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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
sferrin said:
sferrin said:This shot makes me think it could launch it too:
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
marauder2048 said:But continously mobile was not the plan for Midgetman; it was disperse on warning.
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.)
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.
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. :
Kadija_Man said:And where is that indicated? What distinguishes it from a standard launch tube?
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?
Kadija_Man said:sferrin said:It's almost certainly a training simulator shape with the correct weight & CG.
And you know this, how?
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.
sferrin said:you can see Kman is interested in nothing but starting a fight. That's his MO.
GTX said:sferrin said:you can see Kman is interested in nothing but starting a fight. That's his MO.
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.
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.