Space Warfare capabilities

V

Viktor

New Member
Well Russia has far more expirience in ABM construction than you may think .. even more than US as it has during the cold war designed about 7-8 ABM systems and now has only in the world operational ... On fas blog I read some disclosured CIA documants about Russian ABM .. they said that Russia has capability to design credible ABM shield in 5-10 max years... so ???


First missile (smallest range) of S-500 system with the range of 500km (unknow any other data) has begin testing by the 2007 end .. so I have no doubt.

The reason why S-400 took to long to introduce is that originaly S-400 was not suposed to be what is now. Russians where suprised by US theather ABM development THAAD so they decided to incorporate S-1000 system in the S-400 meaning specs where increased to matched and surpass THAAD in celing, speed, bla bla .. few times this practice has occured each time delaying intorduction of S-400 system for witch other missiles like 9M96/9M9E/9M96E2 and 48N6DM where finished by 2003 and some even sooner.
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Viktor said:
1. Russia has enought money to R&D S-500 ASAT/ABM system and deploy it. I think we can ageer about this.
Click to expand...
The S-500 is just rumors and a statement of intent. Until you show some serious evidence that the program is real and is anywhere close to completion, I can't agree with your statement.

2. Space race is not about to happen in a next decade so buy than Russian defence budget will increase sufficiently to cope with anything US can throw at them .. besides you must know that US has far less expiriency in designing space based systems than Russia that deployed even combat stations (besides MIR witch was "civil") in space.
Click to expand...
So...... my point stands. Russia doesn't have the money to compete in a space-based arms race. :rolleyes:

even more than US as it has during the cold war designed about 7-8 ABM systems and now has only in the world operational
Click to expand...
What the GBI's in Alaska aren't operational?
 
V

Viktor

New Member
The S-500 is just rumors and a statement of intent. Until you show some serious evidence that the program is real and is anywhere close to completion, I can't agree with your statement.
Click to expand...
Sergei Ivanov stated it about milion times. Mock up missile was shown at MAKS-2007 (500km in range) some newspapers reported .. I have not seen it.

So...... my point stands. Russia doesn't have the money to compete in a space-based arms race.
Click to expand...
Well think what you want. :unknown


What the GBI's in Alaska aren't operational?
Click to expand...
GBI is pronounced partialy operational and even that makes little sence cozz GBI has not finished its testings and wont for years to come. But Boing plays some strange game (do not want to type that mutch to explain) to save its money so its actualy deploying fully untested weapon system.
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
The Americans also have a long tradition of ABM systems.

In June 1960, an Improved Hercules achieved the world's first successful interception of a ballistic guided missile, when a MGM-5 Corporal SRBM was shot down.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-14.html


In 1991, the USMC successfully demonstrated the use of a modified Lockheed Martin AN/TPS-59 tactical long-range radar system to search and track Theater Ballistic Missiles (TBM) in conjunction with a Hawk fire-control unit. The AN/TPS-59(V)3 radar can track targets at up to 475 km (295 miles) range and 150 km (90 miles) altitude. Although no actual firing took place, these tests prompted the USMC to upgrade its Hawk units with an anti-TBM capability. The MIM-23G/H Hawk missiles were upgraded to Enhanced Lethality Missile configuration, designated MIM-23K and MIM-23J, respectively (note "reversed" suffix letters). The MIM-23J/K has a new high-grain fragmentation warhead and new fuzing circuitry to make it effective against ballistic missiles, and in 1994, several intercepts of MGM-52 Lance short-range ballistic missiles were successful. The MIM-23L and MIM-23M missiles have the new fuzing circuits of the MIM-23K and MIM-23J, respectively, but don't have the latter's new warhead. The telemetry-equipped test and evaluation model of the MIM-23J/K/L/M missiles is designated MEM-23F.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-23.html

The USMC doesn't use HAWK anymore.


The RIM-156B SM-2ER Block IV A was planned to become the missile component of the Navy Area Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (NATBMD) system (lower-tier ballistic missile defense), but did also retain all anti-air warfare capabilities of the Block IV. It featured a dual-mode RF/IIR (Radio Frequency, Imaging Infrared) seeker, had an upgraded MK 125 warhead package, and an enhanced autopilot for the anti-TBM mission. The RIM-156B was to be used with a modified AEGIS weapons system with added TBM tracking capability. Flight tests started in 1994, and in January 1997, a ballistic missile (a MGM-52 Lance target) was shot down by a Block IV A missile for the first time. The EMD (Engineering and Manufacturing Development) phase of the RIM-156B lasted until December 2001, when the whole NATBMD program was cancelled. The original plans had called for an IOC (Initial Operational Capability) date of 2003.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-156.html

Though it never went into service. it was replaced by the SM-3

PATRIOT
THAADS
GBI
The upcoming MEADS.

Most of these are current, being developed or fielded since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Now, that's pace and deliverables.
 
V

Viktor

New Member
Yes US had and has some excellent ABM concepts.
First of them and most mature is SM-3 who has prove itself to be reliable and precise theatre ABM. SM-3 proved itself in best light recently while it menaged to shoot down faling satelite speeding at 8km/sec .. just great ..

Another prosperous US ABM systems are Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI), THAAD, MEADS, ABL, GBI (for this one I have my doubts but it certanly looks good), that new one (using Pac-3 missile on F-15 for shooting down balistic missiles - forget its name - like it batter than ABL)

But no matter US excellent progress during cold war too Russia still has more expirience no matter how dificult that may seems to be ... they simply invested more money and pursuied that tehnology more ...

@ Grand Danois .. just want to add few add ons

In June 1960, an Improved Hercules achieved the world's first successful interception of a ballistic guided missile, when a MGM-5 Corporal SRBM was shot down.
Click to expand...
In 1961 Russian successfully shot down IRBM with V-1000 missile right after 5 nuclear bombs where detonated right above its guidance radar at 80-300km height. IRBM carried active and passive decoys but 150 HE warhead still menaged to find and destroy re-entry vehicle. I can descibe that event more precisely with pictures if somewhone wants to know.


In 1991, the USMC successfully demonstrated the use of a modified Lockheed Martin AN/TPS-59 tactical long-range radar system to search and track Theater Ballistic Missiles (TBM) in conjunction with a Hawk fire-control unit. The AN/TPS-59(V)3 radar can track targets at up to 475 km (295 miles) range and 150 km (90 miles) altitude. Although no actual firing took place, these tests prompted the USMC to upgrade its Hawk units with an anti-TBM capability. The MIM-23G/H Hawk missiles were upgraded to Enhanced Lethality Missile configuration, designated MIM-23K and MIM-23J, respectively (note "reversed" suffix letters). The MIM-23J/K has a new high-grain fragmentation warhead and new fuzing circuitry to make it effective against ballistic missiles, and in 1994, several intercepts of MGM-52 Lance short-range ballistic missiles were successful. The MIM-23L and MIM-23M missiles have the new fuzing circuits of the MIM-23K and MIM-23J, respectively, but don't have the latter's new warhead. The telemetry-equipped test and evaluation model of the MIM-23J/K/L/M missiles is designated MEM-23F.
Click to expand...
I just want to say that during first gulf war Patriot Pac-2/3 did not menaged to destroy a single RV from SCUD althrow on some RV up to 4 patriot missiles would be send (not all time throw). So perhaps Im wrong here and I dont have any evidence to support my claim but I doubt Hawks efficiency if Patriot who was specificly designed for tactical ABM could not menaged to destroy a single RV. All of them hit behind RV most closely one about 600m behind.
 
D

drandul

Member
In 1961 Russian successfully shot down IRBM with V-1000 missile right after 5 nuclear bombs where detonated right above its guidance radar at 80-300km height. IRBM carried active and passive decoys but 150 HE warhead still menaged to find and destroy re-entry vehicle. I can descibe that event more precisely with pictures if somewhone wants to know.
Click to expand...
- Could you please post some links or pictures of that test ?... Thanks
 
V

Viktor

New Member
SSSR in the Kazahstan on the lakes of Balkhash build rocket testing area called Sary Shagan. 4.3.1961 Fakel V-1000 is lounched against R-12 (SS-4 NATO) IRBM and at the atitude of 25km and speed of Mach 8, V-1000 finds and destroys RV R-12 IRBM with the range of more than 2000km. During its fight R-12 doped it decoys pasive and active (designed to jamm guidance radar) and the one that generate false signal as well as electomagnetical shock generated by 5 nuclear blast occuring right above guidance radars on the height of 80-300km and right in front of incoming R-12.

During its testing V-1000 missile had 86.5% hit probability and its guidance radar Danube-2 could detect R-12 at 1500km distance.

V-1000 missile :
Rocket mass: 8800kg
Diameter: 1m
Lenght: 14.5m
Range: 300km
Celling: 100km

Danube-2 radar


V-1000 missile




In Moscow museum





On this two links you can see original picturesof actual event and destruction of R-12 IRBM by V-1000 missile.

http://www.vko.ru/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?tabID=320&ItemID=137&mid=3005&wversion=Staging
http://www.vko.ru/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?tabID=320&ItemID=138&mid=3005&wversion=Staging
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Viktor said:
But no matter US excellent progress during cold war too Russia still has more expirience no matter how dificult that may seems to be ... they simply invested more money and pursuied that tehnology more ...
Click to expand...
It was not really US progress during the Cold war I highlighted, but that they were in the game too. If you look at the time after the Cold War, US has fielded a number of systems, some very specialized an very capable. Perhaps a effort comparable to the Soviets in the past?

The problem for Russia today is more in the realm of poor skills pool management which dictates the pace of development and deployment of new systems. The pace has gone down considerably, and the people who developed missiles during the Cold War just isn't around anymore. And people are the principal capaital going into a development programme. That's why track record the past decade(s) matter.

Viktor said:
I just want to say that during first gulf war Patriot Pac-2/3 did not menaged to destroy a single RV from SCUD althrow on some RV up to 4 patriot missiles would be send (not all time throw). So perhaps Im wrong here and I dont have any evidence to support my claim but I doubt Hawks efficiency if Patriot who was specificly designed for tactical ABM could not menaged to destroy a single RV. All of them hit behind RV most closely one about 600m behind.
Click to expand...
Actually the Patriot SAMs, which at a late stage were tentatively configured as ABMs, did hit what they were aiming for. That discrimination and that the missiles were configured for aircraft kills meant that warheads went through (Scud doesn't use RVs, they're unitary, however Iraqi Scuds broke up, as they had sacrificed structural strength for range). You can read from this, that when properly configured, as with dedicated software and warheads, they're true ABM systems. This were proven in the 2003 war (albeit with PAC-3). Same goes for HAWK, btw, which you concluded on by deducing from Patriot.

But interesting stuff wrt the Soviet missiles. :)
 
V

Viktor

New Member
I heard PAC-3 was used in 2003 war but never menaged to find any info about it .. so have you something to read?
 
S

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
There are numerous sources that quote the succesful use of the PAC-3 during Operation Iraqi Freedom (March/April 2003). Here are a few:

In March 2003, the Army deployed PAC-3 as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. During the war, Patriot interceptors engaged and eliminated two Iraqi missiles using hit-to-kill technology, meaning that the interceptors collided with the Iraqi missiles (like a bullet hitting a bullet), causing complete destruction. Despite its successes, the Army is still testing PAC-3 against larger and faster ballistic missiles.
Click to expand...
Patriot missile systems were deployed by US forces during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The systems were stationed in Kuwait and successfully destroyed a number of hostile surface-to-surface missiles using the new PAC-3 and guidance enhanced missiles
Click to expand...
 
W

windscorpion

New Member
C

cricha43

New Member
Really an interesting article, thanks for posting. I had never heard of the ion laser interruption of the space shuttle in 1984 before. Thats some very serious stuff.
 
D

dragonfire

New Member
furymonkey said:
Not long ago an U.S privately owned satellite has collided with a Russian defunct satellite.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/11/tech/main4792976.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4792976

Could this possibly be a sabotage? :rolleyes:

Main question
All I see is there are weapons developed to take down satellites, but what about on the defence side? Is there ways to avoid getting shot down?
Click to expand...
Well the news report said tht the russian satelite was not being used and was not being steered, the objective of taking out one satelite of a contellation of more than 20 does not make sense as the back up satelites are in place on the network

If a ballistic missile was launched one could try to steer out of its path to avoid collision but if a self targeting/ target acquiring weapon was launched then the manveoring out of its way would be very very tough

Welcome to the forum furymonkey
 
H

hotrod44

Banned Member
does china partake using and help build of the internations space station? Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle has a greater future manning the moon and ect does anyone know anything on that Ares
 
G

gardnerdesign

New Member
The US has the most robust space warfare systems and it will remain that way for some time. Even if we forget that there must be a huge black budget related to space weapons (and were talking massive) and that there are a wide variety of systems that have been under stated in there capabilities (such as the recent use of the sm-3 as an asat).

There is only one declaired dedicated asat that the US has in its inventories and that is the ASM-135 which is designed to be air-launched by an F-15 or comparable aircraft. We also have a space bombers, few people realize the extent of airforce involvement in the shuttle program. The space shuttle would look very different (especially in the wings) if it had been an all civilian project. They have all been designed to be able to take off and enter polar orbit drop nuclear warheads on basicly any country (spacificly russia) and deorbit after a single orbit in order to avoid being attacked on there second pass.

If you want to think out of the box SM-3, THAAD, GBI and air launched PAC-3 all have LEO intercept ability, it just takes different software (it is far more difficult to intercept ballistic missiles than it is to intercept satillites). All of these systems could be extended by adding a stage to there initial boost stage (possibly strap on solid rocket motors) or in the case of THAAD, SM-3 or PAC-3, they could be loaded on the shuttle with a mobile radar system and utilized in space to give them greater asat potential as well as greater BMD capability.

Even the proposed replacement for the shuttle could be an effective system as it is modular and has a large lifting capabillity. It would be similar to a concept i wrote about called th Orbital Combat Vehicle. (my current concept has evolved further but heres an older post i made with a very rough outline of what would be needed http://gardnerdesign.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/ocv-orbital-combat-vehicle/
 
F

fixdeluxe1

Banned Member
Not a bad idea....

That idea(orion project) was a good idea.I actually was privatley desiging some forms of a "space navy".Warfare in space can be quasi-simiulated under water/over water.Thats why nasa astronauts I belive do lots of diving practice(the enviroment has little breathable oxygen,restricted movement etc).I was thinking what if we could fight over exterior planetary territories.
Maybe light and heavy space capable fighter bombers which could also fight in atmosphere,larger transport ships and space stations which could drop rescources,supplys and reinforcments to any location on the planet very quickly.Also larger battleships(frigates,cruisers,carriers etc).I know this may sound a little science fiction but it is a reality.We could be doing this kind of stuff within the next decade if anyone decided to take up the challenge.Nuclear armed space-ships hell if we need to outift the shuttles with Cruise missles.Point defence systems would also need to be installed.As well as anti-boarding defences(marines).And to repeat I am not a video-game geek or a star-wars nerd.I just am suggesting a very possible idea,its not like warp engines or planet destorying death-star-rays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top