Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Ronny

Practicality of using ABM against fighters

Recommended Posts

For just a moment, let say cost and logistic is not an issue, and these following SAM are your only available weapons, can they be used against normal aircraft (such bomber or fighter)? if it is possible, how effective are they?. If it isn't possible then why?
1- Sprint
The Sprint was a two-stage, solid-fuel anti-ballistic missile (ABM), armed with a W66 enhanced-radiation thermonuclear warhead used by the United States Army. It was designed to intercept incoming reentry vehicles(RV) after they had descended below an altitude of about 60 kilometres (37 miles), where the thickening air stripped away any decoys or radar reflectors and exposed the RV to observation by radar. As the RV would be travelling at about 5 miles (8.0 km) per second, Sprint had to have phenomenal performance to achieve an interception in the few seconds before the RV reached its target.
Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach 10 in 5 seconds
Sprint_missile_launched_from_Kwajalein.j
 
2- 51T6
Mass 33,000-45,000kg (73,000-100,000lb)
Length 19.8 m
Diameter 2.57m
Blast yield Nuclear warhead equivalent to 10 kilotons of TNT
Engine 2-stage solid fuel
Operational
range
350-900km
Flight ceiling 350-900km
Speed Mach 7
13944190240_ac73c1f9b5_b.jpg
 
3- 53T6 missiles
The missile is able to intercept incoming re-entry vehicles at a distance of 80 km. The 53T6 is a two-stage solid-propellant rocket armed with a 10 kt thermonuclear weapon. The missile is about 10 meters in length and 1.8 meters in diameter. Its launch weight is 10 tons.
The 53T6 missile is kept in a silo-based launch container. Prior to launch its cover is blown off.
The missile achieves speeds of approximately Mach 17 (20,826 km/h; 12,941 mph; 5.7849 km/s). Maximal load manoeuvre capability is 210 g longitudinal and 90 g transverse.
main-qimg-73f302ba0a1d221546ec28a8b56a75
 
3-PRS-1M missiles
the PRS-1M is the fastest rocket in the world much more deadly than its predecessors of the type 53T6. It can reach speeds of four kilometres per second which is about 14,500 kilometres per hour.
PRS-1M manages to achieve speed in its rising phase unlike the Hypersonic gliders in the fall back to earth. Additionally the range of use in width and height it is one and a half times that of its predecessor.
It can intercept approaching rockets at a height of 50 kilometres and the range should be around 350 kilometres.
A special heat shield is developed to enable enormous speed and complete electronics have been designed to withstand an acceleration 300 times the gravitational force.
It is a true doomsday weapon which can only be used in a war that destroys the world. PRS-1M does not come with a conventional warhead with fragmentation shell and is built to protect Moscow from US missiles with nuclear warheads.
DPYHCpIUIAAdEPF.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is some bug with the earlier post that i can't edit , sorry, posted again
For just a moment, let say cost and logistic is not an issue, and these following SAM are your only available weapons, can they be used against normal aircraft (such bomber or fighter)? if it is possible, how effective are they?. If it isn't possible then why?
1- Sprint
 
The Sprint was a two-stage, solid-fuel anti-ballistic missile (ABM), armed with a W66 enhanced-radiation thermonuclear warhead used by the United States Army. It was designed to intercept incoming reentry vehicles(RV) after they had descended below an altitude of about 60 kilometres (37 miles), where the thickening air stripped away any decoys or radar reflectors and exposed the RV to observation by radar. As the RV would be travelling at about 5 miles (8.0 km) per second, Sprint had to have phenomenal performance to achieve an interception in the few seconds before the RV reached its target.
Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach 10 in 5 seconds
 
Sprint_missile_launched_from_Kwajalein.j
 
2- 51T6
 
Mass 33,000-45,000kg (73,000-100,000lb)
Length 19.8 m
Diameter 2.57m
Blast yield Nuclear warhead equivalent to 10 kilotons of TNT
Engine 2-stage solid fuel
Operational
range
350-900km
Flight ceiling 350-900km
Speed Mach 7
 
13944190240_ac73c1f9b5_b.jpg
 
3- 53T6 missiles
The missile is able to intercept incoming re-entry vehicles at a distance of 80 km. The 53T6 is a two-stage solid-propellant rocket armed with a 10 kt thermonuclear weapon. The missile is about 10 meters in length and 1.8 meters in diameter. Its launch weight is 10 tons.
The 53T6 missile is kept in a silo-based launch container. Prior to launch its cover is blown off.
The missile achieves speeds of approximately Mach 17 (20,826 km/h; 12,941 mph; 5.7849 km/s). Maximal load manoeuvre capability is 210 g longitudinal and 90 g transverse.
 
main-qimg-73f302ba0a1d221546ec28a8b56a75
 
3-PRS-1M missiles
 
the PRS-1M is the fastest rocket in the world much more deadly than its predecessors of the type 53T6. It can reach speeds of four kilometres per second which is about 14,500 kilometres per hour.
PRS-1M manages to achieve speed in its rising phase unlike the Hypersonic gliders in the fall back to earth. Additionally the range of use in width and height it is one and a half times that of its predecessor.
It can intercept approaching rockets at a height of 50 kilometres and the range should be around 350 kilometres.
A special heat shield is developed to enable enormous speed and complete electronics have been designed to withstand an acceleration 300 times the gravitational force.
It is a true doomsday weapon which can only be used in a war that destroys the world. PRS-1M does not come with a conventional warhead with fragmentation shell and is built to protect Moscow from US missiles with nuclear warheads.
 
DPYHCpIUIAAdEPF.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most existing ABMs lack the kinetic capability to do so, but it is possible in some layers.

Flying at very high speed means maneuverability is also limited, and is only a counter to targets flying at a roughly equal speed.

Thus, systems like the GMD and Arrow 3 are limited to ballistic missiles only, and operate only in the exo-atmospheric region.

 

Systems like the THAAD and Arrow 2 could potentially engage aircraft, although probably limited mostly to high altitude aircraft.

 

Lower level systems like the Patriot PAC-3 and David's Sling are actually marketed as multi-mission systems capable of engaging fixed wing aircraft as well as ballistic and other targets.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Most existing ABMs lack the kinetic capability to do so, but it is possible in some layers.

Flying at very high speed means maneuverability is also limited, and is only a counter to targets flying at a roughly equal speed.

 

 

 

I think not all ABM lack kinematic capability, for example

53T6 is able to intercept incoming re-entry vehicles at a distance of 80 km. The missile achieves speeds of approximately Mach 17 (20,826 km/h; 12,941 mph; 5.7849 km/s) with maximal load manoeuvre capability is 210 g longitudinal and 90 g transverse.

That is far better than any fighters, beside, all these ABM are equipped with nuclear warhead. In case of 51T6, the warhead yield is 2 megaton even. So even a near miss is highly destructive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ronny said:

I think not all ABM lack kinematic capability, for example

53T6 is able to intercept incoming re-entry vehicles at a distance of 80 km. The missile achieves speeds of approximately Mach 17 (20,826 km/h; 12,941 mph; 5.7849 km/s) with maximal load manoeuvre capability is 210 g longitudinal and 90 g transverse.

That is far better than any fighters, beside, all these ABM are equipped with nuclear warhead. In case of 51T6, the warhead yield is 2 megaton even. So even a near miss is highly destructive

 

FYI at 90g a vehicle moving at mach 17 has a turn radius of about 24 miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

FYI at 90g a vehicle moving at mach 17 has a turn radius of about 24 miles.

That probably true, but SAM don't need to match the turn radius of fighter to intercept them.

For interceptor what important about the target is the distance deviated from original course. A target moving at 100 km/h, but can turn 50 degrees/second is easier to intercept than another target moving at Mach 10, and can turn only 5 degrees/sec. 

Secondly, these missiles have nuclear warhead, and given their massive detonation/lethal radius (13 km) + the missiles super speed (mach  7-17) , i don't think they even need to turn, just launch toward the general direction of target and detonate 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ronny said:

That probably true, but SAM don't need to match the turn radius of fighter to intercept them.

 

Quote

Secondly, these missiles have nuclear warhead, and given their massive detonation/lethal radius (13 km) + the missiles super speed (mach  7-17) , i don't think they even need to turn, just launch toward the general direction of target and detonate

 

These old ABM missiles have nuclear warheads because their accuracy (due to guidance and turning ability) was extremely poor, they only have to get with a few km of the target to be effective. Without their nuclear warheads they would have been large expensive missiles that were less effective than lower tier interceptors.

 

Which leads us back to the question of whether airbursting nukes over your own population is acceptable.

 

Quote

For interceptor what important about the target is the distance deviated from original course. A target moving at 100 km/h, but can turn 50 degrees/second is easier to intercept than another target moving at Mach 10, and can turn only 5 degrees/sec.

 

Of course a 50 degree bank angle at 100km/h is easy to intercept compared to something going mach 10. In an equal timeframe the object traveling at mach 10 travels farther in a straight line than the entire breadth of the 100km/h vehicles' potential movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing I don't think you are addressing is minimum engagement altitudes/angles caused by atmospheric friction at those speeds. Missiles like Sprint needed ablative nosecones just to deal with the temperatures and were effectively blind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we (over)simplify the question, then it turns out that making the missile faster doesn't reduce it ability to successfully intercept.

For a given G capability, the turn radius of a missile will decrease as its closing speed increases.  However, as the closing speed of the missile increases, the amount of time in which the target can deviate its flight course in order to try and dodge the missile also decreases.  You can essentially describe the sum of possible trajectories of the missile as a trumpet-shaped cone, and for the target as well.  As long as the target's cone sits inside the missile's cone, the missile is kinematically capable of hitting the target.

If you make the missile faster, for a given G limit its cone becomes narrower.  However, the target's cone becomes shorter.  You can simplify this further by assuming that the missile's current velocity vector is pointed along an intercept lead course that will intersect with the target if the target does not change course.  If the target cannot produce more lateral acceleration than the missile can, it cannot force a miss.  At least in theory.

 

The problem becomes one of very arcane technical questions.  Just how precisely does the missile system know the target's location and velocity?  What are the resolution and accuracy limits of this targeting?  How many times per second are these numbers checked and re-checked?  How often does the missile alter its course?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

 

These old ABM missiles have nuclear warheads because their accuracy (due to guidance and turning ability) was extremely poor, they only have to get with a few km of the target to be effective. Without their nuclear warheads they would have been large expensive missiles that were less effective than lower tier interceptors.

 

That was a myth:

Quote

To say Sprint was a phenomenal missile, is putting it mildly. A cone shaped missile that accelerated at 100g, achieved a speed of Mach 10 in 5 seconds, had an ablative coating to dissipate the heat that was generated from the fiction from the atmosphere and was so accurate that the radar had to be de-tuned during testing so that it would not hit incoming RVs. It was a phenomenal missile.

http://www.nuclearabms.info/Sprint.html

These ABM was equipped with nuclear warhead so that they can hit multiple RV at the same time.

Another thing i want to add: PRS-1M  is a very new missile, recently introduced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

If we (over)simplify the question, then it turns out that making the missile faster doesn't reduce it ability to successfully intercept.

For a given G capability, the turn radius of a missile will decrease as its closing speed increases.  However, as the closing speed of the missile increases, the amount of time in which the target can deviate its flight course in order to try and dodge the missile also decreases.  You can essentially describe the sum of possible trajectories of the missile as a trumpet-shaped cone, and for the target as well.  As long as the target's cone sits inside the missile's cone, the missile is kinematically capable of hitting the target.

If you make the missile faster, for a given G limit its cone becomes narrower.  However, the target's cone becomes shorter.  You can simplify this further by assuming that the missile's current velocity vector is pointed along an intercept lead course that will intersect with the target if the target does not change course.  If the target cannot produce more lateral acceleration than the missile can, it cannot force a miss.  At least in theory.

 

The problem becomes one of very arcane technical questions.  Just how precisely does the missile system know the target's location and velocity?  What are the resolution and accuracy limits of this targeting?  How many times per second are these numbers checked and re-checked?  How often does the missile alter its course?

I think it could be very simple

At speed of 4 km/s, the distance of 40 km is covered in 10 seconds. In 10 seconds, your fighter fly at Mach 1 sea level can move at most 3.3 km in any direction from the original position.
The 1 Mt nuclear warhead has:
Fire ball radius of 0.97 km
5 psi air blast radius of 7.3 km
3 degrees thermal radiation burn radius of 12.2 km.
In my opinion, the missile don't even need to turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ronny said:

That was a myth:

http://www.nuclearabms.info/Sprint.html

These ABM was equipped with nuclear warhead so that they can hit multiple RV at the same time.

 

 

Nuclear warhead ABM existed before MIRV and your link does not support your claim.

 

Another thing i want to add: PRS-1M  is a very new missile, recently introduced. 

 

And?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Nuclear warhead ABM existed before MIRV and your link does not support your claim.

 

 

 

 

And?

Nuclear warhead for interceptor could also be useful when you are attacked by multiple ballistic missiles. Furthermore, as far as i know, one of the reason THAAD, PAC-3, GDI use hit to kill method instead of blast warhead is due to the extreme closure rate between the interceptor and the RV => the fragments of HE warhead don't move fast enough to destroy RV, so we can predict that nuclear warhead is useful also because the neutrons rays can move faster than normal HE warhead fragments. 

Why do you think my link doesn't support my claim? They clearly stated that Sprint is accurate enough to hit RV head on. 

By saying PRS-1M is a new missile, i want to say that not all ABM with nuclear missiles are old missiles with old electronics 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ronny said:

Why do you think my link doesn't support my claim? They clearly stated that Sprint is accurate enough to hit RV head on. 

 

It doesn't state that, head on with a nuclear warhead is a fairly broad definition and your claim was that missiles like Sprint were equipped with nuclear warheads due to MIRV.

 

Quote

By saying PRS-1M is a new missile, i want to say that not all ABM with nuclear missiles are old missiles with old electronics 

 

It still has to deal with the same guidance hindrances as older missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aight

@Ronny

I'm just gonna put this here so everyone can see it.

Your posting is bad and you should feel bad. Your SNR is a flat 0, you post nonsense and start useless threads in which you argue inane bullshit and just in general waste people's valuable time with questions a good 5 minutes googling would answer.

Your posts aren't even up to basic shitposting standards, let alone gudpoasting. Kindly meet the standard or you'll soon find yourself unable to post at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Aight

@Ronny

I'm just gonna put this here so everyone can see it.

Your posting is bad and you should feel bad. Your SNR is a flat 0, you post nonsense and start useless threads in which you argue inane bullshit and just in general waste people's valuable time with questions a good 5 minutes googling would answer.

Your posts aren't even up to basic shitposting standards, let alone gudpoasting. Kindly meet the standard or you'll soon find yourself unable to post at all.

 

You haven't contributed anything to this thread. Even if his posting is "bad" (IMO, it's not. He doesn't know how to take in the replies he gets, but makes generally interesting questions), that doesnt change the fact that in this thread your SNR is also 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ronny Ramlaen has somewhat touched on that issue but didnt explain it so I will.

 

You can take it as a rule of thumb that the faster these missiles are in the first stages, they farther and higher they need to get. I repeat, farther and higher they NEED to get.

The PRS-1M is a great example, much like the Sprint, as they both have a ridiculous first stage speed.

 

This speed creates an extremely high temperature around the missile while it's in the atmosphere. This causes disturbances that make these missiles practically blind not only to external sensors and C2 systems, but also their own onboard active sensors. 

 

Current ABMs (counter medium range to ICBMs) deploy the final stage outside the atmosphere. Only there they no longer have disturbances, and communication with ground control is enabled. At the same time they are also finally able to activate their own seeking sensors.

 

So unless the aircraft you are talking about are outside the atmosphere, an ABM can't do anything against them. All they have to do to counter an ABM is make a slight turn or slight change is speed, and that's it.

That is, if the search radar doesn't automatically filter them out in the first place to save processing power.

 

Only ABM that are built to defeat ballistic missiles in the terminal stage, have an anti-aircraft capability.

This includes but is not limited to:

S-300/400

PAC-2/3/4

David's Sling

MEADS

Arrow 2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

You haven't contributed anything to this thread. Even if his posting is "bad" (IMO, it's not. He doesn't know how to take in the replies he gets, but makes generally interesting questions), that doesnt change the fact that in this thread your SNR is also 0.

Yeah I had a feeling I'd get some white knighting from you. This kind of bullshit is exactly up your alle.

Back when I made the mistake of thinking this ronny person may be capable of learning I responded, but I make it a policy not to reply to zero effort posts or obvious bait. 

If you want to discuss overall SNRs, yours is practically negative, thanks to all the flat out wrong bullshit you post. You're also on my cleanup list btw, and as a general rule it's advised to not pick fights with mods. That doesn't tend to end well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Yeah I had a feeling I'd get some white knighting from you. This kind of bullshit is exactly up your alle.

Back when I made the mistake of thinking this ronny person may be capable of learning I responded, but I make it a policy not to reply to zero effort posts or obvious bait. 

If you want to discuss overall SNRs, yours is practically negative, thanks to all the flat out wrong bullshit you post. You're also on my cleanup list btw, and as a general rule it's advised to not pick fights with mods. That doesn't tend to end well.

How very frightening.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

@Ronny Ramlaen has somewhat touched on that issue but didnt explain it so I will.

 

You can take it as a rule of thumb that the faster these missiles are in the first stages, they farther and higher they need to get. I repeat, farther and higher they NEED to get.

The PRS-1M is a great example, much like the Sprint, as they both have a ridiculous first stage speed.

This speed creates an extremely high temperature around the missile while it's in the atmosphere. This causes disturbances that make these missiles practically blind not only to external sensors and C2 systems, but also their own onboard active sensors. 

From some source that i was able to find, it seem that they was able to overcome the communication issue (plasma sheath) thanks to powerful transmitter and unique antenna arrangement.

9SzKvwS.png

LIoKLJH.png

http://www.decadecounter.com/vta/pdf/ABM Research & Development at Bell Laboratories - Project History [1975-10].pdf

 

Though on the other hand, you brought up interesting point, because these missiles fly very quick, they probably pierce through the atmosphere to very high altitude before they can change direction.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Aight

@Ronny

I'm just gonna put this here so everyone can see it.

Your posting is bad and you should feel bad. Your SNR is a flat 0, you post nonsense and start useless threads in which you argue inane bullshit and just in general waste people's valuable time with questions a good 5 minutes googling would answer.

Your posts aren't even up to basic shitposting standards, let alone gudpoasting. Kindly meet the standard or you'll soon find yourself unable to post at all.

 

Carl Sagan once said: " There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question"

And he was an astronomer, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist...etc , overall, pretty knowledgeable guy. Arguably far more knowledgeable than anyone here can even dream to be, yet he don't oppose the act of asking "stupid" question.

Personally, i would rather ask "stupid" question than pretend to know something i don't and stay ignorance. 

Besides, how exactly do you define a useless thread? after all we are all here to discuss about aviation topics, some may be interesting to you , some may not, but overall we discuss it because it is our hobby , that it. Not like any of us gonna use the knowledge here to earn money or design something, so in essence: all thread are equally useless-useful.

Secondly, i don't force anyone to go into my thread, nor did i made so many threads that they block the whole first, second, third pages of this forum, so in essence, if anyone hate or dislike my question, they can simply click in another thread instead and discuss what they like. They don't have to waste their time at all. 

Finally, if my thread is really that terrible and useless then i think @Collimatrix would have simply delete the thread and ban me since he is the Admin and all that, yet it is still interesting enough that he participated in the discussion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...