Military Review

53T6 interceptor missile tested

53
The next tests of one of the elements of the national missile defense system took place. A new launch of anti-rocket 53Т6 / PRS-1 was conducted at the Sary-Shagan test site in Kazakhstan. The purpose of the launch was to check the product for compliance with the stated characteristics. The regular conduct of such inspections allows us to determine the real prospects of the missiles in service, as well as adjust plans for the operation of such weapons.

The latest test launch of the 53Т6 interceptor missile took place on June 21 at one of the sites of the Sary-Shagan test site. Soon after the tests, a video recording of the launch and initial acceleration of the rocket was published. The product successfully left the launch shaft and, leaving behind a cloud of smoke, went to the specified area for finding a conditional target. The anti-missile successfully completed its task and made the conditional destruction of the target. The defeat of the attacking object occurred at a specified time and in the right area.

The purpose of the test launch of 21 June was to test the operation of the missile systems to confirm the tactical and technical characteristics of the 53Т6 products that are in service with the air and missile defense forces of the Aerospace Forces. The successful implementation of the combat training task confirmed the characteristics of the antimissile, and also allows the operation of such products to continue in the existing missile defense system.


The launch of the 53Т6 rocket, which took place on June 21. Frame from video


At the moment, the 53Т6 or PRS-1 missiles are the primary means of countering targets used by the Moscow anti-missile defense system. The rocket is part of the Amur missile defense system A-135 and is operated in conjunction with a host of other systems and products. Previously, along with the missiles of the ORS-1, other anti-missile missiles were also used, but later it was decided to reduce the range of anti-missile defense weapons.

Complex A-135 has been developed since the early seventies in the course of the joint work of a number of research and production organizations. It was planned to include in the prospective missile defense system a multifunctional radar station capable of monitoring the situation and ensuring the operation of antimissiles, command and computing point, as well as firing systems with two types of missiles. Initially, a two-echelon defense variant was developed with long-range 51Т6 missiles and high-speed 53Т6 missiles with a lower range of fire.

The 53T6 missile test began in mid-1979. Subsequently, the refinement and improvement of the design of the elements of the A-135 complex allowed us to continue testing, as well as move on to intercepting real ballistic targets. So, during the first half of the eighties, the A-135 system carried out several combat training intercepts of ballistic missiles, which were armed with the Strategic Missile Forces and the naval fleet. In 1984, the 53T6 missile completed state tests, after which it was recommended for adoption.

By the end of the eighties in Moscow, the construction of the main objects of the A-135 ABM system was completed. In addition, a similar complex, which had some differences, for testing was deployed at the Sary-Shagan test site. State tests of the landfill complex, which received the designation "Amur-P", ended in December 1989 of the year. Soon all the necessary checks of the anti-missile defense complex, designed to protect Moscow and the central industrial region, were completed.

According to reports, in 1990, the industry began full-scale mass production of new interceptors, including the NRS-1 / 53Т6. In December of the same year, the A-135 complex and all its elements were put into trial operation. In addition, at the same time, the Amur-P test complex was decommissioned. It already had all the necessary work done, after which it was considered inexpedient to further operate the systems. During the operation of the complex, 37 53Т6 and 19 missiles were fired at the Sary-Shagan firing range using 51Т6 products.

In 1996, the A-135 complex was officially adopted by the air defense forces. At that time, the complex had two positions for 51ТНNXX missiles for 6 launchers on each, as well as five positions for 16Т53. In total, 6 missiles of the PRS-68 missiles were deployed in positions with 1 and 12 launchers. Due to such a composition of the shooting complex, it was planned to provide reliable protection of the area against enemy ballistic missiles with their destruction in a fairly wide range of ranges and altitudes.

Parallel operation of the two types of interceptor missiles continued until the 2006 year, when the decision was made to remove the 51Т6 products from service. After the implementation of such a solution, only one type of interceptor missile remained in the Amur complex - 53Т6 / PRS-1. Soon there were reports about the possibility of upgrading this weapons with a significant increase in its characteristics. It was reported that even during the tests, the potential of the rocket was established in terms of renewal. By any means or other it was possible to increase the firing range by 2,5 times, the interception height - by 3 times.


Start the anti-missiles. Photo Rbase.new-factoria.ru


Initially, the 53Т6 rocket had warranty periods at the level of 10 years. Thus, the missiles of the first series, remaining in launch positions or in warehouses, should have been sent for recycling no later than the beginning of the two thousandth years. Nevertheless, the study of the prospects of rockets from the point of view of the resource extension was started. Within the framework of the project with the symbol “Priozersk”, it was possible to increase the warranty period of the interceptor missiles to 15-20 years. In addition, other development work was carried out. In order to test certain ideas, as well as to confirm the characteristics during the nineties and two thousand years, 8 launches were performed. The site for these tests was the object "Ethylene" at the Sary-Shagan test site.

There is some information regarding the design of the anti-missile 53Т6. The product receives a conical bearing housing with detachable warhead. According to different sources, the rocket body is made of composite materials using some parts of high-strength metal alloys. It is also possible to use ceramic elements on the parts of the body that are exposed to the highest thermal loads. Due to the high speed of the missile flight, measures must be taken to protect the internal units from mechanical and thermal loads.

The rocket is equipped with a solid-propelled launch-sustainer engine type 5C73. The engine uses a charge of solid fuel with a high specific impulse, which ensures rapid acceleration of the rocket to the required speeds to reduce the time to reach a given region. Control of the rocket in flight is carried out by the gas-dynamic method, using injection of engine exhaust gases into the corresponding part of the nozzle. There is also information about the use of gas-dynamic control surfaces used in the final phase of flight.

The rocket 53Т6 is equipped with a radio command system. The ground elements of the A-135 complex in the form of the multi-purpose radar station Don-2Н track the target and the antimissile, as well as generate and transmit commands for the latter. The onboard equipment of the rocket takes commands from the radar, which are processed by the autopilot and used to adjust the course. The most important feature of the missile control systems PRS-1 / 53Т6 is the execution of all units included in their composition. In order to avoid damage during the flight, all the electronics are mounted with a "fill" with a polymer material, and also have some other characteristic features. All this allows the equipment to withstand overload up to 100 units. There are also means to increase resistance to the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion.

In the basic configuration of the anti-missile 53Т6 carries a detachable warhead with a special warhead. Due to the use of a nuclear warhead, a significant increase in the radius of destruction is ensured compared to conventional warheads. In addition, a large radius of damage to a certain extent compensates for the possible deviation when the missile is aimed at the target. The power of the anti-missile warhead is unknown. Different sources mention charges from 5 to 15 CT. Also in the framework of the “Samolet-M” project, a variant of a non-nuclear warhead was developed, however, such a system was not brought to use.

The product 53Т6 after completion of the assembly is placed in a sealed transport and launch container. The latter has a cylindrical shape and is equipped with a set of connectors used in the storage and operation of products. So, there are means to maintain optimal climatic parameters inside the WPC. The container also has connectors for launch control systems, fixtures for transporting and holding in the launcher, etc.


The museum sample of the transport-charging vehicle with TPK rocket 53Т6. Photo by Saidpvo.livejournal.com


The launch of anti-missile missiles is carried out from mine launchers, into which TPK with missiles are pre-positioned. The installation is protected by a sliding cover, which is discharged just before the launch of the rocket. Start is carried out directly from the container with use of the starting and march engine. When this happens, a breakthrough of both end caps of the WPC occurs with the head part and reactive gases.

For the transportation of containers with missiles, as well as for their loading into launchers, appropriate auxiliary machines were developed. Thus, the transport machine 5Т93 has fastenings for the transport of TPK of the 53Т6 rocket, and is also equipped with means of temperature control. The container is loaded into the mine by the transport-charging machine 5Т92. It has a boom and rocket movement systems, but it is not equipped with microclimate maintenance tools. Both versions of the auxiliary machines were based on the four-axle special chassis MAZ-543. Interestingly, the TZM 5Т92 with a transport and launch container for the PRS-1 rocket has recently become a new exhibit of the museum of military equipment in the Patriot park.

According to reports, the 53Т6 / PRS-1 rocket has a length of no more than 12 m and a maximum diameter of the order of 1,7 m. The launch weight reaches 10 t, of which about 700 kg is in the head. The used solid-fuel engine with a uniquely high specific impulse gives the rocket the corresponding flight characteristics. So, on the way out of the mine, the rocket only needs 0,4 from, and it only takes 4 from acceleration to maximum speed. In flight, the rocket accelerates to 5,5 km / s. The height of the destruction of targets is in the range from 5 to 30 km, the range is up to 100 km. Thus, a ten-ton antimissile intercepts a ballistic target in a matter of seconds after launch, which allows the dangerous object to be destroyed at a considerable distance from the covered area.

The A-135 “Amur” missile defense complex is still on duty and provides protection for the central industrial region and Moscow. As part of maintaining combat capability, various exercises and tests are regularly conducted. Among other things, from time to time, specialists of the armed forces produce test launches of existing missiles. With the help of the latter, an assessment of the work of the systems is carried out, which makes it possible to draw the necessary conclusions and, in particular, to extend the service life of weapons.

The latest test launch of the 53Т6 rocket took place on June 21. According to statements by representatives of the military department, the launch ended with a successful defeat of a conventional goal. Probably, this launch will allow extending the warranty periods of the available antimissiles, which will help to preserve the existing protection systems. Thus, the Amur A-135 complex will be able to remain in service for the next several years, while the industry will complete the creation of a new similar-purpose A-235 system, which is currently being developed.


On the materials of the sites:
http://function.mil.ru/
https://russian.rt.com/
http://tass.ru/
http://utro.ru/
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/
Author:
53 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. corporal
    corporal 30 June 2016 06: 36
    +1
    Through the use of a nuclear warhead
    The height of the destruction of targets is in the range from 5 to 30 km
    Non-resilient clouds over Moscow will be in which case. what

    a variant of a non-nuclear warhead was being developed, but such a system was not brought up to service.

    Well, yes, money (or brains), as always, was not enough. For example:

    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 30 June 2016 07: 03
      +7
      Quote: Corporal
      Well, yes, money (or brains), as always, was not enough.

      5.5 km / s the rocket goes all the way in a hard cloud of plasma, have not yet learned how to control the homing system in the atmosphere at such speeds.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 30 June 2016 10: 23
        -1
        Learned back in the 80s - used in warheads for missiles R 36.
        1. Gray brother
          Gray brother 30 June 2016 10: 52
          +2
          Quote: Vadim237
          Learned back in the 80s - used in warheads for missiles R 36.

          They refused radio correction at the test stage, the guidance system was purely inertial. The only thing was that there was a remote retargeting system, but it worked before the launch of the rocket, and not after.
          In addition, I read that the control system was in the first and second stages, I did not hear about guided warheads.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 30 June 2016 20: 41
            0
            "BB 15F178 with an active radar homing system using digital terrain maps" - the tests were successful.
      2. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 24 November 2017 08: 37
        0
        here again some ignoramuses are some kind. learn materiel!
    2. inkass_98
      inkass_98 30 June 2016 07: 32
      +8
      Quote: Corporal
      Non-resilient clouds over Moscow will be in which case.

      Even this will be better for the population than the "mushrooms" in the neighborhood. In addition, an explosion at a height is in any case "cleaner" than an explosion at or near the ground. "If it comes to the noose ...", as Archpriest Avvakum used to say, there will be no time for sentimentality.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 30 June 2016 07: 36
        +12
        Quote: inkass_98
        Even this will be better for the population than the "mushrooms" in the neighborhood. In addition, an explosion at a height is in any case "cleaner" than an explosion on or near the ground.

        Modern "special warheads" are quite "clean", and when air blasted, they give a minimum of radioactive fallout. But an interceptor missile with a special warhead has a significant drawback. After a nuclear explosion, a zone that is not visible to the radar station is formed for some time. Those. the next ICBM warheads to be intercepted turn out to be invisible, which is why the Americans switched to kinetic interceptors.
        1. vadimtt
          vadimtt 30 June 2016 08: 55
          +9
          In the case of classical ballistic targets, radar glare is not a problem, even before the use of anti-ballistic missiles, the trajectories of all targets are calculated, optimal detonation points are selected and then, according to the given algorithm, the anti-missile launch is carried out. But in the case of maneuvering warheads this does not work. But it seems that while the USA is in service, there are none.
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 30 June 2016 09: 01
            +3
            Quote: vadimtt
            In the case of classical ballistic targets, radar glare is not a problem, even before the use of anti-ballistic missiles, the trajectories of all targets are calculated, optimal detonation points are selected and then, according to the given algorithm, the anti-missile launch is carried out.

            Problem! stop Your statement in part it is true in the presence of 51T6 missiles of long-range interception, as we know now in service with such missiles, we do not.
            1. vadimtt
              vadimtt 30 June 2016 10: 27
              +1
              From which we can conclude that the main task of the A-135 complex now is to cover important objects from an accidentally (or maliciously) launched single ICBM. Why see something after the detonation, again, is not necessary. IMHO. And now nothing will save anyone from a full-scale nuclear ballistic "raid".
              1. silver_roman
                silver_roman 30 June 2016 13: 24
                +8
                Quote: vadimtt
                And now nothing will save anyone from a full-scale nuclear ballistic "raid".

                Nothing but a guaranteed equal answer!
        2. ivanovich
          ivanovich 30 June 2016 15: 14
          +4
          Quote: Bongo
          Modern "special warheads" are quite "clean", and with an air blast they give a minimum of radioactive fallout


          some couch expert said about the cleanliness of modern special ammunition and there was a run of duplication of stupidity on the Internet.

          there is no "purity" there. in the current thermonuclear ammunition there is a half-century scheme of its detonation Teller-Ulam, in which the distribution of energy goes as follows:
          Air shock wave - 50%
          Light emission - 35%
          Radioactive contamination - 10%
          Penetrating radiation - ~ 4%
          Electromagnetic pulse - ~ 1%
          It is not possible to reduce these approximate 15% attributable to radiation since there is no fundamentally new charge detonation scheme in which all energy is redistributed in favor of a shock wave or light radiation, there is only a reverse circuit to this and is used in neutron munitions.

          The only thing is that during a high-altitude detonation of nuclear warheads, the penetrating radiation is spent entirely in the atmosphere, but since their filling: uranium or plutonium are heavy metals, their isotopes in any case will fall out with precipitation on the terrain, so radioactive contamination is not inevitable in this case and not at all .n. "purity" of speech cannot go.
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 30 June 2016 15: 35
            +2
            Quote: ivanovich
            some couch expert said about the cleanliness of modern special ammunition and there was a run of duplication of stupidity on the Internet.

            Apparently I am this "couch expert". lol
            Quote: ivanovich
            The only thing is that during a high-altitude detonation of nuclear warheads, the penetrating radiation is spent entirely in the atmosphere, but since their filling: uranium or plutonium are heavy metals, their isotopes in any case will fall out with precipitation on the terrain, so radioactive contamination is not inevitable in this case and not at all .n. "purity" of speech cannot go.

            Question in quantity of radioactive fallout, I never claimed that modern warheads are absolutely clean but compare the yield of radionuclides in the air explosion of modern thermonuclear warheads and the thermonuclear 15 Mt Castle Bravo. The difference is orders of magnitude, or do you disagree with me?
            1. ivanovich
              ivanovich 30 June 2016 15: 59
              +1
              Quote: Bongo
              The question is the amount of radioactive fallout, I have never argued that modern warheads are absolutely clean, but compare the yield of radionuclides in the air explosion of modern thermonuclear warheads and the thermonuclear 15 Mt Castle Bravo. The difference is orders of magnitude, or do you disagree with me?


              let's not use the word "clean" to refer to nuclear weapons that never have been and never will. the essence of your question is not clear do you want to compare, for example, the detonation of a modern W88 of the order of 400 Kt and 15 Mt of a charge with different masses of nuclear matter in them? in both cases, 15% of the energy will go to radioactive emissions, but naturally, in quantitative terms, the difference will be greater for a 15 mt warhead. this is, besides, 0,1 sq. km or 10 sq. km - in principle, that it is contaminated when detonating any TNS in terms of power
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 30 June 2016 16: 10
                +2
                Quote: ivanovich
                Let's not use the word "clean" in relation to nuclear weapons, which never were and never will. The essence of your question is not clear. Do you want to compare, for example, the detonation of a modern W88 of the order of 400 Kt and 15 Mt of a charge with different masses of nuclear matter in them?

                it's not just about power. Compare the emission of 15 Mt Castle Bravo and 58 Mt AN602 (RDS-202). Nuclear (thermonuclear) weapons will never be absolutely "clean", but I will repeat again:
                Quote: Bongo
                Modern "special warheads" pretty muchclean", and at air blast give minimum fallout.
                1. ivanovich
                  ivanovich 30 June 2016 17: 26
                  0
                  Quote: Bongo
                  it's not just about power. Compare the emission of 15 Mt Castle Bravo and 58 Mt AN602 (RDS-202). Nuclear (thermonuclear) weapons will never be absolutely "clean", but I will repeat again:

                  any further arguments may make sense only when it comes to the degree of radioactive contamination, and not about the so-called. the "purity" of nuclear weapons
              2. Operator
                Operator 30 June 2016 16: 27
                0
                The thermonuclear charge with the power of 400 Kt contains 10 kg of plutonium; the thermonuclear charge with the power of 15 MT contains 20 kg.

                The area of ​​radioactive contamination during an air explosion of an 15-Mt charge is forty times greater than that of an 400-Mt charge.

                It follows that the 15-Mt charge is twenty times cleaner than the 400-Mt charge, per 1 square km of radioactive contamination area.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Operator
            Operator 30 June 2016 15: 39
            0
            In neutron charges, radioactive contamination accounts for 1%, penetrating radiation - 13%.

            Plutonium nuclear fission products do not contain plutonium isotopes by definition.
    3. Operator
      Operator 30 June 2016 11: 24
      +3
      The missile is equipped with a 3 ct neutron warhead - the neutron flux splits the entire plutonium charge and is extinguished when the airspace travels less than 1,5 km.

      The pulverized fission products of plutonium (of the order of 5 kg) are carried in the upper atmosphere in the direction of the wind and fall to the ground at a distance of one to two thousand kilometers from Moscow - in the Arctic, Europe, Siberia and the Middle East.
      1. Gray brother
        Gray brother 30 June 2016 11: 30
        +3
        Quote: Operator
        - the neutron flux splits the entire plutonium charge and is extinguished when the path in air is less than 1,5 km.

        Plutonium isotopes are the very hat - they come into contact with organic matter and can accumulate in it, Americans have filled their entire ocean with their tests.
        Eat the fish. wassat
        1. Operator
          Operator 30 June 2016 12: 16
          +2
          This is not about plutonium isotopes, but about the chemical elements obtained after its nuclear fission (decay) - existing from an hour to several days of radioactive isotopes of zinc, molybdenum, niobium, strontium, iodine and others.

          http://nuclphys.sinp.msu.ru/ecology/Uranium&PlutoniumFissionProducts.pdf

          The neutron charge is considered to be pure, because after it is triggered from 5 kg of plutonium, only about 100 grams of this highly radioactive substance with a half-life of 24000 years remain unreacted.

          For comparison: in the explosion of a modern two-stage thermonuclear charge, up to 90 percent of the plutonium fuse remains unreacted - about 9 kg. In nuclear bombs dropped on Japan, about 95 percent of plutonium and 235 uranium remained unreacted - several tens of kg per bomb.
  2. Bongo
    Bongo 30 June 2016 07: 05
    +7
    At the moment, the 53T6 or PRS-1 missiles are fixed asset combat targets used by the Moscow missile defense system.
    The only they are a means of struggle, and not the main one.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 30 June 2016 08: 32
      +2
      Quote: Bongo
      At the moment, the 53T6 or PRS-1 missiles are fixed asset combat targets used by the Moscow missile defense system.
      The only they are a means of struggle, and not the main one.

      Sergei! Do not understand? Well, the next control shooting to check the warranty period of storage. What's the news?
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 30 June 2016 08: 38
        +5
        Quote: Amurets
        Sergei! Do not understand? Well, the next control shooting to check the warranty period of storage. What's the news?

        That is the news Nikolay. Not storage of course, but health checks. After this launch, another renewal of the resource will follow. With the SAM 5B55P / 5B55RM for the C-300PS this is also regularly carried out.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 30 June 2016 08: 58
          +2
          Quote: Bongo

          That is the news Nikolay. Not storage of course, but health checks. After this launch, another renewal of the resource will follow. With the SAM 5B55P / 5B55RM for the C-300PS this is also regularly carried out.

          Yes, I know. Nowadays, such missiles with an expired shelf life were constantly fired at the firing ranges. That's surprising. Yes, in addition, the comments were not completely printed.
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 30 June 2016 09: 02
            +3
            Quote: Amurets
            Yes, in addition, not yet fully printed comments.

            Did he swear? lol
            1. Amurets
              Amurets 30 June 2016 10: 48
              +2
              Quote: Bongo

              Did he swear?

              He didn’t swear, he simply wrote that the control units and engines should always be inspected after the expiration of the factory warranty for extended service life.
        2. Verdun
          Verdun 30 June 2016 15: 36
          0
          Quote: Bongo
          After this launch, another renewal of the resource will follow.

          And this most likely means that the leadership has a doubt that in the near future an adequate replacement will appear for these missiles. ((
  3. Tsoy
    Tsoy 30 June 2016 07: 09
    +1
    With regards to kinetic interceptors were such developments. Outfit-B, carrier rumble, was designed as a response to the IDF initiative. The development of the interceptor satellite was carried out by the machine-building design bureau (Kolomna). Works ceased at the start of 90's.

    Complex IS-MU / IZZ 14Ф10
    Media 11K69 Cyclone-2

    AES-interceptor 14F10 developed by NPO Mashinostroyenia (Reutov). According to some sources - with 4 space-to-space missiles. The developments were used in 14F11 after 1984.

    Complex 75P6 / IS-MD Outfit / AES 14Ф11

    Cyclone-3 launch vehicle developed by Yuzhnoye Design Bureau. Development discontinued in 1993.


    They seem to have been kinetic interceptors, but I could be wrong. There is very little data.
  4. sergeyzzz
    sergeyzzz 30 June 2016 07: 12
    +6
    Quote: Corporal
    Well, yes, money (or brains), as always, was not enough. For example:

    But you, it seems to you, have a lot of them. This system stands on the day of judgment, when nuclear warheads will fall on us and then it will not be up to the environment, if only to sweep this infection in one fell swoop, otherwise the consequences will be very sad. A non-nuclear warhead is a huge risk of missing a warhead.
  5. Leto
    Leto 30 June 2016 07: 35
    +4
    This launch is likely to extend the warranty period of existing anti-missile

    There is nothing to replace ...
  6. Anton Yu
    Anton Yu 30 June 2016 08: 59
    +1
    According to the data of our military, the missile defense as such does not exist anymore. And our air defense is the best in the world.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 30 June 2016 10: 25
      +4
      Only a missile defense system is in Moscow.
  7. corporal
    corporal 30 June 2016 10: 24
    +3
    Quote: Bongo
    51T6 long-range interception, as we know now in service with such missiles, we do not.

    Sorry, it looked powerful.
  8. abc_alex
    abc_alex 30 June 2016 11: 02
    +3
    Quote: Anton Yu
    According to the data of our military, the missile defense as such does not exist anymore. And our air defense is the best in the world.


    According to the ABM Treaty with the United States from 1972-1974, the country has the right to one missile defense system around the capital. But only. Although the agreement actually ceased to be valid in 2002, we kept it. Therefore, we do not have any other missile defense except Moscow's missile defense. And there are no "no longer". Currently, 68 launchers are deployed around Moscow (according to domestic data), starting positions are located near the settlements of Lytkarino (16 launchers), Skhodnya (16 launchers), Korolev (12 launchers), Vnukovo (12 launchers) and Sofrino (12 launchers) ... It also includes three radars such as "Don" and "Voronezh".

    By the way, the authors are wrong, the 53T6 has a non-nuclear warhead. It is similar to the combat block of missiles of the S-300VM complex.

    We do not have missile defense in the form in which the US is building it, but initially the expert opinion was that the US national missile defense project is inadequate in terms of price and effectiveness.
    1. Anton Yu
      Anton Yu 30 June 2016 13: 09
      0
      Firms of almost all of its allies work on America’s missile defense system and they bear part of the costs. Their missile defense is scattered around the world, mobile, layered. There are several thousand anti-ballistic missiles. In addition, the United States and its allies are working at an accelerated pace to catch up with us in short- and medium-range air defense systems.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. oborzevatel
      oborzevatel 1 July 2016 10: 41
      +1
      Quote: abc_alex
      By the way, the authors are wrong, the 53T6 has a non-nuclear warhead.

      The authors are right, you are not.
      53T6 does not have a non-nuclear warhead, take my word for it.
      In the project - was.
  9. Old26
    Old26 30 June 2016 15: 57
    +1
    Quote: abc_alex
    It also includes three radars such as "Don" and "Voronezh".

    "Voronezh" in the suburbs has never been and never
  10. Nross
    Nross 30 June 2016 17: 43
    +1
    remark:
    during the first half of the eighties, the A-135 system carried out several combat training intercepts of ballistic missiles

    in the 80s, the system was called A-35, its current incarnation in A-135 was completed in 1993.

    I read about the performance characteristics of the product - an unimaginable thing!
    - acceleration on the marching section - from 100g to 140g.
    - rather than burning, a controlled explosion occurs rather in the nozzle of the first stage.
    - the speed of exit from the mine can be compared with a shot from a rifle, that's just the mass of the rocket - more than 10 tons!

    I can’t imagine how the Americans with their Standard-3 are going to implement kinetic interception at such speeds. The latter is more like PR. The high-explosive part of the warhead is needed precisely for guaranteed interception, but one question torments me:

    When, in response to the mass launch of ICBMs, for example, from North Dakota, the A-135 will release ammunition, the first anti-missiles will bring down warheads with a nuclear explosion. How in this environment to carry out anti-missile guidance for subsequent purposes? The atmosphere is ionized from the explosion, and the count goes on for seconds ....
    1. Operator
      Operator 30 June 2016 18: 22
      +1
      Everything is simple: the first in order anti-missiles intercept the leading warheads at a maximum distance of 100 km, the second in order anti-missiles intercept the following APs at a distance of 90 km, the third - at a distance of 80 km, etc.

      This eliminates the screening radar guidance missile defense from areas of ionized air arising from the explosions of neutron warheads of missile defense.

      In this case, the detection radar should be located at a distance of more than 100 km from the missile defense area.
  11. Anton Yu
    Anton Yu 30 June 2016 18: 09
    +1
    Here is an excerpt from a 2013 article: When the argument for the deployment of Iskander missiles with nuclear warheads in the Kaliningrad region appeared, NATO acknowledged that the stationary missile defense position area was vulnerable to attack.
    And it was decided to place the bulk of the missile defense missiles on ships. The coordinates of the ships are not known to the enemy in advance; the Iskander is useless against them. Even if the ships themselves are brought into the Baltic, Barents or Black Sea. To attack them with aviation forces, the defending side must first break through the air defense of the aircraft carrier group.

    Thus, the matter boiled down to the fact that in the coming decades, American guided missile cruisers will be reoriented to missile defense. It is they, instead of aircraft carriers, who are becoming the main striking force of the surface navy in the new conditions. The aircraft carriers and their aviation now have the task of air defense of the fleet, the protection of missile defense cruisers.
  12. Anton Yu
    Anton Yu 30 June 2016 18: 14
    0
    On March 6, 2013, at a joint exercise between the Italian ground forces and the French air force, the SAMP / T medium-range anti-aircraft missile system successfully destroyed a ballistic missile, defense-aerospace.com reports March 7. This was the first interception of a ballistic target within the framework of the functioning of a single NATO missile defense system in Europe.

    The target flew about 300 km before being destroyed by the Aster 30 missile defense. Shooting as part of a test system for technical and operational assessment was carried out on the territory of the DGA missile testing center in Biscarossa (south-west of France) with the participation of personnel of the 4th artillery regiment of the Italian army (permanent location in Mantua, Italy) and the French Air Force Test Center (permanent deployment in Mont de Marsan, France). In October 2010 and November 2011, similar tests were carried out.
  13. Old26
    Old26 30 June 2016 20: 15
    +3
    Quote: abc_alex
    According to the agreement on missile defense with the United States from 1972-1974, the country has the right to one missile defense system around the capital.

    According to the ABM Treaty of May 26, 1972, each of the parties had the right to TWO missile defense area. One around the capital and one around one of the missile bases (Article III of the treaty). The missile defense area had a radius of 150 km.

    Each of the parties could place around the capital no more than one hundred anti-missile launchers and no more than one hundred anti-missile launchers at launch positions and missile defense radars within no more than six missile defense radar systemsand the area of ​​each complex has the shape of a circle with a diameter of not more than three kilometers.

    Each side could place around one of the missile bases no more than one hundred anti-missile launchers and no more than one hundred anti-missile launchers at launch positions, two large phased array radars that are comparable in potential to similar missile defense radars that are in combat formation or under construction at the date of signing the Treaty in the area where the missile defense system is locatedwhere the silo launchers of ICBMs are located, and not more than eighteen radar missile defense radar, each of which has a potential less than the potential of the smaller of the two large missile defense radar with a phased array.

    But according to the Protocol to the ABM Treaty of July 3, 1974, both parties agreed to deploy ONE missile defense area. The Soviet Union chose the capital, the Americans - the base of Grand Force

    Quote: Nross
    I read about the performance characteristics of the product - an unimaginable thing!
    - acceleration on the marching section - from 100g to 140g.
    - rather than burning, a controlled explosion occurs rather in the nozzle of the first stage.
    - the speed of exit from the mine can be compared with a shot from a rifle, that's just the mass of the rocket - more than 10 tons!

    I can’t imagine how the Americans with their Standard-3 are going to implement kinetic interception at such speeds. The latter is more like PR. The high-explosive part of the warhead is needed precisely for guaranteed interception, but one question torments me:

    Features 53T6 really impressive. But here is your comparison of it with "Standard SM-3" somewhat incorrect. Aegis system It is currently a battlefield system, not a strategic one (A-135 strategic). If we consider strategic, then it makes sense then to consider the system GBI

    And now existing options, at least options Block IA и Block IB relate to non-strategic missile defense. Option Block IIA refers to a non-strategic missile defense if it is deployed in Poland and Romania, and to a strategic missile defense if deployed on ships (the deployment is planned to be launched in 2018. By 2021, it is planned to deploy no more 20 interceptors. And only an option, and only an option Block iibif the program is implemented (while it is frozen at least until 2021) there will be a full-fledged strategic missile defense, regardless of where it is based. But even its deployment has its own difficulties.
    1. Parsec
      Parsec 30 June 2016 22: 15
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Americans - Grand Force Base


      The base was called Big Forks, Grand Forks
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  14. berezin1987
    berezin1987 30 June 2016 21: 15
    0
    I wonder if there is a nuclear warhead for C-400 / 500 missiles? Or for Buk-M3. It would be nice to equip them with nuclear warheads for a more effective fight against short- and medium-range missiles. More and more countries are developing missile weapons and not all of them are adequate.
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 30 June 2016 21: 26
      +3
      Quote: berezin1987
      But is there a nuclear warhead for S-400/500 missiles? Or for Buk-M3

      Well, I just can not deny myself the pleasure:

      Quote: Lance
      ... Earlier, the Americans decided not to trifle at all and rushed over their territory in low orbit to a vigorous fool, if memory serves, megatons and a half ...

      Not only that, in some of their cities, all the lights on the lanterns burst, they also carried out a third (!) Of the satellite constellation in low orbits, both ours and ours, with an explosion (EMP).

      On a note of the Union in the style of "What are you, morons ?!" fool ", the Americans replied," Do not deny sad ", after which such" experiments "ceased.

      But the dead satellites still smoked space for a long time, until they left their orbits ...

      Conclusion: this stupidity is anti-aircraft missiles with special warheads yes
      1. Operator
        Operator 30 June 2016 22: 07
        +1
        In the event of a nuclear conflict, the issue of satellite performance will be of last interest.
      2. Bongo
        Bongo 1 July 2016 01: 52
        +3
        Quote: Cat Man Null
        Conclusion: this stupidity is anti-aircraft missiles with special warheads

        Novel, only a person who is far from knowing the specifics of air defense can reason like this. SAMs with "special" warheads are a tool for repelling massive raids by air attack weapons in conditions of tough jamming. In addition to the possibility of hitting group targets, the requirements for the accuracy of targeting missiles are reduced. In the United States in the 60-70s, almost 100% of the Nike-Hercules air defense systems were equipped with nuclear warheads. In our country, this percentage was less, about 5% of the S-125 and S-75 air defense systems carried a "special" warhead (they could use it on the ground) and about 10% of the S-200 air defense missile systems. There are still such missiles for the S-300P, but they have become much less than in the USSR.
        Quote: Cat Man Null
        .. Earlier, the Americans decided not to trifle at all and rushed over their territory in low orbit to a vigorous fool, if memory serves, megatons and a half ...

        Not only that, in some of their cities, all the lights on the lanterns burst, they also carried out a third (!) Of the satellite constellation in low orbits, both ours and ours, with an explosion (EMP).

        This is, to put it mildly, "greatly exaggerated" especially about light bulbs.
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 1 July 2016 02: 09
          0
          Quote: Bongo
          This is, to put it mildly, "greatly exaggerated" especially about light bulbs.

          - I read about the results of that test. There really was nothing about light bulbs. About satellites - it was yes

          Quote: //www.cosmoworld.ru/spaceencyclopedia/publications/index.shtml?zhelez_33.html
          ... The experiment was repeated on July 9 of that year. The Tor missile was launched with serial number 195. This time everything went well. The explosion looked amazing - the nuclear glow was visible on Wake Island at a distance of 2200 kilometers, on Kwajalein Atoll (2600 kilometers) and even in New Zealand, 7000 kilometers south of Johnston!
          In contrast to the tests of 1958, when the first nuclear explosions in space “thundered”, Starfish challenge quickly received publicity and was accompanied by a noisy political campaign. The explosion was monitored by space assets of the USA and the USSR. So, for example, the Soviet satellite Cosmos-5, being 1200 kilometers below the explosion horizon, recorded an instantaneous increase in the intensity of gamma radiation by several orders of magnitude, followed by a decrease of two orders of magnitude in 100 seconds. After the explosion, an extensive and powerful radiation belt arose in the Earth's magnetosphere. At least three satellites entering it were damaged due to the rapid degradation of solar panels.. The presence of this belt had to be taken into account when planning the flights of the Vostok-3 and Vostok-4 manned spaceships in August 1962 and Mercury-8 in October of that year. The effects of pollution of the magnetosphere have been noticeable for several years.

          Quote: Bongo
          Such missiles are still available for the S-300P, but they have become much smaller than in the USSR

          - Thank you, I took note. It pleases me at least that it’s not for Buk, as a friend suggested yes
      3. Vadim237
        Vadim237 1 July 2016 16: 53
        0
        Well, actually, the USA did not conduct high-altitude nuclear explosions over its territory - North Amereka, but we carried out http://gochs.info/p0977.htm
  15. Old26
    Old26 30 June 2016 21: 52
    +1
    Quote: berezin1987
    I wonder if there is a nuclear warhead for C-400 / 500 missiles? Or for Buk-M3. It would be nice to equip them with nuclear warheads for a more effective fight against short- and medium-range missiles. More and more countries are developing missile weapons and not all of them are adequate.

    But what for are they needed? It is clear that they were at the old complexes, because the calculation was on a massive raid of bombers. KR were not especially widespread then and the calculation was based on bombs. Now why. Well, a certain country is developing rocket weapons, so there are not so many of these countries, such ranges that not everyone will reach our territory. And those complexes that can be used now as missile defense systems are not so long-range, and countries do not have mass missiles either. So I think this is not a very necessary device for these complexes
  16. Old26
    Old26 1 July 2016 00: 01
    0
    Quote: Parsec
    Quote: Old26
    Americans - Grand Force Base


    The base was called Big Forks, Grand Forks

    Thanks for the fix. I wrote from memory