Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6092
    Points : 6498
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Austin on Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:03 pm

    S-500 was always designed for High Altitude terminal defense of ICBM targets and mid-course for IRBM targets.

    S-400 again is like S-500 but designed to intercept high altitude for high end IRBM type targets.

    So unless they build a new type for naval platform it cant do midcourse defence except for IRBM type targets.

    SM-3 is pretty much useless as it lacks energy and can be spoofed by decoys ......may be the block 4 variant might get more lethal but lets see

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6092
    Points : 6498
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Austin on Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:16 pm

    Check page 9 of latest CRS report on SM-3

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf

    It shows the capability of the system
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3012
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US-Russian ABMs Comparison

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:58 pm

    Austin go 2-3 pages back there is a link depicting russia is building naval versions of s-400 & 500 .
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3012
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  max steel on Sun Jan 10, 2016 4:42 pm

    Is Aster 30 Block 2 has the capability of S-400 and of THAAD ?
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16054
    Points : 16685
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:41 am

    Is Aster 30 Block 2 has the capability of S-400 and of THAAD ?

    Aster is not even comparable to the two small 9M96 missiles of the S-400 system...

    Aster 15 with a range of up to about 30km and altitude of 13km and Aster 30 with a range of up to 120km and altitude of up to 20km...

    The smallest 9M96M missile can hit targets to 40km and 20km altitude and the longer range slightly larger 9M96M2 can hit targets at 120km range and up to 30km altitude and are similar weights of 300-400kgs without solid rocket boosters.

    The bigger S-400 missiles have flight ranges of 250km to 400km depending upon the model with altitudes of up to 185km... Aster it not really a fair comparison... for Aster.

    The figures I have seen for THAAD are 150km altitude and 200km range... so pretty much Aster 15 then Aster 30 then THAAD and then S-400 with the last being best.


    _________________
    “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

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3417
    Points : 3535
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Vann7 on Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:32 am

    The figures I have seen for THAAD are 150km altitude and 200km range... so pretty much Aster 15 then Aster 30 then THAAD and then S-400 with the last being best.

    [/quote]

    3x times the performance with the ER from original thaad ,should be around 150km x 3 = 450km altitude and 200km x 3= 600km range. Then it should be similar to S-500 in combat range performance. But the American one is on paper design,while the Russian one is already under testing . So Russia will have their S-500 at least 2-3 years earlier than americans their Thaad-ER.  If i were to guess bases on Russia bigger experience with air defenses and major experience in electronic warfare, S-500 will be significantly ahead of the americans one . Since The americans have yet to match S-400 performance ,which their vanilla thaad cant do.

    Without solid anti electronic warfare ,any air missile defense system is pretty much useless.


    I really think that in a decade or two ,Missile defenses will become obsolete in modern
    military warfare. Russia will either need to produce High Energy weapons. like Lazer Cannons
    or Electronic warfare so powerful ,that can shut down modern plans ,simply by burning its electronic circuits and turn off the plane in mid air. With such power ,Not even the ejection seat will work. Very Happy   and it should be also capable of destroying any missile guidance system and sensors too.

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 134
    Points : 134
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    RIM-161 -

    Post  Singular_trafo on Mon May 09, 2016 7:24 pm

    The RIM-161 can be good comparism to a possible s-500 long range interceptor.
    It is 1.5 tons, with three solid propelant stage.

    Based on the stated warhead kinetic energy the mass of the warhead with guidance/thrusters can't be more than 30 kg- 2% of the launch mass.
    Max speed is 3 km/sec for block 1, and 4.5 km/sec for block 2.
    But later must be 3-5 tons,and not the wiki 1.5 tons.


    So theese can't carry even explosives or nuclear bombs .

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3417
    Points : 3535
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Vann7 on Tue May 10, 2016 1:41 pm

    Singular_trafo wrote:The RIM-161 can be good comparism to a possible s-500 long range interceptor.
    It is 1.5 tons,  with three solid propelant stage.

    Based on the stated warhead kinetic energy the  mass of the warhead with guidance/thrusters can't be more than 30 kg- 2% of the launch mass.
    Max speed is 3 km/sec for block 1, and 4.5 km/sec for block 2.
    But later must be 3-5 tons,and not the wiki 1.5 tons.


    So theese can't carry even explosives or nuclear bombs .

    Are you aware that RIM-161 are nothing more than Space mines ,deployed in space by a carrier rocket?  Is not really an interceptor in the sense it doesn't chase a missile. it cant do that. since is just a mine with some mobility in space ,that is attached to a Rocket carrier. Once the mine is out ,the rocket start a free fall.

    It does not chase ICBM since is not a missile . Is just a mine with very limited propulsion. that needs to be deployed in the same flight path of a missile in space. and only works in very high altitudes ,in gravity zero environments.  So the speed is not really needed to blow up a fast a fast missile. For example you can trow a grenade or deploy a mine,to a highway with fast cars passing. then when the car will pass you detonate the mine.  so it will destroy the car but it was not an interception in reality . But in the case of ICBM not even explosives are needed. a simple decent size heavy Rock dropped in the flight path of an ICBM will tear it into a million of pieces by the kinetic energy. But such system RIM-161 is limited to ICBMs who flight in straight line. It will not be efficient against unpredictable non linear maneuverable ICBMs ,like Russia claims their missiles are.  



    S-500 is the big deal. is a real Missile interceptor with multi use. and it can chase planes and ICBMs too. it can intercept faster ICBms too as long the angle of attack is favorable for the missile ,aiming towards an interception point where both will meet and not towards the missile. ,the small difference in speed will absolutely not matter.

    This means that the S-500 is all stages interception air and space missile. while the RIM-161 is only a mid course space mine ,launched by a rocket. So it will benefit Russia to have S-500s in the artic and in all its borders. and in warships even better. Will allow to target ICBMs fired from eastern Europe or any part of the black sea ,caspian sea or north or baltic sea or the pacific on its early course.

    RIM-161 and S-500 cannot be compared in any way , totally different things even though they could look like both are missiles ,their only similarity is that both can be used to target ICBMs. Only the S-500 is a missile interceptor , the RIM-161 is just a high altitude  exo-atmosphere space mine with limited mobility and limited to a no gravity environments only.

    perhaps THAAD will be a better comparison to S-500. although THAAD use only kinetic
    hit to kill missiles and only designed against ballistic targets.

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 134
    Points : 134
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Singular_trafo on Tue May 10, 2016 9:14 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:The RIM-161 can be good comparism to a possible s-500 long range interceptor.
    It is 1.5 tons,  with three solid propelant stage.

    Based on the stated warhead kinetic energy the  mass of the warhead with guidance/thrusters can't be more than 30 kg- 2% of the launch mass.
    Max speed is 3 km/sec for block 1, and 4.5 km/sec for block 2.
    But later must be 3-5 tons,and not the wiki 1.5 tons.


    So theese can't carry even explosives or nuclear bombs .

    Are you aware that RIM-161 are nothing more than Space mines ,deployed in space by a carrier rocket?  Is not really an interceptor in the sense it doesn't chase a missile. it cant do that. since is just a mine with some mobility in space ,that is attached to a Rocket carrier. Once the mine is out ,the rocket start a free fall.

    It does not chase ICBM since is not a missile . Is just a mine with very limited propulsion. that needs to be deployed in the same flight path of a missile in space. and only works in very high altitudes ,in gravity zero environments.  So the speed is not really needed to blow up a fast a fast missile. For example you can trow a grenade or deploy a mine,to a highway with fast cars passing. then when the car will pass you detonate the mine.  so it will destroy the car but it was not an interception in reality . But in the case of ICBM not even explosives are needed. a simple decent size heavy Rock dropped in the flight path of an ICBM will tear it into a million of pieces by the kinetic energy. But such system RIM-161 is limited to ICBMs who flight in straight line. It will not be efficient against unpredictable non linear maneuverable ICBMs ,like Russia claims their missiles are.  



    S-500 is the big deal. is a real Missile interceptor with multi use. and it can chase planes and ICBMs too. it can intercept faster ICBms too as long the angle of attack is favorable for the missile ,aiming towards an interception point where both will meet and not towards the missile. ,the small difference in speed will absolutely not matter.

    This means that the S-500 is all stages interception air and space missile. while the RIM-161 is only a mid course space mine ,launched by a rocket. So it will benefit Russia to have S-500s in the artic and in all its borders. and in warships even better. Will allow to target ICBMs fired from eastern Europe or any part of the black sea ,caspian sea or north or baltic sea or the pacific on its early course.

    RIM-161 and S-500 cannot be compared in any way , totally different things even though they could look like both are missiles ,their only similarity is that both can be used to target ICBMs. Only the S-500 is a missile interceptor , the RIM-161 is just a high altitude  exo-atmosphere space mine with limited mobility and limited to a no gravity environments only.

    perhaps THAAD will be a better comparison to S-500. although THAAD use only kinetic
    hit to kill missiles and only designed against ballistic targets.

    The question was "what can be the maximum speed of the S-500 long range interceptor?".

    So, if you check the parameters of the RIM-161 then you can recognise immedietly that the speed of the interceptor can't be even 3km/sec, beacuse that means a small, 30 kg qwarhead with 1.5 tonns rocket mass.

    So the 5-500 intercepotr will have max 2km/sec speed, and a nuclear option : )

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 134
    Points : 134
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Singular_trafo on Tue May 10, 2016 9:24 pm

    Vann7 wrote: But such system RIM-161 is limited to ICBMs who flight in straight line. It will not be efficient against unpredictable non linear maneuverable ICBMs ,like Russia claims their missiles are.  



    S-500 is the big deal. is a real Missile interceptor with multi use. and it can chase planes and ICBMs too. it can intercept faster ICBms too as long the angle of attack is favorable for the missile ,aiming towards an interception point where both will meet and not towards the missile. ,the small difference in speed will absolutely not matter.

    This means that the S-500 is all stages interception air and space missile. while the RIM-161 is only a mid course space mine ,launched by a rocket. So it will benefit Russia to have S-500s in the artic and in all its borders. and in warships even better. Will allow to target ICBMs fired from eastern Europe or any part of the black sea ,caspian sea or north or baltic sea or the pacific on its early course.


    So, the "manouverable warhead " is an interesting topics from game theory standpoint.

    If you release the decoys after the separation of the warhead(s) from the upper stage and if the warhead start to manouver then it will be easy to distinguish it from the decoys.
    Additionaly, if the rocket fly say 2000 sec, the interceptor say 100 sec, with 20 sec targeting phase, then you have to change the trajecotry at least in every 10 sec, means you have to change the course 200 times ! it require a lot of fuel, and makes the decoys useless.
    So, the manouvering will happens in the final phase, and in mid course it will be protected by decoys.

    The S-500 is a system, it can have any intercetor rocket.The anti-icbm one will use tactical nucelar warheads, that makes it effecitve.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1495
    Points : 1533
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue May 10, 2016 10:40 pm

    Singular_trafo wrote:

    So, the "manouverable warhead " is an interesting topics from game theory standpoint.

    If you release the decoys after the separation of the warhead(s) from the upper stage and if the warhead start to manouver then it will be easy to distinguish it from the decoys.
    Additionaly, if the rocket fly say 2000 sec, the interceptor say 100 sec, with 20 sec targeting phase, then you have to change the trajecotry at least in every 10 sec, means you have to change the course 200 times !  it require a lot of fuel, and makes the decoys useless.
    So, the manouvering will happens in the final phase, and in mid course it will be protected by decoys.

    The S-500 is  a system, it can have any intercetor rocket.The anti-icbm one will use tactical nucelar warheads, that makes it effecitve.

    and what makes i effective against hypersonic PGS or orbital platforms? nukes as well? to get to orbit it still needs around orbital speed? again nukes?


    After wiki/army recognition:

    " The prime goal of the complex is to counter medium range ballistic missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles, UAVs, hypersonic missiles, low-orbit satellites and space weapons launched from hypersonic aircraft, as well as attack drones and hypersonic orbital platforms."

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3417
    Points : 3535
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Vann7 on Wed May 11, 2016 3:03 am

    Singular_trafo wrote:The RIM-161 can be good comparism to a possible s-500 long range interceptor.
    It is 1.5 tons,  with three solid propelant stage.

    Based on the stated warhead kinetic energy the  mass of the warhead with guidance/thrusters can't be more than 30 kg- 2% of the launch mass.
    Max speed is 3 km/sec for block 1, and 4.5 km/sec for block 2.
    But later must be 3-5 tons,and not the wiki 1.5 tons.


    So theese can't carry even explosives or nuclear bombs .


    Rim-161 cannot be compared with S-500 for the simple reason that not only their functionality is very different but their capabilities too and the concept and strategy is different too. one is a taxi rocket ,that deploys a slow mobile mine in space ,while the S-500 is a real missile that can intercept any altitude from low to high.  From low flying hypersonic cruise missiles  to drones ,to stealth planes ,to Ballistic missiles ,to iCBMS ,to satelites.  Is a complete air defense system in just one unit. At least this is the way russia information suggest it is. Havent seen any information that suggest Russia use totally different system for air interception and for space interception. S-500 can only be compared with a super enhanced S-400.

    Rim-161 will be better compared with Arrow 3.  Both are hit to kill missiles ,both only operate in space domain. and both use external taxi rockets ,to reach space ,while the S-500 is a unified missile  (single stage)? .




    The question was "what can be the maximum speed of the S-500 long range interceptor?".

    So, if you check the parameters of the RIM-161 then you can recognise immedietly that the speed of the interceptor can't be even 3km/sec, beacuse that means a small, 30 kg qwarhead with 1.5 tonns rocket mass.

    So the 5-500 intercepotr will have max 2km/sec speed, and a nuclear option : )



    According to the available information about S-500 , in wikipedia ,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-500_(missile_system)

    it max speed is not 2 , not 3 ,neither 5 but 7 KM/s .  This is a nice Mach 20 missile. that is the max speed of the fastest ICBMs , more than enough not only to intercept a missile by aiming way ahead of its flight path. But is the only world interceptor that
    ,that can actually Chase a trident missile and blow it up from behind. This is a big deal. Because even if the missile miss the initial interception from the front, it still have a chance to catch the missile from behind.   Cool    So it will be even more spectacular the fight.

    best way to see Rim 161/arrow3  is a combined system of  one multi stage taxi space rocket ,that carry inside a deployable warhead in space . Arrow 3 video above at 1:53 ,clearly shows
    is same concept of Rim-161, that the fast rocket is totally ejected from the interceptor. this means that it cut it legs. and finish the job and aproximation to its target by using mini trusters
    and moving in front of the flight path of an incoming missile. The good news that it works.
    the bad news is that is limited its functionality. It cannot be used for example for final phase
    interception ,neither for early phase. S-500 in the other hand can be used for early ,mid and final ,low and high ,big and small. even for aliens.  lol1



    I seriously doubt that the interceptor rockrt can reach 6km/sec speed.
    Solid propelant can generate 2km/sec exhaust speed, so to reach 4 km/sec it need 1:7 empty mass:full mass ratio, to reach 6 km/sec it need 1:20 ratio.(maybe 2.3 km/sec,but dueto the small size I doubt it)


    When you intercept in space ,mass does not influence in speed. there is zero gravity remember.
    Once the Trident missile reach the lower near orbit ,it will significantly reduce its speed ,because will face major friction and resistance of the air. In air space the max speed of an ICBM ,lost up to half of its speed if not more ,otherwise will brake by the tremendous resistance of air. This is why S-500 speeds are different. 7km/s for space altitude ,and 2km/s for AIR altitude. where planes travels. For comparisons the SR-71 ,who only travels at mach 3.2 ,it was said that the plane start to deform at such speeds ,for the enormous air friction and heat.

    The only disadvantage of S-500 i see is price per missile. it have to be a lot more expensive than Rim-161 or arrow3 ,to have an all around air+space and do everything missile ,the advantage in this however is the training is way simpler , and the possibilities and security is also bigger.

    The multi purpose and multi use philosophy of Russia defense industry allows them to simplify
    their defense of their nation and the logistic. It should be a nightmare for Americans for example to coordinate an interception of an incoming ICBM - and that goes in pair with a nuclear armed cruise missile.. US will need to use nothing less than 3 totally different system
    to defend its nation. Rim-161+THAAD+patriot defense.  the logistics to do that can be confusing ,will need to have a really good coordination between 3 totally different defenses. S-500 significantly simplify that ,by doing it all in just one missile. even though the missile is more expensive , the money Russia saves in maintainance and training and the enhanced defense capabilities will be worth of it.

    another disadvantage Russia will face ,is that it will not be using S-500 to its maximum potential for not having a navy that can launch such missiles. if Russia had destroyers with S-500, it could deploy them very close to American usual patrol zones with their submarines and intercept their trident 2 missiles at their initial stage. that will be truly phenomenal for Russia security. Not allow the missiles to even reach space.  the initial acceleration of trident is very slow when launched from under water , warships will easily detect an underwater launch ,and with warships close distance from Ohio submarines could catch  their missiles either very early or early mid phase. This will be truly phenomenal and a major deterrence too ,for NATO to even try a launch if Russia had destroyers with S-500s ready to intercept missiles before they have a chance to reach Russia border.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16054
    Points : 16685
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 11, 2016 12:43 pm

    and what makes i effective against hypersonic PGS or orbital platforms? nukes as well? to get to orbit it still needs around orbital speed? again nukes?

    You don't need to reach orbital speed to hit something in orbit... an ICBM does not reach orbital speed either.

    The first American in space left the atmosphere but did not achieve orbit... he just went up and came down in a parabolic shaped trajectory... like a bullet fired into the air.

    while Russia's missiles may be 1 stage (although 9M82M is designed as two stages apparently, so why the massive lack in range compared to these other ones claimed by Israel and US?)

    Range and kinetic range are not the same thing... for instance an SA-22 could be fired on a ballistic trajectory at a 45 degree angle and reach ranges much much greater than its max range of 20km but the system can't find targets further than about 35km so the extra range means nothing if targets cannot be hit.

    Arrow 3 can reach an altitude of just north of 100 km. An ICBM reaches a height of 1200 km on average. Do you see the problem ?

    Neither Arrow nor S-500 are mid course interceptors... they would operate near the target where the ICBM would be falling towards and would therefore be much lower.


    What this means , is nothing short of a staggering window of vulnerability of Trident 2 missiles on its first 10 seconds.

    Any SSBN would make sure there are no enemy forces near it when it launches... and with a range of 6,000km plus most SLBMs mean SSBNs don't need to be any where near anything for their launch.

    And even if there was a Kirov 50km away by the time they detected the launch turned a radar to track the missile and got a fire solution and actually launched a missile the trident would be in space and gone.



    _________________
    “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

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 134
    Points : 134
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Singular_trafo on Wed May 11, 2016 7:11 pm

    Vann7 wrote:

    When you intercept in space ,mass does not influence in speed. there is zero gravity remember.
    Once the Trident missile reach the lower near orbit ,it will significantly reduce its speed ,because will face major friction and resistance of the air. In air space the max speed of an ICBM ,lost up to half of its speed if not more ,otherwise will brake by the tremendous resistance of air. This is why S-500 speeds are different. 7km/s for space altitude ,and 2km/s for AIR altitude. where planes travels. For comparisons the SR-71 ,who only travels at mach 3.2 ,it was said that the plane start to deform at such speeds ,for the enormous air friction and heat.

    The only disadvantage of S-500 i see is price per missile. it have to be a lot more expensive than Rim-161 or arrow3 ,to have an all around air+space and do everything missile ,the advantage in this however is the training is way simpler , and the possibilities and security is also bigger.


    Just to make it clear: 7km/sec speed can't be achived with an s-500 interceptor.You has to be very clever to accelerate an apple to that speed with a 1.5 tonns , solid fuel rocket.Here you (or wiki)saying that you can accelerate for this speed a full, 100kg warhed SAM interceptor rocket.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3417
    Points : 3535
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Vann7 on Thu May 12, 2016 12:30 am



    Neither Arrow nor S-500 are mid course interceptors... they would operate near the target where the ICBM would be falling towards and would therefore be much lower.




    To label the S-500 a "final course" interceptor will be wrong. . S-500 will have no problem to intercept a Trident on early course before it reach its 200km ceiling. It will neither have a problem to intercept a trident when is on space descending towards Russia ,far away from its coast. SInce trident fly in a ballistic path ,at mach 20 speeds, it cannot do a 90 degree turn above its target. it needs to start descending in the middle of the course and thats when S-500 also can intercept it.

    A Thermosphere interceptor at 200km altitude cannot be called "final course interceptor" this is still too high in space more than twice the altitude of GPS satellites ,to be called a "final course" and the incoming missile still needs to be guided towards its final trajectory and the missile does not yet have the final path trajectory. Mid course is exactly that. when the course is not final and needs corrections. Final course is exactly that, when is final the course , and no longer needs update its trajectory and the incoming missile ,its nose is perfectly aligned to the target.

    So a destroyer with an S-500 will be able to catch a minuteman if launched from Alaska , and the war ship is in international waters but still not far from the the military base. but also will be able to intercept the missile on land or on water ,earlier the missile is on its final course. it all depends of the time when it is done. Is not at all flight path interceptor, but it can do it in all 3 phases when conditions exist.

    S-500 can intercept ICBM in all 3 stages but in the entire flight path ,it can do it when.
    1) when its climbing up to 200km 2) in the last part of its mid course ,when is moving towards its target 3) when its on its final trajectory and no longer needs to be corrected its flight path.

    S-500 is simply a 4 layers atmosphere interceptor that can intercept any ICBM in all 3 phases but only when a ballistic missiles is below 200km.
    avatar
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5362
    Points : 5601
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Werewolf on Thu May 12, 2016 5:45 pm

    To label the S-500 a "final course" interceptor will be wrong. . S-500 will have no problem to intercept a Trident on early course before it reach its 200km ceiling.

    Big words, but i am not going to ask further, my time is to limited and prescious.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16054
    Points : 16685
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 13, 2016 10:20 am

    To label the S-500 a "final course" interceptor will be wrong.

    A flak jacket is a final course interceptor... how fast does it have to move to intercept a bullet before it hits the target?

    To intercept a target you just need to be in the same space at the same time... it is a 4 dimensional maths equation.

    Locate incoming target and plot its trajectory and probable impact point and then look at your interceptor missile positions and find all the points where the incoming threat crosses into their interception envelopes.

    extrapolate back to the missile launchers and determine how much time it will take the interceptor missiles to reach the intercept point and then extrapolate back on the targets path to the same amount of time... when the target passes that point launch your interceptor and both should arrive at the same point in space (ie latitude, longitude, altitude) at the same time... that is what an interception is.

    It is not of course that easy as the incoming target wont fly a perfect line and will likely also change speed, but the outgoing interceptor missile can be manouvered to allow for such changes and you will be closely tracking both incoming target and outgoing missile with what would equate to a super computer and super accurate sensors.

    To label the S-500 a "final course" interceptor will be wrong. . S-500 will have no problem to intercept a Trident on early course before it reach its 200km ceiling.

    What makes you think a trident submarine will launch a trident first?

    What if it launches a torpedo and sinks the nearby vessel with the S-500 on board first?

    S-500 are defensive missiles to protect from ballistic missile attack. they have no capability against a launch platform as they will never get anywhere near any ballistic missile launch platform... that is just stupid.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Comparison of American vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:00 pm