PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems

Discussion in 'Army' started by FORBIN, Mar 31, 2015.

  1. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    I wouldn't know if the R-33 is that incapable. The MiG-31 was developed for, among other things, to be able to intercept low-altitude cruise missiles.
    Otherwise it wouldn't need to have look-down/shoot-down capability.

    Still, a dual pulse motor missile like the PL-15 is much more advanced than anything the US currently has available. The US had similar programs a couple decades ago but they never went anywhere.
     
    #251 gelgoog, Apr 30, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2019
    antiterror13 and Biscuits like this.
  2. Hendrik_2000
    Offline

    Hendrik_2000 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,698
    Likes Received:
    26,762
    I don't know why would any one bring ground based missile system which never worked as advertised Recnet testing improve the odd somehow but still unreliable It is good against the like of Norko But against swarm of missile it is completely useless
    As to PAC 3 most of the test are rigged since they know the ballistic trajectory of the incoming missile
    China now fielding skipping warhead and hypersonic warhead which is difficult to intercept

    Last week on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, Trump told the TV show host, "We have missiles that can knock out a missile in the air 97 percent of the time, and if you send two of them it's gonna get knocked out." Trump was referring to Ground-based Midcourse Defense, an anti-ballistic missile killer stationed at Fort Greeley, Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The President brought this up, of course, in reference to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un and reports that his country now has the ability to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile armed with a nuclear warhead at the United States.

    The problem with Trump's claim? It's simply not true. Ground-based Midcourse Defense missiles have been tested eighteen times, with ten successful intercepts of a simulated incoming warhead. That's not 97.5 percent, that's only 56 percent. The United States is simply not as safe as Trump claims.
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a28653/us-missile-defense-accuracy/
    There are currently 36 GMD interceptors deployed to defend the United States. If four GMD interceptors, each with a 56 percent kill probability, were launched a single incoming North Korean missile, the probability that the missile would be shot down rises to 97 percent. (The Pentagon is believed to allocate four or five interceptors per warhead, just to be sure.) But as Panda and Narang point out, Trump's talk makes it clear he was talking about the accuracy of individual interceptors.
     
    antiterror13, Equation and Biscuits like this.
  3. Hendrik_2000
    Offline

    Hendrik_2000 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,698
    Likes Received:
    26,762
    #253 Hendrik_2000, Apr 30, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2019
  4. Tetrach
    Offline

    Tetrach Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2019
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    143
    It looks gigantic !
     
  5. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,150
    Likes Received:
    3,936
    That is not technology, that is brute force. Do you have any idea what goes into a solid fueled rocket? Its mainly a tube, filled with a chemical in powder form that resembles explosive.

    Anyone can choose to make missiles bigger, but that also limits to how many you can move and carry them.

    I am not so sure. China conducted more ABM tests under the radar than both Russia and the US and don't seem to be declaring about it. The same goes with hypersonic and ASAT tests. The blogger East Pendulum has been tracking this.

    R-37 is an enormous sized missile. Its as big as an HQ-16 that is literally slung under a wing. The problem of such a weapon you can only carry two of them or need a MiG-31, but something like a PL-15 is much smaller, more maneuverable, and depending on plane, can carry four, maybe six of them, or use smaller fighters like the J-10C.
     
  6. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,150
    Likes Received:
    3,936
    No you don't. There is something called End Stage or Reentry Phase Interception, and that is what missiles like PAC-3, SM-3, SM-6 all rely on, and the same goes with the S-300 and S-400. Even THAAD intercepts on the reentry phase. Russia uses a different missile (A-135) that has midcourse interception. GMD is actually a missile on its own and this missile does midcourse intercept. But we know China blew up a satellite at 850km altitude using a ASAT kinetic kill vehicle. That's farther than any nation has gone in space for a kill.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chinese_anti-ballistic_missile_test

    China ASAT test in 2014
    https://spacenews.com/41413us-state-department-china-tested-anti-satellite-weapon/

    China ABM popped a missile in space in 2018.
    https://www.popsci.com/china-space-missile-test
     
    #256 Tam, Apr 30, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2019
    antiterror13 and Biscuits like this.
  7. ougoah
    Offline

    ougoah Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    1,728
    Calling me unprofessional while you tout s300 and s400 BMD capabilities? Lol okay. Just because I didn't want to quote the designation because it's all rumours just like s500, doesn't mean it isn't there. If s500 is taken for granted as premier BMD in the series which is all based off rumours, then why not believe hq26 hq29 and dn3? At least China proved even 12 years ago it has ability to perfectly intercept one of the fastest moving small satellites in orbit... on the first attempt and test of the new asat missile. A capability Russia hasn't even made a big claim about being able to do yet and still they keep talking up their new weapons so it's not exactly for secrecy sake.

    Seems like you understand eff all about ABM if you take s500 claims at face value but dismiss all others. Btw I got your designation numbers now. They are called hq26 and hq29. Been around for close to a decade now... As leaks even. Probably retired and replaced by better systems already.

    For the US? Sm3 and sm6? They're certainly great missile but useful against only North Korea, India, Pakistan out of those nations with ICBM and SLBMs. Against latest China and Russia delivery systems, they may as well not bother. It's not even a matter of numbers anymore. This is exactly why Russia and China don't bother much about BMD. They can't defend against their only main nuclear rival the USA. Against India, what China's got is plenty enough.

    No one claimed China had exclusivity on ground based midcourse defense :rolleyes:

    China doesn't field r37 and R33 because they've got much better stuff. Why wouldn't they buy these missiles if they were so good? The Chinese just keep thing sunder wraps for longer. Recall pakda super duper exoatmospheric bomber?? One reveals all but delivers low. The other just doesn't go around showing everything. Btw Chinese pl21 and plxx are the R34 range equivalents. Again, because we don't know the designation, it doesn't mean these missiles don't exist. Looks like China's already fielded a zircon like hypersonic ashm missile while Russians and Indians are drawing their's up and hyping up their renderings to everyone :D
     
  8. ougoah
    Offline

    ougoah Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    1,728
    There's a good reason why missiles like Phoenix have been retired for so long now and never been replaced. Take a hint. The Meteor is currently the world's best disclosed a2a missile. Pl15 with dual pulse motor and latest aesa seekers are great for mass produced affordable missiles. Outrages 120D. Not sure about jam resistance but ceteris paribus, it is a better missile. The same reasons to doubt it can apply for any other missile. The ramjet powered plaaf missile and the sleek j16 carried long ranger are both probably better than R37. A missile which China has rejected. And no wonder. R37 relies on raw size and fuel load for its range. It seems to totally lack sophistication. At least make a ramjet powered one similar to meteor.
     
  9. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    The Russians have ramjet powered missiles as well like the Kh-31. But that missile is less manuverable and uses liquid fuel which is cumbersome.
    The Meteor uses a novel solid propellant formulation to achieve that range, so there is more to it than the ramjet.
     
  10. ougoah
    Offline

    ougoah Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    1,728
    The Russians have not fielded a ramjet powered a2a missile that is designed to engage fast small and maneuvrable targets like the meteor is. As far as well know, the US hasn't either but they are relying on fifth geb advantages to gain air superiority. Meteor has not been made compatible with F22 or f35 as far as we know. Their aim120D is more than deadly enough for the job.

    There have been diagram rendering leaks of the ramjet a2a missile of the plaaf. I don't doubt these two long range a2a missiles in plaaf are ready if not already in service. Wasn't there also a pl12 mod with ramjet? The same material showed two ramjet a2a missiles.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. aikea
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    6,231
  2. Roger604
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    12,266
  3. MIGleader
    Replies:
    92
    Views:
    48,871
  4. hardware
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    23,134
  5. challenge
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    31,142

Share This Page