Russian Countermeasures against New Missile Technologies

[sferrin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUPKQi4Nbc0

 

[jsport]

Wow, can't believe .. have to say.. but u da maaan Sferrin.
Would however add that our little dispute where you questioning the vulnerability of munitions is instead quite expressed w/ Morpheus and Sambo..and was not refering to those in the previous argument, didn't even know they were in the works.

would question the speaker about EMP lasting only days...believe Microcircuits are either dead or not. little odd that an authority wouldn't know this...unless missing something..

 

[sublight_]

The EMP does not "kill" microcircuits, it causes them to crash, thereby disabling an immediate threat. They pose the most danger to unshielded wires or other structures where effects of induction are more pronounced.

 

[jsport]

The EMP does not "kill" microcircuits, it causes them to crash, thereby disabling an immediate threat. They pose the most danger to unshielded wires or other structures where effects of induction are more pronounced.

thank you for the clarification sublight..

 

[Avimimus]

It is picking hairs, but: Technically, wasn't the Mig-31 specifically marketed as a countermeasure to the Tomahawk?


Anyway - it is an extremely interesting presentation. The pessimism assumes that Russia and the U.S. won't co-operate to expand their zones of influence at the expense of other powers and that current policies are unchangeable (e.g. the struggle over eastern europe). If we assume that policy has cultural inertia, it may be that it isn't entirely rational will be overcome due to perceived threats from China, India, Saudia Arabia or the desire to undermine Brazil...

 

[quellish]

The EMP does not "kill" microcircuits, it causes them to crash, thereby disabling an immediate threat. They pose the most danger to unshielded wires or other structures where effects of induction are more pronounced.

It depends. The effects can vary, and often when people talk about EMP they are not differentiating between HEMP and HPM sources. For example, HPM typically has much shorter range, but much higher energy is delivered to the target - enough that in many cases it causes physical damage. It is also worth noting that systems shielded against HEMP effects may be vulnerable to HPM (and to a much lesser degree, the other way around is possible as well).

 

[jsport]

The EMP does not "kill" microcircuits, it causes them to crash, thereby disabling an immediate threat. They pose the most danger to unshielded wires or other structures where effects of induction are more pronounced.

It depends. The effects can vary, and often when people talk about EMP they are not differentiating between HEMP and HPM sources. For example, HPM typically has much shorter range, but much higher energy is delivered to the target - enough that in many cases it causes physical damage. It is also worth noting that systems shielded against HEMP effects may be vulnerable to HPM (and to a much lesser degree, the other way around is possible as well).

thanks for adding more questions

 

[jsport]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25964387

US briefs Nato on Russian 'nuclear treaty breach'

wondered if the iskander was a violation as mentioned above when watchin the vid and whala...

 

[Arian]

Some of the things said don't make a lot of sense to me. For example, he talks about the weight placed in the Iskander cluster munition warhead and claims that this means that there is "room for growth". That counterweight is there only in that particular cluster munition warhead for obvious reasons. It's not present in the unitary warhead. In fact it's part of the fixture for holding the sub-munitions in place. A similar design is also found in the Tochka missile. Also, the comparison between the US "EMP-bomb" and those Iskander cluster "EMP" munitions is not very convincing or useful. Very different capabilities and intended uses. Those Iskander munitions seem to be more along the lines of penetration aids to be released along with other decoys, not actual weapons as the US "EMP-bomb". Something else that didn't make much sense was the claim that the planned Russian equivalent of the Iron Dome is to be used to defend "hardened silos" against "ballistic missiles"? The planned Russian equivalent to Iron Dome is for defense of mobile units from artillery attacks, not what he is depicting here. There's lots of other things that didn't make sense to me, but these three jumped out.

 

[sublight_]

The EMP does not "kill" microcircuits, it causes them to crash, thereby disabling an immediate threat. They pose the most danger to unshielded wires or other structures where effects of induction are more pronounced.

It depends. The effects can vary, and often when people talk about EMP they are not differentiating between HEMP and HPM sources. For example, HPM typically has much shorter range, but much higher energy is delivered to the target - enough that in many cases it causes physical damage. It is also worth noting that systems shielded against HEMP effects may be vulnerable to HPM (and to a much lesser degree, the other way around is possible as well).

Not unless the electronics are behind a plastic shield. Even HPM doesn't penetrate the first metallic obstruction it hits, which is the first victim of all that energy.

 

[quellish]

Not unless the electronics are behind a plastic shield. Even HPM doesn't penetrate the first metallic obstruction it hits, which is the first victim of all that energy.

Depends on the obstruction - HPM is very much frequency and waveform dependent, and a Faraday sheild against HEMP is not always going to protect against HPM. Additionally, HPM tends to have significantly higher peak power at the target - which negate many types of conventional hardening. For example, most things you're going to want to harden have connections to other things - power, data, etc. Those are typically hardened using methods like spark gaps, surge suppression, or electrical filters. Those are vulnerable to higher peak powers, which is what you get with a HPM. You also have a number of potential problems with induced coupling in cavities and other structures in your hardened target, and in the objects surrounding it.

 

[Firefly 2]

Yakhont being a mach 4.5 vector? Most information I found (online and in hard copy) state a 2.5 figure.

 

[jsport]

it appears that Sunburn, an entirely different creature, is the only Russian one specd at 4.5. Thank you for pointing that out Firefly as didnt not know there is M7 Brahmos II in the works.. jeepers

 

[Firefly 2]

Yes, it has been in "joint development" for a few years now. A mockup was shown during Aeroindia last year. This would be the hypersonic Brahmos II:

 

[sferrin]

Yes, it has been in "joint development" for a few years now. A mockup was shown during Aeroindia last year. This would be the hypersonic Brahmos II:

I am skeptical as neither Russia nor India appears to have flown a scramjet powered vehicle of any kind. (Yes, we all know about the scramjet test engine on the nose of an SA-5. Supersonic combustion was not sustained in that test as I recall.)

 

[Firefly 2]

I share your skepticism. Still, even the remote possibility that this project comes to fruition might cause some headaches for people in naval departments the world over. While sustained hypersonic flight remains something of a pipe dream even for missiles, defending against hypersonic guided projectiles would be even more hypothetical.

 

[Avimimus]

Hypothetically - wouldn't it be easy to see coming (doppler and IR from heating) - and you just need to put up a wall of shrapnel between you and it? Even a subsonic interceptor can hit a hypersonic platform if that platform is coming right at it.

 

[sferrin]

I share your skepticism. Still, even the remote possibility that this project comes to fruition might cause some headaches for people in naval departments the world over. While sustained hypersonic flight remains something of a pipe dream even for missiles, defending against hypersonic guided projectiles would be even more hypothetical.

Shouldn't be any harder than hitting a maneuvering RV. And PAC-3 has been doing that for years.

 

[Firefly 2]

Seaskimming over the horizon, as anti shipping missiles are wont to do? It's debatable.

 

[sferrin]

Seaskimming over the horizon, as anti shipping missiles are wont to do? It's debatable.

Bah ha ha ha! You think a scramjet powered vehicle will be sea-skimming at Mach 8?

 

[Firefly 2]

Hypersonic range, as far as I am informed, starts at mach 5. I'm going to assume that will be the minimal requirement for this vehicle, even though Mach 7 is mentioned on the wikipedia page. Mach 8 is not mentioned in any information I have seen for this project. From a practical point of view it makes no sense in my mind that the Brahmos II would take any other approach than the traditional sea skimming method so widely used amongst similar vehicles. Reaction time to threat is minimal this way, even though the angle in which the weapon strikes might not be optimal.
Wether or not a hypersonic vehicle might be able to operate at sea level will be the point of the development ahead. Engineering wise and sensor wise, if that makes any sense. If these vehicles use a top down attack from optimal altitudes (for hypersonic flight), their very use will be at risk because, as you said, some weapon systems have been quite successful at intercepting and destroying hypersonic vectors that have been detected from afar. Therefor I think, IMHO, that there can be no other mission profile for this weapon except for sea skimming. The challenges ahead for this project are thus twofold: materials have to withstand hypersonic speeds at sea level for the desired range of this missile, and sensors need to deal with these same problems, being heat and speed. If my thinking path is flawed in any way, please refute.

 

[Void]

it appears that Sunburn, an entirely different creature, is the only Russian one specd at 4.5. Thank you for pointing that out Firefly as didnt not know there is M7 Brahmos II in the works.. jeepers

Neither the Yakhont, Brahmos or Moskit can reach Mach 4.5. This presenter does not seem to have put much effort into checking his facts.

http://www.npomash.ru/activities/en/yakhont.htm etc.

 

[Trident]

I am skeptical as neither Russia nor India appears to have flown a scramjet powered vehicle of any kind. (Yes, we all know about the scramjet test engine on the nose of an SA-5. Supersonic combustion was not sustained in that test as I recall.)

IIRC combustion was sustained in that experiment, actually I believe that was the achievement that made it famous. However the scramjet alone did not generate sufficient thrust to overcome drag, then again this was typical of hypersonic tests until comparatively recently. If the objective of the flight was to study supersonic combustion in flight conditions, it did everything it was supposed to do.

 

[Trident]

it appears that Sunburn, an entirely different creature, is the only Russian one specd at 4.5. Thank you for pointing that out Firefly as didnt not know there is M7 Brahmos II in the works.. jeepers

Neither the Yakhont, Brahmos or Moskit can reach Mach 4.5. This presenter does not seem to have put much effort into checking his facts.

http://www.npomash.ru/activities/en/yakhont.htm etc.

Yes, I noticed that comment as well. While I also have a hard time believing it's that fast, there is a similar effect at work to what he points out about the Iskander-K cruise missile - the domestic variant is probably *significantly* more capable than the (known) export specifications would have you believe. Like the Iskander-family (including the ballistic incarnation) Yakhont is a bit heavy and bulky for the stated performance in its export guise - case in point, there was a seemingly reliable Russian article a while ago that put the range of the Russian domestic version (Oniks/Bolid?) between 400 and 500km IIRC. So I could see it being somewhat faster (at altitude obviously) than the typically quoted numbers at the expense of some or all of the additional range, but probably not by that much.

FWIW, the link you supplied is at pains to separate it from the weapon in domestic service ("based on") and does not explicitly state its speed.

 

[sferrin]

I am skeptical as neither Russia nor India appears to have flown a scramjet powered vehicle of any kind. (Yes, we all know about the scramjet test engine on the nose of an SA-5. Supersonic combustion was not sustained in that test as I recall.)

IIRC combustion was sustained in that experiment, actually I believe that was the achievement that made it famous. However the scramjet alone did not generate sufficient thrust to overcome drag, then again this was typical of hypersonic tests until comparatively recently. If the objective of the flight was to study supersonic combustion in flight conditions, it did everything it was supposed to do.

Hmmm. Not exactly:

"One of the stated goals of this joint flight and ground
test program was to demonstrate supersonic combustion
in flight. As the above analysis shows, this goal was not
achieved even though pretest predictions by both
NASA and CIAM indicated supersonic combustion
would be achieved. 6 At least two factors contributed to
the engine operating. primarily in a subsonic
combustion mode rather than in a supersonic
combustion mode. The first was due to the degradation
in inlet performance caused by the changes to the inlet
flowpath, a result of manufacturing processes
mentioned earlier. Post flight analysis of the as-built
inlet contour indicated a severe dro in performance as
comparedt o the pretestp redictionsB"

AIAA-99-4848 ---- ------_
CIAM/NASA MACH 6S’SCRAMJET FLIGHT AND GROUND TEST

 

[Trident]

Going by the abstract, that paper deals with one specific test - however Kholod comprised several flights, the first in 1991.

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1999-4848

Also, define "sustained". Until quite recently it was a respectable achievement to accumulate a single digit number of seconds of supersonic combustion in free-flight experiments.

 

[sferrin]

Going by the abstract, that paper deals with one specific test - however Kholod comprised several flights, the first in 1991.

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1999-4848

Also, define "sustained". Until quite recently it was a respectable achievement to accumulate a single digit number of seconds of supersonic combustion in free-flight experiments.

I would not define combustion that was fluctuating wildly and happened to transition into and out of supersonic combustion briefly as "sustained".

 

[Trident]

Going by the abstract, that paper deals with one specific test - however Kholod comprised several flights, the first in 1991.

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1999-4848

Also, define "sustained". Until quite recently it was a respectable achievement to accumulate a single digit number of seconds of supersonic combustion in free-flight experiments.

I would not define combustion that was fluctuating wildly and happened to transition into and out of supersonic combustion briefly as "sustained".

Again, what happened during that test is not necessarily indicative of the previous flights. Apparently the first shot in 1991 sustained supersonic combustion for 5 seconds, which does not sound like much - until you consider that HyShot a decade later supposedly managed 6 seconds and powered free-flight of both X-43s lasted barely more than 10 seconds. It was a start, and more than anybody else had achieved by that point.

 

[sferrin]

Going by the abstract, that paper deals with one specific test - however Kholod comprised several flights, the first in 1991.

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1999-4848

Also, define "sustained". Until quite recently it was a respectable achievement to accumulate a single digit number of seconds of supersonic combustion in free-flight experiments.

I would not define combustion that was fluctuating wildly and happened to transition into and out of supersonic combustion briefly as "sustained".

Again, what happened during that test is not necessarily indicative of the previous flights. Apparently the first shot in 1991 sustained supersonic combustion for 5 seconds, which does not sound like much - until you consider that HyShot a decade later supposedly managed 6 seconds and powered free-flight of both X-43s lasted barely more than 10 seconds. It was a start, and more than anybody else had achieved by that point.

If they got 5 continuous seconds of sustained supersonic combustion that's different. I couldn't find anything on the earlier flights.

 

[Void]

Yes, I noticed that comment as well. While I also have a hard time believing it's that fast, there is a similar effect at work to what he points out about the Iskander-K cruise missile - the domestic variant is probably *significantly* more capable than the (known) export specifications would have you believe. Like the Iskander-family (including the ballistic incarnation) Yakhont is a bit heavy and bulky for the stated performance in its export guise - case in point, there was a seemingly reliable Russian article a while ago that put the range of the Russian domestic version (Oniks/Bolid?) between 400 and 500km IIRC. So I could see it being somewhat faster (at altitude obviously) than the typically quoted numbers at the expense of some or all of the additional range, but probably not by that much.

FWIW, the link you supplied is at pains to separate it from the weapon in domestic service ("based on") and does not explicitly state its speed.

You have a point and it is an anomalously heavy missile, though AFAIK a range figure for a hi-hi trajectory has never once been published. The Russians may well have locked the export models into hi-lo or lo-lo trajectories to prevent them from violating the MTCR.

And there seems to be progress on the miniaturization front.