Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Share
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:10 pm

    Russian long range ballistic missiles for S-400 Triumph surface-to-air missile systems will go into serial production in the autumn, a leading missile manufacturer said on Friday.
    Earlier media reports said the S-400 missile system was incomplete as long range ballistic missiles, among others, had not been adopted for it.
    "On December 26, 2009 the preliminary tests were finished and the missile was put forward for state tests," Kommersant daily quoted the general director of Almaz-Antei, Igor Ashurbeili, as saying.
    "In the third quarter of 2010 we should finish them, along with combat duty launches, and then put it [the missile] into serial production in the fourth quarter," he added.
    According to Ashurbeili, there were no technical failures or difficulties concerning the long range missile tests.

    RIAN

    Read more at the site.

    S-500 is a separate development, not an upgraded S-400.  The idea of S-500 is having a mobile Anti-Ballistic missile defense system, much like the GBI that the US was developing.  It will be also capable of taking down Satellites.  So more like an Ultra-long range missile will be used for such a system.

    Almaz-Antey is doing very well financially, so funding for R&D shouldn't be even close to a problem.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Viktor on Sat May 01, 2010 12:37 pm

    sepheronx wrote:
    S-500 is a separate development, not an upgraded S-400. The idea of S-500 is having a mobile Anti-Ballistic missile defense system, much like the GBI that the US was developing. It will be also capable of taking down Satellites. So more like an Ultra-long range missile will be used for such a system.

    Its not US GBI equivalent but US THAAD only more powerful.

    Besides what is interested Viytaz SAM being developt for South Korea and with its money will be finished in 2012 and will replace S-300P system in Russia to.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  sepheronx on Sat May 01, 2010 2:36 pm

    Viktor wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:
    S-500 is a separate development, not an upgraded S-400. The idea of S-500 is having a mobile Anti-Ballistic missile defense system, much like the GBI that the US was developing. It will be also capable of taking down Satellites. So more like an Ultra-long range missile will be used for such a system.

    Its not US GBI equivalent but US THAAD only more powerful.

    Besides what is interested Viytaz SAM being developt for South Korea and with its money will be finished in 2012 and will replace S-300P system in Russia to.

    Ranges and tests of both the THAAD and GBI are in question. S-500 has both high altitude and long range, which would be ideal in an anti ballistics action.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Read more at the site.

    Post  Viktor on Sat May 01, 2010 3:53 pm

    Yes but GBI is not mobile. Its basicly ICBM fitted with EKV steared with long range radar. Its attitude and range is mutch higher than THAADs or S-500.

    Arrow

    Posts : 147
    Points : 147
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Arrow on Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:33 pm

    THAAD is comparable to the new 40N6 missile from S-400 series

    I think that THAAD has better parameters than S-400 with 40N6. THAAD can intercept in higher in space and the missile from THAAD is propably faster than 40N6.

    So the USA now has better ATBM system. THAAD and SM-3.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:50 am

    Last time I looked THAAD was designed specifically for SCUD like threats and really couldn't engage targets as fast as S-400.

    It does have a big envelope of engagement, but it is like PAC-3 in that it is designed specifically for one mission... that of dealing with ATBMs. In comparison the S-400 is much more flexible and capable against a broad range of low RCS and small aerodynamic targets like SR-71s and cruise missiles and aircraft like Rafale/Typhoon and F-35/F-22.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3278
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  medo on Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:26 pm

    THAAD have 200 km range and could reach 150 km altitude. As I know it could engage targets with speed 3000 m/s, what could also old S-300V do only in far lower altitude and range. 40N6 missile for S-400 have 400 km range, so there is no reason for missile to reach same altitudes as THAAD, other question is if radar and computer softwares are designed to operate in such altitudes, but having ABM capabilities in mind for S-400,I don't see reasons to not operate that high.

    Here is also S-300V4, which could be very easily in the same class as THAAD, although S-400 and S-300V4 have warheads and not hit to kill modules.

    Arrow

    Posts : 147
    Points : 147
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Arrow on Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:10 pm

    s I know it could engage targets with speed 3000 m/s, what could also old S-300V do only in far lower altitude and range.

    No THAAD can engage targets with speed about 5000m/s.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:14 am

    Then it violated the ABM treaty...

    Very simply the limits in terms of intercepting target speed for the Russian SAMs was dictated by the the limits of the ABM treaty that was in force when they were designed/developed.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 583
    Points : 632
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  SOC on Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:19 am

    GarryB wrote:Then it violated the ABM treaty...

    No it didn't. The USA and Russia agreed in 1995 to classify TMD systems, allowed under the treaty, as those capable of engaging targets up to 5,000 m/sec.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:12 am

    Design work for THAAD started in 1987...


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:05 am

    I looked up the FAS website and it said this:

    The Theater High-Altitude Area Defense [THAAD] system would provide extended coverage for a greater diversity and dispersion of forces and the capability to protect population centers. However, the principal additional capability provided by this system is its ability to deal with longer-range theater missile threats as they begin to emerge. THAAD also reduces the number of missiles that the lower-tier systems must engage and provides a shoot-look-shoot capability--the ability to engage incoming missiles more efficiently.

    THAAD is the most mature upper-tier system. The President�s Budget 1997 schedule for this program had LRIP beginning in fiscal year 2003, with a FUE in fiscal year 2006. However, DOD subsequently added $690 million to this program over the FY 1998 FYDP, which moves the FUE to late fiscal year 2004. This additional funding also: (1) completes the funding for the second Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) radar, (2) decreases schedule and technical risks during EMD, and (3) decreases the total acquisition cost by $457 million.

    The THAAD Program was restructured in 1996, although there was a decision to keep the UOES portion of the program on track. DOD planned to be able to deploy an initial limited THAAD UOES capability in the second quarter of FY 1999 should a contingency arise. The final UOES capability would include about 40 missiles and two radars, which will be used for user testing, but which could be maintained in theater if needed.

    Recent testing difficulties have led to the slip of this capability from the fourth quarter of FY 1998 to the second quarter of FY 1999. THAAD faces significant system engineering challenge. The fact that recent THAAD flights have not met all their objectives, stretching out testing and delaying the start of EMD by over fifteen months, illustrates the difficulty of this task. Since the seventh THAAD test was not successful, it was necessary to reevaluate the program�s schedule and content.

    Studies done by the military and independent sources cited the following problems in the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Program: First, the program's compressed flight-test schedule did not allow for adequate ground testing, and officials could not spot problems before flight tests. The schedule also left too little time for preflight testing, postflight analysis, and corrective measures. Second, the requirement that an early prototype system be deployed quickly has diverted attention from the normal interceptor development process and resulted in interceptors that were not equipped with sufficient instruments to provide optimum test data. Third, quality assurance received too little emphasis and resources during component production, resulting in unreliable components. Fourth, the contract to develop the interceptor was a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, which placed all of the financial risk on the government and did not hold the contractor accountable for less than optimum performance.

    The restructuring addressed each of these four underlying problems. However, the reliability of current flight-test interceptors remains a concern because most components were produced when the contractor's quality assurance system was inadequate. Test failures caused primarily by manufacturing defects rather than advanced technology problems have prevented the Army from demonstrating that THAAD can reliably intercept targets in all required regions.

    The restructuring of the THAAD program raised the issue of what the purpose of the User Operational Evaluation System battalion at Fort Bliss should now be. Whether all or only part of the battalion would warrant deployment for contingency operations would depend on the capabilities it could provide to warfighters and the priority of the need for one or more of those capabilities. However, there would be little basis for making a deployment determination because the Defense Department does not plan to conduct an operational assessment of the User Operational Evaluation System.

    Sounds to me like THAAD would make a good counter example to anyone wanting to criticise Bulava... it seems that the in service THAAD missiles were made before production fixes were made to make it reliable... does not sound good...

    Unlike S-400 I rather doubt this system is going into mass production and wide scale deployment...


    _________________
    “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

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:09 pm


    I think that THAAD has better parameters than S-400 with 40N6. THAAD can intercept in higher in space and the missile from THAAD is propably faster than 40N6.

    So the USA now has better ATBM system. THAAD and SM-3.


    Razz Razz

    After a stressing day at work a similar statement is a true panacea for retrieve good humour. Very Happy


    THAAD is a truly cursed design founded around a widely surpassed concepts for theatre missile defense charactarized by :

    Total absence of heterogenous kind of offensive elements's suppression capabilities.
    Very scarce tactical mobility.
    Enormous times for establish local readiness.
    Very low interceptor's speed .
    Lack of any capability to intercept theatre/intermediate BM with depressed or quasi-ballistic trajectories.
    Big target range limits even for the type of target engageable (3000 km class).

    Even the latest export version of S-300V family (Antey-2500 inproved version now in offer to close allies) surpass it in almost any cardinal parameter.

    S-400 ? 40N6 ? Laughing Laughing Good joke.

    An advanced enemy would have only the embarassement of the choice on what type of offensive mean use to obliterate a THAAD installation ,but of course that don't worry absolutely US planners; in theirs "optic" the enormous problems that could arise against a very advanced enemy equiped with offensive systems of a very high level of sophistication and in certain numbers are almost irrelevant , because a war against them is stimed almost impossible for the MAD element.

    On the other hand, THAAD represent very well a system very efficient for the typical local conflicts against insulated and immensely inferior regional enemies (the typical one belonging to an aggressive philosophy of military/political influence's projection around the world) that could at maximum retaliate against a long and attentively planned NATO offensive with very limited strike of outdated theatre or intermediate ballistic missiles.

    Nothing less ,nothing more.


    Arrow

    Posts : 147
    Points : 147
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Arrow on Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:57 pm

    Very low interceptor's speed

    THAAD interceptor top speed is 2,8 km/s. 9M82M from Antey 2500 top speed is 2,6 km/s, 48N6DM from S-400 top speed 2.1 km/s. We don't know what is top speed 40N6 Neutral
    avatar
    GJ Flanker

    Posts : 39
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2012-07-28

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GJ Flanker on Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:13 pm

    For 40N6 it should be somewhere near 4 km/s. It can intercept targets with speeds up to 4,8 km/s.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:57 pm

    Very low interceptor's speed


    THAAD interceptor top speed is 2,8 km/s. 9M82M from Antey 2500 top speed is 2,6 km/s, 48N6DM from S-400 top speed 2.1 km/s. We don't know what is top speed 40N6


    Maybe i must be even more clear : when i have said that THAADs' interceptor speed was very slow i was employing obviously an euphemism in the attempt to don't be appear too "hard" with it , a more correct statement should be that it is ridiculously slow for a system in its class and operational niche.



    THAAD's design, CONPOPS and optimization are, in facts ,conceived for strato/exo atmospheric interception' windows ; its chance of successfull neutralization of the incoming missile/RV decrease very,very sharply at the decrease of the offensive element's altitude.


    Obviously interceptors in this class (100+ km of altitude) should need ....and can reach in the highly rarefied upper layers of atmosphere... FAR FAR greater maximum speed than High-G missiles capable of interceptions in denser atmospheric layers ; this very high speed in fact don't only allow to multiply of several times the probability of successfull neutralization of the incoming missiles/RVs (hopefully even before theirs in-space realignment toward intended targets and/or deployment of decoys and countermeasures ) ,but leave open also the chance for the re-engagement of eventual missiles/RV surviving the first interception's attempt.


    Attempt to even only put in the same statement 40N6 and THAAD appear as a sort of joke.



    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Austin on Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:09 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:

    Total absence of heterogenous kind of offensive elements's suppression capabilities.
    Very scarce tactical mobility.
    Enormous times for establish local readiness.
    Very low interceptor's speed .
    Lack of any capability to intercept theatre/intermediate BM with depressed or quasi-ballistic trajectories.
    Big target range limits even for the type of target engageable (3000 km class).

    Mindstorm thats not all factual

    THAAD can intercept BM/TBM from 40 km altitude to 150 km altitude which takes care of missiles like Iskander-M with a range of 450 Km out to range of IRBM class targets which is 3,500 km class missile.

    Ofcourse the lower intercept altitude will be less efficient compared to high altitude but THAAD has been tested for both lowest minimum altitude to highest it may encounter within its design parameters.

    One disadvantage it has over 40N6 is that it cant intercept cruise missile or aircraft at low altitude but THAAD is optimised Ballistic Missile Interceptor while 40N6 is jack of all trades type.

    Infact we really do now know about the capabilities of 40N6 till date as nothing has been officially disclosed about this new missile.

    THAAD burn out speed is 2.7 - 2.8 km/sec ( Mach 8-9) which is good enough to deal with its type of target.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:08 pm

    Mindstorm thats not all factual

    THAAD can intercept BM/TBM from 40 km altitude to 150 km altitude which takes care of missiles like Iskander-M with a range of 450 Km .


    Austin range of missiles being within the "virtual" lower altitude and target range limits of THAAD have no relation at all with its real possibility to engage up-to-date target of those type.

    That is a very well know fact within NATO itself that ,from a side, has opened the road for European ABM projects aimed at cover this dangerous gap and, from the other, allow Russian diplomacy to play the card of Iskander-M deployment in the Kalingrad enclave as a very hard menace and exchange point in the querelle on the NATO ABM instsallation in East Europe.

    In the Iskander theread i have posted an extract from a France Senate interrogation on Ballistic Missile Defense and a relation of MBDA, SAFRAN et THALES representatives on the status of European Security in this field and theirs joint project to realize in future a ABM capable to cover the shorcomings of American systems now deployable for the task.
    I report down here some parts:

    " M. Antoine Bouvier ,MBDA President : En outre, l'exoatmosphérique ne traite pas l'intégralité de la menace, loin s'en faut. La faisabilité technique des systèmes d'interception à altitude moyenne/haut endoatmosphérique n'est plus remise en cause. Ces systèmes permettent de couvrir la gamme de menaces balistiques de nouvelle génération, non interceptables par les systèmes exoatmosphériques. Il s'agit par exemple des missiles russes de type SS 26 Iskander ou chinois M9. Cette menace n'est couverte ni par la nouvelle génération de missiles Patriot, ni par le missile SM-3, ni même par les systèmes THAAD (Theater High Altitude Area Defense).
    Il existe donc dans les systèmes américains ce qu'on pourrait appeler des « trous dans la raquette » qui sont autant d'opportunités pour l'Europe de contribuer en nature ses propres systèmes.......

    Ces missiles présentent une particularité. Ils volent dans l'atmosphère, en dessous de 60 à 70 kilomètres, et lorsqu'ils rentrent dans les couches denses de l'atmosphère, à 25 ou 30 kilomètres, ils acquièrent une capacité manoeuvrante qui les rend quasiment impossibles à intercepter.
    L'interception de ces missiles doit donc se faire entre 25/30 et 60/70 kilomètres. Comme je l'indiquais, aucun des programmes américains ne répond à cette exigence. D'après nos analyses, le THAAD ne descend pas en dessous de 50 kilomètres. Le Patriot ne monte pas au dessus de 20 à 25 kilomètres. Quant au SM-3, il évolue dans l'espace exoatmosphérique."

    I have also other hard sources all adamantine on this same identical line and on the chances by part of any ABM system operative today in West to having any chance to really intercept an Iskander-M missiles...and obviously and above anything else, also Russia is perfectly aware of that Cool .

    out to range of IRBM class targets which is 3,500 km class missile

    Strange....What is your source for that ?

    In this document of US Missile Defense Agency of end of 2002 (and in any other source of the same "weight" for that matter) is clearly specified that THAAD has been designed for intercept missiles up to 3000 km of range, to the point that the main aim was to find an area of 3000 km to put at test THAAD up to its intended limits, not one time 3500 km is cited in any serious source i have read ; moreover its specific impulse, launch mass, top speed ,and aerodynamic layout all collimate perfectly with similar limits.


    [url=http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/env_thaad_ea.pdf]http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/env_thaad_ea.pdf[quote]
    "The THAAD missile is intended to intercept and destroy incoming ballistic missiles with ranges of 50 to 3,000 kilometers (31 to 1,860 miles), which are currently fielded throughout the world by a large number of nations. THAAD flight tests and intercepts of target missile launches over these ranges are required to validate the performance capability and overall effectiveness of the THAAD weapon system (i.e., interceptor missiles, radar, and support components) against representative threat ballistic missiles.
    Because THAAD missile tests using realistic distances cannot be conducted at White Sands Missile Range, the Missile Defense Agency needs to conduct tests at a range that allows those distances in order to confirm the effectiveness of the THAAD weapon system prior to its procurement and deployment."

    If you have any equally reliable source saying otherwise i would be very intersted in reading it, thanks.


    P.S.: I take advantage of the instance to say thanks to you for the western magazine's articles on PAKFA and KA-52 you have posted. Always precious Wink.




    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Austin on Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:14 am

    Mindstorm wrote:Austin range of missiles being within the "virtual" lower altitude and target range limits of THAAD have no relation at all with its real possibility to engage up-to-date target of those type.

    You still havent given any good reason why they cant intercept targets at it lower design limit of 40 Km sure it will be challenging but it can be done. Any thing below that it would be PAC-3 task or the advance variant PAC-3 MSE that doubles PAC-3 performance.

    Is there any documented analysis done that you can show which proves THAAD only works at higher and not lower altitude ?

    " M. Antoine Bouvier ,MBDA President : En outre, l'exoatmosphérique ne traite pas l'intégralité de la menace, loin s'en faut. La faisabilité technique des systèmes d'interception à altitude moyenne/haut endoatmosphérique n'est plus remise en cause. Ces systèmes permettent de couvrir la gamme de menaces balistiques de nouvelle génération, non interceptables par les systèmes exoatmosphériques. Il s'agit par exemple des missiles russes de type SS 26 Iskander ou chinois M9. Cette menace n'est couverte ni par la nouvelle génération de missiles Patriot, ni par le missile SM-3, ni même par les systèmes THAAD (Theater High Altitude Area Defense).
    Il existe donc dans les systèmes américains ce qu'on pourrait appeler des « trous dans la raquette » qui sont autant d'opportunités pour l'Europe de contribuer en nature ses propres systèmes.......

    Ces missiles présentent une particularité. Ils volent dans l'atmosphère, en dessous de 60 à 70 kilomètres, et lorsqu'ils rentrent dans les couches denses de l'atmosphère, à 25 ou 30 kilomètres, ils acquièrent une capacité manoeuvrante qui les rend quasiment impossibles à intercepter.
    L'interception de ces missiles doit donc se faire entre 25/30 et 60/70 kilomètres. Comme je l'indiquais, aucun des programmes américains ne répond à cette exigence. D'après nos analyses, le THAAD ne descend pas en dessous de 50 kilomètres. Le Patriot ne monte pas au dessus de 20 à 25 kilomètres. Quant au SM-3, il évolue dans l'espace exoatmosphérique."

    Hahahah Sounds like MBDA Sales Pitch for buy Aster and not THAAD for European Missile Defence


    Strange....What is your source for that ?

    AW&ST one of the issue mentioned it that it was 3,500 km.


    P.S.: I take advantage of the instance to say thanks to you for the western magazine's articles on PAKFA and KA-52 you have posted. Always precious Wink.

    Any time.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:42 am



    Hahahah Sounds like MBDA Sales Pitch for buy Aster and not THAAD for European Missile Defence


    Austin this extract is from a France Senate's Offical "Rapport D'Information" on NATO and France ballistic missile security ,clear ?

    Even more ,over the strict security and institutional shape of this document (both for the national and overnational related involvements) , for the subject in question no existing system and ,even less, any one offered on the market in competition with any of the US defense systems named, was object of this Senate interrogation and National security analysis.

    The extract reported in facts relate to an hypothetical future (2021-2022 !!!!) joint European project that would have any sense and space in the European ABM structure only if offering a chance to intercept targets outside the effective capabilities of US systems operative today or in the designing phase for the near future, it is in no way different than European parlamentary auditions ,in France, Italy, Germany etc.., several years before the beginning of Meteor AAM project : also then the goal was obviously to start a joint project (employing moreover plentiful scientific data coming from Russian Institutes of the field) aimed at develop a system with uniques capabilities not in offer with any other western air to air missile

    From all what said anyone can easily realize that would be possible to compare this Parlamentary Document ,and even more the highlighted part, with literally anything EXCEPT a Marketing Sales Pitch.

    Russian strategists, in this optic, would be very very very happy if NATO would dismiss Russian menace to deploy Iskander-M in Kalingrad even inviting Russian Federation to place without any problem and ,without any political or military backlash, its Iskander-M battallions in Kalingrad deploying in response .....the powerful THAAD at defence of European ABM installations Laughing Laughing ; that would mean for Russian Federation ,from a side, obtain the certainty that no arm race or economic skirmish would be initiated with NATO nations in response to Iskander-M deployment and ,on the other side, that the entire multi-billions ABM program in Europe was ,under a strict military point of view, virtually nothing more than a big amount of .....momentarily assembled.....mass of concrete rubbles and scrap metal.

    Unfortunately, up to this moment NATO still hasn't embraced this......very bright idea..... Sad Sad so strange.



    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Austin on Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:27 pm

    Well if French Parliament report speaks Gospel Truth and it seems the Aster SAM is an effective counter against Iskander-M that Russians are deploying , Since Iskander flies in atmosphere it can be intercepted by French Aster System.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3278
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  medo on Thu Aug 02, 2012 1:18 pm

    Aster SAMP/T is very capable system, but Aster-15/30 are in class of 9M96 missiles and in the class of Russian Vityaz SAM complex meant to replace older S-300. As I know, block 2 Aster-30 will have ABM capabilities, but not sure if it will be hit to kill type or with classical warhead, but I doubt it will have same ABM capabilities as THAAD or S-300V4 and S-400.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    THAAD has better parameters

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Aug 02, 2012 1:43 pm


    Well if French Parliament report speaks Gospel Truth and it seems the Aster SAM is an effective counter against Iskander-M that Russians are deploying , Since Iskander flies in atmosphere it can be intercepted by French Aster System.


    None will ever utter Godspell Truth for no other reason that both terms are refered to completely fallacious and irrational concepts Very Happy

    About the points raised in that document, is sufficent to say that the proposed ABM system in question, to be developed in concert by major European Companies of the sector ,would pertain to a future project which foresee a purposely modified Aster derivative optimized for the task and using a Ground Smarter 1000 radar, all of that with an expected window of operative introduction placed at around half of the next decade.


    And about technical performances of the basis missile selected i think none will ever attempt to question the notion that it represent ,by far, the best Western-made endoatmospheric interceptor and SAM system now available.

    It is not a surprise that ,when Aster-30 managed to intercept for the first time a GQM 163A Coyote supersonic sea-skimming target drone, in all western media (not only European but also American ones) was given to this news a very big echo; even mor strangely taking into account that those same Media have not even only one time used the same PR machine and rooted self-praising tradition to publicize any interception of a similar target drone by part of any other western SAM system....anyone can very easily infer why Wink.





    From latest Milparade

    Military Parade, № 3, 2012, C. 22-23
    Mikhail Suchilin, Mikhail Gorbachev


    Thanks Austin, my vote to you.







    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4495
    Points : 4674
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:25 am

    Quick question: How does S-400/S-500 stack up against the Pentagon's RIM-161 Standard Missile 3, I know the're's versions of Standard Missile that have insane range of 2500 km, however the history of American SAMS in the last 25 years have been problematic (which may also hold true with the latest Standard Missile series), less than stellar, and less of a "hit" and more of "miss" (from the Patriots SAMS' terrible performance in the first Gulf War, to the countless testing failures of the Ground-based Midcourse System aka GMD), also recently the Pentagon admitted the latest variants of the Standard Missile series blueprints, testing data and other vital secrets have been compromised by hackers (most likely from The Peoples Liberation Army of China). the latest Standard Missile variants get their range with a 4 stage missile which would give any missile insane range, let's discuss...

    Vann7

    Posts : 3451
    Points : 3569
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:58 am

    Viktor wrote:

    Nice to know that Belarus and Kazahstan intend to buy S-400 which would make nice addition to their S-300 and all

    I don't think is a good idea Belarus get an S-400.. he seems that will backstab Russia and the second opportunity .  Just look at Ukraine..
    They HAve S-300s and for sure know NATO have to be reverse engineering them.. same with the SATAN missiles.. So if Belarus
    suddenly betray Russia he could use the S-400s and sell them easily to US for enough money to build its own Sochi olympics for free..
    Russia should trust no one.. their Best hardware.. because any coup in that nation will allow US to get access to Russia advanced
    military hardware. They can sell them to CHina after 10 years at least . China problem is they reverse engineer things and later sell it cheaper  to others..


    Quick question: How does S-400/S-500 stack up against the Pentagon's RIM-161 Standard Missile 3

    Not completely sure , but if i read it correctly ,people in discussion have said there is no comparison.  Because the Sm-3 (and this is according to discussion about it)  is NOT a SAM.. (surface Air Missile)  but more like a  SSM  (surface space missile) is only an Mesosphere Midcourse Interceptor. designed only to intercept High Altitude Ballistics ICBMs. And its warhead will not operate until is traveling on space orbit where satellites operate. So it cannot be used against a Combat plane ,drone or even less a cruise missile. Only operate at very high altitudes.. the 2500 range is not a big deal ,when you consider it operate under a near zero gravity space.  Smile  FLight ceiling is said to be 1,500km which is more than enough for any ICBM.  Limitations i have read of the SM-3 is that is only mid-course  ,means can only intercept when the ICBMS are in space zero gravity orbit and not when they are on the First phase or final phase ,also some said it cannot intercept fast mobile space targets and do not fly on a predictable linear path.   All said doesn't look like the SM-3 can intercept the Iskander ballistic  missiles ..
    because they fly not in a linear ballistic trajectory ,do heavy irregular flight path ,can do 90 degrees violent turns , and do not fly on the mesosphere space orbit the SM-3 operate.

    S-400s in the other hand ,have several missiles  3-4, that covers the entire spectrum of possible air to space targets.
    From very low altitude cruise missiles to ICBMs in space ,but without hit to kill ability  ,but using instead proximity fuse explosive.

    S-500s it have been said will be S-400s with hit to kill capabilities and with much enhanced range. .

    S-400s and perhaps S-500 have no analogue in US defense system. Because is a multi purpose all air +space defense.
    in the Case of USA.. they use at least 2 or 3 defense system to do what S-400s can do.. but without the hit to kill ability.



    edit.. This movie clearly the SM-3 how it works.... It needs to detach 2-3 boosters and float in space FIRST for its real warhead to operate.
    SM-3 is very good missile.. but Russia have nothing that im aware that could be compared.. Because SM-3 is mostly like a Mid-Course Space Interceptor. is a space weapon. It can be said the NATO lacks of a good air defense system but have a good space mid course interceptor for Navy.  The advantage of SM-3 is that it can take an ICBM very early on space.. Russia do not have much use for an Sm-3 however because their potential enemies like Poland and baltic states and now ukraine are right next to their borders. So any missile targeting Moscow will be Descending into an heavy air space environment. and SM-3 its warhead only works on zero gravity. it will not be able to aim a target if it cannot float as in the movie.  So its an interesting missile but is limited to high altitude space interception.

    The SM-3 interceptor.. its warhead is hidden inside a 3 stage rocket booster.. and its warhead accelerate from zero speed in space towards its target. So could be said is a reversed missile ,the interception is from top to down.  The S-400 intercept ICBMs.. from down to top ,the warhead aims from the start to the target ,as if they were planes . So 2 different ways to do the same thing. Just that the Sm-3 is limited to space ,it will not work with the regular air space with winds and gravity.. So for example an SM-3 is used against an iskander ballisctic missile  ,it will need to first reach zero gravity space bypassing the trajectory of the iskander and hope to catch it later. which dont think can do it ,because the warhead when start to chase a missile ,it already dropped all its powerful rocket boosters. Means it will have limited flight chase characteristics. Seems more like a Step in the middle bomb ,like a space mine but that can position in the front of an ICBM missile. but is very doubtful the warhead can chase from behind anything flying fast without rocket boosters.

    it will fail if for example is fooled by decoys..So i suspect NATO will need to fire many dozens of SM-3 missiles to try a single fast maneuverable ICBM missile .

    Sponsored content

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:33 pm