To do what? Re-invade Poland? Trigger another war in the Mid-East?
Posted on 06/25/2007 5:55:47 AM PDT by Renfield
June 17, 2007: Russia will now be replacing RS-18 (SS-19) and RS-20 (SS-18) ICBMs with the newer RS-24 (SS-27 Topol M), more rapidly than earlier planned. This is the result of more money being allocated to buying ICBMs, and more reliable new ICBMs becoming available.
Russia continues to test launch RS-18 and RS-20 ICBMs. Russia still has 140 (out of a 1980s peak of 360) RS-18s in service, and expects to keep some of them active until 2010. The test firings for the last two years have been successful, and other quality-control tests have come back positive. The 106 ton, 76 foot long missile uses storable liquid fuel, meaning that the missile is inherently more complex than a solid fuel missile.
Russia was late to perfecting solid fuel rocket technology. The RS-18 entered service in 1975, and it wasn't until the 1980s that Russia began producing reliable solid fuel rocket motors, large enough for ICBMs. The last RS-18s were manufactured in 1990, and Russia expects each of them to have a useful life of 30 years. Annual test launches insure reliability. The RS-18 was developed as a "light" ICBM, in effect, a competitor for the U.S. Minuteman series. The RS-18 was the first Russian ICBM to carry MIRV (Multiple, Independent Reentry Vehicles). That means each warhead had its own guidance system. The SS-19 carries six warheads, and has a range of 10,000 kilometers.
The current plan is to take some, or all, of the retired RS-18s and convert them (by adding a third stage) to satellite launchers. This has already been done with a few missiles, and the converted missile can lift 1.8 tons into orbit. Current technology enables small satellites (as small as 200 pounds or less) to do useful work. The civilianized SS-19s are perfect for launching these military states.
Russia is also extending the life of its heavier (217 ton) RS-20 ICBMs to 30 years. This missile carries ten warheads, and is also being converted to launch satellites. Max satellite payload for the RS-20 is nearly three tons.
The SS-27 entered service in 1998, and is based on the lighter, mobile, Topol (SS-25) ICBM. This was the first successful Russian solid fuel ICBM. It is comparable to the 1960s era U.S. Minuteman ICBMs. Solid fuel is tricky to manufacture, and after many failed attempts to develop it, the Russians stuck with liquid fuel until the 1980s. They finally perfected their solid fuel technology, with the successful test launch of the 45 ton Topol in 1985. The 52 ton Topol-M followed ten years later. Both missiles have a range of 10,500 kilometers. The Topol-M is more reliable, especially compared to the mobile Topol, which often developed reliability problems when it was moved by truck or train, and then fired. The Topol-M also had reliability problems, but these appear to have been fixed, so the replacement of the older RS18 and RS20 missiles will occur sooner. Topol-Ms cost $52 million each.
Did the Clinton administration give them advanced technology too?
It’s a good thing our sub based stuff is so good. The D5’s are great and will be for a long time.
The Minuteman 3 is getting pretty old though. Time to do something about that.
This acceleration is at the cost of a much smaller sea-based nuclear deterrent. The Russians have built only one SSBN in the last ten years, and no funding for any new SSBN classes. Guess where the money went?
Can the Russians ever hope to come close to the power, or the military productivity, of the former USSR??
The Soviet Union folded, in large part because they squandered so much of their GDP on their military machine and supporting their Comrades at Arms all over the world. It took the combined resources of all of the many “Republiks” in the USSR to produce the volume of arms the Soviets were known for.
I don’t see the Russian economy supporting that kind of military production any time soon. Certainly they are a threat, but not the World Superpower that the USSR once was.
In many ways the Soviets are still a threat, but from all of the dangerous materials, arms, unsecured nuclear reactors, and what have you that they left laying around. Yes, building an upgraded ICBM is an enormous problem, but in reality, just how many can they really afford to build??
If the US and USSR went to war and fired all of their missiles, I wonder what percent would launch, hit their targets and detonate?
Well, perhaps none. Listen to the interviews linked to here: (and don’t laugh; these are really interesting)
http://www.binnallofamerica.com/boaa6.16.7.html
Ours or theirs?
100% except the one aimed at your house. That one would kick up a huge divot in your garden, possibly excavating your septic system and knocking over the bird feeder. Horrendous damage.
How did you know I had a septic system? Did you see it on Google Earth?
Either/Or.
Unless you live in Fairbanks, Alaska or in the Middle East you have a septic system.
I am in the mood for a little Coast to Coast this morning!
Why is that? Too cold, to dry?
Permafrost. That’s for Alaska. Can’t say for the ME, but probably they only get a quart of water a day for everything.
Consider that Russia is not quite the economic basket case that the old USSR was. Freed from the rigidity of Communist orthodoxy Russia has been able to develop its resources far more effectively. Russia is now the #2 oil producer in the world (after Saudi Arabia), and with world demand high and oil hovering near $70/bbl., they are awash in cash.
Can the Russians ever hope to come close to the power, or the military productivity, of the former USSR??==
Russia overpassed USSR industry production rate few years ago(2003). Russia is off debts and has no USSR burdens. For example: Russia sells oil and gas to thoise countries( the former republics of USSR and eastern Europe) which she had to supply for free during USSR years.
Russia is much more capable then USSR was.
A lot of people have sewers.
To do what? Re-invade Poland? Trigger another war in the Mid-East?
To do what? Re-invade Poland? Trigger another war in the Mid-East? ==
TO win the new Cold war:). Economically and politically Russia is much more capable then USSR ever was.
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.