ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2019, 15:58
by eloise
how effective are these ABM if they are used against fighters? (ignore cost issue)

1-Sprint
Image

2- 51T6
Image

3- 53T6 missiles
Image

4-PRS-1M missiles
Image

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2019, 17:54
by sferrin
Considering they have nukes on the front end, probably quite. Why in God's name you'd want to use one against an aircraft though is anybody's guess.

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2019, 18:20
by eloise
sferrin wrote:Considering they have nukes on the front end, probably quite. Why in God's name you'd want to use one against an aircraft though is anybody's guess.

I was just thinking if current SAM are too short range/slow to deal with fighter carrying hypersonic weapon, then something similar to ABM missile can intercept them

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2019, 18:31
by sferrin
eloise wrote:
sferrin wrote:Considering they have nukes on the front end, probably quite. Why in God's name you'd want to use one against an aircraft though is anybody's guess.

I was just thinking if modern SAM are too short range/slow to deal with fighter carrying hypersonic weapon, then ABM missile could do that role probably


Many SAMS have much longer range than the missiles you showed. Any hypersonic weapon carried by even a fighter would have enough range to allow them to easily stand outside the range of these ABMs.

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2019, 02:36
by eloise
sferrin wrote:Many SAMS have much longer range than the missiles you showed. Any hypersonic weapon carried by even a fighter would have enough range to allow them to easily stand outside the range of these ABMs.

51T6 can fly 900 km and equip with 1 Megaton warhead. I can be almost certain that out range fighter's hypersonic weapon.
It is huge
Image
Image

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2019, 04:49
by wrightwing
eloise wrote:
sferrin wrote:Many SAMS have much longer range than the missiles you showed. Any hypersonic weapon carried by even a fighter would have enough range to allow them to easily stand outside the range of these ABMs.

51T6 can fly 900 km and equip with 1 Megaton warhead. I can be almost certain that out range fighter's hypersonic weapon.
It is huge
Image
Image

900km at what altitude? Not in dense air, it won't.

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2019, 05:05
by eloise
wrightwing wrote:900km at what altitude? Not in dense air, it won't.

Given the size of that missile, I don't think fighter's hypersonic weapons can out range them
Image
vs
Image
Image

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2019, 13:42
by sferrin
You're moving the goal posts. All you had in your first post were short range missiles. The long range one in your follow on post has more range- and a megaton warhead. It is also long retired. Could it shoot down an aircraft? Not in it's designed configuration. Maybe a slow, low maneuverability bomber. Also, the range isn't 900 km.

Range - 320-350 km
Range limit - 600 km
Reach presumably possible - about 900 km

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-345.html

"Reach" is basically it's ballistic range. It's useful range, as shown above, is much less.

Even the old Mach 4 ASALM was designed for a 480km range.

The later, longer range Russian ABMs they're working on would also be unable to intercept aircraft in their planned configurations. That's why they're deploying the S-400 and developing the S-500.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-235_ant ... ile_system

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2019, 15:41
by eloise
sferrin wrote:You're moving the goal posts. All you had in your first post were short range missiles. The long range one in your follow on post has more range- and a megaton warhead. It is also long retired. Could it shoot down an aircraft? Not in it's designed configuration. Maybe a slow, low maneuverability bomber. Also, the range isn't 900 km.
Range - 320-350 km
Range limit - 600 km
Reach presumably possible - about 900 km
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-345.html
"Reach" is basically it's ballistic range. It's useful range, as shown above, is much less.

I did reference 51T6 in my first post (though the photo was without the booster)
Any way, if i understand it correctly, 600 km is limit range against ballistic missiles, But against slower target such as bomber or fighter laden with heavy hypersonic missiles, i think the range is greater

sferrin wrote:The later, longer range Russian ABMs they're working on would also be unable to intercept aircraft in their planned configurations.

Can you elaborate why?
In my opinion, with the warhead 3 rd degree burn radius of 13 km, the missile don't have to maneuver a lot (if at all) to destroy fighter aircraft

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2019, 16:11
by sferrin
eloise wrote: But against slower target such as bomber or fighter laden with heavy hypersonic missiles, i think the range is greater.


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

eloise wrote:
Can you elaborate why?
In my opinion, with the warhead 3 rd degree burn radius of 13 km, the missile don't have to maneuver a lot (if at all) to destroy fighter aircraft


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.

Could you take a big, nuclear armed missile, and make numerous changes to make a giant anti-aircraft missile? Sure. Why would you? I often thought Zeus A would have made a natural Nike Hercules follow-on if you removed the 3rd stage. No such luck.

Nike_Zeus_A_test_launch.jpg

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2019, 20:52
by wrightwing
eloise wrote:
sferrin wrote:You're moving the goal posts. All you had in your first post were short range missiles. The long range one in your follow on post has more range- and a megaton warhead. It is also long retired. Could it shoot down an aircraft? Not in it's designed configuration. Maybe a slow, low maneuverability bomber. Also, the range isn't 900 km.
Range - 320-350 km
Range limit - 600 km
Reach presumably possible - about 900 km
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-345.html
"Reach" is basically it's ballistic range. It's useful range, as shown above, is much less.

I did reference 51T6 in my first post (though the photo was without the booster)
Any way, if i understand it correctly, 600 km is limit range against ballistic missiles, But against slower target such as bomber or fighter laden with heavy hypersonic missiles, i think the range is greater

sferrin wrote:The later, longer range Russian ABMs they're working on would also be unable to intercept aircraft in their planned configurations.

Can you elaborate why?
In my opinion, with the warhead 3 rd degree burn radius of 13 km, the missile don't have to maneuver a lot (if at all) to destroy fighter aircraft


The range would be considerably less against air breathing targets. Those 320-600km ranges are against targets well above 100,000 feet. They were never designed to be used against targets that are at 15,000-40,000 feet. The aerodynamic drag at the lower altitudes would greatly reduce the range, much like AAMs have a much shorter range in dense air. They certainly weren't designed for 9G targets, either. Missiles that are optimized against TBM/ICBM, are going to have much poorer performance vs jets (if they can engage them at all.)

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2019, 17:22
by eloise
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

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2019, 17:31
by sprstdlyscottsmn
If we are discussing ABMs with nuclear warheads then we are already in a nuclear war and fighter jets are NOT going to be priority targets. Actual BMs will be.

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2019, 18:47
by eloise
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:If we are discussing ABMs with nuclear warheads then we are already in a nuclear war and fighter jets are NOT going to be priority targets. Actual BMs will be.

I know but i was thinking about this purely from theoretical stand point, are nuclear ABM deadly against fighter jet.
Sort of idea for a novel story about a post apocalyptic world

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2019, 20:07
by sferrin
eloise wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:If we are discussing ABMs with nuclear warheads then we are already in a nuclear war and fighter jets are NOT going to be priority targets. Actual BMs will be.

I know but i was thinking about this purely from theoretical stand point, are nuclear ABM deadly against fighter jet.
Sort of idea for a novel story about a post apocalyptic world


In that case nothing special would have been done with them to enable them to engage aircraft so the answer would be, "definitely not".

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2019, 20:38
by wrightwing
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.

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2019, 20:47
by fidgetspinner
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.

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 02:16
by eloise
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

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 03:27
by h-bomb
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

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 04:54
by eloise
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

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 13:05
by sferrin
"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.

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 18:16
by fidgetspinner
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.

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 02:57
by eloise
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.


Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 05:20
by fidgetspinner
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.

Re: ABM missiles versus fighters

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 08:37
by eloise
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.