Russia Plans Rail-Mounted Missiles to Counter US Global Strike Program

[IND151]

MOSCOW, December 18 (RIA Novosti) – Russia will draft a plan in the coming year to deploy rail-mounted nuclear missiles as a potential response to the United States’ Prompt Global Strike program, the commander of its Strategic Missile Force said on Wednesday.

“A Defense Ministry report has been submitted to the president and the order has been given to develop a preliminary design of a rail-mounted missile system,” Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakaev said.

The work will be carried out by the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology – the developer of the submarine-launched Bulava nuclear missile – in the first half of next year.

Karakaev added that defense officials, after analyzing the American system, concluded “there is a need to reconsider the issue of a rail-mounted missile system given its increased survivability and the extent of our railway network.”

The rail weapons plan appears to be a response to a US program known as Prompt Global Strike that includes development of long-range missiles with conventional explosives in place of nuclear warheads. The United States says the program would increase the options available in responding to high-priority threats around the globe. A high-speed, high-altitude drone has also been considered as part of the program.

Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who oversees the defense industry, a week agocalled the program “the most important new strategy being developed by the United States today” and warned that American leaders “must bear in mind, that if we are attacked, in certain circumstances we will of course respond with nuclear weapons.”

Rogozin has recently championed Russian efforts to develop hypersonic air-launched weapons as a counterpart to similar US developments likely to be part of Prompt Global Strike.

The US abandoned plans for a rapid global strike capability under President George W. Bush over concerns that the weapons risked triggering an accidental nuclear war.

Unlike silo-based nuclear missiles, the location of rail-mounted missiles can be kept hidden and camouflaged amidst commercial rail traffic. The last of the Soviet-era SS-24 Scalpel rail-based nuclear missiles was decommissioned in 2005.

Russia insists that long-range missiles with conventional warheads must count towards the quota of nuclear delivery systems imposed by the New START treaty signed by Russia and the United States in 2011.

New START does not prohibit the development of rail-based missiles.

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&r...-4GYAg&usg=AFQjCNFDwnzxuRJME_fWpTCR3M7B-6efAQ

 

[Oldman1]

So wait a minute. From the article its saying the Russians are developing a system which is the same from decades ago during the Cold War in response to a Global Program which was canceled because of fear of possible nuclear response when nobody knows if a ballistic missile contains nuclear or conventional warheads?

 

[Ayush]

^^ was wondering the same

 

[vostok]

America developing global strike program. Russia must respond to it. As one of the measures to be restored railway missile complexes. They are almost impossible to detect and difficult to destroy - in Russia 86,000 kilometers of railways.
Prompt Global Strike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia nobody cancell this program.

 

[Oldman1]

America developing global strike program. Russia must respond to it. As one of the measures to be restored railway missile complexes. They are almost impossible to detect and difficult to destroy - in Russia 86,000 kilometers of railways.
Prompt Global Strike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia nobody cancell this program.

The article says it. Wiki says it was rejected by the Bush administration. Unless you called the hypersonic missile as the new Global Program and the Russians are responding to such threat. But wouldn't that be also considered BrahMos 2 a hypersonic missile as a threat? And should be responded accordingly with nuclear missiles?

 

[IND151]

Some sources say that new missile will weigh around 55 to 58 tons unlike SS-24 which weighted 104 tons.

This will, off-coarse, limit number and size of warheads.

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&r...NIKYioOiGOBafi4nPAs6PJg&bvm=bv.58187178,d.bmk

 

[vostok]

The article says it. Wiki says it was rejected by the Bush administration. Unless you called the hypersonic missile as the new Global Program and the Russians are responding to such threat. But wouldn't that be also considered BrahMos 2 a hypersonic missile as a threat? And should be responded accordingly with nuclear missiles?

"
The administration of George W. Bush considered developing such a weapon in the 2000s, but rejected the idea because of fears that an ICBM-launched weapon would trigger the Russian nuclear-launch warning system, potentially provoking a nuclear war.[8] However, the Obama administration continued development of the system later in the decade.

A potential enemy cannot be certain that a launched ICBM contains only a conventional warhead, not a nuclear one. It is thus currently unclear what design features or precautions could convince China and Russia, two countries with launch-detection systems and nuclear ICBMs, to ignore their early-warning systems. Current ideas include a low-trajectory missile design, or allowing Russian and Chinese inspection of PGS missile sites.[3][5]

On 11 April 2010, United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates indicated that the United States already had a Prompt Global Strike capability.[9] This coincided with the New START disarmament treaty signed on 8 April 2010, which set new, lower limits on ballistic missiles and their warheads. The treaty does not distinguish between conventional and nuclear versions of weapons, meaning any ballistic PGS missiles and warheads would count toward the new limit. However, the U.S. State Department has stated that this does not constrain plans for PGS deployment, since current plans do not come near the limits."
That is what Wiki said

Hypersonic missiles are part of this program.
In any case, the START-3 does not prohibit Russia to revive rail systems. Russia not violates arrangements. And these systems are ideal for Russia because of the enormous length of railways.

Some sources say that new missile will weigh around 55 to 58 tons unlike SS-24 which weighted 104 tons.

This will, off-coarse, limit number and size of warheads.

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-23_Molodets&ei=s7exUvXrKoblrAeV54CgCA&usg=AFQjCNGU4rRNIKYioOiGOBafi4nPAs6PJg&bvm=bv.58187178,d.bmk

But such a missile could be hide in one wagon - it will be almost impossible to detect. At the same time the old missiles required special locomotives and 2 wagons because of its gravity - they were easier to detect.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

It's going to be pretty hard to convince anybody that a quick conventional ICBM strike is a good idea. Things are already jittery when ICBM tests are announced long in advance. Launching one without much notice would be bad.

 

[Oldman1]

"
The administration of George W. Bush considered developing such a weapon in the 2000s, but rejected the idea because of fears that an ICBM-launched weapon would trigger the Russian nuclear-launch warning system, potentially provoking a nuclear war.[8] However, the Obama administration continued development of the system later in the decade.

A potential enemy cannot be certain that a launched ICBM contains only a conventional warhead, not a nuclear one. It is thus currently unclear what design features or precautions could convince China and Russia, two countries with launch-detection systems and nuclear ICBMs, to ignore their early-warning systems. Current ideas include a low-trajectory missile design, or allowing Russian and Chinese inspection of PGS missile sites.[3][5]

On 11 April 2010, United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates indicated that the United States already had a Prompt Global Strike capability.[9] This coincided with the New START disarmament treaty signed on 8 April 2010, which set new, lower limits on ballistic missiles and their warheads. The treaty does not distinguish between conventional and nuclear versions of weapons, meaning any ballistic PGS missiles and warheads would count toward the new limit. However, the U.S. State Department has stated that this does not constrain plans for PGS deployment, since current plans do not come near the limits."
That is what Wiki said

Hypersonic missiles and the sharpest part of this program.
In any case, the START-3 does not prohibit Russia to revive rail systems. Russia not narushet arrangements. And these systems are ideal for Russia because of the enormous length of railways.


But such a missile could be hide in one wagon - it will be almost impossible to detect. At the same time the old missiles required special locomotives and 2 wagons because of its gravity - they were easier to detect.

Well I don't really care. If the Russians want to bring back the rail mounted system thats fine. U.S. and Russia will still be developing hypersonic missiles. And if the Russians are afraid of it so much to respond with nuclear missiles, thats fine with me.

It's going to be pretty hard to convince anybody that a quick conventional ICBM strike is a good idea. Things are already jittery when ICBM tests are announced long in advance. Launching one without much notice would be bad.

Hence why Rumsfeld rejected the idea. Hypersonic missiles could be the future. Just like cruise missiles but faster.

 

[vostok]

Well I don't really care. If the Russians want to bring back the rail mounted system thats fine. U.S. and Russia will still be developing hypersonic missiles. And if the Russians are afraid of it so much to respond with nuclear missiles, thats fine with me.

Russia will respond to aggression in all possible ways. Including nuclear weapons. This is why it was created - to protect from attack.

 

[Oldman1]

Russia will respond to aggression in all possible ways. Including nuclear weapons. This is why it was created - to protect from attack.

Same thing. Just like the old days when there was possible Soviet invasion of Western Europe and we had nukes stationed and ready to go.

 

[vostok]

Same thing. Just like the old days when there was possible Soviet invasion of Western Europe and we had nukes stationed and ready to go.

If you were so afraid of the Soviet invasion - why not withdrawn the troops, when the USSR collapsed? From whom do you now "protecting" Europe? Why in Europe taking place the U.S. nuclear weapons?

 

[Oldman1]

If you were so afraid of the Soviet invasion - why not withdrawn the troops, when the USSR collapsed? From whom do you now "protecting" Europe? Why in Europe taking place the U.S. nuclear weapons?

Because it has its uses especially after what happened in the Middle East in the early 90s if you were there to remember it. And its not like we have any massive forces on the Eastern European countries to invade Russia.

 

[vostok]

Because it has its uses especially after what happened in the Middle East in the early 90s if you were there to remember it. And its not like we have any massive forces on the Eastern European countries to invade Russia.

And I thought that you will write - " our national interests require the presence of our troops in every region of the world. Only by occupying key areas we can continue global hegemony."

 

[victor07]

Well I don't really care. If the Russians want to bring back the rail mounted system thats fine. U.S. and Russia will still be developing hypersonic missiles. And if the Russians are afraid of it so much to respond with nuclear missiles, thats fine with me.
Hence why Rumsfeld rejected the idea. Hypersonic missiles could be the future. Just like cruise missiles but faster.

Just the same as NATO is worried about Iskander system deployment in Western Military District of Russia. Iskander's missile in not ballistic. It can be seen as hypersonic (6M) maneuverable (overload 20-30g) missile with conventional warhead (480kg) and accuracy 1-30m (depends on warhead and homing system).
Ракетный комплекс "Искандер"