Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+38
AlfaT8
Neoprime
Hole
verkhoturye51
RTN
Big_Gazza
Isos
Labrador
Stealthflanker
Tsavo Lion
Teshub
KomissarBojanchev
jhelb
miketheterrible
PapaDragon
KiloGolf
The-thing-next-door
Werewolf
GunshipDemocracy
Singular_trafo
victor1985
kvs
Cyberspec
flamming_python
max steel
Asf
Vann7
magnumcromagnon
Austin
GJ Flanker
Mindstorm
SOC
Arrow
medo
GarryB
George1
Viktor
sepheronx
42 posters

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15123
    Points : 15260
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  kvs Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:28 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:The aegis is nothing special it just gets more western propaganda attention strategic ABMs have been around for decades.

    THAAD and Aegis offer much greater range and mobility than the Gazelle with range of a mere 80km, silo-based and stationed as per treaty, only around Moscow. When Nudol comes online, Russia will have something to competitive in the field. For now it's just the old Soviet left-overs.

    Apples and (old, obsolete) oranges comrade. pirat

    Wank, NATO-fanboi, wank. The only thing that matters in those 80 km is whether the missile does its job. Your "mere" is also
    utter BS because 80 km is a number you pulled from your a**

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system

    A-135: ceiling of 900 km, range of 900 km.

    A-135 is currently deployed and will be replaced by the A-235. Perhaps you will post that the system will have a mere 8 km range.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible


    Posts : 7383
    Points : 7341
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  miketheterrible Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:39 pm

    Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities. At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

    ABm systems are rather useless.
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15123
    Points : 15260
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  kvs Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:46 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.  At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

    ABm systems are rather useless.

    Indeed, a nuclear warhead is mandatory and a no brainer. The kinetic kill BS is for propaganda purposes since the sheeple are
    afraid of the word nuclear. The ABM "peace shield" is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy thing so they dress it up as if it does
    not use nuclear tipped interceptors.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1279
    Points : 1335
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  The-thing-next-door Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:02 pm

    kvs wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.  At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

    ABm systems are rather useless.

    Indeed, a nuclear warhead is mandatory and a no brainer.  The kinetic kill BS is for propaganda purposes since the sheeple are
    afraid of the word nuclear.    The ABM "peace shield" is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy thing so they dress it up as if it does
    not use nuclear tipped interceptors.  

    I would have thought there would be restrictions on nuclear warheads for an ABM system aret there?

    Kinetic warheads are possible but super unreliable even if you have Russias vastly superior missile tech.
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf


    Posts : 2481
    Points : 2461
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  KiloGolf Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:06 pm

    kvs wrote:A-135: ceiling of 900 km, range of 900 km.

    A-135 is currently deployed and will be replaced by the A-235.   Perhaps you will post that the system will have a mere 8 km range.

    Range vs ceiling thumbsup

    And it's literally something useful only around Moscow, doesn't make any difference in current world affairs. The doctrine is obsolete, the system is short-legged, deployed in quite smallish numbers and static.

    miketheterrible wrote: Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.

    Just as Saddam's Iraq gave some zero hopes in Soviet armor and weaponry.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible


    Posts : 7383
    Points : 7341
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  miketheterrible Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:21 pm

    Don't be stupid Kilo. You know just as well as rest of us that Saudi uses mercenaries, not their own trained troops.

    Austin pointed out leaks long ago about failures of THAAD and PAC systems. Lets be real here, they are garbage, expensive ones.
    jhelb
    jhelb


    Posts : 1086
    Points : 1187
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  jhelb Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:35 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:Do you mean Proper ABMs like the A-135s 53T6 missile witch has a 10 KT nuclear warhead and is currently used to deffend Moscow in event of a nuclear attack it entered service in the 90s.

    No. More like S 350, S 400, S 500 etc as far as missile defence is concerned.

    Regarding missiles, missiles like Iskander, Kh 31, Kh 55, R 77.


    For example, America's AMRAAM replacement, the LREW will feature an AESA seeker& ramjet propulsion.

    Nano satellites provide "responsive beyond-line-of-sight communications support in very austere environments.



    Just need to understand what are the latest technologies that are being designed for such missiles & missile defence systems.


    Last edited by jhelb on Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:22 am; edited 1 time in total
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible


    Posts : 7383
    Points : 7341
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  miketheterrible Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:01 pm

    http://russia-insider.com/en/us-missile-defense-scam-could-get-us-all-killed/ri21359
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15123
    Points : 15260
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  kvs Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:24 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.  At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

    ABm systems are rather useless.

    Indeed, a nuclear warhead is mandatory and a no brainer.  The kinetic kill BS is for propaganda purposes since the sheeple are
    afraid of the word nuclear.    The ABM "peace shield" is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy thing so they dress it up as if it does
    not use nuclear tipped interceptors.  

    I would have thought there would be restrictions on nuclear warheads for an ABM system aret there?

    Kinetic warheads are possible but super unreliable even if you have Russias vastly superior missile tech.

    Since the US tore up the ABM treaty, Russia is free to deploy the system it has around Moscow (nuclear tipped interceptors)
    around the country. Clearly there is no violation of the INF by ABM missiles since they are not designed to hit remote
    ground targets.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1279
    Points : 1335
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  The-thing-next-door Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:58 pm

    kvs wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.  At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

    ABm systems are rather useless.

    Indeed, a nuclear warhead is mandatory and a no brainer.  The kinetic kill BS is for propaganda purposes since the sheeple are
    afraid of the word nuclear.    The ABM "peace shield" is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy thing so they dress it up as if it does
    not use nuclear tipped interceptors.  

    I would have thought there would be restrictions on nuclear warheads for an ABM system aret there?

    Kinetic warheads are possible but super unreliable even if you have Russias vastly superior missile tech.

    Since the US tore up the ABM treaty, Russia is free to deploy the system it has around Moscow (nuclear tipped interceptors)
    around the country.  Clearly there is no violation of the INF by ABM missiles since they are not designed to hit remote
    ground targets.

    And Russia can just make thousands of nuclear tipped ABMs without violating anything?

    If Russia had 500 nuclear A-235 missiles in every city they could easily win a nuclear war you do realise.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1279
    Points : 1335
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  The-thing-next-door Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:04 am

    As for in development ABMs Russia has.

    A-235 (Moskow ABM sysytem upgrade capable of using nuclear,explosive or kinetic payloads it will replace components of the current A-135 system)

    S-500 (SAM with 600 km range and is claimed to be capable of eliminating cruise and ballistic missiles it has an explosive warhead and will be the long range SAM of Russia)

    As for the west they have

    The aegis (Witch needs to be near the missiles flight path in order to intercept. It only has the option for a kinetic warhead)

    The thaad (witch is a short range system that was desighned to protect field instalations against R-11 and R-17 tactical ballistic missiles.

    The PAC-3 of the patriot can shoot down tactical ballistic missiles but has a very short range.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible


    Posts : 7383
    Points : 7341
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  miketheterrible Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:41 am

    A-235 is also theorized to be mobile as well, but we are not 100% sure of that. All we know it is an upgrade to the A-135. But the theory still stands.

    S-500 is using a more or less hypersonic missile to intercept warheads or bus of the missile, especially highly maneuverable ones. Designed cause they cant place it near US sites, so it is to be placed in Russia.
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev


    Posts : 1429
    Points : 1584
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 26
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  KomissarBojanchev Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:52 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.  At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

    ABm systems are rather useless.

    Indeed, a nuclear warhead is mandatory and a no brainer.  The kinetic kill BS is for propaganda purposes since the sheeple are
    afraid of the word nuclear.    The ABM "peace shield" is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy thing so they dress it up as if it does
    not use nuclear tipped interceptors.  

    I would have thought there would be restrictions on nuclear warheads for an ABM system aret there?

    Kinetic warheads are possible but super unreliable even if you have Russias vastly superior missile tech.

    Wouldn't using nukes to destroy ICBM warheads be equivalent to nuking your country because of the fallout and large amount of detonations needed?
    avatar
    Teshub


    Posts : 71
    Points : 72
    Join date : 2015-02-16

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  Teshub Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:25 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Wouldn't using nukes to destroy ICBM warheads be equivalent to nuking your country because of the fallout and large amount of detonations needed?
    First, high altitude aerial detonations produce next to no fallout. Second, they are likely designed to detonate in a rolling line starting out at maximum range (probably in space) whilst incoming warheads are still beyond Russia's borders, and falling back with each interception.

    The worst effect will probably be EMP backwash on civil infrastructure. But that is a murky subject and variant A-235 warheads are probably tailored to generate kills using different effects at differing ranges.
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev


    Posts : 1429
    Points : 1584
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 26
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  KomissarBojanchev Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:13 am

    Teshub wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Wouldn't using nukes to destroy ICBM warheads be equivalent to nuking your country because of the fallout and large amount of detonations needed?
    First, high altitude aerial detonations produce next to no fallout. Second, they are likely designed to detonate in a rolling line starting out at maximum range (probably in space) whilst incoming warheads are still beyond Russia's borders, and falling back with each interception.

    The worst effect will probably be EMP backwash on civil infrastructure. But that is a murky subject and variant A-235 warheads are probably tailored to generate kills using different effects at differing ranges.
    I have a hard time believing that fallout doesn't happen in atmospheric detonations. By that logic we would already be having fission engine rockets but they were never put into service exactly because of fallout danger in case they explode.
    avatar
    Teshub


    Posts : 71
    Points : 72
    Join date : 2015-02-16

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  Teshub Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:04 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I have a hard time believing that fallout doesn't happen in atmospheric detonations. By that logic we would already be having fission engine rockets but they were never put into service exactly because of fallout danger in case they explode.
    First off the fallout produced by airbursts is primarily restricted to irradiated weapon debris, of which there's not much left with modern fusion warheads. In comparison, surface bursts produce multiple orders of magnitude more irradiated material with a greater range of radionuclides.

    Secondly when I talk about high altitude bursts, I am talking about a detonation in the mesosphere to low orbit. At these heights whatever irradiated dust remaining from the detonation is likely to take between 0.5 and 1.7 years (and more) to transition back through the stratosphere. During that time the majority of the most dangerous radionuclides have already decayed. Furthermore high altitude winds disperse the dust so that we are talking microscopic amounts per square kilometre, planet-wide.

    Granted, if Russia detonated hundreds of warheads this high up it would produce a perceptible increase in background radiation, but whether it would amount to more than a couple of MRIs is debatable.
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15123
    Points : 15260
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty ABMs like the A-135s

    Post  kvs Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:46 pm

    Teshub wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I have a hard time believing that fallout doesn't happen in atmospheric detonations. By that logic we would already be having fission engine rockets but they were never put into service exactly because of fallout danger in case they explode.
    First off the fallout produced by airbursts is primarily restricted to irradiated weapon debris, of which there's not much left with modern fusion warheads. In comparison, surface bursts produce multiple orders of magnitude more irradiated material with a greater range of radionuclides.  

    Secondly when I talk about high altitude bursts, I am talking about a detonation in the mesosphere to low orbit. At these heights whatever irradiated dust remaining from the detonation is likely to take between 0.5 and 1.7 years (and more) to transition back through the stratosphere. During that time the majority of the most dangerous radionuclides have already decayed. Furthermore high altitude winds disperse the dust so that we are talking microscopic amounts per square kilometre, planet-wide.

    Granted, if Russia detonated hundreds of warheads this high up it would produce a perceptible increase in background radiation, but whether it would amount to more than a couple of MRIs is debatable.

    Excellent summary. You know your physics.
    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 2711
    Points : 2703
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Russia needs a minimum of 3,000 strategic warheads

    Post  Arrow Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:45 am

    Russia needs a minimum of 3,000 strategic warheads to annihilate the US and part of NATO in case of war. And how much will the pentagon have then is irrelevant. 3000 heads will scare them away enough. the reduction of nuclear weapons brings us closer to a nuclear conflict. Already Russia would not be able to destroy the entire US, not to mention NATO. After further reductions, the Russian nuclear deterrence will be very miserable. For this, the expansion of American ABM systems. Russia's further nuclear disarmament by Putin should smell of sabotage.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5815
    Points : 5771
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:08 am

    No need to annihilate, just inflict unacceptable damage & destroy nuke sites. That's why Trump recently met Kim & both hope to meet again. The MAD doctrine time is over. Also precision non-nukes can substitute for tactical nukes.
    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 2711
    Points : 2703
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  Arrow Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:40 am

    Yes MAD doctrine time is over. Now the possibility of using a nuclear weapon is increasing. Another START increases only the risk. Russia is currently unable to cover all military purposes in the US and where the NATO regime. On the other hand, the potential of the UK and France, 8 SSBN, comes to the USA.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38957
    Points : 39453
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  GarryB Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:19 am

    No need to annihilate, just inflict unacceptable damage & destroy nuke sites. That's why Trump recently met Kim & both hope to meet again. The MAD doctrine time is over. Also precision non-nukes can substitute for tactical nukes.

    Yes MAD doctrine time is over. Now the possibility of using a nuclear weapon is increasing. Another START increases only the risk. Russia is currently unable to cover all military purposes in the US and where the NATO regime. On the other hand, the potential of the UK and France, 8 SSBN, comes to the USA.

    No, you are both wrong... MAD is the only thing holding the US back... it is only the threat of destruction of the US that stops them because otherwise war is good for their economy.

    Yes, the need is to kill people... Russia doesn't need to hit US ICBM silos, or their air bases... they will be empty by the time Russian weapons get there whether the US starts it or Russia does.

    The purpose of Russian strategic weapons is to clear a path to launch positions for their strategic bomber cruise missile carriers... so radar and airfields in north america are all targets as well as ABM systems and of course population centres.

    Precision guided weapons have replaced nukes in theatre war, but not strategic war... in strategic war you don't need to hit silo hatch covers because by the time your missiles reach there they will be empty... cruise missiles will be aimed at cities and food production areas, and water supplies... they are "you've killed us so we are going to kill you" weapons.

    With NATO bases so close to Russia there is a risk that a large conventional precision strike could take out enough systems to stop a retaliation strike to take place... a sort of pre-emptive decapitation, except that currently Russian air defences can probably cope with western cruise missiles and Russian forces are too strong to get away with it... a Russian nuclear strike would be launched as soon as it was clear that was what NATO was trying to do... and it becomes a case of use it before you lose it (ie ability to launch nuclear strike).

    For there to be a new Start agreement signed that replaces the existing agreement there will no doubt need to be a lot of changes... the US will want to include hypersonic missiles of course, and Russia will likely demand more missiles than the US because the US also has UK and French missiles on their team... not to mention the US controlled ABM system in Europe, in the US, on AEGIS class ships, and likely soon in Japan/South Korea.

    I rather suspect the Russians wont be under any illusions and will play rather more hard ball than they have done before.

    The whole point of START is to maintain MAD... and various weapons like Poseiden and the nuclear powered cruise missile should offer a guaranteed revenge for Russia no matter who starts what.
    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51


    Posts : 438
    Points : 430
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  verkhoturye51 Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:01 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The purpose of Russian strategic weapons is to clear a path to launch positions for their strategic bomber cruise missile carriers.

    Do you think it's probable for Russian ballistic missiles to break through European or US ABM shield? NORAD has been always pretty much impossible to penetrate for Russians.
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10695
    Points : 10673
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  Hole Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:48 pm

    Which ABM shield?
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker


    Posts : 1410
    Points : 1486
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 36
    Location : Indonesia

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  Stealthflanker Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:10 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:

    Do you think it's probable for Russian ballistic missiles to break through European or US ABM shield? NORAD has been always pretty much impossible to penetrate for Russians.

    Just how many interceptors they have ? and how many targets it can be expected to handle.

    It's pretty much still a problem for both US and Russia to handle massed SLBM or ICBM attacks.
    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51


    Posts : 438
    Points : 430
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  verkhoturye51 Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:20 pm

    Hole wrote:Which ABM shield?

    Stealthflanker wrote:Just how many interceptors they have ? and how many targets it can be expected to handle.

    It's pretty much still a problem for both US and Russia to handle massed SLBM or ICBM attacks.

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

    Sponsored content


    US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Apr 22, 2024 8:45 pm