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

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

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 428
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post01 Sep 2019, 20:48

MIloš, the Mk. 41 in Romania can't launch Tomahawks. The Russians were invited to inspect it but refused. Besides, what would be the point? A Mk. 41 was adapted from a ship to an ad-hoc land based solution in a matter of weeks. A known fixed location doesn't help matters.

On the matter of the SM-3... SPY-1 can guide it just fine. I'm not sure what sats you mean? Something like SBIRS or just for comms? It's likely a second Burke or Tico would act as an early warning picket for the launcher. The kinetic warhead was a conscious decision because a. closure speeds are so insane that a slight miscalculation in the fuse might cause a miss and b. even if hit, the WMD payload might survive; a kinetic kill reduces the warhead to fine dust.

Image
Russia stronk
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

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

Unread post01 Sep 2019, 23:41

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

Do you care developing? If you say 'equivalent umbrella' , I must assume you refer to weapons that actually have some use. Against Russian strategic and modern conventional weapons, US' high altitude ABM systems are essentially of no use, S-400 can also hit dumb ballistic missiles as S-300V4 can. US AD network is smaller and vastly less developed and from the strategic level downwards there is no equivalency in number of systems and their performance either in sensors, missiles or EW. Add to this the imminent commissioning of S-500 with capabilities that risk US not only not achieving nuclear supremacy as attempted through the withdrawal from ABM treaty but actually seeing that supremacy being achieved against them. That is why they need ABM weapons in the space, because current ones have no chance against modern strategic delivery means. These things are not done just for the fun of it, all those hundreds of billions are very real money that is not spent unless seen as strictly necessary.

The reason is quite simple in fact and quite logical: for USSR the AD was a matter of life or death since the moment US developed nuclear weapons (and in fact before that, in order to stop German raids during WWII), for the US this was never the case. Decade after decade one side has put all its focus and best brains on the task while the other has done only the bare minimum, essentially to protect their power projection capabilities in the form of USN vessels, which are unsurprisingly the best defended US assets. The result is a gap that is measured literally in decades.
juretrn wrote: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?

It is interesting to bring Syria to the discussion when hundreds of Western CMs against the "bare bones" AD there have achieved essentially nothing and have been downed in huge numbers, while top-notch Western AD in Saudi Arabia gets pierced day in and day out by Houthis' rudimentary and scarce missiles and UAVs directed against critical targets, to the point that Yemen's war is coincidentally entering a new phase recently. If just some of those JASSM are not in being studied in Russia as we speak, you could talk of a mission success in Syria.

To be clear: a VLO subsonic missile should be of course more difficult to detect than a conventional one, but given their big lifting surfaces, they are not as stealth as one may think. And as said, they are slow and frail so good targets for even low end AD, if supported by a decent IADS.
: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.

For starters, name simply one US operational supersonic AShM like those the USSR had forty years ago. As to the rest of your claims, others have addressed them already quite eloquently.

In any case I have no fun in these contests and I know how they evolve with cherry picking and misinterpretation substituting honest information exchange. I am just stating facts as I know them for the best common knowledge and trying to correct claims that are simply perplexing for their brazen disregard of most basic facts, a bit like Bolton's claims about Russia having stolen hypersonics from US. It is literally taking reality, twisting it 180º and wielding it shamelessly, don't ask me to stay silent in the face of it.
Keep on dreaming! The US can afford an arms race with China just like it could with the USSR.

I don't dream of chaos and uncertainty or desire bad to no one, just to make it VERY clear.

Finally and to end that digression from my side, you may want to check PPP corrected data. China's economy is already 25% bigger than US by that metric, which is how real economy is measured as opposed to simple GDP data.

juretrn wrote:MIloš, the Mk. 41 in Romania can't launch Tomahawks.

Why?
The kinetic warhead was a conscious decision because a. closure speeds are so insane that a slight miscalculation in the fuse might cause a miss and b. even if hit, the WMD payload might survive; a kinetic kill reduces the warhead to fine dust.

A damaged reentry vehicle will disintegrate by itself just due to the friction with the atmosphere at insane speeds. The kinetic vehicle is a way of compensating for kinematic challenges presented by the size of the VLS cell, essentially forcing to make a warhead without explosives.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 919
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post02 Sep 2019, 05:29

@juretrn

In Mk41 for SM-3 you can fit tomahawk without problems. You can't in SM-2 variant.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3427
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post02 Sep 2019, 17:06

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

Do you care developing? If you say 'equivalent umbrella' , I must assume you refer to weapons that actually have some use. Against Russian strategic and modern conventional weapons, US' high altitude ABM systems are essentially of no use, S-400 can also hit dumb ballistic missiles as S-300V4 can. US AD network is smaller and vastly less developed and from the strategic level downwards there is no equivalency in number of systems and their performance either in sensors, missiles or EW. Add to this the imminent commissioning of S-500 with capabilities that risk US not only not achieving nuclear supremacy as attempted through the withdrawal from ABM treaty but actually seeing that supremacy being achieved against them. That is why they need ABM weapons in the space, because current ones have no chance against modern strategic delivery means. These things are not done just for the fun of it, all those hundreds of billions are very real money that is not spent unless seen as strictly necessary.

The reason is quite simple in fact and quite logical: for USSR the AD was a matter of life or death since the moment US developed nuclear weapons (and in fact before that, in order to stop German raids during WWII), for the US this was never the case. Decade after decade one side has put all its focus and best brains on the task while the other has done only the bare minimum, essentially to protect their power projection capabilities in the form of USN vessels, which are unsurprisingly the best defended US assets. The result is a gap that is measured literally in decades.
juretrn wrote: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?

It is interesting to bring Syria to the discussion when hundreds of Western CMs against the "bare bones" AD there have achieved essentially nothing and have been downed in huge numbers, while top-notch Western AD in Saudi Arabia gets pierced day in and day out by Houthis' rudimentary and scarce missiles and UAVs directed against critical targets, to the point that Yemen's war is coincidentally entering a new phase recently. If just some of those JASSM are not in being studied in Russia as we speak, you could talk of a mission success in Syria.

To be clear: a VLO subsonic missile should be of course more difficult to detect than a conventional one, but given their big lifting surfaces, they are not as stealth as one may think. And as said, they are slow and frail so good targets for even low end AD, if supported by a decent IADS.
: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.

For starters, name simply one US operational supersonic AShM like those the USSR had forty years ago. As to the rest of your claims, others have addressed them already quite eloquently.

In any case I have no fun in these contests and I know how they evolve with cherry picking and misinterpretation substituting honest information exchange. I am just stating facts as I know them for the best common knowledge and trying to correct claims that are simply perplexing for their brazen disregard of most basic facts, a bit like Bolton's claims about Russia having stolen hypersonics from US. It is literally taking reality, twisting it 180º and wielding it shamelessly, don't ask me to stay silent in the face of it.
Keep on dreaming! The US can afford an arms race with China just like it could with the USSR.

I don't dream of chaos and uncertainty or desire bad to no one, just to make it VERY clear.

Finally and to end that digression from my side, you may want to check PPP corrected data. China's economy is already 25% bigger than US by that metric, which is how real economy is measured as opposed to simple GDP data.

juretrn wrote:MIloš, the Mk. 41 in Romania can't launch Tomahawks.

Why?
The kinetic warhead was a conscious decision because a. closure speeds are so insane that a slight miscalculation in the fuse might cause a miss and b. even if hit, the WMD payload might survive; a kinetic kill reduces the warhead to fine dust.

A damaged reentry vehicle will disintegrate by itself just due to the friction with the atmosphere at insane speeds. The kinetic vehicle is a way of compensating for kinematic challenges presented by the size of the VLS cell, essentially forcing to make a warhead without explosives.


I care about pure unadulterated bullshit posts, bringing the forum discourse down to YouTube comment level.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5490
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Sep 2019, 02:32

milosh wrote:@juretrn

In Mk41 for SM-3 you can fit tomahawk without problems. You can't in SM-2 variant.


No such thing as an "SM-2 variant" Mk41 cell.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 291
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post03 Sep 2019, 04:44

wrightwing wrote:I care about pure unadulterated bullshit posts, bringing the forum discourse down to YouTube comment level.


And he's doing it deliberately; southerncross and fidgetspinner are both alts of that wewuzkangz shitter.
Previous

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests