Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle:

George1 wrote:



Just one note on the missile that will be used in the Avangard system. There have been speculations that it will be the new Sarmat, but apparently that's not the case - the boost-glide vehicle was associated with UR-100NUTTH/SS-19 from the very beginning of the program in the 1980s, it used the missile during the tests, and will stay with it until the end. Russia got about 30 "dry" UR-100NUTTH missiles that it received from Ukraine - since these missiles have never been fueled they have a few decades of combat service in them.

(1) This would render both Sarmat and Rubezh development of little use. I dotn buy it. Unless there are other ways to deliver warheads. Cheaper ones - using Kiznahl tech.

(2) Avangard production rates must be really impressive

Apparently a photo of missile with Avangard being launched, this thing definitely ain't small



https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3398676.html

PapaDragon wrote:
Apparently a photo of missile with Avangard being launched, this thing definitely ain't small
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3398676.html

Let me guess because Avangard has own fuel tank? BTW on top of what missile it is launched?

PapaDragon wrote:

1 UR-100 = 1 Avangard

1 Sarmat = 3 Avangards

They are using UR-100 in order to get Avangard into service now so they don't have to wait until Sarmat development is complete

Also, they want to use those 30 UR-100 so they don't go to waste

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/02/20/failed-missile-test-off-of-kauai-costs-130-million-3/


SM3 -= $36m

to intercept 1 Avangard you need min 30 SM3
1 Avangard = 30+ SM3 => $1080m = $1,08B

30 Avangard = $32,5B ...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

1 UR-100 = 1 Avangard

1 Sarmat = 3 Avangards

They are using UR-100 in order to get Avangard into service now so they don't have to wait until Sarmat development is complete

Also, they want to use those 30 UR-100 so they don't go to waste

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/02/20/failed-missile-test-off-of-kauai-costs-130-million-3/


SM3 -= $36m

to intercept 1 Avangard you need min 30 SM3
1 Avangard = 30+ SM3 => $1080m = $1,08B

30 Avangard = $32,5B ...

Keep in mind the number of interceptions (30 to 1) is pure speculation. Theodore Postol's work exposed it to be a white elephant:

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_05/Lewis-Postol

The likelihood of SM-3 interception is waaaaaaaaay slimmer than that. Keep in mind their talking about kinetic kill warheads (what they claim), they would literally need thousands of launches. In all likelihood 30 to 1 ratio can only be achieved with tactical nuclear warheads, but if they admit that then that would come at a price geo-politically. With that tid-bit it should put the Mk. 41 cell of Aegis Ashore in to better perspective.

Even if 30 were enough to shoot one Avangard down, the ship or shore installation couldn´t launch so many missiles before the target left the engagement envelope.

Hole wrote:Even if 30 were enough to shoot one Avangard down, the ship or shore installation couldn´t launch so many missiles before the target left the engagement envelope.

and what If Russians decide to build 500 Avangards?

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Keep in mind the number of interceptions (30 to 1)  is pure speculation. Theodore Postol's work exposed it to be a white elephant:

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_05/Lewis-Postol

The likelihood of SM-3 interception is waaaaaaaaay slimmer than that. Keep in mind their talking about kinetic kill warheads (what they claim), they would literally need thousands of launches. In all likelihood 30 to 1 ratio can only be achieved with tactical nuclear warheads, but if they admit that then that would come at a price geo-politically. With that tid-bit it should put the Mk. 41 cell of Aegis Ashore in to better perspective.

(1) True, that they so far first time successfully hit IRBM, never ICBM yet AFAIK.

(2) how many SM3 are planned in US? 30 ALaska? 100 max?

(3) 30 is purelsy speculative true but

(4) I m not arguing that SM3 is perfect. But please note, tech is progressing all the time. With good maneuverability of an interceptor and powerful computers the closer you are to missile the smaller no of possible trajectories can be 'bifurcated " from warhead point. ...

Thus wit finite no of interceptors you can "seal" all escape routes.

Not if. When. Then Amiland will have to spend another 500 Bill. for missile defence.

Hole wrote:Not if. When. Then Amiland will have to spend another 500 Bill. for missile defence.

that's the idea behind this I guess

It isn't that simple either.

Placement of systems, the command and control systems, etc etc etc.

Not like they will be launching hundreds of these missiles in the sky just to take down a couple of avangards. As said, even if they manage to launch a bunch, by time they do, the system would have left the engagement envelope.

And to hunt a hypersonic missile from behind the interceptor would have to be really fast!

miketheterrible wrote:It isn't that simple either.
Placement of systems, the command and control systems, etc etc etc.

Agreed, Im not claiming this is easy but with powerful enough computers and level of missile tech you can  intercept Avangard with finite number of interceptors.
Where finite does not mean "small" or "insignificant"

Hole wrote:And to hunt a hypersonic missile from behind the interceptor would have to be really fast!

I dotn think they ever try to chase. it's enough to be on collision course with 0 m/s speed. Still you will hit Avangard with 24Ma

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
(4) I m not arguing that SM3 is perfect.  But please note, tech is progressing all the time. With good maneuverability of an interceptor and powerful computers the closer you are to missile the smaller no of possible trajectories can be  'bifurcated " from warhead point. ...

Thus wit finite no of interceptors you can "seal" all escape routes.

True, technology advances, that would also be true for ICBM delivery. I'm not saying SM-3 couldn't be useful, I'm saying they would need tactical nuclear warheads to come close to 30-1 effectiveness. The idea of arming a ABM with a nuclear warhead would see the system's effectiveness grow by orders of magnitude (something Mindstorm has talked about), and it's not far-fetched for the SM-3 to be nuclear armed...but as I said if they admit that then it would give away Agent Ashore's true purpose. When we talk about the Mk. 41 cell of Agent Ashore, it's capable of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, but if the SM-3 is nuclear armed it would only take a change of algorithm, a flick of the switch to change a SM-3 from being a ABM to a IRBM. Even if you look at the characteristics of SM-3 Block IIA, it's very similar to that of a IRBM: Mach 15 speed and 2,500 km range.

magnumcromagnon wrote: When we talk about the Mk. 41 cell of Agent Ashore, it's capable of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, but if the SM-3 is nuclear armed it would only take a change of algorithm, a flick of the switch to change a SM-3 from being a ABM to a IRBM. Even if you look at the characteristics of SM-3 Block IIA, it's very similar to that of a IRBM: Mach 15 speed and 2,500 km range.

That's interesting indeed. And dangerosu for Russian "mainalnd". I wonder what Russians can do to contain this danger?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote: When we talk about the Mk. 41 cell of Agent Ashore, it's capable of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, but if the SM-3 is nuclear armed it would only take a change of algorithm, a flick of the switch to change a SM-3 from being a ABM to a IRBM. Even if you look at the characteristics of SM-3 Block IIA, it's very similar to that of a IRBM: Mach 15 speed and 2,500 km range.

That's interesting indeed.  And dangerosu for Russian "mainalnd". I wonder what Russians can do to contain this danger?

Not much other than:

- Increase number of launch systems. Their Kalibr ship container system is the right step. But make it more suitable to launch long range, high speed missiles like Iskander variants.
- Increase SHORAD and Medium range air defense systems in key areas.

Essentially only real thing to do is either knock them out first or knock them out when they are launched and headed to you.

Having more hidden long range systems gives Russia the benefit of the doubt.

miketheterrible wrote:

That's interesting indeed.  And dangerosu for Russian "mainalnd". I wonder what Russians can do to contain this danger?

- Increase number of launch systems.  Their Kalibr ship container system is the right step.  But make it more suitable to launch long range, high speed missiles like Iskander variants.
- Increase SHORAD and Medium range air defense systems in key areas.

Essentially only real thing to do is either knock them out first or knock them out when they are launched and headed to you.

Having more hidden long range systems gives Russia the benefit of the doubt.[/quote]

(1) True but problem with them is not that it is impossible to catch one them but in saturate attack close to your borders...

(2) both Polish (300kms Redzikow Kaliningrad) and Romania's (~850 km Deveslu Sevastopol) sites are in range of Kinzhal/Idkander (or Rubezh in some years)


In This case Bagruzin with Rubezh, or massive Kourcier, ICBM new edition, application could be one of wayt to answer.

Well, all ststems now are within range. Iskander missile for example.

miketheterrible wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote: When we talk about the Mk. 41 cell of Agent Ashore, it's capable of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, but if the SM-3 is nuclear armed it would only take a change of algorithm, a flick of the switch to change a SM-3 from being a ABM to a IRBM. Even if you look at the characteristics of SM-3 Block IIA, it's very similar to that of a IRBM: Mach 15 speed and 2,500 km range.

That's interesting indeed.  And dangerosu for Russian "mainalnd". I wonder what Russians can do to contain this danger?

Not much other than:

- Increase number of launch systems.  Their Kalibr ship container system is the right step.  But make it more suitable to launch long range, high speed missiles like Iskander variants.
- Increase SHORAD and Medium range air defense systems in key areas.

Essentially only real thing to do is either knock them out first or knock them out when they are launched and headed to you.

Having more hidden long range systems gives Russia the benefit of the doubt.

Actually the answer could come in the form of strategic ECM placement. With systems like Tirada-2, Krasyuhka-2, Murmansk-BM, MiG-31 ASAT, and Peresvet all attacking the satellite sensory guidance, you can't accurately hit the target if all your sensors are blinded, a missile targeting Moscow could end up in fact falling closer to Tallinn, Vilnius or Riga instead. What's particularly interesting fact of Murmansk-BM is it's immense range of 5,500 km, which not only makes it a threat to satellites but to the IRBM itself, as it's range affords it to engage a IRBM through the entirety of it's flight. Something powerful enough to affect you from 5,500 km away would have it's power and influence grow by orders of magnitude the closer the ballistic missile would get, and what ever left still flying would get mopped up by Buk-2/3, S-300V4, S-400, S-500, A-135, A-235 and other systems that have not been disclosed. Of course no solution can guarantee 100% safety, although the softkill+hardkill seems like the best formula.

miketheterrible wrote:Well, all ststems now are within range. Iskander missile for example.

Nope, Romanian site  is almost 900km from Crimea. Iskander's range is so far 500km.

magnumcromagnon wrote: Something powerful enough to affect you from 5,500 km away would have it's power and influence grow by orders of magnitude the closer the ballistic missile would get, and what ever left still flying would get mopped up by Buk-2/3, S-300V4, S-400, S-500, A-135, A-235 and other systems that have not been disclosed. Of course no solution can guarantee 100% safety, although the softkill+hardkill seems like the best formula.

(1) If flight path is preprogrammed and optical sensors on board you dont do much with EW systems.

(2) If SM-3 speed is 15Ma (4,5km/s) only S-400 can help and in range of 60km max (check Russian wiki)

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Well, all ststems now are within range. Iskander missile for example.

Nope, Romanian site  is almost 900km from Crimea

The Iskander may end up getting "improved performance".

magnumcromagnon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Well, all ststems now are within range. Iskander missile for example.

Nope, Romanian site  is almost 900km from Crimea

The Iskander may end up getting "improved performance".

That would be kind surprise one likes best

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Well, all ststems now are within range. Iskander missile for example.

Nope, Romanian site  is almost 900km from Crimea. Iskander's range is so far 500km.

magnumcromagnon wrote: Something powerful enough to affect you from 5,500 km away would have it's power and influence grow by orders of magnitude the closer the ballistic missile would get, and what ever left still flying would get mopped up by Buk-2/3, S-300V4, S-400, S-500, A-135, A-235 and other systems that have not been disclosed. Of course no solution can guarantee 100% safety, although the softkill+hardkill seems like the best formula.

(1) If flight path is preprogrammed and optical sensors on board you dont do much with EW systems.

(2) If SM-3 speed is 15Ma (4,5km/s) only S-400 can help and in range of 60km max (check Russian wiki)

Yes inertial guidance would make it more difficult, but as stated before the hardkill solution (SAMS) would see it's performance go up by leaps-and-bounds when fitted with nuclear warheads. Like also mentioned before if they detect Iskander flying their direction after initial launch of their own systems, the performance of said systems would "deteriorate" with the sites evacuating staff, preventing them from firing their full salvos. No one's going to stick around if they stand to get annihilated themselves.

Optical sensors will be blinded by Peresvet.

Hole wrote:Optical sensors will be blinded by Peresvet.

For something flying 15Ma  above clouds?

magnumcromagnon wrote:Yes inertial guidance would make it more difficult, but as stated before the hardkill solution (SAMS) would see it's performance go up by leaps-and-bounds when fitted with nuclear warheads. Like also mentioned before if they detect Iskander flying their direction after initial launch of their own systems, the performance of said systems would  "deteriorate" with the sites evacuating staff, preventing them from firing their full salvos. No one's going to stick around if they stand to get annihilated themselves.

indeed, but IMHO the idea is not to be guided or even hit much of strategic targets but take first salvo if S-400/S-500 thus leaving more "space" for incoming missiles.