And, may you inform us about the 2010-2020 plan assumptions?

The warhead could simply have an IR sensor to detect the incoming weapon and detonate the nuclear payload just before impact. A few high altitude nuclear bursts will make most radar based assets go night night.

BTW you are pretty funny… half the time you are stating that the interceptors are no threat at all… now you seem to think they are invincible…

There is no IR sensor. AFAIK, according to an article translated from Russian to English, the MARV warhead, to manoeuvre in space, have small side thrusters that activate in a pre-programmed pseudo-random sequence that pitch the warhead from the nominal ballistic path. The effect is to enlarge the “tube” around this nominal path from i.e. 2-3 m to several hundred meters, to complicate the finding of an impact point. It certainly is not an invincible method but can severely cut-down the likelihood of interception.

From the Barvanov’s site (http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2008/item2/article3/)

Deliveries of the fourth-generation S-400 Triumph began in 2006, and the first regiment equipped with two S-400 divisions was put to active service near Moscow in the summer of 2007. The state armaments program for 2007–2015 projects the deployment of another 18 S-400 divisions in nine regiments. The S-400 systems have to date used standard, series 48N6 missiles from the S-300PM system, while delivery of the series 9M96 missile designed specifically for the S-400 will not take place before 2010.

So, we confirmed that no 9M96 missiles are deployed but they will be delivered after 2010. So, in fact 9M96 are not cancelled as rumoured.

To Sean

I’ve been reading about a 1985 test-firing of a modified 48N6 missile that may clear some of this up. The 40N6 may be the “new” designation for the 400-km variant of…the 48N6. Apparently Grushin and company had limited the altitude during the midcourse ballistic trajectory of the S-300P’s missiles to 38 kilometers. This was because if they went any higher, control surfaces would be ineffective (remember the motor has already burnt out so the TVC control used during the boost phase is no longer a factor) and any such movement would just perturb the missile’s flight profile in a manner not conducive to conducting a long-range intercept. The idea behind the 1985 test was to see if a missile could be fired with locked control surfaces during the boost and midcourse stages of flight, and then unlock them later for guidance when it descended to a sensible altitude. The modified missile was fired to an altitude of 70 kilometers and managed to fly out to a range of 400 kilometers. It reached a peak velocity while ascending of 2000 meters per second, and when it had descended back down to 20 kilometers it was successfully captured by the guidance system, unlocked its control surfaces, and was successfully controlled by the normal guidance system. No mention of whether or not they actually fired at a target, but they got the desired range for the S-400 out of a 48N6 derivative all the way back in 1985. This was probably part of the original S-400 program begun in the same year to seek a replacement for the S-200, the S-350 program had begun a few years earlier to find an eventual S-300P replacement. Both of them merged to become the Triumf program, the S-400 of today. The point remains that they had the range capability over 20 years ago. Those S-400 TELs sitting at Electrostal right now? They just might already have the ability to smack a target at obscene range, and we had no clue, expecting to hear about the “new” 40N6 missile in testing or entering service. We know they’ve tested the S-400’s 48N6DM to 240 kilometers, that has appeared in the open press and it is that missile which we assume to be in the S-400’s launch tubes right now. The 40N6 may simply be a derivative of the 48N6DM with optimized control surfaces and a higher impulse motor to enable much longer-range shots by exploiting ballistic trajectories as Grushin and company demonstrated back in 1985.

That means that “40N6” is just a sort of “improved 48N6DM” launched on a parabolic path that is guided just in the terminal stages of fly toward the target (i.e. AWACS). Rigth? 48N6DM speed ranges from 2.1 km/s to 2.5 km/s (This data vary on different sources) and then it would be feasible this kind of shot.
On the other hand official info about june-2007 tests talk about an interception of a ballistic target at 45 km altitude.

Sferrin, I can’t have access to your paper. I have the spectrum paper “on paper” 😀 :confused:, so later I will scan it and paste. Also, (a) I doubt on the existence of the 40N6 missile. (b) The 9M82M is not like THAAD. It is a sort of “mobile Sprint” but with a slightly lower performance. It is not a hit-to-kill one because have a shnarpel dispersing warhead. Surely Sean knows more than me but there is a possibility that the S-500 will use a modernization of such a missile.

Given that the enemy has numerous nuclear warheads (i.e. Russia), wouldn’t it make sense to explode a warhead just above the supposed interseption point of the THAAD and then (half a minute or so later) hit the battery with another missile while it is still blinded by the explosion (given that a Topol-M warhead supposedly could survive a near detonation)?

Off-course. There are several smart variants like this one. In the end, half a dozen SS-20 MIRVed can easily take these bases with or whitout THAAD.

Originally Posted by SOC
Instead of complaining about US NMD plans for Europe, why not just fit a small nuke to the S-500? It could be deployed along the border and take out any ABMs that they think are headed for Russian ICBMs in-flight. You’ll need a missile with rapid acceleration to get out and make the intercept before your own ICBMs are within range of the warhead, but they figured that out with the PRS-1, so it shouldn’t be a huge problem. Seems a far cheaper and just as effective solution to counter something that probably can’t chase down an ICBM fired towards the USA anyway.

SOC, our comments are no complains. We discussed the cheapest and most effective way to render useless the European NMD bases, jus in case an American attack on Russia.
For me an SS-20 like missile is the ideal option because its range (around 6000 km) also permits a depressed trajectory shot, thus minimizing the launch-impact time-span. The base commander will face two options: a) Face ground destruction while waiting for intercepting the counter-attacking Russian ICBMs, or b) Launch the GBI to intercept the incoming SS-20 delivered warheads. In both cases the NMD base is easily neutralized and the Russian ICBM can safely travel to their targets.

Your proposal, on the other hand, seems quite complicated and whit uncertainties on its technical feasibility.

Yeap sferrin, but they are more cheaper. So for the cost of a dozen SS-27 you can deploy 2 dozens brand new SS-20-like “ICBM” with the tech level of a Topol-M. 😀

Good. Let ’em waste their money.

Actually, the US is wasting their money in a near useless “shield”. Most people know about the chronic reds in the American budget. The Ruskies just MIRVed the Topol-M (a very cheap option) and are cumulating a massive reserve fund. Of-course the devaluated green-paper formerly known as dollar helps them.

Regards