Russian 40N6 Missile Performance

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

armedupdate

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 21:11

Unread post31 May 2017, 20:53

How do you think the Russian 40N6 performs(the 400 km missile on the S-400). It is an active radar missile with rumored Mach 7 speed, and can reach 185 km high.

Can it be used against fighters? Or is it only designed against ballistic missiles and bombers/
Image
It seems rather big with small fins compared to the rest of the missile. Could it's warhead size, speed compensate for the lack of manuverability to hit a 9 G fighter?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5532
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post31 May 2017, 21:19

That is not a 40N6. It's not even from the same family. :roll: The missile in the picture is from the S-300V/AN2500 system (specifically the 9M83). The 40N6 is from the S-300/400 family. Completely different systems.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post01 Jun 2017, 00:48

armedupdate wrote:How do you think the Russian 40N6 performs(the 400 km missile on the S-400). It is an active radar missile with rumored Mach 7 speed, and can reach 185 km high.


If it actually exists, and it's capabilities are real and not internet fantasy (which may well be the case), then it's probably an evolution of the S-300V type missiles you have pictured there. I can't see how the engagement concept of lobbing a missile on such a high trajectory, well beyond radar horizon, and hoping to acquire and engage a fast-moving target (even if not maneuvering) would be a practical weapon.

They may have experimented with the concept, but that doesn't mean its a practical weapon. The internet turns anything and everything into an "in-service weapon", based on the rumor that something has been tested once.

In concept, it seems to be trying to do the same thing as Pershing II did against ground targets. But with the complications that you're trying to hit a fast-moving target. If you had a continuous track of the target from some other sensor, and provided updates to the missile, and the target wasn't maneuvering, I guess it would be possible. But that's a lot of ifs and moving parts involved. But it would be a very limited scenario where you could be tracking a target at a 400km range from some other sensor (like airborne radar), and be in position to use such a weapon (if it has the ability to be updated). Without updates and an external tracking source, I would think it would be very unlikely to be useful against aircraft.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post01 Jun 2017, 01:04

Not even taking into account the inevitable counter measures to screw with that the missile's active radar...
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post01 Jun 2017, 02:23

popcorn wrote:Not even taking into account the inevitable counter measures to screw with that the missile's active radar...


Well, a target may not have any warning of it. But for the missile to have a chance of actually being able to acquire a fast-moving target during its descent phase, it probably needs a third-party sensor to provide updates, which means the target may be aware of something. The target may not have enough time to react to a signal from the missile itself, but then again, the missile itself may not have much of a chance of acquiring a target in the few seconds it has to do so.

The concept seems nice: basically a maneuvering ballistic missile SAM. Certainly not something to engage fighters with, but support aircraft maybe. But we have no idea if it is possible, if it even exists, what it looks like...or anything other than internet fantasy. As with most such weapons, internet fantasy is all there is.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post01 Jun 2017, 04:26

Then again, SM-6 is claimed to have a similar reach (by some sources, which may be inaccurate). Not sure how SM-6 reaches such ranges, but probably in a more conventional way. Also SM-6 needs updates from a third-party platform for such engagements, which is probably the only way to do it.
Offline

armedupdate

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 21:11

Unread post04 Jun 2017, 21:29

You can still be fast and hit manuvering targets as shown in the Stunner missile. Israel will replace Patriot both the Pac-3 and Pac-2 with David's Sling.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5532
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post04 Jun 2017, 23:06

arian wrote:
armedupdate wrote:How do you think the Russian 40N6 performs(the 400 km missile on the S-400). It is an active radar missile with rumored Mach 7 speed, and can reach 185 km high.


If it actually exists, and it's capabilities are real and not internet fantasy (which may well be the case), then it's probably an evolution of the S-300V type missiles you have pictured there.


It's not. It's a development of the S-300/400 "big missile" (48N6 for example). This is well known, no "probably" about it. Not only is it a different system, it's not even made by the same company as the S-300V family. :roll:

Capture.PNG
"There I was. . ."
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2517
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post05 Jun 2017, 00:59

Probably better used as a hit to kill weapon against ground targets that won't be maneuvering.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3483
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post05 Jun 2017, 01:41

One thing I feel very confident in stating, is that the 40N6 missile may have a 400km range, but not against endo-atmospheric targets. It's more akin to THAAD/SM3, in mission.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5532
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post05 Jun 2017, 12:20

wrightwing wrote:One thing I feel very confident in stating, is that the 40N6 missile may have a 400km range, but not against endo-atmospheric targets. It's more akin to THAAD/SM3, in mission.


40N6 is more like a less capable SM-6. It has no exoatmospheric capability like THAAD/SM-3, nor is it likely to be as effective against very high speed missiles. Also, like the SM-6, those long range shots are lofting shots against aircraft. That 400km isn't slant range.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post05 Jun 2017, 13:07

It's always hard to get hard data on Russian Missile performance. I know your talking about SAM's but I've always been curious about Russian Air to Air missiles in the Vietnam War. I've seen breakdowns on the number of American kills over the NVAF by guns, missiles, or other causes, but not for the other side. I know the NVAF MIG-21s carried missiles, I'm not sure about their MIG-17s, or MIG-19s. That kind of information seems hard to find.

As for later conflicts the number of Western Aircraft shot down by Russian built aircraft is relatively small. The largest number of them would be 1973 I would think. Does anyone on the Board have any idea how many aircraft have been shot down by Russian AIMs?
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post05 Jun 2017, 23:06

sferrin wrote:
arian wrote:
armedupdate wrote:How do you think the Russian 40N6 performs(the 400 km missile on the S-400). It is an active radar missile with rumored Mach 7 speed, and can reach 185 km high.


If it actually exists, and it's capabilities are real and not internet fantasy (which may well be the case), then it's probably an evolution of the S-300V type missiles you have pictured there.


It's not. It's a development of the S-300/400 "big missile" (48N6 for example). This is well known, no "probably" about it. Not only is it a different system, it's not even made by the same company as the S-300V family. :roll:

Capture.PNG


If that is 48N6, then the claims made about it on the internet are almost certainly total BS.

A track-via-missile guidance isn't going to work at 400km against aircraft.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post05 Jun 2017, 23:09

armedupdate wrote:You can still be fast and hit manuvering targets as shown in the Stunner missile. Israel will replace Patriot both the Pac-3 and Pac-2 with David's Sling.


Maneuvering in the sense of ballistic missiles is not the same as maneuvering needed for aircraft. If the claim is that this is a missile for engaging aircraft at those ranges, following a lobbed trajectory, then that's a whole different issue from engaging ballistic missiles coming in from high altitude.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5532
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post06 Jun 2017, 13:13

arian wrote:If that is 48N6, then the claims made about it on the internet are almost certainly total BS.

A track-via-missile guidance isn't going to work at 400km against aircraft.


Don't know if they made some changes to the guidance section, such as adding an active seeker, but they have done the flight tests to full range. That's according to a guy that goes by "SOC" on several boards, and studies Russian air defense systems for a living. I don't recall if it was cued and picked up the target at the end with an active seeker, like SM-6, or if a forward source simply provided illumination for the missile.
"There I was. . ."
Next

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests