Questions and Ideas

GarryB wrote:the mechanism to raise a missile from horizontal to vertical would be quite substantial and also fairly slow to operate.

It makes rather more sense... particularly with silo based weapons to have them vertical and ready to fire.

On trucks where driving around with them vertical is not practical then raising them for launch is necessary.

Personally I think a super small missile with a fairly light payload would be the best solution so you cuold have 4 per truck or train carriage.

the other option would be a nuclear powered jet engine cruise missile with a dozen small warheads so the missile could fly around for years... and strike various targets without warning over a period of years zipping around at very high speed at low level.

Imagine WWIII and then a year after when you are starting to rebuild  a mach 3 missile flying at 200m altitude zooms through and releases a 200KT nuke...

flamming_python wrote:I think missile silos will become obsolete in the future; give it 2-3 decades. The problem is that they are designed to withstand nuclear blasts in close proximity. But they are not designed, and cannot be designed - to withstand nuclear blasts dead-centre, which more accurate future ballistic missiles might be able to achieve.

But in fact nukes aren't even needed nowadays at all for such targets - now that precision weapons and anti-bunker warheads are being mastered and the US is developing its Global Strike Doctrine, envisaging the use of a range of hypersonic precision conventional weaponry to achieve the tasks less-accurate nuclear ICBMs were reserved for in decades prior.

We're at the level now when specialized missiles now have both the accuracy and penetration to take out nuclear-missile silos.
What isn't present so far, is the technology to deliver such weapons to targets in Russia, past all the multiple layers of air-defenses. But it isn't hard to imagine future ICBMs with payloads of bunker-busting missiles.

victor1985 wrote:i tinked to something. if the rocket wouldnt stay vertically underground (i mean bunker ones) but horizontally and at launch to be in vertical form. or maibe burried deep underground and elevated up at launch. similar could be done in case of simple rockets for defence (stationary burried missile) whit holes camouflated so they are not visible from satellite. event strategic ICMB can be positioned somewhere not whit a lot of machines that could be visible from satellite. and i think ICMBs could be separated in parts not beeing need a huge truck that could be seen from satellite and mounted at lauch. also i think at ICMB for sea self motorized and self lift from the sea at close of enemy territory. could be use an electric motor whit computer at bord and advance silence protection

On the face of it a ICBM complex composed of multiple compartment-containers might sound good - until you pause to think about it a bit.

A stationary, disguised ICBM complex will be completely vulnerable and have no defenses whatsoever, other than its camouflage. What guarantees do you have at any time, that the Americans haven't already discovered its location and have a missile of their own with its name on it? You don't, you have no way of knowing, and with the passage of time you'll have to assume that they have found out about your system; that's the fate that befalls all systems that stay in one place too long, no matter how well hidden.

Where will you base this system? Out in the middle of nowhere? The activity/resupply/etc... will give it away. It will have to be in the proximity of some garrison or the other, so actually there's a limit as to where you can place It.

What if you place it in an inhabited area? That way some of the activity might be disguised; but then it would be completely exposed - you would have to have guards, personnel out in the open which might ruin the subterfuge - and again it will have to be not too far from a garrison.

Placing it as part of existing military infrastructure, in existing military bases is an option; hoping to disguise it as a military facility of another purpose; say a logistics base or some such. But then as a visible military facility, it might get targeted anyway for another reason, and besides which you can't be sure that your disguise has worked - if it hasn't than you've wasted a lot of money and effort; not that it would matter by then.

Placing it at sea? On what, a container ship that calls to New York? The only option is to place it on a container ship that you control the routes of; say one that travels Russia's Northern Route. However, it would be completely exposed, and without any sort of outside support, like a nuclear submarine - only it's not a nuclear sub - just a set of containers. Traveling along a defined trade-route, it would be lucky to be afforded the protection of Russia's air-force; and would be otherwise defenseless and vulnerable to infiltration, take-over or destruction; although I suppose you can fit another compartmentalized weapon system on there too, and a platoon of marines.
Ultimately the Americans might find it easier to simply destroy all Russian cargo ships they suspect might be harboring such a system, rather than try and sort through them - and there would be nothing stopping them.
If you're going to put ICBMs at sea, you might as well put them on nuclear ICBM subs, which are superior in every respect.

The only place such a container-ICBM system might be a good fit - is underneath a mountain in a rail tunnel. You can mount the compartments on rails, attach a diesel locomotive to enable it to get there, and then to roll in and out of the mountain to launch and then take cover respectively.
Well done - you've just reinvented the ICBM train.

flamming_python wrote:

victor1985 wrote:true in what you have said. Excepts few things. Nowadays the silos are covered whit concrete but in the future new materials, cheap and strong will be cover the silos.

I understand that. But precision-guidance is developing faster than new materials are, and I do doubt that anything we develop in the next 200 years at least, will be able to withstand a nuclear-detonation at point-blank range.

Also troops can be also disguised in civilians. So that noone can see what happen. Lets think to ban all americans from comin how will they see where is? By sattelite,  ok but sattelites cant see all in the same time. Also a sistem of land based lights can easy be pointed to sattelites. Underground trains could deliver the supplies for the silos.

Sounds like a hell of a lot of trouble and expense to go to. Essentially you've just described an above-ground missile silo, but with some elaborate disguises instead of concrete, underground protection (which is still relevant and will be for another couple decades at least).

ICBM trains are cheaper, can be more effectively disguised, and are far more survivable even if discovered than any stationary ICBM container-complex above ground with supporting infrastructure.

And trains whit rockets are more visible, more easy to be spyed by sattelite or spyes.

Not if they look exactly like normal freight trains.

And hard to be guarded by troops.

Not if the troops are inside the train.

The only advantage of trains is they are moving so missiles that cannot change target in flight cant hit them. This advantage can be apply to trucks too if they are able to hit while moving.

Except you can't disguise nuclear-missile trucks. And they are slower, and won't be able to get away in time from a nuke targeted at them. And due to their weight & size they're very maintenance-heavy. And they likely won't be able to go too far from their garrison due to their speed, low-mobility, need for supporting elements and regular maintenance. And they do require a proper escort and guards that will be visible and traveling alongside it. And each truck-complex can only carry 1 missile, meaning that you could end up with a huge, heavy convoy including dozens of supporting vehicles and personnel, that's visible to satellites or anyone in the vicinity.

Basically, we already have truck-based ICBMs; all the Topol-M and Yars missiles are deployed on such platforms. I made them sound bad, but in reality they're good - it's just that ICBM trains are even better.

victor1985 wrote:I think also that on a ICMB can be put a lot of equipment for jamming missiles,  smoke for laser, coutermeasures for IR  and so on

The Satan missile already has some stuff like that. So does the Iskander, and the Topol-M and Yars.

The upcoming Sarmat will have a lot of decoys and countermeasures too; it will be half the weight of the Satan but much newer and will end up as the new heaviest missile in the Russian arsenal - so it can be packed full of the latest goodies.

Another one to watch is the Avangard. It will be the lightest, smallest and lowest-range ICBM in the Russian arsenal upon introduction - but by all accounts it will have some real surprises in store.

flamming_python wrote:

victor1985 wrote:1 well i dont know about guidance sistem but i know carbon fiber is already invented. And i know is stronger than steel. The only problem is mass production.

Remember, that as materials evolve for defense purposes, so too will they evolve for attack. Already we have Kinetic Kill Vehicles used for ABM, and potentially they can be used a s bunker-busters too.

2 trucks, rails and stationary ICBM are expensive. A train seems more expensive than simple trucks. And thinkin that america could simply monitorize all trains seems means trains are not so secure.

Each train takes 6 ICBMs/ICBM launchers. It will have a cistern of fuel, 2-3 locomotives and several carriages for C4 and personnel; including sleeping quarters, kitchen, etc... It's basically like a submarine - except much cheaper.

As for the trucks - the whole point is that they are not that simple. You need special chassis and equipment for such a vehicle. Each vehicle can only take 1 ICBM; so you'll need 6 such sophisticated vehicles, and you'll need simulators for the drivers to train on and a whole bunch of training, as handling them is like handling nothing else in existence. In each convoy you would need a number of supporting vehicles - scout cars, light armoured vehicles, C4 vehicles, repair vehicles, fuel trucks, etc...
Basically it's like that train set-up, but spread over a convoy of military vehicles, as opposed to just being all encompassed in 1 ordinary-looking train.

The cost will probably not be too different, although that convoy will probably burn through more fuel, spare parts, etc... than those 3 diesel locomotives will; given that rail-based freight is typically nearly x10 as fuel-efficient as truck-based freight is.

3 well yes can be disguised in normal trains but against simple spies stat stay somewhere and wait for trains and whit special equipment they could easily discover trains. Excepts if you ban all tourists.

That's a good point - but in practice it's impractical for them to do so. Russia is simply too huge and has too much rail. While they might have some people along the Moscow-St. Petersburg line, Baikal-Amur Mainline, Gorky Railway, etc... the trains could actually be along the St. Petersburg-Murmansk line, Amur-Yakutsk Mainline or the South Urals Railway.
The raw distances, and low number of missile trains also mean that they would detect trains in such way only very infrequently - if they get lucky then maybe once every 24-48 hours or so - if they have enough people at enough places. But that information can become useless potentially much sooner; it could become hard to track such trains particularly if they decide to make a stop somewhere and swap disguises (if they have info that spies are on the ground among the lines).

4 ofcourse troops and missiles for defending the ICMB can be put in train. Here you have right. But lets think that the rail can be easyly damaged by spyes.

The train will probably have some interference equipment that would jam remote-detonation devices in a good range. If the rail is sabotaged ahead of time than it will be found out about and reported in advance, and the train could change course or reverse direction.

5 a rain whit one or two ICBM means a weight of 40 tons whit all protecting equipment. Not much for a locomotive. Indeed those trains will have speed. But those trains will mean 10% of russia arsenal. That 10% can be intercepted. Ideed hard to destroy while in trains.

The trains will carry 6 ICBMs each and if my calculations are correct then they'll weigh about 1000 tons each; but they'll still be fast since load doesn't impact on a locomotive's top-speed, but only on its acceleration. That 10% will be harder to destroy than anything else.

6 thinking that ICBMs are large rockets means a lot of stuff to be put. The only problem are laser weapons that in time will become more effective. Finally all will end whit powerfull lasers that can guard skyes and destroy any missile. Then the era of ICBMs will end.

ICBMs are the heaviest ballistic objects operated by any military. Right now the Russians put decoys, extra-equipment, multiple warheads, etc... on them, but by the time laser installations become powerful enough to destroy ICBMs from the ground or from orbit (not soon); new materials would be used that would allow chassis/warhead/counter-measure weight to be further reduced, while new propellent would mean more weight could be thrown by a new ICBM of the same size as a previous one.
What this all amounts to is that the ICBMs of tomorrow will be stronger in construction, lighter, but at the same time have much more spare room and throw capacity, for amour and other protective measures - and lasers won't be able to saw through them.

Think that video cameras whit shape recognition will see all missiles and destroy all. The only survive ICMB will survive would be one whit low temperature. And even those not in case of a powerfull laser. So ICBM programs will fail.

They can see all ICBMs already; exactly pinpointing the place where they're launched from -as soon as they're launched, with infra-red imagery satellites, and then calculating their trajectory and position very soon after that with the help of over-the-horizon early-warning radars. The earliest of this soft of technology has been around since the 50s.
There's no such thing as a stealth ICBM. But the problem is not detecting them, but taking them out.

7 finally the train seems a good method but whit some questions that ive said.

It's the worst method - aside from all the others.

GarryB wrote:It isn't necessary to put the radar in the nose, but most radars are large... too round to fit in the wings and you have to have a nose on the aircraft whether it has a radar in there or not so it just makes sense to fit the radar there.

victor1985 wrote:

GarryB wrote:It isn't necessary to put the radar in the nose, but most radars are large... too round to fit in the wings and you have to have a nose on the aircraft whether it has a radar in there or not so it just makes sense to fit the radar there.

yea and i thinked to antennas not radar itself. let me put a question:a radar power (distance in wich he is effective) depends on electricity? mean depends on power of the curent?
few monts ago i tried to make on paper a design of a flux generator. the ideea was that meta materials cooled whit freon spins around metal tracks and generate energy
also for a aircraft the air could be used to generate energy

GarryB wrote:The power of a radar depends, as Medo says on the power available, but also the radar as well.

Take a tiny low power radar from a UAV drone and put it in an AWACS aircraft with enormous power potential and the small radar wont suddenly become more powerful.

Equally taking a powerful radar like BARS and putting it in the nose of a MiG-23 will make it rather less powerful as the single engine wont be able to provide the power needed to operate the radar and all its associated electronics.

GarryB wrote:New radar technology takes AESA radar modules and distributes them around the aircraft structure, o the entire external surface of the aircraft could become a radar.

With AESA radars each module is a transmit receive component so theoretically even if each module sends a modest signal all the modules operating at once could generate a very powerful signal... of course you would need a lot of power to turn all the elements on at one time...

the real advantage of AESA is that each radar element is a radar so the beam it transmits can be specifically shaped to optimise its performance for a particular target in an particular environment.

medo wrote:

victor1985 wrote:

GarryB wrote:It isn't necessary to put the radar in the nose, but most radars are large... too round to fit in the wings and you have to have a nose on the aircraft whether it has a radar in there or not so it just makes sense to fit the radar there.

yea and i thinked to antennas not radar itself. let me put a question:a radar power (distance in wich he is effective) depends on electricity? mean depends on power of the curent?
few monts ago i tried to make on paper a design of a flux generator. the ideea was that meta materials cooled whit freon spins around metal tracks and generate energy
also for a aircraft the air could be used to generate energy

Of course a radar power depend on electricity, which were produced from engines or from additional APUs. Su-30SM have quite powerful radar Irbis-R with 15 kW peak power, the same as V-004 radar in Su-34 and Zaslon in MiG-31. Su-35 have more powerful engines and its Irbis radar have 20 kW peak power. I think PAK-FA will have similar peak power of its radar. Su-34 also have powerful ECM electronics and it have additional APU in tail sting. Powerful radars are also more resistant to jamming as many times jamming signal doesn't have enough power to jam radar signal, what mean jammer have to come closer or have to be stronger.

Smaller single engine fighters have less powerful radars, usually with 5 kW peak power.

GarryB wrote:The power of a radar depends, as Medo says on the power available, but also the radar as well.

Take a tiny low power radar from a UAV drone and put it in an AWACS aircraft with enormous power potential and the small radar wont suddenly become more powerful.

Equally taking a powerful radar like BARS and putting it in the nose of a MiG-23 will make it rather less powerful as the single engine wont be able to provide the power needed to operate the radar and all its associated electronics.

New radar technology takes AESA radar modules and distributes them around the aircraft structure, o the entire external surface of the aircraft could become a radar.

With AESA radars each module is a transmit receive component so theoretically even if each module sends a modest signal all the modules operating at once could generate a very powerful signal... of course you would need a lot of power to turn all the elements on at one time...

the real advantage of AESA is that each radar element is a radar so the beam it transmits can be specifically shaped to optimise its performance for a particular target in an particular environment.

For all we know there might be radar beam shapes that make certain RAM mixtures resonate... so they would actively give away a stealth targets position instead of absorbing the energy and hiding it.

Extra power would improve range but networking with other air and ground stations could also be used to create a synthetic super antenna hundreds or thousands of kms across.