Russian Federation vs USA - ICBMs. Who has the edge?

last SG · 2008-01-05T15:20:28+00:00

while your MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario MAY appear logical at first sight, it has several shortcomings. how do you explain that USA for instan...

|-|05| SG

Well my numbers seem wrong, true i'll admit i pulled that out of my ass (truely i did) And yes they will never admit to the number of nukes the actually have though i believe some old treaty did state that they did have to declare.Whether the number they declared is the truth or not is anyone's guess. But you have to admit that it takes AT LEAST 3 missle systems to confirm that you can stop 1 nuke. Which means that you need at least a 3 to 1 ratio of ABM to Nukes. And let's face it it's far cheaper to deploy 1 nuke.

Also the thing about the knife and rifle is not that the rifle is a far better weapon but a proof of the concept of MAD.Which is that both side loses/dies.

Ahh yes the US has invest more and while it is true that they may not have reaped the rewards you cannot say that they havent because like you've said

only what they publicize. or based on guess-timates from 'concerned' parties.

(yes i know that's selective quoting but still you're guessing here as much as i am)

However it costs money to maintain the nukes and there was a report i read a few years ago that states that because of funding cuts the US actually was having problems trying to maintain their nuclear arsenal because those nukes do have a life span after which they need to be replaced/repaired.

It is true that during the 50's right through the 70's the US was at a disadvantage to the USSR because the USSR took most of the German rocket scientists while the US if i'm not mistaken ended up with their plane designers.

So what makes you say that the S-300 and S-400 is better then the SM-2,SM-3,Patriot systems?
The fact that they have been through combat and failed or at least performed poorly?Well let me ask you, has the S-300 or S-400 been to combat and performed better?I'm not talking about contorlled tests i'm talking about actual war's or battles.
Proof me wrong and i will humbly admit that i was wrong.And hey i would have learnt from you Smile

protonhybrid SG

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.

protonhybrid SG

Originally posted by coolant:

I agree so far the Russians offensive nuke force are far superior than the current Yanks BMD system, but dont sit idly, Yanks are spending big chunk of money to improve it, furthermore, the better offensive ability than the defensive ability doesnt downgrade that the Yanks offensive nuke force are even more "far superior " than Russians [b]zero BMD ability towards main Nuke arsenal of US.

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.
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.

US maintains a modern SSBN fleet with all Ohio class, some even got excess to be converted to Tomahawk launch platforms, while, Russians? Sorry, most their SSBNs are no money to be proper maintained, a few can be on duty. For ICBMs, most US missiles are minuteman-3 standards, while how many Topol-M( SS-27) are even deployed NOW?
[/b]

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.

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.

protonhybrid SG

Also the thing about the knife and rifle is not that the rifle is a far better weapon but a proof of the concept of MAD.Which is that both side loses/dies.

Ahh yes the US has invest more and while it is true that they may not have reaped the rewards you cannot say that they havent because like you've said (yes i know that's selective quoting but still you're guessing here as much as i am)

However it costs money to maintain the nukes and there was a report i read a few years ago that states that because of funding cuts the US actually was having problems trying to maintain their nuclear arsenal because those nukes do have a life span after which they need to be replaced/repaired.

It is true that during the 50's right through the 70's the US was at a disadvantage to the USSR because the USSR took most of the German rocket scientists while the US if i'm not mistaken ended up with their plane designers.

So what makes you say that the S-300 and S-400 is better then the SM-2,SM-3,Patriot systems?
The fact that they have been through combat and failed or at least performed poorly?Well let me ask you, has the S-300 or S-400 been to combat and performed better?I'm not talking about contorlled tests i'm talking about actual war's or battles.

well mate LATEST weaponry's superiority can only be proven to general public in warfare and i hope that doesn't happen. but being realistic, it'll probably happen. and one reason why usa despite so much sabre rattling hasnt' yet attacked iran is open backing of russian federation. tells you a lot about overstretched and downtrodden yankee economy/military's ability vis a vis russian federation, doesn't it mate?

|-|05| SG

Ok i'll make this quick because i just operated on my arm n i dont feel like typing much.

NATO countries might buy them because of cost factors and delivery timelines.

There is no conclusive data that has proven that russian sytems r better or even that US systems are better.So this remains inconclusive until heaven forbid those systems get used in a war.

The US is over stretched both militarily,economicly AND politically thats y they arent attacking not because they are technologically deficient.

my point is, it donest matter much but i think both sides are equal in ICBMs because of simply the numbers of nukes.
no ABM can stop that now.

protonhybrid SG

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.

coolant SG

What, the Russians of whom you sing the praises all the time are not smart at all? Shocked 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? Mr. Green 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?

coolant SG

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% Yanks GDP growth translates into USD is near 400 billion bucks, almost generate half entire Russian economy! Russians entire GDP is around 800 billion in 2006! Think about it! If you like to say its like drain, then half Russia is already drained!

LOl, another joke, Yes, I never heard S-400 is for intercepting Tomahawk. Mr. Green Can you elaborate on that? Ill see how you going to answer, then the credibility of your rest comment will be self solved.

tankfanatic SG

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.

tankfanatic SG

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

tankfanatic SG

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.

protonhybrid SG

Originally posted by coolant:

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? Mr. Green If you do, you can start to check who the kid in the forum is NOW.

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.
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>

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]

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?
kindly REwrite your sentence.

protonhybrid SG

Originally posted by coolant:
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% Yanks GDP growth translates into USD is near 400 billion bucks, almost generate half entire Russian economy! Russians entire GDP is around 800 billion in 2006! Think about it! If you like to say its like drain, then half Russia is already drained!

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!
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
..

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

protonhybrid SG

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.

coolant SG

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. Thats 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, its 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.

tankfanatic SG

it can ..yet it doesnt mean it should….

coolant SG

Obviously Protons meaning is: it should, or he wont 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 dont know, what else can you expect from him. Laughing

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Oooh, you got him there....

protonhybrid SG

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).

coolant SG

One example, AA gun theoretically can shoot bird, if you just compare the AA guns speed & range to that of the bird ( Like what you did in comparison of S400 & Tomahawk), but in actual use, everybody will know its not practical and ridiculous.

So its not about the last line of interception or not, its 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 radars 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 its 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 its 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?

« Previous Page Next Page »