PDA

View Full Version : Russian answer: New ICBM succesfully tested today



shuravee
05-29-2007, 09:28 AM
Russia has test-launched a new intercontinental ballistic missile, Russian military officials say.
The launch took place at the Plesetsk cosmodrome in northern Russia at 1420 (1020 GMT) on Tuesday.

The missile, called RS-24, can be armed with up to 10 warheads and was designed to evade missile defence systems, the Russian defence ministry says.

Russia has complained that US plans to base parts of an anti-missile system in central Europe threaten its security.

The Americans maintain that their system is not directed at the Russians.

The US wants to deploy interceptor rockets in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic to counter what it describes as a potential threat from "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea.

The Russian test missile successfully struck its target 5,500km (3,400 miles) away on the far eastern Kamchatka peninsula, the Russian Strategic Missile Forces said.

The statement said the missile would replace two ageing ICBM systems - the RS-18 and RS-20, known in the West as the SS-19 Stiletto and SS-18 Satan, respectively.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6700585.stm

Very nice answer to Bush project for ABM bases in Eastern Europe. AFAIK this is new rocket with maneuvrable MIRVs.

I remember this Putin speech:

Russia has developed missiles capable of penetrating any missile defence system, President Vladimir Putin says.
Mr Putin said the new missiles were capable of carrying nuclear warheads, adding that he had briefed French President Jacques Chirac on the system.

However, he refused to say whether the Russian military had already commissioned the new missiles.

The Russian leader was speaking at his annual press conference in Moscow to international journalists.

"Russia last year tested missile systems that no-one in the world has and won't have for a long time," he said, quoted by Russian news agencies.

"These missile systems don't represent a response to a missile defense system, but they are immune to that. They are hypersonic and capable of changing their flight path."

Mr Putin said Mr Chirac had been shown the working principles of the missile system during a visit to a Russian military facility in 2004.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6700585.stm

Satellite Weapon
05-29-2007, 09:35 AM
Russia strong !

beNder
05-29-2007, 09:47 AM
This is not new. We have had this capability for about 20 years with the W88. It's design ensures that its warhead does not drop in a straight/calculated arc and will be very hard to track and intercept. Welcome to the 1980's.

Abbadon the Despoiler
05-29-2007, 09:58 AM
Russians piss me off
they can do whatever but there will be radar base in Czech Republic

ltrowley
05-29-2007, 10:36 AM
smells like cold leftovers reheated.

Euroche
05-29-2007, 10:38 AM
Russians piss me off
they can do whatever but there will be radar base in Czech Republic

Let's hope not. Let's hope the will of the czech people wins over the diplomatic pressure of washington in not allowing the radar base.

Why should we make Europe a target for Russian missiles.

If the US wants to protect itself it can station the bases on their own soil, instead of endangering European soil.

Dima-RussianArms
05-29-2007, 10:38 AM
Russians piss me off
they can do whatever but there will be radar base in Czech Republic

Is that how you feel or is it how the most of Czecks feel?

For example, in Poland - very few, besides the government, support the idea of US ABM sites in their country.


In any case, RS-24 is not the answer to the "ABM shield" in Eastern Europe, SS 20 will be if the ABM sites will ever materialize.

Russia has multiple types of ICBMs in service.
The new RS-24 is meant to replace SS24s and SS-18s (heavy 200+ tonn missile) and compliment Topol-Ms.

Will be interesting to see what yield warheads it will carry. SS-18s can carry anything from one 25 megaton warhead + false targets and countermeasures to ten 1 megaton REV + false targets and countermeasures.


The gentleman that mentioned something about its similarity to W88 (Trident 2 warhead) is wrong.
What makes Russian design different is that it is able to manoeuvre during the terminal phase.

jetsetter
05-29-2007, 10:44 AM
The problem I see is that the ABM system is not designed to defeat current Russian missiles already in service. This new missile is not a response but I waste of money on the part of the Russians. All they are trying to do is save face.

Also I would like to add that the planned missile interceptors are positioned in a way that would not make them a serious threat to Russian missiles if they were too launch. The Russians really need to stop *****ing. They know that the system can't really shoot down their modern missiles, we know this, and the Europeans know this.

Bitogno
05-29-2007, 10:46 AM
Russians piss me off
they can do whatever but there will be radar base in Czech Republic
So that if there's a pb Czech Republic will be one of the first place to be nuked.

Abbadon the Despoiler
05-29-2007, 10:56 AM
Yes, most of the Czechs are against it. Left-wing parties mostly...

The Czech government and backers of the radar, including former president Vaclav Havel, have dismissed calls for a referendum on the issue, arguing that security matters should not be decided in popular votes. As the country does not have a law on general referendum, the public does not have means to induce a nationwide popular vote.

Havel points out how quickly the Czechs came to terms with the attack against Czechoslovakia of the states forming the Warsaw Pact after 1968, arguing that the radar system would be very advantageous for the Czech Republic. "Europe won't be in a position to defend itself against the threats of the 21st century without the aid of the US in the long term… Without the American project, NATO won't be able to build up a defence system… If the Americans are not allowed to station their missile defence system in Poland and in the Czech Republic, perhaps they'll set it up in Great Britain instead. They will defend their own territory whatever happens, but we would not be protected by their defence system."

I dont care what missles can Russia send, I ll always be on the US side rather than Russian.

Adax
05-29-2007, 11:12 AM
For example, in Poland - very few, besides the government, support the idea of US ABM sites in their country.

Really? Where are you getting info about polish society from? "Komsomolskaja Prawda" ?
Serious: yes there are people who are oppose to this thing but you CAN'T say "Very few, besides the goverment"(ahh evil anti-russian Kaczyński) p-)

Dima-RussianArms
05-29-2007, 11:13 AM
The problem I see is that the ABM system is not designed to defeat current Russian missiles already in service. This new missile is not a response but I waste of money on the part of the Russians. All they are trying to do is save face.

Also I would like to add that the planned missile interceptors are positioned in a way that would not make them a serious threat to Russian missiles if they were too launch. The Russians really need to stop *****ing. They know that the system can't really shoot down their modern missiles, we know this, and the Europeans know this.

I agree, US currently does not have the technology to guarantee the reliable intercept of even the single missile under the test conditions, let alone to counter multiple missiles, countermeasures and false targets that will be part of the Russian attack.
So all that noise from Russian politicians is aimed at nothing but scoring points on the home front. It is akin to every US politician talking about how weak, exposed and unprepared US is for the new terror attacks.

What is more interesting is that US didn't approach (or maybe they did?) any of the old and more well to do NATO members and allies. For example it would make much more sense to place interceptors in Turkey.
What about intercepting NK missiles from Japan?

Think about places where you live, where does the city always decides to place its least scenic and the most health hazardous projects like city dumps, chemical factories, sewage plants, etc.? It is always on the outskirts, near the projects, slums, in short - where poor live, because they are more agreeable and easily impressed.

Think about it, if you are the President of some joe-shmoe country that gets no notice/no respect and then the President of the USA itself shakes your hand and invites you to the White House... You are going to feel good and important and not think much about the strings attached.

Rich and powerful have always used poor and weak, in both everyday life and world politics.

Bitogno
05-29-2007, 11:15 AM
I dont care what missles can Russia send, I ll always be on the US side rather than Russian.
I can understand. The only thing IMHO is that radar station ensure U.S. security not Czech Republic one.

Abbadon the Despoiler
05-29-2007, 11:17 AM
Think about it, if you are the President of some joe-shmoe country that gets no notice/no respect and then the President of the USA itself shakes your hand and invites you to the White House... You are going to feel good and important and not think much about the strings attached.

oh thanks for explanation. next time show some respect.

Xaito
05-29-2007, 11:20 AM
I dont care what missles can Russia send, I ll always be on the US side rather than Russian.
I hope you know that once you allow a foreign base in your country you won't be able to get rid of it as easy anymore. (ask georgia if they are still happy about Russian bases on their soil)
Try using your own head once in a while instead of following what your government tells you - you can be a USA fan all you want but they are a country with changing governments and agendas like any other country too.
What sounds good today can change tomorrow (especially if there really is a conflict and you made yourself a target) and what your government of today wants is not the same that the government of tomorrow will want - by making absolute decisions like that you limit your own freedom for a long time - try to think ahead a little bit.

Abbadon the Despoiler
05-29-2007, 11:25 AM
I hope you know that once you allow a foreighn base in your country you won't be able to get rid of it as easy anymore. (ask georgia if they are still happy about Russian bases on their soil)
Try using your own head once in a while instead of following what your government tells you - you can be a USA fan all you want but they are a country with changing governments and agendas like any other country too.
What sounds good today can change tomorrow (especially if there really is a conflict and you made yourself a target) and what your government of today wants is not the same that the government of tomorrow will want - by making absolute decisions like that you limit your own freedom for a long time - try to think ahead a little bit.

you are right, everything can change in the future but I doubt EU will stand against US. I m not a fun of US, not at all but CR is in NATO and the closest ally is US.

odiniz
05-29-2007, 11:26 AM
Russians piss me off
they can do whatever but there will be radar base in Czech Republic

In 1945 you would say: "Americans piss me off
they can do whatever but there will be russian army in Czech Republic"

Don't change partners so often, my sweet

Abbadon the Despoiler
05-29-2007, 11:27 AM
what I mean is..Russia can go suck a **** IMHO with their threads.
thats my personal opinion and I dont wanna insult any Russian members here...just Russian politics

nahimov
05-29-2007, 11:28 AM
This is not new. We have had this capability for about 20 years with the W88. It's design ensures that its warhead does not drop in a straight/calculated arc and will be very hard to track and intercept. Welcome to the 1980's.

Can US ballistic missiles change the course? Didn't think so....

Abbadon the Despoiler
05-29-2007, 11:31 AM
In 1945 you would say: "Americans piss me off
they can do whatever but there will be russian army in Czech Republic"

Don't change partners so often, my sweet


wtf are you saing? thats nonsence! :) Czechoslovakia had a deal with France and Soviet union about interact protection and both countries crapped on us.
I d say "damn those ****ing commies we are ****ed for next 50 years"

Dima-RussianArms
05-29-2007, 11:32 AM
Really? Where are you getting info about polish society from? "Komsomolskaja Prawda" ?
Serious: yes there are people who are oppose to this thing but you CAN'T say "Very few, besides the goverment"(ahh evil anti-russian Kaczyński) p-)

I get my international press from
http://www.inosmi.ru/

And the message I see is that there are a lot of people in Poland who are less than thrilled with having those sites on their soil. From what I understand, not even all of the polish members of MP.net are on board with the idea.

I would be interesting in seeing the latest poll numbers if you have them

Dima-RussianArms
05-29-2007, 11:38 AM
oh thanks for explanation. next time show some respect.

I am sorry, I didn't mean to offend.
Czechoslovakia is a very beautiful country but lets be honest it doesn't exactly call shots on the global scale.

Again - no intent to offend just to get the point across

Abbadon the Despoiler
05-29-2007, 11:41 AM
I am sorry, I didn't mean to offend.
Czechoslovakia is a very beautiful country but lets be honest it doesn't exactly call shots on the global scale.

Again - no intent to offend just to get the point across


I see, I shouldn t be so hot-tempered.

Xaito
05-29-2007, 11:41 AM
so you think you won't be used by US? ;)
Like hell they are going to give you candy for free.


what I mean is..Russia can go suck a **** IMHO with their threads.
just don't cry when you notice that they don't make empty threats.
in case there is a real conflict your country will be one of the first targets (and not only for the russians).
You can act cocky now because it seems safe for now but its like playing with a loaded gun - maybe nothing happens for a while but sooner or later somebody gets shot and the fun's over.

Abbadon the Despoiler
05-29-2007, 11:45 AM
I dont force anyone to buy my opinions I m just telling what I think :)
and the fact that Russia is threating CR, just for building pasive protection, is enough for me to build it...

SOG
05-29-2007, 11:48 AM
Let's hope not. Let's hope the will of the czech people wins over the diplomatic pressure of washington in not allowing the radar base.

Why should we make Europe a target for Russian missiles.

If the US wants to protect itself it can station the bases on their own soil, instead of endangering European soil.

lol! europe a target for russian missles? LOL! many parts of europe are targeted by russia. gimme a break. the US is bringing bad juju on europe. please. remember the cold war? remember all the countries involved? no? go back andread history. there are quite a few parts of europe russia would like wiped away if a nuclear war broke out.

Xaito
05-29-2007, 11:54 AM
I dont force anyone to buy my opinions I m just telling what I think :)
and the fact that Russia is threating CR, just for building pasive protection, is enough for me to build it...

nobody would say a thing if you would build passive protection against conventional weapon systems.

SOG
05-29-2007, 12:00 PM
I agree, US currently does not have the technology to guarantee the reliable intercept of even the single missile under the test conditions, let alone to counter multiple missiles, countermeasures and false targets that will be part of the Russian attack.
So all that noise from Russian politicians is aimed at nothing but scoring points on the home front. It is akin to every US politician talking about how weak, exposed and unprepared US is for the new terror attacks.

true, i never thought about it that way. im thinking "how in the hell would we stop current icbm's?" unless thiers some top secret **** like where the missle defense money is really going your explanation makes sense on the russian side of things.




What is more interesting is that US didn't approach (or maybe they did?) any of the old and more well to do NATO members and allies. For example it would make much more sense to place interceptors in Turkey.
What about intercepting NK missiles from Japan?

we currently have some small issues with turkey that need ironing out. india would be better but then the paks would freak out and we have to coddle their fragile existence for years to come. japan will build their own systems in the future so that would be a waste as they have the money and will reassert themselves as a military power.



Think about places where you live, where does the city always decides to place its least scenic and the most health hazardous projects like city dumps, chemical factories, sewage plants, etc.? It is always on the outskirts, near the projects, slums, in short - where poor live, because they are more agreeable and easily impressed.


speaking for the US, uh, no the poor are not more agreeable, in fact they are plenty pissed. they are more forceable however which is exactly why they are pissed. and they are certainly not impressed. however the opening of more average paying jobs tends to aleviate any long term ill will.

however i understand what you are saying when a third world type economy becomes home to shiny new equipment and foreign contracts. for the locals its like a parade for a while.


Rich and powerful have always used poor and weak, in both everyday life and world politics.

aye, isnt that the truth.

Frutzel
05-29-2007, 12:01 PM
@ "The hot tempered guy" p-)

There are enough politicians with an ignorant behaviour.So let's keep coooooool.

@ Topic

This is a typical Russian reaction.Theys have the right to do it BUT with such a technology I can't see any good reasons to prove everybody that they still kick ass. They know it,others know it! So whats the point?

nahimov
05-29-2007, 12:05 PM
@ "The hot tempered guy" p-)

There are enough politicians with an ignorant behaviour.So let's keep coooooool.

@ Topic

This is a typical Russian reaction.Theys have the right to do it BUT with such a technology I can't see any good reasons to prove everybody that they still kick ass. They know it,others know it! So whats the point?

They have to replace their missiles with something, right? R-18s and 20s are being retired, something new is needed. Might as well get a little press over a simple replacement of old missiles.

2Sheds_Jackson
05-29-2007, 12:23 PM
Now that strong Russian technology has made the US missile shield (which didn't have the capability to stop a Russian attack to begin with) even more of a non-threat...upon what basis can Russia continue oppose it? Now they are extra double-super strong -like mighty bear with robot arms...with missiles for fingers - surely the puny shield of the Americans is even less of an annoyance.

This will only make more problems for them...since it only further invalidates their argument. Their politicians can only cry "victim" for so long.

nahimov
05-29-2007, 12:44 PM
Now that strong Russian technology has made the US missile shield (which didn't have the capability to stop a Russian attack to begin with) even more of a non-threat...upon what basis can Russia continue oppose it? Now they are extra double-super strong -like mighty bear with robot arms...with missiles for fingers - surely the puny shield of the Americans is even less of an annoyance.

This will only make more problems for them...since it only further invalidates their argument. Their politicians can only cry "victim" for so long.

And who really knows what the missile shileld is capable of right now or in 20 years? These missiles are designed to serve for at least 30-50 years. Can you tell me how missile shield will look like in 50 years?

Mamont
05-29-2007, 12:47 PM
Now that strong Russian technology has made the US missile shield (which didn't have the capability to stop a Russian attack to begin with) even more of a non-threat...upon what basis can Russia continue oppose it?
If you payed attentions to flamebattles around ABM you probably noticed at least couple of possible scenarios where russian side would be very unpleasantly surprised.



This will only make more problems for them...since it only further invalidates their argument.
Quite an interesting little point. I suppose ABM will stop to evolve or any future placements would be halted? Or simply any new russian weapons are a problem, but us-developed are a benefit?


Their politicians can only cry "victim" for so long.
They will, they are politicians - it's their job.

RBull
05-29-2007, 12:47 PM
In 1945 you would say: "Americans piss me off
they can do whatever but there will be russian army in Czech Republic"

Don't change partners so often, my sweet

What a nonsense!

In 1945, Czechs would wellcome any liberation foces coming to help, including Gen. Vlsov's army! It happens that Gen. Patton was faster in his advance, as germans prefered to be captured by americans, than Red Army (to which they rather put up a fight to slow them down).

It was political decission to order to stop Patton's advance towards Prague and let the russians occupy the teritorry agreed in Yalta.
I still remember that during the communists rule in Czechoslovakia, the government tried to silent any sentiments and sympathies recalling American role on liberatin west Bohemia. There are numerous examples where the commies actually did falsificate the history and explanation of the role of Gen. Pattons army on liberation of Czechoslovakia.

In fact, a general sentiment during the commie times was that if Patton had continued towards Prague, we would not be a commie country.

RBull
05-29-2007, 12:56 PM
And if the situation will become so bad that Czech Republic and Poland will actually become a target for russian missiles, then it would be part of large and more complex world crisis anyway. IF that will be the case, then the whole Europe will be ****ed anyway and it will be not because the bases in Czech Rep and Poland, but rather because the Russian "plan", or agenda if you wish.
There is no place for appeasement as history showed us before (1938 to be more exact when we discuss Czech Republic).

Euroche
05-29-2007, 01:09 PM
lol! europe a target for russian missles? LOL! many parts of europe are targeted by russia. gimme a break. the US is bringing bad juju on europe. please. remember the cold war? remember all the countries involved? no? go back andread history. there are quite a few parts of europe russia would like wiped away if a nuclear war broke out.

The cold war is over.

Right now the US is just doing it's best to bring it back. Simultaneously pissing off Russia and China and the rest of the world aswell.

Congrats. But we don't need American protection anymore. We don't need a missile shield for the non existant North Korean and Iranian threat.

Groove
05-29-2007, 01:20 PM
Dima as the main threat accoring to the US Military will come from Iran for example it wouldnt make any sense to place interceptors in Turkey because the Interceptor System is made to intercept warheads on terminal flight back into the atmosphere.

And of course russia has miracously developed a new MIRV which can spoof the ABM system. Like in 2 years or so, nice developement speed. Maybe putin should first check the living standard of his citizens before trying SO HARD to be a strong country on the international polit show...

sosed
05-29-2007, 01:20 PM
The historical fact is, that the Soviet Union was the only state in 1938 who was prepared to defend Czechoslovakia, if Germany attack them. But in Munhen in 1938 were 4 states who agree to give Czechs to Hitler and they were Germany, Italy, France and Great Britain. Next fact is, that Chechs didn't defend themself when Germans cross Chech border.

Russia will just replace older ICBM with newer ICBM. For the safety of the world is realy important a balance of power. In the contrary, there will be soon WWIII.

Mamont
05-29-2007, 01:25 PM
The historical fact is, that the Soviet Union was the only state in 1938 who was prepared to defend Czechoslovakia, if Germany attack them. But in Munhen in 1938 were 4 states who agree to give Czechs to Hitler and they were Germany, Italy, France and Great Britain. Next fact is, that Chechs didn't defend themself when Germans cross Chech border.
You forget to mention Poland's refusal to let SU forces through, because SU was determined to help according to treaty.

sosed
05-29-2007, 01:46 PM
I agree. Poland together with Germany occupy small part of Czech territory.

RomanS
05-29-2007, 01:56 PM
Russians piss me off
they can do whatever but there will be radar base in Czech Republic

Vise Versa

The other guy can do whatever he wants, Russia will still build missles.

Bush says the missle system is not against Russia

Than the new Russian missles are not against NATO


works good for me

Oh and stop your crying.

TR1
05-29-2007, 02:40 PM
Yes, most of the Czechs are against it. Left-wing parties mostly...

The Czech government and backers of the radar, including former president Vaclav Havel, have dismissed calls for a referendum on the issue, arguing that security matters should not be decided in popular votes. As the country does not have a law on general referendum, the public does not have means to induce a nationwide popular vote.

Havel points out how quickly the Czechs came to terms with the attack against Czechoslovakia of the states forming the Warsaw Pact after 1968, arguing that the radar system would be very advantageous for the Czech Republic. "Europe won't be in a position to defend itself against the threats of the 21st century without the aid of the US in the long term… Without the American project, NATO won't be able to build up a defence system… If the Americans are not allowed to station their missile defence system in Poland and in the Czech Republic, perhaps they'll set it up in Great Britain instead. They will defend their own territory whatever happens, but we would not be protected by their defence system."

I dont care what missles can Russia send, I ll always be on the US side rather than Russian.

thats great. too bad no one gives a ****.

Abbadon the Despoiler
05-29-2007, 02:55 PM
Ok, whatever

Nizark
05-29-2007, 03:23 PM
Russia PR strong :)

Adax
05-29-2007, 04:16 PM
And the message I see is that there are a lot of people in Poland who are less than thrilled with having those sites on their soil. From what I understand, not even all of the polish members of MP.net are on board with the idea.

I would be interesting in seeing the latest poll numbers if you have them
Well it isn't that simple. There were only few pools in this case, and I think the "latest" are from march/april. Maybe some other polish members can find somthing new(I would like to see it too).

A pool ordered by GFK Polonia, showed:
49% against ABM
37% is for ABM
rest: they don't have opinion

AND:
44% thinks that this ABM site will increase Polish security,
43% thinks it will decrease Polish security.

Additionaly, 73% thinks there should be national referendum to decide.
24% are against referendum.

link in polish: http://pccentre.pl/Article16031.htm

Well, to be honest I saw a few months ago(3) a poll in TV where 57% were against.

But as I said - you can't say only a few are for(not against) this Shield. p-)

kyjxxx
05-29-2007, 04:32 PM
Can US ballistic missiles change the course? Didn't think so....

of course it can, the US have been there and done that.

LoboCanada
05-29-2007, 04:40 PM
Does the US NEED those systems in Eastern Europe? It dosen't seem like he US needs to defend themselves against the Russians. If the US wanted to place those Systems agasint Iran, then why not plasce them in Turkey?

Mu-Meson
05-29-2007, 04:55 PM
I oppose the US missile shield being built in Europe for one reason that no one has mentioned here yet: I don't believe America should be responsible for Europe's protection anymore. What, are you a bunch of helpless babies? Average military spending is what? Less that 1% of GDP? If Europe wants a missile shield, build it yourselves. If not, don't! And if and when you get nuked by someone like Iran, you won't have anyone to blame but yourselves. Oh whom I kidding, of course you will still blame America.

On a side note, we in Canada get lots of free protection from America. I don't approve of such freeloading here either, before anyone bothers moaning about that. Canada should sign up and cover her costs.

AgentX
05-29-2007, 05:06 PM
^Sure! If US starts building such a system on Mars, maybe in the next century - that'd be because they love Martians and want to protect them for free.

LoboCanada
05-29-2007, 05:13 PM
Well Mu-Meson has a 1 point. The EU has the money to build their own, so if they want one built in one of their member states they should build one. But th US is allies with most of all Europe, so shouldn't they protect their allies from mass destruction? As I said, I think having these systems do more damage and escalate the situation when it dosen't need to be.

Dima-RussianArms
05-29-2007, 05:20 PM
Dima as the main threat accoring to the US Military will come from Iran for example it wouldnt make any sense to place interceptors in Turkey because the Interceptor System is made to intercept warheads on terminal flight back into the atmosphere.

So why to place them in Eastern Europe then, why not in Germany, France, Belgium, etc?
Why not develop a system that would intercept missiles in the boost/take off phase when missile would have much lover velocity than during the terminal phase?

"Take off termination" ABM system would have much better chance of shooting the missile over the launcher's territory. The current proposed system will have the remains of the successful intercept fall, well, on whoever...

Why not to build ABM sites around key installations on its own territory like SU did? Granted they are extremely expensive but they also offer a better chance, plus no intercept remains raining down on some third country population.




And of course russia has miracously developed a new MIRV which can spoof the ABM system. Like in 2 years or so, nice developement speed. Maybe putin should first check the living standard of his citizens before trying SO HARD to be a strong country on the international polit show...

Projects like that take much longer than 2 years even with the adequate financing. This missile was in development since 1994. There wasn't much development work going on in the 90s for known reasons. Now when Russia has the positive cash flow and no debts they can finally start renovating its military for the new century by introducing more humane (accurate) nuclear weapon ;)


New ICBM is great but with all that hypothetical ABM missile talk about nothing you guys are missing something much more real.
There was another successful launch in Russia today
http://www.tldm.org/news8/IskanderMissile.jpg
As of 1999 it appeared that this system had entered operational service with the Russian Army.

The launch installation has two missiles with a range of 280 kilometers. Each missile has a 480 kilogram warhead consisting of 54 elements. The system can be used against small and large targets. The Iskander missile can easily overcome air defense systems. It's almost impossible to prevent a launch of an Iskander missile because of the system's mobility. Targets can be found not only by satellite and aircraft but also by a conventional intelligence center and by a soldier who directs artillery fire. Targets can also be found from photos, which will be put into a computer by means of a scanner. The self-direction device functions even in fog or darkness. Only the Iskander system can accomplish such tasks. The United States has tried to reconsider the missile technology control regime and here arises the question whether this may be an obstacle for the sale of the new missile abroad. Such missile systems as Iskander have a special place in the world weapons market. Even a small amount of such missiles drastically changes the balance of force in conflicts.

According to Nikolay Guschin, chief and senior designer of the Machinebuilding Design Office, the complex is meant ' for covertly preparing and launching effective missile strikes at small-size targets of particular importance. A specificity of this complex is the high level of automation in the pre-launch preparations little time required to make it ready, and the high precision of shooting.

Research carried out by specialists from the leading Russian military science centers has shown that the lskander-E missile complex is 5 to 8 times better than its foreign analogues in terms of the "effectiveness-cost" criterion. As for its tactical and technical characteristics, it also poses a great improvement on the existing Russian tactical missile complexes. Capable of accomplishing tasks connected with the use of non-nuclear warheads, it's the world's first complex equipped with two-missile launch installation. Weighing 3800 kilos each, controlled throughout the trajectory of their flight, equipped with various systems of correction and self-targeting, its missiles are capable of overcoming the enemy's anti-missile defences and hitting targets at a distance of 280 kilometers.

According to military experts, the lskander-E missile complex will serve as "determent weapon" in local conflicts, and as strategic arms for the countries with limited territory. Its great range of shooting making it possible to use it from the depth of one's own positions, and the brief time it can stay in its launch position make the complex virtually invulnerable to ordinary weapons.

The composition of the complex makes it possible to ensure the full cycle of its use in combat, including its combat control, information base, technical servicing and the training of its crews, without the involvement of additional remedies.

The above was taken from www.fas.org

Iskanders and Iskander-Ms are nothing new in the Russian inventory but today it successfully launched land version of the missile. It was very very good already, with the new missile...very interesting...

We all know that neither Russians nor Americans are suicidal and nuclear conflict between them is extremely unlikely. But whether Syria, Iran or whoever will be able to buy this system in large part depends on the relationship between US of A and Russian Federation.
So what is more important: some hypothetical ABM shield against some hypothetical missiles or some very real and very capable Iskander?

Overall Russian military and R&D are definitely staying busy: 2 new missile launches in one day.

Dima-RussianArms
05-29-2007, 05:23 PM
Well it isn't that simple. There were only few pools in this case, and I think the "latest" are from march/april. Maybe some other polish members can find somthing new(I would like to see it too).

A pool ordered by GFK Polonia, showed:
49% against ABM
37% is for ABM
rest: they don't have opinion

AND:
44% thinks that this ABM site will increase Polish security,
43% thinks it will decrease Polish security.

Additionaly, 73% thinks there should be national referendum to decide.
24% are against referendum.

link in polish: http://pccentre.pl/Article16031.htm

Well, to be honest I saw a few months ago(3) a poll in TV where 57% were against.

But as I said - you can't say only a few are for(not against) this Shield. p-)

Thank you.
So basically the country is split on the issue.
How likely do you think is the referendum on the issue? Or is it the same situation as in Czechoslovakia?

CPL Trevoga
05-29-2007, 05:27 PM
Thank you.
So basically the country is split on the issue.
How likely do you think is the referendum on the issue? Or is it the same situation as in Czechoslovakia?

Czechoslovakia is no more, they divorced in 89. Czechs Republic and Slovakia a separate countries now.

Adax
05-29-2007, 05:33 PM
Thank you.
So basically the country is split on the issue.
How likely do you think is the referendum on the issue? Or is it the same situation as in Czechoslovakia?
Well, the goverment said recently that there will be no referendum in this case, so they(gov) will decide to agree or not.
Cheers.

Dima-RussianArms
05-29-2007, 05:46 PM
Czechoslovakia is no more, they divorced in 89. Czechs Republic and Slovakia a separate countries now.

Thank you for the correction, old habits/speech patterns die hard.
But we both know what I meant.

In any case now instead of one Great hockey team, they have one above average and one below average team... and that is the shame :)

Dima-RussianArms
05-29-2007, 05:49 PM
Well, the goverment said recently that there will be no referendum in this case, so they(gov) will decide to agree or not.
Cheers.

But how is that suppose to fall in line with the democracy concept when people of both countries have no say in it?

In any case the biggest ally of Russia in this issue is the US congress as they are yet to give the government money for the project.

Groove
05-29-2007, 05:51 PM
Dima,

the US work on Airborne Laser System to intercept missiles in the first stage after firing them.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/abl.htm

Imho this is just to some sci-fi propaganda.

Its not that easy ( read: impossible ) to destroy Ballistic Missiles when they are launched when u arent directly in the vincinity. And i bet a ABL wont penetrate russian airspace deep enough to destroy some BMs "taking off". So the next possible option you got is simply destroying the silos with your own nuclear weapons before the other can launch them. Another unlikely event to happen, especially when u think about SSBNs like Los Angeles Class or the russian Typhoon Boomers.

Regarding stationing Early Warning / ABM on own soil. You mentioned Soviet Union which dont exist anymore. When we look on todays map let me bring back some of the ABM System places which are on ex-SU soil:

Chernobyl-2 <- Ukraine
Hen House <- Krim, Ukraine

Daryal radar system:

Skrunda, Latvia
Baranovichi, Belarus
Balkhash, Kazakhstan

etc.

So they arent on russian soil, at least for me. They were placed on positions where they could do their job best.

Im pretty sure the US ABM System will be stationed in Poland and Czech Republic from geostrategic points regarding Terminal Interceptions of Warheads but surely as some political gratitude for helping out in Iraq.

This discussion is strange because SU stationed troops in Poland and GDR and this was okay for example ?

I hope i could make my POV clear.

JJC
05-29-2007, 06:05 PM
Is there a reason for Russia to make any more fuss or have concerns about US ABM plans in Europe since now Russia has regained its balance with this new missle?..

CPL Trevoga
05-29-2007, 06:08 PM
Is there a reason for Russia to make any more fuss or have concerns about US ABM plans in Europe since now Russia has regained its balance with this new missle?..

The fuss is because somebody in Pentagon thinks that nuclear war is winnable.

nullterm
05-29-2007, 06:25 PM
Vise Versa

The other guy can do whatever he wants, Russia will still build missles.

Bush says the missle system is not against Russia

Than the new Russian missles are not against NATO


works good for me

Oh and stop your crying.

Well stated. "Do as I say, not as I do." never works as a foreign policy. Unless there is a mutual step down on both sides, it will never happen. Both countries are rightfully exercising their ability to develop their weapon capabilities. If that's unsatisfactory to both parties then they need to reach a compromise.

Lt-Col A. Tack
05-29-2007, 06:36 PM
The fuss is because somebody in Pentagon thinks that nuclear war is winnable.

Uhh...no. Apparently, somebody isn't paying attention.

Knocking down a small number of ICBMs launched from a rogue nation is very possible, and it's what this system is intended to do.

The Russians are mad because their ego is hurt, not their security.

Lt-Col A. Tack
05-29-2007, 06:38 PM
Is there a reason for Russia to make any more fuss or have concerns about US ABM plans in Europe since now Russia has regained its balance with this new missle?..

In point of fact, this new ABM changes absolutely nothing strategically for Russia.

CHERK
05-29-2007, 06:41 PM
May 29 2007 7:38PM
Advanced cruise missiles successfully tested in Russia - Ivanov

ZNAMENSK (Astrakhan region). May 29 (Interfax-AVN) - Advanced strategic and tactical cruise missiles that are immune to all existing and future missile defense systems have been successfully tested in Russia, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov told journalists in Znamensk on Tuesday.
"These complexes are capable of overcoming all existing and future missile defense systems. That is why, from the point of view of defense and security, Russians can look into the future without any worriers," he said.
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11757311

He219
05-29-2007, 06:51 PM
This is not new. We have had this capability for about 20 years with the W88. It's design ensures that its warhead does not drop in a straight/calculated arc and will be very hard to track and intercept. Welcome to the 1980's.
lol1234
:lol:

Seriously
05-29-2007, 06:55 PM
In point of fact, this new ABM changes absolutely nothing strategically for Russia.

Yeah, I've never understood why the Russian government thinks 10 interceptor missiles in Poland can shoot down hundreds of their ICBMs at once.

Lt-Col A. Tack
05-29-2007, 06:56 PM
May 29 2007 7:38PM
Advanced cruise missiles successfully tested in Russia - Ivanov

ZNAMENSK (Astrakhan region). May 29 (Interfax-AVN) - Advanced strategic and tactical cruise missiles that are immune to all existing and future missile defense systems have been successfully tested in Russia, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov told journalists in Znamensk on Tuesday.
"These complexes are capable of overcoming all existing and future missile defense systems. That is why, from the point of view of defense and security, Russians can look into the future without any worriers," he said.
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11757311

What weapons are we talking about here?

Lt-Col A. Tack
05-29-2007, 07:00 PM
Yeah, I've never understood why the Russian government thinks 10 interceptor missiles in Poland can shoot down hundreds of their ICBMs at once.

Not to mention sub-launched ICBMs, road-mobile ICBMs etc etc

Thor
05-29-2007, 07:02 PM
Target of Nuclear ICBMs: Kills large groups of innocent people.

Target of a missile defence system: Protect large groups of innocent people.

CHERK
05-29-2007, 07:21 PM
What weapons are we talking about here?
Mentioned ICBM and Tactical Rocket Complex “Iskander” with a new P-500 rocket.

quellish
05-29-2007, 07:25 PM
This is not new. We have had this capability for about 20 years with the W88. It's design ensures that its warhead does not drop in a straight/calculated arc and will be very hard to track and intercept. Welcome to the 1980's.

Well, it's not so much the W88 - that is just the physics package. It's the Mk 5 RV. And the Mk 5 only has limited crossrange maneuverability, while the new Russian MaRV's is much wider. The new Russian MaRV is more like the US Common Aero Vehicle than the Mk 5.

He219
05-29-2007, 07:27 PM
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/1217/32840865ao0.jpg

Witold Waszczykowski, Poland's chief negotiator with the U.S. on missile defense, speaks during an interview with Associated Press in his office in Warsaw Tuesday, May 29, 2007. Poland's top negotiator on the planned U.S. missile defense system accused Russia on Tuesday of showing a "psychological problem" in opposing it, and said Warsaw needs to discuss with U.S. President George W. Bush how seriously to take Moscow's threats

Thor
05-29-2007, 08:08 PM
I don't think any thought of winning a nuclear war should be entertained by Pentagon.
I think you got the part regarding who are actually building new ICBMs wrong.

CPL Trevoga
05-29-2007, 08:43 PM
I think you got the part regarding who are actually building new ICBMs wrong.

They actually responding to new threats. Anyway, try being as objective as possible, what would be your response be?

Dima-RussianArms
05-29-2007, 09:07 PM
Dima,

the US work on Airborne Laser System to intercept missiles in the first stage after firing them.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/abl.htm

Imho this is just to some sci-fi propaganda.

I have heard of this program. Great concept but not very useful against a surprise attack from an unknown location as it requires aircraft on station in close proximity and vulnerable to adversary's air defenses.




Its not that easy ( read: impossible ) to destroy Ballistic Missiles when they are launched when u arent directly in the vincinity. And i bet a ABL wont penetrate russian airspace deep enough to destroy some BMs "taking off". So the next possible option you got is simply destroying the silos with your own nuclear weapons before the other can launch them. Another unlikely event to happen, especially when u think about SSBNs like Los Angeles Class or the russian Typhoon Boomers.

I absolutely agree with you but we are not talking about US vs Russia nuclear exchange here, as even 1000 interceptors are not going to be enough even to consider to take the gamble.

As I have stated before all of this outcry coming out Russia regarding ABM is nothing but certain people creating political noise for their own reasons and agendas. Any intelligent person realizes that nuclear arsenal and options for its delivery that Russia has will negate any currently planned ABM.
But the noise looks good in the media and gives politicians camera time...



Regarding stationing Early Warning / ABM on own soil. You mentioned Soviet Union which dont exist anymore. When we look on todays map let me bring back some of the ABM System places which are on ex-SU soil:

Chernobyl-2 <- Ukraine
Hen House <- Krim, Ukraine

Daryal radar system:

Skrunda, Latvia
Baranovichi, Belarus
Balkhash, Kazakhstan

etc.

So they arent on russian soil, at least for me. They were placed on positions where they could do their job best.

True, Russia has early warning radars in some ex USSR republics but the interceptors are deployed inside its own borders.
Russian government has no problems with the US placing its radars in the Eastern Europe but they do have problem with the interceptors at its borders.
So radar US installations were never an issue for them, interceptors are.



Im pretty sure the US ABM System will be stationed in Poland and Czech Republic from geostrategic points regarding Terminal Interceptions of Warheads
As a person who does not oppose and even supports ABM shield, even I am having hard time buying that. Precisely because of the geostrategic aspect the proposed sites make no sense for the interceptors.
What terminal interceptions out of Poland? I am looking at the map right now and it makes no sense to me if NK and Iran are suspects...
I am keeping an open mind about it but I need some data (maps, charts proposed trajectories, etc) to convince me.
To accept you theory than interceptor installation in Spain against Iran is the best choice. What about NK since it will launch its missile in the opposite direction from the sites in Eastern Europe...
I am just failing to see the logic.


This discussion is strange because SU stationed troops in Poland and GDR and this was okay for example ?

I do not see how that is relevant to the current discussion. Those were the different times, US stationed troops in the Western Europe and still does and USSR stationed troops in the Eastern Europe.
Well USSR is no longer, Russia doesn't have any troops in Europe and US is still there and even further east...

In the end, I think that idea of reliably kinetically intercepting a ballistic missile today is not possible.
So the way I see it, this entire ABM shield project is nothing but a tool that certain large corporations would like to use to extract more money from the US tax payers while exploiting their fears. I say - let them have, it could be good for the economy in general and probably will financially benefit me, which in turn will make Citibank happy so it is kumbayaa all around:)

Zmey
05-29-2007, 10:07 PM
You tell me how 10 ABM's are a threat to Russian nuclear missile dominance ? The Kremlin knows this, but needs to play the innocent victim card like the members on this forum.

.

Are you willing to personally guarantee that another 100 interceptors wont be shipped and installed onto pre-existing operational base ?


Every party to this mess, Russians, Americans, Czech and Poles are looking after their own interests the best they can. Why Russia has to believe US' claim that the ABM "will never be aimed at Russia"? Just because Amercians are such nice, fuzzy and honest people? There is only one country in the world that presents grave threat to the existence of Russia as a country. To believe America's honest word about peaceful intentions and ignore the ABM right next to our borders would be outright irresponsible. So you'll do your thing and we'll do ours...

Besides...Russia needed the replacement or obsolete, liquid fuel, silo-launched SS-18 (10 MIRVs) for years. By 2015 all SS-18 must be withdrawn from service for safety reasons. So now we have the new mobile, solid-fuel to replace the old junk.

JJC
05-29-2007, 10:09 PM
Let's not forget that even though Iran doesn't have ICBS to reach USA today, they can deliver different kinds of wrath so yes Iran is a real time threat to US.

Also Iran's constant upgrading to the Shahab 3 is speculated that it can reach several major European cities. By the end of the decade Iran will have missiles that will reach any point in Europe and some Asian parts

TR1
05-29-2007, 10:10 PM
of course it can, the US have been there and done that.not in the terminal stage they cant.

Nano
05-29-2007, 10:17 PM
To sum it all up basically nothing has changed. The U.S. can not defend itself against the ICBM's and Russia still has cool looking ICBM's. Russia strong!! and U.S.A. strong!! in other words.

Lt-Col A. Tack
05-29-2007, 10:27 PM
I have heard of this program. Great concept but not very useful against a surprise attack from an unknown location as it requires aircraft on station in close proximity and vulnerable to adversary's air defenses.I honestly think it's one of the cooler projects to have survived the Cold-War Era, but, as you pointed out it has to be in the right place at the right time.


As I have stated before all of this outcry coming out Russia regarding ABM is nothing but certain people creating political noise for their own reasons and agendas. Any intelligent person realizes that nuclear arsenal and options for its delivery that Russia has will negate any currently planned ABM.
But the noise looks good in the media and gives politicians camera time...
EXACTLY! The Russian people should expect their leaders to be vigorous advocates for their interest, but don't expect all Westerners to be intimidated by irrelevant threats, like pulling out of the CFE or INF treaties.



Russian government has no problems with the US placing its radars in the Eastern Europe but they do have problem with the interceptors at its borders.
So radar US installations were never an issue for them, interceptors are.
They shouldn't be a concern, given the numbers we're talking about.



What about NK since it will launch its missile in the opposite direction from the sites in Eastern Europe...I am just failing to see the logic.As I understand it, the interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska are supposed to protect us from missiles from NK and the interceptors in Poland protect



In the end, I think that idea of reliably kinetically intercepting a ballistic missile today is not possible. Great post up until this point.
THAAD and SM-3 are still in development, but the concept of a kinetic energy kill has been validated by numerous, and ongoing, test.



So the way I see it, this entire ABM shield project is nothing but a tool that certain large corporations would like to use to extract more money from the US tax payers while exploiting their fears. I say - let them have, it could be good for the economy in general and probably will financially benefit me, which in turn will make Citibank happy so it is kumbayaa all around:)

Quite honestly, I think we could put KEI aboard ships an keep a few of these ships deployed to the Gulf at all times. We (the US) would have complete control at all times and none of the hassle of foreign basing.

Similar to, but not exactly like, the following: Bush Should Bet On KEI (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Bush_Should_Bet_On_KEI_999.html)

Dima-RussianArms
05-29-2007, 10:52 PM
Great post up until this point.
THAAD and SM-3 are still in development, but the concept of a kinetic energy kill has been validated by numerous, and ongoing, test.


As you have said it yourself "are still in development", so my argument stands.

The problem that I see with those test is that they are not realistic enough.
In the real world scenario there are going to be number of variables that are not currently present in the tests.
The enemy is not going to provide in advance time, location and target of the launch.
What about countermeasures and decoys?

At the present stage THAAD and SM-3 can not 100% guarantee interception of the target with 0 unknowns and variables under test conditions, as simple as that.
10 years from now - who knows.
But if I lived in Europe, I would be asking: where is all that is going to come down in case of the successful intercept?

Not to mention that US Congress (most importantly) is not onboard with the idea yet so all this commotion might prove to be for nothing.

Lt-Col A. Tack
05-29-2007, 11:39 PM
As you have said it yourself "are still in development", so my argument stands.I disagree. The test successes of these kinetic interceptors validates the concept.




The problem that I see with those test is that they are not realistic enough.
In the real world scenario there are going to be number of variables that are not currently present in the tests.
The enemy is not going to provide in advance time, location and target of the launch.

The test are becoming more complex and challenging for the interceptors and their crews.


THAAD Test Intercepts Target Lower Than Ever Before
Apr 9, 2007
Jefferson Morris/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) ballistic missile defense program scored an intercept on April 6 at an altitude 25 kilometers (15 miles) lower than any previous THAAD test.

THAAD is designed to intercept ballistic missile targets both inside and outside Earth's atmosphere. The precise altitudes of the tests are classified, but the lower they are the more challenging they are, according to THAAD prime contractor Lockheed Martin.

The THAAD interceptor was launched at 8:45 p.m. local time from the Pacific Missile Range Facility off the island of Kauai in Hawaii, while the unitary SCUD-type target flew from a mobile platform positioned off Kauai. Intercept took place at roughly 8:47 p.m. and early indications are that all test objectives were met.

It was the second THAAD test from the Pacific Range and the third successful intercept in the current phase of the program, according to MDA. A fourth attempt last September was aborted due to a target missile failure, which resulted in the THAAD interceptor not launching.

Soldiers of the U.S. Army's 6th Air Defense Artillery Brigade stationed at Fort Bliss, Texas, operated all THAAD equipment during the test. Army personnel will continue to operate the system for the rest of the flight-test program. THAAD will be turned over to the Army in 2009.

New wrinkle

A new wrinkle this time around was the fact that the soldiers weren't told precisely when the test was going to occur, according to Tom McGrath, Lockheed Martin's THAAD program manager. They were instead given a window of several hours. "It was very, very realistic for them, as if it was an actual operation in a war," McGrath told The DAILY. "They performed flawlessly."

The test marked the first time THAAD has participated in what MDA considers a Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) test, meaning that more than one element of the BMDS was involved. The test demonstrated communications links with a simulated U.S. Navy Aegis ship as well as the Command, Control, Battle Management and Communications (C2BMC) system and the U.S. Air Force's Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS).

The next THAAD test will be a nonintercept flight-test in which the THAAD missile will be put through a number of uncharacteristic maneuvers at even lower altitude to gather performance data at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. The spent interceptor will be recovered for analysis. The program then will move back to Hawaii for an exo-atmospheric intercept test in the fall. Two THAAD tests are scheduled for 2008, McGrath said, involving more complex targets with separating warheads.

The availability of the sophisticated targets is the reason for the slowdown in the pace of testing, although the THAAD team also expects to be involved in a nonshooter role in a number of other BMDS system tests later this year and next year.

AviationWeek Link (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/THAA040907.xml)




What about countermeasures and decoys?
That isn't the kind of threat this system is designed to counter, as least as far as I know. It was intended to defend against a very limited attack by an enemy using unsophisticated missiles. Yet another reason for Russia to rest easy.



At the present stage THAAD and SM-3 can not 100% guarantee interception of the target with 0 unknowns and variables under test conditions, as simple as that.There's no guarantee that any missile will work, including ICBMs. And as I said earlier, the test are getting more challenging.



Not to mention that US Congress (most importantly) is not onboard with the idea yet so all this commotion might prove to be for nothing.
This is a valid argument. The Clinton administration did next to nothing to advance the program, and Democrats have always been hostile to the idea of missile defense.

Kroforit
05-29-2007, 11:55 PM
Very nice answer to Bush project for ABM bases in Eastern Europe. AFAIK this is new rocket with maneuvrable MIRVs.

I remember this Putin speech:

No, the real answer is in South Korea.

Delta_Stealth
05-30-2007, 12:33 AM
*jumps out of hole*

Hmmmm... I just read 6 pages of this and I am still wondering. Why does anyone need these weapons? I know terrorism and all that stuff, Iran, briefcase nukes, homemade ICBMs, and what not. It's a good idea to be protected against enemies who openly threaten you but come on. Didn't we learn anything from the Cold War? Are we (as people) so immature that we have to threaten each other with nukes (I am speaking about the U.S. and Russia)? What didn't we learn from the Cold War?

Answer this for me please (I really do want to know). Why does Russia get upset about a ABM system in America? Seems like the only reason that I can think of is that they would want to nuke us. The ABM system would make that hard (or just harder :)) for them. If Russia doesn't have any interest in a nuclear exchange then why would they care? Heck, why would they being deploying a new offensive weapon? That makes me want the ABM system even more. I hope I can speak for America in that we would never even dream of preempting something like that.

Why doesn't America freak out when Russia deploys an offensive weapon? Why does Russia freak out when America tests a defensive weapon?

Of course maybe I am just being naive about the whole situation. Is America really starting another Cold War with the WOT? I am not aware of any significant buildup that would threaten a country like Russia.

Please, I am not trying to ruffle any feathers. This really is a mystery to me.

p-)

*jumps back in*

Zmey
05-30-2007, 01:00 AM
*jumps out of hole*



Answer this for me please (I really do want to know). Why does Russia get upset about a ABM system in America? Seems like the only reason that I can think of is that they would want to nuke us. *jumps back in*


Its quite simple, really. Russia wouldnt freak out about US ABM if *all* US had was the ABM. But besides the ABM, US has staggering arsenal of offensive weapons. Few months ago in Foreign Affairs there was an article about "US nuclear supremacy". The jist of it is - Russian nuclear arsenal has declined to near-critical point. Russia has only 1-2 missile subs on patrol with the rest sitting in port. Thus they can be taken out with a surgical strike. Over the horizon early warning radars are not functioning properly. SAM shield has huge holes. Thus - Silo-based ICBMs and bombers are easily taken out with precision strike. It leaves only hudred or so mobile launchers. And thats where the ABM steps in. Those proverbial "10 interceptors" can eventually turn into 100-200-300 ... and then US would have the chance of striking Russia's main nuclear arsenal (silos, subs, planes) and intercepting hudred or so retaliatory warheads from mobile launchers. This is very rough and incomplete summary of the general idea of the article and surrounding arguements. With silos, subs and planes taken out at once... US can intercept few remaining warheads with expanded ABM.

This scenario has many holes, its somewhat unrealistic, it leaves too much to chance.... yes. But its a scenario that Russian generals and government cannot ignore. Simply cant! Besides US, there isnt any power in the world that can pose credible thread to Russia's existence. So who do you think Russia should worry about? Georgia? Estonia?

Are you asking to put the fate of Russia in the belief that "America is nice and wont attack?". Sure, its unlikely that the US will decide to outright nuke Russia just for the hell of it.... but at the end of the day Russian President will ask his generals: "What are the REAL threats to Russia's safety and what are you doing to avert it?"

Do you understand now? No matter how much we trust your, American word - we cant place our future in YOUR hands.

makavelli
05-30-2007, 01:39 AM
SK and iraq is far more closer to NK and iran..

Delta_Stealth
05-30-2007, 02:23 AM
Its quite simple, really. Russia wouldnt freak out about US ABM if *all* US had was the ABM. But besides the ABM, US has staggering arsenal of offensive weapons. Few months ago in Foreign Affairs there was an article about "US nuclear supremacy". The jist of it is - Russian nuclear arsenal has declined to near-critical point. Russia has only 1-2 missile subs on patrol with the rest sitting in port. Thus they can be taken out with a surgical strike. Over the horizon early warning radars are not functioning properly. SAM shield has huge holes. Thus - Silo-based ICBMs and bombers are easily taken out with precision strike. It leaves only hudred or so mobile launchers. And thats where the ABM steps in. Those proverbial "10 interceptors" can eventually turn into 100-200-300 ... and then US would have the chance of striking Russia's main nuclear arsenal (silos, subs, planes) and intercepting hudred or so retaliatory warheads from mobile launchers. This is very rough and incomplete summary of the general idea of the article and surrounding arguements. With silos, subs and planes taken out at once... US can intercept few remaining warheads with expanded ABM.

This scenario has many holes, its somewhat unrealistic, it leaves too much to chance.... yes. But its a scenario that Russian generals and government cannot ignore. Simply cant! Besides US, there isnt any power in the world that can pose credible thread to Russia's existence. So who do you think Russia should worry about? Georgia? Estonia?

Are you asking to put the fate of Russia in the belief that "America is nice and wont attack?". Sure, its unlikely that the US will decide to outright nuke Russia just for the hell of it.... but at the end of the day Russian President will ask his generals: "What are the REAL threats to Russia's safety and what are you doing to avert it?"

Do you understand now? No matter how much we trust your, American word - we cant place our future in YOUR hands.

I see your point. Well put. I wish we had our priorities in order. Like helping those who can't help themselves. War between civilized people is so stupid. Isn't it? William Sherman who said that the harsher war is the sooner it will be over. That's the truth. And now we have these long drawn out wars because there are a bazillion rules to follow.

I think we should let war be war and stop trying to civilize it. People like civilized war to much. At least they can tolerate it. It was General Lee who said that it is a good thing that war is so brutal, otherwise we would grow to fond of it. I am being slightly sarcastic. But there is an element of truth in that. Sadly.

GazB
05-30-2007, 05:02 AM
the US work on Airborne Laser System to intercept missiles in the first stage after firing them.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/abl.htm

Imho this is just to some sci-fi propaganda.


The Soviet airborne laser system was tested in the 80s, based on an Il-76 transport.


Its not that easy ( read: impossible ) to destroy Ballistic Missiles when they are launched when u arent directly in the vincinity.

Actually Iran is further south than most of Russia if not all of Russia. As such it is easier to monitor with a geostationary satellite that just hovers over the target area (they must be in orbit over the equator obviously so being further south Iran is much easier to watch than Russia is).
With a Satellite watching 24/7 for IR rocket exhaust plumes you should get pretty much instant warning of a launch... plenty of time to alert facilities in Turkey to launch and intercept missile.


And i bet a ABL wont penetrate russian airspace deep enough to destroy some BMs "taking off".

By the time Iranian ICBMs are over Poland or North Korean ICBMs are over Poland the warheads will be in space. If the ABm system can hit targets in space it can hit ICBMs from Russia heading toward Europe.


So they arent on russian soil, at least for me. They were placed on positions where they could do their job best.


They were on Soviet Soil.


Is there a reason for Russia to make any more fuss or have concerns about US ABM plans in Europe since now Russia has regained its balance with this new missle?..

This missile is to replace SS-18s and SS-19s. The US is planning to have x number of interceptor missiles in addition to the nuclear warheads it will also have. The Russians will likely withdraw from the INF treaty and point some shorter range missiles at these sites to ensure they play no part in a full scale war.


In point of fact, this new ABM changes absolutely nothing strategically for Russia.

Introducing new ICBMs to replace older missiles also changes absolutely nothing for the Russians as they will be maintaining x number of warheads no matter what missiles happen to hold them.


Yeah, I've never understood why the Russian government thinks 10 interceptor missiles in Poland can shoot down hundreds of their ICBMs at once.

If they thought that these so called ten interceptors could take out all their missiles at once they would likely preemptively strike the base before it is built, not p!$$ around with IRBMs and cruise missiles. The fact is that the US has stated there will be 10 missiles based there but we have nothing but their word. The US has also stated that NATO will not expand into the former warsaw pact countries, that it would not expand into former Soviet republics, and that NATO bases will not be built and US and western NATo forces would not be based in former warsaw pact countries that are now nato countries.

Perhaps at this time the Russians might want some things in writing and even then they will want to take counter measures of their own, including withdrawing from the CFE and INF treaties.


What weapons are we talking about here?

Probably the Kh-101 and Kh-102 conventionally and nuclear armed respectively cruise missiles. (range approx 5,000km with stealth features/design).


Target of Nuclear ICBMs: Kills large groups of innocent people.

Target of a missile defence system: Protect large groups of innocent people.

In a perfect world: nuclear ICBMs that can wipe out the whole world on both sides = MAD and therefore deterrent and = no nuclear war.
Missile defence system that is able to stop the enemies missiles = MAD stops working = preemptive self defence attack to defeat before system is operational. Result is that when both sides have unstoppable attack then no one is stupid enough to attack as it is suicide. When at least one side is developing a defence then likelyhood of a nuclear war becomes much more likely as threat of retaliation becomes less convincing.


Soviet occupation, behavior and its backward & inept economic system have made these now independent states alliances with the US a forgone conclusion.

You mean like western interference in the ME has made Irans attitude to the US a foregone conclusion?


You tell me how 10 ABM's are a threat to Russian nuclear missile dominance ? The Kremlin knows this, but needs to play the innocent victim card like the members on this forum.


Ballistic missile warheads are limited by treaty. ABM missiles are no longer limited by treaty or subject to inspection. They could put 500 interceptor missiles in Poland and not only not tell anyone but not have to tell anyone.
The US can put as many ABM missiles in Poland as it likes. Iran would not launch an ICBm at the US even if it had one now. The consequences are obvous. Much easier to send a small team on a yacht with a small nuke on board and sail into NY harbour... or any other US harbour and boom. Much harder to work out who is responsible. As the US would put it... more deniable.


I have heard of this program. Great concept but not very useful against a surprise attack from an unknown location as it requires aircraft on station in close proximity and vulnerable to adversary's air defenses.

And cost. Main reasons why the Soviets stopped development too.


Any intelligent person realizes that nuclear arsenal and options for its delivery that Russia has will negate any currently planned ABM.
But the noise looks good in the media and gives politicians camera time...



It is quite simple maths. The Moscow treaty limits deployable strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200. Lets assume they decide to keep 2,200. Divide that by three between the three services, so the ICBM fleet has to launch 734 missiles approximately. TOPOLs carry single warheads but the SS-18s carry 10 while the SS-19s carry about 6 warheads. With a total of 734 warheads that means the could have a maximum of 122 SS-19s OR 74 Satans. The reality is that they will probably have 50 or so Satans plus 30 or so SS-19s which leaves about 114 warheads left... putting them each in a single TOPOL is good regarding increasing missile numbers and making defence harder but the reality is that Russia would probably be better off with fewer missiles carrying more warheads. More likely they will put three warheads in each TOPOL meaning a grand total of 50 plus 30 plus 38 which equals a total of 118 ICBMs. Now there are 60 interceptors in the US currently planned plus 10 planned in Poland. 70 interceptors vs 118 missiles in not something that can be ignored. The 50 in the US went to 60 because they felt there was enough room. There is plenty of spare room in Poland... how many more can they put there?

...118 ICBMs and that is to target new expanded NATO as well as China and japan and several other countries. Since the cold war the number of targets the Russians need to point their missiles at has increased, not decreased.

Xaito
05-30-2007, 05:18 AM
Nuclear deterrence only works if all sides are vulnerable.

-Julik- 4.GdKp
05-30-2007, 05:43 AM
All the time problems with the new US d..k sucking EU members.

Lapata
05-30-2007, 05:56 AM
http://www.1tv.ru/news/n103518

New Missile system .

Switek
05-30-2007, 06:00 AM
All the time problems with the new US d..k sucking EU members.

Would you be so kind to elaborate, smartass?

Abbadon the Despoiler
05-30-2007, 06:24 AM
Im glad for this thread. thanks for all kinds of interesting opinions.

Kilgor
05-30-2007, 06:42 AM
It is quite simple maths. The Moscow treaty limits deployable strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200. Lets assume they decide to keep 2,200. Divide that by three between the three services, so the ICBM fleet has to launch 734 missiles approximately. TOPOLs carry single warheads but the SS-18s carry 10 while the SS-19s carry about 6 warheads. With a total of 734 warheads that means the could have a maximum of 122 SS-19s OR 74 Satans. The reality is that they will probably have 50 or so Satans plus 30 or so SS-19s which leaves about 114 warheads left... putting them each in a single TOPOL is good regarding increasing missile numbers and making defence harder but the reality is that Russia would probably be better off with fewer missiles carrying more warheads. More likely they will put three warheads in each TOPOL meaning a grand total of 50 plus 30 plus 38 which equals a total of 118 ICBMs. Now there are 60 interceptors in the US currently planned plus 10 planned in Poland. 70 interceptors vs 118 missiles in not something that can be ignored. The 50 in the US went to 60 because they felt there was enough room. There is plenty of spare room in Poland... how many more can they put there?


Interesting. Who said every warhead inside a missle had to be a nuclear one ? Any nuclear exchange would involve dummy or conventionally armed warheads & missles to saturate any defensive system.

Interesting omission on your behalf.

Mamont
05-30-2007, 07:00 AM
Interesting. Who said every warhead inside a missle had to be a nuclear one ? Any nuclear exchange would involve dummy or conventionally armed warheads & missles to saturate any defensive system.
Have you any idea how dummy warhead looks and were it is stored? Defence of modern ICBM's and IRBM's also include ECM.


Interesting omission on your behalf.
Do not talk about subject you don't know. Have you forgot my advise? Read the books, they contain knowledge.

Kilgor
05-30-2007, 07:13 AM
Have you any idea how dummy warhead looks and were it is stored? Defence of modern ICBM's and IRBM's also include ECM.


Do not talk about subject you don't know. Have you forgot my advise? Read the books, they contain knowledge.

Why dont you tell me how a US interception missle could detect the correct warhead (nuclear) on a Russian Mirv system ?

Like we have said all along, the defensive system would become saturated by a Russian attack.

Mamont
05-30-2007, 07:33 AM
Why dont you tell me how a US interception missle could detect the correct warhead (nuclear) on a Russian Mirv system ?
Modern systems like AN/FPS-129 HAVE STARE have a very high accuracy, providing what is called "high resolution target image" based on the submetric accuracy(about 15cm) of the system, so basically it can detect dummy warheads not by returning signal alone, but from literally dimensions of target.

For your information - nuclear attack is not just launching ICBM's at targets.



Like we have said all along, the defensive system would become saturated by a Russian attack.
I repeat - you don't know what you talking about. And is quite a logic to assume that Russia will strike first. So far it's US that develops new first-strike capability and defences. And have an openly aggressive doctrine.

ZhukovG
05-30-2007, 11:52 AM
I have reading a lot about RS-24 what a great weapon, so powerful to carry 10 Warheads just like SS-18

Poland is a very nice country and the people is so nice, I cannt believe most of the people agree to have a foreign Army base in their country, is the same with Czech even is that they have money from USA

afreu
05-30-2007, 12:34 PM
Yeah why would a country with such nice people agree to that?

Lt-Col A. Tack
05-30-2007, 02:14 PM
I have reading a lot about RS-24 what a great weapon, so powerful to carry 10 Warheads just like SS-18

Such admiration for a new death machine? You like it when somebody develops and deploys a more effective ways to kill people?

The US is confident enough in our existing Minutemen missiles that we've retired our LGM-118 Peacekeepers (10 warheads, W-87) and our AGM-129 ACM cruise missiles.

How about praising us for that?


Poland is a very nice country and the people is so nice, I cannt believe most of the people agree to have a foreign Army base in their country, is the same with Czech even is that they have money from USAUnlike some countries, the US has a long history of helping to defend our allies.

Lt-Col A. Tack
05-30-2007, 02:25 PM
Yeah why would a country with such nice people agree to that?

I'm not Polish, but I could see how they might get tired of Russian threats and tantrums.

Fenix
05-30-2007, 02:44 PM
This thread is a reason not to have children to this world.

Are you guys seriously debating about being able to win a nuclear war?

Do you Russians really think Americans could somehow magically protect themselves from your nuclear subs able to loiter off the US coast?

Do not you see what Putin is doing? Scaring you with the boogieman of your past to gain more power?

As long as Russia has nuclear subs with all their power. I think you should not
worry about America building the anti icbm system. It is clearly aimed at protecting US from the middle eastern nukes that are about to be reality in five to ten years time.

If you would stand with US / Israel in trying to get rid of that potential threat.. Maybe the anti icbm system would not be needed.

It is weird how biblical part Israel is playing in dividing the world.

I can totally see the world ending with some fundamentalist whackjob building a doomsday nuke and extorting the world with it.. Getting everything he wants and then pushing the button on his deathbed.

Which is the reason why nukes should not be in the hands of fundamentalist whackjobs.

Hopefully all you Russians and Americans can agree on that one thing.

Or else.

We are ****ed.

I think I am going to drink some Rum.

Sgt.Jones
05-30-2007, 02:51 PM
Man this thread is gay. It went for ICBMs to RUSSIA STRONG! to nuclear. Instead of trying to agree on certain things every is fight to prove that yall don't know **** about. Unless everyone in here is policy makers for russia or the USA or in anywhere else. Which I highly doubt.

So plz kids and adults play nice of STFU?

IvanIII
05-30-2007, 03:20 PM
Yes and who started it ? US with the damn shield :-(

Scar79
05-30-2007, 03:57 PM
Sorry for my poor English but i wish to tell one intresting fact.

Sea platform for X-Band radar has been constructed at our own russian shipyard in Viborg. ;)

It is very interesting for me, what can say mr. Putin on this interesting fact.

Our politicians is damn liars. Or renegades. And mr. Putin is first of them.

and sorry again for...but you already know for what. :)

Mamont
05-30-2007, 04:17 PM
Such admiration for a new death machine? You like it when somebody develops and deploys a more effective ways to kill people?
What about that "kick ass" shouting when new rifle, or bomb, or missile is being introduced?



The US is confident enough in our existing Minutemen missiles that we've retired our LGM-118 Peacekeepers (10 warheads, W-87) and our AGM-129 ACM cruise missiles.
More like realising the age of weapons, their reliability and usefullness in current politics. Or are you suggesting that aside LGM-118 and AGM-129 US doesn't have or develop any other weapons?



How about praising us for that?
For what? For putting warheads in storage to be used again? For silos that are intact? Compare what Russia did.



Unlike some countries, the US has a long history of helping to defend our allies.
Please, do tell.

Scar79, any sane man already know that CS-50 is just a platform, suited for many roles. If Russia wouldn't have build it, someone else would. Why not profit and have 35 millions? So before putting blame and using oxygen do at least little research.

Kilgor
05-30-2007, 04:26 PM
Modern systems like AN/FPS-129 HAVE STARE have a very high accuracy, providing what is called "high resolution target image" based on the submetric accuracy(about 15cm) of the system, so basically it can detect dummy warheads not by returning signal alone, but from literally dimensions of target.

For your information - nuclear attack is not just launching ICBM's at targets.


I repeat - you don't know what you talking about. And is quite a logic to assume that Russia will strike first. So far it's US that develops new first-strike capability and defences. And have an openly aggressive doctrine.

So the simple question is, why doesnt russia make the dummy warheads/mirv's the exact same size ? :roll:

(they of course probably do)

Mamont
05-30-2007, 04:29 PM
So the simple question is, why doesnt russia make the dummy warheads/mirv's the exact same size ? :roll: (they of course probably do)
Where did you get that idea?

Kilgor
05-30-2007, 04:32 PM
Modern systems like AN/FPS-129 HAVE STARE have a very high accuracy, providing what is called "high resolution target image" based on the submetric accuracy(about 15cm) of the system, so basically it can detect dummy warheads not by returning signal alone, but from literally dimensions of target.

.

like I asked, if the Russians made the dummy warheards/mirv's the same dimensions, how could the system possibly detect the difference ?

Mamont
05-30-2007, 04:42 PM
like I asked, if the Russians made the dummy warheards/mirv's the same dimensions, how could the system possibly detect the difference ?
Stupid question. Nobody will construct such dummy warheads. You just trying to pull a rabit out of the hat.

Scar79, platform was ordered by norwegian company Moss Arctik Prodaktion Ink. , it's just a standart platform. Stop being retard.

Zmey
05-30-2007, 04:42 PM
Do you Russians really think Americans could somehow magically protect themselves from your nuclear subs able to loiter off the US coast?





With the current deplorable state of Russian Navy (to include the missile subs) and considering that US is launching new attack subs every year, the answer to you question is "yes - there is a way America can protect itself from Russian subs". By destroying most of them in port by a surprise attack and then hunting remaining few with dozens of attack subs. Missile subs cant fire ICBMs from any point in the ocean. They need to arrive at a certain point in the ocean and remain there until the launch is complete. Right now there are dozens of US attack subs for every operational Russian sub. Destroying them before they get to one of the "launch points" is possible.

Scar79
05-30-2007, 04:56 PM
Stupid question. Nobody will construct such dummy warheads. You just trying to pull a rabit out of the hat.

Scar79, platform was ordered by norwegian company Moss Arctik Prodaktion Ink. , it's just a standart platform. Stop being retard.

Ha-ha...And where was our f***ng GRU and FSB???
Blew up houses, arrested democratic opposition and bought TV companies?
Thats remind me sale S300 from Belarus and MA-31. First we have sold and then told...Oops!!! What we did?!!!

Scar79
05-30-2007, 05:14 PM
мда, рожает же дураков земля русская.

Scar79, what GRU or FSB has to do? That platform was not a military object. At least try to use your head. By your logic Russia should stop selling it's oil, as it than will be processed to fuel NATO tanks, or titanium, because it is used in turbines and such.

I don't know why i bother to respond to such glaring stupidity...

Ohhhh....nice. And Putin don't know....Poor stupid russian politicians....Smart US has own them again. Like I said...idiots.

"Лучше когда лев командует войском баранов, чем когда баран стаей львов." (с)

JJC
05-30-2007, 05:17 PM
Scar79 privet, interesno mine videt ruskoy chelovek kotorei nelubet Putin. Ya malo viju Ruskoy ludi kotoro ne lubet Putin....

Kilgor
05-30-2007, 06:16 PM
Stupid question. Nobody will construct such dummy warheads. You just trying to pull a rabit out of the hat.

Scar79, platform was ordered by norwegian company Moss Arctik Prodaktion Ink. , it's just a standart platform. Stop being retard.

Oh rly ?

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/r36m.html

read it carefully now.

Mamont
05-30-2007, 06:39 PM
Kilgor, you can read, but obviously did not learn to comprehend what you read. Anyway, pointing to the brief overview of the rocket, that will soon be retired, is quite a brilliant move. I understand what are you trying to advocate, but please do learn about optical tracking systems, integration of systems like Cobra Dane and already mentioned HAVE STARE and others.

For example MX warhead section contains ten heavy decoys, over hundred inflatable decoys shaped like a warhead, over 100k chaff that could be deployed in different stages of flight and several ECM stations.
FYI, heavy decoy looked and had dimesions like an artillery shell. Today's decoys are smaller and could "stay alive" up to the impact.

Змей, это какая-то младокаспаровкая поросль, пусть его.

Kilgor
05-30-2007, 06:55 PM
Kilgor, you can read, but obviously did not learn to comprehend what you read. Anyway, pointing to the brief overview of the rocket, that will soon be retired, is quite a brilliant move. I understand what are you trying to advocate, but please do learn about optical tracking systems, integration of systems like Cobra Dane and already mentioned HAVE STARE and others.

For example MX warhead section contains ten heavy decoys, over hundred inflatable decoys shaped like a warhead, over 100k chaff that could be deployed in different stages of flight and several ECM stations.
FYI, heavy decoy looked and had dimesions like an artillery shell. Today's decoys are smaller and could "stay alive" up to the impact.

Змей, это какая-то младокаспаровкая поросль, оставь его.


The fact is , the US interception system has little chance of hitting every warhead (real or not) let alone detecting if they are "real" or not. The system is totally ineffectual against a Russian onslaught.

Its only ability is to target primitive deliveries like Iran.

And thats the bottom line.

Scar79
05-30-2007, 07:06 PM
Scar79 privet, interesno mine videt ruskoy chelovek kotorei nelubet Putin. Ya malo viju Ruskoy ludi kotoro ne lubet Putin....

I voted for Putin in 2k. And i have regretted about that decision later. My friends who fought in Chechnya, dont love Putin because he and he's politicians said lies about this war. When Kremlin TV says(and my friends watched this on TV in Chechnya) "our forces don't have any losses for last day", through "blockpost"(basecamp) of my friends passed cargo trucks full of corpses of our soldiers, because many of my friends who has refused to join Kremlin politician party "Edinaya Rossija" (aka United Russia) has been deprived work, becuase my freinds, who works in FSB(federal security service, legacy KGB), have left of service "because our commanders too many lies", because on TV tell only and only compliments for Kremlin, When my country stays in great problems, and main of this problems is corruption in higher court of authority. All main TV comapnies was bought by pro-Kremlin groups, like GAZPROM and others. TV transfers only lie or dithyrambs to current authority. In my country only 15% of populatuion have access to Internet and this last place where is possible to receive the truthful information. But pro-Kremlin politicians from United Russia try to lock this last source. And many people hate this authority, but dont have right for vote, because Kremlin has cancelled election on main level - elections of governors. People, who wrote at this site, mostly live in Moscow or Saint-Peterburg. But life level in this both cities more than 3-5 times higher than in other regions of Russia.

Once again im sorry for my english, But I simply should try to tell truth about my country. :(

Mamont
05-30-2007, 07:10 PM
like I asked, if the Russians made the dummy warheards/mirv's the same dimensions, how could the system possibly detect the difference ?
I tell you again - that would be one of the stupidiest move on their part. The weight and space of the warhead is limited, no one will waste it like that. Is that understandable?


The fact is , the US interception system has little chance of hitting every warhead (real or not) let alone detecting if they are "real" or not. The system is totally ineffectual against a Russian onslaught. BS. No-one is aware of what their systems can and will do in the future. It's a top secret after all.



Its only ability is to target primitive deliveries like Iran.
Can you look into the future? I not.



And thats the bottom line.
Great argumentation i see here. The bottom line is - US is on the werge of developing an effective integrated system of missile defence, will be the only owner of a massive and precise ICBM's warheads, and including B-2's and future cruise missiles will have an unmatched first-strike capability. Having in mind rich history of aggressive behavior does that settling? Not.

Zmey
05-30-2007, 07:12 PM
The fact is , the US interception system has little chance of hitting every warhead (real or not) let alone detecting if they are "real" or not.

And thats the bottom line.

Are you willing to personally guarantee that the capability and effectiveness of the US ABM wont increase in the future? That the number of interceptors will *never* increase? That the relations between US and Russia will *never* deteriorate? Can you guarantee the unyielding good will of American government toward the Russian people? Because the safety of 140 million of Russians depend on your authoritative opinion, Kilgor. Because if you can, I'll call Kremlin right now tell them what you said and they'll scrap that evil RS-24 by the weekend.

:D

nahimov
05-30-2007, 07:16 PM
The fact is , the US interception system has little chance of hitting every warhead (real or not) let alone detecting if they are "real" or not. The system is totally ineffectual against a Russian onslaught.

Its only ability is to target primitive deliveries like Iran.

And thats the bottom line.

For now. Can you speculate 50 years into the future?

Kilgor
05-30-2007, 07:24 PM
I tell you again - that would be one of the stupidiest move on their part. The weight and space of the warhead is limited, no one will waste it like that. Is that understandable?

.

Oh sweet jesus, do I have to explain why dummy warheads will be used. Looks like it....

Maybe you missed the section where gazb pointed out that nuclear warheads have been limited by the moscow treaty. Obviously to decrease the chance of interception you place as many dummy warheads into a attack as possible. The link I provided above clearly states that Russia has had this technology for decades. The US missle shield could never guarantee to hit every warhead, fake or not. The nuclear balance has not been tipped.


Are you willing to personally guarantee that the capability and effectiveness of the US ABM wont increase in the future? That the number of interceptors will *never* increase? That the relations between US and Russia will *never* deteriorate? Can you guarantee the unyielding good will of American government toward the Russian people? Because the safety of 140 million of Russians depend on your authoritative opinion, Kilgor. Because if you can, I'll call Kremlin right now tell them what you said and they'll scrap that evil RS-24 by the weekend.

Go there and kiss your Tsar's boots. Its what you can do best.

Zmey
05-30-2007, 07:31 PM
Go there and kiss your Tsar's boots. Its what you can do best.

You did not disappoint, Kilgor. :D :D You are just the product of the raisin'. I'm done with you.

Mamont
05-30-2007, 07:58 PM
Maybe you missed the section where gazb pointed out that nuclear warheads have been limited by the moscow treaty. Obviously to decrease the chance of interception you place as many dummy warheads into a attack as possible.
Let's continue slow, that you could understand.

- having MIRVS/MARVS on missiles while limiting total number of warheads is a way to decrease defence in case of a surprise attack and decrease a possible retaliatory strike and return damage.(possibly that's why US backed up from treaty) - you'll simply have less targets to destroy, thus first-strike in this case could be more devastating. In case with Russia this is a way to decrease spending and forces while maintaining adequate number of warheads.

- missile parameters, re-entry vehicle design, warhead section design and launch procedures allows only sertain placement of warheads, decoys and other stuff.

- replacing live warheads with dummy warheads is generally a stupid idea, as this would also decrease strike capability of missiles. You can place only 1-2 dummy warhead for the live one.



The link I provided above clearly states that Russia has had this technology for decades.
That's not exclusive russian trend. Go read about ABRES program.



The US missle shield could never guarantee to hit every warhead, fake or not. The nuclear balance has not been tipped.
Oh, rly? The concept of affordable losses already lives in US High Command. So those 3-4 warheads, that could actually made it to their targets could be considered affordable. 475kt is a preatty small warhead anyway. In previous threads i already posted a scenario and estimation of the number of surviving missiles during all-out assault from US.



Go there and kiss your Tsar's boots. Its what you can do best.
I give up. You can crawl back to your hole.

Lt-Col A. Tack
05-30-2007, 07:59 PM
Yes and who started it ? US with the damn shield :-(Absolute nonsense.

If the US is driving this, why aren't you building a ABM system? Or improving the existing one around Moscow? You know, the one that uses nuclear-tipped interceptors.

No, you're building more sophisticated launch vehicles.


What about that "kick ass" shouting when new rifle, or bomb, or missile is being introduced?

Guess what? Most of the new weapons the US is developing are tactical, not strategic weapons. Weapons like the SBD, Excalibur artillery shell, GMLRS artillery rocket, Viper Strike bomb, JASSM, JSOW, are all pecision weapons, designed to be more accurate and cause less collateral damage.


More like realising the age of weapons, their reliability and usefullness in current politics. Or are you suggesting that aside LGM-118 and AGM-129 US doesn't have or develop any other weapons?
We're retiring delivery systems for nuclear weapons. You're doing just the opposite, with the Bulava, the Topol, and the RS-24.



For what? For putting warheads in storage to be used again? For silos that are intact?
Probably less likely to be used, wouldn't you agree? We're already destroying most of our chemical and biological weapons. We'll probably will eliminate the nukes at some point in the future.


Please, do tell.About helping our allies, gladly.

Consider the fact that we kept large numbers of troops in hazardous proximity to Communist bullies (in Europe, and South Korea) when we could have simply defended ourselves with nuclear weapons, delivered from Subs.



With the current deplorable state of Russian Navy (to include the missile subs)

Russian Navy in bad shape? Doesn't sound like it.


FLOATING STEEL (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_To_Launch_New_Nuclear_Submarine_999.html)
Russia To Launch New Nuclear Submarine
Moscow (AFP) April 09, 2007

The nuclear submarine, named Yuri Dolgoruki, will carry Russia's latest inter-continental missiles, the Bulava-M, which went into production last year.

Russia will next weekend launch its first new strategic nuclear submarine since the downfall of the Soviet Union, Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov told the Interfax news agency on Monday.

"This is the first time in 17 years that we are building such a submarine. Another year will be needed to technically equip it in water and to arm it," Ivanov said at a government meeting, attended by President Vladimir Putin.

The nuclear submarine, named Yuri Dolgoruki, will carry Russia's latest inter-continental missiles, the Bulava-M, which went into production last year.

The naval Bulava ballistic missiles are equipped with 10 nuclear warheads that have a reach of 8,000 kilometres (4,970 miles).

The new vessel will be launched on Sunday into the White Sea from the Severodvinsk naval base in northwestern Russia.

Russia plans to build three other submarines of the same kind, Ivanov said, adding that the Alexander Nevski and the Vladimir Monomakh were already under construction.




Russia launches the first Project 955 submarine (http://russianforces.org/blog/2007/04/russia_launches_the_first_proj.shtml)

Just as it was announced about a month ago, the Sevmashpredpriyatiye shipbuilding plant launched the first Project 955 strategic submarine, Yuri Dolgorukiy, today.

Earlier, the Commander in Chief of the Russian Navy, Fleet Admiral Vladimir Masorin, said that flight tests of the Bulava missile, which will be deployed on new submarines, will resume in June 2007.


Last source I read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_submarine) showed the Russian Federation with a mix Typhoon, Delta III, and Delta IV subs operational. A respectable force.




and considering that US is launching new attack subs every year, the answer to you question is "yes - there is a way America can protect itself from Russian subs". By destroying most of them in port by a surprise attack and then hunting remaining few with dozens of attack subs. Missile subs cant fire ICBMs from any point in the ocean. They need to arrive at a certain point in the ocean and remain there until the launch is complete. Right now there are dozens of US attack subs for every operational Russian sub. Destroying them before they get to one of the "launch points" is possible.

Do you seriously think US military planners seriously believe we could destroy all Russian SSBNs, with 100% reliability, before they launch? Even with the numerous LOS ANGELES class SSNs, I don't think so.

Some Ohio-class SSBNs are being converted to SSGNs, carrying cruise missiles. Possibly more in the Future.

Zmey
05-30-2007, 08:13 PM
Do you seriously think US military planners seriously believe we could destroy all Russian SSBNs, with 100% reliability, before they launch?


I seriously beleive that Russian military has the responsibiliy to *assure* that even most faint thoughts of pre-emptive, surgical strike against Russian nucler arsenal NEVER even occur to the US military planners.

Mamont
05-30-2007, 08:21 PM
If the US is driving this, why aren't you building a ABM system? Or improving the existing one around Moscow? You know, the one that uses nuclear-tipped interceptors.
Such system is extremely expensive. One ICBM without warhead cost around 30 millions. Assymmetrical response.



No, you're building more sophisticated launch vehicles.
Not really. Read about them and what they are meant to replace.



Guess what? Most of the new weapons the US is developing are tactical, not strategic weapons. Weapons like the SBD, Excalibur artillery shell, GMLRS artillery rocket, Viper Strike bomb, JASSM, JSOW, are all pecision weapons, designed to be more accurate and cause less collateral damage.

(Takes more air, puffing chest and pointing finger) Ah-ha - thats another proof of an aggressive nature of US army!

On a more serious note ICBM's in modern world are weapons of defence. Weapons meant to incite fear. At least were so far, and will be untill effective ABM will be developed.



We're retiring delivery systems for nuclear weapons. You're doing just the opposite, with the Bulava, the Topol, and the RS-24.
You're not retiring - you're putting them in storage. They can be mounted on a missile during several hours, stopped gyro's could be re-launched in 30 seconds, new target could be designated under 10 minutes.



Probably less likely to be used, wouldn't you agree?
If that statement was without "probably" - gladly. But so far no guarantees.



We're already destroying most of our chemical and biological weapons.

And developing gene weapons.



We'll probably will eliminate the nukes at some point in the future.

Again - probably. US backed from almost all agreements regarding nukes. That's a bit reassuring.



About helping our allies, gladly.
Consider the fact that we kept large numbers of troops in hazardous proximity to Communist bullies (in Europe, and South Korea) when we could have simply defended ourselves with nuclear weapons, delivered from Subs.
Wars will never end with missiles - there always will be soldiers on foot. But so far only Korea fits your statement, and even that was not defence, rather preventing communists to take over. I'm wrong - the clear example of protection is Taiwan, though a preatty ugly one in the beginning(because of Chan's deeds)



Russian Navy in bad shape? Doesn't sound like it.
You know, if things wasn't so bad i would agree. But so far things are really bad. It is getting better, but who know for how long...



Do you seriously think US military planners seriously believe we could destroy all Russian SSBNs, with 100% reliability, before they launch? Even with the numerous LOS ANGELES class SSNs, I don't think so.

That's correct. But times when those subs constantly cruising the oceans are gone. Now they can be destroyed at bases.



Some Ohio-class SSBNs are being converted to SSGNs, carrying cruise missiles. Possibly more in the Future.
That in some way is more dangerous than SLBM's.

Lt-Col A. Tack
05-30-2007, 08:23 PM
I seriously beleive that Russian military has the responsibiliy to *assure* that even most faint thoughts of pre-emptive, surgical strike against Russian nucler arsenal NEVER even occur to the US military planners.

Good, then we understand each other. As long as the Soviet (sorry, Russians) fund their military adequately, then there will be no problems.

To even suggest the possibility of a preemptive strike shows how badly Russian misunderstand Americans and their government. Read my post about our new weapons.

Zmey
05-30-2007, 08:41 PM
To even suggest the possibility of a preemptive strike shows how badly Russian misunderstand Americans and their government. Read my post about our new weapons.


I read all you posts, dont you worry. Understanding, intentions, ideologies, relationships, assurances, treaties, speeches are meaningless for as long as US (or any other opposing country) has and/or actively developing the *capability* to execute pre-emptive strike.

I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from....

Lt-Col A. Tack
05-30-2007, 09:03 PM
Such system is extremely expensive.Radars and facilities are already deployed. Spend a little cash, do the right thing.



One ICBM without warhead cost around 30 millions. Assymmetrical response.
So by taking the cheap route, you apparently don't mind making the world more dangerous?



(Takes more air, puffing chest and pointing finger) Ah-ha - thats another proof of an aggressive nature of US army! Point I was making is that most of our new systems are precision, tactical weapons; not WMDs



On a more serious note ICBM's in modern world are weapons of defence. And offense. ABM interceptors are purely defensive. And ours are non-nuclear hit-to-kill.



Weapons meant to incite fear. At least were so far, and will be untill effective ABM will be developed.But Russians aren't really spending any money for that, are they?



You're not retiring - you're putting them in storage. They can be mounted on a missile during several hours, stopped gyro's could be re-launched in 30 seconds, new target could be designated under 10 minutes.

If that statement was without "probably" - gladly. But so far no guarantees.

Oh let's be serious for a moment. What missiles are we going to put them on? We're even converting our Minuteman missiles to single warheads, using the MK21 Reentry Vehicles we took off the Peacekeepers.


First Deployment Of Minuteman III Carrying MK21 Reentry Vehicle (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/First_Deployment_Of_Minuteman_III_Carrying_MK21_Reentry_Vehicle_999.html)



START II limited the land-based ICBM force to 500 single-RV missiles, so all LGM-30F Minuteman IIs have been retired or converted to single-RV Minuteman IIIs, and the remaining Minuteman IIIs were planned for conversion to single warheads. However, since the demise of START II these plans have been dropped, and some LGM-30Gs have retained their MIRVs. However, after the retirement of the Peacekeeper in September 2005, the latter's more modern Mk.21 RVs are available, and all LGM-30G missiles will have their three Mk.12A RVs replaced by a single Mk.21. This conversion is planned to be completed in 2010. There are also ongoing programs to replace propulsion and guidance components of the LGM-30G with modern systems.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-30.html

You guys are still developing missiles with MIRVs.

Our Trident D-5s still have MIRVs, but we considering converting a few of them to carry conventional warheads, taking still more nuclear warhead out of service. But that's an interesting debate all by itself.


And developing gene weapons. Huh? Haven't seen anything.



Again - probably. US backed from almost all agreements regarding nukes. That's a bit reassuring.The possibility for withdraw was included into the ABM treaty. We even let Putin cajole us into signing the Moscow Treaty.

You guys are threatening to pull out of INF treaty, and the CFE treaty if you don't get your way.



Wars will never end with missiles - there always will be soldiers on foot. And didn't the Soviet Union, along with the rest of the Iron Curtain, had plenty of troops to overrun Europe?



But so far only Korea fits your statement, and even that was not defence, rather preventing communists to take over. And how is that not defending an ally? Syngman Rhee wasn't the greatest but he was much better than Kim Il-sung, dictator for life of North Korea.

How does the Europe example not apply?



I'm wrong - the clear example of protection is Taiwan, though a preatty ugly one in the beginning(because of Chan's deeds)
They're doing well enough now. Care to talk about the governments and economies of any of the former Soviet Republics?




You know, if things wasn't so bad i would agree. But so far things are really bad. It is getting better, but who know for how long...
The Russian government should spend whatever it takes to defend Russian territories.



That in some way is more dangerous than SLBM's.And supersonic anti-ship missiles like the Sunburn aren't? Seems like you guys don't mind exporting that little gem to anyone with enough money.

Lt-Col A. Tack
05-30-2007, 09:13 PM
I read all you posts, dont you worry. Understanding, intentions, ideologies, relationships, assurances, treaties, speeches are meaningless for as long as US (or any other opposing country) has and/or actively developing the *capability* to execute pre-emptive strike.

I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from....

Fair enough.

Mamont
05-30-2007, 09:36 PM
Radars and facilities are already deployed. Spend a little cash, do the right thing.
Current system, A-135, could protect only narrow(~50x50km, some sources stated even less) and predictable areas. It could intercept targets about 50km far, and have a problem with one anti-missiles affect others as they are equipped with small neutron warhead.



So by taking the cheap route, you apparently don't mind making the world more dangerous?
:) look who's talking.



Point I was making is that most of our new systems precision, tactical weapons; not WMDs
Those are clearly offensive systems.



And offense. ABM interceptors are purely defensive. And ours are non-nuclear hit-to-kill.
They are not independent systems. They are part of a much bigger complex.



But Russians aren't really spending any money for that, are they?
Why should they? It's not like they're have such money, are they?



Oh let's be serious for a moment. What missiles are we going to put them on?
I don't know. I don't have access to development programs for US nuclear force. But if you're not planning to use them - why store them? They are even stored in assembled state as far as i know.



You guys are still developing missiles with MIRVs.
Those MIRV's were tested long ago, on Temp-2S, than came RSD-10 Pioner with 3 warheads. New missiles is probably carrying same or slightly improved vehicle. Main difference is a warhead, as a direct answer to ABM.



Huh? Haven't seen anything.
Hints existed long ago.



The possibility for withdraw was included into the ABM treaty. That's not the answer. Any treaty has possibility for withdrawal.



You guys are threatening to pull out of INF treaty, and the CFE treaty if you don't get your way.
Yes, but no one-sided moves were done so far, is it?



And didn't the Soviet Union, along with the rest of the Iron Curtain, had plenty of troops to overrun Europe? WP was formed as an answer to NATO.



And how is that not defending an ally? Syngman Rhee wasn't the greatest but he was much better than Kim Il-sung, dictator for life of North Korea. I see something familiar - "he's a SB, but he's our SB". Than it could be said, that any given major player protected it's allies. And not just his interests.



How does Europe example not apply?
Becouse no-one would attack Europe. How many SU planes were shot down during spy missions over Europe?



They're doing well enough now.
That's why i mentioned the beginning, as Chan was a preatty bloody b**tard, nevertheless US protected him.



Do want to talk about the governments and economies in any of the former Soviet Republics? Yes, but not now and this will take us way off topic.



The Russian government should spend whatever it takes to defend Russian territories.
Actully not whatever it takes, but as much as it could reasonably afford.



And supersonic anti-ship missiles like the Sunburn aren't?
You're comparing anti-ship missile with cruise missile? You do realise, that Ohio equipped with Tomahawk is way more dangerous and a factor of instability and uncertainess, than with SLBM's?

Mamont
05-30-2007, 09:55 PM
On the second thought, discussion weared itself out..

Midav
05-30-2007, 10:15 PM
I have not read a single post and skipped all pages... and with that will add my opinion! Yeah, I'm just awesome like that, people. Will sign autographs later. get in line... especially you, Macs ;)

I am glad Russia has been able to develop such a system! Even though her large ICBM fleet would simply overwhelm the ABM as is, this new ICBM is awesome! I am sure out common enemy will will frightened!!

Now, let's get back to who the real enemy is.... Muslim Fundamentalism and Dictatorships! That counts for both Russia and the USA.

Face it Russians and Americans.. we have hope, but we still have too many idiots in charge that can't let go of the past. I do NOT see Russia as my enemy!! Hell, if we had the Russian willpower and mentality, I do believe we would have a lot less dead in Iraq and a lot more people fearing us.

But, that's just me.

p-)

Lt-Col A. Tack
05-30-2007, 10:49 PM
Current system, A-135, could protect only narrow(~50x50km, some sources stated even less) and predictable areas. It could intercept targets about 50km far, and have a problem with one anti-missiles affect others as they are equipped with small neutron warhead.

Doesn't it have two types of interceptors? 51T6 and 53T6


Successful test of an anti-missile interceptor (http://russianforces.org/blog/2004/11/successful_test_of_an_antimiss.shtml)

On November 29, 2004 Russia carried out a successful test of an anti-missile interceptor. The test was conducted at 11:00 MSK (08:00 UTC) at the Sary-Shagan test site in Kazakhstan. The Space Forces announced that the test was part of the program to extend operational life of the interceptors.

The official statements indicate that is was a test of an interceptor of the A-135 missile defense system deployed around Moscow. The system includes interceptors of two types – short-range 53T6 (Gazelle) and 32 long-range 51T6 (Gorgon). According to some reports (Lenta.ru), it was a test of the short-range 53T6 missile, which seems quite likely – the last test of this missile was conducted on November 2, 1999, while the 51T6 interceptor was last tested on October 2, 2002.


Also A-135 (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/a135.htm)




:) look who's talking. Come again? We're the ones spending money on the expensive ABM system, remember?



Those are clearly offensive systems.
This is what I said,
"Point I was making is that most of our new systems are precision, tactical weapons; not WMDs"

Clear as I can make this:
Both countries are making new offensive weapons, only ours are getting progressively smaller and more accurate, while you Russians are developing neat new ways to take out cities.



They are not independent systems. They are part of a much bigger complex.
But if you improve your ability to defend, doesn't that diminish your reliance on your ability to attack?


Why should they? It's not like they're have such money, are they?Sure develop more nuclear missiles, that will make everyone feel better :roll:

And when the Russian government gets a little strapped for cash and needs to make some money, I wonder where that will come from?



I don't know. I don't have access to development programs for US nuclear force. But if you're not planning to use them - why store them? They are even stored in assembled state as far as i know.The links I provided show you that warheads are being taken out circulation, and we are not developing new launch vehicles, AFAIK.

Our most numerous nuclear weapon, the Minutemen, is gradually being modified, from 3 warheads to 1.

The only reasons the Russians scrapped their warhead is they had too many to secure.



Those MIRV's were tested long ago, on Temp-2S, than came RSD-10 Pioner with 3 warheads. New missiles is probably carrying same or slightly improved vehicle. A old MIRV is still a MIRV.


Main difference is a warhead, as a direct answer to ABM.
So you wouldn't be developing any new weapons if there wasn't? Come on, we're all adults here. You have other options; you could build / improve your own ABM system.


Hints existed long ago. Other than in fictional books and movies? Provide a link.



That's not the answer. Any treaty has possibility for withdrawal.
You can just stop abiding by a treaty but that's not the same as a withdrawal.

The ABM treaty stipulated:

2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from the Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests. From Article XV (http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/fulltext/treaties/abm/abmtry.htm)


I think as a matter of course most treaties include provisions for withdrawal.



Yes, but no one-sided moves were done so far, is it?
And exactly how would pulling out of these treaties benefit Russia? Not being able show any real benefit makes it comes across as tantrum.

We pulled out of the ABM treaty so we could build defenses against creeps you guys are supplying with nuclear technology (Iran), who also happen to be buying ballistic missile tech from NK, another beneficiary of Soviet interference.



WP was formed as an answer to NATO.
NATO was formed after the Soviets started behaving badly (starting off by blockading Berlin, which started on June 24, 1948 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade)).



Becouse no-one would attack Europe. How many SU planes were shot down during spy missions over Europe? You're talking about reconnaissance planes, not bombers. And How many NATO governments threatened to "turn out missiles like sausages" ?



I see something familiar - "he's a SB, but he's our SB". Than it could be said, that any given major player protected it's allies. And not just his interests.

Syngman Rhee didn't die in office after impoverishing his country. See next post.



That's why i mentioned the beginning, as Chan was a preatty bloody b**tard, nevertheless US protected him.Yes, but the retards we support eventually retire, or risk getting taken out. My point still stands: The governments of Taiwan, Korea, and Germany moderated over time, and became more representative, unlike just about every former Soviet client state.


Yes, but not now and this will take us way off topic.
Fair Enough.


Actully not whatever it takes, but as much as it could reasonably afford.Why spend so much on new nuclear weapons? You don't need parity. They are asymmetrical in nature. A few a go long way.



You're comparing anti-ship missile with cruise missile? You do realise, that Ohio equipped with Tomahawk is way more dangerous and a factor of instability and uncertainess, than with SLBM's?I don't agree, but to each his own.

Delta_Stealth
05-31-2007, 01:38 AM
I seriously beleive that Russian military has the responsibiliy to *assure* that even most faint thoughts of pre-emptive, surgical strike against Russian nucler arsenal NEVER even occur to the US military planners.

That seems reasonable.

digrar
05-31-2007, 02:31 AM
I see about 20 deleted posts in this thread. The message isn't getting through. This is an English speaking board. English is the only language to be used. If you feel the need to use your mother language, take your discussion to PM.
Offenders will continue to have their posts infracted and deleted.

James
05-31-2007, 02:42 AM
I see about 20 deleted posts in this thread. The message isn't getting through. This is an English speaking board. English is the only language to be used. If you feel the need to use your mother language, take your discussion to PM.
Offenders will continue to have their posts infracted and deleted.

I think I'll just start banning people. p-)

Smashed!
05-31-2007, 06:54 AM
NATO was formed after the Soviets started behaving badly (starting off by blockading Berlin, which started on June 24, 1948 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade)).

You're talking about reconnaissance planes, not bombers. And How many NATO governments threatened to "turn out missiles like sausages" ?



Just to nail these two...

Who introduced a new currency, wiped off the German common debt and reunited three parts of the German Occupied Zone without speaking to the fourth party? All this between 1946/47...

As for dear leader Nikita, let me recall the "New Look" policy in 1949...whose were those sausages ...ehem missiles for? Want a diagram on US vs USSR inventories in the 50's 60's?

Just drop it.

He219
05-31-2007, 02:30 PM
http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/6946/32852617oz4.jpg

A new intercontinental ballistic missile, called the RS-24, is launched at the Plesetsk launch site, northwestern Russia, Tuesday, May 29, 2007. Russia test-launched a new intercontinental ballistic missile Tuesday that is capable of carrying multiple independent warheads, the Russian Strategic Missile Forces said.

Mamont
05-31-2007, 05:49 PM
Doesn't it have two types of interceptors? 51T6 and 53T6
The A-135 is a two eshelon system, first eshelon of defence is based on 51T6, which was armed with 1Mt nuclear warhead, and was aimed mostly not for destroying warheads but for separating and destroying countermeasures. System was capable to intercept targets 600km far and up to 180km high. Second eshelon was based on 53T6 and was aimed against actual warheads. Interceptor was armed with 10kt warhead initially, later nuke was replaced by conventional fragmentating warhed, similar to 9M82, but bigger. This system was capable of intercepting targets 300km far and 50km high. 51T6 could achieve speed of 2,5km/s, 53T6 - 4,5-6km/s. 51T6 is now retired. 53T6 is not a direct-impact warhead, during tests actual distance from targets was about 50m and considered acceptable.



Come again? We're the ones spending money on the expensive ABM system, remember?
So far none of US possible and soon to be rivals are capable of delivering conventional strike at US soil. Thus the only way to deliver significant blow is ICBM. So, obviously, US is developing an immunity to any possible threats and creating an almost unrestrained space for own aggression or protection of interests if you want to call it more diplomaticly.



This is what I said,
"Point I was making is that most of our new systems are precision, tactical weapons; not WMDs"
Yes, because now US war effort is based on conventional weapons, though use of tactical nukes is being strongly advocated. So far US posess and utilise such systems, other countries are limited in this regard, so they must develop something in return. A nuclear missile. Or simple shielded container with massive nuke. Imagine a detonation of 100Mt warhead aboard some oil tanker in US port. That is assymmetrical responce. That is something that possibly could happen as a result of ABM and US foreign policy.



Both countries are making new offensive weapons, only ours are getting progressively smaller and more accurate, while you Russians are developing neat new ways to take out cities.
Even more simply - US is preparing for it's future wars, and creates a tools of aggression, Russia is creating a punishment tool for any aggressor, thus strenghten defence.



But if you improve your ability to defend, doesn't that diminish your reliance on your ability to attack?
And why would Russia attack anybody? So far - there are no reasons, and in forseen future will be any.



Sure develop more nuclear missiles, that will make everyone feel better :roll:
:) It will make russians feel better, feel safe and secure. And that's good.



And when the Russian government gets a little strapped for cash and needs to make some money, I wonder where that will come from?
I don't understand what are you pointing to. Please explain.



The links I provided show you that warheads are being taken out circulation, and we are not developing new launch vehicles, AFAIK.
Let's repeat - US warheads are kept intact(i remember reading that warhead sections are kept in assembled state), silos are kept intact. Russia destroyed it's silos and warheads, and planning farther decrease the number of missiles.



Our most numerous nuclear weapon, the Minutemen, is gradually being modified, from 3 warheads to 1.
You have to think about this more. Basically US is increasing it's nuclear potential.



The only reasons the Russians scrapped their warhead is they had too many to secure. Ridiculous. Read comparisons before treaty.



Come on, we're all adults here. You have other options; you could build / improve your own ABM system. No other options. A-135 cannot be significantly improved without major changes. And Russia could not afford that.



Other than in fictional books and movies? Provide a link.
:) Link to official announce? It's a top secreat after all. The first hints about US gene weapons program are dating back to 60's. In 1998 William Coen maded a statement about "types of patogenes that are etnically selective". Scandals with "StarLink", rumors around PNAC etc.
For a interesting read download this (http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf</p><p>). a quote: "advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool". Nice policy.



You can just stop abiding by a treaty but that's not the same as a withdrawal. Stop abiding is equal to withdrawal as treaty in this way is loosing it's role and necessity, and can be thrown to trash-bin.



And exactly how would pulling out of these treaties benefit Russia? Not being able show any real benefit makes it comes across as tantrum. I don't know. Probably re-developing "Oka-U" is not a bad thing. Also enlarging number of tanks, bmp's and artillery in eropean part is not a bad thing either. In case of georgian or estonian aggression. And do not forget finns - they are eager to return lost territories. That'll cool them a bit.



We pulled out of the ABM treaty so we could build defenses against creeps you guys are supplying with nuclear technology (Iran), who also happen to be buying ballistic missile tech from NK, another beneficiary of Soviet interference.
That's your foreign policy that created this situation, do not put blame on others. Why Russia does not view Iran as a threat to itself?
There are cheaper and more effective and peacefull ways to resolve missile problem, than building a shield.



NATO was formed after the Soviets started behaving badly
You're talking about reconnaissance planes, not bombers. History is an interesting subject, try it. And i really mean it. NATO vs WP is not a part of this discussion, but you can open a new thread.



Yes, but the retards we support eventually retire, or risk getting taken out. My point still stands: The governments of Taiwan, Korea, and Germany moderated over time, and became more representative, unlike just about every former Soviet client state.
Than simply support Ahmadinezhad and Kim. Even them directly, the countries through programs. Stop threating them. Pose yourself as a peace-seeking country. US unlike any other super and not so super power could afford that, considering it's past history of supporting various retards. Such behavior obviously and surely will erase ground for almost any anti-US stance. And will be beneficial in the long run. But no - US is waving it's weapons, leaking information about strikes, directly threaten countries, digging dirt etc.



Why spend so much on new nuclear weapons? You don't need parity. They are asymmetrical in nature. A few a go long way.
:) How much? And Russia is not seeking parity.

This is more time-consuming than i've thought. I'm out.

MZKT
05-31-2007, 08:39 PM
RS-24 is not new, it's a Topol-M with 3-MIRV-upper stage from the old pioneer IRBM. They changed the designation since Topol-M was already declared a 1-warhead-missile in the treaty. Nothing special, Specualtions about a 3-warhead-version are as old as Topol-M itself.

Russia urgently need those missiles since it's warhead number will drop below Chinas if they continue to build 1-warhead topols while old MIRV-ICBMs are sheduled to be phased out by 2015. It's not dependent on ABM-crisis, it's a plain necessity to maintain russias status as second nuclear power.

Dima-RussianArms
05-31-2007, 08:50 PM
RS-24 is not new, it's a Topol-M with 3-MIRV-upper stage from the old pioneer IRBM. They changed the designation since Topol-M was already declared a 1-warhead-missile in the treaty. Nothing special, Specualtions about a 3-warhead-version are as old as Topol-M itself.

Russia urgently need those missiles since it's warhead number will drop below Chinas if they continue to build 1-warhead topols while old MIRV-ICBMs are sheduled to be phased out by 2015. It's not dependent on ABM-crisis, it's a plain necessity to maintain russias status as second nuclear power.

Wrong,
you are confusing plans to arm some Topol-Ms with 3 MRV warheads with the testing of the completely new bigger and heavier RS - 24.
It doesn't fit on Topol's launch pad, that is why they had to modify the platform.

RS-24 is rumored to be partially based on Topol-M (warheads maneuvering) and new Bulava (guidance system).

MZKT
05-31-2007, 09:00 PM
Wrong,
you are confusing plans to arm some Topol-Ms with 3 MRV warheads with the testing of the completely new bigger and heavier RS - 24.
It doesn't fit on Topol's launch pad, that is why they had to modify the platform.

RS-24 is rumored to be partially based on Topol-M (warheads maneuvering) and new Bulava (guidance system).

There is no offcial source which declared RS-24 being bigger and heavier. All they said is that missile is based on Topol-M and MIRVed. It's also unlikely MITT which is already busy with Bulawa, had enough time to develop something new in such a short time.

Many sources claimed that Topol with a throw weight of 1,2 toms can carry 3 warheads. MITT already produced a 3-warhead-missile once, the SS-20 Pioneer. It's logical to assume that they used their already proven 3-warhead solution from Pioner and attached it to Topol-M. It would be the easiest, cheapest, fastest and most logical solution.

Kroforit
05-31-2007, 09:26 PM
I have not read a single post and skipped all pages... and with that will add my opinion! Yeah, I'm just awesome like that, people. Will sign autographs later. get in line... especially you, Macs ;)

I am glad Russia has been able to develop such a system! Even though her large ICBM fleet would simply overwhelm the ABM as is, this new ICBM is awesome! I am sure out common enemy will will frightened!!

Now, let's get back to who the real enemy is.... Muslim Fundamentalism and Dictatorships! That counts for both Russia and the USA.

Face it Russians and Americans.. we have hope, but we still have too many idiots in charge that can't let go of the past. I do NOT see Russia as my enemy!! Hell, if we had the Russian willpower and mentality, I do believe we would have a lot less dead in Iraq and a lot more people fearing us.

But, that's just me.

p-)

I propose Midav for a 3 star general.

Dima-RussianArms
05-31-2007, 10:21 PM
There is no offcial source which declared RS-24 being bigger and heavier. All they said is that missile is based on Topol-M and MIRVed. It's also unlikely MITT which is already busy with Bulawa, had enough time to develop something new in such a short time.

Many sources claimed that Topol with a throw weight of 1,2 toms can carry 3 warheads. MITT already produced a 3-warhead-missile once, the SS-20 Pioneer. It's logical to assume that they used their already proven 3-warhead solution from Pioner and attached it to Topol-M. It would be the easiest, cheapest, fastest and most logical solution.

You are absolutely correct there are no official numbers/specs released yet and we probably will not see them for a while, so at this point all of this is pure speculation based on pictures.
So what do we know:

-the missile is noticeably larger than Topol-M (based on pictures by about 2 meters)

-it is intended to replace SS 18 and SS 19 which carry 6-10 MRV (per official statement)

-it was launched from the modified Topol-m platform which basically means that it can't be Topol-M with multiple MRVs since it it doesn't fit/too heavy for its lauch platform

Now couple of things:
you have mentioned several times 3 MRVs, how do you know that it was launched with 3 MRVs?

You have also mentioned SS20 (pioneer), which could carry 1-3 warheads depending on the mod but it was a theater based ballistic missile not ICBM that was designed in the early 70s

Topol-Ms was originally conceived as a 3 warhead system, so there would be no need to enlarge the missile if it was the case of them adding 2 more RV to it, but what was tested was bigger and heavier.

So like I said, the consensus on Russian sites is that navigation is from Bulava, maneuvering warheads from Topol-M, the rest is unknown.

Zmey
05-31-2007, 10:52 PM
I agree with Dima. MZKT your "logical assumptions" are grounless. ICBMs in general arent mede of LEGO blocks, and you cant just attach ~40 year old MIRV bus on a modern missile and call it a day.
The overall concensus of media and expert *opinion* (not official data) that the RS-24 has 6 or 10 MIRVs.

Topol-M with Bulava bus is a lot more logical than same with SS-20 bus.

MZKT
05-31-2007, 10:57 PM
You are absolutely correct there are no official numbers/specs released yet and we probably will not see them for a while, so at this point all of this is pure speculation based on pictures.
So what do we know:

-the missile is noticeably larger than Topol-M (based on pictures by about 2 meters)

Which pictures. I didn't saw any picturs of RS-24, most articles about it have only symbolic pictures from various ICBM.


-it is intended to replace SS 18 and SS 19 which carry 6-10 MRV (per official statement)

Remember that exactly the same was told about Topol-M. It means physical replacement, not in terms of power. In terms of firepower it's anyway impossible to replace a 210 ton SS18 with a light mobile ICBM


-it was launched from the modified Topol-m platform which basically means that it can't be Topol-M with multiple MRVs since it it doesn't fit/too heavy for its lauch platform

It was not told how and why the platform was modified. It's not necessary a weight issue, possible the redesigned upper section and new guidance systems just requiered some adapted interfaces.


Now couple of things:
you have mentioned several times 3 MRVs, how do you know that it was launched with 3 MRVs?

You have also mentioned SS20 (pioneer), which could carry 1-3 warheads depending on the mod but it was a theater based ballistic missile not ICBM that was designed in the early 70s

But it was the predecessor of the Topol and Topol-M. It was a continuous development line and many components are still similar or at least compatible with small adaptations.
MITT built only one MIRV-missile so far, the SS20 mod2. So they have already a proven MIRV-stage with similar diameter as Topol-M. Of course it's not sure but it's logical to assume that they used existed technology.
You noticed that the missile was a suprise and came exactly when the relationships wit hthe west worsened due to ABM-plans so the development time was apparently extremely short. MITT is already busy with Bulava (and it's not an easy decvelopment like the failed tests proved). How could they afford to spent ressources on a different independent project?
How did they achieved such a short development time in such situation? Apparently they decided for the fastest, easiest, cheapest and already proven reliable solution. They connected Topol-M with Pioneer mod2 warhead stage. They surely had to increase the height of the missile due to the connection module, warhead release mechanisms and larger warhead stage. That explains the size difference.

Another argument for 3 MIRVs: Topol-Ms throw weight of 1,2 tons. Not enough for many MIRVs. SS-18 had throw weight of 8,8t. 10 and 6 MIRVs are extremely unlikely, 3 are more realistic for such weight.

Mr.K
05-31-2007, 11:05 PM
I have not read a single post and skipped all pages... and with that will add my opinion! Yeah, I'm just awesome like that, people. Will sign autographs later. get in line... especially you, Macs ;)

I am glad Russia has been able to develop such a system! Even though her large ICBM fleet would simply overwhelm the ABM as is, this new ICBM is awesome! I am sure out common enemy will will frightened!!

Now, let's get back to who the real enemy is.... Muslim Fundamentalism and Dictatorships! That counts for both Russia and the USA.

Face it Russians and Americans.. we have hope, but we still have too many idiots in charge that can't let go of the past. I do NOT see Russia as my enemy!! Hell, if we had the Russian willpower and mentality, I do believe we would have a lot less dead in Iraq and a lot more people fearing us.

But, that's just me.

p-)

So a joint nuking of the middle east is the solution?p-)
How does fighting Muslim fundamentalism and dictatorships benefit Russia? If the dictators are your trade partners don't expect any regime changes anytime soon.
Soviet Union was feared. It was isolated and collapsed for various reasons including isolation from the rest of the world.

Zmey
05-31-2007, 11:20 PM
Which pictures. I didn't saw any picturs of RS-24, most articles about it have only symbolic pictures from various ICBM.


MITT is already busy with Bulava (and it's not an easy decvelopment like the failed tests proved). How could they afford to spent ressources on a different independent project?
How did they achieved such a short development time in such situation? Apparently they decided for the fastest, easiest, cheapest and already proven reliable solution. They connected Topol-M with Pioneer mod2 warhead stage. They surely had to increase the height of the missile due to the connection module, warhead release mechanisms and larger warhead stage. That explains the size difference.

.


You didnt see the picture.... because apparently you dont read the previous posts (chukcha ne chitetel', da?) The picture was posted in this thread about 10 posts ago.

The answer to your next question is apparent from the question itself. Teplotehnika combined MIRV bus from the missile they are currently finishing with the missile they have placed in serial production few years ago. What *authoritative* evidence do you have to support your claim of SS-20 MIRV bus on RS-24?

Midav
05-31-2007, 11:30 PM
So a joint nuking of the middle east is the solution?p-)
How does fighting Muslim fundamentalism and dictatorships benefit Russia? If the dictators are your trade partners don't expect any regime changes anytime soon.
Soviet Union was feared. It was isolated and collapsed for various reasons including isolation from the rest of the world.

How does it not benefit any country? And the part about idiots in charge just doesn't count for those that think of the cold war... it's also the here and now.

But, the more I think about that joint nuking of the ME...... naaaahhhhh I'm just kidding :)

-CROAT-SOLDIER-
06-01-2007, 03:55 PM
Very nice news to hear, Russia has come out with a new technology. Sounds pretty neat, is there any videos on it?

Snoshi
06-01-2007, 04:08 PM
I dont see why Russian is wasting alot of money into BM's, when their older ballistic missiles are good enough to penetrate any missile defence in the world.

-CROAT-SOLDIER-
06-01-2007, 04:15 PM
I dont see why Russian is wasting alot of money into BM's, when their older ballistic missiles are good enough to penetrate any missile defence in the world.

Maye they are just making sure?

IvanIII
06-01-2007, 04:15 PM
Russia should dubbel their military budget on developing dooms day wepons , like 100meter long missiles with 50 nukes now that was a joke but you get that pointp-)

I also think Russia should upgrade the typhoon class subs we got,
im not an expert on these subs but they just look so damn nice its a shame to take them off duty.

SeanAshi
06-01-2007, 06:33 PM
Russia should dubbel their military budget on developing dooms day wepons , like 100meter long missiles with 50 nukes now that was a joke but you get that pointp-)

I also think Russia should upgrade the typhoon class subs we got,
im not an expert on these subs but they just look so damn nice its a shame to take them off duty.

How about you add to your budget so you can dismantle you own nukes instead of us paying for it?

beNder
06-01-2007, 07:09 PM
Russia should dubbel their military budget on developing dooms day wepons , like 100meter long missiles with 50 nukes now that was a joke but you get that pointp-)

I also think Russia should upgrade the typhoon class subs we got,
im not an expert on these subs but they just look so damn nice its a shame to take them off duty.

The typhoon class is very expensive to operate. The Russians have plenty of ICBM's and IRBM's to handle any threat. Save the cash for other projects.

nahimov
06-01-2007, 08:37 PM
How about you add to your budget so you can dismantle you own nukes instead of us paying for it?
And who forced you to do that?

Lt-Col A. Tack
06-01-2007, 09:14 PM
And who forced you to do that?

Well, when faced with the prospect of these items being sold on the black market and falling into the hands of terrorists, there really wasn't much choice.

MZKT
06-01-2007, 09:18 PM
You didnt see the picture.... because apparently you dont read the previous posts (chukcha ne chitetel', da?) The picture was posted in this thread about 10 posts ago.

At least I read them better then you. The missile is not RS-24. Here's an article from 2005 http://www.defesanet.com.br/russia/topol_m.htm which contains the following photo:

http://www.defesanet.com.br/imagens/russia/topol-m.jpg

Compare to the posted photo you refered to:


http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/6946/32852617oz4.jpg

CIA and FSB are incompetent wussies compared to those journallists which got a photo of RS-24 2 years before russians built it. rofl



Therefore:

-the missile is noticeably larger than Topol-M (based on pictures by about 2 meters)
is wrong.

There is not a single photo of RS-24 so far, nor an official statement about size/weight-difference to Topo.



The answer to your next question is apparent from the question itself. Teplotehnika combined MIRV bus from the missile they are currently finishing with the missile they have placed in serial production few years ago. What *authoritative* evidence do you have to support your claim of SS-20 MIRV bus on RS-24?

Physical facts.
1. Pioneer diameter 1790mm. Topol-M diameter 1860mm. Bulawa diameter 2000mm. Therefore fitting Pioneer missile ring to Topol-M possible, Bulawas wider missile ring - impossible.

2. Further Pioneer and Topol-M are from the same development line (infact roughly speaking Topol is a lengthend Pioneer (to make the range intercontinental) and Topol-M is an improved Topol. Bulawa on the other side shares only secondary components with Topol and is generally an independent design.


So I repeat, there is no sure fact about the warhead number, nor a photo of RS-24. But assuming the few known facts Pioneers warhead section coupled with Topol-M appears to be the easiest, cheapest and fastest solution. Therefore the most probable. We will have to wait until official data will be released.

Mastermind
06-01-2007, 11:20 PM
You guys really do need to get a girlfriend/boyfriend (select one as appropriate). I can not believe how much knowledge is in this forum on Russian missiles. Amazing posts...thanks. :-)

Atlantic Friend
06-03-2007, 07:11 AM
Why should we make Europe a target for Russian missiles.

Isn't Europe ALREADY a target for Russian missiles, and hasn't it been one for the past 60 years ?

Lt-Col A. Tack
06-03-2007, 01:46 PM
Isn't Europe ALREADY a target for Russian missiles, and hasn't it been one for the past 60 years ?

Exactly! Great Post!

Atlantic Friend
06-03-2007, 02:37 PM
Exactly! Great Post!

I would be a little disappointed if no Russian missile was pre-planned to strike a European target. Wouldn't be professional from the Russians, not to mention a little insulting. p-)

Xaito
06-03-2007, 05:48 PM
I'm sure the Russians have some missiles pointed at least at european countries with nuclear weapons and vice versa.
Now they will add a few targets - and to be honest I'd feel safer if the "new targets" were'nt countries that try to pick a fight with Russia all the time.

daily666
06-03-2007, 05:55 PM
Now they will add a few targets - and to be honest I'd feel safer if the "new targets" were'nt countries that try to pick a fight with Russia all the time.

And who might that be? Hmmm.....

Lt-Col A. Tack
06-03-2007, 06:35 PM
I'm sure the Russians have some missiles pointed at least at european countries with nuclear weapons and vice versa.
Now they will add a few targets - and to be honest I'd feel safer if the "new targets" were'nt countries that try to pick a fight with Russia all the time.

Pick a fight? Maybe they just don't like being bullied.

Xaito
06-03-2007, 06:55 PM
oh please being bullied? you could say that about somebody who is passive - if you get your ass whooped after you run your mouth or provoke somebody in any other way would you call that being bullied? The bad relationships between those countries is a give and take - just because Russia is bigger you shouldn't blame it alone.

Lt-Col A. Tack
06-03-2007, 07:21 PM
oh please being bullied? you could say that about somebody who is passive - if you get your ass whooped after you run your mouth or provoke somebody in any other way would you call that being bullied?

Well, Poland and Czechs aren't being passive now are they?

Russian's are resentful that there aren't as many compliant neighbors as there used to be. Central Asia is still under Moscow's thumb, be happy with that.

Kind of reminds of a scence from Dr. Strangelove:

General: Try one of these Jamaican cigars, ambassador, they're pretty good.

Ambassador de Sadesky: Thank you, no. I do not support the work of imperialist stooges.

General: Oh, only Commie stooges, ay?





The bad relationships between those countries is a give and take - just because Russia is bigger you shouldn't blame it alone.
Maybe we can blame on something else? How the past? Maybe Poland and the Czechs aren't showing due gratitude for all the blessings of communism, and a history of ruthless leaders in Moscow.

Mr.K
06-03-2007, 07:54 PM
How about blaming their own ruthless leaders rather than pointing at Moscow?

CPL Trevoga
06-03-2007, 09:49 PM
Isn't Europe ALREADY a target for Russian missiles, and hasn't it been one for the past 60 years ?

Atlantic, do you have a larger pic of your avatar?

Abbadon the Despoiler
06-04-2007, 05:41 AM
How about blaming their own ruthless leaders rather than pointing at Moscow?

Who came to Czechoslovakia in 1968?! ****ing brothers help from Warsaw pact..more like invasion ordered by Kreml
commies are all the same..damn ****ing retarded

Lt-Col A. Tack
06-04-2007, 08:53 AM
How about blaming their own ruthless leaders rather than pointing at Moscow?

How many Czech or Polish critics have been poisoned with polonium?

asch
06-04-2007, 09:03 AM
How many Czech or Polish critics have been poisoned with polonium?
oy, media at work here!
facts or STFU.

Zmey
06-04-2007, 06:27 PM
There is not a single photo of RS-24 so far, nor an official statement about size/weight-difference to Topo.




We will have to wait until official data will be released.


Wrong. http://pilot.strizhi.info/photos/main.php?g2_itemId=20

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/6946/32852617oz4.jpg This is indeed RS-24 photo from the launch. It looks like Topol-M to me... but I dont have x-ray vision.

You are right though, that we'll have to wait on official information and TTX.

We'll argue more when that info comes out.

MZKT
06-04-2007, 08:07 PM
http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/6946/32852617oz4.jpg This is indeed RS-24 photo from the launch. It looks like Topol-M to me... but I dont have x-ray vision.

Like already written in the previous post, the missile, the tree and the flying away fixation rings are matching a wide-spread Topol-M photo which appeared in several articles from 2005.

For example here:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article125693.html or here
http://www.defesanet.com.br/russia/topol_m.htm so

So unless those journalists had a time machine it's not the RS-24.

But thanks fro the Strizhi-link, now those seems to be real photos from RS-24 start.
Interesting is that they are launched from the same (or at least optically identical) container in Kapustin Yar which was used for Topol-M launches.

So at least the propulsion stages seems to be directly from Topol-M. Unfortunately those strizhi-photos are low res and taken from too far away so no details of the warhead section are visible.
Possibly a RS-24 photo in the same quality as the posted Topol-M one will appear soon, then we will have something more.

Zmey
06-04-2007, 08:38 PM
Interesting is that they are launched from the same (or at least optically identical) container in Kapustin Yar which was used for Topol-M launches.




The authenticity of the photo in question is moot point. It impossible to prove with any degree of certainty when it was made. Strizhi's photos are real, the author is above and beyond credible.


The container is common "Krona" hangar for Pioneer, Topol and Topol-M. There are hundreds of those all over the place. You can find whole "nests" of those with Google Earth if you know where to look. ;)