@garryA

If you have the book, evidence, feel free to screenshot and upload it. I highly doubt that they mentioned a MARVs that can turn 50G but iam open to see the evidence. Btw, acceleration of speed due to booster at launch is not the same as acceleration of the turn, i think you may be confuse the two.

Unfortunately I have no access to it at the moment, but I recommend it. The 30-50G numbers were encountered during reentry, there of course a part of it is due to deceleration, I’m aware of that.

AIM-54 (or any air to air missiles) cannot perform two digit G maneuver at high altitude like at 24 km (let alone some where like 50 km height). Moreover, the Phoenix is also said to have terrible agility after motor burned out.
Another factor that you must consider is the ratio between fin area and weight of the AIM-54, it is considerably better than the Iskander so to perform the same maneuver the AIM-54 will need smaller CL.

You misunderstood me: The AIM-54 was designed to operate at around 12km at speeds of mach 4+, there the fins still work. So that a G load would it encounter there, what do you think? Would that G load be consistent with whats possible via your lift formula? I’m quite sure the loads on the AIM-54 @ 12km and mach 4 would be 10+ and this because of the inertia of it at mach 4.
To put it simply a 10G turn with a F-16 @ mach 0,9 would cause a e.g 45° direction change and expose it completely to the drag. A 10G turn with a AIM-54 @ mach 4 would just cause e.g a 10° direction change.

There is one issue with the inertia effect at high speeds, which cause much higher G loads due to the velocity for the same change of direction.

Then there is another issue I tried to explain. Your formula is as it seems for a wing aerofoil lift. Beside that there is a ram-air/drag aerodynamic control method, best explained by the T-50 and J-20 vertical stabilizers: These can turn at an angle which would cause stall with a wing aerofoil, but due to ram air pressure (i.e drag force at high velocity) they can offer high steering power if necessary.
Your graph is good and shows this effect e.g @ 45° to some extend however I doubt it is also representative for high velocities (but low air density).
I’m not a aerodynamic guy but I think this, “just lift” approach is the reason why your formula is not applicable in light of different sources talk about such high G numbers at those speeds.

I don’t think the quarsi ballistic trajectory can help reduce LoS since it still have the same top point and only extended the reentry length. Furthermore, let say the altitude of the depressed trajectory is 30 km, ground radar height is 15 meters, the radar horizon would already be 730 km which is longer than maximum range of Iskander already.

Quasi as with you graph of the Indian TBM not, yes. I just mentioned this effect for ballistic missiles in general, agreed that it’s not applicable for the relatively short ranged Iskander.

It will eventually come down due to gravity, the gas system however is to oriented which part of it will point toward the earth, just like on a space shuttle

The space shuttle is in a orbit, without gas system gravity and drag would decide that it land on earth in 4 or 5 years. A ballistic missile like the Iskander is on a ballistic trajectory that will take it back to earth in a accurately calculated time and place accurately to seconds not months or years. It’s CoG will make sure that it will come down with the nose first.
The gas system on the Iskander has almost certainly a anti-TBM purpose.

I can’t find any source that stage ICBM are designed to decelerate to below Mach 4 before impact, moreover, the warheads of ballistic missiles doesn’t cruise at Mach 5 at sea level, it merely comming down through the atmostphere, so likely spend a few seconds at sea level air density at most

Yes that’s not easy to find. Here is a paper describing it:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]253273[/ATTACH]

The Iskander would be the bi-conic conventional here and as you see this is for a mach 12 missile and its decelerated to less than mach 3 at impact. That delta of mach 9, minus some penalties could be used for maneuvering for this missile with the right kinematic management.

They both got gas system, however, THAAD is smaller and has a seperate stage for its kill vehicle, it also doesn’t carry ECM or decoys.Which mean lower mass. As we already know, F=ma , so generally with same force and lower mass mean better acceleration .Thus, I find no reason to believe that the gas system on Iskander can change its direction quicker than the one on THAAD. Aerodynamic control is kinda useless above 22-25 km.

You assume same gas system power for Iskander and THAAD? We can’t really find out which one has more endurance. I could as well say a F-16 has more endurance than a B-1 with that argumentation.
This is not about quicker, it’s about endurance and maybe endgame agility for a evasive maneuver. As said: Expect the Iskander to be detected, the THAAD interceptor launched and then it starts to deviated from the rendezvous point originally calculated and the THAAD has to follow. Now who wins that endurance game? Can the THAAD catch-up to the new impact trajectory that changes continuously? This is one, a exo-atmospheric anti-ABM scenario for Iskander vs. THAAD.

The AoA would pretty much depending on the air density, you will need very big AoA to turn 10 G at 50 km altitude ( if the fin even work at all ). Moreover, drag at high velocity and high AoA is much higher so the missiles will lose alot more speed than an aircraft making a turn

The velocities and inertia involved change that picture.
The Iskander will experience much higher G loads for the same angular vector change due to its high speed –> high inertia, but this also means that the final position change is also much higher due to those velocities.
The Iskanders fins will have a high drag force as reaction force beside the lift. Just due to the magnitudes higher speed compared to aircraft it will have a high steering capability even if the air density is much lower. If the air density would be much higher at 50km altitude the Iskander would just disintegrate with mach 6 drag forces.