Finally i have some time for write something , let start.
The LGM-118 is relevant in that it's also a 100 tonne missile and has the 2nd largest throw weight of ICBMs (next to the Satan of course).
And this information is patently false !
I truly don't understand what is the point to compare a new generation Russian liquid fuel ICBM with an old American ICBM already vastly inferior in its operative life against Russian counterparts of the time.
Even the stones are perfectly aware that Russian enjoy since half of Cold War a very ,very huge trow weight advantage on American ballistic missile corresponding (and in general still in rocketry science technology up to the point that even the most biased or even "controlled" western expert of the sector are forced to admit that the latest ICBM now operative in Russia represent, under virtually all the most crucial cardinal parameters, the pinnacle of ballistic missile technology )
The use of the Peacekeeper in this discussion was to counter the argument that this new Russian missile would,
Are you serious ?
IronsightSniper do you realize that i just have pointed out a very old Russian ballistic missile ,in the same tonnage category of the next generation planned liquid fuel ICBM, operative in the same years of LGM-118 that had not only a greater trow weight moreover employing....solid fuel
....but was largely superior to Peacekeeper in practically all technical fundamentals ?
Attempt to put in the same discussion on the specifics of the Russian next generation liquid fuel ICBM and the specific of..... an American ICBM widely outdated and underperforming against Soviet corresponding in its operative years could appear even comical if it wouldn't seem grotesque.
Two things, I don't know where you're getting the Molodet's 185 m CEP accuracy from, the numbers I got ranged from 150 m to 500 m
Oh dear ,not !
IronsightSniper hear well what i say now, ok?
Do you see any source (independently from its supposed professionalism) where you find that supposedly in Russian sources is reported a.....CEP .... of 500 m for SS-24 Scalpel ?
Well you can quietly communicate to them mine firm deploration for theirs truly lowermost level of professionalism . If some of them attempt to replicate anything ask to them to point to you
not 30 ..not 10...not some...but even only ONE
authoritative, not secondary, Russian sources where 500 m is suggested as the measure associated with 15Zh60/15Zh61 (SS-24 Scalpel)...CEP
In reality in ANY primary Soviet/Russian sources
,where present , 500 m is cited as the SS-24's Index of Maximum Error
-this one is, in fact, the specific parameter for precision of missiles present in Russian literature of the sector- and even the stones are aware that this figure is equal about to 2.3 times the figure of western CEP
(2,68 times the miss distance's standard deviation ).
We are in 2012 and still is possible to find ,widely scattered ,similar comical Frankenstein-like data , but i shouldn't be surprised anymore ,it is the same Internet where AIM-120C5 has 110 km of range and F-22 an average RCS of 0,0001 Sqm This figure of 500 m is often found in western for not other reason that figure is that present in box 8 of the deposit of Vitalii L. Kataev's writings
-now fostered at the Hoover Institution at Stanford and representing almost the only near-documental material in Western possession on URSS strategic weapon's capabilities- for SS-24's Index of Maximum Error ,equivalent to a CEP of about 217 m.
It is for this rerason that Richard L. Garwin and P. Podvig cite a figure of about 220 m for SS-24's CEP; unluckily also the parameters in V. Karaev's writings demonstrated to be often unreliable,in particular for the "latest" weapon systems ; in this specific instance the parametrical data it had transcribed was related to the test beds of 15Zh60 and 15Zh61 missiles (see "Prizvany vremenem" by S. N.Konyukhov pag 447) in fact also the warhead's potential it point out -400kT- was the potential initially planned for the Molodet's 10 warheads in its prototypes, which was replaced ,as we well know, in the final version of the missile by 10 550 kT RV.
15Zh60 model (the silo based) in its mass produced version had demonsted in the tests an Index of Maximum Error slightly better, about 430 m (about 470 m for the rail based 15Zh61 ) for an equivalent CEP figure of 187m . This figure - rounded at 185 m in theirs publications- is that cited,among the others, by William Priedhorsky or Duncan Lennox and represent the figure most near to SS-24 effective CEP ; therefore at maximum someone could argue between a range of CEP's figures for SS-24 included between 187 m and 217 m .
Thus, the Peacekeeper is almost guaranteed to land a reentry vehicle within a 240 m radius circle, and the Molodets is almost guaranteed to land a reentry vehicle within a circle with a radius between 300 m to 1000 m. Here's a visual comparison of the two:
I believe that is not necessary to spend any further words on the CEP depicted .
Much more important is realize that warheads with greater nominal potential, while less space-efficient in respect to more numerous and scattered smaller warhead amounting the same potential against very soft targets
,like densely populated areas in flat terrain (see note°), are enormously more effcient against military targets ,in particular hardened ones
The point here is not different than the rationale of conventional weapons warhead's potential and theris CONOPS; you could destroy a particular small reinforced command post or a little bridge with only one shot with a missile with a 60 kg HE filler but could get old in the attempt employing 120 warheads with 0,5 kg explosive fillers .
For some hyperhardened targets both in Russia and in USA ,like that in your figure, any warhead except a multimegaton one would result in precious nuclear offensive means totally wasted. Note
° : Also this parameters is not applicable to our example because LGM-1118 and RT-23UTTH have the same number of warheads and a 550 kT explosion at zero level ,like that depicted by you, cause a circle of potential destruction for concrete buildings the range of which is about 1,3 km greater than that of a 200 kT detonation and you can easily realize of what enormous area we talk here in a densely populated area...