S-400 vs THAAD vs SM-3

The 40N6 shouldn’t be too much longer I’d think though, and when it arrives we’ll probably hear about it in the Russian press, probably prefaced by the announcement of a successful test firing like they did in ’04 with the 48N6DM.

Think we’ll ever get to see SM-3/THAAD/GBI/PAC-3 type videos of it’s successful intercept? 😀

That’s what the Russians were saying at MAKS. Sounds like the other missiles weren’t in service at that time. If the 48N6DM is specifically intended for the S-400, I wonder what’s happened to it following successful flight tests in 2004. If it really is an upgraded version of existing rounds, perhaps the delays with the S-400 have slowed S-300 retirements and rounds aren’t available for rebuilding in sufficient numbers yet…

The 48N6DM should be the 300km variant for the S-400, it was reportedly test fired in April of 2004 from the Trieumf at Kapustin Yar according to Interfax on 30 April ’04. Whether it is compatible with the S-300PM-1/2 is up for debate; the new 92N6 engagement radar of the S-400 may make backwards compatibility a problem if the seeker head, radar, and associated electronics are different enough from the old TOMB STONE/48N6 combo.

Regarding the 9M96 and 9M96D not being in service yet, that really isn’t too much of a suprise. They might not even enter service with Russian S-400s for a while. They’re shorter ranged when compared to the 48N6DM, and the deployment locations of Moscow S-300P family systems (the first ones to be replaced by S-400s) aren’t necessarily sited to require another shorter ranged SAM. Strategic air defense of the capital makes longer-ranged missiles more useful, to intercept targets further out before they enter weapons range. The 40N6 shouldn’t be too much longer I’d think though, and when it arrives we’ll probably hear about it in the Russian press, probably prefaced by the announcement of a successful test firing like they did in ’04 with the 48N6DM.

For the moment, the S-400 system uses only one type of missile – the 48N6. This is either the 48N6-2 originally developed for the S-300PMU-2 Favorit system or the longer-ranged 48N6-3.

That’s what the Russians were saying at MAKS. Sounds like the other missiles weren’t in service at that time. If the 48N6DM is specifically intended for the S-400, I wonder what’s happened to it following successful flight tests in 2004. If it really is an upgraded version of existing rounds, perhaps the delays with the S-400 have slowed S-300 retirements and rounds aren’t available for rebuilding in sufficient numbers yet…

I think I’ve demonstrated before that at least the “small” missile of the S-400 (9m96) system uses kinetic kill. Its warhead is to small for proximity kill, instead the explosives in the warhead are just a lethality enhancer, much the same way the PAC-3 missile carries explosives to enhance lethality.

According to Fakel, the weapon has an “intelligent warhead”. To me, that translates to a directional warhead, which is able to focus all of its energy in one direction (in theory, the direction of the target). That allows you to use a smaller warhead but still generate enough explosive power to get a kill.

If the small missile is kinetic kill the large missile almost certainly will be too.

Lots of AAMs have pretty small warheads and are still proximity fuzed. And missiles themselves (as in the kind you would be shooting at) are still relatively fragile, and a lower-speed target like an SRBM doesn’t need a massive warhead hit to get it to either miss its target or fail completely.

For the moment, the S-400 system uses only one type of missile – the 48N6. This is either the 48N6-2 originally developed for the S-300PMU-2 Favorit system or the longer-ranged 48N6-3. The latter has an improved warhead, and is carried in a container-launcher having a heavier rim at the base of the container and a greater number of reinforcing rings.

48N6 is the original missile, called 48N6E for export. The follow-on 200km missile was 48N6D, called 48N6E2 for export. The S-400’s variant is 48N6DM, with a 250-300 km range. No export name so far as far as I know, but it’d probably be 48N6E3.

The system is due to receive the 9M96, 9M96E and 9M96E2 family of medium-to-long range missiles

9M96 and 9M96D are the native designators, 9M96E and 9M96E2 are the export designators.

It is not clear in this upgraded system will be designated S-500, or if the latter designation covers a new ABM system.

The S-500 is intended to be a new system with both limited ABM/full ATBM and limited (as in LOE) ASAT capability. It will work with the S-400 to provide air defence on a national level. At any rate the S-500 is a separate, new system, different from the S-400 although it may share some components such as TELs and perhaps some radar systems in modified forms.

For the moment, the S-400 system uses only one type of missile – the 48N6. This is either the 48N6-2 originally developed for the S-300PMU-2 Favorit system or the longer-ranged 48N6-3. The latter has an improved warhead, and is carried in a container-launcher having a heavier rim at the base of the container and a greater number of reinforcing rings.

The system is due to receive the 9M96, 9M96E and 9M96E2 family of medium-to-long range missiles and the 400 km range 40N6, but no timescale for these has been announced. They could be introduced by the first upgrading of the initial S-400 standard, starting perhaps around 2010. It is not clear in this upgraded system will be designated S-500, or if the latter designation covers a new ABM system.

kh-96 is new missle for S-400

Everyone else is calling it “40N6”. Do you have info others don’t

The ‘Kh-96’ and 40N6 are different missiles.

The missile designation Kh-96 first surfaced at this year’s MAKS and was reported to be a weapon with a range of more than 500 km. Although the ‘Kh’ designation implies an air-to-ground weapon, it has been suggested that this may be an air-launched weapon intended to engage ballistic targets.

I think I’ve demonstrated before that at least the “small” missile of the S-400 (9m96) system uses kinetic kill. Its warhead is to small for proximity kill, instead the explosives in the warhead are just a lethality enhancer, much the same way the PAC-3 missile carries explosives to enhance lethality.

According to Vladimir Svetlov, chief designer at Fakel, the 9M96 uses a ‘gas-dynamic system’ for control in the final stages of flight, allowing it to make unconventional manoeuvres and achieve a direct hit on the target. In a newspaper interview, he compared this with ‘most SAMs’ which had a lower hit probability, so needed to carry a heavy warhead initiated by a proximity fuze and able to create a large number of metal fragments. He did not say whether or not the new missile carried a warhead.

This year a military exercise with brand new S-400 was held in Russia, other types of SAMs also. So the day before real firings of S-400, there were simulation firings in very hard ECM environment and S-400 failed to perform as needed.

The first battalion equipped with the S-400 was reported to be conducting final training exercises at an unidentified Russian proving ground in May. According to Colonel General Alexander Zelin, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force, the unit was having some minor problems. These seem to have delayed IOC. On 12 June, Zelin announced that the system would enter service within the next few months rather than on the planned date of 1 July.

Live-fire testing with the first operational system was completed at Kapustin Yar on 12-13 July and the first battalion was formally commissioned in early August.

Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

Some tit-bit information from russian forums (and also from the kitchen). This year a military exercise with brand new S-400 was held in Russia, other types of SAMs also. So the day before real firings of S-400, there were simulation firings in very hard ECM environment and S-400 failed to perform as needed. By some rumours, as a result of this failure the head designer obtained some kind of heart attack and … died. Also other developers were talking and threatening pilots of ECM planes to tear off their heads …..

I think I’ve demonstrated before

Where?

If the small missile is kinetic kill the large missile almost certainly will be too.

Why would you make that assumption?

I think I’ve demonstrated before that at least the “small” missile of the S-400 (9m96) system uses kinetic kill. Its warhead is to small for proximity kill, instead the explosives in the warhead are just a lethality enhancer, much the same way the PAC-3 missile carries explosives to enhance lethality.

In theory the way the charge will be used probably depends on whether the target is a missile of a thin skinned aircraft, if its thin skinned the missile will probably be programmed to detonate at 5 meters out like your typical SAM, but if the target is a missile it will go in for the hard kill. Nobody really knows though since stuff like that is classified. But the explosive charge on the 9m96 is tiny even by US standards so that is the most likely story.

If the small missile is kinetic kill the large missile almost certainly will be too.

kh-96 is new missle for S-400
whit 500 km range & very high altitute ABM capability

The 40N6 is the new missile, joining the 9M96 and 48N6DM. Anything with a 500km range and ABM capability is probably going to be something associated with the new S-500 system, which will provide ABM and ASAT capability to work with the S-400 under the Samoderzhets concept of interconnectivity and integrated air defense (Samoderzhets not being an actual SAM system itself, but a concept of operations).

And anything Kh- is going to be an ASM.

There is a difference in the design methodologies of Russian BMD systems like S-400 and western BMDs like THAAD, Patriot and Arrow. Russian systems have a separate surveillance radar and the tracking-guidance radar, whereas in western BMDs both these functionalities are integrated into one radar unit for atleast the Patriot-3 and Arrow systems.

The advantage of separating the surveillance and tracking radar units as in S-400 is that the separation can be of many kilometers, thus resulting in a wide area of defence. This is in contrast with point defence like Israel’s Patriot-3 and Arrow systems, as a consequence of integrated surveillance and tracking modes on one ground radar.

However, to solve this, the THAAD system instead of a dedicated surveillance radar uses a network of sensors ranging from AWACs, ship-based rardars and other ground radars. This diagram illustrates this.
The network of AWACs etc. will communicate to a central operations centre, which in turn will simply designate the nearest missile launching unit to launch an interceptor at the target.

The disadvantage of such a system may be issues of interoperability between various ad-hoc and independent platforms with the BMD centre. Thus, the S-400 may be more robust and also has far fewer issues of interoperability, compared to that of THAAD.
It may be noted that although the Indian BMD Pradyumna uses Israeli radars, it follows the Russian architecture exactly :- a surveillance radar detects an incoming threat first very early. After that, the launcher unit is assigned the target. The launcher unit’s local tracking radar then guides the missile to the target.

The Japanese SM-3 which has been co-developed with USA, is similar to the Aegis and Patriot-3 BMDs that it plans to acquire. As per globalsecurity.org, SM-3 is mostly the effort of Aegis’ main contractor Raytheon, with Japan’s role limited to support only. Hence, like the Mitsubishi F-2 fighter jet which is an F-16 clone, the SM-3 is also likely to be only a design replica of the Aegis.
The SM-3 system emphasizes on a precisely homed terminal kill for which it is guided by an infrared sensor. The nose-cone is is jettisoned in the terminal exo phase to expose the sensor. Thus, it may be nearly impossible to jam. The ground-based radars discriminate targets in a target scene.

Most of the emphasis is on the stage-wise uplift and protection of the kinetic warhead until the terminal phase. This is an advantage over the S-400 and Indian BMDs, which use proximity fuses.

References :-

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sm3.htm

I don’t think a “kinetic” warhead has an advantage over a explosive warhead, in this SAM case.

S-400 is supposed to be a universal system that can be better then both PAC-3 and THAAD. In order to be used as THAAD it must have appropriate radar and its famous BIG missle.

Quastions.

1. When this BIG missle be ready and can it really match THAAD specialised missle as high altittude interceptor?

2. Does it have better radar then THAAD?

3. Why everybody forget about SM-3. Its stated specs looks unmatched. Is there a reason for that?

Take alook at THAAD/PAC you’ll see the S-400 is better than them:

1. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/thaad.htm

2. S-400 http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-400.htm

the problem is that janes has few quality personnel working for them, compared to the volume of information they handle. so while they are regarded with keen interest over the stuff they get from airshows, trade expos and industry events which are basically all the released data from corporations, their analysis and local reports are very hit and miss.

so for the west coverage is great, in fact startling. but for asian countries, including india for instance, their coverage is pathetic. their local correpsondent is rahul bedi. who cant recognise a t-72 from a bmp or an agni from a trishul. its somewhat embarassing really. on the one hand theres christopher foss and on the other rahul bedi.

The issue outside of the ‘west’ is a lack of suitable personnell. The UK and the west in general produces a high number of Security/War studies graduates and post graduates every year and of a very high calibre, outside of the ‘west’ that sort of cadre is simply not available. The local reports and analysis on Russia is very very good, the reason is becouse they have been doing it for years, India and Pakistan have only just come to the fore and China is a knightmare to get reliable information on.

I doubt that’s the correct designation, Kh-XX identifiers are normally used for A/G-missiles.

kh-96 is new missle for S-400
whit 500 km range & very high altitute ABM capability

Everyone else is calling it “40N6”. Do you have info others don’t? Could you share if you do? 😉

kh-96 is new missle for S-400
whit 500 km range & very high altitute ABM capability

The S-500 should be in capabilities somewhere between THAAD and SM-3. (That is my assumption).

If you want to do an “BMD Umbrella”, you need first of all – besides enough range, obviously – a VERY good cross-shot capability. I mean, in theory you could intercept a BM with a Napoleon-era 18-pounder, you just have to place the ball in the right 4D location.

Looking at some basic termincal phase BMD parameters like system reaction time, engagement precision, and cross-shot angle the later is what enables a “BMD Umbrella” without you having to put too many batteries on the ground.

PAC-3 as a pure point defense system for example has to placed right on a potential target, its cross-shot angle is limited to collision-course intercepts, (also because of the short range).
THAAD and Arrow 2 are a little better, but still have to be positioned very close to, and under a potential flight path in pretty close vicinity of a potential target. Against the most demanding target they are designed against I’m pretty sure your battery position has to be a single-digit distance away from the flight path, although the missile performance would give you a little downwind flexibility.
SM-3 probably has the largest cross-shot angle, since it’s a midcourse interceptor. Not sure they did or will do any terminal phase intercept tests with it.
GBI is limited by its seeker to almost pure head-on intercepts.

So if the Russians want an umbrella-BMD, the S-500 would have to combine THAAD with SM-3 capabilities. Long Range of course, but more so a VERY precise end-game.

What would be really interesting to see is a 4D plan view of the capabilities of the respective systems. But I guess that’s about the most secret stuff you can look at in BMD…

Russia has had ABM capabilities for 40+ years:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=85000693

the problem is that janes has few quality personnel working for them, compared to the volume of information they handle. so while they are regarded with keen interest over the stuff they get from airshows, trade expos and industry events which are basically all the released data from corporations, their analysis and local reports are very hit and miss.

so for the west coverage is great, in fact startling. but for asian countries, including india for instance, their coverage is pathetic. their local correpsondent is rahul bedi. who cant recognise a t-72 from a bmp or an agni from a trishul. its somewhat embarassing really. on the one hand theres christopher foss and on the other rahul bedi.

A problem faced by all defence publishers – including Jane’s – is the global lack of quality personnel able to handle defence journalism. It would be great to have a Christopher Foss equivalent in a dozen countries around the world, alas there is but one, and he’s in the UK.

This shortage of good defence writers was a source of great embarrassment to the old International Defense Review during the 1970s. Although based in Switzerland, it desperately wanted to have an international staff lineup, but in practice many of its editorial team were British.

It wasn’t that a benevolent deity had blessed the UK with high defence-reporting skills – the key factor was that the UK had a large number of small defence magazines in those days, most with only one or two writers and some with a larger number. I don’t know of any other country that had such a large number of ‘cottage industry’ defence publications. These titles made extensive use of freelance journalists and even local enthusiasts. They were the training ground in which many now grey-haired defence reporters got started.

Aerospace and defence magazines are always on the lookout for good foreign correspondents – journalists with a track record, and with specialised aerospace or defence expertise. They are a rare breed, and if you find one, he is unlikely to be an all-rounder. He may understand tanks, but not submarines, airliners but not combat aircraft, and so on.

A general-purpose reporter from a quality newspaper can provide some defence coverage for a specialist title, but to many of them all grey-painted ships fitted with guns are ‘battleships’ and all green or sand-coloured metal boxes on tracks are ‘tanks’.

no..no..
in the indian case the surveillance cum tracking radar is the lrtr or the long range tracking radar, an indian version of the greenpine.
its backed up by the multifunction fire control radar which can rotate all around, and has antiaircraft capability as well. but both work in tandem for the intercept. its not following the russian concept or us concept really since there will be similarities between all three. actually we are quite similar to the US system in the usage of a 2 layered shield

Nick_76, I agree with the above. Earlier, I had mistaken the use of a separate surveillance radar and a tracking radar. India’s BMD is a mixture of US and western architectures.

In the Indian BMD system, the individual radars (like Patriot’s track radar) scan particular sectors in the atmosphere. Whenever a target is detected, it is first sent to the MCC which classifies the target, predicts its impact point, and depending upon the predicted path assigns one of the optimum TELs to engage it.

Thus, surveillance is done by a combined use of “blinkered” track radars which are allocated areas in the atmosphere to look for possible targets.

also, like thaad even india is planning to integrate all it can into the bmd system, it would be foolish not to. so all the iafs radars for low flying targets, long range strategic radars like thd-1955, aerostats, awacs..its going to be a large integration.

obviosuly you’d want to get a unified air picture with zero gaps (as much as possible) that means as much radar coverage as possible.

The above is actually being [i]specifically[/i] done for cruise missile defence, which needs to track low-flying cruise missiles via AWACs. If a cruise missile happens to pass by a ground radar also en route to target, its info will be registered with the radar network.

The claims about Babur having the capability to loiter around, or being programmed to automatically evade radar are unlikely to be true, as loiter capability is only with the latest version of US cruise missile developed 2-3 years ago.
Babur is a basic GPS-INS guided missile only with or without Digital Scene Matching at terminal phase (assume worst case with the latter). Till the time the BMD system does not have the capability to intercept cruise missiles, short-range defence via Akash SAM can be used to defend strategic locations within Babur’s range of 700-1000 kms.

It may be noted that although the Indian BMD Pradyumna uses Israeli radars, it follows the Russian architecture exactly :- a surveillance radar detects an incoming threat first very early. After that, the launcher unit is assigned the target. The launcher unit’s local tracking radar then guides the missile to the target.

no..no..
in the indian case the surveillance cum tracking radar is the lrtr or the long range tracking radar, an indian version of the greenpine.
its backed up by the multifunction fire control radar which can rotate all around, and has antiaircraft capability as well. but both work in tandem for the intercept. its not following the russian concept or us concept really since there will be similarities between all three. actually we are quite similar to the US system in the usage of a 2 layered shield

also, like thaad even india is planning to integrate all it can into the bmd system, it would be foolish not to. so all the iafs radars for low flying targets, long range strategic radars like thd-1955, aerostats, awacs..its going to be a large integration.

obviosuly you’d want to get a unified air picture with zero gaps (as much as possible) that means as much radar coverage as possible.

Janes is a highly respected organisation that produces a very large amount of information at a very rapid rate. Due to the very nature of their subject matter some errors are to be expected. However to call them inherently unreliable is dishonest as it is simply not the case. Indeed Janes is held in very high regard and used by a number of very important organisations and institutions. If you were talking about some pathetic rag like ‘Warships IFR’ (seriously if you read that, just stop) then fair enough, but not Janes.

the problem is that janes has few quality personnel working for them, compared to the volume of information they handle. so while they are regarded with keen interest over the stuff they get from airshows, trade expos and industry events which are basically all the released data from corporations, their analysis and local reports are very hit and miss.

so for the west coverage is great, in fact startling. but for asian countries, including india for instance, their coverage is pathetic. their local correpsondent is rahul bedi. who cant recognise a t-72 from a bmp or an agni from a trishul. its somewhat embarassing really. on the one hand theres christopher foss and on the other rahul bedi.