Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Share
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-25

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

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:42 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:Not sure where to post this question so i am posting it here.

    It's a question that's been bothering me lately.  scratch

    I wanted to ask if it were possible for Russia to develop a Non-Nuclear ICBM using multiple FAOBs, and if such a weapon were indeed created what would be it's ramification with respect Treaties and deployment??

    THX in advance.

    FOAB or overall Thermobaric bombs have a very good yield with high TNT equivalent compared with their actual weight/content and volume, however, they still do not achieve a formadible volume/weight to achieve the necessary kT yield ICBM (MIRVS) would have to make them feasible as an ICBM. The FOAB is based on the KAB-9000 a bomb that was classed in 9000kg class, the actual weight is 11.5t which is enormous. The biggest silo based ICBM is the SS-18 which is still in service and its payload is 8470kg, to carry such a huge warhead like a FOAB with 44kT explosive force would require a big burden for the missile, the warhead itself isn't really compromise-friendly since it must spread the cloud to all directions to unleash its optimal and devestating potential, due that it needs to be relatively far front (tip) of warhead which puts to much weight at front. That much weight at front will effect the missiles performance over time, when one stage after another are jettisoned and the missile gets lighter, the tip becomes more and more center of gravity, which will have very bad inflictions on the missiles maneuverability, stability and most probably would just rip it apart mid air. If all that hasn't screwed up the ICBM mid air, the reaction of the enemy will. He can not know and will not give a damn what payload your ICBM has, non nuclear, nuclear, candybar dropper or whatever, he will always assume it is a nuke and will react with counter offensive.

    Strategic weapons as ICBM's are only good for one thing, detterence and assuring no one meddeles directly with you.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4495
    Points : 4674
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Oct 17, 2015 3:06 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:Not sure where to post this question so i am posting it here.

    It's a question that's been bothering me lately.  scratch

    I wanted to ask if it were possible for Russia to develop a Non-Nuclear ICBM using multiple FAOBs, and if such a weapon were indeed created what would be it's ramification with respect Treaties and deployment??

    THX in advance.

    It makes more sense to have a ground based electro-magnetic gun capable of launching projectiles at Mach 43-44 in to LEO, where the projectiles have scram-jet sustainers to maintain speed, or to build high altitude flying drones/cruise-missiles with the same EM gun built in to them.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1337
    Points : 1344
    Join date : 2013-02-02

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

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:48 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:Not sure where to post this question so i am posting it here.

    It's a question that's been bothering me lately.  scratch

    I wanted to ask if it were possible for Russia to develop a Non-Nuclear ICBM using multiple FAOBs, and if such a weapon were indeed created what would be it's ramification with respect Treaties and deployment??

    THX in advance.

    FOAB or overall Thermobaric bombs have a very good yield with high TNT equivalent compared with their actual weight/content and volume, however, they still do not achieve a formadible volume/weight to achieve the necessary kT yield ICBM (MIRVS) would have to make them feasible as an ICBM. The FOAB is based on the KAB-9000 a bomb that was classed in 9000kg class, the actual weight is 11.5t which is enormous. The biggest silo based ICBM is the SS-18 which is still in service and its payload is 8470kg, to carry such a huge warhead like a FOAB with 44kT explosive force would require a big burden for the missile, the warhead itself isn't really compromise-friendly since it must spread the cloud to all directions to unleash its optimal and devestating potential, due that it needs to be relatively far front (tip) of warhead which puts to much weight at front. That much weight at front will effect the missiles performance over time, when one stage after another are jettisoned and the missile gets lighter, the tip becomes more and more center of gravity, which will have very bad inflictions on the missiles maneuverability, stability and most probably would just rip it apart mid air. If all that hasn't screwed up the ICBM mid air, the reaction of the enemy will. He can not know and will not give a damn what payload your ICBM has, non nuclear, nuclear, candybar dropper or whatever, he will always assume it is a nuke and will react with counter offensive.

    Strategic weapons as ICBM's are only good for one thing, detterence and assuring no one meddeles directly with you.

    Thanks Werewolf, i guess making a single FAOB into an IRBM is also out of the question too, ooh well, i guess bombers will have to do, i hope in the future they'll make one light enough to at least be an IRBM.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-25

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

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:56 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:Not sure where to post this question so i am posting it here.

    It's a question that's been bothering me lately.  scratch

    I wanted to ask if it were possible for Russia to develop a Non-Nuclear ICBM using multiple FAOBs, and if such a weapon were indeed created what would be it's ramification with respect Treaties and deployment??

    THX in advance.

    FOAB or overall Thermobaric bombs have a very good yield with high TNT equivalent compared with their actual weight/content and volume, however, they still do not achieve a formadible volume/weight to achieve the necessary kT yield ICBM (MIRVS) would have to make them feasible as an ICBM. The FOAB is based on the KAB-9000 a bomb that was classed in 9000kg class, the actual weight is 11.5t which is enormous. The biggest silo based ICBM is the SS-18 which is still in service and its payload is 8470kg, to carry such a huge warhead like a FOAB with 44kT explosive force would require a big burden for the missile, the warhead itself isn't really compromise-friendly since it must spread the cloud to all directions to unleash its optimal and devestating potential, due that it needs to be relatively far front (tip) of warhead which puts to much weight at front. That much weight at front will effect the missiles performance over time, when one stage after another are jettisoned and the missile gets lighter, the tip becomes more and more center of gravity, which will have very bad inflictions on the missiles maneuverability, stability and most probably would just rip it apart mid air. If all that hasn't screwed up the ICBM mid air, the reaction of the enemy will. He can not know and will not give a damn what payload your ICBM has, non nuclear, nuclear, candybar dropper or whatever, he will always assume it is a nuke and will react with counter offensive.

    Strategic weapons as ICBM's are only good for one thing, detterence and assuring no one meddeles directly with you.

    Thanks Werewolf, i guess making a single FAOB into an IRBM is also out of the question too, ooh well, i guess bombers will have to do, i hope in the future they'll make one light enough to at least be an IRBM.

    Not at all, there is Iskander with 750kg Thermobaric warhead. The equivalent of that thermobaric warhead should have above 1-2kT yield.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16310
    Points : 16941
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 17, 2015 11:44 am

    Not at all, there is Iskander with 750kg Thermobaric warhead. The equivalent of that thermobaric warhead should have above 1-2kT yield.

    Oops... no... a 750kg thermobaric warhead does not have the power of 1-2 thousand tons (ie million kgs) of HE.

    The main problem with putting FOABs in an ICBM or an IRBM or SLBMs is that they will count as ICBMs and IRBMs or SLBMs... and as you might have noticed they only have a tiny fraction of the power of a real nuclear device.

    Most importantly the velocity of fragments and blast waves from modern HE max's out at about 4-5km per second so actually making a 7 ton solid concrete warhead would have just as much effect as conventional HE... which is really not much. Replacing the 7 tons of warhead from an SS-18 with small metal cubes of a few hundred grammes each with a small bursting charge to scatter those cubes in the last milisecond before impact would have a greater effect than a full sized 7 ton payload of HE... the shock wave of the incoming warhead would be more powerful than the shockwave of 7 tons explosing and almost 7 tons of shrapnel will do rather more damage than 7 tons of HE bomb most of which turns into hot gas and small fragments.


    _________________
    “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
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-25

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

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Oct 17, 2015 1:29 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Not at all, there is Iskander with 750kg Thermobaric warhead. The equivalent of that thermobaric warhead should have above 1-2kT yield.

    Oops... no... a 750kg thermobaric warhead does not have the power of 1-2 thousand tons (ie million kgs) of HE.

    The main problem with putting FOABs in an ICBM or an IRBM or SLBMs is that they will count as ICBMs and IRBMs or SLBMs... and as you might have noticed they only have a tiny fraction of the power of a real nuclear device.

    Most importantly the velocity of fragments and blast waves from modern HE max's out at about 4-5km per second so actually making a 7 ton solid concrete warhead would have just as much effect as conventional HE... which is really not much. Replacing the 7 tons of warhead from an SS-18 with small metal cubes of a few hundred grammes each with a small bursting charge to scatter those cubes in the last milisecond before impact would have a greater effect than a full sized 7 ton payload of HE... the shock wave of the incoming warhead would be more powerful than the shockwave of 7 tons explosing and almost 7 tons of shrapnel will do rather more damage than 7 tons of HE bomb most of which turns into hot gas and small fragments.

    If a 11.5t FOAB can achieve 44kT then i think 0.75t can achieve at least 1kT equivalent explosion.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

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

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat Oct 17, 2015 1:36 pm

    FOAB at 7.1 tonne has a yield equivalent to 44 tonnes of TNT, not 44 kilotonnes of TNT. Probably some typo somewhere.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-25

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

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Oct 17, 2015 1:54 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:FOAB at 7.1 tonne has a yield equivalent to 44 tonnes of TNT, not 44 kilotonnes of TNT. Probably some typo somewhere.

    Probably.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16310
    Points : 16941
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:19 pm


    AlfaT8 wrote:Not sure where to post this question so i am posting it here.

    It's a question that's been bothering me lately. scratch

    I wanted to ask if it were possible for Russia to develop a Non-Nuclear ICBM using multiple FAOBs, and if such a weapon were indeed created what would be it's ramification with respect Treaties and deployment??

    THX in advance.


    Well the obvious problem is that any conventional launch of such a SLBM or ICBM will likely be treated lke a nuke lunch until proven otherwise.

    either side could claim they are only firing conventionally armed missiles but it will only be after impacts that the other side could be sure.


    _________________
    “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

    Posts : 5532
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Sat Oct 31, 2015 3:23 am









    Topol ballistic missile launched from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome.



    30.10.2015.


    Last edited by Militarov on Sat Oct 31, 2015 8:01 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5532
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Sat Oct 31, 2015 8:02 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Militarov wrote:Topol-M ballistic missile launched from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome.

    Actually, I think you will find that launch appears to be a Topol SS-25/RT-2PM, rather than a Topol-M SS-27/RT-2PM2??

    Yeah, its 15Ж58, i did not even pay attention to be honest. Fixed in post.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:37 pm

    Russia Successfully Launches Yars ICBM From Plesetsk to Kamchatka

    Russia has successfully launched a Yars intercontinental ballistic missile equipped with independently targeted warheads from its Plesetsk Cosmodrome to a range on the Kamchatka Peninsula, the Russian Defense Ministry said Wednesday.

    The Yars is a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) that contains several warheads. Great Britain, France, Russia, the United States, and China are the only countries believed to have these types of ICBMs in their arsenal.

    “The military blocks arrived to the intended region at the Kura Range on the Kamchatka Peninsula. The set goals of the launch have been reached and the tasks have been completed in full,” Igor Egorov, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry’s Strategic Missile Forces, said.




    Meanwhile US is assessing whether to go for a new icbm or not.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10235
    Points : 10723
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:25 pm

    Russia Set to Scrap 17 Outdated Topol Missile Launchers by 2017

    The Russian state space corporation Roscosmos is planning to dismantle a total of 17 outdated Topol mobile missile launchers by the end of 2016.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The Topol entered service with the Russian Strategic Missile Forces in 1988 and is being gradually replaced with more advanced Topol-M and Yars mobile missile systems.

    According to a post on the website of state purchase orders, the company is looking for a contractor to dismantle 17 Topol launches from a missile unit based in the Udmurt Republic in Russia's Volga Region "in line with a federal program on the dismantling of weaponry and other military equipment until 2020."

    During the process, the launchers will be placed and scrapped at the facilities coordinated with the United States, in line with the Russian-US New START Treaty of 2010, Roscosmos said.

    The launchers have been designed to fire RS-12M Topol (NATO reporting name SS-25 Sickle) single-warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles that have a maximum range of 10,000 kilometers (6,125 miles) and can carry a nuclear warhead with a yield of up to 550 kilotons.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151103/1029551641/russia-topol-missile-launchers.html#ixzz3qSS1A1CC


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

    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2396
    Points : 2434
    Join date : 2010-08-18

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

    Post  franco on Tue Nov 03, 2015 11:37 pm

    Just a general observation but is anyone else getting the sense that the 27-36 single warhead Topols ICBM's divisions are being replaced with just 18 Yars ICBM's (4 MIRV's). It makes sense if you consider the START requirements in launcher and warhead totals.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10235
    Points : 10723
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Tue Nov 03, 2015 11:59 pm

    franco wrote:Just a general observation but is anyone else getting the sense that the 27-36 single warhead Topols ICBM's divisions are being replaced with just 18 Yars ICBM's (4 MIRV's). It makes sense if you consider the START requirements in launcher and warhead totals.

    Yes and SS-19 Stilleto with 6 MIRVs also are being retiring


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

    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

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

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:28 pm

    http://tass.ru/en/defense/835356

    Why do they keep saying this? I thought missiles systems like Topol-M, Yars, Bulava and Sineava already have anti ABM systems and are already available? Or do they mean systems designed to strike the ABM's specifically? Cause wouldnt anti radiation missiles do that job?
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2396
    Points : 2434
    Join date : 2010-08-18

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

    Post  franco on Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:18 am

    sepheronx wrote:http://tass.ru/en/defense/835356

    Why do they keep saying this? I thought missiles systems like Topol-M, Yars, Bulava and Sineava already have anti ABM systems and are already available? Or do they mean systems designed to strike the ABM's specifically? Cause wouldnt anti radiation missiles do that job?

    Never ending battle of technology.

    I have been promoted to a Captain cheers

    thumbsup Very Happy
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3035
    Points : 3160
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:22 am

    sepheronx wrote:http://tass.ru/en/defense/835356

    Why do they keep saying this? I thought missiles systems like Topol-M, Yars, Bulava and Sineava already have anti ABM systems and are already available? Or do they mean systems designed to strike the ABM's specifically? Cause wouldnt anti radiation missiles do that job?

    The article is too vague and misses that this is a discussion about changing the launch characteristics of Russian ICBMs. Russia
    already has the maneuverable warheads, but it also needs to reduce the boost phase. In fact, the best counter-measure to
    Uncle Sam's sick ABM ambitions is to reduce the boost phase. Then all of the ABM systems in Poland, Romania, Alaska, and
    even the to-be-deployed ship systems that are supposed to cruise near Russia's shore are going to be irrelevant. This will
    kill the US ABM dreams stone cold dead.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

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

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Nov 11, 2015 4:51 am

    How do they propose to do this?
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3035
    Points : 3160
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Wed Nov 11, 2015 5:30 am

    sepheronx wrote:How do they propose to do this?

    No information. Reduce the boost phase time. The faster the boost phase the closer the ABM missiles have to be. So NATO will
    have to deploy its ABM "shield" inside Russia itself.

    I wonder if they will have boosters on ICBMs. Right now all of them are stacked stages. Parallelizing the fuel burn during the boost
    phase achieves the time reduction. They won't achieve the shell in gun efficiency of total burn (of powder) in a fraction of a second,
    but they can get the desired result. Russia's large territory helps. An interesting historical feature of Russia, its land mass was always
    a pain for invaders.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

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

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:20 am

    Scramjet technology I suppose. Since they have been working on it for years. Manouverable warheads, as you said, are already in service so last is indeed the speed itself. Element of surprise as well, so reducing the radar cross section of missile as well as reducing the effect from the launch (smoke, infrared signature as example). Newer cruise missiles like KH-555 is an example of developing advanced stealthy missile tech but how to implement such tech to a BM?

    Counter measures too like decoys....

    I suppose there are other ways. And the current ABM systems have so far proven to be far less capable than touted. But are still a threat.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16310
    Points : 16941
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 11, 2015 11:47 am

    Boost phase... ie the main first stage rocket that blasts the ICBM out of the silo/truck launch tube is made more powerful to give better acceleration so the rocket spends less time in the early boost phase.


    _________________
    “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
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-25

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

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Nov 11, 2015 2:00 pm

    kvs wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:How do they propose to do this?

    No information.  Reduce the boost phase time.   The faster the boost phase the closer the ABM missiles have to be.   So NATO will
    have to deploy its ABM "shield" inside Russia itself.

    I wonder if they will have boosters on ICBMs.   Right now all of them are stacked stages.   Parallelizing the fuel burn during the boost
    phase achieves the time reduction.   They won't achieve the shell in gun efficiency of total burn (of powder) in a fraction of a second,
    but they can get the desired result.   Russia's large territory helps.   An interesting historical feature of Russia, its land mass was always
    a pain for invaders.

    You should know it and that was discussed before. The US ABM shields in eastern europe are not there to deal with ICBM's. That is something that is not even in their magnitude to achieve not to mention that majority of ICBM's are flying over north pole and only Canada is a country that would be in the trajectory to intercept them, but they do not have such a technology for such velocities and altitudes.

    The ABM shields in europe of the US are there to deal with russian tactical nukes, IRBM and air/navy launched tactical nukes, that is why US has deployed its tactical nukes in several european countries such as Germany, Turkey, Netherland, Italy and Belgia, not to mention the already existing tactical nukes of France and UK. They know and that is beyond doubt that russia will not and never use ICBM's or any strategic WMD's to annihilate anyone due M.A.D. and will be hand bound to retaliate in tactical exchange which the US plans which can be read from their actions of ABM shield construction, more tactical nukes deployment to germany, NATO hardcore propaganda of the "Russians are coming!" to get the population ready for war rhetoric. The US will be untouched by those nukes, europe however will lose almost everything, entire decapitation.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Wed Nov 11, 2015 2:16 pm

    Give them an ultimatum if they agree fine enough and if they dont simply deploy 50 nuclear tipped Iksanders in Kaliningrad.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

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

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:11 pm

    Iskander is a key weapon here. Traditional BM's fly all the same trajectory but Iskander flies a quasi ballistic path which would make it very difficult to intercept or possibly even to track. If they can use same missile but drasticallly increase distance of said missile, it will be even more a game changer.

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:16 pm