US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

Isos wrote:
The target's speed is lower when it goes in the atmosphere so easier to intercept. And you can use explosive to destroy it. Kinetic warehead means you need to be precise to touch it while it goes at mach 6 or mach 7.  Imagine touching something that goes a mach 7... and if the target can move in flight you can forget about that because even if it changes its course by 1° at mach 5 means it move tens of km in matter of sec while your kinetic warhead missile tries to go on an impact point calculated by following the missiles' path before it moved.

Something with enrgy for orbital flight flies 5 or 7 however no Ma but km/s

Arrow wrote:Could you explain why? THAAD has better ABM characteristics than S-400 and S-300V4.

that's why S-500 now enters production

It intercept targets outside the atmosphere using kinetic warheads. S-300 and S-400 still large explosive conventional warhed. THAAD is lighter and probably better maneuvering from the large missiles with S-400 and S-300V4

True but so far neither THAAD/SM3 did cope with anything else then MRBM, even North Korean failed to intercept while flying over Japan. So perhaps explosive warhead is not that bad after all.



.

Of course, the USA is developing much better SM-3. Russia does not have the equivalent of SM-3 In the field of defense, ABM is far behind the USA.

S-500

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Of course, the USA is developing much better SM-3. Russia does not have the equivalent of SM-3 In the field of defense, ABM is far behind the USA.

S-500

And Nodul.

AlfaT8 wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Of course, the USA is developing much better SM-3. Russia does not have the equivalent of SM-3 In the field of defense, ABM is far behind the USA.

S-500

And Nodul.

even better With 1500km range and (nobody knows for sure) the height of the defeat zone 850km ceiling + nuclear warhead surely protects much better than any kinetic kill.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Of course, the USA is developing much better SM-3. Russia does not have the equivalent of SM-3 In the field of defense, ABM is far behind the USA.

S-500

And Nodul.

even better  With 1500km range and (nobody knows for sure) the height of the defeat zone 850km ceiling + nuclear warhead surely protects much better than any kinetic kill.

The Rim has a range of about 700KM, The Block 2A versions a range of like 2500KM.

Both Mach 10 Plus.

The missile is designed to take down fast Anti-ship Ballistic weapons.

These are also sea-based missiles, not land-based there is a difference.

SeigSoloyvov wrote: The Rim has a range of about 700KM, The Block 2A versions a range of like 2500KM.

yet latest tests went pretty poor. Target missed or selfdestuction.  Block 2A has range because this was requirement not because of alien tech.  

Nudol with 1,500km range means it can protect St. Petersburg being fired from Moscow site.

Both Mach 10 Plus.

We dotn know what speed Nudol has but anything going up to 850km and being effective there needs speed close to orbital velocity i.e. ~7km/s  (25Ma)

The missile is designed to take down fast Anti-ship Ballistic weapons.

No, it is not what Raytheton says:

The SM-3 interceptor is a defensive weapon the U.S. Navy uses to destroy short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles.[/i]
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sm-3

These are also sea-based missiles, not land-based there is a difference.

No, this is not what manufacturer says:

arried by U.S. Navy ships deployed off Europe’s coast and is now operational at a land-based site in Romania, further enhancing Europe’s protection. When the next land-based SM-3 interceptor site becomes operational in Poland, all of Europe will be defended from ballistic missile attacks.

Both ballistic missiles types operate in the same manner and thus are both targets for the missile.

Some tests went bad yes but that's what tests are for, remind me again how many botched missile tests the Russians have a year? the answer is a lot.

Well, that is technically right, on land-based Poland also has some if you want to go there. At the same time those aren't the same missiles technically modification had to be made thus I do not count them. This is a personal thing if you want to consider them the same that's fine.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Both ballistic missiles types operate in the same manner and thus are both targets for the missile.

true, but they weren't designed specifically against any ballistic antiship missiles in mind.
Especially i didnt find any info about quasi balistic trajectory testing with maneuverable warhead.

Some tests went bad yes but that's what tests are for, remind me again how many botched missile tests the Russians have a year? the answer is a lot.

Then both are on the same level. Yet Korean obsolete missiles are safe in foreseeable future. US didnt dare to have life testing last year.

Well, that is technically right, on land-based Poland also has some if you want to go there. At the same time those aren't the same missiles technically modification had to be made thus I do not count them

Russia doesn't need sea based AMD at the moment. There are no platforms for that yet. US objective is sea control, and AMD along Russia's borders. With 70 destroyers/cruisers they could be close but again that's why Sarmat/Avangards/Poseidons or Burevestniks were designed.

There is no point to argue. Both sides have different requirements and both are fallowing them. I dotn see any AMD sides having "better in all categories" missiles.

Could you explain why?

S-400 and S-300V4 are air defence missile systems that are fully mobile and able to pretty much defend a piece of airspace from pretty much any aerial threat.

That is from 4.8km/s speed incoming ballistic missiles, through to low flying cruise missiles and pretty much any flying craft in between

THAAD is designed to shoot down slightly improve SCUD missiles with a hit to kill missile that is not really suitable for anything else.

THAAD has better ABM characteristics than S-400 and S-300V4.

No it does not.

It intercept targets outside the atmosphere using kinetic warheads.

Why do you think that makes it better?

S-300 and S-400 still large explosive conventional warhed.

Which means it is much more versatile and able to deal with a much wider range of targets than THAAD is capable of.

THAAD is lighter and probably better maneuvering from the large missiles with S-400 and S-300V4.

Yet as systems the S-400 and S-300V4 are vastly more mobile and better able to operate in the field.... without dedicated satellite support...

Of course, the USA is developing much better SM-3.

But hang on, if THAAD and PAC-3 were both developed specifically to engage BMs and are so fucking wonderful at doing so why on earth would they waste money developing a naval version... and why did Japan choose it over THAAD?

Russia does not have the equivalent of SM-3 In the field of defense, ABM is far behind the USA.

Russia has had an operational ABM system around Moscow for the last almost 50 years.... most of what makes THAAD and PAC-3 Patriot came from what they learned from the S-300V system sold to them in the 1990s.

How any THAAD systems are operational and how many S-300V and S-400?

THAAD is intended to engage superSCUDs with speeds of mach 7 or more... S-400 can already engage targets moving at 4.8km/s...

that's why S-500 now enters production

THAAD was designed and built while the ABM treaty was in force... S-400 and S-500 after.

The Rim has a range of about 700KM, The Block 2A versions a range of like 2500KM.

AEGIS Ashore directly violates the INF treaty... as it can also take Tomahawk cruise missiles...

Both ballistic missiles types operate in the same manner and thus are both targets for the missile.

Like most ABM systems they are designed to intercept plain old vanilla BMs... missiles like Kinzhal and Iskander would be a real problem...

There is no point to argue. Both sides have different requirements and both are fallowing them. I dotn see any AMD sides having "better in all categories" missiles.

I do... PAC-3 and THAAD are rubbish... the only missile worth a damn is the SM-3 to be honest and it is still an anti IRBM system, whereas the S-500 is a full spec ABM system able to engage ICBMs and Satellites in low orbit... it would be interesting to see an air launched S-500 actually... I am sure they will be working on one.

In the mean time the ABM missiles from around Moscow are getting upgraded and improved too and made mobile if Nudol is to be believed... of course S-400 and S-500 and Nudol would have been illegal if the US hadn't withdrawn from the ABM treaty...

Patriot was very much over rated.

During Desert Storm you would think every Scud the Iraqis fired was destroyed by the system, and those super hero special forces were blowing them up all over the place.

The actual facts of the matter are that not a single Scud missile was destroyed on the ground before it could be launched.

It took an average of 32 Patriots fired at Scuds to get a "hit"... and most of the time all that did was change the trajectory of the incoming missile.

Patriots were never designed to shoot down ballistic missiles... Unlike the S-300 system developed in the Soviet Union which was specifically designed to take on ballistic as well as other targets.

The Patriots intercepting Scuds were at a huge disadvantage because the Scud was moving too fast so the fragments from the Patriots warhead tended to hit the middle or the rear of the Scud... the middle and rear of a Scud is its now empty fuel tanks and its rocket motors which do nothing during the descent of the missile onto the target... they are just falling behind the warhead.

The Patriots often shredded the fuel tank area and the rocket motor of the Scud but that doesn't matter because it was the warhead that was the problem... which generally fell where it was going to fall anyway.

In comparison the S-300 and later missiles had advanced warhead fusing that calculated where the fragments needed to go... the centre or rear body hit is perfectly fine against a fighter plane or bomber aircraft, but a tip of the nose hit is needed for ballistic missile targets to destroy the warhead... which also shatters the body into tiny safe fragments that don't need to be worried about any more.

The main difference is that it was 1991 that the US realised it needed weapons to kill ballistic missiles. The Soviets had been working on the problem and solving it 20 years or more before that... they also had smaller systems to stop HARMs and other guided and unguided munitions... perhaps the US might work that one out too eventually...

But please keep telling me about Americas advantage in ABM systems...

The Patriots intercepting Scuds were at a huge disadvantage because the Scud was moving too fast so the fragments from the Patriots warhead tended to hit the middle or the rear of the Scud... the middle and rear of a Scud is its now empty fuel tanks and its rocket motors which do nothing during the descent of the missile onto the target... they are just falling behind the warhead.

I've read somehwere scud used to desintegrate themselves in many pieces which made a lot of fake targets on patriot radars and most of the time they couldn't know which is the warhead.

Anyway the result of houti attacks shows that its a useless system for ABM role since it can't intercept even old toshka rockets correctly.

The success rate (if you can call it as such) of the Patriot was around 3%, according to israeli data.

The warhead of the 48N6M and 40N6 missiles is "smart", their explosion produces a controlled fragment pattern. If the missile misses the target by a few metres, it can still destroy it that way.

Thank you.

I've read somehwere scud used to desintegrate themselves in many pieces which made a lot of fake targets on patriot radars and most of the time they couldn't know which is the warhead.

The Iraqis added fuel to extend the rockets range, but they didn't upgrade the structure of the missile... extending a ballistic missiles range makes it go faster and structurally it couldn't handle the increased flight speed so during its fall to the target it often broke up in mid air... and naturally the Patriot focussed on the biggest bits... the fuel tanks and the engines and left the warheads to fall to the ground.

It was not a design feature, but an unintended consequence of trying to get more range without improving the design to handle the extra speed.

Discussion for ABMs intercepting ICBMs from Borei topic was transferred here

Thanks George... was just about to do that myself but you beat me to it...

Thanks George... was just about to do that myself but you beat me to it...

it seems we have the same moderation spirit!

Hole wrote:The success rate (if you can call it as such) of the Patriot was around 3%, according to israeli data.

The warhead of the 48N6M and 40N6 missiles is "smart", their explosion produces a controlled fragment pattern. If the missile misses the target by a few metres, it can still destroy it that way.

Wow how impressive.

Any news yet on the mind bogolingly high success ratios for the sm3? Im am sure they amaaaazingly hiiigh, that is to say they may give that impression if you ar as hiiigh as the retards whom to whom that are presented.

To be fair Patriot was never originally intended to shoot down ballistic high speed targets, and the US military have always been pretty half arsed regarding air defence... the Army pretty much expects the Air Force to keep the sky clear of threats and has not really spent much money on effective systems to protect themselves.

The exception to this rule is the US Navy who has invested a bit of money in air defence and their Standard missiles are quite reasonable in terms of SAM performance. They were intended to be enormously long range two stage SAMs right from the beginning, though the anti ballistic nature is pretty new for them too... in comparison the Soviets and Russians have expected to face NATO ballistic weapons and supersonic anti ship missiles they don't even have yet, because they have been practising against their own stuff.

Until now SM-3 wasn´t used against a real target in a real war-like enviroment. Only tests.

The russian air defence network goes back to the lessons from the WWII. A lot of fighters were destroyed in the first dayd of the war (on the ground), afterwards they had no air superiority until the end of 1944. With their SAM´s they don´t rely on planes.

The source is questionable but seems US upgraded ballistic interceptor is in big poop https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/missile-defense-fail-new-super-accurate-kinetic-energy-warhead-just-got-scrapped-61807

Hidden at the bottom this utterly scathing sentence apparently from official review

“Our prior work has shown that stabilizing system design before making major production commitments and relying on knowledge rather than deadlines to make acquisition decisions at key milestones are best practices of successful product developers.”

kvs wrote:


Pathetic fail of US anti-rocket systems in the Saudi drone attack.    Blowhard Pompeo had to bleat out all sorts of excuses about how no country
has ever had to face so many drone and rocket attacks at once (LOL).    Russia has to routinely fend off similar drone attacks on its Syrian
air base.

Apparently Pompeo is one of the many corrupt clowns who serve corporate interests instead of the taxpayer.   Not surprising that the only
thing of note about US military equipment is that it is grossly over priced.    It's functionality is not even a concern.

It's too amusing that the Saudi Mights are in negotiations with the S. Koreans for the KM-SAM, it's basically the Saudis work-a-round to get Russian SAM technology to not piss off Uncle Scam. Because many arms deals are based on mostly politicized bullshit we've seen the Russian MIC find ways around politically motivated obstacles. Yakovlev managed to sell Yak-130's as Aermacchi M-346's. Yakovlev and Aermacchi had a 'fake-fight' to appease HATO, and now Yak-130's are sold in NATO states as the best trainer available. With no political obstacles and actual honest free-market competition Russian arms end up on top!

http://www.uniindia.com/news/world/defence-russia-s500/1875200.html
So Russia will finally have an ABM system at level SM 3 BLOCK II. Only additionally mobile.

So Russia will finally have an ABM system at level SM 3 BLOCK II. Only additionally mobile.

Nope. The ABM system around Moscow has exceeded the performance of any operational US system for the last 50 years it has been operational for...

They are developing mobile versions of that too, but also the new S-500 when together with S-400 and S-350 offer an air defence capacity the west simply does not have.

Though of all the air defence capabilities the US Navy does win the race in the west in terms of performance... the US Army and Air Force are pathetic in that regard... PAC-2 and PAC-3 and THAAD all working together are not even as good as S-400 on its own.

ah, good ol Arrow and his stupidity. He is saying Russia just got performance of a missile defense that is a total failure. LOL. SM3? LOL.