Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Share
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  nightcrawler on 08/03/11, 01:20 pm

    ^^
    There's an American UFO guy named John Lear that says on his website America gave Russia a SR-71 to get them to let America do Gulf War 1. Did Russia really get a SR-71? If so couldn't a high speed bomber be made using that airframe as a pattern with lower speed engines to get munitions/cruise missiles on target faster than the Bear?
    Laughing Do post this in Hilarious thread Laughing
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16383
    Points : 16998
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  GarryB on 09/03/11, 06:22 am

    If you hit a plastic plane like the B-2 with a high powered laser and
    ignited it while in flight, would it keep burning while flying?

    Very much dependant on speed and altitude. Supersonic speed will put it out without question but the B-2 is subsonic. High altitude will also put it out from lack of O2, but the B-2 flys very low when penetrating defences like Russias'.

    Before Russia builds a new bomber wouldn't they first need to get some sort of control over the Space spectrum?

    Not really. Satellites are vulnerable to attack too. It seems their plans are currently to combine their air defence radar/sensor coverage assets with their space monitoring assets to form a unified air and space organisation to monitor for missiles threatening Russia from ground hugging cruise missiles to threats from space including ICBMs etc.

    If the adversary has directed energy weapons in space they really
    wouldn't need bombers except to mop up after the important things were
    already destroyed

    Personally I blame hollywood for the people thinking space based lasers are threats to humans on the ground.
    Your average laser beam spreads about 1mm per metre it travels, so a 5mm diameter laser beam from a satellite say 300km up will be 300,000mm wider when it gets to the ground... that is a beam 300m across!

    Lasers in space would be very effective against rockets in space because concentrating a beam of laser energy on one point on the outer skin of a missile would generate a lot of heat very quickly and there is no air to take the heat away like in the atmosphere... the energy would just keep building up till the material is destroyed or the beam reaches a fuel line or fuel tank and boom.

    ICBM warheads on the other hand are designed to enter the atmosphere and are covered in a heat resistant ablative material that burns off during re-entry which would be very resistant to laser energy.

    Lasers in space aren't actually as much use as they might first appear to be.

    There's an American UFO guy named John Lear that says on his website
    America gave Russia a SR-71 to get them to let America do Gulf War 1.
    Did Russia really get a SR-71? If so couldn't a high speed bomber be
    made using that airframe as a pattern with lower speed engines to get
    munitions/cruise missiles on target faster than the Bear?

    First of all Russia was never in any position to stop the US in Desert Storm. Second the US wouldn't give the UK an SR-71 let alone the Russians... the US government wouldn't even let US universities help the Russians with robots when Chernobyl had its melt down.
    Third the Russians have already had lots of Mach 3 plus designs through the last 40 years and rejected them all because none of them were fast enough to be uninterceptable and all of them were ridiculously expensive to make and to maintain in service. Why would it want an SR-71?
    And fourth at Mach 2.2 the Tu-160 is already much faster than the Bear.

    If Russia can't get Space control a new bomber won't do any good. Why hasn't Russia forced a ban on HAARP yet?If the rumors of that technology are true it can alter atmospheric
    conditions to make your planes drop from the sky or hit thick air at
    high speed/like hitting a brick wall.

    Clearly can only be two reasons. Either is it all rubbish that some Scifi nuts made up, or they have their own program and it has achieved the results they require.

    Except the twin sun sighting in China recently. Likely caused by
    atmosphere being raised above Earth causing drag on their
    satellites...resulting in mirage effect so people on the ground see two
    sun mirage from bulging atmosphere in space.

    The atmospheres shape does not create mirages... a mirage is the effect of light being bent as it passes from cold air to heated air near the ground. The light is bent so it appears that the sky is on the ground... which is usually mistaken as being water.


    Please identify what this is.

    A string of craters.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  nightcrawler on 09/03/11, 01:25 pm

    ICBM warheads on the other hand are designed to enter the atmosphere and are covered in a heat resistant ablative material that burns off during re-entry which would be very resistant to laser energy.
    Space based lasers if they are really will not target the warheads but a more potent adversary the BUS carrying the warhead. The speed of the warheads at reentry beside will render the targeting laser quiet improbable to take a clear shot. See the limiting factor isn't the speed of laser alone but the calculation-based hardware that will direct the laser to intercept coordinates....

    For pervius I think he has a reader of those Conspiracy Blogs pirat
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16383
    Points : 16998
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  GarryB on 10/03/11, 03:05 am

    For pervius I think he has a reader of those Conspiracy Blogs

    So lets consider it our job to fight fantasy with facts... Smile

    Space based lasers would have a terrible job of trying to track small dark warhead buses over thousands of kms of space. In space rockets are not used as thrusters as they are relatively inefficient. More commonly used are very high pressure gas thrusters using liquid nitrogen as it is not flammable and completely inert. It gives off almost no heat signature.
    The best time to intercept a target missile is during its main boost phase as there is an enormous IR signature from the main rockets taking the missile into space... aim at the cold thing in front of the very bright light.

    Once in space with the third stage bus the IR signature will drop to very low levels and a relatively small target over thousands of kms distance.

    The new Russian missiles will have no bus so by the time you are aiming at the warhead bus the warheads and decoys will have been released and instead of dozens of bus targets you have thousands of warheads and decoys to hit.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 452
    Points : 462
    Join date : 2010-09-26
    Location : California, USA

    VHF counter stealth radar on B-2A

    Post  IronsightSniper on 10/03/11, 04:23 am

    You don't need to have a Space-based ABM detection system to actually use the space-based laser. Just link with some OTH radars on the ground and just laze away.
    avatar
    Andy_Wiz

    Posts : 26
    Points : 36
    Join date : 2010-10-12
    Location : South-West Fringe of the Empire

    A-35 anti-ballistic missile system

    Post  Andy_Wiz on 05/04/11, 02:08 pm

    Ok, don't know where to put it since this is most connected to VKO (Aero Space Defence)

    This is pretty interesting location - http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2011/04/02/the-shield-of-moscow/

    This is a A-35M ABM base also a developmental facility for current A-135 system, one missile that was tested here later was abandoned for A-135...

    All valuable and secret equipment was of course rigged out before the location became open.

    Austin

    Posts : 6279
    Points : 6677
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Yuri confirms sophistication of decoys on modern ICBM

    Post  Austin on 27/04/11, 11:07 pm

    Yuri confirms sophistication of decoys on modern ICBM

    link

    Russian Designer Yuri Solomon view on American ABM

    Yuri Solomon questioned the effectiveness and number of U.S. development of missile defense. "Those technical means by which Americans are trying to solve issues to intercept an object moving at a speed exceeding 10 kilometers per second, this task is technically unsolvable", - says Solomon. In real conditions of combat use with the surrounding blocks of tens or hundreds of false elements completely identical warheads on the entire set of signs of recognition (dynamic, thermal and radar characteristics), he said, to solve the problem of intercepting in the disposable time is impossible.


    European missile defense system with mobile elements in the ships of the "Aegis", according to chief designer , is designed to work on the goals of operational-tactical and tactical level and, in principle, unable to capture the strategic objectives. "I am sure that they are operational-tactical missiles can not intercept", - added Solomon, referring to the very low (about five percent) of the effectiveness of U.S. systems, Patriot, they displayed during the Gulf War of 1991. "All these" Aegis "for strategic nuclear forces of Russia do not pose absolutely no threat" - he says.


    Yuri just confirms that part that it would be difficult to distinguish real warhead with decoys due to sophistication of decoys and added to that the problem of time which is quite key for sucessfull BM interception
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 704
    Points : 876
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) network

    Post  ahmedfire on 17/08/11, 07:17 pm

    Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) network

    Russia’s current primary ABM system is equipped with 68 silo-launched Gazelle (53T6) missiles located at 5 sites around Moscow.


    The Gazelle is the only operational ABM system in the world generally considered capable of shooting down inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Although there have been similar systems developed by both USA and USSR in the past, the Gazelle is the only system remaining. The proliferation of ABM systems in recent years has focused on intercepting short range and medium range missiles – ICBMs are an order of magnitude faster than even MRBMs and more commonly employ multiple re-entry vehicles.

    When considered against the number of ICBMs in American service the 68 missiles seems inadequate to offer complete defence, but rather defence against a ‘rogue’ launch. The number of ABMs deployed was actually limited in the 1972 ABM treaty, but the US’s retraction from the treaty has not been met by Russia deploying more Gazelle sites – instead Russia retired the complementary 51T6 Gorgon system (together with Gazelle these formed the A-135 ABM system) and replaced the Gazelle’s original 1Megaton nuclear warhead with a conventional one. The now redundant Gorgon sites, which have silos compatible with the Gazelle missile, do not appear to have been reused to deploy Gazelle.





    Although the Gazelle is transported on a Maz truck similar to the SA-10, it is not a mobile system. The large overhang at the rear is designed to drop into the top of the silo for the missile tube to be lowered into place vertically.

    Photos of the Gazelle missile itself are extremely rare in the public domain but some details are known. The overall shape of the missile is tapered a lot like the US Sprint ABM. It is optimized for rapid launch and extreme speed. The missile is hot launched and has at least two phases with the first phase burning for about 6 seconds, and the second phase igniting about 1 second later. It does not appear that the first phase detaches after burn-out.

    The Gazelle system uses the 5N20 ‘Pill Box’ radar for guidance. A single site for this radar is located north of Moscow adjacent to the north-most Gazelle launch site. The Pill Box radar is outwardly somewhat similar to the US Pave Paw system, with massive circular phased array radars mounted on each side of a large square building with tapered sides.




    The Pill Box radar is supported by a network of Daryal (5N79) radars which are also massive phased arrays. Although 3 of the original 9 Daryal sites have been dismantled, the system remains a key part of Russia’s early warning network. Daryal consists of an approximately square tower-block size building mounting a high-power transmitter, and an even larger receiver array. The system has a detection range of about 6,000km and a design transmitting power is 350 megawatts making it about 88 times more powerful than an AN/SPY-1 AEGIS radar.



    The latest Russian early warning radars are two of the Voronezh type, though each very different from one another. Voronezh -M (M = meter wavelength) is a large framework array angled as per the Daryal but lacking the building, and situated near St Petersberg facing West.



    Voronezh –DM (DM = Decimeter wavelength) is located at Armavir and features a large array built into a building as per the Daryal, but seemingly mounted vertically rather than sloping. It is possible that the antenna itself is sloping, but hidden behind a vertical covering. The Voronezh-DM site has two radars, one facing approximately SW and one SE, built onto the runway of a disused military airfield.

    The two Voronezh complexes replace Daryal radars which were incomplete or subsequently dismantled following the breakup of the Soviet Union. When the Daryal and Voronezh sites are considered together, they offer Russia significant missile detection coverage.

    Combined radar coverage view:



    The above illustration is useful, but not intuitive because these are not ‘over the horizon’ radars as such. The further away from the radar you get, the higher the ‘radar horizon’ is above sea level. Therefore the practical maximum range to detect an incoming ICBM is about 3,500km regardless of the radar used. The longer range of these radars is more useful for other tasks, such as space observation where they track satellites.




    Air Force SAM network

    Overview



    The Soviet Legacy
    Modern Russia inherited the USSR’s vast SAM network, including most of the current S-300 series sites, many of which are located on former SA-2 sites. At its height the Soviet SA-2 network had approximately 1,000 SAM Sites, many of which can now be seen on Google Earth. The main SAM network in Russia is operated by the Air Force, with the Army generally operating different systems. A brief chronology of the Air Force SAM



    SA-1 Guide (S-25). Anti-Ballistic missile system deployed around Moscow. Replaced by SA-10 by 1982.
    SA-2 Guideline (S-75). Medium ranged high-altitude SAM widely deployed. Many variants and widely exported. Phased out of Russian service in 1990s.
    SA-3 Goa (S-75). Short-medium range system more commonly deployed to defend specific high-value targets.
    SA-5 Gammon (S-200). Ultra-long ranged SAM system, with correspondingly poor mobility. Phased out by 2001 but still employed by other nations.
    SA-10 Grumble (S-300P). Replacement for SA-2, generally analogous to Patriot. Main SAM from late 1980s through to present. Several variants in service, and generally considered more mobile than previous systems, but deployed in static sites in peace time. Later versions designated SA-20 Gargoyle.
    SA-21 Growler (S-400). Development of S-300 series. Introduced to service 2007 and slowly replacing older S-300s.

    Whilst the SA-1 network was only deployed around Moscow, with the advent of the SA-2 the Soviets began a widespread deployments with rings of sites surrounding major cities and strategic sites, and vast belts of sites along the borders. In many respects this was simply the Soviet equivalent of the US’ Nike-Ajax/Hercules and BOMARC SAM networks. The SA-2 was augmented by the shorter ranged but more advanced SA-3 system, which was deployed both tactically, and at fixed sites by the air force.

    The SA-2 Network, now defunct:



    Key to border deployment. Note that these are my groupings and do not reflect the Soviet organization of these assets:
    A. Kola peninsula and Severodvinsk area. Major naval bases including ballistic missile submarine bases.
    b. Baltic coast. Baltic states now independent.
    c. Belarus and Ukrainian border with Warsaw Pact.
    d. Ukrainian coast. Covering NATO ingress routes from Greece and Turkey.
    e. Crimea. Major naval and aviation bases. Strategic location.
    F. Eastern Black Sea coast. Covering NATO ingress routes from and Turkey.
    G. Caucasus states. Covering NATO ingress routes from Turkey, and US Ally (until 1978) Iran.
    H. The Great wall of USSR.

    The arctic north was generally not covered by SA-2 sites. The border with Finland also appears to be sparsely covered.

    SA-10A Grumble (S-300PT)

    A handful of SA-10A sites remain operational and it seems reasonable to assume that significant stocks and equipments remain in reserve. There are 3 active sites around Severodvinsk in NW Russia, and 2 around Novosibirsk in central-southern Russia.





    SA-10B Grumble (S-300PS)
    The successor of the S-300PT is the S-300PS (SA-10B). As well as a general upgrade in missiles, radars and other equipment, this system features the now synonymous Maz 8x8 TEL

    The S-300PS uses the 36D6 ‘Tin Shield’ surveillance radar which can be mounted on top of a mast for better coverage:




    SA-20 Gargoyle (S-300PM)
    The Russian service equivalent to the infamous S-300PMU export series, the S-300PM is an incremental update of the SA-300PS. In Russian service the S-300PM can be differentiated from the S-300PS by use of a towed TEL rather than the Maz 8x8 truck.





    S-300PMs are concentrated around Moscow, in a ring. The density of advanced air defences here is unparalleled in the entire world.



    The S-300PM also uses the more advanced Big-Bird radar rather than Tin Shield.




    Around Moscow, the Big Bird radars are often mounted on tall towers to greatly increase radar coverage, particularly against low flying targets. The radar sites are often close to, but separate from, the launch sites. A single Big Bird radar can serve multiple batteries, and/or all of the Big Bird radars are consolidated into a single air picture.


    The towers are 30m in height, and are also employed with the Tin Shield radar and other, older radars.

    SA-21 Growler (S-400)
    The latest and most potent SAM system in RuAF service, the S-400 Triumf is an incremental improvement on the previous S-300P series (see below). Externally the main difference



    The only operational Growler site confirmed as of early 2010 is on the West side of Moscow within the Gargoyle SAM belt, near the town of Elektrostal. The site is not covered by sufficiently recent imagery in Google Earth but has been identified as a former SA-1 site.



    Operational SA-21 sites only appear to have the legacy S-20 48N6DM missile, but a longer ranged (400km) is in testing and the active-radar homing 9M96 missiles can also be used.


    Gammon
    The S-200 (SA-5 Gammon) missile system was introduced in the 1960s to complement the already old SA-2. The Gammon is most notable for its extreme range of 250km, although that is against high-flying non-maneuvering targets. The Gammon was thus seen as an “AWACS killer” especially when deployed by countries like Syria and Libya. In defence of Russia it was more useful against the expected streams of B-52s. It was in part because of missile systems that NATO heavy bombers started the low-level doctrine (B-1B, Vulcan). Operationally Gammon had some limitations inherent in building a missile with such range in the 1960s – it was massive and immobile. Like the older SA-2 the Gammon was deployed in fixed sites with rings of 6 launchers, although two rings were generally employed thus 12 ready to fire missiles per site.



    After the collapse of the Soviet Union the SA-5 was generally withdrawn from service and many sources suggest it has been retired from Russian service altogether. There remains at least one SA-5 site in Russia, clearly visible on Google Earth near Kaliningrad:



    The Kaliningrad SA-5 site covers much NATO territory including NE Poland, and most of Latvia. Kaliningrad Oblast is an exclave of Russia with no direct border with the rest of Russia. It is heavily defended with SAMs and air bases.

    Another site in the far north of Russia which is now deactivated:



    Distribution of SAM network


    Today Russian Air Force SAMs are positioned to defend strategic targets and major cities, and not in the ‘great ring’ of Soviet times. Although there are some 64 SA-10/SA-21 sites, plus one or two SA-5 and possibly some SA-2 sites, this is nowhere near the quantity of SA-2, SA-3 and SA-5 sites simultaneously deployed during the height of the cold war. There is clear open source imagery evidence of substantial open storage of SA-10 vehicles and components in several locations and serge deployment could see many more batteries deployed, but still nowhere near enough to cover every inch of territory. The 400km SA-21 system will greatly increase the footprint but it seems unlikely these will be deployed much different to the current SA-10s.



    Moscow is an interesting model for air defence. No less than 19 SA-10 sites ring the city giving it unrivalled air defence. A confirmed SA-21 site is also present on the eastern side of the city, further improving the situation. As more SA-21 sites are bought up to action, the air defence and anti-ballistic-missile defence will increase dramatically. I cannot think of any city on earth that can possibly rival Moscow for air defences, although Pyongyang in North Korea is more ‘heavily’ defended and Natanz nuclear facility in Iran is by far the world’s most densely defended location. Neither of these locations rival 20 SA-10/SA-21 sites for potency. The actual layout of Moscow’s air defence ring is based on previous SA-1 Guide SAM sites and SA-2 sites.

    Army SAM Systems – SA-12
    Certain Russian Army SAM systems complement the RuAF S-300 series in peacetime, notably the related but quite different S-300V (SA-12) system. The SA-12 is relatively more mobile, designed to advance with the other Army units, providing long range area air defence. Relative to the SA-10 the SA-12 is anti-ballistic missile optimized, although recent SA-10 and SA-21 developments close this gap. The SA-12 system is very interesting but I am not going to cover it here as it should be saved for a subsequent Bluffer’s Guide on Russian Army.


    Air Defence black hole?
    When the practical engagement envelopes of all operational SAM and Fighter bases are plotted together, there remains a massive portion of Siberia with no viable coverage:



    There are some hardened airstrips in Siberia which fighters could be forward deployed to eliminate this gap but there does not appear to be any history of routine deployment in this manner and the air strips/air ports in question have limited military infrastructure.

    The situation remains similar when known long-range air surveillance radars are plotted:



    In part this is a factor of the sheer size of Russia – even the smallest circles in the above image are 200km in radius! The radar coverage varies greatly depending on target altitude and radar cross-section.

    The massive ‘black hole’ in Siberia is also target-less, it can be argued with some credence, that defending the Siberian wastelands is pointless as there is nothing to defend. At any rate only the USAF has aircraft which could conceivably take advantage of the black hole.

    Sources and acknowledgements

    Primary research resource was Sean O’Connor (Sean’s Blog is recommended reading! http://geimint.blogspot.com/)

    MilitaryPhotos.com http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?99988-Russian-Photos-(updated-on-regular-basis)

    Air Power Australia, notably http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html
    Russian Forces.org http://russianforces.org/blog/2009/02/voronezh-class_radars_photos.shtml
    Key Publishing military aviation forum http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=5

    http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?175769-Defending-Mother-Russia


    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1166
    Points : 2054
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russia to build sea-based 'missile shield'.

    Post  Russian Patriot on 24/09/11, 04:12 am

    Russia is planning to develop its own sea-based missile defense system, a Foreign Ministry official said on Thursday.

    "According to our analysis, this system will be very efficient and meet the norms of international maritime law," said Vladimir Kozin, a deputy director of the Russian Foreign Ministry's information and press department.

    Kozin did not give any further details on the future missile defense system. He was speaking at a video conference between Moscow and Kiev on European security.

    The move is almost certain to be interpreted as Russia's response to NATO's European missile shield, which it says it needs to counter potential missile attacks from "rogue states," such as Iran and North Korea.

    The NATO "shield" includes U.S. warships equipped with Aegis ballistic missile defense systems capable of shooting down short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.

    Russia has retained staunch opposition to the deployment of missile defense systems near its borders, claiming they would be a threat to its national security.

    Moscow has repeatedly warned NATO it would create both defensive and offensive means to counter any missile threat and to penetrate any missile defense if the sides did not agree to cooperate on the issue.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20110922/167048033.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16383
    Points : 16998
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  GarryB on 24/09/11, 08:23 am

    It is funny really, it is US actions that have prompted this policy, and it is the US with the most to loose.

    Previously the US had no problems putting radars and missiles and all sorts of things all round Russias border, while Russia really only had Cuba to reciprocate.

    With the US developing Naval ABM systems, and Russia following suit the result for Russia will be the ability to park ABM missile equipped vessels very close to Britain and France and the US in the likely path of strategic missiles... something they likely only previously dreamed of.

    Of course there has always been a double standard... a USN ABM system will contribute to peace and stability and is a positive move. A Russian system on the other hand, will upset the balance and negatively effect peace and stability and is a worrying development. Rolling Eyes

    Just like the Chinese shooting down one of their own satelites was reckless and would add to the problem of space junk by adding to the existing debris field.
    When a secret US satellite was going to come down and they decided to shoot it down to protect their secrets it was sensible and responsible and the right thing to do...

    The amusing thing is that add another booster and an ABM system becomes an anti satellite weapon. Russia can send payloads to the moon so the high orbit of geostationary satellites is no problem.

    Pervius

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

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  Pervius on 26/09/11, 10:11 pm

    Garry B,

    What makes you think the Chinese shot down "one of their own satellites"?

    Because the news said so?

    Didn't you find it odd shortly after they did that....the US shot down a satellite in space. Was it 'their own'....or a counter strike?

    I'd guess....counter strike.
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  SOC on 27/09/11, 03:36 am

    Pervius wrote:Didn't you find it odd shortly after they did that....the US shot down a satellite in space. Was it 'their own'....or a counter strike?

    I'd guess....counter strike.

    Of course it was our own. The whole point was to demonstrate to China that guess what, we could do it too. All politics. The difference from a debris standpoint was that the US shot was done at lower altitude, allowing the majority of the bits to re-enter and burn up far quicker than the higher-altitude Chinese shot.

    As for a sea-based ABM system, that sounds like a navalized S-500. Why not? A sea-based ABM/ASAT like the S-500 is actually more valuable in some regards than a land-based version, as it can be deployed where needed to intercept satellites when convenient before they get a chance to overfly Russia. With the USN looking at an SM-5 or 6 or something to have genuine ABM capability, it's no suprise Russia is thinking along the same lines.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16383
    Points : 16998
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  GarryB on 27/09/11, 06:56 am

    The amusing thing was that the Chinese interception was stupid and silly and did this or that harm to the world, while the US interception was a triumph of technology and American ingenuity. Smile

    I see one of the roles the Russians are suggesting for their new nuclear powered rocket is to fly around earths orbit picking up debris and space junk... of course in addition to making trips to and from Mars or the moon much shorter.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16383
    Points : 16998
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  GarryB on 19/10/11, 09:36 am

    This change in force structure might have an effect right here in this forum as it seems the Strategic Rocket Forces and the Space Forces are likely to split, while the PVO or Air Defence Forces of the Air Force is also likely to split and the two merged to form the Space and Air Defence Force.

    It will combine AEW duties looking for space junk and incoming space threats like ICBM and SLBM warheads, with the in air defence forces responsible for the airspace above Russia.

    This combined force will have the role of watching the airspace and above over Russia, using land, Sea, Air, and Space based assets... this mobile radar will likely replace a few of the older systems, plus aircraft like the A-100 and Mig-31 and Su-27s of the former PVO forces, plus space based radars and optical sensors will be looking for threats on or above Russia and perhaps also around the world.

    It will be interesting to see who controls it... it is unlikely to be split into 4 chunks for the 4 military districts, but will provide data to Navy, Army, and Air Force.

    Austin

    Posts : 6279
    Points : 6677
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Russia New ABM Systems

    Post  Austin on 19/12/11, 08:05 pm

    I think the A-235 will be silo based similar to US NMD system and S-500 will be like mobile SM-3 system defending city from ICBM while A-235 will defend a much larger area plus take out space target at higher altitude.

    I read S-500 could take out LEO target like Sats and its max intercept altitude is 200 km.

    Any thing from SOC on this ?
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  SOC on 20/12/11, 12:30 am

    Austin wrote:I think the A-235 will be silo based similar to US NMD system and S-500 will be like mobile SM-3 system defending city from ICBM while A-235 will defend a much larger area plus take out space target at higher altitude.

    I read S-500 could take out LEO target like Sats and its max intercept altitude is 200 km.

    Any thing from SOC on this ?

    A-235 is (or was?) supposed to be the A-135 replacement. Wether this involves a new missile and an upgraded Don-2N or a new missile and a wholly new radar, I don't know. Haven't heard of an ASAT capability attributed to the A-235, or the A-135 for that matter. Plus, haven't heard too much since the S-500 was announced, so there is a possibility that the A-235 has been superceded by the S-500, or that the "A-235 system" will actually be composed of S-500s as its interceptor component. There were plans for a GAZELLE follow-on as well but nothing apparently came from those...but I wouldn't be suprised if that weapon found its way into the S-500 as the missile component either.

    A mobile SM-3 is a good comparison to the S-500. The S-500 is supposed to be a mobile ABM (not ATBM like the S-300V) with the capability to hit satellites in LEO. Designing one system to perform both roles is not a stretch at all, the intercept dynamics for an exoatmospheric engagement are very similar.

    The S-500's capability and existance for a good while now as a program does make the Russian complaints about where/how the US is planning to put ABMs a bit hilarious. Apparently only American ABM systems affect the strategic balance...

    Austin

    Posts : 6279
    Points : 6677
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  Austin on 20/12/11, 08:40 am

    SOC wrote:A-235 is (or was?) supposed to be the A-135 replacement. Wether this involves a new missile and an upgraded Don-2N or a new missile and a wholly new radar, I don't know. Haven't heard of an ASAT capability attributed to the A-235, or the A-135 for that matter. Plus, haven't heard too much since the S-500 was announced, so there is a possibility that the A-235 has been superceded by the S-500, or that the "A-235 system" will actually be composed of S-500s as its interceptor component. There were plans for a GAZELLE follow-on as well but nothing apparently came from those...but I wouldn't be suprised if that weapon found its way into the S-500 as the missile component either.

    From what i have read on russian website and i cant vouch for its accuracy or reliability is they are working on both fronts , which is improving the A-135 and working on A-235.

    A-235 http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/index-389.html
    A-135 http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/index-378.html

    A mobile SM-3 is a good comparison to the S-500. The S-500 is supposed to be a mobile ABM (not ATBM like the S-300V) with the capability to hit satellites in LEO. Designing one system to perform both roles is not a stretch at all, the intercept dynamics for an exoatmospheric engagement are very similar.

    Exactly what is the challenge in intercepting a Missile or Satellite in higher space , atleast to me the latter would need an interceptor that can intercept something moving around at 8 km/sec but in predictable orbit (LEO ) and for latter something at 7.2 km/sec but can be small and highly unpredictable ( discounting decoys and other stuff ) ,seem the latter still is far more challenging then the former

    The S-500's capability and existance for a good while now as a program does make the Russian complaints about where/how the US is planning to put ABMs a bit hilarious. Apparently only American ABM systems affect the strategic balance...

    I am fairly certain Russia would not have complained if US had developed ABM and deployed in its own territory , Even Russian has mentioned that any ABM system that it develops would be deployed on its own territory , including for the EUROPRO ones even if it joins it.

    But if you move the ABM to places close to Russian border and along known flight path of ICBM trajectory and on mobile platform like ships and deploy close or around border , then you might wonder what would be the purpose of this provocative move even if lets assume the ABM is 50 % effective but military on both sides would look at capability.

    Consider this what would happen if Russia deploys some ships along US East Coast with S-500 , then deploys some more S-500 component along known US ICBM trajectory over Europe and over its own territory ,Even if those S-500 are say just 50 % effective in intercepting ICBM. Do you think any US Senator or Congress Men wont stand up and shout murder ?

    avatar
    russian_soldier

    Posts : 4
    Points : 9
    Join date : 2011-11-02

    New Russian ABM Systems

    Post  russian_soldier on 20/12/11, 09:51 pm

    This video:
    http://multimedia.mil.ru/multimedia/video/clips/more.htm?id=1693@morfVideoAudioFile
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16383
    Points : 16998
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  GarryB on 21/12/11, 03:38 am

    Nice.

    That is one fast missile... it seems to just explode out of the silo.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1166
    Points : 2054
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  Russian Patriot on 22/12/11, 04:45 am

    Russia tests domestic interceptor missile


    Russia carried out a successful test of a short-range interceptor missile on Tuesday as a part of its effort to develop a domestic missile defense shield, the Defense Ministry said.

    The missile was launched from the Sary-Shagan (Kazakhstan) shooting range, the Ministry’s spokesperson said.

    The goal of the test was to confirm the technical characteristics of the missile used by the Defense Ministry’s Space Command.

    Russia's Defense Ministry uploaded a video of the missile's launch on its web site.

    The test comes a month after the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that if Moscow's participation in the European missile defense project fails, Russia would deploy Iskander tactical missiles in the Kaliningrad Region and halt its disarmament and arms control efforts, including participation in the new strategic arms reduction treaty with the United States.

    Russia-NATO missile defense talks are close to deadlock as Moscow is seeking written, legally binding guarantees that the U.S.-backed European missile defense program will not be directed against it. Washington, however, refuses to provide the guarantees, saying the shield is directed against threats from Iran and North Korea.

    Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate on European missile defense system at the Lisbon Summit in November 2010. Medvedev proposed a joint system with full-scale interoperability to ensure that the alliance's system will not be directed against Moscow. The military bloc, however, favors two independent systems which exchange information.


    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20111220/170388329.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16383
    Points : 16998
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  GarryB on 22/12/11, 07:11 am

    The goal of the test was to confirm the technical characteristics of the missile used by the Defense Ministry’s Space Command.

    Interesting.

    I had read that it had new upgraded electronics to replace older Soviet systems to make it all Russian, but if this test was to confirm the technical characteristics of the missiles used by space command, then this suggests that they are in the process of upgrading all the missiles to this new standard... which makes sense of course.

    You would want to make sure it works before you replace all your older models with it.

    Still astounded at its blistering acceleration...
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10358
    Points : 10829
    Join date : 2011-12-23
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  George1 on 24/12/11, 11:38 pm

    S-500 will be the russian equivalent to SM-3? Will be developed and a naval variant also?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16383
    Points : 16998
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  GarryB on 25/12/11, 02:34 am

    S-500 will be the russian equivalent to SM-3?

    The S-500 will pretty much be the mobile equivalent of the Moscow based ABM system. It should be able to engage targets at up to 200km altitude and about 600km in horizontal range.

    Will be developed and a naval variant also?

    I suspect it will largely depend on whether the US goes ahead with its sea based ABM program for Europe. If they do, then almost certainly yes.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3208
    Points : 3296
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  medo on 25/12/11, 04:08 pm

    I personally don't think Russia will build naval ABM with S-500. Russia is still more continental force, so for naval ABM placing S-400 on Kirov cruisers would be quite enough.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16383
    Points : 16998
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    S-500 will be the russian equivalent to SM-3? Will be developed and a naval variant also?

    Post  GarryB on 26/12/11, 03:40 am

    Russia would not have bothered developing and making the S-500 if the US had not withdrawn from the ABM treaty and set up ABM system plans all over the place.

    I would think they will only deploy S-500 like ABM systems on the Kirovs and cruiser sized vessels, and largely purely as a counter to the US fielding SM-3 missiles on their ships.

    Imagine a converted Typhoon arsenal ship that has 200 launcher bins for SAMs and land attack cruise missiles. Fitting it out with S-500s and S-400s as a SAM trap...

    But very simply rather than basing their global ABM network only in Russia, by putting it on a few ships it suddenly becomes globally mobile, so satellites and all ballistic missile threats can be dealt with.

    If the Chinese anti carrier ballistic missiles prove to be real, it would be useful to have a dozen S-500s on board your flagship.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Space Forces: News Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is 23/09/17, 07:00 am