US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

You know what the really sad and pathetic thing is... if you are playing a game that is important as this is... ie life and death... I have no problem with cheating.... this is life and death... this isn't some computer game where if you lose you just restart at the last save point... but the fact that the Americans are both cheating and behind and having to use their economic and political power against Russia is very very amusing because the thing with economic and political power is that first of all they can only do so much, but also much more importantly the more often you threaten or impose economic measures your target seeks alternatives and becomes rather more independent and powerful... and other countries see this and realise they would be vulnerable too so cooperation with this country who doesn't follow orders starts to look better and better...

With all the claims of Russian hacking and Iranian expansionism Trump and ObamaClinton in their little witch hunts and invasions and attacks against Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and their blind support for the invasion of Yemen and their overthrow of the legitimate government in Kiev have done way more to increase Russian and Iranian influence and increase their international power... it has been the US missteps that have created the situation today... neither Russia nor Iran started this... all they did was not capitulate and do as they were told by the US...

Arrow wrote:

GarryB wrote:

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.

The Moscow ABM system is not efficient. It is based on the intercept of RV in the terminal phase using a nuclear warhead. The US had such a system 50 years ago and dismantled it. They considered it inefficient. Now it is being expanded to A-225. Nothing is known about him, but he still intercept RV with the 53T6M in terminal phase. It is not known whether it has a conventional or a nuclear warhead. Russia still has no HtK technology in either the S-400 or S-300V4 systems. This is a technology lagging behind the US. Maybe it won't be until the S-500 that the RV interceptor l will be used with the HtK warhead! There is no evidence that the S-400 is more effective than THAAD and PAC 3. Maybe against air targets, while US systems better combat ballistic missiles.

You really wanted to be roasted today didn't you?

Arrow wrote:

The Moscow ABM system is not efficient. It is based on the intercept of RV in the terminal phase using a nuclear warhead. The US had such a system 50 years ago and dismantled it. They considered it inefficient. Now it is being expanded to A-225. Nothing is known about him, but he still intercept RV with the 53T6M in terminal phase. It is not known whether it has a conventional or a nuclear warhead. Russia still has no HtK technology in either the S-400 or S-300V4 systems. This is a technology lagging behind the US. Maybe it won't be until the S-500 that the RV interceptor l will be used with the HtK warhead! There is no evidence that the S-400 is more effective than THAAD and PAC 3. Maybe against air targets, while US systems better combat ballistic missiles.

I wonder what you have been smoking today... Clearly something rather strong.

You do realise how hilarious it is when you claim that because the american nuclear ABM system was a inadequate the Russian one must therefore suffer all of the same issues. Especially when the general tendency is that Russian systems are designed for real wars while american systems are worked on by imported designers and morons to try and fulfill questionable requirements set by the damned marketing department.

Furthermore the fragmentation warheads in Russian SAMs are sufficiently effective against missiles and are far more versatile than the questionable american kinetic "warheads" that have been known to pass through some missiles with little effect on anything other than accuracy.

Oh yes and how could I possibly forget that even if thier nuclear ABM system was perfect they would can it simply because liberals cannot
possibly understand that not every nuclear warhead is an 50 MT RDS-220.

The Moscow ABM system is not efficient. It is based on the intercept of RV in the terminal phase using a nuclear warhead. The US had such a system 50 years ago and dismantled it.

Using a nuclear warhead to assure a kill is very very efficient and also deals with any problems like a target with a jammer or decoys that might distract a hit to kill interceptor that either hits or fails... or even might detect the incoming interceptor and fire some side thruster rockets to jump sideways by say 10m in the split second before impact... with the closing speeds of these objects there is no time for the interceptor to make the same move so it would be a guaranteed miss every time... and before you cry about no weapon doing that... the TOR family of missiles have side thruster rockets around their nose used during launch to point the missile in the direction of the target at launch, but are also used in the terminal portion of the engagment to manouver the missile to get a more precise hit with a hard manouvering target... but it is not hit to kill either because fragmentation warheads are vastly more effective across a much wider range of target types than a solid warhead.

The US system was dismantled because they built it around an ICBM field and even an idiot could have told them that an ABM system around an ICBM field is a waste of time because by the time any Soviet ICBM warheads or SLBM warheads arrive to destroy the ICBM field the ICBMs would already have been launched and would be on their way to their targets... destroying empty silos is a waste of warheads.... the Soviets didn't even aim any missiles at US silos... they aimed them all at US population centres...

Now it is being expanded to A-225. Nothing is known about him, but he still intercept RV with the 53T6M in terminal phase. It is not known whether it has a conventional or a nuclear warhead.

So you admit they have been testing and upgrading the system since it first entered service... that is good... the fact that it is not known as to whether it is a nuke or a hit to kill is irrelevant. Hit to kill would be nice but unnecessary and much more expensive and complicated... destroying incoming threats with nukes is easier than trying to hit them directly. With nuclear warheads to precision requirement to stop a threat is dramatically reduced and made simpler... the cost is that there will be a lot of nuclear explosions above the target being protected, but that is much better than nuclear explosions in the target being protected...

Russia still has no HtK technology in either the S-400 or S-300V4 systems.

What successful HtK technology are they currently operating in service... PAC-2 has poor performance against ballistic targets and PAC-3s record is pretty sketchy too...

This is a technology lagging behind the US.

They are probably lagging behind the US in teeth whitening chemicals too but I really don't think that is important either...

Their current SAMs are pathetic to ordinary... even their allies don't want Patriot or THAAD and would rather disrupt their economic relationship with the US and buy S-400s even if it means missing out on F-35s... and after their tests they said the S-400 is even better than they were promised...

Maybe it won't be until the S-500 that the RV interceptor l will be used with the HtK warhead!

I doubt they would bother with HtK warheads... they are simply not flexible enough to engage the wide variety of targets the missile is intended to be used against.

Most likely they will continue to use their smart fragmentation warhead that senses the location of the target just before impact and explodes directing a targeted shower of fragments at the targets expected position... the difference between that an a hit to kill warhead is like the difference between a shotgun blast and a rifle bullet being fired at a small fast moving target. The shotgun blast is vastly more effective in terms of hit probability... when used correctly it makes hit probability 100%. With a rifle bullet hit probability is never 100% and often even with a hit it is not enough to ensure the target is destroyed as it might not hit a critical point of the target. A blast of fragments directed at a target means multiple hits and assured kills... against a variety of targets from small warheads through cruise missiles as well as aircraft and drones and even ground targets.

There is no evidence that the S-400 is more effective than THAAD and PAC 3. Maybe against air targets, while US systems better combat ballistic missiles.

There is abundant evidence that S-400 is part of the Syrian air defence network and since the Syrian air defence components were added there have been no surprise attacks... THAAD and PAC-3 are poor systems in comparison and are much much more expensive and really only cover ABM threats up to Scud levels of performance.... mach 7... which means even Iskander is too fast for them even without manouvering. S-400 can deal with targets moving at almost 5km per second... which is about mach 17 - 18... and it can deal with aircraft and drones and missiles and cruise missiles etc etc...

The US systems exceed the Russian and Soviet systems only in price. Saudi Arabia is covered in Patriot systems yet subsonic cruise missiles and drones penetrated their defended airspace without even being spotted... pathetic.

Note the Igla MANPAD had impact and graze fuses only so for very small targets like a drone or an anti tank missile like the AT-3 if it didn't hit the target directly it didn't intercept it... During testing out of 9 targets the Igla destroyed 5, but in four cases did not actually make contact with the target and therefore the warhead didn't explode and the missile just flew past the target by your logic with your HtK bullshit what they needed to do was fit the MANPAD with a 50 million dollar AESA radar controller to more precisely track the target and the outgoing missile and then spend another 10 million dollars per missile with a digital data link to allow more precise course corrections to ensure a direct hit... what the Russians did was spend a few thousand dollars and upgrade the missile with a proximity fuse and created the Igla-S.

Americans are experts at spending money and their resulting systems look really good to fanboys... Javelin is a case in point... on paper amazing... in the field not so great and too expensive to use in large numbers. The Metis ATGM has similar range and better penetration and you can literally buy 100 Metis missiles for the price of one Javelin missiles. In terms of combat use the Metis is superior and can be used in large numbers against all sorts of targets... Javelin will be used against all sorts of crap too but we don't have any more because they are too expensive...

Interesting MDA graphic of Intercepting hostile ( read Russian ) ICBM

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8dvtPzqlcK/

PAC-3 against cruise missiles?

Hole wrote:PAC-3 against cruise missiles?

Holy shit PAC 3 couldnt hit a fucking basic missile.

To be clear... PAC-3 is optimised for use against ballistic missiles only... its solid hit to kill warhead and lack of proximity fuse HE frag warhead means it has to directly hit a target to destroy it. Now for a large item like a bomber you could probably get a hit... but it is possible that it might just punch a large hole in the target and not destroy it... a bit like a rifle bullet punching a hole straight through a truck but not hitting anything important on the way through... the effect is a draft.

PAC-2 is the SAM and is supposed to deal with cruise missiles and aircraft.

When Arrow is saying US systems are better than Russian systems what he is saying is that S-400 which has better ABM capacity than either PAC-3 or THAAD, and better capacity against cruise missiles and low, medium, and high flying aircraft and threats from any direction 360 degrees than PAC-2, is not as good as the US equivalents...

Ironic because it is better than all US equivalents together... US systems are optimised to stop slightly longer ranged Scud missiles and has a better record shooting down friendly aircraft.

The S-400s radars and sensors mean that when Israel mounts an attack on Syria and then tries to blame Syria for the loss of a Russian aircraft the Russians can go to the radar record and show exactly what happened... this was with the Russian IADS in Russian bases in Syria... before the IADS was expanded to include Syrian forces...

So yeah, not only are the Russian missiles better but their IADS creates a C4IR envelope over the territory it covers, and while in Syria there are limitations as to how Syria is allowed to react and cannot go hunting for wasps in their nest and have to wait for individual wasps to attack at a picnic, in Russian service that will not be the case.

Also don't weapon export restrictions on Iran end in October 2020?

GarryB wrote:
Also don't weapon export restrictions on Iran end in October 2020?

Yes, US could put additional unilateral sanctions of course, but there is no way that will be ratified by the UN, so Russia and China will be free to sell what they want.

The restriction on civil airplanes containing more than 10% in value of american components will still stay, however. So Russia will not yet be able to sell the ssj100 to Iran until they replace at least a part of the American components and China won't be able to sell its arj21 (they also have US engines).

So we will see if Iran will order some Mig35, iskander, bastion and S400....

miketheterrible wrote:

Hole wrote:PAC-3 against cruise missiles?

Holy shit PAC 3 couldnt hit a fucking basic missile.

"WATCH: Yesterday, #USA Made PATRIOT Air Defense System Missiles (same one #Turkey begged for) fly past #Yemen’i (Iranian) ballistic missiles— missing the incoming target and failing to intercept."

https://twitter.com/As_SourceBrkNew/status/1244306164491452416

The restriction on civil airplanes containing more than 10% in value of american components will still stay, however. So Russia will not yet be able to sell the ssj100 to Iran until they replace at least a part of the American components and China won't be able to sell its arj21 (they also have US engines).

There are a lot of customers who want western components and because they are in production they often get used because they are standard... a bit like choosing Microsoft software for your business or Linux.... a lot of people prefer Microsoft simply because it is a name they know and they expect better support.

Often when building something it makes sense to use off the shelf systems and many of these systems are not something you would use for anything else and in a world where western companies dominate making stuff for western aircraft it makes it hard for a little Russian company to create a product let alone one good enough to compete.

But with this sanctions shit America is giving Russian companies no choice but to develop these systems themselves... it isn't hard, there is no magic required... Russian companies are just as capable as western companies, but sanctions give the people making the decisions a reason to choose Russian products.

This is rather better for Russia than it is for the US because it is creating competition and some customers buy US stuff because there is no alternative... but with sanctions they are creating alternatives...

By working with the Russians they might gain some influence, and in fact better relations with the Russians might give them extra abilities to apply pressure to countries that wont normally care what they think, but they are too stupid to realise friends are more useful than enemies...