TPY-2 can be radar OTH ?

@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.

Then I recommend you to read the book lightning bolts about MARVs.
I appreciate your effort. However I think your model is not applicable for this case. The reason is simply empirical knowledge.
As describes the book lightning bolts is a good read about early US experiences with MARVs, the G numbers mentioned there go up to 50 IIRC.

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.

Then we have weapons like the AIM-54 which reached high speeds and had to perform at least two digit G maneuvers, at least even at 5 G your model would deliver impossible results.

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.

We have effects that have a huge impact:
– Compared to high velocity objects, low velocity objects are exposed to much lower G loads for the same turn. Hence the vector change of a high velocity object is much smaller for the same G load.
– At high velocities, the ram air effect on the aerodynamic surfaces is much higher, so the drag force. Hence a low velocity object can have the same drag force at low altitude as a high velocity object at high altitude.
– Rotation axis position of the fins can be extreme for maximum ram air pressure –> turn capability

Velocity, air density and fin area are all included in the equation. Moreover, CL of a plate can only increase up to a certain AoA , after that , you will have less CL and more Cd

A ballistic missile with a depressed trajectory will appear later on the LOS radar horizon due to curvature of the earth. Only inaccurate OTH radars won’t have this problem, but they are useless for engagement

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.

A ballistic missile does come down on it’s own via the ballistic trajectory, no need for a gas system. The gas system has a different role as said.

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

I put it simply: At sea level the airframe structure would have to be very robust to endure the drag forces of mach 4 and above. More or less no one is willing to build such a heavy airframe to survive mach 4 at sea level. This is the reason why TBMs like the Iskander up to a ICBM RV are designed to de-accelerate down to below mach 4 at ground impact is that this is the best weight-velocity trade-off (expect for not yet realized exotic stuff).

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

Good and this leads us to the starting point of the discussion. Iskander vs. THAAD.
So if the kill vehicle of the THAAD has left useful atmosphere and the target, the Iskander, suddenly changes course via its gas system or still effective aerodynamic control: will the THAAD kill vehicle have enough fuel to chase the Iskander? This is the kinematic game that will leave one of the two as looser and these are among methods to counter a ABM system like THAAD.

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.

As said: The frontal cross section of a Iskander doing a 10G turn is not changing much because a small change of the vector will cause 10G load at mach 6. That for the tube body argumentation.
Secondly the impulse of the Iskander is very high with it’s mass and velocity. I think just because the speeds are magnitudes different, the comparison of aircrafts and BMs is leading you to wrong results

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

@garryA

Not what I heard of

Then I recommend you to read the book lightning bolts about MARVs.

As far as we know, Iskander is 7.3 meters in length and 0.92 meters in body diameter, it has several trapezoid fins. If you use the ruler scales in paints or pts, you can estimate the inner length of the fin is 1/10 of missiles length (0.73 meters), the outter length of the fin is 1/27 of missiles length (0.27 meters), the heigh of the fin is 1/4 of missiles body diameter (0.225 meters).Iam not saying the estimation is 100% accurate, but it surely close enough ( if you see the result later, you will find that even if the fins are several times bigger than i estimated, it still doesn’t really matter). From the photo we can see that Iskander’s fins has trapezoid shape ,so with values given earlier we can calculate area of the fins to be around 0.11 square meters
Lift as cited earlier is CL* air density* 0.5*velocity^2 *wing area
By this http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html
let say altitude is 24 km (which is half of what you propose so that we can have some what thicker air for the missiles to turn), the air density will be 0.046 kg/m3, speed of sound at that altitude will be 297 m/sec ( so Mach 6 will be 1782 meters/ second)
Wing area is 0.11 meters squares as calculated earlier.
To make 30G turn , the missiles will need to generate aerodynamic lift of 69,225 kg ( or 678,405 Newtons)
=> CL*0.046*0.5*1782^2*0.11 = 678,405
=> CL*8,034 =678,405
=> CL = 84.44
For comparision, the flanker airframe ( with LERX, blended body, negative stability and what not) has CL of 1.2 at Mach 1 and AoA of 18 degrees

In short, the Iskander will need the lift coefficient around 70 times bigger than Su-27 for it to be able to pull 30G at Mach 6 and altitude of merely 24 km .No chance.
Before, i may have a slight doubt but now iam 99% certain that the G-load of Iskander on Wiki is BS.

I appreciate your effort. However I think your model is not applicable for this case. The reason is simply empirical knowledge.

As describes the book lightning bolts is a good read about early US experiences with MARVs, the G numbers mentioned there go up to 50 IIRC.
Then we have weapons like the AIM-54 which reached high speeds and had to perform at least two digit G maneuvers, at least even at 5 G your model would deliver impossible results.
We have effects that have a huge impact:
– Compared to high velocity objects, low velocity objects are exposed to much lower G loads for the same turn. Hence the vector change of a high velocity object is much smaller for the same G load.
– At high velocities, the ram air effect on the aerodynamic surfaces is much higher, so the drag force. Hence a low velocity object can have the same drag force at low altitude as a high velocity object at high altitude.
– Rotation axis position of the fins can be extreme for maximum ram air pressure –> turn capability.

I don’t see how quasi-ballistic will shorter radar warning time, it help improve range but surely the warning time will be longer IMHO. Moreover, i don’t see the relation with ram air pressure either since Iskander is a rocket, not a scramjet or ramjet missile.

A ballistic missile with a depressed trajectory will appear later on the LOS radar horizon due to curvature of the earth. Only inaccurate OTH radars won’t have this problem, but they are useless for engagement.

On the otherhand, i believe that the gas system is for re-oriented the missiles nose before re-entry without the gas system the missiles will likely oriented wrong way and get burned in the atmostphere.The fins are most likely to turn missiles in atmosphere so that it follow quasi-ballistic path for extended range.

A ballistic missile does come down on it’s own via the ballistic trajectory, no need for a gas system. The gas system has a different role as said.

The terminal velocity depending on forces vs drag relation, it is irrelevant of whether the missiles has heat shield or not. The heat shield only help prevent the air from destroying the missile but has nothing to do with the drag vs force equation.
If the rail gun project can reach Mach 5 on impact, that mean at Mach 5 the resultant force of gravity minus drag is equal zero. Unless Iskander and others ICBM are significantly more draggy, there is no reason for their terminal velocity to be limited to Mach 3 at impact.

I put it simply: At sea level the airframe structure would have to be very robust to endure the drag forces of mach 4 and above. More or less no one is willing to build such a heavy airframe to survive mach 4 at sea level. This is the reason why TBMs like the Iskander up to a ICBM RV are designed to de-accelerate down to below mach 4 at ground impact is that this is the best weight-velocity trade-off (expect for not yet realized exotic stuff).

Consider the design of THAAD with no fin, seperate kill vehicle with divert gas system, you can see that is is mostly a interceptor intended to intercept missiles at very high altitude where the air is extremely thin and the fin doesn’t work. So putting a high G value here for either missiles is simply nonsense

Good and this leads us to the starting point of the discussion. Iskander vs. THAAD.
So if the kill vehicle of the THAAD has left useful atmosphere and the target, the Iskander, suddenly changes course via its gas system or still effective aerodynamic control: will the THAAD kill vehicle have enough fuel to chase the Iskander? This is the kinematic game that will leave one of the two as looser and these are among methods to counter a ABM system like THAAD.

Even aircraft with their high lift design will lose significant amount of speed if they attemp high G at altitude, there is no way a tube body with fin only lose 0.3 Mach when trying to do 10G maneuver at Mach 6

As said: The frontal cross section of a Iskander doing a 10G turn is not changing much because a small change of the vector will cause 10G load at mach 6. That for the tube body argumentation.
Secondly the impulse of the Iskander is very high with it’s mass and velocity. I think just because the speeds are magnitudes different, the comparison of aircrafts and BMs is leading you to wrong results.

Consider the design of THAAD with no fin, seperate kill vehicle with divert gas system, you can see that is is mostly a interceptor intended to intercept missiles at very high altitude where the air is extremely thin and the fin doesn’t work. So putting a high G value here for either missiles is simply nonsense

The broader consensus among the Missile defense experts is that THAAD has an envelope in the 50-150 km altitude with the Extended Range Missile increasing the upper envelope but leaving the lower one the same. There is a gap between the upper tier of the PAC-3/MSE, and the lower altitude of the THAAD that currently has a notional interceptor (Upper tier Patriot) as a defined gap for a future program.

High G’s were witnessed by US MaRV programs too, partly due to de-acceleration and partly due to turns.

Not what I heard of

Its the high speed in the equation with ^2 that makes it possible, aerodynamic maneuvers can be done at very high altitude due to the higher speed.
The Iskander was rumored to fly a depressed trajectory and called a quasi-ballistic missile due to that. Shorter warning time due to later radar detection was one reason, but another reason is that at high speed it would remain maneuverable via it’s fins. Other missiles would have almost no function on their fins at around 50km, but Iskander could due to its speed and resulting ram air pressure.

Not long ago, i been in similar discussion about AIM-120 turn performer, i don’t mind doing it again
Let start, here is a photo of Iskander

As far as we know, Iskander is 7.3 meters in length and 0.92 meters in body diameter, it has several trapezoid fins. If you use the ruler scales in paints or pts, you can estimate the inner length of the fin is 1/10 of missiles length (0.73 meters), the outter length of the fin is 1/27 of missiles length (0.27 meters), the heigh of the fin is 1/4 of missiles body diameter (0.225 meters).Iam not saying the estimation is 100% accurate, but it surely close enough ( if you see the result later, you will find that even if the fins are several times bigger than i estimated, it still doesn’t really matter). From the photo we can see that Iskander’s fins has trapezoid shape ,so with values given earlier we can calculate area of the fins to be around 0.11 square meters
Lift as cited earlier is CL* air density* 0.5*velocity^2 *wing area
By this http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html
let say altitude is 24 km (which is half of what you propose so that we can have some what thicker air for the missiles to turn), the air density will be 0.046 kg/m3, speed of sound at that altitude will be 297 m/sec ( so Mach 6 will be 1782 meters/ second)
Wing area is 0.11 meters squares as calculated earlier.
To make 30G turn , the missiles will need to generate aerodynamic lift of 69,225 kg ( or 678,405 Newtons)
=> CL*0.046*0.5*1782^2*0.11 = 678,405
=> CL*8,034 =678,405
=> CL = 84.44
For comparision, the flanker airframe ( with LERX, blended body, negative stability and what not) has CL of 1.2 at Mach 1 and AoA of 18 degrees

In short, the Iskander will need the lift coefficient around 70 times bigger than Su-27 for it to be able to pull 30G at Mach 6 and altitude of merely 24 km .No chance.
Before, i may have a slight doubt but now iam 99% certain that the G-load of Iskander on Wiki is BS.

The Iskander was rumored to fly a depressed trajectory and called a quasi-ballistic missile due to that. Shorter warning time due to later radar detection was one reason, but another reason is that at high speed it would remain maneuverable via it’s fins. Other missiles would have almost no function on their fins at around 50km, but Iskander could due to its speed and resulting ram air pressure

quasi-ballistic trajectory look like this

I don’t see how quasi-ballistic will shorter radar warning time, it help improve range but surely the warning time will be longer IMHO. Moreover, i don’t see the relation with ram air pressure either since Iskander is a rocket, not a scramjet or ramjet missile.

They have because their post boost vehicle does maneuver to place the re-entry vehicles in trajectory. The Iskander would have no reason for a gas system, any possibly necessary course corrections would be done in terminal via it’s fins. Hence the only reason would be to counter exo atmospheric interceptors or to change course to confuse/bleed endo-atmospheric interceptors. The gas system of the Iskander is at its TVC system.

On the otherhand, i believe that the gas system is for re-oriented the missiles nose before re-entry without the gas system the missiles will likely oriented wrong way and get burned in the atmostphere.The fins are most likely to turn missiles in atmosphere so that it follow quasi-ballistic path for extended range.

Sounds exotic. For a system without any propulsion, just with a hardened GPS guidance and hardened fins a starting speed of mach 7,5 might be possible if the heat shielding is nearly all the projectiles weight. Still a very hard task and different than missile and their airframes.

All other systems down to ICBM reentry vehicles need to de-accelerate down to around mach 3 at sea level to avoid disintegration due to thermal stress and drag forces. The Iskander is surely in that category and maybe mach 4 would be possible if it’s hardened accordingly.

The terminal velocity depending on forces vs drag relation, it is irrelevant of whether the missiles has heat shield or not. The heat shield only help prevent the air from destroying the missile but has nothing to do with the drag vs force equation.
If the rail gun project can reach Mach 5 on impact, that mean at Mach 5 the resultant force of gravity minus drag is equal zero. Unless Iskander and others ICBM are significantly more draggy, there is no reason for their terminal velocity to be limited to Mach 3 at impact.

I guess we have to first define high G in this scenario, in relation with THAAD.
How many G’s would the gas system of the THAAD be able to pull?
How many G’s can the Iskander pull if it fly a depressed trajectory in which its aerodynamic control via fins is still possible due to the high ram air speed?

Consider the design of THAAD with no fin, seperate kill vehicle with divert gas system, you can see that is is mostly a interceptor intended to intercept missiles at very high altitude where the air is extremely thin and the fin doesn’t work. So putting a high G value here for either missiles is simply nonsense

Each course changing 3G maneuver of the Iskander consumes mach 0,1 and each 10G evasive maneuver mach 0,3.
This speculation is not really helpful.

Even aircraft with their high lift design will lose significant amount of speed if they attemp high G at altitude, there is no way a tube body with fin only lose 0.3 Mach when trying to do 10G maneuver at Mach 6

@garryA

I highly doubt that Iskander can pull 30G with its tiny fin and tube body either, especially consider high altitude. Air to air missiles can turn high G value only at sea level. I can’t be bothered to do the calculation now but if you put the number in the lift equation, you probably end up with CL higher than subsonic airfoil for Iskander if it want to pull 30G at high altitude (pulling 30G at low altitude is kinda too late).

High G’s were witnessed by US MaRV programs too, partly due to de-acceleration and partly due to turns.
Its the high speed in the equation with ^2 that makes it possible, aerodynamic maneuvers can be done at very high altitude due to the higher speed.
The Iskander was rumored to fly a depressed trajectory and called a quasi-ballistic missile due to that. Shorter warning time due to later radar detection was one reason, but another reason is that at high speed it would remain maneuverable via it’s fins. Other missiles would have almost no function on their fins at around 50km, but Iskander could due to its speed and resulting ram air pressure.

I don’t know if Iskander has a mid body thruster or not ( since i can’t find the holes like on the space shuttle). But gas system are not indicator that it is supposed to counter exoatmospheric interceptors. For example intercontinental ballistic missile generally all have gas system in their final stage.

They have because their post boost vehicle does maneuver to place the re-entry vehicles in trajectory. The Iskander would have no reason for a gas system, any possibly necessary course corrections would be done in terminal via it’s fins. Hence the only reason would be to counter exo atmospheric interceptors or to change course to confuse/bleed endo-atmospheric interceptors. The gas system of the Iskander is at its TVC system.

Mach 3 is not the fastest impact velocity for conventional material, structure either

Rail gun for example intended to have impact velocity around Mach 5 and it has similar trajectory to most ballistic missiles

Sounds exotic. For a system without any propulsion, just with a hardened GPS guidance and hardened fins a starting speed of mach 7,5 might be possible if the heat shielding is nearly all the projectiles weight. Still a very hard task and different than missile and their airframes.

All other systems down to ICBM reentry vehicles need to de-accelerate down to around mach 3 at sea level to avoid disintegration due to thermal stress and drag forces. The Iskander is surely in that category and maybe mach 4 would be possible if it’s hardened accordingly.

Kh-15 reach terminal velocity of Mach 5 in a dive to target.
Kh-22 reach terminal velocity of Mach 4.6 in a high altitude dive to target
AQM-37 can reach terminal velocity of Mach 5 in dive too.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-37.html

Maybe at the start of the dive at ~10km altitude they could still have mach 5 but almost certainly not at impact, sea level.

As a theater ballistic missiles,without maneuver Iskander can probably reach around Mach 5-6 terminal velocity in impact. Consider the small fin, Iskander will need very high CL to pull high G, high CL mean either very high AoA or very thick , lift oriented air foil. From photos we can see, there is nothing lift oriented about Iskander fin. It has low aspect ratio, high wing sweep and not much thickness if there is any. The body itself is also a tube body. So the only other option is high AoA, and high AoA generate alot more drag. The missiles likely lose 2-3 Mach from each high AoA maneuver and then it has to maneuver back to still high the right target too so will lose even more speed. While Iskander can probably change course and direction, i don’t think it can do what information on Wiki seem to suggest

I guess we have to first define high G in this scenario, in relation with THAAD.
How many G’s would the gas system of the THAAD be able to pull?
How many G’s can the Iskander pull if it fly a depressed trajectory in which its aerodynamic control via fins is still possible due to the high ram air speed?

I haven’t read the Wiki article about Iskander but in this scenario there is a good chance to outmaneuver the THAAD interceptor. There is also a good chance that at the depressed trajectory the Iskander would be outside the PAC-3 interception envelope.
We have a fundamentally different understanding about how much speed is lost when doing a maneuver, you talk about 2-3 mach numbers being lost by each maneuver. You also ignore that speed lost due to maneuvering creates a more efficient drag economy.

Hence let me make some claims too:
-THAAD would only be able to do 10G maneuvers
-Iskander would be able to dodge those maneuvers by a counter 10G maneuver at depressed trajectory 60km altitude via its fins
– Each course changing 3G maneuver of the Iskander consumes mach 0,1 and each 10G evasive maneuver mach 0,3.
This speculation is not really helpful.

Btw. at speeds like mach 6 no high AoA maneuvers are necessary to create loads like 10 or 30G.

You might be a professional in one field and I an expert in another, however it would be too arrogant to think you or me can question the functioning of such a complex system such as the Iskander. If the Russians have implemented a gas system, we should expect that it’s working and this also for a useful reason. We should rather try to interpret the details of those system in a way that makes sense.

Iam not saying that Iskander can’t change direction or can’t fly to target, iam arguing that many numbers , details floating around the internet about Iskander are nonsense , just like the myth about plasma stealth that defeat everything or the jammer on Su-24 that shut down AEGIS …etc. There are tons of BS information on internet, hardly a big surprise.

I agree that 30G maneuvers with the gas system is very unlikely, I just argumented on the numbers you brought up. It’s rather likely that 30G would be possible via the fins insider layers of the atmosphere which allow 30g at mach 6 to be pulled.

I highly doubt that Iskander can pull 30G with its tiny fin and tube body either, especially consider high altitude. Air to air missiles can turn high G value only at sea level. I can’t be bothered to do the calculation now but if you put the number in the lift equation, you probably end up with CL higher than subsonic airfoil for Iskander if it want to pull 30G at high altitude (pulling 30G at low altitude is kinda too late).

implementation a gas system is a clear indicator that it’s supposed to counter exoatmospheric interceptors.

I don’t know if Iskander has a mid body thruster or not ( since i can’t find the holes like on the space shuttle). But gas system are not indicator that it is supposed to counter exoatmospheric interceptors. For example intercontinental ballistic missile generally all have gas system in their final stage.

We talked about this. Let me put it simply: Because the velocity is not proportional to drag force, it’s with ^2. If your velocity is lower our losses due to drag will be lower. The lower earth atmosphere is so dense that mach 3 is about the highest velocity you can reach with a conventional structure/materials. So the Iskander much be around mach 3 when impacting. It must loose 3 mach numbers from its speed outside the atmosphere. Hence it may enter the lower atmosphere at mach 5 or at mach 3,5.
At mach 5 it may be at mach 3 at impact. –> 2 mach numbers loss due to drag
At mach 3,5 it may be at mach 2,5 at impact. –> 1 mach number loss due to drag

So the Iskander could bleed 1,5 mach numbers for endo-atmospheric maneuvering and end up by only 0,5 mach numbers below a non-maneuvering Iskander at impact.

Mach 3 is not the fastest impact velocity for conventional material, structure either

Rail gun for example intended to have impact velocity around Mach 5 and it has similar trajectory to most ballistic missiles

Kh-15 reach terminal velocity of Mach 5 in a dive to target.
Kh-22 reach terminal velocity of Mach 4.6 in a high altitude dive to target
AQM-37 can reach terminal velocity of Mach 5 in dive too.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-37.html

As a theater ballistic missiles,without maneuver Iskander can probably reach around Mach 5-6 terminal velocity in impact. Consider the small fin, Iskander will need very high CL to pull high G, high CL mean either very high AoA or very thick , lift oriented air foil. From photos we can see, there is nothing lift oriented about Iskander fin. It has low aspect ratio, high wing sweep and not much thickness if there is any. The body itself is also a tube body. So the only other option is high AoA, and high AoA generate alot more drag. The missiles likely lose 2-3 Mach from each high AoA maneuver and then it has to maneuver back to still high the right target too so will lose even more speed. While Iskander can probably change course and direction, i don’t think it can do what information on Wiki seem to suggest

@garryA

I couldn’t care less if Russian engineers or US engineer do it. The location of the gas system relative to the CoG only matter as a pivot for nose pointing, but irrelevance to how many G the turn make.The acceleration of the turn itself have to obey F= ma equation. You can’t just ignore such fundamental physics law.
And yes i did simplified it for you because the F variable in F= ma is resultant force not thrust, so F actually equal thrust minus drag. But that only mean the gas system need to produce even higher thrust to perform 30G maneuver as rumored.

You might be a professional in one field and I an expert in another, however it would be too arrogant to think you or me can question the functioning of such a complex system such as the Iskander. If the Russians have implemented a gas system, we should expect that it’s working and this also for a useful reason. We should rather try to interpret the details of those system in a way that makes sense.

I agree that 30G maneuvers with the gas system is very unlikely, I just argumented on the numbers you brought up. It’s rather likely that 30G would be possible via the fins insider layers of the atmosphere which allow 30g at mach 6 to be pulled.
I claim that the exoatmospheric gas system could make re positioning in denser air layers necessary for the interceptor (loss of energy). I claim that at least its possible that the gas system might be used to evade a THAAD interceptor, whether via a maneuver. What we can be sure about is that the expertise of Soviets/Russians in that field and implementation a gas system is a clear indicator that it’s supposed to counter exoatmospheric interceptors.

You basically propose that the gas system on Iskander has enough fuel to produce the massive thrust ( more than 75% of LGM-30 Minuteman first stage ) not just once but many times.

No I don’t. Why would you use a “30g maneuver” or 75% Minuteman first stage thrust for a course correction? Any thrust will lead to a course change. A small continuous thrust will change the course and enable such position changes in order to bleed the interceptor.

In endo-atmospheric conditions, speed of missiles decelerate due to drag. The formula for drag is:

when you turn the missiles, expose its side aspect to the air flow, both the reference area and the drag coefficient will increase. The side area of Iskander-M is at least several times the cross section of its nose, the Cd is much bigger too obviously. As a result, the drag will be several time bigger atleast, without main rocket operating the missiles will lose speed extremely quick, since the only things counter the drag is the weight of missiles. After the turn, you can gain some speed back through potential to kinetic energy convention but the acceleration due to gravity is rather small. In perfect condition (without any drag), the gravitational acceleration is only 9.8 m/s. When missiles entered the atmoshphere, the drag will be much higher, therefore acceleration rate is much slower and keep getting worse and worse as missiles fell down.

We talked about this. Let me put it simply: Because the velocity is not proportional to drag force, it’s with ^2. If your velocity is lower our losses due to drag will be lower. The lower earth atmosphere is so dense that mach 3 is about the highest velocity you can reach with a conventional structure/materials. So the Iskander much be around mach 3 when impacting. It must loose 3 mach numbers from its speed outside the atmosphere. Hence it may enter the lower atmosphere at mach 5 or at mach 3,5.
At mach 5 it may be at mach 3 at impact. –> 2 mach numbers loss due to drag
At mach 3,5 it may be at mach 2,5 at impact. –> 1 mach number loss due to drag

So the Iskander could bleed 1,5 mach numbers for endo-atmospheric maneuvering and end up by only 0,5 mach numbers below a non-maneuvering Iskander at impact.

You are mistakenly simplifying the case. Soviet engineers should have known what they are doing with the gas system of the Iskander. You don’t take into consideration the offset of the gas system to the CoG.The gas system of the Iskander is at a strong offset to the CoG.

I couldn’t care less if Russian engineers or US engineer do it. The location of the gas system relative to the CoG only matter as a pivot for nose pointing, but irrelevance to how many G the turn make.The acceleration of the turn itself have to obey F= ma equation. You can’t just ignore such fundamental physics law.
And yes i did simplified it for you because the F variable in F= ma is resultant force not thrust, so F actually equal thrust minus drag. But that only mean the gas system need to produce even higher thrust to perform 30G maneuver as rumored.

As for the maneuvering: it may travel at a wrong ballistic course and all the maneuvering during terminal phase will the result in the right target location

You basically propose that the gas system on Iskander has enough fuel to produce the massive thrust ( more than 75% of LGM-30 Minuteman first stage ) not just once but many times.

No precious kinetic energy is wasted. Under exo-atmospheric conditions there is no loss at all because of maneuvering as it causes no friction. In endo-atmospheric conditions speed is decreased due to maneuvering, however as the missile has to slow down anyway, the maneuvering does to some extend that what friction would have done. So you do a controlled amount of maneuvering to decease your speed to a level in which the energy is not wasted due to heatshield heat up. We have 3 parameters: Speed, heatshield temperature and gain of kinetic energy due to transformation of potential energy.

Under the exo-atmospheric condition, the side force ( especially if very offset to CoG ) will mostly spin the missiles nose around rather than changing its direction of travel. Noiticed how the reaction control system on space shuttle or satellite operate?

If the thruster is at the same location as the CoG similar configuration as the EKV, it still not “turn” the thing, but rather moving it perpendicular to direction of travel.

In endo-atmospheric conditions, speed of missiles decelerate due to drag. The formula for drag is:

when you turn the missiles, expose its side aspect to the air flow, both the reference area and the drag coefficient will increase. The side area of Iskander-M is at least several times the cross section of its nose, the Cd is much bigger too obviously. As a result, the drag will be several time bigger atleast, without main rocket operating the missiles will lose speed extremely quick, since the only things counter the drag is the weight of missiles. After the turn, you can gain some speed back through potential to kinetic energy convention but the acceleration due to gravity is rather small. In perfect condition (without any drag), the gravitational acceleration is only 9.8 m/s. When missiles entered the atmoshphere, the drag will be much higher, therefore acceleration rate is much slower and keep getting worse and worse as missiles fell down.

Man, finding the video again was a PIA:

How do we even know that is a PAC-2 launch? There are a number of clips on youtube and particularly twitter that have over the last couple of years shown likely Astros ripple fires as Patriot missiles. PAC-2 launchers, part of a battery would be spread out (They would have 4-6 launchers per fire unit, and a couple of fire units protecting a high value asset. Since the Patriot uses a fixed, sectored sensor coverage doctrine, each radar and fire unit wold be covering a different threat sector), and you would not have couple of dozen missiles essentially following each other and it would be extremely weird to have emptied out pretty much all 5-6 of your launchers in just a few seconds. This to me looks like something totally different and not related to a Patriot interceptor launch.

Below is a multi PAC-2 launch Saudi Video. You can see the radar and launcher in the shot as well, and as you can see the missiles (6+) are launched from different launchers, spread out over a distance, in relatively quick succession. It is impossible to gauge the shot doctrine from these videos since we really do not know how many incoming targets they are launching to engage but I would not find 6-8 missiles launched at 3-4 incoming missiles as unreasonable shot doctrine for their system. If they were US batteries using PAC-3’s, the shot doctrine would have been 2 PAC-3’s per TBM target and 1 for 1 for a cruise missile. An astute tactician would launch multiple ballistic missiles towards an area defended by the legacy patriot since he would know that the best strategy against a PAC-2 set up would be to saturate the defense system. A saturated TBM attack threat on troop or Command concentrations basically led to the PAC-3 program in the first place in an aim to quadruple the number of missiles per fire control unit. Therefore, I wouldn’t expect one or two ballistic missiles being launched at a high value Saudi target that warrants Patriot coverage in the first place.

In OIF, the shot doctrine with GEM’s appeared to have been 3 Missile launches per TBM target likely due to the mismatch (plenty of missiles on station vs a limited threat) and the value of the assets they were protecting. There they engaged 9 TBM’s with PAC-2 GEM’s and PAC-3’s (Mostly PAC-2s) and claim 8 TBM kills with one inconclusive but likely kill. Since the US is an expeditionary force and target concentrations are dense I would expect a slightly conservative shot doctrine from US units as opposed to a homeland defense mission for an export customer where there may be multiple targets they are protecting but similar economic, and resource mismatch exists with the Saudi vis-a-vis Yemen so I wouldnt be surprised that in the absence of a configuration 3+, and PAC-3 they are also using a conservative shot doctrine just to be safe.

PAC-2 Launched from a firing unit (Radar, and well spaced PAC-2 launchers can be seen including an aircraft that gives a good hint of what this battery is protecting)

Saudi Rocket Launch

Here is another Saudi video of a rocket launch, erroneously titled Patriot interceptors. I could be wrong but I count 30 launches. This one is quite easy to classify as ‘not a Patriot’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cT1aU-XG5A

The U.S. has already signed contracts for the delivery of THAAD to the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. The fact that this was not done in the case of South Korea indicates that the true motives of deployment on the Korean Peninsula are far from declared.

There is no pending THAAD request from South Korea unlike UAE, and Qatar that officially requested the purchase of the missile defense system. South Korea is slowly building its own BMD program but if they ever do exercise the option of buying an upper tier system their request for THAAD will likely be easily approved.

As far as radar coverage and discrimination, this can be easily achieved by a number of ways including using ships designed for such a purpose so as to replicate the performance of the TPY-2 in FBM, a mode the US radars in South Korea cannot operate in without leaving the US Forces in South Korea, and the Korean mainland defenseless against the upper tier threat.

There are South Korean Green Pine radars that they have acquired that can be used as stand alone Situational Awareness / Early Warning sensors and can depending upon their placement cover some of the same airspace the Chinese claims the TPY-2 can cover in FBM even though it is there to operate in support of the THAAD missile defense system and battery.

As I had mentioned the US Government only awarded the contract to Lockheed to begin executing the Saudi order only in late December of 2015 so they are likely to begin getting deliveries this year and receive all missiles and launcher modifications by 2019. With US FMS sales it is easy to follow FMS notification date, or even vendor_customer contract finalization dates but what is the only ‘real’ completion metric to look at is the actual DOD contract award. For now their upgraded PAC-2s are the best they have and I don’t think they have configuration 3+ either. UAE has the most advanced system in the region. Saudi’s are likely to announce or finalize their THAAD and perhaps an IBCS order during Trump’s visit there if everything could move along in the Congress. Informal, and back channel requests for IBCS and THAAD has been pending for a number of years as part of a broader GCC missile shield but much like Qatar’s and UAE’s request the previous administration sat on it longer than usual.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjmtIDOsNzTAhXGOyYKHeRqD88QFggjMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.lockheedmartin.com%2F2016-12-22-Lockheed-Martin-Receives-1-45-Billion-Contract-for-PAC-3-Missiles%3FasPDF%3D1&usg=AFQjCNGV4_jIUpBCoq4EJDD1ySpdDRp2aw&sig2=pb8xCPXmBD1Cx-MjVJ3tcA

While it is easier to see missiles being fired, it is harder to deduce shot doctrine or tell how many targets they are actually attempting to defeat unless one has such a clear view that one can see tens of km in altitude, and downrange to deduce warheads, decoys or missile fragments.

Few dozen interceptors at a time? A PAC-2 launcher can only carry 4 missiles so I’d love to see videos of them emptying 3-6 launchers in one go (Typically the Saudi’s should be using 4-6 launchers per radar). 2 PAC-2’s per Ballistic Missile target should be a good shot doctrine, but you could even allow 3 per target if you are protecting a very high value asset given the nature of this particular conflict (Saudi’s have vastly more resources and are at home). Even PAC-3 shot doctrine calls for mostly a twin launch per TBM target. 3 Incoming Ballistic Missiles could warrant 6-8 PAC-2 interceptors depending upon the area they are protecting but unless there is a massive raid of say 6-10 incoming missiles you wouldn’t need to launch 12, 24 or 36 interceptor missiles at them even if it were physically possible given the PAC-2 and its size.

These are the raid sizes the PAC-3 with its 16 missile/launcher configuration is designed to tackle. PAC-2 not so much even if one gets past the fact that the PAC-3 exists primarily because there was a need for a considerably better TBM interceptor than the PAC-2 (even though the PAC-2 has been subsequently upgraded and improved).

The problem with all these complex airdefence systems that they are very hard to upgrade and maintain and get obsolete soon against primitive systems like in Yemen. even F-16 so mass produced at many places but hardly 5% can be consider modern.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/19189/Saudi_Arabia_Could_Insist_on_Locally_made_Spares_For_Imported_Military_Hardware#.WQ7rcqllDqA
Saudi Arabia Could Insist on Locally-made Spares For Imported Military Hardware

@garryA

9K720 Iskander-M ‘s mass is around 4,615 kg , assuming the mass without fuel is 1/2 of that, it is still around 2307 kg ( likely even heavier with all these alleged ECM, decoys and gas system on it). As a result a 30g turn required the force at least 2307*30 =69,225 kg or more than 69 tons.What sort of mini gas system giving that amount of thrust ? and for how long ? For reference purpose the first stage of LGM-30 Minuteman produce 91,170 kg of thrust or 91 tons
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
I don’t know about you but i don’t buy that a secondary gas system on the tiny Iskander can produce thrust more than half of Minuteman’s first stage

You are mistakenly simplifying the case. Soviet engineers should have known what they are doing with the gas system of the Iskander. You don’t take into consideration the offset of the gas system to the CoG.

Moreover, how does the missiles even know when to perform the high G maneuver to dodge the interceptor?, also after the maneuver does it turn back to attack the intended target or just fly randomly in a completely new direction ?
Furthermore,in exo-atmospheric condition, a gas system perpendicular to the body will change nose pointing but not the direction of travel, unless the main rear motor still operating ( see the different between how a space shuttle pointing its nose and an aircraft turning).

The gas system of the Iskander is at a strong offset to the CoG. As for the maneuvering: it may travel at a wrong ballistic course and all the maneuvering during terminal phase will the result in the right target location, hence all the random maneuvering are course corrections. It would likely fly as far away from its initial position to deplete the kinetic energy of the interceptor within denser atmosphere.

It basically trade potential energy for kinetic energy after mid phase, if you wasted this precious kinematic energy, it will not have enough to potential energy to compensate.

No precious kinetic energy is wasted. Under exo-atmospheric conditions there is no loss at all because of maneuvering as it causes no friction. In endo-atmospheric conditions speed is decreased due to maneuvering, however as the missile has to slow down anyway, the maneuvering does to some extend that what friction would have done. So you do a controlled amount of maneuvering to decease your speed to a level in which the energy is not wasted due to heatshield heat up. We have 3 parameters: Speed, heatshield temperature and gain of kinetic energy due to transformation of potential energy.
Speed must be in a efficient relation to heatshield temperature (you don’t want a heaver heatshield to do all de-acceleration) –> the result is added to the maneuvering capability.
Speed must be in a constant relation to gain of kinetic energy (you don’t want to increase your already high speed when entering dense atmosphere layer) –> the result is added to the maneuvering capability

Furthermore, regain speed in the atmosphere would take much longer time consider the fact that the air density is much higher and it keeps getting denser and denser the longer the missiles fell back into the earth.

Yes to an extend where no regain of speed is possible at all. You have to manage the 3 parameters above in a fashion that adds up to your maneuvering capability.

@bring_it_on

Power does not have to do anything here since many applications can share comparable or high levels of power but still be different. The role or design and technical aim is what matters. The TPY-2 a high power high frequency radar designed primarily for terminal intercept and discrimination and can also double up and operate independently in FBM where it provides high quality early warning and discrimination data for launch on remote and situational awareness duties.

I didn’t say anything about BMD capabilities of Voronezh vs. TPY-2, just said that Voronezh is not a OTH radar but high power BMD sensor like the TPY-2. The TPY-2 has much better resolution for discrimination, that’s right. However decimetric band might be sufficient for discrimination of decoys. X-band has more power per array area –> more compact.

Man, finding the video again was a PIA:

What I was talking about re. ripple firing. That’s a lot of rounds, and from what we know, the Houthis have hit quite a few Saudi installations that should have had defenses…

Where China plans to deploy anti-THAAD cruise missiles
March 28, 2017 Vasily Kashin, special to RBTH
In January 2017 the Xinhua news agency reported that China and Russia agreed on certain joint military measures in response to the expected deployment of the American THAAD missile system on the Korean Peninsula. Now that this deployment has already begun, the question arises as to what these measures will look like.

First of all, one should note that the deployment of THAAD in South Korea has different implications for the security of Russia and China. The impact is minimal in Russia’s case, because THAAD is designed to intercept medium-range ballistic missiles. Russia does not have such missiles, since in 1987 the Soviet Union and the United States signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Even if we assume that the THAAD system is upgraded with more powerful missiles, it would still not pose any threat to Russian strategic nuclear forces. Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear missile submarines are far away from the Korean Peninsula and the flight path of Russian missiles flying to targets in the United States pass through the North Pole.

Members of the Russian and Chinese teams at the closing ceremony of the Masters of Reconnaissance competition as part of the International Army Games held in the training compound of the Novosibirsk Military Command College. Source: Alexandr Kryazhev/RIA Novosti
Russia and China vow action against U.S. ABM plans on Korean Peninsula

Thus, the Russian opposition to the deployment of THAAD is caused not so much by threats to security but by fundamental strategic considerations. Russia opposes placing elements of the U.S. missile defense system near its borders in principle. If THAAD complexes in South Korea were managed by the Korean military, not the U.S., there would most likely be no objection to the deployment of the complex. China’s position on the matter is much softer.
Why the U.S. might need THAAD in South Korea

The U.S. has already signed contracts for the delivery of THAAD to the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. The fact that this was not done in the case of South Korea indicates that the true motives of deployment on the Korean Peninsula are far from declared.

Apparently, the U.S. wants to have extra capacity for radar monitoring of airspace over the Northeastern China, where China’s bases containing ballistic missiles, including medium-range, are stationed. In addition, there comes possible trajectory of Chinese intercontinental ballistic missiles being launched in the direction of the United States.

Accordingly, it is possible to assume that it will be China, and not Russia, which offers the most serious response to the deployment of THAAD from the military-technical point of view.

Russia will limit its actions to some acceleration of previously planned measures related to the modernization of the armed forces in the Russian Far East.
China’s response

The most likely response to the deployment of THAAD would be the creation of specialized groupings intended for the destruction of the missile defense system on the Korean Peninsula.

A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor is launched during a intercept test, in this undated handout photo provided by the U.S. Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency. Source: Reuters
Why Moscow and Beijing are really afraid of the U.S. THAAD in South Korea

The likely tool for this kind of preliminary strike would be cruise missiles: THAAD is not able to intercept them, especially in the case of a massive strike at known coordinates.

The obvious option for China may be deploying DF-10 missiles on the Shandong Peninsula. In addition, China can use technical means to strengthen its intelligence about the place of deployment of the THAAD.
Syria-tested Club missiles

Russia, unlike China, is not able to openly deploy ground-based medium-ranged cruise missiles, although the U.S. has been accusing Russia of doing so.

But the new Russian warships, as a rule, are equipped with Club (Kalibr) cruise missiles with a range over 2000 km. These complexes have been successfully tested in the course of the war in Syria. The construction of such ships for the Russian Pacific fleet was planned long before the plans to deploy THAAD in Korea.

In January 2016, Russia revealed plans to construct six project 636.3 diesel-electric submarines to be based in Vladivostok. These boats are able to carry Club missiles as well and were also tested during the Syria campaign.

A People’s Liberation Army soldier jumps over a burning obstacle during a training session on a snowfield, in Heihe, Heilongjiang province. Source: Reuters
Will Trump push China to form a military alliance with Russia?

The fleet is expected to adopt other ships able to carry Clubs including the Karakurt-class corvette, the construction of which has already begun.

Perhaps this will be the Russian answer to THAAD, although all of these measures would have been undertaken anyway.

Apart from told above, Russia and China will also carry out additional joint exercises and, possibly, coordinate in the field of technical intelligence to more effectively track the current location and mode of operation of the THAAD complex.

Vasily Kashin is a senior research fellow in the Moscow Based Institute for Far Eastern Studies and in the Higher School of Economics. Views expressed are personal.

https://rbth.com/opinion/2017/03/28/china-plans-deploy-anti-thaad-cruise-missiles-729028

BringItOn: The Saudi’s don’t have PAC-3s operational? TIL, thanks.

As I had mentioned the US Government only awarded the contract to Lockheed to begin executing the Saudi order only in late December of 2015 so they are likely to begin getting deliveries this year and receive all missiles and launcher modifications by 2019. With US FMS sales it is easy to follow FMS notification date, or even vendor_customer contract finalization dates but what is the only ‘real’ completion metric to look at is the actual DOD contract award. For now their upgraded PAC-2s are the best they have and I don’t think they have configuration 3+ either. UAE has the most advanced system in the region. Saudi’s are likely to announce or finalize their THAAD and perhaps an IBCS order during Trump’s visit there if everything could move along in the Congress. Informal, and back channel requests for IBCS and THAAD has been pending for a number of years as part of a broader GCC missile shield but much like Qatar’s and UAE’s request the previous administration sat on it longer than usual.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjmtIDOsNzTAhXGOyYKHeRqD88QFggjMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.lockheedmartin.com%2F2016-12-22-Lockheed-Martin-Receives-1-45-Billion-Contract-for-PAC-3-Missiles%3FasPDF%3D1&usg=AFQjCNGV4_jIUpBCoq4EJDD1ySpdDRp2aw&sig2=pb8xCPXmBD1Cx-MjVJ3tcA

There are videos of the Saudis essentially rippled firing interceptors (like a few dozen at one time!!!) at a single target, hard to tell what was going on in the operations post at that point.

While it is easier to see missiles being fired, it is harder to deduce shot doctrine or tell how many targets they are actually attempting to defeat unless one has such a clear view that one can see tens of km in altitude, and downrange to deduce warheads, decoys or missile fragments.

Few dozen interceptors at a time? A PAC-2 launcher can only carry 4 missiles so I’d love to see videos of them emptying 3-6 launchers in one go (Typically the Saudi’s should be using 4-6 launchers per radar). 2 PAC-2’s per Ballistic Missile target should be a good shot doctrine, but you could even allow 3 per target if you are protecting a very high value asset given the nature of this particular conflict (Saudi’s have vastly more resources and are at home). Even PAC-3 shot doctrine calls for mostly a twin launch per TBM target. 3 Incoming Ballistic Missiles could warrant 6-8 PAC-2 interceptors depending upon the area they are protecting but unless there is a massive raid of say 6-10 incoming missiles you wouldn’t need to launch 12, 24 or 36 interceptor missiles at them even if it were physically possible given the PAC-2 and its size.

These are the raid sizes the PAC-3 with its 16 missile/launcher configuration is designed to tackle. PAC-2 not so much even if one gets past the fact that the PAC-3 exists primarily because there was a need for a considerably better TBM interceptor than the PAC-2 (even though the PAC-2 has been subsequently upgraded and improved).

BringItOn: The Saudi’s don’t have PAC-3s operational? TIL, thanks.

And yes it is always difficult to draw results that are free from user-error, particular chain of events, or just (mis)fortune, really the only point I was making is in real life scenarios systems often struggle with something that “should” be an easy feat.

There are videos of the Saudis essentially rippled firing interceptors (like a few dozen at one time!!!) at a single target, hard to tell what was going on in the operations post at that point.

The Voronezh is a high power system like the TPY-2, as far as I remember it has VHF- and UHF-band variants and no OTH capability. Hence its primary a BMD sensor, the new Russian system with OTH capability is the “Container”.

Power does not have to do anything here since many applications can share comparable or high levels of power but still be different. The role or design and technical aim is what matters. The TPY-2 a high power high frequency radar designed primarily for terminal intercept and discrimination and can also double up and operate independently in FBM where it provides high quality early warning and discrimination data for launch on remote and situational awareness duties. High power early warning radars are tasked for such a role and the design choice there is lower frequency. A comparable long range Early Warning US System would be the AN/FPS-132 which incidentally was tied to the Qatar THAAD deal and will be operated alongside the THAAD providing SSA and EW to that nation’s BMD program.

Those radars (AN/FPS-132 operates in the UHF band) however do not aid much when it comes to discrimination even though they are great for early warning and cover a very large area. Hence the US has globally deployed X-Band TPY-2s, the AEGIS network, SBX, and has just recently broken ground on the construction of the S-Band GaN Long Range Discrimination Radar one of the largest S band AESA radar anywhere in the world. LRDR overlaps the AN/FPS-132’s mission and co-exists with it, essentially covering similar areas but it provides a giant leap in discrimination which is critical when you are intercepting ICBMs in their mid course using interceptors from CONUS.

The Role of long range Ballistic Missile EW has now grown to cover mid course defense which is a lot different from the decades past where they were there to provide Situational Awareness so that a retaliatory strike could be launched. The new role influences design trades as no longer would a low frequency, high efficiency radar be a reasonable trade even though it provides excellent coverage. The discrimination challenge and advances in high frequency AESA has allowed for higher frequency trades to be made at a reasonable cost.

Comparable (mission) US Early Warning Radars (programs) –

AN/FPS-132 (UHF)

LRDR – S-Band AESA (GaN)

It can pull those G values in terminal phase due to the integrated gas system apart from the solid fuel booster
The whole exo- and endo atmospheric maneuvering

9K720 Iskander-M ‘s mass is around 4,615 kg , assuming the mass without fuel is 1/2 of that, it is still around 2307 kg ( likely even heavier with all these alleged ECM, decoys and gas system on it). As a result a 30g turn required the force at least 2307*30 =69,225 kg or more than 69 tons.What sort of mini gas system giving that amount of thrust ? and for how long ? For reference purpose the first stage of LGM-30 Minuteman produce 91,170 kg of thrust or 91 tons
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
I don’t know about you but i don’t buy that a secondary gas system on the tiny Iskander can produce thrust more than half of Minuteman’s first stage
Moreover, how does the missiles even know when to perform the high G maneuver to dodge the interceptor?, also after the maneuver does it turn back to attack the intended target or just fly randomly in a completely new direction ?
Furthermore,in exo-atmospheric condition, a gas system perpendicular to the body will change nose pointing but not the direction of travel, unless the main rear motor still operating ( see the different between how a space shuttle pointing its nose and an aircraft turning).

The Iskander regains its speed even with shut boosters when maneuvering due to its potential energy.The Iskander can either dissipate its potential energy by heating up its heatshield via friction (SCUD), or maneuver away from its initial position, forcing the THAAD interceptor to change accordingly. Difference is that the Iskander won’t loose much of its kinematic parameters

All missiles launched in ballistic arcs can take advantage of potential energy, Iskander is no different. It basically trade potential energy for kinetic energy after mid phase, if you wasted this precious kinematic energy, it will not have enough to potential energy to compensate. Every maneuver turnning missiles relative to the air stream will waste kinematic energy due to higher drag. Furthermore, regain speed in the atmosphere would take much longer time consider the fact that the air density is much higher and it keeps getting denser and denser the longer the missiles fell back into the earth.

I talked with you about the same case in the last SAM discussion

Yes,we did and i just couldn’t be bothered to reply in the end because the discussion keeping going in circle

PAC-3 is struggling enough with Tochka and Scud in Saudi use, would be “interesting” to see it go up against a vastly more potent round like Iskander.

PAC-2 not PAC-3 or PAC-3 MSE since the DOD awarded the PAC-3 export contract (of which SA was one of the customers) only around the Christmas of 2015 with work continuing through 2019 is deployed with the Saudi Patriot systems. As far how it is performing, there is no reliable data beyond claims from both sides (Saudi and Raytheon vs rebels) that are often unsubstantiated by actual facts. Regardless the current baseline of the Patriot is Configuration 3+ with MSE with the sensor and C2 bump contributing as much to actual intercept as the interceptor itself going forward. While it has received sensor upgrades and the new MSE missile is operational with the US, the sensor and Command and Control bump is a bit away. A year or two for the C2, and 4-6 years for the radar (export).

They have not said AFAIK.

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/270603.pdf

“The violating GLCM is distinct from the R-500/SSC-7 GLCM or the RS-26 ICBM”

That doesn’t make it sound like the issue is a missile that can skirt the prohibited range through modification, but who knows.

Also they claim this:

“Information pertaining to the missile and the launcher, including Russia’s
internal designator for the mobile launcher chassis and the names of the
companies involved in developing and producing the missile and launcher”

But since none of this has been brought into open…