Yars/TOPOL TEL crosses river.

Wasn't one of the issues with road-mobile TELs the limitations brought about by the weight? TELs would be confined to a relatively narrow number of roads and bridges that could carry the missile launcher.

Wouldn't this video be a statement of Russian ability to avoid that problem?
 
DrRansom said:
Wasn't one of the issues with road-mobile TELs the limitations brought about by the weight? TELs would be confined to a relatively narrow number of roads and bridges that could carry the missile launcher.

Wouldn't this video be a statement of Russian ability to avoid that problem?

I doubt a TOPOL or especially a Midgetman TEL would be that big of a deal. TOPOL supposedly around 120 tons rolling down the road. The Grove 7550 is about 100 tons and those things go everywhere:



It's when they go crazy like this:





that it's a problem. Supposedly that thing was well over 500 tons (I seem to recall 800 tons). Why on God's earth it needed to be so heavy I have no idea.

Certainly the Chinese have no problem driving on their roads:
 
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
Wasn't one of the issues with road-mobile TELs the limitations brought about by the weight? TELs would be confined to a relatively narrow number of roads and bridges that could carry the missile launcher.

Wouldn't this video be a statement of Russian ability to avoid that problem?

I doubt a TOPOL or especially a Midgetman TEL would be that big of a deal. TOPOL supposedly around 120 tons rolling down the road. The Grove 7550 is about 100 tons and those things go everywhere:

Topol at 120 tons for 8 axles is 15 tons/axle, many countries have a normal limit of 8 tons/axle. You can get permits for somewhat higher loads, large cranes tend to have permanent permits. At 15t/axle you might run into hard limits for e.g. bridges though.
 
Hobbes said:
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
Wasn't one of the issues with road-mobile TELs the limitations brought about by the weight? TELs would be confined to a relatively narrow number of roads and bridges that could carry the missile launcher.

Wouldn't this video be a statement of Russian ability to avoid that problem?

I doubt a TOPOL or especially a Midgetman TEL would be that big of a deal. TOPOL supposedly around 120 tons rolling down the road. The Grove 7550 is about 100 tons and those things go everywhere:

Topol at 120 tons for 8 axles is 15 tons/axle, many countries have a normal limit of 8 tons/axle. You can get permits for somewhat higher loads, large cranes tend to have permanent permits. At 15t/axle you might run into hard limits for e.g. bridges though.

Bridges I could understand. I'd think you'd want them out in the boonies anyway, where bridges would be less of a concern.
 
Seems to be several assumptions here. Perhaps the biggest is that you believe that the TEL is actually carrying a fully loaded missile onboard. The next is that the TEL is carrying everything required for an operational launch of the missile. The Russian Army is well known for its ability to Potemkinise their vehicles to make them easier to use and "last longer" in service. In Western Armies, units exercise as if they were "really" going to war, the Russians don't.

What I found interesting about the video was the obvious pre-prepared nature of the crossing. One side of the river had been well prepared to accept the bridge by providing a vertical bank. I was also interested to see that they used two bridges, side by side, thereby decreasing the load on the bridge.

Axle loading is a serious matter in the West from a safety perspective. In Russia? I have no idea.
 
Kadija_Man said:
Seems to be several assumptions here. Perhaps the biggest is that you believe that the TEL is actually carrying a fully loaded missile onboard. The next is that the TEL is carrying everything required for an operational launch of the missile. The Russian Army is well known for its ability to Potemkinise their vehicles to make them easier to use and "last longer" in service. In Western Armies, units exercise as if they were "really" going to war, the Russians don't.

Well, it's pretty obviously NOT carrying a missile in this case as the "payload" isn't a standard launch tube. It's almost certainly a training simulator shape with the correct weight & CG. It could also be a support vehicle, as ISTR there being one using the same TEL that accompanies the ICBM launchers. I think the only person making assumptions here is you. Nobody said it was actually carrying a missile onboard. ::)
 
sferrin said:
Bridges I could understand. I'd think you'd want them out in the boonies anyway, where bridges would be less of a concern.

Digging into this some more, NATO has a system worked out for this. The military load classification is an index that indicates the load limit of bridges etc.
In Germany, these are posted on road signs:
220px-Military-loading-class.jpg


I presume NATO have maps or mapping applications that allow you to work out safe routes for your heavy cargo.
 
sferrin said:
It's when they go crazy like this:



that it's a problem. Supposedly that thing was well over 500 tons (I seem to recall 800 tons). Why on God's earth it needed to be so heavy I have no idea.

This was a weird case, for sure. Some of the size is because it's double-ended and totally redundant. It was meant to drive around an MPS road network and needed to reverse direction without turning around, and I think both tractors could move the whole vehicle. Also, MX was a huge missile (pushing 100 tons) and the mobile versions probably came in a pretty heavy capsule for protection from environmental hazards.

I think this version was designed for use in the vertical MPS scheme, where the transporter-elevator had to move the missile around, then raise it up and insert it into a hardened vertical silo. It's not a full-on TEL, I believe, but in some ways worse because it has to carry the gear to insert or extract the missile from a silo as well.
 
This shot makes me think it could launch it too:
 

Attachments

  • Peacekeeper_-_experimental_transporter.jpg
    Peacekeeper_-_experimental_transporter.jpg
    39.5 KB · Views: 25
sferrin said:
This shot makes me think it could launch it too:

I think it's (unintentionally) deceptive. This is capturing the Transporter-Emplacer at the point where it has elevated the capsule to just past 45 degrees. It would then slide the bottom of the canister forward to bring the whole unit to vertical. Then it would lower the capsule into the silo through a hole in the middle of the chassis.

The following link is primarily about the guidance system that would keep the two tractors following the same track around curves and control the positioning of the vehicle above the silo. But it also has a brief description of the elevation process (page 4 of the original document, page 5 of the PDF).

http://www.minutemanmissile.com/documents/MXTransporterEmplacer.pdf
 
Interesting. I was unaware of a scheme to shuttle amongst silos, just the horizontal shelters. Thought maybe this was a demonstration showing the transporter could elevate and launch the missile if it got caught out in the open during an attack.
 
There are so many variations of launcher and basing schemes for MX that it's really hard to keep track. They did look at the DASH relocation option, where the missile could be moved rapidly from one launcher to another on warning. And that was complicated because depressed-trajectory SLBMs could catch missiles on the move in the open, rendering all the shell game and hardened shelters moot.

I don't think they ever had a version where the TEL could launch in the open, but it might be possible. The issue would probably have been accuracy. Back in pre-GPS days, accuracy could suffer considerably without having a really well-surveyed preregistered launch location.
 
sferrin said:
Bridges I could understand. I'd think you'd want them out in the boonies anyway, where bridges would be less of a concern.

Wouldn't bridges be more of a problem out in the boonies? I'd imagine those bridges wouldn't be strong enough to carry the TEL.

Of course, I don't quite get the operational utility of this capability. Maybe it shows a TEL can leave a region using routes that don't cross over a limited number of heavy bridges?
 
DrRansom said:
sferrin said:
Bridges I could understand. I'd think you'd want them out in the boonies anyway, where bridges would be less of a concern.

Wouldn't bridges be more of a problem out in the boonies? I'd imagine those bridges wouldn't be strong enough to carry the TEL.

Of course, I don't quite get the operational utility of this capability. Maybe it shows a TEL can leave a region using routes that don't cross over a limited number of heavy bridges?

Out in the desert (Western US) there aren't many bridges. Lots of roaming space. (Of course there's not a lot of cover either.) I doubt finding suitable deployment areas would be a problem in the US for a TEL. (Hysterical Peaceniks aside.)
 
Sorry, I meant this would be a good capability for Russian TELs, which presumably have far more rivets to contend with than a US TEL.

US TEL would have to deal with the lack of top cover not fording rivers.
 
DrRansom said:
Sorry, I meant this would be a good capability for Russian TELs, which presumably have far more rivets to contend with than a US TEL.

US TEL would have to deal with the lack of top cover not fording rivers.

There are areas like Montana, the Pacific Northwest, and the South East, that have lots of trees and stuff. Not sure what the road situation would be like though (unless one was willing to use public roads, which China doesn't seem to have a problem with).
 
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
Sorry, I meant this would be a good capability for Russian TELs, which presumably have far more rivets to contend with than a US TEL.

US TEL would have to deal with the lack of top cover not fording rivers.

There are areas like Montana, the Pacific Northwest, and the South East, that have lots of trees and stuff. Not sure what the road situation would be like though (unless one was willing to use public roads, which China doesn't seem to have a problem with).

Unless you have a truly continuously mobile force, the largest contiguous area of Federally owned land is still small enough so that
a depressed trajectory blind barrage bombardment from one SSBN could (for a practicable launcher hardness) destroy the entire mobile force.
 

Attachments

  • fed-lands-map.png
    fed-lands-map.png
    503.6 KB · Views: 130
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
Sorry, I meant this would be a good capability for Russian TELs, which presumably have far more rivets to contend with than a US TEL.

US TEL would have to deal with the lack of top cover not fording rivers.

There are areas like Montana, the Pacific Northwest, and the South East, that have lots of trees and stuff. Not sure what the road situation would be like though (unless one was willing to use public roads, which China doesn't seem to have a problem with).

Unless you have a truly continuously mobile force, the largest contiguous area of Federally owned land is still small enough so that
a depressed trajectory blind barrage bombardment from one SSBN could (for a practicable launcher hardness) destroy the entire mobile force.

Why would you pile your entire mobile force into one tiny area? Also, Midgetman was designed to survive a somewhat near miss. As your map shows, there is a LOT of federal land that could be used. No way, not even if they were chucking Tsar Bombas by the score, could one SSBN blanket that entire purple area with enough overpressure to disable every Midgetman (or analog) in it. The unknown is how hard was the Midgetman launcher. Also does the US launch on warning? I'd think with today's technology, it would be relatively easy to make a visual confirmation with plenty of time for US ICBMs to be on their way before warheads started landing.

Hmm. Here's a pretty interesting writeup of the problem:

edit: (From Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Nov. 1984)
 

Attachments

  • Midgetman.PNG
    Midgetman.PNG
    820.8 KB · Views: 129
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
Sorry, I meant this would be a good capability for Russian TELs, which presumably have far more rivets to contend with than a US TEL.

US TEL would have to deal with the lack of top cover not fording rivers.

There are areas like Montana, the Pacific Northwest, and the South East, that have lots of trees and stuff. Not sure what the road situation would be like though (unless one was willing to use public roads, which China doesn't seem to have a problem with).

Unless you have a truly continuously mobile force, the largest contiguous area of Federally owned land is still small enough so that
a depressed trajectory blind barrage bombardment from one SSBN could (for a practicable launcher hardness) destroy the entire mobile force.

Why would you pile your entire mobile force into one tiny area? Also, Midgetman was designed to survive a somewhat near miss. As your map shows, there is a LOT of federal land that could be used. No way, not even if they were chucking Tsar Bombas by the score, could one SSBN blanket that entire purple area with enough overpressure to disable every Midgetman (or analog) in it.

*If* the mobile launchers are continuously mobile then yes one SSBN could not blanket the area.

But continously mobile was not the plan for Midgetman; it was disperse on warning.
Midgetman was only hard when hunkered down which means you need pretty high quality RV arrival time data.

The large areas that have suitable climate and terrain and are owned by the federal government are limited.
 
marauder2048 said:
But continously mobile was not the plan for Midgetman; it was disperse on warning.

Define "warning". As in "things are getting tense, disperse the launchers" or "warheads are on the way, disperse the launchers"? The latter seems silly to me. What does Russia do with their TELs? They've been operating mobile ICBMs for decades. (And they're not even hardened.)
 
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
But continously mobile was not the plan for Midgetman; it was disperse on warning.

Define "warning". As in "things are getting tense, disperse the launchers" or "warheads are on the way, disperse the launchers"? The latter seems silly to me. What does Russia do with their TELs? They've been operating mobile ICBMs for decades. (And they're not even hardened.)

They needed an executive order to disperse so it could be as early as "things are getting tense."

My understanding is that the Russians always have a few of the mobile missile regiments dispersed but most are in their garrisons.
 
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
Seems to be several assumptions here. Perhaps the biggest is that you believe that the TEL is actually carrying a fully loaded missile onboard. The next is that the TEL is carrying everything required for an operational launch of the missile. The Russian Army is well known for its ability to Potemkinise their vehicles to make them easier to use and "last longer" in service. In Western Armies, units exercise as if they were "really" going to war, the Russians don't.

Well, it's pretty obviously NOT carrying a missile in this case as the "payload" isn't a standard launch tube.

And where is that indicated? What distinguishes it from a standard launch tube?

It's almost certainly a training simulator shape with the correct weight & CG.

And you know this, how?

It could also be a support vehicle, as ISTR there being one using the same TEL that accompanies the ICBM launchers. I think the only person making assumptions here is you. Nobody said it was actually carrying a missile onboard. ::)
 
Kadija_Man said:
And where is that indicated? What distinguishes it from a standard launch tube?

Two key features.

1) the front of the tube should be a conical solid shape, but this one just has a bent piece of pipe holding up the camouflage netting.

2) the rear of the tube should be cylindrical, but this one has a tapered bevel.

Look at the Wiki for Yars, here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-24_Yars

Compare the first image, of an actual loaded TEL, with the second, showing a driver training vehicle. The video shows the latter.
 
Thank you, Tom. OK, now where did anybody suggest this was was a, "Combat support vehicle BMS"?
 
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Well, it's pretty obviously NOT carrying a missile in this case as the "payload" isn't a standard launch tube.

And where is that indicated? What distinguishes it from a standard launch tube?

If you have to ask you really have no business criticizing anybody in this thread.


Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
It's almost certainly a training simulator shape with the correct weight & CG.

And you know this, how?

Because it's not a missile.
 
Looking more at the vehicle, it's kind of a two-for-one. It's a partial visual simulator (just different enough to be OK under treaty verification schemes) and apparently is used for driver training and the like. But it's not just a simulator or trainer. It's actually a large tanker truck. There are access ports in the top and the rear fairing holds refueling hose reels and probably pumps. So it's part of the logistics chain for the TOPOL unit on the move. Last thing you want is to be tied to fixed refueling sites during a dispersal.

Some great pictures here:
http://www.vitalykuzmin.net/keyword/ICBM;victory%20day%20parade
 
Note there are both 7-axle variants for Topol and 8-axle for Yars.
 
Can you two take the bickering offline?

You can tell it's not a missile because the shape of the container is different, esp. at the front and back.
 
Hobbes said:
Can you two take the bickering offline?

You can tell it's not a missile because the shape of the container is different, esp. at the front and back.

If you go back to the beginning of the thread, and read through his posts, you can see Kman is interested in nothing but starting a fight. That's his MO. That's why I had him on ignore. I've put him back on ignore and reported him. Again.
 
Ahh, so the truck crossing the river is a Topol refueling tanker, not a launcher?

So we don't know if TELs can ford rivers at all.
 
GTX said:
sferrin said:
you can see Kman is interested in nothing but starting a fight. That's his MO.

611596-14012-39.jpg

Pretty sure I wasn't spoiling for an argument by posting a video with no comment. Is that verboten in these quarters? (BTW, by leaping to his defense you only encourage him to act out like that. )
 
DrRansom said:
Ahh, so the truck crossing the river is a Topol refueling tanker, not a launcher?

So we don't know if TELs can ford rivers at all.

The tanker didn't ford a river either.
 
DrRansom said:
Ahh, so the truck crossing the river is a Topol refueling tanker, not a launcher?

So we don't know if TELs can ford rivers at all.

The weight of a loaded tanker will be very close to that of a TEL. To a first approximation, a missile is a tube filled with propellants.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom