F-16.net

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

eloise wrote: But against slower target such as bomber or fighter laden with heavy hypersonic missiles, i think the range is greater.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

“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.”

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

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.

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.