Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Share

    gaurav
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 309
    Points : 309
    Join date : 2013-02-19
    Age : 37
    Location : Blr

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  gaurav on Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:06 am

    Gorgon missile were retired in 2007 some time.

    Gazelle missles are short range.

    This topic is very classifid till now.
    The Russian air force has said that it will start testing S-400 against "ICBM classs" targets
    in 2015.

    Actually the S-400 regiments are still in deployment stage they have not been fielded in sufficent
    quantities.

    But no words are heard from MoD about the capabilities of S-400.
    Although we know that S-400 radar has capacity to rival the best of ABM radars in the world.


    Russia’s missile-attack warning radars are far superior to any foreign counterparts, a top defense official said Friday.
    Russia has an “absolute lead,” “no one else can match these stations,” Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said after visiting a Voronezh-M radar in Siberia’s Irkutsk Region.
    The Voronezh-M has greatly surpassed previous-generation systems, in particular the Dnepr, the official said, adding that the Voronezh-M had a range of 6,500 kilometers, higher resolution and a broader field of vision.
    The radar system will “reliably protect our southeastern sector and the northeastern part of the Pacific,” he said.
    His comments echoed ones last month by General Staff chief Valery Gerasimov, who said Russia was building a new aerospace defense system that would guarantee detection of enemy ballistic and long-range cruise missiles at blastoff.

    russian ABM radars are best

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-14
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  SOC on Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:54 am

    Deep Throat wrote:Is it possible for the S 400 to successfully intercept a RS 24 Yars as it carries 4 MIRVs that are manoeuvrable ?

    Probably not. Those are moving much faster than SRBM/MRBM-class targets. Also, that would basically defeat the purpose of the S-500, which will deal with targets with speeds up to orbital velocity, as in LEO satellites. The mechanics, and therefore the system components required, are very different when trying to intercept something with ICBM velocities.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-26
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Viktor on Thu Aug 08, 2013 5:26 pm

    Definitely no. RS-24 moves with much higher speeds that S-400 can not catch and process.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Thu Aug 08, 2013 5:35 pm

    I doubt even the S-500 would be able to intercept an RS-24 which is primarily designed to deal with ABM threats if you have a fair competition.

    Intercepting a Passive MIRV would be something S-500 will be upto if one can exclude decoys and stuff.

    Deep Throat
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Deep Throat on Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:25 pm

    Austin wrote:I doubt even the S-500 would be able to intercept an RS-24 which is primarily designed to deal with ABM threats if you have a fair competition.

    Intercepting a Passive MIRV would be something S-500 will be upto if one can exclude decoys and stuff.

    Yes . I too do not think that the S 500 can successfully intercept a RS 24 Yars.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-14
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  SOC on Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:02 am

    Deep Throat wrote:
    Austin wrote:I doubt even the S-500 would be able to intercept an RS-24 which is primarily designed to deal with ABM threats if you have a fair competition.

    Intercepting a Passive MIRV would be something S-500 will be upto if one can exclude decoys and stuff.
    Yes . I too do not think that the S 500 can successfully intercept a RS 24 Yars.
    It's certainly debatable whether the S-500 would be able to kill an RS-24. One has to remember that they're both Russian products, so the S-500 designers could have access to RS-24 MIRV information allowing them to incorporate the ability to defeat that class of target in case the US deploys something similar if there's ever a replacement for the Minuteman III. The S-500 should definitely be able to handle the speed, it's the maneuvering ability that'd have to be countered.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:05 am

    Manouvering , Decoys both in numbers with the 3rd dimension Time to complete the circle.

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-03
    Location : India

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Sujoy on Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:00 am

    The easiest and most cost effective counter measures that the Yars can use against interceptor missile fired by the S 400 or S 500 are inflatable balloon decoys .Since  the missile defense interceptors are designed to strike warheads during mid course in the vacuum of space these balloons and any warheads would be traveling together, making it impossible to tell the decoys apart from the real thing.

    Just inflating the balloons near the interceptor missile would confuse the defense system, swamping it with fake signals. If the defensive system cannot discriminate between a warhead and the many decoys, it won’t work.

    If the S 500 has a mid course guidance datalink then theoretically you could program it to use that the entire way, and just remove the homing head. It's basically operating as a command-guided weapon during midcourse anyway. The drawback is that you're potentially less accurate over longer ranges depending on the capability of your radar. That could be a big deal with a smaller warhead.

    The Yars   warhead ( like most other MIRVs) is designed for reentry with heat resistant ablative shells and are slim aerodynamic shapes that need to be smashed... a glancing blow is not sufficient. ICBM warheads are also accompanied by decoys and jammers and stealth coatings etc etc .It all boils down to tracking. MIRV/MaRV are flying a relatively unstable and unpredictable path. Yars warheads are designed for low drag entry not just to engage hard targets but more importantly to defeat  terminal-phase missile defenses.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3316
    Join date : 2012-01-31

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  flamming_python on Fri Aug 09, 2013 5:10 am

    SOC wrote:
    Deep Throat wrote:
    Austin wrote:I doubt even the S-500 would be able to intercept an RS-24 which is primarily designed to deal with ABM threats if you have a fair competition.

    Intercepting a Passive MIRV would be something S-500 will be upto if one can exclude decoys and stuff.
    Yes . I too do not think that the S 500 can successfully intercept a RS 24 Yars.
    It's certainly debatable whether the S-500 would be able to kill an RS-24.  One has to remember that they're both Russian products, so the S-500 designers could have access to RS-24 MIRV information allowing them to incorporate the ability to defeat that class of target in case the US deploys something similar if there's ever a replacement for the Minuteman III.  The S-500 should definitely be able to handle the speed, it's the maneuvering ability that'd have to be countered.
    Neither the S-400 nor S-500 are rated against ICBMs; certainly not the generation of the RS-24.
    They were not designed to be able to intercept such missiles.
    So let's say Almaz-Antey has access to the RS-24 project team, algorithm specifications, precise technical details, etc...
    And so what? Why would they bother trying to get the S-400/500 to be able to intercept RS-24 missiles; when Russia is the only country with RS-24s anyway?
    Sounds like a waste of time.

    They certainly don't have access to all the US Minuteman and other foreign ICBM data.
    So even a weapon capable of intercepting a Russian ICBM won't be able to handle an American ICBM; if what it relies on to do so is inside knowledge about Russian missile specifics.

    Having said that - mind you the S-500 is slated to have at least some level of anti-ABM capability. But it's too early to speculate on that - its precise ABM capabilities are a closely guarded secret and will likely remain so.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 09, 2013 9:21 am

    S-500 is an ABM system and will have specs that should allow it to engage standard ICBM reentry vehicles.

    Having said that - mind you the S-500 is slated to have at least some level of anti-ABM capability. But it's too early to speculate on that - its precise ABM capabilities are a closely guarded secret and will likely remain so.
    S-500 will have no AABM capability and will not be deployed close enough to an ABM system to interfere with it anyway...

    RS-24 is an ICBM but is designed to evade ABM interceptor missiles... S-500 is an ABM interceptor missile so assuming they have done their job S-500 should be unable in its first models to intercept RS-24 like weapons.


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

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

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-14
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  SOC on Fri Aug 09, 2013 10:13 am

    flamming_python wrote:Neither the S-400 nor S-500 are rated against ICBMs; certainly not the generation of the RS-24.
    The S-500 is both an ABM and a LEO ASAT.  People seemingly insisting that it's only a repeat of the S-400's 40N6 long-range SAM capability are ignorant of the entire set of information available.

    flamming_python wrote:And so what? Why would they bother trying to get the S-400/500 to be able to intercept RS-24 missiles; when Russia is the only country with RS-24s anyway?
    Sounds like a waste of time.
    Right up until the USA or China figures out or deploys MaRVs.  Then the effort will have been worth it.  Otherwise, you're never progressing.  It helps to try and defend against the projected future threat, not just currently available systems.

    flamming_python wrote:They certainly don't have access to all the US Minuteman and other foreign ICBM data.
    They certainly can put ships in the Pacific, Atlantic, etc. and track RV reentry angles and velocities.  Which are about all that matters right now without foreign MaRVs.

    flamming_python wrote:So even a weapon capable of intercepting a Russian ICBM won't be able to handle an American ICBM; if what it relies on to do so is inside knowledge about Russian missile specifics.
    They shot down SS-4s, SCUDs, and others during testing to evaluate the S-300P series in the ATBM role.  By your logic, that means they cannot defeat any non-Russian made TBMs.  That's obviously false and a complete misrepresentation of how developing this or any other capability would actually work.

    flamming_python wrote:Having said that - mind you the S-500 is slated to have at least some level of anti-ABM capability.
    What're they going to do, deploy it off the coast of Alaska to shoot down GBI?

    flamming_python wrote:But it's too early to speculate on that - its precise ABM capabilities are a closely guarded secret and will likely remain so.
    Except when various industry and MoD officials come right out and say it.[/quote]

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3316
    Join date : 2012-01-31

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  flamming_python on Sat Aug 10, 2013 3:36 pm

    GarryB wrote:S-500 is an ABM system and will have specs that should allow it to engage standard ICBM reentry vehicles.

    Having said that - mind you the S-500 is slated to have at least some level of anti-ABM capability. But it's too early to speculate on that - its precise ABM capabilities are a closely guarded secret and will likely remain so.
    S-500 will have no AABM capability and will not be deployed close enough to an ABM system to interfere with it anyway...

    RS-24 is an ICBM but is designed to evade ABM interceptor missiles... S-500 is an ABM interceptor missile so assuming they have done their job S-500 should be unable in its first models to intercept RS-24 like weapons.
    Whoops I mean ABM capability not anti-ABM

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3316
    Join date : 2012-01-31

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:11 am

    Hmm GazB actually you've just given me a new idea

    Rail-mobile S-400/S-500 systems  What a Face 

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:30 am

    flamming_python wrote:Hmm GazB actually you've just given me a new idea

    Rail-mobile S-400/S-500 systems  What a Face 

    Interesting, i mean think about it, 1 or more S-300/350/400/500 launchers or a combo of them in the center TOR/BUK next to it on each side, Pantsir-S1s on the first and last rail car and of course the command-post, search and tracking radars somewhere in between.

    And there you have it, a nicely packaged multi-layered rail based air defense umbrella that can be rapidly deployed to where ever its needed, marvelous idea FP.  Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:04 pm

    With new propellents and more modern technology new IRBMs could be rail mounted on standard train carriages which would make them much cheaper and more practical.

    An advantage of train mounted Pantsir-S1 is the ground to ground capability of the guns as an anti ambush system... the cannon shell capacity of a train would be enormous...

    S-500s on an ICBM train would be very interesting too...


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

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

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Mon Dec 16, 2013 12:33 am

    GarryB wrote:With new propellents and more modern technology new IRBMs could be rail mounted on standard train carriages which would make them much cheaper and more practical.

    An advantage of train mounted Pantsir-S1 is the ground to ground capability of the guns as an anti ambush system... the cannon shell capacity of a train would be enormous...

    S-500s on an ICBM train would be very interesting too...


    Sounds like an excellent idea, they should make that design for two different kinds of trains: 1.) A heavily armored train equivalent, 2.) A fast rail equivalent for fast deployment. Russia needs a lightly armored fastrail/maglev variant which networks Moscow and St. Petersburg all the way through Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-26
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Viktor on Mon Dec 16, 2013 12:41 am

    Nothing of such sort will ever be made because it greatly restricts mobility and mobility is the key factor. 

    If you have rail SAMs than its much easier to predict where they can be placed and thus plan your attacks more effectively.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3316
    Join date : 2012-01-31

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Dec 16, 2013 1:24 am

    Viktor wrote:Nothing of such sort will ever be made because it greatly restricts mobility and mobility is the key factor. 

    If you have rail SAMs than its much easier to predict where they can be placed and thus plan your attacks more effectively.

    If they look exactly the same as all the other trains though then you might have a problem.

    But yeah that's a point too.

    Maybe they can dismount from the train and move to other positions when they reach their destination. While also retaining operation while mounted on the train.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Mon Dec 16, 2013 12:44 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    Viktor wrote:Nothing of such sort will ever be made because it greatly restricts mobility and mobility is the key factor. 

    If you have rail SAMs than its much easier to predict where they can be placed and thus plan your attacks more effectively.

    If they look exactly the same as all the other trains though then you might have a problem.

    But yeah that's a point too.

    Maybe they can dismount from the train and move to other positions when they reach their destination. While also retaining operation while mounted on the train.

    I like the idea that the train car carrying the missile system can be quickly separated and quickly transformed into an all-terrain/road mobile platform, revealing tracks or tires....like something out of a Michael Bay movie. afro 

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:48 pm

    They have light trucks that have engine driven small bogies that can be lowered to drive on rails or raised so the vehicle can be driven on roads...

    Perhaps fit standard vehicles with these small bogie wheels that can be lowered and the buffer plate things that prevent them from banging into the carriage in front...

    The SAM vehicles can be tracked but with buffers and bogies, while the missile vehicles could be wheeled. When on rails you could drag them around with engines, and when moving cross country they could use their own steam so to speak... a few Pantsir-S1 types at the front, the middle and the rear for gun based fire support... perhaps a few Kurganets/Boomerang/Armata vehicles linked in there too... plus a few Iskanders and Yars.


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

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

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3316
    Join date : 2012-01-31

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:57 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:
    Viktor wrote:Nothing of such sort will ever be made because it greatly restricts mobility and mobility is the key factor. 

    If you have rail SAMs than its much easier to predict where they can be placed and thus plan your attacks more effectively.

    If they look exactly the same as all the other trains though then you might have a problem.

    But yeah that's a point too.

    Maybe they can dismount from the train and move to other positions when they reach their destination. While also retaining operation while mounted on the train.

    I like the idea that the train car carrying the missile system can be quickly separated and quickly transformed into an all-terrain/road mobile platform, revealing tracks or tires....like something out of a Michael Bay movie. afro 

    No need for anything so high-tech, that's for Americans to waste money on.

    Just some flat rail cars with ramps and some special equipment that attaches to the Pantsir/Tor/Buk/S-400/S-500 launchers to stabilize them so they can launch while mounted on the train or while the train is moving. The train can have enclosed rail cars with C2 centres, communications equipment, as well as kitchens, sleeping quarters and so on, but all of the launch vehicles, reload vehicles and radar vehicles (i.e. anything that can be identified from the air when operational) should be capable of leaving the train and moving to other positions.

    While the train is on the move, those vehicles can left uncovered and operational, ready to fire, or they can covered up and concealed if the train needs to be stealthy, with the equipment still crewed and ready to be uncovered & open fire at a moment's notice.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  collegeboy16 on Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:18 am

    raill based ABMs, SAMs, IRBMs, even ICBMs are good, the added benefit is that you can share the infrastructure for civil purposes.
    also, railways are actually resistant to cases of nuke explosions, except of course for direct hits. if i call the shots, i would
    invest more in railways than roads since rail trans. is more efficient for huge countries.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3054
    Points : 3152
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  medo on Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:30 am

    Railway missile launchers are more and more limited in their operational areas because of electrification of railroads. Road mobile complexes give them more flexibility.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3316
    Join date : 2012-01-31

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  flamming_python on Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:20 am

    medo wrote:Railway missile launchers are more and more limited in their operational areas because of electrification of railroads. Road mobile complexes give them more flexibility.

    What about the electrification of railroads?

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  collegeboy16 on Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:27 pm

    medo wrote:Railway missile launchers are more and more limited in their operational areas because of electrification of railroads. Road mobile complexes give them more flexibility.
    fossil fuel powered trains should fix that. also trains can carry those road mobile complexes hundreds of miles away and with proper preparation allow those complexes to defend the train and themselves en route to where they are needed.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:01 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:01 am