ICBM/RV Questions Thread

limb wrote:Why can't the Topol-M, Yars and Bulava carry manevering reentry vehicles in general and the avangard specifically?

Who said they can't?

PapaDragon wrote:

limb wrote:Why can't the Topol-M, Yars and Bulava carry manevering reentry vehicles in general and the avangard specifically?

Who said they can't?

Russians having to bring back an obsolete silo based ICBM into service since it together with Sarlat is the only one that can carry the avangard?

limb wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

limb wrote:Why can't the Topol-M, Yars and Bulava carry manevering reentry vehicles in general and the avangard specifically?

Who said they can't?

Russians having to bring back an obsolete silo based ICBM into service since it together with Sarlat is the only one that can carry the avangard?

It's not obsolete, they had 30 of them in mint condition that are ready to go

Avangard completed development ahead of Sarmat so they mounted it on missiles that are good to go now instead of waiting

Also what does this have to do with maneuvering warheads?

Note: Topol-M is being phased out for a while now, Yars in current standard

PapaDragon wrote:
Who said they can't?

Aren't the avangaards deployed on only silo ones and limited to only liquid fueled missiles so far?

gbu48098 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Who said they can't?

Aren't the avangaards deployed on only silo ones and limited to only liquid fueled missiles so far?

First of all Topol-M, Yars and Bulava all carry carry manevering reentry vehicles

Second thing is that Avangard is fully maneuverable (violently so) craft in addition to being crazy fast that moves strictly through the atmosphere and doesn't behave like regular warhead delivery vehicle that regular ICBMs use

It's also huge and has to​ be mounted on large rockets (since ​it's air breathing vehicle it needs to carry it's own fuel supply hence the size) and it has no range limit, it's can approach target from any trajectory

Stiletto missile (UR-100N) can carry one of them, Sarmat will be able to carry three

PapaDragon wrote:

First of all Topol-M, Yars and Bulava all carry carry manevering reentry vehicles

Second thing is that Avangard is fully maneuverable (violently so) craft in addition to being crazy fast that moves strictly through the atmosphere and doesn't behave like regular warhead delivery vehicle that regular ICBMs use

It's also huge and has to​ be mounted on large rockets (since ​it's air breathing vehicle it needs to carry it's own fuel supply hence the size) and it has no range limit, it's can approach target from any trajectory

Stiletto missile (UR-100N) can carry one of them, Sarmat will be able to carry three

Correct, all ICBM's they have are capable of carrying MIRV unless they are single warhead configuration for whatever reason (more yield or START or whatever) but avangard is only heavy icbm's liquid fueled as you say for now. Wiki says its mass 2T, wonder what warhead yield would be like?

The stories about the Avangard flying at 30 km for thousands of kilometers are utter nonsense. At this altitude the warheads would lose
most of their kinetic energy in less than 1000 km and would require power to "glide". The whole idea of the Avangard is to use
a lifting body shape combined with Mach > 10 speed in the mesosphere-thermosphere transition layer to achieve large, non
predictable (thanks to active steering) trajectory changes spanning tens of kilometers horizontally. This is enough to totally
defeat any ABM concept let alone tested system.

The critical requirement is to have a high temperature (2000 C) resistant shell and to achieve lift in a very low density environment
via extremely high speed. The speed is the key. Western "analists" think Russia does not have the tech for such temperature
tolerance and thus engage in pre-school "analysis" where they fancy up some imbecilic non-powered flight in the upper stratosphere.
These retards should read some government documents on the dynamics of the descent of the Space Shuttle.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/cami/library/online_libraries/aerospace_medicine/tutorial/media/iii.4.1.7_returning_from_space.pdf

Figure 4.1.7-24:

The Shuttle spends most of the distance to landing strip above 65 km. At 30 km has gone from a speed of 7300 m/s which it had at 80 km to
about 1000 m/s. The descent curve of the Avangard is part of the same mathematical class as that of the Shuttle. The Avangard is basically
a small shuttle to start with. The size difference is not relevant when compared to the lift area to mass ratio. The Avangard would achieve
greater range by choosing a different angle of slope relative to the radial tangent. Even with the Shuttle's different objective, it still covers
5000 km of range after descending to about 77 km.

What about Rubezh? That is supposed to carry a boost glide warhead and is a solid rocket.

kvs wrote:The stories about the Avangard flying at 30 km for thousands of kilometers are utter nonsense.   At this altitude the warheads would lose
most of their kinetic energy in less than 1000 km and would require power to "glide".  The whole idea of the Avangard is to use
a lifting body shape combined with Mach > 10 speed in the mesosphere-thermosphere transition layer to achieve large, non
predictable (thanks to active steering) trajectory changes spanning tens of kilometers horizontally.    This is enough to totally
defeat any ABM concept let alone tested system.  

It may have a powered boost of some sort considering it mostly is an area weapon in terms of precision vs normal ballistic warheads.....ofcourse confirmation wont be easy

lancelot wrote:What about Rubezh? That is supposed to carry a boost glide warhead and is a solid rocket.

Probably not based on dimensions of solid fueled missiles vs liquid and the length of the glide vehicle atleast so far. I think liquid ones add some other benefits also for this type of glide warhead.

lyle6 wrote:

limb wrote:
The DF-21 has a maneuvering RV tho, and its an IRBM.

what's the IC in ICBM?

Intercontinental, hence much longer range and with a bigger payload.. A bigger payload that should carry the avangard...

IMO the avangard should be turned into a convventional antiship weapon that can use sheer kinetic energy to destroy it. Since it has unlimited range, it could destroy US carriers anywhere on the globe.  There are never enough hypersonic antiship missiles.

Second thing is that Avangard is fully maneuverable (violently so) craft in addition to being crazy fast that moves strictly through the atmosphere and doesn't behave like regular warhead delivery vehicle that regular ICBMs use

It's also huge and has to​ be mounted on large rockets (since ​it's air breathing vehicle it needs to carry it's own fuel supply hence the size) and it has no range limit, it's can approach target from any trajectory

any proof it has engines?

Russia should use its technological head start and  make an intermediate range ground launched boost glide vehicle like the one the US is trying to make.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40584/the-army-has-finally-revealed-the-range-its-new-hypersonic-weapon

And the DF-17. Theres absolutelly no reason why the Russian army and strategic missile forces  shouldnt have access to conventionally armed  tactical boost glide vehicles, instead of just intercontinental doomsday nuclear warhead only ones.

At least make the zircon ground launched.

Theres also the argument that americans pioneered stealth fighters, while Russia perfected them. Lets hope the opposite isnt true for hypersonic boost glide vehicles.

These things are pointless.
Russia has missile carrier submarines with Zircon.
It makes sense from the Chinese perspective since their nuclear submarines currently suck.
They need something to knock out nearby US bases and ships and this is cheaper than building ICBMs.

lancelot wrote:These things are pointless.
Russia has missile carrier submarines with Zircon.
It makes sense from the Chinese perspective since their nuclear submarines currently suck.
They need something to knock out nearby US bases and ships and this is cheaper than building ICBMs.

Why does the army need iskandersand novator cruise missiles  bur not tactical  boost glide vehicles?

Why does the air force need bombers when there's zirkon?

limb wrote:Why does the army need iskandersand novator cruise missiles  bur not tactical  boost glide vehicles?

Why does the air force need bombers when there's zirkon?

The bombers are just a way to save money dropping a lot of payload onto someone who can't defend themselves.
It is cheaper than discarding jet engines, which is what you do when you launch cruise missiles at a target.

The tactical boost glide vehicles will basically be limited to first strikes in case of a major war against a peer opponent.
Russia already has strategic boost glide vehicles (i.e. Avangard) and there are plans for putting them on top of Topol-M first stage (i.e. Rubezh).
What is the point in making a shorter range version of this?

Russia uses Iskander and cruise missiles because IRBMs and IRCMs were banned by the INF treaty.

Iskander is essentially a short range manouvering hypersonic missile, so what you are demanding is just a longer ranged Iskander... essentially an SS-20 they had in the 1980s and gave up for the INF agreement.

lancelot wrote:

limb wrote:Why does the army need iskandersand novator cruise missiles  bur not tactical  boost glide vehicles?

Why does the air force need bombers when there's zirkon?

The tactical boost glide vehicles will basically be limited to first strikes in case of a major war against a peer opponent.
Russia already has strategic boost glide vehicles (i.e. Avangard) and there are plans for putting them on top of Topol-M first stage (i.e. Rubezh).
What is the point in making a shorter range version of this?

Whats the point for having iskander then? Whats the point of kinzhal?

The tactical boost glide vehicles will basically be limited to first strikes in case of a major war against a peer opponent.

By that logic every single missile can only be used for first strike, which is ridiculous. Tactical boost glide vehicles are basically like the iskander, but longer ranged, more maneuverable and even more difficult to intercept.

What is the point in making a shorter range version of this?

To replace tactical ballistic missiles? To strike airfields, ships and command centers? To have 2000-3000km range while iskander has only 600km range? Where did you get to this retarded conclusion that boost glide vehicles are only usable for ICBMs?

Iskander is essentially a short range manouvering hypersonic missile, so what you are demanding is just a longer ranged Iskander... essentially an SS-20 they had in the 1980s and gave up for the INF agreement.

Yes, and currently the chinese and americans are designing boost glide vehicles superior to the iskander. Also INF treaty doesnt exist anymore.

limb wrote:Whats the point for having iskander then? Whats the point of kinzhal?

The tactical boost glide vehicles will basically be limited to first strikes in case of a major war against a peer opponent.

By that logic every single missile can only be used for first strike, which is ridiculous. Tactical boost glide vehicles are basically like the iskander, but longer ranged, more maneuverable and even more difficult to intercept.

What is the point in making a shorter range version of this?

To replace tactical ballistic missiles? To strike airfields, ships and command centers? To have 2000-3000km range while iskander has only 600km range? Where did you get to this retarded conclusion that boost glide vehicles are only usable for ICBMs?

Iskander and Kinzhal are more mobile. A missile of the kind you propose is too large and cannot be carried in a fighter bomber.
It will have the same launch platforms as ballistic missiles, i.e. TELs and nuclear submarines. At best you might carry one or two in a large strategic bomber.
Something like Zircon will be a lot more portable than those missiles because it does not carry the oxidizer with the missile.
Using tactical boost glide vehicles to attack targets with conventional explosives is a stupendous waste of money. The kinds of missions which will justify the use of something like this are quite limited.

Whats the point for having iskander then? Whats the point of kinzhal?

Iskander is already widely deployed and in service. Kinzhal is just an air launched Iskander.

They are excellent weapons for hitting difficult targets like SAMs and ABM sites because they manouver as they attack making them very hard to intercept even by systems designed to intercept ballistic missiles... because a manouvering missile is not a ballistic missile.

Now that the INF treaty is gone they can change from solid rocket fuel to scramjet powered weapons that could be smaller and lighter but also faster and longer ranged.

The problem with range for a missile is that to double a missiles range you can't just double to solid rocket fuel load... you generally have to triple or quadruple it, because most of a missiles weight is fuel so when you double the fuel weight you essentially double the weight of the entire weapon so you need twice the rocket power to get it moving, which burns fuel at double the rate.

The alternative is to not give it double the rocket power and have it start off much slower and accelerate to higher and higher speeds as it travels.

Generally the normal solution with ballistic weapons is to add a big extra stage with very powerful rockets so that the original rocket is already in the air at altitude and moving when it starts which massively improves its potential top speed and its range.

That is Kinzhal can reach 2,000km target, in this case a MiG-31 is a reusable first stage.

Its range could be further increased with a scramjet motor instead of solid fuel because it is more efficient because by weight rocket fuel is three quarters oxidiser and one quarter fuel, while with a scramjet the entire weight of the fuel is fuel and oxidiser is scooped up on the way, and of course without having to slow down air going into the intake the speeds the scramjet can operate at are much higher and comparable to solid rocket motors of much bigger sizes.

The current Iskander rocket with a solid rocket booster about half its length plus the existing rocket size with a scramjet motor and fuel could probably reach 3-4,000km without a lot of technical problems... and if it could fit on existing trucks would be even better in terms of getting the new system deployed.

The cruise missile version could use a Zircon like weapon without modification.

By that logic every single missile can only be used for first strike, which is ridiculous. Tactical boost glide vehicles are basically like the iskander, but longer ranged, more maneuverable and even more difficult to intercept.

Not really more difficult to intercept. A first strike by Russia on HATO with Iskander will likely lead to nuclear retaliation and vice versa...

To replace tactical ballistic missiles? To strike airfields, ships and command centers? To have 2000-3000km range while iskander has only 600km range? Where did you get to this retarded conclusion that boost glide vehicles are only usable for ICBMs?

Now that the INF treaty is gone they will already be working on such weapons, but I rather doubt they would start with glide vehicles from ICBMs because they are optimised for use with nuclear warheads and not conventional payloads.

Yes, and currently the chinese and americans are designing boost glide vehicles superior to the iskander. Also INF treaty doesnt exist anymore.

Why do you think the Russians are not?

Iskander and Kinzhal are more mobile. A missile of the kind you propose is too large and cannot be carried in a fighter bomber.
It will have the same launch platforms as ballistic missiles, i.e. TELs and nuclear submarines. At best you might carry one or two in a large strategic bomber.
Something like Zircon will be a lot more portable than those missiles because it does not carry the oxidizer with the missile.
Using tactical boost glide vehicles to attack targets with conventional explosives is a stupendous waste of money. The kinds of missions which will justify the use of something like this are quite limited.

I rather suspect the future of such weapons will be nuclear powered low flying supersonic missiles... low altitude makes them difficult to detect and supersonic speed make them difficult to intercept and deal with.