Questions and Ideas

And you said big warhead. So big explosion.....

victor1985 wrote:Yes but a supersonic missile has problems to steer. A subsonic one will easilly correct his flightpath so can easilly intercept the supersonic missile. That means a subsonic wired missile has some chances against a faster enemy rocket. Thinking that the steer of wired one is made by wire so thus faster would have a better trajectory and so a better intercept rate. Also if no EW can be against wired one means only a wrong calculation when the missile was maked can be. But that is hard to believe. So the probabillity of interception of such a missile is high. And what you do whit a f22 for example if none of missile lauched hit the target? Well nothing.....

It's very unlikely that a slower missile would be able to intercept a faster missile, if the faster one has any capability to manuever at all.

victor1985 wrote:Yes but a supersonic missile has problems to steer. A subsonic one will easilly correct his flightpath so can easilly intercept the supersonic missile. That means a subsonic wired missile has some chances against a faster enemy rocket. Thinking that the steer of wired one is made by wire so thus faster would have a better trajectory and so a better intercept rate. Also if no EW can be against wired one means only a wrong calculation when the missile was maked can be. But that is hard to believe. So the probabillity of interception of such a missile is high. And what you do whit a f22 for example if none of missile lauched hit the target? Well nothing.....

The problem with wireguided subsonic missiles is, they are horrible at maneuvering. Subsonic missiles are just unlikely to intercept sonic or supersonic missiles with their envelope if the missile trajectories don't head at each other, if they do not head towards each other the Wireguided subsonic missile will fail to chase the supersonic missile with bad steering.

Werewolf wrote:

TR1 wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:It never existed before getting forced out of Russia, a la Georgia, Estonia, ...

Stupidest thing I have read all day.

Your Russia strong historical revisionism is pathetic.

Ohh we found a historian...

Georgia never existed until it was "forced" out of Russia? You gonna defend that kid?

flamming_python wrote:

victor1985 wrote:Yes but a supersonic missile has problems to steer. A subsonic one will easilly correct his flightpath so can easilly intercept the supersonic missile. That means a subsonic wired missile has some chances against a faster enemy rocket. Thinking that the steer of wired one is made by wire so thus faster would have a better trajectory and so a better intercept rate. Also if no EW can be against wired one means only a wrong calculation when the missile was maked can be. But that is hard to believe. So the probabillity of interception of such a missile is high. And what you do whit a f22 for example if none of missile lauched hit the target? Well nothing.....

It's very unlikely that a slower missile would be able to intercept a faster missile, if the faster one has any capability to manuever at all.

Depends on the difference between the two speeds and the maneuvrability. Lets say the supersonic missile is very fast but low steering and the subsonic one has great steering ...the subsonic will simply steer early in flight to correct the path and go to the interception trajectory. There is a point in subsonic missile flight where the ration speed/steering matters. That point show from what to what ratio of Supersonic missile the subsonic one can intercept. There is a perfect speed/steering point of subsonic missile where a larger group of supersonic missiles whit different own ratios can be intercepted. Ofcourse all matters if the subsonic missile see early the supersonic one. That means IR and others.

Werewolf wrote:

victor1985 wrote:Yes but a supersonic missile has problems to steer. A subsonic one will easilly correct his flightpath so can easilly intercept the supersonic missile. That means a subsonic wired missile has some chances against a faster enemy rocket. Thinking that the steer of wired one is made by wire so thus faster would have a better trajectory and so a better intercept rate. Also if no EW can be against wired one means only a wrong calculation when the missile was maked can be. But that is hard to believe. So the probabillity of interception of such a missile is high. And what you do whit a f22 for example if none of missile lauched hit the target? Well nothing.....

The problem with wireguided subsonic missiles is, they are horrible at maneuvering. Subsonic missiles are just unlikely to intercept sonic or supersonic missiles with their envelope if the missile trajectories don't head at each other, if they do not head towards each other the Wireguided subsonic missile will fail to chase the supersonic missile with bad steering.

Well.....why they are so bad at steering? I mean the subsonic missile. If the message is sent trought wire at the speed of light they can easily correct path easier that INS GPS. As far as i know the supersonics have problems at steering because of high g. So....how is it?

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Actually there is a wire-guided missile used by the Osa surface-to-air missile system for the exact reason that you suggested.

Morpheus, does Russia have a naval version of such a missile?

I was thinking that if the two such "Naval Osa" missiles can be guided on different frequencies it will make hostile ECM redundant. In fact Russia can then purchase fewer Hypersonic cruise missile.

Would be very interested in seeing this wire guided Osa that Morpheus claims existsl

The main problem with solar panels and water turbines is that they generally don't generate the enormous amounts of power the rather large radars that large SAMs need to operate... which means they could only be used to charge capacitor banks or large battery arrays... in other words if you find your batteries are dead then solar charging them for 24 hours wont be much help.

A generator on the other hand is ready to turn on when needed and just requires fuel which is widely available and the complete system can be part of the vehicle design so it is always present and ready to power things when the main vehicle engine is turned off.

If you can imagine, the 1,500hp+ engine of a tank uses a lot of fuel... even when running at idle, so if you had no APU then tanks sitting waiting for the enemy to approach or the order to move needs to keep its main engine running burning enormous amounts of fuel to keep its electronics and hydraulics going. A small gas turbine APU on the other hand can be run at an optimum RPM to generate the electricity needed to keep the inside of the tank warm for the crew and the guns and optics all ready to engage any enemy that might appear... and use a fraction of the fuel the main engine will use.

Multiply that for every heavy vehicle in that unit and you save a fortune in fuel that does not need to be moved to the front along with ammo and replacement parts... it greatly reduces logistics.

In a SAM unit some of the larger vehicles are based on tanks and heavy trucks and have very powerful engines too that also consume a lot of fuel, so it makes sense for them too.

Can be maked a battery that works just whit water? Whit no electrolite? Cause in this would be changed the amount of water per second and give energy.

I say this because i finded out how electricity is producee in a battery. Basically its about atoms and their electrons. Every element has around the nucleus KLMN lairs of electrons. On every lair there can be a maximum of 2xn squared electrons. So on the K lair there are 2 electrons on L lair are 2×2 squared on M lair are 2×3 squared and so on. The stable atoms are those have 2 or 8 electrons on last lair. Others give or receive electrons to complete these lairs. In a battery at a end is a unstable situation that make electrons be passed to each atom to the wire till the other end of battery. That is why i said a battery whit water instead electrolite cause if is a permanent unbalanced force would be a permanent unbalanced flow of electrons. Just changing the water in every minute would give enormous permanent energy.

The only advantage of wire guidance is that it is a secure way of guiding a missile without emitting a guidance signal that could be intercepted or jammed.

Laser beam riding guidance is rather superior in every way and allows for faster missiles.

Viktor are you asking why US can't intercept russian supersonic or subsonic missiles ?

jhelb wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Actually there is a wire-guided missile used by the Osa surface-to-air missile system for the exact reason that you suggested.

Morpheus, does Russia have a naval version of such a missile?

jhelb,

I am not sure.

Adapting this missile for naval use wouldn't have been hard, but the big question is if there was ever a mandate to do so or not.

So far I have only heard that this missile as being affiliated with the 9A33BM3 TELAR.

I "thought" I had a picture of this missile on my machine. At this stage, I can't find it; so the only evidence of its existence that I have is the detailed specification of the missile that I know I have seen, with the specification details being numerically consistent with a subsonic modification of missiles used by Osa.

GarryB wrote:Laser beam riding guidance is rather superior in every way and allows for faster missiles.

Laser beam-riding doesn't provide for all-weather performance.

victor1985 wrote:Can be maked a battery that works just whit water? Whit no electrolite? Cause in this would be changed the amount of water per second and give energy.

Sure, you can make a mini-hydroelectric dam out of two cojoined compartments - one with water and one without. As water flows through a hole in the bottom out of the full compartment to the empty one, it would rotate the turbines which would in turn - turn some magnets around a wire - and there you go; you have electrical power. Maybe have a spring at the bottom of the empty compartment; so that it would lower as more water enters it; therefore keeping its water level below the water level of the other compartment.

Problem with this is of course is that would only receive a small amount of current from such a device and not for very long at all. Actually you don't have to use water - the denser the liquid you use the more current you will get; however the liquid can't be too viscous otherwise this contraption won't work.
Wouldn't actually be a battery either, but a mini-generator. However it would externally apeat to behave like a battery - with a finite lifetime and a rapidly falling-off amount of current as it nears the end of its 'charge'

And this belongs in the Questions & Ideas thread; not here - before a mod reminds you of it.

What reforms did Russian Armed Forces undertake after 2008? Russo-Georgian War higlighted some serious flaws, including problems with communications and low accuracy of aerial bombing (Iskanders performed greatly - way better than AF). Were these issues addressed?

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
jhelb,

I am not sure.

Adapting this missile for naval use wouldn't have been hard, but the big question is if there was ever a mandate to do so or not.

So far I have only heard that this missile as being affiliated with the 9A33BM3 TELAR.

I "thought" I had a picture of this missile on my machine. At this stage, I can't find it; so the only evidence of its existence that I have is the detailed specification of the missile that I know I have seen, with the specification details being numerically consistent with a subsonic modification of missiles used by Osa.

Ok thanks for the info Morpheus.

victor1985 wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

victor1985 wrote:Yes but a supersonic missile has problems to steer. A subsonic one will easilly correct his flightpath so can easilly intercept the supersonic missile. That means a subsonic wired missile has some chances against a faster enemy rocket. Thinking that the steer of wired one is made by wire so thus faster would have a better trajectory and so a better intercept rate. Also if no EW can be against wired one means only a wrong calculation when the missile was maked can be. But that is hard to believe. So the probabillity of interception of such a missile is high. And what you do whit a f22 for example if none of missile lauched hit the target? Well nothing.....

It's very unlikely that a slower missile would be able to intercept a faster missile, if the faster one has any capability to manuever at all.

Depends on the difference between the two speeds and the maneuvrability. Lets say the supersonic missile is very fast but low steering and the subsonic one has great steering ...the subsonic will simply steer early in flight to correct the path and go to the interception trajectory. There is a point in subsonic missile flight where the ration speed/steering matters. That point show from what to what ratio of Supersonic missile the subsonic one can intercept. There is a perfect speed/steering point of subsonic missile where a larger group of supersonic missiles whit different own ratios can be intercepted. Ofcourse all matters if the subsonic missile see early the supersonic one. That means IR and others.

Doesn't work like that

A smaller course correction by a faster missile could amount to a far larger distance difference between its original and new destination within a certain period of time; than a larger course correction but by a slower missile.

It's like the difference between a person walking and a person driving a car.
The person walking could walk for ten seconds, and then turn around the corner and walk for another 10 seconds in a different direction.
The car could ride along at 60 mph for 10 seconds, then go around only a slight bend and keep going at the same speed in its new bearing.

In 20 seconds time you'll find that the car is a lot further from where it would have been had it not turned into the slight bend, than the person walking is far from where he would have been had he not turned the corner and instead carried on straight ahead.

The fact is that a slower missile would not be able to compensate for even the slightest change in course/manuever of a faster missile; unless it truly has a lot of time to spare - however in that case a manuever by the faster missile closer to the interception point would definately make the slower missile's task impossible; it just won't be able to get to the new interception point in time.

A slower missile can only really intercept a faster one - if the faster one's flight path and speed are completely predictable and thus the interception point can be accurately calculated ahead of time without needing any sudden course changes during flight.
A ballistic trajectory is an example of such a predictable flight path and speed; if the ballistic missile's profile is known, and what speeds it will attain at which stages of its flight; as well as its destination - then that's enough information to be able to calculate an interception point for your missile; even a slower one.

Of course, modern ballistic missiles are not as predictable as that; unknown factors likely include variance in terms of when their various stages are engaged, the behaviour of their manueverable re-entry vehicles and some like the Iskander, are not entirely ballistic and do have some capacity for manuevers too.

GarryB wrote:The only advantage of wire guidance is that it is a secure way of guiding a missile without emitting a guidance signal that could be intercepted or jammed.

Laser beam riding guidance is rather superior in every way and allows for faster missiles.

The notion of a wire-guided Osa is absurd and quite frankly stupid.

Once again I would love to see an ounce of proof it exists.

TR1 wrote:

GarryB wrote:The only advantage of wire guidance is that it is a secure way of guiding a missile without emitting a guidance signal that could be intercepted or jammed.

Laser beam riding guidance is rather superior in every way and allows for faster missiles.

The notion of a wire-guided Osa is absurd and quite frankly stupid.

TR1, plz explain why you think that the concept of a wire guided Osa is unintelligent?

I would think that wire guided Osa has its merit primarily because it is by & large immune to hostile electronic countermeasures. I do agree however, that range for such a missile can become an issue.

To a certain extent I have to disagree with GarryB on the merits of Laser beam riding primarily because  laser beam riding is generally limited to a short-range both for surface to air missiles as well as anti tank missiles. Apart from that and more importantly countermeasures to Laser beam riding missiles are widely available. I cannot insert a link because I am new but I have a number of URLs that showcases the countermeasures against Laser beam riding missiles.

Think of lightning... you need an area short of electrons and an area with an abundance of electrons.

When the sky has too much electrons and the ground is deficient, or vice versa you will get a lightning bolt to correct the ballance.

If you have a bowl of water where is the item with too little or too many electrons and where are those electrons going to go?

Moving to Q&A thread.

Laser beam-riding doesn't provide for all-weather performance.

Extreme weather conditions could effect performance, but no different from wire guided... if the missile can't detect the laser beam through the weather at hand then I would suggest a wire guided system would not detect the flare in the tail of the missile and therefore the guidance system would fail as it could not see the missile in relation to the target and generate course corrections for the missile.

The notion of a wire-guided Osa is absurd and quite frankly stupid.

Once again I would love to see an ounce of proof it exists.

Sounds a little strange to me too, but there have been plenty of documented cases where wire guided ATGMs have been used against helicopters hovering or on the ground quite successfully... so I don't see an issue in terms of it being effective.

To a certain extent I have to disagree with GarryB on the merits of Laser beam riding primarily because  laser beam riding is generally limited to a short-range both for surface to air missiles as well as anti tank missiles.

10km range for the HE variant of Kornet-EM for use against aerial and ground unarmoured targets, Vikhr-M for use against targets 16km away, 10km for SOSNA-R... ranges of 8km for Krisantema using laser beam riding or radio command guidance and radar target and missile tracking.

Wouldn't call any of these short ranged.

Note the SALH Hellfire uses a laser that travels up to 16km... ie from helo to target and back to 8km range... which can greatly be effected by the surface of the target.

Compared to a wire guided weapon the main advantage is not only much better range but also significant speed... Wire draggers move at between 120mps and about 200mps, while the slowest LBR is Kornet-EM at 320mps, with Vikhr-M moving at 610 mps and SOSNA-R moving at about 1100mps. Smoke popped from a tank that lands 30m in front of the vehicle wont effect the missile till it has entered the smoke cloud so it wont even begin to effect the missile till it has nearly hit the target... with a Hellfire the laser spot will move from the surface of the tank to the cloud of smoke and will likely move with the moving shape of the cloud leading to an offset aim point and therefore even if the target tank moves behind its cloak of smoke the LBR will likely get some sort of hit with its very high speed, while the SALH will likely be misdirected and miss.

Apart from that and more importantly countermeasures to Laser beam riding missiles are widely available. I cannot insert a link because I am new but I have a number of URLs that showcases the countermeasures against Laser beam riding missiles.

As mentioned popping smoke is not that effective, and most DIRCMs try to attack the missile... which works with SALH, but with the LBR looking back at the launch vehicle, and the beam being so low power the target may not know they are under attack till impact, they are not so efficient either.  If you could mention any other methods I would be interested to hear them.

Not that LBR is perfect, but it doesn't get much recognition in the west because it is not widely used except for the Starstreak... A British missile.

It is very simple for the operator as most Russian systems have an autotracker to keep the crosshairs on the target once locked so in a way they consider it fire and forget.

GarryB wrote:

Laser beam-riding doesn't provide for all-weather performance.

Extreme weather conditions could effect performance, but no different from wire guided... if the missile can't detect the laser beam through the weather at hand then I would suggest a wire guided system would not detect the flare in the tail of the missile and therefore the guidance system would fail as it could not see the missile in relation to the target and generate course corrections for the missile.

But the wire guidance doesn't need to be optical. The problem is the [optical] laser in the laser beam-riding. Radar beam-riding is, of course, all-weather.

Actually the wire-guided missile supposedly used by Osa is guided very similarly with the other command guided missiles used by Osa, i.e., radar guidance with the secondary option of using optical guidance. The only difference is using a wired link vs a radio link; just the communication method is different.


On the topic of radar beam-riding, the problem is the low accuracy that can be achieved, and the source of the problem is the large wavelength of the radars in comparison with the optical wavelengths.

To a certain extent I have to disagree with GarryB on the merits of Laser beam riding primarily because laser beam riding is generally limited to a short-range both for surface to air missiles as well as anti tank missiles. Apart from that and more importantly countermeasures to Laser beam riding missiles are widely available. I cannot insert a link because I am new but I have a number of URLs that showcases the countermeasures against Laser beam riding missiles.

If you think Laser Beam riders have short range than Wire guided missiles are pee shooting ranges. Vikhrs can be fired with 15km from Su-25 and 12km from Helicopters at 1-2km altitude. While LBR missiles are supersonic and can maneuver without worrying of cutting or breaking the wire they maintain a much higher Anti-Aircraft capability than Wire-guided missile ever could. Palma uses also Laser Beam Riding missiles and it is CIWS light version of Kahstan.

The notion of a wire-guided Osa is absurd and quite frankly stupid.

Once again I would love to see an ounce of proof it exists.

Sounds a little strange to me too, but there have been plenty of documented cases where wire guided ATGMs have been used against helicopters hovering or on the ground quite successfully... so I don't see an issue in terms of it being effective.

The only problem with wire-guided SAM are that they are bound to slow and low flying targets and with low and slow i mean really low and slow which would only helicopters or Jets of older generations. Wire-guided SAM's do probably exist but have a very merit right for existence on todays standards for SAM's and currently all russian SHORAD systems have optical guidance as a back up in case of Electronic Warfare.