Russian Nuclear Weapons: Question Thread

Garry are you serious with your last 2 lines ? I mean is it that easy.

max steel wrote:Garry are you serious with your last 2 lines ? I mean is it that easy.

Is what easy? Striking stationary targets with cruise missiles? If you know where they are, then yes. Can it be done? Of course. Most systems are usually taken out by surprise strikes or by saturation attacks. Cruise missiles are highly accurate missiles meant to strike its targets dead on or close enough. And modern cruise missiles from Russia are supersonic while also flying low, so they are harder to detect.

Is what easy?  Striking stationary targets with cruise missiles?  If you know where they are, then yes.  Can it be done? Of course.  Most systems are usually taken out by surprise strikes or by saturation attacks.  Cruise missiles are highly accurate missiles meant to strike its targets dead on or close enough.  And modern cruise missiles from Russia are supersonic while also flying low, so they are harder to detect.[/quote]


I meant it is possible to attack american territories with your vessels being stationed in artic. A large distance to cover still.

max steel wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Is what easy?  Striking stationary targets with cruise missiles?  If you know where they are, then yes.  Can it be done? Of course.  Most systems are usually taken out by surprise strikes or by saturation attacks.  Cruise missiles are highly accurate missiles meant to strike its targets dead on or close enough.  And modern cruise missiles from Russia are supersonic while also flying low, so they are harder to detect.

I meant it is possible to attack american territories with your vessels being stationed in artic. A large distance to cover still.

Let me ask you this question...Is Alaska in the Arctic circle?

Well just look at a map... the range of their ship launched cruise missiles in the 1980s was between 2,500km and 3,000km. Today with newer electronics and more efficient engines their air launched cruise missiles have a range of about 5,000km and weigh about 2 tons. The UKSK launcher can carry Yakhont sized missiles... so 2.5 tons or more.

It does not take a rocket scientist to assume that if they don't already they will have 5,000km naval launched cruise missiles pretty soon, so any radar stations or airfields in Canada and north america that might threaten Russias strategic bomber force on their way their launch positions would be fairly important targets too...

Of course vessels in port in the Northern Fleet and baltic and Black sea would all be able to launch cruise missiles while still tied up at the pier at targets in Europe...

What are the implications of going with liquid vs solid fuel? I assume liquid fuel has more energy, but with the ICBMs be able to sit in their silos fuelled? How quickly can they be prepared for launch?

mnztr wrote:What are the implications of going with liquid vs solid fuel? I assume liquid fuel has more energy, but with the ICBMs be able to sit in their silos fuelled? How quickly can they be prepared for launch?

Liquid fuels are hard to keep, toxic, require long preparations... and no, they are not kept fueled mostly coz those are very corrosive fuels.

Militarov wrote:

mnztr wrote:What are the implications of going with liquid vs solid fuel? I assume liquid fuel has more energy, but with the ICBMs be able to sit in their silos fuelled? How quickly can they be prepared for launch?

Liquid fuels are hard to keep, toxic, require long preparations... and no, they are not kept fueled mostly coz those are very corrosive fuels.

Your information is grossly out of date and wrong too.

The USSR deployed "toxic" (NH3 level toxicity, boohoo) liquid fuels that would not degrade if the missile was fueled up and were not
all that corrosive. Hydrazine is a base like NH3 and not a strong acid like H2SO4.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/613553.pdf

In the absence of water and air there is basically no attack on aluminum alloys and stainless steels. Filling up a rocket tank with
hydrazine keeps both the air and water out.

kvs wrote:

Militarov wrote:

mnztr wrote:What are the implications of going with liquid vs solid fuel? I assume liquid fuel has more energy, but with the ICBMs be able to sit in their silos fuelled? How quickly can they be prepared for launch?

Liquid fuels are hard to keep, toxic, require long preparations... and no, they are not kept fueled mostly coz those are very corrosive fuels.

Your information is grossly out of date and wrong too.

The USSR deployed "toxic" (NH3 level toxicity, boohoo) liquid fuels that would not degrade if the missile was fueled up and were not
all that corrosive.   Hydrazine is a base like NH3 and not a strong acid like H2SO4.  

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/613553.pdf

In the absence of water and air there is basically no attack on aluminum alloys and stainless steels.   Filling up a rocket tank with
hydrazine keeps both the air and water out.  

Yeah, i wore hazmat suit on 32C in shade while removing liquid fuel from the bunkers because its not all that corrosive and not all that dangerous. And we switched shifts on 15 minutes for fun of removing the suit.

Nitric acid and nitrogen tetroxide mix really sounds non corrosive and healthy. Its skin balsam actually.

And "out of date" you mean, "there will be liquid fueled heavy ICBM used by Russians in few years so it surely isnt corrosive or bad for health". Sure, talk to me in 30 years when we have a clue what happens with currently developed liquid fuels.

And you should notice word "mostly" in my sentence above.

Militarov wrote:

mnztr wrote:What are the implications of going with liquid vs solid fuel? I assume liquid fuel has more energy, but with the ICBMs be able to sit in their silos fuelled? How quickly can they be prepared for launch?

Liquid fuels are hard to keep, toxic, require long preparations... and no, they are not kept fueled mostly coz those are very corrosive fuels.

No, liquid fuelled ICBMs/SLBMs are kept fuelled at all times, and remain so permanently.  You think subs and silos have fuel & oxidiser tanks for storing bulk fuels? and that missiles need to be fuelled prior to launch?  Seriously?

Hypergolics like UDMH/N2O4 are referred to as "storable" propellants for a reason....

BTW While UDMH (or heptyl) hydrazine is highly toxic, its not corrosive, and neither is the N2O4 oxidiser. Other oxidisers certainly are, such as RFNA or red fuming nitric acid, but these are no longer used in Russian liquid fulled missiles.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Militarov wrote:

mnztr wrote:What are the implications of going with liquid vs solid fuel? I assume liquid fuel has more energy, but with the ICBMs be able to sit in their silos fuelled? How quickly can they be prepared for launch?

Liquid fuels are hard to keep, toxic, require long preparations... and no, they are not kept fueled mostly coz those are very corrosive fuels.

No, liquid fuelled ICBMs/SLBMs are kept fuelled at all times, and remain so permanently.  You think subs and silos have fuel & oxidiser tanks for storing bulk fuels? and that missiles need to be fuelled prior to launch?  Seriously?

Hypergolics like UDMH/N2O4 are referred to as "storable" propellants for a reason....

Only fraction of missiles is kept fueled. When in storage those are separated and fueled only before being placed into hatches. Shelf times of liquid stages is shorter than those of solid fuel.

Heptyl is very toxic. Aerozine requires fuel to be fueled on production bench. They are more stable and less corrosive than liquid fuels used to be, however they are far from solid fuels in those aspects.

You are wrong, Militarov.
The first so called ampulized Missile (with fueled and sealed tanks) was the R-36 from 1965. Service life: 5 to 7,5 years.

Hole wrote:You are wrong, Militarov.
The first so called ampulized Missile (with fueled and sealed tanks) was the R-36 from 1965. Service life: 5 to 7,5 years.

And SRM has projected shelf life of 20 years. Minuteman even had theirs in some cases for 30 years straight. So... it has 6 times longer shelf life than liquid fuel, yet somehow i am wrong... mindblown.

Militarov wrote:

Hole wrote:You are wrong, Militarov.
The first so called ampulized Missile (with fueled and sealed tanks) was the R-36 from 1965. Service life: 5 to 7,5 years.

And SRM has projected shelf life of 20 years. Minuteman even had theirs in some cases for 30 years straight. So... it has  6 times longer shelf life than liquid fuel, yet somehow i am wrong... mindblown.

You're wrong because you claim that liquid-fuelled ICBMs/SLBMs are not in a permanently fueled condition.

Ask yourself the question - why would anyone have their strategic deterrent missiles lying around without full tanks and ready to go at a moments notice? That would simply invite a first-strike from an enemy...

Big_Gazza wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Hole wrote:You are wrong, Militarov.
The first so called ampulized Missile (with fueled and sealed tanks) was the R-36 from 1965. Service life: 5 to 7,5 years.

And SRM has projected shelf life of 20 years. Minuteman even had theirs in some cases for 30 years straight. So... it has  6 times longer shelf life than liquid fuel, yet somehow i am wrong... mindblown.

You're wrong because you claim that liquid-fuelled ICBMs/SLBMs are not in a permanently fueled condition.

Ask yourself the question - why would anyone have their strategic deterrent missiles lying around without full tanks and ready to go at a moments notice?  That would simply invite a first-strike from an enemy...

Logic and facts are not too strong with the "Russia will have a hard time replacing Ukrainian ship gas turbine engines" troll. The clown couldn't even be
bothered to read the US military PDF I linked.

AFAIK the last liquid fuelled rocket that needed to be fuelled up before launch was the Kh-22M.

Pretty much every Soviet and Russian ICBM since the 1960s have storable fuels that are loaded into the rocket and remain in the rocket for years.

Overhauls every 10-15 years often see them defuelled and inspected but they don't sit empty in the silos because it would take hours to fuel a full ICBM field and unless they are only for a first strike that is not good enough.

The greatly improved performance of the Kh-32 suggests newer more powerful rocket fuel for it so I would suspect it no longer uses very unpopular red fuming whatever it was.

And SRM has projected shelf life of 20 years. Minuteman even had theirs in some cases for 30 years straight. So... it has 6 times longer shelf life than liquid fuel, yet somehow i am wrong... mindblown.

That was the first storable fuel... they improved over that substantially.

Of course you could argue that high velocity small calibre rifle rounds are not possible because of blackpowder limitations... but smokeless powder has been improved over the last two centuries or so too...

Militarov wrote:

Hole wrote:You are wrong, Militarov.
The first so called ampulized Missile (with fueled and sealed tanks) was the R-36 from 1965. Service life: 5 to 7,5 years.

And SRM has projected shelf life of 20 years. Minuteman even had theirs in some cases for 30 years straight. So... it has  6 times longer shelf life than liquid fuel, yet somehow i am wrong... mindblown.

Read my post, man. First Missile. 1965. The R36M2 (SS-18) has a service life of 30 years.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Hole wrote:You are wrong, Militarov.
The first so called ampulized Missile (with fueled and sealed tanks) was the R-36 from 1965. Service life: 5 to 7,5 years.

And SRM has projected shelf life of 20 years. Minuteman even had theirs in some cases for 30 years straight. So... it has  6 times longer shelf life than liquid fuel, yet somehow i am wrong... mindblown.

You're wrong because you claim that liquid-fuelled ICBMs/SLBMs are not in a permanently fueled condition.

Ask yourself the question - why would anyone have their strategic deterrent missiles lying around without full tanks and ready to go at a moments notice?  That would simply invite a first-strike from an enemy...

If you find anyhwhere that i wrote how missiles are defueled in silos i will kill myself live on Twitch. "Rarely kept fueled", does not equal "are defueled in silos and submarines". Want me to paint the difference for you?

Hole wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Hole wrote:You are wrong, Militarov.
The first so called ampulized Missile (with fueled and sealed tanks) was the R-36 from 1965. Service life: 5 to 7,5 years.

And SRM has projected shelf life of 20 years. Minuteman even had theirs in some cases for 30 years straight. So... it has  6 times longer shelf life than liquid fuel, yet somehow i am wrong... mindblown.

Read my post, man. First Missile. 1965. The R36M2 (SS-18) has a service life of 30 years.

Service life does not equal shelf life. We have missiles here that were built in mid 70s and went like 3 times though projected service time, but were defueled and refueled few times. And got other maintenance done so they can stay another 7 or 10 years in storage.

kvs wrote:

Logic and facts are not too strong with the "Russia will have a hard time replacing Ukrainian ship gas turbine engines" troll.   The clown couldn't even be
bothered to read the US military PDF I linked.    

You could post once or twice a year something other than claiming how we are all trolls for not yelling "Praise the Lord" for everything that has anything to do with Russia. Just a thought.

GarryB wrote:AFAIK the last liquid fuelled rocket that needed to be fuelled up before launch was the Kh-22M.

Pretty much every Soviet and Russian ICBM since the 1960s have storable fuels that are loaded into the rocket and remain in the rocket for years.

Overhauls every 10-15 years often see them defuelled and inspected but they don't sit empty in the silos because it would take hours to fuel a full ICBM field and unless they are only for a first strike that is not good enough.

The greatly improved performance of the Kh-32 suggests newer more powerful rocket fuel for it so I would suspect it no longer uses very unpopular red fuming whatever it was.

And SRM has projected shelf life of 20 years. Minuteman even had theirs in some cases for 30 years straight. So... it has 6 times longer shelf life than liquid fuel, yet somehow i am wrong... mindblown.

That was the first storable fuel... they improved over that substantially.

Of course you could argue that high velocity small calibre rifle rounds are not possible because of blackpowder limitations... but smokeless powder has been improved over the last two centuries or so too...

Nitric acid and nitrogen tetroxide was the mix you are refering to as a red fume. We still have some of it undisposed here, remnants of Dvinas.

The missiles are not defuelled. That is the point. All Missiles in a silo are fuelled and ready to go. For 20 or 30 years.

Instead of doing some research the troll is just going on and on with his BS delusions. Moron.

He should read the book "Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces". Really good.

Nitric acid and nitrogen tetroxide was the mix you are refering to as a red fume. We still have some of it undisposed here, remnants of Dvinas.

Exactly... used on tactical missiles but not strategic missiles for fairly obvious reasons... for those not familiar, the Kh-22M is not fully fuelled all the time, but the time it takes to plan a mission that will require a Kh-22M means there is plenty of time to load it onto the aircraft and fuel it up.

With an ICBM which is what we are talking about in this thread you might not get that much warning for when the missile might be needed so all missiles in silos are fully fuelled with storable fuel ready to be launched within a few minutes notice because that might be all you get.

In terms of handling therefore a liquid fuelled rocket is actually easier to load as it is often loaded empty with pressurised fuel tanks, so it is rather lighter than a fully fuelled missile. Once in the silo they can be fuelled up and then can sit in the silo for half a decade or more without attention, ready to launch any time you need.

"Rarely kept fueled", does not equal "are defueled in silos and submarines". Want me to paint the difference for you?

They are kept fuelled all the time they are operational and they are operational rather longer than they are in maintainence, so rarely kept fuelled is wrong.

They would never be KEPT unfuelled in Silos of Sub tubes because they need to be able to use them at very short notice and the space on the sub or the silo for storing fuel is largely wasted.

Storing the fuel separately in a sub or a silo so the missiles can be fuelled when they are needed doesn't make things any safer and takes up lots of room in the sub and the silo for two places to store the same fuel... in storage tanks and inside the missiles fuel tanks.... storing fuel in the missiles tanks means they are ready to fire.

Instead of doing some research the troll is just going on and on with his BS delusions. Moron.

There is no need to be rude. He seems to have some experience with liquid fuelled weapons, and they are very dangerous and toxic materials that require the strictest handling and safety procedures.