Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Share

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  nightcrawler on Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:19 pm

    Russia's Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) will be rearmed with multiple-warhead RS-24 missiles instead of the RS-12M Topol-M (SS-27 Sickle) mobile intercontinental ballistic missile systems, SMF Commander Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said on Tuesday.

    "The mobile missile system with the RS-24 ballistic missile is an improved version of the Topol-M, and during production experience with fifth generation mobile missile systems was taken into account," Karakayev said, adding that the missile proved itself a reliable weapon.

    "Therefore it was decided to rearm the SMF with this type of missile system," he continued. "At the same the Topol-M mobile missile system will not be supplied to the Strategic Missile Forces in the future."

    RS-24 is believed to have up to six independent warheads, and is thus more likely to be able to penetrate anti-missile defense systems than the single warhead Topol-M.

    The SMF said in August that the Topol-M and RS-24 missiles would be the mainstay of the ground-based component of Russia's nuclear triad and would account for no less than 80% of the SMF's arsenal by 2016.

    As of June 2010, the SMF operated at least 50 silo-based and 18 road-mobile Topol-M missile systems. The RS-24 was commissioned in 2010 after successful testing.

    The RS-12M Topol is a single-warhead intercontinental ballistic missile, approximately the same size and shape as the U.S. Minuteman ICBM. The first Topol missiles entered service in 1985.

    The missile has a maximum range of 10,000 km (6,125 miles) and can carry a nuclear warhead with a yield of 550 kilotons.

    Next year the SMF will hold 10 intercontinental ballistic missile launches, twice as many as in 2010, Karakayev said.



    Russia's missile forces to replace Topol-M with multiple-warhead RS-24 | Defense | RIA Novosti

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:22 am

    This will ease production number problems because building single warhead missiles would be a pain when you need about 550 of them.

    Missles with 6 warheads per missile makes it easier to replace the larger missiles as they retire. The SS-19 has 6 warheads as a standard load so as you retire them you can replace missile for missile instead of having to make 6 TOPOL-Ms per missile retired.
    The SS-18 case is even more pronounced because it carries 10 warheads as standard and can be replaced with 2 RS-24s instead of 10 TOPOL-Ms. Of course as missiles retire the in service numbers of warheads needs to reduce as well so when 20 SS-19s get retired they might only make 10 RS-24s to replace them, and when 20 SS-18s retire they might just make 5 RS-24s so the total number of warheads is reduced overall to about 550 or so. Instead of having to make 90 TOPOL-Ms they make 15 RS-24s which is much cheaper and quicker.
    Problem is that it would be easier to shoot down 15 RS-24s than 90 TOPOL-Ms.

    KRON1
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 31
    Points : 35
    Join date : 2009-08-12

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  KRON1 on Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:38 am

    GarryB wrote:This will ease production number problems because building single warhead missiles would be a pain when you need about 550 of them.

    Missles with 6 warheads per missile makes it easier to replace the larger missiles as they retire. The SS-19 has 6 warheads as a standard load so as you retire them you can replace missile for missile instead of having to make 6 TOPOL-Ms per missile retired.
    The SS-18 case is even more pronounced because it carries 10 warheads as standard and can be replaced with 2 RS-24s instead of 10 TOPOL-Ms. Of course as missiles retire the in service numbers of warheads needs to reduce as well so when 20 SS-19s get retired they might only make 10 RS-24s to replace them, and when 20 SS-18s retire they might just make 5 RS-24s so the total number of warheads is reduced overall to about 550 or so. Instead of having to make 90 TOPOL-Ms they make 15 RS-24s which is much cheaper and quicker.
    Problem is that it would be easier to shoot down 15 RS-24s than 90 TOPOL-Ms.

    Doesn't work like that Garry. These single megaton warhead missiles are city killers, to replace them with MIRVs is just using lower yield warheads in a more dispersed pattern. A missile isn't going to carry its max number of MIRVs as half of them will be decoys. Also, the trajectory of MIRVs will only be able to engage targets in vicinity to the original target within a 100km radius. The point of MIRV is to get warheads through ABM defence where a single warhead would fail. Then they disperse for maximum kills over population centers. Russian MIRVs are INS set for city killing dispersal patterns, not PGMs like American MIRVs can be. You might be able to replace two missiles for one with the MIRVs, but not a missile for each MIRV.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:28 am

    Sorry Kron1 you lost me.

    These single megaton warhead missiles are city killers, to replace them with MIRVs is just using lower yield warheads in a more dispersed pattern.

    What megaton warheads are we talking about?

    Do you mean the old single warhead SS-18 25 megaton warhead for Cheyanne mountain (ie the Stargate Base in the TV series).
    AFAIK they are not in service any more and the standard in service SS-18s and SS-19s have 150-200KT warheads in loads of 10 and 6 respectively.

    Against super hardened targets then accuracy and high yield are very important, but as you mention three relatively low yield warheads can do much more damage to an area target like a city than even a very big warhead can. As an example 3 x 150KT warhead missiles evenly distributed around a large city like London would do rather more damage than a single warhead of considerably more power like a 5MT bomb because the smaller bombs deliver damage more efficiently.

    If you think about it it makes perfect sense... a 50 gramme block of HE is easily enough to kill a human yet to kill the 6 billion people on this planet would require 300 million tons of HE or 300MT. With SS-18 missiles having 25 Megaton warheads that means 12 missiles with 12 warheads to wipe out all of humanity... it clearly is not enough. Even though they are big warheads.

    Obviously the 12 missiles is more practical and delivery is much easier. The concept is the same as with a cluster bomb... when you just want to kill people then a single 500kg HE charge is not as effective as 450 x 0.75kg HE fragmentation charges that shower over a wide area when released.

    A missile isn't going to carry its max number of MIRVs as half of them will be decoys.

    TOPOL-M only carries one warhead. The number of warheads a missile carries includes space for decoys and jammers and other bits and pieces. When they talk about the RS-24 carrying 6 warheads they mean that is the normal number of warheads it will carry. That is how many it is assumed to carry regarding arms limitations agreements. If you further remove warheads from that figure you are reducing the number of real warheads you have... which doesn't make sense. If you are only allowed 550 warheads from ICBMs then why would you drop 100 to carry decoys? Clearly you include the decoys with the normal load of the missile. The RS-24 carries 6 warheads plus decoys. The SS-18 carries 10 warheads in the most widely deployed model plus decoys. etc etc. TOPOL-M was limited by the START2 treaty to only be allowed one warhead. That is why they needed the RS-24 design to allow 6 warheads plus decoys and jammers etc.


    Also, the trajectory of MIRVs will only be able to engage targets in vicinity to the original target within a 100km radius.

    Over the entire flight path of the missile... and considering the warheads of the TOPOL-M and RS-24 can manouver to evade ABMs I would suggest the figure is much much bigger than 100kms.

    The point of MIRV is to get warheads through ABM defence where a single warhead would fail.

    No the point of MIRVs is to enable attacks from multiple directions to ensure that if one missile fails that all targets get good coverage. It also means you can increase exponentially the number of warheads you have without greatly increasing cost.

    [quote]Then they disperse for maximum kills over population centers. Russian MIRVs are INS set for city killing dispersal patterns, not PGMs like American MIRVs can be. You might be able to replace two missiles for one with the MIRVs, but not a missile for each MIRV.[quote]

    If Russian MIRVs were only used for city busting then they wouldn't bother with MIRVs, they would simply have stayed with MRVs which merely fall in a spread pattern over one large area target like a city.

    The missile warhead design intended to evade ABMs is called MaRV and is pretty much what the TOPOL-M and Bulava and RS-24 warheads are.

    Most planners for nuclear war will cross target so for instance if you are talking about a large city like London you would have one warhead from a Delta III sub missile aimed at London and another warhead from that same missile aimed at Paris and the rest would be aimed at other targets on the way. A different sub, say it was a Typhoon when they were in service might have had one missile with a warhead aimed at London and one a Paris and other targets in Europe etc etc so that every target was covered with lots of different sources so if one sub is sunk before it can launch all its missiles that all targets still get a good thrashing.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  nightcrawler on Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:21 pm

    hey Garry;
    I need some details here; I cannot understand your usage of two words>>MRV & MaRV
    By the way isn't MIRV & MRV same thing?? & also plz elaborate what PGMs is??

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:32 am

    If I may so infer, I think by MRV he means - Multiple Reentry Vehicle, and by MaRV he probably means - Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle. PGM means Precision Guided Munition, so basically anything that isn't shot "dumb".

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 04, 2010 2:54 am

    An MRV is a warhead bus of an ICBM or SLBM that releases all onboard warheads at a single target.

    If you think about it some cities are difficult targets for a single warhead no matter how large that warhead is.

    If the city has a large area and worse if the are is hilly you might not effectively destroy that city with one warhead.

    The first solution was MRV which simply means multiple reentry vehicles, in this case usually 2-3 warheads that are released a specific distance from one target so they land in a spread pattern on one area target. The power of a nuclear warhead is governed by the law of diminished returns. Making a bomb twice as powerful will not destroy twice the area and kill twice the number of people.

    It is the same logic behind cluster bomb munitions against Area targets. Against a hard target then a single large warhead is normally best.

    A large area target like London can be more efficiently destroyed with 3 x 500KT warheads evenly spread in a triangle pattern than by dropping a 5MT warhead right in the middle. The more powerful warhead will simply make a deeper crater. The 3 warheads will spread the damage significantly and also triple the flash and blast damage.

    MRVs are simple... they are released to fall in a spread pattern but not a precise one and 3 x 500KT are cheaper to make than a single 5MT bomb anyway.

    An MIRV is Multiple Independantly targeted Reentry Vehicles which also carries several warheads in the warhead bus but the warhead bus manoeuvres during its flight path and can drop the reentry vehicles on fairly precise targets along the flight path of the missile. This means that you can put 6-10 warheads in one missile and choose a trajectory that allows 6-10 targets to be hit.

    The warheads still just fall to target but they are precisely aimed by the warhead bus onto a specific target just like a single warhead missile does.

    Finally the MaRV has manoeuvrable re entry vehicles. This means that the warheads themselves have the capacity to manoeuvre which means that targets further off the main missiles flight path can be attacked and also that during its reentry on target it can manoeuvre to make ABM interception difficult.
    It can also improve accuracy on target and greatly reduce CEP.

    (CEP is circular error probable and is a measure of accuracy. Normally a CEP of say 10m means that 50% of missiles or bombs or shells fired will land within a circle of 10m radius. Multiply that by 4 and you get the 99% circle. So if a TOPOL-M has a CEP of 50m then draw a circle around the point of aim that is 200m diameter and 99% of missiles launched will land within this circle.

    And PGM is as Ironsight sniper says is a precision guided munition.

    This is an american term for guided weapons whether they are projectiles, missiles, or unpowered bombs.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  Austin on Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:54 pm

    Some updates from today Yuri Solomonov press conference ( rian )

    From 2016 the Russian strategic missiles would have new warhead

    He noted that the modernization will affect the combat equipment (ie, warheads), and "Will this work for three or four years, after which we proceed to mass production, and in 2016 our missiles will already be a new military equipment," - he said.

    Not possible to have rail based RS-24

    "Regarding the railway complex, really, it could be. Such design work carried out, and found it inappropriate to develop these works due to the fact that in terms of survivability, compared with moving ground complexes, it is the same," - said Solomon at a press conference in RIA Novosti.

    US violated INF Treaty by creating test target missile

    The Americans went a long way: they held a flight tests with the missile" Hera "- is virtually medium-range missiles, but formally they can not grasp the hand, because they used it as a launch target when developing the ABM treaty and apply to missiles ground-to-earth. "Nevertheless, they have tested this missile," - he said.

    He explained that despite the fact that, theoretically, "Hera" is a rocket cash "ground-to-air missiles, to modify it to ground-to-earth" is not difficult. "Because after we flew in an active plot to fly to land on a ballistic trajectory of the mind do not need much" - said the designer.

    Rearmament of the Russian Federation on the Topol-M will end by 2012

    "By 2012, the task will be fully completed. Deploying runs parallel to, somewhere will put missiles yars, and somewhere to be," Topol-M. This task will be completed by 2012 "- Solomon said at a press conference in RIA Novosti "Strategic Weapon: today and tomorrow."

    Solomon noted that the single-warhead Topol-M has a more powerful warhead that could destroy the well-protected targets.

    At the same time, he said, the rocket yars "with multiple head units are capable of destroying not one but many goals.

    Armaments program of the Russian Federation provides for the creation of a new heavy missiles

    "The government program of weapons of work on the creation of heavy missiles are fixed, but I think it necessary to confine it sketch design work, so that in 2012-2013 could be taken collectively, that is, with the participation of experts, decide on further work to build such missiles, "- said Solomon.

    He considers it essential that such a complex and important issue as the establishment of a new type of strategic weapons, not to be taken exclusively by the Ministry of National Defense.

    "This issue goes beyond the competence of the Ministry of Defence. It's a question state" - said Solomon.

    According to Solomon, the effort spent on developing new heavy missiles, would not reduce the technological gap with other countries, in particular with the United States.Moreover, "this is (the development of heavy missiles), which makes the technological lead irreparable."

    Russia plans in 2011 to carry out 5-4 launches Bulava

    "We are planning for next year to spend four or five launches for producing statistics," - said Solomon.

    Andy_Wiz
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 29
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2010-10-12
    Location : South-West Fringe of the Empire

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  Andy_Wiz on Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:26 am



    I edited this vid, sorry no sound... Im new to video editing Rolling Eyes

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:47 am

    Thanks for the info and the vid.

    BTW the coughing and heavy breathing on the vid... are you a smoker? Twisted Evil

    The lack of a rail launched version is no real surprise, and at the end of the day although it would be neat to have them on the Russian Rail network I think silo and truck based versions would be enough to manage from a security point of view.

    I wonder if they will try to unify the design of the new heavy missile with a new satellite launcher platform... the SS-18 has been popular as a satellite launch platform as a method of disposal of the missiles... I just think it is nice to know they are used for something practical rather than just destroyed when their life span expires.

    Of course there may be issues with verification where the US could accuse them of making too many "missiles".

    Of course the current START treaty seems to be about deployed warheads and deployed launch platforms because the US is not destroying the warheads it is removing from its missiles and weapons, it is storing them for potential use.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  Austin on Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:44 am

    Nice Video Indeed , I would suggest you keep some type of background music except for the natural sound of launches which is always nice to hear and keeps it realistic.

    This is the first time I saw good Bulava footage ,looks like a nice small missile. Good Work !

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    1st Missile Regiment RS-24 Yars to be complete by end of 2011

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:15 am

    1st Missile Regiment RS-24 Yars to be complete by end of 2011

    MOSCOW, April 19. (ARMS-TASS). The first missile regiment Teykovskogo connections received on arms promising land for peace (PGRK) "yars" with an intercontinental ballistic missile RS-24 will be brought to the whole (three battalions) to the end of 2011, Polk put on combat duty March 4, 2011 in structure of the command post and two missile divisions.

    According to ITAR-TASS news agency spokesman Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) Colonel Vadim Koval, a rocket Teykovskoe Compound (Ivanovo region) enters military equipment to complete the acquisition of the first regiment, armed PGRK "yars". "New equipment is designed for acquisition of 3 - second missile battalion, - he said. - Before the end of 2011, the regiment will be brought to the Whole. "

    "In 2009, the plan re-SRF Teykovskom missile compound was completed statement to alert the second missile regiment equipped with PGRK Topol-M" - recalled Koval. Thus, by the end of 2011 in conjunction Teykovskom on duty will located about 30 mobile launchers PGRK Topol-M "and" yars.

    RS-24 ICBMs with multiple warheads developed by the Moscow Institute of Thermal Engineering under the leadership of George Solomon.

    "Adopting an ICBM RS-24 will enhance the combat capabilities of the shock group SRF to overcome missile defense systems and strengthen the deterrence potential of Russian strategic nuclear forces - said Koval. - This missile will replace the aging multiply SS-18 and RS-20 as the end of their extended service lives. "

    "In the future, together with the already adopting a one-piece SS-12m2 (missiles Topol-M silo-based and mobile), ICBM RS-24 form the basis of the Strategic Rocket Forces strike group, which will be capable in the Russian strategic nuclear forces to reliably provide security country and its allies until the middle of the twenty-first century "- the representative of the SRF.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  Austin on Wed May 18, 2011 8:16 am

    New rocket SMF invulnerable to all parts of the flight and are able to break through any possible missile defense in the next 20 years

    If google translation does not cheat and they seem to not translate this quite well , General Sergei Karakayev, says

    1 ) RS-24 has short boost phase and aggressively maneuvers during boost phase due to powerful engine making interception based pre-calculated path impossible to forecast.

    He mentions boost phase being most vulnerable and how light weight ,powerful engine and control surface developed for boost phase of flight which has been validated in flight

    2 ) During ex-atmospheric phase they use combination of decoys and jammers and the warhead own radar and thermal radiation is significantly reduced due to use of special shape and special coating.

    3 ) During re-entry phase a special heavy decoy is used which make is impossible to distinguish between real warhead and decoys from the earth.


    This is the first time I have come across RS-24 being described in quite detail

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  nightcrawler on Sat May 21, 2011 1:32 pm

    Full story: Liquid versus Solid Propulsion: Russia

    Most important points in favor of liquid propulsion:

    • News: But the solid rocket safer, including in environmentally ...

      Herbert: Agreed. Liquid propellant uses dangerous poisons: heptyl and amyl. But they should be aware that the Soviet Union and now Russia has 50 years experience in storage and exploitation of such missiles. All of them are well protected in our mines, protected from the terrorists and even the impact of external conditions. All complexes of the fourth generation have ampulized fuel tanks.They are filled in once during the formulation of the mine on duty or in the factory. All for some reason keep silent about the fact that per year we manufacture 10-15 rockets Proton, which has same fuel composed of the same heptyl and amyl! In each of them, by the way, 600 tons of liquid fuel is stored. A carrier rocket Dnepr, which have 2-4 launches per year; each of them contains 200 tons of liquid fuel.
    • News: But Solomon has another argument. Solid rocket better pass defense system of the enemy. At the same time, liquid make it worse, and therefore has a high probability of intercept ...

      Herbert: As a panacea for all possible cases they put forward an argument about the so-called short flight path of solid propellant missiles. That is, the machine starts quickly. Quickly reaches the separation (when the warheads are dispensed)., making it difficult to detect and intercept. I must say that things are not so simple. The difference between "short" and "long" (as in the liquid propellant), the trajectory is not so great. Not only boosting time but also maneuvering capability too is important. This maneuvering rate of liquid propellant is disproportionately higher than that of solid. We must take into account the fact that if a working missile defense system is really created, then the so-called "bus" technology would dispense 6 to 10 warheads in a very short time. This would not be accomplished as a group disbursement of warheads, as described by Yuri Solomonov. Instead, it would be done using the bus, with a somewhat different algorithm of choosing the targets on the enemy's territory.

      Solomonov is against the bus, because he is a proponent of independently-guided warheads. This means that they each will have its own control system. At some point, they seemed to scatter in different directions on the principle of the crowd, making them difficult to intercept, and then have everyone fly to the target. This means that each must have its high-precision control system, so as not to lose accuracy when you need it. Have its own propulsion system with its fuel tank. To everyone else is needed and a set of technical means to overcome missile defenses.

      "The Bus" - it is for all warheads a common, flexible: guidance system, fuel and means to overcome missile defenses. It is worth remembering that the proposed Solomon option sometime in the early days of our youth in the 60's, was considered and rejected. Rejected because it requires one and a half times the cost of mass, and entails the loss of flexibility in overcoming anti-missile defence. Such a solution can be realized only in missiles with a large throw-weight that is heavy liquid missile as compared to solid propelled missiles.
    • News: But we have the state's position: the production of armaments and military equipment shall be exclusively its own?

      Herbert: But we still need Ukraine to maintain combat status of our missile systems components. Even in the worst case we can save from decommissioned RS-20 missile the transport-launching containers. They are eternal. They are very complex engineering structures. They will only need to remount the block management system. You can save starter batteries, replacing the solid fuel after the warranty period of its operation. Finally, even if all will not be enough money - just to sort for recycling most of the first-stage engine. They need to replace a few gaskets. These missiles could also serve as 25-30 years.

      I confess that it goes across the interests of our industrialists who wish to engage in work on a new liquid ballistic missile. But if we really want to quickly get a new missile with high live performance, this way seems to me most true.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  Austin on Sat May 21, 2011 8:09 pm

    nightcrawler , great post and nice find. thumbsup

    Its really a rebuttal from NPO-Mash on the constant sound bites by Yuri recently and his opposition to solid fuel.

    It also throws good point that RS-24/Bulava has independent guided warhead and does not depend on bus type technology , plus it also mentions that Bulava is a very advanced missile , I admire Yuri Solomonov for building this advanced missile irrespective of his views on liquid fuel.

    Now coming back to liquid fuel , it certainly going to be cheaper bang per buck and can be quickly made , the first two stages will be similar to SS-18 but the third stage and warhead control will be all new.

    It also throw light on how strong the silos are and the experiment Argon proves it , they could not scratch a paint in the silos and still launch the missile is a very telling thing Smile

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 22, 2011 8:22 am

    There will be a constant battle between solid and liquid propellents for missiles, but for space lift vehicles cryogenic liquid fuels are currently the best option.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  Austin on Mon May 23, 2011 3:44 pm

    GarryB wrote:There will be a constant battle between solid and liquid propellents for missiles, but for space lift vehicles cryogenic liquid fuels are currently the best option.

    Yes it is for Space Launch Liquid Fuel Rules.

    I am so damn suprised the RS-24 is so damn sophisticated , hopefully they can increase their benchmark with the new Liquid Fuel ICBM.

    Liquid Fuel ICBM looks cheaper bang per ton and easily available and deployable.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 24, 2011 2:41 am

    In the west the choice is fairly simple for ICBMs... they invested a lot of money on solid fuel propellent and neglected liquid fuel technology so for the US the decision is simple except for cryogenic fuels.

    For Russia they spent a lot more money making liquid fuels easier to handle and manage and on making the fuels themselves more efficient and powerful.

    This means the choice the other way in Russia is a better option till the money is invested in solid fuels to make them a better option.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  Austin on Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:37 am

    Interview with Yuri Solmonov

    From what I can make out via translate which is quite bad

    * Bulava has been in production for 3 years now.
    * Yuri clearly states that Europe Missile Defence threat is an imaginary threat , he compared Patriot success with Scud and says SM-3 will be no better.
    * To make his point he refers to the MIT article that I am linking here A Flawed and Dangerous U.S. Missile Defense Plan
    * He clearly opposes Liquid Fuel Heavy ICBM says there is no need for it
    * Says Ramjet/Scramjet hypersonic vehical is the future.
    * SAP 2020 could fail due to lack of timely funding.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 06, 2011 11:54 am

    SAP2020 is a very ambitious program to turn a for neglected for 20 years into a force comparable to the best the US has to offer will be very difficult.

    It is the right aim mark in my opinion however.

    The European ABM missile system in its first and second phases may not work, but the goals... the third and fourth stage is a real threat to Russia and would involve up to 40 USN vessels in all sorts of places.

    The threat from Iran doesn't justify the expense, so the only real reason left is as a bargaining chip against Russia.

    Ask yourself... they have admitted the system is no for use against Russia... so what possible reason would they have for not wanting to put that to paper?

    Is it for the same reason they never put other promises they have broken like no expansion of NATO beyond East Germany, No former Warsaw pact nations in NATO, no former Soviet Republics in NATO, no foreign forces based in the new NATO countries in Eastern Europe...

    NationalRus
    Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant

    Posts : 637
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-04-11

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  NationalRus on Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:37 pm

    these fucks should better spend some real money to rearm the soldiers on the ground rightfully, since 21 years our soldiers look like 3rd world milisha

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  Pervius on Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:41 pm

    NationalRus wrote:these fucks should better spend some real money to rearm the soldiers on the ground rightfully, since 21 years our soldiers look like 3rd world milisha


    Looks are deceiving. American military looks good but they've been dying young from polluted water/food.


    Does Russia have a problem with people dying before they are 40 from kidney cancer? No?


    Then don't be greedy like the west and sell your childrens souls for your short term gains.

    On the new Russian warhead.....it's the CHINESE new warheads that have the west scared. The THAAD Defeaters....only means to stop them is use lasers and strike them before they reach orbit.....so what do you do if China puts those warheads into a satellite?....

    THAAD can't stop thousands of depleted uranium rounds raining down on you. Nothing can.

    NationalRus
    Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant

    Posts : 637
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-04-11

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  NationalRus on Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:37 am

    Looks are deceiving. American military looks good but they've been dying young from polluted water/food.

    it isn't deceiving but a sad fact when soldiers have to wear urban and marine camo in the forest becouse the military warehouses just give them what ever shit they have in the warehous or fake body armours or old obsolete body armours or not even any at all becouse they don't give a shit about our soldiers, our that they ignored the abuse of soldiers since decades, my friend.... in my book thats noting less then treason

    Does Russia have a problem with people dying before they are 40 from kidney cancer? No?

    ohh we don't? reeeeally? do you realy want to bring that up? lol1

    well we have severe liver problems lets say that lol1 oh and maybe wolrds worst narcotics abuse, our youth drinks like crazy and our middel aged people drink like crazy and even our old people still drink tons of alcohol, and what does our goverment do to protect our stupid incompetent population from destrony ourselfs? put some anti-drinking TV adds and billboards up and then "escalate" by puting a slightly higher tax on them... what a joke of a caring goverment, bunch of liberal traitors

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  nightcrawler on Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:19 am

    sorry for my ignorance but what is : SAP-2020

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:54 am

    Stalin had his 5 year plans where efforts were focused on completing goals in 5 year periods. Certain issues were identified and goals were set to fix them over a 5 year period like upgrading mechanisation for the farms of the soviet union... which also helped tank design and production to.

    SAP2020 is a plan for the next 10 years about where they want their armed forces to be... the first bit is C4IR, and by 2015 they want new vehicles and new 5th gen fighters to start entering service and by 2020 they want about 70% of all in service equipment to be state of the art better than or as good as anything in service anywhere else in the world.

    It basically stands for State Armaments Plan for 2020.

    Sponsored content

    Re: RS-24 'Yars' (SS-29)

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 8:17 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:17 pm