Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:13 am

    I suspected they were just trying to be vague... all ballistic missiles with a range of more than 5,500km are deemed ICBMs.

    For the same reason they might say that if over 6,000km flight radius classes a bomber as strategic they would say the PAK DAs flight range is more than 6,000km... in other words all they are revealing is that it is an ICBM/strategic bomber.

    This new weapon is half the weight of the SS-18 and its main role might be to carry rather more powerful warheads than other existing types can carry.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:53 am

    i tinked to something. if the rocket wouldnt stay vertically underground (i mean bunker ones) but horizontally and at launch to be in vertical form. or maibe burried deep underground and elevated up at launch. similar could be done in case of simple rockets for defence (stationary burried missile) whit holes camouflated so they are not visible from satellite. event strategic ICMB can be positioned somewhere not whit a lot of machines that could be visible from satellite. and i think ICMBs could be separated in parts not beeing need a huge truck that could be seen from satellite and mounted at lauch. also i think at ICMB for sea self motorized and self lift from the sea at close of enemy territory. could be use an electric motor whit computer at bord and advance silence protection

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:52 am

    the mechanism to raise a missile from horizontal to vertical would be quite substantial and also fairly slow to operate.

    It makes rather more sense... particularly with silo based weapons to have them vertical and ready to fire.

    On trucks where driving around with them vertical is not practical then raising them for launch is necessary.

    Personally I think a super small missile with a fairly light payload would be the best solution so you cuold have 4 per truck or train carriage.

    the other option would be a nuclear powered jet engine cruise missile with a dozen small warheads so the missile could fly around for years... and strike various targets without warning over a period of years zipping around at very high speed at low level.

    Imagine WWIII and then a year after when you are starting to rebuild a mach 3 missile flying at 200m altitude zooms through and releases a 200KT nuke...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  victor1985 on Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:02 am

    well the nuclear powered missile is far from creating now. nuclear powered missile is the same whit ion thrusters? cause in ion thrusters are some achievements right now nowrld wide. the us are making vasimir rockets for space explorer. i dont know but the same tehnologies could be use to ICBMs?

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  victor1985 on Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:04 am

    GarryB wrote:the mechanism to raise a missile from horizontal to vertical would be quite substantial and also fairly slow to operate.

    It makes rather more sense... particularly with silo based weapons to have them vertical and ready to fire.

    On trucks where driving around with them vertical is not practical then raising them for launch is necessary.

    Personally I think a super small missile with a fairly light payload would be the best solution so you cuold have 4 per truck or train carriage.

    the other option would be a nuclear powered jet engine cruise missile with a dozen small warheads so the missile could fly around for years... and strike various targets without warning over a period of years zipping around at very high speed at low level.

    Imagine WWIII and then a year after when you are starting to rebuild  a mach 3 missile flying at 200m altitude zooms through and releases a 200KT nuke...
    yes but the sites are more exposed to nuclear or anti bunker hits. that is why i said this. i know every missile silo is guarded but wouldnt be easier and safer to have them secure even to nukes and anti bunker?

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  flamming_python on Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:39 pm

    I think missile silos will become obsolete in the future; give it 2-3 decades. The problem is that they are designed to withstand nuclear blasts in close proximity. But they are not designed, and cannot be designed - to withstand nuclear blasts dead-centre, which more accurate future ballistic missiles might be able to achieve.

    But in fact nukes aren't even needed nowadays at all for such targets - now that precision weapons and anti-bunker warheads are being mastered and the US is developing its Global Strike Doctrine, envisaging the use of a range of hypersonic precision conventional weaponry to achieve the tasks less-accurate nuclear ICBMs were reserved for in decades prior.

    We're at the level now when specialized missiles now have both the accuracy and penetration to take out nuclear-missile silos.
    What isn't present so far, is the technology to deliver such weapons to targets in Russia, past all the multiple layers of air-defenses. But it isn't hard to imagine future ICBMs with payloads of bunker-busting missiles.

    victor1985 wrote:i tinked to something. if the rocket wouldnt stay vertically underground (i mean bunker ones) but horizontally and at launch to be in vertical form. or maibe burried deep underground and elevated up at launch. similar could be done in case of simple rockets for defence (stationary burried missile) whit holes camouflated so they are not visible from satellite. event strategic ICMB can be positioned somewhere not whit a lot of machines that could be visible from satellite. and i think ICMBs could be separated in parts not beeing need a huge truck that could be seen from satellite and mounted at lauch. also i think at ICMB for sea self motorized and self lift from the sea at close of enemy territory. could be use an electric motor whit computer at bord and advance silence protection

    On the face of it a ICBM complex composed of multiple compartment-containers might sound good - until you pause to think about it a bit.

    A stationary, disguised ICBM complex will be completely vulnerable and have no defenses whatsoever, other than its camouflage. What guarantees do you have at any time, that the Americans haven't already discovered its location and have a missile of their own with its name on it? You don't, you have no way of knowing, and with the passage of time you'll have to assume that they have found out about your system; that's the fate that befalls all systems that stay in one place too long, no matter how well hidden.

    Where will you base this system? Out in the middle of nowhere? The activity/resupply/etc... will give it away. It will have to be in the proximity of some garrison or the other, so actually there's a limit as to where you can place It.

    What if you place it in an inhabited area? That way some of the activity might be disguised; but then it would be completely exposed - you would have to have guards, personnel out in the open which might ruin the subterfuge - and again it will have to be not too far from a garrison.

    Placing it as part of existing military infrastructure, in existing military bases is an option; hoping to disguise it as a military facility of another purpose; say a logistics base or some such. But then as a visible military facility, it might get targeted anyway for another reason, and besides which you can't be sure that your disguise has worked - if it hasn't than you've wasted a lot of money and effort; not that it would matter by then.

    Placing it at sea? On what, a container ship that calls to New York? The only option is to place it on a container ship that you control the routes of; say one that travels Russia's Northern Route. However, it would be completely exposed, and without any sort of outside support, like a nuclear submarine - only it's not a nuclear sub - just a set of containers. Traveling along a defined trade-route, it would be lucky to be afforded the protection of Russia's air-force; and would be otherwise defenseless and vulnerable to infiltration, take-over or destruction; although I suppose you can fit another compartmentalized weapon system on there too, and a platoon of marines.
    Ultimately the Americans might find it easier to simply destroy all Russian cargo ships they suspect might be harboring such a system, rather than try and sort through them - and there would be nothing stopping them.
    If you're going to put ICBMs at sea, you might as well put them on nuclear ICBM subs, which are superior in every respect.

    The only place such a container-ICBM system might be a good fit - is underneath a mountain in a rail tunnel. You can mount the compartments on rails, attach a diesel locomotive to enable it to get there, and then to roll in and out of the mountain to launch and then take cover respectively.
    Well done - you've just reinvented the ICBM train.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat Jan 03, 2015 3:32 pm

    yup, silos are going the way of dodo- no one's gonna stop the nuke train. also with new missiles getting lighter but just as capable (best example is the new heavy icbm which seemingly got out of the biggest loser contest, 50% of ss-18's weight which is ~100 tons,naturally assuming it got slimmer along the waist too  censored) it just makes even more sense to place them on mobile launchers.

    btw if murica really presses on with their PGS then the best answer imo is return of FOBS. suddenly a lot more russian space launches "fail" on orbit dunno Twisted Evil .

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  victor1985 on Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:03 pm

    flamming_python wrote:I think missile silos will become obsolete in the future; give it 2-3 decades. The problem is that they are designed to withstand nuclear blasts in close proximity. But they are not designed, and cannot be designed - to withstand nuclear blasts dead-centre, which more accurate future ballistic missiles might be able to achieve.

    But in fact nukes aren't even needed nowadays at all for such targets - now that precision weapons and anti-bunker warheads are being mastered and the US is developing its Global Strike Doctrine, envisaging the use of a range of hypersonic precision conventional weaponry to achieve the tasks less-accurate nuclear ICBMs were reserved for in decades prior.

    We're at the level now when specialized missiles now have both the accuracy and penetration to take out nuclear-missile silos.
    What isn't present so far, is the technology to deliver such weapons to targets in Russia, past all the multiple layers of air-defenses. But it isn't hard to imagine future ICBMs with payloads of bunker-busting missiles.

    victor1985 wrote:i tinked to something. if the rocket wouldnt stay vertically underground (i mean bunker ones) but horizontally and at launch to be in vertical form. or maibe burried deep underground and elevated up at launch. similar could be done in case of simple rockets for defence (stationary burried missile) whit holes camouflated so they are not visible from satellite. event strategic ICMB can be positioned somewhere not whit a lot of machines that could be visible from satellite. and i think ICMBs could be separated in parts not beeing need a huge truck that could be seen from satellite and mounted at lauch. also i think at ICMB for sea self motorized and self lift from the sea at close of enemy territory. could be use an electric motor whit computer at bord and advance silence protection

    On the face of it a ICBM complex composed of multiple compartment-containers might sound good - until you pause to think about it a bit.

    A stationary, disguised ICBM complex will be completely vulnerable and have no defenses whatsoever, other than its camouflage. What guarantees do you have at any time, that the Americans haven't already discovered its location and have a missile of their own with its name on it? You don't, you have no way of knowing, and with the passage of time you'll have to assume that they have found out about your system; that's the fate that befalls all systems that stay in one place too long, no matter how well hidden.

    Where will you base this system? Out in the middle of nowhere? The activity/resupply/etc... will give it away. It will have to be in the proximity of some garrison or the other, so actually there's a limit as to where you can place It.

    What if you place it in an inhabited area? That way some of the activity might be disguised; but then it would be completely exposed - you would have to have guards, personnel out in the open which might ruin the subterfuge - and again it will have to be not too far from a garrison.

    Placing it as part of existing military infrastructure, in existing military bases is an option; hoping to disguise it as a military facility of another purpose; say a logistics base or some such. But then as a visible military facility, it might get targeted anyway for another reason, and besides which you can't be sure that your disguise has worked - if it hasn't than you've wasted a lot of money and effort; not that it would matter by then.

    Placing it at sea? On what, a container ship that calls to New York? The only option is to place it on a container ship that you control the routes of; say one that travels Russia's Northern Route. However, it would be completely exposed, and without any sort of outside support, like a nuclear submarine - only it's not a nuclear sub - just a set of containers. Traveling along a defined trade-route, it would be lucky to be afforded the protection of Russia's air-force; and would be otherwise defenseless and vulnerable to infiltration, take-over or destruction; although I suppose you can fit another compartmentalized weapon system on there too, and a platoon of marines.
    Ultimately the Americans might find it easier to simply destroy all Russian cargo ships they suspect might be harboring such a system, rather than try and sort through them - and there would be nothing stopping them.
    If you're going to put ICBMs at sea, you might as well put them on nuclear ICBM subs, which are superior in every respect.

    The only place such a container-ICBM system might be a good fit - is underneath a mountain in a rail tunnel. You can mount the compartments on rails, attach a diesel locomotive to enable it to get there, and then to roll in and out of the mountain to launch and then take cover respectively.
    Well done - you've just reinvented the ICBM train.
    true in what you have said. Excepts few things. Nowadays the silos are covered whit concrete but in the future new materials, cheap and strong will be cover the silos. Also troops can be also disguised in civilians. So that noone can see what happen. Lets think to ban all americans from comin how will they see where is? By sattelite, ok but sattelites cant see all in the same time. Also a sistem of land based lights can easy be pointed to sattelites. Underground trains could deliver the supplies for the silos. And trains whit rockets are more visible, more easy to be spyed by sattelite or spyes. And hard to be guarded by troops. The only advantage of trains is they are moving so missiles that cannot change target in flight cant hit them. This advantage can be apply to trucks too if they are able to hit while moving.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  victor1985 on Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:01 pm

    I think also that on a ICMB can be put a lot of equipment for jamming missiles, smoke for laser, coutermeasures for IR and so on

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:20 pm

    victor1985 wrote:true in what you have said. Excepts few things. Nowadays the silos are covered whit concrete but in the future new materials, cheap and strong will be cover the silos.

    I understand that. But precision-guidance is developing faster than new materials are, and I do doubt that anything we develop in the next 200 years at least, will be able to withstand a nuclear-detonation at point-blank range.

    Also troops can be also disguised in civilians. So that noone can see what happen. Lets think to ban all americans from comin how will they see where is? By sattelite,  ok but sattelites cant see all in the same time. Also a sistem of land based lights can easy be pointed to sattelites. Underground trains could deliver the supplies for the silos.

    Sounds like a hell of a lot of trouble and expense to go to. Essentially you've just described an above-ground missile silo, but with some elaborate disguises instead of concrete, underground protection (which is still relevant and will be for another couple decades at least).

    ICBM trains are cheaper, can be more effectively disguised, and are far more survivable even if discovered than any stationary ICBM container-complex above ground with supporting infrastructure.

    And trains whit rockets are more visible, more easy to be spyed by sattelite or spyes.

    Not if they look exactly like normal freight trains.

    And hard to be guarded by troops.

    Not if the troops are inside the train.

    The only advantage of trains is they are moving so missiles that cannot change target in flight cant hit them. This advantage can be apply to trucks too if they are able to hit while moving.

    Except you can't disguise nuclear-missile trucks. And they are slower, and won't be able to get away in time from a nuke targeted at them. And due to their weight & size they're very maintenance-heavy. And they likely won't be able to go too far from their garrison due to their speed, low-mobility, need for supporting elements and regular maintenance. And they do require a proper escort and guards that will be visible and traveling alongside it. And each truck-complex can only carry 1 missile, meaning that you could end up with a huge, heavy convoy including dozens of supporting vehicles and personnel, that's visible to satellites or anyone in the vicinity.

    Basically, we already have truck-based ICBMs; all the Topol-M and Yars missiles are deployed on such platforms. I made them sound bad, but in reality they're good - it's just that ICBM trains are even better.

    victor1985 wrote:I think also that on a ICMB can be put a lot of equipment for jamming missiles,  smoke for laser, coutermeasures for IR  and so on

    The Satan missile already has some stuff like that. So does the Iskander, and the Topol-M and Yars.

    The upcoming Sarmat will have a lot of decoys and countermeasures too; it will be half the weight of the Satan but much newer and will end up as the new heaviest missile in the Russian arsenal - so it can be packed full of the latest goodies.

    Another one to watch is the Avangard. It will be the lightest, smallest and lowest-range ICBM in the Russian arsenal upon introduction - but by all accounts it will have some real surprises in store.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  victor1985 on Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:42 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    victor1985 wrote:true in what you have said. Excepts few things. Nowadays the silos are covered whit concrete but in the future new materials, cheap and strong will be cover the silos.

    I understand that. But precision-guidance is developing faster than new materials are, and I do doubt that anything we develop in the next 200 years at least, will be able to withstand a nuclear-detonation at point-blank range.

    Also troops can be also disguised in civilians. So that noone can see what happen. Lets think to ban all americans from comin how will they see where is? By sattelite,  ok but sattelites cant see all in the same time. Also a sistem of land based lights can easy be pointed to sattelites. Underground trains could deliver the supplies for the silos.

    Sounds like a hell of a lot of trouble and expense to go to. Essentially you've just described an above-ground missile silo, but with some elaborate disguises instead of concrete, underground protection (which is still relevant and will be for another couple decades at least).

    ICBM trains are cheaper, can be more effectively disguised, and are far more survivable even if discovered than any stationary ICBM container-complex above ground with supporting infrastructure.

    And trains whit rockets are more visible, more easy to be spyed by sattelite or spyes.

    Not if they look exactly like normal freight trains.

    And hard to be guarded by troops.

    Not if the troops are inside the train.

    The only advantage of trains is they are moving so missiles that cannot change target in flight cant hit them. This advantage can be apply to trucks too if they are able to hit while moving.

    Except you can't disguise nuclear-missile trucks. And they are slower, and won't be able to get away in time from a nuke targeted at them. And due to their weight & size they're very maintenance-heavy. And they likely won't be able to go too far from their garrison due to their speed, low-mobility, need for supporting elements and regular maintenance. And they do require a proper escort and guards that will be visible and traveling alongside it. And each truck-complex can only carry 1 missile, meaning that you could end up with a huge, heavy convoy including dozens of supporting vehicles and personnel, that's visible to satellites or anyone in the vicinity.

    Basically, we already have truck-based ICBMs; all the Topol-M and Yars missiles are deployed on such platforms. I made them sound bad, but in reality they're good - it's just that ICBM trains are even better.

    victor1985 wrote:I think also that on a ICMB can be put a lot of equipment for jamming missiles,  smoke for laser, coutermeasures for IR  and so on

    The Satan missile already has some stuff like that. So does the Iskander, and the Topol-M and Yars.

    The upcoming Sarmat will have a lot of decoys and countermeasures too; it will be half the weight of the Satan but much newer and will end up as the new heaviest missile in the Russian arsenal - so it can be packed full of the latest goodies.

    Another one to watch is the Avangard. It will be the lightest, smallest and lowest-range ICBM in the Russian arsenal upon introduction - but by all accounts it will have some real surprises in store.
    1 well i dont know about guidance sistem but i know carbon fiber is already invented. And i know is stronger than steel. The only problem is mass production.
    2 trucks, rails and stationary ICBM are expensive. A train seems more expensive than simple trucks. And thinkin that america could simply monitorize all trains seems means trains are not so secure.
    3 well yes can be disguised in normal trains but against simple spies stat stay somewhere and wait for trains and whit special equipment they could easily discover trains. Excepts if you ban all tourists.
    4 ofcourse troops and missiles for defending the ICMB can be put in train. Here you have right. But lets think that the rail can be easyly damaged by spyes.
    5 a rain whit one or two ICBM means a weight of 40 tons whit all protecting equipment. Not much for a locomotive. Indeed those trains will have speed. But those trains will mean 10% of russia arsenal. That 10% can be intercepted. Ideed hard to destroy while in trains.
    6 thinking that ICBMs are large rockets means a lot of stuff to be put. The only problem are laser weapons that in time will become more effective. Finally all will end whit powerfull lasers that can guard skyes and destroy any missile. Then the era of ICBMs will end. Think that video cameras whit shape recognition will see all missiles and destroy all. The only survive ICMB will survive would be one whit low temperature. And even those not in case of a powerfull laser. So ICBM programs will fail.
    7 finally the train seems a good method but whit some questions that ive said.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:30 pm

    victor1985 wrote:1 well i dont know about guidance sistem but i know carbon fiber is already invented. And i know is stronger than steel. The only problem is mass production.

    Remember, that as materials evolve for defense purposes, so too will they evolve for attack. Already we have Kinetic Kill Vehicles used for ABM, and potentially they can be used a s bunker-busters too.

    2 trucks, rails and stationary ICBM are expensive. A train seems more expensive than simple trucks. And thinkin that america could simply monitorize all trains seems means trains are not so secure.

    Each train takes 6 ICBMs/ICBM launchers. It will have a cistern of fuel, 2-3 locomotives and several carriages for C4 and personnel; including sleeping quarters, kitchen, etc... It's basically like a submarine - except much cheaper.

    As for the trucks - the whole point is that they are not that simple. You need special chassis and equipment for such a vehicle. Each vehicle can only take 1 ICBM; so you'll need 6 such sophisticated vehicles, and you'll need simulators for the drivers to train on and a whole bunch of training, as handling them is like handling nothing else in existence. In each convoy you would need a number of supporting vehicles - scout cars, light armoured vehicles, C4 vehicles, repair vehicles, fuel trucks, etc...
    Basically it's like that train set-up, but spread over a convoy of military vehicles, as opposed to just being all encompassed in 1 ordinary-looking train.

    The cost will probably not be too different, although that convoy will probably burn through more fuel, spare parts, etc... than those 3 diesel locomotives will; given that rail-based freight is typically nearly x10 as fuel-efficient as truck-based freight is.

    3 well yes can be disguised in normal trains but against simple spies stat stay somewhere and wait for trains and whit special equipment they could easily discover trains. Excepts if you ban all tourists.

    That's a good point - but in practice it's impractical for them to do so. Russia is simply too huge and has too much rail. While they might have some people along the Moscow-St. Petersburg line, Baikal-Amur Mainline, Gorky Railway, etc... the trains could actually be along the St. Petersburg-Murmansk line, Amur-Yakutsk Mainline or the South Urals Railway.
    The raw distances, and low number of missile trains also mean that they would detect trains in such way only very infrequently - if they get lucky then maybe once every 24-48 hours or so - if they have enough people at enough places. But that information can become useless potentially much sooner; it could become hard to track such trains particularly if they decide to make a stop somewhere and swap disguises (if they have info that spies are on the ground among the lines).

    4 ofcourse troops and missiles for defending the ICMB can be put in train. Here you have right. But lets think that the rail can be easyly damaged by spyes.

    The train will probably have some interference equipment that would jam remote-detonation devices in a good range. If the rail is sabotaged ahead of time than it will be found out about and reported in advance, and the train could change course or reverse direction.

    5 a rain whit one or two ICBM means a weight of 40 tons whit all protecting equipment. Not much for a locomotive. Indeed those trains will have speed. But those trains will mean 10% of russia arsenal. That 10% can be intercepted. Ideed hard to destroy while in trains.

    The trains will carry 6 ICBMs each and if my calculations are correct then they'll weigh about 1000 tons each; but they'll still be fast since load doesn't impact on a locomotive's top-speed, but only on its acceleration. That 10% will be harder to destroy than anything else.

    6 thinking that ICBMs are large rockets means a lot of stuff to be put. The only problem are laser weapons that in time will become more effective. Finally all will end whit powerfull lasers that can guard skyes and destroy any missile. Then the era of ICBMs will end.

    ICBMs are the heaviest ballistic objects operated by any military. Right now the Russians put decoys, extra-equipment, multiple warheads, etc... on them, but by the time laser installations become powerful enough to destroy ICBMs from the ground or from orbit (not soon); new materials would be used that would allow chassis/warhead/counter-measure weight to be further reduced, while new propellent would mean more weight could be thrown by a new ICBM of the same size as a previous one.
    What this all amounts to is that the ICBMs of tomorrow will be stronger in construction, lighter, but at the same time have much more spare room and throw capacity, for amour and other protective measures - and lasers won't be able to saw through them.

    Think that video cameras whit shape recognition will see all missiles and destroy all. The only survive ICMB will survive would be one whit low temperature. And even those not in case of a powerfull laser. So ICBM programs will fail.

    They can see all ICBMs already; exactly pinpointing the place where they're launched from -as soon as they're launched, with infra-red imagery satellites, and then calculating their trajectory and position very soon after that with the help of over-the-horizon early-warning radars. The earliest of this soft of technology has been around since the 50s.
    There's no such thing as a stealth ICBM. But the problem is not detecting them, but taking them out.

    7 finally the train seems a good method but whit some questions that ive said.

    It's the worst method - aside from all the others.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  victor1985 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 6:39 am

    flamming_python wrote:
    victor1985 wrote:1 well i dont know about guidance sistem but i know carbon fiber is already invented. And i know is stronger than steel. The only problem is mass production.

    Remember, that as materials evolve for defense purposes, so too will they evolve for attack. Already we have Kinetic Kill Vehicles used for ABM, and potentially they can be used a s bunker-busters too.

    2 trucks, rails and stationary ICBM are expensive. A train seems more expensive than simple trucks. And thinkin that america could simply monitorize all trains seems means trains are not so secure.

    Each train takes 6 ICBMs/ICBM launchers. It will have a cistern of fuel, 2-3 locomotives and several carriages for C4 and personnel; including sleeping quarters, kitchen, etc... It's basically like a submarine - except much cheaper.

    As for the trucks - the whole point is that they are not that simple. You need special chassis and equipment for such a vehicle. Each vehicle can only take 1 ICBM; so you'll need 6 such sophisticated vehicles, and you'll need simulators for the drivers to train on and a whole bunch of training, as handling them is like handling nothing else in existence. In each convoy you would need a number of supporting vehicles - scout cars, light armoured vehicles, C4 vehicles, repair vehicles, fuel trucks, etc...
    Basically it's like that train set-up, but spread over a convoy of military vehicles, as opposed to just being all encompassed in 1 ordinary-looking train.

    The cost will probably not be too different, although that convoy will probably burn through more fuel, spare parts, etc... than those 3 diesel locomotives will; given that rail-based freight is typically nearly x10 as fuel-efficient as truck-based freight is.

    3 well yes can be disguised in normal trains but against simple spies stat stay somewhere and wait for trains and whit special equipment they could easily discover trains. Excepts if you ban all tourists.

    That's a good point - but in practice it's impractical for them to do so. Russia is simply too huge and has too much rail. While they might have some people along the Moscow-St. Petersburg line, Baikal-Amur Mainline, Gorky Railway, etc... the trains could actually be along the St. Petersburg-Murmansk line, Amur-Yakutsk Mainline or the South Urals Railway.
    The raw distances, and low number of missile trains also mean that they would detect trains in such way only very infrequently - if they get lucky then maybe once every 24-48 hours or so - if they have enough people at enough places. But that information can become useless potentially much sooner; it could become hard to track such trains particularly if they decide to make a stop somewhere and swap disguises (if they have info that spies are on the ground among the lines).

    4 ofcourse troops and missiles for defending the ICMB can be put in train. Here you have right. But lets think that the rail can be easyly damaged by spyes.

    The train will probably have some interference equipment that would jam remote-detonation devices in a good range. If the rail is sabotaged ahead of time than it will be found out about and reported in advance, and the train could change course or reverse direction.

    5 a rain whit one or two ICBM means a weight of 40 tons whit all protecting equipment. Not much for a locomotive. Indeed those trains will have speed. But those trains will mean 10% of russia arsenal. That 10% can be intercepted. Ideed hard to destroy while in trains.

    The trains will carry 6 ICBMs each and if my calculations are correct then they'll weigh about 1000 tons each; but they'll still be fast since load doesn't impact on a locomotive's top-speed, but only on its acceleration. That 10% will be harder to destroy than anything else.

    6 thinking that ICBMs are large rockets means a lot of stuff to be put. The only problem are laser weapons that in time will become more effective. Finally all will end whit powerfull lasers that can guard skyes and destroy any missile. Then the era of ICBMs will end.

    ICBMs are the heaviest ballistic objects operated by any military. Right now the Russians put decoys, extra-equipment, multiple warheads, etc... on them, but by the time laser installations become powerful enough to destroy ICBMs from the ground or from orbit (not soon); new materials would be used that would allow chassis/warhead/counter-measure weight to be further reduced, while new propellent would mean more weight could be thrown by a new ICBM of the same size as a previous one.
    What this all amounts to is that the ICBMs of tomorrow will be stronger in construction, lighter, but at the same time have much more spare room and throw capacity, for amour and other protective measures - and lasers won't be able to saw through them.

    Think that video cameras whit shape recognition will see all missiles and destroy all. The only survive ICMB will survive would be one whit low temperature. And even those not in case of a powerfull laser. So ICBM programs will fail.

    They can see all ICBMs already; exactly pinpointing the place where they're launched from -as soon as they're launched, with infra-red imagery satellites, and then calculating their trajectory and position very soon after that with the help of over-the-horizon early-warning radars. The earliest of this soft of technology has been around since the 50s.
    There's no such thing as a stealth ICBM. But the problem is not detecting them, but taking them out.

    7 finally the train seems a good method but whit some questions that ive said.

    It's the worst method - aside from all the others.
    1 you have right. But.... Rockets are based on kinetic energy or powerfull explosive for destroy the plates of composite materials. That means the rocket would have either great speed or great explosive. For both is a limit. Thinking that hulls for land based ICMBs can be as big as you want or your budget permit that means that anti bunker will have problems. Ofcourse in the future rockets whit anti matter or those based on ion thrusters will replace actual one. That means a pain for fixed ICBMs. Only problem is that new rockets like those are still in prototype. But will evolve.
    2 well as far as i know usa has the most numerous people in the world working for their secret service... cia. Maybe will not be so hard for them to observe and damage the rail. Some measures still can reduce chances for them. Like putting police or video cameras to monitorize. Or having a wire or wires inside rails. Or helicopters that guard. Also they could stick tracking devices to trains like in james bond. But ofcourse russian army and secret services think 24 hours per day to counter measures to that.
    3 a speed of lets say 6 mach means invisible to video cameras or others because of the frames per second. Ofcourse high speed cameras can be put or Ladar but the rocket will fly low altitude and cover by the curbure of earth. And thinking at laser jamming tehnologies even those could not catch ICBMs. But.... nuclear devices improve and in some years they will have a jet fighter whit a nuclear power plant. That means a powerfull laser that could hit from theyr aerospace to us. Mean a plane at orbital altitude.
    4 well whit greater speed of ICBM means hard to observe even from satellite. Means speed at launch must be improved. And methods to camuflate the IR signature. And also means that rocket must fly in an unpredictive ways. What about cold fog? Can make problems to sattelites?

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  George1 on Sun Jan 11, 2015 5:34 pm

    Russia's Strategic Missile Forces to Conduct Over 100 Drills in 2015

    Russia's Strategic Missile Forces will conduct over 100 command and staff, tactical and specialized drills to improve the performance of troops' field training in 2015.

    MOSCOW, January 11 (Sputnik) — The Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) of Russia are planning to conduct over 100 drills at various levels in 2015, SMF spokesperson Col. Igor Yegorov said Sunday.

    "In 2015, SMF will conduct over 100 command and staff, tactical and specialized drills. The drills will be conducted in complex and tense conditions," Yegorov told the press.

    The spokesperson added that the purpose of the planned exercises is to improve the performance of troops' field training by increasing the duration of the drills. In addition, requirements for skills of all categories of servicemen will be increased.

    Russia's Strategic Missile Forces are the arm of the country's Armed Forces and the main component of it's strategic nuclear forces. Their main goals include nuclear deterrence of a possible aggression and the defeat of possible enemy's strategic objects of military and economic potential by means of nuclear missile attacks.

    In late December, Russia's Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov cited the strengthening of the country's nuclear triad as the Armed Forces' main task for 2015.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  George1 on Wed Jan 14, 2015 7:09 pm

    Tracking down road-mobile missiles

    Replacement of old road-mobile Topol/SS-25 missiles with newer Topol-M and RS-25 Yars is one of the key components of Russia's modernization program. Although the service life of Topol was recently extended to 25 years, which will allow the missile to remain in service until about 2021, it has been steadily withdrawn from service for some time now. Of the original 360 Topol missiles that the Soviet Union had in the early 1990s, about 100 appeared to still remain in force. Or maybe even fewer - according to the Ministry of Defense end-of-year report (mp4 file), 43% of the Strategic Rocket Force ICBMs are "modern systems" (it's at 6:38). It appears that to make this number work one would need to assume that the number of Topol ICBMs in service is closer to 60-70.

    This post attempts to bring together the pieces of information about road-mobile bases and recent developments, including deployment of Topol-M and RS-24 Yars. This is very much work in progress, so comments and corrections are welcome.

    A note on missile unit identification: the starting point for most of the division, regiment, and military unit numbers was the Strategic Rocket Forces (RVSN) web site put together by Michael Holm. The site has a lot of good information, including the history of the Strategic Rocket Forces, locations, and names of commanders. It got a few names and designations wrong, however - the numbers below are carefully checked against various open sources - forum posts, photos, and videos. I am reasonably confident I got everything right. Most divisions use internal designations for their regiments and subunits - the 1st regiment or the 16th area (площадка). I added these names as they help better identify the units. Another extremely useful resource is the overview of the Strategic Rocket Forces put together by Kommersant back in 2009. At this point I did not include the full unit names (they are quite long and hard to translate sometimes) and did not add "Guards" to the names of Guards missile regiments. I added links to Google Maps, but to see the full picture one needs to look up the places on Google Earth (or, in a few cases, on Bing and Yandex). I hope that coordinates will help to do it easily.

    At the time the START Treaty was signed in 1990, the Soviet Union had nine road-mobile ICBM bases - Teykovo (36 missiles), Yoshkar-Ola (18, later increased to 36), Yur'ya (45), Nizhniy Tagil (45), Novosibirsk (27, increased to 45), Kansk (27, increased to 45), Irkutsk (36), Barnaul (36), Drovyanaya (0, increased to 18), Vypolzovo (0, increased to 18). Each base houses a missile division, which included a number of missile regiments. Each regiment ("raketnyy polk") would have nine missiles, organized in three battalions ("division" in Russian, as opposed to "diviziya" for a missile division). Each regiment would have its own basing area with large garages for the support vehicles (normally one garage in a battalion) and so-called Krona shelters - one for each TEL. It appears that TELs are normally housed in their shelters, where they can be put on combat duty in a fully automatic mode - just like their silo-based brethren, but without the protection offered by a silo. Some bases have semi-underground shelters for TELs as well. Here is how a typical Topol regiment looks like (this one is in Barnaul):

    The missiles would occasionally go on patrol, which could last three weeks or as long as two months. It appears that each battalion can go on patrol independently, but it's also possible that a patrol involves the entire regiment. While on patrol, the missiles don't roam around - they move to a stationary position somewhere in the woods, pull on a masking net and wait for a launch order. Battalions could probably change a few positions during a longer patrol, but it's unlikely they do that, since each transfer would mean doing the "maskirovka" again, which actually defeats its purpose. I was told by someone whose job was to search for signs of Topols on satellite images back in the 1980s that they are virtually impossible to find (in fact, it turned out it was easier to see the foxholes dug by the protection force than the actual missiles). On the other hand, the technology is much better now - I recently saw a presentation that showed how SAR images could tell you if there was a movement on a road about a day after the event, so hiding in obscure places is getting difficult. To get a sense how a patrol looks like you could find quite a few videos that show it, like this one.

    Now, the bases. All Topol missiles were removed from three divisions - Drovyanaya (4th missile division, Chita-46, Gorniy), Yur'ya (8th missile division), and Kansk (23rd guards missile division). The 4th and the 23rd divisions were disbanded in the 2000s, but the 4th division in Yur'ya apparently lives on. So, it will go first.

    Yur'ya (4th Missile Division)


    In 2007 Russia listed Yur'ya as a test site for the purposes of START treaty and in 2010 it received a new commander. Russia declared 9 non-deployed SS-25 missiles at Yur'ya to the very end of the START data exchange, and apparently one of the sites - the 76th missile regiment (59.21946, 49.4256, в/ч 49567, 3 площадка) is still active. The word is that the regiment operates command missiles of the Perimeter command and control system (the missile system is known as 15P175 Sirena) - this sounds about right. The other four basing areas of the Yur'ya division look abandoned.

    The command missiles at Yur'ya are probably not accounted for in the New START as deployed missiles - it's likely that the base is declared as a test range, which means that all launchers there are counted as test launchers. It worked for START, so it works for New START too.

    Teykovo (54th Guards Missile Division)

    The Teykovo division was the first that accepted new road-mobile missiles - Topol-M and then RS-24 Yars. In 1990, the division included four regiments with the total of 36 Topol missiles. All these regiments are still active today.

    The first two regiments that were converted to Topol-M are the 321st regiment (56.93211, 40.54313, в\ч 21663, 1-й полк) and the 235th regiment (56.70417, 40.4375, в\ч 12465, 2-й полк). In both places, there was construction of the support buildings - barracks and so on, but the garages and shelters remained in place and it appears that they are the same structures that were used for Topol missiles.

    The two regiments that received mobile RS-24 Yars - the 285th Guards missile regiment (56.80944, 40.17111, в\ч 12416, 3-й полк) and the 773rd missile regiment (56.91541, 40.30843, в\ч 43656, 4-й полк) - were somewhat different. There was no new construction at either site until about 2011 (last Google Earth imagery), although the Krona shelters were taken down in the 773rd regiment some time before September 2009. The Bing image of the regiment shows new construction activity - the garages and shelters are being built anew in new places (although the general outline of the base is intact). There are no post-2011 images of the 285th regiment, but since we know that RS-24 is deployed there, we can assume that the base underwent a similar transformation - old garages and shelters have been replaced by new ones.

    Novosibirsk (39th Guards Missile Division)

    The 39th division is located in Pashino, near Novosibirsk. In 1990, it had three active regiments with 27 Topol missiles, but by 1994 the number of missiles reached 45 (five regiments). The number of missiles (as reported in START) was reduced to 36 in 2008, but the shelters apparently were still in place. Still, it appears that one regiment - the 826th Guards missile regiment (55.36696, 83.23493, в\ч 12423, 23 площадка) - has been disbanded.

    Most of the sites in the area has reasonably recent satellite shots - from September 2014. The only place where construction is visible is the 428th regiment (55.31046,83.02408, в\ч 44197, 13 площадка). Old garages and shelters have been taken down and new ones have been built. There is little doubt that this is the first RS-24 Yars regiment in Novosibirsk that reportedly began combat duty in December 2013.

    According to the Rocket Forces, the service received 12 mobile RS-24 Yars missiles in 2014. It's not clear if the Novosibirsk division got any of these, but it appears that they would have nowhere to go, as none of the sites look ready to accept them. There is some activity at the site of the site of the 382nd regiment (55.31745, 83.16841, в\ч 44238, 21 площадка) - dismantlement of old shelters began at some point in the 2013, but no new construction is visible on the September 2014 images. This is probably the second regiment of the 39th division that will receive RS-24 missiles, but it is not quite there yet.

    The other two regiments seem to be unaffected by the changes. Some sources suggested that the 357th regiment (55.32551, 82.94215, в\ч 54097, 12 площадка) has been prepared to receive RS-24 since 2012, but there is no activity at the site, so that information is incorrect. The 773rd regiment (55.38045, 82.91891, в\ч 07399, 11 площадка) was transferred to Teykovo (where is became в\ч 43656).

    The bottom line appears to be that there are three "alive" regiments in Novosibirsk. We know that the 428th regiment has nine RS-24 Yars missiles. As for the other two, it is likely that all SS-25/Topol missiles have been removed to make room for RS-24, but the conversion has not been completed yet.

    Nizhniy Tagil (42nd Missile Division)

    The Nizhniy Tagil division is the third division that is being converted to RS-24 Yars. The division had five regiments in 1990, but by 2009 Russia reported that only three regiments had deployed missiles.

    The 617th regiment (58.080077, 60.211, в\ч 12830, 12 площадка) was reportedly disbanded in 2008. The site looks quite neglected, so it is probably safe to assume that this regiment is not active anymore.

    The 308th regiment(58.230585, 60.67646, в\ч 54258, 21 площадка) was disbanded in 2004. The site was very much in ruins in 2009, when the last START data exchange took place, so this is the second disbanded regiment of the 42nd division.

    The location, however, was later used to build an entirely new base - the one that apparently operates RS-24 missiles. It is the new base that is clearly visible on the current satellite images. We know that the division received six RS-24 Yars missiles in December 2013 and more - in 2014. But let's return to the RS-24 deployment later.

    The 804th regiment (58.13748, 60.53811, в\ч 9430, 11 площадка) was very much intact in 2009, but had some of its shelters dismantled starting in 2012-2013. Since no new construction was visible in June 2014, it's safe to assume that no missiles, whether Topol or Yars, were deployed there in 2014.

    There is not much activity at the 142nd regiment base (58.19598, 60.58049, в\ч 73795, 5 площадка) - all Krona shelters were in place in May 2014. Nothing is happening in the 433rd regiment (58.10153, 60.35971, в\ч 19972, 1 площадка) as well - the most recent image there is from September 2014.

    So, it is not entirely clear where the new RS-24 Yars missiles that were reported to have begun service in 2014 are based. There is some construction at the division technical base (RTB, 58.10035,60.43318), but nothing that would house missile launchers.

    So, where are the RS-24 missiles in Nizhniy Tagil? Nine could be theoretically deployed at the new site built at the 308th regiment location (we don't know if the new regiment will retain the number; probably not). But as of the last image, 2 June 2014, the site looks pretty far from complete. Probably this is why only six missiles were deployed there in 2013. But in 2014 the Rocket Forces reportedly received 12 new mobile RS-24. These presumably were distributed between Novosibirsk and Nizhniy Tagil. Three of these 12 probably joined the new RS-24 regiment. But there is no place for the other nine to go - whether in Novosibirsk or in Nizhniy Tagil.

    Yoshkar-Ola (14th Missile Division)

    The division in Yoshkar-Ola included four regiments with Topol missiles back in the 1990s, although the START data exchange showed that missile shelters were constructed only in three of them. One regiment was indeed disbanded and removed from START declarations in 2003 - most likely it is the 702nd missile regiment (56.597515, 48.358512, в\ч 68530).

    As the satellite imagery shows, three regiments of the Yoshkar-Ola division were very much operational in 2014: the 290th missile regiment (56.83194, 48.24083 in Google Maps and a better image on Yandex, в\ч 93876, площадка 1к), the 779th missile regiment (56.5825, 48.15472&, в\ч 69795, 1 площадка) and the 697th missile regiment (56.56, 48.21528, в\ч 48404, 16 площадка).

    There are no signs of activity at either of the three active sites (the most recent imagery is from February 2014 for the 290th regiment and from September 2014 for the other two), so it appears that they are all operational with SS-25/Topol missiles. Apparently there is a plan to deploy RS-24 Yars in Yoshkar-Ola, but so far nothing visible has been done there.

    Irkutsk (29the Guards Missile Division)

    In the 1990 START exchange data, Russia declared four Topol missile regiments in the Irkutsk division. Since then, one of the regiments have beed disbanded - at the base of the 345th missile regiment (52.57028, 104.80889, в\ч 40883, 4-й полк) all shelters had been removed by mid-2007. The regiments has disappeared from all social (not to mention the mainstream) media since then, so it is safe to say that it has indeed been disbanded.

    Of the three remaining regiments, two appear to be active - the 344th missile regiment (52.66944, 104.51972, в\ч 52933, 2-й полк) and the 586th missile regiment (52.55167, 104.15861, в\ч 52009, 3-й полк). Their shelters are intact and no construction activity is seen on the site. All indications are that these regiments still operate SS-25/Topol missiles.

    The 92nd missile regiment (52.50861, 104.39333, в\ч 48409, 1-й полк) is quite different. The shelters there are last seen fully intact on the 9//7/2010 image and by 9/15/2012 all shelters are gone. There is no other construction activity at the site, however. It's possible that the regiment is being prepared to be disbanded, just like the 345th regiment before it. Another possibility is that it is being prepared for RS-26 deployment, which some reports indicated will begin in Irkutsk in 2015 (it is now postponed until 2016).

    Barnaul (35th Missile Division)

    There are four missile regiments in the Barnaul division - the 479th Guards missile regiment (53.769921, 83.95915, в\ч 29517, 1-й полк), the 480th missile regiment (53.3059, 84.14618, в\ч 29562, 3-й полк), the 867th missile regiment (53.22468, 84.6695, в\ч 29551, 4-й полк), and the 307th missile regiment (53.31306, 84.5075, в\ч 29532, 2-й полк).

    The imagery of the 867th and 307th regiments is rather old - from April 2009 and June 2005 respectively. However, judging from the traffic these regiments get in various social media, the regiments are very much operational. So, it's quite likely that the division in Barnaul has the full complement of 36 SS-25/Topol missiles in service.

    Vypolzovo (7th Guards Missile Division)

    There were no Topol missiles deployed in Vypolzovo in 1990, but by the end of the 1990s two regiments with 18 missiles were deployed there - the 41st missile regiment (57.86305, 33.65167, в\ч 14264, 1-й полк) and the 510th missile regiment (57.78825, 33.86542, в\ч 52642, 2-й полк).

    Both sites look well-maintained, with no signs of recent construction or other activity, so it's possible that the Vypolzovo division has 18 operational Topol missiles. There was one report that suggested that RS-26 will be deployed in Vypolzovo at some point, but it's not clear if that report was reliable. In any event, that deployment is not imminent.

    [UPDATE 01/14/2015: The division just completed an exercise, so it is very much active.]

    Summary

    So, where does this leave us? First, it is easy to count Topol-M missiles - there are 18 of them in Teykovo. Also, we could say with certainty that there are 18 RS-24 Yars missiles in Teykovo as well. Two additional RS-24 regiments - one in Novosibirsk and one in Nizhniy Tagil - can be reliably identified, brining the number of RS-24 regiments to four. These have place for 36 missiles, but the total number of RS-24 Yars missiles appears to be 45: 18 in Teykovo plus 15 deployed in Novosibirsk and Nizhniy Tagil in 2013, plus 12 added to the force in 2014. Nine RS-24 missiles appear to be "homeless". So, it's probably not all that surprising that the RS-24 deployment in 2014 fell short of the original goal - the bases are not ready yet.

    As for the SS-25/Topol missiles, there are 14 regiments in six divisions that look like they are capable of operating SS-25. That's 126 missiles. Which seems too high - there is no way Russia keeps 126 old Topols and claim that 43% of its ICBMs are new. My guess is that quite about half of these 14 regiments are in "stand down" mode. The obvious candidates are the three regiments in Novosibirsk and Nizhniy Tagil, which are being converted to RS-24 Yars. The division in Irkutsk may also be preparing for a transfer to a different class of missiles (RS-26 in this case) - that two more regiments. Maybe there are two others in Yoshkar-Ola and Vypolzovo, which may be prepared to convert to RS-24. But it's all just a guess at this point.

    The bottom line is that I will assume that as of January 2015 Russia has 72 SS-25 Topol missiles in active force. This is somewhat arbitrary, but it's not a totally unreasonable assumption. I hope that we'll see more activity on these sites that would allow to make a better estimate. Comments are appreciated, of course. (Unfortunately, I had to close anonymous comments - the amount of spam is unbelievably high. Please feel free to register on the site - your registration information will never be used for any purposes.)

    Kyo
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 514
    Points : 563
    Join date : 2014-11-03
    Age : 67
    Location : Brasilia

    Topol, Yars intercontinental ballistic missiles

    Post  Kyo on Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:38 pm

    Topol, Yars ballistic missile launchers on combat patrol in 6 Russian regions

    About 700 units of military equipment, including launchers are deployed in the positioning areas in the Tver, Ivanovo, Kirov, Irkutsk regions, as well as in Altai Territory and the Mari El republic


    MOSCOW, February 4. /TASS/. The Topol, Topol-M and Yars mobile ballistic missile launchers have been put on combat patrol mission in six Russian regions, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman for Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) Colonel Igor Yegorov said on Wednesday.
    "The Topol, Topol-M and Yars mobile launchers are drilling combat duty tasks in six regions of the country with extended combat patrolling time. About 700 units of military equipment, including launchers are deployed in the positioning areas in the Tver, Ivanovo, Kirov, Irkutsk regions, as well as in Altai Territory and the Mari El republic," Yegorov said.

    According to him, the time of winter combat patrolling has been extended to nearly a month this year. "This means that each missile regiment will spend about 60 days per year on combat patrolling routes," he said.
    Topol is a ground-based mobile strategic intercontinental ballistic missile system. The Topol-M ICBM system belongs to the fifth generation of strategic missiles. The three-stage solid-propelled single warhead missile has a silo and mobile version. Yars is a solid-propelled mobile and silo-based intercontinental ballistic missile with multiple warheads.

    Anas Ali
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 57
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2013-02-12
    Age : 28
    Location : Egypt

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  Anas Ali on Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:27 pm


    what is this fire around the head of the missile ?


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:42 pm

    This a thrusters to angle the missile towards its target, usually after vertical launch. Some even are needed or used to stabilize the missile via spinning from such thrusters, but the common thing is just vectoring the missile towards its target right after launch.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:01 am

    That is an ancient battlefield artillery rocket from the FROG family.

    It is just using slightly offset angled thrusters near the nose to spin the rocket and stabilise it in flight to improve accuracy, or more accurately to remove the chance of the rocket veering off in one direction.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 375
    Points : 370
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  Rmf on Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:16 am

    George1 wrote:Russia's Strategic Missile Forces to Conduct Over 100 Drills in 2015

    Russia's Strategic Missile Forces will conduct over 100 command and staff, tactical and specialized drills to improve the performance of troops' field training in 2015.

    MOSCOW, January 11 (Sputnik) — The Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) of Russia are planning to conduct over 100 drills at various levels in 2015, SMF spokesperson Col. Igor Yegorov said Sunday.

    "In 2015, SMF will conduct over 100 command and staff, tactical and specialized drills. The drills will be conducted in complex and tense conditions," Yegorov told the press.

    The spokesperson added that the purpose of the planned exercises is to improve the performance of troops' field training by increasing the duration of the drills. In addition, requirements for skills of all categories of servicemen will be increased.

    Russia's Strategic Missile Forces are the arm of the country's Armed Forces and the main component of it's strategic nuclear forces. Their main goals include nuclear deterrence of a possible aggression and the defeat of possible enemy's strategic objects of military and economic potential by means of nuclear missile attacks.

    In late December, Russia's Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov cited the strengthening of the country's nuclear triad as the Armed Forces' main task for 2015.
    massive. cant wait for videos and information.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  George1 on Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:23 pm

    Russia’s SMF Ready to Repel a ‘Lightning-Speed’ Nuclear Strike

    Russian Strategic Missile Forces will parry all nuclear attacks and punish the enemy with a devastating retaliatory strike.

    The Russian Strategic Missile Forces are prepared to shield the country from a nuclear attack under any circumstances, the SMF Central Command’s chief said.

    “If we have to accomplish a task of repelling a “lightning-speed” nuclear strike, this objective will be attained within a prescribed period”, Andrei Burbin told RSN Radio on Saturday. He added the SMF are ready to deliver a retaliatory nuclear strike “unhesitatingly”.

    He emphasized that the geographic position of Russia’s missile units protects them from destruction by “any global strike”.

    The Major General also said that the SMF are successfully implementing the rearmament plan. In 2020, 98 percent of the SMF systems will be new.

    Currently, more than 6,000 people are on daily duty in the SMF of Russia.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150301/1018907070.html#ixzz3T8FMvUAp

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:14 am

    some details on BZHRK ,Samarat and other program in this interview

    Yuri Borisov: "The structure of the state defense order for more than 65% allocated to the purchase of new serial samples"

    http://www.nationaldefense.ru/includes/periodics/maintheme/2015/0224/143315177/detail.shtml

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat Mar 28, 2015 1:08 pm

    https://2ch.hk/wm/src/1506412/14275319457852.webm

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  George1 on Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:52 pm

    Over 3,500 Soldiers Take Part in Russian Strategic Missile Forces Drills

    More than 3,500 military and over 300 pieces of equipment are involved in counter-terrorist exercises of Russian Strategic Missile Forces.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Over 3,500 Russian troops and 300 pieces of military equipment are taking part in the Strategic Missile Forces' joint counter-terrorist exercises with the Orenburg Missile Army, the Defense Ministry's press service said Tuesday.

    "Under the leadership of the Strategic Missile Forces Commander Colonel-General Sergei Karakayev, exercises with the Orenburg Missile Army formations and military units will be held from March 31 to April 4, 2015… In total, more than 3,500 soldiers and over 300 pieces of equipment will be involved," the ministry said in a statement.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150331/1020246583.html#ixzz3VyGXn4dh

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  Austin on Sun May 10, 2015 10:03 am

    The Strategic Missile Forces command and control system is introduced the fourth generation, implemented in the Strategic Missile Forces - Defense Ministry

    5/10/2015 9:10:18
    *** Since 2016 start introducing elements of the control system of the fifth generation

    Moscow. May 10th. Interfax - The modernization of the Strategic Missile Forces began to rearm command and control connections, "Interfax" a representative of the press service and information of the Defense Ministry of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel Igor Egorov.

    "The system of command and control of the fourth generation, implemented in the Strategic Missile Forces with adopting mobile ground missile complex strategic" yars ", can significantly increase the probability and range of finishing orders through better means of communication",
    - said the representative of the Ministry of Defense.

    According to him, this will apply in the future missile systems without distance limitations when making maneuvering operations and expand opportunities for route selection combat patrol.

    "Application of advanced mobile control will provide a stable, continuous and prompt control of nuclear weapons, taking into account the characteristics of combat use of both existing and future strategic missile systems in real time," - said I.Egorov.


    He noted that the decision on arms and equipment of a new automated system of command and control (ASBU) rearm RVSN allow connections to further proceed with the modernization of existing fixed control points.


    In addition, since 2016 the Strategic Rocket Forces, in cooperation with industry, plan to implement the links of the integrated automated command and control system of the fifth generation. It is based on a digital transmission system, combat orders. The system will allow for rapid retargeting of missiles, as well as provide a solution to problems of information provision and management of the daily operations of the Strategic Missile Forces command, associations and connections. Collection of reports will be provided wire, radio and satellite communication channels, which have the necessary vitality and immunity.

    The latest orders bring ASBU provide command and control directly to the launchers, bypassing the intermediate links, including in the nuclear impact and jamming.

    Future systems of automation as the fourth and fifth generations, are compact, Low power consumption, secure data transmission, resistance to external influences and reliable operation.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 10:35 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:35 am