It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian General reports on schedule delivery of T-95 tank and project 955 sub.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 




Sadly, god doesnt excist and what i wrote is a fact.


By any chance are you a comedian?




I wouldnt write iff i didnt knew the awnser and/or reaction wasnt correct... And i did my research and iff you want sources: feel free to ask for them.


Feel free to post them




Minuteman III range: 9700 KM.
RT-UTTH Topol M range: 11.000 KM.


Actually... Minuteman III

nuclearweaponarchive.org...

Mk-12 RV: 8080 mi. (13,000 km)
Mk-12a RV: 7020 mi. (11,300 km)

3 Mk-12a RVs bring the throw weight of the Minuteman III to ~1100kg, this brings it in excellent agreement with START. 1150 kg to 11000km



And please, dont call me a fool.


Sorry. I have this uncontrollable urge to tell the truth.




posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   


IT is not speculation, just an important fact that needs to be pointed out. ~17 tonnes heavier and only 100kg more throw weight. Peacekeeper's first stage had a 92.5% fuel loading (by mass). In comparison the smaller trident d-5 has a 94%+ fuel loading for the first stage, and even the small third stage has a 92.9% feul loading. Then again, the trident d-5 costs twice as much, lb for lb, as does the peacekeeper.

Even russia's best liquid propellant missiles do not top U.S.s best solid propellant missile's lb for lb. And when you factor in density, for get about it!!







IT is not speculation, just an important fact that needs to be pointed out.
~17 tonnes heavier and only 100kg more throw weight.

your so called 'fact' continues to speculation ... as i said before not interested in useless speculation




In comparison the smaller trident d-5 has a 94%+ fuel loading for the first stage, and even the small third stage has a 92.9% feul loading. Then again, the trident d-5 costs twice as much, lb for lb, as does the peacekeeper.

Even russia's best liquid propellant missiles do not top U.S.s best solid propellant missile's lb for lb. And when you factor in density, for get about it!!


the reason why Trident D-5 is light and so capable in carrying such payload is that it uses graphite epoxy ...


All three stages of the Trident II are made of graphite epoxy, making the missile much lighter
en.wikipedia.org...





I ask you to do some research and stop posting this drivel.


some research for you:


Satan is a MIRVed missile that can evade any ballistic missile system. It has 16 platforms, one of them with decoy targets. During the midcourse and entry stages of the trajectory, the warheads fly in a cloud of false targets and hence cannot be identified by radars. The warheads themselves are nearly invulnerable, because they can be destroyed only by a direct hit of a very powerful antimissile with characteristics that cannot be created within modern ABM programs.

The much touted laser systems are impotent too, as Satan's warheads are covered by a thick armor made with Uranium 238, which has an exceptional density. Lasers, at least those that will be created within the next two decades, cannot burn through such armor. And the electromagnetic impulse cannot harm it either, because the missile's electronic guidance system is duplicated by pneumatic instruments
www.globalsecurity.org...


be careful about what you say next time mad scientist/rogue/kingtiger10

James posted:


And those ICBM`s have TVC engines and anti laser coverings to be imune off the ABL system...

yes SS-18 and Topol M have anti laser coverings of depleted uranium
and according to certain rpeorts Topol M has TVC engines for final phase MARV (manuverable warhead)


[edit on 4-2-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 4-2-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 4-2-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



Iskander he has asked you 6 times the same question - will you answer that question and stop ignoring it . quoting reams of history is one thing - ignoring direct questions is something totally ignorant.


What are you talking about and what does it have to do with this topic?!

Calling me ignorant because I asked you to clarify what your talking about is just plain rude by the way.

I my self have asking him questions as well, yet he simply chooses to pick and chose what ever part that suits him, so what am I supposed to do, pry it out of him with a pair of pliers?

Please make your self clear and, stop tap-dancing around and tell me what that question was.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Here’s an appropriate point;


the reason why Trident D-5 is light and so capable in carrying such payload is that it uses graphite epoxy ...


When sitting in a nice and cozy climate controlled silo it’s all good, but try taking it off road in freezing cold or scorching heat, and then it becomes a liability.

As for throw weights, I’ll just list one name;

Konstantin Eduardovitch Tsiolkovsky.

Here’s a question, why are Soviet strategic missiles have always been heavier?

What happens when one side has to launch a retaliatory strike when incoming warheads are already bursting in the air releasing EMP pulses and massive shock waves?

What happens when a one of the leading ICBMs one the way out is intercepted by a nuclear ABM and a following missile has to correct its trajectory in mid flight?

Will a heavier fuselage construction combined with thrust vectoring allow a missile to perform maneuvers in mid flight even at the cost of extra weight?

And here’s the final and most important question, which type of weapons are offensive, and which are defensive, the light quick and small or heavily armored maneuverable and packed with redundancy systems?

For as small example, when MiG-25s tube radar was examined it was laughed at, and considered obsolete, until tests proved that it was capable of literally burning through every ECM system available, all while being specifically designed to operate in the area of nuclear combat, same goes for all Soviet ICBMs, which have layers of HEAVY EMP protection, and that adds weight.

KINGTIGER10, what do you teach?



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Here’s an appropriate point;


the reason why Trident D-5 is light and so capable in carrying such payload is that it uses graphite epoxy ...


When sitting in a nice and cozy climate controlled silo it’s all good, but try taking it off road in freezing cold or scorching heat, and then it becomes a liability.

As for throw weights, I’ll just list one name;

Konstantin Eduardovitch Tsiolkovsky.

Here’s a question, why are Soviet strategic missiles have always been heavier?

What happens when one side has to launch a retaliatory strike when incoming warheads are already bursting in the air releasing EMP pulses and massive shock waves?

What happens when a one of the leading ICBMs one the way out is intercepted by a nuclear ABM and a following missile has to correct its trajectory in mid flight?

Will a heavier fuselage construction combined with thrust vectoring allow a missile to perform maneuvers in mid flight even at the cost of extra weight?



KINGTIGER10, what do you teach?





Will a heavier fuselage construction combined with thrust vectoring allow a missile to perform maneuvers in mid flight even at the cost of extra weight?

thrust vectoring is only in topol M according to certain reports... Topol M has TVC engines for final phase MARV (manuverable warhead)

the SS-18 is reported to have certain tungsten based components and uses depleted uranium for its warheads ,according to Pavel Podvig if the internal parts instead were made of lighter materials such as titanium or various carbides or graphite, then the payload could have been 14++ TONS!!!!!!!
but i consider that speculation on part of Podvig ...

well the soviet govt considered a 9.5 ton capacity SS-18 also but due to START treaties the payload capacity was limited to 8.8 tons ....


Missiles of the R-36M/SS-18 family have never been deployed with more than ten warheads. But given their large throw-weight (8.8 tonnes as specified in START), they have the capacity to carry considerably more than that. Among the projects that the Soviet Union considered in the mid-1970s was that of a 15A17 missile—a follow-on to the R-36MUTTH (15A18). The missile would have had an even greater throw-weight—9.5 tonnes—and would be able to carry a very large number of warheads. Five different versions of the missile were considered. Three of these versions would carry regular warheads – 38x 250 kt yield, 24x 500 kt yield, or 15-17x 1 Mt yield
en.wikipedia.org...





[edit on 4-2-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 4-2-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 4-2-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 4-2-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 4-2-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 



thrust vectoring is only in topol M according to certain reports...


Oh no, the history of thrust vectoring is so don’t even know where to begin, but one things is certain, Soviets have been using thrust vectoring extensively in just about everything, including short range IR air-to-air missiles like R-73.

When it comes to ICBM thrust vectoring development, a very clear example of long history of Soviet efforts can be clearly see with the testing of R-7A/8K74 back in 1959.

Even though technically it’s not correct, I’ll break it into two basic categories. Minimal flight stabilization control thrust vectoring, active thrust vectoring, and thrust vectoring vanes to perform aerial maneuvers.

While during the Cold War era thrust vectoring capabilities of ICBMs were one of highly classified topics, these days the technology is so widespread that’s in comparison it’s is just as widely accepted as ABS brakes on cars. By now thrust vectoring is old news, and flow control is on the way to break the new limits.

Naturally the performance data for each particular design is classified, but the concept is so old that it’s by far nothing new.

During early days liquid propellant based motors were easier to build with thrust vectoring for large missiles, and only currently large solid fuel rockets can effectively vector their thrust.

Another good example would be Soviet SAMs, most of which are thrust vectored to give them incredible agility, but naturally that greatly increases the stress on the missiles body, thus overall heavier construction is necessary.

S-300 verses Patriot for example. Even though they are not in the same classes, S-300 missiles are much larger and built like flying tanks to continuously withstand extreme Gs. Patriot is built out of light composites, and while it can pull high Gs, it can only do it for a moment or it will simply snap in half.


To make a perfect example on ICBM thrust vectoring, here’s a basic CIA brief back from 98 on the Chinese thrust vectoring capable ICBM, and naturally one does not have to think to hard where they have acquired the technology;


CIA Assessment
Applicability of Space Launch Vehicle Technology To Ballistic Missiles
CHINESE LONG MARCH & CSS ICBM



SPACE LONG PRC
TECHNOLOGY MARCH ICBM COMMENTS
================================================================
WARHEAD NO YES APPLIES TO ICBM ONLY

RE-ENTRY VEHICLE YES YES SIMILAR TO RETURN
CAPSULE TECHNOLOGY

PAYLOAD SEPERATION YES YES SATELLITE & WARHEAD HAVE
SIMILAR DELIVERY

INTERNAL GUIDANCE YES YES SAME HARDWARE - SOFTWARE
& CONTROL SYSTEMS TAILORED TO APPLICATION

STAGING MECHANISMS YES YES SAME

PROPELLANTS YES YES SAME

STRAP ON BOOSTERS YES YES TECHNOLOGY MAY BE USED TO
CREATE MISSILE STAGES

AIR FRAME, MOTOR, YES YES SAME
CASES, LINERS, &
INSULATION

ENGINE OR MOTORS YES YES SAME FOR FIRST STAGE

THRUST VECTORING YES YES SAME
CONTROL SYSTEMS

ENGINE NOZZLES YES YES USUALLY IDENTICAL

SOURCE: CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY 5/14/98


www.softwar.net...


Here’s a throw weight puzzle for everybody.

The export version of Iskander-E missile is a single stage, solid fuel missile weighing 3.8 tons, carrying a payload of 480 kg. – Export version range is limited by the export treaties to just fewer than 300 km (280km), and is enabled with SA system which allows it to perform extreme aerial defensive maneuvers which are design to penetrate defensive systems and evade interception by air-to-air, direct energy and SAM threats.

The export version models warhead represents 15% of its total weight.

The real range of the domestic Iskander is at lest 500 kilometers (OKA), and carries a much larger 700kg warhead, thus making it 28% of the total missile weight, so making the “dry” weight of the missile is around 3.1 tons.

Trident d-5: Payload 2800 kg Weight: 58.5 tonnes 5% payload 12000 km km

In direct comparison of these entire different class missiles, Trident D-5 flies 24 times farther, has 4 times heavier warhead, at is 15 times heavier.

The question is, what would the approximate rage of single stage Iskander be if its warhead was only 5% (35 kilos) of its 700 kilo original warhead weight, which will make it 20 times lighter?

Theoretically, how far would this solid propellant missile be able to fly on a standard ballistic trajectory, with out performing any fancy maneuvers?

Then let’s imagine how far it will reach on aeroballistic trajectory.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   


your so called 'fact' continues to speculation ... as i said before not interested in useless speculation


Unless it backs up your point of view?




the reason why Trident D-5 is light and so capable in carrying such payload is that it uses graphite epoxy ...


Thank you captain obvious. Mind pointing out that the sky is blue




be careful about what you say next time mad scientist/rogue/kingtiger10


so Andrei Kislyakov says the the warheads fly in a cloud of false targets and hence cannot be identified by radars. Presumptuous don't you think. Also it is presumptuous to think the ABM is designed to counter russia.




The much touted laser systems are impotent too


Which would those be? hahahahha. This guy is confused.




yes SS-18 and Topol M have anti laser coverings of depleted uranium
and according to certain rpeorts Topol M has TVC engines for final phase MARV (manuverable warhead)


The marv has thrust vectoring like the Boost Glide Re-entry Vehicle? Pop up fins proved more efficient. BY THE WAY ABL IS A BOOST PHASE INTERCEPTOR!!!




I my self have asking him questions as well, yet he simply chooses to pick and chose what ever part that suits him, so what am I supposed to do, pry it out of him with a pair of pliers?


Most of your posts do not have any relevance to the topic at hand. You seem to have a fascination with microwaves. Ever thought about pursuing a career with GE?




When sitting in a nice and cozy climate controlled silo it’s all good, but try taking it off road


Yes, those bulavas have a heck of a harsh climate to sit in. Just like the submariners, right?




Here’s a question, why are Soviet strategic missiles have always been heavier?


To compensate for something smaller?




Will a heavier fuselage construction combined with thrust vectoring allow a missile to perform maneuvers in mid flight even at the cost of extra weight?


Your confused as to the flight of an icbm. Solid propellant missile have a boost phase of only 3 minutes or so. By then, all stages have been burned and discarded. TVC is used to control the trajectory of the missile early in flight (trident obviously has it too) not to make loop-d-loops in boost phase. Please educate yourself. By the way, topol-m heavier fuselage is due to the fact Russia is lagging behind in composite technology.



And here’s the final and most important question, which type of weapons are offensive, and which are defensive, the light quick and small or heavily armored maneuverable and packed with redundancy systems?


So the topol-m sacrifices an additional ~500kg for maneuver in boost phase?






thrust vectoring is only in topol M according to certain reports... Topol M has TVC engines for final phase MARV (manuverable warhead)


Why have a complex system when small aerodynamic fins would be simpler? Does the topol-m have a marv. Probably not. After all, they are mirving the topol-m. So I guess the marv was not as effective as a mirvs.




according to Pavel Podvig if the internal parts instead were made of lighter materials such as titanium or various carbides or graphite, then the payload could have been 14++ TONS!!!!!!!


If you are bringing pavel podvig into the discussion then..

""I would urge everyone to be very cautious about what "Russian defense officials" are saying or are reported to say. Otherwise this thread will end up with claims of "mobile heavy missiles that can fly sideways to go around missile defenses" or something like that.""

""I don't quite understand why people are so concerned about comparing missile efficiency. The United States has substantial experience with building solid-propellant missiles, so it's not surprising it can build them better. So what?""



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   


and thrust vectoring vanes to perform aerial maneuvers


Yes, of course, the icbm flies around like a fighter jet. Wowing the crowds and then making its accession into the heavens.




Patriot is built out of light composites


You do understand that light composites are stronger then steel or other alloys, don't you?




To make a perfect example on ICBM thrust vectoring, here’s a basic CIA brief back from 98 on the Chinese thrust vectoring capable ICBM, and naturally one does not have to think to hard where they have acquired the technology;


Do you even know what a TVC is? And why would the Topol (not M) need pop out fin? Figure that one out.



Then let’s imagine how far it will reach on aeroballistic trajectory.


We don't have to image, I'll do the math for you. Just have to Correct two things

First, It is 3.8 tonnes, not tons.

Second "“dry” weight of the missile is around 3.1 tons" is not quite right. After all the export version is 3.8 tonnes with a 480kg warhead. So it is most likely that domestic version is 3800kg + 220kg (increased warhead size) = 4020kg. OK?

One last thing to clear up. You do understand the 500km range is on a MET, right? Good. A missile can follow a depressed trajectory at the expense of maximum range.

"""The question is, what would the approximate rage of single stage Iskander be if its warhead was only 5% (35 kilos) of its 700 kilo original warhead weight, which will make it 20 times lighter?"""

So what do we know: 500km range ballistic missile will have a burnout velocity of 2150km/s. Assumming a high performance class 1.3 solid propellant with an exhaust velocity of 2500m/s at sea level.

So: 2150 = 2500ln(4020/x)

We get approximately 1700kg as final mass. Thus 1000kg is not propellant or warhead. So we can reduce final mass to 1035kg

so X = 2500ln(4020/1035)

X equals approx. 3340 m/s Which brings its range to 1350km with a 35 kg warhead.




Theoretically, how far would this solid propellant missile be able to fly on a standard ballistic trajectory, with out performing any fancy maneuvers?


1350km...theoretically. Realistically you would have to factor in gravity loss, drag, atmospheric temperature variations. Both 1350 km is accurate to within 15%.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
reply to post by Lambo Rider
 


yes, it has a larger stockpile , but the numbre of nukes deployed is lesser than USA
What are you talking about, all the warheads "Stratigic"or not are way more than U.S., IN 2002 the BBC reported that Russia had under 7000 warheads, for arguments sake lets just say 7000:

1. Under thge salt treaties Russia and U.S. and non-Russia/U.S. "Observerse" were to witness the destruction of the nuclear missiles on both sides.
Russia had 39,000 warheads, and the U.S. just over 25,000 during the cold war, now if these numbers are correct (which they are NOT) that means between 1992-2002 Russia destroyed an average of 3200 warheads a year, but there's just one MAJOR problem, theres no reports dating each year from 92-02 that show Russia destroyed 3200, ( or x-amount) of nukes, these are simply western propaganda trying to make it LOOK like U.S.A. has surpassed Russia, and Russia is alouwing tio to happen because they are using "The Art of War" stratagy against the west.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by KINGTIGER10
 



Yes, those bulavas have a heck of a harsh climate to sit in. Just like the submariners, right?


Topol-M = SLBM Bulava. What’s your major malfunction here?


By the way, topol-m heavier fuselage is due to the fact Russia is lagging behind in composite technology.


Prove it. My proof is in Berkuts forward swept wings, what’s yours? And for God sakes please find it in your self to be considerate enough to provide credible sources instead of just throwing opinions around.


So the topol-m sacrifices an additional ~500kg for maneuver in boost phase?


Just to show how out of the loop you are. GBI on aeroballistic trajectory fired from Poland could reach Moscow in only in three minutes and can detonate its thermonuclear/EMP warhead to take down ICBMs inn their most vulnerable stage.

In any case, all missiles are designed with a very specific set of requirements, and attempting to discuss supposed lack or abundance of technological edge by focusing on range verses weight is utterly useless.

If you actually want to know more, just ask, but if you’ll continue bringing up the same old baseless argument, I’ll be more then happy to personally U2U factually info to any ATS member that’s actually interested in learning something, because I’m sick and tired of posting valid information only to have it repeatedly smeared and discarded.


Why have a complex system when small aerodynamic fins would be simpler?


At what speeds? Fixed or actuated fins? At what speed actuated fins become completely useless?


Does the topol-m have a marv. Probably not. After all, they are mirving the topol-m. So I guess the marv was not as effective as a mirvs.


Stop guessing and find out, if can’t’ ask people that know.


If you are bringing pavel podvig into the discussion then..


What was all that about?


Yes, of course, the icbm flies around like a fighter jet. Wowing the crowds and then making its accession into the heavens.


No, the fly straight and narrow, just like V2, so they can be easily intercepted just when they are at the slowest part of their flight path.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Again, a rough translation;

“Today there’s a lot of discussion about Antimissile Defense System use in theater of military operations. This ADS defense is not strategic; it’s not used in reference to AMB and is not supported by 1972 agreement. Two systems in the world are designed to intercept ballistic missiles of short to medium ranges; they are American Patriot and Russian S-300.
]
Such systems are rather effective, fast firing, and used in large numbers. The main method of defeating their capabilities is equipping ballistic missiles of short to medium ranges with and ADS systems.

First effort began in 1970s under management of Igor Kypiyanov, and a new complex was created for ballistic missile “OKA” developed by Sergei Nepobedimovo.

In the beginning of 1980, both Patriot and S-300 were fielded with USA/USSR. The use of Patriot system against ballistic missile “OKA”, which was enabled with defensive systems, if it would have happen in reality, would have been completely ineffective.

After fielding of “OKA”, Patriot lost its antimissile capabilities, and Americans realizing it immediately began modernization program of the Patriot.

At the same time, developers of “OKA” began work on the modernized version code named “OKA-U” with modernized ADS systems.

The result of the efforts produced a unique complex of tactical weapon system capabilities of which were not matched for decades to come”.

So what we had there back in the 80s is s Soviet medium range tactical ballistic missile that was specifically designed to defeat and penetrate our Patriot SAM batteries.

Here’s the extent of that situation;


Operational status
The SS-23 entered service in 1980 and was located at sites in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Germany and Russia. In November 1987, the Russians declared 127 missiles and 64 launcher vehicles operational, with a further 112 missiles and 42 launcher vehicles non-deployed. Under the terms of the 1987 INF Treaty, the Russian missiles were withdrawn and destroyed by May 1991. A total of 211 missiles were launched in tests and for training. A further 72 SS-23s were reported to have been exported to Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Germany around 1984. It is unclear what has happened to all these missiles, as these were not included in the INF Treaty destruction programme. It is reported that the Russians removed any nuclear warheads from these missiles in 1991. Germany received eight TEL and 24 missiles, and these have been destroyed. The Czech Republic retained five TEL and 16 missiles, but these have also been destroyed. Slovakia retained in service three TEL and eight missiles, and in April 1999 announced that it would destroy these missiles. The missiles had not been destroyed by May 2000, but a US-funded programme is believed to be in place to complete the destruction by the end of 2000. Bulgaria has retained in service eight TEL and 24 missiles.


www.aeronautics.ru...

That’s how dangerous OKAs ADS defensive capabilities are to this day.

Now to the simple issue of throw weight, and while it’s the least important one considering the nature of the topic, here it is anyway;


A derivative of SS-23 was proposed for use as a satellite launch vehicle in 1993, known as Sphera. This SLV has a launch weight of 3,300 kg and can place a 415 kg payload into a low Earth orbit at 275 km altitude. There have been no reported launches of the Sphera SLV.


www.aeronautics.ru...


So naturally a question arises, how far will OKAs next generation Iskander will throw its payload with out all of the dancing around? All while not forgetting that OKA is a 1970 design fielded in 1980, while Iskander is a late 80s design fielded in 2000? What advances of over 30 years of development might it possess?

That I’ll leave to you, but since we have very clear data on “Sphera” delivery capability, here’s how it is;


A satellite 275 km (170 mi) above the Earth's surface will have a period of 1.5 hours and a velocity of 27,860 km/h


www.geocities.com...

Please read the full source, you’ll get the full picture.

Now to the interesting part, with out having to perform evasive maneuvers in order to penetrate Patriot SAM sites, 1980 SS-23 can throw 415 kilo “package” into orbit, a package which will reach speeds of 27,860 km/h and sustain it for 1.5 hours.

Having these numbers for OKA, what would be its ballistic range with a 35 kilo warhead?

p.s.

I sure hope that somebody appreciates my effort to bring original material to ATS and all the translation I’ve been doing, because back in the days I got paid for doing crap like that.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 



be careful about what you say next time mad scientist/rogue/kingtiger10


That’s what this is? I though that I’ve notices some familiar overtones. Man, that’s just sad.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   


Now to the interesting part, with out having to perform evasive maneuvers in order to penetrate Patriot SAM sites, 1980 SS-23 can throw 415 kilo “package” into orbit, a package which will reach speeds of 27,860 km/h and sustain it for 1.5 hours.


Excuse me for laughing.hahhahahahahahaha

www.aeronautics.ru... hhahahahahahahah

That would mean a specific impulse of over 600 seconds.....hahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahaha

hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah

"""That I’ll leave to you, but since we have very clear data on “Sphera” delivery capability, here’s how it is; ""

The simple fact that you believe this crap makes your argument useless.

Sphera would have an exhaust velocity of over 6000 m/s at sea level!!!

hydrogen and oxygen give only 4500 m/s exhaust velocty in vacuum!!!





That weapon is SS-21 Scarab/ R-400 OKA, aka 9К79 “Точка” (Point)


Your confusing you r missiles, this is above your head.




No, not OK, prove it. “Most likely” does not cut it, because with just a wee-bit looking into, one can easily find out that total weight of the Russian Iskander, so go to it instead of assuming things again.



You're right. I overestimated!!!. In fact I used 4020 as the initial mass for my calculation with the 35 kg warhead. It should be 3355kg. THis brings burnout velocity to 2940 m/s or less then a 1000km range with a 35kg warhead!!!!!!!




You do understand that composites are not heat resistant unless they are reinforced with ceramics right? And that ceramics make the construction heavier then a titanium reinforced structure


So i guess graphite epoxy should be replaced with titanium alloy. hahahahahhaha




At what speeds? Fixed or actuated fins? At what speed actuated fins become completely useless?


With russian actuatuars the size of cadillacs, id on't knw. Do you. Amarv had no problem with popout fins.



GBI on aeroballistic trajectory fired from Poland could reach Moscow in only in three minutes and can detonate its thermonuclear/EMP warhead to take down ICBMs inn their most vulnerable stage


The missiles in poland have bournout velocity of only 6.3 km/s. Futhermore, they do not carry a nuclear warhead. And if they did, the only chance the topl would have is if it can out accelerate the GBI. maneuvers will only make it that much easier to hit with a nuke.




Prove it. My proof is in Berkuts forward swept wings, what’s yours


So x-29 had composites too. Making composite wings and a composite motor are not the same thing. Secondly, topol-m m does have a composite motor, but is still inferior to the minutmen III's composte motor case of the 1960's. And graphite epoxy is another thing all together. France is currently deveoping their new slbm with a graphite epoxy motor case.




Topol-M = SLBM Bulava. What’s your major malfunction here?


Bulava is quite a bit different. Dimensions are totally different. Bulava pushes the envelope for russian slbm 1150kg to 9500km. R-39 upgrade didn't work, and the bulave will be delayed to 2010+, or cancelled!!




Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.










[edit on 5-2-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Talking about ground based interceptors for boost phase interception.



TABLE 2: For a ground-based directed-energy defensive |
| weapon to climb high enough to attack Soviet ICBMs in |
| their boost phase requires large boosters for the defen- |
| sive payload and would subject the payload to large |
| forces. |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| RANGE from ICBM launchpo|
| nt |
| to defensive launcher|
| |
| 6000 5000 4000 30|
| 0 nmi |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Altitude defensive weapon* 2960 2050 1260 6|
| 0 nmi |
| must reach in 120 sec |
| |
| Mass of defensive missile 2.1 MT 19,000 330 |
| 4 tons |
| assuming instant burn** |
| |
| Mass of defensive missile ..... ..... 270 KT 4|
| 0 tons |
| assuming constant acceleration** |
| |
| Acceleration required 78 54 33 |
| 7 g's |
| assuming constant acceleration |
| |
| *Assumes 100-nmi clearance of the line-of-sight from |
| earth's surface, and that offensive booster has reached |
| 200 nmi height. |
| **Payload mass = 500 kg; specific impulse = 300 sec. |
| |
| Source: Author; from Ballistic Missile Defense, Edited |
_________ _______ ________
| by A.B. Carter and D. Schwartz (1984).


www.fas.org...



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by KINGTIGER10
 


KINGTIGER10 (or what ever your namew is these dyas), considering your blatantly disrespectful tone and clearly ignorant attitude towards civil and informative atmosphere ATS members work hard to maintain, I wash my hands of your blabbering.

Your repeated refusal to display even the faintest attempt to learn and educate your self on the simplest of things is damaging to this community.

Consider this as my final post to your baseless and irritating rants.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5-2-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   
For the rest of ATS community, here’s an excellent, detailed article about Iskander and specifically OKA and its Sfera variants.

There were 3 variants, Sfera-M, Sfera-M1 and Sfera-M2.

A very detailed and informative source. Perticularly I was interested in this part;


Кроме того, его одноступенчатая ракета 9М714 управляется на траектории, она может быть перенацелена в полете, не поддается воздействию средств радиоэлектронной борьбы, ее боеголовка способна преодолеть систему ПРО и ПВО. Ее не сможет сбить ни американский комплекс ПРО Pаtriot PAC—3, ни другие его модификации, даже перспективные. На этой системе впервые применена известная теперь по американским самолетам-невидимкам технология «Стеллс».


“Other the that, single stage 9M714 rocket is capable of changes its flight trajectory, can be reassigned to a different target in mid flight, does not succumb to electronic radio countermeasures, its warhead is capable of breeching ADS and SAM systems. It can not be intercepted by Patriot PAC-3, or its other modifications, including perspective future developments. For the very first time this system employed technologies which have become known as “stealth” for their use in American “stealth” aircraft.”

The article is written by a respected military analyst Viktor Litovkin, who calls him self a “professional military journalist”.

Here’s his bio;


Может потому и прослужил в армии более тридцати лет. Начинал рядовым солдатом, а завершил военную службу полковником. Закончил факультет журналистики высшего военного училища, редакторское отделение военной академии. Трудился в военных изданиях - в газете и журнале, затем в газете "Известия", в "Общей газете", в РИА Новости, с апреля 2007 года - заместитель ответственного редактора "Независимого военного обозрения". По заданию редакций работал на войне - в Афганистане и Косово, практически во всех "горячих точках" на просторах бывшего Союза - в Абхазии, Приднестровье, Южной Осетии и, конечно, в Чечне.


www.rian.ru...

To sum-up.

He served in the military for over 30 years. Enlisted as a private and retired as a Colonel.

Has a degree in military journalism in the department of military academy. Worked for the biggest Russian newspapers such as “Izvestiya”, “Obshaya gazeta”, in RIA News, from April of 2007 works as a vice-editor of “Independent military analysis”. Worked as a military journalist in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and almost all other “hot” zones of ex-Soviet Union, including Chechnya.

Here’s his blog;

vlitovkin.livejournal.com...

No BS there, and I must say it’s really refreshing.


With that out of the way, let’s get back to the topic. Among other uses, Sfera project was aimed at cost efficient scientific experiments, allowing it to reach altitudes of up to 600 kilometers in order to conduct biological, technological metallurgical, astronomical ant other experiments.

In short, a single stage solid fuel Sfera is capable of reaching 600km. If anybody is aware of any American single stage rocket in 3 ton range that can do the same, let me know.

Here’s the source text if anybody cares to run it through a translator. If anybody has any questions, please feel free to U2U me and I’ll help to translate parts of interest.


Наука бескорыстия

После ликвидации "Оки" и ее модернизированного варианта "Ока-У", которую можно было наводить в полете, как по неподвижным, так и по подвижным целям, передавая команды с самолета дальнего радиолокационного дозора и управления А-50, Сергей Павлович Непобедимый написал заявление об отставке. В нем уничтожение своего детища назвал "предательством страны и ее армии".

Генеральным конструктором коломенского КБ машиностроения назначили заместителя Непобедимого Николая Гущина. Олег Мамалыга остался главным конструктором. Но как бы не боевого комплекса, а многоцелевой ракеты для геофизических исследований "Сфера".

"Сфер" этих было много - "Сфера-М", "Сфера-М1", "Сфера-М2". Делали их в Коломне, что называется, на голом энтузиазме и абсолютном финансовом бескорыстии, - государство в те годы не выделяло им и копейки бюджетных средств. Если бы не продажа за рубеж переносных зенитных ракетных комплексов "Стрела" и "Игла", противотанковых управляемых ракет "Малютка-2" и "Штурм", созданных, кстати, тоже под руководством Непобедимого, даже зарплату людям платить было бы нечем.

Мамалыга и его товарищи тоже пытались протолкнуть "Сферу" на международный рынок. Комплекс предоставлял уникальные возможности для проведения биологических, технологических, металловедческих, астрономических, любых других исследований и экспериментов в околоземном космическом пространстве, в атмосфере, ионосфере и магнитосфере Земли на высотах от 300 до 600 км. Это было гораздо дешевле, чем тратить на такую работу спутники, так как позволяло накопить большой статистический материал и сравнить результаты исследований, загружая возвращаемую научную аппаратуру различными модельными объектами.


www.marsiada.ru...

www.rian.ru...



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 04:34 AM
link   


Unless it backs up your point of view?

really,when did i say that my point of view should be backed ???



By the way, topol-m heavier fuselage is due to the fact Russia is lagging behind in composite technology.

I am not convinced about this statment .... russians were the first ones to use composite armour for T-64 tank ...



Secondly, topol-m m does have a composite motor, but is still inferior to the minutmen III's composte motor case of the 1960's.

do you have a link with regards of this ???



If you are bringing pavel podvig into the discussion then..

i already had stated that i consider it speculation on part of podvig



Bulava is quite a bit different. Dimensions are totally different. Bulava pushes the envelope for russian slbm 1150kg to 9500km. R-39 upgrade didn't work, and the bulave will be delayed to 2010+, or cancelled!!

i expect deployment of bulava only by 2015, bulava has been giving a lot of problems

Lambo rider posted:



these are simply western propaganda trying to make it LOOK like U.S.A. has surpassed Russia, and Russia is alouwing tio to happen because they are using "The Art of War" stratagy against the west.

BS ......

where did you get this crap from ???
don't tell me -analotiy Golitsyn , for you will have me laughing ...
at this rate we will soon be talking about the protocols of zion,illuminati crap blblahblahblah




What are you talking about, all the warheads "Stratigic"or not are way more than U.S., IN 2002 the BBC reported that Russia had under 7000 warheads, for arguments sake lets just say 7000:

outdated source
currently the bullentin of atomic scientists states something like 5000
while USA has 5300 nukes



[edit on 5-2-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 04:35 AM
link   
EDIT--DOUBLE POST



[edit on 5-2-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   


I am not convinced about this statment .... russians were the first ones to use composite armour for T-64 tank ...


I was talking more in the line of fiberglass filament-wound motor cases.



do you have a link with regards of this ???


You can easily find a link for for the fiberglass filament motor case
stinet.dtic.mil...
www.aiaa.org...

Npo soyuz currently is contracted to build the motors of the topol-m. They produce fiberglass composites, but not graphite epoxy.

You have topol-m, with a 47 ton weight throwing 1150kg to 11000km
Minutmen III is is 32 tons (although some sources say 36 tons). It is virtually identical in design to the topol-m. They both have an enlarged first stage for a fast boost phase.




Consider this as my final post to your baseless and irritating rants.


How about one more? There you go.



The article is written by a respected military analyst Viktor Litovkin, who calls him self a “professional military journalist”.


He could have great credentials, but he can still be biased. Perhaps you too have something in common?




No BS there, and I must say it’s really refreshing.


Like from your previous sources?




With that out of the way, let’s get back to the topic. Among other uses, Sfera project was aimed at cost efficient scientific experiments, allowing it to reach altitudes of up to 600 kilometers in order to conduct biological, technological metallurgical, astronomical ant other experiments.


translation2.paralink.com...
The article says 300-600km. No payload is specified.



In short, a single stage solid fuel Sfera is capable of reaching 600km. If anybody is aware of any American single stage rocket in 3 ton range that can do the same, let me know.


Actually, it would a 4 ton missile depending on payload.

Sounding rockets are supposed to be cheap and expendable. I don't think NASA wants to pay $250 per kg of sounding rocket.

Japan has a single stage sounding rocket of 2.2 tonnes at altitudes of over 400km

www.astronautix.com...

Black Brant V has an altitude of 387km and a weight of 1.19 tonnes

Black Brant IV, while it is a two stage rocket, weighs only 1.35 tonnes and reaches altitudes approaching 1000km

The french HADES srbm at 1.85 tonnes, range 480km, payload unkown (80kt warhead) (OTR-23 Oka had a 50-100kt nuke)would have equal performance as a sounding rocket to the Sfera

Compare new smerch to Israeli EXTRA rocket. See what I am saying?





Here’s the source text if anybody cares to run it through a translator. If anybody has any questions, please feel free to U2U me and I’ll help to translate parts of interest.


Excellent translation website
translation2.paralink.com...


Let us be serious here for a second. Apparently you packed off your claim that a 3300kg solid propellant missile could put a 415kg into orbit. It would need a delta v of ~9500m/s.

Do you understand the formula i was using? Do you realize how crazy the space launch vehicle sounds? Seriously?

But the question that I really want answered is why did you accept such a claim without some investigation?























[edit on 5-2-2008 by KINGTIGER10]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Bullentinof Atomic Scientists reports on Russian nukes, IS in it's self b.s.
they can only get thier info from Russia, and those numbers are thier figures not Russia's.


[edit on 5-2-2008 by Lambo Rider]

[edit on 5-2-2008 by Lambo Rider]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join