Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16310
    Points : 16941
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:11 am

    I really doubt the Russians are even on the verge of approaching viable
    ground based ASAT weaponry, hell, the Chinese are farther ahead than
    they are.

    Hahahahahahahaha... that is incredibly funny... or are you being serious?

    Anyone who has the technology and capability to launch a satellite can destroy a satellite.

    Simply launching an Energyia rocket into low earth orbit with its 100 ton payload a big plastic bag of sand in the opposite orbit of the target.

    Every 45 minutes the expanding cloud of sand will become more and more likely to impact the satellite in question... at double orbital speed... more than 14km/s even a single grain of sand will convert a fully functioning satellite into scrap metal... getting hit by thousands of grains will make it unrecognisable.

    The Soviets had 23mm cannons designed to fire in space, and also developed a small missile designed for protecting Soviet satellites from US interference. The US Space shuttle was the ideal platform to fly in and capture a Soviet satellite and bring it back down to earth for study. To prevent that all sorts of weapons were designed to protect them... and if a Soviet satellite can shoot at a space shuttle it can shoot at other targets nearby... things at the same height are all moving at the same speed so a gram of cold gas propellent would be enough to move a missile thousands of kms (though not very rapidly) to hit a target. Objects higher up will be faster and lower down will be slower.
    Any rocket used to launch a satellite could be used to destroy one.
    The Russians use ICBMs near retirement to put satellites in orbit commercially... the payload could just as easily be nails or small metal cubes.

    Regarding the S-400, if the 40N6 is big enough, 185 km in altitude isn't
    out of the question. Your footprint for a TBM intercept at that
    altitude is not going to be 400 km in range, though, there is a tradeoff
    for using the booster to get you higher.

    It would be unlikely to have a targeting ceiling and a max horizontal range in one shot as manouvering to hit a target at height will reduce energy for range.
    It would likely be one or the other.
    The earlier 48N6 had a range of 400km but it flew a calculated lofted trajectory with the control surfaces locked and basically zoom dived on the target from a very steep trajectory.
    A target like AWACs has little look directly up capability and would likely not even see it coming, and falling from hundreds of kms means it will be falling very fast.

    Ultimately, 185km is irrelevant to anything other than a ballistic
    missile. Military-relevant satellites like GPS and ISR sats use high-LEO
    to MEO orbits up to around 20,000 km. "Near-space" comes off more as a
    marketing term than anything else.

    Most incoming warheads will have ablative shields to protect them from the heat of re-entering the atmosphere... hitting them at 185kms altitude will expose the internal components to reentry temperatures and forces that will likely be more effective in completely destroying the target.
    Of course radioactive material will be spread over a much wider area because of the height of the interception, but if you are lucky high altitude wind streams might spread it so thin as to be not needing a clean up, or not making a clean up viable.
    Of course the increase in radiation is far preferable to a detonation.

    Given that the 48N6 was already tested at a range of 400km, the 40N6 may
    well be used not for long range but for very high altitude. Which will,
    of course, be rendered irrelevant when the dedicated ABM/ASAT S-500 is
    fielded.

    I have said as much, but there will likely be a use for high altitude interception with a system that is not a strategic ABM system (as opposed to a theatre ABM like S-300V, S-300P, S-400 et al).
    In other words there will be places in Russia and also likely eventual client states that need a theatre ABM with a high altitude engagement capability but that does not need a weapon as powerful as S-500.

    For instance placing S-500 in Abkhazia might step on a few toes, whereas the 120km and 40km range missiles of S-400 might be more than appropriate.

    They don't need to bother with HTK, they've done a good deal of work on directional warheads for the anti-missile role.

    Indeed... at the speeds involved a claymore burst of heavy fragments at enormous speeds projected into the path of the target is more than enough to kill it reliably, plus it means that against a range of targets it will be effective too. For instance high altitude balloons hit by a HTK warhead at 200,000ft will receive a hole less than a metre across straight through it that might penetrate three or four internal bags of lifting gas which will cause the airship to descend a little.
    Having a claymore shower of fragments travelling at enormous speeds will shred a large area and do far more damage. An airship is obviously a worst case scenario.

    Now, only an idiot is firing at something maneuverable (fighter-type
    target) beyond 250 km or so, so it's only really useful against large,
    cooperative targets like an ISR platform.

    The main problem would be detecting fighter sized targets at that range, but a dual IR sensor in the missile means the 400km range steep diving attack is perfectly possible... a steeply diving hypersonic missile with passive guidance could be very deadly to even the most nimble fighter... especially with a 150kg warhead with directional fragmentation.
    The MON-50 only weighs 2 kgs and is effective at killing people at 50-70m. The MON-200 weighs about 25kgs and can kill at 200m. Imagine a 150kg directional mine... that is already travelling at about mach 6 so you don't need a lot of HE... just a dispersal charge to send the fragments in the right direction.

    -The 9M96/9M96D are designed as HTK first, proximity fused warhead
    second. The motors are for added maneuvering near endgame. Notice that
    the canards are also hinged.

    After the rocket fuel is burned the side thruster rockets on the 9M96 and 9M96D are at the centre of gravity for the missile so they don't direct the nose of the missile to steer it on a new corrected heading towards the target... they blast the entire missile sideways to jump from its current path a few metres in any direction to get the missile closer to the targets path and the directional warhead does the rest if it doesn't hit it directly.
    The missile will be slowly spinning in flight so several rockets could be fired at the same angle as the rocket turned to increase the distance sideways the missile jumps into the path of the target.

    -40N6 by itself isn't odd, but given the 48N6's capability to hit 400
    km, I wouldn't be shocked if someone mistyped 48N6! Evidence points to
    the 40N6 being a new missile though, but still...you have to wonder.

    They have talked about a new 400km range missile long enough to work out it is not the tests performed on the 48N6 years ago with locked control surfaces and lofted trajectories.

    I really doubt the Russians are even on the verge of approaching viable
    ground based ASAT weaponry, hell, the Chinese are farther ahead than
    they are.

    Up until recently they were bound by the ABM treaty not to play with such technologies. China had no such restriction. I am sure in terms of practical systems the Russians will catch up rapidly enough.
    They are still working on a satellite launcher based on the Mig-31 which could very easily be modified for the opposite purpose.

    Austin

    Posts : 6235
    Points : 6641
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Austin on Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:52 am

    Interview:Operational Strategic Command Aerospace Defense (USC EBA), Lieutenant-General Valery Ivanov

    Triumphal Brand
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  medo on Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:05 pm

    http://www.armstrade.org/includes/periodics/news/2011/0408/13407808/detail.shtml

    Almaz-Antey produced and have ready to deliver to air force units some more regiments of S-400. I wonder how is production of new Tor-M2U going.

    Austin

    Posts : 6235
    Points : 6641
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Austin on Mon Apr 18, 2011 6:09 am

    SOC has a nice write up on S-300 and S-400 in his latest issue of I&A check link below

    S-300P/400
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16310
    Points : 16941
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:31 am

    Thanks... interesting read so far... except on page one where he calls the SA-6 "GUIDELINE".

    Smile

    The last page shows a land based training system for carrier operations, and based on the aircraft type I would say it was the Saki based training area in the Ukraine, but Russia was building its own facilities so it could be a new system in Russia too.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1169
    Points : 2063
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat May 14, 2011 2:32 am


    Russia to deploy 2nd S-400 air defense regiment near Moscow

    A second regiment equipped with advanced S-400 Triumf air defense systems will be put on combat duty near the Russian capital on May 15, the Defense Ministry said.

    The first S-400 regiment has been deployed in Electrostal, also near Moscow, as part of the air and missile defense network around the Russian capital.

    The S-400 (SA-21 Growler) air defense system is expected to form the cornerstone of Russia's theater air and missile defenses by 2020.

    The S-400 system can engage targets at a maximum range of up to 400 km at an altitude of 40,000-50,000 meters. The system uses a range of missiles, optimized for engaging ballistic and cruise missiles.

    An S-400 air defense regiment consists of two or three battalions equipped with four systems each. Russia is planning to arm 56 battalions with S-400 systems by 2020.

    MOSCOW, May 13 (RIA Novosti)

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110513/163998509.html

    Austin

    Posts : 6235
    Points : 6641
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Austin on Thu May 26, 2011 9:32 am

    A nice article that compared Aster/SAMPT , PAC-3 ERINT and 9M96E2

    link
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16310
    Points : 16941
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense]

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:12 pm

    Very interesting.

    Using the individual drawings as posted in the mp.net thread Austin links to in another SAM thread...



    This vehicle doesn't seem to have a loading crane on it so I expect this is the launch vehicle. The missiles turned 90 degrees to make them vertical, and therefore most likely being the vertical launch naval missiles.



    This is Morfei... is the rear portion on a turntable?
    I suspect this is only the radar vehicle but Morfei is supposed to be a small missile. Could half the cabin be a couple of rows of vertical launch tubes?
    Does the large radar fold up  and sit above the roof of the cabin to get a clear field of view. This drawing is probably the most confusing.



    This is clearly one of the many radar vehicles with the large flat antenna array at the front and the radar cabins at the rear. It says Triumpator-M so it is for the S-500.




    This appears to be the Vityaz launch vehicle with presumably the missile launch bins in the front of the cabin on the rear of the truck with the manned control area at the rear (based on the position of the door). Previous models showed a smaller truck and horizontally stored missiles that needed to be erected before launched vertically.



    And finally the Vityaz radar vehicle with the large flat radar array on the rear cabin. This might also double as the unit command module with the front cabin containing communications and control equipment for the battery commander.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16310
    Points : 16941
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:49 pm



    From this image we can see in the top left that this radar vehicle supports S-300, S-400, and S-500 systems, which basically means the S-500 could be located with either S-300 or S-400 batteries.

    The bottom drawing I like because it suggests the S-500 is a large missile and I find that to be very good news. First of all it means growth potential for the future... up to an including use as a potential anti satellite weapon.
    Second it means they are likely still retaining a warhead rather than going for hit to kill.
    Third it means the higher performance rumours of 600km range anti aircraft capability and 200km altitude figures are much more likely... if not now conservative figures.

    This makes it perhaps more of a GBI type weapon instead of a SM-3 equivelent.

    Info on GBI interceptor: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/gbi.html

    The Russians have had plenty of experience with ABM interceptors they have been building and deploying them around Moscow for decades.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  medo on Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:25 pm

    Very true. In the next years we will see a lot of interesting new complexes.

    This become very interesting. On one hand West is slowly abandon their air defenses and cancel new projects, on the other hand Russia and China invest a lot of resources in air defense. Airplanes also became more and more expensive, so their number will also decrease. I think in next decades air defense will become very decisive, because air forces will become equally small. Ground forces with air defense will operate far more freely than ground forces without it. If air force have small number of very expensive airplanes, they don't want to risk them against very capable air defense.

    Klingsor

    Posts : 6
    Points : 6
    Join date : 2011-06-13

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Klingsor on Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:54 am

    GarryB wrote:

    From this image we can see in the top left that this radar vehicle supports S-300, S-400, and S-500 systems, which basically means the S-500 could be located with either S-300 or S-400 batteries.

    The bottom drawing I like because it suggests the S-500 is a large missile and I find that to be very good news. First of all it means growth potential for the future... up to an including use as a potential anti satellite weapon.
    Second it means they are likely still retaining a warhead rather than going for hit to kill.
    Third it means the higher performance rumours of 600km range anti aircraft capability and 200km altitude figures are much more likely... if not now conservative figures.

    This makes it perhaps more of a GBI type weapon instead of a SM-3 equivelent.

    Info on GBI interceptor: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/gbi.html

    The Russians have had plenty of experience with ABM interceptors they have been building and deploying them around Moscow for decades.


    I've been doing some "truckology" based calculations from these pictures. study scratch

    The resulting estimation for Triumphator-M missile dimensions is the following:

    Max. Diameter - a little above 1,2 m

    Length - a little above 10 m

    These dimensions are very similar to those of the 9M82 missile.
    A simple explanation for this could be that Triumphator-M is in reality some sort of 9M82 derivative. Idea
    In turn this could mean that there will be a common "big missile" in PVO's S400/S500 complex
    and in the Army's S300V4 complex.
    This big missile wold be able to dialogue with any hardware of any of these systems.
    Anyway this is just a guess. I could be completely wrong... dunno


    Last edited by Klingsor on Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:55 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : spelling)
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16310
    Points : 16941
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:14 am

    I think... and I also think the Russian military agrees with me when looking at their reasons for transferring the PVO to the Space Forces branch of their military... that precision guided munitions including low flying and high and fast flying cruise missiles using stealth and/or speed to penetrate air defences will be the future risk and that while the number of manned platforms reduce and become more capable the number of unmanned platforms including in space will only increase.

    Air defence is no longer going to be good enough... you will need to be able to defend the space above as well... which is where the S-500 fits in.

    This big missile wold be able to dialogue with any hardware of any of these systems.
    Anyway this is just a guess. I could be completely wrong...

    Interesting assessment.

    To operate with S-300 and S-400 systems the wheeled chassis would be ideal, but to operate with the S-300V and later S-300V models it should also come in a tracked version as well.

    They did say it would be based on an existing S-300/S-400 design I believe, but then they also said it would be smaller, and then they said it would be a mobile version of the latest model ABM missiles used around Moscow.

    Different people give different leaks and it is hard to know which is the most accurate... a problem compounded by translation errors.

    In comparison to your figures the GBI has a range of about 5,000km and can reach altitudes of up to 2,000km. It is a three stage weapon designed to intercept ballistic targets mid-flight.

    Of course it doesn't need anywhere near that performance.

    It is a bit like some people think a Mig-31 can't intercept an SR-71 because the SR-71 is too fast. The point is that the Mig-31 like the S-500 is near the place the SR-71 or ballistic missile wants to go so neither interceptor has to catch up with their target... their target is coming to them. Regarding the ability to actually kill an SR-71 there is a reason the Mig-31 sometimes carries the R-40TD IR guided air to air missile. The IR signal from an SR-71 can be detected by a Mig-31s IRST at over 120 miles... in fact both the Mig-31 and Mig-25 can detect an SR-71 with IRST before they can detect it with radar. Because of the high speed of the SR-71 the Mig pilot just needs to raise the nose and get a lock with its missiles and fire and they have a very good chance of a kill with those big IR guided missiles.
    Against normal targets they wouldn't get a IR lock till they were very close so when they are scrambled to intercept bombers or other subsonic planes they carry 4 R-60s instead.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16310
    Points : 16941
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:58 am

    Looking at the angle this photo was taken I might think it was a photo taken from an American satellite, but while it is a very small photo it does show that the two different S-300V missiles (the large and the small missiles) are actually the same missiles with different sized boosters attached to them.
    The missiles themselves are actually quite small and are designed for very high speed.

    I actually have the feeling that the S-300 and S-400 missiles are bigger physically.

    I would think that it is therefore possible to have an S-300/S-400 based missile with a large booster stage fitted might end up looking like the S-500 because the tube has to allow for the size of the booster stage and the overall shape of the missile could be triangular for max speed.


    Klingsor

    Posts : 6
    Points : 6
    Join date : 2011-06-13

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Klingsor on Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:53 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The missiles themselves are actually quite small and are designed for very high speed.

    I actually have the feeling that the S-300 and S-400 missiles are bigger physically.

    I would think that it is therefore possible to have an S-300/S-400 based missile with a large booster stage fitted might end up looking like the S-500 because the tube has to allow for the size of the booster stage and the overall shape of the missile could be triangular for max speed.


    That is also a possibility. It is almost certain that whatever family it is derived from, it will feature a large booster stage.

    I was just remarking a coincidence in the size one could estimate from the pictures with the 9M82 overall size.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Stealthflanker on Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:19 pm

    Klingsor wrote:

    I've been doing some "truckology" based calculations from these pictures. study scratch

    The resulting estimation for Triumphator-M missile dimensions is the following:

    Max. Diameter - a little above 1,2 m

    Length - a little above 10 m

    These dimensions are very similar to those of the 9M82 missile.
    A simple explanation for this could be that Triumphator-M is in reality some sort of 9M82 derivative. Idea
    In turn this could mean that there will be a common "big missile" in PVO's S400/S500 complex
    and in the Army's S300V4 complex.
    This big missile wold be able to dialogue with any hardware of any of these systems.
    Anyway this is just a guess. I could be completely wrong... dunno


    This is interesting .. if your estimation on that "Triumfator-M" is correct then the performance of the missile Vs aircraft would be similar as my design here

    http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/159/2/a/iradia_freya_long_range_sam_by_stealthflanker-d3idi11.png

    My calculations are based on method at "Tactical Missile Design 2nd Edition" and "Rocket Propulsion Elements"
    it 1,2 m booster would generate over 132.000 Kgf of thrust (assume 6 seconds burn and 3300 Kg of propellant, similar as 9M82) and will propels the missile at mach 5 and altitude of some 4500m, then the second stage will work.. thrust profile will likely be different as my design use Gelled propellant (IRFNA and Hydrazine) as fuel ... but i think missile apogee of some 70km and potential flight range of 250km should be achievable .. the missile will have peak speed of some mach 8,5 during sustain phase. During glide, depending on time and angle the missile can still have Mach 8 speed to target .

    In aerodynamic performance, the missile will have Drag coefficients (Cdo) of some 0,24-0,28 ..pretty nice figure i think .. and a lift to drag ratio of some 3,2 (assume AoA glide of 5 degrees).

    as for performance against ballistic missile ..well it will be similar (although i suspect more as my calculations resulted in higher interception altitude than currently published figure of S-300V's 9M82 (40km and 40.000 m AGL) ..my figure shows 47.000m and over 50km in range)
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16310
    Points : 16941
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:54 pm

    That is also a possibility. It is almost certain that whatever family it is derived from, it will feature a large booster stage.

    I rather suspect three stages would be required.

    There is talk that this is an endo/exo atmospheric intercept missile that can hit aircraft at 600km range, and targets at least 200km up.

    Above 100km it is in practical terms space so control fins and surfaces just wont work, but after dropping two stages of solid fuelled rocket material the final stage will be relatively low mass and will either use a directed warhead or side thruster rockets timed to blast the interceptor into the path of the incoming threat.

    The directed warhead being mostly metal material likely a bundle of 1 square centimetre cubes with a very small HE charge and multiple fuses... at the last milisecond the seeker tracking the incoming threat projects its future position and initiates the fuse that will send 150kgs of metal cubes into the path of the incoming object. The closing speed will be something like Mach 20 or 6400m/s which will give the metal cubes plenty of energy to shred the target. The advantage of such a warhead is that it works well with aircraft as well when it is set off from further away because an aircraft is a much larger target.

    The point is that the warhead bus is the last stage and so it really needs two other stages... one to get it up and moving, and a second to get it to the target area with the final warhead bus manouvering in space for final positioning of the warhead to intercept.

    Stealthflanker, keep in mind that the S-300V was never really intended as a long range SAM, it was an Army weapon that was intended to deal with steep diving ballistic weapons aimed at army formations and bases.
    There is no reason why the lofted trajectory of the S-400 could not be applied to the S-300V series, and in fact being a two stage weapon the S-300V should offer much better performance because of very high speed and lower drag.

    Klingsor

    Posts : 6
    Points : 6
    Join date : 2011-06-13

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Klingsor on Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:05 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    I rather suspect three stages would be required.

    There is talk that this is an endo/exo atmospheric intercept missile that can hit aircraft at 600km range, and targets at least 200km up.

    Above 100km it is in practical terms space so control fins and surfaces just wont work, but after dropping two stages of solid fuelled rocket material the final stage will be relatively low mass and will either use a directed warhead or side thruster rockets timed to blast the interceptor into the path of the incoming threat.


    Couldn´t a 2nd stage with TV + forward side-thrusters do much of the 3rd stage job with less complexity? (the ASTER approach)
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  medo on Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:29 pm

    You could be correct, that giant missile from S-300VM could be a base for new S-500 missile with placing additional stage and maybe different and lighter guidance system with ARM and warhead. I think more interesting will be radar complexes, which will enable that very long ranges of missiles (600 km is very long range). This complex will be large and it seems still mobile. This is something, every enemy air force would worry about.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Stealthflanker on Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:53 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Stealthflanker, keep in mind that the S-300V was never really intended as a long range SAM, it was an Army weapon that was intended to deal with steep diving ballistic weapons aimed at army formations and bases.
    There is no reason why the lofted trajectory of the S-400 could not be applied to the S-300V series, and in fact being a two stage weapon the S-300V should offer much better performance because of very high speed and lower drag.

    So ?

    i never think S-300V didn't or can't use loft glide trajectory vs aircraft target
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16310
    Points : 16941
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:56 am

    Couldn´t a 2nd stage with TV + forward side-thrusters do much of the 3rd stage job with less complexity? (the ASTER approach)

    Having three stages adds height.

    Each stage makes the payload lighter and gives the next stage a better power to weight ratio and lower drag.

    By using three stages instead of 2 it makes the final interceptor stage much much lighter, and considering this system will either be up to 600km from its launcher diving at very high speed on its target, or outside the atmosphere above 100km altitude then making it lighter means the side thruster rockets that will manouver the payload will be more effective and allow much greater trajectory changes to hit the target.

    It also means that the system can be more easily improved during its operational lifespan.

    If you look at the two stage SA-19 SAM as used in the Pantsir, the Tunguska, and the Kashtan, the original solid fuelled booster rocket motor accelerated the missile to 1,000m/s and then fell away. The improved larger rocket booster in the Pantsir-S1 accelerates an improved missile to 1,300m/s and has enabled the effective range of the system to go from 12km to 20km for aerial targets.

    Very simply as thrust increases drag increases too. By breaking the thrust into separate stages you can burn fuel much more efficiently. Having a single booster is very much like making the payload an air launched missile in that it extends range and increases speed, but a long range missile is still a big heavy thing.

    Making it a three stage missile takes that a step further, allows higher performance and improves terminal options because the payload that intercepts the target is much smaller and lighter than it would be in a two stage system.

    Needless to say manoeuvring a 1 ton payload with sensors, side thrusters, and warhead to hit a very high speed target is more efficient than manoeuvring a 3 ton missile that was 7 tons with fuel that is now burnt and with a 3 ton booster rocket that was jettisoned. It makes more sense to jettison that extra 2 tons because it is just drag.

    Another problem is that that 3 ton missile is long and now nose heavy because all the fuel weight in the rear is gone so the side thrusters that are manoeuvring the weapon onto target have to cope with centre of gravity issues... which will be different diving down through the atmosphere at long range aircraft targets, or in a vacuum hitting a target 200km up outside the atmosphere.


    i never think S-300V didn't or can't use loft glide trajectory vs aircraft target

    You didn't, but your estimation of "but i think missile apogee of some 70km and potential flight range of 250km should be achievable " seemed to show you think the S-300V is rather shorter ranged than the S-400. The Standard large missile in the S-400 series is supposed to be able to reach 250km aerial targets, the 400km range lofted model might not be in service but shows the range increase of a lofted trajectory. The S-300V being a two stage system has far more potential with regard to range using a lofted trajectory than S-400, but as I stated air control is not a concern of the Russian Army... they were only interested in steep diving incoming BMs and have not explored the max range potential of the S-300V system AFAIK.

    Klingsor

    Posts : 6
    Points : 6
    Join date : 2011-06-13

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Klingsor on Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:30 am

    I've been thinking about the need for a exo-atmospheric interceptor in the PVO (or space forces,
    or whatever...) in the context of the threats that Russia faces, and I realy don't think there
    is much of a case for it.


    The main threat that Russia faces is a 1st strike by the West, that incapacitates its nuclear
    deterrent to such an extent, that the remaining missiles that it can use to retaliate will
    be easily dealt with by the West's ABM systems.


    So, how what systems would the West use in such 1st strike?

    1. It would never use ICBMs or SLBMs. These come with the sender's adress attached
    and before their warheads touched russian soil, their targets would have left
    their silos/subs/trucks.

    2. Some rocketplane FOBS bomber is a far fetched prospect.

    3. A realistic 1st strike would be a coordinated attack by SSNs against russian SSBNs
    and non-ballistic stealth vehicles (bombers, UCAVs, cruise missiles) against ICBM silos/trucks,
    strategic bomber bases, and C3 infrastructure. Such vehicles could be subsonic, supersonic
    or hypersonic, but well within the endo-atmospheric domain.


    Taking that into account, I reach the following conclusions about the PVO needs:

    1. The build up of the Early Warning network is absolutely vital, especialy in what concerns
    counter stealth measures.

    2. The deployement of S-400 in numbers should be a priority.

    3. The S-500 system development should focus first in endo-atmospheric interceptors, only later,
    when affordable, should exo-atmospheric capabilities be considered (unless there is an urgent
    need for ASAT capability).

    In short, IMHO there is not much use for an exo-atmospheric interceptor in PVO's arsenal for the foreseeable future.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16310
    Points : 16941
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:24 am

    Well the point is that the job of intercepting... ie manouvering in space is rather different than intercepting within the atmosphere.

    It makes sense to start with a system designed to intercept inside and outside the atmosphere from the start as this makes it cheaper and simpler to upgrade later on.

    Second the S-500 is part of military weapons planning for the next 10-20 years so it is not current in service threats it needs to be able to deal with... it needs to be able to deal with potential future threats too.

    So, how what systems would the West use in such 1st strike?

    1. It would never use ICBMs or SLBMs. These come with the sender's adress attached
    and before their warheads touched russian soil, their targets would have left
    their silos/subs/trucks.

    2. Some rocketplane FOBS bomber is a far fetched prospect.

    3. A realistic 1st strike would be a coordinated attack by SSNs against russian SSBNs
    and non-ballistic stealth vehicles (bombers, UCAVs, cruise missiles) against ICBM silos/trucks,
    strategic bomber bases, and C3 infrastructure. Such vehicles could be subsonic, supersonic
    or hypersonic, but well within the endo-atmospheric domain.

    The best first strike by western forces can be worked out... but you need to be aware of a few details.
    The TOPOL and TOPOL-M and RS-24 missiles are silo and truck mounted systems and while the silos are fixed the truck mounted systems are required by the START treaty to have operational areas where they are kept in peacetime. In times of tension they can be deployed but that creates a risk where someone might try to steal a nuke so most of the time they stay within a certain area.
    With serious lack of funding the Russian Navy had very few SSBNs out on patrol so the vast majority were at their base.

    A combined low level attack with B-2s firing long range stealthy cruise missiles along with several Ohio class SSBNs firing from the Med and the Baltic and the Sea of Japan could easily launch hundreds of very accurate weapons on depressed trajectories and high flight speeds to hit sub bases, strategic missile truck bases and land based silos... in fact the B-2s could use conventional weapons to hit silos... they don't even need to penetrate the silo and destroy the missile inside... they could simply destroy the mechanism to open the silos.

    Combined with the ABM missiles in Alaska, and however many they will eventually put in Europe and when they finish talks with Japan over a system there the number of nukes the Russians have left to reply with starts to look small.

    Add to this new plans of high speed high flying bombers potentially based on replacement ideas for the Space Shuttle and of course very high flying UAVs and UCAVs and even ICBMs with conventional warheads and right now the S-500 might not be the most useful tool in the shed, but in the near future it will become more and more necessary.

    3. The S-500 system development should focus first in endo-atmospheric interceptors, only later,
    when affordable, should exo-atmospheric capabilities be considered (unless there is an urgent
    need for ASAT capability).

    S-400 already pretty much handles anything within the atmosphere, the S-500 is supposed to extend its reach... not just duplicate it.

    In short, IMHO there is not much use for an exo-atmospheric interceptor in PVO's arsenal for the foreseeable future.

    I agree with your areas to focus on but not this. Exo Atmospheric interception takes a lot of high tech to achieve and will not be achievable overnight. They need to start work on it now so it will be ready when it is needed.

    Klingsor

    Posts : 6
    Points : 6
    Join date : 2011-06-13

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Klingsor on Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:29 am

    Well made points, Garry, I just disagree a little bit with this one:

    GarryB wrote:
    S-400 already pretty much handles anything within the atmosphere, the S-500 is supposed to extend its reach... not just duplicate it.

    I don´t think there is a duplication of capability because S-400 already pretty much handles anything within the atmosphere... up to 30 Km...

    Hypersonic cruise vehicles are in the limit/somewhat above of S-400 envelope, and an endo-atmospheric S-500 interceptor
    with a ceiling of at least 60km would definetly help there, since that is "low hanging fruit" that Almaz-Antey can
    reap already with a modest investment.

    The S-500 is needed to fill that gap.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16310
    Points : 16941
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:42 am

    I don´t think there is a duplication of capability because S-400 already pretty much handles anything within the atmosphere... up to 30 Km...

    Hypersonic cruise vehicles are in the limit/somewhat above of S-400 envelope, and an endo-atmospheric S-500 interceptor
    with a ceiling of at least 60km would definetly help there, since that is "low hanging fruit" that Almaz-Antey can
    reap already with a modest investment.

    The S-500 is needed to fill that gap.

    Sorry I wasn't clear.

    What I meant is that building a missile interceptor that operates within the atmosphere is what the S-400 could be.

    If you want S-500 to only work inside the atmosphere... say to 60-70km altitude then it would make more sense to simply modify an S-400 missile.

    The S-500 is supposed to fill the gap to 200km altitude with the first models and perhaps add anti satellite capability in later models like the GBI (ie 2,000km altitude).

    Operationally the advantage is that against countries with ICBMs they can include S-500 vehicles and missiles in S-400 batteries... just in case. For use against countries that lack strategic weapons then the S-500 can be kept at home... but if things change the extra vehicles can be deployed.

    All I am saying is that an "in" Atmosphere S-500 could be performed by an S-400 with work. An out of Atmosphere S-500 will bring new and useful capabilities.

    In plane terms by suggesting a in atmosphere only S-500 you are suggesting a non-stealthy PAK FA... which is taking away what the S-500/PAK FA actually brings to the party.

    The whole purpose of the S-500 is not the potential 600km range, it is the potential 200km height.

    The design difference between something that operates inside the atmosphere and one that operates outside the atmosphere is huge... otherwise there is little point in S-500... it would be much simpler to merely modify the S-300 again (like the did to make the S-400 (large missiles).
    To manouver in space requires a fundmental change in the final stage manouvering design.
    The need for multiple stages is greatly increased... at least two stages and preferably three for best terminal performance.

    Pervius

    Posts : 249
    Points : 271
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Russian Strategic Air Defence

    Post  Pervius on Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:11 pm

    Looks like there's an Exercise this month where Russia's trying to stop incoming Cruise Missiles:

    http://caspionet.kz/eng/general/Shygys2011_tactical_exercises_staged_in_Eastern_Kazakhstan_1308800067.html

    Looks like those boys eat better than poor Americans. Some big bellies there. Keep your tanks a little further apart. Munitions bursting overhead raining down would have wiped them all out.

    Move soldiers out in smaller teams separated...don't go moving thru a field like that all-together in today's battlefield.


    Any other pictures of this Air Defense Exercise out there?


    Sponsored content

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:15 pm