S-300/400 vs MIM-104 Patriot comparison

How efficient S-300 and S-400 is compared to the MIM-104 Patriot?

You need to keep in mind that these missiles travel very quickly, considerably faster than any rifle bullet.
Also ballistic and cruise missiles generally follow a very constant path and only perform small manouvers to remain on target.
As long as the tracking radars get an accurate fix on the target and the computers make accurate predictions as to where the target will be when the missile gets there the SAM does not need to be super manouverable.
S-300s have a sophisticated fusing technique that means the explosion and fragments are directed toward the target, and the warhead is something like 150kgs so a near miss can still result in a kill.

Patriot is a very good missile for bringing down aircraft, which was what it was designed for.
For ballistic missiles it didn't have the right guidance algorithms or fusing of the warhead.
As a result although Patriots repeatedly hit Scuds in the sense that the Patriot manouvered towards the incoming weapons and detonated their warheads because of the speed of the modified scuds it was the engine section that was shredded, which would have brought down an aircraft, but a ballistic missile is just a falling lump of metal with a warhead on the end.

In comparison it took an average of 32 Patriots per modified scud and even then the modified scuds still generally hit with warheads intact.

Unfair comparison?

Not really. These S-300s are not the latest models and are the sort that would have been in Soviet service at the time the PAC-2 Patriots were in service.

Engaging ballistic targets was always part of the design of the S-300 and S-300V series.

The PAC-3 patriots are focussed on ballistic missiles and were not very effective against the low flying antiship missiles the Iraqis fired.

To hit ballistic targets the PAC-3 requires a satellite channel that is not cheap.

S-400 can hit ballistic missiles with a range of about 2,500km which means an incoming speed of about 4.8km per second.

GarryB wrote:S-400 can hit ballistic missiles with a range of about 2,500km which means an incoming speed of about 4.8km per second.

Small correction , the S-400 can hit target missile corresponding to a range of ~ 3,500 km ( 4.5 - 4.8 m/s )

The Antney-2500 a derived from S-300V can hit target corresponding to a range of ~2,500 km ( 3 - 3.5 m/s )

The A-2500 was unsucessful promoted to India as ABM system , Wiki tell me Venezuela is buying the new A-2500

A very interesting fact about Patriot PAC-3 is its performance capability is broadly identical to Aster 30 and 9M96E2 and this is from Russian designers themself

http://pvo.guns.ru/book/fakel/new_gen.htm

PAC-3

Aerodynamic targets: range km  100 , altitude km  25
Ballistic Targets : range km 22 - 40 ,   altitude km  15 - 20

Generally in Marketing and Brochure PAC-3 capability is understated at altitude of 15 km and Range at 20 km , giving it an impression its limited range/altitude performance.

if you look at Aster-30 and 9M96E2 performance figures they are all broadly comparable.

Thats an American way of winking and blinking  

Couple of interesting PAC-3 Videos

PAC-3 Missile Test      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT6DzaG_658
PAC-3 Upgrade Potential https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hrZ4d1KxGY
Patriot System          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfLxOvaLZho

Thats an American way of winking and blinking

Not really.

Giving the performance figures for ballistic targets only is them just being honest for a change.

Every weapon has a performance envelop and that envelope is generally arrived at by setting limits and expectations.

For instance the accuracy of an assault rifle is generally given as the distance you are more likely than not to hit a human standing target.

If the US gave the performance figures for aerodynamic targets, it would be like giving the effective range of the SVD sniper rifle as 1,300m. That is the effective range against large objects like trucks and soft skinned vehicles that are rather larger than human sized targets.

PAC-3 is about as good as early model S-300Vs, but not as widely deployed.

S-300V has no combat experience, but the whole Patriot family has no effective positive combat experience either. When first used in Desert Storm, it failed against the modified Scuds. After an upgrade when it next went to war it failed against low flying modified anti ship missiles.

Each time the US came up against an enemy that recognised its weakness and exploited it... modified Scuds vs PAC-2s = small win for Iraq, then antiship missiles vs PAC-3s = small win for Iraq again... not enough to make any difference, though the scuds almost got the result of getting a reaction from Israel and therefore removing arab states from the coalition of the willing.

Perhaps the problem is that the Russian designers are expecting rather more from the missile than the US engineers actually managed to get out of it... or they want more money to design newer stuff.

Looking at hardware including weights and thrust etc etc they might be expecting rather more performance than the US has managed to achieve based on their own achievements.

Also keep in mind that the 9M96E2, the larger of the small missiles, if you take the lower figures (more accurate) given for PAC-3, which are closer to the official figures the US gives out, the 9M96E2 beats it in every regard... even more so because it is a proper medium range SAM where as PAC-3 is an optimised ATBM missile.

It is rather likely Vityaz will be based on the 9M96E2 so lets wait to see its specs.

BTW it would be interesting to see what the 9M96Es performance is against ballistic targets, and I would also be interested in a cost comparison for the missiles too.

Actually the Patriot 1 used in Gulf War had no ATBM capability so its no surprise it performed badly in Gulf War , it was more of political tool and a PR that Patriot gained the reputation of ATBM or Scud Killer which it was not , Not the missile fault at all , it was just good at anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile role.

PAC-2 extended its range and was more optimised for anti-cruise missile role at long ranged , it too did not have any significant ATBM capability.

PAC-3 was designed from ground up at ATBM , with the ability to intercept missile corresponding to a range of 1000- 1200 km.

The early model S-300V ( A model ) still retains higher energy with an average speed of Mach 3.5 compared to mean speed of Mach 2.9 for Patriot although with some what similar range , the Giant beats the PAC-3 in all cardinal parameters.

The performance figures of 100 km at alt of 25 km is against aerodynamic target , for the same the 9M96E2 has corresponding figure of 120 km and 30 km alt , some what better but roughly comparable , both missile have same mean speed of ~ Mach 3 ,so PAC-3 ERINT is roughly comparable to 9M96E2.

As far as 9M96E goes its average speed is M 2.5 and range for aerodynamic target is 40 km and altitude of 20 km , I can bet it is capable of intercepting BM corresponding to a range of atleast 300 km or TBM class.

Patriot specially PAC-3 did quite well in that it did intercepted AL-Samoud and Abdali missile , considering Iraq was banned by UN having missile of range greater than 250 km. So its really not Patriot PAC-3 fault that it did not encounter a 1000 km range missile , the reason why it could not intercept cruise missile is because the patriot batteries radar was looking up as it was not expecting a cruise missile attack , it was a surprise attack and there is nothing any one could do if your radar was not expecting it and told to look else where.

Over all PAC-3 did quite well against the challanges thrown against it in real combat , something no other American ABM or Russian ABM can claim till date.

Austin wrote:Actually the Patriot 1 used in Gulf War had no ATBM capability so its no surprise it performed badly in Gulf War , it was more of political tool and a PR that Patriot gained the reputation of ATBM or Scud Killer which it was not , Not the missile fault at all , it was just good at anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile role.

PAC-2 extended its range and was more optimised for anti-cruise missile role at long ranged , it too did not have any significant ATBM capability.

PAC-3 was designed from ground up at ATBM , with the ability to intercept missile corresponding to a range of 1000- 1200 km.

The early model S-300V ( A model ) still retains higher energy with an average speed of Mach 3.5 compared to mean speed of Mach 2.9 for Patriot although with some what similar range , the Giant beats the PAC-3 in all cardinal parameters.

The performance figures of 100 km at alt of 25 km is against aerodynamic target , for the same the 9M96E2 has corresponding figure of 120 km and 30 km alt , some what better but roughly comparable , both missile have same mean speed of ~ Mach 3 ,so PAC-3 ERINT is roughly comparable to 9M96E2.

As far as 9M96E goes its average speed is M 2.5 and range for aerodynamic target is 40 km and altitude of 20 km , I can bet it is capable of intercepting BM corresponding to a range of atleast 300 km or TBM class.

Patriot specially PAC-3 did quite well in that it did intercepted AL-Samoud and Abdali missile , considering Iraq was banned by UN having missile of range greater than 250 km. So its really not Patriot PAC-3 fault that it did not encounter a 1000 km range missile , the reason why it could not intercept cruise missile is because the patriot batteries radar was looking up as it was not expecting a cruise missile attack , it was a surprise attack and there is nothing any one could do if your radar was not expecting it and told to look else where.

Over all PAC-3 did quite well against the challanges thrown against it in real combat , something no other American ABM or Russian ABM can claim till date.

Its up to radar not that much the missile. If you have radar that can track missile from 2000km away you wont need missile flying Mach 4+ you can have Mach 2 missile and still have plenty of time to calculate interception point and time for your missile to get there. Thats why for instance India is buying India Green Pine radar. But at the same time Green Pine is no good for aircraft much less cruise missiles.

Actually the Patriot 1 used in Gulf War had no ATBM capability so its no surprise it performed badly in Gulf War , it was more of political tool and a PR that Patriot gained the reputation of ATBM or Scud Killer which it was not , Not the missile fault at all , it was just good at anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile role.

Did it intercept any cruise missiles?

It is quite true that it was badly misrepresented as being a wonder weapon that fully countered the modified Scuds, when in actual fact it likely added to the damage.

Before the Gulf War the B-2 was promoted as the ideal response to Soviet truck mounted ICBMs... it was supposed to cruise around over the Soviet Union finding and destroying truck mounted strategic missiles.
After Desert Storm where they had complete air control, over a tiny strip of land (the range of the modified scuds greatly limited the number of places they could be launched from and still hit targets in Israel and Saudi Arabia), where they had no external interference with satellites and could even put special forces on the ground and they still didn't kill a single Scud launcher before it launched its missile, and all through the conflict they launch a dozen missiles a week or more.

I rather suspect that if Desert Storm had not happened that the Patriot would be "capable of hitting ballistic targets like Scud".

BTW the Russian missiles of the S-300 family had capability against ballistic weapons in the early 1980s, so clearly the Soviets recognised the threat that the west clearly ignored.

PAC-2 extended its range and was more optimised for anti-cruise missile role at long ranged , it too did not have any significant ATBM capability.

A feature of cruise missiles is that their flight route is usually planned to take advantage of natural land features like hills, and will generally attack a target from a completely unexpected direction... which sort of makes the PAC-2s and PAC-3s angled launcher bins very very stupid.

PAC-3 was designed from ground up at ATBM , with the ability to intercept missile corresponding to a range of 1000- 1200 km.

Yes, a missile optimised for ATBM, based on a missile optimised for general use... how to spend money US style.

Funny how the PAC-2 was so successful on State Department press releases, yet an entirely new missile had to be developed to counter a weapon that Saddam was forced to get rid of... which he did.

Adapting the fuse on the PAC-2 to hit the payload of the incoming threat would be too simple and cheap and suddenly having all your standard long range SAMs able to hit aerodynamic targets and ballistic targets... NO... they must spend lots of money and completely redesign the missile to make a separate type of missile that is optimised for ballistic targets!!!

The early model S-300V ( A model ) still retains higher energy with an average speed of Mach 3.5 compared to mean speed of Mach 2.9 for Patriot although with some what similar range , the Giant beats the PAC-3 in all cardinal parameters.

And was in service in 1988.

The performance figures of 100 km at alt of 25 km is against aerodynamic target , for the same the 9M96E2 has corresponding figure of 120 km and 30 km alt , some what better but roughly comparable , both missile have same mean speed of ~ Mach 3 ,so PAC-3 ERINT is roughly comparable to 9M96E2.

Except when you increase the radius of a circle by 1/3rd you increase its volume by 300%...

PAC-3 is not comparable as it is an optimised ATBM system, while the 9M96E2 is a medium range SAM with ATBM capabilities.

Patriot specially PAC-3 did quite well in that it did intercepted AL-Samoud and Abdali missile , considering Iraq was banned by UN having missile of range greater than 250 km.

That is like saying the 125mm main gun of the T-90AM did quite well in tests because it penetrated the equivalent armour of a Bradley IFV.
In the real world the PAC-3 was designed to intercept modified scuds and it has yet to be tested in that role.

It has been tested in battle and it failed, because it failed to stop low flying cruise missile like threats.

It failed because it is a one trick pony and the US underestimated the situation.

the reason why it could not intercept cruise missile is because the patriot batteries radar was looking up as it was not expecting a cruise missile attack , it was a surprise attack and there is nothing any one could do if your radar was not expecting it and told to look else where.

And if those cruise missiles had instead been Su-24s with 8 tons of bombs and an attitude what then?

A bit like the German invasion of Russia... I mean who thought it got cold in Russia in winter...

Over all PAC-3 did quite well against the challanges thrown against it in real combat , something no other American ABM or Russian ABM can claim till date.

Sorry that is a rubbish statement. Are you saying the Mig-21 is a better aircraft than an F-22 or F-35 because it has seen combat and the two 5th gen fighters have not?

Equally the Patriot has shot down more friendly aircraft than enemy aircraft, and failed to stop modified scuds and cruise missiles... not combat experience I would want to write home about.

Its up to radar not that much the missile.

The radar is very important, and good accurate tracking data is vital, but at the end of the day you need your missile to fly to the right place and blow up the correct way. Against a subsonic fighter then hitting it in the tail or centre of mass is a kill... the expanding field of fragments from your warhead will be moving at about 4-5 times the speed of sound and will likely break the structure of the target so it can no longer fly.
Against a modified scud that is likely falling as fast as the fragments of your warhead are moving is a completely different problem... it is like shooting at a bird with a shotgun... if you aim at the bird then you will miss... you have to aim for the position the bird will be when your pellets reach it.

In the case of shooting down a missile you also have to aim to hit the nose and not the body, so that means aiming well ahead of the missile with your warhead fragments, which means fusing and precise manouvers in the terminal phase.

Not easy, but didn't really require a whole new missile design.

GarryB wrote:Yes, a missile optimised for ATBM, based on a missile optimised for general use... how to spend money US style.

Huh? PAC-3's ERINT is a wholly new missile, much smaller than a PAC-1 or PAC-2 round.

GarryB wrote:Adapting the fuse on the PAC-2 to hit the payload of the incoming threat would be too simple and cheap and suddenly having all your standard long range SAMs able to hit aerodynamic targets and ballistic targets... NO... they must spend lots of money and completely redesign the missile to make a separate type of missile that is optimised for ballistic targets!!!

The GEM and GEM+ modifications do improve the fuze to aid in intercepting ballistic targets. The ERINT missile takes this a bit further by being designed as a hit-to-kill weapon with a supplementary warhead.

Viktor wrote:Its up to radar not that much the missile. If you have radar that can track missile from 2000km away you wont need missile flying Mach 4+ you can have Mach 2 missile and still have plenty of time to calculate interception point and time for your missile to get there. Thats why for instance India is buying India Green Pine radar. But at the same time Green Pine is no good for aircraft much less cruise missiles.

Viktor agreed radar plays a key role but interceptor too plays its part , if it was only the question of radar detecting and tracking a ballistic missile object at long ranges , then we could easily have SA-3 doing ABM role , Energy ,HTK capability and manouveribility are key aspect for any missile doing the ATBM interception role.

Green Pine is a L band AESA radar , it can pretty much track aircraft and cruise missile as much as Ballistic Missile but if the Radar is deployed in such a way that it looks up and scans for BM target while it is blind to say 0-5 km altitude becuase of the way it has been deployed then ofcourse any cruise missile can utilise the blind spot to its advantage.

Garry there is no point in arguing just for sake of it , specially in new year

PAC-3 as SOC said is a new missile optimised for BM target since it has HTK capability , The small warhead of 12 kg is most likely for Air Breathing targets.

The 9M96E series also have the same feature as PAC-3 with HTK and a larger warhead.

PAC-3 did well against the threat it faced and since BMD is an untested commodity in actual conflict , Patriot has many first to its credit , the first to fail miserably and first to do it well

The reason why US is not displaying its ranges and greatly understating its capability is perhaps becuase in export model PAC-3 is downgraded or PAC-3 is being sold at ATBM system which is much to do with marketing capability and not PAC-3 performance drawback.

I think you will find the 12kg "warhead" of the PAC-3 is an umbrella type structure that flicks open at the last second to impact and is a metal latice or chain to increase hit probability.

The 24kg warhead of the Russian missile has a directed energy warhead, which means it is probably a block of small metal cubes with a HE charge covered in detonators. At the instant of interception the explosive charge is likely detonated in such a way as to direct the small metal cubes into the path of the incoming threat.

The reason why US is not displaying its ranges and greatly understating its capability is perhaps becuase in export model PAC-3 is downgraded or PAC-3 is being sold at ATBM system which is much to do with marketing capability and not PAC-3 performance drawback.

The whole purpose behind the PAC-3 is ATBM... if a customer wants a SAM they would sell them PAC-2 Patriots instead.

PAC-3s performance against aerodynamic targets is irrelevant as the radar orientations will mean unless those aerodynamic targets are flying at 20km they wont be detected anyway.

GarryB wrote:
PAC-3s performance against aerodynamic targets is irrelevant as the radar orientations will mean unless those aerodynamic targets are flying at 20km they wont be detected anyway.

It all depends on how the radar is oriented towards its target , its its a rotating and non rotating type etc.

Generally PAC-3 radar will be supplemented by other radar , that initially does the long range tracking and then allocates the target to the batteries , so different batteries and firecontrol radar can be oriented to do different task , some can be oriented for ATBM task , some for Air Breathing targets and some mix of both.

You can check some operational configuration thats made for Indias newest Akash SAM
you will get an idea on how different layers feeds data to SAM

http://akashsam.com/operational.htm

Different radar http://akashsam.com/radar.htm

Also check the latest video , its the only newest Ramjet SAM that being developed any where , these days no one goes for ramjet sam but it has its own merits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YpHtSQmfxM

The speed of ramjet is quite impressive

The point about Patriot is also its selling ability , these days selling a SAM that just anti-aircraft job might not make a good marketing point considering Patriot is so optimised for ATBM role , So they are more focussed in selling its core capabilities and as you said if some one needs a anti-aircraft missile they can always buy a PAC-2 or Aster or Sparrow etc from West.

Dealing with Air Breathing targets is just an easy day job for PAC-3 , they realised painfully during in latest Gulf War where PAC-3 shot few Tornado and F-16 in friendly fire , one guy was lucky and he shot a HARM knowing patriot was painting him and was saved. The HARM knocked down Patriot Radar

Austin wrote:

Viktor wrote:Its up to radar not that much the missile. If you have radar that can track missile from 2000km away you wont need missile flying Mach 4+ you can have Mach 2 missile and still have plenty of time to calculate interception point and time for your missile to get there. Thats why for instance India is buying India Green Pine radar. But at the same time Green Pine is no good for aircraft much less cruise missiles.

Viktor agreed radar plays a key role but interceptor too plays its part , if it was only the question of radar detecting and tracking a ballistic missile object at long ranges , then we could easily have SA-3 doing ABM role , Energy ,HTK capability and manouveribility are key aspect for any missile doing the ATBM interception role.

Green Pine is a L band AESA radar , it can pretty much track aircraft and cruise missile as much as Ballistic Missile but if the Radar is deployed in such a way that it looks up and scans for BM target while it is blind to say 0-5 km altitude becuase of the way it has been deployed then ofcourse any cruise missile can utilise the blind spot to its advantage.

Austin wrote:Viktor agreed radar plays a key role but interceptor too plays its part , if it was only the question of radar detecting and tracking a ballistic missile object at long ranges , then we could easily have SA-3 doing ABM role , Energy ,HTK capability and manouveribility are key aspect for any missile doing the ATBM interception role.

Well I believe THAAD in conjunction with X-band radar meant to be placed in

Czech republic would be able to do just that. Knock out ICBM. Just like modify

SM-3 knock out satellite flying at over 8km/sec. With the help of few other

ships and with the right placing compensating for SM-3 small reach. In the same

way S-500 will be installed with Russian ABM concept.

Manouveribility is of less importance since missile in ABM role does not need to

case a maneuvering missile but just to be at the right place at the right time.

If its not than interception is failed. Maneuvre in a sense that should get the

missile to the given position is all that is needed.Energy is important when you

have smaller radar (like mobile ones) providing less time for reaction.

Austin wrote:Green Pine is a L band AESA radar , it can pretty much track aircraft and cruise missile as much as Ballistic Missile but if the Radar is deployed in such a way that it looks up and scans for BM target while it is blind to say 0-5 km altitude becuase of the way it has been deployed then ofcourse any cruise missile can utilise the blind spot to its advantage.

It is L band AESA but made for BM targets and can not track anything other than

BM and thats why Arrow system have no capabilities against fighters or cruise

missiles. Green Pine radar tracks only targets flying at over 3000 m/sec.

It all depends on how the radar is oriented towards its target , its its a rotating and non rotating type etc.

The Patriot system uses an inclined angled launcher... so i would assume that if the aerial threat comes from an unexpected direction then launching the missile in the opposite direction and having it need to turn 180 degrees just after launch will negatively effect its range performance.

Dealing with Air Breathing targets is just an easy day job for PAC-3 , they realised painfully during in latest Gulf War where PAC-3 shot few Tornado and F-16 in friendly fire , one guy was lucky and he shot a HARM knowing patriot was painting him and was saved. The HARM knocked down Patriot Radar

The ease with which the Patriot battery was defeated with a HARM missile is not something to crow about.
This suggests an Su-35 flying a low flight profile armed with Kh-58 (AS-11) 120km range ARMs, and three Kh-59M (AS-18) land attack missiles could easily take out a Patriot battery...

Fire off the Kh-58 to take out the primary radar, and then fly 3 Kh-59Ms in to hit the missile launchers and control vans...

Well I believe THAAD in conjunction with X-band radar meant to be placed in

Czech republic would be able to do just that. Knock out ICBM. Just like modify

SM-3 knock out satellite flying at over 8km/sec.

THAAD is a bit like S-300V but with a much larger interception volume. Both can intercept lower end IRBMs, but are not able to defend against ICBM speed targets.

But if i understand little russian , the range is 240 km against aerodynamic target and 60 against BM , interception altitude of 27 km , max target speed is 4800 km corresponding to a BM with a range of 2500 - 3500 km.

Not bad , that makes me wonder why do they need Big Missile to do the same job ? Just a longer range to do the same job does not justify building the 40N6.

That is Triumf... the standard large missile.

The "big missile" flies a ballistic path and can "fall" on targets 400km distant... targets like enemy AWACS aircraft and JSTARS and inflight refuelling aircraft that think they are safe.

GarryB wrote:PAC-3s performance against aerodynamic targets is irrelevant as the radar orientations will mean unless those aerodynamic targets are flying at 20km they wont be detected anyway.

Not too sure about that. The AN/MPQ-65 can control both MIM-104 series and ERINT missiles at the same time.

Austin wrote:I dont know what missile is this under S-400 series

http://pvo.guns.ru/images/expo/maks07/said/pvo/s400/s400002.jpg

But if i understand little russian , the range is 240 km against aerodynamic target and 60 against BM , interception altitude of 27 km , max target speed is 4800 km corresponding to a BM with a range of 2500 - 3500 km.

Not bad , that makes me wonder why do they need Big Missile to do the same job ? Just a longer range to do the same job does not justify building the 40N6.

That'd be the 48N6E3. Frankly I don't know why they bothered with the 40N6 too much either. Fakel got the 48N6 out to 400 kilometers during a test and were able to recapture and guide it at the end of the ballistic portion of the flight. I've always wondered if 40N6 wasn't a mistranslation of 48N6 in that regard, implying a 48N6 variant optimized for midcourse ballistic flight. If that isn't the case, then it wouldn't suprise me if the 40N6 is a redesignated, modified 48N6 round either. At any rate they've clearly had the technology to get a SAM out to 400 kilometers for about 20 years, which makes the development timeline of the "40N6" all the more curious.

Ok here is what my friend Arun shared with me regarding Missile Velocity versus Range Diagram.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/userfiles/image/Missile_velocity_vs_range.jpg

If you look at it closely the max target speed of 48N6E3 which is 4.8 km/sec , clearly corresponds to a missile with a range of ~ 3000 km.

So just to make some sense on where different ATBM stands.

Missile: 48N63 ; Target Speed: 4.8 km/sec ; Target Missile Range : 3000 km
Missile: S-300V (Gladiator) ; Target Speed: 3 km/sec ; Target Missile Range : 1000 km
Missile: S-300V (Giant) ; Target Speed: 4.5 km/sec ; Target Missile Range : 2500 km
Missile: Antey-2500 ; Target Speed: 4.5 km/sec ; Target Missile Range : 2500 km
Missile: Patriot ; Target Speed: 3 km/sec ; Target Missile Range : 1000 km

Expected Target Speed for 3,500 km range missile is around 5.1 - 5.2 km/sec , So if THAAD , 40N6 and S-300V4 claims to intercept a missile corresponding to a range of 3,500 km , it is intercepting a target speed of 5200 m/sec

S-500 with its ability to intercept a target of 7 km/sec can intercept an ICBM with a range of 10,000 Km.

SOC wrote:That'd be the 48N6E3. Frankly I don't know why they bothered with the 40N6 too much either. Fakel got the 48N6 out to 400 kilometers during a test and were able to recapture and guide it at the end of the ballistic portion of the flight. I've always wondered if 40N6 wasn't a mistranslation of 48N6 in that regard, implying a 48N6 variant optimized for midcourse ballistic flight.

True but that 400 km is against an aerodynamic target and perhaps its a JSTARS type slow one . The challange of intercepting a 400 km air breathing target and a 3500 km BM at very high altitude would be quite different.

If that isn't the case, then it wouldn't suprise me if the 40N6 is a redesignated, modified 48N6 round either. At any rate they've clearly had the technology to get a SAM out to 400 kilometers for about 20 years, which makes the development timeline of the "40N6" all the more curious.

As you have seen from the link above a 3,500 km range missile will have a target speed of 5.2 km/sec , to intercept such target for one they need a better missile then what the 48N6 can do.

They certainly need a much better radar that can keep track of such target in high altitude and range and provide an intercept solution for multiple targets keeping large number of tracks.

If 40N6 indeeds intercepts a BM with a range of 3500 km at an altitude of 165 km and has a range of 400 km then its certainly is in a league of its own over 48N6 and the back end work on radar improvements etc will easily take more then a decade of work.

How long did US took to develop the THAAD and its associated Radar and other stuff without any issue with funding ?

The ex head of Almaz-Antey clearly mentioned that there was funding issue on 40N6 which slowed it down and plus they were also long delays associated in finding the right target to test the 40N6 missile.

Clearly it means what ever target they used to test the 48N6 or S-300VM is not sufficient to test the 40N6 and over all funding issue and ofcourse the complexity involved in developing the new missile radars etc.

True but that 400 km is against an aerodynamic target and perhaps its a JSTARS type slow one . The challange of intercepting a 400 km air breathing target and a 3500 km BM at very high altitude would be quite different.

At the end of the day the biggest problem with a BM target is its speed... if it decides to turn late in its trajectory then the interception point shifts an enormous distance almost instantly and it really depends on the position of the interceptor missile, the accuracy of the tracking and data communication system as to whether it can adapt its flight profile to the new interception point.

For a slow moving target the issue becomes their manouverability compared to yours... the faster your interceptor missile travels the more distance it can cover to allow for a last minute manouver.

Basically side thrusters and directional warheads means a slow target might be able to turn much more extreme turns but will not be able to put enough distance between its new location and the calculated intercept point to escape... if it turns too early the interceptor missile has more time to calculate a new intercept point and manouver the interceptor to the new intercept location... if it turns too late then it will still be inside the kill box... though it still might change the result from a kill to severe to minor damage.

As you have seen from the link above a 3,500 km range missile will have a target speed of 5.2 km/sec , to intercept such target for one they need a better missile then what the 48N6 can do.

Every system has a performance envelope, but that does not mean the system cannot be used against targets outside its performance envelope. SA-7s have hit targets at relatively high altitudes... well above their supposed effective ceiling.

It is not that they can't, but that they are less effective outside their envelopes.

They certainly need a much better radar that can keep track of such target in high altitude and range and provide an intercept solution for multiple targets keeping large number of tracks.

The precision of the radar is critical, and the ability to track small RCS targets... not all BMs are like the Scud... some have separating warheads that can be quite small targets.

The ex head of Almaz-Antey clearly mentioned that there was funding issue on 40N6 which slowed it down and plus they were also long delays associated in finding the right target to test the 40N6 missile.

IRBMs are banned, so they would have had to have used an old ICBM... perhaps without using all its fuel to get the required reduced range and speed.

Regarding your suggestion that the PAC-3 is pretty good based on your own performance chart:

So just to make some sense on where different ATBM stands.

Missile: 48N63 ; Target Speed: 4.8 km/sec ; Target Missile Range : 3000 km
Missile: S-300V (Gladiator) ; Target Speed: 3 km/sec ; Target Missile Range : 1000 km
Missile: S-300V (Giant) ; Target Speed: 4.5 km/sec ; Target Missile Range : 2500 km
Missile: Antey-2500 ; Target Speed: 4.5 km/sec ; Target Missile Range : 2500 km
Missile: Patriot ; Target Speed: 3 km/sec ; Target Missile Range : 1000 km

Expected Target Speed for 3,500 km range missile is around 5.1 - 5.2 km/sec , So if THAAD , 40N6 and S-300V4 claims to intercept a missile corresponding to a range of 3,500 km , it is intercepting a target speed of 5200 m/sec

S-500 with its ability to intercept a target of 7 km/sec can intercept an ICBM with a range of 10,000 Km.

Put more in context the S-300PMU1 and S-300PMU2 could intercept 2.8km/s targets to 40km range and 25km altitude and aerodynamic targets to 150 and 200km respectively, so the PAC-3 ATBM is barely better than the Russian PAC-2 equivalent at intercepting ATBMs...

The PAC-2 was a failure in Desert Storm... the US knew the Soviets had lots and lots of ballistic missiles and clearly did nothing about that threat. The Soviets fired more than 1,000 Scuds during the war in Afghanistan... there was simply no question they would use ballistic missiles of all types during war and for the development period of the Patriot there were other weapons including the Scaleboard and Spider systems that would warrant an ATBM feature of the Patriot.

The kneejerk reaction to that failure was to custom design and build the PAC-3, primarily for use against a country the US had already forced the withdrawl from service of the weapons the PAC-3 was supposed to counter.

The well publicised development and deployment of the PAC-3 Patriots clearly led the Iraqis to focus on low flying anti ship based cruise missiles... much like expensive ABM systems in europe would likely lead Iran to develop low flying cheap cruise missiles that can be launched from container ship rather than ICBMs.

It was all a tremendous waste of money and resources... but that is how the US MIC gets by... it has to fund its lobby groups somehow.

GarryB wrote:The Patriot system uses an inclined angled launcher... so i would assume that if the aerial threat comes from an unexpected direction then launching the missile in the opposite direction and having it need to turn 180 degrees just after launch will negatively effect its range performance

Here is a pic from Saudi Patriot battery. Need to face threat when a threat can come from any direction is a obvious disadvantage in comparison with S-300. Basically you just need to fly in from different direction to score a kill.


Pic from SOC blog

GarryB wrote:Put more in context the S-300PMU1 and S-300PMU2 could intercept 2.8km/s targets to 40km range and 25km altitude and aerodynamic targets to 150 and 200km respectively, so the PAC-3 ATBM is barely better than the Russian PAC-2 equivalent at intercepting ATBMs

The 48N6E2 missile of S-300PMU2 series is capable of intercepting target corresponding to a maximum speed of 7500 km/h or 2083 m/sec , that corresponds to a missile with a range of ~ 500 km.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-300PMU2-Favorit.html

Patriot PAC-3 can do much better at 3 km/sec

A more close rival of PAC-3 is the S-300V series smaller Gladiator missile that can intercept target travelling at 3 km/sec

One question for SOC , During 1991 Gulf War there was not much success in finding Scud TEL , I think if i recollect not a single Scud TEL was destroyed on ground.

But what about Enduring Freedom , Iraq did launch Al-Samoud , Abdali BM which were intercepted by PAC-3 , but did USAF or Special ops managed to destroy any TEL of these BM on ground ?

GarryB wrote:It was all a tremendous waste of money and resources... but that is how the US MIC gets by... it has to fund its lobby groups somehow.

Garry I would suggest lets not get into this US bashing game and stick to technical discussion , MIC all over the world are just like that US is no exception .....all MIC will exaggerate the threat and would then propose or built a system that would exaggerate its own capabilities.

US has more money then rest of the world combined so the MIC there will have more incentive , Russia or India has less money so they have less incentive but in the end all MIC play the same game.

Found something on Patriot performance in recent gulf war

Check the book " The Iraq War: strategy, tactics, and military lessons " on Google Books and check the topic "The Role of Patriot" ..... gives you some idea how patriot performed.

Plus check this Patriot Score Card http://www.armscontrol.org/print/1279