Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:04 am

    Well that is just bollocks.

    They are called storable liquid fuels for a reason.

    More importantly if they can't be stored inside the rockets where do they store the fuel and why can they store the fuel long term outside the missiles and not inside the missiles?

    More importantly bus motors are all liquid fuelled so they can be turned on and off and throttled when needed... so even solid fuelled missiles will have at least one liquid stage... these are usually sealed units on most ICBMs that have them... so why can Bus stage liquid propellent motors store liquid fuels and other liquid propellent motors need to be fuelled at the last moment.

    More importantly of the 4-5 personnel controlling an ICBM silo field... which one puts warheads on each missile and which one pumps the fuel and how many days do you think that would take to prepare an SS-19 field for launch.

    The R-7 took 24 hours to prepare for launch but that was because it used cryogenic components and at the time 24 hours was plenty of time to get revenge...

    Missiles developed since then are rather faster.

    Anyway... to quote Sean (SOC):

    In order to overcome the weaknesses of the R-7, namely the limited alert time and the poor survivability of a weapon exposed on a fixed launch pad, the Soviet Union began to explore both storable fuels and silo basing. In 1956 Yangel was given the order to begin design work on an ICBM using storable liquid fuel.

    From: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-RVSN-Analysis.html

    Or here:
    The most common hypergolic fuels, hydrazine, monomethylhydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, and oxidizer, nitrogen tetroxide, are all liquid at ordinary temperatures and pressures. They are therefore sometimes called storable liquid propellants. They are suitable for use in spacecraft missions lasting many years. The cryogenity of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen limits their practical use to space launch vehicles where they need to be stored only briefly.

    Can be stored for years...


    _________________
    “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
    franco

    Posts : 2597
    Points : 2635
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:20 pm

    I'm not sure what one should use as a rebuttal to bollocks considering I had to look it up. And what exactly trumps a bollocks? Just because I'm curious. confused
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:41 pm

    Very simply an SLBM attack on Soviet ICBM fields would have given them approximately 5 minutes to launch... which includes time to actually make the decision to launch a full retaliation strike, or in the case of an error to do nothing... there would be no time to mount warheads or pump fuel into missiles...

    Stilleto was considered one of their best missiles are you trying to say it was useless?

    That is why I am suggesting your information is bollocks... or if you prefer... bullshit.


    _________________
    “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
    franco

    Posts : 2597
    Points : 2635
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:19 am

    Very Happy

    I actually don't know, just reporting what I have read. If I had read it from just from one source, wouldn't have thought twice about it but now am suspicious. I do agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a system that cannot be put into use in a very short time.

    By the way, the correct answer to what trumps a bollock.... is a Donald Rolling Eyes


    Yeah I know, don't give up my day job Laughing
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10514
    Points : 10991
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  George1 on Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:07 pm



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


    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Jun 01, 2017 9:16 pm



    new video of US vs Russia nukes..

    Anyone can confirm his numbers?
    and his conclusions?





    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2597
    Points : 2635
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:22 pm

    SIPRI's annual assessment of world wide nuclear weapons. Russian employees 15 Nuclear Weapon Storage Centers although I wouldn't be surprised the one that is less then 50 kilometers to the Ukrainian border is not used.

    https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2017-06/fs_1707_wnf.pdf
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 04, 2017 12:12 pm

    I actually don't know, just reporting what I have read. If I had read it from just from one source, wouldn't have thought twice about it but now am suspicious. I do agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a system that cannot be put into use in a very short time.

    Multiple sources are not better if they are just copying and pasting the same crap... I have read from multiple sources that Russian tank mounted main gun autoloading systems removed arms on a regular basis, yet I am still waiting to see the parades of one armed Russian tankers.

    Sadly to stupid to think for yourself and too lazy to check facts do not seem to be barriers to being a source of information in the west.


    _________________
    “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
    franco

    Posts : 2597
    Points : 2635
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:54 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I actually don't know, just reporting what I have read. If I had read it from just from one source, wouldn't have thought twice about it but now am suspicious. I do agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a system that cannot be put into use in a very short time.

    Multiple sources are not better if they are just copying and pasting the same crap... I have read from multiple sources that Russian tank mounted main gun autoloading systems removed arms on a regular basis, yet I am still waiting to see the parades of one armed Russian tankers.

    Sadly to stupid to think for yourself and too lazy to check facts do not seem to be barriers to being a source of information in the west.

    Excuse me...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:56 am

    Why do you want to be excused?


    _________________
    “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
    jhelb

    Posts : 433
    Points : 500
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  jhelb on Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:11 am

    GarryB wrote:Very simply an SLBM attack on Soviet ICBM fields would have given them approximately 5 minutes to launch... which includes time to actually make the decision to launch a full retaliation strike, or in the case of an error to do nothing... there would be no time to mount warheads or pump fuel into missiles...

    Stilleto was considered one of their best missiles are you trying to say it was useless?

    That is why I am suggesting your information is bollocks... or if you prefer... bullshit.

    Latest START definition for "RANGE"

    https://ibb.co/bZOXQF
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2597
    Points : 2635
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:46 am

    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1395
    Points : 1395
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Aug 26, 2017 1:51 am

    And what is the credibility of that?  Russia wouldn't place its storage units right at the borders of Russia.  Something is seriously wrong here.  Pavel Podvig is evident that this may be garbage.

    Most of its data is 2012 too it seems.

    Our research relied on openly available information about a series of orders issued in 2009 by the
    Chief of General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. These orders assigned distinct insignias to a
    number of military units that have been otherwise identified as being part of the 12th Main
    Directorate. Additional research of various open sources, such as social media accounts, online fora,
    and collaborative mapping platforms, corroborated this information and allowed to identify the links
    between units and the organizational structure shown in Figure A1. Publicly available commercial
    satellite imagery helped identify the locations of potential storage sites exhibiting the distinct physical
    features described in this appendix.
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2597
    Points : 2635
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Sat Aug 26, 2017 2:23 am

    miketheterrible wrote:And what is the credibility of that?  Russia wouldn't place its storage units right at the borders of Russia.  Something is seriously wrong here.  Pavel Podvig is evident that this may be garbage.

    Most of its data is 2012 too it seems.

    Our research relied on openly available information about a series of orders issued in 2009 by the
    Chief of General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. These orders assigned distinct insignias to a
    number of military units that have been otherwise identified as being part of the 12th Main
    Directorate. Additional research of various open sources, such as social media accounts, online fora,
    and collaborative mapping platforms, corroborated this information and allowed to identify the links
    between units and the organizational structure shown in Figure A1. Publicly available commercial
    satellite imagery helped identify the locations of potential storage sites exhibiting the distinct physical
    features described in this appendix.

    Not sure about the site on the Ukrainian border. These sites were all active, in fact I have a list of 14 sites. I have been watching that site to see if it closes down and nothing yet. If you remember when the West was screaming back in 2014 about all the Russian soldiers on the border ready to invade Ukraine. Some Western reporters traveled the length of the border looking for Russian soldiers within a 100 km's of the border. The only forward deployed Russian soldiers on the border they found was the 3 paratrooper bn's the Russian had inserted between the Ukrainian border and this storage facility less then 30 km away. And this article like everything else we post here has some element's of fact coupled with some not so correctional. I place the highest level on what comes out of the General Staff but even those have to be viewed with some doubt IMO. I have a rule in that I don't say anything unless I feel it is at least 90% correct and I never claim to be 100%.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1395
    Points : 1395
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Aug 26, 2017 2:30 am

    franco wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:And what is the credibility of that?  Russia wouldn't place its storage units right at the borders of Russia.  Something is seriously wrong here.  Pavel Podvig is evident that this may be garbage.

    Most of its data is 2012 too it seems.

    Our research relied on openly available information about a series of orders issued in 2009 by the
    Chief of General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. These orders assigned distinct insignias to a
    number of military units that have been otherwise identified as being part of the 12th Main
    Directorate. Additional research of various open sources, such as social media accounts, online fora,
    and collaborative mapping platforms, corroborated this information and allowed to identify the links
    between units and the organizational structure shown in Figure A1. Publicly available commercial
    satellite imagery helped identify the locations of potential storage sites exhibiting the distinct physical
    features described in this appendix.

    Not sure about the site on the Ukrainian border. These sites were all active, in fact I have a list of 14 sites. I have been watching that site to see if it closes down and nothing yet. If you remember when the West was screaming back in 2014 about all the Russian soldiers on the border ready to invade Ukraine. Some Western reporters traveled the length of the border looking for Russian soldiers within a 100 km's of the border. The only forward deployed Russian soldiers on the border they found was the 3 paratrooper bn's the Russian had inserted between the Ukrainian border and this storage facility less then 30 km away.  And this article like everything else we post here has some element's of fact coupled with some not so correctional. I place the highest level on what comes out of the General Staff but even those have to be viewed with some doubt IMO. I have a rule in that I don't say anything unless I feel it is at least 90% correct and I never claim to be 100%.

    Fair enough. But it would be suicide to have storage facilities of nuclear weapons near Ukrainian border, especially as of right now.  So i bet the facility exists, but it is probably sitting empty, especially if they have so little of forces between the facility and the border.
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2597
    Points : 2635
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Sat Aug 26, 2017 2:37 am

    Agreed and there was another facility in Pskov region that was within 30 km's of Belarus and Latvia. It was closed down. Surprised that this one has not been. Could be weapon empty (one should hope) and left officially open to mess with the Ukrainians.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1395
    Points : 1395
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Aug 26, 2017 2:38 am

    franco wrote:Agreed and there was another facility in Pskov region that was within 30 km's of Belarus and Latvia. It was closed down. Surprised that this one has not been. Could be weapon empty (one should hope) and left officially open to mess with the Ukrainians.

    My guess you are correct or that the facility is still ran but used for other kinds of weapon storage if in case a war broke out.  Guaranteed by 99% all those nuclear weapons are sitting further within Russia. It would make more strategic sense anyway. Further away from harm and still able to strike anywhere from central Russia.
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2597
    Points : 2635
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Sat Aug 26, 2017 3:06 am

    Went and checked the site sat imagery again. Couldn't spot a single vehicle on site nor at the supporting base 10 km's away. Maybe they have finally closed it down.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1395
    Points : 1395
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:55 am

    Couldn't that site still be used for storage and whatnot for other military purposes or is it considered dangerous due to storing nuclear material?
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2597
    Points : 2635
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:59 pm

    Not sure about the radiation aspect but there would not be much room for ammo storage. Site only had 6-8 storage bunkers plus still awful close to the border.
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2597
    Points : 2635
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:30 am


    New START data exchange shows the United States and Russia are on track to meet the limits

    The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 September 2017 data exchange. Russia declared 1561 deployed warheads, 501 deployed launchers, and 790 total launchers. In March 2017 the numbers were 1765, 523, and 816 respectively.

    The U.S. numbers in September 2017 were 1393 warheads, 660 deployed and 800 total launchers (1411, 673, and 820 in March 2017).

    There has been a lot of speculation that Russia might not be able (or is not going) to comply with the New START limits by the February 2018 deadline. It was never clear what what was behind these speculations, since Russia always had plenty of options to choose from - from withdrawing old R-36M2 and UR-100NUTTH missiles from service to decommissioning even older Project 667BDR submarines. Figuring out what exactly has been done may take some time, though.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:54 pm

    The critical point is that the deadline is a fixed point in time... they could withdraw half their forces the day before the deadline and reinstate them into active service 2 days after the deadline and still be in full compliance with the agreement...


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:24 pm