BZhRK "Barguzin" railway ICBM

George1 wrote:The development of combat new-generation railway complexes has been discontinued

 According to Sergei Ptichkin in the material published in the "Rossiyskaya Gazeta", the development of combat railway complexes (BZHRK) of a new generation for the R & D "Barguzin" has been discontinued. "The topic is closed, in any case, for the near future, said a very informed representative of the Russian defense-industrial complex."

 In the material it is reported that "Barguzin's experimental design work has been carried out." The experiment with the launch was successful, and if urgent, our missile train will quickly become on the rails.

 The bmpd comment. Work on the new-generation combat-railway complex with an intercontinental ballistic missile for BKR "Barguzin" is conducted under the leading role of JSC "Corporation" Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering "(MIT) from 2011 as part of the State Armaments Program for 2011-2020 (GPV 2020) , with the initial deadline for completing the State Test in 2019. At the end of 2014 the sketch design of the complex was approved and in 2015 the development of design documentation was started. At the end of October 2016 in Plesetsk, the first and only missile test of the missile of the complex was made.

 According to available information, with the correction of the GPO 2020 in 2015, the main stages of the Barguzin R & D project were transferred beyond the scope of the GPO 2020 and were to be determined by the new State Arms Program for 2016-2025 (now 2018-2027). If the message of S. Ptichkin is true, then, apparently, the ROC "Barguzin" was not eventually included in the new GPV-2027.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2983189.html

miketheterrible wrote:Well, mobile road ones, which shown to work in pretty much in the backwoods, isn't that enough in terms of mobile?  I was ho hum about this system to begin with as the wheeled one is much cheaper and can be moved everywhere rather than just rail line.  And system is available for when needed.  But priority must be in the hypersonic and the submarine launch ones imo.  This one seemed to be rather odd.  I mean, its useful but how much more than the road mobile ones?

miketheterrible wrote:START states both sides can only have 1,500 warheads.

GarryB wrote:There is deep storage and operational storage. Deep storage warheads don't count and would generally not be available to use in a timely fashion in a conflict.

Operational storage warheads still count.

miketheterrible wrote:Well, mobile road ones, which shown to work in pretty much in the backwoods, isn't that enough in terms of mobile?  I was ho hum about this system to begin with as the wheeled one is much cheaper and can be moved everywhere rather than just rail line.  And system is available for when needed.  But priority must be in the hypersonic and the submarine launch ones imo.  This one seemed to be rather odd.  I mean, its useful but how much more than the road mobile ones?

GarryB wrote:The nuclear train is a fast moving target amongst other targets that look the same.

Arrow wrote:The US develops a global ABM 

Arrow wrote:Disarmament of Russia stategic arsenal continues.

Arrow wrote:Barguzin canceled, Borey-A with only 16 launcher, Sarmat with problems.  The US develops a global ABM and stores more than a thousand W-76 to place them on 24 Trident in 14 Ohio if necessary Disarmament of Russia stategic arsenal continues.

eehnie wrote:Only taking into account that a wheeled/tracked platform can be also mounted on a train, and even likely fired from the train, the mobility of a train based platform never can be bigger than the mobility of a wheeled/tracked platform, because in adition to that the wheeled/tracked platform have its own mobility by roads and even off-road, and also can use aerial and maritime transport means.

I said it before, the train based missiles only can have advantage over wheeled/tracked platforms for size/weights of missiles that are over the limits of the wheeled/tracked platforms.

To talk about size/weight of a missile as critical measure in the decission may be surprising for some people, but is strongly related with the firepower and the range of a missile.

We will see how the ammunition, the missiles, of the SS-32 future system will be too big for wheeled/tracked platforms. These missiles will be in a size between the silo based SS-30 and the self propelled SS-31, like explained in the small scheme of my previous comment.

If a train platform would allow to better mobility than a wheeled/tracked platform, we would see every type of missiles mounted on train platforms.

kvs wrote:

eehnie wrote:Only taking into account that a wheeled/tracked platform can be also mounted on a train, and even likely fired from the train, the mobility of a train based platform never can be bigger than the mobility of a wheeled/tracked platform, because in adition to that the wheeled/tracked platform have its own mobility by roads and even off-road, and also can use aerial and maritime transport means.

I said it before, the train based missiles only can have advantage over wheeled/tracked platforms for size/weights of missiles that are over the limits of the wheeled/tracked platforms.

To talk about size/weight of a missile as critical measure in the decission may be surprising for some people, but is strongly related with the firepower and the range of a missile.

We will see how the ammunition, the missiles, of the SS-32 future system will be too big for wheeled/tracked platforms. These missiles will be in a size between the silo based SS-30 and the self propelled SS-31, like explained in the small scheme of my previous comment.

If a train platform would allow to better mobility than a wheeled/tracked platform, we would see every type of missiles mounted on train platforms.

In theory a 2D dispersal is better than being constrained on a 1D network.   But in reality, the missile trucks are stuck on a 1D network as well and cannot
randomly wonder the Russian countryside.    Masqueraded trains make targeting of the rail platform harder than the trucks.    As already pointed out, the
US does not have enough warheads to target every Russian train to take out the fraction that are ICBM carriers.    But the US can track ever Russian
missile carrying truck as long as one exposes itself from camouflage, which they must do to move around.

GarryB wrote:..these nuclear trains look the same as normal trains.... The nuclear train is a fast moving target amongst other targets that look the same.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

GarryB wrote:..these nuclear trains look the same as normal trains.... The nuclear train is a fast moving target amongst other targets that look the same.

No, with more wheels for extra weight & 3 locomotives pulling just a few cars, they don't look the same: http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2017-12-08/1_976_barguzin.html?print=Y

The article has very good points. My guess is that they decided to cut their losses now, saving $Bs; the new Skif sea bottom ICBMs r better camouflaged & can also be repositioned by special subs, at fraction of the cost of having these BM trains. Let's see what China will do with hers!

GarryB wrote:A train can run at high speed for very long periods and scatter much further than any truck.

A train could also carry air defence missiles and other useful things too... once it gets to the area of the Urals you could have trains going into mountains in thousands of tunnels who go who knows how deep under mountains.... once they go in who knows where they are... and you can't hit all the tunnel entrances.

As I said before they don't need top cover either, just a side track that goes down 5 or 10 metres below the level of the ground and any nuclear blast more than 1 km away will just blow over the top... raise the missile and fire when ready... the sidings not used by missile trains can be used by passenger trains to protect them too.

miketheterrible wrote:Some of you people need to get a grip on reality. It doesn't make a difference if the missile is transported by mail or by road cause they are both very hard to track (many of these mobile systems are seen in middle of wooded nowhere) and they have enough range to launch payload at that moment, and it would be way too late for US to see that happening.

They built this for a "just in case if US decides to break START".

I think some of you hate Putin and will find any excuse to jab at him. But this was done by MoD, the people that more insider info to these systems than you or I. If you don't trust them, send an email.