limb wrote:Why can't the Topol-M, Yars and Bulava carry manevering reentry vehicles in general and the avangard specifically?
Who said they can't?
limb wrote:Why can't the Topol-M, Yars and Bulava carry manevering reentry vehicles in general and the avangard specifically?
PapaDragon wrote:limb wrote:Why can't the Topol-M, Yars and Bulava carry manevering reentry vehicles in general and the avangard specifically?
Who said they can't?
limb wrote:PapaDragon wrote:limb wrote:Why can't the Topol-M, Yars and Bulava carry manevering reentry vehicles in general and the avangard specifically?
Who said they can't?
Russians having to bring back an obsolete silo based ICBM into service since it together with Sarlat is the only one that can carry the avangard?
Big_Gazza likes this post
Aren't the avangaards deployed on only silo ones and limited to only liquid fueled missiles so far?PapaDragon wrote:
Who said they can't?
gbu48098 wrote:Aren't the avangaards deployed on only silo ones and limited to only liquid fueled missiles so far?PapaDragon wrote:
Who said they can't?
Correct, all ICBM's they have are capable of carrying MIRV unless they are single warhead configuration for whatever reason (more yield or START or whatever) but avangard is only heavy icbm's liquid fueled as you say for now. Wiki says its mass 2T, wonder what warhead yield would be like?PapaDragon wrote:
First of all Topol-M, Yars and Bulava all carry carry manevering reentry vehicles
Second thing is that Avangard is fully maneuverable (violently so) craft in addition to being crazy fast that moves strictly through the atmosphere and doesn't behave like regular warhead delivery vehicle that regular ICBMs use
It's also huge and has to be mounted on large rockets (since it's air breathing vehicle it needs to carry it's own fuel supply hence the size) and it has no range limit, it's can approach target from any trajectory
Stiletto missile (UR-100N) can carry one of them, Sarmat will be able to carry three
Big_Gazza and LMFS like this post
It may have a powered boost of some sort considering it mostly is an area weapon in terms of precision vs normal ballistic warheads.....ofcourse confirmation wont be easykvs wrote:The stories about the Avangard flying at 30 km for thousands of kilometers are utter nonsense. At this altitude the warheads would lose
most of their kinetic energy in less than 1000 km and would require power to "glide". The whole idea of the Avangard is to use
a lifting body shape combined with Mach > 10 speed in the mesosphere-thermosphere transition layer to achieve large, non
predictable (thanks to active steering) trajectory changes spanning tens of kilometers horizontally. This is enough to totally
defeat any ABM concept let alone tested system.
Probably not based on dimensions of solid fueled missiles vs liquid and the length of the glide vehicle atleast so far. I think liquid ones add some other benefits also for this type of glide warhead.lancelot wrote:What about Rubezh? That is supposed to carry a boost glide warhead and is a solid rocket.
lyle6 wrote:limb wrote:
The DF-21 has a maneuvering RV tho, and its an IRBM.
what's the IC in ICBM?
any proof it has engines?Second thing is that Avangard is fully maneuverable (violently so) craft in addition to being crazy fast that moves strictly through the atmosphere and doesn't behave like regular warhead delivery vehicle that regular ICBMs use
It's also huge and has to be mounted on large rockets (since it's air breathing vehicle it needs to carry it's own fuel supply hence the size) and it has no range limit, it's can approach target from any trajectory
Why does the army need iskandersand novator cruise missiles bur not tactical boost glide vehicles?lancelot wrote:These things are pointless.
Russia has missile carrier submarines with Zircon.
It makes sense from the Chinese perspective since their nuclear submarines currently suck.
They need something to knock out nearby US bases and ships and this is cheaper than building ICBMs.
limb wrote:Why does the army need iskandersand novator cruise missiles bur not tactical boost glide vehicles?
Why does the air force need bombers when there's zirkon?
lancelot wrote:limb wrote:Why does the army need iskandersand novator cruise missiles bur not tactical boost glide vehicles?
Why does the air force need bombers when there's zirkon?
The tactical boost glide vehicles will basically be limited to first strikes in case of a major war against a peer opponent.
Russia already has strategic boost glide vehicles (i.e. Avangard) and there are plans for putting them on top of Topol-M first stage (i.e. Rubezh).
What is the point in making a shorter range version of this?
The tactical boost glide vehicles will basically be limited to first strikes in case of a major war against a peer opponent.
What is the point in making a shorter range version of this?
Iskander is essentially a short range manouvering hypersonic missile, so what you are demanding is just a longer ranged Iskander... essentially an SS-20 they had in the 1980s and gave up for the INF agreement.
limb wrote:Whats the point for having iskander then? Whats the point of kinzhal?
The tactical boost glide vehicles will basically be limited to first strikes in case of a major war against a peer opponent.
By that logic every single missile can only be used for first strike, which is ridiculous. Tactical boost glide vehicles are basically like the iskander, but longer ranged, more maneuverable and even more difficult to intercept.
What is the point in making a shorter range version of this?
To replace tactical ballistic missiles? To strike airfields, ships and command centers? To have 2000-3000km range while iskander has only 600km range? Where did you get to this retarded conclusion that boost glide vehicles are only usable for ICBMs?
Whats the point for having iskander then? Whats the point of kinzhal?
By that logic every single missile can only be used for first strike, which is ridiculous. Tactical boost glide vehicles are basically like the iskander, but longer ranged, more maneuverable and even more difficult to intercept.
To replace tactical ballistic missiles? To strike airfields, ships and command centers? To have 2000-3000km range while iskander has only 600km range? Where did you get to this retarded conclusion that boost glide vehicles are only usable for ICBMs?
Yes, and currently the chinese and americans are designing boost glide vehicles superior to the iskander. Also INF treaty doesnt exist anymore.
Iskander and Kinzhal are more mobile. A missile of the kind you propose is too large and cannot be carried in a fighter bomber.
It will have the same launch platforms as ballistic missiles, i.e. TELs and nuclear submarines. At best you might carry one or two in a large strategic bomber.
Something like Zircon will be a lot more portable than those missiles because it does not carry the oxidizer with the missile.
Using tactical boost glide vehicles to attack targets with conventional explosives is a stupendous waste of money. The kinds of missions which will justify the use of something like this are quite limited.
|
|