US vs Russian ABM systems- Comparison

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Which ABM shield?

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.

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 %.