Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Share

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:24 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:Stop clutching straws, Russia carried out a successful test with the S-500 system in the summer of 2014, and is set to get deliveries in 2017:

    Source: Russia has successfully tested missiles to intercept long-range S-500

    So you're saying S-500 is where SM-3 was back in 2005 or 2010.
    When it's operational on land and sea we can talk about it.

    No, cause at least S-500 will work, unlike failures that is SM-3.  So get your head out of your ass.

    kvs wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:Stop clutching straws, Russia carried out a successful test with the S-500 system in the summer of 2014, and is set to get deliveries in 2017:

    Source: Russia has successfully tested missiles to intercept long-range S-500

    So you're saying S-500 is where SM-3 was back in 2005 or 2010.
    When it's operational on land and sea we can talk about it.

    You have a special insider friend in the USA that is giving you top secret information?

    Nothing in the public information space, full of speculation noise, allows any sane human to compare capabilities of the Russian system to the US one.

    That is what they are doing. Kilo is simply trying to downplay the system comparing it to a known failure of a system that currently exists. When we have no basis of actual knowledge what it can do.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1258
    Points : 1276
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:31 pm

    kvs wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:Stop clutching straws, Russia carried out a successful test with the S-500 system in the summer of 2014, and is set to get deliveries in 2017:

    Source: Russia has successfully tested missiles to intercept long-range S-500

    So you're saying S-500 is where SM-3 was back in 2005 or 2010.
    When it's operational on land and sea we can talk about it.

    You have a special insider friend in the USA that is giving you top secret information?

    Nothing in the public information space, full of speculation noise, allows any sane human to compare capabilities of the Russian system to the US one.

    Ask the other guy that said S-500 will be delivered next year.
    SM-3 is on destroyers, Romania and Poland right now.

    sepheronx wrote:That is what they are doing.  Kilo is simply trying to downplay the system comparing it to a known failure of a system that currently exists.  When we have no basis of actual knowledge what it can do.

    Nope, I just stated the obvious. S-500 is year behind SM-3. Performance-wise general info about fielded Sm-3 is out there.
    S-500 is not even fielded yet, both at land or sea.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:33 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:Stop clutching straws, Russia carried out a successful test with the S-500 system in the summer of 2014, and is set to get deliveries in 2017:

    Source: Russia has successfully tested missiles to intercept long-range S-500

    So you're saying S-500 is where SM-3 was back in 2005 or 2010.
    When it's operational on land and sea we can talk about it.

    You have a special insider friend in the USA that is giving you top secret information?

    Nothing in the public information space, full of speculation noise, allows any sane human to compare capabilities of the Russian system to the US one.

    Ask the other guy that said S-500 will be delivered next year.
    SM-3 is on destroyers, Romania and Poland right now,

    And?  We all have gone over the performance of SM-3.  I guarantee you Russia could have come out with SM-3 alternative very much earlier but it would be shit.  Actually, Russia already has an MRBM interceptor called S-300V....


    Nope, I just stated the obvious. S-500 is year behind SM-3. Performance-wise general info about fielded Sm-3 is out there.
    S-500 is not even fielded yet, both at land or sea.

    Then share the link what Almaz Antey is saying or MoD.  Yes, performance wise of SM-3 is out there.  And all its failures.  S-300V has been around much longer than SM-3 and is also capable of intercepting BM's.  It was fielded in the 80's.
    http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/s-300v-sa-12a-gladiator-sa-12b-giant/

    Thanks Max!

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t1689p75-a-135-anti-ballistic-missile-system#167215

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1258
    Points : 1276
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:45 pm

    sepheronx wrote:And?  We all have gone over the performance of SM-3.  I guarantee you Russia could have come out with SM-3 alternative very much earlier but it would be shit.  Actually, Russia already has an MRBM interceptor called S-300V....


    Nope, I just stated the obvious. S-500 is year behind SM-3. Performance-wise general info about fielded Sm-3 is out there.
    S-500 is not even fielded yet, both at land or sea.

    Then share the link what Almaz Antey is saying or MoD.  Yes, performance wise of SM-3 is out there.  And all its failures.  S-300V has been around much longer than SM-3 and is also capable of intercepting BM's.  It was fielded in the 80's.
    http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/s-300v-sa-12a-gladiator-sa-12b-giant/

    Thanks Max!

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t1689p75-a-135-anti-ballistic-missile-system#167215

    Gotcha, SM-3 is all failures.

    Not sure how old Army S-300V developed in the late '70s is relevant but OK.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:00 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:And?  We all have gone over the performance of SM-3.  I guarantee you Russia could have come out with SM-3 alternative very much earlier but it would be shit.  Actually, Russia already has an MRBM interceptor called S-300V....


    Nope, I just stated the obvious. S-500 is year behind SM-3. Performance-wise general info about fielded Sm-3 is out there.
    S-500 is not even fielded yet, both at land or sea.

    Then share the link what Almaz Antey is saying or MoD.  Yes, performance wise of SM-3 is out there.  And all its failures.  S-300V has been around much longer than SM-3 and is also capable of intercepting BM's.  It was fielded in the 80's.
    http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/s-300v-sa-12a-gladiator-sa-12b-giant/

    Thanks Max!

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t1689p75-a-135-anti-ballistic-missile-system#167215

    Gotcha, SM-3 is all failures.

    Not sure how old Army S-300V developed in the late '70s is relevant but OK.

    The problem with people like yourself, is that you compare a system that has real spotty performance to that something that isn't out yet and no official word on it. Add to that, since we are on talks of ABM systems, you think S-300V which is an army system that was designed around dealing against BM systems, isn't somehow similar even though it came out much earlier yet you proclaim that a system like SM-3 is first.

    Don't digress and don't cherry pick here.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:29 pm

    Specs?  You dont know neither do I.  If you are talking about Block IIB, then that isnt out yet either.  Nudol compares more I would think.  And specs are one thing, real world tests are another.

    Add to that, by sounds of news on S-500 according to people here, it is more aimed at incoming targets more so than trying to deal with mid course. Which makes sense since Russia doesn't have the luxury in placing such systems close to the enemy borders.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2525
    Points : 2658
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:35 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:Specs?  You dont know neither do I.  If you are talking about Block IIB, then that isnt out yet either.  Nudol compares more I would think.  And specs are one thing, real world tests are another.

    Add to that, by sounds of news on S-500 according to people here, it is more aimed at incoming targets more so than trying to deal with mid course.  Which makes sense since Russia doesn't have the luxury in placing such systems close to the enemy borders.

    I think he's talking about the block IIA:
    -2,500 km range
    -1,500 km flight ceiling
    -4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25) speed

    Compared to the S-300V4:
    -400 km range
    - ? flight ceiling
    -2.6 km/s (Mach 7.64) speed

    Based on these specs, one could see where kilo is coming from, but we must remember that the S-300Vs were made not just for defending against high flying ballistic missiles, but also low flying cruise missiles and aircraft's, while the SM-3, the S-500 and the Nodul are dedicated ABM systems, that's why the S-500 isn't replacing the S-300/400s.

    Thanks for the context. It is incredible how people continue to dismiss Russian rocket technology development capability. As if the US is the only place
    on Earth where there is enough human IQ to do such development. The A-135 can do 8.5 km/s (Mach 30.6) so why is 4.5 km/s some major technical challenge for Russia? The A-135 was designed in 1978. Current solid rocket fuel technology in Russia has at least twice the energy density of the 1970s variants. They can use a single stage instead of two and easily reach speeds over 4.5 km/s for the S-500 model.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:44 am

    kvs wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:Specs?  You dont know neither do I.  If you are talking about Block IIB, then that isnt out yet either.  Nudol compares more I would think.  And specs are one thing, real world tests are another.

    Add to that, by sounds of news on S-500 according to people here, it is more aimed at incoming targets more so than trying to deal with mid course.  Which makes sense since Russia doesn't have the luxury in placing such systems close to the enemy borders.

    I think he's talking about the block IIA:
    -2,500 km range
    -1,500 km flight ceiling
    -4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25) speed

    Compared to the S-300V4:
    -400 km range
    - ? flight ceiling
    -2.6 km/s (Mach 7.64) speed

    Based on these specs, one could see where kilo is coming from, but we must remember that the S-300Vs were made not just for defending against high flying ballistic missiles, but also low flying cruise missiles and aircraft's, while the SM-3, the S-500 and the Nodul are dedicated ABM systems, that's why the S-500 isn't replacing the S-300/400s.

    Thanks for the context.   It is incredible how people continue to dismiss Russian rocket technology development capability.   As if the US is the only place
    on Earth where there is enough human IQ to do such development.    The A-135 can do 8.5 km/s (Mach 30.6) so why is 4.5 km/s some major technical challenge for Russia?   The A-135 was designed in 1978.   Current solid rocket fuel technology in Russia has at least twice the energy density of the 1970s variants.  They can use a single stage instead of two and easily reach speeds over 4.5 km/s for the S-500 model.

    Apologies kvs, my update was to slow i will repost it.

    UPDATE: I knew i should have checked the previous pages, anyway Max post of S-500 specs:
    -600 km range
    -200+ km ceiling
    -7 km/s (Mach 21) speed

    Based on these specs and other sources, it looks like the S-500 is going to be something like an S-400ER (extended range), but with a significant emphasis against hyper-sonic threats, it looks like the Nodul is going to be there real dedicated ABM system.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:48 am

    Soon US and Japan will test SM-3 Block II-A and Block II-A is meant to intercept IRBMs. Intermediate Range BM.


    THAAD-ER is complementary to S-500 according to US. But THAAD is a poor man's S-300 ( so I've my doubts whether THAAD-ER will intercept ICBMs and HGVs Wink )

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1258
    Points : 1276
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:37 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    I think he's talking about the block IIA:
    -2,500 km range
    -1,500 km flight ceiling
    -4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25) speed

    Compared to the S-300V4:
    -400 km range
    - ? flight ceiling
    -2.6 km/s (Mach 7.64) speed

    Based on these specs, one could see where kilo is coming from, but we must remember that the S-300Vs were made not just for defending against high flying ballistic missiles, but also low flying cruise missiles and aircraft's, while the SM-3, the S-500 and the Nodul are dedicated ABM systems, that's why the S-500 isn't replacing the S-400s.

    UPDATE: I knew i should have checked the previous pages, anyway Max post of S-500 specs:
    -600 km range
    -200+ km ceiling
    -7 km/s (Mach 21) speed

    Based on these specs and other sources, it looks like the S-500 is going to be something like an S-400ER (extended range), but with a significant emphasis against hyper-sonic threats, it looks like the Nodul is going to be there real dedicated ABM system.

    thanks for that post cheers
    SM-3IIA is to be tested this year and deployed in Poland by 2018.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:51 am

    Based on these specs and other sources, it looks like the S-500 is going to be something like an S-400ER (extended range), but with a significant emphasis against hyper-sonic threats, it looks like the Nodul is going to be there real dedicated ABM system.

    No.

    S-500 is a mobile development of the S-300 and S-400 series SAMs and will primarily be used against ballistic missiles while S-400 or S-300V4 operates under it defeating other aerial threats.

    Nudel is a mobile version of the Moscow ABM system and will probably be deployed to major Russian cities and major military centres like the HQs of the four military districts together with probably S-400 and other SAMs to defend the areas.

    They are developments in two different directions... but I suspect Nudel will also have anti satellite roles as well.


    _________________
    “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

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1258
    Points : 1276
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:58 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Based on these specs and other sources, it looks like the S-500 is going to be something like an S-400ER (extended range), but with a significant emphasis against hyper-sonic threats, it looks like the Nodul is going to be there real dedicated ABM system.

    No.

    S-500 is a mobile development of the S-300 and S-400 series SAMs and will primarily be used against ballistic missiles while S-400 or S-300V4 operates under it defeating other aerial threats.

    Nudel is a mobile version of the Moscow ABM system and will probably be deployed to major Russian cities and major military centres like the HQs of the four military districts together with probably S-400 and other SAMs to defend the areas.

    They are developments in two different directions... but I suspect Nudel will also have anti satellite roles as well.

    Nudol sounds like a good candidate to deploy abroad then.
    I was thinking Syria, for some major trolling against SM-3 deployment in Poland "against Iranian threat".

    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 419
    Points : 483
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  jhelb on Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:39 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    No.

    S-500 is a mobile development of the S-300 and S-400 series SAMs and will primarily be used against ballistic missiles while S-400 or S-300V4 operates under it defeating other aerial threats.

    So GarryB, as on this date the only difference between the S-500 & the S-400 is that the S-500 is a mobile version of the S-400? Is that right?

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:43 pm

    What? No. LOL. Both candidates are similar in setup - truck movement/deployment.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 18, 2016 1:37 am

    So GarryB, as on this date the only difference between the S-500 & the S-400 is that the S-500 is a mobile version of the S-400? Is that right?

    No.

    The S-400 is a part replacement for the S-300... the S-350 will also replace the S-300.

    The S-500 is new and is basically a mobile ABM system.

    There is talk that the S-500 might be based on the two stage S-300V, but we really don't know yet.

    Note the S-300 is widely called SA-10 and SA-20 in its later models in the west, while the S-300V is the SA-12A and SA-12B with the further improved models being called Antei-2500, and S-300V4.

    The S-300 is an air force weapon and is truck based for mobility but would be based in locations like air fields including large and fixed and small temporary fields, while the S-300V is based on tracked vehicles and is expected to move with a mobile army.


    _________________
    “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

    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 419
    Points : 483
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  jhelb on Sat Jun 18, 2016 11:32 am

    GarryB wrote:
    No.

    The S-400 is a part replacement for the S-300... the S-350 will also replace the S-300.

    The S-500 is new and is basically a mobile ABM system.

    But then from whatever open source material is available(especially in the Russian media) it seems S-500 will share the same missiles as the S-400, however the S-500 will get a new AESA radar.

    As far as S-350 is concerned, is there still a need for Buk-3 because the S-350 can do the job of the Buk?

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Jun 18, 2016 3:47 pm

    jhelb wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    No.

    The S-400 is a part replacement for the S-300... the S-350 will also replace the S-300.

    The S-500 is new and is basically a mobile ABM system.

    But then from whatever open source material is available(especially in the Russian media) it seems S-500 will share the same missiles as the S-400, however the S-500 will get a new AESA radar.

    As far as S-350 is concerned, is there still a need for Buk-3 because the S-350 can do the job of the Buk?

    There's a lot of conflicting information out there, but we could be fairly certain that the S-500 missile isn't the same as that of the S-400 from the fact that it needs to intercept hypersonic targets.

    As for the S-350 and BUK, these are to different systems with different ranges and requirements, the S-350 is a wield platform with a 120km range and 12 missiles most likely designed to counter saturating strikes, while the BUK is a tracked platform with a 40km (70km M3) range with 4 (6) missiles meant for army AD, so no these two aren't interchangeable.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:28 am

    But then from whatever open source material is available(especially in the Russian media) it seems S-500 will share the same missiles as the S-400, however the S-500 will get a new AESA radar.

    No it wont share missile design with the S-400... the S-500 is primarily an ABM missile, while the S-400 is a longer ranged S-300 with targets including but not limited to air breathing and short to medium range ballistic targets and cruise missiles.

    It is highly likely the S-500 will be a multiple stage design that does not need a 150kg warhead like the S-400 and S-300 missiles.

    The S-500 will have all its own radar as its role is different and it requires different information to operate.

    It will likely be integrated with S-400 or S-350 batteries however in actual use simply because as a system it will compliment them and vice versa.

    As far as S-350 is concerned, is there still a need for Buk-3 because the S-350 can do the job of the Buk?

    S-350 is an air force and navy weapon. Buk will be an army and navy weapon.



    _________________
    “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

    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 419
    Points : 483
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  jhelb on Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:48 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:There's a lot of conflicting information out there, but we could be fairly certain that the S-500 missile isn't the same as that of the S-400 from the fact that it needs to intercept hypersonic targets.

    Even S-400 is supposed to intercept hypersonic targets. That's what the 77N6-N and 77N6-N1 missiles are for, exo atmospheric interception of warheads travelling at hypersonic speeds.

    GarryB wrote:
    No it wont share missile design with the S-400... the S-500 is primarily an ABM missile, while the S-400 is a longer ranged S-300 with targets including but not limited to air breathing and short to medium range ballistic targets and cruise missiles.

    It is highly likely the S-500 will be a multiple stage design that does not need a 150kg warhead like the S-400 and S-300 missiles.

    OK! Good to know. Do you have the names of the missiles that the S-500 will use?

    If it's true that A-235 will be mobile then I am not sure what purpose the S-500 will serve? My guess is that the A-235 will be used for exo-atmospheric interception & if that fails then the S-500 will be used for endo atmospheric interception.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:59 pm

    A-235 will be immobile .

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:51 am

    OK! Good to know. Do you have the names of the missiles that the S-500 will use?

    No idea... not many people actually know.

    Don't know whether it is single or two stage... has been said it will be a new missile and not based on S-400, though it may operate with S-400.

    If it's true that A-235 will be mobile then I am not sure what purpose the S-500 will serve? My guess is that the A-235 will be used for exo-atmospheric interception & if that fails then the S-500 will be used for endo atmospheric interception.

    Nudels missiles will be truck based and likely mobile but the radars and infrastructure needed to use them will likely be largely fixed.

    Think of S-400 as being Patriot/THAAD and S-500 being PAC-3/THAAD-ER, while Nudol is getting close to being a dedicated anti sat and anti ICBM system...

    Except that S-400 can deal with a wide range of targets including those travelling at 4.8km/s, while S-500 will be able to deal with targets travelling at 7km/s and some low orbit objects, while Nudel will be able to hit incoming ICBMs and satellites in low and possibly medium orbit 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

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Jun 20, 2016 2:26 pm

    jhelb wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:There's a lot of conflicting information out there, but we could be fairly certain that the S-500 missile isn't the same as that of the S-400 from the fact that it needs to intercept hypersonic targets.

    Even S-400 is supposed to intercept hypersonic targets. That's what the 77N6-N and 77N6-N1 missiles are for, exo atmospheric interception of warheads travelling at hypersonic speeds.

    The hell, my list only went up to the 40N6, now i am really confused, anyway it's gonna be very interesting when the S-500 go's public, our estimates might be totally off.

    rambo54
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 107
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2014-04-01

    ABM Discussion

    Post  rambo54 on Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:16 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    OK! Good to know. Do you have the names of the missiles that the S-500 will use?

    No idea... not many people actually know.

    Don't know whether it is single or two stage... has been said it will be a new missile and not based on S-400, though it may operate with S-400.

    If it's true that A-235 will be mobile then I am not sure what purpose the S-500 will serve? My guess is that the A-235 will be used for exo-atmospheric interception & if that fails then the S-500 will be used for endo atmospheric interception.

    Nudels missiles will be truck based and likely mobile but the radars and infrastructure needed to use them will likely be largely fixed.

    Think of S-400 as being Patriot/THAAD and S-500 being PAC-3/THAAD-ER, while Nudol is getting close to being a dedicated anti sat and anti ICBM system...

    Except that S-400 can deal with a wide range of targets including those travelling at 4.8km/s, while S-500 will be able to deal with targets travelling at 7km/s and some low orbit objects, while Nudel will be able to hit incoming ICBMs and satellites in low and possibly medium orbit too.

    Well all that is an evolutionary process.
    S-300P was alway (in every version) not that what was expected. But Almaz (and Sukhoi) was supported in the Yelzin era. Antey (and MiG) fell short. But the Antey System (S-300V) had always the better potential in its design parameters and came closer to both a long range anti aircraft system with the ability to intercept IRBMs.
    The desperate struggle to turn the S-300P finally into the weapon which was needed ends up in the S-400 (with 40N6, better SW and Radar) and in the S-350, which finally will bring up the 9M96 already promised for S-300P.
    After establishing Almaz-Antey it was clear that the real successor to S-300V will not be stopped at V4 but come up with the S-500.
    Up to now we didn't know much about the 40N6. Does it fit really into the same container like 48N6? Or is it a step forward to a longer missile which will materialize in one of the missiles for S-500?
    I think it is fair to assume that the missiles for S-500 will more derive from 9M82 than from 48N6. One seems for sure. The improvement in Radar, SW, and a 9M82 follow on will provide the S-500 with a true IRBM defence capability which S-400 don't have.

    About ASAT/Nudol and A-235 there is also a lot of guessing. Some sources say both systems are the same. If you have a capable long range ABM you also can kill satellites (SM-3). But who knows. It is believed that A-235 will be stationary. But a new long range variant (as successor to 51T6) was never tested. Just the 53T6 was improved an Don-2N. Is that already "A-235"?
    And if so, is this complemented by a mobile system which was presented on the Almaz-Antey calender picture? A "mobile" system which is supported by a stationary Radar at Chekov? Does this make sense? Or does that Almaz picture just show a variant of S-500?
    Well time will tell

    Sponsored content

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 10:09 pm


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:09 pm