http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/ne..._0_NEWS-RUSSIA-MISSILE-COL.XML&archived=False
Any information on the RS-24 ?
Russia tests new missiles
- Thread starter Ares
- Start date
ultrafankul
New Member
changing flight path
and complex p-500
and complex p-500
Last edited:
ultrafankul
New Member
"Искандер-М" (ISKANDER TEL)
P-500
action range is 280-300 km or more( by wish)
the velocity is 3000 km/h
rocket control is realised by satellite or dispiloting
is appropriated for suppression of the opponent ПВО))
sorry for my english
P-500
action range is 280-300 km or more( by wish)
the velocity is 3000 km/h
rocket control is realised by satellite or dispiloting
is appropriated for suppression of the opponent ПВО))
sorry for my english
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5
According to various sources and analysts the RS-24 is a heavily modified and upgraded Topol-M (SS-27). Yes the P-500 is the second newest missile tested by the Russians the first is the RS-24. The P-500 is a modernized Iskander-M hence notice the M means -Modernizoveney.
It is more than 300 and most likely close to 500km but with somewhat reduced payload compared to Iskander-E. 300km was artificaly introduced to comply with export missile technology treaty.
Because conventional forces are the most important part of the military
Strategic forces are good in flexing muscles and all but come on , seriusly , nobody is stupid enough to nuke some country that has nuclear capability, and out of my awarenes russia has the biggest nuclear stockpile atm , bigger than usa i belive , its not much of a diference , anyway my point is beeing the biggest nuclear country , or 2nd biggest , why would you want more? nobody is gonna atk you just caus of that , i would concentrate my atention on conventinal forces if I was them , that was my sole point
Strategic forces are good in flexing muscles and all but come on , seriusly , nobody is stupid enough to nuke some country that has nuclear capability, and out of my awarenes russia has the biggest nuclear stockpile atm , bigger than usa i belive , its not much of a diference , anyway my point is beeing the biggest nuclear country , or 2nd biggest , why would you want more? nobody is gonna atk you just caus of that , i would concentrate my atention on conventinal forces if I was them , that was my sole point
They are not trying to get back to cold war.
They pump money into their strategic forces to keepn them from rusting away.
It is an upgrade and conslidation of their strategic arsenal.
In the 90s their strategic forces were on the same way of disintegrating like their conventional forces.
So much that even a successfull first strike of the US might have been possible (As unthinkable as it is but you have to plan this way).
Their sat assets coming down without being replaced, many early warning systems not functioning anymore and standing in other GUS countries, their SSBNs not going onto regular patrols anymore...
It was time to react and with the new flush of oil&gas money they are doing right in consolidating their strategic forces and give them priority over their armed forces.
In the end it is not their conventional might which gives Russia and international weight which doesn't reflects its real economic and conventional military strength.
They pump money into their strategic forces to keepn them from rusting away.
It is an upgrade and conslidation of their strategic arsenal.
In the 90s their strategic forces were on the same way of disintegrating like their conventional forces.
So much that even a successfull first strike of the US might have been possible (As unthinkable as it is but you have to plan this way).
Their sat assets coming down without being replaced, many early warning systems not functioning anymore and standing in other GUS countries, their SSBNs not going onto regular patrols anymore...
It was time to react and with the new flush of oil&gas money they are doing right in consolidating their strategic forces and give them priority over their armed forces.
In the end it is not their conventional might which gives Russia and international weight which doesn't reflects its real economic and conventional military strength.
Why is it the outmost importance to build up their conventional forces, at the current threat level they have enough to make anybody think twice about starting any type of confrontation with them.
You cannot give priority to both, the conventional and the strategic forces.
The word priority implies that one branche comes first.
As Eckherl said it is not as if Russia is defenseless.
Their forces might have been suffered since the end of cold war (Even when you consider that it starts to look better recently).
But that only means that they are not able to perform the big offensive maneuvers once envisioned by the red army and not that they are defenseless.
The word priority implies that one branche comes first.
As Eckherl said it is not as if Russia is defenseless.
Their forces might have been suffered since the end of cold war (Even when you consider that it starts to look better recently).
But that only means that they are not able to perform the big offensive maneuvers once envisioned by the red army and not that they are defenseless.
I agree but they invented so much tehnological advanced things , like Ka-50 , Su-37 , Su-34 , Black Eagle , yet they just dont build them , they have like 16 Ka-50's 20 Ka-52's , 1 Su-37 etc. They should modernize faster and also improve their capability , increase the power projection and decrease the chances for failure , deaths , etc.You cannot give priority to both, the conventional and the strategic forces.
The word priority implies that one branche comes first.
As Eckherl said it is not as if Russia is defenseless.
Their forces might have been suffered since the end of cold war (Even when you consider that it starts to look better recently).
But that only means that they are not able to perform the big offensive maneuvers once envisioned by the red army and not that they are defenseless.
Prototypes.
Money is a key.
When you give your strategic forces priority (Which is defenitely the right decision from russias pow) you just don't have the money to get into full production with everyhing you develop. Be happy that your R&D departements still develop interesting stuff.
BTW, there are also many interesting prototypes of new weapons systems in the west which have never seen serial production.
It is not a purely eastern phenomenon.
Money is a key.
When you give your strategic forces priority (Which is defenitely the right decision from russias pow) you just don't have the money to get into full production with everyhing you develop. Be happy that your R&D departements still develop interesting stuff.
BTW, there are also many interesting prototypes of new weapons systems in the west which have never seen serial production.
It is not a purely eastern phenomenon.
Aby The Liberal
New Member
I don't think Russia considers a serious war scenario with US or any other country which is why they built up nuclear forces rather than conventional ones. Nuclear forces are also cheaper to build than conventional which give smaller security for much more the cost.
Cost: around 10mil USD for mobile version. For land based version somewhat more due to need for undeground placement.
Upkeep: Like any truck / bunker. Probably around several hundreds thousands $$ per year. Plus guards, etc - probably cost much more to upkeep but on other hand they are professional soldiers reserve in any conflict.
Of course, naval and aviation arms are much more expencive. Still new Russian SSBN with 16 missiles / 160 (96) warheads cost around 1 bil. Due to START threaty Russia cant have more than 10 such SSBN's. So, all in all not that much money when spread out on 15-20 years. Of course, support, infrastructure and ecscort for these SSBN cost much more - but this support fleet can be also used in conventional conflict - so it is dual-purpose. The very same could be said about aviation.
I always said - ICBM's are by far the cheapest of all means to reliably protect any country. They are cheap to produce, maintain, and do not require any expencive follow-up technologies like SSBN's or strategic bombers.