That was not my conclusion at all and is most definitely not what I was saying. I pointed to the misrepresentation of Intercept test data and was trying to point out that if one were to analyze that and use it as a measure of the defensive capability of a Carrier Strike Group (it is not the best way to look at this at all since missile testing usually focuses on intercept or sensor preformance, not the entire spectrum of offensive and defensive capability a strike group will show up with) then one must also weigh this against equally detailed data from the missile testing and evaluation. It is rather pointless to say that 2 of 10 missiles,(or 4 of 10 or 10 of 10) will get past a particular interceptor unless we know the other variable in this equation i.e. how many of the offensive weapon will actually find, fix and succesfully strike a defended target at sea. Any long range ballistic missile has to first network with long range sensors, and command & control, evade exoatmospheric and endoatmospheric interceptors, succesfully operate in a cluttered environment where Electronic Warfare capabilities are being used against its seeker and navigation concepts, find its target, verify that it is the correct target, and then finally strike that target. If one is going to analyze the abilities of the interceptors to succesfully engage a MR or IR Ballistic Missile in space or inside the atmosphere, then it is also reasonable to present similar performance and flight test data on the performance and test data from the offensive system in question as well.
Fair point. You have EW spoofing targeting before then, Pk of the actual attack missiles, EW spoofing the terminal guidance, the launch jet being shot down, or having its runway bombed out, before you even get to terminal phase intercepts.
I think the most ideal system presented was Avangard, which has been confirmed ordered.
I was under the impression that would be a nuclear-only glide warhead.
In one of the interview I posed from Tactical Missile Bureau , He mentioned that Kh-101 can fly accurately to the target even without Glonass or GPS , its designed to do so with a highly accurate INS and other aided navigation built in , Considering Kinzal flight time is likely 1/10 of that Kh-101 and the accuracy would be quite good as its aided by RF seeker and even Optical one
In the end it depends on the type of INS you use and how much one would like to spend on it a strap down INS would be less accurate compared to Laser INS but from a mass deployed weapon strap down INS would be cost effective choice.
Cruise missiles generally use TERCOM as well as GPS/INS but TERCOM wouldn’t work particularly well over the sea.
Laser ins are used even on icbm they are very precise due to short duration flight the error accumulated is low
INS is backed up by astrological referencing with ICBMs. It’s possible the Kinzhal would use something similar, since it must fly a mostly ballistic path to attain 2,000km based on Kh-32 size and range.
Sign In
