I saw both the missile at aeroindia 2011 where both missile mockup were there , both missile are of same dimension , except one has the booster the other doesn't.
Even if they haven't taken the new two stage design to optimise the design of the missile to further improve performance, the performance gain will still be pretty significant, though of course the standard penalty is a longer heavier missile.
The Extra stage gives it the thrust of an even larger missile, but when the extra stage falls away its power to weight ratio improves and drag is reduced... and not only has the missile now got a running start, its top speed and operating altitude will be reached faster and it will maintain that higher speed longer, which extends range.
The S-500 has been in development for far longer than you seem to think.
It has been a paper project for decades, but was still an idea on paper when the US withdrew from the ABM treaty, and its parameters have been radically revised... and the likelyhood of it actually being fabricated into actual missiles and vehicles and radars jumped from single figures to 100% when the US withdrew from the ABM treaty as it became the solution to something to match the US new ABM program.
Doesn't matter where you put them if they're still a threat to knock down your ICBMs.
And US carriers are for moral support because defence in layers is a stupid idea. I mean obviously the USN is happy with SEA RAM to defend all their ships at sea and they don't think that a layered defence with fighter aircraft and AEW aircraft forming an outer layer followed by another layer of long range SAMs like Standard SM-2, or medium range missiles like ESSMs are even worth bothering about.
Just like in cowboy movies and kung fu movies the bad guys will line up and attack US ships with one missile at a time.
Putting 50 in the US is one thing, making your navy the primary ABM missile carrier with no limits on interceptor numbers or positioning of the vessels with the ABM systems makes Russian suspicious and their reaction will be to greatly improve the performance of the S-500... it was probably going to be a much better version of THAAD... in other words an ATBM system, but with US moves it has changed in role and is pretty much becoming a mobile Moscow ABM system.
If the US stated it was putting 100 interceptors in Alaska and 100 somewhere else in the US and 100 more in a third place in the US and 100 more in a fourth place, then the Russians would of course say that such a system can only be directed at their missile inventory, and the reaction would likely be to withdraw from the new start treaty and build up weapons numbers... it is always easier to overwhelm a defence with numbers.
Instead of announcing hundreds of new ABM missile systems in the US, the US is saying it will put an unknown number of missiles on its ships... which could easily be stationed to do the job any missiles in the US could do, only earlier.
The US claim is that missiles and warheads that Iran doesn't have are a threat and that is the whole purpose to all of their ABM defences. 10 interceptors in Poland and 50 in Alaska does not stop Russias ability to wipe out the US, but the plans never ended at that. Long term plans called for newer more sophisticated missiles and there was no limit on numbers or even a requirement for the US to notify Russia of any change in policy. Overnight the US could decide to put 300 interceptors in Greenland and decide not to tell anyone about it... it is not illegal... and the currently planned mobile system is not illegal either. Russia is not saying the US can't do what it likes. Russia is saying that if the US continues along this path there will be consequences as there have already been consequences like the radical upgrade of the S-500 system. If the US had not bothered with developing ABM systems that violated the ABM treaty and the Treaty was still in force then the S-500 would be a THAAD like system and the S-1000... being a mobile ABM system would have stayed on the drawing board.
Because the US did withdraw from the ABM treaty, the S-500 basically skipped the THAAD level of performance and was revised to the S-1000 level of performance... which means the S-1000 will move up the scale... if it ever gets built it will likely be a three stage ICBM or at least IRBM sized weapon for hitting satellites out to geostationary orbits and beyond to satellites in retrograde orbits.
Hence my point of the hilarity of the argument. Russia is basically arguing that if we get into a nuclear war, we'll shoot down their missiles earlier in their flight paths than they shoot down ours.
But America has said it wont shoot down Russian missiles... the ABM systems they are building are for Iranian and North Korean missiles. They just wont put that in writing.
They wouldn't be building S-500 mobile ABM missiles if you weren't doing the same.
It all boils down to tracking. If you can track the objects, be they satellites or RVs, you can probably find people smart enough to build something to kill it. And if you lack a MaRV, you're still flying a relatively stable and predictable path.
And more importantly when trying to shoot down one or two Iranian warheads... first of all it is made easy because they don't exist and therefore don't need very much accuracy to hit to kill, but if conversely, your ABM system is really designed to stop a mass attack by Russia then you quietly swap out those hit to kill final stages with a decent size (ie 10-15 megaton) warhead to vapourise lots of missiles at once, but obviously the closer you can hit them to your enemies airspace the better, so mobile systems on... say... ships are the ideal.
The question then becomes, if you want to threaten, say, the GPS network, will the missile be anything close to mobile?
You could use a nuke warhead and time the interception and detonation to get 3-6 satellites at a time or more... moving the satellites to evade impact will dramatically degrade the accuracy of the system.
If the target actually knows you shot at it, and figures it out early enough, moving outside the missile's effective maneuvering window becomes increasingly easier the longer-range the engagement is.
Detecting a lock by a SAM site that is 350km away... what do you do? Accelerate and climb for 5 minutes and then turn and accelerate to supersonic speed in the opposite direction?
The SAM site might have been 350km away but the SAMs launched might have been 100km away and arrive with the motor still running and plenty of energy for several attack runs.
Plus, there's always the ability to program the guidance control system to react after midcourse to maneuver and burn off excess velocity.
The control surfaces on any S-300 missile are not very big, so excess speed is actually a good thing... it is easier to dodge a basket ball than a bullet... assuming the basket ball is not travelling at rifle bullet speeds and the bullet is not travelling and thrown basketball speeds of course.
I would beg to defer , having ABM at multiple places during its flight trajectory and having the option to track and kill it on multiple occasion during its flight gives you far greater ability to sucessfully kill the ICBM , if you miss the first or the second time in midcourse you still have land based NMD taking it out what ever leaks out.
Also attacking the ICBMs early... especially with nuke warheads that will not only destroy a lot of warheads but will also blow away decoys, which makes mid layer and last line defence much much easier.
If you just have it at a single location then you have so much less chance to track and kill the vehical.
Exactly. If anyone remembers a video game from the 1980s where you fire nuclear missiles to shoot down incoming ICBMs... it was always easier to hit MIRVs before they split into multiple targets and if you can position vessels near Greenland then it is like having another player helping you, though it would make the first few levels boring as you would likely have nothing to do later on when the single player game became almost impossible, then having one or even two layers of players above you would become obviously a huge advantage.
And it not about the nuclear war , its also about how you can effectively utilise your First Strike Capability and how a Defence In Depth ABM system can exponentially give you a greater advantage for First Strike.
As I said before... it is all about MAD.
If the US has stealth bombers and SSBNs and a three layered ABM system using tier 4 missiles able to stop multiple threats with each missile... all of a sudden Russias nuclear deterrent is not looking so scary.
In other words a good defence might start to make attack look like a potential option... whether it would even work or not is not important... all the billions killed wont come back to life just because a politician or general thought something and was wrong.
Currently MAD prevents WWIII. ABM systems undermine MAD.
Yes, the Russians are building ABM systems too, but only to match America.
They wont deploy ABM systems on the same scale as the US will however, because that would be too expensive, so they will take the cheaper route of withdrawing from the new START treaty and will simply start building as many missiles as they think they will need to get past any potential ABM system the US might build.