Register here

Author Topic: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans  (Read 56357 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« on: November 14, 2009, 01:14:20 pm »
Russian military to get new ICBMs, nuclear submarines
 
MOSCOW: Russia's Armed Forces are to receive 30 new ground and sea-launched ballistic missiles, three nuclear submarines, and an assortment of other weapons, the Russian president said on Thursday. Dmitry Medvedev said the list would also include "five Iskander [tactical] missile complexes, about 300...
November 13th, 2009 | News | Read More

The full link - http://www.defencetalk.com/russian-military-to-get-new-icbms-nuclear-submarines-22994/
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2009, 05:44:25 pm »
Another story

MOSCOW: Russia's Strategic Missile Forces (SMF), the land-based component of the nuclear triad, will put on combat duty a second regiment equipped with Topol-M mobile missile systems by the end of 2009.

Topol-M (SS-27 Stalin) missiles are the mainstay of the ground-based component of Russia's nuclear triad. As of the beginning of 2009, the SMF operated 50 silo-based and six road-mobile Topol-M missile systems.

"We will complete the rearmament of the second missile regiment in the Teikovo division with mobile Topol-M systems," the new SMF commander, Lt. Gen. Andrei Shvaichenko told reporters in Moscow.

The first Topol-M mobile missile regiment has already been put on combat duty with the 54th Strategic Missile Division near the town of Teikovo, about 150 miles (240 km) northeast of Moscow.

Shvaichenko also said that a sixth regiment of silo-based Topol-M systems will be put in service with the Tatishchevo Missile Division near Saratov in southwestern Russia in 2010.

The Topol-M missile, with a range of about 7,000 miles (11,000 km), is said to be immune to any current and future U.S. ABM defense. It is capable of making evasive maneuvers to avoid a kill using terminal phase interceptors, and carries targeting countermeasures and decoys.

It is also shielded against radiation, electromagnetic pulse, nuclear blasts, and is designed to survive a hit from any form of laser technology.

At present, six types of silo-based and mobile ICBM systems are on combat duty with the SMF, including the heavy Voyevoda (SS-18 Satan) capable of carrying 10 warheads, and the Topol-M systems.

Shvaichenko said Russia will continue work to extend the service life of the SS-18 missiles to 31 years and the SS-25 Topol and RS-20B missiles to 23 years
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2010, 12:07:19 am »
Military.com link to SS-18 (R-36M2) missile launch - http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=212833&page=2
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2011, 12:53:20 pm »
Russia's First Yars Regiment Moved to Combat Status
Friday, March 4, 2011

Russia today ordered its first missile regiment equipped with the mobile Yars system to combat status in the Ivanovo region, ITAR-Tass reported (see GSN, July 1, 2010).

"The regiment was put on combat duty in two missile divisions," missile strategic troops spokesman Col. Vadim Koval said. "Since 2010 these divisions performed the trial combat duty missions. For this period of time all tactical and technical functions of the [Yars] missile system were proved efficient and all the missions that proved the new missile system reliable were practiced."

The land-based Yars system comes armed with a long-range RS-24 missile. The ICBM can be loaded with multiple nuclear warheads and was produced by the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology, Koval said.

"This missile was designed under scientific-technical and technological solutions applied in the Topol-M missile system that cut short substantially the deadlines and the expenses for the missile development," the spokesman said.

Koval said RS-24 ICBMs would strengthen the capabilities of the strategic missile troops to overcome missile defenses, resulting in a stronger Russian nuclear deterrent.

"This missile will replace outdated intercontinental ballistic missiles RS-18 and RS-20 with multiple warheads as long as their extended service lives expire," Koval said (ITAR-Tass, March 4).
------------------------------------------------------------
RS-24 the pirates ICBM, what kind of missile is that? A YAAARSSSS (say it as written you'll get the joke  ;D)

But on a serious note, I think the US should start to immediately start R&D, leading to production of course, of a modern ICBM with the most advanced technology available.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1572
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2011, 12:01:54 am »
Quote
bobbymikeBut on a serious note, I think the US should start to immediately start R&D, leading to production of course, of a modern ICBM with the most advanced technology available.

Yes I agree!
But do you think they can do it within budget, within the set time frame, and deliver it operationally?  :-[

Regards
Pioneer
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2011, 12:07:37 am »
Quote
bobbymikeBut on a serious note, I think the US should start to immediately start R&D, leading to production of course, of a modern ICBM with the most advanced technology available.

Yes I agree!
But do you think they can do it within budget, within the set time frame, and deliver it operationally?  :-[

Regards
Pioneer

The CINC of Stratcom, testifying before the HASC, said they are spending $200 billion on the nuclear enterprise in the next decade. I think they could make some room for an advanced ICBM prototype. The AFRL has an Rapid Prototyping Office I would hope this type of organization could be tasked to develop and test, at least a prototype, next generation missile.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2011, 05:07:52 pm »
Russia, U.S. Confer on New START
Monday, March 14, 2011

Russia on Thursday said it had received U.S. delegates in Moscow for dialogue on issues related to the observation of a new strategic nuclear arms control treaty between the former Cold War rivals, Interfax reported (see GSN, March 8).

"The session addressed a wide range of key issues of a military-political nature. Special attention was paid to the problem of missile defense, the launch of the practical realization of the New START treaty, as well as the modernization of the conventional weapons control regime in Europe," the Russian Foreign Ministry stated.

The discussion was convened by the Arms Control and International Security Working Group of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and U.S. Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher presided over the talks.

New START went into effect last month. The treaty obligates Washington and Moscow to each limit their deployed strategic nuclear weapons at 1,550, down from a limit of 2,200 required by 2012 under an earlier treaty. It also sets a ceiling of 700 deployed warhead delivery systems, with another 100 allowed in reserve (Interfax I, March 11).

Russia intends for 70 percent of its armaments to be comprised of updated weapons by the end of the decade, First Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin told the newspaper Izvestia in an interview published on Friday.

"The planned speed and scale of procurements of sophisticated models will help bring the share of replenishment of the main list of weaponry to 70 percent by 2020," Popovkin said.

"The share of modern weapons in the general arsenal [today] is about 20 percent in strategic nuclear forces and does not exceed 10 percent in the general purpose forces. For you know -- in the armies of leading foreign nations this share is 30-50 percent," the official said (Interfax II, March 11).

Russia has set aside roughly $730 billion for the acquisition of more sophisticated armaments, RIA Novosti quoted Popovkin as saying. Eight submarines armed with Bulava ballistic missiles as well as S-400 and S-500 air defenses are among the items sought by Moscow, the official said (see GSN, Feb. 28).

The nation's first concern is the sustainment and augmentation of its land-, air- and sea-based nuclear deterrent, he said (RIA Novosti, March 11).
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bolded points
1) If this treaty was sold to the American public and Senate as "having no restrictions on missile defense" what exactly are they talking about?
2) My take - US official quoted as saying, "our lowest military priority in the sustainment and augmentation of the land, air and sea based nuclear deterrent."

Proof of my second point

by Lt. Col. Rodney L. Miller
Strategic Missile Programs AFPEO/Strategic Systems

3/11/2011 - Kirtland Air Force Base, NM -- Senior leaders review progress of nuclear modernization efforts

For the first time in more than 20 years, eight flag-level leaders representing Air Force and Department of Defense acquisition organizations met March 2 at Kirtland Air Force Base to review the status of the Air Force's $3.4 billion strategic system modernization efforts.

The Strategic Systems portfolio review, led by Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, focused on the
« Last Edit: March 14, 2011, 10:11:13 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2011, 06:27:52 pm »
Russia to Ready New ICBM by 2013
Friday, March 18, 2011

Russia is expected by 2013 to finish preparation of a next-generation ICBM, Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology chief Yuri Solomonov said on Thursday (see GSN, Jan. 18). "I cannot be specific about the details but new design solutions will significantly boost the fire control and communications components of the system," the senior missile designer said in a RIA Novosti report (RIA Novosti I, March 17). The weapon's development would be funded under a massive military modernization plan, Russia Today reported. The plan -- reported previously to have a projected cost of $650 billion -- also calls for development of ICBMs capable of penetrating present-day missile defenses (see GSN, Feb. 24).

“We already have lots of ideas for the construction of these weapons,” Solomonov said. “All the decisions were approved by Russia’s Defense Ministry.” Still, some Russian experts have questioned elements of the defense initiative (Russia Today, March 17). Solomonov himself on Thursday criticized Moscow's plan to create a liquid-fueled successor to the aging RS-20 ICBM, Interfax reported. "This is an absolutely far-fetched decision, which has been made to please some high-ranking persons," he said. The expert said he was aware of the officials responsible for the decision, but declined to identify them. Developing the new missile would be "an absolutely pointless pursuit," because it would rely on antiquated systems, Solomonov said. "I can assure you that the missile would employ a 30-year-old technology," he said. The specialist also questioned "the very principle used in building this missile system, which is not viable enough in a retaliatory strike." Long liftoff phases and high altitudes mean liquid-fuel missiles are "not adaptive to modern missile defense systems having space-based elements," Solomonov said. "This problem simply cannot be resolved using liquid-fueled missiles" (Interfax I, March 17).

Solomonov criticized Russia's wider military modernization plan as "senseless spending" seeking to "reproduce things that were made decades ago for absolutely unlikely scenarios," Agence France-Presse reported (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, March 17).

Another expert said a next-generation heavy ICBM would scuttle any opportunity to establish a unified European antimissile framework (see GSN, March 16). "If we go far enough with a new heavy missile, we can forget about a new common missile defense system, if only because a new heavy missile implies a failure of negotiations on a missile defense system," said Alexei Arbatov, who heads the Russian Academy of Sciences' International Security Center. "If the new heavy missile gains momentum, there's going to be no missile defense agreement," Arbatov said, adding Washington "will interpret this new heavy missile as a return to the Cold War times."

Possible alternatives to the preparation of a new heavy ICBM include producing additional Topol-M and Yars missile systems, or negotiating further strategic arsenal cuts with the United States, he said (Interfax II, March 17). Meanwhile, Solomonov said Russia would in June conduct the 15th test flight of its Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, Feb. 28). The Bulava is designed to carry multiple nuclear warheads as far as 5,000 miles. Seven of the missile's 14 trial launches to date have been successes, including two tests conducted in October (RIA Novosti II, March 17).

"We hope to finish testing the missile this year," Interfax quoted him as saying. Russia could place the missile on active duty next year if it performs as expected in the trial flights, he said. The Bulava trials would take place during preparation of the ballistic-missile Yuri Dolgoruky, Solomonov added (see GSN, Dec. 14, 2010). "These projects should converge at one point by the end of the year," the expert said (Interfax III, March 17).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not the RS-24 or the RS-20 (R-36M, SS-18) replacement but ANOTHER brand new ICBM? What am I reading an old copy of "Soviet Military Power" from the 80's cause that's the last time, if you include SSBN, SLBM, Backfire upgrades, PAK-DA (new bomber), I read about such an aggressive nuclear delivery system modernization program.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 801
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2011, 07:20:47 am »
This is not the RS-24 or the RS-20 (R-36M, SS-18) replacement but ANOTHER brand new ICBM?

Neither probably, you're witnessing infighting on the part of MITT as proponents of solid fuel missile technology, in an attempt to scuttle the heavy liquid propellant missile project by another company that they view as encroaching on their home turf. This is almost certainly NOT an additional initiative backed officially by the state, you would probably see either this missile OR the liquid fuelled project enter service, not both.

What am I reading an old copy of "Soviet Military Power" from the 80's cause that's the last time, if you include SSBN, SLBM, Backfire upgrades, PAK-DA (new bomber), I read about such an aggressive nuclear delivery system modernization program.

They're definitely on a bit of a roll, but you have to bear in mind that much of it is overdue, so to speak: deferred from the 1990s - since when the vast majority of Russia's arsenal has stagnated in terms of modernisation. Now that more money is available, a lot of projects that have been piling up for more than a decade are getting under way simultaneously, creating an impression that perhaps seems more threatening than its actual implications. Particularly since Russia culturally favours the much more visible approach of outright replacement rather than service life extension (US MMIII - how is that NOT a new missile, to all intents and purposes?).

Also, on the submarine side a few factors which the US does not have to contend with at all come into play: safety concerns from lack of maintenance for the hulls and either liquid propellant or sovereignty issues due to significant foreign content in the SLBMs. Finally, the Backfire isn't a strategic system - if that's a problem the Russians might as well complain about the USAF upgrading its Strike Eagles - and the updates are primarily intended to improve its relevance in the conventional role (although there is a knock-on effect, of course).

Personally, I think the only programmes you can't really justify from an operational point of view are either the new heavy ICBM(s) or the RS-24. IMHO there's absolutely no need to have both, but the rest isn't really a build-up of the arsenal so much as sustainment to stabilise on the desired level after the continued decline since 1991. And as always, who knows how many of these projects will actually see the light of day in the end?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2011, 07:52:09 am »
rather than service life extension (US MMIII - how is that NOT a new missile, to all intents and purposes?).

Saying that the MMIIIs are new is like saying the B-52s are new simply because they've been updated.  The last MMIII rolled off the assembly line nearly 35 years ago.  How many Russian ICBMs are 35 years old?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2011, 09:36:17 am »
rather than service life extension (US MMIII - how is that NOT a new missile, to all intents and purposes?).

Saying that the MMIIIs are new is like saying the B-52s are new simply because they've been updated.  The last MMIII rolled off the assembly line nearly 35 years ago.  How many Russian ICBMs are 35 years old?

I started emailing members of the Long Range Strike Caucus and Strategic Forces Subcommittee expressing my alarm over the state of the Triad, especially its' land based component, and the decaying nuclear enterprise. Yes I know what the word futile means  ;)

Trident - sorry I meant Blackjack upgrades. Also if you look at the date mentioned in the article - 2013 - that means a lot of work has been done on this system could this be the studied yet canceled, in the 90's, SS-24 replacement? If so will it be able to carry ten warheads?

The Russians are very curiously building systems capable of being uploaded with many more warheads than the 1550 allowed under New Start. Why all the extra capability?  In a recent congressional hearing on strategic forces the CINC Stratcom indicated that modernization of nuclear forces will be built to the 1550 limit, one example reducing the number of missile tubes on the SSBN(X) from Trident's 24 to 16, because building more, entailing a larger sub of course, would be a waste of funds.

America's actions seem to reflect the New Start reality while Russia's reflect a Cold War mindset. Am I paranoid? What would people be saying if the US was, after New Start, proposing a MX replacement?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2011, 10:24:52 am »
What would people be saying if the US was, after New Start, proposing a MX replacement?

"About time!"
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 801
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2011, 11:50:53 am »
Also if you look at the date mentioned in the article - 2013 - that means a lot of work has been done on this system could this be the studied yet canceled, in the 90's, SS-24 replacement? If so will it be able to carry ten warheads?

No idea how realistic that date is and what the underlying assumptions are. Remember, as of now this is a company project which most likely has no state commitment yet, you are essentially listening to the opinions of a lobbyist there. I'm not up to date on what specific work MITT has previously undertaken on a missile in this class, either.

The Russians are very curiously building systems capable of being uploaded with many more warheads than the 1550 allowed under New Start. Why all the extra capability?  In a recent congressional hearing on strategic forces the CINC Stratcom indicated that modernization of nuclear forces will be built to the 1550 limit, one example reducing the number of missile tubes on the SSBN(X) from Trident's 24 to 16, because building more, entailing a larger sub of course, would be a waste of funds.

America's actions seem to reflect the New Start reality while Russia's reflect a Cold War mindset. Am I paranoid? What would people be saying if the US was, after New Start, proposing a MX replacement?

I propose a slightly different rationale on Russia's part. Most probably, the new delivery systems would already be uploaded to their maximum potential from the outset, allowing the country to utilise their warhead allowance with the minimum number of costly delivery vehicles. As for why Russia would want to maintain an arsenal that is so much larger than they actually need, it's probably a kind of status symbol to them. I'll be the first to admit that this isn't entirely rational, but it is the way it is.

Be that as it may, it's worth mentioning that Russia's new SSBN/SLBM combination also represents a reduction - the Typhoon subs carried 20 missiles rather than 16 for the Borei class and both the SS-N-23 and SS-N-20 had higher throw-weights than the new Bulava.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2011, 04:27:00 pm »
What would people be saying if the US was, after New Start, proposing a MX replacement?

"About time!"

Scott L a real full LOL, thanks!

Well besides me, you and sferrin  :D
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3103
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2011, 02:28:19 am »
Both the Bulava and the RS24 appear to be as loaded up as they can get without a significant reduction in Russian warhead size. Far fro seeing Russia trying to create a force that can rapidly increase the number of warheads it can deliver beyond treaty limitations, it seems probable that they are focussing on developing their penetration capabilities. 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2011, 07:27:18 pm »
Russia to Purchase 36 ICBMs in 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011

Russia intends to purchase 36 ICBMs and a pair of ballistic-missile submarines in 2011, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said on Friday (see GSN, March 18).

The procurements would be funded under Russia's decade-long military modernization plan, RIA Novosti quoted Serdyukov as saying at a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and senior military officials. The plan's projected cost exceeds $670 billion, he said; the program's anticipated expense was previously reported to be $650 billion (RIA Novosti I, March 18).

Meanwhile, a high-level Russian navy insider said a future ballistic-missile submarine would also carry cruise missiles. Moscow in February indicated it would prepare the fifth-generation ballistic missile submarine by 2020 as part of its military modernization effort.

Russia also intends to construct by 2020 eight earlier-generation ballistic-missile submarines it would arm with the new Bulava ballistic missile. The Bulava missile is slated to be placed on active duty in 2011 (RIA Novosti II, March 19).
---------------------------------------

Putin Announces Doubling of Missile Production
By NABI ABDULLAEV
Published: 21 Mar 2011 15:22

MOSCOW - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said March 21 that Russia will double production of missile systems beginning in 2013 as the government plans to spend $2.7 billion to launch their serial production until 2020. "New missile weapons, strategic and tactical, such as Yars, Bulava and Iskander-M, will enter service, and beginning in 2013 the production output of missile systems should effectively double," Putin said. Speaking in Votkinsk at a government meeting dedicated to the $670 billion 2011-2020 state arms procurement program, Putin added that the local Votkinsk plant will get $340 million for its modernization within the next three years. Other companies involved in the same production chain with the Votkinsk plant will get $190 million to upgrade their equipment in the next three years, the prime minister said.

The Votkinsk plant, launched in the Volga region Udmurtia republic in 1984, produces the Topol-M, Yars and Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles, which are expected to remain the core of Russia's strategic nuclear forces for decades ahead. Putin, who visited the plant March 21, called it "the most key one in the whole industry," adding that it will enjoy guaranteed state defense orders. Under the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty between Russia and the United States, which went into effect in February, both countries should have up to 1,550 nuclear warheads and 700 deployed launchers. According to the official disclosure, Russia now has more than 4,000 nuclear warheads and over 800 deployed launchers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4000 deployed warheads and increasing missile production, new ICBMs, new Marv, active warhead production lines. Did we just sign a new arms control treaty or is Brezhnev back in office?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 07:36:10 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2011, 07:45:37 am »
rather than service life extension (US MMIII - how is that NOT a new missile, to all intents and purposes?).

Saying that the MMIIIs are new is like saying the B-52s are new simply because they've been updated.  The last MMIII rolled off the assembly line nearly 35 years ago.  How many Russian ICBMs are 35 years old?


They are new to the degree that most of the guidance system has been replaced with modern electronics, and the rocket motors have been remanufactured with new propellant charges.  And there  have been other programmes in which new technology has replacing earlier Minuteman hardware. The RVs and warheads came from the scrapped Peacekeeper force, so are not the originals.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2011, 08:28:18 am »
rather than service life extension (US MMIII - how is that NOT a new missile, to all intents and purposes?).

Saying that the MMIIIs are new is like saying the B-52s are new simply because they've been updated.  The last MMIII rolled off the assembly line nearly 35 years ago.  How many Russian ICBMs are 35 years old?


They are new to the degree that most of the guidance system has been replaced with modern electronics, and the rocket motors have been remanufactured with new propellant charges.  And there  have been other programmes in which new technology has replacing earlier Minuteman hardware. The RVs and warheads came from the scrapped Peacekeeper force, so are not the originals.

IIRC wasn't the regraining of the motors a step backwards?  I seem to remember reading that due to formulation changes for environmental concerns that it lost ISP and thus range.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline xmotex

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2011, 12:19:09 pm »
Heaven forfend our nuclear missiles not be environmentally friendly  :o

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #19 on: March 29, 2011, 01:37:44 pm »
rather than service life extension (US MMIII - how is that NOT a new missile, to all intents and purposes?).

Saying that the MMIIIs are new is like saying the B-52s are new simply because they've been updated.  The last MMIII rolled off the assembly line nearly 35 years ago.  How many Russian ICBMs are 35 years old?


They are new to the degree that most of the guidance system has been replaced with modern electronics, and the rocket motors have been remanufactured with new propellant charges.  And there  have been other programmes in which new technology has replacing earlier Minuteman hardware. The RVs and warheads came from the scrapped Peacekeeper force, so are not the originals.

IIRC wasn't the regraining of the motors a step backwards?  I seem to remember reading that due to formulation changes for environmental concerns that it lost ISP and thus range.

sferrin - that's why we need a new ultra modern MMIII replacement. Under the IHPRPT program new solid rocket formulations of high ISP have been tested. Plus in my mind we really need to exercise our ICBM industrial base right from research through to production. It would include the best technology in every aspect of the missile. I would start that today so that you had a lot of time to ensure the new technology works prior to "having" to replace MMIII.

I think Aerojet or ATK tested a 72" diameter first stage for "future strategic strike applications" (MMIII is 66" I believe) with IHPRPT systems. I would look to double MMIII throw weight allowing uploading of up to five or six warheads of 475 kt W87's in case the current "path to zero" is thrown off track.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline RLBH

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 174
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2011, 05:59:06 am »
I would look to double MMIII throw weight allowing uploading of up to five or six warheads of 475 kt W87's in case the current "path to zero" is thrown off track.
The other consideration that makes a high throw weight missile attractive is that, offloaded, it has high delta-V, allowing a wider range of trajectories for the same target set. This can be attractive for reasons of overflight rights - if the US had cause to conduct a limited strike against targets in (say) Iran or North Korea, the Russians would almost certainly object to taking the direct route over their country. If you can put a higher-performance (but heavier) bus on the missile, crossrange might be increased to the point where overflights aren't necessary for some targets.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2011, 06:14:08 am »
I would look to double MMIII throw weight allowing uploading of up to five or six warheads of 475 kt W87's in case the current "path to zero" is thrown off track.
The other consideration that makes a high throw weight missile attractive is that, offloaded, it has high delta-V, allowing a wider range of trajectories for the same target set. This can be attractive for reasons of overflight rights - if the US had cause to conduct a limited strike against targets in (say) Iran or North Korea, the Russians would almost certainly object to taking the direct route over their country. If you can put a higher-performance (but heavier) bus on the missile, crossrange might be increased to the point where overflights aren't necessary for some targets.

It is interesting you say that because options for a MMIII replacement in the 2004 ICBM replacement AoA the Air Force did was for ranges up to 26,000 km and that this same missile could be used for conventional prompt global strike. The long range was for that very reason. Also as to not overfly Russia or other sensitive countries a South Pole launch was even contemplated to hit targets in places like Iran. A southern launch would definitely have a different trajectory than a normal nuke launch.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2011, 11:55:04 am »
Russia to Boost Ballistic Missile Manufacturing, Putin Says
Thursday, April 21, 2011

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Wednesday asserted that beginning in 2013 the nation would double the number of ballistic missiles it manufactures, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, April 12). "The armed forces will receive new strategic and tactical missile systems, such as RS-24 Yars, Bulava and Iskander M," Putin said in his yearly speech to Russian lawmakers. In March, Putin said Moscow would spend $2.6 billion on the manufacturing of ballistic missiles in accordance with an armed forces update plan. Missile producers, including a factory in Votkinsk, in the coming three years are to receive $500 million to bolster their manufacturing capabilities, Putin said. "The financing will gradually increase in the future," he said (RIA Novosti, April 20).
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #23 on: May 05, 2011, 07:06:12 pm »
Russia to Field Missile Defense-Evading ICBM by 2018
Thursday, May 5, 2011

Russia intends no later than 2018 to field an all-new ICBM with the capacity to evade missile defenses, including systems based in outer space, the Xinhua News Agency reported on Thursday (see GSN, March 18). The long-range heavy ballistic missile would be an entirely new weapon and not a copy of the existing Voevoda system, one-time Russian nuclear missile chief Viktor Yesin said. The planned fifth-generation ICBM would be designed to defeat missile defenses, while its launch facilities are also to be shielded with protective antimissile systems, Yesin said. The ICBM could be fired "within seconds" of a launch order, he added. The new ICBM, combined with the current Yars and Topol-M missiles, would establish for Russia a first-strike capability with the ability to eliminate threats posed by an opponent's antimissile systems, Yesin said.
------------------------------------------------------------------
So this is what the "reset" button with Russia gets us? We neglect our Triad and nuclear weapons enterprise and Russia develops a first strike [their words] "heavy" ICBM?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #24 on: May 05, 2011, 08:19:57 pm »
I thought the magic TOPOL was suppose to make missile defenses obsolete.  Funny thing is US ICBMs have always been able to fire "within seconds" of launch order.  ISTR reading even back in the 80s that the Minutman fleets reaction time was under 30 seconds.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2011, 08:21:30 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline stew3

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2011, 04:24:31 am »
Haven't the Russians always made pretty bold claims though?  I think it stems from their historic inferiority complex and feeling of having to catch up with the west.  Not that what they make is junk, although sometimes that is the case as well.

Offline stew3

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2011, 04:39:54 am »
Russia to Boost Ballistic Missile Manufacturing, Putin Says
Thursday, April 21, 2011

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Wednesday asserted that beginning in 2013 the nation would double the number of ballistic missiles it manufactures, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, April 12). "The armed forces will receive new strategic and tactical missile systems, such as RS-24 Yars, Bulava and Iskander M," Putin said in his yearly speech to Russian lawmakers. In March, Putin said Moscow would spend $2.6 billion on the manufacturing of ballistic missiles in accordance with an armed forces update plan. Missile producers, including a factory in Votkinsk, in the coming three years are to receive $500 million to bolster their manufacturing capabilities, Putin said. "The financing will gradually increase in the future," he said (RIA Novosti, April 20).


How does this compare with Obama's promise (we will see) to spend several billion on updating our nuclear weapons complex?  I know we are not producing MM3 rocket moters (I think) and the Russians are.  Although we do have some recent experience producing Trident 2 missiles, the Russians seem to have a much more active iCBM industrial production base.  And  how many MM missiles do we have left?  (other than the 450, soon to be 420 in the silos)  We seem to be test firing them a lot.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2011, 06:35:10 am »
Russia to Boost Ballistic Missile Manufacturing, Putin Says
Thursday, April 21, 2011

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Wednesday asserted that beginning in 2013 the nation would double the number of ballistic missiles it manufactures, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, April 12). "The armed forces will receive new strategic and tactical missile systems, such as RS-24 Yars, Bulava and Iskander M," Putin said in his yearly speech to Russian lawmakers. In March, Putin said Moscow would spend $2.6 billion on the manufacturing of ballistic missiles in accordance with an armed forces update plan. Missile producers, including a factory in Votkinsk, in the coming three years are to receive $500 million to bolster their manufacturing capabilities, Putin said. "The financing will gradually increase in the future," he said (RIA Novosti, April 20).


How does this compare with Obama's promise (we will see) to spend several billion on updating our nuclear weapons complex?  I know we are not producing MM3 rocket moters (I think) and the Russians are.  Although we do have some recent experience producing Trident 2 missiles, the Russians seem to have a much more active iCBM industrial production base.  And  how many MM missiles do we have left?  (other than the 450, soon to be 420 in the silos)  We seem to be test firing them a lot.

Money for the weapons complex is strictly for nuclear weapons, warhead refurbishment, RV's, etc nothing for delivery systems. Russia has a far more robust modernization program for delivery systems. The US "forgot" to include $6 million this year for a MMIII replacement study so I don't know how serious they are towards Triad modernization. There is also preliminary work on a Trident replacement the SSBN(X) and missile but we won't see the former until 2030 and the later to 2037 I believe. A MMIII replacement is scheduled for 2030 as well but with 20 years of projected large federal deficits between now and then we will wait to see if anything get built.

Check out the Future US ICBM's and SLBM's thread great information there. http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6632.0.html
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #28 on: May 25, 2011, 03:21:08 pm »
Russian Missile Test Said to Involve New Weapon
Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Russia's submarine-launched missile test on Friday did not involve a Sineva system as was officially stated but rather a new "Liner" ICBM, Russia Today reported (see GSN, May 23). The Russian Miass Missile Center on Tuesday revealed that the successful test actually involved a new ICBM variant that had been developed in secret. The missile could be a significantly advanced version of the Sineva, which entered into service four years ago, Russia Today reported (Russia Today, May 25). Meanwhile, the first of Russia's fourth-generation Borei-class submarines has been put into water for final sea testing, Sevmash shipyard spokeswoman Anastasia Nikitinskaya said to ITAR-Tass (see GSN, April 20).

Work on the nuclear-powered Yuri Dolgoruky began in 1996. Shipyard testing of the vessel began in 2007 and ended in 2010. The submarine is to field the experimental Bulava missile, with an initial test launch from the vessel slated to take place in 2011. Russia intends to construct a minimum of eight Borei-class submarines, which would form the backbone of the country's revamped sea-based nuclear deterrent (ITAR-Tass, May 24). Separately, Russian RS-24 ICBMs are to be fielded this year with a unit at a military installation in the Ivanovo region, Interfax reported on Tuesday (see GSN, May 18). "The rearmament of the RS-24 ICBM fitted with a MIRV (multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle) warhead boosts the [Russian strategic missile troops] attack force's combat capability to counter missile defense systems, thus strengthening the nuclear deterrent potential of the Russian strategic nuclear forces," RSVN spokesman Col. Vadim Koval said (Interfax, May 24)
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 801
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #29 on: May 26, 2011, 12:49:00 am »
Liner is probably little more than a Sineva with a different warhead configuration (ISTR Sineva carries four, maybe the new one has more of a smaller design? The basic missile definitely has the throw weight to handle a lot more than just 4!). Would also explain how it could be developed so quickly, much like the RS-24 is basically a MIRVed Topol-M.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #30 on: May 26, 2011, 07:23:58 am »
Liner is probably little more than a Sineva with a different warhead configuration (ISTR Sineva carries four, maybe the new one has more of a smaller design? The basic missile definitely has the throw weight to handle a lot more than just 4!). Would also explain how it could be developed so quickly, much like the RS-24 is basically a MIRVed Topol-M.

I would be curious to know whether the US intelligence services knew of this missile, derivative of Sineva or not, and if not it would seem awfully worrisome to reduce to 1550 warheads and 700 launchers under New Start if we don't know what the Russians are building. There is still an SS-18 replacement out there somewhere apparently. 
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline stew3

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #31 on: May 26, 2011, 01:13:13 pm »
The US is blissfully slumbering in willful ignorance as to the nature and capability of Russia and the true nature of the post Cold War world, IMHO.  We deserve whatever we get.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2011, 07:28:18 pm »
The US is blissfully slumbering in willful ignorance as to the nature and capability of Russia and the true nature of the post Cold War world, IMHO.  We deserve whatever we get.

Worse than that.  Zero, in his magnificent arrogance, has his foot stomped firmly down on the accelerator while headed of a cliff.  And he thinks everybody else will be stupid enough to follow him.  In the real world though they're just pointing and laughing.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #33 on: July 21, 2011, 05:00:28 pm »
 New ICBM Planned in Russia: Report Tuesday, July 19, 2011     

Russia's Defense Ministry is completing the initial design for a new liquid-fuel, 15-warhead ICBM capable of hitting nearly any location in the Northern Hemisphere, the Russian newspaper Izvestia reported on Tuesday.   Moscow has provided $27.5 billion for preparation of the new nuclear-tipped ICBM, the newspaper reported. The first experimental model is slated for assembly at an armed forces site at Chelyabinsk, and fielding of the weapon is scheduled to start in nine years, Deutsche Presse-Agentur quoted the report as saying.


The new ICBM world succeed the SS-18 Satan missile, a Cold War-era weapon now occupying a central role in Russian plans for countering a potential nuclear attack, according to DPA. The large majority of the 58 SS-18 missiles now operationally deployed in Russian underground launch facilities are targeting counterpart firing sites in China and the United States, according to Western specialists.


Stealth components and other features included with the future ICBM would make its independently targeted warheads "impossible" to shoot down, according to Izvestia, which suggested the missile would emerge as the world's highest-performing nuclear offensive technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------
With only "supposedly" 1550 warheads allowed under New Start, the purpose of this missile is?

 
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #34 on: July 22, 2011, 04:24:51 am »
---------------------------------------------------------------
With only "supposedly" 1550 warheads allowed under New Start, the purpose of this missile is?
 

A very good question indeed.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #35 on: July 22, 2011, 04:43:56 am »
Good thing we got that shiny new treaty.   ::)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2011, 05:41:07 am »
Compare and contrast: (Excerpted from an article written by Mark B. Schneider, a senior analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy, served until 2011 in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.)

[The US] "in 2030 we will have 60-year-old ICBMs, 40-year-old submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and 35- to 70-year-old bombers. The earliest possible follow-up to the Minuteman ICBM is in 2030. A Trident SLBM replacement is not projected until 2042........ .............the effectiveness of every element of the U.S. nuclear deterrent will decline over the next 20 years. Worse still, in 2008, the Defense Science Board concluded that “industrial base skills . . . are in danger of significant further erosion in the areas of ballistic missiles.” The termination of NASA’s Aries space-booster program makes this situation worse"
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2011, 08:56:53 pm »

With only "supposedly" 1550 warheads allowed under New Start, the purpose of this missile is?


 Just because it can carry 15 RVs of a normal sort on paper doesn’t mean it will end up being deployed like that. Alternative payload deliver systems like a boost glide system weigh a lot more and would greatly push down warhead counts while being far more survivable against the current generation of ABM systems.

 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #38 on: July 22, 2011, 11:01:29 pm »

With only "supposedly" 1550 warheads allowed under New Start, the purpose of this missile is?


 Just because it can carry 15 RVs of a normal sort on paper doesn’t mean it will end up being deployed like that. Alternative payload deliver systems like a boost glide system weigh a lot more and would greatly push down warhead counts while being far more survivable against the current generation of ABM systems.

 

Which of course everyone on this forum would know and is completely irrelevant to the my question of why such a system is needed. Proper analysis of the information in the article would cover the actual information in the article and not pure speculation. How do we know that the new missiles throw weight cannot already accommodate 15 future light weight boost glide systems.

Rather than just speculate if you look at the actual article it states the the warheads to be deployed on the new system will have stealth characteristics able to defeat future ABM systems.

New Start allows 700 strategic launchers (with 100 as spares) deploying a maximum of 1550 warheads. As important, this system will begin to deploy right at the time the treaty is to expire 2020. If you were a Pentagon planner would not such a systems development alarm you also given the fact that the Russians are deploying an new Sineva derivative (capable of ten warheads), Bulava (ten warheads) and another new ICBM the RS-24?

One commentator remarked that the Russians are modernizing their forces faster than at any time since the end of the Cold War at a time when a new arms control treaty has just been signed lowering warhead count to their lowest levels since the 60's.

A defense planner should be able to ask why.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1168
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #39 on: July 22, 2011, 11:22:10 pm »
If you were a Pentagon planner would not such a systems development alarm you also given the fact that the Russians are deploying an new Sineva derivative (capable of ten warheads), Bulava (ten warheads) and another new ICBM the RS-24?

Not at all:  Gates would've been my boss, I'd have been too busy being alarmed about the implications of that  ;D

One commentator remarked that the Russians are modernizing their forces faster than at any time since the end of the Cold War at a time when a new arms control treaty has just been signed lowering warhead count to their lowest levels since the 60's.

A defense planner should be able to ask why.

They're modernizing faster and faster compared to the end of the Cold War in part because they finally have the money to do it.  A big portion of the RVSN is the road-mobile Topol, and they're beginning to reach their service life limits.  Hence the RS-24.  SATAN reaches the end of it's life soon, hence the new liquid-fueled missile being considered.  Bulava is a ridiculously expensive failure, likely explaining the new Sineva derivative.  Plus, the Sineva derivative and RS-24 were going to appear a lot quicker anyway, being that they weren't clean sheet of paper designs.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #40 on: July 22, 2011, 11:57:44 pm »
If you were a Pentagon planner would not such a systems development alarm you also given the fact that the Russians are deploying an new Sineva derivative (capable of ten warheads), Bulava (ten warheads) and another new ICBM the RS-24?

Not at all:  Gates would've been my boss, I'd have been too busy being alarmed about the implications of that  ;D

One commentator remarked that the Russians are modernizing their forces faster than at any time since the end of the Cold War at a time when a new arms control treaty has just been signed lowering warhead count to their lowest levels since the 60's.

A defense planner should be able to ask why.

They're modernizing faster and faster compared to the end of the Cold War in part because they finally have the money to do it.  A big portion of the RVSN is the road-mobile Topol, and they're beginning to reach their service life limits.  Hence the RS-24.  SATAN reaches the end of it's life soon, hence the new liquid-fueled missile being considered.  Bulava is a ridiculously expensive failure, likely explaining the new Sineva derivative.  Plus, the Sineva derivative and RS-24 were going to appear a lot quicker anyway, being that they weren't clean sheet of paper designs.

I'm kind of hoping this type of news spurs the US into developing a Peacekeeper + sized MMIII replacement first for prompt global strike and then for the future land based strategic deterrent mission.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1168
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2011, 12:36:52 am »
Whatever replaces Minuteman we've already dropped the biggest ball, fumbling away an opportunity to solve multiple problems:  the B-3 will be an air-breather.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #42 on: July 24, 2011, 07:05:13 pm »
 

 Which of course everyone on this forum would know and is completely irrelevant to the my question of why such a system is needed.
Actually its not, but you seem like you want to throw a fit for the sake of doing so like half the people on these forums. This reminds me why I rarely post.

Quote
Proper analysis of the information in the article would cover the actual information in the article and not pure speculation.
What information, its a couple sentences? You only want analysis on that; well guess what that’s impossible to draw any conclusions from so why did you even ask the question? Any rational analysis at all will work by pulling in other information, a lot of it.

Quote

How do we know that the new missiles throw weight cannot already accommodate 15 future light weight boost glide systems.
Volume constraints make that unlikely unless this missile is going to be so big it needs new and very expensive silos.


 
Quote

 Rather than just speculate if you look at the actual article it states the the warheads to be deployed on the new system will have stealth characteristics able to defeat future ABM systems.
And since nothing about a conventional RV can be stealthy, that already indicates it’s probably something much different, like boost glide. Guess I read the article after all hun? Of course you might have noticed, and this is amazingly, not in the article, Russia has already been claiming it has highly stealthy ABM defeating warheads… so why would they need a new missile for that? Maybe because stealth RVs don't work, and Russia has a long track record of highly political motivations to lie about its existing military capabilities, and often tells contradictory lies about the US ABM system? One day US ABM is the ultimate threat to Russia, the next day Russian super warheads are totally immune to all ABM weapons ect… Meanwhile the US says stealth on RVs doesn’t work, and is working on its own boost glide systems on which these forums already have extensive threads. Funny no?
 
Quote

 New Start allows 700 strategic launchers (with 100 as spares) deploying a maximum of 1550 warheads. As important, this system will begin to deploy right at the time the treaty is to expire 2020. If you were a Pentagon planner would not such a systems development alarm you also given the fact that the Russians are deploying an new Sineva derivative (capable of ten warheads), Bulava (ten warheads) and another new ICBM the RS-24?
Russia has a GPD 1/10th that of the United States, no I can’t say I would be terribly worried about them starting a new nuclear arms race and bankrupting themselves again. Especially not with static silo based weapons. They have a clear need to replace existing missiles which are for the most part, very old, and not modernized in the comprehensive manner as was done to the US Minuteman force. Beyond that, anything you can think or dream on WHY is speculation. A high payload missile could be desired for a number of reasons, some far less hostile then others. The very fact that the US is likely to have some kind of boost or ascent phase ABM capability by the 2030s already makes a high warhead count missile a dumb option for countering ABM, which makes it in fact rather reasonable to speculate that they have no intention is actually loading the thing with that many warheads. You might recall that several different US ballistic missiles did not carry full warhead counts in service in ordered to provide more missile cross range and stay within treaty limits, and that the USSR loaded many of its ICBMs with varying warhead and yield counts. This would be nothing new.

Quote

 A defense planner should be able to ask why.
 
And without speculating on the future situation, on possible payloads, sensors and countermeasures such a question is an impossible one. But you asked it anyway didn't you? What do you expect as an answer that isn't pure speculation? Someone with a secret tap on the Russian Defense Ministry phone lines to show up?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2011, 07:09:53 pm by Sea Skimmer »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #43 on: July 24, 2011, 07:35:52 pm »
Sea Skimmer - See I actually like your second post better. I hardly think I threw a fit, do you? So in your second post if you take out the snark and sarcasm it contains some good information. 

But my concern remains with the pace of Russian modernization coupled with the relative decline and current precarious state of the US Triad and nuclear enterprise. I see a fully modernized Russian nuclear force with huge warhead upload capability in the 2020 timeframe but at the same time another decade of US neglect of the nuclear deterrent mission and continued aging systems.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2011, 08:47:51 pm »
Sea Skimmer - See I actually like your second post better. I hardly think I threw a fit, do you? So in your second post if you take out the snark and sarcasm it contains some good information.

 Well, yeah that might be a an exaggeration; but frankly I have not found the reception at this place very warm at all. I’m not the nicest person myself either but even in the tiny amount of time I’ve spent here I’ve already seen a number of posters go nuts over pretty dumb stuff. 
 
Quote

But my concern remains with the pace of Russian modernization coupled with the relative decline and current precarious state of the US Triad and nuclear enterprise. I see a fully modernized Russian nuclear force with huge warhead upload capability in the 2020 timeframe but at the same time another decade of US neglect of the nuclear deterrent mission and continued aging systems.

The Russians are certainly stepping up modernization, but that and the reduced state of US nuclear forces are directly related to the utter decay of Russia nuclear and strategic defensive systems from 1991 into the early 2000s. Russia also lost a great deal of its strategic depth, and already faces a vast superiority of NATO conventional firepower. We are at the point at which F-16 raids on Moscow could be reasonable. Its simply lost its place in the world, making a conflict that could escalate into a nuclear war dramatically less likely. I certainly see a need to upgrade US nuclear forces, but it is now fairly independent of whatever Russia feels like spending money on. I'd much rather see the brunt of the money spent on defensive systems and conventional weapons that might actually be useful. Certainly US conventional superiority is not at all in doubt. With the US continuing to produce Trident D-5 and finally allocating money for a new bomber project office; though not yet an actual plane, as well as working on new ICBM reentry vehicles and new launch systems for future attack submarines my only real concern lies in if the nuclear warheads will actually work. But I also grow more convinced by the day that the non full scale testing methods being used will work. Our first nukes worked without testing after all more then a half a century ago. But like I was saying, this issue is kind of independent of the specifics of Russian deployments. We do not need to match them missile project for missile project anymore.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2011, 08:56:51 pm by Sea Skimmer »

Offline stew3

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #45 on: July 25, 2011, 06:20:26 am »
The Russians are in the same position as to actually testing new warhead designs given the treaty limitations, so the difference between the Russian and American warheads is Russia is making new warheads evidently and the US is rebuilding old ones.  I guess there is a difference between 'rebuild' and 'build' according to the above posts, but were not US warheads more advanced (higher yield for weight as in the W-76) to start with, and is their age relevant given the 'rebuild'?  How long is a 'rebuilt' warhead viable?  I honestly don't know, and that is not a rhetorical question.   

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #46 on: July 25, 2011, 03:08:29 pm »
Sea Skimmer - See I actually like your second post better. I hardly think I threw a fit, do you? So in your second post if you take out the snark and sarcasm it contains some good information.

 Well, yeah that might be a an exaggeration; but frankly I have not found the reception at this place very warm at all. I’m not the nicest person myself either but even in the tiny amount of time I’ve spent here I’ve already seen a number of posters go nuts over pretty dumb stuff. 
 
Quote

But my concern remains with the pace of Russian modernization coupled with the relative decline and current precarious state of the US Triad and nuclear enterprise. I see a fully modernized Russian nuclear force with huge warhead upload capability in the 2020 timeframe but at the same time another decade of US neglect of the nuclear deterrent mission and continued aging systems.

The Russians are certainly stepping up modernization, but that and the reduced state of US nuclear forces are directly related to the utter decay of Russia nuclear and strategic defensive systems from 1991 into the early 2000s. Russia also lost a great deal of its strategic depth, and already faces a vast superiority of NATO conventional firepower. We are at the point at which F-16 raids on Moscow could be reasonable. Its simply lost its place in the world, making a conflict that could escalate into a nuclear war dramatically less likely. I certainly see a need to upgrade US nuclear forces, but it is now fairly independent of whatever Russia feels like spending money on. I'd much rather see the brunt of the money spent on defensive systems and conventional weapons that might actually be useful. Certainly US conventional superiority is not at all in doubt. With the US continuing to produce Trident D-5 and finally allocating money for a new bomber project office; though not yet an actual plane, as well as working on new ICBM reentry vehicles and new launch systems for future attack submarines my only real concern lies in if the nuclear warheads will actually work. But I also grow more convinced by the day that the non full scale testing methods being used will work. Our first nukes worked without testing after all more then a half a century ago. But like I was saying, this issue is kind of independent of the specifics of Russian deployments. We do not need to match them missile project for missile project anymore.

Sea Skimmer - rereading my response to your post I do come off a little abrupt with what are valid points. I am not happy with US strategic planning especially with regard to the nuclear deterrent mission so my frustration was misguided in this case.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #47 on: August 09, 2011, 09:30:42 pm »
 Russia Announces New Sub-Fired Ballistic Missile Tuesday, Aug. 9, 2011  Russia's Makeyev Design Bureau has verified the first trial of a new submarine-launched ballistic missile intended to trump the payload-to-range capacities of comparable systems wielded by the world's other nuclear weapons states, Russia Today reported on Tuesday (see GSN, May 25).
The new "Liner" missile is a heavily modified variant of the RSM-54 Sineva formally delivered to the navy in 2007. Russia has equipped its Delta 4 submarines with 16 of the Sineva systems.
The new weapon had its initial trial launch in May. It is designed to deliver independently targeted nuclear warheads of varying yields, and it includes sophisticated features for breaching present and planned antimissile systems, Russia Today reported.
The Liner would enable Russia's Delta 4 submarines to remain in use until 2030, according to the report.
The solid-fuel weapon can transport between six and 12 warheads with explosives yields of 150 kilotons or four higher-yield nuclear weapons, placing it on par with the U.S. Trident 2 D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missile.
The Liner is strongly distinct from Russia's Bulava missile -- a three-stage, solid-fuel weapon slated for deployment on Borei-class submarines once testing is complete -- and the weapons should not be compared by their warhead capacities, specialists say. The Bulava can travel farther than 4,970 miles and carry 10 steerable, 150-kiloton warheads able to exceed the speed of sound, Russia Today reported (see GSN, July 1).
Safety risks posed by liquid-fuel missiles prompted Russia's navy to phase out their use, according to the news report. Solid-fuel missiles are also capable of gaining greater speed upon liftoff, potentially giving them an edge in evading enemy missile defenses (Russia Today, Aug. 9).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile in the US RFPs Slightly Delayed For Air Force's Four ICBM Sustainment Subsystems          The Air Force has opted to delay its release of formal requests for proposals for a series of intercontinental ballistic missile sustainment contracts by several months, but the structure and requirements of the contracting process remain stable, according to a service official
------------------------------------------------------
So forget modernization we are going to delay sustainment programs for our 40 year old ICBM,  :o

 
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #48 on: December 16, 2011, 03:23:44 pm »
Russia to Develop Heavy ICBM to Evade U.S. Missile Interceptors Dec. 16, 2011 
 
Russia intends to design and manufacture a new heavy ICBM with the capacity to evade U.S. missile interceptors, RIA Novosti reported on Friday (see GSN, Sept. 6).  Russian strategic missile forces head Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said a determination had been made to build the liquid-fueled, silo-based ICBM to provide Russia with an "enhanced capability to breach a hypothetical U.S. missile defense system."  The United States plans between now and 2020 to deploy increasingly advanced sea- and land-based missile interceptors around Europe as a proclaimed hedge against a potential ballistic missile attack from Iran. The Kremlin says it suspects that next-generation U.S. interceptors planned for Europe could have the ability to target its strategic nuclear forces. It has threatened to deploy Iskander missiles near NATO states and to take other steps if its concerns are not addressed.

 
Karakayev said Iran does not have the industrial capacity or the technical means to manufacture ballistic missiles that can reach Europe.  Moscow intends for the new 100-ton ICBM to take the place of the R-36M Voyevoda missile. The new long-range missile is needed as the military's solid-fueled strategic weapons might be vulnerable to interception by U.S. antimissile systems, Karakayev said. The general said his command would conduct trial firings of 11 long-range ballistic missiles in 2012 (RIA Novosti, Dec. 16).

 
Separately, a Russian naval staff insider said there would be an additional trial this year of the submarine-launched Bulava ballistic missile, Interfax reported on Thursday (see GSN, Nov. 29).  "The preliminary information available to us confirms that a Bulava salvo test launch will be carried out from the Yuri Dolgoruky missile-carrying submarine within the period from Dec. 25 to Dec. 29 this year," the anonymous source said, adding that a "launch date will be set by a state commission at the beginning of next week."
 Russian officials had earlier intended to hold off on additional Bulava testing until the year was over. "But the defense industry has created all of the conditions needed to conduct a Bulava salvo launch. It concerns this missile itself, its carrier and ground-based infrastructure," the source said. In the upcoming test, two missiles would be fired from the Yuri Dolgoruky, with less than a second separating their launches, he said. "The possibility of putting the Bulava missile into service in the Russian navy will be considered if the test launch is successful," the naval insider said. The Bulava has performed successfully in three test firings in 2011 after a number of unsuccessful trials. The missile, designed to deliver as many as 10 separately targeted nuclear warheads a maximum of 5,000 miles, is intended to become a central component of Russia's nuclear deterrent (Interfax, Dec. 15).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the fact New Start takes the US and Russia to 1550 deployed strategic warheads Russia is building large 10 warhead capable missiles, why?


Also interesting that in the early 90's the proposed R-36M3 IKAR was to be a solid fueled replacement for the R-36M2 Voyevoda liquid fueled ICBM. Russia still has trouble with large solid fueled rockets or just much less technical risk and lower cost to go with what you know?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1168
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #49 on: December 16, 2011, 10:19:05 pm »
The new missile will replace the R-36M.  There is no sinister plan to create 3,000 warheads.  Consider that many of the Topols (SS-25s) are going to be retired in the coming years, and that the R-36M will need to be repalced.  The RS-24 is the answer to part 1, its MIRV capability allowing fewer missiles to meet the same warhead number, the new ICBM to part 2.

Offline gaenar

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 5
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #50 on: December 29, 2011, 02:30:37 pm »
Separately, a Russian naval staff insider said there would be an additional trial this year of the submarine-launched Bulava ballistic missile, Interfax reported on Thursday (see GSN, Nov. 29).  "The preliminary information available to us confirms that a Bulava salvo test launch will be carried out from the Yuri Dolgoruky missile-carrying submarine within the period from Dec. 25 to Dec. 29 this year," the anonymous source said, adding that a "launch date will be set by a state commission at the beginning of next week."

According to Izvestiya it seems it's done already. Bulava passed the last test for fire in salvoes

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #51 on: December 30, 2011, 03:58:11 am »
In other news: Russian nuclear submarine fire put out (BBC News)

From reports and commentary on HP&CA and elsewhere, looks like the Yekaterinburg is a constructive total loss.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline gaenar

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 5
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #52 on: December 30, 2011, 09:10:37 am »
In other news: Russian nuclear submarine fire put out (BBC News)

From reports and commentary on HP&CA and elsewhere, looks like the Yekaterinburg is a constructive total loss.

Yeah, I hope it wouldn't be a Kursk tragedy once again ^(

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 825
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #53 on: January 15, 2012, 02:49:54 pm »
Yeah, I hope it wouldn't be a Kursk tragedy once again ^(

lol woot?  ::)
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline gaenar

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 5
  • I really should change my personal text

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #55 on: February 01, 2012, 12:59:28 pm »
Bulava Enters Hasty Production 

January 30, 2012: Russia has ordered mass production of the new Bulava SLBM (Sea Launched Ballistic Missile). The exact number of missiles was not disclosed but the order covered deliveries for the next eight years. The Bulava is only used in the new Borei SSBN (nuclear submarine carrying SLBMs). Each Borei carries 16 Bulavas and you need some spares for testing, maintenance, and such. Reloads are not an issue. So there will have to be about 18 Bulavas per Borei. There are currently two Boreis built and waiting for their Bulava missiles. Six more Boreis are to be built, indicating the need for over a hundred Bulavas before the end of the decade.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline stew3

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #56 on: February 01, 2012, 01:51:59 pm »
Why not reload SLBMs?  If they are so survivable, why not get some to hide somewhere in the world to assure, after the first launch of all SLBMs on board the sub, that all the targets are covered, considering we will have lost a considerable portion of our forces after absorbing a first strike.  That would considerably add to deterrence IMHO.

Offline gaenar

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 5
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #57 on: February 02, 2012, 01:24:12 am »
I think after a first launch the will be no need to reload. Just think what if about 100 nuclear missiles reach the aim ^(

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #58 on: February 14, 2012, 12:13:06 pm »
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/russia-submarine-nuclear-idUSL5E8DE7U920120214

Quote
Vlast reported that immediately after the fire the Yekaterinburg sailed to the navy's weapons store, an unusual trip for a damaged submarine supposedly carrying no weapons and casting doubt on assurances that it was not armed.

"K-84 was in dock with rockets and torpedoes on board," the magazine said, adding that apart from the nuclear weapons the submarine was carrying torpedoes and mines as well as its two nuclear reactors.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2012, 12:14:37 pm by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #60 on: September 04, 2012, 08:45:13 am »
      From Defensetalk.com:
 
Russia is due to create a new heavy intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by 2018, Strategic Missile Forces commander Sergei Karakayev said on Monday. “Construction of the missile is ongoing,” he said. “It is to be completed by 2018.”
The new missile is to replace the R-36M2 Voyevoda (NATO reporting name SS-18 Satan) missile.
So far all of Russia’s recent ICBM projects, both sea-launched (Bulava) and ground-based (Topol-M, Yars), have been solid fuel.
 
Karakayev said the new ICBM will have a launch mass of around 100 tons with a better payload-launch weight ratio than in a solid fuel missile. Such ICBMs can only be deployed in silos. Earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry said that if the United States went ahead with its missile-defense-in-Europe plans, Moscow would respond in kind by notably creating a new sophisticated ICBM.
----------------------------------------------
Question for the experts at SP:
 
1) 100 tons is less than half the weight of a R-36M2. With advanced liquid propellants - storable - could this missile even approach the R-36M2's throw weight?
2) In a comparible sized missile how much heavier on average would a solid fueled missile be than a liquid fueled one?
 
Thanks
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #61 on: September 10, 2012, 05:48:27 pm »
Russia's new heavy intercontinental ballistic missile will have a 5-ton warhead, which is four times that of its predecessors, a former military commander said on Friday. "The new ICBM will have a payload four times bigger than that of the Yars missile,” said Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin (Ret.), advisor to the Russian Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) commander, who served as SMF chief of staff in 1991-93. “The 45-ton Yars has a payload of 1.2 tons. The new missile will be able to orbit a payload of 5 tons. ”The new missile will have a greater capability for missile defense penetration," he said. SMF chief Col. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said this past Monday that Russia will build a new ICBM by 2018. The new missile is to replace the R-36M2 Voyevoda (NATO reporting name SS-18 Satan) missile. So far all of Russia’s recent ICBM projects, both sea-launched (Bulava) and ground-based (Topol-M, Yars), have been solid fuel. Karakayev said the new ICBM will have a launch mass of around 100 tons with a better payload-launch weight ratio than in a solid fuel missile. Such ICBMs can only be deployed in silos.

The Russian Defense Ministry previously said that unless the United States abandons its plans to create a missile defense system in Europe, Russia will take counter measures, including building a new heavy liquid-propellant missile.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #62 on: October 28, 2012, 11:05:11 am »
Encapsulates all Russian modernization, scary as the US continues to do basically no modernization of the Triad or weapons infrastructure.

http://www.nipp.org/Publication/Downloads/Downloads%202012/Schneider%20Russian%20strategic%20forces%20talkingpoints%20-.pdf
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 830
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #63 on: October 29, 2012, 11:25:19 am »
I like this -- so in order to defeat ABM "that doesn't work", Russia is having to increase the payload of their ICBMs by a factor of four. That doesn't come cheap, whether in overall missile costs (bigger missiles = $$$) or mobility (bigger missiles = harder to move).  ;D

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #64 on: October 29, 2012, 11:47:51 am »
The massive payload suggests the Russians are building a missile that has great latitude in sending warheads into a variety of orbit instead of just into a ballistic trajectory to the target.    If this is what they intend, it would mean the new missile can threaten any point on the globe from any direction, not just from the direction of the great circle route between launch site and target.     This would make defence of large areas such as continental US or western Europe much more difficult.   The incoming warhead could now come from any direction.  From south, from south east, from south west, etc.   
 
This makes it much more attractive to attempt to take out the missile at boost stage.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #65 on: October 29, 2012, 12:38:09 pm »
The paper talks about, apparently, new 'miniature' warheads, anyone have any idea?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #66 on: October 29, 2012, 02:46:22 pm »
The massive payload suggests the Russians are building a missile that has great latitude in sending warheads into a variety of orbit instead of just into a ballistic trajectory to the target.   

It suggests nothing of the sort.  5 tons is considerably less than the current R-36.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #67 on: October 29, 2012, 08:03:27 pm »
Actually, the R-36 was designed to put warheads into orbit in precisely the manner I described,  in what was called at the time fractional orbital bombardment system.   


The capability was removed from SS-18 in the mid 1970s due to mutual blackmail between US and USSR, with the inducement of ABM treaty.   It was outlawed under SALT II treaty.


« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 09:17:44 pm by chuck4 »

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1168
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #68 on: October 29, 2012, 10:31:02 pm »
FOBS was the R-36-O, also known as the SS-9 SCARP.  The FOBS unit was based at Baikonur.  I don't think I've heard of an R-36M/SS-18 FOBS.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #69 on: October 30, 2012, 01:55:52 pm »
I misspoke.   SS-18 is based on the SS-9, and possessed the energy and throw weight to loft multiple warheads into orbit in a FOBS role.    But SS-18 was not so deployed, despite evident latent capability to be so deployed due to ABM and SALT II.
 
I think the reason for deploying new liquid fueled, silo launched missiles with exceptional throw weights to replace SS-18 could only be to preserve this latent capability.   Otherwise replacing SS-18s with lighter solid fueled mobile missiles makes more sense.
 
FOBS poses a severe challenge to any wide area, terminal stage physical interception type of missile defense.     For one, FOBS can come from any direction, necessitating much larger number defensive missiles deployed in every direction.     Another thing is FOBS launch could be disguised as a satellite launch, and FOBS warheads can arrive at point of reentry without warning.   
 

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1168
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #70 on: October 30, 2012, 05:59:48 pm »
The new heavy ICBM is basically the answer to US missile defense.  The large throw weight isn't going to be used up by warheads, it's going to carry both warheads and a whole mess of penetration aids.  It will be markedly more survivable post-launch than the Topol-M or RS-24, as those are much smaller ICBMs with reduced throw weights.
 
Plus, it wouldn't surprise me if the big one was cheaper.  No TEL costs, far fewer people to watch over the things, and you can probably use pre-existing R-36M silos.  Add to that the fact that the Russian SLVs are mostly liquid fuel, and you can cross-feed certain improvements from one to the other.
 
Besides, SBIRS can differentiate between boosters.  You aren't hiding a FOBS with a satellite launch cover story.  Well, unless you actually use an SLV...but then you don't need the new ICBM for that.

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3103
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #71 on: October 31, 2012, 02:20:58 am »
Just a musing but it occurs to me that if the Russians are serious about using various MaRV's and other fancy warhead modifications to help their penetration efforts they are probably going to have to increase the percentage of the warheads weight and volume allocated to ancillary systems which will in turn have an effect on the required throw weight...?

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #72 on: October 31, 2012, 04:11:04 am »
SS-18 were deployed with 10 MIRVs and 40 decoys.   That didn't use up it full throw weight capacity.   These was a scheme to deploy it with 20 or more MIRVs.








Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #73 on: October 31, 2012, 05:41:53 am »
SS-18 were deployed with 10 MIRVs and 40 decoys.   That didn't use up it full throw weight capacity.   These was a scheme to deploy it with 20 or more MIRVs.

Which doesn't change the fact that it was never a FOBS system.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #74 on: October 31, 2012, 07:51:11 am »
It was a quarter screw driver turn away from being an FOBS.   

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #75 on: October 31, 2012, 11:24:44 am »
It was a quarter screw driver turn away from being an FOBS.

Uh-huh.  ::)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 830
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #76 on: November 02, 2012, 12:20:41 pm »
Uh-huh.  ::)
Considering that the civilian space launch version of the SS-18 is/was capable of putting 4,000 kg into LEO.... Yeah.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #77 on: November 02, 2012, 12:31:51 pm »
Uh-huh.  ::)
Considering that the civilian space launch version of the SS-18 is/was capable of putting 4,000 kg into LEO.... Yeah.

And the Titan II, Peacekeeper, and D-5 have/had decent throw weights as well.  That by no means indicates they're "a quarter screwdirver turn" away from being a FOBS system.   ::)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 830
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #78 on: November 02, 2012, 06:56:26 pm »
And the Titan II, Peacekeeper, and D-5 have/had decent throw weights as well.  That by no means indicates they're "a quarter screwdirver turn" away from being a FOBS system.   ::)

It all depends on their guidance computer. Once the more modern fully digital guidance systems allowing for near instant retargeting via electrical connections, rather than swapping out physical tapes came along; that was a significant "quarter screwdriver turn" towards a FOBS system.

You still need a specialist re-entry vehicle with a de-orbit system, but that can be accomodated if it was designed to interface through the same attachments that the normal suborbital RVs use to connect to the missile bus.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #79 on: November 02, 2012, 08:10:58 pm »
You still need a specialist re-entry vehicle with a de-orbit system, but that can be accomodated if it was designed to interface through the same attachments that the normal suborbital RVs use to connect to the missile bus.

And thus no, "quarter turn of a screwdriver". 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #80 on: November 02, 2012, 10:01:30 pm »
1.  It take up to twice as much kenetic energy to send something into low earth orbit as it does to send the same thing into a intercontinental ballistic trajectory.

2.  Becuase lower energy of ballistic trajectory, throw weight of a ballistic missile on intercontinental ballistic trajectory is typically much higher than the weight the same missile booster can put into low earth orbit.    Some intermediate range Missiles can have impressive throw weights without the energy to put any payload at all into orbit.

3.  To convert typical missile into satellite launcher usually requires very substantial alterations like adding a  additional upper stage, and/or auxiliary boosters to handle the added weight during liftoff.   A typical ballistic missile thus converted probably won't fit back into the same silo.

4.  Unlike most solid fueled missiles the SS-18 can put a large payload into orbit without major modifications like adding an additional stage or putting on strapon boosters.  It can in theory come straight out of its silo and send a satellite, or a FOBS bus, into orbit.


This is why SS-18 class missile has unusual potential for FOBS deployment, whether announced, or covert.

5.  Tell me, when your favorite hawkish commentator say Iran is a quarter turn of screw driver away from nuclear weapons, do you think they meant some mullah has a literal screw driver in a slot, and is flexing his weists to make that quarter turn?  Or do you take that to mean they are merely closer to it then is comfortable?
« Last Edit: November 02, 2012, 11:26:12 pm by chuck4 »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #81 on: November 02, 2012, 11:05:40 pm »
1.  It take up to twice as much kenetic energy to send something into low earth orbit as it does to send the same thing into a intercontinental ballistic trajectory with range of 6000 or 9000kms.

2.  Becuase lower energy of ballistic trajectory, throw weight of a ballistic missile on intercontinental ballistic trajectory is typically much higher than the weight the same missile booster can put into low earth orbit.    Some intermediate range Missiles can have impressive throw weights without the energy to put any payload at all into orbit.

3.  To convert typical missile into satellite launcher usually requires very substantial alterations like adding a  additional upper stage, and/or auxiliary boosters to handle the added weight during liftoff.   A typical ballistic missile thus converted probably won't fit back into the same silo.

4.  Unlike most solid fueled missiles the SS-18 can put a large payload into orbit without major modifications like adding an additional stage or putting on strapon boosters.  It can in theory come straight out of its silo and send a satellite, or a FOBS bus, into orbit.

5.  Tell me, when your favorite hawkish commentator say Iran is a quarter turn of screw driver away from nuclear weapons, do you think they meant some mullah has a literal screw driver in a slot, and is flexing his weists to make that quarter turn?  Or do you take that to mean they are merely closer to it then is comfortable?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  The SS-18 wasn't and isn't a FOBS missile - ever.  Get over it.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 830
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #82 on: November 04, 2012, 11:13:04 am »
And thus no, "quarter turn of a screwdriver".
More like "a day's work in the missile silo" to swap out the warheads.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #83 on: November 04, 2012, 12:41:35 pm »
And thus no, "quarter turn of a screwdriver".
More like "a day's work in the missile silo" to swap out the warheads.

And flight testing (and then the jig is up), software developement, probably a different bus, etc. etc. . .
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #84 on: November 04, 2012, 12:59:14 pm »
And thus no, "quarter turn of a screwdriver".
More like "a day's work in the missile silo" to swap out the warheads.

And flight testing (and then the jig is up), software developement, probably a different bus, etc. etc. . .


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


They had the hardware developed, the entire process tested and deployed.   They had the FOBS bus in ACTUAL service.  The only difference is that was on the SS-9, not the closely related development of SS-9, the more capable SS-18.   

Read up on how many strategic offensive concept they flight tested during the 1980s without giving US any actionable hint of what they were up to.   After they nominally decommissioned the SS-9 FOBS, they flighted tested an new manned orbital nuclear bombardment space station called Polyus under Ronald Reagan's nose without the US being the wiser.   They  flight tested SS-18s that's been modified into trigger vehicles with electronic signaling packages to control the launch of the entire soviet strategic missile force in a second strike, without the US being the wiser.

They have more experience than anyone else in putting things into orbit on liquid fueled boosters, and more experience than anyone else in taking things down from orbit.  They know how to hide the nature of what they flight test, while validating all key concepts, and verify all important risks are managed, without giving the game away.

So give up the ignoramus nitpicks.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2012, 01:30:15 pm by chuck4 »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #85 on: November 04, 2012, 01:36:24 pm »
Jesus won't help you.   They are so close to being the same thing they share the same designation within the Soviet strategic missile forces.
So do the Pershing I and II.  Hornet and Super Hornet.  Blinder and Backfire.  I guess they're all identical too? 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #86 on: November 04, 2012, 06:53:06 pm »
Moderators please don't lock the thread it is a good thread but language like what is being used is unacceptable!
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #87 on: November 04, 2012, 09:12:52 pm »
I've removed some of the last posts, which in the end led to unacceptable behaviour.
When there are different opinions, they can be debated, but there always is a point, where
the discussion should be ended, even if the other one hasn't changed his mind. Insults can be
screamed at the monitor, shouted out in front of the house, BUT, PLEASE, NOT POSTED !
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1168
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #88 on: November 05, 2012, 02:46:32 pm »
they flighted tested an new manned orbital nuclear bombardment space station called Polyus under Ronald Reagan's nose without the US being the wiser.   

What.  Skif-DM was supposed to be a laser weapon system, a Soviet Star Wars counterpart.  Unfortunately two things happened:  1) the demonstrator failed to achieve a stable insertion after separating from the Energiya booster and ended up falling back to Earth, and 2) Gorbachev cancelled the entire program, probably in part because he realized that it was a massive stretch to be developing Skif while preaching to Reagan about giving up Star Wars.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #89 on: November 05, 2012, 03:14:58 pm »
Here is the configuration of Polyus.   Note the nuclear space mines:

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1168
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #90 on: November 13, 2012, 09:28:11 pm »
3.  To convert typical missile into satellite launcher usually requires very substantial alterations like adding a  additional upper stage, and/or auxiliary boosters to handle the added weight during liftoff.   A typical ballistic missile thus converted probably won't fit back into the same silo.

In the case of Russian converted SLVs, they often use demilitarized ICBM launch silos.
 
Here is the configuration of Polyus.   Note the nuclear space mines:

That idea was for ASAT capability/defense, not bombardment of terrestrial targets.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #91 on: November 13, 2012, 10:06:55 pm »
I believe the only silo launched ICBM derivative was based on the SS-18.  SS-19 based SLV all had to launch from from normal surface launch sites.


I have seen different descriptions of the functionalities of Polyus.  Some explicitly claim Polyus's had a decapitating first strike capability and role, and Polyus were given low IR and low RO capability to facilitate this.   Suddenly dropping nuclear warheads out of orbit does seem both operationally and texhnically feasible.     I have not seem anything about exactly how it's nuclear mines were to be used in ASAT role since deploying nuclear weapons to attack different satellites in different orbit is necessarily a protracted process requiring lengthy orbital maneuvering.

Offline Lauge

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 437
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #92 on: November 13, 2012, 11:09:20 pm »
I have seen different descriptions of the functionalities of Polyus.  Some explicitly claim Polyus's had a decapitating first strike capability and role

All the descriptions I've personally come across of the Polyus refers to its armament as being for anti-satellite/anti-spacecraft use. The surface attack option is new to me, so a reference to the source(-s) you mention would be much appreciated.
 
Regards & all,
 
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
"Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the crocoducks of war"

"Swinging across on rigging, cutlass in teeth, is regrettably not a practical means of boarding a spacecraft".
The Tough Guide to the Known Galaxy

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #93 on: March 05, 2013, 03:19:07 pm »
This is somewhat out of the blue:

http://rianovosti.com/military_news/20130305/179831565/Russia-to-Resurrect-Titanium-Submarines.html

(H/t WilliamB over at MilitaryPhotos.net.)
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #94 on: March 26, 2016, 03:28:24 pm »


Russian RS-26 Avangard anyone care to translate for me  ;D
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #96 on: May 10, 2016, 04:32:54 pm »
Another story a bit hyperbolic in the language but includes a video of an SS-19 launch supposedly carrying a boost glide warhead.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/russia-test-unstoppable-satan-2-7935675
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 10:38:05 am by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #102 on: November 19, 2016, 02:58:32 pm »
Sarmat tested? I'm trying to get confirmation from Pavel Podvig via Twitter.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hticbm/articles/20161117.aspx

So should we call it the RS-28 "Damien" the Son of Satan character from the Omen movies?   :)
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #103 on: November 20, 2016, 08:08:00 am »
Sarmat tested? I'm trying to get confirmation from Pavel Podvig via Twitter.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hticbm/articles/20161117.aspx

So should we call it the RS-28 "Damien" the Son of Satan character from the Omen movies?   :)
UPDATE: Mr. Podvig will not confirm thinks above story not credible.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #104 on: December 06, 2016, 05:45:49 am »
Why Does Russia Revive the 'Nuclear Train' Program?

"BEIJING --- Research and development of the missile-carrying train for Russia's future Barguzin "combat railway missile complex" (BZhRK), also referred as the "nuclear train" for its transportation and launch of strategic nuclear missiles, is in smooth progress, according to Russian media reports.

 The Barguzin complex's intercontinental ballistic missile had a successful Pop-up launch test recently, and further flight design testing may begin in 2017. Sergei Karakayev, commander of Russian Strategic Missile Forces, said the nuclear train is expected to be deployed in the strategic missile troops in 2020 and assume combat duties.

 The BZhRks was called the "ghost trains" during the Cold War. The US and former Soviet Union invested a lot of scientific research resources and capital in its development and manufacturing, and the US didn't abandon this program until the Soviet Union was disintegrated and the Cold War ended.

 The Soviet strategic missile troops were equipped with 12 BZhRKs with 36 intercontinental ballistic missiles in total from 1987. After the Cold War, Russia and the US signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), according to which 10 BZhRKs were destroyed, and the remaining two were placed in an exhibition hall after being "demilitarized". "

So this would be what, the THIRD type of ICBM they're putting into production?

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/179294/china-questions-russia%E2%80%99s-revival-of-%E2%80%98nuclear-train%E2%80%99-program.html
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #105 on: December 06, 2016, 06:42:14 am »
Why Does Russia Revive the 'Nuclear Train' Program?

"BEIJING --- Research and development of the missile-carrying train for Russia's future Barguzin "combat railway missile complex" (BZhRK), also referred as the "nuclear train" for its transportation and launch of strategic nuclear missiles, is in smooth progress, according to Russian media reports.

 The Barguzin complex's intercontinental ballistic missile had a successful Pop-up launch test recently, and further flight design testing may begin in 2017. Sergei Karakayev, commander of Russian Strategic Missile Forces, said the nuclear train is expected to be deployed in the strategic missile troops in 2020 and assume combat duties.

 The BZhRks was called the "ghost trains" during the Cold War. The US and former Soviet Union invested a lot of scientific research resources and capital in its development and manufacturing, and the US didn't abandon this program until the Soviet Union was disintegrated and the Cold War ended.

 The Soviet strategic missile troops were equipped with 12 BZhRKs with 36 intercontinental ballistic missiles in total from 1987. After the Cold War, Russia and the US signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), according to which 10 BZhRKs were destroyed, and the remaining two were placed in an exhibition hall after being "demilitarized". "

So this would be what, the THIRD type of ICBM they're putting into production?

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/179294/china-questions-russia%E2%80%99s-revival-of-%E2%80%98nuclear-train%E2%80%99-program.html
No worries the US will be fully modernized in 2030.................  :'(
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #110 on: January 28, 2017, 04:00:08 pm »
From Russian Forces website (Pavel Podvig)

Flight tests of Barguzin rail-mobile ICBM are said to begin in 2019

The on-and-off rail-mobile ICBM program seems to be going forward after all, although rather slowly. Although it was said to be suspended in April 2016, it showed signs of life that culminated in what is said to be an ejection test in November 2016. Now a source in the industry telling the Russian press that the flight tests of the missile will begin in 2019.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #115 on: May 24, 2017, 06:36:40 pm »


Russian Forces 2035
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #116 on: May 26, 2017, 06:48:38 am »
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/russias-putin-drafts-new-rearmament-program

Quote
According to Kommersant, the outlines of the next Russian modernization program will focus heavily on building up Russia’s nuclear triad. The document reportedly calls for the completion of three intercontinental ballistic missile development programs: the RS-26 Rubezh (a development of the Yars-M), RS-28 Sarmat and the rail-based Bagruzin by 2020.

Quote
As for the Navy, the 2025 program will again prioritize the construction of new nuclear submarines and small (no larger than frigate-type) surface combatants. Although Russia’s new Borei- and Yasen-class submarine fleets have yet to be completed, the 2025 program calls for a new fifth-generation ballistic missile submarine known as the Husky class.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline phrenzy

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 278
  • as long as all they ask me about is the air war...
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #117 on: June 27, 2017, 05:57:21 am »
Russia successfully test fires SLBM and associated systems under simulated Cindy conditions:

http://www.newsweek.com/russias-nuclear-submarine-tests-ballistic-missile-fire-arctic-sea-629187?utm_source=RC+Defense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=907a02010f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_06_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-907a02010f-85348829

Russia’s nuclear-powered Yuri Dolgoruky submarine has successfully test-launched an intercontinental ballistic missile in the Barents Sea in the Arctic, according to state news agency Itar-Tass.
We train young men to drop fire on people. Yet their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it is obscene.  -  Kurtz

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #118 on: July 08, 2017, 11:27:53 pm »
http://analysans.net/1037-2/

Sarmat delayed trouble with cold launch?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2554
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #121 on: October 30, 2017, 07:11:18 am »
https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/russia-to-test-deadliest-nuke-twice-before-years-end/

A somewhat mis-titled article given there are only tests of the launcher/rocket NOT of actual nuclear weapons.  And as for comments such as this "The Sarmat will reportedly be twice as light as the RS-36M." :o

Offline stealthflanker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #122 on: October 30, 2017, 11:06:15 am »
Im curious if Husky will really be an SSBN. Given Rubin design bureau dominance in that area. 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #125 on: November 16, 2017, 08:52:59 am »
http://tass.com/defense/975859

Borei B almost ready
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #131 on: December 27, 2017, 06:10:41 pm »
https://special-ops.org/news/technology/known-russias-5th-gen-husky-class-stealth-subs/

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17197/russia-fires-topol-ballistic-missile-to-test-new-tech-to-defeat-missile-defense-systems

Quote
This isn’t the first test of a modified Topol in 2017, either. In September 2017, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced it had fired an RS-12M with an unspecified “advanced combat payload,” which may have been a hypersonic boost glide vehicle.

Quote
There have been reports that Sarmat may be able to carry two dozen Object 4202 hypersonic vehicles and suggestions that it is a direct response to America's pursuit of a prompt global strike capability.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2017, 06:43:08 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #132 on: December 31, 2017, 09:24:56 am »
http://defense-update.com/20171231_sarmat.html

http://defense-update.com/20171231_russian_strategic_modernization.html

Quote
The impressive progress of Russian nuclear forces is the topic of this article. Russia is modernizing all three ‘legs’ of its nuclear triad. This modernization includes the introduction of new strategic missile submarines armed with new RSM56 Bulava missiles, restarting the production line of strategic bombers – the old-new Tupolev Tu-160M2, to be equipped with air-launched derivatives of the Kaliber naval cruise missiles. This modernization also includes a complete replacement of the Russian land-based strategic missile fleet, with the development and deployment of hundreds of new Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM). Accelerated testing of these new strategic missiles highlights the importance and fast pace of this thrust, as Moscow transforms its strategic force to better cope with the U.S. evolving missile defense capabilities.

But remember the US, who has barely started its' modernization program, is at fault for causing 'this arms race'
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #134 on: January 13, 2018, 09:44:58 am »
https://www.c4isrnet.com/space/2018/01/12/russias-nuclear-underwater-drone-is-real-and-in-the-nuclear-posture-review/

"WASHINGTON — A draft of the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review confirms the existence of an underwater nuclear drone made and operated by Russia, a capability the U.S. Defense Department had not previously publicly acknowledged.

“In addition to modernizing ‘legacy’ Soviet nuclear systems, Russia is developing and deploying new nuclear warheads and launchers,” stated an unclassified draft of the nuclear posture review first published by the Huffington Post.

“These efforts include multiple upgrades for every leg of the Russian nuclear triad of strategic bombers, sea-based missiles and land-based missiles. Russia is also developing at least two new intercontinental range systems, a hypersonic glide vehicle and a new intercontinental, nuclear-armed undersea autonomous torpedo.”"


"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #137 on: March 02, 2018, 12:55:55 am »
http://defense-update.com/20180302_new_russian_strategic_weapons.html

Quote
Nuclear Propulsion Helps Avoid Enemy Defenses: According to Putin, Russian scientists have succeeded to miniaturize a nuclear propulsion system that offers power to weight ratio 100 times better than current propulsion systems. This reactor can be fitted into cruise missiles and autonomous underwater weapons, enabling such compact platforms to be used as strategic weapons, and attack anywhere on the face of the earth. Putin confirmed the nuclear propulsion was successfully tested last year and demonstrated the capability to generate the propulsion required for the launch and cruise phases of such weapons.

Nuclear propulsion means that the PRO – a future cruise missile designed to use this system could operate at ranges 12 times larger than the range achieved by conventionally powered weapons. Maintaining a low-level flight profile, but not limited by range, such a moderately stealthy missile will be able to circumvent air defenses and use unexpected attack profiles unfeasible with conventional weapons.

U.S. sources confirmed the Russians have tested a nuclear-powered cruise missile but indicated such a test failed over the Arctic, but no radioactive traces were reported by European pollution monitoring. Neither the nuclear-powered cruise missile nor the torpedo was mentioned in the recently released U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 12:59:07 am by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #138 on: March 02, 2018, 02:13:21 am »
Guys at the site apparently have serious translation problems.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #139 on: March 02, 2018, 07:13:33 am »
Guys at the site apparently have serious translation problems.
I had to correct "Putin" spelled with two t's  ;D

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2018/March%202018/US-Not-Surprised-By-Russias-Claim-to-Have-New-Invincible-Nuclear-Weapon.aspx?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=

Quote
Russian President Vladimir Putin says Russia has developed a new cruise missile that is capable of carrying a nuclear weapon and has “practically unlimited range,” an “unpredictable flight path,” and is “invincible" against current and future air and missile defense systems, according to a video with translated subtitles posted by the BBC.

When asked about Russia’s claims during a Thursday press briefing, Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White repeatedly said the Defense Department was “not surprised by the statement.” She declined to elaborate but said, “the American people should rest assured that we are fully prepared.”   
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1631
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #140 on: March 02, 2018, 09:52:54 am »
Anatoly Zak analyses the Sarmat ICBM.

Quote
The development of the Sarmat missile reportedly started between 2009 and 2011 and coincided with the deterioration of Russia's relations with the West. The decision to build the "new-generation Satan" was not without controversy, because large liquid-propellant missiles were long considered obsolete. For example, the United States long abandoned liquid propellant in its strategic arsenal in favor of compact solid-propellant missiles.

The Sarmat program also encountered various problems with the rocket itself and with its manufacturing base, which apparently delayed its introduction into the armaments years behind the originally planned date of 2016. First throw tests in Plesetsk, which only saw the ejection of a dummy missile from its silo, took place around December 2017, or at least a year later than publicly promised. Around the same time, the first launch of the flight worthy missile was promised before the end of 2018.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sarmat.html

This leads me to ask why is this liquid propelled rather than solid?
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 10:06:06 am by Flyaway »

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #141 on: March 02, 2018, 10:31:33 am »
Last minute of video shows the Russian HGV and what appears to be a laser weapon system although it doesn't show enough to be sure.  The rotating structure might be a beam projector but again, not enough details to be certain.




Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 655
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #142 on: March 02, 2018, 10:39:22 am »
Seems impressive but will it all work? Is this all indigenous R&D or is there any indication any of those 3 systems such as the nuclear powered cruise missile, hypersonic maneuver warhead, and the laser were based on other projects in the West that didn't go anywhere?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #143 on: March 02, 2018, 10:43:02 am »
Seems impressive but will it all work?

Why wouldn't it?  There's nothing here that hasn't been done before.

Is this all indigenous R&D or is there any indication any of those 3 systems such as the nuclear powered cruise missile, hypersonic maneuver warhead, and the laser were based on other projects in the West that didn't go anywhere?

They've had numerous independant projects for these over the years.  Russia isn't China.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #144 on: March 02, 2018, 10:51:27 am »
As far back as the 1980s with the success of GPS, the follow-on plan was to place space based radar to see anyplace in the world. Its probably time to bring that back to the forefront of being a "must have" system. We could track mobile ICBM launchers from satellites in geosynchronous orbit over the USSR... er, I mean Russia, and target them with B-21s or hypersonic weapons launched from the hypersonic son-of-blackbird in development. We could track their bombers as soon as they start moving around the tarmac even before getting airborne and coming within range of ground based radar sites in friendly turf. There has been a lot of work on space based radar and a system could be fielded relatively quickly and for not a lot of money....



"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #145 on: March 02, 2018, 12:17:20 pm »
As far back as the 1980s with the success of GPS, the follow-on plan was to place space based radar to see anyplace in the world. Its probably time to bring that back to the forefront of being a "must have" system. We could track mobile ICBM launchers from satellites in geosynchronous orbit over the USSR... er, I mean Russia, and target them with B-21s or hypersonic weapons launched from the hypersonic son-of-blackbird in development.

Correction: you could target empty TELs.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #146 on: March 02, 2018, 04:51:39 pm »
It seems the 'air launched hypersonic weapon' is simply an Iskander-M mounted on a MiG-31.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline litzj

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 183
  • BLOG : http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
    • http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #147 on: March 03, 2018, 02:59:41 am »
Interesting video.

How to solve communication problem with HGV??

ionized air interrupt communication of HGV

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #148 on: March 03, 2018, 01:59:06 pm »
It seems the 'air launched hypersonic weapon' is simply an Iskander-M mounted on a MiG-31.

Is that verified or an educated guess from the video?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline totoro

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 240
    • Binkov's Battlegrounds
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #149 on: March 05, 2018, 05:45:17 am »
While the general shape and size is similar, I would say Kinzhal has a more tapered front section and a more pointed nose. While the main booster section may be based on Iskander, it seems likely at least the frontal section is different.
www.youtube.com/c/binkovsbattlegrounds - military analysis videos

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1815
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #150 on: March 05, 2018, 06:36:11 am »
It does appear to be highly influenced if not a modification of that Ballistic Missile. Quite different from what DARPA and the USAF are trying with the TBG and ARRW. Also, there seems to be some ambiguity when it comes to the 2000 km range cited being that of the weapon or that of the combined combat range of the weapon and launch system (MiG-31).
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline stealthflanker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #151 on: March 05, 2018, 08:04:16 am »


This leads me to ask why is this liquid propelled rather than solid?

So that you can use it as Space booster when it decommissioned.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1857
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #152 on: March 05, 2018, 08:49:09 am »
It does appear to be highly influenced if not a modification of that Ballistic Missile. Quite different from what DARPA and the USAF are trying with the TBG and ARRW. Also, there seems to be some ambiguity when it comes to the 2000 km range cited being that of the weapon or that of the combined combat range of the weapon and launch system (MiG-31).

I assumed it was the kinetic range of the missile. But it could be the operational range (I wonder how much endurance the Mig-31 would lose with that payload)!?

The Iskander-M has a fairly low and flat trajectory, correct? Plus terminal homing? So it is a good candidate for a technological starting point. That said, I don't think it would be a trivial task, and an air launched version would be quite different.

The 3d graphics were quite low quality or unreliable (e.g. the Kanyon/Status-6 system being combined with the AUV)...  however, if we take them at face value they showed the Kinzhal releasing a pair of manoeuvring terminal anti-ship warheads.  Correct me if I'm wrong - but that is new.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1857
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #153 on: March 05, 2018, 08:50:28 am »
Picture found on Reddit:

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #154 on: March 05, 2018, 08:56:43 am »
When there were proposals some years ago (2004-2005) for a satellite launcher based on MiG-31 (Ishim) one option proposed for quick development was to adapt an Iskander missile.

In 2013 there was a story on nvo.ng.ru that mooted the possibility of mounting an IRBM such as Iskander on the MiG-31 which specifically mentioned the Ishim studies:

Quote
Considering studies on the Ishim complex, it is possible to use the modernized MiG-31 as a delivery vehicle of an IRBM with a launch weight up to 10 tonnes. The missile complex with IRBM will have a high level of survivability in view of the aircraft’s high speed of departing from the airfield on receiving a missile attack warning signal. The MiG-31 fighter equipped with an IRBM will not meet a single one of the criteria of a heavy bomber, and accordingly the quantitative limitations of the START Treaty in force will not extend to this aircraft and to the ballistic missiles and their warheads accommodated on it. The missile complex with air-launched IRBM can be employed to perform the nuclear deterrence mission on the European, Eastern, and Southern strategic axes without the air platform leaving Russian airspace. Due to the air platform’s flight range, such a complex can exercise nuclear deterrence on several strategic axes simultaneously. Missile complexes with ground-based IRBMs do not have such capabilities. The air-launched IRBM can be standardized with missiles intended for operational insertion of satellites and for satellite intercept. One option permitting a cost reduction and decreased time periods for development of the intermediate-range missile complex is to create a ballistic missile using elements of the existing Iskander-M operational-tactical ballistic missile.

https://fortunascorner.com/2013/09/16/russian-options-for-upgrading-strategic-nuclear-forces/

On top of this, it looks a lot like, and is basically the same size as, the Iskander-M.

I'm fairly confident Khinzal is derived from the Iskander-M.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 09:13:14 am by PaulMM (Overscan) »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #155 on: March 05, 2018, 09:03:29 am »
These announcements are mostly just Maskirovka. Its like the Cold War all over again. Hyping up test systems, trying to give the impression of Russia being strong, yet they can't even afford a decent 3D artist.... I'd be embarrassed to show those sequences personally.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3103
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #156 on: March 05, 2018, 09:08:31 am »
From a Russian perspective the air-launched Iskander looks very sensible:

1) It seems relatively low cost (existing launch platform and seems to be based on Iskander)
2) Adds a multi-role capability to the Mig-31
3) Enhances the long range precision strike capability the Russians have been building out with the Tu-22M upgrades, Tu-160 production restart, Iskander, Kaliber and Kh-101 deployment and Su-34 production
4) They clearly get space warfare in a way the Europeans don't and this seems to enhance their ASAT capability too

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1857
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #157 on: March 05, 2018, 09:27:16 am »
They might be angling towards trying to get us (NATO) to back away from ABM and from hypersonic weapons. This would provide some protection to Iran etc.

If so they might develop a credible capacity rather than actually deploying one. We'll see.

From a Russian perspective the air-launched Iskander looks very sensible:

1) It seems relatively low cost (existing launch platform and seems to be based on Iskander)
2) Adds a multi-role capability to the Mig-31
3) Enhances the long range precision strike capability the Russians have been building out with the Tu-22M upgrades, Tu-160 production restart, Iskander, Kaliber and Kh-101 deployment and Su-34 production
4) They clearly get space warfare in a way the Europeans don't and this seems to enhance their ASAT capability too

Ah, but they are modifying Mig-31BMs to a strategic role and away from their role as tactical bombers and interceptors (already multi-role).

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #158 on: March 05, 2018, 09:41:25 am »
They might be angling towards trying to get us (NATO) to back away from ABM and from hypersonic weapons.

I can't think of a single reason we'd want to do that. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1857
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #159 on: March 05, 2018, 06:07:34 pm »
The usually hawkish RAND seems to think it is a good idea to reach some kind of agreement on non-proliferation of hypersonic technology - maybe you should talk to them.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #160 on: March 05, 2018, 07:52:48 pm »
The usually hawkish RAND seems to think it is a good idea to reach some kind of agreement on non-proliferation of hypersonic technology - maybe you should talk to them.

I note you didn't include "ABM" in there.  As for hypersonics why would either China or Russia agree to give them up when we don't have any?  Oh, you want to trade ABMs for hypersonics?  Brilliant.  Let's leave ourselves helpless to the likes of NK and Iran. 
« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 07:56:35 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #161 on: March 05, 2018, 09:28:09 pm »
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russia-building-nuclear-powered-cruise-missiles-the-24744

Quote
Part of the reason the Kremlin is pursuing these new weapons—apart from genuine concern about American missile defenses—is the Russian military industrial complex, which is perpetually in search of new projects. In the case of these weapons, the Russian defense and nuclear energy industries played a large role in convincing the Kremlin to proceed—and by some estimates, Russian industry might have had the dominant role.

Quote
Keeping capacity alive. Not letting top talent die out,” Kofman told The National Interest. “That means the feeding defense industry and S&T [science and technology]. Even if you don’t really have missions.”
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline tomcat1974

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 17
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #162 on: March 06, 2018, 12:16:36 am »
These announcements are mostly just Maskirovka. Its like the Cold War all over again. Hyping up test systems, trying to give the impression of Russia being strong, yet they can't even afford a decent 3D artist.... I'd be embarrassed to show those sequences personally.

Come one ... Masha and the Bear had very nice animation.

Offline tomcat1974

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 17
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #163 on: March 06, 2018, 12:18:57 am »
I can't think of a single reason we'd want to do that.

It's a matter of debate ... We could see a real proliferation of Aegis system. De facto missile/defence system on the Navy... Good luck finding which one has the SM3 /SM 6 missiles on them.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #164 on: March 06, 2018, 01:14:14 am »
The usually hawkish RAND seems to think it is a good idea to reach some kind of agreement on non-proliferation of hypersonic technology - maybe you should talk to them.

I note you didn't include "ABM" in there.  As for hypersonics why would either China or Russia agree to give them up when we don't have any?  Oh, you want to trade ABMs for hypersonics?  Brilliant.  Let's leave ourselves helpless to the likes of NK and Iran.

Assuming that Iran and the DPRK are actually a real threat and not just a fantasy of imagination.

Just like the Russians in fact.

Why is everybody a threat to the US, I wonder?   Could it be because the US is threatening everybody else?  Mmmmm....

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #165 on: March 06, 2018, 04:09:45 am »

Assuming that Iran and the DPRK are actually a real threat and not just a fantasy of imagination.

Just like the Russians in fact.

Why is everybody a threat to the US, I wonder?   Could it be because the US is threatening everybody else?  Mmmmm....

Who is everybody?  North Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Russia, and China do not constitute “everybody”.  Britain or France with nukes is not a threat.  North Korea with nukes is.  The reason is in the nature and behavior of its’ government and not because the US is planning to annex it or even impose a regime change.  If North Korea would focus on feeding itself, the world could safely ignore it.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #166 on: March 06, 2018, 04:22:59 am »
The usually hawkish RAND seems to think it is a good idea to reach some kind of agreement on non-proliferation of hypersonic technology - maybe you should talk to them.

I note you didn't include "ABM" in there.  As for hypersonics why would either China or Russia agree to give them up when we don't have any?  Oh, you want to trade ABMs for hypersonics?  Brilliant.  Let's leave ourselves helpless to the likes of NK and Iran.

Assuming that Iran and the DPRK are actually a real threat and not just a fantasy of imagination.

Just like the Russians in fact.

Why is everybody a threat to the US, I wonder?   Could it be because the US is threatening everybody else?  Mmmmm....

Sure.  That's why the US unilaterally drew down so many nuclear weapons and didn't modernize while Russia, China, India and North Korea are going like gang busters.  That's why Russia and North Korea have both threatened to nuke the US - because we're the bad guys.  ::) 
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 04:40:40 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1857
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #167 on: March 06, 2018, 05:30:36 am »
Sferrin - to defeat an opponent one must empathise with them (even if one doesn't sympathise with them).

During most of the Cold War the United States maintained a larger nuclear arsenal than Russia and pursued destabilising technologies (e.g. stealth). The United States is pursuing hypersonics, space based weapons, and pulling out of disarmament treaties.

The United States has repeatedly threatened to attack North Korea and Iran. The United States has discussed developing tactical nuclear bunker-busters for use against non-nuclear powers. The United States has repeatedly discussed regime change in these countries (and even Russia), and engaged in a technically illegal war to overthrow the government of Iraq. In the post-Cold War world, the United States has backed opposition groups in the Ukraine and Georgia, and NATO has gradually expanded.

Now if you were a paranoid dictator, how would you feel? Would you feel like a deranged blackmailer, or someone standing up to a bully to demand international law be followed? We are all heroes of our own stories.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #168 on: March 06, 2018, 06:21:20 am »
Sferrin - to defeat an opponent one must empathise with them (even if one doesn't sympathise with them).

During most of the Cold War the United States maintained a larger nuclear arsenal than Russia and pursued destabilising technologies (e.g. stealth).

You might want to recheck your facts as the opposite was the case for the majority of the Cold War.  The USSR had much larger nuclear forces and pursued "destabilizing technologies", such as ABMs (they had the only operational site) and mobile ICBMs.

The United States is pursuing hypersonics, space based weapons, and pulling out of disarmament treaties.

Both Russia and China are further ahead in hypersonics so I don't know how the fact that the US is pursuing them as well is supposed to make us the bad guy.  Russia is not a member of the ABM Treaty anymore either.  There is no evidence the US is pursuing space based weapons.

The United States has repeatedly threatened to attack North Korea and Iran.

How many times have both of those countries threatened to destroy the US?  NK has recently threatened to nuke the US, as has both Russia, "escalate to deescalate", and China.  We have not threatened to nuke them. (Well, not until they threatened to nuke us anyway.) 

The United States has discussed developing tactical nuclear bunker-busters for use against non-nuclear powers.

We've actually had them in the past.  We do not now.  That we developed the MOP demonstrates we'd rather not use nukes.

The United States has repeatedly discussed regime change in these countries (and even Russia), and engaged in a technically illegal war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

*cough* Georgia, Crimea, East Ukraine, etc.  You'll note we did not annex Iraq, nor was it "illegal". 


 
In the post-Cold War world, the United States has backed opposition groups in the Ukraine and Georgia,

Just as Russia and China have backed opposition groups in the US.

 
and NATO has gradually expanded.

By invitation, not conquest (unlike Russia).

Now if you were a paranoid dictator, how would you feel? Would you feel like a deranged blackmailer, or someone standing up to a bully to demand international law be followed? We are all heroes of our own stories.

Are you seriously putting North Korea on the same level, morally, as the US?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1857
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #169 on: March 06, 2018, 08:05:20 am »
Now if you were a paranoid dictator, how would you feel? Would you feel like a deranged blackmailer, or someone standing up to a bully to demand international law be followed? We are all heroes of our own stories.

Are you seriously putting North Korea on the same level, morally, as the US?

No, I'm not.

I'm merely suggesting that these guys might be just as good at rationalising for themselves and 'their side' as you are.

I'll respond later to the factual stuff (as that requires rigour).

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 655
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #170 on: March 06, 2018, 01:31:19 pm »
North Korea maybe just doesn't want to go the way of Iraq, Libya, etc...those weren't nuclear States.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #171 on: March 06, 2018, 04:03:05 pm »
North Korea maybe just doesn't want to go the way of Iraq, Libya, etc...those weren't nuclear States.

To be fair, the US didn't start getting on their case until they started exporting terrorism and then deciding nukes would be fun to add to the mix.  You don't see the US getting on Brazil's case.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #172 on: March 06, 2018, 05:22:21 pm »
North Korea maybe just doesn't want to go the way of Iraq, Libya, etc...those weren't nuclear States.

To be fair, the US didn't start getting on their case until they started exporting terrorism and then deciding nukes would be fun to add to the mix.  You don't see the US getting on Brazil's case.

Nor Israel's, nor India's, nor Pakistan's.  Funny how it treats it's allies.  Despite signing the Non-Proliferation Pact, the US has enabled several formally non-Nuclear nations to become nuclear powers.

The US regularly threatens other so-called "enemy nations".   It uses it's large conventional forces to hold exercisers near their borders and sails it's naval forces near their shores.   Is it any wonder they feel alarmed?   Particularly after the US has forced regime change on Iraq and Afghanistan.   The DPRK has seen agreements made with the US broken by the US.  Iran has seen a civilian airliner shot down, it has had ships destroyed.   It is surprising that they feel threatened by the US?

The US does not act in a vacuum.  It's fiery rhetoric does not go unnoticed.  Nor does it's actions.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #173 on: March 06, 2018, 07:31:52 pm »
Noam, Howard, is that you?  ::)

Some videos of general interest

Russian Nuclear Strategy



Russian Views on Strategic Deterrence

« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 07:35:06 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline major-1

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 9
  • 2 Form
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #174 on: March 07, 2018, 04:32:15 am »
On Russia strongly affected by the bombing of Belgrade. It became clear that renunciation of nuclear weapons is impossible. Time passed. In 2012, it was planned that by 2020, in the European part of Russia, there will not be a single heavy division. Again the plans have changed.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #175 on: March 07, 2018, 06:15:51 am »
North Korea maybe just doesn't want to go the way of Iraq, Libya, etc...those weren't nuclear States.

To be fair, the US didn't start getting on their case until they started exporting terrorism and then deciding nukes would be fun to add to the mix.  You don't see the US getting on Brazil's case.

Nor Israel's, nor India's, nor Pakistan's. 

« Last Edit: August 02, 2018, 01:43:57 am by Jemiba »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 606
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #176 on: March 07, 2018, 08:37:19 pm »
Pakistan has long been a backer of terrorists attacking US and other forces in Afghanistan and other parts of the world killing US and allied troops.  Training of those groups also takes place in Pakistan.

Offline major-1

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 9
  • 2 Form
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #177 on: March 08, 2018, 03:12:59 am »
In 2009, Ukraine was elected president of Yushchenko. He began to pursue an anti-Russian policy, received direct orders from the United States. My relative, who served in the army of Uraina, said that psychologists were asked about the desire for war with Russia. The officer, inclined against Russia, could continue his career.

America has always pursued a policy of destroying Russia. Now they want to destroy China.
In the 21st century, not having nuclear weapons is suicide.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #178 on: March 08, 2018, 05:13:18 am »
Pakistan has long been a backer of terrorists attacking US and other forces in Afghanistan and other parts of the world killing US and allied troops.  Training of those groups also takes place in Pakistan.

That official Pakistani government doctrine?  I presume you have evidence?  (Osama hanging his hat in Pakistan under the protection of some faction not officially sanctioned by the Pakistani government doesn't qualify.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2187
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #179 on: March 08, 2018, 06:56:31 am »
That official Pakistani government doctrine?
Official? No. De facto? I'd say yes.  Evidence? Use your eyes.

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3322
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #180 on: March 08, 2018, 07:06:17 am »
Dear members, could you avoid too off topic posts here?
Otherwise this thread will be locked.

Thanks in advance

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #181 on: March 09, 2018, 06:46:23 am »
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-triad/2018/03/08/is-russia-influencing-americas-nuclear-debate-mac-thornberry-thinks-they-will/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

Quote
“I suspect we’re going to see much more sophisticated methods coming from Russia to try and influence the decisions that are required to implement this Nuclear Posture Review,” he said. “So it’s a big deal.”

It was shown the Soviets were behind the nuclear freeze and anti-Pershing II/GLCM deployment movements/protests so this is not surprising. What is surprising is they always find those in the west willing to be duped again and again.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #182 on: March 09, 2018, 09:50:13 pm »
http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-says-it-can-meet-threat-russia-s-new-nuclear-weapons?utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=13967&utm_medium=email&elq2=133e3676807a48e2af39f5c21d7eee24

Quote
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s dramatic unveiling of a phalanx of new ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles may be alarming, but it is confirmation of what U.S. government and military officials have long known—that the U.S. lead in these areas is eroding.

But in the face of the nuclear weapons of unlimited range touted by Putin in his March 1 state of the nation address, U.S. leaders firmly believe the way it has deterred attacks since the dawn of the nuclear era—the threat of mutually assured destruction—still works.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1857
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #183 on: March 10, 2018, 04:01:13 am »
Dear members, could you avoid too off topic posts here?
Otherwise this thread will be locked.

Thanks in advance


I'll avoid actually backing up my earlier arguments with evidence.

It is a bit difficult considering most of the articles linked connect the weapons with policy/planning, and that often raises questions about what these policies are trying to achieve. It also tends to trigger discussions about what could/should be done.

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3322
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #184 on: March 10, 2018, 07:28:14 am »
Avimimus,

I agree with you that some military topics come associated to a strong political component. However, we should remember that the forum focus is set on technical aspects both from military and civil projects. Thus, before starting a topic we should consider potential conflictivity and inhibit. Political discussion is discouraged because results are unpredictable. I appeal to responsability. And, please think twice before posting a personal attack.

Still, for those interested political discussion, there are excellent forums. And there is no problem for everyone to enjoy both places.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 08:57:16 am by pometablava »

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #185 on: March 10, 2018, 09:22:00 am »
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-triad/2018/03/08/is-russia-influencing-americas-nuclear-debate-mac-thornberry-thinks-they-will/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

Quote
“I suspect we’re going to see much more sophisticated methods coming from Russia to try and influence the decisions that are required to implement this Nuclear Posture Review,” he said. “So it’s a big deal.”

It was shown the Soviets were behind the nuclear freeze and anti-Pershing II/GLCM deployment movements/protests so this is not surprising. What is surprising is they always find those in the west willing to be duped again and again.

That’s a highly dubious statement.
In addition assume you’ve seen the posts re: avoiding politics...

Online fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2074
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #186 on: March 10, 2018, 02:36:50 pm »
Quote
#Russia just gave us a closer look at "Kinzhal", their recently revealed hypersonic air-to-surface missile system
Twitter: https://t.co/zY9pzBwQzT
Some more screenshots.
Source at Twitter: https://twitter.com/dressler_w/status/972769917412966401
« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 12:00:57 pm by fightingirish »
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #187 on: March 10, 2018, 07:08:08 pm »
Kinzhal screenshots. Last is bad quality due to zooming but shows the missile pylon mount.

« Last Edit: March 10, 2018, 07:30:25 pm by PaulMM (Overscan) »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #188 on: March 10, 2018, 07:44:45 pm »
Sizing speculation and drawings from Paralay's forum:

"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Nigelhg

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 15
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #189 on: March 11, 2018, 07:24:20 am »
Footage of the launch just released.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43362213

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #190 on: March 11, 2018, 05:18:20 pm »
Quote
Considering studies on the Ishim complex, it is possible to use the modernized MiG-31 as a delivery vehicle of an IRBM with a launch weight up to 10 tonnes. The missile complex with IRBM will have a high level of survivability in view of the aircraft’s high speed of departing from the airfield on receiving a missile attack warning signal. The MiG-31 fighter equipped with an IRBM will not meet a single one of the criteria of a heavy bomber, and accordingly the quantitative limitations of the START Treaty in force will not extend to this aircraft and to the ballistic missiles and their warheads accommodated on it. The missile complex with air-launched IRBM can be employed to perform the nuclear deterrence mission on the European, Eastern, and Southern strategic axes without the air platform leaving Russian airspace. Due to the air platform’s flight range, such a complex can exercise nuclear deterrence on several strategic axes simultaneously. Missile complexes with ground-based IRBMs do not have such capabilities. The air-launched IRBM can be standardized with missiles intended for operational insertion of satellites and for satellite intercept. One option permitting a cost reduction and decreased time periods for development of the intermediate-range missile complex is to create a ballistic missile using elements of the existing Iskander-M operational-tactical ballistic missile.

*Sigh*. The original START (unlike its successor) prohibited air-to-surface ballistic missiles (ASBMs)
in this range in part because they could easily be INF-violating IRBMs-in-waiting.



Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #191 on: March 12, 2018, 08:59:33 pm »
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2018/03/12/russia-to-world-our-new-nukes-are-no-bluff/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Defense%20DNR%2003-12-18&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Daily%20News%20Roundup

Quote

MOSCOW — Following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s unveiling of several new types of nuclear weapons March 1, Westerners were left scratching their heads and wondering if he was bluffing. But in an interview published by the military newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) on Monday, Deputy Defence Minister Yury Borisov assured them: “This is no bluff.”

Borisov was specifically referring to the hypersonic boost-glide system Avangard, also known as 4202, one of the systems mentioned by Putin. The announcement itself was not a revelation. Russia has been testing hypersonic technologies similar to the U.S. gliders since at least 2004, and the Soviets began playing with the technology in the late 1980s.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #192 on: March 17, 2018, 02:56:01 pm »
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-satan-2-nuclear-missile-test-2018-3

Quote
A top Russian General announced on Tuesday that Russia's military will conduct a second test of its new, most powerful nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile amid rising tensions with NATO.

"The first launch of this missile took place at the end of December last year. At the moment preparations are in full swing at the Plesetsk cosmodrome for another pop-up test," Russian General Valery Gerasimov told state-run media, referring to testing the missile's systems used to eject from its silo as a "pop-up" test.

During Putin's State of the Nation speech on March 1, he talked up the new system, called the RS-28, or the "Satan 2" by NATO members, while showing footage of its testing.

But like much of Russia's military hardware, the actual footage only showed an ejection test, and then a computer animation took over to demonstrate the missiles flight path, which has not yet been tested.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #193 on: March 19, 2018, 03:20:57 pm »
https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/russia-plans-to-field-new-hypersonic-boost-glide-warhead-by-2019/

Quote
A new hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV)—the Avangard (Vanguard in English) hypersonic boost-glide warhead—is expected to enter service with Russia’s Strategic Missile Force no later than 2019, according to a Russian defense industry source.

“After the first series of glide vehicles is produced and a controlling launch of a missile with this armament is carried out successfully, the Avangard complex may be accepted for service already in late 2018. At the latest, it will be accepted for operation and placed on high alert in 2019,” the source told TASS news agency on March 15.

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced during his annual State of the Union address on March 1 that the Avangard HGV, developed under the secret Project 4202 and codenamed Yu-71, has already entered serial production. “I can tell you that we have all this already and it works well. Moreover, Russia’s industry has begun to batch-produce this system. It is yet another type of strategic weapon at Russia’s disposal,” Putin said. “We’ve called it Avangard.”
Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

The HGV is capable of traveling at speeds greater than Mach 20, according to the Russian president. Additionally, Putin explained:

    New composite materials have allowed for coping with the problem of keeping the winged vehicle under control during a prolonged flight amid plasma. In fact, while approaching the target it looks like a meteorite. A fireball. The temperature on its surface may reach 1,600-2,000 Celsius. Control of the winged vehicle remains reliable all the way.

The Russian Ministry of Defense has purportedly already signed a contract for the first batch of Avangard HGVs, while the commander of Russia’s Strategic Missile Force, General Sergei Karakayev, said the trials of the new weapon system has been completed.

Given the complexity and technical difficulties that go into designing a hypersonic warhead, the 2019 induction date appears to be unrealistic at this juncture and there has been no official confirmation by the Russian MoD that the Avangard will enter service by 2019. Furthermore, the U.S. intelligence community noted in 2017 that China’s HGV warhead, the DF-17, will be the first to see operational deployment anywhere, implicitly suggesting that the Avangard will probably not make the 2019 deployment.

The Avangard HGV will likely be mounted on Russia’s newest and most powerful intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat (NATO designation: SS-X-29 Satan 2). The Sarmat can be fitted with more than ten nuclear warheads. However, three to five HGVs per missile seem more realistic. The missile is expected to enter service by 2020, replacing the Soviet-era RS-36M Voyevod ICBMs. However, as with the majority of Russian defense programs, the project has encountered multiple delays and it appears unlikely that the Sarmat will enter service within the next two years.

As I reported last week, preparations are underway for another set of tests of the missile at the Plesetsk space center.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #194 on: March 23, 2018, 11:33:42 pm »
http://tass.com/defense/993615

Quote
MOSCOW, March 12. /TASS/. On March 12, 2018, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said in an interview with Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper that Russia’s Defense Ministry had signed a contract on the serial production of the most advanced Avangard hypersonic missile complex.

The Avangard is a strategic intercontinental ballistic missile system equipped with a gliding hypersonic maneuvering warhead.

Read also
Putin announces Russia possesses hypersonic weapons

Maneuvering warhead

According to open sources, the guided hypersonic warhead (the spacehead) of the Avangard intercontinental ballistic missile system is codenamed 15Yu71. It was developed as part of the R&D work "4202" by specialists of the Military and Industrial Corporation "Research and Production Association of Machine-Building" (the town of Reutov) under the guidance of Chief Designer Pavel Sudyukov. Russia’s Federal Space Agency acted as the customer for the R&D work "4202."

http://tass.com/defense/995628

Quote
MOSCOW, March 22. /TASS/. Russia’s Avangard strategic silo-based hypersonic missile complex has been included in the state armament plan through 2027 instead of Rubezh intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) as a weapon more essential to ensure the country’s defense capability, a source in the domestic defense industry told TASS on Thursday.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1631
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #195 on: March 25, 2018, 01:37:10 pm »
Russia Halts Years of Work On Ballistic Missile To Pay For Hypersonic Weapons

Quote
Just weeks after Russian President Vladimir Putin mentioned it in a provocative speech, Russia has reportedly decided shelve development of its RS-26 Rubezh intercontinental ballistic missile system and focus on fielding the nuclear-armed Avangard hypersonic boost glide vehicle using other designs. The decision suggests the Kremlin may feel the hypersonic weapon is more valuable than the missile carrying it, but also raises questions about whether the country has the necessary funds to support its broader strategic plans.

On March 22, 2018, Russian state-run news outlet TASS reported that development of the RS-26 was no longer a feature of the state armament plan for 2018 to 2027. In an annual state of the union address on March 1, 2018, Putin had said that the road-mobile Rubezh would be the primary launch vehicle for Avangard. The country had previously used the latter name to refer to the entire development program, including the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) component. 

“The Avangard was included in the [state armament plan] program’s final version as more essential to ensure the country’s defense capability,” the source said, according to TASS. “All the work on the Rubezh and the Barguzin [rail-mobile ICBM] was put on hold until the end of 2027. A decision on the work’s resumption will be made after the current armament program is fulfilled.”

http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war-zone/19588/russia-halts-years-of-work-on-ballistic-missile-to-pay-for-hypersonic-weapons?source=dam&__twitter_impression=true

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #196 on: March 25, 2018, 01:53:56 pm »
Another video showcasing Russia's new development projects.  The high energy laser is shown at the very end where it fires out its' spotting scope instead of the actual beam director.  About as ignorant as complaining that the SBX radar can't find targets without boresight directions from wide field sensors.


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #197 on: March 27, 2018, 05:40:29 pm »
https://warontherocks.com/2018/03/red-glare-the-origin-and-implications-of-russias-new-nuclear-weapons/

Quote
“Crazy.” “Dr. Strangelove weapons.” These were just two of the more colorful reactions to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s revelation of new exotic nuclear delivery systems in a March 1 speech. The system receiving the most attention is a nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed cruise missile with intercontinental range, though the Status-6, a nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed long-range underwater vehicle, has also drawn comment. Why would Russia, which has over 1,500 deployed strategic nuclear warheads that can already be delivered from existing ballistic and cruise missiles, invest in these new, exotic — and, according to some, crazy — systems?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #198 on: March 29, 2018, 06:14:47 am »
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-test-new-weapons-missile-force-show-ready-attack-862078

Quote
Russia was set to put its missile force to the test in a series of maneuvers that would see thousands of troops mobilized and some of its new and most advanced weapons put on display.

The Russian Ministry of Defense announced Tuesday that up to 10,000 servicemen and 1,000 units of equipment would be inspected as part of a massive look into the Strategic Missile Forces' readiness to enter combat on a moment's notice. As tensions mount with the West, Russia has emphasized the need to develop its military capabilities to enforce its global campaign for greater influence.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #199 on: March 31, 2018, 12:11:26 am »
https://www.defensenews.com/training-sim/2018/03/30/russia-tests-new-intercontinental-ballistic-missile/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

Quote

MOSCOW — Russia has successfully tested its latest intercontinental ballistic missile, the country’s military said Friday.

The Defense Ministry said the launch from Plesetsk in northwestern Russia tested the Sarmat missile’s performance in the initial stage of its flight.

Sarmat is intended to replace the Soviet-designed Voyevoda, the world’s heaviest ICBM that is known as “Satan” in the West.

Presenting Sarmat and an array of other nuclear weapons earlier this month, President Vladimir Putin said that they can’t be intercepted.

Putin said that Sarmat weighs 200 metric tons and has a higher range than Satan, allowing it to fly over the North or the South Poles and strike targets anywhere in the world. He added that Sarmat also carries a bigger number of nuclear warheads, which are more powerful than the ones on Satan.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #200 on: April 03, 2018, 06:12:11 pm »
http://abcnews.go.com/International/russia-tested-nuclear-missile/story?id=54123222

Quote
Russia’s military on Friday said it had successfully carried out a second test launch of its most advanced nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile.

The country’s defense ministry released a video showing what it said was the launch of a RS-28 ‘Sarmat’ missile from a base in Plesetsk in northwest Russia, close to the Arctic Circle.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #201 on: April 09, 2018, 05:54:07 am »
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/rs-28-sarmat/

Quote
SS-X-30 “Satan II” (RS-28 Sarmat)

    Home
    World Missiles
    Russia
    SS-X-30 “Satan II” (RS-28 Sarmat)

The RS-28 Sarmat is a liquid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile currently under development by Russia.
Sarmat at a Glance

Originated from: Russia
Possessed by: Russia
Class: Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
Alternate names: SS-X-30 Satan II
Basing: Silo-based
Length: 36.3 m
Diameter: 3.0 m
Launch Weight: 200 metric tons
Payload: 10-24 MIRV, HE or nuclear, possibly hypersonic glide vehicles
Propulsion: Liquid-fueled
Range: 10,000+ km
Status: In development
In Service: 2020-2021 (est.)
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #202 on: April 09, 2018, 07:29:53 am »
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/rs-28-sarmat/

Quote
SS-X-30 “Satan II” (RS-28 Sarmat)

    Home
    World Missiles
    Russia
    SS-X-30 “Satan II” (RS-28 Sarmat)

The RS-28 Sarmat is a liquid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile currently under development by Russia.
Sarmat at a Glance

Originated from: Russia
Possessed by: Russia
Class: Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
Alternate names: SS-X-30 Satan II
Basing: Silo-based
Length: 36.3 m
Diameter: 3.0 m
Launch Weight: 200 metric tons
Payload: 10-24 MIRV, HE or nuclear, possibly hypersonic glide vehicles
Propulsion: Liquid-fueled
Range: 10,000+ km
Status: In development
In Service: 2020-2021 (est.)

Just to put that in perspective, that's more weight than a Titan II and Minuteman III combined.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #203 on: April 10, 2018, 04:03:34 pm »

Quote
SS-X-30 “Satan II” (RS-28 Sarmat)

   

Payload: 10-24 MIRV, HE or nuclear, possibly hypersonic glide vehicles


I've seen the high MIRV count in numerous sources. Aren't there treaty restrictions on more than 10 MIRVs?

Also: This mentions an HE warhead. I know the U.S. looked at that for MX and Trident and decided it was fraught with potential for global thermonuclear misunderstanding. Are there indications that the R.F. is looking at conventional ICBMs?

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #204 on: April 10, 2018, 05:46:24 pm »

Quote
SS-X-30 “Satan II” (RS-28 Sarmat)

   

Payload: 10-24 MIRV, HE or nuclear, possibly hypersonic glide vehicles


I've seen the high MIRV count in numerous sources. Aren't there treaty restrictions on more than 10 MIRVs?

Also: This mentions an HE warhead. I know the U.S. looked at that for MX and Trident and decided it was fraught with potential for global thermonuclear misunderstanding. Are there indications that the R.F. is looking at conventional ICBMs?
Don't know the answer to your second question although with Putin I'd think anything was possible as for New START I believe it is a launcher/warhead combination treaty and you technically could have 100 missiles with 15 warheads each or up to 700 launchers with 1550 warheads. Although to add a wrinkle bombers are "one launcher" no matter how many nukes they carry,
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #205 on: April 12, 2018, 07:44:25 am »
http://www.newsweek.com/us-defenses-40-years-behind-russias-satan-2-nuclear-missile-weapon-designer-878785

Quote
The United States military is 40 years from being able to counter Russia’s RS-28 Sarmat nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the weapon’s chief designer has claimed.

Vladimir Degtyar, CEO of the Makeye Design Bureau that developed the RS-28 Sarmat—known as the “Satan 2” by NATO—said that the missile’s supposed power will guarantee peace for Russia for decades to come, Russian news agency TASS reported.

In an interview with Konstruktor (meaning “Designer”) magazine, Degtyar claimed the Satan 2 “makes the modern U.S. [anti-ballistic missile] defense systems inefficient, while the Sarmat missile complex will remain effective for the next 40 years” despite the deployment of the U.S. global missile shield.

The RS-28 Sarmat weighs around 220 tons and can carry a nuclear warhead large enough to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France. The missile is being introduced to replace Russia’s Cold War-era RS-36M Voyevoda missiles. Despite multiple delays to the program, Russian defense officials said the weapon would enter serial production in 2020 and will be arming Russian units by 2021.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #206 on: April 16, 2018, 09:16:17 am »
https://www.csis.org/events/putins-new-strategic-systems-plans-realities-and-prospects

Quote
In his recent address to the Federal Assembly, President Vladimir Putin touted a number of new additions to Russia’s strategic weapons arsenal. His list included a nuclear-armed autonomous torpedo, hypersonic glide vehicles, and a nuclear-powered cruise missile. Some of these projects were long in the works, and well-known globally. Others were more of a surprise. What is the status of these systems? How developed are they, and how long until they are fully deployed? What impact will they have on the strategic balance between the United States and Russia? Please join us for a discussion with Leonid Nersisyan on the plans, realities, and prospects of these systems. Michael Kofman, Senior Research Scientist at CNA, will moderate.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #207 on: April 18, 2018, 06:36:26 am »
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/space-symposium/2018/04/18/stratcom-head-dont-doubt-russias-drive-to-develop-invincible-hypersonic-missile/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

Quote

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The head of U.S. Strategic Command would not say whether the United States has seen evidence of Russia’s “invincible” hypersonic missile, but the U.S. military has observed both Russia and China operating hypersonic missiles of varied capabilities, he confirmed Tuesday.

“I won’t give you any specifics about the means we use to watch that. I won’t give you any of the technical specifics about the capabilities of those missiles,” Gen. John Hyten told reporters at the Space Symposium. “But I can tell you that we have observed both Russia and China testing hypersonic capabilities.”

Hyten’s comments come after Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed in March that Russia had successfully tested a new “invincible” hypersonic missile that could travel at speeds in excess of Mach 10 — twice the Mach 5 speed that qualifies an air vehicle as hypersonic — and with a range of more than 2,000 kilometers.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #208 on: May 06, 2018, 01:53:18 pm »
Kinzhal pictures looks like air-launched Oka

If you're on Twitter good to follow https://twitter.com/StrategicSteb
« Last Edit: May 06, 2018, 01:57:02 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #209 on: May 07, 2018, 07:10:41 am »
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/05/07/putins_nuclear_superweapons_113411.html?utm_source=RC+Defense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=2fbd684f64-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_05_06&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-2fbd684f64-81812733

Quote
We say our nuclear deterrent is our highest priority; Russia says the same thing and really means it. Since the end of the Cold War, the Russian government has announced about 25 strategic nuclear modernization programs which are mainly new systems carrying new nuclear warheads. In January 2017, Russian Defense Minister General of the Army Sergei Shoigu stated that development of the strategic nuclear force was Russia’s first priority, noting that Russia will “…continue a massive program of nuclear rearmament, deploying modern ICBMs on land and sea, [and] modernizing the strategic bomber force.”[1] Russia sees its great-power status based on its nuclear capability which probably exceeds that of the rest of the world combined.

Putin’s recent claim of 79% modernization of Russia’s nuclear Triad seems exaggerated. However, Russia has modernized over two-thirds of its Triad since the process began in 1997[2] and will modernize the rest before we modernize any of our strategic delivery vehicles in a significant way. Moreover, Russia is expanding its nuclear force. Serious U.S. modernization will not begin for almost another decade in the best case scenario.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #210 on: May 16, 2018, 08:49:43 pm »
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/05/16/world/new-weapons-will-maintain-russias-might-decades-putin-says/#.Wvz6_n8h02w

Quote
MOSCOW – Russia’s new weapons, including an array of new nuclear systems, will ensure the country’s security for decades to come, President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday at a meeting with top military brass.

Speaking in Sochi, Putin said the new systems unveiled this year will significantly increase Russia’s military capabilities and “ensure a strategic balance for decades.”
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #211 on: May 17, 2018, 05:10:19 am »
Capable of Carrying 2 Megatonne Nuclear Warhead

Source: Russian Poseidon Underwater Drone Capable of Carrying 2 Megatonne Nuclear Warhead

"MOSCOW --- Russia’s Poseidon underwater drone currently under development will be able to carry a nuclear warhead with a capacity of up to 2 megatonnes to destroy enemy naval bases, a source in the Russian defense sector told TASS on Thursday.

 "It will be possible to mount various nuclear charges on the ‘torpedo’ of the Poseidon multipurpose seaborne system, with the thermonuclear single warhead similar to the Avangard charge to have the maximum capacity of up to 2 megatonnes in TNT equivalent," the source said.

 With its nuclear munition, the underwater drone "is primarily designed to destroy reinforced naval bases of a potential enemy," the source said.

 Thanks to its nuclear powerplant, the Poseidon will approach the target for an intercontinental range at a depth of over 1 km and at a speed of 60-70 knots (110-130 km/h), the source said. "


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/193274/russia%E2%80%99s-poseidon-underwater-drone-to-carry-nuke-warhead.html
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #212 on: May 17, 2018, 09:02:25 am »
https://www.rt.com/news/427014-russian-hypersonic-missile-intel/

Quote
Russia’s state-of-the-art hypersonic glide vehicle, which analysts say is capable of easily cutting through the existing US missile shield, will become operational by 2020, reports citing US intelligence have warned.

Speaking to CNBC on the condition of anonymity, sources aware of US intelligence reports, said the Russian military successfully tested the weapon twice in 2016. The third known test of the weapon was allegedly carried out in October 2017, and allegedly failed when the device crashed seconds before hitting its target.

The sources believe the device would be a significant breakthrough which could enable Russian military to surpass US counterparts. The intelligence sources claimed that the hypersonic gliders will get onboard countermeasures to enable them to defeat even the most advanced missile-defense systems.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #213 on: May 17, 2018, 10:05:31 am »
Let's not forget the Kh-32 (of which the Backfire carries 3) is basically a hypersonic gliding weapon. With a 1,100lb warhead.  Mach 5, 1000km.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #214 on: May 19, 2018, 02:12:47 pm »
https://special-ops.org/news/terrorism/us-intelligence-indirectly-confirms-existence-russian-hypersonic-weapons/

Quote
Citing one of the intelligence reports, a source said the hypersonic glider’s testing involved mounting it to an RS-18A intercontinental ballistic missile (NATO reporting name SS-19).

US intelligence says the vehicle is highly maneuverable, and thus unpredictable and hard to track. It is also fitted with onboard countermeasures which no existing US missile-defense system can defeat.  Furthermore, although it can carry a warhead, it is believed that the force of glider’s impact, as well as its precision, may be enough to waste targets.

The intelligence reports, allegedly created this past spring, calculate that the Avangard will likely achieve initial operational capacity by 2020, according to CNBC’s sources.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #215 on: June 01, 2018, 05:26:03 pm »
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/01/russia-has-plans-for-its-future-nuclear-subs-and-it-involves-hypersonic-missiles/

Quote

MOSCOW ― Russia’s next generation of multipurpose nuclear submarines, reportedly known as the Husky class, will be armed with hypersonic missiles, with the lead boat slated for launch in 2027, according to an unidentified Russian defense industry official quoted by the TASS news agency on Thursday.

“Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missiles will become the main armament of the newest multipurpose submarine,” the source said, referring to a Russian sea-based hypersonic missile project intended to replace the P-700 Granit anti-ship missiles that are common among Russia’s heavier-hitting warships.

Little is known about the Husky-class submarines. They’re called fifth-generation multipurpose submarines in the Russian press and are being designed by the Malakhit design bureau in St. Petersburg, but there is not yet a finalized version of the boat’s design. According to TASS, the Husky class will feature a typical ― or rather typical for Russian subs ― dual-hull design, with a 12,000-ton displacement.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #216 on: July 01, 2018, 01:16:24 pm »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-new-russian-weapons-decades-ahead-of-foreign-rivals/2018/06/28/7c67d4b0-7ad2-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.208d0774236b

Quote
MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted about his country’s prospective nuclear weapons Thursday, saying they are years and even decades ahead of foreign designs.

Speaking before the graduates of Russian military academies, Putin said the new weapons represent a quantum leap in the nation’s military capability.

“A number of our weapons systems are years, and, perhaps, decades ahead of foreign analogues,” Putin told young military officers who gathered in an ornate Kremlin hall. “Modern weapons contribute to a multifold increase in the Russian military potential.”

The tough statement comes as Putin is preparing for a summit with U.S. President Donald Trump set for July 16 in Helsinki, Finland. Russia-U.S. relations have plunged to post-Cold War lows over the Ukrainian crisis, the war in Syria, the allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and differences over nuclear arms control issues.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #217 on: July 02, 2018, 05:53:36 pm »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-new-russian-weapons-decades-ahead-of-foreign-rivals/2018/06/28/7c67d4b0-7ad2-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.208d0774236b

Quote
MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted about his country’s prospective nuclear weapons Thursday, saying they are years and even decades ahead of foreign designs.

Speaking before the graduates of Russian military academies, Putin said the new weapons represent a quantum leap in the nation’s military capability.

“A number of our weapons systems are years, and, perhaps, decades ahead of foreign analogues,” Putin told young military officers who gathered in an ornate Kremlin hall. “Modern weapons contribute to a multifold increase in the Russian military potential.”

The tough statement comes as Putin is preparing for a summit with U.S. President Donald Trump set for July 16 in Helsinki, Finland. Russia-U.S. relations have plunged to post-Cold War lows over the Ukrainian crisis, the war in Syria, the allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and differences over nuclear arms control issues.

For the time being, yes, Russia has better ICBMs than the USA. But its useless weapon as it cannot be used... To use it, as everyone knows means "judgment day". And keep in mind my pump action shotgun I bought in 1975 will kill you just as well as a new semiautomatic.

Some of those "advanced" ICBMs were bought by Russia to counter SDI, hence we bankrupted them. They are still developing missiles to counter our ABM efforts... Hence, once again we forcing them to send money they barely have on weapons that will never be used.... The Russians did not learn the first time when The Great Ronald Reagan bankrupted them and they are not learning this time either.

Again, my old shotgun will kill just as well as a new semiautomatic.

As of today the usaf is in possession of a true first strike weapon that no one would see coming.... Just 10 b2s (imagine if we had at least 60 or 70) could deliver over a hundred nukes and decapitate Russia before they knew what happened. Once the raider comes.... Once the new cruise missile comes, then wow, what an incredible unseen first strike capability the US will have.

"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #218 on: July 03, 2018, 08:55:35 am »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-new-russian-weapons-decades-ahead-of-foreign-rivals/2018/06/28/7c67d4b0-7ad2-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.208d0774236b

Quote
MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted about his country’s prospective nuclear weapons Thursday, saying they are years and even decades ahead of foreign designs.

Speaking before the graduates of Russian military academies, Putin said the new weapons represent a quantum leap in the nation’s military capability.

“A number of our weapons systems are years, and, perhaps, decades ahead of foreign analogues,” Putin told young military officers who gathered in an ornate Kremlin hall. “Modern weapons contribute to a multifold increase in the Russian military potential.”

The tough statement comes as Putin is preparing for a summit with U.S. President Donald Trump set for July 16 in Helsinki, Finland. Russia-U.S. relations have plunged to post-Cold War lows over the Ukrainian crisis, the war in Syria, the allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and differences over nuclear arms control issues.

For the time being, yes, Russia has better ICBMs than the USA. But its useless weapon as it cannot be used...

If ICBMs couldn't be used, and were useless, nobody would have them.  Obviously that's not the case.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #219 on: July 05, 2018, 06:00:45 am »
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22039073/russia-backfire-bomber-hypersonic-missiles/?src=socialflowTW

Quote
Russia’s oldest bombers could become platforms for firing hypersonic missiles, allowing Moscow to strike targets from long range while slipping under anti-missile radars.

According to a report in Sputnik News, the Tu-22M3 Backfire could be modified to carry four Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal” air-launched ballistic missiles. Introduced in 1978, the Backfire is a large, swing-wing nuclear-capable supersonic bomber with a combat range of approximately 3,400 miles. Most of Russia’s Backfires are 30 years old or older and were recently refitted with the new SVP-24 Gefest digital sighting and navigation system.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #221 on: July 06, 2018, 01:24:56 am »
Some basic questions.

Does Russia have a case for it's weapon modernisation plans?   Is it allowed to feel threatened by an apparently aggressive America and Europe?

While I do not necessarily believe that the US and/or Europe have been overtly aggressive towards Russia, I do think Moscow has a right to feel threatened by the expansion of NATO and aggressive US policies in the Middle-East.  Any strategic decision is rarely made in a vacuum.  There are inputs which feed and fuel fears.   Just as Russia's decision to modernise feeds and fuels American alarmism, so do American policies fuel and feed Russian fears.   Perhaps instead of getting alarmed and fearing Russian modernisation, it might be better to talk to Putin and prove to him that America is no real threat to Russia?  Or is diplomacy dead?

Questions of morality and ethics appear to be ignored all too often in these sorts of discussions.   I wonder why?  I suppose it is just much easier to paint one side as the "good guys" and the other as the "baddies".

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #222 on: July 06, 2018, 04:50:35 am »
Some basic questions.

Does Russia have a case for it's weapon modernisation plans?

It's conventional forces suck compared to the West.  Also big, powerful nuclear forces make it so you can get away with being belligerent on the world stage (see Crimea, Ukraine, the Arctic, etc.).  We've certainly never given them a reason to think we want to invade. We could literally walk into Canada, and all it's resources, if that's the kind of country we were.

Is it allowed to feel threatened by an apparently aggressive America and Europe?

Is the US allowed to feel threated by an ACTUALLY aggressive Russia and China? (After all, who's got new strategic nuclear weapons in production and who doesn't?)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #223 on: July 07, 2018, 11:29:21 pm »
Some basic questions.

Does Russia have a case for it's weapon modernisation plans?

'It's conventional forces suck compared to the West.  Also big, powerful nuclear forces make it so you can get away with being belligerent on the world stage (see Crimea, Ukraine, the Arctic, etc.).  We've certainly never given them a reason to think we want to invade. We could literally walk into Canada, and all it's resources, if that's the kind of country we were.

I was not asking what sort of country you believe yourself to be but rather is Russia allowed to believe what it wants about it's
"opponents" and act on those fears?  After all, you are acting on your fears of Russia.   Does Russia have any "rights" in this debate or are tehy to be treated merely as a terrible bogeyman which can be invoked whenever someone in America desires?

Moscow believes it is acting to provide protection to it's people because it believes it's interests have been threatened by American policies.  I believe those fears are being manipulated by Putin but I am merely an interested observer looking on.   I believe you succumbing to Cold War "Fail Safe" styles of thinking about Russian intentions.   Surely the end of the Cold War and all the revelations that attended that indicated how short-sighted those thought processes were?

Quote
Is it allowed to feel threatened by an apparently aggressive America and Europe?

Is the US allowed to feel threated by an ACTUALLY aggressive Russia and China? (After all, who's got new strategic nuclear weapons in production and who doesn't?)

Ah, but their aggression is defensive - according to them.  They are seeking to keep the US and it's lackeys at arm's length, further from their borders.  US aggression OTOH appears to be much more aggressive - it seeks "regime change" and control of resources, along with expansion of alliance boundaries.   It seeks control of regions traditionally controlled by Moscow/Beijing.    While in my view, most of that is poorly thought out, it does have a certain degree of sense behind it.   Whereas the American thinking doesn't.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2018, 12:33:26 am by Kadija_Man »

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #224 on: July 08, 2018, 08:01:22 pm »
Some basic questions.

Does Russia have a case for it's weapon modernisation plans?

It's conventional forces suck compared to the West. 

That's unclear at this point. There was a recent RAND study* on this front that argued
that the Russians have, since 2008, largely closed the gap and enjoy some clear advantages
in long range fires, anti-tank munitions, IADS etc.

Quantitively it's near parity and in the Baltic it's not even close. Plus, the Russians have
been emphasizing multi-divisional level maneuver of combined arms heavy units in their
unannounced snap exercises.  In comparison, NATO has mostly been, for decades,
moving around smaller, lighter units in exercises.

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

* https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2400/RR2402/RAND_RR2402.pdf

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #225 on: July 09, 2018, 12:45:26 am »

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

Well, you need to look at it from their perspective.  NATO has expanded it's borders.  It now is a lot closer to Russia's borders - something they were assured was not going to happen.   NATO's influence has also expanded.   This is threatening to Moscow.  It was why the Warsaw Pact was established - to prevent a repetition of 1812, 1914 and 1941.  It was intended to keep those pesky west Europeans away from the borders of Russia.

Will it?  I have no idea.   They perceive NATO as an alliance against them.   Coupled with apparently aggressive policies from Washington, it appears that their modernisation plans are justified.  Not that I agree with them, but I can at least attempt to understand matters from their perspective.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 606
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #226 on: July 09, 2018, 01:50:16 am »
Odd, when I said that I got shot down.  I think there is a clear connection between the EU/Nato borders moving eastwards and the Ukraine war/conflict.  Perhaps a world bank funding for the nations that made up the warsaw pact group would have limited opportunities for such problems.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #227 on: July 09, 2018, 05:21:27 am »

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

Well, you need to look at it from their perspective.  NATO has expanded it's borders.

By invitation.  Bit of a difference than what Russia did in Crimea and Ukraine.  Sounds like they're projecting.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #228 on: July 09, 2018, 02:12:01 pm »

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

Well, you need to look at it from their perspective.  NATO has expanded it's borders.  It now is a lot closer to Russia's borders - something they were assured was not going to happen.   NATO's influence has also expanded.   This is threatening to Moscow. 

As the figures show, NATO was for more capable in late 80's/early 90's and yet the Russians had no
problem with NATO's expansion as a result of German re-unification which moved NATO closer
to the Russian border.

And in the face of that supposed threat the Russians elected to dismantle both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. 

And the Russians did all of the above without any treaty language that formalized or codified assurances.

Since it's clear that the Russians did not view a far more capable NATO as a threat, logically a far less capable NATO
should not be viewed as a threat.  Unless the Russian perspective is irrational in which case diplomacy is impossible
or the claim about an expanded NATO is just a pretext.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #229 on: July 09, 2018, 09:51:09 pm »

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

Well, you need to look at it from their perspective.  NATO has expanded it's borders.

By invitation.  Bit of a difference than what Russia did in Crimea and Ukraine.  Sounds like they're projecting.

In part, I agree.  I am not making excuses for Russia's actions.  I am merely trying to see if you can see this issue from their perspective.   Just as Washington has concerns outside it's borders, so does Moscow.   I would suggest that those concerns are nearly as valid as those of Washington.  Both believe they are acting out of the best intentions - from their perspectives.   Neither side appears to be willing to consider things from the perspective of their opponents.   Without such understanding, people fall into thinking of their opponents as "evil" which is IMO a mistake. 

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #230 on: July 09, 2018, 10:19:41 pm »

And I find it very difficult to see, in light of this data, how NATO force levels, quality
and employment can or could have been construed as threatening.

Well, you need to look at it from their perspective.  NATO has expanded it's borders.  It now is a lot closer to Russia's borders - something they were assured was not going to happen.   NATO's influence has also expanded.   This is threatening to Moscow. 

As the figures show, NATO was for more capable in late 80's/early 90's and yet the Russians had no
problem with NATO's expansion as a result of German re-unification which moved NATO closer
to the Russian border.

And in the face of that supposed threat the Russians elected to dismantle both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. 

And the Russians did all of the above without any treaty language that formalized or codified assurances.

Since it's clear that the Russians did not view a far more capable NATO as a threat, logically a far less capable NATO
should not be viewed as a threat.  Unless the Russian perspective is irrational in which case diplomacy is impossible
or the claim about an expanded NATO is just a pretext.

What needs to be understood is that Gorbachev represented very much a break with traditional Russian thinking.  He realised that basically no one represented a major existential threat to the fUSSR/Russia.  Strategic nuclear weapons assured fUSSR/Russian of it's existence.  Under Gorbachev they were prepared to surrender the Warsaw Pact.   They couldn't afford to maintain nuclear forces and conventional forces which were unfortunately used to keep the Warsaw Pact.   Unfortunately, it lacked the funds in the end to spend sufficiently to maintain it's existing nuclear forces.  It was also based on the premise that NATO would not expand significantly - which was promised to Moscow at the end of the Cold War.   To Moscow, that promise was broken.   Normal Russian strategy thinking, under Putin has re-asserted itself.   He uses it to back his regime.   Just as Trump does.   When coupled with apparently (from Moscow's perspective) aggressive US policies in SW Asia, Moscow feels it needs obviously to rebuild it's aging nuclear forces.    Perhaps instead of aggressive counter-policy, Russia needs reassurance about it's position in the world?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #231 on: July 10, 2018, 04:54:16 am »
In part, I agree.  I am not making excuses for Russia's actions.  I am merely trying to see if you can see this issue from their perspective.   

I can see how they'd be leery of what Germany did to them in WWII (though it's difficult to summon much pity given Stalin initially allied himself with Hitler).  But what evidence has the US ever given for Russia thinking we were interested in their territory?  If I were Putin, I'd move their entire military East.  Russia could leave it's Western border undefended and the only thing that would happen is US forces would disappear from Europe, and European militaries would fall further into decrepitude.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #232 on: July 10, 2018, 09:02:51 pm »
In part, I agree.  I am not making excuses for Russia's actions.  I am merely trying to see if you can see this issue from their perspective.   

I can see how they'd be leery of what Germany did to them in WWII (though it's difficult to summon much pity given Stalin initially allied himself with Hitler).  But what evidence has the US ever given for Russia thinking we were interested in their territory?  If I were Putin, I'd move their entire military East.  Russia could leave it's Western border undefended and the only thing that would happen is US forces would disappear from Europe, and European militaries would fall further into decrepitude.

And NATO keeps expanding.  The point is, Moscow perceives NATO as an alliance which is nearly at it's borders.  The reassurances that it would not expand are now considered worthless from Moscow's perspective.  Then we have the already mentioned apparently aggressive US policies in SW Asia,  which appear designed to destroy Moscow's influence in the region.   The point is that in both cases, Russian paranoia is reinforced, not diminished, while Washington appears unwilling to address that.

What you've said appear sensible.  When is the US going to do likewise and remove it's military from it's overseas deployments?   Afterall, no one is threatening the US directly, now are they?   Afterall if it is good advice for Moscow, surely it is good advice for Washington?  Will we see US forces depart South Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Europe?

In reality both nations have interests other than their own defence and that s why they deploy their forces outside their borders and near their edges.  It is why the Russians are in Syria and why the US is in Korea.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #233 on: July 11, 2018, 05:24:30 am »
And NATO keeps expanding. The point is, Moscow perceives NATO as an alliance which is nearly at it's borders. 

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The more belligerent Russia gets the more Eastern European countries want to sign up to be in NATO.  Also, this is by request.  It's not as though NATO is forcing these countries into joining.  On the contrary, Russia is driving them into NATO.

The reassurances that it would not expand are now considered What you've said appear sensible.  When is the US going to do likewise and remove it's military from it's overseas deployments?   Afterall, no one is threatening the US directly, now are they? 

I wouldn't mind if we left Europe today.  East Asia is another matter thanks to China.  Also, we have allies in the Middle East, and Iran keeps stirring the pot there so. . .
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #234 on: July 11, 2018, 03:08:36 pm »
And NATO keeps expanding. The point is, Moscow perceives NATO as an alliance which is nearly at it's borders. 

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The more belligerent Russia gets the more Eastern European countries want to sign up to be in NATO.  Also, this is by request.  It's not as though NATO is forcing these countries into joining.  On the contrary, Russia is driving them into NATO.

The reassurances that it would not expand are now considered What you've said appear sensible.  When is the US going to do likewise and remove it's military from it's overseas deployments?   Afterall, no one is threatening the US directly, now are they? 

I wouldn't mind if we left Europe today.  East Asia is another matter thanks to China.  Also, we have allies in the Middle East, and Iran keeps stirring the pot there so. . .

And why should any allies or adversaries anywhere believe or trust the US if it abandons it’s NATO allies and commitments? Your oldest and truest friends and allies who have fought, bled and died with you, cast away?
Why would the US do exactly what one of your principal adversaries (Putin’s regime) desperately wants you to do?
Due to same hog-wash of ultra right wing conspiracy theory-laced inconsistent prejudices and pandering that sees a President viciously attack one of the US’s closest allies (Germany)  but never utter so much as a negative word against one of your most implacable enemies (Putin)?
All the while you are advocating massively building up your nuclear forces against those of Russia?
A lot doesn’t add up about this position.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #235 on: July 11, 2018, 04:46:18 pm »
And why should any allies or adversaries anywhere believe or trust the US if it abandons it’s NATO allies and commitments?

It could be argued Germany, and others, already abandoned their commitments.  Platitudes and good intentions don't amount to much if you can't back it up.

Due to same hog-wash of ultra right wing conspiracy theory-laced inconsistent prejudices and pandering that sees a President viciously attack one of the US’s closest allies (Germany)  but never utter so much as a negative word against one of your most implacable enemies (Putin)?
All the while you are advocating massively building up your nuclear forces against those of Russia?
A lot doesn’t add up about this position.

And here I thought TDS only affected Americans.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 04:50:24 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #236 on: July 11, 2018, 08:34:35 pm »
Strategic nuclear weapons assured fUSSR/Russian of it's existence. 

Thus Gorbachev signed START. And the Russian's started their first round of strategic modernization
before NATO expansion (Bark, Topol-M and Bulava).

Under Gorbachev they were prepared to surrender the Warsaw Pact.   They couldn't afford to maintain nuclear forces and conventional forces which
were unfortunately used to keep the Warsaw Pact. 

Hence the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty that Gorbachev signed.
Ratifying its various updates over the intervening decades has been fraught. But it's an open
area for improvement.

Unfortunately, it lacked the funds in the end to spend sufficiently to maintain it's existing nuclear forces.
It was also based on the premise that NATO would not expand significantly - which was promised to Moscow at the end of the Cold War.   To Moscow, that promise was broken.

Baker and Genscher both made proposals to Gorbachev on NATO expansion but those
never ended up in a treaty.

But a treaty on sub-strategic nuclear weapons that at least the Baker proposal
was in part tied-to never materialized either.  NATO's military decline
and non-threat are both obvious and verifiable;  Russian sub-strategic nuclear weapons
are not.


Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #237 on: July 11, 2018, 11:28:45 pm »
And why should any allies or adversaries anywhere believe or trust the US if it abandons it’s NATO allies and commitments?

It could be argued Germany, and others, already abandoned their commitments.  Platitudes and good intentions don't amount to much if you can't back it up.

Due to same hog-wash of ultra right wing conspiracy theory-laced inconsistent prejudices and pandering that sees a President viciously attack one of the US’s closest allies (Germany)  but never utter so much as a negative word against one of your most implacable enemies (Putin)?
All the while you are advocating massively building up your nuclear forces against those of Russia?
A lot doesn’t add up about this position.

And here I thought TDS only affected Americans.

It could be argued. Incorrectly, ignorantly or willing misleadingly so argued.
It is factually incorrect to say any NATO nation spending less than 2 percent is breaching an actual commitment.
And to put in context Germany is ramping up its spending to that figure and when it does so its defense spending will significantly outstrip Russia’s defense spending (whose GDP is about the same as Italy’s).

As for TDS nonsense if you think what Trump is doing is normal and wise then you are the fool drinking the Fox/ ultra right wing cool-aid, parroting the most convoluted inconsistent positions.
Rather like “good” communists trying to keep their opinions consistent with the USSRs shifting positions.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #238 on: July 12, 2018, 05:07:33 am »
It could be argued. Incorrectly, ignorantly or willing misleadingly so argued.

No, not really.  If you've gutted your military so you can spend it on social programs that's not called "holding up your end".   (How many operational tanks and fighters does Germany have?  Operational mind you.)


It is factually incorrect to say any NATO nation spending less than 2 percent is breaching an actual commitment.

No, but it is factually correct to say that if they can't field a fighting force commensurate with their GDP and population that they aren't holding up their end.

And to put in context Germany is ramping up its spending to that figure and when it does so its defense spending will significantly outstrip Russia’s defense spending (whose GDP is about the same as Italy’s).

If only it were dollars that shot down aircraft or defended terrain.  Unfortunately it's tanks, planes, and missiles.  Does Germany have as many of those as Russia?  Will Germany be buying as many missiles, planes, ships, and armored vehicles as Russia?  Nuclear weapons? No?  What was your point again? 

As for TDS nonsense if you think what Trump is doing is normal and wise then you are the fool drinking the Fox/ ultra right wing cool-aid, parroting the most convoluted inconsistent positions.
Rather like “good” communists trying to keep their opinions consistent with the USSRs shifting positions.

I never said I think what Trump is doing is "normal".  We didn't want business as usual.  That's why we put him in power.  That's why we'll do it again in 2020.  This isn't rocket science. 

Look, the bottom line is the EU has more people and, collectively, a greater GDP than the US.  Explain to me again why a single US soldier or aircraft should be in Europe. 
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 05:13:09 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Desertfox

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 18
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #239 on: July 12, 2018, 03:25:53 pm »
Quote
Look, the bottom line is the EU has more people and, collectively, a greater GDP than the US.  Explain to me again why a single US soldier or aircraft should be in Europe. 
Because it is still way cheaper than bailing them out of yet another World War...

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #240 on: July 14, 2018, 03:48:15 am »
It could be argued. Incorrectly, ignorantly or willing misleadingly so argued.

No, not really.  If you've gutted your military so you can spend it on social programs that's not called "holding up your end".   (How many operational tanks and fighters does Germany have?  Operational mind you.)

I don't want a waste of time tit-for-tat exchange, I would just ask you consider different perspectives rather than the line you are getting from some very specific sources.
Germany has not gutted its military to spend on social programs; that is definitively not true.
Following the end of the Cold War Germany cut it military spending as its principal threat had collapsed and it had to pay for reunification with East Germany.
In addition was the consideration of trying to avoid tensions with the emergent Russian federation etc.
Was Germany to slow in reacting to Putin regime. Yes, but they are reacting.
An Putin knows they are and recognizes Merkel as one of his principal opponents, hence all the vitriol directed at her by Russian-influenced far right groups.
Unfortunately including by certain supporters of the current US President which he then ignorantly parrots.

It is factually incorrect to say any NATO nation spending less than 2 percent is breaching an actual commitment.

No, but it is factually correct to say that if they can't field a fighting force commensurate with their GDP and population that they aren't holding up their end. [/QUOTE]

Germany itself recognizes it needs to spend more on defense and is moving up to the 2% level.
But it can't just double its defense spending and even if it could that would hardly ease tensions with Russia.

And it is German voters that get to decide what is or is not commensurate with their GDP, not allies, particularly false friend friends like you and President Trump.
(By the way I'm not German.)

And to put in context Germany is ramping up its spending to that figure and when it does so its defense spending will significantly outstrip Russia’s defense spending (whose GDP is about the same as Italy’s).

If only it were dollars that shot down aircraft or defended terrain.  Unfortunately it's tanks, planes, and missiles.  Does Germany have as many of those as Russia?  Will Germany be buying as many missiles, planes, ships, and armored vehicles as Russia?  Nuclear weapons? No?  What was your point again? [/QUOTE]
 
My point is that current and projected Russian defense spending is unsustainable apart from via authoritarian rule and it is dubious that even that can sustain it that long.
Germany, like all Western countries including the US, have different factors at play.
Germany will have smaller, generally more professional, better paid and better equipped armed forces than the likes of Russia, and it will be able to sustain the associated level of spending and not have to primarily rely on diminishing standards of living to do so.   

As for TDS nonsense if you think what Trump is doing is normal and wise then you are the fool drinking the Fox/ ultra right wing cool-aid, parroting the most convoluted inconsistent positions.
Rather like “good” communists trying to keep their opinions consistent with the USSRs shifting positions.

I never said I think what Trump is doing is "normal".  We didn't want business as usual.  That's why we put him in power.  That's why we'll do it again in 2020.  This isn't rocket science. 

Look, the bottom line is the EU has more people and, collectively, a greater GDP than the US.  Explain to me again why a single US soldier or aircraft should be in Europe.
[/quote]

There are many many salient reasons why US forces in Europe are mutually beneficial to the defense of both the US and Europe.
I will give you one very basic reason as an example.
One of the US's principal opponents (Putin's regime) doesn't want them to be there. Hence Russia's covert support for those also looking to remove them. Including but not limited to attempts to influence the US presidential election.
In this regard President Trump is at best a dupe, and you're a dupe a few times removed.

IF a Democratic President had similar attitudes (calling it a policy or policies is suggesting more coherence than is actually the case) you know you would be screaming your head-off, calling people traitors, calling for impeachment etc.
You know you and your fellow travelers on this site already did so for on an infinitesimal less valid basis for President Obama.

I would suggest you try to consider for a moment your reaction if similar attitudes/ policies were coming from some one you didn't consider "your guy", particularly before you go parroting and promoting them.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 03:57:35 am by kaiserd »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #241 on: July 14, 2018, 07:09:08 am »
Quote
Look, the bottom line is the EU has more people and, collectively, a greater GDP than the US.  Explain to me again why a single US soldier or aircraft should be in Europe. 
Because it is still way cheaper than bailing them out of yet another World War...

If they don't think their countries are worth defending why should we?  They seem to want all the benefits of large economies with none of the responsibilities.  And then they complain about the US being the "World Police". 
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 07:18:55 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #242 on: July 14, 2018, 07:14:42 am »
I would suggest you try to consider for a moment your reaction if similar attitudes/ policies were coming from some one you didn't consider "your guy", particularly before you go parroting and promoting them.

Well, I was against Mr. "More Flexibility After The Election" because he was gutting US forces, and the industrial base, and setting the US up for eventual unilateral nuclear disarmament (through attrition with no replacement).  I don't recall if he ever said anything about pulling US forces from Europe.

Edit:  there's probably a better place for this conversation as it's OT.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 07:19:48 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #243 on: July 14, 2018, 12:42:29 pm »
I would suggest you try to consider for a moment your reaction if similar attitudes/ policies were coming from some one you didn't consider "your guy", particularly before you go parroting and promoting them.

Well, I was against Mr. "More Flexibility After The Election" because he was gutting US forces, and the industrial base,

That's not really answering my point.
Are you really comfortable with policies and attitude to your NATO allies that Russia would be delighted with while at the same time you yourself advocate considerable extra spending on US nuclear weapons to counter Russia's modernization of their nuclear weapons and are very focal on the threat from Russia?
That isn't consistent.

As for President Obama, for a more balanced nuanced view I can recommend the following articles:
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476048024/fact-check-has-president-obama-depleted-the-military?t=1531595627695
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/14/politifact-sheet-our-guide-to-military-spending-/

For example Republican President George Bush (the 1st) oversaw far far greater reductions in US nuclear weapon numbers than Obama ever did.

....and setting the US up for eventual unilateral nuclear disarmament (through attrition with no replacement).

This is blatantly untrue and you know its untrue because you have been repeatedly challenged on such statements on this website.
The Obama presidency instigated and/ or strongly supported all the ongoing major recapitalization of US nuclear forces, including but not limited to the B-21, new SSBN subs, ICBMs etc. Obama instigated and supported the replacements.

You are parroting untrue conspiracy theories and willfully confusing Obama's actual position with that of a minority of the Democratic Party.

I don't recall if he ever said anything about pulling US forces from Europe.

You don't remember his "NATO is obsolete" comments, comments that were debated long and hard, including on this site?
Again you are being less than truthful, or perhaps you weren't yet on message about what you were meant to believe.

I do not mean to personally attack you; I am challenging the misconceived ideas you are parroting because "your side" tells you to.

Edit:  there's probably a better place for this conversation as it's OT.

Agreed and my apologies, I related my points above to the topic but agree the wider conversation has strayed and I don't intend to continue any further down this line.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #244 on: July 23, 2018, 11:04:25 pm »
https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/russia-begins-sea-trials-of-nuclear-capable-poseidon-underwater-prone/

Quote
Russia has reportedly commenced sea trials of its ultimate doomsday weapon, a nuclear-capable underwater vehicle (UUV), dubbed ‘Poseidon,’ purportedly designed to deliver a 2-megaton nuclear warhead to destroy naval bases, carrier strike groups, and entire coastal cities by triggering a radioactive Tsunami wave.

The sea trials of the “Poseidon” began last week and are primarily focused on the UUVs guidance system and underwater operations in autonomous mode. Work on the “Poseidon” is reportedly progressing according to schedule, the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) said in a July 19 statement.

The “Poseidon,” also known under Ocean Multipurpose System Status-6 or “Kanyon” by the U.S. intelligence community, “is a new intercontinental, nuclear armed, nuclear-powered, undersea autonomous torpedo,” according to the 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review. The UUV is thought to have been developed in reaction to the increasing sophistication of U.S. ballistic missile defense systems.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #245 on: July 26, 2018, 06:42:13 am »
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/russians-arrest-nato-spy-suspects-probe-hypersonic-missile-secrets/?utm_source=RC+Defense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=c21fb713b5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_07_26_01_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-c21fb713b5-81812733

Quote
Russian FSB security and intelligence service agents have arrested two people in the defense industry charged with passing secrets on Moscow's hypersonic missiles to western intelligence.

U.S. intelligence agencies are closely monitoring the mole hunt first disclosed July 20 in news reports in Russia.

One suspect in the case is Viktor Kudryavtsev, a 74-year-old researcher at a Russian rocket and spacecraft design plant who was arrested July 19 by FSB agents.

A second person was reported arrested for treason as part of the investigation, Russian state-run news outlets reported Monday.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #246 on: July 31, 2018, 02:54:22 am »
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_look_into_the_future_of_Russias_strategic_defenses_999.html

Quote
Furthermore, in footage released last week, the Defense Ministry confirmed that the Kinzhal, a new air-launched nuclear-capable hypersonic, maneuverable cruise missile with a top speed of Mach 10 and a range of 2,000 km, had been tested aboard the Tu-22M3. Given the Tu-22M's 5,100 km range, the Kinzhal can be effectively be said to have gained intercontinental strike capability. The missile is already deployed, and has seen extensive flight training aboard the MiG-31BM supersonic interceptor aircraft.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline totoro

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 240
    • Binkov's Battlegrounds
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #247 on: August 01, 2018, 10:29:44 am »
Considering tu22m3 combat radius is usually quoted at 2200 or 2400 km, it's highly Likely tu22m3 even with a single kinzhal can't do 3000 km of combat radius. Unless it gets its ifr probe retrofotted.
www.youtube.com/c/binkovsbattlegrounds - military analysis videos

Offline litzj

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 183
  • BLOG : http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
    • http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #248 on: August 08, 2018, 04:09:32 am »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #249 on: August 15, 2018, 04:49:14 pm »
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-says-small-russian-satellite-space-weapon/

Quote
Russia has deployed a suspicious satellite the United States says is part of Moscow's plans to attack orbiting satellites in a future conflict, a State Department official revealed in Geneva on Tuesday.

Yleem Poblete, assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification, and compliance, made the accusation in a speech declaring Moscow is promoting a draft treaty aimed at banning arms in space while advancing an array of space weaponry.

Russia in October conducted tests of a "space apparatus inspector" that was detected by U.S. intelligence maneuvering and taking other unusual actions in space.

"Its behavior on-orbit was inconsistent with anything seen before from on-orbit inspection or space situational awareness capabilities, including other Russian inspection satellite activities," Poblete stated during a session of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline stealthflanker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #250 on: August 16, 2018, 03:48:58 am »
Considering tu22m3 combat radius is usually quoted at 2200 or 2400 km, it's highly Likely tu22m3 even with a single kinzhal can't do 3000 km of combat radius. Unless it gets its ifr probe retrofotted.

What payload ?.

--

I tried doing my own estimate using data from missilethreat. and Fleeman's tactical missile design book

Found that Kinzhal itself is about 1000 Km range. with apogee of 254 km and terminal velocity of 2.8 km/s.

The assumption is as follows  :

Launch Weight : 4300 Kg
Warhead : 480 Kg
Structure: 22% * 4300 Kg = 946 Kg.
Guidance, Battery and Actuators = diasumsikan 300 Kg.
Propelant load = 72% dari rocket motor weight, 2574*72%=1853 Kg.
ISP  : 265 S

Launch condition :
Altitude : 15000 m
Starting Velocity : M 0.85
Motor burn : 15 detik.

During trajectory, it's assumed that the missile will have 2 minutes coast to apogee. 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #251 on: August 21, 2018, 06:29:52 am »
Not Just Money Constraints Facing the Russian Armed Forces

https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/DOP-2018-U-018170-Final.pdf
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #252 on: August 21, 2018, 03:37:49 pm »
Russia is preparing to search for a nuclear-powered missile that was lost at sea months ago after a failed test


    Moscow is preparing to recover a nuclear-powered missile lost at sea, according to sources with direct knowledge of a U.S. intelligence report.
    Russian President Vladimir Putin bragged earlier this year that the new missile had unlimited range.
    The missile was tested four times between November and February, each resulting in a crash, according to sources who spoke to CNBC on the condition of anonymity.



A nuclear-powered Russian missile remains lost at sea after a failed test late last year, and Moscow is preparing to try to recover it, according to people with direct knowledge of a U.S. intelligence report.

Crews will attempt to recover a missile that was test launched in November and landed in the Barents Sea, which is located north of Norway and Russia. The operation will include three vessels, one of which is equipped to handle radioactive material from the weapon's nuclear core. There is no timeline for the mission, according to the people with knowledge of the report.

The U.S. intelligence report did not mention any potential health or environmental risks posed by possible damage to the missile's nuclear reactor.

Russian President Vladimir Putin unveiled the new nuclear-powered missile in March, boasting it had unlimited range. Yet, the weapon has yet to be successfully tested over multiple attempts.



Russia tested four of the missiles between November and February, each resulting in a crash, people who spoke on the condition of anonymity previously told CNBC. The U.S. assessed that the longest test flight lasted just more than two minutes, with the missile flying 22 miles before losing control and crashing. The shortest test lasted four seconds and flew for five miles. Russia has denied the missile test failures.

If the Russians are able to regain possession of the missile, U.S. intelligence analysts expect Moscow will use the procedure as a blueprint for future recovery operations. It is unclear whether the other missiles are missing at sea, too.

While the report didn't address the potential effects of possible damage to the weapon's reactor, there remain concerns that radioactive material could leak.

"It goes without saying that if you fire a missile with a nuclear engine or energy source, that nuclear material will end up wherever that missile ends up," said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists.

Read more: Russia's new hypersonic missile, which can be launched from warplanes, will likely be ready for combat by 2020

"If this missile was lost at sea and recovered in full, then you might hypothetically be able to do it without pollution, I would have my doubts about that because it's a very forceful impact when the missile crashes. I would suspect you would have leaks from it," Kristensen added.

The weapon, which has been in development since the early 2000s, is believed to use a gasoline-powered engine for takeoff before switching to a nuclear-powered one for flight, sources have said.



The tests apparently showed that the nuclear-powered heart of the cruise missile failed to initiate and, therefore, the weapon didn't achieve the indefinite flight Putin had boasted about.

The tests were ordered by senior Kremlin officials despite objections from the program's engineers, who voiced concerns that the system was still in its infancy, sources have said.

During a state of the nation address in March, Putin claimed the cruise missile was capable of delivering a warhead to any point in the world while evading missile defense systems. In the same two-hour speech, Putin touted an arsenal of new hypersonic weapons, which he called "invincible."

Of the six weapons Putin debuted in March, CNBC has learned that two of them will be ready for war by 2020, according to sources with direct knowledge of U.S. intelligence reports.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/21/russias-nuclear-powered-missile-that-putin-claimed-had-infinite-range-is-currently-lost-at-sea.html?__source=twitter%7Cmain

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #253 on: August 21, 2018, 04:06:59 pm »
Heh.  It's probably already in a US or Chinese lab.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline GARGEAN

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #254 on: August 22, 2018, 01:04:03 am »
Heh.  It's probably already in a US or Chinese lab.
It would be in case of its existence.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #255 on: September 07, 2018, 09:38:39 pm »
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/09/kozelsk-icbm-upgrade/

Quote
New satellite photos show substantial upgrades of ICBM silos at the missile field near Kozelsk in western Russia.

The images show that progress is well underway on at least half of the silos (possibly more) of the second regiment of the 28th Guards Missile Division from the Soviet-era SS-19 ICBM to the new SS-27 Mod (RS-24, Yars). The first regiment of ten silos completed its upgrade in late-2015. Like the SS-19, the SS-27 Mod 2 carries MIRV.

In its earlier configuration of six regiments with a total of 60 silos, the Kozelsk missile field covered an area of roughly 2,300 square-kilometers (890 square-miles). With closure of three regiments, the active field has been reduced to about 400 square-miles. That includes one 10-missile regiment (74th Regiment) that has already been upgraded to SS-27 Mod 2, a second that is being upgraded (168th Regiment), and a third (219th Regiment) that might still operate SS-19s, although the status is uncertain. It is possible that Russia will upgrade a total of 30 silos at Kozelsk. The Kozelsk missile field is located about 240 kilometers (150 miles) southwest of Moscow about 180 kilometers (115 miles) from Belarus
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #256 on: October 14, 2018, 04:26:12 pm »
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/10/11/russia-conducts-huge-exercise-with-its-nuclear-forces/

Quote

MOSCOW — The Russian military says it has conducted a massive test of the nation’s strategic nuclear forces involving multiple missile launches.

The Russian Defense Ministry said Thursday's maneuvers featured launches of ballistic missiles by the navy's nuclear submarines from the Barents Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk.

As part of the drills, long-range bombers also fired cruise missiles, the ministry said, adding that all missiles hit their designated practice targets.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #257 on: October 25, 2018, 06:49:13 am »
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/25/russian-missile-identified-as-anti-satellite-weapon-ready-by-2022.html

Quote
WASHINGTON — A never-before-seen missile photographed last month on a Russian MiG-31 interceptor is believed to be a mock-up of an anti-satellite weapon that will be ready for warfare by 2022, three sources with direct knowledge of a U.S. intelligence report say.

The Russian anti-satellite weapon, which is attached to a space launch vehicle, is expected to target communication and imagery satellites in low Earth orbit, according to one source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. For reference, the International Space Station and the Hubble Space Telescope travel in low Earth orbit.

Images of the mysterious missile on a modified Russian MiG-31, a supersonic near-space interceptor, appeared in mid-September.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #258 on: October 25, 2018, 09:40:02 pm »
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-fears-russia-employing-combat-laser-system/

Quote
The United States is warning that recent Russian movements in space signal the country is building a military space force that could employ a "combat laser system" capable of knocking American satellites offline, according to senior administration official.

In remarks before the United Nations Tuesday, Yleem Poblete, the assistant secretary for arms control, verification, and compliance warned that Russia is making unprecedented moves towards militarizing space with offensive weaponry.

"The United States is concerned with what appears as very abnormal behavior by this so-called ‘space apparatus inspector,'" Poblete said. "We do not know for certain what it is and there is no way to verify its mission. Moreover, Russian intentions with respect to this satellite are unclear."

This amounts to a "troubling development—particularly, when considered in concert with statements by Russia's Space Troops Commander which highlighted that ‘assimilat[ing] new prototypes of weapons [into] Space Forces' military units' is a ‘main task facing the Aerospace Forces Space Troops,'" according to Poblete.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #259 on: October 29, 2018, 05:58:29 am »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-new-russian-weapons-decades-ahead-of-foreign-rivals/2018/06/28/7c67d4b0-7ad2-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.208d0774236b

Quote
MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted about his country’s prospective nuclear weapons Thursday, saying they are years and even decades ahead of foreign designs.

Speaking before the graduates of Russian military academies, Putin said the new weapons represent a quantum leap in the nation’s military capability.

“A number of our weapons systems are years, and, perhaps, decades ahead of foreign analogues,” Putin told young military officers who gathered in an ornate Kremlin hall. “Modern weapons contribute to a multifold increase in the Russian military potential.”

The tough statement comes as Putin is preparing for a summit with U.S. President Donald Trump set for July 16 in Helsinki, Finland. Russia-U.S. relations have plunged to post-Cold War lows over the Ukrainian crisis, the war in Syria, the allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and differences over nuclear arms control issues.

For the time being, yes, Russia has better ICBMs than the USA. But its useless weapon as it cannot be used...

If ICBMs couldn't be used, and were useless, nobody would have them.  Obviously that's not the case.

There is a difference between "couldn't" and "won't". Obviously that is the case.

In 3/4 of a century, only 2 atomic weapons used out of 10s of thousands produced.  If Russia wants to use them, then fine go ahead, but it will be the end of the Russian nation and it's people along with billions of other people worldwide.

They are a useful weapon in the threat they pose, though they will never be used given the relatively calm state of the world..... No food shortages, no energy shortages, no looming ice age that swallow the northern hemisphere.

As stated, the USA continues to force Russia to spend money it doesn't have on weapons that will not be used.

"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #260 on: October 29, 2018, 06:44:06 am »


There is a difference between "couldn't" and "won't". Obviously that is the case.

In 3/4 of a century, only 2 atomic weapons used out of 10s of thousands produced.  If Russia wants to use them, then fine go ahead, but it will be the end of the Russian nation and it's people along with billions of other people worldwide.

They are a useful weapon in the threat they pose, though they will never be used given the relatively calm state of the world..... No food shortages, no energy shortages, no looming ice age that swallow the northern hemisphere.

As stated, the USA continues to force Russia to spend money it doesn't have on weapons that will not be used.

I'll bet you think the only measure of an item's usefulness is if it actually gets used.  There's this slightly important concept called D-E-T-E-R-R-E-N-C-E.   Or do you actually believe every nuclear weapon on the planet is "useless"? ::)
« Last Edit: October 29, 2018, 07:23:45 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1631
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #261 on: December 12, 2018, 03:26:27 pm »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #262 on: December 15, 2018, 09:17:14 am »
https://special-ops.org/47515/russias-dead-hand-nuclear-doomsday-weapon-is-back/?fbclid=IwAR2JQAImBHmYThNSLuuIeAekhinpBXOQtTlqWW1TP6GndXWjS2YfP_nBaYg

Quote
Russia has a knack for developing weapons that—at least on paper—are terrifying: nuclear-powered cruise missiles, robot subs with 100-megaton warheads .

Perhaps the most terrifying was a Cold War doomsday system that would automatically launch missiles—without the need for a human to push the button—during a nuclear attack.

But the system, known as “Perimeter” or “Dead Hand,” may be back and deadlier than ever.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline stealthflanker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #263 on: December 15, 2018, 11:46:08 am »
Regarding dead hand tho, i wonder what Russia use to replace the special Radio-electronic "lead missile" That will launch and radioing the launch authority.  AFAIK the missile is currently out of service.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #264 on: December 19, 2018, 08:25:42 am »
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2018/12/russia-claims-be-track-deploy-maneuverable-hypersonic-icbm-next-year/153654/?oref=d-river

Quote
Russia’s new Avangard intercontinental ballistic missile will be ready for deployment as soon as 2019, Russian state media outlet TASS reports. Strategic Missile Force Commander Colonel-General Sergei Karakayev said the highly maneuverable ICBM, which was first tested in 2004, will be ready for combat duty next year.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed his enthusiasm for the missile, which he officially unveiled in March. He claims it can reach Mach 20, which is similar to the U.S.’s Mach-23 Minuteman III. But more significantly, Russian reports say, the Avangard pairs an ICBM engine with a unique glide vehicle, allowing it to out-maneuver anti-missile systems. In June, Putin called the Avangard “an absolute weapon” and contended that no country would develop anything similar “in the coming years.”

The U.S. is also pursuing advanced hypersonic weapons and countermeasures to them. But their research is behind that of both China and Russia, according to a recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The report warns that Russian and Chinese hypersonic weapons will “defeat most missile defense systems, and they may be used to improve long-range conventional and nuclear strike capabilities” — endorsing, in a way, Putin’s claim that such weapons are effectively invincible.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #266 on: December 23, 2018, 10:36:48 am »
Nice picture of a Boomer leaving the barn (h/t THFRO)

Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1169
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #267 on: December 26, 2018, 08:32:19 am »
Russia's Invincible Weapons: Today, Tomorrow, Sometime, Never?

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55faab67e4b0914105347194/t/5b0eb1b203ce644a398267ef/1527689654381/Russia%27s+Invincible+Weapons.pdf
"Putin also revealed that in December 2017 a cycle of testing an innovative nuclear power installation had finally
been concluded after many years. It has uniquely small dimensions with a volume 'a hundred times less than the
power unit of a modern nuclear submarine', but develops very high levels of power which can be very rapidly
reached."  Seems scary enough on its own regardless of the missiles feasibly.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #268 on: December 27, 2018, 06:45:30 am »
Russia's MoD has released extended video of Avangard/ICBM launch at Dombarovsky earlier today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgzeS7-jgSY&feature=youtu.be
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1631
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #269 on: December 28, 2018, 03:04:32 am »
This article sums up Avangard quite well & the thinking behind it.

Russia Tests Yet Another Hypersonic Weapon

Quote
Russia tested a new hypersonic weapons program on Wednesday, December 26th, designed to sneak under U.S. ballistic missile defenses. Avangard is a winged glider weapon boosted high into the atmosphere by a ballistic missile, which then descends on its target at speeds in excess of 15,000 miles an hour. Avangard will reportedly enter Russian service in 2019.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #270 on: January 14, 2019, 08:16:35 am »
Russian Navy to Put Over 30 Poseidon Strategic Underwater Drones on Combat Duty

"MOSCOW --- The Russian Navy plans to place more than 30 Poseidon strategic nuclear-capable underwater drones on combat duty, a source in the domestic defense industry told TASS on Saturday.

"Two Poseidon-carrying submarines are expected to enter service with the Northern Fleet and the other two will join the Pacific Fleet. Each of the submarines will carry a maximum of eight drones and, therefore, the total number of Poseidons on combat duty may reach 32 vehicles," the source said.

The special-purpose nuclear-powered submarine Khabarovsk currently being built at the Sevmash Shipyard will become one of the organic carriers of the Poseidon nuclear-capable underwater drone. Also, special-purpose submarines and Project 949A nuclear-powered underwater cruisers operational in the Russian Navy may be used as the carriers "after their appropriate upgrade," the source noted."


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/199067/russia-to-deploy-over-30-poseidon-strategic-underwater-drones.html
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline stealthflanker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #271 on: January 18, 2019, 04:59:02 pm »
Talking about Poseidon. What do you guys think about what kind of nuclear propulsion system powering this thing... e.g what kind of reactor and cycles used ?

Working from the Hisutton's article on Kanyon, Tom Stefanick's book, Norman Polmar's book and "Theory of Submarine Design" by Rubin design bureau.

With baseline dimension of 24m in length and about 2 meter in height.  The claimed speed of some 70-100 Knot seems to be way too high for what volume available for its possible propulsion plant.  Assuming "neutral buoyancy" where Weight=Volume. The Kanyon will weigh/displace at least 74.5 Metric tonne. However some margin is tolerable as this is a torpedo and can gain some lift by keep moving. This again Sutton's margin of 100 metric tonne looks feasible. 

The 70 Knot speed, for the size requires about 8.5 MegaWatt of shaft power (about 11500 SHP). The PWR plant required to achieve that power weighs about 200 metric ton, Liquid metal reactor (LMCR)can be much lighter but might be still too heavy 61 metric ton. There is however another option namely the HTGR (High Temperature Gas Reactor). This can be much lighter, assuming Helium or maybe CO2 as working fluid, this reactor can be made with 15 metric ton of weight.   

Clearly only LMCR and HTGR that could possibly meet the probable small constraint of Kanyon and attempt to attain high speed.  Another thing of concern is that conventional steam turbine system might also be too heavy, with steam turbine assembly for the installed power can weigh as heavy as 94 metric ton. But i am curious if Russian actually tries other cycle like Brayton Cycle instead of Rankine. Thus making it a nuclear gas turbine. The turbine assembly for this could be lighter. LMCR however might be too inefficient as it needs to heat a secondary working fluid/gas to drive the turbine. Assuming the gas turbine can be made lighter maybe about slightly half the steam turbine and HTGR being sought. The turbine and associated turbo alternator (as kanyon needs power too) can weigh 55 metric ton.

The total propulsion group weight for the 70 knot speed, adding the shielding (reduced as it carries no man), backup battery and the propulsion gear (shaft, gearings) Yield following :

PWR= 361.3 metric ton
LMCR= 144.1 metric ton
HTGR= 99.4 metric ton

Those seems still bit way too heavy, not including other systems such as warhead, structural elements and guidance.

Thus i suspect that the speed could be much lower than what Russian claim.  Maybe in the order of 40-50 Knot. At 49 Knot speed however only requires 3 MW of power, the propulsion plant weight drops accordingly to following

PWR= 128.8 metric ton
LMCR= 51.4 metric ton
HTGR= 35.4 metric ton

A more reasonable value and still within the "neutral buoyancy" envelope. PWR however seems totally impractical for Kanyon.  The one i have not considered yet is BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) as the reactor was never really tested nor envisaged for submarine operation.


Offline Austin

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #272 on: January 27, 2019, 07:21:48 pm »
A brief write-up on Avangard program and Hypersonic vehicle by me

AVANGARD HYPERSONIC GLIDE VEHICLEr