:O the missile sure doesnt waste a second to get underway. That acceleration.
Can never fail to be impressed by Soviet engineering!!found some pics of the A-350 system
Can you give a breakdown of what the white plaque says for the spec?How the **** did I miss this?!
View attachment 616429
View attachment 616430
View attachment 616432
Located here, in rural *Ukraine*, of all places:
The Museum of Strategic Rocket Forces in Pobuzke | One Man, One Map
www.oneman-onemap.com
It's accessible to the public, so if anybody wants to make a trip East...
And looking closer at the photo collection and that PRS-1 diagram. Apparently indeed that they are of similar design. The TVC appears to be hot gas type that directly tap into the combustion chamber and vent it outside, producing direct thrust. The one in 53T6 tho only have 1 set instead of 2 in PRS1.
This is different with Novator design which inject the gas into the nozzle where the flow is supersonic.
What I'm wondering about now is whether the 5Ya26 cut-away isn't showing a tiny second stage motor after all,
Front my recollection the Sprint ABM was Mach 10 but the larger Gazelle is about Mach 17, so the speed sounds right.The blurb merely states that it's the endo-atmospheric component of the A-135 ABM system and guided by the Don-2N radar - nothing we did not know already. The specs are as follows:
Length, m ............................ 10
Diameter, m ....................... 1
Mass, t .................................. 10
Warhead type .................... special (nuclear)
Warhead yield, kt ............. 10
Range max/min, km ....... 100/20.8
Altitude max/min, km .... 30/5
Speed, km/s ....................... 5.2-5.5
Type of launcher .............. Silo
Some of these are not a surprise either, others contradict flateric's information and speed is remarkably high (way in excess of Mach 10, verges on implausible unless it refers to target speed, but that's not what it seems to say).
I can well believe that 53T6 is somewhat faster and its minimum altitude is higher than Sprint's, but 70% faster than Sprint as low as 5km? It seems the thermal protection problems would be daunting, to say the least.
I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course.
Not all ballistic missile warheads are purely ballistic though.I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course.
What do you mean? It's meant to go after ballistic weapons. They shouldn't be changing course at all. And yet Sprint was optimized for maneuverability. (Even against a ballistic target, you still need to be able to maneuver.)
Not all ballistic missile warheads are purely ballistic though.I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course.
What do you mean? It's meant to go after ballistic weapons. They shouldn't be changing course at all. And yet Sprint was optimized for maneuverability. (Even against a ballistic target, you still need to be able to maneuver.)
I don't think I'm disputing your point, not sure what you're arguing here.Not all ballistic missile warheads are purely ballistic though.I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course.
What do you mean? It's meant to go after ballistic weapons. They shouldn't be changing course at all. And yet Sprint was optimized for maneuverability. (Even against a ballistic target, you still need to be able to maneuver.)
Which is why ABMs need to be able to manuever, and why the Gazelle kill vehicle has a divert system.
I don't think I'm disputing your point, not sure what you're arguing here.Not all ballistic missile warheads are purely ballistic though.I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course.
What do you mean? It's meant to go after ballistic weapons. They shouldn't be changing course at all. And yet Sprint was optimized for maneuverability. (Even against a ballistic target, you still need to be able to maneuver.)
Which is why ABMs need to be able to manuever, and why the Gazelle kill vehicle has a divert system.
And I think that's still a valid point, but it doesn't mean that the missile can't manoeuvre."I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course."
That's what I'm questioning.
And I think that's still a valid point, but it doesn't mean that the missile can't manoeuvre."I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course."
That's what I'm questioning.
The point that the missile can manoeuvre, or that it's so fast (and has a nuclear warhead) that it probably won't need to manoeuvre much?And I think that's still a valid point, but it doesn't mean that the missile can't manoeuvre."I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course."
That's what I'm questioning.
Do you have any evidence to support your point?
The point that the missile can manoeuvre, or that it's so fast (and has a nuclear warhead) that it probably won't need to manoeuvre much?And I think that's still a valid point, but it doesn't mean that the missile can't manoeuvre."I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course."
That's what I'm questioning.
Do you have any evidence to support your point?
Who said it was?The point that the missile can manoeuvre, or that it's so fast (and has a nuclear warhead) that it probably won't need to manoeuvre much?And I think that's still a valid point, but it doesn't mean that the missile can't manoeuvre."I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course."
That's what I'm questioning.
Do you have any evidence to support your point?
That's not evidence that that was the reason they left the fins off.
Who said it was?The point that the missile can manoeuvre, or that it's so fast (and has a nuclear warhead) that it probably won't need to manoeuvre much?And I think that's still a valid point, but it doesn't mean that the missile can't manoeuvre."I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course."
That's what I'm questioning.
Do you have any evidence to support your point?
That's not evidence that that was the reason they left the fins off.
And what part of that says that speed is the reason fins were left off, or says anything about actual manoeuvrability? The earliest 53T6s at least (don't know about the latest) were radio command, so the idea was that they didn't have to make lots of corrections with such a very rudimentary guidance system, just straight there and then 10kT BANG.Who said it was?The point that the missile can manoeuvre, or that it's so fast (and has a nuclear warhead) that it probably won't need to manoeuvre much?And I think that's still a valid point, but it doesn't mean that the missile can't manoeuvre."I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course."
That's what I'm questioning.
Do you have any evidence to support your point?
That's not evidence that that was the reason they left the fins off.
This guy:
"I think the idea is that the target doesn't get much chance to change course. "
And what part of that says that speed is the reason fins were left off, or says anything about actual manoeuvrability?
Dude, you inferred something that nobody ever said. The manoeuvrability of the 53T6 is a known. But the idea of the speed and nuclear warhead is that it doesn't have to repeatedly re-manoeuvre like a slower HTK weapon would.Go back and read the thread again. You're not following what's being said.
Dude, you inferred something that nobody ever said. The manoeuvrability of the 53T6 is a known. But the idea of the speed and nuclear warhead is that it doesn't have to repeatedly re-manoeuvre like a slower HTK weapon would.Go back and read the thread again. You're not following what's being said.
Okay Captain Grammaticus.Which you never clarified (yes, you responded, with a non sequitur, which does not constitute clarification or justification).