Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 8 (1 members and 7 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • JSR
    JSR
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Aug 2011
    • 4950

    this big anti air missiles can neither reliably hit ICBM nor small cruise or antiship missiles. let alone a saturated attack. they are only good for aerodynamic target.

    Comment

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

      The first two have zero effectiveness vs ICBMs
      Neither does AEGIS, or THAAD. Folks have done the interception math even if one attributed the best case capabilities and velocities to upgraded variants of the SM3 vs ICBM launch vectors from Russia. The closer you put these systems to the ICBM launch sites the higher performance you need from these interceptors in order for them to chase down missiles heading towards CONUS (launching Mid Course interceptors from further back allows them to go after ICBMs with descending trajectories). THAAD of course is a point defense system with a maximum range of around 200 km and is the upper tier compliment to the Patriot and is not a Mid Course defense system.

      If by staple, you mean 4-5 ships at most have it, then sure. Also, it has had no development in re. to long range ballistic missiles as compared to SM-6 and some SM-3 variants.
      SM6 is a SBT system and such will likely have a very small defended area against Medium Range Ballistic Missiles (Possibly enough to defend a strike group but that is about it). It is not going to be nearly as good as the THAAD against this threat type. SM6 blk. IA will add to this capability, likely allowing it to defend against IRBMs, but then it too will be limited compared to the THAAD. It lacks the altitude performance of the THAAD given the latter's singular focus area while the SM6 design is a balance (and likely emphases AAW and CMD) between other needs. It obviously has no capability against any ICBM class target launched towards CONUS.

      Err, I guess, although size of USN and USAF plus the not-so-anemic land based US AD might have something to say about that.
      The US does not possess very larger land-based Missile Defense capability against medium or long range threats. Certainly once one gets beyond point defense systems like Patriot which cover short, and some MRBM envelopes. The Army is not going to get more than 7-8 THAAD batteries and that is not a very large number if one were to distribute them between the COCOMs. It certainly does not meet COCOM demand. As a reference, Qatar requested 2 THAAD batteries, and Saudi something like 5-6 iirc.

      That is of course, when it is actually in service, which has been around the corner for like a decade.
      One can only go by claims. Apparently the missile can do everything..ABMs, TBMs, Endoatmospheric intercepts, Exoatmospheric intercepts, ASATs? etc etc. The capability is virtually assumed to be on the S400 every time it is deployed and Russian media sources attribute 400 km intercept capability to the system when it deploys. Same if one looks into threads on Indian or Chinese procurements. It is assumed that they are buying a system capable of intercepting longer ranged missiles and AAW out to 400 km. So if one were to go by what is being reported, one would say that Russian forces field plenty of this capability and export it as well.

      We have, on this forum, claims with reports dating back to 2010/11 (likely even earlier but that was based on a cursory search) claiming that the 40N6 would finish state trials by the last quarter of 2010 which was nearly 8 years ago so if one goes by reports, it has likely been in service for 6-7 years.
      Last edited by bring_it_on; 20th March 2018, 12:31.
      Old radar types never die; they just phased array

      Comment

      • MadRat
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Aug 2006
        • 5033

        I guess you could specify where you get only 4-5 ships used S-300. Once you get into specifics you'll see the nonsense there. The navy doesn't use the same radars as the ground-based units, which is a bigger issue than which missiles. So technically none of the navy uses the 'systems' of either S-300 or S-400.
        Go Huskers!

        Comment

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

          How many tests has the S-300/S-400 performed against MRBMs/IRBMs and how many have been successful? We hear about maximum target speeds but where is the actual test evidence? SM-3 IA on the other hand actually hit a falling satellite doing 9.8km/s, which is well beyond its design specification and then you have successful IRBM intercepts by THAAD and ICBM intercepts by GBI.

          Comment

          • FBW
            FBW
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Dec 2011
            • 3290

            which is well beyond its design specification and then you have successful IRBM intercepts by THAAD and ICBM intercepts by GBI.
            GBI has a capability against rudimentary ICBM. Each carries one EKV and intercept would occur after warhead and decoy deployment. Against an ICBM with multiple MIRV and decoys, the GBI is of limited value.

            The entire planned fleet of 44 interceptors wouldn't guarantee a defense against 10 MIRV equipped ICBM's (even accepting the B.S. oft quoted 97% success rate).

            Comment

            • Austin
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Oct 2003
              • 6463

              How many tests has the S-300/S-400 performed against MRBMs/IRBMs and how many have been successful? We hear about maximum target speeds but where is the actual test evidence? SM-3 IA on the other hand actually hit a falling satellite doing 9.8km/s, which is well beyond its design specification and then you have successful IRBM intercepts by THAAD and ICBM intercepts by GBI.
              There is no evidence as such other than Almaz Antei Annual report where they mention about the test done against certain target.
              "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

              Comment

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

                GBI has a capability against rudimentary ICBM. Each carries one EKV and intercept would occur after warhead and decoy deployment. Against an ICBM with multiple MIRV and decoys, the GBI is of limited value.

                The entire planned fleet of 44 interceptors wouldn't guarantee a defense against 10 MIRV equipped ICBM's (even accepting the B.S. oft quoted 97% success rate).
                Depends where the GBI is based and when the ICBM's warhead bus releases the warheads. What has Russia/China got that can intercept mid-course though? Okay, it's not full-proof but when you consider GBI, SM-3 IIA, SM-3 1B and THAAD, that's at least a decent multi-phase, layered intercept system, which surely beats 56 short-range (80-100km), nuclear-tipped 1980s interceptors hanging out around Moscow only.
                Last edited by St. John; 20th March 2018, 13:10.

                Comment

                • haavarla
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Dec 2008
                  • 6652

                  Depends where the GBI is based and when the ICBM's warhead bus releases the warheads. What has Russia/China got that can intercept mid-course though? Okay, it's not full-proof but when you consider GBI, SM-3 IIA, SM-3 1B and THAAD, that's at least a decent multi-phase, layered intercept system, which surely beats 56 short-range (80-100km), nuclear-tipped 1980s interceptors hanging out around Moscow only.
                  And what in the hll is this post all about.?
                  We were talking about the limitation of Russian Anti-air ballistic systems integrated on Russian Navy(yes it is limited!).
                  The Anti-Air System around Moscow however are not limited in any standard.
                  Thanks

                  Comment

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

                    Depends where the GBI is based and when the ICBM's warhead bus releases the warheads. What has Russia/China got that can intercept mid-course though? Okay, it's not full-proof but when you consider GBI, SM-3 IIA, SM-3 1B and THAAD, that's at least a decent multi-phase, layered intercept system, which surely beats 56 short-range (80-100km), nuclear-tipped 1980s interceptors hanging out around Moscow only.
                    Mixing and matching theater systems with homeland defense ones does not a layered defense make! THAAD is practically useless for the homeland defense mission (intercept). Terminal defense against ICBM went away with Sprint so only option there will be GBI which is a mid-course defense system. AEGIS and SM3 is also not going to be plucking ICBMs launched from Russia towards the US, either out of the two Ashore sites or off of a ship. Those that have done the math behind the engagement trajectories and the intercept dynamics have found the system to be of no practical use in this role. So to be clear, AEGIS and THAAD do provide layered capability but that capability is for theater defense, not the homeland defense mission. As far as that area is concerned, there is only the Mid Course defense capability currently deployed or in the works, which given its upgrade path, is reasonably sufficient (or as adequate as one could be for a missile defense system which is only one part of the national defense capability to deter or prevent strike) for the types of threats it has been designed to overcome.
                    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                    Comment

                    • TR1
                      TR1
                      http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                      • Oct 2010
                      • 9804

                      Neither does AEGIS, or THAAD.
                      Compare the maximum altitude of SM-6 Aegis based intercepts, to the maximum in service range of S-300/400 rounds, their possibility of being moved around the globe, and then consider why that appears worrying from a Russian perspective. ~38km altitude 48N6 rounds were never designed for the same exoatmospheric work that THAAD/SM3/SM6 were designed for. I will give you a pretty penny if you can find accurate sources that show even 40N6 has such a high altitude capability. S-300 family has been superb in terms of aerodynamic targets and shorter range missiles, but it simply wasn't designed for longer range BMs, and as such can't be honestly argued to have the same potential future effect on strategic weapons like the mentioned American systems. S-500 we can talk about when it has specifics.

                      Though these systems are not really what Russia is most upset about, China has freaked out more about their deployment (in Korea), AFAIK.

                      One can only go by claims. Apparently the missile can do everything..ABMs, TBMs, Endoatmospheric intercepts, Exoatmospheric intercepts, ASATs?

                      Ok, but that means nothing. THere are actually detailed Russian books re. missile testing, documents mined from publicly available gov docs re. Almaz-anteii purchases and yearly testing, and some very good Russian forums that dig through all this. Sputnik is a non source, and I have yet to see firm details of a reliable sort...

                      Russian media sources attribute 400 km intercept capability to the system when it deploys
                      "Media" means nothing in this context aside from ignorance on their part. 400km capability is marketing, and anyways the latest 48N6 rounds have demonstrated well over 300km capability, though again this is against fighter type targets, not ballistic ones. S-300V4 has 400km range via its 9M82M without any need for 40N6.

                      So if one were to go by what is being reported, one would say that Russian forces field plenty of this capability and export it as well.

                      We have, on this forum, claims with reports dating back to 2010/11 (likely even earlier but that was based on a cursory search) claiming that the 40N6 would finish state trials by the last quarter of 2010 which was nearly 8 years ago so if one goes by reports, it has likely been in service for 6-7 years.
                      They don't. There isn't a shred of evidence that 40N6 is in serial production for the armed forces, that it is deployed, or imagery suggesting the MOD has tested or bought it.
                      It has been "finishing testing" for years, and I have yet to see any credible evidence found in Russian language sources that indicates it has moved past that to date.

                      How many tests has the S-300/S-400 performed against MRBMs/IRBMs and how many have been successful? We hear about maximum target speeds but where is the actual test evidence?
                      S-300/S-300V has dozens of succesfull intercepts against short ranged ballistic targets dating to the early 80s. Hence the name, for example of Anteii-2500- it can engage ballistic weapon with 2,500km range. We also have fairly concrete and reliable reports of A-A testing (as AUstin alluded) in their yearly reports in more recent years.

                      Russia has not tried to screw with the strategic balance with mid-source interception of ICBMs.


                      I guess you could specify where you get only 4-5 ships used S-300. Once you get into specifics you'll see the nonsense there. The navy doesn't use the same radars as the ground-based units, which is a bigger issue than which missiles. So technically none of the navy uses the 'systems' of either S-300 or S-400.
                      Yes, I could specify. 3 projcect 1164 ships, and Peter the Great. Nakhimov is not in service for near two decades. 4 ships in service at best, 5 total.
                      Also, naval S-300F certainly exists, that is its designation.
                      sigpic

                      Comment

                      • TR1
                        TR1
                        http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                        • Oct 2010
                        • 9804

                        Given the current proliferation of nuclear weapons, including ICBMs to the likes of North Korea, the only future is to neutralise the effectiveness of all nuke delivery platforms.
                        SO it is a future of huge sums of money blown on systems that don't offer the 100% reliability (or close) to actually solve the political problem of "rogue" states with ICBMs, and a huge destabilization as well as the inevitable reaction of established nuclear powers on the parts of their nuclear arsenals. Great!
                        sigpic

                        Comment

                        • sepheronx
                          Senior Member
                          • Jun 2015
                          • 320

                          Can you guys provide the Almaz Antey reports of the ballistic missiles tests of their ad sytems? I would like a copy to look through please.

                          Comment

                          • MadRat
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Aug 2006
                            • 5033

                            TR1-

                            Stop moving the goal posts. You obviously are trying to miscount by ignoring the ships using S-300 missiles. Like I acknowledged, the ground radars are different and the navy uses fewer overall systems to search, track, and direct them. But it doesn't mean the missiles didn't get used across the fleet. And you've cherry-picked which missiles to include. This isn't the only forum that has covered this topic. Please don't create an unnecessary argument over semantics.
                            Go Huskers!

                            Comment

                            • Trident
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • May 2004
                              • 3963

                              Originally posted by bring_it_on View Post
                              The largest and fastest growing threat to those AEGIS cruisers and destroyers, and the assets they protect are from the ever-growing Medium and Intermediate-range Ballistic Missiles fielded by China so don't expect that capability to go anywhere anytime soon regardless of what new weapons Russia decides to pursue. The bi-lateral (for practical purposes) ABM treaty is not coming back and what the Russians disclosed has no bearing on that.
                              Well yes, but surely the answer to that problem cannot seriously be to just shrug and throw all past achievements in arms limitation under the bus? Who says these treaties HAVE to be bi-lateral and exclude China?!

                              Originally posted by bring_it_on View Post
                              Folks have done the interception math even if one attributed the best case capabilities and velocities to upgraded variants of the SM3 vs ICBM launch vectors from Russia. The closer you put these systems to the ICBM launch sites the higher performance you need from these interceptors in order for them to chase down missiles heading towards CONUS (launching Mid Course interceptors from further back allows them to go after ICBMs with descending trajectories).
                              I don't know why, but apparently it bears mentioning again - Russia is not particularly worried about a couple of missiles in Eastern Europe per se, they are concerned about the potential future implications in absence of a binding treaty which limits extension. It sets a precedent they are not comfortable with, and even right now the ship-based missiles which can be positioned basically anyplace on the world's oceans where the US pleases are a legitimate (if very sparse, but again, absent a treaty this can change at the stroke of a pen) threat. It HAS a demonstrated ability to shoot down a satellite (unlike ANY naval S-300 version deployed to date, MadRat)!

                              It's a somewhat paranoid mindset, but not completely irrational if you still take the concept of MAD seriously - one has to admit Russia's actions are entirely consistent with their stated objections in this regard. As much as they might look insane and willfully evil, the nuclear powered cruise missile, Sarmat with FOBS capability and the Status-6 AUV are in fact logical responses if you buy into these concerns. If the US is genuinely interested in arms control they'd do well to account for the Russian perspective on the issue.
                              sigpic

                              Comment

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

                                Trident, I agree that a long-term Arms Control solution would involve China being brought in. In fact, this is the only possible chance that something like the ABM (which will be tied to a much broader INF) can be re-created under a similar framework. Until that happens, and until China is convinced to give up its Intermediate Range offensive weapons, I see no way that the US side, which has responded to a whole host of threats that do not originate from Russia, will even be interested in giving a relook to the ABM bi-laterally (for the most part) with Russia. I also completely understand the Russian paranoia and agree it is consistent with the current administration and military mindset but facts are facts. The US is engaged in a competitive environment, geo-strategically, with China, and given its rocket forces, and this will be the main driving force behind its armament strategy and not Russia as was the case during the Cold War. China in turn has its own objectives and objections, and who knows, prehaps Russia has objections to this broader inclusion as well.
                                Last edited by bring_it_on; 20th March 2018, 21:05.
                                Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                Comment

                                • Trident
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • May 2004
                                  • 3963

                                  I could excuse that if there had been any discernible and honest attempts to include China in existing and future arms control regimes, but the US attitude seemed to be "too difficult to even contemplate, and we can afford to antagonize an economically weakened Russia anyway".
                                  Last edited by Trident; 20th March 2018, 20:12.
                                  sigpic

                                  Comment

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

                                    Mixing and matching theater systems with homeland defense ones does not a layered defense make! THAAD is practically useless for the homeland defense mission (intercept). Terminal defense against ICBM went away with Sprint so only option there will be GBI which is a mid-course defense system. AEGIS and SM3 is also not going to be plucking ICBMs launched from Russia towards the US, either out of the two Ashore sites or off of a ship. Those that have done the math behind the engagement trajectories and the intercept dynamics have found the system to be of no practical use in this role. So to be clear, AEGIS and THAAD do provide layered capability but that capability is for theater defense, not the homeland defense mission. As far as that area is concerned, there is only the Mid Course defense capability currently deployed or in the works, which given its upgrade path, is reasonably sufficient (or as adequate as one could be for a missile defense system which is only one part of the national defense capability to deter or prevent strike) for the types of threats it has been designed to overcome.
                                    On paper yes, but I bet THAAD and SM-3 would have some success against ICBM warheads.

                                    Comment

                                    • JSR
                                      JSR
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Aug 2011
                                      • 4950

                                      Originally posted by Trident View Post
                                      I could excuse that if there had been any discernible and honest attempts to include China in existing and future arms control regimes, but the US attitude seemed to be "too difficult to even contemplate, and we can afford to antagonize an economically weakened Russia anyway".
                                      Russia is only country that can afford high technology arms race. It hasn't even started fracking to pollute ground water or increase debt level. It high efficient research, and economic system enable it sell more weopons cheaply.

                                      Comment

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

                                        SO it is a future of huge sums of money blown on systems that don't offer the 100% reliability (or close) to actually solve the political problem of "rogue" states with ICBMs, and a huge destabilization as well as the inevitable reaction of established nuclear powers on the parts of their nuclear arsenals. Great!
                                        Well no system is 100% effective, which is why you have to apply quantity. In its original guise however, SDI promised ground-based lasers and space mirrors, KV-truck satellites and small orbiting KV-satellites with detection and homing built in. Unfortunately the 1991 dream of everyone giving up their nukes and proliferation being prevented has failed miserably, so it's back to plan A.

                                        Russia is only country that can afford high technology arms race. It hasn't even started fracking to pollute ground water or increase debt level. It high efficient research, and economic system enable it sell more weopons cheaply.
                                        I would say Russian military spending is stretched to the brink right now. Only China can afford an arms race with the US.

                                        Comment

                                        • sepheronx
                                          Senior Member
                                          • Jun 2015
                                          • 320

                                          Not even. 2.6% is rather low compared to countries who spend much more. Difference is, Russia sets it's targets/goals in 5, 10, 15 year plans. So at least they set aside a budget that would work with said instructed plan.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X