Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
China is really being dragged in this missile defense arms race. As you might know a X-Band Radar is being prepared to be deployed here in the Philippines.
+48
miketheterrible
owais.usmani
Tsavo Lion
dino00
RTN
Hole
PapaDragon
The-thing-next-door
LMFS
eehnie
George1
jhelb
KiloGolf
Project Canada
mack8
kvs
Singular_trafo
fragmachine
Isos
Vann7
ahmedfire
Mike E
GunshipDemocracy
max steel
Werewolf
Kyo
AlfaT8
rambo54
eridan
magnumcromagnon
Alex555
TheArmenian
sepheronx
Sujoy
Cyberspec
medo
vK_man
Viktor
TR1
Mindstorm
TheRealist
GarryB
flamming_python
russian_soldier
SOC
Austin
Pervius
Russian Patriot
52 posters
Russian ABM Development
TheRealist- Posts : 78
Points : 112
Join date : 2012-08-21
Mindstorm- Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20
Some times it seems to me Russia is obsessed with every thing America does , An official statement has to say this system will be better than American one or this missile can defeat American system
In this instance similar statement represent a strong message to USA, on the line :
" We will produce a vehicle mounted ground based ABM (therefore easily capable to disperse, possible to defend/hide/move through underground redeploying tunnels with covered silo-like fire stations -totally invisible even to space based sensors- , aided IR/radar "active" mechanical/inflatable decoy batteries etc...etc...
), completely mobile (therefore virtually immune to stand-off missile attacks) and with universal target engagement capabilities (from ICBM to hypersonic UCAV) technically superior to the ABM element of the NATO project now in development ; if USA will go ahead with its plan in East Europe, similar superior S-500s launchers will be deployed not only on Russian territory ,greatly eroding the deterrence capabilities represented by the largely outdated arsenal of NATO ICBM ,almost completely devoid of any anti-ABM feature, but mounted in great numbers also on any new "blue water" Russian naval unity, generating immense problems for any NATO's SLBM coming from the critical Nothern sector "The unilateral exit by part of USA from ABM Treaty in 2002 was the attempt to find a remedy of some kind (ABM systems placed in positions useful for intercept Topol-M class ICBMs in the only segment of theirs vulnerability) to the quickly widening gap in nuclear delivery technology between USA and Russia after the introduction of Topol-M and ,even more, with "Bulava" and "Yars" (and the nuclear vector's huge technological gap suffered by West in comparison with Russian Federation promise to become a true abyss in the next years with the introduction of future ICBMs and perspective strategic "vehicles"...).
This remodulation of S-500's requirements aim merely at put another time ,the enormous technological burden of matching the outstanding capabilities of Russian startegic arsenal on the frail shoulders of western outdated ICBM arsenal; forcing, in this way, USA at put all its eggs in the basket of the high-risk hypersonic program (and this is a "move" that Russia expect since a long time and against which has begun to prepare itself more than a decade ago...).
It is all much more complex than what a shallow observation of the situation could suggest, it is instead an attentively covered chess game in play since more than a decade by now
.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-07
Austin wrote:Some times it seems to me Russia is obsessed with every thing America does , An official statement has to say this system will be better than American one or this missile can defeat American system
Well no different than our own DRDO which will use American presentation ( slides/PPT ) and will use American system as benchmark to gauge its own
I am sure US stands in an envious position
To be fair any US weapons news release has this aura of "For sure this is the best system in the world".
Makes sense for others to compare with the one nation that spends close to 50% of the world's military spending.
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-26
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
GarryB wrote:
I rather suspect it will also draw China into an Arms race to ensure it has a retaliation capability so it might start working on larger missiles and more warheads... they can put men in orbit, so there is no reason they couldn't develop a range of land and space based weapons to defeat any ABM system.
Recently China tested DF-41. That shows in what direction is China thinking.
Mobile missile is capable of hitting US mainland.
SOC- Posts : 565
Points : 608
Join date : 2011-09-14
Age : 46
Location : Indianapolis
Viktor wrote:GarryB wrote:
I rather suspect it will also draw China into an Arms race to ensure it has a retaliation capability so it might start working on larger missiles and more warheads... they can put men in orbit, so there is no reason they couldn't develop a range of land and space based weapons to defeat any ABM system.
Recently China tested DF-41. That shows in what direction is China thinking.
Mobile missile is capable of hitting US mainland.
There's no actual evidence to support the "DF-41" test flight apart from US journalists flipping their collective lids. I've seen it mentioned as a test of the Shenlong spaceplane thing as well.
DF-31A has the range to hit the US anyway.
Sujoy- Posts : 2312
Points : 2472
Join date : 2012-04-03
Location : India || भारत
What we do know is that last month the PLA Army & Air Force carried out a massive joint exercise in the Tibetian Autonomous Region (TAR) . Their idea was to figure out whether the Army & the Air Force can act in concert. Most of the missiles tested were SAM's like the LY-80E and KS-1A MR-SAM . It's possible that the PLA is going to use the LY 80E as the optimum air-defence system against NLOS-BSM . Apart from the SAM's there were PTL-02 105mm 6 x 6 assault guns, PCL-09 122mm motorised howitzers, & 6 x 6 artillery fire-direction vehicles, along with PLZ-07 tracked 122mm SPHs, Type 86G ICVs and PGZ-45 self-propelled anti-aircraft guns. There were no ICBM launch that were reported .
The current DF 41 is basically a modified version of the DF41 designed way back in the 1980s. CHinese officials have already confirmed that they are working on a new ICBM . Chinese Defense ministry did state that ICBM were tested but didn't disclose whether it was the DF 41 nor was the test site confirmed.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-31/china/33520408_1_df-31-second-artillery-force-nuclear-weapons
The current DF 41 is basically a modified version of the DF41 designed way back in the 1980s. CHinese officials have already confirmed that they are working on a new ICBM . Chinese Defense ministry did state that ICBM were tested but didn't disclose whether it was the DF 41 nor was the test site confirmed.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-31/china/33520408_1_df-31-second-artillery-force-nuclear-weapons
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-09
Location : India
Mindstorm wrote:
In this instance similar statement represent a strong message to USA, on the line :
" We will produce a vehicle mounted ground based ABM (therefore easily capable to disperse, possible to defend/hide/move through underground redeploying tunnels with covered silo-like fire stations -totally invisible even to space based sensors- , aided IR/radar "active" mechanical/inflatable decoy batteries etc...etc...
Frankly speaking an S-500 ABM system does not change any thing for US or NATO much like a US or European ABM system wont change any thing for Russia.
The status quo remains as any offensive system by both sides would easily over come any ABM system for a long time to come.
It more like since US has ABM system so now Russia develops its own and now both have it.
What it would do for both nations is to deal with countries with limited Nuke and BM system like Iran , Pakistan , India and NoKo ...atleast it would provide a decent cover against these nations if they resort to blackmail or bolt from blue strikes.
The unilateral exit by part of USA from ABM Treaty in 2002 was the attempt to find a remedy of some kind (ABM systems placed in positions useful for intercept Topol-M class ICBMs in the only segment of theirs vulnerability) to the quickly widening gap in nuclear delivery technology between USA and Russia after the introduction of Topol-M and ,even more, with "Bulava" and "Yars" (and the nuclear vector's huge technological gap suffered by West in comparison with Russian Federation promise to become a true abyss in the next years with the introduction of future ICBMs and perspective strategic "vehicles"...).
This remodulation of S-500's requirements aim merely at put another time ,the enormous technological burden of matching the outstanding capabilities of Russian startegic arsenal on the frail shoulders of western outdated ICBM arsenal; forcing, in this way, USA at put all its eggs in the basket of the high-risk hypersonic program (and this is a "move" that Russia expect since a long time and against which has begun to prepare itself more than a decade ago...).
It is all much more complex than what a shallow observation of the situation could suggest, it is instead an attentively covered chess game in play since more than a decade by now
.[/quote]
Mindstorm- Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20
The status quo remains as any offensive system by both sides would easily over come any ABM system for a long time to come.
That analysis Austin is not true at all .
US ABM in Europe aim to eliminate, on the long run, through geografical placement allowing interception geometry of Russian ICBM in the the unique segment of theirs vulnerability and number not restricted by any ABM treaty, the immense threat represented by Russian strategical nuclear vectors of the last generation, on a technological level completely different from NATO ones and owning outstanding anti-ABM capabilities (from heavily depressed flight pacts ,to high resilience to direct energy weapons, from resistance to close nuclear detonations to implementation of indipendently guided gliding hypersonic wearhead and even worse, much worse, with next vector generation ).
On the other side we would have highly mobile ABM system numerically not restricted by any ABM Treaty with parametrical characteristics superior to western ones confronting an entire NATO nuclear vector's arsenal ANTEDILUVIAN and devoid even only of the most basic -by today standard- anti-ABM capability.
The situation could degenerate very quickly Austin and surely....not in favour of NATO (returning to the alarming level of the situation just after the introduction in Russia of Topol-M ,leading to the unilateral exit of USA from ABM Treaty , or in the '80 years with the introduction of R-36 /RSD-10 ).
I repeat Austin , any Russian military analysts is perfectly aware since several years that USA cannot hope to close the gap in ballistic nuclear delivery systems's technology at a rate that would allow it to match the very fast increase capabilities of ABM systems ,even more in a world where those ABM systems aren't numerically restricted anymore, and that for this reason USA has decided to invest any possible R&D effort to leap-frog directly toward new concepts for solve the strategic delivery system problem (designed around hypersonic principle of operation)....and any hint ,up to this time go exactly in the direction foreseen in the past by Russian analysts
GarryB- Posts : 39093
Points : 39589
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Frankly speaking an S-500 ABM system does not change any thing for US or NATO much like a US or European ABM system wont change any thing for Russia.
A very naieve statement there Austin...
A bit like saying after seeing the first ship to launch an aircraft that was some old battleship launching some crappy old underpowered sea plane that air power has no future at sea and that the battleship will always rule the waves.
Time and technology does not stand still, once it is in production and service it will get upgrades and improvements in performance that could radically change its abilities.
Just look at the old Bush plan... it started with 10 interceptors in Poland, but it progressed in multiple stages to a system that could deal with almost any BM threat.
Keep in mind that we are talking about the only component of strategic weapons that is totally unregulated. There are limitations on how many ICBMs and SLBMs Russian can have and even more restrictions on where they can put them, but there are no restrictions on ABM systems at all... there isn't even a requirement to admit you even have any.
It more like since US has ABM system so now Russia develops its own and now both have it.
If you don't care much for the truth you could say that, but to be more accurate the Russians already had ATBM systems operational and deployed and a fixed ABM securing their capital within the parameters of the 1972 ABM treaty.
The US pretty much had neither for most of the cold war, which was their decision, and then after facing Saddam in 1991 they suddenly realised the gap in their arsenal and they spent a small fortune to fill it, they now have a system that is intended to protect the entire US, and they are extending that to include satellite systems in Eastern Europe to annoy Russia, likely another system in the UK as a reward for being Americas btch, and probably another system in Asia that may or may not include Japan, South Korea, and possibly India with the express purpose of annoying Russia but also on getting up Chinas nose.
Divide and conquer... how can the US keep everyone from ganging up on them? Obviously give them things to argue amongst themselves over... plus it wins elections at home to make the noobs think that they are somehow actually safer. The reality is of course no system can be 100% effective, and the direct result will be that Russia will simply spend money on defeating such a system and of course when there are no limits on "defence" then limits on "attack" for a country not prepared to waste its nations wealth on pointless systems it knows it doesn't need suddenly come into focus and question.
What it would do for both nations is to deal with countries with limited Nuke and BM system like Iran , Pakistan , India and NoKo ...atleast it would provide a decent cover against these nations if they resort to blackmail or bolt from blue strikes.
So what you are saying is that it will make the US more aggressive because it thinks it is much safer than it actually is. How can that be a good thing?
The unilateral exit by part of USA from ABM Treaty in 2002 was the attempt to find a remedy of some kind (ABM systems placed in positions useful for intercept Topol-M class ICBMs in the only segment of theirs vulnerability) to the quickly widening gap in nuclear delivery technology between USA and Russia after the introduction of Topol-M and ,even more, with "Bulava" and "Yars" (and the nuclear vector's huge technological gap suffered by West in comparison with Russian Federation promise to become a true abyss in the next years with the introduction of future ICBMs and perspective strategic "vehicles"...).
Interesting idea, but the reality is that for a very small fraction of what they have spent on ABM systems they simply could have upgraded their own ICBMs and relied on the fact that if anyone attacks them they can retaliate... it worked through the whole cold war.
This remodulation of S-500's requirements aim merely at put another time ,the enormous technological burden of matching the outstanding capabilities of Russian startegic arsenal on the frail shoulders of western outdated ICBM arsenal; forcing, in this way, USA at put all its eggs in the basket of the high-risk hypersonic program (and this is a "move" that Russia expect since a long time and against which has begun to prepare itself more than a decade ago...).
The Russians are reacting. Even before Russia put into service TOPOL and TOPOL-M and Bulava and Yars they had a functioning nuclear deterrent. The US attempts at an ABM system supposedly to protect it from Iran and North Korea is the destabilising factor, not anything Russia has or has not done.
The US move to hypersonic bombers proves pretty conclusively who they are doing all their planning against... they don't need hypersonic bombers to penetrate the airspace of Iran or Syria... they need it to try to penetrate Russian defences.
This is simply evidence that all these ABM systems are also directed against Russia too.
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-09
Location : India
Mindstorm and Garry due to lack of time on my part I would try to respond in brief.
We all know a ABM game is very complex and till date we also know that in real world situation an ABM system was never ever tested against decent MRBM forget higher level BM like IRBM and ICBM.
The only time an ABM was consistently test against BM was in Operation Enduring Freedom ( Gulf War 2 ) where PAC-3 was very successful against Al Sumud class BM which was like 170 km range missile in FROG class.
So we really do not have any historical evidence or real time employment of ABM system even in simplistic scenerio against IRBM , MRBM or ICBM kind of target.
We all know that ABM system are tested against typical ICBM type target with success against it being promoted as a mature system but even in US hundred of scientist from National Science Foundation has proved that SM-3 test were all cooked up with missile not hitting the RV and devoid of basic decoys infact when ever basic decoys were deployed the system would fail.
We also know from the same US studies that it was easy to fool ABM system using basic decoys like inflated baloon and basic metallic stuff.
Even if such systems are deployed in numbers by US the easiest way to take it out is to jam or destroy its GBR since the present architeture of ABM system are so dependent on GBR ....once can easily take such radar out using cruise missile , Iskander or EM weapons or for that matter even ARM type missile , leaving a hole which ICBM can exploit.
I am sure the same weakness that exist in US system would in many ways manifest in Russian ABM system like S-500 even though these are mobile system.
Like i mentioned ABM is more of a political tool between Big Powers and less of effective system technically speaking against its intended target.
We all know a ABM game is very complex and till date we also know that in real world situation an ABM system was never ever tested against decent MRBM forget higher level BM like IRBM and ICBM.
The only time an ABM was consistently test against BM was in Operation Enduring Freedom ( Gulf War 2 ) where PAC-3 was very successful against Al Sumud class BM which was like 170 km range missile in FROG class.
So we really do not have any historical evidence or real time employment of ABM system even in simplistic scenerio against IRBM , MRBM or ICBM kind of target.
We all know that ABM system are tested against typical ICBM type target with success against it being promoted as a mature system but even in US hundred of scientist from National Science Foundation has proved that SM-3 test were all cooked up with missile not hitting the RV and devoid of basic decoys infact when ever basic decoys were deployed the system would fail.
We also know from the same US studies that it was easy to fool ABM system using basic decoys like inflated baloon and basic metallic stuff.
Even if such systems are deployed in numbers by US the easiest way to take it out is to jam or destroy its GBR since the present architeture of ABM system are so dependent on GBR ....once can easily take such radar out using cruise missile , Iskander or EM weapons or for that matter even ARM type missile , leaving a hole which ICBM can exploit.
I am sure the same weakness that exist in US system would in many ways manifest in Russian ABM system like S-500 even though these are mobile system.
Like i mentioned ABM is more of a political tool between Big Powers and less of effective system technically speaking against its intended target.
GarryB- Posts : 39093
Points : 39589
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Even if such systems are deployed in numbers by US the easiest way to take it out is to jam or destroy its GBR since the present architeture of ABM system are so dependent on GBR ....once can easily take such radar out using cruise missile , Iskander or EM weapons or for that matter even ARM type missile , leaving a hole which ICBM can exploit.
Even travelling at 800km/h it would take your average 2,500km range cruise missile several hours to reach its targets.
The purpose of these defence systems is not defence, but attack.
The US would start a conflict attempting to destroy as much of Russias strategic capability as possible using B-2s and SLBMs etc in the hope that what ever is left will be reduced or eliminated by the ABM defences.
The point is that even if it takes 10 interceptors to take out one missile warhead... so what? There are limitations on how many missile warheads each side is allowed, there are no such limitations on interceptors... they can make thousands if they want and they don't have to notify anyone about it.
The Moscow ABM system was not to save Moscow. The Soviets knew nothing could save Moscow. The purpose of the Moscow ABM system was to hold off its destruction till it had issued commands to launch the counter strike.
Their greatest fear was a 5 minute attack from the Med by SLBM that would destroy Moscow and the head of command before the command to retaliate had been given.
We all know a ABM game is very complex and till date we also know that in real world situation an ABM system was never ever tested against decent MRBM forget higher level BM like IRBM and ICBM.
And we all know that going to the moon would be tricky and before they did it it had never been done before and there was enormous risk and a range of things that could have gone wrong... the point is that while no one has been sending men to the moon as technology moves on and things get lighter and more powerful and materials get lighter and stronger it actually becomes easier and easier to go to the moon, though of course it is not cheap or anything you could actually describe as easy as such.
The point is that the first ABM systems might not be very great but as they get upgrades and improvemsnts their performance will only improve... existing ABMs might not be able to tell real warheads from balloons but replace that complex hit to kill payload with a large nuke and the decoys get blown aside and the real warheads are revealed... and more importantly as there can only be a maximum of 1,500 warheads and a third will be cruise missiles launched from bombers, and 1/3rd will be SLBMs and the remaining 500 odd will be ICBMs then it is just a matter of waiting becuase the next START treaty will likely go for 1,000 weapons which with the increasing capability of ABM systems will become more and more manageable.
Tactical nukes simply don't have the range to effectively cover China and Europe... the range limitations for ground launched ballistic and cruise missiles is 500km, so without breaking the INF treaty most targets in the UK and Japan and of course Brussels will require strategic nuclear weapons be used...
vK_man- Posts : 45
Points : 52
Join date : 2012-03-13
GarryB wrote:No idea, but they have set up a new separate force called the Aerospace defence force which takes over the role of controling the air space above Russia and the space above Russia, for which they are launching quite a large number of military satellites over the next few years...
There has been talk of 100 new military satellites to be launched.
The purpose of the merge was to combine the Space defence forces and the Air Defence forces to use radars in space, in the air and on the ground to search for missiles and aircraft from ground level and out into space including hypersonic and subsonic things.
Russians were first to deploy a satellite based tracking system ,followed by Americans who after recieving reports started their own work.One thing most important is the heat bloom which is the variation in ocean temperatures,the wake is a good indicator but not accurate .After that other sensors come to play.He did say that Almaz-1(launched in 1991) was one of the satellites capable of doing this.He also said there were other satellites under Soviet General Staff which had such capabilities to triangulate position of american subs with some accuracy and use launch tactical nuclear warheads via means of cruise missiles ,bombers or Ballistic missiles.But he said it is not accurate enough to do the same feat with conventional cruise missiles as extreme accuracy would be required. He did not give me any more detail,but I wish to know more on this.
Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines - Norman Polmar, Kenneth J. Moore - Google Books
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-09
Location : India
Why are they developing the A-235 which i suppose is a fixed ground based ABM system as well as mobile S-500 ,doesnt make sense to develop two different system rather develop something as mobile as S-500
GarryB- Posts : 39093
Points : 39589
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Could turn that around and say they have a mature existing ABM system that has a specific direction and design path, why throw all that away because the S-500 is being developed?
The older missiles are larger and offer different capabilities which can be further improved with upgrades.
The older missiles are larger and offer different capabilities which can be further improved with upgrades.
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-09
Location : India
A-235 is a new project with new long rangeinterceptors , the existing A-135 are getting upgraded.
Considering these are fixed sites with silo based interceptor they are also vulnerable a lot.
Its better to invest in mobile S-500 like system.
Considering these are fixed sites with silo based interceptor they are also vulnerable a lot.
Its better to invest in mobile S-500 like system.
medo- Posts : 4342
Points : 4422
Join date : 2010-10-25
Location : Slovenia
Actually they need both. Silo based A-235 could be larger than S-500 and is in constant duty. Mobile will be on duty when needed and where needed.
GarryB- Posts : 39093
Points : 39589
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
A-235 is a new project with new long rangeinterceptors , the existing A-135 are getting upgraded.
Considering these are fixed sites with silo based interceptor they are also vulnerable a lot.
Eh?
They are ABM interceptor missiles. They are for defending Moscow... which is not going to move... so there is little point in making them mobile too.
The A-135 is rather larger than the S-500... the trouble you would go to to make it mobile simply isn't worth the benefit of having a mobile ABM system... especially when mobile S-500s are being developed.
Of course having said that the A-135 and A-235, being much larger missiles could be adapted into anti satellite weapons very easily and in that role mobility would be useful.
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-09
Location : India
I doubt A-235 will be limited to defending only Moscow this time around as they are no more binded by ABM treaty any more to defend 1 or 2 sites.
Most likely the goal of A-235 is to have capability like US NMD which is to build these at few fixed location and cover most areas that would be important to Russian leaders by its ABM system.
Most likely the goal of A-235 is to have capability like US NMD which is to build these at few fixed location and cover most areas that would be important to Russian leaders by its ABM system.
GarryB- Posts : 39093
Points : 39589
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
You raise an interesting point... they might extend the A235 to include a system perhaps around St Petersberg, and perhaps another in the far east.
Mindstorm- Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20
The most internal (and also the less publicly known) strategic defensive layer of Soviet/Russian most critical sites awaken from its long slumber.
http://izvestia.ru/news/541076
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-09
Location : India
Very Interesting project , At 1.8 km/sec which is ~ Mach 5 it seems like a CIWS equivalent for point defence system , creating a cloud of metal in the patch of incoming target.
Although intercepting a BM target like says a RV at even its max altitude of 6 km does not make sense and Nuclear warhead would be exploded a bit higher and even the speed will be very fast for this gun to intercept I feel.
But for PGM , Cruise Missile or even supersonic missile this sytem will be very useful as last ditch option
Although intercepting a BM target like says a RV at even its max altitude of 6 km does not make sense and Nuclear warhead would be exploded a bit higher and even the speed will be very fast for this gun to intercept I feel.
But for PGM , Cruise Missile or even supersonic missile this sytem will be very useful as last ditch option
Mindstorm- Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20
Very Interesting project , At 1.8 km/sec which is ~ Mach 5 it seems like a CIWS equivalent for point defence system , creating a cloud of metal in the patch of incoming target.
Although intercepting a BM target like says a RV at even its max altitude of 6 km does not make sense and Nuclear warhead would be exploded a bit higher and even the speed will be very fast for this gun to intercept I feel.
But for PGM , Cruise Missile or even supersonic missile this system will be very useful as last ditch option
Austin this is not a project but one of the defensive systems that was operative is URSS (the specifications you see here are...with a good amount of mist.....those of the "old" system, deactivated, for economic reasons, in the troubled '90 years); the deep coverage of its same existence, was caused ,at the time, by the fear that USA would have hard pressed for its removal, attempting to sustain that it was not compliant with ABM Treaty's limits .
It was purposely designed to defend high critical targets -in particular ICBM silos and strategic Command and Control nodes- from enemy ICBM attacks and was highly optimized and regarded as very efficient for accomplish this specific mission (the saturation of the computed area of RV's incidence was near 100%).
By the way a nuclear detonation at high altitude, even the 6 km cited, would had been totally useless against the targets that this system was tasked to defend.
Naturally the results that would be possible to achieve with a modern version of this system (at today still unmatched worldwide) would be on a level completely different.
Cyberspec- Posts : 2904
Points : 3057
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Terra Australis
Very interesting. Is there a picture available?
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-07
Mindstorm wrote:
The most internal (and also the less publicly known) strategic defensive layer of Soviet/Russian most critical sites awaken from its long slumber.
http://izvestia.ru/news/541076
Do we have any non-Izvestya sources about this?
Very interesting to put mildly, but anything Izvestya touches smells like manure to me.
DIMMI has a small article on the system, but I have not seen any indication it ever entered service...?
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-26
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
Nice 
Russia prepares response to American 'prompt global strike' initiative - Defense Ministry
Russia prepares response to American 'prompt global strike' initiative - Defense Ministry
|
|
|