Iskander-M/K (SS-26 Stone):

Let's switch it up a little- S-300V vs Tochka, and vs Iskander?

Sujoy wrote:David's Sling or Iron Dome are not designed to stop an Iskander M . They will fail miserably . They can intercept Grad rockets , and that's about it .

NATO's preferred choice would be the Arrow 3 or THAAD to intercept the Iskander M .

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120117/170796159.html

Leading manufacturers of ABM systems in the West have made the word "intercept" so garbled in order to facilitate their marketing propaganda that more often than not the paying public believes that every single cruise or ballistic missile can be successfully destroyed.

THAAD have no chances as it intercepts missiles in space and its manoeuvreing capability is basically reserved for hit-to-kill vehicle in outer space not quasi-ballistic trajectory.

Arror-3 is some kind of monstrous child of Patriot and THAAD which did not still prove itself on tests being able to intercept only most
simple targets way below Iran missile lvl.

I agree with what you said. Israel Sling is GRAD capable missile and thats where story ends.

Viktor wrote:THAAD have no chances as it intercepts missiles in space and its manoeuvreing capability is basically reserved for hit-to-kill vehicle in outer space not quasi-ballistic trajectory.

Arror-3 is some kind of monstrous child of Patriot and THAAD which did not still prove itself on tests being able to intercept only most
simple targets way below Iran missile lvl.

As I have stated in my earlier post that the term "interception" has become very dicey thanks to marketing efforts of certain Defense contractors.

I am NOT saying THAAD can intercept Iskander ( though LM/ Raytheon maintains that THAAD can defeat ballistic missiles of short to intermediate range and they have highlighted this aspect extensively in the Middle East where UAE is a customer.)neither am I saying that Arrow 3 can ( they may or they may NOT but that depends on a whole lot of calculations ). I am saying these are plausible options for NATO as of now.

Do bear in mind that earlier this year $1.2 billion was allocated to the Iskander program so that it can counter even more effectively US missile defense systems .

Sujoy wrote:David's Sling or Iron Dome are not designed to stop an Iskander M . They will fail miserably . They can intercept Grad rockets , and that's about it .

NATO's preferred choice would be the Arrow 3 or THAAD to intercept the Iskander M .

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120117/170796159.html

Leading manufacturers of ABM systems in the West have made the word "intercept" so garbled in order to facilitate their marketing propaganda that more often than not the paying public believes that every single cruise or ballistic missile can be successfully destroyed.

Sujoy can you give me some more concrete arguements plz.
I mean it's pretty obvious that they're wrong but these non-people don't take no for an answer and are stubborn, I need something to shut them up.

Do they have any concrete argument supporting David's Sling and ISkander?

THeir argument is basically "It was desighned with Iskander in mind" which proves absolutely nothing.
What kind of targets are they using for testing? SCUD-mimicks are no Iskander.

TR1 wrote:Do they have any concrete argument supporting David's Sling and ISkander?

THeir argument is basically "It was desighned with Iskander in mind" which proves absolutely nothing.
What kind of targets are they using for testing? SCUD-mimicks are no Iskander.

Yeah the fanboys are dug in pretty good on that thread, I'm trying to storm the trenches but I can't budge them know what I mean

MP.net has a hard-on for anything Israeli, whadayagunnado.

As for testing, well the user 'Camera' there claims that the US and Israel used some sort of air-launched missiles that emulate its maneuvers and flight profile. Most likely a cruise missile, perhaps some sort of experimental scramjet or something along those lines that are able to attain the speeds neccessery. Which would be interesting, but ultimately they have no way of knowing the Iskanders behaviour, trajectory options, decoy release strategies, the sort of manuevers it will do and importantly - how multiple Iskanders will co-ordinate their strategies with each other. It would also be hard for them to account for the sturdiness and construction of the Iskander missile itself; after all Saddam's SCUDs took hits but kept flying.

flamming_python wrote:Sujoy can you give me some more concrete arguements plz.
I mean it's pretty obvious that they're wrong but these non-people don't take no for an answer and are stubborn, I need something to shut them up.

Flamming Python ,

I can provide you with some arguments however I strongly doubt that people who survive on a daily dose of PR crack will buy your arguments in their hallucinated state.

Anyways . The TAMIR interceptor missile of the Iron Dome is capable of intercepting rockets that are incapable of intelligent terminal manoeuvres. It is also an extremely costly system . To intercept a $2000 rocket you send out a $50K interceptor missile . Bear in mind that this missile does NOT guarantee one shot one kill . The standard operating procedure for Iron Dome is to fire two interceptors in each engagement, although it is unclear if that was the case in the first round of engagements. Each interceptor costs about $50,000. The success rate we are interested in is thus the fraction of rockets that that Iron Dome attempts to intercept that it actually destroys, not the success rate of a single interceptor. Agility is not required from the Tamir since the targets to be destroyed themselves are not agile & follow a predictable flight trajectory without any evasive terminal manoeuvring.

Let's look at the figures that the IDF released pertaining to the rocket attacks :

http://www.idf.il/1153-17717-EN/Dover.aspx

Total number of rockets fired at Israel : 1506
Iron Dome Interceptions : 421

Now the word "Intercept" means ( in this case) an intercept attempt ( which may or may NOT be successful).It is quite possible that intercept attempts were made on rockets that fell on open areas as well.The official claim that 7% of the rockets hit populated areas is difficult to understand, since 7% of 1506 is about 105, far more than the 58 that actually hit urban areas.On the other hand if 7% means the percentage of rockets that would have hit urban areas
in the nonexistence of Iron Dome, then the figure of 7% seems far too small (479/1506 = 32%) even allowing for the possibility that some of the intercepted rockets would have fallen outside of populated areas.

In 2011 the success rate of the Iron Dome ( as reported in Jerusalem Post )was as follows :

April - 8 out of 10 ( 80%)
August - 22 out of 28 ( 79%)
October - 3 out of 9 ( 33%)

The average success rate is therefore 70%

Sheera Frankel reporting in the Baltimore Sun wrote in March 2012

Of the 250 or so rockets and mortars fired at Israel( in March 2012) from Gaza, 166 entered Israel’s airspace, officials said. Of those, 74 would have struck civilian areas or buildings. The Iron Dome system intercepted 56 before they could land, a success rate of 75 percent. Israeli official argue that the Iron Dome also identified rockets that were headed for open areas, such as fields, and let them land. Factoring those in, Israeli military officials argue that only 18 of the 166 landed anywhere on target, giving the system a success rate of nearly 90 percent

The above statement makes clear that the often-cited figure of 90% applies to the March 2012 attacks and is NOT actually the effectiveness of Iron Dome. Rather it is simply the fraction of rockets that enter Israel’s airspace that either are successfully intercepted or fall outside Iron Dome’s defended areas.

What emerges very clearly from my above arguments is that you will have a 70% - 75 % chance of intercepting obsolete Grad rockets with Iron Domes , however against TBMs/ cruise missile with manoeuvring capabilities Iron Dome will be a complete failure.

One of the options that is being incorporated to intercept Iranian Ballistic missiles and cruise missiles is that the Iron Dome will be incorporated with a plug-n-play system that can easily accommodate elements like SpyDer-SR & even Barak-2 MR-SAM in the overall network. This development lays out bare the claim that Iron Dome can intercept TBS/ cruise missiles . For that matter Iron Dome cannot intercept 155mm artillery shells either coz 155mm rounds do not arrive sequentially above their targets. Up to five 155mm rounds can land at the same time due to MRSI capability, thereby complicating the interception process.

Again , what I have explained above is for your eyes only if you feel you can explain these to some xenophobic nationalist , all the power to you

You are wasting your time... they have no interest in the truth... you might as well try and convert them to be buddist... you will have as much luck.

TR1 wrote:Let's switch it up a little- S-300V vs Tochka, and vs Iskander?

The S 300V should not have any problem in destroying any hostile missile that follow a predictable flight trajectory without any evasive terminal manoeuvring. Ergo , Tochka can be intercepted but not the Iskander M .

For that matter the S 400 too will not be able to destroy an incoming Iskander M .

Sujoy wrote:

flamming_python wrote:Sujoy can you give me some more concrete arguements plz.
I mean it's pretty obvious that they're wrong but these non-people don't take no for an answer and are stubborn, I need something to shut them up.

Flamming Python ,

I can provide you with some arguments however I strongly doubt that people who survive on a daily dose of PR crack will buy your arguments in their hallucinated state.

Anyways . The TAMIR interceptor missile of the Iron Dome is capable of intercepting rockets that are incapable of intelligent terminal manoeuvres. It is also an extremely costly system . To intercept a $2000 rocket you send out a $50K interceptor missile . Bear in mind that this missile does NOT guarantee one shot one kill . The standard operating procedure for Iron Dome is to fire two interceptors in each engagement, although it is unclear if that was the case in the first round of engagements. Each interceptor costs about $50,000. The success rate we are interested in is thus the fraction of rockets that that Iron Dome attempts to intercept that it actually destroys, not the success rate of a single interceptor. Agility is not required from the Tamir since the targets to be destroyed themselves are not agile & follow a predictable flight trajectory without any evasive terminal manoeuvring.

The discussion is not about Iron Dome but the 'David's Sling' air-defense/ABM system; or is not a seperate system?

Sujoy wrote:

TR1 wrote:Let's switch it up a little- S-300V vs Tochka, and vs Iskander?

The S 300V should not have any problem in destroying any hostile missile that follow a predictable flight trajectory without any evasive terminal manoeuvring. Ergo , Tochka can be intercepted but not the Iskander M .

For that matter the S 400 too will not be able to destroy an incoming Iskander M .

I thought as much, but the S-300V missiles have a velocity of Mach 4.5 AFAIK. During the terminal phase, the Iskander in order to manuever, lowers its speed considerably lower than Mach 4.5 - is it not possible for a S-300V missile to check its manuevers and successfully intercept it at that stage?

GarryB wrote:You are wasting your time... they have no interest in the truth... you might as well try and convert them to be buddist... you will have as much luck.

I find that when I argue with people online about things like this - or in fact about anything; I end up myself coming away more knowledgeable and wiser at the end of it. Therefore, I never really consider such debates a waste of time, and rarely shy away from them

It is interesting to mention that Israel airdefense system is said to pass on missiles which vector does not correspond with protected area. Well during Iskander manoeuvreing its flight vector will certainly change from defended area to area which is left unprotected. Another Iskander rapid change of flight trajectory will vector its focus on defended area. No airdefense can react so fast to pass and than retarget and than fire but than pass - system is not designed to deal with such madness - it is designed to deal with Grad missiles as Sujoy said.

flamming_python wrote:The discussion is not about Iron Dome but the 'David's Sling' air-defense/ABM system; or is not a seperate system?

David's Sling or Stunner ( as Raytheon calls it ) is still being tested and if all the tests are successful it will enter service in the middle of 2014 ( expected).David's Sling is not a new system ,it is simply an augumentation to the Iron Dome system. It is expected to be ( a)cheaper than the Tamir missiles of the Iron Dome and (b) is also expected to intercept longer range missiles fired from 190 miles. That's it . It cannot intercept the Iskander M because Iskander does NOT follow a predictable path .

flamming_python wrote:I thought as much, but the S-300V missiles have a velocity of Mach 4.5 AFAIK. During the terminal phase, the Iskander in order to manuever, lowers its speed considerably lower than Mach 4.5 - is it not possible for a S-300V missile to check its manuevers and successfully intercept it at that stage?

A missile that flies slowly greatly increase it's manoeuvrable capability . The S 300V or the S 400 is not designed to intercept a missile that manoeuvrs . The terminal phase of the Iskander M will last for less than 30 seconds . During the terminal phase too the Iskander will manoeuvr . Approximate targeting for each Iskander warhead is achieved ( among others)by bus maneuvering and release timing during cruise phase of the decent stage.
Your best chance of intercepting an Iskander M is during the boost phase but that's incredibly difficult .

I find that when I argue with people online about things like this - or in fact about anything; I end up myself coming away more knowledgeable and wiser at the end of it. Therefore, I never really consider such debates a waste of time, and rarely shy away from them

When discussing things with an intelligent mature adult I would totally agree with you... even when I had to explain to some people why they were wrong often I would think rather more deeply about things than I would otherwise have done. Obviously other times I found new pieces of information and realised I was wrong, which is useful to me.

A very good example was I was discussing sinking submarines that when they reach crush depth and the hull fails and the sub collapses like a drink can in the explosive compression that the air can ignite because air is heated when it compresses. I was discussing this with a person who was in the Navy and had many years experience at sea, and he believed it was a myth. I have never been in any armed forces, and so you can see in a one on one discussion most of the other contributers to that thread were against me. Thinking about it some more, I realised I had my proof from WWII Soviet HMG ammo... the Soviets had a 12.7 x 108mm round with a small HE charge, but it used an air column fuse. In other words the nose of the round collapsed on impact, which superheated and ignited the HE charge to detonate the round on impact.

However when discussing things with a zealot who thinks US/Israel Strong! and will not accept any criticism of either then you are wasting your time... you will only know your point has gotten through and they realise you are right when they start calling you names... not as satisfying as it sounds.

flamming_python wrote:
.... I thought as much, but the S-300V missiles have a velocity of Mach 4.5 AFAIK. During the terminal phase, the Iskander in order to manuever, lowers its speed considerably lower than Mach 4.5 - is it not possible for a S-300V missile to check its manuevers and successfully intercept it at that stage? ....

the Iskander does slow down to Mach 4 in its terminal phase. But it goes into a random spiraling motion pulling 20 to 30G turns. It's extremely difficult to intercept.

Iskander missiles to get precision technology

According to the Russian military, Russian defence engineers are developing a super-accurate rocket for the Iskander-M land-based mobile short-range ballistic missile system.

Equipped with a self-guided conventional or nuclear warhead, the new weapon should strike within 15 metres of its intended target.

Modern cruise missiles strike within 3 metres.

Iskander accuracy was already reported as ~3-5 meters with optical warhead....wut

They are talking about self guiding warheads, so I suspect they mean the night and all weather capable radar homing seekers which had CEPs of 20m. The optical guidance seeker offered better accuracy, but was less all weather and night capable.

U.S Space-Based Sensors, A Ballistic Missile’s Worst Nightmare.

Space-based sensors can expand the range and effectiveness of the U.S. Navy’s Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) capabilities, a recent missile defense test has shown.

Conducted Feb. 13 by the Navy and U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA), an Aegis “launch on remote” test used tracking data from the Space Tracking and Surveillance System-Demonstrators satellites to form a fire control solution for the missile interceptor.

Link

Has the 9K720 Iskander (SS-26 Stone) been beaten???

The A-60 airborne laser system is designed to deal with recon and optical satellites.

Equally the threat of the Iskander is not that you don't know it is coming... the threat is that your interceptors can't anticipate an accurate interception point because it is continuously manouvering... satellite early warning does not change that.

Iskander travels mostly in the atmosphere at 40 - 50 Km Altitude , I doubt any space based sensors can track these kind of missiles for long , specially when its using slow burning solid fuel during cruise phase.

Brigade of ISKANDER-M delivered to Russian Army

Russian Defense Minister Gen. Sergei Shoigu took part in the ritual transfer of brigade sets of operational-tactical missile complex "Iskander-M".

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/35761/

What is interesting is that ballistic and winged missiles where delivered together  

Powerful pictures









and many other excellent pictures

http://i-korotchenko.livejournal.com/680796.html

Wow, Kortchenko delivering for once.

Very interesting covers.