Comparing anti-missile systems in the world

V

Viktor

New Member
Im wondering what do you think whitch is best system in the world with capabilities against balistic missiles. Based on hit probability, guidance system and its abillity to whitstand deception and jamming, system with highest rocket speed, with abillity to destroy longest range balistic missile, to deploy.

Patriot Pac1/2/3
Antey 2500
S-300V
Arrow-1/2
SM-3
THAAD
S-400
S-300PMU1/2/3
 
A

aaaditya

New Member
Viktor said:
Im wondering what do you think whitch is best system in the world with capabilities against balistic missiles. Based on hit probability, guidance system and its abillity to whitstand deception and jamming, system with highest rocket speed, with abillity to destroy longest range balistic missile, to deploy.

Patriot Pac1/2/3
Antey 2500
S-300V
Arrow-1/2
SM-3
THAAD
S-400
S-300PMU1/2/3
Click to expand...
i would go for the arrow2 since it is believed to have the shortest resction time of all (at least thats what the indian defence establishments think and thats why they would like to get their hands on it ,if us permits).
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
aaaditya said:
i would go for the arrow2 since it is believed to have the shortest resction time of all (at least thats what the indian defence establishments think and thats why they would like to get their hands on it ,if us permits).
Click to expand...
For combined Air defence and terminal phase intercept of ballistic missiles there is probably marginal difference between the Patriot and the double digit Russians (S-300/S-400's).

The more high end, more complete approach against ballistic missiles is the combined Patriot/THAADS/SM-3 which supports each other by their different basing modes and intercept philosophy.

aaaditya, this was a response to the first post. Sorry for replying to yours. ;)
 
V

Viktor

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
aaaditya said:
i would go for the arrow2 since it is believed to have the shortest resction time of all (at least thats what the indian defence establishments think and thats why they would like to get their hands on it ,if us permits).
Click to expand...
Can you explaine me rescion time, what do you mean by that?

As of systems im familiar that Arrow-2, S-300PMU1/2/3 and Patriot Pac1/2/3 has ability to destroy targets with the speeds up to 3000m/s, unlike Antey 2500 whitch has ability to edstroy them up to 4500m/s whitch means it can destroy balistic missiles of longest range.
THAAD had 7 testings and 5 off them where unsuccessful and last two successful and it was declared operational.

Im interested do you think hit to kill tehnology is nessessery to achive 100% assurences to destroy target?
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Wrt to both THAADS and SM-3, they are mid-flight interceptors, which I understand to require hit-to-kill. The philosophy behind the hit-to-kill on the PAC-3 is that it is the most assured way to kill missiles and warheads ie highest probability of taking the BM mission package out.

I must be the proper approach , since it otherwise would have been far easier to juse simpler explosive warhead technology.

My 0.02 € cents.
 
V

Viktor

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Grand Danois said:
Wrt to both THAADS and SM-3, they are mid-flight interceptors, which I understand to require hit-to-kill. The philosophy behind the hit-to-kill on the PAC-3 is that it is the most assured way to kill missiles and warheads ie highest probability of taking the BM mission package out.

I must be the proper approach , since it otherwise would have been far easier to juse simpler explosive warhead technology.

My 0.02 € cents.
Click to expand...
THAAD is littile bit catching because out of 7 test, 5 have failed and last two successful - and than pronounced operational.

Hit to kill tehnology is a pritty dificult to achive but what makes it batter than focused explosion of warhead lets say on 1500kg S-300PMU missile?

SM-3 with AEGIS system is formidable - as far as I know all test where successful.
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Viktor said:
THAAD is littile bit catching because out of 7 test, 5 have failed and last two successful - and than pronounced operational.

Hit to kill tehnology is a pritty dificult to achive but what makes it batter than focused explosion of warhead lets say on 1500kg S-300PMU missile?

SM-3 with AEGIS system is formidable - as far as I know all test where successful.
Click to expand...
I think THAAD is the right approach and I guess this or a similar system will have a large contribution to BMD.

I don't myself consider the system deployed. I want more consistency.

Why go through the effort and cost of hit-to-kill if it wasn't better? The accuracy required for hit-to-kill is much higher and the effect is more significant. Probability of kill as a function of probability to hit is higher. You destroy the threat more effectively.
 
C

contedicavour

New Member
What about the MEADS US-Germany-Italy ? It's supposed to come up with an ATBM long-range system that should replace Patriot. The programme is still active with funding by all 3 countries, but I haven't read anything new recently.
For the moment we are building Aster-15/30 systems for the Army, but they are not ATBM systems...

cheers
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
contedicavour said:
What about the MEADS US-Germany-Italy ? It's supposed to come up with an ATBM long-range system that should replace Patriot. The programme is still active with funding by all 3 countries, but I haven't read anything new recently.
For the moment we are building Aster-15/30 systems for the Army, but they are not ATBM systems...

cheers
Click to expand...
Aster 30 should be able to deal with 600 km BM's and the Aster missile is prepared for a more comprehensive ABM role. But almost nothing in public about it.
 
C

contedicavour

New Member
Grand Danois said:
Aster 30 should be able to deal with 600 km BM's and the Aster missile is prepared for a more comprehensive ABM role. But almost nothing in public about it.
Click to expand...
It must be preserved as a secret for security reasons then... though I have read somewhere that an "Aster 45" was planned for ATBM roles, but that the programme had been mothballed since priority was given to this mysterious MEADS trinational project of which nobody seems to know much.

cheers
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
A

aaaditya

New Member
Viktor said:
Can you explaine me rescion time, what do you mean by that?

As of systems im familiar that Arrow-2, S-300PMU1/2/3 and Patriot Pac1/2/3 has ability to destroy targets with the speeds up to 3000m/s, unlike Antey 2500 whitch has ability to edstroy them up to 4500m/s whitch means it can destroy balistic missiles of longest range.
THAAD had 7 testings and 5 off them where unsuccessful and last two successful and it was declared operational.

Im interested do you think hit to kill tehnology is nessessery to achive 100% assurences to destroy target?
Click to expand...
iam sorry ,that was a spelling mistake ,i meant the reaction time,one of the reason why the indian defence planners were eager for the arrow system was that it had a very short reaction time.

i will give a scenario as an example of the reaction time:

let us assume that usa launches an icbm at india(a distance of 12000 kms) and this missile has a velocity of ,let us assume 12000kms/hr,then the missile would take atleast an hour to hit its target in india,but if the missile launch were picked up by the indian spy satellites,then the indians would have adequate time to predict the intended target of the missile(maybe not accurately) and activate their atbm missile batteries (let us assume it takes them 20 minutes to do so) and also to activate their civil defence forces and the disaster management personnel.

but on the other hand let us assume that the pakistanis launch a short range ballistic missile from lahore to delhi (a distance of around 300 kilometres) and that the missile's speed is let us say 5 mach(5940 kms/hr or 1.65 kms/sec ),then the missile will have a flight time of approximately 180 seconds ,ie around 3 minutes,the advantage of the arrow is that it can be prepared for action in such a short time and would still have a very high degree of interception accuracy.the time limit would however be too short to activate the civil defence and disaster management forces and hence the missile requires to be highly reliable and accurate.

india and israel share a parrallel that both have share their borders with hostile neighbours armed with ballistic and cruise missiles.
 
V

Viktor

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
aaaditya said:
iam sorry ,that was a spelling mistake ,i meant the reaction time,one of the reason why the indian defence planners were eager for the arrow system was that it had a very short reaction time.

i will give a scenario as an example of the reaction time:

let us assume that usa launches an icbm at india(a distance of 12000 kms) and this missile has a velocity of ,let us assume 12000kms/hr,then the missile would take atleast an hour to hit its target in india,but if the missile launch were picked up by the indian spy satellites,then the indians would have adequate time to predict the intended target of the missile(maybe not accurately) and activate their atbm missile batteries (let us assume it takes them 20 minutes to do so) and also to activate their civil defence forces and the disaster management personnel.

but on the other hand let us assume that the pakistanis launch a short range ballistic missile from lahore to delhi (a distance of around 300 kilometres) and that the missile's speed is let us say 5 mach(5940 kms/hr or 1.65 kms/sec ),then the missile will have a flight time of approximately 180 seconds ,ie around 3 minutes,the advantage of the arrow is that it can be prepared for action in such a short time and would still have a very high degree of interception accuracy.the time limit would however be too short to activate the civil defence and disaster management forces and hence the missile requires to be highly reliable and accurate.

india and israel share a parrallel that both have share their borders with hostile neighbours armed with ballistic and cruise missiles.
Click to expand...
I understand but does that mean that Arrow has mutch batter reaction time than anyother ABM system (russian or usa). Besides arent those system suposed to be turn on all the time so in that point of view only reaction time it exist is the time needed for radar to calculate trajectory and time needed for missiles to be launcht.
 
A

aaaditya

New Member
Viktor said:
I understand but does that mean that Arrow has mutch batter reaction time than anyother ABM system (russian or usa). Besides arent those system suposed to be turn on all the time so in that point of view only reaction time it exist is the time needed for radar to calculate trajectory and time needed for missiles to be launcht.
Click to expand...
you may be right ,that most atbm systems would be turned on in the time of a war,but what i imply is that the system must be reliable,no commander would want a system which is unreliable in such a short span of time ,because in most cases the atbm would be the last means of survival.

arrow is perhalps the most proven of all the atbm missiles as of now.
 
A

aaaditya

New Member
Viktor said:
I understand but does that mean that Arrow has mutch batter reaction time than anyother ABM system (russian or usa). Besides arent those system suposed to be turn on all the time so in that point of view only reaction time it exist is the time needed for radar to calculate trajectory and time needed for missiles to be launcht.
Click to expand...
mobility also implies the time taken for a system to be redeployed from one place to another,a large number of support vehicles would make the redeployment relatively difficult as well as rendering the atbm battery vulnerable to counter strike.mobility is a very important aspect of quick reaction.
 
V

Viktor

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
aaaditya said:
mobility also implies the time taken for a system to be redeployed from one place to another,a large number of support vehicles would make the redeployment relatively difficult as well as rendering the atbm battery vulnerable to counter strike.mobility is a very important aspect of quick reaction.
Click to expand...
I agree. mobility is important factor and thats why all russian systems are mounted on mibile trucks.

I just found out that Russian S-400 is capable o intercepting missile with speeds up to 4800m/s whitch is equivalent of 3500 km missile range surpasing by far Arrow/Patriot/S-300PMU1/2/3 and even mighty Antey 2500.
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
contedicavour said:
Ok thanks, so the system is evolving towards a sort of customized PAC-3... I was hoping for something more advanced since we're talking of an in-service date of 2014... but I'm still very happy to have at last a real ATBM ...

cheers
Click to expand...
I haven't figured out if it GMD type ABM interceptors that is on talk for stationing in the Czech Republic. Would make sense though.

So there's probably your more advanced anti ICBM system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top