Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+47
mnztr
PapaDragon
Podlodka77
ALAMO
JohninMK
11E
TMA1
lancelot
Sujoy
Tsavo Lion
slasher
LMFS
Big_Gazza
owais.usmani
Azi
flamming_python
dino00
southpark
Hole
GunshipDemocracy
The-thing-next-door
GarryB
miketheterrible
franco
eridan
Arrow
Isos
eehnie
Vann7
max steel
ExBeobachter1987
jhelb
sepheronx
Mike E
kvs
Viktor
Morpheus Eberhardt
Hannibal Barca
magnumcromagnon
collegeboy16
Werewolf
TR1
Mindstorm
George1
Austin
TheArmenian
SOC
51 posters

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Eugenio Argentina
    Eugenio Argentina


    Posts : 4571
    Points : 4575
    Join date : 2018-02-25

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Russian work on updated nuclear doctrine caused by NATO’s brazen aggression – expert

    Post  Eugenio Argentina Thu Sep 05, 2024 12:47 pm

    Russian work on updated nuclear doctrine caused by NATO’s brazen aggression – expert

    💬 “The United States and NATO are becoming increasingly aggressive toward Russia, and we need to make clarifications to some fundamental documents,” veteran military analyst Viktor Litovkin told Sputnik, remarking on Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov’s comments (https://t.me/geopolitics_live/32116) Wednesday that Western powers’ refusal to engage in dialogue, targeting of Moscow’s security interests and the incitement of the conflict in Ukraine have been taken into account by Russia in work on an updated nuclear doctrine. (https://t.me/geopolitics_live/26942)

    “The war in Ukraine is not a war between Ukraine and Russia. It is a war between the West and Russia using the territory of Ukraine, and the lives of Ukrainian servicemen. It is an attempt to weaken Russia, to bring Russia to ruin and to deprive Russia of its competitive advantage in the international arena,” Litovkin explained. Russia “is not going to seek hegemony, as the US is doing, but we are also not going to lose our independence, sovereignty and right to independent action,” Litovkin added.

    Russia’s current nuclear doctrine consists of four key points divided among two documents, according to Litovkin – one being Russia’s general Military Doctrine, and the other a June 2020 presidential decree ‘On the Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence’.

    The former provides for the use of nuclear weapons in two cases:

    🌏 if Russia or its allies are attacked using nuclear weapons,

    🌏 if Russia is attacked using conventional means so severe the very existence of the state is threatened.

    The latter allows Russia to fire its nuclear weapons

    🔶 if it becomes aware that a ballistic missile has been launched toward it, or

    🔶 if a strike is launched at government and military command and control centers.

    Litovkin believes the goal of the updated doctrine will be “to combine these two documents into one,” and “clarify the role of nuclear weapons in ensuring Russia’s security and ensuring deterrence against a possible aggressor.”

    Cool

    franco and jon_deluxe like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3405
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  Arrow Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:15 pm

    Will Russia resume nuclear testing, what do you think? It seems that Russia has such advanced and developed nuclear technologies that it seems that it does not need to conduct tests. It has developed completely new thermonuclear warheads for Yars, Bulava, etc. in recent years. But will they want to test new solutions. A new type of nuclear weapon? Or could this be some kind of warning sign for the West.

    https://roles.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/publication/20240918en


    GarryB and jon_deluxe like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40448
    Points : 40948
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  GarryB Fri Sep 20, 2024 1:33 am

    Right now they rely on data from previous tests that was used to build models so computer based testing could be performed, but like anything computer testing does not tell you anything you don't know... it just tests things based on multiple complex interacting variables that could create problems.

    Restarting testing would allow them to expand their nuclear developments and perhaps develop very powerful or very weak nuclear weapons.

    Imagine a tiny nuke with the power of 80 tons of explosives that could fit into a 100mm cannon shell.

    Or a nuke that generated a super powerful EMP pulse that could take out drones within 10km range but with little or no explosive effect?

    Mounting such an EMP weapon on a sub launched Zircon missile launched from the Arctic ocean to take out the electronics in London for instance... something that wipes magnetic storage and electronic storage and would cause chaos... but would not directly kill anyone.

    I am sure they will also want to test new tsunami warheads... size and weight wont be a huge problem for a Poseidon so the sky is the limit really...

    And of course with nano technology, what sort of additives could they use to increase the power of nuclear weapons....

    kvs likes this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3405
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  Arrow Fri Sep 20, 2024 8:30 am

    estarting testing would allow them to expand their nuclear developments and perhaps develop very powerful or very weak nuclear weapons. Imagine a tiny nuke with the power of 80 tons of explosives that could fit into a 100mm cannon shell. wrote:

    Yes, for many years there has been talk of so-called fourth generation nuclear weapons. This weapon is characterized by a small explosive force from 10 to 100 tons of TNT. It was often supposed to be based only on Fusion without ignition on fission weapons, but this is rather doubtful to this day.

    Or a nuke that generated a super powerful EMP pulse that could take out drones within 10km range but with little or no explosive effect? wrote:

    For a big EMP you need a pretty big nuclear charge. You detonate it at a high altitude so there will be no other effects of the explosion. But still it is without using a nuclear weapon.

    I am sure they will also want to test new tsunami warheads... size and weight wont be a huge problem for a Poseidon so the sky is the limit really... wrote:


    The limits are tighter. Currently, modern warheads has a yield of about 1-2kT/kg. You can squeeze out even up to 5kT/Kg like the W-71 or W-47 had. You can also create a weapon with much higher yield. Based mainly on thermonuclear fusion. Read about the RIPPLE project if it interests you. A slightly different design of thermonuclear warheads. It increases the yield even above 12kT/kg. The disadvantage of these designs is the very low density of the nuclear charge, larger volume. This is not useful for the military, where they need kT/m3 in compact nuclear charges to easily fit in PBV and quickly overcome the atmosphere. There is not that much space in Poseidon either. I doubt there would be even 50 MT there. And to cause a Tsunami, you need dozens of GT of nuclear charge. Poseidon is designed to destroy coastal cities and coastal infrastructure by sinking right next to the shore.
    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3405
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  Arrow Wed Oct 23, 2024 5:28 pm

    Interestingly, from this data one can conclude that the Russian level of strategic weapons is well beyond the START limit, which was 1500 strategic charges. This amounts to 2822 strategic warheads. Provided that Yars carries 4 MIRVs, perhaps not all of them carry, because Yars S can carry 3 MIRVs with a power of 400kT. In addition, they can quickly increase the arsenal by increasing the number of warheads in Sineva from 4 to 10 MIRVs. Shocked

    This year will see the addition of another SSBN with 96 MIRVs and more Yars and Avangards.How is it that Russia has not reached the START limit? Are there any errors in these calculations?
    Unless, as they write, there can be 3 MIRV on Yars and 4 MIRV on Bulava.
    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Rbul-a-2314437-t0001-1024x963-png

    jon_deluxe likes this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 3123
    Points : 3119
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  lancelot Wed Oct 23, 2024 7:37 pm

    They already replaced all the mobile Topol-Ms which were close to the date of expiration with Yars. Next they will replace the silo based ones quadrupling the amount of warheads.

    They can keep themselves under numerical treaty limits by retiring the Satan and Layner.

    kvs and Hole like this post

    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 11103
    Points : 11081
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 48
    Location : Scholzistan

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  Hole Wed Oct 23, 2024 9:29 pm

    They can keep themselves under numerical treaty limits by retiring the Satan and Layner.
    Or just put one warhead on top of Yars and store the rest.

    kvs likes this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3405
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  Arrow Wed Oct 23, 2024 9:33 pm

    They can keep themselves under numerical treaty limits by retiring the Satan and Layner. wrote:

    START is already suspended, they don't have to maintain the limit of this idiotic treaty, do they? It probably won't be extended, although the US with its poor strategic nuclear arsenal may want to maintain the treaty. Putin will certainly agree to that.

    Now, with little effort, they can maintain a level of over 2,000 strategic warheads. Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

    The-thing-next-door, owais.usmani and jon_deluxe like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3405
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  Arrow Wed Oct 23, 2024 9:35 pm

    They already replaced all the mobile Topol-Ms wrote:

    Where did you get this information? This year they replaced the mobile Topol M.
    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 3123
    Points : 3119
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  lancelot Wed Oct 23, 2024 10:11 pm

    Arrow wrote:Where did you get this information? This year they replaced the mobile Topol M.
    I read it in some TASS report. Mobile Topol-M formations were supposed to be fully moved to Yars this year. The only reason there is a formation with them still around is because its missiles were not close to expiration. So it would have been a waste of money to retire them early.

    So they will be producing Yars missiles to replace the silo Topol-M.

    sepheronx and kvs like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3405
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  Arrow Wed Oct 23, 2024 10:32 pm

    I read it in some TASS report. Mobile Topol-M formations were supposed to be fully moved to Yars this year. The only reason there is a formation with them still around is because its missiles were not close to expiration. So it would have been a waste of money to retire them early. wrote:

    These are still young missiles, not even 20 years old. The older ones are the silo Topol M introduced since 1997. They should replace them first. Although, when they have finished rearming all Topol units, they can also take on 18 mobile Topol M. The Yars-M with two independent PBVs is expected to enter production soon.
    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3405
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  Arrow Tue Oct 29, 2024 2:57 pm

    Grom exercises begin.
    franco
    franco


    Posts : 7036
    Points : 7062
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  franco Tue Oct 29, 2024 5:49 pm

    "I would like to emphasize that we are not going to get involved in a new arms race, but we will maintain nuclear forces at the level of necessary sufficiency. This year, their equipment with modern weapons has reached about 94%," the head of state noted.

    The President noted that Russian developers will continue to improve all components for nuclear weapons.

    "In accordance with the state armament program, we will systematically transfer the Strategic Missile Forces (SMF - Ed.) to new missile systems of fixed and mobile basing, which, compared to previous generations, have higher accuracy, reduced launch preparation time and, most importantly, increased capabilities to overcome missile defense systems," the Russian leader said.

    Giving the start to the training of strategic nuclear deterrence forces via video conference, Putin stated that the Russian Federation confirms its fundamental position that the use of nuclear weapons is an extreme measure to ensure state security.

    Earlier, on September 23, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Vershinin stated at the Future Summit at the UN headquarters that Russia would oppose accelerating the nuclear disarmament process , as he considers it unrealistic. The diplomat explained that accelerating nuclear disarmament is impossible if the principle of equal and indivisible security is ignored.

    On September 25, at a meeting of the Russian Security Council on nuclear deterrence, Putin indicated that the draft principles of Russian geopolitics in the area of ​​nuclear deterrence had expanded the category of countries and military alliances and supplemented the list of military threats. The head of state noted that the modern military-political situation is changing dynamically and Russia must take this into account.

    On August 29, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump called nuclear weapons the main problem for both Washington and the world. He emphasized that they are a destructive force, the possible use of which the US authorities must prevent .

    https://iz-ru.translate.goog/1782137/2024-10-29/putin-zaiavil-ob-osnashchennosti-iadernykh-sil-rf-sovremennym-vooruzheniem-na-94?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

    GarryB and Hole like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3405
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  Arrow Tue Oct 29, 2024 7:32 pm

    Big_Gazza, owais.usmani and jon_deluxe like this post

    PhSt
    PhSt


    Posts : 1440
    Points : 1446
    Join date : 2019-04-02
    Location : Canada

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  PhSt Wed Oct 30, 2024 1:12 am

    I think Russia needs to continue research with Nuke miniaturization and aim to develop warheads with a blast yield of 1 mt and above that can be fitted in existing delivery systems like Yars, Sarmat, and Bulava.

    In my simple illustration below, when a 1 megaton nuke is detonated at the center of New York city, only a small area of 3 km radius (inner yellow circle) from the blast center can offer a 100% to 75% kill probability, and this is also depending on whether people are in open space or are inside reinforced buildings.

    In about 8 km to 10 km radius (outer yellow circle), the kill probability goes down to 50%

    And again, this is with a 1 megaton nuke.

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 12124512


    At the moment, I don't know of a Russian nuke delivery system that carries a warhead of at least 1 mt or more.  Most systems, like the Yars for example, have MIRVs that each only have 200 kilotons. What kind of damage can you expect from these nukes? 200 kt is TOO LOW of a yield. Even if its 10 MIRVs, the blast yield for each warhead is still weak.

    Russia needs more improved nukes that have a minimum KILL radius of at least 20 km from the impact/ blast point to ensure that ALL NATzO cities are OBLITERATED when the War of Extermination finally begins.  attack

    The-thing-next-door likes this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4860
    Points : 4850
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  Big_Gazza Wed Oct 30, 2024 2:02 am

    You'll get significantly more damage on a city-sized target from 10x 100kT MIRVs than you do with a 1MT unitary warhead, especially if you spread the impact sites correctly to fully blanket the target.

    IIRC the area of damage is proportional to the cube root of the weapon yield.  To double the size of the footprint requires a 8x increase in the yield.  To maximise damage use smaller warheads spread over the target rather than a single large one.

    kvs, Hole, owais.usmani and jon_deluxe like this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15833
    Points : 15968
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  kvs Wed Oct 30, 2024 3:44 am

    I prefer that a 1 teraton nuke be developed. Go big or go home.

    The-thing-next-door and lyle6 like this post

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1384
    Points : 1440
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  The-thing-next-door Wed Oct 30, 2024 8:10 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:You'll get significantly more damage on a city-sized target from 10x 100kT MIRVs than you do with a 1MT unitary warhead, especially if you spread the impact sites correctly to fully blanket the target.

    IIRC the area of damage is proportional to the cube root of the weapon yield.  To double the size of the footprint requires a 8x increase in the yield.  To maximise damage use smaller warheads spread over the target rather than a single large one.

    That only makes sense if you plan on multiplying the number of warheads you have by ten.
    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3405
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  Arrow Wed Oct 30, 2024 9:30 am

    IIRC the area of damage is proportional to the cube root of the weapon yield. To double the size of the footprint requires a 8x increase in the yield. To maximise damage use smaller warheads spread over the target rather than a single large one. wrote:

    xactly, that's why it's not worth using larger nuclear warheads. Strategic RVs are from 100kT to 500kT. Although on R36M2 the 15F174 warhead has a power of about 1 MT. However, such large powers are being abandoned. Yars has optionally several 100 kT or 300-500kT MIRVs. Bulava SIneva 100-150 kT. You can simulate it on Nuke MAP.

    GarryB, owais.usmani and jon_deluxe like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40448
    Points : 40948
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  GarryB Wed Oct 30, 2024 3:28 pm

    They can keep themselves under numerical treaty limits by retiring the Satan and Layner.

    They would not have exceeded treaty limits so they wont need to retire anything... their existing missiles would have the allowed number of warheads, meaning they would not have carried anything like their max capacity.

    Satan and even Liner could be used to launch satellites cheaply as a way of disposing of the missiles in a useful way.

    They could be kept in storage for the purpose of satellite launch with the allowed warheads they might have carried placed on new missiles replacing them on duty.

    START is already suspended, they don't have to maintain the limit of this idiotic treaty, do they?

    The 1,550 limit was set for 2021 sometime so they would have met the conditions of the treaty then. They have since frozen their observance of the treaty because the US was using the verification visits to find targets for Ukraine and to check security, presumably to train groups to defeat the security measures.

    I rather doubt they will have built a lot of new warheads in that time.

    And no you can't make lots of warheads and just keep them in storage so they are not counted... they are counted whether mounted on missiles or kept in storage.

    It probably won't be extended, although the US with its poor strategic nuclear arsenal may want to maintain the treaty. Putin will certainly agree to that.

    The Americans will want China added to Russian numbers but wont allow France or Britain or Israeli warhead numbers be included.

    They are also likely not going to be happy about Thunderbird or Poseidon and will want them banned completely along with restrictions on hypersonic weapons too... until they have them.

    Now, with little effort, they can maintain a level of over 2,000 strategic warheads

    It would make rather more sense to produce IRCM and load them with tactical nuclear warheads to level Europe and western allies in Asia and not worry about them counting in strategic nuclear arms agreements.

    The only reason there is a formation with them still around is because its missiles were not close to expiration. So it would have been a waste of money to retire them early.

    A useful, highly mobile way of launching new satellites if urgently needed...

    I prefer that a 1 teraton nuke be developed. Go big or go home.

    I don't disagree, but I would also agree with Big Gazza and say that the best way to deal with a large area target that is soft and crunchy like a city is with lots of small warhead rather than a single bigger one.

    If you imagine a city as being lots and lots of buildings spread out over a large area, one really powerful warhead in the centre is really going to mess up targets close to the detonation but as you get further away the power reduces rapidly to the point where a dozen or two kilometres away it does very little damage at all.

    Take the example of the 1 MT warhead, an 8-10km radius is small and is made worse if the terrain is hilly as it protects areas from blast too.

    In comparison the use of 5 x 100KT warheads... which is only 500KT in total and only half the 1 MT power that is properly spread out will do vastly more damage to the whole city and kill rather more people and destroy more structures.

    Think of a 500kg HE bomb. Drop it in the middle of a field filled with soldiers and the radius of 50-100m around the bomb impact point and those soldiers are going to be jam. But 300m away they might just get earache and knocked over by the blast.

    If you split that 500kg bomb up into 250 gramme blocks of HE with a ball bearing cover and spread those out over the entire field... perhaps a 10m by 10m grid with one bomblet on each square and you could cover an area of several kms with fragments that will kill or injure soldiers or light structures.

    And that is the key... in a normal city having lots of smaller bombs not only kills more people and destroys more buildings but the interacting shockwaves will ensure most structures are no longer standing afterwards because buildings are designed to resist gravity and don't cope well with side forces like multiple nuclear detonations.

    As pointed out to double the effect of a bomb you need 8 times more energy, so two explosives 1/8th the power can replicate the same damage or more by not exploding in the same place.

    Put them 10km apart and so while the lethal radius is smaller the gap between them will have shockwaves coming from two directions instead of one making them more destructive.

    To double the effects of a 1MT detonation you would need an 8MT bomb to double the radius... but don't you see that the more obvious solution would be to just use two 1 MT bombs spaced the detonation radius of the two apart... or you could use four x 1 MT and increase the damaged area much more efficiently by dropping them in a pattern based on the ground around the target.

    jon_deluxe likes this post

    thegopnik
    thegopnik


    Posts : 1810
    Points : 1812
    Join date : 2017-09-20

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  thegopnik Yesterday at 4:12 pm

    https://iz.ru/1787347/2024-11-07/putin-rasskazal-o-nalichii-u-rf-novykh-razrabotok-v-sfere-iadernykh-vooruzhenii

    New developments for nukes emerging but can't be disclosed
    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3405
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  Arrow Yesterday at 4:23 pm

    Link doesn't work.
    thegopnik
    thegopnik


    Posts : 1810
    Points : 1812
    Join date : 2017-09-20

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  thegopnik Yesterday at 4:32 pm

    Quote from link
    Russia has new developments in the field of nuclear weapons, they appear constantly. Russian President Vladimir Putin stated this on November 7 during a plenary session of the Valdai Discussion Club.

    "There are [new developments], something is constantly emerging. Just yesterday I spoke with one of the heads of one of our largest concerns, he reported on his ideas in this area, it's just too early to talk about it," Putin shared.

    The President added that Russia is approaching the point of putting into service the developments he mentioned five years ago; now, testing of these types of weapons is coming to an end

    The developments he mentioned 5 years ago was burevestnik, Poseidon, sarmat, avangard,peresvet and kinzhal.


    GarryB and Big_Gazza like this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15833
    Points : 15968
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  kvs Yesterday at 6:15 pm

    Upthread we had the Russian assertion that they will not be involved in a new arms race. Nope, that is not their decision, but that of the yanquis. Is
    Russia seriously going to let the US have 10 times more warheads and launchers? No freaking way.

    Big_Gazza likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40448
    Points : 40948
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  GarryB Today at 4:33 am

    For a big EMP you need a pretty big nuclear charge. You detonate it at a high altitude so there will be no other effects of the explosion. But still it is without using a nuclear weapon.

    The Americans tested a multi megaton warhead very high in the atmosphere in the Pacific... calculations suggest if it was detonated over the US it would have blacked out most of the country.

    I was not talking about such levels of power for EMP weapons. I said an EMP weapon with an effective radius of 10km to deal with drones and drone swarms.

    They already have EMP weapons that use conventional explosives to generate the EMP field and reach 500m to 1km or so, which means a small nuclear version with a low energy nuclear warhead might be possible to the distance they will find useful. A 100km range EMP weapon might be good to take out air defences over a city before your other missiles start taking out targets.

    The point is that the agreement on nuclear explosions means testing is not possible to work out how to make EMP pulses more effective at the expense of explosive power.

    Their computer models will be based on readings they have taken from an enormous number of test detonations, but by now I am sure they will have new tests they will want to do to learn more about the process to improve and expand their computer models into new areas.

    Upthread we had the Russian assertion that they will not be involved in a new arms race. Nope, that is not their decision, but that of the yanquis. Is
    Russia seriously going to let the US have 10 times more warheads and launchers? No freaking way.

    When they say they don't want to get into an arms race, I suspect they mean they don't want to just build nuclear missiles to match the number the US makes, because it is not about pride in having the most warheads, it is about having enough warheads and delivery platforms to destroy the enemy to a sufficient level that the problem is solved.

    With breeder reactors coming online pretty soon producing nuclear weapons material is going to be easy and able to be done in large quantities relatively quickly, while US efforts are going to be very expensive and they are already in debt to their eyeballs... not to mention the fact that they wont have their go to solution of just printing more money to solve their problems...

    More importantly the Russian IADS network is expanding and getting stronger all the time and with new ABM systems entering service, the western capacity to defeat them is getting weaker and weaker.

    The funny thing is that Poseidon and Thunderbird could be considered UUVs and UAVs respectively and not count as strategic weapons...

    They could load thousands of 152mm artillery shell sized nuclear warheads in an Angara 5 missile with is 25 ton payload to LEO... the nuclear 152mm artillery shell is about 50kgs... make it 60kgs with 10kgs of aerodynamic stabilisers and ablative heat shield material.... that means 25,000kg divided by 60kg = about 415 warheads.

    Every missile they have could carry them in their thousands, where each target they scatter dozens of these warheads around the point of aim at random.

    The relatively low power of these warheads increases the nuclear radiation contamination, because the radiation does not increase with power.... the radiation effects of a 1Kt nuke might be 800m, while the radiation effect of a 1MT nuke (1,000 times more powerful) might be 1.6km. The main difference is that the bigger weapon will get rather less radiation kills because the blast means anyone the radiation would kill gets incinerated by the blast anyway.

    With the new all bets are off status these days Putin talking about new technology in the nuclear field might be referring to neutron weapons or other more exotic weapons that either massively reduce the blast or massively increase it, or massively reduce radiation, or massively increase it.

    I am confident they know what they are doing... it is not just Putin that is smart... they seem to have smart people in government with a few rabble rousers to not appear too cerebral.

    Sponsored content


    Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads - Page 12 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Nov 09, 2024 4:23 pm