Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Intercepting Iskander

    Share

    Deep Throat
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 100
    Points : 132
    Join date : 2013-05-22

    Intercepting Iskander

    Post  Deep Throat on Wed Dec 25, 2013 11:06 am

    Kremlin has confirmed that it has deployed Iskander Missiles on NATO borders.

    http://rt.com/news/iskander-missile-deployment-russia-317/

    This came in response to the development of the US missile defense system in Europe .

    Now the ISKANDER is capable of manoeuvring in it's flight path towards it's target making it difficult for interceptor missiles to intercept it .

    However , will it not be possible to intercept the ISKANDER during the terminal homing phase because that's when the ISKANDER will not be able to manoeuvre ?

    zg18
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 872
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2013-09-26
    Location : Zagreb , Croatia

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  zg18 on Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:33 pm

    Deep Throat wrote:However , will it not be possible to intercept the ISKANDER during the terminal homing phase because that's when the ISKANDER will not be able to manoeuvre ?

    Boost phase thrust vector control (TVC) is accomplished by graphite vanes similar in layout to the V-2 and Scud series tactical ballistic missiles. In flight, the missile follows a quasi-ballistic path, performing evasive maneuvers in the terminal phase of flight and releasing decoys in order to penetrate missile defense systems. The missile never leaves the atmosphere as it follows a relatively flat trajectory. The missile is controlled during the whole flight with gas-dynamic and aerodynamic control surfaces. It uses a small scattering surface, special coatings, and small size projections to reduce its radar signature.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 26, 2013 5:06 am

    The terminal phase of flight of any guided missile involves manouvering... how else will it hit the target?

    Performing 3D manouvers to impact reduces speed but makes interception rather difficult...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Deep Throat
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 100
    Points : 132
    Join date : 2013-05-22

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  Deep Throat on Thu Dec 26, 2013 9:28 am

    GarryB wrote:Performing 3D manouvers to impact reduces speed but makes interception rather difficult...

    But Garry , the chances of interception rises when speed is reduced . The ISKANDER once it achieves a lock on is not going to "un lock" itself to try and manoeuvre first , and then again achieve a lock on .

    It would have been good but that's not possible . Best practice is to fire more than one interception missile against an incoming hostile missile.

    Therefore , with a careful selection of countermeasures/decoys and manoeuvre the ISKANDER may be able to escape two incoming missiles but will not be able to do so against more 3 or 4 interception missiles .

    It certainly raises the cost for the adversary to defend themselves as they will have to fire 3 or 4 interceptors at various altitudes but eventually will intercept it .

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 26, 2013 11:38 pm

    Sorry, my friend... you seem misinformed about how guided missiles work.

    With the optical guidance mode of the Iskander a satellite photo of the target and surrounding area is photographed and scanned into the missiles guidance system... it could be an enormous X band radar antenna for example.

    Once that is in there with the coordinates of the launch position and the targets position the guidance system can develop a flight path that is both efficient and difficult to predict.

    The missile is fired and performs manouvers all the way to the target area.

    Once it is within a certain distance from the target the cap will be ejected and the onboard optics will scan for the target in the vicinity of the coordinates of the target. When it spots the target it can perform any flight manouver it likes on its way down to the target without breaking its lock.

    It certainly raises the cost for the adversary to defend themselves as they will have to fire 3 or 4 interceptors at various altitudes but eventually will intercept it .

    Firing lots of interceptor missiles certainly increases the chance of interception, but the ABM systems being deployed in Europe are not designed to intercept targets inside the atmosphere... they are designed to intercept missiles flying over on their way to the US... they are a mid course defence system.

    If you imagine the problem itself... a missile coming down at mach 5-6 means that one second later that missile will be well over 1km away from where it was a second ago means a turn of 5 degrees will shift the intercept point almost instantly a km or two... what sort of missile can deal with that sort of problem... even excluding decoys and countermeasures?

    Three changes of trajectory moves the intercept point three times each time over 3km... even the best defensive system will have serious problems.

    The only solution that comes to mind is increase the speed of the interceptor to make it nearly instantaneous... ie laser, or very short range system located right next to the target sort of like a CIWS.

    The problem with the former is cost and rate of fire and toxic chemicals, while the problem with the latter is that if the target is a nuke it might be a high air burst to take out the radar antenna, which will render all other attempts at ABM useless... you have to be able to see what is coming, and antennas heated to several thousand degrees don't work reliably.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  Sujoy on Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:15 pm

    Deep Throat wrote:But Garry , the chances of interception rises when speed is reduced .

    It's actually the other way round . By dropping speed and then subsequently manoeuvring the Iskander will put the onus on the intercepting missile to do the same .

    Hannibal Barca
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1219
    Points : 1241
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Sat Dec 28, 2013 4:42 pm

    I don't think that anything can intercept a missile with the performance characteristics of Iskander.
    Anti-missile defense technology is limited to very trivial cases, almost exclusively against subsonic cruise missiles
    and even then, under favorable circumstances.

    All the hype gets support for diplomatic reasons and as a mechanism for the civilians to fell safe and invulnerable
    and as a tool of national pride because Americans specifically find it hard to swallow that their so much hyped country
    can cease to exist if someone in Russia or in India or in China decide so.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 29, 2013 9:41 am


    But Garry , the chances of interception rises when speed is reduced .

    To explain it properly you need to see an interception as a mathematics problem

    If a target has a high speed that does make interception harder, but if it is flying a predictable path at a constant decaying speed then it is not as hard as you might think.

    A simple unguided ballistic missile in the target end of its flight trajectory is just falling like a fired bullet... you can sample its speed and flight trajectory and extrapolate that to a specific point in space in front of the incoming warhead. Fly an interceptor missile to that place so that it is there at the same time the target arrives and you have an interception.

    The problem is 4D maths, where the first three dimensions are x,y,and z coordinates in longitude, latitude, and altitude. The fourth critical dimension is time. If you can get your interceptor missile to the same point (3D) in space and also at the same point in time then you have an intercept.

    The speed of the target moves the intercept point ahead of the target on its current trajectory but if it is not manouvering then that path is very predictable.

    Slowing the target down by half shortens the distance to the intercept point considerably, but then making the target able to turn can radically shift that interception point.

    Also keep in mind the interception system has no idea what manouvers the incoming target might make so it can't anticipate turns or changes in speed or course... it has to closely track the target and measure its manouvers in real time and continually calculate new interception points... a 20 degree turn might take a fraction of a second to perform but for the interception system to realise it has changed course comes from finding the tracked target is now deviating from the path it was following... the new path needs to be tracked and analysed, a new trajectory calculated and new interception path generated and new interception point calculated that already launched interceptor missiles can still reach by the critical intercept time... and the time is critical. At 2km/s a half second out and you miss by a kilometre... which means no warhead short of a nuke would be effective.

    Remember by the time the system has calculated the new 20 degree turn the missile might have turned again and a new trajectory needs to be calculated as soon as enough data has been collected.

    As you can probably tell interception would be a nightmare except using lasers.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Deep Throat
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 100
    Points : 132
    Join date : 2013-05-22

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  Deep Throat on Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:25 pm

    Great explanation Garry . My vote .

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3233
    Points : 3357
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Jan 16, 2014 6:17 pm


    GarryB wrote:

    But Garry , the chances of interception rises when speed is reduced .

    To explain it properly you need to see an interception as a mathematics problem

    If a target has a high speed that does make interception harder, but if it is flying a predictable path at a constant decaying speed then it is not as hard as you might think.

    The problem is 4D maths, where the first three dimensions are x,y,and z coordinates in longitude, latitude, and altitude. The fourth critical dimension is time. If you can get your interceptor missile to the same point (3D) in space and also at the same point in time then you have an intercept..


    Very close explanation but is actually a bit more complex..   Smile  
    Is more a mathematic -physics problem .You need differential equations + physics.
    Because you have X,Y,Z position.. you Also Have TIme.. But a hell of more unknowns variables that you need to know.. Things like Acceleration ,Initian Velocity ,Final Velocity ,Gravity , Mass of the Missile , also the Air velocity and direction ,temperature of Air , and if that was not complex enough ,include the Maneuvers of the Missile. But if there is bad weather that even complicates more the interception..and may even the missile accuracy. By the way Iskanders can travel up to Mach 7.6 and travel up to 2.6km in 1 sec.
    The CIWS range is ~4km. so less than 2 seconds to try.



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:30 am

    Vann7 wrote:
    GarryB wrote:

    But Garry , the chances of interception rises when speed is reduced .

    To explain it properly you need to see an interception as a mathematics problem

    If a target has a high speed that does make interception harder, but if it is flying a predictable path at a constant decaying speed then it is not as hard as you might think.

    The problem is 4D maths, where the first three dimensions are x,y,and z coordinates in longitude, latitude, and altitude. The fourth critical dimension is time. If you can get your interceptor missile to the same point (3D) in space and also at the same point in time then you have an intercept..


    Very close explanation but is actually a bit more complex..   Smile  
    Is more a mathematic -physics problem .You need differential equations + physics.
    Because you have X,Y,Z position.. you Also Have TIme.. But a hell of more unknowns variables that you need to know.. Things like Acceleration ,Initian Velocity ,Final Velocity ,Gravity , Mass of the Missile , also the Air velocity and direction ,temperature of Air , and if that was not complex enough ,include the Maneuvers of the Missile.  But if there is bad weather that even complicates more the interception..and may even the missile accuracy.  By the way Iskanders can travel up to Mach 7.6 and travel up to 2.6km in 1 sec.
    The CIWS range is ~4km.  so less than 2 seconds to try.



    Of course I simplified it a bit... no one here will have their life depend upon whether they can perform such an interception in their heads...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  etaepsilonk on Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:07 pm

    I'm not very knowledgable in ballistics, but I'll try to give my insight.
    Actually, we shouldn't question, whether or not iskander can be intercepted (because it can be), but what resources such an interception would tie down.

    First example. An iskander missile is launched against Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted? Easily.

    Second example. The same Iskander is threatening the entire 400km length region behind the front lines, comprising troop concentrations, HQ posts, warehouses, roads, bridges and so on, defended by the very same Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted now? Hardly  Smile  And much more batteries would be required.

    So you see, having anti-ABM measures doesn't somehow make the missile " silver bullet", but it does increase missile's survivabilty and ties down more SAM batteries in order to increase the chance of successful interception.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:21 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:I'm not very knowledgable in ballistics, but I'll try to give my insight.
    Actually, we shouldn't question, whether or not iskander can be intercepted (because it can be), but what resources such an interception would tie down.

    First example. An iskander missile is launched against Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted? Easily.

    Second example. The same Iskander is threatening the entire 400km length region behind the front lines, comprising troop concentrations, HQ posts, warehouses, roads, bridges and so on, defended by the very same Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted now? Hardly  Smile  And much more batteries would be required.

    So you see, having anti-ABM measures doesn't somehow make the missile " silver bullet", but it does increase missile's survivabilty and ties down more SAM batteries in order to increase the chance of successful interception.

    I doubt it, if you didn't know already then you should know now that the PAC-3 system has been compromised, the manufacturers of the Iskander-M could easily make a phone call to Beijing and get some critical details of the PAC-3 system. China is more than willing to get back at the Pentagon for it's historical meddling in Tibet, Taiwan,  the South China Sea, and the Daiyou/Senkaku Islands.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  etaepsilonk on Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:59 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:I'm not very knowledgable in ballistics, but I'll try to give my insight.
    Actually, we shouldn't question, whether or not iskander can be intercepted (because it can be), but what resources such an interception would tie down.

    First example. An iskander missile is launched against Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted? Easily.

    Second example. The same Iskander is threatening the entire 400km length region behind the front lines, comprising troop concentrations, HQ posts, warehouses, roads, bridges and so on, defended by the very same Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted now? Hardly  Smile  And much more batteries would be required.

    So you see, having anti-ABM measures doesn't somehow make the missile " silver bullet", but it does increase missile's survivabilty and ties down more SAM batteries in order to increase the chance of successful interception.

    I doubt it, if you didn't know already then you should know now that the PAC-3 system has been compromised, the manufacturers of the Iskander-M could easily make a phone call to Beijing and get some critical details of the PAC-3 system. China is more than willing to get back at the Pentagon for it's historical meddling in Tibet, Taiwan,  the South China Sea, and the Daiyou/Senkaku Islands.

    Oh, boy  Rolling Eyes 

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Jan 18, 2014 7:45 am

    etaepsilonk wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:I'm not very knowledgable in ballistics, but I'll try to give my insight.
    Actually, we shouldn't question, whether or not iskander can be intercepted (because it can be), but what resources such an interception would tie down.

    First example. An iskander missile is launched against Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted? Easily.

    Second example. The same Iskander is threatening the entire 400km length region behind the front lines, comprising troop concentrations, HQ posts, warehouses, roads, bridges and so on, defended by the very same Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted now? Hardly  Smile  And much more batteries would be required.

    So you see, having anti-ABM measures doesn't somehow make the missile " silver bullet", but it does increase missile's survivabilty and ties down more SAM batteries in order to increase the chance of successful interception.

    I doubt it, if you didn't know already then you should know now that the PAC-3 system has been compromised, the manufacturers of the Iskander-M could easily make a phone call to Beijing and get some critical details of the PAC-3 system. China is more than willing to get back at the Pentagon for it's historical meddling in Tibet, Taiwan,  the South China Sea, and the Daiyou/Senkaku Islands.

    Oh, boy  Rolling Eyes 

    You can be skeptical all you want, the Pentagon itself admitted that Chinese hackers compromised most all the air defence systems of the United States including the Pac-3:

    "Among more than two dozen major weapons systems whose designs were breached were programs critical to U.S. missile defenses and combat aircraft and ships, according to a previously undisclosed section of a confidential report prepared for Pentagon leaders by the Defense Science Board."

    "Experts warn that the electronic intrusions gave China access to advanced technology that could accelerate the development of its weapons systems and weaken the U.S. military advantage in a future conflict."


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/confidential-report-lists-us-weapons-system-designs-compromised-by-chinese-cyberspies/2013/05/27/a42c3e1c-c2dd-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html


    A list of the U.S. weapons designs and technologies compromised by hackers

    Weapon designs and technologies compromised

    The following is reproduced from the nonpublic version of the
    Defense Science Board report “Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat”:

    Table 2.2 Expanded partial list of DoD system designs and technologies compromised via cyber exploitation

    SYSTEM DESIGNS

    Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

    Patriot Advanced Capability-3


    Extended Area Protection and Survivability System (EAPS)

    F-35

    V-22

    C-17

    Hawklink

    Advanced Harpoon Weapon Control System

    Tanker Conversions

    Long-term Mine Reconnaissance System

    Global Hawk

    Navy antenna mechanisms

    Global Freight Management System

    Micro Air Vehicle

    Brigade Combat Team Modernization

    Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System

    USMC Tracked Combat Vehicles

    Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)

    T700 Family of Engines

    Full Authority Digital Engine Controller (FADEC)

    UH-60 Black Hawk

    AMRAAM (AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile)

    Affordable Weapons System

    Littoral Combat Ship

    Navy Standard Missile (SM-2,3,6)

    P-8A/Multi-Mission Aircraft

    F/A and EA-18

    RC-135 Detect./Collect.

    Mk54 Light Weight Torpedo

    TECHNOLOGIES

    Directed Energy

    UAV video system

    Specific Emitter identification

    Nanotechnology

    Dual Use Avionics

    Fuze/Munitions safety and development

    Electronic Intelligence Processing

    Tactical Data Links

    Satellite Communications

    Electronic Warfare

    Advanced Signal Processing Technologies for Radars

    Nanostructured Metal Matrix Composite for Light Weight Ballistic Armor

    Vision-aided Urban Navigation & Collision Avoidance for Class I Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV)

    Space Surveillance Telescope

    Materials/processing technologies

    IR Search and Track systems

    Electronic Warfare systems

    Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch

    Rail Gun

    Side Scan sonar

    Mode 5 IFF

    Export Control, ITAR, Distribution Statement B,C,D Technical Information

    CAD drawings, 3D models, schematics

    Software code

    Critical technology

    Vendor/supply chain data

    Technical manuals

    PII (email addresses, SSN, credit card numbers, passwords, etc.)

    Attendee lists for program reviews and meetings

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-list-of-the-us-weapons-designs-and-technologies-compromised-by-hackers/2013/05/27/a95b2b12-c483-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html


    ...Your quick to down play Beijing selling secrets of US weapon systems, well it looks like Beijing sold some critical intel on the PAC-3 to Iran:

    http://globalmilitaryreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/iranian-talaash-medium-range-air.html

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 18, 2014 8:08 am

    First example. An iskander missile is launched against Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted? Easily.

    You can't say that with any certainty.

    PAC-3 Patriot is designed specifically to engage ballistic warheads, but was not designed to engage high speed manouvering targets. Iskander on the other hand was designed specifically to evade both PAC-3 Patriot and THAAD.

    more SAM batteries in order to increase the chance of successful interception.

    More SAM batteries will increase the chances of interception but it would be like original Patriot vs Scud... these SAMs are not designed to engage manouvering falling targets so it is unreasonable to expect them to be able to do it more often than not.

    I doubt it, if you didn't know already then you should know now that the PAC-3 system has been compromised, the manufacturers of the Iskander-M could easily make a phone call to Beijing and get some critical details of the PAC-3 system.

    AFAIK PAC-3 is designed to engage Scud type targets that simple fall on their target with some minor manouvering to improve accuracy. It is not designed to engage targets that actively move to make interception difficult.



    ...Your quick to down play Beijing selling secrets of US weapon systems, well it looks like Beijing sold some critical intel on the PAC-3 to Iran:

    The main reason for releasing such a list of compromised programs suggests to me the Pentagon wants funding for upgrades and improvements to all those systems...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3233
    Points : 3357
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  Vann7 on Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:27 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:I'm not very knowledgable in ballistics, but I'll try to give my insight.
    Actually, we shouldn't question, whether or not iskander can be intercepted (because it can be), but what resources such an interception would tie down.

    First example. An iskander missile is launched against Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted? Easily.

    Second example. The same Iskander is threatening the entire 400km length region behind the front lines, comprising troop concentrations, HQ posts, warehouses, roads, bridges and so on, defended by the very same Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted now? Hardly  Smile  And much more batteries would be required.

    So you see, having anti-ABM measures doesn't somehow make the missile " silver bullet", but it does increase missile's survivabilty and ties down more SAM batteries in order to increase the chance of successful interception.

    PAc-3 Air defense System. designed to protect air-space.. but not anything above it. Not space.
    Air space is from 0 to 20km altitude. Which is Pac-3 max altitude..This was told by a retired US Army operator of missiles defenses that knows of Pac-3  at least he said that..  now there is a Pac-3 MSE apparently that can go up to 35km.

    Pac-3 MSE speed is mach 5.0 and max altitude is 35km...  Iskanders-M speed Mach 6.7 /Range 500km (not 400km) and 50km altitude .when Iskander launched their initial phase they fly near vertically towards space like ICBM does..
    until they reach the low meso-sphere at 50km altitude and move towards its target while flying at the altitude to stay away
    of any system of air defense.Apparently when Iskander over their target..they do a 90 degree turn and start doing maneuvers on its final phase.This means that it cannot be shot down on a)early phase or on its b)mid course by any system of air defense in the west. and probably not even by S-400. but not sure of its max ceiling. reason is that Fly to high and too fast for a PAC-3 to catch it .So you need Bigger missiles for *SPACE defense* like a SM-3 or THAAD or israel Arrow-2/3 to at least try an interception before is very close to the target and its on its final phase.

    SM-3 and Thaad should be able in theory to defeat the Iskander.. but is also worth to remember that Russia designed Iskanders to counter US space defense systems. their  ABM efense system that US have in Europe.  Iskander are like a giant bullet.. and very resistant to Lazer ,heat and resistant to impacts and trying to intercept them with combat jets air to air missiles ,that not only slower but have have a very small explosive warhead will be like trying to stop a train with a Bike. In the first IRAQ war ,Sadam launched a dozen of Scuds missiles to israel and none of the Patriots managed to stop a single one of them. There was interception at times but they were not strong enough to destroy the Scuds. There are youtube videos that you can confirm the patriots fail on scuds. Iskanders are Modern Ballistic missiles ,much more advanced and stronger missiles ,so the probabilities the Patriots can defeat them even in the case of an intercept are not very high.

    So all said.. SM-3 and Thaad could try intercept at mid-course of Iskanders and Pac-3 could try at its most challenging flight path the final phase where it does many maneuvers. So probabilities the Pac-3 can defeat Iskanders are not very high. How can u predict the interception point of an Iskander on its final phase if it follow a non predictable flight path?
    The challenge should be similar in Baseball that you are throw a Ball that can dynamically alter its course very fast.
    US strategy against Russia Nuclear Missiles is intercepting them on its mid course for nothing. Why they place missiles in Poland ,Romania and Turkey. Like an anti-ballistic fence near RUssia ,to have a chance to try Mid course interception. On its final Phase it becomes much more complicated if not impossible ,specially if the missile launch Decoys that have identical radar signal that the Iskander have. So in the final phase if for example the Iskander can launch 10 decoys , you will need 10 +1 missiles ,that is 11 Pac-3 misiles to intercept ONE Iskander.  if you fire 2 iskanders then 22 xpac-3.  Not very easy.

    Sm-3 aegis in the other hand or Thaad have much better chance to try and deal with iskanders.SM-3 for example have heat sensors and color matching seekers that could give a chance to differentiate the real Missile from a decoy and fly at Iskanders altitude or higher.  But here,not sure about how SM-3 perform ,or Thaad will perform against maneuverable ballistic missiles at 50km altitude. Neither sure if Iskander at Mid course also can do maneuvers on deploy decoys.


    Here is a youtube video that explain that Illustrate how Pac-3 is a low altitude air-defense the last layer of defense.
    And SM-3 and Thaad the first and second layer respectively.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=69uXXiJan_o

    They however test against simple flight path missiles without decoys.. ICBMS like TOPOL i have heard can do maneuvers in Mid Course..and they fly at near 4 times the speed of Iskanders. Mach 22.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  etaepsilonk on Sat Jan 18, 2014 8:34 pm

    To GarryB:
    I caution you, that terminal maneuvering is not some sort of "deus ex machina".
    In fact, fateh-110 and lora, and atcms also have exactly the same maneuvering, but for some reason you aren't hearing that from RUSSIASTRONK crews, are you? Very Happy
    As a weapon, Iskander is Scud with increased survivability.
    Do you even know where those "oh, able to penetrate all AD systems in ze WORLD" speeches are coming from? That would be KBM itself Smile
    And equally, raytheon, or rafael managers are also producing this sort of speeches, just from the opposite camp Smile
    Currently, the most reliable way through strong ABM presence is by oversaturation, terminal maneuvers and lofted trajectory ,of course, help a lot, but they aren't the only factors.

    To magnum:
    It's not if I believe it or not. Compromise of weapons systems are indeed possible, but you shouldn't place your strategy on it  Rolling Eyes 

    And if you insist so much on James Bond scenarios, then I remind you, that Iskander can also be comproised just as easily, and in fact, it  already has been Smile
    And by the very same Chinese, who already produce it as missile system, model M20.  Razz


    To vann7:
    I'm not sure if sm-3 and thaad are actually more suitable than patriot. Their minimal operating altitude is pretty high, like 40km or so...

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  Viktor on Sat Jan 18, 2014 9:21 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:To GarryB:
    I caution you, that terminal maneuvering is not some sort of "deus ex machina".
    In fact, fateh-110 and lora, and atcms also have exactly the same maneuvering, but for some reason you aren't hearing that from RUSSIASTRONK crews, are you? Very Happy
    As a weapon, Iskander is Scud with increased survivability.
    Do you even know where those "oh, able to penetrate all AD systems in ze WORLD" speeches are coming from? That would be KBM itself Smile
    And equally, raytheon, or rafael managers are also producing this sort of speeches, just from the opposite camp Smile
    Currently, the most reliable way through strong ABM presence is by oversaturation, terminal maneuvers and lofted trajectory ,of course, help a lot, but they aren't the only factors.

    To magnum:
    It's not if I believe it or not. Compromise of weapons systems are indeed possible, but you shouldn't place your strategy on it  Rolling Eyes 

    And if you insist so much on James Bond scenarios, then I remind you, that Iskander can also be comproised just as easily, and in fact, it  already has been Smile
    And by the very same Chinese, who already produce it as missile system, model M20.  Razz


    To vann7:
    I'm not sure if sm-3 and thaad are actually more suitable than patriot. Their minimal operating altitude is pretty high, like 40km or so...


    Few things to remember.

    1. Iskander and SCUD are nothing alike. Iskander has quasibalistic flightpath while SCUD has purely ballistic path and can not manuevre.

    2. When speaking on Iskander you are not talking only about terminal maneuvering but is also managable throughout the entire flight
      path. Missile is constantly changing plane trajectory. Etc etc

    3. "fateh-110 and lora, and atcms" are no where near Iskander whose quasibalistic flightpath, decoys, integrated ECM and other goodies make it a light years away from those prahistoric  
      missiles you mentioned.

    4. Speaches about invurability of Iskander missiles are coming from NATO generals itselves too as Mindstorm posted before. Besides Patriot war experience is disappointment when last time
       was confronted against even most basic ballistic missile - SCUD.

    5. Have you ever heard about counterintelligence? Russians are masters at it. They detect spys and let them operate under strict surveillance but all the stuff those spys get are the ones
      Russian spys plant in purpose and those are for the obvious reasons false info that will get foreign spy agencies tapping in a dark.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  etaepsilonk on Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:31 pm

    To Viktor:
    "1.Iskander and SCUD are nothing alike. Iskander has quasibalistic flightpath while SCUD has purely ballistic path and can not manuevre."

    Yes, just as "triochlineika" and SVD are nothing alike. But they're still rifles, and their job is the same.
    Equally, Iskander is still a ballistic missile, and it's job is the same as scud's.







    "2. When speaking on Iskander you are not talking only about terminal maneuvering but is also managable throughout the entire flight
     path. Missile is constantly changing plane trajectory. Etc etc"

    Well, that depends on the target's range, if it's close (like 100km) then yes, but near its max range that could be problematic, coz maneuvers bleed energy.
    Also, a question. What about Iskander's power supply? Is it batteries, some hypergolic fuel or air turbine?









    "3. "fateh-110 and lora, and atcms" are no where near Iskander whose quasibalistic flightpath, decoys, integrated ECM and other goodies make it a light years away from those prahistoric  
     missiles you mentioned."

    I didn't say that those are near Iskander. I only said, that one particular feature does not make it somehow superior or unique, but the combination of many features. Including those that are not even related to the missile itself (like operating environment).

    Also, I'm interested about Iskander's ECM gear. Any more information about it?
    And also, it's threat nature and limited space would suggest deception jamming, or am I wrong?







    "4. Speaches about invurability of Iskander missiles are coming from NATO generals itselves too as Mindstorm posted before. Besides Patriot war experience is disappointment when last time
      was confronted against even most basic ballistic missile - SCUD."

    Lemmie guess. Middle Europe?  lol! 
    On a serious note, the link to those speeches would be very welcome Smile

    And I'm not sure you're right about Patriot here. Last time it was used with pretty high success ratio, with about 7 or so scuds intercepted.






    "5. Have you ever heard about counterintelligence? Russians are masters at it. They detect spys and let them operate under strict surveillance but all the stuff those spys get are the ones
     Russian spys plant in purpose and those are for the obvious reasons false info that will get foreign spy agencies tapping in a dark."

    Yes, I heard and read pretty much about counterintelligence. But , no matter how good it is, some leakers are still possible from time to time.


    Last edited by etaepsilonk on Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:31 pm; edited 3 times in total

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3233
    Points : 3357
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  Vann7 on Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:01 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:

    And if you insist so much on James Bond scenarios, then I remind you, that Iskander can also be comproised just as easily, and in fact, it  already has been Smile
    And by the very same Chinese, who already produce it as missile system, model M20.  Razz


    To vann7:
    I'm not sure if sm-3 and thaad are actually more suitable than patriot. Their minimal operating altitude is pretty high, like 40km or so...

    This same question of whether PAC-3 can handle Iskander.. many times.. and a US ARmy retired veteran of
    Missile Forces,,told PAC-3 will not intercept it. as simple as that. He told you need SM-3 against iskanders.
    Patriots missiles chance to intercept an Iskander doing maneuvers and dropping decoys are next to zero.
    Remember that Pac-3 is for air interception and Iskanders are more like Space Rockets. Is much much complicate
    interception when a missile is over you and comes from space.

    And pac-3 is totally completely different to Scuds..as different as T-62 tanks vs T-99 armata. No comparison at all. Scuds accuracy(or lack of) was in the 1000 meters.. useless for any tactical combat. Iskanders accuracy 5-7m. . Many decades and generations of difference. Scuds introduced in 1957 and iskander introduced in 2006.

    What i don't know is if SM-3 or thaad is whether or not can engage maneuvering targets .


    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  etaepsilonk on Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:20 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:

    And if you insist so much on James Bond scenarios, then I remind you, that Iskander can also be comproised just as easily, and in fact, it  already has been Smile
    And by the very same Chinese, who already produce it as missile system, model M20.  Razz


    To vann7:
    I'm not sure if sm-3 and thaad are actually more suitable than patriot. Their minimal operating altitude is pretty high, like 40km or so...

    This same question of whether PAC-3 can handle Iskander.. many times.. and a US ARmy retired veteran of
    Missile Forces,,told PAC-3 will not intercept it.  as simple as that. He told you need SM-3 against iskanders.
    Patriots missiles chance to intercept an Iskander doing maneuvers and dropping decoys are next to zero.
    Remember that Pac-3 is for air interception and Iskanders are more like Space Rockets.  Is much much complicate
    interception when a missile is over you and comes from space.  

    And pac-3 is totally completely different to Scuds..as different as T-62 tanks vs T-99 armata. No comparison at all. Scuds accuracy(or lack of)  was in the 1000 meters.. useless for any tactical combat.  Iskanders accuracy 5-7m. . Many decades and generations of difference. Scuds introduced in 1957  and iskander introduced in 2006.

    What i don't know is if SM-3 or thaad is whether or not can engage maneuvering targets .


    Sorry vann, but I don't think, that iskander is "space rocket" like you proclaim.
    Iskander operates below 50km altitude, while space is at about 70km or so Smile
    But yes, for large part of it's descending trajectory, pac-3 missiles could not reach it, that is true.

    And to be frank, whether or not Iskander can be engaged by patriot, I cannot say precisely.
    But even if it can't, there's no reason why it couldn't be upgraded to meet this threat, especially so, since not only KBM is making increased survivability BMs now.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3233
    Points : 3357
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  Vann7 on Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:40 am

    etaepsilonk wrote:

    Sorry vann, but I don't think, that iskander is "space rocket" like you proclaim.
    Iskander operates below 50km altitude, while space is at about 70km or so Smile


    Actually space starts at 100km.. but i use the term space rocket to make it more easier to explain
    that it does not travel on the Airplanes airspace where normally Sams and Combat jets fly.
    SR-71 for example which have the records in altitude in Planes ,and which pilots uniform looks like Astronaunts
    its max altitude was 22k-25k ,it could reach a bit higher but could not sustain. ISkanders fly trajectory is at 50km that is lower mesosphere. Closer to space. you dont like the word space..then Pac-3 is a Troposphere defense up to 20km. or up to 35km with customized version. Still not enough to catch the Mighty Iskander
    when is only possible to effectively intercept.Pac-3 ballistic inteception is limited .

    They are not modifying more Pac-3 for the simply reason that they already have a missile called THHAD . So that one will be the one to modify .A mesosphere interceptor above PAC-3 range. But apparently Thaad need to be located near the same place your expecting an Attack. Near same trajectory ,Means can only defend small zones in land. Is a missile that only looks upwards towards space. Only intercept near the zones they deployed.

    So my best guess SM-3 have the best chances to intercept Iskander , Thaad a less chance.. and Pac-3 no chance at all.  

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:20 am

    Equally, Iskander is still a ballistic missile, and it's job is the same as scud's.

    Only in the sense that a cruise missile also delivers explosive to the target or a manned bomber delivers explosive to the target.

    A Scud starts its engines and climbs from its launcher and rolls over in the direction of its target. Its path is maintained using a fairly basic inertial navigation system... it climbs till the fuel runs out and then it coasts for a bit and then falls onto its target with a few minor course corrections via its inertial navigation system.

    The Iskander on the other hand climbs to height rapidly and then flys a predetermined course into enemy air space and manouvers all the way down to hit the target... a Scud is rather less like an Iskander in this context as an Iskander is like a cruise missile.

    Well, that depends on the target's range, if it's close (like 100km) then yes, but near its max range that could be problematic, coz maneuvers bleed energy.

    It is designed to manouver throughout its flight... if it flew straight to its target it could probably reach further than the 500km it is allowed to travel, but as a non manouvering missile it would be too easy to shoot down so it doesn't fly such a flight profile.

    Last time it was used with pretty high success ratio, with about 7 or so scuds intercepted.

    Check again... there were an AVERAGE of 32 Patriots fired at each scud and in pretty much every case the Scud warhead impacted the ground intact. The Patriot was designed to engage aircraft and therefore targetted the centre of mass. For a Scud that means the main fuel tanks and engine that were shattered with fragments, but because in this portion of the trajectory the missile is basically falling with the tanks empty and the engines off making holes in them made no difference... it was pretty much like emptying round after round of pistol bullets into the chest of a zombie... deviated their path slightly but did nothing to stop them.

    And to be frank, whether or not Iskander can be engaged by patriot, I cannot say precisely.
    But even if it can't, there's no reason why it couldn't be upgraded to meet this threat, especially so, since not only KBM is making increased survivability BMs now.

    Expecting PAC-3 to defeat Iskander is unfair and unreasonable, just like expecting old model Patriot to engage Scuds is unfair. Early model Patriots were never designed to intercept ballistic missiles going that fast. PAC-3 Patriot was designed to engage falling Scuds travelling at high speed but not "flying"... it was designed to engage targets falling like Scud.

    The difference is that Scud is a much easier more predictable target that is much easier to hit.

    SR-71 for example which have the records in altitude in Planes ,and which pilots uniform looks like Astronaunts
    its max altitude was 22k-25k ,it could reach a bit higher but could not sustain.

    Actually the Mig-25/31 family routinely fly at 20K metres and hold the record of something like 31km altitude.

    The SR-71s design limits its max height to rather less than that.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  Viktor on Sun Jan 19, 2014 12:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Actually the Mig-25/31 family routinely fly at 20K metres and hold the record of something like 31km altitude.

    The SR-71s design limits its max height to rather less than that.

    Actually its 37,650 metres and is still a record Very Happy 


    Last edited by Viktor on Sun Jan 19, 2014 12:48 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content

    Re: Intercepting Iskander

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:22 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:22 pm