BZhRK "Barguzin" railway ICBM

George1 wrote:RVSN officer claims design for rail-based Barguzin ICBM being completed; program still on track.

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20160220/1377773148.html

In this case on track is also literally

Barguzin rail-mobile ICBM axed, Project 4202 lives on

http://russianforces.org/blog/2016/04/barguzin_rail-mobile_icbm_is_a.shtml

I wrote it in the Rail-ICBM thread but again they've not mentioned any source to prove their claim that's why I avoided.

sepheronx wrote:

max steel wrote:  I wrote it in the Rail-ICBM thread but again they've not mentioned any source to prove their claim that's why I avoided.

They really need to provide sources. Makes them look amateurish. But if news is true, then OK.

A lot of their sources are based on word of mouth, and or sources that you cant verify the credibility of (good ole' "unnamed" sources )  which is a reason to avoid the site.

http://russianforces.org in general is full of crap and BS, every month they release article on some USSR project from 80s/70s being revived, and not a single word about it anywhere else. Clickbiters.

GarryB wrote:Rail based ICBMs are actually better than road mobile ICBMs because although rail models are limited to rails they can also move rather faster and there are plenty of rails and sidings in Russia to move to.

Even a side track with earth mounds built up on either side and the front and rear would be enough to protect it from anything but a very near miss... and the west does not have enough nuclear weapons to cover every 1000km of Russian rail track let alone every 200kms.

But they have significant disadvantages in areas where you can deploy them, and enemy sort of has alot easier job detecting them as he knows they simply HAVE to be somewhere on railroad Destruction of key points on railroads like bridges and major crossroads can severely reduce its effectiveness. But still i dont mind having such platform just for sake of diversity.

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Rail based ICBMs are actually better than road mobile ICBMs because although rail models are limited to rails they can also move rather faster and there are plenty of rails and sidings in Russia to move to.

Even a side track with earth mounds built up on either side and the front and rear would be enough to protect it from anything but a very near miss... and the west does not have enough nuclear weapons to cover every 1000km of Russian rail track let alone every 200kms.

But they have significant disadvantages in areas where you can deploy them, and enemy sort of has alot easier job detecting them as he knows they simply HAVE to be somewhere on railroad Destruction of key points on railroads like bridges and major crossroads can severely reduce its effectiveness. But still i dont mind having such platform just for sake of diversity.

The key is that the enemy cannot target the rail ICBMs like bridges since it does not know where on the rails they are at any given instant
and even if the enemy manages to have spies pin their locations (very doubtful) and target them with a first strike they can be moved while
the enemy ICBMs are incoming. So they are just as useful as road mobile ICBMs but can be heavier. They remove the first strike advantage.
There is no need for these mobile ICBMs to be shuffled around the whole territory in some ergodic domain filling operation. The main thing is
to be able to move them far enough from any point of impact of enemy warheads.

I dont think the news of cancellation of Rail Based ICBM is true , just few days back they mentioned they were training crew for that system.

Lets hear the official verison , Pavel lately has been aggresively part of Atlantist agenda , His pay master must have told him so.

Else who post news like Bulava test failed when there is no offical information of bulava launch

http://russianforces.org/blog/2016/03/salvo_bulava_launch_from_vladi.shtml

Well the website is good no second thoughts on that but as Austin said even I noticed the same for past few months ( since syrian intervention) Podvig has been aggresively pushing the Atlantist agenda. I go by the name ' Dan Dare' and I posted my views on Status-6 Article but later i saw my comment disappeared. When I was reasoning with other posters on US ABM in Europe, SM-3 Missiles up-gradation etc.

Since then they don't post my comment directly , it goes to blog owner for approval but never gets approved. I asked for official statement/proof regarding cancellation of 4202 programme.

I read the same Bulava missile failure thread and again it was a disappointment. First Bulava Missile did fail that's true you can check the Bulava SLBM thread but he claimed second missile failed too which is preposterous , quoted article seemed so incoherent that I would hardly call it reliable. Ryan Alt is a voice of reason there.

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Rail based ICBMs are actually better than road mobile ICBMs because although rail models are limited to rails they can also move rather faster and there are plenty of rails and sidings in Russia to move to.

Even a side track with earth mounds built up on either side and the front and rear would be enough to protect it from anything but a very near miss... and the west does not have enough nuclear weapons to cover every 1000km of Russian rail track let alone every 200kms.

But they have significant disadvantages in areas where you can deploy them, and enemy sort of has alot easier job detecting them as he knows they simply HAVE to be somewhere on railroad Destruction of key points on railroads like bridges and major crossroads can severely reduce its effectiveness. But still i dont mind having such platform just for sake of diversity.

1.) It's been stated already they cant cover 100% of Russia's territory, they don't have enough satellites to cover ever km of Russian rail 24/7 365. You seem to completely forget that not all rail is in the open, some of it's underground, and what's stops the use of decoys, disguises, Nakidka kits, electromagnetic opaque aerosol fog generators? What's stops the use of hidden rail and train bunkers with retractable and mechanized foliage, shrubbery, vegetation, and landscape to disguise it's location?

2.) It'll be orders of magnitude easier to identify a Topol-M launcher, which is unmistakable, compared to the new rail ICBM because unlike the old version the cargo freight will be indistinguishable from civilian cargo freight. You also seem to forgotten that an ICBM train will have an enormous payload capacity, so what's stops the development of freight container versions of Panstir-S1, S-400, S-500, A-235/Nudol utilizing ROFAR OHR, or even offensive systems like Kornet-M, 120 mm howizer, AS-40 grenade launcher, Vasilek 82mm automatic mortar, or some 57 mm cannons?

3.) There's also the potential of creating fast rail or even maglev equivalents in the future, and KRET has stated that they are looking in to developing ROFAR for civil trains to detect anomaly's in the way of freight trains or in the track itself, it wouldn't be stretch that the military version (combined with powerful IRST optics) would have a ROFAR to add long range vision, with high accuracy and resolution to prevent any sabotage from the air or on the ground.

GarryB wrote:

But they have significant disadvantages in areas where you can deploy them, and enemy sort of has alot easier job detecting them as he knows they simply HAVE to be somewhere on railroad Smile Destruction of key points on railroads like bridges and major crossroads can severely reduce its effectiveness. But still i dont mind having such platform just for sake of diversity.

Not true... there are plenty of covered railways they could be hidden in... including underground metros... and there could be various tunnels in which they could be hidden.

The critical thing is how much they can be made to look like other innocent traffic.

Destruction of rail lines will effect mobility but not prevent them launching their weapons...

The reality is that not being a fixed location easily targeted means rail mounted ICBMs are largely protected from a retaliatory nuke strike... their best feature come to the fore in an enemy mounted first strike.

The ability of the enemy to locate and identify ICBMs on trains in real time and actually deliver a strike to actually destroy them hinges on total air superiority and the enemy not interfering with their space and air based recon assets... they could not even achieve that in Iraq.

It is a question of finding a needle in a haystack of needles... or needlestack... on a very short deadline because once it is clear you are trying to destroy them you hand the real first strike capability to your enemy...

The key is that the enemy cannot target the rail ICBMs like bridges since it does not know where on the rails they are at any given instant
and even if the enemy manages to have spies pin their locations (very doubtful) and target them with a first strike they can be moved while
the enemy ICBMs are incoming. So they are just as useful as road mobile ICBMs but can be heavier. They remove the first strike advantage.
There is no need for these mobile ICBMs to be shuffled around the whole territory in some ergodic domain filling operation. The main thing is
to be able to move them far enough from any point of impact of enemy warheads.

And even a small siding built like a rivetment on a runway for aircraft will require a near miss to be effective.... 40 or 50 sidings with tunnels could be used... some of them could even be made public so passengers could stretch their legs and get a meal or something...

Road mobile missiles can't just drive down any road they don't corner like most vehicles and need long sweeping curves to turn so they don't just drive anywhere they like...

There will have to be some differences in design between normal railcars and device we are talking about. Similar? Sure. Same platform? Sure. Identical? Unlikely.

I dont think there are many that secure tunnels on railroad, especially not in Siberian part of railroad, its mostly quite flat, open field, tundra.

Railroad limits operation areas alot, you literally removed 99,999% of Russian territory from the search list. I never said its easy to find them, however its alot easier than its with Topol-M/Jars as it can be almost anywhere, especially in Far East in wast flatland. Its like you operate nuclear submarine in a river. Sure, it has alot higher chances of surviving first strike than a silo based ICBMs... but where are you going to keep your railroad ICBMs in peacetime? On train station in Novosibirsk? I dont think so. They will most likely be grouped in 3-4 bases in Russia with railroad access with occasional drills, rest of the time they will spend in base grouped up, they will lose its main point.

Militarov wrote: There will have to be some differences in design between normal railcars and device we are talking about. Similar? Sure. Same platform? Sure. Identical? Unlikely.

I dont think there are many that secure tunnels on railroad, especially not in Siberian part of railroad, its mostly quite flat, open field, tundra. Railroad limits operation areas alot, you literally removed 99,999% of Russian territory from the search list. I never said its easy to find them, however its alot easier than its with Topol-M/Jars as it can be almost anywhere, especially in Far East in wast flatland. Its like you operate nuclear submarine in a river.

Well maybe not since war-planners assume enough similarity location can be kept enough secret. i presume they havew bette rview on situation then all armchair generals here with all respect gents.

Militarov wrote:
Sure, it has alot higher chances of surviving first strike than a silo based ICBMs... but where are you going to keep your railroad ICBMs in peacetime? On train station in Novosibirsk? I dont think so. They will most likely be grouped in 3-4 bases in Russia with railroad access with occasional drills, rest of the time they will spend in base grouped up, they will lose its main point.

OK you think but do you have and data to support your thesis? the idea of train is to be in constant motion not in base. i would prefer to look at nuke trains via number total traffic in Russian Railways:

Exact data to be checked but this is just an order of magnitude.
~90,000 km tracks (AFAIK growing)
2,5 bln ton transported yearly
no of locomotives ~2000

Do you think if amount couple of hundred trains running simultaneously it is s easy find right one? Us cannot launch hundreds of missiles just to disable all suspects...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Militarov wrote: There will have to be some differences in design between normal railcars and device we are talking about. Similar? Sure. Same platform? Sure. Identical? Unlikely.

I dont think there are many that secure tunnels on railroad, especially not in Siberian part of railroad, its mostly quite flat, open field, tundra. Railroad limits operation areas alot, you literally removed 99,999% of Russian territory from the search list. I never said its easy to find them, however its alot easier than its with Topol-M/Jars as it can be almost anywhere, especially in Far East in wast flatland. Its like you operate nuclear submarine in a river.

Well maybe not since war-planners assume enough similarity location can be kept enough secret. i presume they havew bette rview on situation then all armchair generals here with all respect gents.  

Militarov wrote:
Sure, it has alot higher chances of surviving first strike than a silo based ICBMs... but where are you going to keep your railroad ICBMs in peacetime? On train station in Novosibirsk? I dont think so. They will most likely be grouped in 3-4 bases in Russia with railroad access with occasional drills, rest of the time they will spend in base grouped up, they will lose its main point.

OK you think but do you have and data to support your thesis? the idea of train is to be in constant motion not in base. i would prefer to look at  nuke trains via number total traffic in Russian Railways:

Exact data to be checked but this is just an order of magnitude.
~90,000 km tracks (AFAIK growing)
2,5 bln ton transported yearly
no of locomotives ~2000

Do you think if amount couple of hundred trains running simultaneously it is s easy find right one? Us cannot launch hundreds of missiles just to disable all suspects...

You know, "War-planners" came up with ideas like ICBMs being dropped from transport aircraft and submarine aircraft carriers too... and many other useless junk though time. Just coz someone with 3 stars and 3 years of college says something is great, doesnt rly mean it actually is. ICBM carrying train is good idea, it gives more versatility to the Strategic branch, but it has many flaws too.

Noone in right mind is going to have 10-20 ICBMs on the move at any present time on railroad, noone would allow such thing, not even in Russia today, unless its some sort of very low frequency line or military only operated parts of railroad which i assume still exist. One thing is Jars, it can at worse flip over, you bring few machines to flip it back, now...derailing while moving 100km/h with 6 ICBMs on your back...you figure.

Militarov wrote: You know, "War-planners" came up with ideas like ICBMs being dropped from transport aircraft and submarine aircraft carriers too... and many other useless junk though time. Just coz someone with 3 stars and 3 years of college says something is great, doesnt rly mean it actually is. ICBM carrying train is good idea, it gives more versatility to the Strategic branch, but it has many flaws too.

There is perfectly good or bad solution. Train as all solutions has set of attributes which can be advantageous or disadvantageous. Apparently the first class prevails.

[/quote]
Noone in right mind is going to have 10-20 ICBMs on the move at any present time on railroad, noone would allow such thing, not even in Russia today, unless its some sort of very low frequency line or military only operated parts of railroad which i assume still exist.
[/quote]

Why not? why no one?

One thing is Jars, it can at worse flip over, you bring few machines to flip it back, now...derailing while moving 100km/h with 6 ICBMs on your back...you figure.

True, train can derail but sub can sink...ICBM can crash in silo and bomber crash during flight..BTW how many ICBM trains derailed in Soviet union?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Militarov wrote:  You know, "War-planners" came up with ideas like ICBMs being dropped from transport aircraft and submarine aircraft carriers too... and many other useless junk though time. Just coz someone with 3 stars and 3 years of college says something is great, doesnt rly mean it actually is. ICBM carrying train is good idea, it gives more versatility to the Strategic branch, but it has many flaws too.

There is perfectly good or bad solution. Train as all solutions has set of attributes which can be advantageous or disadvantageous. Apparently the first class prevails.

Noone in right mind is going to have 10-20 ICBMs on the move at any present time on railroad, noone would allow such thing, not even in Russia today, unless its some sort of very low frequency line or military only operated parts of railroad which i assume still exist.
[/quote]

Why not? why no one?

One thing is Jars, it can at worse flip over, you bring few machines to flip it back, now...derailing while moving 100km/h with 6 ICBMs on your back...you figure.

True, train can derail but sub can sink...ICBM can crash in silo and bomber crash  during flight..BTW how many ICBM trains derailed in Soviet union?

[/quote]

So wait... you would circle around your country 20 ICBM armed trains at every present moment? I am not sure if you are joking or not here. Big numbers theory says something very, very bad shall happen if such practice is kept for prolonged period of time . For love of God took my unit 3 weeks to set train to transport 75 SAM HE-frag warheads for transport to be destroyed....

Sure, sub can sink, but where? 6km deep in mid of Atlantic where it poses little or no threat to anyone. However train wreck 300km from Moscow is going to be one a hell of an issue...

RT-23 Molodets were barely moved at all in Russia, they were in depots due to lack of money, from what i have read they were mostly static post 1992. and only few dozen cars was ever made (1 missile per car), locomotives were standard civilian ones. Which means they were in some normal operating state only 3 or 4 years. So experience from USSR is actually almost unexisting.

ICBM in silo is actually the safest possible way of keeping nuclear weapons. Well, thats why bombers almost never fly with actual nuclear warheads.

Militarov why did it take so long to load the 75 KG warheads?

VladimirSahin wrote:Militarov why did it take so long to load the 75 KG warheads?

Eh...loading itself took 2-3 days. Why so long? Well, S-75 Dvina warheads plus its fuel, 75 pieces in total. You have to work in full protective suit, gloves...eye cover etc. Then special railcars were required, after that they were towed for inspection, nothing could be done without firefighters and sappers being present. Then when we loaded it, special duty locomotive came, and towed it for an inspection, which took time, then you wait for Railway company to give you special permission and route to move military equipment, especially dangerous like this. Then we had to provide escort of it.... whole process took almost 3 weeks in total i belive to move load some 150km.

Makes sense, 3 weeks still seems quite long though. Well Thanks for sharing your experience, Looking forward to other experiences.

VladimirSahin wrote:Makes sense, 3 weeks still seems quite long though. Well Thanks for sharing your experience, Looking forward to other experiences.

In peacetime hauling stuff like this takes ages especially via railway. Via trucks its somewhat easier, you load trucks, provide escort, you send notice to Police and whoala day or two. But we couldnt risk 40 years old highly corosive fuel transport that way.

In wartime rules get loosen alot naturally.

Based on mobility, mobile systems by road are better than mobile systems by railway, and these are better than towed systems.

I assume that systems designed for railway in Russia today are too big to use the habitual systems, and that towed systems are too big to be moved. Then I think every type would have a place.