Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    New russian MRBM projects

    Share

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    New russian MRBM projects

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:23 pm

    Are there currently any  projects in blueprint stage of MRBMs that are planned to be put into production after russia has freed itself from that stupid missile treaty?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: New russian MRBM projects

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:11 am

    The simplest way to create a cheap easy to produce IRBM is to remove the bottom stage of an ICBM and go with two stages instead of three.

    The INF treaty might be in force for some time yet however.


    _________________
    “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

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: New russian MRBM projects

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:07 pm

    Does russia have no choice to leave the treaty and has to wait until it expires or do the politicians simply have no interest in leaving it?

    BTW are there any NATO countries that have modern post cold war MRBMs in service?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: New russian MRBM projects

    Post  Austin on Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:08 pm

    BM with a range between 500 km to 5500 km has been banned by INF treaty between Russia and NATO.

    So neither of the two sides have IRBM and MRBM class BM.

    Probably neither side would need one for a long time to come as advancement in Cruise Missile technology specifcally Hypersonic Cruise Missile would makes BM in those ranges not absolute necessary

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

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

    Re: New russian MRBM projects

    Post  Sujoy on Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:25 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Does russia have no choice to leave the treaty and has to wait until it expires or do the politicians simply have no interest in leaving it?

    Technically yes . Infact Russia had threatened to pull out of the treaty in the recent past .

    Practically it does NOT make sense because of the following reasons :

    (A)Russia has no program in place to design IRBMs .

    (B)The only country that can threaten Russia with IRBMs is China but a Russian retaliation will be in the form of SLBMs launched from the North Pacific and White Sea against which China will have no answer.

    (C) S 300V4 and S 400 guarantee adequate protection against any hostile IRBMs.

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:BTW are there any NATO countries that have modern post cold war MRBMs in service?

    None in deployment currently. France had the S2 & S3 . The UK had the Polaris A 3 .These have been decommissioned.

    They now rely on SLBMs like M51 [France ] and Trident II [UK]

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: New russian MRBM projects

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:27 am

    Does russia have no choice to leave the treaty and has to wait until it expires or do the politicians simply have no interest in leaving it?

    The INF treaty bans ground based missiles, cruise or ballistic with a range of 500km through to 5,000km, which are classed as intermediate range missiles. The treaty was between the Soviet Union and the US only and does not apply to any other NATO members except the US, nor does it apply to China or Israel or Iran.

    The definition was extended to include 5,500km range missiles so that the SS-20 Saber mobile system could be included.

    The purpose was to make Europe safer because these short range missiles placed in Turkey could hit Moscow in time periods as short as 5 minutes and at the time there was no reliable defence against them.

    The result was that the Soviets had to have their forces on a hair trigger because they might have less than 5 minutes to detect a missile, determine whether it is a real missile or computer error and then react with their own missile or full scale attack.

    This was seriously dangerous so both sides agreed to withdraw these weapon types.

    Currently however the Russians (who inherited lots of treaty obligations including the INF treaty) do have missiles that can defend against IRBMs and cruise missiles, and obviously it would be much cheaper for the Russians to make IRBMs instead of the much larger and much heavier ICBMs for targets in Europe and China and Asia etc.

    There is no expiry date for the INF treaty but like the ABM treaty either side can give warning and withdraw if they feel they need to.

    The main point is that from the Russian perspective is that the INF treaty keeps US cruise missiles out of Europe.

    The negative point is that now that most of what was the warsaw pact is now NATO means that missiles with ranges of less than 500km could be used against strategic targets in western Russia from lots of potential launch locations and also that any european nation could make IRBMs and are not bound by that treaty.

    Equally instead of storing all its nuclear warheads in big expensive ICBMs, it could put some in cheaper IRBMs and cruise missiles and save a bit of money.

    Equally IRBMs would sell rather well on the international arms market... a version of Iskander with a range of 1,000km would be very useful with conventional guided warheads.

    If the US goes ahead with an ABM system in Europe it will be cheaper building thousands of ground launched cruise missiles to fly low and hit targets than to build more ICBMs that are limited by START treaty.

    Probably neither side would need one for a long time to come as advancement in Cruise Missile technology specifcally Hypersonic Cruise Missile would makes BM in those ranges not absolute necessary

    A ballistic missile with a flight range of 6,000km could be made much smaller than older missiles, but I suspect it would be much easier to make a hypersonic missile with a scramjet engine to fly even 10,000km with extra external fuel tanks... it might be launched from a protected facility in central Russia and fly subsonically at high altitude gradually accelerating as it gets lighter and drops fuel pods so that when it reaches the Russian border it is supersonic and not an easy target that is rapidly accelerating to very high speeds... of course by the time it gets to the target area ICBMs and SLBMs will have done their damage and they can finish the job.

    Being ground launched they can be cheap and simple and always ready and with conventional warheads and terminal guidance they can be used against a range of targets of strategic and tactical natures.

    Practically it does NOT make sense because of the following reasons :

    (A)Russia has no program in place to design IRBMs .

    An IRBM is an ICBM with two stages instead of three... they would be smaller and lighter and easier to deploy and cheaper to make and to operate and with modern guidance could be fitted with conventional warheads as well as strategic nuclear.

    (B)The only country that can threaten Russia with IRBMs is China but a Russian retaliation will be in the form of SLBMs launched from the North Pacific and White Sea against which China will have no answer.

    The only two countries bound by the treaty are the Russians and the US and the US can place missiles on NATO territory that is within 500km of Moscow... something the Russians can't do in return.

    Very simply because the US can base these weapons in Europe they are called IRBMs for Russia, but they are strategic weapons for the US.

    (C) S 300V4 and S 400 guarantee adequate protection against any hostile IRBMs.

    So the hair trigger destabilisation reason for the INF treaty is removed...



    _________________
    “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: New russian MRBM projects

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:01 pm


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:01 pm