Re: Russia, Iran, and NASA

In article <dmvng70f8q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, schillin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> In article <1133716881.886805.53440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Allen Thomson
> says...
>
> >Sander Vesik wrote:
>
> >> 30 tor-m1 systems will be a rather large mouthful to swallow for anybody
> >> planning bombing runs.
>
> >Tor-M1 is said (http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/tor.htm ,
> >http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/airdefence/torm1.asp) to be a
> >low-medium altitude system, effective against targets at altitudes up
> >to 6,000 meters (~20,000 ft).
>
> >If that's true, it would be of questionable use against JDAM-equipped
> >bombers flying at higher altitudes.
>
> It would probably be effective against the JDAMs *themselves*, at least
> insofar as defending hard, point targets is concerned. In the long run,
> a JDAM is cheaper than a missile, and the United States is richer than
> Iran, so they lose. But it does complicate things for anyone planning
> an Osirak or the like.

AA is the least of their problems. A terrorist attack by the US on a
civilian power plant would also piss off the shias in iraq. I have a
feeling the US has enough problems with the sunni minority and that they
dont need an even bigger problem.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Russia, Iran, and NASA
    ... >> 30 tor-m1 systems will be a rather large mouthful to swallow for anybody ... >> planning bombing runs. ... >bombers flying at higher altitudes. ... It would probably be effective against the JDAMs *themselves*, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Russia, Iran, and NASA
    ... >> planning bombing runs. ... > low-medium altitude system, effective against targets at altitudes up ... > bombers flying at higher altitudes. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast