• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization continues

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,288
Reaction score
1,242
The Russian Navy successfully tested two Bulava SLBMs recently from locations that surprised the US. From Global Security Newswire: http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090716_8788.php

The money quote that I hope echo's all the way to Washington - "Every fourth ruble of government military orders goes toward atomic weapons," said Viktor Litovkin, deputy editor of the Independent Military Review. In the view of Russia's military regime, Litovkin said, "if you have strategic nuclear weapons, then you are a great power; if not, then you are no one."

Oops not so fast, from Defense News - http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4191825&c=EUR&s=TOP
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,045
Reaction score
871
Seriously wonder about this source authority - because they have, in fact, tested two Sinevas. Meantime, another Bulava test of July, 15, was another fiasco...
 

Austin

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
194
Reaction score
3
Indeed the last two test were Sineva and the claim that Delta could evade hostile surveillance.

The Bulava is turning out to be a pain ,specially when they dont seem to learn with post failure analysis and it ends with the same reason more than once , but its better it fails now than later when its on Borei.
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
30
"Russia really needs this rocket to maintain its nuclear parity with the United States"

Well, THAT guy is a moron...

At some point in the future they really need to look at an option other than Bulava. Russia knows how to make missiles and make them well, which would seem to indicate that there may be an as yet undiscovered design flaw within this weapon system.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,898
Reaction score
807
The Bulava thing is getting ridiculous, they now have one vessel ready and effectively waiting for the weapon and another in the advanced stages of construction yet the missile can still not be made to work.

In addition to the 1 in 4 roubles spent on nukes we also have reports that the Navy absorbs 40% of the defence budget, and the results there have been less than impressive with still very small numbers of nuclear submarine patrols and the PLAN showing a greater ability to deploy combatants off Somalia than the RuN.
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
127
IMH, instead of trying and modify an SS-27 to fit in a submarine the Russians would have had to simply redesgn the SS-N-20. Now I think it is too late (or maybe not) without someone very high being fired. BTW, you could easily use an SLBM as a land based ICBM, but probably not the other way around (sound familiar).
 

Abingdon

ACCESS: Restricted
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
49
Reaction score
60
The problem with modernizing the SS-N-20 (R-39) is that Russia lost the design bureau (Yuzhnoe) and the production facility (Pavlograd) in Ukraine.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,235
Reaction score
454
The R-39 Taifun (index 3M65) (SS-N-20 Sturgeon) for the D-19 kompleks and its proposed successor R-39M Bark (SS-NX-28) for the D-19M kompleks were not designed by OKB-586/NPO Yuzhnoye in Dniepopetrovsk, Ukraine, but by SKB-385/SKBM, nowadays "Open Joint Stock Company “Academician V.P.Makeyev" State Rocket Centre" (OAO Makeyev), in Miass (Cheliabynskaia oblast, in the centre of Russia). Production of the first stage motor, which was common to the R-39 and the RT-23UTTKh (index 15Kh61) (SS-24 Scalpel), was indeed done in Pavlohrad Mechanical Plant in Ukraine, but the necessary equipment apparently had been transferred to Perm (PZKhO Arsenal Plant 98), Russian Federation, by the mid-1990s. The decision to terminate the development of the R-39M Bark in favour of the R-30 Bulava-M (index 3M30) (SS-NX-30) for the D-19UTH kompleks, as proposed by the MITT, was the result of an intricate affair in which technology and its availability on Russian soil was only a part.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,288
Reaction score
1,242
Skybolt - after reading an article saying the US Navy had a RfP out to design a 120" tube for the next gen SSBN (X) the first thing I thought of was interchangeable ICBM/SLBM and conventional prompt global strike. That might be the only way to get funding for a MMIII replacement is to have some savings through joint development, maybe.
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,895
Reaction score
233
some savings through joint development, maybe.

Hate to be a wet blanket, but given the fun and games from the other 'joint' programs, JVX/V-22, JSF/F-35, and even ATF/NATF,
you might get your new missile around 2035/40 or so...

cheers,
Robin.
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
127
Well, the right idea would have to build an SLBM and then turn it in an ICBM (Phantom and Corsair II style.. ;D ).
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
162
Skybolt said:
Well, the right idea would have to build an SLBM and then turn it in an ICBM (Phantom and Corsair II style.. ;D ).

Problem is submarines and even the Russian SSBN bases tend to be closer to their targets than inland ICBM bases. So you would have to make the SLBM bigger than needed to ensure it has the range to hit targets from an ICBM base. Or like the Temp-2S/Pioneer (SS-16/SS-20) add an additional stage for range extension (or remove it).

Also big SLBMs like the Taifun system (SS-N-20) require a very big submarine to operate them like the Akula (Typhoon) that cost three times more than a 'regular' sized SSBN. The Soviet Union had to realise it didn't have the cash to keep building Typhoons and certainly Russia doesn't.

But anyways the management of Soviet/Russian ballistic missile design, production and operations has always been a complete stuff up from day one, despite the sometimes highly impressive technical capability achieved. Going from cash rich to cash poor doesn't seem to have helped the Russians as they keep stuffing things around with poor leadership and management.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,388
Reaction score
1,430
Skybolt said:
Well, the right idea would have to build an SLBM and then turn it in an ICBM (Phantom and Corsair II style.. ;D ).

Not always practical. For instance a land based ICBM will be hardened against EMP and physical shock to a greater degree than a sea based missile would be.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,288
Reaction score
1,242
I just want a MMIII replacement to start being designed now ::) as if that is gonna happen. Although my desire would be to see a Titan sized solid fueled ultra accurate ICBM with a very large payload (use it for PGS as well) practicality says the only chance to get a new missile will be one designed to carry only one warhead with maybe some decoys. Insert Midgetman been there done that comments here!

For the sake of the solid rocket motor base I would still build a very large prototype. Mind you I would not have gone below 5000 nuclear warheads so there you have it.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
162
Minuteman has been a fantastic return on investment for the USA. You should keep it in service for until nuclear weapons are no longer needed on this world.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,288
Reaction score
1,242
Abraham Gubler said:
Minuteman has been a fantastic return on investment for the USA. You should keep it in service for until nuclear weapons are no longer needed on this world.

So keep the MMIII forever?
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
162
bobbymike said:
So keep the MMIII forever?

As long as it works. The USA and those countries that rely upon the American nuclear shield do not face anything like the level of threat built up by the Soviet Union. So building newer and improved ICBMs isn't really necessary. The US can keep the MM and remain at a status quo position.

Russia has a very different problem in that the Soviet Union never built and fielded something as reliable as Minuteman. Maybe Topol is but it was not the mainstay of the RVSN ICBM force. So the Russians have to keep building and developing missile technology just to remain at a standing still position.
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
127
For instance a land based ICBM will be hardened against EMP and physical shock to a greater degree than a sea based missile would be.
If you assume a launch under attack or a second strike strategy after a counterforce blow. I doubt there is a power in the world now, apart the US, that would be able to mount a serious conterforce attack. Let's face it. Unless China really starts a nuclear superiority drive (that would start a Japan, Korea and India response in first place, from Russia second place, and finally from the US), there is no way a counterforce attack can be mounted on Minutemen in the next 20 years. So there is ample time.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,288
Reaction score
1,242
Austin said:

They used to end up dead or in a Siberian reeducation class, this is real progress for the Sovie......I mean Russians.

Skybolt - see this link.

http://www.asd-network.com/press_detail/21877/Aerojets_Advanced_2nd_Stage_Demo_Motor_Successfully_Tested_by_AF.htm

Hopefully it is the start of a MMIII replacement program. I don't think we can wait. You cannot neglect the ICBM infrastructure for another 20 years. Especially the warhead and nuclear components they will rust away. Now you got me started :D
 
A

avatar

Guest
yeah minuteman should do.

considering the fact that the US also has a sea based counterforce capability ostensibly dubbed the undersea deterrent.

and I would like to see China try and match that capability in the next 30 years.
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
127
Russian Bulava missile designer quits after failed tests
In five years it will come out that the fault was in abysmal quality control of some parts...
Anyway, if the designer goes, one should assume that the powers the be think that it is the design that is faulty. So now what ?
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
162
The Russians brought this on their own heads with an all too typical stuff up in missile design management. After the breakup of the Soviet Union Russia has two missile design bureaus; one for ICBMs and one for SLBMs, the rest ended up in the Ukraine. So when developing a new SLBM they start with the SLBM bureau but ask them to build a solid propellant missile which they don't know much about. Said system (Bark) fails. The rather than have the SLBM bureau work on what they know (at sea storable liquid propellant missiles) they get the ICBM bureau to convert the Topol to a SLBM. 10 years later Bulava (aka naval Topol) is a complete failure... Back to square 1... So maybe now Makeyev have another chance?
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,045
Reaction score
871
Abraham Gubler said:
they don't know much about. Said system (Bark) fails.

well, Abe, before Bark there was RSM-52 (SSN-20 Sturgeon)...so they did know *something*
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
162
Flateric you seem to have missed the entire point. It was Makeyev's bureau that designed the R-39 and the successful Russian designed Soviet SLBMs. The Topol aka Bulava is not a Makeyev product. The issue is not solid propellant versus storable liquid propellant but experienced SLBM bureau (yes they do solids sorry but I don't fact check every peripheral point whilst shooting my mouth of on a daily basis on the internet) versus ICBM bureau and dictates of the Russian defence bureaucracy.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,388
Reaction score
1,430
flateric said:
Abraham Gubler said:
they don't know much about. Said system (Bark) fails.

well, Abe, before Bark there was RSM-52 (SSN-20 Sturgeon)...so they did know *something*

The SS-N-20 is a missile I wish there were more released about. From what I can tell it seems to be a very interesting design.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,836
Reaction score
196
bobbymike said:
Skybolt - after reading an article saying the US Navy had a RfP out to design a 120" tube for the next gen SSBN (X) the first thing I thought of was interchangeable ICBM/SLBM and conventional prompt global strike. That might be the only way to get funding for a MMIII replacement is to have some savings through joint development, maybe.

I like the way in which you think!!!
A joint ICBM/SLBM or as Skybolt correctly points out SLBM/ICBM would be a logical and logistical logic thing to do.

But I think you have left out the long and on going inter-service rivalry between the USAF and USN in holding on to its desire to be the main nuclear deterrent holder of the United States!
Apart from this title, and more promanent is the competition for control of project and funding.
Its sad to say it - but either service had a very bad history of pulling out all the stops to can the program if they are not in control!

Only thing for it will be Congres clearly stating 'This will be the one and only chance'!
'Muck it up and their will be no funding or new toy'!!!!!!


Regards
Pioneer
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,388
Reaction score
1,430
Part of it is that the requirements for an SLBM and ICBM are different.
 

Hammer Birchgrove

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
583
Reaction score
7
Wait, I think I hit the nail... What about France and USA working together on the next SLBM's, now that France is part of NATO's command structure again?

Sorry for digressing.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,288
Reaction score
1,242
Actually the US may have to start buying nukes from the UK so why not an SLBM from France? My understanding in that the US nuke labs are under such restrictions to not perform any "advanced concept development" that some US scientists based in the UK may be doing some classified work in that country.
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,727
Reaction score
496
Honestly since we don't have a dedicated Topol-M-tread (Or I can't find it) ... some nice photos of that beast !

http://slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn/slide_8_207_12635.html#p=1
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,288
Reaction score
1,242
MOSCOW - Russia on Dec. 27 successfully test fired its long-range RS-18 ballistic missile from the Baiknonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan with a new warhead aimed at overcoming Western air defense systems, news agencies said.

The RS-18, a warhorse missile known to the West as Stilet (Stileto) that the Russian defense ministry has given a new lease of life, successfully hit its target on the Kamchatka peninsula on the Pacific, reports quoted the defense ministry as saying. RIA Novosti news agency said that the RS-18 was carrying a new warhead aimed at overcoming missile defense systems at a time of growing tensions over plans for a U.S. missile shield in Europe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have read numerous stories with regard to "new warheads" on Russian ICBMs/SLBMs that "evade" missile defenses does anyone have additional information on these systems?
 

Similar threads

Top