Killuminati
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,412
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
NATO is based on interests of the U.S
For example Iraq war and Libya attack to secure their petrodollar industry.
S-400 purchase will restrict Turkey's access to NATO technology, US official says
- Thread starter BHarwana
- Start date
NATO is based on interests of the U.S
For example Iraq war and Libya attack to secure their petrodollar industry.
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Really now?
PAC systems have intercepted over 100 different types of ballistic missiles in combat operations: https://www.raytheon.com/capabiliti...uments/content/patriot-by-the-numbers-pdf.pdf
More information here: https://www.defensenews.com/digital...atriots-intercepted-over-100-tbms-since-2015/
Evolution of PAC systems over the course of years: https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/patriot/
Live intercept:
----
Now; provide evidence and statistics of intercepts from S-400 systems please.
Removal of that radar system is not going to make much difference since US can re-station it elsewhere. Perhaps US doesn't even need it because its surveillance network is too extensive already.
Source: https://eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/content/-/article/sbss
As you can see, nothing significant in Turkey.
I get the impression that Turkey is confused about its role in modern geopolitics (an identity crises of sorts); NATO or Russia? It cannot be both because NATO and Russia are unlikely to be partners in the foreseeable future.
I think that US values its alliance with Turkey but if push comes to shove, Turkey can be let off. Any country is free to realign its position and redefine its alliances nonetheless.
Last edited:
Khagan1923
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2016
- Messages
- 795
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Removal of that radar system is not going to make much difference since US can re-station it elsewhere. Perhaps US doesn't even need it because its surveillance network is too extensive already.
Source: https://eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/content/-/article/sbss
As you can see, nothing significant in Turkey.
I get the impression that Turkey is confused about its role in modern geopolitics (an identity crises of sorts); NATO or Russia? It cannot be both because NATO and Russia are unlikely to be partners in the foreseeable future.
I think that US values its alliance with Turkey but if push comes to shove, Turkey can be let off. Any country is free to realign its position and redefine its alliances nonetheless.
http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/intl-cooperation/turkey/
k, lets see where the US is gonna place this near Iran after Turkey says that they can't place it in Turkey anymore. This radar has only one mission and that is giving US and Israel a early warning if the nukes come flying without it in Turkey Israel and the US have a big fat problem on their hands.
Pax Ottomana
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,639
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
US itself has embargoed and restricted Turkey's access to US/NATO weaponary and technology even during years when Turkey was okaying every ridiculous demand by them. No need to work with the Russians for that.
Beny Karachun
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 30, 2016
- Messages
- 6,521
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
Yeah, except you claimed the UK is leaving NATO or considering to.
Pax Ottomana
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,639
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Isn't Europe's rushing to form "EU Army" a clue for anyone? Hello!!?
NATO is already on a path to dissolution whether Turkey becomes the first member to leave it or not. It's always been a US project to help protect America's global interests and nothing else. Well, you're welcome for Turkey's services to date, azzholes. But the glass is filling up fast.
NATO is already on a path to dissolution whether Turkey becomes the first member to leave it or not. It's always been a US project to help protect America's global interests and nothing else. Well, you're welcome for Turkey's services to date, azzholes. But the glass is filling up fast.
Bubblegum Crisis
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 2,612
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
...
Quote :
Aegis Ashore vs THAAD (July 27, 2015)
There are two main technical issues that almost certainly drove the decision of which system went where:
(1) Europe can be almost completely covered by two Aegis Ashore sites but achieving similar coverage with THAAD would require a prohibitive number of THAAD batteries. On the other hand, S. Korea is small enough to be covered by one or two THAAD batteries.
A single Aegis Ashore site (with the Block IIA interceptor) can cover a much larger geographical area than a single THAAD deployment. The Block IIA interceptor is scheduled to begin deployment in 2018. This larger coverage area occurs because the Aegis Block II interceptor has a much higher burnout speed (likely about 4.5 km/s) than a THAAD interceptor (likely about 2.6-2.8 km/s) and thus can reach out to make intercepts at much greater ranges.
This is illustrated in two 2007 Missile Defense Agency Briefing slides. The yellow “footprints” in Figure 1 below shows the area that could be covered by three THAAD batteries in eastern Turkey against Iranian ballistic missiles. For THAAD, this situation — in which the attacking missiles are launched from a country bordering the country targeted – is closely analogous to the North Korea-South Korea situation. However, the three THAAD batteries together cover only a small fraction of Turkey.
Figure 1. Coverage of Europe against Iranian ballistic missile by THAAD, Aegis (Block IB), and two-stage GBI interceptors. Slides from MDA Executive Director Patricia Sanders, “Missile Defense Program Overview For The 4th International Conference On Missile Defense,” June 26, 2007. Available at: https://mostlymissiledefense.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/bmd-overview-sanders-june2007.pdf
What Figure 1 makes clear is that attempting to cover all of Europe using THAAD would require a prohibitive number of THAAD batteries, far more than the U.S. plans to buy.[1] Current U.S. plans are to buy seven batteries, although there is a stated requirement for nine batteries.
On the other hand, the green shaded area in Figure 1 shows the footprints for Aegis Block IB interceptors deployed on four ships in the Mediterranean Sea (including the Adriatic Sea) and Black Sea.[2] This slide, which assumes the launch of the interceptors is supported by external radars such TPY-2 X-band radars, shows that four ships can cover a significant fraction of Europe.
The much faster Aegis Block IIA interceptors scheduled to begin deployment in 2018, would allow all of Europe (except eastern Turkey, for reasons discussed below) to be defended from only two interceptor launch sites as shown in Figure 2 below. Note that both Figures 1 and 2 predate the decision to deploy the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) system with its land-based Aegis Ashore sites.[3] Figure 2 also assumes that the Aegis interceptors are supported by external radars.
Figure 2. Slide from MDA Deputy Director Major General Patrick O’Reilly, “Missile Defense Program Update For The National Defense University “Road To Bucharest” Conference, February 20, 2008.
Thus is it possible to attempt to defend almost all of Europe (the NATO portion of it, at least) from Iranian missiles using a few Aegis sites, but similar coverage cannot be achieved using any plausible number of THAAD batteries. (The development of a faster, extended-range version of the THAAD interceptor could change this situation. Such an extended-range version of the THAAD interceptor is under consideration as part of a THAAD follow-on concept development and risk reduction program that MDA initiated in FY 2016.)
[1] THAAD batteries deployed further from Iran could attempt to defend somewhat larger areas, particularly if supported by external radars, but such larger areas would not change the conclusion that the required number of batteries would much greater than the total the U.S plans to procure.
[2] The blue-shaded area shows the coverage of the now-cancelled plan to deploy two-stage versions of the U.S. national missile defense Ground-Based Interceptors in Poland.
[3] Although Figure 2 shows northern Scandinavia uncovered, this area would be covered by the planned Aegis Ashore site in Poland.
...
Quote :
Aegis Ashore vs THAAD (July 27, 2015)
There are two main technical issues that almost certainly drove the decision of which system went where:
(1) Europe can be almost completely covered by two Aegis Ashore sites but achieving similar coverage with THAAD would require a prohibitive number of THAAD batteries. On the other hand, S. Korea is small enough to be covered by one or two THAAD batteries.
A single Aegis Ashore site (with the Block IIA interceptor) can cover a much larger geographical area than a single THAAD deployment. The Block IIA interceptor is scheduled to begin deployment in 2018. This larger coverage area occurs because the Aegis Block II interceptor has a much higher burnout speed (likely about 4.5 km/s) than a THAAD interceptor (likely about 2.6-2.8 km/s) and thus can reach out to make intercepts at much greater ranges.
This is illustrated in two 2007 Missile Defense Agency Briefing slides. The yellow “footprints” in Figure 1 below shows the area that could be covered by three THAAD batteries in eastern Turkey against Iranian ballistic missiles. For THAAD, this situation — in which the attacking missiles are launched from a country bordering the country targeted – is closely analogous to the North Korea-South Korea situation. However, the three THAAD batteries together cover only a small fraction of Turkey.
Figure 1. Coverage of Europe against Iranian ballistic missile by THAAD, Aegis (Block IB), and two-stage GBI interceptors. Slides from MDA Executive Director Patricia Sanders, “Missile Defense Program Overview For The 4th International Conference On Missile Defense,” June 26, 2007. Available at: https://mostlymissiledefense.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/bmd-overview-sanders-june2007.pdf
What Figure 1 makes clear is that attempting to cover all of Europe using THAAD would require a prohibitive number of THAAD batteries, far more than the U.S. plans to buy.[1] Current U.S. plans are to buy seven batteries, although there is a stated requirement for nine batteries.
On the other hand, the green shaded area in Figure 1 shows the footprints for Aegis Block IB interceptors deployed on four ships in the Mediterranean Sea (including the Adriatic Sea) and Black Sea.[2] This slide, which assumes the launch of the interceptors is supported by external radars such TPY-2 X-band radars, shows that four ships can cover a significant fraction of Europe.
The much faster Aegis Block IIA interceptors scheduled to begin deployment in 2018, would allow all of Europe (except eastern Turkey, for reasons discussed below) to be defended from only two interceptor launch sites as shown in Figure 2 below. Note that both Figures 1 and 2 predate the decision to deploy the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) system with its land-based Aegis Ashore sites.[3] Figure 2 also assumes that the Aegis interceptors are supported by external radars.
Figure 2. Slide from MDA Deputy Director Major General Patrick O’Reilly, “Missile Defense Program Update For The National Defense University “Road To Bucharest” Conference, February 20, 2008.
Thus is it possible to attempt to defend almost all of Europe (the NATO portion of it, at least) from Iranian missiles using a few Aegis sites, but similar coverage cannot be achieved using any plausible number of THAAD batteries. (The development of a faster, extended-range version of the THAAD interceptor could change this situation. Such an extended-range version of the THAAD interceptor is under consideration as part of a THAAD follow-on concept development and risk reduction program that MDA initiated in FY 2016.)
[1] THAAD batteries deployed further from Iran could attempt to defend somewhat larger areas, particularly if supported by external radars, but such larger areas would not change the conclusion that the required number of batteries would much greater than the total the U.S plans to procure.
[2] The blue-shaded area shows the coverage of the now-cancelled plan to deploy two-stage versions of the U.S. national missile defense Ground-Based Interceptors in Poland.
[3] Although Figure 2 shows northern Scandinavia uncovered, this area would be covered by the planned Aegis Ashore site in Poland.
...
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
That radar system is intended to provide Turkey (your country) early warning coverage against ballistic missile strikes from potential enemies in the region. US doesn't needs it for the same because US have deployed many more across the world and can utilize them to its advantage whenever required. See image below:
US is creating a missile shield for its NATO allies in Europe and extended the same offer to Turkey in 2012 but purchase of S-400 systems from Russia have made this development and radar system meaningless.
It is accepted by NATO that member countries of NATO, which is the most important tie of the USA with transatlantic Europe, should be integrated and designed in accordance with the system structure of the USA in order for these countries to be integrated into missile shield. In parallel with that, it was needed to integrate “Phased Adaptive Approach” suggested by the USA President Obama into NATO structure in order for lands of Europe and NATO member countries to be protected. Otherwise, serious difficulties would be encountered in implementation of the four stages determined.
Source: http://foreignpolicy.org.tr/nato-ballistic-missile-defence-systems-and-turkey/
Last edited:
A.P. Richelieu
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2013
- Messages
- 7,724
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Europe is not rushing to form a EU Army, so there is no clue.
Europe wants to reduce duplicate effort in the weapons industries,
which is not the same thing.
Oublious
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,567
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
That radar system is intended to provide Turkey (your country) early warning coverage against ballistic missile strikes from potential enemies in the region. US doesn't needs it for the same because US have deployed many more across the world and can utilize them to its advantage whenever required. See image below:
US is creating a missile shield for its NATO allies in Europe and extended the same offer to Turkey in 2012 but purchase of S-400 systems from Russia have made this development and radar system meaningless.
It is accepted by NATO that member countries of NATO, which is the most important tie of the USA with transatlantic Europe, should be integrated and designed in accordance with the system structure of the USA in order for these countries to be integrated into missile shield. In parallel with that, it was needed to integrate “Phased Adaptive Approach” suggested by the USA President Obama into NATO structure in order for lands of Europe and NATO member countries to be protected. Otherwise, serious difficulties would be encountered in implementation of the four stages determined.
Source: http://foreignpolicy.org.tr/nato-ballistic-missile-defence-systems-and-turkey/
Who is covering the blind spot wher the radar was stationed in Turkey.? You talk like you now much....
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Radar systems in Israel and mobile platforms in the Mediterranean.
US was supposed to establish a missile shield for Turkey and an AN/TPY-2 radar system was deployed in Turkey for this purpose in 2012. However, this initiative has stalled since.
I study these developments.
Oublious
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,567
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Ther are no mobile platform in the middle east but Fregat with SM3 missile, they use the radar from Turkey. So who is going to cover the blind spot? Israel radar can't cover the whole region.
Beny Karachun
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 30, 2016
- Messages
- 6,521
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
Our radars have longer range than yours.
And the American radar in our territory is better placed.
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
One X-Band radar system is deployed in Israel which offers enormous early warning coverage against ballistic missile threats in the region.
Again, radar system in Turkey is intended to provide your country long-range early warning against Ballistic Missile threats. If you remove it, US can redeploy it elsewhere per its needs.
It is shortsighted to assume that a single installation in Turkey is of any consequence to American surveillance coverage on the whole; it is not. US surveillance network is of GLOBAL proportions (space; land; air; and sea). Removal of a radar system from a country in the Middle East is virtually inconsequential to its operations.
Last edited:
what
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2010
- Messages
- 2,848
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
An EU army is still the wet dream of EU federalists, that being said I hope that Europe comes to their senses and creates joint weapons again. Tanks or an Eurofighter replacement are long overdue.
Similar threads
