Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Missiles & WMDs
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

LMV-6.jpg

LMV-4.jpg

LMV-3.jpg

LMV-2.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Russia tests new missiles

This is a discussion on Russia tests new missiles within the Missiles & WMDs forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/new...archived=False MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia test-fired a new intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday featuring multiple warheads which can be independently ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 4.00 average.
Old May 29th, 2007   #1
Junior Member
Private First Class
Ares's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Russian Federation
Posts: 97
Threads:
Russia tests new missiles

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/new...archived=False

Quote:
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia test-fired a new intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday featuring multiple warheads which can be independently targeted, Russian agencies reported.

A Defence Ministry spokesman said the missile was fired from a mobile launcher at 1420 Moscow time (1020 GMT) from the Plesetsk cosmodrome about 800 km (500 miles) north of Moscow, Interfax news agency reported.

The RS-24 missile can be armed with up to 10 different warheads, the Defence Ministry told Interfax.

It said the new missile would replace earlier generation intercontinental missiles such as the RS-18 and RS-20.

Missiles carrying multiple independently targeted warheads are more difficult to intercept and destroy completely once they have been fired.

Russia has previously said U.S. plans to build a system in Europe to intercept and shoot down hostile missiles are a threat to its own security. Washington says the system is intended to counter rogue states and does not threaten Russia.
Any information on the RS-24 ?
Ares is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2007   #2
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Russia
Posts: 55
Threads:
changing flight path

and complex p-500

Last edited by ultrafankul; May 29th, 2007 at 03:38 PM.
ultrafankul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30th, 2007   #3
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Croatia/Split
Posts: 330
Threads:
Seems to me that RS-24 is new Russian heavy ICBM with the range of 12 000km , 10 nuclear warheads each 150-300kT and with all countermeasures and posibly MARV.

About P-500 huh have no idea, some cruise missile on ISKANDER TEL.
Viktor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2007   #4
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Russia
Posts: 55
Threads:
"Искандер-М" (ISKANDER TEL)
P-500
action range is 280-300 km or more( by wish)
the velocity is 3000 km/h
rocket control is realised by satellite or dispiloting
is appropriated for suppression of the opponent ПВО))

sorry for my english
ultrafankul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2007   #5
Junior Member
Private First Class
Ares's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Russian Federation
Posts: 97
Threads:
According to various sources and analysts the RS-24 is a heavily modified and upgraded Topol-M (SS-27). Yes the P-500 is the second newest missile tested by the Russians the first is the RS-24. The P-500 is a modernized Iskander-M hence notice the M means -Modernizoveney.
Ares is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2007   #6
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Croatia/Split
Posts: 330
Threads:
I have read som bad translation from Russia...P-500 has odd trajectory as I understand... par balistic and part like cruise missile... its range i would not stick with the 300km.... perhaps it more...
Viktor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2007   #7
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,614
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viktor View Post
I have read som bad translation from Russia...P-500 has odd trajectory as I understand... par balistic and part like cruise missile... its range i would not stick with the 300km.... perhaps it more...
It is more than 300 and most likely close to 500km but with somewhat reduced payload compared to Iskander-E. 300km was artificaly introduced to comply with export missile technology treaty.
Chrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2007   #8
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
XaNDeR's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 325
Threads:
They spend so much on strategic forces , they should rather spend that on conventional forces
XaNDeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2007   #9
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,658
Threads:
Why should they?
Their strategic nuclear forces give them much more weight than they could ever hope to achieve with their conventional forces.
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2007   #10
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
XaNDeR's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 325
Threads:
Because conventional forces are the most important part of the military

Strategic forces are good in flexing muscles and all but come on , seriusly , nobody is stupid enough to nuke some country that has nuclear capability, and out of my awarenes russia has the biggest nuclear stockpile atm , bigger than usa i belive , its not much of a diference , anyway my point is beeing the biggest nuclear country , or 2nd biggest , why would you want more? nobody is gonna atk you just caus of that , i would concentrate my atention on conventinal forces if I was them , that was my sole point :P
XaNDeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 6th, 2007   #11
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,658
Threads:
They are not trying to get back to cold war.
They pump money into their strategic forces to keepn them from rusting away.
It is an upgrade and conslidation of their strategic arsenal.
In the 90s their strategic forces were on the same way of disintegrating like their conventional forces.
So much that even a successfull first strike of the US might have been possible (As unthinkable as it is but you have to plan this way).

Their sat assets coming down without being replaced, many early warning systems not functioning anymore and standing in other GUS countries, their SSBNs not going onto regular patrols anymore...

It was time to react and with the new flush of oil&gas money they are doing right in consolidating their strategic forces and give them priority over their armed forces.
In the end it is not their conventional might which gives Russia and international weight which doesn't reflects its real economic and conventional military strength.
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 6th, 2007   #12
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
XaNDeR's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 325
Threads:
Thats true but they should also give priority on increasing their projection capability of conventional forces
XaNDeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 6th, 2007   #13
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
eckherl's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,268
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by XaNDeR View Post
Thats true but they should also give priority on increasing their projection capability of conventional forces
Why is it the outmost importance to build up their conventional forces, at the current threat level they have enough to make anybody think twice about starting any type of confrontation with them.
eckherl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 6th, 2007   #14
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,658
Threads:
You cannot give priority to both, the conventional and the strategic forces.
The word priority implies that one branche comes first.

As Eckherl said it is not as if Russia is defenseless.
Their forces might have been suffered since the end of cold war (Even when you consider that it starts to look better recently).
But that only means that they are not able to perform the big offensive maneuvers once envisioned by the red army and not that they are defenseless.
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 6th, 2007   #15
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
XaNDeR's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 325
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander View Post
You cannot give priority to both, the conventional and the strategic forces.
The word priority implies that one branche comes first.

As Eckherl said it is not as if Russia is defenseless.
Their forces might have been suffered since the end of cold war (Even when you consider that it starts to look better recently).
But that only means that they are not able to perform the big offensive maneuvers once envisioned by the red army and not that they are defenseless.
I agree but they invented so much tehnological advanced things , like Ka-50 , Su-37 , Su-34 , Black Eagle , yet they just dont build them , they have like 16 Ka-50's 20 Ka-52's , 1 Su-37 etc. They should modernize faster and also improve their capability , increase the power projection and decrease the chances for failure , deaths , etc.
XaNDeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:41 AM.