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

GarryB wrote:The US and Israel are going to Sht themselves every time the Russian export agency mentions new contracts for this system.

It is optimised for very low flying to very high flying aerodynamic targets and sub strategic ballistic targets and with S-500 missiles and sensors/command modules attached targets outside the atmosphere and strategic ballistic targets too.

Imagine a Kirov vessel with 500 launch bins for these.... and another 500 launch bins for Kh-101 and Kh-102 and Brahmos and Club....

Too bad it's at least 5 years off from any sort of production :v

I dont think S-400 will be exported soon and very doubtful the BIG
Missile will be exported any sooner not atleast in a decade since they
have huge potential internal order from Russian armed forces.

I would expect the most likely first export customer will be India if they want it.

Of course the S-400 system could simply be a subset of the radar vehicles plus the two small missiles (120km and 40km range), with other missile options being added later.

With a range of 600km the S-500 bypasses the MTRF treaty because it is not designed to hit ground targets.

Too bad it's at least 5 years off from any sort of production :v

Assuming it has the performance specs released for it and can match the heights suggested for the large S-400 missile... ie 600km+ range and 185km altitude, and an ability to defeat mach 7+ targets... it is basically a mobile ABM system with most likely some sort of naval counterpart too.

Will be interesting to hear the US squeal... there are no limitations at all on ABM systems.

It wouldn't take much to take a leaf out of the USN book and add a stage and produce something like SM-3, there are significant advantages to using multiple stages in increasing performance.

Perhaps there will be an S-500A and a S-500B, with one an ABM system and the other an anti intel satellite system for taking on satellites in non circular orbits.

Found SOC comment on this subject thought will be interesting to share

Regarding the S-400, if the 40N6 is big enough, 185 km in altitude isn't out of the question. Your footprint for a TBM intercept at that altitude is not going to be 400 km in range, though, there is a tradeoff for using the booster to get you higher.

Ultimately, 185km is irrelevant to anything other than a ballistic missile. Military-relevant satellites like GPS and ISR sats use high-LEO to MEO orbits up to around 20,000 km. "Near-space" comes off more as a marketing term than anything else.

Given that the 48N6 was already tested at a range of 400km, the 40N6 may well be used not for long range but for very high altitude. Which will, of course, be rendered irrelevant when the dedicated ABM/ASAT S-500 is fielded.

Who says it has to? A typical TBM target isn't maneuvering. You could develop a MaRV as a countermeasure, but MaRVs on platforms that small typically use maneuver capability for accuracy not evasion. So, if the TBM target isn't deviating from its purely ballistic flightpath, all you need is tracking radars with good resolution and a missile that can accurately maintain its flightpath, i.e. not wobble or anything. Then it's a case of point and shoot. They don't need to bother with HTK, they've done a good deal of work on directional warheads for the anti-missile role. That'll allow you to use the same 40N6 round for long-range or high-altitude intercepts.

Although, if and when it appears, I assume it might be used more for high altitude. The 48N6 trials in the 80's proved that they could modify the trajectory of a stock missile and get it out to 400 kilometers with a few minor airframe and software changes. That's why I wouldn't be suprised if the S-400's 48N6DM already has the ability to kill something at 400 km. Now, only an idiot is firing at something maneuverable (fighter-type target) beyond 250 km or so, so it's only really useful against large, cooperative targets like an ISR platform. But, if it has the ability to reach 400 km, that increases the engagement range for a maneuverable, non-cooperative target significantly over the older 48N6D. The 48N6D probably could hit something like that at around 120-150 km of it's max 200 km range, the 48N6DM with a 400 km reach could likely hit it at around 250 km, which is the range they give for the system.

People often assume that "oh, the range is 400 km, it can kill anything at that range," and they'd be making fools of themselves. Physics doesn't work that way. Missiles operate using physics, not fanboyisms or propaganda.

To comment on some other things given that the software doesn't allow multiple quotes (or I'm not doing it right, which is entirely possible):

-The 9M96/9M96D are designed as HTK first, proximity fused warhead second. The motors are for added maneuvering near endgame. Notice that the canards are also hinged.

-40N6 by itself isn't odd, but given the 48N6's capability to hit 400 km, I wouldn't be shocked if someone mistyped 48N6! Evidence points to the 40N6 being a new missile though, but still...you have to wonder.

GarryB wrote:

I dont think S-400 will be exported soon and very doubtful the BIG
Missile will be exported any sooner not atleast in a decade since they
have huge potential internal order from Russian armed forces.

I would expect the most likely first export customer will be India if they want it.

Of course the S-400 system could simply be a subset of the radar vehicles plus the two small missiles (120km and 40km range), with other missile options being added later.

With a range of 600km the S-500 bypasses the MTRF treaty because it is not designed to hit ground targets.

Too bad it's at least 5 years off from any sort of production :v

Assuming it has the performance specs released for it and can match the heights suggested for the large S-400 missile... ie 600km+ range and 185km altitude, and an ability to defeat mach 7+ targets... it is basically a mobile ABM system with most likely some sort of naval counterpart too.

Will be interesting to hear the US squeal... there are no limitations at all on ABM systems.

It wouldn't take much to take a leaf out of the USN book and add a stage and produce something like SM-3, there are significant advantages to using multiple stages in increasing performance.

Perhaps there will be an S-500A and a S-500B, with one an ABM system and the other an anti intel satellite system for taking on satellites in non circular orbits.

I really doubt the Russians are even on the verge of approaching viable ground based ASAT weaponry, hell, the Chinese are farther ahead than they are.

I really doubt the Russians are even on the verge of approaching viable
ground based ASAT weaponry, hell, the Chinese are farther ahead than
they are.

Hahahahahahahaha... that is incredibly funny... or are you being serious?

Anyone who has the technology and capability to launch a satellite can destroy a satellite.

Simply launching an Energyia rocket into low earth orbit with its 100 ton payload a big plastic bag of sand in the opposite orbit of the target.

Every 45 minutes the expanding cloud of sand will become more and more likely to impact the satellite in question... at double orbital speed... more than 14km/s even a single grain of sand will convert a fully functioning satellite into scrap metal... getting hit by thousands of grains will make it unrecognisable.

The Soviets had 23mm cannons designed to fire in space, and also developed a small missile designed for protecting Soviet satellites from US interference. The US Space shuttle was the ideal platform to fly in and capture a Soviet satellite and bring it back down to earth for study. To prevent that all sorts of weapons were designed to protect them... and if a Soviet satellite can shoot at a space shuttle it can shoot at other targets nearby... things at the same height are all moving at the same speed so a gram of cold gas propellent would be enough to move a missile thousands of kms (though not very rapidly) to hit a target. Objects higher up will be faster and lower down will be slower.
Any rocket used to launch a satellite could be used to destroy one.
The Russians use ICBMs near retirement to put satellites in orbit commercially... the payload could just as easily be nails or small metal cubes.

Regarding the S-400, if the 40N6 is big enough, 185 km in altitude isn't
out of the question. Your footprint for a TBM intercept at that
altitude is not going to be 400 km in range, though, there is a tradeoff
for using the booster to get you higher.

It would be unlikely to have a targeting ceiling and a max horizontal range in one shot as manouvering to hit a target at height will reduce energy for range.
It would likely be one or the other.
The earlier 48N6 had a range of 400km but it flew a calculated lofted trajectory with the control surfaces locked and basically zoom dived on the target from a very steep trajectory.
A target like AWACs has little look directly up capability and would likely not even see it coming, and falling from hundreds of kms means it will be falling very fast.

Ultimately, 185km is irrelevant to anything other than a ballistic
missile. Military-relevant satellites like GPS and ISR sats use high-LEO
to MEO orbits up to around 20,000 km. "Near-space" comes off more as a
marketing term than anything else.

Most incoming warheads will have ablative shields to protect them from the heat of re-entering the atmosphere... hitting them at 185kms altitude will expose the internal components to reentry temperatures and forces that will likely be more effective in completely destroying the target.
Of course radioactive material will be spread over a much wider area because of the height of the interception, but if you are lucky high altitude wind streams might spread it so thin as to be not needing a clean up, or not making a clean up viable.
Of course the increase in radiation is far preferable to a detonation.

Given that the 48N6 was already tested at a range of 400km, the 40N6 may
well be used not for long range but for very high altitude. Which will,
of course, be rendered irrelevant when the dedicated ABM/ASAT S-500 is
fielded.

I have said as much, but there will likely be a use for high altitude interception with a system that is not a strategic ABM system (as opposed to a theatre ABM like S-300V, S-300P, S-400 et al).
In other words there will be places in Russia and also likely eventual client states that need a theatre ABM with a high altitude engagement capability but that does not need a weapon as powerful as S-500.

For instance placing S-500 in Abkhazia might step on a few toes, whereas the 120km and 40km range missiles of S-400 might be more than appropriate.

They don't need to bother with HTK, they've done a good deal of work on directional warheads for the anti-missile role.

Indeed... at the speeds involved a claymore burst of heavy fragments at enormous speeds projected into the path of the target is more than enough to kill it reliably, plus it means that against a range of targets it will be effective too. For instance high altitude balloons hit by a HTK warhead at 200,000ft will receive a hole less than a metre across straight through it that might penetrate three or four internal bags of lifting gas which will cause the airship to descend a little.
Having a claymore shower of fragments travelling at enormous speeds will shred a large area and do far more damage. An airship is obviously a worst case scenario.

Now, only an idiot is firing at something maneuverable (fighter-type
target) beyond 250 km or so, so it's only really useful against large,
cooperative targets like an ISR platform.

The main problem would be detecting fighter sized targets at that range, but a dual IR sensor in the missile means the 400km range steep diving attack is perfectly possible... a steeply diving hypersonic missile with passive guidance could be very deadly to even the most nimble fighter... especially with a 150kg warhead with directional fragmentation.
The MON-50 only weighs 2 kgs and is effective at killing people at 50-70m. The MON-200 weighs about 25kgs and can kill at 200m. Imagine a 150kg directional mine... that is already travelling at about mach 6 so you don't need a lot of HE... just a dispersal charge to send the fragments in the right direction.

-The 9M96/9M96D are designed as HTK first, proximity fused warhead
second. The motors are for added maneuvering near endgame. Notice that
the canards are also hinged.

After the rocket fuel is burned the side thruster rockets on the 9M96 and 9M96D are at the centre of gravity for the missile so they don't direct the nose of the missile to steer it on a new corrected heading towards the target... they blast the entire missile sideways to jump from its current path a few metres in any direction to get the missile closer to the targets path and the directional warhead does the rest if it doesn't hit it directly.
The missile will be slowly spinning in flight so several rockets could be fired at the same angle as the rocket turned to increase the distance sideways the missile jumps into the path of the target.

-40N6 by itself isn't odd, but given the 48N6's capability to hit 400
km, I wouldn't be shocked if someone mistyped 48N6! Evidence points to
the 40N6 being a new missile though, but still...you have to wonder.

They have talked about a new 400km range missile long enough to work out it is not the tests performed on the 48N6 years ago with locked control surfaces and lofted trajectories.

I really doubt the Russians are even on the verge of approaching viable
ground based ASAT weaponry, hell, the Chinese are farther ahead than
they are.

Up until recently they were bound by the ABM treaty not to play with such technologies. China had no such restriction. I am sure in terms of practical systems the Russians will catch up rapidly enough.
They are still working on a satellite launcher based on the Mig-31 which could very easily be modified for the opposite purpose.

Russian Patriot wrote:Well techinally yes state budgets are in the red. Examples New York, Calfornia, Florida, Arizona etc
Even Obama had to beg for the Repbulicans/ Tea Party to accept compromise on the national budget on Friday.

Sorry not the right forum , but can some one explain to me how does US manage to stay float with a very high public debt even though its more then its GDP and yet manage to keep geeting more then $600 billion dollars of defense budget ?

Latest AW&ST has a very detailed article on new US EW system thats getting deployed called SBRIS , it is a very capable EW system deployed by US so far.

More details in the issue http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416165036&e=true

Lets hope Russia is not lagging far behind.

Interview:Operational Strategic Command Aerospace Defense (USC EBA), Lieutenant-General Valery Ivanov

Triumphal Brand

Austin wrote:

Russian Patriot wrote:Well techinally yes state budgets are in the red. Examples New York, Calfornia, Florida, Arizona etc
Even Obama had to beg for the Repbulicans/ Tea Party to accept compromise on the national budget on Friday.

Sorry not the right forum , but can some one explain to me how does US manage to stay float with a very high public debt even though its more then its GDP and yet manage to keep geeting more then $600 billion dollars of defense budget ?

The majority of the U.S. public debt, despite popular belief, is owed to the U.S. population itself. China only owns about 6% of our public debt.

IronsightSniper wrote:The majority of the U.S. public debt, despite popular belief, is owed to the U.S. population itself. China only owns about 6% of our public debt.

Shouldnt really matter who owns it those are just politcal statements on China , huge debts means you end up paying huge interest and affects budget for a long time to come.

http://www.armstrade.org/includes/periodics/news/2011/0408/13407808/detail.shtml

Almaz-Antey produced and have ready to deliver to air force units some more regiments of S-400. I wonder how is production of new Tor-M2U going.

SOC has a nice write up on S-300 and S-400 in his latest issue of I&A check link below

S-300P/400

Thanks... interesting read so far... except on page one where he calls the SA-6 "GUIDELINE".



The last page shows a land based training system for carrier operations, and based on the aircraft type I would say it was the Saki based training area in the Ukraine, but Russia was building its own facilities so it could be a new system in Russia too.

Russia to deploy 2nd S-400 air defense regiment near Moscow

A second regiment equipped with advanced S-400 Triumf air defense systems will be put on combat duty near the Russian capital on May 15, the Defense Ministry said.

The first S-400 regiment has been deployed in Electrostal, also near Moscow, as part of the air and missile defense network around the Russian capital.

The S-400 (SA-21 Growler) air defense system is expected to form the cornerstone of Russia's theater air and missile defenses by 2020.

The S-400 system can engage targets at a maximum range of up to 400 km at an altitude of 40,000-50,000 meters. The system uses a range of missiles, optimized for engaging ballistic and cruise missiles.

An S-400 air defense regiment consists of two or three battalions equipped with four systems each. Russia is planning to arm 56 battalions with S-400 systems by 2020.

MOSCOW, May 13 (RIA Novosti)

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110513/163998509.html

A nice article that compared Aster/SAMPT , PAC-3 ERINT and 9M96E2

link

Very interesting.

Using the individual drawings as posted in the mp.net thread Austin links to in another SAM thread...



This vehicle doesn't seem to have a loading crane on it so I expect this is the launch vehicle. The missiles turned 90 degrees to make them vertical, and therefore most likely being the vertical launch naval missiles.



This is Morfei... is the rear portion on a turntable?
I suspect this is only the radar vehicle but Morfei is supposed to be a small missile. Could half the cabin be a couple of rows of vertical launch tubes?
Does the large radar fold up  and sit above the roof of the cabin to get a clear field of view. This drawing is probably the most confusing.



This is clearly one of the many radar vehicles with the large flat antenna array at the front and the radar cabins at the rear. It says Triumpator-M so it is for the S-500.




This appears to be the Vityaz launch vehicle with presumably the missile launch bins in the front of the cabin on the rear of the truck with the manned control area at the rear (based on the position of the door). Previous models showed a smaller truck and horizontally stored missiles that needed to be erected before launched vertically.



And finally the Vityaz radar vehicle with the large flat radar array on the rear cabin. This might also double as the unit command module with the front cabin containing communications and control equipment for the battery commander.

From this image we can see in the top left that this radar vehicle supports S-300, S-400, and S-500 systems, which basically means the S-500 could be located with either S-300 or S-400 batteries.

The bottom drawing I like because it suggests the S-500 is a large missile and I find that to be very good news. First of all it means growth potential for the future... up to an including use as a potential anti satellite weapon.
Second it means they are likely still retaining a warhead rather than going for hit to kill.
Third it means the higher performance rumours of 600km range anti aircraft capability and 200km altitude figures are much more likely... if not now conservative figures.

This makes it perhaps more of a GBI type weapon instead of a SM-3 equivelent.

Info on GBI interceptor: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/gbi.html

The Russians have had plenty of experience with ABM interceptors they have been building and deploying them around Moscow for decades.

Very true. In the next years we will see a lot of interesting new complexes.

This become very interesting. On one hand West is slowly abandon their air defenses and cancel new projects, on the other hand Russia and China invest a lot of resources in air defense. Airplanes also became more and more expensive, so their number will also decrease. I think in next decades air defense will become very decisive, because air forces will become equally small. Ground forces with air defense will operate far more freely than ground forces without it. If air force have small number of very expensive airplanes, they don't want to risk them against very capable air defense.

GarryB wrote:

From this image we can see in the top left that this radar vehicle supports S-300, S-400, and S-500 systems, which basically means the S-500 could be located with either S-300 or S-400 batteries.

The bottom drawing I like because it suggests the S-500 is a large missile and I find that to be very good news. First of all it means growth potential for the future... up to an including use as a potential anti satellite weapon.
Second it means they are likely still retaining a warhead rather than going for hit to kill.
Third it means the higher performance rumours of 600km range anti aircraft capability and 200km altitude figures are much more likely... if not now conservative figures.

This makes it perhaps more of a GBI type weapon instead of a SM-3 equivelent.

Info on GBI interceptor: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/gbi.html

The Russians have had plenty of experience with ABM interceptors they have been building and deploying them around Moscow for decades.

I've been doing some "truckology" based calculations from these pictures.

The resulting estimation for Triumphator-M missile dimensions is the following:

Max. Diameter - a little above 1,2 m

Length - a little above 10 m

These dimensions are very similar to those of the 9M82 missile.
A simple explanation for this could be that Triumphator-M is in reality some sort of 9M82 derivative.
In turn this could mean that there will be a common "big missile" in PVO's S400/S500 complex
and in the Army's S300V4 complex.
This big missile wold be able to dialogue with any hardware of any of these systems.
Anyway this is just a guess. I could be completely wrong...

I think... and I also think the Russian military agrees with me when looking at their reasons for transferring the PVO to the Space Forces branch of their military... that precision guided munitions including low flying and high and fast flying cruise missiles using stealth and/or speed to penetrate air defences will be the future risk and that while the number of manned platforms reduce and become more capable the number of unmanned platforms including in space will only increase.

Air defence is no longer going to be good enough... you will need to be able to defend the space above as well... which is where the S-500 fits in.

This big missile wold be able to dialogue with any hardware of any of these systems.
Anyway this is just a guess. I could be completely wrong...

Interesting assessment.

To operate with S-300 and S-400 systems the wheeled chassis would be ideal, but to operate with the S-300V and later S-300V models it should also come in a tracked version as well.

They did say it would be based on an existing S-300/S-400 design I believe, but then they also said it would be smaller, and then they said it would be a mobile version of the latest model ABM missiles used around Moscow.

Different people give different leaks and it is hard to know which is the most accurate... a problem compounded by translation errors.

In comparison to your figures the GBI has a range of about 5,000km and can reach altitudes of up to 2,000km. It is a three stage weapon designed to intercept ballistic targets mid-flight.

Of course it doesn't need anywhere near that performance.

It is a bit like some people think a Mig-31 can't intercept an SR-71 because the SR-71 is too fast. The point is that the Mig-31 like the S-500 is near the place the SR-71 or ballistic missile wants to go so neither interceptor has to catch up with their target... their target is coming to them. Regarding the ability to actually kill an SR-71 there is a reason the Mig-31 sometimes carries the R-40TD IR guided air to air missile. The IR signal from an SR-71 can be detected by a Mig-31s IRST at over 120 miles... in fact both the Mig-31 and Mig-25 can detect an SR-71 with IRST before they can detect it with radar. Because of the high speed of the SR-71 the Mig pilot just needs to raise the nose and get a lock with its missiles and fire and they have a very good chance of a kill with those big IR guided missiles.
Against normal targets they wouldn't get a IR lock till they were very close so when they are scrambled to intercept bombers or other subsonic planes they carry 4 R-60s instead.

Looking at the angle this photo was taken I might think it was a photo taken from an American satellite, but while it is a very small photo it does show that the two different S-300V missiles (the large and the small missiles) are actually the same missiles with different sized boosters attached to them.
The missiles themselves are actually quite small and are designed for very high speed.

I actually have the feeling that the S-300 and S-400 missiles are bigger physically.

I would think that it is therefore possible to have an S-300/S-400 based missile with a large booster stage fitted might end up looking like the S-500 because the tube has to allow for the size of the booster stage and the overall shape of the missile could be triangular for max speed.

GarryB wrote:
The missiles themselves are actually quite small and are designed for very high speed.

I actually have the feeling that the S-300 and S-400 missiles are bigger physically.

I would think that it is therefore possible to have an S-300/S-400 based missile with a large booster stage fitted might end up looking like the S-500 because the tube has to allow for the size of the booster stage and the overall shape of the missile could be triangular for max speed.

That is also a possibility. It is almost certain that whatever family it is derived from, it will feature a large booster stage.

I was just remarking a coincidence in the size one could estimate from the pictures with the 9M82 overall size.

Klingsor wrote:

I've been doing some "truckology" based calculations from these pictures.

The resulting estimation for Triumphator-M missile dimensions is the following:

Max. Diameter - a little above 1,2 m

Length - a little above 10 m

These dimensions are very similar to those of the 9M82 missile.
A simple explanation for this could be that Triumphator-M is in reality some sort of 9M82 derivative.
In turn this could mean that there will be a common "big missile" in PVO's S400/S500 complex
and in the Army's S300V4 complex.
This big missile wold be able to dialogue with any hardware of any of these systems.
Anyway this is just a guess. I could be completely wrong...

This is interesting .. if your estimation on that "Triumfator-M" is correct then the performance of the missile Vs aircraft would be similar as my design here

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/159/2/a/iradia_freya_long_range_sam_by_stealthflanker-d3idi11.png

My calculations are based on method at "Tactical Missile Design 2nd Edition" and "Rocket Propulsion Elements"
it 1,2 m booster would generate over 132.000 Kgf of thrust (assume 6 seconds burn and 3300 Kg of propellant, similar as 9M82) and will propels the missile at mach 5 and altitude of some 4500m, then the second stage will work.. thrust profile will likely be different as my design use Gelled propellant (IRFNA and Hydrazine) as fuel ... but i think missile apogee of some 70km and potential flight range of 250km should be achievable .. the missile will have peak speed of some mach 8,5 during sustain phase. During glide, depending on time and angle the missile can still have Mach 8 speed to target .

In aerodynamic performance, the missile will have Drag coefficients (Cdo) of some 0,24-0,28 ..pretty nice figure i think .. and a lift to drag ratio of some 3,2 (assume AoA glide of 5 degrees).

as for performance against ballistic missile ..well it will be similar (although i suspect more as my calculations resulted in higher interception altitude than currently published figure of S-300V's 9M82 (40km and 40.000 m AGL) ..my figure shows 47.000m and over 50km in range)

That is also a possibility. It is almost certain that whatever family it is derived from, it will feature a large booster stage.

I rather suspect three stages would be required.

There is talk that this is an endo/exo atmospheric intercept missile that can hit aircraft at 600km range, and targets at least 200km up.

Above 100km it is in practical terms space so control fins and surfaces just wont work, but after dropping two stages of solid fuelled rocket material the final stage will be relatively low mass and will either use a directed warhead or side thruster rockets timed to blast the interceptor into the path of the incoming threat.

The directed warhead being mostly metal material likely a bundle of 1 square centimetre cubes with a very small HE charge and multiple fuses... at the last milisecond the seeker tracking the incoming threat projects its future position and initiates the fuse that will send 150kgs of metal cubes into the path of the incoming object. The closing speed will be something like Mach 20 or 6400m/s which will give the metal cubes plenty of energy to shred the target. The advantage of such a warhead is that it works well with aircraft as well when it is set off from further away because an aircraft is a much larger target.

The point is that the warhead bus is the last stage and so it really needs two other stages... one to get it up and moving, and a second to get it to the target area with the final warhead bus manouvering in space for final positioning of the warhead to intercept.

Stealthflanker, keep in mind that the S-300V was never really intended as a long range SAM, it was an Army weapon that was intended to deal with steep diving ballistic weapons aimed at army formations and bases.
There is no reason why the lofted trajectory of the S-400 could not be applied to the S-300V series, and in fact being a two stage weapon the S-300V should offer much better performance because of very high speed and lower drag.

GarryB wrote:

I rather suspect three stages would be required.

There is talk that this is an endo/exo atmospheric intercept missile that can hit aircraft at 600km range, and targets at least 200km up.

Above 100km it is in practical terms space so control fins and surfaces just wont work, but after dropping two stages of solid fuelled rocket material the final stage will be relatively low mass and will either use a directed warhead or side thruster rockets timed to blast the interceptor into the path of the incoming threat.

Couldn´t a 2nd stage with TV + forward side-thrusters do much of the 3rd stage job with less complexity? (the ASTER approach)