Russian Federation vs USA - ICBMs. Who has the edge?
-
thank you you seem like one of the very few reasonable posters out there in this forum. thanks mate.
although i disagree with you, i wont drag this on as i've found a rare breed in you in this forum- a reasonable forumer. -
What, the Russians of whom you sing the praises all the time are not smart at all?Originally posted by protonhybrid:mate that was around a few decades ago. the soviets signed that treaty because they made a mistake DIPLOMATICALLY, they lost the war in diplomacy and politics not in actual weaponry or anything else.
in fact it can be argued that overall ussr was more powerful than usa in weaponry while diplomatically usa was obviously more aggressive posing and positioning weapons systems close to soviet borders as close as turkey italy and germany etc. while the crisis of global destruction broke out when cowboy yankees showed their natural traits by crying foul when soviets deployed missiles in cuba.
and the missiles you mentioned pershing II and RS10 or ss-20, still ss-20 has longer range, greater firepower. can you tell me what you're talking about? it was still seen to be and really is a case of political failure by likes of gorbachev or other soviet leaders. and recall that mr putin is ditching the INF treaty amidst a spree of other such ditching of treaties.
What DIPLOMATIC mistake? You mean Russians are in such courtesy to exchange their 600 plus, much better in your term SS-20s for mere 200 plus, much smaller and inferior (again in you term) Pershing II in the intermediate Ballistic Missile Ban? Dude, just one simple question you could ask yourself, would you exchange 600 plus Mercedes Benz cars for 200 plus Protons just for Diplomatic reason or courtesy or not? 
If you do, you can start to check who the kid in the forum is NOW.
SS-20 is up to 5 times heavier than Pershing II, yet its range is only double that of Pershing II, the below image is the comparison of SS-20 & Pershing II, if someone still in a mentality that the bigger is the better and draw his edge conclusion upon, then I should I say?
-
Yanks' economy is going down teh drain while russian federation is bouncing back to be a superpower in military and economy too. russian federation spends money wisely whereas yanks waste them on useless wars. they got no money for development.
In year 2006, Yanks economy grew at 2.9%, in relative term, yes, it lags behind that of Russia, but do you ever check the figure in absolute term? 2.9% YanksÂ’ GDP growth translates into USD is near 400 billion bucks, almost generate half entire Russian economy! RussianÂ’s entire GDP is around 800 billion in 2006! Think about it! If you like to say itÂ’s like drain, then half Russia is already drained!
which yankee offensive nukes are far superior to russian ones mate? i can't think of any. be it defence or offense, my friend, russians have the clear edge. they're not just as bloodthirsty warmongers as yanks.Tomahawk, mate you probably haven't heard of s-400, how can they hit russian federation. and russian federation always lagged behind usa in naval power since usa has abundant natural resources and warm water port, which russian federation lacks. but with deployment in syria in mediterranean patrol, and revival of strategic patrol of tupolev bombers, we can surely see mr putin is in with a mission. yes they may seem archaic now, but can you say the same about russian s-400, even s-500 systems that some speculate may well have been developed already in secret.
LOl, another joke, Yes, I never heard S-400 is for intercepting Tomahawk.
and russian federation is indeed the leader in this field i'm afraid my friend, no matter who leads in stealth planes or who leads in carriers. Can you elaborate on that? IÂ’ll see how you going to answer, then the credibility of your rest comment will be self solved. -
the first giant ICBM were the soviet R7....phew...85,00km range. It went operational during the time where America thought the only way to deliver atom bomb effectively were by strategic air comand (its bomber)
the american try to counter it (succesfully)...yet the soviet shocked them again by using that missile to explore space, first 100kg sputnic were launch to space.....even before the american even manage to fart...the soviet sent another mission using the R7 with one tonne satelite and a dog.
in the end the R7 ICBM were only use for space vehicles...instead of its origina purpose. -
The S-400 Triumf (Russian: C-400 «Òðèóìô»; English: triumph) is a new generation of anti-aircraft/anti-missile weapon system complex developed by the Almaz Central Design Bureau as an upgrade of the S-300 family. Its NATO reporting name is SA-21 Growler. The S-400 was previously known as S-300PMU-3. It overshadows the capabilities of the other systems from the S-300 series, and its range is 2 times greater than that of the MIM-104 Patriot system.[1][2]
Russian sources have claimed the S-400 is capable of detecting and destroying targets out to a range of 400km (250 miles), such as aircraft, cruise missiles (which is Tomahawk) and ballistic missiles, including those with a range of 3,500 km and a speed of 3 miles per second and stealth aircraft -
the latest missile in Russian arsenal were the RT-2UTTH Topol M....
big mutha fakka..There has been work on new propulsion systems for the Topol-M which may enable it to evade an anti-ballistic missile.
The missile is designed to be immune to any planned US ABM defense. It is capable of making evasive maneuvers to avoid a kill by terminal phase interceptors, and carries targeting countermeasures and decoys. It is shielded against radiation, EMP, nuclear blasts in distances less than 500 meters, and is designed to survive a hit from any laser technology.
Yuri Solomonov, the General Designer of the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology, reportedly stated that a test of the new propulsion system resulted in the warhead payload burning up on reentry over the Svobodny launch site; it is unclear if this is due to the new engine design or other problems with the missile.
According to The Washington Times, Russia conducted a successful test of their evasive payload delivery system. [4] The missile was launched on November 1, 2005 from the Kapustin Yar facility. The warhead changed course after separating from the launcher, making it difficult to predict a re-entry trajectory.
A submarine-launched version is being developed under the code name Bulava, or the NATO reporting name SS-NX-30. -
Originally posted by coolant:
mate you seem to lack basic comprehension ability. russians exchanged Pershing IIs with rsd-10 (dont use nato conventions for russian arms, i get confused)? they never did so.
What, the Russians of whom you sing the praises all the time are not smart at all? What DIPLOMATIC mistake? [b]You mean Russians are in such courtesy to exchange their 600 plus, much better in your term SS-20s for mere 200 plus, much smaller and inferior (again in you term) Pershing II in the intermediate Ballistic Missile Ban? Dude, just one simple question you could ask yourself, would you exchange 600 plus Mercedes Benz cars for 200 plus Protons just for Diplomatic reason or courtesy or not? If you do, you can start to check who the kid in the forum is NOW.
as for INF treaty, mr putin is annulling that treaty and so he's recognized the diplomatic errors made by his predecessors. did you also note that russia is now back with a roar after rather uncouth dismemberment of USSR>
can you REwrite your sentence? i dont get your point. it's confusing. you mean rsd-10 is better or pershing? and which one's more heavy and have greater range?
SS-20 is up to 5 times heavier than Pershing II, yet its range is only double that of Pershing II, the below image is the comparison of SS-20 & Pershing II, if someone still in a mentality that the bigger is the better and draw his edge conclusion upon, then I should I say?
[/b]
kindly REwrite your sentence. -
Originally posted by coolant:
mate first get your facts right. second if you've no idea of economy plz shut up. yanks' gdp is around 13 trn $ and with that kind of growth it's already stagnating today. there are fears of recession in usa. deficits mounting, dollar declining, reserve currency status gone!
In year 2006, Yanks economy grew at 2.9%, in relative term, yes, it lags behind that of Russia, but do you ever check the figure in absolute term? 2.9% YanksÂ’ GDP growth translates into USD is near 400 billion bucks, almost generate half entire Russian economy! RussianÂ’s entire GDP is around 800 billion in 2006! Think about it! If you like to say itÂ’s like drain, then half Russia is already drained!
Russian gdp is around 1,25 trn $ and should be around 5 trn$ by 2020 for a nation that after demise of USSR had many problems that's a TREMENDOUS turnabout. whereas for a nation that had all the spoils so to speak after demise of ussr, threw it away when they're going down the drain today.
and it doesn't matter what absolute growth each country posts, it's the percentage that matters and IF this continues for around 2-3 decades, it'd mean russia would be in usa's position and usa in USSR's position (not russia's but ussr's)
frankly i dont trust wikipedia for its reliability NORMALLY but anyway
LOl, another joke, Yes, I never heard S-400 is for intercepting Tomahawk. Can you elaborate on that? IÂ’ll see how you going to answer, then the credibility of your rest comment will be self solved.
..
S-400 Triumf
Russian sources have claimed the S-400 is capable of detecting and destroying targets out to a range of 400km (250 miles), such as aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, including those with a range of 3,500 km and a speed of 3 miles per second and stealth aircraft.[3] [4][5]
BGM-109 Tomahawk
Function long-range, all-weather, subsonic cruise missile
Manufacturer Raytheon/McDonnell Douglas
Unit cost $1.3 mil
Entered service 1983
General characteristics
Engine Williams International F107-WR-402 turbofan
using TH-dimer fuel
and a solid-fuel booster
Launch mass 1,440 kilograms (3,200 lb)
Length Without booster: 5.56 m
With booster: 6.25 m
Diameter 0.52 m
Wingspan 2.67 m
Speed Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h)
Range 2500km -
well I see tankfanatic has already posted the wiki section. thanks for it. and anyway congrats for realizing the power of the behemoth, russian federation.
-
If you think S400 is for intercepting ultra low flying, terrain following cruise missiles like Tomahawk, then you should wonder why Russians, in practice, actually created low altitude air defense systems like Tor-M1 and Tunguska to protect S-300/S-400 ADS from the attacks like cruise missiles & other precision weapons?
S-300/400 systems are designed for theatre air defense with long range missiles to neutralize aggressors & supporting planes at high altitude, by doing so, that will leave the poor radar coverage at low altitude and the long range SAM is in a difficult position to engage low flying cruise missiles prompted up from terrain in a short distance. ThatÂ’s why the low tier ADS like Tor-M1 and CIWS like Tunguska come to play. On the contrary, the Tomahawk by design is to follow terrain for guidance. Such flying profile determines the terrain will most likely block the line of sight of long range radars, so, itÂ’s not surprised to see a tomahawk suddenly emerges from the behind of a hill and let the S-300/S400 units no time to respond, however, Tor-M1 is designed to address this, the vehicle mounted radar spines very fast, providing a good update rate on horizon scan. The Tor SAM is designed to engage ultra low flying cruise missile usually flying just meters above the ground that let the long range SAMs like S-300/400 incapalbe to intercept at this stage. -
it can ..yet it doesnt mean it should....
-
Obviously Proton’s meaning is: it should, or he won’t come out his comment like: “Tomahawk, mate you probably haven't heard of s-400”, that shows he is no clue about modern military stuffs he is talking about, yet you can see who talks like a judger. Well, even some basic he also don’t know, what else can you expect from him.Originally posted by tankfanatic:it can ..yet it doesnt mean it should....
-
Oooh, you got him there....Originally posted by coolant:Obviously Proton’s meaning is: it should, or he won’t come out his comment like: “Tomahawk, mate you probably haven't heard of s-400”, that shows he is no clue about modern military stuffs he is talking about, yet you can see who talks like a judger. Well, even some basic he also don’t know, what else can you expect from him. -
in short what you're saying is IF s-300/400 fails, then tor-m1 serves as another line of defence, the last line in fact and reacts quickly to any emergency or threat. but it's wiser to not bank on last minute reaction time to save your cities or your important centres of military economy politics etc, rather bank on longer range defence like s-400 or s-500 (coming up shortly).Originally posted by coolant:If you think S400 is for intercepting ultra low flying, terrain following cruise missiles like Tomahawk, then you should wonder why Russians, in practice, actually created low altitude air defense systems like Tor-M1 and Tunguska to protect S-300/S-400 ADS from the attacks like cruise missiles & other precision weapons?
[/quote]
there is no such thing as "ultra low flying" but i know what you mean. anyway Tor-M1 are for specific purposes and have shorter range while S400 have multiple purposes and much greater range. It's also unwise to say Tomahawk will fly at low heights throughout its flight. It may hit/strike unwanted objects/targets especially in rugged terrains.
Also S-400 being able to eliminate tomahawk at greater distances means even debris wont affect original targets of tomahawk. while tor-m1 or other low altitude short range defenses are sort of last resorts.
[quote]
S-300/400 systems are designed for theatre air defense with long range missiles to neutralize aggressors & supporting planes at high altitude, by doing so, that will leave the poor radar coverage at low altitude and the long range SAM is in a difficult position to engage low flying cruise missiles prompted up from terrain in a short distance. ThatÂ’s why the low tier ADS like Tor-M1 and CIWS like Tunguska come to play. On the contrary, the Tomahawk by design is to follow terrain for guidance. Such flying profile determines the terrain will most likely block the line of sight of long range radars, so, itÂ’s not surprised to see a tomahawk suddenly emerges from the behind of a hill and let the S-300/S400 units no time to respond, however, Tor-M1 is designed to address this, the vehicle mounted radar spines very fast, providing a good update rate on horizon scan. The Tor SAM is designed to engage ultra low flying cruise missile usually flying just meters above the ground that let the long range SAMs like S-300/400 incapalbe to intercept at this stage. -
One example, AA gun theoretically can shoot bird, if you just compare the AA gunÂ’s speed & range to that of the bird ( Like what you did in comparison of S400 & Tomahawk), but in actual use, everybody will know itÂ’s not practical and ridiculous.
So itÂ’s not about the last line of interception or not, itÂ’s because the low flying profile & very long range of Tomahawk as well as the S400 is designed for high altitude theater defense that pre-determine the S400 system is not capable to handle low flying, low cost Tomahawk. Always bear in mind the earth after all, is round. No matter how your S400 radarÂ’s max detection is advertised to be in hundreds kms, it still has to follow the basic law that limits its physical detection to the horizon. If itÂ’s hilly terrain, then the horizon could be much closer to your S300/400 post. Furthermore, the tomahawk is with a range of 1500kms, as long as it needs to use TERCOM for its guidance, it always has to fly low.
However, if the cruise missile is air launched, like the SLAM-ER, because itÂ’s launched in high altitude, Then, yes, S-400 can intercept it with easy like what some one has quoted. But again, Yanks are still evilest after all, they developed so many type standoff air borne munitions. Like those GPS guided bombs are dirt cheap, would you justify yourself to use expensive S400 shots to intercept those cheap stuff that saturating your air defense? -
Proton, let me put in this way: it seems you are the falling victim of Yanks media propaganda that illustrate Russia & China are now capable to challenge The US of A in a global base, thatÂ’s just PentagonÂ’s tricks to justify its hefty military budget that accounts for half of the world total. What we can see Russia & China are basically playing defense only at their doorway instead. Yanks are using this technique only to scare small nations to fall into their influence and buying more of their arms.
-
usa's budget is almost half of world's defense expenditure, but that's because in russia or china or developing countries you've lower costs, sometimes around 3 to 5 times lower.
whereas richer countries than usa in nordic countries, switzerland or some gcc countries, they dont spend much even per capita on defence. that's the real reason behind this unusually high expenditure of usa. when you factor these in, it doesn't look quite as much, although still a huge sum nonetheless. -
Originally posted by coolant:
about this part
One example, AA gun theoretically can shoot bird, if you just compare the AA gunÂ’s speed & range to that of the bird ( Like what you did in comparison of S400 & Tomahawk), but in actual use, everybody will know itÂ’s not practical and ridiculous.
So itÂ’s not about the last line of interception or not, itÂ’s because the low flying profile & very long range of Tomahawk as well as the S400 is designed for high altitude theater defense that pre-determine the S400 system is not capable to handle low flying, low cost Tomahawk. Always bear in mind the earth after all, is round. No matter how your S400 radarÂ’s max detection is advertised to be in hundreds kms, it still has to follow the basic law that limits its physical detection to the horizon. If itÂ’s hilly terrain, then the horizon could be much closer to your S300/400 post. Furthermore, the tomahawk is with a range of 1500kms, as long as it needs to use TERCOM for its guidance, it always has to fly low.
However, if the cruise missile is air launched, like the SLAM-ER, because itÂ’s launched in high altitude, Then, yes, S-400 can intercept it with easy like what some one has quoted. But again, Yanks are still evilest after all, they developed so many type standoff air borne munitions. Like those GPS guided bombs are dirt cheap, would you justify yourself to use expensive S400 shots to intercept those cheap stuff that saturating your air defense?Always bear in mind the earth after all, is round. No matter how your S400 radarÂ’s max detection is advertised to be in hundreds kms, it still has to follow the basic law that limits its physical detection to the horizon.
what basic law are you talking about? -
basic law of physics
-
what basic law of physics is it?Originally posted by zagan:basic law of physics -
DonÂ’t even know the very basic concept shows someoneÂ’s ignorance.
radar horizon
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/r/04406.html
(DOD, NATO) The locus of points at which the rays from a radar antenna become tangential to the Earth's surface. On the open sea this locus is horizontal, but on land it varies according to the topographical features of the terrain. -
hmm...someone is yet to show the relevance to someone's stated claims.Originally posted by coolant:DonÂ’t even know the very basic concept shows someoneÂ’s ignorance. -
Lol, Ignorance leads to annoyance!
The basic law of physics is the ray from the S-400 radar canÂ’t penetrate the radar horizon and will either bounce back or be absorbed by the terrain surface. If the Tomahawk is below the S-400Â’s radar horizon, then the radar canÂ’t detect the target even though it has the advertised maximum detection range in hundreds kms. Mainly Depending on the height of the radar, the radar horizon in the open sea (the flattest terrain possible) is usually 20-40 kms. -
You know guys....what is the point off all these? seriously i've lost it all.
And yes the limitations of ANY defence systems is in the range of it's detection system. The S-400 might be good but without airborne radar or a series of radars placed farther out it's very limited in whart it can do.
Anyway like i've said before the S-400 has not been to war and it has not been tested in combat so by far and large it is only CLAIMED.
Heck i hardly even see it's test data.
Could you be so kind as to provide some? -
As far as I know, the currently deployed S-400 is actually evolved from now defunct S300 PM3, so you can see the current S400 is basically the latest S-300 ADS. Basically you can use openly available S300PM2/PMU2Â’s data to assess it.
As for the 400km ranged S400 with big 40N6 missile we always see in the various articles, that one is still under development and therefore no news and data for it.