Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18348
    Points : 18908
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:52 am

    Very good point... the INF treaty covers ground launched ballistic or cruise missiles with a range of between 500km and 5,500km, so a cruise missile with unlimited range would not be bound by that treaty. he he he....
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1344
    Points : 1346
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

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

    Post  Big_Gazza on Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:38 am

    From http://www.russiadefence.net/t6999p500-russian-space-program-news-discussion-2

    kvs wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:Only a total moron would want to station nukes in space.  What happens when the orbital assets inevitable fail (as all satellites must eventually do)?  Soviet orbital assets were not exactly know for their mult-decadal reliability(!), and current Russian system are not an order of magnitude better if we are honest.  It's bad enough if a satellite fails prematurely (or even before its IOC... Angosat-1 anyone?), imagine loosing control of a thermonuclear warhead and having it re-enter over some random patch of the 3rd rock?

    Now onto the nuke aspect.   The only threat from such failures would be contamination by Plutonium or enriched Uranium.   The nuke
    dropped out an aircraft does not go off by itself.   It needs to be triggered and in a very involved way, including very precise conventional explosives
    detonation to keep the neutron cascade in the core from turning it into a plasma that would shut down the cascade.  The delay introduced
    by the conventional "implosion" (more like confinement) allows the nuclear cascade to progress to the point where it acts faster than any
    dissipation (i.e. neutron flux density reduction) by the explosion.

    Orbital platforms are not viable since they were proposed during the 1950s and 1960s using the "fact" that space above countries is not
    owned by them but never attempted.    Deploying such orbital platforms would be a serious escalation since it amounts to a warhead in
    transit with a holding pattern requiring one final command.  One could launch hundreds of such devices orbiting over their target in LEO
    and the final stage would take under 10 minutes or much less if the warhead is propelled.   This not the same as ICBMs stationed within
    their origin countries.    

    My comment was more related to the undesirability of a having a nuclear weapon involved in a uncontrolled re-entry of a malfunctioning weapons platform and potentially failing into the "wrong" hands.  Also the PR fallout would be disastrous...  these HATO cunts can manufacture anti-Russian agitprop campaigns out of zero-evidence (MH17, "invasion" of Crimea & Donbass, state-sponsored doping, Sochi Olympics "corruption", anti-LGBT "repression", Nemtsov assassination, Litvinenko/Skripal poisoning, CW false flags etc etc) so imagine what such inventive fertile reptile minds would make of a Russian nuke de-orbiting and landing in Europe/Asia/Africa/AMERICA!!! or our "precious fragile environment"...  I can only imagine the headlines....
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4472
    Points : 4631
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:12 am

    GarryB wrote:Very good point... the INF treaty covers ground launched ballistic or cruise missiles with a range of between 500km and 5,500km, so a cruise missile with unlimited range would not be bound by that treaty.  he he he....

    I'm blown away why more people aren't talking about that it was launched from a ground launcher, it's as if they were trying to send the right message to the right people. It's like they were saying that the AEGIS ashore and it's Mk. 41 test cell isn't the only way to get around the INF Treaty, the only difference is that Burevestnik doesn't actually violate the INF Treaty meanwhile the Aegis Ashore/Mk. 41 cell completely dismantles it!

    BTW with the Mk. 41 cell being capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles, and it being incorporated in to Aegis Ashore, all that really does is open up Pandora's box! Nothing stops the VKS from developing ballistic and cruise missiles that are capable of being fired from S-300/400/500 launch tubes if deemed necessary. The esteemed MIT Physicist Theodore Postol exposed the Missile Shield tests to be a red herring using their own test data, but with the Pentagon's heavy insistence to maintain the program at all costs, which in my opinion suggests that those test missiles could actually be IRBM's in disguise, like the tests are a Kabuki theater being performed in Plato's Cave. This is not really a stretch of the imagination, Buk and the S-300 series could engage ground targets, and even the SM-6 missile has been shown capable of engaging naval targets:

    Anti-Aircraft Missile Sinks Ship: Navy SM-6


    But on the bright side, the Euro Meat Shield doesn't factor in the fact that Russia is by far the best protected country against a cruise missile attack, with the Baikal-M system being capable of incorporating Kornet-D, Igla-S, even MBT GLATGM's munitions in intercepting terrain hugging cruise missiles. Kornet-D is said to be capable of destroying air targets as high as 9 km's in height.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3757
    Points : 3856
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:54 am

    @magnumcromagnon

    You are right, the ABM shield is basically a sham. It is a combination of delusional BS for NATO leaders and the credulous NATO masses
    and the very real INF violation orchestrated by the elements (deep state) with a clue. The closer NATO gets its strategic nuclear
    missiles to Russia's border, so their logic goes, the less time that Russia has

    1) to respond to any first strike

    2) to launch its own counter-strike

    So these maggots see only win-win. They don't see any lose. Now tell me what regime with an imperial bent has ever
    kept itself in check. It is foaming at the mouth trying to leap at this opportunity to take Russia out.

    Unfortunately for NATO and humanity, things ain't so simple. Just because the response window is reduced does not mean
    that Russia is forever more constrained from responding. All those over-the-horizon phased array radars don't get rendered
    useless. If they can track the small warheads launched from US territory, they can also track the IRBMs launched from Russia's
    border region. Russia does not need to suck Uncle Scumbag's schlong. It can impose its own algorithm for a counter-strike.

    It seems to me that NATO propagandists want some sort of ass-covering for posterity. They will claim Russia launched a first
    strike and it was NATO ABMs launched in response. Nobody will know the truth anyway. The problem is that any nuclear
    launches are all-in and posterity really does not matter. If you pay attention to the drivel coming from NATO, it seems that
    these maggots are expecting some sort of conventional war with limited nuclear exchange. No sane planning can talk about
    winning a full blown nuclear exchange. It is almost as if they are expecting Russia to restrain itself from using is nukes. I do
    not know what crack they are smoking. Maybe back in the 1990s they had a chance to compromise the Russian response, but
    not on Putin's watch. Putin's credentials as an intelligence agent are gold for Russia. In the modern world, intelligence is like
    the white blood cells of the immune system keeping the organism (country by analogy) alive.

    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3757
    Points : 3856
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:57 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:From http://www.russiadefence.net/t6999p500-russian-space-program-news-discussion-2

    My comment was more related to the undesirability of a having a nuclear weapon involved in a uncontrolled re-entry of a malfunctioning weapons platform and potentially failing into the "wrong" hands.  Also the PR fallout would be disastrous...  these HATO cunts can manufacture anti-Russian agitprop campaigns out of zero-evidence (MH17, "invasion" of Crimea & Donbass, state-sponsored doping, Sochi Olympics "corruption", anti-LGBT "repression", Nemtsov assassination, Litvinenko/Skripal poisoning, CW false flags etc etc) so imagine what such inventive fertile reptile minds would make of a Russian nuke de-orbiting and landing in Europe/Asia/Africa/AMERICA!!! or our "precious fragile environment"...  I can only imagine the headlines....

    I agree the PR is bad. But any stationing of nukes in orbit would be symmetric with both NATO and Russia doing it. So the propaganda
    slack is limited. The real problem for any side that wants to deploy such weapons is the escalation factor. And since both sides would do
    it, any advantage is nullified. As discussed in the adjacent posts, it is games with the ABM that are all the rage with NATO today.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4472
    Points : 4631
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:58 am

    kvs wrote:@magnumcromagnon

    You are right, the ABM shield is basically a sham.   It is a combination of delusional BS for NATO leaders and the credulous NATO masses
    and the very real INF violation orchestrated by the elements (deep state) with a clue.   The closer NATO gets its strategic nuclear
    missiles to Russia's border, so their logic goes, the less time that Russia has

    1) to respond to any first strike

    2) to launch its own counter-strike

    So these maggots see only win-win.   They don't see any lose.   Now tell me what regime with an imperial bent has ever
    kept itself in check.   It is foaming at the mouth trying to leap at this opportunity to take Russia out.

    Unfortunately for NATO and humanity, things ain't so simple.  Just because the response window is reduced does not mean
    that Russia is forever more constrained from responding.   All those over-the-horizon phased array radars don't get rendered
    useless.   If they can track the small warheads launched from US territory, they can also track the IRBMs launched from Russia's
    border region.    Russia does not need to suck Uncle Scumbag's schlong.   It can impose its own algorithm for a counter-strike.

    It seems to me that NATO propagandists want some sort of ass-covering for posterity.   They will claim Russia launched a first
    strike and it was NATO ABMs launched in response.   Nobody will know the truth anyway.   The problem is that any nuclear
    launches are all-in and posterity really does not matter.   If you pay attention to the drivel coming from NATO, it seems that
    these maggots are expecting some sort of conventional war with limited nuclear exchange.   No sane planning can talk about
    winning a full blown nuclear exchange.   It is almost as if they are expecting Russia to restrain itself from using is nukes.   I do
    not know what crack they are smoking.   Maybe back in the 1990s they had a chance to compromise the Russian response, but
    not on Putin's watch.   Putin's credentials as an intelligence agent are gold for Russia.   In the modern world, intelligence is like
    the white blood cells of the immune system keeping the organism (country by analogy) alive.  


    Western bluster is truly astonishing, who else remembers back in 2007 when they were openly talking about using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran, and literally no called them out on it? Even this Prompt Global Strike is nothing more than a beard to violate the START treaties, hypersonic flying vehicles flying at ICBM speeds will be perceived as such, and similarly the whole kerfuffle with North Korea is nothing more than justifying putting land based Mk. 41 cells in South Korea and Japan to menace Russia and China.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18348
    Points : 18908
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:44 am

    The talk of reactivating the Soviet shuttle would reduce the risk of nuclear weapons in space simply because if you have a problem with a satellite in orbit you can send a shuttle to recapture or recover the weapons... in fact what scared the Soviet Union the most was that the US shuttle might be used to capture a secret satellite of theirs and return it to earth to examine it.

    The recent work on nuclear powerplants is interesting and when it extends to space craft then the issue of reentry will need to be addressed anyway...

    The nuclear propulsion concept could be used for an in earth orbit space tug that could accelerate other spacecraft to higher speeds for longer journeys, but could spend time in earth orbit collecting space junk and shredding it and launching it down at the earth so that the smaller pieces burn up inside the atmosphere and do not hit the ground, yet are removed from the soup of objects moving around the earth at very high speed representing a danger to other more useful objects in orbit.

    Useful or valuable components could be removed from satellites and the remaining waste could be directed down in a steep reentry angle to ensure burn up in the atmosphere... when it is full a shuttle could be sent up to collect valuable components to return them to earth for reuse... or simply to assess their condition after years in orbit so designers can learn more about building better satellites.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12013
    Points : 12494
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:48 pm

    Russia preparing Plesetsk spaceport infrastructure for Sarmat ICBM flight tests

    In the first half of this year, the required infrastructure was prepared at the 1st State Testing Cosmodrome in the town of Mirny for the pop-up tests of this missile system

    MOSCOW, July 20. /TASS/. Specialists are preparing infrastructure at the Plesetsk spaceport in north Russia for the flight tests of the promising Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), Deputy Defense Minister Timur Ivanov said on the single military output acceptance day on Friday.

    "Work continues to create infrastructure for Yars stationary and mobile [intercontinental ballistic] missile systems and concurrently efforts are underway to prepare the infrastructure of the 1st State Testing Cosmodrome for conducting the flight tests of the promising stationary Sarmat missile system," he said.

    In the first half of this year, the required infrastructure was prepared at the 1st State Testing Cosmodrome in the town of Mirny for the pop-up tests of this missile system, the deputy defense minister said.

    Work is nearing completion to build integrated storage arsenals, he said.


    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/1014234
    avatar
    dino00

    Posts : 264
    Points : 309
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Location : portugal

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

    Post  dino00 on Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:29 pm

    New mobile missile complexes may replace Yars after 2030

    Creation of combat missiles and the production of its components is a high priority for the space industry

    ``There is a crucial task of conducting research into the image of missile systems to be deployed at the turn of the 2030s and beyond. In other words, the development of another generation of ground-based missile systems, mobile ones in the first place. It is very important to realize that Yars missiles are to be replaced with successors boasting higher maneuverability and resistibility to the enemy’s countermeasures and smaller size and mass," Ponomaryov said

    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/1022996


    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 960
    Points : 960
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

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

    Post  Hole on Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:13 pm

    Comeback of Rubezh.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3414
    Points : 3454
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:48 am

    Hole wrote:Comeback of Rubezh.

    Rubezh w Avangard russia russia russia eventually Rubesz will exclusively sat in IRBM class lol1 lol1 lol1
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 960
    Points : 960
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

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

    Post  Hole on Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:54 am

    I guess they put the money into the development of Sarmat. After this missile is in Service, we will see Rubezh and Barguzin back on top of the wishlist of the RSVN.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3414
    Points : 3454
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:31 am

    Hole wrote:I guess they put the money into the development of Sarmat. After this missile is in Service, we will see Rubezh and Barguzin back on top of the wishlist of the RSVN.

    Bagruzin with Rubezh?This is like roman orgies to militarists lol1 lol1 lol1 BTW I am sure Rubezh with more than 1 warhead can be used as IRBM. And 3 avangards to cover USAMD sites...
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2675
    Points : 2657
    Join date : 2016-11-06

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

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:11 am

    Wanna read a shitty article from so called pro Russian news site?
    https://russia-insider.com/en/will-bulava-submarine-launched-missile-save-russia/ri25011?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 960
    Points : 960
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

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

    Post  Hole on Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:26 am

    "National Interest" Embarassed
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1344
    Points : 1346
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

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

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:02 am

    miketheterrible wrote:Wanna read a shitty article from so called pro Russian news site?
    https://russia-insider.com/en/will-bulava-submarine-launched-missile-save-russia/ri25011?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    I suspect that RI publishes that sort of rubbish to inform people on just how much fuktardish bullshit is out there.  National Interest is a joke, little more that a Murica-Is-Exceptional crack-house for Russophobes.
    avatar
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 899
    Points : 908
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 23
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  OminousSpudd on Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:19 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Wanna read a shitty article from so called pro Russian news site?
    https://russia-insider.com/en/will-bulava-submarine-launched-missile-save-russia/ri25011?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
    (((Goldstein)))
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18348
    Points : 18908
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:30 am

    I read a few articles there and thought the bias was a little off and then the writer of the article referred to Putin as Putler... which I assume is a combination of Putin and Hitler... which is rather amusing considering it is the opposite of what Putin is.

    But why let facts get in the way of an argument...
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3414
    Points : 3454
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:02 am

    OminousSpudd wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:Wanna read a shitty article from so called pro Russian news site?
    https://russia-insider.com/en/will-bulava-submarine-launched-missile-save-russia/ri25011?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
    (((Goldstein)))

    I wonder if thsi one unshaven unshaven unshaven
    Of course rhen he is pro Russian lol1 lol1 lol1

    Dr. Lyle J. Goldstein
    Associate Professor, China Maritime Studies Institute
    U.S. Naval War College
    Dr. Goldstein is an associate professor in the Strategic Research Department of the
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 960
    Points : 960
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

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

    Post  Hole on Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:44 am

    China maritime studies! Surprised Embarassed Mad Razz
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3414
    Points : 3454
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:28 pm

    Hole wrote:China maritime studies! Surprised Embarassed Mad Razz


    US Naval War College:
    Biography
    Lyle J. Goldstein is research professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI) at the Naval War College. The founding director of CMSI and author of dozens of articles on Chinese security policy, he focuses on Chinese undersea warfare. On the broader subject of US-China relations, Goldstein published the book Meeting China Halfway in 2015. Over the last several years, Goldstein has focused on the North Korea crisis. Goldstein speaks Russian as well as Chinese and is an affiliate of NWC's new Russia Maritime Studies Institute.
    https://usnwc.edu/Faculty-and-Departments/Directory/Lyle-Jared-Goldstein

    no word about Jidish tho.


    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:55 am