US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

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.

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?    

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?

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?

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?

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

Keep drinking the cool aide... forward deployed GBI would need to be in northern Russia to be effective at intercepting warheads and decoys before they are released from their warhead buses, and Soviet missiles around Moscow were intended to delay the destruction of Moscow to allow the commands for a full scale retaliation missile launch to be ordered... the nuclear explosions dozens or hundreds of kms away from moscow would be vastly preferable to airbursts that would have occurred without the defensive missiles...

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.

GBI systems deployed in Europe and South Korea and Japan are offensive systems intended to cover a first strike... the hope is that if the first strike is swift enough they might get a large proportion of the warheads leaving only a few threats for the various GBI systems located around the place to deal with so a nuclear war could be won.

The only obvious problem was that it was bollocks.

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

Does it even work reliably?

Might come as a shock but S-400 is able to destroy a much wider range of targets and threats than THAAD... the fact that the THAAD does it outside the atmosphere is not really that significant... though it certainly made it more expensive...

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.

But that is the problem... if Russia detects 200 Tomahawk missiles penetrating their airspace they might just assume this is a first strike of WWIII and that they need to launch all their nuclear missiles before they are destroyed in their silos... will it matter if those tomahawks are aimed at something else?

The 1st 3 may be upgraded to A later.

I would say leave them as they are and make an extra 3 Borei class subs as SSBNs and when they are ready revert these three to other duties like arsenal ships or undersea research like they did with Delta III and IV subs.

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

Best way is always mix it up... the new Kinzhals, and of course Kh-32s would also be useful too.

If 50kt Iskander or Kinzhal SRBMs can be used tactically,

AFAIK the Kinzhal would not be nuclear armed.

Neither would any land based Iskanders fired at naval vessels.

Then Google scholar (with no academic background) became the easiest way to access scientific data in the world.

The bias inherent in the system skews information found in a way to make it less than useless most of the time.

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

Several American subs have probably sunk themselves with faulty torpedos... it is actually much more common than you might think.

Or Tu-22s with Ks-15 in suicidal mission dunno dunno dunno 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?

Tu-22M3Ms with state of the art electronic self defence suites and four Kinzhal missiles each would be quite impressive... and a MiG-31 deploying Kinzhals at near mach 3 at over 10km altitude for a mach ten flight 2,000km to the target... which US carrier aircraft would be a threat to a mach 2+ flying target 2,000km from the carrier?

GarryB wrote:Does it even work reliably?

The same argument holds true for the S-400 as well. Does it even work ? It has never fired a single missile at an incoming hostile missile or aircraft.

THAAD has seen real time action. Its performance was less than optimum in a few cases but overall it worked else Riyadh, Dubai would have been toast by now.

GarryB wrote: Might come as a shock but S-400 is able to destroy a much wider range of targets and threats than THAAD...

You must have dreamt this.

GarryB wrote:the fact that the THAAD does it outside the atmosphere is not really that significant... though it certainly made it more expensive...

Of course it is. Why else is Almaz working on exo atmospheric intercept missiles for S-400 ? The tests for exo atmospheric missiles so far has failed, that's why they have not been deployed.

S-400 is not cheap either. Endo atmospheric intercept is dangerous. If you intercept a missile after it has entered your country's airspace all that you can hope for is that it is unable to hit the target. But nonetheless the debris from the missiles will fall in civilian areas causing massive casualties.

THAAD has seen real time action.

Any source ?

You must have dreamt this.

Cruise missiled, stealth fighters, planes, ballistic missiles, helicopters, drones ....

THAAD is only for ballistic missiles. And if they can manoeuvre in space its not even good at it.

Of course it is. Why else is Almaz working on exo atmospheric intercept missiles for S-400 ? The tests for exo atmospheric missiles so far has failed, that's why they have not been deployed.

They keep this role for s-500 which has better radars and processing units.

Price is also an argument. S-400 has to replace s-300 in big numbers. They cab't make it too much expensive. S-500 will take care of BM with less units deployed but at strategical emplacement. S-400 will follow army moves to protect also them.

debris from the missiles will fall in civilian areas causing massive casualties.

Not really.

GarryB wrote:Neither would any land based Iskanders fired at naval vessels.

They mounted Kalibr CM on Iskander this summer for this purpose.

GarryB wrote:
Several American subs have probably sunk themselves with faulty torpedos... it is actually much more common than you might think.

No. In the US nuclear submarine history, 2 submarines have been lost. Both due to diving too deep.

GarryB wrote:The Russians are restocking their satellite naval radar and navigation system... so an SSBN could be given coordinates for carrier groups rather easily and quickly...

For all I know, you're right, but...this topic is probably more classified than GUGI submarines or see floor installations in the Arctic. If you meant Kanopus satellite program, its functions are still just speculations.

Hole wrote: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.

I thought THAAD couldn't hit aircraft at all? I thought it was Anti-Ballistic only.

Yup. Back in its development stage it was supposed to be something like the S-300. In theory it could be used against large planes like aerial tankers or so.

The same argument holds true for the S-400 as well. Does it even work ? It has never fired a single missile at an incoming hostile missile or aircraft.

THAAD has seen real time action. Its performance was less than optimum in a few cases but overall it worked else Riyadh, Dubai would have been toast by now.

Its specs are all lower than the S-400, it is not really comparable to the S-400 in the same way a spear is not comparable to a SMG.

The THAAD was a panic knee jerk reaction to SCUDS and the fact that Patriots were useless against them.

THAAD was therefore designed to intercept SCUDS and SCUD like ballistic missiles.

And that is what it does... it is a hit to kill weapon with no warhead and is useless against pretty much most targets except simple short ranged ballistic missiles... and it is enormously expensive.

S-300PMU has better performance against ballistic and other targets.

S-300V4 has better performance again...

S-400 extends that advantage even further to being even better in almost every area.

India could buy THAAD or Patriot if it wanted... it instead chooses to upset the American government and buy S-400... so does Turkey... in fact Turkey was expected to buy Patriot, but after testing they wanted S-400.

You must have dreamt this.

S-400 has a warhead that explodes and sends fragments to destroy large and small targets...

Of course it is. Why else is Almaz working on exo atmospheric intercept missiles for S-400 ? The tests for exo atmospheric missiles so far has failed, that's why they have not been deployed.

Yet countries with a choice of the two are choosing S-400...

The point is that if you want to defend your airspace with Russian missiles S-400 plus a point defence system like TOR or Pantsir will do the job fine... if you want THAAD, then you need THAAD for high performance ballistic targets that don't include anything beyond a SRBM, but you also need something that can shoot down a plane so you need Patriot too... another very expensive system... and what do you use for point defence to stop cruise missiles destroying or using up all your heavy SAMs?

S-400 is not cheap either. Endo atmospheric intercept is dangerous. If you intercept a missile after it has entered your country's airspace all that you can hope for is that it is unable to hit the target. But nonetheless the debris from the missiles will fall in civilian areas causing massive casualties.

Please tell me you are joking... do you think radioactive material can be destroyed by the friction of reentry?

Destroying a nuclear warhead outside the atmosphere doesn't make it safe... it just spreads the radioactive material over a much wider area...  

They mounted Kalibr CM on Iskander this summer for this purpose.

How can you tell?

Hang on... Kalibr CM on Iskander are not for anti ship use, they are to attack targets with BM defences in a surprise attack sort of method.

They tested the ballistic Iskander against ships... for the same reason they were also testing Kinzhal against ships from a MiG-31 launch platform... a test of the ships and the missiles no doubt.

What I am saying is that Iskander (BM) from a ground launcher or BM from an aircraft for use against ships wont bother using a nuclear warhead... Kinzhal is supposed to move at mach 10 so a nuke warhead is largely unnecessary anyway.

Iskander on the ground is an Army weapon... I doubt they would even care about enemy ships...

No. In the US nuclear submarine history, 2 submarines have been lost. Both due to diving too deep.

They lost plenty during WWII to faulty torpedoes... it would be no surprise if the Thresher and the Scorpion had the same fate... ie "due to circular torpedo run"...

During WWII their torpedoes were rubbish.

For all I know, you're right, but...this topic is probably more classified than GUGI submarines or see floor installations in the Arctic. If you meant Kanopus satellite program, its functions are still just speculations.

Oh don't get all honest on me now... Russians are idiots and once they have closed a programme they never even consider a replacement... after all back then they had long range anti ship missiles on board subs and surface ships that would have benefitted from space targeting information, but today... they will have long range anti ship and land attack missile potential on every ship from corvette to cruiser as well as carrier and sub... why would they upgrade their systems...

Nahhh... you just pretend they will be using Tu-142s...

I thought THAAD couldn't hit aircraft at all? I thought it was Anti-Ballistic only.

Correct...

Yup. Back in its development stage it was supposed to be something like the S-300. In theory it could be used against large planes like aerial tankers or so.

When it was designed they already had Patriot, so what they wanted was a defence that actually worked against Scud like targets and that is all it is.

Even Japan is rejecting the THAAD for the AEGIS Ashore system...

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

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.