If both the THAAD and Aegis missile defense systems are ineffective against Russia's Satan-2 ICBM, why isn't the U.S. trying to make them better?
Because the Russian RS-28 Sarmat carries up to 16 MIRVs (Independently targetable re-entry vehicles) with the option to equip up to 24 Hypersonic Glider Vehicles (HGVs). It also has both active and passive defense systems which it would use to confuse enemy defenses while striking a target. This includes decoys, chaff, jamming and (classified) cyber warfare tech, among other things.
The MIRVs are for striking a smaller area in coordination. As the name suggests, they detach from the Sarmat upon re-entry, and are then guided independently. They can work as a ‘pack’, or fly alone. They would be used to strike multiple points within a city or state - or to increase (guarantee!) the chances of a missile getting through. The HGVs, on the other hand, can be detached from the Sarmat ICBM while still in orbit, and after detachment, are practically undetectable. They have a range of over 10,000km and can strike with an CEP accuracy of about 3 metres.
The Sarmat travels at Mach 21, or about 7 kilometres per second, and can be rerouted to a different target, or ordered to perform dodging manoeuvres, at any stage during its flight. Even the best air defenses can only attempt to destroy targets travelling much slower than this. The most responsive deployed system in the world, the Russian S-400, can take out targets travelling at almost Mach 5. A newer version still under development, the (unrelated) S-500, has shot down objects travelling at Mach 7–9, during testing. No other nation has achieved this, but the success rate was unreliable at such high speeds anyway. No guarantees, even against a single target, even without countermeasures.
—Both Russian and American defenses could easily swat from the skies an ICBM launched by any other country on earth. But they’d also both easily penetrate each other’s defenses.
The currently deployed Sarmat MIRVs and HGVs usually have a yield of around 1 Megaton, some slightly less. So if even just one got through (and they probably ALL would, imagine five Sarmats spawning over 120 HGVs…) it would be Hiroshima-scale destruction, multiplied by a factor of exactly 66.6, since Hiroshima was 15kt. (Perhaps that’s why NATO designated the system as “Satan”?)
Now to directly answering your question; In reality, no matter how good the defenses are, it’s far easier, cheaper and quicker for a major nuclear power like the USA or Russia to just build a more efficient missile. China will have HGV capabilities too, very soon. The US could - maybe - waste hundreds of billions of dollars upgrading their defenses to be able to handle Mach 9 missiles, too… Or they could waste untold trillions trying to do the impossible, and shoot down the Mach 21 vehicles… But even IF they could do it, it wouldn’t have a good success rate, making it pointless. And then Russia would just spend a fraction of the amount, slightly improve the thrust/weight ratio of their ICBMs, and all the US money would be wasted and the arms race would start over.
So, that’s why the USA doesn’t bother. We’re still living in a time of mutually assured destruction if the Cold War turns hot, so they explore other options like First Strike, instead. They have the advantage, in terms of worldwide bases, and they know nobody’s foolish enough to attack them. The Russians are different; They’ve been on the defensive since 1991; Now they put greater effort into missile defense - not to *survive* WW3… But merely to survive *long enough* to retaliate against an American First Strike. Thus removing the USA’s advantage and maintaining the Cold War stalemate.
Dating Website & Online Chat Room
DJI Mini 4 Pro Drone Combo Plus
