Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:36 am

    But GarryB, lock on after launch is basically old technology, anything special about this tech w.r.t Morfei?

    Lock on after launch is old technology with radar... ARH missiles like R-77 and R-37 can fly to target on autopilot and then when they get near the projected location of the target they can turn on their own radars, find the target and home in. If the target makes some serious manovuers after missile launch that will mean the target will not be visible to the missile by the time it starts scanning then the launch aircraft will send course corrections via datalink to ensure the target is visible to the missile when it starts looking.

    For IIR missiles however lock on after launch is not so common... the AIM-9X does not have lock on after launch capability and needs to be lowered out of a weapons bay so it can look for its target before it can be launched, meaning a stealth aircraft opening its weapons bay and becoming non stealthy for long periods.

    The Morfei will have an imaging IR seeker that can recognise 3D shapes and have an onboard database of 3D shapes so when it sees a 3D object from any angle it can identify it based on its shape and decide for itself whether to attack or keep looking.

    It will likely have a two way datalink with the launch aircraft so the pilot can reassign the missile to a different more dangerous target if needed.... there is nothing Old about it....

    The US and of late China have deployed several ocean-floor surveillance network. There is every possibility that Russian submarines will be detected by them. Better to stay within Russian waters and fire the anti satellite missile.

    Detecting is not enough and there are no ocean floor sensor arrays near Antarctica... so a Yasen operating there can shoot down US satellite after US satellite and be relatively safe from retaliation.... by the time a US sub got there to stop it it simply could have moved on.

    Well they can't put blanket over an entire ocean.

    Exactly...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Mar 23, 2016 11:03 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Well they can't put blanket over an entire ocean.

    Exactly...

    Well IMHO now works will go for making " stealth" subs with significant smaller signature...so even blanket ill have serious holes. Can be a plethora of solutions new composite materials improved mechanics...electromotors, sonar waves´ absorption, counter sonar technology as analogy to EW...

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:08 pm

    Well SM-3 Block I-A/B missiles fly at 3 km/s ( Mch 10.2)  and now Block II-A will fly at 4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25). So S-500 travelling only at Mach 10 ? Doesn't sound much interesting and it will target within 200 km altitude which is endo-atmospheric .



    By the way is it necessary that your interceptor should travel at higher speed than adversary ICBM because you'll be launching your interceptor seconds later after tracking the launch to in order to coverup the speed ?

    So Much hype for s-500 Rolling Eyes

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2538
    Points : 2671
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:59 pm

    max steel wrote:Well SM-3 Block I-A/B missiles fly at 3 km/s ( Mch 10.2)  and now Block II-A will fly at 4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25). So S-500 travelling only at Mach 10 ? Doesn't sound much interesting and it will target within 200 km altitude which is endo-atmospheric .



    By the way is it necessary that your interceptor should travel at higher speed than adversary ICBM because you'll be launching your interceptor seconds later after tracking the launch to in order to coverup the speed ?

    So Much hype for s-500 Rolling Eyes

    You claim it is endo-atmospheric interception but there is no atmosphere at 200 km. At those altitudes the mass budget of the ionized gases is dominated by human orbital debris. It's funny how Russia has so many blood sucking naysayers swarming it all the time. They always claim Russia is weak and backward and then they get their asses handed to them on a platter as during WWII. Spare us your BS. Russia and the USA are the only two countries on the planet with the ability and commitment to develop ABM systems. Some irrelevant 3rd party observer spouting off their gut feelings is just noise.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:23 pm

    My bad 100km and below is endo-atmospheric. Haven't answered 2nd question yet and any idea on interceptor speed ? I've doubts and just want to know more. Will S-500 be using Kill Vehicle ?


    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:58 pm

    max steel wrote:My bad 100km and below is endo-atmospheric. Haven't answered 2nd question yet and any idea on interceptor speed ?  I've doubts and just want to know more. Will S-500 be using Kill Vehicle ?


    No you are not.  Cause your rolling eyes about S-500 is a joke.  Sorry to say, but SM-3 was proven to be a joke but hey, you say its better because apparently the max speeds of it (official statements) vs what we are speculating to be exactly what it is, is full on truth.  You, I and all of us do not actually know what is what on S-500 yet, cause it isn't out.  But please do tell us how much SM-3 is better.  Idiot.

    So how many of those in the picture is official? Did MoD/Almaz Antey state these?

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:51 pm

    I got this picture from Austin blog you can check the link(http://austinstalk.blogspot.in/2016/05/s-500-air-space-defense-system.html). If you can't recollect what you all were discussing about S-500 missile speed and when garry said in total 10 km/s ( including enemy missile+ interceptor speed) that's why I shared the SM-3 interceptor speed figures just to compare that if BMs interceptor can travel at Mach 10 and 14(by 2018) then why S-500 interceptor will travel at 3km/s ( which is Mach 10 only) to intercept an ICBM and then I aksed my query that is it necessary that the interceptor must travel at higher speed than adversary ICBM because you'll be launching your interceptor seconds later after tracking the launch in order to coverup the speed(time elapsed) ?

    I know no one here knows the exact speed of interceptor but in accordance with the figure of 10km/s quoted by Garry(http://www.russiadefence.net/t1689p50-a-135-anti-ballistic-missile-system#165764) I had a doubt that's why I weighed in. Regarding SM-3 capabilities go read the US MDA thread unlike you I've been updating it regularly and FYI no one talked about SM-3 efficiency( deviating from the point). I mentioned the speed just for comparison. Oh! I didn't know you people take emoticon seriously and if you have your panties in a wad over someone's opinion on the internet then by all means you are in the wrong place. It would be great if you can answer the queries otherwise feel free to block me, not interested in stretching offtopic BS.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:23 pm

    Edit: I am being too harsh and I am sorry Max.

    Just don't take to heart the claims, as we all are just purely speculating.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 04, 2016 2:20 pm

    Well SM-3 Block I-A/B missiles fly at 3 km/s ( Mch 10.2) and now Block II-A will fly at 4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25). So S-500 travelling only at Mach 10 ? Doesn't sound much interesting and it will target within 200 km altitude which is endo-atmospheric .

    Can I ask you why you think speed is so critical?
    Speed is of course very useful for any interceptor, but its engagement parameters are vastly more important than its top speed.

    Also do you actually understand how rockets work?

    SM-3 Block whatever the fuck don't fly at 3km/s from launch to the target... their speed varies depending upon what part of the flight they are at... they start off at zero and might rapidly accelerate to 3km/s but then the rocket motor burns out and they coast to the target relying on the fact that the first few seconds of flight takes them past the thickest low altitude air where drag is highest.

    If the S-500 can engage targets up to 600km distant and hit targets travelling at 7km/s who cares how fast or slow it is?

    when garry said in total 10 km/s ( including enemy missile+ interceptor speed) that's why I shared the SM-3 interceptor speed figures just to compare that if BMs interceptor can travel at Mach 10 and 14(by 2018) then why S-500 interceptor will travel at 3km/s ( which is Mach 10 only) to intercept an ICBM and then I aksed my query that is it necessary that the interceptor must travel at higher speed than adversary ICBM because you'll be launching your interceptor seconds later after tracking the launch in order to coverup the speed(time elapsed) ?

    Ummm... Garry didn't say the total interception speed is 10km/s...

    "Expert Council member board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation, the chief editor of "Arsenal Fatherland" Viktor Murakhovski: Given that the mutual speed of interception will be, probably, more than 10 kilometers per second (or close to this figure), here to destroy even the explosive is required."

    This guy says interception speed will be MORE than 10km/s... so it might be 15km/s for all we know... he doesn't work for the company that makes the missile... he is a magazine editor... but lets just run around shouting that the sky is falling because he does not say S-500 flys at mach 50. Smile



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Sat Jun 04, 2016 2:33 pm

    Yup thats what I said you mentioned 10km/s is the total speed of adversary icbm+ interceptor missile and 600km target altitude is not for ICBM ( 200 km is. )

    Interceptor speed was my doubt from start that's why I asked is it necessary that the interceptor must travel at higher speed than adversary ICBM because you'll be launching your interceptor seconds later after tracking the launch in order to coverup the speed(time elapsed) ?


    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2538
    Points : 2671
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Well SM-3 Block I-A/B missiles fly at 3 km/s ( Mch 10.2)  and now Block II-A will fly at 4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25). So S-500 travelling only at Mach 10 ? Doesn't sound much interesting and it will target within 200 km altitude which is endo-atmospheric .

    Can I ask you why you think speed is so critical?
    Speed is of course very useful for any interceptor, but its engagement parameters are vastly more important than its top speed.

    Also do you actually understand how rockets work?

    ABM systems are special because they have very tight interception windows. The faster your anti-ICBM missile the more room you have
    for interception and the more chance you have of hitting.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK6W0OATveQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EH3i1itAps

    There clearly is a need for speed. The A-135 can achieve 3 km/s warhead speed. Improving this metric is a vital goal.

    BTW, max steel keeps on claiming that the interception by Russian systems in endo-atmospheric. People should be lecturing him for
    having no clue about why exo-atmospheric interception is better. The main one is the lack of air turbulence and friction effects. Although
    the ionosphere density at 200 km is already very low, the very large interceptor speed makes any air drag a problem and a big one at lower
    altitudes. Being able to hit a MARV at 500 km is where the logical ABM evolution would be aimed.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:14 pm

    Yup thats what I said you mentioned 10km/s is the total speed of adversary icbm+ interceptor missile and 600km target altitude is not for ICBM ( 200 km is. )

    Don't you get it...

    The guy who provided the numbers doesn't know how fast the S-500 is. He knows it can intercept 7km/s targets so he is assuming the likely speed of the S-500 is 3km/s or more so his estimate of the likely interception speed is More Than... 10km/s.

    600km is the horizontal range of the system presumably against air breathing targets.

    Nudol on the other hand will likely be able to intercept some types of satellite as well as ICBM targets.

    Interceptor speed was my doubt from start that's why I asked is it necessary that the interceptor must travel at higher speed than adversary ICBM because you'll be launching your interceptor seconds later after tracking the launch in order to coverup the speed(time elapsed) ?

    S-500 is not a mid course interceptor... it will be located near the target it is defending so the ICBM will be coming towards it. The incoming target will be tracked from thousands of kms away by OTH radar in the national grid so there will be plenty of time to plot its course and ready interceptors...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:28 pm

    So will the Lider class destroyer having naval S-500 will have same specs as S-500 land version because if your destroyers are somewhere near north ( above russi) they can target SLBMs much before ?

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1302
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  KiloGolf on Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:45 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Can I ask you why you think speed is so critical?
    Speed is of course very useful for any interceptor, but its engagement parameters are vastly more important than its top speed.

    Sure, but in both respects both Block I and Block II SM-3 is the most capable system, compared to what is fielded by Russia currently (be it on land or sea).

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:58 pm

    Kilo go to sam thread and kindly read my mentioned links on SM-3. It might change your opinion. Wink

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1302
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:12 am

    max steel wrote:Kilo go to sam thread and kindly read my mentioned links on SM-3. It might change your opinion. Wink

    I read it all.

    But I am not convinced A-235 is fully operational, in the same sense as the SM-3 is for USA/NATO. I haven't seen a comprehensive record of it tests either, maybe because I don't speak Russian. Furthermore Russia lacks naval version or any forward-deployed positions of any ABM system whatsoever. So a prototype or two being tested these days, somewhere around Moscow is far from what the SM-3 Block Ib or soon IIa is, in Romania, right now.

    PS. I also noticed a guy here complaining about Russians not doing their lawn lol1

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:21 am

    A-235 is not even ready and SM-3 is for SRBM and MRBMs , II-A will be for IRBMs. Romania has I-b and Poland will have II-a in 2k18. And you can't reload those cells/launchers in sea. You clearly haven't read my mentioned links No

    http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/NAS_Slides__May18,2010_2x1.pdf. read this.

    I guess there are naval version of S-300 .  Lider will deploy naval S-500.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:33 am

    Good post Max but your link doesn't work.

    Essentially, SM-3 is an overblown piece of hardware.  It isn't BAD but its whole performance mentioned is overblown.  Technically, S-300V and S-400 is capable against MRBM's as it falls under its envelope.

    Performance wise, it is so so from what is determined.  And the other blocks are not even ready yet or been tested as far as I am aware, meaning that Nudol is closer.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1302
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Jun 11, 2016 3:55 am

    max steel wrote:A-235 is not even ready and SM-3 is for SRBM and MRBMs , II-A will be for IRBMs. Romania has I-b and Poland will have II-a in 2k18. And you can't reload those cells/launchers in sea. You clearly haven't read my mentioned links No

    http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/NAS_Slides__May18,2010_2x1.pdf. read this.

    I guess there are naval version of S-300 .  Lider will deploy naval S-500.

    I clicked but they are down?! dunno
    Concerning II-a they did release a statement that Poland is a better spot "for the Iranian threat" and that Romania will get I-a only. But who buys that.
    Reloading at sea is less of an issue when USN/JMSDF have/will get dozens of vessels to convert and rotate all over the world.

    Currently USN plans for 4 BMD destroyers in Spain some 7 in the Pacific and with Japan planning for another 8 of their own.

    Overall USN plan until the next decade is for up to 40 BMD capable ships.

    That's a hell of firepower right there.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:10 am

    KiloGolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:

    Can I ask you why you think speed is so critical?
    Speed is of course very useful for any interceptor, but its engagement parameters are vastly more important than its top speed.

    Sure, but in both respects both Block I and Block II SM-3 is the most capable system, compared to what is fielded by Russia currently (be it on land or sea).

    I don't have the time, but I really hope someone takes you to task on this laughably unsubstantiated comment, but here take a look at distinguished MIT Professor of Science, Technology and International Security,  Theodore Postol and his studies on SM-3 and US ABM in general:

    http://web.mit.edu/sts/people/postol.html

    A Technically Detailed Description of Flaws in the SM-3 and GMD Missile Defense Systems Revealed by the Defense Department’s Ballistic Missile Test Data

    Summary of the issues Discussed in this White Paper

    Both the GMD and SM-3 systems are highly susceptible to massive confusion that leads to
    complete performance breakdowns when they encounter objects that have characteristics that are
    unexpected. These unexpected characteristics could include warheads that look different from
    what is expected, and/or objects that look somewhat like warheads. Even when it was known
    that false signals could be created by fragments from a chuffing rocket motor, the failure to
    prepare for it led to the catastrophic failure of the FTG-06 scene recognition program.
    This
    unintentional countermeasure that caused the failure of the FTG-06 can be easily replicated in
    combat by intelligent and resourceful adversaries
    , and requires technology that is far less
    complex than the technology needed to build and operate ballistic missiles.



    http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/White_Paper_Associated_With_May_2010_Arms_Control_Today_Article.pdf

    Make sure to read that white paper in length, and here's some other sources...have fun.

    http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_05/Lewis-Postol

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/world/18missile.html?_r=0

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Mon Jun 13, 2016 11:53 pm

    Thanx for the appreciation I've wasted many hours on studying various Missile Defence systems. I've the pdf with me if you want I will it mail to you. As Mag posted after MIT study published MDA didn't sit quiet and they came up with their answers too.

    Few pages from pdf's :-









    Btw in MDA's press release they mentioned all SM-3 is carried out on Scud like Ballistic Missile where Pistol argued that the SM-3 missile was unable to hit the warhead of the Scud BM 8/9 out of 10 times but MDA in defense mentioned that SM-3 kill vehicles hit “within inches of the expected impact point.” But it offered little discussion of whether striking the rocket body in flight tests was sufficient grounds to claim overall success — a seemingly important point given that much of the agency’s public testimony centers on the necessity of hitting warheads to ensure their destruction. http://web.mit.edu/fnl/vol/175/rab.htm

    So, SM-3 which is marked as a capable system because they were trialled and tested against Scud like BM's is really not a good sign if you'e planning to fight Russians

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1302
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:30 am

    Thanks, I read them sources. Critiques like that were/are welcomed by the Pentagon when seeking funding.

    SM-3 was basically troubled and didn't work as promised back then. OK. Arrow

    I would imagine things have changed since 2005 and 2010. Some 5 or 10 years is not unreasonable time frame to sort out glitches. Russia is nowhere near that stage right now, as the US evolved and fielded the system this year.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Jun 14, 2016 2:16 am

    KiloGolf wrote:Thanks, I read them sources. Critiques like that were/are welcomed by the Pentagon when seeking funding.

    SM-3 was basically troubled and didn't work as promised back then. OK. Arrow

    I would imagine things have changed since 2005 and 2010. Some 5 or 10 years is not unreasonable time frame to sort out glitches. Russia is nowhere near that stage right now, as the US evolved and fielded the system this year.

    Stop clutching straws, Russia carried out a successful test with the S-500 system in the summer of 2014, and is set to get deliveries in 2017:

    Source: Russia has successfully tested missiles to intercept long-range S-500

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1302
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Jun 14, 2016 4:23 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:Stop clutching straws, Russia carried out a successful test with the S-500 system in the summer of 2014, and is set to get deliveries in 2017:

    Source: Russia has successfully tested missiles to intercept long-range S-500

    So you're saying S-500 is where SM-3 was back in 2005 or 2010.
    When it's operational on land and sea we can talk about it.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2538
    Points : 2671
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:22 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:Stop clutching straws, Russia carried out a successful test with the S-500 system in the summer of 2014, and is set to get deliveries in 2017:

    Source: Russia has successfully tested missiles to intercept long-range S-500

    So you're saying S-500 is where SM-3 was back in 2005 or 2010.
    When it's operational on land and sea we can talk about it.

    You have a special insider friend in the USA that is giving you top secret information?

    Nothing in the public information space, full of speculation noise, allows any sane human to compare capabilities of the Russian system to the US one.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:51 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:51 am