Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Pure Fusion Weapon

    Post  Austin on Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:53 pm

    Had this question in mind of development of Pure Fusion Weapon i.e a Fusion/Thermonuclear weapons that does not need a primary fission trigger based on atomic weapon but something that needs Laser or Explosive to trigger a fusion reaction.

    What is the state of such weapons in Russia , Is it being developed or already developed ?

    Any news on this ?

    Here is a short primer on the subject Pure Fusion Weapons?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Austin on Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:43 am

    Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry: Alive and Kicking
    http://mdb.cast.ru ( December 2012 )

    Aleksandr Stukalin, Kommersant Publising House

    The Big Five

    Russia inherited its nuclear weapons industry from the former Soviet Union. Unlike all the other segments of the Soviet defense industry, the manufacture of nuclear weapons was concentrated on the territory of Russia proper, so none of its key assets were lost when the former Soviet Union split up into its constituent republics.

    Rosatom, the Russian state-owned nuclear industry giant, has a special Nuclear Weapons Directorate, which includes two key divisions: the Nuclear Ammunition Industry Department, and the Department for Developing and Testing Nuclear Ammunition and Military Power Plants. 1

    The development and manufacture of nuclear weapons is consolidated within five key state-owned facilities controlled by the two Rosatom departments:

    The Russian Federal Nuclear Center — All-Russian Science and Research Institute of Experimental Physics (RFYaTs-VNIIEF) in the town of Sarov, Nizhniy Novgorod Region;

    The Russian Federal Nuclear Center — All-Russian Science and Research Institute of Technical Physics (RFYaTs-VNIITF) in the town of Snezhinsk, Chelyabinsk Region;

    The All-Russian Automation Science and Research Institute (VNIIA) in Moscow;

    The Elektrokhimpribor combine in the town of Lesnoy, Sverdlovsk Region;

    The Instruments Plant (Priborostroitelnyy Zavod, PSZ) in the town of Trekhgornyy, Chelyabinsk Region.

    Mass production is now concentrated at Elektrokhimpribor and PSZ2. In Soviet times assembly and disassembly of nuclear ammunition was also conducted at the Start Production Company in the town of Zarechnyy, Penza Region – but mass production at the facility ended in 2002. The company remains part of Rosatom’s Nuclear Ammunitions Industry Department, but it has switched to new productions – namely, the Khrizantema (AT-15) anti-tank missile, and components of the Igla-S (SA-24) portable AA missile system. 3

    The remaining Big Five employ about 47,000 people, according to 2011-2012 figures (see Table):

    Company
    Payroll


    RFYaTs-VNIIEF
    18,500

    RFYaTs-VNIITF
    About 8,0005

    VNIIA
    Over 5,0006

    Elektrokhimpribor
    9,4537

    PSZ
    About 6,0008

    In recent years various officials have repeatedly said that the Rosatom subsidiaries make all deliveries under defense procurement contracts precisely on schedule and exactly to the required specifications. In October 2012 Deputy Prime Minister Dmitriy Rogozin, the cabinet member in charge of the defense industry, even quipped that Rosatom was running like a clock and didn’t require any of his supervision.9

    The Russian government has never released figures about its spending on the nuclear weapons industry or the size of the contracts for nuclear weapons. There is every reason to believe, however, that these contracts are very large. The financial figures released by one of the Big Five, VNIIEF, give a rough idea of the kind of money involved. In 2011 the Rosatom subsidiary paid about 4.8 bn roubles in taxes. It also paid about 3.2 bn for various services provided by civilian companies in the town of Sarov in 2009-2010, and 3.5 bn-3.8 bn in 2011-2012. The subsidiary’s procurement budget is about 14 bn roubles.10 By the standards of any Russian defense company, these figures are enormous.

    But the financial fortunes of the Russian nuclear weapons industry have not always been so rosy. That industry was to some extent shielded from the full brunt of the crisis which hit the rest of the Russian defense sector in the 1990s. Nevertheless, it was also affected by major cuts in government spending. The mass production facilities were especially hard-hit. At one point Elektrokhimpribor had run up large debts for electricity and central heating because the government was not disbursing the money owed to the company on schedule. Its payments to the national Pension Fund were also in arrears, and on several occasions the taxman even came knocking on its door. It was forced to look for alternative sources of revenue so as to be able to finance production under defense procurement contracts. For example, it used its SU-20 isotope separation facility (an electromagnetic separator) in Lesnoy to produce stable isotopes, which it sold to Britain’s Amersham and Canada’s Trace. 11

    The financial situation of the Big Five took a turn for the better thanks largely to the rearmament program in Russia’s Strategic Nuclear Forces, which includes new weapons R&D and mass production projects.

    Strategic weapons contracts

    In the 1990s the Russian defense industry began the development of the Topol-M (SS-27) ICBM. This was one of the first programs which helped to revitalize the nuclear ammunitions sector. The nuclear warhead for the new missile was developed at VNIIEF by Design Bureau No 2 (KB-2);12 the project was led by the bureau’s chief designer, Georgiy Dmitriev.13 Elektrokhimpribor then managed to launch mass production so expeditiously that its director-general Leonid Polyakov (who held the job in 1995-2003) and several other senior managers were given the State Prize by President Putin at a special ceremony in the Kremlin. 14 Mass production was also launched (probably some time later) at PSZ in Trekhgornyy. Such a conclusion can be made based on one of the contracts announced by the government in 2007. The official notice inviting bids for the contract said that the winner would be required “to supply equipment to PSZ under the Topol-M program”.15

    In addition to entering into service the new Topol-M ICBMs, the MoD commissioned the development of new re-entry vehicles (RVs) for the R-29RMU (SS-N-23) submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). The old RVs were approaching the end of their service life. It was decided to develop a new model based on the design of the re-entry vehicles used on the R-39UTTKh Bark (SS-N-20) SLBMs. The R&D program, codenamed Stantsiya, was conducted in the late 1990s and early 2000s by the Makeyev State Missile Center (GRTs) and VNIITF. 16 A total of 58 RVs built for the Bark missile were tested during 20 launches of experimental missiles. As a result, a team lead by chief designers Aleksandr Senkin and Geliy Zelenkin developed a new warhead for the updated R-29RMU1 SLBM. The RV was of an intermediate yield class and had improved safety mechanisms to prevent accidental or unauthorized detonation. On August 5, 2002 the president signed a decree authorizing the MoD to enter it into service. VNIIA was also involved in the development of the new warhead. In 2003 one of its top managers, Aleksandr Mokritsyn, as well as senior GRTs and VNIITF officials were awarded the State Prize for their part in the project.

    In later years new re-entry vehicles with “improved efficiency and safety features” were used to upgrade the R-29RKU-01 SLBM (the Stantsiya-2 R&D project). The R-29RKU-02 missile underwent joint flight testing in 2005, and entered service in 2006. The new RVs were also used on the new R-29RMU2 Sineva SLBM, which entered into service on July 9, 2007.17 All the remaining Project 667BDRM Delfin (Delta IV class) strategic nuclear missile submarines still in service with the Russian Navy are currently being re-fitted to carry the Sineva missile.

    The next phase in the development of nuclear ammunition came when the Moscow Thermal Engineering Institute (MIT) began to work on new strategic missiles with MIRVed warheads: the land-based Yars ICBM (SS-29, sometimes also designated as the Topol-MR and the Topol-M218), and the Bulava (SS-N-30) SLBM. The warheads for these two missiles were developed by VNIITF19, but six years ago the then VNIIEF chief, Radiy Ilkayev (who held the position in 1996-2008) claimed that his institute “was also involved in developing the re-entry vehicle for the Bulava system”.20

    The new RV is currently in service with the Yars ICBM21, which is now being deployed with the Strategic Missile Troops (the MoD has repeatedly said that the deployment of the single-warhead Topol-M missiles has already been completed). Meanwhile, the Bulava has yet to enter into service with the Russian Navy. Very recently it was revealed that in 2003-2010 the mass production design bureau of the Elektrokhimpribor combine was “working on the designs of the Bulava ballistic missile”.22

    The fact that the Bulava payload section performs adequately was confirmed during its flight tests back in October 2010, once the telemetry data had been processed23 According to the first deputy chief of VNIITF, Rodion Voznyuk, another confirmation came during a salvo launch of two Bulava SLBMs on December 23, 2011. “Performance was deemed to be adequate; three of our products worked as expected and arrived at their destination,” Voznyuk said.24

    As soon as the new RVs arrived, the Navy predictably decided to get them to work with the mass-produced R-29RMU2 SLBM while also retaining complete standardization in terms of the boosters, the payload section, and the guidance system of the missile. To that end the MoD commissioned the Layner R&D program, which began in 2009 and was completed in 2011 by GRTs. Following successful joint flight tests completed in 2011, the R-29RMU2.1 SLBM can now be fitted with 10 low-yield RVs equipped with standard missile defense countermeasures; eight low-yield RVs with enhanced missile defense countermeasures; or four medium-yield RVs (see above) with missile defense countermeasures. The missile can also carry a combination of two types of re-entry vehicles.

    In 2011 an official source mentioned “modern low-yield nuclear ammunition being developed for use with future missiles and for replacing the existing low-yield warheads currently deployed on naval missile systems”. The source in question is “Naval Strategic Missile Systems”, a large volume edited by the head of the Federal Space Agency, Vladimir Popovkin. It says that the new ammunition was developed by VNIITF “using a compact thermonuclear device with improved yield and new automatics designed by VNIIEF”, and that it is “the first nuclear device to use an inertial adaptive detonation system”. It is not clear whether the source refers to a nuclear device developed for the already mentioned new RVs (Layner and similar type) or to some other new product. But the information itself is reliable because the team of editors which worked on the book included the then head of VNIITF, Georgiy Rykovanov (who held the job in 2007-2012).

    Further progress on the nuclear ammunition front will clearly be linked to the development of new strategic missile systems, which is already under way. Speaking in 2011, the commander of the Strategic Missile Troops, Sergey Karkayev, had this to say: “The industry is developing a new missile system with a medium-class missile equipped with a new type of payload section. One of the missile divisions will be armed with this new system by early 2015”.26 Lt Gen Karkayev was probably referring to the latest MIT design, a missile which was tested on May 23 and October 24, 2012. It was described in the reports as “a prototype of a new ICBM”.27

    In his earlier comments to the media, MIT chief designer Yuriy Solomonov described his institute’s vision of new payload designs for future missiles. “In 2010 we made a radically new step in developing a new type of payload section,” Solomonov said. “It is the result of integrating the ballistic type of payload with individual dispensing of warheads, which replaces the old so-called bus design.” He went on to say that a missile designed using this principle “practically ceases to exist as a single whole once the last booster stage has stopped firing”, and that “the task is now to adapt this idea for use with the existing missiles and missile systems”.28

    MIT is not the only company working on new warheads. A new type of payload section was also tested during the launch of the UR-100N UTTKh (the SS-19, designed by the Machinery Science and Production Company) on December 27, 2012. 29 Meanwhile, GRTs has already begun developing a new heavy liquid-fuel ICBM as part of the Sarmat R&D project. 30

    According to recent reports in open sources, VNIITF is currently developing at least two new warheads for SLBMs; the projects are led by the institute’s chief designer, Sergey Andreyev. One of them is “a new-generation nuclear warhead which will enhance the combat readiness of the naval strategic nuclear forces”. As of 2011, the project was at the “research and early design stage”.31

    Other interesting developments

    There is very little information in open sources about the development of nuclear ammunition for the Russian strategic bomber fleet. The only report we are aware of says that in 2003-2010 the mass production design bureau of the Elektropribor combine was “working” with the “designs of a cruise missile for strategic bombers”. 32 It has also been reported that VNIITF has “delivered to the Air Force several types of upgraded aerial bombs” .33 Another tidbit is that in 2007 the Russian government awarded a prize for “participation in the development of a nuclear aerial bomb”, and that one of the people who received that prize was Valeriy Baranov, deputy chief designer and head of department at VNIIA.34 It is not at all clear, however, whether the last two bits of information refer to bombs meant for strategic bombers. As for tactical bombers, it is worth mentioning that a large photo of an Su-34 aircraft is the central feature of the aerospace section in the museum of PSZ products in Trekhgornyy (there are also small pictures of an Su-17, Mig-21 and MiG-23).35 Furthermore, it has been reported that the museum has an actual nuclear weapon for the Su-34 fighter-bomber on display. 36

    There were also some interesting reports released during official events to mark the 100th anniversary of the Russian Air Force. A collection of articles entitled “Russia’s Great Glory. 1912-2012” contained a piece by VNIIEF, which reads as follows: “In 1991 the Air Force began to equip the Tu-160 bombers with the Kh-59 tactical cruise missile. The missile had a nuclear payload designed by VNIIA, with a new-generation nuclear device developed by FGUP RFYatS-VNIIEF…”.37 The existence of a nuclear-armed version of the Kh-59 cruise missile was nothing new – but the article was the first source to say that the missile can be used with the Tu-160 strategic bomber. Another thing to mention is that VNIIEF is also the developer of nuclear ammunition for another two systems currently being deployed in the Russian armed forces – the S-400 (SA-20) SAM system, and the Iskander (SS-26) tactical missile.38 It was also reported that the “engineering designs” of the Iskander missile were “being worked with” at Elektropribor.39

    There is no open-source information about any R&D in the non-strategic naval weapons segment in the 2000s. It has been reported, however, that back in the mid-1990s the Russian government awarded a prize “for the development of versatile nuclear ammunition for torpedo weapons”, and that in 1996 a state prize was awarded “for the development of a radically new type of universal nuclear ammunition with improved safety features for naval missiles and torpedoes”.

    Uniquely among the other Russian nuclear centers, VNIIA has a special section on its website which contains a lot of information about the winners of various prizes and awards. This section has been the source of some rather interesting details. The following prizes won by VNIIA deserve a separate mention:

    A 2000 State Prize for “development and launch of mass production of a new technology which improves the performance of nuclear devices”.

    A 2003 prize awarded by the Russian cabinet for “a project to develop and launch mass production of a standardized system of neutron initiation for all classes of nuclear munitions”.

    A 2004 prize awarded by the Russian cabinet for “A set of physical measurements during non-nuclear-explosive experiments at the Central Testing Range of the Russian Federation aimed at maintaining the nuclear arsenal while also ensuring compliance with limitations imposed by the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty”.

    A 2008 prize awarded by the Russian cabinet for the “development of a specialized thermonuclear explosive device”

    A 2009 prize awarded by the Russian cabinet “for creating a new type of nuclear ammunition” and for “developing and creating new instruments for non-nuclear explosive experiments” 40

    Non-nuclear experiments and tests are an important part of the Russian nuclear weapons program. According to Academician Ilkayev, these experiments have been ongoing without any major interruptions at the Central Testing Range and on Novaya Zemlya. “This enables us to research specific issues related to the behavior of some nuclear weapons components, and to keep the testing range itself in an operational state,” Ilkayev said. 41

    In addition to ground tests, the industry continues to flight-test its new products. Another important player in this segment is the Sedakov Measuring Systems Research Institute, a large Rosatom division. In 2002 the institute set up the Flight Tests Information Support Center (ISC), and then introduced the new Special Control Radio Telemetry System (SCRTC), which is already being used during flight tests. According to official ISC information, in 2002-2010 its specialists, working in tandem with the MoD’s testing range personnel, were involved in 47 flight tests which relied on the SCRTC. 42 This figure probably includes the testing of new products (such as the payload of the Bulava missile – see above) as well tests conducted on the existing weaponry to make sure that it remains in good working order.

    This analysis of the Russian defense industry’s nuclear munitions programs in the 2000s is by no means complete because it relies only on open-source information. But it is safe to conclude that the Russian nuclear ammunition design, engineering a manufacturing capability remains intact. Russia’s nuclear weapons programs have been ongoing without interruptions since the break-up of the former Soviet Union. In recent years the government has actually been ramping up these programs, and for the foreseeable future the nuclear weapons industry will remain entirely capable of meeting the requirements of the Russian armed forces.



    1. Structural divisions. Organizational structure of Rosatom // Rosatom website http://www.rosatom.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosatom/rosatomsite/aboutcorporation/structure/.

    2. 21st Century Encyclopedia. Russian Weapons and Technologies. Nuclear Weapons Industry. — Moscow; Oruzhie i Tekhnologii publishing house, 2007; From NATO to atom // Strana Rosatom. The nuclear industry newspaper, No 2 (47), January 2012 http://www.novovoronezh.ru/mkportal/images/rosatom/strana_rosatom_01_12.pdf.

    3. History of FGUP FNPTs PO Start M.V. Protsenko // PO Start website http://www.startatom.ru/ru/about/kratkaya_istoriya_predpriyatiya/.

    4. Krinitskaya T. Gennadiy Svezhentsev: “We are not reducing the numbers” // Gorodskoy Kuryer (electronic version), August 3, 2012 http://courier.sarov.info/2012/08/03/16447/.

    5. Gorokhova T. Everything is relative // Zarechinskaya yarmarka, No 5, February 3, 2011 http://zar-yarmarka.ru/2011/5/Vse_poznaetsya_v_sravnenii/print.

    6. About the Institute // FGUP VNIIA Dukhov website http://www.vniia.ru/about/index.html.

    7. The combine reports to Rosatom // FGUP Elektrokhimpribor combine. News section. March 28, 2012 http://www.ehp-atom.ru/news/81.html.

    8. Gorokhova T. Op. cit.

    9. Dmitriy Rogozin chairs meeting of the Rosatom Board // Vesti. Corporate newspaper of the Elektrokhimpribor combine, No 19 (114), October 2012 http://www.ehp-atom.ru/public/upload/file/vesti_19_114_oktyabr_2012.pdf.

    10. Krinitskay T. Op. cit.

    11. Kolpakova N. Real action behind every issue // Vestnik (Lesnoy town paper), February 2, 2012 http://vestnik-lesnoy.ru/za-kazhdym-voprosom-realnoe-dejjstvie/.

    12. Morozov V. KB-2: experience and traditions // Nizhegorodskaya delovaya gazeta (special edition), April 2, 2011 http://www.kuriermedia.ru/data/objects/1949/06.pdf.

    13. Perov M. Russian missile weapons.

    14. Leskov S. Lesnoy zaryad // Vestnik atomproma, No 8, August 2010 http://www.rosatom.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosatom/rosatomsite/resources/1448450043606abd97a39f8cc4f0f76f/Vestnik_2010_august.pdf.

    15. Tender announcement “Selection of suppliers of equipment for FGUP PSZ under the Topol-M program” // Tenders and auctions website http://www.alltenders.ru/tender_podrob_new.asp?KodTendera=209446.

    16. Degtyar V. Priceless legacy of chief designer V.P. Makeyev // Konstruktor (special edition), October 25, 2009 http://makeyev.msk.ru/pub/msys/2009/Construktor10.09.pdf.

    17. Naval Strategic Missile Systems. — Moscow: Voennyy Parad, GRTs Makeyev, 2011. —258 pages; ISBN 5-902975-25-0.

    18. Veselovskiy A. Fifty years of guarding the motherland (Golden Jubilee of the Strategic Missile Troops) // Atomnaya strategiya XXI, No 06 (43), December 2009 http://www.proatom.ru/files/as43_01_17.pdf.

    19. Director of the federal nuclear center in Snezhinsk becomes member of the Academy of Sciences // Rossiyskoye atomnoe soobshchestvo website, news section, December 26, 2011 http://www.atomic-energy.ru/news/2011/12/26/29817.

    20. “RFYaTs-VNIIEF to maintain and expand international cooperation” — Radiy Ilkayev // NIA Nizhniy Novgorod, June 9, 2006 http://www.niann.ru/?id=299869.

    21. Naval Strategic Missile Systems. — Moscow: Voennyy Parad, GRTs Makeyev, 2011. —258 pages; ISBN 5-902975-25-0.

    22. Koshcheev A., Zotkin N., Averin V., Savchenko S. A perfect design bureau // Vesti. Elektrokhimpribor combine corporate newspaper, No 19 (114), October 2012 http://www.ehp-atom.ru/public/upload/file/vesti_19_114_oktyabr_2012.pdf.

    23. Highlights of the year. NIIIS // Atom-PRESSA, No 51 (941), December 2010 http://www.profatom.ru/jornals/atompressa/Atompressa_51_10.pdf.

    24. Single day of information // RFYaTs-VNITF website. News section. December 27, 2012 http://www.vniitf.ru/index.php/2010-08-20-07-38-20/2012-07-05-07-40-42/1060-2011-12-27-10-36-41.

    25. Naval Strategic Missile Systems. — Moscow: Voennyy Parad, GRTs Makeyev, 2011. —258 pages; ISBN 5-902975-25-0.

    26. Latest missile to augment the existing Yars and Topol arsenal in 2015 // RIA Novosti, December 16, 2011.

    27. Safronov I. The Bulava surfaces in Plesetsk // Kommersant, May 24, 2012; New ICBM successfully tested in Astrakhan // RIA Novosti, October 24, 2012.

    28. Russia develops unique nuclear warheads which are invulnerable to any missile defenses — chief designer Solomonov // Interfax-AVN, January 27, 2011.

    29. Stilet strategic missile test a success — Russian MoD // Interfax-AVN, December 27, 2011.

    30. Stukalin A. Russian Strategic Missile Troops: at a Crossroads // Moscow Defense Brief, ? 5, 2012.

    31. Naval Strategic Missile Systems. — Moscow: Voennyy Parad, GRTs Makeyev, 2011. —258 pages; ISBN 5-902975-25-0.

    32. Koshcheev A., Zotkin N., Averin V., Savchenko S. Op. cit.

    33. Key dates in the history of the town of Snezhinsk and VNIITF http://img.rg.ru/pril/article/62/94/64/Vazhnejshie_daty_v_istorii_goroda_Snezhinska_i_RFIaC.doc.

    34. VNIIA employees awarded by the Lenin Prize, State Prize and Government Prize // VNIIA website http://www.vniia.ru/about/lauryat.html.

    35. Yakovlev I. PSZ Museum. Photo Gallery // 29.04.2010 http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ilyayakovlev/sets/72157624424183227/ or http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilyayakovlev/4814612098/.

    36. Chvanov M. A closed city with an open heart // Argamak. Tatarstan, No 1 (16), 2011. http://www.srpkzn.ru/argamak-6.pdf.

    37. Russia’s High Glory. 100th Anniversary of the Russian Air Force. 1912-2012 (special edition of the journal) // Nizhegorodskaya Delovaya Gazeta, 2012 http://www.kuriermedia.ru/data/objects/2158/V_slava_Rossii.pdf.

    38. Veselovskiy A. 65 years of glorious history — foundation of stability and growth // Atomnaya Strategiya XXI, No 59, October 2011 http://www.proatom.ru/files/as59.pdf.

    39. [39] Koshcheev A., Zotkin N., Averin V., Savchenko S. Op. cit. [40] VNIIA employees awarded by the Lenin Prize, State Prize and Government Prize // VNIIA website.

    40. http://img.rg.ru/pril/article/62/94/64/Vazhnejshie_daty_v_istorii_goroda_Snezhinska_i_RFIaC.doc.

    41. Emelyanov A. Nuclear umbrella // Rossiyskaya gazeta, June 9, 2006 http://www.rg.ru/2006/06/09/ilkaev.html.

    42. Highlights of the year. NIIIS // Atom-PRESSA, No 51 (941), December 2010 http://www.profatom.ru/jornals/atompressa/Atompressa_51_10.pdf .

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Austin on Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:51 am

    ^^^^

    Further progress on the nuclear ammunition front will clearly be linked to the development of new strategic missile systems, which is already under way. Speaking in 2011, the commander of the Strategic Missile Troops, Sergey Karkayev, had this to say: “The industry is developing a new missile system with a medium-class missile equipped with a new type of payload section. One of the missile divisions will be armed with this new system by early 2015”.26 Lt Gen Karkayev was probably referring to the latest MIT design, a missile which was tested on May 23 and October 24, 2012. It was described in the reports as “a prototype of a new ICBM”.27

    In his earlier comments to the media, MIT chief designer Yuriy Solomonov described his institute’s vision of new payload designs for future missiles. “In 2010 we made a radically new step in developing a new type of payload section,” Solomonov said. “It is the result of integrating the ballistic type of payload with individual dispensing of warheads, which replaces the old so-called bus design.” He went on to say that a missile designed using this principle “practically ceases to exist as a single whole once the last booster stage has stopped firing”, and that “the task is now to adapt this idea for use with the existing missiles and missile systems”.28

    The Bold Part is the HOLY GRAIL of ICBM development , AVANGRAD Very Happy

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Viktor on Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:01 pm

    Austin wrote:The Bold Part is the HOLY GRAIL of ICBM development , AVANGRAD Very Happy

    This new revolution will have engine of its onw?

    I have read many years ago some Russian general speaking about ability to enter and reenter earth atmphosphere many times.

    Such vehicle would have its own most likely scramjet engine.

    Now it Russians have managed to add scramjet engine to each warhead carried well here you go - you have revolution design in delivering

    payload. That would also imply manageable trajectory and guidance during that phase and of course retargeting ability.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Austin on Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:05 pm

    The ultimate warhead puts end to discussions

    Russia has developed a stand-alone nuclear warhead capable of penetrating any existing or projecting missile defense system, informs Interfax news agency.

    ­According to Yury Solomonov, the chief designer of the Moscow Heat Engineering Institute, this unique system was successfully tested last year.

    Unlike the payload of all previously-developed intercontinental ballistic missiles, the new weapon can hit several targets located at great distance from each other.

    This means that the current multiple warhead dispensing mechanism called “bus”, a segment that delivers warheads to the destined drop zone used in all modern missiles, will be eliminated, because in the new system, once the terminal stage vehicle of ICBM booster does its job, the missile separates into warheads with “individual means of delivery to destination.”

    He said that 30 years ago such a system was discussed and labeled science fiction Twisted Evil

    The new innovative technology will “put a full stop on all discussions regarding our countermeasures towards non-existent antiballistic missile defense system of our potential enemy,” Solomonov is cited as having said.

    Now engineers need to adopt the new warhead to the existing ballistic missiles on alert. This work will take several years and will include launches of experimental Topol-E missile and the following modernization of the Topol-M and RS-24 Yars MIRV missiles that will constitute the backbone of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces in the nearest future.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Austin on Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:10 pm

    Viktor wrote:This new revolution will have engine of its onw?

    I have read many years ago some Russian general speaking about ability to enter and reenter earth atmphosphere many times.

    Such vehicle would have its own most likely scramjet engine.

    Now it Russians have managed to add scramjet engine to each warhead carried well here you go - you have revolution design in delivering

    payload. That would also imply manageable trajectory and guidance during that phase and of course retargeting ability.

    Yes each warhead will have it own Engine , Guidance and Warhead and it can move in any direction compared to says RS-24 or Topol-M warhead that can just change Altitude and Trajectory ( Advaced MaRV/BGRV )

    They can also independently target from each other at great distance.

    This really needs Breakthrough in Materials , Guidance & Propulsion , Warhead Design and many other classified subjects , Like Solmonov said its Science Fiction becoming Reality Shocked

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Austin on Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:14 pm

    Check what RVSN commander say about RS-24 warhead

    link

    “The capabilities of such combat means were demonstrated to U.S. technical control means during the trials of the Yars ground-based mobile missile system and the Bulava sea-based missile system. It also concerns hypersonic warheads capable of performing altitude and trajectory maneuvers,” he told journalists.

    “The new missiles have characteristics that allow them to stay invulnerable at all sections of their flight,” Karakayev said.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  TR1 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:10 pm

    Wow, impressive.
    Hopefully will lower necessity to build many individual missiles.

    So, with such advanced warheads, why is Russia not pursuing ballistic missiles in the anti-carrier role? Wink

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Austin on Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:59 pm

    TR1 wrote:So, with such advanced warheads, why is Russia not pursuing ballistic missiles in the anti-carrier role? Wink

    Thats because AShBM have their own strength but have their own weakness too and Russia has more challenging AShM under development namely Zircon-S and Brahmos-2

    AShBM is good solution for countries like China that lacks resources to take on a USN CBG at high seas in their own backyard Razz

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Sujoy on Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:32 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    So, with such advanced warheads, why is Russia not pursuing ballistic missiles in the anti-carrier role? Wink

    Too many loose ends ...that's why .

    Let's take for example the Chinese "carrier killer" missile DF 21D :

    Firstly, (unless it is using a nuclear warhead) it is going to need terminal guidance in order to fine tune the warhead’s trajectory when it reenters the Earth’s atmosphere. This is true regardless of how well China needs the position of the target carrier - the target it wants to shoot at.

    After this you will have to do a lot of assumptions, like soon as a DF-21D is launched and thereby detected by US early warning satellites every carrier anywhere near the missile has to take off at full speed in some random direction.

    Another assumption - If the DF-21D is launched at maximum range each ship can be around 10-12kms away from where it was a the time of launch. Sometime during its flight the DF-21D would have to correct for that change . The most logical place to correct for those changes are at the end of the boost phase because the carriers will be able to zig zag at anytime.

    I would hazard a guess here . In the near future if Russia is faced with the possibility of taking out an enemy carrier group , Russia's first step would be to take out the adversary's EW system by capturing the adversary's radar signal, analyzing it, reproducing it, injecting false targets into it and transmitting it back to the adversary.

    Once done half a dozen TU 160s can launch a volley of sea skimming cruise missiles at the carrier group.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Austin on Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:42 pm

    Sujoy wrote:
    It's not an effective technology ...that's why

    It is an effective technology but its limited to defending coastal targets at best 300-500 km assuming you can track object in real time within that radius ...its good for the chinese to deter USBG being station close to its coast during crisis.

    Let's take for example the Chinese "carrier killer" missile DF 21D :

    Firstly, (unless it is using a nuclear warhead) it is going to need terminal guidance in order to fine tune the warhead’s trajectory when it reenters the Earth’s atmosphere. This is true regardless of how well China needs the position of the target carrier - the target it wants to shoot at.

    AShBM does not re-enters atmosphere but boost glide at 40 Km and tries to be at a place where its Homing Radar Active seeker can track the Ships , ofcourse it has to be give a good intelligence on the probable location of ship so that it can be there at shortest possible time and then rely on its homing Radar to track ship and dive on to it.

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Sujoy on Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:13 pm

    Austin wrote:AShBM does not re-enters atmosphere but boost glide at 40 Km and tries to be at a place where its Homing Radar Active seeker can track the Ships , ofcourse it has to be give a good intelligence on the probable location of ship so that it can be there at shortest possible time and then rely on its homing Radar to track ship and dive on to it.

    Slowing the warhead for terminal guidance makes it prohibitively vulnerable to interception.Requisite satellite coverage is unattainable, as are sufficient naval and surveillance craft and overseas bases for signals intelligence.

    How does one strike a CSG that moves during location, data transmission, and ASBM delivery? Ballistic missiles are less accurate than cruise missiles because the Ballistic Missiles trajectory is relatively fixed.

    One possible way could be that as long as the initial ASBM trajectory is reasonably accurate, appropriate homing corrections can be made. Precision can be improved with passive radiation homing and activating terminal guidance at higher altitude to allow the seeker to scan a larger area, and selecting opportune moments for attack for example when tailwinds or at-sea replenishment preclude significant mobility.

    But then interference capabilities on board naval carriers can yield equipment capable of misdirecting the weapon's tracking mechanisms.Whatever Missile has a seeker can be jammed.

    The kill chain is so complex that such a ASBM can easily be intercepted unless China ( or any other country) develops an entire system to make such a missile work coz the missile by itself is pretty useless.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Viktor on Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:34 pm

    Austin wrote:Yes each warhead will have it own Engine , Guidance and Warhead and it can move in any direction compared to says RS-24 or Topol-M

    Nice.


    Austin wrote:to says RS-24 or Topol-M warhead that can just change Altitude and Trajectory ( Advaced MaRV/BGRV )


    Can you explain this part? Only altitude and trajectory?

    To change altitude you again need some kind of engine, dont you if you dont want to loose its speed?



    Austin wrote:They can also independently target from each other at great distance.

    This really needs Breakthrough in Materials , Guidance & Propulsion , Warhead Design and many other classified subjects , Like Solmonov said its Science Fiction becoming Reality

    It would be interesting to know:

    1. How guidance is managed
    2. What type of engine does it use
    3. Based on what does it starts to change trajectory

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Austin on Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:07 am

    Viktor wrote:Can you explain this part? Only altitude and trajectory?

    To change altitude you again need some kind of engine, dont you if you dont want to loose its speed?

    To generally explain the concept when the RV enters the atmosphere it has enough energy as it reenters the earth at Mach 22-24 , one can boost glide the RV for couple of 100 Km and can use control surfaces to change altitude and direction( i.e trajectory )without loosing much speed in trade off though it would still loose some but which makes ABM interception very difficult due to exterme thermal stress and speed that RV generates which is more in excess of 100 G ..... not to mention that RV is itself a small RCS target.

    So basicly what RS-24 RV needs is Guidance and Control surfaces and does not need engine to change altitude and trajectory when it is in high atmosphere which is very easily possible but i understand RS-24 RV is far more advanced than what I have generically described above of how MaRV/BGRV type vehical work and no one will ever tell you how such advanced MaRV works its a highly classified subject.

    In this book Lightning Rod William Yengest has described Topol-M RV has have some kind of Ramjet propulsion that when the RV enters atmosphere can propel Topol-M RV at greater than Mach 5 changing direction and can do a Low Level Run In at the Target defeating low level ABM interceptor.


    Austin wrote:They can also independently target from each other at great distance.

    This really needs Breakthrough in Materials , Guidance & Propulsion , Warhead Design and many other classified subjects , Like Solmonov said its Science Fiction becoming Reality

    It would be interesting to know:

    1. How guidance is managed
    2. What type of engine does it use
    3. Based on what does it starts to change trajectory [/quote]

    If i had asked the same question , Yuri Solmonov would say Nice Question Son but its a classified subject Smile

    But I can tell you India is working on similar concept for its Advanced Agni 5 and the way India would do is to develop each smaller RV with its own guidance , liquid fuel propulsion and control surfaces ( Reaction Control System in RV) to get a guided RV without the need for a BUS.

    Guidance would be managed by Laser INS , Engine would be small Liquid Fuel Engine ( like in Agni 3 or Agni 2 ) , when in atmosphere RV changes trajectory in a way that makes it kinetically impossible ( BGRV ) or exteremely diffucult for ABM to intercept making trajectory computing impossible needing dozens of ABM interceptor versus one RV with no gurantee that it would still get intercepted as ABM has a very small intercept window.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Austin on Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:22 am

    Sujoy wrote:Slowing the warhead for terminal guidance makes it prohibitively vulnerable to interception.Requisite satellite coverage is unattainable, as are sufficient naval and surveillance craft and overseas bases for signals intelligence.

    An AShBM travels at hypersonic speed at 40 Km Altitude to avoid getting intercepted and can pull many G's while its gliding toward the target which can be reached in 5-6 minutes if its 300-400 Km which is where AShBM is effective and not greater than that.

    The disadvantage is if you are travelling that high you would be detected early and Carrier would take some evasive action but you can fire half a dozen AShBM against a single carrier or CBG.

    What you need is the general location in a area of say 100 Km where CBG is located and then fire at the last known co-ordinates , one can obtain such location from ASW aircraft , Submarine or Land Based OTH radar or ships in vincinity.

    Once the AShBM arrives at that general location it avtivates its radar and due to high altitude it can look at 100-200 Km below and once it detects the CBG which wont move beyond 100 Km in 4-5 minutes the Missile RV if it has ISAR mode would than co-orelate the RF image of target with that of prestored image or just home into Carrier Radar Source in passive mode and Dive on to the target at speed not less than 4-5 Mach , it can guide using its control surfaces or a combination of Thrust Control and Control Surfaces.

    After that it would be a SAM versus AShBM game ......it would not be an easy target for any SAM to intercept such fast , high G targets even if it gets detected early as the target would get 4-5 minutes of warning time and more so when you have a dozen AShBM coming at you.

    If the PLAN wants to make it more difficult then they can co-ordinate the DF-41 launch from multiple location and programming it to arrive at the same time or in few sec difference at the target.

    Seekers are difficult to jam but in case they do get jammed most modern seeker has Home on Jam Capability built in them.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Austin on Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:23 am

    Viktor wrote:Can you explain this part? Only altitude and trajectory?

    To change altitude you again need some kind of engine, dont you if you dont want to loose its speed?

    To generally explain the concept when the RV enters the atmosphere it has enough energy as it reenters the earth at Mach 22-24 , one can boost glide the RV for couple of 100 Km and can use control surfaces to change altitude and direction( i.e trajectory )without loosing much speed in trade off though it would still loose some but which makes ABM interception very difficult due to exterme thermal stress and speed that RV generates which is more in excess of 100 G ..... not to mention that RV is itself a small RCS target.

    So basicly what RS-24 RV needs is Guidance and Control surfaces and does not need engine to change altitude and trajectory when it is in high atmosphere which is very easily possible but i understand RS-24 RV is far more advanced than what I have generically described above of how MaRV/BGRV type vehical work and no one will ever tell you how such advanced MaRV works its a highly classified subject.

    In this book Lightning Rod William Yengest has described Topol-M RV has have some kind of Ramjet propulsion that when the RV enters atmosphere can propel Topol-M RV at greater than Mach 5 changing direction and can do a Low Level Run In at the Target defeating low level ABM interceptor.


    It would be interesting to know:

    1. How guidance is managed
    2. What type of engine does it use
    3. Based on what does it starts to change trajectory

    If i had asked the same question , Yuri Solmonov would say all Nice Question Son lets have a cup of Coffee Smile

    But I can tell you India is working on similar concept for its Advanced Agni 5 and the way India would do is to develop each smaller RV with its own guidance , liquid fuel propulsion and control surfaces ( Reaction Control System in RV) to get a guided RV without the need for a BUS.

    Guidance would be managed by Laser INS , Engine would be small Liquid Fuel Engine ( like in Agni 3 or Agni 2 ) , when in atmosphere RV changes trajectory in a way that makes it kinetically impossible ( BGRV ) or exteremely diffucult for ABM to intercept making trajectory computing impossible needing dozens of ABM interceptor versus one RV with no gurantee that it would still get intercepted as ABM has a very small intercept window.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Austin on Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:08 am

    I just failed to mention that besides developing Advanced RV the Russians are even developing new Nuclear Charges without the need to proof test it.

    This is far more impressive then the RV development itself as it would indicate they have Software model to develop reliable nuclear weapons without the need to test it even a single time perhaps something more than a working software model.

    As they are developing more than a single charge but different Thermonuclear weapons for different RV and ICBM/SLBM.

    It shows a very high level of confidence even US is not developing new Nuclear Weapons design but have a program for reliability of existing design which from the above article even the Russians are doing it.

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Sujoy on Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:42 pm

    Austin wrote:I just failed to mention that besides developing Advanced RV the Russians are even developing new Nuclear Charges without the need to proof test it.

    Good ! I suspect the budget for this program will come from the $770 billion 10 year modernization plan.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Viktor on Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:23 pm

    Tny Austing for excellent explanation.

    But I have few more questions.

    1. In what way would you describe differences between Topol-M RV and Avangard RV if you say that Topol-M

    has ram-jet type engine? In what way does it difference itself from Avangard RV that has also its

    propulsion?

    2. Why do you believe ASBM can only be effective up to 400 km. That does not makes sense to me.

    cozz if you have ways to communicate and change RV trajectory than distance should not come as

    a technological problem impossible to solve

    3. Why do you believe that ASBM flys only at 40km attitude and not that it could be one of its

    possible mode?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Austin on Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:32 am

    Hello Viktor you are asking questions that are at best of a highly classifed nature and I dont claim to be privy to any classified information on Topol-M or Avangrad , except to what i can get from open source or make sense of it , So take it for what ever its worth.

    Viktor wrote:
    But I have few more questions.

    1. In what way would you describe differences between Topol-M RV and Avangard RV if you say that Topol-M

    has ram-jet type engine? In what way does it difference itself from Avangard RV that has also its

    propulsion?


    Topol-M RV is likely a advanced MaRV with Hypersonic Boost Glide Vehical that can manouver in space and in atmosphere.

    Check out US HTV-2 program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_Technology_Vehicle_2

    As claimed by Putin once it can enter and reenter atmosphere and change direction

    This is the official picture released by Russian MOD on Topol-M Trajectory


    the dotted line refers to a classical warhead trajectory. The solid line shows the flight path of the Igla. Notice the MaRV trajectory.


    Avangrad better not talk since we dont know Smile


    2. Why do you believe ASBM can only be effective up to 400 km. That does not makes sense to me.

    cozz if you have ways to communicate and change RV trajectory than distance should not come as

    a technological problem impossible to solve

    Its more of question of Sensor to Shooter time all in real time , if you can track warship moment in real time at long distance then you can try shooting at it but the longer the flight time the longer is the ability of opponent to track and try to defend it.

    3. Why do you believe that ASBM flys only at 40km attitude and not that it could be one of its

    possible mode?

    Because of the sweet spot where the missile can glide at hypersonic speed and remain invulnerable to most SAM when flying at that altitude , Do you know why Iskander also travels at that altitude at hypersonic speed Wink

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Viktor on Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:55 am

    Austin wrote:Its more of question of Sensor to Shooter time all in real time , if you can track warship moment in real time at long distance then you can try shooting at it but the longer the flight time the longer is the ability of opponent to track and try to defend it.

    Ability of opponent to defend itself is a different story but if China has ability to track carriers of instance at some range than

    it has no problem guiding ASBM on that range. So for instance if China can track carriers 2000km offshore than it can guide its

    ASBM on that range. Do you agree?

    Now China has some maritime satellite system for such role, OTH radars are another method and other planes and means of surveillance .

    Austin wrote:Because of the sweet spot where the missile can glide at hypersonic speed and remain invulnerable to most SAM when flying at that altitude , Do you know why Iskander also travels at that altitude at hypersonic speed
    Austin wrote:

    Yes Im aware about the Iskander trajectory althrow I think it has many more than only one. Given the situation most appropriate is

    taken. Thats why Im not sure DF-21 has only one trajectory and Im not so sure that SM-3 would be 100% efficient just because DF-21 does

    not have unpredictable trajectory.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Austin on Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:12 pm

    Viktor yes I think if China has developed a good sensor shooter grid then they should be able to take out ships at longer range.

    But since i do not follow DF-21 development I wouldnt know where it stands may be some one here can answer your query better.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Viktor on Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:45 pm

    I dont follow either but remember reading about some maritime launch satellites being put in orbit for such purpose.

    Could look into the thing in the coming days.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:25 am

    To explain the intercept problems lets simplify it a bit and use a flat open field with a man running and a man with a ATGM.

    This is simplified because we are using only two dimensions instead of three... though the problem is actually a four dimensional problem but I will explain that later.

    When shooting at a target that is moving if you aim directly at the target you will miss unless the target is moving directly towards or away from you, or the target is moving very very slowly or the projectile you are firing moves very very fast like a laser beam and the target is not far away.

    You can ease the problems of interception by making the projectile you fire a guided projectile as you can compensate for the targets movements during the flight of your projectile to the target.

    If the target is jogging in a fairly straight line at a steady pace it is fairly easy to add a little lead to shorten the flight time of your missile and then drop the crosshairs back to onto the target for the last few hundred metres or so (assuming an engagement at 4-5km). By aiming at where the target will be you greatly reduce the flight time of the intercept and reduce the energy wasted by your intercepting missile. At running speed the lead distance will not be that large even at 4-5km because of the fairly short flight time of the intercepting missile and the huge speed of the missile compared to the speed of the target.

    However if you greatly increase the scale of the field to thousands of kms and you replace the slow moving man with an RV travelling at 7km/s, even with a laser beam that can cover the distances in half a second the intercept point will be 3.5km away from the actual target.

    In reality however using a missile to intercept that might take tens of minutes to cover the distance then you start to have problems.

    Very simply the intercept point for a target is based on the time it will take for the interceptor to reach it... multiplied by the speed of the target... so if the interceptor will taken 20 minutes to reach the intercept point then the interception point... assuming a straight and steady speed of the target will be 8,400km in front of the target missile. Imagine a stick poking out the front of the target missile that is 8,400km long and that is the interception point... where interceptor will meet target. The problem is that this target can manouver in 3 dimensions... a turn of a few degrees will swing that stick poking out the nose of the target thousands of kms. A turn of a few degrees is nothing for the target, but for the interceptor all of a sudden it now needs to be in a new place thousands of kms away... the whole engagement calculation needs to be recalculated because the interceptor has to turn which uses fuel and reduces the interceptors speed which will effect the exact interception point. To counter a manouvering target there is no point in going exactly to the new interception point because it is likely to turn again, so an educated guess based on what the target might be can be used to get it much closer... as the interceptor gets closer to the target the interception stick gets shorter so the interception point moves shorter distances... yet at the last second a simple turn could leave the interceptor 7km away from the target... even a nuclear warhead would have trouble destroying a target from that range unless you want to use really big nukes... in which case your interceptor missiles might do more damage than the incoming missiles.

    It is a 4 dimensional problem as I mentioned above... the fourth dimension is time... you can get your interceptor missile to the same place in three dimensions as the target, but if the time is wrong... even by half a second... then you will miss a 7km/s target by 3.5km.

    Accuracy is critical and even then the best real solution is increasing the speed of the interceptor to the speed of light with lasers...


    _________________
    “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

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Austin on Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:18 am

    Nice post Garry my vote.

    One more point to note is that with the advent of HTK interceptor the interceptor besides the challenge mentioned by Garry as to actually Hit the Target at the right place to kill it which makes the window of opportunity for the interceptor even smaller.

    Hitting at the right place which is warhead section is important as hitting the missile body might lead to the warhead still surviving and continuing on its journey

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:00 am


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:00 am