Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Share

    Arrow

    Posts : 150
    Points : 150
    Join date : 2012-02-13

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  Arrow on Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:48 am

    S-400 in comparison is a real SAM that would be used against a variety of targets at a variety of ranges. wrote:

    USA has a SM-6 SAM missile system. They can destroy all typy target including high maneuverable fighter more than 400 km with ARH guidance. S-400 has max range 250 km above the horizon target.

    SM-3 is unlikely to be used against anything but ballistic missiles and is therefore an ABM system rather than a real SAM. wrote:

    Yes but for ABM role is better than S-400. That is why Russia is working on the S-500 exoatmosferic ABM system.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1314
    Points : 1314
    Join date : 2016-11-07

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:21 am

    380km above horizon with current missile not including 40N6

    Second, SM-6 is not only not proven, judging by performance of PAC-3, it won't be anything to brag about. Looks great on paper when you throw stuff out for sale.

    Arrow

    Posts : 150
    Points : 150
    Join date : 2012-02-13

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  Arrow on Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:13 am

    380km above horizon with current missile not including 40N6 wrote:

    48N6DM missile has a 250 km max range.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1314
    Points : 1314
    Join date : 2016-11-07

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:21 am

    Arrow wrote:

    48N6DM missile has a 250 km max range.

    Preferred/advertised. Tests have had it extended to 360 - 380km by pushing it.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 950
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:22 am

    Arrow wrote:They can destroy all typy target including high maneuverable fighter more than 400 km with ARH guidance.



    LaughingLaughingLaughing 

    Oh not, wait, it is 4000 km range.....or it is nautical miles ?


    I remain always surprised by the level of garbage circulating on US built systems (in particular missile systems).

    Like it was not possible to produce a very accurate model (and this ,for the range of engement performances, is obviously true both for theirs and ours interceptors) of kinematic boundaries of a missile with those precise dimensions and aerodynamic layout  Laughing  

    SM-6 is absolutely not competive ,and not merely under the strict range of engagement factor, in comaparison even only with 48Н6ДМ, let alone 40Н6.
    In this particular sector over ocean have a very long way to go to reach where Алмаз-Антей was ten years ago.

    Arrow

    Posts : 150
    Points : 150
    Join date : 2012-02-13

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  Arrow on Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:48 am

    M-6 is absolutely not competive ,and not merely under the strict range of engagement factor, in comaparison even only with 48Н6ДМ, let alone 40Н6. In this particular sector over ocean have a very long way to go to reach where Алмаз-Антей was ten years ago. wrote:


    Ok what adventages has 48N6DM to SM-6 missile?
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 470
    Points : 466
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:36 am

    Arrow wrote:
    M-6 is absolutely not competive ,and not merely under the strict range of engagement factor, in comaparison even only with 48Н6ДМ, let alone 40Н6. In this particular sector over ocean have a very long way to go to reach where Алмаз-Антей was ten years ago. wrote:


    Ok what adventages has 48N6DM to SM-6 missile?

    Interesting, there is not so much certain information about the systems.
    The 48N6DM road mobile, using cold launch, the minimal target altitude and range shorter than the sm-6, and the warhead is three times bigger .

    The sm6 has active seeker, and maybe slightly longer range - depending on the size of the sensor suite .


    Arrow

    Posts : 150
    Points : 150
    Join date : 2012-02-13

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  Arrow on Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:50 pm

    range shorter than the sm-6, and the warhead is three times bigger . wrote:

    SM-6 can maneuver with greater overload on long distance. This missile has dual thrust solid rocket motor.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:01 am

    Most long range missiles have dual thrust rocket motors... it is just a more efficient way to propel weapons like missiles.

    Think of it like a rocket ramjet powered Kh-31... to start with it needs high energy high power thrust to accelerate it up to operating speed. The Kh-31 uses a rocket motor to do this but a missile like S-400 uses high energy rocket propellent that burns rapidly and generates a lot of thrust.

    Once the missile is up to operating speed then the high energy propulsion is a complete waste because it wont increase speed any more but still burns rapidly, so the solution for the Kh-31 is to start the ramjet motor which can be throttled to provide cruise speed to the target area and burn onboard fuel at a more efficient rate to make it last longer and extend the max range of the missile.

    With solid fuelled missiles like S-400 it is a layer of fuel that is baked like a cake... the inner layer burns first and the outer layer burns last... the inner layer burns hot and rapidly and generates a lot of thrust to accelerate and climb to high altitude and high speed. The next layer burns slower and provides thrust to maintain speed and height, but because it burns at a lower rate it burns for much longer than the higher energy fuel which greatly extends range.

    It is baked in at the production stage however and cannot be changed in flight, unlike the ramjet on the Kh-31 which can be throttled up or down to optimise speed and performance.

    BTW just looked up SM-6 on wiki and it says that this navy missile flys at mach 3.5 and its officially published range is 240km.

    That makes it totally inferior to the S-400 in terms of speed and range and deployment as the S-400 will be deployed in Russia, in the Russian Navy and in China...


    _________________
    “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
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 470
    Points : 466
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon Apr 24, 2017 6:37 am

    Arrow wrote:
    range shorter than the sm-6, and the warhead is three times bigger . wrote:

    SM-6 can maneuver with greater overload on long distance. This missile has dual thrust solid rocket motor.

    By simply the shape of the sm6 missile quite visible it using aerodynamic forces to manoeuvrer.


    Both missile designed for specific targets and missions, the propellant has the same efficiency, the airframe has the same weight, the electronic has similar weight ,due to this the mayor difference is the mission profile.

    avatar
    Benya

    Posts : 521
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2016-06-06
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  Benya on Mon May 01, 2017 8:26 pm

    Interesting video from Kommissar Binkov about how a nuclear war between US and Russia will unfold

    avatar
    jhelb

    Posts : 432
    Points : 499
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  jhelb on Wed May 10, 2017 4:34 am

    Mindstorm wrote:

    Oh not, wait, it is 4000 km range.....or it is nautical miles ?


    I remain always surprised by the level of garbage circulating on US built systems (in particular missile systems).

    Like it was not possible to produce a very accurate model (and this ,for the range of engement performances, is obviously true both for theirs and ours interceptors) of kinematic boundaries of a missile with those precise dimensions and aerodynamic layout  Laughing  

    SM-6 is absolutely not competive ,and not merely under the strict range of engagement factor, in comaparison even only with 48Н6ДМ, let alone 40Н6.
    In this particular sector over ocean have a very long way to go to reach where Алмаз-Антей was ten years ago.

    The lethality of submarine-borne US nuclear forces has increased drastically because of the advent of the new "Super Fuse" incorporated into the Navy’s W76-1/Mk4A warhead . Before the invention of this new fuzing mechanism, even the most accurate ballistic missile warheads might not detonate close enough to targets hardened against nuclear attack to destroy them. But the new super-fuze is designed to destroy fixed targets by detonating above and around a target in a much more effective way. Many Russian targets are not hardened to 10,000 pounds per square inch blast over pressure.

    http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578

    This should be a matter of huge concern for the Kremlin & immediate efforts must be made to neutralise this US threat.

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2969
    Points : 3000
    Join date : 2015-02-13
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  max steel on Wed May 10, 2017 10:21 am

    jhelb wrote:
    The lethality of submarine-borne US nuclear forces has increased drastically because of the advent of the new "Super Fuse" incorporated into the Navy’s W76-1/Mk4A warhead . Before the invention of this new fuzing mechanism, even the most accurate ballistic missile warheads might not detonate close enough to targets hardened against nuclear attack to destroy them. But the new super-fuze is designed to destroy fixed targets by detonating above and around a target in a much more effective way. Many Russian targets are not hardened to 10,000 pounds per square inch blast over pressure.

    http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578

    This should be a matter of huge concern for the Kremlin & immediate efforts must be made to neutralise this US threat.


    Ah! I read this puffpiece 2 months back , you can look for my comment there. If the probability of one SS-18 silo destroying by W-76 warhead is equal to 0.86 due to the "super-fuze", then the probability of destroying this silo by using two warheads will be 0.98. Basing on this fact the authors claim that 272 W-76s on SLBMs are sufficient to eliminate all the Russian ICBMs in silos. But the theory of probabilities dramatically changes this estimate towards increasing of the number of warheads needed.

    Indeed, assume the number of remaining SS-18 is equal to 50 (in fact a bit less). Then the probability of destroying all these 50 silos by using pairs of attacking W-76 warheads is equal to 0,98^50 = 0.36 ! Although the war readiness of these SS-18 is highly questionable, only one such ICBM that has survived, taken off and successfully deployed all the 10 warheads would become a catastrophe for the USA. PS:- SS-18 will be replaced by newly built Sarmat in 2018/19.

    The problem of the ICBMs eliminating by a first strike is not as simple as the authors think.

    "Since these radars cannot see over the horizon " . After I read phrase above in bulletin I stopped reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronezh_radar

    As per fuses and all that crap--obviously nuclear technologies improve and will continue to improve and so will their accuracy, high as it is today. But there is a reason why Russia more and more begins to rely on non-nuclear (conventional) containment and deterrent.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3101
    Points : 3222
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  kvs on Wed May 10, 2017 12:28 pm

    max steel wrote:
    jhelb wrote:
    The lethality of submarine-borne US nuclear forces has increased drastically because of the advent of the new "Super Fuse" incorporated into the Navy’s W76-1/Mk4A warhead . Before the invention of this new fuzing mechanism, even the most accurate ballistic missile warheads might not detonate close enough to targets hardened against nuclear attack to destroy them. But the new super-fuze is designed to destroy fixed targets by detonating above and around a target in a much more effective way. Many Russian targets are not hardened to 10,000 pounds per square inch blast over pressure.

    http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578

    This should be a matter of huge concern for the Kremlin & immediate efforts must be made to neutralise this US threat.


    Ah! I read this puffpiece 2 months back , you can look for my comment there. If the probability of one SS-18 silo destroying by W-76 warhead is equal to 0.86 due to the "super-fuze", then the probability of destroying this silo by using two warheads will be 0.98. Basing on this fact the authors claim that 272 W-76s on SLBMs are sufficient to eliminate all the Russian ICBMs in silos. But the theory of probabilities dramatically changes this estimate towards increasing of the number of warheads needed.

    Indeed, assume the number of remaining SS-18 is equal to 50 (in fact a bit less). Then the probability of destroying all these 50 silos by using pairs of attacking W-76 warheads is equal to 0,98^50 = 0.36 ! Although the war readiness of these SS-18 is highly questionable, only one such ICBM that has survived, taken off and successfully deployed all the 10 warheads would become a catastrophe for the USA. PS:- SS-18 will be replaced by newly built Sarmat in 2018/19.

    The problem of the ICBMs eliminating by a first strike is not as simple as the authors think.

    "Since these radars cannot see over the horizon " . After I read phrase above in bulletin I stopped reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronezh_radar

    As per fuses and all that crap--obviously nuclear technologies improve and will continue to improve and so will their accuracy, high as it is today. But there is a reason why Russia more and more begins to rely on non-nuclear (conventional) containment and deterrent.

    First strike masturbators are congenital idiots. Where do they get their ludicrous assumption that Russian silo ICBMs will not be launched shortly
    after Russia detects a first strike? No, Russian silo ICBMs do not need to be fueled up from empty since hydrazine can stay in tanks for years. And
    with all the anti-Russian war mongering going on in NATO right now, what makes these fucktards think that Russia will not have its silo ICBMs fueled up
    and waiting?

    The only chance that a first strike has of taking out any Russian ICBM is if there is a massive sabotage of the command and control system
    that occurs at the right moment. Aside from a coup in the Kremlin, this is as likely as swarms of pigs flying through the icy wastes of Hell.

    PS. I know about Americans wanking themselves senseless thinking that their "stealthy" B-2 and cruise missiles will not be detected until they
    have done their jobs. But seriously, this is patent grade A delusion.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1314
    Points : 1314
    Join date : 2016-11-07

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed May 10, 2017 4:07 pm

    Silo based ICBM's are becoming a thing in the past anyway for Russia with the growth of mobile ICBM's and soon to be railroad based. They also seem to forget that once they (nuclear forces) lose contact with Moscow or command center due to a nuke going off, they will launch theirs.

    Then again, I suppose many morons even on this website forgot Russia has SLBM's and mobile ICBM's with even building the railroad ICBM system. Not surprising. We seem to accumulate a lot of morons on this forum who have no capabilities of reading comprehension.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1314
    Points : 1314
    Join date : 2016-11-07

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri May 12, 2017 7:14 am

    https://southfront.org/making-sense-of-the-super-fuse-scare/

    And here is a good long explanation to what I was saying.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 12, 2017 10:10 pm

    Actually the Soviets and Russians have ICBMs fitted with communications systems so even if Moscow is destroyed in a sneak attack the communications rocket will be launched and give launch commands to the Strategic rocket forces so the silos will be empty before any western missile reaches it.

    More importantly the super fusing to destroy silos is a contradiction in terms... like a fuse on an aircraft bomb trying to hit an underground silo... air bursts are pointless... only a direct hit with a penetrating fuse would work and you don't need a super fuse for that... that is just stupid.

    A nuclear warhead is a chain of reactions that need to operate perfectly to create a full power detonation of the main charge... smacking the warhead into the ground at more than 4 km per second will pulverise any contents and make them ineffective mush.

    Any S-400 system nearby should be able to intercept ground hitting ICBM warheads because the atmosphere will slow the warheads down to less than the 4.8km/s flight speed limit of the S-400 system.

    S-500 will be able to hit warheads flying past going for other targets too.


    _________________
    “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 : 432
    Points : 499
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  jhelb on Sun May 14, 2017 11:14 pm

    GarryB wrote:Any S-400 system nearby should be able to intercept ground hitting ICBM warheads because the atmosphere will slow the warheads down to less than the 4.8km/s flight speed limit of the S-400 system..

    That would have to be an endo atmospheric intercept, which is not safe. If it is not an exo atmospheric intercept you are dead.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3101
    Points : 3222
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  kvs on Mon May 15, 2017 1:24 am

    jhelb wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Any S-400 system nearby should be able to intercept ground hitting ICBM warheads because the atmosphere will slow the warheads down to less than the 4.8km/s flight speed limit of the S-400 system..

    That would have to be an endo atmospheric intercept, which is not safe. If it is not an exo atmospheric intercept you are dead.

    Not safe in what sense? Stopping a nuke warhead detonation over its intended target is 100% success. Contamination is unavoidable. But mechanical
    disruption of a nuclear warhead will produce contamination that is vastly more localized than any nuclear detonation and Russia can clean it
    up.

    As far as the success rate, there is no difference between end and exo atmospheric cases. In fact, maneuverability makes the exo targeting
    harder (assuming America will use it). A nuclear warhead after it is released from the bus is on a purely ballistic trajectory and easier to intercept.
    Of course, if the warhead is a maneuverable glider it is hard to intercept.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 15, 2017 10:25 pm

    Targeting silos means only ground burst nukes will be effective... hitting them anywhere above the ground... even 2km above the ground will greatly reduce their effect on missiles in silos to the point where the silos are undamaged and can be reloaded for round two...

    Intercepting the incoming missiles inside or outside the atmosphere is not really important.

    The silos are free because they have already been built and offer very good protection from almost anything except a direct hit... which can be defeated with a TOR battery...

    Anything that does not hit the ground and explode is a win... there is no farmland anywhere near... these silos are in the middle of nowhere.


    _________________
    “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: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:27 am