Jump to content

Talk:S-500 missile system

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mess

[edit]

This article is a mess. Reads like a *parody* of a propaganda piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.147.195 (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like bad English piece from a Russian-speaking fella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by no1 (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.175.65 (talk) [reply]

I think we have to take manufacturer's brochures for anything, not just weapons, with a pinch of salt. There's a few things other than that which need attention. The designation shifts between "C-500" and "S-500" which suggests imperfect transliteration of the cyrillic original, but that needs a better linguist than me to be sure of. 31.185.152.30 (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Butthurt much American trolls, or ego? :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.75.226 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I think we have to take manufacturer's brochures for anything, not just weapons, with a pinch of salt." OHO but only for Russian weapons, since i don't see you complain on US weapons pages for that. And no don't start with pointless "Russia is known for lying about weapons" and then you refer to something from 70s USSR, fkin get it USSR is not todays Russia (in any factualy observable manner). In the same time, US goverment lies about nearly anything in today (factualy checkable from WikiLeaks to simple Googling for some topics), more than USSR decades ago, but that does not matter, we take US weapons for granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.66.248 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice whataboutism. Russia is known for lying about its weapons. What the person you're replying to comments on, or what the American army does doesn't change that fact. But you know that, of course. 2001:464A:20B5:0:2198:30B9:EFCB:AE8C (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: you're replying to a 7 year old comment that's in response to a 9-year old comment. It's not helpful. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

Official picture is posted. https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2021/09/20/14003990.shtml

Best regards, 195.182.156.206 (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Foreign Operator.

[edit]

In December 2023 Leonid Reshetnikov the former Director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies said that Algeria has already signed an agreement with Russia to buy the S-500 System in an interview with Anna Knishenko.

https://x.com/A_Knishenko_RT/status/1740660742473338880?s=20 BladerWasLost (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2024

[edit]

I submitted an edit for the S500 article that said preliminary reports indicated the S500 in Crimea had been destroyed by the Ukrainian military. My source is the Newsweek article that can be found at: https://www.newsweek.com/atacms-russia-s-500-prometheus-attack-1918798#:~:text=Ukraine's%20forces%20may%20have%20struck,destroyed%20by%20ATACMS%20cluster%20missiles. Can anyone help me at this citation to my submission? Gmattdavis (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article quoted a Ukrainian journalist making a wild claim without photographic evidence, even waiting for evidence. No wikipedia editor have ever included random Russian blogger claims of Russia downing RQ-4 (a news web have recently reported about Russian downing of RQ-4 but it wasn't that reliable) so why would this guy can be accepted when himself aren't sure if S-500 was destroyed Dauzlee (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: The claim is premature: Newsweek says: Ukraine's forces may have struck Russia's newest S-500 air-defense system using U.S.-supplied ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) missiles, according to a journalist in the country. -- they also note that it was without elaborating on when or where the system was allegedly destroyed and that Newsweek couldn't independently verify Tsaplienko's claim and has contacted Russian and Ukrainian authorities for comment by email. It may become usable in the future, if the claims become substantiated but at the moment, the claim wouldn't meet our verifiability and no original research policy standards.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2024

[edit]

add another source to the "components" part of the design section: https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/c7e5d4a32883395fdde8d775d6d936a4 Isopod gang 31 (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This link doesn't work for me Rainsage (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]