Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    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 : 2396
    Points : 2434
    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 : 16315
    Points : 16946
    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 : 2396
    Points : 2434
    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 : 10245
    Points : 10733
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

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

    New START March 2017 numbers

    https://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/269406.htm


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


    Vann7

    Posts : 3452
    Points : 3570
    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 : 2396
    Points : 2434
    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 : 16315
    Points : 16946
    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 : 2396
    Points : 2434
    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 : 16315
    Points : 16946
    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 : 431
    Points : 497
    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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:45 pm