Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian ABM Development

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:16 am

    Magnurm's coment : A-135 was completely replaced by A-235, and the A-135 was hardly a true deterrent against ICBM's (unlike the S-500), it was a point-blank defense to buy enough time to fire nukes back at NATO as well allowing the Soviet Politburo to hide in bunkers.

    So how exactly would the A-135 or A-235 actually give those on the ground more time... other than actually shooting down incoming ICBM warheads?

    ABMs don't work as a deterrent... suddenly the US wont wake up one morning and realise there are ABM missiles around Moscow and suddenly decide not to bother firing ICBMs as Moscow.


    So they don't have abms around any major city except Washington D.C.

    No... I am talking about the 1972 ABM treaty... the Soviets built and have maintained an ABM system around Moscow, while the US built one around one of their ICBM fields but closed it before it became fully operational.

    The US is working on an ABM system to protect all of the US, but that is based in Alaska... and is not really fully operational and would not be effective agaisnt a full nuclear strike from Russia.


    But you said previously that Russia can intercept SLBM's . But i just checked Trident D5 terminal phase speed is 8,060 m/s which means 8.06 km/s. So by calculations SLBM interception is not yet feasible for any Russia defense system? or Russia plan is to intercept Trident SLBM's midway before entering the terminal phase? Explain please.

    Let me put it this way... what do you think S-500 is for?

    Re entry speed is largely dependent on missile range, so a 500km range ballistic missile might come in at mach7 or mach 8. Missiles with flight ranges of 500km to 5,500km are classed as IRBMs so the US wont have any... based on this information the S-400 with its capacity to intercept targets flying at 4.8km/s should stop anything the US has except ICBMs and SLBMs... I say again... with a performance a level above what do you think the S-500 is being developed for?

    I will tell you.

    ICBMs... SLBMs... Satellites.

    When warheads reenter the atmosphere they slow down...
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  max steel on Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:32 am

    if a-235 and 135 can shoot down ICBM's ( limited attack) and ofcourse SLBMs also because they are nothing but sea launched icbms then why Russia is building S-500? Because S-500 will be mobile thats why ? Meanwhile A-235/135 are immobile ?



    I guess Russia already posses weapons to destroy US recon satellites or any fancy space potent stuff.




    US has its Ground Based Interceptors ( GBI) in Alaska and Guam but these GBI's ( US answer to ICBM's) are terrible.


    Ohk got your point so terminal and re-entry speeds are two different things . What is Bulava's terminal speed? any idea? French SLBM M51 has Mach 25 speed. They tested it recently on 30th September 2015
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5266
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:10 pm

    max steel wrote:if a-235 and 135 can shoot down ICBM's ( limited attack) and ofcourse SLBMs also because they are nothing but sea launched icbms then why Russia is building S-500? Because S-500 will be mobile thats why ? Meanwhile A-235/135 are immobile ?



    I guess Russia already posses weapons to destroy US recon satellites or any fancy space potent stuff.




    US has its Ground Based Interceptors ( GBI) in Alaska and Guam but these GBI's ( US answer to ICBM's) are terrible.


    Ohk got your point so terminal and re-entry speeds are two different things . What is Bulava's terminal speed? any idea? French SLBM M51 has Mach 25 speed. They tested it recently on 30th September 2015

    Because by treaty, dedicated immobile ABM shields are prohibited to be used in mass, to assure MAD. So both sides were forced by their compromise of treaty to protect only one location/city with that system. S-400/500 does not fall under that treaty, the US would like to have it there, but the US is the one that broke every treaty that mentions nuclear weapons or programms. They spread ABM and Nuclear technology, they have deployed ABM shield in europe and tactical nukes in europe (Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Turkey) while Russia so far hasn't breeched any of those treaties. If anyone it would be Russia that actually could overcome those treaties and field ABM in mass to lift the MAD to a destruction of US and entire NATO, while assuring survival of their own country. (survival =/= unharmed)
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Garry someone mentioned it that A-135 and A-235 are mot meant to intercept icbm's

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:52 am

    if a-235 and 135 can shoot down ICBM's ( limited attack) and ofcourse SLBMs also because they are nothing but sea launched icbms then why Russia is building S-500? Because S-500 will be mobile thats why ? Meanwhile A-235/135 are immobile ?

    A-135 and A-235 are silo based and are enormous... and amazingly fast.

    For protecting fixed positions they are fine.

    S-500 is for protecting strategic things at short notice and for protecting things that might move... like an aircraft carrier... or you might send some to the Crimea to protect it for instance.

    I guess Russia already posses weapons to destroy US recon satellites or any fancy space potent stuff.

    Any country that can put a satellite in any orbit can shoot down a satellite... just launch a satellite in the opposite orbit to the orbit of the existing satellite you want to destroy.

    What is Bulava's terminal speed?

    No idea I am afraid.

    7km/s is mach 21 or so but I suspect as fast as new missiles land faster the S-500 will be upgraded to defeat them...

    The whole concept of mutually assured destruction is a good thing and has kept the peace for decades.

    effective ABM systems will ruin this and are a very bad thing... those idiot americans however can't see this and want to feel safe... even though nothing can make them safe really.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Why to develop S-500 and A-235 is both have similar characteristics?

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:39 pm

    Why to develop S-500 and A-235 is both have similar characteristics?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 16, 2015 9:39 am

    Why to develop S-500 and A-235 is both have similar characteristics?

    A-235 is not mobile, it is silo based and will be enormous.

    The S-500 is much smaller and highly mobile and will likely be used on ships as well as land.

    7km/s was not picked at random as a parameter for the S-500 system... and I suspect despite the figures given as 7km/s for S-500 that the actual missiles and later upgrades will be able to exceed this performance over time...
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:54 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Why to develop S-500 and A-235 is both have similar characteristics?

    A-235 is not mobile, it is silo based and will be enormous.

    The S-500 is much smaller and highly mobile and will likely be used on ships as well as land.

    7km/s was not picked at random as a parameter for the S-500 system... and I suspect despite the figures given as 7km/s for S-500 that the actual missiles and later upgrades will be able to exceed this performance over time...

    I am sure no parameters are chosen just by random but only was wondering if ceiling is comparable why build A-235. unless it is not...W Why only Moscow has A-135 and no other cities like St. Petersburg?


    A-135 missile and they say size does not matter but technique but here technique comes with size Smile
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2512
    Points : 2506
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  Isos on Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:10 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Why to develop S-500 and A-235 is both have similar characteristics?

    A-235 is not mobile, it is silo based and will be enormous.

    The S-500 is much smaller and highly mobile and will likely be used on ships as well as land.

    7km/s was not picked at random as a parameter for the S-500 system... and I suspect despite the figures given as 7km/s for S-500 that the actual missiles and later upgrades will be able to exceed this performance over time...

    I am sure no parameters are chosen just by random but only was wondering if ceiling is comparable why build A-235. unless it is not...W Why only Moscow has A-135 and no other cities like St. Petersburg?


    A-135 missile and  they say size does not matter but technique but here technique comes with size Smile

    Because of the ABM treaty with the US. They had to choose just one area to protect by ABM and agreed to not deploy a global ABM that cover the country because it could restart the armement race.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:12 pm

    Isos wrote:Because of the ABM treaty with the US. They had to choose just one area to protect by ABM and agreed to not deploy a global ABM that cover the country because it could restart the armement race.


    ABM treaty isn´t dead ? like ABM in Poland or Alaska is the same base?
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2512
    Points : 2506
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  Isos on Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:44 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Isos wrote:Because of the ABM treaty with the US. They had to choose just one area to protect by ABM and agreed to not deploy a global ABM that cover the country because it could restart the armement race.


    ABM treaty isn´t dead ? like ABM in Poland or Alaska is the same base?

    Yes it is. USA removed from the treaty in 2001.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 6:43 pm

    Isos wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Isos wrote:Because of the ABM treaty with the US. They had to choose just one area to protect by ABM and agreed to not deploy a global ABM that cover the country because it could restart the armement race.


    ABM treaty isn´t dead ? like ABM in Poland or Alaska is the same base?

    Yes it is. USA removed from the treaty in 2001.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty


    OK so why not to add more A-235 sites? St Petersburg and other biggest prod/scientific centers? Are there costs so prohibitive?

    fragmachine

    Posts : 121
    Points : 122
    Join date : 2014-05-28
    Location : Poland

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  fragmachine on Wed Dec 16, 2015 7:30 pm

    Russians could and IMO should deploy more A-235. After all they could state that it was so to protect Russia against Israeli nukes lol1

    Amurica just does the same with Iran, maybe an installation in Kaliningrad would help them to come to their senses.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2512
    Points : 2506
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  Isos on Wed Dec 16, 2015 7:37 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Isos wrote:Because of the ABM treaty with the US. They had to choose just one area to protect by ABM and agreed to not deploy a global ABM that cover the country because it could restart the armement race.


    ABM treaty isn´t dead ? like ABM in Poland or Alaska is the same base?

    Yes it is. USA removed from the treaty in 2001.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty


    OK so why not to add  more A-235 sites? St Petersburg and other biggest prod/scientific centers? Are there costs so prohibitive?

    The S-500 will be the next russian ABM.

    I don't know if the S-500 can replace a system like the A-235 because if you compare their hardware, it's completly diferent. Maybe someone could answers you better than me.

    http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/a-235-samolet-m/ Look at the missile of the A-235 ...

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 17, 2015 11:30 am

    I am sure no parameters are chosen just by random but only was wondering if ceiling is comparable why build A-235.

    Because the A-135 system exists and it is cheaper to upgrade it than scrap it all and replace it with a completely new system.

    Also the Moscow ABM system has been operational for decades... it has been tested regularly and should do the job, so why dismantle it?

    Why only Moscow has A-135 and no other cities like St. Petersburg?

    The ABM treaty of 1972 allows only one ABM system for Soviet Union and US that can be sited to protect and ICBM field or the capital city.

    Now the ABM treaty is no more Russia is likely to build ABM systems around its major cities... whether it builds A-235s for cities and fixed assets like major airfields etc or just uses S-500s is up for question.

    The obvious advantage of A-235 is that at no point could it be called away to defend something else like an S-500 battery could.

    The major ports like the northern fleet might get S-500 protection from the cruisers in port there... but what happens to that protection when those cruisers put to sea?
    A-235 would keep protecting the area even when all ships are at sea.


    OK so why not to add more A-235 sites? St Petersburg and other biggest prod/scientific centers? Are there costs so prohibitive?

    The Moscow ABM system is expensive... I expect they will likely wait to find out how successful the S-500 before the decide whether to make lots of S-500s or lots of A-235 or both.

    It should be pointed out that the Moscow ABM system was never expected to completely protect Moscow. It was only ever intended to stop shorter range weapons to allow more time to send the order to troops to launch Soviet nuclear weapons. Missiles like SLBMs or missiles from Europe (ie UK or French) could get to Moscow in a couple of minutes depending upon where they are fired from so the ABM system around Moscow was intended to stop them and allow the attack command to get out and launch the Soviet retaliation strike...

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:11 am

    GarryB wrote:


    OK so why not to add more A-235 sites? St Petersburg and other biggest prod/scientific centers? Are there costs so prohibitive?

    The Moscow ABM system is expensive... I expect they will likely wait to find out how successful the S-500 before the decide whether to make lots of S-500s or lots of A-235 or both.


    of you´re so pessimistic. S-500 will be as good as thy want - if not in first iteration then next. Finally Bulava was not ideal form first time Smile

    GarryB wrote:
    It should be pointed out that the Moscow ABM system was never expected to completely protect Moscow. It was only ever intended to stop shorter range weapons to allow more time to send the order to troops to launch Soviet nuclear weapons. Missiles like SLBMs or missiles from Europe (ie UK or French) could get to Moscow in a couple of minutes depending upon where they are fired from so the ABM system around Moscow was intended to stop them and allow the attack command to get out and launch the Soviet retaliation strike...


    Hmm so now S-500 is also not meant to protect (if not fully then) only a part of important objects? I hope not. Then S-500 concept is to protect as good as possible against destruction of important cities/labs/prod facilities or military bases.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 19, 2015 9:37 am

    of you´re so pessimistic. S-500 will be as good as thy want - if not in first iteration then next. Finally Bulava was not ideal form first time

    A-135 is a tested and proven system... the question to be answered is whether A-235 is better than S-500 and we can't really tell till they are fully tested.... it might be that the A-235 is better for large area fixed locations while the S-500s mobility is useful on its own even if it is less capable...

    Hmm so now S-500 is also not meant to protect (if not fully then) only a part of important objects? I hope not. Then S-500 concept is to protect as good as possible against destruction of important cities/labs/prod facilities or military bases.

    It will be intended to shoot down incoming ballistic threats. Whether it is 100% effective 100% of the time is the other question... it will certainly be superior to nothing. It will be no impenetrable force field however.

    lol well right journalists do go over board and we

    You can say that again... the article describes the S-400 system has having three missiles with a max range of 150km... yeah right... late model S-300s have a range of over 250km...

    Presumably the three missiles in the S-400 system are the medium and small missiles with 150km and 60km ranges and the big missile with the 400km range.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3922
    Points : 4026
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  Vann7 on Sun Dec 20, 2015 2:57 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:

    Why to develop S-500 and A-235 is both have similar characteristics?







    Not an expert in what each one does.. but by looking at the design alone you can
    notice major differences just with pure observation.

    A-135 and A-235 are purely fixed silo position , looks like a giant kinetic bullet.
    and its designed for speed and interception ,many say is a hit to kill missile and its looks like
    that. If you look at the head of the missile is like a spear with no sensors or guidance.
    So it pretty much looks like an unguided kinetic missile and apparently have a nuclear warhead too.. according to wiki. This means that they are not like missiles but more like Anti ICBM artillery. To intercept nukes in the final phase 30km away of the target. So A-135 and A-235
    can be said to be final phase anti ICBM artillery. Something like Active defense Arena for nukes.
    It sacrifice range and maneuverability for speed and with the nuclear warhead it will defeat any missile and its decoys that comes close to it.

    S-500 in the other hand are anti air +anti space missile. and can be used against anything that fly and is big. Does not use nukes but conventional warhead.. and it have sensors ,to chase things.

    That said it looks the S-500 is a mid course ,any altitude air+space interceptor.
    can be used against anything ,and the A-135 and A-235 is a final course anti ICBM artillery interceptor and can only target things withing 30km of distance of its deployment.

    So S-500 target first nukes on its mid course before it deploy its decoys and if they fail.. the A-235 will intercept any ICBM that deploys its decoy defenses using a nuclear warhead. Both have its uses and its place and i don't think neither one replace the other.

    S-400s in the other hand can probably do similar to the S-500 but with a more limited altitude range of interception. Apparently is 180km altitude ,which is not enough to intercept high altitude ICBM in space .

    In theory if Russia had enough A-135 and A-235 it will handle any Trident mas attack without problems. because a nuclear warhead will wipe completely any missile and its defenses.. since target a wide area the nuclear warhead.

    In real practice any system of defense in the world can be overwhelmed.. including Americans ones. So to fully defend against a mass nuclear attack of a thousand of missiles from Russia and USA is looks like wishful thinking with the weapons they have today.

    Russia however is doing something very interesting with Electronic Jamming , KRET is developing a system to neutralize satellites and ICBMs in space, This means that its guidance will be dead and it will be impossible to have any accuracy. So a missile aiming Moscow could end in SIberia.. etc. Or if they take things to a new level it could destroy all the electronics of any American ICBM so it doesn't explode. So is not clear what kind of level of protection Kret company in Russia is aiming with its space counter electronic warfare. If they are successful if neutralizing ICBM electronics it will be like the invention of Powder and the plane. Truly game changing and tip the balance enourmously in Russia favor in a nuclear war. All said. Electromagnetic radioelectric weapons have a lot of future.. same can be said about lazer guns.
    But radioelectric space weapons seems much more elegant ,stealthy and powerful since it target big areas at same time While lazers you need to aim directly at individual targets and require insane levels of Energy.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4609
    Points : 4768
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russia and China in May to hold the first computer exercise on missile defense

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed May 04, 2016 5:01 am

    I know somewhere in the Pentagon someone's shitting BRICS... Cool Wink

    Russia and China in May to hold the first computer exercise on missile defense
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 6276
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 38
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  Viktor on Wed May 04, 2016 9:20 pm

    Nice thumbsup

    S-500:

    - 200+km in height
    - 600+km in distance
    - 10 targets at the same time
    - aerodynamic targets and ballistic targets
    - high mobility


    S-350:

    - 30km in height
    - 120km in distance
    - 16 targets at the same time with 32 missiles


    Russia's Deadly S-500 Air-Defense System: Ready for War at 660,000 Feet

    Austin

    Posts : 6853
    Points : 7242
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  Austin on Thu May 05, 2016 8:32 am

    I would take the numbers provided by NI for S-500 with bunch of salt , We really dont have much info on the system yet

    Singular_trafo

    Posts : 114
    Points : 108
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  Singular_trafo on Fri May 06, 2016 3:16 pm

    Viktor wrote:Nice thumbsup

    S-500:

    - 200+km in height
    - 600+km in distance
    - 10 targets at the same time
    - aerodynamic targets and ballistic targets
    - high mobility


    S-350:

    - 30km in height
    - 120km in distance
    - 16 targets at the same time with 32 missiles


    Russia's Deadly S-500 Air-Defense System: Ready for War at 660,000 Feet


    These parameters doesn't make sense.

    The main radar of the S-wathever is capable to see a zepelin sized target from 600km with a minimum altitude of 10-20 km.
    From the other side it is extremly hard to intercept a ballistic missile above 100km.


    so the most probable is these parameters are the theoretical maximu range , so it can go up 200 km, but at that point the interceptor will have 0 kinetic energy, and for 600 km it can be used maximum as a ballistic missile.

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  max steel on Fri May 06, 2016 5:32 pm

    It was written by Dave Majumdar for National Interest. He writes sensationalist BS.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  kvs on Sat May 07, 2016 4:59 am

    The S-500 will have hypersonic ABM missiles designed to intercept ICBM warheads. This is culmination of development since the
    1960s. The A-135 51T6 missile can now be made much smaller thanks to improvements in solid rocket fuel characteristics.

    People love to fob off nanotech as a gimmick but in reality it is vital. Producing a powder of nanoparticles has some extraordinary
    properties. For example, aluminum nanoparticle powder will burn in pure CO2. Just try and burn coarser aluminum powder or pieces
    in pure CO2 and see how far you get. So solid rocket fuel innovation is not just about coming up with new chemical formulas. It is
    also about the nanophysics (formerly microphysics) of the fuel preparation and the associated combustion dynamics.

    Singular_trafo

    Posts : 114
    Points : 108
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  Singular_trafo on Sat May 07, 2016 10:15 am

    kvs wrote:The S-500 will have hypersonic ABM missiles designed to intercept ICBM warheads. This is culmination of development since the
    1960s. The A-135 51T6 missile can now be made much smaller thanks to improvements in solid rocket fuel characteristics.

    People love to fob off nanotech as a gimmick but in reality it is vital. Producing a powder of nanoparticles has some extraordinary
    properties. For example, aluminum nanoparticle powder will burn in pure CO2. Just try and burn coarser aluminum powder or pieces
    in pure CO2 and see how far you get. So solid rocket fuel innovation is not just about coming up with new chemical formulas. It is
    also about the nanophysics (formerly microphysics) of the fuel preparation and the associated combustion dynamics.

    200 km maximum altited means minimum 2000 m/sec velocity.(without considering the air friction)

    However this means that at 100km the rocket has only 600 m/sec, insufficient to intercept anything as fast as an ICBM,even with nuclear warhead.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  max steel on Sat May 07, 2016 4:16 pm

    Singular_trafo wrote:

    200 km maximum altited means minimum 2000 m/sec velocity.(without considering the air friction)

    However this means that at 100km the rocket has only 600 m/sec, insufficient to intercept anything as fast as an ICBM,even with nuclear warhead.

    S-500 missile will travel at 7 km/s. Is it enough to trget icbms ? because re-entry vehicle travel at 8-9 km/sec. dunno

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian ABM Development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 15, 2018 8:50 pm