Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Share
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3408
    Points : 3448
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:00 pm

    Labrador wrote:
    30 GBI before since this year 14 new in Alaska so 44



    and how many do you need to take down one maneuvering hypesonic warhead?
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1344
    Points : 1346
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Big_Gazza on Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:04 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Labrador wrote:
    30 GBI before since this year 14 new in Alaska so 44



    and how many do you need to take down one maneuvering hypesonic warhead?

    Most likely, all of them... and they will still miss Laughing

    GBI is likely to be useless given that it relies on measuring trajectory, extrapolating the flight path, and performing a ground-commanded intercept. This method can work on a purely ballistic target, but fails if the target has maneuver capability!

    Sucks to be the Seppostanis.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18340
    Points : 18900
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:44 am

    30 GBI before since this year 14 new in Alaska so 44

    They can't tell decoys from warheads, so even if it was 444 it wouldn't help.

    And they wont be intercepting the manouvering warheads either...

    GBI is likely to be useless given that it relies on measuring trajectory, extrapolating the flight path, and performing a ground-commanded intercept. This method can work on a purely ballistic target, but fails if the target has maneuver capability!

    And if the first missile that moves the fastest is the non ballistic hypersonic weapon that kills the radar for the ABM system... then it wont see the simple cheap missiles coming from China either...
    avatar
    Labrador

    Posts : 75
    Points : 75
    Join date : 2018-09-24
    Location : France

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Labrador on Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:27 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Labrador wrote:
    30 GBI before since this year 14 new in Alaska so 44



    and how many do you need to take down one maneuvering hypesonic warhead?

    This missile is essentialy in service to counter North Korea BMs and why based in Alaska ( 40/44 others in California especialy for tests ) for trajectory reasons  …  in more no hypersonic glider vehicles in service not before severals years, so the problem is not here.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3408
    Points : 3448
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:36 pm

    let me be an advocatus diavoli. True that hypersonic glider is very hard to hit with kinetic kill but

    1) hard doesnt mean impossible

    2) when you are closing to originally calculated place of interception glider can change course but still numbers of possibilities are finite

    3) the closer you come the less possible trajectory bifurcations you have.

    4) Mind that if you talk about glider is maneuvering with on expense of kinetic energy thus number of maneuvers is finite as you more less can calculate target (you dont shoot expensive warhead to fields of Alabama)


    5) fast computers, pre-calculated trajectory and strategies with usage of AI algorithms increases probability of hit



    The main question to me is : has anybody tried to calculate approximate (say order of magnitude) number of GBIs per glider? Since Russians say it is impossible I guess that number of GBIs needed to do the job has prohibitive cost for US.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3408
    Points : 3448
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:04 pm

    Labrador wrote:

    This missile is essentialy in service to counter North Korea BMs and why based in Alaska ( 40/44 others in California especialy for tests ) for trajectory reasons  …  in more no hypersonic glider vehicles in service not before severals years, so the problem is not here.

    All ABM is purely against Russia then eventually in the future China. Nobody with IQ bigger then chimp buys Iran or Korean state dept propaganda.

    Actually every MIRV is a hypersonic vehicle not every is manouvering tho. However every Yars has manouvering warhead. 3 to be exact. So yes, the problem is there. Of course they not yet that capable as Avangard but for now is more than enough to do the job. thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup






    Test from 2014ish


    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18340
    Points : 18900
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:48 pm

    The main question to me is : has anybody tried to calculate approximate (say order of magnitude) number of GBIs per glider?

    I would ask the opposite... how do the GBIs recognise the real warheads from the decoys before something hits them... especially if it is coming from the south pole...

    What if they launch a single missile with fifteen warheads from an old SATAN missile at the first wave of the attack... these 15 warheads spread out evenly after separating just over the north pole so there is a spread of 15 weapons from New York to Alaska coming over.... and all those warheads have proximity fuses that set off the nuclear warhead if anything gets within 2km of the warhead... any attempt at interception will generate an airburst of a nuclear device in space within the intercept zone of the interceptor... which means EMP pulse turns the radars off immediately and for the next 30 minutes of so ionisation of the atmosphere will make radar tracking and radio communication pretty unreliable.

    Or even better the first wave is just decoys and of the 44 decoys about 26 get intercepted and the rest fall harmlessly to the ground... and then the wave of real warheads along with lots more decoys come...
    avatar
    Labrador

    Posts : 75
    Points : 75
    Join date : 2018-09-24
    Location : France

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Labrador on Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:00 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:let me be an advocatus diavoli.  True that hypersonic glider is very hard to hit with kinetic kill but

    1) hard doesnt mean impossible

    2) when you are closing to originally calculated place of interception  glider can change course but still numbers of possibilities are finite

    3) the closer you come the less possible trajectory bifurcations you have.

    4) Mind that if you talk about glider is maneuvering with on expense of kinetic energy thus number of maneuvers is finite as you more less can calculate target (you dont shoot expensive warhead to fields of Alabama)


    5) fast computers, pre-calculated trajectory and strategies with usage of AI algorithms increases probability of hit



    The main question to  me is :  has anybody tried to calculate approximate (say  order of magnitude)  number of GBIs per glider?  Since Russians say it is impossible I guess that number of GBIs needed to do the job has prohibitive cost for US.

    According first reports actuals ABMs can't intercept hypersonic glider but surely with some modifications must be possible BTW USA have yet plans to counter such weapons with hypersonic weapons.
    After too much what if right now

    The GBi is build to counter especialy a country with a Dictator irrational crazy/mad as Rocket Man … almost a new Hitler nothing to do with others more reasonnable countries and ofs so expensive to have thousands GBI

    For GBI he can also ofc intercept BMs before they launch warheads or decoys but BTW such weapons as GBi are more humans than a Soviet Gazelle u imagine nuclear explosion around Moscow … ! also more
    politically correct not offensive only defensive  but very expensive so it is in fact much more interesting and vs all weapons BMs with conventionnals warheads, LACM etc... more simple and efficient  to destroy in first the launcher no doubt about it.

    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 960
    Points : 960
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Hole on Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:00 pm

    The crazy/irrational People are sitting in Washington.

    New russian missiles will also be fitted with a hard kill countermeasure against interceptor. They will release a few hundred small metal objects (like ball bearings) into the flight path of the ICBM so any incoming missile will be hit and damaged/destroyed before it can reach the ICBM or the separated warheads.
    avatar
    RTN

    Posts : 190
    Points : 167
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  RTN on Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:29 pm

    GarryB wrote: Needless to say THAAD is not even as good as S-300P/V in some aspects, let alone S-400 or S-500...

    Why ??? THAAD has exo atmospheric intercept missiles. S 400's exo atmospheric missiles are still not ready.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2303
    Points : 2297
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Isos on Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:05 pm

    RTN wrote:
    GarryB wrote: Needless to say THAAD is not even as good as S-300P/V in some aspects, let alone S-400 or S-500...

    Why ??? THAAD has exo atmospheric intercept missiles. S 400's exo atmospheric missiles are still not ready.

    They invest in the better s-500.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 960
    Points : 960
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Hole on Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:28 pm

    THAAD has problems hitting planes. Against cruise missiles it is nearly useless. The russian systems are all-around air/missile defence systems that can engage everything that flies. The current missiles can supposedly not fly as high as the missile of the THAAD system but they can defend against cruise missiles, drones, anti-radar missiles and so on.


    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3408
    Points : 3448
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:55 am

    RTN wrote:
    Why ??? THAAD has exo atmospheric intercept missiles. S 400's exo atmospheric missiles are still not ready.

    40N6? it since end of June 2018 is.

    Russia completed the state tests of a long-range missile for the S-400

    The missile can be put into service until the end of summer, a TASS source in the defense industry said.
    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5342051
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3408
    Points : 3448
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:23 am

    Labrador wrote:
    According first reports actuals ABMs can't intercept hypersonic glider but surely with some modifications must be possible BTW USA have yet plans to counter such weapons with hypersonic weapons. After too much what if right now

    Do I get it correctly  that currently the status is :  there is no way US can intercept with any significant probability  existing Yars warheads. They need still 10 years or so to do it. With Avangard perhaps even more.

    Glide Beaker? so far I've seen only a concept presentation.




    What gives Russians more than decade to prepare new stuff.  But you know what is funny in this game? Economically this is winning strategy for Russia.  There is enormous  economical leverage. US have to spend 10x more to defend. For country with debt ~ world's GDP is no good spending money on wars they never can win  

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    Total US debt: 72 trillions $.





    The GBi is build to counter especialy a country with a Dictator irrational crazy/mad as Rocket Man … almost a new Hitler nothing to do with others more reasonnable countries and ofs so expensive to have thousands GBI

    c'mon why do you think my IQ is less than chimp? North Korea  wasnt's bullying US, Korea wasn't the one who was bombing with whit phosphorus once rich Libya, Iraq or Syria. All he said was: leave us alone or we strike back.
    BTW what dictator is near Poland (another base) or Romania and endangering existence of USA? Suspect Suspect Suspect




    For GBI he can also ofc intercept BMs before they launch warheads or decoys but BTW such weapons as GBi are more humans than a Soviet Gazelle u imagine nuclear explosion around Moscow … !

    What would grantee destruction with almost 100% . Gazelle had 10ktons wrheadand ceiling 100km. This would might end up for Moscow with Auroras, radio, TV transmission disturbances or power outages. Inhumane indeed.
    https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/happen-nuke-exploded-space.html





    politically correct not offensive only defensive  but very expensive so it is in fact much more interesting and vs all weapons BMs with conventionnals warheads, LACM etc... more simple and efficient  to destroy in first the launcher no doubt about it.

    Would be Russian AMD and cruise missiles in Cuba or in Ottawa, line of Liders with S-500 alond US coasts  defensive too? great we csn agree thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 132
    Points : 130
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:01 pm



    This is suggesting submarines have better chance of torpedoing and sinking US Gerald Ford CVN than cruise or ballistic missiles. We've discussed the case of strategic nuclear war, where US seems to be a loser. Their point-defence of, say CBGs, might however be good enough to shoot down not only cruise, but also ballistic missiles. SM-6 is supposedly able to shot down DF-26 Chinese IRBM (which reaches 10 mach in terminal phase).

    So scenario where, US and Japan attack Kuril islands with CVN might be problematic for Russia, if they don't want to escalate to attacking CONUS with nuclear warheads.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 960
    Points : 960
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Hole on Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:25 pm

    SM-6 can only engange stright flying ballistic missiles. Iskander flies erraticaly, so it would be safe. Even without ECM support.

    Phalanx and RAM are not bad, but mostly against Harpoons or Urans (Kh-35). Both would have problems (understatemend) against Onyx.

    Torpedos are always good against ships. Russia is developing a successor to the Skhvall. This sould be a deadly weapon.

    Best way is to use a mix of weapons and launch methods.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 962
    Points : 960
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:10 pm

    The SSBNs' role isn't sinking of CVNs, so this is off topic.
    But I would add that to keep out of range of BMs, CVNs will need to use tankers to extend the range of their fighters.
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a22985234/boeing-will-build-the-navys-mq-25-stingray-carrier-based-tanker-drone/
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-navy-plans-give-more-range-f-18-super-hornets-f-35c-20900
    https://www.wearethemighty.com/news/the-navy-wants-this-drone-to-extend-its-fighter-range-beyond-1k-miles
    https://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/navy-must-boost-carrier-air-wings-range-size-lethality/
    https://news.usni.org/2017/08/31/mq-25-stingray-unmanned-aerial-tanker-almost-double-strike-range-u-s-carrier-air-wing

    Eliminating tankers will mission kill the CVNs. Then Adm. Shoemaker can retire & start selling shoes!
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3408
    Points : 3448
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:40 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:
    Their point-defence of, say CBGs, might however be good enough to shoot down not only cruise, but also ballistic missiles. SM-6 is supposedly able to shot down DF-26 Chinese IRBM (which reaches 10 mach in terminal phase).

    You cannot seriously treat

    Inofgraphics YT channel presentations

    with no technical or military background. This is their other production:






    Their system "allegedly was able" thats why  DARPA has just started Glide Breaker project. Xbox infgraphics is the the definitive proof.




    OK OK but now about most important from infpgraphics channel  why she doesn't like me? Embarassed  Embarassed  Embarassed

    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 132
    Points : 130
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:21 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The SSBNs' role isn't sinking of CVNs, so this is off topic.

    Says US military strategy? If 50kt Iskander or Kinzhal SRBMs can be used tactically, than so can be 150 kt Bulava's warhead (in the aforementioned scenario it's better to surprise CVN from depths than to engage MiG-31s with US fighters).

    Tsavo Lion wrote:But I would add that to keep out of range of BMs, CVNs will need to use tankers to extend the range of their fighters.

    If US CVN sees Russian BM flying at 10 mach (that's 3 km/s) a bit earlier it doesn't really help if their weapons are incompetent.


    GunshipDemocracy wrote:You cannot seriously treat
    Inofgraphics YT channel presentations
    with no technical or military background. This is their other production:

    That's what they said about Google 10 years ago. Then Google scholar (with no academic background) became the easiest way to access scientific data in the world.

    You can treat no Russian submarine seriously because one exploded in 2000?
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2303
    Points : 2297
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Isos on Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:47 pm

    A submarine waiting for a carrier to come above him and launch its full load of torpedos is almost impossible to counter.

    SSK can go full silent by turning everything off and just wait that a carrier comes within a few km and launch a shkval or even 650mm torpedo.

    New naval mines that consist of a sonar and a small torpedo are also hard to counter. They are on the bottom emiting no noise while carriers noise signature is easily reconizable and well know by russian specialists.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3408
    Points : 3448
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:02 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:
    That's what they said about Google 10 years ago. Then Google scholar (with no academic background) became the easiest way to access scientific data in the world.

    Google Scholar is not an entertainment YT channel but SE for indexing scientific work. Google itself was brainchild of Bring&&Page when their were pursuing their PhD studieson on Stanford.

    You can treat no Russian submarine seriously because one exploded in 2000?

    my point was: tech is changing constantly. Today US Navy has no effective means of protection against hypersonic missiles. Hardly more massive attack of supersonic ones. But this doesnt mean this will last forever. In 5-10 years they will find something more less being able to protect. But this giver Russia another 10 years to research something new.

    Personally I've found funny examples with small rocket boats attacking CSG . Zircons have 1000km range. And 228-00 are only launching platforms not the worlelment and never work on high seas.


    BTW How US can use all those gizmos without AWACS or satellites? You dont think why Russians have 400km anti AWACS missiles?


    Or Tu-22s with Ks-15 in suicidal mission dunno dunno dunno Ks-15 had 300km range. But Kh-32 has 1000km. Every Tu carry up to 3. 12 means 36 for one CSG. Soon They will have 6x GZUR each. With range 1500km ehat suicidal mission he was talking about?


    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 962
    Points : 960
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:16 pm

    Exactly!
    Can an SSBN detect a moving CVN by itself from 100s or 1,000s miles away for its BMs to hit it? Given their usual patrol area, will they be in a position to use their BMs w/o triggering a nuclear retaliation? As soon as/if they go outside of those bastions, the USN & RN MPA & SSNs will shadow them. It's position will be revealed, esp. after BM launch, & nuclear tipped BMs can be used to blow it out of the water. It's not worth the trouble risking a single strategic sub for a tactical CSG!
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 132
    Points : 130
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:44 pm

    Isos wrote:A submarine waiting for a carrier to come above him and launch its full load of torpedos is almost impossible to counter.

    Except that in the case of war a CVN would never approach green water ares where SSKs operate. And even in high seas, beneath CBG should be attack submarines, which should be able to hear Russian Akulas. So faster and more secure way to do the job are BMs. If you want to be sure, BMs in combination with other means.

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Google Scholar is not an entertainment YT channel but SE for indexing scientific work. Google itself was brainchild of Bring&&Page when their were pursuing their PhD studieson on Stanford.  

    Well the line between science and entertainment can be blurred sometimes. There seems to be quite some scientific research behind Infographic show, too. Popular science is by definition inaccurate, but if it creates curiosity with an interesting presentation and makes you do the real research, what's the problem?

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Can an SSBN detect a moving CVN by itself  

    It doesn't have to. You can communicate the coordinates the the submarine by radio even when it's submerged.

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Given their usual patrol area, will they be in a position to use their BMs w/o triggering a nuclear retaliation?  

    Bulava has 8000 km, possibly 10.000 km range.

    Tsavo Lion wrote:As soon as/if they go outside of those bastions, the USN & RN MPA & SSNs will shadow them  

    Cold war is over, modern Russian SSBNs are quiet and you need to miracolously get within 1 km radius to actually hear it.

    Tsavo Lion wrote:It's position will be revealed, esp. after BM launch, & nuclear tipped BMs can be used to blow it out of the water.  

    By then it will be who knows where. Boreis have a max speed of 30 knots and max diving depth of 450 m.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 962
    Points : 960
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:12 pm

    SSKs can operate in open ocean too; a few could be prepositioned along the likely CVN route/ flight ops area & SSNs may not detect them, as they r quieter.
    SSBN communicating with other platforms will expose it, & can be jammed. BMs launched from the sea/ocean can trigger nuclear strikes on it & land targets, which may escalate to a full exchange.
    China already has AshBMs but they don't plan to put them on SSBNs.
    But the ASAT mission is a different matter: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/18/inside-the-ring-3557826/
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 132
    Points : 130
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:42 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:SSKs can operate in open ocean too; a few could be prepositioned along the likely CVN route/ flight ops area & SSNs may not detect them, as they r quieter

    Project 877 submarines aren't quieter than SSNs and project 636 are in Black sea/Syria and it could take them months to get them to the other part of the country.

    Tsavo Lion wrote:SSBN communicating with other platforms will expose it, & can be jammed. BMs launched from the sea/ocean can trigger nuclear strikes on it & land targets, which may escalate to a full exchange.

    How are radio signals suppose to expose the location of transmitter? Can your radio tell the location of radio antenna? And you can't jam it if you don't know the location of receiver - submarine.

    We're talking about potential CVN-led attack on the Russian soil. Its destruction would be Russian act of self-defense, regardless of type of weapon.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Ιntercepting Ballistic Missiles. US vs Russian ABMs

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:28 pm