Iran fires rockets at Iraq base hosting American troops

How where exactly did I ever say there was no drag? Once again, injecting things that do not apply.

But yes, they do indeed return to the Earth with no thrust. Tell you what, here are some references. Now provide yours that they do as you say.

https://www.businessinsider.com/intercontinental-ballistic-missiles-science-2017-7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile

https://science.howstuffworks.com/difference-ballistic-cruise-missile.htm

https://interestingengineering.com/...nental-ballistic-missile-and-how-does-it-work

There are 4 clear references that talk about the fact that once ballistic missiles achieve their maximum altitude, it is entirely gravity that takes over and returns them to the surface. Unpowered. Now, where are your references?

Stupid question. How many weapons do any countries produce that are not part of the First or Second World?

Simple answer, they don't. No more than they produce their own TV sets, build their own cars, or much of anything else. It is ultimately easier and cheaper to let somebody else do that, then purchase them on the open market. Because you have a lot of other steps in between "We want to build an ABM system", and actually making one.

BTW, how many countries even build the computers needed to do such a task? Once again, none. Easier to buy it somewhere else.

Once again, an object traveling at MACH 5 is "slow".

And this is why I rarely wander down here to the political areas of this forum. I find to many people are simply arguing to argue, and almost never use things like data or facts get in the way of their claims. And to be honest, I am quite bored of it all. I have been explaining the exact same things for pages now, and I am sure that even with the references above you will continue to parrot these silly claims. Facts do not matter to you, you want to believe so much that facts do not even matter.

 

The problem here is that this individual is trying to argue against somebody that has been following this for decades. As in, following the Apollo Program before Apollo 11.

And had not only a father who was a NASA contractor, but my step-father as well.

But my real experience came in 2007 and after, when I was trained to operate the PATRIOT missile system. This really refined a lot of my information, and I have been studying all missile and aircraft systems I can. And this experience is not just theoretical, it is real world. When I talk about things like Ballistic Trajectory, I actually have to constantly remind myself to try and break things down into "layman's language". Like CEP, BMOA, and "Mid-Course Phase", and use terms easier for most people to use.

And most of these arguments in return I am seeing are really stupid. As in idiotic stupid without anything to back them up other than the belief of the poster. They make silly claims, I challenge them to provide references then provide my own to show why they are silly. Then they just reject anything they do not like and still insist they are correct without any reason other than their own imagination.

I am about to slip back to the military section again, this thread has gone on for far to long, and it is resembling a very bad parody of an old Monty Python schtick. And I am well aware that at least some in here will then proudly proclaim their "victory", in that I left which proves they were right.

No, all it proves is that you can not try to help stupidity. Some people insist on remaining stupid, no matter how much you try to show them the error of their ways.

 

It was a beat down and everyone saw it. Some just can't admit when they are over their heads.

 

This is why I normally stick to areas like military and history. There, I am actually debating (never arguing) with real "subject matter experts".

People like me with years of real world experience in the things we discuss. Actual fighter jet and cargo jet pilots who discuss the capabilities of aircraft. People who actually operated tanks or worked as infantry who talk about their real life training and experiences. People who are actual science and history teachers and researchers who talk about what they have gained over years of doing it in the real world. And I read these as a way to inform myself, not to try and wave body parts around in a stupid attempt to show who is bigger.

I came here because somebody sent me a message, saying I should check this thread out because it was completely off the rails, and if anything being posted in it was real or accurate. And I see the problem. Individuals who are not even close to reality. I am not sure if it is disinformation, complete ignorance, or just mental illness. They take a very tiny sliver of truth (sometimes incorrectly), then spin it off into a slew of things that are completely wrong.

Simply because they want to believe it, or want others to believe it. By now, I have come to the conclusion that one is a troll, the other is a disinformation propaganda stooge. And there is no point in continuing.

 

in your example.

That depends on the kind of missile.

Does it look like I care that it's specifically ballistic missiles? I think I noted this before in my previous post.

You are ranting around the idea that there are indeed hardly any countries who are able to develop such systems.

That ballistic aiming is so easy that the accuracy of a scud is a circle of about a 1000 yards wide. lol
Hitting a bullet with a bullet is hard. One bullet hardly knows where it is going to.
Them Iranian missiles don't even need fins.

 

I generally avoid trying to embarrass people who have said stupid things, when their stupidity is not their fault and reflects information which has been falsely advertised. In the case of "Mushroom", I avoided directly quoting some of his false comments in refuting them, simply because I recognize he is better informed on these issues than the average American but his entire 'analysis' proceeds on certain false assumptions embedded in the propaganda against Iran. False assumptions which have been proven false, not by opinion, but facts. However, seeing that the guy hasn't backed down and is persisting on pretending he knows what he was saying, instead of commentary by myself, I will take the actual quotes from "Mushroom" and place them against actual quotes from the sources I had posted.
1- On precision of Iran's Fateh SRBM

https://www.economist.com/science-a...n-iraq-shows-how-precise-missiles-have-become

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...n-bases-showcases-its-weapons-accuracy-114616
How Iran's Missile Attack on American Bases Showcases Its Weapons' Accuracy
Stratfor Worldview

https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/iran-missile-strike-kurdistan/
The Messages Behind the Iranian Missile Strike in Iraqi Kurdistan
https://www.armyrecognition.com/jun...upersonic_ballistic_missile_to_8.5_meter.html
Iran increases precision of the Khalij Fars Persian Gulf supersonic ballistic missile to 8.5 meter
------
2- On my example of US Threat Perception

Air Force shifts Middle East command center from Qatar to South Carolina

Now, on facts:
1- The precision of Iran's missiles are proven in actual tests and strikes where they have been used. No longer subject to clueless estimates by 'experts' who proceeded on false assumptions about them.
2- There is no single, reliable, defense against such missiles. The Patriot itself is designed more to engage ballistic missiles and not cruise missiles (such as Iran's Soumar) anyway. But even against ballistic missiles, the Patriot hasn't proven much at all in actual combat, even if you don't go as far as the article I cited from Foreign Policy in 2018 saying the evidence is in an the Patriot is a "lemon". The Houthis regularly fire missiles at Saudi targets and often Saudi attempts to engage them with the Patriots (operated in many ways actually by Americans) fail. The US is well aware of the limitations of the Patriots and its ABM systems and is feverishly trying to find ways to counter Iran's missile capability, which is one reason why those missiles are actually what the US wants Iran to stop testing and building in the guise of propaganda about "nukes".
3- The incessant propaganda trying to link Iran's missiles to foreign designs, while more meritorious a couple decades ago, are simply nonsense. Some of the most important Iranian missiles are of indigenous design bearing no real relationship to any missile developed anywhere else. That is true of the Sejjil MRBM as well as the Fateh SRBM and many other such missiles being developed in Iran. These missiles, unlike Scuds and such, use solid fuel, they can be fired from different angles, and have very unique features recognizable by experts. Beyond that, even those older designs by Iran (which used foreign designs for their base) had substantial differences in the past and today, even a missile such as the Qiam 1 (which is broadly based on the Scud design with important modifications) also use 'conversion kits' that have made them quite precise missiles too.

 

Then quote it. If I said that, then it should be a simple matter to prove I said that there was no drag.

In other words, you really do not care. You are only arguing for the sake of arguing, and add nothing to the conversation;.

And what is to stop them?

Almost any country with basic machine shop capabilities can develop a battlefield rifle. Israel proved this with the advent of the Uzi. But how many actually take the effort to do so?

5.56mm and 7.62mm were only adopted for battle weapons by 2 groups of nations. NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Yet almost every country in the world follows them. And even South Africa uses a locally made copy of a Belgian NATO weapon. Complete with NATO ammunition.

You are demanding that other nations build their own system and not buy them. I said this before and will say it again, why? Exactly how many nations are under threat of attack by ballistic missiles? Unless there is such a threat, a nation has absolutely no reason to build such a system.

And if they are, it is faster and cheaper to just buy one.

And your point is with this?

You think that bullets are guided? And yes, it is very easy to predict where a bullet will go, we have been able to do this for hundreds of years.

And no fins? Big freaking deal, we have had those for 40 years now. That is a non-issue, and I have no idea why you are even mentioning this. We can also build a manual transmission without a clutch, but do not choose to do so.

 

You used it in a picture about no drag and no trust in post 1192.

I did not that I do not care what kind of missiles we're talking about.

Lack of technology, since it aint easy to hit a bullet with a bullet.

If ballistics was so freaking easy, than the scud would be far more accurate.

50 years ago, you could aim a scud missile at something, but the "accuracy" would be almost 10.000 feet.
It's 160 feet today. That's still not good enough for the to hit a bullet with a bullet.

 

A SCUD does not need to be accurate. It is like the Katyusha, an area effect weapon. It is also fired from a mobile platform, and inaccuracies can be cause by many things. It is cheap, simple to build, and does not rely upon accuracy to be effective. When your target is basically "Anywhere within a 5 square mile radius", it is more than effective enough.

Now to compare it, it is actually comparable to the US Pershing missile. CEP of around 200 meters,this was more than enough for it's intended purposes. Now the Pershing II added other tricks, including an active RADAR navigation system which increased their accuracy to 30 meters. But like the Pershing, the SCUD never incorporated such technology. Even today, they still use inertial navigation. And while this is actually rather accurate when used at a fixed position, this accuracy can decrease dramatically when used from a mobile launcher.

 

What an insane opinion. They made the SCUD more and more accurate throughout the years.
It's accuracy is still 160 feet. And so after 100's and 100's of years... still not able to do what you call easy.

Your idea that it does not matter if the target it's aimed at is actually hit: totally nuts.

 

"Hundreds and hundreds of years".

Sorry, you are either a complete idiot, or a troll. Just by making that statement you have shown that there is absolutely no reason to ever respond ever again. When talking about Joshua bar Joseph, do you discuss the kind of car he drove also?

 

Them 100 and 100 of years is YOUR claim, champ.

And yes, it is very easy to predict where a bullet will go, we have been able to do this for hundreds of years.

You're calling yourself an idiot or a troll.
Bravo. I think we've settled this discussion.