Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • sepheronx
    Senior Member
    • Jun 2015
    • 320

    Originally posted by MadRat View Post
    Laser gyros are pretty neat technology. Unfortunately they aren't the perfect solution for high speed weapons that fly on the edge of space.

    The Russians also have a far different threshold for consideration to be labeled 'precision'.

    And let's consider the ramifications of using this weapon in proximity to U.S. forces and its allies. If it's flight is indistinguishable between conventional and nuclear roles, then basically deploying it says something to the effect 'it may be an offensive nuclear launch'. Not the message they should send.
    It flies at a quasi ballistic path so you would have to say the same about iskander itself, and that's been used in Georgia....

    And judging by videos of Russia's missile hits, I would say I trust their word on accuracy. You may not, that's fine.

    Comment

    • paralay
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Aug 2005
      • 1396

      Click image for larger version

Name:	hanjar.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	209.2 KB
ID:	3679361

      Comment

      • Austin
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Oct 2003
        • 6463

        Originally posted by MadRat View Post
        Laser gyros are pretty neat technology. Unfortunately they aren't the perfect solution for high speed weapons that fly on the edge of space.
        Laser ins are used even on icbm they are very precise due to short duration flight the error accumulated is low

        The Russians also have a far different threshold for consideration to be labeled 'precision'.
        Even Kilbir fires from 1500 km away showed CEP of 2-3 m in Syrian war

        And let's consider the ramifications of using this weapon in proximity to U.S. forces and its allies. If it's flight is indistinguishable between conventional and nuclear roles, then basically deploying it says something to the effect 'it may be an offensive nuclear launch'. Not the message they should send.
        There are concerns regarding hypersonic weapon due to its destabilising nature , RAND has writeup on it
        "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

        Comment

        • haavarla
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Dec 2008
          • 6647

          There are concerns regarding hypersonic weapon due to its destabilising nature , RAND has write-up on it
          Anyone with half a brain understand that Russian would love for the US to return to the table and sign a new ABM treaty.
          Until that happens.. the game is on. I think the latest development has finally begun to sink in on some folks over at Pentagon and US Senators.
          What US viewed as a advantage decades ago by dropping out of the ABM treaty is now a nasty thorn in their @ss.

          Putin knows Russia can never check US tit for tat, so they counter US with Asymetric developments..
          Last edited by haavarla; 18th March 2018, 08:54.
          Thanks

          Comment

          • stealthflanker
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Sep 2015
            • 1006

            Nice work @Paralay.

            What's the expected seeker BTW ? Something similar to Pershing ? (RADAC) Or maybe the seeker is actually DSMAC type like Aerofon.

            Comment

            • St. John
              Rank 4 Registered User
              • Jan 2018
              • 568

              That was not my conclusion at all and is most definitely not what I was saying. I pointed to the misrepresentation of Intercept test data and was trying to point out that if one were to analyze that and use it as a measure of the defensive capability of a Carrier Strike Group (it is not the best way to look at this at all since missile testing usually focuses on intercept or sensor preformance, not the entire spectrum of offensive and defensive capability a strike group will show up with) then one must also weigh this against equally detailed data from the missile testing and evaluation. It is rather pointless to say that 2 of 10 missiles,(or 4 of 10 or 10 of 10) will get past a particular interceptor unless we know the other variable in this equation i.e. how many of the offensive weapon will actually find, fix and succesfully strike a defended target at sea. Any long range ballistic missile has to first network with long range sensors, and command & control, evade exoatmospheric and endoatmospheric interceptors, succesfully operate in a cluttered environment where Electronic Warfare capabilities are being used against its seeker and navigation concepts, find its target, verify that it is the correct target, and then finally strike that target. If one is going to analyze the abilities of the interceptors to succesfully engage a MR or IR Ballistic Missile in space or inside the atmosphere, then it is also reasonable to present similar performance and flight test data on the performance and test data from the offensive system in question as well.
              Fair point. You have EW spoofing targeting before then, Pk of the actual attack missiles, EW spoofing the terminal guidance, the launch jet being shot down, or having its runway bombed out, before you even get to terminal phase intercepts.

              I think the most ideal system presented was Avangard, which has been confirmed ordered.
              I was under the impression that would be a nuclear-only glide warhead.

              In one of the interview I posed from Tactical Missile Bureau , He mentioned that Kh-101 can fly accurately to the target even without Glonass or GPS , its designed to do so with a highly accurate INS and other aided navigation built in , Considering Kinzal flight time is likely 1/10 of that Kh-101 and the accuracy would be quite good as its aided by RF seeker and even Optical one

              In the end it depends on the type of INS you use and how much one would like to spend on it a strap down INS would be less accurate compared to Laser INS but from a mass deployed weapon strap down INS would be cost effective choice.
              Cruise missiles generally use TERCOM as well as GPS/INS but TERCOM wouldn't work particularly well over the sea.

              Laser ins are used even on icbm they are very precise due to short duration flight the error accumulated is low
              INS is backed up by astrological referencing with ICBMs. It's possible the Kinzhal would use something similar, since it must fly a mostly ballistic path to attain 2,000km based on Kh-32 size and range.
              Last edited by St. John; 18th March 2018, 11:05.

              Comment

              • MadRat
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Aug 2006
                • 5033

                2-3 meter CEP at 2000 km on a laser gyro would be pure magic. Absolutely no ballistic missile does that based on laser gyros. And since you're flying in that little strip of the atmosphere where radio wave interference is a real issue, you're not sending it updates via a command link. And at its speed, GLONASS is essentially unable to provide an accurate reference signal. You're basically launching the bus off an MRBM. It's flying with the same limitations. You simply opted for an air-launch versus from the ground. Let us all know how MRBM technology has changed conventional warfare.

                edit: St John covered some of what I'm saying.
                Last edited by MadRat; 18th March 2018, 12:04.
                Go Huskers!

                Comment

                • FBW
                  FBW
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Dec 2011
                  • 3288

                  Originally posted by haavarla View Post
                  Anyone with half a brain understand that Russian would love for the US to return to the table and sign a new ABM treaty.
                  Until that happens.. the game is on. I think the latest development has finally begun to sink in on some folks over at Pentagon and US Senators.
                  What US viewed as a advantage decades ago by dropping out of the ABM treaty is now a nasty thorn in their @ss.

                  Putin knows Russia can never check US tit for tat, so they counter US with Asymetric developments..
                  I think that your conclusions above are flawed.
                  Current US ABM defenses are totally inadequate to stop Russian ICBM. Russia knows this, the US government knows this. Currently, they arent even properly positioned or sufficient numbers to intercept even a fraction of Russian ICBM+ SLBM.

                  As far as the latest developments, they are having the opposite effect on the US military and gov than you are postulating. It is seen as a bit of bizarre chest thumping, and strategically irrelevant. A nuclear powered cruise missile? Has to be the dumbest concept and disclosure in quite some time. A technical feat? Sure, but strategically irrelevant. The torpedo equally stupid. If Russia was concerned about US missile defenses and their own second strike capabilities, the answer is simple. Build more ICBM and ballistic missile submarines and develop glide vehicle warheads (which they are doing). Putins speech had a overall negative effect, many seeing his disclosures as a sign of bravado and bluster. Im sure many of our Russian friends will disagree, but the reaction over Russians nuclear arsenal expansion is being met with alarm over the purpose, and incredulity over the execution.

                  Comment

                  • KGB
                    KGB
                    Senior Member
                    • Mar 2016
                    • 1426

                    ^They have an exact purpose and work started on them only after the US withdrew from ABM. You would say it was "bizarre chest thumping" regardless of what the weapon is.

                    Comment

                    • sepheronx
                      Senior Member
                      • Jun 2015
                      • 320

                      Yes John, Avangard may be mostly nuclear but I believe it was stated to be both. Although, launching an ICBM for anything other than nuclear is a bad idea.

                      Comment

                      • sepheronx
                        Senior Member
                        • Jun 2015
                        • 320

                        Originally posted by KGB View Post
                        ^They have an exact purpose and work started on them only after the US withdrew from ABM. You would say it was "bizarre chest thumping" regardless of what the weapon is.
                        That's the problem, according to our American Uurah folks, is that anything Russia does is:
                        Stupid
                        Incapable
                        Chest bumping bravado
                        Pointless
                        Costly that they can't afford
                        Crappy compared to US system

                        When in reality, these weapons we're designed with ABM and other AD systems in mind. Russia too has been working on and using ABM systems for decades, so they know how that stuff works and how to counter it. Hence why they concentrate on either cruise missiles or quasi ballistic missiles. But hey, whatever. Not like any of us armchair warriors are the ones developing the systems or using them anyway. So it's all nothing but hot air and internet data usage. Fun to talk about.

                        Comment

                        • FBW
                          FBW
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Dec 2011
                          • 3288

                          -except it isn’t internet armchair warriors that were sceptical of these new weapons. But nice rant.


                          Anyway this is an aviation forum. Let’s stay on that aspect, my own digression included.

                          Comment

                          • bring_it_on
                            2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                            • Jun 2004
                            • 12480

                            Anyone with half a brain understand that Russian would love for the US to return to the table and sign a new ABM treaty.
                            Until that happens.. the game is on. I think the latest development has finally begun to sink in on some folks over at Pentagon and US Senators.
                            What US viewed as an advantage decades ago by dropping out of the ABM treaty is now a nasty thorn in their @ss.
                            One has to be pretty blind to the facts that exist on the ground to think that the US will try to get back into the ABM treaty because of these weapons. It is not going to happen simply given the threats to US forces and homeland and how it is moving. I see INF under threat over the next many decades as well. As far as Hypersonic weapons are concerned, the response would simply be to continue down the path the US has currently put itself on and has been on since 2013-2014 (with the significant increase in funding that came about last year and into the 5-year budget) and that is to continue to develop hypersonic weapons, across the tactical specturm while also enhancing the capability to defend against unique hypersonic threats that can exploit the current BMD architectures. Nothing shown in the past 6 months would get them to even think of doing anything differently. So, as far as Hypersonics are concerned, the status-quo remains regardless of what Putin presented..China is working on these weapons at breakneck pace, and the US has been working on the current roadmap since around 2014..

                            No new program has been added, and nothing has been removed based on what was presented. The direction, intensity or the path remains unchanged. All these are conventional weapons. The strategic system modernization was largely set and will revolve around GBSD, and the LRSO as the two new missile systems. They are not likely to evaluate introducing new systems (such as something similar to what Russia is doing) as they are ok with he level of deterrent provided by the current triad modernization approach.
                            Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th March 2018, 15:23.
                            Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                            Comment

                            • Bellum
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jul 2010
                              • 117

                              Originally posted by FBW
                              If Russia was concerned about US missile defenses and their own second strike capabilities, the answer is simple. Build more ICBM and ballistic missile submarines and develop glide vehicle warheads (which they are doing).
                              Your proposition is to compete on numbers where Russia has to symmetrically beat the US in an ICBM vs anti-ICBM missile race. Instead of developing new ways of overcoming the missile shield by technical means so that it doesn't matter how many ABMs the US builds, the same number of new MAD weapons are always enough. Simply on economic grounds the Russian approach is far more logical and sane than what you propose, unless you believe that the US ABMs will always remain hopelessly ineffective and that the US would never try to race the numbers even if it got the missiles working.

                              Comment

                              • FBW
                                FBW
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Dec 2011
                                • 3288

                                Russia knows the purpose and scope of US ABM shield. First off, do you know how many ABM weapons the US has with even limited capability against ICBM? Do you know why most US systems are worthless against ICBM?

                                First, there would need to be a concerted US effort and budget to create a missile shield that could seriously upset deterrence. No such plan exists. It is much more economical to create an ICBM force to overwhelm a missile defense than to create such a defense in the first place. Russia has that capability, N Korea and Iran do not. The US would like to keep it that way, so there is no strategic need for asymmetric nuclear deterrence from Russia.

                                Gonna bow out of this topic because I doubt there will be much useful discussion on this.

                                Comment

                                • MadRat
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Aug 2006
                                  • 5033

                                  Read the de facto standards of US Ballistic Missile defense and you would know fairly well that only offensive capabilities are a deterent.
                                  Go Huskers!

                                  Comment

                                  • soyuz1917
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Oct 2005
                                    • 651

                                    First of all the US is deploying 400!!!! ABM interceptors in Europe as we speak. If you believe they are deploying 400 ABM interceptors to deal with Iran and N.Korea there is a bridge I would love to sell you. Each ABM interceptor is itself effectively an IRBM and on radar that's what it looks like when you fire one. So just firing THAAD or SM-6 endangers the whole damn planet. Hence why they do like 1-2 tests a year. They have to phone Russia to alert them of the test just to avoid the end of the planet.

                                    Each cell built in Romania can comfortably be used to house 2 naval Tomahawks in a pinch which means the US is effectively abrogating not just the ABM treaty but the medium range treaty because even digging a hole that may house a land based cruise missile is a violation of the treaty and the US knows this and doesnt care but when Russia builds a new ground based cruise missile in response it's Russia that's violating the treaty. Laughable logic.

                                    People worrying about Iskanders accuracy are barking up the wrong tree. Not only has it been used in Georgia to a CEP of +/- 10 meters but its been used in Syria too. An air launched version isnt going to be less accurate because it's faster. At this point its been tested in two wars and fired over 100 times. It shredded a Georgian Buk battery just fine. It's CEP should mean it has no problem engaging a gigantic aircraft carrier though a frigate is probably a challenge. Thankfully no one is going to intentionally waste a strategic platform like this intentionally hunting a frigate.

                                    On launch this thing is not going mach 10. From the videos it's going about Mach 2-3 in that initial cruising stage. Janes did the math on that mach 2 number from the released video. You can google it. At some point it climbs and then has a near-terminal drop stage where it escalates to Mach 10. Iskander has a 4 way guidance package. TERCOM, GLONASS, Inertial and optical DSMAC. In its final-final terminal stage though it should again be a cruise missile. The final maneuver is supposed to be an end stage S-curve to get around point defense batteries. In the Putin video the graphic clearly shows a non-ballistic end maneuver.

                                    I trust the videos because these leaks are intentionally being put out to get the US to negotiate a new treaty. There is no point to lie about something you will submit to inspections under any treaty negotiated.

                                    As for ATACMS getting this capability -- not any of the current versions. The current deployed versions have half the speed of Iskander and are not capable of this kind of end stage maneuvering and dont have the same kind of guidance package. The IVA blocks are just GPS and Inertial guided. They dont have TERCOM or DSMAC. A new version is in the works though.
                                    Last edited by soyuz1917; 18th March 2018, 14:14.

                                    Comment

                                    • bring_it_on
                                      2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                                      • Jun 2004
                                      • 12480

                                      First of all the US is deploying 400!!!! ABM interceptors in Europe as we speak.
                                      Each AEGIS Ashore site, to the best of my knowledge, has 3 x 8 MK41 Vertical Launch systems so that is 24 Interceptors per site. That said, the entire Standard Missile 3 inventory in the US currently barely crosses the 300 mark and that is the sum total of all missiles delivered, deployed worldwide and those that are not yet deployed (and likely does not account for those that have been used for testing). So even if the US floods Europe with 100% of its AEGIS (land and sea) capability, which is neither practical, nor possible, it still won't be able to put forward 400 interceptors.



                                      Each ABM interceptor is itself effectively an IRBM and on radar that's what it looks like when you fire one.
                                      Great! Now apply the same logic to S400, S500, and other systems as well such as the Nuclear tipped ABM system which would, based on your logic, make them Intermediate Range nuclear missiles.

                                      As for ATACMS getting this capability -- not any of the current versions. The current deployed versions have half the speed of Iskander and are not capable of this kind of end stage maneuvering and dont have the same kind of guidance package. The IVA blocks are just GPS and Inertial guided. They dont have TERCOM or DSMAC. A new version is in the works though.
                                      The ATACMS is a US Army system and is being replaced by the LRPF starting mid next decade. There is no need to develop an Air-Launched ATACMS. Both DARPA, and the USAF are developing a conventional, tactical-boost-glide system with tests planned for early next year, likely from a bomber. The USAF has a similar program which leaverages one half of the DARPA's program (that being forwarded by Lockheed) under the ARRW effort. It is publically aknowledged and has been for years now, and has been part of their budgets since the last 3-4 years.
                                      Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th March 2018, 15:07.
                                      Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                      Comment

                                      • FBW
                                        FBW
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Dec 2011
                                        • 3288

                                        Not to mention that an SM-3 IIA would have to be within 1000km of the launch site to intercept an ICBM in boost phase launched from Russia targeting the US. So, unless Russia want to stage all their missiles on the borders of Ukraine, Belarus, and Baltic states, the sites aren’t a threat. But then, that’s not the narrative being propagated is it?

                                        Comment

                                        • Sintra
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Aug 2007
                                          • 3838

                                          First of all the US is deploying 400!!!! ABM interceptors in Europe as we speak. If you believe they are deploying 400 ABM interceptors to deal with Iran and N.Korea there is a bridge I would love to sell you. Each ABM interceptor is itself effectively an IRBM and on radar that's what it looks like when you fire one. So just firing THAAD or SM-6 endangers the whole damn planet. Hence why they do like 1-2 tests a year. They have to phone Russia to alert them of the test just to avoid the end of the planet.

                                          Each cell built in Romania can comfortably be used to house 2 naval Tomahawks in a pinch which means the US is effectively abrogating not just the ABM treaty but the medium range treaty because even digging a hole that may house a land based cruise missile is a violation of the treaty and the US knows this and doesnt care but when Russia builds a new ground based cruise missile in response it's Russia that's violating the treaty. Laughable logic.

                                          People worrying about Iskanders accuracy are barking up the wrong tree. Not only has it been used in Georgia to a CEP of +/- 10 meters but its been used in Syria too. An air launched version isnt going to be less accurate because it's faster. At this point its been tested in two wars and fired over 100 times. It shredded a Georgian Buk battery just fine. It's CEP should mean it has no problem engaging a gigantic aircraft carrier though a frigate is probably a challenge. Thankfully no one is going to intentionally waste a strategic platform like this intentionally hunting a frigate.

                                          On launch this thing is not going mach 10. From the videos it's going about Mach 2-3 in that initial cruising stage. Janes did the math on that mach 2 number from the released video. You can google it. At some point it climbs and then has a near-terminal drop stage where it escalates to Mach 10. Iskander has a 4 way guidance package. TERCOM, GLONASS, Inertial and optical DSMAC. In its final-final terminal stage though it should again be a cruise missile. The final maneuver is supposed to be an end stage S-curve to get around point defense batteries. In the Putin video the graphic clearly shows a non-ballistic end maneuver.

                                          I trust the videos because these leaks are intentionally being put out to get the US to negotiate a new treaty. There is no point to lie about something you will submit to inspections under any treaty negotiated.

                                          As for ATACMS getting this capability -- not any of the current versions. The current deployed versions have half the speed of Iskander and are not capable of this kind of end stage maneuvering and dont have the same kind of guidance package. The IVA blocks are just GPS and Inertial guided. They dont have TERCOM or DSMAC. A new version is in the works though.
                                          Facepalm

                                          Oh the absolute sillyness of it...

                                          A) The US is not sticking 400 ABM interceptors in Europe, they have 24 in Romania
                                          B) The Romanian silos can hold only one Tomahawk, but NATO fields hundreds of MK41 VLS in Europe, namely in the seas around Europe, so making a fuss about those Romanian silos is entirely idiotic
                                          C) A ballistic missile shot from Russia into the US does not overfly Europe, an SM6 or SM3 has absolutely no chances of intercepting those missiles
                                          D) Russia is deployng S400s all over the bloody place and i dont see anyone in Russia about it...
                                          sigpic

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X