You can put much larger missiles in these old fixed sites
Also, only thing that can attack them are the ones they are designed to defend against
Plus they already exists and maintenance is much simpler
No need to stop using them
It is very difficult to shoot down an incoming missile warhead with an anti-ballistic missile. Ballistic missile warheads are very small (US ones are typically about six feet long and eighteen inches wide at the base and rather resemble a large artillery shell) and travel 10 times faster than a rifle bullet (a typical ballistic missile warhead travels at about 15,000 mph). It is the equivalent of trying to shoot down a bullet with a bullet. In about seventeen tries since 1991, anti-ballistic missile interceptors (sometimes called ABMs) have successfully intercepted eight incoming missile warheads for a success rate of just under 50%. And this was under unrealistic conditions where the defenders knew everything there was to know about the "dummy" warhead's characteristics, trajectory, launch time, and no countermeasures were used by the offense!GarryB wrote:THAAD is an anti theatre ballistic missile system or ATBM... it is for Scuds and enhanced Scuds at best.
Even the S-300V is better than THAAD except altitude performance... the main difference is that the S-300V actually intercepts targets of all types including much harder targets than THAAD can't manage.
S-400 and even S-350 is better in many ways... including cost.
Nudol has a range of 3,000km... that is a huge step up from existing ABM missiles around Moscow and is better than GBI.