Turkey has $1b budget for anti-SSBM missiles.

[Soner1980]

I think Turkey would choose the Russian S-400 because it is a new design and Turkey can join the further design of it. Russian officials has asked Turkey to join the development phase and sell it together to the world. The S-300 is getting 'old' and over 10 years it is obsolete. So, PAC-3 or the S-400 is a good selection. The Arrow system is not so a new design to counter latest technological ballistic missiles I think.

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

I wonder if it is possible to adapt the Aegis system in order to make it a land system...
In my view the Aegis system with a combination of SM-2/SM-3 missiles is currently the best to intercept short- and middle-range balistic missiles.

 

[Soner1980]

The Standart Missile 3 has recently tested by the US armed forces. It has a very good design. Yes it is possible to adapt it on land systems or make it a fixed unit.

But this will take some time and the Iranian missile threat is advancing, I don't know it is a good choice in short or mid-term. The PAC-3 is fielded now and is still improving. The S-300 is good for today, and then switch to the s-400 would also a good idea. I found the both (S-400 and PAC) very capable and I think Turkey will short list them. This time without the source code problem I hope :

 

[tphuang]

The Standart Missile 3 has recently tested by the US armed forces. It has a very good design. Yes it is possible to adapt it on land systems or make it a fixed unit.

But this will take some time and the Iranian missile threat is advancing, I don't know it is a good choice in short or mid-term. The PAC-3 is fielded now and is still improving. The S-300 is good for today, and then switch to the s-400 would also a good idea. I found the both (S-400 and PAC) very capable and I think Turkey will short list them. This time without the source code problem I hope :

S-400 is not necessarily a new design, it's just an upgraded S-300PMU2. Actually, it's often just called S-300PMU3. The S-300 and S-400 are all developed using modular design, so you can put S-300 parts in S-400 and vice versa. If Turkey does select S-400, it's likely it will get the S-300PMU2 first.

 

[Soner1980]

Yes I think you are speaking right. The S300 is just the same but with a different missile roughly. Ofcourse there are changes in the launching platform, but it is the same system if you look from a distance.

I'm not a missile fanatic, I'm more interested in tanks and other AFV but last month I also want to know more about missiles. The S-300PMU3 is also a further upgraded version of the S-300 we know, also known the SA-10 Grumble, the V version I think and the PMU2 is called SA-12 I think. Then the missile characteristics change when upgrading further to the PMU3 version. Later called S-400 and by NATO the SA-20. Giantly, the S-400 has a long range wich actually began with the famous SA-5 Ganef. The S-500 is now just paperwork, also read somewhere that it is ready to put in production, and will have intercontinental range to intercept aerial objects. But Russia is out of funds to produce this kind of missile.

A crazy sentence: Will Russia built 50 years later a missile to engage aereal targets at 12.000 km distance???:

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

A crazy sentence: Will Russia built 50 years later a missile to engage aereal targets at 12.000 km distance???

Russia has already built missiles with nuclear warhead designed to intercept fighters and even balistic missiles (the moscou abm system...)
So don't be surprise with their weird trend to "love" BIG missiles...
But a 12000 km range SAM is unlikely, because of the curvature of the earth, unless it is a space-based weapon system.

 

[Soner1980]

To make it impossible to intercept the missile by a fighter plane or SAM, the missile must travel at a height that nobody can hit it with a weapon. I think most ICBM's with 12.000 km range could travel like a space shuttle. And therefore the missile also must get in orbital altitude.

But the S-500 is also believed to match the US 'Star Wars' missile defence shield. Only the Russians does not have the budget to produce it. The S-600 when developed, could maybe turn once of the whole earth...

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

The S-600 when developed, could maybe turn once of the whole earth...

Then it is far too simple to modify a commercial space launcher like the proton rocket by fitting it with a kill vehicle which behaves like a satellite....

 

[Soner1980]

Yes it is possible I think. But when? Maybe 50 years later?

But the S-400 is also a very good design and has one of the best characteristics in the world. The PAC-3 is also a good system but it has a short range capability and you need more of it to defend your territory.

I hope that Mother Russia finds some money to produce the S-500 in the somewere of the next decade because the S-300 based S-400 is almost to its end of its advancements after 10 years.

 

[killbill2]

Who says such a system would be effective against SLBM's like the Trident???

How would effective would this be against the C-4 or D-5 when launched close to the shore and a shallow trajectory is selected.

 

[Wild Weasel]

When one considers all the firepower that the United States can bring to bare, it becomes frighteningly obvious that the outcome would be total destruction for Russia.
The only real option that Russia has, is to continue with the MAD doctrine, and pray that it is enough to maintain the peace.

 

[Soner1980]

Yes, tell me what is able to stop SLBM's. The S-300? Or the PAC-3? Is there any shoulder launched SAM who can intercept a cruise missile flying to it's target?

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

As far as I know, there is no country owning SLBMs who can be a threat to the sovreignety of Turkey...

And there is no systems in the world able to intercept modern SLBMs like Trident, Bulava or M51...
By the way, the system must be able to intercept low flying target and "normal" aricraft too, isn't it?

 

[Wild Weasel]

I believe that it may be possible to shoot down a cruise missile with a shoulder-fired SAM, but in a real-world situation it's probably extremely unlikely.
Due to the average cruise missile's NOE flight profile, and reduced signatures, it's very difficult for major air defence networks to detect a cruise missile- let alone troops in the field.
A cruise missile usually flys low and relatively slow- but just fast enough to pass over a MANPADS crew, and disappear behind structures or terrain features before the crew can realistically acquire and lock onto the missile.
Typically, the small turbofan engines powering a modern cruise missile don't generate a large heat signature either, which makes a solid lock-on a difficult proposition for most MANPADS.

The best defense against low flying cruise missiles is not a foot soldier with a short-range SAM- it's a modern, over-lapping, multi-tiered, digitally networked air defense grid.
For this reason, it becomes quite obvious why cruise missiles are so highly prized as a first strike option. Combined with jamming, decoys, SPECOPS, stealthy aircraft, and a range of other options- the modern cruise missile is a very effective, low risk strike weapon.

Building such an effective, sophisticated, and elaborate defense network against them is cost prohibitive for most nations.