Comparison of U.S. and Russian ABM systems

Stealthflanker wrote:

verkhoturye51 wrote:
100 Aegis ships, 1100 Patriot launchers, 30 GBIs. This month Arrow 3 deliveries started, it has kill rate of 99 %.

Only GBI is designed or having any chance to kill ICBM's.  So 30 GBI's is what the best you have.

Those AEGIS's and Patriots and Arrows are NOT for ICBM's, they're at best used for interception of IRBM's.

30 GBI before since this year 14 new in Alaska so 44

Labrador wrote:
30 GBI before since this year 14 new in Alaska so 44

and how many do you need to take down one maneuvering hypesonic warhead?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Labrador wrote:
30 GBI before since this year 14 new in Alaska so 44

and how many do you need to take down one maneuvering hypesonic warhead?

Most likely, all of them... and they will still miss

GBI is likely to be useless given that it relies on measuring trajectory, extrapolating the flight path, and performing a ground-commanded intercept. This method can work on a purely ballistic target, but fails if the target has maneuver capability!

Sucks to be the Seppostanis.

30 GBI before since this year 14 new in Alaska so 44

They can't tell decoys from warheads, so even if it was 444 it wouldn't help.

And they wont be intercepting the manouvering warheads either...

GBI is likely to be useless given that it relies on measuring trajectory, extrapolating the flight path, and performing a ground-commanded intercept. This method can work on a purely ballistic target, but fails if the target has maneuver capability!

And if the first missile that moves the fastest is the non ballistic hypersonic weapon that kills the radar for the ABM system... then it wont see the simple cheap missiles coming from China either...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Labrador wrote:
30 GBI before since this year 14 new in Alaska so 44

and how many do you need to take down one maneuvering hypesonic warhead?

This missile is essentialy in service to counter North Korea BMs and why based in Alaska ( 40/44 others in California especialy for tests ) for trajectory reasons  …  in more no hypersonic glider vehicles in service not before severals years, so the problem is not here.

let me be an advocatus diavoli. True that hypersonic glider is very hard to hit with kinetic kill but

1) hard doesnt mean impossible

2) when you are closing to originally calculated place of interception glider can change course but still numbers of possibilities are finite

3) the closer you come the less possible trajectory bifurcations you have.

4) Mind that if you talk about glider is maneuvering with on expense of kinetic energy thus number of maneuvers is finite as you more less can calculate target (you dont shoot expensive warhead to fields of Alabama)


5) fast computers, pre-calculated trajectory and strategies with usage of AI algorithms increases probability of hit



The main question to me is : has anybody tried to calculate approximate (say order of magnitude) number of GBIs per glider? Since Russians say it is impossible I guess that number of GBIs needed to do the job has prohibitive cost for US.

Labrador wrote:

This missile is essentialy in service to counter North Korea BMs and why based in Alaska ( 40/44 others in California especialy for tests ) for trajectory reasons  …  in more no hypersonic glider vehicles in service not before severals years, so the problem is not here.

All ABM is purely against Russia then eventually in the future China. Nobody with IQ bigger then chimp buys Iran or Korean state dept propaganda.

Actually every MIRV is a hypersonic vehicle not every is manouvering tho. However every Yars has manouvering warhead. 3 to be exact. So yes, the problem is there. Of course they not yet that capable as Avangard but for now is more than enough to do the job.






Test from 2014ish

The main question to me is : has anybody tried to calculate approximate (say order of magnitude) number of GBIs per glider?

I would ask the opposite... how do the GBIs recognise the real warheads from the decoys before something hits them... especially if it is coming from the south pole...

What if they launch a single missile with fifteen warheads from an old SATAN missile at the first wave of the attack... these 15 warheads spread out evenly after separating just over the north pole so there is a spread of 15 weapons from New York to Alaska coming over.... and all those warheads have proximity fuses that set off the nuclear warhead if anything gets within 2km of the warhead... any attempt at interception will generate an airburst of a nuclear device in space within the intercept zone of the interceptor... which means EMP pulse turns the radars off immediately and for the next 30 minutes of so ionisation of the atmosphere will make radar tracking and radio communication pretty unreliable.

Or even better the first wave is just decoys and of the 44 decoys about 26 get intercepted and the rest fall harmlessly to the ground... and then the wave of real warheads along with lots more decoys come...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:let me be an advocatus diavoli.  True that hypersonic glider is very hard to hit with kinetic kill but

1) hard doesnt mean impossible

2) when you are closing to originally calculated place of interception  glider can change course but still numbers of possibilities are finite

3) the closer you come the less possible trajectory bifurcations you have.

4) Mind that if you talk about glider is maneuvering with on expense of kinetic energy thus number of maneuvers is finite as you more less can calculate target (you dont shoot expensive warhead to fields of Alabama)


5) fast computers, pre-calculated trajectory and strategies with usage of AI algorithms increases probability of hit



The main question to  me is :  has anybody tried to calculate approximate (say  order of magnitude)  number of GBIs per glider?  Since Russians say it is impossible I guess that number of GBIs needed to do the job has prohibitive cost for US.

According first reports actuals ABMs can't intercept hypersonic glider but surely with some modifications must be possible BTW USA have yet plans to counter such weapons with hypersonic weapons.
After too much what if right now

The GBi is build to counter especialy a country with a Dictator irrational crazy/mad as Rocket Man … almost a new Hitler nothing to do with others more reasonnable countries and ofs so expensive to have thousands GBI

For GBI he can also ofc intercept BMs before they launch warheads or decoys but BTW such weapons as GBi are more humans than a Soviet Gazelle u imagine nuclear explosion around Moscow … ! also more
politically correct not offensive only defensive  but very expensive so it is in fact much more interesting and vs all weapons BMs with conventionnals warheads, LACM etc... more simple and efficient  to destroy in first the launcher no doubt about it.

The crazy/irrational People are sitting in Washington.

New russian missiles will also be fitted with a hard kill countermeasure against interceptor. They will release a few hundred small metal objects (like ball bearings) into the flight path of the ICBM so any incoming missile will be hit and damaged/destroyed before it can reach the ICBM or the separated warheads.

GarryB wrote: Needless to say THAAD is not even as good as S-300P/V in some aspects, let alone S-400 or S-500...

Why ??? THAAD has exo atmospheric intercept missiles. S 400's exo atmospheric missiles are still not ready.

RTN wrote:

GarryB wrote: Needless to say THAAD is not even as good as S-300P/V in some aspects, let alone S-400 or S-500...

Why ??? THAAD has exo atmospheric intercept missiles. S 400's exo atmospheric missiles are still not ready.

They invest in the better s-500.

THAAD has problems hitting planes. Against cruise missiles it is nearly useless. The russian systems are all-around air/missile defence systems that can engage everything that flies. The current missiles can supposedly not fly as high as the missile of the THAAD system but they can defend against cruise missiles, drones, anti-radar missiles and so on.

RTN wrote:
Why ??? THAAD has exo atmospheric intercept missiles. S 400's exo atmospheric missiles are still not ready.

40N6? it since end of June 2018 is.

Russia completed the state tests of a long-range missile for the S-400

The missile can be put into service until the end of summer, a TASS source in the defense industry said.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5342051

Labrador wrote:
According first reports actuals ABMs can't intercept hypersonic glider but surely with some modifications must be possible BTW USA have yet plans to counter such weapons with hypersonic weapons. After too much what if right now

Do I get it correctly  that currently the status is :  there is no way US can intercept with any significant probability  existing Yars warheads. They need still 10 years or so to do it. With Avangard perhaps even more.

Glide Beaker? so far I've seen only a concept presentation.




What gives Russians more than decade to prepare new stuff.  But you know what is funny in this game? Economically this is winning strategy for Russia.  There is enormous  economical leverage. US have to spend 10x more to defend. For country with debt ~ world's GDP is no good spending money on wars they never can win  

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Total US debt: 72 trillions $.

The GBi is build to counter especialy a country with a Dictator irrational crazy/mad as Rocket Man … almost a new Hitler nothing to do with others more reasonnable countries and ofs so expensive to have thousands GBI

c'mon why do you think my IQ is less than chimp? North Korea  wasnt's bullying US, Korea wasn't the one who was bombing with whit phosphorus once rich Libya, Iraq or Syria. All he said was: leave us alone or we strike back.
BTW what dictator is near Poland (another base) or Romania and endangering existence of USA?

For GBI he can also ofc intercept BMs before they launch warheads or decoys but BTW such weapons as GBi are more humans than a Soviet Gazelle u imagine nuclear explosion around Moscow … !

What would grantee destruction with almost 100% . Gazelle had 10ktons wrheadand ceiling 100km. This would might end up for Moscow with Auroras, radio, TV transmission disturbances or power outages. Inhumane indeed.
https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/happen-nuke-exploded-space.html

politically correct not offensive only defensive  but very expensive so it is in fact much more interesting and vs all weapons BMs with conventionnals warheads, LACM etc... more simple and efficient  to destroy in first the launcher no doubt about it.

Would be Russian AMD and cruise missiles in Cuba or in Ottawa, line of Liders with S-500 alond US coasts  defensive too? great we csn agree

This is suggesting submarines have better chance of torpedoing and sinking US Gerald Ford CVN than cruise or ballistic missiles. We've discussed the case of strategic nuclear war, where US seems to be a loser. Their point-defence of, say CBGs, might however be good enough to shoot down not only cruise, but also ballistic missiles. SM-6 is supposedly able to shot down DF-26 Chinese IRBM (which reaches 10 mach in terminal phase).

So scenario where, US and Japan attack Kuril islands with CVN might be problematic for Russia, if they don't want to escalate to attacking CONUS with nuclear warheads.

SM-6 can only engange stright flying ballistic missiles. Iskander flies erraticaly, so it would be safe. Even without ECM support.

Phalanx and RAM are not bad, but mostly against Harpoons or Urans (Kh-35). Both would have problems (understatemend) against Onyx.

Torpedos are always good against ships. Russia is developing a successor to the Skhvall. This sould be a deadly weapon.

Best way is to use a mix of weapons and launch methods.

The SSBNs' role isn't sinking of CVNs, so this is off topic.
But I would add that to keep out of range of BMs, CVNs will need to use tankers to extend the range of their fighters.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a22985234/boeing-will-build-the-navys-mq-25-stingray-carrier-based-tanker-drone/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-navy-plans-give-more-range-f-18-super-hornets-f-35c-20900
https://www.wearethemighty.com/news/the-navy-wants-this-drone-to-extend-its-fighter-range-beyond-1k-miles
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/navy-must-boost-carrier-air-wings-range-size-lethality/
https://news.usni.org/2017/08/31/mq-25-stingray-unmanned-aerial-tanker-almost-double-strike-range-u-s-carrier-air-wing

Eliminating tankers will mission kill the CVNs. Then Adm. Shoemaker can retire & start selling shoes!

verkhoturye51 wrote:
Their point-defence of, say CBGs, might however be good enough to shoot down not only cruise, but also ballistic missiles. SM-6 is supposedly able to shot down DF-26 Chinese IRBM (which reaches 10 mach in terminal phase).

You cannot seriously treat

Inofgraphics YT channel presentations

with no technical or military background. This is their other production:






Their system "allegedly was able" thats why  DARPA has just started Glide Breaker project. Xbox infgraphics is the the definitive proof.




OK OK but now about most important from infpgraphics channel  why she doesn't like me?    

Tsavo Lion wrote:The SSBNs' role isn't sinking of CVNs, so this is off topic.

Says US military strategy? If 50kt Iskander or Kinzhal SRBMs can be used tactically, than so can be 150 kt Bulava's warhead (in the aforementioned scenario it's better to surprise CVN from depths than to engage MiG-31s with US fighters).

Tsavo Lion wrote:But I would add that to keep out of range of BMs, CVNs will need to use tankers to extend the range of their fighters.

If US CVN sees Russian BM flying at 10 mach (that's 3 km/s) a bit earlier it doesn't really help if their weapons are incompetent.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:You cannot seriously treat
Inofgraphics YT channel presentations
with no technical or military background. This is their other production:

That's what they said about Google 10 years ago. Then Google scholar (with no academic background) became the easiest way to access scientific data in the world.

You can treat no Russian submarine seriously because one exploded in 2000?

A submarine waiting for a carrier to come above him and launch its full load of torpedos is almost impossible to counter.

SSK can go full silent by turning everything off and just wait that a carrier comes within a few km and launch a shkval or even 650mm torpedo.

New naval mines that consist of a sonar and a small torpedo are also hard to counter. They are on the bottom emiting no noise while carriers noise signature is easily reconizable and well know by russian specialists.

verkhoturye51 wrote:
That's what they said about Google 10 years ago. Then Google scholar (with no academic background) became the easiest way to access scientific data in the world.

Google Scholar is not an entertainment YT channel but SE for indexing scientific work. Google itself was brainchild of Bring&&Page when their were pursuing their PhD studieson on Stanford.

You can treat no Russian submarine seriously because one exploded in 2000?

my point was: tech is changing constantly. Today US Navy has no effective means of protection against hypersonic missiles. Hardly more massive attack of supersonic ones. But this doesnt mean this will last forever. In 5-10 years they will find something more less being able to protect. But this giver Russia another 10 years to research something new.

Personally I've found funny examples with small rocket boats attacking CSG . Zircons have 1000km range. And 228-00 are only launching platforms not the worlelment and never work on high seas.


BTW How US can use all those gizmos without AWACS or satellites? You dont think why Russians have 400km anti AWACS missiles?


Or Tu-22s with Ks-15 in suicidal mission Ks-15 had 300km range. But Kh-32 has 1000km. Every Tu carry up to 3. 12 means 36 for one CSG. Soon They will have 6x GZUR each. With range 1500km ehat suicidal mission he was talking about?

Exactly!
Can an SSBN detect a moving CVN by itself from 100s or 1,000s miles away for its BMs to hit it? Given their usual patrol area, will they be in a position to use their BMs w/o triggering a nuclear retaliation? As soon as/if they go outside of those bastions, the USN & RN MPA & SSNs will shadow them. It's position will be revealed, esp. after BM launch, & nuclear tipped BMs can be used to blow it out of the water. It's not worth the trouble risking a single strategic sub for a tactical CSG!

Isos wrote:A submarine waiting for a carrier to come above him and launch its full load of torpedos is almost impossible to counter.

Except that in the case of war a CVN would never approach green water ares where SSKs operate. And even in high seas, beneath CBG should be attack submarines, which should be able to hear Russian Akulas. So faster and more secure way to do the job are BMs. If you want to be sure, BMs in combination with other means.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Google Scholar is not an entertainment YT channel but SE for indexing scientific work. Google itself was brainchild of Bring&&Page when their were pursuing their PhD studieson on Stanford.  

Well the line between science and entertainment can be blurred sometimes. There seems to be quite some scientific research behind Infographic show, too. Popular science is by definition inaccurate, but if it creates curiosity with an interesting presentation and makes you do the real research, what's the problem?

Tsavo Lion wrote:Can an SSBN detect a moving CVN by itself  

It doesn't have to. You can communicate the coordinates the the submarine by radio even when it's submerged.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Given their usual patrol area, will they be in a position to use their BMs w/o triggering a nuclear retaliation?  

Bulava has 8000 km, possibly 10.000 km range.

Tsavo Lion wrote:As soon as/if they go outside of those bastions, the USN & RN MPA & SSNs will shadow them  

Cold war is over, modern Russian SSBNs are quiet and you need to miracolously get within 1 km radius to actually hear it.

Tsavo Lion wrote:It's position will be revealed, esp. after BM launch, & nuclear tipped BMs can be used to blow it out of the water.  

By then it will be who knows where. Boreis have a max speed of 30 knots and max diving depth of 450 m.

SSKs can operate in open ocean too; a few could be prepositioned along the likely CVN route/ flight ops area & SSNs may not detect them, as they r quieter.
SSBN communicating with other platforms will expose it, & can be jammed. BMs launched from the sea/ocean can trigger nuclear strikes on it & land targets, which may escalate to a full exchange.
China already has AshBMs but they don't plan to put them on SSBNs.
But the ASAT mission is a different matter: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/18/inside-the-ring-3557826/