I doubt on the existence of the 40N6 missile.

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.

[color=red]Jon James has been banned. Again.[/color]

Time for me to screw up your thread with loud obnoxious music 😀

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YumE6uqMDY

My tickets to their New York City show in September arrived today :diablo:

Go to Google.

Type in this: world war 2 MMORPG

Click the first link, it’s HILARIOUS 😀

Beskar is on the AIAA Management Technical Committee…

Well yes, if you have the coords of the platforms it should work, against mobile SAMs i doubt it.

The advantage is that most mobile SAMs you’ll encounter (SA-6, SA-11, for example) are SARH guided and if the TELAR or engagement radar is on the move and not emitting the missile isn’t going to hit anything anyway.

Do u have a link about QSP development?, is the MANTA considered QSP?, im looking for something just before the MANTA,something conceptual, not just a modification of previous planes

Most of what I have on QSP is hard copy or a bunch of saved image files. MANTA had nothing to do with the strike aircraft program, it was a project to convert an early F-22 EMD jet into a tailless 3D TVC control demonstrator with no moving aerodynamic control surfaces whatsoever. It would’ve been the X-44, but the funding got deleted in 2000. As for references on the strike programs, check the links here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b-3-ref.htm

Then look at the menu on the right side (under the B-3 links, you’re starting on the B-3 reference page) and go to town. That’s probably the best consolidation of info around so far.

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.

9M82 and 9M83 have directional warheads…very disgusting stuff. The warheads are basically designed sort of like shaped charges where they put all of their explosive force in one direction. I believe the 48N6D and 48N6DM use a directional warhead as well.

The S-500 isn’t going to use the 9M82M, nor is any bogus variant of the S-400. People have gotten it into their heads that Samoderzhets is some S-400 hybrid with 9M82M and 9M83M missiles, but that is a gross misinterpretation of the Samoderzhets program. The S-500 is going to have to rely on a new weapon similar, probably, to the GAZELLE ABM. High velocity, but with increased range to allow exoatmospheric intercepts for the ABM and ASAT roles. S-500 isn’t supposed to care about air-breathing targets, remember, that is the purview of the S-400.

40N6? I have no reason to believe it doesn’t exist, just that it is still in development. The 9M96 hasn’t been operationally fielded yet either, for that matter, but we know it’s around. It is possible that the 40N6 or a derivative thereof may be an option for arming the S-500. The idea of an absurdly fast missile being used against long-range aerial targets makes sense as it reduces the reaction time of the target.

I’ve seen one of the FC-1 static test birds, it looked like a structural load test article, on one of the threads around here.