Russia tests Topol-M missile to subdue USA's $50-billion air defense

Spartan and Sprint.

Yeah, after I posted I remembered the both started with “S” but still couldn’t remember the name so I didn’t bother changing my post.

The main reason the Soviets wanted an ABM treaty was because their own ABM missiles were pathetic, while the US was getting results with its Sprint and another missile I can’t remember the name of… gazelle or something.

Spartan and Sprint. GAZELLE is the codename for the endoatmospheric interceptor used by the current Moscow ABM system, along with the exoatmospheric GORGON (which replaced GALOSH).

I see no disadvantage of Flanker over the 29’s except for the size which translates to slightly bigger RCS for the flanker. Else Flanker seems to have all the advantages.

The Flanker is nice if you need the extra range, but if you just need a point defence interceptor the Mig-29 is cheaper. The Flanker is not a small aircraft and requires larger hangars, and more parking space. It carries more fuel but is also rather larger and also uses more fuel. It is the old story. If you only need to send a 15 ton payload 1,000km don’t use a C-5… use a C-130. For the occasional jobs that need long range then use droptanks and inflight refuelling to extend the range. Operationally Russia rarely uses its Flankers with full fuel loads. A country the size of Russia!

If you have a large area to cover then using longer range Flankers you could get by with fewer aircraft covering a larger area, but a greater number of smaller aircraft might offer better defence if they are actually needed.

The Flanker certainly has it where it counts today… Sukhois political power.

a Mig-29 to upgrade their current fighter (be it a Mig-21 or F-5 or unsupplied F-16) would probably also look at the Flanker which offers several advantages, and of course several disadvantages too, for similar prices.

I see no disadvantage of Flanker over the 29’s except for the size which translates to slightly bigger RCS for the flanker. Else Flanker seems to have all the advantages.

“Our” guys Garry? You’re from New Zealand, just a little Freudian slip there huh?

Not a slip at all. Just using their arguements in their words. Part of the arguement to seperate us from them…

So why is it nobody seems to want these “superior” Mig-29s?

Actually quite a lot of airforces do currently use them. The problem is that they are quite a step up from the simple to operate and relatively cheap and simple to maintain Mig-21.
There is also political muscle and at the moment Sukhoi has that… anyone who might use a Mig-29 to upgrade their current fighter (be it a Mig-21 or F-5 or unsupplied F-16) would probably also look at the Flanker which offers several advantages, and of course several disadvantages too, for similar prices.

All the US’s heavy ICBMs are gone but are the Russian’s? Nope. Yep they sure know how to follow a treaty.

Congress never ratified it so it was not bound by the treaty. With the removal of the ABM treaty then all SALT and START treaties are meaningless.

As for the ABM Treaty we followed it to the letter.

Not you didn’t. You violated the ABM treaty. The ABM treaty required that all ICBM watching Radar must be located along the country that operates that radars border. Thule in Greenland and Flyingdales in the UK is no where near any US border.

START 2 maybe, that was never ratified in Russia and therefore they aren’t required to abide by?

It is my understanding that Yeltsen pushed that through the Duma and got it passed. (He basically would sign anything he thought would ingratiate him with the west to get western support and that made him unpopular at home and yet did not get him the popularity he craved in the west).
It was Congress that refused to sign. And until signed by both parties then neither party is bound by it. With the dissolution of the ABM treaty (upon which all SALT and START treaties are null and void).

Interestingly enough, Russia was developing a mobile ABM system, which was illegal under the ABM treaty.

To develop or to deploy?

The main reason the Soviets wanted an ABM treaty was because their own ABM missiles were pathetic, while the US was getting results with its Sprint and another missile I can’t remember the name of… gazelle or something. It wasn’t till the mid 80s that their ABM system started to get hits during tests and a few missile and radar upgrades made quite a bit of difference.

As for the START 2 treaty any idea why the US feels compelled to abide by it if it’s a dead issue?

They can afford to abide by it. Money isn’t an issue when it comes to nukes…

Nothing to do with the SA-12, this was a dedicated mobile ABM system. SA-12 is only effective as an ATBM.

What treaty would that be? START 2 maybe, that was never ratified in Russia and therefore they aren’t required to abide by? Or the SORT treaty, which they are in compliance with?

Interestingly enough, Russia was developing a mobile ABM system, which was illegal under the ABM treaty.

Any relation to the SA-12 system or was it something entirely different? As for the START 2 treaty any idea why the US feels compelled to abide by it if it’s a dead issue?

All the US’s heavy ICBMs are gone but are the Russian’s? Nope. Yep they sure know how to follow a treaty.

What treaty would that be? START 2 maybe, that was never ratified in Russia and therefore they aren’t required to abide by? Or the SORT treaty, which they are in compliance with?

As for the ABM Treaty we followed it to the letter. We wanted to do more than the ABM Treaty allowed so we got out of the treaty- AS THE ABM TREATY ALLOWS. In other words the treaty was an “at will” treaty but you couldn’t go outside it and NOT tell the other side you were abandoning it. Those were the terms of the Treaty and we followed it.

Interestingly enough, Russia was developing a mobile ABM system, which was illegal under the ABM treaty.

Russia tests Topol-M missile to subdue USA’s $50-billion air defense
11/02/2005 11:33

The unpredictable flight trajectory of the Russian missile makes it immune to destruction

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/87/347/16401_TopolM.html

It was an SS-25 (SICKLE) that was test launched. Pravda got it all mixed up yet again!

MoscNews & Novosti got it correct. The launch of the SS-25 was notified under START. No SS-27 was launched. Amazing how the press in their frenzy managed to twist it into an SS-27! Subsequently half the worlds press followed like sheep and reported it as a Topol-M.

“The Russian military successfully tested an intercontinental ballistic missile in a test of its performance under an extended service-life, the Interfax news agency reported.

Colonel Alexander Vovk said the launch was meant “to confirm the flight characteristics of the missile under an extended service-life,” the agency reported.”

Novosti also got it correct:

“MOSCOW, November 1 (RIA Novosti) – The Russian Defense Ministry said Tuesday it had successfully conducted a test launch of a Topol RS12 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from the Kapustny Yar test range in the Astrakhan region.

A ministry spokesman said the launch was conducted to check the ICBM’s flight characteristics during its extended life-term, along with testing measuring equipment.”

Edz and crazyrussian, consider yourselves warned.

And stick to the topic.

– Mod

yo sferrin (Somebody can’t understand a foreign language? Big deal) listen i been in many countrys and i can speak 4 language unlike you sit at home and read all this bull.

and btw the video very nice. i can give the webiste that has many russians videos pretty nice website here yo go http://www.army.lv/

so my advice to you finda someone who can speak russian and traslate it too you.

yes trident its very nice videos tell me did u understand the video its in russian. lol i hope u do understand cause yanks cant.

Somebody can’t understand a foreign language? Big deal. You do realize that the majority of the intercept footage they showed on that video was American right?

yes trident its very nice videos tell me did u understand the video its in russian. lol i hope u do understand cause yanks cant.

http://www.army.lv/?s=1233

yes good video sucks yanks cant understand it

yes takes time to download it about 5 mins if your not that lazy good video pls watch it

That’s a pretty nice video, thanks!

I would think the current state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan would make such a move ideal. An isolationist fortress America policy, where we bring our guys home and fly bombing missions from CONUS… have an ICBM shield and modify some ICBMs for a global 30 minute conventional strike role….

“Our” guys Garry? You’re from New Zealand, just a little Freudian slip there huh?

During tests with downgraded East German Mig-29s the comparison between the Mig-29 and the F-15 turned out about equal. It would have been lobsided in favour of the Mig-29, but the F-15s were allowed AMRAAM, which they didn’t have during the cold war. The comparison between sparrow and the alamo variants the Mig carried proved relatively similar. The Su-27 was the answer to the F-15 and the Su-27 had the extended range Alamos and the IR guided models as well, which would give it superiority in WVR combat (with HMS and high off boresight IR AAMs) like the Mig-29 had, but also superiority in BVR combat as well.

So why is it nobody seems to want these “superior” Mig-29s?

Yes, and not because they only care about Moscow, but because they know how to abide by a treaty.

All the US’s heavy ICBMs are gone but are the Russian’s? Nope. Yep they sure know how to follow a treaty. As for the ABM Treaty we followed it to the letter. We wanted to do more than the ABM Treaty allowed so we got out of the treaty- AS THE ABM TREATY ALLOWS. In other words the treaty was an “at will” treaty but you couldn’t go outside it and NOT tell the other side you were abandoning it. Those were the terms of the Treaty and we followed it.

well done GarryB

You’re right, in order to defend against an ICBM attack on a large scale you’re going to need an all new system. Probably with nuclear warheads so you can hit multiple reentry vehicles with a single interceptor.

Going from a system that can hit missile to missile to one that uses nuclear warheads and takes out targets in groups sounds much easier than going the other way…

Votes? Maybe. Congressionally approved funds budgeted? Get real

But the Russians are our allies, it isn’t directed at them… initially. Start out with a mistake launch from Russia or a rogue state. Then “what if there is a coup” we need a better system to handle a few hundred incoming missiles. Then finally, “we can build a system that will protect us from anything… should we trust Americn knowhow, or trust the bad guys? Anyone who doesn’t vote for this is unamerican…. blah blah blah. It is like guncontrol. Divide and conquer. Get them a piece at a time, gradually, emphasising anything that will help (like a gun related massacre) and ignoring stuff that negatively effects your goals (like the fact that a burglar would rather not break into a house where the owner is known to have guns, or places with high concealed carry permit rates also has less crime.

Excuse me? Then why, for example, was Russia so keen on xeroxing the B-29 as the Tupolev Tu-4 BULL? You need to step back and look at this from an objective viewpoint and not a nationalistic podium.

Perhaps you could get down from your national podium… if they had been Lancasters the Soviets would have copied them instead. They had largely neglected the heavy strategic bomber design during WWII as they didn’t need such a capability as medium bombers and their older heavy bombers sufficed for the role. At the end of WWII they were facing a different enemy and needed a jump in performance… that jump was handed to them in the form of some American bombers, but they could just as easily have been British, or German. They took what was available.

Not as many as we might think…the cost would eventually gets into the heads of the taxpayers and there is considerable lobbying from the other side..U can very rarely succeed in convincing the people and tax-payers if u havent convinced atleast the majority of the senate/congress…congress and the senate also lobbies hard..

I would think the current state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan would make such a move ideal. An isolationist fortress America policy, where we bring our guys home and fly bombing missions from CONUS… have an ICBM shield and modify some ICBMs for a global 30 minute conventional strike role…

If they had such missiles they would not talk about this and they would then provoke western counrties to attack Russia and then they would launch their missiles well knowing that they would hit their targets.But so they say this because they don’t have them.

They are making it clear to their own people that the NMD will not even stop one Russian missile and is not a threat to the current balance.

BTW hitting a target with a NMD is not actually that easy. The speeds involved and the distances involved mean that when you detect an incoming weapon it is very unlikely that you could hit a manouvering target. Simply think about the maths involved. The Interceptor missile is not travelling as fast as the incoming weapon. That is OK because your radars are plotting the path of the incoming weapon and you don’t have to catch it from behind… just arrive at a point in time and space that align. Your computations however are based on the fact that the incoming targets are ballistic and therefore predictible. Remember that old game where you protect those cities from incoming missiles? Imagine that but with the incoming warheads travelling rather faster than the missiles you are sending up to intercept them. Now spread the cities over the entire width of the US. If the missile base is in the centre (which it isn’t) then the targets near it are better covered because a second launch of another interceptor for a target that manouvers might have a better chance of interception.

But when you have T-72s shooting at M-1s with pretty much no effect and M-1s ripping them to shreds. . .well a better tank commander isn’t going to make that round more likely to penetrate the armor.

The Iraqi APDS ammunition was described as being worse than Russian training ammo by the US experts. Besides most of the combat took place at night where the thermal sights gave the US forces a huge advantage. The US forces also had air superiority… also kinda important too.

Even old M-60s were beating up on the T-72s.

The vast majority of Iraqi tanks were T-55s. In Israeli hands the T-62s and T-55s performed well enough.

I’m guessing the Chinese won’t want to go toe-to-toe and will come down to who uses deception, propaganda, and brinkmanship better and just plain outfoxes the other guy.

Why should they? The American forces didn’t fight the Iraqis toe to toe. They fought at night by choice. Fair has nothing to do with war.

The Mig-29 was designed to deal with the F-15. So you’re telling me that you need to go a half generation ahead on the Russian side to find an equal? The F-15E has been around since the late 80s and you need a fairly new -30MKI to equal it?

During tests with downgraded East German Mig-29s the comparison between the Mig-29 and the F-15 turned out about equal. It would have been lobsided in favour of the Mig-29, but the F-15s were allowed AMRAAM, which they didn’t have during the cold war. The comparison between sparrow and the alamo variants the Mig carried proved relatively similar. The Su-27 was the answer to the F-15 and the Su-27 had the extended range Alamos and the IR guided models as well, which would give it superiority in WVR combat (with HMS and high off boresight IR AAMs) like the Mig-29 had, but also superiority in BVR combat as well.

It hasn’t “dramatically tilted” anyway. Even if GBI was 100% effective that’s NINE targets taken out. In a general exchange that’s the proverbial fart in a hurricane. Effectively ZERO effect. But if Russia wants to squander their limited resources to “subdue” this apparent superweapon then by all means let them.

As I have said this isn’t a reaction to what the US has now. With the ABM treaty gone there is no limit on NMD. They could build a thousand interceptors if they wanted to. There is nothing to stop them (except common sense but that has done little to effect their thinking so far).

Knowing the extreme difficulty in engaging a moving target at such speeds this might ensure that the NMD system stays small.

Are the Russian ABMs centred around Moscow only?

Yes, and not because they only care about Moscow, but because they know how to abide by a treaty. The requirements of the ABM treaty allowed only one system to protect either the capital city of the country, or an ICBM field. The Soviets built theirs around their capital city, the US built theirs around an ICBM field and closed it down within a day of it opening.

Talk about waste of money and priorities?

And while a lot of it IS pilot skill there’s a lot to be said for the F-16’s pilot interface in comparison to the Mig-29.

The Mig-29 had its IRST, Radar and HMS fully integrated. Older versions lack computer power, but that has been corrected in later models.

Edz….you scare me, dude. Are you on pills or something? How do you actually know that the Russians hate the west? Are you a Russian? How do you know how they think…..are you a mind reader? I suggest you stick to facts than mind-blowing supositions.

That’d be the Su-27, not the MiG-29.

I guess I should have clarified. Both were designed with the -teens in mind. But the Mig-29s record against the F-16 isn’t anything to write home about either. And while a lot of it IS pilot skill there’s a lot to be said for the F-16’s pilot interface in comparison to the Mig-29.

oh and about the mig-29 pls watch this video

http://www.army.lv/?s=600

click on link and click on first video pls watch it

true about mig-29 pls someone translate for yanks