Hypothetical S-500 speculation page.

Desert Storm lessons were considered in the design of S-300PMU1 and follow on systems as well as in the S-300VM ATBM system. The blast is directed to the warhead of the incoming missile rather than the gravity center. No different from PAC-3 and THADD but with a “shrapnel rain” in place of a “bullet”.

PAC-3 will b another failed US System, while Rus’s will kick a@# as usual, (and I’m NOT being sarcastic!!)

Well what am I, chopped liver? 😀

You always say “I gotta secret” and won’t spill the goods. 😉 Besides, I thought your focus was more on the Russian stuff.

Well what am I, chopped liver? 😀

I don’t think it is as simple as that. The problem with many of the academics who pontificate on the subject of missile defence is that they have no direct experience of the subject. Few have actually ‘got their hands dirty’ by designing or testing missiles.

My practical days are long over, but a small part of a Black Knight payload sits on the bookshelf of my office just to remind me that rocketry was once something I did rather than something I study on behalf of clients.

There was a Jane’s seminar on missile defence some time last week. I wasn’t in the audience, but apparently the section on the S-500 was pretty brief, which suggests that there is still very little ‘hard’ information on this system.

That’s why I was asking you to look at it. 😉

The paper I directed you to appears to conclude that as long as you can get the KKV “in the basket” in time that RV speed has a minimal effect on Pk.

I don’t think it is as simple as that. The problem with many of the academics who pontificate on the subject of missile defence is that they have no direct experience of the subject. Few have actually ‘got their hands dirty’ by designing or testing missiles.

My practical days are long over, but a small part of a Black Knight payload sits on the bookshelf of my office just to remind me that rocketry was once something I did rather than something I study on behalf of clients.

There was a Jane’s seminar on missile defence some time last week. I wasn’t in the audience, but apparently the section on the S-500 was pretty brief, which suggests that there is still very little ‘hard’ information on this system.

Thanks for the link to that paper. I’d need to read it some detail to form an opinion on how solid its conclusions are. But I’m not likely to find the time to do that in the near future, since my current workload stretches well beyond the end of Michaelmas term, so will run into mid-December. And once the festivities are over, the start of Lent term in mid-January will see my attention refocused on further work.

My own comment regarding the lack of an anti-ICBM capability in THAAD is based on a technical briefing I had some time ago from Lockheed Martin. This touched on possible future THAAD developments, specifically an increased-diameter motor and a small kick stage. With these changes, the missile would get some degree of anti-ICBM capability.

Yeah AvWeek mentioned that a couple months ago as well. My belief is based primarily on this paper and the SM-3 anti-satellite shot. As you recall, before the ASAT shot SM-3 was said to have capability up to medium range missiles (3500-5500km) and had yet to demonstrate capability against missiles even in that class. Then six weeks of software developement and it hits a satellite traveling much faster than an ICBM. The paper I directed you to appears to conclude that as long as you can get the KKV “in the basket” in time that RV speed has a minimal effect on Pk. The SM-3 ASAT shot would seem to support that notion. With THAADs divert capability being smaller than the GBI KKV that means the “basket” is smaller. It appears that the weak link as far as THAAD goes against ICBMs would be getting an accurate track in time to launch a THAAD, or more specifically the need for the THAAD radar to have the field of view to see the incoming warhead far enough out. Supposedly SBIRS-Low will be able to cue THAAD against targets outside the range of the radar but given their orbit I’d think you’d need a lot of them for coverage.

If you feel like reading it I’d be interested in your take on this report.

Thanks for the link to that paper. I’d need to read it some detail to form an opinion on how solid its conclusions are. But I’m not likely to find the time to do that in the near future, since my current workload stretches well beyond the end of Michaelmas term, so will run into mid-December. And once the festivities are over, the start of Lent term in mid-January will see my attention refocused on further work.

My own comment regarding the lack of an anti-ICBM capability in THAAD is based on a technical briefing I had some time ago from Lockheed Martin. This touched on possible future THAAD developments, specifically an increased-diameter motor and a small kick stage. With these changes, the missile would get some degree of anti-ICBM capability.

Desert Storm lessons were considered in the design of S-300PMU1 and follow on systems as well as in the S-300VM ATBM system. The blast is directed to the warhead of the incoming missile rather than the gravity center. No different from PAC-3 and THADD but with a “shrapnel rain” in place of a “bullet”.

Off-course. THAAD has superb accuracy. S-300/400/500 systems compensate lower accuracy with directional 180 kg (:eek:) fragmentation warheads. Even some Gazelle has this type of warheads, with a kill radio around 25 m.

The problem with HE is that you run into the same problem PAC-2s in Desert Storm did. They’d shred the airframe and the warhead would keep coming. (Warheads are relatively tough.) Obviously for a seperating warhead you might not have that problem.

It isn’t so much the speed of THAAD but it’s accuracy.

Off-course. THAAD has superb accuracy. S-300/400/500 systems compensate lower accuracy with directional 180 kg (:eek:) fragmentation warheads. Even some Gazelle has this type of warheads, with a kill radio around 25 m.

Yeap. It may have point defense capability against an ICBM warhead. S-500 might be along the same lines of systems presented on Table I. I.e. Gamma-DE has a L-Band 40m**2 antenna that can be linked to the much enlarged engagement antenna of the S-300VM system. 9M82M has too 2.7 km burnout speed but a far higher acceleration than THAAD interceptor.

It isn’t so much the speed of THAAD but it’s accuracy.

If you feel like reading it I’d be interested in your take on this report.

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/thaad.pdf

Yeap. It may have point defense capability against an ICBM warhead. S-500 might be along the same lines of systems presented on Table I. I.e. Gamma-DE has a L-Band 40m**2 antenna that can be linked to the much enlarged engagement antenna of the S-300VM system. 9M82M has too 2.7 km burnout speed but a far higher acceleration than THAAD interceptor.

Don’t waste good salt – leave it on the shelf.

In its current form, THAAD has no anti-ICBM capability.

If you feel like reading it I’d be interested in your take on this report.

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/thaad.pdf

Likely 48N6DM

One of the very latest advitorial by Rosoboronexport on S-400 says

Triumph SAM system are capable of killing aerodynamic targets at a range of 250 km and ballistic targets at a range up to 60 km within an altitude envelope of up to 27 km

Do we know which interceptor of S-400 series are they referring to ? Since its by Rosoboronexport , I assume the specific system is available for export

Right now the claim that THAAD can deal with ICBM target should be taken with a bagful of salt.

Don’t waste good salt – leave it on the shelf.

In its current form, THAAD has no anti-ICBM capability.

😮

That’s pretty impressive if it’s accurate(no pun intended).:cool:

That was for THAAD specificially (don’t know about the capabilities of SM-3/ GBI / etc. though they have it as well). Reason being is they need to make sure they hit the warhead itself rather than just somewhere on the missile as PAC-2 did during Desert Storm.

Several years ago in AvWeek a LM engineer was quoted as saying they can hit with an accuracy about the size of an 8-1/2″ x 11″ sheet of paper.

😮

That’s pretty impressive if it’s accurate(no pun intended).:cool:

Yes indeed they did , but you forget that it needed software modification , the target was as large as a bus , there was no decoys deployed , and the target was being well tracked for a long time by all the sensors that US had at its disposal.

The “software mod” took all of six weeks. That suggests there wasn’t a whole lot that needed changing. As for the target, the “target” was the fuel tank on the tumbling satellite. Given that the satellite was bus sized you have to hit the RIGHT SPOT and they did. Both THAAD and SM-3 have hit point selection capability which means they don’t just hit the missile but they hit the missile where they want to. Several years ago in AvWeek a LM engineer was quoted as saying they can hit with an accuracy about the size of an 8-1/2″ x 11″ sheet of paper.

Its a pity that S-400 are being compared to Patriot system when infact they are new 4th Gen SAM. The performance figures viz a viz Patriot were met by many interceptors of S-300 series and in many case were coolly surpassed

Only comparing it in the sense that the Patriot system has a large missile and small missile (PAC-2 and PAC-3) and the S-400 has a large missile and a small missile (48N6DM and 9M96E/E2). Wasn’t comparing capabilities.