max steel wrote:Can I know what all cruise missiles can be used to neutralize ussa abm in europe both on land and water ( aegis bmd ) ?
Iskander cruise missile version is made for that.. also Kalibrs/Club missiles land attack version.
This ones have up to 3500km range.. or 2600km depending the source. Enough to hit any military base in europe from Russia. There are also nuclear cruise missiles with 5,000km range
forgot the model..
About US vs Russia defense..
As far i have read ,based on their own simulation videos ,Sm-3 is not a missile interceptor.. but more like a space orbit mine.. that is transported by a missile carrier to the place where NATO expect the missile to pass.. when launched from Russia. Because is very limited its propulsion system.. is just a mine with very rigid mobility by boosters it cannot be used to chase anything.
is a mine you place in front of a predicted trajectory of a passing missile in very high altitude exosphere space orbit. So Sm-3 will have problems to intercept a missile that do maneuvers
and cannot be used in anything but gravity zero space.
So the system of defense, SM-3. is only useful only against missiles with a linear trajectory.
but if it change the course , when the mine is placed , it will fail since cannot chase. is not a missile.
So we can say US navy is more advanced that Russia navy when it comes to high altitude ballistic missiles defense.Russia navy have nothing of that. All Russian defenses are in Land.
S-400 no idea of its range but if it is true can do 180km altitude.. it could do the same and be used as a mid course interceptor.
S-500 will apparently be an all altitude interceptor. So essentially will do it all in just one missile. Can intercept either Planes ,or ICBM. Americans in the other hand.. needs no less than 3 system of defenses or possibly 4 to cover the entire range of territory defend against air or space attacks.
S-400's and others systems will do the job of space interception. So which is more advanced..
thats impossible to know.. unless they tested..in real war conditions , But all the info i have seen suggest US is not really satisfied with their missile interceptors on land. while Russia it is.
The next article will show you how complicate is interception of ICBMs.. Is not an easy thing
at all.. and the best way to intercept them it seems to be before they are in their final trajectory.. ie. .mid course.. because in the final path ,they drop decoys and many other things ,
that really complicates interception.. this is true for both , for Russia and US.
So to play safe.. Russia will need to deploy missiles capable of Mid course interception ,that is real missiles.. (not space mines like SM-3) at borders of Russia. to counter any nuclear attack before it enters in Russia space . Because im afraid the interception of nuclear missiles in the final stage is next to impossible from land.. This is why i think Russia should really push
for militarization of Space.. why Russia needs to deploy satellite interceptors or a space station
with anti ICBM defenses.. or perhaps laser defenses. .that will truly take things in security to a new level.