SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > General > General Topics
Forget password? Reset here

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 12-28-19, 08:25 AM   #8
ikalugin
Ocean Warrior
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 3,212
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird View Post
Even without being MIRVed, 12 of these missiles are fully sufficient to guarantee a fully believable second-strike capability. 12 such missiles could wipe out Paris, London, Berlin, New, Washington, Los Angeeles, Bejing, Tokyo...
Tracking the glider in flight and concluding on its target, is impossible, since it can change flight path while being enroute. Existing missile interceting technology cannot keep up with it due to tracking problems and the immense speed.
Right now, if its tehcnology works reliable, Putin is eright, This beast currently is invincible. And I think it will stay this way for long time. Laser weapons in space, a whole network of these, are still a long time away.
And I wonder if we really want to go this way. Its all madness, and its not as if on earth we already are running short in supply for madness.

There is a bit more of nuance here. In order to work as a second strike weapon it needs to be launched on early warning data (so called LoW stance) before the enemy attack arrives, because with 12 silos it is not unlikely that the enemy may destroy them all in one go. If this is indeed the method that they are operating under then there is a trade off - the same booster can carry 6 independent RVs with penetration aids package, which present more targets to the enemy, have better destructive capability and so on.

My hypothesis is that those specific weapons (two regiments of six for total of twelve) are there to ensure the LoA stance (attacking after detonations are confirmed on home soil) for the rest of the force (surviving silos, mobile launchers, submarines and so on) by being on LoW stance themselves and taking out key missile defense enabling targets in US, which would allow other surviving missiles to pass through the now dead missile defenses.

Moreover if the attack is not confirmed (via detonations on the home soil) they, unlike ICBMs, may, in theory atleast, be recalled if proper measures are taken (ie comm gear on the gliders themselves) before striking their targets and thus removing the most significant problem with LoW stance - launch on false warning.
There is some circumstancial evidence towards this being the case but nothing conclusive so far that I am aware of.

In any case - this is a low scale (12 vs 1200) early adoption type deal - to work out how the new technology works, how it should be employed and so on.
__________________
Grumpy as always.

Last edited by ikalugin; 12-28-19 at 08:35 AM.
ikalugin is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.