Russia Tests New Wonder Weapon

[Alexandr]

About rocket "Булава"="Bulava" it is known a little. However, according to its developers from the Moscow institute heating engineers, her(it) ТТХ substantially correspond(meet) to characteristics of a ballistic missile of ground basing РС-12М2 "Poplar - m". As a matter of fact "Bulava" is a sea variant of modernized "Poplar" which in the future becomes a basis of strategic nuclear forces of Russia.

Meanwhile development "Bulava" MEATH which specialized on ground rocket complexes, has engaged not from a good life. As " the Russian newspaper " writes, to institute have charged to create a sea complex after project ä-19М "Барк"="Bark" which was developed since 1986 has failed. Under the тактико-technical project of the Navy range of 34-ton rocket "Bark" should make 10-11 thousand kilometers.
Start of a ballistic missile _Topol-М_. A photo from a site

Start of a ballistic missile "Poplar - m". A photo from a site
Thus the rocket should bear(carry) the newest fighting blocks and apply new rocket fuel.

However during development and tests (under tests "Barka" the Navy has allocated all the same APL "Dmitry Donskoj") all over again it was found out, that designers have left for limits of allowable dimensions (because of it it was necessary to reconstruct АПЛ), and then, already during start-up, other lacks were opened also. In result in 1998 when the rocket was ready for 80 percent(interests), the project have closed, and MEATH in the urgent order began to create "Bulava", using the technologies developed for "Poplar".

Actually development of the sea sister of "Poplar" has one more reason - unification. Creation of a sea rocket with use of technologies overland will allow to simplify substantially their manufacture and service, and also to save on modernization. Besides the ballistic missile of distant radius of action in the future can become a basis for creation of the space carrier. In this case also it would be useful to be armed with close rockets on a design on which conversion it would be possible to throw all available resources. Manufacture of rockets "Bulava" will be developed(unwrapped) on ФГУП " Votkinsky a factory " where rockets "Poplar - m" are already made and there are all necessary capacities for the beginning manufactures.

"Poplar - m", as well as "Булава"="Bulava", possesses several unique properties. These rockets have been created in view of prospective opportunities of the American antimissile defense. First of all, they are very difficult for destroying on start. Right at the beginning of flight the usual ballistic missile is most vulnerable, as has not had time to gain speed yet.

However mid-flight твердотопливный the engine of the first step of "Poplar" (and "Bulava") is capable to disperse a rocket at once after start till such speed what to intercept her(it) at an initial stage of flight it will be impossible.

At other stages of flight these rockets also cannot be destroyed. Rockets are equipped with several tens auxiliary engines which allow them to maneuver actively during all flight. This property of "Poplar" and "Bulava" does not give an opportunity to interceptors "to aim" - to calculate a trajectory and to blow up in a point of a prospective presence(finding) of a rocket.

Actually a boundary "Poplar - m" and "Bulava" there are also differences. The starting weight of a ground rocket makes 47 tons, and sea - 30. Range of action of "Poplar" makes 10 thousand kilometers against eight thousand at "Bulava". However "Bulava" about ten hypersound nuclear blocks of individual prompting whereas "Poplar" is armed with only three warheads (plus two tens false purposes) are capable to bear(carry). Probably, the sizes of rockets (the exact data in a network it is not revealed) will differ also - dimensions of sea rockets are rigidly limited to the sizes of launchers АПЛ.

As to submarines "Bulava" it is intended for arms of the newest nuclear rocket carriers of the project 955 "Борей", capable to bear(carry) on such 12 rockets. "Borei" it is a new class of the Russian submarines which in the future should replace АПЛ projects 667 (Delta III and Delta IV) and 941 ("Shark" - Typhoon) which are deduced from structure of fleet. On the data for October, 2005, in structure of the Navy was six APL the project 667 Delta III, six modernized submarines Delta IV and two rocket carriers 941 projects "Shark" (Typhoon). Thus three Delta IV were under repair.

The first submarine of the project 955 "Jury Dolgoruky", which construction began in 1996, it will be launched at Severodvinsk factory "Sevmash" the next year. The beginning of completion of the second boat - "Alexander Nevskogo" - is planned to 2007. In total within the framework of this project it is planned to construct six submarines.

According to plans of Ministry of Defence, by 2010 in fighting structure of fleet will be 13 nuclear rocket submarines bearing(carrying) more of thousand of nuclear warheads. All nuclear АПЛ will be in structure of Northern fleet.

 

[Dr Phobus]

More manoverable warheads and enhanced peneration aids is not real surprise. However, its unrleaistic to think in one swipe that the west's, isralie and russian ABM systems are all to be rendered ineffective.

In the short term few people seem to state that ABM systems are effective against a significant nuclear strike, but rather rouge nations with IRBM/ICBM ability. One hopes the russians will not be exporting such tecnology, rather keeping it to themselves to ensure the effectiveness of there own legitimate nuclear deterent.

To every move there is a counter-move and a counter to that.

 

[Focus]

Russia needs to be alarmed and afraid of NATO piling up bases around Russia and arming them with offensive weapons. Baltics, Uzerberjian, Romania bases are all not needed despite the fact that some of them are NATO members. The failure of the 'orange relovution' government in Ukriane and total beggar state of Romania proves that for Easter European countries are better off looking towards Russia for economic cooperation and stablity. EU and US have done zippo for eastern european countries other than cashing in their interests only. Russia's development of Topol and Bulava type offensive weapons is very much needed to create some balance in Eurasia if not the whole world. Furthermore, while development of quality weapons is always good for defense, Russia should stop trying to act like a Superpower that it once was (only in military sense!) and throw more efforts to the internal matters.

 

[crazypole]

I can agree with that, Russia should no longer view itself as the military superpower it once was, but should realise that it could easily become a greater economic power than even the USA. If the Russians could sort out the bulk of their internal problems, like corruption and gangs, then they could start to really grow economically, and economic power is the most significant in the world, military is almost unimportant next to economy. Russia can easily become self-sufficient in a very short period of time, it contains some of the most mineral-rich and undeveloped regions in the world, eg Siberia... even now if you really look at things Russia has a strangehold growing over Europe in terms of being a large, and growing supplier of gas to the whole of the EU. It controls a high proportion of the world's oil resources, but also large deposits of other minerals, and will extract them cheaply as the Russian economic approach is to mostly ignore effects on the environment. USA is the present superpower in the world, but I would say that this won't last another 30 years. Russia, China, India, these are the countries to watch; each has the strong possibility to really grow economically and therefore politically.

 

[Firehorse]

Russia orders new strategic nukes
MOSCOW (AP) — Russia's military has commissioned another batch of new intercontinental ballistic missiles — nuclear weapons officials boast can penetrate any prospective missile shield, reports said Sunday.
The announcement comes amid tensions between Moscow and Washington over U.S. plans for missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The three new Topol-M missiles are capable of hitting targets more than 6,000 miles away and, mounted on a heavy off-road vehicle, are harder for an enemy to track it down, officials said.
The Topol-M missiles, which had been deployed only in silos before December 2006, are stationed near the town of Teikovo, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces said in a statement carried by the ITAR-Tass and RIA Novosti news agencies.
The same unit commissioned the first batch of such truck-mounted missiles a year ago.
The Topol-M's chief designer, Yuri Solomonov, has said the missile drops its engines at a significantly lower altitude than earlier designs, making it hard for an enemy's early warning system to detect the launch.
He said the missiles' warhead and decoys closely resembled one another in flight, making it extremely difficult for a foe to select the real target from a multitude of false ones.Windfall oil revenues in recent years have allowed the Kremlin buy weapons and fund the development of new missiles. The deployment of Topol-Ms, however, has proceeded slowly and Soviet-built ballistic missiles have remained the backbone of the nation's nuclear forces.
Teikovo, a small town in the Ivanovo region, is located about about 150 miles northeast of Moscow.
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...missiles_N.htm

Baluyevsky also warned that the launch of an interceptor missile by the US could trigger a Russian missile strike because it could be mistaken for a ballistic missile aimed at Russia.
"We are talking about the possibility of a retaliatory strike being triggered by the mistaken classification of an interceptor missile launch," he said, adding that Russia's defenses were controlled by an automatic system.
"If we assume that Iran does try to launch a missile against the United States ... then interceptor missiles from Poland would fly in the direction of Russia," he said.
"I don't mean to scare anyone, but this isn't a scare story ... It's a technical detail that could affect the military stability of the world," Baluyevsky said.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worl.../17/2003392901

This is perhaps the most credible argument made thus far against placing BMD in E.Europe or anywhere near (relatively speaking, of course) Russia's borders. And, since Russia is both in E.Europe and NE Asia, no wonder they are concerned about US-Japan BMD deployment cooperation. So, if the US is not planning anything against Russia, as they insist, then there are options of deploying BMD on ships/subs at sea and in RF itself, with their cooperation. In any case, interceptors and IC/RBMs will have to either overfly Russia or pass close to it on their way to their targets. The main strategic asset Russia always had is their vast territory!

 

[Grand Danois]

Baluyevsky also warned that the launch of an interceptor missile by the US could trigger a Russian missile strike because it could be mistaken for a ballistic missile aimed at Russia.
"We are talking about the possibility of a retaliatory strike being triggered by the mistaken classification of an interceptor missile launch," he said, adding that Russia's defenses were controlled by an automatic system.
"If we assume that Iran does try to launch a missile against the United States ... then interceptor missiles from Poland would fly in the direction of Russia," he said.
"I don't mean to scare anyone, but this isn't a scare story ... It's a technical detail that could affect the military stability of the world," Baluyevsky said.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worl.../17/2003392901

This is perhaps the most credible argument made thus far against placing BMD in E.Europe or anywhere near (relatively speaking, of course) Russia's borders. And, since Russia is both in E.Europe and NE Asia, no wonder they are concerned about US-Japan BMD deployment cooperation. So, if the US is not planning anything against Russia, as they insist, then there are options of deploying BMD on ships/subs at sea and in RF itself, with their cooperation. In any case, interceptors and IC/RBMs will have to either overfly Russia or pass close to it on their way to their targets. the main strategic weapon Russia always had is their vast territory!

Actually the statement is utter rot, because if true then the Russian BMEWS and strategic awareness must suck unto an hitherto unknown degree.

 

[Firehorse]

How do you differentiate an interceptor missile from S/IRBM? No EWS is fool-proof- there were several false alarms on both sides in the Cold War.

 

[Grand Danois]

How do you differentiate an interceptor missile from S/IRBM? No EWS is fool-proof- there were several false alarms on both sides in the Cold War.

You differentiate by KNOWING that there are no nuclear tipped BMs in Eastern Europe - in fact there are no BMs there at all. They would also KNOW the purpose of a launch from that particular site is a defensive action. That's strategic awareness.

Further, any high-end SAM missile lauched into a PAAT type trajectory could then be mistaken for a BM launch.

The Russian BMEWS should know about the Iranian launch, just as the intent and purpose of the interceptor launch should be obvious. The same apply to the decisionmaking system.

There are no active doomsday devices today.

The Russian general is saying this for the purpose of intimidating Eastern Europe, and quite frankly, they should take a serious course on PR and cultural issues if they wish to have the effect they desire. However, they seem to be so swallowed up by their perception of self, that how to affect the target audience is totally missed.

Lastly, there is zero accountability to what Russians generals say. I.e. he will get away with obvious manipulations.

Conclusion: Either he is deliberately presenting a flawed analysis or he just doesn't have a clue how his command works. Also, implication of his statement, if true, is that you can conclude the Russian BMEWS and command systems must be of awful quality. Did he think before speaking out?

Mindnumbing!

 

[Firehorse]

Yes, their EWS is not something they can be proud off- that's why they are building more radar stations in Russia itself, and there are also not enough EW SATs. So, having delapidated EWS can also be used as a valid point against BMD: you risk an accidental nuclear retaliation by using it over or near Russia against a 3rd party. Maybe the US should allocate funds to improve Russian EW&C systems in conjunction with deploying BMD on Russia's perimeter?!

 

[Grand Danois]

Yes, their EWS is not something they can be proud off- that's why they are building more radar stations in Russia itself, and there also not enough EW SATs. So, having delapidated EWS can also be used as a valid point against BMD: you risk an accidental nuclear retaliation by using it against a 3rd party. Maybe the US should allocate funds to improve Russian EW&C systems in conjunction with deploying BMD on Russia's perimeter?!

My point was that the Russian BMEWS etc in the relevant areas are acceptable to excellent.

The general is making a bogus argument - and unintentionally states the Russian BMEWS and strategic awareness is rubbish, for that is the premise for his argument.

 

[Chrom]

You differentiate by KNOWING that there are no nuclear tipped BMs in Eastern Europe - in fact there are no BMs there at all. They would also KNOW the purpose of a launch from that particular site is a defensive action. That's strategic awareness.

Further, any high-end SAM missile lauched into a PAAT type trajectory could then be mistaken for a BM launch.

The Russian BMEWS should know about the Iranian launch, just as the intent and purpose of the interceptor launch should be obvious. The same apply to the decisionmaking system.

There are no active doomsday devices today.

The Russian general is saying this for the purpose of intimidating Eastern Europe, and quite frankly, they should take a serious course on PR and cultural issues if they wish to have the effect they desire. However, they seem to be so swallowed up by their perception of self, that how to affect the target audience is totally missed.

Lastly, there is zero accountability to what Russians generals say. I.e. he will get away with obvious manipulations.

Conclusion: Either he is deliberately presenting a flawed analysis or he just doesn't have a clue how his command works. Also, implication of his statement, if true, is that you can conclude the Russian BMEWS and command systems must be of awful quality. Did he think before speaking out?

Mindnumbing!

Agree with all your arguments except one - ABM still shifts MAD balance in USA favor. This is of course not good, it will force russians to aquire more ICBM's and become more trigger ready due to reduced second strike capabilty.

On the other hand, exactly same arguments are true for USA - they certainly build ABM in Eastern Europe NOT becouse they want defence against Iran or NK.

 

[Grand Danois]

Agree with all your arguments except one - ABM still shifts MAD balance in USA favor. This is of course not good, it will force russians to aquire more ICBM's and become more trigger ready due to reduced second strike capabilty.

On the other hand, exactly same arguments are true for USA - they certainly build ABM in Eastern Europe NOT becouse they want defence against Iran or NK.

Actually from a sheer practical viewpoint of intercept geometry wrt an Iranian intercept the chosen location is very good.

UK, Northern Germany, Holland and Denmark would also be approp sites.

Personally I don't think a BMD in Europe should be a counter to Russia, and I don't think the current model is that - but Europe should have a BMD. In the future there will be those that have BMD and those that don't - it is not as if there is a choice in realpolitikal terms - it's about dissuasion. I'd prefer that the Europeans built our own, but since our politicians are unable to grapple with the issue, I'm willing to let the Americans fill the vacuum that the Euro politicians leave from their inaction.

 

[Awang se]

Let's get Russia to deploy MRBM in Cuba to defend against Mexican threat, we'll see how the White House respond.

what if you start patrolling your front yard with a rocket launcher. the question is, will your neighbour be at ease if you told them that it was intended to deter thieves?

Did US offer Russia a full access to the BMD system in Eastern Europe?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Let's get Russia to deploy MRBM in Cuba to defend against Mexican threat, we'll see how the White House respond.

Has Mexico threatened Russia? If so, then its a fair call. I assume that they'll try and discuss the issue like america has and not emplace them first (like they tried in cuba)

what if you start patrolling your front yard with a rocket launcher. the question is, will your neighbour be at ease if you told them that it was intended to deter thieves?

Thats what the russians did with the warsaw pact... its a specious argument when its been patiently explained that the type of weapons and quantum to be emplaced would be absolutely useless to deter a russian strike.'

they're grandstanding to look tough - maybe putin is trying to recover from the embarassment of kruschev overplaying his hand during the cuban/carribean (as the russians refer to it) crisis

Did US offer Russia a full access to the BMD system in Eastern Europe?

yes - and putin rejected it

 

[metro]

I'll cosign the points GD has made, especially the question, "Did he [Russian General] think before speaking out"?

1) "Russia" mentions in the article, "Russia's military has commissioned another batch of new intercontinental ballistic missiles — nuclear weapons officials boast can penetrate any prospective missile shield...."
-Great! Russia has proven that She has absolutely nothing to worry about when it comes any BMD, as it is completely useless against Russian missiles (Should be end of story). So what's the Russian problem or objection to Europe wanting to protect itself from a State like "Iran" who doesn't have the same advanced Russian missile technology?

The implication of the General's statement here is that, Europe is not a threat to Russia. With that point noted and "accepted" by all, Russia knows that the proposed BMD in E. Europe has nothing to do with Russia at all. Still, Europe should not be permitted to protect itself from a missile launch coming from (e.g) "Iran."

2) "If we assume that Iran does try to launch a missile against the United States [Europe]... then interceptor missiles from Poland would fly in the direction of Russia," he said."
The assumption by the General here is that Iran actually launches a missile (the exact purpose of BMD), and instead of trying to intercept the launched missile, the people in Europe who are targeted should realize that they are being sacrificed for the "greater good."

The "greater good," being that trying to protect a population from being killed, might spark a larger war with Russia.

Also, why is the General not worried about the missile launch out of Iran? If Russia cannot determine its target (or even the launch for that matter), Russia has more to worry about than interceptors "flying" out of a known defensive position in Europe! Russia has been invited to participate in the proposed BMD and even have its own people at the 2 locations. This would help solve any Russian concerns regarding miscalculations of their own EWS and targeting data.

-This just turns into absurd, irrational circular logic. "Europe, with or without BMD, is not a threat to Russia (see #1)" yet, Russia fears BMD in a known location in E. Europe, because it threatens Russia?? Especially because Europe might have the audacity to try to defend itself from a missile launch coming from Iran...??

I'm sure Europe would sign a mutual pact with Russia that neither would attack the other first. However, I highly doubt Europe would be willing to sign some kind of suicide pact with Russia (i.e. Russian reasoning for Europe not to have BMD).

-Simply, (IMO) the antithesis of the Russian/General's argument--as expressed in the articles--is not only the stronger argument, it is a rational and correct argument.

I hope this is coherent. It is difficult to bring something that is not based in reality, down to earth.

Cheers

 

[eaf-f16]

Has Mexico threatened Russia? If so, then its a fair call. I assume that they'll try and discuss the issue like america has and not emplace them first (like they tried in cuba)

Has Iran threatened Western Europe (in an offensive sense)? Has Iran even developed missile technology to hit that far?

Thats what the russians did with the warsaw pact... its a specious argument when its been patiently explained that the type of weapons and quantum to be emplaced would be absolutely useless to deter a russian strike.'

And the Russians will do their best to make sure of this. Believe me.

yes - and putin rejected it

Really? The US was going to give the Russians full-access?

 

[merocaine]

Thats what the russians did with the warsaw pact... its a specious argument when its been patiently explained that the type of weapons and quantum to be emplaced would be absolutely useless to deter a russian strike.'

they're grandstanding to look tough - maybe putin is trying to recover from the embarassment of kruschev overplaying his hand during the cuban/carribean (as the russians refer to it) crisis

If I was Russian I would work on the premise that at the moment BMD in europe is not a threat.
In 10 years it could be a threat.
In 15 it probobly will be a threat.
In 20 years it will be a threat.

Given the US's track record in putting emplace counter measures during the cold war, their R&D budget, there success in Thaad missile tech, there almost overwhelming dominance in surveillance and tracking technology, I think it is reasonable to expect them to be able to deploy a system that could cause a significant problem for the Russians.

It is ludicious to expect the Russians to sit by on this issue. I expect most mouthing off to be aimed at a domestic audience.
Considering the promises that NATO has renaged on in the last 15 years I believe that they should be worried about BMD and its future uses.

Agree with GD BMD is something that europe should be doing for itself. Dont agree that because were not doing it we should allow the US to provide for us, although that is something that the individual states must decide for themselves.

 

[Chrom]

Really? The US was going to give the Russians full-access?

Of course not. The USA proposal was merery to allow inspection to make sure USA didnt place ICBM's instead of ABM missiles. Of course, it is still not enouth.

 

[Awang se]

its a specious argument when its been patiently explained that the type of weapons and quantum to be emplaced would be absolutely useless to deter a russian strike.'

do you have any article on technical aspect of this BMD and how it will not be able to threaten Russia? I wish to believe that the BMD will be harmless to the russian missiles, but my logic couldn't really grasp how is that possible, given my limited knowledge of the system. Is this inability to deter Russian strike is because of a technical limitation of the BMD system or is it base on a promise by US that they will not use it against Russian missiles?

 

[eckherl]

Of course not. The USA proposal was merery to allow inspection to make sure USA didnt place ICBM's instead of ABM missiles. Of course, it is still not enouth.

Post deleted