Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Share

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 7:21 am

    question: what radar jamming means? i suppose is that something eliberate waves at the same wave lenght whit the enemy so that you are "everywhere" for him. and is all about how much radar waves lenght you can cover per second

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Mike E on Thu Feb 05, 2015 7:24 am

    victor1985 wrote:what about a fish like rocket that swim in ocean? completelly silenced and deep swiming.
    that would avoid AA defense.
    and about AA defense .....can a rocket be made from another materials rather than metal? cause i think to the radar. also i think to materials that not deviate radar waves or absorbe it but refract so concetrate them in another point.
    Creative... But almost entirely the things of dreams and nothing more. I personally like the idea of stationing SLBM's in above-the-ocean-floor silos as a back up to boomers failing. Russia could station a couple in the arctic with US coverage etc. Just would have to keep them undetected.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:24 am

    yes but the "engine" is just a nozzle which guide the thrust. having a single engine reduce the problems. how much after all a nozzle engine can weight? its weight is not important. or you reffer to the mix space tank of the oxidant and the fuel? that cant either weight too much...... advantages of less problems whit single engine are more that those of reduced weight.

    A modern rocket engine is not that just a nozzle... it has pipes and pumps and chambers and its nozzle has a fixed shape optimised for a specific thrust.

    Smaller engines have differently shaped nozzles for different environments... a nozzle operating at very high altitude or in space will not be the same as one designed for take off.

    [quote]but that would means consume fast fuel. ofcourse add speed but sure the tehnicians knows which reach deeped distance: a bigger engine but fast consume or a small engine but more stages and reduced weight[/qutoe]

    The first stage needs the most thrust and needs to propel the whole rocket upwards and accelerate it to a reasonable speed so when it is dropped the next engine can continue to accelerate the rocket upwards at higher and higher speeds.

    If the next rocket is underpowered the rocket could easily slow down too rapidly and fail.

    what about a fish like rocket that swim in ocean? completelly silenced and deep swiming.
    that would avoid AA defense.

    Lots of things in the water it could bump into like fish and old fishing nets and the ice that is the north pole.

    there is potential for long range underwater cruise missiles, but the water is about 80 times more dense than air so it would take 80 times more energy to get it there...

    and about AA defense .....can a rocket be made from another materials rather than metal? cause i think to the radar. also i think to materials that not deviate radar waves or absorbe it but refract so concetrate them in another point.

    You could make warheads out of all sorts of materials, but generally it is their speed that gets them through.

    question: what radar jamming means? i suppose is that something eliberate waves at the same wave lenght whit the enemy so that you are "everywhere" for him. and is all about how much radar waves lenght you can cover per second

    In WWII chaff would be cut to the right length for a particular wavelength that would reflect the radar waves so strongly that the radar screen would be covered in returns so the actual target would not be visible.



    _________________
    “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

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:51 am

    Mike E wrote:
    victor1985 wrote:what about a fish like rocket that swim in ocean? completelly silenced and deep swiming.
    that would avoid AA defense.
    and about AA defense .....can a rocket be made from another materials rather than metal? cause i think to the radar. also i think to materials that not deviate radar waves or absorbe it but refract so concetrate them in another point.
    Creative... But almost entirely the things of dreams and nothing more. I personally like the idea of stationing SLBM's in above-the-ocean-floor silos as a back up to boomers failing. Russia could station a couple in the arctic with US coverage etc. Just would have to keep them undetected.
    point is that a fish like ICBM would avoid sonar and also does not need a huge tank for fuel or a nuclear reactor. only need batteries to give the energy to the fish like tails. think also that could be put somewhere at close to target at bottom of the ocean and stay there and activate himself when is the case .......

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:11 am

    GarryB wrote:
    yes but the "engine" is just a nozzle which guide the thrust. having a single engine reduce the problems. how much after all a nozzle engine can weight? its weight is not important. or you reffer to the mix space tank of the oxidant and the fuel? that cant either weight too much...... advantages of less problems whit single engine are more that those of reduced weight.

    A modern rocket engine is not that just a nozzle... it has pipes and pumps and chambers and its nozzle has a fixed shape optimised for a specific thrust.

    Smaller engines have differently shaped nozzles for different environments... a nozzle operating at very high altitude or in space will not be the same as one designed for take off.

    but that would means consume fast fuel. ofcourse add speed but sure the tehnicians knows which reach deeped distance: a bigger engine but fast consume or a small engine but more stages and reduced weight[/qutoe]

    The first stage needs the most thrust and needs to propel the whole rocket upwards and accelerate it to a reasonable speed so when it is dropped the next engine can continue to accelerate the rocket upwards at higher and higher speeds.

    If the next rocket is underpowered the rocket could easily slow down too rapidly and fail.

    what about a fish like rocket that swim in ocean? completelly silenced and deep swiming.
    that would avoid AA defense.

    Lots of things in the water it could bump into like fish and old fishing nets and the ice that is the north pole.

    there is potential for long range underwater cruise missiles, but the water is about 80 times more dense than air so it would take 80 times more energy to get it there...

    and about AA defense .....can a rocket be made from another materials rather than metal? cause i think to the radar. also i think to materials that not deviate radar waves or absorbe it but refract so concetrate them in another point.

    You could make warheads out of all sorts of materials, but generally it is their speed that gets them through.

    question: what radar jamming means? i suppose is that something eliberate waves at the same wave lenght whit the enemy so that you are "everywhere" for him. and is all about how much radar waves lenght you can cover per second

    In WWII chaff would be cut to the right length for a particular wavelength that would reflect the radar waves so strongly that the radar screen would be covered in returns so the actual target would not be visible.

    yes but the rocket can be made to operate on its entirely flight at the same altitude. so would need the same engine. also a small first engine can be added that puts rocket near space where another engine designed for that altitude take the control. also the last stage don't necesarry be in athmosphere. the middle stage could deliver the warhead at top of target but high altitude where to be dropped. then corectors of fall wings should put the warhead right above target whitout a rocket engine. just like a planor.
    the most thrust doesn't necessary mean the biggest fuel tank. means just more fuel allowed throught pipelines.
    also is not indicated that a rocket fly at high altitude because can be quick observate by satellite. close to the ground can camouflate between mountains and hills where radar waves cant reach. also the curbure of earth prevent be discover by radar waves from long distance. this is also avaible at plains.

    well being a huge ICBM would scare all fish. and would swim at deep where the nets cant reach. and about the ice depend the latitude which the ICBM swim.
    well for a 3 metter missile you need a 2 metter by 40 cm cilynder full of fuel. for a 3 metter car whit electric engine you need a 200 kg and 1 by 1 metter battery. so its close.......think also that the battery could recharge from water waves turned into electricity or by reach surface and expose a solar panel to light.

    also think that the new small reactor tehnologies will change all this. a 10 metters mini sub whit warheads on board and fish like tail could reach totally undercover

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:56 am

    point is that a fish like ICBM would avoid sonar and also does not need a huge tank for fuel or a nuclear reactor. only need batteries to give the energy to the fish like tails. think also that could be put somewhere at close to target at bottom of the ocean and stay there and activate himself when is the case .......

    Even if you could get a fish to carry a nuclear warhead it would still appear on sonar... and it would need an enormous fuel tank or nuclear reactor to get from Russia to the US... and it would need some sort of something else to get out of the water and move inland to where the targets are...

    they already have ICBMs that hide in the water like fish... they are called SLBMs. and they can't hide from sonar either.

    yes but the rocket can be made to operate on its entirely flight at the same altitude.

    There is only one altitude that rockets operate most efficiently and that is space. the whole purpose of the big engines and large amounts of fuel (and weight) in the first stage of a rocket is to get the whole contraption into space.

    so would need the same engine.

    No it would not.

    the only 10,000km range missile that operates the same engine all the way would be a 3-5 ton cruise missile with a small wing, subsonic speed and a small jet engine and a few rocket boosters to get it airborne.

    also a small first engine can be added that puts rocket near space where another engine designed for that altitude take the control.

    You are not understanding... the fuel needed to move a rocket 10,000km weighs over 80 tons... no small engine will take all of that into space or anywhere near space... it will just sit on the launch pad burning and when 99% of the fuel is burned up then it will start to lift off because it is now light enough. Unfortunately all that fuel was supposed to get it airborne and accelerating it to high speed and it was wasted on the pad so now you have a 500km rocket.

    also the last stage don't necesarry be in athmosphere. the middle stage could deliver the warhead at top of target but high altitude where to be dropped. then corectors of fall wings should put the warhead right above target whitout a rocket engine. just like a planor.
    the most thrust doesn't necessary mean the biggest fuel tank. means just more fuel allowed throught pipelines.

    The third stage normally does not operate within the atmosphere.

    Adding wings doesn't help because they are only effective inside the atmosphere... if you are spending most of your flight time inside the atmosphere it makes rather more sense to not carry oxygen and fuel... use a jet engine and call it a cruise missile.

    also is not indicated that a rocket fly at high altitude because can be quick observate by satellite. close to the ground can camouflate between mountains and hills where radar waves cant reach. also the curbure of earth prevent be discover by radar waves from long distance. this is also avaible at plains.

    There does not exist a rocket that can fly 10,000km at low altitude except nuclear powered jet and it was developed in the US in the 60s and could only fly at mach 3.

    well being a huge ICBM would scare all fish. and would swim at deep where the nets cant reach. and about the ice depend the latitude which the ICBM swim.
    well for a 3 metter missile you need a 2 metter by 40 cm cilynder full of fuel. for a 3 metter car whit electric engine you need a 200 kg and 1 by 1 metter battery. so its close.......think also that the battery could recharge from water waves turned into electricity or by reach surface and expose a solar panel to light.

    also think that the new small reactor tehnologies will change all this. a 10 metters mini sub whit warheads on board and fish like tail could reach totally undercover

    The rocket motor of an underwater ICBM will reveal its presence. A fish tail powered missile would be far too slow and would not be able to leave the water to hit targets away from the coastline.

    Your ideas are interesting, but none offer any real advantage over the methods currently used.

    A three stage rocket gets from russia to us quickly enough and efficiently enough.


    _________________
    “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

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:38 pm

    point is that a fish tail would have fish like movement so fish like noise. and doesnt matter that is slow but that would reach undercover the enemy.powered by a small nuclear engine would mean no diesel engine that are noisy but electric ones. remember that today are experiments whit small reactors like 2x2 metters. that would mean reduced weight , small electric engine and no noise from the spinning fan.
    at close to land a small 3 metters missile would carry the warhead above a near town. or a 50 km far away town. also detonated near land would mean that the radioactive cloud would be carryed by wind and in minutes would kill anyone. also that could be used to destroy naval military bases, near sea military bases, or ships in his path. a missile like this could be suprisingly detonated when a first strike is planned by enemy. planes could be destroyed in air, also could cause a tsunami ....... also the emp would destroy all enemy comunications.
    think also at posibilities. such ships could stay at half distance to enemy and activate themself when a navy enemy fleet reach the zone. no crew needed just a submarine wire that give the signal to detonate. or at 5 to 5 km a ship like this could give order to activate.......
    or they could simply see when a large fleet (like 10 ships) , big ships, are comming togheter and activate themself. and recognize own fleet by emitters.


    Last edited by victor1985 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 2:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:50 pm

    or they can be full noise stealth. think at a imitation of animal muscle...... that is not a engine at all....

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:52 pm

    think at a bird like imitation. whit a nuke inside......

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:58 pm

    also i think at something. lets say we have a bird like that. we could transforme in a radar wave emitter (the radar waves that are being emitted are get by land based radars). in this you would not need a antenna that receive the signal back. so you dont need a metal that reflect back to enemy the waves. you will say that this bird must also have exposed pieces of metal. but they can be reflected far away.
    the nicest thing would be a material that permit waves to get out but not get in ..........

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 381
    Points : 376
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Rmf on Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:16 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    RTN wrote:
    GarryB wrote: The engines are used to climb and accelerate the missile to high speed and high altitude and then the warhead coasts to the target area and falls onto the target.

    I think Russia can adopt a scoring mechanism to ascertain missile performance during tests similar to that of the US. USAF has a very simple but effective scoring mechanism to see how missile tests perform at the basic level (apart from detailed telemetry etc). they assign a score to each phase.

    For example  booster ignition and into the air - 1 point.
    transition to flight - 1 point.
    navigation- 2 points etc.

    This scoring mechanism allows for iterative improvements as/when necessary.

    Some Youtube top 10 video scoring system?

    They have a evaluation system that is integrated and transfers data which is monitored by VKO space center. It monitors operation of missile during launch and flight and gives data of fuel consumption, g-load levels, temperatures, phases of launch, trajectory etc pp, but nice to know US relies on YT top 10 video scoring methods....high-tech.

    russia does use that system every component is evaluated ,but it doesnt call it that way. anyway with icbm it is a clear cut ,either you deliver on place and time or you dont.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:10 am

    point is that a fish tail would have fish like movement so fish like noise.

    No matter how you design it mechanically it is not going to sound like a fish no matter how much it behaves like one.

    at close to land a small 3 metters missile would carry the warhead above a near town. or a 50 km far away town. also detonated near land would mean that the radioactive cloud would be carryed by wind and in minutes would kill anyone.

    So it is carrying a warhead 6,000km to the US and a 3 metre long missile... this fish is getting pretty big...

    radioactive clouds kill over periods of months and years, not minutes and seconds.

    The most dangerous radiation does not extend much beyond the blast radius of a modern weapon so most people will be killed by the explosion and those that would have been killed by the radiation generally get killed by the heat and blast long before the radiation gets a chance to kill them.

    also that could be used to destroy naval military bases, near sea military bases, or ships in his path.

    Such a result could also be achieved by firing a nuclear armed torpedo into an enemy port.

    a missile like this could be suprisingly detonated when a first strike is planned by enemy. planes could be destroyed in air, also could cause a tsunami .......

    Nuclear weapons tend to vapourise water which is not so efficient for making Tsunamis.

    also the emp would destroy all enemy comunications.

    Strong EMP pulses are created by nuclear weapons but only when detonated in the upper atmosphere.

    the ionisation of the air would disrupt communications and radar for short period.

    think at a bird like imitation. whit a nuke inside......

    Birds are generally very small very light structure things... to carry a nuclear warhead it would need to be big and to carry it thousands of kms it will need to be huge and not really convincing as a bird any more.

    Same problem with the fish.

    At the end of the day an ICBM and a SLBM and a cruise missile will do the same job rather more efficiently and effectively.

    also i think at something. lets say we have a bird like that. we could transforme in a radar wave emitter (the radar waves that are being emitted are get by land based radars). in this you would not need a antenna that receive the signal back. so you dont need a metal that reflect back to enemy the waves. you will say that this bird must also have exposed pieces of metal. but they can be reflected far away.
    the nicest thing would be a material that permit waves to get out but not get in ..........

    I don't understand... if you have an artificial bird flying with a nuclear weapon and it has a radar why would it need to send a signal and not receive the signal return?

    the whole point of sending out radar is to receive the signal and detect targets with it...


    _________________
    “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

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Feb 06, 2015 2:02 pm

    point is receive an signal means have a antenna which reflect enemy radar waves. just emiting one no antenna mean that even if the enemy receive it he cant not use the doppler efect..... so you are invisible to him. also your own wave receptor would stay on ground on a beach lets say and receive the waves your birds emitted and have hit the enemy planes.....

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Feb 06, 2015 2:07 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    point is that a fish tail would have fish like movement so fish like noise.

    No matter how you design it mechanically it is not going to sound like a fish no matter how much it behaves like one.

    at close to land a small 3 metters missile would carry the warhead above a near town. or a 50 km far away town. also detonated near land would mean that the radioactive cloud would be carryed by wind and in minutes would kill anyone.

    So it is carrying a warhead 6,000km to the US and a 3 metre long missile... this fish is getting pretty big...

    radioactive clouds kill over periods of months and years, not minutes and seconds.

    The most dangerous radiation does not extend much beyond the blast radius of a modern weapon so most people will be killed by the explosion and those that would have been killed by the radiation generally get killed by the heat and blast long before the radiation gets a chance to kill them.

    also that could be used to destroy naval military bases, near sea military bases, or ships in his path.

    Such a result could also be achieved by firing a nuclear armed torpedo into an enemy port.

    a missile like this could be suprisingly detonated when a first strike is planned by enemy. planes could be destroyed in air, also could cause a tsunami .......

    Nuclear weapons tend to vapourise water which is not so efficient for making Tsunamis.

    also the emp would destroy all enemy comunications.

    Strong EMP pulses are created by nuclear weapons but only when detonated in the upper atmosphere.

    the ionisation of the air would disrupt communications and radar for short period.

    think at a bird like imitation. whit a nuke inside......

    Birds are generally very small very light structure things... to carry a nuclear warhead it would need to be big and to carry it thousands of kms it will need to be huge and not really convincing as a bird any more.

    Same problem with the fish.

    At the end of the day an ICBM and a SLBM and a cruise missile will do the same job rather more efficiently and effectively.

    also i think at something. lets say we have a bird like that. we could transforme in a radar wave emitter (the radar waves that are being emitted are get by land based radars). in this you would not need a antenna that receive the signal back. so you dont need a metal that reflect back to enemy the waves. you will say that this bird must also have exposed pieces of metal. but they can be reflected far away.
    the nicest thing would be a material that permit waves to get out but not get in ..........

    I don't understand... if you have an artificial bird flying with a nuclear weapon and it has a radar why would it need to send a signal and not receive the signal return?

    the whole point of sending out radar is to receive the signal and detect targets with it...
    you missed the one whit animal like muscle. mean artificial muscle. they sure not have mecanical noise .....
    well this fish aint bigger than a submarine.....
    no matter when they kill but that they kill. also lets think that i've said would be detonated near city next sea. mean on a beach .... this fish would get very close and would destroy anything on a 5 km radius (or more cause the two bombs from nagasaki and hiroshima had 2 km radius but modern bombs are moooore powerfull).

    yes a torpedo but those need to be fired by big noisy and expensive submarines.....

    well yes but nuclear blast like every blast form a shockwave .......

    point is that this fish would wait and like i said launch a rocket. wich could reach atmosphere.....

    think then to an entire group of birds each whith a small warhead..... a big fish would not be so suprisingly....also who the hell watch all day a bird or a fish.....they could be anywhere......

    well an ICBM has fuel that is expensive.....also still the satellites could se the ICBM

    lets say the birds have human like skin. how does that affect observations by radar? mean skin instead of metal

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 07, 2015 6:34 am

    point is receive an signal means have a antenna which reflect enemy radar waves.

    If you reflect enemy radar waves then he detects you... that is how a radar works... it sends out a signal and then listens for a return signal... it can then use the direction the signal came from and the time it took to go out and return to work out where you are.

    It will process the Doppler shift of the wave itself to determine whether you are moving closer or moving away.

    you missed the one whit animal like muscle. mean artificial muscle. they sure not have mecanical noise .....

    Even if it used a real animal muscle it would take months to swim to the US...

    well this fish aint bigger than a submarine.....

    You want it to swim half way round the world... it is not going to be smaller than a whale.

    this fish would get very close and would destroy anything on a 5 km radius (or more cause the two bombs from nagasaki and hiroshima had 2 km radius but modern bombs are moooore powerfull).

    The bombs that were used against Japan were detonated directly above two major cities... not in the water in a port.

    yes a torpedo but those need to be fired by big noisy and expensive submarines.....

    No they don't. You can launch a torpedo from almost any naval vessel above about a 50 ton weight... and there is no reason why they would need to launch it right there and then.

    They could simply drop a container with a torpedo in it just off the coast of an enemy and it can sit on the ocean floor thousands of metres deep waiting for a launch command to send it speeding into the enemy port...

    well yes but nuclear blast like every blast form a shockwave .......

    Very true but shockwaves pass through water... they don't literally move the water sideways like say an earthquake does. Without displacing lots of water there is little chance in creating a Tsunami on its own.

    point is that this fish would wait and like i said launch a rocket. wich could reach atmosphere.....

    Wouldn't just be easier to use an ICBM stored safely inside your country? What happens if you deploy these fish because tensions are starting to deteriorate with the enemy and then half your attack fish get caught by South Korean fishing trawlers?


    think then to an entire group of birds each whith a small warhead..... a big fish would not be so suprisingly....also who the hell watch all day a bird or a fish.....they could be anywhere......

    Even a Tiny nuclear warhead will weigh more than a coconut... even if the radar waves pass through the birds, they will detect the warhead and attract attention of air defence forces.


    well an ICBM has fuel that is expensive.....also still the satellites could se the ICBM

    Expensive but it works and who cares if enemy satellites can see ICBMs... that is a good thing... better they know you have them rather than trained fish or birds because if they see you race pidgeons they might not respect your ability to destroy them than if they saw your ICBM field.

    As long as you can launch your ICBM before his SLBMs or ICBMs reach you then it doesn't matter what his satellites see.

    lets say the birds have human like skin. how does that affect observations by radar? mean skin instead of metal

    If the birds have human skin that radar waves pass right through then instead of getting a radar return of a metal skinned bird the enemy will get a radar return of the bones and internal organs of a bird and the metal exterior of a nuclear bomb.

    BTW the Russians use old SAMs as targets for new SAM troops and so they have developed old SAMs into drone targets for export too. this means they have released relevant data for those old SAMs in the interests of sales.

    This means I can say that the Peniye Training Target system that uses the SA-6 surface to air missile system has a radar cross section of 1m with a radio transparent nose. When fitted with a metal fairing over the nose it has a RCS of between 0.1 and 0.3, so the difference between having a smooth pointed metal nose and not having a metal nose is between 3 and 10 times difference in RCS.

    For the purposes of imitating an air threat it can be fitted with a corner reflector (luneberg lens) under the radio transparent nose which gives a RCS of between 3 and 5 metres square.

    In other words most metal skins reduce RCS by not being a flat reflector or having lots of corner reflectors like the internals of a missile or aircraft.


    _________________
    “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

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:34 am

    point is those fishes can be use at half distance to enemy for patrol. being totally like a whale means that the enemy must shoot down all whales in the way for getting secure cause he doesnt know which is the real whale and which is your imitating whale machine. that mean spent the ammunition on false targets and getting near you whitout ammunition. means also not having ammunition for defending own surface of water ships which carry missiles like tomahawk.......
    placed before conflict begins in the vast ocean means a true advantage......
    ps the distance between russia and us is not half way world.........

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:57 am

    new yourk for example is a port....... los angeles, chicago, all california is close to sea.....
    and the fish would just reach close to beach , rise fast above water and detonate. the land wich the cities are are at level of sea .....so the nuclear blast will enter 4-5 km in california , los angeles, chicago, new york and others...... that mean 500000 people killed or more if hits the skyscrappers ....think that new york has on 3 km radius 1 milion people........

    yes but every vessel that close to US is verified.....even if you put a torpedo whit nuclear warhead to swim from that point to US beach still must be stealth....and what is more stealth than a animal muscle ? you have said that a small nuclear warhead is like a coconut. well that fits into a shark like imitation....


    well maibe in the future a way of counter the ICMB would be found ...... and then would be needed for other weapons... those fishes would not get too close to enemy coast that the south korea catch them.... they would wait deep undewater ......

    point is on radar EVERY bird return signals. and if the signal returned is similar whit the real birds then enemy would need to shoot down every bird to find the nuclear one. that means thousands of birds if not a milion ... thing that the imitating bird could have bones like materials and give exact signals like bones.... and ofcouse that means they will have to defend every square metter border of US cause a bird can get by anywhere......
    and also isnt that the nuclear warheads today get smaller but same powerfull? one day a egg like bomb would be dropped ..... even if a egg like bomb destroy just 500 metters ....500 metters radius mean 2 skyscrappers.......

    if you launch ICBMs and SLBMs they still will have time to press the nuclear button. whit fishes you could destroy in seconds important communication nods or ICBM silos........

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Sat Feb 07, 2015 8:06 am

    think also that is something called nano mecanics......one day complicated and efficient machine would weight just like a fly...... then we will enter a new era of espionage and sabotation.....

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:14 am

    point is those fishes can be use at half distance to enemy for patrol.

    SLBMs already mean weapons can be deployed outside the effective reach of the enemy and still be able to do their job... and if you want a fish to do half the distance... aren't we just talking about multistage weapons again... and if we are isn't just a third rocket stage easier and simpler... and more reliable... travelling through the ocean is not easy or particularly safe.

    being totally like a whale means that the enemy must shoot down all whales in the way for getting secure cause he doesnt know which is the real whale and which is your imitating whale machine.

    And you think they wont?

    that would be all Japan and Norway need to justify hunting whales to extinction... Sad


    that mean spent the ammunition on false targets and getting near you whitout ammunition. means also not having ammunition for defending own surface of water ships which carry missiles like tomahawk......

    If there is one thing the US is not short of is ammunition...

    placed before conflict begins in the vast ocean means a true advantage......

    And a risk they might be found either on purpose or by accident and dealt with quietly so when it comes time to use them they are not there.

    ps the distance between russia and us is not half way world.........

    No it is not, but as your fish can't swim through Canada they are hardly going to be able to take a direct route either...

    new yourk for example is a port....... los angeles, chicago, all california is close to sea.....

    quite true, but none of those cities are military targets as such... you could load a nuke on a container ship and take them out rather more effectively and efficiently than building something that appears to be a fish.

    and the fish would just reach close to beach , rise fast above water and detonate. the land wich the cities are are at level of sea .....so the nuclear blast will enter 4-5 km in california , los angeles, chicago, new york and others...... that mean 500000 people killed or more if hits the skyscrappers ....think that new york has on 3 km radius 1 milion people........

    An ICBM would still be more effective and more efficient.

    yes but every vessel that close to US is verified.....even if you put a torpedo whit nuclear warhead to swim from that point to US beach still must be stealth....and what is more stealth than a animal muscle ? you have said that a small nuclear warhead is like a coconut. well that fits into a shark like imitation....

    You could as easily attached a nuclear weapon to the bottom of a civilian cruise ship or container ship while it is in a neutral port and detonate it when it enters a US port... or launch a low flying cruise missile 1,500km off the US coast... the current models would then be able to attack targets up to 1,000km inland, while missiles based on the Kh-101/102 could attack targets 3,500km inland.

    A small nuclear device is nothing like a coconut in terms of size or weight.

    The reference, which you missed, is from the Monty Python movie "The Holy Grail" where two people have an argument about... well here it is here...



    well maibe in the future a way of counter the ICMB would be found .....

    Ways to counter ICBMs are not new... the ABM treaty was signed in 1972 after all, and now that it is no longer a valid treaty document both sides are free to develop counters to long range ballistic missiles.

    In fact an alternative to ICBMs has already been developed... the nuclear powered cruise missile.

    It uses nuclear fuel to superheat the air and act like a jet engine that can work for years and accelerate a cruise missile to mach 3 at low altitudes. You could load hundreds of nuclear warheads on it and just have it fly all over the enemy country at a kilometre a second with its jet exhaust spewing out radioactive material and the speed of flight generating a shockwave that would smash glass and literally kill people and animals. You could build hundreds and they would be enormously difficult to shoot down being very fast and very low flying... especially after the major airfields and SAM bases are taken out... and all the major cities destroyed.

    those fishes would not get too close to enemy coast that the south korea catch them.... they would wait deep undewater ......

    The South Korean fishing fleet sails around the world looking for fish to catch... the seas near South Korea would be the last place to find them because those areas are well fished already.

    point is on radar EVERY bird return signals. and if the signal returned is similar whit the real birds then enemy would need to shoot down every bird to find the nuclear one. that means thousands of birds if not a milion ... thing that the imitating bird could have bones like materials and give exact signals like bones.... and ofcouse that means they will have to defend every square metter border of US cause a bird can get by anywhere......

    If your birds are as slow as birds they will have plenty of time to shoot them down... there are likely enormous numbers of birds and bees and other flying things... but rather less migratory birds that fly to the US from Russia.... and none that carry nuclear warheads.

    and also isnt that the nuclear warheads today get smaller but same powerfull? one day a egg like bomb would be dropped ..... even if a egg like bomb destroy just 500 metters ....500 metters radius mean 2 skyscrappers....

    There is a limit and a bomb that can only destroy two large buildings would be useless... you would need millions of them.


    if you launch ICBMs and SLBMs they still will have time to press the nuclear button. whit fishes you could destroy in seconds important communication nods or ICBM silos........

    Getting all the nuclear weapons in place to simultaneously destroy enough nuclear infrastructure to render retaliation ineffective is very unlikely... unless you can invent a time machine and bring back the Russian equivalent of a future Starship... from maybe 1,000 years in the future with super sensors and super weapons and super speed.

    think also that is something called nano mecanics......one day complicated and efficient machine would weight just like a fly...... then we will enter a new era of espionage and sabotation.....

    Perhaps that is the problem... 60 years ago the Soviets developed a genetic virus that makes you stupid but only effects 'mericans and released it in Texas... would explain the Bush family and current US foreign policy and the stupidity of western media...

    We have had George snr and George jnr... next is Jeb Bush... perhaps he will be even dumber?


    _________________
    “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

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:04 am

    well ....making a bird or a fish whit weapons inside is still a good method. let's think that if you can make a artificial bird sure can make it fly faster and evitate the ones that want to shoot them down. think that they could have sound surveillance sistems that warnings when a bullet is fired. also a bird is more maneuvrable than a plane. maibe we should learn from them. point is the US even if have a lot of ammunition doesnt bother anyone to spend half of that on birds and whales. and when they must fight against a big power loosing half of ammunition is a problem.....
    point is also that a whale imitation could swim deeper than a submarine increasing the range in wich USA must search.
    all of this mean spent of time ammunition and resources to hunting.....animals.

    overall a fish would be more stealth than a submarine. except if you replace the fan of a submarine whit something else. wich is unprobably.

    well that is the problem..... nano mecanics could be use to espionage : listen conversations, killing specific targets, sabotating equipment, espionage of new weapons (think that a artificial fly could for example see what matterials are made from a tank like challenger or others.....), even sabotage of ICMBs.......

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:52 am

    Weapons that look like birds or fish might be good for surveillance, but would be useless for a credible first strike, and once the secret is revealed it becomes a very slow and inefficient way of attacking.


    _________________
    “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

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Viktor on Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:01 pm

    Nice thumbsup

    Named the starting date of a strategic missile tests "Sarmat"

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:53 pm

    Maibe rockets can be covered whit special shine lacquer (paint) which reduce friction.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 2:00 pm

    Or covered whit striations like in rifled (studded) tank barrels

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:38 am

    the concept behind dimples on a golf ball is that the air flowing over the surface of the ball is energised by flowing around the dimples so the airflow attaches to the surface and flows around it a little.

    This means that instead of an air shadow behind the ball the width of the ball, without dimples, that with dimples the airflow moves around the shape of the ball so the shadow or drag area is smaller than the width of the ball which reduces drag and allows the ball to travel further and faster than a ball with no dimples to reduce drag.

    For Rockets smooth or rough surfaces don't influence drag that much and would not improve performance as much as it would add weight... which would effect performance.


    _________________
    “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 heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:03 am


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:03 am