Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.

Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.

Agreed.

I always found the whole discussion hilarious.

PapaDragon wrote:

Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.

Agreed.

I always found the whole discussion hilarious.

Not only ICBM silos can be primary target, but C&C bunkers, SSBNs moored to pliers , capital ships and so on.

Actualy I live not that far from a primary strategical nuclear target ,and the blast can destroy completly my house if the warhead miss the target by 1 km.

So I hope that they using precise guidance : )

Singular_Transform wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.

Agreed.

I always found the whole discussion hilarious.

Not only ICBM silos can be primary target, but C&C bunkers, SSBNs moored to pliers , capital ships and so on.

Chance that someone would use an ICBM aganist moving capital ship are...basically zero.

When its about stationary command and control bunkers etc, sure, however even those are not going to care much if it exploded on top of them or 200m to the left, effect i am afraid will be the same, alot of dead people.

Who do the first preventive full strike nuclear attack ,and take the other side by Surprise ,
will be able to destroy its most important infrastructure ,military bases and economic
zones first.

So unless Russia change its policy of not striking first , it will be in a serious disadvantage to
stop US military. If you just target cities ,it will not stop the military power of any nation .
But if you strike major economic zones , major military bases and bunkers. then you can
retreat that destroy the capabilities of that nation to continue fighting.

For example , lets Say a madman takes control of US policy , and orders a full all or nothing
strike on Russia , regardless of millions casualties that could happen in both sides. That is a
massive strike of couple of thousands missiles at ST peterburg ,Moscow ,and all major Russian naval bases and submarines and warships.

That will not necessarily defeat the Russia army ,but will significantly neutralize Russia
capabilities to strike US or NATO ,and the best they could do is just target without precision
Europe and US ,targeting cities. Taking into account that US most important military bases
are near civilian zones in Europe in nations Russia will like to have close relations like Germany and Italy. they also have bases in Canada and Norway etc. Then Russia will be at risk of losing
territory like Kalingrad if lose all its navy in a surprise attack. If Russia factories are nuked ,then neither Russia will have capability to produce tanks or rockets. if Russia space program nuked same. So in a nuclear war , US will have a huge advantage because their policy justify
a first nuclear strike. and it cant destroy in such strike 90% of Russia offensive capabilities and only limit to defense , that is ,to only limit is fighting capability only to fight back ground invasions. If that is the case ,then it will be a victory since US will remain largely untouched a dozens military bases nuked , and cities too ,but it will not stop US navy or airforce or army
if Russia allows US to carefully plan a full scale nuclear strike on Russia first.

If Russia is the one that does a full decapitation ,full scale ,all or nothing nuclear strike . then it will be the other way. Russia can strike US major military and naval bases , strike air craft carriers , US military industry ,and shot down the most important NATO satellites.

Means that if you have a well organized full scale attack either by US or RUssia starting it,,on top 50 or top 100 targets . that happens all of them at same time ,to keep the element of surprise. then in theory it should be possible to defeat a nation capability to fight outside of
its borders. Which essentially makes that nation the winner. For at least managing to retreat that country 20 years back in time if not 30. Is for nothing that NATO trains for an invasion
on Russia ,after they being nuked. This is why US store tanks in Norway. right next to Russian borders in a major fortress inside caves. Because in the ultimate case of a nuclear war , they
will use nukes to clear first and later invade Russia.

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.

Agreed.

I always found the whole discussion hilarious.

Not only ICBM silos can be primary target, but C&C bunkers, SSBNs moored to pliers , capital ships and so on.

Chance that someone would use an ICBM aganist moving capital ship are...basically zero.

When its about stationary command and control bunkers etc, sure, however even those are not going to care much if it exploded on top of them or 200m to the left, effect i am afraid will be the same, alot of dead people.

You using the ICBMs against the home port of the SSBNs and other capital ships.

Half - three quoter of the SSBNs at the home port next to the pier at any given moment.

So, if you won't hit it then in 24hours that will launch from the port the missiles as well .

Arrow wrote:

So Russia has strongest IADS in the world? In Russia only a few place has a strong IADS . Moscow, Petersburg, Crimea , Kaliningrad.

Best SAM? USA has  very good SAM system and better than Russia ABM system SM-3, GBI

How do you know? Really, how do you have any clue about US ABM missiles and how "superior" they are to Russian
missiles? You just swallow all the masturbatory yap about innate superiority of the US and its pals in everything technical.
Just because. Russians are a collection of mud hut dwellers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%E2%80%93235_anti-ballistic_missile_system

Oops, zero content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3

Mach 15, yep Russians could never design a missile that does Mach 15.

380km above horizon with current missile not including 40N6

Second, SM-6 is not only not proven, judging by performance of PAC-3, it won't be anything to brag about. Looks great on paper when you throw stuff out for sale.

Arrow wrote:

48N6DM missile has a 250 km max range.

Preferred/advertised. Tests have had it extended to 360 - 380km by pushing it.

Arrow wrote:They can destroy all typy target including high maneuverable fighter more than 400 km with ARH guidance.

 

Oh not, wait, it is 4000 km range.....or it is nautical miles ?


I remain always surprised by the level of garbage circulating on US built systems (in particular missile systems).

Like it was not possible to produce a very accurate model (and this ,for the range of engement performances, is obviously true both for theirs and ours interceptors) of kinematic boundaries of a missile with those precise dimensions and aerodynamic layout    

SM-6 is absolutely not competive ,and not merely under the strict range of engagement factor, in comaparison even only with 48Н6ДМ, let alone 40Н6.
In this particular sector over ocean have a very long way to go to reach where Алмаз-Антей was ten years ago.

Arrow wrote:

M-6 is absolutely not competive ,and not merely under the strict range of engagement factor, in comaparison even only with 48Н6ДМ, let alone 40Н6. In this particular sector over ocean have a very long way to go to reach where Алмаз-Антей was ten years ago. wrote:

Ok what adventages has 48N6DM to SM-6 missile?

Interesting, there is not so much certain information about the systems.
The 48N6DM road mobile, using cold launch, the minimal target altitude and range shorter than the sm-6, and the warhead is three times bigger .

The sm6 has active seeker, and maybe slightly longer range - depending on the size of the sensor suite .

Arrow wrote:

range shorter than the sm-6, and the warhead is three times bigger . wrote:

SM-6 can maneuver with greater overload on long distance. This missile has dual thrust solid rocket motor.

By simply the shape of the sm6 missile quite visible it using aerodynamic forces to manoeuvrer.


Both missile designed for specific targets and missions, the propellant has the same efficiency, the airframe has the same weight, the electronic has similar weight ,due to this the mayor difference is the mission profile.

Interesting video from Kommissar Binkov about how a nuclear war between US and Russia will unfold

Mindstorm wrote:

Oh not, wait, it is 4000 km range.....or it is nautical miles ?


I remain always surprised by the level of garbage circulating on US built systems (in particular missile systems).

Like it was not possible to produce a very accurate model (and this ,for the range of engement performances, is obviously true both for theirs and ours interceptors) of kinematic boundaries of a missile with those precise dimensions and aerodynamic layout    

SM-6 is absolutely not competive ,and not merely under the strict range of engagement factor, in comaparison even only with 48Н6ДМ, let alone 40Н6.
In this particular sector over ocean have a very long way to go to reach where Алмаз-Антей was ten years ago.

The lethality of submarine-borne US nuclear forces has increased drastically because of the advent of the new "Super Fuse" incorporated into the Navy’s W76-1/Mk4A warhead . Before the invention of this new fuzing mechanism, even the most accurate ballistic missile warheads might not detonate close enough to targets hardened against nuclear attack to destroy them. But the new super-fuze is designed to destroy fixed targets by detonating above and around a target in a much more effective way. Many Russian targets are not hardened to 10,000 pounds per square inch blast over pressure.

http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578

This should be a matter of huge concern for the Kremlin & immediate efforts must be made to neutralise this US threat.

jhelb wrote:
The lethality of submarine-borne US nuclear forces has increased drastically because of the advent of the new "Super Fuse" incorporated into the Navy’s W76-1/Mk4A warhead . Before the invention of this new fuzing mechanism, even the most accurate ballistic missile warheads might not detonate close enough to targets hardened against nuclear attack to destroy them. But the new super-fuze is designed to destroy fixed targets by detonating above and around a target in a much more effective way. Many Russian targets are not hardened to 10,000 pounds per square inch blast over pressure.

http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578

This should be a matter of huge concern for the Kremlin & immediate efforts must be made to neutralise this US threat.

Ah! I read this puffpiece 2 months back , you can look for my comment there. If the probability of one SS-18 silo destroying by W-76 warhead is equal to 0.86 due to the "super-fuze", then the probability of destroying this silo by using two warheads will be 0.98. Basing on this fact the authors claim that 272 W-76s on SLBMs are sufficient to eliminate all the Russian ICBMs in silos. But the theory of probabilities dramatically changes this estimate towards increasing of the number of warheads needed.

Indeed, assume the number of remaining SS-18 is equal to 50 (in fact a bit less). Then the probability of destroying all these 50 silos by using pairs of attacking W-76 warheads is equal to 0,98^50 = 0.36 ! Although the war readiness of these SS-18 is highly questionable, only one such ICBM that has survived, taken off and successfully deployed all the 10 warheads would become a catastrophe for the USA. PS:- SS-18 will be replaced by newly built Sarmat in 2018/19.

The problem of the ICBMs eliminating by a first strike is not as simple as the authors think.

"Since these radars cannot see over the horizon " . After I read phrase above in bulletin I stopped reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronezh_radar

As per fuses and all that crap--obviously nuclear technologies improve and will continue to improve and so will their accuracy, high as it is today. But there is a reason why Russia more and more begins to rely on non-nuclear (conventional) containment and deterrent.