Chinese Version of Patriot Interceptor Said Undergoing Tests

[chinawhite]

Nuclear arsenals are still classifled so i would just assume that some will be still in service considering that they would have originally be placed in the role of leveling the nuclear silo farms the russians had and the russians for US naval bases and their land based silo missiles in North Dakota

MIRVs were from the 1970 onward with the W62 and W68.

Warheads normally would have manuvercapabilities considering they would need to get to their targets

 

[gf0012-aust]

Nuclear arsenals are still classifled so i would just assume that some will be still in service considering that they would have originally be placed in the role of leveling the nuclear silo farms the russians had and the russians for US naval bases and their land based silo missiles in North Dakota

The US and the Russians nuclear facilities and warheads are open to mutial inspection due to the START and NR Treaties. There is a monthly report generated by both the US and Russia and mutual inspections happen twice per year (IIRC)

They're not using MRV's - its old technology.

MIRVs were from the 1970 onward with the W62 and W68.

and?

Warheads normally would have manuvercapabilities considering they would need to get to their targets

no - ballistics are navigated via initial programming and stellar navigation - they weren't designed for manouvre as they were re-entering after a peak of 25,000 mph - deviation was unnecessary. any manouvre is a course correction at apex - it's not a targeting update/change.

MRV's were designed by the americans for their subs initially. MIRV's were developed as they were more efficient in saturating target areas or to disperse the warload. 300% gain in delivery efficiency for a common launch platform.

countries who use MRV would be using them because they haven't hit the capability to develop MIRVs. A single warheaded ICBM doesn't need manouvre unless the targetting technology is inefficient.

 

[faheem]

Hey from all the discusion a question raised that are MIRVs cannot be stoped or they can be stoped. If they cannot be stoped this mean that all the missile systems of all the countries are not effective agianst these MIRVs.Because few days ago a Colonel-General Viktor Yesin, a former chief of staff of the Russian Strategic Missile Troops, recently stated that new strategic missile systems such as the Topol-M (SS-27) ICBM and the Bulava (SS-NX-30) SLBM feature “such design solutions as to make U.S. missile defense systems useless.” These both missiles also carry multiple warheads.

 

[chinawhite]

I think you are confusing MRV with MARV?

The US and the Russians nuclear facilities and warheads are open to mutial inspection due to the START and NR Treaties. There is a monthly report generated by both the US and Russia and mutual inspections happen twice per year

The START treaties limits the amount of warheads per missile, which was mostly based on ABM regulations. MRV are just the same as MIRV instead MRV are seperated slightly apart to give a area effect

They're not using MRV's - its old technology.

MIRV is also old technology dating from the 60s. Thats why i said the deployment years of the W62 and W68s. Basing on the year of deployment (or development period) does not mean if its old or not.

Has america finished changing the minuteman warheads yet?. One of the other reason why the MRV could have been phased out is that MIRV warheads offer more bang for the buck since missile numbers and warheads numbers were lwoered

ballistics are navigated via initial programming and stellar navigation - they weren't designed for manouvre as they were re-entering after a peak of 25,000 mph

But the warhead must have had some type of guidence to guide it after seperation of the warhead. Which would still be somewhat effective when coming down since both flight speeds are roughly similar. Fins vectoring engines might have been employed. But i have not seen a live operational warhead to look for any manuvering devices so its hard to say what they use

countries who use MRV would be using them because they haven't hit the capability to develop MIRVs.

I dont see the difference between a single MIRV warhead and a normal large warhead?. Since electrics have both shrunk in size by a margin of 10. The main restraint would have to be the size of your warhead to actually get 2-3 in


But before we start talking about something else. The original reply was regarding the your term of MRV which you refered to as manuverable reentry vehicle. But according to mainstream print it means Multiple reentry vehicle.

As in mainstream i mean the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists