ABM missiles versus fighters

how effective are these ABM if they are used against fighters? (ignore cost issue)

1-Sprint


2- 51T6


3- 53T6 missiles


4-PRS-1M missiles

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

vs

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.)

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.

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

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.

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

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".