Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Share
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:34 am

    @verkhoturye51 && @Tsavo

    True, technically you're right you can use ICBMs with some adaptations. But why to use ICBM to kill CSG? In Putin's march presentation thsi was one of basic Poseidon tasks.

    It travels 100knts , 1000m deep and can carry thermonuclear warhead. And there is no effective defense against it yet. No, Poseidon doesnt have to run through all ocean. There is a limited number of locations to strike against Russian where CSGs can "park" . It can wait a thousand kilometers from CSG either on sea bottom or being carried in sub. Waiting for a call.

    If you're lucky 1 Poseidon 1 CSG. Excellent exchange ratio.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1376
    Points : 1376
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:30 am

    Right! FYI, the Pac. Fleet will get 6 Project 636.3s:
    https://ria.ru/arms/20170811/1500178526.html https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5321379
    Even if it doesn't get any Project 636.3s, the N. Fleet has other means to deal with CSGs. With tanker support, the Med. Sea could be used by CVNs to atack Russia, so the BSF SSKs don't need to go beyond it.
    How are radio signals suppose to expose the location of transmitter? Can your radio tell the location of radio antenna? And you can't jam it if you don't know even the location of the receiver - submarine.
    Mine can't, but the military has radio direction finders, etc. to triangulate it. Why do u think TACAMO exists?  
    As it is a dedicated communications post, it features the ability to communicate on virtually every radio frequency band from very low frequency (VLF) up through super high frequency (SHF) using a variety of modulations, encryptions and networks, minimizing the likelihood an emergency message will be jammed by the enemy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACAMO
    They'll have to send the  Tu-142MR/M radio relay planes near SSBNs, & they could easily be intercepted, jammed & shot down.
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 225
    Points : 223
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:38 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:But why to use ICBM to kill  CSG? In Putin's march presentation thsi was one of basic Poseidon tasks.

    Until Poseidon is ready in the mid 2020s, ICBMs can do the job.

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Tu-142MR/M radio relay planes[/b][/url] near SSBNs, & they could easily be intercepted, jammed & shot down.

    Planes like this should get fighter company, so the question is more like F-18 vs. Su-30.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:26 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:But why to use ICBM to kill  CSG? In Putin's march presentation thsi was one of basic Poseidon tasks.

    Until Poseidon is ready in the mid 2020s, ICBMs can do the job.

    ICBMs are not enough to do their primary job to unlikely they will be adapted to anti-ship function. This any way would take couple of years.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:15 pm


    For GBI he can also ofc intercept BMs before they launch warheads or decoys but BTW such weapons as GBi are more humans than a Soviet Gazelle u imagine nuclear explosion around Moscow … ! also more

    Keep drinking the cool aide... forward deployed GBI would need to be in northern Russia to be effective at intercepting warheads and decoys before they are released from their warhead buses, and Soviet missiles around Moscow were intended to delay the destruction of Moscow to allow the commands for a full scale retaliation missile launch to be ordered... the nuclear explosions dozens or hundreds of kms away from moscow would be vastly preferable to airbursts that would have occurred without the defensive missiles...

    politically correct not offensive only defensive but very expensive so it is in fact much more interesting and vs all weapons BMs with conventionnals warheads, LACM etc... more simple and efficient to destroy in first the launcher no doubt about it.

    GBI systems deployed in Europe and South Korea and Japan are offensive systems intended to cover a first strike... the hope is that if the first strike is swift enough they might get a large proportion of the warheads leaving only a few threats for the various GBI systems located around the place to deal with so a nuclear war could be won.

    The only obvious problem was that it was bollocks.

    Why ??? THAAD has exo atmospheric intercept missiles. S 400's exo atmospheric missiles are still not ready.

    Does it even work reliably?

    Might come as a shock but S-400 is able to destroy a much wider range of targets and threats than THAAD... the fact that the THAAD does it outside the atmosphere is not really that significant... though it certainly made it more expensive...

    but very expensive so it is in fact much more interesting and vs all weapons BMs with conventionnals warheads, LACM etc... more simple and efficient to destroy in first the launcher no doubt about it.

    But that is the problem... if Russia detects 200 Tomahawk missiles penetrating their airspace they might just assume this is a first strike of WWIII and that they need to launch all their nuclear missiles before they are destroyed in their silos... will it matter if those tomahawks are aimed at something else?

    The 1st 3 may be upgraded to A later.

    I would say leave them as they are and make an extra 3 Borei class subs as SSBNs and when they are ready revert these three to other duties like arsenal ships or undersea research like they did with Delta III and IV subs.

    Best way is to use a mix of weapons and launch methods.

    Best way is always mix it up... the new Kinzhals, and of course Kh-32s would also be useful too.

    If 50kt Iskander or Kinzhal SRBMs can be used tactically,

    AFAIK the Kinzhal would not be nuclear armed.

    Neither would any land based Iskanders fired at naval vessels.

    Then Google scholar (with no academic background) became the easiest way to access scientific data in the world.

    The bias inherent in the system skews information found in a way to make it less than useless most of the time.

    You can treat no Russian submarine seriously because one exploded in 2000?

    Several American subs have probably sunk themselves with faulty torpedos... it is actually much more common than you might think.

    Or Tu-22s with Ks-15 in suicidal mission dunno dunno dunno Ks-15 had 300km range. But Kh-32 has 1000km. Every Tu carry up to 3. 12 means 36 for one CSG. Soon They will have 6x GZUR each. With range 1500km ehat suicidal mission he was talking about?

    Tu-22M3Ms with state of the art electronic self defence suites and four Kinzhal missiles each would be quite impressive... and a MiG-31 deploying Kinzhals at near mach 3 at over 10km altitude for a mach ten flight 2,000km to the target... which US carrier aircraft would be a threat to a mach 2+ flying target 2,000km from the carrier?

    Exactly!
    Can an SSBN detect a moving CVN by itself from 100s or 1,000s miles away for its BMs to hit it? Given their usual patrol area, will they be in a position to use their BMs w/o triggering a nuclear retaliation? As soon as/if they go outside of those bastions, the USN & RN MPA & SSNs will shadow them. It's position will be revealed, esp. after BM launch, & nuclear tipped BMs can be used to blow it out of the water. It's not worth the trouble risking a single strategic sub for a tactical CSG!

    The Russians are restocking their satellite naval radar and navigation system... so an SSBN could be given coordinates for carrier groups rather easily and quickly...

    If you're lucky 1 Poseidon 1 CSG. Excellent exchange ratio.

    Probably even better than that... most nuclear depth charges are 2Kt... nuclear armed torpedoes intended to destroy a port are about 15Kt... Poseidon is supposed to be 2Mt or more so some support vessels are going to destroyed too...


    avatar
    RTN

    Posts : 190
    Points : 167
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  RTN on Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:23 pm


    GarryB wrote:Does it even work reliably?

    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.

    GarryB wrote: Might come as a shock but S-400 is able to destroy a much wider range of targets and threats than THAAD...

    You must have dreamt this.


    GarryB wrote:the fact that the THAAD does it outside the atmosphere is not really that significant... though it certainly made it more expensive...

    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.

    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.

    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2515
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Isos on Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:48 pm

    THAAD has seen real time action.

    Any source ?

    You must have dreamt this.

    Cruise missiled, stealth fighters, planes, ballistic missiles, helicopters, drones ....

    THAAD is only for ballistic missiles. And if they can manoeuvre in space its not even good at it.

    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.

    They keep this role for s-500 which has better radars and processing units.

    Price is also an argument. S-400 has to replace s-300 in big numbers. They cab't make it too much expensive. S-500 will take care of BM with less units deployed but at strategical emplacement. S-400 will follow army moves to protect also them.

    debris from the missiles will fall in civilian areas causing massive casualties.

    Not really.
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 225
    Points : 223
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:44 pm

    GarryB wrote:Neither would any land based Iskanders fired at naval vessels.

    They mounted Kalibr CM on Iskander this summer for this purpose.

    GarryB wrote:
    Several American subs have probably sunk themselves with faulty torpedos... it is actually much more common than you might think.

    No. In the US nuclear submarine history, 2 submarines have been lost. Both due to diving too deep.

    GarryB wrote:The Russians are restocking their satellite naval radar and navigation system... so an SSBN could be given coordinates for carrier groups rather easily and quickly...

    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.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1376
    Points : 1376
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:32 pm

    Planes like this should get fighter company, so the question is more like F-18 vs. Su-30.
    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!
    avatar
    Neoprime

    Posts : 17
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2013-07-20
    Location : USA

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Neoprime on Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:47 pm

    Hole wrote:THAAD has problems hitting planes. Against cruise missiles it is nearly useless. The russian systems are all-around air/missile defence systems that can engage everything that flies. The current missiles can supposedly not fly as high as the missile of the THAAD system but they can defend against cruise missiles, drones, anti-radar missiles and so on.



    I thought THAAD couldn't hit aircraft at all? I thought it was Anti-Ballistic only.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1333
    Points : 1333
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Hole on Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:10 pm

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:19 am

    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...  Rolling Eyes

    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.

    Correct...

    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...

    Arrow

    Posts : 280
    Points : 280
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Arrow on Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:03 am

    Could you explain why? THAAD has better ABM characteristics than S-400 and S-300V4. It intercept targets outside the atmosphere using kinetic warheads. S-300 and S-400 still large explosive conventional warhed. THAAD is lighter and probably better maneuvering from the large missiles with S-400 and S-300V4.Of course, the USA is developing much better SM-3. Russia does not have the equivalent of SM-3 In the field of defense, ABM is far behind the USA.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2515
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Isos on Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:18 pm

    Arrow wrote:Could you explain why? THAAD has better ABM characteristics than S-400 and S-300V4. It intercept targets outside the atmosphere using kinetic warheads. S-300 and S-400 still large explosive conventional warhed. THAAD is lighter and probably better maneuvering from the large missiles with S-400 and S-300V4.Of course, the USA is developing much better SM-3. Russia does not have the equivalent of SM-3 In the field of defense, ABM is far behind the USA.

    The target's speed is lower when it goes in the atmosphere so easier to intercept. And you can use explosive to destroy it. Kinetic warehead means you need to be precise to touch it while it goes at mach 6 or mach 7.  Imagine touching something that goes a mach 7... and if the target can move in flight you can forget about that because even if it changes its course by 1° at mach 5 means it move tens of km in matter of sec while your kinetic warhead missile tries to go on an impact point calculated by following the missiles' path before it moved.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:38 pm

    Isos wrote:
    The target's speed is lower when it goes in the atmosphere so easier to intercept. And you can use explosive to destroy it. Kinetic warehead means you need to be precise to touch it while it goes at mach 6 or mach 7.  Imagine touching something that goes a mach 7... and if the target can move in flight you can forget about that because even if it changes its course by 1° at mach 5 means it move tens of km in matter of sec while your kinetic warhead missile tries to go on an impact point calculated by following the missiles' path before it moved.


    Something with enrgy for orbital flight flies 5 or 7 however no Ma but km/s
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:04 pm

    Arrow wrote:Could you explain why? THAAD has better ABM characteristics than S-400 and S-300V4.

    that's why S-500 now enters production

    It intercept targets outside the atmosphere using kinetic warheads. S-300 and S-400 still large explosive conventional warhed. THAAD is lighter and probably better maneuvering from the large missiles with S-400 and S-300V4

    True but so far neither THAAD/SM3 did cope with anything else then MRBM, even North Korean failed to intercept while flying over Japan. So perhaps explosive warhead is not that bad after all.



    .
    Of course, the USA is developing much better SM-3. Russia does not have the equivalent of SM-3 In the field of defense, ABM is far behind the USA.

    S-500
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1709
    Points : 1704
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:33 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Of course, the USA is developing much better SM-3. Russia does not have the equivalent of SM-3 In the field of defense, ABM is far behind the USA.

    S-500

    And Nodul.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:18 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Of course, the USA is developing much better SM-3. Russia does not have the equivalent of SM-3 In the field of defense, ABM is far behind the USA.

    S-500

    And Nodul.

    even better russia russia russia With 1500km range and (nobody knows for sure) the height of the defeat zone 850km ceiling + nuclear warhead surely protects much better than any kinetic kill.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1152
    Points : 1150
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:06 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Of course, the USA is developing much better SM-3. Russia does not have the equivalent of SM-3 In the field of defense, ABM is far behind the USA.

    S-500

    And Nodul.

    even better russia russia russia  With 1500km range and (nobody knows for sure) the height of the defeat zone 850km ceiling + nuclear warhead surely protects much better than any kinetic kill.

    The Rim has a range of about 700KM, The Block 2A versions a range of like 2500KM.

    Both Mach 10 Plus.

    The missile is designed to take down fast Anti-ship Ballistic weapons.

    These are also sea-based missiles, not land-based there is a difference.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:29 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote: The Rim has a range of about 700KM, The Block 2A versions a range of like 2500KM.

    yet latest tests went pretty poor. Target missed or selfdestuction.  Block 2A has range because this was requirement not because of alien tech.  

    Nudol with 1,500km range means it can protect St. Petersburg being fired from Moscow site.



    Both Mach 10 Plus.

    We dotn know what speed Nudol has but anything going up to 850km and being effective there needs speed close to orbital velocity i.e. ~7km/s  (25Ma)


    The missile is designed to take down fast Anti-ship Ballistic weapons.
    No, it is not what Raytheton says:

    The SM-3®️ interceptor is a defensive weapon the U.S. Navy uses to destroy short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles.[/i]
    https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sm-3






    These are also sea-based missiles, not land-based there is a difference.

    No, this is not what manufacturer says:

    arried by U.S. Navy ships deployed off Europe’s coast and is now operational at a land-based site in Romania, further enhancing Europe’s protection. When the next land-based SM-3 interceptor site becomes operational in Poland, all of Europe will be defended from ballistic missile attacks.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1152
    Points : 1150
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:11 am

    Both ballistic missiles types operate in the same manner and thus are both targets for the missile.

    Some tests went bad yes but that's what tests are for, remind me again how many botched missile tests the Russians have a year? the answer is a lot.

    Well, that is technically right, on land-based Poland also has some if you want to go there. At the same time those aren't the same missiles technically modification had to be made thus I do not count them. This is a personal thing if you want to consider them the same that's fine.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:33 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Both ballistic missiles types operate in the same manner and thus are both targets for the missile.

    true, but they weren't designed specifically against any ballistic antiship missiles in mind.
    Especially i didnt find any info about quasi balistic trajectory testing with maneuverable warhead.


    Some tests went bad yes but that's what tests are for, remind me again how many botched missile tests the Russians have a year? the answer is a lot.

    Then both are on the same level. Yet Korean obsolete missiles are safe in foreseeable future. US didnt dare to have life testing last year.




    Well, that is technically right, on land-based Poland also has some if you want to go there. At the same time those aren't the same missiles technically modification had to be made thus I do not count them

    Russia doesn't need sea based AMD at the moment. There are no platforms for that yet. US objective is sea control, and AMD along Russia's borders. With 70 destroyers/cruisers they could be close but again that's why Sarmat/Avangards/Poseidons or Burevestniks were designed.

    There is no point to argue. Both sides have different requirements and both are fallowing them. I dotn see any AMD sides having "better in all categories" missiles.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:17 pm

    Could you explain why?

    S-400 and S-300V4 are air defence missile systems that are fully mobile and able to pretty much defend a piece of airspace from pretty much any aerial threat.

    That is from 4.8km/s speed incoming ballistic missiles, through to low flying cruise missiles and pretty much any flying craft in between

    THAAD is designed to shoot down slightly improve SCUD missiles with a hit to kill missile that is not really suitable for anything else.

    THAAD has better ABM characteristics than S-400 and S-300V4.

    No it does not.

    It intercept targets outside the atmosphere using kinetic warheads.

    Why do you think that makes it better?

    S-300 and S-400 still large explosive conventional warhed.

    Which means it is much more versatile and able to deal with a much wider range of targets than THAAD is capable of.

    THAAD is lighter and probably better maneuvering from the large missiles with S-400 and S-300V4.

    Yet as systems the S-400 and S-300V4 are vastly more mobile and better able to operate in the field.... without dedicated satellite support...

    Of course, the USA is developing much better SM-3.

    But hang on, if THAAD and PAC-3 were both developed specifically to engage BMs and are so fucking wonderful at doing so why on earth would they waste money developing a naval version... and why did Japan choose it over THAAD?

    Russia does not have the equivalent of SM-3 In the field of defense, ABM is far behind the USA.

    Russia has had an operational ABM system around Moscow for the last almost 50 years.... most of what makes THAAD and PAC-3 Patriot came from what they learned from the S-300V system sold to them in the 1990s.

    How any THAAD systems are operational and how many S-300V and S-400?

    THAAD is intended to engage superSCUDs with speeds of mach 7 or more... S-400 can already engage targets moving at 4.8km/s...

    that's why S-500 now enters production

    THAAD was designed and built while the ABM treaty was in force... S-400 and S-500 after.

    The Rim has a range of about 700KM, The Block 2A versions a range of like 2500KM.

    AEGIS Ashore directly violates the INF treaty... as it can also take Tomahawk cruise missiles...

    Both ballistic missiles types operate in the same manner and thus are both targets for the missile.

    Like most ABM systems they are designed to intercept plain old vanilla BMs... missiles like Kinzhal and Iskander would be a real problem...


    There is no point to argue. Both sides have different requirements and both are fallowing them. I dotn see any AMD sides having "better in all categories" missiles.

    I do... PAC-3 and THAAD are rubbish... the only missile worth a damn is the SM-3 to be honest and it is still an anti IRBM system, whereas the S-500 is a full spec ABM system able to engage ICBMs and Satellites in low orbit... it would be interesting to see an air launched S-500 actually... I am sure they will be working on one.

    In the mean time the ABM missiles from around Moscow are getting upgraded and improved too and made mobile if Nudol is to be believed... of course S-400 and S-500 and Nudol would have been illegal if the US hadn't withdrawn from the ABM treaty...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:30 pm

    Patriot was very much over rated.

    During Desert Storm you would think every Scud the Iraqis fired was destroyed by the system, and those super hero special forces were blowing them up all over the place.

    The actual facts of the matter are that not a single Scud missile was destroyed on the ground before it could be launched.

    It took an average of 32 Patriots fired at Scuds to get a "hit"... and most of the time all that did was change the trajectory of the incoming missile.

    Patriots were never designed to shoot down ballistic missiles... Unlike the S-300 system developed in the Soviet Union which was specifically designed to take on ballistic as well as other targets.

    The Patriots intercepting Scuds were at a huge disadvantage because the Scud was moving too fast so the fragments from the Patriots warhead tended to hit the middle or the rear of the Scud... the middle and rear of a Scud is its now empty fuel tanks and its rocket motors which do nothing during the descent of the missile onto the target... they are just falling behind the warhead.

    The Patriots often shredded the fuel tank area and the rocket motor of the Scud but that doesn't matter because it was the warhead that was the problem... which generally fell where it was going to fall anyway.

    In comparison the S-300 and later missiles had advanced warhead fusing that calculated where the fragments needed to go... the centre or rear body hit is perfectly fine against a fighter plane or bomber aircraft, but a tip of the nose hit is needed for ballistic missile targets to destroy the warhead... which also shatters the body into tiny safe fragments that don't need to be worried about any more.

    The main difference is that it was 1991 that the US realised it needed weapons to kill ballistic missiles. The Soviets had been working on the problem and solving it 20 years or more before that... they also had smaller systems to stop HARMs and other guided and unguided munitions... perhaps the US might work that one out too eventually...

    But please keep telling me about Americas advantage in ABM systems...
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2515
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Isos on Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:15 pm

    The Patriots intercepting Scuds were at a huge disadvantage because the Scud was moving too fast so the fragments from the Patriots warhead tended to hit the middle or the rear of the Scud... the middle and rear of a Scud is its now empty fuel tanks and its rocket motors which do nothing during the descent of the missile onto the target... they are just falling behind the warhead.

    I've read somehwere scud used to desintegrate themselves in many pieces which made a lot of fake targets on patriot radars and most of the time they couldn't know which is the warhead.

    Anyway the result of houti attacks shows that its a useless system for ABM role since it can't intercept even old toshka rockets correctly.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:26 pm