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.
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.
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
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.