Russia successfully tests long-range missile - Page 2




 
--
 
October 14th, 2010  
LeMask
 
Well, I dont see how it can be outdated during the development time.

Both countries had launchers to throw nuclear charges at each others... That was the point now.

But I think that Russia have the advantage now, unless the US are hiding something under their sleeve.
As this new model from Russia is maybe lighter and less capable when it comes to carrying a big charge, but it's ability to survive counter measures is superior.

And I dont know that they had the all the modern tools or the concepts to evade modern anti missile system back in 1987.

And if you care about equilibrium, the US have plenty of anti missile systems and a serious infrastructure in Europe to protect its interest. And they have plenty of cold war era technology missiles capable of turning the whole planet into a ball of flames... And the Russians have a better potential to send missiles capable of going through the anti-missile shield of its strategic enemies.

So there is an equilibrium somehow...

Am I correct?
October 14th, 2010  
Shmack
 
 
'Outdated' is hardly an acceptable term when we're talking about nuclear weapons. As i've already said, Russia and the US have their 'strong points'. There were no fundamental changes in ballistic missile design since the beginning of the GPS era in navigation back in 1980's. We (i mean mankind) have already achieved unlimited range of fire, incredbile 9 tons throw-weight and several dozens of meters of accuracy. At some moment one had to make a choise whether it is enough or not and had to find compromise between further development and reduction in defense spendings.

There is equilibrium, but that is mostly due to the sizes of arsenals, not diversity in technologies. Russia's most advanced ABM systems in theory can shoot down America's most advanced ICBMs, but no S-300/-400/-500 can handle with.. say.. 10 Titan missiles against one target, and vice versa. That is equilibrium.
October 14th, 2010  
Amanda
 
"Well, I dont see how it can be outdated during the development time."
-Of course the laws of physics and the certainty of nuclear proliferation don't change in ten years, but technology usually does. If you and I have competing similar products and you idle in failure for ten years (no offence, Federation) while mine progresses I should have rendered what you began with at least somewhat inferior... I am not disputing anything Schmack says (of course) about the success of the individual respective programs but I still think the United States should have done something in that ten years that would have put the Federations program even further behind. Technology evolves.
--
October 14th, 2010  
Damien435
 
 
Sounds like the Trident and Bulava are developed to do the same job in a different manner. The Trident's greatest obstacle to overcome was distance, the Soviet Union and now Russia is massive, and much of the northern coast is iced over, which means a missile would have to be launched from either the Atlantic or Pacific and pass over vast distances before reaching its target. The United States is, relatively speaking, smaller and more exposed, but even with the poor status of our current missile defense system, the Russians feel it is something that must be overcome. As a result the Bulava is being build to better avoid detection and destruction by our defenses. Is my understanding of the basic differences correct?

That having been said, I find it disheartening that our two countries are still looking at ways to exterminate one another.
October 14th, 2010  
Prapor
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
Sounds like the Trident and Bulava are developed to do the same job in a different manner. The Trident's greatest obstacle to overcome was distance, the Soviet Union and now Russia is massive, and much of the northern coast is iced over, which means a missile would have to be launched from either the Atlantic or Pacific and pass over vast distances before reaching its target. The United States is, relatively speaking, smaller and more exposed, but even with the poor status of our current missile defense system, the Russians feel it is something that must be overcome. As a result the Bulava is being build to better avoid detection and destruction by our defenses. Is my understanding of the basic differences correct?

That having been said, I find it disheartening that our two countries are still looking at ways to exterminate one another.
Bulava, if I understand it correctly, is intended to be launched from Borei-class submarines


To compare, old Typhoons are armed with R-39 Rif SLBMs

Quote:
Weight 84 tonnes Length 16 m (8.4 m without warhead) Diameter 2.4 mWarhead 6 - 10 Blast yield 100 - 200 Kt each
Operational range range 8,250 km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-39_%28missile%29

RSM-56 Bulava

Quote:
Weight 36.8 metric tons Length 11.5 m (without warhead), 12.1 m (launch container) Diameter 2 m (missile), 2.1 m (launch container)Warhead 6–12 re-entry vehicles with a yield of 100–150 kT each.
Operational range 8,000 to 10,000 kilometers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava

So, Bulava is smaller and lighter, but with bigger range.

And yes, it is bad that we are still inventing ways to destroy each other.
October 17th, 2010  
Shmack
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
Sounds like the Trident and Bulava are developed to do the same job in a different manner. The Trident's greatest obstacle to overcome was distance, the Soviet Union and now Russia is massive, and much of the northern coast is iced over, which means a missile would have to be launched from either the Atlantic or Pacific and pass over vast distances before reaching its target. The United States is, relatively speaking, smaller and more exposed, but even with the poor status of our current missile defense system, the Russians feel it is something that must be overcome. As a result the Bulava is being build to better avoid detection and destruction by our defenses. Is my understanding of the basic differences correct?

That having been said, I find it disheartening that our two countries are still looking at ways to exterminate one another.
If we're talking about Russia and the US, we don't mind their size. The way from Russia to the United States lies across the North Pole. As for Russia, even Bulava's 8000 kilometers range of fire is more than enough, because basically Russian subs armed with nuclear missiles are rare visitors to the North Atlantic, so the most probable scenario is that they will shoot directly from their ports or outer roadsteads before the American nukes pounce at these ports. Russian subs had always been designed for such case. The US has a greater number of subs and missiles and their main vantage is mobility and constant dispersion all over the seven seas. That is a doctrine and it dictates that missiles should have a huge range of fire, so it's a vital priority.

As for mutual extermination... You know, they way i see it, it's more of a contest rather than seeking for unquestionable superiority. Besides, Russia and the US are not the only nations that possess nuclear missiles. I don't think it would be wise to give up the pre-eminence which was gained at a heavy cost.
October 17th, 2010  
LeMask
 
But I cant stop myself from thinking how retarded our leaders can be.

We are still believing that nuclear weapons could be a solution to anything... And we are still investing in this stupid technology while the real military thinkers are trying to develop really useful tools for warfare.

Some are working on GPS guided artillery shells to avoid collateral damage. And we have on the other side, some dumbasses still building ICBMs to destroy cities and turning whole continents into radioactive hell holes...

We are waging a total war on terrorism, we need accuracy and controled demolition, intelligence gathering tools etc... And we have some political leaders and military officiers still playing chess with their expensive heavy missiles... Too expensive and way too destructive to be used in an actual war.

We have crazy scientist working on doom day devices... Like in a James Bond Movie. The big vilain trying to dominate the world...

I think it's big time that the honest people took weapons to smash some sets of teeth...
No mass destruction weapons. We dont need them.
October 18th, 2010  
Shmack
 
 
LeMask, do you think Israel shall withstand all surrounding Arab countries' offensive with help of accuracy and controlled demolition? Your views concerning nuclear warfare are too idealistic. It is political warfare, not combat one.

We don't have crazy scientists working on doomsday devices.
October 18th, 2010  
LeMask
 
Well, killing millions of innocent people to save millions of innocent people isnt a solution.

Nuclear weapons wont save Israel.

In fact, nuclear weapons could push a country like Israel toward its own destruction.

Israel is at war with its neighbors because of the arrogance built from having such destructive power. If the Israeli had less powerful weapons, war would cost too much, and they wouldnt dare to try to survive with brute force alone, they would be forced to negociate with their neighbors.

The Israel we know today wouldnt exist in such conditions, maybe that Israel would have been destroyed since the begining, or, if he managed to survive, it would be a more peaceful and less arrogant Israel.

A lot of "if" and other "would", but it's how I see things.

And by the way, the actual Israel is seen as a joke of democracy, human rights etc... The only people who have some faith in the actual Israel are fanatics and the descendants of the colonial era.

So I dont think if the actual Israel is worth saving... It have to reach many standards of ethics and morals to have my support.

But by the way, I dont know one other nation who deserves such a sacrifice to be saved.
October 18th, 2010  
Shmack
 
 
What sacrifice? Since 1945 nuclear bomb hasn't killed a single person. We're not talking about killing one million to save another million, we're talking about both millions staying alive. You can't threaten a bunch of Hamas guerillas with a nuclear bomb, but you can do it with Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Syria.

You think Israel is not worth saving? Well, it's up to you, but the jews don't think so and you have to live with that. If you don't like Israeli example, all right, same with Iran. For them a nuclear bomb is the only guarantee from foreign invasion, once and for all. It doesn't mean Iran shall strike here and there with nuclear weapons in case of invasion, it means nobody shall invade Iran.
 


Similar Topics
India successfully test-fires interceptor missile
Missile Developments in China, India and Pakistan: A Burgeoning Missile Race
India successfully tests n-capable Agni II missile
new chinese sub fires ballistic missile: range 12,000km
Russia Developing New Nuclear Missile