason why Oka was retired. The same reason the Lance was retired for. It could carry nuclear and chemical warheads. Such missiles were banned by the INF treaty.
As for the ATACMS, they only very recently developed that 300 km ranged version. The previous models had about 180 km range max.
@StiviGun1 "So why would the Russians have a better TBM than any other NATO country?" - And why would the USA have a better fighter plane, a better bomber, a better and 12 times more aircraft carriers? Let's give up all weapons, everyone! I would agree if that wasn't an utopia.
Between the USSR and the USA and between East and West was and is obsession in some "hot" minds. More reasonable and cold-blooded people call it "a parity".
@BitnikGr The reason why US has fighter planes, bombers and carriers is because Russia has them too and, unlike Oka, they are not banned by any treaty. The reason why US has more carriers is because they invested in them during the Cold War, while the Russians did not. They only started to invest in carriers shortly before the USSR has collapsed. And again, the carriers are not banned by any treaty.
And something else, Oka could carry nuclear warheads. So there were two reasons for which it had
@StiviGun1 My point wasn't what is banned and what is not. My point was that US has double military power than the rest of the World all together. And this is a clear surplus if we are speaking only about needs of self-protection. You asked "Why should Russian have better TBMs than others?" I ask you "Why US must have so bigger difference?" How many wars US started since the collapse of the former USSR? Do you think that could happen in 70s or 80s? With no parity, there is no peace, ever!
@BitnikGr Actually, your point was precisely about what should've been banned and what not. That how the topic about the Oka started.
As for the US military, it doesn't have twice the military power of the rest of the world, that's a bullshit. It has a strong military, but so it should be. It is a large country with a large economy so it's natural to have an equally developed military. Furthermore, I prefer America any time over Russia and China. You don't know what a world run by China and
@StiviGun1 Exactly! Only that weapons should be banned, which comply with description of INF Treaty. Personally, I am only for even more severe restrictions and bans on nuclear weapons. And no matter what you say, OKA couldn't fly to 500km. I tried to find sources for your claims. But there are non. In fact I found scanned pages from old magazine (something like "Popular Mechanics") and there both warheads have range of 400km max! So, what I say is, that in general it is good when nuclear...
@BitnikGr I don't know what your sources are but Oka could carry a nuclear warhead (which was something that the INF banned) and when carrying a nuclear warhead, it had a range of 500 km. What you say, that it had the same range with both conventional or nuclear warheads is a BULLSHIT. Nuclear warheads are much smaller and lighter than conventional warheads thus providing the missile a bigger range. Oka had 1) a nuclear warhead and 2) 500 km range when carrying a nuclear warhead.
@StiviGun1 ... weapons get less in numbers. However in this particular case, politicians played dirty. It was not fairplay. If they wanted OKA in that Treaty, they should change demands and make them from 400 till 5500. How difficult was that?
-
As for US Military it has twice the budget of all other countries all together. It is not difficult to check these numbers. The point is, you justify existence of assault task forces and 700 bases worldwide for US, but other countries mustn't have...
@StiviGun1 ... attacking means. This is what you say.
Yesterday, General Secretary of NATO Rasmussen, accused Russia in meaningless spendings for developing new ballistic missiles. 32billions dollars in 10years were spent by US alone for CANCELED military project! This is what I call "spendings"! 32billions from pockets of US taxpayers in pockets of Military Corporations, Brasshats Generals and Congressmen!
@BitnikGr There is a big waste in the US military spending yes, but money spent on NEW ICBMs are a waste of money as well. Russia has more than enough ICBMs. Why the fuck are they developing 2 new ones? And why are they developing a new class of ballistic missile submarine? Who are they going to use it against? Are they planning a war?
@StiviGun1 Right now US has much more SSBNs, than Russia does. Right now US has much 1.5 times more nuclear warheads, than Russia does. Meanwhile is much bigger country and has many more neighbors and much more borders to protect. Why doesn't US decrease warheads to ratio 1:1. Who are they going to use them against? Are they planning a war?
After the end of Cold War, how many wars and conflicts were started by Russia? How many by US?
@BitnikGr Actually, the US doesn't have more SSBNs, it has 12, with other 2 in overhaul and Russia has about 14 of them. But these are all COLD WAR LEGACIES, they don't need to be replaced, THE COLD WAR IS OVER. And US doesn't have more warheads, it has about 9000 nuclear warheads and Russia has over 11000. So why are the Russians keeping the biggest arsenal of nuclear warheads and why are developing new ICBMs and SSBNs?
@BitnikGr to be retired: 1) It could carry a nuclear warhead and the INF banned all TBMs that could carry nuclear, chemical or biological warheads (the ATACMS can't carry such warheads) and 2) With a nuclear warhead, it had a range of 500 km, thus violating the INF treaty. Get this through your head. No matter what the weapons obsessed Russian goons are saying, Oka had a range of 500 km when carrying a nuclear warhead so it violated the INF treaty.
@BitnikGr militarily superior to NATO but in specially to US, THAT IS OBVIOUS AS WELL AS TRUE. People that don't say this are not "reasonable", they're just sissies who are afraid to say the truth.
@StiviGun1 "As for the Russian OBSESSION of being superior to NATO but in specially to US, THAT IS OBVIOUS AS WELL AS TRUE." - It is not a oneway. It is true in both ways. I've meat online as many US blind patriots, with no knowledge at all on any subject, as many Russian ones. It is even more difficult with senior citizens who were raised and grow up in Cold War era. Their mentality is already unfixable. Say "russian" or "american" to them and their brains start boiling.
@BitnikGr Actually, the US is not even by far as obsessed with the Russian military as the Russian military is with the US military. Look at what weapons the Russians are now developing. They're developing 2 new more ICBMs and a new class of ballistic missiles submarine. Why are they developing such weapons? Against whom? Not to mention that everything the Russians develop is publicly acknowledged as being developed against the US. The Russians never got over the Cold War, but the Americans did.
@StiviGun1 US has more than 700 bases around the world! Against whom?! Whom do they want to attack? Why not cut a military by half and use it only for defense of US soil? Did someone gave to US right of being policeman of the world? I mean do you believe that World-Wide influence is for establishing democracy in bad regions?
As far US has 1.5 more ICBMS than Russia, I say let them build new, till ratio will 1:1.
Furthermore, most of those new ICBMs will not be added to existing numbers, but...
@BitnikGr Yes, US has 700 bases around the world. So what? They're not hurting anybody with them. That's not the same with building NEW WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WHEN YOU ALREADY HAVE THOUSANDS OF THEM. As for the policeman of the world, I prefer that to be America rather than Russia or China.
As for ICBMs, US has more ICBMs (or at least that's what the Russians are saying) but the Russian ICBMs can carry much more warheads than all the US' ICBMs. So it's actually the Russians who have the
@BitnikGr upper hand in here. As for replacing the "old" ICBMs why fuck do the Russians need that for? The Americans rely on much older Minutemans and they don't say they need to replace them? What would the Russians say if the Americans would suddenly say that they need to replace the Minuteman missiles?
@StiviGun1 So, you are suggesting Russians to don't build any new ICBMs and to not replace those ones in 2020 when they must be taken out of service. And in the end you want to say that for every 10 warheads of US, Russia will have 1 and it must feel safe, because US is not the enemy of Russia, right?
And no, I am not talking about ICBMs I am talking about number of warheads themselves.
About 70% of US nuclear arsenal are the newest Tridents II with 4 warheads restricted by SORT.
@BitnikGr Russia has ICBMs that can carry ten warheads each and they were built in the '70s, AFTER the US built the Minuteman. So yeah, the Russians don't need to build any new ICBMs, they already have enough of them. Their land based ICBMs can carry over 1000 warheads while the US land based ICBMs can carry 500 warheads (restricted by SORT). So yeah, Russia shouldn't build any new ICBMs, their ICBMs are newer than the US ones.
As for the Trident missile, that is a good missile and it was a
@BitnikGr GOOD THING that the Americans developed it. They also should have fully developed and deployed the Peacekeeper as a response to the Russian SS-18. Now the Russians have the upper hand in land based ballistic missiles.
@StiviGun1 ... they will replace existing ICBMs since 2020.
"Actually, the US is not even by far as obsessed with the Russian military as the Russian military is with the US military." - You are not objective. As I person from 3rd country I've seen as many military obsessed teenagers from US, as many from Russia. There as many "US/NATO vs the rest" videos on Youtube, as many like "Russia vs NATO". Stupid children... or even worse, stubborn, narrowminded grown ups.
@BitnikGr I'm not talking about stupid children here or elders, I'm talking about politicians and military officials. In Russia, they're much more obsessed with being militarily superior to the US than the politicians in US and the US military officials are to be superior to Russia.
@StiviGun1 Really? How do you know that? Do you know any of them? Have you speak to them? As far as I remember in UN Assembly I hear only the Russian voice, who speaks ALWAYS AGAINST military action AGAINST ANY country. Bloodthirst bastards Russian commies!
@BitnikGr I'm just seeing the facts. I don't see US politicians and military officials speaking against Russia the way the Russian politicians and military officials are talking about the US.
@StiviGun1 Really? Somehow after 2003 Pentagon pointed its finger to Russia and call it "Threat No1" in US Congress. Do you know why? Not because they really think so, but asking from Congress 50 billions per year to fight insurgents in caves is too much! But saying that the enemy is country like Russia or China, justifies spending hell lot of money! Isn't it cold war mentality too?
@BitnikGr When the fuck did the Pentagon point its finger to Russia as its main enemy? Where the fuck do you get these BULLSHITS? Now you're just LYING. The US has stopped seeing Russia as its main enemy since the Cold War was over. But for Russia the Cold War and the arms race never stopped. And that is obvious by the fact that Russia never stopped developing weapons against the US.
@StiviGun1 It was next year after campaign in Afghanistan started. You call me a lier, but you don't follow even news from your own country. This statement was in every European newspapers next day. Pentagon asked for 50billions for military budget...
@BitnikGr That news was only broadcast in your head... There was no such news. If the America had declared that publicly, they would've started another Cold War or at least another arms race. You don't even think about what you're saying... The US has stopped seeing Russia as its main enemy since the Cold War ended while Russia didn't and facts show that. The fact that Russia arms itself against the US shows that they never got over the Cold War while the US did.
@BitnikGr BTW, If I were you, I would read this comment before saying again that you're not pro-Russian. You're definitely a PRO-RUSSIAN TRAITOR. Or maybe you're just a Russian living in Greece.
@BitnikGr Look at what weapons the Americans are developing now. They stopped developing weapons that can be used in a conventional war right after the Cold War ended. But the Russians never stopped building weapons against America and they never stopped comparing themselves with America (from military point of view). The Russians are FAR MORE OBSESSED with being militarily superior to the US in military power than the US is.
@StiviGun1 "They stopped developing weapons that can be used in a conventional war right after the Cold War ended." - What do you mean that US stopped producing weapons for conventional wars? Planes, tanks, ships, rifles, artillery... all these are for conventional war. F-15SE/22/35, M1A2SEP, M1A3, Arleigh Burke, M16A4, new sniper rifles, new ammo... All these only for counter-terrorism?
@BitnikGr All the weapons that you enumerated here are just weapons that are used in the wars the US is fighting right now, they're not developed against Russia. But Russia does develop weapons against the US. What NEW tanks, fighter jets did the US develop? All they did was to improve the OLD EQUIPMENT they had, they didn't build new tanks or fighter jets. With small exceptions of course. But the F-22's production was stopped at 187 units. And the Arleigh Burke was NECESSARY for the US navy.
@StiviGun1 I just gave another example of your false statements. You said that US didn't developed anything new since the end of Cold War, which is actually in 1988. Wars, which US fights right now, can be fought even with P-51 Mustangs and M-16A1. Against whom US need air-superiority fighters? Against taliban? Against whom US produces F-35 stealth strike plane? Against Iraq, Iran or talibs?
What for do US need Arleigh Burkes? For wars you fight, "Spruance" is more than enough.
@BitnikGr Actually, the US has reduced the development of weapons that can be used in a conventional warfare by a lot. Almost everything they have right now is a Cold War legacy. But the F-15 and F-16 are old and they need to be replaced (which is not gonna happen with the F-15 anymore). So was the Spruance class. And since Russia never got over the Cold War and continued to develop weapons AGAINST US, IT IS PERFECTLY NATURAL for the US to develop some weapons that can be used in a conventional
@BitnikGr war. Yeah, they built the Arleigh Burke destroyer, the F-22 and now they're developing the F-35. JUST 3 new weapons systems. It's not even close enough compared to what the Chinese and the Russians are developing against the US. The US must maintain its military superiority of it wants to survive as a nation.
@StiviGun1 These "JUST" 3 are which I've named... If we'll dig dipper, we'll find much more under development.
Why exactly whatever Russia and China develop is against US? Maybe they develop them against each other? Have you though something like that?
I don't like unipolar World, controlled only by one superpower. Bipolar or even threepolar World will have more stability. When any superpower can't solve problem only by military power, they must search for alternative ways and compromises.
@BitnikGr There was a time when the world was bipolar and for 50 years the humanity risked being destroyed by a nuclear holocaust. Multipolar world is just a dream. It's not realistic. Simple as that. This planet is simply not big enough for more super powers, it doesn't have enough resources for that. So if this world must be lead by someone, I prefer that to be the US, not Russia, China, India or Brazil. Get that multipolar world dream out of your head. Choose someone.
@BitnikGr Yeah, those were JUST THREE weapons systems the US has developed after the Cold War. And guess what. Unlike what Russia develops, none of these 3 are weapons of mass destruction. The US has stopped developing weapons of mass destruction and ICBMs after the Cold War ended, Russia didn't. A further proof that Russia has never gotten over the Cold War.
As for who are the Russians and the Chinese are developing these weapons against, come on. You can't be that naive. It's very obvious that
@BitnikGr they are developing those weapons AGAINST THE US. For instance, China has developed a sub launched ballistic missile that can destroy a super carrier from 1500 km away. Are you telling me that that missile is developed against Russia? Are you telling me that the RS-24 ICBM, the Bulava SLBM and the Borei class submarine is developed against China? No, those weapons are developed against the US. So it's VERY NATURAL for the US to develop weapons against these two enemies.
@StiviGun1 ... "And why do you, a Greek, care about that so much?" - Not that I am a pro-Soviet or pro-Russian or anti-American or anti-anything. I am just a fan of military history and technology. Usually I don't reply to posts which are older than 3months. But your post had 2 major inaccuracies. 1) That Patriots were 100% successful in Desert Storm and 2) That "OKA" had to be in INF treaty. If INF treaty would include all TBMs with range up to 400 and not 500km, then yes, it should be there!
@BitnikGr Actually, my statement about the PAC-3/PAC-2 performances in the 2nd Gulf War were very accurate. They were both used with 100% success rate. And Oka was a TBM that could carry nuclear and chemical warheads. If the US and all other NATO had to give up these kind of missiles, then of course Russia had to do that too.
And BTW, it's obvious that you're a pro-Russian/anti-American from a mile away.
@StiviGun1 "my statement about the PAC-3/PAC-2 performances in the 2nd Gulf War were very accurate" - Re-read your initial statement. You said "Desert Storm".
"You're a pro-Russian/anti-American from a mile away." - It is not true. I am definetly not anti-anything nation. Being against person, only because of its nationality, is a racism and facism and I am definitely not such kind of person.
@BitnikGr Well, I was talking about the SECOND GULF WAR. In that conflict, both PAC-2 and PAC-2 were used against Scud missiles with 100% success rate.
Now, you say that you are not pro-Russian and anti-American, but your comments show exactly otherwise. It's obvious that you have a grudge against America and a sympathy for Russia. But in case of US, I think it's more of a jealousy. Your comment about why they should have the biggest military proves this.
@StiviGun1 "Your comment about why they should have the biggest military proves this." - Where did I say that I want Russia to have the biggest military in the World? Are you nuts? :))) And if I am judging US military and foreign policy, does it make me antiamerican? Antiamerican is when one hates all american citizens and everything American. Sorry, but I wasn't grow up in such way!
Let's US collapsed in Cold War and USSR became world dominating power... Do you think I would like that?! No Way!
@StiviGun1 You turn discussion into political aspect. Despite I can talk about it, I don't like to. When it comes to technical specifications and military records, you provide a lot of false data. PAC-2 was in 91, both in S. Arabia and Israel. In OIF in 2003, US already used the most advanced PAC-3 versions against AlSamouds, downscaled version of SCUDs and in 2003 Iraq already hadn't so many of them to make massive attacks like in 91.
@BitnikGr It doesn't matter, in 2003, both PAC-2 and PAC-3 were used with a 100% success rate against Iraqi versions of Scuds (yes). But it's more than you can say about ANY Russian system, even the S-400, whose performances are only given on paper.
@StiviGun1 Well, "high effectiveness" doesn't mean 100%. Of course 50% in war is more than 0% in peacetime. Following that logic Gripen must be shitty plane compared to F-4 Phantom, since it hadn't see any action and Phantom was good in Vietnam war.
Actually, one of the reasons why Sarkozi started campaign against Libya, was such stupid logic. Now Rafale got the label "combat proven" and have more chances to win some tender. EF rushed short after Rafale to get its portion of "real combat".
@BitnikGr And how do you know why Sarkozy started Libya campaign? There were many interests in there, not just to prove the effectiveness of their weapons.
@StiviGun1 500 characters haven't allow me to write it in previous comment.
Gaddaffi supported Sarkozi's political carrier and election campaign by huge amount of money. Sarkozi found easy way out in order to not pay the depbt and to not allow people criticize him in future.
This was in news in first days of conflict, but after that no media ever mentioned this...
It is not a secret that Libya had close relationships with France for decades.
@BitnikGr Like I said, I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT THE CRIMINAL THAT IS GADDAFI. A LOT of innocent people die every day in Africa and Asia, and you're bitching about a fucking MURDERER? I don't hear you saying anything about the hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT PEOPLE that die every day on the Globe, but instead you're crying for a fucking CRIMINAL You're making me sick. Let them kill him, I don't give a fuck.
As I said I am a fan of military technology and I believe that in some fields US has the best weapon systems in the world, like F-22 for example.
Some people, easily start calling others names when they hear criticism. I do criticize inadequate or obsolete Russian systems as easily as any others, because of one simple thing. I don't care about country of origin.
@BitnikGr Actually, the F-22 is not the best thing the US military could have acquired. The YF-23 was better.
As for you, I already told you this. Your comments clearly show that you're pro-Russian and anti-American, which is a strange thing from someone who lives in the Western civilization and in a country that is a member of NATO.
@StiviGun1 "which is a strange thing from someone who lives in the Western civilization and in a country that is a member of NATO." - Since when critical way of thinking and criticism became a strange thing? What do you mean? That every citizen of NATO countries must lick US ass and has no right to express their objection about something about which he doesn't agree?
How would you call an US citizen, who criticize something he don't like in his own country? A traitor? And he must be executed?
@BitnikGr You are criticizing many aspects that shouldn't be criticized, like the US military. If the US would stop developing its military, other powers would definitely attack it.
As for people in the US criticizing their government, it depends on what they criticize. Some of them, which are nothing but anti-military pathetic liberals, can be called traitors. If you're talking about people that criticize the way the US government makes external policy or that the citizens rights are less and
@StiviGun1 "You are criticizing many aspects that shouldn't be criticized, like the US military. If the US would stop developing its military, other powers would definitely attack it." - You say things with perfect sense when you speak about US, but somehow you don't want to apply them on other countries. Now change word "US" to "Russia" in your sentence. Doesn't it make sense?
In fact US is much more isolated and to attack US on soil is much more difficult than to attack Russia.
@BitnikGr Well, when we talk about Russia developing NEW ICBMS and SSGNs, then no, it makes no sense. Russia doesn't need new ICBMs, they already have enough of them, and they are newer than the US ICBMs. The Americans can rely on 60 years old Minuteman bu the Russians can't rely on their newer ICBMs? What BULLSHIT is that? So the things I say about the US DON'T ALSO APPLY to Russia. Because Russia doesn't need new ICBMs.
@StiviGun1 Topols-M have planned service life till 2020. After that they have to be retired or replaced.
It is not up to you or up to me to decide what Russia needs.
Russia has much more neighbors, much longer borders. US has more means of "delivery" and 1.5 times more warheads. Until ratio is not 1:1 I say let them build new ICBMs. And why not to retire Topols-M with something better, even if numbers will remain the same.
Maybe they should retire Iskanders too and teturn to SCUDs?
@BitnikGr What the fuck do you mean the US has more means of delivery? Where do you get this stuff? Russia has more nuclear warheads and more delivery systems, like missiles and bombers. Just do a little research.
As for the Topol-M, how the fuck can a missile developed and built during the '90 have such short life? Life of these systems can be EXPANDED, just like the Americans did with the Minuteman. You don't have to build newer, more powerful weapons of mass destruction.
@BitnikGr As for the Iskanders, those are just TBMs and nobody gives a flying fuck about them, so let them keep it. But developing the RS-24 and the Bulava when they already have hundreds of ICBMs and SLBMs that can deliver thousands of warheads is bullshit. I'm sick of these Russians with their obsession of developing weapons.
@BitnikGr Yeah, Oka was a TBM too and so is the Iskander, which actually violates the INF treaty by the fact that it can carry a nuclear warhead. But the US isn't saying anything. They want peace. This shows once again that the Americans have gotten over the Cold War, while Russia didn't. Russia is still developing Cold War type of weapons.
@StiviGun1 Stop being hypocrit doublefaced morron. Iskander doesn't have nuclear warheads right now. But with modern technology it is so easy to put nuclear warhead on Iskander, or ATACM, or at any TBM as 2+2.
Iskander doesn't violate INF today, as it doesn't have nuclear warheads. But it easily can get them, as ATACM can as well.
-
Every of my sentences apply on basic principles, common for any country, without calling names. You see all correct for US and all wrong for RF and other countries.
@BitnikGr Yeah, you don't have a clue about ballistic missiles' design. If it's not built to accept nuclear wrheads, then you can't install nuclear warheads on it. And the Iskander is built to accept nuclear warheads, thus violating the INF treaty. The ATACMS, as it is right now, can't take nuclear warheads. You'd have to build a totally new, modified variant if you want to install nuclear warheads on the ATACMS. The Iskander actually violates the INF treaty, simple as that.
Could you explain us, what's the difference in accepting different types of warheads ?
Weight ? Size ? Nuclear weapons are usually smaller and lighter so only mass distribution is what matters - then again, just center of gravity for both warheads must be in the same spot. A
@AnteyPL It's also about the shape of the missile. Its design. It must be built in such a way that would accept nuclear warheads which have different shapes than conventional warheads. But what are you arguing about since all sources say Iskander will carry nuclear warheads? The Russian military officials admit this, so what the fuck are you arguing about? Yes, Iskander will be armed with nuclear warheads. And if its range will exceed 500 km, it will violate the INF treaty.
@BitnikGr and less respected, then no, those people are not traitors, they're actually patriots. But unfortunately, such Americans are rarer and rarer these days. Today, the Americans don't even have the balls to stand up for their rights or to protest against the increasing rights abuses that take place in the US. Too bad that America in which people were confronting their government and were protesting for their rights is gone. All it's left is a nation of sissies.
"I don't think NATO will be so bothered" - You had to read European press of that period. In three words... "Smell of fear".
"a decision taken by Medvedev. Blame him." - Nothing to blame yet. Subject isn't close for them yet.
Also, you have to understand that all these people who were/are against destruction of OKA, they don't blame US or NATO. They blame Gorbachov and Eltsin for taking decisions, which were demising defensive capabilities of the country. They call them traitors.
@BitnikGr Well, maybe you can send me some of those articles in which I can sense the "smell of fear".
As for Oka, you're giving it FAR TOO MUCH credit. "demising defensive capabilities of the country"? Give me a break. It was just a TBM, that's all. The REAL defensive capabilities of Russia are its nuclear arsenals. That's it. Russia survived over 10 years without a TBM with longer range than the US's TBM. Nobody attacked Russia during this time. Oka is just something that military goons are
@StiviGun1 It deserves it. As I wrote previously, it was a TBM which couldn't be intercepted by any modern Anti-Missile Defence even today. Even by S-300/400. You just don't know the principle of its work and what make it different from other "just TBMs".
Modern doctrines don't aim in total wars. They aim to bite one small piece after another. So small, that government would prefer to loose it than to use nukes. Russia can't use nukes in Caucasus, or in Kuril Islands. Nukes are overrated today.
@BitnikGr Actually, Oka was uninterceptable only by the ABM systems that existed in in its time. The modern ABMs, like PAC-3 could engage it. And even if it were capable of defeating any ABM system, IT WAS STILL JUST A MISSILE. Only the nostalgic and the weapons obsessed douche bags are crying after it. In the Caucasus, the Russians managed to make a genocide just fine, even without Oka.
And again, carrying so much about the Russians, even though you live in a country that's member of NATO is
@StiviGun1 You might be surprised to know that about 80% of Greek population have anti-American feelings. But that doesn't make them (us) pro-Soviet or commies, as many of narrow brained Americans would judge in a moment. You might be surprised if you ask average European what he thinks about US. Most of answers will be negative. That don't make all Europeans commies or Stalin's fans, right?
-
"In the Caucasus, the Russians managed to make a genocide just fine" - Really? Define genocide.
@BitnikGr I never said you're a communist. I only said you're an anti-American. As for the Europeans, the only reason why they're against America is because they're jealous of America. They would like their countries to have the power America does and if their countries would do what America does, they wouldn't have any criticism to bring to their countries. Look at what happens in Libya. You don't see the Europeans saying anything about that because the US doesn't have the biggest role in
@BitnikGr there. So the ONLY reason why the Europeans are against America is because they're jealous, not because they're anti-war or because they're very fair people. On the contrary, far from it. They just don't like to see America being the most powerful because they're jealous.
@StiviGun1 You are right if we are talking about being jealous because of military power and world influence. But not every person is obsessed with such things. In fact most of ppl, just live regular lives. Job, family, children. In that matter, there is nothing to be jealous of... Most of Western European countries have better quality of life and better education and healthcare than US have.
-
Europeans do say a lot about Lybia. But just like in US corporate media doesn't show negative voices.
@BitnikGr So you're saying that I'm right when I say that most Europeans have a grudge against US BECAUSE THEY'RE JEALOUS, not because they're against war or because they're fair people. It's good if you admit that.
As for Libya, I really don't see any European saying something about it. The only criticism they brought was in the early stages of the conflict when the US actively participated. So the only thing they had to say was AGAINST THE US.
@StiviGun1 Yes. European politicians are jealous of US influence and power. Because, US gave a perfect example, that with shear power it can piss on UN resolutions and do what it wants. Sarkozi and Berluzkoni are jealous of Bush senior and junior. That's why Sarkozi started his own "crusade" of bringing "democracy" and in order to make his planes and ships "combat proven". But in reality, behind the curtains, Sarkozi has personal reasons to take Gaddaffi out.
@BitnikGr Yeah, well, being jealous is jus PATHETIC. The Europeans are nothing but pathetic bitches and traitors. They forgot that without the US they would've all been part of the USSR.
As for what reasons Sarkozy has to take out Gaddafi, I really don't give a shit. You're crying about a criminal, a murderer... That's just pathetic. In my opinion, if they kill Gaddafi, that's GOOD. One less criminal on Earth.
@StiviGun1 Even execution of criminal REQUIRES prossecusion and TRIAL! You are quite stupid and narrow minded. You make too fast conclusions, without looking deeper in root of the subject!
I do believe that if Gaddaffi go away it will be good for Libians and the rest of the world!
The question is how he will be retired? By assasination? Who the hell has the right to do such things? And how is it possible to justify such approach?
Maybe Bush jnr deserves to be assasinated as well, because he...
@BitnikGr Like I said, you're making me sick. Thousands of innocent people die every day in countries in Africa of Asia and you're bitching about one shitty CRIMINAL. I don't give a fuck about that criminal. Let them kill him, with or without a trial.
@StiviGun1 You make ME sick! The first and fundamental right of EVERY human being is a right for LIFE! NOONE MUST NOT BE executed without trial! What you say is very close to NAZI beliefs!
@BitnikGr No, you make me SICK. You're bitching about a fucking CRIMINAL. I don't give a shit if they kill him. He gets what he deserves. You know, you are the representation of the Europeans perverted way of thinking. You actually care about a criminal because you are jealous of America. Envy is the most powerful feeling you're capable of. You make me SICK. I'm so glad the Europeans are too weak to have a word to say in the ruling of this world.
@StiviGun1 Right for LIFE and right for having possibility to defend himself in Court of Law are fundamental stones of AMERICAN CONSTITUTION! You are sick, NAZI with perverted mind!!!
I am sure that you can justify the killing of 2 Gaddaffi's grandchildren together with his son too. The youngest girl was 4months old! She is guilty and deserves to be executed without trial, because she is a direct relative of a CRIMINAL Dictator. This is what you are saying, fucktard!
@StiviGun1 ... he started a war based on lies and many civilians were killed because of these lies?
NATO started operation "Odyssey Dawn" in order "to prevent Gaddaffi killing rebels and civilians". Very noble goal. Everyone aggree with that, including me. But NATO had to demand immediate ceasefire, stopping both sides from military actions. Instead of this, France, Italy, took size of rebels. They prevent Gaddaffi forces to act, but allow rebels to advance. This is wrong!
@StiviGun1 ... civilians in Misurata", but killing civilians in Tripoli is ok?! What perverted sense of justice is that?!
Yes, Gaddaffi must go away! And even imprisoned and go through trial. But not assasinated like a person who can discover many secrets and someone want to shut his mouth.
@BitnikGr Where did NATO kill civilians in Tripoli? This is just pathetic propaganda from the Tripoli regime. A even saw a news where a victim of a car accident was presented a victim of NATO bombings. It is the regime in Tripoli that kills civilians, not NATO.
As for Bush, yeah, I wouldn't give a fuck about him either if he would be a assassinated. He's an even bigger criminal than Gaddafi is.
@StiviGun1 So, you say that you believe that it is possible to bomb capital of any country with millions of populationfrom 30.000 feet, without collateral damage?
Yeah... dream on!
Especially when intelligence make mistakes. US bombed Chinese embassy in Belgrad thinking that it is an old military barracks. NATO bombed hospital in Iraq thinking that it was an ammo warehouse.
@BitnikGr "So, you say that you believe that it is possible to bomb capital of any country with millions of populationfrom 30.000 feet, without collateral damage?" Well, do you have any ACTUAL PROOFS that people are being killed by NATO are you just basing your assumptions on pathetic PRESUMPTIONS. Your question only shows that you only PRESUME that civilians are being killed by NATO. No, if that had been the case those cases would've been all over the news. NATO's not killing civilians in Lybya
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are totally mess up with the data about SS23. The rocket wouldn't be capable of bypassing Patriot defense systems or just with a very low efficientisy.
The Oka could never beat the Patriot today. Not even Iskander can do that. The current Patriot system, PAC-3, or PAC-2 with its Guidance Enhanced Missile + can shoot down an Iskander with no problem. No tactical ballistic missile can beat the current US antimissile systems.
Yeah but the concept of land-based tactical ballistic missiles is getting outdated. I forgot the name of them but Russia and India have developed or are working on nuclear-capable hypersonic cruise missiles that can be launched from Cruisers and even tactical bombers.
The missile u r referring 2 is Brahmos. It is a cruise missile that is made 2 be used from surface vessels & possibly submarines in Russian & Indian navy. The Indians, with Russian assistance r now developing a new Brahmos variant that can be launched from the Su-30 MKI. But I think that the American Sea Sparrow system could defend against Brahmos. As 4 land based anti missile systems, I don't know. The US land based antimissile defense has been focused on ballistic missiles, not cruise missiles
But anyway, regarding countermeasures, it's generally better to build a multitude of fairly cheap and disposable units than a few advanced ones. Being an American citizen it concerns me that the US is making the same mistake Germany made with the Tiger tank.
When the "stealth" of our airforce is compromised, they will be sitting ducks to cheap SAMs. What's worse is that the top brass are mentioning going "all stealth". What's that saying about eggs and baskets?
Well in this case, the cheap & disposable units idea 4 use against ballistic missiles doesn't work, because the systems that r designed 2 defend against missiles r very sophisticated so they can't be cheap. These systems require very advanced technology that doesn't come cheap at all. That's the way it is. As 4 stealth aircraft, they r not easy 2 detect. Plus, the new gen of stealth has very advanced sensors with which they can always detect the enemy 1st & strike him first.
/watch?v=sWPYPHPQvms - Same video with English subtitles
BitnikGr 8 months ago
"The biggest disadvantage of SCUD was that it hadn't measures against modern anti-missile protection of possible enemy" - engineers thought in USSR in 70s.
In 1991, too damn promoted and advertised Patriots couldn't intercept even half of SCUDs in Israel and Saudi Arabia! Which lead to development of PAC-3. Which still is unable to intercept such missiles like OKA was and like Iskander is!
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr It's not quite like you put it in here. The Patriot was not designed as an anti-missile system, it was designed purely as an anti-aircraft system. It was modified for anti-missile role only a few months before the operation Desert Storm. So the Patriot variant that was used in Desert Storm was basically an anti-aircraft system modified for anti-missile role. The Americans did not invest in develop this technology during the Cold War. Only after. And I can tell you that there
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@BitnikGr are great chances that today's variants, the PAC-3, but also the PAC-2 improved variants, the PAC-2 Guidance Enhanced Missile variants, would intercept the Iskander and missiles like Oka. Iskander is actually a more advanced missile than Oka.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 I have no doubts that PAC-2 GEM and PAC-3 are more capable than PAC-2 in 1991. However, the other side doesn't sit with crossed hands. "OKA" was implementing stealth in order to overcome existing anti-ballistic measures.
Iskander implements stealth with lower RCS than OKA, evading trajectories and can have multiple warheads or cluster warhead with 54 combat elements.
Patriot PAC-3 radar has detection range of 35-40km for target with RCS 0.05. And 20km for interception...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 ... Taking into consideration time needed to lock on and speed of Iskander missile I would say that PAC-3 has good chances to start interception at distances 3-13km. The only thing I can't say how good one system will actually perform against another is regarding 20-30G evasive maneuvers of Iskander. I don't know if this is enough to evade from PAC-3 or not.
The only problem of PAC-3, even with high-probability kill, is a small radius of detection and interception.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr There are some claims the Russians make about the Oka and Iskander that I really doubt. First, I don't understand how a missile can be made stealthy (the speeds at which it travels would destroy the RAMs) and I don't understand how it can make those maneuvers and in the same time to still have 480 km range.
Regarding PAC-3, yes, it has a too shorter range and detection range. But they say they're improving this with the Missile Segment Enhancement improvement.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 OKA stealthiness is achieved by small size of its warhead and special radiotransparent cover of warhead's sensors. Engine brakes off after fuel burns out and only warhead flies to the target. Iskander hasn't detachable warhead (in single warhead variants) and it needs its engine in final phase too.
Evasive maneuvers are done only on launch and during last phase. Meanwhile it simply flies changing altitudes, but not with such overloadings.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr Aha, so this means that Oka was actually more difficult than Iskander.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 If it would be made of same materials and using RAM then yes. OKA hadn't RAM. Its stealth was based pure on small size of its warhead.
Manufacturer claims that Iskander is even stealthier than OKA. But there are no any specific numbers provided. And there are some skeptics about Iskander's stealthiness because of its "lattice-tails". Theoretically they would work as angular deflectors increasing RCS. That's in theory. Reality is unknown.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr BTW, the MSE upgrade will give the system a very good capability against small RCS targets. But even if it could intercept the Iskander at an altitude of 3-13 km, it would still be very good. If the missile explodes at that altitude it will have no impact on the troops beneath it.
But how could Iskander carry multiple warheads? It's too small to have this capability.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 3-13km range... not altitude. Altitude can vary from 1 to 20km. Depends on location of PAC-3 battery regarding target and flight path of TBM.
Cluster munition for Iskander has 54 combat elements.
Multiple warheads variant is possible only in nuclear version of Iskander. Tactical nuclear charge is very small and Iskander can fit up to 3 such charges in dimensions of its regular warhead.
Of course, Iskander is subject to limitations agreed by signed treaties.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr 1-20km. Are we talking here about detection altitude or engagement altitude. Because if it can detect it from 20 km and it can intercept it at 5-10 km, it's still more than enough.
54 combat elements. And how are these elements? Do they have independent targeting capability?
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 Difference is in detection and engagement ranges. Altitudes are same in both cases.
No. Those 54 combat elements are non-guided and designed for anti-personnel purpose. For anti-tank purpose it could be fitted with 17 self-guiding combat elements, but such warhead wasn't ever mentioned for Iskander. Self-guiding combat elements remain in cluster munitions for MLRS and Helicopters... maybe in aviation too, but I can't recall any aviation cluster bomb with such elements.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr Well, the Americans tested such a bomb. It was also featured in one of the Future Episodes. It was designed as an anti-tank weapon. But I don't know if the weapon was ever adopted by the USAF.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 Yes. Sensor-Fusion combat elements. It was field tested in Iraq in 2003.
What is interesting that this weapon was presented as future weapon technology in "Future Weapons". Meanwhile Soviets had such self-guiding anti-tank elements already in service since 1985.
That's one of the clearest examples of the US mass media propaganda.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr I believe the weapon was presented simply as a future weapon, not future technology. And from what I remember, they did mention the weapon was in development from the '80s. It just didn't get enough funds to be completed earlier. It could've been ready from the early '90s, but the Congress said anti-tank weapons are no longer needed. The fact that the Russians had it only shows even more that political will for weapons procurement was always much higher in Russia than in US.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
NATO is a shit!!! NATO destroyed all European ex-communist coutries's armies!
And NATO is useless organization!
Model87Y 10 months ago
I'm from Bulgaria too and i am at the same mind.
The bulgarians destroied this missile because Greece and Turkey.We were the strongest army on the Balkans.
9222homer 2 years ago 4
@9222homer I`m from slovakia We done the same stupidity,best shield against hungary
jozotrek 1 year ago
what a waste of time!! huge truck to cart about 1 bomb that makes a pissy little impact.
TheOioink 2 years ago
pissy? it can be fitted with a tactical nuclear warhead dumb ass..
finchiestiffler79 2 years ago
who cares? tell North Korea hahahaha :P
TheOioink 2 years ago
they know and you know dumb ass..
finchiestiffler79 2 years ago
who gives a fuck you cocksucker!! fuck off!
TheOioink 2 years ago
well said twit!!!
finchiestiffler79 2 years ago
MY fucking country (bulgaria) destroy this amazing SS-23 thsi was our shield to Greece and Turkey we control da balkan with this Ss-23 but americans and Europ union and nato tell us to destroy them beacause they was scaried Russia give us this SS-23 long time ago but they are still effective (SORRY FOR BAD ENGLISH)
TheGadnqr 2 years ago 3
I have a erector-launcher in my pants.
karvahanuri 2 years ago
or is it lack thereof little man? lol
bittemeinrammstein 2 years ago
My comment was not to redicule your precious army but to point out the obvious by making a joke.
karvahanuri 2 years ago
boingggg
shinra18 2 years ago
yeah but no target lol
kalach44300 2 years ago
stick it on your moms ass..
finchiestiffler79 2 years ago
Isnt this similar to a Scud Missle?
Leny1777 2 years ago
It's hard to belive what Michael Gorbachev was capable. I think he should be tried and put in prison for the trecherus service to his country. I just read that durring Desert Storm american Patriots could not get even one of Scudds, Now think about Oka, how much longer that weapon could serve to the Russia, plus it could be used as conventional weapon. O my, I think Gorbachev is really should be tried just for that alone... People wake up...
vikruss 3 years ago
I agree. But now its fine. Russia now has Iskander-m it is even better than oka.
Sovietworkers 3 years ago 3
Are you American, or Russian?
The Patriot had a pretty good success rate in Desert Storm and in 2003 Iraq war, the PAC-2 with the Guidance Enhanced Missile+ had a 100% success rate against Scud missiles. The Americans insisted that the Oka should be retired because it would've been very easy 4 the Russians 2 give it a much longer range, thus violating the INF treaty. The Americans destroyed their missiles, the Russians had 2 do the same. Looks pretty fair 2 me.
StiviGun1 2 years ago
@StiviGun1 What success? Patriot PAC-3 actually was developed because of total failure of PAC-2 in Israel and S. Arabia in '91! 50% of interception is a failure!
OKA had the range of 400km! It wasn't violating the treaty. This is explained in this documentary. Basically destruction of OKA was a gift of Gorbavhev to the USA and NATO. For 17years post-Soviet Russia remained without a missile, which make Western World to shake from fear! Till appearance of Iskander came in 2006!
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr That's bullshit. PAC-3 was not developed because PAC-2 wasn't good. PAC-2 was also improved several times since the first Gulf War. It too was used against Scud missiles in the 2003 Iraq war with a perfect success rate.
As for the Oka, that missile had a 500 km range, not 400. So it violated the INF treaty and it was very easy to increase its range even more. That's why the Americans wanted it to be retired. They also retired all their intermediate range missiles so of course you had
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 In 2003 Iraq already hadn't any SCUD! PAC-3 was developed after failure of PAC-2. They understood that they need an anti-missile guided exactly on the warhead of incoming missile and not just to explode somewhere near to the missile.
OKA had 400km range and this is what is explained here! In fact tactical characteristics of OKA wasn't written in INF, simply because manufacture company denied to lie that it had range of 500km. So, they simply omitted them in the Treaty.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Actually, Iraq did have Scud missiles and both PAC-2 and PAC-3 were used against them with 100% success rate. Go make more research.
As for the Oka, every sources I've read about it says that it had a 500 km range, not 400. So of course that it needed to be retired.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr to do the same. As for making the Western World to "shake from fear", you're delusional. Nobody was shaking from fear of the Oka missile. And certainly nobody gives a damn about the Iskander. The only missile that the Americans were concerned was the R36M. That's it. Unfortunately, they retired their missile that made you shit your pants: the Peacekeeper.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 I do agree with INF. Retirement of any "Attacking tactical missiles" is a good thing for global security. But this should be done on fair basis. It is good thing that both the USA/NATO and USSR/Warsaw pact retired missiles with range of more than 500km. But retirement of OKA wasn't fair as it shouldn't be in that Treaty.
-
When US and Poland declared that they will deploy PAC-3 in Poland, Putin said that Russia will place Iskanders in Kaliningrad. European countries shit their pants.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Like I said, Oka had a range of 500 km, thus making it very easy for the manufacturers or the countries it was exported to, to increase its range way beyond the INF's limitations. That's why it needed to be retired.
As for Poland, in case you didn't know, the US DID place PAC-3 missile systems in there. Poland is currently hosting PAC-3 missile systems and they also signed an agreement that will enable the US to install there another part of their European ballistic missile defense
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 "Like I said, Oka had a range of 500 km" - And of course you know better than engineers who actually built it and military officers who actually served with it! You think that OKA had 500km range, only because it was included in INF Treaty. This is the bad thing of being informed only in "one way road". As I translate "Voennoe Delo" episode, soon I will translate this one too. And you'll see under what conditions Gorbachov included OKA in the list.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Yes, I am informed about PAC-3 installed in Polland. Iskander threat did a lot of noise. Right now Russia make huge reorganization and restructuring of its Army. Iskander units will be placed in every military district EXCEPT Kaliningad's one. In order to not harass Europeans' sensitive minds and to not get blamed again on Cold War tactics. However, every country has all rights to place any weapon system on its own soil.
...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 ...
So, we have a paradox and double facing judgments here. From one side NATO European countries think that it is ok to place foreign weapon systems on land of one of European countries... But other can't place its own weapons on its own land. But this is one more gentle gesture from Russia to NATO. "Ok. We are not a threat for you. We won't place Iskanders in Kaliningrad military district. At least not for now..."
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Look, I don't understand why you, Russians make so much noise about the Oka. It was JUST A MISSILE. And personally, I really don't believe that it had only 400 km range, otherwise NATO and the Americans would also have objections against the Iskander. But I don't see them saying anything about it.
As for placing Iskanders in Kaliningrad, I don't think NATO or US will be so bothered by that. Not placing the system in Kaliningrad was a decision taken by Medvedev. Blame him.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 "I don't understand why you, Russians" - I am not Russian.
"It was JUST A MISSILE" - It was a missile which was much better than SCUDs and better than Tochka-U, with which Russians eliminated their "Bin Laden" Dudaev and which was very successful in Chechnya and in S. Ossetia.
"And personally, I really don't believe..." - Personally, everyone of us may believe in whatever he likes. Black Magic, Satan, UFO, illuminate... whatever.
...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Yeah, it was better than the Scuds or the Tochka. So what? It was still just a missile. All other NATO countries gave up their tactical ballistic missile, the only country that kept one was the US with their ATACMS. But ATACMS has a shorter range than Tochka. So why would the Russians have a better TBM than any other NATO country? What's with this Russian obsession of being militarily superior to the US and NATO? And why do you, a Greek, care about that so much?
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 "It was still just a missile" - It was not "just a missile". It was a missile, against which any existing Missile Defense System was obsolete. Creating of MDS, which could intercept OKA would make the Western World to stat it all over from a scratch. Spending huge amount of money and time.
ATACMS are in service in Greece and Turkey. So, not all NATO countries gave up their TBMs.
And ATACMS range (up to 300km) is much longer than max range of Tochka-U (120km).
...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr It was a missile against which there was no defense. SO WHAT? Who were the Russians planning to use it against? Were they planning to attack a NATO country? And there was another reason why Oka was retired. The same reason the Lance was retired for. It could carry nuclear and chemical warheads. Such missiles were banned by the INF treaty.
As for the ATACMS, they only very recently developed that 300 km ranged version. The previous models had about 180 km range max.
As for the NATO
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr countries, yes, the did give up their TBMs. They BOUGHT the ATACMS from US.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 "So why would the Russians have a better TBM than any other NATO country?" - And why would the USA have a better fighter plane, a better bomber, a better and 12 times more aircraft carriers? Let's give up all weapons, everyone! I would agree if that wasn't an utopia.
Between the USSR and the USA and between East and West was and is obsession in some "hot" minds. More reasonable and cold-blooded people call it "a parity".
...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr The reason why US has fighter planes, bombers and carriers is because Russia has them too and, unlike Oka, they are not banned by any treaty. The reason why US has more carriers is because they invested in them during the Cold War, while the Russians did not. They only started to invest in carriers shortly before the USSR has collapsed. And again, the carriers are not banned by any treaty.
And something else, Oka could carry nuclear warheads. So there were two reasons for which it had
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 My point wasn't what is banned and what is not. My point was that US has double military power than the rest of the World all together. And this is a clear surplus if we are speaking only about needs of self-protection. You asked "Why should Russian have better TBMs than others?" I ask you "Why US must have so bigger difference?" How many wars US started since the collapse of the former USSR? Do you think that could happen in 70s or 80s? With no parity, there is no peace, ever!
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Actually, your point was precisely about what should've been banned and what not. That how the topic about the Oka started.
As for the US military, it doesn't have twice the military power of the rest of the world, that's a bullshit. It has a strong military, but so it should be. It is a large country with a large economy so it's natural to have an equally developed military. Furthermore, I prefer America any time over Russia and China. You don't know what a world run by China and
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Russia would mean.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Exactly! Only that weapons should be banned, which comply with description of INF Treaty. Personally, I am only for even more severe restrictions and bans on nuclear weapons. And no matter what you say, OKA couldn't fly to 500km. I tried to find sources for your claims. But there are non. In fact I found scanned pages from old magazine (something like "Popular Mechanics") and there both warheads have range of 400km max! So, what I say is, that in general it is good when nuclear...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr I don't know what your sources are but Oka could carry a nuclear warhead (which was something that the INF banned) and when carrying a nuclear warhead, it had a range of 500 km. What you say, that it had the same range with both conventional or nuclear warheads is a BULLSHIT. Nuclear warheads are much smaller and lighter than conventional warheads thus providing the missile a bigger range. Oka had 1) a nuclear warhead and 2) 500 km range when carrying a nuclear warhead.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 ... weapons get less in numbers. However in this particular case, politicians played dirty. It was not fairplay. If they wanted OKA in that Treaty, they should change demands and make them from 400 till 5500. How difficult was that?
-
As for US Military it has twice the budget of all other countries all together. It is not difficult to check these numbers. The point is, you justify existence of assault task forces and 700 bases worldwide for US, but other countries mustn't have...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr You just can't get it through your head that when carrying a nuclear warhead the Oka had a 500 km range, can you?
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 ... attacking means. This is what you say.
Yesterday, General Secretary of NATO Rasmussen, accused Russia in meaningless spendings for developing new ballistic missiles. 32billions dollars in 10years were spent by US alone for CANCELED military project! This is what I call "spendings"! 32billions from pockets of US taxpayers in pockets of Military Corporations, Brasshats Generals and Congressmen!
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr There is a big waste in the US military spending yes, but money spent on NEW ICBMs are a waste of money as well. Russia has more than enough ICBMs. Why the fuck are they developing 2 new ones? And why are they developing a new class of ballistic missile submarine? Who are they going to use it against? Are they planning a war?
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Right now US has much more SSBNs, than Russia does. Right now US has much 1.5 times more nuclear warheads, than Russia does. Meanwhile is much bigger country and has many more neighbors and much more borders to protect. Why doesn't US decrease warheads to ratio 1:1. Who are they going to use them against? Are they planning a war?
After the end of Cold War, how many wars and conflicts were started by Russia? How many by US?
BitnikGr 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BitnikGr Actually, the US doesn't have more SSBNs, it has 12, with other 2 in overhaul and Russia has about 14 of them. But these are all COLD WAR LEGACIES, they don't need to be replaced, THE COLD WAR IS OVER. And US doesn't have more warheads, it has about 9000 nuclear warheads and Russia has over 11000. So why are the Russians keeping the biggest arsenal of nuclear warheads and why are developing new ICBMs and SSBNs?
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr to be retired: 1) It could carry a nuclear warhead and the INF banned all TBMs that could carry nuclear, chemical or biological warheads (the ATACMS can't carry such warheads) and 2) With a nuclear warhead, it had a range of 500 km, thus violating the INF treaty. Get this through your head. No matter what the weapons obsessed Russian goons are saying, Oka had a range of 500 km when carrying a nuclear warhead so it violated the INF treaty.
As for the Russian OBSESSION of being
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr militarily superior to NATO but in specially to US, THAT IS OBVIOUS AS WELL AS TRUE. People that don't say this are not "reasonable", they're just sissies who are afraid to say the truth.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 "As for the Russian OBSESSION of being superior to NATO but in specially to US, THAT IS OBVIOUS AS WELL AS TRUE." - It is not a oneway. It is true in both ways. I've meat online as many US blind patriots, with no knowledge at all on any subject, as many Russian ones. It is even more difficult with senior citizens who were raised and grow up in Cold War era. Their mentality is already unfixable. Say "russian" or "american" to them and their brains start boiling.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Actually, the US is not even by far as obsessed with the Russian military as the Russian military is with the US military. Look at what weapons the Russians are now developing. They're developing 2 new more ICBMs and a new class of ballistic missiles submarine. Why are they developing such weapons? Against whom? Not to mention that everything the Russians develop is publicly acknowledged as being developed against the US. The Russians never got over the Cold War, but the Americans did.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 US has more than 700 bases around the world! Against whom?! Whom do they want to attack? Why not cut a military by half and use it only for defense of US soil? Did someone gave to US right of being policeman of the world? I mean do you believe that World-Wide influence is for establishing democracy in bad regions?
As far US has 1.5 more ICBMS than Russia, I say let them build new, till ratio will 1:1.
Furthermore, most of those new ICBMs will not be added to existing numbers, but...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Yes, US has 700 bases around the world. So what? They're not hurting anybody with them. That's not the same with building NEW WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WHEN YOU ALREADY HAVE THOUSANDS OF THEM. As for the policeman of the world, I prefer that to be America rather than Russia or China.
As for ICBMs, US has more ICBMs (or at least that's what the Russians are saying) but the Russian ICBMs can carry much more warheads than all the US' ICBMs. So it's actually the Russians who have the
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr upper hand in here. As for replacing the "old" ICBMs why fuck do the Russians need that for? The Americans rely on much older Minutemans and they don't say they need to replace them? What would the Russians say if the Americans would suddenly say that they need to replace the Minuteman missiles?
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 So, you are suggesting Russians to don't build any new ICBMs and to not replace those ones in 2020 when they must be taken out of service. And in the end you want to say that for every 10 warheads of US, Russia will have 1 and it must feel safe, because US is not the enemy of Russia, right?
And no, I am not talking about ICBMs I am talking about number of warheads themselves.
About 70% of US nuclear arsenal are the newest Tridents II with 4 warheads restricted by SORT.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Russia has ICBMs that can carry ten warheads each and they were built in the '70s, AFTER the US built the Minuteman. So yeah, the Russians don't need to build any new ICBMs, they already have enough of them. Their land based ICBMs can carry over 1000 warheads while the US land based ICBMs can carry 500 warheads (restricted by SORT). So yeah, Russia shouldn't build any new ICBMs, their ICBMs are newer than the US ones.
As for the Trident missile, that is a good missile and it was a
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr GOOD THING that the Americans developed it. They also should have fully developed and deployed the Peacekeeper as a response to the Russian SS-18. Now the Russians have the upper hand in land based ballistic missiles.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 ... they will replace existing ICBMs since 2020.
"Actually, the US is not even by far as obsessed with the Russian military as the Russian military is with the US military." - You are not objective. As I person from 3rd country I've seen as many military obsessed teenagers from US, as many from Russia. There as many "US/NATO vs the rest" videos on Youtube, as many like "Russia vs NATO". Stupid children... or even worse, stubborn, narrowminded grown ups.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr I'm not talking about stupid children here or elders, I'm talking about politicians and military officials. In Russia, they're much more obsessed with being militarily superior to the US than the politicians in US and the US military officials are to be superior to Russia.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Really? How do you know that? Do you know any of them? Have you speak to them? As far as I remember in UN Assembly I hear only the Russian voice, who speaks ALWAYS AGAINST military action AGAINST ANY country. Bloodthirst bastards Russian commies!
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr I'm just seeing the facts. I don't see US politicians and military officials speaking against Russia the way the Russian politicians and military officials are talking about the US.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Really? Somehow after 2003 Pentagon pointed its finger to Russia and call it "Threat No1" in US Congress. Do you know why? Not because they really think so, but asking from Congress 50 billions per year to fight insurgents in caves is too much! But saying that the enemy is country like Russia or China, justifies spending hell lot of money! Isn't it cold war mentality too?
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr When the fuck did the Pentagon point its finger to Russia as its main enemy? Where the fuck do you get these BULLSHITS? Now you're just LYING. The US has stopped seeing Russia as its main enemy since the Cold War was over. But for Russia the Cold War and the arms race never stopped. And that is obvious by the fact that Russia never stopped developing weapons against the US.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 It was next year after campaign in Afghanistan started. You call me a lier, but you don't follow even news from your own country. This statement was in every European newspapers next day. Pentagon asked for 50billions for military budget...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr That news was only broadcast in your head... There was no such news. If the America had declared that publicly, they would've started another Cold War or at least another arms race. You don't even think about what you're saying... The US has stopped seeing Russia as its main enemy since the Cold War ended while Russia didn't and facts show that. The fact that Russia arms itself against the US shows that they never got over the Cold War while the US did.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr BTW, If I were you, I would read this comment before saying again that you're not pro-Russian. You're definitely a PRO-RUSSIAN TRAITOR. Or maybe you're just a Russian living in Greece.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Look at what weapons the Americans are developing now. They stopped developing weapons that can be used in a conventional war right after the Cold War ended. But the Russians never stopped building weapons against America and they never stopped comparing themselves with America (from military point of view). The Russians are FAR MORE OBSESSED with being militarily superior to the US in military power than the US is.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 "They stopped developing weapons that can be used in a conventional war right after the Cold War ended." - What do you mean that US stopped producing weapons for conventional wars? Planes, tanks, ships, rifles, artillery... all these are for conventional war. F-15SE/22/35, M1A2SEP, M1A3, Arleigh Burke, M16A4, new sniper rifles, new ammo... All these only for counter-terrorism?
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr All the weapons that you enumerated here are just weapons that are used in the wars the US is fighting right now, they're not developed against Russia. But Russia does develop weapons against the US. What NEW tanks, fighter jets did the US develop? All they did was to improve the OLD EQUIPMENT they had, they didn't build new tanks or fighter jets. With small exceptions of course. But the F-22's production was stopped at 187 units. And the Arleigh Burke was NECESSARY for the US navy.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 I just gave another example of your false statements. You said that US didn't developed anything new since the end of Cold War, which is actually in 1988. Wars, which US fights right now, can be fought even with P-51 Mustangs and M-16A1. Against whom US need air-superiority fighters? Against taliban? Against whom US produces F-35 stealth strike plane? Against Iraq, Iran or talibs?
What for do US need Arleigh Burkes? For wars you fight, "Spruance" is more than enough.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Actually, the US has reduced the development of weapons that can be used in a conventional warfare by a lot. Almost everything they have right now is a Cold War legacy. But the F-15 and F-16 are old and they need to be replaced (which is not gonna happen with the F-15 anymore). So was the Spruance class. And since Russia never got over the Cold War and continued to develop weapons AGAINST US, IT IS PERFECTLY NATURAL for the US to develop some weapons that can be used in a conventional
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr war. Yeah, they built the Arleigh Burke destroyer, the F-22 and now they're developing the F-35. JUST 3 new weapons systems. It's not even close enough compared to what the Chinese and the Russians are developing against the US. The US must maintain its military superiority of it wants to survive as a nation.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 These "JUST" 3 are which I've named... If we'll dig dipper, we'll find much more under development.
Why exactly whatever Russia and China develop is against US? Maybe they develop them against each other? Have you though something like that?
I don't like unipolar World, controlled only by one superpower. Bipolar or even threepolar World will have more stability. When any superpower can't solve problem only by military power, they must search for alternative ways and compromises.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr There was a time when the world was bipolar and for 50 years the humanity risked being destroyed by a nuclear holocaust. Multipolar world is just a dream. It's not realistic. Simple as that. This planet is simply not big enough for more super powers, it doesn't have enough resources for that. So if this world must be lead by someone, I prefer that to be the US, not Russia, China, India or Brazil. Get that multipolar world dream out of your head. Choose someone.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Yeah, those were JUST THREE weapons systems the US has developed after the Cold War. And guess what. Unlike what Russia develops, none of these 3 are weapons of mass destruction. The US has stopped developing weapons of mass destruction and ICBMs after the Cold War ended, Russia didn't. A further proof that Russia has never gotten over the Cold War.
As for who are the Russians and the Chinese are developing these weapons against, come on. You can't be that naive. It's very obvious that
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr they are developing those weapons AGAINST THE US. For instance, China has developed a sub launched ballistic missile that can destroy a super carrier from 1500 km away. Are you telling me that that missile is developed against Russia? Are you telling me that the RS-24 ICBM, the Bulava SLBM and the Borei class submarine is developed against China? No, those weapons are developed against the US. So it's VERY NATURAL for the US to develop weapons against these two enemies.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 ... "And why do you, a Greek, care about that so much?" - Not that I am a pro-Soviet or pro-Russian or anti-American or anti-anything. I am just a fan of military history and technology. Usually I don't reply to posts which are older than 3months. But your post had 2 major inaccuracies. 1) That Patriots were 100% successful in Desert Storm and 2) That "OKA" had to be in INF treaty. If INF treaty would include all TBMs with range up to 400 and not 500km, then yes, it should be there!
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Actually, my statement about the PAC-3/PAC-2 performances in the 2nd Gulf War were very accurate. They were both used with 100% success rate. And Oka was a TBM that could carry nuclear and chemical warheads. If the US and all other NATO had to give up these kind of missiles, then of course Russia had to do that too.
And BTW, it's obvious that you're a pro-Russian/anti-American from a mile away.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 "my statement about the PAC-3/PAC-2 performances in the 2nd Gulf War were very accurate" - Re-read your initial statement. You said "Desert Storm".
"You're a pro-Russian/anti-American from a mile away." - It is not true. I am definetly not anti-anything nation. Being against person, only because of its nationality, is a racism and facism and I am definitely not such kind of person.
...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Well, I was talking about the SECOND GULF WAR. In that conflict, both PAC-2 and PAC-2 were used against Scud missiles with 100% success rate.
Now, you say that you are not pro-Russian and anti-American, but your comments show exactly otherwise. It's obvious that you have a grudge against America and a sympathy for Russia. But in case of US, I think it's more of a jealousy. Your comment about why they should have the biggest military proves this.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 "Your comment about why they should have the biggest military proves this." - Where did I say that I want Russia to have the biggest military in the World? Are you nuts? :))) And if I am judging US military and foreign policy, does it make me antiamerican? Antiamerican is when one hates all american citizens and everything American. Sorry, but I wasn't grow up in such way!
Let's US collapsed in Cold War and USSR became world dominating power... Do you think I would like that?! No Way!
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 You turn discussion into political aspect. Despite I can talk about it, I don't like to. When it comes to technical specifications and military records, you provide a lot of false data. PAC-2 was in 91, both in S. Arabia and Israel. In OIF in 2003, US already used the most advanced PAC-3 versions against AlSamouds, downscaled version of SCUDs and in 2003 Iraq already hadn't so many of them to make massive attacks like in 91.
...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr It doesn't matter, in 2003, both PAC-2 and PAC-3 were used with a 100% success rate against Iraqi versions of Scuds (yes). But it's more than you can say about ANY Russian system, even the S-400, whose performances are only given on paper.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Well, "high effectiveness" doesn't mean 100%. Of course 50% in war is more than 0% in peacetime. Following that logic Gripen must be shitty plane compared to F-4 Phantom, since it hadn't see any action and Phantom was good in Vietnam war.
Actually, one of the reasons why Sarkozi started campaign against Libya, was such stupid logic. Now Rafale got the label "combat proven" and have more chances to win some tender. EF rushed short after Rafale to get its portion of "real combat".
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr And how do you know why Sarkozy started Libya campaign? There were many interests in there, not just to prove the effectiveness of their weapons.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 500 characters haven't allow me to write it in previous comment.
Gaddaffi supported Sarkozi's political carrier and election campaign by huge amount of money. Sarkozi found easy way out in order to not pay the depbt and to not allow people criticize him in future.
This was in news in first days of conflict, but after that no media ever mentioned this...
It is not a secret that Libya had close relationships with France for decades.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Like I said, I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT THE CRIMINAL THAT IS GADDAFI. A LOT of innocent people die every day in Africa and Asia, and you're bitching about a fucking MURDERER? I don't hear you saying anything about the hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT PEOPLE that die every day on the Globe, but instead you're crying for a fucking CRIMINAL You're making me sick. Let them kill him, I don't give a fuck.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 ...
So, basically, in 2003 more modern PAC-3 had better performance against worse AlSamouds. No surprise!
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 ...
As I said I am a fan of military technology and I believe that in some fields US has the best weapon systems in the world, like F-22 for example.
Some people, easily start calling others names when they hear criticism. I do criticize inadequate or obsolete Russian systems as easily as any others, because of one simple thing. I don't care about country of origin.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Actually, the F-22 is not the best thing the US military could have acquired. The YF-23 was better.
As for you, I already told you this. Your comments clearly show that you're pro-Russian and anti-American, which is a strange thing from someone who lives in the Western civilization and in a country that is a member of NATO.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 "which is a strange thing from someone who lives in the Western civilization and in a country that is a member of NATO." - Since when critical way of thinking and criticism became a strange thing? What do you mean? That every citizen of NATO countries must lick US ass and has no right to express their objection about something about which he doesn't agree?
How would you call an US citizen, who criticize something he don't like in his own country? A traitor? And he must be executed?
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr You are criticizing many aspects that shouldn't be criticized, like the US military. If the US would stop developing its military, other powers would definitely attack it.
As for people in the US criticizing their government, it depends on what they criticize. Some of them, which are nothing but anti-military pathetic liberals, can be called traitors. If you're talking about people that criticize the way the US government makes external policy or that the citizens rights are less and
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 "You are criticizing many aspects that shouldn't be criticized, like the US military. If the US would stop developing its military, other powers would definitely attack it." - You say things with perfect sense when you speak about US, but somehow you don't want to apply them on other countries. Now change word "US" to "Russia" in your sentence. Doesn't it make sense?
In fact US is much more isolated and to attack US on soil is much more difficult than to attack Russia.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Well, when we talk about Russia developing NEW ICBMS and SSGNs, then no, it makes no sense. Russia doesn't need new ICBMs, they already have enough of them, and they are newer than the US ICBMs. The Americans can rely on 60 years old Minuteman bu the Russians can't rely on their newer ICBMs? What BULLSHIT is that? So the things I say about the US DON'T ALSO APPLY to Russia. Because Russia doesn't need new ICBMs.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Topols-M have planned service life till 2020. After that they have to be retired or replaced.
It is not up to you or up to me to decide what Russia needs.
Russia has much more neighbors, much longer borders. US has more means of "delivery" and 1.5 times more warheads. Until ratio is not 1:1 I say let them build new ICBMs. And why not to retire Topols-M with something better, even if numbers will remain the same.
Maybe they should retire Iskanders too and teturn to SCUDs?
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr What the fuck do you mean the US has more means of delivery? Where do you get this stuff? Russia has more nuclear warheads and more delivery systems, like missiles and bombers. Just do a little research.
As for the Topol-M, how the fuck can a missile developed and built during the '90 have such short life? Life of these systems can be EXPANDED, just like the Americans did with the Minuteman. You don't have to build newer, more powerful weapons of mass destruction.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr As for the Iskanders, those are just TBMs and nobody gives a flying fuck about them, so let them keep it. But developing the RS-24 and the Bulava when they already have hundreds of ICBMs and SLBMs that can deliver thousands of warheads is bullshit. I'm sick of these Russians with their obsession of developing weapons.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 OKA was a TBM too. And Iskander can bring a nuclear warhead too... Hyproctic, doubleface, doublestandard pervert!
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Yeah, Oka was a TBM too and so is the Iskander, which actually violates the INF treaty by the fact that it can carry a nuclear warhead. But the US isn't saying anything. They want peace. This shows once again that the Americans have gotten over the Cold War, while Russia didn't. Russia is still developing Cold War type of weapons.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Stop being hypocrit doublefaced morron. Iskander doesn't have nuclear warheads right now. But with modern technology it is so easy to put nuclear warhead on Iskander, or ATACM, or at any TBM as 2+2.
Iskander doesn't violate INF today, as it doesn't have nuclear warheads. But it easily can get them, as ATACM can as well.
-
Every of my sentences apply on basic principles, common for any country, without calling names. You see all correct for US and all wrong for RF and other countries.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Yeah, you don't have a clue about ballistic missiles' design. If it's not built to accept nuclear wrheads, then you can't install nuclear warheads on it. And the Iskander is built to accept nuclear warheads, thus violating the INF treaty. The ATACMS, as it is right now, can't take nuclear warheads. You'd have to build a totally new, modified variant if you want to install nuclear warheads on the ATACMS. The Iskander actually violates the INF treaty, simple as that.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1
Could you explain us, what's the difference in accepting different types of warheads ?
Weight ? Size ? Nuclear weapons are usually smaller and lighter so only mass distribution is what matters - then again, just center of gravity for both warheads must be in the same spot. A
AnteyPL 2 months ago
@AnteyPL It's also about the shape of the missile. Its design. It must be built in such a way that would accept nuclear warheads which have different shapes than conventional warheads. But what are you arguing about since all sources say Iskander will carry nuclear warheads? The Russian military officials admit this, so what the fuck are you arguing about? Yes, Iskander will be armed with nuclear warheads. And if its range will exceed 500 km, it will violate the INF treaty.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@BitnikGr and less respected, then no, those people are not traitors, they're actually patriots. But unfortunately, such Americans are rarer and rarer these days. Today, the Americans don't even have the balls to stand up for their rights or to protest against the increasing rights abuses that take place in the US. Too bad that America in which people were confronting their government and were protesting for their rights is gone. All it's left is a nation of sissies.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 ...
"I don't think NATO will be so bothered" - You had to read European press of that period. In three words... "Smell of fear".
"a decision taken by Medvedev. Blame him." - Nothing to blame yet. Subject isn't close for them yet.
Also, you have to understand that all these people who were/are against destruction of OKA, they don't blame US or NATO. They blame Gorbachov and Eltsin for taking decisions, which were demising defensive capabilities of the country. They call them traitors.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Well, maybe you can send me some of those articles in which I can sense the "smell of fear".
As for Oka, you're giving it FAR TOO MUCH credit. "demising defensive capabilities of the country"? Give me a break. It was just a TBM, that's all. The REAL defensive capabilities of Russia are its nuclear arsenals. That's it. Russia survived over 10 years without a TBM with longer range than the US's TBM. Nobody attacked Russia during this time. Oka is just something that military goons are
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 It deserves it. As I wrote previously, it was a TBM which couldn't be intercepted by any modern Anti-Missile Defence even today. Even by S-300/400. You just don't know the principle of its work and what make it different from other "just TBMs".
Modern doctrines don't aim in total wars. They aim to bite one small piece after another. So small, that government would prefer to loose it than to use nukes. Russia can't use nukes in Caucasus, or in Kuril Islands. Nukes are overrated today.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Actually, Oka was uninterceptable only by the ABM systems that existed in in its time. The modern ABMs, like PAC-3 could engage it. And even if it were capable of defeating any ABM system, IT WAS STILL JUST A MISSILE. Only the nostalgic and the weapons obsessed douche bags are crying after it. In the Caucasus, the Russians managed to make a genocide just fine, even without Oka.
And again, carrying so much about the Russians, even though you live in a country that's member of NATO is
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr pretty pathetic, really.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 You might be surprised to know that about 80% of Greek population have anti-American feelings. But that doesn't make them (us) pro-Soviet or commies, as many of narrow brained Americans would judge in a moment. You might be surprised if you ask average European what he thinks about US. Most of answers will be negative. That don't make all Europeans commies or Stalin's fans, right?
-
"In the Caucasus, the Russians managed to make a genocide just fine" - Really? Define genocide.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr I never said you're a communist. I only said you're an anti-American. As for the Europeans, the only reason why they're against America is because they're jealous of America. They would like their countries to have the power America does and if their countries would do what America does, they wouldn't have any criticism to bring to their countries. Look at what happens in Libya. You don't see the Europeans saying anything about that because the US doesn't have the biggest role in
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr there. So the ONLY reason why the Europeans are against America is because they're jealous, not because they're anti-war or because they're very fair people. On the contrary, far from it. They just don't like to see America being the most powerful because they're jealous.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 You are right if we are talking about being jealous because of military power and world influence. But not every person is obsessed with such things. In fact most of ppl, just live regular lives. Job, family, children. In that matter, there is nothing to be jealous of... Most of Western European countries have better quality of life and better education and healthcare than US have.
-
Europeans do say a lot about Lybia. But just like in US corporate media doesn't show negative voices.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr So you're saying that I'm right when I say that most Europeans have a grudge against US BECAUSE THEY'RE JEALOUS, not because they're against war or because they're fair people. It's good if you admit that.
As for Libya, I really don't see any European saying something about it. The only criticism they brought was in the early stages of the conflict when the US actively participated. So the only thing they had to say was AGAINST THE US.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Yes. European politicians are jealous of US influence and power. Because, US gave a perfect example, that with shear power it can piss on UN resolutions and do what it wants. Sarkozi and Berluzkoni are jealous of Bush senior and junior. That's why Sarkozi started his own "crusade" of bringing "democracy" and in order to make his planes and ships "combat proven". But in reality, behind the curtains, Sarkozi has personal reasons to take Gaddaffi out.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Yeah, well, being jealous is jus PATHETIC. The Europeans are nothing but pathetic bitches and traitors. They forgot that without the US they would've all been part of the USSR.
As for what reasons Sarkozy has to take out Gaddafi, I really don't give a shit. You're crying about a criminal, a murderer... That's just pathetic. In my opinion, if they kill Gaddafi, that's GOOD. One less criminal on Earth.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Even execution of criminal REQUIRES prossecusion and TRIAL! You are quite stupid and narrow minded. You make too fast conclusions, without looking deeper in root of the subject!
I do believe that if Gaddaffi go away it will be good for Libians and the rest of the world!
The question is how he will be retired? By assasination? Who the hell has the right to do such things? And how is it possible to justify such approach?
Maybe Bush jnr deserves to be assasinated as well, because he...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Like I said, you're making me sick. Thousands of innocent people die every day in countries in Africa of Asia and you're bitching about one shitty CRIMINAL. I don't give a fuck about that criminal. Let them kill him, with or without a trial.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 You make ME sick! The first and fundamental right of EVERY human being is a right for LIFE! NOONE MUST NOT BE executed without trial! What you say is very close to NAZI beliefs!
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr No, you make me SICK. You're bitching about a fucking CRIMINAL. I don't give a shit if they kill him. He gets what he deserves. You know, you are the representation of the Europeans perverted way of thinking. You actually care about a criminal because you are jealous of America. Envy is the most powerful feeling you're capable of. You make me SICK. I'm so glad the Europeans are too weak to have a word to say in the ruling of this world.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 Right for LIFE and right for having possibility to defend himself in Court of Law are fundamental stones of AMERICAN CONSTITUTION! You are sick, NAZI with perverted mind!!!
I am sure that you can justify the killing of 2 Gaddaffi's grandchildren together with his son too. The youngest girl was 4months old! She is guilty and deserves to be executed without trial, because she is a direct relative of a CRIMINAL Dictator. This is what you are saying, fucktard!
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr You really are a disgusting and pathetic moron. You're bitching about a murderer's rights. Fuck you and fuck that MURDERER'S rights.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 ... he started a war based on lies and many civilians were killed because of these lies?
NATO started operation "Odyssey Dawn" in order "to prevent Gaddaffi killing rebels and civilians". Very noble goal. Everyone aggree with that, including me. But NATO had to demand immediate ceasefire, stopping both sides from military actions. Instead of this, France, Italy, took size of rebels. They prevent Gaddaffi forces to act, but allow rebels to advance. This is wrong!
They "wanted to save..
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 ... civilians in Misurata", but killing civilians in Tripoli is ok?! What perverted sense of justice is that?!
Yes, Gaddaffi must go away! And even imprisoned and go through trial. But not assasinated like a person who can discover many secrets and someone want to shut his mouth.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Where did NATO kill civilians in Tripoli? This is just pathetic propaganda from the Tripoli regime. A even saw a news where a victim of a car accident was presented a victim of NATO bombings. It is the regime in Tripoli that kills civilians, not NATO.
As for Bush, yeah, I wouldn't give a fuck about him either if he would be a assassinated. He's an even bigger criminal than Gaddafi is.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 So, you say that you believe that it is possible to bomb capital of any country with millions of populationfrom 30.000 feet, without collateral damage?
Yeah... dream on!
Especially when intelligence make mistakes. US bombed Chinese embassy in Belgrad thinking that it is an old military barracks. NATO bombed hospital in Iraq thinking that it was an ammo warehouse.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr "So, you say that you believe that it is possible to bomb capital of any country with millions of populationfrom 30.000 feet, without collateral damage?" Well, do you have any ACTUAL PROOFS that people are being killed by NATO are you just basing your assumptions on pathetic PRESUMPTIONS. Your question only shows that you only PRESUME that civilians are being killed by NATO. No, if that had been the case those cases would've been all over the news. NATO's not killing civilians in Lybya
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Gaddafi's forces are doing that.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr crying for, that's it.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@BitnikGr system. So I guess the Iskander didn't do shit.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
Not Scrap, but SS-9 Scarp
Kazus667 3 years ago
wow, that is so lame. The rocket would be capable of bypassing Patriot defense systems, but the US made them scrap it.
Otacon237 4 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are totally mess up with the data about SS23. The rocket wouldn't be capable of bypassing Patriot defense systems or just with a very low efficientisy.
pazoss23 3 years ago
didnt they say it can? honestly i dont remember i watched the vid way too long ago.
Otacon237 3 years ago
Actually is was capable of it. pazoss23, it is you who doesn't know a shit about the things you are talking about.
RWDexter 3 years ago
The Oka could never beat the Patriot today. Not even Iskander can do that. The current Patriot system, PAC-3, or PAC-2 with its Guidance Enhanced Missile + can shoot down an Iskander with no problem. No tactical ballistic missile can beat the current US antimissile systems.
StiviGun1 2 years ago
Yeah but the concept of land-based tactical ballistic missiles is getting outdated. I forgot the name of them but Russia and India have developed or are working on nuclear-capable hypersonic cruise missiles that can be launched from Cruisers and even tactical bombers.
Otacon237 2 years ago
The missile u r referring 2 is Brahmos. It is a cruise missile that is made 2 be used from surface vessels & possibly submarines in Russian & Indian navy. The Indians, with Russian assistance r now developing a new Brahmos variant that can be launched from the Su-30 MKI. But I think that the American Sea Sparrow system could defend against Brahmos. As 4 land based anti missile systems, I don't know. The US land based antimissile defense has been focused on ballistic missiles, not cruise missiles
StiviGun1 2 years ago
Yeah, it was Brahmos.
But anyway, regarding countermeasures, it's generally better to build a multitude of fairly cheap and disposable units than a few advanced ones. Being an American citizen it concerns me that the US is making the same mistake Germany made with the Tiger tank.
When the "stealth" of our airforce is compromised, they will be sitting ducks to cheap SAMs. What's worse is that the top brass are mentioning going "all stealth". What's that saying about eggs and baskets?
Otacon237 2 years ago
Well in this case, the cheap & disposable units idea 4 use against ballistic missiles doesn't work, because the systems that r designed 2 defend against missiles r very sophisticated so they can't be cheap. These systems require very advanced technology that doesn't come cheap at all. That's the way it is. As 4 stealth aircraft, they r not easy 2 detect. Plus, the new gen of stealth has very advanced sensors with which they can always detect the enemy 1st & strike him first.
StiviGun1 2 years ago