Russia’s advanced S-500 SAM ‘ready for series production’

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post07 Aug 2019, 16:47

element1loop wrote:
fidgetspinner wrote:Comparing vegetables with fruits. ... SM-6 Ohhhh there we go lets see if it has the same ranges as the SM-3. ... Please everyone at least read the details of what each missile is able to do from a given air defense. You will be shocked by the differences in their purpose and realize they are not comparable.


Rather than be a smart-ass maybe you should have noted this bit first:

Probable reentry target


Not too impressive though, for such a role, if the aim was just to produce a 500 km radius kill interceptor.


That's stated clearly enough for most.


Bit that is just one of role for S-500. SM-3 is single role missile which don't carry almost no payload (KKV is around 10kg) no wonder it can have noticeable longer range then S-500. Btw I really don't see what is problem with ~500km range against probable ICBM dummy warhead.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1404
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post07 Aug 2019, 18:23

milosh wrote:Bit that is just one of role for S-500.


When doing its own targeting line-of-sight, is there another role for it at that range?

milosh wrote:SM-3 is single role missile which don't carry almost no payload (KKV is around 10kg) no wonder it can have noticeable longer range then S-500.


Yes, almost twice as good, for a fraction of the size and weight.

Look at SM1, SM2, SM3, and SM6. It's clear these are an evolving family of specialist as well as multipurpose missiles, of which SM3 is just one branch with a few variants.

Similar in nature to a family of specialist as well as multipurpose missiles for S300, S400, and S500 with their variants.

You were talking about one variant in a long-range intercept roll against a re-entry target. What else do you suppose its going to be compared to but to SM3 or THAAD? The comparison is not favorable.

But that's the point.

milosh wrote:Btw I really don't see what is problem with ~500km range against probable ICBM dummy warhead.


I didn't say it was a problem, it's just underwhelming given all the hoopla about these newer Russian systems, and their missiles. They seem lacking in comparison to their direct competitors.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post07 Aug 2019, 20:39

Image
Offline

jedit

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2019, 23:43
  • Location: Pakistan

Unread post30 Aug 2019, 23:20

marsavian wrote:https://www.rt.com/russia/462640-s-500-ready-production/


Is that really hitting the clouds that quickly or is that video running on fast fwd or maybe its just CGI? I'm inclined towards the latter
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post31 Aug 2019, 00:52

jedit wrote:
marsavian wrote:https://www.rt.com/russia/462640-s-500-ready-production/


Is that really hitting the clouds that quickly or is that video running on fast fwd or maybe its just CGI? I'm inclined towards the latter

This is in principle not a S-500 missile, or at least it has not been identified as being one of them. This is a further development of the A-135 ABM system missiles destined to intercept nuclear warheads already in their terminal phase, from what I know. These missiles are unbelievably fast and had already decades ago accelerations around 200 g. It is not a CGI, but it seems one of the views is missing some frames, which makes it look even faster than what it is.
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27

Unread post31 Aug 2019, 02:53

@southerncross

This is a further development of the A-135 ABM system missiles destined to intercept nuclear warheads already in their terminal phase, from what I know.

The A-235 is the further development of the A-135 rather than the S-500. Although no one knows the reason why Russians are not making orbital flight vehicles for impressive ranges like 2000kms for only ballistic missiles for their air defenses but from the looks of this http://www.deagel.com/news/Pentagon-Kil ... 19165.aspx I think the US is mostly investing in projects like the SM-6 to be multipurpose.
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post31 Aug 2019, 14:00

fidgetspinner wrote:The A-235 is the further development of the A-135 rather than the S-500.

We know so little about this. A-235 is supposed to be mobile, but is difficult to imagine the interceptor that the Russians have shown repeatedly being launched from anything different than a VERY solid silo :?
Although no one knows the reason why Russians are not making orbital flight vehicles for impressive ranges like 2000kms for only ballistic missiles for their air defenses but from the looks of this http://www.deagel.com/news/Pentagon-Kil ... 19165.aspx I think the US is mostly investing in projects like the SM-6 to be multipurpose.

Once you get a missile up and high it can certainly cover great distances in near space, another different thing is how effectively it can pursue a maneouvering target, which current exoatmospheric killing vehicles are in essence not designed to do, at least not from what I know, and much less against gliders flying inside the atmosphere as Avangard does. SM-6 is an air defence missile and with different characteristics to SM-3, not optimal neither against maneouvering hypersonic targets nor as land or surface attack missile, essentially because it is limited by the size of the VLS cell and not designed with all the features true AShM are. It will be certainly improved vigorously in the coming years nevertheless, as there is no other defence against high supersonic and hypersonic missiles in the short to medium term and also because US lags behind massively (and quite strangely BTW) in supersonic AShM.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3341
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post31 Aug 2019, 19:03

southerncross wrote:
fidgetspinner wrote:The A-235 is the further development of the A-135 rather than the S-500.

We know so little about this. A-235 is supposed to be mobile, but is difficult to imagine the interceptor that the Russians have shown repeatedly being launched from anything different than a VERY solid silo :?
Although no one knows the reason why Russians are not making orbital flight vehicles for impressive ranges like 2000kms for only ballistic missiles for their air defenses but from the looks of this http://www.deagel.com/news/Pentagon-Kil ... 19165.aspx I think the US is mostly investing in projects like the SM-6 to be multipurpose.

Once you get a missile up and high it can certainly cover great distances in near space, another different thing is how effectively it can pursue a maneouvering target, which current exoatmospheric killing vehicles are in essence not designed to do, at least not from what I know, and much less against gliders flying inside the atmosphere as Avangard does. SM-6 is an air defence missile and with different characteristics to SM-3, not optimal neither against maneouvering hypersonic targets nor as land or surface attack missile, essentially because it is limited by the size of the VLS cell and not designed with all the features true AShM are. It will be certainly improved vigorously in the coming years nevertheless, as there is no other defence against high supersonic and hypersonic missiles in the short to medium term and also because US lags behind massively (and quite strangely BTW) in supersonic AShM.

Russia and China lag behind in VLO cruise missiles. The US will be fielding several hypersonic missiles in the next few years. As for overlapping defense, neither Russia nor China have an equivalent umbrella of GBI>SM-3>THAAD>SM-6>PAC-3 MSE>ESSM>RAM>CIWS (and lasers, soon) to cover as broad array of threats.
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27

Unread post01 Sep 2019, 00:21

@ wrightwing

"Russia and China lag behind in VLO cruise missiles"

Which cruise missiles are you comparing there are different types?

"The US will be fielding several hypersonic missiles in the next few years."

I mean they along with Russia have already been fielding hypersonic missiles? What do you think they dont have that the US has? Are you talking about the emerging technology of scramjet missiles? Yes both sides have made claims of fielding such technology in a few years. I cant tell who is ahead of who but that our missile industry definitely thanks them for the kholod project. please specify what you mean? ballistic missiles? scramjet missiles? flight vehicles? air to air missiles? etc.

As for overlapping defense, neither Russia nor China have an equivalent umbrella of GBI>SM-3>THAAD>SM-6>PAC-3 MSE>ESSM>RAM>CIWS (and lasers, soon) to cover as broad array of threats

The equivalent of the GBI would either be the A-135 or A-235 no one has any idea as to what capabilities theirs or our missile defense shield would have. If congress goes with Trump's idea to further upgrade our missile defense shield I would definetly not oppose it.

SM-3 I cant argue with this since they took no interest in a orbital flight vehicle interception projects while the US government killed such a project 1-2 weeks ago according to the news but I guess the SM-3 is on a league of its own since there is no other project to compare it to.

THAAD has the same claimed capabilities the S-400 has to intercept ballistic missiles. Which is better for the job, performance, costs, etc is up for anyone to debate.

The equivalent of the SM-6 I think would be this http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 94003.aspx same ranges, can engage about the same types of targets however this s-400 missile cannot be used the same like to target ships or land targets, however even the Navy would not suggest although it could to use the SM-6 in this kind of way. The SM-6 has planned ranges to be increased to 370kms but if that does happen I guess some new s-500 missiles are to be used for comparison which have yet to be fielded.

PAC-3 This is what some user at russia defense net has said so this is me just quoting him, "Lets further investigate this. As I already mentioned the U.S. had access to parts of S-300V by the 'compromiser' Boorish Yelpsin, had access to Slovakian and Greek S-300's via NATO exercises, has had strong influx of scientists and engineers from Asia (to make up for their brain drain at home), had the luxury of having modern digital electronics and more than adequate funding, but yet PAC-3 still has overall inferior characteristics to S-300PS, a system introduced in 1979, and it's development started from the mid 1960's. That in itself isn't the biggest kicker, the biggest damnation against the Patriot series is the fact that Raytheon has completely given up on improving the PAC-3 series, and completely outsourced the development of PAC-4 to the Israeli based Rafael concern. A country of 320 million with the biggest military budget in history, is completely incapable of meeting the needs of their nations aerospace defense, and is reliant on a country of 6 million (1/53rd the population) to meet those very needs....the same country that 1/6th of their population (including many of their scientists and engineers) are ex-USSR."

Regarding the users that I have met on this forum before I can see this guy being best friends with everyone here if he was a US instead of a Russian fan boy(anyone saying no here is absolutely lying). I would probably compare the pacs-3 to the s-300 though.

ESSM is a medium range surface to air missile so i guess the 9m96m2 is comparable to it.

Looking at a RAM missile I think a 9m100 would be comparable. Since the RAM missile range is 8kms I think a AK-176MA can achieve similiar performances. But it seems they are struggling with the morfei air defense because I remember it was hyped up with the vityaz air defense in which I believe it will be equipped with even smaller missiles since its treated like the last countermeasure for a long range air defense than the vityaz.

in regards to CIWS i think you will be surprised when comparing the phalanx to the Kashtan-M or Pantsir-M.

lasers, well we have yet to see performance of either side's laser systems since the US is still improving their ranges, some say the peresvet is designed for destroying targets. blinding EO systems and some say both. I have heard Rosatom was also engaged in the project a company that specializes in harnessing nuclear energy so I guess they are juicing up the power levels.

If you want to talk about EMP, microwave weapons or AI guided missiles both countries are actively participating in such projects as well. But I know there are weapons projects that one country is actively participating in and the other isn't, than vice versa, than some decide to engage in such projects later, etc. Either way I enjoy whatever projects both countries make for my weapon's fetish.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post01 Sep 2019, 08:19

@wrightwing

Russia and China lag behind in VLO cruise missiles. The US will be fielding several hypersonic missiles in the next few years. As for overlapping defense, neither Russia nor China have an equivalent umbrella of GBI>SM-3>THAAD>SM-6>PAC-3 MSE>ESSM>RAM>CIWS (and lasers, soon) to cover as broad array of threats.


Russia is fielding their AGM-129 right now, for Tu-22M3:
https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/bmpd/38 ... iginal.jpg

They also have smaller KH-59 which have very small frontal RCS.

As for overlapping defense, neither Russia nor China have an equivalent umbrella of GBI>SM-3>THAAD>SM-6>PAC-3 MSE>ESSM>RAM>CIWS (and lasers, soon) to cover as broad array of threats.


Well not only Americans are working on E weapons, Russians have Peresvet laser, and Chinese are working on rail gun (prototype finished sea trials). I wouldn't be surprise if Russians and Chinese merge projects, Russian mini mobile reactor (used for Peresvet) could be ideal power source for Chinese rail gun (land variant).

Becuase this is thread about russian ABM system, I merge and edit (fix scale for 53T6 and 51T6) two drawings from GS, so those are Russian ABM capable missiles in service right now, last five are ICBM capable and S-500 missile is probable similar to 9M82.
Attachments
rakete.jpg
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post01 Sep 2019, 16:40

wrightwing wrote:Russia and China lag behind in VLO cruise missiles. The US will be fielding several hypersonic missiles in the next few years. As for overlapping defense, neither Russia nor China have an equivalent umbrella of GBI>SM-3>THAAD>SM-6>PAC-3 MSE>ESSM>RAM>CIWS (and lasers, soon) to cover as broad array of threats.


Add kh-101/102 to the models named by milosh, plus GZUR hypersonic CM in development since a few years, at least that we know. By the way, those VLO subsonic missiles are neither invisible nor hard to shoot down even by SHORAD and any decent AAA, more even so as Russia is close to deploy increasing numbers of highly effective assets based on smart 57 mm rounds that multiply their AD capacities against UAV, PGMs and any form of subsonic ordnance. The only meaningful application doctrine of those missiles against peer rivals is the saturating attack, but they are not cheap either. In general, the overmatch capability available to Russia as of now in missile technology is huge and not only in the strategic area but in the conventional one. This is a serious wake up call for the US and one of the main reasons arm control treaties are being ditched left and right and Pentagon is scrambling in search of funds, cleaning the roadmap of programs that are not promising enough and increasing budget for hypersonics, creating the space command etc. People with a modicum of understanding see right through all these measures in the given environment of force balance with crystalline clarity, so pretending normality is not cutting it anymore and rather looks ridiculous and even dishonest.

We are still to see what hypersonic missiles US develops, once they react to the stark reality created by deployment of Russian weapons. As of now, Russia has them and US doesn't, so bragging specifically about those fields where you are behind is a bit shocking to say the least.

Where the superlatives run out is when you claim US to have a better AD cover than Russia... no more comments from my side, since this simply illustrates you are not following the issue with attention, even remotely. My only further remark: your claims are a very good illustration of why the situation came to this point, where US has been caught by surprise. Empires are not brought down by enemies, but by overconfidence.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3341
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post01 Sep 2019, 17:11

It would appear that I struck a nerve with the pedants, who aren't concerned with context. The key word is equivalent.
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 425
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post01 Sep 2019, 18:04

southerncross wrote:-snip-

those VLO subsonic missiles are neither invisible nor hard to shoot down

Given their performance in Syria where 0 were shot down in the infamous raid on Assad's chemical weapon plants, I'd say that's just not true. Are the US, Russia, China, UK, France just fooling themselves into the effectiveness of stealth cruise missiles while they keep developing new models?
overmatch capability available to Russia as of now in missile technology is huge

:roll:
Where? Why? Because they may or may not have the Zircon in service? Remind me, when was the X-51 flown again? ARRW(Kinzhal equivalent) and HAWC(Zircon equivalent) are coming within 2-3 years.
one of the main reasons arm control treaties are being ditched left and right

The reason for the death of the INF treaty is Chinese development of weapons banned by that treaty; Russian blatant non-compliance likely just a handy excuse.
US to have a better AD cover

The US has an all-in-one package AD for its naval ships that covers everything from ICBMs (when SM-3 block IIb comes into service) to point defense missiles. That's a unique capability.
Add to that the GaN SPY-6 on Flight III Burkes in the next few years and you really get a world beating system.

I also saw Peresvet mentioned somewhere... it's at best at the same level of maturity as LAWS, that's been (experimentally) mounted to a ship since 2014.

Empires are not brought down by enemies, but by overconfidence

Keep on dreaming! The US can afford an arms race with China just like it could with the USSR. Russia better not even start thinking about such moves!

It's true the pace of development has slowed down in the US and western Europe, but that was because of the lack of a major external threat. Unfortunately, that has now changed and military budgets are again increasing after almost 30 years of budget cuts.
Russia stronk
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27

Unread post01 Sep 2019, 20:24

@juretm

"Given their performance in Syria where 0 were shot down in the infamous raid on Assad's chemical weapon plants, I'd say that's just not true. Are the US, Russia, China, UK, France just fooling themselves into the effectiveness of stealth cruise missiles while they keep developing new models?"

Sounds like your ignoring their claims well regarding you and this board I doubt anyone follows russian sources here, but keep in mind there is an israeli source that suggested their 1st wave attack failed while the 2nd wave with F-35s hit their targets while russians have claimed they intercepted more than 80%. Not really against the idea of stealth cruise missiles since the brahmos-NG for example offers a nice size reduction compared to the old models that the Russians are offering to the indians.

"when was the X-51 flown again?"

How about the kholod project? Somewhere around the 1990s perhaps? Oh wait a second http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kholod.html for some reason they are saying the Russians were the 1st to fly a official scramjet missile. Now that I mention this old project I think at this point you don't care anymore what year the X-51 has flown since it wont be any earlier than the mid 1990s anyways.

"ARRW(Kinzhal equivalent)"

What missile is this exactly? Google search is pointing me to some israeli air defense missiles?

"HAWC(Zircon equivalent) are coming within 2-3 years."

They got different speeds and we yet to see the ranges of the HAWC missile. However I wish this project good luck because here I believe is a similar concept to the HAWC. https://tass.com/russia/732991

"A new modified aircraft missile for Russian fifth-generation fighters would be developed by 2016, the director-general of the Tactical Missiles Corporation, Boris Obnosov, said on Friday at the Kadex 2014 exhibition of weapons and military equipment in Astana, Kazakhstan.

"We have established close contact with the Sukhoi design office. A permanent working group is formed. All the protocols of informational cooperation are agreed on. Models are made according to schedule. Everything must be done by 2016," Obnosov said, noting it was a new modified aircraft cruise missile X-74M2.

It was hard work. Intensity of tests was very high. Even the main test centre coped with it with difficulty, he added.
The Tactical Missiles Corporation also planned to develop the first model of a hypersonic missile by 2020, the corporation's director-general said."

https://tass.com/defense/1034559

"In accordance with Russia's State Armament Program for 2018-2027, Su-57 jet fighters will be equipped with hypersonic missiles. The jet fighters will receive missiles with characteristics similar to that of the Kinzhal missiles, but with inter-body placement and smaller size," the source said."

I do not know if this is the same said hypersonic missile from the 2014 source but lets be clear here there is going to be alot of Russian shitposting if this missile is revealed. If you are to ask what kind of shitposting I am talking about? I am talking about an image comparison of the F-35 holding HAWC missiles while showing the SU-57 with nothing because the missiles are placed internally and they just write the name SU-57 with X-74M2. I feel this would be this boards worst fear if it ever had one because this would feel humiliating since there is always preaching of stealth by one fanbase when compared to the other.

F-35 does not have to worry about an internal carry for the HAWC missile while Russians are given a more difficult assigned task by trying to makes theirs fit inside the SU-57. To be honest the only thing comparable the Russians would have to the HAWC missile is the IL-76 launching test bed scramjet missiles according to its presentation this maks airshow.

"I also saw Peresvet mentioned somewhere... it's at best at the same level of maturity as LAWS, that's been (experimentally) mounted to a ship since 2014."

opinions are nice to have but performances have yet to be evaluated.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post01 Sep 2019, 20:26

juretrn wrote:
one of the main reasons arm control treaties are being ditched left and right

The reason for the death of the INF treaty is Chinese development of weapons banned by that treaty; Russian blatant non-compliance likely just a handy excuse.


Chinese aren't part of INF treaty and there isn't real evidence Russia break INF. What happen is same thing Russia is talking for years about US aBM in Romania. Containers in Romania (based on ship VLS system) can launch tomahawk missiles, US said it wouldn't happen, thrust us. So what Russians did? Same thing they developed air launched missile which can fit in Iskander-K launcher. Russians said we used Iskander-K as testbed but missile will be air lauch, trust us.

juretrn wrote:The US has an all-in-one package AD for its naval ships that covers everything from ICBMs (when SM-3 block IIb comes into service) to point defense missiles. That's a unique capability.
Add to that the GaN SPY-6 on Flight III Burkes in the next few years and you really get a world beating system.


I personally don't like expensive systems which doesn't go KaBooM, because they need super precise target tracking mostly depending on satellite network which is easy target for Russia or China. So SM-3 is fine weapon but against Iran or NK.

juretrn wrote:I also saw Peresvet mentioned somewhere... it's at best at the same level of maturity as LAWS, that's been (experimentally) mounted to a ship since 2014.


Yeap but you compare ship laser with land based laser, in ship you have space for energy storage which you lack in land based variant that is why Peresvet is first of its kind, they solved energy problem, green peace surely don't like their solution but it works.

Empires are not brought down by enemies, but by overconfidence

Keep on dreaming! The US can afford an arms race with China just like it could with the USSR. Russia better not even start thinking about such moves![/quote]

Comparing PRC and USSR is wrong. PRC spend less then 2% of GDP on military, USSR spend close to 20% when it fall apart. USSR only in one short period was half of US economy, China today is close to 70%. USSR never was industrial powerhouse as PRC is today.

US today spend around 5-6% GDP on budget military and half of taxes go for Pentagon. China with 2% steadily building its navy, its airforce, rocket force etc, last thing US need is arm race with China.

Russia is of course problem for US because Russia is much closer to China then to US. No one knows what Vlad would do if Trump and Xi go to war. So USA need to watch on Russia too it is something like cold war on two fronts. Something like USSR in past when it need to watch USA but also PRC, now USA is in that position.
Last edited by milosh on 01 Sep 2019, 20:53, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests