RSM55667BDRM: 167.4×11.7×8.8, D=11740-18200
955(as announced): 170×13.5×9, D=14700-24000
What’s so F… heavy in there? I’d say displacement should be 21000 at the most.
Kazan bow is 16m in diameter, if they try to fit that in YD, it should be called Tadpole-II. To say nothing about Yasen which is supposed to be slimer than Borei. So I guess a smaller or scaled down version of Irtish-Amfora is going in there.
Of course, Akson-2 was a testbed and its bow contained much more than just the sonar (new cooling systems, several at a single time) plus there was some consideration given for facilitated access to the system’s components. So the YD doesn’t need to have exactly such a bow, but it still gives an idea about the size of the boat. Which would explain also the big difference between the surfaced/submerged displacements. It’s not a question of heaviness but of volume.
And no, the Yasen is not much slimmer than the Borei…
Besides, I am extremely happy that no one thought to ask what boat is moored next to the Kazan on the now famous pic…Or even worse, what is the ancient-looking thingy on her right… Very happy.
Kinda makes sense to put them internally were you can, given their propensity to fall off ….. as long as they are dry or contained in some way e.g. in a sandwaich as Austin mentioned. Otherwise, potential to fall off and end up floating/bouncing around – cannot imagine that would be popular!
(…)
Its difficult to conceive (for me anyway) of a material you could use that wasn’t a polymer…..
It could be polymer based, but most of it can be “blown in” (keyword here is project 01710 aka Makrel aka SS-553 – a nice side effect of tests which were initially focused on speed/power ratio increase). And some carbon-carbon would do the job as well (not externally though). From the pics I would opt for a polymer-based thin outer surface with sandwiched pseudo-carbon and internal injection grids.
RSM55Hi again, sorry for the belated response.
some questions regarding Uzel:
a) What it’s exactly is?, in functions how it compares to western control systems (maybe like CCS Mk1 or Mk 117 onboard the first Los Angeles class SSN), ok Uzel is a pretty simple system by soviet standards (accord to some things I have read, it’s considered a toy compared to Omnibus installed on big fat nuke boats), but what I would like to know is exactly “what it does”, controlling the sonar systems through the CRT seems obvious…
It is a rather simple BIUS compared to others, true. However, it is highly automated, which apparently reduces the workload of the operator(s). It’s more a matter of doctrine, though. Contrary to what is usually assumed, the operator’s autonomy in the Soviet/Russian Navy was/is quite large, he’s not supposed to pass on every info he gets up to the CO but is rather supposed to analyse and filter it by itself.
On the other hand, the RN wasn’t very happy with the overall performance of the original system, which was designed to replace the limited and workload-heavy (manual data input) “Leningrad” battle controls (torp-centred). The original MVU-100 was designed with the doctrine of heavy-automated battle operations in mind, which found their epitome in the Lira SSN design. It became quickly clear that a sub is not a fighter plane and that even the most automated system cannot handle a real battle environment in the creative way the human-in-the-loop can do (actually the operators hated the original UZEL because it often operated as if the operator was a slow and dumb amateur). That’s primarily why it was upgraded to the MVU-100(E)M standard. It does not much more than fire control and a few nav aid (the rest is taken up by the «Andoga» nav system). The good point about the system is that it marries well with the weapons fast-loading system. So much for generalities.
a.1) What is the interface for the tactical data handling process (Target Motion Analysis for determining true bearing, range, course, speed, etc)?, the same CRT for handling the sonar systems?
No it’s not the same CRT, but the UZEL can handle most of it, mainly coupled with fire control. It is well suited to that job on export subs, which typically lack the special wire-guided torp tubes.
a.2) The info about “it tracks automatically x targets and manually y targets” it corresponds to the TMA process and is separated from the sonar tracks?
It is, but there is an automatic info sharing mode installed. It is never used, though, operators prefer to enter the data manually and therefore not let the computer re-analyse and filter the data. Besides, it allows them to engage 3 targets instead of 2. As the UZEL controls all the autoreloading and navigation (basic, like bearing and depth), the operator can do that without outside interference (which led to some nice training incidents back in the 80s… like the firing of an exercise (unarmed) torp in close vicinity of a NATO destroyer…and the commander not even noticing it and thinking that they’d hit something – due to the shudder at launch…) 🙂 I think that answers your a.3, a.4 and a.5 questions. Anyway, it’s heavy workload and they adapted the procedures to it.
a.6) Did Uzel’s interfase is used for controlling the radar and ESM systems of the sub?, so such data inputs would be introduced for improving TMA tracks and solutions?
No. These are separate subsystems and they are seldom used anyway in the RN operational doctrine for non-nuclear subs.
a.7) In the 877 PL the whole submarine could be controlled from GKP (Main Command Post) as is the case with the 705 “Lira” using the MVU-111 “Akkord” BIUS and the other systems?
In theory, yes, but they abandoned the idea quite fast (see above). The MVU-100 (Murena) mainly recommends certain tactical solutions to the CO.
a.8) Did basic MGK-400M Rubikon-M uses LOFAR acoustic processing?, in wich frequency did MGK-400M Rubikon-M works?, how’s the MMI of the sonar display?, waterfall with different time-story settings for broadband and grams for narrow-band/LOFAR (if any?), or a FRAZ for both (if they have both capabilities off course)?
First point: yes, it did. Frequency: are you joking? I don’t want to spend the rest of my lifetime in Siberia / a Chinese container ship 🙂 . Bearing data, vertical beam patterns, frequency, azimuth, target source level, fluctuation and system losses (scalloping for ex.) and all the Gauss-Markov blah blah is integrated. No morphotectonics though.
a.9) Did the skipper have any sort of Control Central Display Pannel…?
Nope, several, the main one being the Rubikon «mirror».
Did the first 636 Kilo for export (like the first ones delivered to China without the Klub-S capability) mantains the same MGK-400M Rubikon-M sonar system (or export derivative) from 877/877E/877EKM?, and the same Uzel BIUS system?
Nope, export versions are the MVU-POE and the MGK-400E. They mainly differ in certain data treatment characteristics and the inability to handle wire-guided or merely guided weapons. That was the incentive for the Chinese to develop their own «Kilo-Amur» class 🙂
Last developed Paltus class of PL, accord to Rosoboronexport, they introduces the improved acoustical digital processing MGK-400EM “Rubikon-EM” sonar system, involving improved sonar hydropohones and transducers,improved accoustic signal processing and all the know bla bla bla we know.
What calls my attention its that it also introduces a totally new MMI interface with two new consoles each with two flat panel displays (TFT?)…if so that would mean that a new BIUS with new computers (bye bye MVU-110EM) would be used with new capabilities?
It’s a new Rubikon hydro-acoustic system, not a new BIUS. MVU-100EM is still the primary BIUS. The Klub-S fire controls are independent as it is now, and they’re having a hell of a time trying to integrate it.
What is the Palladij-M “Integrated Platform Management System” developed by OAO Avrora? (A BIUS?, something else?, I’m sure is situated at GKP)…
It’s not a BIUS. It’s a «General technical subsystems’ control system», improved from the Palladiy-E/U/R series. Basically it is responsible for the automated remote-control and data downpour of and from all power systems, generators and ancillary systems, i.e.:
diving / surfacing systems;
sprinkling, flooding and emptying torp tubes;
ventilation, cooling of engines and power generators, air supply, air regeneration
hydraulics, periscopes etc.
firefighting systems.
Well and last and last, is there any info about Litiy BIUS system for 677 submarine?, is developed by whom?, Avrora?
It’s the domestic and allegedly improved version of the LAMA-EKM system, developed by Avrora indeed, but sources are not consistent. It might be just another name for the Lama. It’s a two -to -four operator, highly-automated visual interface system. They actually call it AIUS (A for automated) because it’s more than just a combat system (the «B» in BIUS) as it also handles and stores data on training, demos, simulation and everyday’s tasks log.
RSM55They could well have a Light TN ( ~ 150 kg ) with a yeald of 550 kt or better.
150 kg is very light. The rumours were about a 200-400 kg warhead with a 150 kt-300 yield.
RSM55Anybody else notice the irony here?
Do you mean the same irony that the one of MX missiles being fielded with gyros only in the 90s? 😀
RSM55You don’t think if Russia and the US were doing a joint effort the Russians would be allowed on site? This is getting beyond comical and almost pathetic.
I only wrote that the US never proposed that. Period.
And there was enough instances where joint efforts did not mean the right to inspect in situ, be it on US or Russian sites (Nunn/Lugar, the Moscow treaty, the now defunct ABM, SALT). It only changed during START I negociations. So much for pathetics.
– “Otherwise cooperate”: meaning sharing tech and “building it together”. Which they duly rejected, of course (why should the US help Russia to do something that they achieved in the 60s already???).
And here I thought you were one of the intelligent ones. My mistake.
Dear sir, I might even be ready to admit that I’ve bent a notable portion of reality when comparing the V-1000 tests to the NMD (I suppose you know what the former means, or that you are able to google it), but why do you have to resort to the ad hominem fallacy? Or is it a new US-inspired method of discussion and conflict management? 😀
Besides, it is a fact the Don-2P targeting radar, for example, is still unsurpassed in terms of target discrimination. Voronezh may have some infancy problems, but don’t try and sell your religious belief according to which the Russkies may want to learn something from the NMD programme that they don’t already master as a hard fact.
Of course the system doesn’t pose any danger. As it is now. But try to answer this simple question: what does guarantee, apart from religious belief, that the interceptors number will not be increased by a factor 10 in, say, 15 years? The US has plently of old ICBM to convert.
By that token the world should be terrified of Iran. They don’t have nukes today but how do we know they won’t have a trillion in 20 years? :rolleyes:
You’re so right here! 😀 You know, the world is terrified of Iran (at least the US seem to be). Some are terrified of the US of A as well actually. What is your point about? Are you saying that Iran is not a threat in order to prove the overall benign nature of GBIs? 😀
And don’t worry, by the day Iran has nukes and missiles to carry them, it will either be an US ally or Russia will be the staunchest US supporter for a repetition of Nagasaki redux.
Besides, you didn’t answer my question, which was rather predictable…
RSM55RUSSIA’S First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov rejected last Thursday an overture from the United States to cooperate on building a missile shield in Europe, Russian news agencies reported.
“I honestly see no basis for speaking of possible cooperation on a strategic missile shield,” Ivanov was quoted by Interfax as saying.
Washington has tried to ease Russia’s fears about the planned missile shield by offering to share the system’s threat warnings and otherwise cooperate.
Of course there is no basis. The US should have offered one single thing: (mutual) inspections, exactly as for the CFE and SALT/START treaties. They haven’t.
– “Offering to share the system’s threat warnings”: what’s the point? The US would get very useful info (air/space coverage) of regions where it doesn’t have the capability yet and that are crucial “flashpoints” (East Asia, Central Asia, NW Europe). What would the Russian have got? Warning data about their own forces, Canada and hypothetic South American rogue states?
– “Otherwise cooperate”: meaning sharing tech and “building it together”. Which they duly rejected, of course (why should the US help Russia to do something that they achieved in the 60s already???).
Russian Air Force chief Vladimir Mikhailov played down the missile shield’s potential threat to Russia.
“These systems don’t provide any particular danger to us…They have more political weight than military,” he said, Interfax reported. “If they have money and nothing else to do with it, let them build it.” AFP
What’d I tell ya?
Of course the system doesn’t pose any danger. As it is now. But try to answer this simple question: what does guarantee, apart from religious belief, that the interceptors number will not be increased by a factor 10 in, say, 15 years? The US has plently of old ICBM to convert.
RSM55there is ZERO evidence of a new warhead design and it would be an AMAZING waste of money if its true. They have just over 3000 odd deliverable warheads now but as many as 12,000 additional warheads are sitting in stockpiles. While many of these are tactical warheads many more are strategic warheads taken off old missiles. Designing a new warhead when you have stockpiles this big is nuts. Topol and Bulava almost certainly carry old warheads. If they developed a new RV that tells you nothing about the warheads they stick in it.
There is enough evidence, though. R&D was being done in Arzamas and elsewhere for quite a time – for the Bark missile already, starting in the 80s. And there is no logic in designing a completely new SLBM (be it the Bark or the Bulava, doesn’t matter) without a new warhead. Besides, putting an old warhead on new missiles isn’t as simple as you think, the connection warhead-databus-MIRVbus is quite a complicated one, not to mention physical integration issues.
I think a lot of the talk about new Russian warheads stems from the fact that Bulava has such a god awful throw weight so people want to believe it will be throwing some new cool warhead to make up for this. This is unlikely. Bulava is no Trident II D-5, by all measures the missile is actually inferior to the Trident I. It has 1/2 the throw-weight of the D-5 if you believe the START data. What Bulava is meant to be however is a better missile than the current Sineva’s with their 4 warheads and reliability issues. The Americans have the better SLBM’s, but Russia now has the better boomer. Survivability of the launch platform is more important than the yield of the missiles or their throw weight.
Throw weight doesn’t mean a thing if you don’t know the yield of the warheads. On first sight, it may seem that the Bulava is “inferior” to the Trident I (in terms of throw weight primarily) – but then so “is” the M-51. The Bulava does carry 6 warheads – and you know the yield below which such a missile stops being considered as a primary deterrent. Moreover, it has been officially confirmed that it can carry 10 warheads. Simple maths show us that it doesn’t leave much room for a heavy warhead as in the Sineva – and that can only mean the warhead is new. Same thing for the Topol (its higher mass is primarily due to the dash speed and sturdiness requirements). And don’t forget that the max range can be greatly expanded when the missile carries less warheads than normally (and that figure doesn’t show up in the treaties) – e.g. the M-51 has a range of 12000 km with 1-2 warheads.
As for the Sineva, it actually was one of the best SLBM designs of the century (in its class), and that’s not my personal HO (it was voiced by quite authoritative USN members). Look better at the data available.
955 is essentially of the same dimensions as a 667BDRM, meaning it’s 18 kT, not a 24KT boat.
I’m sorry, but I’ve got the nagging feeling that the specs the Russians have given are bogus – but not the displacement. That’s why: the real dimensions of the boat are likely to remain classified for quite a time, and the given dimensions (170m-13,5-9) just don’t fit the announced displacement (14700/24000). The displacement is likely to be true as they had to prepare the dockside of the shipyard for it, and as the shipyard is half civilian it has transpired from different sources that it’s actually quite bigger than the 667. It actually must be bigger, as the missile containers are fully integrated (no “hunchback”) and, most of all, the Irtysh-Amphora is… quite big (not to say enormous). Take a look at the bow of the “Kazan” testbed (Akson-2), it’s just…monstrous.
And yes, some rumours circulate about the YD having 16 launchers after all…
And now some additional info:
Main contractor for system integration is the Federal State Unitary Enterprise (FGUP) “Severny reid” (“Northern Raid/Range”) – (merged with the FGUP “Polyarnaya Zvezda” (Polar Star)). They built the “Irtish-Amphora”, (intended for both the Borei and the Yasen nota bene) for Sevmash and the Central Scientific Institute “Morphiz-Pribor”. They also did all the generators and power stations for the integrated systems.
Their 2007 production plan exceeds the one of 2003 by 5,5 times.
They participated in the modernisation of the Ryazan, the two Orenburghs, Verkhoturie, Tula, Novomoskovsk (integration of the Shlyuz, Brig and Titan systems) and are currently testing a new astrocorrector.
The other nice little piece of news is that the Dmitry Donskoy (Typhoon class) actually got its designation 971UM officially now and is being modernised again (installation of the Shtil and Molybden systems).
RSM55This may be stupid quesion but what is an “inbuilt” anechoic tile. Assuming the tile is polymer it can hardly be welded to the structure….
I must confess I’ve no definite clue about it, was just repeating what I’ve heard. Regarding this fact, and assuming that it’s true that the sub is not a monohull (which was stated as well), it is possible that this “new” tiles actually are internal structures thicker than the usual tiles used on previous Soviet designs and might even have some active noise cancellation capability (some R&D was being conducted on that subject some years ago). Agree about the polymer tiles, they can’t be welded like that – but that’s assuming they are out of polymer…
Akson, on the other hand, was primarily a sonar and weapon systems (as well as a bit of C4I integration) testbed. We can assume that YG’s bow is quite similar (if not in shape, then at least in size – the sub is announced to displace 24’000 tons when submerged – i.e. rather more than the Delta series design). The explanation above about the hydrodynamic features of the sail sound quite close to reality.
Oh and yes, the Yuri carries 12 missiles only indeed. But all the subsequent subs will carry 16. Bulava is announced with a 6 MIRV bus, but this number can be pushed up to 10 (that was officially announced last week as well). That’s quite interesting to note as well, because that means that
a) the standard configuration very probably includes some “heavy” endo-atmospheric decoys;
b) the Russians seem to have developed new and quite miniaturised warheads with a yield good enough without having to resort to nuclear tests (so the rumours about the new “pig farm” in Sarov seem to be based on something after all).
RSM55I don’t think it will look like F-22/YF-23, at all, eg. won’t resemble American stealth fighter designs.
My assumption is based on pretty much nothing, it’s just speculation, and projection of my personal preference and point-of-view.
That means, it’s based on same stuff as those “PAK-FA pictures”.
If you read carefully what I’ve written about the first point, you’ll notice that I never said that the PAK FA looks like the YF-23, only that it looks more like the YF-23 than the F-22.
One of the reasons why I… let’s say “guess” it it that the PAK FA allegedly has a very large internal wepons bay (compared to other current and known designs) – that fact transpired recently so I’m not disclosing anything. Guess what kind of layout is more suited for that. The other thing is that its primary weapon will be a series of new “square-profile” SAs, i.e. it seems that the Russians are giving priority to speed and range when it comes to its weapon systems (meaning high volume ratios) and not when it comes to the vector itself (it is again known that the speed requirements for the aircraft were reduced from M 2.14 to M2.00). Again, that reduces the number of suited layouts (while providing more flexibility for the design nevertheless, due to the reduction in dash speed requirements).
The other thing about layouts and engine intakes it that Saturn’s new AL is rumoured to be a kind of… let’s say “Advent engine-like” design. People familiar with the concept (which typically features non-variable air intakes) will remember that it does not marry well with classic rectangular intake designs.
Otherwise, you’re right, all these pictures (and even more this ugly blending of the Replica and F-35 called “MiG-39”) are pure speculation (or fan’s fantasies).
RSM55And now… the sail! (don’t rejoice too much, they’ve put quite a hat on it…:( )
The sail allegedly has a “bent-forward” shipbow-like profile, much more than on the baptismal plaque actually. It allegedly has some hydrodynamic and noise radiation significance, but info is scarse.
Other more or less confirmed specs include:
– Irtysh-Amphora sensor systems, with a specially large (probably spherical) front array;
– several inbuilt conformal sonar arrays, distributed all along the boat’s length;
– the already mentioned pumpjet;
– 4 “fat” and 2 533mm torp tubes;
– an all-integrated automatic BIUS.
– new inbuilt anechoic tiles (whose appearance led some here to whine about an apparently imperfect manufacturing quality of sub’s exterior).
RSM55It should be clear to anyone that the picture mentioned above does not represent the real shape of the thing.
I think I won’t reveal a very big secret by saying that according to my info, the PAK FA or whatever it’s called looks more like the YF-23 than like the Raptor…;) Another hint in that direction is that it actually has a “T” designator and not an “S” one. I let you guess why (and maybe even someone will remember what design the USAF once favoured for a strike aircraft instead of an “enlarged” Raptor…). The point is that the 5th gen. fighter is not intended to exlusively replace the Su-27 and consorts only…
Let’s hope this post won’t kill the thread as happened already once with the naval forum…:D
RSM55Russia is not a Totalitarian state, whilst its democratic standards may at best be questionable, it is not totalitarian.
Of course it is, look what they do to opposition parties’ demos…:D Not like democratic France and Denmark, where instead of truncheons they recently proved the reliability and humanitarian touch of water-canons and gas…Not to mention the very democratic Italy, where you honestly and democratically get a bullet in the head instead of spending a couple of hours in a Russian police station if you happen to molest a police officer too much for his taste 😀
As for Yuri’s appearance, some photos could be released no later than this week, but not so much. The overall shape is actually not so different from the famous Sevmash scale model, but the sail and control surfaces are entirely different.
RSM55There were Russian warships, helicopters and hovercraft helping in New Orleans? That’s news to me.
They actually did offer help. One An-124 (with a Mi-26) and two Candids of the MTshS were ready to fly there. But the US refused assistance and the Russians, dumb enough, probably thought that the US are resourceful enough to handle this issue by themselves… The locals in N.O. as well (poor chaps)…
Using the time to prepare a defense. So what’s the problem? Oh, you think we should wait until what, a month before Iran “officially” deploys ICBMs before we start working on the problem? I’d think it would be obvious to you that these things take time. We start now so by the time Iran deploys we ARE prepared.
For what? By that time Iran will be much more likely to
a) become a democratic state ruled by a freely elected government with generous and altruistic US assistance (like Iraq now)
b) run out of oil and gas export routes (as the infrastructure is crumbling)
c) change the gov. in place and give a chance to the moderates
d) become a regular test and training ground for the USAF.
Remember who said that “the best defense is attack”?
The deal is between the US and Poland. There is no requirement to consult with Russia on it. As for reassurances they’ve been offered numerous times. If Russia chooses not to believe them there’s nothing we can do about that.
Of course there is no requirement. Living in peace and fostering stability on the European continent and elsewhere is no requirement either. Some would say it’s a necessity, but others… well, consider it an expendable option. But then be ready to pay the consequences.
As for verbal reassurances in the line of “no we won’t enlarge NATO – we won’t stay in Central Asia – we won’t store free-fall nukes in the EU anymore -we always consult our allies/strategic partners/improbable friends – we respect UN resolutions – we don’t help our enemy’s enemies – we’re friends now aren’t we, let’s fight Osama together while we spend money on very important anti-terrorist assets like GBI, hypersonic missiles, FCS and the like”, I think that after 15 years of utter BS (excuse my french) the Russians got it.
When have US protests ever done anything to prevent Russia from deploying a new weapon?
…you forget the main point: “…from deploying a new weapon abroad and near our borders“. Last time the Russians did that one got a global crisis, Castro calling for nuclear pre-emptive strikes and U-2s gallantly intercepting hostile Soviet SAMs.
They’ve offered to put Russia “in the loop”.
How, pray?
Russia wouldn’t be happy unless the missiles and radars were deployed in Russia with Russian hands on the launch keys.
They would be perfectly happy if the US lets them inspect the GBI sites at least once a year. Which hasn’t been offered. “Mutual trust” it’s called. Like giving your credit card code on the net, basically.
Why does it matter? I think the West has proven over the last 15 or so years that they have NO interest in attacking Russia
No, of course, as long as Russia has nukes. That says it all.
…the US’s determination to prevent a nuke from going off in the US to disregard for Russia.
They best way to protect the US from such an disagreeable occurence is to enhance air- and seaport security. Which they don’t. Because if someone wants to get a nuke there, he/she will certainly not use a good old “improved SCUD”.
RSM55So Russia is just looking for excuses to nuke everybody eh?
Not looking for excuses. It’s official military doctrine since 2000 at least: in case of a sudden, even conventional and “restricted” counter-force strike, the reply will be massive and nuclear. GBI in Europe and elsewhere lower the threshold, that’s all.
Changing warheads might be easy but you can’t just wave you hands and voila it’s a different kind of missile. Let’s see you set the warhead on an SS-18 to not explode and try to use it as a hit-to-kill antiaircraft missile and see how successful you are. Oh and you can do no testing before hand either.
All newly purchased SS-19 (Ukrainian storage) will be armed with new warheads. Otherwise you’re absolutely right.
Are you claiming Russia wouldn’t notice a bunch of silos being dug in the ground for the additional missiles?
Of course they will. However, the big issue here is the following: unlike START I and II and CFE and consorts, there is absolutely no control mechanism here on a political and / or diplomatic level, which basically means that no one can be absolutely sure of what is in what silo. And that means… well, you know what that means.
Besides, let’s imagine that in 10 years time, the US decide unilaterally (which seems to be their most favourite adjective since quite a while) to uprade the number of European silos to…100. What should Russia do? Wait and see or stage a remake of the Cuban crisis?
Are you claiming Europe is breaking the CFE and INF Treaties? And what do ABMs have to do with either of those?
Well, in a sense Europe is breaking the CFE treaties – the big Russian headache is that new NATO member states are not bound by the CFE – i.e. flank limits don’t apply to them – i.e. NATO could deploy anything there if it wants to – i.e. the Russians think retaining CFE like it looks now is a bit beyond their pay grade -i.e. they proposed a 100 times to new NATO member states to renew the treaty or abide to its terms, which they refused – i.e. Russians think a big conspiracy is going on here etc. QED.
There is hardware in the silos ready to shoot if needed. The Russian wonder weapon has never even flown on a Topol let alone been deployed on it. It’s been flight tested once with dubious results and that was on an SS-19.
There is hardware, in silos, and ready to shoot – but not really ready to intercept. Look hard at the conditions and parameters of the handful of successful tests – you’ll become slightly less optimistic, to say the least. Even Safeguard did better (which says a lot).
The “Russian wonder weapon” has been tested more than once, and hypersonic manoeuvre research has been going on there since years and years – of course no one claims it’s operational yet, but quite near completion. And the first time its first components were tested, it was on a S-200. Besides, the results were not dubious at all…But in any case, if the Russians thought it clever to let NATO believe that the CEP of their warheads was 2 times greater than it was in reality, and managed to conceal it for 40 years, I wonder what kind of “anti-advertisement” they’re planning now.
Who ever said GBI can’t be overwhelmed with numbers? I simply said that if it’s properly located it would have no problem dealing with this super weapon one-on-one.
Well, it’s a plain no. GBI can intercept single, non-MIRVed, unstealthy, unprotected and slow warheads not surrounded by cinematic and radioactive thermically representativ decoys. It can be defeated by almost anything Russia has in its arsenal now. I won’t even mention the heavy decoys and the like. Look at the parameters again, esp. speed, vertical velocity and all the open-source stuff.
My guess is more (conspiracy theorists around? 🙂 ) that GBI is a veil for an ASAT weapon. No one could be stupid enough to rely so heavily on exo-atmospheric non-nuclear ABM kill vehicles. But for an ASAT… it’s ideal.
And where is the Topol going to make that turn, in space or in the atmosphere?
Both actually. The Topol-M would, at least. MIRVs and MARVs do exactly that since a decade at least, no need to look for a super-weapon of sorts.
That’s what MKV is for.
If the GBI missed what the MKV is for because of decoys, then its too late, because it means that the device is too good for the MKV to handle. And please don’t mention THAAD and SM-3…
You tell me. You’re the one trying to use it to support your arguement that GBI in Poland is really some conspiracy to put 10 nuclear land attack missiles in silos in Europe.
It isn’t. But it could. In future. Maybe.
You know, the whole MAD thing was based upon the exclusion of the factor “maybe”.
Funny, I didn’t hear about those humanitarian Russians sending lots of ships and aircraft to help with the tsunami disaster several years ago.
Oh gosh… Don’t start with that please.
Bombing country A while helping country B (mostly for PR purposes – but that’s fine for me) doesn’t make you Mother Theresa.
Bombing country A while airdropping USAid packages to the residents of the same country A is clever, but it’s not altruism.
Besides, the humanitarian Russians can claim exactly the same thing about the Armenian earthquake – for example – or everywhere the EMERCOM has been active in the last decade. Does not change the point.
When has Russia EVER cared about anyone else’s needs?
Political rants in military forums are what thermonuclear war is to ecosystems. Unfortunately, deterrence is purely ethically based, i.e. useless here.
So please don’t start like that, because after such a phrase a global exchange begins and no one is wiser in the end.
But you asked a question, so I will give you something to consider:
– Russians basically care / cared about someone else’s needs when it’s congenial with their own, exactly like the US, France, Burkina Faso or the Martians. Examples include: Cuba, half of Africa, liberation movements in the East, the whole Warsaw pact (free oil, gas, weapons, art, equipment, roads, schools, fancy clothes and TV soaps – sorry, ballet… you know the list). Exactly like the US cares about the Saudis, Mexicans, Israelis etc. This phenomenon is variously called: raison d’Etat, national interests, conditio humana or more simply “the nature of things”.
– Russians actually can be caring, sometimes against their own interest. No native population in the whole Empire was erased – quite the contrary actually (unlike the Sioux, the Comanches, the Celts, the Old Prussians, the you-name-it), no native language(s) was forgotten or truly banned (unlike Bretonnic, Irish, Cornish, Basque, Kurdish…etc etc). And if the Russians cared about their own interest (be it in 1991 or now), they wouldn’t have had gone on demos in Tallinn together with the people there to get their independence , and Ukraine would be now divided in a Russian Eastern Province and a Polish Galicia.
If they had any brains at all they’d be putting shiny new stuff on their border with China. That’s far more of a threat than anything coming from Europe.
Well, they are actually. Almost all the newest hardware is directed there (with the notable exception of ADef, which is logical after all). And Ivanov just said a couple of days ago that the main fleet will be no more the Northern one, but the Pacific (for the same reasons). Europe is not a threat – you’re right. But can you guarantee that we’re in 1946 and not in 1920?
RSM55Added Later : After looking at the pics of Borei , I am fairly certain that she is a pump jet , If one looks at the stern , she dosent seem to have a narrow sleeker stern which one would expect from a Propellor , It looks more of broad smooth integrated with pumpjet , Also it dosent seem to carry the pelmeda Towed Sonar on the Top Rudder
Agree about the pumpjet. The towed sonar could be installed later, before industry trials. I would suggest that this would be the reason why the top rudder is concealed: it could reveal either the traditional docking sections for the towed array or a new kind of structure, which would automatically mean “we did some new R&D on sonars” and that’s not the kind of info that they want to air right now.
Sign In
