S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

First :

Russian missile manufacturer Almaz Antei will build a new air defense systems plant in the Nizhny Novgorod region by 2015, regional industry minister Vladimir Nefyodov said on Monday.

“It will be a modern enterprise that will be able to manufacture advanced products,” he said. “Financial resources have been provided for the purpose and the work going according to schedule.”

The ministry said in 2011 that the plant will go into operation before the end of 2013.

The minister gave no reason for the delay.

Almaz Antei manufactures S-300 and S-400 Triumph surface to air missile (SAM) systems among other products.

http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120409/172710101.html

Second :

Russia has deployed a battalion of S-400 Triumph air defense missile systems at a Baltic Fleet base in the exclave of Kaliningrad, the Izvestia daily reported on Monday.

This is the third base to deploy an S-400 battalion. The other two are located in the Moscow region.

Air Force chief of staff Major General Viktor Bondarev said in mid-March that one S-400 battalion was currently being deployed at Nakhodka [Russia’s Far East].

By 2020, Russia is to have 28 S-400 regiments, each comprised of two battalions, mainly in maritime and border areas.

The S-400 Triumph long- to medium-range surface-to-air missile system can effectively engage any aerial target, including aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cruise and ballistic missiles at up to 400 kilometers and an altitude of up to 30 kilometers.

The Russian Defense Ministry has said there are no plans so far to export the S-400, which will be produced only for the Russian Armed Forces.

http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120409/172702870.html

TR1 wrote:Thanks for correction Sean. The numbers are better than I thought.


So, given the speed of the targets the complex can engage, and the huge booster section, would the 9M82 of the S-300V be the most potent (pre-S-400) anti-aircraft missile Russia had...at least within its engagement range, that I guess was generally lower than contemporary PMU systems?

The S-300PM (48N6 missiles) was arguably more capable due to the greater engagement range, although you would've done fine with either system.

TR1 wrote:Could you elaborate what you specifically meant by endgame guidance handling?

The actual guidance system doesn't turn on until endgame. Until that point, the missile is guided using midcourse corrections from the engagement radar, which is still operating in "search" mode, and less likely to present a "you've been shot at" indication to an RWR or ESM system.

TR1 wrote:Oh and while we are at it,
https://i.servimg.com/u/f43/15/83/83/58/0210.jpg
Never really figured out what this was. Read it was Russian Kalchuga-M? Any details?

Kolchuga/Kolchuga-M are passive ESM sensors designed to triangulate airborne emitters. Lets you track targets without having to turn on radars and give the game away.

I was under the impression Kalchuga was Ukranian, who is the producer of Russian Kolchuga-M?

Thanks for all the info btw.

The RV reenters the Earth's atmosphere at velocities of up to Mach M 25, as the RV passes through the atmosphere, atmospheric friction decelerates it to below M 1,

Mach 25 would equate to about 8km/s which is about right.

Atmospheric friction slowing the warhead to mach 1 however is way off... Scud missiles modified to extend their range by Iraq were coming in at about mach 7 at ranges of 500-600km and a scud is a big empty missile when it falls... all its fuel tanks are empty so by volume it is actually quite light.

In comparison nuclear missile warheads are very compact and therefore relatively dense and very efficient aerodynamic shapes to minimise speed loss.

If Patriot could engage ICBM warheads why couldn't it defeat Scud warheads?

More importantly how did Patriot get developed at a time when there was an ABM treaty in force?

The simple answer is that while it travels in space at about 8km/s it doesn't slow down all that much in the air and hits the ground at something like 7.5km/s.

So, given the speed of the targets the complex can engage, and the huge booster section, would the 9M82 of the S-300V be the most potent (pre-S-400) anti-aircraft missile Russia had...at least within its engagement range, that I guess was generally lower than contemporary PMU systems?

The two stage design of the SA-12A and the SA-12B was largely for speed rather than range.

Right, that's what I mean, due to the speed advantage within the admittedly smaller engagement envelope (compared to S-300PM) would the S-300V not be more potent, because of the energy advantage?

Or are the 5V55 and 48N6 better suited for maneuvering targets?

Needless to both are potent, but I am just musing here.

SOC,Garry

No. At 100,000 feet, the RV is still moving at about Mach 20. Speed drops off from there due to the ballsitic coefficient of the RV design.

Mach 25 would equate to about 8km/s which is about right.

Atmospheric friction slowing the warhead to mach 1 however is way off... Scud missiles modified to extend their range by Iraq were coming in at about mach 7 at ranges of 500-600km and a scud is a big empty missile when it falls... all its fuel tanks are empty so by volume it is actually quite light.

In comparison nuclear missile warheads are very compact and therefore relatively dense and very efficient aerodynamic shapes to minimise speed loss.

If Patriot could engage ICBM warheads why couldn't it defeat Scud warheads?

More importantly how did Patriot get developed at a time when there was an ABM treaty in force?

The simple answer is that while it travels in space at about 8km/s it doesn't slow down all that much in the air and hits the ground at something like 7.5km/s.

The two are same because air friction generates drag which is afactor in the Ballistic coefficient equation (beta factor is adomenator in the equation ) so when friction increase leads to drag increase so ballistic coefficient decrease and warhead speed decrease ,




I don't know what is the recent values of beta for new russian ballistic missile but beta=5000 will be the best where the warhead speed at 0 altitude will be 3.048 km/s (over 8 Mach ) and this is the best value achieved from the previous diagram ,

So Garry i think this is the only beta value that make patriot can't intercept Topol-M , but we shouldn't forget that as beta increase , the entry temperature increase ,so new more efficient methods should be used to decrease this temperature ,and we are talking about Patriot-pac 3 not PAC 2 .

Anyone know any Approximate BETA values for the new world ballistic missiles specially for russia and iran ?

The two are same because air friction generates drag which is afactor in the Ballistic coefficient equation (beta factor is adomenator in the equation ) so when friction increase leads to drag increase so ballistic coefficient decrease and warhead speed decrease ,

Ballistic coefficient doesn't change that much with speed.

A good example of ballistic coefficient changing to greatly slow down an object would be some guy jumping out of a plane. As he falls he is both accelerated by gravity at 9.8m/s/s, so if we round it up to 10m/s/s we can say that after the first second he is falling at 10m/s and after the 3 seconds falling at 30m/s, but because of his volume and weight and shape or his ballistic coefficient he will accelerate up to what is called his terminal velocity.

This is the speed at which his body can fall through the air before the force of drag through the air equals the force of gravity pulling him down... if he stands up or falls head first he will fall much faster than if he falls spread eagle horizontally with his arms and legs out.

When he pulls the rip cord on his parachute all of a sudden his volume increases so the drag of the air goes up several hundred times and he rapidly slows down to a safe to land falling speed.

An aerodynamically shaped object with ablative material on its front that prevents it from burning up and disintegrating will have very very low drag and will not be effected anywhere near as much by the atmosphere slowing it down.

The Space shuttle on the other hand had about 2 billion dollars spent on it to find a perfect shape to act as an air brake to allow it to slow down as it fell so it could be landed like an aircraft.

I have seen photos of reentry vehicles coming into the target area and they appear on the photo as lines of light because they move so fast they appear as blurs kms long.

http://lenta.ru/news/2012/04/13/cruise/

In the Russian Far East, S-300 crews first time fire against real Kh-55 cruise missiles launched from Tu-95MC and other type of targets together with Buks and Osas. It seems cruise missiles are such bit treat for competent and modern air defense.

medo wrote:http://lenta.ru/news/2012/04/13/cruise/

In the Russian Far East, S-300 crews first time fire against real Kh-55 cruise missiles launched from Tu-95MC and other type of targets together with Buks and Osas. It seems cruise missiles are such bit treat for competent and modern air defense.

In a simulated air defense exercise air defense systems need to shoot down various simulated

cruise missiles flying at different speed and attitude and ballistic missiles of different types at

the same time. On the other hand this is the first time I have read real cruise missiles have

being shoot down at the same time.

Factory "Avangard" where the missiles are produced:

Well basically your Bomb should be very dense, longest conical shape with sharpest tip possible taking into account the heat concentration in the tip for it to fall at fastest velocity. And warhead with a high Ballistic coefficient starts deceleration at much lower altitude as well.

If a bomb is spherical only then it will decelerate to a velocity below mach 1. If it is long cone (falling tip first), it will keep falling at very high velocity. Even if your cone is with a blunted tip as missiles are, it will still fall at very high speed.

Lets say if bomb cone diameter is 1m. And its length is 3m and it's weight is 500kg(Payload + extra) with a blunt cone shape. Now if my calculations are correct, its theoretical Ballistic Coefficient should be around 10800kg/m^2. It will be traveling at 2.5 km/s(9000km/h) when it hits ground, if it was 25000km/h(Mach 20) at 100km altitude.

www.militaryparitet.com/ttp/data/ic_ttp/1115/

This missile in picture 40N6 ?

Nah, those are just 48N6 rounds.

it is very strange that they did not show a model 40N6 9M96 shown many years ago...

It's not THAT strange. They only just displayed the R-33S, and they've never displayed the 53T6.

and they've never displayed the 53T6.

But there are many photos of 53T6 missile during the tests.

So Russia now product all version of 48N6 missile ? or only 48N6DM version?

Better version video from Avangard factory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAmGrSF60z4

I have also another question for S-400 now. 40N6 missile has ABM capabilities? Or it is intended only for AWACS?

I have also another question for S-400 now. 40N6 missile has ABM capabilities?

If it will have ABM capabilities ? ??

The increase in performances offered by "40N6" will be ALMOST COMPLETELY in its ABM capabilities !! The other main target are hypersonic maneuverable offensive means

Or it is intended only for AWACS?

This is another of the titanic idiocies often found in open media ( mostly the western ones ), ALL missiles operative or to be S-400 have all the capability to destroy very ,very, very easily the most maneuverable aircraft now operative worldwide ,retaining contextually even an huge edge of unused potential !! (aerodynamic targets are considered ,by far, the most easy targets among all those engageable by the system).

Well it's been quite while

Mindstorm wrote:

Or it is intended only for AWACS?

This is another of the titanic idiocies often found in open media ( mostly the western ones ), ALL missiles operative or to be S-400 have all the capability to destroy very ,very, very easily the most maneuverable aircraft now operative worldwide ,retaining contextually even an huge edge of unused potential !! (aerodynamic targets are considered ,by far, the most easy targets among all those engageable by the system).

Aaah.. now i see why an aircraft maker in deviant art was very mad and being so cynical at me when seeing one of SAM i made have range of 400km.

err.. a question .. is 70G or above maneuverability achievable for SAM ? and more importantly will such maneuverability required for today's aerodynamic targets ?.. perhaps future UCAV which..since it's unmanned it can turn up to 10-12G or even 20.

And i ever heard that there's a rule of thumb that for a successful intercept a missile have to be capable to pull at least five times "G's" a target can...thus to intercept 9G maneuvering target the missile have to be capable of pulling at least 45G's.

The maximum maneuverability of 5V55R and 48N6E family published so far quotes around 20-30G's which.. by above mentioned "rule of thumb" equates that both missile family can only engage targets maneuvering at max 4-6 G's.

So how to get around that rule of thumb ? can guidance laws reduce the G requirements for successful intercept ?

err.. a question .. is 70G or above maneuverability achievable for SAM ?

Actually Surface to Air Missile have huge inherent advantages against interceptor air based in maintaining integer the greater maneuvering potential for end game interception .
The main reason for that is that some crucial design compromises , among which : structural stress limits, aerodynamics surfaces' s optimization and G-charge threshold and the addition of some other integrated course-correction systems (such as those dynamic gas based), are mostly dictated by the starting aerodynamic conditions at the release and by the expected variety possible trajectories of interception .

A SAM delivery happen always in an energetic neutral system and its interception trajectory, stage burn time and separation and flight pact course variations are always the most energy efficient, moreover a ground based missile has entire order of magnitude less stringent limits in order at : weight ,volumetric space available and cooling potential,all elements that codify for substantial increases, among others, in structural resilience to G solicitations and far greater warhead's destructive potential.


Naturally the design of an Air To Air missile follow completely different requirements and imply the acceptance of completely different compromises .
A similar missile could be delivered at 1000 or, instead, 16000 meters of altitude, by an aircraft cruising at 450 km/h or instead 2700 km/h , while in flat cruising, or while carrying out a 5G or ,instead, an U-turn at 5000 m. (the structural layout opted in theirs design define also the limits conditions of release present for any AAM ), against a target 3500 m higher than the shooting aircraft or one 4000 m lower against ground clutter etc..etc..; moreover the possible trajectories of interception and the linked variables of thermal variation, atmospheric rarefaction factor, compression threshold etc... are simply infinite and totally incomputable from the beginning.

The maximum maneuverability of 5V55R and 48N6E family published so far quotes around 20-30G's

No comment.

So how to get around that rule of thumb ? can guidance laws reduce the G requirements for successful intercept ?

A maneuverable/very maneuverable aircraft carrying out a successful evasive maneuver in the time window useful for initiate it ,can consistently cause a typical modern medium range air to air missile (coming at Mach 3 ) to miss by 10 - 20 meters , the same maneuver ,even if completed against a 48N6D class missile with much less "compromised" aerodynamic surfaces and coming at more than double this figure (offering therefore less than half the time window useful at complete the entire evasive maneuver ) would leave the aircraft well within the assured neutralization area of its warhead .

US ABM systems as i have noticed are based only on kinetic projectiles

Known details on S-500

http://vpk.name/news/68627_zagadochnyii_s500_izvestnyie_podrobnosti.html

George1 wrote:US ABM systems as i have noticed are based only on kinetic projectiles

and that's what SM-3 for carrying that kinetic kill projectiles to the target.

http://voutsen-cv.livejournal.com/259535.html

Great pics of an S-300 unit. Some very interesting photos of the large raised positions (the big grey structure) that are often found in these semi-permanent S-300 locations - they can mount either radar or even the launcher unit.

TR1 wrote:Some very interesting photos of the large raised positions (the big grey structure) that are often found in these semi-permanent S-300 locations - they can mount either radar or even the launcher unit.

Those are used around Moscow to elevate the 64N6 or 36D6 radars, the 64N6 commonly being found atop one of these structures. 40V6 masts are used for the 30N6 radars, and no, they do not elevate the TELs.