Putin
 

On 3/4/2014 9:11 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 10:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 9:55 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 9:32 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 8:34 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 8:24 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 8:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 7:55 AM, Poco Loco wrote:


You really are dense. Setting up a U.S. missile defense system in
Poland
and the Czech Republic and shooting down Russian missiles is not a
shooting war? What would you call it?

What is the definition of a "defensive" or anti-missile system?
I guess in your view Poland and the Czech Republic should just
suck it
up and take the hits if a shooting war ever broke out.



I guess I'll have to read up on our ability to shoot down the sort of
sophisticated missiles with decoys the Russkis have. Last time I read
about this, the success rate was...small. I don't think we are talking
about slow moving cruise missiles here, eh?


There are several currently deployed systems including the Aegis
missile
defense system, Patriot missile defense system, Harpoon missile defense
system plus ever-evolving electronic countermeasure systems. One of
the
newest to be deployed is a shipboard laser system that evolved out of
another program called ABL.

The company I had played a very minor but contributing role to the
development of laser based anti-missile systems. Some are brought to
production and deployment. Some are developed to a point of feasibility
under risk reduction programs but then put on the shelf for future use,
if and when required. An example is the ABL or "Airborne Laser". We
built the thin film vacuum deposition system for the key optical
elements during the development of this system. It was tested, worked
but funding was withdrawn for deployment in 2010. The technology
exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w-ql8msl0U






The question I have is whether any of our anti-missile systems have the
capability of shooting down the more sophisticated missiles the Russians
have.


I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you.

Ask Raytheon.



Seriously, I haven't seen the results of any meaningful tests. I have
read reports that the more modern, sophisticated missiles have their own
defensive capabilities, including the ability to scatter dummy warheads
that confuse defensive weapons, and also hardened electronics that
resist efforts to turn them askew. It's one thing for a Patriot battery
to shoot down what are the equivalent of large scale Chinese bottle
rockets and another to take down a modern Russian missile.

Go read the results of some meaningful tests and get back to us.
Otherwise continue with your meaningless blubbering. I'm sure there is
some entertainment value there.

Putin
 

On 3/4/2014 9:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 10:11 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 10:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 9:55 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 9:32 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 8:34 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 8:24 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 8:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 7:55 AM, Poco Loco wrote:


You really are dense. Setting up a U.S. missile defense system in
Poland
and the Czech Republic and shooting down Russian missiles is not a
shooting war? What would you call it?

What is the definition of a "defensive" or anti-missile system?
I guess in your view Poland and the Czech Republic should just
suck it
up and take the hits if a shooting war ever broke out.



I guess I'll have to read up on our ability to shoot down the sort of
sophisticated missiles with decoys the Russkis have. Last time I read
about this, the success rate was...small. I don't think we are
talking
about slow moving cruise missiles here, eh?


There are several currently deployed systems including the Aegis
missile
defense system, Patriot missile defense system, Harpoon missile
defense
system plus ever-evolving electronic countermeasure systems. One of
the
newest to be deployed is a shipboard laser system that evolved out of
another program called ABL.

The company I had played a very minor but contributing role to the
development of laser based anti-missile systems. Some are brought to
production and deployment. Some are developed to a point of
feasibility
under risk reduction programs but then put on the shelf for future
use,
if and when required. An example is the ABL or "Airborne Laser". We
built the thin film vacuum deposition system for the key optical
elements during the development of this system. It was tested, worked
but funding was withdrawn for deployment in 2010. The technology
exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w-ql8msl0U






The question I have is whether any of our anti-missile systems have the
capability of shooting down the more sophisticated missiles the
Russians
have.


I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you.

Ask Raytheon.



Seriously, I haven't seen the results of any meaningful tests. I have
read reports that the more modern, sophisticated missiles have their own
defensive capabilities, including the ability to scatter dummy warheads
that confuse defensive weapons, and also hardened electronics that
resist efforts to turn them askew. It's one thing for a Patriot battery
to shoot down what are the equivalent of large scale Chinese bottle
rockets and another to take down a modern Russian missile.


Again, you would be amazed at the technology that exists but is not
widely known. It doesn't make any practical sense to advertise
capabilities or how they work for the more advanced systems we have.
The ones you hear of are those that are made available for deployment by
our allies. There are systems that remain unique to the USA that allies
have no knowledge of.

As of 2000 (the last time I was involved with any defense related
programs) the USA was about 20 years ahead of the Russians in terms of
advanced technology systems.

A good example were the helicopters used in the bin Laden raid. They
had equipment and technology that was unheard of until one of them
crashed during the raid. Nobody, outside of the Pentagon and defense
contractors knew they existed.


Even my toy helicopters made in China have technology that would blow
Harry's mind.

Putin
 

On 3/4/2014 9:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 08:08:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

We are not going to get into a shooting war with a large, capable
determined military, like those of Russia or China. Do you think otherwise?

We will provide the same sort of support that the Soviets provided in
Korea and Vietnam. We will give them advanced weapons systems and
provide air support.

The real question is whether the Russians would have the same super
power courtesy as we had and not actually bomb out support troops.


I wouldn't count on it.

Putin
 

On 3/4/14, 10:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 08:08:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

We are not going to get into a shooting war with a large, capable
determined military, like those of Russia or China. Do you think otherwise?

We will provide the same sort of support that the Soviets provided in
Korea and Vietnam. We will give them advanced weapons systems and
provide air support.

The real question is whether the Russians would have the same super
power courtesy as we had and not actually bomb out support troops.



We're going to provide air support? That should be interesting. Will we
be attacking Russian troops or just locals fighting against other locals?

Putin
 

On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:13:37 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/4/14, 9:11 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 08:03:43 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

'Setting up' is not 'shooting'. Like most liberals, you like to put words in the mouths of others,
and then use them to build your arguments.

Stupid behavior.


Setting up for what purpose?

Brinkmanship?



Is 'setting up' the same as 'shooting'? Let's get that behavior resolved first.

Putin
 

On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:55:40 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/4/14, 9:32 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 8:34 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 8:24 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 8:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 7:55 AM, Poco Loco wrote:


You really are dense. Setting up a U.S. missile defense system in
Poland
and the Czech Republic and shooting down Russian missiles is not a
shooting war? What would you call it?

What is the definition of a "defensive" or anti-missile system?
I guess in your view Poland and the Czech Republic should just suck it
up and take the hits if a shooting war ever broke out.



I guess I'll have to read up on our ability to shoot down the sort of
sophisticated missiles with decoys the Russkis have. Last time I read
about this, the success rate was...small. I don't think we are talking
about slow moving cruise missiles here, eh?


There are several currently deployed systems including the Aegis missile
defense system, Patriot missile defense system, Harpoon missile defense
system plus ever-evolving electronic countermeasure systems. One of the
newest to be deployed is a shipboard laser system that evolved out of
another program called ABL.

The company I had played a very minor but contributing role to the
development of laser based anti-missile systems. Some are brought to
production and deployment. Some are developed to a point of feasibility
under risk reduction programs but then put on the shelf for future use,
if and when required. An example is the ABL or "Airborne Laser". We
built the thin film vacuum deposition system for the key optical
elements during the development of this system. It was tested, worked
but funding was withdrawn for deployment in 2010. The technology exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w-ql8msl0U






The question I have is whether any of our anti-missile systems have the
capability of shooting down the more sophisticated missiles the Russians
have.

Why would Putin be so afraid of an ineffective missile defense?

Putin
 

On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:11:36 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/4/14, 10:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 9:55 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 9:32 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 8:34 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 8:24 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 8:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 7:55 AM, Poco Loco wrote:


You really are dense. Setting up a U.S. missile defense system in
Poland
and the Czech Republic and shooting down Russian missiles is not a
shooting war? What would you call it?

What is the definition of a "defensive" or anti-missile system?
I guess in your view Poland and the Czech Republic should just suck it
up and take the hits if a shooting war ever broke out.



I guess I'll have to read up on our ability to shoot down the sort of
sophisticated missiles with decoys the Russkis have. Last time I read
about this, the success rate was...small. I don't think we are talking
about slow moving cruise missiles here, eh?


There are several currently deployed systems including the Aegis missile
defense system, Patriot missile defense system, Harpoon missile defense
system plus ever-evolving electronic countermeasure systems. One of the
newest to be deployed is a shipboard laser system that evolved out of
another program called ABL.

The company I had played a very minor but contributing role to the
development of laser based anti-missile systems. Some are brought to
production and deployment. Some are developed to a point of feasibility
under risk reduction programs but then put on the shelf for future use,
if and when required. An example is the ABL or "Airborne Laser". We
built the thin film vacuum deposition system for the key optical
elements during the development of this system. It was tested, worked
but funding was withdrawn for deployment in 2010. The technology
exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w-ql8msl0U






The question I have is whether any of our anti-missile systems have the
capability of shooting down the more sophisticated missiles the Russians
have.


I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you.

Ask Raytheon.



Seriously, I haven't seen the results of any meaningful tests. I have
read reports that the more modern, sophisticated missiles have their own
defensive capabilities, including the ability to scatter dummy warheads
that confuse defensive weapons, and also hardened electronics that
resist efforts to turn them askew. It's one thing for a Patriot battery
to shoot down what are the equivalent of large scale Chinese bottle
rockets and another to take down a modern Russian missile.

So what? Why is Putin afraid of the system? What you've 'seen' has no bearing on the issue. I doubt
you're privy to the results of the tests of all our military equipment, regardless of how many
presidents you've eaten dinner with.

Putin
 

On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:23:54 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/4/2014 10:11 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 10:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Seriously, I haven't seen the results of any meaningful tests. I have
read reports that the more modern, sophisticated missiles have their own
defensive capabilities, including the ability to scatter dummy warheads
that confuse defensive weapons, and also hardened electronics that
resist efforts to turn them askew. It's one thing for a Patriot battery
to shoot down what are the equivalent of large scale Chinese bottle
rockets and another to take down a modern Russian missile.


Again, you would be amazed at the technology that exists but is not
widely known. It doesn't make any practical sense to advertise
capabilities or how they work for the more advanced systems we have.
The ones you hear of are those that are made available for deployment by
our allies. There are systems that remain unique to the USA that allies
have no knowledge of.

As of 2000 (the last time I was involved with any defense related
programs) the USA was about 20 years ahead of the Russians in terms of
advanced technology systems.

A good example were the helicopters used in the bin Laden raid. They
had equipment and technology that was unheard of until one of them
crashed during the raid. Nobody, outside of the Pentagon and defense
contractors knew they existed.


Harry has seen all of it.

Putin
 

On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:37:23 -0600, HanK wrote:

On 3/4/2014 9:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 10:11 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 10:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 9:55 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 9:32 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 8:34 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 8:24 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/4/2014 8:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/4/14, 7:55 AM, Poco Loco wrote:


You really are dense. Setting up a U.S. missile defense system in
Poland
and the Czech Republic and shooting down Russian missiles is not a
shooting war? What would you call it?

What is the definition of a "defensive" or anti-missile system?
I guess in your view Poland and the Czech Republic should just
suck it
up and take the hits if a shooting war ever broke out.



I guess I'll have to read up on our ability to shoot down the sort of
sophisticated missiles with decoys the Russkis have. Last time I read
about this, the success rate was...small. I don't think we are
talking
about slow moving cruise missiles here, eh?


There are several currently deployed systems including the Aegis
missile
defense system, Patriot missile defense system, Harpoon missile
defense
system plus ever-evolving electronic countermeasure systems. One of
the
newest to be deployed is a shipboard laser system that evolved out of
another program called ABL.

The company I had played a very minor but contributing role to the
development of laser based anti-missile systems. Some are brought to
production and deployment. Some are developed to a point of
feasibility
under risk reduction programs but then put on the shelf for future
use,
if and when required. An example is the ABL or "Airborne Laser". We
built the thin film vacuum deposition system for the key optical
elements during the development of this system. It was tested, worked
but funding was withdrawn for deployment in 2010. The technology
exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w-ql8msl0U






The question I have is whether any of our anti-missile systems have the
capability of shooting down the more sophisticated missiles the
Russians
have.


I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you.

Ask Raytheon.



Seriously, I haven't seen the results of any meaningful tests. I have
read reports that the more modern, sophisticated missiles have their own
defensive capabilities, including the ability to scatter dummy warheads
that confuse defensive weapons, and also hardened electronics that
resist efforts to turn them askew. It's one thing for a Patriot battery
to shoot down what are the equivalent of large scale Chinese bottle
rockets and another to take down a modern Russian missile.


Again, you would be amazed at the technology that exists but is not
widely known. It doesn't make any practical sense to advertise
capabilities or how they work for the more advanced systems we have.
The ones you hear of are those that are made available for deployment by
our allies. There are systems that remain unique to the USA that allies
have no knowledge of.

As of 2000 (the last time I was involved with any defense related
programs) the USA was about 20 years ahead of the Russians in terms of
advanced technology systems.

A good example were the helicopters used in the bin Laden raid. They
had equipment and technology that was unheard of until one of them
crashed during the raid. Nobody, outside of the Pentagon and defense
contractors knew they existed.


Even my toy helicopters made in China have technology that would blow
Harry's mind.

(Will start another thread on this important subject.)

Putin
 

On 3/4/14, 10:57 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:55:40 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



The question I have is whether any of our anti-missile systems have the
capability of shooting down the more sophisticated missiles the Russians
have.

Certainly not all they would be willing to launch. That is why Star
Wars was such a joke.

We might be able to slow down a country like Iran or N Korea with a
few missiles but the fact that we could flatten their whole country
from one submarine should be deterrent enough.


I think these days no matter how much military one has, one is not going
to be able to take down another big time military power that has
missiles and nuclear capabilities, which is why I believe that there's
nothing we can do militarily in a serious fashion directly against the
Russians or the Chinese without risking missiles raining down on us.