Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Aster SAMP/T is very capable system, but Aster-15/30 are in class of 9M96 missiles and in the class of Russian Vityaz SAM complex meant to replace older S-300. As I know, block 2 Aster-30 will have ABM capabilities, but not sure if it will be hit to kill type or with classical warhead, but I doubt it will have same ABM capabilities as THAAD or S-300V4 and S-400.
+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
medo- Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia
Mindstorm- Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20
Well if French Parliament report speaks Gospel Truth and it seems the Aster SAM is an effective counter against Iskander-M that Russians are deploying , Since Iskander flies in atmosphere it can be intercepted by French Aster System.
None will ever utter Godspell Truth for no other reason that both terms are refered to completely fallacious and irrational concepts
About the points raised in that document, is sufficent to say that the proposed ABM system in question, to be developed in concert by major European Companies of the sector ,would pertain to a future project which foresee a purposely modified Aster derivative optimized for the task and using a Ground Smarter 1000 radar, all of that with an expected window of operative introduction placed at around half of the next decade.
And about technical performances of the basis missile selected i think none will ever attempt to question the notion that it represent ,by far, the best Western-made endoatmospheric interceptor and SAM system now available.
It is not a surprise that ,when Aster-30 managed to intercept for the first time a GQM 163A Coyote supersonic sea-skimming target drone, in all western media (not only European but also American ones) was given to this news a very big echo; even mor strangely taking into account that those same Media have not even only one time used the same PR machine and rooted self-praising tradition to publicize any interception of a similar target drone by part of any other western SAM system....anyone can very easily infer why
. From latest Milparade
Military Parade, № 3, 2012, C. 22-23
Mikhail Suchilin, Mikhail Gorbachev
Thanks Austin, my vote to you.
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
Comparison of U.S. and Russian missile defense: is there a real threat to the security of the Russian Federation?
http://vlasti.net/news/168674
http://vlasti.net/news/168674
It is represented by a system of A-135, consisting of Don-2N radar having the opportunity to accompany up to 100 targets at distances up to 2000 km, and the missile 53T6 Gazelle. In the last should stop separately. These missiles, weighing 10 tons, has a remarkable speed characteristics - in just 3-4 seconds the rocket is gaining maximum speed, which according to various estimates range from 4 to 5.5 kilometers per second. The acceleration is so high that the human eye can not follow the flight of the missile. During start-up overload achieved 210G and, in spite of this, the whole complex system of guidance, located in the rocket continues to function. The goal is intercepted at a range of 80 km and an altitude of 30 km, with tactical nuclear or fragmentation warhead.
A similar system was established in the United States. It was called "Safeguard" and was launched on the basis of Grand Forks in 1975, but due to the large number of technical issues, such as self-illumination radar systems explosions of nuclear warheads of their own missiles, the project was canceled in 1976. After that, as already mentioned, in 1983, it was announced that the development of a missile defense system "Star Wars." The plan was to place multiple levels of combat satellites orbiting the earth, each of which would carry a number of missiles, or be equipped with other tools to deal with missiles, such as combat lasers. However, as it turned out, all the noise was just a bluff in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The aim was to make the Soviet Union to spend huge resources to the creation of new ICBMs and missile defense systems similar, although technically it can not avoid now.
Now it is necessary to return to the current realities. At this point, the U.S. develop and put into service a missile defense system with the principle of kinetic interception - that is the destruction of warheads with great hitting missile, flying at high speed. To date, based on the Grand Forks deployed more than 30 missiles EKV (Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle), which are run by a special three-stage launch vehicle GBI (Ground Based Interceptor). This missile defense system as a whole is called GMD - Ground-based Midcourse Defence. Exact specifications EKV is unknown, but it is known that the anti-missile missile weighs about 70 pounds and has an infrared guidance system - it flies to the heated enemy warhead ICBMs. In tests anti-missile missile hit the target at an altitude of 250 km. However, not everything is so rosy - from 14 starts, only 8 were successful. It is unknown how many cases were able to destroy the warhead, and not just her off her path (if the warhead has a nuclear weapon, be sure to complete its destruction, as the explosion even at a great distance from the originally intended purpose is not allowed.) Also doubt the ability of the system to hit the new Russian ICBM warhead Topol-M, which can maneuver in the terminal phase of flight. In this aspect, the kinetic interception noticeably inferior to the traditional intercepted by the nuclear explosion of low power, or fission explosion.
The same principle is based kinetic interception and maritime missile defense, which, in fairness, is well ahead at this point sea-based missile defense system of the Russian Federation, which is a modification of the marine C-300FM - Fort-M. This system is not able to cope with missiles with a large range and intercontinental missiles. USA also take into service more ships equipped with the Aegis system and SM-3 interceptor missiles. So far, the United States armed with a modification of the Block IA, will soon arrive Block IB, which are able to hit missiles with ranges of up to 3,000 km. In the future we plan formulation adopted modifications Block IIA, which can shoot down long-range missiles - up to 6000 km. And around 2020 plan to create modifications Block IIB, which will be able to deal effectively with the IDB. The whole system seems Aegis very powerful force, but the report made in 2009 by independent U.S. military scientists, the system is at the moment not in the best condition. Of the 10 warheads intercepted only two were killed, the rest were just knocked off course. This is officially the overall probability of hitting 84% makes the system very vulnerable in case of a nuclear warhead.
Now it is necessary to consider the short-and long-term prospects of the Russian defense. In addition to the system of A-135 is in service with mobile anti-aircraft missile (SAM), S-400, for which you will soon be put into service 40N6E missile, with a range of 400 km and a height of up to 185 km of defeat - this system is not inferior to the characteristics of the system PRO SM-3 Block IA-IB. In the foreseeable future (called the time before 2017), the Russian Federation will go into service of the C-500. These highly mobile system will be able to deal with all types of missiles, including the IDB in the terminal phase of flight. Range of fire, according to some, would be about 600 km, while at the same time be able to fire up to 10 targets at a speed of 7 km / s (the speed of the warhead ICBMs). We can assume that will be created and naval version of the system that allow the deceased to catch up in this respect ahead of Americans.
Also, in the last stage of development is the renewed Moscow ABM system, which will replace an aging A-135. It is a system of A-235 aircraft-M. Data on the characteristics of the system a little bit, we only know that the missile 53T6 will be replaced by new ones with a more accurate guidance system and a reliable system of defeat high-explosive warheads, and not a small nuclear explosions.
In recent years, the United States often speak of a global missile defense system, including its components and deployment in Eastern Europe. One day there was an attempt to place in Poland and the Czech radar defense system and a number of missiles, but under pressure from Russia, has threatened to place missile systems Iskander-M in Kaliningrad, and as a result of a change of policy following the election of U.S. President Barack Obama, the project was shelved . However, this does not mean that it will not be implemented in the future.
In light of this, it is necessary to analyze whether the threatened spread of U.S. strategic missile defense on Russian and world security capabilities cause irreparable damage to the enemy with the help of a massive nuclear strike. As noted above, which are in service with the U.S. missile defense system is not as perfect as they like to say. And this despite the fact that their experience at the elementary warheads without having to overcome missile defense systems. In addition, the cost of missiles is very high, and the creation of a sufficient number of them to serious opposition to saturate almost impossible. However, if we consider the deployment of missile defense elements outside the territory of the country and in more than one area positioning system (as provided by the United States and the Soviet Union signed the treaty) as a political move and the opportunity to increase its influence, the Russian Federation will soon also be able to spring a surprise by posting a reply for example, the C-500 in the CSTO.
Also in Russia in recent years, is a powerful reinforcement of strategic rocket forces. On the arms already taken ICBM Topol-M and Yars that can effectively overcome missile defense, on the order of sea-based missile Bulava. Until the end of 2013 will be put into service a new ICBM "Frontier", the characteristics of which have not been disclosed. Also developed an interesting project ICBM bottom "Skif", which will be launched from the ocean or the sea floor. By 2018, must be developed a new heavy liquid ICBM, which will replace the aging P-36M, with the ominous nickname of "Satan" (8 missile carries nuclear warheads, each with capacity of 1 megaton is the most powerful in the world).
As a result, we can see that pretty much hyped media and politicians the U.S. missile defense system in the foreseeable future will have absolutely no effect on the possibility of nuclear deterrence. That is, either for Russia or the United States is not the real security threats arise. Not arise and the prerequisites for a global war, that is good news.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Quick question: How does S-400/S-500 stack up against the Pentagon's RIM-161 Standard Missile 3, I know the're's versions of Standard Missile that have insane range of 2500 km, however the history of American SAMS in the last 25 years have been problematic (which may also hold true with the latest Standard Missile series), less than stellar, and less of a "hit" and more of "miss" (from the Patriots SAMS' terrible performance in the first Gulf War, to the countless testing failures of the Ground-based Midcourse System aka GMD), also recently the Pentagon admitted the latest variants of the Standard Missile series blueprints, testing data and other vital secrets have been compromised by hackers (most likely from The Peoples Liberation Army of China). the latest Standard Missile variants get their range with a 4 stage missile which would give any missile insane range, let's discuss...
Vann7- Posts : 5385
Points : 5485
Join date : 2012-05-16
Viktor wrote:
Nice to know that Belarus and Kazahstan intend to buy S-400 which would make nice addition to their S-300 and all
I don't think is a good idea Belarus get an S-400.. he seems that will backstab Russia and the second opportunity . Just look at Ukraine..
They HAve S-300s and for sure know NATO have to be reverse engineering them.. same with the SATAN missiles.. So if Belarus
suddenly betray Russia he could use the S-400s and sell them easily to US for enough money to build its own Sochi olympics for free..
Russia should trust no one.. their Best hardware.. because any coup in that nation will allow US to get access to Russia advanced
military hardware. They can sell them to CHina after 10 years at least . China problem is they reverse engineer things and later sell it cheaper to others..
Quick question: How does S-400/S-500 stack up against the Pentagon's RIM-161 Standard Missile 3
Not completely sure , but if i read it correctly ,people in discussion have said there is no comparison. Because the Sm-3 (and this is according to discussion about it) is NOT a SAM.. (surface Air Missile) but more like a SSM (surface space missile) is only an Mesosphere Midcourse Interceptor. designed only to intercept High Altitude Ballistics ICBMs. And its warhead will not operate until is traveling on space orbit where satellites operate. So it cannot be used against a Combat plane ,drone or even less a cruise missile. Only operate at very high altitudes.. the 2500 range is not a big deal ,when you consider it operate under a near zero gravity space.
FLight ceiling is said to be 1,500km which is more than enough for any ICBM. Limitations i have read of the SM-3 is that is only mid-course ,means can only intercept when the ICBMS are in space zero gravity orbit and not when they are on the First phase or final phase ,also some said it cannot intercept fast mobile space targets and do not fly on a predictable linear path. All said doesn't look like the SM-3 can intercept the Iskander ballistic missiles .. because they fly not in a linear ballistic trajectory ,do heavy irregular flight path ,can do 90 degrees violent turns , and do not fly on the mesosphere space orbit the SM-3 operate.
S-400s in the other hand ,have several missiles 3-4, that covers the entire spectrum of possible air to space targets.
From very low altitude cruise missiles to ICBMs in space ,but without hit to kill ability ,but using instead proximity fuse explosive.
S-500s it have been said will be S-400s with hit to kill capabilities and with much enhanced range. .
S-400s and perhaps S-500 have no analogue in US defense system. Because is a multi purpose all air +space defense.
in the Case of USA.. they use at least 2 or 3 defense system to do what S-400s can do.. but without the hit to kill ability.
edit.. This movie clearly the SM-3 how it works.... It needs to detach 2-3 boosters and float in space FIRST for its real warhead to operate.
SM-3 is very good missile.. but Russia have nothing that im aware that could be compared.. Because SM-3 is mostly like a Mid-Course Space Interceptor. is a space weapon. It can be said the NATO lacks of a good air defense system but have a good space mid course interceptor for Navy. The advantage of SM-3 is that it can take an ICBM very early on space.. Russia do not have much use for an Sm-3 however because their potential enemies like Poland and baltic states and now ukraine are right next to their borders. So any missile targeting Moscow will be Descending into an heavy air space environment. and SM-3 its warhead only works on zero gravity. it will not be able to aim a target if it cannot float as in the movie. So its an interesting missile but is limited to high altitude space interception.
The SM-3 interceptor.. its warhead is hidden inside a 3 stage rocket booster.. and its warhead accelerate from zero speed in space towards its target. So could be said is a reversed missile ,the interception is from top to down. The S-400 intercept ICBMs.. from down to top ,the warhead aims from the start to the target ,as if they were planes . So 2 different ways to do the same thing. Just that the Sm-3 is limited to space ,it will not work with the regular air space with winds and gravity.. So for example an SM-3 is used against an iskander ballisctic missile ,it will need to first reach zero gravity space bypassing the trajectory of the iskander and hope to catch it later. which dont think can do it ,because the warhead when start to chase a missile ,it already dropped all its powerful rocket boosters. Means it will have limited flight chase characteristics. Seems more like a Step in the middle bomb ,like a space mine but that can position in the front of an ICBM missile. but is very doubtful the warhead can chase from behind anything flying fast without rocket boosters.
it will fail if for example is fooled by decoys..So i suspect NATO will need to fire many dozens of SM-3 missiles to try a single fast maneuverable ICBM missile .
Asf- Posts : 471
Points : 488
Join date : 2014-03-27
but Russia have nothing that im aware that could be compared..
A-135 and A-235? They aren't mobile at all, of course, but are dedicated strategic missile defence systems
Vann7- Posts : 5385
Points : 5485
Join date : 2012-05-16
Asf wrote:but Russia have nothing that im aware that could be compared..
A-135 and A-235? They aren't mobile at all, of course, but are dedicated strategic missile defence systems
The A-135 is kinetic projectile with propulsion as far im aware.. with a nuclear warhead. and the A-235 a newer version with hit to kill. Is like a Giant Bullet wit turbines.
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-350.html)
The SM-3 is more like a a space mine .. that needs to be deployed more or less on the same trajectory that a missile will pass ,at least thats what it looks ,because is not a missile at all , Is more like a space mine with some limited propulsion and Infra red sensors. it will have not a chance to catch an an ICBM if fly pass it . With normal Sams defenses a missile can chase a plane. but SM-3 warhead ,i don't think can chase a mach 23.0 ICBM from behind.. specially when the warhead of the SM-3 do not have rocket engines and start from speed zero..not a chance. Means the SM-3 can only work IF can predict the trajectory of a missile more or less.. and deploy its warhead earlier than a ICBM pass.
It is good to remember that all S-400s -S500 can be used as mid course interceptors too. Difference is the Sm-3 is more like a space mine
while S-400s and S-500 are maneuverable air and space missiles.
max steel- Posts : 2930
Points : 2955
Join date : 2015-02-12
Location : South Pole
THAAD missile comparable to S-400 40N-6 . Really ? I read In s400/500 thread that thaad is inferior to s-400
What in comparison with s-300 ?
What in comparison with s-300 ?
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 44
Location : Croatia
max steel wrote:THAAD missile comparable to S-400 40N-6 . Really ? I read In s400/500 thread that thaad is inferior to s-400
What in comparison with s-300 ?
Haha that comparison is funny because THAAD for instance can not shoot at anything flying throughout air ... meaning no cruise missiles, no precision guided bombs, no UAV/UCAV,
no fighters, no anti-radiation missiles not areal tankers no AWACS no ELINT planes etc .. what is there to compare
Last edited by Viktor on Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
sepheronx- Posts : 8847
Points : 9107
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 35
Location : Canada
max steel wrote:THAAD missile comparable to S-400 40N-6 . Really ? I read In s400/500 thread that thaad is inferior to s-400
What in comparison with s-300 ?
Dunno since thaad has short range but real high altitude. 40N6 gives s-400 thaad altitude but has also 400km range and high manouverability. S-500 is a class of its own but I suppose thaad would be us equivelent. In terms of operation purpose.
max steel- Posts : 2930
Points : 2955
Join date : 2015-02-12
Location : South Pole
sepheronx wrote:max steel wrote:THAAD missile comparable to S-400 40N-6 . Really ? I read In s400/500 thread that thaad is inferior to s-400
What in comparison with s-300 ?
Dunno since thaad has short range but real high altitude. 40N6 gives s-400 thaad altitude but has also 400km range and high manouverability. S-500 is a class of its own but I suppose thaad would be us equivelent. In terms of operation purpose.
Is THAAD reliable against chinese north korean or russian Icmbs ( how many test thaad has passed ) ? What about MEADS ?
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 44
Location : Croatia
max steel wrote:Is THAAD reliable against chinese north korean or russian Icmbs ( how many test thaad has passed ) ? What about MEADS ?
ICBMs??? Its disputable against low level technology IRBMs.
Russia on the other hand has a habbit to invite foreign representatives to the shooting to withness themselves
medo- Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia
THAAD is very specific air defense complex, which could work only against ballistic missiles with the speed of up to 3000 m/s outside of atmosphere. S-400 could with 40N6 missile reach the same altitude, but could engage targets with higher speed up to 4800 m/s. Difference is, that THAAD is designed to hit to kill with its small satellite type killer, while 40N6 have classical warhead and could engage other targets too. I think the new missile for S-400 and S-500 will be for engaging even faster ballistic missiles (maybe to the class of ICBMs) and LEO satellites. We will see, when more will be known.ž
MEADS is medium range SAM complex developed by US, Italy and Germany and is in class with Buk-M3 and S-350.
MEADS is medium range SAM complex developed by US, Italy and Germany and is in class with Buk-M3 and S-350.
flamming_python
flamming_python- Posts : 9543
Points : 9601
Join date : 2012-01-30
max steel wrote:THAAD missile comparable to S-400 40N-6 . Really ? I read In s400/500 thread that thaad is inferior to s-400
What in comparison with s-300 ?
The THAAD missile is comparable to the 40N6 only in terms of its altitude ceiling (which is somewhat lower) and role. But it's really a different type of missile altogether - it has a lot more in common with Russia's upcoming 77N6-N
As for what precisely it's good for; I dunno - but if Russia is developing its own THAADski missile then it must excel in something.
Last edited by flamming_python on Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:16 pm; edited 2 times in total
flamming_python- Posts : 9543
Points : 9601
Join date : 2012-01-30
sepheronx wrote:max steel wrote:THAAD missile comparable to S-400 40N-6 . Really ? I read In s400/500 thread that thaad is inferior to s-400
What in comparison with s-300 ?
Dunno since thaad has short range but real high altitude. 40N6 gives s-400 thaad altitude but has also 400km range and high manouverability. S-500 is a class of its own but I suppose thaad would be us equivelent. In terms of operation purpose.
S-500, could be the Russian equivalent to the US SM-3.
That is, if it approaches the SM-3 in terms of range and altitude ceiling with one of its missile types.
However the S-500 is more than that; as it's compatible with the 77N6-N THAAD-like missiles too.
So it's an all-in-one ABM platform whereas the USs ABM systems are split into a variety of non-standardised ones on different platforms - the longest-range of which (the SM-3) is only deployed on naval warships and if land-based would most probably be in the form of an immobile installation.
A Naval S-400 or S-500 installation would be able to launch 77N6-N missiles. The US THAAD on the other hand is an army system and is restricted to land-based deployment.
Adding to that - the S-400 systems will be compatible with the 77N6-N missile too; providing great flexibility and cost-savings for its deployment - the US has to have a dedicated vehicle-based system for it meanwhile.
max steel- Posts : 2930
Points : 2955
Join date : 2015-02-12
Location : South Pole
Thanx python I already got my answer
" S-500, could be the Russian equivalent to the US SM-3 .hat is, if it approaches the SM-3 in terms of range and altitude ceiling with one of its missile types."
If that's the case then you don't think russia is lagging as US has developed SM-6 and they've deployed them in few of their aegis ships already .
I was also asking about Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) . NATO has it .
I got this article on it : http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/05-03-2013/123967-s_400_meads-0/
But its Pravda . i heard it's not a reliable source
" S-500, could be the Russian equivalent to the US SM-3 .hat is, if it approaches the SM-3 in terms of range and altitude ceiling with one of its missile types."
If that's the case then you don't think russia is lagging as US has developed SM-6 and they've deployed them in few of their aegis ships already .
I was also asking about Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) . NATO has it .
I got this article on it : http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/05-03-2013/123967-s_400_meads-0/
But its Pravda . i heard it's not a reliable source
sepheronx- Posts : 8847
Points : 9107
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 35
Location : Canada
max steel wrote:Thanx python I already got my answer
" S-500, could be the Russian equivalent to the US SM-3 .hat is, if it approaches the SM-3 in terms of range and altitude ceiling with one of its missile types."
If that's the case then you don't think russia is lagging as US has developed SM-6 and they've deployed them in few of their aegis ships already .
I was also asking about Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) . NATO has it .
I got this article on it : http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/05-03-2013/123967-s_400_meads-0/
But its Pravda . i heard it's not a reliable source
Depends on how you look at it. They certainly are ahead in the things like range and what not, but S-400's 40N6 missile outdoes SM-6 in terms of range and possibly altitude. But they sure did get it out before Russia did. S-300V4 missile is also similar in range as SM-6 but not a navy weapon. S-500 will be using a hypersonic missile. Are SM-3 or SM-6 hypersonic? SM-3 is 4 stage rocket, what is 77N6-N is how many stages supposed to be?
max steel- Posts : 2930
Points : 2955
Join date : 2015-02-12
Location : South Pole
Don't ask me . 
. I can give you economic insights not military tech . IT ain't my forte ( that's why i came here ). YOU should tell me rather . Well if russians are ahead in missile tech then how come yanks came out first with such missile ( working perhaps ) . Throw some light on MEADS also . Thanx .
. I can give you economic insights not military tech . IT ain't my forte ( that's why i came here ). YOU should tell me rather . Well if russians are ahead in missile tech then how come yanks came out first with such missile ( working perhaps ) . Throw some light on MEADS also . Thanx .
Cyberspec- Posts : 2904
Points : 3057
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Terra Australis
US and Russia have different priorities based on the perceived threats and put different emphasis on weapons systems as a result.
flamming_python- Posts : 9543
Points : 9601
Join date : 2012-01-30
max steel wrote:Thanx python I already got my answer
" S-500, could be the Russian equivalent to the US SM-3 .hat is, if it approaches the SM-3 in terms of range and altitude ceiling with one of its missile types."
If that's the case then you don't think russia is lagging as US has developed SM-6 and they've deployed them in few of their aegis ships already .
It is the case and indeed Russia is lagging behind in high-altitude ABM defence; the only comparable system it has in operation is the ABM defence ring around Moscow.
And of course, Russia doesn't have those targetting radars and interceptors in Eastern Europe and Alaska that the US is implementing.
That's why I think putting S-500s on the nuclear destroyer classes its drawing up is a good idea.
I'm not sure of the Redut cells' compatability with larger missiles like the 77N6-N, 40N6 or even the medium/long-range 48N6 missiles.
If they are not compatible with at least the latter 2 - then something has to be done about that too.
And the Reduts aren't even widespread. Those of Russia's large surface-vessels with substantial air-defence capabilties still rely on the S-300F system; which has really had its day by now.
The exception is the Pyotr Velikiy with the S-300FM; which is compatible with the 48N6 missile. In the absence of info about Redut capability I have to conclude that this is the very pinicle of what the Russian navy can do right now in terms of air-defense/ABM capability - a 150km max range missile with a 27km altitude ceiling; albeit a hypersonic one that can comfortably engage some types of ballistic missiles. Even then though the navy has only 1 ship equipped with this missile. By 2015 standards this isn't particularly impressive.
However, on a positive note - on land at least; Russia should be comfortably ahead of the US in terms of strength, versatility and cost-effectiveness of ABM-defences once the S-500 starts entering service in numbers and the 77N6-Ns are deployed to S-400 regiments.
kvs- Posts : 15857
Points : 15992
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
Why put the SM systems on ships if it is not to get those ships in close proximity with Russia's coasts and try to intercept Russian
ICBMs after launch. The Russian system around Moscow is intended to intercept incoming warheads. This discussion about who
is behind and ahead is comparing apples and oranges.
As far as I can tell the S-500 will have the capacity to launch missiles derived from the 1960s hypersonic interceptor class such
as the ones developed by the USA and the USSR and which are deployed around Moscow. This begs the question as to how advanced
are these missiles today. I will dismiss out of hand any claim that they are the same level they were back in the 1980s. There was
no stoppage of missile development in Russia after 1991. If Russia feels it can intercept warheads at the incoming end as opposed to
the outgoing end, then that is rather significant. If Russia was merely "catching up" to the USA (a retarded cold war trope) then it
would be deploying SM-like systems on ships.
ICBMs after launch. The Russian system around Moscow is intended to intercept incoming warheads. This discussion about who
is behind and ahead is comparing apples and oranges.
As far as I can tell the S-500 will have the capacity to launch missiles derived from the 1960s hypersonic interceptor class such
as the ones developed by the USA and the USSR and which are deployed around Moscow. This begs the question as to how advanced
are these missiles today. I will dismiss out of hand any claim that they are the same level they were back in the 1980s. There was
no stoppage of missile development in Russia after 1991. If Russia feels it can intercept warheads at the incoming end as opposed to
the outgoing end, then that is rather significant. If Russia was merely "catching up" to the USA (a retarded cold war trope) then it
would be deploying SM-like systems on ships.
flamming_python- Posts : 9543
Points : 9601
Join date : 2012-01-30
sepheronx wrote:Depends on how you look at it. They certainly are ahead in the things like range and what not, but S-400's 40N6 missile outdoes SM-6 in terms of range and possibly altitude.
You can't always compare Russian and American missiles; because they happen to be out of phase by 180 degrees in regards to each others classes and characteristics. Russia and America have different conceptions of different missile classes.
The SM-6 (an upgraded SM-2) has the speed and range of a 40N6, while it has the altitude ceiling of a 48N6
The SM-1 is more or less equivalent to the 9M96E2, albeit it has a longer range and slightly lower altitude ceiling.
The SM-3 in terms of role is equivalent to the 40N6 - however the SM-3 far exceeds the 40N6 in terms of range and ceiling.
sepheronx- Posts : 8847
Points : 9107
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 35
Location : Canada
flamming_python wrote:sepheronx wrote:Depends on how you look at it. They certainly are ahead in the things like range and what not, but S-400's 40N6 missile outdoes SM-6 in terms of range and possibly altitude.
You can't always compare Russian and American missiles; because they happen to be out of phase by 180 degrees in regards to each others classes and characteristics. Russia and America have different conceptions of different missile classes.
The SM-6 (an upgraded SM-2) has the speed and range of a 40N6, while it has the altitude ceiling of a 48N6
The SM-1 is more or less equivalent to the 9M96E2, albeit it has a longer range and slightly lower altitude ceiling.
The SM-3 in terms of role is equivalent to the 40N6 - however the SM-3 far exceeds the 40N6 in terms of range and ceiling.
How SM-3 got its range seems to be that it is a 4 stage rocket. How many stages does the 40N6 have?
max steel- Posts : 2930
Points : 2955
Join date : 2015-02-12
Location : South Pole
Well it seems US got pretty decent interceptors with missiles like russian missiles and they are coming up more fastly with such intercepting missiles . Thats why US is pushing Russia for a direct confrontation . Unlike we thought their abm arent efficient .
Ive read an article which said usa GMD interceptors cant intercept icbms .
Where can Russia put its missile defense system if usa is planning to put its in eastern europe .?
Ive read an article which said usa GMD interceptors cant intercept icbms .
Where can Russia put its missile defense system if usa is planning to put its in eastern europe .?
victor1985- Posts : 632
Points : 659
Join date : 2015-01-02
What is easyer: to have a short range but deploy on ships and so on or having long range and problems to deploy anywhere? Also i must ask : why there is multiple forms of rockets? Whit one single could not get all threats? Partial answer i have is that is a compromise between weight of fuel manevrability and speed. So those that are heavy have long range and speed but bad steering. And those who have steering dont have weight range. In this a best radar that see far and can direct the missile correct to the path use long range speed and slow steering. And those have no best radar use low range but steeringsepheronx wrote:max steel wrote:THAAD missile comparable to S-400 40N-6 . Really ? I read In s400/500 thread that thaad is inferior to s-400
What in comparison with s-300 ?
Dunno since thaad has short range but real high altitude. 40N6 gives s-400 thaad altitude but has also 400km range and high manouverability. S-500 is a class of its own but I suppose thaad would be us equivelent. In terms of operation purpose.