Strategic Rocket Forces (RVSN): Discussion & News

Share of modern missiles in Russian Strategic Missile Forces to reach 56% by year end

During the 2015 summer training period, more than 30 tactical exercises with missile regiments and more than 20 special tactical exercises will be conducted, RVSN spokesman said

MOSCOW, June 1. /TASS/. The share of modern missile systems in the Russian Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) will reach 56% by the end of the year, RVSN spokesman Igor Yegorov told reporters on Monday.

"During the 2015 summer training period, more than 30 tactical exercises with missile regiments and more than 20 special tactical exercises with support and security units will be conducted, including more than 30% snap drills. By the end of this year, the share of modern missile systems will reach 56%," Yegorov said.

According to him, the Strategic Missile Forces will have a total of more than 100 command-staff, tactical and special exercises in 2015. The exercises will be conducted in a complex and tense situation, including with the involvement of inter-service interactive forces and means.

Yegorov said the strategic missile troops will pay the most attention to the Safe Environment drill. "The Strategic Missile Forces’ manoeuvres with NBC protection play a special role. The NBC protection units will drill during the manoeuvres detection of more than 10 varieties of pathogens causing bacterial and viral diseases, including such as anthrax, plague and Ebola," the Strategic Missile Forces representative said.

Russian nuclear forces to get 40 new intercontinental missiles this year — Putin

Russia Will Add 40 ICBMs In 2015 In Response To "NATO Encroachment"


President Putin said that Russia will put more than 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles into service in 2015 as part of a wide-reaching program to modernize the military.



The move is in response to what Russia has slammed as an aggressive expansion of military presence in NATO states in Eastern Europe, which as we reported yesterday would provoke Russia to respond by stationing its army on its western borders. To wit: "stationing heavy U.S. military equipment in the Baltic states and eastern Europe would amount to "the most aggressive step by the Pentagon and NATO" since the Cold War, Interfax news agency quoted a Russian Defense Ministry official as saying on Monday. "Russia would be left with no other option but to boost its troops and forces on the western flank," General Yuri Yakubov was quoted as saying.



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-16/nuclear-arms-race-back-putin-will-add-40-icbms-year

What is it Yars-M missile?. Is that there RS-26 ? or another missile

Teshub wrote:

victor1985 wrote:Question: all ICBM systems are electrical right? Well a nuclear emp could disrupt all electronics in all ICBMs that targeting russia.

Well, yes and no.  Here's a 'very' simplified explanation of the physics involved...

The best way of attacking ballistic missiles is using SG-EMP, or the impact of X and Gamma rays directly against the materials of the warhead itself, unhindered by atmosphere: i.e. a high altitude burst. Unfortunately a high altitude burst will have a devastating wide area effect against your own military (and civilian) infrastructure - something in the region of a 25+ kilovolt EMP out to the visible line-of-sight horizon (which can be pretty far depending on detonation altitude). So you'd get a single EMP attack off, before rendering most of your own radar and satellite systems off-line.

The other alternative is to hit the incoming warheads at a lower altitude, somewhere below 30km. This localises the warhead-killing EMP effect to within a handful of kilometres, but preserves your own infrastructure. This may seem a superior method of countering ICBMs, but a side effect of your first defensive EMP will ionise the atmosphere, producing a conductive layer and thus preventing any further EMPs from occurring until a period of minutes to hours has passed.

So the easiest way of defeating a EMP nuke defence, is to simply stagger your ICBM launches and assume that the first wave will be lost. Successive waves will then be immune to EMP due to stratosphere ionisation or loss of satellite/radar detection and targeting.

This is why Russia is developing systems like the S-500 to target hypersonic ballistic warheads with kinetic kills.

Small size nuclear emp bombs could hit those icbms. Or only emp no nuclear or a rocket whit a directed energy antenna on it....

victor1985 wrote:Small size nuclear emp bombs could hit those icbms.

Yes they could. It might have been lost in translation, but I think you need to re-read my post again to understand why this is not a viable defence.

Or only emp no nuclear or a rocket whit a directed energy antenna on it....

Technically it could be possible. However there are a number of major issues.

Okay we'll start with range first. The recent revelation of the Mosow Radio Engineering Institute's super-high frequency (SHF) microwave cannon, suggests that the truck-sized weapon has a disabling range of 10km. Although it was stated that it would work against "warheads of high precision weapons", we don't know if that meant cruise missiles or GPS guided shells, neither of which has a lot of spare mass for EMP shielding. I'd be very surprised if US ICBM warheads didn't have some shielding (just to protect them from the EMPs of nearby friendly nukes), so we have no idea if the BUK mounted EMP cannon could even affect it.

That caveat aside, its limited range is very problematic since an ICBM warhead will have a terminal velocity in the region of 7km/s. That leaves less than 1.5 seconds to fry the electronics, less if you consider the nuke is likely to be an air-burst... which is not a lot of time to acquire, pan and shoot if its a MARV. I'm specifically leaving out your proposal of an EMP missile akin to CHAMPS here since its limited volume would reduce the EMP strength/range still further and head-on closing speeds would render the intercept/fire period to a fraction of a second.

There is another significant problem with directed microwaves penetrating the plasma sheath of a ballistic warhead. Microwaves tend to be absorbed or reflected by the plasma of the re-entry shockwave, so much of the energy will be diffused leaving insufficient power to overwhelm its electronics. If your physics and math are up to it, take a look at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/865522.pdf

The final problem is that of economics. Assuming an effective EMP cannon capable of taking out a nuke was possible, you would be looking at a very large (probably immobile) installation to generate a powerful enough microwave beam. This would take a huge amount of electrical power so massive generators, capacitors, focussing dishes, cooling systems and so on. I wouldn't be surprised if building one cost at least as much as the ICBMs they were defending against, say $50 million a pop.

A worthy expenditure you might think, but in reality you are going to need to build hundreds - if not thousands - of them, since each microwave projector is going to only get a single shot off during the terminal approach of a MIRV volley and the weapons themselves will have a very limited range. The US submarine force alone has 1,152 MIRV warheads and when you add decoys to the attack, you're effectively swamping a weapon with limited reach, cycling and targeting window time.

So whilst the idea might sound feasible as a concept, directed EMP weapons are not the answer - at least not yet. The cheapest and most efficient method of destroying ballistic nukes is still a kinetic kill missile.

No matter if usa can intercept ICBMs. Because if they have sensors that make ICBMs explode at usa missiles approach they can make a emp wave up in the ionosphere. So....just make a nuke that affect only the target not russia even if the target is close

Austin wrote:A very good interview and informative debate on Solid Versus Liquid fuel from NPO Mash

Also gives you an idea what the new warhead of Avangrad is like

Debate On Solid Vs Liquid Propelled Missiles: Russia

All those can be calculated by a supercomputer. Just plug in the numbers ....all numbers....years of deposit of fuel money spent cost of each material probability of interception probability of failure ...some tests of subcomponents....all numbers...so compare solid fuel whit liquid. And you get the % of efficiency

Russian Defense Ministry to Debate Drones for Missile Forces – Statement

The Russian Defense Ministry plans to discuss the use of drones in its Strategic Missile Forces at a regular ministerial meeting Wednesday, it said in a statement.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — "The council will focus on assessing the progress on the Strategic Missile Forces’ plan from now and up to 2020, as well as on the implementation of a concept of using complexes that utilize unmanned aerial vehicles," the ministry said, adding the panel will be chaired by Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu.

Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces is a branch of the military that controls the nation’s land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Israel and the United States are currently the world leaders in the drone industry. In 2011, Russia announced its plans to build a domestic UAV. Earlier this June, the country’s Defense Ministry said it would send new Orlan-10 drones on ecological monitoring missions to patrol the Arctic.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150624/1023770934.html#ixzz3dxGsYhXD

Russian missile forces divisions to be fully rearmed with Yars systems by 2021 — ministry

The Topol mobile missile system will be withdrawn from service by 2021

MOSCOW, July 21. /TASS/. All missile divisions of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) are planned to be rearmed with the Yars and Yars-M mobile ground missile systems with the RS-26 missile in 2021, Colonel General Viktor Yesin, an advisor to the RVSN commander, said on Tuesday.

"The process of rearmament of all missile divisions, which now use the Topol missile complex, with the Yars mobile missile system and Yars-M system, which is sometimes called Rubezh, with the RS-26 missile, is planned to be completed in 2021. By that time, the Topol mobile missile system is to be withdrawn from service," Yesin said.

According to him, the Topol missile system is currently in service with 7 RVSN divisions of the total 12. "The Teikovo missile division has been rearmed with the Topol-M and Yars missile systems now. Its rearmament has been completed," he said.

So only Topol (SS-25) will all be removed by 2021 or Topol-M (SS-27) also?

GarryB wrote:

All missile divisions of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) are planned to be rearmed with the Yars and Yars-M mobile ground missile systems with the RS-26 missile in 2021, Colonel General Viktor Yesin, an advisor to the RVSN commander, said on Tuesday.

Based on this statement, the Yars and Yars-M will be the only missiles within the RVSN by 2021.

So Topol and Topol-M will no longer be in service... though the rockets themselves might be used for satellite launching...

That same article claimed that the Topol-M was just used to rearm a missile division; along with the Yars - "its rearmement has now been completed".

I doubt they would rearm it again within the next 6 years.

Read carefully - firstly it says that

"The process of rearmament of all missile divisions, which now use the Topol missile complex, with the Yars mobile missile system and Yars-M system, which is sometimes called Rubezh, with the RS-26 missile, is planned to be completed in 2021"

Meaning only that those missile divisions which currently use the Topol missile complex will be affected by the rearmement (but no mention of Topol-Ms being replaced).

The second confusing part is this; which seems contradictory to the first statement at first glance.

"All missile divisions of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) are planned to be rearmed with the Yars and Yars-M mobile ground missile systems with the RS-26 missile in 2021"

Which means only that all missile divisions will have Yars and/or Yars-Ms in them by 2021. However it says nothing about getting rid of Topol-Ms. We've already established that it's the Topols that the MoD seems to want  to replace.

Taken together with the first statement, we can deduce that all missile divisions not yet rearmed - are in fact armed with the Topol missile system at least partially; likely a mix of Topols and Topol-Ms.
By 2021, all those Topols will be gone and we'll end up with a range of missile divisions; some consisting of a mix of Topol-Ms and Yars, some with just Yars, and some just Yars-Ms would be my guess.

The new strategic missile "yars" and "Bulava" have significant potential to overcome missile defense systems - expert
7/22/2015 9:30:00

Moscow. July 22. Interfax-AVN - strategic missile systems "yars" and "Bulava" ability to guarantee to overcome current and future missile defense system, he said, "Interfax-AVN" the former Chief of Staff of the Strategic Missile Forces, Commander of the Strategic Missile Forces advisor Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin.

"This capability is achieved by a number of factors. In particular, it shortened the overclocking section of the flight path of rockets, ending at altitudes of about 100 kilometers," - said V.Esin.

He explained that in this area the rocket engines operate with the highest capacity, leaving an atmosphere of strong thermal radiation.

"Short overclocking section does not allow information-intelligence tools to pinpoint missile flight path separated from the rocket warheads. To compensate the error is very difficult, because the missile defense system the United States uses the kinetic intercept ballistic targets. Figuratively speaking, it is necessary to get a bullet in the bullet", - said V. Esin.

The second factor, which provides the overcoming missile defense, he said, is related to "the use of non-traditional combat equipment, namely warheads with difficult to predict the trajectory of the flight."

"They are usually called maneuvering. Interception of such units - unsolvable problem not only for missile defense systems, which are now creating the United States, but also for those who are planning to develop in the long term," - said the expert.

Another factor he called equipment complexes "yars" and "Bulava" advanced set of tools to overcome missile defense. "Such a complex guidance system does not allow the interceptor to allocate multiple target real warheads among the many false," - said V.Esin.

It seems new hypersonic warhead just struck it goal

Another Topol launch from Kapustin Yar tests new payload

Defense Ministry: RVSN ICBM test launch conducted RS-12M "Topol" from the landfill, "Kapustin Yar"

I thought avangard was supposed to be a heavy icbm to replace the ss-18?

sepheronx wrote:I thought avangard was supposed to be a heavy icbm to replace the ss-18?

That's Samaritan.

Russian Defense Ministry has taken in the 3rd quarter of 2015 8 ICBMs

No type mentioned however

Not sure where to post this question so i am posting it here.

It's a question that's been bothering me lately.  

I wanted to ask if it were possible for Russia to develop a Non-Nuclear ICBM using multiple FAOBs, and if such a weapon were indeed created what would be it's ramification with respect Treaties and deployment??

THX in advance.

AlfaT8 wrote:Not sure where to post this question so i am posting it here.

It's a question that's been bothering me lately.  

I wanted to ask if it were possible for Russia to develop a Non-Nuclear ICBM using multiple FAOBs, and if such a weapon were indeed created what would be it's ramification with respect Treaties and deployment??

THX in advance.

FOAB or overall Thermobaric bombs have a very good yield with high TNT equivalent compared with their actual weight/content and volume, however, they still do not achieve a formadible volume/weight to achieve the necessary kT yield ICBM (MIRVS) would have to make them feasible as an ICBM. The FOAB is based on the KAB-9000 a bomb that was classed in 9000kg class, the actual weight is 11.5t which is enormous. The biggest silo based ICBM is the SS-18 which is still in service and its payload is 8470kg, to carry such a huge warhead like a FOAB with 44kT explosive force would require a big burden for the missile, the warhead itself isn't really compromise-friendly since it must spread the cloud to all directions to unleash its optimal and devestating potential, due that it needs to be relatively far front (tip) of warhead which puts to much weight at front. That much weight at front will effect the missiles performance over time, when one stage after another are jettisoned and the missile gets lighter, the tip becomes more and more center of gravity, which will have very bad inflictions on the missiles maneuverability, stability and most probably would just rip it apart mid air. If all that hasn't screwed up the ICBM mid air, the reaction of the enemy will. He can not know and will not give a damn what payload your ICBM has, non nuclear, nuclear, candybar dropper or whatever, he will always assume it is a nuke and will react with counter offensive.

Strategic weapons as ICBM's are only good for one thing, detterence and assuring no one meddeles directly with you.

AlfaT8 wrote:Not sure where to post this question so i am posting it here.

It's a question that's been bothering me lately.  

I wanted to ask if it were possible for Russia to develop a Non-Nuclear ICBM using multiple FAOBs, and if such a weapon were indeed created what would be it's ramification with respect Treaties and deployment??

THX in advance.

It makes more sense to have a ground based electro-magnetic gun capable of launching projectiles at Mach 43-44 in to LEO, where the projectiles have scram-jet sustainers to maintain speed, or to build high altitude flying drones/cruise-missiles with the same EM gun built in to them.

Werewolf wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Not sure where to post this question so i am posting it here.

It's a question that's been bothering me lately.  

I wanted to ask if it were possible for Russia to develop a Non-Nuclear ICBM using multiple FAOBs, and if such a weapon were indeed created what would be it's ramification with respect Treaties and deployment??

THX in advance.

FOAB or overall Thermobaric bombs have a very good yield with high TNT equivalent compared with their actual weight/content and volume, however, they still do not achieve a formadible volume/weight to achieve the necessary kT yield ICBM (MIRVS) would have to make them feasible as an ICBM. The FOAB is based on the KAB-9000 a bomb that was classed in 9000kg class, the actual weight is 11.5t which is enormous. The biggest silo based ICBM is the SS-18 which is still in service and its payload is 8470kg, to carry such a huge warhead like a FOAB with 44kT explosive force would require a big burden for the missile, the warhead itself isn't really compromise-friendly since it must spread the cloud to all directions to unleash its optimal and devestating potential, due that it needs to be relatively far front (tip) of warhead which puts to much weight at front. That much weight at front will effect the missiles performance over time, when one stage after another are jettisoned and the missile gets lighter, the tip becomes more and more center of gravity, which will have very bad inflictions on the missiles maneuverability, stability and most probably would just rip it apart mid air. If all that hasn't screwed up the ICBM mid air, the reaction of the enemy will. He can not know and will not give a damn what payload your ICBM has, non nuclear, nuclear, candybar dropper or whatever, he will always assume it is a nuke and will react with counter offensive.

Strategic weapons as ICBM's are only good for one thing, detterence and assuring no one meddeles directly with you.

Thanks Werewolf, i guess making a single FAOB into an IRBM is also out of the question too, ooh well, i guess bombers will have to do, i hope in the future they'll make one light enough to at least be an IRBM.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Not sure where to post this question so i am posting it here.

It's a question that's been bothering me lately.  

I wanted to ask if it were possible for Russia to develop a Non-Nuclear ICBM using multiple FAOBs, and if such a weapon were indeed created what would be it's ramification with respect Treaties and deployment??

THX in advance.

FOAB or overall Thermobaric bombs have a very good yield with high TNT equivalent compared with their actual weight/content and volume, however, they still do not achieve a formadible volume/weight to achieve the necessary kT yield ICBM (MIRVS) would have to make them feasible as an ICBM. The FOAB is based on the KAB-9000 a bomb that was classed in 9000kg class, the actual weight is 11.5t which is enormous. The biggest silo based ICBM is the SS-18 which is still in service and its payload is 8470kg, to carry such a huge warhead like a FOAB with 44kT explosive force would require a big burden for the missile, the warhead itself isn't really compromise-friendly since it must spread the cloud to all directions to unleash its optimal and devestating potential, due that it needs to be relatively far front (tip) of warhead which puts to much weight at front. That much weight at front will effect the missiles performance over time, when one stage after another are jettisoned and the missile gets lighter, the tip becomes more and more center of gravity, which will have very bad inflictions on the missiles maneuverability, stability and most probably would just rip it apart mid air. If all that hasn't screwed up the ICBM mid air, the reaction of the enemy will. He can not know and will not give a damn what payload your ICBM has, non nuclear, nuclear, candybar dropper or whatever, he will always assume it is a nuke and will react with counter offensive.

Strategic weapons as ICBM's are only good for one thing, detterence and assuring no one meddeles directly with you.

Thanks Werewolf, i guess making a single FAOB into an IRBM is also out of the question too, ooh well, i guess bombers will have to do, i hope in the future they'll make one light enough to at least be an IRBM.

Not at all, there is Iskander with 750kg Thermobaric warhead. The equivalent of that thermobaric warhead should have above 1-2kT yield.