Missile Defense Systems Thread

>>33789471
>Are missile defense systems like THAAD or AEGIS actually effective?
No, S400/kashtan/etc. are

>>33789471
THAAD has been remarkably effective in it's tests. Also, THAAD isn't for thousands of missiles, it's for those few missiles that might be fired at allied nations, or contain WMDs. THAAD is ABM

>>33789471
There aren't a thousand missiles in the area for it to stop. It'd face a more realistic barrage.

>>33789481
>>33789482
But then you are spending something like 1000X dollars to defend against X dollars.

>>33789496
Because if they don't spend 1000X hitting a missile that costs X dollars but also contains a nuke or chemicals, it'll cost 1000X1000X1000X to clean up. THAAD is designed to shoot down high attitude ballistic missiles. Anything above 250kms, anything lower and that's to Patriots and regular SM series missiles.

>>33789471
Let's talk about it from a South Korean perspective.

It is better to lose your marines to zerglings than to lose your SCV line to a ling runby. The surviving SCVs will be able to mine more minerals to build more supply depots and train more marines.

It is the same with missile defense systems. In times of Mutalisk harass, building a Missile Turret is a costly yet effective way to make sure your economy is well defended against any exterior forces trying to sow panic. Since when you pull your SCVs out of the mines your economy grinds to a halt. And this affects everything.

>>33789516
Can you explain that in american? I don't speak korean.

>>33789534
In american :
You are not paying 1M$ to prevent a 1000 $ projectile to hit.
You are paying 1M$ to prevent a projectile from causing 10M$ damage if it lands.

>>33789471
why do you care about cost effectiveness? we regularly give 4 people just out of high school control over 6 million dollar tanks. what's a few missiles?

>>33789496
The political and economic costs of successful strikes justify it.

>>33789516
Well played.

>>33789550
But what if they launch all their real projectiles, and ten times more fake dummy projectiles without a warhead?
The system can't handle most of them, so it is guaranteed that some "real" missiles will hit.

It not being cost effective is one thing, the problem is its also just not effective if you use a "flood" strategy.
And when the strategy that can break and defeat your expensive system is actually pretty cheap... well, bad system.

>>33789569
Alright let's see you come up with a cheap solution with 100% success rate. We're waiting , scooter.

>>33789580
I can't. I am not proposing that you pay me 50 billion and give me 10 years to solve your issue.
I am proposing that the last guy who got 50 billion and 10 year didn't solve it.
It is false security.

>>33789471
Since it is a topic currently occuring: What is the best anti sheep missle? Russia doesnt seem to have anything good, what about the US? Are they capable to counter this sheep sinking ship madness?

>>33789569
>But what if they launch all their real projectiles, and ten times more fake dummy projectiles without a warhead?
Why wouldn't they just stuff more real warheads in the dummy missiles? After all, the actual payload is the easy part. The hard part is getting it to where it wants to go, hence why you have this big and expensive missile.

THAAD would not stop China from being able to nuke something if it wanted to. It is not designed to do this(and if it did, we'd be in big trouble because nuclear deterrence would have completely broken down). However, because North Korea or Iran are unable to launch enough missiles of those types to overwhelm the interceptors, THAAD works just fine.

>>33789569
>"flood the system" with high altitude ballistic missiles that NK doesn't have
Okay son.

>>33789595
So it works as a "bully the weak" system, and it isn't expected to be the ace against big players.
But thats not how its "advertised" to the public. Its not the popular perception of it.
People treat it like invulnerability and it is always quoted when talking about wars with Russia and China.

>>33789601
I was talking in general, not about NK specifically.

>>33789606
we don't advertise it as a shield against Russia or China, in fact we tell them it would have no chance against them. But we have a habit of lying about how good we are and they don't trust us.

>>33789606
>So it works as a "bully the weak" system
It's moreso designed as a system which prevents unstable governments from doing something that they shouldn't. The larger governments which aren't so much affected by THAAD are stable.

>But thats not how its "advertised" to the public.
Wrong. It's working as advertised. However, the uninformed masses don't know jack shit, and take it to mean something it doesn't. They're wrong, and that's entirely on them. So when people start talking about how the Navy SEALs can do anything and how they're majestic and all that shit, they're doing the same thing. Uninformed speculation.

Is that a problem with anything in the entire system? No. Fuck off with your judgmental bullshit.

>>33789534
>>33789534
A $100M THAAD unit is protecting a Commercial Block that yields $50M in yearly taxes including corporate and individual income taxes. 2 years of stagnation and it has already paid for itself.

In contrast to if the commercial block gets decimated and loses its value. Not only the commercial value goes down but the loss of working individuals will have a big impact to the place.

>>33789606
>So it works as a "bully the weak" system
To an extent, yes. All missile defence does, if it dodn't MAD would break down to an unstable state where the first side to be capable of destroying 90% of the opponent's fleet on the ground and the remaining 10% in the air can only gain form a preemptive strike-so everyone has a very twichy trigger finger.
What these missile defence systems do is they raise the baron capability needed to play at the big boys table- a single Nork ICBM isn't enough to scare the US, and a single Iranian one won't scare Israel.

>>33789496
Comparing the cost of missles is retarded. You're supposed to compare cost of shooting it down vs the damage it will make in impact. Also you don't just hang around and wait for more missles to come. You bomb the fuck out of whoever launched them after their exposed their positions.
https://youtu.be/If-3sIFVHKo

>>33789606
>People treat it like invulnerability and it is always quoted when talking about wars with Russia and China.
Because this is the end game potential

>>33789496
>Body armor costs hundreds of dollars per unit
>Bullets cost cents each
>Body armor is therefore totally inefficient and should be abolished

>>33789693
This would only apply if body armor worked fine against 1-5 bullets and failed once the enemy fires more at a time.

>>33789719
I mean, technically speaking, ceramic or metal plates do tend to degrade in protectiveness severely after one or more hits.

>>33789471
They are effective, see Israeli iron dome. I'm sure these are more advanced, have bigger targets and far more time to intercept compared to the Israeli version, so if it works these should too.

>>33789569
It ain't about blocking all the missiles.
Just about blocking those that look like they'll hit very valuable target.

If it's a singe missile, then USA can be wasteful, intercept it, carry the budget cost and reap the diplomatic benefit as its allies will be grateful.

If it's a thousand missiles, then blocking those that aim for the biggest population areas, nuclear plants and other critical infrastructures are priority target.
Allies are still grateful because, without USA, they would still have suffered but at least the ABM system prevented some measure of suffering.

Now, the best weapon against ANY "flood" strategy is a strong economy :
Except for China and the EU, no other economy on this planet comes close to the size and efficiency of the USA.
Its GDP is monstruous, which means its public spending can be huge, which allows its defense budget to be bigger than some nation's GDP.

That gives a lot of possibilities to convince said nations not to engage in a conflict with the USA... because they know they'll only get one shot at winning by knockout before the giant's ressources are put into play.

To give an idea of scale :
Russia's GDP is 1400 B$ while USA is 18000 B$.
Sure, if Russia spent ALL its ressources on missiles 10 times cheaper than it is to intercept them, the fight would be even and only so if it could BUILD that many missiles faster than US doctrine would adapt.
But it's not the case.

>>33789626
>>33789627
>>33789640
>>33789667

The real joke is that SM-3 block ii will have anti ICBM capabilities, and that will be the true test of the game theory.

Its not even an intention really, just a response to nations putting conventional anti ship missiles on IRBMS.

>>33789719
Which is the case :
You cannot fire a whole clip at a bulletproof vest and hope it will block all of them perfectly.
And even so, it's only blocking them, not just magically preventing any damage.
You'll still get bruises, you'll still get knocked on your butt. You can even get broken ribs.

Same logic with missiles : we block most of them when they look like they'll hit something valuable and that's enough to pay the system back.

>>33789774
>clip

>>33789802
Sorry, meant cylinder,

>>33789719
Nobody in his right mind would wear a body armor that was hit once. You always return it for fixing or disposal after you are back at base.
>>33789740
Actually I heard that its harder to hit shorter range rockets because there is less time to track and intercept them. That's why anti ballistic missiles like THAD and Israeli Arrow were developed in the 90s and the short range versions are only becoming feasible now (iron dome and David's sling are one example).

>>33789477
>russia
>effective ABM
no

There is no realistic threat that russias current or future ABM capability can deal with.
For the same reason THAAD, SM-3, patriot and what have you will have a hard time dealing with ICBMs, so will S-500 and A-235.
Long range ballistic missiles are far too fast to be realistically intercepted. Unfortunately for russia, NATO only have those kind of missiles, other than the very short ranged ATACMS, russias planned missile defenses lack targets.
It's all russia spending billions on machismo forced "me too!" mentality seeing NATO deploy modern missile defenses.
At best it can be used as a propaganda tool to calm the poor and stupid masses of russians that might panic if faced with the truth of russias growing obsolescence.