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

Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans

In_A_Dream

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
130
Reaction score
32

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com

Not to turn this political but we can sort of thank a certain administration for wanting more nukes and of course better GMDs for the U.S. And frankly speaking I am also sort of glad that new satellites, and GMDs are being built in Russia and thanking them for wanting to build a better ballistic missile defense for China. There were quite a few close calls where this world was close to turning into ashes. The biggest fear should be the countries developing a certain amount of nuclear warheads in which if one of those 3 superpowers cannot deal with for example lets say intercepting 5 ICBMs(sure information on this is classified) getting launched than it will trigger a domino effect to start sending nukes everywhere despite the aggressor that launched those nukes 1st. Russia and China seem more rational to deal with than N Korea and Iran even if they are considered are adversaries.
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
346
Reaction score
86
Is it true that the communists are focusing nuclear delivery whereas we are focusing on conventional?
Communists? It seems to me article isn't talking specifically about China.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
960
Reaction score
269
Is it true that the communists are focusing nuclear delivery whereas we are focusing on conventional?
Communists? It seems to me article isn't talking specifically about China.
You seem to be referring to Russia as a communist state which it isn’t.
Perhaps best not to use potentially anachronistic or politically loaded terms when simply referring to who you are talking about is simpler and clearer anyway.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,712
Reaction score
757
 

rooster

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
135
Reaction score
46
What did Trump mean today when he said the USA is producing new hypersonic missiles? Slip of the tongue or another Trump gaff?
 

In_A_Dream

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
130
Reaction score
32
What did Trump mean today when he said the USA is producing new hypersonic missiles? Slip of the tongue or another Trump gaff?
I believe in layman's terms, it means we're developing new hypersonic missiles.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com

I posted a similar like source at the mig-41 thread.

An ordinary anti-aircraft missile has one warhead,” he told Izvestia. - The probability of a miss on a hypersonic maneuvering target is very high. But if one ammunition carries several homing shells, then the chances of hitting a high-speed object increase significantly.

According to the expert, in the case of firing IFRK DP at hypersonic targets, all warheads will be displayed at a pre-calculated point on the trajectory of a flying munition and attack it in the forehead. The use of ultra-long-range missiles will expand the area of destruction of the interceptor.

Especially effective is the use of the complex during aircraft operations as part of a single information space. Aerial targets, cruise or hypersonic missiles can be detected by ground-based radars, early warning radars, or an attack warning system. The fighter will only need to launch an ultra-long-range missile in the desired area. At the same time, the interceptor will not have to risk it himself, entering into an air battle."


So is the name of this missile project called IFRK DP? Because in that source they are calling the mig-41 with a name called MPKR DP
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com

"Russian experts from NUST “MISiS” learned to increase the speed of missiles by adding copper to the fuel composition. As part of the tests, scientists were convinced that the copper nanoparticles in the fuel will significantly increase the efficiency (efficiency) of rocket engines.

For some time, scientists studied the effects of nano- and microadditives of aluminum, boron, zinc, nickel, copper and molybdenum on the burning rate of solid fuels. As a result, each of the additives showed a different rate of catalytic activity. For example, boron increased the burning rate of fuel by only 10%, and copper - by 500%.

As you know, at present, the so-called cyclic nitramines are used as combustible material in solid rocket fuel. However, these substances are quite resistant to the action of existing catalysts, which imposes a restriction on the burning rate of the fuel and, as a consequence, on the speed of the object. The search for new combustion catalysts for various types of jet fuel is a key task.

Researchers have proposed an alternative component composition of solid fuels. As a fuel, experts used aluminum powder, a catalyst - nano- and microadditives of aluminum, boron, zinc, nickel, copper, molybdenum and their oxides. It turned out that the addition of copper nanoparticles to fuel would increase the speed of rockets by a factor of five. The result of the study showed that copper increases the burning rate of fuel by 500%, zinc - by 130%, and boron - by 10% "


I guess this is still more room for improvement to be made with solid fuel technology.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
520

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
They seem to be very confident that the Barguzin program has been cancelled outright rather than just shelved. That may be a very dangerous assumption indeed.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
960
Reaction score
269
They seem to be very confident that the Barguzin program has been cancelled outright rather than just shelved. That may be a very dangerous assumption indeed.
Not clear why that would be an especially dangerous understanding/ assumption and for whom?

Wouldn’t generally refer to a National Interest article but it does gives a quick summary of why rail mounted ICBMs aren’t necessarily all they’re cracked up to be.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
As I understand it, Barguzin was temporarily shelved because they needed the missiles originally allocated for it as boosters for Avangard in order to speed up introduction of that system, which is considered even more high priority.
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
218
Reaction score
73
As I understand it, Barguzin was temporarily shelved because they needed the missiles originally allocated for it as boosters for Avangard in order to speed up introduction of that system, which is considered even more high priority.
Avangard uses UR-100Ns, Barguzin would likely use RS-24 Yars. There is no way even the Russians would put a liquid-fueled booster like the UR-100N on a rail-car. It was likely canceled because the infrastructure (bases) isn't available anymore and would have to be built from scratch (expensive). Better to just build more road-mobiles where the infrastructure is already available.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
493
Reaction score
157
Avangard is an RV, so it can probably be used by many missiles. The RS-28 Sarmat is said to carry up to 5 (or 15 normal ballistic RVs).
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
218
Reaction score
73
Avangard is an RV, so it can probably be used by many missiles. The RS-28 Sarmat is said to carry up to 5 (or 15 normal ballistic RVs).
Avangard is a HGV not an RV. There is a difference. As far as we know it has only ever been tested from UR-100N (liquid-fueled) boosters and only the (liquid-fueled) Sarmat will likely carry it as well. You can't just put an HGV on any booster and expect it to work. HGVs require specific insertion trajectories that not all boosters are capable off. Until we see an Avangard being tested on a Yars, its nothing more than a paper concept.
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
394
Reaction score
91
Avangard is a HGV not an RV. There is a difference. As far as we know it has only ever been tested from UR-100N (liquid-fueled) boosters and only the (liquid-fueled) Sarmat will likely carry it as well. You can't just put an HGV on any booster and expect it to work. HGVs require specific insertion trajectories that not all boosters are capable off. Until we see an Avangard being tested on a Yars, its nothing more than a paper concept.
So it needs a Throttleable booster ?
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
493
Reaction score
157
Avangard is a HGV not an RV. There is a difference. As far as we know it has only ever been tested from UR-100N (liquid-fueled) boosters and only the (liquid-fueled) Sarmat will likely carry it as well. You can't just put an HGV on any booster and expect it to work. HGVs require specific insertion trajectories that not all boosters are capable off. Until we see an Avangard being tested on a Yars, its nothing more than a paper concept.
The information stated for Sarmat was from RT.
 
Top