BZhRK "Barguzin" railway ICBM

Procurement of the Barguzin was postponed to pump more money into the Sarmat. After Sarmat is put into the service Barguzin will be back.

With the elimination of the INF treaty it could be heavily expanded to include IRBMs too... in standard railcars...

That will cost too much $; cheaper to use ice-breaking tugs to tow missile barges up & down the wide Volga, Ob' & Yenisei rivers. This will also extend navigation for commercial shipping following them in winter months, benefiting the economy.

Spending money on rail links is a double whammy... you get your new military capability but you also boost logistics capacity too... it can be linked to local civilian settlements too to further improve the quality of life of the region a stumbling block being access and supply costs and regularity... having a rail link would massively improve things... taking stuff in and getting stuff out.

Ice breaking tugs with barges for out-sized or awkward loads, but day to day stuff would normally be air delivered which limits what can be sent either way... rail links will improve things... in a similar way that rail links in the US opened up the country and allowed expansion and growth...

Where it was possible to build w/o huge effort & investments, it was already done- they have the needed rail network already, & it's their main land transport. Big bases r already close to the railroads; many small 1s were closed since 1991.
The air transport is the most expensive & least developed; the water transport is the least expensive, & all 5 seas in the European part r connected via the internal waterways.
A lot cheaper to have sea/lake bottom ICBMs.
The NFT will still be adhered by the US in Europe (at least for the time being)- the reason for leaving it is China's C/BMs opposite Taiwan, Okinawa, Guam & mainland Japan.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Deputy Prime Minister said that Russia is unlikely to return to the Barguzin BZHRK project

Not much need for it now that INF is gonzo

Put cruise missiles on trains.

Hole wrote:Put cruise missiles on trains.

Trucks are cheaper and more mobile

Everyone is talking about missiles while ignoring how useful trucks are as launch platforms

Trucks, trains... who cares?

Hole wrote:Trucks, trains... who cares?

I am getting skeptical about this, they've been talking about it for over a decade and it's still nowhere near production or deployment

PapaDragon wrote:

Hole wrote:Trucks, trains... who cares?

I am getting skeptical about this, they've been talking about it for over a decade and it's still nowhere near production or deployment

Like I said once, this sort of weapon carrier would be a major step in geting relations with west ten times more bad than they are.

I doubt russian MoD want US to deploy similar thing at its borders. That would needs huge amount of time and money to track. Because US could also design it in matters of week and put tomahawks inside. Actually they already designed it during cold war.

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Hole wrote:Trucks, trains... who cares?

https://i.servimg.com/u/f10/19/89/13/22/000130.jpg[/img]

I am getting skeptical about this, they've been talking about it for over a decade and it's still nowhere near production or deployment

Like I said once, this sort of weapon carrier would be a major step in geting relations with west ten times more bad than they are.

I doubt russian MoD want US to deploy similar thing at its borders. That would needs huge amount of time and money to track. Because US could also design it in matters of week and put tomahawks inside. Actually they already designed it during cold war.

They still need it for Bykov patrol ships and still nothing

I doubt russian MoD want US to deploy similar thing at its borders.

Have you been asleep?

News reports stating eastern european countries formerly in the warsaw pact buying all sorts of long range air launched guided missiles and SAMs that they never needed before...

The fact is that the west is the aggressor... the Russians don't win by outspending the west... because they can't... all they can do is take measures to ensure that the west knows no matter what it does the Russians will destroy them in return... so there is no chance for anyone to win. The Russians don't need to survive, they need to make it clear to the west that no matter what they do, how much they spend, that there is no chance for the west to survive the resulting backlash.

I suspect the main reason we have not seen the cargo ship container Club in Russian service is because it has a range of 300km... as per the INF treaty.

With the INF treaty gone they can put 4,500km range cruise missiles or ballistic missiles and they can put them on trucks or trains or ships or even inside transport aircraft...

The expert named the terms of development and adoption of the new BZHRK "Barguzin"


Russia may supply the Strategic Missile Forces with the new Barguzin combat railroad missile system (BZHRK) within three to five years. This requires the adoption of an appropriate decision by the country's leadership, said in an interview with RIA Novosti an expert in the field of strategic weapons, a veteran of the Strategic Missile Forces, Vladimir Evseev.

Deployment of the BZHRK would be the most effective response to the growth of NATO military bases near the Russian borders, he said, it was only necessary to make a decision to resume its development. According to the expert, the country's leadership froze the project, counting on the extension of the START-3 treaty, another reason was the lack of funds for the BZHRK.

I believe that the deployment of the Barguzin would be the most effective response to the strategic threat posed by the growth of NATO military bases near the Russian borders ... In my estimate, it will take about 3-5 years, for a missile system this is a very short time

- said Evseev, adding that in their characteristics "new BZHRK significantly superior to its predecessor - BZHRK" Good. "

The expert is convinced that BZHRK much more efficient road-mobile missile complexes" Topol-M "and the" yars ", which for the start-up, go to the field area and turn around, making them vulnerable.

The Molodets had too heavy a rocket that did not fit into a regular carriage, which was an unmasking sign, and the Barguzin uses a "lightweight" rocket that is included in a regular carriage, the BZHRK can launch on any section of the railway

- he declared.

Recall that the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation announced the start of work on the project of the Barguzin combat railway missile system (BZHRK) in 2012, in 2014 the Yars missile was selected for it, and at the end of 2017 it was reported that the project was closed. As the Russian media wrote, the development was postponed indefinitely. However, it was reported that development work was fully carried out on the project, and throw tests of missiles for the complex were also successfully carried out. Later, information appeared that the resumption of work on it is possible with a change in the military-political situation.

The development of the new BZHRK was carried out by the Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering, taking into account the experience of creating its predecessor - the BZHRK with the Molodets missile (RT-23 UTTH, according to NATO classification - SS-24 Scalpel

During the Soviet era, the Strategic Missile Forces had three divisions, each including four BZHRK "Molodets". Thus, twelve "nuclear trains" carried 36 missiles, each of which carried 10 warheads. The disposal of the BZHRK took place in 2003-2006.

https://topwar.ru/173391-jekspert-nazval-sroki-postanovki-na-vooruzhenie-bzhrk-barguzin.html

I can understand people thinking trucks are better, but in actual fact investment in train technology and infrastructure is valuable too.

Building roads is a good thing, but so it building rail networks.

A TOPOL on a truck was required by START treaty to be based in a specific base... they can't just hide them anywhere.

During times of tension as per START treaty there are only limited areas the Trucks are allowed to drive and also the size and weight of the trucks limited their ability to just drive anywhere. They can't just drive cross country for instance... and they wont be driving anywhere at 100km/h which of course limits the distance they can move over any specific periods of time.

With a train mounted system not only can you put multiple missile carriages on each train you can get it moving at very high speed to cover rather large distances.

The facts of the matter is that even if you are stuck on a long straight train line being able to move at over 100km/h and being able to pull off at a siding that perhaps takes it off at a tangent of 90 degrees that can either go down below ground level or simply have berms built on either side of the track effectively putting ground up all around the trains and even a very close nuclear attack will be totally ineffective.

Sidings are relatively simple and cheap... as are berms.... on a big train network they can also be used to allow trains to cross paths or pass each other.

Investment in making the missile trains move at 600km/h would benefit all other train traffic because the same technology and tracks could be used for passenger and cargo transport... it would actually make rail transport from Asia to the EU and back competitive with aircraft and more desirable than by sea for all except the biggest heaviest freight... the size and weight of an oil tanker or LNG carrier means shipping would still make sense, but for passengers that don't like to fly a 600km/h train would be interesting...

An interesting offshoot development would be nuclear powered train engines... with effectively unlimited electrical power you could add a few carriages with S-500 missiles and lasers to provide mobile protection and fire power...

I would certainly be something to help open up Russia in terms of trade and economics... it will make the Far East easier to get to, and improve the quality of life for those living there.... giving them better access to new technology and products and giving Russia better access to the resources of the far north and far east.

With the north sea route being opened up ports along the northern coast will grow and develop so rail lines south to the main lines can open options for people to get supplies and workers in and raw materials and products out.

Since the yanquis are going to kill START, the truck option becomes superior. Rail lines are constrained in their coverage of the countryside.
Dirt roads can grid the whole country. You can see this in Canada where logging roads are very extensive. Compared to such road
networks, rail lines are more confined to connecting in narrow bands remote locations.

But both are useful and affordable.

Hole wrote:

"We only need a solution": the MIT declared its readiness to resume work on the Barguzin bzhrk

A limitation of rail line ICBMs is that rail lines are typically fully exposed to satellite view. Even those massive mobile ICBM carriers
can hide in the forest. Eventually the yanquis will be able to track the ICBM trains either through peculiar emissions or whatnot.
So they become much like stationary silos. Still useful since yanqui dreams of first strike nullification are simply moronic.

One missile one engine.... much cheaper than any silo and when they are not required to disperse they can leave the missiles in secure locations and use the engines for other purposes.

Military sidings along the lines could be located in 1,000 different places... protected by lasers and SAMs and FSB units... most of the sidings could merely be used to allow trains on the same line to pass each other... a berm rising up above the top of the train would protect them from an air burst nuclear weapon except one that exploded directly over head.

But of course the reality is that by the time enemy weapons arrived to try to take them out the missiles will already be launched so who gives a fuck.

Trucks driving around from the place where they are based could be attacked by terrorist forces.... a single 50 cal rifle bullet could pierce the side of the truck and damage the missile and make it useless... how many train carriages will they need to be shooting... and this is not Star Trek... they wont be scanning with hand held devices to check for nuclear warheads any time soon.

Being able to hide missiles on trains makes sense and guess what... you could add quite a few other carriages with other missile types in the form of the container based weapon systems they have shown including SAMs and lasers and EW equipment.

In the middle of Siberia they are building air bases... a big circular rail line that connects them could be built especially for military use... they could use it to take supplies from trains on the main lines from ports down to the transsiberian rail lines, and to also distribute material to the various military bases as well as have these nuclear missile trains.

The point is that targeting it means using thousands of warheads to try to destroy every part of the track and if the trains are already in the sidings with berms on either side then you need a direct hit to do any damage at all.

Most of the time the missiles would already have been launched and they could go into tunnels and load up with nuclear engine powered unlimited range cruise missiles that they could start launching continuously... no START no limits....

Look who is making a (possible) comeback.

Hole wrote:

https://twitter.com/MihajlovicMike/status/1486766748573523976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Look who is making a (possible) comeback.

Ivan the Tank Engine approves!

So its based on Bulava SLBM - that was itself based on the Topol-M ICBM. Is it a whale?

Smart move. At 12 meters length and 2 meters diameter and 37 tons it will fit any standard format rail car. They don't have to spend
development effort to make a new missile.

I am getting skeptical about this, they've been talking about it for over a decade and it's still nowhere near production or deployment

Why do you think they would announce such a thing?

Like I said once, this sort of weapon carrier would be a major step in geting relations with west ten times more bad than they are.

How could they get any worse?

I doubt russian MoD want US to deploy similar thing at its borders. That would needs huge amount of time and money to track. Because US could also design it in matters of week and put tomahawks inside. Actually they already designed it during cold war.

The US has AEGIS ASHORE in Eastern Europe... it can carry Tomahawks of course, but the SAM it uses is a Standard SM-6 missile that can be fitted with a nuclear warhead and fired at Russia easily enough...

There is nothing stopping them from basing missiles in the Ukraine or Georgia or Turkey... these Russian missiles will simply ensure the ability of Russia to respond in kind.

Most importantly building lots of new rail engines means more freight capacity when you are not using them for hauling around missiles... you could put Bulava based missiles but just as easily you could load Thunderbird missiles.... such trains could move further and faster than ICBMs on the back of trucks.

Especially on logging roads where ICBMs trucks would likely remain stationary...