Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

T

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
ougoah said:
Cannister looks similar to the prs1m missile tests as part of the A135/235 systems. Close up footage dies make the acceleration seen next level. Could be sped up or just an effect of angle.
Click to expand...

Well, it basically is - AFAIK just an upgrade of the 53T6 quick-reaction ABM deployed around Moscow for decades, they are tested at regular intervals of about two launches per year (a successor designated 45T6 was supposed to be under development, but no idea if this is it already).

Yes, it is that fast :) Though in one shot there apparently was a camera glitch that dropped a couple of frames, making it look a bit quicker than it actually is. Nonetheless, acceleration is comparable to the older US Sprint which means approximately 100g - the 53T6 is significantly larger at some 10t however, so the rocket motor is a ~1000t thrust monster! Originally the system was a two-tier shield with this missile as a last ditch weapon against "leakers" which made it past the outer layer, but the exo-atmospheric missile component was deactivated a few years ago. Additionally, delaying the interception to the last possible moment (only a couple of 1000m above the ground) meant that atmospheric drag would weed out chaff and inflatable decoys, so target discrimination was easier.

On the other hand it obviously posed monumental challenges in missile acceleration and speed requirements though - a RV moving at about 3km/s at such low altitude is literally moments away from a successful airburst detonation, so everything needs to happen incredibly fast. The interceptor not only needs to have a formidable top speed (reportedly in the Mach 10 to 12 range), it also has to waste as little time as possible getting up to that speed.

Interestingly enough, 53T6 is NOT actually a Sprint-ski in configuration (though they're both conical in shape for good aerodynamics). Sprint was a two-stage missile with aerodynamic control surfaces, 53T6 is single-stage with an unpowered terminal "dart" (you could call it a kill vehicle, but it has a warhead - originally nuclear, in fact) and divert thrusters for control. So more like the later US UpSTAGE experiment in some respects (the UpSTAGE terminal dart was a non-axisymmetric lifting body though).
 
T

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
timepass said:
Experts questions capability of Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system
Click to expand...

Rather comical that this analysis should appear right about when the 40N6 finally enters service (and is cleared for export) - maybe it was delayed as badly as the missile? I also question the basis for asserting so confidently that there is no CEC-like capability - the very presence of the 40N6 (and the poor effectiveness of employing it without, as correctly stated) suggests a similar system is at least planned for. While I'm not aware of reliable reports on this aspect either way, Occam's razor leads to a different conclusion in absence of a clear denial... (especially bearing in mind how the same author already managed to ignore the 40N6 going operational).

I have the highest regard for the Swedish defence industry & establishment (they are generally the smartest players at this game in the entire world!), but this one's a miss.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Tirdent said:
Rather comical that this analysis should appear right about when the 40N6 finally enters service (and is cleared for export) - maybe it was delayed as badly as the missile? I also question the basis for asserting so confidently that there is no CEC-like capability - the very presence of the 40N6 (and the poor effectiveness of employing it without, as correctly stated) suggests a similar system is at least planned for. While I'm not aware of reliable reports on this aspect either way, Occam's razor leads to a different conclusion in absence of a clear denial... (especially bearing in mind how the same author already managed to ignore the 40N6 going operational).

I have the highest regard for the Swedish defence industry & establishment (they are generally the smartest players at this game in the entire world!), but this one's a miss.
Click to expand...
Occam Razor states that the simplest explanation is the most likely explanation. If Russia has CEC, then there are facts that support it - not the denial of it. Does the 40N6 have two way datalink? It is a basic requirement for CEC. You need nil latency in the network as a basic requirement. A link 16 type network will not do.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
timepass said:
Such a capability – often known as Cooperative Engagement – has only recently been successfully achieved by the U.S. Navy, and is a highly complex and demanding endeavour that Russia should not be expected to master within 10-15 years.
Click to expand...
Oh really? US navy achieved CEC only recently? And Russia will require 10-15 years to achieve something from early 1990s?
Well, it's bad to live in the late 1970s.

P.s. there is some merit in this particular saying(most prominently - in relation to A-100 aircraft), but it isn't "just" CEC, nor it will take so long to get there.

Brumby said:
Does the 40N6 have two way datalink?
Click to expand...
They have suitable two way data link since 1980s. Because original s-300 weren't even semi-active ones, they were guided through missile.
 
Last edited:
T

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
Brumby said:
Occam Razor states that the simplest explanation is the most likely explanation. If Russia has CEC, then there are facts that support it - not the denial of it. Does the 40N6 have two way datalink? It is a basic requirement for CEC. You need nil latency in the network as a basic requirement. A link 16 type network will not do.
Click to expand...

Precisely - so let's examine the options:

1) A CEC-like remote guidance capability may not have been implemented at the stage of development that the author was talking about (which we already know bears no relation to the current state, but that's rather beside the point). However, to take full advantage of the missile's kinematic performance, such a system was/is on the agenda from the outset (and may be operational now) - it was/is merely not publicly announced.

2) Russia pursued a very protracted and costly development programme to get a missile with kinematic performance which cannot even be exploited due to guidance limitations. These constrain its effective envelope to a range which was already achievable with existing, late-model 48N6 series rounds and work on remediating this deficiency has not even started yet. In essence, they're stupid.

I know which one seems more simple and plausible to me.

In fact, the recent revelation that the 40N6 is based largely on the existing 48N6 airframe might justifiably make one wonder exactly what took them so long - it may very well be a clue that it was development of a "CEC-ski" which was the culprit. This would actually fit a familiar pattern with the S-300 lineage, many of the range increases over the years were unlocked by improvements in guidance, not missile airframe upgrades. An early model 48N6 is known to have been fired to 400km in a 1990s advanced trajectory test, confirming that the kinematic potential is there (and if taken as an indication of when interest in a CEC-type system started, you can do the math on how long it has been worked on through today...). Bear in mind also that S-300P/S-400 family missiles have had 2-way, low-latency data-links pretty much all along (not sure about the very earliest versions with 5V55 interceptors, but most have) due to their SAGG guidance principle, as Gloire says.

Furthermore, a jury-rigged CEC system was used 25 years ago to test a R-37 AAM out to max. range because the target was beyond reach of the launch aircraft's radar - there is no reason to believe a remote guidance capability would be beyond the ability of the Russian industry at this point.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Tirdent said:
Precisely - so let's examine the options:

1) A CEC-like remote guidance capability may not have been implemented at the stage of development that the author was talking about (which we already know bears no relation to the current state, but that's rather beside the point). However, to take full advantage of the missile's kinematic performance, such a system was/is on the agenda from the outset (and may be operational now) - it was/is merely not publicly announced.

2) Russia pursued a very protracted and costly development programme to get a missile with kinematic performance which cannot even be exploited due to guidance limitations. These constrain its effective envelope to a range which was already achievable with existing, late-model 48N6 series rounds and work on remediating this deficiency has not even started yet. In essence, they're stupid.

I know which one seems more simple and plausible to me.

In fact, the recent revelation that the 40N6 is based largely on the existing 48N6 airframe might justifiably make one wonder exactly what took them so long - it may very well be a clue that it was development of a "CEC-ski" which was the culprit. This would actually fit a familiar pattern with the S-300 lineage, many of the range increases over the years were unlocked by improvements in guidance, not missile airframe upgrades. An early model 48N6 is known to have been fired to 400km in a 1990s advanced trajectory test, confirming that the kinematic potential is there (and if taken as an indication of when interest in a CEC-type system started, you can do the math on how long it has been worked on through today...). Bear in mind also that S-300P/S-400 family missiles have had 2-way, low-latency data-links pretty much all along (not sure about the very earliest versions with 5V55 interceptors, but most have) due to their SAGG guidance principle, as Gloire says.

Furthermore, a jury-rigged CEC system was used 25 years ago to test a R-37 AAM out to max. range because the target was beyond reach of the launch aircraft's radar - there is no reason to believe a remote guidance capability would be beyond the ability of the Russian industry at this point.
Click to expand...

I have to give you credit for making an attempt to posit a view where you don't have underlying evidence to support your case. I am sure Russia has the intention to incorporate some sort of CEC capability into its S400 kill chain. It is most logical given the limited LOS due to the earth's curvature against low flying threats using terrain masking. Having the intention and building the necessary capability is a long road ahead. I would watch for what Russia is planning with the A-100 as in my view that would be a most logical starting point for developing such a kill chain. The A-100 look down capability will address the main weakness associated with the present weakness.

Btw, any idea what is happening with the A-100 program? I have a book on the A-50 but yet to read up on its capabilities.
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Brumby said:
I have to give you credit for making an attempt to posit a view where you don't have underlying evidence to support your case. I am sure Russia has the intention to incorporate some sort of CEC capability into its S400 kill chain. It is most logical given the limited LOS due to the earth's curvature against low flying threats using terrain masking. Having the intention and building the necessary capability is a long road ahead. I would watch for what Russia is planning with the A-100 as in my view that would be a most logical starting point for developing such a kill chain. The A-100 look down capability will address the main weakness associated with the present weakness.

Btw, any idea what is happening with the A-100 program? I have a book on the A-50 but yet to read up on its capabilities.
Click to expand...
I think we have here same theoretical / basic geometry issue.

PAtriot has been designed around single X band Search/Acquisition/engagement radar, but the S-300 has been designed from the very beginning to work as a part of a network ,and composite a multi spectrum view from different types of radars.

To defeat low observable aircraft the need to guide missiles with data from long wavelength radars naturally arising, and in that case the X band radar has no /limited capability to see the target , so there must be CEC capability since the first upgrade of s-300.

From the standpoint of the X band radar all that it needs is a meter precise ( if the missile kill radius is in ten meters) target position / velocity information.

But for this the coordinate system reference point error of the different radars has to be smaller than one meter , for a stationary installation it is easy to achieve it with satellite navigation, and even with theodolites ( I'm sure the crew of s-x00 has extensive training for every positioning method).


The problem is in the case of airborne radar its needs for high quality satellite signal, the aircraft needs to know it position by meter precision, and I am not sure about that the Glonass-M can provide this level of precision with high refreshment rate.

And I think the Russians put less emphasis onto this feature, generally the satellite navigation is availability in the case of war with inferior enemies, but there is small chance for the USA to use airborne CEC against per enemies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top