Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Share
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 223
    Points : 221
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:01 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The purpose of Russian strategic weapons is to clear a path to launch positions for their strategic bomber cruise missile carriers.

    Do you think it's probable for Russian ballistic missiles to break through European or US ABM shield? NORAD has been always pretty much impossible to penetrate for Russians.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1330
    Points : 1330
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Hole on Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:48 pm

    Which ABM shield?
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Stealthflanker on Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:10 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:

    Do you think it's probable for Russian ballistic missiles to break through European or US ABM shield? NORAD has been always pretty much impossible to penetrate for Russians.

    Just how many interceptors they have ? and how many targets it can be expected to handle.

    It's pretty much still a problem for both US and Russia to handle massed SLBM or ICBM attacks.
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 223
    Points : 221
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:20 pm

    Hole wrote:Which ABM shield?

    Stealthflanker wrote:Just how many interceptors they have ? and how many targets it can be expected to handle.

    It's pretty much still a problem for both US and Russia to handle massed SLBM or ICBM attacks.

    100 Aegis ships, 1100 Patriot launchers, 30 GBIs. This month Arrow 3 deliveries started, it has kill rate of 99 %.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:44 pm

    Not all of those ships will be in position, the Patriots r not that effective, GBIs & Arrow 3s weren't tested against the real Russian BMs & their decoys.
    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 Sep 24, 2018 5:17 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:

    100 Aegis ships, 1100 Patriot launchers, 30 GBIs. This month Arrow 3 deliveries started, it has kill rate of 99 %.

    Patriot in KSA is intercepting some of "ballistic" S-125 Pechoras, GBI ? Arrow 3 like all from Israel has 120 % of interception rated. Wait wait but Irond Dome intercepted like half of Hamas BM-21 rockets...



    The GBIs have a 56 percent success rate in tests (ten hits out of eighteen attempts since 1998). Ergo, the chance of a GBI working is 56 percent.
    https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-america-must-improve-its-missile-defense-systems-22986

    Well this was never tested against maneuvering target. Yes interceptors advance with time but Russian warheads too. Especially hypersonic 20Ma warhead changing course and altitude for kinetic interceptors is not that easy task.

    Avangrd, Sarmats or Poseidons were build for reason... Patriots in Korea/Japan or EU will take first blow from Kiznahls/Iskanders/Zircons
    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 Sep 25, 2018 1:34 am

    Do you think it's probable for Russian ballistic missiles to break through European or US ABM shield? NORAD has been always pretty much impossible to penetrate for Russians.

    Yes.

    The new MARV warheads don't just fall, they manouver, so US ABM systems are no where near in a position to cope... especially when the first hundred missiles come via the south pole instead of the north...

    100 Aegis ships, 1100 Patriot launchers, 30 GBIs. This month Arrow 3 deliveries started, it has kill rate of 99 %.

    How many of those AEGIS ships are actually in a position to do anything?

    Patriot is irrelevant... we are talking about SLBMs and ICBMs... not SCUDS.

    And Arrow 3... is it called that because that is how many they will have?

    30 GBIs dealing with a thousand warheads and tens of thousands of decoys...

    Avangrd, Sarmats or Poseidons were build for reason... Patriots in Korea/Japan or EU will take first blow from Kiznahls/Iskanders/Zircons

    An airburst nuke in space would black out most radar for half an hour and render most unprotected electronics in need of replacement... and it could be launched over the south pole to prevent interception...

    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1330
    Points : 1330
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Hole on Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:09 am

    There are around 20 Burke class ships fitted with the modified radars, software and missiles for the ABM role, rest is pure air defence. Plus a few rusty Ticonderogas.

    Patriot can only engange short range ballistic missiles.

    GBI system missed more than half of the targets.

    THAAD was never used, even against north-korean missiles flying above Japan.

    Labrador

    Posts : 130
    Points : 130
    Join date : 2018-09-24

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Labrador on Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:54 am

    Hole wrote:There are around 20 Burke class ships fitted with the modified radars, software and missiles for the ABM role, rest is pure air defence. Plus a few rusty Ticonderogas.

    Patriot can only engange short range ballistic missiles.

    GBI system missed more than half of the targets.

    THAAD was never used, even against north-korean missiles flying above Japan.

    Not only 20, 28 Burke Flight I/II plus the 3 new restart Fl IIA are ABM ships: 31 and 5 Ticonderoga : 36
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Stealthflanker on Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:04 am

    verkhoturye51 wrote:
    100 Aegis ships, 1100 Patriot launchers, 30 GBIs. This month Arrow 3 deliveries started, it has kill rate of 99 %.

    Only GBI is designed or having any chance to kill ICBM's. So 30 GBI's is what the best you have.

    Those AEGIS's and Patriots and Arrows are NOT for ICBM's, they're at best used for interception of IRBM's.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2863
    Points : 2845
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  miketheterrible on Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:45 am

    As mentioned, Patriot even fails pretty hard to defeat an old, basic missile that is less advanced than Scud C.  Then the fact that most Russian BM's were designed with a quasi ballistic flight path since Topol was created as it was becoming much easier to shoot down BM's flying at a standard ballistic flight path.

    A rated "kill" is best case scenario. Iron Dome also was said to have such high accuracy and turns out it doesn't. Not like Russian system would fair better. It comes down to that it really isn't easy to shoot down missiles and rockets. Now make them harder to track cause they don't fly at standard curve, then it becomes harder.

    Funny NORAD was mentioned. I can't say much because even my access to info was very limited due to fact my family member couldn't explain it without getting into trouble but stationed up in Dew Line in 1985 and job was monitoring Soviet bombers and nuke launches, I asked him what would happen if a Soviet nuke headed our way and his answer was "kiss our ass goodbye. Oh and we were not allowed to call home to loved ones".

    Both sides bluff. They really Trump up their systems greater than they really are. In end, we won't know cause both sides knows for fact that it would be the end. And in honesty, I rather live in fear but be alive, than be dead.
    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 Sep 25, 2018 7:21 am

    Not only 20, 28 Burke Flight I/II plus the 3 new restart Fl IIA are ABM ships: 31 and 5 Ticonderoga : 36

    Yeah, but they are no good unless they are sitting under the flight path of the missile they are supposed to be intercepting... and even they they need to be watching for the target.

    Chances are unless there is a planned attack against Russia... in which case ships can be positioned and systems prepared, these boats wont be anywhere near where they need to be to be effective at shooting down ICBMs.

    Performance against BMs for Soviet and Russian SAMs is much much better because they have been designing their missiles to intercept BMs for decades... it was a primary requirement, while for Patriot it was never even considered even at the deployment stage let alone the development stages where much more effective changes to design could be made.

    Patriot didn't actually fail in Desert Storm... they were trying to use a an anti aircraft missile system against missiles for which it was never designed properly to do.

    Needless to say THAAD is not even as good as S-300P/V in some aspects, let alone S-400 or S-500...
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 223
    Points : 221
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:22 pm

    GarryB wrote: especially when the first hundred missiles come via the south pole instead of the north...

    This is starting to be good. Russia will overcome 20.000 km from their mainland to US via south pole?

    The only theoretical way would be to launch missiles towards Mexico and than turn them north. But that's too large distance for ICBMs or bombers. The only option are three ballistic missile submarines of the Pacific fleet with max 320 150 kiloton warheads, which wouldn't exactly paralize the US. We have to take into account that some would malfuntion or be shot down.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1330
    Points : 1330
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Hole on Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:29 pm

    There is a new missile called Sarmat which achieves a range of 20.000km.
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 223
    Points : 221
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:55 pm

    No, it's 11.000 km. Even Satan has max 16.000 km range.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7376
    Points : 7470
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:05 pm


    You folks do realize that ABM shield does not work and even if by some miracle it worked with 95% reliability it would still not be good enough to prevent extinction of US population?

    Also, you have gone off-topic quite a bit.... No
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2518
    Points : 2512
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Isos on Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:06 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:No, it's 11.000 km. Even Satan has max 16.000 km range.

    SSBN can move you know ? One can go off the coast of Africa and wait there.
    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 Sep 25, 2018 6:35 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:No, it's 11.000 km. Even Satan has max 16.000 km range.

    Not entirely true. Old R-36 (Voyevoda) had 3 options depending also from payload: 10,000km and 16,000 km or FOBS (orbital bombing) . R-36 had very close size as Sarmat but payload 8 tons.



    I know that the only place where 11000kms is mentions id Guardian (and after it English wiki ;-) . Sarmat has 10 tons regular payload. But doesnt have to carry full. 3x Yu-71 = 3 tons payload... AFAIK 11,000kms with full payload. Without full I dont know but I dont think it is over 30,000km. From Moscow to South Pole is 16000km, Almay - 14,000, Washington South Pole 14,000). But Sarmat has this range with conventional warheads.


    The question is does it have to fly over south pole or can perhaps fly on orbital trajectory? they were talking about new FOBS?


    or range of Samrat + Avangard is 30,000kms? Avangard flies with 7km/s on orbital trajectory. Can have quite a range though.

    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1384
    Points : 1386
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Big_Gazza on Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:37 pm

    It sounds like the Sarmat will have FOBS capability, so it will have unlimited range and an unpredictable attack vector. In essence, it puts a warhead/HGV into low orbit, then de-orbits when over the target. There is of course a trade-off in the form of reduced payload weight, but its worth it to give a migraine to Seppostani missile defense planners Twisted Evil
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:42 pm

    A threat of another Pearl Harbor attack with SLBMs from the Sea of Okhotsk &/ SLCMs/Status 6 from the surrounding Pacific Ocean is enough to cool hot heads in Washington; not much need to target CONUS overcoming the BMD that may btw have new elements on both coasts looking South. Diego Garcia (looking North), Kerguelen, Falklands, PR, Clipperton, Colombia, &/ Panama may also host them.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerguelen_Islands
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipperton_Island
    The US is in the process of setting up a new Space Force branch


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:36 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add links)

    hoom

    Posts : 1431
    Points : 1421
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  hoom on Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:40 am

    A threat of another Pearl Harbor attack with SLBMs from the Sea of Okhotsk &/ SLCMs/Status 6 from the surrounding Pacific Ocean
    The threat is not a Russian first strike, the threat is that the psychos running the US think they're protected by ABM from a Russian 2nd strike -> launch a 1st strike & we all die.
    The point of the new Russian systems is to provide concern that Russia still has a valid 2nd strike despite US ABM -> the psychos are held at bay & we don't all die.
    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 Sep 26, 2018 3:09 am

    This is starting to be good. Russia will overcome 20.000 km from their mainland to US via south pole?

    If you launch a Saturn V on a ballistic path it would probably have a range of about 12-16,000km... the point is that Sarmat is powerful enough and fast enough to get into earth orbit at orbital speeds... which means it could have any range you want...

    The only theoretical way would be to launch missiles towards Mexico and than turn them north. But that's too large distance for ICBMs or bombers. The only option are three ballistic missile submarines of the Pacific fleet with max 320 150 kiloton warheads, which wouldn't exactly paralize the US. We have to take into account that some would malfuntion or be shot down.

    The only SLBMs or ICBMs that could be shot down over the US would be shot down by the 30 GBIs you talk about... and assuming current performance record 56% will get hits... and what sort of performance is that against tens of thousands of targets (they can't tell decoys from warheads until they enter the atmosphere and the decoys slow down real fast... by which time interception from Alaska is pointless).

    Now a group of MiG-31s operating over the Northern Pacific could easily launch a couple if Kinzhals with nuke warheads and destroy the GBI base in Alaska before any missiles come in to view from the north or south pole...

    A Sarmat warhead detonated over Alaska from a South Pole direction would blind the GBI sensors for quite some time as it ionised the atmosphere... so an entire fleet of ICBM warheads could penetrate US airspace and not be detected...

    No, it's 11.000 km. Even Satan has max 16.000 km range.

    The Russians have already stated its range offers the new capability of attacking the US from the North or the South pole... that means either it can put its warhead bus into orbit, or they are building ICBM silos in Antarctica.

    You folks do realize that ABM shield does not work and even if by some miracle it worked with 95% reliability it would still not be good enough to prevent extinction of US population?

    Also, you have gone off-topic quite a bit....

    Both very good points.

    or range of Samrat + Avangard is 30,000kms? Avangard flies with 7km/s on orbital trajectory. Can have quite a range though.

    I would say range unlimited due to the Sarmat getting the Avangard into orbit...

    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:46 pm

    hoom wrote:
    A threat of another Pearl Harbor attack with SLBMs from the Sea of Okhotsk &/ SLCMs/Status 6 from the surrounding Pacific Ocean
    The threat is not a Russian first strike, the threat is that the psychos running the US think they're protected by ABM from a Russian 2nd strike -> launch a 1st strike & we all die. The point of the new Russian systems is to provide concern that Russia still has a valid 2nd strike despite US ABM -> the psychos are held at bay & we don't all die.
    Could well be, but losing just Pearl Harbor & other bases in Hawaii & Alaska in a 2nd strike is also very sobering. It'll be worse than losing Guam to a NK strike. The US will again lose most of the 7th Fleet + footholds in the Pacific & the Arctic. W/o Alaska, Brazil will become the largest nation in the Western Hemisphere.
    Even after a full nuclear exchange, there'll be many survivors.
    Not all reptiles, birds & small mammals died out in the last big extinction 65M y.a. caused by an asteroid impact & volcanoes.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1384
    Points : 1386
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Big_Gazza on Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:48 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Even after a full nuclear exchange, there'll be many survivors.
    Not all reptiles, birds & small mammals died out in the last big extinction 65M y.a. caused by an asteroid impact & volcanoes.

    That's so... encouraging.  Suspect

    What does it say about our race of marginally-evolved arboreal primates that we put into power (and tolerate the corruption of) the worst sociopathic specimens of our kind, who then threaten us all with global genocide, simply because the monkeys in the next valley across refuse to give us their bananas or pay rent for the trees they sleep in, or deliver the best of their young maidens for our Chiefs pleasure?

    Even chimpanzees know better than our species of tool-using two-legs.   Mad

    Labrador

    Posts : 130
    Points : 130
    Join date : 2018-09-24

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Labrador on Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:08 am

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    verkhoturye51 wrote:
    100 Aegis ships, 1100 Patriot launchers, 30 GBIs. This month Arrow 3 deliveries started, it has kill rate of 99 %.

    Only GBI is designed or having any chance to kill ICBM's.  So 30 GBI's is what the best you have.

    Those AEGIS's and Patriots and Arrows are NOT for ICBM's, they're at best used for interception of IRBM's.

    30 GBI before since this year 14 new in Alaska so 44



    Sponsored content

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:22 pm