Defense Technology & Military Forum

Defense Technology & Military Forum (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/)
-   Missiles & WMDs (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/missiles-wmds/)
-   -   Russia might bring ICBM on trains (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/missiles-wmds/russia-might-bring-icbm-trains-12349/)

Wall83 December 26th, 2012 07:17 PM

Russia might bring ICBM on trains
 
Acourding to this article Russia has plans to bring back the missiletrains again.
The plans is to bring them back in the 2020s.

The new missile will be half the wieght of the old SS-24 missiles that once was used.

Russia to Bring Back Railroad-Based ICBM

Feanor January 12th, 2013 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wall83 (Post 257187)
Acourding to this article Russia has plans to bring back the missiletrains again.
The plans is to bring them back in the 2020s.

The new missile will be half the wieght of the old SS-24 missiles that once was used.

Russia to Bring Back Railroad-Based ICBM

God, I hope not. This is a spectacular waste of already limited funds.

K1L0 January 25th, 2013 04:16 AM

Why do you think so?

Feanor January 31st, 2013 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K1L0 (Post 258376)
Why do you think so?

Well this took me a while to see. Russia has more then enough ICBM projects on-going right now. The Topol family is still in production (including the Yars), the Avangard is a new ICBM, and apparently in addition to that a new liquid-fueled ICBM is planned. There's no need for yet another future ICBM project.

MagnumGTO February 8th, 2013 09:28 AM

twise lighter is mean weight of yars and topol. strange that you not get it.

SteelTiger 177 March 4th, 2013 04:49 PM

Why would the Russians want to go abck to liquid fuelled ICBMS.If i remember liquid fuelled missles took a long time to prep for launch and were vunerable to air attack when compaired to solid fuels missles were much easier to ready for launch.Plus Railway launchers are also vulnerable to attack by air (both on ther move and while stationary) and to special ops arids while being stationary.The truly protected missles in the Russian military are the slbms on board their remaing Typhoons and Delta-4 Subs.

Feanor March 4th, 2013 05:06 PM

The Topol family is pretty good too, given their mobility, and dispersion.

Also heavy liquid fuel missiles can carry much more in the way of penetration aids, decoys, etc. Finally bigger payload matters too. I don't know what the prep time for them is like.

An afterthought, train launchers might make some sense if they can use existing Topol family designs and simply mount them on train-TELs. Then they wouldn't need a new ICBM, just some adaptations to the launcher mechanism for railway travel. But I'm still not sure if it would offer any major advantage over regular Topol style TELs.

Lcf March 4th, 2013 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTiger 177 (Post 260096)
Why would the Russians want to go abck to liquid fuelled ICBMS.If i remember liquid fuelled missles took a long time to prep for launch and were vunerable to air attack when compaired to solid fuels missles were much easier to ready for launch.Plus Railway launchers are also vulnerable to attack by air (both on ther move and while stationary) and to special ops arids while being stationary.The truly protected missles in the Russian military are the slbms on board their remaing Typhoons and Delta-4 Subs.

Then why stop on railway launchers, why not raid all their missile silos as well? As for the submarines, with that approach while having in mind US's supremacy in air thanks to all those aircraft carriers, one could also think that sub. capabilities could be reduced to zero as well because the submarines principal adversary is aviation.
In any case, it was originally thought that missiles launched from the moving trains were harder to track than stationary launches.
As for the liquid-fuel ballistic missiles, even though more expensive and complex to use than their solid-fuel counterparts, they can have bigger payloads, more electronic equipment necessary for suppression of anti-ballistic missile systems, as part of their payload etc.

Feanor December 18th, 2013 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor (Post 260099)
The Topol family is pretty good too, given their mobility, and dispersion.

Also heavy liquid fuel missiles can carry much more in the way of penetration aids, decoys, etc. Finally bigger payload matters too. I don't know what the prep time for them is like.

An afterthought, train launchers might make some sense if they can use existing Topol family designs and simply mount them on train-TELs. Then they wouldn't need a new ICBM, just some adaptations to the launcher mechanism for railway travel. But I'm still not sure if it would offer any major advantage over regular Topol style TELs.

It's like I can see the future or something. Missile trains are indeed coming back with existing Yars missiles being mounted on train-TELs disguised as refrigerator cars.

Денис Мокрушин - "Ярс" в БЖ*К
Lenta.ru:

Rimasta December 19th, 2013 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor (Post 272799)
It's like I can see the future or something. Missile trains are indeed coming back with existing Yars missiles being mounted on train-TELs disguised as refrigerator cars.

Денис Мокрушин - "Ярс" в БЖ*К
Lenta.ru:

The Russians have said this is their response to the U.S. Air Force's Global Strike initiative, using minuteman 3's with conventional warheads and future hypersonic weapon systems. They are contracting the same folks who developed the Bulva missile to begin the program next year. The article is on defencetalk, just got posted. It appears the Russians feel nuclear weapons are an appropriate response to a conventional strike on a strategic assets. I say that is a dangerous precedent, and it's puzzling to me, do they honestly believe the US/NATO is planning or preparing for a conflict with Russia? Given the drastic cuts to defense throughout most of the Alliance, I don't think anyone is contemplating a strike on Russia.

Any idea why they seem so paranoid of a apparent attack? Is it purely internal politics generating an image of a foreign enemy? Also, given the Russian launchers are mobile, at least a great many are, why not stick to that then branch off into rail deployable as well. I think you are right, they are spending, no wasting, money better invested into other areas of the strategic rocket forces.

Feanor December 19th, 2013 03:04 PM

Well it's that there is no way for an early warning system to distinguish between an ICBM with a nuclear warhead and a conventional warhead. Plus Russia has very few ways of countering modern US strike assets, be they in the form of VLO aircraft, or cruise missiles. Russia has little desire to see these already problematic capabilities augmented with a strategic strike capability using next-generation munitions and platforms. If they can make it politically problematic for the US to deploy these sorts of assets, they can make it impractical for the US to use it.

Also, Russia has had a first use policy for quite some time now. If Russian sovereignty or existence as a state is threatened even by non-nuclear means, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons.

As for NATO, you're right. European NATO is certainly in no position to pull this off. The US on the other hand is an entirely different story.

Now the road-mobile ICBMs are in known deployment sectors, very large, and can be spotted from a long way away (from orbit). There are ways to hide them, and there are decoys for them, but ultimately they're considered to be too vulnerable. The advantage of the railroad-based complex is that a Yars missile fits inside a regular refrigerator car. From space, from air, it looks like a normal refrigerator car.

As for money spent, if they can pull it off with existing missiles, the costs could be fairly low.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2003-2011 DefenceTalk.com. All Rights Reserved.