ABM missiles versus fighters

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3189
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post09 Jul 2019, 20:38

eloise wrote:
sferrin wrote:Actually it's range is 0km as it's not designed to shoot down aircraft.

I know they weren't designed to intercept aircraft in mind, that why i made this thread, because I was wondering if they could be useful against aircraft. In history, there were many times where they use weapons not as their intended purpose but it still work, for example they used Sea Sparrow vs ship, AIM-9 against ground target ..etc.


sferrin wrote:Well for starters their radar ranges are limited by the horizon. That alone will ensure an aircraft would be able to get within launch range.

If i remember right, aren't all ABM systems are linked to OTH radar?
I know OTH aren't accurate, but that won't matter if the lethal radius of the warhead can be higher than a dozen km


ABMs aren't designed to engage targets in the atmosphere/below the radar horizon. OTH radar isn't going to get a missile close enough, even if the missile was capable.
Offline

fidgetspinner

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27

Unread post09 Jul 2019, 20:47

Some people here messing up one of the range estimates of the missiles I am eyeing so here we go to just clarify the details.


https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... le-system/
The A-235 will have missiles capable of operating at three different ranges: long-range, based on the 51T6 and capable of destroying targets at distances up to 1500 km (930 miles), at altitudes up to 800,000 m; medium-range, an update of the 58R6, designed to hit targets at distances up to 1000 km (620 miles), at altitudes up to 120,000 m; and short-range (the 53T6M or 45T6 (based on the 53T6)), with an operating range of 350 km (215 miles) and a flight ceiling of 40,000-50,000 m.

capabilities are ability to shoot down hypersonic attack weapons, hypersonic orbital platforms, ballistic missiles and their combat units. S-500 and THAAD-ER also come with description of engaging hypersonic flight vehicles. Avangard comes with a 5.4 meter length surely this is smaller than most aircrafts. THAAD-ER is said to engage wu-14 in one if its descriptions. I think the A-235 regarding hypersonic attack weapons is probably referring to HGVs and to me the speeds of HGVs and some of their sizes make me suggest they are more difficult targets than military aircrafts is that correct?

military aircrafts can use radar horizon to fly lower altitudes but require a high altitude release for firing hypersonic weapons. http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm but either way military aircrafts in my opinion can still be able to launch hypersonic weapons outside of the ABMs range anyways.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1688
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 02:16

fidgetspinner wrote:Some people here messing up one of the range estimates of the missiles I am eyeing so here we go to just clarify the details.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... le-system/
The A-235 will have missiles capable of operating at three different ranges: long-range, based on the 51T6 and capable of destroying targets at distances up to 1500 km (930 miles), at altitudes up to 800,000 m

Image
Offline

h-bomb

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 302
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 20:07
  • Location: South Central USA

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 03:27

eloise wrote:
fidgetspinner wrote:Some people here messing up one of the range estimates of the missiles I am eyeing so here we go to just clarify the details.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... le-system/
The A-235 will have missiles capable of operating at three different ranges: long-range, based on the 51T6 and capable of destroying targets at distances up to 1500 km (930 miles), at altitudes up to 800,000 m

Image


What is the minimum altitude for intercept? One of the 51T6 sites listed it effective against targets "50 km to 350 km altitude". If the lower limit is 50km and the warhead has a 13km radius, you are still 24 or 25km to high to reach down for the fighters.

Even if you could get the missiles down to fighter altitudes, you would be nuking your own people. Until space fighters become reality, like the Mig-41! (see link) Or these systems are physically redesigned to look down after launch, it is not remotely possible. Russian has plenty of heavy SAMs systems, with huge warheads already.

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... 20951.html
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1688
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 04:54

h-bomb wrote:What is the minimum altitude for intercept? One of the 51T6 sites listed it effective against targets "50 km to 350 km altitude". If the lower limit is 50km and the warhead has a 13km radius, you are still 24 or 25km to high to reach down for the fighters

Great find, at the moment I only got the minimum altitude for Sprint, about 5000 ft
“In spite of its nuclear warhead, Sprint’s mission of picking up leakers in the lower atmosphere meant that its control system had to be capable of producing extremely high g maneuvers. Its mission profile called for it to intercept incoming warheads at altitudes of between 5,000 and 100,000 feet within seconds of launch. A typical intercept might occur at an altitude of 40,000 feet and a range of 10 miles after only 10 seconds of flight.”

“Sprint was cold-launched, with the interceptor ejected from its silo by a gas-powered piston. Once out of the silo, its powerful rocket motors rammed the missile through the dense lower atmosphere causing its skin to glow incandescently due to atmospheric heating. During first-stage burn, control forces were generated by a thrust vector control (TVC) system that injected Freon into the motor’s nozzle from four different points. (Freon was selected because of the experience gained with its use in the TVC systems of Minuteman and Polaris.) After booster separation, the second stage was guided by means of aerodynamic forces acting on small control vanes at the base of this stage.”

“As in the case of the Sprint first stage, the principal means of control in HIBEX was the injection of Freon gas into the exhaust of the booster. However, in later flights, experiments with other control techniques were performed. The TVC system of HIBEX consisted of four valves spaced at 90 degrees around the nozzle of the motor; each valve was capable of injecting a total of 194 pounds of Freon per second at 1,400 psi. Each valve fed three nozzles. HIBEX carried a maximum of 98 pounds of Freon, but only 78 pounds were usable. The Freon was fed by means of a blow-down system that used compressed nitrogen as its source of pressure. This system was designed to provide 2.5 degrees maximum thrust vector deflection which amounted to 2.5 percent of motor impulse with a maximum response time of 20 milliseconds. This thrust was the equivalent to a “side force” of 15,000 pounds in less than
0.05 second.

fascinating Russian 9M83 and 9M82M are based on Sprint with slight modification
1.PNG

2.PNG

Image
Image
Online
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5306
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 13:05

"fascinating Russian 9M83 and 9M82M are based on Sprint with slight modification"

My God, that is NOT what it's saying. And some of it is complete horseshit. :doh: :bang:

Always thought the Sprint/S-300V comparison was f--king retarded. Like comparing Javelin to Stinger.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

fidgetspinner

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 18:16

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-345.html I finally understand why everyone's range limit estimates are different from mine. Users are pulling up A-135 data while I am pulling up A-235 data. And just for extra measures if people think I am lying here is another source. https://medium.com/dfrlab/putinatwar-ne ... 4194870e0d "Reportedly, the PRS-1M interceptor is able to destroy targets at a distance of 350 kilometers and at an altitude, according to various estimates, of 40,000 to 50,000 meters. The long-range missiles will presumably be equipped with nuclear warheads. The older version 53T6/PRS-1 was able to destroy targets only within 80–100 kilometers and at an altitude of 30,000 meters." The A-235 comes with new variants for example A-135 uses PRS-1 A-235 uses PRS-1M its very likely the other 2 will have newer variants as well.

@h-bomb

Sadly I do not know the lower altitude limits of the missiles. However I believe the A-135 comes with nuclear warheads only. While the A-235 does have that option the only 3 or possible 4 things that are different from the A-135 is that the system is mobile, comes with conventional warheads and comparing peoples different sources here supposedly longer range missile limits, and last but not least new Voronezh ground radar installations instead of the old soviet radar equipment. https://www.rbth.com/economics/defence/ ... ped_564505 long range versions will be equipped with nuclear the others will be equipped with kinetic energy warheads.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1688
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 02:57

fidgetspinner wrote:I believe the A-135 comes with nuclear warheads only. While the A-235 does have that option the only 3 or possible 4 things that are different from the A-135 is that the system is mobile

It isn't, the trailer is used for transportation, they eventually load it to the underground silo.

Offline

fidgetspinner

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 05:20

eloise wrote:
fidgetspinner wrote:I believe the A-135 comes with nuclear warheads only. While the A-235 does have that option the only 3 or possible 4 things that are different from the A-135 is that the system is mobile

It isn't, the trailer is used for transportation, they eventually load it to the underground silo.



https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/worl ... /a-235.htm

In 2014 it became known that Russia is testing elements of the new anti-missile defense system A-235 Nudol. It will replace the A-135 Amur system, which covers Moscow and the central industrial region (from Bryansk to Kostroma, about 486,000 sq. Km) and equipped with silo-based antimissiles. In December 2014, the general designer of Almaz-Antey Pavel Sozinov said that in the near future the Russian military will receive domestic counterparts of US missile defense systems THAAD and GMD. At the same time, the analogue of GMD, Sozinov noted, is being created in the mobile version

I get what you are saying but the A-135 uses a trailer for transportation as well which makes me suggest there was no point at all for the general designer to state it will be mobile. I am assuming for now a mobile launch system will just be their future plan.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1688
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post11 Jul 2019, 08:37

fidgetspinner wrote:I get what you are saying but the A-135 uses a trailer for transportation as well which makes me suggest there was no point at all for the general designer to state it will be mobile. I am assuming for now a mobile launch system will just be their future plan.

There is little point in making ABM launcher mobile. The radar station is stationary anyway and in a nuclear war, non-underground launcher won't survive very long

The 3 Megaton warhead of 5V61 can cause 3rd degree burn at up to 20 km. But it must fly up until at least 80 km.
Defe44-115fig456-stitched.jpg

But 51T6, 5V61, A-925 are exo-atmospheric, so they have 0 chance hitting fighters. So we left with 53T6, Sprint, PRS-1M that can attack fighters.
53T6 max range is 80 km
Sprint max range is 40 km
So both are too short range and can be countered easily with fighter cruise missiles.
Only, PRS-1M is a suitable candidate.
Previous

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests