Hi Mindstorm... nice to see you have time for us.
You posted this excerpt:
The SM-3 Block IIB is a hit-to-kill interceptor using the force of a direct collision to destroy its target. It will be launched from the Aegis Ashore weapon system (a land-based version of the Navy’s Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system). The ability to intercept earlier in flight -- engaging targets in their ascent phase -- enables defenders to handle larger raids (salvos) and engage target missiles before they can take evasive maneuvers or deploy countermeasures. With a higher burnout velocity, flexible launch locations, and greater interceptor divert (steering) capability, the SM-3 Block IIB can also address intercontinental ballistic missiles, supplementing the GMD capability.
The current plan is for it to be land based, but what exactly stops it from being fitted to ships.
The ability to intercept earlier in flight -- engaging targets in their ascent phase -- enables defenders to handle larger raids (salvos) and engage target missiles before they can take evasive maneuvers or deploy countermeasures.
How can land based interceptors offer interceptors the ability to intercept targets as they are climbing? ..unless they are deployed in Europe or Greenland/Iceland/UK?
Or sea based... despite mention of a land based system.
With a higher burnout velocity, flexible launch locations, and greater interceptor divert (steering) capability, the SM-3 Block IIB can also address intercontinental ballistic missiles, supplementing the GMD capability.
Flexible launch locations? How flexible is a silo based missile?
Compared, perhaps to a missile mounted in a large ship?
The problem with the future US plans is that they are no set in stone and they are careful not to limit their plans in any way.
They wont even sign a document declaring they wont be used against Russian weapons, and you think they wont mount late model SM-3s on ships?
I know but these their current plans. Future may include GBI or KEI missiles witch are more dangerous to Russian ICBM. Unknown is what angers Russia cozz they have no idea what can be next.
They have actually made public their plans and the block 4 stage of both the Bush poland 10 missile system and the Obama US ship based who knows how many missiles system, included changes that made both systems much more capable and dangerous to Russias nuclear deterrent.
Besides as US does not want to sign anything meaning all they plans account for nothing.
Means they really don't care about Russian fears or interests, and don't want to limit themselves with the systems they want to develop and build.
In that case SM-3 wont matter cozz flight attitude of Russian ICBM will be long way off may attitude reach of SM-3. But in the same scenario with KEI/GBI in Poland Grenland might be its interception point.
Actually it is against shorter range targets that ICBMs go really high, for max reach targets they don't actually fly very high at all.
As an aside with all the space junk circling the earth it does not pay to use high trajectories for your warheads...
True and probably will but at that case they will have to deal with decoy also and changing flight trajectories of MARV warheads. Besides no matter what its always batter to have multiple options at your disposal.
Please don't get me wrong... I am not saying that the US would be completely safe with such a system in operation.
We all saw the chaos after less than 3,000 people were killed in 11/9, and of course hurricane katrina showed what a large scale event can do, but in comparison even just one nuke hitting a US city would be crippling, and lets face it dozens or hundreds will change a country completely forever.
My point is that these systems are unbalanced and destabilising and without any guarantee they will even work they are increasing the chance of a nuclear war rather than reducing it.
It doesn't matter if you and I know it wouldn't save the US... they just have to think it could and they have a record of believing stuff that turns out to be wrong... which is never much consolation after Iraq has been invaded and hundreds of thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars wasted... in the case of WWIII the consequences are orders of magnitude worse.
DF-21D is what introduces SM-3 on ships much faster but still makes no sense to park your SM-3 armed ship of the coast of China and wait for ICBM lounch,
You wouldn't send it alone as a picket ship, it would be part of your task force... it protects the task force and the task force protects it.
There is also another option... fit a small nuke warhead to a late model SM-3 and use it as an anti ship missile with extraordinary speed and manouver performance...
I wonder whats the Venecuela idea of buying S-300V and not S-300PMU2.
The S-300V series has tracked vehicles designed to operate with Army forces on terrain suitable for tanks.
The S-300 series including the PMU2 are wheel based and mostly used by Air Force (PVO) and similar forces... often in more static roles like defending airfields and command posts that don't move very often.
I remember reading on arms-tass.su interview with S-400 designer serval years back saying Russian 40N6 ( addressed "long range" missile) will have 185 attitude range. Export version will have 40-60 km attitude range.
I can remember reading that same article and can confirm I thought he said 185km altitude too.
I only wonder if they manage to increase radar range for S-300V4 or they have to build new radar, which could support similar range of 400 km for missiles.
Weren't they building an AESA radar to operate with the S-400 battery with a range of something enormous like 2,500km or something?
Certainly as they start to introduce AESA arrays the performance will increase, and as they extend missile range they will certainly have to introduce new support equipment like radar and sensors.