Military Review

Incorrect comparison: THAAD vs. C-400

70
In the modern realities of the country, more and more attention is being paid to the issues of air defense and missile defense. The army, which is armed with systems to ensure reliable protection of troops and ground targets from air strikes, gets a huge advantage in modern conflicts. Interest in air defense and missile defense systems is growing, and this topic is accompanied by a large flow News. The most talked about are Turkey’s purchase of the Russian Triumph S-400 anti-aircraft missile system and Saudi Arabia’s statements about the desire to purchase this system, after which the United States almost immediately approved a deal to sell the kingdom its THAAD missile defense system.


The interest of Saudi Arabia to such a system is clear. 19 December 2017 of the year Saudi air defense intercepted a Burkan-2 ballistic missile launched from Yemen’s territory in southern Riyadh, which was similar to the one that was shot down near the capital of the kingdom 4 on November 2017 of the year. Was the missile really shot down or did it simply deviate from the course and fell in an uninhabited area is not known for certain? It is reported that as a result of the incident no one was hurt. Hussites themselves recognized the fact of a missile strike. According to the grouping, the aim of the launch was the royal palace of al-Yamamah in the capital of Saudi Arabia.

This attack was the second to be carried out from the territory of Yemen over the past few months. In Yemen, the military conflict continues, which in its scale is comparable to the fighting in Syria. Saudi Arabia acts as the main ideologist of the military operation, which is conducted on the territory of a neighboring state. The ballistic missile that the Hussites used is the “Burkan-2” from Iran. The missile has a detachable warhead (unlike the Burkan-1, which is a modernized Soviet P-17). Judging by its tactical and technical characteristics, this ballistic missile can really reach Riyadh, as well as numerous oil fields of the country. 23 December 2017, the UN Security Council condemned the missile attack on the Saudi capital by Yemeni rebels.


The danger for Saudi Arabia today is also represented by the Soviet-made P-17 Scud tactical missiles, as well as the Kahir and Zelzal tactical missiles built on the basis of another Soviet Luna-M missile system. These Hussite missiles are also quite actively used for strikes on the territory of the kingdom, in some cases they do lead to a large number of casualties among the military. Hussites and reworked missiles of C-75 SAM systems are used, which are not intended for attacking ground targets.

Against this background, Riyadh’s interest in modern air defense and missile defense systems is quite understandable. Saudi Arabia has a substantive interest in the American mobile missile defense system THAAD, and options have been voiced for buying a modern C-400 Triumph air defense system in Russia. It is believed that the issue of the supply of Russian air defense systems was discussed during a personal meeting of the King of Saudi Arabia with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow in October 2017, where a positive decision was reached on their sale.

These news generated interest in comparing the two THAAD and C-400 systems. However, this comparison is not correct, since we are talking about systems with different specializations. The American THAAD system (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) is a mobile land-based missile defense system designed for high-altitude atmospheric destruction of medium-range ballistic missiles. At the same time, the Russian C-400 anti-aircraft missile system is designed primarily for hitting aerodynamic targets (aircraft, helicopters, drones, cruise missiles), its ability to combat ballistic targets is limited in range and height. In this case, of course, the Russian system is more universal. THAAD’s capabilities in the fight against maneuverable targets and aircraft are minimal, while using such a missile defense system would be tantamount to hammering nails, especially considering the cost of US missile defense.


The ground-based mobile missile system THAAD, intended for high-altitude over-atmospheric interception of medium-range missiles during the creation of a zonal missile defense system in a theater of military operations, was developed in the USA since 1992. The developer of the system is Lockheed Martin Corporation. The cost of R & D on the creation of an anti-missile complex is estimated at about 15 billion dollars. Currently THAAD missile system is in service with the United States and the United Arab Emirates. In 2017, the THAAD battery was placed in South Korea, and their deployment in Japan is also planned. The appearance of the THAAD complex in South Korea was attributed by the United States to the need to protect the country from the missile threat from the DPRK, while China and Russia reacted very negatively to this step.

THAAD anti-missile system was originally sharpened by the fight with medium-range and short-range ballistic missiles. The system is able to destroy ballistic targets at an altitude beyond the limits of conventional air defense systems - 150 kilometers and distance to 200 kilometers. With the help of this mobile complex, you can create the first line of zone missile defense. The characteristics of this anti-missile system allow it to consistently fire one ballistic target with two anti-missiles on the “start-up-start-up” principle, that is, the second rocket is launched if the first one could not hit the target. In the event that the second rocket cannot hit the ballistic target, the usual air defense system, the Patriot, will be used, which receives target designation from the THAAD radar for a broken rocket. According to the calculations of American experts, the probability of hitting a ballistic missile with such a layered missile defense system is more than 0,96 (and the probability of hitting a target with a single THAAD missile is estimated at 0,9).

THAAD anti-rocket consists of a warhead and an engine, the only (separable) stage is a solid propellant starting engine. The characteristics of this engine make it possible to accelerate the rocket up to speed 2800 m / s, which made it possible to realize the possibility of re-firing a ballistic target with a second interceptor missile. The missile's warhead is a highly maneuverable direct hit interceptor, it is also called the “Kill Vehicle”.


All this makes obvious the differences between THAAD and C-400 and the apparent tension of comparing these two systems. The newest anti-aircraft missile 40H6E of the Russian Triumph complex is the most long-range missile of the complex, the range of targets being hit with its use increases to 400 kilometers, but this is about aerodynamic purposes. The range of destruction of ballistic targets using the C-400 complex is limited to 60 kilometers, and the altitude of the targets hit - 30 kilometers. At the same time, experts note that the height indicator of the defeat, if we are talking about the interception of operational tactical missiles, is not a critical indicator. “In the theater’s missile defense, the destruction of targets takes place on descending trajectories and not in space,” former deputy commander-in-chief of the Air Force for the joint air defense system of the CIS countries, Lieutenant-General Aytech Bezhiv, said in an interview with RIA Novosti.

It is easy to see that the American THAAD has a noticeable advantage in terms of the range and height of the destruction of ballistic targets, which is due to the objectives for which it was created - the defeat of medium-range ballistic missiles. At the same time, the Russian C-400 air defense system with a smaller height range is armed with missiles with a longer range to destroy all types of aerodynamic targets - at a distance of up to 400 kilometers and tactical ballistic targets at a range of up to 60 m / s

The second important difference between THAAD and C-400 is the method of hitting the target. The American rocket hits the target with a kinetic effect, that is, hits the rocket itself. Its combat unit is a highly maneuverable interceptor. It is a technically sophisticated device that searches for, captures and hits a target, using only the kinetic energy of high-speed exposure. One of the main features of this interceptor is a gyro-stabilized multispectral infrared homing head (IR-GOS). In addition to the IK-GOS, the single-stage interceptor THAAD is equipped with a command-inertial control system, a power source, a computer, as well as its own propulsion system for maneuvering and orientation. At the same time, anti-aircraft missiles of the Russian Triumph C-400 air defense system strike air targets due to a cloud of fragments formed after the missile warhead in the immediate vicinity of the target.


A common feature of all modern air defense systems and missile defense systems is the requirement for them to destroy the combat load of the attacker's means of attack. The result of intercepting a target should be, for example, ensuring that the attack load of an attacking missile falls directly in the area of ​​the object to be defended. This possibility can be fully excluded only if the combat load of the target is destroyed in the process of interception by its anti-aircraft missile. This result can be achieved in two ways: direct hit of a rocket into the compartment of the warhead of the target, or with a combination of a small miss and effective impact on the target with a cloud of fragments of the warhead of an anti-aircraft guided missile. In the USA, the first approach was chosen for THAAD, in Russia, the second for C-400.

It is also worth noting that the C-400 can fire 360 degrees, while THAAD has a limited shelling sector. For example, the Russian anti-aircraft missiles 9М96Е and 9М96Е2, optimized for combat with modern high-precision weapons, cruise missiles and ballistic targets, including unobtrusive ones, use a “cold” vertical launch. Immediately before launching its main engine, the rockets are thrown out of the container to a height of more than 30 meters. After climbing to this height, the anti-aircraft missile with the help of a gas-dynamic system leans towards a predetermined target.

An important difference between the two complexes is also their radar. The American system has the best vision. The detection range of the AN / TPY-2 radar is 1000 kilometers versus 600 kilometers off the C-400 complex. The AN / TPY-2 multifunction radar operates in the X-band and consists of 25 344 active MRPs. This is a radar with an active phased array (AFAR). AFAR consists of active radiating elements, each of which consists of a radiating element and an active device (transceiver module - MRP). The very high resolution and vigilance of the American radar is achieved by a huge number of anti-personnel mines and the most complex signal processing algorithm. At the same time it costs the American radar a lot of money, the cost of an innovative radar can exceed 500 million dollars.

Radar AN / TPY-2

Experts believe that Saudi Arabia, despite the decision to purchase a THAAD PRO system, can also acquire Russian C-400 systems. These systems will not be able to be controlled from a single command post in an automated mode, but this does not exclude their combat use separately. Systems can be deployed in different places of the country or even as part of protecting one important object while solving different tasks and thus complementing each other, military expert Mikhail Khodaryon said in an interview with RIA Novosti.

According to him, Saudi Arabia’s desire to buy both American and Russian systems may be dictated by various considerations. For example, after Operation Storm in the Desert, during which the French anti-aircraft missile systems in service with Iraq’s air defense systems suddenly became inoperative, potential buyers treat the weapons acquired in the West with some caution. Mikhail Khodorenok notes that there can be “bookmarks” in American weapons, for example, the Jordan’s F-16 air force cannot knock down the F-16 Israeli air force. In this case, buying a C-400 can help diversify risks. If American tactical ballistic missiles or medium-range missiles are used to strike the territory of Saudi Arabia, C-400 can knock them down.

Experts believe that the contract of Saudi Arabia with the United States is not an alternative to the contract with Russia on C-400, since both systems are not mutually exclusive, but complementary, they can be used independently. As a means of air defense to combat the aerodynamic objectives of the C-400 significantly surpasses the US Patriot air defense systems.


Its value can play and price. The cost of the C-400 division with 8 launchers is of the order of 500 million dollars. So in December, 2017, the details of the contract for the supply of C-400 Triumph missiles to Turkey became known. Ankara is to receive 4 of the C-400 division for a total of about 2,5 billions of dollars. At the same time, the Pentagon’s Office for Defense Cooperation and Security announced that the cost of a deal with Saudi Arabia for the supply of THAAD missile defense systems was about 15 billion dollars. Under the contract, the kingdom will receive 44 launchers, 16 command and control centers, 7 radars, and 360 interceptor missiles for this complex from the United States.

Information sources:
https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20171227/1511775255.html
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/thaad/thaad.shtml
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/s400/s400.shtml
http://pvo.guns.ru/other/usa/thaad
https://russian.rt.com/world/article/437539-thaad-s-400-ssha-rossia-saudovskaya-aravia
Open source materials
Author:
70 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 30 January 2018 15: 28 New
    +4
    The future Russian S-500 will become an analogue of THAAD.
    1. ImPerts
      ImPerts 30 January 2018 16: 18 New
      +2
      Yes, it will.
      But it will be more universal.
    2. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 31 January 2018 09: 18 New
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The future Russian S-500 will become an analogue of THAAD.

      On what points? Will the S-500 warhead be kinetic? Or will the shelling radius be less than 360 grams? wink
    3. Dimmedroll
      Dimmedroll 4 August 2018 20: 05 New
      +1
      Are you laughing? These are two different systems.
    4. SETTGF
      SETTGF 14 August 2018 13: 33 New
      0
      voyaka uh! Before stating this stupidity, compare the parameters of the systems - the S-500 simply has no analogues!
    5. bmv04636
      bmv04636 12 May 2019 19: 02 New
      -3
      er, as if we already have analogues and THAAD stands and nervously smokes aside
  2. ImPerts
    ImPerts 30 January 2018 16: 17 New
    +2
    What to argue, whether Arabs buy or not, depends on them.
    The fact that THAAD and C-400 are sharpened for different things is also understandable.
    We’ll wait for your mother, wait ... (it was sung in one fashionable song).
  3. sabakina
    sabakina 30 January 2018 16: 56 New
    +2
    I read the article and realized that I didn’t understand anything. On the one hand, there is no analogue of S-400, on the other hand, the TCAAD is steeper than an egg by its characteristics. I advise the warrior to not lift his nose. Seen in the 19-20 century and abruptly.
    1. _Jack_
      _Jack_ 30 January 2018 17: 22 New
      +4
      Well, what is not clear? THAAD missile defense system - shoot down ballistic missiles, S-400 air defense system - planes, helicopters (but it is possible to shoot down ballistic targets, but at a shorter range / height). Each is better in its field, the S-400 is more versatile. The radar is steeper than THAAD, but there is one radar as the S-400 division with 8 launchers.
      1. Kir
        Kir 30 January 2018 21: 11 New
        +3
        _Jack_, let's just not lose sight of the fact that quite often what the Yankees said let's say was not really confirmed by reality, then I remember the story when our "competed" with them in the ability to detect objects in space, for what purpose they were launched objects of three sizes, so the smallest Could only ours to see, and then the same is not the fact that it really sees what is stated.
        1. MadCat
          MadCat 31 January 2018 04: 36 New
          +3
          Quote: Kir
          let's just not lose sight of the fact that quite often what the Yankees said let's say it wasn’t really confirmed later

          I won’t even argue, according to PR, the S-400 is definitely out of competition on this site.
    2. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 31 January 2018 01: 24 New
      +2
      Quote: sabakina
      I read the article and realized that I didn’t understand anything.

      Everything is very clear. Systems of different specialization. THAAD is a missile defense system, sharpened to combat missiles (high-altitude non-maneuvering targets), S-400 is a more universal system, its main specialty is air defense - i.e. aerodynamic goals
      Quote: sabakina
      On the one hand, there is no analogue of S-400

      An analogue of the S-400 in the West tumbled down the Patriot. It is also imprisoned for aircraft, but can (like the S-400) work as a missile defense system, however, in this case, the possibilities are sharply reduced.
    3. nikoliski
      nikoliski 14 May 2018 19: 09 New
      -1
      S-400 is the best air defense system for military air defense (the closest analogue, Patriot, has 2 times shorter range and lower altitude - the minimum interception height at Patriot is 60 meters, at S-400 10 meters) And Taad is a specialized missile defense system, which, in addition to ballistic missiles flying at No one else can bring down a calculated trajectory - neither a helicopter flying over the forest, nor a low-flying maneuvering attack aircraft, and Taad is good against Taud warheads except against Skad, let’s say, say, a Yars high-speed warhead near which several interference elements fly (and protesting warheads) or the Taad’s maneuvering warhead cannot (a dozen Taads are needed per warhead, and they are unlikely to achieve a direct hit for the kinetic destruction of the warhead.)
  4. Bongo
    Bongo 30 January 2018 17: 17 New
    +7
    Up to this point I read with interest:
    The newest anti-aircraft missile 40H6E of the Russian Triumph complex is the most long-range missile of the complex, the range of targets being hit with its use increases to 400 kilometers

    Dear author, will you share information when the 40H6E air defense system is adopted and where it is produced in series?
    1. _Jack_
      _Jack_ 30 January 2018 17: 44 New
      0
      yes there is no nifiga, or is it a mystery behind 7 seals
    2. xtur
      xtur 31 January 2018 00: 32 New
      0
      > Can you share information when the 40N6E missile defense system was put into service and where is it produced in series?

      information about armaments will be kept secret, and it’s not a fact that information will be available in the future about where this rocket is being produced / will be produced
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 31 January 2018 00: 38 New
        +5
        Quote: xtur
        information about armaments will be kept secret, and it’s not a fact that information will be available in the future about where this rocket is being produced / will be produced




        Simply put, a miracle rocket exists only on paper ....
        1. nikoliski
          nikoliski 5 August 2018 01: 20 New
          -1
          it will be on the s-500, it has already been tested, by the way, it showed a maximum of 480 km range during the tests.
      2. Bongo
        Bongo 31 January 2018 03: 32 New
        +5
        Quote: xtur
        > Can you share information when the 40N6E missile defense system was put into service and where is it produced in series?

        information about armaments will be kept secret, and it’s not a fact that information will be available in the future about where this rocket is being produced / will be produced

        Dear xtur, this is not the first time you are trying to teach me life in general, and what concerns SAM and air defense in particular. I don’t know how you deal with the construction of anti-aircraft missiles in Armenia, but in the Russian Federation, the SAM missile systems C-300PM and C-400 are joint-stock companies and are required to disclose (without technical details) the product range. In addition, you sincerely believe that the presence of long-range missiles in combat units can be hidden from "potential partners"? No. Yes, and our bureaucrats would not miss the opportunity for such news popiaritsya. In the meantime, with regard to the adoption of long-range missiles, we are fed breakfast. negative
        As for the "secrecy", let me ask, what is your form of admission?
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 31 January 2018 07: 03 New
          +2
          Quote: Bongo
          In the meantime, with regard to the adoption of long-range missiles, we are fed breakfast

          Somehow I was given a link to LiveJournal with a selection of news on 40H6E. There "rocket finishes testing." These are news dated from 2011 to 2017))))
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 31 January 2018 07: 11 New
            +2
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Somehow I was given a link to LiveJournal with a selection of news on 40H6E. There "rocket finishes testing." These are news dated from 2011 to 2017))))

            This is said every year. But things are there. There are definitely no long-range 40H6E missiles in the troops.
        2. xtur
          xtur 7 February 2018 00: 27 New
          0
          > Dear xtur, this is not the first time you are trying to teach me about life in general, and about air defense systems and air defense in particular

          Actually, it’s you, dear, who are trying to teach others, this is reflected in your answers, as is arrogance. And I just express my opinion, amateurish, most often, but this is not prohibited on our site, is it? And since the degree of arrogance and many other things that I cannot agree with is very high in your messages, I often react to them, based on statistics.

          And now, try, at least three, at least a couple of billion times to find in the lines quoted by you, to find at least an attempt to teach someone life. Of course, there were others where I directly argued with your position in life - but not this time, because you are not speaking about the total number of posts that you still need to remember, are you?

          > As for "secrecy", let me ask you, what is your admission form?

          I doubt very much that you in any form would have disclosed the information under the bar if you had access to it. am

          And what kind of access to secret information of the Russian Federation can a resident of Armenia have? I would probably be ashamed to ask such a question.
  5. Alexander War
    Alexander War 30 January 2018 17: 21 New
    0
    THAAD has 8 missiles versus 4 missiles on our S-400s. Do they have super fuel like that?
    1. _Jack_
      _Jack_ 30 January 2018 17: 33 New
      +4
      our long-range missiles (48N6E3 / 48N6-2 / 48N6DM) are 2 times heavier - 1800 kg versus 900 kg with THAAD, the warhead weight of our missiles is 180 kg, with THAAD 90 kg. THAAD has an active seeker and a method of hitting enemy missiles with a direct hit on the forehead, the S-400 has semi-active radar homing with radio correction, a cloud of fragments. In essence, THAAD missiles are more high-tech, but narrow-minded and significantly more expensive.
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 31 January 2018 01: 41 New
        +1
        Quote: _Jack_
        THAAD missiles more advanced

        Why such a conclusion, you can ask?
        Quote: _Jack_
        THAAD 90kg warhead weight

        in fact, THAAD doesn’t have warheads at all, its role is played by the rocket hardware compartment (GOS and on-board computer)
        1. Do not care
          Do not care 31 January 2018 06: 43 New
          0
          At the THAAD kinetic interception head, the impact core weighs 6 kg
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 31 January 2018 09: 55 New
            +1
            Quote: Do not care
            At the THAAD kinetic interception head, the impact core weighs 6 kg

            You yourself realized that you wrote nonsense?
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 31 January 2018 10: 19 New
              0
              By a strike nucleus is meant a blank, not a strike nucleus in an explosive sense.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 31 January 2018 10: 46 New
                +1
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                By impact core we mean a blank

                Well then, a machine gun, a machine gun, a sniper rifle - all this should be called simply a gun. Terms coined to confuse everyone lol
                Good strike core
          2. nikoliski
            nikoliski 14 May 2018 19: 13 New
            -1
            is there an impact core? then warhead can be called not kinetic, but partially cumulative
        2. _Jack_
          _Jack_ 31 January 2018 11: 38 New
          +2
          active GOS, destroying the “hit to kill” target in itself indicates that the missile is more modern (it’s obvious that getting a “bullet into a bullet” is much more difficult than undermining a warhead a few meters from the target), as well as altitude / range is better, although the ratio of payload / mass of the rocket is the same, about 1/10. As a result, their rocket is exactly 2 times lighter with the best altitude / range characteristics. But on the other hand, it works only on ballistic purposes.
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 31 January 2018 11: 47 New
            +2
            Quote: _Jack_
            active seeker

            Uncooled infrared seeker became active? Does it illuminate the target with an IR spotlight? laughing The same GOS were in the first MANPADS. The control system is inertial. Where is the technology here?
            Quote: _Jack_
            destroying the hit to kill target alone suggests that the rocket is more modern

            truth? First-generation MANPADS were also designed only for direct contact. Are they, therefore, more high-tech?
            Quote: _Jack_
            it’s also better for height / range

            when flying in space. The rocket is not better, it is just different, for other purposes. If she could still shoot down aerodynamic targets - maybe she would agree. THAAD does not know how, from the word at all.
            THAAD seems to have become a fetish - an incomprehensible thing, the abbreviation is overseas, and even advertised - hilarious, which means it's cool and nonsense
            1. _Jack_
              _Jack_ 31 January 2018 11: 50 New
              +1
              truth? First-generation MANPADS were also designed only for direct contact. Are they, therefore, more high-tech?

              Apparently MANPADS of the first generation shot down targets flying at a speed of 6-7 km / s? And in general, do you consider it a trivial task to bring down a target with such a direct hit at such a speed? And what kind of missiles can this do?
              If she could still shoot down aerodynamic targets - maybe she would agree. THAAD does not know how, from the word at all.

              so it’s not designed for this, it’s a missile defense system
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 31 January 2018 11: 57 New
                +1
                Quote: _Jack_
                kill to kill"

                You trumped with just this, as a "new word"
                How to shoot down goals, having your own max. speed 2,7 km / s? But the question will be for you: how does the THAAD missile bring down targets?
                1. _Jack_
                  _Jack_ 31 January 2018 12: 00 New
                  0
                  For whom is this "new word" for you?
                  I did not understand your message at all, do you doubt that it is knocking down goals or what?
                  once again - none of our missiles can shoot down with a direct hit at a speed of 6-7km / s
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 31 January 2018 12: 03 New
                    +1
                    Quote: _Jack_
                    I do not understand your promise at all

                    How does THAAD shoot down targets? Tell us, and it will become clear how high-tech the rocket itself is.
                    1. _Jack_
                      _Jack_ 31 January 2018 12: 12 New
                      0
                      If you like “hit to kill”, it means DIRECT hit in the intercepted warhead, given the speed of the warhead 6-7km / s, it is extremely difficult to do this, it’s the same as to shoot down a bullet with a bullet. It is much simpler to undermine warheads with many striking elements at some distance from the warhead, this accuracy is no longer needed, but warheads are 2 times heavier. As a result, one S-400 launcher carries 4 long-range anti-missile missiles, and THAAD 8 pcs., The mass of the THAAD anti-missile is 2 times less. Those. 2 times more ammunition, despite the fact that it is also better in height and range.
                      1. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 31 January 2018 12: 25 New
                        +1
                        Quote: _Jack_
                        "Hit to kill" you like

                        You liked it, but I know very well what the term means.
                        So how does THAAD shoot down targets? Can't answer? Apparently, you did not focus on that. Then I’ll ask in another way: how does THAAD provide guidance to the rocket?
                  2. nikoliski
                    nikoliski 14 May 2018 19: 31 New
                    -1
                    The maximum target speed for the S-400 is 10 km / h (about 000 km per second, for comparison, the iskander is 3 m s, the rocket of the s-2100 itself is 400 m s), thus having its own speed of 2000 km per second, it will not be able to shoot down a faster target at all , and oncoming targets can be brought down by sending the missile “on the move” (thus, it will not work against a maneuvering target, only against medium-range missiles like the Scud, because the same Iskander flies on a marching section at an altitude of 2 km (S-50 above 400 km will not get it) and diving at the target Iskander maneuvers with overloads up to 35 G in this way After that, a rocket that tries to bring down such a “swiveling target” should maneuver at least 20 G, in general, no complex in the world (even the S-40) can intercept Iskander neither on the marching, nor on the final section of the trajectory. (so that the dagger based on it is equally unbreakable - to intercept only one dagger of the American AOG, you will need at least 400 missiles launched simultaneously from several destroyers of the escort to "block" the entire proposed route to the aircraft carrier and there is no guarantee that they will succeed)
              2. nikoliski
                nikoliski 14 May 2018 19: 20 New
                -1
                It’s a completely trivial anti-missile defense system of Moscow that was made during the USSR, with its anti-ballistic missiles it can also shoot down warheads in near space, a ballistic warhead flies along one miscible trajectory (so far only the Mace was taught to maneuver and that half was destroyed during the tests), besides, in the USSR, for reliability, anti-missile put a nuclear warhead, now the missiles on duty have the usual warheads, that is, they achieved acceptable accuracy and without using a nuclear explosion (it was proved that an explosion in near space with creates such a wave of electromagnetic disturbance that in Moscow itself the most sensitive unshielded electronics would be burned)
  6. engineer74
    engineer74 30 January 2018 18: 41 New
    +4
    The best PRO is a guaranteed retaliatory strike! wink
    IMHO
    1. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 30 January 2018 22: 11 New
      +3
      The best missile defense is a sabotage group.
      1. Horse meat
        Horse meat 31 January 2018 01: 39 New
        0
        Even better is the sabotage president.
        Or sabotage wife, every man.
  7. Old26
    Old26 30 January 2018 22: 55 New
    +3
    THAAD’s ability to combat maneuverable targets and aircraft is minimal,

    It would be more correct to write that there are no such opportunities at all. The minimum height of defeat by the THAAD complex if my sclerosis does not change me is 40 km.

    Quote: voyaka uh
    The future Russian S-500 will become an analogue of THAAD.

    Not a direct analogue. Nevertheless, the S-500 will to a greater extent be an air defense system (long-range) plus the ability to work on ballistic targets at a greater distance than the S-400. The American system is pure missile defense
  8. Vard
    Vard 31 January 2018 00: 17 New
    0
    Given this weight, the performance characteristics of American missiles are not credible ... And given the price .... In general, it looks like an ordinary money scam ...
    1. Horse meat
      Horse meat 31 January 2018 01: 43 New
      0
      Maybe soon someone will check.
    2. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 31 January 2018 01: 53 New
      +1
      Quote: Vard
      Given this weight, the performance characteristics of American missiles are not credible

      Well, what do you ..)) fly on a gravitsap)) it is not for nothing that the Americans so strongly asked her))
  9. Old26
    Old26 31 January 2018 10: 16 New
    +2
    Quote: Vard
    Given this weight, the performance characteristics of American missiles are not credible ... And given the price .... In general, it looks like an ordinary money scam ...

    Causes trust or not - the tenth matter. We have everything. With regard to American technology, a priori is not credible. However, at the same time, they do not care. The system was tested, showed the set parameters. further “believe-do not believe” is sorry everyone’s personal business. Before the Americans, in their time with the Standard, knocked down the satellite, there was also a lot of talk about the fact that this was impossible.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 31 January 2018 10: 27 New
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      Before the Americans, in their time with the Standard, knocked down the satellite, there was also a lot of talk about the fact that this was impossible.

      Now they write that the satellite is cheating, an agreement, the launch of the interceptor was calculated for a month in Houston)))
      And at the expense of "medium" missile defense it turns out interestingly. If they have realized the possibility of “wandering” and integration with complexes of the lower floor, then what, in fact, prevents the shooting down of ICBM warheads at the entrance to the atmosphere? If one of the 25 warheads begins to reach, then the proponents of Armageddon and nuclear ash will be severely broken off.
  10. Old26
    Old26 31 January 2018 10: 40 New
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Now they write that the satellite is cheating, an agreement, the launch of the interceptor was calculated for a month in Houston))).

    They write. Well, in principle, of course it’s not a month, but the trajectory was calculated, the more so as far as I remember the satellite was no longer controlled and constantly lost altitude, that is, the trajectory still changed

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    And at the expense of "medium" missile defense it turns out interestingly. If they have realized the possibility of “wandering” and integration with complexes of the lower floor, then what, in fact, prevents the shooting down of ICBM warheads at the entrance to the atmosphere? If one of the 25 warheads begins to reach, then the proponents of Armageddon and nuclear ash will be severely broken off.

    In principle, nothing prevents. The question is that the condition must be met, namely the interceptor and the BG must be in the same plane. Otherwise, as has already been written many times, having an interceptor speed below the BG speed, it is elementary to simply miss. After all, they have not nuclear, and not fragmentation (rod) parts, but a kinetic interceptor as their warheads. And the process of intercepting it is much more complicated.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 31 January 2018 11: 12 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      but the trajectory was calculated, the more so as far as I remember the satellite was no longer controllable and constantly lost altitude, that is, the trajectory still changed

      With this interpretation, it is really a deal. Ship db only the geographical coordinates of the position are known. Maximum passage time, so as not to accidentally knock down the ISS. Everything else must be considered by Aegis.
      Quote: Old26
      In principle, nothing prevents. The question is that the condition must be met, namely the interceptor and the BG must be in the same plane

      It goes without saying. I was referring to the recent fray on this site, how many omeriganchegov can be exterminated at once if you gasp. They thought that a little. If the TAAADs are deployed in the parking lots of all New Yorks and one out of 10 warheads begins to reach the Voivode, then everything is completely sour.
  11. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 31 January 2018 12: 17 New
    0
    When the United States and Russia sell weapons to Turkey or S. Arabia, it means that they have calculated that these weapons cannot be used against their own missiles. To create a missile defense system means that you have already lost the battle.
  12. _Jack_
    _Jack_ 31 January 2018 12: 30 New
    +1
    Grigory_45,
    if you want to essentially answer something, write so, and if there is nothing to answer, so end the dialogue, don’t make yourself a teacher in the exam, it looks silly
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 31 January 2018 12: 55 New
      +2
      Quote: _Jack_
      don't make yourself a teacher on the exam, it looks stupid

      Well, what are you, I was just trying to get you to answer your own question. I wanted to push you to start thinking.
      Well, since they themselves did not want to. Then please my reasoning. Infrared seeker has a very limited target capture range. The speed of the SAM itself is less than (or equal to) the intercepted missile (warhead). So, interception is possible only on the opposite course. What are these functions assigned to? On the radar. He must very accurately and quickly calculate the trajectory of the target and choose such a trajectory of the SAM, in which they go almost forehead into the forehead, and the GOS will only have to slightly adjust the course of the kinetic interceptor. In fact, it is the radar, not the missile, that solves the entire interception task. He brings a piece of "iron" into a intersecting orbit. Actually, this is the technological part of the complex.
      By the way, the Americans themselves are no longer enthusiastic about the hit to kill adored by you. It was they who tried to solve the problem head on after their “Patriots” could not cope effectively with the task of defeating the old “Scuds”. But the problem was not in the very wretchedness of the principle of destruction by a fragmentation field, but in the flaws of guidance (accuracy) of the Patriot systems. They drank them afterwards, and a miracle happened - he began to intercept rockets. But money for the "kinetics" has already been allocated, and they need to be worked out. In fact, defeat by a fragmentation field is no less effective
      1. _Jack_
        _Jack_ 31 January 2018 14: 18 New
        0
        In fact, it is the radar, not the missile, that solves the entire interception task. He brings a piece of "iron" into a intersecting orbit. Actually, this is the technological part of the complex.
        ok, I agree, that's why it costs half a billion
        In fact, defeat by a fragmentation field is no less effective
        only requires pulling a 2 times heavier warhead, which means the rocket is 2 times heavier, as a result they are 2 times less, which is not a buzz
        By the way, the Americans themselves are no longer enthusiastic about the hit to kill adored by you.

        the probability of hitting a target with a single THAAD missile defense is estimated at 0,9 - is this not enough? and to say, they say, they all lie, this is not an argument, you can also say about ours
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 31 January 2018 14: 53 New
          +2
          Quote: _Jack_
          only requires pulling a 2 times heavier warhead, which means the rocket is 2 times heavier, as a result they are 2 times less, which is not a buzz

          Here, in fact, there are two different concepts, two different views on the solution of the same problem. Either you pay for a super-sophisticated radar, or you just use more powerful ammunition, but you can use a less accurate (and cheaper) guidance system.

          Quote: _Jack_
          the probability of hitting a target with a single THAAD missile defense is estimated at 0,9 - is this not enough? and to say, they say, they all lie, this is not an argument, you can also say about ours

          We have an accuracy of 0,8-0,95 is ensured by defeat. aerodynamic purpose with simultaneously firing at her with two missiles. Honestly, yes, the stated figures are embarrassing, especially with one missile, and even more so in this way - to get "a bullet into a bullet." Doubts are not built from scratch. However, it will be possible to judge when statistics are collected on the interception of real targets.
          1. _Jack_
            _Jack_ 31 January 2018 14: 54 New
            0
            To date, the MDA has already received more than 200 interceptor missiles, all 15 test launches have been successful.

            here is the statistics
            1. Grigory_45
              Grigory_45 31 January 2018 15: 01 New
              +2
              Quote: _Jack_
              all 15 test launches were successful.
              here is the statistics

              well, a successful launch is not a successful interception. The fact that the rocket flies, I, in fact, had no doubt)
              Quote: _Jack_
              Missile Defense Agency (MDA) ordered the production of a new batch of interceptor missiles in the amount of $ 459 million.

              R&D money has already been spent. They can be partially recaptured only by producing products. The system is advertised. Naturally, they will produce and buy it (and then - and sell it to "partners"). And the effectiveness of THAAD is still very difficult to assess.
              1. _Jack_
                _Jack_ 31 January 2018 15: 15 New
                0
                well, a successful launch is not a successful interception. The fact that the rocket flies, I, in fact, had no doubt)
                Naturally, this implies a successful interception, it is obvious that this is the purpose of the exercises, and not that the missile would take off.
                And unsuccessful military developments are simply being removed from service, there are many examples. Nobody will pump in billions further when purchasing missiles for an idle missile defense system. Too presumptuous to think so of a potential adversary.
                1. Grigory_45
                  Grigory_45 31 January 2018 15: 33 New
                  +2
                  Quote: _Jack_
                  Naturally, this means successful interception

                  At present, 40 test launches are known, 32 of which were recognized as successful. 15 of them were practical launchesduring which the interception of the training target was practiced. 11 were successful, the other four failed.
                  It should be noted that all tests were carried out only on simulators still massive, but morally obsolete missiles R-17 ("Scud")
                  The Americans have proven that they can shoot down missiles of the past. What are we going to do with the real missiles, or even more promising ones? Actually, that’s why he said that the effectiveness of THAAD is a big question
                  1. _Jack_
                    _Jack_ 31 January 2018 15: 37 New
                    0
                    I think it is better for our military elite not to doubt the effectiveness of THAAD, than to receive an unpleasant surprise at the most crucial moment, hat-inspiring moods have repeatedly led our country to huge sacrifices.
                    And how to check THAAD on modern rockets? When such a real test begins, it will be too late to draw conclusions.
                    1. Grigory_45
                      Grigory_45 31 January 2018 15: 52 New
                      +2
                      Quote: _Jack_
                      I think it is better for our military elite not to doubt the effectiveness of THAAD, than to receive an unpleasant surprise at the most crucial moment, hat-inspiring moods have repeatedly led our country to huge sacrifices.
                      And how to check THAAD on modern rockets? When such a real test begins, it will be too late to draw conclusions.

                      do not worry, consider, of course, the availability of these systems.
                      Quote: _Jack_
                      And how to check THAAD on modern rockets?

                      By creating a simulator. Well, or let them try to bring down the warheads of their own BR. So it will be seen. To train for half a century of junk is, of course, very clever, creating a promising system.
                      Well and so, for reflection. If you and I were not mistaken in the fundamentals of the principle of intercepting THAAD, then trouble awaits her. Imagine that the BR made a maneuver on the trajectory. Where it leads? Most likely to a guaranteed miss, because the radar after launching a missile to give it a new introductory on the changed trajectory of the target can not. She goes on an inertial before capturing the GOS target. I'm not talking about how prstenkoy GOS will distinguish false goals from real ones (if any). Etc.

                      In general, missile defense is largely a fiction. Air defense is not very effective, but at least the principle is based on inflicting unacceptable damage on the enemy, mainly in flight personnel. But the robot doesn’t care - they shot him down or didn’t shoot him down, so he already went on his last flight. Well, if even 20% of the missiles reach the target (and there will probably be more of them) - it will not seem to anyone. ABM is beautiful, costly and inefficient. The same area in which the projectile is far ahead of the armor
                      1. _Jack_
                        _Jack_ 31 January 2018 15: 59 New
                        0
                        Well, at the moment, actually everyone recognizes that there is no reception against scrap, i.e. It is not yet possible to repulse a massive strike by the BR, but a lot of things could not be done before. Saudi Arabia, for example, does not need to repulse a massive strike, but THAAD can easily cope with single missiles, so they’re buying
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 31 January 2018 20: 41 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Imagine that the BR made a maneuver on the trajectory.

                        What’s brought in for BR? Iskander again?
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Well, if even 20% of the missiles reach the target (and there will probably be more of them) - it’s not enough for anyone

                        They write 0,96.
                        You see. While we are discussing in terms of peacetime, political acceptability - one out of 5 warheads, and even out of 25 - this is a lot. If we go into the regime of D.K. Kiselyov and discuss the physical survival of the people in a global conflict, the difference becomes fundamental.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        By the way, the Americans themselves are no longer enthusiastic about the hit to kill adored by you.

                        Is that what you think or know? Who are the Americans? XtK is the basic concept for a modern missile defense system, it extends to the TSAAD, the Standard, and the GBI, and gradually goes lower. Because the
                        1. Does not illuminate radars, like a nuclear missile defense.
                        2. It leaves no doubt whether the target is hit or not, unlike the fragments.
      2. _Jack_
        _Jack_ 31 January 2018 14: 47 New
        0
        By the way, the Americans themselves are no longer enthusiastic about the hit to kill adored by you.

        The press service of Lockheed Martin Corporation reports that the United States Missile Defense Agency (MDA) ordered the production of a new batch of interceptor missiles in the amount of $ 459 million. To date, the MDA has already received more than 200 interceptor missiles, all 15 test launches were successful.
        Here you are not thrilled.
  13. Grigory_45
    Grigory_45 31 January 2018 16: 08 New
    +1
    _Jack_,
    Quote: _Jack_
    Saudi Arabia, for example, does not need to repulse a massive strike, but THAAD can easily cope with single missiles, so they’re buying

    So let's see how the Saudis will shoot down the upgraded Scuds with them if THAAD reaches them. “Patriots” they are not very good at it. Either hands are crooked, or missiles of the wrong system
  14. Grigory_45
    Grigory_45 1 February 2018 00: 58 New
    +2
    Cherry nine,
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    They write 0,96.

    During the Gulf War, they also wrote that the Patriots intercepted almost 100% of the Scuds. Propaganda - works on both sides. We know more or less real results, and we also see how the Saudis cope with the interceptions of Iranian BRs - five missiles, the target is not intercepted. One missile on the principle of "rocket in the eye" and with such a probability - almost a fairy tale.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    While we are discussing in terms of peacetime, political acceptability - one out of 5 warheads, and even out of 25 - this is a lot. If we go into the regime of D.K. Kiselyov and discuss the physical survival of the people in the global conflict - the difference becomes fundamental

    The blow will soften. but not fundamentally. There will be a scribe on one side, and a full scribe on the other. All the difference. And then, provided that the missile defense will be as effective as stated. Practice shows that making a shell is cheaper and more effective than armor
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    HTK is a basic concept for a modern missile defense system; it extends to the TSAAD, the Standard, and the GBI, and gradually goes lower

    I know it. At one time, they did not understand the mistakes of pointing the “Patriot” and decided to chop off their shoulders - to switch to a fundamentally new way of defeat. Let them spend money. Especially since initially counting on the defeat of obsolete means of attack. It's like trying to armor against cores when you already have BOPS
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    1. Does not illuminate radars, like a nuclear missile defense.
    2. It leaves no doubt whether the target is hit or not, unlike the fragments

    With a combined speed of meeting the warhead and interceptor of several km / s - do you think there will be no fragments that radars will not light up?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 1 February 2018 02: 52 New
      0
      Quote: Gregory_45
      and we also see how the Saudis cope with the intercepts of Iranian BR - five missiles, the target is not intercepted

      OK, you have to wait for the next big swagger with the Americans.
      Quote: Gregory_45
      And then, provided that the missile defense will be as effective as stated.

      Even if it is half as effective, it will delay half of the warheads. These are millions of people.
      In addition, the road begins with the first step.
      Quote: Gregory_45
      It's like trying to armor against cores when you already have BOPS

      If by BOPS you mean maneuvering warheads, then just their capabilities have not yet been confirmed. And here full-scale tests are unlikely to be expected.
      Quote: Gregory_45
      With a combined speed of meeting the warhead and interceptor of several km / s - do you think there will be no fragments that radars will not light up?

      If a fragment cloud appears after the interceptor reaches the warhead, the question is closed. If the warhead passed through a cloud of damaging elements, then the HZ is working or not. And the light - this refers to the nuclear warheads of the anti-missile complex A-135, for example.
  15. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 1 February 2018 12: 27 New
    0
    I’ll clarify what the missile defense problem is for me.
    Which is easier and cheaper to do?
    1. Kinetic or RP interceptor of the BR warhead (hypersonic speeds of the warhead and it will be easy to make it unobtrusive in the radio and the IF range) or
    2. Kinetically, either a general purpose object or a cumulative BR submunition for firing on absolutely necessary missile defense elements (radar, missile defense, missile defense for anti-ballistic missiles, and so on) that are immovable large targets that are clearly visible and even emit energy.
    I will make submunitions for armored personnel carriers tens of times cheaper and using an order of magnitude worse technology than interceptors for armored personnel carriers. Maybe a bit someone else is smarter and better than me will do the opposite?
  16. MRLS 92N6A
    MRLS 92N6A 8 March 2018 13: 46 New
    0
    Well, I think it’s 600 km for the eyes, why do I need 1000 km for a radar air defense system, does this have rtv, or do they have missiles flying 1000 km?