Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelTiger 177  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.
