Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Saudi Ballistic Missiles Secretly Upgraded
SYSOP    2/10/2014 6:24:32 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
keffler25       2/10/2014 9:36:48 AM
Saudi Arabia is a nation chiefly comprised of superstition addled human beings, ruled by the 'cosmopolitan' but still very suspect Saudi royal family who cannot be trusted to even honor their word, much less to behave with acceptable morality at all as they violated the missile non-proliferation treaties (with US connivance and PRC complicity) top which they are parties. No-one sane can trust a supposedly civilized rational nation with ballistic missiles, chemical weapons  and atomic bombs at all. That is just common sense, after what was allegedly revealed about the Falklands war a few years ago. What makes this illegal lunacy:
 
It was recently revealed that the United States agreed to allow (or at least not try to interfere with) Saudi Arabia replacing its older Chinese DF-3 ballistic missiles with more reliable and accurate Chinese DF-21s. This was done in 2007-8 on condition that the Saudi DF-21s were modified so they could not carry a nuclear warhead and American experts could inspect the missiles to ensure compliance.
 
any better or saner? 
 
=============================================
 
More article lunacy.
 
In any event the Saudis have expressed more hostility for Iran than Israel over the last few years and given that Israel has ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads, intentionally targeting Israel would be very foolish. If anything the Israeli nuclear missiles help protect Saudi Arabia from Iran because the Iranians know that the Israelis would not hesitate to nuke Iran if the Iranians fired their missiles towards Israel, or Saudi Arabia. To Israeli missile-defense radars a ballistic missile aimed at Saudi Arabia looks just like one aimed at Israel, at least as the missile rose some 500 kilometers into the edge of space and then turned west.
 
Not only is that technically wrong as modern tracking radars are VERY bearing accurate within a matter of seconds of established track, (computers, you know?), but politically and logically Israel has no vested interest in getting caught in an Iranian Saudi fight. If anything the Israeli state would like to be the neutral in a typical Moslem, let's-you-and-them-fight gambit and scenario.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Chris       2/10/2014 12:38:57 PM
This relatively new-found (increased, and quiet) diplomacy between Arab nations and Israel, is due to the colossal foreign policy and national security screw on the part of the previous US administration, who stupidly put Iran into the drivers/power-brokers seat in the middle east by taking out Iranian arch-enemy Saddam Hussein, while simultaneously creating a billion new enemies for the US by attacking what the administration knew was a defenseless nation (Iraq). Hence, foreign policy stupidity on the part of the US played directly into the hands of Osama Bin Laden (who predicted the invasion of an Arab land for oil), and therefore turned all the Arab fence-sitters into enemies, and caused a national security problem for all of our allies in the region as well. Iran's subsequent power-broker/diplomatic resurgence (despite sanctions) has therefore forced the other Arab nations to realize that Israel doesn't simply pick fights for the sake of doing so, while Iran does. Hence - dealing with a military strong and relatively straightforward nation like Israel has become a practical necessity. So it seems, that the foreign policy blunder of the century on the part of the administration of George W Bush did have at least one good development: some Arab nations relations with Israel are on the mend.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       2/10/2014 4:38:41 PM
Saudi Arabia is a nation chiefly comprised of superstition addled human beings, ruled by the 'cosmopolitan' but still very suspect Saudi royal family who cannot be trusted to even honor their word, much less to behave with acceptable morality at all as they violated the missile non-proliferation treaties (with US connivance and PRC complicity) top which they are parties. No-one sane can trust a supposedly civilized rational nation with ballistic missiles, chemical weapons  and atomic bombs at all. That is just common sense, after what was allegedly revealed about the Falklands war a few years ago. What makes this illegal lunacy:
Still hitting the conspiracy sites I see.  Even the author of that article thought that his source thought that his source could be pulling his leg.  It’s all 3rd hand at best, and the primary source would have had to violate his oaths on patient privacy, a felony in the EU.
More article lunacy.
 
In any event the Saudis have expressed more hostility for Iran than Israel over the last few years and given that Israel has ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads, intentionally targeting Israel would be very foolish. If anything the Israeli nuclear missiles help protect Saudi Arabia from Iran because the Iranians know that the Israelis would not hesitate to nuke Iran if the Iranians fired their missiles towards Israel, or Saudi Arabia. To Israeli missile-defense radars a ballistic missile aimed at Saudi Arabia looks just like one aimed at Israel, at least as the missile rose some 500 kilometers into the edge of space and then turned west.
 
Not only is that technically wrong as modern tracking radars are VERY bearing accurate within a matter of seconds of established track, (computers, you know?), but politically and logically Israel has no vested interest in getting caught in an Iranian Saudi fight. If anything the Israeli state would like to be the neutral in a typical Moslem, let's-you-and-them-fight gambit and scenario.
You can’t establish a track until you have data.  Until the missile tilts you don’t have that data.  It could even be a satellite launch.
 
As for the let's-you-and-them-fight gambit and scenario, one of the important parts that people ignore is that you don’t want either side to lose, you want them to fight to exhaustion so they aren’t a threat to you.  If the is a winner, when he recovers he will be stronger and nastier than ever because he has the losers resources to draw upon.  Iran can’t lose vs. Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia can lose very easy, so Israel has an interest in supporting Saudi Arabia to make the strategy work.
 
Israel has a solid reputation in the Middle East as a reliable ally and no interest in invading and taking over other states, especially arab ones, both attitudes that are less descriptive of other western powers.  Israel is a devil to the Arabs, but it is the devil they know, whereas Iran is the worse devil they don’t know.  For Israel there is the fact that the Saudi’s are realistic enough to know that they don’t really want to pay the cost of owning and developing nuclear weapons if they can avoid it.  Saudi Arabia may have gotten away so far by relying on the US, but with that protection appearing of questionable reliability Israel could look like a godsend.  Israel would not need to intervene in a conventional war, Saudi Arabia could string that out long enough for the world to intercede, a la Desert Storm, but Israeli help can significantly reduce their vulnerability to an Iranian decapitation strike.
 
So it does make sense in a way.  But the worrisome thing is that those people who are working out the agreements are old school, they may think they can actually be able to do it in secrecy and keep it that way.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       2/10/2014 10:45:50 PM
 Three comments and I will leave you to scratch your head, Warnerd. 
 
y=x^2
 
EVERY ballistic or FLOATING object in the universe, that is constrained to a 'point mass' gravitational anchor, describes that type arc in some respect with certain modifications to the main variables. and it will show up on radar IMMEDIATELY, once the object clears a radar horizon. That is TRUE even if the object is a floating ship on the ocean, for the American analog fire control computers of WW II were so programmed to treat the range, bearing,  and velocity data to produce that automatic curved arc correction.Their radar directed gunfire was therefore deadly. even with 30 second old solutions because they were the ONLY ones to so correct. Imagine what their modern missile fire control is like? I described the results elsewhere on this site against ballistic objects.
 
What that means for missiles in climb is that there is a side Doppler which shows which way the missile is POINTED  immediately gross enough to give its velocity, point, and bearing. The flop over is already pronounced enough to yield data once the missile starts to FALL.
==================================================
And you would suggest that the London TIMES is a conspiracy source?
 
The English may seem civilized, but as warfighters, by the Americans' standards they are utterly savage. So I believe Mitterand and his headshrinker.  And as the French doctors don't care, nor are at any risk, about their 'private conversations,' once the patient is dead, your specious claims about what Mitterand said or did not say are legally groundless Neither do the British, or the Americans would never have so much information on what no-good the EU poiticos are up to this time.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       2/11/2014 4:06:11 AM
 Three comments and I will leave you to scratch your head, Warnerd. 
 
y=x^2
 
EVERY ballistic or FLOATING object in the universe, that is constrained to a 'point mass' gravitational anchor, describes that type arc in some respect with certain modifications to the main variables.  and it will show up on radar IMMEDIATELY, once the object clears a radar horizon.  That is TRUE even if the object is a floating ship on the ocean, for the American analog fire control computers of WW II were so programmed to treat the range, bearing,  and velocity data to produce that automatic curved arc correction.Their radar directed gunfire was therefore deadly.  even with 30 second old solutions because they were the ONLY ones to so correct.  Imagine what their modern missile fire control is like? I described the results elsewhere on this site against ballistic objects.
 
What that means for missiles in climb is that there is a side Doppler which shows which way the missile is POINTED  immediately gross enough to give its velocity, point, and bearing.  The flop over is already pronounced enough to yield data once the missile starts to FALL.
Well, I’m scratching my head trying to figure out how you can be so obtuse.
 
You claim that you can automatically calculate the impact point only applies for missiles that have gone ballistic with no fuel remaining.
 
If the missile is still under thrust you have a footprint based on the current trajectory plus the effects of the remaining acceleration.  If the missile hasn’t tipped over yet to generate a side acceleration that footprint is a circle centered on the launcher.
 
The American analog naval fire control systems for AAA were more effective because they integrated more inputs, in particularly an artificial horizon in the ship that compensated for movements, and directly controlled the elements of the mount instead of just generating an offset.  They did not even come close to guaranteed hits, but were several times more effective producing results equivalent to the best gun crews with sailors just out of training.  But that was only in a point defense role, and NEVER with a 30 second old solution, which would be absolutely useless.
 
The American surface to surface fire control was also the best, and was retained with only radar upgrades until 1969.  The Japanese had nothing like it.  The British and Germans systems had many of the same functions, but only the American system integrated them into a whole AND used a feedback loop to the directors to continuously refine the target solution.  The American system was much better when the firing platform and the target were continuously maneuver, but only equal when they weren't.  That meant that American ships were free to “chase salvoes” to mess up the enemies target solution without impeding their own very much.  But they NEVER with a 30 second old solution either, for obvious reasons, unless you are counting time of flight.
And you would suggest that the London TIMES is a conspiracy source?
Its a book review, not an investigative report, undated and with no link to the original (which is here).  Can’t find any other reviews or copies available, so obviously didn’t sell very many.
 
Published 23 years after the fact and based on the psychoanalyst’s memories.  Apparently the only exciting part in it, too.
 
For a psychoanalyst to break patient confidentiality is unethical, and illegal in the EU.  That may be why it is unavailable.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       2/11/2014 7:43:13 AM
1. Research the Ford  Mark II Ballistic computer.
 
2. Also 30 seconds refers specifically to average shell times of flight. THAT part of the solution was cranked into he old American analog computers. 
 
3. You could NOT CHASE salvos if you were an American enemy. That tactic only worked for optical surface gunnery solved tracks. You try that trick against an American warship cruiser size or large, circa 1944 and you received a radar generated track correction salvo in about a minute.  
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       2/11/2014 8:25:49 AM

Well, I’m scratching my head trying to figure out how you can be so obtuse.

  1. I'm wondering about why you cannot understand what I PLAINLY said. My fault for assuming that I was clear enough. For example you assumed I discussed AAA when I clearly referred to floating ships and naval surface gunnery solutions on a sphere in a 2d example to explain how gravity affects ALL trajectories. (on the earth specifically, but universally applicable..)

You claim that you can automatically calculate the impact point only applies for missiles that have gone ballistic with no fuel remaining.

  1. Nonsense, but I do maintain that a maneuvering missile (Iskander for example) is HARDER to track.

If the missile is still under thrust you have a footprint based on the current trajectory plus the effects of the remaining acceleration.  If the missile hasn’t tipped over yet to generate a side acceleration that footprint is a circle centered on the launcher.

    1. I said, when the ballistic missile appears over the radar horizon (with respect to your example, Israeli radar detects Iranian launch.) That is about 1200 kilometers, from radar to launch site with the Israeli radar at about 2000 meters on a mountain, so the missile appears to that radar at about 60,000 meters altitude. Hmm, somewhat long after burnout and long after the flop, in other words, when it appears from behind the curve of the Earth it will have its point of direction firmly established.

The American analog naval fire control systems for AAA were more effective because they integrated more inputs, in particularly an artificial horizon in the ship that compensated for movements, and directly controlled the elements of the mount instead of just generating an offset.  They did not even come close to guaranteed hits, but were several times more effective producing results equivalent to the best gun crews with sailors just out of training.  But that was only in a point defense role, and NEVER with a 30 second old solution, which would be absolutely useless.

  1. See previous post and remember the target could never move faster than 16 m/s and was often at least 150 meters long or longer I used the 1930s (circa 1935) gear because that was what they had. The example better fits a ballistic missile than a plane, because it is SLOWER and a two body problem, so that you can mechanically follow the simpler 2-d solution explanation, as you solve it in your head, and it still remains relatively inertia resistant to the same effect that a ballistic missile would in the THREE BODY problem.

The American surface to surface fire control was also the best, and was retained with only radar upgrades until 1969.  The Japanese had nothing like it.  The British and Germans systems had many of the same functions, but only the American system integrated them into a whole AND used a feedback loop to the directors to continuously refine the target solution.  The American system was much better when the firing platform and the target were continuously maneuver, but only equal when they weren't.  That meant that American ships were free to “chase salvoes” to mess up the enemies target solution without impeding their own very much.  But they NEVER with a 30 second old solution either, for obvious reasons, unless you are counting time of flight.

  1. Yes, you DID read “time of flight,” (but you still missed the important parts as referred above.)


Part 1.

 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       2/11/2014 8:28:33 AM

Part 2.

And you would suggest that the London TIMES is a conspiracy source?

Its a book review, not an investigative report, undated and with no link to the original (which is here).  Can’t find any other reviews or copies available, so obviously didn’t sell very many.


  1. It sold enough.


Published 23 years after the fact and based on the psychoanalyst’s memories.  Apparently the only exciting part in it, too.

  1. After Mitterand and Thatcher were DEAD or beyond reach.

For a psychoanalyst to break patient confidentiality is unethical, and illegal in the EU.  That may be why it is unavailable.

  1. That assumes a fact which is obviously untrue, as it IS available. (You found it at the source. did you not?)




 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       2/12/2014 7:13:57 AM

Well, I’m scratching my head trying to figure out how you can be so obtuse.

Go back and re-read your post, I answered EXACTLY what you said. I can’t help it if it wasn’t what you meant. Please respond in kind and politely clarify your statements, don’t pretend you said otherwise in the original or add words to my responses just so you have something you can rebut.
  1. I'm wondering about why you cannot understand what I PLAINLY said. My fault for assuming that I was clear enough. For example you assumed I discussed AAA when I clearly referred to floating ships and naval surface gunnery solutions on a sphere in a 2d example to explain how gravity affects ALL trajectories. (on the earth specifically, but universally applicable..)

Then you jumped from one topic to another without alerting the reader to the fact. The reference to surface targets is later and not clear.
  1. Nonsense, but I do maintain that a maneuvering missile (Iskander for example) is HARDER to track.

So you agree with my statement, but just can’t bring yourself to admit it?
  1. I said, when the ballistic missile appears over the radar horizon (with respect to your example, Israeli radar detects Iranian launch.) That is about 1200 kilometers, from radar to launch site with the Israeli radar at about 2000 meters on a mountain, so the missile appears to that radar at about 60,000 meters altitude. Hmm, somewhat long after burnout and long after the flop, in other words, when it appears from behind the curve of the Earth it will have its point of direction firmly established.

You are adding the reference to over the horizon and to Israeli radar after the fact. Your original read as a generic application.
  1. See previous post and remember the target could never move faster than 16 m/s and was often at least 150 meters long or longer I used the 1930s (circa 1935) gear because that was what they had. The example better fits a ballistic missile than a plane, because it is SLOWER and a two body problem, so that you can mechanically follow the simpler 2-d solution explanation, as you solve it in your head, and it still remains relatively inertia resistant to the same effect that a ballistic missile would in the THREE BODY problem.

See reply to 2.
 
You skipped 5.
  1. Yes, you DID read “time of flight,” (but you still missed the important parts as referred above.)

Sorry, but you never mentioned anything about time of flight, what you said was ‘even with 30 second old solutions because they were the ONLY ones to so correct. That implies that they were firing with a 30 second old solution, not a 30 second lead on the target. Nowhere do you meant anything about time of flight.
Part 2.
  1. It sold enough.

Where did you find evidence to support that please. I found nothing. Or is this just an assumption based on the fact that there was a prerelease review.
  1. After Mitterand and Thatcher were DEAD or beyond reach.

Both were dead, so what?
 
You skipped 9.
  1. That assumes a fact which is obviously untrue, as it IS available. (You found it at the source. did you not?)

I found the original Guardian prerelease book review. I cannot find the book. So my statement IS true
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       2/12/2014 1:30:59 PM
 I do not think I will waste much time here, Warnerd..
 
What I said is what I clearly meant. You did not understand? I added details. You still do not understand. Not my problem.  
 
 
Diary. You read that?
 
 
Not hard to find and not hard to get, so you ARE wrong..
 
I'm done with this. 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics