Most Advanced Missile In The World

Originally posted by titus


"The silo-based version has been reported to be able to withstand a direct nuclear warhead hit on its silo, and the missile itself is hardened against EMP."

Impossible, the main US counterforce warheads have yields between 300-450kt, this would completely vaporise the silo and leave a crater several hundred meters wide and almost a hundred deep. If these silo's were so immune they wouldn't bother spending millions on road mobile versions.

Well, that missle is not immune to the Airborne Laser

If tensions are heating, a couple of ABL will be over the area

Rods of God, destorys remaining silos.

Found this intersting picture of an MX during cold launch.

Its amazing that a couple little missiles could destory a country.

Thank god for missle defence contacts

Originally posted by titus

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Of course, that assumes that the missle actually works. In the last Russian war games, it was proven that their missles didn't.

of course they do. did you see that video, that ICBM worked.

they are designed to work, not f** up on launch.
few might fail, but other surely will get the target

current topol-m icbm have life span of about 34 months. they are upgrading them so life span will increase to 15 years.

and btw, this one takes 2 minutes to prepare for launch

PS: we are discussing which is most advanced ICBM, not which ICBM will fail on launch

Well - if they work so well how come during the last Russian wargames where there were 2 actual live launches BOTH missles failed?

I could understand 1 out of 2 failing, but BOTH failed, and with advanced warning of their use. In real nuclear war you may not have weeks and months to prepare.


PS: The MX is better.

SS-18 Yield: 24-25 Megaton
MX peacemaker: 300 to 475 kT

So the SS-18 in mod 2/3 are/is definetely the most powerful. As for advanced I would have to say the latest Topol-M, in mobil & silo configuration.

Source for SS-18:
www.fas.org...
www.missilethreat.com...

Source for MX peacemaker:
www.missilethreat.com...
fas.org...

Please read them carefully.

Originally posted by Kenshin
SS-18 Yield: 24-25 Megaton
MX peacemaker: 300 to 475 kT

So the SS-18 in mod 2/3 are/is definetely the most powerful. As for advanced I would have to say the latest Topol-M, in mobil & silo configuration.

Source for SS-18:
www.fas.org...
www.missilethreat.com...

Source for MX peacemaker:
www.missilethreat.com...
fas.org...

Please read them carefully.

As Pirelli says, power is nothing without control. The Peacekeeper is the most accurate ICBM ever produced, and has proven to be extremely reliable. I highly doubt the SS-18 has matched the PK's 99.9% on alert rate and almost flawless test launch record.

All for naught though, as a provision of START II both the SS-18 and the Peacekeeper are being deactivated as we speak.

reply to post by Starwars51
the most advanced ICBM is Bulava, look for it

Sorry but the american design was always more advanced and sophisticated.Back in the 50 and 60s while Russia was relying and stockpiling for the kill ratio and having less accurate systems.I would believe the mx also would have been the most advanced.

The Peacekeeper missile is America's newest intercontinental ballistic missile. With the end of the Cold War, the US has begun to revise its strategic policy, and has agreed to eliminate the multiple re-entry vehicle Peacekeeper ICBMs by the year 2003 as part of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II. The Peacekeeper (designated LGM-118A) is a four-stage intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying up to ten independently-targetable reentry vehicles with greater accuracy than any other ballistic missile. Its design combines advanced technology in fuels, guidance, nozzle design, and motor construction with protection against the hostile nuclear environment associated with land-based systems. The Peacekeeper is much larger than Minuteman, over 70 feet long and weighing 198,000 pounds. It is a four stage missile like the Minuteman III, with the first three stages being solid propellant and the fourth stage bu hypergolicly fueled with hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide. Although capable of carrying eleven Mark 21 RVs, treaty limits mandated deploying the Peacekeeper with only ten RVs. The entire missile is encased in a canister in the silo to protect it against damage and to permit "cold launch". The Minuteman II and III ignite their first stage engines while in the LF, but the Peacekeeper is ejected by pressurized gas some fifty feet into the air before first stage ignition.

The Peacekeeper is a three-stage rocket ICBM system consisting of three major sections: the boost system, the post-boost vehicle system and the re-entry system.

The boost system consists of three rocket stages that launch the missile into space. These rocket stages are mounted atop one another and fire successively. Three of the four stages exhausted their solid propellants through a single adjustable nozzle which guided the missile along its flight path. Motorcases made of kevlar epoxy material held the solid propellants. The fourth stage post-boost vehicle employed a liquid bi- propellant rocket propulsion system to provide velocity and attitude correction for missile guidance. The post-boost vehicle also employed a self-contained inertial navigation system that allowed the missile to operate independent of ground reference or commands during flight.

The 28-foot first-stage solid-fuel rocket motor weighed approximately 108,000 pounds and is capable of boosting the missile to about 75,000 feet. The 18-foot long second-stage motor propelled the missile to an altitude of about 190,000 feet and weighed 60,000 pounds. The rocket motor in the eight-foot third stage weighed 17,000 pounds and supplied the thrust to boost the missile to about 700,000 feet. The 2,300 pound post-boost fourth stage vehicle was designed to maneuver the missile into position for the multiple reentry vehicles to deploy in their respective ballistic trajectories.

Following the burnout and separation of the boost system's third rocket stage, the post-boost vehicle system, in space, maneuvers the missile as its re-entry vehicles are deployed in sequence.

The post-boost vehicle system is made up of a maneuvering rocket, and a guidance and control system. The vehicle rides atop the boost system, weighs about 3,000 pounds (1,363 kilograms) and is 4 feet (1.21 meters) long.

The top section of the Peacekeeper is the re-entry system. It consists of the deployment module, up to 10 cone-shaped re-entry vehicles and a protective shroud. The shroud protects the re-entry vehicles during ascent. It is topped with a nose cap, containing a rocket motor to separate it from the deployment module.

The deployment module provides structural support for the re-entry vehicles and carries the electronics needed to activate and deploy them. The vehicles are covered with material to protect them during re-entry through the atmosphere to their targets and are mechanically attached to the deployment module. The attachments are unlatched by gas pressure from an explosive cartridge broken by small, exploding bolts, which free the re-entry vehicles, allowing them to separate from the deployment module with minimum disturbance. Each deployed re-entry vehicle follows a ballistic path to its target.

The Peacekeeper was the first U.S. ICBM to use cold launch technology. The missile was placed inside a canister and loaded into the launch facility. When launched, high-pressure steam ejected the canister from the launch silo to an altitude of 150 to 300 feet, and once the missile has cleared the silo, the first stage ignited and sent the missile on its course. This technique allowed SAC to launch the Peacekeeper from Minuteman silos despite the fact that the Peacekeeper was three times larger than the Minuteman III.

Not dont forget the mobile midgetman they canned.
The Small Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (SICBM) or MGM-135A Midgetman was a development project from 1986 to 1992. The idea was to create a lightweight, road-mobile ICBM that would be capable of surviving a Soviet nuclear attack. The U.S. military intended to base the SICBMs at widespread locations, thus making them difficult to locate and destroy in a Soviet first strike.

The Scowcroft Commission had recommended the development of an SICBM in the early 1980s. President Reagan authorized full-scale development in December 1986. On April 18, 1991, the system's first successful flight test was conducted. An SICBM was launched from a canister at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and reached its target at the Kwajalein Test Range in the Marshall Islands. President George H. W. Bush canceled the SICBM program in January 1992, attributing reduced tensions between the U.S. and Russia following the end of the Cold War.

Nonetheless, the SICBM development program produced a prototype SICBM mobile launcher. Designed by Boeing Aerospace and Electronics and Loral Defense Systems Division, it weighed 108,500 kg and was capable of traveling up to 88 km/h on highways. The launcher used a trailer-mounted plow to dig the launcher into the earth for additional protection form a nuclear blast. Delivered to the U.S. Air Force in December 1988, the launcher was tested until 1991 at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana.

www.fas.org...

Land based ICBMs dont make good nonsense anymore in lieu of satellite technology and navigation techniques available today. A targeting system capable of hitting within 50 to 100 feet of error is in the Bullseye. This was not possible in the early days of ICBMs..hence the large warheads to make up for this large error factor.

Mobility is the way to go ..either in wheeled vehicles, aircraft, surface ships. or on submarines. Today one must be able to keep their weapons moving...not stationary. Fixed fortifications and weapons are suicide. High mobility, maneuverability and stealth will be the wave of the future.

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply to post by Kenshin


amrica holds it and it well hold a ferm grip of power and fear over the world

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Today one must be able to keep their weapons moving...not stationary. Fixed fortifications and weapons are suicide.

Suicide indeed, political suicide.
ICBM's work perfectly fine without the need for expensive, specific designed mobile delivery systems and plans etc... Of course they are not the end all be all, (pros/cons) but I see no reason why U.S. land based ballistic missiles are obsolete. Or no military reason that is, diplomatically and politically it may be a changing ball game. Especially with a POTUS and administration which is apparently against the U.S. maintaining a reliable, sophisticated and viable nuclear capability.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
High mobility, maneuverability and stealth will be the wave of the future.

To avoid all those pesky arms control groups, movements and unrealistic ideologies... which I suppose can be considered a form of advanced (abstract) defensive (?) counter measure.

[edit on 24-2-2009 by WestPoint23]