The missile is so hard to shoot down because it is heavily shielded. It can withstand EMP and nuclear blasts as close as 500m. It can make evasive maneuvers, but it is unkown to what magnitude.

Right now, its the worlds best. But it is not however invincible. It just means that instead of sending up one interceptor missile, two must be set up for each missile. One is sent towards it and it releases a KE warhead, which is evaded, but the missile at that speed wont have enough time to evade a second warhead about 2km behind it. And the russians can put as much shielding on it as they want, it still cant withstand impact equivalent to a 6 ton truck hitting at 800 miles an hour.

How far ahead will the russians be? A bit. The Trident II D-5 has comporable range, and it also deploys decoys and chaff and other penetration aids. It can carry the same amount of warheads. Its just not shielded.

The russians will probably stay ahead for 10 years or so, but in 2020 the Minuteman III is going to be replaced with something that is probably of the same calibur.

I also read that not only can it withstand EMP pulses, and direct blasts, but also laser weapons. This is amazing too me. As we (the US) take a defensive stance with the ABM, the Russians are taking an offensive approach...

The Russian system also deploys countermeasures in metalized balloons and chaff. For $20 worth of balloons the US have to launch x2 missiles from THAAD at a cost of $x dollars?

In a total nulcear exchange with the Russians, any system in operation or proposed will be overwhelmed by very cheap and ingenius countermeasures.

Mirrored missile bodys, rifling ICBMs, the helium filled party balloon decoys and chaff rendered trillions of $ spent on Star Wars programs from the 80's onwards as a total waste of cash.

One final thing, the Russians had a working Fractional Orbiting Bombardment System with the R-36orb, the USA never developed such a system.... this, even back in 1969, made interception a x4 bigger task as Russia could attack the US from the south pole direction meaning much more ABM batteries and radars were required. and bypassing all of NORAD in the north. Cost of FOBS compared to traditional ICBMs were comparable meaning anything put in place to defeat it would either be ineffective or drain the target nations resources doing so.

There is a substantial lack of open information regarding this particular ballistic missile. Most western intelligence sources have not disseminated enough information for it to be a topic of thorough, and balanced, discussion.

Presently, Russian based statements make up the bulk of the available information. As such, common sense should be employed. Not just at critically analyzing the suggested features of this missile, but questioning their advertisement in the first place.

ICBMs are national strategic assets of the highest magnitude, right up there with heads of state. As such, there is no one involved with such programs and systems who will shy away from following OPSEC and maintaining classified security. Given that these missiles will not be exported, who is there to impress? The United States? Or perhaps the officer in charge of procurement within the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces.

Complicating the issue is the lack of knowledge and understanding of the United States missile defense program. Needless to say, only a small amount of capability has been made public. Furthermore, the realm of missile defense systems and capability is a dynamic one. New technology, both software and hardware, can be quickly incorporated into an open architecture design. The conceptual models being considered today for the future are too numerous to list, but they are impressive.

Anyway, formulating competent conjecture on this matter from outside observation and education is possible, but it requires long research. Still, judgment based on presented information is much better than judgment based on limited knowledge. The latter falling more so under speculation.

Hopefully no one will have to be called on their bluff, because someone is surely not playing with a full deck.

Maestro64, I'll give you some answers about the topol-m and try to clear up misinformation.

Burnout velocity is over 7 km/s, or over 15000 mph. This velocity is necessary to reach intercontinental ranges of about 11,000 km The velocity given on Wikipedia is the average velocity. Remember, the missile has to accelerate and does not go in a straight line from point A to point B.

Part of the reason that it is hard to shoot down is it is a solid propellant missile. That means it accelerates quicker then older soviet liquid propellant missiles. The boost phase is the most vulnerable part of a missile's flight. In addition to this, decoys are most likely used. There is no evidence to suggest a MARV however. One test of a Marv in 2003 or 2004 on the ss-19 ended in failure.

Deployment of the topol-m is behind schedule, and secret deployment is unlikely. The ABM system in Europe is designed to target missiles of intermediate range and lower, and has nothing to do with the topol-m.

The bulava has had one failure after another. It will be armed with six conventional mirvs (75 - 100 kt each). Decoys and countermeasures will be limited, as will range, if the bulava is deployed with six MIRVs. The bulava is the Russian equivalent of the trident c-4.

Russian liquid propellant technology is good, but they are far behind the U.S. in solid propellant missiles. France is also ahead of russia in solid propellant technology.

Both the trident d-5 and the M-51 are far superior to the bulava missile.

To black widow:

The warheads might be shielded, but the missile is not. When the MIRVed topol-m is deployed, it will have six MIRVs (most likely r-39 warheads). Nothing special.

The topol-m is the best solid propellant missile that russia has made, but it is pretty primitive when it comes to modern solid propellant technology.

The warhead on the topol-m (which is not a Marv) will not withstand an impact froma solid kinetic energy warhead with a closing velocity of over 10 km/s. No warhead will ever be able to withstand such an impact. EVER. It is completely ridiculous to suggest such a thing.

The MM III is already in the same caliber as the topol-m. It has a better throw weight to weight ration, is more accurate, and is deployed in larger numbers.


To the professional:

Stop listening to propaganda and unverified reports. Deny ignorance.

To unknown perpetrator:

The U.S. ABM system was designed to handle a limited number of icbms from rogue nations and not the full arsenal of Russia.

The FOBS r-36 could only put a little more then 1/3rd of the payload that a conventional r-36 missile could throw to 11000 km. Thus it was at least 3 times more expensive. Satellites eliminated much of the advantage of fobs. FOBS will also have decreased accuracy.

TO West Point:

There is heavy pressure to replace older heavy missiles (ss-19, ss-18) with a new heavy liquid propellant ICBM. MITT had promised to deliver a cost effective ICBM, and a low cost SLBM based on the topol-m. That has not happened and MITT is under a lot of pressure, and a good P.R. campaign about their "invincible" missiles in vital. Yuri Solomonov once remarked that the rs-24 (MIRVed topol-m) is a HEAVY ICBM. 1200 kg throw weight is not a heavy ICBM. The ss-19 has a throw weight of 4350 kg and would be classified as a true, heavy ICBM

the russian `super hard` SS-19 silo`s are capabale of resisting 50000lbs over pressure - which is actually the reason why each russian SS-18/19 silo has 2 trident D-5 mirv`s aimed at them - 1 is actually not a guarenteed hard kill.

and thats the thin most people don`t actually realise - most of the missiles are actually aimed at the `other sides` silo based weapons - or , in the case of the US , aimed at the operations area of the mobile stuff.


imagine haveing to aim 10 nukes at an area of forest so you can kill 1 TEL.


no i have`t got the link to the pdf`s anymore - but the warbook was published , in a huge format a while back and linked on here - a very very detailed publication.

Originally posted by Harlequin
the russian `super hard` SS-19 silo`s are capabale of resisting 50000lbs over pressure - which is actually the reason why each russian SS-18/19 silo has 2 trident D-5 mirv`s aimed at them - 1 is actually not a guarenteed hard kill.

Interesting I always read that they always targetted 2 warheads on each silo from different submarines for built in redundancy. If one sub is taken out, there won't be a ole in the targetting pattern.

That being said even a super hardened silo would not withstand a hit from a Trident warhead from 200 yards (CEP has been stated at 100 yards) as there would be a crater in the ground overlapping the silo.

the trident was one of the first sub based SLBM's that has true counterforce capability (the ability to hit the enemies silos) As far as 2 mirvs per silop, given the D-5's cep of 130m even a hardened silo would suffer sig. shock damage

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

So my statement is correct, thanks for the supporting data.

All this talk about hardened silos is moot, because there would be no missle in the silo when the warheads get there.
In this day and age any launch of land based icbms would be detected within seconds of launch and the other side would have its missles on the way long before the warheads arrive.
Striking at silos is really only effective as measure to prevent a second shot.

Although a russian boomer might be able to sneak close enough to launch on american silos, it would have a us attack sub shadowing it.
And if the internation situation was so bad that there was even the remotest possibillity of a nuclear confrontation, neither side would allow a boomer to get close enough to make a real surprise attack, they would be sent to the bottom or vaporized as soon as they started to make for launch depth.
Besides boomers are city killers and would be used for subsequent restriking of citys and soft military targets, mabey even months after the initial exchange, an extra nail in the coffin, so to speak.

25 years ago I had a college class called" International relations conflicts", and I wrote a term paper on various scenarios for a full scale nuclear exchange between the west and east.
I was able to find several sources that had theroretical american and soviet targeting profiles.
In most scenarios cities and infrastructure targets and soft military instilations, airbases, navy bases and the like used up the most warheads.
In one soviet profile, the top 400 american and european cities would get at least one warhead, along with major ports and rail centers.
Agricultural areas would also have been heavily targeted, with both air and ground bursts.
My San Joaquin Valley, in ca, would have gotten up 20 warheads rained down on it, not enough to destroy the entire area but enough to poison the most productive agriculture area in world for generations to come.
There was even talk that some soviet warhead designs were excessively "dirty", to maximize the area denial capabilities.

MAD is just that, mutually assured destruction.

And unless there is a madman in power in either the us or russia, there will never be an exchange between us. Maybe between russia and china, there is a long and simmering history between the two countries.
An exchange between the indians and pakistan is more likely, or between india and china, as a last ditch effort to stop a chinese andvance through the mountains.

I wish I could remember tha name of the book, but a few years ago I read a novel about ww3, and I dont think it was either of the WW3 novels by the british writer Sir John Hackett?.
In the novel the scenario was that the russians and chinese were at odds over a territorial dispute. American intelligence discovered the chinese were preparing a limited strike on russian rail complexes and far eastern military bases, to isolate the the far eastern territories.
When the us president learns that the chinese had rolled out and started to fuel their missles, he called the russian president and warned him, they had become close friends.
The russians then launched a preemptive strike on china and all hell broke loose, because once the genie is out of the bottle you cant control him.
The book has some of the most compelling accounts of what a full scale nuclear exchange would do.

The chapter about the strike on us airbases in southern california, was very good as was the chapter about a pair of minuteman operators, who ride out a strike on the montana silos.
It was in reading this book that I found out the real reason for the guys in the silo to wear a side arm. Back in the day it was popularly thought that they wore a side arm in case one of the two men required to launch a vehicle refused to do so, then he would be shot. It doesnt make any sence becasue either way the missle isnt lauched.
That was not the case, the had the side arm to commit suicide after launching as they would likley be killed in the exchange or sealed in their silos.

It was a frightening book.
If anybody read this book and knows the name I would like to know it so I could read it again.

I can remember a thread earlier here which went quite in depth of russian icbm designs, i can remember someone quoting a source which basically stated that the reason the topol had a quite low amount of actual warheads launched was due to massive shielding. Of what it was never mentioned iirc.