Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Military Bases Abroad

    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 449
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:20 am

    The missile is planed to receive a bigger engine and in all probability will be developed to counter faster missiles

    SM-6 with a max speed of 3.5 mach should be able of engaging all current Russian cruise missiles. So they'd need to be employed in big numbers to be effective. Tu-160 can carry 6 Kh-101, but with their cruising speed of 0.6 mach and low trajectory they're not well suited for flight above sea and they'd be an easy target.

    My point is that there is no AEGIS in the area. The US will have to start worrying about their southern flank and redeploy destroyers there.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2379
    Points : 2377
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  Hole on Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:45 am

    Which will limit the number they can deploy in the Med, Persian Gulf, Baltics and Black Sea. Which will be good for everyone, except the poor muricans and their "allies". Very Happy
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3671
    Points : 3759
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  flamming_python on Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:12 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:
    The missile is planed to receive a bigger engine and in all probability will be developed to counter faster missiles

    SM-6 with a max speed of 3.5 mach should be able of engaging all current Russian cruise missiles. So they'd need to be employed in big numbers to be effective. Tu-160 can carry 6 Kh-101, but with their cruising speed of 0.6 mach and low trajectory they're not well suited for flight above sea and they'd be an easy target.

    My point is that there is no AEGIS in the area. The US will have to start worrying about their southern flank and redeploy destroyers there.

    You should read the article LMFS posted.

    It's calculated that the SM-series AD missiles will not be effective against the Kh-32 which travels at 4.5M.
    How will they fare against Kinzhals and GZURs which will reach speeds of 7-8M? (although I'm not convinced that they will maintain this speed to the terminal stage)
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2379
    Points : 2377
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  Hole on Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:45 pm

    He refered to the Kh-55/555 and Kh-101. Cruise not hypersonic missiles.

    By the way, the Tu-160 can carry 12 Kh-101. 6 in each weapons bay.


    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 449
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Tue Mar 26, 2019 8:15 pm

    It's calculated that the SM-series AD missiles will not be effective against the Kh-32 which travels at 4.5M.

    The effectiveness of SM-6 against hypersonic missiles is limited in the sense that it has less time to prepare and launch interceptors. So salvo of hypersonic missiles can be smaller than that of super- or subsonic missiles. AEGIS uses an S-band radar with about 100 nmi range. 4,5 mach Kh-32 covers this distance in about two min. Only a limited number of interceptors can be launched in this time, if any at all.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 6664
    Points : 6731
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  JohninMK on Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:33 pm

    Hole wrote:Which will limit the number they can deploy in the Med, Persian Gulf, Baltics and Black Sea. Which will be good for everyone, except the poor muricans and their "allies". Very Happy

    This is part of what I suspect is a hidden Russian strategy to accelerate the bankruptcy of the US by driving up their defence costs under pressure from their rapacious MIC/politician combo. In this case more on the Navy.

    Bearing this in mind a couple of $B might be a good investment. Forcing the US to keep a carrier in the Atlantic, there is rarely one there now, would be a huge win.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2379
    Points : 2377
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  Hole on Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:55 pm

    The renovation/modernisation process of military infrastructure (barracks, air bases and so on) inside Russia is coming to an end. It would be a logical step to search for a few well located bases abroad and spend some money on them. And I´m not talking about some military empire here, just a couple of bases with a few hundred soldiers.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22555
    Points : 23099
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:38 am

    They seem to like the location. The US used to worry mostly about ICBM and SLBM from east and west, perhaps also ICBM from north. Now their oil-rich southern underbelly is threatened too

    The Monroe doctrine was about the US protecting central and south America from the predatory european colonisers... but today it is about isolating central and south america because they are americas back yard and also their market for US products... who else is going to buy F-5s?

    The only serious defence against hypersonics they have is AEGIS, but there are no such platforms in the Gulf of Texas.

    They have no defence vs manouvering hypersonic threats... no one does right now.

    SM-6 with a max speed of 3.5 mach should be able of engaging all current Russian cruise missiles.

    Like saying the 7.92mm Mauser round is capable of killing any Russian soldier, so as long as Germany has the MG-34 Germany is safe from the Soviet Union... and as a hint an MG34 wont penetrate a T-34...

    Another hint... the Germans made perhaps 600,000 MG34s and perhaps 450,000 of its replacement MG42... how many T-34s were made?

    So they'd need to be employed in big numbers to be effective. Tu-160 can carry 6 Kh-101, but with their cruising speed of 0.6 mach and low trajectory they're not well suited for flight above sea and they'd be an easy target.

    Tu-160 can carry 12 cruise missiles, but really would not need to... 4,500km range cruise missiles could be ground launched and hit targets all over the US from there.

    My point is that there is no AEGIS in the area. The US will have to start worrying about their southern flank and redeploy destroyers there.

    But they love spending money... AEGIS Ashore in about 20 locations in the southern US will earn the makers lots of cash to buy and to maintain.

    The effectiveness of SM-6 against hypersonic missiles is limited in the sense that it has less time to prepare and launch interceptors. So salvo of hypersonic missiles can be smaller than that of super- or subsonic missiles. AEGIS uses an S-band radar with about 100 nmi range. 4,5 mach Kh-32 covers this distance in about two min. Only a limited number of interceptors can be launched in this time, if any at all.

    SM6 is an ABM setup that is looking up for a high speed object flying a ballistic path... not a low flying cruise missile travelling at any speed.

    If Russia wants to grow it will need trading partners that trust it and can be trusted, which means good solid trust and infrastructure that Russia can use but Venezuela can benefit from... put a space tracking site there and train Venezuelans to help operate it... its location could be used to upgrade the accuracy of GLONASS and could be used for a mini Russian future space facility... it is near the equator so sending down old ICBMs and SLBMs for launching satellites should maximise the orbits they can reach with the extra push of the speed of the earths surface at the equator maximising the performance of any space launch.

    "Extend" the runway for MiG-31 satellite launch aircraft... but also benefit other Russian aircraft being able to use it.
    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 449
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:11 pm

    they are americas back yard and also their market for US products

    It's astonishing how much has China invested this region and how willing it is to protect this. The hard stance they have in Venezuela with statements like "Guaido lacks legitimacy" was hard to imagine for any their distant country even few years ago. Once there are enough naval assets, it would make sense to open a military base in the region. The same goes for Russia. It's located very conveniently for both countries. If Russian Northern fleet wants to go to southern Atlantic, eastern Pacific, Indian ocean, or Southern ocean a base in Venezuelan would be a starting point in all these directions.

    They have no defence vs manouvering hypersonic threats... no one does right now.

    This would hold if they'd maneuver over the entire flight and not lose any speed at it. Otherways it just takes launching more homing interceptors for one of them to reach it. They come in big salvos, so if the first interceptor doesn't reach the missile, because it turns, than later launched interceptor has more time to correct its flight trajectory accordingly. The real problem is however that there's not enough time to launch enough salvos for all of the incoming missiles. And they would need to have considerable number of AEGIS ships in the area of potential Russian naval base in the Carribean sea to pose any deterrence.

    SM6 is an ABM setup that is looking up for a high speed object flying a ballistic path.

    They're testing it even for the anti-ship role. But, not reading western propaganda, how could one know about the newest USN developments. I guess what the opponent is doing is just irrelevant.

    could be used for a mini Russian future space facility.

    Actually I like the space communications center idea. There's one in Kyrgizistan so with this one they could cover additional part of orbit. The launching pad however, after spending billions in Vostochny, unlikely. They could've spend that money on Baikonur, but they preffered something on domestic territory.



    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:35 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:
    The missile is planed to receive a bigger engine and in all probability will be developed to counter faster missiles

    SM-6 with a max speed of 3.5 mach should be able of engaging all current Russian cruise missiles. So they'd need to be employed in big numbers to be effective. Tu-160 can carry 6 Kh-101, but with their cruising speed of 0.6 mach and low trajectory they're not well suited for flight above sea and they'd be an easy target.

    My point is that there is no AEGIS in the area. The US will have to start worrying about their southern flank and redeploy destroyers there.


    looks like SM-6 gets another upgrade. SM-3 Block IIA speeds to what 4,5 km/s? 15Ma? range 200+ nm mesn what 500km? so we got hyeprsonic ASh/AAD missile ?

    A new SM-6 Block IB rocket with a new engine with a diameter of 21 inches, according to published R & D schedules, should be created by 2024, which is expected to spend $ 378.9 million over five years. The missile will retain its warhead and system targeting the previous modification of the SM-6 Block IA, but using the new engine from the SM-3 Block IIA anti-missile missile, its range (not officially disclosed) is estimated to exceed 200 nautical miles for aerial targets, and for sea and surface targets even more. The high energy of the new modification will allow it to be used as a full-fledged ballistic missile for hitting surface and ground targets.

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3580198.html
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:40 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The only serious defence against hypersonics they have is AEGIS, but there are no such platforms in the Gulf of Texas.

    They have no defence vs manouvering hypersonic threats... no one does right now.

    then Russians are dead when upgradeds SM6 with 4,5km/s hits the ship. S-500 wont help either.


    GB wrote:
    SM-6 with a max speed of 3.5 mach should be able of engaging all current Russian cruise missiles.

    Like saying the 7.92mm Mauser round is capable of killing any Russian soldier, so as long as Germany has the MG-34 Germany is safe from the Soviet Union... and as a hint an MG34 wont penetrate a T-34...

    Another hint... the Germans made perhaps 600,000 MG34s and perhaps 450,000 of its replacement MG42... how many T-34s were made?

    Bad comparison,M26 vs T34 doesnt look good





    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2379
    Points : 2377
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  Hole on Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:47 pm

    53.000+ of all versions.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:05 pm

    Hole wrote:53.000+ of all versions.

    so you say SM-6 is developed by morons who dont know how to build missiles and is basically useless? let me remain skeptical

    BTW kizhal is rocket and flies 3km/s what is the problem to do same with SM6?
    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 449
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:01 pm

    range 200+ nm mesn what 500km?

    Range with new engine could be 2500 km, as of SM-3 II/A, if appropriate fuel. Speed in the terminal phase probably can't be 15 M because the atmosphere density increases. In any case, Redut can intercept this. It's designed for anti-ballistic defense and can handle targets with speed up to 15 M, just like S-500. Not to mention is doesn't maneuver like Kinzhal.

    If Russians actually decide for a naval base in Venezuela, their ships with Poliment-Redut should be well equipped for theoretical conflict against US navy, as long as they aren't outnumbered. However land based S-400 could mitigate even their numerical disadvantage and protect the air base at the same time.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  LMFS on Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:26 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:looks like SM-6 gets  another upgrade.  SM-3 Block IIA speeds to what 4,5 km/s? 15Ma? range 200+ nm mesn what 500km? so we got hyeprsonic ASh/AAD  missile  ?
    SM-3 is a kinetic-kill interceptor, if it falls on your head it will hurt of course but the size of the warhead is very small and not developed to fly in the atmosphere to start with. SM-6 can be used as ASM but with what effectiveness? S-400 missiles could do that too, what prevents it? But a Kinzhal with 10 M and 500 kg warhead plus seeker designed for the purpose is way better and more effective. If you don't have anything better I suppose it makes sense as a quick and dirty solution, or nice-to-have additional feature for your sales brochure.

    then Russians are dead when upgradeds SM6 with 4,5km/s hits the ship. S-500 wont help either.
    That speed is already covered by S-400, S-500 is not necessary for that. And what kind of evasive manoeuvres the missile does? Depending on them, only putting something in its way does the job without further complication.

    verkhoturye51 wrote:Range with new engine could be 2500 km, as of SM-3 II/A, if appropriate fuel
    There are many doubts this value is true, since it is a perplexing increase from the previous version. Check this out if you will:

    http://www.g2mil.com/NMD_Fraud.htm
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2379
    Points : 2377
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  Hole on Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:33 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Hole wrote:53.000+ of all versions.

    so you say SM-6 is developed by morons who dont know how to build missiles and is basically useless? let me remain skeptical

    BTW kizhal is rocket and flies 3km/s what is the problem to do same with SM6?

    I answered the question how many T-34 were produced. Nothing more.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:13 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:looks like SM-6 gets  another upgrade.  SM-3 Block IIA speeds to what 4,5 km/s? 15Ma? range 200+ nm mesn what 500km? so we got hyeprsonic ASh/AAD  missile  ?
    SM-3 is a kinetic-kill interceptor, if it falls on your head it will hurt of course but the size of the warhead is very small and not developed to fly in the atmosphere to start with. SM-6 can be used as ASM but with what effectiveness? S-400 missiles could do that too, what prevents it? But a Kinzhal with 10 M and 500 kg warhead plus seeker designed for the purpose is way better and more effective. If you don't have anything better I suppose it makes sense as a quick and dirty solution, or nice-to-have additional feature for your sales brochure.

    1) something weighting more then 1 ton and flying with 4,5km/s has kinetic energy ~2 tones TNT equivalent if i'm correct (with 3km/s is closer ot tone tho) , 60kg explosives in such case is good to split missile to pieces to more kinetic energy is passed to a ship.

    In AAD/ABM variant tho 60kgs is better then kinetic kill since you dont need direct hit, much better for highly maneuvering warheads



    2) if SM-6 is supposed to maneuver to intercept DongFengs so why would you assume that for S-400 it is so easy to intercept it? Especially that Burkes could launch tens of them is needed.

    3) Kiznha has 500kg? who said that? BTW Iskaner has 480kg. Kiznhal can have much less is warhead is traded for extra fuel to increase range . We dont know that Im afraid


    4) dirty solution and good in slaes brochures ? Same you can say about S-400 or Kinzhal. I dont share your optimism Im afraid.


    in short in 2025s US gets very dangerous and potent weapon. This is immediate and powerful upgrade of all Burkes. Good Russians designed Zircon/Kizhal to have longer ranges yet still it wont be a piece of cake to deal with.


    L wrote:]
    then Russians are dead when upgradeds SM6 with 4,5km/s hits the ship. S-500 wont help either.
    That speed is already covered by S-400, S-500 is not necessary for that. And what kind of evasive manoeuvres the missile does? Depending on them, only putting something in its way does the job without further complication.


    I quote myself from above:
    2) if SM-6 is supposed to maneuver to intercept DongFengs so why would you assume that for S-400 it is so easy to intercept it?.




    L wrote:
    verkhoturye51 wrote:Range with new engine could be 2500 km, as of SM-3 II/A, if appropriate fuel
    There are many doubts this value is true, since it is a perplexing increase from the previous version. Check this out if you will:

    http://www.g2mil.com/NMD_Fraud.htm

    well one lone wolf like this drama queen form Russian military blog/newspapers? In Russian press there is often quoted a former sub captain. He says Russian equipment is not fit too. So you believe both or only US one?


    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  LMFS on Sat Mar 30, 2019 2:49 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:1) something weighting more then 1 ton and flying with 4,5km/s has kinetic energy ~2 tones TNT equivalent if i'm  correct
    The SM-3's kinetic warhead weights a mere 23 kg (bare seeker, control and actuators) and is the fourth and last stage of the missile. You are off by some orders of magnitude there dude, and worse you seem to think they send the whole rocket all the way to the target, the KW is a space launch payload after all. Mk41 VLS is not big for a space launching rocket, not big at all, so a warhead needs to be very small, to the point that it cannot even have HE.

    2) if SM-6 is supposed to maneuver to intercept DongFengs so why would you assume that for  S-400 it is so easy to intercept it? Especially that Burkes could launch tens of them is needed.
    Supposed by whom? I already provided the max. speed of aerodynamic target it can intercept reliably (800 m/s IIRC), that is so far off to intercept the DFs that a success would be mere chance.

    3)  Kiznha has 500kg? who said that? BTW Iskaner has 480kg. Kiznhal can have much less is warhead is traded for extra fuel to increase range . We dont know that Im afraid
    Yeah we dont know but the reference is Iskander. I assumed similar warhead but in reality neither of us have reliable data.

    I quote myself from above:
    2) if SM-6 is supposed to maneuver to intercept DongFengs so why would you assume that for  S-400 it is so easy to intercept it?.
    Will check what kind of targets are covered in that speed stated for S-400. In any case your claim about SM-6 and DFs is VERY flimsy.

    EDIT: it seems max speed of 40N6 is 12 M but cannot get official data. Average speed is 1190 m/s. The speed of the new SM-6 is what? Using speed of suborbital KW of SM-3 does not count here!

    well one lone wolf like this drama queen form Russian military blog/newspapers? In Russian press there is often quoted  a  former sub captain. He says Russian equipment is not fit too. So you believe both or only US one?  

    I am not interested in fallacies of authority. The guy provides data that you can analyse or not, depending on how lazy you feel. But don't dismiss the arguments without an inspection.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5297
    Points : 5450
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:13 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    L wrote:
    verkhoturye51 wrote:Range with new engine could be 2500 km, as of SM-3 II/A, if appropriate fuel
    There are many doubts this value is true, since it is a perplexing increase from the previous version. Check this out if you will:

    http://www.g2mil.com/NMD_Fraud.htm

    well one lone wolf like this drama queen form Russian military blog/newspapers? In Russian press there is often quoted  a  former sub captain. He says Russian equipment is not fit too. So you believe both or only US one?  



    Actually its not hyperbole, there's validity here. In the article they cite the Rand Corporation, easily the most influential military think-tank in the United States. They're so influential they convinced the Pentagon of the usefulness of aerial-refueling of strategic bombers back in the 1950/60's.


    "The methodology employed to perform the calculations discussed in this report assumes

    impulsive interceptors and missiles that spontaneously obtain their entire velocity immediately

    upon launch. This assumption is made to simplify the mathematical complexity. Similarly, the

    calculations were done assuming no air drag and a nonrotating Earth. The modeling of the

    interception was done assuming perfect tracking information and no countermeasures from the

    target missile. The end game of the interception process was also not modeled.
    Given the ranges

    and times involved in comparing the kinematic reach of different interceptors, these assumptions

    and simplifications are reasonable for a first-order estimation."

    https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR957.html
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:56 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:1) something weighting more then 1 ton and flying with 4,5km/s has kinetic energy ~2 tones TNT equivalent if i'm  correct
    The SM-3's kinetic warhead weights a mere 23 kg (bare seeker, control and actuators) and is the fourth and last stage of the missile. You are off by some orders of magnitude there dude, and worse you seem to think they send the whole rocket all the way to the target, the KW is a space launch payload after all. Mk41 VLS is not big for a space launching rocket, not big at all, so a warhead needs to be very small, to the point that it cannot even have HE.

    we are talking SM-6 Block 1B AFAIK not kinetic kill SM--3? Suspect Suspect Suspect


    L wrote:
    2) if SM-6 is supposed to maneuver to intercept DongFengs so why would you assume that for  S-400 it is so easy to intercept it? Especially that Burkes could launch tens of them is needed.
    Supposed by whom? I already provided the max. speed of aerodynamic target it can intercept reliably (800 m/s IIRC), that is so far off to intercept the DFs that a success would be mere chance.

    what 800ms? Suspect Suspect Suspect You didnt read link I provided, did you? BTW any hyperosnic missile you can destroy just leaving anvil on its trajectory just in right time.

    A new SM-6 Block IB rocket with a new engine with a diameter of 21 inches, according to published R & D schedules, should be created by 2024, which is expected to spend $ 378.9 million over five years. The missile will retain its warhead and system targeting the previous modification of the SM-6 Block IA, but using the new engine from the SM-3 Block IIA anti-missile missile, its range (not officially disclosed) is estimated to exceed 200 nautical miles for aerial targets, and for sea and surface targets even more. The high energy of the new modification will allow it to be used as a full-fledged ballistic missile for hitting surface and ground targets.



    SM-3 Block IIA has speed 4,5km/s



    L wrote:
    3)  Kiznha has 500kg? who said that? BTW Iskaner has 480kg. Kiznhal can have much less is warhead is traded for extra fuel to increase range . We dont know that Im afraid
    Yeah we dont know but the reference is Iskander. I assumed similar warhead but in reality neither of us have reliable data.

    great we agree on that


    LMFS wrote:
    I quote myself from above:
    2) if SM-6 is supposed to maneuver to intercept DongFengs so why would you assume that for  S-400 it is so easy to intercept it?.
    Will check what kind of targets are covered in that speed stated for S-400. In any case your claim about SM-6 and DFs is VERY flimsy.

    S-400 40N6E max target velocity is 4,800m/s but nobody says it is maneuvering one...


    BTW Flimsy because of what? its speed 4,5kms ? range like SM-3 block -AII but with explosive warhead? or AEGIS radars?
    Honestly i dont understand your view on US military as morns who dont know how to build AADs? They might have different assumptions or doctrine but certainly know how to build weapons.










    Using speed of suborbital KW of SM-3 does not count here!

    why precisely?



    L wrote:
    well one lone wolf like this drama queen form Russian military blog/newspapers? In Russian press there is often quoted  a  former sub captain. He says Russian equipment is not fit too. So you believe both or only US one?  
    I am not interested in fallacies of authority. The guy provides data that you can analyse or not, depending on how lazy you feel. But don't dismiss the arguments without an inspection.
    [/quote]


    did you chekc Russian counterpart? same thing so |Posiedon is crap, rusisan subs are at danger and nobody in Admiralty cares about subs in Russia only him. You can believe or not. i dont./
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:04 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:]
    Actually its not hyperbole, there's validity here. In the article they cite the Rand Corporation, easily the most influential military think-tank in the United States. They're so influential they convinced the Pentagon of the usefulness of aerial-refueling of strategic bombers back in the 1950/60's.

    |Im nost sure if the text below is from dram queen or RAND? if Rand where can I read that ? link you provided? dunno dunno dunno



    MC wrote:
    "The methodology employed to perform the calculations discussed in this report assumes

    impulsive interceptors and missiles that spontaneously obtain their entire velocity immediately

    upon launch. This assumption is made to simplify the mathematical complexity. Similarly, the

    calculations were done assuming no air drag and a nonrotating Earth. The modeling of the

    interception was done assuming perfect tracking information and no countermeasures from the

    target missile. The end game of the interception process was also not modeled.
    Given the ranges

    and times involved in comparing the kinematic reach of different interceptors, these assumptions

    and simplifications are reasonable for a first-order estimation."

    https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR957.html


    BTW assumption of whom rocket engineers? radar designers? This means they dont know how to build missiles and interception algorithms in short? and who say that? another lead rocket specialists ?
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5297
    Points : 5450
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:20 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:]
    Actually its not hyperbole, there's validity here. In the article they cite the Rand Corporation, easily the most influential military think-tank in the United States. They're so influential they convinced the Pentagon of the usefulness of aerial-refueling of strategic bombers back in the 1950/60's.

    |Im nost sure if the text below is from dram queen or RAND?  if Rand  where can I read that ? link you provided?  dunno  dunno  dunno



    MC wrote:
    "The methodology employed to perform the calculations discussed in this report assumes

    impulsive interceptors and missiles that spontaneously obtain their entire velocity immediately

    upon launch. This assumption is made to simplify the mathematical complexity. Similarly, the

    calculations were done assuming no air drag and a nonrotating Earth. The modeling of the

    interception was done assuming perfect tracking information and no countermeasures from the

    target missile. The end game of the interception process was also not modeled.
    Given the ranges

    and times involved in comparing the kinematic reach of different interceptors, these assumptions

    and simplifications are reasonable for a first-order estimation."

    https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR957.html


    BTW assumption of whom  rocket engineers? radar designers? This means they dont know how to build missiles and interception algorithms in short?  and who say that? another lead rocket specialists ?

    1.)The link provided has the full report from the Rand Corporation in a downloadable .PDF file. Once you download and open the program in Adobe Acrobat, just highlight what I posted (the bold parts), right-click on your mouse and select copy. Now in the opened .PDF file in Adobe Acrobat, hold Ctrl+F to bring up the find function in Adobe Acrobat, and then right-click with your mouse and press paste in the margin in the find function toolbar....it'll lead you directly to the important parts.

    2.) They admit the assumptions (from greedy Raytheon salesman) are basically unreasonable exaggeration. The range given was computer modeled neither with air-resistance nor Earth rotation factored in the computer model. The computer model does not factor decoys nor countermeasures. The range figures in the computational models do not even factor in endgame interception kill kinematics (which is jaw-dropping).

    Remember Raytheon (the people behind SM-3) has basically given up improving PAC-3, and basically outsourced the development of PAC-4 to the Israeli based Rafale.
    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 449
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:17 am

    There are many doubts this value is true, since it is a perplexing increase from the previous version. Check this out if you will:


    SM-3 is an exo-atmospheric interceptor that flies for the most of its trajectory in the area with low air drag. So assumming no drag shouldn't decrease the 2500 km that much.

    SM-6 has an max altitude of more than 30 km, where air density is 25 times lower than at the sea level. This drag should decrease 2500 km by a small margin.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  LMFS on Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:19 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:we are talking SM-6 Block 1B AFAIK not kinetic kill SM--3?  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect
    Then why are you using the exoatmospheric values of SM-3???

    BTW according to wiki the KW's kinetic energy is equivalent to 31 kg TNT.

    what 800ms?  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect   You didnt read link I provided, did you? BTW any hyperosnic missile you can destroy just leaving anvil on its trajectory just in right time.

    A new SM-6 Block IB rocket with a new engine with a diameter of 21 inches, according to published R & D schedules, should be created by 2024, which is expected to spend $ 378.9 million over five years. The missile will retain its warhead and system targeting the previous modification of the SM-6 Block IA, but using the new engine from the SM-3 Block IIA anti-missile missile, its range (not officially disclosed) is estimated to exceed 200 nautical miles for aerial targets, and for sea and surface targets even more. The high energy of the new modification will allow it to be used as a full-fledged ballistic missile for hitting surface and ground targets.


    SM-3 Block IIA has speed 4,5km/s
    Oh boy. They are saying SM-3 is 1350 miles but the new SM-6 with the same booster will only give 200 nm for the SM-6 and you insist they have the same speed? They are not even flying at the same height!

    S-400 40N6E max target velocity is 4,800m/s but nobody says it is maneuvering one...
    Having the speed of the missile we could at least make an approximation. the 12 M is also not official, I know other missiles of the S-400 are 7 M. In any case the 4.5 km/s for the SM-6 in atmospheric flight is BS.

    BTW Flimsy because of what? its speed 4,5kms ? range like SM-3 block -AII but with explosive warhead?  or AEGIS radars?
    Stated range is like 7 times less! Where is the quote about new SM-6 speed? How big is the warhead?
    As explained, the KW in SM-3 is 23 kg. You cannot throw a MUCH bigger warhead inside the atmosphere as far and at the same speed with the same rocket, it is impossible.

    Honestly i dont understand your view on US military as  morns who dont know how to build AADs?  They might have different assumptions or doctrine but certainly know how to build weapons.
    I suppose you mean "morons"? I don't think they are, simply a SAM is not a ground/surface attack ballistic missile. It can be used as one and that is nice but is not as effective. Or do you think yourself that Russian military is full of morons designing Iskanders, Kinzhals, Onyx, Zircons and the like when they could solve everything with the S-400 missiles? Which BTW are bigger than Mk-41 missiles. So this brings a capability that USN maybe didn't have but no advantage against Russia.

    why precisely?
    See above

    did you chekc Russian counterpart? same thing so |Posiedon is crap, rusisan subs are at danger and nobody in Admiralty cares about subs in Russia only him. You can believe or not. i dont./
    You insist on the same ad-hominem I am not interested in. We are talking about SM-3/SM-6

    verkhoturye51 wrote:SM-3 is an exo-atmospheric interceptor that flies for the most of its trajectory in the area with low air drag. So assumming no drag shouldn't decrease the 2500 km that much.
    See the assumptions. They are primary school level and any figures calculated like that and published would be a scam pure and simple.

    SM-6 has an max altitude of more than 30 km, where air density is 25 times lower than at the sea level. This drag should decrease 2500 km by a small margin.
    Only it is 7 times less by their own estimations Rolling Eyes
    We don't know at what altitude the new booster would propel the SM-6 warhead, but it is not going to be even close to the extremely light KW of the SM-3. So it will fly much more time with much more resistance. Even the 2500 km stated for the SM-3 are BS apparently.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2379
    Points : 2377
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  Hole on Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:32 am

    Back in the 70´s a computer model showed that the new F-15 with its new AAM (that wa never developed) would shoot down 2.000 enemy planes. Then the general asked the salesmen if the air force should realy only buy 3 planes (1 for Europe, 1 fo Asia and 1 for training at home) and the computer model disappeared.

    Sponsored content

    Russian Military Bases Abroad - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Military Bases Abroad

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:47 pm