Russian Iskanders Pointed at BMD Sites

[nevidimka]

What is the explosive power of the Iskander's Warhead? And what type of conventional warhead does it carry?

 

[Viktor]

You could almost argue that the PAC-3 missile was designed to destroy such systems. In order to get past PAC-3 you need a much longer range missile, with a very high apogee that is going to be descending at Mach 18. Iskander isn't even in the SCUD league with it's 1,000 km apogee at Mach 3 descent.

SCUD has about 200km max apogee !

You really can not be sure that Pac-3 will work as advertised and that Iskander is piece of cake to Pac-3 such overestimation has no sence ... we will just have to wait to see ....

Iskander can manuevre during the whole trajectory can be preprogramed to change course and beside "balistic" has purely cruise missile version ... "balistic" version dont really fly most fuel economic trajectory althrow it can but has some kind of depresed trajectory that are more difficult to spot and carries decoys ... we have no way of knowing how would that perform against Patriot ....

On the other hand Patriot recived nessessery updates after it was not able to destroy a single SCUD warhead during the first Gulf war ... now Pac-3 is improved and demostrated it can destroy 1000km range BM ... but still what about maneuvreing BM and what about BM with decoys ... who knows ..

Another problem for Patriot is that it has to be directed in the suposed incoming threat and threat does not have to come from that direction ... another problem is low lvl penetrations with witch Patriot system has problem as its able to endgage only 60m and above threats and that does not nessessearly be enoguht...

Well untill some shooting happens we cant realy know do we?

 

[Grand Danois]

Another problem for Patriot is that it has to be directed in the suposed incoming threat and threat does not have to come from that direction ... another problem is low lvl penetrations with witch Patriot system has problem as its able to endgage only 60m and above threats and that does not nessessearly be enoguht...

Well untill some shooting happens we cant realy know do we?

Iskander is a single stage non-separating warhead rocket. Depressed trajectory, yes, cruise missile ingress profile, absolutely not.

 

[Feanor]

Iskander is a single stage non-separating warhead rocket. Depressed trajectory, yes, cruise missile ingress profile, absolutely not.

The link I found says otherwise. It basically claims that the Iskander is a cruise missile rather then a SRBM. Now maybe rian.ru is wrong (wouldn't be the first time).

EDIT:Ok I figured it out. In 2007 a new missile for the Iskander complex was tested. The missile is the Iskander-K missile and is indeed a cruise missile. Current Iskander complexes are the Iskander-M variant and do not carry the cruise missile version, however it seems that no modifications to the actual complex is needed to fire the cruise missile variant, only the completion of testing and deployment of the Iskander-K munitions.

http://www.militaryparitet.com/teletype/data/ic_teletype/57/

The article also mentions that the missile (Iskander-M) is 100% guided, and the trajectory is not ballistic.

 

[Grand Danois]

The link I found says otherwise. It basically claims that the Iskander is a cruise missile rather then a SRBM. Now maybe rian.ru is wrong (wouldn't be the first time).

EDIT:Ok I figured it out. In 2007 a new missile for the Iskander complex was tested. The missile is the Iskander-K missile and is indeed a cruise missile. Current Iskander complexes are the Iskander-M variant and do not carry the cruise missile version, however it seems that no modifications to the actual complex is needed to fire the cruise missile variant, only the completion of testing and deployment of the Iskander-K munitions.

http://www.militaryparitet.com/teletype/data/ic_teletype/57/

The article also mentions that the missile (Iskander-M) is 100% guided, and the trajectory is not ballistic.

Iskander is of course a complex - not a missile. Just to take any confusion I might have induced out of the discussion.

Iskander-M is the one I was thinking of. It's quasi-ballistic, i.e. a depressed trajectory. What I read is that the Iskander-K is a pure cruise missile...

On the topic of maneuvering BM missiles - that's a question of who has most fuel (not energy) available for maneuvering, the defending or the attacking missile. Maneuver fuel is not to be confused with the fuel used for the initial burn.

In this context, where the defender knows where the attacker is aiming his (or her ) missiles, the defender should win.

As to jammers and decoys: perhaps the Russians should equip their frontline aviation with those jammers & decoys from the Iskanders, it is much needed as the current kit doesn't seem to be able to take on Buks. :devil

 

[Dalregementet]

I have a hard time understanding the composite russian policy regarding EU and Nato. On the one hand they want to be a partner, a reliable source of oil & gas, metals etc, on the other, they want to be percieved as a dangerpous country for them who crosses their plans, so they intimidate (smaller) neighbours while curising others. Iskanders alone is a joke, it takes much much more to percieved as a threat.

The russians want Sweden to grant them permission to lay pipelines on the Baltic sea bed, i.e. the Nord Stream pipeline, this attitude with Iskanders wont help them getting that permission.

 

[roberto]

Iskander is of course a complex - not a missile. Just to take any confusion I might have induced out of the discussion.

Iskander-M is the one I was thinking of. It's quasi-ballistic, i.e. a depressed trajectory. What I read is that the Iskander-K is a pure cruise missile...

On the topic of maneuvering BM missiles - that's a question of who has most fuel (not energy) available for maneuvering, the defending or the attacking missile. Maneuver fuel is not to be confused with the fuel used for the initial burn.

In this context, where the defender knows where the attacker is aiming his (or her ) missiles, the defender should win.

As to jammers and decoys: perhaps the Russians should equip their frontline aviation with those jammers & decoys from the Iskanders, it is much needed as the current kit doesn't seem to be able to take on Buks. :devil

Ur mixing Iskander versions. Iskander-E is export version with limited range and capability. The same TEL can be used for crusie missile launches. So it is multipurpose system. In georgian war Russia were not using upgraded aircraft so it does not matter whether Buk is effective or not.
I do think Russia-US will reach compromise on missile deal as Eastern EU isnot that important to fight over it. Most of Western EU has recognized that reality. and now UK has come to the same conclusion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaq08rlNDG1c&refer=home
Obama's Office Says `No Commitment' to Missile Shield in Poland

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12545044

 

[Grand Danois]

Ur mixing Iskander versions. Iskander-E is export version with limited range and capability.

Uhm, no. I didn't. Read it again.

In georgian war Russia were not using upgraded aircraft so it does not matter whether Buk is effective or not.

Obviously you didn't get the point: If Russia has expendable ECM, for one-way-use on missiles, capable of taking on Patriot radars, why is there zero on frontline aviation capable of taking on lesser system?

Not a question of upgraded or not; it's a question of what is actually available to the Russian forces.

 

[SkolZkiy]

I have a hard time understanding the composite russian policy regarding EU and Nato. On the one hand they want to be a partner, a reliable source of oil & gas, metals etc, on the other, they want to be percieved as a dangerpous country for them who crosses their plans, so they intimidate (smaller) neighbours while curising others. Iskanders alone is a joke, it takes much much more to percieved as a threat.

The russians want Sweden to grant them permission to lay pipelines on the Baltic sea bed, i.e. the Nord Stream pipeline, this attitude with Iskanders wont help them getting that permission.

because EU and US need only Russia's oil and resources and will be very pleased if there will be only several millions of russians which live in Siberia and the only meaning of our lives would be sending all of this to west. That's how it was during the whole history of my country.

About Eskanders and Pac-3. can somebody show any sources on what kind of targets PAC-3 intercept?? i have found that they have max height of the target 20 km vs 50 of Iskander

 

[Firehorse]

I hope this will do:

Through the 1980s, Patriot saw a number of smaller upgrades, mostly to its software. Most significant of these was a special upgrade to discriminate and intercept artillery rockets in the vein of the Multiple Launch Rocket System, which was seen as a significant threat to South Korea. This feature has not been used in combat and has since been deleted from United States Army Patriot systems, though it remains in South Korean systems. Another upgrade the system saw was the introduction of another missile type, designated MIM-104B and called "ASOJ" or "anti stand-off jammer" by the Army. This variant is designed to help Patriot engage and destroy ECM aircraft at standoff ranges. It works similar to an anti-radiation missile in that it flies a highly lofted trajectory and then locates, homes in on, and destroys the most significant emitter in an area designated by the operator. ..

All told, the PAC-3 upgrade has effectively quintupled the "footprint" that a Patriot unit can defend against ballistic missiles of all types, and has considerably increased the system's lethality and effectiveness against ballistic missiles. It has also increased the scope of ballistic missiles that Patriot can engage, which now includes several intermediate range. However, despite its increases in ballistic missile defence capabilities, the PAC-3 missile is a less capable interceptor of atmospheric aircraft and air-to-surface missiles. It is slower, has a shorter range, and has a smaller explosive warhead compared to older Patriot missiles (although it generally relies on its kinetic "hit to kill" warhead). ..Patriot upgrades continue, with the most recent being new software known as PDB-6 (PDB standing for "Post Deployment Build"). This software will allow configuration 3 units to discriminate targets of all types, to include anti-radiation missile carriers, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cruise missiles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot

Admin. text deleted. please don't cross link to posts.

IMO, if not Iskanders, the long range artillery can saturate them- until laser is powerful enough to stop those shells!

 

[Feanor]

Obviously you didn't get the point: If Russia has expendable ECM, for one-way-use on missiles, capable of taking on Patriot radars, why is there zero on frontline aviation capable of taking on lesser system?

Not a question of upgraded or not; it's a question of what is actually available to the Russian forces.

It's a question of production more then anything else. To retro fit the ECM (as well as many other needed things) to frontline aviation takes open production lines for the aircraft in question. For example the Su-24M2 program has to far modernized only a single squadron of Fencers. The SM program for the Flankers and Frogfoots has gotten through 2 squadrons of Flankers and one of Frogfoots. So the reason why many older units haven't gotten new equipment is often because they simply haven't gone through the upgrade cycle.

 

[roberto]

Obviously you didn't get the point: If Russia has expendable ECM, for one-way-use on missiles, capable of taking on Patriot radars, why is there zero on frontline aviation capable of taking on lesser system?

U have to understand they were using Soviet era planes. Those didnot even have decent or most of them without radars. under Soviet system. airborne jammers were only in dedicated aircraft. Aircrafts were not multifunctional. So only newer Su-27SM/Su-24M/MIG-31BM have multifunctional system.
And BUK-1 is not some ordinary SAM. It is among the best medium range produced. BUK-M2 is still in production.

Not a question of upgraded or not; it's a question of what is actually available to the Russian forces.

Even if it was available they were not using it in Caucaus. They didnot move soldiers or equpment from other military districts. It is local war and should be treated as such.

 

[Grand Danois]

It's a question of production more then anything else. To retro fit the ECM (as well as many other needed things) to frontline aviation takes open production lines for the aircraft in question. For example the Su-24M2 program has to far modernized only a single squadron of Fencers. The SM program for the Flankers and Frogfoots has gotten through 2 squadrons of Flankers and one of Frogfoots. So the reason why many older units haven't gotten new equipment is often because they simply haven't gone through the upgrade cycle.

And the bottleneck is what then. Production of high performance instruments? Numbers of technicians and engineers for doing the upgrades? In both cases we're talking skills pool management & available infrastructure and tooling. In other words: availability.

Soviet doctrine was different - but that's decades ago.

Caucasus may be low priority, but at the end of the day, they didn't have any!

 

[Feanor]

They did. Su-25SM were used in the Georgian War.

EDIT: The bottleneck is the production lines. Production lines for the aircraft are often in a very poor state.

 

[nevidimka]

How did Iskanders morph into what was used in Gerogian war? lets get back into topic here. there are people here who say Patriots were made to defeat Iskanders, and there are reports I read that Iskanders were made to defeat Patriots.
I believe the Russians are holding back some information on the Iskanders.

Also does anyone1 know the explosive power of an Iskander's warhead?

 

[Grand Danois]

How did Iskanders morph into what was used in Gerogian war? lets get back into topic here. there are people here who say Patriots were made to defeat Iskanders, and there are reports I read that Iskanders were made to defeat Patriots.
I believe the Russians are holding back some information on the Iskanders.

It hasn't morphed - it goes to the core of the claims that the missiles of the Iskander are an Über Waffe or just another battlefield rocket.

 

[stigmata]

I wonder why USA want to install BMD in Poland in the first place beside poke Russia in the eyes.

Taking a look at this map: http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm

It is clear that the old NATO member Turkey lies right between Iran and the rest of Europe. So "defending against Irans ballistic missiles" clearly isnt the purpose.

Or does USA not intend to defend NATO member Turkey against said missiles ?

 

[SkolZkiy]

Roberto how do you KNOW that Russia didn't move any forces??? what sources??
I am living here and our airport was full of transport avaition =))) with 2 divisions of landing troops. Isn't that enough??
PS 58 army which is in the North Caucauses is the biggest in Russia

 

[Feanor]

Even if it was available they were not using it in Caucaus. They didnot move soldiers or equpment from other military districts. It is local war and should be treated as such.

Actually that's plain wrong. The 76th VDV Pskov and the 45th independent special reconnaisance regiment were from the Moscow MD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76th_Air_Assault_Division

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45th_Detached_Reconnaissance_Regiment

EDIT: Russia says that it will not deploy Iskanders to Kaliningrad if the BMD is not deployed. The question is to be raised at the Russia-EU summit in Nice.

http://newsru.com/russia/09nov2008/promid.html

 

[SkolZkiy]

Also there was a division VDV from Ivanovo