I hate videos that try and panda to Americans or panda 2 Russians. The entire world knows that both of these systems are very capable and both would do a fine job shooting down area. Targit's I totally agree that no propaganda or bringing up fake things about. Either tool is very important to me as well.
If you had to pick one system for your entire military, go for the S-400, but if you have other anti-air systems and you need one to specifically target ballistic missiles, the THAAD system is better. The S-400 was seemingly developed to be an all-around air defense unit while the THAAD system is designed specifically to take on ballistic missile threats. I think a more fair comparison would be the S-400 against the Patriot Missile System.
Must be why they keep turning it off when the Israelis fly nearby. Me thinks the russian missal defense system isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. Especially when you have your normal russian soldier running the thing. Also, it needs a separate defense system to run with it or it’s easily defeated.
THAAD is a theater ballistic missile defense system designed to be faced in a particular threat sector and used in conjunction with Aegis and Patriot systems. Comparing THAAD and S400 is comparing apples and oranges
Lmao. Typical Americans huh. They want you to splash out another 900m a piece for the other 2 systems to get what you can basically get for your country with a S400 lol
It would appear to me that the real comparison should be between the latest version of THAAD and the S500, which appears, like THAAD, to be mainly a ballistic missile defense system.
@@maxinfly I wrote you something very long but I accidentally closed it and I don't have the time to re-write it. Just keep checking.. you will find the answer you seek eventually. Thanks
S500 would be more counterpart to THAAD. S400 acts together with a lot of medium to short range Soviet/Russian systems, Tor, Igla, Verba, Tunguska, Pantsir, and so on. Russian units are overwhelmed with AA defense. S400 can be networked with other short and medium range systems to coordinate . There are also containers with medium range smaller missiles for S400 tubes , so it doesnt waste this giant missile for less significant target. Older Soviet made AA systems have very good missiles, that do have good small to medium range, but older radars are prone to miss due to modern electronic jamming. Networking KUB/BUK systems to a S400 gives massive number of medium range CHEAP missils that are made in kazillion bazillion numbers during Soviet era and are still in use.
uros kostic dont forget that syrian arab air defence forces (SyADF) used 50yrold soviet SAMs to successfully shot down 71-103 tomahawk cruise missles in 2018 that showed the capabilities of how powerful Soviet SAMs is!💯
@@adibmouhanna6823 I wouldnt be so sure, that all systems had arabs inside them. most were manned by Russians. Serbs also defeated F117 with old S125=NEVA. Point is, very powerful radar is controlling cheap reliable missiles.
@@ottohonkala6861 by defensive doctrine he means that soviet air defense favours ground based defensive to offensive air defence, its a doctrinal term, not a reflection on geopolitics
@@ottohonkala6861 what propaganda? russia has one carrier ship and handful of military bases around the world. while US has entire fleet of carriers military bases almost in every place of earth and every president waged at least one war. Furthermore even officially US assaults everyone with sanctions who is threatening US world domination.
THAAD it's a hi altitude interceptor (50+ km altitude) daatinated for intercept balistic missiles , guidance infrared seeker , S-400 it's a SAM for aerodynamic maneuvering targets up to 35km with semni active radio seeker , 2 different destinations .
I think a good comparison of the two would be to examine the kill chain of the two systems. The fact one can detect a stealth does not mean the radar systems are sensitive enough to detect a threat and kill it.
The proper comparison would be the Standard missile system with Aegis/Aegis Ashore. Just as S-400 includes different missiles, so too does the Standard missile 2, 3 and 6
@@_Coffee4Closers Aegis was primarily designed as a ship board system so in the sense it is mobile. However I do see your point. The US doesn’t put emphasis on mobile systems the way the Russians do though. They rely on having Air Supremacy over territory they defend.
@@ravenmoon5111 Yes, and after I posted I considered the fact that the Aegis is mobile in the sense that its usually on ships. However, I decided against modifying my comment due to the fact that you specifically referred to the "ashore" version. I would still argue that the Patriot is the US Army's main mobile air defensive system, as it is land based and mobile. I agree it might be a better system if it worked with a wider selection of missiles, for better battlefield capability. Since the US has always relied on Air dominance with their fighters and attack aircraft we take a somewhat different approach to air defense than the Russians. The Russians know that can not beat the US or NATO in the air war so they have decided to focus on anti air systems to counter Western air power. However in the end that is not a winning strategy because low observable stealthy aircraft are a real thing, and just like in the Gulf war air defenses will be quickly eroded with jamming, cruise missiles, decoys and stealth leaving the sky's clear for Western aircraft to own the sky. After that its just a matter of time before its over. The Russians understand this and it's why they are working hard to develop their own low observable aircraft, so far with limited success.
Two completely different intended uses THAAD is an anti ballistic missile system and cant shoot down aircraft. The S400 is primarily an anti aircraft system than has the ability to shoot down some ballistic missiles. You'd want to compare the patriot to the S400 and the S400 trumps it in every single way. The S500 is a better comparison, but the S500 has the ability to take down aircraft, ballistic and hypersonic missiles.
@@furiouswolf2566 omg saudi dont own the system its american who control everything check recent news where america is taking back there patriot from saudi hahahahhaa just search the news you will know the truth america dont wants world to see their useless patriot thats why they taking back hahahahhahha
I am no military expert but S400 seems like a much better bang for buck. It's cheaper, and much more versatile and can handle a variety of things from fighter jets to cruise missiles and stealth air craft, and has more rockets. It's just a no brainer. But if the THAAD has a higher success rate, it might be a better investment for very specific ballistic missile threat scenarios as long as the buyer is willing to afford the enormous price tag.
The problem with the S-400 is that it's a sitting target while THAAD is diversified into multiple defenses like patriot missiles, satellites, F-35, F-22 and stealth bombers... So, in the big scheme of things, THAAD is much better... Like the old proverb, don't put all your eggs in one basket... "Don't put all your eggs in one basket is a proverb that warns not to invest all of your resources into a single thing because you might lose everything"...
Mostly because ALL American weapons are over priced. Find me a single significant uS military weapons programme that didn’t have huge costs overruns 😂 its americas trademark lol
@@bighit20100 The only reason why we know the U.S. programs have cost overrun is because the U.S. is the only one between U.S., Russia, and China to released their spending and having to answer to public Senate hearing. Every program have cost overrun, it only a matter of transparency. Example would be the Russia Su-57, that plane was promised and pushback atleast half a dozen time. The only bad information to released about it came out publicly was when India pull out of the joint program saying it was not feasible and too expensive. If it wasn't for that, we would have never knew anything about turbulence development of Su-57 since Russia is very hush-hush about the cost of development and how combat ready it is.
@@quangthai7258 Pricing has to be disclosed because they're private contractors developing the technology for our military, without these disclosures you can't hold those companies accountable for cost overruns, whereas Russia and China are doing their development and production under state owned entities, meaning there's nothing obligating them to disclose the pricing outside of a generalized military budget.
thaad is superior at engaging ballistic missiles, S-400's price is also unreliable. US missiles have much better internal components and are much more accurate. This is true for missiles like SM-2 and patriot as well.
@@marjanperveinis8355 its bombed by Israel F-16s sevral times, he say that 🤣🤣🤣 yes, yesterday bombed again 😅😅😅 every raid by Israel is succece but its proven😂😂😂
Some planes can be detected at 400km. the idea all planes can be missile locked at that distance is naivity. Most recent jets can only be missile locked half that distance (if S400 low band radar can lock on stealth fighters so close or lock at all - may be unable to some point to - low band radars - provide weapon guidance due both to bad resolution and accuracy; only If linked to other radar stations (both ground based and airborne), can they provide effective means for early target acquisition - but not 400km for sure -; using an array of different radar bands for triangulation and scanning suspect regions). Smart was India breaking the deal with the SU57 project, rejecting the naval mig-29 (in others cons, it can only take off from a carrier with half of its main payload); Also smart were Egipt, Argelia and Indonesia for rejecting the promissing su-35, with vintage avionics and electronics (like the radar, most likely unable to early locate F-35's alike before getting hit hard beyond visual range - the dogfight talk is bs, it's almost impossible to happen with modern jets), beside no parts will be available for maintenance while the embargo to Russia continues (Ruskies don't even have chips for themselves...)
@@pedromiguelalmeida4446 If dog fight is not possible nowadays then why you need so advanced missile platforms to fight enemy jets? All you need would be balloon with radar and long range missiles attached and thats it.. Ok, maybe some huge Boeing like plane if you need to wonder bit further away... So why all this hustle with expensive fighter jets if no dog fights are expected any longer?
@@pedromiguelalmeida4446 It is not - thats why I ask why you cant stick to balloon? After all for such attack your jets parameters(like speed, "stealth"m etc) are irrelevant, arent they? So what if enemy can see you? As long as your rockets have longer ranger you should be on safe side - dont you? After all your rockets will hit enemy with 100% proximity anyway...
Why some nations trust Russia product, what Russian make good product in international market , there is none. If any nation by Russia weapons it a just waste money. Look in the past war.
Why is this comparison even a thing? One is explicitly for anti-ballistic missile defense while the other is a general purpose SAM with limited anti-ballistic missile capability.
Hy everyone. I’m a pretty old man, and don’t know much about missiles. But still can remember the Soviet era Katyusa. So what I seen on this video, the Us version is a poorer version of that. Less firepower in numbers of course. And why having just four or six on one unit? And the S 400 is a much smarter version of anything was produced anywhere. My conclusion, don’t use any of them, the are able to kill people to!
You are correct 100%, that presentation should be classified as "total professional" unlike most of them who dip their scales in favour of their country.👍
It's not bias when your opponent has done nothing but lie about the capabilities of their systems for the last three decades, and their peers spent billions of dollars building and testing systems that outperform the specifications that they were designed to beat.
What people don't understand is that THAAD is a ballistic missile defense system. The S-400 range for Ballistic Missile Defense is 60 km compared to the THAAD's 200 km, and the Flight ceiling (altitude) of the S-400 is even lower compared to THAAD. The target detection range of the S-400 is 600km, while the THAAD's radar can detect and track targets 3 000 km away, the 200 km range is that of the interceptor missile and more range is not needed as the system kills incoming ballistic missiles in their terminal phase. So if you understand how ballistic missile defense works, and the specs of both systems you'll understand that when it comes to Ballistic Missile Defense the THAAD is vastly superior to the S-400, and has more than 3 times the range than the S-400.
the detection range is not that important. I mean system detect target 3k away and shoot at 100 km away, coz missile has small range). You rather make smaller radar, like S400 or upgrade missiles like S500. That why all military wanted to buy Russian system or forced to buy THAAD in credit. And by the way, the real target detection range of S400 is classified.
@@youtuberfun4545 You can't shoot it at further range cos you shot the missile in it's terminal phase (when it's coming down) get it??? They can make the missile fly 1000 km but it won't matter as there is no point. As I said you need to know how ballistic missiles work to understand the system. Btw the THAAD is strictly ballistic missile defense system and it doesn't engage any other targets.
@@youtuberfun4545 Also people buy other systems cos they're all round and for multiple threats, you only buy THAAD if you need it strictly for ballistic missile defense but you need to be a rich country to do that as it doesn't pays off for most countries. But when it comes to ballistic missile defense it's certainly much superior to the S-400.
The comparison is not on comparable systems, The Russian counterpart of the THAAD is the S-500, that also has an anti-satelite function not the S-400. Russian S-400 systems have a number of different radar systems, with different operating frequencies in order to allow wide dispersal of the system's batteries (up to 125 miles from the Battalion CP), a significant improvement over the 27 miles of the S-300. The combination of these AESA radars also detects stealth targets (if the NEBO-M UHF radar is included) at significant distances. One additional advantage of the Russian system is it's 360 degree coverage, while US systems have a limited operational sector for each missile battery. Also the S-400 is more versatile since it can use a number of different missiles, for medium (25 miles) to long (75 miles) ranges, being quad packed in each of the four launch tubes, very long range missiles (125 miles) and extreme range (250 miles) missiles that are specially designed to balletically intercept from above, aircraft like AWACS and JSTARS. Each S-400 Battalion besides it's three S-400 batteries, includes a PAZIR S2 or TOR Battery in order to protect it's Radars from Anti-Radar missiles like the HARM. Also the S-400 system is supposed to have a 5 minute deployment time from the travelling position. So I would have to say that even the S-400 system is better than the THAAD, because of it's higher versatility, deployment time and 360 degree coverage. All of this information comes from open sources on the internet.
THAAD - Produced 2008-present... S-400 Triumf - In service 28 April 2007 - present... S-500 Prometey - In-service September 16th, 2021... case closed most of you don't know anything and can't even search google!!!
@@zeblanmaidaynovich796 It's you who doesn't know jack sh@t, Looking for info in google doesn't give you much and most of the info, although it may be useful has many inaccuracies. The mission is what matters and not the date in service. You can't compare a primarily Air Defense system like the S300/S400 with the THAAD that is an anti missile system. The S300/S400 systems do have anti-missile capabilities but so does the Patriot. The S500 is an anti missile system with additional anti satellite capabilities, so this is the counterpart of THAAD.
Дело не в этом. С400 перехватывает маневрирующие цели до 4-5 МАХ. Ни одна западная система не может перехватывать маневрирующие цели на такой скорости.
@@АнтоДив The S-400 is a very good system, but I would not be so sure about what you say. The faster a target flies, the less maneuverable it becomes, even if it can maneuver, because of a large turning radius due to the aerodynamic and G forces involved. Besides the Mach number is altitude dependent and does not mean that an object actually moves faster in Km/h, because the sound moves slower at a higher altitude than in SL. The thin air at very high altitude, is the reason why systems like the THAAD, PAC3 and SAMP-T do not depend on aerodynamic surfaces for course correction, in order to engage maneuvering targets.
@@FLORATOSOTHON Я понимаю на счет звука в разной среде. Дело в том что ТХААД и прочие западные системы могут перехватывать ракеты и боеголовки которые летят по исключительно правильной траектории. Поэтому такие вещи как боеголовки ракет "воевода" , ЯРС, САРМАТ, а так же Искандер, для ТХААД недоступны, потому что все они маневрирующие. Чтобы иметь хотя бы некоторую вероятность поражения всго лишьодной такой боеголовки нужно запустить около десятка ракет ТХААД. И гарантия будет довольно мала... Это давно известная информация от которой тщательно оберегают умы жителей западных стран. В том то и достижение российских конструкторов, что создается не только меч который невозможно отразить, но и щит который может отразить такой меч. И с400 часть этого щита. Она может отразить любую даже перспективную ракету типа Искандера. Таких ракет на западе еще нет, а щит уже готов. С500 тоже самое только для перспективных ракет средней дальности и МБР. И их тоже пока нет на западе.
I will take the high altitude (93 miles vs 19 miles) attack capability, the 2900-mile radar detection (vs ~250 miles), and 100% accuracy rate in favor of the THAAD
@MTF_Savage_Beasts i edited a spelling mistake :) And yes, I can say that the Americans have the best interceptors. There's a reason why Chinese Air force copies USA designs and not the Russian ones.
THAAD is more likely a slice of orange. Because most of us air defence entagrated with each other. On the other hand s400 is itself an orange even if it stands alone it can protect an area at a certain level
It doesn't seem like the trust being given to the specifications and performance of the S-400 as reported by the Russians matches anything we've seen in reality. If the S-400 were as effective as claimed by Russia, there wouldn't still be a Ukrainian Air Force. We gave Russia a pass when their S-300 was almost completely ineffective during a tomahawk cruise missile strike in Syria... But the only way Ukraine plays out the way it has is if the S-300 and S-400 are massively over hyped.
Quite the contrary, Ukraine is using their old modifications of S-300 with an amazing performance taking down not only Russian fighter jets but even ballistic missiles ‘Iskander’ - those are extremely hard targets with a near-ground speed of Mach 2.2 and the S-300 was even not supposed to do that in the first place. So this speaks volumes about the capabilities of the system or great training of the operators.
@@coolguy_2997 Perhaps the difference is due to training and maintenance between operators, but if the S300 and S400 A2AD systems used by Russia were as effective as Russia has claimed then no Ukrainian aircraft would still be able to fly. Seems clear the Russian claims about the system and its effectiveness are exaggerations, at least when Russia is operating them. This makes me doubt the claims about S500 effectiveness, at least if it's in Russian hands.
@@a24396 You have to take the size of Ukraine into account, as well as the fact that no matter how good the radar is, a low-flying aircraft can avoid it. Even with missiles that can reach out to 400 kilometers, the S-400 couldn't interdict the entire Ukraine. And keeping them close to frontline is stupid, because they're not invincible, especially to drones. They're in use where applicable, and more mobile and self-contained Buks, Tors, and Pantsirs are used for the majority of tasks. The S-400 deployed in Krym is the reason the Kerch strait bridge is safe from Ukrainian attack, for example.
@@SeanMirrsen I understand what you're saying, but, the claims of effectiveness don't match the real world outcomes we're seeing. This makes the claims about the effectiveness of the system more hype than reality. Also, if the system must be placed so far away for its own protection that it's ineffective at providing air defense against the enemy air threat, then it's really not worth buying, is it? As for the other systems? Seems to me this is the most heavily defended airspace ever to see a modern war - and the effectiveness of the air defense systems the Russians have (had?) should, in theory, have been enough to have shut down the Ukrainian Air Force. But even now, after months of attrition, the initially limited Ukrainian Air Force continues to fly. Not a very good indicator of the effectiveness of Russian air defense systems. Or to put all of this another way: the much lauded S-300 systems and all of the accompanying supporting systems seem to be as capable as the previously feared T-72/T-80/T-90 series of MBTs.
I guess they are both good at doing what they are designed to do. The problem is each will only kill the first incoming missiles and NOT the swarm behind them when all missiles have been expended.
@@nem1 I know that I was just saying no one can actually say which country Air Force is better between Russia and the USA. Actually American Navy plans.
When you already have mid and short range defense systems Thaad would be the choice.There are many different ways to attack with nuclear weapons cruise missiles by planes by non balistic misiles even with artillery and torpeedoes.If intercontinental missiles is the threath Thaad is made for that or SM types of ship launched misiles is the way to go.Long range would not work against stealth.S400 is best for long range air defence.Short range systems are widely aviable and Russian ones are not effective as been proven by Turkish UAV attacks.That makes S400 good for medium range and long range non stealth hunter.I am from Turkey and sadly I found out S400 was not acceptable for NATO countries.We were out of the F35 project cause of the sanctions.We wanted the best fighterjet and air defence system together.S400 was the choice at that time but Turkish industuries start developing promising defence systems.In few years we can have similar product with reverse engineering.We can. understand NATO's concerns about F35 s radar signature can be captured or other critical intel can reach Russia.S400 can well become a Trojan horse.Russia does not share friend foe target identification codes so we cannot use them as they are.Anyway we may develop NATO friendly system out of it.Now we are building air defence frigates to protect our nation and assist friendly nations.Turkey cannot afford to buy everything from other countries we are not a rich nation.To keep the money in the pocket we need tech transfer from friendly nations.One way or another we will start producing all of our defence needs at the future.Othervise we will be bankrupt.Thaad and S400 is not compareable.Wish you could have them both😁 They are both defensive weapons each for different purpose.All nations has the right to defend themselves from all kinds of threats.Nobody has to feel threatened by defence product such as radars misile interceptors etc. they are not as dangerous as intercontinental missiles ,nuclear torpeedoes etc.
you were greedy. on one hand you wanted US F-35's. on the, other, giving it's technology to the russians via the S400 system. what, do you really thought Russia didn't use backdoors on those to exploit NATO equipment ups and downs? Next time buy all products at the same store. A NATO country allying with the reds; how naif can you be? The world is not perfect nor fair, buddy
@@pedromiguelalmeida4446 Насколько же глупы люди. Жертвы пропаганды. США мировой преступник и террорист. Не Россия окружает базами США, а наоборот. Зачем США полезли в Украину? Зачем США устроили войну во Вьетнаме, Ливии,Югославии, Ираке,Сирии(это США создали ИГИЛ и снабжали оружием).
@@alexkhiz30031977 yeah, yeah. and russia does not want to rebuild as it was former as USSR. take a walk, pall. both sides use propaganda, but none shut more the blinders to it's own people than the russian regime - and by far!
As a stand alone comparison system , unfortunately, I would rate the Russian system much more proficient in both efficiency and cost effectiveness ... Not to mention that s 500 is now deployable , replacing s 400
Not really. S-400 is a tool which Russia built for every situation but it is not the best in any of the cases. THAAD is made specifically to destroy ICBMs so if we want a comparison between both we have to look at how capable they are at killing ICBMs. In that there is no question. THAAD is the clear winner. It can detect the target from much much further away and it can destroy it much faster as well as it can go basically in space. So it is not more proficient when compared against THAAD in killing ICBMs
@@napobg6842 no not ICBM THAAD is capable of shooting down short -> medium -> intermediate range ballistic missiles and arguably icbm that has a speed of less than MACH 8
@@napobg6842 So anything that has 5.5 km Is intercontinental. If an icbm such as RS 28 Sarmat with it's speed of Mach 20 and range of 18k km. Since Russia 5,518 mile away from US it's gonna take the Sarmat around 7 minute to reach the continental US. THAAD with its speed of Mach 8 can't shoot it down the sarmat on its terminal phase because of the speed.
Though Im no expert, S-400 vs Patriot vs Iron Dome is a better comparison. THAAD is built for high altitude interception against ballistic missiles, and the higher, the better success rate it has. S-400 is good all around at lower altitudes, but its not practical for shooting down drones as its battery is also expensive. Iron Dome is better in that regard.
@@ogbonnasam9997 The S400 still has great bursts of complexes from hitting Ukrainian drones for $500 and ATACSM. The Russians have a lot of rumors about their miracle weapon, but in reality it's complete nonsense. The fact that Russian air defense is garbage became clear by the first collisions with it by Israeli systems in Syria. In Ukraine, this has been confirmed dozens of times, including with the S400 - there are many confirmations on the web about the successful destruction of these miracle systems
for my opinion the thaad has a very good counterpart weapons. I dont care what any kinds of misiles there is" as long as have a capable to intercept the incoming enimy misiles and can manuever to attack and defence the area thats it.
Dude, THAAD´s radar is fixed, with a limited arc. It fails at tracking low flying cruise missiles/aircraft (due to Earth´s curvature), and cannot easily track incoming targets from behind, which means the new hypersonic missiles can maneuver around it with impunity. For something that expensive, you´d think they went the extra mile and place the radar emitter in a swivel and on wheels. That thing is so low in the ground, that you can sneak up to it in a low flying aircraft and take it out. It was meant to counter ballistic threat from the 80s and 90s, not suited for today´s battlefield.
A much more interesting inquiry would be: “How did the Israeli F35s avoid being caught by the Syrian S-400s and took out their air defense before bombing the airports and planes”?
@@shrimanramprasad9835 You are correct. In 2018, the Israeli air force attacked Syrian air base in the province of Homs (used by Iran), while the S-400s were stationed near Damascus.
If S-400 is inferior, why is the US very keen on preventing other countries from acquiring S-400 from Russia, it is counter-intuitive, if you ask me. US wants to rule the roost in sales of its weapons systems to foreign countries, if any country wants to be independent in the development of its aerospace program like France, the US tries to prevent those countries from acquiring key components which would help them sell their weapons systems to their buyers, cheap behaviour, I would say...
@@deven6518 do you really think that Russia would be willing to accept US systems with the idea of stopping its own weapons development?, if US does that, it would be giving its defence secrets away. Yeah, maybe Russia might consider receiving the THAAD just to study its strengths and weaknesses and to upgrade the S-400 in case there is some capability or technological advances in the THAAD which the S-400 would not have (in case!), other wise I doubt that Russia would stop its weapons development just to use US systems instead.
@MrGriff305 It is not just about money but also about defence, if US does not do everything that it possibly can to stall the weapons development of other countries, it fears that it might run into an enemy with unknown capabilities. E.g., the Mirage Rafale is a more capable plane than the F-16, F-15 or F-18 while one may argue that these American planes have been used in actual warfare and the Rafale has not, red flag exercises have clearly shown the limitations of the older airframes of the F-15, F-16 and F-18 compared to the Rafale's delta-canard configuration which gives it a better turn rate than both these planes, only the F-22 and F-35 can match or exceed the Rafale in the current American inventory, F-15, F-16 and F-18 have airframes from the 70's with upgraded avionics and better weapon systems. E.g., America upgraded the sidewinder to the AIM-9X configuration since the USAF mostly flies and tries to sell older planes (except F-22 and F-35 and other stealth aircraft) so to make up for the lacuna in their performance, it upgrades their avionics, radar and weapon systems and tries to cram the older airframes of the F-15, F-16 and F-18 with these capabilities. Yet America tries every dirty trick in the book to prevent sales of the French Rafale to potential buyers in other countries, that is just how cheap America's defence industry is. It wants the whole world in its leash by selling weapon systems whose capabilities it knows very well so as to avoid that unknown X-factor that would scare the US military if it meets an opponent with its own creative weapons. That is why it tries very hard to suppress defence industries of other developed countries like France. This is my point, money is not the only reason but also strategy, if US sells F-15, F-16 and F-18 to new foreign customers and prevents them from acquiring weapons systems from other countries, it kills 2 birds with 1 stone: i) suppress the defence industries of other developed countries which are sellers and ii) giving everyone weapons with known capabilities so that it knows that it will not face an opponent with unknown capabilities in a future warfare scenario.
Problems with USA is it is paranoid & requires decisioin making which takes years before they decide to sell anything. Russia, you decide to buy, they will start manufacturing. USA would like Buyer to sign unending contracts, committments, and later itself backs out.
US THAAD vs Russia’s S-400 Are you serious? Would have been more interesting to have Thaad vs Khordad 15. But I'm sure the Khordad 15 is better too, since they're compared to the S-400
The Saudis do not want U.S. air defenses. They didn't show themselves from the best side in 2019. Husid missiles hit two oil refineries and the US air defense could not resist. Now the Saudis are negotiating with the Russian.
Not so fast though THAAD is Basically a Mini Patriot system sort of like the David's sling. THAAD is not a replacement for the Patriot it is a compliment to the system, Patriot has 900Km rang mach 18 RIM-161 for ICBMs, and it is so accurate it can even hit a stealth cruise missile decoy at mach 0.9 low altitude, and for low Altitude threats they have the 3D thrust vectoring Arrow 3, with a 2400 km range. THAAD is a quantity thing trying to get more missiles in the sky faster. S-400 is more like the Patriot they have more comparable sized tubes. I assume THAAD probably has missiles to shoot at Fighters, but they are focused on just having compact 6 tube ballistic missile defense trucks. The have a Dedicated truck for different stuff, a Longbow Missile Launcher has 16 AIM-9X for Helicopters, jets or ground close range. The NAVY would use a SM-6 for a long range Fighter, but I'm not sure exactly what a land-based SAM system from the Marines or army would fire at Jets. They might just be loading up the sm-6 in The Patriot it does fit, but I'm pretty sure they have a dedicated sm-6 launcher I'm just not sure what they call it. But they might also be loading up Peregrine missiles in the longbow missile launcher for medium range. It seems like the US military in general has very little concerned about foreign Fighters.
I like them both for their purposes that design it for but what springing me is the speed of the s-400. Unfortunately, I haven't see both of them in action in real life other than the might of IRON DOME.
Didn't a local radio station in Germany picked up an F-35 not long ago? F-35 was a project to make fast money, and it is easily located by passive radars, so there is no need for S-400 to deal with that garbage, S-300 will do the job
Fighter aircraft in Europe operate in radio clear far more often than in the U.S., Middle East or Asia. They could have been communicating on Guard (121.5) or interacting with another agency on an open frequency. This isn't unusual.
Radar is like a flash light in a dark room you could only see what the flash light is pointed at, but everyone else can see that you have flash light on. same goes for sonar. Part of the reason why submarine won't just sending sonar pings everywhere and rely on passive sonar. The same can be said for stealth aircraft, they will simply turn off their radar and rely on their allies like AEW, AWACS, and other non stealth ally plane.
Lol F35 has capability of turning off and on its stealth, when its on combat you wouldnt see it, ask russia lol. The real deal here was the arrow 3 of israel, that missile defense system was 5x more powerful than s400, arrow 3 is hypersonic missile defense system with 2000km range and it is anti ICBM, ballistic and intermediate missile. Do a research because you would be amaze on it. But thats for US and israel only, not for sale with others.
The S-400 can NOT defend against stealth aircraft…. That’s a selling point Russia puts in their pamphlets that they hand out to potential buyers of their S-400 systems. Russia is really floating on a cloud for that ONE TIME they shot down a stealth aircraft (the old and now retired F-117 Nighthawk) when that stealth aircraft flew the exact same route every day at the exact same time and some commander of a SAM battery had the clever idea of putting scouts with radios all along that route that would radio in when they saw it. Wanna know what the fix for getting shot down was? They flew DIFFERENT ROUTES at DIFFERENT TIMES and they NEVER shot down a stealth aircraft EVER again and those same stealth aircraft blew up A LOT of shit for the rest of that war. Russia got lucky because we got over confident in our stealth technology and the fix was very easy.
The S-400 clearly has the greater capabilities. However, with the data sharing between systems, far superior satellite tech and coverage, and far greater (in both tech and numbers) stealth assets it's clear the US defense systems are still second to none. Stand alone though, the S-400s are clearly better.
@how le me u have no proof of that, no media is covered this. besides, Ukraine does not have a large fleet of aircraft and mostly fight on the ground
S300 were garbage in Ukraine mightiest well include the 400 and 500 along with it. These systems are not proven in warfare. So far the 300s were crap shits.
You made me laugh, “S400 have tried and tested in Syria” ? As far as I know Syria received S300 from Russia in 2018, and it was never used against Israelis planes, why? Because it can’t detect the Israelis planes. I would say Russian weapons are good on paper but useless in war
@@daile6030 Omg you again??? Useless on war?? Did you ever in your life read atleast a little about soviet afghan war???? The terrorist group needed Stingers from the US to destroy soviet Mi-24 because they had insane armor against 50 cal and even 14mm guns. Or another example: the T-80U that made the West rush MBT''s research such as Leopard 2A5. Another example? Soviet submarines were feared by the US because of their capability of carrying ICBMs, so much so, Ohio class came inspired and rushed because of them
@@St.Matthew422 what I know is: thousand of Russian made tanks were destroyed in Iraq and not a single American or Western tank was destroyed by Russian tanks. The Iraqi airforce (consists of mainly Russian planes) are so useless, they didn’t drop any bombs at all, and they escaped to Iran. Now in Syria, do you know how many planes did Russia lost? How many SU24 were shot down by F16? And Russia dared not use the S400 to fight back. And remember the short war between Armenia and Azerbaijan? Armenia with Russian weapons were lost to Azerbaijan with the help of Turkey’s F16 and UAV
@@daile6030 First of all: Iraq had downgraded versions of russian vehicles because its common for them ( Russia ) to always do that since most of the time the people that buy from them have no experience with the vehicles and are extremely stupid, and im not even pointing out for the fact that the Iraqi Airforce was basically destroyed also, are you so stupid that you think Iraq would destroy the USAF? that literally fought the USSR for over 61 years in Korea, Vietnam and almost in Europe? These dudes couldnt even invade Iran with air superiority, secondly the VAST majority of shotdowns in Syria is caused by Syrian rebels and not by western planes, you can see that by searching "List of shootdowns and accidents during Syrian civil war" and you can actually can see that 70% of the "kills" were caused by technical failures, and the Syrian Air force even destroyed a Israeli UAV, destroying or partially in total 7 Israeli aircraft, 3 Jordan and 11 Turkish and considering that their airforce is crippled, this is a good number and third azerbaijan won that war because of air supperiority not because "uga buga russia bad" UAVs are proving that they are becoming even more important in the modern warfare, that war proved it because the armenian airforce is basically non-existing ( being mostly built by helicopters and only 27 airplanes ) and if you try to think, you can see that planes ALWAYS dominate tanks because they cant respond to a fast and long range threat such as an airplane with a bullpup or ATGM at 10 km of distance coming at Mach 1
@@daile6030 when U make comment about Iraq and Syria war, u need to consider who are they fighting against. Israel has almost as advanced weapon as US. Are u expecting a small country equipped a limited range of weapon fight against US or country equipped with similarly advanced weapon ? The war is not determined by single weapon, it is about the whole system. How would u expect Syria or Iraq have same power system against US or Israel?
The S-400 is an air defense system. THAAD is an anti-missile system. THAAD does not know how to destroy aircraft. The S-400 is good at destroying aircraft and can destroy missiles. THAAD should be compared to the S-500. The S-500 can destroy missiles and aircraft. In air defense, Russia is the best country on the planet.
THAADS look so sophisticated and advanced. They seem pretty cool to me in terms of geeky tech.... But man...even the names of Russian weapons smell of raw power..
It is amazing to me that Russia can do what it does with the budget it has. USA just throws money at everything. And as a citizen of the USA, I'm sure glad we have the money to spend on it. But some day someone is going to point out a flaw in our equipment and it won't be pretty since we're so networked and reliant upon certain technologies.
THAAD is to be used against ballistic missiles which reach supersonic speeds on orbit reentrance. Duh.... And still, as most pointed out, the S400 and THAAD are not comparable due to their different roles.
@@sol2wit781all icbm are hypersonic on its re entry trajectory. Where have you been living? Current hypersonic Russian hypersonic missiles are mostly ICBM based functions, but with supposed a better guided missile instead of much order pre programmed nuclear ogives. No Russian nor Chinese hypersonic missiles use ramjet systems. The US is also working on one or two versions, but none to my knowledge is yet operational
Overall Thadd is a better system when Syria was using the S400 Israel’s Air Force was able to knock out all S400s systems with using F 15 F 16s and the pilots that flew F 35s weren’t even seen I believe the S 400 system is clearly overrated the Russians are known for putting higher limits on their weapon systems and for the state it limits on the Russian weapon systems are not really true. Thadd It is a much newer weapon system and the limits that the United States puts on your weapon systems are accurate but in some cases the true limitation of such weapons are hidden due to national security issues.
The THAAD works more effective at specific targets, as it has a wider range of range... S400 is more for defending against a big group of air treaths who try to overwhelm on short range... Still the S400 has a weakness against artillery and drones as well to planes with a larger range as their aiming is far better, wich would make THAAD work in the end better if the army has their other equipments set right and coöperate well....
@@saadnahid6495 it has, but the Valkyrie drones got a range of 4000+ km... and the F35 has also a bigger range... Then talking about space weapons and increasingly laser weapons who easily can take out those s400 systems and you know its kinda useless as the laser is way faster in shooting and a lot cheaper in use too....
I suggest you try to shoot down a salvo from the Soviet "Grad" of 1960s, an analogue of himars, with the American THAAD, or Pftriot. The result will be the same. Stop talking nonsense and misleading.
THAAD is a VERY task-specific system. The "logical" thing to do is to have: THAAD , PATRIOT , NASAM , C-RAM , IM-SHORAD , MANPAD integrated under the same AA command . Greetings .
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video. No propaganda or bringing up fake reasons why one is better than other
So nice of you for appreciating.
I hate videos that try and panda to Americans or panda 2 Russians. The entire world knows that both of these systems are very capable and both would do a fine job shooting down area. Targit's I totally agree that no propaganda or bringing up fake things about. Either tool is very important to me as well.
Now lets go to the comment section
to listen to what the experts have to say.
Nobody claims to be Experts here.
Thank you.
I appreciate your deference to my expertise.
I don't let total ignorance stop me from being an expert.
Exactly everyone in the comment section is a military weapon expert😆😆😆
yep i agree there, all joking aside, the s-class is unbeatable thus far. sorry guys.
@@derryman9006 yah even American military expert have admited
If you had to pick one system for your entire military, go for the S-400, but if you have other anti-air systems and you need one to specifically target ballistic missiles, the THAAD system is better. The S-400 was seemingly developed to be an all-around air defense unit while the THAAD system is designed specifically to take on ballistic missile threats. I think a more fair comparison would be the S-400 against the Patriot Missile System.
@Damon Salvatore I checked, it was backordered until March 2022. Bummer!
A-230 Nudol is for ICBMs
@Damon Salvatore
Thank you💕
@Damon Salvatore did u get your order ? It's showing out of stock for me😭
My country has taken S-400 for Army
THAAD is a limited sector theater ballistic missile defense. S-400 is all encompassing wide area defense system. They’re made for different purposes.
S400 only good at shooting down civilians planes
@@godzillaeatsushi4979 any examples?
@@godzillaeatsushi4979 and also for 5 th generation jet fighters and evrything flying is usful
Must be why they keep turning it off when the Israelis fly nearby. Me thinks the russian missal defense system isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. Especially when you have your normal russian soldier running the thing. Also, it needs a separate defense system to run with it or it’s easily defeated.
@@Aphxphotog You only think that because you have idea how these things work.
THAAD is a theater ballistic missile defense system designed to be faced in a particular threat sector and used in conjunction with Aegis and Patriot systems. Comparing THAAD and S400 is comparing apples and oranges
Lmao. Typical Americans huh. They want you to splash out another 900m a piece for the other 2 systems to get what you can basically get for your country with a S400 lol
@@Osealey unless the S-400 doesn't work well.
@@Osealey hows that russian tech working in Ukraine? You fanboys are a joke
@@Osealey ? S400 isn't as good as THAAD for ballistic missiles
@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle really?
It would appear to me that the real comparison should be between the latest version of THAAD and the S500, which appears, like THAAD, to be mainly a ballistic missile defense system.
exactamente
@@frencissaliru9733 lollop poll pop p pop p pop pop I’ll popp lol ok pop pop lol l lol pop pop p pop pop pop
Is this a question or just being dumb? S500 can’t even find F22s/F35s
@@lostbirdsproduction It would relay data to corespondent AA system like S4xx or other suitable.
@@maxinfly I wrote you something very long but I accidentally closed it and I don't have the time to re-write it. Just keep checking.. you will find the answer you seek eventually. Thanks
The S-400 has 2 radars, a search radar and a tracking radar. The search one is the tall one, the tracking is the square one.
Most American systems have more than 4 SLC, Main Array among others you clearly don't know about Air defense
@@17SAIMPOINT wasnt talking about american air defense systems tho.
@Ed Ducate you don't know Air defense systems do you
do you know the term : mid course means??? or even boost phase means?? etc
@Ed Ducate I can tell
S500 would be more counterpart to THAAD. S400 acts together with a lot of medium to short range Soviet/Russian systems, Tor, Igla, Verba, Tunguska, Pantsir, and so on. Russian units are overwhelmed with AA defense. S400 can be networked with other short and medium range systems to coordinate . There are also containers with medium range smaller missiles for S400 tubes , so it doesnt waste this giant missile for less significant target. Older Soviet made AA systems have very good missiles, that do have good small to medium range, but older radars are prone to miss due to modern electronic jamming. Networking KUB/BUK systems to a S400 gives massive number of medium range CHEAP missils that are made in kazillion bazillion numbers during Soviet era and are still in use.
Thank you for sharing such valuable information.
uros kostic dont forget that syrian arab air defence forces (SyADF) used 50yrold soviet SAMs to successfully shot down 71-103 tomahawk cruise missles in 2018 that showed the capabilities of how powerful Soviet SAMs is!💯
@@adibmouhanna6823 I wouldnt be so sure, that all systems had arabs inside them. most were manned by Russians. Serbs also defeated F117 with old S125=NEVA. Point is, very powerful radar is controlling cheap reliable missiles.
@@uroskostic8570 yeah and i also heard the serbs modified their soviet era radars to detect stealth aircraft like the F117
If the 4h is better why there is 5h
No expert but the Russians appear to have a truly layered air defence system!
Its due to the defensive focused doctrine which makes their missile and radar research way more advanced than any country.
@@f9658 defensive doctrine? spare me the propaganda.
@@ottohonkala6861 by defensive doctrine he means that soviet air defense favours ground based defensive to offensive air defence, its a doctrinal term, not a reflection on geopolitics
@@ottohonkala6861 what propaganda? russia has one carrier ship and handful of military bases around the world. while US has entire fleet of carriers military bases almost in every place of earth and every president waged at least one war. Furthermore even officially US assaults everyone with sanctions who is threatening US world domination.
Thaad has less features compared to S - 400 but double the cost
but it actually works
Even Iran Took Down THAAD😂
@@gufran_khan1 When? Where?
The THAAD has failed many times , the recent Saudi Arabia incident is a shining example.
😂👌🏻they can't shoot down rockets and drones
Sad to knockout less price with expensive like thaad
@@BrixSG lol
it was Patriot defense system.. THAAD mainly porpuse is the Ballistic missle..
THAAD is for ballistic missiles that was the patriot system you are talking about
THAAD it's a hi altitude interceptor (50+ km altitude) daatinated for intercept balistic missiles , guidance infrared seeker ,
S-400 it's a SAM for aerodynamic maneuvering targets up to 35km with semni active radio seeker , 2 different destinations .
I think a good comparison of the two would be to examine the kill chain of the two systems. The fact one can detect a stealth does not mean the radar systems are sensitive enough to detect a threat and kill it.
None sense if you can detect a stealth the rest is child play- pray to god America or the west improve our defenses
Great point
The proper comparison would be the Standard missile system with Aegis/Aegis Ashore.
Just as S-400 includes different missiles, so too does the Standard missile 2, 3 and 6
Yes but Aegis is not a mobile system. Patriot would be the correct direct comparison.
Is this a question or just being dumb? S500 can’t even find F22s/F35s
@@_Coffee4Closers
Aegis was primarily designed as a ship board system so in the sense it is mobile.
However I do see your point. The US doesn’t put emphasis on mobile systems the way the Russians do though. They rely on having Air Supremacy over territory they defend.
@@ravenmoon5111 Yes, and after I posted I considered the fact that the Aegis is mobile in the sense that its usually on ships. However, I decided against modifying my comment due to the fact that you specifically referred to the "ashore" version.
I would still argue that the Patriot is the US Army's main mobile air defensive system, as it is land based and mobile. I agree it might be a better system if it worked with a wider selection of missiles, for better battlefield capability. Since the US has always relied on Air dominance with their fighters and attack aircraft we take a somewhat different approach to air defense than the Russians. The Russians know that can not beat the US or NATO in the air war so they have decided to focus on anti air systems to counter Western air power. However in the end that is not a winning strategy because low observable stealthy aircraft are a real thing, and just like in the Gulf war air defenses will be quickly eroded with jamming, cruise missiles, decoys and stealth leaving the sky's clear for Western aircraft to own the sky. After that its just a matter of time before its over.
The Russians understand this and it's why they are working hard to develop their own low observable aircraft, so far with limited success.
@@_Coffee4Closers
Yes. I agree. Good post👍
We have s400 so it’s best suited for our needs….doesn’t matter who builds….we will get what is best for us.- 🇮🇳
Idem for Algeria
Haha but then you got spinning radar how lame
💯% true 😎 S400 is best
The S-300 on the Moskva didn't do so well in recent combat.
Score: Anti-ship missiles, 2 : S-300, 0.
S300 was not on the Moskva you dolt. 😒
Two completely different intended uses
THAAD is an anti ballistic missile system and cant shoot down aircraft. The S400 is primarily an anti aircraft system than has the ability to shoot down some ballistic missiles.
You'd want to compare the patriot to the S400 and the S400 trumps it in every single way.
The S500 is a better comparison, but the S500 has the ability to take down aircraft, ballistic and hypersonic missiles.
s400 straight
@DoubleAplays the Patriot was proven useless in Arabia
@@deltacharlieromeo8252 But have success in gulf war check it dumb.Those Saudi's doesn’t know how to use it.
@@furiouswolf2566 omg saudi dont own the system its american who control everything check recent news where america is taking back there patriot from saudi hahahahhaa just search the news you will know the truth america dont wants world to see their useless patriot thats why they taking back hahahahhahha
@@nazmicasseer9056 no Those patriot was operating by saudis😊😊
I am no military expert but S400 seems like a much better bang for buck. It's cheaper, and much more versatile and can handle a variety of things from fighter jets to cruise missiles and stealth air craft, and has more rockets. It's just a no brainer. But if the THAAD has a higher success rate, it might be a better investment for very specific ballistic missile threat scenarios as long as the buyer is willing to afford the enormous price tag.
The problem with the S-400 is that it's a sitting target while THAAD is diversified into multiple defenses like patriot missiles, satellites, F-35, F-22 and stealth bombers... So, in the big scheme of things, THAAD is much better...
Like the old proverb, don't put all your eggs in one basket...
"Don't put all your eggs in one basket is a proverb that warns not to invest all of your resources into a single thing because you might lose everything"...
Mostly because ALL American weapons are over priced. Find me a single significant uS military weapons programme that didn’t have huge costs overruns 😂 its americas trademark lol
Would you rather go into battle with a Claymore or a Swiss army knife?
@@bighit20100 The only reason why we know the U.S. programs have cost overrun is because the U.S. is the only one between U.S., Russia, and China to released their spending and having to answer to public Senate hearing. Every program have cost overrun, it only a matter of transparency. Example would be the Russia Su-57, that plane was promised and pushback atleast half a dozen time. The only bad information to released about it came out publicly was when India pull out of the joint program saying it was not feasible and too expensive. If it wasn't for that, we would have never knew anything about turbulence development of Su-57 since Russia is very hush-hush about the cost of development and how combat ready it is.
@@quangthai7258 Pricing has to be disclosed because they're private contractors developing the technology for our military, without these disclosures you can't hold those companies accountable for cost overruns, whereas Russia and China are doing their development and production under state owned entities, meaning there's nothing obligating them to disclose the pricing outside of a generalized military budget.
S400 is a cost effective and proven system while THAAD is an expensive, ineffective and complex systems that no one want
thaad is superior at engaging ballistic missiles, S-400's price is also unreliable. US missiles have much better internal components and are much more accurate. This is true for missiles like SM-2 and patriot as well.
Oh that's why THADD had 100% success rate when texted, you tripping john..
@David Moore tested I meant sorry
S400 is proven system? in which battle it is 'proven'?
@@marjanperveinis8355 its bombed by Israel F-16s sevral times, he say that 🤣🤣🤣 yes, yesterday bombed again 😅😅😅 every raid by Israel is succece but its proven😂😂😂
well done keep going!👏👌👍💯
Thank you! 😃
Here you dropped this… 🧠
S400 already has missles at 400km range. That is what India is getting, compared to China's 250km only range. S400 is more versatile.
@Damon Salvatore he's from gutter
Some planes can be detected at 400km. the idea all planes can be missile locked at that distance is naivity. Most recent jets can only be missile locked half that distance (if S400 low band radar can lock on stealth fighters so close or lock at all - may be unable to some point to - low band radars - provide weapon guidance due both to bad resolution and accuracy; only If linked to other radar stations (both ground based and airborne), can they provide effective means for early target acquisition - but not 400km for sure -; using an array of different radar bands for triangulation and scanning suspect regions). Smart was India breaking the deal with the SU57 project, rejecting the naval mig-29 (in others cons, it can only take off from a carrier with half of its main payload); Also smart were Egipt, Argelia and Indonesia for rejecting the promissing su-35, with vintage avionics and electronics (like the radar, most likely unable to early locate F-35's alike before getting hit hard beyond visual range - the dogfight talk is bs, it's almost impossible to happen with modern jets), beside no parts will be available for maintenance while the embargo to Russia continues (Ruskies don't even have chips for themselves...)
@@pedromiguelalmeida4446 If dog fight is not possible nowadays then why you need so advanced missile platforms to fight enemy jets? All you need would be balloon with radar and long range missiles attached and thats it.. Ok, maybe some huge Boeing like plane if you need to wonder bit further away... So why all this hustle with expensive fighter jets if no dog fights are expected any longer?
@@Mr_MikeB attack beyond the horizon. Is that a new concept to you?
@@pedromiguelalmeida4446 It is not - thats why I ask why you cant stick to balloon? After all for such attack your jets parameters(like speed, "stealth"m etc) are irrelevant, arent they? So what if enemy can see you? As long as your rockets have longer ranger you should be on safe side - dont you? After all your rockets will hit enemy with 100% proximity anyway...
Russian S 400 is the best in missiles systems not the American THAAD missiles 😁😀😁😀
Oof somone doesn't knkw their military tech the 2 shouldn't even be compared
No system is that full proof, let’s hope these systems are never used in anger by Russia or the USA
Why some nations trust Russia product, what Russian make good product in international market , there is none. If any nation by Russia weapons it a just waste money. Look in the past war.
@@tankay862 look at past where f16 was shot down by Mig21 lol!
Why is this comparison even a thing? One is explicitly for anti-ballistic missile defense while the other is a general purpose SAM with limited anti-ballistic missile capability.
S-400 anti ballistic missile capability is much better than THAADs due to better radar and higher speed of interceptors.
Hy everyone. I’m a pretty old man, and don’t know much about missiles. But still can remember the Soviet era Katyusa. So what I seen on this video, the Us version is a poorer version of that. Less firepower in numbers of course. And why having just four or six on one unit? And the S 400 is a much smarter version of anything was produced anywhere. My conclusion, don’t use any of them, the are able to kill people to!
Открою небольшой секрет.... Нет у вас противоракетной обороны от слова совсем мы её обнулили своим гиперзвуком
My opinion is we cannot say that this is better only when actual war will decide
You are correct 100%, that presentation should be classified as "total professional" unlike most of them who dip their scales in favour of their country.👍
It's not bias when your opponent has done nothing but lie about the capabilities of their systems for the last three decades, and their peers spent billions of dollars building and testing systems that outperform the specifications that they were designed to beat.
What people don't understand is that THAAD is a ballistic missile defense system. The S-400 range for Ballistic Missile Defense is 60 km compared to the THAAD's 200 km, and the Flight ceiling (altitude) of the S-400 is even lower compared to THAAD. The target detection range of the S-400 is 600km, while the THAAD's radar can detect and track targets 3 000 km away, the 200 km range is that of the interceptor missile and more range is not needed as the system kills incoming ballistic missiles in their terminal phase. So if you understand how ballistic missile defense works, and the specs of both systems you'll understand that when it comes to Ballistic Missile Defense the THAAD is vastly superior to the S-400, and has more than 3 times the range than the S-400.
the detection range is not that important. I mean system detect target 3k away and shoot at 100 km away, coz missile has small range). You rather make smaller radar, like S400 or upgrade missiles like S500. That why all military wanted to buy Russian system or forced to buy THAAD in credit. And by the way, the real target detection range of S400 is classified.
@@youtuberfun4545 You can't shoot it at further range cos you shot the missile in it's terminal phase (when it's coming down) get it??? They can make the missile fly 1000 km but it won't matter as there is no point. As I said you need to know how ballistic missiles work to understand the system. Btw the THAAD is strictly ballistic missile defense system and it doesn't engage any other targets.
@@youtuberfun4545 Also people buy other systems cos they're all round and for multiple threats, you only buy THAAD if you need it strictly for ballistic missile defense but you need to be a rich country to do that as it doesn't pays off for most countries. But when it comes to ballistic missile defense it's certainly much superior to the S-400.
What people don't understand is that THAAD need to be compared with s500.
@@dacsus S-500 is not in service yet, so we can't compare operational systems with nonoperational ones. When it comes into service we'll compare it.
The comparison is not on comparable systems, The Russian counterpart of the THAAD is the S-500, that also has an anti-satelite function not the S-400. Russian S-400 systems have a number of different radar systems, with different operating frequencies in order to allow wide dispersal of the system's batteries (up to 125 miles from the Battalion CP), a significant improvement over the 27 miles of the S-300. The combination of these AESA radars also detects stealth targets (if the NEBO-M UHF radar is included) at significant distances. One additional advantage of the Russian system is it's 360 degree coverage, while US systems have a limited operational sector for each missile battery. Also the S-400 is more versatile since it can use a number of different missiles, for medium (25 miles) to long (75 miles) ranges, being quad packed in each of the four launch tubes, very long range missiles (125 miles) and extreme range (250 miles) missiles that are specially designed to balletically intercept from above, aircraft like AWACS and JSTARS. Each S-400 Battalion besides it's three S-400 batteries, includes a PAZIR S2 or TOR Battery in order to protect it's Radars from Anti-Radar missiles like the HARM. Also the S-400 system is supposed to have a 5 minute deployment time from the travelling position. So I would have to say that even the S-400 system is better than the THAAD, because of it's higher versatility, deployment time and 360 degree coverage. All of this information comes from open sources on the internet.
THAAD - Produced 2008-present... S-400 Triumf - In service 28 April 2007 - present... S-500 Prometey - In-service September 16th, 2021... case closed most of you don't know anything and can't even search google!!!
@@zeblanmaidaynovich796 It's you who doesn't know jack sh@t, Looking for info in google doesn't give you much and most of the info, although it may be useful has many inaccuracies.
The mission is what matters and not the date in service. You can't compare a primarily Air Defense system like the S300/S400 with the THAAD that is an anti missile system. The S300/S400 systems do have anti-missile capabilities but so does the Patriot. The S500 is an anti missile system with additional anti satellite capabilities, so this is the counterpart of THAAD.
Дело не в этом. С400 перехватывает маневрирующие цели до 4-5 МАХ. Ни одна западная система не может перехватывать маневрирующие цели на такой скорости.
@@АнтоДив The S-400 is a very good system, but I would not be so sure about what you say. The faster a target flies, the less maneuverable it becomes, even if it can maneuver, because of a large turning radius due to the aerodynamic and G forces involved. Besides the Mach number is altitude dependent and does not mean that an object actually moves faster in Km/h, because the sound moves slower at a higher altitude than in SL. The thin air at very high altitude, is the reason why systems like the THAAD, PAC3 and SAMP-T do not depend on aerodynamic surfaces for course correction, in order to engage maneuvering targets.
@@FLORATOSOTHON Я понимаю на счет звука в разной среде.
Дело в том что ТХААД и прочие западные системы могут перехватывать ракеты и боеголовки которые летят по исключительно правильной траектории. Поэтому такие вещи как боеголовки ракет "воевода" , ЯРС, САРМАТ, а так же Искандер, для ТХААД недоступны, потому что все они маневрирующие. Чтобы иметь хотя бы некоторую вероятность поражения всго лишьодной такой боеголовки нужно запустить около десятка ракет ТХААД. И гарантия будет довольно мала...
Это давно известная информация от которой тщательно оберегают умы жителей западных стран.
В том то и достижение российских конструкторов, что создается не только меч который невозможно отразить, но и щит который может отразить такой меч.
И с400 часть этого щита. Она может отразить любую даже перспективную ракету типа Искандера.
Таких ракет на западе еще нет, а щит уже готов.
С500 тоже самое только для перспективных ракет средней дальности и МБР. И их тоже пока нет на западе.
I will take the high altitude (93 miles vs 19 miles) attack capability, the 2900-mile radar detection (vs ~250 miles), and 100% accuracy rate in favor of the THAAD
@MTF_Savage_Beasts that’s why there are the PATRIATE system designed for that plus intercepter aircraft and destroyers all on stand by
@MTF_Savage_Beasts "Russia has best interceptor aircraft in the world Mig-31. " AHAHAHAHAHA ahahaha aAAHAHAHAHAHHA
@MTF_Savage_Beasts sure thing, mig 31 downed hundreds of enemy fighters.
Have you ever been to Russia?
@MTF_Savage_Beasts it is not said anything about mig-31. This is just simping for the Soviets.
@MTF_Savage_Beasts i edited a spelling mistake :)
And yes, I can say that the Americans have the best interceptors. There's a reason why Chinese Air force copies USA designs and not the Russian ones.
At Ukraine’s theatre the present time. Russia S300 & S400 couldn’t stopped US M142 HIMARS.
Разберись в вопросе и никогда не говори глупостей
@@alexkhiz30031977 правда всегда правда.
Very well done, very well done, i like the background sound too.
Given the specialization of THAAD, I think this was an apples to oranges comparison.
THAAD is more likely a slice of orange. Because most of us air defence entagrated with each other. On the other hand s400 is itself an orange even if it stands alone it can protect an area at a certain level
Comparing the thaad and s-400 I'll go for s-400 russia is focused and perfect to their air defense systems because of the air supperioty of US
That is a fact
Russian weapons work 30% of time
It doesn't seem like the trust being given to the specifications and performance of the S-400 as reported by the Russians matches anything we've seen in reality. If the S-400 were as effective as claimed by Russia, there wouldn't still be a Ukrainian Air Force. We gave Russia a pass when their S-300 was almost completely ineffective during a tomahawk cruise missile strike in Syria... But the only way Ukraine plays out the way it has is if the S-300 and S-400 are massively over hyped.
Quite the contrary, Ukraine is using their old modifications of S-300 with an amazing performance taking down not only Russian fighter jets but even ballistic missiles ‘Iskander’ - those are extremely hard targets with a near-ground speed of Mach 2.2 and the S-300 was even not supposed to do that in the first place. So this speaks volumes about the capabilities of the system or great training of the operators.
So the later and more advance systems as the S-400 and in-testing S-500 should be greatly potent.
@@coolguy_2997 Perhaps the difference is due to training and maintenance between operators, but if the S300 and S400 A2AD systems used by Russia were as effective as Russia has claimed then no Ukrainian aircraft would still be able to fly.
Seems clear the Russian claims about the system and its effectiveness are exaggerations, at least when Russia is operating them.
This makes me doubt the claims about S500 effectiveness, at least if it's in Russian hands.
@@a24396 You have to take the size of Ukraine into account, as well as the fact that no matter how good the radar is, a low-flying aircraft can avoid it. Even with missiles that can reach out to 400 kilometers, the S-400 couldn't interdict the entire Ukraine. And keeping them close to frontline is stupid, because they're not invincible, especially to drones. They're in use where applicable, and more mobile and self-contained Buks, Tors, and Pantsirs are used for the majority of tasks. The S-400 deployed in Krym is the reason the Kerch strait bridge is safe from Ukrainian attack, for example.
@@SeanMirrsen I understand what you're saying, but, the claims of effectiveness don't match the real world outcomes we're seeing. This makes the claims about the effectiveness of the system more hype than reality.
Also, if the system must be placed so far away for its own protection that it's ineffective at providing air defense against the enemy air threat, then it's really not worth buying, is it?
As for the other systems? Seems to me this is the most heavily defended airspace ever to see a modern war - and the effectiveness of the air defense systems the Russians have (had?) should, in theory, have been enough to have shut down the Ukrainian Air Force. But even now, after months of attrition, the initially limited Ukrainian Air Force continues to fly.
Not a very good indicator of the effectiveness of Russian air defense systems.
Or to put all of this another way: the much lauded S-300 systems and all of the accompanying supporting systems seem to be as capable as the previously feared T-72/T-80/T-90 series of MBTs.
One item that these videos never add into the comparisons, the quality of the manufacturing.
I guess they are both good at doing what they are designed to do.
The problem is each will only kill the first incoming missiles and NOT the swarm behind them when all missiles have been expended.
Russia has usually been one ahead of us in missile tech while us has air superiority
No one can actually say in a dogfight between Russia and the USA who will win. All the wars the US has fought was against weaker countries.
@@brianjett1446 when did Russia fight a war against a comparable opponent? Russia has only fought weaker countries too
@@nem1 I know that I was just saying no one can actually say which country Air Force is better between Russia and the USA. Actually American Navy plans.
Oh no. The USAF is way better. The planes have better range and better records and tech.
@@SeeLasSee no in a war the US Navy would carry out the mission not the air force.
When you already have mid and short range defense systems Thaad would be the choice.There are many different ways to attack with nuclear weapons cruise missiles by planes by non balistic misiles even with artillery and torpeedoes.If intercontinental missiles is the threath Thaad is made for that or SM types of ship launched misiles is the way to go.Long range would not work against stealth.S400 is best for long range air defence.Short range systems are widely aviable and Russian ones are not effective as been proven by Turkish UAV attacks.That makes S400 good for medium range and long range non stealth hunter.I am from Turkey and sadly I found out S400 was not acceptable for NATO countries.We were out of the F35 project cause of the sanctions.We wanted the best fighterjet and air defence system together.S400 was the choice at that time but Turkish industuries start developing promising defence systems.In few years we can have similar product with reverse engineering.We can. understand NATO's concerns about F35 s radar signature can be captured or other critical intel can reach Russia.S400 can well become a Trojan horse.Russia does not share friend foe target identification codes so we cannot use them as they are.Anyway we may develop NATO friendly system out of it.Now we are building air defence frigates to protect our nation and assist friendly nations.Turkey cannot afford to buy everything from other countries we are not a rich nation.To keep the money in the pocket we need tech transfer from friendly nations.One way or another we will start producing all of our defence needs at the future.Othervise we will be bankrupt.Thaad and S400 is not compareable.Wish you could have them both😁 They are both defensive weapons each for different purpose.All nations has the right to defend themselves from all kinds of threats.Nobody has to feel threatened by defence product such as radars misile interceptors etc. they are not as dangerous as intercontinental missiles ,nuclear torpeedoes etc.
you were greedy. on one hand you wanted US F-35's. on the, other, giving it's technology to the russians via the S400 system. what, do you really thought Russia didn't use backdoors on those to exploit NATO equipment ups and downs? Next time buy all products at the same store. A NATO country allying with the reds; how naif can you be? The world is not perfect nor fair, buddy
@@pedromiguelalmeida4446 Насколько же глупы люди. Жертвы пропаганды. США мировой преступник и террорист. Не Россия окружает базами США, а наоборот. Зачем США полезли в Украину? Зачем США устроили войну во Вьетнаме, Ливии,Югославии, Ираке,Сирии(это США создали ИГИЛ и снабжали оружием).
@@alexkhiz30031977 yeah, yeah. and russia does not want to rebuild as it was former as USSR. take a walk, pall. both sides use propaganda, but none shut more the blinders to it's own people than the russian regime - and by far!
Such a foolish comparision... S400 is way more advanced than any of the defense weapons that exist today
@☠ ᒪ𝕠𝓖𝐚𝐧 does not work 😅 try saying that to ukranians
@☠ ᒪ𝕠𝓖𝐚𝐧 what you saying...Himars are getting destroyed these days
@☠ ᒪ𝕠𝓖𝐚𝐧 lol....you just another western media fan boy
@@NIK-to3xs crimea is crying.. I tot s400 is advanced. Can't hit himars rocket
Israel 's defense system>>>>>>>>> which face 200 or more rockets every single day and no casualties
As a stand alone comparison system , unfortunately, I would rate the Russian system much more proficient in both efficiency and cost effectiveness ... Not to mention that s 500 is now deployable , replacing s 400
S-500 doesn't replace the S-400 it just deals with a different layer of air defence.
Not really. S-400 is a tool which Russia built for every situation but it is not the best in any of the cases. THAAD is made specifically to destroy ICBMs so if we want a comparison between both we have to look at how capable they are at killing ICBMs. In that there is no question. THAAD is the clear winner. It can detect the target from much much further away and it can destroy it much faster as well as it can go basically in space. So it is not more proficient when compared against THAAD in killing ICBMs
@@napobg6842 no not ICBM
THAAD is capable of shooting down short -> medium -> intermediate range ballistic missiles and arguably icbm that has a speed of less than MACH 8
@@DOHA104p3 well on the manual it says icbms 😂😂
@@napobg6842
So anything that has 5.5 km Is intercontinental. If an icbm such as RS 28 Sarmat with it's speed of Mach 20 and range of 18k km. Since Russia 5,518 mile away from US it's gonna take the Sarmat around 7 minute to reach the continental US. THAAD with its speed of Mach 8 can't shoot it down the sarmat on its terminal phase because of the speed.
Well information. Good show. Well information.
Though Im no expert, S-400 vs Patriot vs Iron Dome is a better comparison. THAAD is built for high altitude interception against ballistic missiles, and the higher, the better success rate it has. S-400 is good all around at lower altitudes, but its not practical for shooting down drones as its battery is also expensive. Iron Dome is better in that regard.
S-400 still beats them
@@ogbonnasam9997 Okay mr expert might as well say they can shoot down the moon.
@@ogbonnasam9997 The S400 still has great bursts of complexes from hitting Ukrainian drones for $500 and ATACSM. The Russians have a lot of rumors about their miracle weapon, but in reality it's complete nonsense. The fact that Russian air defense is garbage became clear by the first collisions with it by Israeli systems in Syria. In Ukraine, this has been confirmed dozens of times, including with the S400 - there are many confirmations on the web about the successful destruction of these miracle systems
Heavy stuff !!!! Scary to think someday both systems may be in action somewhere in the world !!!!
Is this a question or just being dumb? S500 can’t even find F22s/F35s
for my opinion the thaad has a very good counterpart weapons. I dont care what any kinds of misiles there is" as long as have a capable to intercept the incoming enimy misiles and can manuever to attack and defence the area thats it.
Dude, THAAD´s radar is fixed, with a limited arc. It fails at tracking low flying cruise missiles/aircraft (due to Earth´s curvature), and cannot easily track incoming targets from behind, which means the new hypersonic missiles can maneuver around it with impunity. For something that expensive, you´d think they went the extra mile and place the radar emitter in a swivel and on wheels. That thing is so low in the ground, that you can sneak up to it in a low flying aircraft and take it out. It was meant to counter ballistic threat from the 80s and 90s, not suited for today´s battlefield.
Russian s400 and s500 is the best anti aircraft defense systome in the world 🌎
A much more interesting inquiry would be: “How did the Israeli F35s avoid being caught by the Syrian S-400s and took out their air defense before bombing the airports and planes”?
А ха ха 35 даже в воздухе не был Сирии... И да у них с 125 пво 1968 года, а вот теперь у них есть 400 и да они не знают что 35 невидимка
If you think of it, it's operated by the Syrians. They usually don't get training the same as the Russians + Russia wouldn't give them the technology.
Because of Syrians?
Syrians had the s300 kindly verify.
@@shrimanramprasad9835
You are correct. In 2018, the Israeli air force attacked Syrian air base in the province of Homs (used by Iran), while the S-400s were stationed near Damascus.
S400 much better than THAAD
S400 is a little better but the newest s500 is totaly better than the thaad
S400 is mega better then THAAD
@@smeka88 you’re unbelievably ignorant
@@smeka88 there is literally no way to tell until both countries fight, that's not something I'd like to see.
@@stephenmyers7076 you re the one that's ignorant. Thaad is made for one thing yet s400 smokes it in it. S400 is multi purpose air defense system.
@@kosovoisserbia8937 who gives a shit if it cant shoot down its opponent you dumb ass
THAAD is way better for what it does. But the S-400 is better for a range of things and for the average country.
@Daniël Ulyev no it’s considered the most advanced aa system that Russia can build……BIG difference 😂
@Daniël Ulyev lol no it's not you russian troll...
Non-slavic guys here don't even know how russian systems suck at AAD
GREAT REPORT !!!! AS YOU SAID BOTH HAVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES WHEN LINESMD UP FACE TO FACE
good to know, guess ill be putting up some S-400s to protect my home! Thanks :D
Is this a question or just being dumb? S500 can’t even find F22s/F35s
with development of hypersonic missiles, the speed of interception is important. for me mach 14 wins
I do not know which one is better, but when Russia deployed S400 in Syria, F35 stopped working and withdrew.
Thaad (US) vs S-400 (Russia) Missile System comparison Beautiful.
The two systems are absolutely different...
Thaad basically has a more complex system to handle , which is often confusing for the operator.
U said that like if you are the one that build that system Lol
@@patatebanine4278 i read about it
S400 is an All-Rounder. Period!
ok thats why israel still bomb syria haahhaha
Гиперзвуковые системы, кинжал, циркон, авангард, помножили THAAD на ноль.
In teory
А потом ты проснулся и обнаружил что наделал в штаны
I think whoever start the fight will not be alive to see it end. In one word the average person will always pay the ultimate price.
excellent comparison.
Glad you enjoyed it
how about s-500?
It's perfect in theory
S600 is the best
Or s 700
Are there s 1000?
Maybe its the best of the best
If S-400 is inferior, why is the US very keen on preventing other countries from acquiring S-400 from Russia, it is counter-intuitive, if you ask me. US wants to rule the roost in sales of its weapons systems to foreign countries, if any country wants to be independent in the development of its aerospace program like France, the US tries to prevent those countries from acquiring key components which would help them sell their weapons systems to their buyers, cheap behaviour, I would say...
@@deven6518 do you really think that Russia would be willing to accept US systems with the idea of stopping its own weapons development?, if US does that, it would be giving its defence secrets away. Yeah, maybe Russia might consider receiving the THAAD just to study its strengths and weaknesses and to upgrade the S-400 in case there is some capability or technological advances in the THAAD which the S-400 would not have (in case!), other wise I doubt that Russia would stop its weapons development just to use US systems instead.
@MrGriff305 It is not just about money but also about defence, if US does not do everything that it possibly can to stall the weapons development of other countries, it fears that it might run into an enemy with unknown capabilities. E.g., the Mirage Rafale is a more capable plane than the F-16, F-15 or F-18 while one may argue that these American planes have been used in actual warfare and the Rafale has not, red flag exercises have clearly shown the limitations of the older airframes of the F-15, F-16 and F-18 compared to the Rafale's delta-canard configuration which gives it a better turn rate than both these planes, only the F-22 and F-35 can match or exceed the Rafale in the current American inventory, F-15, F-16 and F-18 have airframes from the 70's with upgraded avionics and better weapon systems. E.g., America upgraded the sidewinder to the AIM-9X configuration since the USAF mostly flies and tries to sell older planes (except F-22 and F-35 and other stealth aircraft) so to make up for the lacuna in their performance, it upgrades their avionics, radar and weapon systems and tries to cram the older airframes of the F-15, F-16 and F-18 with these capabilities.
Yet America tries every dirty trick in the book to prevent sales of the French Rafale to potential buyers in other countries, that is just how cheap America's defence industry is. It wants the whole world in its leash by selling weapon systems whose capabilities it knows very well so as to avoid that unknown X-factor that would scare the US military if it meets an opponent with its own creative weapons. That is why it tries very hard to suppress defence industries of other developed countries like France. This is my point, money is not the only reason but also strategy, if US sells F-15, F-16 and F-18 to new foreign customers and prevents them from acquiring weapons systems from other countries, it kills 2 birds with 1 stone: i) suppress the defence industries of other developed countries which are sellers and ii) giving everyone weapons with known capabilities so that it knows that it will not face an opponent with unknown capabilities in a future warfare scenario.
Problems with USA is it is paranoid & requires decisioin making which takes years before they decide to sell anything. Russia, you decide to buy, they will start manufacturing. USA would like Buyer to sign unending contracts, committments, and later itself backs out.
Well said 👍. 👍
actually thats not the reason why the us doesnt want countries buying s400 from russian
US THAAD vs Russia’s S-400
Are you serious? Would have been more interesting to have Thaad vs Khordad 15.
But I'm sure the Khordad 15 is better too, since they're compared to the S-400
The Saudis do not want U.S. air defenses.
They didn't show themselves from the best side in 2019. Husid missiles hit two oil refineries and the US air defense could not resist. Now the Saudis are negotiating with the Russian.
Yeah sure...
@@fantasea2617 yeah sure
THAAD is specific ballestic missile defence system and s-400 is multi purpose but specific air defence system.
Not so fast though THAAD is Basically a Mini Patriot system sort of like the David's sling. THAAD is not a replacement for the Patriot it is a compliment to the system, Patriot has 900Km rang mach 18 RIM-161 for ICBMs, and it is so accurate it can even hit a stealth cruise missile decoy at mach 0.9 low altitude, and for low Altitude threats they have the 3D thrust vectoring Arrow 3, with a 2400 km range. THAAD is a quantity thing trying to get more missiles in the sky faster. S-400 is more like the Patriot they have more comparable sized tubes. I assume THAAD probably has missiles to shoot at Fighters, but they are focused on just having compact 6 tube ballistic missile defense trucks. The have a Dedicated truck for different stuff, a Longbow Missile Launcher has 16 AIM-9X for Helicopters, jets or ground close range. The NAVY would use a SM-6 for a long range Fighter, but I'm not sure exactly what a land-based SAM system from the Marines or army would fire at Jets. They might just be loading up the sm-6 in The Patriot it does fit, but I'm pretty sure they have a dedicated sm-6 launcher I'm just not sure what they call it. But they might also be loading up Peregrine missiles in the longbow missile launcher for medium range. It seems like the US military in general has very little concerned about foreign Fighters.
Thaad is simply no match for capabilities of S-400
Lmao
THAAD 2,900 detection range and 93 ceiling TRUMPS S-400
Did you even watch the video
@Daniël Ulyev no , it is not.
Show me a video of a S-400 interception.
Lol
@@junkookbts1273 sorry that’s like asking to see a leprechaun riding a unicorn. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂👍
S400 is a little bit above the THAAD of the US.
CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH EACH OTHER.
I like them both for their purposes that design it for but what springing me is the speed of the s-400. Unfortunately, I haven't see both of them in action in real life other than the might of IRON DOME.
Didn't a local radio station in Germany picked up an F-35 not long ago? F-35 was a project to make fast money, and it is easily located by passive radars, so there is no need for S-400 to deal with that garbage, S-300 will do the job
Fighter aircraft in Europe operate in radio clear far more often than in the U.S., Middle East or Asia. They could have been communicating on Guard (121.5) or interacting with another agency on an open frequency. This isn't unusual.
f35 were operated in open space with electronics increased radar signature , the reals stealth capabilities are unknown
Radar is like a flash light in a dark room you could only see what the flash light is pointed at, but everyone else can see that you have flash light on. same goes for sonar. Part of the reason why submarine won't just sending sonar pings everywhere and rely on passive sonar. The same can be said for stealth aircraft, they will simply turn off their radar and rely on their allies like AEW, AWACS, and other non stealth ally plane.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Lol F35 has capability of turning off and on its stealth, when its on combat you wouldnt see it, ask russia lol. The real deal here was the arrow 3 of israel, that missile defense system was 5x more powerful than s400, arrow 3 is hypersonic missile defense system with 2000km range and it is anti ICBM, ballistic and intermediate missile. Do a research because you would be amaze on it. But thats for US and israel only, not for sale with others.
The S-400 can NOT defend against stealth aircraft…. That’s a selling point Russia puts in their pamphlets that they hand out to potential buyers of their S-400 systems. Russia is really floating on a cloud for that ONE TIME they shot down a stealth aircraft (the old and now retired F-117 Nighthawk) when that stealth aircraft flew the exact same route every day at the exact same time and some commander of a SAM battery had the clever idea of putting scouts with radios all along that route that would radio in when they saw it.
Wanna know what the fix for getting shot down was? They flew DIFFERENT ROUTES at DIFFERENT TIMES and they NEVER shot down a stealth aircraft EVER again and those same stealth aircraft blew up A LOT of shit for the rest of that war. Russia got lucky because we got over confident in our stealth technology and the fix was very easy.
THAAD- $900,000,000???? WTF!!! What is it made of? Of gold?
Even expert don't know what inside the system the inoy know more cost most effeceint
I would go for ThAAD because is designed for ballistic missiles and can travel to orbit next purpose is the shut down enemy satellites.
What is the status of the long range Thaad -er being developed?
I think thaad is more relailable than s400 bcoz in present Ukraine and russia war s400 is more failures to depend it self..
The S400 is pretty much better in my opinion due to its speed.
Speed of towing them ?
@GoldenBoyYT, what speed? of watching Israeli Air Force bomb Syria and be speedy on doing absolutely nothing? on that I may agree
Well in Syria S-400 faced many issues in engaging and was reportedly not able to engage with Americans destroyer raid when they fired on Syria.
The S-400 clearly has the greater capabilities. However, with the data sharing between systems, far superior satellite tech and coverage, and far greater (in both tech and numbers) stealth assets it's clear the US defense systems are still second to none. Stand alone though, the S-400s are clearly better.
but not in ukraine russian always overrated there items but in reality it dont performed that way ukraine is the testament
@how le me u have no proof of that, no media is covered this. besides, Ukraine does not have a large fleet of aircraft and mostly fight on the ground
@@howleme5903 are u stupid ? they were using soviet era tanks at start and yet they were doing heavy damage .
@@wagaboond6443 I mean they have a large fleet of drones kicking the shit out of them. pretty sure my garden pigeon is faster than those.
S300 were garbage in Ukraine mightiest well include the 400 and 500 along with it. These systems are not proven in warfare. So far the 300s were crap shits.
Thanks for the comparison.I think i'm gonna go with the S400 2024
I was told Thaad couldn't effectively target objects close to the ground. Is that true ?
S400 have been tried and tested in real-life war scenarios (Syria). Plus it's cheaper.
You made me laugh, “S400 have tried and tested in Syria” ? As far as I know Syria received S300 from Russia in 2018, and it was never used against Israelis planes, why? Because it can’t detect the Israelis planes. I would say Russian weapons are good on paper but useless in war
@@daile6030 Omg you again??? Useless on war?? Did you ever in your life read atleast a little about soviet afghan war???? The terrorist group needed Stingers from the US to destroy soviet Mi-24 because they had insane armor against 50 cal and even 14mm guns. Or another example: the T-80U that made the West rush MBT''s research such as Leopard 2A5. Another example? Soviet submarines were feared by the US because of their capability of carrying ICBMs, so much so, Ohio class came inspired and rushed because of them
@@St.Matthew422 what I know is: thousand of Russian made tanks were destroyed in Iraq and not a single American or Western tank was destroyed by Russian tanks. The Iraqi airforce (consists of mainly Russian planes) are so useless, they didn’t drop any bombs at all, and they escaped to Iran. Now in Syria, do you know how many planes did Russia lost? How many SU24 were shot down by F16? And Russia dared not use the S400 to fight back. And remember the short war between Armenia and Azerbaijan? Armenia with Russian weapons were lost to Azerbaijan with the help of Turkey’s F16 and UAV
@@daile6030 First of all: Iraq had downgraded versions of russian vehicles because its common for them ( Russia ) to always do that since most of the time the people that buy from them have no experience with the vehicles and are extremely stupid, and im not even pointing out for the fact that the Iraqi Airforce was basically destroyed also, are you so stupid that you think Iraq would destroy the USAF? that literally fought the USSR for over 61 years in Korea, Vietnam and almost in Europe? These dudes couldnt even invade Iran with air superiority, secondly the VAST majority of shotdowns in Syria is caused by Syrian rebels and not by western planes, you can see that by searching "List of shootdowns and accidents during Syrian civil war" and you can actually can see that 70% of the "kills" were caused by technical failures, and the Syrian Air force even destroyed a Israeli UAV, destroying or partially in total 7 Israeli aircraft, 3 Jordan and 11 Turkish and considering that their airforce is crippled, this is a good number and third azerbaijan won that war because of air supperiority not because "uga buga russia bad" UAVs are proving that they are becoming even more important in the modern warfare, that war proved it because the armenian airforce is basically non-existing ( being mostly built by helicopters and only 27 airplanes ) and if you try to think, you can see that planes ALWAYS dominate tanks because they cant respond to a fast and long range threat such as an airplane with a bullpup or ATGM at 10 km of distance coming at Mach 1
@@daile6030 when U make comment about Iraq and Syria war, u need to consider who are they fighting against. Israel has almost as advanced weapon as US. Are u expecting a small country equipped a limited range of weapon fight against US or country equipped with similarly advanced weapon ? The war is not determined by single weapon, it is about the whole system. How would u expect Syria or Iraq have same power system against US or Israel?
The S-400 is an air defense system. THAAD is an anti-missile system. THAAD does not know how to destroy aircraft. The S-400 is good at destroying aircraft and can destroy missiles. THAAD should be compared to the S-500. The S-500 can destroy missiles and aircraft. In air defense, Russia is the best country on the planet.
THAADS look so sophisticated and advanced. They seem pretty cool to me in terms of geeky tech....
But man...even the names of Russian weapons smell of raw power..
👎
India is right in purchasing S-400
How did the S-300 on the Russian flagship Moskva do against two subsonic anti-ship missiles?
Thanks
It is amazing to me that Russia can do what it does with the budget it has. USA just throws money at everything. And as a citizen of the USA, I'm sure glad we have the money to spend on it. But some day someone is going to point out a flaw in our equipment and it won't be pretty since we're so networked and reliant upon certain technologies.
S-400 for sure because it can also destroy hypersonic weapons. THAAD is useless to new threats
THAAD is to be used against ballistic missiles which reach supersonic speeds on orbit reentrance. Duh.... And still, as most pointed out, the S400 and THAAD are not comparable due to their different roles.
@@pedromiguelalmeida4446True but not Hypersonic ICBM's because they would just dodge the thaad
@@sol2wit781all icbm are hypersonic on its re entry trajectory. Where have you been living? Current hypersonic Russian hypersonic missiles are mostly ICBM based functions, but with supposed a better guided missile instead of much order pre programmed nuclear ogives. No Russian nor Chinese hypersonic missiles use ramjet systems. The US is also working on one or two versions, but none to my knowledge is yet operational
@@Maddog-xc2zv i’m talking about Russia’s hypersonic glide vehicle warhead. It can dodge thaad. You should use a lazer to destroy it.
@@sol2wit781yeah? It still does have a ballistic curve. can be shot before descending/re-entering atmosphere. by thaad, yes.
Invation of Ukrain tell us the true story.
Well this happens in both sides especially the bordering regions where it is hard to intercept missiles
American trying to make guns. Russians Making guns. That's the different)
S-400 of course.
as we have seen in Ukraine, the S-400 is highly over rated, and not capable of defending against any type of threat
Overall Thadd is a better system when Syria was using the S400 Israel’s Air Force was able to knock out all S400s systems with using F 15 F 16s and the pilots that flew F 35s weren’t even seen I believe the S 400 system is clearly overrated the Russians are known for putting higher limits on their weapon systems and for the state it limits on the Russian weapon systems are not really true. Thadd It is a much newer weapon system and the limits that the United States puts on your weapon systems are accurate but in some cases the true limitation of such weapons are hidden due to national security issues.
We have seen how effective Russian army is🤣🤣Like every russian weapon, s400 is also overrated
America lost to vietnam and afghanistan both of which weren't even conventional militaries
Nice channel 👌👌👌
Stay connected
THAAD is just a kid infront of S-400
S-400 👍
The THAAD works more effective at specific targets, as it has a wider range of range... S400 is more for defending against a big group of air treaths who try to overwhelm on short range... Still the S400 has a weakness against artillery and drones as well to planes with a larger range as their aiming is far better, wich would make THAAD work in the end better if the army has their other equipments set right and coöperate well....
🤦♂️ LMAO
You know that S-400 has a range of 400KM right?
@@saadnahid6495 it has, but the Valkyrie drones got a range of 4000+ km... and the F35 has also a bigger range... Then talking about space weapons and increasingly laser weapons who easily can take out those s400 systems and you know its kinda useless as the laser is way faster in shooting and a lot cheaper in use too....
@@msnowner Laser is far behind. It has less range than any SAM currently available
@@msnowner also, laser cannot used against ground units
it’s all in theory. in the reality, S400 cannot do much about HIMARS GMLRS missiles.
I suggest you try to shoot down a salvo from the Soviet "Grad" of 1960s, an analogue of himars, with the American THAAD, or Pftriot. The result will be the same. Stop talking nonsense and misleading.
@@ДиМа-ш3я9с you russians always talk bullshit and never accept the reality
THAAD is a VERY task-specific system. The "logical" thing to do is to have: THAAD , PATRIOT , NASAM , C-RAM , IM-SHORAD , MANPAD integrated under the same AA command . Greetings .
What they tell you and what they both can actually do are very different. Tell the enemy one thing and do another .