Soviet ABM systems

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,623
Reaction score
113
:O the missile sure doesnt waste a second to get underway. That acceleration.

Part of it is due to an annoying video hiccup where some frames were deleted in the first shot.
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
819
Reaction score
14

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
819
Reaction score
14
Having dug up the large version of the placard gave me an idea...


More than 40 photos from various angles in there, I'm too lazy to attach all of them here ;)
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
819
Reaction score
14
Bear in mind the drawing is not official (based on a chopped-up Sprint cut-away).

53T6_en.png
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,623
Reaction score
113
Dang. I knew one of those had been floating around for years. I was hoping this was more "official". Never mind then.
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
819
Reaction score
14
It probably gets the idea across fairly well. If there was still any skepticism about the single-stage nature of the missile by now, the monolithic green motor casing (compare and contrast with the two-stage S-300V 9M82/83 which seem to use the same materials/colours) in these photos should finally put it to rest. Similarly there are what may well be ports for the kill vehicle divert thrusters roughly where the drawing indicates the corresponding section. There's an apparently legit cut-away of the earlier PRS-1/5Ya26 missile (S-225 ABM system lower tier) that shows the same basic internal arrangement in the twitter thread I linked - the two designs are widely believed to be closely related.

53T6_en.png

D8xQffpWsAAr1eJ.png
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,623
Reaction score
113
I sure hope they release some details about the thing eventually. It's fascinating. Sprint/Gazelle/HiBEX = AWESOME. THAAD/SM-3 = BORRRRING.
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
258
Reaction score
3
And looking closer at the photo collection and that PRS-1 diagram. Apparently indeed that they are of similar design. The TVC appears to be hot gas type that directly tap into the combustion chamber and vent it outside, producing direct thrust. The one in 53T6 tho only have 1 set instead of 2 in PRS1.

This is different with Novator design which inject the gas into the nozzle where the flow is supersonic.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
106
Reaction score
33
How the **** did I miss this?!


View attachment 616429

View attachment 616430

View attachment 616432

Located here, in rural *Ukraine*, of all places:


It's accessible to the public, so if anybody wants to make a trip East...
Can you give a breakdown of what the white plaque says for the spec?
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
819
Reaction score
14
The blurb merely states that it's the endo-atmospheric component of the A-135 ABM system and guided by the Don-2N radar - nothing we did not know already. The specs are as follows:

Length, m ............................ 10
Diameter, m ....................... 1
Mass, t .................................. 10
Warhead type .................... special (nuclear)
Warhead yield, kt ............. 10
Range max/min, km ....... 100/20.8
Altitude max/min, km .... 30/5
Speed, km/s ....................... 5.2-5.5
Type of launcher .............. Silo

Some of these are not a surprise either, others contradict flateric's information and speed is remarkably high (way in excess of Mach 10, verges on implausible unless it refers to target speed, but that's not what it seems to say).
 
Last edited:

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
819
Reaction score
14
And looking closer at the photo collection and that PRS-1 diagram. Apparently indeed that they are of similar design. The TVC appears to be hot gas type that directly tap into the combustion chamber and vent it outside, producing direct thrust. The one in 53T6 tho only have 1 set instead of 2 in PRS1.

This is different with Novator design which inject the gas into the nozzle where the flow is supersonic.
Yes, 5Ya26 first stage appears to use a JDRADM/CAMM/9M338K-style combustion chamber tap-off TVC whereas 53T6 has Sprint/HiBEX/9M8X-like inert gas injection. What I'm wondering about now is whether the 5Ya26 cut-away isn't showing a tiny second stage motor after all, making it closer to Sprint (though the 2nd/1st stage mass ratio would be markedly lower)? Or is it really just a solid fuel gas generator from which the thrusters bleed, like 53T6? Do these things require a vent to regulate plenum pressure once the propellant has been ignited? Perhaps that would explain the nozzle-like feature in the rear shown in that drawing and account for the faint smoke trail the 53T6 kill vehicle leaves in videos even when it's not changing direction.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,623
Reaction score
113
What I'm wondering about now is whether the 5Ya26 cut-away isn't showing a tiny second stage motor after all,
Didn't you say that cut-away was based on a butchered Sprint drawing? :confused:

If you go to the previous page, post#142, I posted an HD video of a Gazelle launch where you can see the 2nd stage/KV continue flying after 1st stage separation. That might help with the detective work. (And, as you can see, we've been here before. :) )
 
Last edited:

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
819
Reaction score
14
The drawing you posted is, yes - the one I posted (left-pointing missile, sourced from the Twitter thread) is allegedly from legit S-225 documentation and refers to the 5Ya26, not the 53T6. As the case of the TVC system demonstrates, the distinction may not be mere sophistry...
 
Last edited:

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
106
Reaction score
33
The blurb merely states that it's the endo-atmospheric component of the A-135 ABM system and guided by the Don-2N radar - nothing we did not know already. The specs are as follows:

Length, m ............................ 10
Diameter, m ....................... 1
Mass, t .................................. 10
Warhead type .................... special (nuclear)
Warhead yield, kt ............. 10
Range max/min, km ....... 100/20.8
Altitude max/min, km .... 30/5
Speed, km/s ....................... 5.2-5.5
Type of launcher .............. Silo

Some of these are not a surprise either, others contradict flateric's information and speed is remarkably high (way in excess of Mach 10, verges on implausible unless it refers to target speed, but that's not what it seems to say).
Front my recollection the Sprint ABM was Mach 10 but the larger Gazelle is about Mach 17, so the speed sounds right.
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
819
Reaction score
14
I can well believe that 53T6 is somewhat faster and its minimum altitude is higher than Sprint's, but 70% faster than Sprint as low as 5km? It seems the thermal protection problems would be daunting, to say the least.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,623
Reaction score
113
I can well believe that 53T6 is somewhat faster and its minimum altitude is higher than Sprint's, but 70% faster than Sprint as low as 5km? It seems the thermal protection problems would be daunting, to say the least.

If it's really hitting Mach 17 that low maybe they even had to ditch any fins. (Obviously it doesn't have fins but maybe they weren't an option is what I'm saying, and they were forced to use the solid divert system.) Early Nike Zeus B missiles had the fin pivots burn through, which is why they added the little ramps to protect them.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,623
Reaction score
113
I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course.
What do you mean? It's meant to go after ballistic weapons. They shouldn't be changing course at all. And yet Sprint was optimized for maneuverability. (Even against a ballistic target, you still need to be able to maneuver.)
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
106
Reaction score
33
I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course.
What do you mean? It's meant to go after ballistic weapons. They shouldn't be changing course at all. And yet Sprint was optimized for maneuverability. (Even against a ballistic target, you still need to be able to maneuver.)
Not all ballistic missile warheads are purely ballistic though.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,623
Reaction score
113
I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course.
What do you mean? It's meant to go after ballistic weapons. They shouldn't be changing course at all. And yet Sprint was optimized for maneuverability. (Even against a ballistic target, you still need to be able to maneuver.)
Not all ballistic missile warheads are purely ballistic though.
Which is why ABMs need to be able to manuever, and why the Gazelle kill vehicle has a divert system.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
106
Reaction score
33
I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course.
What do you mean? It's meant to go after ballistic weapons. They shouldn't be changing course at all. And yet Sprint was optimized for maneuverability. (Even against a ballistic target, you still need to be able to maneuver.)
Not all ballistic missile warheads are purely ballistic though.
Which is why ABMs need to be able to manuever, and why the Gazelle kill vehicle has a divert system.
I don't think I'm disputing your point, not sure what you're arguing here.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,623
Reaction score
113
I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course.
What do you mean? It's meant to go after ballistic weapons. They shouldn't be changing course at all. And yet Sprint was optimized for maneuverability. (Even against a ballistic target, you still need to be able to maneuver.)
Not all ballistic missile warheads are purely ballistic though.
Which is why ABMs need to be able to manuever, and why the Gazelle kill vehicle has a divert system.
I don't think I'm disputing your point, not sure what you're arguing here.
"I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course."

That's what I'm questioning.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
106
Reaction score
33
"I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course."

That's what I'm questioning.
And I think that's still a valid point, but it doesn't mean that the missile can't manoeuvre.

Do you have any evidence to support your point?
The point that the missile can manoeuvre, or that it's so fast (and has a nuclear warhead) that it probably won't need to manoeuvre much?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,623
Reaction score
113
"I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course."

That's what I'm questioning.
And I think that's still a valid point, but it doesn't mean that the missile can't manoeuvre.

Do you have any evidence to support your point?
The point that the missile can manoeuvre, or that it's so fast (and has a nuclear warhead) that it probably won't need to manoeuvre much?

That's not evidence that that was the reason they left the fins off.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
106
Reaction score
33
"I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course."

That's what I'm questioning.
And I think that's still a valid point, but it doesn't mean that the missile can't manoeuvre.

Do you have any evidence to support your point?
The point that the missile can manoeuvre, or that it's so fast (and has a nuclear warhead) that it probably won't need to manoeuvre much?

That's not evidence that that was the reason they left the fins off.
Who said it was?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,623
Reaction score
113
"I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course."

That's what I'm questioning.
And I think that's still a valid point, but it doesn't mean that the missile can't manoeuvre.

Do you have any evidence to support your point?
The point that the missile can manoeuvre, or that it's so fast (and has a nuclear warhead) that it probably won't need to manoeuvre much?

That's not evidence that that was the reason they left the fins off.
Who said it was?
This guy:


"I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course. "
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
106
Reaction score
33
"I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course."

That's what I'm questioning.
And I think that's still a valid point, but it doesn't mean that the missile can't manoeuvre.

Do you have any evidence to support your point?
The point that the missile can manoeuvre, or that it's so fast (and has a nuclear warhead) that it probably won't need to manoeuvre much?

That's not evidence that that was the reason they left the fins off.
Who said it was?
This guy:


"I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course. "
And what part of that says that speed is the reason fins were left off, or says anything about actual manoeuvrability? The earliest 53T6s at least (don't know about the latest) were radio command, so the idea was that they didn't have to make lots of corrections with such a very rudimentary guidance system, just straight there and then 10kT BANG.

The manoeuvrability seems to be stated at 90g lateral with 210g longitudinal acceleration.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,623
Reaction score
113
And what part of that says that speed is the reason fins were left off, or says anything about actual manoeuvrability?
Go back and read the thread again. You're not following what's being said.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
106
Reaction score
33
Go back and read the thread again. You're not following what's being said.
Dude, you inferred something that nobody ever said. The manoeuvrability of the 53T6 is a known. But the idea of the speed and nuclear warhead is that it doesn't have to repeatedly re-manoeuvre like a slower HTK weapon would.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,623
Reaction score
113
Go back and read the thread again. You're not following what's being said.
Dude, you inferred something that nobody ever said. The manoeuvrability of the 53T6 is a known. But the idea of the speed and nuclear warhead is that it doesn't have to repeatedly re-manoeuvre like a slower HTK weapon would.
616586

I said, "If it's really hitting Mach 17 that low maybe they even had to ditch any fins. (Obviously it doesn't have fins but maybe they weren't an option is what I'm saying, and they were forced to use the solid divert system.) Early Nike Zeus B missiles had the fin pivots burn through, which is why they added the little ramps to protect them."

That's called, "speculation".

You said, "I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course."

Which you never clarified (yes, you responded, with a non sequitur, which does not constitute clarification or justification).
 
Top