On October 11, 2007 Russia conducted a successful test of an interceptor of the Moscow missile defense system. According to the Russian military, the test, which took place at 12:01 MSK (08:01 UTC) at the Sary-Shagan test site in Kazakhstan, was part of the system maintenance and the life extension program of the sort-range interceptor of the system. It was also reported to be used to test the upgraded and modernized support facilities at Sary-Shagan.
The interceptor tested at Sary-Shagan was a short-range 53T6 interceptor. The A-135 missile defense system deployed around Moscow includes 68 interceptors of this type deployed at five sites. According to the reports about the test, it was the 42nd flight of the interceptor of this type since 1983. Previous test of a 53T6 interceptor took place at Sary-Shagan on December 5th, 2006.
The book
Comments
The 'silo line' of 8 silos of the Long Range Component of A-135 ABM system, known as ABM-4 'Gorgon' (A-925, 51T6 'Azov'), located near Naro-Fominsk-10, now is in the hi-res at Google Earth.
Pavel:
The A-135 missile defense system, with the 53T6 interceptor, is this considered a terminal defense system? A last shot at an inbound ICBM? Would the intercept occur in the upper atmosphere?
Welcome back!
Frank Shuler
USA
This interceptor is similar to Sprint - intercept is supposed to take place within the atmosphere. Exoatmospheric 51T6 have been removed from service.
Some web sites claim that these tests are minded to extend the service life of the 53T6 but also to evaluate the missile with a conventional warhead. Do you know something about this, Pavel? Supposedly the missiles received some software and/or electronics upgrade that improved its trajectories and terminal accuracy. Also in the long term it is assumed that they will be replaced by something coming from the S-400/S-500 lineage.
Thanks in advance.
Kolokol: Do you have a link? I'd be quite skeptical about conventional warhead or the S-400 line.
Kolokol:
Doesn’t the 53T6 use a conventional warhead (HE) in its ballistic missile intercept now? Or, are we thinking about adapting this missile for some other use?
Frank Shuler
USA
Pavel, Just amateur forums (i.e. try this http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=18 and others) and open sources, like i.e. RIAN both in English and in Russian. Nevertheless, I remember, the "de-nuclearization" of ABM interceptors was noticeably noisy (circa year 2000).
Frank, I read somewhere that now it uses a directional fragmentation warhead like the one of the 9M82 missile (S-300V aka SA-12) but bigger. The one of the 9M82 weights 150 kg.
I will doubt of its abilities against a RV diving at 2+ km/s (low atmosphere).
Yes, there were some rumors (ca. 1998, in fact), but I don't think a non-nuclear A-135 would be able to intercept anything.
Pavel:
Kolokol:
[...I don't think a non-nuclear A-135 would be able to intercept anything.]
I completely agree. At this point, I would think the A-135 system is more prestige than a true weapon system. However, I do believe testing on such a missile system has benefits and may help Russia better define its ABM needs in the future.
Frank Shuler
USA
So Pavel, do you assume that 53T6 now deployed around Moscow are nuclear-tipped?
They are supposed to be nuclear-tipped. But it's possible that they don't have nuclear warheads deployed. After all, A-35 missiles had never been fueled, let alone had any warheads on them.
The real useful thing of the A-135 is the Don-2NP radar, a pretty capable “eye”. So I will not totally despise the system, or at least its data acquisition systems. I agree that chances of a successful interception with a conventional warhead are quite low. I.e. assuming a rendezvous speed of 6 km/s and a lethal radius of 50 m, the kill volume will be pierced in 1/60 s. I doubt this missile will achieve such an extreme accuracy. Off course a nuclear blast changes massively the equation.
Sorry, Arrow have a lethal radius around 50 m. So this interceptor, having a much bigger warhead, will have also a bigger radius. But this doesn’t change conclusions at all.
to Pavel:
As [Russian] stated, it is visible on Google Earth that there were only two sites for 51T6: Naro-Fominsk 10 and Zhuklino - obviously each with 8 Silos.
Many Russian sources still speak about 32 A-925 "Azov" missiles (now retreated anyway).
The other two former "long range sites" Nudol and Klin (ex A-35M) doesn't seem to have had any 51T6 Silos.
So do you think that this "32 missile thesis" is false or were there any further sites for an additionally 16 msls?
Greetings from bernd reuter
I thought that all silos were accounted for - 68 short-range interceptors of the 53T6 type and 32 long-range 51T6 type (now retired). A-925, by the way, is 51T6.
Well...that's interesting.
And I have to say that I'm not an expert at all.
I'm just "googling" around.
But we have one 51T6 Site on High Res (Naro-Fominsk 10 at 55°21'3.24"N 36°28'59.07"E).
There we can see 8 Silos just "below" the originally "Galosh" pads.
Although still on low res we can see the same pattern for Zhuklino also (for better satellite pic see http://new.kosmosnimki.ru/eng/index.html#mode=satellite&x=38.576801&y=56.243798&z=14&fullscreen=false).
This pattern is not visible at the other two former A-35 sites: Nudol (see http://new.kosmosnimki.ru/eng/index.html#mode=satellite&x=36.503238&y=56.150408&z=14&fullscreen=false) and for Klin (see http://new.kosmosnimki.ru/eng/index.html#mode=satellite&x=36.794005&y=56.340833&z=14&fullscreen=false).
In so far I was always wondering where the "other 16msl" are supposed to be located because obviously two of the long range sites were not reconstructed for 51T6 and their A-350R were deactivated shortly after 51T6 sites got operational with (only) 8 msl (!) each at two sites.
Well...but as I said...I'm not an expert.
Some other thoughts?
Cheers from bernd