While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.
+27
Isos
Hole
owais.usmani
LMFS
SeigSoloyvov
mnztr
GarryB
kvs
miketheterrible
max steel
jhelb
Benya
Mindstorm
PapaDragon
Singular_Transform
Arrow
Austin
George1
Werewolf
Mike E
Stealthflanker
magnumcromagnon
type055
sepheronx
TR1
flamming_python
Vann7
31 posters
Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:
Guest- Guest
Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.
While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.
While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.
PapaDragon- Posts : 13506
Points : 13546
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.
While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.
Agreed.
I always found the whole discussion hilarious.
Singular_Transform- Posts : 1032
Points : 1014
Join date : 2016-11-13
PapaDragon wrote:Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.
While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.
Agreed.
I always found the whole discussion hilarious.
Not only ICBM silos can be primary target, but C&C bunkers, SSBNs moored to pliers , capital ships and so on.
Singular_Transform- Posts : 1032
Points : 1014
Join date : 2016-11-13
Actualy I live not that far from a primary strategical nuclear target ,and the blast can destroy completly my house if the warhead miss the target by 1 km.
So I hope that they using precise guidance : )
So I hope that they using precise guidance : )
Guest- Guest
Singular_Transform wrote:PapaDragon wrote:Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.
While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.
Agreed.
I always found the whole discussion hilarious.
Not only ICBM silos can be primary target, but C&C bunkers, SSBNs moored to pliers , capital ships and so on.
Chance that someone would use an ICBM aganist moving capital ship are...basically zero.
When its about stationary command and control bunkers etc, sure, however even those are not going to care much if it exploded on top of them or 200m to the left, effect i am afraid will be the same, alot of dead people.
GarryB- Posts : 40662
Points : 41164
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.
While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.
Well said.
The stupid misguided fixation with accuracy by the US is contagious and debilitating.
The US wants accuracy because it wants first strike weapons to take out enemy military capacity in a preemptive first strike.
Russia needs the power to destroy the enemy... as mentioned 200m CEP is plenty for this mission.
Not only ICBM silos can be primary target, but C&C bunkers, SSBNs moored to pliers , capital ships and so on.
Accuracy does not help in dealing with deep bunkers... especially hidden ones... you can see entrances and vents on satellite images but the actual location of underground bases is totally secret and largely invulnerable to all but the heaviest of warheads.
Even a trench dug into the ground where a train can roll down into it and be protected by dirt on three sides will protect the train from a very powerful and very close blast... nuclear or otherwise.
The Siberian rail line could be fitted with side rails that lead off at 90 degrees from the track that drop down 20 metres and have three high dirt mounds on either side and behind... anything but a direct hit and a train in that revetment would be totally safe... put hundreds or thousands along every track in Russia and those nuke trains... given 5 minutes warning could all take cover in the nearest siding and be totally safe from nuclear attack. The US wont know which siding will be used and there will be thousands so no chance of hitting them all or even a small fraction of them... they would not even need a roof... just an open shallow hole.
Chance that someone would use an ICBM aganist moving capital ship are...basically zero.
Might use them to hit capital ships and carriers in port if they happen to be there at the time of the attack I suppose... but being a mobile target again high accuracy wont help much...
exploded on top of them or 200m to the left, effect i am afraid will be the same, alot of dead people.
Even if it does not penetrate you still get a lot of trapped people... and not much to come out to when you can get out.
What the Russian ICBMs and SLBMs and cruise missiles don't kill... red neck americans with their guns will finish off... they gotta eat too yah know...
Vann7- Posts : 5385
Points : 5485
Join date : 2012-05-16
Who do the first preventive full strike nuclear attack ,and take the other side by Surprise ,
will be able to destroy its most important infrastructure ,military bases and economic
zones first.
So unless Russia change its policy of not striking first , it will be in a serious disadvantage to
stop US military. If you just target cities ,it will not stop the military power of any nation .
But if you strike major economic zones , major military bases and bunkers. then you can
retreat that destroy the capabilities of that nation to continue fighting.
For example , lets Say a madman takes control of US policy , and orders a full all or nothing
strike on Russia , regardless of millions casualties that could happen in both sides. That is a
massive strike of couple of thousands missiles at ST peterburg ,Moscow ,and all major Russian naval bases and submarines and warships.
That will not necessarily defeat the Russia army ,but will significantly neutralize Russia
capabilities to strike US or NATO ,and the best they could do is just target without precision
Europe and US ,targeting cities. Taking into account that US most important military bases
are near civilian zones in Europe in nations Russia will like to have close relations like Germany and Italy. they also have bases in Canada and Norway etc. Then Russia will be at risk of losing
territory like Kalingrad if lose all its navy in a surprise attack. If Russia factories are nuked ,then neither Russia will have capability to produce tanks or rockets. if Russia space program nuked same. So in a nuclear war , US will have a huge advantage because their policy justify
a first nuclear strike. and it cant destroy in such strike 90% of Russia offensive capabilities and only limit to defense , that is ,to only limit is fighting capability only to fight back ground invasions. If that is the case ,then it will be a victory since US will remain largely untouched a dozens military bases nuked , and cities too ,but it will not stop US navy or airforce or army
if Russia allows US to carefully plan a full scale nuclear strike on Russia first.
If Russia is the one that does a full decapitation ,full scale ,all or nothing nuclear strike . then it will be the other way. Russia can strike US major military and naval bases , strike air craft carriers , US military industry ,and shot down the most important NATO satellites.
Means that if you have a well organized full scale attack either by US or RUssia starting it,,on top 50 or top 100 targets . that happens all of them at same time ,to keep the element of surprise. then in theory it should be possible to defeat a nation capability to fight outside of
its borders. Which essentially makes that nation the winner. For at least managing to retreat that country 20 years back in time if not 30. Is for nothing that NATO trains for an invasion
on Russia ,after they being nuked. This is why US store tanks in Norway. right next to Russian borders in a major fortress inside caves. Because in the ultimate case of a nuclear war , they
will use nukes to clear first and later invade Russia.
Singular_Transform- Posts : 1032
Points : 1014
Join date : 2016-11-13
You using the ICBMs against the home port of the SSBNs and other capital ships.Militarov wrote:Singular_Transform wrote:PapaDragon wrote:Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.
While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.
Agreed.
I always found the whole discussion hilarious.
Not only ICBM silos can be primary target, but C&C bunkers, SSBNs moored to pliers , capital ships and so on.
Chance that someone would use an ICBM aganist moving capital ship are...basically zero.
When its about stationary command and control bunkers etc, sure, however even those are not going to care much if it exploded on top of them or 200m to the left, effect i am afraid will be the same, alot of dead people.
Half - three quoter of the SSBNs at the home port next to the pier at any given moment.
So, if you won't hit it then in 24hours that will launch from the port the missiles as well .
GarryB- Posts : 40662
Points : 41164
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Vann... to mount a surprise attack you need to be able to surprise your enemy.
When your military is riddled with honest people who entered the service thinking the US were the good guys are not going to take kindly to backstabbing murder of the whole world.
Even without warning from spies satellites will give plenty of warning of an attack... B-2 bases are not monitored for nothing... sea based sensor arrays are not there for nothing... enormous radars the size of very large buildings are not sprouting up all over the Russian territory for nothing.
The fact is that the US couldn't surprise Russia with an effective surprise attack even if it wanted to... those naked targets are protected by a fairly large air force and lots of batteries of some of the best SAMs on the planet and covered in the strongest IADS the world has ever known and it is getting stronger by the day... shortly the S-500 will be added and S-350 and Verba etc etc.
When your military is riddled with honest people who entered the service thinking the US were the good guys are not going to take kindly to backstabbing murder of the whole world.
Even without warning from spies satellites will give plenty of warning of an attack... B-2 bases are not monitored for nothing... sea based sensor arrays are not there for nothing... enormous radars the size of very large buildings are not sprouting up all over the Russian territory for nothing.
The fact is that the US couldn't surprise Russia with an effective surprise attack even if it wanted to... those naked targets are protected by a fairly large air force and lots of batteries of some of the best SAMs on the planet and covered in the strongest IADS the world has ever known and it is getting stronger by the day... shortly the S-500 will be added and S-350 and Verba etc etc.
Arrow- Posts : 3560
Points : 3550
Join date : 2012-02-12
best SAMs on the planet and covered in the strongest IADS the world has ever known and it is getting stronger by the day... shortly the S-500 will be added and S-350 and Verba etc etc. wrote:
So Russia has strongest IADS in the world? In Russia only a few place has a strong IADS . Moscow, Petersburg, Crimea , Kaliningrad.
Best SAM? USA has very good SAM system and better than Russia ABM system SM-3, GBI
kvs- Posts : 15917
Points : 16052
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
Arrow wrote:
So Russia has strongest IADS in the world? In Russia only a few place has a strong IADS . Moscow, Petersburg, Crimea , Kaliningrad.
Best SAM? USA has very good SAM system and better than Russia ABM system SM-3, GBI
How do you know? Really, how do you have any clue about US ABM missiles and how "superior" they are to Russian
missiles? You just swallow all the masturbatory yap about innate superiority of the US and its pals in everything technical.
Just because. Russians are a collection of mud hut dwellers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%E2%80%93235_anti-ballistic_missile_system
Oops, zero content.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3
Mach 15, yep Russians could never design a missile that does Mach 15.
GarryB- Posts : 40662
Points : 41164
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
So Russia has strongest IADS in the world? In Russia only a few place has a strong IADS . Moscow, Petersburg, Crimea , Kaliningrad.
Which country has a better IADS?
The Russians have the VKKO, a dedicated force to defend Russian Airspace.
It is not 100%... there is no point in protecting empty tundra, but then the southern borders of the US are a sieve to drug planes...
Best SAM? USA has very good SAM system and better than Russia ABM system SM-3, GBI
SM-3 is unlikely to be used against anything but ballistic missiles and is therefore an ABM system rather than a real SAM.
S-400 in comparison is a real SAM that would be used against a variety of targets at a variety of ranges.
Arrow- Posts : 3560
Points : 3550
Join date : 2012-02-12
S-400 in comparison is a real SAM that would be used against a variety of targets at a variety of ranges. wrote:
USA has a SM-6 SAM missile system. They can destroy all typy target including high maneuverable fighter more than 400 km with ARH guidance. S-400 has max range 250 km above the horizon target.
SM-3 is unlikely to be used against anything but ballistic missiles and is therefore an ABM system rather than a real SAM. wrote:
Yes but for ABM role is better than S-400. That is why Russia is working on the S-500 exoatmosferic ABM system.
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-06
380km above horizon with current missile not including 40N6
Second, SM-6 is not only not proven, judging by performance of PAC-3, it won't be anything to brag about. Looks great on paper when you throw stuff out for sale.
Second, SM-6 is not only not proven, judging by performance of PAC-3, it won't be anything to brag about. Looks great on paper when you throw stuff out for sale.
Arrow- Posts : 3560
Points : 3550
Join date : 2012-02-12
380km above horizon with current missile not including 40N6 wrote:
48N6DM missile has a 250 km max range.
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-06
Arrow wrote:
48N6DM missile has a 250 km max range.
Preferred/advertised. Tests have had it extended to 360 - 380km by pushing it.
Mindstorm- Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20
Arrow wrote:They can destroy all typy target including high maneuverable fighter more than 400 km with ARH guidance.
Oh not, wait, it is 4000 km range.....or it is nautical miles ?
I remain always surprised by the level of garbage circulating on US built systems (in particular missile systems).
Like it was not possible to produce a very accurate model (and this ,for the range of engement performances, is obviously true both for theirs and ours interceptors) of kinematic boundaries of a missile with those precise dimensions and aerodynamic layout
SM-6 is absolutely not competive ,and not merely under the strict range of engagement factor, in comaparison even only with 48Н6ДМ, let alone 40Н6.
In this particular sector over ocean have a very long way to go to reach where Алмаз-Антей was ten years ago.
Arrow- Posts : 3560
Points : 3550
Join date : 2012-02-12
M-6 is absolutely not competive ,and not merely under the strict range of engagement factor, in comaparison even only with 48Н6ДМ, let alone 40Н6. In this particular sector over ocean have a very long way to go to reach where Алмаз-Антей was ten years ago. wrote:
Ok what adventages has 48N6DM to SM-6 missile?
Singular_Transform- Posts : 1032
Points : 1014
Join date : 2016-11-13
Arrow wrote:M-6 is absolutely not competive ,and not merely under the strict range of engagement factor, in comaparison even only with 48Н6ДМ, let alone 40Н6. In this particular sector over ocean have a very long way to go to reach where Алмаз-Антей was ten years ago. wrote:
Ok what adventages has 48N6DM to SM-6 missile?
Interesting, there is not so much certain information about the systems.
The 48N6DM road mobile, using cold launch, the minimal target altitude and range shorter than the sm-6, and the warhead is three times bigger .
The sm6 has active seeker, and maybe slightly longer range - depending on the size of the sensor suite .
Arrow- Posts : 3560
Points : 3550
Join date : 2012-02-12
range shorter than the sm-6, and the warhead is three times bigger . wrote:
SM-6 can maneuver with greater overload on long distance. This missile has dual thrust solid rocket motor.
GarryB- Posts : 40662
Points : 41164
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Most long range missiles have dual thrust rocket motors... it is just a more efficient way to propel weapons like missiles.
Think of it like a rocket ramjet powered Kh-31... to start with it needs high energy high power thrust to accelerate it up to operating speed. The Kh-31 uses a rocket motor to do this but a missile like S-400 uses high energy rocket propellent that burns rapidly and generates a lot of thrust.
Once the missile is up to operating speed then the high energy propulsion is a complete waste because it wont increase speed any more but still burns rapidly, so the solution for the Kh-31 is to start the ramjet motor which can be throttled to provide cruise speed to the target area and burn onboard fuel at a more efficient rate to make it last longer and extend the max range of the missile.
With solid fuelled missiles like S-400 it is a layer of fuel that is baked like a cake... the inner layer burns first and the outer layer burns last... the inner layer burns hot and rapidly and generates a lot of thrust to accelerate and climb to high altitude and high speed. The next layer burns slower and provides thrust to maintain speed and height, but because it burns at a lower rate it burns for much longer than the higher energy fuel which greatly extends range.
It is baked in at the production stage however and cannot be changed in flight, unlike the ramjet on the Kh-31 which can be throttled up or down to optimise speed and performance.
BTW just looked up SM-6 on wiki and it says that this navy missile flys at mach 3.5 and its officially published range is 240km.
That makes it totally inferior to the S-400 in terms of speed and range and deployment as the S-400 will be deployed in Russia, in the Russian Navy and in China...
Think of it like a rocket ramjet powered Kh-31... to start with it needs high energy high power thrust to accelerate it up to operating speed. The Kh-31 uses a rocket motor to do this but a missile like S-400 uses high energy rocket propellent that burns rapidly and generates a lot of thrust.
Once the missile is up to operating speed then the high energy propulsion is a complete waste because it wont increase speed any more but still burns rapidly, so the solution for the Kh-31 is to start the ramjet motor which can be throttled to provide cruise speed to the target area and burn onboard fuel at a more efficient rate to make it last longer and extend the max range of the missile.
With solid fuelled missiles like S-400 it is a layer of fuel that is baked like a cake... the inner layer burns first and the outer layer burns last... the inner layer burns hot and rapidly and generates a lot of thrust to accelerate and climb to high altitude and high speed. The next layer burns slower and provides thrust to maintain speed and height, but because it burns at a lower rate it burns for much longer than the higher energy fuel which greatly extends range.
It is baked in at the production stage however and cannot be changed in flight, unlike the ramjet on the Kh-31 which can be throttled up or down to optimise speed and performance.
BTW just looked up SM-6 on wiki and it says that this navy missile flys at mach 3.5 and its officially published range is 240km.
That makes it totally inferior to the S-400 in terms of speed and range and deployment as the S-400 will be deployed in Russia, in the Russian Navy and in China...
Singular_Transform- Posts : 1032
Points : 1014
Join date : 2016-11-13
Arrow wrote:range shorter than the sm-6, and the warhead is three times bigger . wrote:
SM-6 can maneuver with greater overload on long distance. This missile has dual thrust solid rocket motor.
By simply the shape of the sm6 missile quite visible it using aerodynamic forces to manoeuvrer.
Both missile designed for specific targets and missions, the propellant has the same efficiency, the airframe has the same weight, the electronic has similar weight ,due to this the mayor difference is the mission profile.
Benya- Posts : 526
Points : 528
Join date : 2016-06-05
Location : Budapest, Hungary
Interesting video from Kommissar Binkov about how a nuclear war between US and Russia will unfold
jhelb- Posts : 1095
Points : 1196
Join date : 2015-04-04
Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About
Mindstorm wrote:
Oh not, wait, it is 4000 km range.....or it is nautical miles ?
I remain always surprised by the level of garbage circulating on US built systems (in particular missile systems).
Like it was not possible to produce a very accurate model (and this ,for the range of engement performances, is obviously true both for theirs and ours interceptors) of kinematic boundaries of a missile with those precise dimensions and aerodynamic layout
SM-6 is absolutely not competive ,and not merely under the strict range of engagement factor, in comaparison even only with 48Н6ДМ, let alone 40Н6.
In this particular sector over ocean have a very long way to go to reach where Алмаз-Антей was ten years ago.
The lethality of submarine-borne US nuclear forces has increased drastically because of the advent of the new "Super Fuse" incorporated into the Navy’s W76-1/Mk4A warhead . Before the invention of this new fuzing mechanism, even the most accurate ballistic missile warheads might not detonate close enough to targets hardened against nuclear attack to destroy them. But the new super-fuze is designed to destroy fixed targets by detonating above and around a target in a much more effective way. Many Russian targets are not hardened to 10,000 pounds per square inch blast over pressure.
http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578
This should be a matter of huge concern for the Kremlin & immediate efforts must be made to neutralise this US threat.
max steel- Posts : 2929
Points : 2954
Join date : 2015-02-12
Location : South Pole
jhelb wrote:
The lethality of submarine-borne US nuclear forces has increased drastically because of the advent of the new "Super Fuse" incorporated into the Navy’s W76-1/Mk4A warhead . Before the invention of this new fuzing mechanism, even the most accurate ballistic missile warheads might not detonate close enough to targets hardened against nuclear attack to destroy them. But the new super-fuze is designed to destroy fixed targets by detonating above and around a target in a much more effective way. Many Russian targets are not hardened to 10,000 pounds per square inch blast over pressure.
http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578
This should be a matter of huge concern for the Kremlin & immediate efforts must be made to neutralise this US threat.
Ah! I read this puffpiece 2 months back , you can look for my comment there. If the probability of one SS-18 silo destroying by W-76 warhead is equal to 0.86 due to the "super-fuze", then the probability of destroying this silo by using two warheads will be 0.98. Basing on this fact the authors claim that 272 W-76s on SLBMs are sufficient to eliminate all the Russian ICBMs in silos. But the theory of probabilities dramatically changes this estimate towards increasing of the number of warheads needed.
Indeed, assume the number of remaining SS-18 is equal to 50 (in fact a bit less). Then the probability of destroying all these 50 silos by using pairs of attacking W-76 warheads is equal to 0,98^50 = 0.36 ! Although the war readiness of these SS-18 is highly questionable, only one such ICBM that has survived, taken off and successfully deployed all the 10 warheads would become a catastrophe for the USA. PS:- SS-18 will be replaced by newly built Sarmat in 2018/19.
The problem of the ICBMs eliminating by a first strike is not as simple as the authors think.
"Since these radars cannot see over the horizon " . After I read phrase above in bulletin I stopped reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronezh_radar
As per fuses and all that crap--obviously nuclear technologies improve and will continue to improve and so will their accuracy, high as it is today. But there is a reason why Russia more and more begins to rely on non-nuclear (conventional) containment and deterrent.