Strategic Rocket Forces (RVSN): Discussion & News

Interesting... they could make it capable of hitting land based targets too, it would be a very useful dual purpose weapon.

Would be interesting to see what range it can achieve... maybe it could be a scramjet powered replacement for Iskander and used by the Army against land targets deep behind enemy lines, and also by the Navy against large surface ships or against targets on land launched from Ships and Subs.

Of course if the INF treaty remained in effect such a missile would be illegal, but thanks to the US they make a lot of sense.

As experience in Ukraine and Syria these types of missiles are excellent value for money... no bomber or strike aircraft put at risk, no fighter escort needed, no jammer or wild weasel type support aircraft needed and no pilots or crews lives risked and available 24/7 no matter the weather.

I wonder if it is scaled to fit in UKSK launch tubes or if it has its own special launcher... if it uses the UKSK launch tubes (and it should because all new missiles should be designed to launch from these tubes... that is why they are called Universal...) then the cruise missile versions of the Iskander launchers should be able to launch them without much modification.

A coastal version presumably supplanting BAL and Bastion (Uran and Onyx) coastal missile systems... perhaps they will at the same time replace the Bereg 130mm gun system with a 152mm Coalition based gun system.

The-thing-next-door wrote:
Even if 60%of the US population dies there will still be a US

You kidding me right?

As a wise man once said "The living will come to envy the dead"

The point is that nuclear weapons are not intended to destroy industry, they are to destroy the population centres of the enemy country.

Now that the New START treaty is suspended and I doubt the US would want to negotiate without including China and demand to be allowed to have as many nukes as Russia and China have added together, I don't think that makes sense.

With their new breeder reactors coming on line Russia will be able to make weapons grade material very very quickly and relatively cheaply too.

As HATO encroaches on their territory and Russian territory also moves west the risk of theatre based conflicts increases but with Finland no longer being neutral then conventional forces are not so meaningful and tactical nukes become more important and should be a priority for them too... an enormous increase in tactical nukes would be very very useful for them making sure Poland and Finland and the rest of the EU and european based HATO behave.

https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12463725%40egNews

A test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile was carried out from the Kapustin Yar test site

On April 11, a combat crew of the Strategic Missile Forces successfully launched an intercontinental ballistic missile of a mobile ground-based missile system from the 4th State Central Interspecific Range Kapustin Yar in the Astrakhan Region.

The purpose of the launch is to test advanced combat equipment for intercontinental ballistic missiles.

This launch made it possible to confirm the correctness of the circuit design and technical solutions used in the development of new strategic missile systems.

The training warhead of the rocket hit a conditional target at the Sary-Shagan training ground (Republic of Kazakhstan) with a given accuracy.

The launch tasks were completed in full.

will not agree. Nuclear weapons are intended to destroy mainly the enemy's industrial and military potential.

You are confusing western with Russian strategy and tactics.

For the US this is an economic war, which is why it is against Russia and China instead of against real ideological enemies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE and Kuwaite etc.

This is why the focus has often been on a pre-emptive nuclear strike that will destroy the enemy's nuclear potential.

Attacking an enemies nuclear weapons only works if you strike first, which is US policy because they think if they hit enough Soviet or Russian nukes the Soviets or Russians might surrender or not have enough nukes to do the west damage they couldn't get over... obviously an ABM system is part of that... the first generation ABM system would struggle with a couple of threats, but as they improve it and fix the bugs if you look at the third improvement they are talking about interceptors with multiple warheads to intercept more than one incoming target at a time... the idea is that you destroy as many of their subs and bombers and Silos and truck mounted missiles as you can and then hope you have enough interceptors and ABM missiles (including ones on ships) to shoot down anything they do manage to fire.

It is obviously all bullshit and makes no sense at all if Russia has already launched their attack because the subs and silos and aircraft will be empty and missiles and warheads on the way.

The introduction of Poseidon and Thunderbird and with new ICBM and SLBM warheads that evade interception it is not going to work in my opinion.

But the Soviet plans were to hit Cheyanne mountain and their Silos and probably their airbases... but eventually they went from SS-18s carrying single 20 megaton warheads for that sort of job, to carrying 10 plus much smaller warheads to level cities.

If you only focus on hitting military targets in a nuclear war what happens 5 years down the track when 300 million americans want another go at you?

Not to mention the 600 odd million europeans who can walk to where you are...

If America thinks it can survive it will think it can win which means a first strike is their best chance of surviving... if they know the missiles are going to get through and their entire country will be irradiated and population killed then it sounds more like something they will want to actually avoid.

Hell, just mention in the first few hours the number of explosions in the upper atmosphere is going to screw up 99% of the satellites so no internet and no satellites for 150 years I think a lot of young people would stop protesting that Kiev should get more weapons and ammo and money and start anti war protests...

That's why the US was messing with the NMD systems in Poland, etc. to place the IRBM near Moscow.

They want a decapitation strike, which means destroying Moscow... whether using IRBMs or MRBM the ABM system around Moscow would probably stop them, but even if they didn't the Russians would automatically launch anyway.

ABM systems in Poland were supposed to improve tracking of missile launches so other ABM systems would be better prepared closer to the US like AEGIS cruisers in the pacific or atlantic ocean, of the ABM missiles in Alaska.

That was just an invitation to nuke Poland first.

Nuclear weapons are to destroy missile bases, industry, refineries, military potential, railway junctions,

Those targets only matter in long wars... in a nuke war if you take out a large percentage of the human population then the rest are focused mainly on survival and rebuilding and they stop fighting if they can... as long as you don't then try to invade they will likely focus on survival... which will start by mostly killing each other for resources...