Given that the enemy has numerous nuclear warheads (i.e. Russia), wouldn’t it make sense to explode a warhead just above the supposed interseption point of the THAAD and then (half a minute or so later) hit the battery with another missile while it is still blinded by the explosion (given that a Topol-M warhead supposedly could survive a near detonation)?

Not really. If you’re hoping to score an EMP soft kill on the ABM site, you’re assuming that the electronics aren’t shielded, which probably isn’t going to be the case.

SOC, our comments are no complains.

I didn’t mean your complaints, I meant Russia’s.

We discussed the cheapest and most effective way to render useless the European NMD bases, jus in case an American attack on Russia.
For me an SS-20 like missile is the ideal option because its range (around 6000 km) also permits a depressed trajectory shot, thus minimizing the launch-impact time-span. The base commander will face two options: a) Face ground destruction while waiting for intercepting the counter-attacking Russian ICBMs, or b) Launch the GBI to intercept the incoming SS-20 delivered warheads. In both cases the NMD base is easily neutralized and the Russian ICBM can safely travel to their targets.

Russia is already going to field the S-500 system. Producing a whole new ballistic missile to defeat one ABM site would seem to be far more expensive than simply modifying a few of the S-500’s missiles with nuclear warheads. It already has an ABM and ASAT role, shooting at a much slower ABM should be a piece of cake.

Your proposal, on the other hand, seems quite complicated and whit uncertainties on its technical feasibility.

It’s not complicated at all. Use the nuclear S-500 as a clearing shot to take out ABMs in the air. Using nuclear missiles to defeat other missiles is something Russia has studied extensively; the 51T6 and 53T6 ABMs had nuclear warheads for most of their careers. Besides, this way you come out looking like a peaceful genius on the international stage. You aren’t fielding more nuclear launch vehicles and at the same time have cheaply and effectively neutralized any perceived threat from the ABM site. In fact, if you’re smart, you do this in secret, and then threaten to develop and deploy new ballistic missiles. You “cancel” those plans in exchange for economic or political concessions, knowing that you’ll have the last laugh should the need arise.

Besides, if this idea isn’t technically feasible, given that the intercept dynamics are far less complex than an actual ballistic missile intercept, then the ABM system itself should be just as infeasible and not a real threat to begin with.

I do not agree that if they had s-300 there would be parts of Israeli jets littered across Syria. My reason being that before the reactor strike would take place Israel would launch a seperate mission specifically to target those defense systems, thus the s-300 would actually become the hunted and not the hunter and leaves itself wide open to attack by covert ground forces too if located, it would be mobbed like a crow to a buzzard and destroyed then the strike on the reactor would then take place.

The idea of putting commandos that far into Syria to launch a military operation of that scale is not very bright.

It would complicate matters having S-300s in the vacinity of the reactor but a competent wild weasel flight could nail them, perhaps by a very low level tree top hight ingress with cluster bombs.

The 76N6 CLAM SHELL radar system is specifically designed to locate very low flying objects. An F-15 or F-16 is not a low oservable platform. If jamming is used the S-300PMU-1 can simply be fired in home-on-jam mode. All of that makes the idea of taking an S-300PMU-1 site on using a low-altitude strike very problematic. The only way to seriously take one on is to oversaturate it. The system can engage six targets simultaneously, but if they fire at range they can re-engage before the remaining aircraft get within weapons release distance, meaning you probably need at least 13 aircraft per S-300PMU-1 battery. Now you’re talking a formation size that has an increasing chance of being spotted by other EW assets in the region.

Russia knows the limitations of SAM systems hence the desperate need for the PAK fighter.

Yes, SAM systems have limitations. No, that is not why they are producing the PAK-FA. PAK-FA is the 5th generation counter to the F-22 and F-35.

they are however generally behind in everything but thats fairly well known.

You have obviously never heard of any of their modern SAM systems :rolleyes:

Instead of complaining about US NMD plans for Europe, why not just fit a small nuke to the S-500? It could be deployed along the border and take out any ABMs that they think are headed for Russian ICBMs in-flight. You’ll need a missile with rapid acceleration to get out and make the intercept before your own ICBMs are within range of the warhead, but they figured that out with the PRS-1, so it shouldn’t be a huge problem. Seems a far cheaper and just as effective solution to counter something that probably can’t chase down an ICBM fired towards the USA anyway.

Also thought they could be some attachment points for tools.
Maybe for engine change?

That’s the most plausible explanation we’ve heard yet. The engines do get removed rearward.

The Tuskegee Airmen

This HBO, made-for-TV film about the all-black American fighter squadron in World War Two is essential viewing (if a little too Hollywood for most tastes) for aviation enthusiasts and historians alike.

Performances are decent, and the limited flying sequences are very good (although a little lacking because of the budget).

That is one of my favorite war movies. Ok, it was low-budget, but it just comes off so well. The fact that they never lost a single bomber is just mind-blowing and is more than enough to earn them the “greatest fighter pilots of all time” label in my book. Every time I visit an airshow I always try and seek these guys out whenever they are present.

Damn, people. Settle down and at least try and pretend that all of this relates to an Israeli airstrike on Iran! To your credit you all do seem to be keeping it civil for the most part, far more successfully than the last thread. That’s why I’m not just blowing this one up, so if you must continue along these paths remember to keep the discussions on a mature level.