Russian submarine successfully test-launches strategic missile

SOCHI, July 13 (RIA Novosti) – Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday that Russia had successfully test-launched a strategic missile from a submarine.

“The target was hit and the pieces of the missile landed in the designated area,” the president said at a meeting with Navy personnel in Russia’s Black Sea resort of Sochi.

The president said the test occurred on Monday, but did not specify the type of missile or the name of the submarine.

Last month Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky, the Russian Navy commander, said Russia would carry out the next test of a Bulava sea-launched ballistic missile in late July, one of a total of four or five launches this year.

Despite five failures in 10 trials, the last unsuccessful trial being in December 2008, Russia’s Defense Ministry is planning to complete Bulava tests and put the ICBM into service by the end of 2009.

The Russian military says the Bulava, along with Topol-M ballistic missiles, will become the backbone of Russia’s nuclear triad.

The triad comprises land-based ballistic missile systems, nuclear-powered submarines armed with sea-launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers carrying nuclear bombs and nuclear-capable cruise missiles.

I believe it was the SINEVA

http://www.lenta.ru/news/2009/07/13/sineva/

Bush kept trying to get the replacement nuclear warhead funded and guess who kept killing it? That’s right, the Democrat-controlled congress. And now Obama has said the US is stopping all work on any new nuclear weapons.

If Bush had got his way, it would have been interesting to see how the nuke replacement program would fit in his tight $600b defense budget.
Either the military budget would have to expand or some conventional weapons programs would have to be cut down.

There is not a lot of photos from the Naval show.

there are some nice photos on this thread of a Russian forum:

http://talks.guns.ru/forummessage/47/485283.html

Trolling or not. I find the topic very interesting. Sorry fanboys.

As for the subject of SC ability (Raptor and/or PAK-FA). I believe it is being used as marketing/advertising tool as well as to make fanboys happy 🙂

In my opinion SC ability is not a “real” requirement. It is just the byproduct of high thrust to weight ratio.

Operationally, acceleration is far more important than SC.

If the raptor is as stealthy as claimed, then what is the rush? why use the extra fuel for 100 or 200 nm of SC speeds?

If higher speeds are a necessity because of tactical situation (urgent deployment to a location or to avoid imminent danger or to give a boost to its own weapons), then fvck SC and hello full afterburner.

The Moscow ABM system perhaps is within treaty, but what about all the other systems which Almaz advertises as been capable of taking out ballistic targets. Is the Russian Federation allowed an unlimited number of S-400s?:confused:

The S-400 is effective against the shorter range ballistic missiles. It cannot intercept US ICBMs and SLBMs. While the US system to be placed in Poland can.

Like I said, an upset in the strategic nuclear “balance of power” is exactly that, regardless as to who carries out the actual change in their armoury, or how they carry it out. Even the alleged upgrade of the Russian air force’s MiG-31 to BM standard could be classed as such a change in nuclear parity, if it improves the RuAF’s ability to repell ALCMs. The FOXHOUND could prove to be a better “repeller” of nuclear warheads then the Central European BMD system, who knows..

With that logic of yours, and SSN that hunts an SSBN is an ABM system…wait, an ICBM (in a surprise attack) is an ABM system because it can destroy an ICBM silo…:diablo:

Is the FSB knocking on CrazyMK’s door?

🙂

Russian 5th generation fighter to make maiden flight in 2009 – military official

Yo need a subscription to read the above article. Headlines are from page below (today’s date):

http://www.militarynews.ru/EMAIN.ASP

I thought Steregushy was going to get the VLS Shtil system?

Here’s missile guidance 101 in brief for TVM and SAGG.

TVM: radar tracks target. Missile seeker operates in a sort of SARH mode and receives reflected energy from the target. The data received is then datalinked to the guidance station on the ground, which formulates the guidance commands and sends them back to the missile. Were it true SARH guidance, the missile would be generating its own guidance commands to home in on the target. The advantage here is that you get pretty good accuracy without a really complicated missile, and you get better accuracy by using the greater computing power of the ground station to sort things out and generate guidance commands.

SAGG: Engagement radar tracks target. Missile and engagement radar both receive radar reflections back and calculate an idea of the target’s position. The missile sends its idea to the radar on the ground. The radar then compares the data and figures out where the target really is, sending guidance commands back up to the missile. This is better than TVM as you are comparing two sets of data. The missile’s computed data is “aiding” the “ground” based radar set, hence the term Seeker Aided Ground Guidance.

That’s a little bit of an oversimplification, but it should get the general idea across.

Thanks SOC. Now it is clearer to my humble brain 🙂

You are saying SARH (semi active radar homing), but I believe you mean ARH (active radar homing).

As for SHTIL on Steregushy. SHTIL is operational and available. If that was the plan, the lead unit would be equipped so. The reason it has the KASHTAN gun/missile combo is because the new missile system (9M96 or other) is not ready yet. That is the general belief (and it could be all wrong of course).