dionisRepublican candidates typically appeal to me far more than Democratic candidates on domestic issues. It’s all about money. Democrats in office = more money out of my pocket in taxes. Republicans in office = larger pay raises for the military. Might seem a bit cynical, but there it is. You have to realize that a US voter isn’t usually primarily concerned with the international crapola that gets the international headlines. Sure, candidates will bring Iraq and the war on terrorism into it, but they spin it from a domestic perspective.
Are you failing to realize that the Republican administration over the past 8 years has driven the economy into the ****ter in general? Whether it be through bad foreign or bad fiscal policy. You should be happy Bernanke is sort of keeping independent – or trying to. You might be a lucky one, that’s about it.
dionisSo with the Bulava carrying 6 warheads each that means 96 warheads per sub. Having half the number that the Akula class carry means you can have twice as many, though aren’t they keeping a couple of Akulas in service as well as a few Delta IVs?
Like everything else they really can’t afford to chuck out everything old and buy all new stuff straight away… costs too much and I suppose the makers couldn’t cope anyway.
Garry, why do you keep referring to the Typhoon as the Akula? You are talking about the Typhoon correct?
Seems like NATO designation in this case is a little more clear. 🙁
dionisThe minimum number of SSBNs is a complex question. What is their mission (first? counter? symbolic?), how stealthy are they (can they avoid enemy SSNs, like is said from Ohio? if not how many SSNs are available to protect them?), what enemy defenses are there, how many missiles in the fleet + how many tubes per boat = number of boats, &c.
An interesting thing about the Boreys is the relatively low number of launch tubes. Now, if they build enough, survivability of the fleet goes up. And at the same time, despite all the Kremlin retorics, it seems they are more a counter-strike asset, than a first-strike 24 missile/144+ warheads behemoth like the Ohios.
There was a huge discussion when Trident D-5 and the Ohio boats were introduced, because their sharply decreased CEP enabled a surprise first strike, and are now the prime U.S. first-strike, and also counter-strike weapons.
No silo is safe these days when a first-strike, where the GPS is still up, the CEP is in the middle or lower double digit meters, the only survivable option are rail- and road-based mobile launchers. Which, btw, also does not really help against a surprise first-strike, since in peacetime they are treaty-restricted to a few “parking lot” areas.
AFAIK, the Minuteman and Trident D-5 have a CEP of 120 – 200 meters.
The question is whether the silos of the SS-18 especially are able to withstand the PSI of the blast (and knowing US MIRVs, they upto 475kt?)
The Borei (starting #2 and later) will have 16 tubes.
Either way, 10 SSBNs is nothing to laugh about, especially since they are next gen developments. Also, most Delta 4 subs are getting refits.
The SSBN portion was hardly the most important nuclear asset of the USSR, and I feel Russia is following the same path.
Their road / rail mobile systems were extremely potent, with a CEP of 200 – 250 meters in general, but usually have a much higher payload than their US counterparts, especially looking at the SS-18.
dionisAware of that. They could as well dive around in the White Sea. But quite frankly it doesn’t make a lot of sense to deploy the SSBNs along the flight path of ICBMs.
Guess, as is mentioned under that link, the reduced patrol distance was as much an indication of increased missile capabilities, as increased threats by USN SSNs in the traditional patrol areas, which forced them to stay under aerial cover.
In the end the number of SSBNs needed by Russia to substantially contribute to their “triade” would be quite high (also provided they can keep up technologically) and probably increasing the number of land-based launch system is more effective.
And finally: Do we/they want/can afford a new cold war? Don’t really think so.
Putin has announced that the Cold War is pretty much back anyway. . .
The Borei is the most advanced SSBN in service today, and 8 – 10 of them would sufficiently provide the Russian strategic forces with a Navy component to the nuclear triad.
My only real question is, how much of a threat to Russian SS-18 / 19 silos are the current foreign ICBMs/SLBMs.
Seems at one point, the SS-18 was designed to destroy US Minuteman ICBMs while they were still in their silos, due to the SS-18s massive payloads. On the other hand, can the US or any NATO nation say the same for Russian silos. Haven’t researched the psi rating / depth or anything for the latter.
dionisThe only way military action should even be considered is if Israel renounces its nuclear arsenal as a condition of Iran renouncing plans to create its own. As long as Israel maintains a nuclear arsenal there is no reason why any other ME nation should be assaulted for trying to do the same.
And yes, I am a Republican American, but no, I don’t think Israel should attack Iran. The only amusement I would get out of such a thing would be to see if Iran could salvo enough Shahab-3s to elude the Arrow-II network. You all really need to stop with the blanket statements about Americans, it’s getting old and is not indicative of your intellect, I’m sure.
It’s indicative of the intellect of the average voting American though (who doesn’t know a thing about the outside world), and while I am not American myself, I live in the States for the most part, so I get a pretty good idea of what an idiot American is, and what a smart one is. I actually think you’re one of the brighter posters on the forum from the US side, but I question your support for the Republicans. Granted, you might hate the Bush administration, considering they’ve ruined a LOT for the US, from an outside view.
I think the US is just worried that Iran would impose too much control on the Middle East should it acquire nuclear weapons, since that would make it the top player in ME politics, which could mean less aggressive foreign policy for the US. Seems pointless for Iran to counter the US though, especially if dealing with another nuclear armed nation, since a nuclear exchange is in no one’s interest. Israel is already armed too, so that’s no improvement. Or maybe they are telling the truth, and only want it for energy purposes . . .
dionisIt’s a shame the American fan boys (also all Republicans I bet), actually want Israel to attack Iran, and the US as well, not giving a damn about where that would send the US economy, or what it would do to the lives of people involved.
Unless a large collective of countries, or even the UN sanctions military action, it likely isn’t happening, or sure as hell probably shouldn’t.
dionisThe Kh-58U/UE has a range of up to 200 kilometers. Regular Kh-58 variants were capable of up to 160 km, or 120 km if they were Kh-58Es (export models likely suffering from slower launch platforms than the MiG-25BM able to impart enough kinetic energy to the weapon at launch to get a much greater range).
Kh-31 variants are more varied. The Kh-31A would hit 70 km, the Kh-31P 130. The Kh-31D/AD would hit 100-110 km, with the Kh-31PD hitting 200 km. The Kh-31PM/PMK should also be at 200 km. A variant called KR-1 has been quoted as having a range of up to 400 km as well.
Those are the figures I have, at any rate. Other sources might have variations obviously.
That sounds just about right. What sources did you have?
Might be interested in seeing if they have changed the size of the warhead as well . . .
dionisThe Kh-31 has a longer range and higher average speed than the Kh-25MP, but the warhead is the same at about 90kgs. The Kh-58 is slightly heavier than the Kh-31, but with a slightly longer range and a much heavier warhead of 150kgs.
What are the latest modifications of the Kh-58 and Kh-31?
I recall there were some very late upgrades that increased their range by a LOT, especially for the Kh-31Pxx
dionisAt least it will accomplish something. What mission is another Russian ICBM going to fill that isn’t already covered?
What’s it going to accomplish?
THAAD might be OK, but a US homeland defense is as unnecessary as anything.
No one is going to attack the US with nuclear weapons anyway, not Russia or China, not North Korea or Iran – simply because the retaliation would also be nuclear. How hard is this to understand?
Therefore, the shield becomes useless.
Or is is Al-Qaeda building ICBMs now? OR SRBMs in Mexico?
dionisMost of thier IRBM’s are in storage what they were talking about was just redploying them.
The launchers should have been destroyed with accordance to the INF.
dionisEnough with the grammar BS. Part of what makes this an interesting forum is that a lot of the users are not from the USA or the UK. As long as they write in English (as required by the CoC) and aren’t using “mobile type” like teenagers like to populate their text messages with (as prohibited by the CoC), everything is fine with me.
Which, basically, means that you’ll just have to live with it 😀
Having English as a second or whatever language is one thing, but when someone is obviously from the US or UK, and can barely type in English, I’m not going to give their opinion too much value.
dionisyou have also not told me about other vital copy pasted stuff:
This is your best shot at star49? :rolleyes:
Reading through this thread, most of the stuff he posts of pretty relevant.
dionisLast report I read says RS-24 is just a Topol-M with the 6 warhead nose of the Bulava.
It mentioned that if the US continues with its ABM system in Europe they might create a contract for a new heavy ICBM to allow the replacement of the SS-18s and SS-19s to continue without a radical drop in ICBM numbers.
I think the RS-24 is the new “large” ICBM?
It seems that in some interview it was said to be slightly larger than the Topol-M, with both new and Topol-M components being used in the system.
Considering the US is deploying the missile system anyway it seems, didn’t the Russians actually want to re-deploy IRBMs? Some sort of mass produced SS-20 type launch system.
dionisFirst RS-24 will be deployed in Teykovo
According to Nikolai Solovtsov, the commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces, first RS-24 missiles will be deployed in Teykovo. Solovtsov confirmed that the Rocket Forces and the industry expect to complete the RS-24 flight tests program with the two launches scheduled for this year and, if the tests are successful, begin deployment of RS-24 in 2009.
The division in Teykovo currently has six Topol-M missiles with nine more missiles expected to be added by the end of 2008.
I wonder if they will release the final specs for the missile, wonder how much bigger they made it than the Topol-M and how many MIRVs it’ll be able to handle.
dionisYeah but an F-15 with an AIM-120D is going to have a problem with a Su-35 v2.0 with KS-172s. (I didn’t make it all the way through the video before deleting the POS.) From what I did see it struck me as a “we need more F-22s” video.
I think they made a point about jammers being able to cut any missile/radar range advantage.
Also might want to consider any Russian fighter equipped with the ramjet R-77 – wonder what the official status of the project is.
Sign In
