SR-72?

[Trident]

But doesn't that work both ways? I find the views of "RV maneuvers are not sufficient to evade an interceptor" and "a hypersonic aircraft will only need a gentle maneuver to mess up the intercept geometry" impossible to reconcile, to be frank. Especially considering the much higher G-tolerance of an unmanned RV.

With RVs, the whole problem can be avoided by performing a mid course or boost phase intercept, as pointed out already, however I consider that a somewhat moot point when discussing the capabilities of current SAMs against an endo-atmospheric hypersonic aircraft.

[sferrin]

But doesn't that work both ways? I find the views of "RV maneuvers are not sufficient to evade an interceptor" and "a hypersonic aircraft will only need a gentle maneuver to mess up the intercept geometry" impossible to reconcile, to be frank. Especially considering the much higher G-tolerance of an unmanned RV.

What's difficult about it?  Missile vs RVs it's apples to apples comparison.  Missiles vs aircraft is not.   Think about it.  An RV is relatively dense compared to an ABM if you're talking terminal phase stuff so the ABM will have greater turning ability because of it's better "wingloading" so to speak.  An RV vs a KKV is no contest because atmosphere is not involved at all and it's strictly thrust to weight that's going to determine your manueverability.  Again an RV is relatively heavy and won't have much divert capacity compared to a KKV which is pretty much a rocket motor with a fuel tank and seeker stuck on it.

[Trident]

Fine, so we've established that it is perfectly feasible to intercept a RV. Now explain how a manned aircraft is going to accomplish what a much lighter RV cannot do? Of course, the catch is that this intercept would be endo-atmospheric and would likely not involve a KKV, so my point still stands that the two statements are mutually exclusive for such a situation. Are S400, S300PM/V and Patriot PAC-3 all completely ineffective against maneuvering RVs?

[sferrin]

Fine, so we've established that it is perfectly feasible to intercept a RV. Now explain how a manned aircraft is going to accomplish what a much lighter RV cannot do?

Wing loading.  'nuff said.

Of course, the catch is that this intercept would be endo-atmospheric and would likely not involve a KKV, so my point still stands that the two statements are mutually exclusive for such a situation. Are S400, S300PM/V and Patriot PAC-3 all completely ineffective against maneuvering RVs?

You need to take a big breath and slow down.  I've already written the explanation to this question and your first one.  It's all there.

[RyanCrierie]

I know it's hard to shoot down a high flying fast object but the old Gary Powers experience would still appear to hold true, that it's cheaper to improve missile systems than planes to out fly them. This new S-400 just makes it that much harder.

Not really. The Russians make a lot of claims about the S-400; and they're under a lot of pressure from irate customers who find out that the reality of the S-400 doesn't match up with the claims.

As for the old Gary Powers experience... you DO realize that Powers flamed out his engine, stalled, and had to descend quite a lot to a much lower altitude for an engine restart; and EVEN THEN it took the soviets tons and tons of SAMs, plus shooting down their own MiGs to get him.

And really, the U-2 is not a very good choice; it has very little excess power (constantly being on the edge of a stall), and very little ECM gear (so it can fly high).

We have cases of SA-5s (significantly bigger and faster and improved) completely failing to make intercepts with the SR-71s, which only had to change course by a few degrees or speed up by 100 MPH to make them miss.



Please note, that the B-52 Altitudes are from Linebacker II. In a full bore SAC scenario armed with nukes headed for the USSR, the BUFFs would be flying at around 60,000 feet and approaching near 700 MPH.

[RyanCrierie]

Some pretty pictures for all to enjoy (Courtesy of Stuart)

-------------------

A HAWK missile shooting down an IRBM (IIRC Date 1959) Note this is a proximity-fuzed hit, see the HAWK fly under the target and shred it



A ZEUS Shooting Down a Herc in 1961 (Herc was a good RV simulator since it came in at the right speed and was cheap).  Note, this is a direct hit, skin to skin.  You can tell that from the blast pattern in the top central picture - a prox hit would be elliptical.  The middle-center shows the target beginning to break up, the bottom one shows it fragmenting.

[sferrin]

got a few to add.  Notice in the Hercules vs Corporal shootdown the Hercules misses but it's warhead (all thousand pounds of it) is large enough to cause it to explode anyway.  Any guesses as to why it had a thousand pound warhead (or a nuke)?  Because the air is thin way up there and blast effects are reduced as a result.  (Threw in the Nike painting because I'd never seen it before and thought I'd pass it on).

Oh, and Corporal is NOT an IRBM.  It's was a 75 mile range battlefield rocket.  Think ATACMS with a 20kt warhead. 

[flateric]

Anyone know if the story with GOES satellite donuts-on-a-rope contrail photos 'from Area 51 across Atlantic' 2004 get any explanation?

[sferrin]

Given that those little puffs are miles apart (and not actually little) I'd say the trail was made by an Orion with megaton nukes out the back.   

[flateric]

OK, it was just too many Nick Cook documentaries watched tonight awaiting 787 roll-out (roll-in, actually)

[Woody]

Hi guys - sorry I've been busy but I couldn't resist this one:-

Just a slight turn of one degree changes the missiles intercept course by miles. As such, they wouldn't need to perform "high G" maneuvers to avoid missiles.

Wouldn't this also cause the reconnaissance aircraft to also miss it's objective by miles or are we forgetting the whole point of air defence now.

While I'm on, here's what FAS has to say about the S-400 SAM:-

a gas-dynamic control system enables the 9M96 missile to maneuver at altitudes of up to 35 km at forces of over 20g

Are you sure, Sferrin, that the S-400 only uses aerodynamics to maneuver? Do you have any details? There are other ways - like how your ABM Hit To Kill vehicles do it. Either way 20g would be pretty good at altitude with a 120 km kill radius (for the small one).

Today's combat aircraft have never been tested against equal SAM defenses. Ten years ago in the Balkans a F-117 got shot down alegedly without the use of radar!

Does anyone (Greg - Andreas?) want to start an S-400 thread on the Missiles page? This a fantastic, little know about device that actually (probably) exists -personally I'd love to know more.

Cheers, Woody

[Simon666]

Anyone know if the story with GOES satellite donuts-on-a-rope contrail photos 'from Area 51 across Atlantic' 2004 get any explanation?

Just came across a non donut version:



Reminded me of this thread. I guess it's a pure fabrication.

[sferrin]

Hi guys - sorry I've been busy but I couldn't resist this one:-

Just a slight turn of one degree changes the missiles intercept course by miles. As such, they wouldn't need to perform "high G" maneuvers to avoid missiles.

Wouldn't this also cause the reconnaissance aircraft to also miss it's objective by miles or are we forgetting the whole point of air defence now.

I guess it would depend on the location of the missiles it was trying to avoid in relation to the target it was trying to image.  How often did SAMs keep the SR-71 from performing it's mission?

While I'm on, here's what FAS has to say about the S-400 SAM:-

a gas-dynamic control system enables the 9M96 missile to maneuver at altitudes of up to 35 km at forces of over 20g

Are you sure, Sferrin, that the S-400 only uses aerodynamics to maneuver? Do you have any details? There are other ways - like how your ABM Hit To Kill vehicles do it. Either way 20g would be pretty good at altitude with a 120 km kill radius (for the small one).

Today's combat aircraft have never been tested against equal SAM defenses. Ten years ago in the Balkans a F-117 got shot down alegedly without the use of radar!

Does anyone (Greg - Andreas?) want to start an S-400 thread on the Missiles page? This a fantastic, little know about device that actually (probably) exists -personally I'd love to know more.

Cheers, Woody

It goes back to the "high Gs doesn't always equate to tight turn".  How fast is the missile going when it's performing those 20Gs?  What's the kill radius of the warhead at high altitude (remember it goes down the higher you go).