What's new

Russia to develop sea-based space-defense system

XTREME

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
601
Reaction score
0
i6d0d79257fdb3f39deb527a0c7c1906f_russian-space-defense-ocean.n.jpg


Russia is developing a sea-based missile- and space-defense system, which will be deployed in international waters. The system is expected to become an integral part of the Russian Navy.
The construction of the new sea-based missile-defense system has been entrusted to Almaz-Antey, the arms manufacturer that also produces the S-400 ‘Triumph’ missile defense system.
Anatoly Shlemov, the head of national defense orders for Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corporation, told RIA Novosti that “this task has been definitely set for the [Russian] military-industrial complex.”
Almaz-Antey is not working alone on the planned system, Shelmov said, without specifying additional details about the top-secret project.
At the St. Petersburg Economic Forum earlier this year, President Roman Trotsenko of the United Shipbuilding Corporation announced that the USC would begin construction in 2016 of a series of six nuclear-powered destroyers armed with high-tech missile- and space- defense system.
Trotsenko called the warships “benchmarks of Russian space defense in the World Ocean,” but refused to comment further on the plans.
As it begins introducing the new S-400 system, Almaz-Antey is also finishing its S-500 ‘Prometheus’ system, which features space-defense capabilities. The S-500 is expected to be deployed in 2017, and will most likely arm the destroyers in project.
Previously, Almaz-Antey created the S-300 system for naval use, developing the S-300 Fort F and Fort FM for the Russian Navy.

s-400-system.jpg

S-400 system

The S-500 will supposedly able to engage targets in low earth orbit flying at speeds of up to 7 kilometer per second – the highest speed achievable by a ballistic missile at its highest trajectory in space.
The S-500’s capabilities are expected to exceed those of the US Aegis Combat System, but a point-by-point comparison is impossible until the S-500 is completed.
The backbone of the Aegis Combat System – the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) – is a closely guarded secret, though the Missile Defense Agency of the US Department of Defense once published information revealing that the SM-3 can intercept targets flying at a speed of 3.7 kilometers per second.
The latest versions of the S-300 can engage targets flying at speeds of up to 2.8 kilometer per second; the S-400 can intercept targets at 4.8 kilometer per second.
A warship equipped with Aegis Combat System has a 190-kilometer range, and can intercept targets in low earth orbit up to 180 kilometers and detect objects at distances of up to 320 kilometers.
The S-400 can hit air targets at distances of up to 400 kilometers, while detecting them from as far away as 600 kilometers.
The Aegis Combat System is currently used by the US, Australian, Japanese, Norwegian, South Korean and Spanish navies.
 
The thing I can't understand is that S-400 is supposed to be anti missile system, thus, I rarely hear tests regarding that, while there are plenty of news talking about US anti missile systems tests and tell the world if they failed or succeeded. The last similar US system was Patriot pac 3, which was successful in intercepting various threats including ballistic missiles, although this system was made a couple of years ago solely as an anti missile system.
 
The thing I can't understand is that S-400 is supposed to be anti missile system, thus, I rarely hear tests regarding that, while there are plenty of news talking about US anti missile systems tests and tell the world if they failed or succeeded. The last similar US system was Patriot pac 3, which was successful in intercepting various threats including ballistic missiles, although this system was made a couple of years ago solely as an anti missile system.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chinese = None
EU = None
US = SM3 - which is two generations ahead of S400!

Aster 30 has some anti ballistic missile capabilities. And is based on quite a lot of ships as of late, but yeah SM-3 is in a class of its own right now.
 
Obama's 'Proven' SM-3 Missile Interceptor May Only Succeed 20 Percent of the Time, Say Physicists


At issue is whether or not the SM-3 is actually capable of destroying the warhead aboard an ICBM as opposed to simply destroying the launch vehicle. The interceptor contains what's known as an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, which uses an onboard telescope to look across space for telltale signs of an incoming rocket. Once the target is acquired, the kill vehicle slams into it, destroying it via impact.

Postol and Lewis argue that missiles -- particularly ICBMs -- are big vehicles, with their warheads being but small parts of the whole. Though the SM-3 indeed makes contact with incoming threats with regular frequency, it only struck the warhead directly in tests twice out of ten tries. That means the warhead could still be loose in the atmosphere, free to fall wherever gravity takes it. And, as Postol points out to the NYT, if we merely nudge a missile headed for Wall Street off course enough to hit Brooklyn, we can't call that a success.

The Pentagon claims that in tests their mock warheads were destroyed in the breakup of the launch vehicle, regardless of whether the SM-3 scored a direct hit to the warhead of simply impacted the carrier vehicle. But Postol and Lewis argue that mock warheads are far more fragile than actual nukes, which are designed to withstand the heat and stresses of space flight.

As such, the difference of a few inches could be the difference between a kill for the SM-3 and a nuclear strike for the enemy. Those are an important few inches, not just for the future of the SM-3 but for Obama's nuclear policy.

Obama's 'Proven' SM-3 Missile Interceptor May Only Succeed 20 Percent of the Time, Say Physicists | Popular Science

This reminds one of the Patriot system against the basic scuds!
 
^^

SM-3 Block 1B Destroys Target in 2nd Straight Test Success

You post old news The_SC, just like in Muslim research threads. Time ran you over lol.


Since 2002, a total of 19 SM-3 missiles have been fired in 16 different test events resulting in 16 intercepts against threat-representative full-size and more challenging subscale unitary and full-size targets with separating warheads. In addition, a modified Aegis BMD/SM-3 system successfully destroyed a malfunctioning U.S. satellite by hitting the satellite in the right spot to negate the hazardous fuel tank at the highest closure rate of any ballistic missile defense technology ever attempted.
 
Intercepting the Missile Body (as displayed in testing of SM-3) and intercepting a WARHEAD, are totally different things. A bigger body means a higher IR signature, and can be relatively easily intercepted. Whereas in a real scenario, the warhead is detached a few minutes after launch and only a small body is headed towards the target, which is much harder to intercept.

ABMs have a alot of catching up to do. The countermeasures against them are very simple to deploy, and very hard to counter.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom