Military Review

SM-3 Standard Missile Interceptor Test Results for Intercepting a Ballistic Target Will Promote Start of Its Mass Production

44
SM-3 Standard Missile Interceptor Test Results for Intercepting a Ballistic Target Will Promote Start of Its Mass ProductionThe results of the SM-3 Standard Missile-1 Block IB (Standard Missile-3 Block IB) ship-to-missile missile anti-missile (PR) test to intercept a ballistic target will contribute to the start of its mass production. This was reported by the company-developer of PR "Raytheon".


As previously reported, the 16 of May, the SM-3 Standard, successfully intercepted a short-range ballistic missile and destroyed it due to the kinetic energy of a collision in a direct collision. The launch of the PR on the approaching BR was carried out from the TGonderoga type CG-70 (USS Lake Erie) URO cruiser.
Originator:
http://www.arms-tass.su/
44 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Canep
    Canep 20 May 2013 08: 08 New
    +2
    Armed with contagion. Impose a missile defense race.
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 20 May 2013 08: 24 New
      +5
      So our "infections" are not asleep. And the race never stopped for all its obvious senselessness for ordinary citizens and a very big meaning for the "fat cats" who get sickly money from this race. The cycle of dough in nature, you know
      1. patline
        patline 20 May 2013 09: 58 New
        +5
        To their standard, there will be our non-standard laughing
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 20 May 2013 10: 11 New
          -5
          We do not have rockets capable of operating on the "hit-to-kill" principle, this is not yet available to our design idea.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Igorboss16
            Igorboss16 20 May 2013 19: 17 New
            +1
            Quote: Nayhas
            We do not have rockets capable of operating on the "hit-to-kill" principle, this is not yet available to our design idea.

            You are deeply mistaken at sp 9M311 by the way
            Firstly, the use of such a warhead gives small targets destruction coefficient compared to a warhead loaded with explosives, and secondly, it is unclear under what conditions the interception occurred: did the target maneuver, what was its speed, etc., etc., so I can say with confidence that our designers can still and not so, but in view of the inefficiency of this principle, our missiles have a slightly different warhead giving a greater radius of destruction
    2. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 20 May 2013 13: 44 New
      +6
      They do not impose anything. I wrote earlier that they have a missile defense system of the 60s. The purpose is known in advance, the ships are standing and waiting in advance in the given square. Then, on a tracked target that does not maneuver in height and course and without interference, shoot a blank. That's all missile defense.
      At first in Soviet and Russian missiles, there are passive interferences and active ones, and not like in a drill, a disc falls into the sea.

      Secondly every 2 minutes a Topol-M or Yars or Bulava warhead maneuvers in height and heading. How many missile defense missiles need to be fired to shoot it down, and where are the guarantees that it will not maneuver on approach?

      Thirdly each missile carries from several to twenty warheads and false targets. Given firstly and secondly, how many missile defense missiles should be at least for one missile?

      For example:
      Topol M one thermonuclear warhead with a capacity of 550 kt and 20 false. The warhead is also equipped with a range of missile defense capabilities. KSP PRO consists of passive and active false targets, as well as means of distorting the characteristics of the head part. Several dozen auxiliary correction engines, instruments and control mechanisms allow the warhead to make maneuvers on the trajectory, making it difficult to intercept it on the final section of the trajectory. Some sources claim that LCs are indistinguishable from warheads in all ranges of electromagnetic radiation (optical, infrared, radar).

      Sineva 4 warheads of 200Kt or 10 of 100Kt each.

      Yars 4 warheads 300Kt each.

      Mace 10 individual guided warheads of 100KT each.

      The successful launch of all 16 Bulava missiles from the Yuri Dolgoruky will be 160 warheads maneuvering in height and heading every 2 minutes.
      Attention is the question of how many missile defense missiles are needed to shoot down 160 blocks that are constantly changing course? After all, the Americans calculate the trajectory, transfer it to the missile defense system and launch the missile without homing. She simply flies along the calculated course and must shoot down along the trajectory. And if the Bulava block has changed its course, the missile defense missile will continue to fly along the previously laid course, that is, into the void.

      And Russia does not have a single "Yuri Dolgoruky" drinks
      1. Akhtuba73
        Akhtuba73 20 May 2013 16: 25 New
        +1
        Well, okay, we sleep peacefully. And then they started to poo ... tongue there you go, aspids!
  2. svp67
    svp67 20 May 2013 08: 14 New
    +3
    The results of that test are very controversial ... But I am glad for the Americans, they, taking a very "controversial" "unit" for armament, spend a lot of money, which may not be enough for other weapons and "open" the way for our developments to be implemented ...
    1. KAZAK67
      KAZAK67 20 May 2013 08: 27 New
      +2
      Money amers never worried a little, persuade the Senate, turn on the machine and order.
      1. GreatRussia
        GreatRussia 20 May 2013 09: 20 New
        +2
        Quote: KAZAK67
        Money amers never worried a little, persuade the Senate, turn on the machine and order.

        Something I doubt recently, judging by the reduction in the military budget. Soap bubble is not eternal.

        About 5 million beggars in the United States about XNUMX years ago.



        Now it's almost fifty.
        1. Atrix
          Atrix 20 May 2013 09: 49 New
          -5
          13 percent of Russians live below the poverty line - 18 million people, and more than 40 percent consider themselves poor
          http://www.rg.ru/2012/12/17/bednost-site.html

          Maybe then Russia also should not spend money on the Olympics, World Cup, rearmament?
          1. Alexander_
            Alexander_ 20 May 2013 19: 22 New
            0
            Re-equipment is needed.
        2. Mizhgan
          Mizhgan 20 May 2013 12: 21 New
          0
          I have my own opinion on poverty in pind ... Poverty is the last wave of immigrants, no more, and this is just a stat. And if you take it globally, then pind-well, just do not turn off the printing press, although it does not turn off, damn it, but it has been printing and printing for more than a dozen years ... And this action swallows the whole world ... Praying for the images of the presidents drawn on debt papers, without proper protection from fakes ... Evra went the same way ... But Russia is increasing its foreign exchange reserves, although it is holding a dual-currency basket of the country's budget ... It seems that the question is, why the heck ??? Duc contract, damn it. Yeltsin signed a lot of things that we still don’t know ... (Google to help you ...) And the most interesting, These Yeltsin and humpbacks are not prolonged, alas. (Again, Google to help you ...)
      2. Gluxar_
        Gluxar_ 20 May 2013 16: 09 New
        +1
        Quote: KAZAK67
        Money amers never worried a little, persuade the Senate, turn on the machine and order.

        If everything was so simple, there would be no current contraction. The fact is that they will print another trillion and the whole system will collapse. Missile technology is very expensive and still does not provide any security guarantee. What is the probability of creating stealth warheads or introducing hypersonic maneuvering warheads? Creating an SDI is really a tempting thing, but a really working system will cost hundreds of times more than a system to overcome such protection.
    2. Arberes
      Arberes 20 May 2013 08: 55 New
      +2
      Quote: svp67
      The results of that test are very controversial ...

      Sorry, why are they controversial?
      Direct hit of an interceptor missile in an attack object!
      In my opinion, this is the best proof that "Standard" is working?
      Well, childhood diseases are always treated by fine-tuning and improving the system and missiles of the anti-aircraft complex!
      1. svp67
        svp67 20 May 2013 09: 19 New
        +4
        Quote: Arberes
        Sorry, why are they controversial?
        They already had a similar "success", it turned out that their specialists simply modified the target for this - by installing a "beacon" on it, if the journalists had not "unearthed" it then, this system would have been in service for a long time. Further, a target is struck that makes a SIMPLE ballistic fall, along a previously known trajectory, but modern ballistic warheads are able to maneuver, how is this system capable of hitting such targets?
        1. Arberes
          Arberes 20 May 2013 09: 47 New
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          by installing a "beacon" on it

          Well, of course with a lighthouse it’s simple, here I can’t object to anything!
          And if these tests have already been carried out for real without any gadgets?

          Quote: svp67
          hit a target that performed a SIMPLE ballistic fall, according to a previously known trajectory, but modern ballistic warheads can perform maneuvers, how can this system hit such targets?


          I am not special in missile interceptors, but I can assume that the warheads that spilled out of the container and began to independently maneuver towards the enemy also probably have some kind of cyclicity in changing the trajectory? Can’t the warhead engine always work on maneuvering?
          Let's say 3 minutes of flight and a change in the trajectory, another 5 minutes of flight and again a change?
          Why am I leading our dialogue with you?
          Israel recently boasted of its new IRON DOME missile interception system, and so they without false modesty declared that the system is capable of reconfiguring the trajectory of an interceptor missile for a target missile that changed course!
          So what are some chances?
          In general, as I understand the US missile defense system, the main emphasis will be on the destruction of enemy missiles (that is, you and me) at the start, the missiles that have broken through and managed to take off will be destroyed over the seas and oceans, but the warheads that have managed to separate will try to to stray over the STATES about the same as the "DOME" Israel?
          SPECIALIZED ROCKETERS if I'm wrong correct me DEAR! hi
          1. Gluxar_
            Gluxar_ 20 May 2013 19: 12 New
            +1
            Quote: Arberes
            Well, of course with a beacon, of course it’s simple, here I can’t object to anything! And if these tests have already been carried out without any gadgets?

            It's not even about the "bells and whistles", but the fact that the tests are "bench". The flight path is known, the target is static in maneuvering, the speeds are known and lower than real ones. In such conditions, the meeting of two objects in a certain space is more practiced. In the case of a real warhead, placing the perceptors in the "sub-optimal" zone results in a miss. Since if the courses are not opposite, but in pursuit, then a change in the approach angle by one degree in reality is an additional approach of tens of kilometers, and this is an opportunity not to catch up with the warhead at all. And in the case of a warhead maneuvering after launching the missile by 3-5 degrees, it will lead to the fact that the counter missile simply cannot reach the interception sector. Just understand the principle. In one case, the block dives, only gaining speed, in the other anti-missile it is necessary to overcome the gravity of the earth and seeks to get into an area of ​​several square meters, provided that the target flies a kilometer per second.
        2. Suhov
          Suhov 20 May 2013 09: 51 New
          0
          Quote: svp67
          They already had a similar "success", it turned out for this their specialists simply finalized target - by installing on it "beacon"if the journalists had not" dug it up "then, this system stood in service.

          So - let them arm themselves.
        3. Atrix
          Atrix 20 May 2013 10: 03 New
          0
          Quote: svp67
          They already had a similar "success", it turned out for this purpose their specialists simply modified the target by installing a "beacon" on it

          The lighthouse, I think, was in order to make the rocket easier to point at the target. The tests were, as I understand it, the missile itself, is it realistic to intercept the target or not with this missile. Now they bring to mind the target designation and computer calculations along the trajectories of missiles.
      2. olegff68
        olegff68 20 May 2013 10: 49 New
        0
        Quote: Arberes
        Quote: svp67
        The results of that test are very controversial ...

        Sorry, why are they controversial?
        Direct hit of an interceptor missile in an attack object!
        In my opinion, this is the best proof that "Standard" is working?
        Well, childhood diseases are always treated by fine-tuning and improving the system and missiles of the anti-aircraft complex!

        Such tests (often including ours) are carried out for big "uncles" in order to account for the money spent. With previously known coordinates and target launch time, its trajectory and launch time, the trajectory of the interceptor missile, are meticulously calculated for several days. And then the show.
  3. Boot under the carpet
    Boot under the carpet 20 May 2013 08: 59 New
    +2
    I have always wondered how their anti-missile missile would work out against a ballistic missile from a multiple warhead with their further maneuvering. It seems to me that I do not know the trajectory and the amplitude of the oscillations of the projectile, this is impossible to do at such approach speeds. Unless, of course, this "info" was not sold to them. It seems to me that the adversaries know more about the same Bulava than MIT: D
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 20 May 2013 09: 23 New
      +2
      Quote: Boot under the carpet
      I was always interested in how their ballistic missile anti-missile with a multiple warhead will work out with their further maneuvering.

      Is it really impossible to predict? This is why our potential "partners" are moving the missile defense system as close as possible to our borders in order to shoot down missiles on the starting trajectory before the separation of the warhead begins!
      Will they overwhelm us with their ships with the "Aegis" - "Aegis" and will we swing their rights?
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 20 May 2013 10: 06 New
        0
        Quote: Arberes
        to shoot missiles on the starting trajectory

        This is almost impossible, a missile should have an order of magnitude faster than the speed of an ICBM.
      2. Atrix
        Atrix 20 May 2013 10: 14 New
        -1
        Quote: Arberes
        that would shoot down rockets on the starting trajectory until the separation of the warhead began!

        Yes, no, as far as you can see from the video, they shoot down when the rocket is on target. At this stage in the development of missile defense, I think it is ineffective against Russian nuclear missiles.
        1. Gluxar_
          Gluxar_ 20 May 2013 19: 36 New
          +1
          Quote: Atrix
          Yes, no, as far as you can see from the video, they shoot down when the rocket is on target. At this stage in the development of missile defense, I think it is ineffective against Russian nuclear missiles.

          On the video, they shoot down, that's just such a video, it's just an animation. You need to understand one very important point, this is the ratio of the speeds of the diving block and the missile defense.
      3. Gluxar_
        Gluxar_ 20 May 2013 19: 22 New
        +1
        Quote: Arberes
        Is it really impossible to predict? That is why our potential "partners" are moving the missile defense system as close as possible to our borders in order to shoot down missiles on the starting trajectory, before the separation of the warhead begins! They will overwhelm us with their ships with "Aegis" - "Aegis" download your rights?

        The problem with this approach is precisely that closer it means hundreds of kilometers from the launch zones, one territory of Russia is much larger. Instead of missile defense, then you just need to introduce patrolling of the airspace in the launch zones and also destroy missiles at the launch pad. however, this is not realistic. And when it comes to some kind of "umbrella", the area of ​​space in which it is possible to defeat the invading object, then the conditions of interception should be much more stringent than they are now, or perhaps will be done in the next 50 years. So far, any missile defense system is only an instrument of politics and pressure on Russia, but this does not mean that one should not react to such provocations.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Nitup
      Nitup 20 May 2013 09: 56 New
      0
      There are no maneuvering warheads on the Mace, such are on Yars. But on the other hand, the Mace warheads are separated from the last stage all at the same time and after that each leads itself to the flight path to the target independently. And after guidance flies along a ballistic trajectory. This eliminates the need for alternating guidance of each warhead with a breeding stage and greatly complicates the interception of such a target. I don’t know about how divorced blocks are on Yars. Perhaps in a similar way.
    4. Gluxar_
      Gluxar_ 20 May 2013 19: 19 New
      0
      Quote: Boot under the carpet
      I have always wondered how their anti-missile missile would work out against a ballistic missile from a multiple warhead with their further maneuvering. It seems to me that I do not know the trajectory and the amplitude of the oscillations of the projectile, this is impossible to do at such approach speeds. Unless, of course, this "info" was not sold to them. It seems to me that the adversaries know more about the same Bulava than MIT: D

      Shoot down even a single unit is impossible with current technology. You can fire at possible sectors of a certain block, having previously received data on it. But in this case, the whole system is designed to destroy just one block, but not a volley of several.
      You can actually try to shoot down a rocket on takeoff and climb, but in this case the interceptor rocket should be close enough and massive enough to fly from the launch area to the launch point, then catch up with the rocket that has already taken off and with some chance to hit it. However, in this case, the interceptor missile itself becomes a vulnerable target for air defense systems. By this analogy, the RPG-7 can also be considered a missile defense system, if you shoot at a missile launch pad at the time of its launch, then you will damage or destroy it. Here is a missile defense and the United States.
      1. Nitup
        Nitup 20 May 2013 21: 11 New
        -1
        It is possible to bring down a ballistic block, because it flies to a target along a ballistic trajectory. And its speed after entering the dense layers of the atmosphere drops from about 5 km / s to about 300 m / s, which is not so much.
        1. Gluxar_
          Gluxar_ 20 May 2013 22: 59 New
          0
          Quote: Nitup
          It is possible to bring down a ballistic block, because it flies to a target along a ballistic trajectory. And its speed after entering the dense layers of the atmosphere drops from about 5 km / s to about 300 m / s, which is not so much.

          Flying along a static trajectory and at the speeds you described, that is, 1080 km / h is quite possible with a certain amount of luck. But a real block will fly 3-4 times faster, this is about 1,5 km / sec and "steer", no one will bring down this in the next 50 years. and again we are talking about a single goal. When only one Russian boat is shot, there will be 160 targets.
          1. Nitup
            Nitup 21 May 2013 10: 41 New
            0
            Why steer something. I’m telling you not about the thrusting warheads, but about the usual ballistic ones, such as on the Mace, for example.
  4. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 20 May 2013 10: 02 New
    +1
    Not all that glitters is gold. Not everyone needs to believe that Americans are praised. Indeed, judging by experience, most of their achievements are ordinary ADVERTISING.
    1. Atrix
      Atrix 20 May 2013 10: 09 New
      -3
      Quote: kartalovkolya
      Not all that glitters is gold. Not everyone needs to believe that Americans are praised. Indeed, judging by experience, most of their achievements are ordinary ADVERTISING.

      Well, yes, believe further on ADVERTISING. The Internet is probably also advertising, computers are also probably advertising, etc. In fact, the United States still rides horses and does not even have electricity. Why aren't you at school right now? Go to study better, then you can stop writing this nonsense.
      1. viktorR
        viktorR 20 May 2013 11: 46 New
        +2
        I have always been surprised by individuals like you. Defending someone else’s hostile country, with some strange frenzy, they try to prove its superiority, which they can’t overcome in any way, at the same time they turn to personalities and try to insult the interlocutor only because he does not support your point of view. You will forgive me, of course, but you behave like an undergrowth.

        What kartalovkolya writes about is not devoid of meaning. Thanks to this very "advertising" and the seizure of the media space, the United States has what it has. The same personal computers, McDonald's, lifestyle and other "blessings of civilization" promoted by them, promoted by "advertising", and imposed on you.
        1. Atrix
          Atrix 20 May 2013 12: 26 New
          +1
          Quote: viktorR
          I have always been surprised by individuals like you. Defending someone else’s hostile country, with some strange frenzy, they try to prove its superiority, which they can’t overcome in any way, at the same time they turn to personalities and try to insult the interlocutor only because he does not support your point of view. You will forgive me, of course, but you behave like an undergrowth.

          And I am always surprised by individuals like you. I am not trying to protect the United States or Russia, I just show that people are talking nonsense.
          Indeed, judging by experience, most of their achievements are ordinary ADVERTISING.
          Here you explain to me how you can write or believe in this nonsense about the fact that someone has proved that most of the achievement is ADVERTISING and this person sits and writes on everything developed in the USA, from the keyboard to the software. Why write and all the more support any nonsense when it has nothing to do with reality.
          1. Gluxar_
            Gluxar_ 20 May 2013 19: 45 New
            -1
            Quote: Atrix
            And I am always surprised by individuals like you. I am not trying to protect the United States or Russia, I just show that people are talking nonsense.

            I understand the whole pointlessness of the dialogue with such trolls and I myself ignored his nonsense, but since several people have already spoken out, I will add my own two pennies. All your writing is devoid of any analysis and does not carry a single sensible remark. Simply put, crap is written.
            Regarding the power of the United States, this same power is based only on advertising and deception. Unfortunately, the whole concept of US global dominance in the information space was destroyed by themselves after the recent failures of both 888 and during the operation in Libya. Confidence in the media was lost as such among the vast majority of the inhabitants of our planet, even in the United States itself. So now their informational impact few zombies, hence the failures on all fronts and the collapse of their own economies. All the hype about the missile defense is the last hope of the United States to maintain its financial system and support by the allies of the US military-industrial complex. However, it is already clear today that even Europeans are not being led to this and continue to reduce military budgets. The United States, by inertia, is spending the last borrowed resources not to develop its economy or repair infrastructure, but will bury them in its advertising projects like missile defense or F-35. No one will give them new loans.
  5. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 20 May 2013 10: 03 New
    0
    All this is advertising and nothing more gentlemen!
  6. Manager
    Manager 20 May 2013 10: 26 New
    +1
    Quote: Atrix
    Maybe then Russia also should not spend money on the Olympics, World Cup, rearmament?

    If there is less corruption and theft, then enough for the defense industry and for raising the standard of living of people.
  7. ed65b
    ed65b 20 May 2013 10: 43 New
    +1
    the target is a target, hung in a balloon. Otherwise, they would have missed. We need a result and give it. Nothing changes.
    1. Gluxar_
      Gluxar_ 20 May 2013 22: 30 New
      0
      Quote: ed65b
      the target is a target, hung in a balloon. Otherwise, they would have missed. We need a result and give it. Nothing changes.

      And this is obvious to everyone. but even the most stupid leadership cannot invest hundreds of billions of dollars a year in a mythical project. It is clear that the Americans in the 90s lost their sense of proportion and imagined themselves omnipotent, but after 3 years they began to explain to them that they were driving and making mistakes. The mind was not enough to change at that time, hence the crisis of today. ABM is also from the 90s. His concept is based on the fact that Russia is ruined and nuclear forces have degraded. So you need to protect yourself from possible single launches, and besides, write off hundreds of billions of taxpayer money.
  8. Boot under the carpet
    Boot under the carpet 20 May 2013 10: 48 New
    +2
    Quote: Arberes
    Quote: Boot under the carpet
    I was always interested in how their ballistic missile anti-missile with a multiple warhead will work out with their further maneuvering.

    Is it really impossible to predict? This is why our potential "partners" are moving the missile defense system as close as possible to our borders in order to shoot down missiles on the starting trajectory before the separation of the warhead begins!
    Will they overwhelm us with their ships with the "Aegis" - "Aegis" and will we swing their rights?

    Iskander, Ball and Club have not been canceled :) It is more difficult for us, as a state, with a defense policy. It is necessary to have effective early warning systems and sabotage detection tools. It will be very unpleasant when the time "h" comes, it turns out that some of the counter systems will be disabled.
  9. nod739
    nod739 20 May 2013 11: 52 New
    +1
    one explosion in orbit will knock out the connection, and without satellites most of the missile defense turns into a pile of iron
  10. Mizhgan
    Mizhgan 20 May 2013 12: 54 New
    0
    Che, you doubt domestic developments ????? If so !, then ultimatums, offers, conditions, etc. it just wouldn’t have happened ... But at the moment, Sha piss - and not for children ... Shoigu schA will restore order in the world balance ... well, the term is 2-3 years ...
  11. cherkas.oe
    cherkas.oe 20 May 2013 14: 56 New
    0
    P-nd-wasps need to ask our people to shoot the SS-20 that has served the Kura and try to grab at least one head, and then puff out their cheeks, and so, it's just words, paper and ether that will endure everything.
    1. Alexander_
      Alexander_ 20 May 2013 19: 35 New
      0
      Strongly do not do this. Yes, once there was such an offer, to conduct joint exercises, Putin refused (We will launch a missile, and you will train to shoot it, VV answered). That was a long time ago.
  12. shinobi
    shinobi 20 May 2013 18: 38 New
    +1
    We’ll see what happens next, because judging by the hype it will be the same as with their F-22. Like there would be a product, and even as a cool one, but it doesn’t work. With a laser Boeing, they made noise, made, tested, and pushed into a distant box .Gauss cannon. Trindel, Tryndel, calmed down. Sliza
    whether our hypersonic project is cold. We tested it, calculated the debit / credit and "we are now studying the received data."