dark light

Rodolfo

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 646 through 660 (of 1,190 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: 53T6 “Gazelle” revisited #1816384
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    http://kursakov.narod.ru/a135.htm

    Interesting page with some technical data not available in English. I.e.:

    1) Claimed efficiency of de A-135 system against ballistic targets with speed up to 7 km/s: 95% :eek:.
    2) Main missions: to parry threat of nuclear attack of small level; to raise a threshold of the nuclear reaction and to provide survivability to the top echelons of the government (note, not to protect Moscow)
    3) On the 53T6 usual claims about “no analogues in the world”. It “surpass analogues non Russian systems” (Sprint? ) by a factor of 1.5.
    4) Miss distance around 50 m, more than enough for a nuclear 10 kt warhead.
    5) Live tests against ballistic missile warheads launched from Kasputin Yar toward Sary-Shagan !!! :dev2: (70s and 80s)
    6) It reach 4 km/s in just 4 s (so it average acceleration is around 100 g).
    7) Supposedly, now is equipped with similar but larger blast-directed warhead of the S-300VM system (that in turn is an improvement of the warhead of the S-300V system).
    8) It disperses shrapnel consisting of splinters of 15 g. Claimed density of 5-6 fragments/m2 is enough to assure the destruction of the incoming warhead. The weight of this conventional warhead is just 150 kg.

    in reply to: Usefulness of High Accuracy DF RWR/Emitter detectors #2497344
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    but their stages is difference.
    9m82 ,9m83
    1213, 1271 kg the missile.
    4635, 2275 kg for booster.

    Yeap. You are rigth. I confussed the mass of the boosters with the mass of the whole missiles. Anyway, if you have first class info from i.e. the Almaz-Antey concern, feel free to share with us, specially about the “ghost”missile 40N6.

    in reply to: Usefulness of High Accuracy DF RWR/Emitter detectors #2499327
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    ah ? it around 3600 kg and antibalistic with big 150kg warhead.part of s-300V.

    AFAIK:
    9M82 “Giant” —> 4600 kg
    9M83 “Gladiator” —> 2300 kg

    Diferences just in the booster. There are several open sources telling this.

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion Thread Part II #2034427
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    It seems like an Akula-II (Schuka-B) follow on. Anyway, good finding.

    in reply to: Usefulness of High Accuracy DF RWR/Emitter detectors #2500698
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    40N6 missile with 400km range planned ,over 2,3 tonns.

    Can you provide the reference for the data on this “ghost” missile? Interestingly 2.3tn is the mass of a 9M83 missile.

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-3 #1816700
    Rodolfo
    Participant
    in reply to: 53T6 “Gazelle” revisited #1816717
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    Another view of a Gazelle test.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUgkMNkQYAE&feature=related

    Short video but quite awesome 😮

    in reply to: The Iranian missile program #1816721
    Rodolfo
    Participant
    in reply to: The Iranian missile program #1816748
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    I tend to agree with you; but the test yesterday supossedely involved a solid-fuel based missile. Lack of nuclear warheads can be, in part, compensated placing sub-munitions with biological agents as payload. Anyway, I don’t know how advanced is Iran in sucha field.

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-3 #1816767
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    Anyways, having a overloaded order book is a nice problem to have.

    You are right. And it is VERY important during present days of global economical woes.

    “Nice” problem 😀

    After having a good look, I realize that the containers for the missiles are different. Can’t comment on relative sizes, but definitly different containers, indicating (but not proving) that the missiles for the S-300 and S-400 are different beasts.

    Well, it should be logic to expect some (minor) differences between the 48N6 of the S-300PMU (150 km range and 2.0 km/s speed) and the 48N6DM of the S-400 (150 km range and 2.1 km/s speed).
    I’m glad to see that I am not alone seeing these containers diferences.

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-3 #1816788
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    Russian production capacity saturated

    15:4121/05/2009
    MOSCOW, May 21 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s foreign defense orders total $35 billion, a federal official said on Thursday.

    Russian arms export monopoly Rosoboronexport said earlier this month its defense order portfolio was worth $27 billion.

    “Our overall portfolio of orders with Rosobornexport has hit $35 billion as of today,” said Alexander Fomin, first deputy director of the Federal Service for Military Cooperation, which regulates Russia’s cooperation in the military and technical sphere with other countries.

    He said the Russian defense industry had effectively “reached its ceiling” and could not take on any more contracts.

    “The industry does not stretch like a rubber bag. As in other countries, [our industry] has its limits. That’s an open secret,” he said.

    Fomin said contracts signed for some weapon systems, especially long-range air-defense systems, stretched years into the future.

    “So, our dear partners, join the line. This especially applies to such air-defense systems as S-300 and S-400, which have become so popular today,” he said.

    Sergei Chemezov, head of the state-run Russian Technology Corporation, said in February that the orders would provide domestic defense firms with contracts to keep them going for the next four to five years.

    The Russian defense industry currently employs 2.5-3 million workers, or 20% of industrial jobs.

    Order by US$ 35.000 millon saturated the industry. So, it seems that the production capacity collapsed with the USSR. I’am confident to say that during the 80s such a quantity would had been labeled as “small”.

    Rodolfo
    Participant

    4th generation: Su-27; F-16; F-15; MiG-29 … all beatiful.

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-3 #1816794
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    Nice pics and nice camo.

    S-400 containers look slightly wider. May be just an optical disturbance on my eyes. :cool::p

    in reply to: Russian ABL flying again? #2503243
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    Yeah, they’re well aware of the diffraction thing. They still think it’s useful. (Well His Highness doesn’t but that’s just because it doesn’t buy him votes.)

    Do you think an ABL is useful for Russia? If it usefulness is restricted to the boost phase, you need to place the laser near the launching point. This is not the current scenario for the Ruskies. What is the hypothetical nearest threat? A MRBM from Iran? Too far away. A GBI from Poland? Also too far away. I doubt even of its effectiveness on i.e. a launch of a N.Korean missile meet by an American ABL orbiting near the Korean border. In my view is better to invest in quick acceleration, fast speed interceptors.

    in reply to: Russian ABL flying again? #2503274
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    here is the link. Talks about Russia not falling into a new arms race, but needing to not fall too far behind. The author is a scientist at Almaz-Antei.

    Not to worry… the US is far ahead…

    I don’t know how useful can be an ABL as missile interceptor. You know, lasers always will show diffraction within the atmosphere and for long shots you need a lot of energy. May be is more useful to research with ground-based lasers (you don’t need to worry with a compact power source here) for “short shots” against PGM and maybe reentry vehicles. Just an opinion.

Viewing 15 posts - 646 through 660 (of 1,190 total)