Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Russia tests new missiles

Discussion in 'Missiles & WMDs' started by Ares, May 29, 2007.

Share This Page

  1. Ares

    Ares New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Russian Federation
    http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/ne..._0_NEWS-RUSSIA-MISSILE-COL.XML&archived=False

    Any information on the RS-24 ?
     
  2. ultrafankul

    ultrafankul New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Russia
    changing flight path

    and complex p-500
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2007
  3. Viktor

    Viktor New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Croatia/Split
    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.
     
  4. ultrafankul

    ultrafankul New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Russia
    "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;)
     
  5. Ares

    Ares New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Russian Federation
    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.
     
  6. Viktor

    Viktor New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Croatia/Split
    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...
     
  7. Chrom

    Chrom New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. XaNDeR

    XaNDeR New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    0
    They spend so much on strategic forces , they should rather spend that on conventional forces
     
  9. Waylander

    Waylander Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
    Why should they?
    Their strategic nuclear forces give them much more weight than they could ever hope to achieve with their conventional forces.
     
  10. XaNDeR

    XaNDeR New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  11. Waylander

    Waylander Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
    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.
     
  12. XaNDeR

    XaNDeR New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thats true but they should also give priority on increasing their projection capability of conventional forces
     
  13. eckherl

    eckherl Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  14. Waylander

    Waylander Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
    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.
     
  15. XaNDeR

    XaNDeR New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  16. Waylander

    Waylander Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
    Prototypes.
    Money is a key.
    When you give your strategic forces priority (Which is defenitely the right decision from russias pow) you just don't have the money to get into full production with everyhing you develop. Be happy that your R&D departements still develop interesting stuff.

    BTW, there are also many interesting prototypes of new weapons systems in the west which have never seen serial production.
    It is not a purely eastern phenomenon.
     
  17. Aby The Liberal

    Aby The Liberal New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think Russia considers a serious war scenario with US or any other country which is why they built up nuclear forces rather than conventional ones. Nuclear forces are also cheaper to build than conventional which give smaller security for much more the cost. :)
     
  18. Waylander

    Waylander Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
    When I look at France which needs roughly 3 billions a year just for keeping their relatively small nuclear forces running (Not including R&D and new procurements) I don't think that nuclear forces are really that much cheaper.
     
  19. XaNDeR

    XaNDeR New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with waylander , do you have any idea how much balistic missiles cost and need for upkeep?
     
  20. Chrom

    Chrom New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cost: around 10mil USD for mobile version. For land based version somewhat more due to need for undeground placement.
    Upkeep: Like any truck / bunker. Probably around several hundreds thousands $$ per year. Plus guards, etc - probably cost much more to upkeep but on other hand they are professional soldiers reserve in any conflict.

    Of course, naval and aviation arms are much more expencive. Still new Russian SSBN with 16 missiles / 160 (96) warheads cost around 1 bil. Due to START threaty Russia cant have more than 10 such SSBN's. So, all in all not that much money when spread out on 15-20 years. Of course, support, infrastructure and ecscort for these SSBN cost much more - but this support fleet can be also used in conventional conflict - so it is dual-purpose. The very same could be said about aviation.

    I always said - ICBM's are by far the cheapest of all means to reliably protect any country. They are cheap to produce, maintain, and do not require any expencive follow-up technologies like SSBN's or strategic bombers.