THAAD,MEADS VS S-400+

I wasn’t so much stating that *I* feel that way, just that if you were to encounter someone that did you’d should extend that courtesy to them.

And why should I extend any curtesy to anyone who thinks all Russian stuff is junk? I am not interested in American stuff, does that mean I think it is all junk? Where have I said that?

Essientially I was trying to point out the futility of trying to have a rational discussion with someone who is not objective and has no interest in being so.

So what you are basically saying is that you agree with me in this discussion that the comparison of ATBM systems with an AD is basically unsound and we both choose the same system as the best based on the criteria, but you can’t discuss this with me because I think objectivity is subjective… Amusing.

As for objectivity I’m about as objective as one can be.

But ones objectivity cannot assessed by anyone… especially yourself.

I can say I am completely objective, and anybody who says different is biased. I don’t know of anyone who is completely unbiased about anything… except about things they know and care nothing about. But you call that bias, so objectivity doesn’t exist.

You find all the info you can, try to filter out the bull****, build a picture, and attempt to fill in the blanks.

Which introduces bias.

Another thing I’m wondering is if you have no interest in systems other than Russian/Soviet and don’t read up on them what DO you base your opinion on, how do you expect anybody to believe you’re NOT biased, and how do you expect to have an intelligent discussion about something of which you know nothing about?

First of all even if I were completely unbiased there will always be some who claim I am biased anyway just for arguements sake because my conclusions don’t meet their expectations and knowledge of the things they like. Second I have managed to have a few intelligent conversations here and elsewhere on occasion… not a huge number, but a few.

And third, though answering your points in no particular order, I read of the performance of the Patriots with regard to the performance of Former Sovet Scud missiles… altered models though they were.

If you have ever read or watched on TV anything about Russian or Soviet systems you will know when the source is western they spend often as much time talking about comparable western systems or the western system the system in question was designed to defeat. In stark contrast to western source publications about western gear that can talk for hours on end not mentioning anything other than the product in question. I blame over inflated western marketing departments personally.

This seems to be you trying to state a polar opposite to what I said. In other words you are suggesting that my position is basically:
“…claim american systems are junk who then go on to say “I have no interest whatsoever in American projects or what Boeing or Boeing or whoever are doing. My interests are in Russian equipment.”

So I should extend the same courtesy to those who think the opposite…

:

I wasn’t so much stating that *I* feel that way, just that if you were to encounter someone that did you’d should extend that courtesy to them. Essientially I was trying to point out the futility of trying to have a rational discussion with someone who is not objective and has no interest in being so.

That said, most of this extended debate has centered on why Patriot failed in Desert Storm and the value of hit-to-kill. You have your opinions and I have mine. I’ve backed mine up with evidence. You have yet to.

As for objectivity I’m about as objective as one can be. When it comes down to system A vs system B unfortunatley all we have to go on are combat results, manufacturers’ claims, and published information (much of which unfortunately is based on manufacturers’ claims). So what do ya do? You find all the info you can, try to filter out the bull****, build a picture, and attempt to fill in the blanks. You have to ditch the prejudices though or like a Rorschach test you’ll end up seeing what you want to instead of what’s really there.

As for interest only in Soviet/Russian systems why? Crap, I’m American and I’m facinated by Russian systems as much as American or European systems. I’m not saying I think I’m better or anything I just don’t understand it. Another thing I’m wondering is if you have no interest in systems other than Russian/Soviet and don’t read up on them what DO you base your opinion on, how do you expect anybody to believe you’re NOT biased, and how do you expect to have an intelligent discussion about something of which you know nothing about?

Well one would HOPE you’d like to be taken a little more seriously. Kinda hard to take someone seriously who has no objectivity and indicates they really aren’t interested in the concept.

I would take it more seriously if it was attainable. Actual objectivity and perceived objectivity are two very different things. Just like there are wide eyed western kids who think everything the west makes is perfect and super and everything in the east is crap there are plenty of wide eyed kids who think the opposite. When I point out that one item of Russian kit might be better than two items of western kit because the particular piece of Russian kit is better suited to a role that is the basis for the comparison and am told I am not being objective I tend to lose faith in objectivity as a concept. It seems objectivity is subjective to the observer. 😉

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryB
So you are suggesting the fact that I don’t consider two american SAMs designed specifically for ATBM use will not be the best AD systems in 5 years time that I think they are junk?.

Is that what I said?

You said:

And I’m sure you’ll extend that same courtesy to those who claim Russian systems are junk who then go on to say “I have no interest whatsoever in Russian projects or what Vympal or Almaz or whoever are doing. My interests are in American equipment.”

This seems to be you trying to state a polar opposite to what I said. In other words you are suggesting that my position is basically:
“…claim american systems are junk who then go on to say “I have no interest whatsoever in American projects or what Boeing or Boeing or whoever are doing. My interests are in Russian equipment.”

So I should extend the same courtesy to those who think the opposite…

I’d think those titanium subs might have contributed a bit too. Those things must have cost a bundle.

The soviet union was an exporter of Ti. It cost them only lost international currency. Under the communist system the government owned the mines and the foudries etc etc. They just changed the quotas for those mines to produce more Ti so they could build the subs.

?? I’ve never called anybody a moron or said anything at all about anybody’s sexual preference.

I said:

Perhaps in your next post I will have no clue, be a moron, and perhaps there might even be a suggestion that I am gay.?

Which just proves the original warhead wasn’t adequate against ballistic missile targets. This could mean the miss distance was too great and it was easier and cheaper to use heavier fragments than it was to improve the missiles accuracy..

Well you ARE a master of the obvious. It boils down to they weren’t killing the warheads for whatever reason and they’ve gone towards hit-to-kill to increase the odds of killing the warhead.

What has objectivity to do with this? This is a forum for opinion. If you are looking for absolute truth then perhaps I can send you a picture of my ass and you can look to see if you can see any “truth” in that. :p .

Well one would HOPE you’d like to be taken a little more seriously. Kinda hard to take someone seriously who has no objectivity and indicates they really aren’t interested in the concept.

So you are suggesting the fact that I don’t consider two american SAMs designed specifically for ATBM use will not be the best AD systems in 5 years time that I think they are junk?.

Is that what I said? Show me specifically where I made any claims whatsover in regard to THAAD or SM-3 having antiaircraft capability. Yeah that’s what I thought.

So physics is based on statistics?

Do you even know what statistics is?

Yet we are still discussing this??? You can call me a fool, but I look forward to your next accusation. Perhaps in your next post I will have no clue, be a moron, and perhaps there might even be a suggestion that I am gay.?

?? I’ve never called anybody a moron or said anything at all about anybody’s sexual preference. I HAVE said that a certain TYPE of individual is a moron but if someone has chosen to include themself in that category that’s not my fault. But then if reading comprehension was your strong suit you’d know exactly why were still discussing this.

It says systems. Remember it was the development of an air defence system to counter cruise missiles that actually bankrupted the Soviets. (It was nothing at all to do with the afghan war etc etc.) Most major installation had a PVO unit protecting it, including radar sites and various site of military importance, including Moscow..

I’d think those titanium subs might have contributed a bit too. Those things must have cost a bundle.

note that the SA-1, being a first gen system that was huge and very expensive, is offered as a ballistic target. In the advertising it is mentioned that since they started using the weapon as a target they have used over 16,000 of them as targets. These are time expired missiles or missiles that have developed a fault and were not worth fixing. This does not include missiles fired in service or during trials before service. This was a very big and very expensive missile in its day too, not to mention some of its supporting radars were considered strategic at the time.

I still find it hard to believe the US built over 25,000 Nike Hercules.
These days in the US anyway, unless you happen to live right near a base you wouldn’t even know we had a military from the evidence of it.

Every modern AD-system has have to have some ATBM capability, which is the most demanding part of the threat envelope.

No it isn’t. A very fast target does not manouver very much and can generally be detected at very long range. A very low flying stealthy cruise missile on the other hand is actually very hard to detect in the first case let alone track and engage with a missile.

Well thanks for supporting my arguement. A ballistic missile warhead is smaller than an aircraft so by your line of reasoning they should have INCREASED the number of fragments to increase the odds of hitting it. The fact that they did the opposite DESPITE this fact supports my arguement. And in fact that IS why they did it.

Wrong. Just hitting a target is not good enough. You have to hit it with the right type of projectile or even a well aimed shot is wasted. Small targets in the animal world do not approximate missiles and warhead target in the aeronautic world. A large hole in a wing will not necessarily bring down an aircraft unless it damages a structurally important component. A warhead or missile is generally packed as tightly as possible to make it as small as possible and many components are vital and not duplicated for redundancy.

“The PAC-2 upgrade includes further software changes, and an improved MIM-104C missile. The MIM-104C has a blast-fragmentation warhead with larger fragments (45 g compared to 2 g for the MIM-104A/B warhead) to increase lethality against ballistic missile warheads.”

Which just proves the original warhead wasn’t adequate against ballistic missile targets. This could mean the miss distance was too great and it was easier and cheaper to use heavier fragments than it was to improve the missiles accuracy.

If you want to comment on Western systems without sounding like you’re talking out of your ass you do.

Exactly what intimate knowledge do I need to know to compare two ATBM SAMs with a AD SAM with ATBM capabilities to decide which will have the best AD performance in 5 years time. Especially when the people in the ATBM optimised SAM corner can’t even decide what missiles we are talking about. :diablo:

But of course you’re still objective right.

What has objectivity to do with this? This is a forum for opinion. If you are looking for absolute truth then perhaps I can send you a picture of my ass and you can look to see if you can see any “truth” in that. :p

And I’m sure you’ll extend that same courtesy to those who claim Russian systems are junk who then go on to say “I have no interest whatsoever in Russian projects or what Vympal or Almaz or whoever are doing. My interests are in American equipment.”

So you are suggesting the fact that I don’t consider two american SAMs designed specifically for ATBM use will not be the best AD systems in 5 years time that I think they are junk?

Statistically speaking that’s extremely unlikely.

So physics is based on statistics?

If you hadn’t been so quick to get your panites in a wad when you’d seen I’d written “THAAD is a better ATBM” you’d have noticed that I said I felt the S-400 is the most versitile land based system.

Yet we are still discussing this??? You can call me a fool, but I look forward to your next accusation. Perhaps in your next post I will have no clue, be a moron, and perhaps there might even be a suggestion that I am gay.

Are you shure that there are 2000 systems? the number seems very high. According to Global security, India purchased 6 SA300 systems with 1 bn. $. That means that 2000 systems (PVO) would have cost Russia over 300 bn. $
May be 2000 missiles?

It says systems. Remember it was the development of an air defence system to counter cruise missiles that actually bankrupted the Soviets. (It was nothing at all to do with the afghan war etc etc.) Most major installation had a PVO unit protecting it, including radar sites and various site of military importance, including Moscow.

note that the SA-1, being a first gen system that was huge and very expensive, is offered as a ballistic target. In the advertising it is mentioned that since they started using the weapon as a target they have used over 16,000 of them as targets. These are time expired missiles or missiles that have developed a fault and were not worth fixing. This does not include missiles fired in service or during trials before service. This was a very big and very expensive missile in its day too, not to mention some of its supporting radars were considered strategic at the time.

The figures given for the SA-10/SA-12 in the 1997-1998 almanac for the german magazine Military technology is 100 SA-12s for the army, and 2,000 systems of SA-10 and SA-12 for the PVO or air defence forces for the Russian federation alone. Belarus also had SA-12s, the Ukraine army and air defence forces also had SA-10 and SA-12s in service in numbers. The 95-96 almanac also lists 2,000 SA-10/SA-12 systems for the Russian federation PVO alone.

Are you shure that there are 2000 systems? the number seems very high. According to Global security, India purchased 6 SA300 systems with 1 bn. $. That means that 2000 systems (PVO) would have cost Russia over 300 bn. $
May be 2000 missiles?

Sorry but it’s not just an opinion, it is fact. A Block 50 F-16 and a Block 15 F-16 are both based on the F-16 airframe. The PAC-3 missile is NOT based on the PAC-2 or any other version of the Patriot missile. I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept for you to understand. I’ve provided more than enough information to make that clear.

I see it, but I show you my view about that. Let us stick to the neutral F-16 example. You compare it with a single missile, when I see it has a whole weapons-system. The missile is just one part of the Patriot-system.
The radar is just one part of the Patriot-system.
Let us see the early PW-F100-220 engine as a missile and the late GE-F110-132 engine too. Those are different and come even from different producers.
The GE-engine is not based on the PW-engine like the PAC-3 missile to PAC-2 missile. But they are interchangeable and the weapons-system is still the F-16, despite a different core element.
The same thing with the early APG-66 radar and the late APG-80 radar. Those are very different, but the weapons-system is still the F-16.
The fuselage shows the same dimensions, but has changed under the skin considerably, when it comes to numerous details, but still built to concept by
LM/GD and known as F-16. So it is still possible to create hybrid versions of the F-16, like F-16MLU or upgrade Block 30 to 40 or 50. The same is true for the AD-systems called Patriot or S-300.

I still prefer to stick to the system view and the general performances it shows.

By the way we have a good example about that view just here. Nominal the UAE get the most advanced variant of the F-16 system with the best technical items.
Practical it will not show-up so really. The US-flyers in their Block 50s still have the better software to get the most from their installed ‘older’ systems, when the UAE-flyers may have not the optimum software and may stay by that behind in practical performances. In this field of software the Russian claim some advantages against the USA.

Maybe you see it still different, but this is your personal opinion and here we disagree..

Sorry but it’s not just an opinion, it is fact. A Block 50 F-16 and a Block 15 F-16 are both based on the F-16 airframe. The PAC-3 missile is NOT based on the PAC-2 or any other version of the Patriot missile. I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept for you to understand. I’ve provided more than enough information to make that clear.

To avoid further twisting from your side. PAC-3 is an element of the Patriot AD-system.
If it fields PAC-2 or PAC-3 missiles does not matter, it is still a Patriot AD-system.
You learned a little bit late of that. A ‘sorry, there I was wrong’ is sometimes better for the reputation.
PAC-3 of the Patriot AD-system and THAAD with or without PAC-3 missile or radar form the TBMD together. All this elements are interoperable/interchangeable and used together as a multilayer-system. Even MEADS with PAC-3 elements can be fitted into it. All is related to the exspected threat and what is at hand.
(“An early Block 5 F-16 differs in capabilities and components integrated from a late Block 60 F-16”, but the weapon-system is still named F-16.)
Maybe you see it still different, but this is your personal opinion and here we disagree.
About your last post, I have no problem to agree with most of you opinions in general. You highlight the differences, when I highlight the common technology basis.
For me the main reason, why a country stick to Russian AD-technology or American AD-technology and does not change to the other side lightly.

“Originally Posted by sferrin
PAC-3 isn’t a variant of Patriot. It’s a completely different missile. So is THAAD.”

The last point shows that you are wrong. .

I’m not seeing anything in your post that indicates the PAC-3 missile is a derivative of PAC-2 missile. I’m not seeing anything in your post that indicates THAAD is a derivative of PAC-2. Simple because systems can work together does NOT make them the same system. Next you’ll be telling me that the AIM-120 is in fact an upgraded AIM-7. Or would you call it an F-22 since they work together? ESSM can be fired by the Aegis system but that does NOT make it an upgraded Standard missile. It’s still a Sparrow (barely).

What missile did P a t r i o t btys fire during last Iraq war???? The P a t r i o t PAC-3 is part of the Army’s TBMD. I never claimed that the PAC-2 and PAC-3 are identical..

Nor have I. All I’ve said all along is that the PAC-3 missile is NOT based in any way, shape, or form on the PAC-2 missile.

THAAD is part of a multilayer system, where some core-technology is taken from the producer of the P a t r i o t systems. (Raytheon!!!) PAC-3 missiles can be fired from a THAAD system too. I hope you are not surprised about that. In a full TBMD system THAAD is a complement to a P a t r i o t PAC-3 system! .

That’s not exactly an earth-shaking revelation. In fact you’re saying the same thing I have been that that is that they are seperate systems.

So far THAAD has no own name and we will see in the future which operational elements will be shared by both systems. .

That is pretty much meaningless. The US is working very hard to integrate all of it’s systems and bring Cooperative Engagement online ASAP. That means E-3s will be able to cue for Patriot, Aegis will be able to cue for Patriot and THAAD, and vice versa. So does that mean you’re going to start calling the Aegis system Patriot or the Patriot system Aegis? Or maybe because Patriot will be able to cue F-22s the F-22 will now be called the Patriot system? Or since the E-3 will be able to cue Patriot that Patriot will now be referred to as the E-3 Sentry? Simple because systems can work together does not make them part of the same family. They still are their own unique entities just working together.

They don’t say anything about it being a derivative of PAC-2 or even mention THAAD sooo what’s your point?

“The PAC-3 Missile will be incorporated into the Patriot air defense system.”

“The PAC-3 Segment upgrade consists of the PAC-3 Missile, a highly agile hit-to-kill interceptor, the PAC-3 Missile canisters (in four packs), a fire solution computer and an Enhanced Launcher Electronics System (ELES). These elements will be integrated into the Patriot system, a high to medium altitude, long-range air defense missile system providing air defense of ground combat forces and high-value assets.”

“The Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) System is the upper tier of the Army’s two-tier Theater Missile Defense Concept. The wide-area, higher-altitude protection of the THAAD System interfaces with the lower-tier Patriot System.” ……
“In addition to the THAAD radar, Raytheon provides weapons systems engineering and Battle Management Command, Control, Communication, and Information (BMC3I) support for the program.”
(from the Raytheon website, the main subcontractor of THAAD)

“The U.S. Army currently plans to procure more than 1400 THAAD missiles, which will eventually form the upper-tier complement to the Patriot PAC-3 in the Army’s TBMD (Theater Ballistic Missile Defense) system.”

“Originally Posted by sferrin
PAC-3 isn’t a variant of Patriot. It’s a completely different missile. So is THAAD.”

The last point shows that you are wrong. What missile did P a t r i o t btys fire during last Iraq war???? The P a t r i o t PAC-3 is part of the Army’s TBMD. I never claimed that the PAC-2 and PAC-3 are identical.
But I claimed, that the PAC-3 system is an upgrade of the PAC-2 system.
Elements of both systems can be mixed and are interoperational similar to the S-300 systems.
THAAD is part of a multilayer system, where some core-technology is taken from the producer of the P a t r i o t systems. (Raytheon!!!) PAC-3 missiles can be fired from a THAAD system too. I hope you are not surprised about that. In a full TBMD system THAAD is a complement to a P a t r i o t PAC-3 system! So far THAAD has no own name and we will see in the future which operational elements will be shared by both systems. A different missile alone or a different radar alone does not make a different system in total as the Russian S-300/S-400 systems showed.
LEMANSKIY Aleksandr Alekseyevich wrote, every sytem is gaining new capabilities through component upgrades during its lifetime. A S-300 from the 80s is no longer the same ‘under the skin’ two decades later-on. But none will deny, that those changes are still related to the basic system and its components, similar is true for the Patriot-system. It is the level of expertise reached, which will allow better systems to come from that.
There is no S-300 systems as there is no Patriot system, just the deratives of those over the years. Similar to the S-300 user the Patriot user have no problem to upgrade their systems at will and as money allows.
For the Russians it becomes S-400, for the USA Patriot PAC-3 with THAAD and for Germany MEADS instead of full Patriot PAC-3 with or without THAAD supplement. Israel will have Patriot PAC-3 as upgrade to their older Patriot-systems and the own ARROW supplement. To be an effective system all elements have to fullfill the demand of interoperationality. This in mind, several elements become interchangeable by that.

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/airdefense/PAC-3/product-PAC-3.html

That is what the producer writes. I think they have to know their system at best.
I have an idea, what you do think about. But let us keep the things simple. There is enough nonsense posted to such a topic.

They don’t say anything about it being a derivative of PAC-2 or even mention THAAD sooo what’s your point?

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/airdefense/PAC-3/product-PAC-3.html

That is what the producer writes. I think they have to know their system at best.
I have an idea, what you do think about. But let us keep the things simple. There is enough nonsense posted to such a topic.

You like it, there you can find it.

http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=PAC-3&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=

As you read through this:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/patriot-ac-3.htm

It’s easy to see where you’re confusion could come from. They don’t differentiate between the missile and the system and even refer to the PAC-3 as a derivative of the PAC-2 *system*. Really what they’ve done though is develope ERINT a bit further and then INCORPORATED that missile into the Patriot SYSTEM. Here is some further information on the history of PAC-3

PAC-3:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/pac-3.html

ERINT:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/erint.htm

SHRIT/FLAGE:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/flage.html

You like it, there you can find it.

http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=PAC-3&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=

And what exactly am I suppose to glean from this? On the other hand. . .

Radars:
THAAD
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/images/t12.jpg
Patriot
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/images/patriot-aiming.jpg

Launchers:
THAAD
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/images/thaad-tel-sunset.jpg
Patriot
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/images/patriot_03.jpg

Missiles:
THAAD
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/images/t2.jpg
Patriot
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/images/patriot_02.jpg

Now other than the fact both missiles have pointy noses I’m not seeing how you could possibly think they’re the same systems.

PAC-3 isn’t a variant of Patriot. It’s a completely different missile. So is THAAD.

You like it, there you can find it.

http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=PAC-3&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=

I fully understand that. But High Explosive is not the same as smokeless powder in guns. HE detonates. Smokeless powder burns much slower. In a gun barrel pressure builds up as all of the powder burns. An explosive charge on the other hand unless you don’t have enough detonators does not need time for the pressure to build up..

One is deflagration and the other is detonation.

Likely something they determined with a few calculations. For specific targets you need a certain amount of energy. For example if your missile was inaccurate you would compensate by making your warhead heavier and larger and also making the fragments heavier to they retain their energy over longer distances. Any hunter will tell you that when using a shotgun you choose your ammo based on the animal you are hunting. Too light and you will pepper the target with more pellets but they won’t penetrate deeply enough to kill the animal. Too large and the heavy projectiles might miss a small animal completely at anything but very close range..

Well thanks for supporting my arguement. A ballistic missile warhead is smaller than an aircraft so by your line of reasoning they should have INCREASED the number of fragments to increase the odds of hitting it. The fact that they did the opposite DESPITE this fact supports my arguement. And in fact that IS why they did it.

“The PAC-2 upgrade includes further software changes, and an improved MIM-104C missile. The MIM-104C has a blast-fragmentation warhead with larger fragments (45 g compared to 2 g for the MIM-104A/B warhead) to increase lethality against ballistic missile warheads.”

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-104.html

Lots of small light fragments are good for taking on aircraft but to defeat a warhead heavier fragments are more effective..

Gee ya think?

I would expect a weapon with an accuracy of 1m would probably have a terminal stage that was guided…

Yeah so? So it’s going to somehow miraculously emerge from the wreckage unscathed huh?

So to know anything I must follow western programs?

If you want to comment on Western systems without sounding like you’re talking out of your ass you do.

I have no interest whatsoever in US projects or what NASA or JPL or whoever are doing. My interests are in Russian and Soviet equipment.

But of course you’re still objective right. :rolleyes:

BTW and am surprised at your suggestion that I should “pack it in” just because I can’t instantly recall the details of some western program that I am not even going to bother googling to find anything about.

No you’ll just continue to spout off uninformed opinion and look like an imbecil. But hey don’t let me interrupt the show.

(I on the other hand will not discount the views of others who are not intimately familiar with Russian and Soviet acronyms…).

How magnanimous of you. And I’m sure you’ll extend that same courtesy to those who claim Russian systems are junk who then go on to say “I have no interest whatsoever in Russian projects or what Vympal or Almaz or whoever are doing. My interests are in American equipment.” :rolleyes:

(For all we know the nudge might have just accelerated the warhead with a push from behind.

Statistically speaking that’s extremely unlikely.

(Yes… of course. I am questioning the usefulness of two american systems over the only Russian system because I lack objectivity..

Finally an accurate statement out of you.

It has nothing to do with the fact that the two american systems which as you admit yourself are specialised ATBM system, while the Russian system has significant ATBM capability as it is but is also a long range are SAM for a multitude of target types.

I said the THAAD was a specialized ATBM. PAC-3 can be used against anything short of an ICBM. It’s only weakpoint is it’s range.

I mean how biased can I be to say something like the more versatile system might be a better fit as an air defence system than two other systems that seem to be quite specialised for a specific role.
I mean I am assuming that the original post that asked:

WHAT AD SYSTEM COMES ON TOP POST 2010

Meant the best air defence system rather than

WHAT ATBM SYSTEM COMES ON TOP POST 2010.

But that is just me being pedantic…

…or sarcastic… or something. 😉

Again with the american acronyms…

And you are entitled to that opinion.

If you hadn’t been so quick to get your panites in a wad when you’d seen I’d written “THAAD is a better ATBM” you’d have noticed that I said I felt the S-400 is the most versitile land based system.

In the strict sense you are right! When Raytheon (LM) and Almaz drew from their own technology pools …”nothing whatsoever to do”… is an ‘overkill’. The PAC-3 variant is still labeled ‘Patriot’ and the THAAD is part of that multi-layer-system. The THAAD firing unit can fire PAC-3 too. Otherwise we have to delete THAAD from that thread really.

PAC-3 isn’t a variant of Patriot. It’s a completely different missile. So is THAAD.

MEADS is a developement of PAC-3. The PAC-3 comes from the ERINT/FLAGE/SHRIT programs and the only thing it has in common with Patriot is that it uses the same launcher and radar. MEADS uses a different radar and launcher. THAAD has nothing whatsoever to do with Patriot. Different missile, radar, launcher, and so forth.

In the strict sense you are right! When Raytheon (LM) and Almaz drew from their own technology pools …”nothing whatsoever to do”… is an ‘overkill’. The PAC-3 variant is still labeled ‘Patriot’ and the THAAD is part of that multi-layer-system. The THAAD firing unit can fire PAC-3 too. Otherwise we have to delete THAAD from that thread really.

Intresting read. The term vapour-ware was reserved for the ‘S-500’, if I remember well.
The thread is about S-400+ = actual S-400 and further upgrades of that system till 2010.
The S-400 is a new designation of the modernised S-300 familiy. The MEADS/THAAD will be a spring-offs of the Patriot-system too. Some proven elements are kept, but despite that much more capable.

MEADS is a developement of PAC-3. The PAC-3 comes from the ERINT/FLAGE/SHRIT programs and the only thing it has in common with Patriot is that it uses the same launcher and radar. MEADS uses a different radar and launcher. THAAD has nothing whatsoever to do with Patriot. Different missile, radar, launcher, and so forth.