ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Berster7 wrote:
I can't imagine their upgrade, the PAC-3 is much more effective
I'm sure you wouldn't imagine it's better.. I mean PAC-2 came out in 1987 and I wouldn't dream to think they would manage to improve a system after 20 years and 100 billions dollars later right ? ..
The PAC-3 upgrade is the most significant upgrade Patriot has received thus far, and is one of the most comprehensive upgrade programs ever undertaken on an American weapon system. Nearly every aspect of the system received a significant upgrade.
Berster7 wrote:
This particular test was to see if interceptor rockets could distinguish between the missile and decoy countermeasures.
Actually the report said the test was against a ballistic missile but the knock was that the missile didn't have counter measures and it should be in the next test.
Berster7 wrote:
The particular system tested would not make a difference to the North Korean missiles, because they don't incorporate counter measure systems.
It's the same exact system, testing whether or not it can distinguish between counter measures and the warhead is a facet of the program not a speprete entity and of course does not change any measure of effectiveness if some target is devoid of countermeasures.
Berster7 wrote:
Attempts to intercept scuds using Patriot missiles fired in the Gulf War were 95% unsuccessfull,
The result and effectiveness of the Patriot program in the Gulf War is disputed.. of course being you you'll choose the absolute lowest figures. The US military claimed 40% effectiveness in Israel and 70% in Saudi Arabia. The discrepancy was attributed to that the Patriot system was designed then to spray the warheads with shrapnel and change tragectory if it does not destroy it which in Israels case mean't instead of hitting a govt building it hit a civilian target. The definition of a success by that system was not concrete but in OIF the PAC-2 was upgraded with guidance enhancements = GEM that made it, according to postwar reports a "temendous sucess"
Berster7 wrote:
it is not just a US weapon
Next you'll say the JSF is a British plane? Just becuase you buy equipment doesnt make it British .. its a British owned American weapon and being a minor financier doesnt make it so. It's irrelevant anyhow the discusion is can the PAC-3 intercept one and the answer is there is no way you know, unless you're a rocket physicist in the PAC program you are only guessing.
Also speculating the capabilites of the Taepodong is not based on any factual information. The Koreans are highly secretive about it and the only esitmates i found stated their range is 4,000 kilometers and the only way they are supposed to reach the US coast is an additon of further stages. Regardless of any of this i refuse to present this as factual information unlike you .. i won't pretend im a rocket scientist or I have access to top secret information.
I got an idea maybe you should contact Lil Kim I'm sure hes interested in your knowldege of classified America defense information. He would have contacted you by now but I bet the thought didn't occur to him to look for world class physicists playing BF2.
ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Actually the report said the test was against a ballistic missile but the knock was that the missile didn't have counter measures and it should be in the next test.
No it didn't.
Prior to the test, MDA officials had underscored that it was primarily aimed at determining whether the new ground-based interceptor could distinguish the target warhead from its launcher or a decoy, and not necessarily at interception.
According to the MDA reports the missile was intercepted at an altitude of 100 miles, according to your report, that means a PAC-3 wasn't used in this test, it also claims the interceptor missile was 54 feet long - that's a lot bigger than a PAC-3. The only thing the PAC-3 has going for it is the in flight manuverability system.
ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
I mean PAC-2 came out in 1987 and I wouldn't dream to think they would manage to improve a system after 20 years and 100 billions dollars later right ?
They have only spent $100 approx on the entire missile defence system. The majority of that expenditure has certainly not been on the Patriot missile.
Last time a Patriot missile was used in combat was during the Iraq war. It hit and destroyed it's target. A British Tornado fighter. All because some retarded US soldier left it on auto-fire. Can you imagine what might happen with a global automated Patriot system?
On trident:
Berster7 wrote:
it is not just a US weapon
It's not just a US weapon, the British use them too. Regardless of who designed it you can still be shot by it.
In the same way that Harriers are used by the US they're not exclusively British, not designed or built in the US, but used which is the whole point. The JSF is not a British plane, but it is a
joint project hence the name. I think Britain should have followed through on threats to withdraw from the programme and employed a naval adapted Typhoon.
ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Also speculating the capabilites of the Taepodong is not based on any factual information.
Yes it is. For the Taepodong-1 a lot of information is available, the Taepodong-2 however is much more secret and little is known about it. Certainly enough is known about the Taepodong-1 to determine it's maximum range.
Estimates on formed on the designs the missiles are based (Scud-B and C) on and on the better known first stage of the rockets, the Nodong-1. The Nodong-1 is one of North Koreas most lucrative exports, which is why a lot is known about it.
From fuel systems, that are known about and the size of the rockets it is not too difficult to determine, with reasonable accuracy, the range of a missile system. Ever heard of the basic rocket equation, a simple integral calcuation to find the thrust force for a rocket of depleting mass (as fuel supply is used). This equation can easily be extended to take account of additional stages. The fuel supply for the rockets is, I hear, a simple Tonka system. The turbo pump system and exact composition of the stainless steel alloy used for manufacture are the elusive elements here. Most of the data on the missiles has been reconstructed from observations of tests in North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan, the North Koreans also circulated promontional literature on their big earning missile.
Estimates vary from 800-1500km for a Nodong-1 (typical estimates are around 1000km). The additonal two stages in a Taepodong-1 could not give it enough range to reach Alaska.
There is no way a Nodong-1 based Tapeodong-1 could reach Alaska. Maybe a Nodong-2 based Tapeodong-1 or 2 (probably could). But
not a Nodong-1 based missile. Therefore the missile reported to have hit Alaska could not have been from a 1998 test, as reported by Lt. Col. Rick Lehner of the MDA.
Which was my whole point.
