Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Share
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5946
    Points : 5981
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:12 pm

    Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

    While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6860
    Points : 6960
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:57 pm

    Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

    While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.

    Agreed.

    I always found the whole discussion hilarious.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 653
    Points : 647
    Join date : 2016-11-13

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

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:57 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

    While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.

    Agreed.

    I always found the whole discussion hilarious.

    Not only ICBM silos can be primary target, but C&C bunkers, SSBNs moored to pliers , capital ships and so on.

    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 653
    Points : 647
    Join date : 2016-11-13

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

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:39 pm

    Actualy I live not that far from a primary strategical nuclear target ,and the blast can destroy completly my house if the warhead miss the target by 1 km.

    So I hope that they using precise guidance : )
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5946
    Points : 5981
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Tue Apr 18, 2017 12:50 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

    While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.

    Agreed.

    I always found the whole discussion hilarious.

    Not only ICBM silos can be primary target, but C&C bunkers, SSBNs moored to pliers , capital ships and so on.


    Chance that someone would use an ICBM aganist moving capital ship are...basically zero.

    When its about stationary command and control bunkers etc, sure, however even those are not going to care much if it exploded on top of them or 200m to the left, effect i am afraid will be the same, alot of dead people.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:36 am

    Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

    While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.

    Well said.

    The stupid misguided fixation with accuracy by the US is contagious and debilitating.

    The US wants accuracy because it wants first strike weapons to take out enemy military capacity in a preemptive first strike.

    Russia needs the power to destroy the enemy... as mentioned 200m CEP is plenty for this mission.

    Not only ICBM silos can be primary target, but C&C bunkers, SSBNs moored to pliers , capital ships and so on.

    Accuracy does not help in dealing with deep bunkers... especially hidden ones... you can see entrances and vents on satellite images but the actual location of underground bases is totally secret and largely invulnerable to all but the heaviest of warheads.

    Even a trench dug into the ground where a train can roll down into it and be protected by dirt on three sides will protect the train from a very powerful and very close blast... nuclear or otherwise.

    The Siberian rail line could be fitted with side rails that lead off at 90 degrees from the track that drop down 20 metres and have three high dirt mounds on either side and behind... anything but a direct hit and a train in that revetment would be totally safe... put hundreds or thousands along every track in Russia and those nuke trains... given 5 minutes warning could all take cover in the nearest siding and be totally safe from nuclear attack. The US wont know which siding will be used and there will be thousands so no chance of hitting them all or even a small fraction of them... they would not even need a roof... just an open shallow hole.

    Chance that someone would use an ICBM aganist moving capital ship are...basically zero.

    Might use them to hit capital ships and carriers in port if they happen to be there at the time of the attack I suppose... but being a mobile target again high accuracy wont help much...

    exploded on top of them or 200m to the left, effect i am afraid will be the same, alot of dead people.

    Even if it does not penetrate you still get a lot of trapped people... and not much to come out to when you can get out.

    What the Russian ICBMs and SLBMs and cruise missiles don't kill... red neck americans with their guns will finish off... they gotta eat too yah know... Smile

    Vann7

    Posts : 3781
    Points : 3885
    Join date : 2012-05-16

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

    Post  Vann7 on Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:19 am



    Who do the first preventive full strike nuclear attack ,and take the other side by Surprise ,
    will be able to destroy its most important infrastructure ,military bases and economic
    zones first.

    So unless Russia change its policy of not striking first , it will be in a serious disadvantage to
    stop US military. If you just target cities ,it will not stop the military power of any nation .
    But if you strike major economic zones , major military bases and bunkers. then you can
    retreat that destroy the capabilities of that nation to continue fighting.

    For example , lets Say a madman takes control of US policy , and orders a full all or nothing
    strike on Russia , regardless of millions casualties that could happen in both sides. That is a
    massive strike of couple of thousands missiles at ST peterburg ,Moscow ,and all major Russian naval bases and submarines and warships.

    That will not necessarily defeat the Russia army ,but will significantly neutralize Russia
    capabilities to strike US or NATO ,and the best they could do is just target without precision
    Europe and US ,targeting cities. Taking into account that US most important military bases
    are near civilian zones in Europe in nations Russia will like to have close relations like Germany and Italy. they also have bases in Canada and Norway etc. Then Russia will be at risk of losing
    territory like Kalingrad if lose all its navy in a surprise attack. If Russia factories are nuked ,then neither Russia will have capability to produce tanks or rockets. if Russia space program nuked same. So in a nuclear war , US will have a huge advantage because their policy justify
    a first nuclear strike. and it cant destroy in such strike 90% of Russia offensive capabilities and only limit to defense , that is ,to only limit is fighting capability only to fight back ground invasions. If that is the case ,then it will be a victory since US will remain largely untouched a dozens military bases nuked , and cities too ,but it will not stop US navy or airforce or army
    if Russia allows US to carefully plan a full scale nuclear strike on Russia first.

    If Russia is the one that does a full decapitation ,full scale ,all or nothing nuclear strike . then it will be the other way. Russia can strike US major military and naval bases , strike air craft carriers , US military industry ,and shot down the most important NATO satellites.

    Means that if you have a well organized full scale attack either by US or RUssia starting it,,on top 50 or top 100 targets . that happens all of them at same time ,to keep the element of surprise. then in theory it should be possible to defeat a nation capability to fight outside of
    its borders. Which essentially makes that nation the winner. For at least managing to retreat that country 20 years back in time if not 30. Is for nothing that NATO trains for an invasion
    on Russia ,after they being nuked. This is why US store tanks in Norway. right next to Russian borders in a major fortress inside caves. Because in the ultimate case of a nuclear war , they
    will use nukes to clear first and later invade Russia.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 653
    Points : 647
    Join date : 2016-11-13

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

    Post  Singular_Transform on Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:37 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

    While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.

    Agreed.

    I always found the whole discussion hilarious.

    Not only ICBM silos can be primary target, but C&C bunkers, SSBNs moored to pliers , capital ships and so on.


    Chance that someone would use an ICBM aganist moving capital ship are...basically zero.

    When its about stationary command and control bunkers etc, sure, however even those are not going to care much if it exploded on top of them or 200m to the left, effect i am afraid will be the same, alot of dead people.
    You using the ICBMs against the home port of the SSBNs and other capital ships.

    Half - three quoter of the SSBNs at the home port next to the pier at any given moment.

    So, if you won't hit it then in 24hours that will launch from the port the missiles as well .
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:10 am

    Vann... to mount a surprise attack you need to be able to surprise your enemy.

    When your military is riddled with honest people who entered the service thinking the US were the good guys are not going to take kindly to backstabbing murder of the whole world.

    Even without warning from spies satellites will give plenty of warning of an attack... B-2 bases are not monitored for nothing... sea based sensor arrays are not there for nothing... enormous radars the size of very large buildings are not sprouting up all over the Russian territory for nothing.

    The fact is that the US couldn't surprise Russia with an effective surprise attack even if it wanted to... those naked targets are protected by a fairly large air force and lots of batteries of some of the best SAMs on the planet and covered in the strongest IADS the world has ever known and it is getting stronger by the day... shortly the S-500 will be added and S-350 and Verba etc etc.

    Arrow

    Posts : 211
    Points : 211
    Join date : 2012-02-12

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

    Post  Arrow on Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:58 pm

    best SAMs on the planet and covered in the strongest IADS the world has ever known and it is getting stronger by the day... shortly the S-500 will be added and S-350 and Verba etc etc. wrote:

    So Russia has strongest IADS in the world? In Russia only a few place has a strong IADS . Moscow, Petersburg, Crimea , Kaliningrad.

    Best SAM? USA has very good SAM system and better than Russia ABM system SM-3, GBI
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3729
    Points : 3834
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:35 pm

    Arrow wrote:

    So Russia has strongest IADS in the world? In Russia only a few place has a strong IADS . Moscow, Petersburg, Crimea , Kaliningrad.

    Best SAM? USA has  very good SAM system and better than Russia ABM system SM-3, GBI

    How do you know? Really, how do you have any clue about US ABM missiles and how "superior" they are to Russian
    missiles? You just swallow all the masturbatory yap about innate superiority of the US and its pals in everything technical.
    Just because. Russians are a collection of mud hut dwellers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%E2%80%93235_anti-ballistic_missile_system

    Oops, zero content.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3

    Mach 15, yep Russians could never design a missile that does Mach 15.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:40 pm

    So Russia has strongest IADS in the world? In Russia only a few place has a strong IADS . Moscow, Petersburg, Crimea , Kaliningrad.

    Which country has a better IADS?

    The Russians have the VKKO, a dedicated force to defend Russian Airspace.

    It is not 100%... there is no point in protecting empty tundra, but then the southern borders of the US are a sieve to drug planes...

    Best SAM? USA has very good SAM system and better than Russia ABM system SM-3, GBI

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

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

    Arrow

    Posts : 211
    Points : 211
    Join date : 2012-02-12

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

    Post  Arrow on Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:48 pm

    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 : 2329
    Points : 2317
    Join date : 2016-11-06

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

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:21 pm

    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 : 211
    Points : 211
    Join date : 2012-02-12

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

    Post  Arrow on Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:13 pm

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

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

    Posts : 2329
    Points : 2317
    Join date : 2016-11-06

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

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:21 pm

    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 : 797
    Points : 964
    Join date : 2011-07-20

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

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:22 pm

    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 : 211
    Points : 211
    Join date : 2012-02-12

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

    Post  Arrow on Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:48 pm

    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 : 653
    Points : 647
    Join date : 2016-11-13

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

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:36 pm

    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 : 211
    Points : 211
    Join date : 2012-02-12

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

    Post  Arrow on Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:50 am

    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 : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:01 pm

    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...
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 653
    Points : 647
    Join date : 2016-11-13

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

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:37 pm

    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 : 527
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

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

    Post  Benya on Mon May 01, 2017 10:26 am

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

    avatar
    jhelb

    Posts : 461
    Points : 534
    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 Tue May 09, 2017 6:34 pm

    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 : 2945
    Points : 2970
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Wed May 10, 2017 12:21 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.

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:55 pm