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

Austin wrote:What is the characteristics of the new missile that is under state testing now for S-400 , any details ?

GarryB wrote:It is not a question of control surface size, at 175km up the shape and size of "wings" and control surfaces is irrelevant because the air is so thin that any turning force they generate is tiny or non existant.

The S-300 series missiles have tail fins for flight control.

From the beginning, the system included the most “cutting-edge” Soviet missile defense technology. Its phased-array fire control radar was capable of tracking up to six targets simultaneously, while its single-state, solid-fuel propelled missile sported aerodynamic control surfaces and thrust vectoring.

If you have a missile design based on an older missile design and both are designed to work within the atmosphere then it is cheaper and simpler to use conventional control surfaces in addition to directional warheads and side thruster rocket motors to ensure maximum terminal manouver capability.

An IR seeker is generally no good for terminal guideance because at 175km up the incoming target has not reentered the atmosphere and has not been heated yet and it will be cold like other things that have been in space.

An active radar sensor will be limited by the apature of the sensor... AMRAAM can see aircraft size targets at about 30km. THAAD is rather bigger as will the big missile of S-400, but they wont see targets much beyond 40-50km either, now if the target is coming in at up to 4.8km/s and the missile is going up at probably about 2.4km/s then we are talking about a closing speed of approximately 7km/s, so 45 km range detection gives you just over 6 seconds time to detect the target, and then sample at least two positional ranging pulses to determine its flight path and then calculate an interception point and then manouver the interceptor missile to get to that interception point. The calculations will be done in micro seconds, but the manouvering of the intercepting missile so that it is in the correct point in space at exactly the right time might be a problem.

I would expect the long range missile will look the same as the S-300 missiles but made of lighter materials with probably an active homing radar seeker, newer lighter electronics and more powerful rocket motor that flys on a ballistic path to get to the target area and performs a very high speed diving attack on the target.

Look at the two missiles for the S-300V system, both were the same missile, but the larger missile had a solid rocket booster as well.

No they are not. The THAAD is a definitive SCUD and theatre range BM killer. It was never intended as a SAM system. Otherwise you would also have to say that SA-12 and late model SA-10s are also THAAD competitors. They are not.
The THAAD was designed from the outset as an ABM system only to be used instead of the PAC-3 Patriot where the threat was from ballistic missiles only. For example Iraqi aircraft could be dealt with using coalition aircraft and Patriot batteries, but Scuds and longer range variants of Scuds were a problem. PAC-3 was a band aide solution with the final solution being THAAD.

If you had swapped Soviet forces with allied forces their S-300 and S-300V systems probably would have dealt with Scud like missiles easily enough simply because unlike Patriot they were designed to engage Scud like ballistic missiles and they have been successfully tested against such targets since their introduction.

The purpose of S-500 is, like the THAAD, to focus solely on ballistic targets and in that respect they are directly comparable.

This means that S-500 will be needed against ballistic targets, but S-400s will be needed against other attack forms like aircraft or cruise missiles. Having an S-400 battery half loaded with dedicated missiles to defend against BMs might lead to the defence being overwhelmed by cruise missile attack. Having seperate S-400 and S-500 systems means when you pick your type of S-400 missiles you can optimise for aerodynamic targets of all types with one less missile.

GarryB wrote:The R-73 has a form of thrust vectoring and also fin control surfaces, it doesn't mean it can work outside the atmosphere either.

Outside the atmosphere the fins become decorations and all you have to manouver are the moving engines in the tail. Once you leave the atmosphere it is all down to fuel burn to manouver so you need a large reserve of fuel and throttle control and the ability to start up and shut down the propulsion several times if necessary.

In other words it means liquid fuel rockets with manouver jets front and rear to be able to speed up and slow down and perform significant manouvers... in other words a major redesign of the original missile... and why?
The S-400 is replacing the S-300 so 90% of its work will be targets that are air breathers.
Of the remaining 10% the S-500 can deal with.

The S-300 and S-400 for that matter fly very fast so the air flowing over the rear fins exerts great force. The side thrusters are for last second course corrections to jump the missile into the path of the target, whether that target be a subsonic fighter or a hypersonic missile.

The R-73 also known as the AA-11 Archer is already a high performance AAM that can intercept targets performing 12 g manouvers and it uses thrust vectoring and control surfaces and it wont work outside of the atmosphere either.

The IIR seeker it uses is not an IR seeker, it is an IIR seeker, which is like a EO seeker that sees heat rather than light and is used only for terminal guidance.
If you think of a TV picture at 25 frames a second and working backwards with the last frame a hit, the distances the target will be in those previous frames it is no good for mid course or initial guidance and is only useful for terminal guidance with side thrusting rockets that can shove the missile into the correct position at the last milisecond.

But you think it is fair to compare a SAM system with ABM capabilities with an ABM system with no SAM capabilities at all?

The better efficiency you claim is completely unproven. Even the potential to control about 500,000 km square up to 30 kms or so in height is to me more important that being able to control a much smaller area to a greater height.The 30kms from the ground up is much more important to an armed force than the 200km above that.

But as you already stated only one of these systems is actually multirole so what is the problem in working out which is the best or more capable multirole system?

Russia is developing radically new air defense systems Vityaz and S-500 and aircraft capable of operating in outer space, Russian Air Force Commander Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin said on Saturday.

“In fact a new system with new weapons is being developed – this is a system called Vityaz,” Zelin said on Echo Moskvy radio.

Compared to the S-300 system, Vityaz has a significantly larger combat ammunition load and requires a shorter time to get it operational, Zelin said.

S-400 air defense missile systems will be supplied to air defense forces protecting the central industrial region of Russia and Moscow, he said.

Russia is also developing the S-500 system, which will serve not only as an air defense but also a missile defense system. “This weapon will enter the Air Force’s inventory by 2020,” he said.

Asked whether Russia is working on constructing planes capable of operating in outer space, Zelin replied, “Naturally, it is.”

Such projects are being pursued in other countries as well, Zelin said. “We are also doing this. We cannot trail along at the back. There are projects, there is understanding as to how to do this, and there are technical solutions,” he said.

nightcrawler wrote:So S-400 using AESA??

nightcrawler wrote:So S-400 using AESA??