Russia tests new missiles

Ares

New Member
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/ne..._0_NEWS-RUSSIA-MISSILE-COL.XML&archived=False

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 ?
 

Viktor

New Member
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.
 

ultrafankul

New Member
"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;)
 

Ares

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
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.
 

Viktor

New Member
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...
 

Chrom

New Member
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.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Why should they?
Their strategic nuclear forces give them much more weight than they could ever hope to achieve with their conventional forces.
 

XaNDeR

New Member
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
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 

XaNDeR

New Member
Thats true but they should also give priority on increasing their projection capability of conventional forces
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 

XaNDeR

New Member
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.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 

Aby The Liberal

New Member
They spend so much on strategic forces , they should rather spend that on conventional forces
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. :)
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 

Chrom

New Member
I agree with waylander , do you have any idea how much balistic missiles cost and need for upkeep?
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.
 
Top