Russian Nuclear Weapons: Question Thread

Thanks for your insightful comment  .



Few points :-

1) Tu-95 was built in 1960s just like B-52 . they both will retire in 2040 . But Russian Tu-160 bomber the latest one came to service in 1987 .

" The Russian stockpile is the NEWEST and includes hypersonic glide vehicles intended specifically to evade ABM systems. "

2) Does Russia posses hypersonic weapon ? I guess Russia with India is busy in making Brahmos-2 hypersonic missile and they've already prepared fuel for it . Yanks and Chinese are looking for glide hypersonic vehicles .


3) All of US 10-warhead MX missiles have been retired from service. Minutemen were designed as single warthead missiles, then upgraded to triple warheads and now, I believe, have been reconfigured back as single warhead units.


"  S-500 will be able to intercept ICBM warheads AND SLBM warheads, but the Russians are building them in numbers to the point where it is most likely them that will be shooting down BMs. Shooting down 1,000 ballistic missiles is absurd because there arent 1,000 ICBMs anywhere. "


4) S-500 will be shooting BMs mean ? if they can shoot icbm and slbm so what's the issue ? You mean russia's 1643 and yank's 1642 ( currently deployed ) nukes are not all ICBMs ?



5) It is estimated that Russia has more spies inside the United States today than it did at any point during the Cold War .


" The problem is that over time and with lots of money they wont remain crap and problems will be solved and eventually these systems will be a problem. "

6) Yup i agree and that's why Russia is hellbent in getting those shields removed from Europe and they are concerned with its proximity (kaliningrad ) .

7) Well if US didn't behave then its better for Russia to withdraw from INF and START treaty .


ABM treaty is no more valid to Russians as yankees left unilaterally  isn't it ?

9) Russia is almost two generations ahead in missile technology .

10) don't you think if US doesn't back down then Russia must engage in some sort of military alliance with CSTO + BRICS + EAU ?


11) Russia must put its nukes back in Cuba and Nicaragua this time if us deploys missile shield in europe .  

Actually the current Tu-95's in service are relatively new air-frames, built within the last 10-20 years.

START 2 is defunct. Otherwise the MIRVed Yars would be a problem .

GarryB wrote:
ICBM re-entry vehicles are all hypersonic    Pretty obvious when you read the stats... SS-18 has a 16,000km range and can get to the US from Russia in 30 minutes... that is 32,000km/h or about mach 28. (It is about 8.8km/s... which is still not fast enough to leave earths orbit... ie 11km/s is needed for that).

What you said is incorrect and is one of those internet myths like the "stealthy" or the "supercruising" F-22 or the "well-armored" Abrams.

Let me set the record straight.

Your calculations indicate the average speed of the ICBM is hypersonic, not the speed of the re-entry vehicle (RV).

One might ask if the speed of the RV at the ground level shouldn't be the highest achieved by the ICBM". The answer is, of course, negative.

On the moon the speed of the "RV" at the lunar surface would be the highest of the whole trajectory, but on the moon they don't call a "RV" a re-entry vehicle for a reason.

The answer is all related to the interaction of a low-technology RV (i.e. a "non Russian" RV) with the atmosphere. There have been low-technology ICBM RVs that have had final speeds of well under 500 km/h, like those of the Atlas "ICBM".

One might ask how-come is it that the final speed of the RV of a fast ICBM is slower than the final speed of the RV of, let's say, a slower SRBM. That's right, the final speed of a low-technology RV of a fast ICBM can be slower than the final speed of the RV of a slower SRBM.

The answer is all related to "nonlinearities" and low-technology of the RV.

Let me explain by first asking a question. What would happen, if you construct, and fire on the top of an ICBM, a "very low-drag" RV that utilizes a "low-technology" heat-shield? The answer is that the RV will evaporate/burn before reaching its desired target.

That is why they intentionally make the low-technology RVs draggy, so draggy that it can start slowing down at the very thin atmosphere, at the very high altitude. The fact that the ICBM is fast means that the RV has to decelerate a lot. Now, all of this high drag becomes a big liability at the thick atmosphere of "lower" altitudes, even slowing the "low-technology" RV to subsonic speeds.

What do the Russians do? Last time I offered to answer this, about "a year" ago, one of the forum clowns asked me not to.

However, this time I'll list some of the technologies the Russians use to achieve hypersonic RV speeds.

These technologies include, scarmjets, "hyper-technology" thermal shielding, variable geometry RVs, ...

There are other reasons that are behind them using these technologies; the reason is not just to achieve high RV speeds. Again, last time I offered to answer this, about "a year" ago, one of the forum clowns asked me not to.

The reason is related to the extremely high yield-to-mass ratio of Russian warheads. That's right ... But that's a subject for another time.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
What do the Russians do? Last time I offered to answer this, about "a year" ago, one of the forum clowns asked me not to.

So let me get this straight. A "forum clown" asked you not to answer & you obliged..???? And that makes you ....???

And what exactly was your answer then..?? Zip, zero.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:However, this time I'll list some of the technologies the Russians use to achieve hypersonic RV speeds.

Give me the name of a US MaRV that is NOT hypersonic? Maneuvering MaRVs on US ICBMs are all hypersonic. What has not been achieved by any country till date, is sustained hypersonic flight throughout the flight duration. And that includes Russia as well.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:These technologies include, scarmjets, "hyper-technology" thermal shielding, variable geometry RVs, ...

And what makes you think that the US is not using these technologies? Once the MaRV attains sufficient speed in the atmosphere it performs a pull up maneuver to enter the glide path segment.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a090151.pdf

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:The reason is related to the extremely high yield-to-mass ratio of Russian warheads. That's right ... But that's a subject for another time.

Naturally, yield-to-mass ratio of nuclear warheads is always higher than that of conventional warheads.

Improving yield-to-weight ratios was a high order of business in the postwar nuclear program for both the US & USSR. Thermonuclear fusion ups the ante quite a bit. Lithium-deuteride (LiD), the most common and usable fusion fuel, yields 50 kilotons for every kilogram that undergoes fusion — so fusion is nearly 3 times more energetic per weight than fission. So the more fusion you add to a weapon, the better the yield-to-weight ratio, excepting for the fact that all fusion weapons require a fission primary and usually also have very heavy tampers.

According to KGB data, W76 has the weight of 91.7 kg (of which 61.5 kg was the nuclear charge, 22.7 kg – reentry vehicle body, and 6.7 kg – electronics).

http://russianforces.org/blog/2007/05/how_many_warheads.shtml

RV body adds significant weight. But in the end, it doesn’t change the picture too much.

The high energy yield of the Mark-41, our highest-yield bomb, was about 90% fission. The high yield-to-weight ratio was due to the very efficient use of fusion neutrons to cause fission in the tertiary stage, which, in addition to being unusually large, was held together by radiation implosion driven by the secondary stage. The tertiary stage of a three-stage bomb could approach 100% consumption of its fission and fusion fuel, but the result was a multi-megaton explosion that was too large to be of any practical use.

What kind of a dunce judges the yield-to-weight ratio by the warhead itself ? Seems there is not just one "forum clown".

" MIRVed is banned under start-II? "

I don't think so Russian nukes posses multiple warheads eg. Bulava etc. Even US Trident D-5 posses 14 warheads . China's new nukes posses both MIRV nd MARV tech . Unlike both , chinese aren't obliged to any treaty as well . They've even violated INF treaty too .


" START 2 is defunct. Otherwise the MIRVed Yars would be a problem . "

I think Yars is still a headache for usa regime .

" And what makes you think that the US is not using these technologies? Once the MaRV attains sufficient speed in the atmosphere it performs a pull up maneuver to enter the glide path segment.  "


Well for glide paths they are testing those glider vehicle not ICBM. Considering tech Russia is leading in missile tech .

Russian forces article was written in 2007 and hasn't been updated .

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:That is why they intentionally make the low-technology RVs draggy, so draggy that it can start slowing down at the very thin atmosphere, at the very high altitude.

Apart from intentionally designing a "low-technology" RV to have a high drag so that it can meet its deceleration requirements, there is another reason that a "low-technology" RV design becomes draggy, and that is due to the thermally mandated geometrical characteristics of such designs. I forgot to mention this in my last post. I'll elaborate on this in a later post, but the effect is similar and just compounds the problem.

1) Do you've any idea what all MIRVed nukes Russia and US posses currently apart from Trident D5 SLBM .  


2) What does Moscow treaty states ?

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:That is why they intentionally make the low-technology RVs draggy, so draggy that it can start slowing down at the very thin atmosphere, at the very high altitude.

Apart from intentionally designing a "low-technology" RV to have a high drag so that it can meet its deceleration requirements, there is another reason that a "low-technology" RV design becomes draggy, and that is due to the thermally mandated geometrical characteristics of such designs. I forgot to mention this in my last post. I'll elaborate on this in a later post, but the effect is similar and just compounds the problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb5n2z5oLpA

max steel wrote:1) Do you've any idea what all MIRVed nukes Russia and US posses currently apart from Trident D5 SLBM .  


2) What does Moscow treaty states ?

You need to read this report ...
Which explain in detail how complicated is to intercept ICBMs flying at mach 23 , that is high highpersonic speeds..
But to give you a brief intro of the difficulties..

1)ICBM can have up to 100 decoys ,that looks identical to enemy radars to the warhead and impossible to
know which is a decoy or a real nuke for the incoming interceptor missile. This means that if you use an ICBM with 4 warheads.. you will need no less than 100+4 missiles to intercept them. 104 interceptors missiles..to counter just one ICBM.. imagine how crazy is the claim that US can intercept 1,000 icbms.. thats bullshit. try better 10% of 1,000 if they very lucky .

2)ABM is useless against cruise missiles.. you can launch a cruise missile with a nuke warhead to blind radars..and then use the fire ball to cover your missiles fly path.

3)Then you have maneuverable missiles ,

4) Russia have submarines and can launch missiles either cruise missiles or ballistic from the pacific.. and there
will be nothing between Russian Subs and US coast.. is impossible to trave 60+ submarines that Russia have.
and know at all time where each one is..

5) Russian slow bombers , are always intercepted.. yes.. but the question you need to ask.. can US stop the bombers before they launch the missiles first in a preventive nuclear attack? the answer is NO.. If Russia choose to do a preventive nuclear attack.. (based on information they know the nuclear war is inevitable). US will not know
of Russia attack until is too late.. and already the missile launched.. Remember that US cannot shot down any bomber ,just because its flying.. it can only happen if there is a war and or the attack already was launched. ie.. too late.

6) Russian bombers can launch nukes as far as 3,000km away of US coast.. this is beyond F-22/F-16 interceptors operational space and they escorted by fighters.. that can Jam US missiles to miss and or defend the bomber..

7)Russia very likely in any attack ,will launch first cruise missiles with EMP to disable ,jam US radars.. Radars will not operate well ,if they

8)Russia have reported many times ,that they managed to enter US zones without being intercepted ..

All said the probabilities of US Defense being effective against Russian nuclear offensive is next to zero.. just
10 nukes from 1,000 that hit in the target will be a disaster. The same is true for Russia.. i don't think either RUssia or US have the capabilities to shield completely their nation from a nuclear attack.. the best chance is militarization of space and deploy a program to shutdown withing 20 minutes all US GPS and other navigation military satellites ,
to make it impossible for americans to hit their intended targets .. and for example miss by 1.000km.. which could end hitting Kazakistann or even Europe and not Russia..

Russia however have major advantages in a nuclear war.

a)their territory is far larger than US.. can take more hits..
b)The Russian government have Public Support.. the US government not.. means that the possibilities of a civil
war are higher for US .
c)US is far more developed its infrastructure than Russia.. so Russia have less to lose. Russian have experience
surviving a full tragedy ,and destruction of their nation.. so they can unite even if the most hardest conditoins ,the Americans in the other hand will start a revolution at the first moment they are without cable channel and internet.

All said ,All Russia needs to do.. to destroy USA.. is provoke a major civil war in their nation ,that collapse its economy.. That can be done by just sinking one aircraft carrier... The key is.. that the event is seen as Russia defending itself.. and Americans doing the agression.. THis is why public opinion is important.. in a war between US and Russia.. or anyone else. If you do not have public opinion on your side.. any warship sinked will be enough
to provoke a revolution and outrage of its people. A NAtion wide revolution in US cities can effectively shut down the power of the white house and disband the entire nation. in a week ,.much more destructive than any nuclear attack.

Vann7 wrote:
You need to read this report ...

.....Written by an imbecile for other imbeciles.

Vann7 wrote:1)ICBM can have up to 100 decoys ,that looks identical to enemy radars to the warhead and impossible to
know which is a decoy or a real nuke for the incoming interceptor missile. This means that if you use an ICBM with 4 warheads.. you will need no less than 100+4 missiles to intercept them.  104 interceptors missiles..to counter just one ICBM.. imagine how crazy is the claim that US can intercept 1,000 icbms.. thats bullshit.  try better 10% of 1,000 if they very lucky .

Get admitted at the nearest mental asylum that you can find. ICBMs carrying 100 decoys..?????? Yars and Topol carry 4-6 decoys and the new liquid fueled ICBM will carry 10.

Vann7 wrote:2)ABM is useless against cruise missiles.. you can launch a cruise missile with a nuke warhead to blind radars..and then use the fire ball to cover your missiles fly path.

Only a dickhead will use an ABM to intercept a cruise missile.

Vann7 wrote:3)Then you have maneuverable missiles

So.....??????

Vann7 wrote:4) Russia have submarines and can launch missiles either cruise missiles or ballistic from the pacific.. and there
will be nothing between Russian Subs and US coast..

Vann7 wrote:Remember that US cannot shot down any bomber ,just because its flying.. it can only happen if there is a war and or the attack already was launched. ie.. too late.

And your source for this is ..... hopes, dreams, wishes..???

Vann7 wrote:All said ,All Russia needs to do.. to destroy USA.. is provoke a major civil war in their nation ,that collapse its economy..

I will say it again, get admitted in a mental asylum ASAP.

Troll

max steel wrote:1) Do you've any idea what all MIRVed nukes Russia and US posses currently apart from Trident D5 SLBM .  


2) What does Moscow treaty states ?

Submarine launched ballistic missiles all use MIRVs.

As for a detailed look at the Russian nuclear missile force, check out Pavel Podvig's blog.

He has a nice breakdown.

Same for the Moscow Treaty.
It is not a very big treaty, just provides for some number caps.

Thanx .can I find such info for US nukes also ?

US situation is much simpler- Minuteman 3 for ICBMs, and Trident for SLMBs.

But they do publish their info (as well as Russia) yearly, so it is all available.

For example:

http://fas.org/blogs/security/2014/10/newstart2014/

who is Victor Cooper ?

Viktor Bondarev, Galvkom of the VVS.

The cooper part I got from a shitty translation of his name to English, I thought it sounded funny.

Maybe Russia should restart the  Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) program as retaliation to current American aggression?

Project Canada wrote:Maybe Russia should restart the  Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) program as retaliation to current American aggression?

IMO they could keep things hush and designate the FOBS satellites as reconnaissance... For ICBM's it works to extend their range, and why not.

Project Canada wrote:Maybe Russia should restart the  Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) program as retaliation to current American aggression?

They should do that anyway. Get focus away from mostly useless nuclear weapons which cannot be used.