PrSM missiles challenge Russian anti-aircraft missile forces. Daydreams of Lockheed Specialists


While the journalists of most domestic and foreign military-analytical resources do not stop trying to predict further scenarios for the development of an operational-tactical situation in the completely unpredictable and explosive Idlib de-escalation zone, taking into account the ongoing saturation of this theater of operations with Turkish arms, information equally important for an expert assessment was published in a press release on the news portal of the military-industrial corporation Lockheed Martin on March 12, 2020 with reference to ialistov taking a direct part in throwing test of one of the copies of the prospective short-range ballistic missiles PrSM, developed as part of an ambitious project of the same name, designed to fend off potential missile opponent on critical operational areas.


Operational and tactical BR “Deep Strike” is a conceptual analogue of ATACMS with a reduced radar signature for counteracting the air defense systems of the Russian aerospace forces at the European theater of operations


According to the source, an experimental prototype of the PrSM OTBR launched on the territory of the White Sands missile range from the modified transport and launch module M269 located in the armored box farm of the M142 HIMARS MLRS mobile launcher successfully hit the conditional enemy’s ground target, breaking about 180 km. At first glance, we are dealing with a completely ordinary event, which is not the subject of increased interest of Russian and Chinese military experts; after all, the range obtained during the tests barely “covers” 50% of the same indicator of the Russian operational tactical ballistic missile 9M723-1 Iskander-M. Meanwhile, a detailed acquaintance with the tactical and technical assignment for the development of the PrSM Special Purpose Detachment, as well as with the layout and design features of the final product, can completely and completely redraw our previous ideas about the Precision Strike Missile project as an ordinary program for re-equipping US missile and artillery units with new operational -tactical BRs whose performance characteristics are only slightly ahead of the good old MGM-140B / 164B ATACMS Block IA / IIA.

In particular, unlike the ATACMS family of tactical ballistic missiles, the promising PrSM RDBs will have a total range of 500-600 km and approximately 2-3 times less effective scattering surface (0,07-0,1 versus 0,2- 0,3 sq. M, respectively) due to a 74% reduction in the diameter of the hull (from 0,61 m to 0,35 m, respectively), as well as the much wider use of composite radar absorbing materials and coatings in its design. As a result of this, the 30H6E2 illumination and guidance radars of the S-300PM1 systems will be able to "capture" the data of the American Special Purpose Detection Bureau for accurate auto-tracking at a distance of about 85-90 km, which will be completely insufficient for successful interception with the 48N6E / E2 long-range guided missiles. Indeed, literally 30–40 seconds after the “capture”, PrSM rockets moving along a quasi-ballistic trajectory at a speed of about 2000 m / s will enter the angular sectors that are not covered by the radiation pattern above the air defense systems (“dead funnels”) within a radius of 25-30 km with angles greater than 64 degrees for 30N6E type radars.

Conclusion: the successful interception of PrSM missiles by means of the S-300PM / 1/2 air defense division can only be realized on a 60-kilometer stretch of the terminal section of the trajectory, and even then, if the enemy hypothetically uses no more than 6-8 OTR in one outfit, without the latest implementation of anti-aircraft maneuvers. In the case of a massive use of Deep Strikes (10-15 or more units) on objects covered by "three hundred", the chance of a successful reflection of such an attack will be minimized; especially when performing operational-tactical ballistic missile defense PrSM anti-aircraft maneuvers with overloads of 25-30G (these flight modes are an integral software add-on for most inertial-navigation systems of promising cruise and operational-tactical ballistic missiles). Why?

As is known, missiles of the 48H6E / E2 family are equipped only with aerodynamic controls that make it possible to achieve 30–35 G overloads, which will be enough to destroy elements of high-precision weapons opponents carrying out anti-aircraft maneuvers with overloads of no more than 17 units, not to mention the sparse layers of the stratosphere (18-25 km), where this figure will decrease to 8-10G, respectively.

An order of magnitude higher combat stability in this situation will be possessed by the S-350 Vityaz and Buk-M3 anti-aircraft missile systems that are currently being armed with the airborne combat units of the airborne forces and air defense forces of Russia, the ammunition of which is represented by anti-aircraft guided missiles interceptors 9M96E / DM and 9M317MA. Thanks to equipping these missiles with active radar seekers of the “Shale” type, capable of detecting targets with an image intensifier of 0,07 square meters. m at a distance of 20 km, the Vityaz and Buk-M3 complexes can easily process the approaching Deep Strike even at the time of diving at critical angles of more than 80 degrees, inaccessible to 50H6A and 9C36M guidance radars: the air defense data will be delivered once and for all point on the issue of eliminating the "dead craters" characteristic of domestic anti-aircraft missile systems with a semi-active radar guidance system.

The “twist” of PrSM missiles at the time of the latest anti-aircraft maneuvers will be achieved using the 9M96E / DM and 9M317MA antiaircraft engines of the PIF-PAF type torque transverse control and a gas-jet thrust vector deflection system (along with the classic aerodynamic rudders), which bring the available missiles to overload 65 units and providing the ability to maintain high flight performance in the upper layers of the stratosphere.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

24 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech 17 March 2020 06: 05 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    Mdaaa what the race of rocket technologies is in full swing ... here you have the improvement of both the bogus missiles and the OTDB ... and our military-industrial complex must go to a new level of rocket technologies ... the enemy is trying to catch up at an accelerated pace.
    1. Mavrikiy 17 March 2020 06: 20 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      Quote: The same Lech
      our military-industrial complex must also go to a new level of rocket technology ..

      That's it. And then conversion, conversion ...... (and GDP also popped, alas)
    2. Cowbra 17 March 2020 06: 26 New
      • 11
      • 5
      +6
      So far, as far as Iskander, they are like China ... Crawling ... 5 swings versus 6.3, OTDR versus combined launch of OTDB and lionfish ... Plus, they are one against the other in the system - after all, we have something to knock down, they have nothing to do with it.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    3. Hermit21 17 March 2020 07: 52 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Our defense industry, yes. First, persuade words to persuade to learn, it may turn out to be a smart one. What new level, lol? Russia, and so on, is ahead of the rest in rocket technology. Ballistic for sure. We don’t need to go out somewhere, but those who scratched eggs for 30 years
      1. Same lech 17 March 2020 07: 58 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        You might think you have a lot of mind ... that you can’t see success in space with our rocket technologies ... and the Americans are not sitting idly by ... rushed into the battle to catch up with us ... and underestimate their adversary is the height of frivolity and stupidity.
        1. Hermit21 17 March 2020 10: 37 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          Have you read carefully? Do you know how to understand what you read? I’m not talking about space, but about the military commissar. And an article about military missiles, if ballistic missiles, anti-ship missiles, rocket launchers - who has it better than ours?

          I’ve been ridiculed for a long time now by this shabby lackey about underestimation. Like, "Well, they are doing something, which means they need to be afraid." Assessment of the adversary’s capabilities should come from objective factors and assumptions, rather than personal judgments. It’s the same as if Tyson Fury began to fear the gopar from the gateway. Because he twists on a horizontal bar of a flip-flop
    4. letinant 17 March 2020 12: 04 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Damn, again, "Daman" !!! The name is already a household name, the famous all-crawler!
      The conclusions are sucked from the finger, knowledge of the construction of air defense, zero. An example of an air defense complex, which is not in the direction of the possible use of the PrSM Missile, is taken. There have long been more advanced and by the way who gave him such performance characteristics of our rocket? It's just funny, using missiles of earlier modifications, we had better results.
    5. Svetlana 24 March 2020 00: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Combat lasers, beam weapons, will put an end to this fight. After all, as if the attacking rocket was not showing off, the speed of light is faster.
      But on the other hand, fog, cloud cover artificial smoke .. :)
  2. Amateur 17 March 2020 06: 22 New
    • 13
    • 2
    +11
    with reference to specialists directly involved in throwing tests ... MLRS M142 HIMARS, successfully struck

    Another set of phrases from the text generator "E. Damantsev"
    If the tests are "throw", then the rocket does not fly at any target. And if it flies and hits, then this is NOT a THROW test.
  3. YOUR 17 March 2020 06: 33 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    I remember at school I hated to read L. Tolstoy, his "War and Peace" proposals half a page, but hell Eugene you surpassed him, even though the meaning was great and great.
    The beginning of the article is the first sentence of 10 lines. About what?
    Further. 2 paragraph still divided into three sentences. Well and further in the same vein.
    Eugene, well, where did you get this craving for clever words that you insert in the case and not in the case. All these terminal sections, precise auto tracking, and elevated sectors not covered by the radiation pattern.
    The elimination of the "dead" craters, but where did you dig this nonsense. How can a dead funnel be eliminated, which by definition cannot be eliminated, for one reason, a rocket needs to pick up speed to control and it cannot be less than 2 km away.
    Cleverly written article. Very smart. It’s not clear what, but clever. It seems that the author takes the articles creatively processes them by inserting wise words.
  4. Nikolaevich I 17 March 2020 06: 52 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    So the incident has come when I am not going to criticize Damantsev! Of course, if you really want to, then you can find a pretext .... (!) As the Fritz said near Moscow at 41m ....: The devil is not so terrible. like his little one! ”But now, thanks to Damantsev, there was again an occasion for me to once again“ voice the theses ”on the“ inevitable obsolescence ”of the zur in the concept,“ dominant ”at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries! Alas, 48N6 missiles, 9M317 is already outdated ... "The situation in the world" is now very "muddy" and therefore, remembering: "delay in death now is like ...", it is urgent to take measures to rearm the air defense forces ... (both territorial and " combined-arms "...). Moreover, one should rely not only on the" already existing "zuras like 9M96, 9M317MA and the like; but it is necessary to develop" new "modifications with enhanced characteristics on the basis of the mentioned products! That is, the concept should" dominate ", the characteristic features of which are: 1. "autonomous" (or better, combined ...) GOS; 2. the presence of transverse control engines (DPU): 3. the presence of torque control of the main engine thrust (it is possible that "in a compartment" with the DPU ) ... 4. equipment march stages of ramjet .... (not an exception the use of solid propellant rocket engines, liquid-propellant rocket engines with the on-off multiple-cycle mode ...) 5. (optional): replacement of the explosive charge with an additional detonation-sensitive solid propellant rocket engine. 6. optional): shared warhead with several last-mile interceptors or controlled warhead and directed ("sniper") detonation; 7. launchers of "increased capacity" (which means the development of zuras of other weight and size parameters than "until recently" ...): 8. unification of air defense systems and air defense units into unified (!) "Network-centric networks"; 9. mandatory multifunctional radars with AFAR + "built-in" self-defense means ... Some of the above are beginning to be implemented, but the "situation" is, so far, at the beginning of the "perestroika"!
    PSNot such an “argument” is excluded as the development of PrSM “hunters” ....
  5. rocket757 17 March 2020 06: 52 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    PrSM missiles challenge Russian anti-aircraft missile forces. Daydreams of Lockheed Specialists

    That's interesting, and techs who write devastating articles against our armed forces understand that their latest news, which are “killers” of something there, will give us peace of mind to kill something ???
    If the shooting goes, then it’s not like on the firing range and in return will arrive no less slaughter and reasoned ... maybe vigorous!
    So they croak, they croak, in their swamp, piling their own ... but if you leave your swamp in real life, nothing special.
  6. Sergst 17 March 2020 07: 24 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    "due to a 74% reduction in the diameter of the hull (from 0,61 m to 0,35 m, respectively)"
    And how did this turn out 74%? 26 divide by 61, multiply by 100, get 43%, not 74% ...
    1. JD1979 17 March 2020 07: 54 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Quote: Sergst
      26 divided by 61, multiplied by 100, we get 43%, not 74% ...

      Hand-face ... Exams passed?
      1. Sergst 17 March 2020 07: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        God was merciful
        1. JD1979 17 March 2020 09: 07 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Sergst
          God was merciful

          I doubt that otherwise they would have received a difference of 67%, not 74% of course, but the diameter is incorrectly written in the text, not the area, which implies the meaning of what was written above.
  7. dvina71 17 March 2020 08: 30 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Again Damantsev with a ruler .. Well, suppose .. this SRZO fires at 300 km .. yes the EPR was reduced .. I don’t understand the only air defense installation in the RF Armed Forces that all American MLRS will fire at? Ie there are no air defense batteries? Ie the ranking in the air defense of the FR also not? Before this missile reaches a long-range complex, it will have to be on the sights of a dozen types of systems at a lower rank .., here it’s not up to the cone ..
    1. JD1979 17 March 2020 09: 18 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: dvina71
      Again Damantsev with a ruler .. Well, suppose .. this SRZO fires at 300 km .. yes the EPR was reduced .. I don’t understand the only air defense installation in the RF Armed Forces that all American MLRS will fire at? Ie there are no air defense batteries?

      Well, let's say they won’t shoot in this way, they will fire at the object (s) that this air defense is covering. And the whole question will be in line with the "performance" of the MLRS and the air defense system, if the latter has enough speed for processing targets and ammunition, then the object will survive, if something is not enough - there will accordingly be a defeat.
      Do you think that any air defense has at least some chance if the Gradov division works out in its area?
      1. dvina71 17 March 2020 10: 25 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: JD1979
        Do you think that any air defense has at least some chance if the Gradov division works out in its area?

        It all depends on the density of anti-aircraft weapons .. and who is more likely to recharge .. In general, we are discussing a horse in a vacuum .. There are no single anti-aircraft defense and MLRS ... and come to discuss their full-time confrontation .. this is close to delirium ..
      2. Mavric 17 March 2020 10: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: JD1979
        Quote: dvina71
        Again Damantsev with a ruler .. Well, suppose .. this SRZO fires at 300 km .. yes the EPR was reduced .. I don’t understand the only air defense installation in the RF Armed Forces that all American MLRS will fire at? Ie there are no air defense batteries?

        Well, let's say they won’t shoot in this way, they will fire at the object (s) that this air defense is covering. And the whole question will be in line with the "performance" of the MLRS and the air defense system, if the latter has enough speed for processing targets and ammunition, then the object will survive, if something is not enough - there will accordingly be a defeat.
        Do you think that any air defense has at least some chance if the Gradov division works out in its area?

        There is layered air defense, there is reconnaissance, etc. etc. What again is "Spherical Horse in a Vacuum"?
    2. SovAr238A 18 March 2020 14: 40 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: dvina71
      Ie the ranking in the air defense of the FR also not? Before this missile reaches a long-range complex, it will have to be on the sights of a dozen types of systems at a lower rank .., here it’s not up to the cone ..


      Did you watch the OTR flight path?
      The maximum height of fire as you put it A dozen types of air defense systems of lower rank - watched?
      So how?
      What do you get?
  8. Sergst 17 March 2020 09: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: JD1979
    Quote: Sergst
    God was merciful

    I doubt that otherwise they would have received a difference of 67%, not 74% of course, but the diameter is incorrectly written in the text, not the area, which implies the meaning of what was written above.

    In the text, 74 percent is obtained as dividing 26 by 35, which is fundamentally wrong. The area will be other numbers. So do not hesitate.
  9. Operator 17 March 2020 14: 42 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    First, OTR does not happen in nature (only OTR exists).

    Secondly, PrSM is nothing more than a short-range ballistic missile - an analogue of Iskander-M.

    Thirdly, why shoot down PrSM with the S-300 and even on the active part of the trajectory, when there are Buk-M3 and S-350 with the absence of a "dead funnel" and much cheaper anti-ballistic missiles designed to intercept medium-sized ballistic missiles at the terminal section of the trajectory.

    Much more dangerous weapons are American medium-range ballistic missiles based on the SM-3 Block IIA anti-missile missiles, already replaced with the replacement of the UKV heavy kinetic interceptor with a 170-kt W-81 warhead. The maximum range of the SM-3 Block IIA in the variant of the BRDS is 3500 km, the speed is 5,4 km / s, the basing method is the Mk41 universal launchers mounted on the American Arly Burke destroyers and missile bases in Poland and Romania.
  10. SovAr238A 18 March 2020 14: 38 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    How much nonsense have you written ...

    operational tactical ballistic missile defense PrSM anti-aircraft maneuvers with overloads of 25-30G (these flight modes are an integral software add-on for most inertial-navigation systems of perspective cruise and operational-tactical ballistic missiles).


    Where did this come from?
    What sore mind?
    25G for a thin-walled case with a 30-cm diameter?
    And how will OTR receive information that here and here right now - it is necessary to do anti-aircraft maneuver? If we don’t even have a single aircraft equipped with automatic anti-aircraft maneuvering systems ...
    How do you come up with such nonsense?


    Prism is dangerous because the MLRS carries 4 missiles in two containers. HIMASR - carries 2 missiles in one container.
    They are very fast.
    It’s just a fraction of the price of its competitor.

    Small-sized.
    Many times.
    Its dimensions: 4m in length and 0,3m in diameter.
    The size of the competitor in the form of Iskander is 7m in length and almost 1 meter in diameter.
    At one firing range of 500km.
    Comparison in whose favor is that?
    0,3 cubic meters of volume against 4,6 cubic meters.