Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian ABM Development

    Share
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  kvs on Sat May 07, 2016 6:01 pm

    max steel wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:

    200 km maximum altited means minimum 2000 m/sec velocity.(without considering the air friction)

    However this means that at 100km the rocket has only 600 m/sec, insufficient to intercept anything as fast as an ICBM,even with nuclear warhead.

    S-500 missile will travel at 7 km/s. Is it enough to trget icbms ? because re-entry vehicle travel at 8-9 km/sec. dunno

    There are intercept windows. The size of these windows increases with the speed of the interceptor. With a 7 km/s exo-atmospheric
    interceptor any existing ICBM warhead is accessible. Of course the interceptor has to be launched early enough but that is not an issue since
    the warheads are tracked over very large distances and not just when they are raining overhead.

    I doubt that the S-500 will be designed around endo-atmospheric interception. This is the most difficult ABM task since the incoming warhead
    is at its maximum velocity and the time window before hitting the target is on the order of one minute. Exo-atmospheric or mid-course interception
    is the only viable option if boost phase interception is not possible.

    Singular_trafo

    Posts : 114
    Points : 108
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  Singular_trafo on Sat May 07, 2016 6:59 pm

    max steel wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:

    200 km maximum altited means minimum 2000 m/sec velocity.(without considering the air friction)

    However this means that at 100km the rocket has only 600 m/sec, insufficient to intercept anything as fast as an ICBM,even with nuclear warhead.

    S-500 missile will travel at 7 km/s. Is it enough to trget icbms ? because re-entry vehicle travel at 8-9 km/sec. dunno

    Low Earth Orbit (LEO) velocity is 7.8 km/sec. At this, or above this speed we are not talking about ballsitic missile, but a satelite.


    So the reentry speed of a warhead can't be 7.8km/sec.The delta V generated by the rocekt engine can be as big, but few km/sec lost due to air friction.

    I seriously doubt that the interceptor rockrt can reach 6km/sec speed.
    Solid propelant can generate 2km/sec exhaust speed, so to reach 4 km/sec it need 1:7 empty mass:full mass ratio, to reach 6 km/sec it need 1:20 ratio.(maybe 2.3 km/sec,but dueto the small size I doubt it)

    The rocket few metric tons, so I can't see enouth space for theese kind of values.


    Additionaly, the decoys will trash the screen of the radar above 100 km.
    The elbrus PC can't dierentiate the decoys from the warheads outside of the atmosphere.
    under 100 km, due to the air friction the software can diferentiate the warhead(s).





    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 6276
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 38
    Location : Croatia

    S-500 parametrs

    Post  Viktor on Tue May 10, 2016 2:17 pm

    Singular_trafo wrote:
    Viktor wrote:Nice  thumbsup

    S-500:

    - 200+km in height
    - 600+km in distance
    - 10 targets at the same time
    - aerodynamic targets and ballistic targets
    - high mobility


    S-350:

    - 30km in height
    - 120km in distance
    - 16 targets at the same time with 32 missiles


    Russia's Deadly S-500 Air-Defense System: Ready for War at 660,000 Feet


    These parameters doesn't make sense.

    The main radar of the S-wathever is capable to see a zepelin sized target from 600km with a minimum altitude of 10-20 km.
    From the other side it is extremly hard to intercept a ballistic missile above 100km.


    so the most probable is these parameters are the theoretical maximu range , so it can go up 200 km, but at that point the interceptor will have 0 kinetic energy, and for 600 km it can be used maximum as a ballistic missile.


    I think you mixed something wrong.

    Shooting down the 7km/s target reguires interceptor missile which can be in time at the calculated interception point and optimaly you will want to have as smallerst missile as possible

    and smallest radar as possible because you will want to have as highest tactical and strategic mobility.

    S-500 system radar set will have sufficient range in combo with its missiles of unknown speed to shoot down 10 targets symultaneously at 7km/sec tagets with 9X% probability.

    When you read that some S_xx system can shoot down target flying xx m/s at xxkm distance it allways refers to some 85-100 hit probability.

    It also means that hit can occure in even longeer ranges but with smaller probability.

    Speculative ranges of S-500 radar sets as of now go as far as 2000km still S-500 will be integrated within Russian EW radar sets meaning its vision will entagle the globe and all

    calculations will S-500 receive from heigher command post ultimately DON-2N. ... Very Happy

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:08 pm

    Well SM-3 Block I-A/B missiles fly at 3 km/s ( Mch 10.2)  and now Block II-A will fly at 4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25). So S-500 travelling only at Mach 10 ? Doesn't sound much interesting and it will target within 200 km altitude which is endo-atmospheric .



    By the way is it necessary that your interceptor should travel at higher speed than adversary ICBM because you'll be launching your interceptor seconds later after tracking the launch to in order to coverup the speed ?

    So Much hype for s-500 Rolling Eyes
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  kvs on Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:59 pm

    max steel wrote:Well SM-3 Block I-A/B missiles fly at 3 km/s ( Mch 10.2)  and now Block II-A will fly at 4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25). So S-500 travelling only at Mach 10 ? Doesn't sound much interesting and it will target within 200 km altitude which is endo-atmospheric .



    By the way is it necessary that your interceptor should travel at higher speed than adversary ICBM because you'll be launching your interceptor seconds later after tracking the launch to in order to coverup the speed ?

    So Much hype for s-500 Rolling Eyes

    You claim it is endo-atmospheric interception but there is no atmosphere at 200 km. At those altitudes the mass budget of the ionized gases is dominated by human orbital debris. It's funny how Russia has so many blood sucking naysayers swarming it all the time. They always claim Russia is weak and backward and then they get their asses handed to them on a platter as during WWII. Spare us your BS. Russia and the USA are the only two countries on the planet with the ability and commitment to develop ABM systems. Some irrelevant 3rd party observer spouting off their gut feelings is just noise.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:23 pm

    My bad 100km and below is endo-atmospheric. Haven't answered 2nd question yet and any idea on interceptor speed ? I've doubts and just want to know more. Will S-500 be using Kill Vehicle ?

    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7110
    Points : 7382
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:58 pm

    max steel wrote:My bad 100km and below is endo-atmospheric. Haven't answered 2nd question yet and any idea on interceptor speed ?  I've doubts and just want to know more. Will S-500 be using Kill Vehicle ?


    No you are not.  Cause your rolling eyes about S-500 is a joke.  Sorry to say, but SM-3 was proven to be a joke but hey, you say its better because apparently the max speeds of it (official statements) vs what we are speculating to be exactly what it is, is full on truth.  You, I and all of us do not actually know what is what on S-500 yet, cause it isn't out.  But please do tell us how much SM-3 is better.  Idiot.

    So how many of those in the picture is official? Did MoD/Almaz Antey state these?
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:51 pm

    I got this picture from Austin blog you can check the link(http://austinstalk.blogspot.in/2016/05/s-500-air-space-defense-system.html). If you can't recollect what you all were discussing about S-500 missile speed and when garry said in total 10 km/s ( including enemy missile+ interceptor speed) that's why I shared the SM-3 interceptor speed figures just to compare that if BMs interceptor can travel at Mach 10 and 14(by 2018) then why S-500 interceptor will travel at 3km/s ( which is Mach 10 only) to intercept an ICBM and then I aksed my query that is it necessary that the interceptor must travel at higher speed than adversary ICBM because you'll be launching your interceptor seconds later after tracking the launch in order to coverup the speed(time elapsed) ?

    I know no one here knows the exact speed of interceptor but in accordance with the figure of 10km/s quoted by Garry(http://www.russiadefence.net/t1689p50-a-135-anti-ballistic-missile-system#165764) I had a doubt that's why I weighed in. Regarding SM-3 capabilities go read the US MDA thread unlike you I've been updating it regularly and FYI no one talked about SM-3 efficiency( deviating from the point). I mentioned the speed just for comparison. Oh! I didn't know you people take emoticon seriously and if you have your panties in a wad over someone's opinion on the internet then by all means you are in the wrong place. It would be great if you can answer the queries otherwise feel free to block me, not interested in stretching offtopic BS.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7110
    Points : 7382
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:23 pm

    Edit: I am being too harsh and I am sorry Max.

    Just don't take to heart the claims, as we all are just purely speculating.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 04, 2016 2:20 pm

    Well SM-3 Block I-A/B missiles fly at 3 km/s ( Mch 10.2) and now Block II-A will fly at 4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25). So S-500 travelling only at Mach 10 ? Doesn't sound much interesting and it will target within 200 km altitude which is endo-atmospheric .

    Can I ask you why you think speed is so critical?
    Speed is of course very useful for any interceptor, but its engagement parameters are vastly more important than its top speed.

    Also do you actually understand how rockets work?

    SM-3 Block whatever the fuck don't fly at 3km/s from launch to the target... their speed varies depending upon what part of the flight they are at... they start off at zero and might rapidly accelerate to 3km/s but then the rocket motor burns out and they coast to the target relying on the fact that the first few seconds of flight takes them past the thickest low altitude air where drag is highest.

    If the S-500 can engage targets up to 600km distant and hit targets travelling at 7km/s who cares how fast or slow it is?

    when garry said in total 10 km/s ( including enemy missile+ interceptor speed) that's why I shared the SM-3 interceptor speed figures just to compare that if BMs interceptor can travel at Mach 10 and 14(by 2018) then why S-500 interceptor will travel at 3km/s ( which is Mach 10 only) to intercept an ICBM and then I aksed my query that is it necessary that the interceptor must travel at higher speed than adversary ICBM because you'll be launching your interceptor seconds later after tracking the launch in order to coverup the speed(time elapsed) ?

    Ummm... Garry didn't say the total interception speed is 10km/s...

    "Expert Council member board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation, the chief editor of "Arsenal Fatherland" Viktor Murakhovski: Given that the mutual speed of interception will be, probably, more than 10 kilometers per second (or close to this figure), here to destroy even the explosive is required."

    This guy says interception speed will be MORE than 10km/s... so it might be 15km/s for all we know... he doesn't work for the company that makes the missile... he is a magazine editor... but lets just run around shouting that the sky is falling because he does not say S-500 flys at mach 50. Smile

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  max steel on Sat Jun 04, 2016 2:33 pm

    Yup thats what I said you mentioned 10km/s is the total speed of adversary icbm+ interceptor missile and 600km target altitude is not for ICBM ( 200 km is. )

    Interceptor speed was my doubt from start that's why I asked is it necessary that the interceptor must travel at higher speed than adversary ICBM because you'll be launching your interceptor seconds later after tracking the launch in order to coverup the speed(time elapsed) ?

    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  kvs on Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Well SM-3 Block I-A/B missiles fly at 3 km/s ( Mch 10.2)  and now Block II-A will fly at 4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25). So S-500 travelling only at Mach 10 ? Doesn't sound much interesting and it will target within 200 km altitude which is endo-atmospheric .

    Can I ask you why you think speed is so critical?
    Speed is of course very useful for any interceptor, but its engagement parameters are vastly more important than its top speed.

    Also do you actually understand how rockets work?

    ABM systems are special because they have very tight interception windows. The faster your anti-ICBM missile the more room you have
    for interception and the more chance you have of hitting.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK6W0OATveQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EH3i1itAps

    There clearly is a need for speed. The A-135 can achieve 3 km/s warhead speed. Improving this metric is a vital goal.

    BTW, max steel keeps on claiming that the interception by Russian systems in endo-atmospheric. People should be lecturing him for
    having no clue about why exo-atmospheric interception is better. The main one is the lack of air turbulence and friction effects. Although
    the ionosphere density at 200 km is already very low, the very large interceptor speed makes any air drag a problem and a big one at lower
    altitudes. Being able to hit a MARV at 500 km is where the logical ABM evolution would be aimed.
    avatar
    mack8

    Posts : 951
    Points : 1007
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  mack8 on Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:03 am

    S-500 official model? From Djoker:
    http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2801467&postcount=44


    rambo54

    Posts : 163
    Points : 165
    Join date : 2014-04-01

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  rambo54 on Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:15 am

    mack8 wrote:S-500 official model? From Djoker:
    http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2801467&postcount=44


    Well that goes along with the graph which its all over the net since nearly two years


    Obviously S-500 is a derivate of the S-300V System (more Antey than Almaz :-) )

    I have learned that the other graph published in a Almaz calender a couple of month ago is obviously the ASAT System Nudol
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:14 pm

    Yup thats what I said you mentioned 10km/s is the total speed of adversary icbm+ interceptor missile and 600km target altitude is not for ICBM ( 200 km is. )

    Don't you get it...

    The guy who provided the numbers doesn't know how fast the S-500 is. He knows it can intercept 7km/s targets so he is assuming the likely speed of the S-500 is 3km/s or more so his estimate of the likely interception speed is More Than... 10km/s.

    600km is the horizontal range of the system presumably against air breathing targets.

    Nudol on the other hand will likely be able to intercept some types of satellite as well as ICBM targets.

    Interceptor speed was my doubt from start that's why I asked is it necessary that the interceptor must travel at higher speed than adversary ICBM because you'll be launching your interceptor seconds later after tracking the launch in order to coverup the speed(time elapsed) ?

    S-500 is not a mid course interceptor... it will be located near the target it is defending so the ICBM will be coming towards it. The incoming target will be tracked from thousands of kms away by OTH radar in the national grid so there will be plenty of time to plot its course and ready interceptors...
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  kvs on Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:34 pm

    The S-500 will not have just a two tube configuration. It will have the four tube configuration as well for anti-aircraft task. The two
    tubes must be for the ABM variant. Seems like the missile will be a downsized (but not reduced performance) A-135. An updated A-135
    could easily have half the mass of the original (as indicated by the payload to weight ratio for recent Russian ICBMs which imply a doubling
    of solid rocket fuel performance). This would fit in these launch tubes.

    Singular_trafo

    Posts : 114
    Points : 108
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  Singular_trafo on Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:46 pm

    kvs wrote:The S-500 will not have just a two tube configuration. It will have the four tube configuration as well for anti-aircraft task. The two
    tubes must be for the ABM variant. Seems like the missile will be a downsized (but not reduced performance) A-135. An updated A-135
    could easily have half the mass of the original (as indicated by the payload to weight ratio for recent Russian ICBMs which imply a doubling
    of solid rocket fuel performance). This would fit in these launch tubes.

    by the drawings ttha canister of the dual tube s-500 not longer than 10.4 meter, by wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/53T6 the interceptor of the A-35 is 12 meters, so no chance to see the same speed liht the 53T6 with the reocket hiding in that canister.

    Maybe they cut back the speed of the interceptor to 2-2,5 km/sec, and compensating it with higher nuclear yield and/or with higher computer capacity.

    rambo54

    Posts : 163
    Points : 165
    Join date : 2014-04-01

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  rambo54 on Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:52 am

    51T6 (of A-135) is about 19m !
    I don't think that they will fit in this canister - even in a downsized version. Moreover 51T6 could be the basis for the long range variant of A-235.
    My guess is that S-500 is very similiar to 9M82/9M83 which was always the more capable system than 48N6

    Project Canada

    Posts : 663
    Points : 666
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  Project Canada on Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:05 am


    I hope they will use Russian made Transporter erector launcher for both S-500 and Nudol
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7110
    Points : 7382
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:23 am

    Project Canada wrote:
    I hope they will use Russian made Transporter erector launcher for both S-500 and Nudol

    Me too, I hope they do not bother with appeasing Lukashenko.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4626
    Points : 4785
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:35 pm

    sepheronx wrote:
    Project Canada wrote:
    I hope they will use Russian made Transporter erector launcher for both S-500 and Nudol

    Me too, I hope they do not bother with appeasing Lukashenko.

    Kamaz Platform-O:













    http://twower.livejournal.com/1802827.html
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  kvs on Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:55 pm

    rambo54 wrote:51T6 (of A-135) is about 19m !
    I don't think that they will fit in this canister - even in a downsized version. Moreover 51T6 could be the basis for the long range variant of A-235.
    My guess is that S-500 is very similiar to 9M82/9M83 which was always the more capable system than 48N6

    Why do you "critics" assume that the dimensions of a 50% lighter A-135 update would be the same as the old one?
    That is not any sort of logical inference but some sort of knee jerk nonsense. The volume and dimensions of the
    new variant do not have to even conform to the 50% fuel weight scaling. The new solid rocket fuel does not have to
    have the same density as the old one and likely does not. Given the performance gain the new fuel is likely higher
    density.

    The A-235 is an update that is meant for silos. It has higher performance but is still a large missile. The "obsolete"
    A-135 could be updated for mobile deployment.

    rambo54

    Posts : 163
    Points : 165
    Join date : 2014-04-01

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  rambo54 on Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:43 am

    kvs wrote:
    rambo54 wrote:51T6 (of A-135) is about 19m !
    I don't think that they will fit in this canister - even in a downsized version. Moreover 51T6 could be the basis for the long range variant of A-235.
    My guess is that S-500 is very similiar to 9M82/9M83 which was always the more capable system than 48N6

    Why do you "critics" assume that the dimensions of a 50% lighter A-135 update would be the same as the old one?
    That is not any sort of logical inference but some sort of knee jerk nonsense.    The volume and dimensions of the
    new variant do not have to even conform to the 50% fuel weight scaling.   The new solid rocket fuel does not have to
    have the same density as the old one and likely does not.  Given the performance gain the new fuel is likely higher
    density.  

    The A-235 is an update that is meant for silos.  It has higher performance but is still a large missile.    The "obsolete"
    A-135 could be updated for mobile deployment.

    ok let's talk about nonsense:

    A-235: since more than a decade there is twaddling about a new long range interceptor on basis of the 51T6. Up to now there is no evidence that this missile have been ever tested (Sary Shagan site 52 is closed since 2002).
    There is no evidence that the two long range silo sites around Moscow are reactivated or currently under reconstruction some 11 years after their shoot down.
    A-135: Apart from the modernization of 53T6 and DON-2N there is no evidence that there will be a new long range component of that system ( I guess your indication of A-35 was not serious). Although there might be ambitions to do so but as far as I know there is no firm project which would come to a deployment within the next three years. And the disputed drawing from the Almaz Calender seems to be a different project, namely the ASAT Project "Nudol" recently tested at Plesetsk.

    So where is your source/evidence to come up with a speculation that the vehicle in this drawing is housing a new long range ABM?
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:28 pm

    So will the Lider class destroyer having naval S-500 will have same specs as S-500 land version because if your destroyers are somewhere near north ( above russi) they can target SLBMs much before ?
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2526
    Points : 2524
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  KiloGolf on Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:45 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Can I ask you why you think speed is so critical?
    Speed is of course very useful for any interceptor, but its engagement parameters are vastly more important than its top speed.

    Sure, but in both respects both Block I and Block II SM-3 is the most capable system, compared to what is fielded by Russia currently (be it on land or sea).

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:26 pm