Cold War II?

[bush_cheney2004]

The patriot system didn't work...a suceesful launch was not a direct hit, but rather when the interceptor fired from the patrio crossed the pat of the missle, the ods of the patriot making contact were between 0-11% and that's only because mathematiclly it's not impossible. In realty they've never had a direct hit

Patriot PAC-2's weren't designed for "direct hits", as they were intended to down aircraft with proximity fuzed warheads. Though their success rate was not as initially advertised, there were several intercepts, and more importantly, helped to keep the IDF at home.

Newer PAC-3's and Israeli cousin Arrow have definitiely made successful intercepts.

[marcinmoka]

If he did you can't blame him.

It's more a P/R move than a radical shift in policy. To this day, major European bases and key installations are still "targeted" in spirit by the Russian "deterrent" forces. The only difference between the cold war status of ICBMs and those of the present day is nothing more than a mouse click. It is militarily insignificant.

Guess where it's pointing.

The eastern sky? It is a (relatively problem plagued) defense system, thereby lacking any ground targets. Furthermore, it does NOTHING in regards to Russian MRV warheads, nor was it designed to. Russia may be (relatively) poor, but they still have plenty of ingenious aeronautical engineers and physicists. Plus budget constraints often work wonders by sparking real ingenuity.

There's alot of national pride there and biterness reminas towards the west

I would say more pride than bitterness. If there is bitterness, it is against the world, not just the west. It's ingrained in the wider slavic personality.

Look out for Putin's successor, especially if it's Ivanov.

Agreed. Even though Putin will run the show behind the scenes, Ivanov irks me for he seems far too sly and deceitful, and the type who would cross Putin in his own quest for power.

Medvedev on the other hand seems much more likely to carry forth the Putin-esque status quo. Sadly, while he seems to be a more effective manager, he seems less capable of manipulating the public and less likely to tap the nationalist nerve of the ordinary Russian, compared to Sergei.

Medvedev 2008!

Edited July 18, 2007 by marcinmoka

[M.Dancer]

Newer PAC-3's and Israeli cousin Arrow have definitiely made successful intercepts.

When and against what? There hasn't been a long or medium range missile attack since 91.

[M.Dancer]

The cold war sabre rattling heats up.......

RAF fighter jets were scrambled to intercept two Russian strategic bombers heading for British airspace yesterday, as the spirit of the Cold War returned to the North Atlantic once again.

The incident, described as rare by the RAF, served as a telling metaphor for the stand-off between London and Moscow over the murder of Alexander Litvinenko.

While the Kremlin hesitated before responding to Britain’s expulsion of four diplomats, the Russian military engaged in some old-fashioned sabre-rattling.

Two Tu95 “Bear” bombers were dispatched from their base on the Kola Peninsula in the Arctic Circle and headed towards British airspace.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2093759.ece

[marcinmoka]

The cold war sabre rattling heats up.....

Nah. These "Bears" have been flying in and out, though primarily along the periphery of NATO airspace for the past 40 years. It is safe to assume we do the same.

[bush_cheney2004]

Newer PAC-3's and Israeli cousin Arrow have definitiely made successful intercepts.

When and against what? There hasn't been a long or medium range missile attack since 91.

Patriots intercepted missile attacks during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Arrow-2 has passed intercept tests and is now operational.

[M.Dancer]

Newer PAC-3's and Israeli cousin Arrow have definitiely made successful intercepts.

When and against what? There hasn't been a long or medium range missile attack since 91.

Patriots intercepted missile attacks during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Arrow-2 has passed intercept tests and is now operational.

Tell you what, if you can show a missile attack that was intercepted, I will believe you. I can remember of only one attack, by a silkworm and there isn't a patriot made that would have stopped that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Tell you what, if you can show a missile attack that was intercepted, I will believe you. I can remember of only one attack, by a silkworm and there isn't a patriot made that would have stopped that.

2003...Kuwait....OIF...the attack was widely reported, and this critical review certainly supports the claim that some Iraqi missiles were intercepted:

http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printve...documentID=1798

[M.Dancer]

2003...Kuwait....OIF...the attack was widely reported, and this critical review certainly supports the claim that some Iraqi missiles were intercepted:

http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printve...documentID=1798

To begin, the 32d AAMDC claims that the Patriot made nine intercepts out of nine engagements, allowing it a 100 percent success rate. This seems to be the result of a rather tortuous portrayal of the facts given in their own history.

Also surprising is that after 12 years of criticism, following the dismal performance of Patriot in the first Persian Gulf War, the Army is still calling an "engagement" an interception, when by their own descriptions sometimes "engaged" Iraqi missiles were not intercepted. For example, the history for March 21, 2003, reports six Iraqi TBMs "successfully engaged and destroyed by Patriot systems to date." But that counts an Ababil-100 and an Al Samoud that were NOT intercepted on March 20th. This calls into question what evidence the Army has for the nine intercepts it does claim.

.... this critical review certainly supports the claim that some Iraqi missiles were intercepted:

...maybe not

[bush_cheney2004]

...maybe not

Do you have evidence that no (zero) intercepts took place in March 2003? Here is a daily log of Patriot activity:

March 20: “Missile strike at Camp Commando,” CENTCOM Press Release 03–03–32, March 20, 2003; “Patriot missile defense system upgraded since ‘91,” Pittsburgh Post–Gazette, March 23, 2003

March 20: “Patriot batteries intercept, destroy TBMs,” CENTCOM Press Release Number: 03–03–31, March 20, 2003; “Revamped Patriot System Downs 2 Missiles Aimed At U.S. Forces,” Los Angeles Times, March 21, 2003; “DoD Officials Outline PAC–3 Production Plan In Wake Of Initial War Performance Reports,” Defense Daily, March 21, 2003; “Improved Air Defense Gets Tryout In Combat,” Washington Post, March 21, 2003; “U.S. Says The Iraqis Are Repositioning Their Missile Sites,” New York Times, March 23, 2003 ; “PAC–3, enhanced PAC–2 engage Iraqi missiles in first combat use; follow–on PAC–3 test postponed until late summer,” Inside the Army, March 24, 2003; “Patriot Crew Remains a Believer in System; Mistakes temper the mood of soldiers who downed the first Iraqi missile, but they say their morale and confidence are still high,” Los Angeles Times, April 2, 2003

March 21: “Iraqi oil well blazes darken Kuwaiti skies as Patriots down new missile,” Agence France Presse, March 21, 2003; “U.S. says the Iraqis are repositioning their missile sites,” New York Times, March 23, 2003

March 23: “Patriot Missiles Bag Their Prey Again, Reportedly Shooting Down 4 Of 6 Iraqi Rockets,” New York Times, March 23, 2003; “U.S. says the Iraqis are repositioning their missile sites,” New York Times, March 23, 2003;

March 23: “U.S. missile shoots down British jet; Ally’s air accident toll at 16,” Chicago Tribune, March 24, 2003; “Probe starts into loss of Tornado to friendly fire,” Financial Times (London), Marc 24, 2003; “Patriot battery chief apologises for fatal blunder,” The Australian, March 26, 2003; “Patriot Downs RAF Fighter: Two Crew Members Killed In Friendly–Fire Attack,” Washington Post, March 24, 2003; “The Patriot’s fratricide record,” UPI, April 24, 2003; “Patriot May Mistake Aircraft For Missile In Combat's Electronic Glut,” Inside The Pentagon, April 24, 2003; “Radar Probed In Patriot Incidents,” Washington Post, May 8, 2003

March 24: “Patriot battery intercepts, destroys Iraqi missile,” CENTCOM Press Release 03–03–58, March 24, 2003; “Missiles fired at the 101st Airborne Division in Kuwait,” NBC News Transcripts, March 24, 2003; “Patriot intercepts Iraqi missile over Kuwait,” Xinhua General News Service, March 24, 2003; “Medium–range missiles in Iraqi stockpile, allies say,” Boston Globe, March 25, 2003

March 24: “2nd Patriot incident involves U.S. F–16,” Chicago Tribune, March 26, 2003; “Patriot missiles seemingly falter for second time; glitch in software suspected,” Washington Post, March 26, 2003; “The Patriot’s fratricide record,” UPI, April 24, 2003; “Patriot May Mistake Aircraft For Missile In Combat’s Electronic Glut,” Inside The Pentagon, April 24, 2003

March 25: “Patriots intercept another Iraqi missile over Kuwait,” Agence France Presse, March 25, 2003; “Patriot destroys Iraqi missile over northern Kuwait,” BBC Monitoring International Reports, March 25, 2003

March 26: “Patriot battery intercepts third Iraqi missile,” CENTCOM Press Release 03–03–71, March 27, 2003; “Patriots give sense of safety to Kuwait: system scores success in intercepting Iraqi missiles after failures in 1991 war,” Washington Post, March 28, 2003

March 27: “Kuwait says another Iraq missile shot down by Patriot,” Agence France Presse, March 27, 2003; DoD briefing, March 27, 2003; “Patriots intercept eight Iraqi ballistic missiles, involved in two friendly fire incidents,” Defense Daily, March 28, 2003; “A poor man’s air force,” New York Times on the Web, June 19, 2003

March 28: “A poor man’s air force,” New York Times on the Web, June 19, 2003

March 29: “Iraqi Silkworm missile hits Kuwaiti capital,” Agence France Presse, March 29, 2003; “Iraqi missile slams into pier in Kuwait; Low–flying weapon damages nearby mall, but no people are injured; ‘We’ve been waiting for this’,” Baltimore Sun, March 29, 2003

March 29: “Patriot system intercepts Iraqi missile,” BBC Monitoring International, March 29, 2003; “Iraqi missile intercepted in northern Kuwait,” Xinhua General News Service, March 29, 2003

March 31: “A poor man’s air force,” New York Times on the Web, June 19, 2003

April 1: “Air raid sirens sound in Kuwait,” Agence France Presse, April 1, 2003; “Kuwait: air defences fire Patriot missile against ‘hostile object,’”BBC Monitoring International Reports, April 1, 2003; “The News with Brian Williams,” CNBC, March 31, 2003; “Kuwait shoots down Iraqi missile,” Associated Press, April 1, 2003

April 1: “First Iraqi missile destroyed by Patriot battery in Iraq,” CENTCOM Press Release 03–04–11, April 1, 2003; “An Iraqi missile was shot down by a Patriot missile battery before it reached Kuwait, a military spokesman said Tuesday,” Associated Press Online, April 1, 2003; “Patriot system cornerstone of Kuwait’s defense against Iraq,” Associated Press, April 1, 2003; “Eye on the sky: behind a Patriot battery, some ups and downs,” Boston Globe, April 2, 2003; “Patriot Crew Remains a Believer in System; Mistakes temper the mood of soldiers who downed the first Iraqi missile, but they say their morale and confidence are still high,” Los Angeles Times, April 2, 2003; “Central Command: Patriot believed responsible for downing F/A–18 Hornet on April 2,” Associated Press, April 14, 2003

April 2: “Patriot System Likely Downed U.S. Navy Jet,” Washington Post, April 4, 2003; “New Questions Surround Patriot Missile System,” Defense News, April 7, 2003; “Lots of Questions, Few Answers At Hearing on Patriot Friendly–Fire Incidents,” Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, April 10, 2003; “U.S. Missile Killed Pilot Of Navy Fighter,” International Herald Tribune, April 15, 2003; “Patriot Missile: Friend Or Foe To Allied Troops?” USA Today, April 15, 2003; “The Patriot’s fratricide record,” UPI, April 24, 2003; “Patriot May Mistake Aircraft For Missile In Combat’s Electronic Glut,” Inside The Pentagon, April 24, 2003; “Radar Probed In Patriot Incidents,” Washington Post, May 8, 2003

April 7: “Patriot missile facing crucial combat test; Strong defensive record contrasts with role in friendly–fire mishaps,” Boston Herald, April 8, 2003

April 9: “Model of U.S. Missile Defense Now Guarding Kuwait, Kadish Says,” Bloomberg.com, April 9, 2003

April 16: “Friendly–Fire Cases Draw New Scrutiny To System,” Boston Globe, April 16, 2003

April 24: “Most Intercepts Of Iraqi Rockets Were By Older Patriot Missiles,” Inside The Pentagon, April 24, 2003

May 6: “Army Stands Behind Patriot Missile System As Critics Question Its Value,” European Stars and Stripes, May 6, 2003

http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/sav08/

Edited July 20, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[M.Dancer]

...maybe not

Do you have evidence that no (zero) intercepts took place in March 2003? Here is a daily log of Patriot activity:

May 6: “Army Stands Behind Patriot Missile System As Critics Question Its Value,” European Stars and Stripes, May 6, 2003

http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/sav08/

No I don't have evidence that there were zero intercepts....but I do have what you have supplied which should led anyone to believe that Patriot claims are not to be taken at face value.

....especially when an intecept can mean anything they want it to mean at that point in time.....

[bush_cheney2004]

No I don't have evidence that there were zero intercepts....but I do have what you have supplied which should led anyone to believe that Patriot claims are not to be taken at face value.

....especially when an intecept can mean anything they want it to mean at that point in time.....

How many missile test ranges have you visited? How many missiles have you launched? The acceptance criteria for weapons systems low-rate initial production and full production are defined up front based on operational requirements, reliability, threat assessment, countermeasures, etc. Various Patriot versions have been deployed in several countries, and the missile batteries have engaged attacks as designed. There have been successes and failures.

Frankly, I have done most of the heavy lifting here....you have offered nothing except disbelief. That's your prerogative

[M.Dancer]

How many missile test ranges have you visited? How many missiles have you launched?

Unless you can say that you have visted or fired more than me, I don't see what this appeal is relevant to anything.

Frankly, I have done most of the heavy lifting here....you have offered nothing except disbelief. That's your prerogative

That's pretty light weight lifting, keeping in mind that your own links cast doubts on the claims. Not that I would rather be protected by nothing than a Patriot.....but mindlessly parroting CENCOM's press releases could hardly be called "heavy lifting" .

Edited July 20, 2007 by M.Dancer

[bush_cheney2004]

Unless you can say that you have visted or fired more than me, I don't see what this appeal is relevant to anything.

That's pretty light weight lifting, keeping in mind that your own links cast doubts on the claims. Not that I would rather be protected by nothing than a Patriot.....but mindlessly parroting CENCOM's press releases could hardly be called "heavy lifting" .

The point is that I have participated in missile live fire tests and what may appear as utter failure to you can actually be very informative for further development and weapons system ratings against specific threat types. We don't just whine and give up.

I provided the links for the express purpose of giving a balanced report on successes and failures. You have offered nothing but your opinion.

[M.Dancer]

Ho hum.....

Yes of course, failure is a learning experiance.....and so far no one argues that the Patriot isn't 100% succesful against allied aircraft.....

[bush_cheney2004]

Ho hum.....

Yes of course, failure is a learning experiance.....and so far no one argues that the Patriot isn't 100% succesful against allied aircraft.....

Nope...wrong again:

The U.S.-led coalition launched about 41,000 sorties of friendly aircraft over the 30 days of major combat operations, while the Iraqi military launched nine tactical ballistic missiles during that period, according to the report. Thousands of sorties were not intercepted.

Another member aluded to the internal clock problems for Patriot PAC-2 and GEM. Targets would be outside of range gating parms after more than 8 hours of continuous up time because of inaccuracies in the system's internal clock (used to compute the range gates).

Edited July 21, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[M.Dancer]

Ho hum.....

Yes of course, failure is a learning experiance.....and so far no one argues that the Patriot isn't 100% succesful against allied aircraft.....

Nope...wrong again:

The U.S.-led coalition launched about 41,000 sorties of friendly aircraft over the 30 days of major combat operations, while the Iraqi military launched nine tactical ballistic missiles during that period, according to the report. Thousands of sorties were not intercepted.

Another member aluded to the internal clock problems for Patriot PAC-2 and GEM. Targets would be outside of range gating parms after more than 8 hours of continuous up time because of inaccuracies in the system's internal clock (used to compute the range gates).

That is a non sequitur......lets try again....

A Royal Air Force aircraft was reported missing Sunday and British and U.S. officials said it may have been shot down by a U.S. Patriot missile.

Group Capt. Al Lockwood, a spokesman for British forces in the Gulf, said the aircraft may have been shot down over Kuwait.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2003/03/23/b...ne3_030323.html

[M.Dancer]

While the U.S. Army continues to withhold details on the causes of three friendly fire incidents involving Patriot missile batteries during the war in Iraq, an Army organization has produced a "lessons learned" briefing that points to known weaknesses in the Army's ability to distinguish friendly aircraft from enemy aircraft and missiles.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0703/072903gsn1.htm

So we have a system which in all probabilty given the honesty of the reporting did not destroy the 9 tactical missiles fired during OIF, but did manage to destroy all the friendy aircraft it fired upon.

......and this is not only the technology that the proponents of AMD would have us believe will give us security, but the flawed doctrine too

[bush_cheney2004]

So we have a system which in all probabilty given the honesty of the reporting did not destroy the 9 tactical missiles fired during OIF, but did manage to destroy all the friendy aircraft it fired upon.

......and this is not only the technology that the proponents of AMD would have us believe will give us security, but the flawed doctrine too

Not at all...there is no "us" when it comes to Canada and BMD/ABM systems. Japan and Australia are onboard, as is Kuwait and Israel. Those who decline such technology are left with the better performing alternative of doing absolutely nothing...good luck with that.

[Jerry Galinda]

Do you think they're foolish enough to think they could win a second arms race? Their economy isn't that capable nor are the russian mafia economic wizards..

Methinks you are taking an overly simplistic view of such matters. The Russians don't have to 'win' an arms race for such a policy to have some benefit to them.

And Putin is way smarter cookie than Bush is. Don't 'misunderestimate' Putin. He doesn't seem to make many stupid mistakes.

Luckily the US system isn't dependant on whether Bush is smart or not. The fact is that Russia doesn't have the depth to engage in a high tech arms race...

Are you sure ?

May be Russia isn't dangerous to USA but Europe is closer and european theatre of war don't require so sophisticated weapon .

[marcinmoka]

May be Russia isn't dangerous to USA but Europe is closer and european theatre of war don't require so sophisticated weapon .

But Russia cannot attack the docile hand that feeds them.The Western front is a charade for the tensions brewing in the East. You just cannot make overt threats to your biggest clientèle of weapons purchasers. That would just be bad business.

[Jerry Galinda]

May be Russia isn't dangerous to USA but Europe is closer and european theatre of war don't require so sophisticated weapon .

But Russia cannot attack the docile hand that feeds them.The Western front is a charade for the tensions brewing in the East. You just cannot make overt threats to your biggest clientèle of weapons purchasers. That would just be bad business.

I'm not sure if I understand you exactly.My English isn't fluent.

Who is a "docile hand" ??

From what I know - Europe is a Russian clientele - consumer of russian natural resources but China is a "consumer" of Russian weapons.

btw - your nick - isn't american - are you from Europe ? What's your native language ?

[marcinmoka]

I'm not sure if I understand you exactly.My English isn't fluent.

Had I known I would of made it a bit less "diplomatic".

The docile hand is the entity which is their biggest purchaser of energy, their biggest source of technical know how, and their biggest source of capital funding, i.e Europe.

But as I stated before, Russia knows that Europe is not aggressive, nor prone to instability and outbreaks. The same cannot be said for China, who as we know, is their main purchaser of military know how. It seems that Russia is somewhat scared of Chinese ambitions in it's own backyard, but cannot make overt threats which are meant to placate and reassure an ever pessimistic and skeptical Russian public, as that could even slightly jeopardize these arms sales, seeing as they depend on these exports to revitalize their mostly outdated arms industry.

your nick - isn't american

non. нет. nein.