4 ms·

Not necessarily, ICBMs follow predictable ballistic flight paths. There's some space for weapons that are really hard to defend against due to unpredictable tr

Not necessarily, ICBMs follow predictable ballistic flight paths. There's some space for weapons that are really hard to defend against due to unpredictable trajectories and really high speeds.

H8crilA 4y ago
Iskander's reported (by the Russians) g tolerance is insane, they are supposed to handle something on the order of 50g. From what I understand this level of maneuverability makes missile defense extremely difficult.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > are supposed to handle something on the order of 50g Minutemen did 30+ g decades ago [1]. [1] https://minutemanmissile.com/documents/ReentryVehicleDesignAndPhysics.pdf https://minutemanmissile.com/documents/ReentryVehicleDesignA...
  - H8crilA 4y ago
    I see 10g in that document, no? Also, it's important to distinguish the acceleration along the axis (much easier to handle) from the perpendicular acceleration which is caused by aggressive maneuvering. Also, Iskander is a short range ballistic missile, it is not the equivalent of the Minuteman. I don't think there is anything anywhere else that's closely comparable in capabilities to the Iskander.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > see 10g in that document, no? “Acceleration up to 10 g's,” with tolerance for “experiencing g forces more than an order of magnitude higher.” The tough bit is guidance system survival. For Russia, reliant on Chinese solid state tech, 50g is an accomplishment. For China or the U.S., the task is more trivial. (There is a broader point of blinded sensors.) > don't think there is anything anywhere else that's closely comparable in capabilities to the Iskander Because there are better tactical tools for almost every mission. Russia can’t maintain that diversity of materiel, so they monobody onto the Iskander.
      - H8crilA 4y ago
        Thx for the info. Question, since you probably know more than me: what would be NATO's way of defeating a single high value target that is under good air defense? First suppression/defeat of that air defense, then launch Tomahawks or whatever other missiles are available? That's something I'd imagine an Iskander is good at. (My example may not be very realistic).
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > what would be NATO's way of defeating a single high value target that is under good air defense? Too many branches to give a meaningful answer. What kind of air defence? How high value? What’s the urgency? Need for deniability? Iskander does okay for all those missions. But there are better tools for each branch. There is no mission profile I can think of (which, to be clear, isn’t worth much) in which Iskander opens novel tactical space. It’s compromises across the board.
        dragontamer 4y ago
        > what would be NATO's way of defeating a single high value target that is under good air defense? Wild Weasel air force pilots, who fly into areas of high air defense and fights it head on. > First suppression/defeat of that air defense, then launch Tomahawks or whatever other missiles are available Probably the opposite. Pilots and F35 are more expensive than Tomahawks. USA opened Iraq 2003 with 700+ Tomahawk missiles and then flew in with Wild Weasel pilots afterwards. Bonus points: as the enemy shoots down Tomahawk missiles, you learn where their strongest air defense systems are. So a massive bombardment of Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at the most important radar / air defense systems / enemy runways, followed up by specialist pilots who train for the role of flying inside the enemy's air defense system. Maybe 2003 Iraq is a bad example because their air defense system was basically crippled before the Wild Weasel pilots even entered the battlefield. Nonetheless, a huge saturation attack like that is what the USA is capable of. There's something to be said about just masses of missiles attacking all roughly at the same time... its really hard for defense systems to react to such a large mass.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Not necessarily, ICBMs follow predictable ballistic flight paths. There's some space for weapons that are really hard to defend against due to unpredictable trajectories and really high speeds.

H8crilA 4y ago

Iskander's reported (by the Russians) g tolerance is insane, they are supposed to handle something on the order of 50g. From what I understand this level of maneuverability makes missile defense extremely difficult.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> are supposed to handle something on the order of 50g Minutemen did 30+ g decades ago [1]. [1] https://minutemanmissile.com/documents/ReentryVehicleDesignAndPhysics.pdf https://minutemanmissile.com/documents/ReentryVehicleDesignA...
- H8crilA 4y ago
  I see 10g in that document, no? Also, it's important to distinguish the acceleration along the axis (much easier to handle) from the perpendicular acceleration which is caused by aggressive maneuvering. Also, Iskander is a short range ballistic missile, it is not the equivalent of the Minuteman. I don't think there is anything anywhere else that's closely comparable in capabilities to the Iskander.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > see 10g in that document, no? “Acceleration up to 10 g's,” with tolerance for “experiencing g forces more than an order of magnitude higher.” The tough bit is guidance system survival. For Russia, reliant on Chinese solid state tech, 50g is an accomplishment. For China or the U.S., the task is more trivial. (There is a broader point of blinded sensors.) > don't think there is anything anywhere else that's closely comparable in capabilities to the Iskander Because there are better tactical tools for almost every mission. Russia can’t maintain that diversity of materiel, so they monobody onto the Iskander.
    - H8crilA 4y ago
      Thx for the info. Question, since you probably know more than me: what would be NATO's way of defeating a single high value target that is under good air defense? First suppression/defeat of that air defense, then launch Tomahawks or whatever other missiles are available? That's something I'd imagine an Iskander is good at. (My example may not be very realistic).
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > what would be NATO's way of defeating a single high value target that is under good air defense? Too many branches to give a meaningful answer. What kind of air defence? How high value? What’s the urgency? Need for deniability? Iskander does okay for all those missions. But there are better tools for each branch. There is no mission profile I can think of (which, to be clear, isn’t worth much) in which Iskander opens novel tactical space. It’s compromises across the board.
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        > what would be NATO's way of defeating a single high value target that is under good air defense? Wild Weasel air force pilots, who fly into areas of high air defense and fights it head on. > First suppression/defeat of that air defense, then launch Tomahawks or whatever other missiles are available Probably the opposite. Pilots and F35 are more expensive than Tomahawks. USA opened Iraq 2003 with 700+ Tomahawk missiles and then flew in with Wild Weasel pilots afterwards. Bonus points: as the enemy shoots down Tomahawk missiles, you learn where their strongest air defense systems are. So a massive bombardment of Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at the most important radar / air defense systems / enemy runways, followed up by specialist pilots who train for the role of flying inside the enemy's air defense system. Maybe 2003 Iraq is a bad example because their air defense system was basically crippled before the Wild Weasel pilots even entered the battlefield. Nonetheless, a huge saturation attack like that is what the USA is capable of. There's something to be said about just masses of missiles attacking all roughly at the same time... its really hard for defense systems to react to such a large mass.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]