Russian ABM test.

hi, i have bought a patriot and a s 300 , but mi sembre che the second ha una forma piiu di cazzo

Employment of Flex Nozzle control system in S-400 should do away with control surface and Lateral Thrusters should provide the necessary High G Thrust for end game Kill.

Due to the very high closing speeds I would expect side thrusters would still be used to get the missile within striking distance for impact. (would assume they will continue to use directional fragmentation warheads, though they might go for hit to kill).

Employment of Flex Nozzle control system in S-400 should do away with control surface and Lateral Thrusters should provide the necessary High G Thrust for end game Kill.

Well that will work until your motor burns out, then you’re SOL. Why do you think missiles such as Nike Hercules, Zeus A, Bomarc, and SA-5 had such huge wings? So they could manuever in the thin air.

this technology transfer agreement has come into force. this missile will have S-300 kind a capability but with shorter range for ROK.
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200504/200504240023.html

The practical reason for the 30km ceiling in most S300 variants is the need for a certain air density to allow for aerodynamic maneuvering. A non-airbreathing missile with a range of 400 km should have no problems whatsoever reaching an altitude of 185km and perhaps even beyond. The question is, can it maneuver up there in order to hit something? Seems it can, going by that source.

Employment of Flex Nozzle control system in S-400 should do away with control surface and Lateral Thrusters should provide the necessary High G Thrust for end game Kill.

Consider the example of S-300VM and Patriot , in theory the former can defend a much larger area and BM with much higher range than Patriot.

Hence it would require far less battries of S-300 to defend a larger area compared to Patriot system

S-300VM and Patriot are not comparable systems. The S-300 series (ie SA-10) systems are more like the Patriot in that they were designed as defence from aerial targets. S-300V series missiles might be able to intercept aircraft of all types but has been largely designed to intercept ballistic missiles and stealthy cruise missiles.
You also have to keep in mind that a missile that can travel 400km to attack a target will need rather more time than one travelling 120km, even if the latter missile is 50% slower. Having one S-300VM system defending one target rather than 4 or 5 just means it will be easier to overwhelm.
Do you think an SA-6 would be more capable than 50 Iglas? Sure the SA-6 can reach higher, has a larger warhead and is on paper more capable.
For the attacker having large numbers of largely unseen mobile threats is more difficult than having a few large super weapons.
Not that I am suggesting that all long range weapons are useless, but they need to be designed in a sensible manner. Whether the target is intercepted at 200km altitude or 100km altitude is irrelevant, so why compromise design for the extra altitude?

BTW considering the effectiveness of a standard HE blast warhead at over 100km altitude these weapons must either hit to kill or have a directed fragmentation warhead.

In one of the interview the missile designer himself stated that the S-300VM/S-400 system are system broadly comparable or better than Patriot PAC-3 , and that they dont have system any where closer to THAAD.

And the interview with the goat says that cows milk is good but goats milk is way better…

No one is disputing about the maturity of the S-300 VM system and the 60 odd test it had sucessfully done , But its time to move on .

What I am saying is that S-300V has been in service over 20 years and is actualy widely deployed and operational. Where is THAAD?

The Patriot PAC 3 might have not done that many test but it has many Live Interception to its credit in a real war.

So the weapons of the global policeman get tested more often. Tell that to the families allied pilots shot down…

Accepted that the S-300 is a mobile system and perhaps on paper a more capable one , But Patriot has many real war interception to its credit well some undesirable ones like intercepting friendly aircraft

So because it has never been used in combat it is less capable? Doesn’t that make all ICBMs crap? The fact that the S-300 has never been used in combat is a question of opportunity, not a failing of the system.

I was just referring to the article which talked about the new system and the way I saw it when it would be deployed it would bridge the Technologly divide between US & Russia

The only technology divide is a paper one. THAAD is a proposed system. If proposed systems counted as much as in service systems did then the Russians would have stealth bombers and fighters. But reality is that until they are in service they don’t count for much.

Besides you compare Patriot to S-300V… why does S-300VM have to be superior to THAAD for a comparison? Why does it need to be superior at all?

Surely all it needs to be able to do is intercept targets…

Targetting Cities and general public in sheer frustration or as a planned action cant be ruled out , besides other infracture like powerstation , strategic assets etc.

The threats you listed… Pakistan, North Korea, Iran etc don’t have the long range missiles with the accuracy to hit anything else.

Having a larger bubble increases your flexibility in that you can defend a larger area with far less Interceptor and fewer system

Having the least number of interceptors/systems is the accountant talking. Giving your interceptors a range of 1,000km is no good if the target missile hits the ground target before your interceptor missile gets half way there…

Consider the example of S-300VM and Patriot , in theory the former can defend a much larger area and BM with much higher range than Patriot.

Actually because the Patriot is launched from an angled box having more missiles would actually be a good thing as it would give better coverage.

Hence it would require far less battries of S-300 to defend a larger area compared to Patriot system

Indeed, but is that a good reason to buy fewer systems, or should you base you purchases on what the threat actually is rather than what some foreign countries system can do? ie the Russians wont be buying x missiles to match the number of Patriots bought by the US. They will be buying y number of missiles to meet a perceived threat. More importantly they can start doing that now because their new systems will be backwards compatible with their older missiles so they wont need to get rid of existing stocks when they upgrade later on. I doubt a large percentage of their potential threat targets will be state of the art stealthy warheads for the next decade or so.

The question is, can it maneuver up there in order to hit something? Seems it can, going by that source.

Current laser guided missiles and shells in the Russian army use side thruster rockets to manouver onto a path to hit the target. The R-77 uses a similar system to aid in terminal accuracy. Would not be surprised if they had developed such a system for these missiles… (SA-15 also uses side thrusters at launch to roll the missiles over towards incoming targets from the vertical launch).

So 40N6 have a 400 km range and 185 km altitude? This is of course designed with BM in mind. FAS claims that S-500 (Autocrat?) will have capabilities to down targets with ranges exceeding 3.500 km. It seems that the “strategic threshold (5.500 km)” is near to be reached.

The legal strategic threshold is gone with the ABM treaty…

The practical reason for the 30km ceiling in most S300 variants is the need for a certain air density to allow for aerodynamic maneuvering. A non-airbreathing missile with a range of 400 km should have no problems whatsoever reaching an altitude of 185km and perhaps even beyond. The question is, can it maneuver up there in order to hit something? Seems it can, going by that source.

So 40N6 have a 400 km range and 185 km altitude? This is of course designed with BM in mind. FAS claims that S-500 (Autocrat?) will have capabilities to down targets with ranges exceeding 3.500 km. It seems that the “strategic threshold (5.500 km)” is near to be reached.

Mate , I never said it was out of reality , what I stated was this is the first time , I have come across such a figure , Every one knew the range was approximately in the region of 400 Km , But its the altitude figure which suprised me. ( compare that to the S-300/VM/PMU derivative which has a max altitude interception of 30 ~ 35 km , this is a massive leap)
.
ff the figure is indeed correct and with available data which says it can intercept BM corresponding to a range of 3,500 km ( reference ) The S-400 new newest long range missile is comparable to the US THAAD system , which was designed to intercept BM of similar range

and u shouldnot assume altitude of S-400 based on some old systems. u have to look at official statements.
now S-500 is coming. and russian informed US representative back in 2004. who was interested in joint development. but now i think russia has more money so it can do it alone.

185 Km is not out of reality.

Mate , I never said it was out of reality , what I stated was this is the first time , I have come across such a figure , Every one knew the range was approximately in the region of 400 Km , But its the altitude figure which suprised me. ( compare that to the S-300/VM/PMU derivative which has a max altitude interception of 30 ~ 35 km , this is a massive leap)

If the figure is indeed correct and with available data which says it can intercept BM corresponding to a range of 3,500 km ( reference ) The S-400 new newest long range missile is comparable to the US THAAD system , which was designed to intercept BM of similar range

185 Km is not out of reality.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=57724&highlight=S-400
Vladimir Mikhaylov also noted that the S-400 “Triumf” anti-aircraft missile complex will be the starting point for transition to air and space defense. “We plan to transition from the S-400 to and air and space defense when the anti-aircraft missiles complexes operate not only against aerial but also against space targets,” the CinC declared. – “There are such products ((NARABOTKI)). One more missile is being made for it and in general we have good prospects here.” According to the CinC, as early as this year the first regiment equipped with the S-400 “Triumf” will be adopted into the inventory. It will be deployed to the city of Fryazevo near Moscow.

“All subsequent missile modules will have the same size and weight,” he stressed. [Passage omitted]

The system can destroy targets in the near space at altitudes of up to 185 km and at distances of up to 400-450 km. It is capable of engaging ground and sea surface targets, too.

“This is an absolutely new system that is protected from jamming, has advanced accuracy and is capable of using target indication data from aircraft,” Nogovitsyn noted.

Did we missed this figure before an altitude of 185 km and range of 400 km for S-400 , This is for the first time I have come across those altitude figure

Sferrin, an interception of a cruise drone was included in the following video (around the second minute of the clip).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPdPKkZS6Pk

The “killer” hit the drone from upwards, so I assumed it was a S-300 rocket, since it is her “trademark” for killing a cruise missile.
Nothing about killing a Scud (yet)

The video is very cool.

I’d be impressed if we saw a video of an actual missile kill. We’ve seen PAC-3 do it. We’ve seen the “last moment” shots from both SM-3 and THAAD so where’s the missile kills for S-300V/-300PMU/-400/-300VM?

they said there four kind of missile for base line.
and if u read the Rian link that i posted 120 km and 400Km one are inducted by end of 2006.
here is more about testing the range.

Moscow, 27 January: The upcoming S-400 Triumf air defence missile system will possibly be tested on the proving ground in Kazakhstan, deputy commander-in-chief of the Russian air force in charge of the CIS’s unified air defence system, Lt-Gen Aytech Bizhev, told journalists today.

“The possible transfer of the testing of the S-400 to Kazakhstan is linked to the fact that the Russian proving grounds at Ashuluk and Kapustin Yar have limited possibilities in respect of the distance of firing,” Bizhev noted. At the same time the Balkhash proving ground in Kazakhstan makes it possible to fully check the combat potential of the new air defence missile system
ITAR-TASS 27 Jan 05

Being objective, it must be reckoned that THAAD have advantages in term of range and height, and probably in terms of data-processing speed.
On the other hand, improved S-400 looks impressive. Three missile types (perhaps 9M96, 48N6DM and 40N6), all tailored to accomplish a wide range of missions.

It looks that finally 40N6 will be commissioned around 2008.

Looks like you missed a key piece of information:

“The 100 Km missile max altitude is a new system with Active Phased array radar not to be confused with upgrade.”

Not only that even the new system only gives it about 2/3rds the altitude capability of the original THAAD (the version of THAAD currently in flight testing has significantly improved performance over that of the first series of tests).

It says more than 100KM for new system.

there is some thing follow on coming up.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060811/52520633.html
But the commander said development would not stop with the introduction of the new missiles because more effective missiles were being designed

using aircraft radar is more impressive.

Moscow, 27 July: A regiment consisting of two battalions of S-400 surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems will enter the inventory of the Russian air force in 2005, Col-General Anatoliy Nogovitsyn, acting air force commander-in-chief, said on Wednesday [27 July].

“In accordance with the state defence order, a regiment of S-400 systems will be commissioned this year. It will be deployed in Moscow Region,” Nogovitsyn told Interfax-AVN.

“The first regiment is experimental and consists of two battalions,” he noted.

“The S-400 system is capable of efficiently destroying all existing and future short and medium range ballistic missiles that will threaten the territory of the Russian Federation,” Nogovitsyn said. The system “works perfectly against both ballistic and aerodynamic targets,” he stressed.

The S-400 system developed by the Almaz-Antey air defence consortium is an absolutely new system that has a modular design, which developers never practised before, the acting commander-in-chief went on. Its baseline variety has four types of missiles, and the upgrade potential is enormous. In particular, the launcher of the new system is fit to fire old missiles which are in the inventory of S-300 system. “All subsequent missile modules will have the same size and weight,” he stressed. [Passage omitted]

The system can destroy targets in the near space at altitudes of up to 185 km and at distances of up to 400-450 km. It is capable of engaging ground and sea surface targets, too.

“This is an absolutely new system that is protected from jamming, has advanced accuracy and is capable of using target indication data from aircraft,” Nogovitsyn noted.

At the same time, S-400 can serve as a target indication means for fighters and assault aircraft. [Passage omitted]

“State tests of the system are in progress and a S-400 with the full set of missiles is expected to have been commissioned by 2008,” Nogovitsyn concluded
Interfax-AVN military news agency web site, 27 Jul 05

Not only that even the new system only gives it about 2/3rds the altitude capability of the original THAAD (the version of THAAD currently in flight testing has significantly improved performance over that of the first series of tests)

The THAAD known specs are a max range of 200 Km and a max altitude of interception of 150Km , Is there any change in specs for THAAD ?

So an upgrade for an existing system that will make it comparable to a system the US plans to put in service in a few years time but has no operational experience with… why the devil smilie?

Looks like you missed a key piece of information:

“The 100 Km missile max altitude is a new system with Active Phased array radar not to be confused with upgrade.”

Not only that even the new system only gives it about 2/3rds the altitude capability of the original THAAD (the version of THAAD currently in flight testing has significantly improved performance over that of the first series of tests).