Russian ABM Development

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Singular_trafo wrote:

Viktor wrote:Nice  

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. ...

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

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

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.

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 ?

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(https://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.

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) ?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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 ?