Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Share
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3015
    Points : 3049
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:45 pm

    In 2016, the Rocket Forces plan to conduct 16 ICBM launches


    According to Karakayev's interview, two of them will be life extension launches and 14 - development.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6016
    Points : 6428
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 26, 2016 8:09 am


    Dmitry Rogozin: “The United States can destroy a few hours up to 90% of our nuclear capability“


    http://kalevholland.planet.ee/russia-will-lose-the-war-for-america-360-minutes

    “For more than a decade in the United States worked out the concept of Prompt Global Strike. It provides striking non-nuclear weapons at any point on the planet in one hour, “- Rogozin said. “According to a war game conducted by the Pentagon at the end of last year, with the help of 3.5-4 thousand. Units of US precision weapons can destroy 6 hours basic infrastructure facilities of the enemy and prevent him to resist,” – he added.
    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7290
    Points : 7594
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

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

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Mar 26, 2016 4:02 pm

    He is clearly incorrect and trying to scare for more funding (very common tactic).  The anti ballistic threat from US is a joke since you yourself posted the documents on the success rates and they were clearly pathetic, even against old Scud missiles.  Could it eliminate 90% of Russia's ICBM's?  No.  Could it remove 30%?  No.  Most ICBM's operate in a field greater than what these anti ballistic missile systems can do.  They are decent against Scuds and maybe some later variants, but clearly not against a Topol-M.

    Theoretically, if it could remove 90% of Russia's ICBM's, the remaining 10% would cause so much damage and havoc that no one is stupid enough to try it anyway.

    Would be helpful if the owner of that site (which is questionable at best) would at least provide a link.  I do when I reference nearly anything.

    Edit: So Rogozin is stating what US experts think. Problem is, all of us are aware of the high failure rates. Just look at Saudi Arabia and its conflict with Tunisia. How many rockets bypassed the SM-3 system and hit their intended targets?

    Point of the matter is that these ABM systems are greatly overblown. But after re-reading the article, he is clearly pushing an agenda which is evident by his demands to communicate with the military industrial commission on getting joint work down with Universities. I think his wish came true as I have read a week or so ago about work on MiC with universities and the Russian "DARPA".
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16090
    Points : 16781
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Strategic missile forces

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:15 am

    He is probably correct, given 6 hours the US and the west could probably hit all of Russias strategic missile/weapon forces and damage it to the point where it was ineffective... but that is assuming that the Russians sit back and do nothing.

    What he is not saying is that the Russians are now producing large numbers of similar conventionally armed cruise missiles that can hit point targets all over NATO and wreak comparable if not more damage to NATO forces in europe.

    A conventional strike on Russias ICBMs would lead to those ICBM fields being defended by aircraft and missiles and also the full launch of those ICBMs... whether the US systems hit the ICBM field or not is irrelevant as those silos would be empty by the time the western munitions arrived and the west would be minutes from obliteration.

    There is no chance WWIII will be a conventional head strike that takes out the Russians before they can retaliate.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 10137
    Points : 10631
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:43 pm

    Barguzin rail-mobile ICBM axed, Project 4202 lives on

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2016/04/barguzin_rail-mobile_icbm_is_a.shtml


    Deployment of RS-24 Yars and RS-26 Rubezh in Irkutsk

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2016/04/deployment_of_rs-24_yars_and_r.shtml


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7290
    Points : 7594
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

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

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:51 pm

    The rail based ICBM system was an odd decision really. Didn't make too much sense. Mobile (road) does. But it I shelved for now. Save money for projects that is really needed.
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3015
    Points : 3049
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:58 pm

    lol1 I wrote it in the Rail-ICBM thread but again they've not mentioned any source to prove their claim that's why I avoided.
    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7290
    Points : 7594
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

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

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:00 pm

    max steel wrote:lol1  I wrote it in the Rail-ICBM thread but again they've not mentioned any source to prove their claim that's why I avoided.

    They really need to provide sources. Makes them look amateurish. But if news is true, then OK.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4520
    Points : 4709
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:19 pm

    sepheronx wrote:
    max steel wrote:lol1  I wrote it in the Rail-ICBM thread but again they've not mentioned any source to prove their claim that's why I avoided.

    They really need to provide sources. Makes them look amateurish. But if news is true, then OK.

    A lot of their sources are based on word of mouth, and or sources that you cant verify the credibility of (good ole' "unnamed" sources Rolling Eyes)  which is a reason to avoid the site.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5366
    Points : 5411
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:15 pm

    http://russianforces.org in general is full of crap and BS, every month they release article on some USSR project from 80s/70s being revived, and not a single word about it anywhere else. Clickbiters.
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2798
    Points : 2929
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Thu Apr 07, 2016 3:15 am

    Militarov wrote:http://russianforces.org in general is full of crap and BS, every month they release article on some USSR project from 80s/70s being revived, and not a single word about it anywhere else. Clickbiters.

    Pavel Podvig is a liberast 5th column clown. The purpose of that site is engage in anti-Russian psyops. Much like Zak's Russianspaceweb
    which poses as one thing but pushes the Atlanticist agenda.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16090
    Points : 16781
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:05 pm

    Rail based ICBMs are actually better than road mobile ICBMs because although rail models are limited to rails they can also move rather faster and there are plenty of rails and sidings in Russia to move to.

    Even a side track with earth mounds built up on either side and the front and rear would be enough to protect it from anything but a very near miss... and the west does not have enough nuclear weapons to cover every 1000km of Russian rail track let alone every 200kms.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5366
    Points : 5411
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:50 pm

    GarryB wrote:Rail based ICBMs are actually better than road mobile ICBMs because although rail models are limited to rails they can also move rather faster and there are plenty of rails and sidings in Russia to move to.

    Even a side track with earth mounds built up on either side and the front and rear would be enough to protect it from anything but a very near miss... and the west does not have enough nuclear weapons to cover every 1000km of Russian rail track let alone every 200kms.

    But they have significant disadvantages in areas where you can deploy them, and enemy sort of has alot easier job detecting them as he knows they simply HAVE to be somewhere on railroad Smile Destruction of key points on railroads like bridges and major crossroads can severely reduce its effectiveness. But still i dont mind having such platform just for sake of diversity.
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2798
    Points : 2929
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Fri Apr 08, 2016 6:31 am

    Militarov wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Rail based ICBMs are actually better than road mobile ICBMs because although rail models are limited to rails they can also move rather faster and there are plenty of rails and sidings in Russia to move to.

    Even a side track with earth mounds built up on either side and the front and rear would be enough to protect it from anything but a very near miss... and the west does not have enough nuclear weapons to cover every 1000km of Russian rail track let alone every 200kms.

    But they have significant disadvantages in areas where you can deploy them, and enemy sort of has alot easier job detecting them as he knows they simply HAVE to be somewhere on railroad Smile Destruction of key points on railroads like bridges and major crossroads can severely reduce its effectiveness. But still i dont mind having such platform just for sake of diversity.

    The key is that the enemy cannot target the rail ICBMs like bridges since it does not know where on the rails they are at any given instant
    and even if the enemy manages to have spies pin their locations (very doubtful) and target them with a first strike they can be moved while
    the enemy ICBMs are incoming. So they are just as useful as road mobile ICBMs but can be heavier. They remove the first strike advantage.
    There is no need for these mobile ICBMs to be shuffled around the whole territory in some ergodic domain filling operation. The main thing is
    to be able to move them far enough from any point of impact of enemy warheads.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6016
    Points : 6428
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:59 am

    I dont think the news of cancellation of Rail Based ICBM is true , just few days back they mentioned they were training crew for that system.

    Lets hear the official verison , Pavel lately has been aggresively part of Atlantist agenda , His pay master must have told him so.

    Else who post news like Bulava test failed when there is no offical information of bulava launch

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2016/03/salvo_bulava_launch_from_vladi.shtml
    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7290
    Points : 7594
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

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

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:21 am

    Austin wrote:I dont think the news of cancellation of Rail Based ICBM is true , just few days back they mentioned they were training crew for that system.

    Lets hear the official verison , Pavel lately has been aggresively part of Atlantist agenda  , His pay master must have told him so.

    Else who post news like Bulava test failed when there is no offical information of bulava launch

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2016/03/salvo_bulava_launch_from_vladi.shtml

    Take a look at this one:

    In fact, according to a recent report Izvestia, which quotes its sources, the second missile failed as well - the missile self-destructed at some point after launch. After the failure all missiles were reportedly removed from the submarine and sent to the Votkinsk plant for a check-up. Izvestia is hardly the most reliable sources, but there is no particular reason not to believe this report. The ministry of defense, of course, reported complete success at the time, but that appears to be incorrect.

    So the ministry of defense states it was a success with a video showing two launches from that day, and then this moron then claims do not believe it, believe Izvestia who has a track record of BS, with no evidence?

    Edit: So I got angry reading that stupid comment of the authors so I decided to register and provide this:
    @ Frank Shuler

    This is a load of BS and of course, the author of this website provides absolutely no proof. Pure speculations on everything and it is pretty pathetic. Here is the problem - The Izvestia article is incoherent as mentioned before, and it provides no sources or any data to back up. Then the author admits that Izvestia is a poor source. But then when the MoD provides a video showing the launches and talk of it, for some reason, we are lead to believe that the izvestia article is true just because the author states:

    "but there is no particular reason not to believe this report"

    and

    "reported complete success at the time, but that appears to be incorrect."

    So, author, what exactly is the reason to believe a two bit media outlet like izvestia that provides nothing (neither do yourself) over the MoD that provides even a video of the launches? Because you said so and that is it?

    As well, just a note, please start using not only real sources, but also provide some sort of linkage to your sources for all other data. Otherwise, makes yourself look like a two bit journalist.

    It is awaiting mod approval. For some reason I don't think it will happen.
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3015
    Points : 3049
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:34 am

    Well the website is good no second thoughts on that but as Austin said even I noticed the same for past few months ( since syrian intervention) Podvig has been aggresively pushing the Atlantist agenda. I go by the name ' Dan Dare' and I posted my views on Status-6 Article but later i saw my comment disappeared. When I was reasoning with other posters on US ABM in Europe, SM-3 Missiles up-gradation etc.

    Since then they don't post my comment directly , it goes to blog owner for approval but never gets approved. I asked for official statement/proof regarding cancellation of 4202 programme.

    I read the same Bulava missile failure thread and again it was a disappointment. First Bulava Missile did fail that's true you can check the Bulava SLBM thread but he claimed second missile failed too which is preposterous , quoted article seemed so incoherent that I would hardly call it reliable. Ryan Alt is a voice of reason there.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16090
    Points : 16781
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 09, 2016 12:12 pm

    But they have significant disadvantages in areas where you can deploy them, and enemy sort of has alot easier job detecting them as he knows they simply HAVE to be somewhere on railroad Smile Destruction of key points on railroads like bridges and major crossroads can severely reduce its effectiveness. But still i dont mind having such platform just for sake of diversity.

    Not true... there are plenty of covered railways they could be hidden in... including underground metros... and there could be various tunnels in which they could be hidden.

    The critical thing is how much they can be made to look like other innocent traffic.

    Destruction of rail lines will effect mobility but not prevent them launching their weapons...

    The reality is that not being a fixed location easily targeted means rail mounted ICBMs are largely protected from a retaliatory nuke strike... their best feature come to the fore in an enemy mounted first strike.

    The ability of the enemy to locate and identify ICBMs on trains in real time and actually deliver a strike to actually destroy them hinges on total air superiority and the enemy not interfering with their space and air based recon assets... they could not even achieve that in Iraq.

    It is a question of finding a needle in a haystack of needles... or needlestack... on a very short deadline because once it is clear you are trying to destroy them you hand the real first strike capability to your enemy...

    The key is that the enemy cannot target the rail ICBMs like bridges since it does not know where on the rails they are at any given instant
    and even if the enemy manages to have spies pin their locations (very doubtful) and target them with a first strike they can be moved while
    the enemy ICBMs are incoming. So they are just as useful as road mobile ICBMs but can be heavier. They remove the first strike advantage.
    There is no need for these mobile ICBMs to be shuffled around the whole territory in some ergodic domain filling operation. The main thing is
    to be able to move them far enough from any point of impact of enemy warheads.

    And even a small siding built like a rivetment on a runway for aircraft will require a near miss to be effective.... 40 or 50 sidings with tunnels could be used... some of them could even be made public so passengers could stretch their legs and get a meal or something...

    Road mobile missiles can't just drive down any road they don't corner like most vehicles and need long sweeping curves to turn so they don't just drive anywhere they like...


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4520
    Points : 4709
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Apr 10, 2016 6:41 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Rail based ICBMs are actually better than road mobile ICBMs because although rail models are limited to rails they can also move rather faster and there are plenty of rails and sidings in Russia to move to.

    Even a side track with earth mounds built up on either side and the front and rear would be enough to protect it from anything but a very near miss... and the west does not have enough nuclear weapons to cover every 1000km of Russian rail track let alone every 200kms.

    But they have significant disadvantages in areas where you can deploy them, and enemy sort of has alot easier job detecting them as he knows they simply HAVE to be somewhere on railroad Smile Destruction of key points on railroads like bridges and major crossroads can severely reduce its effectiveness. But still i dont mind having such platform just for sake of diversity.

    1.) It's been stated already they cant cover 100% of Russia's territory, they don't have enough satellites to cover ever km of Russian rail 24/7 365. You seem to completely forget that not all rail is in the open, some of it's underground, and what's stops the use of decoys, disguises, Nakidka kits, electromagnetic opaque aerosol fog generators? What's stops the use of hidden rail and train bunkers with retractable and mechanized foliage, shrubbery, vegetation, and landscape to disguise it's location?

    2.) It'll be orders of magnitude easier to identify a Topol-M launcher, which is unmistakable, compared to the new rail ICBM because unlike the old version the cargo freight will be indistinguishable from civilian cargo freight. You also seem to forgotten that an ICBM train will have an enormous payload capacity, so what's stops the development of freight container versions of Panstir-S1, S-400, S-500, A-235/Nudol utilizing ROFAR OHR, or even offensive systems like Kornet-M, 120 mm howizer, AS-40 grenade launcher, Vasilek 82mm automatic mortar, or some 57 mm cannons?

    3.) There's also the potential of creating fast rail or even maglev equivalents in the future, and KRET has stated that they are looking in to developing ROFAR for civil trains to detect anomaly's in the way of freight trains or in the track itself, it wouldn't be stretch that the military version (combined with powerful IRST optics) would have a ROFAR to add long range vision, with high accuracy and resolution to prevent any sabotage from the air or on the ground.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5366
    Points : 5411
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 10, 2016 7:02 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    But they have significant disadvantages in areas where you can deploy them, and enemy sort of has alot easier job detecting them as he knows they simply HAVE to be somewhere on railroad Smile Destruction of key points on railroads like bridges and major crossroads can severely reduce its effectiveness. But still i dont mind having such platform just for sake of diversity.

    Not true... there are plenty of covered railways they could be hidden in... including underground metros... and there could be various tunnels in which they could be hidden.

    The critical thing is how much they can be made to look like other innocent traffic.

    Destruction of rail lines will effect mobility but not prevent them launching their weapons...

    The reality is that not being a fixed location easily targeted means rail mounted ICBMs are largely protected from a retaliatory nuke strike... their best feature come to the fore in an enemy mounted first strike.

    The ability of the enemy to locate and identify ICBMs on trains in real time and actually deliver a strike to actually destroy them hinges on total air superiority and the enemy not interfering with their space and air based recon assets... they could not even achieve that in Iraq.

    It is a question of finding a needle in a haystack of needles... or needlestack... on a very short deadline because once it is clear you are trying to destroy them you hand the real first strike capability to your enemy...

    The key is that the enemy cannot target the rail ICBMs like bridges since it does not know where on the rails they are at any given instant
    and even if the enemy manages to have spies pin their locations (very doubtful) and target them with a first strike they can be moved while
    the enemy ICBMs are incoming. So they are just as useful as road mobile ICBMs but can be heavier. They remove the first strike advantage.
    There is no need for these mobile ICBMs to be shuffled around the whole territory in some ergodic domain filling operation. The main thing is
    to be able to move them far enough from any point of impact of enemy warheads.



    And even a small siding built like a rivetment on a runway for aircraft will require a near miss to be effective.... 40 or 50 sidings with tunnels could be used... some of them could even be made public so passengers could stretch their legs and get a meal or something...

    Road mobile missiles can't just drive down any road they don't corner like most vehicles and need long sweeping curves to turn so they don't just drive anywhere they like...

    There will have to be some differences in design between normal railcars and device we are talking about. Similar? Sure. Same platform? Sure. Identical? Unlikely.

    I dont think there are many that secure tunnels on railroad, especially not in Siberian part of railroad, its mostly quite flat, open field, tundra.

    Railroad limits operation areas alot, you literally removed 99,999% of Russian territory from the search list. I never said its easy to find them, however its alot easier than its with Topol-M/Jars as it can be almost anywhere, especially in Far East in wast flatland. Its like you operate nuclear submarine in a river. Sure, it has alot higher chances of surviving first strike than a silo based ICBMs... but where are you going to keep your railroad ICBMs in peacetime? On train station in Novosibirsk? I dont think so. They will most likely be grouped in 3-4 bases in Russia with railroad access with occasional drills, rest of the time they will spend in base grouped up, they will lose its main point.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1513
    Points : 1553
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Apr 10, 2016 8:41 pm

    Militarov wrote: There will have to be some differences in design between normal railcars and device we are talking about. Similar? Sure. Same platform? Sure. Identical? Unlikely.

    I dont think there are many that secure tunnels on railroad, especially not in Siberian part of railroad, its mostly quite flat, open field, tundra. Railroad limits operation areas alot, you literally removed 99,999% of Russian territory from the search list. I never said its easy to find them, however its alot easier than its with Topol-M/Jars as it can be almost anywhere, especially in Far East in wast flatland. Its like you operate nuclear submarine in a river.

    Well maybe not since war-planners assume enough similarity location can be kept enough secret. i presume they havew bette rview on situation then all armchair generals here with all respect gents. Smile

    Militarov wrote:
    Sure, it has alot higher chances of surviving first strike than a silo based ICBMs... but where are you going to keep your railroad ICBMs in peacetime? On train station in Novosibirsk? I dont think so. They will most likely be grouped in 3-4 bases in Russia with railroad access with occasional drills, rest of the time they will spend in base grouped up, they will lose its main point.


    OK you think but do you have and data to support your thesis? the idea of train is to be in constant motion not in base. i would prefer to look at nuke trains via number total traffic in Russian Railways:

    Exact data to be checked but this is just an order of magnitude.
    ~90,000 km tracks (AFAIK growing)
    2,5 bln ton transported yearly
    no of locomotives ~2000

    Do you think if amount couple of hundred trains running simultaneously it is s easy find right one? Us cannot launch hundreds of missiles just to disable all suspects...
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5366
    Points : 5411
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 10, 2016 8:59 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Militarov wrote: There will have to be some differences in design between normal railcars and device we are talking about. Similar? Sure. Same platform? Sure. Identical? Unlikely.

    I dont think there are many that secure tunnels on railroad, especially not in Siberian part of railroad, its mostly quite flat, open field, tundra. Railroad limits operation areas alot, you literally removed 99,999% of Russian territory from the search list. I never said its easy to find them, however its alot easier than its with Topol-M/Jars as it can be almost anywhere, especially in Far East in wast flatland. Its like you operate nuclear submarine in a river.

    Well maybe not since war-planners assume enough similarity location can be kept enough secret. i presume they havew bette rview on situation then all armchair generals here with all respect gents.  Smile

    Militarov wrote:
    Sure, it has alot higher chances of surviving first strike than a silo based ICBMs... but where are you going to keep your railroad ICBMs in peacetime? On train station in Novosibirsk? I dont think so. They will most likely be grouped in 3-4 bases in Russia with railroad access with occasional drills, rest of the time they will spend in base grouped up, they will lose its main point.


    OK you think but do you have and data to support your thesis? the idea of train is to be in constant motion not in base. i would prefer to look at  nuke trains via number total traffic in Russian Railways:

    Exact data to be checked but this is just an order of magnitude.
    ~90,000 km tracks (AFAIK growing)
    2,5 bln ton transported yearly
    no of locomotives ~2000

    Do you think if amount couple of hundred trains running simultaneously it is s easy find right one? Us cannot launch hundreds of missiles just to disable all suspects...

    You know, "War-planners" came up with ideas like ICBMs being dropped from transport aircraft and submarine aircraft carriers too... and many other useless junk though time. Just coz someone with 3 stars and 3 years of college says something is great, doesnt rly mean it actually is. ICBM carrying train is good idea, it gives more versatility to the Strategic branch, but it has many flaws too.

    Noone in right mind is going to have 10-20 ICBMs on the move at any present time on railroad, noone would allow such thing, not even in Russia today, unless its some sort of very low frequency line or military only operated parts of railroad which i assume still exist. One thing is Jars, it can at worse flip over, you bring few machines to flip it back, now...derailing while moving 100km/h with 6 ICBMs on your back...you figure.

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1513
    Points : 1553
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Apr 10, 2016 10:45 pm

    Militarov wrote: You know, "War-planners" came up with ideas like ICBMs being dropped from transport aircraft and submarine aircraft carriers too... and many other useless junk though time. Just coz someone with 3 stars and 3 years of college says something is great, doesnt rly mean it actually is. ICBM carrying train is good idea, it gives more versatility to the Strategic branch, but it has many flaws too.

    There is perfectly good or bad solution. Train as all solutions has set of attributes which can be advantageous or disadvantageous. Apparently the first class prevails.

    [/quote]
    Noone in right mind is going to have 10-20 ICBMs on the move at any present time on railroad, noone would allow such thing, not even in Russia today, unless its some sort of very low frequency line or military only operated parts of railroad which i assume still exist.
    [/quote]

    Why not? why no one?


    One thing is Jars, it can at worse flip over, you bring few machines to flip it back, now...derailing while moving 100km/h with 6 ICBMs on your back...you figure.



    True, train can derail but sub can sink...ICBM can crash in silo and bomber crash during flight..BTW how many ICBM trains derailed in Soviet union?

    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5366
    Points : 5411
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:09 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Militarov wrote:  You know, "War-planners" came up with ideas like ICBMs being dropped from transport aircraft and submarine aircraft carriers too... and many other useless junk though time. Just coz someone with 3 stars and 3 years of college says something is great, doesnt rly mean it actually is. ICBM carrying train is good idea, it gives more versatility to the Strategic branch, but it has many flaws too.

    There is perfectly good or bad solution. Train as all solutions has set of attributes which can be advantageous or disadvantageous. Apparently the first class prevails.

    Noone in right mind is going to have 10-20 ICBMs on the move at any present time on railroad, noone would allow such thing, not even in Russia today, unless its some sort of very low frequency line or military only operated parts of railroad which i assume still exist.
    [/quote]

    Why not? why no one?


    One thing is Jars, it can at worse flip over, you bring few machines to flip it back, now...derailing while moving 100km/h with 6 ICBMs on your back...you figure.



    True, train can derail but sub can sink...ICBM can crash in silo and bomber crash  during flight..BTW how many ICBM trains derailed in Soviet union?

    [/quote]

    So wait... you would circle around your country 20 ICBM armed trains at every present moment? I am not sure if you are joking or not here. Big numbers theory says something very, very bad shall happen if such practice is kept for prolonged period of time Smile. For love of God took my unit 3 weeks to set train to transport 75 SAM HE-frag warheads for transport to be destroyed....

    Sure, sub can sink, but where? 6km deep in mid of Atlantic where it poses little or no threat to anyone. However train wreck 300km from Moscow is going to be one a hell of an issue...

    RT-23 Molodets were barely moved at all in Russia, they were in depots due to lack of money, from what i have read they were mostly static post 1992. and only few dozen cars was ever made (1 missile per car), locomotives were standard civilian ones. Which means they were in some normal operating state only 3 or 4 years. So experience from USSR is actually almost unexisting.

    ICBM in silo is actually the safest possible way of keeping nuclear weapons. Well, thats why bombers almost never fly with actual nuclear warheads.
    avatar
    VladimirSahin
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 410
    Points : 428
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 26
    Location : Florida

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

    Post  VladimirSahin on Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:11 pm

    Militarov why did it take so long to load the 75 KG warheads?

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:26 pm