Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Share

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:36 pm

    This is a bit off topic but apparently theirs a MIT professor (Theodore A. Postol Professor of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy Massachusetts Institute of Technology) that claims Israel's "Iron Dome" has a missile interception rate which is much lower than their claimed 84%. Professor Postol compares Iron Dome to the Patriot SAM's in interception success rate. I hadn't had the time to read through it however some people who have read through it are saying that he's making the case that Iron Dome's success rate is less than 20%:

    http://www.magenlaoref.org.il/IndicatorsofIronDomePerformanceMarch122013.pdf

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Mike E on Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:31 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:This is a bit off topic but apparently theirs a MIT professor (Theodore A. Postol Professor of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy Massachusetts Institute of Technology) that claims Israel's "Iron Dome" has a missile interception rate which is much lower than their claimed 84%. Professor Postol compares Iron Dome to the Patriot SAM's in interception success rate. I hadn't had the time to read through it however some people who have read through it are saying that he's making the case that Iron Dome's success rate is less than 20%:

    http://www.magenlaoref.org.il/IndicatorsofIronDomePerformanceMarch122013.pdf

    Well, I think Iron Dome proves itself with the number of Israelis killed (or lack thereof).

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Jul 16, 2014 11:19 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:This is a bit off topic but apparently theirs a MIT professor (Theodore A. Postol Professor of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy Massachusetts Institute of Technology) that claims Israel's "Iron Dome" has a missile interception rate which is much lower than their claimed 84%. Professor Postol compares Iron Dome to the Patriot SAM's in interception success rate. I hadn't had the time to read through it however some people who have read through it are saying that he's making the case that Iron Dome's success rate is less than 20%:

    http://www.magenlaoref.org.il/IndicatorsofIronDomePerformanceMarch122013.pdf

    Well, I think Iron Dome proves itself with the number of Israelis killed (or lack thereof).

    Actuall casualties happening vs. actual casualties being  reported is the question. The Israeli's have a long history of covering their tracks or spinning tall tales to make themselves look better. Just some examples of Israeli misinformation:

    1.) In 2007 Israeli's claimed they struck Syria's nuclear reactor and claimed they defeated the Pantsir SAM complex with ease, only for the Russian side to point out that the Pantsir complexes weren't even delivered in the first place.

    2.) The Israeli's claim that they could defeat the S-300 SAM complex easily with advanced jamming tactics, only for Netanyahu to beg Putin not sell them to Syria anyway, if they could defeat the S-300 system so easily then why would they need the leader of their country to beg to prevent them from being delivered?

    3.) The Israeli's claim they can defeat advance Russian weapon systems when they never actually tested against them. They claim their Trophy APS can defeat the advanced RPG-30's (designed to defeat APS) when they never actually tested against them, they also claim their SAM's can defeat the advanced Iskander-M system, when they never actually tested against them either. Hard for me to believe you can actually defeat a system if you never tested against them!

    4.) Israeli's claim Hezbollah and Hamas are their eternal enemies and threats to their national security only to later to admit that: The fall of Saddam Huessin (which the Israeli's supported) saw the rise of Hezbollah in their "golden age" where they can move freely from Lebanon, to Syria, to Iran, through Iraq with little resistance (which would never happen under Saddam), and the IDF also admitted they helped create the Islamist Hamas to fight the Secular PLO:

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123275572295011847

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Mike E on Wed Jul 16, 2014 11:50 pm

    I doubt they would lie about their own casualties. (Not to say they have a good history of telling the truth...)


    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:47 am

    Mike E wrote:I doubt they would lie about their own casualties. (Not to say they have a good history of telling the truth...)


    Only time will tell when the dust settles.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:10 pm

    However, I do see its potential when it comes to reducing drag, which is almost invaluable. (Agni III, which is India's longest-range missile with a capability of striking targets 3,500 km away, may now have an extended range of around 5,000 km thanks to a unique solution discovered by Indian scientists at the prestigious Indian Institute of Science (IISc) here.) Those 1500 km are a huge deal.

    What makes me suspicious is that a 3,500km range ballistic missile probably spends some time in space so this drag reducing mechanism would only work during the initial portion of flight as it climbs up out of the atmosphere and then when it comes down... but when it comes down it is essentially falling anyway so reduction in drag would do very little to extend range in that portion of flight.

    Well, I think Iron Dome proves itself with the number of Israelis killed (or lack thereof).

    I think that has more to do with the random nature of the primative nature of the rockets hamas is using and the relatively small warheads, and the comparison of the precision aimed retaliation strikes that seem to invariably hit apartment blocks.


    _________________
    “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

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Mike E on Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:10 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    However, I do see its potential when it comes to reducing drag, which is almost invaluable. (Agni III, which is India's longest-range missile with a capability of striking targets 3,500 km away, may now have an extended range of around 5,000 km thanks to a unique solution discovered by Indian scientists at the prestigious Indian Institute of Science (IISc) here.) Those 1500 km are a huge deal.

    What makes me suspicious is that a 3,500km range ballistic missile probably spends some time in space so this drag reducing mechanism would only work during the initial portion of flight as it climbs up out of the atmosphere and then when it comes down... but when it comes down it is essentially falling anyway so reduction in drag would do very little to extend range in that portion of flight.

    Well, I think Iron Dome proves itself with the number of Israelis killed (or lack thereof).

    I think that has more to do with the random nature of the primative nature of the rockets hamas is using and the relatively small warheads, and the comparison of the precision aimed retaliation strikes that seem to invariably hit apartment blocks.

    Well, I get your point. However, the initial stage of flight (in the atmosphere) is crucial, and the extra speed (as a result of this technology) is needed to extend the range. On the other hand, having this tech on the descent would be almost useless.

    That is true, but there is no denying Iron Dome has done its job successfully.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Jul 17, 2014 7:11 pm

    Great news guys! Almaz-Antey has now started the design stage of Russia's unified aerospace defense network, greatly enhancing aerospace defense forces capability to defend Russian airspace:

    Unified system of aerospace defense began to design in Russia

    The complex will include a unified aerospace defense system early warning system and air attack, detection means and means to engage targets. To equip troops ASD provided about 3.4 trillion rubles.



    MOSCOW, July 15 - RIA Novosti. Concern PVO "Almaz-Antey" started to design the system of aerospace defense (VKO) Russia, told reporters on Tuesday, Deputy Director General for Scientific and Technological Development Group Sergei Druzin. The plans to create a unified aerospace defense system in June 2013 announced by President Vladimir Putin. In this complex, first of all, will include early-warning system and air attack, detection means and means to engage targets. Today had once been united air defense system of Russia consists of five separate parts - four air defense systems and military districts Forces aerospace defense. "One of the most significant results of scientific and technological activities of the concern in 2013 is the conclusion of the Russian Defense Ministry with government contracts for research and development work on the design of ASD" - said Druzin. According to the plan of the General Staff, the new system will guarantee to detect ASD launches of ballistic and cruise missiles. Along the perimeter of the country will be deployed radars high prefabrication system of missile warning. In accordance with the state armaments program until 2020 to equip troops ASD provided about 3.4 trillion rubles. This is about 20% of all funds allocated for upgrading the army and navy. By 2015, the troops ASD must have at least 50% of modern weapons, and in 2020 - at least 70%.

    http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20140715/1016037950.html


    ...I have some questions for our elder statesman GarryB, with a massive modern and sophisticated aerospace network in place and integrated with all domestic SAMS, is it possible that Russian SAMS would be capable of having significantly enhanced range and performance in domestic aerospace? For example we have the S-400 with 400km range, and the S-500 with 600km range...assuming the range is not downplayed, is it possible within this aerospace defense network within domestic Russian aerospace, that the S-400 can have an enhanced range of 600km, and the S-500 could have an enhanced range of 800km? For my understanding the range of missiles (for those very SAMS) most limiting factor is not the propellant or the rocket motor, but how powerful the radar is, and that there's a limit due to maintaining mobility on how powerful a radar complex could be (massive quantities of power would be needed to power it, needing larger and heavier power plants). Also isn't it true that S-400's 400km range is the maximum range of having a 95% interception probability after firing 2 missiles, but could the S-400 theoretically intercept targets at significantly greater ranges but at the cost of significantly lower interception percentage (for a theoretical example 95% at 400km, 85% at 600km, 75% at 800km)?

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3236
    Points : 3360
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Vann7 on Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:33 am

    @magnumcromagnon

    Not Gary but in your question of expanding S-400s and S-500 range capabilities..  using the missiles in different
    ways..  Something that i think you need to remember is this..  



    And you could guess ,after some long Range ,the radar of any system of defense no matter how good
    it is ,will not see anything that is flying under the radar Horizon . In the picture the radio tower signals will not reach the House ,because is under their horizon. So 400km is more than enough.
    Trying to detect a military plane of an enemy beyond 500km will be next to impossible if the planes are flying
    at ~100-500 meters altitude to cover from the radar waves using the earth curvature as cover.   system like S-500
    with 600 km range in practice will be more need for high altitude bombers or against ICBM or to shut down satelites. for the reason of them being very expensive missiles , could cost US $10 -$20 millions each missile. the Brahmos missile cost near $3 million for example. And for enemy planes do not have missiles with longer than 200km usually. Norway is working in a cruise anti ship missile with 300km range. in the case of Low flying tomahawks they can be intercepted with regulan Gatlin guns pantsirs like defenses. Crimea for example have like 200km range from coast to coast. So is a long long distance a missile with more than 400km.  You could achieve your extra range by just using mobile radars that comes in navy warships or from helicopters illuminating the target and to expose any enemy plane flying low. or in the case of territory by deploying a network of S-400 Sam defense every 300km distance or a network of small range defense Systems like Buks ,Pantsir or Tors.  

    If Russia get S-500s , any enemy combat plane trying to attack ussia will seek to fly below the radar ,making pointless the extra range over the S-400s. So S-500s with 600km range  in real practice will rarely could be used against Air Space defenses and instead will be used for Space Defenses. against ICBMs.. or HIgh Altitude Bombers like SR-72 that US defense industry already said is working or scram jets flying in space. In my opinion What Russia needs to expand its air defense is have navy with S-400s defenses. Since each warship will share information and cover a different zone.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:13 pm

    That is true, but there is no denying Iron Dome has done its job successfully.

    With out any data on effectiveness you can't really say that.

    Well you can, but you can also say:

    "That is true, but there is no denying "my home made electronic missile diverter" has done its job successfully."

    I keep it turned on all the time and what it does is send out radio waves that reduce the accuracy of unguided rockets launched from makeshift launchers without proper meteorological data to levels that make them rather ineffective except for the occasional lucky strike.

    i call my home made electronic missile diverter: the Radio Electronic Accuracy Lowering Widget Open to Ridicule by Less eDucated people... or known better by the acronym... REAL WORLD.

    It even works from New Zealand and creates a powerful electronic field of accuracy reduction for all unguided poorly aimed projectiles.

    Smile

    ...I have some questions for our elder statesman GarryB, with a massive modern and sophisticated aerospace network in place and integrated with all domestic SAMS,

    First of all it wont be integrated with all domestic SAMs... The Air Force, Army, Navy, Strategic Rocket Forces and other branches all have their own SAM assets and roles.

    This system will be an attempt to use ground, air and space based sensors to cover the airspace above Russia from ground to beyond orbit... (might include space debris protection eventually). In a few years it will become very powerful and capable, but there will be gaps in sight and reach.

    For example we have the S-400 with 400km range, and the S-500 with 600km range...assuming the range is not downplayed, is it possible within this aerospace defense network within domestic Russian aerospace, that the S-400 can have an enhanced range of 600km, and the S-500 could have an enhanced range of 800km?

    No. AFAIK these ranges are kinematic ranges... in the case of the S-400 to hit targets 400km distant a lofted flight profile is adopted to get that sort of reach... it will be the same for S-500.


    With an IADS it is possible that a missile might be launched at a target but a platform that is closer could take over control of the missile for the final stage of interception... ie an S-400 could be launched at an enemy aircraft 350km distant but an A-100 AWACS aircraft is flying within 200km of the target, so it could provide guidance for the missile while the S-400 battery concentrates on other targets.

    Also isn't it true that S-400's 400km range is the maximum range of having a 95% interception probability after firing 2 missiles, but could the S-400 theoretically intercept targets at significantly greater ranges but at the cost of significantly lower interception percentage (for a theoretical example 95% at 400km, 85% at 600km, 75% at 800km)?

    If it is using a lofted trajectory then it will be at a practical physical limit of range.

    often greater range can be achieved against larger less manouverable targets like AWACS aircraft or B-52 bombers in the case of air to air missiles.
    I
    In this case you can hit a B-52 at greater range because the target will be unable to pull a high g manouver to evade your missile, so a 110km range RVV-SD might be able to hit a B-52 at 130km with the missile using a lofted trajectory and having glided further it will attack theB-52 with less speed and energy but because the target is a B-52 it wont need as much manouvering energy to get a kill.

    And you could guess ,after some long Range ,the radar of any system of defense no matter how good
    it is ,will not see anything that is flying under the radar Horizon . In the picture the radio tower signals will not reach the House ,because is under their horizon.

    Quite true, but with multiple and linked radars on the ground and in the air and indeed in space the coverage of Russia territory will soon become fairly comprehensive.

    With the end of the 1978 ABM treaty OTH radars can now be pointed into Russian territory to look for threats in Russian air space. Even if an S-400 battery can't see the target it can launch missiles at targets using target data from other sources and when the missile gets to within range it can use its own radar to find and destroy the target even if it is flying near the ground.


    _________________
    “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

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:23 pm

    True, I basing my "confidence" in the system on the fact that hundreds of missiles have been fired, and only a few actually hit their target. It may not work against higher-tech missiles (?), but it sure does against Qassams.

    Any more opinions on the new Aero tech (from India)?

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:46 pm

    If the kinematic performance and the amount of propellant of the S-400/S-500 missiles are the limiting factors, than developing miniature LFTR reactors might be the solution in greatly increasing missile range. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) are vastly superior to uranium reactors, because they're vastly safer and they need far less housing (no worry over Fukushima like hydrogen explosions), it makes 1/100th the nuclear waste because it needs 1/100th amount of nuclear fuel (uranium reactors use small percentages of the isotopes they use, while thorium reactors use almost all the fuel in a isotope), the thorium fuel is every where and it's dirt cheap, and the technology is totally scalable that they can be made large enough to generate 100 Megawatts of power, or made small enough to fit in the confines of a missile. I'm not saying it should replace rocket propellant entirely because molten-salt liquid fluoride thorium is hazardous nuclear material, I'm saying strategic and tactical nuclear tipped missiles (offensive and defensive) should have mini-LFTR reactors to greatly enhance range!

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:49 pm

    LFTR FTW! Finally, someone who loves LFTR's like myself! That actually sounds like a decent idea... thumbsup

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:50 am

    True, I basing my "confidence" in the system on the fact that hundreds of missiles have been fired, and only a few actually hit their target. It may not work against higher-tech missiles (?), but it sure does against Qassams.

    I want to see actual performance figures before I form an opinion on the system... how many of those rockets were going to take lives and were prevented from doing so by the interceptor missiles.

    It could be argued that the Qassams have been about as effective as the Scuds in 1991 except that one Scud hit a target and single handedly killed more Americans than any other Iraqi system in the conflict.

    Of a total of about 90 Scuds fired, 42 were fired at Israel and were directly responsible for the death of 1 Israeli. And that is without Iron Dome.

    One Scud was hit by Patriot and, with its flight path redirected, hit a US army barracks in Saudi Arabia killing about 30 soldiers.

    The simple fact is that unguided rockets fired at large population areas are not enormously effective in terms of actually killing people... especially smaller missiles with small payloads.

    You either need guidance for precision or you need very very powerful warheads.


    _________________
    “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

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:57 pm

    Notice how I said " It may not work against higher-tech missiles (?), but it sure does against Qassams".


    Against Smerch missiles for instance, it may not work at all. I also doubt it would stand even a slim chance against an Iskander.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:17 pm

    Mike E wrote:Notice how I said " It may not work against higher-tech missiles (?), but it sure does against Qassams".


    Against Smerch missiles for instance, it may not work at all. I also doubt it would stand even a slim chance against an Iskander.

    ...Exactly, the likeliness that the Israeli's have any air defense system capable of defeating Iskander is very slim, but that doesn't stop them Israeli's (on the the same lines mp.net/F-16 forum maggots Embarassed ) from creating a circle-jerk marketing campaign against a system (Iskander) that they never even tested against... Laughing Razz Embarassed

    -------

    http://www.russiadefence.net/viewtopic.forum?t=5307

    Sponsored content

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:33 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:33 pm