Will S-500 system be good against Minotaur IV?

Will S-500 system be good against Minotaur IV?

english.pravda.ru

It will be highly complicated to intercept the new missiles with the use of contemporary anti-missile systems. The flight-in time of the new weapon in comparison with air-based cruise missiles is reduced to mere minutes, which makes it impossible for the attacked side to take defense measures.

The Americans say that the hypersonic arms will be built to destroy terrorists, first and foremost. However, according to the documents of NATO's AGARD group,

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.marketwa tch.com

This article does make it sound like the hypersonic missile system is, or will be working rather well. The article gave the date of twenty fifteen. I don't know how good any of this information is. I do remember the U.S. working on hypersonic missile engines some time ago, however I also remember that the Russians had that type of missile first. So the way I look at it is the Russian hypersonic missile system should be ahead of the U.S.

english.pravda.ru
(visit the link for the full news article)

Why the F*CK do the Americans need net-gen hypersonic cruise missile to fight terrorists?!

S-400 is already impressive, but the S-500 has long been thought to double the capability... Russia has also have scramjet/ramjet cruise missiles for decades so they already know something about their characteristics (especially since they are further ahead in this technology than the Americans).

reply to post by RedGolem


Such weapons have the potential to seriously influence how wars are fought. In particular from what I recall of a previous ATS thread discussing a Chinese variant of the concept.

Outside of the obvious advantage that is the speed of the projectile, I believe the angle of attack i.e. dropping in virtually overhead, makes it difficult to defend against. Making aircraft carriers vulnerable for example.
Or am I way off the mark ?



The first link when it attempts to open keeps shuttling me back to my web browser home page for some reason

Russia is skeert and they should be. This is NOTHING compared to what is in development however. The US will ALWAYS reamina a step ahead. Period. Thats what happens when youre in good with....umm lets say "folks that arent from here"

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Russia is skeert and they should be. This is NOTHING compared to what is in development however. The US will ALWAYS reamina a step ahead. Period. Thats what happens when youre in good with....umm lets say "folks that arent from here"

Russia has missile technology that the West is decades behind in. This goes for ballistic missiles and surface-to-air missiles.

US is not a step ahead in this field, in fact, they are two steps behind, hence why they feel the need to surround Russia with radar networks and anti-missile shields. You don't see Russia doing that to the US because they don't need to spend billions on deploying petty targets.

Hypersonic missiles are not magic bullets and they are overrated
The faster a missile goes the less maneuverable it is.

This makes it almost imposable to Dodge anti missile systems.

The way to defeat hypersonic missiles is to go after there guidance systems.
The US navy does this with multi layers of defence.
Radar jamming. = jam the enemy radars so they can not aim the weapon.
Launch site targeting. = When the enemy turns on there radar use a AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) to take out there radars. and if they launch target the launchers.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.chinalakemuseum.org...
False targets.= use electronic and chaff to create a large number of fake targets for the enemy to have to find the real one
Long range defence.= RIM-161 Standard Missile 3
en.wikipedia.org...
www.chinalakemuseum.org...
Short range defence.= RIM-7 Sea Sparrow and Phalanx CIWS
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

I live outside one of the leading navy research bases that works on all these systems.
Naval Weapons Station China Lake has built systems to defeat missiles for 40+ years. They also built many of the navy missile systems.
www.chinalakemuseum.org...

One of the first things the navy does when they build a new missile system is to start building a countermeasure.
The navy knows that if they can build it a enemy can build it, and if they build a countermeasure at the same time they build a weapons system they will have a countermeasure ready when the enemy catches up.

The navy does not advertise that the have built a countermeasure for a enemy system as they like to surprise a enemy.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Russia is skeert and they should be. This is NOTHING compared to what is in development however. The US will ALWAYS reamina a step ahead. Period. Thats what happens when youre in good with....umm lets say "folks that arent from here"

Russia has missile technology that the West is decades behind in. This goes for ballistic missiles and surface-to-air missiles.

US is not a step ahead in this field, in fact, they are two steps behind, hence why they feel the need to surround Russia with radar networks and anti-missile shields. You don't see Russia doing that to the US because they don't need to spend billions on deploying petty targets.

Provide some sources, please. First of all, you have no clue what the US develops secretly. Second of all, Russia lacked financial resources to keep up-to-par with the US in defense technology even though the missile field is probably one of Russia's most advanced.

reply to post by ANNED


What do the Americans have to defend against optical targeting systems? If i am not wrong these missiles have it all.

The Russians have implemented a system that can identify a Target by its shape/looks compared to a preinstalled image and data. That means their missiles can identify and target a object visually with optics.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Thats a lot of boasting especially considering that the Russians are having a hard time installing their new sea launch ballistic missiles. Not to mention the air to surface missiles muwahaha we now have surface to space missiles that can take down satellites from ships at sea. Imagine other projects we do not know. And we probably don't need surface to air missiles anymore when lasers are the future. Sure it will take time but it will come soon.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Russia has missile technology that the West is decades behind in. This goes for ballistic missiles and surface-to-air missiles.

US is not a step ahead in this field, in fact, they are two steps behind, hence why they feel the need to surround Russia with radar networks and anti-missile shields. You don't see Russia doing that to the US because they don't need to spend billions on deploying petty targets.

And where is the evidence of this?
please do post it.

America's missile defence system. Welcome to the future.




missle defence system

Originally posted by Mdv2

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Russia is skeert and they should be. This is NOTHING compared to what is in development however. The US will ALWAYS reamina a step ahead. Period. Thats what happens when youre in good with....umm lets say "folks that arent from here"

Russia has missile technology that the West is decades behind in. This goes for ballistic missiles and surface-to-air missiles.

US is not a step ahead in this field, in fact, they are two steps behind, hence why they feel the need to surround Russia with radar networks and anti-missile shields. You don't see Russia doing that to the US because they don't need to spend billions on deploying petty targets.

Provide some sources, please. First of all, you have no clue what the US develops secretly. Second of all, Russia lacked financial resources to keep up-to-par with the US in defense technology even though the missile field is probably one of Russia's most advanced.

P-270 Moskit (SS-N-22 Sunburn)
Designed in 70s. Ramjet anti-ship cruise missile. Launched by air, sub, or vehicle.

P-800 Oniks
Deployed in 1999. Ramjet anti-ship missile.

BrahMos
Deployed by India in 2006 (joint Russian/Indian design). Ramjet anti-ship cruise missile (currently fastest cruise missile deployed). Many launch methods, some still in development.

en.wikipedia.org...
"Russia
First working scramjet "GLL Holod" in world flies on 28 November 1991 reaching speed mach 5.8.[citation needed] However, the collapse of Soviet Union stopped the funding of the project.
After NASA's NASP program was cut, American scientists began to look at adopting available Russian technology as a less expensive alternative to developing hypersonic flight. On November 17, 1992, Russian scientists with some additional French support successfully launched a scramjet engine "Holod" in Kazakhstan6. From 1994 to 1998 NASA worked with the Russian Central Institute of Aviation Motors (CIAM) to test a dual-mode scramjet engine and transfer technology and experience to the West. Four tests took place, reaching Mach numbers of 5.5, 5.35, 5.8, and 6.5. The final test took place aboard a modified SA-5 surface to air missile launched from the Sary Shagan test range in the Republic of Kazakhstan on 12 February 1998. According to CIAM telemetry data, first ignition of the scramjet was unsuccessful, but after 10 seconds the engine was started and the experimental system flew 77s with good performance, up until the planned SA-5 missile self-destruction (according to NASA, no net thrust was achieved).
Some sources in the Russian military have said that a hypersonic (10-15M) maneuverable ICBM warhead was tested.
The new "GLL Igla" system was expected to fly in 2009."


^GLL Igla scramjet test vehicle (apparently).

Gee, Americans bought Russian scramjet technology a few years ago? What a coincidence

There a few older threads lingering around ATS that go into much more detail about advanced research into ramjet/scramjet technology that the Russians were working on in the 80s and 90s. I implore you to find them.

I'm also going to state that one of the main principals of Russian strategy is to allow the West to underestimate its technology. You think the Russians would be stupid enough to sell Americans scramjet test vehicles if the tech was not already old news to them?

And look at the S-400 (400km) system; it has twice the range of the Patriot system (PAC3=15km, PAC2=70-160km) and the S-500 is going to expand this range (600km), along with capability (also note that THAAD has a range under 200km). Russian ICBMs have advanced on-board countermeasures and have the ability to maneuver in-flight (even the MIRVs too).

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Why the F*CK do the Americans need net-gen hypersonic cruise missile to fight terrorists?!

If I was Russia or China and wanted to defeat THAAD/Patriot I would have a "Shotgun" warhead which would fire thousands of armor piercing submunitions...seconds before the THAAD/Patriot Warhead got close.

Due to kinetic energy behind the submunitions they would continue on their flight path and rain down armor piercing rounds disabling America's missile defense system. I'm no rocket scientists, I'm just theorizing on how I would defeat THAAD/Patriot...easily and cheaply. Therefor America would need Hypersonic missiles capable of defeating the anti-missile defense launch platforms before they launch.

Hypersonic warheads are not new technology. In the 1960's America was launching scramjet reconnaissance missiles, the Lockheed D-21's to merely take pictures. This is old school technology, nothing new.

reply to post by Pervius


Here's a basic summary of modern Russian ICBM countermeasures (of the Topol-M anyways)

"Missile defense evasion capabilities

According to Russia the missile is designed to be immune to any current or planned U.S. missile defence system.[25] It is claimed to be capable of making evasive maneuvers to avoid a kill by terminal phase interceptors, and carries targeting countermeasures and decoys. It is shielded against radiation, EMP, nuclear explosions at distances over 500 meters, and is designed to survive a hit from any laser technology.[26]
One of the Topol-M's most notable features is its short engine burn time following take-off, intended to minimize satellite detection of launches and thereby complicate both early warning and interception by missile defense systems during boost phase. The missile also has a relatively flat ballistic trajectory, complicating defense acquisition and interception.[27]
According to The Washington Times, Russia has conducted a successful test of the evasive payload delivery system.[28] The missile was launched on November 1, 2005 from the Kapustin Yar facility. The warhead changed course after separating from the launcher, making it difficult to predict a re-entry trajectory."
en.wikipedia.org...

The very fact that it can maneuver in mid-flight is a threat to KEPSAMs that the Americans have deployed.

offthewallposters.com... ng.jpg


Aint this amazing, where not in Kansas anymore