It feels like the invulnerability of Iskander is kind of exaggerated. After all, if it was so perfect, Kinzhal won't be made, imho.
You do understand Kinzhal is an air launched Iskander... if it was shit why would they bother making an air launched version and expand deployed forces from 12 launchers to 16 launchers per unit?
If you have a close look at the missile itself its external tiny fins are fixed... they are effectively stabilisers like the vertical tail on an air plane.
If you look at the exhaust nozzle you will see control surfaces mounted in the rocket exhaust that allows the missile to manouver by deflecting the rocket thrust like a TVC fighter plane... that is important because even the largest control surface has limits to how hard it can turn an aircraft without stalling and creating drag.
If Iskander was fairly easy to shoot down Kinzhal would be useless because it is the same missile with higher speed and longer range because it is launched above 10km altitude and at mach 2.4 flight speeds...
they easly confirming that PAC-3 can intercept Isaknder and identify it's decoys at terminal path .
Easily confirming based on what exactly?
PAC-3 has never been used against anything even remotely like Iskander or Kinzhal... America doesn't have anything like either missile to test them against.
BTW the effective range of the PAC-3 against a ballistic target is something like 20km and it can only engage ballistic targets it has no capability against normal aircraft or cruise missiles.... Iskander does not fly a ballistic path it manouvers like a hypersonic bomber aircraft which makes its trajectory impossible to model or calculate... just like the flight path of an aircraft is impossible to model because unlike an artillery shell it is not a simple ballistic path for an unpowered projectile.
A human batsman in Cricket can hit a ball that goes straight, though with faster balls it becomes instinct and guess work because their eyes and brains can't process the information quickly enough to then have time to move the bat to an intercept point reliably enough. If the ball is swinging they have even less chance of an intercept and the ball does not need to swing very much to make the difference between a clean stroke from the middle of the bat, to an edge for caught behind.
If Cricket is not your thing then think of a tennis ball that can change direction in mid flight... how hard would it be to return over the net?
PAC in gulf war failed to intercept Iraqi cruise missiles and versus scud they had to launch 30 missiles against 3 SCUDs .
The original Patriot system was never expected to engage anything like a ballistic missile so in practise they found the obvious problems... a normal SAM is supposed to hit centre of mass... on a plane that is a big meaty area with lots of fuel and engines where an explosion will break the plane from which it will certainly not recover. With a long slender missile moving at 7 times the speed of sound everything behind the warhead is meaningless... it is empty fuel tanks and rocket motors that are no longer running because all the fuel is burned up. Essentially it is dead weight slowing down the missile and not doing anything important for what is essentially a falling warhead... they fired an AVERAGE of 32 Patriots per Scud missile and there is no evidence a single Scud was actually destroyed before it hit the ground. Because the scuds were modified by the Iraqis to extend their range a lot were actually breaking up as they were coming down because they came down rather faster than they were designed to... and of course a Patriot sees the missile coming apart and goes for the big bits... engine and fuel tanks and leaves the warhead.
Ironically the S-300 which entered service in about 1977 was designed to engage ballistic targets and would have done a much much better job, but the standard Patriot was not designed for the job so unsurprisingly didn't do a good job... we were told it as amazing but that was propaganda... if it was amazing then why bother making PAC-3 a specialised Patriot variant optimised for ballistic targets?
Patriot wasn't great against cruise missiles either because of their fixed launchers and radars not being great for high or low flying targets.
As Saudi Arabia has found to its cost.
So what about intercepting a high speed target with no ballistic flight path ,low RCS ,maneuvering in the whole flight journey ,releasing decoys with the same radar signature of the target ??
The Soviets have been making large SAMs designed to intercept ballistic targets since the late 1970s, and all their current medium and short range SAMs also now have an anti ballistic missile capacity. Of course they will discuss with the makers of Iskander what that missile needs to do to evade air defences...
Well, I won't underrate western SAMs to be honest.
Well when it comes to over rating SAMs the west is pretty good... I remember reading that the British Navy was going to kick Argentine butt because the Sea Wolf and Sea Dart are amazing.... the Sea Cat and Sea Slug were terrible but the new dart and wolf were amazing and could hit individual 114mm artillery shells so how could a missile hit a British ship.
After quite a few were hit by French sea skimming missiles the British basically said it was OK because the Soviets didn't have any sea Skimming missiles.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
(The 7 ton Granit and the 4.5 ton Moskit were in service at that time... the max altitude a Moskit reaches is 300m to spot the target and then it drops down to below 7m above the waves at mach 2.2 to defeat the AEGIS system with the Standard SAM which at that time could not engage targets below 7m...)
Anyone got any comments on European SAMs as opposed to US?
Can't be worse... are probably better... though the US Navy Standard seems to be good...