• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Russia Wraps Up State Trials of Long-Range Missile for S-400 Air Defense System

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
"MOSCOW --- Russia has completed the state trials of the 40N6E long-range missile for the S-400 air defense system, a source in the domestic defense industry told TASS on Tuesday.

"The state trials of the 40N6E long-range missile for the S-400 system have been completed at the Kapustin Yar practice range. The inter-departmental commission has recognized them as successful and the corresponding certificate has been signed," the source said.

The new missile "may be accepted for service before the end of summer," the source noted. "

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/194439/russia-wraps-up-state-trials-of-long_range-missile-for-s_400-system.html


One wonders how this compares to the SM-6.
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
34
What is the maximum rocket burn out speed and range of this new missile? And how dose it compare with the old missile that it is replacing.
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,178
Reaction score
8
It's not replacing anything, but rather complementing the 250 km range 48N6DM. Most S-400 batteries seem to be deployed with eight TELs out of twelve possible, one theory is that the new missile is larger and requires a new TEL, which will be deployed in each battery to make up the difference.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
SOC said:
It's not replacing anything, but rather complementing the 250 km range 48N6DM. Most S-400 batteries seem to be deployed with eight TELs out of twelve possible, one theory is that the new missile is larger and requires a new TEL, which will be deployed in each battery to make up the difference.
I thought the main difference was the flight profile. That the 40N6 flew a high, semi-ballistic profile with an off-board sensor providing updates to enable the over-the-horizon shots. ???
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
174
Reaction score
28
Might be wrong, but it seems that it IS 48N6 on pic. 48N6E3 to be precise. At the very least it seems to have "E3" after 6, and it's hard to tell 48 from 40 with that resolution. But it looks similar to identical to known 48N6 appearance.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,802
Reaction score
252
GARGEAN said:
Might be wrong, but it seems that it IS 48N6 on pic. 48N6E3 to be precise. At the very least it seems to have "E3" after 6, and it's hard to tell 48 from 40 with that resolution. But it looks similar to identical to known 48N6 appearance.
With what resolution? It's clearly says 40N6E
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
174
Reaction score
28
flateric said:
GARGEAN said:
Might be wrong, but it seems that it IS 48N6 on pic. 48N6E3 to be precise. At the very least it seems to have "E3" after 6, and it's hard to tell 48 from 40 with that resolution. But it looks similar to identical to known 48N6 appearance.
With what resolution? It's clearly says 40N6E
Look at missile itself(it's upside down btw). Aside from 40 being close to 48 on it, it clearly have E3 instead of E. And there are no 40N6E3 by my info.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
Advanced Long-Range Missile for S-400 System Accepted for Service In Russia

"MOSCOW --- The 40N6 long-range surface-to-air missile of the S-400 Triumf system has been accepted for service in the Russian Army, a source in the domestic defense industry told TASS on Thursday.

"The 40N6 long-range missile [the 40N6E as its export version] has been accepted for service. All the necessary documents were signed in September, after which the Defense Ministry started the purchases of these missiles," the source said.

"Overall, more than a thousand of 40N6 missiles are planned to be purchased under the state armament program through 2027 to provide newly formed and rearm existing S400 regiments of the Aerospace Force with them," the source added, noting that a total of 56 S-400 battalions were planned to be established in the Aerospace Force under this program."

. . .

"According to official data, the missile’s destruction range is up to 380 km for aerodynamic targets and up to 15km for ballistic weapons at an altitude ranging from 10 m to 35 km. The average flight speed is 1,190 m/s. Thanks to its new homing head, the missile can destroy aircraft beyond the boundaries of the radio visibility of ground-based radars."

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/196867/russia-claims-380km-range-for-new-s_400-missile.html
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
32
Is this missile a violation of the INF Treaty even though it is us not a Ground to Ground missile?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
jsport said:
Is this missile a violation of the INF Treaty even though it is us not a Ground to Ground missile?
If they wanted to it would be pretty easy to make it into a surface-to-surface missile and mix it in with real SAMs.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
32
Reaction score
7
Website
www.quora.com
One wonders how this compares to the SM-6.
I think the most comparable missile right now to the SM-6 is right here.


“The 48N6E3 is an improved version of the 48N6E2 long-range, surface-to-air missile (SAM) featuring more range and enhanced anti-ballistic missile (ABM) capabilities. The new missile retains the 48N6E2 capabilities against aircraft, cruise missiles and UAVs increasing the range by 50 kilometers. The 48N6E3 missile is intended to engage intermediate-range ballistic missiles typically with a maximum range of 3,500 kilometers and speeds of up to 4,800 meters per second (Mach 15). This missile, along its predecessor, is the primary weapon for the Russian Army's S-400 extended-range air defense system.
The 48N6E3 missile features solid fuel engine, advanced avionics with semi-active homing head, and resistance against intense clutter and jamming. With a maximum range of 250 kilometers it can shoot down airborne targets flying at 10 to 30,000 meters of altitude and ballistic targets at distances between 7 to 60 kilometers.”​
[/URL]


The US Navy is seeking to adapt the Standard 6 (SM-6) missile for use against ships. If this modification is successful, the range of the SM-6 will be increased from 250 km to 370 km. This is a new anti-ship mode that can shoot down airborne threats, and now the same missile can attack and destroy a ship at long range. The Navy wanted to spend $2.9 billion over the five years FY17-FY22on the modified SM-6 as part of its “distributed lethality” initiative. This new anti-ship mode makes the SM-6 highly lethal due to its speed and agility and nearly overnight doubles the purpose of every such missile used across our fleet of Aegis destroyers. Boeing’s (BA) Harpoon anti-ship missile has a range of about 67 nautical miles, less than 130 km.


Both stand at a 250km designed to engage different kinds of aerial targets while the SM-6 can improve its range with those same capabilities we will see later what kind of targets the S-500 missiles can engage. 40n6 is limited to non-maneuverable targets.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
I think the most comparable missile right now to the SM-6 is right here.
The standard missile sub section of this forum is a great resource. I would highly recommend going through it first (and other places) before posting stuff that is pretty easy to clear up or refute. Your comparison has two factual errors

1. Range of the Standard Missile 6 (baseline) is off
2. Comparing a Semi-Active homing head missile system to one that has a Dual-Mode Seeker (Active and Semi-Active)

I (or someone else) may have posted this before elsewhere but just posting a snippet here to refresh -

"The active-radar seeker gives the SM-6 an over-the-horizon capability using target data obtained from remote sensors via the Co-operative Engagement Capability. Its maximum range of 200 n miles (370 km) is intended to allow deep inland control of airspace, particularly against manoeuvring targets."

Source: Jane's Missiles & Rockets
Title: "Standard Missile 6 achieves Initial Operational Capability"
Author: Doug Richardson
Date of Publication: 11/28/2013
I have also read "in excess of 200 n miles" used by other publications but needless to say, the SM-6 as it exists now is a 350-400 km ranged weapon provided it gets OTH targeting and utilizes the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air architecture. The Extended Range SM-6 (SM-6 Block IB) promises to improve that by quite a bit provided it retains its multi-mission role.
 
Last edited:

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
289
Reaction score
16
I guess the missile must be less than 7.8m then.
In fact it might be no bigger than standard 48N6. Only that it might have new motor and new systems to accommodate extremely high apogee for long range shot. Here i attached a file, it's from SOC which might interest you on S-300/400 system missile development.
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
I wonder if he's got anymore info on this he can discuss.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
32
Reaction score
7
Website
www.quora.com
I have also read "in excess of 200 n miles" used by other publications but needless to say, the SM-6 as it exists now is a 350-400 km ranged weapon provided it gets OTH targeting and utilizes the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air architecture. The Extended Range SM-6 (SM-6 Block IB) promises to improve that by quite a bit provided it retains its multi-mission role.
I will provide both these sources and I sort of think I got the idea what's going on with the SM-6. https://news.usni.org/2016/02/04/secdef-carter-confirms-navy-developing-supersonic-anti-ship-missile-for-cruisers-destroyers


Secretary of Defense Ash Carter confirmed the Navy was developing a modification to the Raytheon Standard Missile 6 that will give the service a supersonic anti-ship weapon to reach a target more than 200 nautical miles away.

“We are going to create a brand-new capability,” Carter told reporters in San Diego on Wednesday. “We’re modifying the SM-6 so that in addition to missile defense, it can also target enemy ships at sea at very long ranges.”


"How much more? Raytheon won't provide more details, but assuming Carter's statement that the SM-6 in development would be capable of reaching a target "over 200 miles away" is conservative, and recognizing that the official published SM-6 range is 150 miles, it wouldn't be outlandish to expect that an anti-ship SM-6 would quadruple the range of the Harpoon."


Well these sources tell me 2 things. The Block 1A is 150 miles, and the "in development" Carter is talking about back in 2016 is the 1B with the over 200 miles statement. I believe I solved the puzzle here.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
435
Reaction score
116
I guess the missile must be less than 7.8m then.
In fact it might be no bigger than standard 48N6. Only that it might have new motor and new systems to accommodate extremely high apogee for long range shot. Here i attached a file, it's from SOC which might interest you on S-300/400 system missile development.
It must be wider though surely. I always assumed it looked like this Chinese SAM.

 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
Well these sources tell me 2 things. The Block 1A is 150 miles, and the "in development" Carter is talking about back in 2016 is the 1B with the over 200 miles statement. I believe I solved the puzzle here.
This is not keypublishing where members keep going back and forth when things are pretty obvious and all the relevant information is already available on the forum, so this would be my last post on the matter. There is plenty of evidence out there that shows that the baseline SM-6 is a 200 nm ranged interceptor. And no, pointing to an Ash Carter statement made well before the 1B showed up ( he was out of office when the program was started) does not point to anything. The SM-6 shares the airframe with the SM-2 Block IV ER which is a 200 nm ranged weapon. Your links are again not pointing to anything your post attributes them to. Ashton Carter was the Secretary of Defense during the Obama Presidency. A decision was made by the US Navy, and the DOD, to add a surface strike mode to the baseline SM-6 (Dual capability). It is this missile/capability that Ash Carter refers to in the two articles you've shared in your post. . The mode did not alter any aerodynamic or kinematic properties of the missile. It was considered mostly a software driven upgrade. A follow on SM-6 Block I with guidance upgrades to better counter more "advanced threats", retaining the dual capability, was designated as Standard Missile 6 Block IA.

Again, if you want to learn about the range of the various standard missile variants, go to the relevant sub section, read or ask the many other well informed posters here. Posting irrelevant data that in no way supports your claim is no way to go about it.There are three variants of the SM-6. Block I which is just an interceptor, the Block 1A, which is the same missile as block 1 but with software modifications to allow for surface attack and other guidance upgrades, and the in development block 1 b which upgrades the airframe to 21“

The extended range SM 6 many here refer to is a 21” missile that will likely increase the range of the weapon by at least 50% against the air breathing threats ( so closer to 300 nautical miles). the missile program (1B) was started in FY19 and is being accelerated through development for fielding in the near term.

Again, instead of rehashing old articles, just read the sub section dedicated to the family. It will avoid confusion and having others come in and state the obvious.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
32
Reaction score
7
Website
www.quora.com
The SM-6 shares the airframe with the SM-2 Block IV ER which is a 200 nm ranged weapon.
So according to the attached file where are you getting the 200nm range again when it clearly shows that the SM-2 Block IV ER is at 150nm as you said both share the same airframe? Ashton Carters statement was 3 years ago of a over 200nm version(which is likely the block 1B) and at that timeframe we had the block 1A version already out so using deductive reasoning Carter is referring to block 1Bs development.

So from the looks of it.

1. The SM-2 Block IV ER has a 150nm range and you said it currently shares the same airframe as the SM-6.

2. The SM-6 Block 1A well according to some sources say 150 nautical miles.

3. Ashton Carter made the statement in 2016 of a newer missile in development of a over 200nm claim. Now I don't think it would make sense to make this claim if you already supposedly have a 200nm interceptor missile right?Capture.PNG
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
For gods sake please visit the official us navy website to pull the range data. The SM2 block IV ER is listed as having a maximum range of 200 nm. Ashton carter was talking about a surface strike capability. I think at this point I would have to assume you are simply trolling.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
Is there a good reason why you are not providing sources with estimated ranges while I am the only one doing it here for some reason?
I am not going to do your homework for you (especially with something that takes less than 10 seconds of google) when you have not shown the simply courtesy of even reading your own posted links and quoted text -

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter confirmed the Navy was developing a modification to the Raytheon Standard Missile 6 that will give the service a supersonic anti-ship weapon to reach a target more than 200 nautical miles away.
It does not take a whole lot of insight to figure out that the then Secretary of Defense was talking about a yet to be fielded variant (at the time) of the SM-6 that would turn the block I missile into a DUAL ROLE Surface-Air and Surface-Surface weapon which is essentially what the Block 1A does (besides other guidance enhancements) relative to the baseline block I weapon. You can even go back to the 2016 discussions on this very forum and read all about it. This was one of the first instances of the DOD announcing plans to add a surface attack capability to the SM-6.

The SM-6 Block IB on the other hand was something that was not even in the FY19 President (Trump's) budget. The US Navy requested it as an unfunded priority which got added into the enacted budget. That weapon is a radical shift on the SM-6, and adds a completely new mid section, likely borrowed from the SM-3 Block IIA. In 2016, Ashton Carter did not magically reveal an SM-6 variant that did not even exist until 3 years later (when he was no longer in office) but revealed that the DOD was working on a surface-attack capability enhancement to the SM-6 that has since been fielded.

As I've repeatedly asked you to do, browse this forum and the relevant sections and you can read up all about it since we've been discussing this since 2016 and the first announcement of this dual role capability addition. If you do that, you will learn a lot more than copy pasting screenshots (from god knows where) and engaging in aimless trolling.
 
Last edited:

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
32
Reaction score
7
Website
www.quora.com
I am not going to do your homework for you (especially with something that takes less than 10 seconds of google) when you have not shown the simply courtesy of even reading your own posted links and quoted text -
Sorry its just that it takes a little more than saying its 200nm, its 200nm, its 200nm to convince people with credibility while another person(that being me) is throwing around sources that show what the current ranges are than accusing that person of trolling.


"The Navy's SM-6 missile has become an
all-star of multi-role capability

and a shining example of how repackaging existing systems with some new tech can garner grand results. The missile can shoot down air-breathing threats like aircraft and cruise missiles, it can swat incoming ballistic missiles in the terminal phases of flight, it can attack sea targets, and it even has a latent land attack potential. It is also network enabled and can engage targets well beyond the sensor reach of its launch platform using telemetry data-linked from a third-party platform, like a jet fighter. It does all this over long ranges, reaching out over 150 miles from its vertical launch cell aboard American destroyers and cruisers. Now, according to 2020 budget request documents, this versatile missile is set to get upsized for considerably more range and speed, and that is a very big deal. "

Christ even to this day for example 5 months ago a source suggests over 150 miles. And in your own words the SM-6 as of now has the same range as the SM-2 Block 4 extended range missile, while having the same size and I already provided a graph from a source of that point to 150 miles. The SM-6 block 1B has a bigger rocket motor than the block 1A.

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1200&ct=2 I believe this is what you are referring to correct? "Range:
100-200 nautical miles (115-230 statute miles)."

You are assuming its 200nm while that website also lists can be as low as 100 nautical miles or 185kms. Yet sources from before and even sources recently now ballpark the missile at over 150 miles or 150nm give or take and this falls between the 100-200nm reference. I can officially say this is my final post as I also do not want to have this thread focus on another topic than the current topic here at hand.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,063
Reaction score
213
For a non-missile scientist like myself for a missile like this that can attack ballistic missiles or be a ballistic missile itself how exactly is range determined based on each mission?

I’m assuming if it can hit an aircraft at 40k feet 150km from the launch platform that missile on a ballistic trajectory would travel much further?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
Different target sets mean different ranges, hence the mention of 100-200 nm. SM-2 IV ER is designed to cover an envelope beyond that of the SM-2 variants that came before it. Those extend up to 90 nautical miles of range (up to 90 nm is also missile and target dependent. It does not mean all targets and all missions) and the IV ER covers the 100-200 nm depending upon the type of target it is aimed at (this is true for all missiles as there is no such thing as a static maximum range figure). The Navy didn't publish the range requirement so that you could average the range and derive an aproximation. They've stated the range variability which is dependent upon the type of targets it is defending. Similarly, your Russian missile example does not come with a static 250 km range irrespective of target types.

The upper end range of the SM-2 IV ER is around 200 nm, the same as that of the SM-6 Block 1 and Block 1A. Assuming that the SM-6 IB retains the dual-role capability, it should easily IMO squeeze out another 80-100 miles from the maximum range of the SM-6 I/IA so you are looking at a missile capable of reaching out up to 300 nautical miles within the NIFC-CA architecture (which is the only way you are going to get meaningful intercepts of air breathing targets at those ranges - for both the SM-6 I/IA and IB).

hrist even to this day for example 5 months ago a source suggests over 150 miles.
That is not a source. That is a link to a blog post that has thrown out a number without pointing to the source or stating whether any attempt has been made to verify it or how the author obtained it.

Here's another one that has actually done an effort to go back and see what ranges exist for similar missiles and used that and the comments from DOD officials on the matter -

The SM-6’s range is classified but it is believed to be more than 200 miles, based on the range of a predecessor variant and comments from Pentagon officials..

The Mach 3.5+ SM-6 has an effective range of approximately 200 (some say 250) nautical miles (around 370 kilometers) outranging the U.S. Navy’s other major anti-surface weapon, the Boeing RGM-84 Harpoon anti-surface missile. The SM-6 provides U.S. fleets with an over-the-horizon engagement capability.

One of the reasons to go for an Active and Semi-Active Dual Mode seeker on the SM-6 (besides just a more modern option) was to allow for OTH targeting. The Missile is designed to hold targets at risk that are much farther than the ability of the SM-2 IV ER via the active seeker. Missiles are not always kinematically limited as far as range is concerned.

Here is an Australian assesment of the missile. They have been interested in it from the start and the missile...

The Government will proceed with the acquisition of three Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD). In order to enhance the air defence capabilities of the AWDs, the Government will equip them with with the Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) long-range anti-aircraft missile. The SM-6 missile is the most advanced weapon of its type, with a range of more than 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres) and effectively extends the air defence protection offered by these advanced ships. As they enter service, the AWDs will be equipped with a sophisticated Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), which enable each vessel to act as part of a wider 'grid' of sensor and weapon platforms that can share surveillance and targeting information. Defence will also investigate fitting CEC to the AEW&C aircraft in order to optimise the capability advantages offered by the SM-6 missile.


You are free to compare any SM-6 sub variant to the said Russian missile that even uses a different form of guidance. Why be generous and give it credit for 150 nm. Why not 90nm?

Just don't expect anyone to take your word for it. Most with any reasonable level of knowledge on the system treat it in the 200 nm class for a specific target type. That is what it is designed for - Unless you think the Navy is foolish enough to seek an OTH weapon that can't even match the range of its predecessor..
 
Last edited:

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
289
Reaction score
16
For a non-missile scientist like myself for a missile like this that can attack ballistic missiles or be a ballistic missile itself how exactly is range determined based on each mission?

I’m assuming if it can hit an aircraft at 40k feet 150km from the launch platform that missile on a ballistic trajectory would travel much further?
This determined by large amount of fire testing. and to some part simulation.

Rearding your question tho.. this will largely dependent on the missile kinematics. For that missile to fly in ballistic trajectory.. say we have 48N6E2. It set on "self defense" mode to hit ground target (Soviet and Russian SAM's do have this mode). The missile have velocity of Mach 6 (2040 m/s or 2 km/s). A good rule of thumb based on informative Alternate Wars would provide you with following range :

R=(V/0.09)^2
R=(2.04/0.09)^2
R=513.8 Km.

So yeah it will go much further.
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,178
Reaction score
8
I wonder if he's got anymore info on this he can discuss.
I think the most interesting thing I've learned in a while about the 40N6 is that the 40N6E was exported to the PRC. Still haven't seen the actual missile, but I suspect it might be a modified 48N6. A test 48N6 was shot to 400 km in the 80s or 90s by adjusting the flight profile and providing locking control surfaces. It's never been missile performance that's held things back.
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
289
Reaction score
16
I think the most interesting thing I've learned in a while about the 40N6 is that the 40N6E was exported to the PRC. Still haven't seen the actual missile, but I suspect it might be a modified 48N6. A test 48N6 was shot to 400 km in the 80s or 90s by adjusting the flight profile and providing locking control surfaces. It's never been missile performance that's held things back.
Do you have anything new on the radar suites for the S-400 ?

Reading the brochure i noticed some interesting things compared to the earlier generation of S-300P's.

The first is bandwidth which i assume the frequency bandwidth. The frequency bandwidth of a phased array can be determined by its feed design and later its beamwidth. The space feed bandwidth is about a beamwidth for CW transmission and 2x in Pulse. The earlier S-300P have a beamwidth of 1 Degree, which translate to frequency bandwidth of about 1-2%.

The S-400's 92N6 in other hand have 5% which indicate that the beamwidth is somewhat wider, 2.5-5 Degrees. This impacts angular resolution BUT it could also mean lower sidelobe (the array is weighted or there is weighting algorithm employed during operations), meaning it would be more resistant to clutter and sidelobe jamming as well as even more difficult to detect unless being directly painted by it, plus if used to search it could in theory cover the search area faster. The baseline 30N6 or 5N63's sidelobe in other hand could be approximated with a rules of thumb of unweighted array (which in practice used to make full use of antenna aperture) 1/number of elements where the radar has about 16000. So 1/16000 is about 0.0001 or -40 dB, which i consider quite low and hard to be detected. The S-400 with its larger beamwidth might have even lower level of sidelobe maybe a figure of -50 dB would be reasonable.

The second is of course general increase of targets that can be tracked.. older S-300P variants can only track six while this S-400 can track up to 40 and engage 10 plus controlling 20 missiles, more than earlier 30N6/5N63. Increase in computing capacity self explanatory. The rest is as you pointed out long time ago the minimum target speed is 0 which means it can somehow track into doppler notch. It may then also engage very slow moving target if necessary. With the only limit being the pulsewidth.

Maybe you could add more on this interesting radar ?
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
98
Reaction score
31
I think the most comparable missile right now to the SM-6 is right here.
The standard missile sub section of this forum is a great resource. I would highly recommend going through it first (and other places) before posting stuff that is pretty easy to clear up or refute. Your comparison has two factual errors

1. Range of the Standard Missile 6 (baseline) is off
2. Comparing a Semi-Active homing head missile system to one that has a Dual-Mode Seeker (Active and Semi-Active)

I (or someone else) may have posted this before elsewhere but just posting a snippet here to refresh -

"The active-radar seeker gives the SM-6 an over-the-horizon capability using target data obtained from remote sensors via the Co-operative Engagement Capability. Its maximum range of 200 n miles (370 km) is intended to allow deep inland control of airspace, particularly against manoeuvring targets."

Source: Jane's Missiles & Rockets
Title: "Standard Missile 6 achieves Initial Operational Capability"
Author: Doug Richardson
Date of Publication: 11/28/2013
I have also read "in excess of 200 n miles" used by other publications but needless to say, the SM-6 as it exists now is a 350-400 km ranged weapon provided it gets OTH targeting and utilizes the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air architecture. The Extended Range SM-6 (SM-6 Block IB) promises to improve that by quite a bit provided it retains its multi-mission role.
Their range can be the same but I think 48N6E2 and 40N6E are much faster than SM-6
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
435
Reaction score
116
Their range can be the same but I think 48N6E2 and 40N6E are much faster than SM-6
Don't be so sure, an SM-3 has the same booster and reaches 3km/s, which is about Mach 10 at altitude.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
32
Reaction score
7
Website
www.quora.com
Their range can be the same but I think 48N6E2 and 40N6E are much faster than SM-6
Don't be so sure, an SM-3 has the same booster and reaches 3km/s, which is about Mach 10 at altitude.
SM-3 is for midcourse interceptions and ballistic missiles only. I think Ronny is referring to the missiles designed to engage different targets in the terminal phase. 40n6 is mach 12. Also if I am reading your statement correctly are you saying the SM-3 has the same booster as the SM-6? Are you sure? The size difference in length and diameter is pretty big between the 2.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
The SM-6 is capable of intercepting Medium Ranged Ballistic Missiles in their terminal stage and is the only SBT interceptor with the US Navy (Army has MSE and THAAD for example). Though the exact speed at any flight regime is not provided it can be used to ballpark some possible values. There will obviously be some difference since the SM-6 is a Naval SAM that is designed to slot in between the SM-2 and SM-2 ER at the lower end and the SM-3 missile family at the upper end. 40N6 is a ground launched SAM built to support a different system. The SM-3 and SM-6 share the same booster (MK72). It is possible that the SM-6 Block 1B adopts the SM-3 IIA's Dual Thrust Rocket Motor as well which should increase its envelope considerably as long as it stays a multi-role weapon.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
The SM-3 and SM-6 share the same booster (MK72). It is possible that the SM-6 Block 1B adopts the SM-3 IIA's Dual Thrust Rocket Motor as well which should increase its envelope considerably as long as it stays a multi-role weapon.
Did you mean IB here? SM-6 does not yet have a 21" stack. SM-6 does have the 13.5" boost/sustain grain of the SM-2/SM-3.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
The SM-3 and SM-6 share the same booster (MK72). It is possible that the SM-6 Block 1B adopts the SM-3 IIA's Dual Thrust Rocket Motor as well which should increase its envelope considerably as long as it stays a multi-role weapon.
Did you mean IB here? SM-6 does not yet have a 21" stack. SM-6 does have the 13.5" boost/sustain grain of the SM-2/SM-3.
No the larger diameter SM-6 that is being fast-tracked through development.
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
Okay. Even without it though SM-6 will have SERIOUS velocity. One of the early SM-3 tests had a dummy 3rd stage. After booster and 2nd stage burnout they let the 3rd stage/KKV/nose portion continue on ballistically. They were calling out altitude, and even though it was tumbling, it passed through 103km (340,000ft) altitude with a Mach 3 vertical component. (Meaning it's actual speed was higher, as it wasn't a vertical shot.)
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
435
Reaction score
116
SM-3 is for midcourse interceptions and ballistic missiles only. I think Ronny is referring to the missiles designed to engage different targets in the terminal phase. 40n6 is mach 12. Also if I am reading your statement correctly are you saying the SM-3 has the same booster as the SM-6? Are you sure? The size difference in length and diameter is pretty big between the 2.
What size difference? Block SM-6 Blk IB and SM-3 Blk I are roughly the same size.

Also, where did you get the Mach 12? I can't find any reputable sources. A more reliable source gives an average speed of 1,190m/s, which is around Mach 3.5 at sea level or Mach 4 at altitude. The peak is more likely about 2x that.
 
Top