What the Russians just put in their silos today

[jmcgowanjm]

Been reading Dr. Gordon Prather’s weekly column at worldnetdaily.com

The new Russian SS-X-27 missile


http://www.softwar.net/rfed.html

http://www.softwar.net/ss27.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&ncid=732&e=6&u=/ap/20031222/ap_on_re_eu/russia_new_missiles

This misslie is three minutes from Tel Aviv.

We are Fubar.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. We who?

[jmcgowanjm]

4. The Coalition of the Willing n/t

[kalian]

2. Tel Aviv....?

So? They're 20 minutes from the US. What's so special about Tel Aviv?

[jmcgowanjm]

3. Confirmation of a story I read earlier

This is one bad ass rocket.
It flies 45-60 ft altitude.
Doing mach 2.9

Nothing can stop it.

Russia/Germany/France & China
have formed an alliance.

Russia w/ this deployment can
checkmate any strategic option
the Pentagon thinks it has.

[kalian]

9. WTF?

45-60ft altitude...?! Dude! This is a friggin ICBM!!! These things
go literally into orbit and dump their MIRVs. These things are NOT
cruise missiles.

Where the hell are you getting your sources?! :eyes:

[jmcgowanjm]

12. I'm lookin' at an image of this rocket/ tryin' to load the pic

I've been studying rockets since Saturn V.

[kalian]

16. Saturn V...big deal...

Dude, the Topol-M is literally a copy...a beefed up copy...of the
Peacemaker (US). Its cold launched so that the missile silo can be
reused. Carries something like 10 MIRV warheads and has a CEP of
about 300 meters...which is damned good.
What I have read about the Topol-M is that it flies a much flatter
ballistic trajectory and thus its faster. The design theory behind it
is that it would make the interception of its warheads much more
difficult.

It does NOT fly at 60ft above the ground...that's reserved for
cruise missiles... ;)

More info here:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/topolm.htm

And they carry MIRVs...

[jmcgowanjm]

24. that's what I'm tryin' to tell ya

this is a 5500 lb nuke cruise missile.

It comes down out of "orbit to cruise at 45-60 ft.
w/in 22 miles of target.

[kalian]

25. No it does not....

Read the description of what the MIRV warhead does...
It deploys the MIRV warheads MUCH quicker and thus has a shallower
ballistic profile but it DOES NOT fly at 60 ft off the ground!
Nor do the MIRV warheads fly 60ft off the ground either! :eyes:

[mike_c]

27. maybe this is where the confusion lies....

The TOPOL is manufactured by the Moscow Institute for Thermal Technology. The new, truck mobile, SS-27 is reported by Russian officials to have Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle (MARV) capability designed to defeat any expected US deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems. US officials noted that the SS-27 flights observed by "Cobra Ball" did not test the new reported MARV capability.

snip

Defense officials, however, are worried that the new deployment of a highly accurate, MARV warhead missile only highlights the weakness of aging US strategic systems. The mobile version of the SS-27 will be difficult to find and can be easily reloaded. The maneuvering warhead and extreme accuracy indicates the silo based SS-27s are "first strike" weapons intended to penetrate US defensive missiles which may be deployed around strategic land based - nuclear missiles.

The reentry vehicles are maneuverable, not just burst pattern, hence the MARV acronym rather than MIRV.

[kalian]

28. MARVs have been around for a VERY long time....

I seem to recall that a major stink over the SS-18 "Satan" and the
SS-19 "Stilleto" missiles was that some ICBM squadrons were equipped
with MARV launch vehicles. The theory was that you could launch them
into orbit and then have them there on "standby" for a prolonged
period of time, thus providing a REAL first-strike capability.

The ONLY real first-strike capability comes from SLBMs. Parked off
shore...they can reach their intended targets on average within
10 minutes, thus they were primarially aimed at ICBM and bomber
fields.
ICBMs are NOT first-strike and it doesn't matter what the press state.

[mike_c]

33. yeah, I'm just trying to figure out how the original post mangled...

...this up so badly, and the maneuverable RV's were the only thing I could think of. I'm not entirely sure I agree with your statement about land launched BM's not being adequate first strike threats, however. After all, it depends upon how far away the silos/trucks are and whether or not you really hope to limit retaliatory response. ICBM's over the pole against a MAD foe are a fairly extreme downside example of the advantages of SLBMs, IMO.

[kalian]

35. IMHO....a "first strike"

would be much better dealt with a land-attack cruise missile strike
nuke-tipped, of course. Take out the major C_N_C centers and that
would do it. Disrupt the ability to counter-attack "en masse".

ICBMs can be detected very quickly by IR sats. They're still up there
doing their sentinel duty.
SLBMs, if done correctly, would literally give no warning...except
when the mushroom cloud is hanging over a major city.

Obviously, against a victim that has NO early warning systems...any
ICBM would perform to par as a "first strike" weapon.

I don't like nuke warfare...everybody loses in the end.

[jmcgowanjm]

37. I did screw up the missiles themselves

I meant to talk about the Russian Sunburn.
Not the ICBM itself, but the technology behind it.

I did rush this post out.

I am not a member of the
Union of Concerned Scientists.

Please visit these wonderful folks for details
on Armaggedon.

[kalian]

39. OK, thanks for the clarification....

Yes, the Sunburn is a naval anti-ship missile. Flies extremely
fast and very low. Major headache for the naval tacticians since
this anti-ship missile poses a serious threat to US carriers.
China also has them in its inventory.

As for the UCS...noble people and their concerns are well received.

I too worry about nuclear annihilation...but then again, I live in
Colorado Springs...the HUB of Space Command and now Northern Command.
Oh well...gotta die of something right?

[mike_c]

20. these are MARV delivering ICBM's....

Not cruise missiles. While I totally agree with your assessment of the potential threat these rockets pose, I think you got your technical specifications mixed up somehow.

[jmcgowanjm]

21. Here's the pic of a plane that carries it

[kalian]

23. The Tu-22?!

OMG...OLD technology....VERY old technology. If it would have been
the Tu-160, aka "Blackjack" then I would be more impressed...

BUT...again, the SS-27 (SS stands for SURFACE to SURFACE) missile
and its SILO based and not aircraft launched.

You're getting your missiles and missile nomenclatures all messed
up...

[mike_c]

26. nope-- check this out:

The SS-27 TOPOL-M has a maximum range of 6,500 miles, is 74.5 feet in length, 6.06 feet in diameter and weighs in at just over 102,000 pounds. It is listed as a three stage, solid propellant, "cold" gas launched, missile equipped with a Inertial/Stellar guidance system.

snip

The original SS-25 TOPOL Mod one has a similar appearance in size and shape to the US built Minuteman II. However, the SS-25 is equipped with eight waffled patterned folding fins for additional control during the first stage firing.

The SS-27 TOPOL M or advanced version is similar to the US Minuteman III. The designers opted to remove the folding fins from the TOPOL M and have placed a larger 3rd stage and bus vehicle to accomodate the new 550 Kiloton warhead RV.

http://www.softwar.net/ss27.html

This is a silo or perhaps mobile platform launched beast-- although it's hard to judge the scale in your photo, it looks to me like the SS-27 Topal is about as long as that plane is....

[punpirate]

19. I think you've...

... got the SS-X-27 confused with some sort of cruise missile. The SS-X-27 is a medium to long range ballistic missile (range dependent upon whether or not it is equipped with an additional fourth stage). See here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/naic/part05.htm

I think this and the SS-X-25 were developed mainly in anticipation of approval of START treaties, since they are equipped with only one warhead. If START II were to be ratified, MIRVs would be eliminated.

Cheers.

[jmcgowanjm]

29. about the missile/was referring mainly to the technology

which can be fitted to other rockets.

The daily Izvestia said that the Topol-M lifts off faster than its predecessors and maneuvers in a way that makes it more difficult to spot and intercept. It is also capable of blasting off even after a nuclear explosion close to its silo, the newspaper reported

[kalian]

30. Nuke fortified ICBM silos....developed in the 70s....

by BOTH sides.
Unless you use ground penetrators, most ICBMs are failry well
protected against nuke blasts. Yeah, the buildings at the silo fields
might be wasted but the missile silos are hardened. The doors
blast open, missile pops out...and the launch officers can kick
back and shoot themselves since there's nothing to go home too.

...lifts off faster...yeah, whatever. Nothing new. Have you ever
seen a Minuteman III take off? Its a mighty impressive sight. I saw
one take off from Vandenberg, CA...my jaw dropped to the ground
when I saw how quickly that thing can climb. Being used to watching
NASA launches off the Florida coast made me think that ALL missiles
were dog ass slow...

[T Bone]

42. More difficult to spot and intercept ? That's comforting to know

considering that every ABM test so far has had a homing device on the target and the ABM guys were aware of the exact time of the target's launch. Something tells me the Russians have had this in development since the early 80's only waiting for the idiot* president who would ramp up ABM again, so they could say, fine, shoot this down if you can.

[Randi_Listener]

5. Russian Engineering

It's always been slightly ahead of our techinical aerospace ability. They have funding issues but the technical skills are better than ours. They are not to be taken lightly.

[jmcgowanjm]

6. I agree and you said it just right

Putin knows this.

[A HERETIC I AM]

7. Re; the Russion Tecnichal ability....

Randi_Listener said;

"It's always been slightly ahead of our techinical aerospace ability. They have funding issues but the technical skills are better than ours. They are not to be taken lightly."

Indeed. This is why most commercial Airliners in the world are built in Minsk and not Seattle or Toulouse. And why when an American Engineer travels to Russia, his counterparts there want nothing to do with his ball point pens or pocket flashlights.

Give me a break.
Dont take them lightly but dont give them undue credit or ability.

[kalian]

10. The funny thing....Boeing is OUTSOURCING its aerospace

division to Russia...
Chew on that for a while.

Just because Russian equipment fares well when utilized by third
world nations does not mean their gear is poor... And also remember:
who had their space station up in orbit the longest...? :eyes:

[A HERETIC I AM]

41. Do you have a source for that, please?

I know they are planning to outsource wing assemblys of the new 7E7 to Japan, but i havent heard of "Outsourcing its aerospace division to Russia"

Can you substantiate?

BTW. I never said they were inferior or backwards. I realize they have many cutting edge programs. But so do we.

[kalian]

51. Source....enjoy....

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_46/b3757606.htm

Much more if you do a search on the Internet...its there for a
reason. ;)

[Randi_Listener]

11. Better read up.

The Russians have been setting the bar in modern aerospace since Sputnik. Their skills surpass American skill but they lack the funding to exert their ability.

[jmcgowanjm]

17. where have you been Randi_Listener

exactamente

[jmcgowanjm]

15. Told my Father: Russians always seem to screw everything up but

they're always in the hunt.

[madrchsod]

18. if you would do little more

research you would find that the russians do have some weapons system that are more advanced that what we have. one such weapon is an assualt rifle that fires two rds with one trigger pull- the barrel recoils.their latest fighter is far more advanced than our new generation of fighters...never under estimate the russians...

[kalian]

22. Umm....2rds with one trigger pull....?

Umm...the M16A1 was doing three-round bursts (with one trigger pull)
for quite some time now... Nothing new there...
Their Su-35 is technically "superior" to the US aircraft BUT it
hasn't been used in combat...yet...

I would like to state though: the US has been fighting third and
fourth rate nations...nothing to boast there really...

[happyslug]

34. NO Two bullets almost at ONCE NOT a Three Round Burst,

The AN-94 uses a "two round Burst Mode" which do to its design the cycle rate is at least 1800 rounds per minute (or 30 Rounds per second).

The Three round burst of the M-16A2 is simply a cutoff of a traditional full auto mode. The cycle rate is about 800 rounds per minute (or 13 rounds per Second).

The difference in cycle rates means that the "Jump" ALL automatic rifles go through is less with the AN-94 than the M-16 and its three round burst. The two rounds are more likly to hit the target than the three rounds of the M-16.

For people who do not understand what I mean by "Jump", when a person fires an Automatic Weapon (except when using a tripod) the rifle will go to the left (if right handed) and up as you shoot (The Shooter will try to bring the weapon back to its orginal firing position, but the interaction between the rifle and the shooter leads the weapon to fire each round, higher and further to the left). Please Note I am talking AUTOMATIC fire, not semiautomatic fire (where the shooter has time to re-aimed his rifle before the second round is fired).

This reaction (Up and to the left) IN AUTOMATIC FIRE is natural, thus EVERYONE who shoots an automatic rifle will shoot to the Left (if right handed) and Up. The best way to REDUCE this movement is to make sure the second and third shots exit the Muzzle as soon as possible after the first round leaves the muzzle. This is where the AN-94 1800 rounds per minute action comes into play. The second round is so soon after the first, the weapon only has time to do 1/3 of the movement a M-16 or AK will do before the second round is out the muzzle.

It is interesting that the Russians have NOT decided to use the AN-94 other than for its special forces. I have always viewed the AN-94 as NOT worth the extra costs over the AK-74 it was to replace (and the Russian Army seems to agree). For more details see:

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as08-e.htm

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm

[kalian]

36. I still think that its no biggy....

the HK submachine gun used by spec ops troops has a three round
burst that does not produce any noticeable recoil...I know, I have
fired it. Granted, its a 9mm, but at close range it really doesn't
matter.

The 2 shot gimmick sounds interesting but I don't think that its
"ground breaking". ;)

[kalian]

13. Love the pic...is that the "Drunk in Chief"?

:toast:

[Randi_Listener]

14. He got stupid drunk and nearly fell on his head.

He's a fucking retard who deserves a long jail stint.

[FDRrocks]

8. Putin can eat me...

Like the world isn't strange enough... now Russia is spreading hi tech missiles around? Deja vu!

[Tinoire]

31. From the article and a Walk Down Memory Lane

<snip>

"This is the most advanced state-of-the-art missile in the world," Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said in remarks broadcast by Russian television stations Monday. "Only such weapons can ensure and guarantee our sovereignty and security and make any attempts to put military pressure on Russia absolutely senseless."

<snip>

The Topol-M missiles, capable of hitting targets more than 6,000 miles away, have so far been deployed in silos. Its mobile version, mounted on a heavy off-road vehicle, is set to become operational next year, the Strategic Missile Forces chief, Col.-Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, said in televised remarks.

The daily Izvestia said that the Topol-M lifts off faster than its predecessors and maneuvers in a way that makes it more difficult to spot and intercept. It is also capable of blasting off even after a nuclear explosion close to its silo, the newspaper reported.

----

Flashback: Anyone remember this?

May 2, 2001
Bush suggests junking missile treaty with Russia
President short on details in defense plan


Bush: "We can and will change the size, the composition, the character of our nuclear forces in a way that reflects the reality that the Cold War is over."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Seeking to build support for a controversial missile defense system, President Bush called Tuesday for a "new framework" for national defense and said a 30-year-old ABM treaty with Russia should be scrapped.

"No treaty that prevents us from addressing today's threats, that prohibits us from pursuing promising technology to defend ourselves, our friends and our allies is in our interests or in the interests of world peace," Bush said in a speech before National Defense University.

The president also called for a reduction in the nation's nuclear stockpile, although he did not cite precise numbers. ((Anyone? Anyone? Bueller????))

<snip>

Bush said today's threats come from "a small number of missiles" in the hands of rogue states "for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life."

"In such a world, Cold War deterrence is no longer enough to maintain peace, to protect our own citizens and or own allies and friends," he said.

<snip>

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, said much of Bush's speech sounded appealing, but he stressed that the president left much unsaid.
"The devil is in the details," said Biden, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "It makes a great deal of difference."


http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/missile.defense.02/

====

World wary of Bush’s son of Star Wars


((He wore his spectacles that day to look smart- think anyone was fooled?))


Wednesday, May 02, 2001 :

World governments responded nervously to President George W Bush’s decision to build a shield against ballistic missile attack, dubbed Son of Star Wars, with some saying they feared the plan could jeopardise global security.

Allies including Britain and Canada issued statements that pointedly stopped short of endorsing the plan but diplomatically welcomed Bush’s promise to consult with Nato allies and Russia in creating the defence system.

Germany was even warier and Sweden offered sharp criticism.

Much of the apprehension focused on Bush’s declaration that a 1972 arms-control treaty was outdated.

<snip>

Neither Russia nor China commented immediately on Bush’s announcement, his first major defence address.

He said that the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Russia, which sets strict limits on testing and deployment of anti-missile systems, was a Cold War relic. Today’s threats, he argued, come from hostile nations like Iraq, not from Russia.

<snip>
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/05/02/story11530.asp

[kalian]

32. Thanks for the reminder....

and yes, its quite worrisome that Bush has taken this route.
The problem is that his goons are expecting a stand-off with both
the Russians and the Chinese...and this is why the "son of Star Wars"
is getting a major make over for public acceptance. Too bad it
really doesn't work as advertised...but then again, they don't care
that the cities are left unprotected... :eyes:

The whole thing is: the US has not yet really pissed off the nations
that can and WILL fight back... That's down the road I'm afraid.
The worse part: China could nuke us...and take it and walk away.
Losing 300 million chinese is nothing to them...and besides, their
infrastructure isn't something to worry about.

Now...losing 300 million Americans...well...that just about leaves
NOBODY hear to worry about what has been lost. Sobbering, no?

[jmcgowanjm]

38. thank you kalian,tinoire and All here/ I luv your info

I want to be on your team.

[kalian]

40. You are....

and I am sorry if I came across a bit aggressively. Its that there
are many posters that sometimes will try to drive through fiction
or false information as facts, etc.
I just wanted to make sure that your sources and understandings
were correct.

Yes, you're on "our team"...don't worry. :)

[Tinoire]

49. Not to worry- you are

;)

I'd say welcome aboard but it's a little late for that :)

[mikehiggins]

45. 300 million and walk away?

How about everyone? Not to mention the nuclear winter scenario and the million year half life thingee?

A nation with a leader wouldn't have to worry about stuff like this too much. A nation with a cowboy in the White House is a different story.

Bush must go.

[Tinoire]

50. I think we've established that part~

Bush must go Problem is going to be waking up the Freepers; they think he's God.

[mikehiggins]

43. Well, I guess we'll just have to try and avoid going to war, right?

I don't know what this will mean to the "pro-active warfare" theory of BushCo but I don't think very many of us will have too many problems with working towards peace.

Holy shit! Peaceful Coexistence might come back into vogue again.

The Russians have enough problems with Chechnya and the fundamentalists to the southwest. It isn't likely they'll be looking for a "war" with their trading partner across the Pacific.

China will have much more trouble in the future with the rising expectations of their people. And, again, there's that pesky Russia to the north with their constant interest in Mongolia.

I can't pretend to understand why Putin thinks deploying these missles is a good idea (unless he's trying to help BushCo push StarWars for some reason) but I suspect we are not the folks who have cause to worry about them.

It is a shame, however, that the flaming assholes in the GOP have managed to undercut and sabotage efforts to help Russia disarm by buying up as much of their weapons grade stuff as we could.

[jsw_81]

44. Humanity has gone insane

There are people dying from horrible diseases and living on the streets and we're spending billions to develop newer, deadlier doomsday weapons? It's madness.

We could lose our entire human civilization (that took 10,000+ years to develop) in a matter of hours if only a handful of these things are launched, and we're building them by the thousands?!? The inmates are running the asylum.

[mikehiggins]

46. Humanity hasn't gone insane, j

most of humanity gets up in the morning, tries to get through the day without doing too much harm, and looks forward to living a life free of all those things that make life unpleasant.

It is the political leadership that has gone insane, and has to be replaced. Bush has set the tone for the world, and he is tonedeaf.

[Loonman]

47. So who misses the USSR, now, ehh?

:eyes:

[CivilRightsNow]

48. Links

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2002/12/18/5s.html - another press release

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/mj01nukenote.html - Info on the base.

http://www.imfsite.org/mission/missiles.html - About how we funded the russian defense program along with the IMF.

http://www.afpc.org/pubs/butter.shtml - The writer is the Vice President of AFPC

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030919.htm - CNS article. For those of you that dont remember.. CNS is the think tank that produced half of the plagerized report that Colin Powell presented to the UN. The writer is an "Associate"