Battle of the Air Defense Systems: S-400 Vs Patriot and THAAD

[PDFChamp]

Battle of the Air Defense Systems: S-400 Vs Patriot and THAAD
Defenseworld.net Analysis
Thursday, August 16, 2018 @ 01:35 PM
259

S-400 Triumf air defense system (Image: Russian MoD)
The American-made Patriot and Russian S-400 Triumf air defense systems are currently hogging international orders despite their price tags running into billions of dollars. While the Patriot has more or less a captive market within United States allies, the S-400 has had to sell on its capabilities alone having won orders from Turkey and China, countries which compete with Russia in the international arms market.

Further orders for the S-400 is likely to come from India which has internally approved the acquisition with only a formal signature on the contract awaited to set the procurement process in motion. In addition, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Iraq are said to be in negotiations to buy the system.

Another US-made system, the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) missile defense system that is designed to intercept ballistic missiles at high altitude is also a competitor for the S-400 regarding some of its features, though not in terms of direct international sales.


Deployment of S-400 Triumph air defence systems (Video: Russian MoD Youtube Channel)
Defenseworld.net takes a look at the features of all three systems to determine relative advancement and suitability for various missions.

Quantitative analysis of the three missile defense systems:

Data compiled from manufacturers’ websites and other open sources.

PAC-3 Missile (Image: Lockheed Martin)
S-400 vs. Patriot PAC-3

According to the table above, the S-400 comes across as the most advanced serially produced air defense missile system in the world. Its closest rival is American Patriot with both systems capable of shooting down both aircraft and ballistic missiles. Here is a comparison of technical parameters:
S-400 can shoot down targets moving at a speed of 17 km/hour. (while Patriot/PAC-3 could only shoot down a target moving at 8 km/hour)

S-400 can engage with 72 targets simultaneously and track 160 targets at the. Same parameters for Patriot are 36 and 125 targets

S-400 locates a target at 600 km distance and can destroy at 400 km range (with the latest 40N6E missile that just has been successfully tested). Patriot can locate a plane at 180 km and an enemy’s missile at 100 km

S-400 is able to down targets flying as low as 10 meters and as high as 30 km while Patriot PAC-3 destroys its lowest target at a height of 50 meters with the highest at 25 km

The deployment time for S-400 and Patriot PAC-3is 5 minutes and 25minutes respectively.

Various informed sources have said that to hit an aircraft with a probability not less than 0.99, one will have to launch 1-2 S-400 missiles or 2-3 Patriot missiles. In case of fighting off a ballistic missile attack the ratio will be 1 / 2 or 3 in favor of S-400.

The Patriot system's usage during actual deployment situations has left room for doubt over its performance. For example, after the 1991 Gulf War it was revealed that only a per centage of Iraqi SCUD missiles were actually shot down by Patriot batteries guarding Saudi Arabia and Israel. In case of the Iraqi missile strike against the American military barracks in Dhahran (Saudi Arabia) in February 1991 the failure of the Patriot intercept left to a tragedy – 27 troops were killed, about 100 wounded. In 2003, also the overall performance was better; there were also cases of failed intercepts of the outdated ballistic missiles launched by Saddam’s army in the first days of the invasion. The effectiveness of Patriot systems proved to be low despite almost ideal conditions: low-speed targets, solitary launches, absence of ECM environment and false targets. After 1991 and 2003 significant upgrades are reported to be made but the Saudi experience of countering the Yemeni missiles (comparable to the ones used by the Iraqis) shows almost the same lack of efficiency – see November 2017 missile attack against Riyadh.

Combat use of the Patriot systems has also highlighted some shortcomings of the system: high sensitivity to sand ingestion and unstable electric supply. There have also been reports of accidental launches.

However, the S-400 is yet to be tested in battle so there is no record of it having been fired during actual combat. The system has been deployed in Syria, but didn’t engage any targets yet. There have been reports that the S-400 deployment effectively converted the Russian operating zone over Syria into a ‘No-fly-zone.’ Some western media reports that US-led coalition and Israeli aircraft avoid the area covered by the S-400.

It is interesting to note that China which has its own anti-aircraft and anti-missile air deference system, choose to buy the S-400. It must be remembered that Turkey had first selected then rejected a Chinese proposal for an air defense system.

Increasing US aircraft activity in the South China Sea is believed to have forced China to buy the S-400 from Russia; in the process acknowledging that its own home-grown air defense system were not sufficient to counter sophisticated US aircraft such as the F-35 and F-22. China, which is the first international customer to receive the S-400 is scheduled to test fire the system in August or September 2018.

An ace up the sleeve of the4 S-400 is said to be its ability to detect stealth aircraft such as the F-35 and Chinese J-20 which are characterized by a low radar signature. Exact how effective is this stealth objects detection capability is not known. But suffice to say there is genuine concern among western commentators that the S-400 could covert the F-35 which took some US$396 billion to develop, into a regular 4th generation aircraft effectively negating its tech and price advantage. The same would apply to the Chinese J-20 if the S-400 were to be purchased by India.

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system.
S-400 & THAAD

The US-built THAAD is an effective missile defense system whose capabilities of downing ballistic missiles in terms of intercept altitudes and ranges surpass its the rivals. However it is strictly an anti-missile system, which can hit targets only at very high altitudes (minimum 40-50 km) which makes it useless against fighter jets or long range strategic aircraft. It is not an air defense missile like S-400 or Patriot.

“Countries seeking effective defense against aircraft andmissiles will have to buy two costly American systems – Patriot and THAAD, while the Russian S-400 can unite their functions. S-400 can also hit difficult ballistic targets at distances up to 60 km, The ability to shoot down the high-speed targets of S-400 almost equals THAAD (around 17 km/hour),” a defense industry source said.


http://www.defenseworld.net/feature/20/Battle_of_the_Air_Defense_Systems__S_400_Vs_Patriot_and_THAAD

 

[randomradio]

Both Patriot and THAAD have better radars when it comes to basic specs. They are not as mobile, but definitely better. PAC-3 currently uses PESA with twin TWT transmitters while the THAAD has an AESA. There is a plan to upgrade the PAC-3's radar to AESA and also link it with the THAAD's C&C. The S-400's radars, while advanced, are relatively slightly older.

PAC-3's missiles are comparable to the 9M96E2. But obviously not comparable to 48N6 and the 40N6. The 48N6 is what gives the S-400 a massive lead over the PAC-3. The PAC-3 is much more comparable to the S-350 Vityaz. There's no real value in comparing it to the S-400.

THAAD's missiles are comparable to the 40N6 when it comes to BMD, although it does have HTK, which makes it a bit more modern. 40N6 can perform air defence also, that's where the S-400 has a big advantage over THAAD. But when it comes to BMD, both systems are equally capable, since both were designed to hit the limits of the ABM treaty. The table gets that wrong though.

But once the two new missiles of the S-400 become active, the 77N6-N and N1, then it will become ridiculous to put PAC-3 and THAAD in the same bracket as the S-400. These two missiles will even be able to stop hypersonic cruise missiles.

Anyway, while the world is talking about the S-400 and comparing the PAC-3 and THAAD to it, the Russians have moved on to the S-500.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Personally I prefer S-400. It is VLS and therefore can quickly engage multiple targets from different directions.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Personally I prefer S-400. It is VLS and therefore can quickly engage multiple targets from different directions.

But still relying on exploding warhead which is least chance to engage from one interceptor/Missile whereas THAAD uses multiple exo atmosphoric kill vehicles ( EKV) in a single missile so it can kill multiple warhead from single missile @undertakerwwefan

 

[LeGenD]

Both Patriot and THAAD have better radars when it comes to basic specs. They are not as mobile, but definitely better. PAC-3 currently uses PESA with twin TWT transmitters while the THAAD has an AESA. There is a plan to upgrade the PAC-3's radar to AESA and also link it with the THAAD's C&C. The S-400's radars, while advanced, are relatively slightly older.

PAC-3's missiles are comparable to the 9M96E2. But obviously not comparable to 48N6 and the 40N6. The 48N6 is what gives the S-400 a massive lead over the PAC-3. The PAC-3 is much more comparable to the S-350 Vityaz. There's no real value in comparing it to the S-400.

THAAD's missiles are comparable to the 40N6 when it comes to BMD, although it does have HTK, which makes it a bit more modern. 40N6 can perform air defence also, that's where the S-400 has a big advantage over THAAD. But when it comes to BMD, both systems are equally capable, since both were designed to hit the limits of the ABM treaty. The table gets that wrong though.

But once the two new missiles of the S-400 become active, the 77N6-N and N1, then it will become ridiculous to put PAC-3 and THAAD in the same bracket as the S-400. These two missiles will even be able to stop hypersonic cruise missiles.

Anyway, while the world is talking about the S-400 and comparing the PAC-3 and THAAD to it, the Russians have moved on to the S-500.

PAC-3 and THAAD feature interceptors with hit-to-kill capability (documented and demonstrated).

Russian 9M96E2, 40N6 and 48N6 interceptors do not have hit-to-kill capability; these interceptors are armed with blast-fragmentation warheads instead. Your comparison is flawed accordingly.

Only 77N6 interceptors have hit-to-kill ability but these are not ready for mass production yet, and not for export.

S-400 offers endo- atmospheric target intercept capacity with a ceiling of 60 KM. This bottleneck is largely overlooked in its advertisements. S-400 is suitable for stopping an MRBM-class target at most.

S-500 offers limited exo- atmospheric target intercept capacity with a ceiling of 100 KM. S-500 have the potential to defeat an IRBM-class target in limited situations accordingly.

THAAD offers decent exo- atmospheric target intercept capacity with a ceiling of 150 KM. THAAD have demonstrated capability against IRBM-class targets, and also have the potential to defeat an ICBM-class target in terminal phase.

In the coming years, THAAD will receive ER interceptors which will significantly enhance its capability against ICBM-class targets.

In simple terms, THAAD is better than any Russian offering in the markets.

 

[zectech]

The S-500 can simultaneously intercept up to ten ballistic and hypersonic missiles traveling at a speed of 7 kilometers per second. It is capable of engaging targets at an altitude of up to 200 kilometers (more than 120 miles).

https://sputniknews.com/military/201704091052466018-russia-prometey-missile-system-air-defense/

According to the report, the S-500 “is expected to be able to engage targets at altitudes of over 60 miles,” which is higher than any existing missile defense systems.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...imate-weapon-can-kill-the-b-2-f-22-f-35-25372

 

[randomradio]

PAC-3 and THAAD feature interceptors with hit-to-kill capability (documented and demonstrated).

Russian 9M96E2, 40N6 and 48N6 interceptors do not have hit-to-kill capability; these interceptors are armed with blast-fragmentation warheads instead. Your comparison is flawed accordingly.

Sure, I've already mentioned it for THAAD.

As for PAC-3, although it has HTK, it's simply not as capable overall. It is better than the 9M96E2, but not as good as 48N6.

Only 77N6 interceptors have hit-to-kill ability but these are not ready for mass production yet, and not for export.

AFAIK, Russia has offered it to India. But this comes with some caveats, perhaps a larger order, or even a JV of a new SAM system. They probably do not want to export the S-500. So the Russians need something that can fill the gap between the S-400 and S-500.

The current order does not have these new missiles, but we do not really have the need for it, we have our own plans here.

You see, every time we achieve a certain level of capability, other powers are busy trying to sell us something with similar capability. The 77N6 is the product of that.

S-400 offers endo- atmospheric target intercept capacity with a ceiling of 60 KM. This bottleneck is largely overlooked in its advertisements. S-400 is suitable for stopping an MRBM-class target at most.

S-500 offers limited exo- atmospheric target intercept capacity with a ceiling of 100 KM. S-500 have the potential to defeat an IRBM-class target in limited situations accordingly.

THAAD offers decent exo- atmospheric target intercept capacity with a ceiling of 150 KM. THAAD have demonstrated capability against IRBM-class targets, and also have the potential to defeat an ICBM-class target in terminal phase.

S-400's 40N6 provides exo-atmospheric capability. Its ceiling is well above 150Km. What you are referring to is the 60Km altitude of the 48N6E3.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/chi...400-missile-air-defense-regiment-from-russia/
The 40N6 missile has an estimated operational range of 400 kilometers (248.5 miles) and can reach a maximum altitude of up to 185 kilometers (607,000 feet).

THAAD's so-called IRBM capability is still within the scope of its previously advertised capability. There was nothing overly special in that one single test. Both THAAD and S-400 have been specifically designed to handle MRBM threats at best in all envelopes of the BM's flight profile.

Do you know that THAAD is yet to demonstrate capability against even simulated decoys?

The S-500 is an ICBM-stopper.

In the coming years, THAAD will receive ER interceptors which will significantly enhance its capability against ICBM-class targets.

In simple terms, THAAD is better than any Russian offering in the markets.

Sadly, no. The THAAD-ER is still on the drawing board. They expect a 5-year development time for that. THAAD-ER is not advertised to stop ICBMs and it's just a concept right now. Whereas the 77N6 is already in testing.

The currently available version of THAAD and S-400 with 40N6 provide the same capability when it comes to BMD capability overall. Even future upgrades should give very similar capability, be it the THAAD-ER or the 77N6. And the S-400 is significantly superior to the PAC-3 when it comes to air defence, there is no real comparison there.

 

[LeGenD]

As for PAC-3, although it has HTK, it's simply not as capable overall. It is better than the 9M96E2, but not as good as 48N6.

PAC-3 MSE interceptor is a major leap from earlier iterations in technology with HTK capability:

Flight range = ~100 KM
Speed = MACH 5

News item got the ceiling part correct; PAC-3 MSE interceptor is intended to defeat terrain-hugging cruise missiles, TBM, SRBM, drones and aircraft, therefore target engagement ceiling of 21 KM is sufficient for it.

PAC-3 MSE interceptor is also noticeably smaller than earlier iterations. Accordingly, a PAC-3 system launcher can be loaded with 16 of these instead of 8 at a time. The entire battery with 6 - 8 launchers can be armed with 96 - 128 interceptors respectively. News item missed this part as well.

Russian 48N6 have advantage in range and ceiling but it is a relatively primitive design with blast fragmentation warhead. S-400 have its share of merits but it is not a substitute for PAC-3 in the battlefield due to the latter's qualitative advancements and the sheer number of interceptors an entire battery can be armed with.

I would also like to bring MEADS to your attention - heavyweight champion of the PAC family of systems.

AFAIK, Russia has offered it to India. But this comes with some caveats, perhaps a larger order, or even a JV of a new SAM system. They probably do not want to export the S-500. So the Russians need something that can fill the gap between the S-400 and S-500.

The current order does not have these new missiles, but we do not really have the need for it, we have our own plans here.

You see, every time we achieve a certain level of capability, other powers are busy trying to sell us something with similar capability. The 77N6 is the product of that.

Can you share with me the specifics of this deal?

As far as I am aware, Russia is reluctant to export 77N6 to any country.

S-400's 40N6 provides exo-atmospheric capability. Its ceiling is well above 150Km. What you are referring to is the 60Km altitude of the 48N6E3.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/chi...400-missile-air-defense-regiment-from-russia/
The 40N6 missile has an estimated operational range of 400 kilometers (248.5 miles) and can reach a maximum altitude of up to 185 kilometers (607,000 feet).

40N6 is a huge interceptor and require a special launcher which can carry only 2 of these at a time, and its operational readiness is suspect. S-400 system have target engagement ceiling of 60 KM in ABM mode due to the limitations of its radar system, and its standard armament is 48N6 interceptors which fit the bill:

The S-400 primarily uses the 48N6 missile series. These missiles allow it to hit aerial targets at ranges up to 250 km and are capable of intercepting ballistic missiles across a 60 km radius, using in both cases a 143 kg high explosive fragmentation warhead.

Another missile series, the 77N6, is currently in testing. Unlike other Russian SAMs, the 77N6 missiles will use hit-to-kill technology (as do PAC-3 missiles) and are designed specifically to destroy ballistic missile warheads

The final missile series used by the S-400 is the 40N6, a long range family that can extend the air defense capabilities of the system to 400 km. The current deployment status of the 40N6 missile is unclear, and questions remain as to whether the S-400’s radar capabilities would allow the 40N6 make full use of its maximum range.

Source: https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/s-400-triumf/

Russian insider sources also highlight target engagement ceiling of 60 KM for S-400 system in ABM mode and target engagement ceiling of 100 KM for S-500 system in ABM mode. From the mouthpiece of Kremlin itself: https://sputniknews.com/military/201704251052968039-russia-missile-system-damage-radius/

Why would Russia develop S-500 system if S-400 match and/or exceed its capabilities?

Please stick to 'operational readiness' of systems under discussion.

THAAD's so-called IRBM capability is still within the scope of its previously advertised capability. There was nothing overly special in that one single test. Both THAAD and S-400 have been specifically designed to handle MRBM threats at best in all envelopes of the BM's flight profile.

I have been generous in my assessment of Russian BMDS platforms till now but you are compelling me to nip your egotistical attitude and tall claims in the bud. An IRBM-class target significantly up the ante for intercept due to its massive speed and ballistic arc; defeating this kind of target is an impressive achievement for any BMDS in existence worldwide.

THAAD have target engagement ceiling of 150 KM (exo- atmospheric conditions) with its standard interceptor suite [The AN/TPY-2 AESA X-band radar system can detect and track Ballistic missiles at much higher altitudes though] - this is beyond the capacity of both S-400 and S-500 at present.

Now you understand why China is crying?

An IRBM-class target was intended to validate THAAD's target engagement capabilities in exo- atmospheric conditions, and it delivered.

Target engagement ceiling of S-400 in ABM mode with any interceptor = 60 KM (verified)
Target engagement ceiling of S-500 in ABM mode with any interceptor = 100 KM (confirmed)
Target engagement ceiling of THAAD in ABM mode with standard interceptor = 150 KM (confirmed)

---

Please show me footage of S-400 system intercepting an MRBM-class target in a test, let alone an IRBM-class target. This would be really amusing.

Do you know that THAAD is yet to demonstrate capability against even simulated decoys?

FYI:

In FET-01, the MDA demonstrated THAAD’s ability to discriminate and intercept an RV from a separating MRBM target with countermeasures at an endo-atmospheric altitude.

Source: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2017/pdf/bmds/2017thaad.pdf

It is an open secret that every American MDS have target discrimination capabilities from PAC-3 to GMD.

The S-500 is an ICBM-stopper.

Only GMD is an ICBM-stopper at present. Others not even close, Russian propaganda notwithstanding.

Sadly, no. The THAAD-ER is still on the drawing board. They expect a 5-year development time for that. THAAD-ER is not advertised to stop ICBMs and it's just a concept right now. Whereas the 77N6 is already in testing.

THAAD-ER might be on the drawing board thus far (we don't know this due to MDA being discreet in its disclosures lately) but it will be a two-stage interceptor with target engagement ceiling of 450 KM which is more than enough to engage ICBM-class targets in exo- atmospheric conditions. THAAD's radar system can track ICBM- class targets without issue [at present]. A THAAD battery armed with THAAD-ER interceptors will be a monstrous system by any measure in the future.

The currently available version of THAAD and S-400 with 40N6 provide the same capability when it comes to BMD capability overall.

Absolutely wrong and ill-informed judgement. For the sake of argument, consider an S-400 system with 48N6 interceptors; these interceptors employ blast-fragmentation approach to defeat incoming targets and they have target engagement ceiling of 60 KM.

THAAD system have significant qualitative edge with its interceptor suite having advanced HTK capability, and target discrimination capabilities on top. THAAD's radar system is also very powerful and facilitate intercept of incoming targets in exo- atmospheric conditions. Accordingly, THAAD have vastly superior prospects of defeating various types of ballistic missiles in varied situations in comparison to largely unproven S-400.

Even Russian insiders do not dare to compare S-400 with THAAD.

Even future upgrades should give very similar capability, be it the THAAD-ER or the 77N6. And the S-400 is significantly superior to the PAC-3 when it comes to air defence, there is no real comparison there.

THAAD is already above S-500 system in strictly BMDS capacity, and would be laughably ahead with ER interceptor suite in the near future.

77N6 fit the bill of 100 KM target engagement ceiling in the case of S-500 system. Please do your homework.

 

[Super Falcon]

i still goto tried and tested weapons S 400 should its metal to the world and begged more orders frequently dont forget there are S 350 vityaz which is in between s 300 and s 400 hope it is as good as patriot but i do not compare patriot with latest S 400

 

[LeGenD]

i still goto tried and tested weapons S 400 should its metal to the world and begged more orders frequently dont forget there are S 350 vityaz which is in between s 300 and s 400 hope it is as good as patriot but i do not compare patriot with latest S 400

S-400 is not tried and tested [in BMD role] anywhere in the world, thus far. Consider the history of its deployment in Syria: what exactly Russia achieved with it in Syria? Nothing.

Sales do not prove anything. People buy all kinds of stuff.

 

[randomradio]

PAC-3 MSE interceptor is a major leap from earlier iterations in technology with HTK capability:

Flight range = ~100 KM
Speed = MACH 5

News item got the ceiling part correct; PAC-3 MSE interceptor is intended to defeat terrain-hugging cruise missiles, TBM, SRBM, drones and aircraft, therefore target engagement ceiling of 21 KM is sufficient for it.

PAC-3 MSE interceptor is also noticeably smaller than earlier iterations. Accordingly, a PAC-3 system launcher can be loaded with 16 of these instead of 8 at a time. The entire battery with 6 - 8 launchers can be armed with 96 - 128 interceptors respectively. News item missed this part as well.

I would also like to bring MEADS to your attention - heavyweight champion of the PAC family of systems.

PAC-3MSE is just an upgrade over the original missile, it's not a brand new missile. Regardless PAC, MEADS etc are much more comparable to the S-350 Vityaz, and not comparable to the S-400.

Instead I would ask you to look up the PAAC-4. The Stunner will make it superior to the S-350, but even this doesn't come up to the S-400.

Russian 48N6 have advantage in range and ceiling but it is a relatively primitive design with blast fragmentation warhead. S-400 have its share of merits but it is not a substitute for PAC-3 in the battlefield due to the latter's qualitative advancements and the sheer number of interceptors an entire battery can be armed with.

Just having an explosive warhead doesn't make something less capable.

But then that's also why I compared it to the S-350, which is actually a Patriot equivalent.

The Koreans are making a new SAM called the L-SAM with the Russians. They are basing it on the 48N6 and claim it's many times superior to the Patriot. And a less capable SAM called the M-SAM based on the 9M96E/E2 will be their Patriot equivalent.

The fact that the Koreans have chosen "older" Russian SAMs over the Americans should tell you plenty.

Can you share with me the specifics of this deal?

As far as I am aware, Russia is reluctant to export 77N6 to any country.

It's not a deal yet, it's a proposal. The current deal that we are negotiating for is the standard S-400 setup. In fact, we are buying the S-400 only so the Russians do not sell it to Pakistan.

Anyway, rules for India are different from what the Russians consider "export" grade.

40N6 is a huge interceptor and require a special launcher which can carry only 2 of these at a time, and its operational readiness is suspect.

No one has seen the 40N6 or its launcher. Logic says the missile is actually smaller than the 48N6. In fact, I won't be surprised if the 40N6 in fact fits 2 missiles inside one 48N6 canister. Hell, it's more realistic to expect 3 missiles in 1 canister.

The PDV is in fact smaller than the 48N6 and has more range and ceiling.

S-400 system have target engagement ceiling of 60 KM in ABM mode due to the limitations of its radar system, and its standard armament is 48N6 interceptors which fit the bill:

The S-400 primarily uses the 48N6 missile series. These missiles allow it to hit aerial targets at ranges up to 250 km and are capable of intercepting ballistic missiles across a 60 km radius, using in both cases a 143 kg high explosive fragmentation warhead.

You are reading the source all wrong. The range of the missile is 250Km for air defence and 60Km for BMD. Nowhere does it mention altitude.

It's a different story that the 48N6E3 is capable of achieving 60Km altitude also.

When it comes to BMD, you sacrifice range for altitude, that's why a 250Km range, 30Km altitude missile for air defence becomes a 60Km range, 60Km altitude missile for BMD. Fuel is used up climbing to that height.

Russian insider sources also highlight target engagement ceiling of 60 KM for S-400 system in ABM mode and target engagement ceiling of 100 KM for S-500 system in ABM mode. From the mouthpiece of Kremlin itself: https://sputniknews.com/military/201704251052968039-russia-missile-system-damage-radius/

That information is far too general. It doesn't mean anything concrete. It's only when they reveal information of the missile systems is when stuff starts to matter.

Why would Russia develop S-500 system if S-400 match and/or exceed its capabilities?

Because of target speed. And more advanced radar and C&C in general.

I have been generous in my assessment of Russian BMDS platforms till now but you are compelling me to nip your egotistical attitude and tall claims in the bud. An IRBM-class target significantly up the ante for intercept due to its massive speed and ballistic arc; defeating this kind of target is an impressive achievement for any BMDS in existence worldwide.

THAAD have target engagement ceiling of 150 KM (exo- atmospheric conditions) with its standard interceptor suite [The AN/TPY-2 AESA X-band radar system can detect and track Ballistic missiles at much higher altitudes though] - this is beyond the capacity of both S-400 and S-500 at present.

THAAD's radar functions in two modes. One is the forward-based mode and the other is BMD mode. Both work in tandem if you have 2 radars.

In the forward-based mode, THAAD has a 2000Km range. In terminal mode, the range drops to 600Km. Overall, the THAAD's radars are indeed superior to the S-400's radar, which I have already mentioned right in the beginning. But the actual BMD function is carried out in a similar scale as the S-400 even if the THAAD can see much further ahead. Both systems have FCR ability up to 600Km.

India's BMD in fact uses radars that are far superior to what's used on THAAD or S-400. In fact the LRTR has as much as three times the range as the THAAD's TPY-2 against the same target. But both systems have similar BMD capability as of now regardless of the radar range.

All three SAMs have exo-atmospheric capability that goes above 150Km altitude.

An IRBM-class target was intended to validate THAAD's target engagement capabilities in exo- atmospheric conditions, and it delivered.

Let's see when they actually start conducting operational tests first. As of today, their anti-IRBM capability is basically non-existent. Even they say that.

Plus, their IRBM capability is against borderline IRBMs, not full fledged IRBMs with ranges above 5000Km.

Please show me footage of S-400 system intercepting an MRBM-class target in a test, let alone an IRBM-class target. This would be really amusing.

The lack of video on the internet proves nothing.

In FET-01, the MDA demonstrated THAAD’s ability to discriminate and intercept an RV from a separating MRBM target with countermeasures at an endo-atmospheric altitude.

Source: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2017/pdf/bmds/2017thaad.pdf

It is an open secret that every American MDS have target discrimination capabilities from PAC-3 to GMD.

I'm afraid I can't open the link. Copy-pasting the relevant material here would be useful.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-doubts-on-u-s-missile-defenses-idUSKBN1AP2R3
While calling the simulation on May 30 the “most difficult and challenging test MDA has done,” Ellison said the system needs to be tested more strenuously against threats such as multiple warheads that employ devices to confuse missile defenses.

Only GMD is an ICBM-stopper at present. Others not even close, Russian propaganda notwithstanding.

GMD is not yet an ICBM-stopper yet. It is still undergoing testing, but in that sense even the S-500 is undergoing testing. But GMD is a mid-course interception system while the S-500 is terminal. Both are entirely different.

Even India's Phase 2 Terminal BMD is expected to stop targets that are doing 6 to 9 Km/s.

THAAD-ER might be on the drawing board thus far (we don't know this due to MDA being discreet in its disclosures lately) but it will be a two-stage interceptor with target engagement ceiling of 450 KM which is more than enough to engage ICBM-class targets in exo- atmospheric conditions. THAAD's radar system can track ICBM- class targets without issue [at present]. A THAAD battery armed with THAAD-ER interceptors will be a monstrous system by any measure in the future.

There's no use to having such a ceiling for a terminal BMD. It's counterproductive to the actual task in fact since that ceiling also requires more range, which makes your missile bigger, heavier and less manoeuvrable.

If THAAD-ER indeed reaches such a ceiling, then its main use will be mid-course defence against SRBMS and MRBMs and of course as an ASAT system.

Even India's BMD system will have a new missile which will take it to an altitude above 400Km for mid-course and ASAT capability against SRBMs and MRBMs.

For ICBMs, you need altitudes above 2000Km for Mid-course BMD. But for Terminal BMD, you don't need more than 200Km. You want your interceptors to be small, light and fast.

Absolutely wrong and ill-informed judgement. For the sake of argument, consider an S-400 system with 48N6 interceptors; these interceptors employ blast-fragmentation approach to defeat incoming targets and they have target engagement ceiling of 60 KM.

THAAD system have significant qualitative edge with its interceptor suite having advanced HTK capability, and target discrimination capabilities on top. THAAD's radar system is also very powerful and facilitate intercept of incoming targets in exo- atmospheric conditions. Accordingly, THAAD have vastly superior prospects of defeating various types of ballistic missiles in varied situations in comparison to largely unproven S-400.

Even Russian insiders do not dare to compare S-400 with THAAD.

THAAD is already above S-500 system in strictly BMDS capacity, and would be laughably ahead with ER interceptor suite in the near future.

77N6 fit the bill of 100 KM target engagement ceiling in the case of S-500 system. Please do your homework.

The problem is you haven't understood your own sources.

 

[LeGenD]

PAC-3MSE is just an upgrade over the original missile, it's not a brand new missile.

Please stop. HTK capability imply major shift in design, accuracy and onboard guidance.

Interceptors [armed with warheads] require more fuel to operate and are larger in size (mass and weight) accordingly. Blast fragmentation warhead compensates for shortcomings in accuracy, maneuverability and onboard guidance in a heavyweight interceptor.

The PAC-3 interceptor differs significantly from the PAC-1/2 interceptors due to its use of hit-to-kill technology. While previous Patriot interceptors used only a blast fragmentation detonation in the vicinity of the hostile target, the PAC-3 hits the target directly and only contains a small high explosive warhead as a kill enhancer.

Source: https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/patriot/

The original PAC-3 interceptor is being enhanced under MSE program:-

Two proposed upgrades to the original PAC-3 configuration include an extended-range enhancement to the ground-launched interceptor and an air-launched variant. The land-based interceptor upgrade, the Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) program, includes a dual-pulse solid-rocket motor, larger control fins, and upgraded support systems that could effectively double the range of the missile. The U.S. Army received its first MSE interceptors in October 2015 and, in November and December 2015, the MSE missile had two successful intercept tests.

Source: https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/patriot/

Regardless PAC, MEADS etc are much more comparable to the S-350 Vityaz, and not comparable to the S-400.

Instead I would ask you to look up the PAAC-4. The Stunner will make it superior to the S-350, but even this doesn't come up to the S-400.

S-350 and S-400 provide relatively larger intercept envelope against ballistic missiles than PAC-3 MSE, when armed with 48N6 class interceptors, but the former two are also relatively crude systems in the matters of BMD with inferior radar.

PAC-3 MSE is armed with new generation of interceptors having HTK capability and relatively superior MPQ-65 radar (qualitative edge), and each launcher can accommodate up to 16 interceptors (quantitative edge).

S-350 and S-400 launchers typically accommodate up to 4 interceptors, and a battery of each having 6 - 8 launchers can accommodate 24 - 32 interceptors in total respectively. Conversely, a PAC-3 MSE battery having equivalent number of launchers can accommodate 96 - 128 interceptors in total respectively.

Therefore, a PAC-3 MSE battery will provide a massive and very effective intercept envelope against cruise missiles, TBM and SRBM to a high value target.

In-fact, intercept envelope of PAC-3 MSE might be understated in public domain:

PAC-3 MSE emerged in 2015.

Just having an explosive warhead doesn't make something less capable.

True, since an interceptor with HTK capability can also be armed with an explosive warhead.

But; blast fragmentation versus HTK - should tell you something.

But then that's also why I compared it to the S-350, which is actually a Patriot equivalent.

The Koreans are making a new SAM called the L-SAM with the Russians. They are basing it on the 48N6 and claim it's many times superior to the Patriot. And a less capable SAM called the M-SAM based on the 9M96E/E2 will be their Patriot equivalent.

The fact that the Koreans have chosen "older" Russian SAMs over the Americans should tell you plenty.

48N6 would be superior to older generation PAC interceptors; I do not disagree with this.

However, South Korea's exposure to American PAC-3 MSE and THAAD is very recent. These systems are state-of-the-art in their class.

L-SAM will have a ceiling of 60 KM in BMD capacity:

"The L-SAM is being developed as part of the Korean Air and Missile Defense project, slated to be ready in the early 2020s. It aimed to intercept missiles at an altitude of 50 to 60 kilometers with the ability to shoot down Pyongyang's ballistic missiles in their terminal phase."

Source: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/l-sam.htm

Another: http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/hanwha-techwin-shows-s-band-aesa-l-sam-bmd

South Korea is looking forward to modify L-SAM characteristics on the basis of insight from PAC-3 MSE and THAAD respectively: http://world.kbs.co.kr/service/news_view.htm?lang=e&Seq_Code=103072

Keep in mind that US have ownership of THAAD battery in South Korea. Therefore, South Korean access to it is absolutely restricted.

It's not a deal yet, it's a proposal. The current deal that we are negotiating for is the standard S-400 setup. In fact, we are buying the S-400 only so the Russians do not sell it to Pakistan.

Anyway, rules for India are different from what the Russians consider "export" grade.

Hmm. We will see.

No one has seen the 40N6 or its launcher. Logic says the missile is actually smaller than the 48N6. In fact, I won't be surprised if the 40N6 in fact fits 2 missiles inside one 48N6 canister. Hell, it's more realistic to expect 3 missiles in 1 canister.

FYI:

Additional comparisons:-

40N6 is optimized for anti-aircraft engagements: http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons/40N6_a000990001.aspx

Understand this:

40N6 might have the capability to strike a target at 180 KM altitude but S-400 does not support it in this capacity. S-400, on its own, cannot facilitate any interceptor for BMD mission beyond 60 KM altitude*.

*56 KM to be precise: http://www.military-today.com/missiles/s400_triumph.htm

You are reading the source all wrong. The range of the missile is 250Km for air defence and 60Km for BMD. Nowhere does it mention altitude.

It's a different story that the 48N6E3 is capable of achieving 60Km altitude also.

When it comes to BMD, you sacrifice range for altitude, that's why a 250Km range, 30Km altitude missile for air defence becomes a 60Km range, 60Km altitude missile for BMD. Fuel is used up climbing to that height.

FYI:

Engagement range, km:

aerodynamic target: 3-250*
ballistic target: 5-60

Min/max engagement altitude, km:

aerodynamic target: 0,01/27
ballistic target: 2/27

From the developer of S-400: http://roe.ru/pdfs/pdf_1969.pdf

S-400 armed with an interceptor having 250 KM range against an aerodynamic target = 27 KM ceiling in BMD capacity

Looks like media outlets are exaggerating and/or misreporting capabilities of S-400. Quality of journalism worldwide is abysmal to say the least.

That information is far too general. It doesn't mean anything concrete. It's only when they reveal information of the missile systems is when stuff starts to matter.

They disclosed the ceiling of S-400 and S-500 in BMD capacity. Why you ignoring their revelations?

Because of target speed. And more advanced radar and C&C in general.

S-500 is equipped with superior radar system (and interceptor suite), to intercept ballistic missiles at relatively higher altitudes than S-400. In this way, S-500 can counter additional types of ballistic missiles and/or have superior capacity in BMD mode.

THAAD's radar functions in two modes. One is the forward-based mode and the other is BMD mode. Both work in tandem if you have 2 radars.

In the forward-based mode, THAAD has a 2000Km range. In terminal mode, the range drops to 600Km. Overall, the THAAD's radars are indeed superior to the S-400's radar, which I have already mentioned right in the beginning. But the actual BMD function is carried out in a similar scale as the S-400 even if the THAAD can see much further ahead. Both systems have FCR ability up to 600Km.

I have studied this stuff, and do not need lectures in them.

In Forward-based mode, THAAD's radar is programmed to function as a surveillance node of GMD network and inform its intercept options accordingly.

In BMD mode, THAAD's radar coverage approach 1000 KM mark from surface to zenith in 120 degree radius:-

However, THAAD is optimized for Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and can take cues from nearby assets to enhance its effectiveness in BMD mode:-

Consequently, THAAD battery (6 - 8 launchers in total) offers BMD coverage to entire South Korea from all angles with support of Aegis Ashore platforms in Japan.

---

S-400's radar is in the league of American MPQ-53:

"The diverse Flap Lid family of radars are Russian equivalents to the US MPQ-53 Patriot engagement radar."

Source: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagement-Fire-Control.html#mozTocId779056

---

Sorry to disappoint you: S-400 is not in the league of THAAD! Not even close.

India's BMD in fact uses radars that are far superior to what's used on THAAD or S-400. In fact the LRTR has as much as three times the range as the THAAD's TPY-2 against the same target. But both systems have similar BMD capability as of now regardless of the radar range.

Is this a joke?

Swordfish LRTR's BMD coverage approach 800 KM mark at maximum: http://idrw.org/2018-india-plans-to-deploy-interceptor-ballistic-missiles/

PAD's ceiling in BMD capacity = 80 KM

---

Sorry to disappoint you: PAD is not in the league of THAAD! Not even close.

All three SAMs have exo-atmospheric capability that goes above 150Km altitude.

Nonsense.

Let's see when they actually start conducting operational tests first. As of today, their anti-IRBM capability is basically non-existent. Even they say that.

Plus, their IRBM capability is against borderline IRBMs, not full fledged IRBMs with ranges above 5000Km.

Non-existent?

In case you didn't knew:-

US deployed a THAAD battery in Guam in 2013, to shield it from IRBM-class targets.

---

An IRBM exceeding 5000 KM in range is approaching ICBM territory. Nevertheless, THAAD can defeat (any) ballistic missile in terminal phase of its flight:

The THAAD weapon system provides a globally transportable, rapidly deployable capability to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles inside or outside the atmosphere during their final or terminal phase of flight. The THAAD missile has a potential impact range that exceeds 1,000 kilometers and uses hit-to-kill technology (kinetic energy) to destroy an incoming warhead.

Source: Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska Ballistic Missile Defense Flight Test Support Environmental Assessment from MDA

---

Easy for you to critic the capability American BMDS in this respect; kindly provide evidence of Indian PAD and S-400 defeating an IRBM-class target in any test.

S-400 can handle MRBM-class targets in BMD capacity at maximum, and this is a generous assessment. It doesn't offer credible capability against IRBM-class targets.

Indian PAD have limited capability against IRBM-class targets due to its 80 KM ceiling in BMD capacity. However, I am not sure if this capability is of much use in Indo-Pak scenario.

The lack of video on the internet proves nothing.

If the capability is genuine, then you have nothing to hide.

I'm afraid I can't open the link. Copy-pasting the relevant material here would be useful.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-doubts-on-u-s-missile-defenses-idUSKBN1AP2R3
While calling the simulation on May 30 the “most difficult and challenging test MDA has done,” Ellison said the system needs to be tested more strenuously against threats such as multiple warheads that employ devices to confuse missile defenses.

Opinion of a skeptic is irrelevant; these people are not insiders and are not privy to experiments of MDA.

Flight Experiment THAAD-01 (FET-01) was conducted in Kodiak, Alaska on July 30, 2017, which collected critical performance data related to countermeasures. Additionally, THAAD successfully achieved an intercept against the target in that countermeasure environment.

Source: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS29/20180417/108171/HHRG-115-AS29-Wstate-GreavesS-20180417.PDF

GMD is not yet an ICBM-stopper yet. It is still undergoing testing, but in that sense even the S-500 is undergoing testing. But GMD is a mid-course interception system while the S-500 is terminal. Both are entirely different.

Even India's Phase 2 Terminal BMD is expected to stop targets that are doing 6 to 9 Km/s.

GMD network, in its current form, have 44 GBI interceptors on high alert, and can defeat a limited barrage of ICBM-class RVs [across North America].

MDA conducted an important test to assess GMD's 'operational readiness' against an ICBM-class target armed with realistic decoys in 2017 (FTG-15); this test costed a whopping 244 million USD (most expensive till date).

There's no use to having such a ceiling for a terminal BMD. It's counterproductive to the actual task in fact since that ceiling also requires more range, which makes your missile bigger, heavier and less manoeuvrable.

If THAAD-ER indeed reaches such a ceiling, then its main use will be mid-course defence against SRBMS and MRBMs and of course as an ASAT system.

Even India's BMD system will have a new missile which will take it to an altitude above 400Km for mid-course and ASAT capability against SRBMs and MRBMs.

For ICBMs, you need altitudes above 2000Km for Mid-course BMD. But for Terminal BMD, you don't need more than 200Km. You want your interceptors to be small, light and fast.

Terminal phase challenges are not the same for every type of ballistic missile out there. Long-range ballistic missiles (IRBM-class and ICBM-class) create massive flight arcs and can be equipped with sophisticated RVs to complicate BMD mission, and these RVs also descend towards surface at extreme speeds. RVs can also be programmed to detonate at high altitudes.

THAAD was conceived to intercept complex ballistic missile targets in both endo- and exo- atmospheric conditions, and developers will unlock its full potential over the course of years. Idea was to go much further than PAC family in BMD capacity while being mobile.

GMD network is reserved for the defense of US mainland at present but THAAD and Aegis will function as its forward-operating legs in distant locations for BMD missions in the future. These systems already talk to each other and exchange meaningful information.

You are mistaken in comparing THAAD with S-400, PAD and even S-500; THAAD already exceeds these BMDS in its capacity to counter ballistic missiles.

PAC-3 ceiling in BMD capacity = ~35 KM ?
S-400 ceiling in BMD capacity = ~60 KM (with largest interceptor)
PAD ceiling in BMD capacity = 80 KM
S-500 ceiling in BMD capacity = 100 KM
THAAD ceiling in BMD capacity = 150 KM (will be significantly expanded in the future)

Take a good look at THAAD launching an interceptor in the air:-

The problem is you haven't understood your own sources.

Take your own advice.

 

[randomradio]

Please stop. HTK capability imply major shift in design, accuracy and onboard guidance.

Interceptors [armed with warheads] require more fuel to operate and are larger in size (mass and weight) accordingly. Blast fragmentation warhead compensates for shortcomings in accuracy, maneuverability and onboard guidance in a heavyweight interceptor.

The PAC-3 interceptor differs significantly from the PAC-1/2 interceptors due to its use of hit-to-kill technology. While previous Patriot interceptors used only a blast fragmentation detonation in the vicinity of the hostile target, the PAC-3 hits the target directly and only contains a small high explosive warhead as a kill enhancer.

Source: https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/patriot/

The original PAC-3 interceptor is being enhanced under MSE program:-

Two proposed upgrades to the original PAC-3 configuration include an extended-range enhancement to the ground-launched interceptor and an air-launched variant. The land-based interceptor upgrade, the Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) program, includes a dual-pulse solid-rocket motor, larger control fins, and upgraded support systems that could effectively double the range of the missile. The U.S. Army received its first MSE interceptors in October 2015 and, in November and December 2015, the MSE missile had two successful intercept tests.

Source: https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/patriot/

I am talking about the PAC-3 MSE being an upgrade over the original PAC-3.

By replacing the single burn motor with dual, you double range. But it does not change the form factor of the missile.

S-350 and S-400 provide relatively larger intercept envelope against ballistic missiles than PAC-3 MSE, when armed with 48N6 class interceptors, but the former two are also relatively crude systems in the matters of BMD with inferior radar.

Nope. Not even close.

S-350 and S-400 provide relatively larger intercept envelope against ballistic missiles than PAC-3 MSE, when armed with 48N6 class interceptors, but the former two are also relatively crude systems in the matters of BMD with inferior radar.

S-350 and S-400 launchers typically accommodate up to 4 interceptors, and a battery of each having 6 - 8 launchers can accommodate 24 - 32 interceptors in total respectively. Conversely, a PAC-3 MSE battery having equivalent number of launchers can accommodate 96 - 128 interceptors in total respectively.

Therefore, a PAC-3 MSE battery will provide a massive and very effective intercept envelope against cruise missiles, TBM and SRBM to a high value target.

A single S-400 TEL can carry 16 PAC-3 class missiles.

In-fact, intercept envelope of PAC-3 MSE might be understated in public domain:

PAC-3 MSE emerged in 2015.

Nothing's been understated.

True, since an interceptor with HTK capability can also be armed with an explosive warhead.

But; blast fragmentation versus HTK - should tell you something.

I think you are confused about something. You are stuck with general terms and not looking at the specifics. The Patriot may use superior technologies, but the S-400 is simply in a different class.

However, South Korea's exposure to American PAC-3 MSE and THAAD is very recent. These systems are state-of-the-art in their class.

No. Korea already operates the Patriot.

L-SAM will have a ceiling of 60 KM in BMD capacity:

Because it's based on the 48N6E3.

40N6 might have the capability to strike a target at 180 KM altitude but S-400 does not support it in this capacity. S-400, on its own, cannot facilitate any interceptor for BMD mission beyond 60 KM altitude*.

You don't know what you are talking about, do you?

S-400 armed with an interceptor having 250 KM range against an aerodynamic target = 27 KM ceiling in BMD capacity

Looks like media outlets are exaggerating and/or misreporting capabilities of S-400. Quality of journalism worldwide is abysmal to say the least.

No one has exaggerated anything.

It's you who haven't understood. SAMS have lesser range when dealing with BMs since the missile has to climb in altitude. Nothing else.

In BMD mode, THAAD's radar coverage approach 1000 KM mark

Against what target? I would recommend looking that up.

It's not as impressive as you think.

Sorry to disappoint you: S-400 is not in the league of THAAD! Not even close.

Sure. Whatever you say.

Swordfish LRTR's BMD coverage approach 800 KM mark at maximum: http://idrw.org/2018-india-plans-to-deploy-interceptor-ballistic-missiles/

Your information is obsolete.

PAD's ceiling in BMD capacity = 80 KM

---

Sorry to disappoint you: PAD is not in the league of THAAD! Not even close.

PAD is a different missile. Look up PDV.

PAD was only made for development tests. The operational missile will be the PDV.

Non-existent?

Yes. They have done one test, which was scripted, and works only against some types of IRBMs. That's not anti-IRBM capability. An IRBM stopper should be able to stop borderline ICBMs. THAAD cannot do that.

In case you didn't knew:-

US deployed a THAAD battery in Guam in 2013, to shield it from IRBM-class targets.

That has no relevance to actually stopping IRBMs, only MRBMs.

Easy for you to critic the capability American BMDS in this respect; kindly provide evidence of Indian PAD and S-400 defeating an IRBM-class target in any test.

THAAD, S-400 and Indian BMD are not designed to stop IRBMs. Only SRBMs and MRBMs. Yes, THAAD as well.

And all three systems can stop borderline IRBMs, which is what THAAD demonstrated. But that doesn't mean THAAD can stop all IRBMs.

If the capability is genuine, then you have nothing to hide.

No. It has to remain hidden. Once it becomes operational, videos will come out eventually. But not at the current time, since the systems are becoming operational only now.

PAC-3 ceiling in BMD capacity = ~35 KM ?
S-400 ceiling in BMD capacity = ~60 KM (with largest interceptor)
PAD ceiling in BMD capacity = 80 KM
S-500 ceiling in BMD capacity = 100 KM
THAAD ceiling in BMD capacity = 150 KM (will be significantly expanded in the future)

Fix in bold:

S-400 ceiling in BMD capacity = 150+ KM (with largest interceptor)
S-400 ceiling in BMD capacity = ~60 KM (with second largest interceptor) equivalent to L-SAM, with the same missile.
PDV ceiling in BMD capacity = 150+Km

Take your own advice.

I'll still say it again. You need to understand your own sources.

 

[LeGenD]

I am talking about the PAC-3 MSE being an upgrade over the original PAC-3.

By replacing the single burn motor with dual, you double range. But it does not change the form factor of the missile.

OK.

Nope. Not even close.

You missed the point.

A single S-400 TEL can carry 16 PAC-3 class missiles.

Certainly not 48N6.

Nothing's been understated.

PAC-3 MSE > PAC-3 standard

The MSE's exact range and altitude capabilities against various types of targets are classified, but it's clear that the updated missile will allow MIM-104 Patriot batteries to cover far more area and have greater defensive capabilities against tactical ballistic missiles than its progenitors. The upgrades to the missile's motor, control system, software, front-end thermal protection, among other modifications, result in a far more effective weapon.

Source: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-full-rate-production-will-sell-like-hotcakes



MSE program commenced in 2008.

I think you are confused about something. You are stuck with general terms and not looking at the specifics. The Patriot may use superior technologies, but the S-400 is simply in a different class.

We shall see.

No. Korea already operates the Patriot.

South Korea have PAC-2 variants in its inventory. Learn from this link: http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/intl-cooperation/republic-of-korea/

South Korea will receive PAC-3 variants in 2019: https://www.defensenews.com/global/...ew-pac-3-interceptors-to-counter-north-korea/

Because it's based on the 48N6E3.

OK.

You don't know what you are talking about, do you?

Pay attention:

The system can engage all types of aerial targets including aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), and ballistic and cruise missiles within the range of 400km, at an altitude of up to 30km. The system can simultaneously engage 36 targets.

Source: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/s-400-triumph-air-defence-missile-system/

The target range of "Triumph" with an anti-aircraft guided missile of the 40H6 type is 400 km, and the maximum height at which the object can be reached is 27 km.

Source: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/s-400.htm

Min/max engagement altitude, km:

aerodynamic target 0,01/27
ballistic target 2/27

Source: http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/air-defence-systems/air-defense-systems-and-mounts/s-400-triumf/

Ouch.

Technicalities of 40N6 interceptor notwithstanding, S-400 system is not optimized for BMD engagements in exo- atmospheric conditions. S-400 can make good use of 40N6 interceptor in anti-aircraft engagements up to claimed range of 400 KM but it cannot achieve exo- atmospheric intercepts with the same interceptor in strictly BMD role due to limitations of its radar system.

Clear now?

No one has exaggerated anything.

It's you who haven't understood. SAMS have lesser range when dealing with BMs since the missile has to climb in altitude. Nothing else.

1. The highlighted part is not my point-of-contention.
2. Russian OEM, as well as reputed sources, put BMD ceiling of S-400 system around 30 KM in altitude.

Conversely, BMD ceiling of THAAD is 150 KM in altitude which is compliant with its potential to achieve exo- atmospheric intercepts. THAAD's radar coverage against ballistic missiles approach 1000 KM mark from surface to zenith, and its interceptors have flight range well in excess of commonly touted 200 KM range (confirmed by MDA in one of its official reports).

THAAD >> S-400 system in strictly BMD role.

Clear enough?

Against what target? I would recommend looking that up.

It's not as impressive as you think.

Against ballistic missiles.

The cueing for the THAAD system is provided by the Raytheon Systems AN/TPY-2 ground-based radar (GBR) for surveillance, threat classification and threat identification. THAAD can also be cued by military surveillance satellites such as Brilliant Eyes.

The ground-based radar units are C-130 air transportable. The AN/TPY-2 radar uses a 9.2m² aperture full field of view antenna phased array operating at I and J bands (X band) and containing 25,344 solid-state microwave transmit and receive modules. The radar has the capability to acquire missile threats at ranges of up to 1,000km.

Source: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/thaad/

Sure. Whatever you say.

See above.

Your information is obsolete.

!

PAD is a different missile. Look up PDV.

PAD was only made for development tests. The operational missile will be the PDV.

OK.

A new exo-atmospheric interceptor missile named the Prithvi Defence Vehicle (PDV) having a range of 50-150 km is slated to replace the existing PAD / Pradyumna. Among other features, this new two-stage, solid-fueled PDV interceptor is fitted with an Imaging Infrared (IIR) seeker, developed by DRDO to distinguish between incoming warheads and decoys. The PDV was first tested in April 2014. The missile interceptor had a “near miss” at an altitude of 120 km. However, on 12 February 2017, PDV was able to successfully destroy a ballistic missile target launched from over 2000 km at an altitude of 97 km.

Source: https://cenjows.gov.in/pdf/Operationalisation-of-India.pdf

PDV is demonstratively effective against a ballistic missile at an altitude close to 100 KM mark in BMD role. This is in the ballpark of S-500.

Impressive performance, but below THAAD.

Yes. They have done one test, which was scripted, and works only against some types of IRBMs. That's not anti-IRBM capability. An IRBM stopper should be able to stop borderline ICBMs. THAAD cannot do that.

This is an argument for the sake of argument, and a silly one at that.

Scripting is in regards to simulating a particular threat scenario [which is likely to materialize in a conflict], and nothing wrong with it. Ballistic missile tests are also scripted because target location and striking distance are decided in advance.

Intercept possibilities boil down to the position of a THAAD battery in relation to an IRBM-class target and where the latter is heading. THAAD cannot do anything about IRBM-class targets (and above) in midcourse phase, but it will defeat an RV (of any long-range ballistic missile) in terminal phase provided the RV is destined for a high value target under the BMD coverage of THAAD.

When I talk about the potential of THAAD in defeating IRBM-class targets, I am alluding to the 'operational effectiveness' of THAAD in this respect. THAAD have demonstrated the capability to defeat an IRBM-class target under appropriate conditions but S-400 and PDV have not yet. Accordingly, it is unclear whether S-400 and PDV are up to the task or not.

Kindly sharpen your comprehension skills.

That has no relevance to actually stopping IRBMs, only MRBMs.

North Korea cannot strike at Guam with an MRBM.

THAAD, S-400 and Indian BMD are not designed to stop IRBMs. Only SRBMs and MRBMs. Yes, THAAD as well.

And all three systems can stop borderline IRBMs, which is what THAAD demonstrated. But that doesn't mean THAAD can stop all IRBMs.

Correction:

1. S-400 is not designed to defeat IRBM-class targets.
2. PDV might deliver under appropriate conditions.
3. THAAD will deliver under appropriate conditions.

Your disbelief is amusing and personal. Please step down from your high horse and sharpen your comprehension skills.

No. It has to remain hidden. Once it becomes operational, videos will come out eventually. But not at the current time, since the systems are becoming operational only now.

Excuses.

Fix in bold:

S-400 ceiling in BMD capacity = 150+ KM (with largest interceptor)
S-400 ceiling in BMD capacity = ~60 KM (with second largest interceptor) equivalent to L-SAM, with the same missile.
PDV ceiling in BMD capacity = 150+Km

To quote Donald Trump: FAKE NEWS

S-400 ceiling (altitude-wise) in BMD capacity = 30 KM (with largest interceptor)
S-400 ceiling (altitude-wise) in BMD capacity = 60 KM in theory (with largest interceptor)
S-500 ceiling (altitude-wise) in BMD capacity = 100 KM
PDV ceiling (altitude-wise) in BMD capacity = ~100 KM (demonstratively)
THAAD ceiling (altitude-wise) in BMD capacity - 150 KM (affirmed)

I'll still say it again. You need to understand your own sources.

You need to sharpen your comprehensive skills.

 

[randomradio]

You missed the point.

There was no real point made.

Certainly not 48N6.

As I said, the S-400 is simply not in the same class as the PAC-3.

We shall see.

What does that mean? It's already written in the stone. Only S-350 is comparable to PAC-3.

Pay attention:

The system can engage all types of aerial targets including aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), and ballistic and cruise missiles within the range of 400km, at an altitude of up to 30km. The system can simultaneously engage 36 targets.

Source: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/s-400-triumph-air-defence-missile-system/

The target range of "Triumph" with an anti-aircraft guided missile of the 40H6 type is 400 km, and the maximum height at which the object can be reached is 27 km.

Source: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/s-400.htm

Min/max engagement altitude, km:

aerodynamic target 0,01/27
ballistic target 2/27

Source: http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/air-defence-systems/air-defense-systems-and-mounts/s-400-triumf/

Ouch.

Technicalities of 40N6 interceptor notwithstanding, S-400 system is not optimized for BMD engagements in exo- atmospheric conditions. S-400 can make good use of 40N6 interceptor in anti-aircraft engagements up to claimed range of 400 KM but it cannot achieve exo- atmospheric intercepts with the same interceptor in strictly BMD role due to limitations of its radar system.

Clear now?

You have serious comprehension issues. You don't know the difference between air defence and BMD.

1. The highlighted part is not my point-of-contention.

That's why you fail to understand your own sources.

2. Russian OEM, as well as reputed sources, put BMD ceiling of S-400 system around 30 KM in altitude.

I'm wasting my time with you.

Even you just said 48N6 has a ceiling of 60Km.

PDV is demonstratively effective against a ballistic missile at an altitude close to 100 KM mark in BMD role. This is in the ballpark of S-500.

Impressive performance, but below THAAD.

Again, you do not comprehend this.

1. S-400 is not designed to defeat IRBM-class targets.
2. PDV might deliver under appropriate conditions.
3. THAAD will deliver under appropriate conditions.

Even the Americans don't claim this.

This was a complete waste of time. You can continue living in your delusion.