Russian ABM Development

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).

Kilo go to sam thread and kindly read my mentioned links on SM-3. It might change your opinion.

max steel wrote:Kilo go to sam thread and kindly read my mentioned links on SM-3. It might change your opinion.

I read it all.

But I am not convinced A-235 is fully operational, in the same sense as the SM-3 is for USA/NATO. I haven't seen a comprehensive record of it tests either, maybe because I don't speak Russian. Furthermore Russia lacks naval version or any forward-deployed positions of any ABM system whatsoever. So a prototype or two being tested these days, somewhere around Moscow is far from what the SM-3 Block Ib or soon IIa is, in Romania, right now.

PS. I also noticed a guy here complaining about Russians not doing their lawn

A-235 is not even ready and SM-3 is for SRBM and MRBMs , II-A will be for IRBMs. Romania has I-b and Poland will have II-a in 2k18. And you can't reload those cells/launchers in sea. You clearly haven't read my mentioned links

http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/NAS_Slides__May18,2010_2x1.pdf. read this.

I guess there are naval version of S-300 .  Lider will deploy naval S-500.

Good post Max but your link doesn't work.

Essentially, SM-3 is an overblown piece of hardware.  It isn't BAD but its whole performance mentioned is overblown.  Technically, S-300V and S-400 is capable against MRBM's as it falls under its envelope.

Performance wise, it is so so from what is determined.  And the other blocks are not even ready yet or been tested as far as I am aware, meaning that Nudol is closer.

max steel wrote:A-235 is not even ready and SM-3 is for SRBM and MRBMs , II-A will be for IRBMs. Romania has I-b and Poland will have II-a in 2k18. And you can't reload those cells/launchers in sea. You clearly haven't read my mentioned links

http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/NAS_Slides__May18,2010_2x1.pdf. read this.

I guess there are naval version of S-300 .  Lider will deploy naval S-500.

I clicked but they are down?!
Concerning II-a they did release a statement that Poland is a better spot "for the Iranian threat" and that Romania will get I-a only. But who buys that.
Reloading at sea is less of an issue when USN/JMSDF have/will get dozens of vessels to convert and rotate all over the world.

Currently USN plans for 4 BMD destroyers in Spain some 7 in the Pacific and with Japan planning for another 8 of their own.

Overall USN plan until the next decade is for up to 40 BMD capable ships.

That's a hell of firepower right there.

KiloGolf wrote:

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).

I don't have the time, but I really hope someone takes you to task on this laughably unsubstantiated comment, but here take a look at distinguished MIT Professor of Science, Technology and International Security,  Theodore Postol and his studies on SM-3 and US ABM in general:

http://web.mit.edu/sts/people/postol.html

A Technically Detailed Description of Flaws in the SM-3 and GMD Missile Defense Systems Revealed by the Defense Department’s Ballistic Missile Test Data

Summary of the issues Discussed in this White Paper

Both the GMD and SM-3 systems are highly susceptible to massive confusion that leads to
complete performance breakdowns when they encounter objects that have characteristics that are
unexpected. These unexpected characteristics could include warheads that look different from
what is expected, and/or objects that look somewhat like warheads. Even when it was known
that false signals could be created by fragments from a chuffing rocket motor, the failure to
prepare for it led to the catastrophic failure of the FTG-06 scene recognition program. This
unintentional countermeasure that caused the failure of the FTG-06 can be easily replicated in
combat by intelligent and resourceful adversaries, and requires technology that is far less
complex than the technology needed to build and operate ballistic missiles.


http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/White_Paper_Associated_With_May_2010_Arms_Control_Today_Article.pdf

Make sure to read that white paper in length, and here's some other sources...have fun.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_05/Lewis-Postol

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/world/18missile.html?_r=0

Thanx for the appreciation I've wasted many hours on studying various Missile Defence systems. I've the pdf with me if you want I will it mail to you. As Mag posted after MIT study published MDA didn't sit quiet and they came up with their answers too.

Few pages from pdf's :-









Btw in MDA's press release they mentioned all SM-3 is carried out on Scud like Ballistic Missile where Pistol argued that the SM-3 missile was unable to hit the warhead of the Scud BM 8/9 out of 10 times but MDA in defense mentioned that SM-3 kill vehicles hit “within inches of the expected impact point.” But it offered little discussion of whether striking the rocket body in flight tests was sufficient grounds to claim overall success — a seemingly important point given that much of the agency’s public testimony centers on the necessity of hitting warheads to ensure their destruction. http://web.mit.edu/fnl/vol/175/rab.htm

So, SM-3 which is marked as a capable system because they were trialled and tested against Scud like BM's is really not a good sign if you'e planning to fight Russians

Thanks, I read them sources. Critiques like that were/are welcomed by the Pentagon when seeking funding.

SM-3 was basically troubled and didn't work as promised back then. OK.

I would imagine things have changed since 2005 and 2010. Some 5 or 10 years is not unreasonable time frame to sort out glitches. Russia is nowhere near that stage right now, as the US evolved and fielded the system this year.

KiloGolf wrote:Thanks, I read them sources. Critiques like that were/are welcomed by the Pentagon when seeking funding.

SM-3 was basically troubled and didn't work as promised back then. OK.

I would imagine things have changed since 2005 and 2010. Some 5 or 10 years is not unreasonable time frame to sort out glitches. Russia is nowhere near that stage right now, as the US evolved and fielded the system this year.

Stop clutching straws, Russia carried out a successful test with the S-500 system in the summer of 2014, and is set to get deliveries in 2017:

Source: Russia has successfully tested missiles to intercept long-range S-500

magnumcromagnon wrote:Stop clutching straws, Russia carried out a successful test with the S-500 system in the summer of 2014, and is set to get deliveries in 2017:

Source: Russia has successfully tested missiles to intercept long-range S-500

So you're saying S-500 is where SM-3 was back in 2005 or 2010.
When it's operational on land and sea we can talk about it.

KiloGolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Stop clutching straws, Russia carried out a successful test with the S-500 system in the summer of 2014, and is set to get deliveries in 2017:

Source: Russia has successfully tested missiles to intercept long-range S-500

So you're saying S-500 is where SM-3 was back in 2005 or 2010.
When it's operational on land and sea we can talk about it.

You have a special insider friend in the USA that is giving you top secret information?

Nothing in the public information space, full of speculation noise, allows any sane human to compare capabilities of the Russian system to the US one.

KiloGolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Stop clutching straws, Russia carried out a successful test with the S-500 system in the summer of 2014, and is set to get deliveries in 2017:

Source: Russia has successfully tested missiles to intercept long-range S-500

So you're saying S-500 is where SM-3 was back in 2005 or 2010.
When it's operational on land and sea we can talk about it.

No, cause at least S-500 will work, unlike failures that is SM-3.  So get your head out of your ass.

kvs wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Stop clutching straws, Russia carried out a successful test with the S-500 system in the summer of 2014, and is set to get deliveries in 2017:

Source: Russia has successfully tested missiles to intercept long-range S-500

So you're saying S-500 is where SM-3 was back in 2005 or 2010.
When it's operational on land and sea we can talk about it.

You have a special insider friend in the USA that is giving you top secret information?

Nothing in the public information space, full of speculation noise, allows any sane human to compare capabilities of the Russian system to the US one.

That is what they are doing. Kilo is simply trying to downplay the system comparing it to a known failure of a system that currently exists. When we have no basis of actual knowledge what it can do.

kvs wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Stop clutching straws, Russia carried out a successful test with the S-500 system in the summer of 2014, and is set to get deliveries in 2017:

Source: Russia has successfully tested missiles to intercept long-range S-500

So you're saying S-500 is where SM-3 was back in 2005 or 2010.
When it's operational on land and sea we can talk about it.

You have a special insider friend in the USA that is giving you top secret information?

Nothing in the public information space, full of speculation noise, allows any sane human to compare capabilities of the Russian system to the US one.

Ask the other guy that said S-500 will be delivered next year.
SM-3 is on destroyers, Romania and Poland right now.

sepheronx wrote:That is what they are doing.  Kilo is simply trying to downplay the system comparing it to a known failure of a system that currently exists.  When we have no basis of actual knowledge what it can do.

Nope, I just stated the obvious. S-500 is year behind SM-3. Performance-wise general info about fielded Sm-3 is out there.
S-500 is not even fielded yet, both at land or sea.

KiloGolf wrote:

kvs wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Stop clutching straws, Russia carried out a successful test with the S-500 system in the summer of 2014, and is set to get deliveries in 2017:

Source: Russia has successfully tested missiles to intercept long-range S-500

So you're saying S-500 is where SM-3 was back in 2005 or 2010.
When it's operational on land and sea we can talk about it.

You have a special insider friend in the USA that is giving you top secret information?

Nothing in the public information space, full of speculation noise, allows any sane human to compare capabilities of the Russian system to the US one.

Ask the other guy that said S-500 will be delivered next year.
SM-3 is on destroyers, Romania and Poland right now,

And?  We all have gone over the performance of SM-3.  I guarantee you Russia could have come out with SM-3 alternative very much earlier but it would be shit.  Actually, Russia already has an MRBM interceptor called S-300V....

Nope, I just stated the obvious. S-500 is year behind SM-3. Performance-wise general info about fielded Sm-3 is out there.
S-500 is not even fielded yet, both at land or sea.

Then share the link what Almaz Antey is saying or MoD.  Yes, performance wise of SM-3 is out there.  And all its failures.  S-300V has been around much longer than SM-3 and is also capable of intercepting BM's.  It was fielded in the 80's.
http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/s-300v-sa-12a-gladiator-sa-12b-giant/

Thanks Max!

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1689p75-a-135-anti-ballistic-missile-system#167215

sepheronx wrote:And?  We all have gone over the performance of SM-3.  I guarantee you Russia could have come out with SM-3 alternative very much earlier but it would be shit.  Actually, Russia already has an MRBM interceptor called S-300V....

Nope, I just stated the obvious. S-500 is year behind SM-3. Performance-wise general info about fielded Sm-3 is out there.
S-500 is not even fielded yet, both at land or sea.

Then share the link what Almaz Antey is saying or MoD.  Yes, performance wise of SM-3 is out there.  And all its failures.  S-300V has been around much longer than SM-3 and is also capable of intercepting BM's.  It was fielded in the 80's.
http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/s-300v-sa-12a-gladiator-sa-12b-giant/

Thanks Max!

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1689p75-a-135-anti-ballistic-missile-system#167215

Gotcha, SM-3 is all failures.

Not sure how old Army S-300V developed in the late '70s is relevant but OK.

KiloGolf wrote:

sepheronx wrote:And?  We all have gone over the performance of SM-3.  I guarantee you Russia could have come out with SM-3 alternative very much earlier but it would be shit.  Actually, Russia already has an MRBM interceptor called S-300V....

Nope, I just stated the obvious. S-500 is year behind SM-3. Performance-wise general info about fielded Sm-3 is out there.
S-500 is not even fielded yet, both at land or sea.

Then share the link what Almaz Antey is saying or MoD.  Yes, performance wise of SM-3 is out there.  And all its failures.  S-300V has been around much longer than SM-3 and is also capable of intercepting BM's.  It was fielded in the 80's.
http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/s-300v-sa-12a-gladiator-sa-12b-giant/

Thanks Max!

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1689p75-a-135-anti-ballistic-missile-system#167215

Gotcha, SM-3 is all failures.

Not sure how old Army S-300V developed in the late '70s is relevant but OK.

The problem with people like yourself, is that you compare a system that has real spotty performance to that something that isn't out yet and no official word on it. Add to that, since we are on talks of ABM systems, you think S-300V which is an army system that was designed around dealing against BM systems, isn't somehow similar even though it came out much earlier yet you proclaim that a system like SM-3 is first.

Don't digress and don't cherry pick here.

sepheronx wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

sepheronx wrote:And?  We all have gone over the performance of SM-3.  I guarantee you Russia could have come out with SM-3 alternative very much earlier but it would be shit.  Actually, Russia already has an MRBM interceptor called S-300V....

Nope, I just stated the obvious. S-500 is year behind SM-3. Performance-wise general info about fielded Sm-3 is out there.
S-500 is not even fielded yet, both at land or sea.

Then share the link what Almaz Antey is saying or MoD.  Yes, performance wise of SM-3 is out there.  And all its failures.  S-300V has been around much longer than SM-3 and is also capable of intercepting BM's.  It was fielded in the 80's.
http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/s-300v-sa-12a-gladiator-sa-12b-giant/

Thanks Max!

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1689p75-a-135-anti-ballistic-missile-system#167215

Gotcha, SM-3 is all failures.

Not sure how old Army S-300V developed in the late '70s is relevant but OK.

The problem with people like yourself, is that you compare a system that has real spotty performance to that something that isn't out yet and no official word on it.  Add to that, since we are on talks of ABM systems, you think S-300V which is an army system that was designed around dealing against BM systems, isn't somehow similar even though it came out much earlier yet you proclaim that a system like SM-3 is first.

Don't digress and don't cherry pick here.

No need to worry about me and my people, mate.

Making the point of SM-3 being ahead of the game chronologically and with better specs, deployed, etc. is just that. You don't have to agree if you want. I feel S-300V is beyond the scope of our discussion.

Also both of those last dos and donts are returned.

Specs?  You dont know neither do I.  If you are talking about Block IIB, then that isnt out yet either.  Nudol compares more I would think.  And specs are one thing, real world tests are another.

Add to that, by sounds of news on S-500 according to people here, it is more aimed at incoming targets more so than trying to deal with mid course. Which makes sense since Russia doesn't have the luxury in placing such systems close to the enemy borders.

sepheronx wrote:Specs?  You dont know neither do I.  If you are talking about Block IIB, then that isnt out yet either.  Nudol compares more I would think.  And specs are one thing, real world tests are another.

Add to that, by sounds of news on S-500 according to people here, it is more aimed at incoming targets more so than trying to deal with mid course.  Which makes sense since Russia doesn't have the luxury in placing such systems close to the enemy borders.

I think he's talking about the block IIA:
-2,500 km range
-1,500 km flight ceiling
-4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25) speed

Compared to the S-300V4:
-400 km range
- ? flight ceiling
-2.6 km/s (Mach 7.64) speed

Based on these specs, one could see where kilo is coming from, but we must remember that the S-300Vs were made not just for defending against high flying ballistic missiles, but also low flying cruise missiles and aircraft's, while the SM-3, the S-500 and the Nodul are dedicated ABM systems, that's why the S-500 isn't replacing the S-400s.

UPDATE: I knew i should have checked the previous pages, anyway Max post of S-500 specs:
-600 km range
-200+ km ceiling
-7 km/s (Mach 21) speed

Based on these specs and other sources, it looks like the S-500 is going to be something like an S-400ER (extended range), but with a significant emphasis against hyper-sonic threats, it looks like the Nodul is going to be there real dedicated ABM system.

AlfaT8 wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Specs?  You dont know neither do I.  If you are talking about Block IIB, then that isnt out yet either.  Nudol compares more I would think.  And specs are one thing, real world tests are another.

Add to that, by sounds of news on S-500 according to people here, it is more aimed at incoming targets more so than trying to deal with mid course.  Which makes sense since Russia doesn't have the luxury in placing such systems close to the enemy borders.

I think he's talking about the block IIA:
-2,500 km range
-1,500 km flight ceiling
-4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25) speed

Compared to the S-300V4:
-400 km range
- ? flight ceiling
-2.6 km/s (Mach 7.64) speed

Based on these specs, one could see where kilo is coming from, but we must remember that the S-300Vs were made not just for defending against high flying ballistic missiles, but also low flying cruise missiles and aircraft's, while the SM-3, the S-500 and the Nodul are dedicated ABM systems, that's why the S-500 isn't replacing the S-300/400s.

Thanks for the context. It is incredible how people continue to dismiss Russian rocket technology development capability. As if the US is the only place
on Earth where there is enough human IQ to do such development. The A-135 can do 8.5 km/s (Mach 30.6) so why is 4.5 km/s some major technical challenge for Russia? The A-135 was designed in 1978. Current solid rocket fuel technology in Russia has at least twice the energy density of the 1970s variants. They can use a single stage instead of two and easily reach speeds over 4.5 km/s for the S-500 model.

kvs wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Specs?  You dont know neither do I.  If you are talking about Block IIB, then that isnt out yet either.  Nudol compares more I would think.  And specs are one thing, real world tests are another.

Add to that, by sounds of news on S-500 according to people here, it is more aimed at incoming targets more so than trying to deal with mid course.  Which makes sense since Russia doesn't have the luxury in placing such systems close to the enemy borders.

I think he's talking about the block IIA:
-2,500 km range
-1,500 km flight ceiling
-4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25) speed

Compared to the S-300V4:
-400 km range
- ? flight ceiling
-2.6 km/s (Mach 7.64) speed

Based on these specs, one could see where kilo is coming from, but we must remember that the S-300Vs were made not just for defending against high flying ballistic missiles, but also low flying cruise missiles and aircraft's, while the SM-3, the S-500 and the Nodul are dedicated ABM systems, that's why the S-500 isn't replacing the S-300/400s.

Thanks for the context.   It is incredible how people continue to dismiss Russian rocket technology development capability.   As if the US is the only place
on Earth where there is enough human IQ to do such development.    The A-135 can do 8.5 km/s (Mach 30.6) so why is 4.5 km/s some major technical challenge for Russia?   The A-135 was designed in 1978.   Current solid rocket fuel technology in Russia has at least twice the energy density of the 1970s variants.  They can use a single stage instead of two and easily reach speeds over 4.5 km/s for the S-500 model.

Apologies kvs, my update was to slow i will repost it.

UPDATE: I knew i should have checked the previous pages, anyway Max post of S-500 specs:
-600 km range
-200+ km ceiling
-7 km/s (Mach 21) speed

Based on these specs and other sources, it looks like the S-500 is going to be something like an S-400ER (extended range), but with a significant emphasis against hyper-sonic threats, it looks like the Nodul is going to be there real dedicated ABM system.

Soon US and Japan will test SM-3 Block II-A and Block II-A is meant to intercept IRBMs. Intermediate Range BM.


THAAD-ER is complementary to S-500 according to US. But THAAD is a poor man's S-300 ( so I've my doubts whether THAAD-ER will intercept ICBMs and HGVs )

AlfaT8 wrote:
I think he's talking about the block IIA:
-2,500 km range
-1,500 km flight ceiling
-4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25) speed

Compared to the S-300V4:
-400 km range
- ? flight ceiling
-2.6 km/s (Mach 7.64) speed

Based on these specs, one could see where kilo is coming from, but we must remember that the S-300Vs were made not just for defending against high flying ballistic missiles, but also low flying cruise missiles and aircraft's, while the SM-3, the S-500 and the Nodul are dedicated ABM systems, that's why the S-500 isn't replacing the S-400s.

UPDATE: I knew i should have checked the previous pages, anyway Max post of S-500 specs:
-600 km range
-200+ km ceiling
-7 km/s (Mach 21) speed

Based on these specs and other sources, it looks like the S-500 is going to be something like an S-400ER (extended range), but with a significant emphasis against hyper-sonic threats, it looks like the Nodul is going to be there real dedicated ABM system.

thanks for that post
SM-3IIA is to be tested this year and deployed in Poland by 2018.

Based on these specs and other sources, it looks like the S-500 is going to be something like an S-400ER (extended range), but with a significant emphasis against hyper-sonic threats, it looks like the Nodul is going to be there real dedicated ABM system.

No.

S-500 is a mobile development of the S-300 and S-400 series SAMs and will primarily be used against ballistic missiles while S-400 or S-300V4 operates under it defeating other aerial threats.

Nudel is a mobile version of the Moscow ABM system and will probably be deployed to major Russian cities and major military centres like the HQs of the four military districts together with probably S-400 and other SAMs to defend the areas.

They are developments in two different directions... but I suspect Nudel will also have anti satellite roles as well.