S-400 Info

The S-300VM and S-400 use modified radar sets from the S-300V and S-300PM-1/2, respectively. Dunno if that helps.

Back to the issue. How to compare the S-300VM radars with the S-400? Arte the Carlo Kopp articles accurate?

It has nothing to do with range directly, it has to do with target speed.

Actually it does if the target is actually a normal ballistic target… like a bullet. Higher launch velocity (or longer burn period) equals longer range which in turn equals higher terminal velocity.

ICBMs don’t have considerably more powerful rockets, more often than not they get the extra range by using three stages which extends their acceleration time and increases their power to weight ratio every time a stage seperates.

And explain how Russia shooting down a GBI trying to take out an Iranian missile is NOT helping Iran. After all, if they can see the GBI they can certainly see where it’s headed.

How is destroying a nuclear weapon over Russia going to benefit Russia? If you want NMD then build another system over New York to protect that side of the US.

Given that an Iranian missile headed toward the US is going to spend far more time over Russian territory than any conceivable GBI shot one has to wonder why you’re so rabid about Russia shooting down the US GBI (that carries no explosive warhead) rather than Russia shooting down the Iranian missile themselves, which if it managed to fall short or have a problem could land a nuke on Russia.

An interception by GBI is rather more likely to make it fall short than leaving it to fly over. Shooting a GBI over Russian territory means GBI and whatever intercepts it bits all over Russia. Letting the GBI intercept a live nuclear warhead means GBI and nuclear bits all over Russia… hard call… I think I know which Russia will pick.

Not sure what you’re referring to here as it’s common knowledge that it’s GBIs going into the silos in Poland.

So Poland and the US have completed talks and have a concrete agreement? Haven’t heard that myself… do you have a source?

BFD Kruschev is on record as saying “we will bury you” I guess that’s suppose to mean something too huh?

All that means is that he expected communism to outlive democracy… my grandmother buried my grandfather, simply because she outlived him.

BTW how was Cuba suppose to launch seeing how they had no missiles and no nukes of their own?

They weren’t referring to nukes… ANY attack from cuba on the united states of america will be considered an attack from the Soviet Union. They could have launched a seaborne invasion on Florida… would have been about as successful as the bay of pigs of course…

I was referring to the rusting submarine hulks (with reactors onboard) and all the above ground testing the Russians did.

As a containment container a subs reactor is as secure as any hole in the ground in the US used to store nuclear material. Whether the hulls are rusting or not (go to any naval base and there will be rusting ships) is kinda irrelevant as oxidated steel is not very toxic.

Originally Posted by SOC
It has nothing to do with range directly, it has to do with target speed. An ICBM travels up to 15,000 mph. ATBMs like the S-300PM-1/2 cannot engage targets travelling that fast. The S-300PMU-1/2 can engage targets travelling at 2800 m/sec, or around 6500 mph. Now, the Antey-2500 can smack a target flying at 4500 m/sec, or around 10,000 mph. If it could accurately track an ICBM, it might be able to have an outside chance at hitting one, and therefore also hitting a GMD interceptor (the Antey-2500 is advertised as being able to hit individual warheads). But anything using a 48N6 missile (S-300PM-1/2, S-400) isn’t going to have a chance in hell. The S-400’s 40N6 might be able to hit a GMD vehicle or an ICBM if it can engage targets moving around 6500 m/sec, but we need more data on that missile in order to make that claim.

So, the advertised S-400 capability against IRBM of up to 3.500 km IRBM (4.8 km/s) can be only carried out with the “mystery” 40N6. 48N6 series rocket will only be able to down MRBM of up to 1.500 km (2.8 km/s).
Summarizing, current S-400 (without the 40N6) being deployed near Moscow have superior anti-air capabilities (up to 250 km interception range against aerial targets) but inferior ABM capabilities respect to the S-300VM.

It has nothing to do with range directly, it has to do with target speed. An ICBM travels up to 15,000 mph. ATBMs like the S-300PM-1/2 cannot engage targets travelling that fast. The S-300PMU-1/2 can engage targets travelling at 2800 m/sec, or around 6500 mph. Now, the Antey-2500 can smack a target flying at 4500 m/sec, or around 10,000 mph. If it could accurately track an ICBM, it might be able to have an outside chance at hitting one, and therefore also hitting a GMD interceptor (the Antey-2500 is advertised as being able to hit individual warheads). But anything using a 48N6 missile (S-300PM-1/2, S-400) isn’t going to have a chance in hell. The S-400’s 40N6 might be able to hit a GMD vehicle or an ICBM if it can engage targets moving around 6500 m/sec, but we need more data on that missile in order to make that claim.

Where SM-3 is said to be capable of taking out a 5500km missile you have to wonder if a full caliber SM-3 will have anti-ICBM capability or to what degree.

He was referring to any GBIs that enter Russian airspace.

And explain how Russia shooting down a GBI trying to take out an Iranian missile is NOT helping Iran. After all, if they can see the GBI they can certainly see where it’s headed.

Shooting down potentially dangerous objects flying over your own sovreign territory is clearly acceptable… ask Gary Powers… well you might have to dig him up…

Given that an Iranian missile headed toward the US is going to spend far more time over Russian territory than any conceivable GBI shot one has to wonder why you’re so rabid about Russia shooting down the US GBI (that carries no explosive warhead) rather than Russia shooting down the Iranian missile themselves, which if it managed to fall short or have a problem could land a nuke on Russia.

A fully fledged strategic ABM system like GBI might be needed for weapons going all the way to the US, but for any Iranian missiles aimed at Europe the Antei-2500 probably would be a good solution… what is your problem… they haven’t even decided to move from vapourware to paperware and you already know what missiles will be deployed…

Not sure what you’re referring to here as it’s common knowledge that it’s GBIs going into the silos in Poland.

The US is on record as stating that any attack from Cuba would be considered an attack by the USSR… if Cuba had launched the US would have nuked the Soviets too.

BFD Kruschev is on record as saying “we will bury you” I guess that’s suppose to mean something too huh? BTW how was Cuba suppose to launch seeing how they had no missiles and no nukes of their own?

You forget that the wind blows west in europe. Sht from Chernobyl went to scandinavia and Britain… not the other way…
They mass produce cruise missiles, which are relatively cheap to build. A few thousand ground launched Kh-102s with a range of 5,000km but only one warhead is like 1/3rd of an SS-20 but much smaller and much harder to detect and stop.

I was referring to the rusting submarine hulks (with reactors onboard) and all the above ground testing the Russians did. The NTS is ecofriendly by comparsion.

What’s the range of BM that can be engaged by the S-300PMU2? It’s better than the Antey-2500 im terms of ATBM capability?

It has nothing to do with range directly, it has to do with target speed. An ICBM travels up to 15,000 mph. ATBMs like the S-300PM-1/2 cannot engage targets travelling that fast. The S-300PMU-1/2 can engage targets travelling at 2800 m/sec, or around 6500 mph. Now, the Antey-2500 can smack a target flying at 4500 m/sec, or around 10,000 mph. If it could accurately track an ICBM, it might be able to have an outside chance at hitting one, and therefore also hitting a GMD interceptor (the Antey-2500 is advertised as being able to hit individual warheads). But anything using a 48N6 missile (S-300PM-1/2, S-400) isn’t going to have a chance in hell. The S-400’s 40N6 might be able to hit a GMD vehicle or an ICBM if it can engage targets moving around 6500 m/sec, but we need more data on that missile in order to make that claim.

What’s the range of BM that can be engaged by the S-300PMU2? It’s better than the Antey-2500 im terms of ATBM capability?

I’m not the one that suggested Russia shoot down GBIs based in Poland attempting to stop an Iranian missile.

He was referring to any GBIs that enter Russian airspace.

And of course everybody knows the USSR never helped North Korea or North Vietnam

…to attack America… no they didn’t you are right.

Hell the USSR was even stupid enough to help Hitler and I still laugh every time I think about how hard THAT bit them in the a$$.

Chamberlain also made deals with hitler too. The US stayed neutral… one of the first uses for the early IBMs was to collate statistics on race for the nazis so they could track down all those jews. Not as funny as the fact that the gas used to kill the jews was invented by a jew during WWI to kill germanys enemies.

Technically I could go out and shoot a few cops but I doubt I’d like the repercussions. I doubt the Russians would either.

Shooting down potentially dangerous objects flying over your own sovreign territory is clearly acceptable… ask Gary Powers… well you might have to dig him up…

FFS Garry if you’re going to chime in at least try to have a working knowledge of the topic at hand.

A fully fledged strategic ABM system like GBI might be needed for weapons going all the way to the US, but for any Iranian missiles aimed at Europe the Antei-2500 probably would be a good solution… what is your problem… they haven’t even decided to move from vapourware to paperware and you already know what missiles will be deployed…

Don’t remember the last time the US helped nuke a country that hadn’t attacked them, refresh my memory.

The US is on record as stating that any attack from Cuba would be considered an attack by the USSR… if Cuba had launched the US would have nuked the Soviets too.

You’re acting like all those nukes could actually be used without Russia turning into more of a radioactive wasteland than it already is. Russia would be far better off perfecting the Bulava, it’s associated SSBN, and mobile Topol and $hit-canning all the rest.

You forget that the wind blows west in europe. Sht from Chernobyl went to scandinavia and Britain… not the other way…
They mass produce cruise missiles, which are relatively cheap to build. A few thousand ground launched Kh-102s with a range of 5,000km but only one warhead is like 1/3rd of an SS-20 but much smaller and much harder to detect and stop.

Technically I could go out and shoot a few cops but I doubt I’d like the repercussions. I doubt the Russians would either.

USA isn’t the world cop anymore. It was near to be in the 90s, but not anymore, after several failed movements like Iraq, influence lost in many places (even in Latin America)…
Note that Iran have, so far, defied swiftly every American threat. So if the former world-“cop” shot to Russia, I don’t think the Russians will passively accept it. Shots FROM Russian in the opposite direction should be expected.

End of off-topic.

You know this post of yours is so far out there I don’t know whether to waste the time responding or not. You remind me of Homer Simpson jumping up and down on the couch thinking he’s won the lottery when he’s too stupid to realize the last number on his ticket is “9” and not “6”. What the hell, why not.

Descending to new depths of “stupid arguement”.

What you are asserting is that the US would never assist in attacking Russia (and therefore I guess NATO is worthless in such a case), but that Russia would assist Iran in attacking the US. You conclusion I guess is that Russia is stupid and the US is normal/perfect/above criticism?

Learn how to read Garry, or at least read the posts before responding. I’m not the one that suggested Russia shoot down GBIs based in Poland attempting to stop an Iranian missile.

So I guess the counter claim would be the US has assisted the chechen rebels (before 11/9) and also Afghan rebels against the Russians… ie inside Russian territory/on Soviet border, while although supporting the Cuban regime the Soviets/Russians never supported an invasion of the US by Cuba therefore “the Soviets Never would. But US assisting chechens/afghans in attacking the Soviet Union would take stupidity to a new level… and it did really… welcome to the world post 11/9.

And of course everybody knows the USSR never helped North Korea or North Vietnam :rolleyes: Hell the USSR was even stupid enough to help Hitler and I still laugh every time I think about how hard THAT bit them in the a$$. 😀

I doubt the Russians would care what they were fired for… if they enter Russian or Belarussian airspace they can shoot them down if they like.

Technically I could go out and shoot a few cops but I doubt I’d like the repercussions. I doubt the Russians would either.

The Vietnamese have nuked the US exactly the same number of times Iran has nuked the US… or Iraq has, or anyone except the US herself has.

Yet another example of Garry jumping in trying to be clever and leaving all his clues at home.

Actually I would expect Antei-2500 could probably already do it if the system in poland has a range of less than 500km.

FFS Garry if you’re going to chime in at least try to have a working knowledge of the topic at hand.

Weasel out of what? If you want to fire interceptor missiles over Russia or her allies then you need to look at cooperation with the Russians, not exclusion. It would be a terrible mistake caused by US mistrust and lack of communication from the US… with a lot of I told you so mixed in.

Oh I’m sure Russia would be given adequate information. They just won’t have access to the system is all. Besides they’re the ones with all those world-beating air defense systems surely they can do something as basic as figure out which way a missile is flying can’t they?

How could Russia win that when the yearly award has been so regularly given to the US that they just add years instead of engraving USA to save space. :dev2:

Don’t remember the last time the US helped nuke a country that hadn’t attacked them, refresh my memory.

Except dropping the INF treaty will save a lot of money and greatly improve performance. Most targets within 5,000km of Russian territory could have Kh-102s in a ground launched configuration fired at them… much cheaper than any ballistic missile and probably much harder to defend against.

You’re acting like all those nukes could actually be used without Russia turning into more of a radioactive wasteland than it already is. Russia would be far better off perfecting the Bulava, it’s associated SSBN, and mobile Topol and $hit-canning all the rest.

Actually I would expect Antei-2500 could probably already do it if the system in poland has a range of less than 500km.

The range of the GBI is around 3.500 km. You have the advantage that, in case a GBI is launched to Russia, the ABM will have to travel a shorter distance to the interception point (it will have to be a boost phase interception ¿?).
Now, it’s matter of kinematics. 9M82M have a terminal speed of 2.7 km/s. Enough?

the US never would. But Russia assisting Iran in attacking the US (by shooting down our defensive missiles) would take stupidity to a new level.

Descending to new depths of “stupid arguement”.

What you are asserting is that the US would never assist in attacking Russia (and therefore I guess NATO is worthless in such a case), but that Russia would assist Iran in attacking the US. You conclusion I guess is that Russia is stupid and the US is normal/perfect/above criticism?

So I guess the counter claim would be the US has assisted the chechen rebels (before 11/9) and also Afghan rebels against the Russians… ie inside Russian territory/on Soviet border, while although supporting the Cuban regime the Soviets/Russians never supported an invasion of the US by Cuba therefore “the Soviets Never would. But US assisting chechens/afghans in attacking the Soviet Union would take stupidity to a new level… and it did really… welcome to the world post 11/9.

Hey don’t look at me you’re the one that suggested they shoot down US GBIs in Poland and the only reason one would be in the air would be to shoot down an attempted Iranian attack.

I doubt the Russians would care what they were fired for… if they enter Russian or Belarussian airspace they can shoot them down if they like.

They must have very efficiently controlled what the media says over here because I’ve never heard of Vietnam nuking the US.

The Vietnamese have nuked the US exactly the same number of times Iran has nuked the US… or Iraq has, or anyone except the US herself has.

Now the question is: can the Triumph-follow-on down a GBI? Considering that it will behave mor or less like a IRBM, the likelihood will be bigger than zero.

Actually I would expect Antei-2500 could probably already do it if the system in poland has a range of less than 500km.

And tell me, do you think if New York were a glowing ruin because Russia shot down the US’s attempt to defend itself and claimed “well it was in our airspace” they’d get to weasel their way out of it?

Weasel out of what? If you want to fire interceptor missiles over Russia or her allies then you need to look at cooperation with the Russians, not exclusion. It would be a terrible mistake caused by US mistrust and lack of communication from the US… with a lot of I told you so mixed in.

Not only would it earn Russia the all-time biggest A-Hole award they’d probably earn themselves a few smoking cities of their own.

How could Russia win that when the yearly award has been so regularly given to the US that they just add years instead of engraving USA to save space. :dev2:

I guess if they want to waste the money then let them.

Except dropping the INF treaty will save a lot of money and greatly improve performance. Most targets within 5,000km of Russian territory could have Kh-102s in a ground launched configuration fired at them… much cheaper than any ballistic missile and probably much harder to defend against.

In reality stupidity is launching something to Russia pretexting a fictional “Iranian threat”. Anyway this discussion is irrelevant: The most probably scenario, USA will have its GBI in Poland and Russia its IRBM, sorry, its “intermediate range SAMs :dev2: ” in Belarus and Kaliningrad. That’s were the thing are going. Russia didn’t take the first step. It just considered some adjusts to assure its security.

I guess if they want to waste the money then let them. Thing is I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were some kind of out of the media arrangement between the two to avoid screwups if you know what I mean.

In reality stupidity is launching something to Russia pretexting a fictional “Iranian threat”. Anyway this discussion is irrelevant: The most probably scenario, USA will have its GBI in Poland and Russia its IRBM, sorry, its “intermediate range SAMs :dev2: ” in Belarus and Kaliningrad. That’s were the thing are going. Russia didn’t take the first step. It just considered some adjusts to assure its security.

Actually, Nerw York is not a problem for Russia. Moscow is a problem for Russia. New York surely is considered irrelevant by comparison. Everything unauthorized launched to the Russian-Belarussian aerospace deserve to be considered hostile and if it is posible its downing, well, … lets do it.

Yeah that would be a real smart move. Not only would it earn Russia the all-time biggest A-Hole award they’d probably earn themselves a few smoking cities of their own. It would not be pretty and fortunately even Putin isn’t that stupid.

Actually, Nerw York is not a problem for Russia. Moscow is a problem for Russia. New York surely is considered irrelevant by comparison. Everything unauthorized launched to the Russian-Belarussian aerospace deserve to be considered hostile and if it is posible its downing, well, … lets do it.

Actually, if these GBI are in Belarrussian or Russian aerospace, the Russians have the rigth to down the interceptors, no matter were they are going.

And tell me, do you think if New York were a glowing ruin because Russia shot down the US’s attempt to defend itself and claimed “well it was in our airspace” they’d get to weasel their way out of it?

Actually, if these GBI are in Belarrussian or Russian aerospace, the Russians have the rigth to down the interceptors, no matter were they are going. The GBI will be intruders, so they sould be downed.
Now the question is: can the Triumph-follow-on down a GBI? Considering that it will behave mor or less like a IRBM, the likelihood will be bigger than zero.

Russia in the Soviet Union already assisted Vietnam against America and what happened?

They must have very efficiently controlled what the media says over here because I’ve never heard of Vietnam nuking the US.