• 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

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
32
Reaction score
7
Website
www.quora.com
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.
my apologies for mixing up the other SM block missiles also sorry again for mixing it up with the target velocity.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,230
Reaction score
403
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.
"On February 21, 03:26 GMT an SM-3 missile was fired from the Ticonderoga-class missile cruiser USS Lake Erie and intercepted USA-193 about 133 nautical miles (247 kilometers)[25] above the Pacific Ocean. The satellite was traveling with a velocity of about 17,500 mph (around 28,000 km/h, or 7.8 km/s). The velocity of the impact was about 22,000 mph. "

Flight time was 166 seconds. That gives an AVERAGE vertical velocity component of about Mach 5. The missile contributed 4,500 mph to the combined impact velocity. As it wasn't a nose-to-nose impact the missiles speed at impact was likely much higher.
 
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
30
Don't be so sure, an SM-3 has the same booster and reaches 3km/s, which is about Mach 10 at altitude.
I could be wrong but if I understand it correctly, isn't SM-3 only reach Mach 10 exoatmosphere?
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
431
Reaction score
116
"On February 21, 03:26 GMT an SM-3 missile was fired from the Ticonderoga-class missile cruiser USS Lake Erie and intercepted USA-193 about 133 nautical miles (247 kilometers)[25] above the Pacific Ocean. The satellite was traveling with a velocity of about 17,500 mph (around 28,000 km/h, or 7.8 km/s). The velocity of the impact was about 22,000 mph. "

Flight time was 166 seconds. That gives an AVERAGE vertical velocity component of about Mach 5. The missile contributed 4,500 mph to the combined impact velocity. As it wasn't a nose-to-nose impact the missiles speed at impact was likely much higher.
Yes, I remember that. The closing speed was 9.8km/s and, as you say, it definitely wasn't nose-to-nose because the satellite was on a decaying orbit, hence why it was shot down.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
431
Reaction score
116
There is enough for jet engine to operate
Well yeah, but definitely not enough for you to breath, that limit is about 8km. It's >15x less that at sea level and, as you can see, at 30km it's >100 times less than at sea level, and hence drag is >100x less. So whilst the official line between the atmosphere and space is 100km, it gets very space-like well before that and spy satellites running elliptical orbits have perigees as low as 80km.
1571583642386.png
 
Last edited:

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
30
There is enough for jet engine to operate
Well yeah, but definitely not enough for you to breath, that limit is about 8km. It's >15x less that at sea level and, as you can see, at 30km it's >100 times less than at sea level, and hence drag is >100x less. So whilst the official line between the atmosphere and space is 100km, it gets very space-like well before that and spy satellites running elliptical orbits have perigees as low as 80km.
View attachment 620432
I know drag at high altitude is lower due to lower air density. But drag at high speed is exponentially higher than low speed. Drag at Mach 10 is 100 times higher than at Mach 1. So I think drag is still a big factor. In addition, 40N6E and 48N6E2 are a lot bigger than SM-6, so I think it is logical that their booster are more powerful and can propell them to higher speed.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
431
Reaction score
116
I know drag at high altitude is lower due to lower air density. But drag at high speed is exponentially higher than low speed. Drag at Mach 10 is 100 times higher than at Mach 1. So I think drag is still a big factor. In addition, 40N6E and 48N6E2 are a lot bigger than SM-6, so I think it is logical that their booster are more powerful and can propell them to higher speed.
My point was that the air wasn't a big factor above those altitudes wrt drag. You seem to be making the assumption that air abruptly ends at 100km, when in reality it just tails off via the same curve in the graph above and above 20km there is very little of it. It's possible, even likely that the SM-3 burn stage ends before 100km.

40N6 and co. also have far larger warheads that slow them down and larger objects also suffer more drag.
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
30
My point was that the air wasn't a big factor above those altitudes wrt drag. You seem to be making the assumption that air abruptly ends at 100km.
I don't think that, I know air density decrease gradually but as a matter of fact, exoatmosphere missiles are always cited with higher velocity than endoarmosphere missiles. So I think drag is important.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,230
Reaction score
403
In addition, 40N6E and 48N6E2 are a lot bigger than SM-6, so I think it is logical that their booster are more powerful and can propell them to higher speed.
Fuel fraction is more important than size. Also the Russian missiles have to accelerate the entire airframe all the way. SM-6 drops it's booster off.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
431
Reaction score
116
I don't think that, I know air density decrease gradually but as a matter of fact, exoatmosphere missiles are always cited with higher velocity than endoarmosphere missiles. So I think drag is important.
The reason exo-atmospheric missiles have more speed is because they need more speed to reach those altitudes and they have to pass through that 100km first.
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,178
Reaction score
8
Do you have anything new on the radar suites for the S-400 ?
I've not seen much in the way of new information on the 92N6 radar. I expect that we'll start getting a bit more info from trade shows now that the system has actually been exported.

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.
What's interesting is that their advertised capability of the S-400E has increased over time. In 2013 it was 6 targets per battery, in 2015 it was 10. The added track handling capability is also interesting, especially since it's a largely redundant capability. A GRAVE STONE, TOMB STONE, or FLAP LID will rarely operate in target search mode. The system is designed to work primarily with target tracks fed into the engagement radar from an external source. Every S-400 battery has a 96L6 target acquisition radar assigned, where S-300PM or S-300PS batteries used to usually only get a 5N66/76N6 CLAM SHELL for added low-altitude track generation (anti-ALCM defense), relying on the 5N64S/64N6 battle management radars for their track assignments (S-400 works with the 91N6 but having the 96L6 gives each battery far more autonomous capability should it be needed). Maybe what they're implying is that they can feed 40 tracks into an individual GRAVE STONE, not necessarily that it can acquire and designate 40 tracks on its own. Array sharing could be used to keep tabs on the 30 you're not actively shooting at, to engage as soon as your first ten start dying. Constantly being able to feed tracks to an active battery to keep its buffers full would make sense, especially if you thought there was a good chance the 91N6 might not be around for a long time.

A few other points to make...

-The 48N6E3 is used by Chinese S-400Es. Russian S-400s use the equivalent 48N6DM. People see designators in export variants and assume they're the same for native systems - they're often not.

-Since when does any S-300P or S-400 round use semi-active radar homing? They're either command guided (early 5V55 variants), maybe active radar (possibly the 40N6), or use a variation on track-via-missile referred to as seeker-aided ground guidance (SAGG; late 5V55s and all 48N6 variants).

-Who cares about Standard. When they make it tube-launched from a TEL and replace the crap the Army's been stuck with for decades, then I'll be impressed :p
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,230
Reaction score
403
Who cares about Standard. When they make it tube-launched from a TEL and replace the crap the Army's been stuck with for decades, then I'll be impressed :p
What's your opinion of the PAC-3 / PAC-3 MSE missiles? (Not PAC-2)
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
32
Reaction score
7
Website
www.quora.com
1572819024757.png

1572819082554.png


I am going to use the R-77 air to air missile’s radar beam to cover the VHF acquisition box of the Nebo-SVU from 100 nautical miles away. In order for the 9B-1103M2 host radar to get the 1.6km length covered for the .003m2 target from 2kms away would need a 44 degree beam azimuth. The elevation angle to cover the 5.5km height from 2kms away for the .003m2 target would need to be 108 degrees.

Since the 9m96E2 or 40N6 come with active host radars. I have heard the Container radar that came out in 2014 and was upgraded in 2018 can monitor 5000 targets and simply watch aircraft fly off runways and that a certain photonic satellite has a Thz locator offers a smaller than 10cm SAR resolution has the ability to monitor low altitude targets, easily classify cruise missiles or aircrafts and for civilian purposes offer the safety of airplane traffic to a whole new level. For a 90 degree sector scan VHF can get 1 second updates

So can information from OTH radars and satellites be given to command centers for air defense units, and if so can 2 separate data sources be fed through a kelman filter or sensor fusion to offer more accurate data of aerial targets to these air defense units?

Because I am thinking it might be a good idea for air defense operators to know what kind of target is heading their way, how far that target is from them, what altitudes they are at, what direction it will change and its speed, use VHF than fire a missile with a host radar to cover that VHF acquisition box than engage the target. For example the air defense operators already have information beforehand what target it was classified as through satellites along with monitoring its movements through 2 different sources(satellites and OTH radars) and taking into account that your aircrafts or airliners are not in the way would this be a good idea in theory?
 
Top