The same argument holds true for the S-400 as well. Does it even work ? It has never fired a single missile at an incoming hostile missile or aircraft.
THAAD has seen real time action. Its performance was less than optimum in a few cases but overall it worked else Riyadh, Dubai would have been toast by now.
Its specs are all lower than the S-400, it is not really comparable to the S-400 in the same way a spear is not comparable to a SMG.
The THAAD was a panic knee jerk reaction to SCUDS and the fact that Patriots were useless against them.
THAAD was therefore designed to intercept SCUDS and SCUD like ballistic missiles.
And that is what it does... it is a hit to kill weapon with no warhead and is useless against pretty much most targets except simple short ranged ballistic missiles... and it is enormously expensive.
S-300PMU has better performance against ballistic and other targets.
S-300V4 has better performance again...
S-400 extends that advantage even further to being even better in almost every area.
India could buy THAAD or Patriot if it wanted... it instead chooses to upset the American government and buy S-400... so does Turkey... in fact Turkey was expected to buy Patriot, but after testing they wanted S-400.
You must have dreamt this.
S-400 has a warhead that explodes and sends fragments to destroy large and small targets...
Of course it is. Why else is Almaz working on exo atmospheric intercept missiles for S-400 ? The tests for exo atmospheric missiles so far has failed, that's why they have not been deployed.
Yet countries with a choice of the two are choosing S-400...
The point is that if you want to defend your airspace with Russian missiles S-400 plus a point defence system like TOR or Pantsir will do the job fine... if you want THAAD, then you need THAAD for high performance ballistic targets that don't include anything beyond a SRBM, but you also need something that can shoot down a plane so you need Patriot too... another very expensive system... and what do you use for point defence to stop cruise missiles destroying or using up all your heavy SAMs?
S-400 is not cheap either. Endo atmospheric intercept is dangerous. If you intercept a missile after it has entered your country's airspace all that you can hope for is that it is unable to hit the target. But nonetheless the debris from the missiles will fall in civilian areas causing massive casualties.
Please tell me you are joking... do you think radioactive material can be destroyed by the friction of reentry?
Destroying a nuclear warhead outside the atmosphere doesn't make it safe... it just spreads the radioactive material over a much wider area...
They mounted Kalibr CM on Iskander this summer for this purpose.
How can you tell?
Hang on... Kalibr CM on Iskander are not for anti ship use, they are to attack targets with BM defences in a surprise attack sort of method.
They tested the ballistic Iskander against ships... for the same reason they were also testing Kinzhal against ships from a MiG-31 launch platform... a test of the ships and the missiles no doubt.
What I am saying is that Iskander (BM) from a ground launcher or BM from an aircraft for use against ships wont bother using a nuclear warhead... Kinzhal is supposed to move at mach 10 so a nuke warhead is largely unnecessary anyway.
Iskander on the ground is an Army weapon... I doubt they would even care about enemy ships...
No. In the US nuclear submarine history, 2 submarines have been lost. Both due to diving too deep.
They lost plenty during WWII to faulty torpedoes... it would be no surprise if the Thresher and the Scorpion had the same fate... ie "due to circular torpedo run"...
During WWII their torpedoes were rubbish.
For all I know, you're right, but...this topic is probably more classified than GUGI submarines or see floor installations in the Arctic. If you meant Kanopus satellite program, its functions are still just speculations.
Oh don't get all honest on me now... Russians are idiots and once they have closed a programme they never even consider a replacement... after all back then they had long range anti ship missiles on board subs and surface ships that would have benefitted from space targeting information, but today... they will have long range anti ship and land attack missile potential on every ship from corvette to cruiser as well as carrier and sub... why would they upgrade their systems...
Nahhh... you just pretend they will be using Tu-142s...
To go that far, they'll need tankers. This air activity will be detected & alert the USN, NORAD & STRATCOM that something bad is going to happen. Besides, a sub which must be in frequent communication for a timely strike is easier to detect when its antenna is exposed. Bad idea!
MiG-31s and Tu-22M3s carrying Kinzhals are defensive systems intended to destroy large ships attacking Russia... they wont be roaming the North Atlantic... and Su-35s have plenty of range to fly 1,500km out covering the launch aircraft and back to base...
I thought THAAD couldn't hit aircraft at all? I thought it was Anti-Ballistic only.
Yup. Back in its development stage it was supposed to be something like the S-300. In theory it could be used against large planes like aerial tankers or so.
When it was designed they already had Patriot, so what they wanted was a defence that actually worked against Scud like targets and that is all it is.
Even Japan is rejecting the THAAD for the AEGIS Ashore system...