Aegis Ships To Get PAC-3 Missile

Don’t worry, I was being facetious!

I see, that’s too bad. You’re quite a tease, you know, mentioning it like that 😉

Not the effect I intended – faced with statements that there were no pics of the Gazelle, I did a quick check on the internet, than posted what I’d found but with the caveat that I couldn’t vouch for it because with the easter break looming I didn’t have time to track down the pic that I knew was somewhere on my HDs and compare the two.

It turned out that the pic I found on the ‘net was of a different missile. Given more time, I might have realised that, but spare time I did not have. It’s a hazard of growing old – each week, month and year isn’t as long as they used to be.

I see, that’s too bad. You’re quite a tease, you know, mentioning it like that 😉

but if it’s somehow feasible for you to dig up that Gazelle image in your own time, there are a bunch of users in this forum who would dearly appreciate having a look!

Some of the material that arrives on my desk is not cleared for redistribution. I couldn’t show the Gazelle photo to my clients, let alone publish it. That is why I didn’t bother noting carefully where I stowed it on the HDs.

1.
2. Very few systems are actually deployed to defend the US mainland. Apart from a bunch of PATRIOT batteries at Fort Bliss in Texas, and the GBI silos in Alaska, I can’t think of any other stateside defensive weapons. AEGIS ships could be deployed along the coastlines, but they aren’t right now. THAAD is a theater asset to be deployed overseas to defend military forces, same for PAC-3 ERINT.

Oh, I know that, I just wanted to “REMIND” good o’ll Sferrin he doesn’t know how laking the U.S. is.;)

There are open-source pics that claim to show it, for example:
http://warfare.ru/?lang=&linkid=2206&catid=315&image=1805

That is an A-35 (ABM-1 GALOSH). A-35M has small fins at the rear of the second stage and a few other minor differences.

I say ‘claim to’ because I have no easy way of checking this photo against a known genuine Gazelle pic I’ve had for some years now. (The latter is stored somewhere amongst a terabyte + of files on my HDs.)

If you happen to find it, don’t forget about us 😀 All the images I’ve seen that claim to be GAZELLE are actually one of the missiles developed for the S-225 mobile ABM system.

There are open-source pics that claim to show it, for example:
http://warfare.ru/?lang=&linkid=2206&catid=315&image=1805

I say ‘claim to’ because I have no easy way of checking this photo against a known genuine Gazelle pic I’ve had for some years now. (The latter is stored somewhere amongst a terabyte + of files on my HDs.)

That picture most likely shows a Galosh missile. Gorgon looks similar, but with a single, large first stage booster rather than the cluster.

The only genuine Gazelle pictures I know of can be found in these two posts:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1196036

A possible close-up photo is shown in Rodolfo’s second post on the first page of the same thread. Somehow the colouring and fins remind me of a Kosmos-3 booster though…

http://astro.zeto.czest.pl/rakiety/kosmos3m.jpg

I know you’ve basically preempted this question already 😉 but if it’s somehow feasible for you to dig up that Gazelle image in your own time, there are a bunch of users in this forum who would dearly appreciate having a look!

GAZELLE? Might have a lot more to do with the S-300V than people think, helping explain why it has never been seen in public…

There are open-source pics that claim to show it, for example:
http://warfare.ru/?lang=&linkid=2206&catid=315&image=1805

I say ‘claim to’ because I have no easy way of checking this photo against a known genuine Gazelle pic I’ve had for some years now. (The latter is stored somewhere amongst a terabyte + of files on my HDs.)

The difference is that the S-300 and S-400 missiles are all based around the same system components or modifications thereof. S-500 will likely be in the same vein, there’s no sense reinventing the wheel. GAZELLE? Might have a lot more to do with the S-300V than people think, helping explain why it has never been seen in public… The VLS GRIZZLY is simply a modern version of their main mid-range naval SAM system. It looks like there’s a lot going on, but when you get right down to it, the differences between a lot of these systems are sometimes little more than different missiles in the launch tubes.

It’s very similar on the US side. THAAD and GBI are new (sorta) but PAC-3’s lineage goes back to the mid 80s and SDI and SM-3 can be traced all the way back to Tarter in the 50s.

1 There’s between 6400 and 8500 S-300V/PMU-2, and 1 Battery (32 missiles) of the S-300PMU-3 AKA (S-400) Who many missiles does Ageis/Thaad/Pac-3 have deployed, are they spred out across U.S.A protecting the homeland against incoming ICBM’s?:confused:

1. It’s S-300PM-3, PMU-3 would have been the export variant. And it ceased being the PM-3 when they rolled the 400-km missile into it from the S-350 and made the S-400.

2. Very few systems are actually deployed to defend the US mainland. Apart from a bunch of PATRIOT batteries at Fort Bliss in Texas, and the GBI silos in Alaska, I can’t think of any other stateside defensive weapons. AEGIS ships could be deployed along the coastlines, but they aren’t right now. THAAD is a theater asset to be deployed overseas to defend military forces, same for PAC-3 ERINT.

And you think all that’s bad times it by two or so and you have what Russia is trying to field S-300PMU2s, S-400s, S-300Vs, and all their sub-flavors, S-500, S-400 “big missile”, Gazelle ABM, new VLS version of the SA-N-7. . . Hell, if they do what they’ve been claiming with the S-400 you’ll have PAC-3, THAAD, and SM-3 analogs in that system ALONE.

The difference is that the S-300 and S-400 missiles are all based around the same system components or modifications thereof. S-500 will likely be in the same vein, there’s no sense reinventing the wheel. GAZELLE? Might have a lot more to do with the S-300V than people think, helping explain why it has never been seen in public… The VLS GRIZZLY is simply a modern version of their main mid-range naval SAM system. It looks like there’s a lot going on, but when you get right down to it, the differences between a lot of these systems are sometimes little more than different missiles in the launch tubes.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Seems fair to me.;)

Given the dismantling of their nuclear program and the provision of the security assurances they wanted it is very very unlikely.

Primitive ballistic missiles in the hands of rogue states.

So?

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Does that mean they can’t start back up tomorrow?

Given the dismantling of their nuclear program and the provision of the security assurances they wanted it is very very unlikely.

Ballistic missiles are what “this stuff” is designed to deal with. I don’t see the world stopping deployment of those so I’m not sure why we’d want to scrap our programs to counter them.

Primitive ballistic missiles in the hands of rogue states.

Just pointing out that the US situation is hardly unique.

So?

And there is the problem, is this all necessary, especially considering what the US is actually doing at the moment and the junk some of its troops are having to take into combat. Take GBI for a start, it no longer has a role on the US mainland after the NK’s showed the world that they cant build ICBM’s or nukes.

Does that mean they can’t start back up tomorrow?

The whole purpose of this stuff is based around a pretty specific scenario and I am really not convinced that it is worth it.

Ballistic missiles are what “this stuff” is designed to deal with. I don’t see the world stopping deployment of those so I’m not sure why we’d want to scrap our programs to counter them.

For the record I really dont care what the Russians are doing, if they really feel the need to spend their oil money on fancy new strategic defence/attack systems that will do little if anything to support their foreign policy objectives then thats fine but it is no reason for the US to go down the same route.

Just pointing out that the US situation is hardly unique.

Well let’s look at it case by case. GBI (NMD) is an ICBM-sized and priced (probably more) missile that would only fit on battleship-sized ships nor would it be cost effective against short/medium range ballistics missiles. For the same reason it wouldn’t work for the Army.

Airborne Laser is designed for boost phase intercept and has to operate out of an airbase (and there will only be seven of them tops).

THAAD is designed for both high endoatmospheric and exoatmospheric however it’s capability is far less than SM-3 in the exoatmospheric role. And SM-3 is both more $$$$ and isn’t designed to be road mobile.

PAC-3 is very short ranged (less than ESSM) so it’s not going to be able to handle things by itself no matter where it is.

I think the thing to keep in mind with some of these though is that they are derivatives of existing systems. SM-3 and SM-2 Block IVA) were suppose to cover tha gamut of ballistic missile targets by simply developing LEAP (the KKV), a booster, and a 3rd stage for the SM-3. No new launch systems, commonality of airframes and motors etc. PAC-3 is a developement of ERINT/FLAGE/SHRIT going back to the 80s. so in a sense it was “off the shelf”.

KEI is new and is suppose to be land and sea capable (and I’ve even seen a graphic with a B-52 packing them on the wing pylons) but what ship is going to be able to launch a 40 foot missile? And do we stop developing KEI until/unless we find out that ABL isn’t viable? Do we scrap the SM-3 line so we can use the inferior THAAD? Do we scrap THAAD so we can use a more expensive SM-3/SM-2 Block IV combination that isn’t road mobile and would require new launch vehicles?

KEI and ABL will probably be fighting each other for funds but then they each have their strengths and weaknesses. Also there is talk of replacing the GBI interceptors with KEI interceptors in the midcourse role but then you lose a lot of range.

And you think all that’s bad times it by two or so and you have what Russia is trying to field S-300PMU2s, S-400s, S-300Vs, and all their sub-flavors, S-500, S-400 “big missile”, Gazelle ABM, new VLS version of the SA-N-7. . . Hell, if they do what they’ve been claiming with the S-400 you’ll have PAC-3, THAAD, and SM-3 analogs in that system ALONE.

1 There’s between 6400 and 8500 S-300V/PMU-2, and 1 Battery (32 missiles) of the S-300PMU-3 AKA (S-400) Who many missiles does Ageis/Thaad/Pac-3 have deployed, are they spred out across U.S.A protecting the homeland against incoming ICBM’s?:confused:

2. They can hit targets in space to man: http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.51/system_detail.asp
also go to the search bar on the side and punch in S-300PMU-2/400 to see those SAMS ARE everything and More that THAAD/PAC would be, I’ll have to o more research on SM-3 before saying if the S-300 are better or worse than that.

Well let’s look at it case by case. GBI (NMD) is an ICBM-sized and priced (probably more) missile that would only fit on battleship-sized ships nor would it be cost effective against short/medium range ballistics missiles. For the same reason it wouldn’t work for the Army.

And there is the problem, is this all necessary, especially considering what the US is actually doing at the moment and the junk some of its troops are having to take into combat. Take GBI for a start, it no longer has a role on the US mainland after the NK’s showed the world that they cant build ICBM’s or nukes.

The whole purpose of this stuff is based around a pretty specific scenario and I am really not convinced that it is worth it. For the record I really dont care what the Russians are doing, if they really feel the need to spend their oil money on fancy new strategic defence/attack systems that will do little if anything to support their foreign policy objectives then thats fine but it is no reason for the US to go down the same route.

Note the word various. There is the basic NMD, Airborne Laser, KEI, THAAD, PAC-3, SM-3, modifications to existing standards………it it all really that necessary? Surely some of those projects could have been rolled into one?

Well let’s look at it case by case. GBI (NMD) is an ICBM-sized and priced (probably more) missile that would only fit on battleship-sized ships nor would it be cost effective against short/medium range ballistics missiles. For the same reason it wouldn’t work for the Army.

Airborne Laser is designed for boost phase intercept and has to operate out of an airbase (and there will only be seven of them tops).

THAAD is designed for both high endoatmospheric and exoatmospheric however it’s capability is far less than SM-3 in the exoatmospheric role. And SM-3 is both more $$$$ and isn’t designed to be road mobile.

PAC-3 is very short ranged (less than ESSM) so it’s not going to be able to handle things by itself no matter where it is.

I think the thing to keep in mind with some of these though is that they are derivatives of existing systems. SM-3 and SM-2 Block IVA) were suppose to cover tha gamut of ballistic missile targets by simply developing LEAP (the KKV), a booster, and a 3rd stage for the SM-3. No new launch systems, commonality of airframes and motors etc. PAC-3 is a developement of ERINT/FLAGE/SHRIT going back to the 80s. so in a sense it was “off the shelf”.

KEI is new and is suppose to be land and sea capable (and I’ve even seen a graphic with a B-52 packing them on the wing pylons) but what ship is going to be able to launch a 40 foot missile? And do we stop developing KEI until/unless we find out that ABL isn’t viable? Do we scrap the SM-3 line so we can use the inferior THAAD? Do we scrap THAAD so we can use a more expensive SM-3/SM-2 Block IV combination that isn’t road mobile and would require new launch vehicles?

KEI and ABL will probably be fighting each other for funds but then they each have their strengths and weaknesses. Also there is talk of replacing the GBI interceptors with KEI interceptors in the midcourse role but then you lose a lot of range.

And you think all that’s bad times it by two or so and you have what Russia is trying to field S-300PMU2s, S-400s, S-300Vs, and all their sub-flavors, S-500, S-400 “big missile”, Gazelle ABM, new VLS version of the SA-N-7. . . Hell, if they do what they’ve been claiming with the S-400 you’ll have PAC-3, THAAD, and SM-3 analogs in that system ALONE.

I think it’s more a case of these programs almost being adequately funded vs. being drastically underfunded like many other programs. How do you figure money is being wasted when they can’t even do the amount of testing desired to prove various systems?

Note the word various. There is the basic NMD, Airborne Laser, KEI, THAAD, PAC-3, SM-3, modifications to existing standards………it it all really that necessary? Surely some of those projects could have been rolled into one?

Dont misunderstand me I think that ABM is a vitally important development but the way it is being managed is increasingly looking like a gravy train for the big contractors.

I think it’s more a case of these programs almost being adequately funded vs. being drastically underfunded like many other programs. How do you figure money is being wasted when they can’t even do the amount of testing desired to prove various systems?