Interesting Info on Migs vs. AMRAAMs

[GGTharos]

Yeah well, that's because the Israelis insisted that Israel put its own crewsin the PAtriots, who were untrained to operate the equipment.

 

THe problem with intercepting a TBM isn't so much hitting the missile: Lots of Patriots actually hit their marks. The problem is that you have to reliably destroy the warhead, which is not as easy. Since it's a ballistic missile, the warhead will continue on the desired trajectory unless destroyed - sure, the weapon will be off its mark. Maybe by 300m, maybe by 1500m. Won't matter much if the warhead's an airburst chemical/biological or nuclear payload. I hope that sheds some light on what the real problems are.

 

As for hitting a missile with a missile, Patriot has been tested against its own interceptors: That's right, a Patriot can shoot down another Patriot, and those are rather fast missiles.

 

In addition the usual target practice is done against the Lance ballistic missile simulator (it's a ballistic missile, but it has no warhead), so expectations of hitting missiles with other missiles are fairly realistic.

 

Now, if you compare TBM's to aircraft: TBMs will typically fly a very predictable trajectory and will not attempt to maneuver much - despite this, the PAtriot can reliably hit SCUDs that were 'barell rolling' between 2-5g, as it did in GW (The missiles were doing this barrel roll due to shoddy construction) and the algorithm for intercepting a target using such maneuvers was later optimized and perfected as well.

 

By comparison, an aircraft can change direction several times, used jammers, deploy expendable countermeasures and in general fly a missile-unfriendly profile - so no, AA missiles don't have to be much more effective against A/C just because they can hit TBMs.

 

Hitting a TBM is a guidance problem, not one of maneuverability - hitting an Aircraft is a maneuverability problem, not a guidance problem.

[Oceandar]

I agree with D-Scythe that it shouldnt come as much of a surprise that AMRAAM equipped F-15Cs would have a distinct advantage over R-27R equipped MiG-29As - the latter is a tech generation behind the former

Nice put JJ rep inbound ;)

Well I think MiG-29 is cursed !! look at its combat record, never score kill in any war (pls bann me if I`m wrong :D) you can always argue 10 F-15C`s vs 1 MiG-29 is not a fair combat but if MiG-29 is really good it should at least score 1 kill even against a transport lol (ok this one is kidding)

Thank God my country won`t buy MiG-29, Sukhoi rule lol

 

Cheers

 

P.s Hiya mods I think this forum too many sticky, you might want to do something with it.

[Cosmonaut]

Ah that makes sense .. especially the part regarding the predictable flight path... of course SCUD not Skud :icon_redf hehe

[Guest IguanaKing]

Does the SCUD use an actual MIRV as its warhead, or is the warhead simply delivered by the booster?

[GGTharos]

No, the SCUD does not use a MIRV, since it doesn't go into orbit (Multiple RE-ENTRY vehicle) ;) The SCUD, to my knowledge, delivers a single warhead, not multiple warheads/submunitions..

[Kula66]

From what I remember, some of the Scuds broke up into multiple chunks (due to modifications the Iraqis had done to the design) high in the atmosphere and therefore appeared as multiple tracks ... these then triggered additional multiple shots .... hence the videos of loads of Patriots launching at a single incoming Scud ... $10s millions v's an old load of bits!

[GGTharos]

Yep. But it's worth it if one those bits is a 10kt warhead! Or chemical/biological.

 

What this demonstrates is that a ballistic missile implementing counter-measures (ie. decoys) can overwhelm air defenses.

[Kula66]

Wasn't the problem that the Patriot would detonate and shred the incoming warhead, but you still have 1000lbs of metal travelling at 1000's mph - which would still hurt. I guess IF it was a chem/bio/nuc warhead, the detonation would shred the electronics/detonator and the thing wouldn't perform as designed and just smash into the ground. Still make a nasty mess, but not as bad as a true nuc burst, or chemical warhead at optimum height etc.

[GGTharos]

In the case of THOSE SCUDs, yes - because they were only armed with HE warheads - but, how would you know?

 

It's not like a misisle hit will disintegrate a ballistic missile and make it vanish. The debris WILL shower the impact point because it is a BALLISTIC missile. It's following a ballistic trajectory shaped by gravity, and your missiles won't change that - while you can make it do minimal damage to an army post by say, missing a barracks (after all, the trajectory IS altered, the point is, not by much) but if it's coming down onto a city, altering its impact point by 200-1000m isn't going to make much of a difference, wether you destroy the warhead or not (if it is an HE warhead) ... on the other hand, if it is a WMD, then you've made a huge difference, potentially bursting the warhead where it won't cause any big problems.

[Guest IguanaKing]

No, the SCUD does not use a MIRV, since it doesn't go into orbit (Multiple RE-ENTRY vehicle) ;) The SCUD, to my knowledge, delivers a single warhead, not multiple warheads/submunitions..

 

Actually, I was already pretty sure that I knew that. I was just asking for confirmation. So, not only does this affect the velocity of the incoming projectile, but also its size. BTW...the "I" part means "independently-targetable". ;) So, a defender would be dealing with a MUCH smaller, MUCH faster projectile if the missile were an ICBM, as opposed to an SRBM, IRBM, or MRBM which mostly deliver their ordnance on the end of a booster travelling at lower speeds. But, since US and NATO doctrine has always been to establish air superiority over the battlefield, it doesn't surprise me at all that SA missile systems were designed with BM and CM interception as a priority.

[Kula66]

Well, you would know after the first one :(

 

It would certainly have been an interesting scenario if WW3 had happened in the mid-1980s to see if all those TBMs that the Soviets had could have neutalised NATO airbases ... raining Scuds!

[GGTharos]

Yep ... those would be much smaller targets, but this isn't an issue due to their trajectory (youv'e got zero clutter, and thus little noise to deal with - this means you can pick'em up at reasonable ranges, well, you'd hope, anyway - in truth you need to pick up an ICBM and track it before a Patriot or S300 could hope to do so - then those systems know where to look and can engage quickly)

[Guest IguanaKing]

... on the other hand, if it is a WMD, then you've made a huge difference, potentially bursting the warhead where it won't cause any big problems.

 

Or killing it before it is armed, which also makes a HUGE difference, especially with a nuke. There is a danger of radiation from the weapon core, but the cores are usually designed to resist breach under unbelievable adverse conditions...including explosions and ground impacts. The vehicle itself may do damage in the target area, but the payload is usually rendered ineffective.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yep ... those would be much smaller targets, but this isn't an issue due to their trajectory (youv'e got zero clutter, and thus little noise to deal with - this means you can pick'em up at reasonable ranges, well, you'd hope, anyway - in truth you need to pick up an ICBM and track it before a Patriot or S300 could hope to do so - then those systems know where to look and can engage quickly)

 

Not quite true. The size and velocity of the targets increases the need for accurate calculations...the margin of error shrinks exponentially. ;)

[GGTharos]

Exposure to the core isn't a huge deal - I mean, it's fairly low-radioactivity stuff. On the other hand, if it explodes, then you need to worry about radiation - but, if you explode it while it's 100km in the air, it won't be such a big deal unless it's oneof those huge multi-megaton weapons, which could cause some serious heat issues.

 

Effects of radation (other than heat) are typically confined to a small area around the blast effects from small tactical weapons, and well inside the blast effects for larger warheads.

[Trident]

Another point to consider is that AFAIK many modern ICBMs have so-called 'salvage fuzes' that will detonate the warhead if it senses that it is being hit. Nasty!

 

Also, even ICBMs are just that, ballistic missiles just with a very long range. Orbital nukes (FOBS) are banned by treaties atleast between the USA and the USSR/Russia.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Actually, exposure to the core IS a big deal, both U235 and Pu239 present radiation which is several magnitudes larger than background. In many cases, unprotected human exposure results in death in 30 seconds or less. But, like you say, radiation is limited to a very small area, unless of course it is dispersed by normal conditions such as wind.

[GGTharos]

Actually, exposure to the core IS a big deal, both U235 and Pu239 present radiation which is several magnitudes larger than background. In many cases, unprotected human exposure results in death in 30 seconds or less. But, like you say, radiation is limited to a very small area, unless of course it is dispersed by normal conditions such as wind.

 

 

Er ... what?

 

It took people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as Chernobyl no less than an hour to die from exposure to much more radiation than what a nuke's payload emits before it is detonated. Check your facts ;)

[Guest IguanaKing]

Already have. I'll be a little more specific, since it is actually untrue that death actually OCCURS in 30 seconds. What I meant to say is that a human being can receive a lethal dose of radiation in as little as 30 seconds. It may take them longer than that to die, but once that limit is exceeded, there is very little that can be done to stop the death. ;)

[tflash]

Er ... what?

 

It took people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as Chernobyl no less than an hour to die from exposure to much more radiation than what a nuke's payload emits before it is detonated. Check your facts ;)

 

How reassuring, GG. I guess that this thread really needs to go back to the original issue.

[GGTharos]

Already have. I'll be a little more specific, since it is actually untrue that death actually OCCURS in 30 seconds. What I meant to say is that a human being can receive a lethal dose of radiation in as little as 30 seconds. It may take them longer than that to die, but once that limit is exceeded, there is very little that can be done to stop the death. ;)

 

 

You're not likely to get lethal exposure that quickly from the core; it's not in critical mass so it's not really blasting neutrons around like reactor slag ... sure, it's unlikely to be good for you, but I think the lethal dose factor here is 'up close' 'personnal' and 'over several minutes' at the very least. I'm sure I could dig up radiation emission data somewhere if it was really that big a deal.

[Guest IguanaKing]

No need to. Exposure to the fissile or fusible core of a nuclear device is often fatal, that is one of many reasons that so much attention is paid to the containment of such material under all kinds of foreseeable, real-world circumstances. Because accidents happen, and the core needs to be protected against accidental breach. Again, the "up close and personal" factor depends on the dispersion of the radioactive elements, which can easily be done by wind combined with normal, every day, human activity. There are also several types of particles/rays involved. Some need to actually be eaten or otherwise taken internally to cause problems. Others can be stopped by simple clothing. Still others, like gamma rays, will pretty much pass through almost anything a human can wear on their body. ALL can be carried on dust and other materials from point A to point B by people, animals, wind, vehicles or any combination of the above. In short, its best to keep the core contained, which is one of the reasons most nukes are built this way. ;)

[schimmel]

Uranium and all fissible material are heavy elements. So even without being enriched it has the same health issues as f.ex. lead. It stays in your body for the whole life. This also leads to some concerns with the uranium amunition.

 

Now if it is enriched, it is even worse. It radiates the much more harmfull alpha particles. If measured the radiation may not be too high. But it is the most lethal one, and it stays in your body for the whole life. So chances are high that you will get some random cancer.

 

Since heavy metals are mainly absorbed by swallowing you can easily protect yourself by a suit.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yup. Exposure to these elements is a cumulative event, every exposure just adds more to your system, since it cannot be naturally expelled. They are all hazardous for this reason, but the radioactive isotopes add that one, extra gotcha to the equation. But, heavy metal poisoning requires ingestion of either a solid or liquid form of the element, or the ingestion of vapor. In my instrument lab, I always have to be concerned about the air temperature, since Mercury vapor concentration can reach dangerous levels at a mere 79 degrees fahrenheit. Radioactive elements don't always require ingestion to have fatal consequences though, depending on the type of ionizing radiation that they emit. In any case, the point I was originally trying to make is that it is far better to have an exposed nuclear device core laying around after a cold nuke is intercepted, than to hit it with an explosive device AFTER it has been armed. At that point, it is possible that fission or fusion (with fission being much more possible than fusion, so a fusion device would be less likely to have a chain reaction) could take place, and THAT would definitely be bad. ;)

 

To stray even further from the topic...LOL...Fat Man and Little Boy had to be armed in flight because the commanders in charge of the operation were concerned about the possibility of a crash on take-off which could cause either weapon to go nuclear. So, arming of the bombs was practiced for weeks on the ground on Tinian. The problem was, during summer in places like Tinian, the temperature inside an aluminum can such as an airplane could reach as high as 150 degrees fahrenheit. So, the technicians were well-practiced in arming the bombs in a high-temp environment, but they weren't at all prepared for the environmental conditions of the actual mission. During the mission, they were expected to do the same job in temperatures between -30 to -60 degrees fahrenheit. As someone who has experienced both extremes while doing technical, precise work on aircraft, I can tell you that everything is different. You perform differently, your manual dexterity is affected differently, and even the performance of your tools is different (some tool contact surfaces even tend to shatter at low temperatures). In high temps, it is difficult to hold onto some of your tools. In low temps, it is often difficult to let them go. ;)

[Pilotasso]

Interesting thread!

 

On the nuclear elements matter, in case you guys dont remenber from the depleted uranium scandal in balkans, its efects are still not entirely understood. My country sent a nuke/chemical biohazmat team to kosovo in 1999 to acess radiological and chemical contamination. Aparently many countries doubted US claims it would be next to harmelss and after we sent the team others did the same.

 

There was a declassifyed version of report that followed. Depleted uranuim causes more problems thanks to its toxicity, not radiation. Its efects can vary wildely form individual to individual, and not always it will manifest immidiatly after exposition but weeks, months or even years later. This is one of the factors wich contributed to the polemic surrounding the gulf war syndrome. I say ONE because we now now soldiers were administrated anti-chemical warfare "vaccines" with could also have something to it, as well as mental stress.

 

Regarding highly radioactive elements, Plutonium like uranium is highly toxic adding to its radiation hazards. Only plutonium is orders of magnitude more toxic than uranium.

 

In case of a terrorist dirty bomb attack, it will likely be made of uranium. It wont be a pretty thing, but if such an event hapened only the immidiate surronding would be aftected, downwind as well but much less. If it hapens inside a building its lethal zone will be much smaller. The risk will be both chemical as well as radiological. However the area could be cleaned and considered safe again in a much shorter time than plutonium contamination.

 

If you use the hiroshima uranium bomb VS Nagazaki plutonium bomb, be informed first that the nagazaki bomb fell off target. While Hiroshima suffered the full radiological and thermall load, nagazaki suffered only the hypersonic shockwave.

Amazingly, In Hiroshima there were survivors who whitnessed the detonation from as close as a few huundred meters. While the nagazaki bomb that detonated on valey miles out of the city (thanks to poor weather and the fact that it als wasnt even the primary target), There were no survivors on the vicinity on that valey.

 

These unfortunate experiences tells us that most people perish much after the blast rather than instantly. There is an unfortunate made sentece after this:

"The lucky ones are the ones that die"

 

I wont go any deeper as this starts to be bit morbid.

 

As for the patriot, Im a bit off its latest developments. I Belive its still futher perfected to high altitude intercepts but IMHO its serves better as a pure SAM. Every user has donne this. Even the greeks deplyed such bateries during euro 2004.