Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Share
    avatar
    jhelb

    Posts : 482
    Points : 557
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  jhelb on Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:54 am

    What are the various emerging/ under development technologies in Missiles ( all types - cruise, air to air, ballistic etc) and missile defence systems especially in Russia & US ?

    Was attending a conference related to Missile Defence in Brussels and several speakers said that several types of new technologies are emerging in the field of missile & missile defence. They did not elaborate what type.

    Can anyone please elaborate ?


    Last edited by jhelb on Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:05 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 470
    Points : 502
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:57 am

    Do you mean Proper ABMs like the A-135s 53T6 missile witch has a 10 KT nuclear warhead and is currently used to deffend Moscow in event of a nuclear attack it entered service in the 90s.



    There are also advanced long range SAMs like S-400 and S-500 that can shoot dow ballistic and cruise missiles aswell as systems like pantcir and tor that can defeat cruise missiles and artillery rockets.

    The aegis is nothing special it just gets more western propaganda attention strategic ABMs have been around for decades.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2526
    Points : 2524
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:05 am

    The-thing-next-door wrote:The aegis is nothing special it just gets more western propaganda attention strategic ABMs have been around for decades.

    THAAD and Aegis offer much greater range and mobility than the Gazelle with range of a mere 80km, silo-based and stationed as per treaty, only around Moscow. When Nudol comes online, Russia will have something to competitive in the field. For now it's just the old Soviet left-overs.

    Apples and (old, obsolete) oranges comrade. pirat
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7376
    Points : 7470
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:10 am

    I still firmly believe that best missile defense is good old MAD thumbsup
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  kvs on Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:28 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:The aegis is nothing special it just gets more western propaganda attention strategic ABMs have been around for decades.

    THAAD and Aegis offer much greater range and mobility than the Gazelle with range of a mere 80km, silo-based and stationed as per treaty, only around Moscow. When Nudol comes online, Russia will have something to competitive in the field. For now it's just the old Soviet left-overs.

    Apples and (old, obsolete) oranges comrade. pirat

    Wank, NATO-fanboi, wank. The only thing that matters in those 80 km is whether the missile does its job. Your "mere" is also
    utter BS because 80 km is a number you pulled from your a**

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system

    A-135: ceiling of 900 km, range of 900 km.

    A-135 is currently deployed and will be replaced by the A-235. Perhaps you will post that the system will have a mere 8 km range.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2863
    Points : 2845
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:39 pm

    Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities. At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

    ABm systems are rather useless.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  kvs on Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:46 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.  At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

    ABm systems are rather useless.

    Indeed, a nuclear warhead is mandatory and a no brainer. The kinetic kill BS is for propaganda purposes since the sheeple are
    afraid of the word nuclear. The ABM "peace shield" is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy thing so they dress it up as if it does
    not use nuclear tipped interceptors.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 470
    Points : 502
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:02 pm

    kvs wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.  At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

    ABm systems are rather useless.

    Indeed, a nuclear warhead is mandatory and a no brainer.  The kinetic kill BS is for propaganda purposes since the sheeple are
    afraid of the word nuclear.    The ABM "peace shield" is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy thing so they dress it up as if it does
    not use nuclear tipped interceptors.  

    I would have thought there would be restrictions on nuclear warheads for an ABM system aret there?

    Kinetic warheads are possible but super unreliable even if you have Russias vastly superior missile tech.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2526
    Points : 2524
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:06 pm

    kvs wrote:A-135: ceiling of 900 km, range of 900 km.

    A-135 is currently deployed and will be replaced by the A-235.   Perhaps you will post that the system will have a mere 8 km range.

    Range vs ceiling thumbsup

    And it's literally something useful only around Moscow, doesn't make any difference in current world affairs. The doctrine is obsolete, the system is short-legged, deployed in quite smallish numbers and static.

    miketheterrible wrote: Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.

    Just as Saddam's Iraq gave some zero hopes in Soviet armor and weaponry.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2863
    Points : 2845
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:21 pm

    Don't be stupid Kilo. You know just as well as rest of us that Saudi uses mercenaries, not their own trained troops.

    Austin pointed out leaks long ago about failures of THAAD and PAC systems. Lets be real here, they are garbage, expensive ones.
    avatar
    jhelb

    Posts : 482
    Points : 557
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  jhelb on Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:35 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:Do you mean Proper ABMs like the A-135s 53T6 missile witch has a 10 KT nuclear warhead and is currently used to deffend Moscow in event of a nuclear attack it entered service in the 90s.

    No. More like S 350, S 400, S 500 etc as far as missile defence is concerned.

    Regarding missiles, missiles like Iskander, Kh 31, Kh 55, R 77.


    For example, America's AMRAAM replacement, the LREW will feature an AESA seeker& ramjet propulsion.

    Nano satellites provide "responsive beyond-line-of-sight communications support in very austere environments.



    Just need to understand what are the latest technologies that are being designed for such missiles & missile defence systems.


    Last edited by jhelb on Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:22 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2863
    Points : 2845
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:01 pm

    http://russia-insider.com/en/us-missile-defense-scam-could-get-us-all-killed/ri21359
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  kvs on Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:24 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.  At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

    ABm systems are rather useless.

    Indeed, a nuclear warhead is mandatory and a no brainer.  The kinetic kill BS is for propaganda purposes since the sheeple are
    afraid of the word nuclear.    The ABM "peace shield" is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy thing so they dress it up as if it does
    not use nuclear tipped interceptors.  

    I would have thought there would be restrictions on nuclear warheads for an ABM system aret there?

    Kinetic warheads are possible but super unreliable even if you have Russias vastly superior missile tech.

    Since the US tore up the ABM treaty, Russia is free to deploy the system it has around Moscow (nuclear tipped interceptors)
    around the country. Clearly there is no violation of the INF by ABM missiles since they are not designed to hit remote
    ground targets.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 470
    Points : 502
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:58 pm

    kvs wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.  At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

    ABm systems are rather useless.

    Indeed, a nuclear warhead is mandatory and a no brainer.  The kinetic kill BS is for propaganda purposes since the sheeple are
    afraid of the word nuclear.    The ABM "peace shield" is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy thing so they dress it up as if it does
    not use nuclear tipped interceptors.  

    I would have thought there would be restrictions on nuclear warheads for an ABM system aret there?

    Kinetic warheads are possible but super unreliable even if you have Russias vastly superior missile tech.

    Since the US tore up the ABM treaty, Russia is free to deploy the system it has around Moscow (nuclear tipped interceptors)
    around the country.  Clearly there is no violation of the INF by ABM missiles since they are not designed to hit remote
    ground targets.

    And Russia can just make thousands of nuclear tipped ABMs without violating anything?

    If Russia had 500 nuclear A-235 missiles in every city they could easily win a nuclear war you do realise.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 470
    Points : 502
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:04 am

    As for in development ABMs Russia has.

    A-235 (Moskow ABM sysytem upgrade capable of using nuclear,explosive or kinetic payloads it will replace components of the current A-135 system)

    S-500 (SAM with 600 km range and is claimed to be capable of eliminating cruise and ballistic missiles it has an explosive warhead and will be the long range SAM of Russia)

    As for the west they have

    The aegis (Witch needs to be near the missiles flight path in order to intercept. It only has the option for a kinetic warhead)

    The thaad (witch is a short range system that was desighned to protect field instalations against R-11 and R-17 tactical ballistic missiles.

    The PAC-3 of the patriot can shoot down tactical ballistic missiles but has a very short range.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2863
    Points : 2845
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  miketheterrible on Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:41 pm

    A-235 is also theorized to be mobile as well, but we are not 100% sure of that. All we know it is an upgrade to the A-135. But the theory still stands.

    S-500 is using a more or less hypersonic missile to intercept warheads or bus of the missile, especially highly maneuverable ones. Designed cause they cant place it near US sites, so it is to be placed in Russia.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:35 am

    I think the two main technologies to effect missile design over the next few decades will be scramjet engines and increased processing power making multi sensor seekers cheap and plentiful.

    Up until recently if you wanted a weapon to move fast there was no real choice except solid or liquid fuelled rocket.

    With a ramjet you needed something to accelerate the object from standing still to preferably over mach 1... early attempts were long and cumbersome with a long solid booster rocket on the rear, or solid rocket boosters wrapped around the missile making it huge and bulky.

    The Soviet innovation of combined rocket ramjet was an elegant solution that made such weapons much more compact and viable.

    A scramjet engine offers the potential for either solid rocket and scramjet or variable cycle turbojet scramjet...

    So for a missile you have a solid rocket motor accelerate and elevate the missile starting a climb and increasing speed, which then burns out and then fuel is added and a ramjet burns to accelerate the missile to higher and higher speeds.

    The potential for small jet motors is interesting... the 1990s test of a tiny scramjet motor on the nose of an SA-5 SAM showed that a scramjet does not need to be big... a normal jet engine needs a subsonic airflow so flying at less than mach 1 or so the air flowing through the engine can be subsonic coming in the front and then compressed and then blow out the back at supersonic speed.
    Flying at mach 3 however means the airflow needs to be slowed to subsonic speed... fuel added and then burned and then blow out the back fast enough to generate thrust in an airflow already moving at mach 3... which is not so easy.

    With a scramjet you don't slow the airflow... you suck it in to the motor and then add fuel and burn it and then the air mass exits the engine at higher speed than it came in at.... which equals thrust.

    A scramjet can generate thrust at supersonic speeds, which makes it much more powerful than any ramjet or turbojet engine...

    Another factor for near future technology will be CCD chips which can detect light in a range of frequencies... on board real time processing will allow all sorts of targeting options previously unavailable...
    avatar
    jhelb

    Posts : 482
    Points : 557
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  jhelb on Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:49 am

    GarryB wrote:I think the two main technologies to effect missile design over the next few decades will be scramjet engines and increased processing power making multi sensor seekers cheap and plentiful.

    Up until recently if you wanted a weapon to move fast there was no real choice except solid or liquid fuelled rocket.

    With a ramjet you needed something to accelerate  the object from standing still to preferably over mach 1... early attempts were long and cumbersome with a long solid booster rocket on the rear, or solid rocket boosters wrapped around the missile making it huge and bulky.

    The Soviet innovation of combined rocket ramjet was an elegant solution that made such weapons much more compact and viable.

    A scramjet engine offers the potential for either solid rocket and scramjet or variable cycle turbojet scramjet...

    So for a missile you have a solid rocket motor accelerate and elevate the missile starting a climb and increasing speed, which then burns out and then fuel is added and a ramjet burns to accelerate the missile to higher and higher speeds.

    The potential for small jet motors is interesting... the 1990s test of a tiny scramjet motor on the nose of an SA-5 SAM showed that a scramjet does not need to be big... a normal jet engine needs a subsonic airflow so flying at less than mach 1 or so the air flowing through the engine can be subsonic coming in the front and then compressed and then blow out the back at supersonic speed.
    Flying at mach 3 however means the airflow needs to be slowed to subsonic speed... fuel added and then burned and then blow out the back fast enough to generate thrust in an airflow already moving at mach 3... which is not so easy.

    With a scramjet you don't slow the airflow... you suck it in to the motor and then add fuel and burn it and then the air mass exits the engine at higher speed than it came in at.... which equals thrust.

    A scramjet can generate thrust at supersonic speeds, which makes it much more powerful than any ramjet or turbojet engine...

    Another factor for near future technology will be CCD chips which can detect light in a range of frequencies... on board real time processing will allow all sorts of targeting options previously unavailable...


    Thanks GarryB. As usual a very well informed answer. What about other techs (for lack of a better term) like

    • new propellants

    • multi mode seeker

    • navigation on chip



    Also, the US was working on some bespoke technologies related to missile & missile defense like


    Homing Overlay Experiment (HOE) vehicle. The objective of this revolutionary experiment was for one missile to destroy another outside the atmosphere using only force of impact. This was important because the ability to destroy an enemy missile without explosive warheads on the interceptor missile would minimize lethal effects on the ground.

    https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/100years/stories/hoe.html

    ERIS (Exoatmospheric Reentry Interceptor Subsystem) ERIS missile would incorporate a kill vehicle with a long wavelength infrared scanning seeker, a data processor and flight divert attitude control propulsion motors on a two stage rocket booster.

    https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/eris.htm


    I’m also certain Russia is currently working on some exotic missile, missile defense tech stuff, but not much is know about these technologies yet


    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1444
    Points : 1605
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:52 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:Judging how NK called out US bluff on shooting down NK missiles, which then flew over Japan with no attempt of intercept, and how it took 4 interceptor missiles to hit a SA-75 converted missile to BM roll over Saudi Arabia gives me zero hope of US ABM capabilities.  At least a nuclear tipped warhead to anti bm system will guarantee a kill. And possibly a massive radiation leak to kill more....

    ABm systems are rather useless.

    Indeed, a nuclear warhead is mandatory and a no brainer.  The kinetic kill BS is for propaganda purposes since the sheeple are
    afraid of the word nuclear.    The ABM "peace shield" is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy thing so they dress it up as if it does
    not use nuclear tipped interceptors.  

    I would have thought there would be restrictions on nuclear warheads for an ABM system aret there?

    Kinetic warheads are possible but super unreliable even if you have Russias vastly superior missile tech.

    Wouldn't using nukes to destroy ICBM warheads be equivalent to nuking your country because of the fallout and large amount of detonations needed?

    Teshub

    Posts : 51
    Points : 54
    Join date : 2015-02-16

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  Teshub on Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:25 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Wouldn't using nukes to destroy ICBM warheads be equivalent to nuking your country because of the fallout and large amount of detonations needed?
    First, high altitude aerial detonations produce next to no fallout. Second, they are likely designed to detonate in a rolling line starting out at maximum range (probably in space) whilst incoming warheads are still beyond Russia's borders, and falling back with each interception.

    The worst effect will probably be EMP backwash on civil infrastructure. But that is a murky subject and variant A-235 warheads are probably tailored to generate kills using different effects at differing ranges.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1444
    Points : 1605
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:13 pm

    Teshub wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Wouldn't using nukes to destroy ICBM warheads be equivalent to nuking your country because of the fallout and large amount of detonations needed?
    First, high altitude aerial detonations produce next to no fallout. Second, they are likely designed to detonate in a rolling line starting out at maximum range (probably in space) whilst incoming warheads are still beyond Russia's borders, and falling back with each interception.

    The worst effect will probably be EMP backwash on civil infrastructure. But that is a murky subject and variant A-235 warheads are probably tailored to generate kills using different effects at differing ranges.
    I have a hard time believing that fallout doesn't happen in atmospheric detonations. By that logic we would already be having fission engine rockets but they were never put into service exactly because of fallout danger in case they explode.

    Teshub

    Posts : 51
    Points : 54
    Join date : 2015-02-16

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  Teshub on Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:04 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I have a hard time believing that fallout doesn't happen in atmospheric detonations. By that logic we would already be having fission engine rockets but they were never put into service exactly because of fallout danger in case they explode.
    First off the fallout produced by airbursts is primarily restricted to irradiated weapon debris, of which there's not much left with modern fusion warheads. In comparison, surface bursts produce multiple orders of magnitude more irradiated material with a greater range of radionuclides.

    Secondly when I talk about high altitude bursts, I am talking about a detonation in the mesosphere to low orbit. At these heights whatever irradiated dust remaining from the detonation is likely to take between 0.5 and 1.7 years (and more) to transition back through the stratosphere. During that time the majority of the most dangerous radionuclides have already decayed. Furthermore high altitude winds disperse the dust so that we are talking microscopic amounts per square kilometre, planet-wide.

    Granted, if Russia detonated hundreds of warheads this high up it would produce a perceptible increase in background radiation, but whether it would amount to more than a couple of MRIs is debatable.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  kvs on Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:46 pm

    Teshub wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I have a hard time believing that fallout doesn't happen in atmospheric detonations. By that logic we would already be having fission engine rockets but they were never put into service exactly because of fallout danger in case they explode.
    First off the fallout produced by airbursts is primarily restricted to irradiated weapon debris, of which there's not much left with modern fusion warheads. In comparison, surface bursts produce multiple orders of magnitude more irradiated material with a greater range of radionuclides.  

    Secondly when I talk about high altitude bursts, I am talking about a detonation in the mesosphere to low orbit. At these heights whatever irradiated dust remaining from the detonation is likely to take between 0.5 and 1.7 years (and more) to transition back through the stratosphere. During that time the majority of the most dangerous radionuclides have already decayed. Furthermore high altitude winds disperse the dust so that we are talking microscopic amounts per square kilometre, planet-wide.

    Granted, if Russia detonated hundreds of warheads this high up it would produce a perceptible increase in background radiation, but whether it would amount to more than a couple of MRIs is debatable.

    Excellent summary. You know your physics.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:01 pm

    New Skyph (Skif) sea bottom ICBM: http://svpressa.ru/war21/article/186921/?cba=1 skif

    They can put them in the Okhotsk Sea too. Cheaper than old Delta III/IVs & new Borey SSBNs that also can safely deploy there & in the Arctic only. If these new ICBMs deployed in sufficient #s, at least some of the subs already built could be converted to SSGNs, perhaps eliminating the need for a few new Yasen SSGNs.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Missiles & Missile Defence System: Various technologies under development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:22 pm