Russian Space & Missile [ News/Discussion]

Request for Photos

I am researching the differences between missiles the Russians paraded through Moscow and those actually deployed. Does anyone know where I can find some good photographs of the parade missiles, especially the SLBMs? Thanks in advance!

Another Bulava test

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070628/68009320.html

The source if the Pavel Podvig blog. Respect to the “build-up”, it seems that there are evident difficulties to differentiate number of ICBM from types of ICBM. The same occur for SLBM and SSBN.

As of right this moment Russia has far more nukes in service than the US, is building a class of SSBNs, and has two types of ICBMs in production. The US is producing neither ICBMs or SSBNs. Doesn’t take a genius to call a spade a spade.

As of right this moment both the US and Russia have more than 2,000 strategic nuclear warheads each and both are reducing. The problem for the Russians is that their Topols are still only a small fraction of the ICBMs they have, and the other ICBMs, the SS-18 and SS-19 are going to be completely replaced. They can’t replace them with TOPOLs or TOPOL-Ms because that would mean they would need to build over 600 missiles. They are developing a missile called RS-24 to replace the SS-18s and SS-19s.
The US is not producing new ICBMs because their existing models don’t need to be replaced yet. Russias Ukrainian missiles do need to be replaced.

Of course the hilarious thing is if it was me saying this was a Russian build up you’d be BSing on about half of them wont work anyway because they were so poorly made and poorly designed, and of course Americas stealth bomber fleet will destroy them in their silos before they can be launched etc etc.

YES… it is a build up. Putin is using that oil money and he is going to invade the US!!!!!!!

…and you tell me I am funny….

As of right this moment Russia has far more nukes in service than the US, is building a class of SSBNs, and has two types of ICBMs in production. The US is producing neither ICBMs or SSBNs. Doesn’t take a genius to call a spade a spade.

It seems that, for Russian nuclear planning, the steady ICBM number is around 150, with more or less 90 Topol-M plus 60 RS-24. That means far less ICBM than US and a Russian land force around 700 nukes. So, to label “build-up” this current replacing trend is simply senseless.

Do you guys get your information from different sources by any chance? :rolleyes:

It seems that, for Russian nuclear planning, the steady ICBM number is around 150, with more or less 90 Topol-M plus 60 RS-24. That means far less ICBM than US and a Russian land force around 700 nukes. So, to label “build-up” this current replacing trend is simply senseless.

As of right this moment Russia has far more nukes in service than the US, is building a class of SSBNs, and has two types of ICBMs in production. The US is producing neither ICBMs or SSBNs. Doesn’t take a genius to call a spade a spade.

It seems that, for Russian nuclear planning, the steady ICBM number is around 150, with more or less 90 Topol-M plus 60 RS-24. That means far less ICBM than US and a Russian land force around 700 nukes. So, to label “build-up” this current replacing trend is simply senseless.

So your only defense is to attempt to change the focus of the debate huh?

Well your honour, I thought I was highlighting the mistakes in your logic based on counter arguements. Just because something is very good at doing something it doesn’t mean that it could or should or would be used without looking at the side effects. 10 years ago you could claim ignorance about the effects of DU. Now that is called negligence as there is enough evidence to show it is dangerous for reasons other than its ability to penetrate steel.

Nope Garry never admits he’s wrong.

…to those that will never change anyway.

The ONLY point that was being discussed is which penetrates armor better, DU or tungsten. Period. All your attempts at trying to change that don’t mean squat.

Well then you have wasted a lot of energy and time if the only point is that DU penetrates steel armour better than tungsten I said as much in my first post on the topic. The problem you had was that you denied any proven negative effects of DU after use. When I said that DU penetrates better I stated it did not penetrate so much more effectively that it was a necessary choice. DU rounds that penetrated Two Iraqi tanks at a time suggest that Tungsten could have done the job too… without the problems of nuclear waste left lying around the battlefield.
Obviously doens’t matter to the US because they only kill bad guys so if the bad guys families suffer for the next 1,000 years because of DU contamination why should they care? The Germans on the other hand have gone past the invade and bomb every country phase and actually made the choice to use Tungsten instead of DU despite its extra cost and marginally lower performance.

Actually at last count Russia still has far more operational nukes than the US.

Whose last count? And are you counting strategic weapons only? Look at their navy… 2-3 Typhoons, and some Deltas of later marks, compared to how many Ohios with 24 missiles per sub? How many single warhead ICBMs does the US have? Most TOPOLs have one warhead as standard. They could fit 3… in the same way that the SS-18 can fit 30, but decoys and other bits and pieces take up the extra room.

Typhoons and Delta IVs are ready for the scrap heap? Well now that’s an interesting claim seeing how the Ohio class is older than both of those yet the US somehow still manages.

How many Typhoons and Delta IVs were built compared to how many Ohios…

The west always went on about how many different types of subs the Soviets were producing but they rarely mentioned numbers built on both sides.

As for ICBMs the TOPOL-M last I heard they’re going to equip it with up to seven uber-RVs while the US is downloading it’s Minuteman IIIs (which have been in service since before even the original TOPOL was even an artist’s concept- talk about “ready for the scrap heap”) to one RV each.

TOPOL was designed under the conditions of START II… START II was not fully ratified by both sides so it never went into effect but it was expected to so TOPOL was designed as a single warhead missile. If START II had been enforced and all MIRV missiles been withdrawn to maintain their ICBM triad they would have needed to build over 600 TOPOLs. Without the demise of START II the Russians would have never been able to produce 600 missiles quickly enough to replace those they were withdrawing, both in ICBMs and likely SLBMs. With the demise of START II the Russians can either rebuild the TOPOL-M with a new nosecone to allow more warheads or they can build a new missile designed to carry 10 MIRVs to relax the required building rate. The claim of 7 warheads in TOPOL-M was probably largely due to the fact that the RS-24 program was unknown to be still funded. With the RS-24 the pressure to put a lot of warheads in the TOPOL-M is releaved, so it is actually likely to carry 1 warhead plus decoys and anti abm bits and pieces. Should reduce pressure on them in their ICBM building program so it doesn’t cost too much and they don’t end up with 1,200 warheads instead of 2,000.

Buildup if I ever saw one.

Buildup requires an upward movement in numbers… hense the “up”. The reality is that these new missiles will not increase warhead numbers but simple help prevent them going too low.

Do you see the US building a Peackeeper replacement? No. An Ohio replacement? No. A dinosaur Minuteman III replacement?

Do we see the US committing to have fewer warheads than the Russians? No. So both will have rough parity in numbers, with the US having more SLBMs and the Russians having more ICBM based warheads. As both sides are reducing overall numbers I see no buildup. Just one side reducing numbers and the other (Russia0 preventing a collapse of numbers).

You mean cost only. There are no treaties regarding weapons in space, only specifically nuclear weapons.

Except if they want to revive technologies like X ray lasers.

The first Delta IV was indeed commisioned later than the first Ohios, but production also ended sooner, while the Typhoon first entered service around the same time as the US SSBN. Both are seen as less than ideal by the Russian Navy, the Delta because of its liquid fueled missiles and the Typhoon because the R-39 SLBM shares its first stage design with the SS-24, i.e. a significant part of the missile is of Ukrainian origin. The Bark (R-39M) project to productionalise all components for an improved version within Russia was cancelled after a number of failed tests, bringing about the Bulava project. Also, a decade of marginal maintainance will certainly not be without consequences.

With the MMIII, the issue is one of procurement philosophy. The USSR and Russia never seemed to be fans of upgrading equipment once in service, they’d much rather replace it with a new-built improved version. Only after the collapse of the Soviet Union have we seen tentative steps in the other direction in Russia (Su-27SM etc.). With the warheads, guidance system and even the rocket motors being replaced on the MMIII you have to wonder whether the difference is really that much smaller than going from a SS-25 to a SS-27 (it really puts the argument about the average age of Russia’s ICBMs in the “Nuclear Primacy” paper into perspective, too). BTW, existing Topol-Ms are unlikely to have their warheads changed. If there ever is a MIRVed Topol-M it will be the RS-24.

With the MMIII I think the only thing that ISN’T getting changed is the nose cap. They say the motors are getting “regrained” but since they’re CASEBONDED I’m not sure how you’d do that. It’s definitely a case of “I’m going to repair my axe by giving it a new handle and a new blade.”

If you are referring to the RS-24 then you are mistaken. The RS-24 is to replace the SS-18s and SS-19s in service which already have MIRV wahreads. Replacing a MIRV warhead missile with a MIRV warhead missile is not a build up. They can’t increase the numbers of warheads they have or they will violate the Moscow Treaty. Without the RS-24 they would have to build about 200 more TOPOLS a year just to maintain numbers as it takes 10 Topols to replace one SS-18, and 6 Topols to replace each SS-19.

I wasn’t referring to anything specific, just playing devil’s advocate again.

Space would be the ideal place… cost and several treaties about weapons in space prevent it.

You mean cost only. There are no treaties regarding weapons in space, only specifically nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, Russians; R-1U, R-3S, R-8, R-23/24, R-27, R-33, R-37, R-40, R-60, R-73, R-77, R-80…

The reason being that the Russians typically matched new missiles to new fire control systems (R-40 with the MiG-25, for example) or introduced new weapons to replace those that were not very effective (R-73 instead of R-60 or R-3).

The USSR and Russia never seemed to be fans of upgrading equipment once in service, they’d much rather replace it with a new-built improved version.

Correct…USAF only used five types of AAM’s. AIM-4, AIM-7, AIM-9, AIM-54 and AIM-120. Some of them were upgraded for years, doubling their performance in worst case, like Sidewinder and AMRAAM.

On the other hand, Russians; R-1U, R-3S, R-8, R-23/24, R-27, R-33, R-37, R-40, R-60, R-73, R-77, R-80…

Just like you said…no fans of equipment upgrade. They started heavy upgrades only when monetary basis dictated so.

Typhoons and Delta IVs are ready for the scrap heap? Well now that’s an interesting claim seeing how the Ohio class is older than both of those yet the US somehow still manages. As for ICBMs the TOPOL-M last I heard they’re going to equip it with up to seven uber-RVs while the US is downloading it’s Minuteman IIIs (which have been in service since before even the original TOPOL was even an artist’s concept- talk about “ready for the scrap heap”) to one RV each.

The first Delta IV was indeed commisioned later than the first Ohios, but production also ended sooner, while the Typhoon first entered service around the same time as the US SSBN. Both are seen as less than ideal by the Russian Navy, the Delta because of its liquid fueled missiles and the Typhoon because the R-39 SLBM shares its first stage design with the SS-24, i.e. a significant part of the missile is of Ukrainian origin. The Bark (R-39M) project to productionalise all components for an improved version within Russia was cancelled after a number of failed tests, bringing about the Bulava project. Also, a decade of marginal maintainance will certainly not be without consequences.

With the MMIII, the issue is one of procurement philosophy. The USSR and Russia never seemed to be fans of upgrading equipment once in service, they’d much rather replace it with a new-built improved version. Only after the collapse of the Soviet Union have we seen tentative steps in the other direction in Russia (Su-27SM etc.). With the warheads, guidance system and even the rocket motors being replaced on the MMIII you have to wonder whether the difference is really that much smaller than going from a SS-25 to a SS-27 (it really puts the argument about the average age of Russia’s ICBMs in the “Nuclear Primacy” paper into perspective, too). BTW, existing Topol-Ms are unlikely to have their warheads changed. If there ever is a MIRVed Topol-M it will be the RS-24.

Asbestos is still the best insulation. It has the huge advantage of being a fire retardant as well. Thalidimide is also a wonderful anti depressant. The reality is that other materials are much safer than DU and still manage to do the job. The only real need for DU rounds for 120mm guns has been to defeat Abrams and Challangers. For the T-55s, T-62s and the occasional T-72 encountered even 105s would suffice.

So your only defense is to attempt to change the focus of the debate huh? Nope Garry never admits he’s wrong. The ONLY point that was being discussed is which penetrates armor better, DU or tungsten. Period. All your attempts at trying to change that don’t mean squat.

Which just goes to show they have rather more warheads than the Russians if they are so far above the limit set by the Moscow treaty that they have to withdraw so many and are not replacing them.

Actually at last count Russia still has far more operational nukes than the US.

Launching a new class of SSBN to replace existing vessels that are ready for the scrap heap. But lets compare the new Russian SSBN with its 16 missiles with the standard US boat… with 24 missiles in each vessel. What two new types of ICBM? TOPOL-M is a modification of TOPOL… as its name suggests. The RS-24 will replace SS-18s and SS-19s.

Typhoons and Delta IVs are ready for the scrap heap? Well now that’s an interesting claim seeing how the Ohio class is older than both of those yet the US somehow still manages. As for ICBMs the TOPOL-M last I heard they’re going to equip it with up to seven uber-RVs while the US is downloading it’s Minuteman IIIs (which have been in service since before even the original TOPOL was even an artist’s concept- talk about “ready for the scrap heap”) to one RV each. AND Russia is building ANOTHER ICBM in addition to that. Buildup if I ever saw one. Do you see the US building a Peackeeper replacement? No. An Ohio replacement? No. A dinosaur Minuteman III replacement? No. Definitely a buildup.

That’s a yes.

So what you are saying is that Russian ABMs can be placed anywhere because it doesn’t matter where they are? So if they moved half of the ABMs from around Moscow to Cuba the US would not react at all?
Keep on dreaming.

Another yes.

So if the UK decides to go for all British nuclear missiles and has, say 24 Polaris missiles in service. If they make 24 missiles with the same number of warheads they had before and replace the Polaris missiles with all UK missiles that is a buildup to you.

Yeah… nuff said.

And another. Like I said- hypocracy.

Both the US and Russia are limited to a specific number of warheads. The Russians have developed some new missiles based on existing design programs to replace their current missiles which were made in a now foreign country. Why should they not complain if the other side not only mainains its nuclear forces but also greatly invests in its conventional military forces as well. Russia is limited by the CFE treaty, yet no such limit effects the US, or China for that matter. Call it what you like. There is nothing you can do about it. Russia will look after its own interests.

Wouldn’t matter if it’s more toxic than plutonium. The issue was which penetrates armor the best.

Asbestos is still the best insulation. It has the huge advantage of being a fire retardant as well. Thalidimide is also a wonderful anti depressant. The reality is that other materials are much safer than DU and still manage to do the job. The only real need for DU rounds for 120mm guns has been to defeat Abrams and Challangers. For the T-55s, T-62s and the occasional T-72 encountered even 105s would suffice.

The US arsenal may have been dwindling, but if we’re talking relative terms we cannot ommit the fact that Russia’s was more like plummeting until recently.

Both sides numbers are lowering to meet the requirements of the Moscow Treaty.
Of course when your subs carry 24 SLBMs you might end up with fewer ICBMs but the number of warheads will be equal.

The US lost 500 ICBMs in just a couple years, 4 SSBNs, and are removing ALL their best nuclear armed cruise missiles and THAT’S not plummeting? Moreover they’re not making NEW to replace them.

Which just goes to show they have rather more warheads than the Russians if they are so far above the limit set by the Moscow treaty that they have to withdraw so many and are not replacing them.

Launching new class of SSBN and deploying two new types of ICBMs doesn’t constitute a build up huh? If that doesn’t what would? (Funny thing is I’ll bet the Russians would be going hysterical about the evil US buildup if we were doing the same.)

Launching a new class of SSBN to replace existing vessels that are ready for the scrap heap. But lets compare the new Russian SSBN with its 16 missiles with the standard US boat… with 24 missiles in each vessel. What two new types of ICBM? TOPOL-M is a modification of TOPOL… as its name suggests. The RS-24 will replace SS-18s and SS-19s.

If you compared the actual numbers to the decline of Russia’s arsenal you would probably find that it isn’t. No, they aren’t making any new hardware yet, but they are researching both replacement SSBNs and missiles. I’m sure you’ll have to agree that the US is likely to have the ability to put those into production faster and the resources to build more than Russia. Having to replace what amounts to foreign-built hardware, as mentioned before, is an additional issue that the USA does not have contend with *at all*. I stand by my comment that there is no build up of nuclear arsenals, neither on the part of the US (as the “Nuclear Primacy” article argued) nor in Russia.

Launching new class of SSBN and deploying two new types of ICBMs doesn’t constitute a build up huh? If that doesn’t what would? (Funny thing is I’ll bet the Russians would be going hysterical about the evil US buildup if we were doing the same.)

The US lost 500 ICBMs in just a couple years, 4 SSBNs, and are removing ALL their best nuclear armed cruise missiles and THAT’S not plummeting? Moreover they’re not making NEW to replace them.

If you compared the actual numbers to the decline of Russia’s arsenal you would probably find that it isn’t. No, they aren’t making any new hardware yet, but they are researching both replacement SSBNs and missiles. I’m sure you’ll have to agree that the US is likely to have the ability to put those into production faster and the resources to build more than Russia. Having to replace what amounts to foreign-built hardware, as mentioned before, is an additional issue that the USA does not have contend with *at all*. I stand by my comment that there is no build up of nuclear arsenals, neither on the part of the US (as the “Nuclear Primacy” article argued) nor in Russia.

Nevermind then – I’ll allow myself to say that your intended context wasn’t exactly clear to me.

The comment was an expression of surprise at your comment of “what buildup”.

We seem to have a different idea of what a build up is, but even when using your definition I honestly can’t see one. The US arsenal may have been dwindling, but if we’re talking relative terms we cannot ommit the fact that Russia’s was more like plummeting until recently.

The US lost 500 ICBMs in just a couple years, 4 SSBNs, and are removing ALL their best nuclear armed cruise missiles and THAT’S not plummeting? Moreover they’re not making NEW to replace them.

Of what, launch systems, or actual warheads? If you replace a single-warhead missile with a MIRV’ed missile, that’s a buildup and represents an increase in your warfighting ability as you can blanket more targets.

Fair enough, I doubt counting actual warheads vs. delivery systems would affect the gist of my point very much though. Russia still has a decent number of MIRVed ICBMs (SS-18/19) that could be replaced by RS-24s without increasing the overall warhead count. Infact, the Topol-M story would indicate that it is unlikely that these missiles would be replaced on a one on one basis, thus my point about a net decline remaining.

Nice try at what? I never accussed you of saying that. Go read it in context this time.

Nevermind then – I’ll allow myself to say that your intended context wasn’t exactly clear to me.

Relatively speaking when one side is letting their numbers dwindle (the US) and the other is replacing theirs with new the net effect is a buildup.

We seem to have a different idea of what a build up is, but even when using your definition I honestly can’t see one. The US arsenal may have been dwindling, but if we’re talking relative terms we cannot ommit the fact that Russia’s was more like plummeting until recently.

So a system designed to protect one city in the heart of ones own country is the same as an ABM system designed to defend a whole country based near a main rivals borders… yeah right.

That’s a yes.

To replace obsolete systems desiged in a foreign country (Ukraine).

Another yes.

Why shouldn’t they complain. ABMs are strategic systems. As such they effect the strategic balance. Of course the Russians would react to such a thing.

And another. Like I said- hypocracy.

Have you been keeping up with DU? Genotoxic?

Wouldn’t matter if it’s more toxic than plutonium. The issue was which penetrates armor the best.

Sorry Garry but you are deliberately avoiding the question, do you have any evidence to say that North Korea and Iran are not focussing on long range ballistic missile programmes?

As much evidence, if not more than the US government… otherwise I am sure they would reveal it to the world like they did with pictures of Soviet Missiles in Cuba.

Keeping in mind the previously mentioned missile tests and your own ranting about how evil America is the answer is quite clearly no.

So now all of your questions are rhetorical. Why bother posting at all?

So they brag about their superior, in service, ABM system while complaining about the US’s plans and you don’t think that’s hipocracy?

The US is not putting a system around Washington DC here. This is a system close to Russia. The Soviets only ever put strategic weapons close to the US once and look at the ridiculous reaction that caused? In comparison withdrawing from a few treaties and increasing missile numbers is almost no reaction at all.

Well seeing how the facts show that intercontinental cruise missiles went bye-bye as soon as ICBMs were even barely working (not to mention the fact that all then being worked on intercontinental cruise missiles were cancelled specifically due to ICBMs) I’d have to say you seem to be lacking yourself.

The Soviet Union and the US are large powerful countries. Both were able to afford large numbers of strategic weapons. Iran is not a large powerful country and it will not be able to afford a large number of ICBMs. Even if Iran could create fully operational ICBMs tommorrow it would do them no good as they directly give away evidence of an attack and draw a line back to the launch area to show who launched it. The US and Soviets jumped on the ICBM band waggon because compared to cruise missiles of any type at the time ICBMs were uninterceptable. That is starting to change, but is not really important for IRAN. Even if Iran could fire one uninterceptable ICBM at the US and even assuming it performs as advertised and wipes out a city the retaliation would be devastating for Iran. A cruise missile fired from a sook to be scuttled ship in the atlantic on the other hand will simply be a bolt from the blue. Low and slow it would be hard to detect let alone track and intercept and its flight path not being ballistic will not give away the country of origin. Fly a few on civilian air routes with a laser or very small radar of low power to find and follow a civilian airliner along an international air route to point x over a city and then descend to airburst height and boom.

Do they not have an operational ABM system?

So a system designed to protect one city in the heart of ones own country is the same as an ABM system designed to defend a whole country based near a main rivals borders… yeah right.

Are they not building a plethoria of new nuclear systems?

To replace obsolete systems desiged in a foreign country (Ukraine).

Are they not complaining about US plans for ABMs?

Why shouldn’t they complain. ABMs are strategic systems. As such they effect the strategic balance. Of course the Russians would react to such a thing. Whether they are designed to be used agaisnt Iran or North Korea, the fact is they can also be used against Russia.

Still waiting to hear how tungsten can penetrate armor better than DU

Have you been keeping up with DU? Genotoxic? In other words when it gets into your system it can change/mutate your DNA. The minor improvement in penetration will not be worth the clean up bill… but then America only pays out on its own people… US vets might get compensation for Agent Orange, but the Vietnamese will get nothing.

Perhaps a look at the technical data helps to understand why ballistic missiles were preferred over the cruise missiles? All these vehicles belong to about the same timeframe.

Regulus B
range ~500nm
warhead 2MT
CEP ~3nm

Polaris A-1
range ~1200nm
warhead 600kT
CEP ~0.5nm

Snark
range ~5000nm
warhead 4MT
CEP ~10nm

Atlas E
range ~5500nm
warhead 4.5MT
CEP ~0.4nm

Look at the CEP data and this http://www.nukefix.org/index.htm
Those cruise missiles were pretty useless, militarily.

Except Iran is neither the US nor the Soviet Union. It is in no position to build enough ICBMs to match the US, and it is building its weapons in an age where ballistic missiles are actually easier to detect and track than cruise missiles are.

That realy goes to show how making realistically useful cruise missile is far harder than creating an ICBM.

No it doesn’t. Making a UAV able to fly over huge distances is easy as long as it doesn’t have to fly very fast. ICBMs are big because they take their oxygen with them, but they are fast because they spend most of their flight in space with no air resistance and air resistance is drag. A medium subsonic UAV flying at medium to high altitude is much more fuel efficient than any ICBM. When it gets to its target area it can descend and accelerate to high subsonic speed. By the time the enemy knows what is happening mushroom clouds will be forming.

Of what, launch systems, or actual warheads? If you replace a single-warhead missile with a MIRV’ed missile, that’s a buildup and represents an increase in your warfighting ability as you can blanket more targets.

If you are referring to the RS-24 then you are mistaken. The RS-24 is to replace the SS-18s and SS-19s in service which already have MIRV wahreads. Replacing a MIRV warhead missile with a MIRV warhead missile is not a build up. They can’t increase the numbers of warheads they have or they will violate the Moscow Treaty. Without the RS-24 they would have to build about 200 more TOPOLS a year just to maintain numbers as it takes 10 Topols to replace one SS-18, and 6 Topols to replace each SS-19.

Why would you place a defensive system in a location that is not ideal?

Space would be the ideal place… cost and several treaties about weapons in space prevent it.

Here in New Zealand there is a law that if you have a swimming pool in your back yard you have to have a fence around it to stop kids from drowning. If your neighbour had little kids would you place your new pool against his fence so you only had to fork out for three other sides of the fence knowing that that could potentially put his kids at risk just to save yourself some money?

No law to make you shift its planned position, but this is your neighbour and you kinda do need to get along with your neighbours. Especially now that you are claiming to be no longer enemies and telling them how to run their households…

Relatively speaking when one side is letting their numbers dwindle (the US) and the other is replacing theirs with new the net effect is a buildup.

Yeah, the country spending well over $400 billion a year on “defence” is the victim. The reality is that they are spending on offensive first strike weapons that are conventional in nature. BTW the net effect is a shift in balance, not a buildup. Other factors like expansion of NATO to Russian borders, while maintaining conventional forces at the current levels suggest that the real balance hasn’t changed at all.