I don't know - with increasing missile speed the target reaction time, and the required lead angle against a manoeuvring target both drop significantly. (In the limit you have a laser with (practically) no lead requirement and instantaneous TOF)

The combination of a roughly 6:1 missile-target velocity, and a huge warhead with SARH is probably lethal against a fighter at around Mach 1 that doesn't succeed in leaving the engagement envelope (by terrain masking, or for thermal considerations etc).

To intercept a crossing target with a 6:1 speed ratio, you need about 9.4 degrees of lead. A fighter turning through 90 degrees at 1000km/h and 7G takes just over 6 seconds to complete the turn, in the same time, the missile must correct it's course by 9.4 degrees only, and this only requires 4.4G to complete the turn in the same time. While I don't know what the overload capability of the missile is, I would be very surprised if it was as low as that (or even near to it). At longer ranges and lower speed ratios, the lead angle and turn rate must be higher, and 'G' required remains fairly similar - eventually the maximum cN of the missile will be reached and it won't be able to sustain the rate... continuous fighter manoeuvring might increase the missile TOF and reduce speed somewhat, but the energy of the S200 is so high, and closure so rapid that it might have less effect than you might expect. Probably the 'best' bet is either a steep dive, away from the radar (hoping for overheating of the missile, reduced closure and eventual loss of illumination due to terrain masking) or a moderate dive heading obliquely towards the missile track (slightly forward of the 3/9 line) at maximum linear acceleration hoping to increase the lead requirement to a maximum and also to draw the missile down into thicker air where drag & heating are high, and fighter manoeuvrability is maximised for a max-g-break across the missile's path.

The big warhead is intended to ensure destruction of large nuclear armed bombers, but it will also reduce absolute accuracy and precision requirements in the terminal phase guidance on a manoeuvring target - the allowable miss distance for a probable kill is limited only by the fusing sensitivity and target RCS (and armed conventional fighters tend to be 'big' radar targets compared to their physical size due to pylons, weapons, engine installations, and airframe shape).

Whether it is economic to expend multiple missiles against an aircraft other than an SR71, a strategic bomber, or a strike aircraft aimed at the 'protected' target is another matter... There may well be far more 'fighters' available than you can realistically engage, and firing the limited missile supply against CAP/Escorts will not allow future or immediate engagement of the strike package.

and fighter manoeuvrability is maximised for a max-g-break across the missile's path.

A missile typically need about 5x the g's that the aircraft is pulling in order to hit that aircraft. So, if the SAM can only maintain 9g, you can escape it with a 3g maneuver (sort of. You probably need to maneuver harder in a bunch of cases)

Only valid for extremely close ranges associated with light AAM, and beam-riding or pure-pursuit missiles.

The removal of the requirement for a direct hit greatly reduces the terminal manoeuvring required (though a close miss is still far better than a very wide one). A high ratio of missile to target speed eliminates much of the ability to change lead angle (and thus force the missile to manoeuvre.

As 1g is level flight, your example should be 10g missile > 4g manoeuvre in any case, but I still think that it is invalid for most cases of modern missile guidance and larger missiles.

are u series??? i dont think so lik u

u said need about 5x aircraft g! also it ever cant be a deram!!! until in reality wourld!... because one f-16 can manuever around 8 gs!

the missile have to keep 5x * 8 = 40 gs It really is incredible