TOPOL-M invincible?

Sandman · 06-05-2006, 10:02 AM

Russians claim no missile defense can stop their new hypersonic, maneuvering warhead. Can our new NMD, THAAD and SM-3 ABMs stop it? I know what some will say, 'we aren't building an ABM system to take on the Russians', but I disagree. Major power competition continues, even if it is behind the scenes.

HistoricalDavid · 06-05-2006, 11:14 AM

To build an ABM system capable of really defending against the Russians would require hundreds of billions of dollars of investment. You'd have to return to Cold War levels of national militarisation.

They simply have too many missiles, Topol-M or not.

As for the Topol-M itself, I would take it with a pinch of salt. Anything going Mach 20 so high up in the atmosphere is going to have a turning circle the size of Whoopi Goldberg. Depending on its axis of attack, if it has one warhead, two or three would probably be successfully intercepted. If it's MIRVed with up to six, probably not.

Building an ABM system capable of reliably defending against hundreds of missiles is simply going to be too expensive.

The best defence still remains nuclear retaliation, in which the United States's advantage grows practically every day.

http://www.nukestrat.com/russia/subpatrols.htm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...stockpiles.png

sparten · 06-05-2006, 11:32 AM

Much rather have the Topol against you, rather than SS-18s, SS-24. Or even the SS-19.

Anyway, the biggest Ruskie threats, i.e the Typhoons, are gone.

hello · 06-05-2006, 12:50 PM

How about the ABL-1 Airborne Lasers potential capability to stop it? No matter how fast it goes, nothing's faster than light.

HistoricalDavid · 06-05-2006, 13:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hello

How about the ABL-1 Airborne Lasers potential capability to stop it? No matter how fast it goes, nothing's faster than light.

Not operational yet, and its designed to intercept very close to the launch point by burning a hole in the missile and letting the fuel escape, perhaps even blowing it up.

It would be good against primitive launches from North Korea or Iran, and perhaps against China's DF-5.

Perhaps it could be adapted to melt a warhead in re-entry but the primary concern with building a specifically anti-Russian ABM system is the considerable quantity of missiles they still have.

I do find the Russian proclamation that the Topol-M can defeat "any" American ABM system supremely arrogant, though.

Vadim · 06-05-2006, 13:38 PM

The Topol is a multi warheaded missile, each one can be shot down but I don't think that is possible, there are just too many of them.

Anon · 06-05-2006, 15:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandman

Russians claim no missile defense can stop their new hypersonic, maneuvering warhead. Can our new NMD, THAAD and SM-3 ABMs stop it? I know what some will say, 'we aren't building an ABM system to take on the Russians', but I disagree. Major power competition continues, even if it is behind the scenes.

SM-3 would definitely stop it.

SM-3 is a BOOST phase interceptor.

highsea · 06-05-2006, 16:20 PM

Lots of hype, imo. I don't think Topol-M is even operational yet. The main reason it's less vulnerable is because it's mobile, and as such cannot be effectively pre-targeted.

As far as shooting one down, all missiles are vulnerable in boost phase to THAAD, SM-3, even PAC-3. ABL is also a boost phase defense. The trick is to have an ABM system within range at the right time. Hard to do in many cases.

All ICBM's are hypersonic by definition. How much manouverability can you really get in an RV? It has to be pre-programmed manouvers, since you are not going to have reliable communications during reentry, and you do not carry fuel/engines for manouvers (let alone detection capabilities to determine if the RV's even being targeted by another missile). And any manouvering will be very limited in scope if you still plan to hit the target- there's just not much room to dork around when you have an unpowered RV that is set on trajectory from orbit.

Lol. But if Putin says it, then it has to be true...

gunnut · 06-05-2006, 17:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

Lol. But if Putin says it, then it has to be true...

That's right!!!

urmomma158 · 06-05-2006, 20:38 PM

This is nothing breakthrough of the sort. Maneuvring hypersonic vehilces we're tested by the US in the 80's. I wonder how it stands up to the latest GMD upgrade(each missile with this upgrade could take on several missiles). Ill post links tommorow I gotta find em.

Sandman · 06-06-2006, 01:24 AM

Ok, here is another one; Is THAAD an ABM in the anti-ICBM sense? More importantly, is it intended to be deployed on US soil against ballistic "threats"? (it seems that after the ABM treaty was put to rest the "T" in THAAD went from "Theatre" to "Terminal" or some other definition, but I don't exactly remember which) I have read somewhere that it pushed the limits of the ABM treaty, and possibly exceeded them. How does THAAD compare to Russian systems of the SA-10/12/20 series? And how does this 'maneuvering warhead' on Topol compare with what the British supposadly had on their SLBM warheads (supposadly MARV)?

urmomma158 · 06-06-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

The program, overseen by the Missile Defense Agency and the Army Space and Missile Defense Technical Center, is portrayed as a cost-effective way to take multiple shots at a single incoming missile equipped with multiple decoys or warheads. One interceptor equipped with a bevy of MKVs could do the job of several interceptors each equipped with one regular-sized kill vehicle. Graham said the program's goal is for the MKVs used on one interceptor to cost as much as, or less than, one GMD EKV.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/sea...2Fkil01094.xml

I'd like to see the Topol M dodge a bunch of small soda can size interceptors.MIRVS'made ICBMs difficult to stop and it's agreat idea for missile defense too.

Quote:

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. - U.S. missile defense developers have discovered that the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, designed to destroy short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in their final stages of flight, will also be capable of shooting down longer-range targets.

At the seventh annual space and missile defense conference here, Army Col. Charles Driessnack, THAAD's program manager, said in a speech late Aug. 18 and at a press briefing Aug. 19 that recent tests of the system's Raytheon-built radar have shown that THAAD will have a "residual" capability against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

"We weren't planning to have the ICBM capability," but the radar is "outperforming what we thought it was supposed to do," Driessnack said.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/sea...2Ftha08204.xml

THAAD can intercept ICBM's. if you read the article there's a hint in there suggesting future variants will have longer ranges.

Quote:

To penetrate a layered (exoatmospheric and terminal) defense, ABRES focused on a maneuvering reentry vehicle. This vehicle would be coupled with an early-reentry decoy, which would remain viable down to the altitude at which the reentry vehicle could maneuver. Researchers determined that the extremely high lateral g forces that the maneuvering reentry vehicle could pull would be more than sufficient to evade the terminal interceptors.
Minuteman III launch

The Minuteman II had a much longer range than its predecessor and was the first U.S. ICBM to use decoys in its warhead section. (U.S. Air Force)

The first maneuvering vehicles tested were large flap-based units, three of which were successfully flight-tested over the Pacific in the late 1960s. Vehicles that used reaction jets to maneuver were also considered, but design studies and wind tunnel data indicated that the simpler flap arrangement could perform all the maneuvers required. Three full-scale flap-based vehicles were flown over the Pacific Ocean in 1973–1974, followed by three successful preprototype flight tests of the Advanced Maneuvering Reentry Vehicle in 1981. The vehicle was declared operational for the Minuteman III or the MX.

The success of the Advanced Maneuvering Reentry Vehicle was made possible in part by its innovative guidance system, a small nuclear-hardened inertial platform that could achieve the same accuracy as a ballistic reentry vehicle even after experiencing high-level accelerations. Eight years had gone into the development of this guidance platform, and its introduction was highly significant. Whereas guidance systems for ballistic missiles can weigh well over 100 kilograms and only have to withstand acceleration up to 10 g's, the guidance system for the Advanced Maneuvering Reentry Vehicle could weigh no more than 13–18 kilograms and had to retain accuracy after experiencing g forces more than an order of magnitude higher. The early design employed small gyros and accelerometers in a small, hardened, gimbaled platform, which was immersed in a liquid to relieve the g force loads; however, this arrangement generated thermodynamic and chemical interactions among the electronics, instruments, and liquid. These problems were eventually resolved, and the small hardened inertial platform achieved its performance goals, providing a model for future development.

http://www.aero.org/publications/cro...er2003/02.html

US MARV tested in the 80's.^^^^^The TopolM is nowhere near revolutionary. Besides they don't have too many TopolM 's.

urmomma158 · 06-06-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

SM-3 would definitely stop it.

SM-3 is a BOOST phase interceptor.

Yea but what if the TopoM is laucnhed in the middile of Russianterritory. No doubt any of em in the Ship's engagemnt range would be taken out though.

Sandman · 06-06-2006, 14:36 PM

Nice post, thanks urmomma.
Amazing article, we possibly will have multiple warheads shooting down multiple warheads, mirvs shooting down mirvs! LOL

And were the US warheads mentioned in the above article MARVs or were these just experiments? Holy cow, that is the first I have heard of this, I only thought the British had MARVs.

urmomma158 · 06-06-2006, 15:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandman

Nice post, thanks urmomma.
Amazing article, we possibly will have multiple warheads shooting down multiple warheads, mirvs shooting down mirvs! LOL

And were the US warheads mentioned in the above article MARVs or were these just experiments? Holy cow, that is the first I have heard of this, I only thought the British had MARVs.

You're welcome Sandman.
They we're real MARV's. I wonder why we don't use them in our ICBM's, i mean they have some great advantages?????

I love aviationnow they always get great info and material that even Jane's,GLobalsecurity,Defensetech, etc etc etc can't get.Yet again another great invention by the Americans. Watch those other people copy it,( too bad MIRV loaded interceptors dont have copyrights).

Well that's life.
I know for sure THAAD can intercept at much higher altotudes than the SA 10,12, or 20. The double digit sam series were made for TBM defense but if you datlink themw ith those large EW/Battlemanagement radars you can intercept an ICBM(not like they'll last if the US attacks anyways thus crippling their ability to intercept ICBMS).

These sites have aot of technical material on the double digit sams if you're interested.
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Asia-Sams-Pt1.pdf
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Asia-Sams-Pt2.pdf

Ausairpower is another great site with Alot of info on the regions latest military tech as well a lot of info on our latest fighters like the Raptor and JSF.It's highly reliable since Carlo Kopp is a great defense analyst and his articles are published by magazines like Jane's,Defense today,Austrailian aviation and the US and AUS air force's.

Quote:

A top U.S. intelligence official and arms-control analyst, interviewed by Insight on the condition that his name be withheld, vigorously rejects the Russian claims. In a detailed rebuttal of Lee's analysis, he says the United States has carried out a technical analysis of the SA-10 and SA-12 systems and concludes they simply were not fast enough to intercept incoming ICBMs. The Soviets might have wanted to integrate the interceptors into a national missile-defense network, he says, but never demonstrated the capability. Even if such a network had been set up, he argues, the interceptors were just too slow to be effective against ICBMs...... But, according to the new Russian source material, Soviet designers worked around the slow speed of the interceptors by passing target data to them from huge battle-management radars positioned thousands of kilometers away. That gave them enough warning to launch the interceptors in time to kill the incoming warheads. The Russians also made clear that the main ABM system protecting Moscow was just as dependent as the SAMs/ ABMs on receiving target-tracking data from distant battle-management radars.

The Moscow-system missiles, the SA-5 and SA-10/12, were tipped with small nuclear warheads so they didn't require the incredible bullet-hitting-bullet complexity of the U.S. systems developed during the Clinton years. U.S. spy satellites repeatedly identified tactical nuclear-warhead storage sites at the interceptor bases spread across the Soviet empire.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl..._74337128/pg_7
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl..._74337128/pg_8

Anyways nuclear tipped interceptors have their own disadvantages like blinding your radars. Even hardened rdar's are vulnerable to a shallow airburst.
Even with hardened radars and high yield interceptors a system with 100 intercepots would be overwhelmed by 200 MIRVS approximate.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.p...ma04kristensen
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.p...=nd03zimmerman

That should help.^^^^

06-05-2006, 10:02 AM	#1 (permalink)
Sandman *Military Professional* Join Date: 07-05-05 Location: Northern Michigan Posts: 218 Country:	TOPOL-M invincible? Russians claim no missile defense can stop their new hypersonic, maneuvering warhead. Can our new NMD, THAAD and SM-3 ABMs stop it? I know what some will say, 'we aren't building an ABM system to take on the Russians', but I disagree. Major power competition continues, even if it is behind the scenes.

06-05-2006, 11:14 AM	#2 (permalink)
HistoricalDavid Distant Deeps or Skies *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-19-05 Location: North London, UK Posts: 2,006 Country:	To build an ABM system capable of really defending against the Russians would require hundreds of billions of dollars of investment. You'd have to return to Cold War levels of national militarisation. They simply have too many missiles, Topol-M or not. As for the Topol-M itself, I would take it with a pinch of salt. Anything going Mach 20 so high up in the atmosphere is going to have a turning circle the size of Whoopi Goldberg. Depending on its axis of attack, if it has one warhead, two or three would probably be successfully intercepted. If it's MIRVed with up to six, probably not. Building an ABM system capable of reliably defending against hundreds of missiles is simply going to be too expensive. The best defence still remains nuclear retaliation, in which the United States's advantage grows practically every day. http://www.nukestrat.com/russia/subpatrols.htm http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...stockpiles.png Last edited by HistoricalDavid : 06-05-2006 at 11:20 AM.

06-05-2006, 11:32 AM	#3 (permalink)
sparten Actus Reus *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 04-10-04 Location: You would like to know would'nt you? Posts: 1,692 Country:	Much rather have the Topol against you, rather than SS-18s, SS-24. Or even the SS-19. Anyway, the biggest Ruskie threats, i.e the Typhoons, are gone. __________________ "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

06-05-2006, 16:20 PM	#8 (permalink)
highsea *Defense Professional* Join Date: 12-10-04 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3,478	Lots of hype, imo. I don't think Topol-M is even operational yet. The main reason it's less vulnerable is because it's mobile, and as such cannot be effectively pre-targeted. As far as shooting one down, all missiles are vulnerable in boost phase to THAAD, SM-3, even PAC-3. ABL is also a boost phase defense. The trick is to have an ABM system within range at the right time. Hard to do in many cases. All ICBM's are hypersonic by definition. How much manouverability can you really get in an RV? It has to be pre-programmed manouvers, since you are not going to have reliable communications during reentry, and you do not carry fuel/engines for manouvers (let alone detection capabilities to determine if the RV's even being targeted by another missile). And any manouvering will be very limited in scope if you still plan to hit the target- there's just not much room to dork around when you have an unpowered RV that is set on trajectory from orbit. Lol. But if Putin says it, then it has to be true... __________________ My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

06-06-2006, 01:24 AM	#11 (permalink)
Sandman *Military Professional* Join Date: 07-05-05 Location: Northern Michigan Posts: 218 Country:	Ok, here is another one; Is THAAD an ABM in the anti-ICBM sense? More importantly, is it intended to be deployed on US soil against ballistic "threats"? (it seems that after the ABM treaty was put to rest the "T" in THAAD went from "Theatre" to "Terminal" or some other definition, but I don't exactly remember which) I have read somewhere that it pushed the limits of the ABM treaty, and possibly exceeded them. How does THAAD compare to Russian systems of the SA-10/12/20 series? And how does this 'maneuvering warhead' on Topol compare with what the British supposadly had on their SLBM warheads (supposadly MARV)? Last edited by Sandman : 06-06-2006 at 09:17 AM.

06-05-2006, 12:50 PM	#4 (permalink)
hello Contributor Join Date: 05-31-05 Posts: 683	How about the ABL-1 Airborne Lasers potential capability to stop it? No matter how fast it goes, nothing's faster than light.

06-05-2006, 13:38 PM	#6 (permalink)
Vadim New Member Join Date: 05-28-06 Posts: 21	The Topol is a multi warheaded missile, each one can be shot down but I don't think that is possible, there are just too many of them.

06-05-2006, 20:38 PM	#10 (permalink)
urmomma158 the real plastic *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 03-05-06 Location: NJ Turnpike Posts: 937 Country:	This is nothing breakthrough of the sort. Maneuvring hypersonic vehilces we're tested by the US in the 80's. I wonder how it stands up to the latest GMD upgrade(each missile with this upgrade could take on several missiles). Ill post links tommorow I gotta find em.

06-06-2006, 14:36 PM	#14 (permalink)
Sandman *Military Professional* Join Date: 07-05-05 Location: Northern Michigan Posts: 218 Country:	Nice post, thanks urmomma. Amazing article, we possibly will have multiple warheads shooting down multiple warheads, mirvs shooting down mirvs! LOL And were the US warheads mentioned in the above article MARVs or were these just experiments? Holy cow, that is the first I have heard of this, I only thought the British had MARVs. Last edited by Sandman : 06-06-2006 at 14:44 PM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode