S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Ah crap! That is ok, but how nice it would be!

GarryB wrote:Only the S-500 will be able to intercept ICBM speed targets... or indeed satellites in orbit.

S-300V4 will be able to deal with all short range BMs... IRBMs are banned by treaty between US and Russia, but France or the UK might develop something... I seem to recall the Bulgarians still having the SS-23...

S-400s can deal with ICBMS too..but the probably you need several missiles to target a multiple war head.
And the altitude of interception is not very high..  The Sm-3 for example.. what destroy the ICBMs is not a is not a missile warhead but more like a mobile space mine that step in the trajectory of an incoming missile. its speed is very slow.. but it doesn't need to be fast since is fired ahead of the flight path of the ICBM.. and explode when it pass near .

Ah crap! That is ok, but how nice it would be! wrote:

S-400s can also intercept ICBMS but at lower altitude on the final phase of the impact. S-500s in the other hand
it appears that could also intercept at mid course at any altitude.  But Russia best weapons are the ones they keep in secret.. and do not discuss much about or sell or promote to anyone.

Here are the A-235 SAMOLET-M  with  53T6 missile.

http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/a-235-samolet-m/

Is the last line of defense in moscow and their best defense weapon.. The A-135 version that also Russia have it is said have mini nukes ,on its warhead to destroy any incoming ICBM. the A-235 have been said
to have hit to kill capabilities.. also exclusive defenses for Moscow. the missile Booster is HUGE and its an incredibly High Highpersonic fast missile..  

This one is A-135 anti ballistic defense. (very fat missile)


This one is a bit larger.. could be A-235 anti ICBM defense.


So Russian defenses in Moscow against MIRV are S-400s +A-135+A+A-235  and apparently the S-500 will be used for mid course interception.. ie.. Because can fly very high altitude and have a long range 600km  is ideal for a very early mid course interception. So probably will be used more at Russian borders.. while the others anti ICBM defenses at Moscow capital for a final course interception.

I've never heard anyone say that the S-400 can tackle MIRVs... If the S-300V4 can't than there is almost no chance the S-400 can (at least with the current armament of missiles).

We've talked about this before... It isn't a "mine", but it doesn't have a propulsive stage. In that respect it is like most real rockets, the last stage puts it into a trajectory that will get it into the intended orbit. (Aka, it won't have a real propulsion source, and it will "glide" into orbit.) Imagine a SAM that uses its first or second stage to put it into the trajectory of the target aircraft, but drops its stages and uses its controls and inertia to hit that target. - Same thing, but with an ABM missile.

S-500 will be able to go head to head with the ICBMs, the result of a "clash" is obvious considering the age of NATO/US ICBMs.

GarryB wrote:S-400 can deal with targets coming in at 4.8km/s which is an enormous speed, but equates to something like a 3.500km range ballistic missile.

It is an IRBM  missile range which is banned by the INF treaty but any country that is not Russia or the US is not bound by the INF treaty... so China can have them for example as can France or the UK.

That is what I thought... So technically they can hit MIRVs, but only ones from smaller, slower ballistic missiles.

Mike E wrote:

GarryB wrote:S-400 can deal with targets coming in at 4.8km/s which is an enormous speed, but equates to something like a 3.500km range ballistic missile.

It is an IRBM  missile range which is banned by the INF treaty but any country that is not Russia or the US is not bound by the INF treaty... so China can have them for example as can France or the UK.

That is what I thought... So technically they can hit MIRVs, but only ones from smaller, slower ballistic missiles.

Garry is right. S-400 can not target ICBM but it can IRBM.

Exactly, and it wasn't me who believed that in the first place...

GarryB wrote:Of course the specs are what we are quoting... ICBM warheads coming in at a shallow angle do slow down a lot more so there is potential for the S-400 to possibly engage them... it would certainly be better than nothing.

Then again S-400 missiles tipped with thermonuclear warheads are a force multiplier in itself.

I think the missiles are little bit to small for nuclear warheads.

Werewolf wrote:I think the missiles are little bit to small for nuclear warheads.

May'be not a huge warhead (considering the range is 400 km and below that's probably a good thing) but I think the 48N6E3 / 48N6-2 / 48N6DM missiles can carry a 180 kg warhead.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:I think the missiles are little bit to small for nuclear warheads.

May'be not a huge warhead (considering the range is 400 km and below that's probably a good thing) but I think the 48N6E3 / 48N6-2 / 48N6DM missiles can carry a 180 kg warhead.

Considering that 400km is maximum range against slow targets and not ICBM/IRBMs i would guess it is far less than 60km distance for even slight capabilities to intercept real ICBMs traveling at hypersonic speeds. And 60km from my knowledge is rather generous guess and with only 60km or most probably less, a nuke warhead would creat problems for the IADs through an EMP, so i would guess that is a job for S-500 and real ABM shields.

Werewolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:I think the missiles are little bit to small for nuclear warheads.

May'be not a huge warhead (considering the range is 400 km and below that's probably a good thing) but I think the 48N6E3 / 48N6-2 / 48N6DM missiles can carry a 180 kg warhead.

Considering that 400km is maximum range against slow targets and not ICBM/IRBMs i would guess it is far less than 60km distance for even slight capabilities to intercept real ICBMs traveling at hypersonic speeds. And 60km from my knowledge is rather generous guess and with only 60km or most probably less, a nuke warhead would creat problems for the IADs through an EMP, so i would guess that is a job for S-500 and real ABM shields.

What you say is true, but who's to say a future S-400 modernization program couldn't change that? A LFTR reactor for example is unlike uranium reactors, due to the fact that nearly 100% of the Liquid-Fluoride Thorium molten salts fuel is used in the nuclear process (uranium reactors use only 3-4% of it's fuel)  creating 1/100th the nuclear waste, and because of that LFTR reactors could be built with minimal equipment (no worry of hydrogen explosions, far more stable process), they're several magnitudes more powerful, they can be scaled up or down to a high degree among other things (most of these facts has been known since the 1950's). You may ask what's the relevance of a LFTR reactor and S-400 missiles? As I already mentioned LFTR reactors can be scaled up or down to great degree, theoretically a S-400 missile (S-500, and various other missiles) fitted with a car engine sized LFTR reactor could grant a missile with significantly greater range while maintaining high speed (could be applied with next-generation scramjet propulsion), and the most limiting factor would be the power of the radar (which could be powered with a LFTR reactor to increase it's power significantly, increasing missile range further more). That's just one direction of modernization.

Not really educated myself about LFTR reactors, but i was speaking about current S-400 capabilities even tho generous with the estimations. Without doubt it will recieve upgrades and new technologies maybe even more effecient rockets over the years/decade(s) that would make it like the comperision of basic S-300 to S-300V4/PMU which have a significant raise in performance compared to basic models.

Werewolf wrote:Not really educated myself about LFTR reactors, but i was speaking about current S-400 capabilities even tho generous with the estimations. Without doubt it will recieve upgrades and new technologies maybe even more effecient rockets over the years/decade(s) that would make it like the comperision of basic S-300 to S-300V4/PMU which have a significant raise in performance compared to basic models.

Yes, this where I was driving at. As far as LFTR goes, nothing is perfect and neither is LFTR (molten Thorium salts are still hazardous materials) however with this technology, if it's applied right with safety precautions (such as storing the compact LFTR separately from missile until it's on duty, with proper shielding, and used to protect the most strategically sensitive areas) it has amazing potential. Here's some more information about LFTR's:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/16/477737/-More-on-why-we-need-the-Liquid-Fluoride-Thorium-Reactor

...On the same note a "Smart Car" sized LFTR could potentially be used for the PAK-DA, giving it unlimited range and saving plenty of weight and space for bombs, were jet fuel used to be!

Sounds rather unaffordable and waste of money to be used for one-way missiles that is also the reason why most missiles have the guidance on the launching plattform rather the "fire-forget" missiles which end to have pretty high costs compared with their effeciency and the capabilities of launching plattforms like Attackhelicopters for instance.

Werewolf wrote:Sounds rather unaffordable and waste of money to be used for one-way missiles that is also the reason why most missiles have the guidance on the launching plattform rather the "fire-forget" missiles which end to have pretty high costs compared with their effeciency and the capabilities of launching plattforms like Attackhelicopters for instance.

Hence why I said "for the strategically most sensitive areas", in no way am I calling for it to completely replace conventional fuel/propulsion.

GarryB wrote:Of course the specs are what we are quoting... ICBM warheads coming in at a shallow angle do slow down a lot more so there is potential for the S-400 to possibly engage them... it would certainly be better than nothing.

True, any chance is better than no chance at all... That being said, the sheer inertia generated by the MIRV would make it next to impossible to achieve a successful interception.

Here is one thing I'd like to add;

Won't the S-400 be able to fire the 77N6-N and 77N6-N1 missiles (from the S-500)? If so, this whole conversation is irrelevant because it will end off with the ability to engage MIRVs...

GarryB wrote:

True, any chance is better than no chance at all... That being said, the sheer inertia generated by the MIRV would make it next to impossible to achieve a successful interception.

A nuclear warhead is a fairly delicate thing and with a closing speed of mach 13-15 or so most of the metal fragments in the S-400s warhead would do serious damage to any incoming warhead...

Inertia will mean the warhead and its fragments will still hit the ground but any impact will likely reduce the effect of the warhead to impact damage only (ie no nuke explosion).

Won't the S-400 be able to fire the 77N6-N and 77N6-N1 missiles (from the S-500)? If so, this whole conversation is irrelevant because it will end off with the ability to engage MIRVs...

I suspect the S-400 and S-500 may operate together on occasion, but I doubt the S-400 batteries will introduce the S-500 missile as standard as the sensors and vehicles of the S-500 battery will likely be needed for full effectiveness.

Yeah, hopefully that is what would happen... Having nuclear material scattered on the ground isn't exactly a dream, but it is a billion times better than the alternative!

That's for clearing that up, it is what I figured!

S-300Favorite range just got increase to 300km  

C-300 military exercise near Astrakhan "reflected" missile attacks and air raid

Anti-aircraft missile system S-300 "Favorite" can hit different targets at ranges from a few kilometers - to 150, 200, 300 kilometers, depending on the type of elements of the family of S-300 and, in particular, the interceptor missiles.

and new pics from Blog "Vestnik PVO"

LINK

Nice

Calculations of the C-300 was struck more than 50 targets in exercises in Buryatia

Russian troops in Kola Peninsula to get new S-400 missiles before yearend

MOSCOW, September 11. /ITAR-TASS/. A base of air defense troops located in the Western Military District is expected to get a new S-400 Triumf missile complex (NATO reporting name: SA-21 Growler), the chief of the WMD press service said Thursday.

“In the course of one month, WMD specialists will commission the new complex in the workshops of the manufacturer plant and will then do the trial testing with battle launches on a testing range in the southern Astrakhan region,” said Colonel Alexander Kochetkov, the chief of the press service.

“The program of testing will include the incapacitation of targets on the ground, at low and high altitudes, as well as the evading and ballistic targets,” he said.

At present, operating teams on the Kola base are rounding up a course of training to master the new equipment. Air defense forces of the WMD currently have various modifications of S-300 missile complexes on their tables of equipment, Col. Kochetkov said.