Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SLBM Bulava Ready To Enter Service With Russian Navy
RUS NAVY ^ | 25 June 2012 | Staff

Posted on 06/26/2012 8:59:54 PM PDT by moonshot925

Technically, ballistic missile system Bulava is ready to be commissioned into Russian Navy, said its commander-in-chief Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov on June 25 at the graduates honoring ceremony held in the Konstantinovsky Palace, St. Petersburg.

"At present, we're preparing legal documents required to put the missile in service", said the naval chief.

VADM Viktor Chirkov also pointed out that the lead submarine of Project 955 Borei K-535 Yury Dolgoruky would be commissioned before the Russian Navy Day which is to be celebrated on July 29 this year.

(Excerpt) Read more at rusnavy.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: borei; bulava; comradeobama; flexibility; kgbputin; missile; missiledefense; openmike; slbm
Bulava is a pretty lousy missile. 1200 kg throw weight and 350 meter CEP is disappointing.

So, I guess Russia is at the point where it can produce Trident C4 level of missiles (with more modern penetration aids, of course).

1 posted on 06/26/2012 8:59:59 PM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: moonshot925

Russians with militaristic ambitions are like hemorrhoids, just when you think they are gone ... up they pop again.


2 posted on 06/26/2012 9:10:38 PM PDT by doc1019 (Voting for the better of two evils is still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925

They’ve been out of the business for quite a while thanks to Reagan.


3 posted on 06/26/2012 9:30:13 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
More technology without the old durability. I don't see this ending well.
4 posted on 06/26/2012 9:37:01 PM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (Liberals make unrealistic demands on reality and reality doesn't oblige them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
Open Mic Catches Obama Asking Medvedev for Space on Missile Defense
March 26, 2012

"In a private conversation about the planned U.S.-led NATO missile defense system in Europe, President Barack Obama asked outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for space on the issue.

This is my last election,” Obama told Medvedev. “After my election I have more flexibility.”

“I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev said, referring to incoming President Vladimir Putin."

http://fox8.com/2012/03/26/open-mic-catches-obama-asking-medvedev-for-space-on-missile-defense/
__________________________________________________

Obama was talking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when neither of them realized that their conversation was being picked up by microphones. Here is what they said:

Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.”

Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ...”

Obama: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” That statement tells us much about the president’s mindset.

The specific mention of missile defense is worrisome enough. Mr. Obama has retreated from the missile defense plan that was negotiated with European allies during the George W. Bush administration. Apparently, he is signaling Moscow that he intends to retreat further. The clear implication from the president’s comments is that he cannot tell the American people before the election what he plans to do after the election.

In addition, there is the phrase “on all these issues,” implying more is at stake than just missile defense.”

Article: Obama plans double cross on missile defense
When it comes to keeping America safe, we shouldn’t be too flexible:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-plans-double-cross-on-missile-defense/print/

5 posted on 06/26/2012 9:58:48 PM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
Obama To Betray Missile Defense Secrets To Moscow
Investor's Business Daily ^ | January 9, 2012 | IBD staff

Appeasement: From ObamaCare to recess appointments, honoring the Constitution has not been an administration hallmark. But when it comes to betraying secrets to mollify the Russians, it becomes a document the president hides behind.

It was bad enough that the 2012 defense authorization bill signed by President Obama set America on a downward spiral of military mediocrity.

He also issued a signing statement, something he once opposed, saying that language in the bill aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on the U.S. Standard Missile-3 — linchpin of our missile defense — might impinge on his constitutional foreign-policy authority.

Section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending any funds that would be used to give Russian officials access to sensitive missile-defense technology as part of a cooperation agreement without first sending Congress a report identifying the specific secrets, how they'd be used and steps to protect the data from compromise.

The president is required to certify that any technology shared will not be passed on to third parties such as China, North Korea or Iran, that the Russians will not use transferred secrets to develop countermeasures and that the Russians are reciprocating in sharing missile-defense technology.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

6 posted on 06/26/2012 9:59:23 PM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
From the campaign trail, February 2008...

Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs

February 29, 2008 :: News
MissileThreat.com

A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.

The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:

Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.

First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[not win it -etl]

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert [they are NOT on "hair-trigger alert" now -etl], and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.

Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp

"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."
_____________________________________________________

"I will not weaponize space"

"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems"
_____________________________________________________

2008 Pentagon Report (March 2008):
China's Growing Military Space Power

By Leonard David
Special Correspondent, SPACE.com
March 6, 2008

GOLDEN, Colorado — A just-released Pentagon report spotlights a growing U.S. military concern that China is developing a multi- dimensional program to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by its potential adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.

Furthermore, last year's successful test by China of a direct-ascent, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon to destroy its own defunct weather satellite, the report adds, underscores that country's expansion from the land, air, and sea dimensions of the traditional battlefield into the space and cyber-space domains.

Although China's commercial space program has utility for non- military research, that capability demonstrates space launch and control know-how that have direct military application. Even the Chang'e 1 — the Chinese lunar probe now circling the Moon — is flagged in the report as showcasing China's ability "to conduct complicated space maneuvers — a capability which has broad implications for military counterspace operations."

To read the entire publication [29.67MB/pdf], see U.S. Dept of Defense:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf
_____________________________________________________

From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI29Ag01.html
_____________________________________________________

"Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants."

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2005/09/war-games-russia-china-grow-alliance

7 posted on 06/26/2012 9:59:54 PM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
Russia’s military spending soars
February, 2011

Russia has revealed details of its ambitious plan to upgrade its army over the next ten years, planning to spend US$650 billion on the project.

­The unveiled large-scale plans of the Russian defense ministry propose the spending of vast sums of money up to 2020.

First and foremost, Russian defense will focus on the development of strategic nuclear weapons, construction of over 100 military vessels for Russian Navy, including construction of four originally French-made Mistral-class amphibious assault ships, and the introduction into the Air Force of over 1,000 helicopters and 600 military planes, including fifth generation PAK-FA fighter.

Most of the military hardware will be equipped with next-generation weaponry.

http://rt.com/news/military-budget-russia-2020/
______________________________________________________________

China and Russia Launch Military Exercises
April 22nd, 2012 [Lenin's birthday -ETL]

China and Russia launched joint naval exercises Sunday in the Yellow Sea between the east coast of mainland China and the Korean peninsula.

Sixteen Chinese surface vessels and two submarines as well as four Russian warships will take part in the six days of drills. ...

China and Russia have conducted four bilateral and multilateral military exercises since 2005.

http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/04/22/china-and-russia-launch-military-exercises/

8 posted on 06/26/2012 10:00:28 PM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL

The guy was BORN Marxist.


9 posted on 06/26/2012 10:01:13 PM PDT by KC Burke (Plain Conservative opinions and common sense correction for thirteen years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
10 posted on 06/26/2012 10:01:28 PM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Russia's Medvedev hails "comrade" Obama

Associated Foreign Press (AFP) ^ | April 2, 2009 | Anna Smolchenko

"Russia's Dmitry Medvedev hailed Barack Obama as "my new comrade" Thursday after their first face-to-face talks"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gEo4B1heuBvO6KK7EiBHKigO1UrA

April 1, 2009:
"Obama, Medvedev pledge new era of relations":
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/specialreport/news/419496_88/1/.html

11 posted on 06/26/2012 10:02:09 PM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925

Legal documents? Russia is finished if we’ve infected them to that extent that they need lawyers to put a missile into service.


12 posted on 06/26/2012 10:15:46 PM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
Bulava is a pretty lousy missile. 1200 kg throw weight and 350 meter CEP is disappointing. So, I guess Russia is at the point where it can produce Trident C4 level of missiles (with more modern penetration aids, of course).

I would say that would be a limited way of looking at things. So, it is 'pretty lousy' because it has a 1,200KG throw weight and a 350 meter CEP? And that the best Russia can do is produce a Trident C4 level of missile (although you admit it would have more modern penetration aids than the C4).

So, that makes a missile pretty lousy?

Let's start with the 1,200KG throw weight. The missile can carry up to 10 (maneuvering) warheads of 75KT each, or one single 500KT warhead. I would say that is far more than sufficient. Now, let's assume there is a fictional missile called the FREEPER-F1 operated by Papua New Guinea that has a throw weight of a million tons (it uses singularity-based SciFi vaporware technology). It is far more capable than the Bulava and the Trident ...yes. But does that make the Bulava and Trident lousy? No.

What about the 350m CEP (most sources say 250-300, but let's use your 350m). Against soft targets like a city - and note we are talking about a nuclear weapon, not a tungsten rod from outer space - that is actually too accurate. What about hard targets? Well, amazingly with the 500KT warhead (its most likely warhead, with decoys) the Bulava's CEP is still good enough to take out a hardened target like a missile silo.

Is the Trident D5 better? Yes. Is the Trident D5 more accurate? Yes (up to 90m CEP, and that is only what is available to those without clearance). However, that doesn't make a nuclear missile at (using your words) Trident C4 level with more modern penetration aids 'pretty lousy.' That is like saying a Ferrari is a pretty lousy car because the Bugatti exists.

I fear it is a type of thinking/mentality that I hope hasn't permeated up to those tasked with strategic defense of the Free World. The type of thinking where people consider anything produced by 'others' to be 'pretty lousy' and inferior. It is a type of thinking that pops up on FR every now and then, and if it exists in higher levels of national defense it can be quite dangerous. It makes people think that outcomes will always be a certain way, and in the process they underestimate potentially potent threats. For instance there are FReepers who still say that China's rise in the military arena is still nothing to be worried about for the next decade. True, but by the time you start worrying about it those ten lost years will be too long. Or for instance how many FReepers claim upcoming SAM threats are nothing to worry about because of how Israel destroyed Syrian S-400 SAM sites (even though Syria didn't have S-400s but instead shorter range missiles that the Israelis had counter-measures for ...but facts have never stopped a good tale here, have they). Talking about Israel - interestingly they do not seem to have that problem. Underestimating an enemy. Probably because, in their case, one mistake can literally put the entire country at risk. They have also experienced heavy aircraft losses against the 'useless' Russian equipment...for instance in 1973 when the Syrians went into the Golan Heights and Egypt passed the Suez ...the Israelis claim that they (the Israelis) lost just over 300 planes. The Israelis took that seriously, and in 1982 against the Syrians things were quite different. Israeli ingenuity coupled with Syrian stupidity (e.g. fixed SAM sites rather using them in the mobile manner they were meant to, putting SAM sites in the valleys rather than hills because they didn't want to dig latrines, fixing positions months at a time giving Israeli intelligence sufficient knowledge of their locations, etc) led to an absolute route of the Syrians.

Now jump forward to 1999. The Serbians were using the same exact old SA-2/3/6 SAMs the Syrians and Iraqis were using, and facing a far more advanced force (the USAF led NATO airforces) with far more modern stand-off and anti-SAM weapons (as well as more advanced jamming, and ofcourse stealth). However, the Serbs were using them the way they should have ...using a lot of mobility, non-fixed positions, and control of their emissions (e.g. not just sitting somewhere radiating like some fool waiting for a HARM to come saying hello). Result? One SA-3 battery brought down a F-16, brought down a F-117, and damaged another F-117. More importantly, 743 HARM missiles were launched by the NATO forces, yet the damage was much less (about a third) than that used to destroy the Iraqi system (which was larger than the Serbian system). Why? Simple shoot and scoot, plus emission control. Using old SA-3s and 6s.

Yet to some S-300s/HQ-9s operated by China are useless. I personally consider the tendency to pooh-pooh enemy equipment, particularly based on its use by idiots, as particularly dangerous. More dangerous than the other mindset that makes enemy weapons appear like silver bullets. I would rather have the government overestimate an enemy, and due to it make 1,000 F-22 Raptors (to use an example), rather than under-estimate it and somehow believe F-18s will be sufficient to contain China.

Anyways, back to topic. If the Bulava is a pretty lousy missile because it is at the level of a Trident C4 then all I can say is I wish the Russians had invented something far far far lousier, because I consider the Trident C4 a highly capable missile. Not a D5, but still extremely good.

We must have different ways of measuring 'pretty lousy.'

13 posted on 06/26/2012 11:58:29 PM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

This reminds me of a stageplay, in short: wife and lover are caught together in the bed by her husband. In rage he goes to living room to get his revolver. Lover is in panic and rushes to get out, while wife calms hers lover down:
“Dont worry its lousy six-shooter, at least three rounds will surely miss you!”


14 posted on 06/27/2012 1:13:00 AM PDT by kronos77 (Kosovo is Serbian Jerusalem. No Serbia without Kosovo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kronos77

LOL. Exactly.


15 posted on 06/27/2012 1:22:52 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

Route = rout.


16 posted on 06/27/2012 1:30:55 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps
Russia is finished if we’ve infected them to that extent that they need lawyers to put a missile into service.

We "infected" Russia? They were healthy and on the right track before?

17 posted on 06/27/2012 7:05:36 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

“The missile can carry up to 10 (maneuvering) warheads of 75KT each”

No. The real number is 6.

Putting 10 warheads on the existing Bulava (with no modifications) would shrink the weight of each RV from approximately 90-100 kg to around 50-60 kg, which is extremely small for an ICBM.

http://russianforces.org/blog/2006/04/bulava_has_six_warheads.shtml

“So, that makes a missile pretty lousy?”

It is lousy for 2012. The Trident C4 was first deployed by the US Navy in 1979, 33 years ago.

By the end of 1987 there were 384 Trident C4’s deployed on 20 SSBNs with 3,072 warheads


18 posted on 06/27/2012 10:13:11 AM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
You're methodology of measuring 'pretty lousy' is way off. It is a nuclear missile with a CEP capable of ensuring a hard kill on a fortified missile silo (let alone a soft target like a city). The fact that the US had the capability 33 years ago doesn't mean this particular missile is 'pretty lousy.' It only means the US scientists were much better much earlier. The kill capability of this missile is exactly the same as that of the latest D5 ...the only difference is that the Trident D5 will hit the exact house on a block, while a Trident C4/Bulava may hit the NEXT house instead. Considering all those missiles use nuclear warheads it really adds up to warm spit at a bluegrass concert!

I am sure that the M-4 is 'pretty lousy' by '2012 standards' compared to the OICW prototype that got killed, but not even an idiot would say it's ok to have a bullseye painted on their forehead and the 'pretty lousy' M-4 aimed there. Same thing here ...the fact that it is roughly equivalent to the Trident C4 is NOT a good thing, because the C4 was a VERY good missile. As I said, the difference between hitting the front porch vs hitting the neighbor's house - when you are using a 500KT warhead - is moot. It is sheer idiocy to think otherwise.

I just hope that the people in positions of making strategic decisions, and coming up with countermeasures to progress made by near-peer adversaries like China and Russia, are more like the Israelis (or the Americans who invented wonder weapons like the Trident C4 decades ago) rather than those who, like some on FR, say we dont need the Raptor because the F-15 has an unbeaten record against the Iraqi airforce. That myopia is deadly (I am not saying you specifically btw).

If your nuclear missile can fly thousands of miles and hit my front porch with a warhead - and my missile can fly thousands of miles, but rather than hit your front porch, or even your house, instead hit the dog kennel in your neighbor's house - as long as we are talking nukes we are both dead. Both vaporised. And both missiles have done their job, withthe only difference being that I was killed by your 'super' missile while you were killed by my 'pretty lousy' missile.

I sincerely hope those in actual positions of power don't base national security on a d*

19 posted on 06/27/2012 11:33:48 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
You're methodology of measuring 'pretty lousy' is way off. It is a nuclear missile with a CEP capable of ensuring a hard kill on a fortified missile silo (let alone a soft target like a city). The fact that the US had the capability 33 years ago doesn't mean this particular missile is 'pretty lousy.' It only means the US scientists were much better much earlier. The kill capability of this missile is exactly the same as that of the latest D5 ...the only difference is that the Trident D5 will hit the exact house on a block, while a Trident C4/Bulava may hit the NEXT house instead. Considering all those missiles use nuclear warheads it really adds up to warm spit at a bluegrass concert!

I am sure that the M-4 is 'pretty lousy' by '2012 standards' compared to the OICW prototype that got killed, but not even an idiot would say it's ok to have a bullseye painted on their forehead and the 'pretty lousy' M-4 aimed there. Same thing here ...the fact that it is roughly equivalent to the Trident C4 is NOT a good thing, because the C4 was a VERY good missile. As I said, the difference between hitting the front porch vs hitting the neighbor's house - when you are using a 500KT warhead - is moot. It is sheer idiocy to think otherwise.

I just hope that the people in positions of making strategic decisions, and coming up with countermeasures to progress made by near-peer adversaries like China and Russia, are more like the Israelis (or the Americans who invented wonder weapons like the Trident C4 decades ago) rather than those who, like some on FR, say we dont need the Raptor because the F-15 has an unbeaten record against the Iraqi airforce. That myopia is deadly (I am not saying you specifically btw).

If your nuclear missile can fly thousands of miles and hit my front porch with a warhead - and my missile can fly thousands of miles, but rather than hit your front porch, or even your house, instead hit the dog kennel in your neighbor's house - as long as we are talking nukes we are both dead. Both vaporised. And both missiles have done their job, withthe only difference being that I was killed by your 'super' missile while you were killed by my 'pretty lousy' missile.

I sincerely hope those in actual positions of power don't base national security on a d*

20 posted on 06/27/2012 11:40:56 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

“the front porch vs hitting the neighbor’s house - when you are using a 500KT warhead - is moot. It is sheer idiocy to think otherwise.”

The Bulava is only being deployed in a 6x150KT configuration. It is NOT being deployed in any type of 500KT configuration. Bulava is not suited to destroy hardened targets. It does not have the accuracy or the throw weight to carry high enough yield warheads.

The Trident D5 on the other hand has a throw weight of 2800 kg and an accuracy of 90-120 meters using stellar-inertial guidance. It could carry 8x455KT or 12x100KT or even 14x100KT in a lower range maximum payload configuration. There are many different options for the weapons package thanks to the high throw weight of Trident D5.

But the Bulava can make a great second strike weapon for destroying soft targets. Just like the Posiedon C3, Trident C4 and R-39 Rif.


21 posted on 06/27/2012 2:12:46 PM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
Ok ...let's take out the 500KT (although the material does say that is the most likely warhead of the operating variant - see Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, Issue 50, which gives its CEP, the planned move from MIRV designs to single warhead 500KT designs, and that it can be used as a first-strike and counter-strike weapon). I want to focus on why you said it is a lousy missile ...its CEP and throw weight. Let's make it easy ...let's assume a single warhead 50KT instead of 500KT. Even smaller? How about 5KT? Let's make it even smaller ...how about 1KT. Small enough? Ok, the difference in CEP between the Trident D5 and the Bulava is 90-120m for the D5 and 350m for the Bulava (my numbers say 200-250m, but let us use yours). Using the top accuracy of 90m for the D5 and your 350m for the Bulava, we have a difference in meters of 260m. Using a small nuclear warhead of just 1 kiloton. That, instead of being accurate enough to hit your front porch just had an air-burst over your neighbor's kennel.

For that matter ...let us make the warhead even smaller. Let's say the missile is so lousy that the only throw weight it can manage is to deliver something the size of a Davy Crocket type M388. That only has 0.01KT (yes, I know it may be 0.015 or 0.012, but let's just simply make it 0.01KT). Same scenario ...goes off in your neighbor's yard. No effects on you, right?

In real life we have a weapon that you yourself compare to a Trident C4, which can (the Bulava) travel 8,000-10,000KM and carry 6 warheads each having up to 150KT ...not a single 0.01KT Davy Crocket type), and impact within 200-250m (or let's even use the 350m) with nuclear detonation. And that is pretty lousy because it is only similar to the Trident C4 and not the Trident D5 that can fly over 11,000km (further than the Bulava), and can carry eight 100KT warheads (although due to treaties it would carry the same number as the Bulava anyways) and impact within 90m (more accurate than the Bulava). That's great, but the distance between Moscow and Washington DC is 7,800 KM, which means both missiles are within range. Especially once you consider the missiles are SLBMs, and thus would be launched from submarines that would be in waters much closer. Thus the distance difference is a plus for the D5, but it is not a demerit for the Bulava. Same thing about the warheads ...the D5 can carry more, but it is not allowed by treaty to. However, even if it could carry its maximum, a maximum higher than that of the Bulava, we are talking about nuclear weapons here. The throw-weight of the Bulava is more than sufficient to do necessary damage. And as for the accuracy argument - even if we use 6 warheads per missile, with each warhead having 150KTs, and a CEP of 350m ...let's just say Iran and North Korea would kill to have that capability by 2050!

Saying having something similar to a Trident C4 makes something pretty lousy because the Trident D5 exists, is similar to saying that a 2010 Corvette is pretty lousy because the 2013 Corvette came out. That is silly to say for cars, and is sillier to say for city-killer weapons.

I sincerely hope that the people in actual powers of authority have the wisdom to not apply blanket tags of useless to the actions of potential agitators. Especially when one considers that the functionality of a weapon is not whether or not it is better than what is available elsewhere, but rather whether or not a) it can work and b) can effectively work. The first one means whether or not the weapon can actually function, while the second means whether the weapon can function in the environment of counter-measures that will be operating against it. If it can do both a and b, then it is not a 'pretty lousy' weapon. It may not be the fastest, prettiest, farthest going, nor be able to help with homework for the kids and cook Sunday brunch, but if it can work and can work effectively against the set of countermeasures placed against it then it is pretty dangerous.

Israel and the US are preparing to conduct strikes against Iran's fledgling nuclear program, where their technology of building a functioning nuclear warhead is still open to speculation. The US and Japan threaten to shoot down a North Korean missile test even though the missile was a dud (and had it worked it still would have been a very limited design). Yet, a country makes an SLBM that you yourself compare to the Trident C4, and you call it pretty lousy.

22 posted on 06/28/2012 12:21:32 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

I made a poor choice of words.

I live 13 miles from Minot AFB. Home of the 91st Missile Wing and 5th Bomb Wing.

In the event of a nuclear war, I would be bombarded with dozens of warheads. Accuracy really doesn’t matter. LOL.


23 posted on 06/28/2012 9:43:40 AM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
According to Aviation Week and Space Technology , "Guidance accuracy for the Trident C4's Mk4 reentry system is...under 1,000 feet circular error probable at 4,000 nautical miles, well below the 1,500 feet goal". At ranges less than 4,000 nautical miles the accuracy is even better. A Pentagon report to congress stated that, "Trident I missile system accuracy is now about the same as Minuteman III operational accuracy". Trident I tests during 1983 consistently achieved CEPs of 750 feet. NRDC
24 posted on 06/28/2012 9:54:54 AM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

So the Trident C4 had an accuracy of 750-1,000 feet at 4,000 nautical miles using stellar-inertial guidance.

That translates to 230-305 meters.


25 posted on 06/28/2012 10:13:30 AM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson