Missiles & Missile Defence System: Emerging technologies under development

What are the various emerging/ under development technologies in Missiles ( all types - cruise, air to air, ballistic etc) and missile defence systems especially in Russia & US ?

Was attending a conference related to Missile Defence in Brussels and several speakers said that several types of new technologies are emerging in the field of missile & missile defence. They did not elaborate what type.

Can anyone please elaborate ?

Do you mean Proper ABMs like the A-135s 53T6 missile witch has a 10 KT nuclear warhead and is currently used to deffend Moscow in event of a nuclear attack it entered service in the 90s.



There are also advanced long range SAMs like S-400 and S-500 that can shoot dow ballistic and cruise missiles aswell as systems like pantcir and tor that can defeat cruise missiles and artillery rockets.

The aegis is nothing special it just gets more western propaganda attention strategic ABMs have been around for decades.

The-thing-next-door wrote:The aegis is nothing special it just gets more western propaganda attention strategic ABMs have been around for decades.

THAAD and Aegis offer much greater range and mobility than the Gazelle with range of a mere 80km, silo-based and stationed as per treaty, only around Moscow. When Nudol comes online, Russia will have something to competitive in the field. For now it's just the old Soviet left-overs.

Apples and (old, obsolete) oranges comrade.

I still firmly believe that best missile defense is good old MAD 

KiloGolf wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:The aegis is nothing special it just gets more western propaganda attention strategic ABMs have been around for decades.

THAAD and Aegis offer much greater range and mobility than the Gazelle with range of a mere 80km, silo-based and stationed as per treaty, only around Moscow. When Nudol comes online, Russia will have something to competitive in the field. For now it's just the old Soviet left-overs.

Apples and (old, obsolete) oranges comrade.

Wank, NATO-fanboi, wank. The only thing that matters in those 80 km is whether the missile does its job. Your "mere" is also
utter BS because 80 km is a number you pulled from your a**

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system

A-135: ceiling of 900 km, range of 900 km.

A-135 is currently deployed and will be replaced by the A-235. Perhaps you will post that the system will have a mere 8 km range.

Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities. At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

ABm systems are rather useless.

miketheterrible wrote:Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.  At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

ABm systems are rather useless.

Indeed, a nuclear warhead is mandatory and a no brainer. The kinetic kill BS is for propaganda purposes since the sheeple are
afraid of the word nuclear. The ABM "peace shield" is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy thing so they dress it up as if it does
not use nuclear tipped interceptors.

kvs wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.  At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

ABm systems are rather useless.

Indeed, a nuclear warhead is mandatory and a no brainer.  The kinetic kill BS is for propaganda purposes since the sheeple are
afraid of the word nuclear.    The ABM "peace shield" is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy thing so they dress it up as if it does
not use nuclear tipped interceptors.  

I would have thought there would be restrictions on nuclear warheads for an ABM system aret there?

Kinetic warheads are possible but super unreliable even if you have Russias vastly superior missile tech.

kvs wrote:A-135: ceiling of 900 km, range of 900 km.

A-135 is currently deployed and will be replaced by the A-235.   Perhaps you will post that the system will have a mere 8 km range.

Range vs ceiling

And it's literally something useful only around Moscow, doesn't make any difference in current world affairs. The doctrine is obsolete, the system is short-legged, deployed in quite smallish numbers and static.

miketheterrible wrote: Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.

Just as Saddam's Iraq gave some zero hopes in Soviet armor and weaponry.

Don't be stupid Kilo. You know just as well as rest of us that Saudi uses mercenaries, not their own trained troops.

Austin pointed out leaks long ago about failures of THAAD and PAC systems. Lets be real here, they are garbage, expensive ones.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Do you mean Proper ABMs like the A-135s 53T6 missile witch has a 10 KT nuclear warhead and is currently used to deffend Moscow in event of a nuclear attack it entered service in the 90s.

No. More like S 350, S 400, S 500 etc as far as missile defence is concerned.

Regarding missiles, missiles like Iskander, Kh 31, Kh 55, R 77.


For example, America's AMRAAM replacement, the LREW will feature an AESA seeker& ramjet propulsion.

Nano satellites provide "responsive beyond-line-of-sight communications support in very austere environments.



Just need to understand what are the latest technologies that are being designed for such missiles & missile defence systems.

http://russia-insider.com/en/us-missile-defense-scam-could-get-us-all-killed/ri21359

The-thing-next-door wrote:

kvs wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.  At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

ABm systems are rather useless.

Indeed, a nuclear warhead is mandatory and a no brainer.  The kinetic kill BS is for propaganda purposes since the sheeple are
afraid of the word nuclear.    The ABM "peace shield" is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy thing so they dress it up as if it does
not use nuclear tipped interceptors.  

I would have thought there would be restrictions on nuclear warheads for an ABM system aret there?

Kinetic warheads are possible but super unreliable even if you have Russias vastly superior missile tech.

Since the US tore up the ABM treaty, Russia is free to deploy the system it has around Moscow (nuclear tipped interceptors)
around the country. Clearly there is no violation of the INF by ABM missiles since they are not designed to hit remote
ground targets.

kvs wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

kvs wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.  At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

ABm systems are rather useless.

Indeed, a nuclear warhead is mandatory and a no brainer.  The kinetic kill BS is for propaganda purposes since the sheeple are
afraid of the word nuclear.    The ABM "peace shield" is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy thing so they dress it up as if it does
not use nuclear tipped interceptors.  

I would have thought there would be restrictions on nuclear warheads for an ABM system aret there?

Kinetic warheads are possible but super unreliable even if you have Russias vastly superior missile tech.

Since the US tore up the ABM treaty, Russia is free to deploy the system it has around Moscow (nuclear tipped interceptors)
around the country.  Clearly there is no violation of the INF by ABM missiles since they are not designed to hit remote
ground targets.

And Russia can just make thousands of nuclear tipped ABMs without violating anything?

If Russia had 500 nuclear A-235 missiles in every city they could easily win a nuclear war you do realise.

As for in development ABMs Russia has.

A-235 (Moskow ABM sysytem upgrade capable of using nuclear,explosive or kinetic payloads it will replace components of the current A-135 system)

S-500 (SAM with 600 km range and is claimed to be capable of eliminating cruise and ballistic missiles it has an explosive warhead and will be the long range SAM of Russia)

As for the west they have

The aegis (Witch needs to be near the missiles flight path in order to intercept. It only has the option for a kinetic warhead)

The thaad (witch is a short range system that was desighned to protect field instalations against R-11 and R-17 tactical ballistic missiles.

The PAC-3 of the patriot can shoot down tactical ballistic missiles but has a very short range.

A-235 is also theorized to be mobile as well, but we are not 100% sure of that. All we know it is an upgrade to the A-135. But the theory still stands.

S-500 is using a more or less hypersonic missile to intercept warheads or bus of the missile, especially highly maneuverable ones. Designed cause they cant place it near US sites, so it is to be placed in Russia.

I think the two main technologies to effect missile design over the next few decades will be scramjet engines and increased processing power making multi sensor seekers cheap and plentiful.

Up until recently if you wanted a weapon to move fast there was no real choice except solid or liquid fuelled rocket.

With a ramjet you needed something to accelerate the object from standing still to preferably over mach 1... early attempts were long and cumbersome with a long solid booster rocket on the rear, or solid rocket boosters wrapped around the missile making it huge and bulky.

The Soviet innovation of combined rocket ramjet was an elegant solution that made such weapons much more compact and viable.

A scramjet engine offers the potential for either solid rocket and scramjet or variable cycle turbojet scramjet...

So for a missile you have a solid rocket motor accelerate and elevate the missile starting a climb and increasing speed, which then burns out and then fuel is added and a ramjet burns to accelerate the missile to higher and higher speeds.

The potential for small jet motors is interesting... the 1990s test of a tiny scramjet motor on the nose of an SA-5 SAM showed that a scramjet does not need to be big... a normal jet engine needs a subsonic airflow so flying at less than mach 1 or so the air flowing through the engine can be subsonic coming in the front and then compressed and then blow out the back at supersonic speed.
Flying at mach 3 however means the airflow needs to be slowed to subsonic speed... fuel added and then burned and then blow out the back fast enough to generate thrust in an airflow already moving at mach 3... which is not so easy.

With a scramjet you don't slow the airflow... you suck it in to the motor and then add fuel and burn it and then the air mass exits the engine at higher speed than it came in at.... which equals thrust.

A scramjet can generate thrust at supersonic speeds, which makes it much more powerful than any ramjet or turbojet engine...

Another factor for near future technology will be CCD chips which can detect light in a range of frequencies... on board real time processing will allow all sorts of targeting options previously unavailable...

GarryB wrote:I think the two main technologies to effect missile design over the next few decades will be scramjet engines and increased processing power making multi sensor seekers cheap and plentiful.

Up until recently if you wanted a weapon to move fast there was no real choice except solid or liquid fuelled rocket.

With a ramjet you needed something to accelerate  the object from standing still to preferably over mach 1... early attempts were long and cumbersome with a long solid booster rocket on the rear, or solid rocket boosters wrapped around the missile making it huge and bulky.

The Soviet innovation of combined rocket ramjet was an elegant solution that made such weapons much more compact and viable.

A scramjet engine offers the potential for either solid rocket and scramjet or variable cycle turbojet scramjet...

So for a missile you have a solid rocket motor accelerate and elevate the missile starting a climb and increasing speed, which then burns out and then fuel is added and a ramjet burns to accelerate the missile to higher and higher speeds.

The potential for small jet motors is interesting... the 1990s test of a tiny scramjet motor on the nose of an SA-5 SAM showed that a scramjet does not need to be big... a normal jet engine needs a subsonic airflow so flying at less than mach 1 or so the air flowing through the engine can be subsonic coming in the front and then compressed and then blow out the back at supersonic speed.
Flying at mach 3 however means the airflow needs to be slowed to subsonic speed... fuel added and then burned and then blow out the back fast enough to generate thrust in an airflow already moving at mach 3... which is not so easy.

With a scramjet you don't slow the airflow... you suck it in to the motor and then add fuel and burn it and then the air mass exits the engine at higher speed than it came in at.... which equals thrust.

A scramjet can generate thrust at supersonic speeds, which makes it much more powerful than any ramjet or turbojet engine...

Another factor for near future technology will be CCD chips which can detect light in a range of frequencies... on board real time processing will allow all sorts of targeting options previously unavailable...

Thanks GarryB. As usual a very well informed answer. What about other techs (for lack of a better term) like

• new propellants

• multi mode seeker

• navigation on chip



Also, the US was working on some bespoke technologies related to missile & missile defense like

Homing Overlay Experiment (HOE) vehicle. The objective of this revolutionary experiment was for one missile to destroy another outside the atmosphere using only force of impact. This was important because the ability to destroy an enemy missile without explosive warheads on the interceptor missile would minimize lethal effects on the ground.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/100years/stories/hoe.html

ERIS (Exoatmospheric Reentry Interceptor Subsystem) ERIS missile would incorporate a kill vehicle with a long wavelength infrared scanning seeker, a data processor and flight divert attitude control propulsion motors on a two stage rocket booster.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/eris.htm


I’m also certain Russia is currently working on some exotic missile, missile defense tech stuff, but not much is know about these technologies yet

The-thing-next-door wrote:

kvs wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.  At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

ABm systems are rather useless.

Indeed, a nuclear warhead is mandatory and a no brainer.  The kinetic kill BS is for propaganda purposes since the sheeple are
afraid of the word nuclear.    The ABM "peace shield" is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy thing so they dress it up as if it does
not use nuclear tipped interceptors.  

I would have thought there would be restrictions on nuclear warheads for an ABM system aret there?

Kinetic warheads are possible but super unreliable even if you have Russias vastly superior missile tech.

Wouldn't using nukes to destroy ICBM warheads be equivalent to nuking your country because of the fallout and large amount of detonations needed?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Wouldn't using nukes to destroy ICBM warheads be equivalent to nuking your country because of the fallout and large amount of detonations needed?

First, high altitude aerial detonations produce next to no fallout. Second, they are likely designed to detonate in a rolling line starting out at maximum range (probably in space) whilst incoming warheads are still beyond Russia's borders, and falling back with each interception.

The worst effect will probably be EMP backwash on civil infrastructure. But that is a murky subject and variant A-235 warheads are probably tailored to generate kills using different effects at differing ranges.

Teshub wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Wouldn't using nukes to destroy ICBM warheads be equivalent to nuking your country because of the fallout and large amount of detonations needed?

First, high altitude aerial detonations produce next to no fallout. Second, they are likely designed to detonate in a rolling line starting out at maximum range (probably in space) whilst incoming warheads are still beyond Russia's borders, and falling back with each interception.

The worst effect will probably be EMP backwash on civil infrastructure. But that is a murky subject and variant A-235 warheads are probably tailored to generate kills using different effects at differing ranges.

I have a hard time believing that fallout doesn't happen in atmospheric detonations. By that logic we would already be having fission engine rockets but they were never put into service exactly because of fallout danger in case they explode.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I have a hard time believing that fallout doesn't happen in atmospheric detonations. By that logic we would already be having fission engine rockets but they were never put into service exactly because of fallout danger in case they explode.

First off the fallout produced by airbursts is primarily restricted to irradiated weapon debris, of which there's not much left with modern fusion warheads. In comparison, surface bursts produce multiple orders of magnitude more irradiated material with a greater range of radionuclides.

Secondly when I talk about high altitude bursts, I am talking about a detonation in the mesosphere to low orbit. At these heights whatever irradiated dust remaining from the detonation is likely to take between 0.5 and 1.7 years (and more) to transition back through the stratosphere. During that time the majority of the most dangerous radionuclides have already decayed. Furthermore high altitude winds disperse the dust so that we are talking microscopic amounts per square kilometre, planet-wide.

Granted, if Russia detonated hundreds of warheads this high up it would produce a perceptible increase in background radiation, but whether it would amount to more than a couple of MRIs is debatable.

Teshub wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I have a hard time believing that fallout doesn't happen in atmospheric detonations. By that logic we would already be having fission engine rockets but they were never put into service exactly because of fallout danger in case they explode.

First off the fallout produced by airbursts is primarily restricted to irradiated weapon debris, of which there's not much left with modern fusion warheads. In comparison, surface bursts produce multiple orders of magnitude more irradiated material with a greater range of radionuclides.  

Secondly when I talk about high altitude bursts, I am talking about a detonation in the mesosphere to low orbit. At these heights whatever irradiated dust remaining from the detonation is likely to take between 0.5 and 1.7 years (and more) to transition back through the stratosphere. During that time the majority of the most dangerous radionuclides have already decayed. Furthermore high altitude winds disperse the dust so that we are talking microscopic amounts per square kilometre, planet-wide.

Granted, if Russia detonated hundreds of warheads this high up it would produce a perceptible increase in background radiation, but whether it would amount to more than a couple of MRIs is debatable.

Excellent summary. You know your physics.

New Skyph (Skif) sea bottom ICBM: http://svpressa.ru/war21/article/186921/?cba=1 skif

They can put them in the Okhotsk Sea too. Cheaper than old Delta III/IVs & new Borey SSBNs that also can safely deploy there & in the Arctic only. If these new ICBMs deployed in sufficient #s, at least some of the subs already built could be converted to SSGNs, perhaps eliminating the need for a few new Yasen SSGNs.